| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2568S |
State of California (Department of State Hospitals) (California Association of Psychiatric Technicians)
1103.05000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT; Answer or Other Defense/Waiver
An employer waives its affirmative defense of contractual waiver by not raising the defense in its answer or moving to amend the answer before the hearing. (pp. 13-14) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 3 | 06/12/18 |
| 2523C |
El Dorado County Superior Court
1107.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver
Charging Party’s filing which combined a statement of exceptions and supporting brief in one document complies with the requirements of PERB Regulation 32300, so long as the filing includes the content required by the Regulation. (pp. 6-7.) While the content of exceptions to a proposed decision is clearly delineated by PERB Regulation 32300, the form in which exceptions are presented may vary. The excepting party may file a statement of exceptions, a brief or both. There is no requirement that a statement of exceptions or supporting brief assign a number to each of its exceptions. (Ibid.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 152 | 03/20/17 |
| 2523C |
El Dorado County Superior Court
1503.02000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; Regulations Considered (By Number)
Charging Party’s filing which combined a statement of exceptions and supporting brief in one document complies with the requirements of PERB Regulation 32300, so long as the filing includes the content required by the Regulation. (pp. 6-7.) While the content of exceptions to a proposed decision is clearly delineated by PERB Regulation 32300, the form in which exceptions are presented may vary. The excepting party may file a statement of exceptions, a brief or both. There is no requirement that a statement of exceptions or supporting brief assign a number to each of its exceptions. (Ibid.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 152 | 03/20/17 |
| 2523C |
El Dorado County Superior Court
1503.03000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; Regulations Considered (By Number) (Continued)
Charging Party’s filing which combined a statement of exceptions and supporting brief in one document complies with the requirements of PERB Regulation 32300, so long as the filing includes the content required by the Regulation. (pp. 6-7.) While the content of exceptions to a proposed decision is clearly delineated by PERB Regulation 32300, the form in which exceptions are presented may vary. The excepting party may file a statement of exceptions, a brief or both. There is no requirement that a statement of exceptions or supporting brief assign a number to each of its exceptions. (Ibid.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 152 | 03/20/17 |
| 2523C |
El Dorado County Superior Court
1107.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver
Where charging party has excepted to one or more factual findings in a proposed decision but has not explained how the purported error(s) would alter the result, the Board may summarily reject the exception. (p. 8.) Although the Board reviews exceptions to a proposed decision de novo, it need not address arguments that have already been adequately addressed in the same case or that would not affect the result. The Board has routinely declined to address issues raised in exceptions or on appeal, where the party seeking relief has simply reasserted its claims without identifying a specific error of fact, law or procedure to justify reversal. (p. 7.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 152 | 03/20/17 |
| 2523C |
El Dorado County Superior Court
1503.02000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; Regulations Considered (By Number)
Where charging party has excepted to one or more factual findings in a proposed decision but has not explained how the purported error(s) would alter the result, the Board may summarily reject the exception. (p. 8.) Although the Board reviews exceptions to a proposed decision de novo, it need not address arguments that have already been adequately addressed in the same case or that would not affect the result. The Board has routinely declined to address issues raised in exceptions or on appeal, where the party seeking relief has simply reasserted its claims without identifying a specific error of fact, law or procedure to justify reversal. (p. 7.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 152 | 03/20/17 |
| 2571M |
City of San Ramon
900.02000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; Declaration/Determination of Impasse
A party demonstrates bad faith when it rushes to impasse, or if its impasse declaration is “premature, unfounded, or insincere. Employer that raises impasse as a defense to a unilateral change must demonstrate that the parties were at impasse in their negotiations. (North Star Steel Co. (1991) 305 NLRB 45.) Even if the gap between the parties’ positions was substantial and prolonged, an employer may declare impasse only if it has bargained in good faith throughout negotiations, from inception through exhaustion of impasse resolution procedures, and its “conduct is free of unfair labor practices.” (City of San Jose (2013) PERB Decision No. 2341-M, p. 40.) Otherwise, an employer’s impasse declaration is evidence of bad faith, irrespective of whether the employer imposes new terms. (County of Riverside (2014) PERB Decision No. 2360-M, p. 12.) If an employer declares impasse without reaching a bona fide good faith impasse, but the employer neither imposes new terms nor refuses to continue bargaining, PERB considers that evidence under the totality of conduct test. (County of Riverside (2014) PERB Decision No. 2360-M, p. 12.) If the employer refuses to bargain further or proceeds to impose new terms, that is further evidence of bad faith, and is also a per se violation. (Id. at p. 11.) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 6 | 06/20/18 |
| 2571M |
City of San Ramon
900.05000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; Post-Impasse
