Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - September 7, 2016 C-15TM CITY OF LODI COUNCIL COMMUNICATION AGENDA ITEM C /5 AGENDA TITLE: Receive Report Regarding Communication Pertaining to Assembly Bill 2835 (Cooper) — Orientations and Informational Programs MEETING DATE: September 7, 2016 PREPARED BY: City Clerk RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive report regarding communication pertaining to Assembly Bill 2835 (Cooper) — Orientations and Informational Programs. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: • The City received a request for communication from the League of California Cities regarding AB 2835 (Cooper) — Orientations and Informational Programs. There was a need to send a letter of opposition immediately in light of a pending hearing. AB 2835 legislation would place numerous new requirements in statute pertaining to mandatory employee orientations and create serious legal, logistical, fiscal, and administrative issues for cities that would displace our employees and threaten fundamental management rights. The attached letter, electronically signed by the Mayor, was sent out on August 26, 2016. A copy of the initial request, along with the text of the bill, is also attached. This report is provided for informational purposes only, pursuant to policy. FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable. FUNDING AVAILABLE: Not applicable. APPROVED: nnifer M. ;,- rraiolo ity Clerk S ep en Schwabauer~,Jity Manager N:\Administration\CLERK\Council\COUNCOM\LeagueReceiveReportMaster.doc CITY COUNCIL MARK CHANDLER, Mayor DOUG KUEHNE, Mayor Pro Tempore BOB JOHNSON JOANNE MOUNCE ALAN NAKANISHI CITY OF LODI CITY HALL, 221 WEST PINE STREET P.O. BOX 3006 LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910 (209) 333-6702 / FAX (209) 333-6807 www.lodi.gov cityclerk©Iodi.gov August 26, 2016 Honorable Jim Cooper Member, California State Assembly State Capitol, Room 5158 Sacramento, CA 95814 FAX: 916-319-2109 STEPHEN SCHWABAUER City Manager JENNIFER M. FERRAIOLO City Clerk JANICE D. MAGDICH City Attorney RE: Assembly Bill 2835 (Cooper) — Orientations and Informational Programs Notice of Opposition (As amended August 19, 2016) Dear Assembly Member Cooper: The City of Lodi strongly opposes AB 2835 (Cooper), legislation that would place numerous new requirements in statute pertaining to mandatory employee orientations. AB 2835 would create serious legal, logistical, fiscal, and administrative issues for cities that would displace our employees and threaten fundamental management rights. We oppose the bill for the following reasons: • Requires public employers to provide all newly -hired employees an orientation within four months of the time of hiring. Cities provide comprehensive and educational orientations for our employees, even weekly in many cases, due to the magnitude of hiring taking place. However, AB 2835 does not define "orientation" — if an orientation were to be interpreted as an employer simply meeting with a new employee to provide them relevant employment information, the accompanying provisions of the bill (specifically the 30 -minute presentations by the exclusive employee representative during the first half of the orientation) would place public agencies in an ever -constant mode of orienting new employees. • Requires, for represented employees, the exclusive representative to be provided 30 minutes, within the first half of the orientation, to make a presentation. Local governments currently provide time to employee representatives to meet with their members. That may be in the form of release time or collectively negotiated in an MOU/MA. While we understand that employee representatives may be concerned that if they are scheduled at the end of the employer orientation their members will not be motivated to stay for their presentation, this narrow scheduling requirement puts an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental management right of how employee orientations are timed and conducted. As amended, AB 2835 continues to contain a lack of clarity as to whether each exclusive bargaining unit would address members for 30 minutes. Many of our agencies have as many as 10 to 15 bargaining units; this would result in a significant length of time being needed to allow for the employee representative -provided section of a new employee orientation. Moreover, a new employee orientation is the City's time to provide information about how our employees can provide quality service to the public and while upholding the public's trust to accomplish their work. To divert this time to employee union, whose focus is not the public, but the City as an employer, is counter to the message beinq delivered to new employees. If information to their members is an issue, labor unions need to negotiate a provision in each of their MOU/MA that allows them to provide such information. • Requires orientations to be conducted in-person, during "work hours." The employee representative of each bargaining unit must be given at least 10 days advance notice of any orientation provided by the employer. Recent amendments to AB 2835 continue to require that these orientations be conducted in-person during work hours. For cities that employ those in public safety (emergency dispatch, maintenance and operations, corrections), there is