September 2023 Board Decisions Summary
In September 2023, the Board issued two decisions. The decision descriptions and dispositions are below.
Organization: Service Employees International Union Local 1000 (Williams)
Case No. SA-CO-520-S
Issued date: September 6, 2023
Non-Precedential
Description: Charging Party Youlanda Williams alleged that Respondent SEIU Local 1000 violated the Dills Act by breaching its duty of fair representation. PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC) issued Williams a warning letter, which Williams twice amended. Thereafter, OGC dismissed the charge for failure to allege a prima facie case of any unfair practice. On appeal, Williams claimed her charge stated a prima facie case that SEIU breached its duty of fair representation when it refused to (1) arbitrate her grievance regarding office temperature, and (2) represent her in an informal meeting regarding the same issue.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed OGC’s dismissal of the charge.
Organization: Trustees of the California State University (San Diego)
Case No. LA-CE-1358-H
Issued date: September 27, 2023
Non-Precedential
Description: Charging Party California State University Employees Union (CSUEU) alleged that the California State University (San Diego) (CSU) violated the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act by refusing to process bargaining unit employee Sherry Velthuysen’s Early Exit Program (EEP) application without providing CSUEU prior notice and an opportunity to bargain over the decision. Following a formal hearing, the ALJ sustained the allegations, finding that the CSU unilaterally changed a term or interpretation of the EEP when it denied Velthuysen’s application because of her involvement in a prior settlement agreement, a reason not contemplated in the program terms. CSU excepted to the ALJ’s finding of a violation; CSUEU opposed CSU’s exceptions and cross-excepted to non-determinative portions of the proposed decision.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed the proposed decision. The Board rejected the CSU’s claims that it did not change the status quo, instead finding that the CSU deviated from the terms of the EEP when it excluded individuals whose previously established retirement dates arose from a prior settlement agreement. The Board also found that CSU did not satisfy its burden to establish waiver, both and because it failed to plead a waiver defense in its Answer and the language CSU cited did not amount to a clear and unmistakable waiver.