Decision 3004M – City of Azusa
LA-CE-1707-M
Decision Date: February 11, 2026
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 18 (IBEW) filed a charge alleging that the City of Azusa violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) by changing the job duties of water workers, failing to meet and confer over the decision to implement the change in policy and/or the effects of the change in policy, interfering with the rights of bargaining unit employees to be represented by IBEW, and denying IBEW the right to represent unit members. After a hearing and briefing by the parties, the ALJ determined that the City had violated the MMBA, and ordered that the City cease and desist the misconduct and post a notice that it had violated the MMBA. The ALJ also issued a notice reading, also known as spoken notice, requiring that a City representative read aloud PERB’s notice of findings and remedial order.
IBEW filed exceptions to the ALJ’s remedy, requesting that the Board order make-whole relief for the affected employees who performed work outside of their job classifications. The City filed cross-exceptions to the ALJ’s decision itself, arguing that the work was within the scope of the employees’ job classifications, that the City did not fail to meet and confer regarding the decision and its effects, and that IBEW had waived its right to bargain effects.
Disposition: The Board affirmed the ALJ’s conclusion that the City violated the MMBA. The Board sustained IBEW’s exceptions and concluded that the ALJ erred in failing to order a make whole remedy, awarding backpay consistent with similar terms that the City had bargained in prior instances where employees worked outside of their job classifications. The Board removed the spoken notice from the order, however.
Perc Vol: 50
Perc Index: 123
Decision Headnotes
1201.03000 – Back Pay; Interest
In a long line of decisions, PERB has held that if the charging party establishes a unilateral change involving extra work, then extra pay is a proper remedy as long as there is a reasonable basis for estimating it. (City of Pasadena, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-406-M, pp. 8, 12-13 & adopting compliance order at pp. 7, 10; Mark Twain Union Elementary School District (2003) PERB Decision No. 1548, p. 9; Corning, supra, PERB Decision No. 399, pp. 10, 16-17; San Mateo City School District (1984) PERB Decision No. 375a, p. 6; see also California State Employees Assn. v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 923, 946-947 [citing with approval the Board’s remedial approach in Corning, supra, PERB Decision No. 399].)
1201.03000 – Back Pay; Interest
Back pay is appropriate when necessary to restore the economic status quo that would have been obtained but for the respondent’s wrongful conduct. When more traditional methods of calculating back pay awards are not available, alternative methods relying on “reasonable approximations and averages” may be used.
1202.01000 – In General
Uncertainty as to the appropriate remedy for an unfair practice must be resolved against the respondent whose unlawful conduct made such doubts possible. Absolute certainty is not required when calculating the back pay necessary to remedy an unfair practice. Because there is inevitable uncertainty as to what would have occurred absent unlawful conduct, make-whole relief typically relies on estimates—which are a better option than allowing unfair practices to go without a fully effective remedy. (City and County of San Francisco (2023) PERB Decision No. 2858-M, pp. 14-15.) Provided that an estimate has a rational basis and is not so excessive as to be punitive, it appropriately serves both a compensatory and deterrent function. (Pasadena Area Community College District (2024) PERB Order No. Ad-518, p. 14.)
1201.01000 – In General
Board-ordered remedies for unfair practices, including back pay awards, may appropriately serve both compensatory and deterrent functions, so long as they are not punitive.