| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2881E |
West Contra Costa Unified School District
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
New procedures for assigning classes impacted work opportunities for at least the fall 2021 semester and possibly later semesters or years as well, which is sufficient to satisfy generalized effect or continuing impact element. (Oxnard Union High School District (2022) PERB Decision No. 2803, pp. 30-31; San Bernardino Community College District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2599, p. 8.) Moreover, the District further demonstrated a generalized effect or continuing impact by asserting a non-existent management right. (Sacramento City Unified School District (2020) PERB Decision No. 2749, p. 8 [continuing impact shown if change either alters a term or condition of employment or involves employer assertion of non-existent right that could be relevant to future disputes].) (pp. 15-16.) more or view all topics or full text. |
48 | 79 | 11/06/23 |
| 2881E |
West Contra Costa Unified School District
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
Given that the District unilaterally created a brand-new policy, union’s unilateral change claim does not necessarily turn on establishing a firm prior policy. (See, e.g., Regents of the University of California (2004) PERB Decision No. 1700-H, adopting proposed decision at pp. 61-62 [letter prohibiting demonstrations inside university’s central administration building constituted unilateral change, where previously employer had no such policy].) (p. 14.) more or view all topics or full text. |
48 | 79 | 11/06/23 |
| 2881E |
West Contra Costa Unified School District
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
There are three primary means of showing that a party changed or deviated from the status quo. (Oxnard Union High School District (2022) PERB Decision No. 2803 PERB Decision No. 2803, p. 31.) Specifically, a charging party satisfies this element by showing any of the following: (1) deviation from a written 10 agreement or written policy; (2) a change in established past practice; or (3) a newly created policy or application or enforcement of existing policy in a new way. (Ibid.) (pp. 9-10.) more or view all topics or full text. |
48 | 79 | 11/06/23 |
| 2881E |
West Contra Costa Unified School District
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
Even assuming for the sake of argument that the new assignment procedures were no more than effects of a decision involving a non-mandatory topic of bargaining, there is no tenable argument that the District complied with Compton Community College District (1989) PERB Decision No. 720 (Compton), which allows an employer to implement its decision before completing effects negotiations if it can establish each of three elements: (1) the implementation date was based on an immutable deadline or an important managerial interest, such that a delay in implementation beyond the date chosen would effectively undermine the employer’s right to make the decision; (2) the employer gave sufficient advance notice of the decision and implementation date to allow for meaningful negotiations prior to implementation; and (3) the employer negotiated in good faith prior to and after implementation. (Id. at pp. 14-15.) Indeed, even if the first element were satisfied, the District did not show that it provided advance notice, much less with sufficient time to allow meaningful pre-implementation negotiations. The District therefore cannot establish the second and third Compton elements. (p. 17, fn. 12.) more or view all topics or full text. |
48 | 79 | 11/06/23 |
| 2881E |
West Contra Costa Unified School District
602.02000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Adequate Prior Notice and Opportunity to Bargain
Notice is inadequate when a union first learns of a decision or change as a fait accompli. (County of Merced (2020) PERB Decision No. 2740-M, p. 20.) (p. 17.) more or view all topics or full text. |
48 | 79 | 11/06/23 |
| 2881E |
West Contra Costa Unified School District
602.02000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Adequate Prior Notice and Opportunity to Bargain
Board of Education meetings and associated public documents generally do not afford a union sufficient notice of a potential change, unless the employer sends such a document to a union official, in a manner reasonably calculated to draw attention to a specific item and with adequate time for good faith negotiations to ensue. (Oakland Unified School District (2023) PERB Decision No. 2875, p. 21; Regents of the University of California (2004) PERB Decision No. 1689-H, adopting proposed decision at p. 45; Victor Valley Union High School District (1986) PERB Decision No. 565, pp. 5-6 & fn. 6.) (p. 16.) more or view all topics or full text. |
48 | 79 | 11/06/23 |
| 2881E |
West Contra Costa Unified School District
