Keyword Search by Headnotes - California Public Employment Relations Board

Decision	Description	PERC Vol.	PERC Index	Date
2880H	Regents of the University of California 409.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity PERB considers several factors in determining whether special circumstances exist that would justify a restriction on the right to display union insignia: whether the insignia could jeopardize employee safety, disrupt employee discipline (e.g., exacerbate employee dissention or cause distraction from work demanding great concentration), or negatively affect the employer (e.g., damage machinery, products, or a certain image necessarily projected for the public). Also important is the specific context in which the prohibition was enacted or enforced, the locations involved, and the parties’ past practice. (p. 10.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	71	10/24/23
2880H	Regents of the University of California 409.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity The employer has the burden of establishing that its policy or rule abrogating employees’ right to display union insignia is justified by special circumstances. This analysis is done through a case-by-case approach that considers the particulars of the employer’s operations; the employer must make a concrete, fact-based evidentiary showing that special circumstances exist. (p. 10.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	71	10/24/23
2880H	Regents of the University of California 409.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity The right to wear union insignia in the workplace is not unlimited and may be subject to reasonable regulation. However, any restriction on the right to display union insignia and messages in the workplace is presumptively invalid; it is permitted only if special circumstances exist justifying the prohibition. (pp. 8-9.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	71	10/24/23
2880H	Regents of the University of California 401.07000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Display of Union Insignia PERB considers several factors in determining whether special circumstances exist that would justify a restriction on the right to display union insignia: whether the insignia could jeopardize employee safety, disrupt employee discipline (e.g., exacerbate employee dissention or cause distraction from work demanding great concentration), or negatively affect the employer (e.g., damage machinery, products, or a certain image necessarily projected for the public). Also important is the specific context in which the prohibition was enacted or enforced, the locations involved, and the parties’ past practice. (p. 10.) A history of union insignia display in the workplace without resulting incidents is relevant to determine whether special circumstances exist (p. 10). more or view all topics or full text.	48	71	10/24/23
2880H	Regents of the University of California 401.07000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Display of Union Insignia The right to wear union insignia in the workplace is not unlimited and may be subject to reasonable regulation. However, any restriction on the right to display union insignia and messages in the workplace is presumptively invalid; it is permitted only if special circumstances exist justifying the prohibition. (pp. 8-9.) The employer has the burden of establishing that its policy or rule abrogating employees’ right to display union insignia is justified by special circumstances. This analysis is done through a case-by-case approach that considers the particulars of the employer’s operations; the employer must make a concrete, fact-based evidentiary showing that special circumstances exist. (pp. 7-8.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	71	10/24/23
2880H	Regents of the University of California 101.03000: PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; APPLICABILITY OF AND CONFLICTS WITH OTHER STATUTES; NLRA/LMRDA Precedent Although federal judicial and administrative precedent is not binding on PERB, it often provides persuasive guidance in construing California’s public sector labor relations statutes. (p. 9, fn. 5.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	71	10/24/23
2880H	Regents of the University of California 101.01000: PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; APPLICABILITY OF AND CONFLICTS WITH OTHER STATUTES; In General Although federal judicial and administrative precedent is not binding on PERB, it often provides persuasive guidance in construing California’s public sector labor relations statutes. (p. 9, fn. 5.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	71	10/24/23
2879E	Alliance College-Ready Public Charter Schools 1205.05000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIAL PROVISIONS; Extension of Certification The Board found that circumstances warranted extending the certification bar to at least 12 months from commencement of good faith bargaining, subject to extension if Respondent is found to have engaged in additional unfair labor practices. (pp. 27-28.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	69	10/23/23
