| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| I060C |
San Mateo County Superior Court (Service Employees International Union Local 521)
1204.03000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; REMEDIES AGAINST UNION; Unlawful Strikes
Because the right to strike “goes to the essence of labor law,” Fresno Unified School Dist. v. National Education Assn. (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 259, 268, if a PERB-covered employer believes a strike should be enjoined, it usually must ask PERB to seek an injunction on its behalf. (City of San Jose v. Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 (2010) 49 Cal.4th 597, 611 (City of San Jose) [city could not establish exception to rule requiring it to seek injunctive relief through PERB, because union gave city 72 hours’ notice of upcoming strike, which was sufficient time for PERB to determine whether to seek injunctive relief and to obtain such relief if warranted]; see San Diego Teachers Assn. v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 1, 13 [recognizing that PERB has “discretion to withhold as well as pursue” a strike injunction]; accord, Ahearn ex rel. NLRB v. International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Locals 21 and 4 (9th Cir. 2013) 721 F.3d 1122, 1130 [private sector employer seeking to enjoin union activity must pursue injunction through the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)].) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 137 | 02/20/19 |
| I060C |
San Mateo County Superior Court (Service Employees International Union Local 521)
1204.03000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; REMEDIES AGAINST UNION; Unlawful Strikes
When an employer asks PERB to seek an injunction against a strike that includes allegedly essential employees, PERB makes a preliminary determination as to whether certain positions satisfy the County Sanitation standard. (Sacramento County Superior Court (United Public Employees Local 1) (2015) PERB Order No. IR-59-C, pp. 3-4, citing County Sanitation District No. 2 v. Los Angeles County Employees Assn. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 564.) PERB assesses each position on a case by case basis. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 137 | 02/20/19 |
| I060C |
San Mateo County Superior Court (Service Employees International Union Local 521)
1204.03000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; REMEDIES AGAINST UNION; Unlawful Strikes
n assessing whether certain positions satisfy the County Sanitation standard, PERB considers the nature of the services the alleged essential employees perform and whether the employer has clearly demonstrated that disruption of such services for the length of the strike would imminently and substantially threaten public health or safety. (Sacramento County Superior Court (United Public Employees Local 1) (2015) PERB Order No. IR-59-C, pp. 2-3, citing County Sanitation District No. 2 v. Los Angeles County Employees Assn. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 564.) If the employer has made this showing, PERB next considers whether the employer has clearly demonstrated that it requires an injunction to protect the public even after fully accounting for all possible service reductions and coverage options, including: (1) planning to use supervisors, managers, non-bargaining unit personnel, and bargaining unit employees that the union has exempted from the strike or who have affirmatively indicated that they plan to work during the strike; (2) contacting all companies or other entities potentially able to provide replacement employees or services, and contracting with such entities if they indicate they can provide replacements; and (3) documenting the extent to which each of the aforementioned options may or may not be feasible, including the available companies or agencies offering temporary replacements, their responses when contacted, and any resulting contracts. (Id. at pp. 3-4; San Francisco County Superior Court & Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee (2018) PERB Decision No. 2609-I, p. 13.) Finally, for those employees that PERB preliminarily determines to be essential to public health or safety based on the above-described analysis, PERB considers what arrangements will protect the public while infringing as little as possible on employees’ protected rights. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 137 | 02/20/19 |
| I060C |
San Mateo County Superior Court (Service Employees International Union Local 521)
1204.03000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; REMEDIES AGAINST UNION; Unlawful Strikes
If a union exempts from a planned strike certain employees or positions that PERB has preliminarily found to be essential, such an exemption will normally mean that (1) there is no “reasonable cause” to believe that the union is threatening an unfair practice as to those positions, and (2) injunctive relief is not “just and proper” as to those positions. Nonetheless, both of these criteria may be satisfied—notwithstanding the union’s commitment to exempt certain positions from its strike—if the employer demonstrates that the union has violated or threatened to violate its commitment, or has offered an exemption that is insufficiently broad to protect public health and safety. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 137 | 02/20/19 |
| I060C |
San Mateo County Superior Court (Service Employees International Union Local 521)
1204.03000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; REMEDIES AGAINST UNION; Unlawful Strikes
