Decision A453H – Regents of the University of California

The Board affirmed prior PERB precedent holding that the language of PERB Regulation 32781 eliminates the Board’s discretion to require proof of majority support when a unit modification petition seeks to add classifications which would increase the size of the existing unit by less than ten percent. (pp. 6-7.) PERB Regulation 32781, which governs petitions for unit modification, provides, in relevant part, that if a unit modification petition “requests the addition of classifications or positions to an established unit, and the proposed addition would increase the size of the established unit by ten percent or more, the Board shall require proof of majority support of persons employed in the classifications or positions to be added.” (pp. 4-5.)

The Board affirmed prior PERB precedent holding that the language of PERB Regulation 32781 eliminates the Board’s discretion to require proof of majority support when a unit modification petition seeks to add classifications which would increase the size of the existing unit by less than ten percent. (pp. 6-7.) PERB Regulation 32781, which governs petitions for unit modification, provides, in relevant part, that if a unit modification petition “requests the addition of classifications or positions to an established unit, and the proposed addition would increase the size of the established unit by ten percent or more, the Board shall require proof of majority support of persons employed in the classifications or positions to be added.” (pp. 4-5.)

The Board affirmed prior PERB precedent holding that the language of PERB Regulation 32781 eliminates the Board’s discretion to require proof of majority support when a unit modification petition seeks to add classifications which would increase the size of the existing unit by less than ten percent. (pp. 6-7.) PERB Regulation 32781, which governs petitions for unit modification, provides, in relevant part, that if a unit modification petition “requests the addition of classifications or positions to an established unit, and the proposed addition would increase the size of the established unit by ten percent or more, the Board shall require proof of majority support of persons employed in the classifications or positions to be added.” (pp. 4-5.)

The Board affirmed prior PERB precedent holding that the language of PERB Regulation 32781 eliminates the Board’s discretion to require proof of majority support when a unit modification petition seeks to add classifications which would increase the size of the existing unit by less than ten percent. (pp. 6-7.) PERB Regulation 32781, which governs petitions for unit modification, provides, in relevant part, that if a unit modification petition “requests the addition of classifications or positions to an established unit, and the proposed addition would increase the size of the established unit by ten percent or more, the Board shall require proof of majority support of persons employed in the classifications or positions to be added.” (pp. 4-5.)

The Board affirmed prior PERB precedent holding that the language of PERB Regulation 32781 eliminates the Board’s discretion to require proof of majority support when a unit modification petition seeks to add classifications which would increase the size of the existing unit by less than ten percent. (pp. 6-7.) PERB Regulation 32781, which governs petitions for unit modification, provides, in relevant part, that if a unit modification petition “requests the addition of classifications or positions to an established unit, and the proposed addition would increase the size of the established unit by ten percent or more, the Board shall require proof of majority support of persons employed in the classifications or positions to be added.” (pp. 4-5.)

The Board affirmed prior PERB precedent holding that the language of PERB Regulation 32781 eliminates the Board’s discretion to require proof of majority support when a unit modification petition seeks to add classifications which would increase the size of the existing unit by less than ten percent. (pp. 6-7.) PERB Regulation 32781, which governs petitions for unit modification, provides, in relevant part, that if a unit modification petition “requests the addition of classifications or positions to an established unit, and the proposed addition would increase the size of the established unit by ten percent or more, the Board shall require proof of majority support of persons employed in the classifications or positions to be added.” (pp. 4-5.)

By adopting a regulation providing that an increase in the size of a bargaining unit by ten percent or more through the addition of unrepresented positions creates a question concerning representation, the “necessary implication is that increasing the unit by less than ten percent does not call into question the incumbent union’s majority support,” and that the agency is without discretion to require a showing of support in such circumstances. (p. 8.) PERB’s unit modification procedures are inconsistent with the NLRB’s accretion doctrine because the plain language and the policies of HEERA and PERB Regulation 32781 differ in significant respects from their private-sector counterparts. PERB cannot change its regulations through decisional law. (pp. 8-9.)

By adopting a regulation providing that an increase in the size of a bargaining unit by ten percent or more through the addition of unrepresented positions creates a question concerning representation, the “necessary implication is that increasing the unit by less than ten percent does not call into question the incumbent union’s majority support,” and that the agency is without discretion to require a showing of support in such circumstances. (p. 8.) PERB’s unit modification procedures are inconsistent with the NLRB’s accretion doctrine because the plain language and the policies of HEERA and PERB Regulation 32781 differ in significant respects from their private-sector counterparts. PERB cannot change its regulations through decisional law. (pp. 8-9.)

