Home | Decision SubTopics | 1100.03000 – Standing

All notes for Subtopic 1100.03000 – Standing

DecisionDescriptionPERC Vol.PERC IndexDate
3018E Downey Unified School District
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
The Board partially overruled California Union of Safety Employees (Trevisanut, et al.) (1993) PERB Decision No. 1029-S, Monterey Peninsula Community College District (2002) PERB Decision No. 1492, San Francisco Unified School District (2009) PERB Decision No. 2000, and similar decisions to the extent they can be interpreted as categorically barring all charging party employees from challenging any conduct occurring after separation from employment. This change does not alter any statutory provision identifying which individuals and entities can file a charge; rather, it resolves a latent tension in PERB’s precedent by clarifying employees’ right to challenge post-separation conduct that is integrally tied to the employment relationship. (pp. 5-6.) more or view all topics or full text.		 50 154 04/24/26
3018E Downey Unified School District
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
A categorical bar against charges by a former employee that challenge post-separation conduct would undercut fundamental labor law principles, such as: (1) it is unlawful to retaliate against or interfere with the right to use PERB processes (see Trustees of the California State University (East Bay) (2014) PERB Decision No. 2391-H, p. 39 [remedying discrimination for using PERB processes is “critical” to PERB’s “function of preserving those processes from abuse”]); and (2) even when an employer has cause to issue discipline, it may not prospectively bar employees from communicating with one another about such discipline or other employment matters. (Claremont Unified School District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2654, p. 11 & p.18, fn. 15 [noting that California’s public sector labor relations laws contain “no more fundamental right” than the right to communicate with coworkers, and finding employer acted unlawfully when, after issuing employee a notice of notice of intent to dismiss, it barred employee from contacting coworkers].) (pp. 4-5.) more or view all topics or full text.		 50 154 04/24/26
3018E Downey Unified School District
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
An employee’s post separation allegations against an employer or a union are actionable if they are integrally tied to the employment relationship and satisfy all other substantive and procedural requirements. For an employee’s charge against an employer, “integrally tied” normally requires that the post-separation conduct arise directly from the employment relationship or its termination. (See, e.g., Hartnell Community College District (2015) PERB Decision No. 2452, pp. 30-33.) When the respondent is a union, “integrally tied” normally requires that the post-separation conduct directly involve the union’s acts or omissions in a matter in which it owes the employee a duty of fair representation. (See, e.g., Service Employees International Union United Healthcare Workers West (Lacy) (2016) PERB Decision No. 2486-M, adopting proposed decision at pp. 4-7.) (pp. 4-5.) more or view all topics or full text.		 50 154 04/24/26
3018E Downey Unified School District
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Because the laws PERB enforces explicitly protect applicants for employment or reemployment (see, e.g., EERA, § 3543.5(a)), there is no question that these laws bar an employer from impeding a former employee's attempt to secure subsequent employment, where such conduct constitutes retaliation for protected activity. (Monterey Peninsula Unified School District (2017) PERB Decision No. 2530, pp. 7-8.) (p. 4, fn. 2.) more or view all topics or full text.		 50 154 04/24/26
A478E Los Angeles Unified School District
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
A person or entity’s standing depends on the legal claim at issue in the charge. The Board has never interpreted its statutes or regulations to mean that a nonexclusive representative lacks standing to pursue an unfair practice charge alleging a violation of EERA section 3543.5, subdivision (a), which makes it unlawful for a public school employer to “[i]mpose or threaten to impose reprisals on employees, to discriminate or threaten to discriminate against employees, or otherwise to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees because of their exercise of rights guaranteed by this chapter.” This is because a public employer’s duty to refrain from the conduct prohibited by section 3543.5, subdivision (a) is not dependent on the existence of an exclusive representative. Nor does such a charge interfere with the rights of an exclusive representative to bargain on behalf of the unit. [Citation.] Thus, the presence of an exclusive representative does not divest employees or their nonexclusive representative of the right to file charges alleging violations of employees’ individual statutory rights. The rights at issue are individual rights that aggrieved parties may assert without regard to the existence of an exclusive representative. (pp. 5-6.) more or view all topics or full text.		 44 163 04/16/20
2699H Regents of the University of California (Teamsters Local 2010)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Allowing a nonexclusive representative to assert the rights of employees it represents is particularly important during an organizing campaign, when individual employees may be unable or unwilling to file a charge, or they are unaware of their rights in the first place. A nonexclusive representative need not wait until it becomes the exclusive representative to allege employer interference with the campaign. (p. 8.) more or view all topics or full text.		 44 144 02/27/20
2699H Regents of the University of California (Teamsters Local 2010)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Under HEERA, nonexclusive representatives, i.e., employee organizations not certified as exclusive representatives, have standing to allege violations of the rights of employees they represent. (p. 8.) Although HEERA does not grant them the independent right to represent employees, employees have a statutory right to representation by employee organizations of their own choosing. Nonexclusive representatives thus may assert employees’ rights on their behalf, including their rights to be free from discrimination, interference, or retaliation. (pp. 5-8.) more or view all topics or full text.		 44 144 02/27/20
2699H Regents of the University of California (Teamsters Local 2010)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
PERB Regulation 32602 generally confers standing upon employee organizations to allege unfair practices, depending upon the rights conferred to them by the applicable statute. (pp. 4-5.) more or view all topics or full text.		 44 144 02/27/20
2530E Monterey Peninsula Unified School District
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
An employee has standing to file an unfair practice charge against a former employer to allege that such employer interfered with the employee’s attempt to obtain and/or retain subsequent employment. more or view all topics or full text.		 42 2 06/19/17
2525M City of Livermore
