Court reverses PERB’s continued troubling involvement on police reform

In a recent decision, the California Court of Appeal partially corrected the Public Employment Relations Board’s (PERB) egregiously misguided decision striking down most of a voter initiative strengthening Sonoma’s Independent Office of Law Enforcement Review and Outreach (IOLERO). It missed the most important issue, however. By statute, PERB has no jurisdiction over matters involving peace officers, and by temperament and experience, it has no business wading into those matters.

Background

Let’s start with the basics. In November 2020, the Sonoma Board of Supervisors placed a measure on the ballot to enhance the investigative and oversight authority of IOLERO. It did so without meeting and conferring. Generally, for matters within the scope of bargaining, the California Supreme Court has long required that public agencies meet and confer (negotiate) before placing measures on the ballot that affect bargainable terms and conditions of employment.

The union complained to PERB. By statute, the board’s jurisdiction “shall not apply to persons who are peace officers.” Peace officer organizations have often tried to amend that language but have not succeeded. In a 2019 decision, however, PERB incredibly concluded that even though it has no jurisdiction over peace officers, it has jurisdiction over complaints made by organizations representing peace officers on behalf of peace officers. This is pure sophistry.

Police reform and bargaining