Decision 2531M – Santa Clara Valley Water District
SF-CE-950-M
Decision Date: June 23, 2017
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: The charging party, a non-exclusive representative, filed exceptions to a proposed decision dismissing the complaint and the charging party’s unfair practice charge. The complaint alleged that a public agency had violated the MMBA and PERB Regulations by failing to follow its local rules when considering and denying a unit modification petition, through which the charging party sought to establish a separate bargaining unit consisting of certain classifications of professional employees. The charging party did not seek to become the exclusive representative of the proposed unit but rather sought only to make the incumbent organization represent both the newly-established unit and its general unit separately.
Disposition: The Board affirmed the proposed decision, concluding that the charging party’s unit modification petition did not comply with the local rules, as charging party did not seek to become the exclusive representative of the proposed unit and, absent a representation election or a unit modification by the employer, could not force the incumbent organization to represent professional employees separately from the currently constituted general unit.
Perc Vol: 42
Perc Index: 5
Decision Headnotes
750.01000 – In General
Charging Party’s petition to establish a separate unit of professional employees but to retain the same exclusive representative of the current mixed unit failed to comply with the District’s local rules governing unit modification and severance. Charging Party failed to overcome the presumption of correctness afforded a legislative act to show that the District had acted unreasonably in applying or enforcing any aspect of its local rules governing unit modification and severance. The MMBA grants public agencies the right to “adopt reasonable rules and regulations” for the administration of employer-employee relations, including for determining what constitutes “an appropriate unit” of employees for collective bargaining purposes. PERB and judicial authority requires that, when evaluating the reasonableness of a public agency’s unit determination made pursuant to a local rule, the party challenging the unit determination bears the burden of demonstrating that the decision was not reasonable. (pp. 10-11.)
1105.03000 – Burden of Proof; Weight of Evidence; Presumptions and Inferences; Affirmative Defenses
Charging Party’s petition to establish a separate unit of professional employees but to retain the same exclusive representative of the current mixed unit failed to comply with the District’s local rules governing unit modification and severance. Charging Party failed to overcome the presumption of correctness afforded a legislative act to show that the District had acted unreasonably in applying or enforcing any aspect of its local rules governing unit modification and severance. The MMBA grants public agencies the right to “adopt reasonable rules and regulations” for the administration of employer-employee relations, including for determining what constitutes “an appropriate unit” of employees for collective bargaining purposes. PERB and judicial authority requires that, when evaluating the reasonableness of a public agency’s unit determination made pursuant to a local rule, the party challenging the unit determination bears the burden of demonstrating that the decision was not reasonable. (pp. 10-11.)
1107.01000 – Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver
Charging Party’s petition to establish a separate unit of professional employees but to retain the same exclusive representative of the current mixed unit failed to comply with the District’s local rules governing unit modification and severance. Charging Party failed to overcome the presumption of correctness afforded a legislative act to show that the District had acted unreasonably in applying or enforcing any aspect of its local rules governing unit modification and severance. The MMBA grants public agencies the right to “adopt reasonable rules and regulations” for the administration of employer-employee relations, including for determining what constitutes “an appropriate unit” of employees for collective bargaining purposes. PERB and judicial authority requires that, when evaluating the reasonableness of a public agency’s unit determination made pursuant to a local rule, the party challenging the unit determination bears the burden of demonstrating that the decision was not reasonable. (pp. 10-11.)
1107.02000 – Weight Given to ALJ’s Proposed Decision: Findings, Conclusions, Credibility Resolutions
Charging Party’s petition to establish a separate unit of professional employees but to retain the same exclusive representative of the current mixed unit failed to comply with the District’s local rules governing unit modification and severance. Charging Party failed to overcome the presumption of correctness afforded a legislative act to show that the District had acted unreasonably in applying or enforcing any aspect of its local rules governing unit modification and severance. The MMBA grants public agencies the right to “adopt reasonable rules and regulations” for the administration of employer-employee relations, including for determining what constitutes “an appropriate unit” of employees for collective bargaining purposes. PERB and judicial authority requires that, when evaluating the reasonableness of a public agency’s unit determination made pursuant to a local rule, the party challenging the unit determination bears the burden of demonstrating that the decision was not reasonable. (pp. 10-11.)
750.01000 – In General
In the absence of decertification, Charging Parties had no absolute right to a separate unit of professional employees when the exclusive representative of the existing mixed unit did not wish to split the unit into professional and non-professional units. PERB and controlling judicial authority have held that the right of professional employees to separate representation is not absolute, but must be harmonized with other provisions of the statute. (p. 14.)
1105.03000 – Burden of Proof; Weight of Evidence; Presumptions and Inferences; Affirmative Defenses
In the absence of decertification, Charging Parties had no absolute right to a separate unit of professional employees when the exclusive representative of the existing mixed unit did not wish to split the unit into professional and non-professional units. PERB and controlling judicial authority have held that the right of professional employees to separate representation is not absolute, but must be harmonized with other provisions of the statute. (p. 14.)
1107.01000 – Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver
In the absence of decertification, Charging Parties had no absolute right to a separate unit of professional employees when the exclusive representative of the existing mixed unit did not wish to split the unit into professional and non-professional units. PERB and controlling judicial authority have held that the right of professional employees to separate representation is not absolute, but must be harmonized with other provisions of the statute. (p. 14.)
1107.02000 – Weight Given to ALJ’s Proposed Decision: Findings, Conclusions, Credibility Resolutions
In the absence of decertification, Charging Parties had no absolute right to a separate unit of professional employees when the exclusive representative of the existing mixed unit did not wish to split the unit into professional and non-professional units. PERB and controlling judicial authority have held that the right of professional employees to separate representation is not absolute, but must be harmonized with other provisions of the statute. (p. 14.)
750.01000 – In General
Because Charging Party could achieve separate representation for professional employees with a properly-filed petition for unit modification or decertification and a representation election for exclusive representation in its own name, rather than for continued representation by another employee organization who opposes severance, its reliance on PERB’s Regulations governing MMBA representation matters is misplaced. The MMBA grants public agencies the right to “adopt reasonable rules and regulations” for the administration of employer-employee relations, including for determining what constitutes “an appropriate unit” of employees for collective bargaining purposes. PERB must enforce and apply rules adopted by public agencies concerning unit determinations, representation, recognition, and elections and only has authority to assert jurisdiction and to conduct representation proceedings under PERB’s own Regulations where the public agency has no functionally equivalent local rules under which the petitioner can accomplish what it seeks without undue burden. (p. 15.)