Keyword Search by Headnotes - California Public Employment Relations Board

Decision	Description	PERC Vol.	PERC Index	Date
A511E	St. HOPE Public Schools 1302.03000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; DECERTIFICATION; Stay of Blocking charge alleging that petitioner’s representative was an agent of the employer was a valid basis for a stay. In the current procedural posture, PERB must assume incumbent union will prove the complaint’s allegations—the same assumption PERB’s Office of the General Counsel was required to make in deciding on the stay request. (Gompers Preparatory Academy (2020) PERB Order No. Ad-481, p. 4.) Second, PERB’s inquiry on appeal is whether OGC abused its discretion. (Ibid.) Third, PERB recognizes a lower bar for a stay during first contract negotiations. Moreover, the complaint’s multiple claims may establish a tendency to influence employee free choice. (Id. at pp. 5-7.) (p. 9.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	150	03/11/24
A511E	St. HOPE Public Schools 1302.03000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; DECERTIFICATION; Stay of In deciding whether to stay an election, the question is whether the alleged unfair practices, if proven, would be likely to affect employee free choice. (PERB Reg. 32752; Gompers Preparatory Academy (2020) PERB Order No. Ad-481, p. 3 (Gompers).) When a union argues that a decertification election should be stayed because unfair practices may have eroded employee support for the union, a stay is warranted if the conduct alleged is “of such character and seriousness that, if it were proven to have occurred, it would be reasonable to infer that it would contribute to employee dissatisfaction and hence prevent a fair election.” (Children of Promise Preparatory Academy (2015) PERB Order No. Ad-428, p. 9.) Notably, if unfair practices are alleged during first contract negotiations after recognition or certification (or following a successorship), a lower bar applies in ascertaining the potential for deleterious effects on employee support for the emerging union, because law-breaking in such a timeframe is especially likely to leave employees with an unlawfully jaundiced view on the benefits of having an exclusive representative. (Gompers, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-481, pp. 5-7.) (p. 8.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	150	03/11/24
A511E	St. HOPE Public Schools 1302.04000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; DECERTIFICATION; Bar To EERA requires PERB to dismiss a representation petition when “[t]he public school employer has, within the previous 12 months, lawfully recognized an employee organization other than the petitioner as the exclusive representative of any employees included in the unit described in the petition.” (EERA, § 3544.7, subd. (b)(2).) This 12-month period is commonly known as the “certification bar” or the “recognition bar.” Its purpose is to give the new exclusive representative “breathing room” to bargain a first contract. (Gompers Preparatory Academy (2020) PERB Order No. Ad-481, p. 7, fn. 5 (Gompers).) PERB commonly extends the bar as a remedy for unlawful conduct impacting the union’s strength and/or ability to bargain a contract. (See, e.g., Alliance Judy Ivey Burton Technology Academy High School et al. (2022) PERB Decision No. 2809, p. 30.) (p. 4, fn. 6.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	150	03/11/24
A511E	St. HOPE Public Schools 1300.04000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; CERTIFICATION/VOLUNTARY RECOGNITION; Certification Bar Because it is particularly difficult to restore a newly recognized or certified union’s standing with its members after early unlawful conduct (see, e.g., Gompers Preparatory Academy (2020) PERB Order No. Ad-481, pp. 5-7; Small v. Avanti Health Systems, LLC (9th Cir. 2011) 661 F.3d 1180, 1191-1193), absent unusual circumstances it is proper to extend the recognition bar or certification bar and dismiss the petition altogether based on proven unfair practices during first contract negotiations. (pp. 10-11, fn. 11.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	150	03/11/24
A511E	St. HOPE Public Schools 1100.09000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Blocking Charges PERB Regulation 32752 provides, in pertinent part: “The Board may stay an election pending the resolution of an unfair practice charge relating to the voting unit upon an investigation and a finding that alleged unlawful conduct would so affect the election process as to prevent the employees from exercising free choice.” The purpose of this regulation is to help PERB insulate elections from unfair practices that may influence the outcome. (Gompers Preparatory Academy (2020) PERB Order No. Ad-481, p. 3; Imagine Schools at Imperial Valley (2016) PERB Order No. Ad-431, p. 9.) (pp. 7-8.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	150	03/11/24
A511E	St. HOPE Public Schools 1100.09000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Blocking Charges PERB’s Office of the General Council stayed a decertification petition based on three unfair practice charges filed by the incumbent union, each alleging conduct tending to influence employee free choice. PERB refers to such charges as “blocking charges,” meaning they allege conduct likely to affect employee free choice and therefore allow the charging party to request that PERB stay representation processes pending unfair practice proceedings. (p. 2 & fn. 1.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	150	03/11/24