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Employee’s lack of standing, as an employee, to file a unit modification petition under the City’s local rules has no bearing on whether he may bring an unfair practice charge alleging violations of the City’s local rules or of employee rights under the MMBA. Standing is not dispensed “in gross.” Rather, it is evaluated separately for each claim and each form of relief sought. (p. 13.) The Legislature has expressly authorized employees, in their capacity as employees, to bring unfair practice charges alleging either that a public agency has acted in violation of its local rules and/or that it has enforced its local rules in a manner that is inconsistent with the provisions, policies or purposes of the MMBA. (p. 14.) more or view all topics or full text.		 41 173 05/04/17
2525M City of Livermore
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
PERB rejected a City’s contention that it properly applied community of interest criteria to make a unit determination, where the final determination failed to include findings or explain how these various criteria had been applied. (p. 9.) In making unit determinations under its local rules, a public agency must make findings and explain its analytical process in sufficient detail “to enable the parties to determine whether and on what basis they should seek review and, in the event of review, to apprise a reviewing court of the basis for the [public agency’s] action.” (pp. 11-12.) more or view all topics or full text.		 41 173 05/04/17
2525M City of Livermore
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Lack of standing in unfair practice proceedings is jurisdictional and cannot be waived or otherwise affected by the respondent’s failure to assert that defect or by its mistaken belief as to the identity of persons purportedly acting as the authorized agents of a party with proper standing. (pp. 7-8.) As in civil procedure, lack of standing to bring an unfair practice allegation is a “jurisdictional” defect. Because proper standing to bring an action goes to the very existence of a cause of action and the right to relief, it may be raised at any point in unfair practice proceedings, including for the first time on appeal. (p. 8.) more or view all topics or full text.		 41 173 05/04/17
2475E United Teachers of Los Angeles (Raines, et al)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Under relation back doctrine, PERB may include additional charging parties after the limitations period has run if their allegations are identical to those included in a previously-filed charge. more or view all topics or full text.		 40 147 02/29/16
2283E Jurupa Unified School District
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Under our precedents only an employee organization, and not an individual employee, may bring a charge of domination or interference with an employee organization. Charging party, who makes her allegations as an individual employee and not as an organizational agent or representative, lacks standing to charge her employer with domination or interference with administration of an employee organization. more or view all topics or full text.		 37 58 08/21/12
2384H Trustees of the California State University
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
An exclusive representative has standing to allege a violation of HEERA Section 3580.5, where a supervisor’s conduct is alleged to have interfered with, restrained or coerced employees in the exercise of protected rights. more or view all topics or full text.		 39 16 06/30/14
2280M County of Riverside
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Neither represented nor unrepresented employees have standing to contest placement of their position or job classification in a particular bargaining unit. more or view all topics or full text.		 37 51 08/14/12
2265E Oxnard Union High School District
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Individual employees lack standing to allege bargaining violations, including unilateral change violations, and violations of EERA sections that protect the collective bargaining rights of employee organizations. more or view all topics or full text.		 37 4 05/25/12
2266E Oxnard Federation of Teachers (Collins)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Individual employees lack standing to allege that an exclusive representative violated its duty to meet and confer with an employer or to allege violations of statutory sections that protect the collective bargaining rights of employee organizations. more or view all topics or full text.		 37 5 05/25/12
2246M City of Santa Monica
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
An employer’s duty to provide, upon request, necessary and relevant information to an exclusive representative derives from the duty to bargain in good faith; the duty to bargain in good faith is only owed between an employee organization and the employer, and does not apply to the relationship between an individual employee and the employer; where employee organization withdrew as a charging party to the charge, individual employee lacked standing to pursue an allegation that an employer engaged in bad faith bargaining by failing to comply with an information request. more or view all topics or full text.		 30 149 04/06/12
2198M Alameda County Management Employees Association (Harper)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
An unrepresented employee seeking inclusion in the bargaining unit lacked standing to bring a duty of fair representation charge; the duty of fair representation extends only to bargaining unit employees. Individual employees lack standing to bring a unilateral change charge. more or view all topics or full text.		 36 38 08/29/11
2216C Marin County Superior Court
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
An employee lacks standing to allege that the employee’s employer failed to meet and confer with the exclusive representative over the employer’s decision to lay off employees. more or view all topics or full text.		 36 78 11/09/11
2147E Fontana Unified School District
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Under EERA, public school employers and exclusive representatives owe a mutual duty to meet and confer with one another in good faith concerning issues within the scope of representation. Thus, the employer’s duty to negotiate in good faith is owed to the exclusive representative employee organization. Consequently, individual employees lack standing to allege that an employer has failed to bargain in good faith. more or view all topics or full text.		 35 10 12/10/10
2167M Antelope Valley Hospital District
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Individual employee lacks standing to allege that employer violated the MMBA by failing to provide him with requested information. more or view all topics or full text.		 35 47 02/25/11
2153H Regents of the University of California
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Individual employees do not have standing to allege violations of sections that protect the collective bargaining rights of employee organizations. more or view all topics or full text.		 35 21 12/30/10
2140H Trustees of the California State University (San Marcos)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Employees lacked standing to allege that the employer failed to bargain with their exclusive representative over contracting out bargaining unit work, failed to participate in impasse procedures in good faith, and violated and/or repudiated the contractual grievance procedure. more or view all topics or full text.		 34 165 11/02/10
