Source: http://www.westerncity.com/article/would-public-safety-employer-employee-cooperation-act-2009-impact-california-cities
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 19:17:01+00:00

Document:
Would the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2009 Impact California Cities?
Bruce Barsook is a partner in the law firm of Liebert Cassidy Whitmore and can be reached at bbarsook@LCWlegal.com. Danielle Eanet is an associate in Liebert Cassidy Whitmore and can be reached at deanet@LCWlegal.com. The firm represents public agency management in labor and employment law.
The House of Representatives is considering a bill titled the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2009 (HR 413). If this legislation passes, it would establish minimum collective bargaining standards for public safety employees in all 50 states.
An analysis of HR 413’s impact on California’s local agency public safety bargaining laws.
Presently under federal law public safety employees do not have the right to collectively bargain with their employers. However, 34 states,12 including California, have passed laws that allow police officers, firefighters and emergency medical services personnel to participate in collective bargaining.
In 1961, California passed the George Brown Act, which was the state’s first public sector bargaining law.17 Under the act, labor organizations had the right to meet and confer but the act failed to identify the scope of bargaining or provide for bargaining units, recognition, impasse procedures or labor agreements.
Labor relations disputes between involving peace officers, as defined by Penal Code section 830.1, are adjudicated solely through the judicial system (that is to say, the claim will be filed first in superior court).
On its face the MMBA seems to substantially provide for the rights and responsibilities described in HR 413, section 4(b). However, there are a few areas of uncertainty that make it premature to conclude that the MMBA substantially complies with the legislation. The first two areas seem minor but the third area may be more problematic. The two minor areas of uncertainty are as follows: First, the very concept of “substantially comply,” as set forth in section 4 of HR 413, is uncertain. The term “substantially comply” is defined by use of the term “substantial compliance.” Second, section 4(b)(5) requires enforcement through the state courts. Using PERB for enforcement of rights and obligations under the law, followed by a right to appeal through the courts, would seem to comply with the proposed legislation; however, one cannot be sure.
In addition, the bill’s language does not clarify whether the legislation’s requirement of an “interest-impasse resolution mechanism” requires some type of hearing mechanism, such as interest arbitration or fact finding, or whether it requires the involvement of a neutral in the impasse resolution process. For example, section 5 of the bill refers to the FLRA’s authority to “resolve exceptions to the awards of arbitrators,” which suggests that a hearing by an arbitrator may be a required component of the impasse resolution process. An alternative view, of course, is that the legislation is simply authorizing the FLRA to review arbitrator’s decisions where arbitration is part of the process.
The MMBA authorizes but does not require the parties to select a mutually agreed-upon mediator to resolve bargaining disputes.32 A mediator does not conduct a hearing or make public recommendations. The MMBA also authorizes the use of interest arbitration to resolve bargaining disputes on economic issues involving certain law enforcement officers and firefighters.33 However, this process has been declared unconstitutional by the courts.34 The MMBA does not provide any other impasse resolution procedures.
Many city Employer-Employee Relations Resolutions/Ordinances do not require the involvement of a neutral because they do not require mediation, fact finding or interest arbitration. As a consequence, unless the legislation is interpreted as simply requiring that there be a possibility of mediation, fact finding, etc., there is a risk that if this legislation were to become law, the FLRA could find that because the MMBA does not mandate the use of a neutral to resolve impasses, the MMBA does not substantially comply with the requirements of section 4(b) of the law. While such an outcome is unwarranted and should be resisted, cities could find themselves subjected to the FLRA’s authority and regulations. If that’s the case, then cities may find themselves faced with regulatory and judicial scrutiny by the courts, PERB and/or the FLRA, depending on the nature of the dispute and the classification of employees involved. Clearly, such a result would result in needless expenditure of additional time and resources to operate under this new law and would undoubtedly increase the likelihood of confusion caused by the need to work with and comply with overlapping laws and adjudicatory bodies.
Cities and their legislative advocates need to work with their Congressional representatives to ensure that if federal legislation is passed regarding collective bargaining rights for public safety employees, California is assured that its seminal collective bargaining law, the MMBA, insulates California’s cities from coverage under this act. Otherwise, if HR 413 is enacted as is, cities will risk scrutiny and potentially a loss of some authority over employer-employee relations to the FLRA.
 H.R. 413, Sections 3(2) & 3(8). H.R. 413 was introduced to the 111th Congress on January 9, 2009 by Dale Kildee, a U.S. Representative from Michigan’s 5th District and referred to the House Committee on Education and Labor.[i] H.R. 413 currently has 73 co-sponsors. This bill was previously introduced in the 110th Congress as H.R. 980 by Representative Kildee on February 12, 2007. On July 17, 2007, H.R. 980 passed the House by a vote of 314-97. On October 1, 2007, Senators Judd Gregg and Edward Kennedy introduced S. 2123, a Senate companion bill to H.R. 980, to the Senate. S. 2123 was referred to the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. On December 7, 2007, S. 2123 was offered as an amendment to H.R. 2419, the Farm, Nutrition and Bioengery Act of 2007. On December 12, 2007 the amendment was withdrawn due to the threat of a filibuster.
 The FLRA is an independent administrative federal agency created by Title VII of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. (5 U.S.C. § 7101 et seq.) The Statute allows specified federal employees to organize, bargain collectively, and to participate in labor organizations. Under the statute, the FLRA is responsible for: (1) resolving complaints of unfair labor practices, (2) determining the appropriateness of units for labor organization representation, (3) adjudicating exceptions to arbitrator’s awards, (4) adjudicating legal issues relating to duty to bargain/negotiability, and (5) resolving impasses during negotiations.
 H.R. 413, Section 8(a)(1), H.R. 413, Section 4(b).
 H.R. 413, Section 6 (1), (2), (3).
 Alaska, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin have enacted public sector collective bargaining laws. The majority of these state laws include both police officers and firefighters who are employed at both state and local level. However, some states, such as Nevada only include police officers and firefighters employed by local government and exclude employees of the state. R. Theodore Clark, Jr. Partner, Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, “Testimony Before the Committee on Education and Labor, U.S. House of Representatives,” June 5, 2007, available at ttp://edlabor.house.gov/testimony/060507RTheodoreClarkTestimony.pdf.
 Labor Code Section 1960 et seq.
 CPER’s Pocket Guide to the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, by Bonnie G. Bogue, Marla Taylor and Carol Vendrillo (Berkeley, CA: CPER, University of California, 2006).
 Gov’t. Code § 3500 et seq.
 Organization of Deputy Sheriffs of San Mateo County v. San Mateo County (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 331.
 Firefighters Union Local 1186 IAFF v. City of Vallejo (1974) 12 Cal.3d 608.
 See H.R. 413, Sec. 4(b)(4).
 Code of Civil Procedure § 1299 et seq.
 County of Riverside v. Superior Court (2003) 30 Cal.4th 278. County of Sonoma v. Superior Court (April 24, 2009, A122450)____Cal.App. 1 Dist.____ [2009 WL 1100909].

References: § 7101
 § 3500
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1299
 v. 
 v.