A511E	St. HOPE Public Schools 407.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH DECERTIFICATION OR RIVAL UNION PETITION; In General EERA section 3543.5, subdivision (d) forbids, among other things, interfering with the administration of an employee organization by fomenting internal dissent. (City of San Diego (2020) PERB Decision No. 2747-M, p. 44.) PEDD section 3550 prohibits an employer from deterring or discouraging employees from, among other things, “becoming or remaining members of an employee organization.” (p. 6, fn. 7.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	150	03/11/24
A511E	St. HOPE Public Schools 103.02000: PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; CONSTITUTIONALITY OF EERA, DILLS, HEERA; Federal Issues Although California public sector labor relations precedent frequently protects employee and union rights to a greater degree than does federal precedent governing private sector labor relations, PERB considers federal precedent for its potential persuasive value. (Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 (Wagner et al.) (2021) PERB Decision No. 2782-M, p. 9, fn. 10; City of Santa Monica (2020) PERB Decision No. 2635a-M, p. 47, fn. 16; City of Commerce (2018) PERB Decision No. 2602-M, pp. 9-11; see also Social Workers’ Union, Local 535 v. Alameda County Welfare Dept. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 382, 391 [when interpreting California public sector labor relations laws, federal precedent is a “useful starting point,” but it does “not necessarily establish the limits of California public employees’ representational rights”]; County of San Joaquin (2021) PERB Decision No. 2761-M, pp. 24, 33, 45-48 & fn. 19 [considering private sector labor law precedent for its persuasive value while noting certain differences in California public sector labor law precedent]; City of Bellflower (2020) PERB Order No. Ad-480-M, p. 11 [both “statutory differences and distinct principles relevant to agencies serving the public have frequently led the Board to craft sui generis precedent”].) (p. 9, fn. 10.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	150	03/11/24
2900M	* * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * County of Santa Clara 1405.02000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA; Type or Nature of Prior Proceeding The Board accepted an arbitrator’s relevant factual findings as true, where the arbitration decision was final and the parties to the arbitration were the same as in the matter before PERB. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1287.6 [“An award that has not been confirmed or vacated has the same force and effect as a contract in writing between the parties to the arbitration”]; see also JPV I L.P. v. Koetting (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 172, 192 [collecting cases on collateral estoppel effect of arbitration decisions]; State of California (Correctional Health Care Services) (2024) PERB Decision No. 2888-S, pp. 23-28 [discussing PERB’s application of collateral estoppel].) (pp. 4-5.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	169	04/23/24
2900M	* * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * County of Santa Clara 1205.07000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIAL PROVISIONS; Restoration of Status Quo PERB’s standard remedy for a unilateral change includes invalidating a decision made in violation of the duty to bargain. However, in a case involving unusual circumstances, where the County failed to bargain only one paragraph of the extensive bylaws which concerned only the physician’s assistant (PA) classification, PERB required the County to hold union-represented PAs harmless until good faith negotiations are complete. (p. 26.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	169	04/23/24
2900M	* * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * County of Santa Clara 1205.04000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIAL PROVISIONS; Attorneys Fees and Costs The Board awarded union compensation consistent with make-whole principles, including compensation for bargaining and representation costs that increased, or which SEIU wasted or diverted, because of the County’s violation. Such damages are compensable if they are reasonably feasible to estimate. (pp. 35-36.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	169	04/23/24
2900M	* * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * County of Santa Clara 1205.04000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIAL PROVISIONS; Attorneys Fees and Costs The Board declined to amend its established make-whole standards to award a successful charging party in a PERB proceeding attorney fees in that case without showing that its opponent maintained a litigation stance that was without arguable merit and pursued in bad faith. The Board found a decision of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB): Thryv, Inc. (2022) 372 NLRB No. 22 (Thryv), persuasive. Thryv clarified that make-whole relief includes both “direct or foreseeable” economic harms resulting from a violation. However, the NLRB noted that it does not apply the “direct or foreseeable” standard to cover a successful party’s claim for automatic fee shifting. (Id. at p. 12, fn. 13.) The Board also considered a second NLRB decision, Grill Concepts Services (2022) 372 NLRB No. 30. There, the NLRB ordered an employer to reimburse bargaining costs to both the charging party union and its employee negotiators. (Id. at pp. 2-3.) The Board noted that PERB’s remedial standards already cover most direct or foreseeable harms resulting in material part from a violation, and that the American Rule on fee shifting is an exception to this principle. While at times broader remedies are available under California public sector labor relations law, compared to the federal framework governing the private sector, there is no blanket rule that all California public sector remedial standards are necessarily broader than their federal counterparts. The Board found no cause to deviate from the American Rule on fee shifting. (pp. 30-31, 33-34.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	169	04/23/24
