| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2546S |
State of California (Department of Forestry and Fire Protection)
1404.03000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; CONTRACT ENFORCEMENT/ INTERPRETATION; General Principles of Contract Interpretation
Applying traditional rules of contract interpretation, the Board first determines whether the language is clear and unambiguous. If it is not, the Board will examine extrinsic evidence of the language’s meaning, including bargaining history and past practice. more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 100 | 01/29/18 |
| 2546S |
State of California (Department of Forestry and Fire Protection)
1404.03000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; CONTRACT ENFORCEMENT/ INTERPRETATION; General Principles of Contract Interpretation
Board found it significant that exclusive representative did not update its own publication regarding the disciplinary process to publicize its belief that new contract language secured a new right in the disciplinary process. more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 100 | 01/29/18 |
| A460M |
San Diego Metropolitan Transit System * * * PUC TRANSIT CASE. PERB DECISION NUMBER CONTAINS INCORRECT LETTERING, AS CASE DID NOT ARISE UNDER MMBA * * *
104.01000: PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF BOARD; Authority of Board In General; Validity and Application of Regulations (See also 102.01)
(Transit districts established by the Public Utilities Code are not governed by the MMBA, but under PERB Regulation 93025, a determination by SMCS regarding a representation petition for such a district is appealable to the Board.) more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 92 | 01/23/18 |
| A460M |
San Diego Metropolitan Transit System * * * PUC TRANSIT CASE. PERB DECISION NUMBER CONTAINS INCORRECT LETTERING, AS CASE DID NOT ARISE UNDER MMBA * * *
1503.03000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; Regulations Considered (By Number) (Continued)
(Under PERB Regulation 93025, a determination by SMCS regarding a representation petition for such a Public Utilities Code transit district is appealable to the Board.) more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 92 | 01/23/18 |
| A459H |
Regents of the University of California * * * SUPERSEDED, IN PART, by PERB Regulation 32700, effective 2/15/2021
101.03000: PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; APPLICABILITY OF AND CONFLICTS WITH OTHER STATUTES; NLRA/LMRDA Precedent
* * * SUPERSEDED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by PERB Regulation 32700, effective 2/15/2021. * * *
While the Board often looks to NLRB practices and precedents for guidance when interpreting the statutes within its jurisdiction, this guidance may have limited value when the Board’s regulations diverge from the NLRB’s. more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 91 | 01/19/18 |
| A459H |
Regents of the University of California * * * SUPERSEDED, IN PART, by PERB Regulation 32700, effective 2/15/2021
104.01000: PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF BOARD; Authority of Board In General; Validity and Application of Regulations (See also 102.01)
* * * SUPERSEDED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by PERB Regulation 32700, effective 2/15/2021. * * *
The Board cannot make changes to its regulations through decision-making rather than rulemaking. more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 91 | 01/19/18 |
| 2544E |
Bellflower Unified School District
1503.02000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; Regulations Considered (By Number)
In the absence of any explanation or briefing from a school district who argued that the management rights clause remained in effect after 2010, or a request for reconsideration showing both extraordinary circumstances and that the Board’s determination in a prior decision that the parties’ agreement had expired in 2010 contained prejudicial error of fact, the Board had no grounds to consider the district’s waiver defense, which was based on the management rights language, in this case. (p. 7.) The interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement is not simply a factual finding of the sort which the Board or its agents are free to disregard in a subsequent case involving the same language. Because of its significance for governing the parties’ ongoing relationship, a Board finding as to the meaning of a contract term is more akin to a question of law, particularly where, as here, the question is whether the contract itself is illegal or void for public policy, as declared by the three-year limit for collective bargaining agreements set forth in EERA section 3540.1, subdivision (h). (pp. 6-7.) more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 70 | 12/15/17 |
| 2544E |
Bellflower Unified School District
1503.03000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; Regulations Considered (By Number) (Continued)
In the absence of any explanation or briefing from a school district who argued that the management rights clause remained in effect after 2010, or a request for reconsideration showing both extraordinary circumstances and that the Board’s determination in a prior decision that the parties’ agreement had expired in 2010 contained prejudicial error of fact, the Board had no grounds to consider the district’s waiver defense, which was based on the management rights language, in this case. (p. 7.) The interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement is not simply a factual finding of the sort which the Board or its agents are free to disregard in a subsequent case involving the same language. Because of its significance for governing the parties’ ongoing relationship, a Board finding as to the meaning of a contract term is more akin to a question of law, particularly where, as here, the question is whether the contract itself is illegal or void for public policy, as declared by the three-year limit for collective bargaining agreements set forth in EERA section 3540.1, subdivision (h). (pp. 6-7.) more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 70 | 12/15/17 |
