Decision 1622M – Westlands Water District
SA-CE-65-M
Decision Date: April 22, 2004
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: Union alleged that district violated MMBA by accepting unit modification petition from rival organization within one year of a representational election. Board found that union established prima facie violation. Complaint ordered issued.
Disposition: Board reversed dismissal and remanded for issuance of complaint.
Perc Vol: 28
Perc Index: 144
Decision Headnotes
1301.01000 – In General
Union alleged that District violated local rules by allowing unit modification election to proceed within 12 months of an unsuccessful decertification election. Board rejected union’s argument that a contract bar existed; instead, Board found that local rule provided a 12-month bar only from the date of formal recognition. However, Board found that separate local rule provided a 12-month bar following the date of any recognition election. Thus, Board reversed dismissal and remanded case for issuance of complaint.
1309.01000 – In General/Definition of Appropriate Unit
Where a party seeks review of a unit determination case under MMBA, a petition for Board review should be filed. As no petition was filed, the Board declines to address the arguments regarding appropriateness of the employer’s unit determination decision.
1310.01000 – In General
Union alleged that District violated local rules by allowing unit modification election to proceed within 12 months of an unsuccessful decertification election. Board rejected union’s argument that a contract bar existed; instead, Board found that local rule provided a 12-month bar only from the date of formal recognition. However, Board found that separate local rule provided a 12-month bar following the date of any recognition election. Thus, Board reversed dismissal and remanded case for issuance of complaint.
1310.04000 – Decertification and Unit Modification
Union alleged that District violated local rules by allowing unit modification election to proceed within 12 months of an unsuccessful decertification election. Board rejected union’s argument that a contract bar existed; instead, Board found that local rule provided a 12-month bar only from the date of formal recognition. However, Board found that separate local rule provided a 12-month bar following the date of any recognition election. Thus, Board reversed dismissal and remanded case for issuance of complaint.
1407.01000 – General Principles
In evaluating a charge, the plain language of a statute or rule will be accepted where it is clear and unambiguous.
1300.01000 – In General
Union alleged that District violated local rules by allowing unit modification election to proceed within 12 months of an unsuccessful decertification election. Board rejected union’s argument that a contract bar existed; instead, Board found that local rule provided a 12-month bar only from the date of formal recognition. However, Board found that separate local rule provided a 12-month bar following the date of any recognition election. Thus, Board reversed dismissal and remanded case for issuance of complaint.
1300.04000 – Certification Bar
Union alleged that District violated local rules by allowing unit modification election to proceed within 12 months of an unsuccessful decertification election. Board rejected union’s argument that a contract bar existed; instead, Board found that local rule provided a 12-month bar only from the date of formal recognition. However, Board found that separate local rule provided a 12-month bar following the date of any recognition election. Thus, Board reversed dismissal and remanded case for issuance of complaint.