REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; REINSTATEMENT; BACKPAY BENEFITS – In General

Single Topic for Decision 2760S

View all topics for Decision 2760S

Full Decision Text (click on the link to view): Full Text

The Legislature has vested PERB with broad powers to remedy unfair practices or other violations of the Dills Act and to take any action the Board deems necessary to effectuate the Act’s purposes. (Dills Act, § 3514.5, subd. (c); Pacific Legal Foundation v. Brown (1981) 29 Cal.3d 168, 198 (Pacific Legal Foundation); Mt. San Antonio Community College Dist. v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 178, 189-190; City of Palo Alto (2019) PERB Decision No. 2664-M, p. 2 (Palo Alto); City of San Diego (2015) PERB Decision No. 2464-M, p. 42, affirmed sub nom. Boling v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2018) 5 Cal.5th 898, 920.) An appropriate remedy must fully compensate affected employees for harms caused by an unfair practice. (Palo Alto, supra, PERB Decision No. 2664-M, p. 3; City of Pasadena (2014) PERB Order No. Ad-406-M, p. 13.) The Board therefore crafts make-whole remedies, including “back pay, front pay or other forms of compensation,” as necessary “to make injured parties and/or affected employees whole.” (Sonoma County Superior Court (2017) PERB Decision No. 2532-C, p. 40; cf. Local Joint Executive Bd. of Las Vegas v. NLRB (9th Cir. 2018) 883 F.3d 1129, 1139-1140.) In addition to these restorative and compensatory functions, a Board-ordered remedy should also serve as a deterrent to future misconduct, so long as the order is not a patent attempt to achieve ends other than those which can fairly be said to effectuate the policies of the Act. (Palo Alto, supra, PERB Decision No. 2664-M, p. 3; City of San Diego, supra, PERB Decision No. 2464-M, pp. 40-42; City of Pasadena, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-406-M, pp. 12-13.)