All notes for Subtopic 1306.01000 – In General; Requirements
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A514E | Dailey Elementary Charter School 1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements PERB determines proof of support based on an employee list as of the time an employee organization files a petition for recognition. (Central Basin Municipal Water District (2021) PERB Order No. Ad-486-M, p. 16; Children of Promise Preparatory Academy (2013) PERB Order No. Ad-402, pp. 14-15 [“the initial determination regarding sufficiency of support for the recognition petition, once made, is determinative on the issue of majority support within the petitioned-for unit”]; Regents of the University of California (2017) PERB Order No. Ad-453-H, p. 21.) (pp. 7-8.) more or view all topics or full text. | 04/18/24 | ||
| 2770M | City of Bellflower 1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements All California labor relations statutes require confidentiality for proof of support documents, and an employer may not apply its local rules in a contrary manner. Given that relevant protected rights are substantially the same under the MMBA and under EERA, which explicitly provides that proof of support documents are confidential (EERA, § 3544, subd. (b)), there is no plausible basis for the Legislature to believe that in one instance proof of support may be shared with a competing union while in the other instance such sharing is impermissible. The absence of confidentiality language in seven of the nine statutes PERB enforces is incidental, meaning that confidentiality is required as it is necessary to protect other rights in the statute. more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 119 | 06/08/21 |
| 2770M | City of Bellflower 1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements Under six of California’s public sector labor relations statutes, employers are not permitted to adopt local rules regarding representation petitions, and parties must file such petitions with PERB. In contrast, the MMBA and two statutes governing trial court labor relations allow employers to establish local rules regarding representation petitions, and parties therefore may only file such petitions with PERB if directed to do so under the local rules or if there is no reasonable local rule that governs the petition in question. (Central Basin Municipal Water District (2021) PERB Order No. Ad-486-M, pp. 8-9.) Among these statutes, only the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA; § 3540 et seq.) and the Childcare Provider Act (CCPA; Educ. Code, § 8430 et seq.) explicitly provide that proof of support documents are confidential. (EERA, § 3544, subd. (b); Educ. Code, § 8434, subd. (c)(3) [CCPA].) Nonetheless, through rulemaking PERB has interpreted all nine statutes as requiring that proof of support documents filed with PERB are confidential. The differences in statutory wording require harmonization, and accordingly that all California labor relations statutes require confidentiality for proof of support documents. An employer may not apply its local rules in a contrary manner. more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 119 | 06/08/21 |
| 2203Ma | City of Palmdale 1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements No fraud or coercion in obtaining proof of support merely because union asked employees to sign card stating that union would bargain for improved employment terms more or view all topics or full text. | 36 | 98 | 12/22/11 |
| 2203Ma | City of Palmdale 1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements A change in the size of the bargaining unit does not alter a prior proof of support determination, and a party challenging the employee list used in a proof of support determination must produce competent information supporting its claim. more or view all topics or full text. | 36 | 98 | 12/22/11 |
| A500E | Pasadena Area Community College District 1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements Regulation 32700 governs proof of support for all petitions filed with PERB, but it does not govern petitions filed with an employer under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, section 3500 et. seq. (MMBA), or other acts permitting an employer to establish local rules regarding representation. The MMBA grants employers certain discretion in establishing rules that balance employee rights and stable labor relations. (City of Long Beach (2021) PERB Decision No. 2771-M, p. 13.) The Board expressed no opinion as to what rules on electronic proof of support such an employer may reasonably adopt. (p. 11, fn. 11.) more or view all topics or full text. | 47 | 115 | 01/11/23 |
| A500E | Pasadena Area Community College District 1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements PERB Regulation 32700, subdivision (b) gives parties a full year to collect proof of support. (p. 9, fn. 7.) more or view all topics or full text. | 47 | 115 | 01/11/23 |
| A500E | Pasadena Area Community College District 1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements PERB Regulation 32700, subdivision (d) does not allow electronically signed proof of support from exclusively represented employees. For most of PERB’s history, the agency’s regulations have disallowed electronically signed proof of support. (Regents of the University of California (2018) PERB Order No. Ad-459-H, p. 4.) This partially changed on February 15, 2021, when revisions to PERB Regulation 32700 took effect. Revised Regulation 32700, subdivision (d)(4), added an electronic signature option for “employees who are not exclusively represented by an employee organization.” The plain language of the revised regulation thus left PERB’s longstanding requirement of original signatures unchanged for exclusively represented employees who wish to change or decertify their representative or sever themselves from a represented unit. While the February 2021 regulatory changes allowed electronic signatures for unrepresented employees, the changes did not impose any new limit on represented employees’ ability to decertify or change representatives. Rather, represented employees retain the same rights to do so that they have had since EERA’s enactment. By allowing electronic signatures only in the limited instance of petitions to represent unrepresented employees, PERB declined to liberalize decertification processes, thereby rejecting a potentially destabilizing change. (pp. 7, 9.) more or view all topics or full text. | 47 | 115 | 01/11/23 |