2900M	* * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * County of Santa Clara 1205.04000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIAL PROVISIONS; Attorneys Fees and Costs A charging party can obtain damages for increased bargaining or representation costs, resource diversion, or waste of resources resulting in material part from a violation, irrespective of whether the violation was egregious. (See, e.g., City and County of San Francisco (2024) PERB Decision No. 2891-M, pp. 24-25, citing City and County of San Francisco (2023) PERB Decision No. 2858-M, pp. 15-17 and Alliance Judy Ivie Burton Technology Academy High et al. (2022) PERB Decision No. 2809, pp. 14, 31-32 & 34 (Alliance).) Bargaining or representation damages may include fees based on consulting with an attorney, and/or an attorney’s appearance at the bargaining table or in another representational context. (See, e.g., National Labor Relations Bd. v. Ampersand Publishing, LLC (9th Cir. 2022) 43 F.4th 1233, 1238- 1239.) However, such damages normally do not include fees for any stage of researching or drafting the charge at issue, nor work on later stages of the case (ibid.), except in unusual circumstances (see, e.g., Bellflower Unified School District (2022) PERB Decision No. 2544a, p. 51, fn. 32 [discussing ancillary enforcement proceedings].) (pp. 29-30.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	169	04/23/24
2900M	* * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * County of Santa Clara 1205.04000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIAL PROVISIONS; Attorneys Fees and Costs Except in cases in which there is a statutory right to attorney fees (see Gov. Code, § 3551.5, subd. (b) & § 3558, subd. (d)(4)), PERB usually follows the “American Rule,” pursuant to which a successful party normally has no claim to fee shifting. (Sacramento City Unified School District (2020) PERB Decision No. 2749, p. 12 (Sacramento City).) Rather, a party in a PERB case seeking to recover attorney fees and costs for litigation work done in relation to the same case must normally show that its opponent maintained a claim, defense, or motion, or engaged in another action or tactic, that was without arguable merit and pursued in bad faith. (Palomar Health (2024) PERB Decision No. 2895-M, p. 63 (Palomar) [judicial appeal pending].) However, PERB applies a different standard when deciding if a respondent found to have committed an unfair practice must pay attorney fees and costs related to a separate proceeding—whether the proceeding is in court, in arbitration, or in a separate PERB charge or representation matter. (City and County of San Francisco (2024) PERB Decision No. 2891-M, p. 24.) A charging party need not establish an egregious violation; instead, the charging party need only establish that it (or a party in privity with it) engaged in the separate proceeding in material part to remedy, lessen, make up for, or stave off the impacts of the unfair practice at issue. (Ibid., citing Victor Valley Union High School District (2022) PERB Decision No. 2822, pp. 23-24; Sacramento City, supra, PERB Decision No. 2749, pp. 11-12; City of San Diego (2019) PERB Decision No. 2464a-M, p. 4); Omnitrans (2009) PERB Decision No. 2030-M, p. 30; County of San Joaquin (Health Care Services) (2003) PERB Decision No. 1524-M, p. 3.) (pp. 27-28.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	169	04/23/24
2900M	* * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * County of Santa Clara 1205.03000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIAL PROVISIONS; Notices; Posting, Reading, and Mailing The Board denied a union’s request to augment the customary means of affording employees notice of its decision by ordering the County to provide spoken notice, as the union did not establish that customary notice mechanisms are insufficient. (See County of San Joaquin (Sheriff’s Department) (2018) PERB Decision No. 2619-M, p. 14, fn. 14; Alliance College-Ready Public Schools et al. (2017) PERB Decision No. 2545, pp. 17-18; cf. Mt. San Jacinto Community College District (2023) PERB Decision No. 2865, pp. 42-43 [spoken notice needed to “blunt the impact of the District’s unlawful conduct, which may otherwise persist to some degree”].) (p. 26.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	169	04/23/24
2900M	* * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * County of Santa Clara 1203.01000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; BARGAINING ORDERS; REMEDIES AGAINST EMPLOYERS; In General PERB’s standard remedy for a unilateral change includes invalidating a decision made in violation of the duty to bargain. However, in a case involving unusual circumstances, where the County failed to bargain only one paragraph of the extensive bylaws which concerned only the physician’s assistant (PA) classification, PERB required the County to hold union-represented PAs harmless until good faith negotiations are complete. (p. 26.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	169	04/23/24
