As a rule that does not require a RFA, RAFA or JIS, this rule will be initially reviewed in the calendar year 2023, which is no later than the 5th year after the year in which this rule is being adopted.

PERB received one comment agreeing that an expedited process is needed and warranted, but expressing concern that the process does not start until after a conference is scheduled and asking for consideration of a priority system for scheduling the conference.

PERB does not believe a formal priority system for scheduling the conference is necessary, as PERB’s administrative law judges already schedule conferences based in part on the urgency of the matter before them.

PERB received one comment querying what topics are covered by the phrase “or related question” in the rule and specifically questioning whether the phrase would cover issues such as an employer ceasing the deduction of dues from current union members’ wages unless the union “re-proves” union membership.

PERB intends that the phrase “or related question” be interpreted broadly to include issues arising from or concerning the recent amendments to the Taylor Law from which the subjects explicitly stated in the rule were drawn. Thus, the issue raised by the commenter would fall within the scope of the rule.

PERB received one comment questioning why expedited review was necessary and stating that the party saw no reason why PERB’s normal processes should not apply. The commenter also suggested that PERB should specifically state what “related questions” would receive expedited treatment. The commenter suggested that the public should again have the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule after PERB enumerated the “related questions” that would receive expedited treatment.

PERB believes that expedited review is necessary for the reasons given in the notice of emergency/proposed rulemaking. PERB notes that the application of the expedited rule is limited to specific cases which in the discretion of both the director of employment practices and representation and the board require such treatment to prevent destabilization of collective bargaining relationships and/or to minimize harm to public employers, public employee organizations, their members, and non-members employed within the bargaining unit. In view of the lack of judicial precedent applying Janus v. AFSCME, 138 S.Ct. 2448 (2018), and the recent Taylor Law amendments, PERB believes that the flexibility of a standard is warranted as opposed to a rigid proscription that might prove to be inadequate in dealing with unanticipated consequences.