| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2648M |
City of Arcadia
601.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); In General, Per Se and Totality of Conduct; Prima Facie Case
PERB found the employer committed a per se violation by unilaterally imposing ground rules in advance of negotiations and bargained in bad faith under the totality of the circumstances by inviting a former Association leader to participate in a bargaining meeting without notifying the Association’s official representatives and by making an “exploding” offer without adequate justification, as well as by unilaterally imposing ground rules. more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 1 | 06/12/19 |
| 2648M |
City of Arcadia
601.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Other
PERB found the employer committed a per se violation by unilaterally imposing ground rules in advance of negotiations and bargained in bad faith under the totality of the circumstances by inviting a former Association leader to participate in a bargaining meeting without notifying the Association’s official representatives and by making an “exploding” offer without adequate justification, as well as by unilaterally imposing ground rules. more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 1 | 06/12/19 |
| 2648M |
City of Arcadia
602.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
PERB found the employer committed a per se violation by unilaterally imposing ground rules in advance of negotiations and bargained in bad faith under the totality of the circumstances by inviting a former Association leader to participate in a bargaining meeting without notifying the Association’s official representatives and by making an “exploding” offer without adequate justification, as well as by unilaterally imposing ground rules. more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 1 | 06/12/19 |
| 2648M |
City of Arcadia
603.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; BYPASSING EXCLUSIVE REP; In General
PERB found the employer undermined the Association’s selection of representatives when it invited a bargaining unit member to a negotiations kickoff and gave her information about negotiations to distribute to the Association’s members, where the Association had not designated the employee to bargain on its behalf, the kickoff was a meeting reserved for the leaders of the City’s unions, and the City used the meeting to discuss its goals and announce ground rules for negotiations. PERB found this conduct elevated the bargaining unit member at the expense of the Association’s designated representatives, thereby indicating the employer’s bad faith. more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 1 | 06/12/19 |
| 2648M |
City of Arcadia
605.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Other
Employer committed per se violation of duty to bargain in good faith when it unilaterally determined that bargaining should commence much earlier than the parties had previously anticipated, unilaterally determined that this early start date would be paired with an “accelerated” approach capped by deadline, and, that, in the absence of a deal by the deadline, there would be a cooling off period in which there would be no negotiations. more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 1 | 06/12/19 |
| 2648M |
City of Arcadia
606.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; In General
PERB found employer bargained in bad faith under the totality of the circumstances by inviting a former Association leader to participate in a bargaining meeting without notifying the Association’s official representatives and by making an “exploding” offer without adequate justification, as well as by unilaterally imposing ground rules. more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 1 | 06/12/19 |
| 2648M |
City of Arcadia
606.06000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; Time Limit on Negotiations
PERB held employer engaged in bad faith by placing a time limit of negotiations from the onset, after which a cooling off period would occur during which negotiations would not be permitted. more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 1 | 06/12/19 |
| 2648M |
City of Arcadia
606.07000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; Inconsistent Position Taken; W/ds or Renege on Tentative Agreement
Regressive bargaining—making proposals that are, as a whole, less generous to the other party than prior offers—manifestly moves bargaining parties further away from agreement and therefore indicates bad faith unless such regressive bargaining is supported by an adequate explanation. Exploding offers are treated in the same way as regressive proposals because they inherently threaten a change in position. more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 1 | 06/12/19 |
| 2648M |
City of Arcadia
606.15000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; Other
Efforts by the employer to undermine an employee organization’s selected negotiators indicate an absence of a good faith, while a flat ban on meeting with a particular representative would be a per se violation. PERB found employer undermined the Association’s selection of representatives when it invited former Association leader who was not designated to bargain for Association to the negotiations kickoff and gave her information about negotiations to distribute to the Association’s members. more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 1 | 06/12/19 |
| 2648M |
City of Arcadia
