Decision 2906E – Oakland Unified School District

SF-CO-864-E

Decision Date: June 28, 2024

Decision Type: PERB Decision

Description:  The complaint alleged that Oakland Education Association (OEA) held an unlawful pre-impasse strike. OEA argued that its strike was lawful because the District violated EERA as alleged in a separate unfair practice charge (the “school closure charge”). In a prior decision, the Board resolved the school closure charge in OEA’s favor, finding that the District violated EERA when it: (1) failed to afford OEA notice and an opportunity to bargain before implementing a change in a written District policy that had required a nine-month planning period before the District could implement a school closure decision; and (2) began implementing a school closure decision without observing the nine-month planning period and without affording OEA adequate notice and opportunity to engage in good faith effects negotiations. After the Board resolved the school closure charge, the parties submitted post-hearing briefs in this case, and the ALJ issued a proposed decision dismissing the complaint against OEA. The District filed exceptions, to which OEA responded.

Disposition:  The Board affirmed the proposed decision. EERA includes a qualified right to strike. One qualification restricts pre-impasse strikes pressuring an employer to make concessions in collective bargaining. As a result, there is a presumption against pre-impasse strikes, but a union may rebut the presumption by showing that employer unfair practices materially provoked the strike. The Board found two independent reasons why OEA did not engage in an unlawful pre-impasse strike. First, the presumption did not apply given that the parties were not in contract bargaining, OEA had no duty to bargain effects since the District began implementing its changes without providing notice or an opportunity to bargain, and the District pointed to no other negotiation giving rise to a duty to bargain. In the alternative, OEA rebutted the presumption because District unfair practices materially provoked the strike.

Decision Headnotes

No items found