All notes for Subtopic 1207.02000 – Standards for Obtaining Injunctive Relief

DecisionDescriptionPERC Vol.PERC IndexDate
I062H Regents of the University of California (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Local 3299 and University Professional and Technical Employees Communication Workers of America Local 9119)
1207.2000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; Standards for Obtaining Injunctive Relief
The Board would not infer impermissible coordination based solely on the employer’s “information and belief” that such coordination must be present [citation], because such unsupported allegations could not overcome the unions’ established and presumptive right to exercise the ultimate recourse to strike and to stand in solidarity with their sister employee organizations. (p. 8.) more or view all topics or full text.
11/07/19
I062H Regents of the University of California (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Local 3299 and University Professional and Technical Employees Communication Workers of America Local 9119)
1207.2000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; Standards for Obtaining Injunctive Relief
The University’s “disproportionate economic impact” theory also failed because it did not marshal meaningful evidence to support the argument’s factual predicate. The only evidence the University presented about disproportionate economic impact came from one paragraph in a declaration from the University’s Executive Director of Labor Relations, that he is “informed and believe[s] that virtually all the private companies that provide replacement workers during a strike require at least a 36-hour commitment” and that he is “informed and believe[s]” the cost of a replacement is “at least 1 to 3 times more than the cost of a University employee.” Neither of these statements gave evidence about the actual cost of the University’s replacement workers for the strikes at issue. (p. 11, fn. 9.) more or view all topics or full text.
11/07/19
I062H Regents of the University of California (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Local 3299 and University Professional and Technical Employees Communication Workers of America Local 9119)
1207.2000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; Standards for Obtaining Injunctive Relief
In addition to its failure to establish a substantial or non-frivolous theory of an unfair practice, the University’s charges raised no colorable claim that “there exists a probability that the purposes of the [HEERA] will be frustrated unless temporary relief is granted . . . [or] the circumstances of a case create a reasonable apprehension that the efficacy of the Board’s final order may be nullified, or the administrative procedures will be rendered meaningless.” [Citation.] This is because the University complained only that the strikes would inflict “a disproportionate level economic harm,” which, even if true, did not warrant injunctive relief in this case. (p. 10.) more or view all topics or full text.
11/07/19
I062H Regents of the University of California (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Local 3299 and University Professional and Technical Employees Communication Workers of America Local 9119)
1207.2000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; Standards for Obtaining Injunctive Relief
The presence of any one of the countervailing indicia of lawful intent could well establish that a union’s series of strikes was motivated by distinct, lawful reasons. Here, the fact that the Unions’ walkouts occurred under circumstances indicating several indicia of lawful intent strongly militated against the necessary finding of reasonable cause, i.e., it was far from “probable that a violation of the Act has been committed.” [Citation.] Conversely, direct, incontrovertible evidence of unlawful intent could well require an intermittent strike finding even in the presence of these and other indicia of lawful intent. (pp. 9-10.) more or view all topics or full text.
11/07/19
I062H Regents of the University of California (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Local 3299 and University Professional and Technical Employees Communication Workers of America Local 9119)
1207.2000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; Standards for Obtaining Injunctive Relief
“PERB cannot seek an injunction unless it finds (1) ‘reasonable cause’ to believe an unfair practice has been or will be committed; and (2) that injunctive relief is ‘just and proper.’” (San Mateo County Superior Court (2019) PERB Order No. IR-60-C, p. 2, citing Public Employment Relations Bd. v. Modesto City Schools Dist. (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 881, 895-896.) (p. 2.) more or view all topics or full text.
11/07/19
I062H Regents of the University of California (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Local 3299 and University Professional and Technical Employees Communication Workers of America Local 9119)
1207.2000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; Standards for Obtaining Injunctive Relief
The Board found that the record of five short-duration strikes over the course of one year did not provide reasonable cause to believe the Unions’ presumptively protected activities were unlawfully intermittent because the walkouts were: (1) called by different bargaining units, with others going out in sympathy; (2) in part precipitated or provoked by a public employer’s alleged unfair conduct; (3) preceded by a notice period of sufficient length to permit the University to prepare for continued operations during the strike; and (4) separated by variable intervals of time sufficient to dispel the notion that the Unions planned their activities in advance or embarked on a coordinated strategy of rolling economic strikes. While the presence of any of these indicia may be sufficient to rebut an intermittent strike allegation, insofar as the Unions’ strikes presented all four, there was no reasonable cause to believe their activities were unlawful. Finally, even if there were reasonable cause to believe an unfair practice occurred, the University’s contention that these strikes would cause disproportionate economic harm did not demonstrate that an injunction would be just and proper. (pp. 2-3.) more or view all topics or full text.