| 2771M | City of Long Beach 1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements All California labor relations statutes require confidentiality for proof of support documents, and an employer may not apply its local rules in a contrary manner. Given that relevant protected rights are substantially the same under the MMBA and under EERA, which explicitly provides that proof of support documents are confidential (EERA, § 3544, subd. (b)), there is no plausible basis for the Legislature to believe that in one instance proof of support may be shared with a competing union while in the other instance such sharing is impermissible. The absence of confidentiality language in seven of the nine statutes PERB enforces is incidental, meaning that confidentiality is required as it is necessary to protect other rights in the statute. more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 1 | 06/09/21 |
| 2771M | City of Long Beach 1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements Under six of California’s public sector labor relations statutes, employers are not permitted to adopt local rules regarding representation petitions, and parties must file such petitions with PERB. In contrast, the MMBA and two statutes governing trial court labor relations allow employers to establish local rules regarding representation petitions, and parties therefore may only file such petitions with PERB if directed to do so under the local rules or if there is no reasonable local rule that governs the petition in question. (Central Basin Municipal Water District (2021) PERB Order No. Ad-486-M, pp. 8-9.) Among these statutes, only the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA; § 3540 et seq.) and the Childcare Provider Act (CCPA; Educ. Code, § 8430 et seq.) explicitly provide that proof of support documents are confidential. (EERA, § 3544, subd. (b); Educ. Code, § 8434, subd. (c)(3) [CCPA].) Nonetheless, through rulemaking PERB has interpreted all nine statutes as requiring that proof of support documents filed with PERB are confidential. The differences in statutory wording require harmonization, and accordingly that all California labor relations statutes require confidentiality for proof of support documents. An employer may not apply its local rules in a contrary manner. more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 1 | 06/09/21 |
| 2771M | City of Long Beach 1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements In City of Bellflower (2021) PERB Decision No. 2770-M, PERB noted that proof of support is a unique type of statement warranting confidentiality protection. (Id. at p. 22.) The e-mails at issue here, in which two employees belatedly attempted to revoke their proof of support, were not technically proof of support documents, and in most instances such documents should not be sent to the employer, as an employer’s possession of proof of support or related documents will often constitute at least as great (if not greater) a confidentiality breach as a competing union’s possession of the same. Parties did not raise question of whether the MMBA permits a local rule in which a union must submit its proof of support to the employer, which tends to create complications such as those at issue here. (See id. at p. 20, fn. 15 [noting issue remains unsettled in the absence of any challenge].) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 1 | 06/09/21 |
| 2771M | City of Long Beach 1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements The City properly accepted the petitioner’s proof of support which authorized petitioner to represent the signatories in their employment relations with the City without mentioning decertification of the incumbent representative, as the authorization cards provided sufficient evidence that the employees wished to both decertify and replace their exclusive representative. The MMBA does not bar petitioner’s authorization language, particularly given that, in the absence of any applicable local rule, PERB would consider IBEW’s authorization language to be sufficient proof of support for a combined decertification-recognition petition. (PERB Reg. 61350, subd. (b)(2).) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 1 | 06/09/21 |
| A486M | Central Basin Municipal Water District 1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements In determining whether a petitioner has achieved a majority (or a lower level of support, as applicable in other contexts), PERB’s Office of the General Counsel assesses proof of support based on an employee list as the date the petition was filed and, correspondingly, employee support or lack thereof as of the same date. (Regents of the University of California (2017) PERB Order No. Ad-453-H, p. 21 and adopted administrative determination at p. 5; Children of Promise Preparatory Academy (2013) PERB Order No. Ad-402, p. 14.) Purported revocation which postdated petition filing date irrelevant as a matter of law. more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 88 | 03/24/21 |
| A486M | Central Basin Municipal Water District 1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements An employer that does not dispute the appropriateness of a proposed unit, after having been provided an opportunity to do so, waives any argument that the unit is inappropriate. more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 88 | 03/24/21 |
| A486M | Central Basin Municipal Water District 1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements In reviewing a Board agent’s proof-of-support determination, the Board applies an abuse-of-discretion standard. (Children of Promise Preparatory Academy (2013) PERB Order No. Ad-402, p. 13.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 88 | 03/24/21 |
