All notes for Subtopic 1311.01000 – In General
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| J029E | St. HOPE Public Schools 1311.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; JUDICIAL REVIEW, REPRESENTATION, DECISIONS; In General Board denied request for judicial review of unit determination decision because the underlying determination did not involve a novel issue or statutory interpretation but rather applied a settled statutory interpretation to the particular facts presented. more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 153 | 03/11/19 |
| J029E | St. HOPE Public Schools 1311.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; JUDICIAL REVIEW, REPRESENTATION, DECISIONS; In General Board denied request for judicial review of unit determination decision because the underlying determination did not involve a novel issue or statutory interpretation but rather applied a settled statutory interpretation to the particular facts presented. more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 153 | 03/11/19 |
| J030E | Alliance Judy Ivie Burton Technology Academy High, et al. 1311.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; JUDICIAL REVIEW, REPRESENTATION, DECISIONS; In General Board denied request for judicial review because the employers’ conduct in the underlying representation proceeding was unprecedented, unlikely to recur in future cases, and the factors set out in Peralta Community College District (1978) PERB Decision No. 77 established the appropriateness of the petitioned-for units. more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 48 | 10/14/20 |
| 2646H | Regents of the University of California (University Professional and Technical Employees, Communication Workers of America, Local 9119) 1311.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; JUDICIAL REVIEW, REPRESENTATION, DECISIONS; 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 |
| J028H | Regents of the University of California and University Professional and Technical Employees, Communications Workers of America Local 9119 1311.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; JUDICIAL REVIEW, REPRESENTATION, DECISIONS; In General The Board declined to join in an employer’s request for judicial review where the issue, application of the ten percent rule for proof of majority support in unit modifications, was neither “novel” nor one of “special importance” unique to HEERA. HEERA section 3564, subdivision (a), makes PERB unit determinations immune from judicial review except when, in response to a petition for judicial review from an employer or employee organization, the Board agrees that the case is one of “special importance” and joins in the request for review; or when the issue is raised as a defense to an unfair practice complaint. (PERB Reg. 32500.) The Board has joined in a request for judicial review only when: (1) the case presents a novel issue; (2) the issue primarily involves construction of a statutory provision unique to the statute under consideration; and (3) the issue is likely to arise frequently. The Board applies this strict standard because the fundamental rights of employees to form, join and participate in the activities of employee organizations could be jeopardized if PERB’s unit determinations were routinely subject to legal challenges. more or view all topics or full text. | 42 | 111 | 02/27/18 |
| J027E | California Virtual Academies 1311.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; JUDICIAL REVIEW, REPRESENTATION, DECISIONS; In General (The Board applies a strict standard when reviewing requests for judicial review, and will join in a request only in cases of special importance. The Board has held that: A case has “special importance” if the Board determines that (1) there is a novel issue presented; (2) the issue primarily involves construction of a statutory provision unique to EERA; and (3) the issue is likely to arise frequently. PERB joins in requests for judicial review only in the narrowest of circumstances. The three-part test for determining “special importance” is phrased in the conjunctive, and therefore all three parts must be satisfied before PERB will join in the request for judicial review. If the first two prongs of the Board’s three part test for seeking judicial review are not met, it is not relevant whether the issues presented in this case are likely to arise frequently.) (While PERB has not previously concluded that multiple public agencies have comprised a single employer, the Board has considered the “single employer” doctrine under EERA on prior occasions and determined under the facts of those cases that the “single employer” theory did not apply. The Board’s analysis of the doctrine clearly indicates that the “single employer” concept is not novel to the Board. There is nothing “unprecedented” about the Board’s finding that the 11 CAVA schools constitute a single employer.) (The Board’s conclusion that Education Code section 47611.5, subdivision (b) did not preclude a finding that a charter school with multiple sites was a single employer does not present a novel issue warranting judicial review. The fact that CAVA disagrees with the Board’s legal and factual conclusions does not make for a “novel” issue. If such disagreements did determine a “novel issue,” every case involving conflicting statutory interpretations, no matter their merit, would satisfy this element, rendering meaningless the policy considerations that counsel for a very strict standard in