Decision 2871P – Sacramento Regional Transit District

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.)

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 the Superintendents are 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.)

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.)

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.)

It is settled principle that federal law and practice are generally relevant to unit determinations under the PUC transit enabling acts, except where: “(1) the question presented is governed by an explicit provision of the applicable transit district statute or (2) considerations unique to public sector labor relations require a deviation from federal law.” (San Joaquin Regional Transit District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2650-P, p. 8.) Pursuant to this standard, “whether federal law is relevant will depend upon the particular circumstances of each case.” (Ibid.) Nevertheless, the requirement to follow “relevant” federal law “does not demand slavish adherence” to it. (Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority v. Rea (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1320. (pp. 5, 14.)

DIR and PERB have held that federal law and practice on supervisory and managerial issues are not relevant to interpreting a transit district enabling act that lacks the NLRA’s statutory language and legislative history excluding those categories. In examining whether supervisors and managers have collective bargaining rights under the Sacramento Regional Transit District Act (Sacramento RTD Act), the Board determined that federal law is not relevant as the Sacramento RTD Act contains neither the NLRA’s explicit exclusion of supervisors nor has a similar legislative history excluding managers. Moreover, past practice further demonstrates that federal law and practice are not relevant, and many supervisory and managerial transit district units in California would be destabilized were PERB to change course and make such a finding. Accordingly, the Board affirmed an SMCS hearing officer’s conclusion that the District’s Superintendents have collective bargaining rights under the Sacramento RTD Act.

Act covering Sacramento Regional Transit District covered the Superintendents in question. Job descriptions and organizational charts in the record make it more likely that the Superintendents are 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.)