| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2531M |
Santa Clara Valley Water District
1107.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Weight Given to ALJ's Proposed Decision: Findings, Conclusions, Credibility Resolutions
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 |
| 2525M |
City of Livermore
1107.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver
Lack of standing in unfair practice proceedings is jurisdictional and cannot be waived or otherwise affected by the respondent’s failure to assert that defect or by its mistaken belief as to the identity of persons purportedly acting as the authorized agents of a party with proper standing. (pp. 7-8.) As in civil procedure, lack of standing to bring an unfair practice allegation is a “jurisdictional” defect. Because proper standing to bring an action goes to the very existence of a cause of action and the right to relief, it may be raised at any point in unfair practice proceedings, including for the first time on appeal. (p. 8.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 173 | 05/04/17 |
| 2525M |
City of Livermore
1304.07000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; OBJECTION TO ELECTIONS; Standing to File
Lack of standing in unfair practice proceedings is jurisdictional and cannot be waived or otherwise affected by the respondent’s failure to assert that defect or by its mistaken belief as to the identity of persons purportedly acting as the authorized agents of a party with proper standing. (pp. 7-8.) As in civil procedure, lack of standing to bring an unfair practice allegation is a “jurisdictional” defect. Because proper standing to bring an action goes to the very existence of a cause of action and the right to relief, it may be raised at any point in unfair practice proceedings, including for the first time on appeal. (p. 8.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 173 | 05/04/17 |
| 2525M |
City of Livermore
750.01000: EMPLOYER ADOPTION/ENFORCEMENT OF UNREASONABLE RULE; In General
Employee’s lack of standing, as an employee, to file a unit modification petition under the City’s local rules has no bearing on whether he may bring an unfair practice charge alleging violations of the City’s local rules or of employee rights under the MMBA. Standing is not dispensed “in gross.” Rather, it is evaluated separately for each claim and each form of relief sought. (p. 13.) The Legislature has expressly authorized employees, in their capacity as employees, to bring unfair practice charges alleging either that a public agency has acted in violation of its local rules and/or that it has enforced its local rules in a manner that is inconsistent with the provisions, policies or purposes of the MMBA. (p. 14.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 173 | 05/04/17 |
| 2525M |
City of Livermore
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Employee’s lack of standing, as an employee, to file a unit modification petition under the City’s local rules has no bearing on whether he may bring an unfair practice charge alleging violations of the City’s local rules or of employee rights under the MMBA. Standing is not dispensed “in gross.” Rather, it is evaluated separately for each claim and each form of relief sought. (p. 13.) The Legislature has expressly authorized employees, in their capacity as employees, to bring unfair practice charges alleging either that a public agency has acted in violation of its local rules and/or that it has enforced its local rules in a manner that is inconsistent with the provisions, policies or purposes of the MMBA. (p. 14.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 173 | 05/04/17 |
| 2525M |
City of Livermore
1107.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver
Employee’s lack of standing, as an employee, to file a unit modification petition under the City’s local rules has no bearing on whether he may bring an unfair practice charge alleging violations of the City’s local rules or of employee rights under the MMBA. Standing is not dispensed “in gross.” Rather, it is evaluated separately for each claim and each form of relief sought. (p. 13.) The Legislature has expressly authorized employees, in their capacity as employees, to bring unfair practice charges alleging either that a public agency has acted in violation of its local rules and/or that it has enforced its local rules in a manner that is inconsistent with the provisions, policies or purposes of the MMBA. (p. 14.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 173 | 05/04/17 |
| 2525M |
City of Livermore
1304.07000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; OBJECTION TO ELECTIONS; Standing to File
Employee’s lack of standing, as an employee, to file a unit modification petition under the City’s local rules has no bearing on whether he may bring an unfair practice charge alleging violations of the City’s local rules or of employee rights under the MMBA. Standing is not dispensed “in gross.” Rather, it is evaluated separately for each claim and each form of relief sought. (p. 13.) The Legislature has expressly authorized employees, in their capacity as employees, to bring unfair practice charges alleging either that a public agency has acted in violation of its local rules and/or that it has enforced its local rules in a manner that is inconsistent with the provisions, policies or purposes of the MMBA. (p. 14.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 173 | 05/04/17 |
| 2525M |
City of Livermore
750.01000: EMPLOYER ADOPTION/ENFORCEMENT OF UNREASONABLE RULE; In General