joining in requests for judicial review.) (The decision’s discussion of the meaning of the phrase “exclusive public school employer” contained in Education Code section 47611.5, subdivision (b). in addressing CAVA’s argument does not turn this fact-intensive case into one of statutory construction.) (Simply because CAVA asserts that charter schools are likely to proliferate does not demonstrate that the particular issues in this case are likely to arise frequently, especially given the fact-intensive nature of the decision.) (When the requestor’s arguments address “issues of fact and factual interpretation” upon which the underlying PERB decision is based, “[t]hey do not meet the standard necessary to justify approval of the request for judicial review.) (Representation matters generally should not be subject to unwarranted delay through pursuit of judicial review. If an election is not to be stayed pending judicial review, a fortiori, a unit determination and certification of exclusive representative is not to be stayed pending a party’s pursuit of judicial review.) more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 74 | 09/30/16 |
| J026H | Regents of the University of California 1311.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; JUDICIAL REVIEW, REPRESENTATION, DECISIONS; In General The Board applies a strict standard when reviewing requests for judicial review. A case has “special importance” if: (1) there is a novel issue presented; (2) the issue primarily involves the construction of a unique statutory provision; and (3) the issue is likely to arise frequently. The issue presented in this case, whether positions should be removed from the bargaining unit through reclassification, is not “novel” and the resolution of this case does not involve the construction of a unique statutory provision; rather, it involves the interpretation of a PERB regulation. more or view all topics or full text. | 36 | 68 | 10/26/11 |
| J025E | Castaic Union School District 1311.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; JUDICIAL REVIEW, REPRESENTATION, DECISIONS; In General Under EERA section 3542(a) and PERB Regulation 32500(c), the Board has discretion to join in a request for judicial review of a decision in a representation case only when the case is “one of special importance.” A case has “special importance” if the Board determines that: (1) there is a novel issue presented; (2) the issue primarily involves construction of a statutory provision unique to EERA; and (3) the issue is likely to arise frequently. The Board joined in a request for judicial review of its decision holding that part-time playground positions that are excluded from the classified service have no representational rights under EERA. The issue had not been addressed by a court, playground positions are unique to EERA, and a significant number of existing bargaining units contain positions that are excluded by statute from the classified service. more or view all topics or full text. | 35 | 8 | 12/07/10 |
| 1884E | Los Angeles Unified School District 1311.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; JUDICIAL REVIEW, REPRESENTATION, DECISIONS; In General In the absence of the presentation of newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence or special circumstances, relitigation of PERB’s unit determination is not warranted. PERB decisional law has not sanctioned an employer’s refusal to recognize an exclusive bargaining representative based on the employer’s unilateral determination that the unit is, for some reason, inappropriate. more or view all topics or full text. | 31 | 60 | 01/30/07 |
| A336M | Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District 1311.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; JUDICIAL REVIEW, REPRESENTATION, DECISIONS; In General The 30-day time period under PERB Regulation 60000 is not a jurisdictional statute of limitations. Late filings may be excused for good cause under Regulation 32136. Good cause was not established here because filing party failed to read Regulation 60000. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 137 | 05/12/04 |
| J023H | California Faculty Association 1311.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; JUDICIAL REVIEW, REPRESENTATION, DECISIONS; In General Unit clarification request does not rise to level of special importance necessary to establish basis for Board to request judicial review. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 51 | 12/29/04 |
| J021E | San Joaquin County Office of Education 1311.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; JUDICIAL REVIEW, REPRESENTATION, DECISIONS; In General Request for PERB to join in seeking judicial review or, in the alternative, reconsideration, not granted where Board granted unit modification petition to establish a unit comprising classifications of recruiter, migrant services assistant, secondary school advisor, support services facilitator and youth advocate within the County Migrant Education Program. County argued this was not most appropriate unit and requested judicial review. Board held not required to establish ‘most appropriate’ unit (EERA section 3544(a)). Judicial review denied due to lack of novel issue, unique statutory construction and likelihood that issue will be raised frequently, therefore no special importance as required under PERB Regulation 32500(c). (San Francisco: Los Angeles Unified School District (1985) PERB Order No. JR-13. more or view all topics or full text. | 07/08/04 | ||
