All notes for Subtopic 201.04000 – Joint, Single or Dual Employers

DecisionDescriptionPERC Vol.PERC IndexDate
2600M County of Ventura
201.4000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; Joint, Single or Dual Employers
Board maintains jurisdiction over an employer covered under a PERB-administered statute when it enters into a single employer or joint employer relationship with an entity over which PERB does not assert jurisdiction. Thus, PERB maintains jurisdiction over the County, as it is covered by the MMBA and has entered into both a single employer and joint employer relationship role with respect to private non-profit Clinic employees, even if Clinic corporations fall outside PERB jurisdiction. (p. 39-40.) A single employer relationship, like a joint employer relationship, is not a formal merger of separate entities, but rather is a legal construct for collective bargaining purposes. (California Virtual Academies (2016) PERB Decision No. 2484, p. 67 (CAVA) [“Under the single employer doctrine, the ‘single employer’ is . . . an analytical construct that is imposed under judicially developed doctrines on legally distinct but nominally separate and functionally integrated entities solely for the purpose of representation and collective bargaining” (Emphasis in original)].) (pp. 40-41.) Just as PERB will not assert jurisdiction over a private sector entity merely because it enters into a joint employer or single employer relationship with a PERB-covered entity, PERB also does not lose jurisdiction over an entity that enters into a single employer or joint employer relationship with an entity over which we do not assert jurisdiction. This conclusion follows from the principle that a single employer or joint employer relationship is a legal construct for purposes of collective bargaining; it does not mean that two separate entities have legally merged into one. (p. 41.) more or view all topics or full text.
438712/07/18
2600M County of Ventura
201.4000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; Joint, Single or Dual Employers
A joint employer is required to bargain only with respect to those terms over which it possesses at least a partial right of control. (A joint employer is required to bargain only with respect to those terms over which it possesses at least a partial right of control. (County of Ventura (2012) PERB Decision No. 2272-M, pp. 20-21 (Ventura II).) more or view all topics or full text.
438712/07/18
2600M County of Ventura
201.4000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; Joint, Single or Dual Employers
In order to demonstrate that two entities constitute joint employers, union must show that they share influence over, or co-determine, one or more terms or conditions of employment. (County of Ventura (2009) PERB Decision No. 2067-M, p. 4. Evidence satisfies this standard if the County retains “the right to control the manner and method in which the work is performed.” (Id. at p. 6) PERB follows the “right to control” test, meaning it is irrelevant whether an employer having such a right of control chooses to use it by exerting actual control over employment terms or conditions. (pp. 28-29.) Board disapproves any suggestion that a joint employer finding depends on actual control, and endorses the right of control test as articulated in PERB caselaw and consistent with both California appellate precedent and the NLRB’s full explanation of the right of control test in in Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc. (2015) 362 NLRB No. 186 (Browning-Ferris II). A public entity with a right of control maintains its status as an employer regardless of the extent to which it exercises actual control. (p. 31-32.) more or view all topics or full text.
438712/07/18
2600M County of Ventura
201.4000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; Joint, Single or Dual Employers
In assessing a single employer claim, centralized control of labor relations does not necessarily depend on centralized authority over day-to-day matters. (El Camino Hospital District (2009) PERB Decision No. 2033-M, pp. 20-21 (El Camino) [entity has centralized control by virtue of its right to ratify collective bargaining agreements, even though it neither negotiated such agreements nor exercised day-to-day authority].) (pp. 20-21.) Moreover, common management can be found even in the presence of a dispersed management structure. (California Virtual Academies (2016) PERB Decision No. 2484, p. 73 (CAVA); accord Sakrete of Northern California, Inc. v. NLRB (9th Cir. 1964) 332 F.2d 902, 907, cert. den. (1965) 379 U.S. 961 [common management, centralized control of labor relations, and integration of operations can be demonstrated at the executive or top level, even where there is separation at a more localized level].) Practical and economic realities of the entities’ relationship also taken into account. (p. 24-25.) Strong evidence of common ownership and financial control exists between County and private for-profit Clinic corporations where County owns all Clinic premises, as well as all Clinic equipment and all Clinic revenues. All such revenues, and many Clinic expenses, are integrated into the County’s budget. The County covers all Clinic losses. The Clinics’ operating expenses exceed their revenues every year, and the County absorbs this shortfall. (p. 26.) more or view all topics or full text.
