| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2423M |
County of San Bernardino (Office of the Public Defender)
604.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; Form of Information Provided; Costs
An employer’s refusal to provide a union upon request a physical document relevant to the union’s role as collective bargaining representative is not excused by the employer’s assertion that the information is on the internet, when the employer presents no evidence of what may or may not have been “on the internet” at the time of the request, whether it was responsive to the union’s request, whether it was up to date, or whether it conveyed what the employer intended to convey to the union. more or view all topics or full text. |
39 | 165 | 05/15/15 |
| 1704M |
Golden Empire Transit District
1205.12000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIAL PROVISIONS; Provision of Information
The District violated the MMBA by refusing to provide unit employees’ addresses and phone numbers. Local 517 is entitled to all information which is “necessary and relevant” to the discharge of its duty of fair representation. Failure to provide this information is a “per se” violation of the duty to bargain in good faith because it is “fundamental to the expanse of a union’s relationship with the employees.” Local 517 is entitled to the phone numbers and addresses of all unit employees, including the four (of 200) who requested confidentiality. When constitutional privacy rights are implicated, the Board must balance the privacy interests of employees against the union’s need for information. Local 517 needs this information for access to unit members while there is no statutory requirement that prohibits disclosure of the requested information to Local 517. Employer has burden of proof to demonstrate disclosure would compromise confidentiality. more or view all topics or full text. |
29 | 7 | 11/08/04 |
| 2891M |
City and County of San Francisco
1205.12000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIAL PROVISIONS; Provision of Information
One appropriate accommodation of competing interests is to restrict a union’s use of information to limited, proper purposes. (Contra Costa Community College District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2652, p. 19; Sacramento City Unified School District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2597, pp. 12-13; Los Angeles Unified School District (2015) PERB Decision No. 2438, p. 20.) The Board added a protective order to its remedy, thereby adopting a common judicial approach to allowing full discovery while minimizing intrusions on privacy. The Board directed the union to refrain from releasing disaggregated race/ethnicity information and to use such information only as needed to investigate and/or seek to prevent, lessen, ameliorate, or remedy potential workplace discrimination or other potential legal or contractual violations. (pp. 20-21.) more or view all topics or full text. |
48 | 132 | 02/27/24 |
| 2891M |
City and County of San Francisco
1205.12000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIAL PROVISIONS; Provision of Information
In determining whether to order employer to provide information, PERB considers union’s promise to keep the information confidential. The Board noted that unions are commonly entrusted with private employee information, as “[o]ne of the consequences of collective bargaining is that it subordinates the particular interests of individual employees to the collective interest of the unit.” (Los Angeles Unified School District (2015) PERB Decision No. 2438, p. 11, citation omitted.) (pp. 10-11.) more or view all topics or full text. |
48 | 132 | 02/27/24 |
| 0891H |
Regents of the University of California (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees)
1205.12000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIAL PROVISIONS; Provision of Information
Providing information in a telephone conversation did not satisfy University's obligation to provide requested information where accuracy of the information provided in the conversation is placed into question by publication of article in campus newspaper which quoted extensively from a University memo; p. 7. While AFSCME might not be entitled to specific copies of internal University memorandum, it was entitled to some definitive source of information other than a mere telephone discussion of the "basic elements" of the memos; pp. 7-8. The fact that various departments were in process of developing individual plans for meeting budget goals does not justify University's failure to provide relevant and readily available information; p. 8. Obligation to provide information is not dependent on when employer makes budgeting decision discussed in memos. more or view all topics or full text. |
15 | 22117 | 07/03/91 |
| 2652E |
Contra Costa Community College District
1205.12000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIAL PROVISIONS; Provision of Information
There is no categorical rule denying a union access to information pertaining to a mandatory subject, even when the parties are not in bargaining and the union intends to use the information to advise or represent an employee in relation to an extra-contractual issue or forum. Because discipline is within the scope of representation, information pertaining to actual or potential discipline is presumptively relevant, even if the only contemplated disciplinary forum is extra-contractual. Information pertaining to actual or potential discipline is presumptively relevant, no matter in what forum the disciplinary matter might be resolved, as union has right to information necessary or relevant to its right to represent bargaining unit employees. more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 18 | 06/26/19 |
| 0864E |
Newark Unified School District
1205.12000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIAL PROVISIONS; Provision of Information