no "regular work day." Additionally, there are fixed -post staffing requirements (the position must be filled 24 hours per day, seven days per week, and 365 days per year) that lead to most local agencies paying overtime to employees in these positions to attend orientation when they are not working. Other local government employees (such as janitorial staff) work swing or graveyard shifts. Accordingly, it would be a major administrative burden for our agencies to ensure such orientations happen on a regular work day without seriously jeopardizing our ability to manage employee schedules. Many local government agencies cover large geographic areas, with dozens of worksites within their boundaries. Cost and logistical issues, as well as major advances in technology, have resulted in many of our larger cities conducting new employee orientations online. This proposal would eradicate that cost-effective and environmentally - friendly process for our members, placing the logistical burden on not only current staff but also those new employees entering public service. The "one -size fits all" requirements of AB 2835 would inevitably result in a loss of productivity, efficiency, as well as increase costs by making it impossible to utilize online technology in order to conduct orientations and training. Under AB 2835, cities would have to provide the staff that presents at our employee orientations (human resources, Equal Employment Opportunity staff, staff participating in collective bargaining for the agency, etc.) overtime, travel pay, possibly lodging and shift differential in order to meet the requirement that the orientation be conducted in-person. Further, the requirement of employers having to provide at least 10 days' notice to each bargaining unit representative of an upcoming orientation places unworkable administrative requirements on public agencies that are unwarranted, at best. Public agencies cannot account for unforeseen circumstances, such as needing to delay an orientation due to the extension of a background check. • Requires public employers to provide the exclusive representative with the name, job title, department, work location, telephone number, and home address of any newly -hired employee within 30 days of that employee's date of hire (or by the first pay period of the month following hire). Further, requires employers to provide an exclusive representative with a list containing the name, job title, department, work location, telephone number, and home address of all employees in the bargaining unit at least every 90 days. Providing such information violates provisions of the Public Records Act, which exempt the disclosure of records for recipients of certain benefits under the California Welfare and Institutions Code. While we appreciate the exemption for public safety officers and those victims of domestic violence, this proposal should allow public agencies to utilize the Public Records Act balancing test (Government Code §6254.5) when determining whether providing such records to employee organizations would violate our employees' right to privacy. In conclusion, AB 2835 would pose major burdens upon our public agencies that would slow the government process and disrupt the critical services that we provide to our residents. Employee organizations currently have the ability to bargain over the subject of participation in employee orientations and there have been no examples presented by the bill's proponents to justify a statewide mandate for employee organization -provided orientations that meet these stringent requirements. For these reasons, the City of Lodi opposes AB 2835 (Cooper). Sincerely, /4! 7/1,ae%4 ddeec Mark Chandler Mayor, City of Lodi cc: Senator Cathleen Galgiani, Fax: (916) 651-4905 Camille Wagner, Legislative Secretary, Office of Governor Edmond G. Brown Jr.; Fax: (916) 558-3177 Stephen Qualls, League of California Cities, squalls@cacities.orq Meg Desmond, League of California Cities, mdesmond@cacities.orq Jennifer Ferraiolo Subject: FW: AB 2835 (Cooper) Opposition Request and Documents Attachments: image001.png; AB2835_Cooper_OPPOSE_SAMPLE LETTER.docx; Floor Alert AB 2835 (Cooper)_08.24.16.pdf Importance: High Original Message From: Steve Schwabauer Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 2:28 PM To: squalls@cacities.org; JoAnne Mounce - External; Jennifer Ferraiolo Subject: FW: AB 2835 (Cooper) Opposition Request and Documents Importance: High Jennifer: can you set this up for the mayors signature? Tx Original Message From: Stephen R. Qualls [mailto:squalls@cacities.org] Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 1:02 PM To: Steve Schwabauer; JoAnne Mounce Subject: Fwd: AB 2835 (Cooper) Opposition Request and Documents Importance: High Steve and JoAnne, Would it be possible to get a letter on this as soon as possible? Thank you Original message From: Bismarck Obando <bismarck@cacities.org> Date: 8/25/16 10:34 AM (GMT -08:00) To: Bismarck Obando <bismarck@cacities.org>, Catherine Hill <chill@cacities.org>, Charles Anderson <canderson@cacities.org>, David Mullinax <dmullinax@cacities.org>, Deanna Sessums <dsessums@cacities.org>, Erin Sasse <esasse@cacities.org>, Jeff Kiernan <jkiernan@cacities.org>, Jennifer Quan <jquan@cacities.org>, Kristine Guerrero <kguerrero@cacities.org>, Laura Morales <Imorales@cacities.org>, Melissa