602.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
EERA’s requirement of good faith negotiations is a critical means of maintaining or restoring stable labor relations in a wide variety of circumstances. (Oxnard Union High School District (2022) PERB Decision No. 2803, p. 57.) District could have clarified how survey responses would be used to assign courses and avoided the overwhelming sense that the District had blindsided teachers by misusing their survey responses. (p. 11, fn. 9.) more or view all topics or full text. |
48 | 79 | 11/06/23 |
| 2881E |
West Contra Costa Unified School District
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 violated its decision bargaining obligation, an exclusive representative 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 employees’ 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.) (p. 9.) more or view all topics or full text. |
48 | 79 | 11/06/23 |
| 2881E |
West Contra Costa Unified School District
601.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand
After District contravened earlier promises regarding scheduling of English as Second Language teachers, it was too late for good faith negotiations over the scheduling process to occur, as demand to bargain would be futile. (Oakland Unified School District (2023) PERB Decision No. 2875, p. 9, fn. 6; County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Decision No. 2321-M, p. 24 [“In the face of unilateral implementation, a demand to bargain is futile,” because at that point there is no “level playing field” for fair negotiations to occur].) (p. 7, fn. 7.) more or view all topics or full text. |
48 | 79 | 11/06/23 |
| 2868M |
El Camino Healthcare District, El Camino Hospital, and Silicon Valley Medical Development, LLC
1201.01000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; REINSTATEMENT; BACKPAY BENEFITS; In General
To remedy an effects bargaining obligation, PERB generally directs the offending employer to provide back pay from the first date that employees began to experience harm until the earliest of: (1) the date the parties reach an agreement, typically as part of complying with PERB’s effects bargaining order; (2) the date the parties reach a good faith final impasse, including exhaustion of any required or agreed upon post-impasse procedures; or (3) the date the union fails to pursue effects negotiations in good faith. PERB ordered employer to reimburse extra costs incurred in material part because of unilateral change in work location, with make-whole relief retroactive to the first date of harm and continuing until the earliest of: (a) the date the parties reach an agreement on the effects of the work relocation; (b) the date the parties reach a good faith impasse as to such effects, including exhaustion in good faith any impasse resolution procedures that may be required or agreed upon; or (c) the date the union waives its right to bargain by failing to request negotiations, or fails to bargain in good faith. (p. 62.) more or view all topics or full text. |
48 | 36 | 08/15/23 |
| 2868M |
El Camino Healthcare District, El Camino Hospital, and Silicon Valley Medical Development, LLC
1107.13000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Administrative and Judicial Notice
The parties introduced into evidence multiple web pages from Respondents’ various websites. To the extent the Board cited web pages the parties did not introduce, including more updated versions of the same web pages introduced into evidence, the Board took administrative notice of those web pages (State of California (California Correctional Health Care Services) (2022) PERB Decision No. 2823-S, p. 8, and the statements on which the Board relied are admissible admissions (Oxnard Union High School District (2022) PERB Decision No. 2803, p. 23, fn. 11.) (pp. 8-9, fn. 8.) more or view all topics or full text. |
48 | 36 | 08/15/23 |
| 2868M |
El Camino Healthcare District, El Camino Hospital, and Silicon Valley Medical Development, LLC
1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations
While union’s unfair practice charge and post-hearing briefs argue that employees at the acquired clinics belong in the existing unit, OGC neither dismissed that allegation nor included it in the complaint. The union was therefore within its rights to move to amend the complaint to add such an allegation, but it did not do so. PERB expressed no opinion on this allegation, as it does not meet PERB’s standard for unalleged violations. (Superior Court v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 158, 192-193 [to pursue unalleged claim, charging party must show the claim falls within the limitations period and relates to the same course of conduct at issue in the complaint, and that respondent had adequate notice and opportunity to defend against the claim, including an opportunity to examine witnesses and present documents].) (p. 49, fn. 30.) more or view all topics or full text. |
