All notes for Subtopic 1310.01000 – In General
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A427E | Poway Unified School District 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General PERB rejects a formalistic approach to unit determination. The mere fact that an employee does not work a particular number of days or percentage of time does not, in and of itself, indicate that the employee does not share a community of interest with other unit members. Employees belong in bargaining unit if they have a reasonable expectation of continuing employment. There is a clear distinction between voter eligibility and unit membership eligibility. PERB generally includes employees in a bargaining unit regardless of how few hours they may work in a year but limits who decides whether to ben exclusively represented and if so by whom. PERB therefore does not use the "established interest formula” in assessing eligibility for unit membership. Substitute employees should be included in the bargaining unit, but the "established interest formula'' is the threshold for eligibility to participate in an election. more or view all topics or full text. | 40 | 35 | 06/29/15 |
| 2852H | Regents of the University of California 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General As a result of applying its unilaterally-adopted concurrent appointment policy, UC Santa Cruz eliminated a Non-Senate Faculty (NSF) Unit Member’s appointment as a 15 percent full-time equivalent lecturer and modified his non-exempt appointment to include the NSF Unit work. Because this conduct unilaterally modified the NSF Unit without UC-AFT’s agreement or utilization of PERB’s unit modification procedures, and also unilaterally modified Article 1 of the parties’ Agreement without providing UC-AFT notice and an opportunity to bargain, the Board concluded that the University violated HEERA section 3571, subdivisions (a) and (c). (pp. 20-21.) more or view all topics or full text. | 47 | 121 | 02/09/23 |
| 2821M | County of Monterey 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General County local rules tracked settled precedent by repeatedly referencing the need to determine the broadest feasible group based on community of interest, and to avoid fragmentation of units. (See, e.g., County of Santa Clara (2019) PERB Decision No. 2670-M, p. 19 [“[P]ublic sector bargaining units may require modification to avoid fragmentation and ensure operational efficiency”].) Because “[t]he foundation of public sector labor relations is to protect employees’ right to representation and to balance those rights with public employers’ interest in maintaining operational efficiency . . . [PERB] generally seek[s] to avoid the fragmentation of employee groups and proliferation of bargaining units.” (Id. at p. 27 & fn. 25; Regents of the University of California (2017) PERB Order No. Ad-453-H, pp. 23-24.) (p. 11.) more or view all topics or full text. | 47 | 9 | 06/01/22 |
| 2809E | * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * Alliance Judy Ivie Burton Technology Academy High School et al. 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General PERB regulations and long-established precedent provide that a unit modification can only be effectuated by either the mutual agreement of the parties or through the filing of a petition and showing changed circumstances. more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 131 | 02/28/22 |
| 2646H | Regents of the University of California (University Professional and Technical Employees, Communication Workers of America, Local 9119) 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General University engaged in a technical refusal to bargain in order to obtain judicial review of underlying unit modification decision, after Board declined to join University’s request for judicial review. The Board concluded that University’s conduct constituted a violation of its duty to bargain under HEERA. more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 196 | 06/03/19 |
| A453H | Regents of the University of California 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General 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 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General 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 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General 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 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General 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 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General 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 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General 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 |
| 2578H | Regents of the University of California (Teamsters Local 2010) 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General When determining whether an employee should be excluded from a unit, the Board considers the actual job duties performed, not just the job description. more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 31 | 07/18/18 |
| 2578H | Regents of the University of California (Teamsters Local 2010) 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General A mutual agreement regarding unit placement is permissible and desirable, but is not considered a waiver of the right to petition for unit modification. more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 31 | 07/18/18 |
| 2509E | Oakland Unified School District 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General A party petitioning for a unit modification must provide proper notice to both PERB and other parties of the correct bargaining unit at issue, as well as the number of employees in the unit. However, where there was no genuine confusion as to which of two bargaining units was involved in a unit modification petition, and no demonstration of prejudice to the other parties, the Board declined to dismiss a purportedly defective petition. more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 111 | 12/29/16 |