| A453H | Regents of the University of California 1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements The Office of the General Counsel correctly relied on the estimated figure of 325 affected employees, as stated in the union’s petition for unit modification, rather than the employer’s estimates of how many employees would eventually be reclassified into the affected classifications. (pp. 21-22.) Proof of support is determined by PERB when a petition is filed and an employer provides a list of employees that comprise the petitioned-for unit or the proposed unit modification. The employer is in the unique position of having sole access to the pertinent information, including which employees perform what duties and under which job titles. Where the employer is unable or unwilling to produce complete and accurate lists of employees in a proposed unit at the time, it is impossible for PERB to verify a showing of support or, as in the present case, whether such a showing is required. In such circumstances, the Board agent conducting the investigation may make reasonable assumptions about the proposed unit or unit modification, including that the number of affected employees estimated by the party of interest applicant is accurate. (Ibid.) more or view all topics or full text. | 42 | 47 | 09/29/17 |
| A453H | Regents of the University of California 1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements Because HEERA does not itself mandate an election where an established unit is modified, it is within the Board’s discretion to adopt and interpret regulations defining under what circumstances an election is appropriate, or conversely, removing the Board’s discretion to require an election under specified circumstances. The PERB-administered statutes recognize that employee choice is not absolute, but must be balanced against the other policy objectives identified by the Legislature, including establishing “orderly and clearly defined procedures for meeting and conferring and the resolution of impasses.” (p. 9.) more or view all topics or full text. | 42 | 47 | 09/29/17 |
| A453H | Regents of the University of California 1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements The Board rejected the University’s appeal arguing that a union petitioning for unit modification should be required to show proof of support under PERB Regulation 32781 because, when the petition was filed, the University had not yet completed the process of reclassifying unrepresented employees and it projected to reclassify a significant number of additional employees into the new classification. (p. 14.) The administrative determination appropriately reasoned that the proposed addition sought by a unit modification petition at the time the petition is filed is determinative and “not whether the proposed addition grows or shrinks after the time the petition is filed.” (pp. 13-14.) more or view all topics or full text. | 42 | 47 | 09/29/17 |
| A453H | Regents of the University of California 1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements Pursuant to PERB Regulations, the Board may expedite a unit modification case arising under PERB Regulation 32781. Because the present dispute is a cause of great concern to the parties and affected employees, PERB processed the case on an expedited basis in effort to promote stable employer-employee relations, and thereby effectuate the policies and purpose of HEERA. (p. 17.) more or view all topics or full text. | 42 | 47 | 09/29/17 |
| A453H | Regents of the University of California 1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements The Board affirmed prior PERB precedent holding that the language of PERB Regulation 32781 eliminates the Board’s discretion to require proof of majority support when a unit modification petition seeks to add classifications which would increase the size of the existing unit by less than ten percent. (pp. 6-7.) PERB Regulation 32781, which governs petitions for unit modification, provides, in relevant part, that if a unit modification petition “requests the addition of classifications or positions to an established unit, and the proposed addition would increase the size of the established unit by ten percent or more, the Board shall require proof of majority support of persons employed in the classifications or positions to be added.” (pp. 4-5.) more or view all topics or full text. | 42 | 47 | 09/29/17 |
| A453H | Regents of the University of California 1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements By adopting a regulation providing that an increase in the size of a bargaining unit by ten percent or more through the addition of unrepresented positions creates a question concerning representation, the “necessary implication is that increasing the unit by less than ten percent does not call into question the incumbent union’s majority support,” and that the agency is without discretion to require a showing of support in such circumstances. (p. 8.) PERB’s unit modification procedures are inconsistent with the NLRB’s accretion doctrine because the plain language and the policies of HEERA and PERB Regulation 32781 differ in significant respects from their private-sector counterparts. PERB cannot change its regulations through decisional law. (pp. 8-9.) more or view all topics or full text. | 42 | 47 | 09/29/17 |
| A459H | Regents of the University of California * * * SUPERSEDED, IN PART, by PERB Regulation 32700, effective 2/15/2021 1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements * * * SUPERSEDED IN PART by PERB Regulation 32700, effective 2/15/2021, which established new proof of support guidelines. * * *Under PERB Regulation 32700 proof of support must consist of original documents, which means documents with original signatures. more or view all topics or full text. | 42 | 91 | 01/19/18 |