There was no reasonable cause to believe a county employee strike would constitute an unfair practice and no basis to seek injunctive relief where the union exempted from the strike each position that PERB preliminarily determined to be essential under the County Sanitation standard. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 137 | 02/20/19 |
| I060C |
San Mateo County Superior Court (Service Employees International Union Local 521)
1204.03000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; REMEDIES AGAINST UNION; Unlawful Strikes
PERB did not initiate injunction proceedings where the union exempted from the strike each position PERB preliminarily determined to be essential under the County Sanitation standard. PERB explained that if the union had not exempted all of the positions that it preliminarily determined to be essential, it would have sought a temporary restraining order as to the non-exempted essential positions. PERB described methods by which union could notify PERB, the employer, and the affected employees of its decision to exempt certain positions from a strike. PERB would seek immediate injunctive relief if the employer had presented information that the union violated or threatened to violate its agreement to exempt certain positions from the strike. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 137 | 02/20/19 |
| I060C |
San Mateo County Superior Court (Service Employees International Union Local 521)
1207.01000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; In General
Because the right to strike “goes to the essence of labor law,” Fresno Unified School Dist. v. National Education Assn. (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 259, 268, if a PERB-covered employer believes a strike should be enjoined, it usually must ask PERB to seek an injunction on its behalf. (City of San Jose v. Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 (2010) 49 Cal.4th 597, 611 (City of San Jose) [city could not establish exception to rule requiring it to seek injunctive relief through PERB, because union gave city 72 hours’ notice of upcoming strike, which was sufficient time for PERB to determine whether to seek injunctive relief and to obtain such relief if warranted]; see San Diego Teachers Assn. v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 1, 13 [recognizing that PERB has “discretion to withhold as well as pursue” a strike injunction]; accord, Ahearn ex rel. NLRB v. International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Locals 21 and 4 (9th Cir. 2013) 721 F.3d 1122, 1130 [private sector employer seeking to enjoin union activity must pursue injunction through the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)].) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 137 | 02/20/19 |
| I060C |
San Mateo County Superior Court (Service Employees International Union Local 521)
1207.02000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; Standards for Obtaining Injunctive Relief
PERB cannot seek an injunction unless it finds (1) “reasonable cause” to believe an unfair practice has been or will be committed; and (2) that injunctive relief is “just and proper.” (Public Employment Relations Bd. v. Modesto City Schools Dist. (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 881, 895-896 (Modesto); City of Fremont (2013) PERB Order No. IR-57-M, p. 17.) Courts considering PERB’s injunctive relief requests have recognized that PERB’s preliminary determinations are generally afforded deference because PERB is California’s expert public sector labor relations agency, is experienced in assessing complex labor disputes and their impact on the public, and has a dedicated staff of attorneys to study the parties’ submissions in light of previous experience, precedent, and competing interests. (pp. 2-3) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 137 | 02/20/19 |
| I060C |
San Mateo County Superior Court (Service Employees International Union Local 521)
1207.02000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; Standards for Obtaining Injunctive Relief
Because the right to strike “goes to the essence of labor law,” Fresno Unified School Dist. v. National Education Assn. (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 259, 268, if a PERB-covered employer believes a strike should be enjoined, it usually must ask PERB to seek an injunction on its behalf. (City of San Jose v. Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 (2010) 49 Cal.4th 597, 611 (City of San Jose) [city could not establish exception to rule requiring it to seek injunctive relief through PERB, because union gave city 72 hours’ notice of upcoming strike, which was sufficient time for PERB to determine whether to seek injunctive relief and to obtain such relief if warranted]; see San Diego Teachers Assn. v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 1, 13 [recognizing that PERB has “discretion to withhold as well as pursue” a strike injunction]; accord, Ahearn ex rel. NLRB v. International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Locals 21 and 4 (9th Cir. 2013) 721 F.3d 1122, 1130 [private sector employer seeking to enjoin union activity must pursue injunction through the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)].) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 137 | 02/20/19 |
| I060C |
San Mateo County Superior Court (Service Employees International Union Local 521)
1207.02000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; Standards for Obtaining Injunctive Relief
When an employer asks PERB to seek an injunction against a strike that includes allegedly essential employees, PERB makes a preliminary determination as to whether certain positions satisfy the County Sanitation standard. (Sacramento County Superior Court (United Public Employees Local 1) (2015) PERB Order No. IR-59-C, pp. 3-4, citing County Sanitation District No. 2 v. Los Angeles County Employees Assn. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 564.) PERB assesses each position on a case by case basis. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 137 | 02/20/19 |
