| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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
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
401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case.
The complaint allegation that an employer’s new solicitation and distribution policy interferes with protected union and employee rights is independent of any other claim. (State of California (State Water Resources Control Board) (2022) PERB Decision No. 2830-S, p. 10 & fn. 10 [if a charge or complaint alleges interference based upon the same conduct giving rise to another claim, the interference claim is independent if it can be established without the other claim being established].) (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
201.04000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; Joint Employer, Single Employer, and Alter Ego Doctrines
In assessing a single employer claim, integrated provision of services and use of a common business name are significant factors. (County of Ventura (2018) PERB Decision No. 2600-M, pp. 19-20 & 42-43 (Ventura); California Virtual Academies (2016) PERB Decision No. 2484, pp. 67 & 70.) The Board found strong evidence of functional integration where El Camino Hospital (ECH), a governmental subdivision, created Silicon Valley Medical Development, LLC (SVMD) to effectuate the public hospital District’s purposes and invested heavily in SVMD’s success. Moreover, at the time of the dispute, SVMD’s Board of Managers and top leaders were ECH officials. SVMD’s President continued to serve at ECH’s pleasure and to report to ECH’s CEO. ECH had approval power over SVMD’s annual budget as part of ECH’s consolidated budget. Thus, while SVMD developed and administered its own proposed budget, ECH had full authority whether to approve that budget. Because the District not only owned ECH but exclusively relied on ECH to carry out the District’s entire mission, the integration extended to the District as well. (pp. 38-40.) The Board explained that centralized control of labor relations does not necessarily depend on centralized authority over day-to-day matters, as “devolved management structures are common even when there is only one entity involved in managing a public enterprise.” (Ventura, supra, at pp. 21-22.) The Board balanced ECH’s overarching control over SVMD via SVMD’s Board of Managers and SVMD’s President and Vice President of Human Resources, as well as its authority whether to approve SVMD’s budget, against certain of the parties’ factual stipulations, and concluded that the centralized control of labor relations factor weighed at least slightly against the single-employer conclusion. (pp. 40-44.) On the other hand, the evidence weighed in favor of finding common management. Common management can be found even in the presence of a dispersed management structure (Ventura, supra, PERB Decision No. 2600-M, p. 24), which is consistent with the Board’s conclusion here. (p. 44.) Strong evidence of common ownership and financial control existed between the District, which owns ECH, which in turn owns SVMD. ECH provided SVMD substantial funding, without which it would not exist. ECH has full authority whether to approve SVMD’s budget, and SVMD’s profits and losses are allocated to ECH and SVMD’s financial performance appears as a specific line item in ECH’s reports. The facts do not point to an arm’s length business agreement. Balancing the above factors, the Board concluded that the District, ECH, and SVMD are parties to a single-employer relationship. (pp. 45-46.) 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
201.04000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; Joint Employer, Single Employer, and Alter Ego Doctrines
A single-employer or joint-employer finding neither expands nor contracts the entities under PERB’s jurisdiction. (County of Ventura (2018) PERB Decision No. 2600-M, pp. 41-43.) PERB does not gain jurisdiction over an entity merely because it is part of a single-employer relationship with a PERB-covered entity. (Id. at p. 40.) 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
201.04000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; Joint Employer, Single Employer, and Alter Ego Doctrines
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. (County of Ventura (2018) PERB Decision No. 2600-M, 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.) 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
201.04000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; Joint Employer, Single Employer, and Alter Ego Doctrines
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.) In assessing a single-employer claim, 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.) 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.) 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
201.03000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; Successorship Doctrine
