Decision 2609I – San Francisco County Superior Court and Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee
SF-CO-1-I
Decision Date: December 18, 2018
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: An ALJ dismissed a complaint alleging that an exclusive representative engaged in a sympathy strike in violation of the parties’ no-strike clause and of the Court Interpreters Act. The employer filed exceptions.
Disposition: The Board affirmed the dismissal of the complaint. It concluded that the union did not engage in a sympathy strike, but rather informed employees of their contractual right to request an alternate assignment if they objected to crossing the picket line of another union’s strike.
Perc Vol: 43
Perc Index: 99
Decision Headnotes
602.01000 – In General
The unilateral change test is equally applicable to unilateral repudiations by an employer or by an employee organization.
602.03000 – Change In Policy
No unilateral change found where the respondent’s conduct was consistent with a reading of the entire contract article in question.
804.01000 – In General
The unilateral change test is equally applicable to unilateral repudiations by an employer or by an employee organization.
804.02000 – Refusal to Bargain in Good Faith (See, also, Scope of Representation, Sec. 1000)
The unilateral change test is equally applicable to unilateral repudiations by an employer or by an employee organization.
804.02000 – Refusal to Bargain in Good Faith (See, also, Scope of Representation, Sec. 1000)
No unilateral change found where the union’s conduct was consistent with a reading of the entire contract article on sympathy strikes.
804.03000 – Strike as Unlawful Pressure Tactic
Employer failed to meet burden of proving that union called a sympathy strike that would imminently and substantially threaten the public health or safety within the meaning of County Sanitation District No. 2 of Los Angeles County v. Los Angeles County Employees Association, Local 660 (1985) 38 Cal.3d 564. Employer’s witnesses did not establish that absence of the represented employees prevented work from being performed, nor that temporary replacements were unavailable.
1402.02000 – Union’s Waiver of Employee or Organizational Rights
Where language in no strike clause is susceptible to more than one interpretation, burden is on charging party employer to provide extrinsic evidence manifesting “clear mutual intent” as to the employer’s preferred interpretation.
1404.01000 – In General
When required, PERB interprets collective bargaining agreements according to their plain meaning if the language is clear. If the language is ambiguous, the Board may consider extrinsic evidence, such as bargaining history, where available. The Board also attempts to harmonize contract provisions to give meaning to each provision.
1404.02000 – Board’s Jurisdiction To Interpret Contracts
Although PERB lacks authority to enforce contracts, it may interpret contracts when necessary to resolve an alleged unfair practice.
1404.03000 – General Principles of Contract Interpretation
When required, PERB interprets collective bargaining agreements according to their plain meaning if the language is clear. If the language is ambiguous, the Board may consider extrinsic evidence, such as bargaining history, where available. The Board also attempts to harmonize contract provisions to give meaning to each provision.)