Gavel-and-Books.JPG

This post was authored by Erik Cuadros and Adrianna E. Guzman

When it comes to negotiations, sometimes, as we all know, the parties cannot reach agreement, despite everyone’s best efforts.  At that point, either party may declare impasse.  That written declaration of impasse, however, triggers certain statutory impasse procedures, and could lead to factfinding.

But

US Supreme Court

Just one day after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Friedrichs v. CTA, California employee organizations scored a second victory. Yesterday, the Fourth District Court of Appeal issued its long-awaited decisions in San Diego Housing Commission v. Public Employment Relations Board and County of Riverside v. Public Employment Relations Board. Both cases challenged

AnotherGavel.jpgOn March 14, 2016, the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District, Division 1 (San Diego) heard oral arguments in two cases challenging the Public Employment Relations Board’s (PERB) interpretation of factfinding procedures, which were put into place by Assembly Bill 646 (AB 646).  The specific issue in County of Riverside v. Public Employment

AnotherGavel.jpgWhen the MMBA first took effect in 1968, there was no provision for the financial support of employee organizations or unions.  Many employee organizations had few ways to convince employees to join the organization and support it with member dues.  Thus, the concept of an “agency shop” was born.  Agency shop arrangements require employees, as

Gavel-and-Books.JPGWhen the Legislature amended the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) in 2001, it gave PERB jurisdiction over the statute, but not over certain agencies, and not over “persons who are peace officers as defined in Section 830.1 of the Penal Code.” (Gov. Code Section 3511, emphasis added.)

In the more than 14 years  since then, however,