| J020E | San Diego Community College District 1311.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; JUDICIAL REVIEW, REPRESENTATION, DECISIONS; In General The Board’s underlying decision turned on an application of the facts to the unit determination criteria contained in EERA section 3545(a). As such, the request for unit modification did not present a novel issue and did not primarily involve construction of a statutory provision unique to EERA. The request for judicial review seeks merely to relitigate issues in another forum and is nothing more than a disagreement with the Board’s exercise of the discretion vested in it by the Legialsture. more or view all topics or full text. | 26 | 33045 | 02/26/02 |
| J019H | The Regents of the University of California and Student Association of Graduate Employees, United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, et al. 1311.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; JUDICIAL REVIEW, REPRESENTATION, DECISIONS; In General The Board has applied a strict standard in reviewing requests for judicial review and evaluating whether cases are "of special importance" because the fundamental rights of employee organizations (HEERA sec. 3565) could be jeopardized if PERB's unit determinations were routinely subject to legal challenges; p. 3. Where a request for judicial review has been granted, the issue was found to be of special importance because: (1) it was a novel issue; (2) primarily involving construction of a unique statutory provision; and (3) was likely to arise frequently; p. 4. Frequency with which an issue may be raised is one element of the judicial review standard, but frequency alone does not indicate special importance especially when it results from the same party raising the issue in numerous cases; p. 5. A representational issue which arises frequently may be the subject of numerous Board and/or court decisions, a circumstance which would tend to diminish the special importance of a subsequent case which raises that issue for judicial review; p. 5. The interpretation of HEERA section 3562(f) regarding the status of student academic employees is not a novel issue; p. 4. The fact that other requests for recognition petitions pending at PERB may involve the issue of the status under HEERA of the University's student academic employees is insufficient to establish the special importance of the instant case; p. 6. PERB joining in a request for judicial review in all cases would likely result in the more expeditious of the two means of obtaining judicial review described in HEERA section 3564(a), that fact fails to demonstrate the special importance of this case; p. 6. more or view all topics or full text. | 23 | 30065 | 02/09/99 |
| J014E | Palomar Community College District 1311.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; JUDICIAL REVIEW, REPRESENTATION, DECISIONS; In General The Board has applied a relatively strict standard in reviewing requests for judicial review and evaluating whether cases are of special importance; p. 3. Where a request for judicial review has been granted, the issue was found to be of special importance because: (1) it was a novel issue; (2) primarily involving construction of a statutory provision unique to EERA; and (3) was likely to arise frequently; p. 4. The issue of whether department chairpersons and directors should be included in a bargaining unit is not a novel one justifying judicial review; p. 4. The mere fact that the Board has not previously interpreted Education Code section 87610.1(e) does not justify a request for judicial review; p. 5. review; p. 5. more or view all topics or full text. | 16 | 23140 | 09/04/92 |
| J015S | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) 1311.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; JUDICIAL REVIEW, REPRESENTATION, DECISIONS; In General The Legislature has emphasized the importance of insuring that representation elections are not delayed by including in the statute the directive that an election shall not be stayed even if the Board joins in a request for judicial review; p. 3. The Board has applied a relatively strict standard in considering whether cases are of "special importance" because the fundamental rights of employees to form, join and participate in the activities of employee organizations, and of employee organizations to represent their members in their employment relations cannot be exercised if PERB's unit determination decisions are routinely subject to legal challenges and the significant delays in the implementation of those decisions which may result; p. 3. The considerations which have lead the Board to apply a strict standard in judicial review requests involving unit determinations The considerations which have lead the Board to apply a strict standard in judicial review requests involving unit determinations regulations is at issue in this case, and not construction of a statutory provision unique to the Dills Act which the Board might consider appropriate for judicial review; p. 7. more or view all topics or full text. | 17 | 24136 | 08/09/93 |