2900M	* * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * County of Santa Clara 1201.01000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; REINSTATEMENT; BACKPAY BENEFITS; In General The Board awarded union compensation consistent with make-whole principles, including compensation for bargaining and representation costs that increased, or which SEIU wasted or diverted, because of the County’s violation. Such damages are compensable if they are reasonably feasible to estimate. (pp. 35-36.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	169	04/23/24
2900M	* * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * County of Santa Clara 1201.01000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; REINSTATEMENT; BACKPAY BENEFITS; In General A successful charging party can normally recover compensation for direct or foreseeable harms resulting in material part from a violation. (See, e.g., Palomar Health (2024) PERB Decision No. 2895-M, pp. 63-67 [legal expenses related to defending against employer’s lawsuit seeking to enjoin certain union activity]; City and County of San Francisco (2024) PERB Decision No. 2891-M, p. 26 [potential recovery of costs resulting from failure to provide information]; City and County of San Francisco (2023) PERB Decision No. 2858-M, p. 17 [bargaining costs]; Valley Union High School District (2022) PERB Decision No. 2822, pp. 23-24 [cost of deposition defense]; Alliance Judy Ivie Burton Technology Academy High et al. (2022) PERB Decision No. 2809, pp. 14 & 31-32 [organizing and bargaining costs materially caused by unfair practice]; Bellflower Unified School District (2022) PERB Decision No. 2544a, pp. 46-50 [lost dues]; Sacramento City Unified School District (2020) PERB Decision No. 2749, p. 21 [attorney fees for litigating petition to compel arbitration necessitated by employer’s violation]; City of San Diego (2019) PERB Decision No. 2464a-M, p. 4 [fees for litigating quo warranto suit to rescind voter initiative unlawfully placed on the ballot]; Omnitrans (2009) PERB Decision No. 2030-M, p. 30 [fees union paid for defense of criminal case resulting from employer’s unfair practice].) (p. 32.) PERB also compensates harms that employees incur in material part from a violation, irrespective of whether the employees themselves were charging parties. (pp. 32, fn. 19 [exhaustive list of harms for which employees are compensated].) more or view all topics or full text.	48	169	04/23/24
2900M	* * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * County of Santa Clara 1201.01000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; REINSTATEMENT; BACKPAY BENEFITS; In General To serve the dual purposes of compensating for the harm a violation causes and deterring further violations, PERB must expunge the consequences of an unfair practice and restore “the economic status quo that would have obtained but for the respondent’s wrongful act.” (County of Kern & Kern County Hospital Authority (2019) PERB Decision No. 2659-M, p. 26; City of Pasadena (2014) PERB Order No. Ad-406-M, p. 13 (Pasadena). cf. Local Joint Executive Bd. of Las Vegas v. NLRB (9th Cir. 2018) 883 F.3d 1129, 1139-1140 [failure to afford full make-whole relief was abuse of discretion].) PERB therefore attempts to “recreate the conditions and relationships that would have been had there been no unfair labor practice, even when doing so necessarily entails some degree of uncertainty as to the precise relationships.” (Pasadena, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-406-M, p. 13.) While make-whole relief therefore must typically rely on estimates, such estimates are preferable to allowing uncertainty—caused by unlawful conduct—to leave an unfair practice without a fully effective remedy. (City and County of San Francisco (2023) PERB Decision No. 2858-M, pp. 14-15.) For all categories of make-whole relief, a charging party normally has the burden to establish in compliance proceedings the nature and extent of compensable harms that resulted in material part from the respondent’s violations. (Id. at p. 15; Antelope Valley Community College District (2023) PERB Decision No, 2854, p. 7; Regents of the University of California (2021) PERB Decision No. 2783-H, p. 32.) (pp. 27-28.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	169	04/23/24
2900M	* * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * County of Santa Clara 1200.01000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; CEASE AND DESIST ORDERS; In General The Legislature has vested PERB with broad authority to decide what remedies are necessary to effectuate the purposes and policies of the MMBA and the other acts we enforce. (MMBA, § 3509, subd. (b); Mt. San Antonio Comm. College Dist. v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 178, 189.) PERB remedies must serve the dual purposes of compensating for the harm a violation causes and deterring further violations. (County of San Joaquin v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 1053, 1068.) Moreover, a “properly designed remedial order seeks a restoration of the situation as nearly as possible to that which would have obtained but for the unfair labor practice.” (Modesto City Schools (1983) PERB Decision No. 291, pp. 67-68.) (p. 25.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	169	04/23/24