Lienau <mlienau@cacities.org>, Michael Egan <egan@cacities.org>, Nancy Hall Bennett <nbennett@cacities.org>, Rajveer Rakkar <rrakkar@cacities.org>, Samantha Caygill <scaygill@cacities.org>, Sara Rounds <roundss@cacities.org>, Sarah Nowshiravan <snowshiravan@cacities.org>, Seth Miller <smiller@cacities.org>, "Stephen R. Qualls" <squalls@cacities.org>, Tony Cardenas <tcardenas@cacities.org> Subject: FW: AB 2835 (Cooper) Opposition Request and Documents Not sure if you all received this, but I'm passing it along.... From: Meg Desmond Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 9:57 AM Subject: AB 2835 (Cooper) Opposition Request and Documents Importance: High 1 Hello all, As discussed in City Caucus, we need your help with AB 2835 (Cooper). We need large cities on record (if possible) to illustrate the challenges from cities large and small. Also, If City officials/ managers can lob phone calls to their Senators and Assembly Members that would be incredibly helpful. We are trying to hold this bill in the Senate but at the very least provide the Governor enough cover to veto this very bad bill should it make it to his desk. Attached is our coalition letter and sample letter. Also Below are some key talking points on the measure as well as an ICYMI (editorial by the East Bay Times) illustrating the challenges that this bill would have on local agencies. Let me know if you need any additional information. Thanks! –DH Talking Points: • This bill creates a state mandate for the costs associated with local governments providing employee orientations. The Department of Finance estimates this bill would cost hundreds of millions annually and opposes this measure. • This bill no longer addresses the authors concerns of providing uniform training standards and now mandates that each recognize bargaining unit be afforded 30 min of paid time to organize new potential members—some cities have as many as 15 or more different recognized employee unions • The bill is too prescriptive and does not take into account the varied circumstances of public agencies, such as the agency's size, work hours, location, and available space for orientations—this includes pulling police and firefighters off the street to attend mandated union orientations. • "In-person" means our local agencies that have chosen to modernize and save money for providing actual services to our taxpayers (road work, public safety, classroom teaching) by taking such orientations online will now have to revert back to in person orientations. • A new employee orientation is the local agencies opportunity to provide information about how employees can provide quality service to the public while upholding the public's trust to accomplish their work. To divert this time to employee union, whose focus is not the public, but the City as an employer, is counter to the message being delivered to new employees. If information to their members is an issue, labor unions and local agencies currently have the ability to mutually negotiate a provision in their MOU/MA that allows them to provide such information. ****In Case You Missed It**** Kill nightmare public union recruitment bill East Bay Times<http://www.eastbaytimes.com/editorial/ci_30277465/editorial-kill-nightmare-public-union-recruitment-bill> East Bay Times editorial 2 Every two years late August becomes the most dangerous time on the calendar in California. Not because of an increase in boating accidents or car crashes, although those do happen. Rather, it marks the end of the two-year legislative cycle and there is always much mischief afoot. There are any number of gut -and -amend bills slithering through the halls of the State, Capitol, but one of the most egregious is a proposal to guarantee any newly hired public employee would get a 30 -minute, face-to-face sit down with a union representative within the first hour of orientation. And, here comes the hammer, the cost for doing that would be handled by, you guessed it, the taxpayers. Not only would the new employees be on paid time, so would the union representative. And, remember, each session is one-on-one, face-to-face for 30 minutes. So for any school board or city doing frequent hiring, the burden will be a logistical nightmare. The latest estimate from the Finance Department is that the bill, AB 2835, will cost roughly $75 million for cities and about $289 million for school districts. Annually. Ah, but there is a beneficiary. Yes, indeed. Clearly, union representatives will work far less at their regular jobs and far more as a publicly paid union recruiter. Of course, that then forces the employer -- just to be clear, that would be the taxpayers -- to not only pay the worker to recruit, but also to pay for his or her replacement. Understand too that most governments do orient their new hires about union representation. But to save money many use an online or video orientation to maximize tax dollars and avoid unnecessary travel expenses. But that will not work, if this bill becomes law. The Legislature should have the sense to kill this bill itself, but should it somehow get through, Gov. Jerry Brown should stop the music on this bad idea. To read the editorial in its entirety, click here<http://www.eastbaytimes.com/editorial/ci_30277465/editorial-kill- nightmare-public-union-recruitment-bill> Dane