All notes for Subtopic 1400.02000 – Employer Responsibility
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2464M | City of San Diego * * * Affirmed, 5 Cal.5th 898 (2018). Remedy modified by City of San Diego (2019) PERB Decision No. 2464a-M * * * 1400.02000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; AGENCY; Employer Responsibility Although PERB generally follows common law principles of agency, it, like the NLRB and ALRB, routinely applies these principles with reference to the broad, remedial purposes of the statutes it administers rather that by strict application of concepts governing an employer’s responsibility to third parties for the acts of its employees. Given the extent to which the Mayor, his staff, and other City officials used City resources and the prestige of their offices to promote a ballot measure to alter employee pension benefits, making liability dependent on whether the City Council had expressly authorized its statutory agent in collective bargaining matters to pursue the ballot measure would allow the City to use its local initiative power to undermine the principle of bilateral negotiations required by the MMBA. PERB rejected defense that Mayor and other City officials were acting as private citizens when they and their staff appeared at press conferences and other public events, used City staff, e-mail accounts, websites and other City resources, as well as the prestige of their City offices to publicize and solicit support for a ballot initiative aimed at altering the pension benefits of City employees. Board affirmed ALJ’s finding that the Mayor acted as the statutory agent of the City in announcing and supporting ballot measure to change City policy regarding employee pension benefits and in refusing to bargain with the Unions over this change in policy. Board’s finding that Mayor was acting with actual authority on behalf of the City did not turn on whether the City had authorized the specific acts undertaken by the Mayor as its bargaining representative, but whether the Mayor was acting within the scope of his authority, including the degree of discretion conferred on him by the City Charter to further the City’s interests. Under PERB’s Inglewood test, the party asserting an agency relationship by way of apparent authority has the burden of proving that theory by competent and admissible but not necessarily direct evidence. Because the test is an objective one whose inquiry is what employees would reasonably believe under the circumstances, what any particular employee subjectively believed is not determinative. more or view all topics or full text. | 40 | 108 | 12/29/15 |
| 2337E | Palo Verde Unified School District 1400.02000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; AGENCY; Employer Responsibility Where a supervisor who has displayed animus discharges an employee, with the support and ratification of the supervisor’s own supervisor, who himself displays animus, we attribute both supervisors’ actions and animus to the employer. more or view all topics or full text. | 38 | 69 | 10/29/13 |
| 2384H | Trustees of the California State University 1400.02000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; AGENCY; Employer Responsibility An employer’s responsibility for the coercive acts of its representatives is not limited by the technical rules of agency or respondeat superior; questions of agency must be determined with reference to the statute’s remedial purpose of protecting employee rights. Where charging party alleges that employer’s labor relations official ratified supervisor’s attendance at meeting “on behalf of” nonsupervisory employee, charging party has satisfied prima facie case that supervisor was acting as employer’s agent at the meeting. more or view all topics or full text. | 39 | 16 | 06/30/14 |
| 2332E | Santa Ana Unified School District 1400.02000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; AGENCY; Employer Responsibility Under either the judicial or PERB tests to establish ostensible or apparent authority of an employer’s agent, a union’s reliance on the authority of an employer’s attorney and bargaining representative to bind the employer to a settlement agreement of a PERB unfair practice charge is reasonable. Ratification by a vote of a school district’s governing board is not the sine qua non of a binding agreement entered into by a district’s duly authorized agent. more or view all topics or full text. | 38 | 51 | 10/03/13 |
| 2164M | West Contra Costa County Healthcare District 1400.02000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; AGENCY; Employer Responsibility The mere fact that lead worker had authority to perform some supervisory duties was insufficient to establish that lead worker had apparent authority to act on behalf of the employer in circulating a petition seeking to restrict union’s access to bargaining unit employees. Employee’s own knowledge and approval of petition is insufficient to impute knowledge and approval of conduct to the employer. more or view all topics or full text. | 35 | 45 | 02/24/11 |