438712/07/18
2600M County of Ventura
201.4000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; Joint, Single or Dual Employers
In assessing a single employer claim, PERB looks at four factors: (1) functional integration of operations; (2) centralized control of labor relations; (3) common management; and (4) common ownership or common financial control. (California Virtual Academies (2016) PERB Decision No. 2484, p. 64 (CAVA).) Single employer status “does not require the presence of all four factors.” (Ibid.) This is especially the case given that our inquiry must take into account not only how many of the factors are present, but also to what extent they are present. (pp. 18-19.) Single employer relationship found where County and clinic corporations do not operate at arm’s length. more or view all topics or full text.
438712/07/18
2545E Alliance College-Ready Public Schools, et al.
201.4000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; Joint, Single or Dual Employers
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.
427612/28/17
J027E California Virtual Academies
201.4000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; Joint, Single or Dual Employers
(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.) more or view all topics or full text.
417409/30/16
2484E California Virtual Academies
201.4000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; Joint, Single or Dual Employers
Under the single employer doctrine, where two or more ostensibly legally-distinct employer entities operate as one, together they constitute a single employer; a single bargaining relationship is created based on the pooled authority of the constituent entities; despite the fact that the 11 charter schools are separately chartered and accredited and operate under bylaws that purport to rest ultimate control over decision-making in a 11 boards of directors, the evidence established the key factors necessary to finding that the single employer doctrine applies; the operations of the 11 schools are functionally integrated, the schools share a common management structure, the conditions of employment are centrally determined across schools and the teachers are treated as resources to be shared, allocated and moved between schools as needed; accordingly, the single employer doctrine applies for representation purposes under EERA and a single statewide bargaining unit is appropriate. more or view all topics or full text.
411806/28/16
2295M City and County of San Francisco (Department of Aging and Adult Services)
201.4000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; Joint, Single or Dual Employers
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.
11/30/12
2272M County of Ventura
201.4000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; Joint, Single or Dual Employers
Where public agency, in defending an unfair practice charge alleging a refusal to bargain, contends that it was no longer a “joint employer” of physicians at privately owned satellite medical clinics, as had been determined by the Board in a prior decision arising out of a charge alleging a refusal to process the certification petition, joint employment issue can be raised anew; whether the public agency is a joint employer of the physician employees such that the employees may be deemed “employed by” the public agency is a jurisdictional question; if the public agency is no longer a joint employer, PERB has no authority to exercise its jurisdiction; the question is whether the public agency retains the right to control both what shall be done and how it shall be done, as the essential characteristic of an employment relationship is the right to control and direct the activities of the persons rendering service, or the manner and method in which the work is to be performed; the joint employment control test requires consideration of much more than contracts and the Board is not bound solely by contract language in determining the level of control exercised by the public agency over the employee; relevant areas of inquiry include, but are not limited to, hiring practices, employment agreements, salaries and specialty pay, time base, discipline, restrictions regarding patient care, operational policies such as fees and dress code, supervision, training and personnel policies; the public agency’s bargaining obligation is limited to only those negotiable matters over which the public agency exercises control. more or view all topics or full text.
