| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2556M |
County of San Bernardino
100.03000: PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; OPERATION OF EERA, DILLS (SEERA), HEERA; Purpose of the Act
Section 3500, subdivision (a), describes the MMBA’s two general purposes: (1) “to promote full communication between public employers and their employees by providing a reasonable method of resolving disputes regarding wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment between public employers and public employee organizations”; and (2) “to promote the improvement of personnel management and employer-employee relations within the various public agencies in the State of California by providing a uniform basis for recognizing the right of public employees to join organizations of their own choice and be represented by those organizations in their employment relationships with public agencies.” more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 114 | 03/06/18 |
| 2556M |
County of San Bernardino
202.02000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATIONS; Exclusive Representatives
An exclusive representative under EERA is “the employee organization recognized or certified as the exclusive negotiating representative of public school employees, . . . in an appropriate unit of a public school employer.” more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 114 | 03/06/18 |
| 2556M |
County of San Bernardino
202.06000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATIONS; Nonexclusive Representatives
Nonexclusive representative refers to an employee organization, as defined by section 3540.1, subdivision (d), that has not been recognized or certified as the exclusive representative. more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 114 | 03/06/18 |
| 2556M |
County of San Bernardino
400.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
If the employer’s conduct interferes with protected conduct, the burden shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate justification for its conduct. The scrutiny with which the employer’s conduct will be examined depends on the severity of the harm. If the harm to employee rights is slight, a violation will be found unless the employer’s business justification outweighs the harm to employee rights. If the employer’s conduct is, instead, inherently destructive of employee rights, it will be excused only on proof that it was occasioned by circumstances beyond the employer’s control and that no alternative course of action was available. more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 114 | 03/06/18 |
| 2556M |
County of San Bernardino
400.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
Employer’s state of mind, including lack of premeditation, is not relevant to whether a prima facie case of interference is established. more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 114 | 03/06/18 |
| 2556M |
County of San Bernardino
401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right
Employee organizations that have not been recognized have a right to access non-working areas of an employer’s premises to solicit for union membership and distribute literature to employees during their non-work time. more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 114 | 03/06/18 |
| 2556M |
County of San Bernardino
403.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE; RESTRAINT, COERCION; SURVEILLANCE; In General; Unlawful Surveillance
The NLRB has generally found that an employer has engaged in unlawful surveillance when the employer photographs or videotapes employees or openly engages in recordkeeping of employees participating in union activities. The mere observation of open, public union activity on or near the employer’s property, however, does not constitute unlawful surveillance. more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 114 | 03/06/18 |
| 2556M |
County of San Bernardino
403.02000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE; RESTRAINT, COERCION; SURVEILLANCE; Taking Photographs or Motion Pictures
Photographing and recordkeeping are proscribed because of their tendency to intimidate. more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 114 | 03/06/18 |
| 2556M |
County of San Bernardino
403.02000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE; RESTRAINT, COERCION; SURVEILLANCE; Taking Photographs or Motion Pictures
Because even creating the impression of surveillance is unlawful, harm to employee rights occurred if employees saw agent of the county taking or appearing to take a photograph. more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 114 | 03/06/18 |
| 2556M |
County of San Bernardino
403.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE; RESTRAINT, COERCION; SURVEILLANCE; Statements to Employees, Creating Impression of Surveillance
Creating the impression of surveillance is unlawful. more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 114 | 03/06/18 |
| 2556M |
County of San Bernardino
409.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity
Photographic or video surveillance may be justified as necessary to gather evidence when the employer reasonably believes that union organizers or employers are engaging in misconduct. more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 114 | 03/06/18 |
| 2556M |
County of San Bernardino
409.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity
Business necessity defense is not available to employer that engages in surveillance to document violations of an access policy that is itself unlawful. more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 114 | 03/06/18 |
| 2556M |
County of San Bernardino
409.02000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Conduct Ineffective
The fact that union organizers “intimidated” county agent into deleting a photograph of employees engaged in protected activity did not mitigate the harm to employee rights, because the test of coercion and intimidation is not whether the misconduct proves effective. more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 114 | 03/06/18 |
| 2582M |
City of Davis
606.13000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; Parity Agreements
Because an employer’s desire for parity among its units is not, standing alone, evidence of bad faith, neither is entering into parity agreements. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 51 | 09/05/18 |
| 2582M |
City of Davis
606.15000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; Other
Totality of the circumstances analysis includes any per se violations that may bear upon the question of the respondent’s state of mind. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 51 | 09/05/18 |
| 2582M |
City of Davis
606.15000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; Other
Presenting package proposals addressing matters within the scope of representation is not a refusal to bargain or evidence of bad faith. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 51 | 09/05/18 |
| 2582M |
City of Davis
606.15000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; Other
Events occurring post-impasse may be probative of whether a party engaged in surface bargaining before impasse was reached. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 51 | 09/05/18 |
| 2582M |
City of Davis
606.17000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; Failure to Provide Information
An employer’s refusal to provide information to back up its bargaining claims may be evidence of bad faith bargaining, but where requested information did not exist—in this case, the employer’s “target savings”—the failure to provide the information did not evidence bad faith. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 51 | 09/05/18 |
| 2582M |
City of Davis
900.05000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; Post-Impasse
The factfinder’s recommendations are a crucial element in the legislative process structured to bring about peacefully negotiated agreements, and so both parties must consider the recommendations in good faith to determine whether there is a basis for settlement, or for such accommodations, concessions, or compromises that might lead to settlement. However, either party may decide in good faith that the report does not provide a basis for settlement. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 51 | 09/05/18 |
| 2582M |
City of Davis
900.05000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; Post-Impasse
Employer’s failure to adopt the factfinding report’s recommendations is not unlawful, and employer’s failure to provide a full explanation in its resolution rejecting the recommendations was not, without more, evidence of a refusal to consider the report in good faith. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 51 | 09/05/18 |
| 2582M |
City of Davis
1000.02169: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Unit Configuration
Unit composition, including the appropriate placement of classifications, is not a mandatory subject of bargaining. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 51 | 09/05/18 |
| 2582M |
City of Davis
1105.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; In General
In regulating the conduct of a hearing, ALJ may exclude immaterial, irrelevant, or unduly repetitious evidence. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 51 | 09/05/18 |
| 2582M |
City of Davis
1105.05000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Cumulative Evidence
In regulating the conduct of a hearing, ALJ may exclude immaterial, irrelevant, or unduly repetitious evidence. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 51 | 09/05/18 |
| 2582M |
City of Davis
1107.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver
Where an issue was not identified as a specific exception but inextricably intertwined with other exceptions, the Board would err on the side of considering it. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 51 | 09/05/18 |
| 2582M |
City of Davis
1107.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver
The Board may decline to consider an exception raising an issue that the party neglected to mention to the ALJ. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 51 | 09/05/18 |
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.
