Keyword Search by Headnotes - California Public Employment Relations Board

Decision	Description	PERC Vol.	PERC Index	Date
A453H	Regents of the University of California 1503.03000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; Regulations Considered (By Number) (Continued) 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 1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements Because HEERA does not itself mandate an election where an established unit is modified, it is within the Board’s discretion to adopt and interpret regulations defining under what circumstances an election is appropriate, or conversely, removing the Board’s discretion to require an election under specified circumstances. The PERB-administered statutes recognize that employee choice is not absolute, but must be balanced against the other policy objectives identified by the Legislature, including establishing “orderly and clearly defined procedures for meeting and conferring and the resolution of impasses.” (p. 9.) 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 Because HEERA does not itself mandate an election where an established unit is modified, it is within the Board’s discretion to adopt and interpret regulations defining under what circumstances an election is appropriate, or conversely, removing the Board’s discretion to require an election under specified circumstances. The PERB-administered statutes recognize that employee choice is not absolute, but must be balanced against the other policy objectives identified by the Legislature, including establishing “orderly and clearly defined procedures for meeting and conferring and the resolution of impasses.” (p. 9.) 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 Because HEERA does not itself mandate an election where an established unit is modified, it is within the Board’s discretion to adopt and interpret regulations defining under what circumstances an election is appropriate, or conversely, removing the Board’s discretion to require an election under specified circumstances. The PERB-administered statutes recognize that employee choice is not absolute, but must be balanced against the other policy objectives identified by the Legislature, including establishing “orderly and clearly defined procedures for meeting and conferring and the resolution of impasses.” (p. 9.) 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 Because HEERA does not itself mandate an election where an established unit is modified, it is within the Board’s discretion to adopt and interpret regulations defining under what circumstances an election is appropriate, or conversely, removing the Board’s discretion to require an election under specified circumstances. The PERB-administered statutes recognize that employee choice is not absolute, but must be balanced against the other policy objectives identified by the Legislature, including establishing “orderly and clearly defined procedures for meeting and conferring and the resolution of impasses.” (p. 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) Because HEERA does not itself mandate an election where an established unit is modified, it is within the Board’s discretion to adopt and interpret regulations defining under what circumstances an election is appropriate, or conversely, removing the Board’s discretion to require an election under specified circumstances. The PERB-administered statutes recognize that employee choice is not absolute, but must be balanced against the other policy objectives identified by the Legislature, including establishing “orderly and clearly defined procedures for meeting and conferring and the resolution of impasses.” (p. 9.) 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) Because HEERA does not itself mandate an election where an established unit is modified, it is within the Board’s discretion to adopt and interpret regulations defining under what circumstances an election is appropriate, or conversely, removing the Board’s discretion to require an election under specified circumstances. The PERB-administered statutes recognize that employee choice is not absolute, but must be balanced against the other policy objectives identified by the Legislature, including establishing “orderly and clearly defined procedures for meeting and conferring and the resolution of impasses.” (p. 9.) 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 Board rejected the University’s appeal arguing that a union petitioning for unit modification should be required to show proof of support under PERB Regulation 32781 because, when the petition was filed, the University had not yet completed the process of reclassifying unrepresented employees and it projected to reclassify a significant number of additional employees into the new classification. (p. 14.) The administrative determination appropriately reasoned that the proposed addition sought by a unit modification petition at the time the petition is filed is determinative and “not whether the proposed addition grows or shrinks after the time the petition is filed.” (pp. 13-14.) 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 Board rejected the University’s appeal arguing that a union petitioning for unit modification should be required to show proof of support under PERB Regulation 32781 because, when the petition was filed, the University had not yet completed the process of reclassifying unrepresented employees and it projected to reclassify a significant number of additional employees into the new classification. (p. 14.) The administrative determination appropriately reasoned that the proposed addition sought by a unit modification petition at the time the petition is filed is determinative and “not whether the proposed addition grows or shrinks after the time the petition is filed.” (pp. 13-14.) 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 Board rejected the University’s appeal arguing that a union petitioning for unit modification should be required to show proof of support under PERB Regulation 32781 because, when the petition was filed, the University had not yet completed the process of reclassifying unrepresented employees and it projected to reclassify a significant number of additional employees into the new classification. (p. 14.) The administrative determination appropriately reasoned that the proposed addition sought by a unit modification petition at the time the petition is filed is determinative and “not whether the proposed addition grows or shrinks after the time the petition is filed.” (pp. 13-14.) 