| J016E | San Francisco Community College District 1311.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; JUDICIAL REVIEW, REPRESENTATION, DECISIONS; In General Under PERB Regulation 32500(c), the Board has the sole discretion to determine whether a case is "one of special importance,; p. 3. PERB's strict standard in judicial review cases is to ensure the fundamental rights of employees to form, join and participate in the activities of employee organizations; to prevent employee organizations' rights from being inhibited by numerous legal challenges which delay implementation of the Board's decisions; p. 3. Board has joined in request for judicial review where it found "special importance" because: (1) it was a novel issue; (2) primarily involved construction of a statutory provision unique to EERA; and (3) it was likely to arise frequently; p. 3. The interrelationship between the EERA and MMBA as raised in this case does not raise the issue to "special importance" warranting judicial review. does not raise the issue to "special importance" warranting judicial review. more or view all topics or full text. | 19 | 26062 | 03/01/95 |
| J017S | State of California (Museum of Science and Industry) 1311.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; JUDICIAL REVIEW, REPRESENTATION, DECISIONS; In General Judicial review granted where issue is of special importance which means that all three prongs are met: (1) it is a novel issue, (2) it primarily involves construction of a statutory provision unique to the Dills Act and (3) it is likely to rise again; p. 4. It is within the Board's sole discretion to determine whether a case is one of "special importance." The mere fact that a court has not ruled on an issue does not make it one of "special importance"; p. 3. Whether a particular classification meets the statutory definition of supervisory employee is not a novel issue; p. 4. The fact that the positions in question are involved in law enforcement activities does not make this a novel matter; p. 4. more or view all topics or full text. | 20 | 27046 | 02/23/96 |
| J018H | Regents of the University of California and Association of Student Employees, United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, et al. 1311.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; JUDICIAL REVIEW, REPRESENTATION, DECISIONS; In General The Board has applied a strict standard in reviewing requests for judicial review and evaluating whether cases are "of special importance" because the fundamental rights of employee organizations (HEERA sec. 3565) could be jeopardized if PERB's unit determinations were routinely subject to legal challenges; p. 3. Where a request for judicial review has been granted, the issue was found to be of special importance because: (1) it was a novel issue; (2) primarily involving construction of a unique statutory provision; and (3) was likely to arise frequently; p. 4. Frequency with which an issue may be raised is one element of the judicial review standard, but frequency alone does not indicate special importance especially when it results from the same party raising the issue in numerous cases; p. 7. A representational issue which arises frequently may be the subject of raising the issue in numerous cases; p. 7. A representational issue which arises frequently may be the subject of raises that issue for judicial review; p. 7. The interpretation of HEERA section 3562(f) regarding the status of student academic employees is not a novel issue; p. 7. Disagreement with the Board's exercise of its fundamental responsibility to approve appropriate units does not demonstrate that a case is of special importance; p. 8. HEERA section 3564 envisions two methods through which judicial review of unit determination may be obtained--PERB joining in a request for judicial review or through a party raising the issue on appeal of a Board determination in an unfair practice case which probably always will take longer. The fact that the judicial review process would be "significantly expedited" by PERB joining in the request does not demonstrate the special importance of this case; p. 8. demonstrate the special importance of this case; p. 8. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29152 | 09/01/98 |
| J022E | Victor Valley Options for Youth Teachers Association 1311.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; JUDICIAL REVIEW, REPRESENTATION, DECISIONS; In General To determine whether a case is one of “special importance,” the Board applies a strict standard of review to ensure that the fundamental rights of employees to join and participate in the activities of employee organizations is not abridged and to prevent employee organizations’ rights from being inhibited due to numerous legal challenges. The Board’s review involves a balance between the employer’s argument and the fundamental rights of employees and employee organizations. To demonstrate special importance, the petitioner must show that the Board’s order: (1) presents a novel issue; (2) primarily involves construction of an issue unique to EERA; and (3) was likely to arise frequently. OFY did not meet any of the prongs of this test in its request. The mere statement that there are 600 charter schools and the number increases annually is not a sufficient explanation for granting judicial review. Direct judicial review of unit determination cases is permitted in only very limited circumstances. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 49 | 12/27/04 |
| 0351Ha | California State University (Statewide University Police Association) 1311.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; JUDICIAL REVIEW, REPRESENTATION, DECISIONS; In General Board declines to join in request for judicial review where request is not more than disagreement with Board's decision and Board believes its decision is well-founded. more or view all topics or full text. | 8 | 15097 | 05/30/84 |