| A420M | San Francisco Housing Authority 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General Laborers clearly is an “affected” exclusive representative in that if Local 38’s petition were granted, Laborers would be affected. The language of PERB Regulation 61450(c) is “affected,” not “adversely affected.” Accordingly, we reject Local 38’s contention that Laborers is not an “affected” exclusive representative. PERB Regulation 61450 speaks of “classifications or positions” and not of “work.” Therefore, a petition which seeks to transfer “work” or a union’s “jurisdiction over work,” but not a “classification or position,” fails to meet the requirements of the regulation. PERB permits unit modification petitions that seek to transfer classifications between bargaining units. However, such petitions must be filed jointly by all affected exclusive representatives pursuant to PERB Regulation 61450(c). To the extent that [Local 38] states that it is seeking to transfer “work,” rather than positions or classifications, a unit modification petition is not appropriate. PERB unit modification procedures concern the appropriate inclusion or exclusion of “positions” or “classifications” from a bargaining unit. more or view all topics or full text. | 39 | 150 | 04/28/15 |
| 2294M | County of Orange 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General Charge failed to allege facts establishing that county violated local rule by failing to process unit modification petition filed simultaneously with request for recognition as verified organization, where local rules required petition to be filed by verified employee organization and organization was not verified at the time it filed petition, and date it was verified was outside window period for filing petition. Charge failed to allege facts establishing county violated local rule by refusal to process appeal from denial of request for unit modification to board of supervisors, where local rule does not provide for appeal to board of supervisors of refusal to process unit modification request. Because unit modification petition was not timely filed under local rules, charge fails to establish prima facie violation of physicians’ and dentists’ rights to a separate bargaining unit under local rules or MMBA. more or view all topics or full text. | 37 | 123 | 11/30/12 |
| 2162S | State of California (Department of Forestry and Fire Protection) 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General Retired annuitants are not automatically placed in bargaining units containing full-time employees performing similar tasks. Rather, retired annuitants will be placed in such units if they are included in a unit determination or modification petition and if, following a full unit hearing, the Board determines they are appropriately placed in that unit. PERB is vested with the exclusive authority to determine appropriate bargaining units for State employees. Thus, to the extent the actions of the State Controller’s Office conflict, or are otherwise inconsistent, with PERB’s unit determinations, PERB’s determinations control. more or view all topics or full text. | 35 | 38 | 02/10/11 |
| 2154S | State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General Retired annuitants are not automatically placed in bargaining units containing full-time employees performing similar tasks. Rather, retired annuitants will be placed in such units if they are included in a unit determination or modification petition and if, following a full unit hearing, the Board determines they are appropriately placed in that unit. PERB is vested with the exclusive authority to determine appropriate bargaining units for State employees. Thus, to the extent the actions of the State Controller’s Office conflict, or are otherwise inconsistent, with PERB’s unit determinations, PERB’s determinations control. more or view all topics or full text. | 35 | 22 | 12/30/10 |
| 2183E | Orcutt Union Elementary School District 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General 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. PERB’s unit modification regulations apply to charter schools, subject to the requirement of Education Code section 47611.5(d) that PERB take the Charter School Act (CSA) (Ed. Code, § 47600 et seq.) into account when deciding cases involving charter schools. Nothing in the language of the CSA or the legislative history requires charter school employees to be given a choice over the designation of the public school employer or to be placed in a separate bargaining unit in the absence of such a designation. Charter school classroom teachers may be added to an existing unit of non-charter school teachers unless the factors set forth in EERA section 3545(a) cannot be met. Those factors include community of interest and the effect of the size of the unit on the efficient operation of the school district. In this case, charter school teachers share a sufficient community of interest with the other teachers in the District to warrant inclusion in the District-wide bargaining unit. Given that the District has not demonstrated that the proposed unit would unduly interfere with its ability to achieve the goals set forth in its charter petition or in the CSA, the petitioner has established sufficient grounds to grant the petition for unit modification. more or view all topics or full text. | 36 | 1 | 06/07/11 |
| A384E | Castaic Union School District * * * OVERRULED by amendment to EERA section 3540.1, subdivision (e), Stats. 2011, Ch. 674, and Center Unified School District (2014) PERB Decision No. 2379 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General * * * OVERRULED by Stats. 2011, ch. 674 (A.B. 501), § 1, and Center Unified School District (2014) PERB Decision No. 2379, which provide that non-classified, non-certificated noon duty aides are included in EERA’s definition of “public school employee” even though the Education Code expressly excludes such employees from the definition of “classified service.” * * *Board agent erred in relying solely on prior PERB decisions that placed part-time playground positions in classified employee bargaining unit. There was no evidence in the record to establish a community of interest between noon-duty aide positions named in unit modification petition and school district’s classified employees. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 120 | 08/09/10 |
