Keyword Search by Headnotes - California Public Employment Relations Board

Decision	Description	PERC Vol.	PERC Index	Date
2900M	* * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * County of Santa Clara 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated Under the MMBA, the scope of representation “shall include all matters relating to employment conditions and employer-employee relations, including, but not limited to, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, except, however, that the scope of representation shall not include consideration of the merits, necessity, or organization of any service or activity provided by law or executive order.” (Gov. Code, § 3504.) If precedent does not already delineate whether a matter falls within the scope of representation, the first analytical step is to place the matter in one of three categories, each with its own implications for the scope of representation: (1) “decisions that ‘have only an indirect and attenuated impact on the employment relationship’ and thus are not mandatory subjects of bargaining,” such as advertising, product design, and financing; (2) “decisions directly defining the employment relationship, such as wages, workplace rules, and the order of succession of layoffs and recalls,” which are “always mandatory subjects of bargaining”; and (3) “decisions that directly affect employment, such as eliminating jobs, but nonetheless may not be mandatory subjects of bargaining because they involve ‘a change in the scope and direction of the enterprise’ or, in other words, the employer’s ‘retained freedom to manage its affairs unrelated to employment.’” (City and County of San Francisco (2022) PERB Decision No. 2846-M, pp. 15-18, citing International Assn. of Fire Fighters, Local 188, AFL-CIO v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 259, 272-273.) (pp. 13-14.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	169	04/23/24
2900M	* * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * County of Santa Clara 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General County’s claim that it had no duty to bargain over certain proposals because the responsibility for making the changes lie foremost with another entity ignores both the requirement that an employer bargain to the extent of its discretion, as well as an equally important principle: a bargaining party can lawfully make a proposal that is contingent on its counterpart attempting in good faith to convince a third party to take a specified action. (See, e.g., State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (1998) PERB Decision No. 1249-S, adopting warning letter at p. 4 [employer lawfully proposed that union support specified future legislation].) (p. 24.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	169	04/23/24
2900M	* * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * County of Santa Clara 605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain The County violated its duty to bargain when it flatly refused to bargain, to the extent of the discretion vested in its Board of Supervisor, over bylaw revisions on allied health professionals’ practice privileges. Even if the County had a good faith basis to doubt the extent of its bargaining duty, the County at least had a duty to meet with the union in good faith and seek to clarify, which it did not do. (p. 19 & fn. 9.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	169	04/23/24
2900M	* * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * County of Santa Clara 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 fact that the County’s Board of Supervisors (BOS) has a limited role in changing medical staff bylaws does not equate to the existence of an immutable, externally imposed mandate. (County of Sacramento (2020) PERB Decision No. 2745-M, p. 18.) Rather, the BOS retained certain discretion and the County had to negotiate to the extent of that discretion. (Ibid.) Pursuant to statute, the extent of the County’s discretion was that its BOS could not unreasonably withhold approval. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 2282.5, subd. (a)(6); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 22, § 70701, subd. (a)(8).) Thus, while the County might lawfully tell the union in negotiations that its BOS had little choice absent clear problems with the proposed revisions, that is not what the County did. Indeed, at a minimum, the County had a duty to continue meeting with SEIU to clarify the extent of any decision bargaining obligation and to bargain effects. Instead, it flatly refused to bargain. (p. 16.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	169	04/23/24
2900M	* * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * County of Santa Clara 602.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General Under the MMBA, the scope of representation “shall include all matters relating to employment conditions and employer-employee relations, including, but not limited to, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, except, however, that the scope of representation shall not include consideration of the merits, necessity, or organization of any service or activity provided by law or executive order.” (Gov. Code, § 3504.) If precedent does not already delineate whether a matter falls within the scope of representation, the first analytical step is to place the matter in one of three categories, each with its own implications for the scope of representation: (1) “decisions that ‘have only an indirect and attenuated impact on the employment relationship’ and thus are not mandatory subjects of bargaining,” such as advertising, product design, and financing; (2) “decisions directly defining the employment relationship, such as wages, workplace rules, and the order of succession of layoffs and recalls,” which are “always mandatory subjects of bargaining”; and (3) “decisions that directly affect employment, such as eliminating jobs, but nonetheless may not be mandatory subjects of bargaining because they involve ‘a change in the scope and direction of the enterprise’ or, in other words, the employer’s ‘retained freedom to manage its affairs unrelated to employment.’” (City and County of San Francisco (2022) PERB Decision No. 2846-M, pp. 15-18, citing International Assn. of Fire Fighters, Local 188, AFL-CIO v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 259, 272-273.) (pp. 13-14.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	169	04/23/24
