Home | Decisions | Keyword Search by Headnotes

Keyword Search by Headnotes

DecisionDescriptionPERC Vol.PERC IndexDate
2583M Oak Valley Hospital District
1107.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver
Absent good cause, the Board will dismiss as without merit any initial exceptions filed by a prevailing party unless the Board’s ruling on the exceptions would change the outcome of the ALJ decision. The Board found good cause to consider the prevailing party’s initial exceptions in order to prevent the parties from being bound by an erroneous legal conclusion in the proposed decision should similar facts arise between them in the future. (pp. 2, 5-6) more or view all topics or full text.		 43 53 09/10/18
2583M Oak Valley Hospital District
1107.20000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Other
Absent good cause, the Board will dismiss as without merit any initial exceptions filed by a prevailing party unless the Board’s ruling on the exceptions would change the outcome of the ALJ decision. The Board found good cause to consider the prevailing party’s initial exceptions in order to prevent the parties from being bound by an erroneous legal conclusion in the proposed decision should similar facts arise between them in the future. (pp. 2, 5-6) more or view all topics or full text.		 43 53 09/10/18
2583M Oak Valley Hospital District
1302.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; DECERTIFICATION; In General; Filing Requirements
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
2586E Chula Vista Elementary School District (Yvellez)
300.15000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; Speech
Employee speech, including emails, is generally protected if it relates to matters of legitimate concern to employees as employees, though it may lose its statutory protection in accordance with Rancho Santiago Community College District (1986) PERB Decision No. 602. more or view all topics or full text.		 43 60 09/28/18
2586E Chula Vista Elementary School District (Yvellez)
300.15000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; Speech
The Rancho Santiago standard encompasses two different tests to determine whether employee communications are protected. When an employer’s objection to employee speech is content-based, the speech is protected unless (1) it is demonstrably false, and (2) the employee knew the speech was false or acted with reckless disregard for whether it was true or false. When an employer’s objection to employee speech is conduct-based, e.g., applies to how the speech was made, the speech is protected unless it is so opprobrious, flagrant, insubordinate, or disruptive to workplace operations that it loses its statutory protection. more or view all topics or full text.		 43 60 09/28/18
2586E Chula Vista Elementary School District (Yvellez)
300.17000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; Other
Concerns that public employers’ email systems are taxpayer-financed or that allowing employees to send intra-agency emails gives other employee recipients the false impression their employer endorses the email’s content do not constitute “special circumstances” justifying restrictions on employees’ right to engage in protected speech via their employer’s email system. more or view all topics or full text.		 43 60 09/28/18
2586E Chula Vista Elementary School District (Yvellez)
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 employee rights granted under EERA. The charging party need not suffer an adverse effect; rather, where employer conduct would reasonably tend to discourage protected activity, the likely chilling effect may, itself, constitute unlawful interference. more or view all topics or full text.		 43 60 09/28/18
2586E Chula Vista Elementary School District (Yvellez)
401.09000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Mail Systems
Under Napa Valley Community College District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2563, all employees granted rightful access to their employer’s email system in the course of their employment have a presumptive right to use the email system to engage in EERA-protected communications on nonworking time. An employer may rebut the presumption by demonstrating that special circumstances, necessary to more or view all topics or full text.		 43 60 09/28/18
2630E Adelanto Elementary School District
505.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DEFENSES; In General
An employer may not rely solely on hearsay evidence to prove its affirmative defense under Novato Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 210. more or view all topics or full text.		 43 147 03/01/19
2630E Adelanto Elementary School District
505.03000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DEFENSES; Misconduct
The reliability of statements relied upon by the employer is one consideration in determining whether the employer proved its affirmative defense that it would have taken the same adverse action in the absence of the employee’s protected activity. more or view all topics or full text.		 43 147 03/01/19
2630E Adelanto Elementary School District
1105.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Hearsay
An employer may not rely solely on hearsay evidence to prove its affirmative defense under Novato Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 210. more or view all topics or full text.		 43 147 03/01/19
2631E Antelope Valley Union High School District
1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board
As the ultimate finder of fact, the Board is free to draw contrary inferences from the evidence presented, and to form its own conclusions. (p. 5.) more or view all topics or full text.		 43 148 03/05/19
2631E Antelope Valley Union High School District
300.04000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; Individual/Concerted/Activities/Self-Representation
Under the Educational Employment Relations Act, an employee’s complaint to management about his or her own working conditions constitutes an exercise of his or her right to self-representation and is therefore protected activity. (p. 8.) more or view all topics or full text.		 43 148 03/05/19
2631E Antelope Valley Union High School District
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 test which must be satisfied is not whether the employee found the employer’s action to be adverse, but whether a reasonable person under the same circumstances would consider the action to have an adverse impact on the employee’s employment.” (pp. 8-9.) more or view all topics or full text.		 43 148 03/05/19
