Keyword Search by Headnotes

DecisionDescriptionPERC Vol.PERC IndexDate
2782M Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, AFL-CIO (Wagner et al.)
1105.15000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Privileged Communications
Because the statutory litigation privilege is not an evidentiary privilege, it does not bar a court from admitting into evidence statements made during an official proceeding. (Oren Royal Oaks Venture v. Greenberg, Bernhard, Weiss & Karma, Inc. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1157, 1168 [noting that the statutory litigation privilege “does not create an evidentiary privilege” and that “when allegations of misconduct properly put an individual’s intent at issue in a civil action, statements made during the course of a judicial proceeding may be used for evidentiary purposes in determining whether the individual acted with the requisite intent”].) more or view all topics or full text.
07/26/21
2782M Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, AFL-CIO (Wagner et al.)
1104.2000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; PROCEDURE BEFORE ALJ; Motions
After receiving cross-motions for summary judgment, the ALJ found respondent union liable for the violations as alleged in the complaints. The Board reversed and dismissed the complaints and underlying charges. Union pointed to sufficient undisputed facts to demonstrate that charging parties could not prevail in their interference claims. The Board held that where the sole challenged conduct is a respondent’s public records request, a charging party must meet PERB’s traditional interference standards and show that the request, or any part of it, was both baseless and in bad faith. The Board found undisputed facts showing that union’s request was not baseless, making a formal hearing unnecessary. more or view all topics or full text.
07/26/21
2782M Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, AFL-CIO (Wagner et al.)
1104.2000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; PROCEDURE BEFORE ALJ; Motions
A Board agent may issue a decision without holding an evidentiary hearing if the pleadings (together with any stipulations and any facts that may be administratively noticed) establish that there are sufficient undisputed facts to make a hearing unnecessary. (PERB Reg. 32207; Eastern Municipal Water District (2020) PERB Decision No. 2715-M, p. 13.) more or view all topics or full text.
07/26/21
2782M Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, AFL-CIO (Wagner et al.)
801.8000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Other
The California Public Records Act (CPRA; Gov. Code § 6250 et seq.) was enacted “for the explicit purpose of ‘increasing freedom of information.’” (CBS, Inc. v. Block (1986) 42 Cal.3d 646, 651, internal citations omitted.) Invoking the CPRA—whether via litigation or via correspondence that could lead to litigation—normally should not constitute interference except where such acts are baseless and taken in bad faith, as set forth in Bill Johnson’s Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB (1983) 461 U.S. 731. Union’s CPRA request was not baseless where precedent does not clearly demonstrate whether union sought records that were exempt, in whole or in part, pursuant to CPRA section 6254, subdivision (c) and section 6255, subdivision (a). Furthermore, charging parties failed to object to disclosure after receiving Marken notices, which provided them with notice of the pending CPRA request and the opportunity to file a “reverse-CPRA” lawsuit seeking to restrict disclosure, or to otherwise suggest that any part of the request was overbroad. (Marken v. Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School Dist. (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1250.) After charging parties failed to raise any issue, the District proceeded to produce the documents, and as a result, the union’s request was 100 percent successful. more or view all topics or full text.
07/26/21
2782M Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, AFL-CIO (Wagner et al.)
801.8000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Other
Complaint alleged that union interfered with protected rights of three special District employees when it submitted a public records request asking for, among other items, certain e-mails that charging parties sent or received over a 15-week period. Where the sole challenged conduct is a respondent’s public records request, a charging party must meet PERB’s traditional interference standards and show that the request, or any part of it, was both baseless and in bad faith. (Bill Johnson’s Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB (1983) 461 U.S. 731.) The Board found undisputed facts showing that union’s request was not baseless, and the Board therefore found no need to reach any other issue. more or view all topics or full text.
07/26/21
2782M Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, AFL-CIO (Wagner et al.)