Association entitled to staffing and enrollment projections prepared for District to verify need to transfer teacher; p. 18. more or view all topics or full text. |
15 | 22023 | 01/14/91 |
| 2652E |
Contra Costa Community College District
1205.12000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIAL PROVISIONS; Provision of Information
A union has a right to sufficient information regarding alleged wrongdoing to enable a union representative to represent an employee in a meaningful manner during an investigatory interview, but the union does not obtain the right to an underlying written complaint until after the initial investigatory interview. more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 18 | 06/26/19 |
| 2597E |
Sacramento City Unified School District
1205.12000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIAL PROVISIONS; Provision of Information
Information pertaining to non-bargaining unit employees is not presumed relevant, and the exclusive representative thus bears the burden of demonstrating that such information is relevant and necessary to its representational duties. A union demonstrates relevance where it has requested information that may help it compare the disciplinary circumstances relevant to a bargaining unit employee, including the allegations and any resulting discipline, with prior circumstances involving non-bargaining unit employees. (p. 9, fn. 6.) Union had right to obtain, evaluate, and introduce evidence that arguably may have supported a disparate treatment argument, even where information pertained to a non-bargaining unit employee (p. 9.) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 77 | 11/19/18 |
| 1891M |
City of Los Altos
604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General
The union was entitled to information that was necessary and relevant to discharging its duty to represent unit employees, not to all information that could conceivably aid the union in its representation duties. PERB has held that there is no duty to provide information absent a request, thus the Union’s concession that it had no pending request for identified information was pivotal, because without a request, Local 350 had no right to the disciplinary information which they argued they were entitled to as a matter of course. more or view all topics or full text. |
31 | 74 | 03/14/07 |
| 0799H |
California State University (California Faculty Association)
1205.12000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIAL PROVISIONS; Provision of Information
While, in some circumstances, a failure to provide information could interfere with negotiations to the extent that restoration of the status quo would be proper, where the violations are of a minor nature that did not seriously hamper bargaining, and where impasse would have been reached anyway, restoration of the status quo is inappropriate; pp. 5-6. more or view all topics or full text. |
14 | 21072 | 03/28/90 |
| 2438E |
Los Angeles Unified School District
1206.01000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; MODIFICATION OF PRIOR REMEDY; In General
When a union has offered to enter into a confidentiality agreement wherein the union will agree to limit the use and dissemination of requested information for representation and bargaining purposes only,” and the District rejects such offer, the offer is sufficient to address the District’s concerns that the information will be disseminated, and it is appropriate for the Board to include in the order a requirement of a confidentiality agreement in accordance with the terms proposed by the union applicable to the union and its agents and employees. more or view all topics or full text. |
40 | 26 | 06/25/15 |
| 3043M |
City of Pleasanton
1201.03000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; REINSTATEMENT; BACKPAY BENEFITS; Back Pay; Interest
PERB ordered its standard remedy for an employer’s unlawful unilateral change: a cease-and-desist order, a notice posting, restoration of the status quo ante, appropriate make-whole relief including back pay and benefits with interest, and an order to bargain with the union upon request. (City of Culver City (2020) PERB Decision No. 2731-M, p. 24.)
(p. 21.) more or view all topics or full text. |
51 | 42 | 07/23/26 |
| 3043M |
City of Pleasanton
1000.02074: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Job Specifications
Job qualifications fall within the scope of representation unless the employer does no more than comply with an externally imposed change. (City and County of San Francisco (2022) PERB Decision No. 2846-M, p. 22; County of Sacramento (2020) PERB Decision No. 2745-M, pp. 17-18.) (p. 14, fn. 6.) more or view all topics or full text. |
51 | 42 | 07/23/26 |
| 3043M |
City of Pleasanton
1000.02125: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Salaries or Wages
Wages are expressly within the scope of representation under MMBA section 3504, meaning that repayment of wages is generally within the scope of bargaining (County of Sacramento (2020) PERB Decision No. 2745-M, p. 20), though a union may refuse to bargain over an employer garnishment proposal that would waive employees’ Labor Code rights (Berkeley Unified School District (2012) PERB Decision No. 2268, pp. 14-15). (p. 14, fn. 6.) more or view all topics or full text. |
51 | 42 | 07/23/26 |
| 3043M |
City of Pleasanton
602.07000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Time of Implementation
A unilateral change “occurs on the date the employer makes a firm decision, even if the decision does not take effect immediately or never takes effect.” (State of California (California Correctional Health Care Services) (2022) PERB Decision No. 2823-S, p. 13; accord City of Milpitas (2015) PERB Decision No. 2443-M, p. 15.) (p. 20.) more or view all topics or full text. |
51 | 42 | 07/23/26 |
| 3043M |
City of Pleasanton
