Decision 2915H – Trustees of the California State University * * * PARTIALLY VACATED AND PARTIALLY SUPERSEDED BY Trustees of the California State University v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 90 and Trustees of the California State University (2026) PERB Decision No. 2915a-H * * *

PARTIALLY VACATED AND PARTIALLY SUPERSEDED ON OTHER GROUNDS BY Trustees of the California State University v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 90 and Trustees of the California State University (2026) PERB Decision No. 2915a-H.

Even where a decision involves a non-mandatory bargaining topic, if the decision has reasonably foreseeable effects on exclusively represented employees’ terms and conditions of employment, then the employer has a bargaining obligation regarding the decision’s effects and implementation. (International Assn. of Fire Fighters, Local 188, AFL-CIO v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 259, 265 & 276; Regents of the University of California (2021) PERB Decision No. 2783-H, pp. 28-29.) Accordingly, if an employer reaches a firm decision on a matter outside the scope of representation and the decision has reasonably foreseeable effects on represented employees, then the employer typically must afford the exclusive representative notice and a meaningful opportunity to engage in effects negotiations, before implementation begins. (Oakland Unified School District (2023) PERB Decision No. 2875, p. 18; City of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2351-M, pp. 2, 17-19 & 28-42; County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Decision No. 2321-M, p. 30.) (pp. 14 & 22.)

PARTIALLY VACATED AND PARTIALLY SUPERSEDED ON OTHER GROUNDS BY Trustees of the California State University v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 90 and Trustees of the California State University (2026) PERB Decision No. 2915a-H.

In Compton Community College District (1989) PERB Decision No. 720, the Board held that an employer may implement a decision on a non-mandatory subject prior to exhausting its effects bargaining obligation if: (1) the implementation date is based on an immutable deadline or an important managerial interest, such that a delay in implementation beyond the date chosen would effectively undermine the employer’s right to make the decision; (2) the employer gives sufficient advance notice of the decision and implementation date to allow for meaningful negotiations prior to implementation; and (3) the employer negotiates in good faith prior to implementation and continues to negotiate afterwards as to the subjects that were not resolved by virtue of implementation. (Id. at pp. 14-15.) (pp. 14-15.)

PARTIALLY VACATED AND PARTIALLY SUPERSEDED ON OTHER GROUNDS BY Trustees of the California State University v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 90 and Trustees of the California State University (2026) PERB Decision No. 2915a-H.

PERB uses the word “effects” as shorthand for the broad category that comprises both the effects and implementation of a decision on a non-mandatory bargaining subject. (Oakland Unified School District (2023) PERB Decision No. 2875, p. 10.) Negotiations over implementation may include negotiations over potential alternatives or revisions that may mitigate or offset the impact of the decision on employees, even though the decision itself is not bargainable. (Id. at p. 11.) For instance, even though an employer has no duty to bargain over a decision to lay off employees, the California Supreme Court has noted that the scope of required effects bargaining includes “the timing of layoffs and the number and identity of the employees affected.” (International Assn. of Fire Fighters, Local 188, AFL-CIO v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 259, 265 & 276.) This means that even after an employer has decided to lay off a set number of bargaining unit employees in specific titles, a union has a right to propose alternatives during effects negotiations. As an example, the union may propose to lessen the number of bargaining unit layoffs and instead achieve desired labor cost savings by laying off non-bargaining unit employees, saving money on wages or benefits, or other similar proposals. (p. 15.)

PARTIALLY VACATED AND PARTIALLY SUPERSEDED ON OTHER GROUNDS BY Trustees of the California State University v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 90 and Trustees of the California State University (2026) PERB Decision No. 2915a-H.

