All notes for Subtopic 201.01000 – In General
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2868M | * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * El Camino Healthcare District, El Camino Hospital, and Silicon Valley Medical Development, LLC 201.01000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; In General A single-employer or joint-employer finding neither expands nor contracts the entities under PERB’s jurisdiction. (County of Ventura (2018) PERB Decision No. 2600-M, pp. 41-43.) PERB does not gain jurisdiction over an entity merely because it is part of a single-employer relationship with a PERB-covered entity. (Id. at p. 40.) Thus, when a single-employer or joint-employer relationship exists, PERB asserts jurisdiction only over those entities in the relationship that otherwise fall under PERB jurisdiction. (Id. at pp. 39-43.) (p. 37.) more or view all topics or full text. | 48 | 36 | 08/15/23 |
| 2868M | * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * El Camino Healthcare District, El Camino Hospital, and Silicon Valley Medical Development, LLC 201.01000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; In General The Board determined that Silicon Valley Medical Development, LLC (SVMD), a single-member limited liability corporation wholly owned by El Camino Hospital (ECH), a “governmental subdivision” under MMBA section 3501(c), is an MMBA-covered employer. PERB interprets “governmental subdivisions” covered under MMBA section 3501(c) to correspond to “political subdivisions” excluded from the NLRA under 29 United States Code section 152(2). (National Labor Relations Bd. v. Natural Gas Utility Dist. of Hawkins County, Tenn. (1971) 402 U.S. 600 (Hawkins County); Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (2012) PERB Decision No. 2263-M, p. 25 (Transit Authority); El Camino Hospital District (2009) PERB Decision No. 2033-M, pp. 17-18.) Hawkins County held that a private or quasi-private entity qualifies as a political subdivision if it is either: “(1) created directly by the State, so as to constitute a department or administrative arm of the government, or (2) administered by individuals who are responsible to public officials or to the general electorate.” (Hawkins County, supra, 402 U.S. at pp. 604-605.) The Board found that SVMD qualifies as a political subdivision under the second Hawkins County category. To reach this conclusion, PERB analyzed facts relevant to this inquiry under three main headings: “Public Purpose,” “Public Funding,” and “Public Control.” (Workforce Investment Board (2014) PERB Order No. Ad-418-M, pp. 24-26 (WIB).) (pp. 25-27.) SVMD is subject to public control, an often-vital factor in deciding whether an entity is administered by individuals who are responsible to public officials or voters. If public officials have authority to decide who fills a majority of seats on an entity’s governing board, that means the entity is administered by individuals who are responsible to public officials or the general electorate. (Transit Authority, supra, PERB Decision No. 2263-M, p. 24; accord WIB, supra, PERB Order No. 418-M, pp. 8, 11, 13-14, 18, 25-28, & 30-31, and adopting administrative determination at pp. 2 & 4.) SVMD’s leaders are ultimately responsible to El Camino Hospital District officials, and in addition, its leaders are responsible to ECH, which is a public agency for MMBA purposes. (pp. 27-31.) Moreover, SVMD has received significant public funding, and its goals fall squarely within the District’s public purposes. For these reasons, the Board determined SVMD falls within the second Hawkins County category and is a “governmental subdivision” within the meaning of MMBA section 3501(c). (pp. 31-34.) more or view all topics or full text. | 48 | 36 | 08/15/23 |
| 2660S | State of California (Office of the Inspector General) 201.01000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; In General The Board found that the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) was acting as the employer of correctional officers when OIG interviewed them pursuant to a Senate Rules Committee-authorized review of the practices at a state prison. The subject-matter of the interviews—the officers’ observations during their work at the prison—were work-related. Although OIG did not conduct the interviews at the request of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), CDCR management cooperated with and supported the interviews. OIG coordinated with local prison management to have the officers made available for the interviews, and directed officers to report at a specified time and place for the interviews. OIG held the interviews at the officers’ job sites, before or during the officers’ on-duty time. Moreover, some OIG agents apparently recognized the validity of the officers’ requests for representation and permitted their union representatives to participate in and record the interviews. (p. 20.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 48 | 08/15/19 |
| 2660S | State of California (Office of the Inspector General) 201.01000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; In General A state agency is subject to liability under Dills Act section 3519, subdivisions (a) and (b), if it is the appointing authority or when it acts as an employer. (p. 17.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 48 | 08/15/19 |
| 2660S | State of California (Office of the Inspector General) 201.01000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; In General A broad view of Dills Act section 3519 is consistent with the plain language of the statute. Unlike Dills Act section 3513, subdivision (j), section 3519 refers only to the “state” without either qualifying or defining the term. The Board therefore interprets “state” as meaning exactly what it says—the state itself. (pp. 16-17.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 48 | 08/15/19 |