| 2107H | Regents of the University of California 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General Modification of residual healthcare professional unit to add case managers is appropriate because: (1) case managers share a community of interest with other classifications in the unit; (2) addition of 163 employees to unit would not have a negative effect on employer’s efficient operations; and (3) the existing exclusive representative has experience representing a diverse set of occupational groupings. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 81 | 05/10/10 |
| A371S | State of California (Peace Officers of California and California Statewide Law Enforcement Association) 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General The Board may grant a request to withdraw an appeal of a dismissal of the unit modification petition, provided the withdrawal is in the best interests of the parties and consistent with the purposes of the Ralph C. Dills Act. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 57 | 03/13/08 |
| 1896M | Turlock Irrigation District 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General Parties have the right to seek review of local agencies’ unit determination decisions under the MMBA by filing unfair practice charges. The statement in the Westlands Water District (2004) PERB Decision No. 1622-M (Westlands) decision that “[w]here a party instead seeks review of the unit determination decision itself, a petition for Board review should be filed” (PERB Reg. 60000, et seq.) is moot, because the Board repealed Regulations 60000 through 60070 on February 9, 2006, effective May 11, 2006. The union failed to establish a prima facie case that the local agency had failed and/or refused to comply with its local rules. The MMBA does not require the local agency to “meet and confer,” or bargain, with employee organizations regarding unit determination decisions made pursuant to its local rules. more or view all topics or full text. | 31 | 80 | 03/28/07 |
| 1881H | Trustees of the California State University 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General The rebuttable presumption test is used when parties seek to move an existing classification from one bargaining unit to another or to separate a bargaining unit. It is not properly used when placing a new classification into a unit. Rather, it is necessary to utilize the criteria found in HEERA section 3579. more or view all topics or full text. | 31 | 51 | 01/24/07 |
| 1847E | Burlingame Elementary School District 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General Unit modification petition is denied where position sought to be excluded does not meet definition of confidential employee as delineated in EERA section 3540.1(c). more or view all topics or full text. | 30 | 131 | 06/13/06 |
| 1768M | Modesto Irrigation District 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General The District’s Employer Employee Relations Resolution’s procedure for unit modification authorizes an employee organization, not individual employees or a group of employees, to file a unit modification petition to create a separate unit of professional employees. The two petitions for unit modification were filed by Tacke and other professional employees, not by an employee organization. The first petition improperly sought to be transfer from the Professional and Supervisory unit to the Management/Confidential unit. MMBA section 3507.3 does not require relocation from one mixed unit to another. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 140 | 06/10/05 |
| A347H | California Faculty Association 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General California Faculty Association (CFA) Petition to add Instructional Student Assistant (ISA) classification to Unit 3 properly dismissed as ISA’s represented by UAW and issues raised previously litigated in PERB Case No. LA-UM-723-H. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 138 | 06/09/05 |
| 1744E | Berkeley Unified School District 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General Although under EERA, units may be modified by agreement between the parties, the parties must use PERB procedures to obtain Board approval of changes to the unit and may not divest the Board of jurisdiction to make unit determinations. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 66 | 01/26/05 |
| 1688E | Elk Grove Unified School District 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General The petitioned-for classifications do not share a separate and distinct community of interest that would warrant establishment of a separate unit. Neither the existing unit or the proposed unit are Sweetwater units; therefore, the Board must determine the appropriate unit, which is the largest reasonable unit. Alternatively, EGASA must establish that its proposed unit has a community of interest separate and distinct from other employees. It is not pertinent that EGASA has demonstrated majority support in the proposed separate unit. That the employees in the proposed unit should have the right to choose their representative is unpersuasive because the issue in this case is the appropriateness of the unit, not which organization the employees want to represent them. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 253 | 09/17/04 |