| 2544E |
Bellflower Unified School District
102.03000: PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; SCOPE OF PERB JURISDICTION; Enforcement of Settlement Agreements and Contracts 3541.5(b); 3514.5(b); 3563.2(b)
Although the Board interpreted EERA section 3540.1, subdivision (h), as making a collective bargaining agreement with a duration of more than three years contrary to public policy, it expressed no opinion whether such an agreement is void in its entirety, terminable at will by either party. (p. 8.) more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 70 | 12/15/17 |
| 2544E |
Bellflower Unified School District
1404.01000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; CONTRACT ENFORCEMENT/ INTERPRETATION; In General
Although the Board interpreted EERA section 3540.1, subdivision (h), as making a collective bargaining agreement with a duration of more than three years contrary to public policy, it expressed no opinion whether such an agreement is void in its entirety, terminable at will by either party. (p. 8.) more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 70 | 12/15/17 |
| 2544E |
Bellflower Unified School District
1404.02000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; CONTRACT ENFORCEMENT/ INTERPRETATION; Board's Jurisdiction To Interpret Contracts
Although the Board interpreted EERA section 3540.1, subdivision (h), as making a collective bargaining agreement with a duration of more than three years contrary to public policy, it expressed no opinion whether such an agreement is void in its entirety, terminable at will by either party. (p. 8.) more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 70 | 12/15/17 |
| 2544E |
Bellflower Unified School District
1404.03000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; CONTRACT ENFORCEMENT/ INTERPRETATION; General Principles of Contract Interpretation
Although the Board interpreted EERA section 3540.1, subdivision (h), as making a collective bargaining agreement with a duration of more than three years contrary to public policy, it expressed no opinion whether such an agreement is void in its entirety, terminable at will by either party. (p. 8.) more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 70 | 12/15/17 |
| 2544E |
Bellflower Unified School District
101.01000: PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; APPLICABILITY OF AND CONFLICTS WITH OTHER STATUTES; In General
The Board rejected a school district’s exception that a Board-ordered remedy including restoration of the status quo and make-whole relief conflicted with federal law governing special education. The district’s statement of exceptions and supporting brief included no citation to any provision of the federal statute or decisional law interpreting it, and the district failed to explain how PERB’s customary remedy for a unilateral change would conflict with federal law. The district’s filing both failed to comply with the requirements of PERB Regulation 32300 governing exceptions, and, even if considered, had no merit. Unless a remedial measure positively conflicts with “inflexible standard[s]” or “immutable provisions” set by external law, the fact that it affects matters normally within the jurisdiction of another tribunal does not, by itself, make PERB’s remedy improper. (pp. 10-11.) more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 70 | 12/15/17 |
| 2544E |
Bellflower 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 rejected a school district’s exception that a Board-ordered remedy including restoration of the status quo and make-whole relief conflicted with federal law governing special education. The district’s statement of exceptions and supporting brief included no citation to any provision of the federal statute or decisional law interpreting it, and the district failed to explain how PERB’s customary remedy for a unilateral change would conflict with federal law. The district’s filing both failed to comply with the requirements of PERB Regulation 32300 governing exceptions, and, even if considered, had no merit. Unless a remedial measure positively conflicts with “inflexible standard[s]” or “immutable provisions” set by external law, the fact that it affects matters normally within the jurisdiction of another tribunal does not, by itself, make PERB’s remedy improper. (pp. 10-11.) more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 70 | 12/15/17 |
| 2544E |
Bellflower Unified School District
102.03000: PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; SCOPE OF PERB JURISDICTION; Enforcement of Settlement Agreements and Contracts 3541.5(b); 3514.5(b); 3563.2(b)
The Board rejected a school district’s exception that a Board-ordered remedy including restoration of the status quo and make-whole relief conflicted with federal law governing special education. The district’s statement of exceptions and supporting brief included no citation to any provision of the federal statute or decisional law interpreting it, and the district failed to explain how PERB’s customary remedy for a unilateral change would conflict with federal law. The district’s filing both failed to comply with the requirements of PERB Regulation 32300 governing exceptions, and, even if considered, had no merit. Unless a remedial measure positively conflicts with “inflexible standard[s]” or “immutable provisions” set by external law, the fact that it affects matters normally within the jurisdiction of another tribunal does not, by itself, make PERB’s remedy improper. (pp. 10-11.) more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 70 | 12/15/17 |