48 | 36 | 08/15/23 |
| 2868M |
El Camino Healthcare District, El Camino Hospital, and Silicon Valley Medical Development, LLC
1000.02164: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Other
Dress codes are a mandatory subject of bargaining. (p. 52.) more or view all topics or full text. |
48 | 36 | 08/15/23 |
| 2868M |
El Camino Healthcare District, El Camino Hospital, and Silicon Valley Medical Development, LLC
1000.02163: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Work Rules
Dress codes are a mandatory subject of bargaining. (p. 52.) more or view all topics or full text. |
48 | 36 | 08/15/23 |
| 2868M |
El Camino Healthcare District, El Camino Hospital, and Silicon Valley Medical Development, LLC
1000.02029: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Disciplinary Action
In Contra Costa Community College District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2652, the Board cited Total Security Management (2016) 364 NLRB 1532 (Total Security) with approval. In Total Security, the NLRB held that an employer has a duty to bargain with a union before unilaterally disciplining an employee, where the employer is imposing the discipline based on an exercise of discretion rather than pursuant to preexisting standards of conduct. (Total Security, supra, 364 NLRB at p. 1532.) Such an issue, the NLRB explained, typically arises after a union is first certified or recognized, but before a contract is in place. (Ibid.) The NLRB concluded that an employer must provide its employees’ bargaining representative notice and the opportunity to bargain before exercising its discretion to impose serious discipline on individual employees, absent an agreement with the union providing for a process, such as a grievance-arbitration system, to address such disputes. (Ibid.) The Board, however, declined to consider whether Total Security might apply in a successorship context where the record did not demonstrate whether the acquired clinics had any existing disciplinary policies or practices before two employees were terminated, and, if so, what they were. (pp. 53-54.) more or view all topics or full text. |
48 | 36 | 08/15/23 |
| 2868M |
El Camino Healthcare District, El Camino Hospital, and Silicon Valley Medical Development, LLC
1000.02002: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Access - Subject of Bargaining
Solicitation and distribution policies are a mandatory subject of bargaining. (Regents of the University of California (2012) PERB Decision No. 2300-H, pp. 20-27.) (p. 54.) more or view all topics or full text. |
48 | 36 | 08/15/23 |
| 2868M |
El Camino Healthcare District, El Camino Hospital, and Silicon Valley Medical Development, LLC
602.02000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Adequate Prior Notice and Opportunity to Bargain
Employer violated its duty to bargain effects of decision to change work location when exclusive representative first learned of the unilateral change after its implementation. (See City of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2351-M, pp. 39-40 [when the exclusive representative first learns of a unilateral change after its implementation, “the ‘notice’ is nothing more than ‘notice’ of a fait accompli and the question of waiver never arises”].) (p. 58.) more or view all topics or full text. |
48 | 36 | 08/15/23 |
| 2868M |
El Camino Healthcare District, El Camino Hospital, and Silicon Valley Medical Development, LLC
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
Even when an employer has no obligation to bargain over a decision, it must provide notice and an opportunity to meet and confer over any reasonably foreseeable effects the decision may have on matters within the scope of representation. (County of Santa Clara (2021) PERB Decision No. 2799-M, pp. 24-25.) An employer normally may not implement the decision while effects bargaining continues and instead must wait until the parties have reached agreement or impasse over the negotiable effects of the decision. (Id. at p. 25.) The employer violates its duty to bargain if it fails to provide adequate advance notice, and in such circumstances the union need not ask to bargain effects as a prerequisite to filing an unfair practice charge. (Ibid.) However, where an employer does provide adequate notice, the union must request to bargain any reasonably foreseeable effects on negotiable matters. (Ibid.) The union’s request to bargain need not be formalistic or burdensome, nor anticipate every imaginable effect a proposed change may have, but rather must only identify negotiable areas of impact, thereby placing the employer on notice that it believes the employer’s proposed decision would affect one or more negotiable topics. (Ibid.) (pp. 57-58.) more or view all topics or full text. |
48 | 36 | 08/15/23 |
| 2868M |
El Camino Healthcare District, El Camino Hospital, and Silicon Valley Medical Development, LLC
