Decision 2280M – County of Riverside
Decision Date: August 14, 2012
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: ALJ ruled that the County of Riverside (County) violated its own local rule in denying a unit modification petition. The ALJ determined that the County’s local rule did not require proof of majority support and it applied its rule unreasonably and in violation of the MMBA by requiring such proof.
Disposition: Proposed decision affirmed. County acted inconsistently with its own local rule regarding unit modification and thereby violated the MMBA.
Perc Vol: 37
Perc Index: 51
400.02000 – Right Not to Participate
Neither MMBA section 3502 nor the Fourteenth Amendment is offended by a system of service or agency fees. The union chosen by a majority of unit employees as the exclusive representative of the employees in the bargaining unit, may implement a service or agency fee system requiring all unit employees either to join the union or in lieu of joining to pay the union a service or agency fee. (Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Educ. (1977) 431 U.S. 209, 221-222; Cumero v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (1989) 49 Cal.3d 575, 588-589.) Due process protections required as a condition to implementing a service or agency fee are sufficient to protect employees’ interests under the Fourteenth Amendment. (Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson (1986) 475 U.S. 292.)
750.01000 – In General
Under the MMBA, where the local rule does not require a showing of any employee support for a unit modification, the employer may not imply such a requirement.
1100.03000 – Standing
Neither represented nor unrepresented employees have standing to contest placement of their position or job classification in a particular bargaining unit.