Decision I059C – Sacramento County Superior Court (United Public Employees Local 1)

SA-CO-5-C

Decision Date: December 30, 2015

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 40
Perc Index: 114

Decision Headnotes

301.00000 – UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; STRIKES, SLOWDOWNS AND WORK STOPPAGES
301.01000 – In General

Unless statutorily prohibited from striking, the California Supreme Court’s County Sanitation standard requires that it be “clearly demonstrated,” on a case-by-case basis, that public employees’ participation in a strike would create an imminent and substantial threat to public health and safety. The availability of replacement workers goes into the determination of whether an employee or a class of employees is “essential” to public health and safety and may be enjoined from striking. The Board denied a trial court employer’s request to seek an injunction against a planned two-day strike by court employees because the court’s declarations did not clearly demonstrate that, without employees in the seven positions at issue, the Court's essential functions could not or would not be performed. The Court did not demonstrate that it could not use managers or supervisors to perform the functions of court clerks and its moving papers did not disclose how many supervisors or managers were qualified and available to perform the work of those employees the Court identified as “essential.” It also failed to identify the specific level and nature of services that must be maintained to preserve public health and safety.

802.00000 – UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNLAWFUL STRIKES AND WORK STOPPAGES
802.01000 – In General

Unless statutorily prohibited from striking, the California Supreme Court’s County Sanitation standard requires that it be “clearly demonstrated,” on a case-by-case basis, that public employees’ participation in a strike would create an imminent and substantial threat to public health and safety. The availability of replacement workers goes into the determination of whether an employee or a class of employees is “essential” to public health and safety and may be enjoined from striking. The Board denied a trial court employer’s request to seek an injunction against a planned two-day strike by court employees because the court’s declarations did not clearly demonstrate that, without employees in the seven positions at issue, the Court's essential functions could not or would not be performed. The Court did not demonstrate that it could not use managers or supervisors to perform the functions of court clerks and its moving papers did not disclose how many supervisors or managers were qualified and available to perform the work of those employees the Court identified as “essential.” It also failed to identify the specific level and nature of services that must be maintained to preserve public health and safety.

1204.00000 – REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; REMEDIES AGAINST UNION
1204.03000 – Unlawful Strikes

Unless statutorily prohibited from striking, the California Supreme Court’s County Sanitation standard requires that it be “clearly demonstrated,” on a case-by-case basis, that public employees’ participation in a strike would create an imminent and substantial threat to public health and safety. The availability of replacement workers goes into the determination of whether an employee or a class of employees is “essential” to public health and safety and may be enjoined from striking. The Board denied a trial court employer’s request to seek an injunction against a planned two-day strike by court employees because the court’s declarations did not clearly demonstrate that, without employees in the seven positions at issue, the Court's essential functions could not or would not be performed. The Court did not demonstrate that it could not use managers or supervisors to perform the functions of court clerks and its moving papers did not disclose how many supervisors or managers were qualified and available to perform the work of those employees the Court identified as “essential.” It also failed to identify the specific level and nature of services that must be maintained to preserve public health and safety.

1207.00000 – REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1207.01000 – In General

Unless statutorily prohibited from striking, the California Supreme Court’s County Sanitation standard requires that it be “clearly demonstrated,” on a case-by-case basis, that public employees’ participation in a strike would create an imminent and substantial threat to public health and safety. The availability of replacement workers goes into the determination of whether an employee or a class of employees is “essential” to public health and safety and may be enjoined from striking. The Board denied a trial court employer’s request to seek an injunction against a planned two-day strike by court employees because the court’s declarations did not clearly demonstrate that, without employees in the seven positions at issue, the Court's essential functions could not or would not be performed. The Court did not demonstrate that it could not use managers or supervisors to perform the functions of court clerks and its moving papers did not disclose how many supervisors or managers were qualified and available to perform the work of those employees the Court identified as “essential.” It also failed to identify the specific level and nature of services that must be maintained to preserve public health and safety.

1207.00000 – REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1207.02000 – Standards for Obtaining Injunctive Relief

Unless statutorily prohibited from striking, the California Supreme Court’s County Sanitation standard requires that it be “clearly demonstrated,” on a case-by-case basis, that public employees’ participation in a strike would create an imminent and substantial threat to public health and safety. The availability of replacement workers goes into the determination of whether an employee or a class of employees is “essential” to public health and safety and may be enjoined from striking. The Board denied a trial court employer’s request to seek an injunction against a planned two-day strike by court employees because the court’s declarations did not clearly demonstrate that, without employees in the seven positions at issue, the Court's essential functions could not or would not be performed. The Court did not demonstrate that it could not use managers or supervisors to perform the functions of court clerks and its moving papers did not disclose how many supervisors or managers were qualified and available to perform the work of those employees the Court identified as “essential.” It also failed to identify the specific level and nature of services that must be maintained to preserve public health and safety