2631E Antelope Valley Union High School District
503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General
A charging party need not prove a loss of compensation to show that an action was objectively adverse. (p. 9.) more or view all topics or full text.		 43 148 03/05/19
2631E Antelope Valley Union High School District
503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General
Using an objective test, a reasonable person might perceive an employee’s revised schedule—in which the employer removed all classes of a particular subject matter—to be less prestigious, to be a step down on the career ladder, or to feature lesser working conditions, even if the employee did not lose compensation as a result of the change. (pp. 9-10.) more or view all topics or full text.		 43 148 03/05/19
2631E Antelope Valley Union High School District
503.05000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; Transfer, Promotion, or Demotion; Work Assignments and Opportunities
Using an objective test, a reasonable person might perceive an employee’s revised schedule—in which the employer removed all classes of a particular subject matter—to be less prestigious, to be a step down on the career ladder, or to feature lesser working conditions, even if the employee did not lose compensation as a result of the change. (pp. 9-10.) more or view all topics or full text.		 43 148 03/05/19
2615M County of Kern
602.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
A change in policy generally falls into one of three categories: (1) changes to the parties’ written agreements; (2) changes in established past practices; or (3) newly created policies, or application or enforcement of an existing policy in a new way. (p. 5.) more or view all topics or full text.		 43 109 12/21/18
2615M County of Kern
602.02000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Adequate Prior Notice and Opportunity to Bargain
When an employer finalizes its decision to change a policy before providing the union with notice and an opportunity to bargain, a union is not obligated to request bargaining, nor to accept any employer offer to meet and confer that is made after the employer has already reached a firm decision. (p. 11.) Employer offer to meet and confer inadequate if employer did not restore the status quo, which is a necessary condition for meaningful bargaining to occur. (City of San Ramon, supra, PERB Decision No. 2571-M, p. 15 [good faith bargaining is not possible when employer has already “imposed the very terms under discussion, thereby forcing [the union] to start from a position of having to talk the [employer] back to the status quo.”].) more or view all topics or full text.		 43 109 12/21/18
2615M County of Kern
602.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change in or Deviation from Unwritten Past Practice
The “dynamic status quo” principle permits an employer to make changes to terms and conditions of employment, without notice and an opportunity to bargain, if the changes follow a consistent pattern of past changes that is formulaic or otherwise not influenced by employer discretion. (p. 6.) When the status quo as to a particular employment term follows a nondiscretionary pattern of change, the employer must act in accordance with that pattern of change, and in fact commits a unilateral change if it fails to do so. (p. 7.) The parties’ rights and duties are the same regardless of whether the status quo is dynamic or static; in both instances, following or maintaining the status quo provides a defense to a unilateral change charge, but failure to follow or maintain the status quo establishes a violation, absent notice and an opportunity to bargain. (pp. 7-8.) more or view all topics or full text.		 43 109 12/21/18
2615M County of Kern
608.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Past Practice; Maintenance of Status Quo
The “dynamic status quo” principle permits an employer to make changes to terms and conditions of employment, without notice and an opportunity to bargain, if the changes follow a consistent pattern of past changes that is formulaic or otherwise not influenced by employer discretion. (p. 6.) When the status quo as to a particular employment term follows a nondiscretionary pattern of change, the employer must act in accordance with that pattern of change, and in fact commits a unilateral change if it fails to do so. (p. 7.) The parties’ rights and duties are the same regardless of whether the status quo is dynamic or static; in both instances, following or maintaining the status quo provides a defense to a unilateral change charge, but failure to follow or maintain the status quo establishes a violation, absent notice and an opportunity to bargain. (pp. 7-8.) more or view all topics or full text.		 43 109 12/21/18
2615M County of Kern
1000.02045: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Evaluations
Performance targets and performance evaluation scoring rubrics relate to employee performance standards and workload and are therefore within the scope of representation. (pp. 9-10.) more or view all topics or full text.		 43 109 12/21/18
2615M County of Kern
1000.02071: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Job Duties
Performance targets and performance evaluation scoring rubrics relate to employee performance standards and workload and are therefore within the scope of representation. (pp. 9-10.) more or view all topics or full text.		 43 109 12/21/18
2615M County of Kern
1000.02159: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Workloads
Performance targets and performance evaluation scoring rubrics relate to employee performance standards and workload and are therefore within the scope of representation. (pp. 9-10.) more or view all topics or full text.		 43 109 12/21/18
2615M County of Kern
608.07000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Waiver by Union; Contract Waivers; Bargaining History Estoppel; Disclaimer; Supersession
To establish waiver, an employer must prove that the union consciously abandoned its right to bargain. (p. 10.) A union does not waive its right to bargain where the employer has already finalized policy changes without providing the union an opportunity to meet and confer to impasse or agreement. (p. 11.) more or view all topics or full text.		 43 109 12/21/18