Decision 2018S – State of California (Department of Personnel Administration)
SA-CE-1667-S
Decision Date: April 7, 2009
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: The Board dismissed an unfair practice charge in which the Charging Party alleged that the employer violated the Dills Act by refusing to increase the business-related automobile travel reimbursement rate for employees in State Bargaining Unit 6 following an increase to the Federal Standard Mileage Rate (FSMR).
Disposition: The Board held that increases to the reimbursement rate constitute an expenditure of funds and, therefore, such rates may not be increased until approved by the Legislature. Since the Legislature had not approved such a rate increase, the employer did not violate the Dills Act when it refused to harmonize the State reimbursement rate with the FSMR.
Perc Vol: 33
Perc Index: 71
Decision Headnotes
101.01000 – In General
PERB’s jurisdiction is limited and does not include the enforcement of other independent statutory schemes. Therefore, PERB lacks the jurisdiction over alleged labor code disputes.
102.02000 – Concurrent or Conflicting Jurisdiction with Other Agencies or Courts; Interpretation or Enforcement of Other Statutes
PERB’s jurisdiction is limited and does not include the enforcement of other independent statutory schemes. Therefore, PERB lacks the jurisdiction over alleged labor code disputes.
104.01000 – Authority of Board In General; Validity and Application of Regulations (See also 102.01)
PERB’s jurisdiction is limited and does not include the enforcement of other independent statutory schemes. Therefore, PERB lacks the jurisdiction over alleged labor code disputes.
608.08000 – Exhaustion of Impasse Procedures or Time Between Impasse and Mediation
Generally, an employer cannot change matters within the scope of representation without first providing the exclusive representative notice and opportunity to negotiate. Once impasse is reached under the Dills Act, however, an employer may take unilateral action to implement “any or all” of the proposals contained in its last best and final offer (LBFO). In such cases, the unilateral adoptions must be reasonably comprehended within the pre-impasse proposals. Moreover, if a proposal contained in the LBFO conflicts with existing law or requires the expenditure of funds, the proposal must be approved by the Legislature.
900.01000 – In General
Generally, an employer cannot change matters within the scope of representation without first providing the exclusive representative notice and opportunity to negotiate. Once impasse is reached under the Dills Act, however, an employer may take unilateral action to implement “any or all” of the proposals contained in its LBFO. In such cases, the unilateral adoptions must be reasonably comprehended within the pre-impasse proposals. Moreover, if a proposal contained in the LBFO conflicts with existing law or requires the expenditure of funds, the proposal must be approved by the Legislature.
900.05000 – Post-Impasse
Generally, an employer cannot change matters within the scope of representation without first providing the exclusive representative notice and opportunity to negotiate. Once impasse is reached under the Dills Act, however, an employer may take unilateral action to implement “any or all” of the proposals contained in its LBFO. In such cases, the unilateral adoptions must be reasonably comprehended within the pre-impasse proposals. Moreover, if a proposal contained in the LBFO conflicts with existing law or requires the expenditure of funds, the proposal must be approved by the Legislature. A proposal to increase the mileage reimbursement rate for state employees constitutes an expenditure of funds and, therefore, such an increase in a LBFO may not be implemented until approved by the Legislature.