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 Board rejected the University’s appeal arguing that a union petitioning for unit modification should be required to show proof of support under PERB Regulation 32781 because, when the petition was filed, the University had not yet completed the process of reclassifying unrepresented employees and it projected to reclassify a significant number of additional employees into the new classification. (p. 14.) The administrative determination appropriately reasoned that the proposed addition sought by a unit modification petition at the time the petition is filed is determinative and “not whether the proposed addition grows or shrinks after the time the petition is filed.” (pp. 13-14.) 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 Board rejected the University’s appeal arguing that a union petitioning for unit modification should be required to show proof of support under PERB Regulation 32781 because, when the petition was filed, the University had not yet completed the process of reclassifying unrepresented employees and it projected to reclassify a significant number of additional employees into the new classification. (p. 14.) The administrative determination appropriately reasoned that the proposed addition sought by a unit modification petition at the time the petition is filed is determinative and “not whether the proposed addition grows or shrinks after the time the petition is filed.” (pp. 13-14.) 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 Board rejected the University’s appeal arguing that a union petitioning for unit modification should be required to show proof of support under PERB Regulation 32781 because, when the petition was filed, the University had not yet completed the process of reclassifying unrepresented employees and it projected to reclassify a significant number of additional employees into the new classification. (p. 14.) The administrative determination appropriately reasoned that the proposed addition sought by a unit modification petition at the time the petition is filed is determinative and “not whether the proposed addition grows or shrinks after the time the petition is filed.” (pp. 13-14.) 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 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 1307.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION (QCR); In General/Definition 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 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General 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 1503.01000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; In General 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 1503.02000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; Regulations Considered (By Number) 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
J028H	Regents of the University of California and University Professional and Technical Employees, Communications Workers of America Local 9119 1311.02000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; JUDICIAL REVIEW, REPRESENTATION, DECISIONS; Procedural Issues The Board declined to join in an employer’s request for judicial review where the issue, application of the ten percent rule for proof of majority support in unit modifications, was neither “novel” nor one of “special importance” unique to HEERA. HEERA section 3564, subdivision (a), makes PERB unit determinations immune from judicial review except when, in response to a petition for judicial review from an employer or employee organization, the Board agrees that the case is one of “special importance” and joins in the request for review; or when the issue is raised as a defense to an unfair practice complaint. (PERB Reg. 32500.) The Board has joined in a request for judicial review only when: (1) the case presents a novel issue; (2) the issue primarily involves construction of a statutory provision unique to the statute under consideration; and (3) the issue is likely to arise frequently. The Board applies this strict standard because the fundamental rights of employees to form, join and participate in the activities of employee organizations could be jeopardized if PERB’s unit determinations were routinely subject to legal challenges. more or view all topics or full text.	42	111	02/27/18
J028H	Regents of the University of California and University Professional and Technical Employees, Communications Workers of America Local 9119 1503.01000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; In General The Board declined to join in an employer’s request for judicial review where the issue, application of the ten percent rule for proof of majority support in unit modifications, was neither “novel” nor one of “special importance” unique to HEERA. HEERA section 3564, subdivision (a), makes PERB unit determinations immune from judicial review except when, in response to a petition for judicial review from an employer or employee organization, the Board agrees that the case is one of “special importance” and joins in the request for review; or when the issue is raised as a defense to an unfair practice complaint. (PERB Reg. 32500.) The Board has joined in a request for judicial review only when: (1) the case presents a novel issue; (2) the issue primarily involves construction of a statutory provision unique to the statute under consideration; and (3) the issue is likely to arise frequently. The Board applies this strict standard because the fundamental rights of employees to form, join and participate in the activities of employee organizations could be jeopardized if PERB’s unit determinations were routinely subject to legal challenges. more or view all topics or full text.	42	111	02/27/18