| 1771H | Regents of the University of California 1400.02000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; AGENCY; Employer Responsibility Sarka failed to present evidence that the Independent Party Reviewer, who conducted the fact-finding hearing, was an agent of the University. Sarka’s belief that the Independent Party Reviewer was an agent does not suffice to support an allegation of agency. Mere surprise is insufficient to impose liability based on a theory of apparent authority. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 144 | 06/24/05 |
| 1766M | City of Monterey 1400.02000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; AGENCY; Employer Responsibility The City Council in this matter is not a “neutral decider of cases,” but rather acted as an agent of the City and responsible for the City’s actions. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 130 | 05/20/05 |
| 1647E | Chula Vista Elementary School District 1400.02000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; AGENCY; Employer Responsibility The MCS principal is an agent of the District; he had both actual authority and apparent authority to engage in the unlawful conduct. “Actual authority” is that which an employer intentionally confers upon the agent, or intentionally or negligently allows the agent to believe himself or herself to possess. “Apparent authority” may be found where an employer reasonably allows employees to perceive that it has authorized the agent to engage in the conduct in question. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 184 | 06/23/04 |
| 1518E | Compton Unified School District 1400.02000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; AGENCY; Employer Responsibility Although employee was not an actual agent of the employer, employee acted with ostensible or apparent authority when she entered a union meeting and warned all new teachers to leave. Employer accepted responsibility for employee’s actions by refusing to disavow or repudiate employee’s actions when they become known. more or view all topics or full text. | 27 | 56 | 04/18/03 |
| 1469E | Los Angeles Unified School District 1400.02000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; AGENCY; Employer Responsibility The District is liable for its agent's acts which caused the termination of an employee from her employment outside of the District based upon the employees' protected activities. more or view all topics or full text. | 26 | 33023 | 11/29/01 |
| 1504E | Clovis Unified School District 1400.02000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; AGENCY; Employer Responsibility Where CSEA and its local chapter are the exclusive representative, notice to the local does not constitute notice to CSEA. more or view all topics or full text. | 27 | 15 | 12/18/02 |
| 1485M | City of Huntington Park 1400.02000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; AGENCY; Employer Responsibility Charging party failed to show that at the time an individual took alleged action against him, that the individual was acting in her capacity as agent of city, especially in light of statement in charge that the individual was an assistant to the Governor of California. more or view all topics or full text. | 26 | 33081 | 06/17/02 |
| 1305S | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (International Union of Operating Engineers) 1400.02000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; AGENCY; Employer Responsibility Dills Act section 3513(j) defines the State employer for purposes of bargaining as the Governor or his designated representatives. As the Governor's designee, DPA may in turn delegate bargaining authority to State agencies or departments, at is discretion. more or view all topics or full text. | 23 | 30031 | 12/22/98 |
| 1185E | Healdsburg Union High School District 1400.02000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; AGENCY; Employer Responsibility Animus of administrators can be imputed to school Board where information relied on by Board came from administrators and Board, like administrators misidentified documents; p. 52, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 21 | 28055 | 02/24/97 |
| 0649E | Compton Community College District 1400.02000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; AGENCY; Employer Responsibility In order to state a prima facie case (in an unfair practice charge) of an agency relationship between a non-supervisory or non-managerial employee and the employer, some factual demonstration of a relationship beyond employment alone is necessary. Some facts must be alleged which show the employee was acting with some direction, instigation, approval or ratification of the action by the employer. A conclusionary statement that he "was following the directions of the District in attacking the Charging Party" is insufficient under PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5). more or view all topics or full text. | 12 | 19016 | 12/21/87 |
| 0500E | Santa Clara Unified School District 1400.02000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; AGENCY; Employer Responsibility Not necessary to show that personnel manager, who exercised limited review under special circumstances, harbored discriminatory animus where school principal was the effective decision-maker. more or view all topics or full text. | 9 | 16116 | 04/11/85 |