Home | News Items |
May 2025 Board Decisions Summary
In May 2025, the Board issued nine decisions. The decision descriptions and dispositions are below.
Employer: City and County of San Francisco
Case No. SF-CE-2075-M
Issued date: May 6, 2025
Non-Precedential
Description: Charging Party Service Employees International Union, Local 1021 (SEIU) alleged that Respondent City and County of San Francisco violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) by (1) investigating SEIU Union shop steward and Chapter President Brenda Barros in retaliation for her participation in a YouTube video where she made statements criticizing the City’s Department of Public Health (DPH); and (2) by the same conduct, interfering with SEIU’s and Barros’ rights. After a hearing and closing briefing, the ALJ found that the City retaliated against Barros and interfered with the exercise of employee rights guaranteed by the MMBA, thereby violating MMBA sections 3505 and 3506.5(a). As a remedy, the ALJ ordered, among other things, that the City inform SEIU and Barros in writing that it deemed the employee complaints about Barros’ video to have been formally withdrawn. Both SEIU and the City filed exceptions to the proposed decision. SEIU sought attorneys fees and costs in its exceptions. The City excepted to the ALJ’s finding that its investigation violated the MMBA and that it withdraw employee complaints about the video.
Disposition: The Board affirmed the proposed decision with a modification to the remedial order removing the requirement that the City deem the employee complaints withdrawn. The Board declined to award SEIU attorney fees and costs.
Employer: Conejo Valley Unified School District
Case No. LA-CE-6901-E
Issued date: May 13, 2025
Non-Precedential
Description: Charging Party Dianna Nunes asked the Board to reconsider its decision in Conejo Valley Unified School District (2025) PERB Decision No. 2949 (Conejo). In Conejo, the Board denied Nunes’ appeal from the dismissal of her charge by PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC).
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board denied Nunes’ request for reconsideration. Nunes’ request failed on procedural grounds, as precedent disallows a request to reconsider a Board decision resolving an appeal from an OGC dismissal. (Berkeley Federation of Teachers, Local 1078 (Crowell) (2015) PERB Decision No. 2405a, pp. 12‑14.)
Employer/Organization: San Diego Unified School District and San Diego Education Association
Case Nos. LA-CE-6970-E and LA-CO-1888-E
Issued date: May 15, 2025
Non-Precedential
Description: PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC) dismissed a charge filed by Charging Party Michelle F. Wolff, alleging that Respondent San Diego Unified School District violated unspecified sections of the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA) by failing to provide satisfactory classroom conditions and by not reelecting her for service. OGC dismissed the charge because Wolff did not allege facts sufficient to state a prima facie case of an EERA violation. In a separate case, OGC dismissed a charge filed by Wolff alleging that her union, the San Diego Education Association, CTA/NEA, violated the EERA because she failed to state a prima facie case of an EERA violation in that case as well.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board consolidated the two cases and affirmed OGC’s dismissal of each charge.
Employer: Stockton Unified School District
Case No. SA-CE-3144-E
Issued date: May 15, 2025
Precedential
Description: Laureen Thompson alleged that her employer, Stockton Unified School District violated EERA by miscalculating her leave benefits, placing her on the 39-month reemployment list, and refusing to return Thompson to her former position. Her unfair practice charge centered around a grievance challenging the District’s actions, which exclusive representative California School Employees Association pursued to arbitration. PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC) dismissed the charge, as amended, because (1) Thompson lacked standing to seek repugnancy review of the arbitration decision or allege unilateral change violations; (2) the charge did not meet the repugnancy standard; and (3) Thompson’s allegations of retaliation were not timely. Thompson timely appealed the dismissal, reiterating her request for repugnancy review.
Disposition: In a precedential decision, the Board affirmed OGC’s dismissal of Thompson’s charge, but sought to clarify the procedural requirements for repugnancy. The Board found that repugnancy is not an independent basis for an unfair practice charge. Instead, repugnancy may only be alleged as a defense against pre- or post-arbitration deferral. Because the District did not seek deferral to the arbitration decision, the Board found it was unnecessary for OGC to consider the merits of Thompson’s repugnancy allegation. The Board also affirmed OGC’s conclusion that Thompson’s remaining claims are untimely and dismissed the charge without leave to amend.
Organization: California School Employees Association (Thompson)
Case Nos. SA-CO-671-E and SA-CO-672-E
Issued date: May 16, 2025
Non-Precedential
Description: In two unfair practice charges, Laureen Thompson alleged that California School Employees Association (CSEA) violated EERA by breaching its duty of fair representation when handling two of Thompson’s grievances against her employer, Stockton Unified School District. PERB’s Office of General Counsel (OGC) dismissed the charges, as amended, for failure to state a prima facie case and because Thompson lacked standing to seek repugnancy review of an arbitration decision regarding her grievance. Thompson timely filed appeals of both dismissals, reiterating claims made in each amended charge.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board consolidated Thompson’s charges and affirmed the dismissal of the charges without leave to amend.