| 2660S | State of California (Office of the Inspector General) 201.01000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; In General Section 3519 of the Dills Act makes it unlawful for the “state” to “interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees because of their exercise of rights guaranteed” to them under the Act and to “[d]eny to employee organizations rights guaranteed to them” under the Act. Although the Dills Act does not define the term “state” in this context, the Board has noted that “state” as used in section 3519 is broader than “state employer” in section 3513, subdivision (j). (p. 15.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 48 | 08/15/19 |
| 2660S | State of California (Office of the Inspector General) 201.01000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; In General The Dills Act declares as its purpose the improvement of employer-employee relations through recognition of “the right of state employees to join organizations of their own choosing and be represented by those organizations in their employment relations with the state.” However, the Act does not expressly define “state” and indeed it uses three different terms to refer to state management entities: “state employer,” “employer,” and “state.” Although by appearances similar, these terms address separate subjects and are not synonymous. (p. 14.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 48 | 08/15/19 |
| 2545E | Alliance College-Ready Public Schools, et al. 201.01000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; In General The Board cannot obtain jurisdiction over a private entity that does not fall within the definition of “employer” under the applicable statute by finding that entity to be part of a “single employer” relationship with an entity over which the Board does have jurisdiction. more or view all topics or full text. | 42 | 76 | 12/28/17 |
| 2464M | City of San Diego * * * Affirmed, 5 Cal.5th 898 (2018). Remedy modified by City of San Diego (2019) PERB Decision No. 2464a-M * * * 201.01000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; In General 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. An employer’s high-ranking officials, particularly those whose duties include employee or labor relations or collective bargaining matters, are generally presumed to speak and act on behalf of the employer, such that their words and conduct may be used to impute liability in unfair practice cases against the employer. A public employer may be held responsible for the actions of its highest ranking representatives or officials, even when they are engaged in ostensibly “private” conduct that contravenes the employer’s official policy. Where the City Council knew of the Mayor’s efforts to alter employee pension benefits through a ballot measure, of his use of the vestments and prestige of his office to promote this policy change, and, of his rejection of repeated requests from the Unions to meet and confer regarding this change, PERB found that City Council’s failure to repudiate Mayor’s conduct, including his outright refusal to meet and confer over the decision, City Council ratified Mayor’s conduct. more or view all topics or full text. | 40 | 108 | 12/29/15 |
| A418M | Workforce Investment Board of Solano County 201.01000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; In General In section 3501(c) of MMBA, the Legislature selected an expansive term, “public agency,” to describe those employers subject to the obligations of MMBA and whose employees enjoy rights thereunder. MMBA section 3501(c) includes those entities that have achieved the status of a “public agency” by statute, constitutional provision, case law or administrative precedent, and in addition those entities whose operations and characteristics bearing on their relationship to the state indicate attributes commonly associated with public bodies. In El Camino Hospital District (2009) PERB Decision No. 2033-M, the Board determined that El Camino Hospital (Hospital) was a “public agency” within MMBA section 3501(c). Operating as a non-profit public benefit corporation under California law, Hospital was “controlled” by the El Camino Hospital District (District) which was itself a “public agency” formed pursuant to the California’s Local Health Care District Law. The Board reasoned that as it was controlled by the District, Hospital was a “public agency” within section 3501(c). In addition, the Board reasoned that Hospital and District together constituted a single employer which was a “public agency” within section 3501(c) and that Hospital would be excluded from NLRB jurisdiction as a “political subdivision". Federal and California statutes also reflect control of the county workforce investment board by the State and/or the County: (1) the county workforce investment board’s local plan is developed jointly with, and is subject to approval by the County, and thereafter reviewed and approved by the Governor; (2) the local plan must be consistent with the California Workforce Investment Board state plan; (3) activities funded under the local plan must meet the mandatory specifications therefor in federal and state statute; (4) local plan implementation is subject to mandatory performance review. The county workforce investment board is a public agency within the MMBA and subject to PERB’s jurisdiction. The county workforce investment board is a political subdivision of the State of California within NLRA section 2(2). more or view all topics or full text. | 39 | 65 | 11/17/14 |
| 2317Sa | State of California (Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, State Personnel Board) 201.01000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; In General The Legislature did not intend to impose on the State Personnel Board a duty to negotiate with employee organizations when SPB is exercising its regulatory function, as opposed to acting as an employer or appointing authority of its own employees. An agency must be acting in its role as an “employer” or “appointing authority” in order to be subject to the Dills Act. When the State Personnel Board adopted regulations regarding disciplinary procedures for civil service employees, it was acting in its regulatory role to administer the civil service system, specifically regarding discipline hearings and appeal procedures. more or view all topics or full text. | 39 | 80 | 12/19/14 |
