Keyword Search by Headnotes - California Public Employment Relations Board

Decision	Description	PERC Vol.	PERC Index	Date
2558E	Children of Promise Preparatory Academy 606.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; In General Even if some of employer’s conduct due to the inexperience of its negotiators and advisers, evidence showed a concerted effort to thwart and delay negotiations. more or view all topics or full text.	42	124	03/27/18
2558E	Children of Promise Preparatory Academy 606.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; Predictably Unacceptable Offer Proposing that exclusive representative contribute financially to improve employment conditions and hire staff was not a legitimate proposal and was evidence of bad faith. more or view all topics or full text.	42	124	03/27/18
2558E	Children of Promise Preparatory Academy 606.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; Predictably Unacceptable Offer Although a bargaining proposal is lawful, it may still be evidence of bad faith if it is predictably unacceptable. more or view all topics or full text.	42	124	03/27/18
2567E	Hartnell Community College District 404.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; STATEMENTS, MEETINGS, NOTICES, AND LEAFLETS; In General Having attempted for more than two weeks to schedule the investigative meeting with Charging Party and his preferred representative, the ALJ appropriately concluded that the employer was not obligated to further delay the meeting, and that a message from its human resources official lawfully deferred to the exclusive representative to determine which of its agents would be available to represent the Charging Party in the investigative meeting. The employer’s message did not interfere with the protected right to choose a representative because, under the circumstances, any choice of a representative was for the exclusive representative and not for the Charging Party to make. (p.8.) To prevail in a case alleging interference, the charging party must show that the employer engaged in conduct that tends to or does result in at least slight harm to rights guaranteed by EERA and that, on balance, the resulting harm to protected rights outweighs any legitimate business justification asserted by the employer. An interference violation may only be found where the pertinent statute provides the rights claimed by the charging party. (pp. 4-5.) more or view all topics or full text.	43	2	06/12/18
2567E	Hartnell Community College District 404.02000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; STATEMENTS, MEETINGS, NOTICES, AND LEAFLETS; Statements Having attempted for more than two weeks to schedule the investigative meeting with Charging Party and his preferred representative, the ALJ appropriately concluded that the employer was not obligated to further delay the meeting, and that a message from its human resources official lawfully deferred to the exclusive representative to determine which of its agents would be available to represent the Charging Party in the investigative meeting. The employer’s message did not interfere with the protected right to choose a representative because, under the circumstances, any choice of a representative was for the exclusive representative and not for the Charging Party to make. (p.8.) To prevail in a case alleging interference, the charging party must show that the employer engaged in conduct that tends to or does result in at least slight harm to rights guaranteed by EERA and that, on balance, the resulting harm to protected rights outweighs any legitimate business justification asserted by the employer. An interference violation may only be found where the pertinent statute provides the rights claimed by the charging party. (pp. 4-5.) more or view all topics or full text.	43	2	06/12/18
2567E	Hartnell Community College District 408.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; In General Having attempted for more than two weeks to schedule the investigative meeting with Charging Party and his preferred representative, the ALJ appropriately concluded that the employer was not obligated to further delay the meeting, and that a message from its human resources official lawfully deferred to the exclusive representative to determine which of its agents would be available to represent the Charging Party in the investigative meeting. The employer’s message did not interfere with the protected right to choose a representative because, under the circumstances, any choice of a representative was for the exclusive representative and not for the Charging Party to make. (p.8.) To prevail in a case alleging interference, the charging party must show that the employer engaged in conduct that tends to or does result in at least slight harm to rights guaranteed by EERA and that, on balance, the resulting harm to protected rights outweighs any legitimate business justification asserted by the employer. An interference violation may only be found where the pertinent statute provides the rights claimed by the charging party. (pp. 4-5.) more or view all topics or full text.	43	2	06/12/18
2567E	Hartnell Community College District 408.03000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; Investigatory Interviews Having attempted for more than two weeks to schedule the investigative meeting with Charging Party and his preferred representative, the ALJ appropriately concluded that the employer was not obligated to further delay the meeting, and that a message from its human resources official lawfully deferred to the exclusive representative to determine which of its agents would be available to represent the Charging Party in the investigative meeting. The employer’s message did not interfere with the protected right to choose a representative because, under the circumstances, any choice of a representative was for the exclusive representative and not for the Charging Party to make. (p.8.) To prevail in a case alleging interference, the charging party must show that the employer engaged in conduct that tends to or does result in at least slight harm to rights guaranteed by EERA and that, on balance, the resulting harm to protected rights outweighs any legitimate business justification asserted by the employer. An interference violation may only be found where the pertinent statute provides the rights claimed by the charging party. (pp. 4-5.) more or view all topics or full text.	43	2	06/12/18
