Decision 2532C – Sonoma County Superior Court
SF-CE-39-C
Decision Date: June 27, 2017
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: The ALJ found that the Court violated the Trial Court Act by refusing to allow an employee to have a union representative present for a meeting held as part of the interactive process to accommodate her disability. As a result of the meeting, the employee was demoted to a lower-paying position. Both parties filed exceptions.
Disposition: The Board affirmed the ALJ and rejected both parties’ exceptions. The Board rejected the respondent’s exceptions that primarily disagreed with the Board’s prior decision in Sonoma County Superior Court (2015) PERB Decision No. 2409-C. The Board also rejected the respondent’s contention that it was prejudiced by the precedential effect of the prior decision.
The Board also rejected the charging party’s exceptions to the remedy, which argued that the employee should be awarded backpay to make her whole for the demotion. The Board did, however, order the respondent to, upon request by the employee, conduct a new interactive process meeting with a union representative.
Perc Vol: 42
Perc Index: 6
Decision Headnotes
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.
101.01000 – 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.
408.01000 – 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.
408.05000 – 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.
1100.05000 – 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.
1104.01000 – 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.
1107.05000 – 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.
1107.05000 – 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.
1107.18000 – 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.
1107.20000 – 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.
1107.20000 – 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.
1201.03000 – 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.