| 2544E |
Bellflower Unified School District
608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General
The Board rejected a school district’s exception that a Board-ordered remedy including restoration of the status quo and make-whole relief conflicted with federal law governing special education. The district’s statement of exceptions and supporting brief included no citation to any provision of the federal statute or decisional law interpreting it, and the district failed to explain how PERB’s customary remedy for a unilateral change would conflict with federal law. The district’s filing both failed to comply with the requirements of PERB Regulation 32300 governing exceptions, and, even if considered, had no merit. Unless a remedial measure positively conflicts with “inflexible standard[s]” or “immutable provisions” set by external law, the fact that it affects matters normally within the jurisdiction of another tribunal does not, by itself, make PERB’s remedy improper. (pp. 10-11.) more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 70 | 12/15/17 |
| 2544E |
Bellflower Unified School District
608.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Business Necessity; Emergency Exception
The Board rejected a school district’s exception that a Board-ordered remedy including restoration of the status quo and make-whole relief conflicted with federal law governing special education. The district’s statement of exceptions and supporting brief included no citation to any provision of the federal statute or decisional law interpreting it, and the district failed to explain how PERB’s customary remedy for a unilateral change would conflict with federal law. The district’s filing both failed to comply with the requirements of PERB Regulation 32300 governing exceptions, and, even if considered, had no merit. Unless a remedial measure positively conflicts with “inflexible standard[s]” or “immutable provisions” set by external law, the fact that it affects matters normally within the jurisdiction of another tribunal does not, by itself, make PERB’s remedy improper. (pp. 10-11.) more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 70 | 12/15/17 |
| 2544E |
Bellflower Unified School District
608.06000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Management-Rights Clause; Management Prerogative
The Board rejected a school district’s exception that a Board-ordered remedy including restoration of the status quo and make-whole relief conflicted with federal law governing special education. The district’s statement of exceptions and supporting brief included no citation to any provision of the federal statute or decisional law interpreting it, and the district failed to explain how PERB’s customary remedy for a unilateral change would conflict with federal law. The district’s filing both failed to comply with the requirements of PERB Regulation 32300 governing exceptions, and, even if considered, had no merit. Unless a remedial measure positively conflicts with “inflexible standard[s]” or “immutable provisions” set by external law, the fact that it affects matters normally within the jurisdiction of another tribunal does not, by itself, make PERB’s remedy improper. (pp. 10-11.) more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 70 | 12/15/17 |
| 2544E |
Bellflower Unified School District
608.07000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Waiver by Union; Contract Waivers; Bargaining History Estoppel; Disclaimer; Supersession
The Board rejected a school district’s exception that a Board-ordered remedy including restoration of the status quo and make-whole relief conflicted with federal law governing special education. The district’s statement of exceptions and supporting brief included no citation to any provision of the federal statute or decisional law interpreting it, and the district failed to explain how PERB’s customary remedy for a unilateral change would conflict with federal law. The district’s filing both failed to comply with the requirements of PERB Regulation 32300 governing exceptions, and, even if considered, had no merit. Unless a remedial measure positively conflicts with “inflexible standard[s]” or “immutable provisions” set by external law, the fact that it affects matters normally within the jurisdiction of another tribunal does not, by itself, make PERB’s remedy improper. (pp. 10-11.) more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 70 | 12/15/17 |
| 2544E |
Bellflower Unified School District
1105.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Burden of Proof; Weight of Evidence; Presumptions and Inferences; Affirmative Defenses
The Board rejected a school district’s exception that a Board-ordered remedy including restoration of the status quo and make-whole relief conflicted with federal law governing special education. The district’s statement of exceptions and supporting brief included no citation to any provision of the federal statute or decisional law interpreting it, and the district failed to explain how PERB’s customary remedy for a unilateral change would conflict with federal law. The district’s filing both failed to comply with the requirements of PERB Regulation 32300 governing exceptions, and, even if considered, had no merit. Unless a remedial measure positively conflicts with “inflexible standard[s]” or “immutable provisions” set by external law, the fact that it affects matters normally within the jurisdiction of another tribunal does not, by itself, make PERB’s remedy improper. (pp. 10-11.) more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 70 | 12/15/17 |