11/07/19
I061M County of San Mateo
1207.2000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; Standards for Obtaining Injunctive Relief
In City of San Jose v. Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 (2010) 49 Cal.4th 597, the Supreme Court ruled that 72 hours’ strike notice is long enough for PERB injunctive relief procedures to apply, and in such circumstances, a PERB-covered employer can only seek a strike injunction by asking PERB to seek an injunction on its behalf. PERB makes a preliminary determination as to whether certain positions satisfy the County Sanitation standard, viz. the nature of the services the employee performs and whether the employer has clearly demonstrated that disruption of such services for the length of the strike would imminently and substantially threaten public health or safety. If PERB finds that a lapse in the public service would imminently and substantially threaten the public health or safety, PERB next considers whether the employer has clearly demonstrated that it requires an injunction to protect the public after accounting for all possible service reductions and coverage options, including (1) planning to use supervisors, managers, non-bargaining unit personnel, and bargaining unit employees that the union has exempted from the strike or who have affirmatively indicated that they plan to work during the strike; (2) contacting all companies or other entities potentially able to provide replacement employees or services, and contracting with such entities if they indicate they can provide replacements; and (3) documenting the extent to which each of the aforementioned options may or may not be feasible, including the available companies or agencies offering what arrangements will protect the public while infringing as little as possible on employees’ protected rights. more or view all topics or full text.
06/27/19
I061M County of San Mateo
1207.2000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; Standards for Obtaining Injunctive Relief
PERB will exclude from its injunctive relief request to the court any positions that PERB has preliminarily found to be essential if the union agrees to exempt those positions from a planned strike. In some cases, the public may be sufficiently protected if the essential employees are on call, i.e., ready to cross the picket line if needed in the event of an emergency. (San Mateo Superior Court (2019) PERB Order No. IR-60-C, p 5, fn. 3.) A striking union need not use any particular format in notifying PERB, the employer, and the affected employees if the union decides to narrow the scope of its planned strike. (Id. at p. 7.) If a union exempts from a planned strike certain employees or positions that PERB has preliminarily found to be essential, such an exemption will normally mean that (1) there is no “reasonable cause” to believe that the union is threatening an unfair practice as to those positions, and (2) injunctive relief is not “just and proper” as to those positions. (Id., p. 5.) more or view all topics or full text.
06/27/19
I061M County of San Mateo
1207.2000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; Standards for Obtaining Injunctive Relief
An employer asking for extraordinary injunctive relief is required to provide PERB with detailed information, documenting the available non-striking supervisors and managers and to what extent they are able to cover for striking workers, as well as contacting outside companies and agencies and documenting their responses. This level of detail allows an employer to demonstrate clearly the extent of remaining need after accounting for all coverage options. In strikes of short duration, PERB will also consider holiday and weekend staffing levels and the extent to which the employer can lessen a strike’s impacts by authorizing weekday and weekend overtime work before and after the strike, or offering evening or weekend services before and/or after a scheduled strike. more or view all topics or full text.
06/27/19
I060C San Mateo County Superior Court (Service Employees International Union Local 521)
1207.2000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; Standards for Obtaining Injunctive Relief
PERB cannot seek an injunction unless it finds (1) “reasonable cause” to believe an unfair practice has been or will be committed; and (2) that injunctive relief is “just and proper.” (Public Employment Relations Bd. v. Modesto City Schools Dist. (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 881, 895-896 (Modesto); City of Fremont (2013) PERB Order No. IR-57-M, p. 17.) Courts considering PERB’s injunctive relief requests have recognized that PERB’s preliminary determinations are generally afforded deference because PERB is California’s expert public sector labor relations agency, is experienced in assessing complex labor disputes and their impact on the public, and has a dedicated staff of attorneys to study the parties’ submissions in light of previous experience, precedent, and competing interests. (pp. 2-3) more or view all topics or full text.
