| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A446Ea |
Lake Elsinore Unified School District
1503.03000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; Regulations Considered (By Number) (Continued)
Because a public school employer’s request for reconsideration concerned a Board decision resolving an appeal from an administrative determination, there was no factual record to reconsider. Prior board precedent had determined that reconsideration is not available for decisions arising from administrative appeals. There are only two grounds for reconsideration authorized by PERB Regulation 32410: (1) the decision of the Board itself contains prejudicial errors of fact, or (2) the party requesting reconsideration has newly discovered evidence which was not previously available and could not have been discovered with the exercise of reasonable diligence. The Regulation’s focus on prejudicial error of fact or newly-discovered evidence indicates that the reconsideration procedure is limited to Board decisions based on a proposed decision and developed factual record following a formal hearing or stipulated record. (pp. 3-5.) more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 148 | 05/15/18 |
| A446Ea |
Lake Elsinore Unified School District
1107.20000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Other
The Board found that the District’s request for reconsideration was without even arguable merit, as it failed to comply with the basic requirements of the reconsideration regulation and recent PERB decisional law directly on point, and it included no serious argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law to permit reconsideration of administrative determinations. However, the Board denied Charging Parties’ request for sanctions because there was no evidence the District’s reconsideration motion was brought in bad faith. PERB precedent requires that, to obtain monetary sanctions, including attorney’s fees or other reasonable litigation expenses, the moving party must demonstrate that the claim, defense, motion or other action or tactic was “without arguable merit” and pursued in “bad faith.” (pp. 5-6.) more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 148 | 05/15/18 |
| A446Ea |
Lake Elsinore Unified School District
1205.04000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIAL PROVISIONS; Attorneys Fees and Costs
The Board found that the District’s request for reconsideration was without even arguable merit, as it failed to comply with the basic requirements of the reconsideration regulation and recent PERB decisional law directly on point, and it included no serious argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law to permit reconsideration of administrative determinations. However, the Board denied Charging Parties’ request for sanctions because there was no evidence the District’s reconsideration motion was brought in bad faith. PERB precedent requires that, to obtain monetary sanctions, including attorney’s fees or other reasonable litigation expenses, the moving party must demonstrate that the claim, defense, motion or other action or tactic was “without arguable merit” and pursued in “bad faith.” (pp. 5-6.) more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 148 | 05/15/18 |
| A453H |
Regents of the University of California
1503.03000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; Regulations Considered (By Number) (Continued)
Pursuant to PERB Regulations, the Board may expedite a unit modification case arising under PERB Regulation 32781. Because the present dispute is a cause of great concern to the parties and affected employees, PERB processed the case on an expedited basis in effort to promote stable employer-employee relations, and thereby effectuate the policies and purpose of HEERA. (p. 17.) more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 47 | 09/29/17 |
| A453H |
Regents of the University of California
1107.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver
Because reply briefs are neither expressly permitted nor prohibited by PERB Regulations, the has discretion to consider a reply where it raises new issues, discusses new case law or formulates new defenses to allegations. (p. 17.) Consideration of a reply may also be appropriate when it clarifies or narrows the issues or the scope of relief requested. In this case, however, because the point being asserted in the reply had already been fully argued in the appeal, there was no reason for the Board to consider the reply’s “clarification” of the same point. (p. 19) more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 47 | 09/29/17 |
| A453H |
Regents of the University of California
1107.20000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Other
Because reply briefs are neither expressly permitted nor prohibited by PERB Regulations, the has discretion to consider a reply where it raises new issues, discusses new case law or formulates new defenses to allegations. (p. 17.) Consideration of a reply may also be appropriate when it clarifies or narrows the issues or the scope of relief requested. In this case, however, because the point being asserted in the reply had already been fully argued in the appeal, there was no reason for the Board to consider the reply’s “clarification” of the same point. (p. 19) more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 47 | 09/29/17 |
| A453H |
Regents of the University of California
