PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYEE? (SEE 502 AND 1309) – Supervisors

Single Topic for Decision 2871P

View all topics for Decision 2871P

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

The MMBA differs from federal law in that it contains no exclusion for supervisors or managerial employees, and appellate courts have found that the MMBA therefore affords collective bargaining rights to supervisors and managers. (Public Employees of Riverside County, Inc. v. County of Riverside (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 882, 888; Organization of Deputy Sheriffs v. County of San Mateo (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 331, 338.) EERA, enacted in 1975, explicitly excludes managerial employees, but not supervisors. (Gov. Code, § 3540.1, subd. (j).) (EERA does restrict the unit placement of supervisors.) (Gov. Code, § 3545, subd. (b)(2).) The Dills Act, enacted in 1977 to cover state employees, explicitly excludes supervisory and managerial employees. The Judicial Council Employer-Employee Relations Act, enacted in 2017, similarly excludes supervisory and managerial employees. (Gov. Code, § 3524.52. subd. (g).) HEERA, enacted in 1978, explicitly excludes managerial employees, while limiting the rights of supervisors. (Gov. Code, §§ 3562, subd. (e), 3580.) The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Transit Employer-Employee Relations Act (TEERA; PUC, § 99560 et seq.), enacted in 2003, explicitly states that it “shall only apply to supervisory employees of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority [LACMTA].” (PUC, § 99560.3.) TEERA’s legislative history shows the Legislature’s intent to cover certain supervisors who are also low-level managerial employees. (pp. 5-10 & fn. 8.)

Act covering Sacramento Regional Transit District covered the Superintendents in question. Job descriptions and organizational charts in the record make it more likely that Superintendents were supervisors rather than managerial employees. (See, e.g., Santa Barbara Community College District (2011) PERB Decision No. 2212, adopting proposed decision at p. 18 [management employees must have both “discretionary authority to develop or modify institutional goals and priorities” and “authority to implement programs through the exercise of discretion”].) However, the Board made no such finding, first, because the Board puts limited reliance on written job descriptions unless they comport to actual job duties (id., adopting proposed decision at p. 18 & p. 25, fn. 10), and here the parties opted to forego witness testimony. Moreover, even were Superintendents’ duties sufficient to make them managerial employees, they would have collective bargaining rights. (pp. 11, 15-16.)