| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2575M |
Service Employees International Union Local 521 (Garcia)
800.06000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION; Other
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)
1100.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; 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)
1102.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; DEFERRAL TO ARBITRATION; Post Arbitration; Repugnancy
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)
1102.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; DEFERRAL TO ARBITRATION; Other
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 |
| 2624S |
State of California (Department of Social Services (Service Employees International Union Local 1000)
501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case
To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under the Dills Act, the charging party must prove that: (1) the employee exercised rights under the Act; (2) the employer had knowledge of the employee’s exercise of those rights; (3) the employer took adverse action against the employee; and (4) the employer took the adverse action because of the employee’s exercise of those rights. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 128 | 02/05/19 |
| 2624S |
State of California (Department of Social Services (Service Employees International Union Local 1000)
501.02000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; Burden of Proof; Evidence
Once the charging party establishes a prima facie case of retaliation, the burden shifts to the employer to prove it would have taken the same adverse action even if the employee had not engaged in protected activity. To prevail, the employer must show that it had an alternative non-discriminatory reason for imposing the adverse action and that it acted because of this alternative non-discriminatory reason, not because of the employee’s protected activity. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 128 | 02/05/19 |
| 2624S |
State of California (Department of Social Services (Service Employees International Union Local 1000)
504.02000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Disparate Treatment
No disparate treatment found where employee’s demotion was commensurate with penalties imposed on other employees who had demonstrated similar performance issues. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 128 | 02/05/19 |
| 2624S |
State of California (Department of Social Services (Service Employees International Union Local 1000)
505.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DEFENSES; In General
Employer established that it had an alternative, non-discriminatory reason for demoting employee and that it acted for this reason; specifically, employer demoted employee because of her repeated violations of departmental policy. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 128 | 02/05/19 |
| 2624S |
State of California (Department of Social Services (Service Employees International Union Local 1000)
1107.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Weight Given to ALJ's Proposed Decision: Findings, Conclusions, Credibility Resolutions
Although the Board applies a de novo standard of review and is free to draw its own conclusions from the record, it recognizes that “a hearing officer who has observed the testimony of witnesses under oath is better positioned than the Board itself to make credibility determinations based on observational factors, such as the demeanor, manner, or attitude of witness[es].” more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 128 | 02/05/19 |
| 2624S |
State of California (Department of Social Services (Service Employees International Union Local 1000)
1107.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Weight Given to ALJ's Proposed Decision: Findings, Conclusions, Credibility Resolutions
The Board does not accord deference to aspects of a credibility determination that are not based on an ALJ’s firsthand observations. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 128 | 02/05/19 |
| 2624S |
State of California (Department of Social Services (Service Employees International Union Local 1000)
1107.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Weight Given to ALJ's Proposed Decision: Findings, Conclusions, Credibility Resolutions
The Board will normally defer to an ALJ’s findings of fact involving credibility determinations “unless they are unsupported by the record as a whole.” more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 128 | 02/05/19 |
| 2624S |
State of California (Department of Social Services (Service Employees International Union Local 1000)
1405.01000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA; In General
The Board may grant collateral estoppel effect to a State Personnel Board (SPB) decision if it resolved one or more disputed issues of fact properly before the SPB that are also before the Board, and the SPB afforded the parties an adequate opportunity to litigate such issue(s). more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 128 | 02/05/19 |
| 2624S |
State of California (Department of Social Services (Service Employees International Union Local 1000)
1405.01000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA; In General
Nothing precludes the Board and the State Personnel Board (SPB) from reaching contrary findings based on the evidence before the respective agencies. That the SPB reached a different finding based on the evidence before it did not automatically render the ALJ’s finding erroneous. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 128 | 02/05/19 |
| A444M |
City of San Luis Obispo
1104.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; PROCEDURE BEFORE ALJ; Motions
Because the subject of reply briefs is not specifically set forth in or limited by PERB Regulations, it falls under the Board’s broad, statutory powers to “investigate unfair practice charges or alleged violations of [the MMBA], and [to] take any action and make any determinations in respect of these charges or alleged violations as the board deems necessary to effectuate the policies of [the MMBA].” Where a reply brief clarifies the issues by narrowing the scope of the dispute, the Board may consider a reply, as it would aid the Board in its review of the matter and, by narrowing the scope of issues in dispute, will not prejudice other parties. (pp. 4-5.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 108 | 12/13/16 |
| A444M |
City of San Luis Obispo
1107.20000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Other
Because the subject of reply briefs is not specifically set forth in or limited by PERB Regulations, it falls under the Board’s broad, statutory powers to “investigate unfair practice charges or alleged violations of [the MMBA], and [to] take any action and make any determinations in respect of these charges or alleged violations as the board deems necessary to effectuate the policies of [the MMBA].” Where a reply brief clarifies the issues by narrowing the scope of the dispute, the Board may consider a reply, as it would aid the Board in its review of the matter and, by narrowing the scope of issues in dispute, will not prejudice other parties. (pp. 4-5.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 108 | 12/13/16 |
| A444M |
City of San Luis Obispo
1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General