801.1000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General
Where a charging party alleges a respondent has interfered with protected activities via litigation, the charging party faces an extra hurdle that is not present in other interference cases: the charging party must establish that the respondent acted without any reasonable basis and for an unlawful purpose. (County of Tulare (2020) PERB Decision No. 2697-M, pp. 9-10.) PERB applies these principles because it finds persuasive a private sector labor law decision, Bill Johnson’s Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB (1983) 461 U.S. 731 (Bill Johnson’s), which protects labor rights while also preserving parties’ ability to pursue colorable litigation in good faith. Bill Johnson’s principles are thus akin to litigation privilege principles, though less absolute. (See Sacramento City Unified School District (2020) PERB Decision No. 2749, p. 14.) By following Bill Johnson’s, PERB applies a qualified litigation privilege rather than the nearly absolute privilege set forth in Civil Code section 47, subdivision (b), preserving parties’ ability to litigate colorable legal rights while disallowing baseless, bad faith conduct that tends to harm protected labor rights. (County of Riverside (2018) PERB Decision No. 2591-M, p. 7, fn. 5; see generally Zerger et al., editors, California Public Sector Labor Relations (2d ed. 2021) § 13.15.) Applying these qualified principles helps to assure that California’s labor laws are not rendered ineffective. (Cf. People v. Persolve, LLC (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1267, 1274.) more or view all topics or full text.
07/26/21
2782M Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, AFL-CIO (Wagner et al.)
801.1000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General
PERB applies its interference test to both employer and union respondents. (San Jose/Evergreen Federation of Teachers, AFT Local 6157, and 8 American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO (Crawford et al.) (2020) PERB Decision No. 2744, p. 23 (San Jose/Evergreen).) However, because a union generally lacks control over the employer-employee relationship, it will normally have less capacity to coerce or chill employees from exercising their rights. (Ibid.; see also Hartnell Community College District (2015) PERB Decision No. 2452, p. 25; City of Oakland (2014) PERB Decision No. 2387-M, p. 25, fn. 5; Oxnard Federation of Teachers (Collins) (2012) PERB Decision No. 2266, adopting warning letter at p. 6; California Faculty Association (Hale et al.) (1988) PERB Decision No. 693-H, adopting warning letter at p. 5.) Furthermore, except in cases alleging that a union failed to establish or follow reasonable membership restrictions or disciplinary procedures impacting membership, a charging party must allege facts showing that the union’s conduct impacted the employer-employee relationship. (San Jose/Evergreen, supra, PERB Decision No. 2744, pp. 17-18 & fn. 8.) more or view all topics or full text.
07/26/21
2782M Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, AFL-CIO (Wagner et al.)
801.1000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General
MMBA Section 3502 protects employee rights to form, join, and participate in union activities, or to refrain from doing so, and MMBA Section 3506 prohibits interference with such employee rights. To establish a prima facie interference case, a charging party must show that a respondent’s conduct tends to or does result in some harm to union and/or employee rights protected under the statutes we enforce. (City of San Diego (2020) PERB Decision No. 2747-M, p. 36.) A charging party normally need not establish that the respondent held an unlawful motive. (Ibid.) Once a charging party has established a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the respondent. (Ibid.) The degree of harm dictates the employer’s burden. (Ibid.) If the harm is “inherently destructive” of protected rights, the respondent must show that the interference results from circumstances beyond its control and that no alternative course of action was available. (Ibid.) For conduct that is harmful but not inherently destructive, the respondent may attempt to justify its actions based on operational necessity. (Ibid.) In such cases, we balance the asserted need against the tendency to harm protected rights; if the tendency to harm outweighs the necessity, we find a violation. (Ibid.) Within the category of actions or rules that are not inherently destructive, the stronger the tendency to harm, the greater is the respondent’s burden to show its need was important and that it narrowly tailored its actions or rules to attain that purpose while limiting harm to protected rights as much as possible. (Id. at p. 36, fn. 19.) more or view all topics or full text.
