Total Articles: 9
California Governor Signs New Collective Bargaining Law Requiring Factfinding Procedures for Impasse Resolution for Public Sector Employers Covered by the MMBA
On October 9, 2011, California Governor Jerry Brown signed AB 646, which amends the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) to require certain public sector employers to submit their differences with a labor organization representing their employees to a "factfinding panel" for impasse resolution. The new law allows an employer covered by the MMBA to implement its "last, best, and final offer" after the parties' respective positions over wages, benefits and other terms and conditions of employment have been presented to the panel, the panel's findings and recommendations have been made public and a public hearing has been held on the impasse.
Court of Appeal: Union Representing County Employees Entitled to Contact Information of Non-Union Members
To facilitate union organizing and collective bargaining, the union representing LA county employees wanted the county to disclose the names and addresses of employees who opted not to be represented by the union. These employees paid an "agency" fee, lower than union dues, but were not full fledged members.
California Supreme Court to Address Injunction Standards for On-Site Labor Activity
The California Supreme Court will address whether certain California statutes, which set strict standards for obtaining injunctions against labor unions, violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution because they afford preferential treatment to speech concerning labor disputes.
Appellate Court Decision Permits California Employers to Ban Unions from Picketing on Most Private Property.
A ruling this week by a California Court of Appeal will enable California employers and commercial property owners to keep unions off their property and to distance themselves from union demonstrations. This new decision is Ralphs Grocery Company v. United Food And Commercial Workers Union Local 8, decided Monday, July 19, 2010. It can be found at http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C060413.PDF.
California Court of Appeals Declares State Labor Picketing Laws Unconstitutional.
In a case that will significantly impact unions' ability to picket in California, the California Court of Appeals has struck down as unconstitutional two state laws that restricted the ability of employers to enjoin conduct on their property if the conduct relates to a labor dispute. Specifically, the Court found that the Moscone Act and California Labor Code section 1138.1 unconstitutionally favor speech related to a labor dispute over other speech and therefore violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT CURTAILS UNIONS’ RIGHT TO USE OFFENSIVE LAWSUITS AS ORGANIZING TOOL.
A new union organizing tactic is the offensive use of the courts to gain favor with prospective members. The union will sue an employer on behalf of the employees that the union wishes to organize. The unions figure that if they can show the employees that they will fight for them, then perhaps the employees will return the favor by joining up with the union.
California Supreme Court Holds that California Constitution Allows Union to Urge Mall Customers to Boycott Store.
In Fashion Valley Mall, LLC v. National Labor Relations Board (12/24/07), the California Supreme Court held that the right to free speech granted in the California Constitution gives a union the right to urge customers in a shopping mall to boycott one of the stores in the mall.
A Corporation Is Not Liable For Actions of An Out-of-State Corporation Even If They Share A Majority of Shareholders (scroll down).
In District Council No. 16 v. B & B Glass, the Ninth Circuit held that a union could not hold a corporation liable under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) for the actions of another entity where the corporation had no control or ownership over the other entity.
Employee Not Barred From Bringing Job Bias Claim After Filing Grievance Under Union Contract.
In Ortega v. Contra Costa Community College Dist., the California Court of Appeal has held that a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) grievance procedure will not eliminate an individual’s right to pursue his claim for employment discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) in court, unless there is a “clear and unmistakable” waiver of this right in the CBA, and the procedures of the arbitration allow for “full litigation and fair adjudication of the FEHA claim.”
