PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; CONSTITUTIONALITY OF EERA, DILLS, HEERA – Federal Issues

Single Topic for Decision A511E

View all topics for Decision A511E

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

Although California public sector labor relations precedent frequently protects employee and union rights to a greater degree than does federal precedent governing private sector labor relations, PERB considers federal precedent for its potential persuasive value. (Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 (Wagner et al.) (2021) PERB Decision No. 2782-M, p. 9, fn. 10; City of Santa Monica (2020) PERB Decision No. 2635a-M, p. 47, fn. 16; City of Commerce (2018) PERB Decision No. 2602-M, pp. 9-11; see also Social Workers’ Union, Local 535 v. Alameda County Welfare Dept. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 382, 391 [when interpreting California public sector labor relations laws, federal precedent is a “useful starting point,” but it does “not necessarily establish the limits of California public employees’ representational rights”]; County of San Joaquin (2021) PERB Decision No. 2761-M, pp. 24, 33, 45-48 & fn. 19 [considering private sector labor law precedent for its persuasive value while noting certain differences in California public sector labor law precedent]; City of Bellflower (2020) PERB Order No. Ad-480-M, p. 11 [both “statutory differences and distinct principles relevant to agencies serving the public have frequently led the Board to craft sui generis precedent”].) (p. 9, fn. 10.)