| A459H | Regents of the University of California * * * SUPERSEDED, IN PART, by PERB Regulation 32700, effective 2/15/2021 1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements * * * SUPERSEDED IN PART by PERB Regulation 32700, effective 2/15/2021, which established new proof of support guidelines. * * *The appropriate action when representation petition lacks sufficient proof of support is not an election, but dismissal of the petition. more or view all topics or full text. | 42 | 91 | 01/19/18 |
| 2509E | Oakland Unified School District 1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements Where the record following a unit modification hearing included insufficient information to determine whether the modification will increase the size of the existing unit by more than 10 percent, which would require proof of majority support among the employees to be added, the Board remanded the case for further investigation. more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 111 | 12/29/16 |
| A430M | Morongo Basin Transit Authority 1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements PERB Regulation 61020, subd. (f) requires a party to file evidence that proof of employee support was obtained by fraud or coercion, or that the signatures on such support documents are not genuine, with PERB’s regional office in the form of declarations under penalty of perjury within 20 days after the filing of the Petition which the proof of support accompanied. PERB Regulation 61020, subd. (f) prohibits the Board from considering “any evidence not timely submitted, absent a showing of good cause for late submission” and that the regulation must be strictly construed. (PERB Regulation 61020, subd. (f).) Employer’s two sworn declarations were filed by MBTA well beyond the 20-day deadline provided for in PERB Regulation 61020, subd. (f). Employer made no effort to explain why there was good cause for late submission. Therefore, the Office of the General Counsel did not err in rejecting the late-submitted declarations. In fact, PERB Regulation 61020, subd. (f) left the Office of the General Counsel with no choice but to refuse to consider them. Under PERB Regulation 61020, subd. (f), only “parties” as defined by PERB Regulation 61005 may file declarations under penalty of perjury in support of a claim that proof of support was obtained by fraud or coercion, and that such declarations needed to be filed within 20 days of the filing of the petition for recognition. If an employee’s allegations came to employer’s attention after the 20-day deadline, it could have submitted its own sworn declaration as to when and how it learned of the employee’s allegations in arguing for good cause to accept the late filing. It made no such effort at the time the declarations were filed with PERB, and thereby waived its claim for good cause for the late filing. There is no basis for treating petitions that oppose proof of majority support as revocations of employee authorizations when none of the employees whose signatures appear on the opposition petitions establish the requisite intent to revoke a previously-given authorization. Absent proof of fraud or coercion, MMBA or PERB regulations do not authorize revocations of authorizations for representation. Because there was no showing that parties mutually agreed to permit revocations, PERB rejected the opposition petitions and the employee declarations as valid revocations of previously signed authorization cards. more or view all topics or full text. | 40 | 97 | 12/14/15 |
| A402E | Children of Promise Preparatory Academy 1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements EERA section 3544(b) and PERB Regulation 33075 grant PERB sole authority to determine the sufficiency of an employee organization’s proof of support. The process for determining proof of support is confidential. A party may challenge the proof of support on the basis that it was obtained by fraud or coercion, or that the signatures on support documents are not genuine, by filing with the Regional Office, within 20 days after the filing of the representation petition, declarations under penalty of perjury supporting such contentions. PERB will not consider declarations which are not timely filed, absent a showing of good cause for any delay. Proof of support is determined by PERB when a petition is filed and an employer provides a list of employees that comprise the petitioned-for unit. When a dispute arises thereafter as to the composition of the bargaining unit, PERB conducts an investigation to determine unit appropriateness. During this investigative process, which may or may not require an evidentiary hearing, the identity of individual employees within the unit may change over time as employees leave employment and are replaced. However, the initial determination regarding sufficiency of support for the recognition petition, once made, is determinative on the issue of majority support within the petitioned-for unit. more or view all topics or full text. | 38 | 76 | 11/06/13 |
| 2183E | Orcutt Union Elementary School District 1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements PERB may not require proof of majority support when a unit modification petition seeks to add unrepresented positions that total less than ten percent of the established unit, since increasing the unit by less than ten percent does not call into question the incumbent union’s majority support. Thus, under established PERB law, unrepresented employees may be added to an existing unit where the increase would amount to less than ten percent of the unit. more or view all topics or full text. | 36 | 1 | 06/07/11 |
| 2138M | County of Orange 1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements Local agency rule requiring showing of majority support for unit severance among employees in proposed new unit was reasonable even though PERB’s corresponding regulation only requires a showing of 30% support. Similar to PERB regulations governing unit severance under EERA, HEERA and the Dills Act, the majority support requirement was not a precursor to an election but determinative of whether the petition would be granted. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 156 | 10/25/10 |
