REPRESENTATION ISSUES; SEVERANCE – In General

Single Topic for Decision 2788M


View all topics for Decision 2788M

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

1308.00000 – REPRESENTATION ISSUES; SEVERANCE
1308.01000 – In General

While a severance petitioner has the burden of proving its proposed unit is an appropriate unit, it need not demonstrate that its proposed unit is “the ultimate unit or the most appropriate unit.” (City of Glendale (2021) PERB Decision No. 2773-M, p. 26, citing City of Lodi (2010) PERB Decision No. 2142-M, adopting proposed decision at p. 10; Alameda County Assistant Public Defenders Assn. v. County of Alameda (1973) 33 Cal.App.3d 825, 830 (Alameda); County of Orange (2016) PERB Decision No. 2478-M, adopting proposed decision at p. 8.) To meet its burden, a severance petitioner must show that the proposed unit has a community of interest separate and distinct from other employees in the existing bargaining unit. (Alameda, supra, 33 Cal.App.3d at p. 831; Glendale, supra, PERB Decision No. 2773-M, p. 27.)

However, if the existing bargaining unit was certified by PERB, the severance petitioner must show that the proposed unit is “more appropriate” than the existing unit. (Glendale, supra, PERB Decision No. 2773-M, p. 27, fn. 14.)