All notes for Subtopic 1103.12000 – Concurrent or Derivative Violations
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2881E | West Contra Costa Unified School District 1103.12000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT; Concurrent or Derivative Violations Unilateral change bargaining violation derivatively interfered with protected union and employee rights. (Oxnard Union High School District (2022) PERB Decision No. 2803, pp. 2 & 54.) more or view all topics or full text. | 48 | 79 | 11/06/23 |
| 2856M | Alameda Health System 1103.12000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT; Concurrent or Derivative Violations If a charge or complaint alleges interference based upon the same conduct giving rise to another claim, the interference claim is independent if it can be established without the other claim being established. In contrast, if it is impossible to establish interference without establishing the other claim, then the interference claim is a derivative one. Interference can be either an independent violation or derivative of another violation, depending upon whether the facts at issue permit a charging party to establish interference without establishing any other violation. When a complaint alleges both interference and retaliation based on the same set of facts, and PERB sustains a retaliation finding, it will also at least find derivative interference. While retaliation claims may be accompanied by derivative interference claims, where properly pled the same underlying facts may also support an independent interference claim. (p. 26.) more or view all topics or full text. | 47 | 144 | 03/23/23 |
| 2846M | City and County of San Francisco 1103.12000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT; Concurrent or Derivative Violations While employees’ use of a vaccination ascertainment form created by their union may qualify as MMBA-protected activity, the union’s appeal stated that the outcome of its interference claim turns on whether the employer took unilateral action on a matter within the scope of representation. The Board therefore found it amounts to a derivative interference claim. (p. 25.) more or view all topics or full text. | 47 | 88 | 11/17/22 |
| 2830S | State of California (State Water Resources Control Board) 1103.12000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT; Concurrent or Derivative Violations Complaint alleges independent interference violation unless liability for interference cannot be established independently of another violation. (p. 13.) more or view all topics or full text. | 47 | 42 | 08/10/22 |
| 2830S | State of California (State Water Resources Control Board) 1103.12000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT; Concurrent or Derivative Violations If a charge or complaint alleges interference based upon the same conduct giving rise to another claim, the interference claim is independent if it can be established without the other claim being established. (County of San Joaquin (2021) PERB Decision No. 2761-M, p. 18 [judicial appeal pending].) In contrast, if it is impossible to establish interference without establishing the other claim, then the interference claim is a derivative one. (Ibid.; County of Santa Clara (2021) PERB Order No. Ad-485-M, p. 9.) In cases in which a charging party accuses an employer of providing too little information to allow meaningful representation, interference with representational rights is independent, as it can be established even in the absence of bad faith bargaining or any other violation. (p. 10.) more or view all topics or full text. | 47 | 42 | 08/10/22 |
| 2761M | County of San Joaquin 1103.12000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT; Concurrent or Derivative Violations Where conduct set forth in earlier complaint paragraphs could constitute a violation irrespective of motive, the phrase “this conduct also interfered” does not limit a charging party to litigating only a derivative interference theory. The Board partially overruled County of Santa Clara (2017) PERB Decision No. 2539-M, to the extent it can be read to suggest that “this conduct” always refers only to the immediately preceding paragraph of the complaint rather than to the underlying conduct set forth in earlier complaint paragraphs. PERB precedent, as properly construed, does not impose the artificial, deleterious obstacles that the concurrence discerned in County of Santa Clara, supra, PERB Decision No. 2539-M. more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 92 | 04/12/21 |
| 2761M | County of San Joaquin 1103.12000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT; Concurrent or Derivative Violations Where a complaint alleges interference based upon the same conduct giving rise to another claim, the interference claim is independent rather than derivative if the interference claim can be established without the other claim being established. (County of Santa Clara (2021) PERB Order No. Ad-485-M, p. 9.) In a case involving a post-strike furlough resulting from a replacement contract containing a minimum shift guarantee, an independent interference claim is cognizable. more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 92 | 04/12/21 |
| A485M | County of Santa Clara 1103.12000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT; Concurrent or Derivative Violations An independent violation can be proven without also proving another alleged violation, while a derivative violation depends entirely on proving another violation. (p. 9.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 85 | 03/02/21 |