2900M	* * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * County of Santa Clara 602.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General Where it is unclear whether the employer has a duty to bargain, it must meet with the exclusive representative in good faith to clarify the extent to which all or part of its contemplated change is subject to bargaining. (Healdsburg Union High School District and Healdsburg Union School District/San Mateo City School District (1984) PERB Decision No. 375, p. 10 [failure to seek clarification violates the duty to negotiate in good faith]; accord City of Palo Alto v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 1271, 1309 [a party asserting it need not bargain over a topic has a duty to meet with its counterpart, give its rationale, and enter into negotiations over any aspects that, after clarification, fall within the scope of bargaining]; Cerritos Community College District (2022) PERB Decision No. 2819, pp. 23-24, fn. 9 [employer obligation to clarify]; State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (1986) PERB Decision No. 574-S, p. 16 [same].) (p. 12.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	169	04/23/24
2900M	* * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * County of Santa Clara 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 a respondent employer made an unlawful unilateral change, a charging party union that exclusively represents a bargaining unit must prove: (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. (Kern County Hospital Authority v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 860, 878; City and County of San Francisco (2022) PERB Decision No. 2846-M, pp. 9-10.) (pp. 11-12.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	169	04/23/24
2900M	* * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * County of Santa Clara 602.08000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Duty to Bargain Effects Irrespective of whether a decision falls within the scope of representation, if the decision has reasonably foreseeable effects on represented employees’ terms and conditions of employment, the employer must provide adequate advance notice and opportunity to bargain in good faith over the decision’s implementation and effects. (International Assn. of Fire Fighters, Local 188, AFL-CIO v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 259, 265 & 276 (Richmond Firefighters).) PERB uses the word “effects” as shorthand for the broad category that comprises both the effects and implementation of a decision on a non-mandatory bargaining subject. (Oakland Unified School District (2023) PERB Decision No. 2875, p. 10 (Oakland).) Negotiations over implementation typically include proposed alternatives. (Id. at p. 11.) For instance, even though an employer has no duty to bargain over a decision to lay off employees, the California Supreme Court has noted that the scope of required effects bargaining includes “the timing of layoffs and the number and identity of the employees affected.” (Richmond Firefighters, supra, at pp. 265, 276.) Thus, one purpose of effects bargaining is to permit the exclusive representative an opportunity to persuade the employer to consider alternatives that may diminish the impact of the decision on employees. (Oakland, supra, p. 11.) Effects bargaining violations are equally harmful as decision bargaining violations, as each disrupts and destabilizes employer-employee relations. In other words, the effects bargaining obligation is not an inferior duty. (Ibid.) (p. 22.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	169	04/23/24
2891M	City and County of San Francisco 1205.12000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIAL PROVISIONS; Provision of Information The Board ordered the City to provide the union with the 2016-2019 information it sought, including disaggregated race/ethnicity data. PERB acknowledged that information from 2016-2019 is no longer the most useful data set for SEIU to fulfill its statutory purposes, but that PERB will rarely find that an RFI becomes moot, lest the delay of litigation end up allowing respondents to avoid their duties. (Butte-Glenn Community College District (2022) PERB Decision No. 2834, p. 19.) Accordingly, the Board required the City to provide both the data originally requested as well as a current version thereof if requested. (County of Ventura (2018) PERB Decision No. 2600-M, pp. 44 & 46.) (pp. 22-23.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	132	02/27/24
2891M	City and County of San Francisco 1205.04000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIAL PROVISIONS; Attorneys Fees and Costs To make a union whole for an employer’s refusal to provide information, as well as to deter future violations, it may be necessary in some cases pertaining to information requests relevant to an arbitration or other separate proceeding to order monetary compensation related to: (a) full or partial attorney fees or costs related to the proceeding for which the union sought information; and/or (b) extra staff time or other resources spent in relation to the proceeding or the underlying problem the union was attempting to solve. (p. 26.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	132	02/27/24
2891M	City and County of San Francisco 1205.04000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIAL PROVISIONS; Attorneys Fees and Costs A party to a PERB matter seeking litigation expenses based upon its attorney fees and costs in that matter must normally prove 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. (Sacramento City Unified School District (2020) PERB Decision No. 2749, p. 11.) 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 another PERB matter outside of the unfair practice charge itself. A charging party can obtain such a remedy if it (or a party in privity with it) has engaged in the separate proceeding in material part to remedy, lessen, make up for, or stave off the impacts of the unfair practice. (Victor Valley Union High School District (2022) PERB Decision No. 2822, pp. 23-24; Sacramento City Unified School District (2018) 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.) Similarly, PERB directs payment of a charging party’s salaries or other bargaining and/or representation costs incurred in material part due to an unfair practice, even absent a separate proceeding. (City and County of San Francisco (2023) PERB Decision No. 2858-M, pp. 15-17; Alliance Judy Ivie Burton Technology Academy High et al. (2022) PERB Decision No. 2809, pp. 14, 31-32, 34.) In either of those contexts, make-whole relief is proper if the charging party proves that the respondent’s unlawful conduct caused harm and it is reasonably feasible to estimate the impact thereof. (City and County of San Francisco, supra, PERB Decision No. 2858-M, p. 15.) (pp. 24-25.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	132	02/27/24
