California 2013-2014 Regular Session Status: In Committee

SB 423 — Public transportation employees: strikes: prohibition.

Last action — Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. 2
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Senate
  4. 4
    Passed Assembly
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2013-2014 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

Existing law prescribes procedures governing disputes between exclusive bargaining representatives of public transportation employees and local agencies, and authorizes the Governor, when it appears a strike will significantly disrupt transportation services and endanger public health, safety, and welfare, to appoint a board to investigate issues in connection with these labor negotiations and make a report. Existing law prohibits a strike during the period of investigation and permits the Governor, upon receiving a report from a board of investigation, to request the Attorney General to petition a court to enjoin the strike, as specified. This bill would repeal those provisions that authorize the Governor to appoint a board to investigate when it appears a strike will significantly disrupt transportation services, prohibit a strike during the period of investigation, and that authorize the Governor to request the Attorney General to petition a court to enjoin the strike. The bill would instead prohibit a state or local public transportation employee or public transportation employee organization from engaging in, causing, instigating, encouraging, or condoning a strike. The bill would also provide that a person who, on behalf of a public transportation employer, exercises authority, supervision, or direction over a public transportation employee shall not have the power to, and shall not purport to, authorize, approve, condone, or consent to a strike by a public transportation employee. The bill would establish a process for a public transportation employee to object to a determination by the chief executive officer of the public transportation employer that he or she violated these provisions by filing a sworn affidavit under penalty of perjury, thus expanding the definition of a crime. The bill would require the chief executive officer, if he or she determines that the objection raises a question of fact that if resolved in favor of the employee would establish that the employee did not commit the violation, to appoint an officer to conduct a hearing on the matter at which the employee would bear the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she did not commit the violation, as specified. The bill would require the Public Employment Relations Board to hold a hearing to determine whether an employee organization violated these provisions, and would require the employer and the employee organization to be permitted to be represented by counsel. The bill would provide that a public transportation employee who violates these provisions is subject to removal or other disciplinary action, and would authorize the chief financial officer of the employer to deduct from the compensation of a public transportation employee found to have violated these provisions an amount equal to twice his or her daily rate of pay for each day or part thereof that it was determined that he or she violated these provisions. The bill would also require the board, if it determines that an employee organization violated these provisions, to order forfeiture of specified rights granted by state law to recognized employee organizations. The bill would also require the chief executive officer of the employer, within 60 days of the end of a strike, to prepare a written report, to be made public, that contains specified information regarding the circumstances surrounding the strike, the names of those public transit employees who the chief executive officer has reason to believe were responsible for causing, instigating, or encouraging the strike, and the sanctions imposed or proceedings pending against those employees. Because the bill would expand the definition of a crime and require local officers to perform additional duties, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

  2. Set, first hearing. Failed passage in committee. (Ayes 2. Noes 3. Page 2590.) Reconsideration granted.

  3. Set for hearing January 13.

  4. Re-referred to Com. on P.E. & R.

  5. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.

  6. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.

  7. Senate Rule 29.3(b) suspended. (Page 2432.)

  8. Referred to Com. on RLS.

  9. From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 24.

  10. Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

  • Conway · Cosponsor
  • Huff · Primary
  • Knight · Cosponsor
  • Nielsen · Cosponsor
  • Beth Gaines · Cosponsor
  • Bill Berryhill · Cosponsor

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 5 co-sponsors · 116 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

  • Huff

Co-sponsors (5)

Not signed on (116)

116 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 116 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Subjects

public-safety labor transportation
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does SB 423 do?
Existing law prescribes procedures governing disputes between exclusive bargaining representatives of public transportation employees and local agencies, and authorizes the Governor, when it appears a strike will significantly disrupt transportation services and endanger public health, safety, and welfare, to appoint a board to investigate issues in connection with these labor negotiations and make a report. Existing law prohibits a strike during the period of investigation and permits the Governor, upon receiving a report from a board of investigation, to request the Attorney General to petition a court to enjoin the strike, as specified. This bill would repeal those provisions that authorize the Governor to appoint a board to investigate when it appears a strike will significantly disrupt transportation services, prohibit a strike during the period of investigation, and that authorize the Governor to request the Attorney General to petition a court to enjoin the strike. The bill would instead prohibit a state or local public transportation employee or public transportation employee organization from engaging in, causing, instigating, encouraging, or condoning a strike. The bill would also provide that a person who, on behalf of a public transportation employer, exercises authority, supervision, or direction over a public transportation employee shall not have the power to, and shall not purport to, authorize, approve, condone, or consent to a strike by a public transportation employee. The bill would establish a process for a public transportation employee to object to a determination by the chief executive officer of the public transportation employer that he or she violated these provisions by filing a sworn affidavit under penalty of perjury, thus expanding the definition of a crime. The bill would require the chief executive officer, if he or she determines that the objection raises a question of fact that if resolved in favor of the employee would establish that the employee did not commit the violation, to appoint an officer to conduct a hearing on the matter at which the employee would bear the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she did not commit the violation, as specified. The bill would require the Public Employment Relations Board to hold a hearing to determine whether an employee organization violated these provisions, and would require the employer and the employee organization to be permitted to be represented by counsel. The bill would provide that a public transportation employee who violates these provisions is subject to removal or other disciplinary action, and would authorize the chief financial officer of the employer to deduct from the compensation of a public transportation employee found to have violated these provisions an amount equal to twice his or her daily rate of pay for each day or part thereof that it was determined that he or she violated these provisions. The bill would also require the board, if it determines that an employee organization violated these provisions, to order forfeiture of specified rights granted by state law to recognized employee organizations. The bill would also require the chief executive officer of the employer, within 60 days of the end of a strike, to prepare a written report, to be made public, that contains specified information regarding the circumstances surrounding the strike, the names of those public transit employees who the chief executive officer has reason to believe were responsible for causing, instigating, or encouraging the strike, and the sanctions imposed or proceedings pending against those employees. Because the bill would expand the definition of a crime and require local officers to perform additional duties, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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.
Who sponsors SB 423?
SB 423 is sponsored by Conway, Huff, Knight, Nielsen, Beth Gaines, and Bill Berryhill.
What is the current status of SB 423?
This bill died with 2013-2014 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track SB 423?
Track SB 423 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 423

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of SB 423

Last checked for changes 2 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →