Decision 2657M – County of Orange

LA-CE-1101-M

Decision Date: July 15, 2019

Decision Type: PERB Decision

Description:  Union and employer cross-excepted to a proposed decision finding that PERB had jurisdiction over a dispute between an employer and a union whose members are peace officers; and that the employer’s decision about how to direct its legal counsel was outside the scope of representation.  The Board affirmed the proposed decision on jurisdiction, reaffirming County of Santa Clara (2015) PERB Decision No. 2431-M and further explaining the Board’s jurisdiction over unions that represent peace officers.  Like the ALJ, the Board relied on City of Pittsburg (2003) PERB Decision No. 1563-M and explained that an employer does not have a duty to meet and confer with a union before giving direction to its legal counsel about how to perform legal services.

Disposition:  Affirmed Proposed Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Decision Headnotes

104.00000 – PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF BOARD
104.01000 – Authority of Board In General; Validity and Application of Regulations (See also 102.01)

While Government Code section 3511 excludes from PERB’s jurisdiction claims
brought by Penal Code section 830.1 peace officers, PERB has jurisdiction over claims
brought by employee organizations covered by the MMBA, including those that represent or
seek to represent bargaining units composed partially or entirely of Penal Code 830.1 peace
officers.

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.02164 – Other

The Board found that changes to an ordinance concerned only management’s direction to its legal counsel for the performance of legal services and are thus outside the scope of representation.