Decision 2067M – County of Ventura

LA-CE-337-M

Decision Date: September 29, 2009

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 33
Perc Index: 166

Decision Headnotes

201.00000 – PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?
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.

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

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.

1203.00000 – REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; BARGAINING ORDERS; REMEDIES AGAINST EMPLOYERS
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.