2137H California State University Employees Union, Service Employees International Union Local 2579 (Sarca)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Because the charging party was not obligated to pay a fair share fee, he lacked standing to allege that the union improperly calculated the fair share fee amount. Although it satisfied the exhaustion of internal challenge procedures requirement in PERB Regulation 32994(a), charging party’s representation of other employees in fair share fee arbitration proceedings did not confer standing upon him. more or view all topics or full text.		 34 152 10/20/10
2138M County of Orange
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
The petitioning union lacked standing to challenge the county’s application of its decertification rule to the union’s severance petition because the union never intended to decertify the incumbent union and thus the county did not apply the rule to the petitioning union’s detriment. more or view all topics or full text.		 34 156 10/25/10
2073E Los Angeles Unified School District
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Charging party lacked standing to allege that his employer’s breach of contractual grievance procedures constituted an unlawful unilateral change. more or view all topics or full text.		 33 178 10/28/09
2065M County of Riverside
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Charging party lacked standing to allege that her employer failed to meet and confer with her exclusive representative over her reclassification. more or view all topics or full text.		 33 162 09/25/09
2000E San Francisco Unified School District * * * PARTIALLY OVERRULED by Downey Unified School District (2026) PERB Decision No. 3018 * * *
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
*** PARTIALLY OVERRULED BY Downey Unified School District (2026) PERB Decision No. 3018, which held that an employee’s post separation allegations against an employer or a union are actionable if they are integrally tied to the employment relationship and satisfy all other substantive and procedural requirements. *** Charging Party lacked standing to file an unfair practice charge under EERA, when he was not an employee at the time the alleged unfair practice occurred. Charging Party, a former employee of the District, had been laid off approximately 2 years prior to the alleged unlawful act. more or view all topics or full text.		 33 31 01/20/09
1982E Service Employees International Union, Local 221 (Meredith)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Individual employee did not have standing to allege a unilateral change by his union. more or view all topics or full text.		 32 157 10/24/08
1977M City of Long Beach
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Individual employee did not have standing to allege a unilateral change. more or view all topics or full text.		 32 140 09/16/08
1938M County of Plumas
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Bailiff was without standing to demonstrate a violation of the Trial Court Act by the county. more or view all topics or full text.		 32 34 01/11/08
1918S Union of American Physicians and Dentists (Menaster)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
A Union is not responsible for the actions of an employer. As such, the charge against the union of misconduct by the Department are dismissed. more or view all topics or full text.		 31 135 08/09/07
1913M City of Beverly Hills (Transportation Department)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
An individual has no standing to allege a unilateral change. Because the charging party did not submit any evidence that he was the executor of his deceased brother’s estate, the Board did not decide whether or not the charging party had standing to file on behalf of his brother. more or view all topics or full text.		 31 116 06/26/07
1914S Service Employees International Union Local 1000, California State Employees Association (Burnett)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Individual employees lack standing to allege that the employee organization violated the rights of an employer. Therefore, the allegation that the union violated § 3519.5(a) is dismissed. more or view all topics or full text.		 31 118 06/26/07
1899E Service Employees International Union Local 99 (Gutierrez)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
The employee organization is obligated to meet and confer with the public school employer in good faith. However, individual employees lack standing to allege that an employee organization has failed to bargain in good faith. more or view all topics or full text.		 31 90 04/16/07
1902E Oakland Unified School District
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Individual employees do not have standing to allege unilateral change violations. more or view all topics or full text.		 31 93 05/07/07
1856M Modesto Irrigation District
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
An individual does not have standing to allege interference with protected rights if the employee is not a member of the class affected by the employer’s action. more or view all topics or full text.		 31 1 09/01/06
1857M IBEW Local 1245 (Tacke)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
An individual does not have standing to allege interference with protected rights if the employee is not a member of the class affected by the employer’s action. more or view all topics or full text.		 31 2 09/01/06
1866H Trustees of the California State University (Humboldt)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Charging party, a former safety steward, did not have standing to file a charge on behalf of the union. more or view all topics or full text.		 31 26 12/14/06
1867H State Employees Trades Council-United (Chemello)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Charges related to improper unit placement of a position classification appropriately dismissed as individual employees lack standing to challenge unit configuration. more or view all topics or full text.		 31 25 12/14/06
1846S Union of American Physicians and Dentists (Meenakshi, et al.)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Individual employees do not have standing to allege an exclusive representative violated its duty to meet and confer. more or view all topics or full text.		 30 130 05/24/06
1835S State of California (Department Of Transportation)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
An individual who filed a charge nearly alleging unfair practices which occurred nearly two years after his State employment was terminated is not a “State employee” under Dills Act section 3513(c) and, therefore lacks standing to invoke the protections of the Dills Act. more or view all topics or full text.		 30 108 04/10/06
1782C Lake County Superior Court
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Individual employees do not have standing to file a charge alleging the employer failed to comply with the meet and confer requirements of the Trial Court Act. Individual employees do not have standing to pursue the meet and confer rights of an employee organization. more or view all topics or full text.		 30 7 11/01/05
1804H Regents of the University of California
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