PERB rejected a City’s contention that it properly applied community of interest criteria to make a unit determination, where the final determination failed to include findings or explain how these various criteria had been applied. (p. 9.) In making unit determinations under its local rules, a public agency must make findings and explain its analytical process in sufficient detail “to enable the parties to determine whether and on what basis they should seek review and, in the event of review, to apprise a reviewing court of the basis for the [public agency’s] action.” (pp. 11-12.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 173 | 05/04/17 |
| 2525M |
City of Livermore
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
PERB rejected a City’s contention that it properly applied community of interest criteria to make a unit determination, where the final determination failed to include findings or explain how these various criteria had been applied. (p. 9.) In making unit determinations under its local rules, a public agency must make findings and explain its analytical process in sufficient detail “to enable the parties to determine whether and on what basis they should seek review and, in the event of review, to apprise a reviewing court of the basis for the [public agency’s] action.” (pp. 11-12.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 173 | 05/04/17 |
| 2525M |
City of Livermore
1107.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver
PERB rejected a City’s contention that it properly applied community of interest criteria to make a unit determination, where the final determination failed to include findings or explain how these various criteria had been applied. (p. 9.) In making unit determinations under its local rules, a public agency must make findings and explain its analytical process in sufficient detail “to enable the parties to determine whether and on what basis they should seek review and, in the event of review, to apprise a reviewing court of the basis for the [public agency’s] action.” (pp. 11-12.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 173 | 05/04/17 |
| 2525M |
City of Livermore
1304.07000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; OBJECTION TO ELECTIONS; Standing to File
PERB rejected a City’s contention that it properly applied community of interest criteria to make a unit determination, where the final determination failed to include findings or explain how these various criteria had been applied. (p. 9.) In making unit determinations under its local rules, a public agency must make findings and explain its analytical process in sufficient detail “to enable the parties to determine whether and on what basis they should seek review and, in the event of review, to apprise a reviewing court of the basis for the [public agency’s] action.” (pp. 11-12.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 173 | 05/04/17 |
| 2525M |
City of Livermore
750.01000: EMPLOYER ADOPTION/ENFORCEMENT OF UNREASONABLE RULE; In General
City’s local rule requiring 60 percent support by affected employees for a proposed unit modification interferes with employees’ protected right to freely choose and be represented by an effective representative by a simple majority vote. (p. 11.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 173 | 05/04/17 |
| 2525M |
City of Livermore
400.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
City’s local rule requiring 60 percent support by affected employees for a proposed unit modification interferes with employees’ protected right to freely choose and be represented by an effective representative by a simple majority vote. (p. 11.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 173 | 05/04/17 |
| 2525M |
City of Livermore
400.02000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; Right Not to Participate
City’s local rule requiring 60 percent support by affected employees for a proposed unit modification interferes with employees’ protected right to freely choose and be represented by an effective representative by a simple majority vote. (p. 11.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 173 | 05/04/17 |
| 2525M |
City of Livermore
1107.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver
Because PERB’s Regulation governing exceptions to a proposed decision expressly state that “[r]eference shall be made in the statement of exceptions only to matters contained in the record of the case” (PERB Reg. 32300, subd. (b)), a respondent may not use its statement of exceptions or supporting brief to present new justifications for its conduct. (p. 10.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 173 | 05/04/17 |
| 2525M |
City of Livermore
1402.01000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; WAIVER; In General
Because PERB’s Regulation governing exceptions to a proposed decision expressly state that “[r]eference shall be made in the statement of exceptions only to matters contained in the record of the case” (PERB Reg. 32300, subd. (b)), a respondent may not use its statement of exceptions or supporting brief to present new justifications for its conduct. (p. 10.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 173 | 05/04/17 |
| 2525M |
City of Livermore
1402.07000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; WAIVER; Failure to Timely Raise Affirmative Defense
Because PERB’s Regulation governing exceptions to a proposed decision expressly state that “[r]eference shall be made in the statement of exceptions only to matters contained in the record of the case” (PERB Reg. 32300, subd. (b)), a respondent may not use its statement of exceptions or supporting brief to present new justifications for its conduct. (p. 10.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 173 | 05/04/17 |
| 2525M |
City of Livermore
1503.01000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; In General
Because PERB’s Regulation governing exceptions to a proposed decision expressly state that “[r]eference shall be made in the statement of exceptions only to matters contained in the record of the case” (PERB Reg. 32300, subd. (b)), a respondent may not use its statement of exceptions or supporting brief to present new justifications for its conduct. (p. 10.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 173 | 05/04/17 |