| 1623E | Fontana Unified School District 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General The duty aides possess sufficient community of interest with the wall-to-wall classified unit to warrant inclusion in the bargaining unit. Their exclusion from the classified service under Education Code section 45103 does not preclude their exercise of rights under EERA. The duty aides are regularly-scheduled part-time employees who have a continued expectation of employment.) The duty aides’ lack of a formal job description, lower pay, and limited benefits are not controlling in determining community of interest since these issues are subject to negotiations if the petition is granted. Not all duties must be identical to establish a community of interest. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 145 | 04/28/04 |
| 1678E | Delano Joint Union High School District 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General Board affirmed that where a unit exists covering all classified employees, and a classified position is newly created, the newly created position is automatically placed in the classified unit. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 222 | 08/20/04 |
| A342H | Trustees of the California State University * * * OVERRULED by Regents of the University of California (2010) PERB Decision No. 2107-H 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General * * * OVERRULED by Regents of the University of California (2010) PERB Decision No. 2107-H, where the Board held that the amount of time classifications have been excluded from bargaining unit has no bearing on whether excluded classifications should be added to an established unit pursuant to a unit modification petition. * * *In clarifying unit, the Board found students excluded from Unit 3 if they are degree-seeking graduate students, in the academic department in which they are employed to perform instruction and that they are employed because they are seeking a degree in that department. Union may not use unit clarification process to include classifications in its unit that have been excluded for substantial periods of time. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 263 | 09/29/04 |
| 1622M | Westlands Water District 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General Union alleged that District violated local rules by allowing unit modification election to proceed within 12 months of an unsuccessful decertification election. Board rejected union’s argument that a contract bar existed; instead, Board found that local rule provided a 12-month bar only from the date of formal recognition. However, Board found that separate local rule provided a 12-month bar following the date of any recognition election. Thus, Board reversed dismissal and remanded case for issuance of complaint. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 144 | 04/22/04 |
| A327M | City of Carson 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General The City’s calculation of an “open period” based on a petitioning union’s MOU rather than on the incumbent union’s MOU is not reasonable because it does not meet an objective of the contract bar doctrine to establish stability in employer/employee relations. more or view all topics or full text. | 27 | 88 | 06/20/03 |
| 1510E | Burlingame Elementary School District 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General Employer’s charge that union committed an unfair practice by representing a confidential employee fails to state a prima facie case. The essence of employer’s charge is a dispute over the composition of a unit. In disputed cases, a unit modification can only be accomplished through PERB’s unit modification procedure. Employer cannot circumvent PERB’s unit modification procedure by bringing an unfair practice charge. more or view all topics or full text. | 27 | 30 | 02/13/03 |
| A315E | Salinas Union High School District 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General Proof of majority support indicated by authorization cards is sufficient to certify the new unit through a unit modification proceeding without an election where requisite community of interest is not contested and balancing the equities dictates such a conclusion despite the employer contesting majority support and requesting an election. more or view all topics or full text. | 26 | 33075 | 06/06/02 |
| 1445E | San Diego Community College District 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General Where current unit configuration, voluntarily established by the parties, does not coincide with Board decisions, but separates college counselors and faculty from continuing education counselors and faculty into two units, the units are not presumptively appropriate. Where units are not presumptively appropriate, and would not become so if the unit modification petition were granted, the petition is judged by whether the proposed unit is an appropriate unit. Joint filing of a petition for unit modification pursuant to PERB Regulation 32781(c) allows on its face an inference of dissatisfaction with the status quo. Absence of evidence in the record to rebut the inference leads the Board to find adequate evidence of dissatisfaction with incumbent union's representation. Where neither unit would be inappropriate for the continuing education counselors, it is proper to consider the desire of employees in making a determination on a unit modification petition. Requested remedy that continuing education counselors be placed on salary schedule applicable to counselors currently represented by unit in which the Board's order places continuing education counselors denied as the matter is properly addressed through collective bargaining. more or view all topics or full text. | 25 | 32085 | 06/15/01 |
