Decision 2294M – County of Orange

LA-CE-734-M

Decision Date: November 30, 2012

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Decision Headnotes

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

Charge fails to allege facts showing how local rules concerning processing unit modification petitions are unreasonable. To the extent charging party is asking the Board to opine about the reasonableness of a rule as applied in a factual context unrelated to the facts of this charge, the Board declines the invitation, as PERB does not issue advisory opinions or generalized declarations of law.

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
1100.01000 – In General/Prima Facie Case

To the extent charging party is alleging that it filed its request for unit modification after the expiration of a memorandum of understanding and before the execution of a successor agreement, it may not do so for the first time on appeal without good cause.

1310.00000 – REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION
1310.01000 – In General

Charge failed to allege facts establishing that county violated local rule by failing to process unit modification petition filed simultaneously with request for recognition as verified organization, where local rules required petition to be filed by verified employee organization and organization was not verified at the time it filed petition, and date it was verified was outside window period for filing petition. Charge failed to allege facts establishing county violated local rule by refusal to process appeal from denial of request for unit modification to board of supervisors, where local rule does not provide for appeal to board of supervisors of refusal to process unit modification request. Because unit modification petition was not timely filed under local rules, charge fails to establish prima facie violation of physicians’ and dentists’ rights to a separate bargaining unit under local rules or MMBA.