Keyword Search by Headnotes - California Public Employment Relations Board

Decision	Description	PERC Vol.	PERC Index	Date
2532C	Sonoma County Superior Court 1107.20000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Other Under PERB Regulation 32320, subdivision (d), the Board has discretion whether to designate a decision resolving the appeal of a dismissal of an unfair practice charge as precedential. The precedential designation is appropriate for a decision that overrules a prior Board decision. more or view all topics or full text.	42	6	06/27/17
2532C	Sonoma County Superior Court 1107.20000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Other The fact that the Board’s previous precedential decision articulated its legal conclusion on an issue presented by the case does not mean the Board has prejudged the merits of the case or denied the respondent due process. more or view all topics or full text.	42	6	06/27/17
2532C	Sonoma County Superior Court 1201.03000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; REINSTATEMENT; BACKPAY BENEFITS; Back Pay; Interest Back pay was not the appropriate remedy where an employee was denied her right to union representation in an interactive process meeting convened to discuss the employee’s request for a reasonable accommodation of her disability. The employee was no longer able to perform the duties of her previous position, there was no evidence that employer did not provide her with a reasonable accommodation, and the employer had acted in conformance with a settled rule that the Board later overturned. more or view all topics or full text.	42	6	06/27/17
2538E	San Diego Unified School District 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General Our cases concerning adverse action, beginning with Palo Verde Unified School District (1988) PERB Decision No. 689, emphasize an objective test in determining whether a particular action was adverse to employment interests, i.e., whether a reasonable person under the same circumstances would consider the action to have an adverse impact on the person’s employment. more or view all topics or full text.	42	41	09/07/17
2538E	San Diego Unified School District 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General A threatened adverse action is a separate potential unfair practice from the completed action. For a threat to be actionable as an adverse action, it must give the employee unequivocal notice that the employer has made a firm decision to take the threatened action. more or view all topics or full text.	42	41	09/07/17
2538E	San Diego Unified School District 503.05000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; Transfer, Promotion, or Demotion; Work Assignments and Opportunities Employer’s initiation of the contractual reassignment process by giving notice that it would be seeking to reassign employee due to repeated complaints about employee’s teaching methodology was sufficient to establish an adverse action. Even though notice did not threaten employee with loss of her job or a reduction in pay, it would be readily seen by a similarly-situated employee as an accusation of professional incompetence requiring a formal defense or, at minimum, likely affecting future employment decisions. more or view all topics or full text.	42	41	09/07/17
2526H	Regents of the University of California (Los Angeles) 1107.15000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Withdrawal of Appeal; Request that Decision be Vacated Under its broad powers to “investigate unfair practice charges or alleged violations of [HEERA], the Board has discretion to grant or deny requests to withdraw and dismiss cases pending before the Board itself. When an appeal pending before the Board involves a matter of continuing public interest and a precedential ruling on the matter will be instructive to similarly-situated parties, the Board has exercised its discretion by denying a request for withdrawal, in the interest of justice. After carefully reviewing the settlement agreement in this case, the Board found withdrawal and dismissal to be in the best interest of the parties and consistent with the purposes of HEERA. more or view all topics or full text.	41	176	05/18/17
2526H	Regents of the University of California (Los Angeles) 1202.02000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; FACTORS LIMITING OR TERMINATING LIABILITY; Agreement Between. the Parties Under its broad powers to “investigate unfair practice charges or alleged violations of [HEERA], the Board has discretion to grant or deny requests to withdraw and dismiss cases pending before the Board itself. When an appeal pending before the Board involves a matter of continuing public interest and a precedential ruling on the matter will be instructive to similarly-situated parties, the Board has exercised its discretion by denying a request for withdrawal, in the interest of justice. After carefully reviewing the settlement agreement in this case, the Board found withdrawal and dismissal to be in the best interest of the parties and consistent with the purposes of HEERA. more or view all topics or full text.	41	176	05/18/17
2530E	Monterey Peninsula Unified School District 200.01000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYEE? (SEE 502 AND 1309); In General An employee has standing to file an unfair practice charge against a former employer to allege that such employer interfered with the employee’s attempt to obtain and/or retain subsequent employment. more or view all topics or full text.	42	2	06/19/17
2530E	Monterey Peninsula Unified School District 300.04000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; Individual/Concerted/Activities/Self-Representation Charging party’s court case challenging his for-cause termination as a certificated employee was not protected as the logical continuation of group activity or as self-representation. more or view all topics or full text.	42	2	06/19/17
2530E	Monterey Peninsula Unified School District 300.16000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; Appeals to Other Agencies/Filing of Court Actions Charging party’s court case challenging his for-cause termination as a certificated employee was not protected as the logical continuation of group activity or as self-representation. more or view all topics or full text.	42	2	06/19/17
2530E	Monterey Peninsula Unified School District 400.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards Respondent’s attorney’s statement that charging party would not be permitted to contact current or former employees of respondent as potential witnesses in an administrative hearing before the Commission on Teacher Credentialing was not an unlawful directive to an employee, but was more akin to a communication between opposing counsel. more or view all topics or full text.	42	2	06/19/17
2530E	Monterey Peninsula Unified School District 400.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards To be considered unlawful, a directive prohibiting employees from communicating with each other need not explicitly threaten discipline. more or view all topics or full text.	42	2	06/19/17
