Decision 2163M – County of Riverside
Decision Date: February 18, 2011
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Perc Vol: 35
Perc Index: 42
104.01000 – Authority of Board In General; Validity and Application of Regulations (See also 102.01)
Under the MMBA, PERB regulations apply only when the agency has no local rule governing a particular representation matter. Because a county had local rules governing unit modification, PERB Regulation 61450(e)(1), requiring a showing of majority support among unrepresented employees to be added to an existing bargaining unit when the addition would increase unit size by more than ten percent, did not apply despite the local rules’ silence on majority support.
750.01000 – In General
County unreasonably applied its local unit modification rules to deny petitions to add unrepresented per diem employees to existing bargaining units. It was unreasonable for the county to require a showing of majority support among the employees to be added when: (1) the local rules did not contain a support requirement for unit modification; and (2) no principle of labor law requires a showing of majority support any time unrepresented employees are added to an existing unit. The County also unreasonably applied its rules when it denied the union’s modified petitions as untimely; the County’s interpretation of the applicable local rule would prevent a petitioner from correcting procedural deficiencies if the petition is denied near or after the end of the “window period” for filing.
1203.01000 – In General
The appropriate remedy for a county’s unreasonable denial of a unit modification petition is to order the county, upon the petitioning union’s request, to process the petition pursuant to a reasonable interpretation of its local rules. The Board rejected the union’s request to certify the modified units sought in the petition.