Home | News Items |
August 2025 Board Decisions Summary
In August 2025, the Board issued ten decisions. The decision descriptions and dispositions are below.
Employer: City of Compton
Case No. LA-CE-1690-M
Issued date: August 1, 2025
Non-Precedential
Description: Charging Party Compton Firefighters, International Association of Fire Fighters Local 2216 (Local 2216) filed an unfair practice charge over the City of Compton’s decision to prohibit employees from engaging in physical fitness workouts during business hours. Local 2216 alleged that the City’s change in policy was announced and implemented without providing Local 2216 notice and an opportunity to bargain. Local 2216 also alleged that the City prohibited employees from working out in retaliation for Local 2216’s protected activities, including taking a no confidence vote against the City Fire Chief and filing PERB charges. A PERB administrative law judge (ALJ) issued a proposed decision that found violations, and ordered standard remedies. Local 2216 also sought attorney fees, claiming that the City maintained a frivolous defense. The ALJ denied Local 2216’s request for attorney fees. Local 2216 filed exceptions to the ALJ’s denial of attorney fees.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board upheld the proposed decision and declined to award Local 2216 attorney fees.
Employer: Fontana Unified School District
Case No. LA-CE-6874-E
Issued date: August 5, 2025
Non-Precedential
Description: An administrative law judge (ALJ) issued a proposed decision finding that Fontana Unified School District violated EERA by directing an employee not to contact other employees. Prevailing party United Steelworkers Local 8599 (USW) filed exceptions urging the Board to correct two small errors in the proposed decision.
Disposition: USW did not show sufficient cause for the Board to consider its exceptions, which did not impact the outcome of the case. (PERB Reg. 32300(e).) The Board dismissed USW’s exceptions and followed its practice in such circumstances by ordering PERB’s Appeals Office to issue a decision declaring that the proposed decision is final.
Organization: Hughson Educators Association (Ruiz)
Case No. SA-CO-676-E
Issued date: August 6, 2025
Non-Precedential
Description: Cynthia Ruiz alleged that her bargaining unit’s exclusive representative Hughson Educators Association breached its duty of fair representation when it discontinued representing her after her contract grievance reached the arbitration stage. PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC) dismissed Ruiz’s charge for failure to state a prima facie case of any EERA violation. Ruiz appealed.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed OGC’s determination and dismissed Ruiz’s charge.
Employer: County of Sacramento
Case No. SA-CE-1220-M
Issued date: August 15, 2025
Non-Precedential
Description: Charging Party Service Employees International Union Local 1021 (SEIU) filed an unfair practice charge alleging the Respondent County of Sacramento (County) violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) when it unilaterally changed its scheduling policy without bargaining in good faith with SEIU to impasse or agreement prior to implementing changes. SEIU alleged the County unilaterally placed bargaining unit members in the Department of Child, Family, and Adult Services on holiday-in-lieu (HIL) schedules and changed its Holiday Time Off process for bargaining unit members in the Department of Human Assistance.
An administrative law judge (ALJ) issued a proposed decision finding the County unilaterally changed its HIL scheduling policy without negotiating with SEIU to agreement or a bona fide impasse. The ALJ dismissed SEIU’s second allegation, finding the County to have negotiated to impasse before implementing the Holiday Time Off Process and SEIU did not establish that the County otherwise bargained in bad faith, as it provided SEIU with notice and opportunity to bargain over its proposals prior to implementation. SEIU filed exceptions to the dismissal of the second allegation.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed the ALJ’s conclusion that the County of Sacramento violated the MMBA.
Organization: Sacramento City Teachers Association, CTA/NEA (Reilly)
Case Nos. SA-CO-681-E, SA-CO-685-E, and SA-CO-691-E
Issued date: August 25, 2025
Non-Precedential
Description: In these consolidated cases, Patrick Reilly alleged that Sacramento City Teachers Association, CTA/NEA (SCTA) violated the Educational Employment Relations Act by breaching the duty of fair representation in various ways. In Case No. SA-CO-681-E, Reilly alleged that SCTA refused to represent him in “validation” and investigatory meetings with his employer, the Sacramento City Unified School District, as well as in a PERB hearing involving the District. The charge also alleged that SCTA wrongfully directed Reilly to stop copying SCTA representatives on certain e-mails, that SCTA site representatives filed harassment complaints against Reilly with the District, and that SCTA refused to represent him during a meeting with a District lawyer. In Case No. SA-CO-685-E, Reilly repeated the same allegations as those in SA-CO-681-E, except that he omitted the allegation contained in the first-filed charge that SCTA refused to represent him during a meeting with a District lawyer. In Case No. SA-CO-691-E, Reilly alleged that SCTA declined to represent him in a Skelly hearing. PERB’s Office of the General Counsel dismissed the charges, as amended, finding that none of them stated a prima facie case for breach of the duty of fair representation. Reilly timely appealed.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed OGC’s dismissal in each case, referring to its reasoning in Sacramento City Teachers Association, CTA/NEA (Reilly) (2025) PERB Decision No. 2971 (non‑precedential), which involved the same parties.
