PERB has released its annual report for fiscal year 2019-2020. (The report is available here.) Here is my annual summary of the statistics in the report:
Unfair Practice Charges
547 unfair practice charges (UPCs) were filed in fiscal year 2019-20. This is a 20.8% decrease from the 691 UPCs filed in fiscal year 2018-19. In terms of the break-down by Act, the MMBA decreased from 289 to 223 UPCs. EERA decreased from 279 to 192 UPCs. The Dills Act increased from 31 to 43 UPCs. HEERA decreased 73 to 68 UPCs. The Trial Court Act increased from 1 to 8 UPCs. The Trial Court Interpreter Act also increased from 1 to 8 UPCs. There was 1 UPC filed under the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Employer-Employee Relations Act, and 3 UPCS designated non-jurisdictional.
PERB has invited public comments on proposed regulations that update PERB’s rules governing filing requirements, case processing, service of process, as well as access and storage of case materials. According to the Initial Statement of Reasons, “these updates are intended to bring PERB in step with new case processing technologies, consolidate duplicative rules, fill procedural gaps, and simplify the Board’s procedures and processes for case adjudication in a way that make them more understandable to our non-attorney constituents.”
Comments on the proposed regulations are due to the Board by Monday, November 30, 2020. More information on the proposed regulations and where to submit comments may be found here.
On September 29, 2020, Governor Newsom took action on the two bills affecting PERB.
AB 2850: The Governor signed this bill into law. AB 2850 brings the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) under PERB’s jurisdiction.
AB 2114: The Governor vetoed this bill. Here is his veto message:
To the Members of the California State Assembly:
I am returning Assembly Bill 2114 without my signature.
This bill would require certain higher education employers to provide an
arbitration or hearing officer process to challenge a termination of employment or a disciplinary action for medical and dental interns and residents. The bill excludes disciplinary actions and terminations based on academic or clinical matters, making arbitration available only for matters within the scope of representation.
These residents and interns represent our State’s pipeline of medical
professionals, and they have been on the frontlines of the COVID-19 pandemic. They deserve an opportunity to challenge a disciplinary action or termination of employment that may be wrongful and that could potentially jeopardize their professional career. However, I believe that the definition of “academic” and “clinical” in this bill is too narrow and does not fully consider the various criteria used in determining a resident’s readiness to safely practice. I encourage the affected parties to agree upon a definition that both protects employees’ due process rights and patient safety.
To my knowledge there are two bills awaiting action by the Governor that affect PERB:
AB 2850: Brings the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) under PERB’s jurisdiction. As introduced, this bill would have placed BART fully under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act. However, the bill was amended to keep BART under its own statutory scheme but to place it under PERB’s jurisdiction for enforcement.
AB 2114: Amends HEERA to allow medical residents to appeal disciplinary actions that are not based on academic or clinical matters to an impartial arbitrator.
The Governor has until September 30, 2020, to sign or veto these bills.
On September 9, 2020, Governor Newsom signed AB 1867 which provides paid sick leave to certain employees excluded from coverage by the federal Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA).
Most of the law does not apply to the public sector, but there is one part that does. AB 1867 adds Labor Code section 248.1 which provides 80 hours of supplemental paid sick leave to employees excluded from the FFCRA as “health care providers” or “emergency responders.” This section expressly applies to the public sector. The criteria and application of the paid sick leave generally follow the FFCRA but does not match it entirely. So if you’re a public or private agency that exempted health care workers from the FFCRA you’ll want to take a look at the law’s requirements.