Keyword Search by Headnotes - California Public Employment Relations Board

Decision	Description	PERC Vol.	PERC Index	Date
2591Ma	County of Riverside 1206.01000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; MODIFICATION OF PRIOR REMEDY; In General Reconsideration of remedial order appropriate where initial decision mistakenly failed to take into account the earliest date of adverse action. more or view all topics or full text.	43	108	12/18/18
2587E	Los Rios Community College District 1308.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; SEVERANCE; In General Severance petition denied where association sought to create a new bargaining unit by severing three police department classifications from the larger support services unit. Under Sweetwater Union High School District (1976) EERB Decision No. 4 (Sweetwater), there are three presumptively appropriate bargaining units for classified employees of school districts, including inter alia an operations-support services unit. Petitioner did not meet its burden of showing that the proposed campus police officers unit is more appropriate than the presumptively appropriate Sweetwater support services unit. more or view all topics or full text.	43	61	10/02/18
2587E	Los Rios Community College District 1308.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; SEVERANCE; In General In determining unit appropriateness when assessing severance petition, following factors considered: community of interest among employees, efficiency of employer operations, and established practices, including both negotiating history and the extent to which employees belong to the same employee organization. Gov. Code, § 3545, subd. (a). Negotiating history is of particular importance when considering a severance request, as “a stable negotiating relationship will not be lightly disturbed.” (Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District (1981) PERB Decision No. 165, p. 6.) more or view all topics or full text.	43	61	10/02/18
2587E	Los Rios Community College District 1308.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; SEVERANCE; In General In seeking to divide a presumptively appropriate Sweetwater unit, the petitioner must show that there has been a change of circumstances sufficient to justify a variation of an established unit. (Los Angeles Unified School District (1993) PERB Order No. Ad-250, p. 6.) more or view all topics or full text.	43	61	10/02/18
2587E	Los Rios Community College District 1308.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; SEVERANCE; In General A petitioner seeking to sever classifications from an existing unit must show not only that the group to be severed has a community of interest among themselves, but must also establish that their community of interest is not shared with the larger group. (Oakland Unified School District (2001) PERB Decision No. 1464, adopting proposed decision at p. 21.) more or view all topics or full text.	43	61	10/02/18
2587E	Los Rios Community College District 1308.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; SEVERANCE; In General “Efficiency of operations” criterion militates against severance only if there is concrete evidence that an employer’s operational efficiency will be unduly impaired by an additional set of negotiations. (Long Beach Community College District, (1999) PERB Decision No. 1315, adopting proposed decision at p. 12; Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District (1981) PERB Decision No. 165, p. 8.) more or view all topics or full text.	43	61	10/02/18
2587E	Los Rios Community College District 1309.04000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT DETERMINATION/CRITERIA (SEE ALSO WHO IS AN EMPLOYEE?, SECTION 200); Efficiency of Operation “Efficiency of operations” criterion militates against severance only if there is concrete evidence that an employer’s operational efficiency will be unduly impaired by an additional set of negotiations. (Long Beach Community College District, (1999) PERB Decision No. 1315, adopting proposed decision at p. 12; Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District (1981) PERB Decision No. 165, p. 8.) more or view all topics or full text.	43	61	10/02/18
J028H	Regents of the University of California and University Professional and Technical Employees, Communications Workers of America Local 9119 1311.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; JUDICIAL REVIEW, REPRESENTATION, DECISIONS; 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
2604E	Mount San Jacinto Community College District Faculty Association 1107.05000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Precedential Authority of PERB Decisions Initial exceptions filed by prevailing party dismissed where good cause for the Board to consider the exceptions not shown. Board declines to adopt ALJ’s findings as a decision of the Board itself; the proposed decision remains nonprecedential and binding on the parties only with respect to the specific controversy involved in the case. This holding prevents prevailing parties from unilaterally turning a favorable ALJ decision into a precedential decision of the Board. more or view all topics or full text.	43	91	12/12/18
2597E	Sacramento City Unified School District 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General Under PERB-administered statutes, an exclusive representative is entitled to all information that is necessary and relevant to discharge its representational duties. (Petaluma City Elementary School District/Joint Union High School District (2016) PERB Decision No. 2485, p. 17.) The terms “necessary” and “relevant” are interchangeable, and a charging party union meets its burden by showing that it has requested relevant information, without also having to show, separately, that the information is “necessary” to fulfilling the union’s representative function. (Id. at p. 21.) PERB uses a liberal, discovery-type standard, similar to that used by the courts, to determine relevance. (Id. at p. 16.) more or view all topics or full text.	43	77	11/19/18
