Court Limits Scope of MMBA Factfinding
December 30, 2013 by Adrian Barnes
Public Sector disputes related to bargaining for new or revised contacts may end in an impasse. Under such circumstances employee bargaining units should be aware of their rights to factfinding panels through the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (“MMBA”). There is a changing landscape and engaging a knowledgeable law firm, such as Beeson, Tayer and Bodine (BT&B), with a strong public sector legal practice can help bring the latest rulings and cases to the issues. AB 646, which provides for new factfinding procedures under the MMBA, went into effect in January 2012. Under these new procedures, unions may request that a bargaining dispute they have with an MMBA public employer be submitted to factfinding after the parties have reached impasse. Provided the request is timely, the parties select a factfinding panel, and the Public Employment Relations Board appoints a chair. The panel makes advisory findings of fact regarding the dispute and recommends terms for settlement. The public employer must make the panel’s findings and recommendations public. The public employer need not, however, follow the panel’s recommendations.
Since the passage of AB 646, public employers have attempted to limit the applicability of the MMBA’s factfinding procedures. The employers’ primary challenge centers on whether factfinding procedures are applicable to all bargaining disputes, including disputes over single issues, or only to disputes over new contracts, or “Memoranda of Understanding.” Recently, in County of Riverside v. PERB, a superior court agreed with a public employer that the MMBA’s factfinding procedures do not apply to single-issue disputes. The court issued an order and injunction which purported to prohibit PERB from conducting factfinding on disputes over single issues and to require PERB to dismiss all cases involving requests for factfinding on single-issue disputes. PERB has appealed the court’s order and injunction, and has taken the position that the order and injunction are stayed pending the outcome of that appeal.
At present, PERB continues to process requests for factfinding on single-issue disputes. Therefore, BT&B attorneys engaged in our labor and employment law practice encourage use of factfinding as a method to address bargaining impasse. While factfinding practice may change as a result of further proceedings in the County of Riverside case, or as a result of the PERB Board’s review of PERB’s administrative decisions granting factfinding in such cases, for the time being unions who desire factfinding for single-issue bargaining disputes should continue to submit requests for factfinding, and can continue to file unfair labor practice charges against employers who refuse to submit such disputes to factfinding once impasse has been reached.
We at BT&B will provide further updates on this issue as it is tackled by the courts and by the PERB board itself. We encourage you to follow our legal blog and news items focusing on legal findings and issues associated with the representation of unions and employees.
The material on this website is provided by Beeson, Tayer & Bodine for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult with their own legal counsel before acting on any of the information presented. Some of the articles are updated periodically, and are marked with the date of the last update. Again, readers should consult with their own legal counsel for the most current information and to obtain professional advice before acting on any of the information presented.
