Decision 1581M – County of Sacramento

SA-CE-31-M

Decision Date: January 9, 2004

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 28
Perc Index: 57

Decision Headnotes

101.00000 – PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; APPLICABILITY OF AND CONFLICTS WITH OTHER STATUTES
101.04000 – Statutues in Other Jurisdictions

In the interpreting contract bar ordinance of County, PERB looks for guidance to the practices of the NLRB. As a legislative enactment, however, County ordinance it is not subject to discretionary application “to waive or apply it in order to effectuate its policy underpinnings.” (NLRB v. Circle A&W Products Co., supra., 647 F.2d 924.) Rather, interpretation of ordinance must be approached as with a statute in an effort to ascertain the intent of the legislative body so as to effectuate the purposes of the law.

1301.00000 – REPRESENTATION ISSUES; CONTRACT BAR
1301.01000 – In General

The MMBA sets no maximum length for the term of an MOU and it contains no provision that establishes a contract bar as a limitation on the exercise of employee choice in the selection of an exclusive representative. The goal of a contract bar is to promote stability in labor-management relations while at the same time ensuring that employees retain free choice to remove or change an exclusive representative within some reasonable period. County ordinance provided a contract bar during entire term of agreement, but prohibited agreements with terms longer than three years. County improperly agreed to a five-year contract with union. Board held that under ordinance, a five-year contract might be binding on the parties but would not serve as an election bar at all. Board rejected County’s argument that contract bar should at least apply for first three years of five-year contract.

1407.00000 – GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
1407.01000 – General Principles

In the interpreting contract bar ordinance of County, PERB looks for guidance to the practices of the NLRB. As a legislative enactment, however, County ordinance it is not subject to discretionary application “to waive or apply it in order to effectuate its policy underpinnings.” (NLRB v. Circle A&W Products Co., supra., 647 F.2d 924.) Rather, interpretation of ordinance must be approached as with a statute in an effort to ascertain the intent of the legislative body so as to effectuate the purposes of the law.