602.06000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Generalized Effect or Continuing Impact
City’s decisions to reinterpret incentive pay eligibility and seek reimbursement for past incentive payments have a generalized effect or continuing impact on employees, given that these decisions materially altered employees’ wages and asserted a non-existent right that could be relevant to future disputes. (Oxnard Union High School District (2022) PERB Decision No. 2803, pp. 30-31; Sacramento City Unified School District (2020) PERB Decision No. 2749, p. 8.) (pp. 14-15, fn. 6.) more or view all topics or full text. |
51 | 42 | 07/23/26 |
| 3043M |
City of Pleasanton
602.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change in or Deviation from Unwritten Past Practice
In assessing a written agreement or policy to determine the status quo, PERB first considers whether the language is clear and unambiguous; if so, it is unnecessary to go beyond the plain language of the contract itself to ascertain its meaning. (Oxnard Union High School District (2022) PERB Decision No. 2803, p. 33.) Where the language is ambiguous, PERB may look to bargaining history and past practice to discern the parties’ intent. (Ibid.) While past practice evidence of any strength may be relevant when assessing ambiguous written language, past practice evidence must be stronger if it is to establish an unwritten status quo wholly apart from any writing, under the second means of establishing a unilateral change. Specifically, a past practice only establishes a purely unwritten status quo if it was “regular and consistent” or “historic and accepted.” (Pittsburg Unified School District (2022) PERB Decision No. 2833, pp. 10-11.) There is no bright line as to the length of time an unwritten past practice must be in effect, as the analysis depends on context, including not merely the length of time but also the number of examples over that time. (Id. at p. 12.) (pp. 15-18.) more or view all topics or full text. |
51 | 42 | 07/23/26 |
| 3043M |
City of Pleasanton
602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change in or Deviation from Written Agreement or Policy
In assessing a written agreement or policy to determine the status quo, PERB first considers whether the language is clear and unambiguous; if so, it is unnecessary to go beyond the plain language of the contract itself to ascertain its meaning. (Oxnard Union High School District (2022) PERB Decision No. 2803, p. 33.) Where the language is ambiguous, PERB may look to bargaining history and past practice to discern the parties’ intent. (Ibid.) While past practice evidence of any strength may be relevant when assessing ambiguous written language, past practice evidence must be stronger if it is to establish an unwritten status quo wholly apart from any writing, under the second means of establishing a unilateral change. Specifically, a past practice only establishes a purely unwritten status quo if it was “regular and consistent” or “historic and accepted.” (Pittsburg Unified School District (2022) PERB Decision No. 2833, pp. 10-11.) (pp. 15-16.) more or view all topics or full text. |
51 | 42 | 07/23/26 |
| 3043M |
City of Pleasanton
602.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
The MMBA’s bargaining obligation is its “centerpiece.” (Boling v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2018) 5 Cal.5th 898, 914.) The MMBA restrains management from sudden shifts, instead requiring the mediatory influence of bargaining. (County of San Joaquin (2021) PERB Decision No. 2761-M, pp. 67, 69 [even when negotiations do not lead to agreement, they promote understanding and labor harmony by clarifying matters on all sides and avoiding chaotic implementation].) Indeed, irrespective of whether a status quo is written (as here, based on the MOU and job descriptions), or purely unwritten, the employer is not stuck with it forever. Rather, the employer can alter the status quo via bargaining to impasse or agreement. (See Oakland Unified School District (2023) PERB Decision No. 2875, pp. 15-16 [employer retains ultimate power to change status quo, after bargaining].) (p. 18.) more or view all topics or full text. |
51 | 42 | 07/23/26 |
| 3043M |
City of Pleasanton
602.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
To establish a prima facie case that an employer violated its bargaining duty via a unilateral change, a charging party must prove that: (1) the employer changed or deviated from the status quo; (2) the change or deviation concerned a matter within the scope of representation; (3) the change or deviation had a generalized effect or continuing impact on represented employees’ terms or conditions of employment; and (4) the employer reached its decision without first providing adequate advance notice of the proposed change to the union and bargaining in good faith over the decision, at the union’s request, until the parties reached an agreement or a lawful impasse. (Bellflower Unified School District (2021) PERB Decision No. 2796, p. 9.) Absent a valid defense, an employer’s unilateral change affecting negotiable matters is a per se refusal to meet and confer. (Regents of the University of California (Los Angeles) (2025) PERB Decision No. 2942-H, pp. 8-9.) (pp. 13-14.) more or view all topics or full text. |
51 | 42 | 07/23/26 |
| 2891M |
City and County of San Francisco
604.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; Subjects of Information