2567E	Hartnell Community College District 1107.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver The Charging Party cannot rely on factual allegations made at the pre-hearing stage of PERB proceedings, which PERB accepts as true, with factual findings resulting from a formal hearing and developed record, which are the Charging Party’s burden to prove with competent and admissible evidence. (PERB Regs. 32178.) On review of a dismissal without hearing, the Board treats the charging party’s factual allegations as true and considers them in the light most favorable to the charging party’s case. However, after a complaint issues, the charging party bears the burden of prove the complaint’s allegations by a preponderance of the evidence in order to prevail. (PERB Reg. 32178.) A prior Board decision reversing the dismissal of an unfair practice charge is neither evidence in support of a complaint’s allegations, nor the law of the case as to the merits of the dispute. (pp. 6-7.) more or view all topics or full text.	43	2	06/12/18
2567E	Hartnell Community College District 1107.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Weight Given to ALJ's Proposed Decision: Findings, Conclusions, Credibility Resolutions The Charging Party cannot rely on factual allegations made at the pre-hearing stage of PERB proceedings, which PERB accepts as true, with factual findings resulting from a formal hearing and developed record, which are the Charging Party’s burden to prove with competent and admissible evidence. (PERB Regs. 32178.) On review of a dismissal without hearing, the Board treats the charging party’s factual allegations as true and considers them in the light most favorable to the charging party’s case. However, after a complaint issues, the charging party bears the burden of prove the complaint’s allegations by a preponderance of the evidence in order to prevail. (PERB Reg. 32178.) A prior Board decision reversing the dismissal of an unfair practice charge is neither evidence in support of a complaint’s allegations, nor the law of the case as to the merits of the dispute. (pp. 6-7.) more or view all topics or full text.	43	2	06/12/18
2567E	Hartnell Community College District 1107.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Remand for Further Hearing; Remand to General Counsel The Charging Party cannot rely on factual allegations made at the pre-hearing stage of PERB proceedings, which PERB accepts as true, with factual findings resulting from a formal hearing and developed record, which are the Charging Party’s burden to prove with competent and admissible evidence. (PERB Regs. 32178.) On review of a dismissal without hearing, the Board treats the charging party’s factual allegations as true and considers them in the light most favorable to the charging party’s case. However, after a complaint issues, the charging party bears the burden of prove the complaint’s allegations by a preponderance of the evidence in order to prevail. (PERB Reg. 32178.) A prior Board decision reversing the dismissal of an unfair practice charge is neither evidence in support of a complaint’s allegations, nor the law of the case as to the merits of the dispute. (pp. 6-7.) more or view all topics or full text.	43	2	06/12/18
2567E	Hartnell Community College District 1107.05000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Precedential Authority of PERB Decisions The Charging Party cannot rely on factual allegations made at the pre-hearing stage of PERB proceedings, which PERB accepts as true, with factual findings resulting from a formal hearing and developed record, which are the Charging Party’s burden to prove with competent and admissible evidence. (PERB Regs. 32178.) On review of a dismissal without hearing, the Board treats the charging party’s factual allegations as true and considers them in the light most favorable to the charging party’s case. However, after a complaint issues, the charging party bears the burden of prove the complaint’s allegations by a preponderance of the evidence in order to prevail. (PERB Reg. 32178.) A prior Board decision reversing the dismissal of an unfair practice charge is neither evidence in support of a complaint’s allegations, nor the law of the case as to the merits of the dispute. (pp. 6-7.) more or view all topics or full text.	43	2	06/12/18
2567E	Hartnell Community College District 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board The Charging Party cannot rely on factual allegations made at the pre-hearing stage of PERB proceedings, which PERB accepts as true, with factual findings resulting from a formal hearing and developed record, which are the Charging Party’s burden to prove with competent and admissible evidence. (PERB Regs. 32178.) On review of a dismissal without hearing, the Board treats the charging party’s factual allegations as true and considers them in the light most favorable to the charging party’s case. However, after a complaint issues, the charging party bears the burden of prove the complaint’s allegations by a preponderance of the evidence in order to prevail. (PERB Reg. 32178.) A prior Board decision reversing the dismissal of an unfair practice charge is neither evidence in support of a complaint’s allegations, nor the law of the case as to the merits of the dispute. (pp. 6-7.) more or view all topics or full text.	43	2	06/12/18