| 2107H | Regents of the University of California 1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements Under PERB Regulation 32781(e)(1), PERB lacks discretion to require proof of majority support among positions to be added to an established bargaining unit when the addition would increase the size of the unit by less than 10 percent. PERB does not follow NLRB case law requiring proof of support when a classification has been excluded from the unit for a significant period of time. Employees have the right to choose which employee organization, if any, will represent them but have no right to choose the bargaining unit in which their position is placed. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 81 | 05/10/10 |
| A383E | Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO 1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements Representation petitions may be filed by residual groups of unrepresented employees who were excluded from existing units via voluntary recognitions or consent election agreements, but would likely have been included in the unit had the issue been before the Board at that time. These types of petitions are filed because there is no mechanism for being added to the existing unit if the exclusive representative of that unit chooses not to file a unit modification petition. There is no established mechanism for forcing upon an existing unit an additional group of employees the unit does not want. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 65 | 02/23/10 |
| A380E | Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District 1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements To challenge the dismissal of a decertification petition for lack of support, the charging party must allege sufficient facts to demonstrate the adequacy/inadequacy of the proof of support. Bare assertions of fact, standing alone, are insufficient to satisfy this burden of proof. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 111 | 06/22/09 |
| A367S | State of California (Information Technology Bargaining Unit 22 and Service Employees International Union Local 1000/California State Employees Association) 1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements Under PERB’s severance petition rules, the first step to establish such a unit of employees is to file a severance petition which is accompanied by proof of majority support in the unit claimed to be appropriate. (PERB Reg. 40200(a) and (b).) This proof of support is defined by PERB Regulation 32700. PERB Regulation 32700’s provisions specify that the proof of support must demonstrate that the employee desires to be represented by the employee organization and what information must be provided as to each employee signing the proof of support. There is no language in these proof of support regulations or any PERB rules governing severance petitions which provides that this demonstration of an employee’s desire to be represented may be controverted by a showing that the employee has subsequently withdrawn his or her support. Because no PERB regulations exist authorizing the use of signature revocations, we find that the Board agent improperly accepted the exclusive representative’s authorization revocation cards to determine if the proposed unit had proof of majority support. We hold that the Board agent erred as a matter of law when he determined that PERB’s approval of revocation cards in Antelope Valley applied to the revocation cards submitted by the exclusive representative thereby authorizing them to be used to offset signatures on the proposed unit’s Dills Act severance petition. We further find that no procedures have been enacted under the Dills Act which provide employees with a right to revoke their signatures on a severance petition, thus there was no legal basis to accept the exclusive representative’s revocation cards. more or view all topics or full text. | 31 | 154 | 11/06/07 |
| 1881H | Trustees of the California State University 1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements The ALJ should have required a proof of support when the size of the unit would have been increased by approximately 25 percent. more or view all topics or full text. | 31 | 51 | 01/24/07 |
| 1816M | Antelope Valley Health Care District 1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements An employee con revoke an authorization card or proof of support so long as the employee clearly demonstrates the desire NOT to be represented by the employee organization for the purposes of meeting and conferring on wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment. “No Union” slips of paper signed by employees are not valid revocations. A revocation of an authorization card or other proof of support should meet the requirements in PERB Reg. 61020(a). MMBA 3507.1(c) requires a public agency to grant recognition to an employee organization based on cards that show a majority of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit desire the representation, unless another labor organization has previously been lawfully recognized as representative of all or part of the same unit. In this case, the District unreasonably withheld recognition from SEIU. more or view all topics or full text. | 30 | 60 | 02/10/06 |
| A315E | Salinas Union High School District 1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements Where authorization cards contain plainly stated information that meets PERB’s proof of support requirements, assertion that employees signing cards may not have understood the significance of the authorization cards is without merit even though it is possible that the authorization cards alone could leave less than an absolute certainty regarding the desire of employees. more or view all topics or full text. | 26 | 33075 | 06/06/02 |
| 1445E | San Diego Community College District 1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements Voluntarily submitted proof of support cards not made a part of record could not be relied upon for evidence of dissatisfaction with status quo by the Board in case evaluating unit modification petition. more or view all topics or full text. | 25 | 32085 | 06/15/01 |