06/14/12
2033M El Camino Hospital District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Alliance College-Ready Public Schools (2017) PERB Decision No. 2545
201.4000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; Joint, Single or Dual Employers
A single employer status exists where two nominally separate entities are actually part of a single integrated enterprise so that there is, in reality, only a single employer. The Board examines to the following four factors to determine the existence of a single employer relationship: (1) functional integration of operations; (2) centralized control of labor relations; (3) common management; and (4) common ownership. Although all four factors need not be present and although no single factor is controlling, the first three factors are ordinarily deemed are more critical than the fourth. A joint employer status exists where two or more employers exert significant control over the same employees -- where from the evidence it can be shown that they share or co-determine those matters governing essential terms and conditions of employment. Unlike a single employer situation, joint employer status does not depend upon the existence of a single integrated enterprise; instead, it assumes the enterprises are independent legal entities that historically have chosen to jointly address important aspects of their employer-employee relationship. Thus, joint employer cases focus on the level of control exerted over the employees by the enterprises in question. more or view all topics or full text.
339305/29/09
1928E San Jose/Evergreen Community College District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Ventura (2018) PERB Decision No. 2600-M
201.4000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; Joint, Single or Dual Employers
A joint employer situation arises where two or more employers exert significant control over the same employees -- where from the evidence it can be shown that they share or co-determine those matters governing essential terms and conditions of employment. A joint employer theory does not depend upon the existence of a single integrated enterprise; rather, it assumes the enterprises are independent legal entities that have “historically chosen to handle jointly . . . important aspects of their employer-employee relationship.” The central focus in such cases is the level of control exerted over the employees by the enterprises in question. more or view all topics or full text.
3115911/16/07
2067M County of Ventura
201.4000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; Joint, Single or Dual Employers
Where two or more employers exert significant control over the same employees, such that one agency retains the right to control both what shall be done and how it shall be done, or the manner and method in which the work is performed, that agency retains its status as a joint employer of the employees. This is essentially a factual determination. The focus of the joint employer analysis is on the relationship between the agency and the employees. 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.
3316609/29/09
1865M City of Santa Clarita
201.4000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; Joint, Single or Dual Employers
Despite charging party’s assertion that he was employed by both the City and his private employer, there was no evidence that he was employed by the City. more or view all topics or full text.
312212/07/06
1839H Trustees of the California State University * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Kern and Kern County Hospital Authority (2019) PERB Decision No. 2659-M
201.4000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; Joint, Single or Dual Employers
While the corporation may have some overlap in management, as CSU officers serve on the Corporation’s Board of Directors and its executive director is appointed by the CSU president and they have shared purposes, i.e., providing student hosing, there was no common ownership between the two entities. As such, the Corporation was not either an alter ego or a single employer with CSU. CSU and the Corporation are not joint employers as there is no evidence that CSU participated in the financing or construction of the project, hiring of its employees or its employment policies or practices. Auxiliary organizations are generally not considered public employers nor are they subject to PERB’s jurisdiction. more or view all topics or full text.
3011805/12/06
1661E Edison Schools, Inc.
201.4000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; Joint, Single or Dual Employers
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.
2820207/15/04
1660E Ravenswood City Elementary School District/Edison Brentwood Academy
201.4000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; Joint, Single or Dual Employers
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.
2820107/14/04
1547E Ventura County Community College District
201.4000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; Joint, Single or Dual Employers
Board found that local sheriff’s employee who taught community college courses for credit were jointly employed by the sheriff and community college district during the times they were teaching. more or view all topics or full text.
2713309/24/03
1332E Plumas Unified School District and Plumas County Superintendant of Schools and Plumas County Teachers Association, CTA/NEA
201.4000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; Joint, Single or Dual Employers
Both the Board and federal courts have observed that the distinct concepts of "single employer" and "joint employer" are often used incorrectly as interchangeable terms. Federal doctrines of what constitutes a single employer and a joint employer may not be applicable under the language of EERA and the Education Code. EERA sec. 3540.1(k) does not preclude the possibility of 2 entities acting as a joint or single employer. Here the District and County Superintendent were two separate public school employers and did not constitute a single employer for purposes of representation under EERA. The District and County Superintendent were separate legal entities with separate governing boards or authority who chose to share some personnel, but shared personnel received separate checks from each entity. The two governing authorities had separate and exclusive policy-making authority, and the funding sources and budgets of the two entities were separate, distinct and not commingled. They thus independently and autonomously controlled their own labor and employee relations policies. 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.