2597E	Sacramento City Unified School District 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General An employer violates its duty to bargain in good faith if its delay in providing information is unreasonable under the circumstances, even if the delay causes no prejudice. (p. 9.) more or view all topics or full text.	43	77	11/19/18
2597E	Sacramento City Unified School District 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General Information pertaining to non-bargaining unit employees is not presumed relevant, and the exclusive representative thus bears the burden of demonstrating that such information is relevant and necessary to its representational duties. A union demonstrates relevance where it has requested information that may help it compare the disciplinary circumstances relevant to a bargaining unit employee, including the allegations and any resulting discipline, with prior circumstances involving non-bargaining unit employees. (p. 9, fn. 6.) Union had right to obtain, evaluate, and introduce evidence that arguably may have supported a disparate treatment argument, even where information pertained to a non-bargaining unit employee (p. 9.) more or view all topics or full text.	43	77	11/19/18
2597E	Sacramento City Unified School District 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General PERB-administered statutes provide unions with more expansive access to information and records beyond that available under the CPRA. A union’s RFI may cover both public records and information that may not be found in any existing record. Thus, an employer responding to an RFI may be required to compile information from multiple records, management agents, and other sources, unless it can prove that doing so would be unduly burdensome. more or view all topics or full text.	43	77	11/19/18
2597E	Sacramento City Unified School District 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General An employer, as part of its duty to fully answer a union’s request or else timely and adequately explain a valid defense to disclosure, may not rely upon a CPRA exemption in place of a defense recognized under PERB precedent. (p. 10.) A party responding to an RFI has additional duties under a collective bargaining statute that go beyond its CPRA duties. For example, if a union’s request as written (or as made orally) would lead to unduly burdensome costs, infringe on legitimate privacy interests, or otherwise pose a need for clarification or discussion, an employer must bargain in good faith with the union and seek to negotiate an appropriate accommodation. (p. 12.) more or view all topics or full text.	43	77	11/19/18
2597E	Sacramento City Unified School District 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General Even though the CPRA and PERB-administered collective bargaining statutes in certain respects protect overlapping rights and interests, and many unions make dual requests under both statutes, an employer must separately analyze its CPRA obligations and its obligations under the collective bargaining statutes. (p. 13.) more or view all topics or full text.	43	77	11/19/18
2597E	Sacramento City Unified School District 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General When a union requests relevant information, the employer must either fully supply the information or timely and adequately explain its reasons for not doing so, and the employer bears the burden of proof as to any defense, limitation, or condition that it asserts. (pp. 8-9) A party answering a RFI must exercise the same diligence and thoroughness as it would “in other business affairs of importance,” and a charging party need not show that it suffered harm or prejudice as a result of a responding party’s lack of care. (Petaluma, supra, PERB Decision No. 2485 at pp. 19, 24.) more or view all topics or full text.	43	77	11/19/18
2597E	Sacramento City Unified School District 604.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; Confidentiality; Privacy When a union’s RFI seeks disclosure of information that would infringe on legally cognizable privacy rights, the employer must meet and negotiate in good faith to accommodate all legitimate competing interests. (p. 12.) When an employer and union meet and negotiate over privacy concerns, they can address all aspects of the problem, including the extent to which various levels of redaction might lessen such concerns, as well as the extent to which such redaction methods might frustrate the union in carrying out its representational function. Bargaining parties may reach a different result in each case based on the unique circumstances at issue. (pp. 12-13.) more or view all topics or full text.	43	77	11/19/18
2597E	Sacramento City Unified School District 604.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; Confidentiality; Privacy Balancing test which governs those cases in which an employer and union have met and negotiated over legitimate privacy issues but were unable to reach an accommodation. (Redding, supra, PERB Decision No. 2190-M, p. 2 and adopting proposed decision, pp. 13-14 [if employer satisfies its burden of demonstrating that disclosure would compromise privacy rights, PERB engages in balancing test set forth in Detroit Edison Co. v. NLRB (1979) 440 U.S. 301, 314].) Courts interpreting the CPRA also balance privacy rights against the right to information. (See, e.g., Marken, supra, 202 Cal.App.4th at 1274-1276 [finding that the public’s interest in an investigatory report and disciplinary record outweighed a teacher’s privacy interest, but upholding the redactions directed by the superior court].) In any given instance, the balancing test applicable in CPRA cases may or may not lead to the same outcome as that applicable in PERB cases, given the extra rights and obligations that distinguish bargaining parties from members of the public. (p. 14, fn. 8.) more or view all topics or full text.	43	77	11/19/18
