Home | News Items |
January 2025 Board Decisions Summary
In January 2025, the Board issued six decisions. The decision descriptions and dispositions are below.
Employer: City of Fresno
Case No. SA-CE-1206-M
Issued date: January 10, 2025
Non-Precedential
Description: Charging Party Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1027 (ATU), alleged that Respondent City of Fresno violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act when it eliminated on-site parking for employees at the City’s Fresno Area Express Administration Building due to a capital improvement project on that site. During the parking lot closure, provided free off-site parking and shuttle services. ATU argued that the City failed or refused to negotiate in good faith over the effects of its decision to eliminate on-site parking, and that employees were entitled to be paid for the approximately 15 minutes they spent on shuttles from the off-site parking location to the worksite. Following a formal hearing, the Administrative Law Judge dismissed all of ATU’s allegations. ATU filed exceptions.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed the ALJ’s dismissal of the complaint and underlying unfair practice charge.
Employer: County of Santa Clara
Case No. SF-CE-2114-M
Issued date: January 21, 2025
Non-Precedential
Description: Glenda Diseth alleged that her former employer, the County of Santa Clara, violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) by unilaterally changing its sick leave conversion policy and interfering with and retaliating against protected activity. PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC) dismissed the amended charge, citing Diseth’s lack of standing to allege a unilateral change violation and failure to state a prima facie case of an MMBA violation with respect to the interference and discrimination claims. Diseth appealed the dismissal.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed OGC’s dismissal.
Employer: Long Beach Unified School District
Case No. LA-CE-6818-E
Issued date: January 23, 2025
Non-Precedential
Description: The complaint alleged that the Long Beach Unified School District violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA) when it unilaterally approved a reduction in assigned time for three employees without providing California School Employees Association, Chapter 2 (CSEA) prior notice and an opportunity to negotiate the decision and/or the effects of the decision. Additionally, the complaint alleged that by the same conduct, the District engaged in bad faith bargaining and interfered with protected employee and organizational rights, further in violation of EERA. After a formal hearing, the ALJ sustained a unilateral change violation and dismissed the bad faith bargaining and effects bargaining claims. The District filed exceptions.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed the proposed decision. The Board found that the parties’ collective bargaining agreement did not treat reductions in time as a subset of layoffs (for which there is no decision bargaining duty), and the District was therefore required to bargain with CSEA over the reductions in time.
Employer: City and County of San Francisco (San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency)
Case No. SF-CE-2138-M
Issued date: January 23, 2025
Non-Precedential
Description: Reginald Rogers alleged that his employer, the City and County of San Francisco (San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency) (SFMTA), violated the MMBA and various sections of the Labor Code, Government Code, and Civil Code by wrongfully terminating him. PERB’s Office of General Counsel (OGC) dismissed the charge, as amended, for failure to state a prima facie case of an MMBA violation and because PERB lacks jurisdiction over Rogers’ claims that SFMTA violated various other code sections. On appeal, Rogers reiterated his previous claims that he established a prima facie violation.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed the dismissal of Rogers’ charge without leave to amend.
Employer: Rocklin Unified School District
Case No. SA-CE-3136-E
Issued date: January 28, 2025
Precedential
Description: The Rocklin Unified School District (District) amended their parental rights and nondiscrimination/harassment administrative regulations to require Rocklin Teachers Professional Association (RTPA) members to notify a student’s parents within 3 days of their transgender or gender-nonconforming status. RTPA became aware of this change when the District posted the agenda for an upcoming District School Board meeting. RTPA demanded to bargain. The District responded by providing dates to bargain the impact of the change. RTPA then changed its position and demanded that the District retract the policy because it was unlawful. PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC) issued a complaint, alleging that the District violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA) by unilaterally changing the District’s administrative regulations without affording RTPA adequate advance notice and opportunity to bargain. At hearing, the ALJ took administrative notice of a superior court injunction against Chino Valley Unified School District to prevent its similar policy from being implemented; the Attorney General’s legal alert stating such policies violated discrimination laws; and the CA Department of Education’s determination that the District’s policy violated Education Code 200. The ALJ found in favor of RTPA, holding, among other things, that the District’s revised policy violated external law and was an illegal subject of bargaining and could not be included in a collective bargaining agreement; thus, not requiring RTPA to bargain the effects of the policy. The District was ordered to rescind the policy, cease and desist, and post a notice. The District appealed.
Disposition: The Board found that the District committed an unfair practice when it: (1) amended its administrative regulations without first giving RTPA notice and the opportunity to bargain over the policy change; and (2) premised its agreement to bargain effects and implementation of the policy on changes that violate the California Constitution and state law, thereby engaging in a per se violation of its duty to bargain effects in good faith. Although typically, PERB remedies also include directing the respondent to begin or resume bargaining in good faith and to return to a prior bargaining position, the Board did not do so in this case. Here, the District’s decision to adopt the new policy was non-negotiable because those amendments are unlawful under state law. As such, the District’s demand that RTPA bargain over the effects of a non-negotiable decision was unlawful, and the Board did not order the parties to bargain over the effects of the unlawful decision. Accordingly, the District ordered that the District rescind the new policy and comply with the additional requirements in PERB’s remedial order.
Employer: Trustees of the California State University (Stanislaus)
Case No. SA-CE-427-H
Issued date: January 31, 2025
Precedential
Description: California State University Employees Union (CSUEU) filed a request for information with the California State University, Stanislaus, to obtain a copy of a report of investigation concerning allegations of harassment by a peace officer against a CSUEU-represented employee. The University refused to provide a copy of the report, citing laws deeming peace officer personnel records to be confidential. The University further refused to meet and confer with CSUEU to address confidentiality concerns. CSUEU filed an unfair practice charge alleging that the University’s “flat refusal” of its request violated the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA). PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC) dismissed the charge. CSUEU appealed.
Disposition: The Board held that HEERA must be interpreted to provide the same level of confidentiality and procedural safeguards for peace officer personnel records that the Legislature established with the Pitchess statutes, a set of discovery statutes permitting limited disclosure of covered records. These include but are not limited to notification to the affected peace officer, establishing relevance and materiality of the records, and in camera review by a hearing officer. These safeguards are available in an arbitration or unfair practice proceeding, but not in a pre-dispute information request where no hearing officer has been assigned. Therefore, the Board held that meeting and conferring over CSUEU’s request for information, on the facts of this case, would have been futile, and affirmed OGC’s dismissal of the charge.