Elizabeth Ford

Comments

In general, California may be the most hospitable state to public sector collective bargaining. The basic rules are far more favorable to placing matters within the scope of mandatory subjects than any other state. There are, however, serious differences in how police and non-police bargaining is treated.

  • Choice of Forum for Police. Under California’s public sector collective bargaining law, most unions and employers must resolve their conflicts about the scope of bargaining through California’s Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). For police only, however, the parties can also bring the disputes to court.
  • Los Angeles Labor Relations. The scope of bargaining for employees of the City of Los Angeles is governed by a unique city ordinance and enforcement agency. This leads to diffusion of rules, difficulty in finding the decisions, and potential conflicts with state law.
  • Interest Arbitration for Police. In 2000, the California legislature enacted a statute requiring interest arbitration for the resolution of any impasses in police and fire departments. In 2003 that statute was declared unconstitutional. Nevertheless, many charter cities continue to require interest arbitration.
  • LOEBOR. California has a robust Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights statute providing protections in discipline investigations; these matters that are left to bargaining for every other type of employee.
  • Oversight Common Law Different for Police. The PERB decisions on the implementation of outside oversight are more favorable to bargaining in the police context than in the non-police context. In addition, PERB is more accommodating of police bargaining on oversight than the California Courts.
  • Transfer of Work Common Law is Different for Police. PERB’s decisions in this area are slightly more favorable to police bargaining than non-police.

Fact Sheet

Included in

Law Commons

Share

COinS