Keyword Search by Headnotes - California Public Employment Relations Board

Decision	Description	PERC Vol.	PERC Index	Date
2203M	City of Palmdale 1309.03000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT DETERMINATION/CRITERIA (SEE ALSO WHO IS AN EMPLOYEE?, SECTION 200); Community of Interest In deciding whether a community of interest exists among employees within a proposed unit, the Board has analyzed a variety of factors. These factors include job function and duties, wages, method of compensation, hours, employment benefits, supervision, qualifications, training and skills, contact/interchange with other employees, integration of work functions, and goals. In analyzing these factors, the Board has rejected a checklist approach in favor of examining the totality of circumstances. The point in comparing factors is to reveal the interests of employees and ascertain whether they share substantial mutual interests in matters subject to meeting and negotiating. more or view all topics or full text.	36	49	09/23/11
2203M	City of Palmdale 1309.03000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT DETERMINATION/CRITERIA (SEE ALSO WHO IS AN EMPLOYEE?, SECTION 200); Community of Interest Unlike other PERB-enforced statutes, the MMBA does not specify criteria for resolving unit determination disputes. In deciding whether a proposed bargaining unit is an appropriate unit under the MMBA, courts have considered criteria similar to those contained in other collective bargaining statutes, including but not limited to the following: community of interest among the employees at issue, history of representation, and the general field of work. more or view all topics or full text.	36	49	09/23/11
2203M	City of Palmdale 1309.03000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT DETERMINATION/CRITERIA (SEE ALSO WHO IS AN EMPLOYEE?, SECTION 200); Community of Interest In unit determinations, the question is whether the petitioned-for unit is "an appropriate unit," not whether it is "the ultimate unit or the most appropriate unit." (Alameda County Assistant Public Defenders Assn. v. County of Alameda (1973) 33 Cal.App.3d 825, 830.) more or view all topics or full text.	36	49	09/23/11
2203M	City of Palmdale 1309.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT DETERMINATION/CRITERIA (SEE ALSO WHO IS AN EMPLOYEE?, SECTION 200); In General/Definition of Appropriate Unit The MMBA covers all levels of employees except elected officials and gubernatorial appointees. It neither defines "supervisor" nor precludes the formation of a bargaining unit that includes both supervisory and non-supervisory employees. As stated in Organization of Deputy Sheriffs v. County of San Mateo (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 331, 338, the MMBA confers organizational and representational rights on supervisory, management and confidential employees "without regard to their position in the administrative hierarchy.” In Santa Clara County Counsel Attorneys Assn. v. Woodside (1994) 7 Cal.4th 525, the Supreme Court observed: “By choosing to explicitly include supervisorial, managerial, and confidential employees within the realm of the MMBA's protections, the Legislature implicitly decided that the benefits for public sector labor relations achieved by including managerial employees outweighed the potential divided loyalty dilemmas raised. We therefore note at the outset that any argument which contends that MMBA protections should not apply to certain managerial employees because of problems with divided loyalty must be viewed with skepticism, for that argument follows precisely the legislative road the MMBA declined to take.” (Id. at p. 538; fn. omitted.) Board found no basis to exclude Leads from a unit based solely on their leadership roles. Where Leads spend at least ten percent of their time regularly performing the same kind of maintenance work and using the same tools as their crews, it does not matter that their supervision responsibilities are distinctive. Board also noted that Leads: share a common goal with other employees (to ensure that City facilities are well maintained); have daily contact with one another; and share similar training, qualifications, and skills, mainly that learned working in the field. more or view all topics or full text.	36	49	09/23/11
2203M	City of Palmdale 1309.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT DETERMINATION/CRITERIA (SEE ALSO WHO IS AN EMPLOYEE?, SECTION 200); In General/Definition of Appropriate Unit In deciding whether a community of interest exists among employees within a proposed unit, the Board has analyzed a variety of factors. These factors include job function and duties, wages, method of compensation, hours, employment benefits, supervision, qualifications, training and skills, contact/interchange with other employees, integration of work functions, and goals. In analyzing these factors, the Board has rejected a checklist approach in favor of examining the totality of circumstances. The point in comparing factors is to reveal the interests of employees and ascertain whether they share substantial mutual interests in matters subject to meeting and negotiating. more or view all topics or full text.	36	49	09/23/11
2203M	City of Palmdale 1309.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT DETERMINATION/CRITERIA (SEE ALSO WHO IS AN EMPLOYEE?, SECTION 200); In General/Definition of Appropriate Unit Unlike other PERB-enforced statutes, the MMBA does not specify criteria for resolving unit determination disputes. In deciding whether a proposed bargaining unit is an appropriate unit under the MMBA, courts have considered criteria similar to those contained in other collective bargaining statutes, including but not limited to the following: community of interest among the employees at issue, history of representation, and the general field of work. more or view all topics or full text.	36	49	09/23/11
