| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2522H |
Trustees of the California State University
1100.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; In General/Prima Facie Case
Although PERB Regulations place no limit on the number of times a charging party may amend its charge before a warning letter issues or before the charge is dismissed, they do not require an investigating Board agent to provide a separate warning letter for each successive amendment to a charge. If, following a warning letter that adequately identifies the deficiencies in a charge, subsequent amendments do not correct those deficiencies, dismissal is appropriate. (PERB Reg. 32620, subd. (d); 32621.) (p. 4.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 150 | 03/20/17 |
| 2522H |
Trustees of the California State University
1100.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Investigation of Charge
Although PERB Regulations place no limit on the number of times a charging party may amend its charge before a warning letter issues or before the charge is dismissed, they do not require an investigating Board agent to provide a separate warning letter for each successive amendment to a charge. If, following a warning letter that adequately identifies the deficiencies in a charge, subsequent amendments do not correct those deficiencies, dismissal is appropriate. (PERB Reg. 32620, subd. (d); 32621.) (p. 4.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 150 | 03/20/17 |
| 2522H |
Trustees of the California State University
1100.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Amendments
Although PERB Regulations place no limit on the number of times a charging party may amend its charge before a warning letter issues or before the charge is dismissed, they do not require an investigating Board agent to provide a separate warning letter for each successive amendment to a charge. If, following a warning letter that adequately identifies the deficiencies in a charge, subsequent amendments do not correct those deficiencies, dismissal is appropriate. (PERB Reg. 32620, subd. (d); 32621.) (p. 4.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 150 | 03/20/17 |
| 2522H |
Trustees of the California State University
1100.05000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Dismissal of Charge; Appeal
Although PERB Regulations place no limit on the number of times a charging party may amend its charge before a warning letter issues or before the charge is dismissed, they do not require an investigating Board agent to provide a separate warning letter for each successive amendment to a charge. If, following a warning letter that adequately identifies the deficiencies in a charge, subsequent amendments do not correct those deficiencies, dismissal is appropriate. (PERB Reg. 32620, subd. (d); 32621.) (p. 4.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 150 | 03/20/17 |
| 2522H |
Trustees of the California State University
1100.08000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Pleading Requirements
Although PERB Regulations place no limit on the number of times a charging party may amend its charge before a warning letter issues or before the charge is dismissed, they do not require an investigating Board agent to provide a separate warning letter for each successive amendment to a charge. If, following a warning letter that adequately identifies the deficiencies in a charge, subsequent amendments do not correct those deficiencies, dismissal is appropriate. (PERB Reg. 32620, subd. (d); 32621.) (p. 4.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 150 | 03/20/17 |
| 2522H |
Trustees of the California State University
1503.02000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; Regulations Considered (By Number)
Although PERB Regulations place no limit on the number of times a charging party may amend its charge before a warning letter issues or before the charge is dismissed, they do not require an investigating Board agent to provide a separate warning letter for each successive amendment to a charge. If, following a warning letter that adequately identifies the deficiencies in a charge, subsequent amendments do not correct those deficiencies, dismissal is appropriate. (PERB Reg. 32620, subd. (d); 32621.) (p. 4.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 150 | 03/20/17 |
| 2517C |
Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C
1103.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT; Variance of Complaint from Charge; Evidence, Findings, or Order Varying from Complaint; Events Subsequent to Charge or Complaint
* * * VACATED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C. * * *
Because the charging party referenced the substance of the unalleged violation in its statement, and argued the issue in its brief before the ALJ, the Board determined that the respondent had adequate notice of the issue for purposes of the unalleged violations doctrine. (pp. 14-15.) The notice requirement for PERB’s unalleged violations doctrine may be satisfied by a number of circumstances, including when the charging party identifies the issue in its opening statement and argues the issue in its post-hearing briefing. So long as a respondent is informed of the substance of the charge and afforded the basic, appropriate elements of procedural due process, it cannot complain of a variance between administrative pleadings and proof. (p. 14.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 140 | 02/27/17 |
| 2517C |
Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C
1105.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Background Evidence and Matters Not Alleged