| 1332E | Plumas Unified School District and Plumas County Superintendant of Schools and Plumas County Teachers Association, CTA/NEA 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General Community of interest is not determinative of unit modification petition because 2 separate employers are present. Meaningful negotiation can only occur where the employer has the authority and ability to reach agreement with the duly selected representative of its employees about those matters within the scope of representation. It is the separate economic status of each district, coupled with the exclusive policy-making authority of each district, which determines its ability to negotiate about those matters within the scope of negotiations. Since the employees of the District and County Superintendent were found to be employees of two separate public school employers, and not a single or joint employer, it was not possible to find that they comprise a single appropriate bargaining unit, and inclusion of the employees of both employers in a single unit was not appropriate under the Educational Employment Relations Act. more or view all topics or full text. | 23 | 30124 | 06/03/99 |
| A199E | Richmond Unified School District 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General Employee organization had no standing to request a unit modification under Regulation 32781(a)(1), (b)(2) or (3) to add employees currently represented by another exclusive representative; p. 3, admin. determination. more or view all topics or full text. | 13 | 20227 | 11/06/89 |
| A148E | Riverside Unified School District (Petrich) 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General An individual employee acting on his own behalf is neither an "employer" nor an "employee organization" and thus does not have standing to file a unit modification petition. more or view all topics or full text. | 9 | 16190 | 08/13/85 |
| A148Ea | Riverside Unified School District (Petrich) 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General An individual employee acting on his own behalf is neither an "employer" nor an "employee organization" and thus does not have standing to file a unit modification petition. more or view all topics or full text. | 10 | 17031 | 12/23/85 |
| A051E | El Centro School District 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General PERB Regulation 33260 requires that regional director entertain petition for unit modification when its requirements and statutory requirements are satisfied; Board resolution passed before promulgation of Regulation 33260 is not controlling over this regulation; p. 6. Demonstration of majority support as to proposed unit members required before employee organization may become exclusive representative through recognition or certification of employees added to unit in unit modification proceeding; p. 8. Employee organization must demonstrate at least 30 percent proof of support among employees it seeks to add to existing unit through unit modification proceeding to initiate PERB investigation; p. 8. Fact that exclusive representative did not initially seek to have certain employees included in unit during its unit determination Fact that exclusive representative did not initially seek to have certain employees included in unit during its unit determination more or view all topics or full text. | 3 | 10009 | 01/02/79 |
| 1145S | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (California Union of Safety Employees) 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General Reassignment of duties to employees in another bargaining unit is a transfer of work across unit lines not a unit modification. more or view all topics or full text. | 20 | 27061 | 03/08/96 |
| 1117S | State of California (Museum of Science and Industry) 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General Watch commanders are nonsupervisory because (1) they do not exercise ongoing independent judgment, which is evident from fact that others review their recommendations and have the power to overrule or disapprove those recommendations (2) they perform duties pursuant to established guidelines and (3) their work is substantially similar to the officers they supervise; pp. 3-4. more or view all topics or full text. | 19 | 26134 | 09/15/95 |
| 1022E | Stanislaus County Office of Education 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General PERB lacks authority to force an employee organization to represent employees against its will. more or view all topics or full text. | 18 | 25005 | 10/26/93 |
| 0884E | Modesto City School District 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General It is necessary to first determine the status of the petitioned for position and the duties under the Education Code. Bargaining history and community of interest criteria are then used to ascertain into which classified or certificated bargaining unit the position should be placed; p. 17. Intent of a petition is determined by the content of the petition; p. 8. Duty to bargain over transfer of bargaining unit work is not a condition precedent to a determination of a unit modification petition; p. 14. Level of benefits afforded employee in position before and after proposed unit modification is irrelevant to whether unit modification should be granted. should be granted. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22099 | 06/03/91 |
| 0820E | Hemet Unified School District 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General Parties' existing agreements regarding unit placement are not binding where unit placement dispute has arisen and one party to agreement brings dispute before PERB for resolution pursuant to unit modification procedures; pp. 3-5. "Individual analysis" approach appropriate in unit modification case where same disputed position is held by several different employees at different work sites; pp. 6-9. more or view all topics or full text. | 14 | 21132 | 06/26/90 |
| 0801E | Kings County Office of Education 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General Under the criteria set forth in EERA section 3545(a), pupil services personnel are appropriately included in a unit of certificated instructional personnel; p. 7. more or view all topics or full text. | 14 | 21081 | 03/29/90 |
| 0794S | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General Despite presumptive appropriateness of existing Unit 3, a more appropriate unit existed which more closely reflected the different groups' community of interest. Thus, a new Unit 21 was created. more or view all topics or full text. | 14 | 21063 | 02/22/90 |
