Decision 0212H – Regents of the University of California (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory)

Subsection 3568 establishes a presumptive right of access for employee organizations. Since no exceptions for national security facilities is set forth in the statute, the Board will not create one; pp. 13-14. A 48-hour notice rule for access to meeting facilities in the open areas of the Lab is unreasonably restrictive; p. 16. The requirement that employee organizations reimburse the University for the cost of escort services utilized pursuant to security regulations is an unreasonable, unjustified tax on the exercise of statutory rights of access; p. 16. Unwillingness of Regents to allow application for top security clearance for union representatives not an unreasonable restriction to organizational access because the screening procedure is costly and time-consuming and alternative sites are available for processing grievance and safety complaints; p. 19. time-consuming and alternative sites are available for processing grievance and safety complaints; p. 19.

Not necessary for charging parties to demonstrate quantifiable, measurable harm as a result of a change in policy, some inherent harm to employees and employee organizations is enough.

University required to provide prior notice and an opportunity to discuss contemplated changes in wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment to nonexclusive representatives. However, obligation under HEERA to give notice and meet with nonexclusive representatives is not the same as that imposed with regard to exclusive representatives; p. 11. Under HEERA, the procedural ground rules for meeting and discussion are properly the subject matter of discussions between the Regents and affected nonexclusive representatives; p. 11. Unreasonable restrictions placed on the presumptive right of access for a represetative organization is a clear nexus for a finding that the Regents violated HEERA subsections 3571(a) and (b); p. 21. The language of HEERA and its overall statutory scheme provide a clear indication that the Legislature did not intend to consign nonexclusive The language of HEERA and its overall statutory scheme provide a clear indication that the Legislature did not intend to consign nonexclusive SEERA not provided for similarly or identically in HEERA does not mean that the policy embodied by such provision is not applicable to HEERA; pp. 6-7. HEERA's express provisions indicate a legislative intent to preserve representation rights for employees and employee organizations until such time as an exclusive representative is selected; p. 7. Subsection 3560(e) makes clear the Legislature's intention that designation of nonexclusive representatives is an integral part of the statutory scheme; pp. 6-7. The statutory language of subsection 3565 separates meeting and conferring from other representational functions and is an indication that the Legislature intended to enable employees to be represented by nonexclusive representatives prior to selection of an exclusive representative. The very definition of the term "employee nonexclusive representatives prior to selection of an exclusive representative. The very definition of the term "employee with" the higher education employer regarding employment matters. Otherwise, the Legislature would have limited the definition accordingly, rather than including within that definition ". . . any organization of any kind . . . ."; pp. 9-10.

University required to provide prior notice and an opportunity to discuss contemplated changes in wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment to nonexclusive representatives. However, obligation under HEERA to give notice and meet with nonexclusive representatives is not the same as that imposed with regard to exclusive representatives; p. 11. Under HEERA, the procedural ground rules for meeting and discussion are properly the subject matter to discussions between the Regents and affected nonexclusive representatives; p. 11. Unreasonable restrictions placed on the presumptive right of access for a representative organization is a clear nexus for a finding that the Regents violated HEERA subsections 3571(a) and (b); p. 21. The language of HEERA and its overall statutory scheme provide a clear indication that the Legislature did not intend to consign nonexclusive The language of HEERA and its overall statutory scheme provide a clear indication that the Legislature did not intend to consign nonexclusive SEERA not provided for similarly or identically in HEERA does not mean that the policy embodied by such provision is not applicable to HEERA; pp. 6-7. HEERA's express provisions indicate a legislative intent to preserve representation rights for employees and employee organizations until such time as an exclusive representative is selected; p. 7. Subsection 3560(e) makes clear the Legislature's intention that designation of nonexclusive representatives is an integral part of the statutory scheme; pp. 7-8. The statutory language of subsection 3565 separates meeting and conferring from other representational functions and is an indication that the Legislature intended to enable employees to be represented by nonexclusive representatives prior to selection of an exclusive representative. The very definition of the term "employee represented by nonexclusive representatives prior to selection of an exclusive representative. The very definition of the term "employee with" the higher education employer regarding employment matters. Otherwide, the Legislature would have limited the definition accordingly, rather than including within that definition " . . . any organization of any kind . . . ."; pp. 9-10.

The language of HEERA and its overall statutory scheme provide a clear indication that the Legislature did not intend to consign nonexclusive representatives to a state of powerless limbo when it enacted HEERA. A provision of general application contained in EERA or SEERA not provided for similarly or identically in HEERA does not mean that the policy embodied by such provision is not applicable to HEERA; pp. 6-7. HEERA's express provisions indicate a legislative intent to preserve representation rights for employees and employee organizations until such time as an exclusive representative is selected; p. 7. Subsection 3560(e) makes clear the Legislature's intention that designation of nonexclusive representatives is an integral part of the statutory scheme; pp. 7-8. The statutory language of subsection 3565 separates meeting and statutory scheme; pp. 7-8. The statutory language of subsection 3565 separates meeting and represented by nonexclusive representatives prior to selection of an exclusive representative. The very definition of the term "employee organization" at subsection 3562(g) further indicates that the Legislature contemplated that nonexclusive representatives would "deal with" the higher education employer regarding employment matters. Otherwise, the Legislature would have limited the definition accordingly, rather than including within that definition " . . . any organization of any kind . . . ."; pp. 9-10.

Not necessary for charging parties to demonstrate quantifiable, measurable harm as a result of a change in policy, some inherent harm to employees and employee organizations is enough.