Effects bargaining analysis requires determination of whether the effects fall within the scope of bargaining. Reasonably foreseeable health or safety effects are bargainable. (International Assn. of Fire Fighters, Local 188, AFL-CIO v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 259, 276-277 [where city faced a budget crisis and decided to lay off firefighters, it had no duty to bargain over that decision but had to bargain over effects such as the safety of remaining firefighters].) If “human health and safety are involved,” PERB must err on the side of finding a change is material enough to trigger bargaining even if it “will affect only a few employees.” (Solano County Employees’ Assn. v. County of Solano (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 256, 262 (Solano).) Solano held this is true even when management seeks to make the workplace safer, over the union’s objection. (Ibid.) The principle holds even more sway where it is the union that espouses the more cautious position. (pp. 16-17.)

PARTIALLY VACATED AND PARTIALLY SUPERSEDED ON OTHER GROUNDS BY Trustees of the California State University v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 90 and Trustees of the California State University (2026) PERB Decision No. 2915a-H.

Faculty association presented sufficient evidence to show that student immunization policy had a reasonably foreseeable impact on faculty health and safety. Expert sources made clear why a student vaccine policy can have a reasonably foreseeable impact on faculty health. The policy change had the reasonably foreseeable result of reducing community immunity. Immunocompromised faculty or those faculty for whom a vaccine may be contraindicated rely heavily on community immunity. In effects bargaining, the parties might reach agreement on issues or policies, such as affording preference for virtual or hybrid teaching assignments to immunocompromised faculty, either at all times or in the event of a disease outbreak in a nearby community. Although faculty have individual rights to seek a reasonable accommodation, this argument favors the faculty association, as reasonable accommodation processes are part of a union’s scope of representation. (Sonoma County Superior Court (2017) PERB Decision No. 2532-C, p. 46, fn. 7; Sonoma County Superior Court (2015) PERB Decision No. 2409-C, p. 22.) Moreover, even when parties are unable to reach agreement, there are benefits to bargaining over fraught issues. (County of San Joaquin (2021) PERB Decision No. 2761-M, p. 69.) (pp. 17-22.)

PARTIALLY VACATED AND PARTIALLY SUPERSEDED ON OTHER GROUNDS BY Trustees of the California State University v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 90 and Trustees of the California State University (2026) PERB Decision No. 2915a-H.

The Board expressly overruled Fremont Union High School District (1987) PERB Decision No. 651, p. 25 (Fremont), to the extent it suggests that effects are only bargainable if they are “reasonably certain to occur.” While Fremont had employed the phrase “reasonably certain to occur” in distinguishing between “actual” and “purely speculative” effects (id. at pp. 25-27), PERB later overruled that entire framework, clarifying that a charging party need only demonstrate that there are “reasonably foreseeable” effects rather than “actual” ones. (pp. 20-21.)

PARTIALLY VACATED AND PARTIALLY SUPERSEDED ON OTHER GROUNDS BY Trustees of the California State University v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 90 and Trustees of the California State University (2026) PERB Decision No. 2915a-H.

Where a decision on a non-mandatory topic has bargainable effects and the employer begins implementing its decision without providing clear notice regarding the nature and scope of the change, the employer has at that point violated its bargaining duty and the union generally has no duty to request bargaining. (County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Decision No. 2321-M, p. 30 (Santa Clara); see also Oakland Unified School District (2023) PERB Decision No. 2875, p. 19 [union had no duty to bargain effects because employer had already begun implementing its decision].) An employer frustrates good faith negotiations if it begins implementation before bargaining. (Santa Clara, supra, p. 24 [bargaining “from a hole” is futile]; accord effects negotiations, before implementation begins. (Oakland Unified School District (2023) PERB Decision No. 2875, p. 18; City of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2351-M, p. 41.) (pp. 23-24.)

PARTIALLY VACATED AND PARTIALLY SUPERSEDED BY Trustees of the California State University v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 90 and Trustees of the California State University (2026) PERB Decision No. 2915a-H, which held if employer establishes union obtained actual notice of a decision with bargainable effects, the burden is on the union if it claims there was insufficient time for good faith negotiations before the employer began implementation.