The Board has held that an individual employee does not have standing to pursue violations of the rights of an employee organization. The exclusive representative of the clerical unit is the sole entity that is entitled to question, challenge, or bargain the effects related to the University's elimination of a classification, or its creation of a new classification, including whether or not the new classification belongs in the clerical unit. more or view all topics or full text.		 30 44 01/04/06
1807M Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Mauriello)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Individual employees do not have standing to allege unilateral change violations (Oxnard School District (Gorcey and Tripp) (1988) PERB Decision No. 667), nor allege violations of sections which protect the collective bargaining rights of employee organizations (State of California (Department of Corrections) (1993) PERB Decision No. 972-S). more or view all topics or full text.		 30 51 01/13/06
1810H University Professional and Technical Employees, Communications Workers of America Local 9119 (Baratelli)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Board held agency fee payers have standing to challenge violation of PERB Regulation 32992 and that there is harm in violating the regulation that is separate from any harm that is remedied by returning fees. more or view all topics or full text.		 30 53 01/18/06
1811H University Professional and Technical Employees, Communications Workers of America, Local 9119 (Crisosto)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Board held agency fee payers have standing to challenge violation of PERB Regulation 32992 and that there is harm in violating the regulation that is separate from any harm that is remedied by returning fees. more or view all topics or full text.		 30 55 01/18/06
1812H University Professional and Technical Employees, Communications Workers of America Local 9119 (Bailey)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Board held agency fee payers have standing to challenge violation of PERB Regulation 32992 and that there is harm in violating the regulation that is separate from any harm that is remedied by returning fees. more or view all topics or full text.		 30 54 01/18/06
1813H California State Employees Association (Sarca)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Paying agency fees in prior year does not give employee standing to object to agency fees based on belief that union is collecting non-chargeable fees and maintaining a surplus of funds in year where no agency fees are accepted by the union. more or view all topics or full text.		 30 57 01/27/06
1784H University Professional and Technical Employees, Communications Workers of America Local 9119 (Abernathy, et al.)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Board held agency fee payers have standing to challenge violation of PERB Regulation 32992 and there is harm in violating the regulation that is separate from any harm that is remedied by returning fees. more or view all topics or full text.		 30 9 12/01/05
1800H University Professional and Technical Employees, Communications Workers of America Local 9119 (Lee)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Board held agency fee payers have standing to challenge violation of PERB Regulation 32992 and there is harm in violating the regulation that is separate from any harm that is remedied by returning fees. more or view all topics or full text.		 30 41 12/30/05
1801H University Professional and Technical Employees, Communications Workers of America Local 9119 (Joshel)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Board held agency fee payers have standing to challenge violations of PERB Regulation 32992 and that there is harm in violating the regulation that is separate from any harm that is remedied by returning fees. more or view all topics or full text.		 30 42 12/30/05
1802H University Professional and Technical Employees, Communications Workers of America Local 9119 (Widman)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Board held agency fee payers have standing to challenge violation of PERB Regulation 32992 and that there is harm in violating the regulation that is separate from any harm that is remedied by returning fees. more or view all topics or full text.		 30 43 12/30/05
1803H University Professional and Technical Employees, Communications Workers of America Local 9119 (Brooks)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Board held agency fee payers have standing to challenge violation of PERB Regulation 32992 and that there is harm in violating the regulation that is separate from any harm that is remedied by returning fees. more or view all topics or full text.		 30 45 12/30/05
1793H University Professional and Technical Employees, Communications Workers of America Local 9119 (Carter, et al.)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Board held agency fee payers have standing to challenge violation of PERB Regulation 32992 and that there is harm in violating the regulation that is separate from any harm that is remedied by returning fees. more or view all topics or full text.		 30 34 12/30/05
1794H University Professional and Technical Employees, Communications Workers of America Local 9119 (Gill, et al.)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Board held agency fee payers have standing to challenge violation of PERB Regulation 32992 and there is harm in violating the regulation that is separate from any harm that is remedied by returning fees. more or view all topics or full text.		 30 35 12/30/05
1795H University Professional and Technical Employees, Communications Workers of America Local 9119 (Chanes, et al.)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Board held agency fee payers have standing to challenge violation of PERB Regulation 32992 and that there is harm in violating the regulation that is separate from any harm that is remedied by returning fees. more or view all topics or full text.		 30 36 12/30/05
1796H University Professional and Technical Employees, Communications Workers of America Local 9119 (Welch, et al.)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Board held agency fee payers have standing to challenge violation of PERB Regulation 32992 and that there is harm in violating the regulation that is separate from any harm that is remedied by returning fees. more or view all topics or full text.		 30 37 12/30/05
1797H University Professional and Technical Employees, Communications Workers of America Local 9119 (Boylan)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Board held agency fee payers have standing to challenge violation of PERB Regulation 32992 and that there is harm in violating the regulation that is separate from any harm that is remedied by returning fees. more or view all topics or full text.		 30 38 12/30/05
1798H University Professional and Technical Employees, Communications Workers of America Local 9119 (Van Sluis)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Board held agency fee payers have standing to challenge violation of PERB Regulation 32992 and that there is harm in violating the regulation that is separate from any harm that is remedied by returning fees. more or view all topics or full text.		 30 39 12/30/05
1799H University Professional and Technical Employees, Communications Workers of America Local 9119 (Cooper)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Board held agency fee payers have standing to challenge violation of PERB Regulation 32992 and that there is harm in violating the regulation that is separate from any harm that is remedied by returning fees. more or view all topics or full text.		 30 40 12/30/05