Organization: Turlock Teachers Association (Ruiz)
Case No. SA-CO-674-E
Issued date: May 20, 2025
Non-Precedential
Description: Elias Ruiz alleged that his bargaining unit’s exclusive representative, Turlock Teachers Association, breached its duty of fair representation and discriminated against him and other employees who chose not to be members of the Association. Ruiz mainly alleged that the Association excluded him (and other non-members) from attending union meetings and voting whether to ratify labor agreements, and that these exclusions adversely impacted his relationship with the District. PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC) dismissed Ruiz’s charge, finding that he failed to state a claim of any EERA violation. Among other considerations, OGC noted it is well-settled that a union may exclude non-members from a contract ratification vote.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed OGC’s dismissal. The Board further noted that Ruiz misinterprets the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31 (2018) 585 U.S. 878 (Janus). Janus did not overrule precedent holding that a union may exclude non-members from voting as long as the union provides non-members with an opportunity to communicate their views, nor did it alter the requirement that a charging party must allege facts showing that the union’s alleged discrimination constituted adverse action and impacted the employer-employee relationship.
Organization: City of San Bernardino (Municipal Water Department)
Case No. LA-CE-1613-M
Issued date: May 22, 2025
Non-Precedential
Description: International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 47 (IBEW) filed an unfair practice charge against the City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department (Department), alleging that the Department violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) when it interfered with protected rights, violated its duty of strict neutrality in a representation dispute between two employee organizations, and retaliated against a key IBEW supporter. IBEW also accused the Department of violating the PEDD. Following a formal hearing, a PERB Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed the retaliation charge but determined that the Department violated the MMBA and PEDD by interfering with protected activity and violating its duty of strict neutrality. The Department filed exceptions, which IBEW opposed. IBEW filed no exceptions of its own.
Disposition: While exceptions were pending, the Department and IBEW informed PERB that they had reached a settlement of the dispute. The Department later requested to withdraw its exceptions, and IBEW requested to withdraw the portion of its charge alleging that the Department violated the PEDD. In a non-precedential decision, the Board granted the parties’ requests. Because the only exceptions in the matter related to the ALJ’s determination that the Department violated the PEDD, the remaining portions of the proposed decision, including the ALJ’s dismissal of the retaliation charge and the determination that the Department violated sections 3502, 3503, 3506.5(a), (b), and (d) of the MMBA, remain final and binding on the parties.
Employer: Pomona Unified School District
Case No. LA-CO-1876-E
Issued date: May 27, 2025
Precedential
Description: Pomona Unified School District filed a complaint against Associated Pomona Teachers (APT) in superior court, alleging a breach of contract and seeking to enforce contractual provisions requiring APT to reimburse the District for the cost of hiring a teacher to replace APT’s President in the classroom. The superior court, finding that it had concurrent jurisdiction with PERB, stayed the lawsuit pending litigation before PERB. The District then filed an unfair practice charge. PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC) found the District’s charge alleged a prima facie case that APT unilaterally deviated from the status quo, but OGC nonetheless dismissed the charge as untimely. The District’s appeal did not challenge OGC’s conclusion that the charge was untimely, but rather asked the Board to reverse OGC’s determination that its charge stated a prima facie case. The District premised this position on its belief that such a ruling would give it an advantage in its breach of contract lawsuit.
Disposition: The Board, exercising its discretion to consider the District’s argument even though it would not impact the outcome, affirmed OGC’s dismissal. The Board first summarized the interplay between superior court jurisdiction and PERB jurisdiction. Normally, PERB has exclusive initial jurisdiction whenever the conduct at issue is arguably prohibited or arguably protected under a PERB-enforced labor relations statute, even if a party chooses to challenge such conduct in court by alleging claims that do not sound in any labor relations statute. However, under a partial exception applicable here, PERB’s jurisdiction is concurrent rather than exclusive if the conduct at issue arguably breached a collective bargaining agreement while also constituting arguably prohibited or arguably protected conduct under a PERB-enforced labor relations statute. The Board then reviewed OGC’s determination de novo and affirmed that the conduct alleged in the charge, if proven, would constitute a unilateral change. The Board found no cause to disturb OGC’s determination that the District’s charge was untimely, as the District did not challenge that determination.
Employer: City of Torrance
Case No. LA-CE-1723-M
Issued date: May 30, 2025
Non-Precedential
Description: Charging Party American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees Local 1117 (AFSCME) filed an unfair practice charge alleging that Respondent City of Torrance violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act by unilaterally changing various terms and conditions of employment. Following its investigation, PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC) issued a partial dismissal letter dismissing AFSCME’s allegations that the City unilaterally ceased placing hire dates on employee identification badges, and unilaterally changed its practices around providing probation memoranda to new hires. OGC determined that neither action was within the scope of representation, and that AFSCME failed to allege sufficient facts as to the probation memorandum allegation. AFSCME appealed.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board reversed OGC’s partial dismissal and remanded to OGC to issue an amended complaint.