| 2525M |
City of Livermore
1503.02000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; Regulations Considered (By Number)
Because PERB’s Regulation governing exceptions to a proposed decision expressly state that “[r]eference shall be made in the statement of exceptions only to matters contained in the record of the case” (PERB Reg. 32300, subd. (b)), a respondent may not use its statement of exceptions or supporting brief to present new justifications for its conduct. (p. 10.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 173 | 05/04/17 |
| 2525M |
City of Livermore
1503.03000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; Regulations Considered (By Number) (Continued)
Because PERB’s Regulation governing exceptions to a proposed decision expressly state that “[r]eference shall be made in the statement of exceptions only to matters contained in the record of the case” (PERB Reg. 32300, subd. (b)), a respondent may not use its statement of exceptions or supporting brief to present new justifications for its conduct. (p. 10.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 173 | 05/04/17 |
| 2526H |
Regents of the University of California (Los Angeles)
1107.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver
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 |
| 2523C |
El Dorado County Superior Court
900.05000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; Post-Impasse
Applying precedents decided under other PERB-administered statutes, the Board held that a the Trial Court Act employer need not make a second formal declaration of impasse or re-invoke the impasse resolution procedures contained in its local rules when those same procedures had already been exhausted without resolving the same dispute over a successor MOU. PERB cases decided under EERA and the Dills Act hold that “once the statute’s impasse procedures have been concluded, PERB has no authority to recertify impasse or [to] reinvoke impasse procedures,” which have already failed to resolve the dispute. (p. 11.) Thus, it was unnecessary for the Court to make another formal declaration of impasse or invoke the impasse resolution procedures in the EERR when those same procedures had already been exhausted without resolving the same dispute over a successor MOU. more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 152 | 03/20/17 |
| 2523C |
El Dorado County Superior Court
605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain
Although Charging Party requested a resumption of negotiations over health benefit contributions following a declaration of impasse and the exhaustion of applicable impasse resolution procedures, it pointed to no ground rules or similar agreement requiring the parties to negotiate this issue separately from the other subjects in dispute. Under the circumstances, the Respondent was legally privileged to refuse to resume bargaining. (p. 12.) Although parties may agree to ground rules governing the time and place of their negotiations, including arrangements to discuss specific subjects separately or in a particular order, in the absence of such an agreement, a party may not insist on separating one negotiable subject from all others or make continued negotiations conditional upon reaching agreement over a single subject and thereby refuse to discuss other subjects that may form the basis of a possible compromise. (Ibid.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 152 | 03/20/17 |
| 2523C |
El Dorado County Superior Court
608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General
Although Charging Party requested a resumption of negotiations over health benefit contributions following a declaration of impasse and the exhaustion of applicable impasse resolution procedures, it pointed to no ground rules or similar agreement requiring the parties to negotiate this issue separately from the other subjects in dispute. Under the circumstances, the Respondent was legally privileged to refuse to resume bargaining. (p. 12.) Although parties may agree to ground rules governing the time and place of their negotiations, including arrangements to discuss specific subjects separately or in a particular order, in the absence of such an agreement, a party may not insist on separating one negotiable subject from all others or make continued negotiations conditional upon reaching agreement over a single subject and thereby refuse to discuss other subjects that may form the basis of a possible compromise. (Ibid.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 152 | 03/20/17 |
| 2523C |
El Dorado County Superior Court
608.08000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Exhaustion of Impasse Procedures or Time Between Impasse and Mediation
Although Charging Party requested a resumption of negotiations over health benefit contributions following a declaration of impasse and the exhaustion of applicable impasse resolution procedures, it pointed to no ground rules or similar agreement requiring the parties to negotiate this issue separately from the other subjects in dispute. Under the circumstances, the Respondent was legally privileged to refuse to resume bargaining. (p. 12.) Although parties may agree to ground rules governing the time and place of their negotiations, including arrangements to discuss specific subjects separately or in a particular order, in the absence of such an agreement, a party may not insist on separating one negotiable subject from all others or make continued negotiations conditional upon reaching agreement over a single subject and thereby refuse to discuss other subjects that may form the basis of a possible compromise. (Ibid.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 152 | 03/20/17 |
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.