By adopting a regulation providing that an increase in the size of a bargaining unit by ten percent or more through the addition of unrepresented positions creates a question concerning representation, the “necessary implication is that increasing the unit by less than ten percent does not call into question the incumbent union’s majority support,” and that the agency is without discretion to require a showing of support in such circumstances. (p. 8.) PERB’s unit modification procedures are inconsistent with the NLRB’s accretion doctrine because the plain language and the policies of HEERA and PERB Regulation 32781 differ in significant respects from their private-sector counterparts. PERB cannot change its regulations through decisional law. (pp. 8-9.)

By adopting a regulation providing that an increase in the size of a bargaining unit by ten percent or more through the addition of unrepresented positions creates a question concerning representation, the “necessary implication is that increasing the unit by less than ten percent does not call into question the incumbent union’s majority support,” and that the agency is without discretion to require a showing of support in such circumstances. (p. 8.) PERB’s unit modification procedures are inconsistent with the NLRB’s accretion doctrine because the plain language and the policies of HEERA and PERB Regulation 32781 differ in significant respects from their private-sector counterparts. PERB cannot change its regulations through decisional law. (pp. 8-9.)

By adopting a regulation providing that an increase in the size of a bargaining unit by ten percent or more through the addition of unrepresented positions creates a question concerning representation, the “necessary implication is that increasing the unit by less than ten percent does not call into question the incumbent union’s majority support,” and that the agency is without discretion to require a showing of support in such circumstances. (p. 8.) PERB’s unit modification procedures are inconsistent with the NLRB’s accretion doctrine because the plain language and the policies of HEERA and PERB Regulation 32781 differ in significant respects from their private-sector counterparts. PERB cannot change its regulations through decisional law. (pp. 8-9.)

By adopting a regulation providing that an increase in the size of a bargaining unit by ten percent or more through the addition of unrepresented positions creates a question concerning representation, the “necessary implication is that increasing the unit by less than ten percent does not call into question the incumbent union’s majority support,” and that the agency is without discretion to require a showing of support in such circumstances. (p. 8.) PERB’s unit modification procedures are inconsistent with the NLRB’s accretion doctrine because the plain language and the policies of HEERA and PERB Regulation 32781 differ in significant respects from their private-sector counterparts. PERB cannot change its regulations through decisional law. (pp. 8-9.)

Because HEERA does not itself mandate an election where an established unit is modified, it is within the Board’s discretion to adopt and interpret regulations defining under what circumstances an election is appropriate, or conversely, removing the Board’s discretion to require an election under specified circumstances. The PERB-administered statutes recognize that employee choice is not absolute, but must be balanced against the other policy objectives identified by the Legislature, including establishing “orderly and clearly defined procedures for meeting and conferring and the resolution of impasses.” (p. 9.)

Because HEERA does not itself mandate an election where an established unit is modified, it is within the Board’s discretion to adopt and interpret regulations defining under what circumstances an election is appropriate, or conversely, removing the Board’s discretion to require an election under specified circumstances. The PERB-administered statutes recognize that employee choice is not absolute, but must be balanced against the other policy objectives identified by the Legislature, including establishing “orderly and clearly defined procedures for meeting and conferring and the resolution of impasses.” (p. 9.)

Because HEERA does not itself mandate an election where an established unit is modified, it is within the Board’s discretion to adopt and interpret regulations defining under what circumstances an election is appropriate, or conversely, removing the Board’s discretion to require an election under specified circumstances. The PERB-administered statutes recognize that employee choice is not absolute, but must be balanced against the other policy objectives identified by the Legislature, including establishing “orderly and clearly defined procedures for meeting and conferring and the resolution of impasses.” (p. 9.)

Because HEERA does not itself mandate an election where an established unit is modified, it is within the Board’s discretion to adopt and interpret regulations defining under what circumstances an election is appropriate, or conversely, removing the Board’s discretion to require an election under specified circumstances. The PERB-administered statutes recognize that employee choice is not absolute, but must be balanced against the other policy objectives identified by the Legislature, including establishing “orderly and clearly defined procedures for meeting and conferring and the resolution of impasses.” (p. 9.)