2597E	Sacramento City Unified School District 604.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; Subjects of Information Information pertaining to non-bargaining unit employees is not presumed relevant, and the exclusive representative thus bears the burden of demonstrating that such information is relevant and necessary to its representational duties. A union demonstrates relevance where it has requested information that may help it compare the disciplinary circumstances relevant to a bargaining unit employee, including the allegations and any resulting discipline, with prior circumstances involving non-bargaining unit employees. (p. 9, fn. 6.) Union had right to obtain, evaluate, and introduce evidence that arguably may have supported a disparate treatment argument, even where information pertained to a non-bargaining unit employee (p. 9.) more or view all topics or full text.	43	77	11/19/18
2597E	Sacramento City Unified School District 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General When a union requests relevant information, the employer must either fully supply the information or timely and adequately explain its reasons for not doing so, and the employer bears the burden of proof as to any defense, limitation, or condition that it asserts. (pp. 8-9) A party answering a RFI must exercise the same diligence and thoroughness as it would “in other business affairs of importance,” and a charging party need not show that it suffered harm or prejudice as a result of a responding party’s lack of care. (Petaluma, supra, PERB Decision No. 2485 at pp. 19, 24.) more or view all topics or full text.	43	77	11/19/18
2597E	Sacramento City Unified School District 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General Information pertaining to non-bargaining unit employees is not presumed relevant, and the exclusive representative thus bears the burden of demonstrating that such information is relevant and necessary to its representational duties. A union may demonstrate relevance where it has requested information that may help it compare the disciplinary circumstances relevant to a bargaining unit employee, including the allegations and any resulting discipline, with prior circumstances involving non-bargaining unit employees. (p. 9, fn. 6.) more or view all topics or full text.	43	77	11/19/18
2597E	Sacramento City Unified School District 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, the Board need not address alleged errors that have no bearing on the outcome. (Los Angeles Unified School District (2015) PERB Decision No. 2432, p. 2; Regents of the University of California (1991) PERB Decision No. 891-H, p. 4.) more or view all topics or full text.	43	77	11/19/18
2605E	Mount San Jacinto Community College District 300.09000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; Participation in Board Process Filing and pursuing unfair practice charges with PERB are expressly protected under EERA. (p. 8.) more or view all topics or full text.	43	92	12/12/18
2605E	Mount San Jacinto Community College District 300.15000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; Speech EERA protects employee speech if it is “‘related to matters of legitimate concern to the employees as employees so as to come within the right to participate in the activities of an employee organization for the purpose of representation on matters of employer-employee relations.’” (Chula Vista Elementary School District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2586, p. 15 (Chula Vista), quoting Rancho Santiago Community College District (1986) PERB Decision No. 602, p. 12 (Rancho Santiago).) An individual employee’s criticism of management or working conditions is protected activity when its purpose is to advance other employees’ interests or when it is a logical extension of group activity. (Chula Vista, supra, at p. 15, citing Trustees of the California State University (2017) PERB Decision No. 2522-H, p. 16.) Additionally, speech that concerns the “‘autonomy and effectiveness of the exclusive representative’” falls into the category of protected speech. (Chula Vista, supra, at p. 15, citing Rancho Santiago, supra, at p. 12.) Thus, critical statements about union leadership typically are protected. (Chula Vista, supra, at p. 16; Rio School District (2015) PERB Decision No. 2449, adopting proposed decision at p. 24.) (pp. 7-8.) more or view all topics or full text.	43	92	12/12/18
2605E	Mount San Jacinto Community College District 300.15000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; Speech Because “not every impropriety committed during [otherwise protected] activity places [an] employee beyond the protective shield of the [A]ct” (City of Oakland (2014) PERB Decision No. 2387-M, pp. 23-24), employee speech that is related to employer-employee relations will generally not lose its statutory protection unless it is so “opprobrious, flagrant, insulting, defamatory, insubordinate, or fraught with malice as to cause substantial disruption of or material interference” with the employer’s operations. (Chula Vista Elementary School District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2586, p. 16 (internal quotation marks omitted); City of Oakland, supra, PERB Decision No. 2387-M, p. 24; Rancho Santiago Community College District (1986) PERB Decision No. 602, p. 13; Pomona Unified School District (2000) PERB Decision No. 1345, p. 16 (Pomona).) (p. 10.) more or view all topics or full text.	43	92	12/12/18