1792H University Professional and Technical Employees, Communications Workers of America Local 9119 (Aldern, et al.)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Board held agency fee payers have standing to challenge violation of PERB Regulation 32992 and there is harm in violating the regulation that is separate from any harm that is remedied by returning fees. more or view all topics or full text.		 30 33 12/30/05
1624E Antelope Valley College Federation of Teachers (Stryker)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Similar to the situation in California State Employees Association (Barker & Osuna) (2003) PERB Decision No. 1551-S, the Federation’s removal of Stryker from the negotiating team differs from suspension or dismissal from membership governed by EERA section 3543.1(a). Therefore, the Federation did not interfere with protected rights under EERA. The Federation did not discriminate against Stryker under EERA since removal from the negotiating team is an internal union matter and Stryker provided no facts showing a substantial impact on the employer-employee relationship more or view all topics or full text.		 28 146 04/28/04
1607H California Nurses Association (O'Malley)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
O’Malley may not assert agency fee objections on behalf of other unit employees. Under Los Rios College Federation of Teachers, Local 2279, CFT/AFT (Deglow) (1992) PERB Decision No. 950, once CNA refunded the collected fees in full to O’Malley, CNA could not use the fees in any way, let along wrongfully use them. Thus there is no possibility of harm that the Board could remedy. more or view all topics or full text.		 28 117 03/18/04
1620M Alameda County Medical Center
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Under the MMBA, only the bargaining representative has standing to allege a violation of the right to meet and confer or other rights only accorded to the exclusive representative. more or view all topics or full text.		 28 142 04/21/04
1576E Peralta Community College District
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
An individual lacks the standing necessary to allege violations of an EERA provision that protects an employee organization’s right to consult with an employer or a unilateral change. more or view all topics or full text.		 28 44 12/31/03
1670E Orange Unified School District
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Individual employees do not have standing to bring unilateral change violation charges nor allegations of violation of sections that protect the collective bargaining rights of employee organizations such as the right to receive information that is accurate. more or view all topics or full text.		 28 214 07/28/04
1651H California Nurses Association (O'Malley)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Board held that non-agency fee payer had no standing to challenge union’s calculation and auditing of agency fees. Non-agency fee payer also could not bring challenge on behalf of other agency fee payers. more or view all topics or full text.		 28 189 06/29/04
1559S State of California (Department of Corrections)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Employee does not have standing to file a request for information case because duty to provide information extenst to the exclusive representative and not to an individual employee. more or view all topics or full text.		 28 15 11/21/03
1530S California Correctional Peace Officers Association (Moore)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Under the EEBR, a supervisory employee does not have standing to bring a charge with the Board on his own behalf alleging a threat of reprisal against him and his staff by a union chapter president. An exception to this rule might occur if the alleged conduct adversely impacts the rights of unit employees. more or view all topics or full text.		 27 90 06/20/03
1531M City of Folsom
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
A violation of MMBA section 3505 by the City for refusing a request by the union representative to schedule a meeting to resolve the dispute and refusing a request by the union representative to submit the dispute to an arbitrator is only actionable by the union. more or view all topics or full text.		 27 89 06/20/03
1539M City of Folsom
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
As Siroky had not worked for the City of Folsom since 1998 but worked for the State of California at the time the alleged protected activity and adverse action occurred (2002), he is not a “public employee” under MMBA sections 3501(c), (d) and 3506 for purposes of this charge. more or view all topics or full text.		 27 99 06/26/03
1519H Regents of the University of California (Los Alamos National Laboratory)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Enter, as an individual employee, lacked standing to allege a unilateral change by the employer for denying her a choice of representative in a disciplinary hearing. more or view all topics or full text.		 27 67 05/07/03
1493E California School Employees Association and its Chapter 245 (Waymire)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Since Waymire is not a “public school employee” as defined in Section 3540.1(j), he lacks standing to invoke the protection of EERA. more or view all topics or full text.		 26 33105 07/31/02
1492E Monterey Peninsula Community College District * * * PARTIALLY OVERRULED by Downey Unified School District (2026) PERB Decision No. 3018 * * *
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
*** PARTIALLY OVERRULED BY Downey Unified School District (2026) PERB Decision No. 3018, which held that an employee’s post separation allegations against an employer or a union are actionable if they are integrally tied to the employment relationship and satisfy all other substantive and procedural requirements. *** Since Waymire is not a “public school employee” as defined in Section 3540.1(j), he lacks standing to invoke the protection of EERA. Since Waymire is not a “public school employee” as defined in Section 3540.1(j), he lacks standing to invoke the protection of EERA. more or view all topics or full text.		 26 33104 07/31/02
1478H Regents of the University of California
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Individual employees do not have standing to allege unilateral change violations, therefore allegation that university did not take into consideration evidence charging party wished to produce failed to state prima facie case. more or view all topics or full text.		 26 33048 03/12/02
1426E West Contra Costa Unified School District
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
No violation of EERA section 3543.5(c), which obligates the employer to meet and negotiate in good faith with an exclusive representative, because individual employees lack standing to pursue such a charge. more or view all topics or full text.		 25 32050 04/04/01
1427E West Contra Costa Unified School District
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Individual employee lacks standing to pursue a failure to negotiate charge. more or view all topics or full text.		 25 32058 04/19/01
1420S State of California (Department of General Services)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Duty to bargain in good faith is not owed to employees and an individual employee therefore lacks standing to bring a charge regarding a failure to bargain. more or view all topics or full text.		 25 32039 02/26/01
