Decision 0662E – San Diego Community College District * * * REVERSED IN PART by San Diego Adult Educators v. PERB (1990) 223 Cal. App. 3d 1124

LA-CE-1905

Decision Date: April 5, 1988

Decision Type: PERB Decision

* * * REVERSED IN PART by San Diego Adult Educators v. PERB (1990) 223 Cal. App. 3d 1124 * * *

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 12
Perc Index: 19054

Decision Headnotes

201.00000 – PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?
201.03000 – Successorship Doctrine

* * * REVERSED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by San Diego Adult Educators v. PERB (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1124. * * *

Alter ego status requires demonstration of common ownership, management, purpose, supervision and operation.

1101.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE
1101.05000 – Parties; Service

* * * REVERSED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by San Diego Adult Educators v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1124. * * *

Although charge must be filed within six months of event, service may be made after six-month period where respondent not prejudiced.

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.02137 – Subcontracting

* * * REVERSED IN PART by San Diego Adult Educators v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1124, where the Court of Appeal held that contracting with a private foundation to provide language classes two months after the district decided to discontinue such classes and laid off the instructors who taught them was not an unlawful unilateral change. * * *

Work previously done by unit members now done by private foundation for benefit and at behest of employer constitutes unilateral subcontracting of unit work.

1201.00000 – REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; REINSTATEMENT; BACKPAY BENEFITS
1201.02000 – Reinstatement

* * * REVERSED IN PART by San Diego Adult Educators v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1124, where the Court of Appeal held that contracting with a private foundation to provide language classes two months after the district decided to discontinue such classes and laid off the instructors who taught them was not an unlawful unilateral change. * * *

Reinstatement will not lie as remedy for employer's unlawful subcontracting where evidence shows that District intends to cease offering subcontracted classes.