Decision 2033M – El Camino Hospital District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Alliance College-Ready Public Schools (2017) PERB Decision No. 2545
SF-CE-309-M
Decision Date: May 29, 2009
Decision Type: PERB Decision
* * * OVERRULED IN PART by Alliance College-Ready Public Schools (2017) PERB Decision No. 2545 * * *
Description: The Board upheld an unfair practice charge in which the Charging Party alleged the El Camino Hospital, an entity closely affiliated with the District, violated the MMBA when it refused to participate in an agency shop election on the ground that the Hospital was not a “public agency” within the meaning of the MMBA.
Disposition: The Board held that the Hospital is a public agency, subject to the provisions of the MMBA. In the alternative, the Board also held that the District and the Hospital were a single employer for collective bargaining purposes. Accordingly, the Hospital, like the District, was subject to the provisions of the MMBA.
Perc Vol: 33
Perc Index: 93
Decision Headnotes
201.01000 – In General
* * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Alliance College-Ready Public Schools (2017) PERB Decision No. 2545. * * *
PERB only has jurisdiction over public employees and does not have any authority over collective bargaining laws covering employees of private companies. Under the MMBA, a “public employee” is defined in Section 3501(d) as any person employed by any public agency. An entity is deemed a “public agency” if it was either: (1) created directly by the state, so as to constitute a department or administrative arm of the government, or (2) administered by individuals who are responsible to public officials or the general electorate.
201.04000 – Joint Employer, Single Employer, and Alter Ego Doctrines
* * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Alliance College-Ready Public Schools (2017) PERB Decision No. 2545. * * *
A single employer status exists where two nominally separate entities are actually part of a single integrated enterprise so that there is, in reality, only a single employer. The Board examines to the following four factors to determine the existence of a single employer relationship: (1) functional integration of operations; (2) centralized control of labor relations; (3) common management; and (4) common ownership. Although all four factors need not be present and although no single factor is controlling, the first three factors are ordinarily deemed more critical than the fourth. A joint employer status exists where two or more employers exert significant control over the same employees -- where from the evidence it can be shown that they share or co-determine those matters governing essential terms and conditions of employment. Unlike a single employer situation, joint employer status does not depend upon the existence of a single integrated enterprise; instead, it assumes the enterprises are independent legal entities that historically have chosen to jointly address important aspects of their employer-employee relationship. Thus, joint employer cases focus on the level of control exerted over the employees by the enterprises in question.