| 2440E | Capistrano Unified School District 1103.12000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT; Concurrent or Derivative Violations The representational rights of employees and employee organizations under EERA are concurrent, rather than derivative. They exist independently of one another, even when analyzed under the same test or are alleged to have been violated by the same conduct. more or view all topics or full text. | 40 | 24 | 06/30/15 |
| 2424M | City of Inglewood 1103.12000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT; Concurrent or Derivative Violations An (a) violation generally may be pursued by an individual employee charging party; where, however, the (a) violation is derivative of the (c) violation (bad faith bargaining), the (a) violation cannot be pursued by the affected individual employee once the (c) violation is dismissed; with dismissal of the (c) violation, the derivative (a) and (b) violations automatically fall away. more or view all topics or full text. | 39 | 169 | 06/01/15 |
| 1566S | State of California (Department of Parks and Recreation) 1103.12000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT; Concurrent or Derivative Violations Board finds that where conduct is arguably prohibited by the agreement between the parties, the board must defer to arbitration all multiple legal theories arising from that conduct. This ensures that there is one forum for resolution of a dispute, elimination of overlapping and duplicative proceedings, and promotion of more timely resolution of disputes that contribute to employer-employee stability. If a party fails to provide support for its contention that an arbitrator’s remedy can not resolve a derivate violation the board may dismiss that violation and also refer it to arbitration with along with the initial charge. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 31 | 12/16/03 |
| 1567S | State of California (Department of Mental Health) 1103.12000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT; Concurrent or Derivative Violations Board finds that where conduct is arguably prohibited by the agreement between the parties, the board must defer to arbitration all multiple legal theories arising from that conduct. This ensures that there is one forum for resolution of a dispute, elimination of overlapping and duplicative proceedings, and promotion of more timely resolution of disputes that contribute to employer-employee stability. If a party fails to provide support for its contention that an arbitrator’s remedy can not resolve a derivate violation the board may dismiss that violation and also refer it to arbitration with along with the initial charge. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 32 | 12/16/03 |
| 1374S | State of California (Department of Youth Authority) 1103.12000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT; Concurrent or Derivative Violations Derivative (a) and (b) violations appropriate in unilateral change of process for releasing union stewards to represent employees. more or view all topics or full text. | 24 | 31059 | 02/28/00 |
| 0891H | Regents of the University of California (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees) 1103.12000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT; Concurrent or Derivative Violations By refusing to provide information, University denied AFSCME its right to bargain on behalf of its members for whom it is designated the exclusive representative, in violation of section 3571(b) and, interfered with the rights of employees under section 3565 to have their exclusive representative bargain on their behalf in violation of section 3571(a); p. 10. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22117 | 07/03/91 |
| 0864E | Newark Unified School District 1103.12000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT; Concurrent or Derivative Violations Where District involuntarily transferred employee in retaliation for his union activism, conduct also denied Association rights guaranteed under EERA and thus constituted violation of EERA section 3543.5(b); p. 17. Employer's refusal to provide information constituted violation of EERA section 3543.5(c); conduct also denied Association its statutory right to bargain on behalf of unit members and thus violated section 3543.5(b); conduct further denied employee's right to have representation on a contract grievance and thus also violated section 3543.5(a); p. 18. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22023 | 01/14/91 |
| 0722H | Regents of the University of California (California Nurses Association) 1103.12000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT; Concurrent or Derivative Violations A unilateral reassignment of unit employees to non-unit positions is not a derrivative interferance violation based on the finding of a failure to meet and confer; p. 10. more or view all topics or full text. | 13 | 20059 | 03/03/89 |
| 0668E | Tahoe - Truckee Unified School District 1103.12000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT; Concurrent or Derivative Violations Board modifies San Francisco 105; violation of section (c) is not automatically also a violation of section (a). more or view all topics or full text. | 12 | 19081 | 05/27/88 |
