Decision 1584H – Trustees of the California State University (San Marcos)
LA-CE-692-H
Decision Date: January 13, 2004
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: Charge alleged that university violated HEERA by unilaterally increasing students fees which affected university employees enrolled in university courses. Board held that general fee increase applicable to all students is not within the scope of representation. However, the waiver or reduction of such fees is within scope.
Disposition: Board dismissed charge and complaint.
Perc Vol: 28
Perc Index: 61
Decision Headnotes
602.03000 – Change In Policy
University’s imposition of new fee applicable to all students, including its employees enrolled in courses, did not breach contract where contract did not require the waiver or reduction of all fees or a percentage of all fees, or otherwise prohibit the imposition of new fees.
1000.02125 – Salaries or Wages
Board has long interpreted the term “wages” to include more than an employee’s hourly, weekly or piece work compensation. Board has followed the definition of “wages” under the NLRA, which defines “wages” to include emoluments of value.
1000.02055 – Fringe Benefit Contributions
Board has long interpreted the term “wages” to include more than an employee’s hourly, weekly or piece work compensation. Board has followed the definition of “wages” under the NLRA, which defines “wages” to include emoluments of value.
1000.02164 – Other
University’s imposition of new fee applicable to all students, including its employees enrolled in courses, is not within the scope of representation. Waiver or reduction of such fees for employees, however, is within the scope of representation.
1102.01000 – Pre-Arbitration
Deferral required only where CBA prohibits conduct at issue. It is not enough to cover or discuss the disputed conduct; p. 9.
1105.03000 – Burden of Proof; Weight of Evidence; Presumptions and Inferences; Affirmative Defenses
Burden of proof in unilateral change is on charging party to provide extrinsic evidence to support its interpretation of the settlement agreement. No evidence-no violation.