Decision 1839H – Trustees of the California State University * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Kern and Kern County Hospital Authority (2019) PERB Decision No. 2659-M

LA-CE-660-H

Decision Date: May 12, 2006

Decision Type: PERB Decision

 * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Kern  & Kern County Hospital Authority (2019) PERB Decision No. 2659-M * * *

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 30
Perc Index: 118

Decision Headnotes

201.00000 – PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?
201.03000 – Successor Employers; Alter Egos

While the corporation may have some overlap in management, as CSU officers serve on the Corporation’s Board of Directors and its executive director is appointed by the CSU president and they have shared purposes, i.e., providing student hosing, there was no common ownership between the two entities. As such, the Corporation was not either an alter ego or a single employer with CSU.

201.00000 – PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?
201.04000 – Joint, Single or Dual Employers

While the corporation may have some overlap in management, as CSU officers serve on the Corporation’s Board of Directors and its executive director is appointed by the CSU president and they have shared purposes, i.e., providing student hosing, there was no common ownership between the two entities. As such, the Corporation was not either an alter ego or a single employer with CSU. CSU and the Corporation are not joint employers as there is no evidence that CSU participated in the financing or construction of the project, hiring of its employees or its employment policies or practices. Auxiliary organizations are generally not considered public employers nor are they subject to PERB’s jurisdiction.

601.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000)
601.01000 – In General, Per Se and Totality of Conduct; Prima Facie Case

Respondent was not obligated to give Charging Party notice and opportunity to bargain regarding the effects of its decisions to form a Corporation or to enter into the operating agreement because Charging Party failed to present evidence that any unit employee was laid off, lost work hours, or was otherwise affected by the existence or operation of the Corporation.

601.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000)
601.02000 – Persons Required to Bargain; Alter Egos, Joint Employers (See also 201)

While the corporation may have some overlap in management, as CSU officers serve on the Corporation’s Board of Directors and its executive director is appointed by the CSU president and they have shared purposes, i.e., providing student hosing, there was no common ownership between the two entities. As such, the Corporation was not either an alter ego or a single employer with CSU.

602.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION)
602.01000 – In General

There is no duty to bargain where Respondent did not transfer bargaining unit work out of the unit or substitute one group of employees for another. There was no evidence that any unit employees ever performed work at that campus. That some student housing services at other campuses were performed by bargaining unit employees does not of itself mandate that housing services be performed by bargaining at this campus.

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.02026 – Contracting Out

There is no duty to bargain where Respondent did not transfer bargaining unit work out of the unit or substitute one group of employees for another. There was no evidence that any unit employees ever performed work at that campus. That some student housing services at other campuses were performed by bargaining unit employees does not of itself mandate that housing services be performed by bargaining at this campus.

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.02040 – Elimination of Positions

There is no duty to bargain where Respondent did not transfer bargaining unit work out of the unit or substitute one group of employees for another. There was no evidence that any unit employees ever performed work at that campus. That some student housing services at other campuses were performed by bargaining unit employees does not of itself mandate that housing services be performed by bargaining at this campus.

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.02076 – Lay-Offs

There is no duty to bargain where Respondent did not transfer bargaining unit work out of the unit or substitute one group of employees for another. There was no evidence that any unit employees ever performed work at that campus. That some student housing services at other campuses were performed by bargaining unit employees does not of itself mandate that housing services be performed by bargaining at this campus.

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.02146 – Transfer of Employee(s)

There is no duty to bargain where Respondent did not transfer bargaining unit work out of the unit or substitute one group of employees for another. There was no evidence that any unit employees ever performed work at that campus. That some student housing services at other campuses were performed by bargaining unit employees does not of itself mandate that housing services be performed by bargaining at this campus.

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.02147 – Transfer of Work Out of Unit

There is no duty to bargain where Respondent did not transfer bargaining unit work out of the unit or substitute one group of employees for another. There was no evidence that any unit employees ever performed work at that campus. That some student housing services at other campuses were performed by bargaining unit employees does not of itself mandate that housing services be performed by bargaining at this campus.