County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Decision No. 2321-M (Santa Clara) overruled multiple decisions that mistakenly required a union to demand effects bargaining whenever it gained “actual knowledge” (also known as “actual notice”) of an employer decision, even if implementation was already underway. (Id. at pp. 26-32; see also City of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2351-M, pp. 17 & 38 (Sacramento) [explaining Santa Clara’s import].) After Santa Clara and Sacramento, there remains only a narrow path for an employer, after failing to afford a union notice, to rely on the fact that a union official nonetheless gained actual knowledge of the decision. Specifically, as part of an affirmative defense asserting that a union clearly and unmistakably waived its right to bargain, the employer must show that a union official with authority to act obtained full, timely, actual knowledge of the decision not only before the employer began implementation, but also with sufficient time to allow good faith bargaining before implementation. (Santa Clara, supra, pp. 28-29 [citing Victor Valley Union High School District (1986) PERB Decision No. 565, pp. 4-6]; accord Sacramento, supra, pp. 38-42.) (p. 24.)

PARTIALLY VACATED AND PARTIALLY SUPERSEDED BY Trustees of the California State University v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 90 and Trustees of the California State University (2026) PERB Decision No. 2915a-H, which held if employer establishes union obtained actual notice of a decision with bargainable effects, the burden is on the union if it claims there was insufficient time for good faith negotiations before the employer began implementation.

Victor Valley Union High School District (1986) PERB Decision No. 565 (Victor Valley), which arose in a decision bargaining context, interwove analysis of what constitutes adequate notice from an employer and what constitutes adequate actual knowledge in lieu of notice from the employer. (Id. at pp. 4-6.) County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Decision No. 2321-M explained how these concepts apply if an employer has a duty to bargain over effects and implementation rather than over the decision itself. (Id. at pp. 30-32.) In either a decision bargaining or effects bargaining context, two points are critical. The first relates to burdens of proof. While a charging party union has the burden to prove that the employer failed to provide adequate advance notice and/or opportunity to bargain, if the employer seeks to rely on the union’s “actual knowledge” in lieu of formal notice, the employer must do so as part of a waiver defense for which it bears the burden of proof. (City of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2351-M, pp. 38 & 40 (Sacramento).) Second, the Board has logically and properly interpreted Victor Valley, supra, PERB Decision No. 565 as making the requirements attendant to an actual knowledge showing no less stringent than the requirements when an employer provides formal notice to a union. Thus, to prove a union’s actual knowledge, the employer must show that such actual knowledge satisfied each element of effective notice set forth in Victor Valley, meaning that the union official with actual knowledge must: (1) have authority to act; (2) know of those aspects of the decision that have bargainable effects; and (3) possess the knowledge sufficiently in advance of a firm decision to allow good faith decisional bargaining or sufficiently in advance of implementation to allow for good faith effects bargaining. (Sacramento, supra, pp. 28-42; Victor Valley, supra, at pp. 5-6; accord El Dorado County Deputy Sheriff’s Assn. v. County of El Dorado (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 950, 956-957; San Diego Adult Educators v. PERB (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1124, 1136.) (pp. 24-25.)

PARTIALLY VACATED AND PARTIALLY SUPERSEDED BY Trustees of the California State University v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 90 and Trustees of the California State University (2026) PERB Decision No. 2915a-H, which held if employer establishes union obtained actual notice of a decision with bargainable effects, the burden is on the union if it claims there was insufficient time for good faith negotiations before the employer began implementation.

