Decision 1997S – State of California (Departments of Veterans Affairs and Personnel Administration)

SA-CO-278-S

Decision Date: December 22, 2008

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 33
Perc Index: 27

Decision Headnotes

301.00000 – UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; STRIKES, SLOWDOWNS AND WORK STOPPAGES
301.01000 – In General

The parties’ expired MOU contained a no-strike provision. While the Board found that SEIU may have: (1) “condoned” the sick-out; (2) failed to provide notice to union staff of the no-strike provisions of the MOU; and (3) failed to provide sufficient encouragement for “sick” employees to return to work, the Board found that such did not constitute a unilateral change by SEIU of the no-strike provision. The Board did not find that SEIU implemented a new policy, breached the provision in the past or would do so in the future, or that the breach had a generalized effect upon bargaining unit members.

301.00000 – UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; STRIKES, SLOWDOWNS AND WORK STOPPAGES
301.04000 – Unfair Practice

The parties’ expired MOU contained a no-strike provision. While the Board found that SEIU may have: (1) “condoned” the sick-out; (2) failed to provide notice to union staff of the no-strike provisions of the MOU; and (3) failed to provide sufficient encouragement for “sick” employees to return to work, the Board found that such did not constitute a unilateral change by SEIU of the no-strike provision. The Board did not find that SEIU implemented a new policy, breached the provision in the past or would do so in the future, or that the breach had a generalized effect upon bargaining unit members.

802.00000 – UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNLAWFUL STRIKES AND WORK STOPPAGES
802.01000 – In General

The parties’ expired MOU contained a no-strike provision. While the Board found that SEIU may have: (1) “condoned” the sick-out; (2) failed to provide notice to union staff of the no-strike provisions of the MOU; and (3) failed to provide sufficient encouragement for “sick” employees to return to work, the Board found that such did not constitute a unilateral change by SEIU of the no-strike provision. The Board did not find that SEIU implemented a new policy, breached the provision in the past or would do so in the future, or that the breach had a generalized effect upon bargaining unit members.

804.00000 – UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT
804.03000 – Strike as Unlawful Pressure Tactic

The parties’ expired MOU contained a no-strike provision. While the Board found that SEIU may have: (1) “condoned” the sick-out; (2) failed to provide notice to union staff of the no-strike provisions of the MOU; and (3) failed to provide sufficient encouragement for “sick” employees to return to work, the Board found that such did not constitute a unilateral change by SEIU of the no-strike provision. The Board did not find that SEIU implemented a new policy, breached the provision in the past or would do so in the future, or that the breach had a generalized effect upon bargaining unit members.

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.02093 – No-Strike Clause

The parties’ expired MOU contained a no-strike provision. While the Board found that SEIU may have: (1) “condoned” the sick-out; (2) failed to provide notice to union staff of the no-strike provisions of the MOU; and (3) failed to provide sufficient encouragement for “sick” employees to return to work, the Board found that such did not constitute a unilateral change by SEIU of the no-strike provision. The Board did not find that SEIU implemented a new policy, breached the provision in the past or would do so in the future, or that the breach had a generalized effect upon bargaining unit members.