PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; APPLICABILITY OF AND CONFLICTS WITH OTHER STATUTES – Conflicts Between PERB-Administered Laws and Other California Statutes; Education Code/Supersession; MMBA Supersession

Single Topic for Decision 2760S


View all topics for Decision 2760S

Full Decision Text (click on the link to view): Full Text

101.00000 – PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; APPLICABILITY OF AND CONFLICTS WITH OTHER STATUTES
101.02000 – Conflicts Between PERB-Administered Laws and Other California Statutes; Education Code/Supersession; MMBA Supersession

Notwithstanding the State Personnel Board’s jurisdiction to enforce civil service laws, prescribe classifications, and review disciplinary actions against state civil service employees, PERB is authorized to provide a full remedy if such employees experience discrimination for engaging in activity the Dills Act protects. In Pacific Legal Foundation v. Brown (1981) 29 Cal.3d 168, 198, the California Supreme Court explained that PERB’s authority over unfair practices did not infringe on SPB’s jurisdiction to review disciplinary actions because SPB and PERB were created to serve “different, but not inconsistent, public purposes.” (Id. at p. 197.) If the State, in the course of making a personnel decision, discriminates against protected activity in violation of the Dills Act, it transgresses the merit principle as well. (Id. at p. 198.) Thus, the Court declined “to construe article VII, section 3, subdivision (a) [of the State Constitution] in a manner that would deprive all state civil service employees of the important safeguards afforded by [PERB and other] specialized agencies.” (Id. at p. 199.) In reaching this conclusion, the Court noted that when the Legislature enacted the Dills Act, it explicitly tailored the law so as not “to contravene the spirit or intent of the merit principle.” (Dills Act, § 3512.) The Court rejected the argument that granting PERB jurisdiction to “devise remedies for unfair practices” is “irreconcilably in conflict with [SPB’s] jurisdiction to ‘review disciplinary actions’ under [article VII of the State Constitution].” ((Id. at p. 196.) The Court advised that “in those areas in which the [agencies’] jurisdiction . . . overlap, familiar rules of construction” require “harmoniz[ing] the disparate procedures” rather than invalidating one or the other. (Id. at p. 197.) The Court found it would be an overreach to reserve only to SPB all authority to remedy unlawful actions against a civil service employee. (Id. at p. 199.) In State Personnel Bd. v. Fair Employment and Housing Com. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 422, the Court reaffirmed Pacific Legal Foundation and its holding that the Constitution allows the Legislature to create “specialized watchdog” agencies such as PERB and the Fair Employment and Housing Commission (FEHC) (id. at pp. 438-439), explaining that it is not difficult to harmonize the agencies’ powers because they serve complementary purposes (id. at p. 438). The Court reiterated that it believed the main source of overlap would be in cases involving discipline and that even in such cases SPB’s jurisdiction does not dislodge the Legislature from creating specialized agencies with complementary roles, such as PERB and FEHC. (Id. at p. 439.)