2567E	Hartnell Community College District 1503.01000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; In General The Charging Party cannot rely on factual allegations made at the pre-hearing stage of PERB proceedings, which PERB accepts as true, with factual findings resulting from a formal hearing and developed record, which are the Charging Party’s burden to prove with competent and admissible evidence. (PERB Regs. 32178.) On review of a dismissal without hearing, the Board treats the charging party’s factual allegations as true and considers them in the light most favorable to the charging party’s case. However, after a complaint issues, the charging party bears the burden of prove the complaint’s allegations by a preponderance of the evidence in order to prevail. (PERB Reg. 32178.) A prior Board decision reversing the dismissal of an unfair practice charge is neither evidence in support of a complaint’s allegations, nor the law of the case as to the merits of the dispute. (pp. 6-7.) more or view all topics or full text.	43	2	06/12/18
2567E	Hartnell Community College District 1503.02000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; Regulations Considered (By Number) The Charging Party cannot rely on factual allegations made at the pre-hearing stage of PERB proceedings, which PERB accepts as true, with factual findings resulting from a formal hearing and developed record, which are the Charging Party’s burden to prove with competent and admissible evidence. (PERB Regs. 32178.) On review of a dismissal without hearing, the Board treats the charging party’s factual allegations as true and considers them in the light most favorable to the charging party’s case. However, after a complaint issues, the charging party bears the burden of prove the complaint’s allegations by a preponderance of the evidence in order to prevail. (PERB Reg. 32178.) A prior Board decision reversing the dismissal of an unfair practice charge is neither evidence in support of a complaint’s allegations, nor the law of the case as to the merits of the dispute. (pp. 6-7.) more or view all topics or full text.	43	2	06/12/18
2567E	Hartnell Community College District 1503.03000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; Regulations Considered (By Number) (Continued) The Charging Party cannot rely on factual allegations made at the pre-hearing stage of PERB proceedings, which PERB accepts as true, with factual findings resulting from a formal hearing and developed record, which are the Charging Party’s burden to prove with competent and admissible evidence. (PERB Regs. 32178.) On review of a dismissal without hearing, the Board treats the charging party’s factual allegations as true and considers them in the light most favorable to the charging party’s case. However, after a complaint issues, the charging party bears the burden of prove the complaint’s allegations by a preponderance of the evidence in order to prevail. (PERB Reg. 32178.) A prior Board decision reversing the dismissal of an unfair practice charge is neither evidence in support of a complaint’s allegations, nor the law of the case as to the merits of the dispute. (pp. 6-7.) more or view all topics or full text.	43	2	06/12/18
2567E	Hartnell Community College District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case The Board adopted the ALJ’s finding that the Charging Party had failed to prove that the ultimate decisionmaker responsible for terminating Charging Party’s employment knew of Charging Party’s protected activity. (p. 9.) To prevail in a case alleging retaliation under Novato Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 210 and similar authorities, the charging party must prove that at least one of the respondent’s agents responsible for taking adverse action knew of the charging party’s participation in protected activity. (p. 9.) more or view all topics or full text.	43	2	06/12/18
2567E	Hartnell Community College District 505.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DEFENSES; In General The Board adopted the ALJ’s finding that the Charging Party had failed to prove that the ultimate decisionmaker responsible for terminating Charging Party’s employment knew of Charging Party’s protected activity. (p. 9.) To prevail in a case alleging retaliation under Novato Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 210 and similar authorities, the charging party must prove that at least one of the respondent’s agents responsible for taking adverse action knew of the charging party’s participation in protected activity. (p. 9.) more or view all topics or full text.	43	2	06/12/18
2567E	Hartnell Community College District 501.03000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; Lack of Knowledge of Protected Activity The Board adopted the ALJ’s finding that the Charging Party had failed to prove that the ultimate decisionmaker responsible for terminating Charging Party’s employment knew of Charging Party’s protected activity. (p. 9.) To prevail in a case alleging retaliation under Novato Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 210 and similar authorities, the charging party must prove that at least one of the respondent’s agents responsible for taking adverse action knew of the charging party’s participation in protected activity. (p. 9.) more or view all topics or full text.	43	2	06/12/18
2567E	Hartnell Community College District 1107.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver The Board adopted the ALJ’s finding that the Charging Party had failed to prove that the ultimate decisionmaker responsible for terminating Charging Party’s employment knew of Charging Party’s protected activity. (p. 9.) To prevail in a case alleging retaliation under Novato Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 210 and similar authorities, the charging party must prove that at least one of the respondent’s agents responsible for taking adverse action knew of the charging party’s participation in protected activity. (p. 9.) more or view all topics or full text.	43	2	06/12/18
2567E	Hartnell Community College District 1107.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Weight Given to ALJ's Proposed Decision: Findings, Conclusions, Credibility Resolutions The Board adopted the ALJ’s finding that the Charging Party had failed to prove that the ultimate decisionmaker responsible for terminating Charging Party’s employment knew of Charging Party’s protected activity. (p. 9.) To prevail in a case alleging retaliation under Novato Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 210 and similar authorities, the charging party must prove that at least one of the respondent’s agents responsible for taking adverse action knew of the charging party’s participation in protected activity. (p. 9.) more or view all topics or full text.	43	2	06/12/18
