Home | News Items |
July 2025 Board Decisions Summary
In July 2025, the Board issued ten decisions. The decision descriptions and dispositions are below.
Organization: Sacramento City Teachers Association, CTA/NEA
Case No. SA-CO-679-E
Issued date: July 2, 2025
Non-Precedential
Description: Charging Party Patrick Reilly filed an unfair practice charge alleging that Respondent Sacramento City Teachers Association, CTA/NEA (SCTA) violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA) by various conduct, including when it directed him to cease copying union representatives on certain e-mails, when two employees who were SCTA representatives filed complaints against Reilly with their employer, when SCTA failed or refused to assist Reilly in filing complaints against SCTA representatives, and by the manner in which SCTA represented Reilly during two investigatory interviews. PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC) dismissed the charge because it determined that some of Reilly’s allegations were untimely, and the others failed to state a prima facie case of a violation of EERA. Reilly appealed.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed OGC’s dismissal of the charge without leave to amend.
Employer: Lodi Unified School District
Case No. SA-UM-908-E
Issued date: July 3, 2025
Non-Precedential
Description: In a unit modification petition, the Lodi Unified School District sought to clarify whether the Administrative Assistant classification was included in a unit of classified employees employed at Joe Serna, Jr. Charter School and represented by California School Employees Association (CSEA). After its initial investigation of the petition, the Office of General Counsel (OGC) issued the District an Order to Show Cause why OGC should not deny the petition. After receiving responses from the District and CSEA, OGC issued an administrative determination (AD) finding no material issue of fact, warranting an evidentiary hearing and concluding that the District did not establish a basis for granting its petition. The District appealed AD.
Disposition: In a non-precedential order, the Board reversed the AD and remanded the petition to OGC for further processing.
Employer: Berkeley Unified School District
Case No. SF-CE-3556-E
Issued date: July 9, 2025
Non-Precedential
Description: Charging Party Berkeley Council of Classified Employees (BCCE) filed a request to reverse the non‑precedential designation of the Board’s decision in Berkeley Unified School District (2025) PERB Decision No. 2959 (Berkeley). Additionally, BCCE requested that the Board correct an apparent typographical error in the Order. Respondent Berkeley Unified School District opposed the request to reverse the non-precedential designation.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board granted in part BCCE’s request to reverse the non-precedential designation. The Board designated the Factual and Procedural Background, Parts I and II of the Discussion, the Order, and the Appendix of the decision in Berkeley as non-precedential. Part III of the Discussion is precedential. Additionally, the Board granted the request to correct the Order at page 23.
Employer: Fontana Unified School District
Case No. LA-CE-6900-E
Issued date: July 11, 2025
Non-Precedential
Description: Charging Party United Steelworkers Local 8599 (USW) alleged that Respondent Fontana Unified School District failed to pay certain employees overtime, in violation of the Education Code. The charge, as amended, did not allege a violation of the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA). PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC) dismissed the amended charge on the basis that PERB has no authority to enforce or order remedies for violations of the Education Code. Rather, PERB only interprets Education Code provisions when necessary to administer EERA or harmonize it with external law. USW appealed the dismissal.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed OGC’s dismissal.
Organization: Service Employees International Union Local 1021 (De Guzman)
Case No. SF-CO-536-M
Issued date: July 11, 2025
Non-Precedential
Description: Charging Party Albert De Guzman alleged that SEIU Local 1021 violated its duty of fair representation when: (1) it supported the decision of De Guzman’s employer, City and County of San Francisco, to change overtime procedure in a way that unfavorably impacted De Guzman; and (2) one of its representatives declined to help De Guzman file an unfair practice charge against SEIU. PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC) found that De Guzman did not state a prima facie case of any MMBA violation and accordingly dismissed the amended charge.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed OGC’s dismissal of the amended charge.
Employer: Hughson Unified School District
Case No. SA-CE-3181-E
Issued date: July 14, 2025
Precedential
Description: In Hughson Unified School District (2025) PERB Decision No. 2955 (Hughson), the Board affirmed a dismissal of an unfair practice charge by PERB’s Office of the General Counsel. Thereafter, Charging Party Cynthia Ruiz filed a document titled “Request for Judicial Review.” The Board’s Appeals Office accepted Ruiz’s filing as a request that the Board reconsider its decision in Hughson.
Disposition: The Board denied Ruiz’s request. First, EERA section 3542(a)(1) and PERB Regulation 32500 explain when it is possible to file a request for judicial review: a party dissatisfied with a final PERB unit determination may ask the Board to join in a request for judicial review. But these provisions do not apply in unfair practice cases. While the Appeals Office accepted Ruiz’s filing as a reconsideration request, there is no right to request reconsideration of a Board decision resolving a dismissal appeal. Rather, in such cases there is an extremely limited right to seek judicial review. Specifically, a dissatisfied charging party may file a superior court petition for writ of mandate only if: (1) the Board’s decision violated a constitutional right; (2) the Board exceeded its statutory powers; or (3) the Board’s decision was based on an erroneous statutory construction.