| I060C |
San Mateo County Superior Court (Service Employees International Union Local 521)
1207.02000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; Standards for Obtaining Injunctive Relief
In assessing whether certain positions satisfy the County Sanitation standard, PERB considers the nature of the services the alleged essential employees perform and whether the employer has clearly demonstrated that disruption of such services for the length of the strike would imminently and substantially threaten public health or safety. (Sacramento County Superior Court (United Public Employees Local 1) (2015) PERB Order No. IR-59-C, pp. 2-3, citing County Sanitation District No. 2 v. Los Angeles County Employees Assn. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 564.) If the employer has made this showing, PERB next considers whether the employer has clearly demonstrated that it requires an injunction to protect the public even after fully accounting for all possible service reductions and coverage options, including: (1) planning to use supervisors, managers, non-bargaining unit personnel, and bargaining unit employees that the union has exempted from the strike or who have affirmatively indicated that they plan to work during the strike; (2) contacting all companies or other entities potentially able to provide replacement employees or services, and contracting with such entities if they indicate they can provide replacements; and (3) documenting the extent to which each of the aforementioned options may or may not be feasible, including the available companies or agencies offering temporary replacements, their responses when contacted, and any resulting contracts. (Id. at pp. 3-4; San Francisco County Superior Court & Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee (2018) PERB Decision No. 2609-I, p. 13.) Finally, for those employees that PERB preliminarily determines to be essential to public health or safety based on the above-described analysis, PERB considers what arrangements will protect the public while infringing as little as possible on employees’ protected rights. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 137 | 02/20/19 |
| I060C |
San Mateo County Superior Court (Service Employees International Union Local 521)
1207.02000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; Standards for Obtaining Injunctive Relief
If a union exempts from a planned strike certain employees or positions that PERB has preliminarily found to be essential, such an exemption will normally mean that (1) there is no “reasonable cause” to believe that the union is threatening an unfair practice as to those positions, and (2) injunctive relief is not “just and proper” as to those positions. Nonetheless, both of these criteria may be satisfied—notwithstanding the union’s commitment to exempt certain positions from its strike—if the employer demonstrates that the union has violated or threatened to violate its commitment, or has offered an exemption that is insufficiently broad to protect public health and safety. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 137 | 02/20/19 |
| I060C |
San Mateo County Superior Court (Service Employees International Union Local 521)
1207.02000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; Standards for Obtaining Injunctive Relief
There was no reasonable cause to believe a county employee strike would constitute an unfair practice and no basis to seek injunctive relief where the union exempted from the strike each position that PERB preliminarily determined to be essential under the County Sanitation standard. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 137 | 02/20/19 |
| I060C |
San Mateo County Superior Court (Service Employees International Union Local 521)
1207.02000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; Standards for Obtaining Injunctive Relief
PERB did not initiate injunction proceedings where the union exempted from the strike each position PERB preliminarily determined to be essential under the County Sanitation standard. PERB explained that if the union had not exempted all of the positions that it preliminarily determined to be essential, it would have sought a temporary restraining order as to the non-exempted essential positions. PERB described methods by which union could notify PERB, the employer, and the affected employees of its decision to exempt certain positions from a strike. PERB would seek immediate injunctive relief if the employer had presented information that the union violated or threatened to violate its agreement to exempt certain positions from the strike. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 137 | 02/20/19 |
| I060C |
San Mateo County Superior Court (Service Employees International Union Local 521)
1207.03000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; Board Proceedings in Court
PERB did not initiate injunction proceedings where the union exempted from the strike each position PERB preliminarily determined to be essential under the County Sanitation standard. PERB explained that if the union had not exempted all of the positions that it preliminarily determined to be essential, it would have sought a temporary restraining order as to the non-exempted essential positions. PERB described methods by which union could notify PERB, the employer, and the affected employees of its decision to exempt certain positions from a strike. PERB would seek immediate injunctive relief if the employer had presented information that the union violated or threatened to violate its agreement to exempt certain positions from the strike. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 137 | 02/20/19 |