1360E Los Angeles County Office of Education (Burton)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Charging Party did not have standing to allege the District unilaterally changed the Representation Rights article of the Agreement between District and recognized employee organization. more or view all topics or full text.		 24 31016 11/03/99
1441E United Teachers of Los Angeles (Hopper)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Charging party was not a member of the class which she claims was harmed. Charging party suffered no harm in this case, nor does she have any potential for harm. She therefore has no standing to challenge union's alleged failure to provide notice of certain rights. more or view all topics or full text.		 25 32074 05/31/01
1380S California State Employees Association (Hutchinson)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
The charge alleged that violated Dills Act section 3519.5 where the charge involves conduct between an employee organization and a terminated employee which occurred subsequent to the termination of that individual from State employment, the former employee lacks standing to file an unfair practice charge against the employee organization based on that conduct. However, that holding does not alter the longstanding rule that terminated employees have the right under the Dills Act to challenge the termination itself as discriminatory, because such persons were State employees at the time of the allegedly unlawful conduct that formed the basis of the charge. (California Union of Safety Employees (Trevisanut, et al.) (1993) PERB Decision No. 1029-S, at p. 9. more or view all topics or full text.		 24 31065 02/29/00
1316H Regents of the University of California (Society of Professional Scientists and Engineers)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
In non-exclusive representative case under HEERA, the violation runs to the individual employee but because there is no difference between the employee and the organization, the organization has standing to pursue the charge. more or view all topics or full text.		 23 30066 02/24/99
1329S State of California (Department of Corrections)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Individual employees do not have standing to allege unilateral change violations. (Oxnard School District (Gorcey/Tripp) (1988) PERB Decision No. 667. more or view all topics or full text.		 23 30116 05/03/99
1310E Teachers Association of Long Beach (Akers, et al.)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Where charge presented no evidence that organization was an employee organization within the meaning of EERA section 3540.1(d), Board found that organization had no standing to file a charge under the EERA; p. 3, warning letter. PERB Regulation 32994(a) requires that an agency fee payer who wishes to challenge the amount of the fee by filing an unfair practice charge must first exhaust the exclusive representative’s agency fee appeal procedure unless the procedure is insufficient on its face; warning letter. Where there was no evidence of exhaustion, the charge is dismissed; participation in the arbitration must be in the year that is under challenge in the unfair; warning letter. more or view all topics or full text.		 23 30048 01/27/99
1311E Teachers Association of Long Beach (Aragon, et al.)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Where charge presented no evidence that organization was an employee organization within the meaning of EERA section 3540.1(d), Board found that organization had no standing to file a charge under the EERA; p. 3, warning letter. PERB Regulation 32994(a) requires that an agency fee payer who wishes to challenge the amount of the fee by filing an unfair practice charge must first exhaust the exclusive representative’s agency fee appeal procedure unless the procedure is insufficient on its face; warning letter. Where there was no evidence of exhaustion, the charge is dismissed; warning letter. more or view all topics or full text.		 23 30049 01/27/99
1312E Teachers Association of Long Beach (Filinuk, et al.)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Where charge presented no evidence that organization was an employee organization within the meaning of EERA section 3540.1(d), Board found that organization had no standing to file a charge under the EERA; p. 3, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text.		 23 30050 01/27/99
1309E Oakland Education Association (Bettencourt, et al.)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
PERB Regulation 32994(a) requires that an agency fee payer who wishes to challenge the amount of the fee by filing an unfair practice charge must first exhaust the exclusive representative’s agency fee appeal procedure unless the procedure is insufficient on its face; p. 3, warning letter. Where there was no evidence of exhaustion, the charge is dismissed; p. 3, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text.		 23 30047 01/27/99
A148E Riverside Unified School District (Petrich)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
An individual employee acting on his own behalf is neither an "employer" nor an "employee organization" and thus does not have standing to file a unit modification petition. more or view all topics or full text.		 9 16190 08/13/85
A148Ea Riverside Unified School District (Petrich)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
An individual employee acting on his own behalf is neither an "employer" nor an "employee organization" and thus does not have standing to file a unit modification petition. more or view all topics or full text.		 10 17031 12/23/85
A102H Phase II Professional and Operations Hearings (Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act-University of California)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
A party of interest may participate as fully in a representation hearing as a petitioner or intervenor. An employee organization is not disadvantaged for purposes of participating in a subsequent election by designation as a party of interest. more or view all topics or full text.		 4 11176 10/02/80
1294E Kern High School District
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Charging party, an individual, lacks standing to assert a unilateral change violation against the District based on the District's one time refusal to process a withdrawal from membership under the contract; p. 3, partial warning letter. more or view all topics or full text.		 23 30008 10/22/98
1226S California Correctional Peace Officers Association (Smith, et al.)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Managerial and supervisory employees are not covered by the Dills Act and do not have standing under the Dills Act to file an unfair practice charge. more or view all topics or full text.		 22 29006 11/05/97
1197S State of California (Department of Insurance) (Nylander-McGuire)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
The individual employee lacks standing to file a bad faith bargaining or unilateral change charge against an employer; p. 3, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text.		 21 28094 05/06/97
1191E Bakersfield City School District (Guerra)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Exclusively represented individual employee lacks standing to challenge employer refusal to meet and confer in good faith; p. 6, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text.		 21 28071 04/03/97