2879E	Alliance College-Ready Public Charter Schools 1309.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT DETERMINATION/CRITERIA (SEE ALSO WHO IS AN EMPLOYEE?, SECTION 200); In General/Definition of Appropriate Unit A hearing is not required to determine whether petitioned-for units are appropriate. PERB Regulation 33237, subdivision (a) governs the investigation of representation petitions and provides: “Whenever a petition regarding a representation matter is filed with the Board, the Board shall investigate and, where appropriate, conduct a hearing and/or a representation election or take such other action as deemed necessary to decide the questions raised by the petition.” Thus, there is “no guarantee or entitlement to an evidentiary hearing.” (Children of Promise Preparatory Academy (2013) PERB Order No. Ad-402, p. 16 (Children of Promise); see PERB Reg. 33237, subd. (a).) Rather, after completing an investigation, the Board agent may either “determine that sufficient evidence has been submitted to raise a material issue that necessitates an evidentiary hearing,” or “that no material issue of fact exists and thus that a hearing is unnecessary.” (Children of Promise, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-402, p. 17.) “In reviewing whether a Board agent has conducted a proper investigation, the Board generally has looked at whether or not the Board agent abused his or her discretion.” (Id. at p. 13.) Here, the Board agent determined that UTLA had provided sufficient proof of support and informed the charter schools that they needed to either recognize UTLA as the exclusive representative of certificated employees at the schools, or dispute the appropriateness of the bargaining units. Morgan McKinzie and Leichtman-Levine argued that the entire Alliance Network of charter schools constituted a single employer, and that the only appropriate bargaining unit consists of certificated employees at all Alliance Network schools, an argument the Board already considered and rejected in previous Alliance decisions. The charter schools raised no other issues challenging the appropriateness of the petitioned-for units. We therefore found that the Board agent had not abused her discretion by deciding the relevant issues without an evidentiary hearing. (pp. 24-25.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	69	10/23/23
2879E	Alliance College-Ready Public Charter Schools 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General A petition for unit modification is precluded “if, within the previous 12 months, the employer has lawfully recognized, or the Board has certified, the exclusive representative in the described unit or a subdivision thereof.” (PERB Reg. 32786, subd. (b)(4).) PERB considers this certification bar period to begin from the date the employer begins good faith negotiations with the union. In this respect, PERB Regulations do not condone an employer using a unit modification petition to decertify a union with which it has never agreed to bargain. Rather, if an employer claims that new, changed circumstances warrant a modification, it must continue to bargain in good faith even while it pursues its unit modification petition. (pp. 22-23.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	69	10/23/23
2879E	Alliance College-Ready Public Charter Schools 1310.02000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; Change in Circumstances A petition for unit modification is precluded “if, within the previous 12 months, the employer has lawfully recognized, or the Board has certified, the exclusive representative in the described unit or a subdivision thereof.” (PERB Reg. 32786, subd. (b)(4).) PERB considers this certification bar period to begin from the date the employer begins good faith negotiations with the union. In this respect, PERB Regulations do not condone an employer using a unit modification petition to decertify a union with which it has never agreed to bargain. Rather, if an employer claims that new, changed circumstances warrant a modification, it must continue to bargain in good faith even while it pursues its unit modification petition. (pp. 22-23.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	69	10/23/23
2879E	Alliance College-Ready Public Charter Schools 1310.02000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; Change in Circumstances Evidence that is not newly discovered or previously unavailable, i.e., evidence that could have been presented in the underlying unit determination proceeding, is not an appropriate defense to a technical refusal to bargain. To the extent an employer claims true changed circumstances consistent with PERB Regulation 32781, it cannot simply refuse to bargain; it is instead required to pursue a unit modification petition under PERB Regulation 32781. (pp. 20-21.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	69	10/23/23
2879E	Alliance College-Ready Public Charter Schools 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General Evidence that is not newly discovered or previously unavailable, i.e., evidence that could have been presented in the underlying unit determination proceeding, is not an appropriate defense to a technical refusal to bargain. To the extent an employer claims true changed circumstances consistent with PERB Regulation 32781, it cannot simply refuse to bargain; it is instead required to pursue a unit modification petition under PERB Regulation 32781. (pp. 20-21.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	69	10/23/23