| 2629M |
County of Santa Clara
1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board
Although the Board reviews exceptions to a proposed decision de novo, to the extent that a proposed decision adequately addresses issues raised by certain exceptions, the Board need not further analyze those exceptions. (City of San Ramon (2018) PERB Decision No. 2571-M, p. 5.) The Board also need not address alleged errors that would not impact the outcome. (Ibid.) (p. 6.) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 145 | 02/27/19 |
| 2629M |
County of Santa Clara
1107.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Weight Given to ALJ's Proposed Decision: Findings, Conclusions, Credibility Resolutions
To the extent an ALJ assesses credibility based upon observing a witness in the act of testifying, we defer to such assessments unless the record warrants overturning them. (Los Angeles Unified School District (2014) PERB Decision No. 2390, p. 12.) (pp. 6-7) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 145 | 02/27/19 |
| 2629M |
County of Santa Clara
501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case
To demonstrate that an employer has discriminated or retaliated against an employee in violation of MMBA sections 3506 and 3506.5 and PERB Regulation 32603, subdivision (a), the charging party must show that: (1) the employee exercised rights under MMBA; (2) the employer had knowledge of the exercise of those rights; (3) the employer took adverse action against the employee; and (4) the employer took the action because of the exercise of those rights. (Novato Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 210, pp. 6-8; County of Yolo (2009) PERB Decision No. 2020-M, p. 10.) If the charging party establishes a prima facie case that protected activity was a motivating factor for the adverse action, the burden shifts to the employer to demonstrate that it would have taken the same action even in the absence of the protected conduct. (Novato, supra, PERB Decision No. 210, p. 14; Yolo, supra, PERB Decision No. 2020-M, p. 17.) (p. 7) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 145 | 02/27/19 |
| 2575M |
Service Employees International Union Local 521 (Garcia)
102.01000: PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; SCOPE OF PERB JURISDICTION; In General/Exclusive Initial Jurisdiction-Deferral to Arbitration; Deference by Reviewing Courts
Charging Parties alleged that their exclusive representative had breached its duty of fair representation by: (1) inducing Charging Parties to continue working misclassified overtime hours with false assurances that they would be fully compensated for all overtime hours worked if the organization prevailed in its grievance against the employer; (2) urging an arbitrator to award all employees an equal lump sum payment to remedy the grievance and capping the employer’s total liability, rather than awarding full back pay only to those employees who actually worked the misclassified hours; and, (3) failing to provide notice and opportunity for input and/or misleading Charging Parties regarding the status of settlement negotiations and the terms of an arbitrator’s opinion and award, despite requests by Charging Parties for such information. The Office of the General Counsel dismissed the charge for lack of jurisdiction over the arbitrator, lack of ripeness for review, and/or failure to state a prima facie case of an unfair practice. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 22 | 06/28/18 |
| 2575M |
Service Employees International Union Local 521 (Garcia)
102.03000: PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; SCOPE OF PERB JURISDICTION; Enforcement of Settlement Agreements and Contracts 3541.5(b); 3514.5(b); 3563.2(b)
Charging Parties alleged that their exclusive representative had breached its duty of fair representation by: (1) inducing Charging Parties to continue working misclassified overtime hours with false assurances that they would be fully compensated for all overtime hours worked if the organization prevailed in its grievance against the employer; (2) urging an arbitrator to award all employees an equal lump sum payment to remedy the grievance and capping the employer’s total liability, rather than awarding full back pay only to those employees who actually worked the misclassified hours; and, (3) failing to provide notice and opportunity for input and/or misleading Charging Parties regarding the status of settlement negotiations and the terms of an arbitrator’s opinion and award, despite requests by Charging Parties for such information. The Office of the General Counsel dismissed the charge for lack of jurisdiction over the arbitrator, lack of ripeness for review, and/or failure to state a prima facie case of an unfair practice. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 22 | 06/28/18 |
| 2575M |
Service Employees International Union Local 521 (Garcia)
202.02000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATIONS; Exclusive Representatives