1196E Service Employees International Union, Local 99 (Vercher)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Individual employees lack standing to allege that an employee organization failed to negotiate in good faith with the employer; p. 2; p. 2, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text.		 21 28092 05/02/97
1161E Santa Rosa Junior College (Aune)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Exclusive representative has exclusive right to elevate a grievance to arbitration, employer cannot be compelled to arbitrate by employee, employer refusal to do so is not an unfair practice; p. 3, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text.		 20 27114 06/26/96
1116E Service Employees International Union, Local 715 (Caviglia)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
A charge of a refusal by the exclusive representative to bargain in good faith must be brought by the employer, and cannot be brought by an individual employee since the employee organization's duty to bargain is owed to the employer, not to the individual unit employees; pp. 2-3, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text.		 19 26133 09/14/95
1118E Alum Rock Education Association (Kirkaldie)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
An individual employee lacks standing to raise a claim of failure to negotiate since PERB has held that the duty to negotiate is a reciprocal one between the exclusive representative and the public school employer; p. 10, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text.		 19 26143 10/04/95
1120E Morgan Hill Unified School District (Caviglia)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Individual employees lack standing to file a charge with PERB to allege a violation of organizational rights under EERA section 3543.5(c); p. 3. more or view all topics or full text.		 19 26148 10/13/95
1112E Rocklin Teachers Professional Association (Romero)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
A management employee lacks standing to file an unfair practice charge; p. 4. more or view all topics or full text.		 19 26122 08/10/95
1060E Los Angeles Community College District (Mrvichin)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
The issue of "standing" (jurisdiction over the parties) is separate and distinguishable from the issue of whether the elements of a prima facie case exist. Neither the EERA jurisdictional statute nor PERB regulations requires a charging party to establish "prima facie standing;" p. 8. more or view all topics or full text.		 18 25150 10/05/94
1029S California Union of Safety Employees (Trevisanut) * * * PARTIALLY OVERRULED by Downey Unified School District (2026) PERB Decision No. 3018 * * *
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
***PARTIALLY OVERRULED BY Downey Unified School District (2026) PERB Decision No. 3018, which held that an employee’s post separation allegations against an employer or a union are actionable if they are integrally tied to the employment relationship and satisfy all other substantive and procedural requirements.*** In order to have standing to file a charge, a person must have been an employee at the time the unfair practice occurred. Subsequent retirement or separation from state service does not invalidate standing; p. 9. more or view all topics or full text.		 18 25026 12/13/93
1020S State of California (Employment Development Department) (Gonzales)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Where charging party alleges a denial of his Weingarten rights, the six-month limitations period begins to run when the employee requests and is denied representation; p. 2, dismissal letter; p. 2, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text.		 17 24171 10/21/93
0972S State of California, Department of Corrections (Thomas)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
An individual unit member does not have standing to pursue violations of rights of an employee organization. When the union withdrew from prosecuting these violations, the legal effect was the same as if the charges had been withdrawn; p. 3; p. 8, dismissal. The right of an employee organization to represent its members is not a right that an individual member can appropriately vindicate; p. 6, dismissal. more or view all topics or full text.		 17 24047 02/09/93
0902E San Diego Teachers Association (Hernandez)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
An individual does not have standing to allege a violation of EERA section 3543.6(c); p. 3, fn. 3. more or view all topics or full text.		 15 22152 09/19/91
0898E California School Employees Association (Lohmann)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
An individual does not have standing to raise a violation of 3543.6(c). more or view all topics or full text.		 15 22138 08/30/91
0879E San Diego Unified School District
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Individual does not have standing to file charge of a (c) violation. more or view all topics or full text.		 15 22088 05/21/91
0856E Elk Grove Unified School District
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Individual employee does not have standing to allege a violation of 3543.5(c); pp. 4, 5. more or view all topics or full text.		 15 22009 12/17/90
0849H Regents of the University of California (Irvin)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Individual employee does not have standing to file charge alleging breach of employer's duty to bargain under HEERA. more or view all topics or full text.		 14 21207 10/30/90
0741E Hacienda La Puente Unified School District * * * SUPERSEDED by amendment to EERA section 3543.5, subdivision (a) Stats. 1989, Ch. 313
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
* * * SUPERSEDED by Stats. 1989, ch. 313, § 2, which amended EERA section 3543.5(a) to explicitly state that EERA’s prohibitions against discrimination and interference with employee rights apply to applicants for employment or reemployment. * * * An individual seeking reemployment is not an employee under EERA and thus lacks standing to invoke the protection of the Act; p. 2. more or view all topics or full text.		 13 20129 06/16/89
0719H California State University, (United Professors of California)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Nonexclusive representative has no standing to file an unfair practice charge alledging a violation of HEERA section 3571(c) when exclusive representative is certified. more or view all topics or full text.		 13 20038 01/19/89
0710H California State University (Pomona) (Hollis)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Pursuant to Oxnard School District (Gorcey/Tripp) (1988) PERB Decision No. 667, individuals do not have standing to bring a charge of bad faith bargaining against the employer. more or view all topics or full text.		 13 20018 12/21/88
0685E Hacienda La Puente Unified School District  * * * SUPERSEDED by amendment to EERA section 3543.5, subdivision (a) Stats. 1989, Ch. 313
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
* * * SUPERSEDED ON OTHER GROUNDS by Stats. 1989, ch. 313, § 2. * * * Employee organization has standing to allege 3543.5(b) violation where applicant for employment is subject of discrimination. more or view all topics or full text.		 12 19113 06/24/88
0686E Los Angeles Unified School District