4313702/20/19
I060C San Mateo County Superior Court (Service Employees International Union Local 521)
1207.2000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; Standards for Obtaining Injunctive Relief
Because the right to strike “goes to the essence of labor law,” Fresno Unified School Dist. v. National Education Assn. (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 259, 268, if a PERB-covered employer believes a strike should be enjoined, it usually must ask PERB to seek an injunction on its behalf. (City of San Jose v. Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 (2010) 49 Cal.4th 597, 611 (City of San Jose) [city could not establish exception to rule requiring it to seek injunctive relief through PERB, because union gave city 72 hours’ notice of upcoming strike, which was sufficient time for PERB to determine whether to seek injunctive relief and to obtain such relief if warranted]; see San Diego Teachers Assn. v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 1, 13 [recognizing that PERB has “discretion to withhold as well as pursue” a strike injunction]; accord, Ahearn ex rel. NLRB v. International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Locals 21 and 4 (9th Cir. 2013) 721 F.3d 1122, 1130 [private sector employer seeking to enjoin union activity must pursue injunction through the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)].) more or view all topics or full text.
4313702/20/19
I060C San Mateo County Superior Court (Service Employees International Union Local 521)
1207.2000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; Standards for Obtaining Injunctive Relief
When an employer asks PERB to seek an injunction against a strike that includes allegedly essential employees, PERB makes a preliminary determination as to whether certain positions satisfy the County Sanitation standard. (Sacramento County Superior Court (United Public Employees Local 1) (2015) PERB Order No. IR-59-C, pp. 3-4, citing County Sanitation District No. 2 v. Los Angeles County Employees Assn. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 564.) PERB assesses each position on a case by case basis. more or view all topics or full text.
4313702/20/19
I060C San Mateo County Superior Court (Service Employees International Union Local 521)
1207.2000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; Standards for Obtaining Injunctive Relief
In assessing whether certain positions satisfy the County Sanitation standard, PERB considers the nature of the services the alleged essential employees perform and whether the employer has clearly demonstrated that disruption of such services for the length of the strike would imminently and substantially threaten public health or safety. (Sacramento County Superior Court (United Public Employees Local 1) (2015) PERB Order No. IR-59-C, pp. 2-3, citing County Sanitation District No. 2 v. Los Angeles County Employees Assn. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 564.) If the employer has made this showing, PERB next considers whether the employer has clearly demonstrated that it requires an injunction to protect the public even after fully accounting for all possible service reductions and coverage options, including: (1) planning to use supervisors, managers, non-bargaining unit personnel, and bargaining unit employees that the union has exempted from the strike or who have affirmatively indicated that they plan to work during the strike; (2) contacting all companies or other entities potentially able to provide replacement employees or services, and contracting with such entities if they indicate they can provide replacements; and (3) documenting the extent to which each of the aforementioned options may or may not be feasible, including the available companies or agencies offering temporary replacements, their responses when contacted, and any resulting contracts. (Id. at pp. 3-4; San Francisco County Superior Court & Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee (2018) PERB Decision No. 2609-I, p. 13.) Finally, for those employees that PERB preliminarily determines to be essential to public health or safety based on the above-described analysis, PERB considers what arrangements will protect the public while infringing as little as possible on employees’ protected rights. more or view all topics or full text.
4313702/20/19
I060C San Mateo County Superior Court (Service Employees International Union Local 521)
1207.2000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; Standards for Obtaining Injunctive Relief
If a union exempts from a planned strike certain employees or positions that PERB has preliminarily found to be essential, such an exemption will normally mean that (1) there is no “reasonable cause” to believe that the union is threatening an unfair practice as to those positions, and (2) injunctive relief is not “just and proper” as to those positions. Nonetheless, both of these criteria may be satisfied—notwithstanding the union’s commitment to exempt certain positions from its strike—if the employer demonstrates that the union has violated or threatened to violate its commitment, or has offered an exemption that is insufficiently broad to protect public health and safety. more or view all topics or full text.