The circumstances in which a successor employer takes over determines whether the employer has the right to set initial terms and conditions of employment that differ from those that previously applied (in which case the updated terms become the status quo pending negotiations). Specifically, a successor employer has the right to set new initial terms unless it is already “perfectly clear” that the employer plans to hire enough of the predecessor’s employees to make it evident that the union’s majority status will continue. (See First Student, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Bd. (D.C. Cir. 2019) 935 F.3d 604, 608-610 [discussing the “perfectly clear” rule as applied in the private sector].) The Board clarified that for employers under PERB jurisdiction: While an entity taking over a predecessor’s operation can lawfully announce new initial terms if it is not in the “perfectly clear” category, by the same token if the overall circumstances thereafter shift sufficiently that the employer becomes a “perfectly clear” successor, at that point it has a duty to bargain in good faith to impasse or agreement before making any further changes. (pp. 49-50.) 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
201.03000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; Successorship Doctrine
PERB applies a modified version of the successorship doctrine developed by federal courts and the NLRB under the NLRA. (County of Santa Clara (2019) PERB Decision No. 2670-M, p. 20.) An employer is a legal successor to a predecessor entity, and must therefore recognize and bargain with a union that exclusively represented employees of the predecessor entity, if: (1) more than half of the putative successor’s employees in a relevant bargaining unit previously worked for the predecessor; (2) there is substantial continuity of operations between the putative successor and the predecessor; and (3) the unit at issue is or can be an appropriate unit within the successor employer’s unit structure. (Id. at pp. 20-32.) While this test is akin to that which the NLRB applies, PERB does not necessarily apply each element in the same manner as the NLRB. (See, e.g., id. at pp. 27-32 [deviating from NLRB precedent as to the third successorship element where successor proved that the predecessor’s bargaining unit should properly be merged into successor’s existing, larger, exclusively represented unit, and the union representing the successor’s larger unit was willing to augment it with the newly merged employees].) (p. 48.) 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
201.01000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; In General
A single-employer or joint-employer finding neither expands nor contracts the entities under PERB’s jurisdiction. (County of Ventura (2018) PERB Decision No. 2600-M, pp. 41-43.) PERB does not gain jurisdiction over an entity merely because it is part of a single-employer relationship with a PERB-covered entity. (Id. at p. 40.) 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
201.01000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; In General
The Board determined that Silicon Valley Medical Development, LLC (SVMD), a single-member limited liability corporation wholly owned by El Camino Hospital (ECH), a “governmental subdivision” under MMBA section 3501(c), is an MMBA-covered employer. PERB interprets “governmental subdivisions” covered under MMBA section 3501(c) to correspond to “political subdivisions” excluded from the NLRA under 29 United States Code section 152(2). (National Labor Relations Bd. v. Natural Gas Utility Dist. of Hawkins County, Tenn. (1971) 402 U.S. 600 (Hawkins County); Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (2012) PERB Decision No. 2263-M, p. 25 (Transit Authority); El Camino Hospital District (2009) PERB Decision No. 2033-M, pp. 17-18.) Hawkins County held that a private or quasi-private entity qualifies as a political subdivision if it is either: “(1) created directly by the State, so as to constitute a department or administrative arm of the government, or (2) administered by individuals who are responsible to public officials or to the general electorate.” (Hawkins County, supra, 402 U.S. at pp. 604-605.) The Board found that SVMD qualifies as a political subdivision under the second Hawkins County category. To reach this conclusion, PERB analyzed facts relevant to this inquiry under three main headings: “Public Purpose,” “Public Funding,” and “Public Control.” (Workforce Investment Board (2014) PERB Order No. Ad-418-M, pp. 24-26 (WIB).) (pp. 25-27.) SVMD is subject to public control, an often-vital factor in deciding whether an entity is administered by individuals who are responsible to public officials or voters. If public officials have authority to decide who fills a majority of seats on an entity’s governing board, that means the entity is administered by individuals who are responsible to public officials or the general electorate. (Transit Authority, supra, PERB Decision No. 2263-M, p. 24; accord WIB, supra, PERB Order No. 418-M, pp. 8, 11, 13-14, 18, 25-28, & 30-31, and adopting administrative determination at pp. 2 & 4.) SVMD’s leaders are ultimately responsible to El Camino Hospital District officials, and in addition, its leaders are responsible to ECH, which is a public agency for MMBA purposes. (pp. 27-31.) Moreover, SVMD has received significant public funding, and its goals fall squarely within the District’s public purposes. For these reasons, the Board determined SVMD falls within the second Hawkins County category and is a “governmental subdivision” within the meaning of MMBA section 3501(c). (pp. 31-34.) 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
101.04000: PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; APPLICABILITY OF AND CONFLICTS WITH OTHER STATUTES; Statutues in Other Jurisdictions