| 2544E |
Bellflower Unified School District
1201.01000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; REINSTATEMENT; BACKPAY BENEFITS; In General
The Board rejected a school district’s exception that a Board-ordered remedy including restoration of the status quo and make-whole relief conflicted with federal law governing special education. The district’s statement of exceptions and supporting brief included no citation to any provision of the federal statute or decisional law interpreting it, and the district failed to explain how PERB’s customary remedy for a unilateral change would conflict with federal law. The district’s filing both failed to comply with the requirements of PERB Regulation 32300 governing exceptions, and, even if considered, had no merit. Unless a remedial measure positively conflicts with “inflexible standard[s]” or “immutable provisions” set by external law, the fact that it affects matters normally within the jurisdiction of another tribunal does not, by itself, make PERB’s remedy improper. (pp. 10-11.) more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 70 | 12/15/17 |
| 2544E |
Bellflower Unified School District
1201.03000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; REINSTATEMENT; BACKPAY BENEFITS; Back Pay; Interest
The Board rejected a school district’s exception that a Board-ordered remedy including restoration of the status quo and make-whole relief conflicted with federal law governing special education. The district’s statement of exceptions and supporting brief included no citation to any provision of the federal statute or decisional law interpreting it, and the district failed to explain how PERB’s customary remedy for a unilateral change would conflict with federal law. The district’s filing both failed to comply with the requirements of PERB Regulation 32300 governing exceptions, and, even if considered, had no merit. Unless a remedial measure positively conflicts with “inflexible standard[s]” or “immutable provisions” set by external law, the fact that it affects matters normally within the jurisdiction of another tribunal does not, by itself, make PERB’s remedy improper. (pp. 10-11.) more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 70 | 12/15/17 |
| 2544E |
Bellflower Unified School District
1201.04000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; REINSTATEMENT; BACKPAY BENEFITS; Restoration of Benefits
The Board rejected a school district’s exception that a Board-ordered remedy including restoration of the status quo and make-whole relief conflicted with federal law governing special education. The district’s statement of exceptions and supporting brief included no citation to any provision of the federal statute or decisional law interpreting it, and the district failed to explain how PERB’s customary remedy for a unilateral change would conflict with federal law. The district’s filing both failed to comply with the requirements of PERB Regulation 32300 governing exceptions, and, even if considered, had no merit. Unless a remedial measure positively conflicts with “inflexible standard[s]” or “immutable provisions” set by external law, the fact that it affects matters normally within the jurisdiction of another tribunal does not, by itself, make PERB’s remedy improper. (pp. 10-11.) more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 70 | 12/15/17 |
| 2544E |
Bellflower Unified School District
1205.01000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIAL PROVISIONS; In General
The Board rejected a school district’s exception that a Board-ordered remedy including restoration of the status quo and make-whole relief conflicted with federal law governing special education. The district’s statement of exceptions and supporting brief included no citation to any provision of the federal statute or decisional law interpreting it, and the district failed to explain how PERB’s customary remedy for a unilateral change would conflict with federal law. The district’s filing both failed to comply with the requirements of PERB Regulation 32300 governing exceptions, and, even if considered, had no merit. Unless a remedial measure positively conflicts with “inflexible standard[s]” or “immutable provisions” set by external law, the fact that it affects matters normally within the jurisdiction of another tribunal does not, by itself, make PERB’s remedy improper. (pp. 10-11.) more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 70 | 12/15/17 |
| 2544E |
Bellflower Unified School District
1205.07000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIAL PROVISIONS; Restoration of Status Quo
The Board rejected a school district’s exception that a Board-ordered remedy including restoration of the status quo and make-whole relief conflicted with federal law governing special education. The district’s statement of exceptions and supporting brief included no citation to any provision of the federal statute or decisional law interpreting it, and the district failed to explain how PERB’s customary remedy for a unilateral change would conflict with federal law. The district’s filing both failed to comply with the requirements of PERB Regulation 32300 governing exceptions, and, even if considered, had no merit. Unless a remedial measure positively conflicts with “inflexible standard[s]” or “immutable provisions” set by external law, the fact that it affects matters normally within the jurisdiction of another tribunal does not, by itself, make PERB’s remedy improper. (pp. 10-11.) more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 70 | 12/15/17 |
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.