| A219E | Pasadena Area Community College District 1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements Determination as to adequacy of proof of support not subject to interlocutory appeal; pp. 2-3. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22014 | 12/17/90 |
| A204E | Inglewood Unified School District 1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements Determination that a petitioner's proof of support is adequate is an interlocutory ruling which is not appealable; pp. 2-3. more or view all topics or full text. | 14 | 21073 | 03/28/90 |
| A179E | Pasadena Area Community College District 1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements Board agent's determination that proof of support inadequate affirmed; unnecessary for Board to address allegations that collection inhibited by unfair practices where Board takes official notice of records which show that unfair practice charges containing same allegations were withdrawn with prejudice; pp. 2-3. more or view all topics or full text. | 13 | 20022 | 12/29/88 |
| A172E | Oakland Unified School District 1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements In interpreting PERB Regulation 32770(b) requiring 30% proof of support, Board holds that 30% showing must be based on the number of eligible voters, not the established unit; p. 6. more or view all topics or full text. | 12 | 19125 | 07/14/88 |
| A159E | Coast Community College District 1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements As the factual circumstances relevant to the unit size dispute have not been adequately explored, Board found that determining the adequacy of support is an assessment best rendered initially by the regional director; pp. 7-8. more or view all topics or full text. | 10 | 17174 | 10/15/86 |
| A116E | Antelope Valley Community College District 1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements Authorization cards valid when filed and remain valid during period of contested unit determination, even after elapse of two years. Any additional showing of support will augment original. more or view all topics or full text. | 5 | 12129 | 10/07/81 |
| A103H | Regents of the University of California - Phase II Professional and Operations Hearings (Higher Education Employer Employee Relations Act-University of California) 1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements Signatures submitted to establish a showing of support must be accompanied by dates as evidence they were obtained within one calendar year prior to the filing. more or view all topics or full text. | 4 | 11196 | 11/14/80 |
| A060S | Fish and Game Wardens Association (California State Employees Association) 1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements The only requirement for a petitioning union is to have 30% of the proposed unit not of any specific groups in the unit. more or view all topics or full text. | 3 | 10039 | 03/09/79 |
| A008E | Fremont Unified School District 1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements Proof of support inadequate; p. 1. more or view all topics or full text. | 1 | 382 | 04/19/77 |
| A017E | Rio Hondo Community College District 1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements Unnecessary to rule on adequacy of proof of majority support where employer response reflects intent to deny recognition and request election; pp. 1-2, admin. determination. more or view all topics or full text. | 1 | 449 | 10/07/77 |
| 1082E | San Juan Unified School District 1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements Properly completed authorization cards, without more, are sufficient proof of support to meet the requirements of PERB Regulation 32700(e); p. 6. more or view all topics or full text. | 19 | 26039 | 01/18/95 |
| 0801E | Kings County Office of Education 1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements Adequacy of proof of support for unit modification is determined at the time the petition is filed. more or view all topics or full text. | 14 | 21081 | 03/29/90 |
| 0776S | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (California Correctional Peace Officers Association) 1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements Unit modification petition, based on changed circumstances, dismissed for failure to show majority support; pp. 2-5; pp. 3-4, proposed dec. Proof of majority support, if required pursuant to PERB Regulation 32781(f), must be shown among the group of employees to be added to the unit, not among employees within the entire unit once modified; p. 4. more or view all topics or full text. | 13 | 20216 | 10/06/89 |
| 0369E | Mendocino Community College District (deBane Piche) 1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements Petition for decertification rejected for failure to obtain required 30 percent support, absence of date, and absence of job titles of signatories. more or view all topics or full text. | 8 | 15010 | 12/22/83 |
| 0355E | Los Gatos Joint Union High School District 1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements No showing that other employee's experienced denial of free choice where an alleged supervisor signed a proof of support petition. Proof of support even without his signature. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14287 | 11/14/83 |
| 0327S | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) 1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements Proof of support must be completed when filed, during the window period. No period for perfection allowed. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14200 | 07/14/83 |
| 0948S | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) 1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements Determination of the sufficiency of support is not identical to the determination of voter eligibility; p. 51, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 16 | 23131 | 08/06/92 |