J028H	Regents of the University of California and University Professional and Technical Employees, Communications Workers of America Local 9119 1503.02000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; Regulations Considered (By Number) The Board declined to join in an employer’s request for judicial review where the issue, application of the ten percent rule for proof of majority support in unit modifications, was neither “novel” nor one of “special importance” unique to HEERA. HEERA section 3564, subdivision (a), makes PERB unit determinations immune from judicial review except when, in response to a petition for judicial review from an employer or employee organization, the Board agrees that the case is one of “special importance” and joins in the request for review; or when the issue is raised as a defense to an unfair practice complaint. (PERB Reg. 32500.) The Board has joined in a request for judicial review only when: (1) the case presents a novel issue; (2) the issue primarily involves construction of a statutory provision unique to the statute under consideration; and (3) the issue is likely to arise frequently. The Board applies this strict standard because the fundamental rights of employees to form, join and participate in the activities of employee organizations could be jeopardized if PERB’s unit determinations were routinely subject to legal challenges. more or view all topics or full text.	42	111	02/27/18
J028H	Regents of the University of California and University Professional and Technical Employees, Communications Workers of America Local 9119 1503.03000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; Regulations Considered (By Number) (Continued) The Board declined to join in an employer’s request for judicial review where the issue, application of the ten percent rule for proof of majority support in unit modifications, was neither “novel” nor one of “special importance” unique to HEERA. HEERA section 3564, subdivision (a), makes PERB unit determinations immune from judicial review except when, in response to a petition for judicial review from an employer or employee organization, the Board agrees that the case is one of “special importance” and joins in the request for review; or when the issue is raised as a defense to an unfair practice complaint. (PERB Reg. 32500.) The Board has joined in a request for judicial review only when: (1) the case presents a novel issue; (2) the issue primarily involves construction of a statutory provision unique to the statute under consideration; and (3) the issue is likely to arise frequently. The Board applies this strict standard because the fundamental rights of employees to form, join and participate in the activities of employee organizations could be jeopardized if PERB’s unit determinations were routinely subject to legal challenges. more or view all topics or full text.	42	111	02/27/18
A458M	County of Solano 900.01000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; In General Generally, where the exclusive representative has made a request for factfinding that is timely under any plausible interpretation of the public agency’s local rules and that is accompanied by a statement that the parties have been unable to effect a settlement to their dispute, PERB must accept the request as timely and allow the parties to proceed to factfinding. Here, however, while the local rules appear to contemplate selection of a mediator by mutual agreement of the parties as one option, the employee organization’s conduct was inconsistent with that option, regardless of whether it was the default option or simply one option among others. Because the organization appears to have accepted the selection of the mediator and expressed no reservations about this selection, nor suggested any other mediator or any alternative process whereby the parties would mutually agree on the identity of the mediator, the Board rejected its appeal and adopted the administrative determination that the employee organization’s request for factfinding was untimely. more or view all topics or full text.	42	78	01/09/18
A458M	County of Solano 1503.01000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; In General Generally, where the exclusive representative has made a request for factfinding that is timely under any plausible interpretation of the public agency’s local rules and that is accompanied by a statement that the parties have been unable to effect a settlement to their dispute, PERB must accept the request as timely and allow the parties to proceed to factfinding. Here, however, while the local rules appear to contemplate selection of a mediator by mutual agreement of the parties as one option, the employee organization’s conduct was inconsistent with that option, regardless of whether it was the default option or simply one option among others. Because the organization appears to have accepted the selection of the mediator and expressed no reservations about this selection, nor suggested any other mediator or any alternative process whereby the parties would mutually agree on the identity of the mediator, the Board rejected its appeal and adopted the administrative determination that the employee organization’s request for factfinding was untimely. more or view all topics or full text.	42	78	01/09/18
A458M	County of Solano 1503.02000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; Regulations Considered (By Number) Generally, where the exclusive representative has made a request for factfinding that is timely under any plausible interpretation of the public agency’s local rules and that is accompanied by a statement that the parties have been unable to effect a settlement to their dispute, PERB must accept the request as timely and allow the parties to proceed to factfinding. Here, however, while the local rules appear to contemplate selection of a mediator by mutual agreement of the parties as one option, the employee organization’s conduct was inconsistent with that option, regardless of whether it was the default option or simply one option among others. Because the organization appears to have accepted the selection of the mediator and expressed no reservations about this selection, nor suggested any other mediator or any alternative process whereby the parties would mutually agree on the identity of the mediator, the Board rejected its appeal and adopted the administrative determination that the employee organization’s request for factfinding was untimely. more or view all topics or full text.	42	78	01/09/18