The Board determined that Silicon Valley Medical Development, LLC (SVMD), a single-member limited liability corporation wholly owned by El Camino Hospital (ECH), a “governmental subdivision” under MMBA section 3501(c), is an MMBA-covered employer. PERB interprets “governmental subdivisions” covered under MMBA section 3501(c) to correspond to “political subdivisions” excluded from the NLRA under 29 United States Code section 152(2). (National Labor Relations Bd. v. Natural Gas Utility Dist. of Hawkins County, Tenn. (1971) 402 U.S. 600 (Hawkins County); Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (2012) PERB Decision No. 2263-M, p. 25 (Transit Authority); El Camino Hospital District (2009) PERB Decision No. 2033-M, pp. 17-18.) Hawkins County held that a private or quasi-private entity qualifies as a political subdivision if it is either: “(1) created directly by the State, so as to constitute a department or administrative arm of the government, or (2) administered by individuals who are responsible to public officials or to the general electorate.” (Hawkins County, supra, 402 U.S. at pp. 604-605.) The Board found that SVMD qualifies as a political subdivision under the second Hawkins County category. To reach this conclusion, PERB analyzed facts relevant to this inquiry under three main headings: “Public Purpose,” “Public Funding,” and “Public Control.” (Workforce Investment Board (2014) PERB Order No. Ad-418-M, pp. 24-26 (WIB).) (pp. 25-27.) SVMD is subject to public control, an often-vital factor in deciding whether an entity is administered by individuals who are responsible to public officials or voters. If public officials have authority to decide who fills a majority of seats on an entity’s governing board, that means the entity is administered by individuals who are responsible to public officials or the general electorate. (Transit Authority, supra, PERB Decision No. 2263-M, p. 24; accord WIB, supra, PERB Order No. 418-M, pp. 8, 11, 13-14, 18, 25-28, & 30-31, and adopting administrative determination at pp. 2 & 4.) SVMD’s leaders are ultimately responsible to El Camino Hospital District officials, and in addition, its leaders are responsible to ECH, which is a public agency for MMBA purposes. (pp. 27-31.) Moreover, SVMD has received significant public funding, and its goals fall squarely within the District’s public purposes. For these reasons, the Board determined SVMD falls within the second Hawkins County category and is a “governmental subdivision” within the meaning of MMBA section 3501(c). (pp. 31-34.) 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
101.01000: PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; APPLICABILITY OF AND CONFLICTS WITH OTHER STATUTES; In General
The MMBA expansively defines a covered “public agency” to include “every governmental subdivision, every district, every public and quasi-public corporation, every public agency and public service corporation and every town, city, county, city and county and municipal corporation, whether incorporated or not and whether chartered or not.” (MMBA, § 3501(c).) PERB interprets “governmental subdivisions” covered under MMBA section 3501(c) to correspond to “political subdivisions” excluded from the NLRA under 29 United States Code section 152(2). (National Labor Relations Bd. v. Natural Gas Utility Dist. of Hawkins County, Tenn. (1971) 402 U.S. 600; Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (2012) PERB Decision No. 2263-M, p. 25; El Camino Hospital District (2009) PERB Decision No. 2033-M, pp. 17-18.) (pp. 25-26.) more or view all topics or full text. |
48 | 36 | 08/15/23 |
| 2871P |
Sacramento Regional Transit District
1309.15000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT DETERMINATION/CRITERIA (SEE ALSO WHO IS AN EMPLOYEE?, SECTION 200); PUC Transit District Units
Act covering Sacramento Regional Transit District covered the Superintendents in question. Job descriptions and organizational charts in the record make it more likely that the Superintendents are supervisors rather than managerial employees. (See, e.g., Santa Barbara Community College District (2011) PERB Decision No. 2212, adopting proposed decision at p. 18 [management employees must have both “discretionary authority to develop or modify institutional goals and priorities” and “authority to implement programs through the exercise of discretion”].) However, the Board made no such finding, first, because the Board puts limited reliance on written job descriptions unless they comport to actual job duties (id., adopting proposed decision at p. 18 & p. 25, fn. 10), and here the parties opted to forego witness testimony. Moreover, even were Superintendents’ duties sufficient to make them managerial employees, they would have collective bargaining rights. (pp. 11, 15-16.) more or view all topics or full text. |
48 | 43 | 08/31/23 |
| 2871P |
Sacramento Regional Transit District
1309.15000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT DETERMINATION/CRITERIA (SEE ALSO WHO IS AN EMPLOYEE?, SECTION 200); PUC Transit District Units