Hutchings Legislative Representative [cid:image002.png@01D14877.8D353E80] 1400 K Street Sacramento, CA 95814 0:916-658-8200 C:916-230-6935 F:916-658-8240 E:Dhutchings@cacities.org 3 GA( UM ACHE irmASSOCIATION OF CALIICNNI HEAITHCARE DISTRICTS 0©00 Superintendent of Schools atm B SSOCIATiCN ❑f CA; IDR -IA 0;UTAL aV Cti71EECf AF.,•BNISTITAICRS fikuscp Innovation in Education RIVERSIDE Unified School District a Ell OvE CITIES NLNNETN M.TOU.NL &\JPA CCSESA tca*ih Ant, Supmnlendems Fautlenal SeMus Anedelen URBAN COUNTIES of CALIFORNIA Hp ��Eaassociation of california school administrators CASBO Ait RC RC 'D ��as 1 Los Angeles County Office of Education Semng Rwmrc • SuAn, CartA,lne, Leading+ez Association of California Water Agencies FLOOR ALERT cvlc Central Valley Education Coalition AB 2835 (Cooper) Orientations and Informational Programs (As amended August 19, 2016) OPPOSE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF SUBURBAN SCHOOLS Recent amendments to the bill do not remedy the serious legal, logistical, fiscal and administrative issues for our agencies that will displace our employees and threaten fundamental management responsibilities and employee rights. AB 2835 would create serious legal, logistical, fiscal, and administrative issues for local agencies. Additionally, this bill creates a reimbursable state mandate for the costs incurred by the local governments and schools to provide employee orientations. The Department of Finance has taken an oppose position as this measure would cost hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Concerns • AB 2835 does not define "orientation." If an orientation were to be interpreted as an employer simply meeting with a new employee to provide them relevant employment information, the accompanying provisions of the bill would place public agencies in an ever -constant mode of orienting new employees. • Requires orientations to be conducted in-person, during the regular workday of employees attending. For local agencies, counties, school districts/county offices of education and special districts that employ those that work in public safety (emergency dispatch, maintenance and operations, corrections) and hospitals, there is no "regular work day." Accordingly, it would be a major administrative burden for our agencies to ensure such orientations happen on a regular work day without seriously jeopardizing our ability to manage employee schedules. -More- • Requires, for represented employees, the exclusive representative to be provided 30 minutes, within the first half of the orientation, to make a presentation. The content of the presentation would be determined solely by the exclusive representative and not subject to negotiation. AB 2835 allows each employee representative in attendance to address its members for 30 minutes. Many of our agencies have as many as 10-15 bargaining units; this would result in a significant length of time being needed to allow for the employee representative -provided section of a new employee orientation. • Nothing in AB 2835 prohibits the employee organization or exclusive representative from discussing internal union politics or campaigning, how to vote on upcoming incumbency elections, or prohibits the issues covered by the Public Employment Relations Board's (PERB) long-standing rule for unprotected conduct by employee representatives. • AB 2835 requires public employers to provide the exclusive representative sensitive information. Providing the information required in this bill violates provisions of the Public Records Act which exempt the disclosure of records for recipients of certain benefits under the California Welfare and Institutions Code. This proposal should allow public agencies to utilize the Public Records Act balancing test (Government Code §6254.5) when determining whether providing such records to employee organizations would violate employees' right to privacy. AMENDED IN SENATE AUGUST 19, 2016 AMENDED IN SENATE AUGUST 15, 2016 AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 21, 2016 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 15, 2016 CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE -2015-16 REGULAR SESSION ASSEMBLY BILL No. 2835 Introduced by Assembly Member Cooper (Principal coauthor: Assembly Member Rendon) (Principal coauthor: Scnator coauthors: Senators De Leon and Pan) February 19, 2016 An act to add Chapter 11 (commencing with Section 3550) to Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code, relating to public employees. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 2835, as amended, Cooper. Public employees: orientation and informational programs: rccognizcd cmploycc organizations. exclusive representatives. (1) Existing law, including the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, the Ralph C. Dills Act, the Trial Court Employment Protection and Governance Act, the Trial Court Interpreter Employment and Labor Relations Act, and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Transit Employer -Employee Relations Act, as well as provisions commonly referred to as the Educational Employment Relations Act and the Higher Education Employer -Employee Relations Act, regulates the labor relations of the state, the courts, and specified local public agencies and their employees. Existing law establishes the Public 