| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2586E |
Chula Vista Elementary School District (Yvellez)
503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General
In determining whether an employer’s action is adverse, the Board uses an objective test and will not rely upon the subjective reactions of the employee. The reasonable person test applies when the employer’s alleged adverse action is a threat. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 60 | 09/28/18 |
| 2586E |
Chula Vista Elementary School District (Yvellez)
503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General
Where the employer’s investigation notice stated the employee inappropriately used the employer’s email system to share derogatory information, a reasonable person may conclude from such notice that misconduct had already been found and discipline was forthcoming. In this case, such notice of an impending investigation is sufficiently unequivocal about future discipline to constitute an adverse action. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 60 | 09/28/18 |
| 2586E |
Chula Vista Elementary School District (Yvellez)
503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General
An investigation into alleged employee misconduct may constitute an adverse action against the investigated employee, regardless of whether disciplinary action ultimately results. Thus, an investigatory interview, occurring after the employer unequivocally accused the employee of misconduct and after the employer notified the employee it was considering imposing discipline, was an adverse action. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 60 | 09/28/18 |
| 2586E |
Chula Vista Elementary School District (Yvellez)
503.15000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; Other
Where the employer’s investigation notice stated the employee inappropriately used the employer’s email system to share derogatory information, a reasonable person may conclude from such notice that misconduct had already been found and discipline was forthcoming. In this case, such notice of an impending investigation is sufficiently unequivocal about future discipline to constitute an adverse action. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 60 | 09/28/18 |
| 2586E |
Chula Vista Elementary School District (Yvellez)
503.15000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; Other
An investigation into alleged employee misconduct may constitute an adverse action against the investigated employee, regardless of whether disciplinary action ultimately results. Thus, an investigatory interview, occurring after the employer unequivocally accused the employee of misconduct and after the employer notified the employee it was considering imposing discipline, was an adverse action. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 60 | 09/28/18 |
| 2588E |
Los Angeles Unified School District
300.17000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; Other
Employees who have rightful access to their employer’s e-mail system in the course of their work have a right to use the e-mail system to engage in EERA-protected communications on nonworking time. (p. 5.) Employee organizations enjoy a corresponding right to use an employer’s e-mail system to send protected communications to employees. (p. 5.) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 63 | 10/17/18 |
| 2588E |
Los Angeles Unified School District
400.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
To establish a prima facie case of unlawful interference, the charging party must establish that the respondent’s conduct tends to or does result in some harm to rights granted under EERA. An interference violation may only be found where the pertinent statute provides the rights claimed by the charging party. (p. 6.) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 63 | 10/17/18 |
| 2588E |
Los Angeles Unified School District
401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case.
To establish a prima facie case of unlawful interference, the charging party must establish that the respondent’s conduct tends to or does result in some harm to rights granted under EERA. An interference violation may only be found where the pertinent statute provides the rights claimed by the charging party. (p. 6.) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 63 | 10/17/18 |
| 2588E |
Los Angeles Unified School District
401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right
A public school employer’s e-mail system is an “other means of communication” under EERA section 3543.1, subd. (b), which sets forth employee organizations’ statutory right to access the employer’s premises for communication with public employees. (pp. 6-7.) However, the employee organization’s statutory right does not require a public school employer to send broadcast e-mails to employees on the employee organization’s behalf. (p. 8.) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 63 | 10/17/18 |
| 2588E |
Los Angeles Unified School District
401.09000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Mail Systems
A public school employer’s e-mail system is an “other means of communication” under EERA section 3543.1, subd. (b), which sets forth employee organizations’ statutory right to access the employer’s premises for communication with public employees. (pp. 6-7.) However, the employee organization’s statutory right does not require a public school employer to send broadcast e-mails to employees on the employee organization’s behalf. (p. 8.) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 63 | 10/17/18 |