DIR and PERB have held that federal law and practice on supervisory and managerial issues are not relevant to interpreting a transit district enabling act that lacks the NLRA’s statutory language and legislative history excluding those categories. In examining whether supervisors and managers have collective bargaining rights under the Sacramento Regional Transit District Act (Sacramento RTD Act), the Board determined that federal law is not relevant as the Sacramento RTD Act contains neither the NLRA’s explicit exclusion of supervisors nor has a similar legislative history excluding managers. Moreover, past practice further demonstrates that federal law and practice are not relevant, and many supervisory and managerial transit district units in California would be destabilized were PERB to change course and make such a finding. Accordingly, the Board affirmed an SMCS hearing officer’s conclusion that the District’s Superintendents have collective bargaining rights under the Sacramento RTD Act. more or view all topics or full text. |
48 | 43 | 08/31/23 |
| 2871P |
Sacramento Regional Transit District
1309.15000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT DETERMINATION/CRITERIA (SEE ALSO WHO IS AN EMPLOYEE?, SECTION 200); PUC Transit District Units
It is settled principle that federal law and practice are generally relevant to unit determinations under the PUC transit enabling acts, except where: “(1) the question presented is governed by an explicit provision of the applicable transit district statute or (2) considerations unique to public sector labor relations require a deviation from federal law.” (San Joaquin Regional Transit District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2650-P, p. 8.) Pursuant to this standard, “whether federal law is relevant will depend upon the particular circumstances of each case.” (Ibid.) Nevertheless, the requirement to follow “relevant” federal law “does not demand slavish adherence” to it. (Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority v. Rea (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1320. (pp. 5, 14.) more or view all topics or full text. |
48 | 43 | 08/31/23 |
| 2871P |
Sacramento Regional Transit District
1309.13000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT DETERMINATION/CRITERIA (SEE ALSO WHO IS AN EMPLOYEE?, SECTION 200); Supervisors
The MMBA differs from federal law in that it contains no exclusion for supervisors or managerial employees, and appellate courts have found that the MMBA therefore affords collective bargaining rights to supervisors and managers. (Public Employees of Riverside County, Inc. v. County of Riverside (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 882, 888; Organization of Deputy Sheriffs v. County of San Mateo (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 331, 338.) EERA, enacted in 1975, explicitly excludes managerial employees, but not supervisors. (Gov. Code, § 3540.1, subd. (j).) (EERA does restrict the unit placement of supervisors.) (Gov. Code, § 3545, subd. (b)(2).) The Dills Act, enacted in 1977 to cover state employees, explicitly excludes supervisory and managerial employees. The Judicial Council Employer-Employee Relations Act, enacted in 2017, similarly excludes supervisory and managerial employees. (Gov. Code, § 3524.52. subd. (g).) HEERA, enacted in 1978, explicitly excludes managerial employees, while limiting the rights of supervisors. (Gov. Code, §§ 3562, subd. (e), 3580.) The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Transit Employer-Employee Relations Act (TEERA; PUC, § 99560 et seq.), enacted in 2003, explicitly states that it “shall only apply to supervisory employees of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority [LACMTA].” (PUC, § 99560.3.) TEERA’s legislative history shows the Legislature’s intent to cover certain supervisors who are also low-level managerial employees. (pp. 5-10 & fn. 8.) more or view all topics or full text. |
48 | 43 | 08/31/23 |
| 2871P |
Sacramento Regional Transit District
200.04000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYEE? (SEE 502 AND 1309); Supervisors
The MMBA differs from federal law in that it contains no exclusion for supervisors or managerial employees, and appellate courts have found that the MMBA therefore affords collective bargaining rights to supervisors and managers. (Public Employees of Riverside County, Inc. v. County of Riverside (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 882, 888; Organization of Deputy Sheriffs v. County of San Mateo (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 331, 338.) EERA, enacted in 1975, explicitly excludes managerial employees, but not supervisors. (Gov. Code, § 3540.1, subd. (j).) (EERA does restrict the unit placement of supervisors.) (Gov. Code, § 3545, subd. (b)(2).) The Dills Act, enacted in 1977 to cover state employees, explicitly excludes supervisory and managerial employees. The Judicial Council Employer-Employee Relations Act, enacted in 2017, similarly excludes supervisory and managerial employees. (Gov. Code, § 3524.52. subd. (g).) HEERA, enacted in 1978, explicitly excludes managerial employees, while limiting the rights of supervisors. (Gov. Code, §§ 3562, subd. (e), 3580.) The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Transit Employer-Employee Relations Act (TEERA; PUC, § 99560 et seq.), enacted in 2003, explicitly states that it “shall only apply to supervisory employees of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority [LACMTA].” (PUC, § 99560.3.) TEERA’s legislative history shows the Legislature’s intent to cover certain supervisors who are also low-level managerial employees. (pp. 5-10 & fn. 8.)