Because the charging party referenced the substance of the unalleged violation in its statement, and argued the issue in its brief before the ALJ, the Board determined that the respondent had adequate notice of the issue for purposes of the unalleged violations doctrine. (pp. 14-15.) The notice requirement for PERB’s unalleged violations doctrine may be satisfied by a number of circumstances, including when the charging party identifies the issue in its opening statement and argues the issue in its post-hearing briefing. So long as a respondent is informed of the substance of the charge and afforded the basic, appropriate elements of procedural due process, it cannot complain of a variance between administrative pleadings and proof. (p. 14.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 140 | 02/27/17 |
| 2517C |
Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C
1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations
Because the charging party referenced the substance of the unalleged violation in its statement, and argued the issue in its brief before the ALJ, the Board determined that the respondent had adequate notice of the issue for purposes of the unalleged violations doctrine. (pp. 14-15.) The notice requirement for PERB’s unalleged violations doctrine may be satisfied by a number of circumstances, including when the charging party identifies the issue in its opening statement and argues the issue in its post-hearing briefing. So long as a respondent is informed of the substance of the charge and afforded the basic, appropriate elements of procedural due process, it cannot complain of a variance between administrative pleadings and proof. (p. 14.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 140 | 02/27/17 |
| 2517C |
Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C
1103.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT; Variance of Complaint from Charge; Evidence, Findings, or Order Varying from Complaint; Events Subsequent to Charge or Complaint
* * * VACATED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C. * * *
The Board found that the unalleged conduct was intimately related to the subject matter of the complaint and was part of the same course of conduct because it arose from the same rules of conduct adopted by the Court that were the subject of the complaint. (pp. 15-16.) Even though they may involve different theories of liability, for purposes of the unalleged violations doctrine, unalleged matters are intimately related to matters included in the charge or complaint when they stem from the same incident or course of conduct. (p. 15.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 140 | 02/27/17 |
| 2517C |
Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C
1105.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Background Evidence and Matters Not Alleged
The Board found that the unalleged conduct was intimately related to the subject matter of the complaint and was part of the same course of conduct because it arose from the same rules of conduct adopted by the Court that were the subject of the complaint. (pp. 15-16.) Even though they may involve different theories of liability, for purposes of the unalleged violations doctrine, unalleged matters are intimately related to matters included in the charge or complaint when they stem from the same incident or course of conduct. (p. 15.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 140 | 02/27/17 |
| 2517C |
Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C
1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations
* * * VACATED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C. * * *
The Board found that the unalleged conduct was intimately related to the subject matter of the complaint and was part of the same course of conduct because it arose from the same rules of conduct adopted by the Court that were the subject of the complaint. (pp. 15-16.) Even though they may involve different theories of liability, for purposes of the unalleged violations doctrine, unalleged matters are intimately related to matters included in the charge or complaint when they stem from the same incident or course of conduct. (p. 15.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 140 | 02/27/17 |
| 2517C |
Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C
1103.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT; Variance of Complaint from Charge; Evidence, Findings, or Order Varying from Complaint; Events Subsequent to Charge or Complaint
* * * VACATED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C. * * *
Because the record include exhibits and extensive testimony from both parties’ witnesses on the Court’s prohibition against distributing literature “at any time for any purpose in working areas,” the Board found that the issue was fully litigated for purposes of the unalleged violations doctrine. (pp. 16-20.) For the purpose of the unalleged violations doctrine, a matter has been fully litigated when both parties have presented evidence on the issue. (p. 16.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 140 | 02/27/17 |
| 2517C |
Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C
1105.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Background Evidence and Matters Not Alleged
* * * VACATED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C. * * *
Because the charging party referenced the substance of the unalleged violation in its statement, and argued the issue in its brief before the ALJ, the Board determined that the respondent had adequate notice of the issue for purposes of the unalleged violations doctrine. (pp. 14-15.) The notice requirement for PERB’s unalleged violations doctrine may be satisfied by a number of circumstances, including when the charging party identifies the issue in its opening statement and argues the issue in its post-hearing briefing. So long as a respondent is informed of the substance of the charge and afforded the basic, appropriate elements of procedural due process, it cannot complain of a variance between administrative pleadings and proof. (p. 14.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 140 | 02/27/17 |
| 2517C |
Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C
1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations
* * * VACATED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C. * * *