| 2588E |
Los Angeles Unified School District
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
A public school employer is obligated to meet and negotiate in good faith with the exclusive representative of its employees on all matters within the scope of representation. (p. 8.) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 63 | 10/17/18 |
| 2588E |
Los Angeles Unified School District
605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain
District’s refusal to negotiate the union’s proposed procedures whereby the District would use its internal e-mail system to transmit communications from the union to its bargaining unit members constitutes a violation of the EERA. (pp. 8-10.) The Board rejected District’s exception that it repeatedly offered to negotiate this matter and the union did not accept the offer because there was no evidence that the union declined the District’s two offers to negotiate. (pp. 9-10.) The facts are not subject to dispute because the parties submitted a stipulated factual record. (p. 2.) Therefore, the stipulated facts constitute a judicial admission that the union responded to the District’s initial offer with proposed procedures and that “the District ultimately declined to negotiate” with the union. Absent contrary evidence, the only conclusion the Board may draw from the stipulation is that the District refused to bargain over the union’s proposal. (pp. 9-10.) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 63 | 10/17/18 |
| 2588E |
Los Angeles Unified School District
1105.17000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Stipulations
In accordance with PERB Reg. 32207, the parties may submit a stipulated factual record in lieu of a hearing. In such case, the stipulated facts shall be deemed undisputed. (p. 2.) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 63 | 10/17/18 |
| 2615M |
County of Kern
1201.01000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; REINSTATEMENT; BACKPAY BENEFITS; In General
Charging party union may elect to decline restoration of the status quo in any division of employer, particularly where employees in certain divisions may be harmed by rescission of changes. (Denver Post Corp. (1999) 328 NLRB 118, 126, cited with approval in City of Riverside (2009) PERB Decision No. 2027-M, p. 15.) PERB leaves it to charging party union to make this decision because “[w]hether a change is beneficial or detrimental to the employees is a decision reserved to the employees as represented by their union.” (Solano County Employees’ Assn. v. County of Solano (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 256, 262.) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 109 | 12/21/18 |
| 2615M |
County of Kern
1201.02000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; REINSTATEMENT; BACKPAY BENEFITS; Reinstatement
Charging party union may elect to decline restoration of the status quo in any division of employer, particularly where employees in certain divisions may be harmed by rescission of changes. (Denver Post Corp. (1999) 328 NLRB 118, 126, cited with approval in City of Riverside (2009) PERB Decision No. 2027-M, p. 15.) PERB leaves it to charging party union to make this decision because “[w]hether a change is beneficial or detrimental to the employees is a decision reserved to the employees as represented by their union.” (Solano County Employees’ Assn. v. County of Solano (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 256, 262.) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 109 | 12/21/18 |
| 2615M |
County of Kern
1203.01000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; BARGAINING ORDERS; REMEDIES AGAINST EMPLOYERS; In General
Charging party union may elect to decline restoration of the status quo in any division of employer, particularly where employees in certain divisions may be harmed by rescission of changes. (Denver Post Corp. (1999) 328 NLRB 118, 126, cited with approval in City of Riverside (2009) PERB Decision No. 2027-M, p. 15.) PERB leaves it to charging party union to make this decision because “[w]hether a change is beneficial or detrimental to the employees is a decision reserved to the employees as represented by their union.” (Solano County Employees’ Assn. v. County of Solano (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 256, 262.) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 109 | 12/21/18 |
| 2615M |
County of Kern
1205.07000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIAL PROVISIONS; Restoration of Status Quo
Charging party union may elect to decline restoration of the status quo in any division of employer, particularly where employees in certain divisions may be harmed by rescission of changes. (Denver Post Corp. (1999) 328 NLRB 118, 126, cited with approval in City of Riverside (2009) PERB Decision No. 2027-M, p. 15.) PERB leaves it to charging party union to make this decision because “[w]hether a change is beneficial or detrimental to the employees is a decision reserved to the employees as represented by their union.” (Solano County Employees’ Assn. v. County of Solano (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 256, 262.) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 109 | 12/21/18 |
| 2615M |
County of Kern
1202.02000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; FACTORS LIMITING OR TERMINATING LIABILITY; Agreement Between. the Parties