2530E	Monterey Peninsula Unified School District 502.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; PERSONS PROTECTED; In General An employee has standing to file an unfair practice charge against a former employer to allege that such employer interfered with the employee’s attempt to obtain and/or retain subsequent employment. more or view all topics or full text.	42	2	06/19/17
2530E	Monterey Peninsula Unified School District 503.06000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; Blacklisting; Hire; Refusal to Recommend EERA’s prohibition against interference, discrimination and reprisals logically encompasses a former employer’s efforts to prevent former employees from obtaining subsequent work because of their protected activity while employed by the former employer. A charging party may establish a prima facie violation on the basis of blacklisting by showing that a respondent interfered with the employment process by causing or attempting to cause a potential employer to refuse to hire the applicant because of the applicant’s union activities or other conduct protected by EERA. more or view all topics or full text.	42	2	06/19/17
2530E	Monterey Peninsula Unified School District 503.06000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; Blacklisting; Hire; Refusal to Recommend Allegation that respondent insisted on providing employment verification information directly to another employer is insufficient to state a prima facie case of blacklisting. more or view all topics or full text.	42	2	06/19/17
2530E	Monterey Peninsula Unified School District 1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing An employee has standing to file an unfair practice charge against a former employer to allege that such employer interfered with the employee’s attempt to obtain and/or retain subsequent employment. more or view all topics or full text.	42	2	06/19/17
2530E	Monterey Peninsula Unified School District 1100.05000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Dismissal of Charge; Appeal The Board will find good cause for charging party to present new supporting evidence on appeal when the information provided could not have been obtained through reasonable diligence prior to the Board agent’s dismissal of the charge. more or view all topics or full text.	42	2	06/19/17
2530E	Monterey Peninsula Unified School District 1100.05000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Dismissal of Charge; Appeal The Board agent’s failure to specifically address all of the information included in an amended charge is only grounds for reversal if the information assists the charging party in establishing a prima facie case. more or view all topics or full text.	42	2	06/19/17
2530E	Monterey Peninsula Unified School District 1100.08000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Pleading Requirements Wholly speculative allegations are insufficient to support issuance of a complaint. more or view all topics or full text.	42	2	06/19/17
2530E	Monterey Peninsula Unified School District 1100.11000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Response to Charge Verification in support of respondent’s position statement, signed and dated one day before the date of the position statement, was in compliance with PERB Regulations. more or view all topics or full text.	42	2	06/19/17
2530E	Monterey Peninsula Unified School District 1100.11000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Response to Charge A respondent’s failure to specifically deny an allegation in its response to the charge is not an admission of the truth of the allegation. (Dismissal, p. 10.) more or view all topics or full text.	42	2	06/19/17
2531M	Santa Clara Valley Water District 750.01000: EMPLOYER ADOPTION/ENFORCEMENT OF UNREASONABLE RULE; In General Charging Party’s petition to establish a separate unit of professional employees but to retain the same exclusive representative of the current mixed unit failed to comply with the District’s local rules governing unit modification and severance. Charging Party failed to overcome the presumption of correctness afforded a legislative act to show that the District had acted unreasonably in applying or enforcing any aspect of its local rules governing unit modification and severance. The MMBA grants public agencies the right to “adopt reasonable rules and regulations” for the administration of employer-employee relations, including for determining what constitutes “an appropriate unit” of employees for collective bargaining purposes. PERB and judicial authority requires that, when evaluating the reasonableness of a public agency’s unit determination made pursuant to a local rule, the party challenging the unit determination bears the burden of demonstrating that the decision was not reasonable. (pp. 10-11.) more or view all topics or full text.	42	5	06/23/17
2531M	Santa Clara Valley Water District 1105.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Burden of Proof; Weight of Evidence; Presumptions and Inferences; Affirmative Defenses Charging Party’s petition to establish a separate unit of professional employees but to retain the same exclusive representative of the current mixed unit failed to comply with the District’s local rules governing unit modification and severance. Charging Party failed to overcome the presumption of correctness afforded a legislative act to show that the District had acted unreasonably in applying or enforcing any aspect of its local rules governing unit modification and severance. The MMBA grants public agencies the right to “adopt reasonable rules and regulations” for the administration of employer-employee relations, including for determining what constitutes “an appropriate unit” of employees for collective bargaining purposes. PERB and judicial authority requires that, when evaluating the reasonableness of a public agency’s unit determination made pursuant to a local rule, the party challenging the unit determination bears the burden of demonstrating that the decision was not reasonable. (pp. 10-11.) more or view all topics or full text.	42	5	06/23/17
2531M	Santa Clara Valley Water District 1107.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver Charging Party’s petition to establish a separate unit of professional employees but to retain the same exclusive representative of the current mixed unit failed to comply with the District’s local rules governing unit modification and severance. Charging Party failed to overcome the presumption of correctness afforded a legislative act to show that the District had acted unreasonably in applying or enforcing any aspect of its local rules governing unit modification and severance. The MMBA grants public agencies the right to “adopt reasonable rules and regulations” for the administration of employer-employee relations, including for determining what constitutes “an appropriate unit” of employees for collective bargaining purposes. PERB and judicial authority requires that, when evaluating the reasonableness of a public agency’s unit determination made pursuant to a local rule, the party challenging the unit determination bears the burden of demonstrating that the decision was not reasonable. (pp. 10-11.) more or view all topics or full text.	42	5	06/23/17