Employer: Sacramento City Unified School District
Case No. SA-CE-3206-E
Issued date: August 25, 2025
Non-Precedential
Description: Patrick Reilly alleged that the Sacramento City Unified School District violated the Educational Employment Relations Act by failing to provide him accurate and timely information regarding credentialing, in retaliation for his protected activity. PERB’s Office of the General Counsel dismissed the charge, as amended, explaining that the allegations did not state a prima facie case of retaliation or interference. Reilly appealed, submitting new material and raising new charge allegations.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed the dismissal, noting also that Reilly had not shown good cause for presenting new allegations and evidence on appeal that OGC did not have an opportunity to consider.
Employer: State of California (Department of Public Health)
Case No. SA-CE-2216-S
Issued date: August 26, 2025
Non-Precedential
Description: Service Employees International Union, Local 1000 (SEIU) filed an unfair practice charge alleging that the State of California (Department of Public Health) (CDPH) violated the Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills Act) when it interfered with protected activity and retaliated against three SEIU-represented Health Facilities Evaluator Nurses (HFEN) for engaging in protected activity. After a formal hearing, a PERB Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a proposed decision dismissing each of SEIU’s claims. SEIU filed exceptions asking the Board to reverse the proposed decision with respect to two discrimination allegations.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed the ALJ’s dismissal of the retaliation allegations.
Employer: City and County of San Francisco
Case No. SF-SV-136-M
Issued date: August 27, 2025
Precedential
Description: San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association (DSA) filed a severance petition under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act and PERB Regulations to remove four classifications from bargaining units represented by Service Employees International Union Local 1021 (SEIU) at the City and County of San Francisco (City) and place them in an already existing bargaining unit DSA exclusively represents. The initial petition was filed during the “window period” during the term of a contract between SEIU and the City. PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC) sent an Order to Show Cause (OSC) tentatively concluding that DSA’s petition could not go forward because, among other things, severance petitions may not be used to add employees to an existing bargaining unit. DSA then amended the petition, outside the window period, to place the affected employees in a new bargaining unit consisting only of themselves. OGC determined that the amended petition was not timely filed, and dismissed the petition. DSA appealed.
Disposition: The Board affirmed OGC’s dismissal of DSA’s severance petition. Severance petitions under PERB Regulations are subject to contract bar rules, which requires they be filed during a “window period” or a hiatus between contracts. Amendments to severance petitions under PERB Regulations for the MMBA are subject to a contract bar, but DSA’s amended petition was filed during a contract between SEIU and the City and not during the window period. The amended petition was therefore untimely. Furthermore, the Board clarified precedent concerning material versus technical amendments to petitions. Because DSA’s initial petition improperly sought to add employees to an existing unit, and the amended petition sought to cure this deficiency, the amendment was material, rather than technical. Because the initial petition was invalid, and the amended petition was untimely, the Board dismissed both petitions and the entire case.
Employer: Regents of the University of California
Case No. SF-UM-930-H
Issued date: August 29, 2025
Precedential
Description: Interested Party Student Services and Advising Professionals – United Auto Workers (UAW) asked the Board to reconsider its decision in Regents of the University of California (2025) PERB Order No. 530-H (Regents). There, the Board held that University Professional and Technical Employees, Communication Workers of America Local 9119 (UPTE) cannot pursue a unit modification petition seeking to represent Health Educators serving students, as UAW exclusively represents them as part of the Student Services and Advising Professionals Unit. The Board therefore directed that, if UPTE wishes to pursue its petition, it must file an amendment excluding Health Educators who serve students. Thereafter, UPTE amended its petition. In seeking reconsideration, UAW argued that Regents was wrongly decided and unclear, and that UPTE’s amended petition is inconsistent with Regents.
Disposition: The Board denied UAW’s reconsideration request. The Board found no cause to depart from Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2024) PERB Decision No. 2916a-T (LA Metro), which precludes a party from requesting reconsideration of a Board decision where the determination under review was not based on a record created via an evidentiary hearing. The Board authorized PERB’s Appeals Office to dismiss future reconsideration requests that are inconsistent with LA Metro. Finally, the Board agreed that UPTE’s amended petition was inconsistent with Regents but noted that the Office of the General Counsel can address that error in processing the petition.
Organization: California School Employees Association (Sawyer)
Case No. LA-CO-1890-E
Issued date: August 29, 2025
Non-Precedential
Description: Shell Sawyer filed a charge in March 2025 that alleged his exclusive representative, California School Employees Association (CSEA), breached its duty of fair representation by declining to pursue and withdrawing a 2018 grievance filed on his behalf. PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC) dismissed Sawyer’s charge, finding that he failed to file his charge within the statute of limitations because, had Sawyer exercised reasonable diligence, he would have known more than six months before he filed his charge that he would not likely receive further assistance from CSEA on the grievance. Sawyer filed an appeal.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed OGC’s dismissal of the charge.