95 AB 2835 — 2 — Employment Relations Board and prescribes its powers and duties, in relation to these acts. These acts grant specified public employees of these entities the right to form, join, and participate in the activities of employee organizations of their choosing and requires public agency employers, among other things, to meet and confer with representatives of recognized employee organizations and exclusive representatives on terms and conditions of employment. This bill would require the public employers regulated by the acts described above to provide newly hired employees, as defined, a specified public employee orientation within -2 4 months of hiring. The bill would rcquirc thcsc oricntations to bc conductcd, in-person, during thc regular workday of the cmployccs attcnding. hiring, to be conducted in-person, during work hours. The bill would require, if employees are represented, that the exclusive representative be given notice not less than 10 days in advance of an orientation. The bill would require the pertinent exclusive representative to be permitted to make a presentation of 30 minutes in the first half of the oricntation if employees arc rcprcscntcd. Thc bill would, with ccrtain cxccptions, rcquirc that the content of thcsc prcscntations bc determined solely by thc exclusive rcprescntativc. orientation. This bill would rcquirc, prior to the implementation of thc provisions described above, that the public cmploycr provide an exclusive representative thc same level of acccss to oricntations allowed as of June 1, 2016. Thc This bill would require an affected public employer to provide the rccognizcd cmploycc organization or exclusive representative with the name, job title, department, work location, phone number, and home address of newly hired employees within 30 days of the date of hire. Thc bill would permit a public cmploycr and a gmzca cmPcc orgam: rcprc; The bill would permit agreements between a public employer and an exclusive representative to ncgotiatc an agrccmcnt that provides that provide for orientations that vary from the bill's requirements, but in absence of an agreement on orientations, the bill's requirements would apply. The bill would also require affected public employers to provide the exclusive representative with the name, job title, department, work location, telephone number, and home address of all employees in the bargaining unit at least every 90 days, except as specified. The bill would provide that affected public employers do not unlawfully support or favor an employee organization or encourage 95 — 3 — AB 2835 employees to join any organization in preference to another, as specified, by permitting presentations at employee orientations or informational programs, as described above, or consistent with a negotiated agreement. The bill would grant the Public Employment Relations Board jurisdiction over a violation of these provisions. The bill would except from its provisions public employers with respect to in-home supportive services providers, as specified. By creating new duties for various local agencies, this bill would impose a state -mandated local program. (2) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, with regard to certain mandates, no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State -mandated local program: yes. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: 1 SECTION 1. Chapter 11 (commencing with Section 3550) is 2 added to Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code, to read: 3 4 CHAPTER 11. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE ORIENTATION AND 5 INFORMATIONAL PROGRAMS 6 7 3550. (a) Exccpt as sct forth in subdivision (d), a A public 8 employer specified in Section 3552 shall provide all newly hired 9 public employees a public employee an orientation within two 10 four months of the time of hiring that may include, but is not 11 - : - - .i . hiring. hiring. If the employees are 12 represented, the exclusive representative of those employees shall 13 be permitted to make a presentation of 30 minutes to begin in the 14 first half of the orientation. The exclusive representative shall be 15 given not less than 10 days notice in advance of an orientation. 16 Orientations shall be conducted in -person during work hours. 17 (1) The personnel policies of the public employer, including 18 sexual harassment, violence prevention, and safety plans. 95 AB 2835 — 4 — 1 (2) Any applicable civil scrvicc rulcs. 2 (3) Any cthics or conflict-of-intcrcst rulcs to which thc public 3 cmploycc is subjcct, if applicablc. 4 (4) Any cmploycr-providcd bcncfit programs for which the 5 public cmploycc is cligiblc. 6 (b) An oricntation dcscribcd in subdivision (a) shall mcct all of 7 thc following minimum rcquircmcnts: 8 (1) Oricntations shall bc conductcd in-person, during thc regular 9 workday of cmployccs attcnding. If cmployccs arc rcprcscntcd, 10 thc cxclusivc rcprcscntativc shall bc givcn not lcss than 10 days' 11 notice in advance of an orientation. 12 (2) If cmployccs arc rcprcscntcd, thc cxclusivc rcprcscntativc 13 shall be permittcd to makc a prcscntation of 30 minutcs, to bcgin 14 in thc first half of the oricntation that may includc, but is not limitcd 15 to, thc following: 16 (A) Information about thc memorandum of undcrstanding, 17 including thc term of thc agrccmcnt, cligibility to votc on its 18 ratification, and how to acccss thc contract. 