Charging party union may elect to decline restoration of the status quo in any division of employer, particularly where employees in certain divisions may be harmed by rescission of changes. (Denver Post Corp. (1999) 328 NLRB 118, 126, cited with approval in City of Riverside (2009) PERB Decision No. 2027-M, p. 15.) PERB leaves it to charging party union to make this decision because “[w]hether a change is beneficial or detrimental to the employees is a decision reserved to the employees as represented by their union.” (Solano County Employees’ Assn. v. County of Solano (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 256, 262.) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 109 | 12/21/18 |
| 2625E |
San Diego Community College District
503.03000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; Warning Letters, Reprimands, Evaluations
The Board found the employee’s consecutive semester evaluation was not an adverse action because it did not signal a performance deficiency under the circumstances of the case, distinguishing Jurupa Unified School District (2012) PERB Decision No. 2283, which held that evaluating a permanent certificated employee in two consecutive school years was an adverse action because, in the circumstances of that case, it signaled a performance deficiency. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 131 | 02/20/19 |
| 2625E |
San Diego Community College District
505.11000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DEFENSES; Legitimate Business Purpose/Business Necessity
Employer established that it would not have offered adjunct faculty member a class assignment even if he had not engaged in protected activity where the undisputed evidence showed the department chair selected the best adjuncts for the needs of the students and demands of each course for each adjunct assignment and employee did not raise a specific critique of chair’s method for selecting adjuncts, even though employee argued he was at least as qualified as selected adjunct faculty. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 131 | 02/20/19 |
| 2581E |
United Teachers Los Angeles (Le Mere)
800.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION; In General; Prima Facie Case
PERB rejected a bargaining unit member’s argument that their exclusive representative’s past practice in filing disciplinary appeals on behalf of unit members created a duty to file an appeal in her case. An exclusive representative’s past practice with regard to grievance processing may be relevant to whether the representative breached its duty of fair representation by deviating from that practice in a particular instance. However, the duty of fair representation arises from the collective bargaining contract, not from a past practice itself. (pp. 2-3.) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 44 | 08/21/18 |
| 2581E |
United Teachers Los Angeles (Le Mere)
800.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION; In General; Prima Facie Case
An exclusive representative does not owe a duty of fair representation to a bargaining unit member unless the representative possesses the exclusive means by which such member can vindicate an individual right. Here, the union did not have exclusive control over the disciplinary appeals process because the bargaining contract authorized either the union or the affected employee to file a notice of appeal. (pp. 4-5.) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 44 | 08/21/18 |
| 2581E |
United Teachers Los Angeles (Le Mere)
800.02000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION; Grievance Handling/Contract Administration
An exclusive representative does not own a duty of fair representation to a bargaining unit member unless the representative possesses the exclusive means by which such member can vindicate an individual right. Here, the union did not have exclusive control over the disciplinary appeals process because the bargaining contract authorized either the union or the affected employee to file a notice of appeal. (pp. 4-5.) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 44 | 08/21/18 |
| 2581E |
United Teachers Los Angeles (Le Mere)
800.02000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION; Grievance Handling/Contract Administration
The Board declined to adopt the ALJ’s statement that, even if a union does not have exclusive control over the grievance process, it may be liable for failing to file a timely grievance if it promised a bargaining unit member that it would do so and then arbitrarily did not do so. The Board found Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1704 (Buck) (2007) PERB Decision No. 1898-M, which the ALJ cited for that proposition, to be inapposite because the Board in Buck found that the union owed the employee a duty of fair representation since it maintained exclusive control over his contractually-based remedy. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 44 | 08/21/18 |
| 2583M |
Oak Valley Hospital District
750.01000: EMPLOYER ADOPTION/ENFORCEMENT OF UNREASONABLE RULE; In General
The MMBA does not permit a local public agency to withdraw recognition from an exclusive representative without an employee vote. (MMBA section 3507, subd. (b).) (pp. 6-8) Therefore, a local rule allowing an employer to withdraw recognition without the vote of employees based solely on undefined “objective criteria” demonstrating the exclusive representative no longer enjoys majority support among the bargaining unit members is unreasonable and violates the MMBA. (p. 9) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 53 | 09/10/18 |
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.