Because the record include exhibits and extensive testimony from both parties’ witnesses on the Court’s prohibition against distributing literature “at any time for any purpose in working areas,” the Board found that the issue was fully litigated for purposes of the unalleged violations doctrine. (pp. 16-20.) For the purpose of the unalleged violations doctrine, a matter has been fully litigated when both parties have presented evidence on the issue. (p. 16.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 140 | 02/27/17 |
| 2517C |
Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C
1103.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT; Variance of Complaint from Charge; Evidence, Findings, or Order Varying from Complaint; Events Subsequent to Charge or Complaint
* * * VACATED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C. * * *
Because the record demonstrated that both sides had had full opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses on the Court’s ban on distributing literature “at any time for any purpose in working areas,” the Board found that this requirement of PERB’s unalleged violations doctrine had been met. (pp. 20-21.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 140 | 02/27/17 |
| 2517C |
Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C
1105.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Background Evidence and Matters Not Alleged
* * * VACATED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C. * * *
Because the record include exhibits and extensive testimony from both parties’ witnesses on the Court’s prohibition against distributing literature “at any time for any purpose in working areas,” the Board found that the issue was fully litigated for purposes of the unalleged violations doctrine. (pp. 16-20.) For the purpose of the unalleged violations doctrine, a matter has been fully litigated when both parties have presented evidence on the issue. (p. 16.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 140 | 02/27/17 |
| 2517C |
Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C
1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations
* * * VACATED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C. * * *
Because the record demonstrated that both sides had had full opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses on the Court’s ban on distributing literature “at any time for any purpose in working areas,” the Board found that this requirement of PERB’s unalleged violations doctrine had been met. (pp. 20-21.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 140 | 02/27/17 |
| 2517C |
Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C
1103.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT; Variance of Complaint from Charge; Evidence, Findings, or Order Varying from Complaint; Events Subsequent to Charge or Complaint
* * * VACATED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C. * * *
Because the Court’s ban on distributing literature “at any time for any purpose in working areas” was part of the same personnel rules identified in the complaint as unlawful, the matter was timely for purposes of PERB’s unalleged violations doctrine. Where unalleged matters involve the same conduct as that alleged in the complaint, the inclusion of one theory of liability in the complaint reflects a determination by the Office of the General Counsel that other theories arising from the same factual allegations are also timely. (p. 21.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 140 | 02/27/17 |
| 2517C |
Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C
1105.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Background Evidence and Matters Not Alleged
* * * VACATED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C. * * *
Because the Court’s ban on distributing literature “at any time for any purpose in working areas” was part of the same personnel rules identified in the complaint as unlawful, the matter was timely for purposes of PERB’s unalleged violations doctrine. Where unalleged matters involve the same conduct as that alleged in the complaint, the inclusion of one theory of liability in the complaint reflects a determination by the Office of the General Counsel that other theories arising from the same factual allegations are also timely. (p. 21.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 140 | 02/27/17 |
| 2517C |
Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C
1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations
Because the Court’s ban on distributing literature “at any time for any purpose in working areas” was part of the same personnel rules identified in the complaint as unlawful, the matter was timely for purposes of PERB’s unalleged violations doctrine. Where unalleged matters involve the same conduct as that alleged in the complaint, the inclusion of one theory of liability in the complaint reflects a determination by the Office of the General Counsel that other theories arising from the same factual allegations are also timely. (p. 21.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 140 | 02/27/17 |
| 2517C |
Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C
300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General
* * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C, where the Board issued a modified decision after the Court of Appeal partially vacated a portion of the original decision. Specifically, the Court of Appeal: (1) found that the court-employer’s need to appear neutral to the public was a special circumstance sufficient to support a ban on wearing insignia in the courthouse; (2) set aside PERB’s decision regarding display of union images and writings; (3) upheld PERB’s unalleged violations doctrine; and (4) upheld PERB’s decision finding a violation in the court’s prohibition against distributing union literature in work areas visible to the public. * * *