19 (B) Any union bcncfit for which mcmbcrs may be cligiblc. 20 (C) Contact information for thc cxclusivc rcprcscntativc. 21 (3) If the rcprcscntativc from thc cxclusivc rcprcscntativc is not 22 prcscnt at thc dcsignatcd start timc of thc part of thc presentation 23 dcscribcd in paragraph (2), thcrc is no rcquircmcnt that the 24 rcprcscntativc bc affordcd additional timc. 25 (4) In addition to othcr rcprcscntativcs, cach cxclusivc 26 rcprescntativc may dcsignatc one cmploycc rcprcscntativc who 27 may attcnd thc oricntation. Thc content of thc cxclusivc 28 representative's presentation shall bc dctcrmincd solcly by the 29 cxclusivc rcprcscntativc and shall not bc subjcct to ncgotiation. 30 Thc prcscntation shall not include advocacy for or against a 31 candidatc for political officc or ballot mcasurc. Prior to 32 implcmcnting thc oricntation rcquircmcnts sct forth in this 33 subdivision, thc public cmploycr shall providc at lcast thc level of 34 acccss to, and thc opportunity to makc prcscntations at, oricntations 35 that thc public cmploycr allowcd thc cxclusivc rcprcscntativc as 36 ofJune 1, 2016, and nothing hcrcin shall bc construed as infringing 37 upon or limiting that acccss. 38 (e) 39 (b) Notwithstanding Sections 6254 and 6254.3, the public 40 employer shall provide the exclusive representative with the name, 95 — 5 — AB 2835 1 job title, department, work location, telephone number, and home 2 address of any newly hired employee who may be represented by 3 the exclusive representative within 30 days of the date of hirc. hire 4 or by the first pay period of the month following hire. The 5 information identified in this subdivision shall be provided to the 6 exclusive representative regardless of whether the newly hired 7 public employee was previously employed by the public employer. 8 The information under this section shall be provided in a manner 9 consistent with paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 6254.3. 10 The information under this section shall be provided in a manner 11 consistent with Section 6207 for any employee who is a participant 12 in the address confidentiality program established pursuant to 13 Chapter 3.1 (commencing with Section 6205) of Division 7 of 14 Title 1. 15 (A4 16 (c) This section does not prohibit agreements between a public 17 employer and an exclusive representative may ncgotiatc an 18 agrccmcnt providing that provide for orientation sessions that vary 19 from any rcquircmcnt for oricntations the requirements of this 20 section. If such an agreement is negotiated, the requirements of 21 subdivisions (a) and (b) shall not apply to the extent that they are 22 inconsistent with the agreement. In the absence of a mutual 23 agreement regarding the orientation sessions, all of the 24 requirements of this scction subdivisions (a) and (b) shall apply. 25 (e) 26 (d) A public employer identified in Section 3552 does not 27 unlawfully support or favor an employee organization or encourage 28 employees to join any organization in preference to another as 29 prohibited by subdivision (d) of Section 3506.5, subdivision (d) 30 of Section 3519, subdivision (d) of Section 3543.5, or subdivision 31 (d) of Section 3571 of this code, or subdivision (d) of Section 32 99563.7 of the Public Utilities Code, or any other state law, by 33 permitting an exclusive representative the opportunity to present 34 at employee orientations and informational programs as required 35 by this section or consistent with a negotiated agreement pursuant 36 to Section 3551. 37 (#0 38 (e) This section does not modify the scope of bargaining. 39 3551. Notwithstanding Sections 6254 and 6254.3, the public 40 employer shall provide an exclusive representative with a list 95 AB 2835 — 6 — 1 containing the name, job title, department, work location, telephone 2 number, and home address of all employees in the bargaining unit 3 at least every 90 days, unless more frequent or more detailed lists 4 are required by an agreement with the exclusive representative. 5 The information under this section shall be provided in a manner 6 consistent with paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 6254.3. 7 The information under this section shall be provided in a manner 8 consistent with Section 6207 for any employee who is a participant 9 in the address confidentiality program established pursuant to 10 Chapter 3.1 (commencing with Section 6205) of Division 7 of 11 Title 1. 12 3552. (a) Tris -(1) Except as specified in paragraph (2), this 13 chapter shall only apply to public employers subject to Chapter 14 10 (commencing with Section 3500), Chapter 10.3 (commencing 15 with Section 3512), Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540), 16 or Chapter 12 (commencing with Section 3560) of Division 4 of 17 Title 1, Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 71600) or Chapter 18 7.5 (commencing with Section 71800) of Title 8 of this code, or 19 Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 99560) of Part 11 of Division 20 10 of the Public Utilities Code. 21 (2) This chapter does not apply to public employers with respect 22 to in-home supportive services providers who are covered by 23 Section 12301.25 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. 