Victor Valley Union High School District (1986) PERB Decision No. 565 (Victor Valley), which arose in a decision bargaining context, interwove analysis of what constitutes adequate notice from an employer and what constitutes adequate actual knowledge in lieu of notice from the employer. (Id. at pp. 4-6.) County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Decision No. 2321-M explained how these concepts apply if an employer has a duty to bargain over effects and implementation rather than over the decision itself. (Id. at pp. 30-32.) In either a decision bargaining or effects bargaining context, two points are critical. The first relates to burdens of proof. While a charging party union has the burden to prove that the employer failed to provide adequate advance notice and/or opportunity to bargain, if the employer seeks to rely on the union’s “actual knowledge” in lieu of formal notice, the employer must do so as part of a waiver defense for which it bears the burden of proof. (City of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2351-M, pp. 38 & 40 (Sacramento).) Second, the Board has logically and properly interpreted Victor Valley, supra, PERB Decision No. 565 as making the requirements attendant to an actual knowledge showing no less stringent than the requirements when an employer provides formal notice to a union. Thus, to prove a union’s actual knowledge, the employer must show that such actual knowledge satisfied each element of effective notice set forth in Victor Valley, meaning that the union official with actual knowledge must: (1) have authority to act; (2) know of those aspects of the decision that have bargainable effects; and (3) possess the knowledge sufficiently in advance of a firm decision to allow good faith decisional bargaining or sufficiently in advance of implementation to allow for good faith effects bargaining. (Sacramento, supra, pp. 28-42; Victor Valley, supra, at pp. 5-6; accord El Dorado County Deputy Sheriff’s Assn. v. County of El Dorado (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 950, 956-957; San Diego Adult Educators v. PERB (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1124, 1136.) (pp. 24-25.)

PARTIALLY VACATED AND PARTIALLY SUPERSEDED ON OTHER GROUNDS BY Trustees of the California State University v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 90 and Trustees of the California State University (2026) PERB Decision No. 2915a-H.

“Non-mandatory” describes topics about which parties need not bargain, although they may choose to do so. (Oakland Unified School District (2023) PERB Decision No. 2875, p. 3, fn. 4.) One can convey the same meaning by labeling topics “permissive,” or as falling outside the “scope of bargaining” or “scope of representation.” (Ibid.) Although such topics are sometimes called “non-negotiable,” that is imprecise because it could also mean illegal bargaining subjects. (Ibid.) (p. 2, fn. 2.)

PARTIALLY VACATED AND PARTIALLY SUPERSEDED BY Trustees of the California State University v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 90 and Trustees of the California State University (2026) PERB Decision No. 2915a-H, which held if employer establishes union obtained actual notice of a decision with bargainable effects, the burden is on the union if it claims there was insufficient time for good faith negotiations before the employer began implementation.

Victor Valley Union High School District (1986) PERB Decision No. 565 (Victor Valley), which arose in a decision bargaining context, interwove analysis of what constitutes adequate notice from an employer and what constitutes adequate actual knowledge in lieu of notice from the employer. (Id. at pp. 4-6.) County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Decision No. 2321-M explained how these concepts apply if an employer has a duty to bargain over effects and implementation rather than over the decision itself. (Id. at pp. 30-32.) In either a decision bargaining or effects bargaining context, two points are critical. The first relates to burdens of proof. While a charging party union has the burden to prove that the employer failed to provide adequate advance notice and/or opportunity to bargain, if the employer seeks to rely on the union’s “actual knowledge” in lieu of formal notice, the employer must do so as part of a waiver defense for which it bears the burden of proof. (City of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2351-M, pp. 38 & 40 (Sacramento).) Second, the Board has logically and properly interpreted Victor Valley, supra, PERB Decision No. 565 as making the requirements attendant to an actual knowledge showing no less stringent than the requirements when an employer provides formal notice to a union. Thus, to prove a union’s actual knowledge, the employer must show that such actual knowledge satisfied each element of effective notice set forth in Victor Valley, meaning that the union official with actual knowledge must: (1) have authority to act; (2) know of those aspects of the decision that have bargainable effects; and (3) possess the knowledge sufficiently in advance of a firm decision to allow good faith decisional bargaining or sufficiently in advance of implementation to allow for good faith effects bargaining. (Sacramento, supra, pp. 28-42; Victor Valley, supra, at pp. 5-6; accord El Dorado County Deputy Sheriff’s Assn. v. County of El Dorado (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 950, 956-957; San Diego Adult Educators v. PERB. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1124, 1136.) (pp. 24-25.)

