Decision 1663M – County of Monterey

SF-CE-41-M

Decision Date: July 16, 2004

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 28
Perc Index: 204

Decision Headnotes

750.00000 – EMPLOYER ADOPTION/ENFORCEMENT OF UNREASONABLE RULE
750.01000 – In General

MMBA: Under the MMBA, it is an unfair practice for a local agency to adopt or enforce an unreasonable local rule. (MMBA sec. 3507; PERB reg. 32603(f).) As violation based on this theory requires, as a threshold matter, a showing that the local rule or regulation abridges the exercise of a fundamental right, or frustrates the fulfillment of an affirmative duty, prescribed by the MMBA. MMBA: Board found that local rule requiring rival unions to undergo a registration process without input from the incumbent union does not constitute an unreasonable rule on its face since rule can be applied in reasonable manner. However, Board found application of rule to be unreasonable under facts of case.

700.00000 – EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
700.01000 – In General

MMBA: Under PERB regulation 32603(d), an employer’s domination of, or provision of assistance to, an employee organization may constitute an unfair practice. Where two employee organizations are competing for the right to represent the same employees, the threshold test for determining whether the employer has unlawfully dominated or assisted is “whether the employer’s conduct tends to influence [free] choice or provide stimulus in one direction or the other.”

700.00000 – EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
700.07000 – Favoritism; Contract Ban on Distribution or Solicitation; Unequal Treatment of Unions; Preferential Access; Duty of Strict Neutrality

County violated MMBA by granting registration to a rival employee organization under its local rules where registration carries a presumptive finding that the incumbent employee organization’s representative is inadequate and the incumbent employee organization had no opportunity to participate in the registration process. However, County’s identical actions with respect to peace officers did not violate MMBA since peace officers are entitled by statute to a separate bargaining unit.