Decision 2280M – County of Riverside

LA-CE-605-M

Decision Date: August 14, 2012

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Decision Headnotes

400.00000 – EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES
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.)

750.00000 – EMPLOYER ADOPTION/ENFORCEMENT OF UNREASONABLE RULE
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.

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
1100.03000 – Standing

Neither represented nor unrepresented employees have standing to contest placement of their position or job classification in a particular bargaining unit.