Decision A506M – City of Compton
LA-IM-324-M
Decision Date: November 6, 2023
Decision Type: Administrative Appeal
Description: This case came before the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB or Board) on appeal by the City of Compton from an administrative determination by PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC) approving a request by the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees Local 3947 (AFSCME) pursuant to the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) that the parties’ bargaining differences be submitted to a factfinding panel. The City and AFSCME are parties to a memorandum of agreement that expired on June 30, 2019. The parties began successor negotiations on January 15, 2020. The parties reached tentative agreements on some articles, but not others. Via an e-mail on May 31, 2023, AFSCME advised the City that it rejected several City proposals and provided the City with a written declaration of impasse. The next day, AFSCME filed its request with PERB for MMBA factfinding. On June 2, 2023, AFSCME filed a copy of the May 31 e-mail message to the City declaring impasse. The City opposed AFSCME’s factfinding request, asserting that the parties had not yet reached impasse, and therefore, the request was inappropriate and premature. OGC issued an administrative determination approving AFSCME’s factfinding request. The City appealed the administrative determination, again asserting that though the factfinding request was timely, it was insufficient because the parties are not actually at impasse. ASFCME opposed the City’s appeal.
Disposition: The Board affirmed OGC’s administrative determination approving the request for factfinding, finding that OGC correctly concluded that the request was timely under MMBA section 3505.4 and PERB Regulation 32802 and procedurally proper. The Board noted PERB has reiterated on multiple occasions that in resolving a request for factfinding, it does not evaluate whether the parties are in fact at impasse. (See, e.g., County of Santa Clara (2020) Order No. Ad-483-M, p. 4; City of Salinas (2018) PERB Order No. Ad-457-M, p. 6; Santa Cruz Central Fire Protection District (2016) PERB Order No. Ad‑436-M, pp. 6-7.) The City’s appeal failed to establish any reason for a different result.
Perc Vol: 48
Perc Index: 80
Decision Headnotes
900.01000 – In General
“PERB’s review of a factfinding request is limited to determining whether the request satisfies the procedural requirements of MMBA section 3505.4 and PERB Regulation 32802.” (County of Santa Clara (2020) PERB Order No. Ad-483-M, p. 4, citing City of Oakland (2018) PERB Order No. Ad-462-M, p. 4.) PERB does not evaluate whether the parties are in fact at impasse. (County of Santa Clara, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-483-M, p. 4.) Nor is it required to determine whether the impasse concerns a matter within the scope of representation. (City of Oakland, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-462-M, p. 6.) Instead, PERB’s inquiry is limited to determining whether (1) there was “a written declaration of impasse from either party, or the appointment or selection of a mediator,” and (2) the factfinding request was timely filed after one of these triggering events. (County of Santa Clara, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-483-M, p. 4, quoting Santa Cruz Central Fire Protection District (2016) PERB Order No. Ad 436-M, p. 5 (Santa Cruz).)
Here, it was undisputed that AFSCME gave the City a written declaration of impasse and filed its factfinding request with PERB within 30 days of the impasse declaration, thereby satisfying the procedural requirements under MMBA section 3505.4, subdivision (a) and PERB Regulation 32802, subdivision (a)(2). The City argued, however, that PERB should have denied AFSCME’s factfinding request as premature because the parties were not actually at impasse. But issues of whether a party bargained in bad faith, including whether a party properly declared impasse, must be decided through unfair practice proceedings. (See City of Folsom (2015) PERB Order No. Ad-423-M, pp. 5-6.) “PERB's unfair practice proceedings are better suited to resolving the often complex legal and factual issues raised by unfair practice allegations and for protecting the parties' rights to notice and meaningful opportunity to be heard before issues of liability are decided.” (Id. at p. 6, citing City and County of San Francisco (2014) PERB Order No. Ad-415-M, pp. 13 14.) PERB has reiterated on multiple occasions that in resolving a request for factfinding, it does not evaluate whether the parties are in fact at impasse. (See, e.g., County of Santa Clara, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-483-M, p. 4; City of Salinas (2018) PERB Order No. Ad-457-M, p. 6; Santa Cruz, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-436-M, pp. 6-7.) The City’s appeal failed to establish any reason for a different result.
900.04000 – During Impasse
“PERB’s review of a factfinding request is limited to determining whether the request satisfies the procedural requirements of MMBA section 3505.4 and PERB Regulation 32802.” (County of Santa Clara (2020) PERB Order No. Ad-483-M, p. 4, citing City of Oakland (2018) PERB Order No. Ad-462-M, p. 4.) PERB does not evaluate whether the parties are in fact at impasse. (County of Santa Clara, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-483-M, p. 4.) Nor is it required to determine whether the impasse concerns a matter within the scope of representation. (City of Oakland, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-462-M, p. 6.) Instead, PERB’s inquiry is limited to determining whether (1) there was “a written declaration of impasse from either party, or the appointment or selection of a mediator,” and (2) the factfinding request was timely filed after one of these triggering events. (County of Santa Clara, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-483-M, p. 4, quoting Santa Cruz Central Fire Protection District (2016) PERB Order No. Ad 436-M, p. 5 (Santa Cruz).)
Here, it was undisputed that AFSCME gave the City a written declaration of impasse and filed its factfinding request with PERB within 30 days of the impasse declaration, thereby satisfying the procedural requirements under MMBA section 3505.4, subdivision (a) and PERB Regulation 32802, subdivision (a)(2). The City argued, however, that PERB should have denied AFSCME’s factfinding request as premature because the parties were not actually at impasse. But issues of whether a party bargained in bad faith, including whether a party properly declared impasse, must be decided through unfair practice proceedings. (See City of Folsom (2015) PERB Order No. Ad-423-M, pp. 5-6.) “PERB's unfair practice proceedings are better suited to resolving the often complex legal and factual issues raised by unfair practice allegations and for protecting the parties' rights to notice and meaningful opportunity to be heard before issues of liability are decided.” (Id. at p. 6, citing City and County of San Francisco (2014) PERB Order No. Ad-415-M, pp. 13 14.) PERB has reiterated on multiple occasions that in resolving a request for factfinding, it does not evaluate whether the parties are in fact at impasse. (See, e.g., County of Santa Clara, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-483-M, p. 4; City of Salinas (2018) PERB Order No. Ad-457-M, p. 6; Santa Cruz, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-436-M, pp. 6-7.) The City’s appeal failed to establish any reason for a different result.