Decision 2138M – County of Orange

LA-CE-518-M

Decision Date: October 25, 2010

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 34
Perc Index: 156

Decision Headnotes

104.00000 – PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF BOARD
104.01000 – Authority of Board In General; Validity and Application of Regulations (See also 102.01)

Under the MMBA, PERB regulations will apply only when the agency’s local rules contain no provision that can accomplish what the petitioner is seeking without placing an undue burden on the petitioner. Because a county’s local rule governing unit modification provided the functional equivalent of a unit severance rule and did not unduly burden the petitioning union, the local rule, and not PERB regulations, applied to the union’s severance petition.

750.00000 – EMPLOYER ADOPTION/ENFORCEMENT OF UNREASONABLE RULE
750.01000 – In General

County’s failure to adopt local rule governing bargaining unit severance did not violate the MMBA because PERB regulations serve to “fill in the gaps” when no local rule exists and thus a local agency’s failure to adopt a particular rule does not result in the unlawful withholding of recognition. A county properly applied its local unit modification rule to deny a severance petition because the rule provided the functional equivalent of a severance rule and the rule’s requirement of a showing of majority support among the employees in the proposed new unit was not unreasonable or unduly burdensome as applied to the petition. The petitioning union lacked standing to challenge the county’s application of its decertification rule to the union’s severance petition because the union never intended to decertify the incumbent union and thus the County did not apply the rule to the petitioning union’s detriment.

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
1100.03000 – Standing

The petitioning union lacked standing to challenge the county’s application of its decertification rule to the union’s severance petition because the union never intended to decertify the incumbent union and thus the county did not apply the rule to the petitioning union’s detriment.

1306.00000 – REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT
1306.01000 – In General; Requirements

Local agency rule requiring showing of majority support for unit severance among employees in proposed new unit was reasonable even though PERB’s corresponding regulation only requires a showing of 30% support. Similar to PERB regulations governing unit severance under EERA, HEERA and the Dills Act, the majority support requirement was not a precursor to an election but determinative of whether the petition would be granted.

1308.00000 – REPRESENTATION ISSUES; SEVERANCE
1308.01000 – In General

Under the MMBA, PERB regulations will apply only when the agency’s local rules contain no provision that can accomplish what the petitioner is seeking without placing an undue burden on the petitioner. Because a county’s local rule governing unit modification provided the functional equivalent of a unit severance rule and did not unduly burden the petitioning union, the local rule, and not PERB regulations, applied to the union’s severance petition.

1503.00000 – MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS
1503.01000 – In General

Under the MMBA, PERB regulations will apply only when the agency’s local rules contain no provision that can accomplish what the petitioner is seeking without placing an undue burden on the petitioner. Because a county’s local rule governing unit modification provided the functional equivalent of a unit severance rule and did not unduly burden the petitioning union, the local rule, and not PERB regulations, applied to the union’s severance petition.