606.20000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; Exploding Offers
An exploding offer is one that expires on a given date. Exploding offers are held to the same standard as regressive proposals and thus, a bargaining party evidences bad faith under the totality of conduct test if it does not adequately justify a threatened change in position that is inherent in an exploding offer. more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 1 | 06/12/19 |
| 2648M |
City of Arcadia
700.01000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; In General
An employer’s duty of strict neutrality extends to internal union affairs, even in the absence of a competing employee organization. An employer violates its duty of neutrality if it favors one internal union faction over the other in a manner that materially strays from a good faith effort to comply with its duty to deal with the union’s chosen representatives. more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 1 | 06/12/19 |
| 2648M |
City of Arcadia
700.02000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Domination vs Assistance
An employer can extend benefits to a labor organization in a spirit of cooperation, but may not lend so much assistance that the employee organization appears to become a company union. more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 1 | 06/12/19 |
| 2648M |
City of Arcadia
700.07000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Favoritism; Contract Ban on Distribution or Solicitation; Unequal Treatment of Unions; Preferential Access; Duty of Strict Neutrality
An employer’s duty of strict neutrality extends to internal union affairs, even in the absence of a competing employee organization. But an employer is not liable for interference, domination, unlawful assistance, or discrimination where it merely attempts in good faith to comply with its duty to bargain—which may require it to recognize one candidate on an interim basis pending the outcome of internal union procedures or other litigation between the factions—irrespective of whether the employer ends up temporarily recognizing the “wrong” candidate based on the outcome of such procedures. more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 1 | 06/12/19 |
| 2648M |
City of Arcadia
1000.02058: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Ground Rules for Negotiations
Parties must bargain bilaterally regarding ground rules for negotiations in the same manner they must bargain in good faith about substantive terms or conditions of employment. This includes all format and timing issues relating to negotiations, including but not limited to when to commence negotiations, deadlines for phases of negotiations, topic sequences, the use of cooling off periods, and interest-based bargaining formats. more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 1 | 06/12/19 |
| 2648M |
City of Arcadia
1000.02090: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Negotiations, Arrangements, and Procedures
Parties must bargain bilaterally regarding ground rules for negotiations in the same manner they must bargain in good faith about substantive terms or conditions of employment. This includes all format and timing issues relating to negotiations, including but not limited to when to commence negotiations, deadlines for phases of negotiations, topic sequences, the use of cooling off periods, and interest-based bargaining formats. more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 1 | 06/12/19 |
| 2650P |
San Joaquin Regional Transit District * * * PUC TRANSIT CASE. PERB CASE NUMBER CONTAINS INCORRECT LETTERING, AS CASE DID NOT ARISE UNDER MMBA * * *
101.03000: PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; APPLICABILITY OF AND CONFLICTS WITH OTHER STATUTES; NLRA/LMRDA Precedent
In enacting the various Public Utilities Code transit district acts, the Legislature took three different approaches to how federal law would guide determinations of appropriate bargaining units and other representation matters. Some of these acts provide that SMCS “shall apply” relevant federal law, while others say SMCS “shall be guided by” relevant federal law. The third approach, covering four transit districts, omits any reference to federal law, and instead directs SMCS to establish appropriate bargaining unit “boundaries.” more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 11 | 06/21/19 |
| 2650P |
San Joaquin Regional Transit District * * * PUC TRANSIT CASE. PERB CASE NUMBER CONTAINS INCORRECT LETTERING, AS CASE DID NOT ARISE UNDER MMBA * * *
101.03000: PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; APPLICABILITY OF AND CONFLICTS WITH OTHER STATUTES; NLRA/LMRDA Precedent
PERB Regulation 93090 provides that in resolving questions of representation with regard to Public Utilities Code-established transit districts, “the Board shall apply the relevant federal law and administrative practice developed under the Labor Management Relations Act [LMRA], 1947, as amended.” In deciding whether federal law is “relevant” to the question presented in a particular case, PERB Regulation 93080 “does not demand slavish adherence to the LMRA.” (See Santa Clara Valley Transp. Auth. v. Rea (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1319 [interpreting language in PUC section 100301 identical to that in PERB Reg. 93080].) Under PERB Regulation 93080, federal law is relevant, and therefore must be applied, unless (1) the question presented is governed by an explicit provision of the applicable transit district statute or (2) considerations unique to public sector labor relations require a deviation from federal law. more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 11 | 06/21/19 |