| 2295M | City and County of San Francisco (Department of Aging and Adult Services) 201.01000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; In General In-home supportive services public authority arguably has a substantial interest case or will contribute substantially to a just resolution of the case and is therefore properly joined as a party to charge filed against county. more or view all topics or full text. | 37 | 124 | 11/30/12 |
| 2164M | West Contra Costa County Healthcare District 201.01000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; In General Apparent authority requires a showing of facts to indicate that the actions of the employer created a reasonable basis for employees to believe that employer authorized employee to act on its behalf. 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. more or view all topics or full text. | 35 | 45 | 02/24/11 |
| 2033M | El Camino Hospital District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Alliance College-Ready Public Schools (2017) PERB Decision No. 2545 201.01000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; In General * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Alliance College-Ready Public Schools (2017) PERB Decision No. 2545. * * *PERB only has jurisdiction over public employees and does not have any authority over collective bargaining laws covering employees of private companies. Under the MMBA, a “public employee” is defined in Section 3501(d) as any person employed by any public agency. An entity is deemed a “public agency” if it was either: (1) created directly by the state, so as to constitute a department or administrative arm of the government, or (2) administered by individuals who are responsible to public officials or the general electorate. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 93 | 05/29/09 |
| 2067M | County of Ventura 201.01000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; In General When an agency retains the right to control the manner and method in which the work is performed, that agency retains its status as an employer. Where a County retained and exercised control over physicians at its hospital outpatient clinics, in areas such as hiring, review of individual employment agreements, salaries and specialty pay, time base reduction, policies regarding patient care, fees and dress code, and discipline, the County retained control over the manner and method in which the work was performed, and therefore is a joint employer of the clinic physicians. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 166 | 09/29/09 |
| 1865M | City of Santa Clarita 201.01000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; In General A private company that contracts with the City to provide transportation service is not a public employer under the MMBA. more or view all topics or full text. | 31 | 22 | 12/07/06 |
| 1701E | Options for Youth-Victor Valley, Inc. 201.01000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; In General It is undisputed that OFY, a charter school managed by a non-profit public benefit corporation and funded 90 percent through State funds, is a public school employer under EERA section 3540.1(k). more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 4 | 11/05/04 |
| 1624E | Antelope Valley College Federation of Teachers (Stryker) 201.01000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; In General The Board lacks jurisdiction over Stryker’s claim against the Federation on the basis that her charge was also filed as an employee of the Federation. The Federation is not a “public school employer” under EERA and so the Board does not have authority to adjudicate disputes against an employee organization in its role as employer. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 146 | 04/28/04 |
| 1661E | Edison Schools, Inc. 201.01000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; In General Board dismissed charge alleging that Edison Brentwood was the “public school employer” where Board found that charter school was the proper employer in Ravenswood City Elementary School District (2004) PERB Decision No. 1660. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 202 | 07/15/04 |
| 1660E | Ravenswood City Elementary School District/Edison Brentwood Academy 201.01000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; In General Board found that charter school complied with Education Code section 47611.5 when it declared itself the “public school employer” for purposes of EERA. The declaration was not materially inconsistent with the charter nor in conflict with the contract. Board noted that charter school was prepared to participate in PERB proceedings and that this set of facts was unlikely to ever occur again. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 201 | 07/14/04 |
| 1637M | Public Transportation Services Corporation 201.01000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; In General Board found that the Public Transportation Services Corporation is an organizational unit of the MTA, and is therefore subject to the Public Utilities Code and not the MMBA. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 160 | 06/07/04 |
| 1547E | Ventura County Community College District 201.01000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; In General Board applied the common law right to control test to determine whether an individual was an employee or independent contractor. more or view all topics or full text. | 27 | 133 | 09/24/03 |
| 1491Sa | State of California (State Personnel Board) 201.01000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; In General Remand is in part for determination of whether the SPB is either the “State" or the “employer.” Such determination is necessary to decide whether SPB violated the Dills Act. more or view all topics or full text. | 27 | 17 | 11/12/02 |