1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements
The Office of the General Counsel correctly relied on the estimated figure of 325 affected employees, as stated in the union’s petition for unit modification, rather than the employer’s estimates of how many employees would eventually be reclassified into the affected classifications. (pp. 21-22.) Proof of support is determined by PERB when a petition is filed and an employer provides a list of employees that comprise the petitioned-for unit or the proposed unit modification. The employer is in the unique position of having sole access to the pertinent information, including which employees perform what duties and under which job titles. Where the employer is unable or unwilling to produce complete and accurate lists of employees in a proposed unit at the time, it is impossible for PERB to verify a showing of support or, as in the present case, whether such a showing is required. In such circumstances, the Board agent conducting the investigation may make reasonable assumptions about the proposed unit or unit modification, including that the number of affected employees estimated by the party of interest applicant is accurate. (Ibid.) more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 47 | 09/29/17 |
| A453H |
Regents of the University of California
1307.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION (QCR); In General/Definition
The Office of the General Counsel correctly relied on the estimated figure of 325 affected employees, as stated in the union’s petition for unit modification, rather than the employer’s estimates of how many employees would eventually be reclassified into the affected classifications. (pp. 21-22.) Proof of support is determined by PERB when a petition is filed and an employer provides a list of employees that comprise the petitioned-for unit or the proposed unit modification. The employer is in the unique position of having sole access to the pertinent information, including which employees perform what duties and under which job titles. Where the employer is unable or unwilling to produce complete and accurate lists of employees in a proposed unit at the time, it is impossible for PERB to verify a showing of support or, as in the present case, whether such a showing is required. In such circumstances, the Board agent conducting the investigation may make reasonable assumptions about the proposed unit or unit modification, including that the number of affected employees estimated by the party of interest applicant is accurate. (Ibid.) more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 47 | 09/29/17 |
| A453H |
Regents of the University of California
1309.07000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT DETERMINATION/CRITERIA (SEE ALSO WHO IS AN EMPLOYEE?, SECTION 200); Unit Size
The Office of the General Counsel correctly relied on the estimated figure of 325 affected employees, as stated in the union’s petition for unit modification, rather than the employer’s estimates of how many employees would eventually be reclassified into the affected classifications. (pp. 21-22.) Proof of support is determined by PERB when a petition is filed and an employer provides a list of employees that comprise the petitioned-for unit or the proposed unit modification. The employer is in the unique position of having sole access to the pertinent information, including which employees perform what duties and under which job titles. Where the employer is unable or unwilling to produce complete and accurate lists of employees in a proposed unit at the time, it is impossible for PERB to verify a showing of support or, as in the present case, whether such a showing is required. In such circumstances, the Board agent conducting the investigation may make reasonable assumptions about the proposed unit or unit modification, including that the number of affected employees estimated by the party of interest applicant is accurate. (Ibid.) more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 47 | 09/29/17 |
| A453H |
Regents of the University of California
1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General
The Office of the General Counsel correctly relied on the estimated figure of 325 affected employees, as stated in the union’s petition for unit modification, rather than the employer’s estimates of how many employees would eventually be reclassified into the affected classifications. (pp. 21-22.) Proof of support is determined by PERB when a petition is filed and an employer provides a list of employees that comprise the petitioned-for unit or the proposed unit modification. The employer is in the unique position of having sole access to the pertinent information, including which employees perform what duties and under which job titles. Where the employer is unable or unwilling to produce complete and accurate lists of employees in a proposed unit at the time, it is impossible for PERB to verify a showing of support or, as in the present case, whether such a showing is required. In such circumstances, the Board agent conducting the investigation may make reasonable assumptions about the proposed unit or unit modification, including that the number of affected employees estimated by the party of interest applicant is accurate. (Ibid.) more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 47 | 09/29/17 |
| A453H |
Regents of the University of California