2879E	Alliance College-Ready Public Charter Schools 1403.01000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; ESTOPPEL; In General The Board declined to revisit Respondent’s argument that it erred by applying judicial and equitable estoppel, and by finding sufficient evidence to justify single school bargaining units. As explained in Alliance Judy Ivie Burton Technology Academy High School (2020) PERB Decision No. 2719, the schools failed to prove that only a network-wide unit is appropriate since the evidence the schools presented “was directly contradicted by evidence in prior cases from Alliance personnel, including key executives and charter school administrators,” and “the Charter Schools have not given a reasonable or persuasive account of their shifting positions.” (Id. at pp. 35, 45.) (p. 19.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	69	10/23/23
2879E	Alliance College-Ready Public Charter Schools 201.04000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; Joint Employer, Single Employer, and Alter Ego Doctrines The outcome of a single employer inquiry does not necessarily determine unit appropriateness, and the Board has never “looked beyond the plain language of the petition to decide whether two or more public school employers satisfy the single employer test and, if so, whether that relationship requires that we allow only a singular global bargaining unit despite the petitioning union’s request for localized bargaining units.” (Alliance Judy Ivie Burton Technology Academy High School (2020) PERB Decision No. 2719, pp. 22-23, 27.) (p. 19.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	69	10/23/23
2879E	Alliance College-Ready Public Charter Schools 1205.10000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIAL PROVISIONS; Other Affirmative Relief Different considerations apply when an employer’s technical refusal is based on good faith allegations of conduct that prevented a fair election and was sufficiently serious to “have affected the outcome of the election.” (J.R. Norton Co. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (1979) 26 Cal.3d 1, 40.) Because we encourage judicial review of allegations concerning an election’s fairness, make-whole relief for a technical refusal to bargain raising such issues is appropriate only in the absence of any good faith allegation of conduct or circumstances impacting election integrity to a degree that could have been dispositive in the outcome. (Ibid.) These considerations do not apply where, as here, a respondent merely disputes PERB’s exercise of discretion in determining whether a union has petitioned for an allowable unit structure. (p. 18, fn. 12.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	69	10/23/23
2879E	Alliance College-Ready Public Charter Schools 1205.10000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIAL PROVISIONS; Other Affirmative Relief A party engaging in a technical refusal to bargain takes on several risks aside from the risk of work stoppage or other consequences of labor strife. First, as in any case before it, PERB can issue litigation sanctions if any party takes a frivolous position in bad faith. Second, even when there is no cause for litigation sanctions, if an employer pursues an unsuccessful technical refusal over a unit determination, the charging party union may be entitled to reimbursement of its increased costs outside of litigating the technical refusal charge, which may include increased costs for organizing, bargaining, lost dues, or legal costs beyond litigating the charge itself. (pp. 17-18.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	69	10/23/23
2879E	Alliance College-Ready Public Charter Schools 605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain A party engaging in a technical refusal to bargain takes on several risks aside from the risk of work stoppage or other consequences of labor strife. First, as in any case before it, PERB can issue litigation sanctions if any party takes a frivolous position in bad faith. Second, even when there is no cause for litigation sanctions, if an employer pursues an unsuccessful technical refusal over a unit determination, the charging party union may be entitled to reimbursement of its increased costs outside of litigating the technical refusal charge, which may include increased costs for organizing, bargaining, lost dues, or legal costs beyond litigating the charge itself. (pp. 17-18.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	69	10/23/23
2879E	Alliance College-Ready Public Charter Schools 605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain While EERA section 3542, subdivision (a)(2) permits a party to obtain appellate review of a unit determination by engaging in a technical refusal to bargain, a party’s right to do so is limited in several respects. As the Board stated in Alliance Judy Ivie Burton Technology High School (2022) PERB Decision No. 2809, a party engaged in a technical refusal to bargain must rely on evidence already in the administrative record of the unit determination, because the prior representation decision is treated as binding with respect to all issues that were, or could have been, litigated in the representation proceeding. A party may not collaterally attack PERB’s determination using evidence that it could have raised in the unit determination proceeding, nor may it use the technical refusal as an attempt to modify a unit while circumventing PERB’s mandatory unit modification procedure. Because a respondent in a technical refusal case should admit it is refusing to comply with the underlying representation order, PERB can normally grant judgment on the pleadings to resolve a technical refusal to bargain. (pp. 16-17.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	69	10/23/23