| 0249E | Palm Springs Unified School District 1103.12000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT; Concurrent or Derivative Violations Conduct which constitutes a unilateral change in violation of EERA section 3543.5(c) is concurrently a violation of section 3543.5(a) because it is in derogation of the duty to negotiate with the exclusive representative, and necessarily interferes with the employees in the exercise of protected rights, p. 3; order modified to delete reference to other provisions of 3543.5(a) for which no violation was found. more or view all topics or full text. | 6 | 13234 | 09/30/82 |
| 0219E | Solano County Community College District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by The Accelerated Schools (2023) PERB Decision No. 2855 * * * 1103.12000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT; Concurrent or Derivative Violations * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by The Accelerated Schools (2023) PERB Decision No. 2855 * * * Unilateral transfer of unit work concurrently deprives employees of representation by their union. Violation of 3543.5(a); p. 9. more or view all topics or full text. | 6 | 13154 | 06/30/82 |
| 0209E | Rialto Unified School District 1103.12000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT; Concurrent or Derivative Violations Transfer of work from attendance counselors (certificated) to persons in classified unit violates EERA section 3543.5(c) and, concurrently, 3543.5(a) and (b). more or view all topics or full text. | 6 | 13113 | 04/30/82 |
| 0206E | Moreno Valley Unified School District 1103.12000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT; Concurrent or Derivative Violations Employer's failure or refusal to bargain in good faith concurrently violates the rights of both the exclusive representative and the employees it represents; pp. 12-13. Unlawful unilateral actions during impasse procedures [3543.5(e)] are also violations of duty to negotiate in good faith [3543.5(c)] because violations during impasse frustrate purposes of subsection (c). Mediation remains fundamentally a continuation of the negotiations process; p. 12. more or view all topics or full text. | 6 | 13107 | 04/30/82 |
| 0146E | San Francisco Community College District 1103.12000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT; Concurrent or Derivative Violations Unilateral change in negotiable subject denies employee organization the right to represent its member and is concurrent violation of section 3543.5(b). Same act also violates section 3543.5(a) by interfering with employee rights to exercise their right to representation. more or view all topics or full text. | 4 | 11199 | 11/25/80 |
| 0134E | San Ysidro School District 1103.12000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT; Concurrent or Derivative Violations Reneging on release time which had already been agreed to was a 3543.5(c) violation and concurrently a 3543.5(a) violation because it interfered with employees right to meet and negotiate; conduct also concurrently violated 3543.5(b); p. 14. more or view all topics or full text. | 4 | 11105 | 06/19/80 |
| 0105E | San Francisco Community College District 1103.12000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT; Concurrent or Derivative Violations Refusal to negotiate over matter within scope of representation denied organization rights and individual employee rights and thus concurrently violated EERA 3543.1(a) and (b); disapproves statements to contrary in No. 69. more or view all topics or full text. | 3 | 10127 | 10/12/79 |
| 0104E | Santa Clara Unified School District 1103.12000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT; Concurrent or Derivative Violations Separate, though unalleged, discrimination violation proper where the evidence giving rise to the unalleged violation was the same as for the alleged violation and the parties had the opportunity to thoroughly litigate; pp. 17-19. more or view all topics or full text. | 3 | 10124 | 09/26/79 |
| 0089E | Carlsbad Unified School District 1103.12000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT; Concurrent or Derivative Violations Interference with employee rights does not of necessity constitute a denial of organization rights; here, no evidence that district's actions denied the union any rights guaranteed to it; p. 15. more or view all topics or full text. | 3 | 10031 | 01/30/79 |
| 0075E | San Francisco Unified School District 1103.12000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT; Concurrent or Derivative Violations Although record establishes interference with employee rights, no evidence that district's conduct affected union rights; p. 15. more or view all topics or full text. | 2 | 2203 | 10/03/78 |
| 0069E | Placerville Union School District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by San Francisco Community College District (1979) PERB Decision No. 105 1103.12000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT; Concurrent or Derivative Violations * * * OVERRULED IN PART by San Francisco Community College District (1979) PERB Decision No. 105, where the Board held that when the same employer conduct concurrently violates more than one unfair practice provision, it is the duty of the Board to find more than one violation. * * *Unnecessary to address whether 3543.5(c) violation also constituted derivative 3543.5(b) violation since no additional relief would be afforded; p. 10. District did not act improperly by allowing public input before deciding whether to ratify tentative agreement; pp. 7-8. more or view all topics or full text. | 2 | 2185 | 09/18/78 |