PERB found City had an obligation to provide union disaggregated race and ethnicity information. The union needed to receive such individualized information regarding probationary employees to pursue workplace antidiscrimination advances through grievances, bargaining for better assistance for probationary employees, or otherwise representing employees on issues of discrimination, harassment, or any interaction with the employer that can mean the difference between employment and unemployment. (See also Contra Costa Community College District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2652, pp. 15-16.) Federal precedent is in accord. (See, e.g., The Bendix Corp. (1979) 242 NLRB 62, 63, fn. 11 [employees have little, if any, confidentiality right in disaggregated data on their race and sex, and any such privacy right did not outweigh the requesting union’s need for the data]; Strategic Resources, Inc. (2016) 364 NLRB 451, 462 & 467-470 [race, age, and gender of employees is presumptively relevant information that the employer must disclose to the exclusive representative upon request]; see also Garrett v. City and County of San Francisco (9th Cir. 1987) 818 F.2d 1515, 1519, fn. 6 [former city firefighter who sued for race discrimination was entitled to obtain personnel files of colleagues in city’s fire department, despite city’s claim that such discovery infringed on firefighters’ privacy, because of need to assess potential evidence of race-based disparate treatment within the department].) (pp. 11-12.) more or view all topics or full text. |
48 | 132 | 02/27/24 |
| 3034H |
Regents of the University of California
1205.12000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIAL PROVISIONS; Provision of Information
Where union’s RFI requested health and safety information regarding its members’ worksite, a national research lab owned by the U.S. Department of Energy and operated by the University, PERB crafted its remedy with due regard to the Privacy Act of 1974 (Privacy Act; 5 U.S.C. § 552a). To the extent the Board ordered the University to provide union with records, the Board ordered such production for the five-year period union sought, and also ordered University to provide updated records promptly upon receiving such a request from the union. (City and County of San Francisco (2024) PERB Decision No. 2891-M, p. 23 (San Francisco).) To the extent the Board ordered redaction, University ordered to use de-identified placeholders that facilitate tracking across multiple records. (Id. at p. 16; County of Tulare (2020) PERB Decision No. 2697-M, p. 14 (Tulare); Sacramento City Unified School District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2597, p. 13, fn. 7.) Because redaction can provide imperfect protection to individual privacy, the Board issued a complementary safeguard and directed union to use the records it receives only to investigate health and safety issues at national research lab and to pursue measures to prevent, lessen, ameliorate, or remedy such issues, including through collective bargaining. (San Francisco, supra, PERB Decision No. 2891-M, p. 21.) Finally, the Board directed PERB’s Office of the General Counsel or a designee to resolve any compliance disputes that arise in a manner consistent with its decision, issuing clear, written orders after in camera review of all necessary records. (Tulare, supra, PERB Decision No. 2697-M, pp. 15-16.) The compliance officer may, but need not, direct the University or union to submit a FOIA request to the extent the compliance officer finds that doing so will assist in expeditiously resolving this matter. (pp. 35-36.) more or view all topics or full text. |
07/01/26 | ||
| 3034H |
Regents of the University of California
1205.12000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIAL PROVISIONS; Provision of Information
The Privacy Act permits disclosure of records “to a recipient who has provided the agency with advance adequate written assurance that the record will be used, and the solely as a statistical research or reporting record, and the record is to be transferred in a form that is not individually identifiable.” (5 U.S.C.§552a(b)(5).) The Board interprets the Privacy Act’s statistical research exception in line with federal precedent. Such precedent holds that the determinative concern is whether the data is de-identified and how information will be used. Accordingly, the Board found it sufficient to order the University to disclose records in a de-identified manner and to require union to limit its use and disclosure of the de-identified records. (pp. 32-33.) more or view all topics or full text. |
07/01/26 | ||
| 3034H |
Regents of the University of California
1205.12000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIAL PROVISIONS; Provision of Information
While the Privacy Act of 1974 (Privacy Act; 5 U.S.C. § 552a) applies to University as a federal contractor, union was not required to submit a FOIA request to federal Department of Energy (DOE) rather than an RFI to the University. FOIA establishes a mechanism for the public to access federal records; it does not displace any independent statutory right to information arising under a collective bargaining statute. And the University-DOE contract does not purport to require a union seeking DOE-owned information from the University to file a FOIA request, nor does it otherwise purport to limit the University in complying with HEERA by providing records that fall within a Privacy Act exception. (p. 29.) Nevertheless, in an abundance of caution and to facilitate efficient compliance, PERB recognizes that a FOIA request may in some circumstances be the most rapid means to obtain records. Accordingly, the Board’s remedial order empowered the compliance officer with discretion, as part of ensuring prompt records disclosure in a manner consistent with the Board’s decision, to require that union or University utilize FOIA procedures if helpful in implementing PERB’s order. The Board made explicit that this procedural authority does not reflect any legal requirement that union proceed through FOIA but instead allows flexibility in choosing the best means to achieve prompt compliance. (p. 32.) more or view all topics or full text. |
07/01/26 |
ePERB Portal Status: Operational
The ePERB Portal services have been restored. Thank you for your patience.
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.