1503.01000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; In General
The Office of the General Counsel correctly relied on the estimated figure of 325 affected employees, as stated in the union’s petition for unit modification, rather than the employer’s estimates of how many employees would eventually be reclassified into the affected classifications. (pp. 21-22.) Proof of support is determined by PERB when a petition is filed and an employer provides a list of employees that comprise the petitioned-for unit or the proposed unit modification. The employer is in the unique position of having sole access to the pertinent information, including which employees perform what duties and under which job titles. Where the employer is unable or unwilling to produce complete and accurate lists of employees in a proposed unit at the time, it is impossible for PERB to verify a showing of support or, as in the present case, whether such a showing is required. In such circumstances, the Board agent conducting the investigation may make reasonable assumptions about the proposed unit or unit modification, including that the number of affected employees estimated by the party of interest applicant is accurate. (Ibid.) more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 47 | 09/29/17 |
| A453H |
Regents of the University of California
1503.02000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; Regulations Considered (By Number)
The Office of the General Counsel correctly relied on the estimated figure of 325 affected employees, as stated in the union’s petition for unit modification, rather than the employer’s estimates of how many employees would eventually be reclassified into the affected classifications. (pp. 21-22.) Proof of support is determined by PERB when a petition is filed and an employer provides a list of employees that comprise the petitioned-for unit or the proposed unit modification. The employer is in the unique position of having sole access to the pertinent information, including which employees perform what duties and under which job titles. Where the employer is unable or unwilling to produce complete and accurate lists of employees in a proposed unit at the time, it is impossible for PERB to verify a showing of support or, as in the present case, whether such a showing is required. In such circumstances, the Board agent conducting the investigation may make reasonable assumptions about the proposed unit or unit modification, including that the number of affected employees estimated by the party of interest applicant is accurate. (Ibid.) more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 47 | 09/29/17 |
| A453H |
Regents of the University of California
1503.03000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; Regulations Considered (By Number) (Continued)
The Office of the General Counsel correctly relied on the estimated figure of 325 affected employees, as stated in the union’s petition for unit modification, rather than the employer’s estimates of how many employees would eventually be reclassified into the affected classifications. (pp. 21-22.) Proof of support is determined by PERB when a petition is filed and an employer provides a list of employees that comprise the petitioned-for unit or the proposed unit modification. The employer is in the unique position of having sole access to the pertinent information, including which employees perform what duties and under which job titles. Where the employer is unable or unwilling to produce complete and accurate lists of employees in a proposed unit at the time, it is impossible for PERB to verify a showing of support or, as in the present case, whether such a showing is required. In such circumstances, the Board agent conducting the investigation may make reasonable assumptions about the proposed unit or unit modification, including that the number of affected employees estimated by the party of interest applicant is accurate. (Ibid.) more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 47 | 09/29/17 |
| A453H |
Regents of the University of California
1309.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT DETERMINATION/CRITERIA (SEE ALSO WHO IS AN EMPLOYEE?, SECTION 200); In General/Definition of Appropriate Unit
Whether the Legislature formally adopted the exact language of the Aaron Commission Report is, at this late date, less significant than the fact that a concern with avoiding fragmentation of employee groups and a proliferation of bargaining units has featured prominently in PERB’s unit determination decisions for decades, including decisions establishing the TX and other statewide units throughout the University system. (p. 24.) more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 47 | 09/29/17 |
| A453H |
Regents of the University of California
1309.03000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT DETERMINATION/CRITERIA (SEE ALSO WHO IS AN EMPLOYEE?, SECTION 200); Community of Interest
Whether the Legislature formally adopted the exact language of the Aaron Commission Report is, at this late date, less significant than the fact that a concern with avoiding fragmentation of employee groups and a proliferation of bargaining units has featured prominently in PERB’s unit determination decisions for decades, including decisions establishing the TX and other statewide units throughout the University system. (p. 24.) more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 47 | 09/29/17 |