2879E	Alliance College-Ready Public Charter Schools 1300.03000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; CERTIFICATION/VOLUNTARY RECOGNITION; Amended Certification, Petition for An amendment in certification changes only the name of the employer or union; it does not change the contours of the bargaining units. (p. 2, fn. 2.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	69	10/23/23
A504M	Consolidated Irrigation District 1303.09000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; ELECTIONS; Stay of The District’s alleged refusal to negotiate pending the resolution of decertification proceedings independently supports staying the election. “[A]n election may properly be blocked where there has been a failure to bargain in good faith, since that conduct by its very nature undercuts support for an individual union or unions in general, and renders a fair election impossible.” (Grenada Elementary School District (1984) PERB Decision No. 387, p. 9; accord Clovis Unified School District (1984) PERB Decision No. 389, p. 25 [an employer, by “obstructing negotiations with the exclusive representative,” had “interfere[d] with employees[’] right to select an exclusive representative to meet and negotiate with the employer on their behalf”].) (p. 11.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	151	08/14/23
A504M	Consolidated Irrigation District 1303.09000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; ELECTIONS; Stay of While the PEDD protects a narrow set of employee prerogatives, because conduct that violates the PEDD specifically tends to influence employee free choice, such conduct is especially likely to impact an election and thus necessitates a stay. (p. 10.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	151	08/14/23
A504M	Consolidated Irrigation District 1303.09000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; ELECTIONS; Stay of In determining whether an election stay is warranted, PERB “does not resolve factual disputes” and “assumes that the essential facts alleged in the charge are true.” (Children of Promise Preparatory Academy (2015) PERB Order No. Ad-428, p. 9.) If the Board agent’s investigation reveals conflicting issues of material fact, the conflict must be resolved at the formal hearing; the Board agent may not resolve the conflict at the investigation stage. (Id. at p. 10.) (pp. 5-6.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	151	08/14/23
A504M	Consolidated Irrigation District 1303.09000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; ELECTIONS; Stay of The grounds to challenge an administrative determination staying an election do not include a dispute about the facts. A determination to stay an election is not intended to involve adjudication of the unfair practice charge itself. (Children of Promise Preparatory Academy (2015) PERB Order No. Ad-428, adopting administrative determination at p. 15.) “It is neither the Board agent’s obligation nor function to resolve disputed facts or venture into a pre-judgment of the merits of the unfair practice complaint.” (Grenada Elementary School District (1984) PERB Decision No. 387, p. 13, quoting Pleasant Valley Elementary School District (1984) PERB Decision No. 380, p. 7.) Nor shall the Board agent resolve defenses and answers on the merits of the complaint, because those matters must be addressed in the unfair practice hearing. (Gompers Preparatory Academy (2020) PERB Order No. Ad-481, adopting administrative determination at p. 15.) The District’s arguments that the union cannot prove its blocking charge allegations are thus immaterial to OGC’s assessment of the stay request, and do not provide a reason to overturn OGC’s determination granting the stay. (pp. 7-8.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	151	08/14/23
A504M	Consolidated Irrigation District 1303.04000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; ELECTIONS; Blocking Charge The Board adopted the Office of the General Counsel’s (OGC) administrative determination, noting that OGC employed the proper standard for whether to stay an election pending a blocking charge: “the Board agent must analyze whether 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.’” (Regents of the University of California (1984) PERB Decision No. 381-H, p. 6.) Further, the administrative determination correctly explains “[t]he only relevant issue is whether the employer’s conduct, as alleged in the complaint, will so taint the election process as to interfere with employee free choice.” (Imagine Schools at Imperial Valley (2016) PERB Order No. Ad-431, p. 13.) (p. 7.) more or view all topics or full text.	48	151	08/14/23