Decision 2532C – Sonoma County Superior Court

SF-CE-39-C

Decision Date: June 27, 2017

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 42
Perc Index: 6

Decision Headnotes

101.00000 – PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; APPLICABILITY OF AND CONFLICTS WITH OTHER STATUTES
101.01000 – In General

Unlike EERA and the MMBA, the Trial Court Act is both a collective bargaining law and an employment rights statute. Read as a whole, the Act establishes a “floor” of certain guaranteed employment rights and benefits and assures the rights of employee organizations to meet and confer regarding those rights and benefits, provided they are within the scope of representation as defined in Trial Court Act section 71634.

101.00000 – PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; APPLICABILITY OF AND CONFLICTS WITH OTHER STATUTES
101.01000 – In General

The presence of a union representative in an interactive process meeting convened to explore possible reasonable accommodations for an employee’s disability is not precluded by regulations interpreting the Fair Employment and Housing Act.

408.00000 – EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS
408.01000 – In General

The right of representation on “all matters of employer-employee relations” is not limitless and is not a license to turn the workplace into a terrain where no conversation can occur between management and employees without a union representative being present. The right does not apply to run-of-the-mill shop floor conversations or meetings to provide work directives.

408.00000 – EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS
408.05000 – Other Circumstances

Employees’ right of representation includes the right to have a union representative attend interactive process meetings convened to explore possible reasonable accommodations for an employee’s disability.

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
1100.05000 – Dismissal of Charge; Appeal

Under PERB Regulation 32320, subdivision (d), the Board has discretion whether to designate a decision resolving the appeal of a dismissal of an unfair practice charge precedential. The precedential designation is appropriate for a decision that overrules a prior Board decision.

1104.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; PROCEDURE BEFORE ALJ
1104.01000 – In General; Conduct of Hearing

Respondent was not prejudiced by the fact that the Board issued a precedential decision reversing and remanding the dismissal of a charge for issuance of a complaint. The Board’s decision addressed a purely legal issue, and at hearing the respondent was free to establish any truthful facts it chose.

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
1107.05000 – Precedential Authority of PERB Decisions

Under PERB Regulation 32320, subdivision (d), the Board has discretion whether to designate a decision resolving the appeal of a dismissal of an unfair practice charge precedential. The precedential designation is appropriate for a decision that overrules a prior Board decision.

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
1107.05000 – Precedential Authority of PERB Decisions

The fact that the Board’s previous precedential decision articulated its legal conclusion on an issue presented by the case does not mean the Board has prejudged the merits of the case or denied the respondent due process.

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
1107.18000 – Review of Findings Not Excepted To

Because the respondent did not except to the ALJ’s findings of fact, the Board presumed the respondent was satisfied with the record established at hearing.

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
1107.20000 – Other

Under PERB Regulation 32320, subdivision (d), the Board has discretion whether to designate a decision resolving the appeal of a dismissal of an unfair practice charge as precedential. The precedential designation is appropriate for a decision that overrules a prior Board decision.

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
1107.20000 – Other

The fact that the Board’s previous precedential decision articulated its legal conclusion on an issue presented by the case does not mean the Board has prejudged the merits of the case or denied the respondent due process.

1201.00000 – REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; REINSTATEMENT; BACKPAY BENEFITS
1201.03000 – Back Pay; Interest

Back pay was not the appropriate remedy where an employee was denied her right to union representation in an interactive process meeting convened to discuss the employee’s request for a reasonable accommodation of her disability. The employee was no longer able to perform the duties of her previous position, there was no evidence that employer did not provide her with a reasonable accommodation, and the employer had acted in conformance with a settled rule that the Board later overturned.