| A452E |
Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District
101.01000: PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; APPLICABILITY OF AND CONFLICTS WITH OTHER STATUTES; In General
The Board denied an appeal from an administrative determination which denied a severance petition that sought to sever speech-language pathologists from a school district’s other certificated employees, based on societal changes that have occurred in special education and speech-pathology. The community of interest among certificated employees is implicit in the statutory guidelines used for evaluating all certificated personnel, as set forth in the Stull Act, Education Code Article 5.5, sections 13485 through 13490, which are not used for evaluating classified personnel. (p. 4.) Additionally, the distinction between certificated and classified personnel in public education is not simply a standard imposed by PERB Regulations and decisional law, but a statutory distinction set forth in EERA and the Education Code, which, in the absence of legislative action, PERB is not authorized to ignore. (pp. 3-5.) more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 34 | 08/16/17 |
| A452E |
Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District
101.02000: PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; APPLICABILITY OF AND CONFLICTS WITH OTHER STATUTES; Conflicts Between PERB-Administered Laws and Other California Statutes; Education Code/Supersession; MMBA Supersession
The Board denied an appeal from an administrative determination which denied a severance petition that sought to sever speech-language pathologists from a school district’s other certificated employees, based on societal changes that have occurred in special education and speech-pathology. The community of interest among certificated employees is implicit in the statutory guidelines used for evaluating all certificated personnel, as set forth in the Stull Act, Education Code Article 5.5, sections 13485 through 13490, which are not used for evaluating classified personnel. (p. 4.) Additionally, the distinction between certificated and classified personnel in public education is not simply a standard imposed by PERB Regulations and decisional law, but a statutory distinction set forth in EERA and the Education Code, which, in the absence of legislative action, PERB is not authorized to ignore. (pp. 3-5.) more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 34 | 08/16/17 |
| A452E |
Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District
101.04000: PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; APPLICABILITY OF AND CONFLICTS WITH OTHER STATUTES; Statutues in Other Jurisdictions
The Board denied an appeal from an administrative determination which denied a severance petition that sought to sever speech-language pathologists from a school district’s other certificated employees, based on societal changes that have occurred in special education and speech-pathology. The community of interest among certificated employees is implicit in the statutory guidelines used for evaluating all certificated personnel, as set forth in the Stull Act, Education Code Article 5.5, sections 13485 through 13490, which are not used for evaluating classified personnel. (p. 4.) Additionally, the distinction between certificated and classified personnel in public education is not simply a standard imposed by PERB Regulations and decisional law, but a statutory distinction set forth in EERA and the Education Code, which, in the absence of legislative action, PERB is not authorized to ignore. (pp. 3-5.) more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 34 | 08/16/17 |
| A452E |
Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District
104.01000: PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF BOARD; Authority of Board In General; Validity and Application of Regulations (See also 102.01)
The Board denied an appeal from an administrative determination which denied a severance petition that sought to sever speech-language pathologists from a school district’s other certificated employees, based on societal changes that have occurred in special education and speech-pathology. The community of interest among certificated employees is implicit in the statutory guidelines used for evaluating all certificated personnel, as set forth in the Stull Act, Education Code Article 5.5, sections 13485 through 13490, which are not used for evaluating classified personnel. (p. 4.) Additionally, the distinction between certificated and classified personnel in public education is not simply a standard imposed by PERB Regulations and decisional law, but a statutory distinction set forth in EERA and the Education Code, which, in the absence of legislative action, PERB is not authorized to ignore. (pp. 3-5.) more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 34 | 08/16/17 |
| A452E |
Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District
1309.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT DETERMINATION/CRITERIA (SEE ALSO WHO IS AN EMPLOYEE?, SECTION 200); In General/Definition of Appropriate Unit