24 (b) For purposes of this chapter: 25 (1) "Newly hired public employee" means any employee, 26 whether permanent, temporary, full time, or part time, hired by a 27 public employer, to which this chapter applies, and who is still 28 employed as of the date of the new hire orientation. 29 (2) "Exclusive representative" means the exclusive 30 representative or recognized employee organization for the 31 bargaining unit. 32 (c) The Public Employment Relations Board shall have 33 jurisdiction over violations of this chapter. The powers and duties 34 of the board described in Section 3541.3 shall apply, as appropriate, 35 to this chapter. 36 SEC. 2. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to 37 Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because 38 the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school 39 district under this act would result from a legislative mandate that 95 — 7 — AB 2835 1 is within the scope of paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 2 3 of Article I of the California Constitution. 3 However, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that 4 this act contains other costs mandated by the state, reimbursement 5 to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made 6 pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 7 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code. 0 95 FACSIMILE COVER SHEET CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 221 WEST PINE STREET - P.O. BOX 3006 LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910 PHONE (209) 333-6702 FAX (209) 333-6807 cityclrk@,lodigov or pfarris@Iodi.gov DATE: August 26, 2016 FROM: Pamela M. Farris Deputy City Clerk TO: Assemblymember Jim Cooper, 916-319-2109 Senator Cathleen Galgiani, 916-651-4905 Camille Wagner, Legislative Secretary 916-558-3177 COMMENTS: Attached please find the Notice of Opposition for AB 2835 (Cooper) — Orientations and Informational Programs THIS TRANSMITTAL CONTAINS 4 PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET. forms\aafaxjen.doc 08/26/2016 FRI 09:15 FAX 2001 *************************** *** FAX MULTI TX REPORT *** *************************** JOB NO. 0669 DEPT. ID 101 PGS. 4 TX INCOMPLETE TRANSACTION OK 919163192109 919166514905 919165583177 ERROR FACSIMILE COVER SHEET CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 221 WEST PINE STREET - P.O. BOX 3006 LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910 PHONE (209) 333-6702 FAX (209) 333-6807 4ilyc1rk(c lodi.gg_y or p Arris(,+ #,lids. ay DATE: August 26, 2016 FROM: Pamela M. Farris Deputy City Clerk TO: Assemblymember Jim Cooper, 916-319-2109 Senator Cathleen Galgiani, 916-651-4905 Camille Wagner, Legislative Secretary 916-558-3177 COMMENTS: Attached please find the Notice of Opposition for AB 2835 (Cooper) — Orientations and Informational Programs THIS TRANSMITTAL CONTAINS 4 PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET. CITY COUNCIL MARK CHANDLER, Mayor DOUG KUEHNE, Mayor Pro Tempore BOB JOHNSON JOANNE MOUNCE ALAN NAKANISHI CITY OF LODI CITY HALL, 221 WEST PINE STREET P.O. BOX 3006 LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910 (209) 333-6702 / FAX (209) 333-6807 www.ladi.gov citvclerk@lodi.gov August 26, 2016 STEPHEN SCHWABAUER City Manager JENNIFER M. FERRAIOLO City Clerk JANICE D. MAGDICH City Attorney Honorable Jim Cooper Member, California State Assembly State Capitol, Room 5158 Sacramento, CA 95814 FAX: 916-319-2109 RE: Assembly Sill 2835 (Cooper) — Orientations and Informational Programs Notice of Opposition (As amended August 19, 2016) Dear Assembly Member Cooper: The City of Lodi strongly opposes AB 2835 (Cooper), legislation that would place numerous new requirements in statute pertaining to mandatory employee orientations. AB 2835 would create serious legal, logistical, fiscal, and administrative issues for cities that would displace our employees and threaten fundamental management rights. We oppose the bill for the following reasons: • Requires public employers to provide all newly -hired employees an orientation within four months of the time of hiring. Cities provide comprehensive and educational orientations for our employees, even weekly in many cases, due to the magnitude of hiring taking place. However, AB 2835 does not define "orientation" — if an orientation were to be interpreted as an employer simply meeting with a new employee to provide them relevant employment information, the accompanying provisions of the bill (specifically the 30 -minute presentations by the exclusive employee representative during the first half of the orientation) would place public agencies in an ever -constant mode of orienting new employees. • Requires, for represented employees, the exclusive representative to be provided 30 minutes, within the first half of the orientation, to make a presentation. Local governments currently provide time to employee representatives to meet with their members. That may be in the form of release time or collectively negotiated in an MOU/MA. While we understand that employee representatives may be concerned that if they are scheduled at the end of the employer orientation their members will not be motivated to stay for their presentation, this narrow scheduling requirement puts an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental management right of how employee orientations are