Because HEERA does not itself mandate an election where an established unit is modified, it is within the Board’s discretion to adopt and interpret regulations defining under what circumstances an election is appropriate, or conversely, removing the Board’s discretion to require an election under specified circumstances. The PERB-administered statutes recognize that employee choice is not absolute, but must be balanced against the other policy objectives identified by the Legislature, including establishing “orderly and clearly defined procedures for meeting and conferring and the resolution of impasses.” (p. 9.)

Because HEERA does not itself mandate an election where an established unit is modified, it is within the Board’s discretion to adopt and interpret regulations defining under what circumstances an election is appropriate, or conversely, removing the Board’s discretion to require an election under specified circumstances. The PERB-administered statutes recognize that employee choice is not absolute, but must be balanced against the other policy objectives identified by the Legislature, including establishing “orderly and clearly defined procedures for meeting and conferring and the resolution of impasses.” (p. 9.)

The Board rejected the University’s appeal arguing that a union petitioning for unit modification should be required to show proof of support under PERB Regulation 32781 because, when the petition was filed, the University had not yet completed the process of reclassifying unrepresented employees and it projected to reclassify a significant number of additional employees into the new classification. (p. 14.) The administrative determination appropriately reasoned that the proposed addition sought by a unit modification petition at the time the petition is filed is determinative and “not whether the proposed addition grows or shrinks after the time the petition is filed.” (pp. 13-14.)

The Board rejected the University’s appeal arguing that a union petitioning for unit modification should be required to show proof of support under PERB Regulation 32781 because, when the petition was filed, the University had not yet completed the process of reclassifying unrepresented employees and it projected to reclassify a significant number of additional employees into the new classification. (p. 14.) The administrative determination appropriately reasoned that the proposed addition sought by a unit modification petition at the time the petition is filed is determinative and “not whether the proposed addition grows or shrinks after the time the petition is filed.” (pp. 13-14.)

The Board rejected the University’s appeal arguing that a union petitioning for unit modification should be required to show proof of support under PERB Regulation 32781 because, when the petition was filed, the University had not yet completed the process of reclassifying unrepresented employees and it projected to reclassify a significant number of additional employees into the new classification. (p. 14.) The administrative determination appropriately reasoned that the proposed addition sought by a unit modification petition at the time the petition is filed is determinative and “not whether the proposed addition grows or shrinks after the time the petition is filed.” (pp. 13-14.)

The Board rejected the University’s appeal arguing that a union petitioning for unit modification should be required to show proof of support under PERB Regulation 32781 because, when the petition was filed, the University had not yet completed the process of reclassifying unrepresented employees and it projected to reclassify a significant number of additional employees into the new classification. (p. 14.) The administrative determination appropriately reasoned that the proposed addition sought by a unit modification petition at the time the petition is filed is determinative and “not whether the proposed addition grows or shrinks after the time the petition is filed.” (pp. 13-14.)

The Board rejected the University’s appeal arguing that a union petitioning for unit modification should be required to show proof of support under PERB Regulation 32781 because, when the petition was filed, the University had not yet completed the process of reclassifying unrepresented employees and it projected to reclassify a significant number of additional employees into the new classification. (p. 14.) The administrative determination appropriately reasoned that the proposed addition sought by a unit modification petition at the time the petition is filed is determinative and “not whether the proposed addition grows or shrinks after the time the petition is filed.” (pp. 13-14.)

The Board rejected the University’s appeal arguing that a union petitioning for unit modification should be required to show proof of support under PERB Regulation 32781 because, when the petition was filed, the University had not yet completed the process of reclassifying unrepresented employees and it projected to reclassify a significant number of additional employees into the new classification. (p. 14.) The administrative determination appropriately reasoned that the proposed addition sought by a unit modification petition at the time the petition is filed is determinative and “not whether the proposed addition grows or shrinks after the time the petition is filed.” (pp. 13-14.)

Pursuant to PERB Regulations, the Board may expedite a unit modification case arising under PERB Regulation 32781. Because the present dispute is a cause of great concern to the parties and affected employees, PERB processed the case on an expedited basis in effort to promote stable employer-employee relations, and thereby effectuate the policies and purpose of HEERA. (p. 17.)

Pursuant to PERB Regulations, the Board may expedite a unit modification case arising under PERB Regulation 32781. Because the present dispute is a cause of great concern to the parties and affected employees, PERB processed the case on an expedited basis in effort to promote stable employer-employee relations, and thereby effectuate the policies and purpose of HEERA. (p. 17.)