An employer must segregate or excise from its imposed terms language purporting to ‘establish a memorandum of understanding’ or other agreement, as well as language that is reasonably susceptible to such an interpretation. An employer also cannot impose new terms for a set duration. Unilaterally imposing new terms for a set duration places an obstacle in the path of good faith bargaining. (Roosevelt Memorial Medical Center (2006) 348 NLRB 1116, 1117.) Imposing a duration for new terms is also inconsistent with an employer’s affirmative duty to excise from its imposition any language susceptible to an unlawful interpretation. (Fresno County In-Home Supportive Services Public Authority (2015) PERB Decision No. 2418-M, p. 40.) Fresno amended the principles set forth in Rowland Unified School District (1994) PERB Decision No. 1053 and State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (2010) PERB Decision No. 2130-S.) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 6 | 06/20/18 |
| 2571M |
City of San Ramon
1105.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Burden of Proof; Weight of Evidence; Presumptions and Inferences; Affirmative Defenses
In determining how much weight to afford bargaining notes, an ALJ must consider all relevant factors, including but not limited to the notes’ quality, their consistency with other evidence, and whether the notes were taken contemporaneously. (Salinas Valley Memorial Healthcare System (2015) PERB Decision No. 2433-M, adopting proposed decision at p. 10.) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 6 | 06/20/18 |
| 2571M |
City of San Ramon
1105.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Burden of Proof; Weight of Evidence; Presumptions and Inferences; Affirmative Defenses
Employer that raises impasse as a defense to a unilateral change must demonstrate that the parties were at impasse in their negotiations. (North Star Steel Co. (1991) 305 NLRB 45.) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 6 | 06/20/18 |
| 2571M |
City of San Ramon
1105.20000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Non Prejudicial Error
The Board need not address alleged errors that would not impact the outcome. (Los Angeles Unified School District (2015) PERB Decision No. 2432, p. 2; Regents of the University of California (1991) PERB Decision No. 891-H, p. 4.) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 6 | 06/20/18 |
| 2571M |
City of San Ramon
1107.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver
Merely incorporating an earlier brief by reference is not sufficiently specific to explain a party’s exceptions. (San Diego Community College District (1983) PERB Decision No. 368, p. 13.) A party responding to exceptions should similarly be specific in its arguments and cannot assume the Board will parse a previous brief that it chooses to incorporate by reference. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 6 | 06/20/18 |
| 2571M |
City of San Ramon
1107.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Weight Given to ALJ's Proposed Decision: Findings, Conclusions, Credibility Resolutions
While the Board is free to draw contrary inferences from the evidence, it generally defers to an ALJ’s credibility determination absent evidence to support overturning such a conclusion. (Trustees of the California State University (San Marcos) (2010) PERB Decision No. 2093-H, p. 3.) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 6 | 06/20/18 |
| 2571M |
City of San Ramon
1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board
Although the Board reviews exceptions to a proposed decision de novo, to the extent that a proposed decision adequately addresses issues raised by certain exceptions, the Board need not further analyze those exceptions. (City of Calexico (2017) PERB Decision No. 2541-M, pp. 1 2.) The Board also need not address alleged errors that would not impact the outcome. (Los Angeles Unified School District (2015) PERB Decision No. 2432, p. 2; Regents of the University of California (1991) PERB Decision No. 891-H, p. 4.) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 6 | 06/20/18 |
| A462M |
City of Oakland
301.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; STRIKES, SLOWDOWNS AND WORK STOPPAGES; In General
Neither PERB nor the courts have addressed whether public employers or exclusive representatives are required to meet and confer over which employees are essential to public health and safety, and therefore may not strike. (pp. 6-7) more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 141 | 04/30/18 |
| A462M |
City of Oakland
900.01000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; In General
PERB’s review of a factfinding request is limited to determining whether an exclusive representative’s request satisfies the procedural requirements of Gov. Code Section 3505.4 and PERB Regulation 32802. (p. 4) Although factfinding only applies to disputes over matters within the scope of representation, the Office of the General Counsel will not assess whether the subject of the parties’ dispute is within the scope of representation before approving the factfinding request. (pp. 3-4, 6) The Office of the General Counsel must approve the request unless the Board has previously declared a subject outside the scope of bargaining via the unfair practice process. Where neither PERB nor the courts have rendered such a decision, a factfinding request otherwise in compliance with the statutory and regulatory prerequisites must be approved. more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 141 | 04/30/18 |
| A462M |
City of Oakland
900.02000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; Declaration/Determination of Impasse