2891M	City and County of San Francisco 1107.18000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Review of Findings Not Excepted To The proposed decision directed the City to provide multiple categories of information, but the City excepted only as to one category of information. The Board’s remedy included an order to provide the additional information categories that the City no longer contested, but the Board expressed no opinion as to the ALJ’s conclusions on those categories. (County of Santa Clara (2023) PERB Decision No. 2876-M, p. 3, fn. 3 [judicial appeal pending on other grounds].) (p. 2, fn. 3.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	132	02/27/24
2891M	City and County of San Francisco 604.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; Subjects of Information Disaggregated race and ethnicity data is relevant and necessary information which union needed to competently perform its representational function. Union needs to be able to contact African American unit members released from probation (or who had their probation extended) to help such employees and to investigate whether the experience of the three named employees in its grievance reflected a broader problem. Union needs to interview such employees to assess potential violations, defenses, and any other causes of racially skewed treatment of employees on probation, as well as to decide whether to push the case to arbitration, and if so to prepare for arbitration. (State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) (2012) PERB Decision No. 2285-S, pp. 9-10 [union’s ability to independently investigate potential grievance “is an essential tool for determining whether the grievance has any merit and, if it does, for providing effective representation”].) Union must be able to target its inquiries toward potential similarly situated employees so that it can “efficiently accomplish” these representational functions. (Los Angeles Unified School District (2015) PERB Decision No. 2438, p. 10.) (pp. 13-14.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	132	02/27/24
2891M	City and County of San Francisco 604.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; Subjects of Information Race/ethnicity information is relevant because of unions’ critical role in working to prevent and mitigate employment discrimination. (See, e.g., Contra Costa Community College District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2652, pp. 16-17; State of California (Department of Veterans Affairs) (2004) PERB Decision No. 1686-S, adopting proposed decision at pp. 10-11.) That role is particularly clear where the operative MOU includes a nondiscrimination clause. (p. 8.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	132	02/27/24
2891M	City and County of San Francisco 604.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; Confidentiality; Privacy The City did not meet its burden to prove that disclosing disaggregated race/ethnicity information to union invades privacy in a manner that is serious in both its nature and its scope, much less that there is a serious privacy invasion that outweighs union’s representational purpose in seeking the information. Employees’ privacy interest in their race/ethnicity is limited enough that it gives way to a union or plaintiff seeking to investigate, prevent, ameliorate, or remedy workplace discrimination. The City is not shielding race/ethnicity information from a third party that seeks to profit or benefit from the data, or that significantly risks taking actions harmful to the employees. Rather, the City raises the issue as an obstacle to disclosing data to the employees’ exclusive representative, data the union requested to assist in investigating potential discrimination. An employer interposing employees’ alleged privacy interests is a particularly weak argument when it hinders the same employees from receiving assistance, and such an argument does not normally outweigh a union’s antidiscrimination purpose. (pp. 14-16.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	132	02/27/24
2891M	City and County of San Francisco 604.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; Confidentiality; Privacy It is of little import that an employer leads employees to believe they had a protected privacy interest, as such an employer promise or practice can only be dispositive if it derives from a significant privacy right established by law. (Los Angeles Unified School District (2015) PERB Decision No. 2438, pp. 12-13 & fn. 5 [citing other authority].) (pp. 11 & 20.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	132	02/27/24
2891M	City and County of San Francisco 604.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; Confidentiality; Privacy 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 604.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; Confidentiality; Privacy 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
2891M	City and County of San Francisco 604.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; Confidentiality; Privacy If an information request implicates privacy issues, and the employer offered to bargain and it bargained in good faith to the extent requested, then the union may pursue an unfair practice charge. The focus of the charge becomes the substantive merits of the RFI and the privacy claim. Where the employer raised a significant privacy interest—meaning a legally protected interest that the RFI invades in a manner that is serious in both its nature and its scope—then a balancing test applies. (County of Tulare (2020) PERB Decision No. 2697-M, p. 13; Los Angeles Unified School District (2015) PERB Decision No. 2438, pp. 13-14, citing County of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles County Employee Relations Com. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 905, 926.) Under this test, an employer has the burden to demonstrate that the privacy interest outweighs the union’s informational need. (City and County of San Francisco (2020) PERB Decision No. 2698-M, p. 7; Contra Costa Community College District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2652, pp. 17-18; Sacramento City Unified School District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2597, pp. 11-12 & 14, fn. 8; Los Angeles Unified School District (2015) PERB Decision No. 2438, pp. 7-8.) (pp. 9-10.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	132	02/27/24
