All notes for Subtopic 1103.12000 – Concurrent or Derivative Violations

DecisionDescriptionPERC Vol.PERC IndexDate
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.
402406/30/15
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.
3916906/01/15
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.
283112/16/03
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.
283212/16/03
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.
243105902/28/00
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.
152211707/03/91
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.
152202301/14/91
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.
132005903/03/89
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.
121908105/27/88
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.
61323409/30/82
0219E Solano County Community College District
1103.12000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT; Concurrent or Derivative Violations
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.
61315406/30/82
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.
61311304/30/82
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.
61310704/30/82
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.
41119911/25/80
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.
41110506/19/80
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.
31012710/12/79
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.
31012409/26/79
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.
31003101/30/79
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.
2220310/03/78
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
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.
2218509/18/78