What employers are covered by AB 2561:

AB 2561 applies to employers covered by the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (i.e., cities, counties, and special districts such as utility districts).

California Assembly Bill 2889 prevents the City of Los Angeles Employee Relations Board (ERB) and the Los Angeles County Employee Relations Commission (ERCOM) from awarding strike-preparation expenses and other damages due to an unlawful strike.  It grants the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) exclusive initial jurisdiction over requests to block certain employee activities, including strikes, in Los Angeles cases.

Since 2007 California laws have prohibited discrimination against public school students and employees that is based, among other things, on sexual orientation.  In 2024, the Legislature passed AB 1955, which added several sections to the Education Code by enacting the SAFETY Act, which is an acronym for Support Academic Futures and Education for Today’s Youth.  It is intended to protect students from being “outed” for being gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning. 

AB 1941 amends the Meyers-Milias-Brown to authorize unions to charge certain categories of peace officers who are non-dues-paying bargaining unit members for the “reasonable cost” of representing them. This new section of the MMBA only applies in scenarios where the union does not have exclusive access to the process (i.e., in the public sector there are many types of administrative hearings, disciplinary appeal proceedings, grievance and/or arbitration procedures that allow an employee to pursue a grievance all the way to arbitration with or without the approval or involvement of the union).

In an April 2024 decision, the Public Employment Relations Board (“PERB”) found the County of Santa Clara violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act when it refused to meet and confer before heightening the credentialing requirements to work in the County’s hospital system. PERB’s ruling illustrates when an employer has a duty to bargain over the decision and effects of a change in working conditions.

The California Constitution’s merit principle protects civil service employees from politically partisan mistreatment or other arbitrary actions. If a state employee believes she faced discipline or discharge in violation of the merit principle, she may appeal that decision to the State Personnel Board (SPB). Public employees in California also have collective bargaining rights and the right to engage in union or other protected concerted activity. If an employee believes she has been disciplined or discharged because she exercised those rights, she and/or her union would go to the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) for relief.

Public employees in California have a right to display union insignia and slogans. In Teamsters Local 2010 v. Regents of the University of California, the Public Employment Relations Board (“PERB”) held this right encompasses the display of Union magnets and stickers on employees’ assigned vehicles. PERB also held that a public employer trying to defend its policy restricting employee rights, must present concrete evidence of the special circumstances it claims warrant the restriction. Mere speculation that the special circumstance the employer claims necessitates the restriction could exist is insufficient.

Assembly Bill (“AB”) 1457 will ensure that the important job of determining eligibility for numerous state and federal benefits will be performed by Eligibility Workers who are public sector merit system or civil service system employees.

On October 7, 2023, Governor Newsom announced that he signed the Legislature Employer-Employee Relations Act into law (Assembly Bill (“AB”) 1). The Act permits employees of the Legislature to unionize and collectively bargain with their employers. These employers are the Assembly Committee on Rules and the Senate Committee on Rules.

On October 7, 2023 Governor Newsom signed legislation designed to be the first step toward guaranteeing a proper staff-to-student ratio among California’s classified school employees. Classified employees are those who are not in positions requiring certification, such as teacher aides, secretaries, bus drivers, and school security officers. AB 1273 sets up a Classified Employee Staffing Ratio Workgroup that will report back to lawmakers its recommendations for guidelines as to what amount of staffing is considered adequate among various groups of school support staff.

A new California law requires public transit employers to notify and bargain with unions before taking steps to acquire or deploy autonomous transit vehicle technology for public transit services that would eliminate job functions or jobs. By requiring written notice and bargaining before even preliminary steps are taken by the employer, this law provides unions with greater opportunity to protect their members from the potentially disruptive effects of autonomous vehicle technology.

California public sector agencies have increasingly relied on temporary workers to fill a wide range of duties that often entail identical or very similar work duties to those of permanent employees. In reality, these workers are not actually temporary, but may occupy these positions for many years—or indefinitely—without any promise of permanent employment. Labor advocates are concerned about public employers’ over-reliance on temporary workers, who are disproportionately women and people of color, because these workers are often paid lower wages, receive fewer benefits, and enjoy less job security. Reliance on temporary workers rather than permanent employees intensifies race and gender inequalities that already exist in the workplace.

The California Governor signed two bills affecting retired public school teachers: Senate Bill (“SB”) 432 and SB 765.

Currently, in California in the property services and long-term healthcare industries, an individual or business that contracts for services can be held jointly and severally liable for any unpaid wages (including interest) if a few requirements are met. First, that entity was provided notice of a proceeding or investigation by the Labor Commissioner. Second, the Labor Commissioner found the employer liable for unpaid wages. Third, some or all of those wages were for services performed under the service contract.

Alameda Health System (“AHS”) is responsible for providing indigent care within Alameda County. Currently, AHS is prohibited from entering into a contract with a person/entity that would replace services being provided by unionized physicians and surgeons who are employed by AHS, unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the needed medical care can only be delivered cost effectively by the other person/entity. However, this requirement was set to expire on January 1, 2024.

In a rare procedural posture, the Public Employment Relations Board (“PERB”), rather than an administrative law judge, issued a post-hearing decision in El Camino Healthcare District (Aug. 15, 2023) PERB Dec. No. 2868-M. WRR represented the charging party union in this case. The case involved the application of the single/joint employer test from County of Ventura (2018) PERB Dec. No. 2600-M.

In Stone v. Alameda Health System (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 84 (review granted), Plaintiffs, a Medical Assistant and a Licensed Vocational Nurse employed by Alameda Health System (“AHS”), sued AHS alleging seven claims:

San Francisco public employees and their unions have won a major victory in their fight for power and dignity. The state Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) has ruled in City and County of San Francisco (2023) PERB Decision No. 2867-M that the city’s charter provisions that prohibit city workers from striking are void and unenforceable. Two unions challenged the charter provisions, Service Employees International Union Local 1021 ("SEIU Local 1021”) and International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers Local 21, with WRR representing SEIU Local 1021 in this case from its inception.

In Butte-Glenn Community College District, PERB found that “an employer responding to a request for information from an exclusive representative may be required to compile information from multiple records, management agents, and other sources, unless it can prove that doing so would be unduly burdensome.” PERB explained that an employer may even be required to rely on employer representatives’ memories to respond to the information request. As such, an employer’s duty to respond to information requests requires consulting various sources of information and not merely documents an employer may have in its possession. In so deciding, PERB has made it even more difficult for an employer to assert and demonstrate that responding to a request for information (RFI) is unduly burdensome.

For most of the history of public sector labor law in California, only proof of support documents with “original signatures”—meaning ink or “wet” signatures—were permitted to initiate the representation and decertification proceedings. This changed with the revisions to Public Employee Relations Board (PERB) Regulation 32700 in 2021, which allowed the use of “electronically signed proofs of support” in representation petitions. Now, in a recent decision called Pasadena Area Community College District (Jan. 11, 2023) PERB Order No. Ad-500, PERB confirmed what appeared clear from the text of this revised regulation—electronically signed proof of support documents are not allowed in decertification cases.