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Individual has no standing to assert a refusal to bargain charge against the employer. more or view all topics or full text.		 12 19114 06/24/88
0669E Chaffey Joint Union High School District (Fikes)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Unit member has standing to allege employer and employee organization interference with conduct of agency fee election irrespective of whether or not unit member actually "voted." more or view all topics or full text.		 12 19082 05/31/88
0664E Oxnard Educators Association (Gorcey and Tripp)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Individual employees do not have standing to file a charge against the exclusive representative alleging its failure to negotiate with the District. Employees' recourse is a charge alleging union's violation of its duty of fair representation. more or view all topics or full text.		 12 19067 05/05/88
0667E Oxnard School District (Gorcey and Tripp)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Individual employees do not have standing to file charge alleging violation of EERA section 3543.5(C); South San Francisco (1980) PERB Decision No. 112 expressly overruled. more or view all topics or full text.		 12 19080 05/26/88
0658E Berkeley Federation of Teachers, Local 1078, AFL-CIO (Moore)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Charging Party (a unit member) lacks standing to file an EERA section 3543.6(c) allegation (failure to bargain in good faith) against her union where it is independent of a breach of a duty of fair representation claim. A charge of a refusal by the exclusive representative to bargain in good faith must be brought by the employer, and cannot be brought by an individual employee since the union's duty to bargain is owed to the employer, not to individual unit members. more or view all topics or full text.		 12 19043 02/22/88
1748E Alum Rock Union Elementary School District
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Charge alleging unilateral change filed by an individual was dismissed as only the exclusive representative has standing to allege a failure to meet and confer. more or view all topics or full text.		 29 73 02/07/05
0512E Riverside Unified School District
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Employee/unit member has no standing under PERB regulations to challenge unit configuration. more or view all topics or full text.		 9 16158 06/21/85
0450E San Leandro Unified School District
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Association of retired employees lacks standing under section 3541.5(a) to file unfair practice charge because it is not an "employee organization" under the statute. more or view all topics or full text.		 9 16017 12/06/84
0417E Los Angeles Community College District (Kimmett)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Individual unit member has no standing to file unfair practice charge alleging that employer denied him the right to attend negotiating session as a member of union negotiating team. The right to choose negotiating team members belongs solely to the union and union was the aggrieved party. When union was satisfied by employer's admission that it acted improperly and promised not to bar individual from future meetings, the member had no standing to keep issue alive by filing charge. more or view all topics or full text.		 8 15193 10/18/84
0418E Los Angeles Community College District (Kimmett)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Although an individual unit member has standing to file a charge alleging failure to negotiate in good faith, the right to demand that the employer furnish information runs solely in favor of the exclusive representative. Where the union is satisfied with the employer's response to an information request, individual employees may not insert themselves between the employer and the exclusive representative. more or view all topics or full text.		 8 15194 10/18/84
0304S State of California (Department of Transportation)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
As there was no exclusive representative at the time of the alleged violation or when the charge was filed, nonexclusive representative has standing to represent employees in unfair practice charge; p. 16. more or view all topics or full text.		 7 14134 04/26/83
0172E Hayward Unified School District (Weld)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Employee has no standing to file unfair practice charge alleging that employer improperly encouraged management employees to join an organization by offer an insurance benefits only to those who did. If employee is management employee, she is not covered under EERA and cannot file charge. Alternatively, if employee is not management employee, she is ineligible for contested benefit, is thus not affected by employer's action and has no standing to file charge. more or view all topics or full text.		 5 12108 08/24/81
1002H Regents of the University of California (Alderson)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Individual employee does not have standing to file charge alleging employer's duty to bargain under HEERA; p. 4. more or view all topics or full text.		 17 24115 06/23/93
0983H Regents of the University of California (Alavarez)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Charging party lacked standing to assert violations of an employee organization's statutory rights. more or view all topics or full text.		 17 24063 03/22/93
0984H American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (Alvarez)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Charging party lacked standing to assert violations of the exclusive representative's statutory bargaining obligations, and to file an unfair practice charge challenging bargaining unit composition; pp. 4-5. more or view all topics or full text.		 17 24064 03/23/93
0112E South San Francisco Unified School District (Martin) * * * OVERRULED by Oxnard School District (Gorcey and Tripp) (1988) PERB Decision No. 667
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Individual has standing to file charge claiming that the employer has refused to negotiate with the exclusive representative; individual not required to join exclusive representative as a party; pp. 4-11. more or view all topics or full text.		 4 11009 01/15/80
0104E Santa Clara Unified School District
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Neither union's nonexclusive status nor employees nonmembership prevents the union from being the charging party; addition of affected employee as second charging party "could easily cure" any defect, and no party has objected to union's standing herein; p. 13, fn. 6. more or view all topics or full text.		 3 10124 09/26/79
0045E El Rancho Unified School District
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Employer has standing to file an unfair practice charge which seeks to vindicate and protect the rights of its employees. The employer has an interest in maintaining a peaceful atmosphere not disrupted by threats or intimidation of employees. more or view all topics or full text.		 2 2024 12/30/77
0058E Hanford Joint Union High School District Board of Trustees
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Nonexclusive representative has no standing to file unfair practice charge over denial of representional rights after recognition of exclusive representative, even though conducted occurred prior to recognition; pp. 6-8. more or view all topics or full text.		 2 2137 06/27/78