| 1491S | State of California (State Personnel Board) 201.01000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; In General The case is remanded for the ALJ to determine on the merits if the SPB, whether or not acting in a quasi-adjudicatory capacity, is an “employer” under Section 3513(j) of the Dills Act. The ALJ’s ruling that PERB lacks jurisdiction over a state agency acting in an adjudicatory capacity is overly broad. more or view all topics or full text. | 26 | 33102 | 07/18/02 |
| 1438E | San Francisco Unified School District 201.01000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; In General No unilateral change because at the time complaint issued in this case, the EERA did not apply to school districts creating charter schools or the ongoing operation of those charter schools. PERB therefore lacks jurisdiction over employees at a charter school even when those employees are still employees of the school district. more or view all topics or full text. | 25 | 32071 | 05/22/01 |
| 1504E | Clovis Unified School District 201.01000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; In General Although originally at issue, it is undisputed, that as of the dates of the charge and hearing before the ALJ, the District, not the JPA was the employer of the unit employees and so it is not necessary to address whether the unit employees would become employees of the JPA once the District sponsored them into the JPA. more or view all topics or full text. | 27 | 15 | 12/18/02 |
| 1411S | California State Employees Association (Hard and Hackett) 201.01000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; In General Under the Dills Act, PERB itself was not intended by the legislature to be encompassed within the term "employer." Nor is PERB encompassed within the term "state." The "state," for purposes of application of the Dills Act, pertains to the state as an employer. It does not pertain to all agencies of the state which may jurisdictionally interface with either the state as an employer or with state employee organizations; pp. 16-18. more or view all topics or full text. | 25 | 32006 | 10/10/00 |
| 1305S | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (International Union of Operating Engineers) 201.01000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; In General 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 its discretion. more or view all topics or full text. | 23 | 30031 | 12/22/98 |
| 1279S | State of California (Departments of Personnel Administration, et al. * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of San Diego (2020) PERB Decision No. 2721-M * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Napa Valley Community College District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2563 201.01000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; In General * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Napa Valley Community College District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2563 and County of San Diego (2020) PERB Decision No. 2721-M. * * *Notice of a unilateral change at one department of the State does not constitute notice for any other department. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29148 | 08/21/98 |
| 1145S | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (California Union of Safety Employees) 201.01000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; In General The Department of Personnel Administration acts as the Governor's designee and it may delegate the authority to bargain to State agencies or departments at its discretion. Such a delegation is not a subject within the scope of representation and it does not interfere with the State's obligation to bargain in good faith; pp. 5-6, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 20 | 27061 | 03/08/96 |
| 0840S | State of California (Department of Mental Health) 201.01000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; In General Department of Mental Health is responsible for unilateral change despite DPA's assertion that DPA is the employer and DPA did not enact the change. more or view all topics or full text. | 14 | 21183 | 09/18/90 |
| 0323E | Alameda County Board of Education and County Superintendent of Schools of Alameda County 201.01000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; In General County Office of Education is not employer within the meaning of EERA. Does not possess sufficient control over employment conditions of certificated employees to be deemed employer. Determination of change in employer status should be made pursuant to Board hearing or investigation. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14188 | 06/30/83 |
| 0274E | San Lorenzo Unified School District 201.01000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; In General No violation where recommendation to personnel commission of salary range for newly created position was not made by district, but by individual acting in his capacity as director of classified personnel for the personnel commission; p. 9. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14032 | 12/29/82 |
| 0920S | State of California (Office of Lieutenant Governor) 201.01000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; In General Board affirmed dismissal of charge that Lt. Gov. violated section 3519(d) of Dills on grounds that Lt. Gov. is not an employer under the Dills Act, where no facts demonstrating Lt. Gov. was acting as, or on behalf of the Governor. more or view all topics or full text. | 16 | 23027 | 01/14/92 |
| 0082E | Fresno Unified School District 201.01000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; In General Transportation company which provides bus service to school district not public school employer under EERA; p. 4. more or view all topics or full text. | 3 | 10012 | 01/04/79 |