4313702/20/19
I060C San Mateo County Superior Court (Service Employees International Union Local 521)
1207.2000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; Standards for Obtaining Injunctive Relief
There was no reasonable cause to believe a county employee strike would constitute an unfair practice and no basis to seek injunctive relief where the union exempted from the strike each position that PERB preliminarily determined to be essential under the County Sanitation standard. more or view all topics or full text.
4313702/20/19
I060C San Mateo County Superior Court (Service Employees International Union Local 521)
1207.2000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; Standards for Obtaining Injunctive Relief
PERB did not initiate injunction proceedings where the union exempted from the strike each position PERB preliminarily determined to be essential under the County Sanitation standard. PERB explained that if the union had not exempted all of the positions that it preliminarily determined to be essential, it would have sought a temporary restraining order as to the non-exempted essential positions. PERB described methods by which union could notify PERB, the employer, and the affected employees of its decision to exempt certain positions from a strike. PERB would seek immediate injunctive relief if the employer had presented information that the union violated or threatened to violate its agreement to exempt certain positions from the strike. more or view all topics or full text.
4313702/20/19
I059C Sacramento County Superior Court (United Public Employees Local 1)
1207.2000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; Standards for Obtaining Injunctive Relief
Unless statutorily prohibited from striking, the California Supreme Court’s County Sanitation standard requires that it be “clearly demonstrated,” on a case-by-case basis, that public employees’ participation in a strike would create an imminent and substantial threat to public health and safety. The availability of replacement workers goes into the determination of whether an employee or a class of employees is “essential” to public health and safety and may be enjoined from striking. The Board denied a trial court employer’s request to seek an injunction against a planned two-day strike by court employees because the court’s declarations did not clearly demonstrate that, without employees in the seven positions at issue, the Court's essential functions could not or would not be performed. The Court did not demonstrate that it could not use managers or supervisors to perform the functions of court clerks and its moving papers did not disclose how many supervisors or managers were qualified and available to perform the work of those employees the Court identified as “essential.” It also failed to identify the specific level and nature of services that must be maintained to preserve public health and safety more or view all topics or full text.
4011412/30/15
I058E Sweetwater Union High School District
1207.2000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; Standards for Obtaining Injunctive Relief
A union’s strike preparations undertaken before impasse procedures have been exhausted do not constitute “reasonable cause” to believe that an unfair practice has been committed sufficient to justify PERB seeking injunctive relief from the courts, especially where the parties continued to negotiate. Unlike an actual work stoppage, preparing for a strike is more akin to speech protected by EERA. PERB has long held that speech in the workplace that is related to the legitimate concerns of employees is protected activity within the meaning of EERA section 3543. A union’s communications to bargaining unit members and to the employer regarding strike preparation, including strike threats and strike votes, without a work stoppage are not coercive activities under EERA. The employer failed to show that students would suffer “considerable harm” if teachers struck during various exam periods. more or view all topics or full text.
393108/20/14
I057M City of Fremont
1207.2000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; Standards for Obtaining Injunctive Relief
Injunctive relief is appropriate where the Board concludes that: (1) reasonable cause exists to believe an unfair practice has been committed; and (2) the injunctive relief is just and proper. Injunctive relief must be “just and proper.” That standard is met where there exists a probability that the purposes of the MMBA will be frustrated unless temporary relief is granted or the circumstances of a case create a reasonable apprehension that the efficacy of the Board’s final order may be nullified, or the administrative procedures will be rendered meaningless. Absent temporary relief to restore and maintain the status quo ante, PERB’s task of adjudicating and remedying alleged unfair practices is in severe jeopardy. An employer’s failure or refusal to bargain is likely to irreparably injure union representation. (Small v. Avanti Health Systems, LLC (9th Cir. 2011) 661 F.3d 1180, 1191, quoting Frankl v. HTH Corp. (9th Cir. 2011) 650 F.3d 1334, 1362.) The Board’s traditional make-whole remedies do not match the full range of harms flowing from the violation. A refusal to bargain, implicit in an employer’s withdrawal of recognition, gives rise to myriad harms. (Small v. Avanti Health Systems, LLC (9th Cir. 2011) 661 F.3d 1180, pp. 1191-1193 (Avanti).) Absent bargaining, there will be no negotiated agreement or MOU. Employees are thus denied the opportunity to achieve economic and non-economic benefits which a negotiated agreement might contain. Such harm is irreparable, since the Board’s traditional make whole authority does not extend to economic or non-economic benefits that might have been obtained had the employer recognized and negotiated an MOU with the employees’ representative. Moreover, even if such make whole relief could be awarded, the employees would be less than whole since the “right to enjoy the benefits of union representation is immeasurable in dollar terms once it is delayed or lost.” (Avanti, at p. 1192.) The efficacy of the Board’s final order is likewise nullified by the necessary delay accompanying PERB’s administrative procedures, during which an unjustly ousted union suffers loss of support. As time passes, the benefits of representation are lost and the spark to organize is extinguished. The deprivation to employees from the delay in bargaining and the diminution of union support is immeasurable. (Small v. Avanti Health Systems, LLC (9th Cir. 2011) 661 F.3d 1180, 1192.) more or view all topics or full text.