07/26/21
2782M Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, AFL-CIO (Wagner et al.)
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
The California Public Records Act (CPRA; Gov. Code § 6250 et seq.) was enacted “for the explicit purpose of ‘increasing freedom of information.’” (CBS, Inc. v. Block (1986) 42 Cal.3d 646, 651, internal citations omitted.) Invoking the CPRA—whether via litigation or via correspondence that could lead to litigation—normally should not constitute interference except where such acts are baseless and taken in bad faith, as set forth in Bill Johnson’s Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB (1983) 461 U.S. 731. more or view all topics or full text.
07/26/21
2782M Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, AFL-CIO (Wagner et al.)
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
Where a charging party alleges a respondent has interfered with protected activities via litigation, the charging party faces an extra hurdle that is not present in other interference cases: the charging party must establish that the respondent acted without any reasonable basis and for an unlawful purpose. (County of Tulare (2020) PERB Decision No. 2697-M, pp. 9-10.) PERB applies these principles because it finds persuasive a private sector labor law decision, Bill Johnson’s Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB (1983) 461 U.S. 731 (Bill Johnson’s), which protects labor rights while also preserving parties’ ability to pursue colorable litigation in good faith. Bill Johnson’s principles are thus akin to litigation privilege principles, though less absolute. (See Sacramento City Unified School District (2020) PERB Decision No. 2749, p. 14.) By following Bill Johnson’s, PERB applies a qualified litigation privilege rather than the nearly absolute privilege set forth in Civil Code section 47, subdivision (b), preserving parties’ ability to litigate colorable legal rights while disallowing baseless, bad faith conduct that tends to harm protected labor rights. (County of Riverside (2018) PERB Decision No. 2591-M, p. 7, fn. 5; see generally Zerger et al., editors, California Public Sector Labor Relations (2d ed. 2021) § 13.15.) Applying these qualified principles helps to assure that California’s labor laws are not rendered ineffective. (Cf. People v. Persolve, LLC (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1267, 1274.) more or view all topics or full text.
07/26/21
2782M Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, AFL-CIO (Wagner et al.)
101.3000: PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; APPLICABILITY OF AND CONFLICTS WITH OTHER STATUTES; NLRA/LMRDA Precedent
Although California public sector labor relations precedent frequently protects employee and union rights to a greater degree than does federal precedent governing private sector labor relations, PERB considers federal precedent for its potential persuasive value. (City of Santa Monica (2020) PERB Decision No. 2635a-M, p. 47, fn. 16; City of Commerce (2018) PERB Decision No, 2602-M, pp. 9-11; see also Social Workers’ Union, Local 535 v. Alameda County Welfare Dept. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 382, 391 [when interpreting California public sector labor relations laws, federal precedent is a “useful starting point,” but it does “not necessarily establish the limits of California public employees’ representational rights”]; County of San Joaquin (2021) PERB Decision No. 2761-M, pp. 24, 33, 40 & 45-48 (judicial appeal pending) [considering private sector labor law precedent for its persuasive value while noting certain differences in California public sector labor law precedent]; City of Bellflower (2020) PERB Order No. Ad-480-M, p. 11 [both “statutory differences and distinct principles relevant to agencies serving the public” have “frequently led the Board to craft sui generis precedent”].) more or view all topics or full text.
07/26/21
2773M City of Glendale
1308.1000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; SEVERANCE; In General
Although the City Manager’s analysis in the unit determination was not extensive in every instance, the City’s unit determination was sufficiently reasoned and explained, and consistent with the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act and the Employee Relations Ordinance. (p. 37.) more or view all topics or full text.
06/28/21
2773M City of Glendale
1309.1000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT DETERMINATION/CRITERIA (SEE ALSO WHO IS AN EMPLOYEE?, SECTION 200); In General/Definition of Appropriate Unit
When PERB evaluates a public agency’s unit determination under its local rules, our inquiry is limited to whether the agency’s determination was reasonable, provided the determinations conform to the MMBA and the employer’s local rules. The party challenging a unit determination has the burden of demonstrating the decision was not reasonable. (p. 27.) more or view all topics or full text.