timed and conducted. As amended, AB 2835 continues to contain a lack of clarity as to whether each exclusive bargaining unit would address members for 30 minutes. Many of our agencies have as many as 10 to 15 bargaining units; this would result in a significant length of time being needed to allow for the employee representative -provided section of a new employee orientation. Moreover, a new employee orientation is the City's time to provide information about how our employees can provide quality service to the public and while upholding the public's trust to accomplish their work. To divert this time to employee union, whose focus is not the public, but the City as an employer, is counter to the message being delivered to new employees. If information to their members is an issue, labor unions need to negotiate a provision in each of their MOLL/MA that allows them to provide such information. • Requires orientations to be conducted in-person, during "work hours." The employee representative of each bargaining unit must be given at least 10 days advance notice of any orientation provided by the employer. Recent amendments to AB 2835 continue to require that these orientations be conducted in-person during work hours. For cities that employ those in public safety (emergency dispatch, maintenance and operations, corrections), there is no "regular work day." Additionally, there are fixed -post staffing requirements (the position must be filled 24 hours per day, seven days per week, and 365 days per year) that lead to most local agencies paying overtime to employees in these positions to attend orientation when they are not working. Other local government employees (such as janitorial staff) work swing or graveyard shifts. Accordingly, it would be a major administrative burden for our agencies to ensure such orientations happen on a regular work day without seriously jeopardizing our ability to manage employee schedules. Many local government agencies cover large geographic areas, with dozens of worksites within their boundaries. Cost and logistical issues, as well as major advances in technology, have resulted in many of our larger cities conducting new employee orientations online. This proposal would eradicate that cost-effective and environmentally - friendly process for our members, placing the logistical burden on not only current staff but also those new employees entering public service. The "one -size fits all" requirements of AB 2835 would inevitably result in a loss of productivity, efficiency, as well as increase costs by making it impossible to utilize online technology in order to conduct orientations and training. Under AB 2835, cities would have to provide the staff that presents at our employee orientations (human resources, Equal Employment Opportunity staff, staff participating in collective bargaining for the agency, etc.) overtime, travel pay, possibly lodging and shift differential in order to meet the requirement that the orientation be conducted in-person. Further, the requirement of employers having to provide at least 10 days' notice to each bargaining unit representative of an upcoming orientation places unworkable administrative requirements on public agencies that are unwarranted, at best. Public agencies cannot account for unforeseen circumstances, such as needing to delay an orientation due to the extension of a background check. • Requires public employers to provide the exclusive representative with the name, job title, department, work location, telephone number, and home address of any newly -hired employee within 30 days of that employee's date of hire (or by the first pay period of the month following hire). Further, requires employers to provide an exclusive representative with a list containing the name, job title, department, work location, telephone number, and home address of all employees in the bargaining unit at least every 90 days. Providing such information violates provisions of the Public Records Act, which exempt the disclosure of records for recipients of certain benefits under the California Welfare and Institutions Code. While we appreciate the exemption for public safety officers and those victims of domestic violence, this proposal should allow public agencies to utilize the Public Records Act balancing test (Government Code §6254.5) when determining whether providing such records to employee organizations would violate our employees' right to privacy. In conclusion, AB 2835 would pose major burdens upon our public agencies that would slow the government process and disrupt the critical services that we provide to our residents. Employee organizations currently have the ability to bargain over the subject of participation in employee orientations and there have been no examples presented by the bill's proponents to justify a statewide mandate for employee organization -provided orientations that meet these stringent requirements. For these reasons, the City of Lodi opposes AB 2835 (Cooper). Sincerely, 114n4 ekundtct Mark Chandler Mayor, City of Lodi cc: Senator Cathleen Galgiani, Fax: (916) 651-4905 Camille Wagner, Legislative Secretary, Office of Governor Edmond G. Brown Jr.; Fax: (916) 558-3177 Stephen Qualls, League of California Cities, scualls(acacities.orq Meg Desmond, League of California Cities, mdesmond@cacities.orn