Single Topic for Decision A367S

View all topics for Decision A367S

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

1308.01000 – In General

Under PERB’s severance petition rules, the first step to establish such a unit of employees is to file a severance petition which is accompanied by proof of majority support in the unit claimed to be appropriate. (PERB Reg. 40200(a) and (b).) This proof of support is defined by PERB Regulation 32700. PERB Regulation 32700’s provisions specify that the proof of support must demonstrate that the employee desires to be represented by the employee organization and what information must be provided as to each employee signing the proof of support. There is no language in these proof of support regulations or any PERB rules governing severance petitions which provides that this demonstration of an employee’s desire to be represented may be controverted by a showing that the employee has subsequently withdrawn his or her support. Because no PERB regulations exist authorizing the use of signature revocations, we find that the Board agent improperly accepted the exclusive representative’s authorization revocation cards to determine if the proposed unit had proof of majority support. We hold that the Board agent erred as a matter of law when he determined that PERB’s approval of revocation cards in Antelope Valley applied to the revocation cards submitted by the exclusive representative thereby authorizing them to be used to offset signatures on the proposed unit’s Dills Act severance petition. We further find that no procedures have been enacted under the Dills Act which provide employees with a right to revoke their signatures on a severance petition, thus there was no legal basis to accept the exclusive representative’s revocation cards.