233012406/03/99

201.4000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; Joint, Single or Dual Employers
A civil service commission and governing board of a school district can be joint employers. [213 Cal.App.3d at 1129] When two or more employers exert significant control over the same employees - where from the evidence it can be shown that they share or co-determine those matters governing essential terms and conditions of employment - they constitute joint employers. [213 Cal.App.3d at 1128] Where the school district and city have successfully harmonized and divided their responsibilities over the employees, court concludes the school district and city are joint employers. Court annuls PERB Decision No. 688. [213 Cal.App.3d at 1131-1132] more or view all topics or full text.
A293H Regents of the University of California (California Nurses Association, et al.)
201.4000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; Joint, Single or Dual Employers
Joint employer is 2 or more employers who exert significant control over the same employees. Facts do not demonstrate the UC and USHC are joint employers given the operation of SB 1350 and USHC being subject to NLRB jurisdiction. A single employer exists where 2 nominally separate entities are actually part of a single integrated enterprise. There are four factors: (1) functional integration of operations; (2) centralized control of labor relations; (3) common management; and (4) common ownership. USHC and UC are not a single employer because USHC falls within NLRB jurisdiction. more or view all topics or full text.
233005802/04/99
A153E San Francisco Community College District (Barnes)
201.4000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; Joint, Single or Dual Employers
District is not a mere department of the city but functions under the law as an independent entity and operates a public school system; pp. 6, 9. It is a well established concept in labor law that an employee may have more than one employer controlling his or her term of employment; p. 14. Joint employer relationship exist where city controls fundamental matters of wages and hours and District controls the power to fix and assign duties of classified employees; pp. 16, 19. As section 88137 of the Education Code states that the governing board of the District shall have the right to fix the duties of its As section 88137 of the Education Code states that the governing board of the District shall have the right to fix the duties of its more or view all topics or full text.
101709005/01/86
A018E Turlock School Districts
201.4000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; Joint, Single or Dual Employers
Two districts with common administrations are not a single employer, therefore, bargaining units consisting of employees in both districts are inappropriate. No majority rationale. more or view all topics or full text.
152110/26/77
0703E San Francisco Community College District
201.4000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; Joint, Single or Dual Employers
City and County control over its civil service employees is not a matter within the scope of representation or negotiable between the public school employer and the certificated unit. more or view all topics or full text.
121917910/28/88
0688E San Francisco Community College District  * * * ANNULLED by United Public Employees v. PERB (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1119
201.4000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; Joint, Single or Dual Employers
Reiterates test from Alameda #323 + NLRB cases and adopts test from Herbert Harvey. San Francisco CCD is not an employer under EERA for its classified employees. Annulled by 213 Cal.App.3d 1119. more or view all topics or full text.
121911606/27/88
0688Eb San Francisco Community College District
201.4000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; Joint, Single or Dual Employers
On remand from the court of appeal, the Board annulled its Decision No. 688 and 688a to accommodate the court of appeal's ruling that the District and the City and County of San Francisco were joint employers of the classified employees working within the San Francisco Community College District. more or view all topics or full text.
142102512/20/89
0085E Paso Robles Union School District, et al./San Rafael City High School District, et al.
201.4000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; Joint, Single or Dual Employers
Given their separate tax base, budgets and revenue limits and independent policy-making bodies, elementary and high school districts are separate and distinct employers for the purpose of meeting and negotiating; pp. 8-10. more or view all topics or full text.
31002101/09/79
0082E Fresno Unified School District
201.4000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; Joint, Single or Dual Employers
Allegation that employees of transportation company discriminated against dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, as district and transportation company not found to be single employer, second transportation company not public school employer under EERA; pp. 4-8. To be taken into account in determining single employer status are 1) interrelation of opertions, 2) centralized control of labor relations, 3) common management, and 4) common ownership of financial control; p. 5. more or view all topics or full text.
31001201/04/79