386810/25/13
I056H Trustees of the California State University (East Bay)
1207.2000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; Standards for Obtaining Injunctive Relief
Generally, injunctive relief is not “just and proper” when the basis for the claim of irreparable harm is in the nature of emotional pain and suffering and harm to reputational interests, since PERB does not have the authority to grant such relief, either prospectively or at the conclusion of its administrative proceedings. Generally, injunctive relief is not “just and proper” when the types of injury that charging party alleges are lost wages and loss of health benefits, which can be remedied at the conclusion of the administrative proceedings in the event charging party’s unfair practice complaint is successful. Even if dismissal from employment is likely to create financial hardship, that alone is not a criterion for seeking injunctive relief. more or view all topics or full text.
38706/07/13
I055M County of San Joaquin (Health Care Services)
1207.2000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; Standards for Obtaining Injunctive Relief
Injunctive relief granted where Board found reasonable cause to believe that employer suspended employee because he was union’s primary organizer. Injunctive relief was just and proper because suspension occurred during an election and the impact on the election could not be remedied by the Board at a later time. more or view all topics or full text.
253210909/05/01
I047E Antioch Unified School District, et. al (Link); Mt. Diablo Unified School District, et al. (Townley); Fremont Unified School District, et al. (Neely)
1207.2000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; Standards for Obtaining Injunctive Relief
Injunction requiring escrow of 100 percent of the employees' agency fees or expansion of protections afforded employees by the procedures as currently implement is not "just and proper;" pp. 6-7, 22, 26, 27, 31 & 32. Absence of a precollection hearing for agency fees does not establish reasonable cause to believe an unfair practice has occurred; p. 19. However, CTA's control and/or management of the agency fee account does present reasonable cause to believe an unfair practice has been committed; p. 20. Injunction requiring increases of the advance reduction and/or rebate amount is neither constitutionally required, nor just and proper; p. 30. more or view all topics or full text.
91623811/04/85
I048E San Mateo City School District
1207.2000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; Standards for Obtaining Injunctive Relief
Board finds injunctive relief is just and proper where (1) work stoppage is in progress, and (2) the parties have not completed the statutory impasse procedures; p. 2. more or view all topics or full text.
91623811/04/85
I049E Sacramento City Unified School District
1207.2000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; Standards for Obtaining Injunctive Relief
Strike that occurs prior to the exhaustion of impasse procedures creates a rebuttable presumption that the employee organization is either refusing to negotiate in good faith and/or refusing to participate in impasse procedures; p. 3. Even in the presence of an employer's alleged unfair practice, the employee organization must show a causal connection between the employer's action and the strike. As pre-impasse strike does not appear to have been provoked by the district and was not undertaken as a last resort, Board orders General Counsel to seek an injunction to halt the strike; p. 7. more or view all topics or full text.