2891M	City and County of San Francisco 604.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; Confidentiality; Privacy Under the labor relations statutes PERB administers, a union’s unique representational functions may allow it a right to sensitive or confidential information. (City and County of San Francisco (2020) PERB Decision No. 2698-M, p. 7; Contra Costa Community College District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2652, p. 18 (Contra Costa); Sacramento City Unified School District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2597, p. 11 (Sacramento).) When an employer believes that a union has sought confidential information, settled procedural protocols govern how an employer must negotiate in good faith over potential accommodations, and established substantive standards govern what must occur if the parties cannot work out an accommodation. Procedurally, the employer must offer to bargain in good faith toward accommodating all legitimate competing interests, and if it instead unilaterally refuses to provide allegedly confidential information, it is liable for a violation without the need for further analysis. (City and County of San Francisco, supra, PERB Decision No. 2698-M, pp. 7 & 10-12; County of Tulare (2020) PERB Decision No. 2697-M, pp. 13-14; Contra Costa, supra, PERB Decision No. 2652, pp. 18-20; Sacramento, supra, PERB Decision No. 2597, pp. 12-14.) Bargaining parties may negotiate an accommodation that recognizes “that unions [can] be trusted to be discreet.” (Sacramento, supra, p. 13, citation omitted.) Thus, among other possibilities, the parties may enter into a confidentiality agreement or other arrangement in which the requesting union agrees to limit its use of the information to a particular purpose, and to disclose such information to union employees or attorneys only if necessary for that purpose. (Contra Costa, supra, p. 19; Sacramento, supra, pp. 12-13; Los Angeles Unified School District (2015) PERB Decision No. 2438, p. 20.) (pp. 8-9.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	132	02/27/24
2891M	City and County of San Francisco 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General The labor relations statutes PERB administers confer upon an exclusive representative, as part of its representational rights and duties, separate informational rights that are broader than those that the public holds, and which include access to sensitive and confidential employee information. (Sacramento City Unified School District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2597, pp. 10-12.) California Public Records Act defenses accordingly do not apply to RFIs arising under a labor relations statute. (Id. at p. 10; accord Butte-Glenn Community College District (2022) PERB Decision No. 2834, p. 15, fn. 9; County of Tulare (2020) PERB Decision No. 2697-M, pp. 14-15, fn. 9.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	132	02/27/24
2891M	City and County of San Francisco 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General Merely because an employer must provide information to a union in light of its role as an exclusive representative, the employer need not provide the same information to others. (Boardman v. Inslee (9th Cir. 2020) 978 F.3d 1092, 1110-1113 [law does not discriminate in providing union preferential access to information based on legal status as exclusive representative].) (p. 15, fn. 9.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	132	02/27/24
2891M	City and County of San Francisco 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General Union requested information relevant to its class action grievance asserting that the City violated the MOU’s antidiscrimination provision by disproportionately releasing from probation or extending the probation of African American bargaining unit members. In response, the City stated that it would provide the data only in aggregate form. When an employer unilaterally states such a position without offering to bargain in good faith over accommodating all relevant interests, the employer violates its duty to bargain in good faith and no further analysis is necessary to establish liability. (p. 13.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	132	02/27/24
2891M	City and County of San Francisco 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General An employer must normally provide an exclusive representative with all information that is necessary and relevant to its right to represent bargaining unit employees regarding mandatory subjects of bargaining. (Butte-Glenn Community College District (2022) PERB Decision No. 2834, p. 9 (Butte-Glenn); City and County of San Francisco (2020) PERB Decision No. 2698-M, p. 6; Contra Costa Community College District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2652, pp. 5, 16-17 (Contra Costa); Sacramento City Unified School District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2597, p. 8 (Sacramento).) This is a liberal, discovery-type standard akin to the standard California courts use to determine relevance, and, notably, “necessary” and “relevant” are interchangeable terms that do not have separate meanings. (Butte-Glenn, supra, p. 9; Contra Costa, supra, pp. 5-6; Sacramento, supra, p. 8.) (pp. 7-8.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	132	02/27/24
2891M	City and County of San Francisco 101.03000: PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; APPLICABILITY OF AND CONFLICTS WITH OTHER STATUTES; NLRA/LMRDA Precedent 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, and PERB accordingly consider federal precedent only for its potential persuasive value. (The Accelerated Schools (2023) PERB Decision No. 2855, pp. 20-31; Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 (Wagner et al.) (2021) PERB Decision No. 2782-M, p. 9, fn. 10; County of San Joaquin (2021) PERB Decision No. 2761-M, pp. 24, 33, 45-48 & fn. 19; City of Bellflower (2020) PERB Order No. Ad-480-M, p. 11; accord County of San Joaquin v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 1053, 1073; Social Workers’ Union, Local 535 v. Alameda County Welfare Dept. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 382, 391.) (p. 12, fn. 7.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	132	02/27/24