Decision 2067M – County of Ventura
LA-CE-337-M
Decision Date: September 29, 2009
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: Charging Party alleged that the County of Ventura violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act by refusing to process UAPD’s request for recognition under the County’s local employer/employee relations rules and refusing to process its appeal of the County’s denial to the Civil Service Commission. The County argued that since the clinic physicians were employed via employment agreements with private corporations that operated the clinics pursuant to contracts with the Ventura County Medical Center, the County was not the employer of the clinic physicians.
Disposition: The Board found that the County retained and exercised control over the manner and method in which the work was performed by the physicians in outpatient clinics affiliated with the County hospital, such that the County remained a joint employer of the clinic physicians, and must process Charging Party union’s request for recognition as the exclusive representative pursuant to local rules. The Board denied the Charging Party’s request that the County be ordered to immediately recognize the Charging Party or move directly to a representation election, holding that such a remedy was premature.
Perc Vol: 33
Perc Index: 166
Decision Headnotes
201.01000 – In General
When an agency retains the right to control the manner and method in which the work is performed, that agency retains its status as an employer. Where a County retained and exercised control over physicians at its hospital outpatient clinics, in areas such as hiring, review of individual employment agreements, salaries and specialty pay, time base reduction, policies regarding patient care, fees and dress code, and discipline, the County retained control over the manner and method in which the work was performed, and therefore is a joint employer of the clinic physicians.
201.04000 – Joint Employer, Single Employer, and Alter Ego Doctrines
Where two or more employers exert significant control over the same employees, such that one agency retains the right to control both what shall be done and how it shall be done, or the manner and method in which the work is performed, that agency retains its status as a joint employer of the employees. This is essentially a factual determination. The focus of the joint employer analysis is on the relationship between the agency and the employees. Where a County retained and exercised control over physicians at its hospital outpatient clinics, in areas such as hiring, review of individual employment agreements, salaries and specialty pay, time base reduction, policies regarding patient care, fees and dress code, and discipline, the County retained control over the manner and method in which the work was performed, and therefore is a joint employer of the clinic physicians.
1203.01000 – In General
Where a County was determined to be a joint employer of physicians at its hospital outpatient clinics, the proper remedy was an order to the County to process Charging Party union’s request for recognition as the exclusive representative pursuant to local rules. The Board denied the Charging Party’s request that the County be ordered to immediately recognize the Charging Party or move directly to a representation election, holding that such a remedy was premature.