2567E	Hartnell Community College District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case The Board denied Charging Party’s exception which asserted that the ALJ had improperly failed to consider evidence that the employer’s decisionmaker had received biased, inaccurate or incomplete information from a subordinate, which influenced the decision to take adverse action against Charging Party. The exception included no citation to the record and did not identify any specific evidence that was neglected. ERB Regulation 32300 requires the party filing exceptions to: (1) state the specific issues of procedure, fact, law or rationale to which each exception is taken; (2) identify the page or part of the decision to which each exception is taken; (3) designate the portions of the record relied upon; and (4) state the grounds for each exception. (PERB Reg. 32300.) more or view all topics or full text.	43	2	06/12/18
2567E	Hartnell Community College District 501.02000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; Burden of Proof; Evidence The Board denied Charging Party’s exception which asserted that the ALJ had improperly failed to consider evidence that the employer’s decisionmaker had received biased, inaccurate or incomplete information from a subordinate, which influenced the decision to take adverse action against Charging Party. The exception included no citation to the record and did not identify any specific evidence that was neglected. ERB Regulation 32300 requires the party filing exceptions to: (1) state the specific issues of procedure, fact, law or rationale to which each exception is taken; (2) identify the page or part of the decision to which each exception is taken; (3) designate the portions of the record relied upon; and (4) state the grounds for each exception. (PERB Reg. 32300.) more or view all topics or full text.	43	2	06/12/18
2567E	Hartnell Community College District 501.03000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; Lack of Knowledge of Protected Activity The Board denied Charging Party’s exception which asserted that the ALJ had improperly failed to consider evidence that the employer’s decisionmaker had received biased, inaccurate or incomplete information from a subordinate, which influenced the decision to take adverse action against Charging Party. The exception included no citation to the record and did not identify any specific evidence that was neglected. ERB Regulation 32300 requires the party filing exceptions to: (1) state the specific issues of procedure, fact, law or rationale to which each exception is taken; (2) identify the page or part of the decision to which each exception is taken; (3) designate the portions of the record relied upon; and (4) state the grounds for each exception. (PERB Reg. 32300.) more or view all topics or full text.	43	2	06/12/18
2548E	Lake Elsinore Unified School District (Edwards) 101.01000: PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; APPLICABILITY OF AND CONFLICTS WITH OTHER STATUTES; In General Where Charging Party’s discrimination allegation turns on a matter of law outside PERB’s traditional expertise, i.e., whether the public school employer complied with state law and/or regulations governing certificated employee retirement credit, the appropriate question is not which of two competing interpretations of external law is the more plausible, but whether the language in dispute is reasonably susceptible to the charging party’s interpretation and whether that interpretation supports a viable, i.e., non-frivolous, legal theory of an unfair practice or other violation of a PERB-administered statute. Where the investigation of an unfair practice charge results in receipt of conflicting allegations of fact or contrary theories of law, fair proceedings, if not due process, demand that a complaint be issued and the matter be sent to formal hearing to test a novel theory or competing theories of law, so long as the theory advanced is “viable,” i.e. non-frivolous. The Board is necessarily cautious about rejecting allegations involving statutory, decisional, regulatory, or other authority outside PERB’s jurisdiction and special expertise in labor relations, particularly when the area of external law is itself unsettled. more or view all topics or full text.	42	102	02/02/18
2548E	Lake Elsinore Unified School District (Edwards) 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 Where Charging Party’s discrimination allegation turns on a matter of law outside PERB’s traditional expertise, i.e., whether the public school employer complied with state law and/or regulations governing certificated employee retirement credit, the appropriate question is not which of two competing interpretations of external law is the more plausible, but whether the language in dispute is reasonably susceptible to the charging party’s interpretation and whether that interpretation supports a viable, i.e., non-frivolous, legal theory of an unfair practice or other violation of a PERB-administered statute. Where the investigation of an unfair practice charge results in receipt of conflicting allegations of fact or contrary theories of law, fair proceedings, if not due process, demand that a complaint be issued and the matter be sent to formal hearing to test a novel theory or competing theories of law, so long as the theory advanced is “viable,” i.e. non-frivolous. The Board is necessarily cautious about rejecting allegations involving statutory, decisional, regulatory, or other authority outside PERB’s jurisdiction and special expertise in labor relations, particularly when the area of external law is itself unsettled. more or view all topics or full text.	42	102	02/02/18