Although PERB Regulation PERB Reg. 32164 governing applications for joinder as a part to an unfair practice charge contains no express time limit, an employer, employee organization or employee cannot use the joinder procedure to circumvent the six-month limitations period set forth in the statute and PERB Regulations. Where an employee organization could have filed its own timely unfair practice charge to challenge an employer action, but failed to do so within the limitations period, it cannot later join the proceedings initiated by another organization out of concern that a negotiated settlement may affect employees in its bargaining unit. (p. 9.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 108 | 12/13/16 |
| A444M |
City of San Luis Obispo
1101.05000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Parties; Service
Although PERB Regulation PERB Reg. 32164 governing applications for joinder as a part to an unfair practice charge contains no express time limit, an employer, employee organization or employee cannot use the joinder procedure to circumvent the six-month limitations period set forth in the statute and PERB Regulations. Where an employee organization could have filed its own timely unfair practice charge to challenge an employer action, but failed to do so within the limitations period, it cannot later join the proceedings initiated by another organization out of concern that a negotiated settlement may affect employees in its bargaining unit. (p. 9.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 108 | 12/13/16 |
| A444M |
City of San Luis Obispo
1107.20000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Other
Although PERB Regulation PERB Reg. 32164 governing applications for joinder as a part to an unfair practice charge contains no express time limit, an employer, employee organization or employee cannot use the joinder procedure to circumvent the six-month limitations period set forth in the statute and PERB Regulations. Where an employee organization could have filed its own timely unfair practice charge to challenge an employer action, but failed to do so within the limitations period, it cannot later join the proceedings initiated by another organization out of concern that a negotiated settlement may affect employees in its bargaining unit. (p. 9.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 108 | 12/13/16 |
| A444M |
City of San Luis Obispo
1205.01000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIAL PROVISIONS; In General
When an employer’s conduct is alleged to constitute a unilateral change or other bargaining violation simultaneously affecting more than one bargaining unit, the exclusive representative of each unit must bring its own timely charge on behalf of itself and the employees in its respective unit(s). In such circumstances, the Board’s usual practice is to limit any remedy to only the unit or units where the designated representative has successfully litigated the case. This approach is necessary to protect the rights of the respondent to notice of the allegations against it and to protect the rights of other employee organizations who may prefer to acquiesce to an employer’s conduct. (pp. 5-6.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 108 | 12/13/16 |
| A441M |
San Diego Metropolitan Transit System * * * PUC TRANSIT CASE. PERB DECISION NUMBER CONTAINS INCORRECT LETTERING, AS CASE DID NOT ARISE UNDER MMBA * * *
1503.01000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; In General
The five-day extension of time for filings made in response to documents served by mail within California under PERB Regulation 32130, subdivision (c), is applicable if the document was served by mail, even if it was also served electronically. (p. 4.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 66 | 09/20/16 |
| A441M |
San Diego Metropolitan Transit System * * * PUC TRANSIT CASE. PERB DECISION NUMBER CONTAINS INCORRECT LETTERING, AS CASE DID NOT ARISE UNDER MMBA * * *
1503.02000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; Regulations Considered (By Number)
The five-day extension of time for filings made in response to documents served by mail within California under PERB Regulation 32130, subdivision (c), is applicable if the document was served by mail, even if it was also served electronically. (p. 4.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 66 | 09/20/16 |
| A441M |
San Diego Metropolitan Transit System * * * PUC TRANSIT CASE. PERB DECISION NUMBER CONTAINS INCORRECT LETTERING, AS CASE DID NOT ARISE UNDER MMBA * * *
1503.03000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; Regulations Considered (By Number) (Continued)
The five-day extension of time for filings made in response to documents served by mail within California under PERB Regulation 32130, subdivision (c), is applicable if the document was served by mail, even if it was also served electronically. (p. 4.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 66 | 09/20/16 |
| 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
The Board denied an appeal and adopted the dismissal of an unfair practice charging alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation arising from damages allegedly suffered as the result of an arbitrator’s opinion and award in a grievance brought by the exclusive representative on Charging Parties’ behalf. An arbitrator is not a proper respondent in an unfair practice and therefore PERB had no authority to review the arbitrator’s opinion and award to determine if its provisions constituted an unfair labor practice. Additionally, the facts, as alleged in the charge, demonstrated that Charging Parties had notice and opportunity to give their input before their representative entered into a tentative agreement to settle the dispute and that, because the tentative settlement agreement was never finalized, any harm suffered by Charging Parties was not attributable to the representative’s acts or omissions. 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)
The Board denied an appeal and adopted the dismissal of an unfair practice charging alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation arising from damages allegedly suffered as the result of an arbitrator’s opinion and award in a grievance brought by the exclusive representative on Charging Parties’ behalf. An arbitrator is not a proper respondent in an unfair practice and therefore PERB had no authority to review the arbitrator’s opinion and award to determine if its provisions constituted an unfair labor practice. Additionally, the facts, as alleged in the charge, demonstrated that Charging Parties had notice and opportunity to give their input before their representative entered into a tentative agreement to settle the dispute and that, because the tentative settlement agreement was never finalized, any harm suffered by Charging Parties was not attributable to the representative’s acts or omissions. 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
The Board denied an appeal and adopted the dismissal of an unfair practice charging alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation arising from damages allegedly suffered as the result of an arbitrator’s opinion and award in a grievance brought by the exclusive representative on Charging Parties’ behalf. An arbitrator is not a proper respondent in an unfair practice and therefore PERB had no authority to review the arbitrator’s opinion and award to determine if its provisions constituted an unfair labor practice. Additionally, the facts, as alleged in the charge, demonstrated that Charging Parties had notice and opportunity to give their input before their representative entered into a tentative agreement to settle the dispute and that, because the tentative settlement agreement was never finalized, any harm suffered by Charging Parties was not attributable to the representative’s acts or omissions. 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.