Act covering Sacramento Regional Transit District covered the Superintendents in question. Job descriptions and organizational charts in the record make it more likely that Superintendents were supervisors rather than managerial employees. (See, e.g., Santa Barbara Community College District (2011) PERB Decision No. 2212, adopting proposed decision at p. 18 [management employees must have both “discretionary authority to develop or modify institutional goals and priorities” and “authority to implement programs through the exercise of discretion”].) However, the Board made no such finding, first, because the Board puts limited reliance on written job descriptions unless they comport to actual job duties (id., adopting proposed decision at p. 18 & p. 25, fn. 10), and here the parties opted to forego witness testimony. Moreover, even were Superintendents’ duties sufficient to make them managerial employees, they would have collective bargaining rights. (pp. 11, 15-16.) more or view all topics or full text. |
48 | 43 | 08/31/23 |
| 2871P |
Sacramento Regional Transit District
200.02000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYEE? (SEE 502 AND 1309); Managerial and Confidential
Act covering Sacramento Regional Transit District covered the Superintendents in question. Job descriptions and organizational charts in the record make it more likely that the Superintendents are supervisors rather than managerial employees. (See, e.g., Santa Barbara Community College District (2011) PERB Decision No. 2212, adopting proposed decision at p. 18 [management employees must have both “discretionary authority to develop or modify institutional goals and priorities” and “authority to implement programs through the exercise of discretion”].) However, the Board made no such finding, first, because the Board puts limited reliance on written job descriptions unless they comport to actual job duties (id., adopting proposed decision at p. 18 & p. 25, fn. 10), and here the parties opted to forego witness testimony. Moreover, even were Superintendents’ duties sufficient to make them managerial employees, they would have collective bargaining rights. (pp. 11, 15-16.) more or view all topics or full text. |
48 | 43 | 08/31/23 |
| 2871P |
Sacramento Regional Transit District
200.02000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYEE? (SEE 502 AND 1309); Managerial and Confidential
The MMBA differs from federal law in that it contains no exclusion for supervisors or managerial employees, and appellate courts have found that the MMBA therefore affords collective bargaining rights to supervisors and managers. (Public Employees of Riverside County, Inc. v. County of Riverside (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 882, 888; Organization of Deputy Sheriffs v. County of San Mateo (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 331, 338.) EERA, enacted in 1975, explicitly excludes managerial employees, but not supervisors. (Gov. Code, § 3540.1, subd. (j).) (EERA does restrict the unit placement of supervisors.) (Gov. Code, § 3545, subd. (b)(2).) The Dills Act, enacted in 1977 to cover state employees, explicitly excludes supervisory and managerial employees. The Judicial Council Employer-Employee Relations Act, enacted in 2017, similarly excludes supervisory and managerial employees. (Gov. Code, § 3524.52. subd. (g).) HEERA, enacted in 1978, explicitly excludes managerial employees, while limiting the rights of supervisors. (Gov. Code, §§ 3562, subd. (e), 3580.) The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Transit Employer-Employee Relations Act (TEERA; PUC, § 99560 et seq.), enacted in 2003, explicitly states that it “shall only apply to supervisory employees of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority [LACMTA].” (PUC, § 99560.3.) TEERA’s legislative history shows the Legislature’s intent to cover certain supervisors who are also low-level managerial employees. (pp. 5-10 & fn. 8.) more or view all topics or full text. |
48 | 43 | 08/31/23 |
| 2871P |
Sacramento Regional Transit District
104.01000: PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF BOARD; Authority of Board In General; Validity and Application of Regulations (See also 102.01)