| 0767E | California School Employees Association (Petrich) 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General Individual does not have standing to file unit modification petition. more or view all topics or full text. | 13 | 20202 | 09/18/89 |
| 0727S | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (California Union of Safety Employees) 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General Present exclusive representative that was not a party to stipulations regarding supervisory employees in the original unit determination proceedings, will not be prohibited from petitioning for a change by the doctrine of res judicata; p. 5. more or view all topics or full text. | 13 | 20075 | 04/03/89 |
| 0722H | Regents of the University of California (California Nurses Association) 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General Unit modification can be only accomplished through PERB's procedures. A "technical refusal to bargain" is not an acceptable means of testing an existing unit; p. 9-10. more or view all topics or full text. | 13 | 20059 | 03/03/89 |
| A358H | Trustees of the California State University 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General The Board may grant a request to withdraw an appeal of a dismissal of the unit modification petition, provided the withdrawal is in the best interests of the parties and consistent with the purposes of the Educational Employment Relations Act. more or view all topics or full text. | 31 | 27 | 12/15/06 |
| 0415E | Antioch Unified School District 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General Where petition held in abeyance until new regulations adopted and opposing party aware that petition would be judged based on new regulation, formal amendment of petition was not required; similarly, fact that petition not on forms provided by Board does not render petition invalid, p. 4; no allegation or evidence that petition based on fraudulent or illegal conduct regarding duties of employees at issue; p. 5. more or view all topics or full text. | 8 | 15189 | 10/12/84 |
| 0370E | Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General Unit modification petition of CTA to modify established unit of certificated employees to include District's hourly adult teachers granted. more or view all topics or full text. | 8 | 15012 | 12/27/83 |
| 0363E | Pajaro Valley Unified School District 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General Based on community of interest criteria, established practices, and effect of size of unit on efficient operation of school district, unit modification granted to include adult education teachers in the certificated unit. more or view all topics or full text. | 8 | 15004 | 12/13/83 |
| 0352E | Palo Alto Unified School District 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General Issue of consolidation separate from issue of appropriateness of unit. Earlier PERB decision regarding appropriateness of unit does not bar consolidation where circumstances, such as existence of contract are different. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14278 | 10/24/83 |
| 0220E | El Monte Union High School District 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General A recognition agreement clause preventing the parties from seeking to clarify or amend the unit did not preclude PERB from modifying the unit to include summer school and hourly employees. The petitioning union did not violate the agreement because it did not attempt to alter the unit, but filed a petition for recognition of the employees. PERB, exercising its statutory powers to determine appropriate units, treated the recognition request as a modification petition. Parties cannot contract away PERB's statutory jurisdiction; pp. 4-6. PERB's unit modification regulations do not require the holding of an election before a modification in the unit can be implemented. It is within PERB's discretion to decide under what circumstances it might consider an election appropriate. Passage of time does not by itself compel a new election; pp. 9-10. consider an election appropriate. Passage of time does not by itself compel a new election; pp. 9-10. more or view all topics or full text. | 6 | 13160 | 06/30/82 |
| 0983H | Regents of the University of California (Alavarez) 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General Charging party lacked standing to file a unit modification petition to challenge bargaining unit composition; p. 4. more or view all topics or full text. | 17 | 24063 | 03/22/93 |
| 0984H | American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (Alvarez) 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General Charging party lacked standing to file a unit modification petition to challenge bargaining unit composition; pp. 4-5. more or view all topics or full text. | 17 | 24064 | 03/23/93 |
| 0142E | El Monte Union High School District 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General Petitions for recognition of units of summer school teachers and certificated hourly employees are construed, as a matter of equity, as a petition for unit modification. PERB changing policies, not errors by the petitioner, brought about the technically incorrect filings. more or view all topics or full text. | 4 | 11183 | 10/20/80 |
| 0107E | Redwood City Elementary School District 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General Request for recognition filed by Association to represent full and part-time summer school teachers construed as petition for unit modification to add summer school teachers to regular certificated unit; pp. 6-7. more or view all topics or full text. | 3 | 10137 | 10/23/79 |
| 0093E | Arcadia Unified School District 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General Unit modification procedure cannot be used by employer and competing representative to circumvent the intervention procedures in initial representation procedure; pp. 7-9. more or view all topics or full text. | 3 | 10070 | 05/17/79 |