111805302/17/87
I050E Compton Unified School District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Fresno County In-Home Supportive Services Public Authority (2015) PERB Decision No. 2418-M
1207.2000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; Standards for Obtaining Injunctive Relief
As strike caused a total breakdown of (1) basic education for students and (2) negotiations free from coercive tactics that hold hostage that education is a violation of EERA; p. 167. Board finds it is probable that a violation of the EERA has been committed; p. 169. Injunctive relief is just and proper because any remedy fashioned by PERB could not be considered adequate at law. Inherent interruption of continuity and quality of education that occurred because of the strike requires injunctive relief; p. 170. more or view all topics or full text.
111806703/17/87
I054E Fremont Unified School District
1207.2000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; Standards for Obtaining Injunctive Relief
Compton Unified School District (1987) PERB Order IR-50 does not preclude Board from finding reasonable cause exists under either a different theory or different facts; pp. 8-9. Requirement of reasonable cause is more than mere finding of a prima facie violation; Board must determine that it is probable that a violation of EERA has been committed; p. 8. Reasonable cause found based on Board's holding that post-impasse intermittent strikes are both unprotected and unlawful under EERA; p. 10. Just and proper standard not satisfied based on district's declarations, which failed to include sufficient facts based on personal knowledge to demonstrate a total breakdown in either education or negotiations; pp. 14-15. education or negotiations; pp. 14-15. more or view all topics or full text.
142110705/15/90
I014E Eureka City Schools/Eureka High School District (Order)
1207.2000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; Standards for Obtaining Injunctive Relief
As alleged harm to teachers caused by cancellation of their leaves of absence could be remedied through a backpay order, there was insufficient basis for finding irreparable harm; p. 11. more or view all topics or full text.
41109603/26/80
I015E Burbank Unified School District
1207.2000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; Standards for Obtaining Injunctive Relief
District's failure to include sufficient facts in support of its request for injunctive relief was critically deficient and precluded Board from finding that the injunctive relief requested was based on an unfair practice likely to succeed on the merits; p. 3. more or view all topics or full text.
41105604/04/80
I046E San Ramon Valley Unified School District
1207.2000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; Standards for Obtaining Injunctive Relief
Given the complicated factual record, the contradictory claims of the parties, the unsettled state of the law, and the absence of a full evidentiary hearing, the Board determined the district has not demonstrated reasonable cause to believe that the association committed an unfair practice by engaging in strikes; p. 11. Intermittent or partial strikes are to be distinguished from strikes of short duration, where employees are not attempting to work and strike at the same time; p. 12. Board finds that intermittent nature of strike states a prima facie violation of EERA and should proceed to a hearing. Board finds no reasonable cause warranting extraordinary relief; p. 13. more or view all topics or full text.
81518710/12/84
I004E San Ysidro School District
1207.2000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; Standards for Obtaining Injunctive Relief
No evidence to support position that exclusive representative losing support among bargaining unit members or that there is a nexus between decline in support and district's conduct (refusal to grant released time, three reprimands and one notice of dismissal to members of the negotiating team); pp. 6-7. As statute gives Board broad remedial powers and type of disciplinary action has been remedied by unfair practice charge process, Board finds there is an adequate legal remedy; p. 7. more or view all topics or full text.
2216208/08/78
I005S State of California (Department of Corrections) (California Correctional Officers Association)
1207.2000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; Standards for Obtaining Injunctive Relief
Request for injunctive relief denied. Speculation insufficient to demonstrate likelihood of irreparable harm if injunctive relief not granted pending resolution of unfair practice charge; p. 5. more or view all topics or full text.
2218109/12/78
I006E Marysville Joint Unified School District
1207.2000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; Standards for Obtaining Injunctive Relief
No evidence that employees cannot afford increased premium for health benefits. Therefore, association failed to demonstrate the probability that the employees will suffer irreparable harm or that PERB's normal processes and remedies will prove to be inadequate; p. 5 more or view all topics or full text.
2219109/29/78
I007E Compton Community College
1207.2000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; Standards for Obtaining Injunctive Relief
The mere fact that the effect of a discharge continues does not render the harm irreparable; nor does it preclude remedy by the Board's normal processes; p. 5. more or view all topics or full text.
2219310/03/78
A128H Regents of the University of California (Statewide University Police Association)
1207.2000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; Standards for Obtaining Injunctive Relief
Injunctive relief denied for failure to demonstrate sufficient reasons. more or view all topics or full text.
05/12/82