| 2650P |
San Joaquin Regional Transit District * * * PUC TRANSIT CASE. PERB CASE NUMBER CONTAINS INCORRECT LETTERING, AS CASE DID NOT ARISE UNDER MMBA * * *
104.01000: PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF BOARD; Authority of Board In General; Validity and Application of Regulations (See also 102.01)
Prior to the transfer of SMCS to PERB in 2012, SMCS transit district unit determinations could be appealed to the Director of DIR. When the Legislature transferred SMCS from DIR to PERB in July 2012, the Board itself assumed jurisdiction over appeals from SMCS determinations in representation matters. After this transfer was complete, PERB adopted pre-existing transit act regulations that DIR had promulgated, without making any material changes. (PERB Regs. 93000-93080.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 11 | 06/21/19 |
| 2650P |
San Joaquin Regional Transit District * * * PUC TRANSIT CASE. PERB CASE NUMBER CONTAINS INCORRECT LETTERING, AS CASE DID NOT ARISE UNDER MMBA * * *
1309.03000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT DETERMINATION/CRITERIA (SEE ALSO WHO IS AN EMPLOYEE?, SECTION 200); Community of Interest
Community of interest is determined by the totality of circumstances. (Monterey Peninsula Community College District (1978) PERB Decision No. 76, p. 13.) In determining whether a community of interest exists, we do not “go[] down a check list” of these factors but rather ascertain whether employees share a substantial mutual interest in matters subject to meeting and negotiating. (Ibid.) PERB has consistently declined to give significance in the community of interest analysis to differences in wages, benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment that are primarily controlled by the employer and may be changed through collective bargaining. (Santa Clara County Office of Education (1990) PERB Decision No. 839, p. 2 and adopting proposed decision at p. 12.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 11 | 06/21/19 |
| 2611M |
County of Orange
505.11000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DEFENSES; Legitimate Business Purpose/Business Necessity
PERB examines the entire record to determine whether the employer’s proffered reason was honestly invoked and, in fact, was the cause of its adverse action. (p. 19.) When an employer cites accusations or complaints that it did not believe in good faith to be true as evidence of an alternative, non-discriminatory reason, PERB will find such justifications pretext for retaliation. (Ibid.) Because the employer appeared to rely on an insufficient investigation when it accepted a witness’ complaint at face value despite the witness’ subsequent complaint contradicting the first, its proffered justification failed to establish that the first complaint was, in fact, the reason for taking adverse action. (pp. 19-20.) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 101 | 12/19/18 |
| 2611M |
County of Orange
1105.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Hearsay
Factual findings may not be based solely on hearsay evidence. (PERB Reg. 32176.) Witnesses’ testimony regarding complaints they received about an employee, without more, is uncorroborated hearsay insufficient to prove the events described in the complaints actually occurred. (pp. 13, 20-21.) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 101 | 12/19/18 |
| 2611M |
County of Orange
1107.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver
An ALJ’s factual findings and conclusions of law to which neither party excepts are not before the Board on appeal and are therefore binding only upon the parties. (p. 2, fn. 2.) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 101 | 12/19/18 |
| 2611M |
County of Orange
1107.18000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Review of Findings Not Excepted To
An ALJ’s factual findings and conclusions of law to which neither party excepts are not before the Board on appeal and are therefore binding only upon the parties. (p. 2, fn. 2.) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 101 | 12/19/18 |
| 2648M |
City of Arcadia
400.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
Employees’ right to participate in the activities of employee organizations of their own choosing includes the right to participate in selecting employee organization leaders. more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 1 | 06/12/19 |
| 2648M |
City of Arcadia
401.02000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Discrimination Favoring Organization Over Another
An employer’s duty of strict neutrality extends to internal union affairs, even in the absence of a competing employee organization. But an employer is not liable for interference, domination, unlawful assistance, or discrimination where it merely attempts in good faith to comply with its duty to bargain—which may require it to recognize one candidate on an interim basis pending the outcome of internal union procedures or other litigation between the factions—irrespective of whether the employer ends up temporarily recognizing the “wrong” candidate based on the outcome of such procedures. more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 1 | 06/12/19 |
Notice Regarding Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) at PERB
For information about use of AI in PERB filings, see Atwater Elementary Teachers Association, CTA/NEA (Garcia) (2025) PERB Decision No. 2995-E and our FAQ.
