Decision A421M – City of Parlier
SA-RR-1148-M
Decision Date: June 4, 2015
Decision Type: Administrative Appeal
Description: The union appealed from a PERB administrative determination dismissing a representation petition, on the grounds that rules that purport to exclude confidential employees from units that include non-confidential employees are repugnant to the MMBA.
Disposition: The Board upheld the dismissal of the representation petition because: (1) the Board lacks jurisdiction to consider a representation petition where a city has adopted local rules that address petitions by employee organizations for recognition as exclusive representatives; and (2) the appropriate avenue for challenging a city’s election-related rules as being unreasonable, or alleging the rule is not consistent with or does not effectuate the purposes of the express provisions of the MMBA, is an unfair practice charge, not a representation petition before PERB.
Perc Vol: 40
Perc Index: 16
Decision Headnotes
104.01000 – Authority of Board In General; Validity and Application of Regulations (See also 102.01)
PERB does not have the authority to conduct representation proceedings under the MMBA unless a public agency has not adopted local rules that address that particular representation issue in accordance with MMBA section 3507. Where a city has adopted local rules that address petitions by employee organizations for recognition as exclusive representatives, or where a city specifically adopted a rule that permits the employee relations officer to designate which positions are confidential and establishes a definition of “confidential employee,” as it is specifically authorized to do by MMBA section 3507.5.6, there is no “gap” for PERB to fill with its own representation rules, and PERB lacks jurisdiction to consider such a petition.
750.01000 – In General
The appropriate avenue for challenging a city’s rule prohibiting confidential employees from being placed in non-confidential bargaining units as being unreasonable, or alleging the rule is not consistent with or does not effectuate the purposes of the express provisions of the MMBA, is an unfair practice charge pursuant to MMBA section 3509(b), not a representation petition before PERB.
1300.01000 – In General
PERB does not have the authority to conduct representation proceedings under the MMBA unless a public agency has not adopted local rules that address that particular representation issue in accordance with MMBA section 3507. Where a city has adopted local rules that address petitions by employee organizations for recognition as exclusive representatives, or where a city specifically adopted a rule that permits the employee relations officer to designate which positions are confidential and establishes a definition of “confidential employee,” as it is specifically authorized to do by MMBA section 3507.5.6, there is no “gap” for PERB to fill with its own representation rules, and PERB lacks jurisdiction to consider such a petition.