2900M	* * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * County of Santa Clara 1107.13000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Administrative and Judicial Notice The Board may take administrative notice of the record in its own case files. (Lake Elsinore Unified School District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2633, adopting proposed decision at p. 3, fn. 2.) (p. 8, fn. 4.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	169	04/23/24
2900M	* * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * County of Santa Clara 1000.02164: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Other Applying the test articulated in International Assn. of Fire Fighters, Local 188, AFL-CIO v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 259, 272-273, PERB determined that the County had a decision bargaining obligation with respect to medical practice privileges. First, from the perspective of reasonable employees, changes that make it more difficult to earn and maintain practice privileges have a significant and adverse impact, potentially even causing them to lose their employment altogether. And the County does not have a need for unencumbered decision-making that outweighs the benefit to employer-employee relations of bargaining, as patient safety would not be at risk if the County had to bargain before its Board of Supervisors voted on bylaws that changed practice privilege standards. Moreover, qualifications for practice privileges fall within the ambit of a traditionally bargainable subject, because they focus on an employment-related issue and primarily operated on County employees. (pp. 17-18 & fn. 8.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	169	04/23/24
2900M	* * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * County of Santa Clara 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. (County of Sacramento (2020) PERB Decision No. 2745-M, pp. 17-18.) “[W]hen external law establishes immutable provisions in an area otherwise within the scope of representation, matters are negotiable only to the extent of the employer’s discretion, that is, to the extent that the external law does not ‘set an inflexible standard or [e]nsure immutable provisions.’” (Id. at p. 18 [quoting Berkeley Unified School District (2012) PERB Decision No. 2268, p. 9 and San Mateo City School Dist. v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 850, 864-865].) Practice privilege qualifications are not identical to job qualifications, but the two topics are closely related, and precedent on job qualifications is a persuasive guide. (pp. 15-16.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	169	04/23/24
2900M	* * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * County of Santa Clara 1000.02070: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Job Descriptions Job qualifications fall within the scope of representation unless the employer does no more than comply with an externally imposed change. (County of Sacramento (2020) PERB Decision No. 2745-M, pp. 17-18.) “[W]hen external law establishes immutable provisions in an area otherwise within the scope of representation, matters are negotiable only to the extent of the employer’s discretion, that is, to the extent that the external law does not ‘set an inflexible standard or [e]nsure immutable provisions.’” (Id. at p. 18 [quoting Berkeley Unified School District (2012) PERB Decision No. 2268, p. 9 and San Mateo City School Dist. v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 850, 864-865].) Practice privilege qualifications are not identical to job qualifications, but the two topics are closely related, and precedent on job qualifications is a persuasive guide. (p. 15.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	169	04/23/24
2900M	* * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * County of Santa Clara 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated If a decision falls within the third Richmond Firefighters category, PERB first determines whether the decision has “a significant and adverse effect on the wages, hours, or working conditions of the bargaining-unit employees” that “arises from the implementation of a fundamental managerial or policy decision.” (City and County of San Francisco (2022) PERB Decision No. 2846-M, pp. 15-18 (San Francisco), citing International Assn. of Fire Fighters, Local 188, AFL-CIO v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 259, 272-273 (Richmond Firefighters) and Claremont Police Officers Assn. v. City of Claremont (2006) 39 Cal.4th 623, 638.) The “significant and adverse” standard requires PERB to look at effects from the perspective of a reasonable employee. (County of Sonoma (2023) PERB Decision No. 2772a-M, pp. 16-22.) If there are significant and adverse effects, the remaining question is whether “the employer’s need for unencumbered decision-making in managing its operations is outweighed by the benefit to employer-employee relations of bargaining about the action in question.” (Id. at pp. 14 & 23; San Francisco, supra, PERB Decision No. 2846-M, pp. 18-19.) For most types of decisions, PERB need not “reinvent the wheel” by applying the Richmond Firefighters framework from scratch, because precedent establishes subject-specific standards that show how the framework applies to a given topic. (County of Santa Clara (2023) PERB Decision No. 2876-M, pp. 24-25 [judicial appeal pending]; Oakland Unified School District (2023) PERB Decision No. 2875, p. 16, fn. 11; San Francisco, supra, PERB Decision No. 2846-M, p. 18, fn. 15.) (pp. 14-15.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	169	04/23/24