PARTIALLY VACATED AND PARTIALLY SUPERSEDED BY Trustees of the California State University v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 90 and Trustees of the California State University (2026) PERB Decision No. 2915a-H, which held if employer establishes union obtained actual notice of a decision with bargainable effects, the burden is on the union if it claims there was insufficient time for good faith negotiations before the employer began implementation.

“What constitutes a ‘reasonable amount of time’ necessarily depends upon the individual circumstances of each case.” (Victor Valley Union High School District (1986) PERB Decision No. 565, p. 5.) However, it must include sufficient time for the organization to consult its members, decide on a course of action, request and receive information, and then bargain in good faith to impasse or agreement. (City of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2351-M, pp. 29-30.) Employer failed to prove that the faculty association had actual knowledge of the full scope of the new immunization policy at a time before implementation began, much less sufficiently in advance to allow a meaningful opportunity to bargain. Indeed, implementation was already underway at the time the faculty association gained actual knowledge (pp. 25-26 & fn. 10.)

PARTIALLY VACATED AND PARTIALLY SUPERSEDED BY Trustees of the California State University v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 90 and Trustees of the California State University (2026) PERB Decision No. 2915a-H, which held if employer establishes union obtained actual notice of a decision with bargainable effects, the burden is on the union if it claims there was insufficient time for good faith negotiations before the employer began implementation.

Victor Valley Union High School District (1986) PERB Decision No. 565 (Victor Valley), which arose in a decision bargaining context, interwove analysis of what constitutes adequate notice from an employer and what constitutes adequate actual knowledge in lieu of notice from the employer. (Id. at pp. 4-6.) County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Decision No. 2321-M explained how these concepts apply if an employer has a duty to bargain over effects and implementation rather than over the decision itself. (Id. at pp. 30-32.) In either a decision bargaining or effects bargaining context, two points are critical. The first relates to burdens of proof. While a charging party union has the burden to prove that the employer failed to provide adequate advance notice and/or opportunity to bargain, if the employer seeks to rely on the union’s “actual knowledge” in lieu of formal notice, the employer must do so as part of a waiver defense for which it bears the burden of proof. (City of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2351-M, pp. 38 & 40 (Sacramento).) Second, the Board has logically and properly interpreted Victor Valley, supra, PERB Decision No. 565 as making the requirements attendant to an actual knowledge showing no less stringent than the requirements when an employer provides formal notice to a union. Thus, to prove a union’s actual knowledge, the employer must show that such actual knowledge satisfied each element of effective notice set forth in Victor Valley, meaning that the union official with actual knowledge must: (1) have authority to act; (2) know of those aspects of the decision that have bargainable effects; and (3) possess the knowledge sufficiently in advance of a firm decision to allow good faith decisional bargaining or sufficiently in advance of implementation to allow for good faith effects bargaining. (Sacramento, supra, pp. 28-42; Victor Valley, supra, at pp. 5-6; accord El Dorado County Deputy Sheriff’s Assn. v. County of El Dorado (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 950, 956-957; San Diego Adult Educators v. PERB (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1124, 1136.) (pp. 24-25.)

PARTIALLY VACATED AND PARTIALLY SUPERSEDED ON OTHER GROUNDS BY Trustees of the California State University v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 90 and Trustees of the California State University (2026) PERB Decision No. 2915a-H.

Although neither party filed exceptions on remedial issues, the Board nonetheless exercised its discretion to adjust the remedy. (Oakland Unified School District (2023) PERB Decision No. 2875, pp. 9-10.) (p. 27.)

PARTIALLY VACATED AND PARTIALLY SUPERSEDED ON OTHER GROUNDS BY Trustees of the California State University v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 90 and Trustees of the California State University (2026) PERB Decision No. 2915a-H.