601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining
An employer typically need not bargain over its decision to change employees’ reporting location but must provide adequate notice and opportunity to bargain over the decision’s effects. (Rio Hondo Community College District (2013) PERB Decision No. 2313, pp. 18-19.) (p. 57.) more or view all topics or full text. |
48 | 36 | 08/15/23 |
| 2868M |
El Camino Healthcare District, El Camino Hospital, and Silicon Valley Medical Development, LLC
601.02000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Persons Required to Bargain; Alter Egos, Joint Employers (See also 201)
Multiple entities have a joint-employer relationship if each entity has at least a partial right to control certain employment conditions or direct the manner and method in which work is performed. (County of Ventura (2018) PERB Decision No. 2600-M, pp. 28-29.) Under the single-employer doctrine, in contrast, PERB looks at four factors: (1) functional integration of operations; (2) centralized control of labor relations; (3) common management; and (4) common ownership or common financial control. (Id. at p. 18.) Single employer status does not require the presence of all four factors. (Ibid.) PERB’s inquiry considers not only how many factors are present, but also to what extent they are present. (Id. at p. 19.) In assessing a single-employer claim, integrated provision of services and use of a common business name are significant factors. (Id. at pp. 19-20 & 42-43.) The four factors assist PERB in analyzing the practical realities to determine whether requiring bargaining on a single-employer basis will foster fair and effective collective bargaining by bringing to the table the parties who are able to work out difficult issues and foster harmonious labor relations. (Id. at pp. 22, 25 & fn. 29.) (pp. 35-36.) Entities in a single-employer relationship must bargain over all terms and conditions of employment, while those in a joint employer relationship must bargain only over terms they control or partially control. (Id. at p. 33.) Neither a joint-employer relationship nor a single-employer relationship reflects a formal merger of separate entities. (Id. at pp. 40-41.) Rather, each is a legal construct for collective bargaining purposes. (Id. at pp. 40-43.) Such a construct has legal significance only for the purpose of representation and collective bargaining. (Id. at pp. 41-42 & 49.) (pp. 36-37.) A single-employer or joint-employer finding neither expands nor contracts the entities under PERB’s jurisdiction. (Id. at pp. 41-43.) Thus, when a single-employer or joint-employer relationship exists, PERB asserts jurisdiction only over those entities in the relationship that otherwise fall under PERB jurisdiction. (Id. at pp. 39-43.) (p. 37.) more or view all topics or full text. |
48 | 36 | 08/15/23 |
| 2868M |
El Camino Healthcare District, El Camino Hospital, and Silicon Valley Medical Development, LLC
411.01000: EMPLOYER MASS COMMUNICATIONS UNDER SECTION 3553; In General
The Prohibition on Public Employers Deterring or Discouraging Union Membership (PEDD) applies to employers subject to any of California’s public sector labor relations statutes, including the MMBA. (PEDD, § 3552(c).) (pp. 4, fn. 5.) The PEDD governs an employer’s obligations before disseminating a mass communication concerning exclusively represented employees’ right to join or support an employee organization or to refrain from doing so. (PEDD, § 3553(b).) Specifically, before doing so the employer must meet and confer with the exclusive representative on the content of the communication. (Ibid.) If the parties do not reach agreement and the employer still chooses to disseminate the communication, then the exclusive representative has the right to draft its own communication and have the employer disseminate the two communications together. (Id., § 3553(c).) PERB broadly construes the word “support,” as used in section 3553(b), to refer to any form of support, whether financial or non-financial. (Regents of the University of California (2022) PERB Decision No. 2835-H, pp. 14-15 & p. 17, fn. 10.) (pp. 58-59.) more or view all topics or full text. |
48 | 36 | 08/15/23 |
| 2868M |
El Camino Healthcare District, El Camino Hospital, and Silicon Valley Medical Development, LLC
401.05000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Union Activity During Nonworking Time or in Nonworking Areas