Employer: Regents of the University of California
Case No. SF-UM-930-H
Issued date: July 15, 2025
Precedential
Description: In Regents of the University of California (2025) PERB Order No. Ad-527-H (Regents), the Board dismissed four unit modification petitions filed by University Professional and Technical Employees, Communication Workers of America Local 9119 (UPTE) seeking to add certain titles, including those in the Health Educator series, to the patient care professional unit it represents at the University of California (UC). UPTE submitted no proof of support with its petitions. Then, a second union, Student Services and Advising Professionals – United Auto Workers (UAW), filed a request for recognition (Request) and proof of support seeking to represent a proposed bargaining unit of student services and advising professionals, including the title series at issue in UPTE’s petitions. PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC) determined that because of UAW’s Request, UPTE’s petitions required proof of at least 30 percent employee support, and OGC therefore dismissed the petitions. In Regents, the Board affirmed but afforded UPTE the opportunity to re-file as to any employees who remained unrepresented after PERB processed the Request. In the present case, UPTE filed a renewed unit modification petition (Renewed Petition) as to just one title series—the Health Educators. OGC dismissed the Renewed Petition, finding it inconsistent with Regents. UPTE appealed.
Disposition: The Board affirmed in part and reversed in part. UPTE alleges that certain Health Educators serve patients at UC medical centers, while others serve students at UC campuses. UAW, while litigating its Request, represented that it was not seeking to represent medical center employees serving patients. Because Regents held that UPTE could re-file with respect to employees who remained unrepresented after PERB processed the Request, the Renewed Petition can proceed solely with respect to Health Educators serving patients. If UPTE wishes to pursue the Renewed Petition, it must file an amendment excluding Health Educators who serve students.
Employer: Alliance College-Ready Public Charter Schools
Case No. LA-CE-6716-E
Issued date: July 25, 2025
Non-Precedential
Description: United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA) filed an unfair practice charge against Alliance College-Ready Public Schools alleging that Alliance violated the Prohibition on Public Employers Deterring or Discouraging Union Membership (PEDD). Specifically, UTLA alleged that Alliance violated the PEDD when Alliance Chief Executive Officer Pablo Villavicencio sent a communication to all certificated employees at Alliance schools on April 25, 2022, stating, among other things, that UTLA held an “anti-charter agenda that includes policies that would stop [Alliance] schools from existing” and that UTLA’s organizing campaign was “divisive.” PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC) issued a complaint and afforded Alliance 20 calendar days to file its required answer. Two weeks after issuing the complaint, OGC notified the parties that it would hold the case in abeyance until the second informal conference, per the agreement of the parties. Around the time of the second informal conference, the parties jointly agreed to place this matter in abeyance pending resolution of an appeal in another case. The matter eventually came out of abeyance, and Alliance filed its answer 47 days later. After the matter was assigned to an ALJ, the ALJ issued an order to show cause why the allegations in the complaint should not be deemed admitted due to Alliance’s untimely answer and a proposed decision issued on that basis. Both parties were given an opportunity to respond, and thereafter the ALJ issued a proposed decision concluding that Alliance had not shown good cause for filing an untimely answer and that Alliance had waived its right to challenge the allegations in the complaint. Alliance timely excepted.
Disposition: While Alliance’s exceptions were pending, the parties notified PERB that they had reached a settlement of the unfair practice charge. As a result, the parties jointly requested withdrawal and dismissal of the charge, dismissal of the exceptions, and closure of the case. In a non-precedential decision, the Board granted the requests by UTLA to withdraw its charge and by Alliance to dismiss its exceptions, and dismissed the complaint and underlying charge with prejudice.
Employer: Fresno Unified School District
Case No. SA-SV-192-E
Issued date: July 28, 2025
Precedential
Description: This case was before the Board on an interlocutory appeal from an administrative determination (AD) concerning a severance petition that the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAMAW) filed under the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA). In its initial severance petition (Initial Petition), IAMAW sought to sever the Roofers and Lead Roofers classifications from a unit currently represented by Fresno Teachers Association, CTA/NEA (FTA). IAMAW later amended its petition (Amended Petition), seeking to place the Roofers and Lead Roofers classifications into an existing unit represented by IAMAW. FTA filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Petition arguing that, under PERB Regulation 33700, a severance petition may only be used to create a new standalone unit, not to sever workers and transfer them to an existing unit. FTA also contended that the Amended Petition was not timely, because it was filed outside the window period but did more than correct merely technical errors. IAMAW disputed FTA’s contentions, and also argued that FTA was barred from raising its concerns about transferring the classifications into an existing unit because a PERB Board Agent processed a similar classification transfer in 2017.
Disposition: The Board found that the Amended Petition did not comply with the requirements of PERB Regulation 33700 and therefore sustained FTA’s appeal. The Board remanded the matter for processing of the Initial Petition.
Employer: County of Kern and Kern County Civil Service Commission
Case No. LA-CE-1718-M
Issued date: July 31, 2025
Precedential
Description: The Constitutionally Mandated Employees Union, Local 148 (CMEU) submitted a petition to Kern County to sever Deputy Public Defenders from the County’s professional unit, sever Public Defender Investigators from the County’s technical unit, and form a new unit consisting only of these two classifications. SEIU, which represents the professional and technical units, opposed CMEU’s petition. The County’s Civil Service Commission found that CMEU’s proposed new unit was appropriate, and thereafter the County moved toward holding a severance election. SEIU obtained a stay of representation proceedings pending litigation of its charge. After a formal hearing, the ALJ found in SEIU’s favor as to certain limited claims but found no cause to dismiss CMEU’s petition. SEIU filed exceptions.
Disposition: The Board analyzed CMEU’s proposed severance based on the MMBA, the County’s local rules, and applicable precedent. Finding the proposed severance to be inconsistent with these authorities, the Board ordered the County to dismiss CMEU’s petition.