06/28/21
2773M City of Glendale
1308.1000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; SEVERANCE; In General
While a severance petitioner has the burden of proving its proposed unit is an “appropriate unit,” it need not demonstrate that its proposed unit is “the ultimate unit or the most appropriate unit.” Most importantly, however, a severance petitioner must show that the proposed unit has a community of interest “separate and distinct” from other employees in the existing bargaining unit. However, when the existing bargaining unit was certified by PERB, the severance petitioner must also show that the proposed unit is “more appropriate” than the existing unit. (pp. 26-27 & fn. 14.) more or view all topics or full text.
06/28/21
2773M City of Glendale
1309.1000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT DETERMINATION/CRITERIA (SEE ALSO WHO IS AN EMPLOYEE?, SECTION 200); In General/Definition of Appropriate Unit
While a severance petitioner has the burden of proving its proposed unit is an “appropriate unit,” it need not demonstrate that its proposed unit is “the ultimate unit or the most appropriate unit.” Most importantly, however, a severance petitioner must show that the proposed unit has a community of interest “separate and distinct” from other employees in the existing bargaining unit. (pp. 26-27.) more or view all topics or full text.
06/28/21
2773M City of Glendale
1402.2000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; WAIVER; Union's Waiver of Employee or Organizational Rights
The ALJ wrongly presumed the City Manager’s bias was extinguished by the passage of time. In the absence of Board precedent on this issue, the ALJ analogized to Board decisions addressing retaliation claims—specifically, when temporal proximity between protected activity by an employee and allegedly retaliatory conduct by an employer can constitute evidence of a causal connection between the two. The ALJ concluded that evidence of City Manager’s bias from 2013 was “too remote in time” to prove that he was still biased against IBEW four years later when he conducted IBEW’s unit determination hearing and rendered the decision on IBEW’s petition. In the context of retaliation allegations, the Board has found that “proximity in time between the protected activity and the adverse action goes to the strength of the inference of unlawful motive, but is not determinative by itself.” The Board found it logical to view timing with respect to bias allegations in the same manner, i.e., the timing nexus exists on a continuum, such that no particular amount of time is dispositive for a finding of bias. In other words, while the Board agreed with the ALJ’s decision to analogize to PERB’s precedent on retaliatory animus, it disagreed with the ALJ’s statement that a four-year gap is necessarily too long for animus or bias to remain, especially given that the Board has recognized that management’s first opportunity to act out of animus may not come for a significant period of time. Therefore, absent IBEW’s waiver, it would have been appropriate for the ALJ to weigh all the evidence as to whether the City Manager demonstrated a “clear disposition” against IBEW. (pp. 24-25.) more or view all topics or full text.
06/28/21
2773M City of Glendale
750.1000: EMPLOYER ADOPTION/ENFORCEMENT OF UNREASONABLE RULE; In General
Because IBEW should have raised its personal bias argument during the unit determination hearing, the Board ultimately dismissed the claim on waiver grounds. IBEW should have requested before or during the 2017 unit determination hearing that the City replace the City Manager or that he recuse himself from hearing the petition. The core principle is that “[e]vidence of bias or any lack of neutrality by PERB, its ALJs or any of its agents should be brought to the attention of the Board immediately.” (Hacienda-La Puente Unified School District (1997) PERB Decision No. 1186, p. 11.) In the instant case, IBEW had several opportunities after it filed its petition to move for the City to replace the City Manager or to ask the City Manager to recuse himself. Instead, IBEW argued for the first time at the PERB hearing that the City Manager’s bias disqualified him from considering the unit petition. IBEW claimed that it would have been futile to move for the City Manager’s recusal at the 2017 hearing because he denied IBEW’s similar request at the 2013 hearing on another employee organization’s severance petition. The 2013 events standing alone are not sufficient to establish futility, and IBEW therefore should have afforded the City an opportunity to address the issue and, in doing so, preserve its position that the City was unreasonably applying its Employee Relations Ordinance by letting the City Manager decide the appropriateness of the petitioned-for unit. (pp. 22-24.) more or view all topics or full text.