An employer typically does not afford reasonable access if it infringes on an employee’s ability to engage in protected activity either in a nonwork area or during a nonwork time. (County of Tulare (2020) PERB Decision No. 2697-M, p. 20.) For this reason, any employer rule must clearly allow protected activity in nonwork areas and nonwork time. (Ibid. [employers must refrain from overbroad restrictions such as those that apply “during the workday,” without differentiating between times an employee is working and times an employee is taking a break]; see also Superior Court v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 158, 195-197 [rule prohibiting protected activities in “working areas” was unlawfully overbroad because it could be interpreted as categorical ban on all such activities anywhere on employer’s premises].) Even if a workplace includes sensitive areas focused on acute patient care, the employer must narrowly tailor its rules and afford access to the fullest degree possible given its unique constraints. (County of San Joaquin (2021) PERB Decision No. 2775-M, pp. 28, 33-34, 38-39; County of Riverside (2012) PERB Decision No. 2233-M, p. 9 (Riverside); Regents of the University of California, University of California at Los Angeles Medical Center (1983) PERB Decision No. 329-H, p. 10 (UCLA).) A hospital’s non-discriminatory restriction on non-business solicitation and distribution is presumptively valid if it covers only immediate patient care areas. (Regents of the University of California (2018) PERB Decision No. 2616-H, p. 11; Riverside, supra, PERB Decision No. 2233-M, p. 9.) But a hospital must normally allow both employee and non-employee union representatives to traverse patient care areas if necessary to reach areas where PERB precedent allows non-business activities. (Riverside, supra, PERB Decision No. 2233-M, pp. 9 & 11; UCLA, supra, PERB Decision No. 329-H, pp. 9-10, 14, 16-17.) (pp. 55-56.) more or view all topics or full text. |
48 | 36 | 08/15/23 |
| 2868M |
El Camino Healthcare District, El Camino Hospital, and Silicon Valley Medical Development, LLC
401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right
Employer’s policy that prohibits “[t]he solicitation of employees by employee union representatives and non-employee union organizers during an employee’s work time and/or in patient care areas at any time,” and also broadly prohibits non-employees from soliciting “membership in, or participation on behalf of any social, fraternal, political, religious or other organization” and distributing literature on employer’s premises at any time, are overbroad and therefore unlawful. First, the restriction against non-employee access is so broad that it could reasonably be interpreted to encompass union staff. Second, the rule’s categorical prohibition against distributing literature on employer premises at any time is incompatible with the MMBA, as it extends to distribution in non-patient care areas during non-work time. (pp. 56-57.) more or view all topics or full text. |
48 | 36 | 08/15/23 |
| 2868M |
El Camino Healthcare District, El Camino Hospital, and Silicon Valley Medical Development, LLC
401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right
An access rule is unlawful if, on either a facial or as applied basis, it singles out protected conduct or speech, as compared to non-protected activities or speech. (County of Tulare (2020) PERB Decision No. 2697-M, pp. 18-19.) Even if a rule is nondiscriminatory, it must allow an exclusive representative reasonable access to employer property to communicate with bargaining unit employees, distribute literature, investigate workplace conditions, and assess contractual and statutory compliance. (County of San Joaquin (2021) PERB Decision No. 2775-M, pp. 26-39.) The employer bears the burden of proving that a restriction on access to its premises is: (1) necessary for safe or efficient operations; and (2) narrowly drawn to avoid overbroad, unnecessary interference with protected rights. (Id. at pp. 26-27.) These principles apply irrespective of whether the person seeking access is a bargaining unit member or a union representative who does not work for the employer. (Id. at p. 27.) (p. 55.) more or view all topics or full text. |
48 | 36 | 08/15/23 |
| 2868M |
El Camino Healthcare District, El Camino Hospital, and Silicon Valley Medical Development, LLC
401.03000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Ban on Distribution or Solicitation
Employer’s policy that prohibits “[t]he solicitation of employees by employee union representatives and non-employee union organizers during an employee’s work time and/or in patient care areas at any time,” and also broadly prohibits non-employees from soliciting “membership in, or participation on behalf of any social, fraternal, political, religious or other organization” and distributing literature on employer’s premises at any time, are overbroad and therefore unlawful. First, the restriction against non-employee access is so broad that it could reasonably be interpreted to encompass union staff. Second, the rule’s categorical prohibition against distributing literature on employer premises at any time is incompatible with the MMBA, as it extends to distribution in non-patient care areas during non-work time. (pp. 56-57.) more or view all topics or full text. |
48 | 36 | 08/15/23 |
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.