Pursuant to PERB Regulations, the Board may expedite a unit modification case arising under PERB Regulation 32781. Because the present dispute is a cause of great concern to the parties and affected employees, PERB processed the case on an expedited basis in effort to promote stable employer-employee relations, and thereby effectuate the policies and purpose of HEERA. (p. 17.)

Pursuant to PERB Regulations, the Board may expedite a unit modification case arising under PERB Regulation 32781. Because the present dispute is a cause of great concern to the parties and affected employees, PERB processed the case on an expedited basis in effort to promote stable employer-employee relations, and thereby effectuate the policies and purpose of HEERA. (p. 17.)

Pursuant to PERB Regulations, the Board may expedite a unit modification case arising under PERB Regulation 32781. Because the present dispute is a cause of great concern to the parties and affected employees, PERB processed the case on an expedited basis in effort to promote stable employer-employee relations, and thereby effectuate the policies and purpose of HEERA. (p. 17.)

Pursuant to PERB Regulations, the Board may expedite a unit modification case arising under PERB Regulation 32781. Because the present dispute is a cause of great concern to the parties and affected employees, PERB processed the case on an expedited basis in effort to promote stable employer-employee relations, and thereby effectuate the policies and purpose of HEERA. (p. 17.)

Because reply briefs are neither expressly permitted nor prohibited by PERB Regulations, the has discretion to consider a reply where it raises new issues, discusses new case law or formulates new defenses to allegations. (p. 17.) Consideration of a reply may also be appropriate when it clarifies or narrows the issues or the scope of relief requested. In this case, however, because the point being asserted in the reply had already been fully argued in the appeal, there was no reason for the Board to consider the reply’s “clarification” of the same point. (p. 19)

Because reply briefs are neither expressly permitted nor prohibited by PERB Regulations, the has discretion to consider a reply where it raises new issues, discusses new case law or formulates new defenses to allegations. (p. 17.) Consideration of a reply may also be appropriate when it clarifies or narrows the issues or the scope of relief requested. In this case, however, because the point being asserted in the reply had already been fully argued in the appeal, there was no reason for the Board to consider the reply’s “clarification” of the same point. (p. 19)

The Office of the General Counsel correctly relied on the estimated figure of 325 affected employees, as stated in the union’s petition for unit modification, rather than the employer’s estimates of how many employees would eventually be reclassified into the affected classifications. (pp. 21-22.) Proof of support is determined by PERB when a petition is filed and an employer provides a list of employees that comprise the petitioned-for unit or the proposed unit modification. The employer is in the unique position of having sole access to the pertinent information, including which employees perform what duties and under which job titles. Where the employer is unable or unwilling to produce complete and accurate lists of employees in a proposed unit at the time, it is impossible for PERB to verify a showing of support or, as in the present case, whether such a showing is required. In such circumstances, the Board agent conducting the investigation may make reasonable assumptions about the proposed unit or unit modification, including that the number of affected employees estimated by the party of interest applicant is accurate. (Ibid.)

The Office of the General Counsel correctly relied on the estimated figure of 325 affected employees, as stated in the union’s petition for unit modification, rather than the employer’s estimates of how many employees would eventually be reclassified into the affected classifications. (pp. 21-22.) Proof of support is determined by PERB when a petition is filed and an employer provides a list of employees that comprise the petitioned-for unit or the proposed unit modification. The employer is in the unique position of having sole access to the pertinent information, including which employees perform what duties and under which job titles. Where the employer is unable or unwilling to produce complete and accurate lists of employees in a proposed unit at the time, it is impossible for PERB to verify a showing of support or, as in the present case, whether such a showing is required. In such circumstances, the Board agent conducting the investigation may make reasonable assumptions about the proposed unit or unit modification, including that the number of affected employees estimated by the party of interest applicant is accurate. (Ibid.)

The Office of the General Counsel correctly relied on the estimated figure of 325 affected employees, as stated in the union’s petition for unit modification, rather than the employer’s estimates of how many employees would eventually be reclassified into the affected classifications. (pp. 21-22.) Proof of support is determined by PERB when a petition is filed and an employer provides a list of employees that comprise the petitioned-for unit or the proposed unit modification. The employer is in the unique position of having sole access to the pertinent information, including which employees perform what duties and under which job titles. Where the employer is unable or unwilling to produce complete and accurate lists of employees in a proposed unit at the time, it is impossible for PERB to verify a showing of support or, as in the present case, whether such a showing is required. In such circumstances, the Board agent conducting the investigation may make reasonable assumptions about the proposed unit or unit modification, including that the number of affected employees estimated by the party of interest applicant is accurate. (Ibid.)

