City of Compton (PERB A506M)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
CITY OF COMPTON,
Employer,
and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE,
COUNTY & MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES
LOCAL 3947,
Exclusive Representative.
Case No. LA-IM-324-M
PERB Order No. Ad-506-M
November 6, 2023
Appearances: Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Rudd & Romo by Jabari Willis, Attorney, for
City of Compton; Rothner, Segall & Greenstone by Daniel B. Rojas, Attorney, for
American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees Local 3947.
Before Banks, Chair; Krantz and Paulson, Members.
DECISION
PAULSON, Member: This case is 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.1
1 The MMBA is codified at Government Code section 3500 et seq. All further
statutory references are to the Government Code. PERB Regulations are codified at
California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 31001 et seq.

2
Having reviewed the record, we agree with OGC that AFSCME’s factfinding
request must be granted. We therefore affirm the administrative determination for the
reasons set forth below.
BACKGROUND
AFSCME is the exclusive representative of a bargaining unit that includes the
City’s “White Collar, Technical employees.” The City and AFSCME are parties to a
memorandum of agreement (MOA) that expired on June 30, 2019. The parties began
successor MOA 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.2 On June 1, the City advised AFSCME that it
believed the parties had not reached an impasse and that AFSCME had
inappropriately rejected proposals on nine outstanding articles because of a dispute
over one article, compensation. The City also offered additional dates to bargain over
those outstanding articles.
On June 1, AFSCME filed its request with PERB for MMBA factfinding. On
June 2, AFSCME filed a copy of the May 31 e-mail message to the City declaring
impasse in the parties’ MOA negotiations. On June 5, the City opposed AFSCME’s
factfinding request, asserting that the parties had not yet reached impasse, and
therefore, the request was inappropriate and premature. The City also made several
related arguments, including that impasse refers to an overall deadlock in negotiations
rather than a deadlock on just one out of multiple issues subject to bargaining.
2 All further dates are in 2023.

3
AFSCME did not file a response. On June 8, OGC issued its administrative
determination approving AFSCME’s factfinding request. On June 16, the City filed its
appeal of the administrative determination, again asserting that though the factfinding
request was timely, it was insufficient because the parties are not actually at impasse.3
ASFCME filed its opposition to the appeal on June 21.
DISCUSSION
MMBA section 3505.4, subdivision (a) provides, in relevant part:
“The employee organization may request that the parties’
differences be submitted to a factfinding panel not sooner
than 30 days, but not more than 45 days, following the
appointment or selection of a mediator pursuant to the
parties’ agreement to mediate or a mediation process
required by a public agency’s local rules. If the dispute was
not submitted to mediation, an employee organization may
request that the parties’ differences be submitted to a
factfinding panel not later than 30 days following the date
that either party provided the other with a written notice of a
declaration of impasse.”
PERB Regulation 32802, implementing section 3505.4, provides:
“(a) An exclusive representative may request that the
parties’ differences be submitted to a factfinding panel. The
request shall be accompanied by a statement that the
parties have been unable to effect a settlement. Such a
request may be filed:
“(1) Not sooner than 30 days, but not more than 45 days,
following the appointment or selection of a mediator
pursuant either to the parties’ agreement to mediate or a
3 Concurrent with its appeal of the administrative determination on June 16, the
City filed a request to stay proceedings pending the Board’s determination on the
appeal. AFSCME filed its opposition to the request for stay the same day. The Board
denied the stay request on June 19.

4
mediation process required by a public agency’s local rules;
or
“(2) If the dispute was not submitted to mediation, not later
than 30 days following the date that either party provided
the other with written notice of a declaration of 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).)
It is undisputed that AFSCME gave the City a written declaration of impasse on
May 31 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).4 The
4 There is no indication that either party initiated a mediation process.

5
City contends, however, that PERB should have denied AFSCME’s factfinding request
as premature because the parties were not actually at impasse.
In support of this argument, the City cites to County of Contra Costa (2014)
PERB Order No. Ad-410-M (Contra Costa), for the proposition that PERB has
determined that “[i]mplicitly contained within the authority to determine whether the
request is sufficient is the jurisdiction to also assess whether the request is properly
before [PERB], i.e. whether the conditions precedent to a valid request for fact-finding
exist.” (Id. at p. 11.) The City does not further explain how this precedent supports its
appeal. We find that it does not.5
The pertinent question in Contra Costa, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-410-M, was
one of jurisdiction; the Board ultimately concluded that the MMBA’s factfinding
procedures apply to any bargaining impasse over negotiable terms and conditions of
employment, and not only to impasses over new or successor memoranda of
understanding. (Id. at p. 3.) Contra Costa specifically noted that resolving this question
did not involve any alleged violation of the MMBA. (Id. at pp. 12-13.) In contrast,
issues of whether a party bargained in bad faith, including whether a party properly
declared impasse, must be decided through unfair practice proceedings.6 (See City of
5 The City also argues that its appeal is further supported by the requirement in
PERB Regulation 32802, subdivision (a) that a factfinding request “be accompanied
by a statement that the parties have been unable to effect a settlement.” We find this
requirement easily met by AFSCME’s impasse declaration, issued to the City on
May 31 and filed with PERB on June 2.
6 On June 13, the City filed an unfair practice charge, PERB Case
No. LA-CO-280-M, alleging that AFSCME’s negotiations conduct, including its
impasse declaration, constitutes a failure to bargain in good faith. OGC issued a
complaint on July 28, and on August 14 AFSCME answered the complaint, denying

6
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 fails to establish any reason Contra Costa suggests a
different result.
Because AFSCME filed its factfinding request with PERB the day after
declaring impasse, and the next day filed a copy of its impasse declaration, OGC
correctly concluded that the request was timely under MMBA section 3505.4 and
PERB Regulation 32802 and procedurally proper.
ORDER
The appeal of the City of Compton is DENIED and the administrative
determination in Case No. LA-IM-324-M is affirmed.
Chair Banks and Member Krantz joined in this Decision.
the substantive allegations. As of this writing, that matter remains pending.