All notes for Subtopic 1306.01000 – In General; Requirements

DecisionDescriptionPERC Vol.PERC IndexDate
A453H Regents of the University of California
1306.1000: 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.
424709/29/17
A453H Regents of the University of California
1306.1000: 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.
424709/29/17
A453H Regents of the University of California
1306.1000: 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.
424709/29/17
A453H Regents of the University of California
1306.1000: 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.
424709/29/17
A453H Regents of the University of California
1306.1000: 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.
424709/29/17
A453H Regents of the University of California
1306.1000: 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.
424709/29/17
A459H Regents of the University of California
1306.1000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements
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.
429101/19/18
A459H Regents of the University of California
1306.1000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements
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.
429101/19/18
2509E Oakland Unified School District
1306.1000: 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.
4111112/29/16
A430M Morongo Basin Transit Authority
1306.1000: 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.
409712/14/15
A402E Children of Promise Preparatory Academy
1306.1000: 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.
387611/06/13
2183E Orcutt Union Elementary School District
1306.1000: 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.
36106/07/11
2138M County of Orange
1306.1000: 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.
3415610/25/10
2107H Regents of the University of California
1306.1000: 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.
348105/10/10
A383E Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO
1306.1000: 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.
346502/23/10
A380E Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District
1306.1000: 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.
3311106/22/09
A367S State of California (Information Technology Bargaining Unit 22 and Service Employees International Union Local 1000/California State Employees Association)
1306.1000: 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.
3115411/06/07
1881H Trustees of the California State University
1306.1000: 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.
01/24/07
1816M Antelope Valley Health Care District
1306.1000: 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.
306002/10/06
A315E Salinas Union High School District
1306.1000: 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.
263307506/06/02

1306.1000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements
County rule requiring a petition to be accompanied by signed authorization cards which show proof of support of 30 percent or more of the employees within the proposed new representation unit is reasonable. more or view all topics or full text.
1445E San Diego Community College District
1306.1000: 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.
253208506/15/01
A219E Pasadena Area Community College District
1306.1000: 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.
152201412/17/90
A204E Inglewood Unified School District
1306.1000: 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.
142107303/28/90
A179E Pasadena Area Community College District
1306.1000: 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.
132002212/29/88
A172E Oakland Unified School District
1306.1000: 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.
121912507/14/88
A159E Coast Community College District
1306.1000: 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.
101717410/15/86
A116E Antelope Valley Community College District
1306.1000: 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.
51212910/07/81
A103H Regents of the University of California - Phase II Professional and Operations Hearings (Higher Education Employer Employee Relations Act-University of California)
1306.1000: 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.
41119611/14/80
A060S Fish and Game Wardens Association (California State Employees Association)
1306.1000: 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.
31003903/09/79
A008E Fremont Unified School District
1306.1000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements
Proof of support inadequate; p. 1. more or view all topics or full text.
138204/19/77
A017E Rio Hondo Community College District
1306.1000: 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.
144910/07/77
1082E San Juan Unified School District
1306.1000: 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.
192603901/18/95
0801E Kings County Office of Education
1306.1000: 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.
142108103/29/90
0776S State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (California Correctional Peace Officers Association)
1306.1000: 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.
132021610/06/89
0369E Mendocino Community College District (deBane Piche)
1306.1000: 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.
81501012/22/83
0355E Los Gatos Joint Union High School District
1306.1000: 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.
71428711/14/83
0327S State of California (Department of Personnel Administration)
1306.1000: 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.
71420007/14/83
0948S State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) and California Union of Safety Employees
1306.1000: 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.
162313108/06/92