Charging Parties alleged that their exclusive representative had breached its duty of fair representation by: (1) inducing Charging Parties to continue working misclassified overtime hours with false assurances that they would be fully compensated for all overtime hours worked if the organization prevailed in its grievance against the employer; (2) urging an arbitrator to award all employees an equal lump sum payment to remedy the grievance and capping the employer’s total liability, rather than awarding full back pay only to those employees who actually worked the misclassified hours; and, (3) failing to provide notice and opportunity for input and/or misleading Charging Parties regarding the status of settlement negotiations and the terms of an arbitrator’s opinion and award, despite requests by Charging Parties for such information. The Office of the General Counsel dismissed the charge for lack of jurisdiction over the arbitrator, lack of ripeness for review, and/or failure to state a prima facie case of an unfair practice. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 22 | 06/28/18 |
| 2575M |
Service Employees International Union Local 521 (Garcia)
202.04000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATIONS; Agents (See also 1400)
Charging Parties alleged that their exclusive representative had breached its duty of fair representation by: (1) inducing Charging Parties to continue working misclassified overtime hours with false assurances that they would be fully compensated for all overtime hours worked if the organization prevailed in its grievance against the employer; (2) urging an arbitrator to award all employees an equal lump sum payment to remedy the grievance and capping the employer’s total liability, rather than awarding full back pay only to those employees who actually worked the misclassified hours; and, (3) failing to provide notice and opportunity for input and/or misleading Charging Parties regarding the status of settlement negotiations and the terms of an arbitrator’s opinion and award, despite requests by Charging Parties for such information. The Office of the General Counsel dismissed the charge for lack of jurisdiction over the arbitrator, lack of ripeness for review, and/or failure to state a prima facie case of an unfair practice. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 22 | 06/28/18 |
| 2575M |
Service Employees International Union Local 521 (Garcia)
800.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION; In General; Prima Facie Case
Charging Parties alleged that their exclusive representative had breached its duty of fair representation by: (1) inducing Charging Parties to continue working misclassified overtime hours with false assurances that they would be fully compensated for all overtime hours worked if the organization prevailed in its grievance against the employer; (2) urging an arbitrator to award all employees an equal lump sum payment to remedy the grievance and capping the employer’s total liability, rather than awarding full back pay only to those employees who actually worked the misclassified hours; and, (3) failing to provide notice and opportunity for input and/or misleading Charging Parties regarding the status of settlement negotiations and the terms of an arbitrator’s opinion and award, despite requests by Charging Parties for such information. The Office of the General Counsel dismissed the charge for lack of jurisdiction over the arbitrator, lack of ripeness for review, and/or failure to state a prima facie case of an unfair practice. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 22 | 06/28/18 |
| 2575M |
Service Employees International Union Local 521 (Garcia)
800.02000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION; Grievance Handling/Contract Administration
Charging Parties alleged that their exclusive representative had breached its duty of fair representation by: (1) inducing Charging Parties to continue working misclassified overtime hours with false assurances that they would be fully compensated for all overtime hours worked if the organization prevailed in its grievance against the employer; (2) urging an arbitrator to award all employees an equal lump sum payment to remedy the grievance and capping the employer’s total liability, rather than awarding full back pay only to those employees who actually worked the misclassified hours; and, (3) failing to provide notice and opportunity for input and/or misleading Charging Parties regarding the status of settlement negotiations and the terms of an arbitrator’s opinion and award, despite requests by Charging Parties for such information. The Office of the General Counsel dismissed the charge for lack of jurisdiction over the arbitrator, lack of ripeness for review, and/or failure to state a prima facie case of an unfair practice. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 22 | 06/28/18 |
| 2575M |
Service Employees International Union Local 521 (Garcia)
800.03000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION; Negotiations
Charging Parties alleged that their exclusive representative had breached its duty of fair representation by: (1) inducing Charging Parties to continue working misclassified overtime hours with false assurances that they would be fully compensated for all overtime hours worked if the organization prevailed in its grievance against the employer; (2) urging an arbitrator to award all employees an equal lump sum payment to remedy the grievance and capping the employer’s total liability, rather than awarding full back pay only to those employees who actually worked the misclassified hours; and, (3) failing to provide notice and opportunity for input and/or misleading Charging Parties regarding the status of settlement negotiations and the terms of an arbitrator’s opinion and award, despite requests by Charging Parties for such information. The Office of the General Counsel dismissed the charge for lack of jurisdiction over the arbitrator, lack of ripeness for review, and/or failure to state a prima facie case of an unfair practice. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 22 | 06/28/18 |
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.
