Decision A327M – City of Carson

LA-BR-2-M

Decision Date: June 20, 2003

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 27
Perc Index: 88

Decision Headnotes

102.00000 – PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; SCOPE OF PERB JURISDICTION
102.02000 – Concurrent or Conflicting Jurisdiction with Other Agencies or Courts; Interpretation or Enforcement of Other Statutes

MMBA Section 3509(a) grants PERB the authority to apply its powers and perform its duties described in Government Code Section 3541.3 to charges arising under the MMBA, while MMBA Section 3509(c) specifically grants PERB the authority to “enforce and apply rules adopted by a public agency concerning unit determinations, representation, recognition, and elections.” Thus, PERB has the statutory authority to determine if a public agency correctly applied local rules promulgated under the MMBA.

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)

MMBA Section 3509(a) grants PERB the authority to apply its powers and perform its duties described in Government Code Section 3541.3 to charges arising under the MMBA, while MMBA Section 3509(c) specifically grants PERB the authority to “enforce and apply rules adopted by a public agency concerning unit determinations, representation, recognition, and elections.” Thus, PERB has the statutory authority to determine if a public agency correctly applied local rules promulgated under the MMBA.

1301.00000 – REPRESENTATION ISSUES; CONTRACT BAR
1301.01000 – In General

Since the City has de facto extended the principles of the contract bar doctrine to unit modification petitions by including open period requirements in Article II, Sections 8 and 10 of its Employer-Employee Relations Resolution (EERR), it is appropriate for the Board to rely on precedent from the NLRB and pertinent statutes under the Board’s jurisdiction to interpret Article II, Sections 8 and 10 of its EERR.

1301.00000 – REPRESENTATION ISSUES; CONTRACT BAR
1301.03000 – Midterm Modification; Premature Extension; Short Term Extension

The City’s calculation of an “open period” based on a petitioning union’s MOU rather than on the incumbent union’s MOU is not reasonable because it does not meet an objective of the contract bar doctrine to establish stability in employer/employee relations.

1302.00000 – REPRESENTATION ISSUES; DECERTIFICATION
1302.04000 – Bar To

The City’s calculation of an “open period” based on a petitioning union’s MOU rather than on the incumbent union’s MOU is not reasonable because it does not meet an objective of the contract bar doctrine to establish stability in employer/employee relations.

1310.00000 – REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION
1310.01000 – In General

The City’s calculation of an “open period” based on a petitioning union’s MOU rather than on the incumbent union’s MOU is not reasonable because it does not meet an objective of the contract bar doctrine to establish stability in employer/employee relations.