06/28/21
2773M City of Glendale
1107.16000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Disqualification or Bias of Board Agent
Because IBEW should have raised its personal bias argument during the unit determination hearing, the Board ultimately dismissed the claim on waiver grounds. IBEW should have requested before or during the 2017 unit determination hearing that the City replace the City Manager or that he recuse himself from hearing the petition. The core principle is that “[e]vidence of bias or any lack of neutrality by PERB, its ALJs or any of its agents should be brought to the attention of the Board immediately.” (Hacienda-La Puente Unified School District (1997) PERB Decision No. 1186, p. 11.) In the instant case, IBEW had several opportunities after it filed its petition to move for the City to replace the City Manager or to ask the City Manager to recuse himself. Instead, IBEW argued for the first time at the PERB hearing that the City Manager’s bias disqualified him from considering the unit petition. IBEW claimed that it would have been futile to move for the City Manager’s recusal at the 2017 hearing because he denied IBEW’s similar request at the 2013 hearing on another employee organization’s severance petition. The 2013 events standing alone are not sufficient to establish futility, and IBEW therefore should have afforded the City an opportunity to address the issue and, in doing so, preserve its position that the City was unreasonably applying its Employee Relations Ordinance by letting the City Manager decide the appropriateness of the petitioned-for unit. (pp. 22-24.) more or view all topics or full text.
06/28/21
2773M City of Glendale
750.1000: EMPLOYER ADOPTION/ENFORCEMENT OF UNREASONABLE RULE; In General
The Board rejected IBEW’s contention that it should apply a heightened level of scrutiny to a local agency employer’s unit determination when an agent of the employer oversees the recognition process. Inherent in IBEW’s argument was the assumption that unit recognition petitions are fundamentally adverse to the interests of an employer, and that PERB therefore must presume a likelihood of bias if an employer vests its agent with authority to adjudicate such issues. PERB operates under no such presumption, however, and instead finds bias or unlawful motive only where the record proves it by a preponderance of the evidence. For over four decades the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act has permitted local agencies, and by extension their agents such as employee relations officers and human resources managers, to preside over unit determinations pursuant to their own reasonable local regulations. That statutory authority remains intact. Thus, the Board rejected IBEW’s facial challenge. (pp. 21-22.) more or view all topics or full text.
06/28/21
2773M City of Glendale
750.1000: EMPLOYER ADOPTION/ENFORCEMENT OF UNREASONABLE RULE; In General
Well before PERB assumed jurisdiction over the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) in 2001, local agencies were authorized to make initial determinations as to the appropriateness of bargaining units. The standard then, as now, is whether such a determination is reasonable. The mere fact that a local rule allows for a local agency’s agent or governing board to have the final authority on representation issues does not make the rule unreasonable. Thus, the Employee Relations Ordinance did not facially violate the MMBA merely by vesting the City Manager with the authority to process and hear unit determination petitions. (pp. 20-21.) more or view all topics or full text.
06/28/21
2773M City of Glendale
1309.1000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT DETERMINATION/CRITERIA (SEE ALSO WHO IS AN EMPLOYEE?, SECTION 200); In General/Definition of Appropriate Unit
The Board rejected IBEW’s facial challenge to City’s local rule. Well before PERB assumed jurisdiction over the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) in 2001, local agencies were authorized to make initial determinations as to the appropriateness of bargaining units. The standard then, as now, is whether such a determination is reasonable. The mere fact that a local rule allows for a local agency’s agent or governing board to have the final authority on representation issues does not make the rule unreasonable. Thus, the Employee Relations Ordinance did not facially violate the MMBA merely by vesting the City Manager with the authority to process and hear unit determination petitions. (pp. 20-21.) more or view all topics or full text.