Under the PERB-administered statutes, the organizational right of access to the workplace is presumed and the burden is on the employer to establish that its regulation is reasonable and necessary under the circumstances to prevent disruption of operations. PERB has long held that wearing union clothing, buttons or pins in the workplace is protected, absent a showing of special circumstances to justify the restriction. (p. 28.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 140 | 02/27/17 |
| 2517C |
Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C
300.10000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; Solicitation/Organizing
* * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C, where the Board issued a modified decision after the Court of Appeal partially vacated a portion of the original decision. Specifically, the Court of Appeal: (1) found that the court-employer’s need to appear neutral to the public was a special circumstance sufficient to support a ban on wearing insignia in the courthouse; (2) set aside PERB’s decision regarding display of union images and writings; (3) upheld PERB’s unalleged violations doctrine; and (4) upheld PERB’s decision finding a violation in the court’s prohibition against distributing union literature in work areas visible to the public. * * *
Under the PERB-administered statutes, the organizational right of access to the workplace is presumed and the burden is on the employer to establish that its regulation is reasonable and necessary under the circumstances to prevent disruption of operations. Solicitation and the distribution of literature as well as other nondisruptive concerted activities in mixed-use areas are statutorily protected. (p. 29.) Because PERB found no persuasive showing of special circumstances to justify the Court’s personnel rule banning distribution and solicitation in working areas during non-duty time, and the categorical ban on distributing literature in mixed-use areas was reasonably susceptible to an interpretation that unlawfully restricts protected activity during employees’ non-duty time, it was overly broad and in violation of the Trial Court Act. (p. 29.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 140 | 02/27/17 |
| 2517C |
Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C
300.11000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; Distribution of Literature
* * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C, where the Board issued a modified decision after the Court of Appeal partially vacated a portion of the original decision. Specifically, the Court of Appeal: (1) found that the court-employer’s need to appear neutral to the public was a special circumstance sufficient to support a ban on wearing insignia in the courthouse; (2) set aside PERB’s decision regarding display of union images and writings; (3) upheld PERB’s unalleged violations doctrine; and (4) upheld PERB’s decision finding a violation in the court’s prohibition against distributing union literature in work areas visible to the public. * * *
Under the PERB-administered statutes, the organizational right of access to the workplace is presumed and the burden is on the employer to establish that its regulation is reasonable and necessary under the circumstances to prevent disruption of operations. Solicitation and the distribution of literature as well as other nondisruptive concerted activities in mixed-use areas are statutorily protected. (p. 29.) Because PERB found no persuasive showing of special circumstances to justify the Court’s personnel rule banning distribution and solicitation in working areas during non-duty time, and the categorical ban on distributing literature in mixed-use areas was reasonably susceptible to an interpretation that unlawfully restricts protected activity during employees’ non-duty time, it was overly broad and in violation of the Trial Court Act. (p. 29.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 140 | 02/27/17 |
| 2517C |
Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C
401.03000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Ban on Distribution or Solicitation
* * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C, where the Board issued a modified decision after the Court of Appeal partially vacated a portion of the original decision. Specifically, the Court of Appeal: (1) found that the court-employer’s need to appear neutral to the public was a special circumstance sufficient to support a ban on wearing insignia in the courthouse; (2) set aside PERB’s decision regarding display of union images and writings; (3) upheld PERB’s unalleged violations doctrine; and (4) upheld PERB’s decision finding a violation in the court’s prohibition against distributing union literature in work areas visible to the public. * * *
Because some Court employees had regular contact with the public as part of their duties, while others did not, and the record contained little evidence as to particular job classifications the Board rejected the Court’s analogy to federal cases involving patient-care areas in hospitals to justify its ban on displaying writings or union insignia anywhere in the courthouse visible to the public. Under the PERB-administered statutes, the organizational right of access to the workplace is presumed and the burden is on the employer to establish that its regulation is reasonable and necessary under the circumstances to prevent disruption of operations. PERB has long held that wearing union clothing, buttons or pins in the workplace is protected, absent a showing of special circumstances to justify the restriction. (pp. 21-22.) The Board adopted the ALJ’s findings and conclusions that the Court’s rules prohibiting employees from wearing union regalia anywhere in the courthouse and the display of union writings and images in all work areas visible to the public were overly broad and interfered with protected rights under the Trial Court Act. more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 140 | 02/27/17 |
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.