The MMBA differs from federal law in that it contains no exclusion for supervisors or managerial employees, and appellate courts have found that the MMBA therefore affords collective bargaining rights to supervisors and managers. (Public Employees of Riverside County, Inc. v. County of Riverside (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 882, 888; Organization of Deputy Sheriffs v. County of San Mateo (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 331, 338.) EERA, enacted in 1975, explicitly excludes managerial employees, but not supervisors. (Gov. Code, § 3540.1, subd. (j).) (EERA does restrict the unit placement of supervisors.) (Gov. Code, § 3545, subd. (b)(2).) The Dills Act, enacted in 1977 to cover state employees, explicitly excludes supervisory and managerial employees. The Judicial Council Employer-Employee Relations Act, enacted in 2017, similarly excludes supervisory and managerial employees. (Gov. Code, § 3524.52. subd. (g).) HEERA, enacted in 1978, explicitly excludes managerial employees, while limiting the rights of supervisors. (Gov. Code, §§ 3562, subd. (e), 3580.) The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Transit Employer-Employee Relations Act (TEERA; PUC, § 99560 et seq.), enacted in 2003, explicitly states that it “shall only apply to supervisory employees of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority [LACMTA].” (PUC, § 99560.3.) TEERA’s legislative history shows the Legislature’s intent to cover certain supervisors who are also low-level managerial employees. (pp. 5-10 & fn. 8.) more or view all topics or full text. |
48 | 43 | 08/31/23 |
| 2875E |
Oakland Unified School District
1402.04000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; WAIVER; By Acquiescence/Conduct
To establish waiver of the right to bargain based on evidence other than an effective contract, it is necessary to demonstrate “conscious abandonment” of the right. (City of Culver City (2020) PERB Decision No. 2731-M, p. 18.) Showing that a union consciously abandoned its right to bargain typically involves proof that “the union had clear notice, meaning advance knowledge, of the employer’s intent to change policy with sufficient time to allow a reasonable opportunity to bargain about the change and then failed to request negotiations.” (Id., adopting proposed decision at pp. 25-26 24 [internal quotation marks omitted; emphasis original].) However, a union’s acquiescence to a unilateral change in one or more instances does not waive its right to bargain regarding a future change on the same subject. (County of Kern & Kern County Hospital Authority (2019) PERB Decision No. 2659-M, p. 22, fn. 19.) (pp. 23-24.) more or view all topics or full text. |
48 | 64 | 10/16/23 |
| 2875E |
Oakland Unified School District
1402.03000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; WAIVER; By Contract/Zipper Clauses/Management Rights Clauses
An unratified tentative agreement cannot waive the right to bargain. (City of Culver City (2020) PERB Decision No. 2731-M, adopting proposed decision at p. 39.) In other words, a party cannot delay ratifying a tentative agreement while seeking to benefit from any waivers contained therein; rather, part of the employer’s incentive to negotiate and finalize an agreement is to obtain the benefit of such waivers. (p. 23.) more or view all topics or full text. |
48 | 64 | 10/16/23 |
| 2875E |
Oakland Unified School District
1402.03000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; WAIVER; By Contract/Zipper Clauses/Management Rights Clauses
A contractual waiver must appear within a bilateral agreement rather than in a unilaterally implemented policy. (City of Culver City (2020) PERB Decision No. 2731-M, pp. 18 & 20.) A contractual waiver remains in effect only during the term of the contract, unless the parties have explicitly agreed that it continues past contract expiration. (Id. at pp. 13, 18-19.) (p. 23.) more or view all topics or full text. |
48 | 64 | 10/16/23 |
| 2875E |
Oakland Unified School District
1402.01000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; WAIVER; In General
Because waiver is an affirmative defense, a party asserting waiver bears the burden of proof. (City of Culver City (2020) PERB Decision No. 2731-M, p. 13.) A party seeking to establish waiver of the right to bargain may allege contractual waiver, waiver by inaction, or waiver by negotiations history, but any of the three types of waivers must be clear and unambiguous. (County of Merced (2020) PERB Decision No. 2740-M, pp. 10 & 19.) PERB therefore resolves any doubts against finding a waiver of the right to bargain. (Ibid.) (p. 22.) more or view all topics or full text. |
48 | 64 | 10/16/23 |
| 2875E |
Oakland Unified School District
1401.01000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; LACHES; In General
To establish laches, a respondent must show that: (1) the charging party unreasonably delayed in prosecuting its case, and (2) either the charging party acquiesced in the acts about which it complains, or the respondent suffered prejudice from the charging party’s unreasonable delay. (Santa Ana Unified School District (2017) PERB Decision No. 2514, p. 22.) (pp. 24-25.) more or view all topics or full text. |
48 | 64 | 10/16/23 |
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.