06/28/21
2773M City of Glendale
750.1000: EMPLOYER ADOPTION/ENFORCEMENT OF UNREASONABLE RULE; In General
To prevail in a facial challenge, a charging party must at a minimum show that a local rule conflicts with the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) “in the generality or great majority of cases.” Toward that end, IBEW argued that the City’s Employee Relations Ordinance was unreasonable because it appointed the City Manager, an “agent of the City compelled to act in the interest of the City,” to make unit determinations. IBEW’s argument missed the mark. MMBA section 3507, subdivision (a) authorizes public agencies to “adopt reasonable rules and regulations after consultation in good faith with representatives of a recognized employee organization or organizations for the administration of employer-employee relations.” (Ibid.) The rules and regulations may include provisions for, among other things, recognition of employee organizations. (Id., subd. (a)(3).) Unit determinations must be handled and processed in accordance with rules adopted by a local public agency. (Id., § 3507.1, subd. (a).) Contrary to IBEW’s bare claim, nothing in the MMBA’s statutory language expressly or impliedly prohibits agency employers from making unit determinations. (p. 20.) more or view all topics or full text.
06/28/21
2773M City of Glendale
1107.1000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver
IBEW’s “corrected” exceptions were untimely as they were filed past the filing deadline and it presented no good cause to excuse its late filing. While PERB Regulations do not establish a right to file “corrected” documents after the due date, that was inconsequential here as IBEW’s corrected exceptions did not substantially aid the Board’s review of the proposed decision in any event. Rather, IBEW largely reiterated arguments the ALJ addressed, often without citing to the record as required by PERB Regulation 32300, subdivision (a). Thus, the Board considered IBEW’s corrected exceptions only to the extent they included record citations that assisted its review. (pp. 17-18.) more or view all topics or full text.
06/28/21
2771M City of Long Beach
1306.1000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements
All California labor relations statutes require confidentiality for proof of support documents, and an employer may not apply its local rules in a contrary manner. Given that relevant protected rights are substantially the same under the MMBA and under EERA, which explicitly provides that proof of support documents are confidential (EERA, § 3544, subd. (b)), there is no plausible basis for the Legislature to believe that in one instance proof of support may be shared with a competing union while in the other instance such sharing is impermissible. The absence of confidentiality language in seven of the nine statutes PERB enforces is incidental, meaning that confidentiality is required as it is necessary to protect other rights in the statute. more or view all topics or full text.
06/09/21
2771M City of Long Beach
1306.1000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements
Under six of California’s public sector labor relations statutes, employers are not permitted to adopt local rules regarding representation petitions, and parties must file such petitions with PERB. In contrast, the MMBA and two statutes governing trial court labor relations allow employers to establish local rules regarding representation petitions, and parties therefore may only file such petitions with PERB if directed to do so under the local rules or if there is no reasonable local rule that governs the petition in question. (Central Basin Municipal Water District (2021) PERB Order No. Ad-486-M, pp. 8-9.) Among these statutes, only the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA; § 3540 et seq.) and the Childcare Provider Act (CCPA; Educ. Code, § 8430 et seq.) explicitly provide that proof of support documents are confidential. (EERA, § 3544, subd. (b); Educ. Code, § 8434, subd. (c)(3) [CCPA].) Nonetheless, through rulemaking PERB has interpreted all nine statutes as requiring that proof of support documents filed with PERB are confidential. The differences in statutory wording require harmonization, and accordingly that all California labor relations statutes require confidentiality for proof of support documents. An employer may not apply its local rules in a contrary manner. more or view all topics or full text.
06/09/21