The Office of the General Counsel correctly relied on the estimated figure of 325 affected employees, as stated in the union’s petition for unit modification, rather than the employer’s estimates of how many employees would eventually be reclassified into the affected classifications. (pp. 21-22.) Proof of support is determined by PERB when a petition is filed and an employer provides a list of employees that comprise the petitioned-for unit or the proposed unit modification. The employer is in the unique position of having sole access to the pertinent information, including which employees perform what duties and under which job titles. Where the employer is unable or unwilling to produce complete and accurate lists of employees in a proposed unit at the time, it is impossible for PERB to verify a showing of support or, as in the present case, whether such a showing is required. In such circumstances, the Board agent conducting the investigation may make reasonable assumptions about the proposed unit or unit modification, including that the number of affected employees estimated by the party of interest applicant is accurate. (Ibid.)

The Office of the General Counsel correctly relied on the estimated figure of 325 affected employees, as stated in the union’s petition for unit modification, rather than the employer’s estimates of how many employees would eventually be reclassified into the affected classifications. (pp. 21-22.) Proof of support is determined by PERB when a petition is filed and an employer provides a list of employees that comprise the petitioned-for unit or the proposed unit modification. The employer is in the unique position of having sole access to the pertinent information, including which employees perform what duties and under which job titles. Where the employer is unable or unwilling to produce complete and accurate lists of employees in a proposed unit at the time, it is impossible for PERB to verify a showing of support or, as in the present case, whether such a showing is required. In such circumstances, the Board agent conducting the investigation may make reasonable assumptions about the proposed unit or unit modification, including that the number of affected employees estimated by the party of interest applicant is accurate. (Ibid.)

The Office of the General Counsel correctly relied on the estimated figure of 325 affected employees, as stated in the union’s petition for unit modification, rather than the employer’s estimates of how many employees would eventually be reclassified into the affected classifications. (pp. 21-22.) Proof of support is determined by PERB when a petition is filed and an employer provides a list of employees that comprise the petitioned-for unit or the proposed unit modification. The employer is in the unique position of having sole access to the pertinent information, including which employees perform what duties and under which job titles. Where the employer is unable or unwilling to produce complete and accurate lists of employees in a proposed unit at the time, it is impossible for PERB to verify a showing of support or, as in the present case, whether such a showing is required. In such circumstances, the Board agent conducting the investigation may make reasonable assumptions about the proposed unit or unit modification, including that the number of affected employees estimated by the party of interest applicant is accurate. (Ibid.)

The Office of the General Counsel correctly relied on the estimated figure of 325 affected employees, as stated in the union’s petition for unit modification, rather than the employer’s estimates of how many employees would eventually be reclassified into the affected classifications. (pp. 21-22.) Proof of support is determined by PERB when a petition is filed and an employer provides a list of employees that comprise the petitioned-for unit or the proposed unit modification. The employer is in the unique position of having sole access to the pertinent information, including which employees perform what duties and under which job titles. Where the employer is unable or unwilling to produce complete and accurate lists of employees in a proposed unit at the time, it is impossible for PERB to verify a showing of support or, as in the present case, whether such a showing is required. In such circumstances, the Board agent conducting the investigation may make reasonable assumptions about the proposed unit or unit modification, including that the number of affected employees estimated by the party of interest applicant is accurate. (Ibid.)

Whether the Legislature formally adopted the exact language of the Aaron Commission Report is, at this late date, less significant than the fact that a concern with avoiding fragmentation of employee groups and a proliferation of bargaining units has featured prominently in PERB’s unit determination decisions for decades, including decisions establishing the TX and other statewide units throughout the University system. (p. 24.)

Whether the Legislature formally adopted the exact language of the Aaron Commission Report is, at this late date, less significant than the fact that a concern with avoiding fragmentation of employee groups and a proliferation of bargaining units has featured prominently in PERB’s unit determination decisions for decades, including decisions establishing the TX and other statewide units throughout the University system. (p. 24.)