The Board denied an appeal from an administrative determination which denied a severance petition that sought to sever speech-language pathologists from a school district’s other certificated employees, based on societal changes that have occurred in special education and speech-pathology. The community of interest among certificated employees is implicit in the statutory guidelines used for evaluating all certificated personnel, as set forth in the Stull Act, Education Code Article 5.5, sections 13485 through 13490, which are not used for evaluating classified personnel. (p. 4.) Additionally, the distinction between certificated and classified personnel in public education is not simply a standard imposed by PERB Regulations and decisional law, but a statutory distinction set forth in EERA and the Education Code, which, in the absence of legislative action, PERB is not authorized to ignore. (pp. 3-5.) more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 34 | 08/16/17 |
| A452E |
Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District
1309.03000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT DETERMINATION/CRITERIA (SEE ALSO WHO IS AN EMPLOYEE?, SECTION 200); Community of Interest
The Board denied an appeal from an administrative determination which denied a severance petition that sought to sever speech-language pathologists from a school district’s other certificated employees, based on societal changes that have occurred in special education and speech-pathology. The community of interest among certificated employees is implicit in the statutory guidelines used for evaluating all certificated personnel, as set forth in the Stull Act, Education Code Article 5.5, sections 13485 through 13490, which are not used for evaluating classified personnel. (p. 4.) Additionally, the distinction between certificated and classified personnel in public education is not simply a standard imposed by PERB Regulations and decisional law, but a statutory distinction set forth in EERA and the Education Code, which, in the absence of legislative action, PERB is not authorized to ignore. (pp. 3-5.) more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 34 | 08/16/17 |
| A449E |
Lake Elsinore Unified School District
1107.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver
Pursuant to PERB Regulations 323601 and 32136, Charging Parties appealed from the Appeals Assistant’s determination and request that the Board excuse the late filing and consider the attempted amendment to their statement of exceptions when deciding the merits of the underlying unfair practice charge. Because Charging Parties’ appeal from an administrative determination was itself untimely filed, the Board denied the appeal and declined to consider whether Charging Parties had established good cause to excuse their prior late filing, which was the subject of the appeal. more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 17 | 06/28/17 |
| A449E |
Lake Elsinore Unified School District
1503.01000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; In General
Pursuant to PERB Regulations 323601 and 32136, Charging Parties appealed from the Appeals Assistant’s determination and request that the Board excuse the late filing and consider the attempted amendment to their statement of exceptions when deciding the merits of the underlying unfair practice charge. Because Charging Parties’ appeal from an administrative determination was itself untimely filed, the Board denied the appeal and declined to consider whether Charging Parties had established good cause to excuse their prior late filing, which was the subject of the appeal. more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 17 | 06/28/17 |
| A453H |
Regents of the University of California
1503.01000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; In General
By adopting a regulation providing that an increase in the size of a bargaining unit by ten percent or more through the addition of unrepresented positions creates a question concerning representation, the “necessary implication is that increasing the unit by less than ten percent does not call into question the incumbent union’s majority support,” and that the agency is without discretion to require a showing of support in such circumstances. (p. 8.) PERB’s unit modification procedures are inconsistent with the NLRB’s accretion doctrine because the plain language and the policies of HEERA and PERB Regulation 32781 differ in significant respects from their private-sector counterparts. PERB cannot change its regulations through decisional law. (pp. 8-9.) more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 47 | 09/29/17 |
| A453H |
Regents of the University of California
1503.02000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; Regulations Considered (By Number)
By adopting a regulation providing that an increase in the size of a bargaining unit by ten percent or more through the addition of unrepresented positions creates a question concerning representation, the “necessary implication is that increasing the unit by less than ten percent does not call into question the incumbent union’s majority support,” and that the agency is without discretion to require a showing of support in such circumstances. (p. 8.) PERB’s unit modification procedures are inconsistent with the NLRB’s accretion doctrine because the plain language and the policies of HEERA and PERB Regulation 32781 differ in significant respects from their private-sector counterparts. PERB cannot change its regulations through decisional law. (pp. 8-9.) more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 47 | 09/29/17 |
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.
