Decision 2317Sa – State of California (Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, State Personnel Board)
SA-CE-1896-S
Decision Date: December 19, 2014
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: The complaint alleged that the State Personnel Board (SPB) had a duty to bargain over its proposed amendments to its rules regarding disciplinary procedures for civil service employees.
Disposition: On remand from a superior court, the Board held that the SPB has no duty to bargain over its proposed amendments to its rules regarding disciplinary procedures for civil service employees because by adopting those rules, SPB was acting in its capacity as regulator of state employment, and not as a “state employer.”
Perc Vol: 39
Perc Index: 80
Decision Headnotes
201.01000 – In General
The Legislature did not intend to impose on the State Personnel Board a duty to negotiate with employee organizations when SPB is exercising its regulatory function, as opposed to acting as an employer or appointing authority of its own employees. An agency must be acting in its role as an “employer” or “appointing authority” in order to be subject to the Dills Act. When the State Personnel Board adopted regulations regarding disciplinary procedures for civil service employees, it was acting in its regulatory role to administer the civil service system, specifically regarding discipline hearings and appeal procedures.
601.02000 – Persons Required to Bargain; Alter Egos, Joint Employers (See also 201)
The State Personnel Board does not have a duty to meet and confer over its proposed rules concerning state civil service disciplinary hearings and appeals. Even though the Governor or his designee is the state’s representative for purposes of meeting and conferring, it is well established that the appointing authority will be liable for violations of Dills Act section 3519(c) when the appointing authority makes a unilateral change in terms and conditions of employment of its own employees. Although Dills Act section 3519(a), proscribing unfair practices, declares that it will be unlawful for the state to refuse or fail to meet and confer in good faith, the Legislature did not intend by this wording to impose on the State Personnel Board a duty to negotiate with employee organizations when it is exercising its regulatory function, as opposed to acting as an employer or appointing authority of its own employees. An agency must be acting in its role as an “employer” or “appointing authority” in order to be subject to the Dills Act. When the State Personnel Board adopted regulations regarding disciplinary procedures for civil service employees, it was acting in its regulatory role to administer the civil service system, specifically regarding discipline hearings and appeal procedures.