When an employer does not fulfill its decision bargaining obligation, PERB’s standard remedy includes a cease-and-desist order, restoring the status quo ante via a rescission order, make-whole relief, and a prospective order to bargain. (The Accelerated Schools (2023) PERB Decision No. 2855, p. 18 (Accelerated Schools); Pittsburg Unified School District (2022) PERB Decision No. 2833, p. 14.) However, the proper remedies sometimes differ when an employer has no decision bargaining obligation and instead violates its duty to bargain effects. (Accelerated Schools, supra, PERB Decision No. 2855, p. 19.) (p. 28.)

PARTIALLY VACATED AND PARTIALLY SUPERSEDED ON OTHER GROUNDS BY Trustees of the California State University v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 90 and Trustees of the California State University (2026) PERB Decision No. 2915a-H.

As part of remedying a failure to bargain effects, PERB does not necessarily direct the employer to fully rescind its implementation of the underlying decision. (The Accelerated Schools (2023) PERB Decision No. 2855, p. 19 (Accelerated Schools).) Determining whether to order rescission for a failure to bargain effects typically turns on whether rescission is necessary to level the playing field and allow fair, good faith bargaining. For instance, in some decisions involving a failure to bargain over effects, PERB has found it sufficient to prospectively exempt bargaining unit employees from the effects of the decision until the employer has fulfilled its bargaining duty (without exempting non-bargaining unit employees) and provide make-whole relief from the date of the violation until negotiations are complete. (See, e.g., County of Santa Clara (2021) PERB Decision No. 2799-M, pp. 29-30.) (p. 28.) Although there were reasons favoring the ALJ’s proposed rescission order, countervailing reasons persuaded the Board to refrain from such an order and instead to leave CSU’s 2023 student immunization policy in place during effects bargaining. First, PERB’s expertise is in enforcing statutory labor relations rights and duties, not in crafting student immunization policies. CSU offered educational reasons as well as public health arguments based on the nature of the student body for its policy, and it is not PERB’s role to assess the validity of those reasons from an educational or public health perspective. Second, outside of the COVID-19 context, PERB found no indication that the faculty association or any other union had previously sought to bargain in past instances when CSU strengthened or loosened its student health policies. While declining to request bargaining in past instances does not waive the right to bargain in future instances (County of Kern & Kern County Hospital Authority (2019) PERB Decision No. 2659-M, p. 22, fn. 19), PERB found this history to be a further reason to exercise its discretion not to order rescission. Moreover, in holding that CSU must bargain over the health and safety effects of its 2023 Policy, PERB resolved an issue of first impression. These unusual, combined circumstances made it clear why CSU did not consider HEERA before it began to implement its new policy. Third, while PERB found that the faculty association had no duty to bargain, the association declined to take CSU up on its offer to explain why there were bargainable effects. Given that rescission is not necessarily a standard remedy for a failure to bargain effects, the faculty association’s choice further persuaded PERB to leave the policy in place during bargaining, rather than rescinding it. (pp. 29-30.)

PARTIALLY VACATED AND PARTIALLY SUPERSEDED ON OTHER GROUNDS BY Trustees of the California State University v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 90 and Trustees of the California State University (2026) PERB Decision No. 2915a-H.

To remedy an effects bargaining obligation, PERB generally directs the offending respondent to provide make-whole relief from the first date of harm until the earliest of: (1) the date the parties reach an agreement, typically as part of complying with PERB’s effects bargaining order; (2) the date the parties reach a good faith final impasse, including exhaustion of any required or agreed upon post-impasse procedures; or (3) the date the charging party fails to pursue effects negotiations in good faith. (Accelerated Schools, supra, PERB Decision No. 2855, pp. 19-20.) Such make-whole relief should normally cover harm that the respondent’s violation(s) materially caused to both employees and to a charging party union. The Board therefore amended the proposed make-whole order to reimburse the faculty association for wasted/diverted resources or other harm it can prove materially resulted from the proven violations. (p. 31.)