PERB’s review of a factfinding request is limited to determining whether an exclusive representative’s request satisfies the procedural requirements of Gov. Code Section 3505.4 and PERB Regulation 32802. (p. 4) Although factfinding only applies to disputes over matters within the scope of representation, the Office of the General Counsel will not assess whether the subject of the parties’ dispute is within the scope of representation before approving the factfinding request. (pp. 3-4, 6) The Office of the General Counsel must approve the request unless the Board has previously declared a subject outside the scope of bargaining via the unfair practice process. Where neither PERB nor the courts have rendered such a decision, a factfinding request otherwise in compliance with the statutory and regulatory prerequisites must be approved. more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 141 | 04/30/18 |
| A462M |
City of Oakland
900.04000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; During Impasse
Factfinding is available for any dispute over a matter within the scope of representation so long as the employee organization’s factfinding request complies with the statutory and regulatory prerequisites. (pp. 4-5) The appropriate avenue to resolve whether a subject is within the scope of representation is through the unfair practice process where a full factual record may be developed. (pp. 6-7) Where neither PERB nor the courts have previously determined whether the subject of essential employee status is outside the scope of representation, the Office of the General Counsel will not make a preliminary scope of representation decision as part of its determination of whether to approve the factfinding request. (p. 6) more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 141 | 04/30/18 |
| A462M |
City of Oakland
1000.02164: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Other
Neither the Board nor the courts have addressed whether public employers or exclusive representatives are required to meet and confer over which employees are essential to public health and safety, and therefore may not strike. (pp. 6-7) more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 141 | 04/30/18 |
| A466E |
Grossmont Union High School District
1107.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver
PERB Regulation 32305, subdivision (c), prohibits the Board from granting extensions of time in a representation case only when a party is filing exceptions to a proposed decision, not when a party is appealing an administrative decision pursuant to PERB Regulation 32360. (p. 3) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 15 | 06/20/18 |
| A466E |
Grossmont Union High School District
1107.20000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Other
PERB Regulations create two possible tracks for representation cases. The first track leads to a formal hearing where, based on the evidentiary record, a party may appeal the proposed decision under PERB Regulation 32300. The second track leads to an administrative decision, without a formal hearing, evidentiary record, or proposed decision, that a party may appeal to the Board itself by filing an appeal pursuant to PERB Regulation 32360. Because PERB Regulation 32305, subdivision (b), applies only to cases “where exceptions are filed pursuant to Section 32300,” only the first type of case, i.e., one that produces a proposed decision, falls under subdivision (b). Consequently, PERB Regulation 32305, subdivision (c)’s prohibition on granting extensions of time applies only to cases where a proposed decision has been issued, not to cases that resulted in an administrative decision. (pp. 4-5) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 15 | 06/20/18 |
| A466E |
Grossmont Union High School District
1303.09000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; ELECTIONS; Stay of
When exceptions to a proposed decision are filed, the proposed decision is effectively stayed pending a decision by the Board itself. (p. 6) In contrast to a proposed decision, an administrative decision is considered final and effective upon issuance unless the appealing party files a request for stay pursuant to PERB Regulation 32370. (p. 6) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 15 | 06/20/18 |
| A466E |
Grossmont Union High School District
1407.01000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION; General Principles
In construing administrative regulations, PERB’s fundamental goal is to “give the regulatory language its plain, commonsense meaning. If the language is ambiguous, PERB may look to other sources of interpretation, including the purpose of the regulation, the legislative history, public policy, and the scheme of which the regulation is a part. PERB Regulation 32305(c) prohibits extensions of time in cases subject to subdivision (b) of the same regulation. For a case to fall under subdivision (b), it must satisfy two requirements, as indicated by the conjunctive “and” joining the two phrases of the introductory clause – the case must arise under one of the enumerated regulations and be one where exceptions to a proposed decision are filed after the formal hearing process. (p. 4) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 15 | 06/20/18 |
| A466E |
Grossmont Union High School District
1503.01000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; In General
Under PERB Regulation 32305, the Board shall not grant extensions of time in appeals arising under one of the enumerated regulations and where the exceptions have been filed in response to a proposed decision at the conclusion of the formal hearing process. (p. 4) There is no such prohibition on extensions of time in cases arising from an administrative appeal under PERB Regulation 32360. (pp. 5, 7) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 15 | 06/20/18 |
| A466E |
Grossmont Union High School District
1503.03000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; Regulations Considered (By Number) (Continued)
Under PERB Regulation 32305, the Board shall not grant extensions of time in appeals arising under one of the enumerated regulations and where the exceptions have been filed in response to a proposed decision at the conclusion of the formal hearing process. (p. 4) There is no such prohibition on extensions of time in cases arising from an administrative appeal under PERB Regulation 32360. (pp. 5, 7) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 15 | 06/20/18 |
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.