2203M	City of Palmdale 1309.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT DETERMINATION/CRITERIA (SEE ALSO WHO IS AN EMPLOYEE?, SECTION 200); In General/Definition of Appropriate Unit In unit determinations, the question is whether the petitioned-for unit is "an appropriate unit," not whether it is "the ultimate unit or the most appropriate unit." (Alameda County Assistant Public Defenders Assn. v. County of Alameda (1973) 33 Cal.App.3d 825, 830.) more or view all topics or full text.	36	49	09/23/11
2203M	City of Palmdale 200.04000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYEE? (SEE 502 AND 1309); Supervisors The MMBA covers all levels of employees except elected officials and gubernatorial appointees. It neither defines "supervisor" nor precludes the formation of a bargaining unit that includes both supervisory and non-supervisory employees. As stated in Organization of Deputy Sheriffs v. County of San Mateo (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 331, 338, the MMBA confers organizational and representational rights on supervisory, management and confidential employees "without regard to their position in the administrative hierarchy.” In Santa Clara County Counsel Attorneys Assn. v. Woodside (1994) 7 Cal.4th 525, the Supreme Court observed: “By choosing to explicitly include supervisorial, managerial, and confidential employees within the realm of the MMBA's protections, the Legislature implicitly decided that the benefits for public sector labor relations achieved by including managerial employees outweighed the potential divided loyalty dilemmas raised. We therefore note at the outset that any argument which contends that MMBA protections should not apply to certain managerial employees because of problems with divided loyalty must be viewed with skepticism, for that argument follows precisely the legislative road the MMBA declined to take.” (Id. at p. 538; fn. omitted.) Board found no basis to exclude Leads from a unit based solely on their leadership roles. Where Leads spend at least ten percent of their time regularly performing the same kind of maintenance work and using the same tools as their crews, it does not matter that their supervision responsibilities are distinctive. Board also noted that Leads: share a common goal with other employees (to ensure that City facilities are well maintained); have daily contact with one another; and share similar training, qualifications, and skills, mainly that learned working in the field. more or view all topics or full text.	36	49	09/23/11
2203M	City of Palmdale 200.02000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYEE? (SEE 502 AND 1309); Managerial and Confidential The MMBA covers all levels of employees except elected officials and gubernatorial appointees. It neither defines "supervisor" nor precludes the formation of a bargaining unit that includes both supervisory and non-supervisory employees. As stated in Organization of Deputy Sheriffs v. County of San Mateo (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 331, 338, the MMBA confers organizational and representational rights on supervisory, management and confidential employees "without regard to their position in the administrative hierarchy.” In Santa Clara County Counsel Attorneys Assn. v. Woodside (1994) 7 Cal.4th 525, the Supreme Court observed: “By choosing to explicitly include supervisorial, managerial, and confidential employees within the realm of the MMBA's protections, the Legislature implicitly decided that the benefits for public sector labor relations achieved by including managerial employees outweighed the potential divided loyalty dilemmas raised. We therefore note at the outset that any argument which contends that MMBA protections should not apply to certain managerial employees because of problems with divided loyalty must be viewed with skepticism, for that argument follows precisely the legislative road the MMBA declined to take.” (Id. at p. 538; fn. omitted.) Board found no basis to exclude Leads from a unit based solely on their leadership roles. Where Leads spend at least ten percent of their time regularly performing the same kind of maintenance work and using the same tools as their crews, it does not matter that their supervision responsibilities are distinctive. Board also noted that Leads: share a common goal with other employees (to ensure that City facilities are well maintained); have daily contact with one another; and share similar training, qualifications, and skills, mainly that learned working in the field. more or view all topics or full text.	36	49	09/23/11
2203Ma	City of Palmdale 1306.02000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; Employee List/Contents of/Failure to Provide A change in the size of the bargaining unit does not alter a prior proof of support determination, and a party challenging the employee list used in a proof of support determination must produce competent information supporting its claim. more or view all topics or full text.	36	98	12/22/11
2203Ma	City of Palmdale 1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements No fraud or coercion in obtaining proof of support merely because union asked employees to sign card stating that union would bargain for improved employment terms more or view all topics or full text.	36	98	12/22/11
2203Ma	City of Palmdale 1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements A change in the size of the bargaining unit does not alter a prior proof of support determination, and a party challenging the employee list used in a proof of support determination must produce competent information supporting its claim. more or view all topics or full text.	36	98	12/22/11
2190M	City of Redding 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General Presumptively relevant information includes, but is not limited to, information related to: wages; benefits; discipline; staffing; enrollment projections; names and home addresses of former employees to determine reinstatement or back pay entitlement; rating sheets; personnel files; employees affected by a reduction in work hours; seniority lists; subcontracting information; and investigative information related to issues of a potentially hostile or unsafe work environment. However, if recognized privacy or confidentiality right outweighs the union’s interest, then it is proper to redact sensitive information. more or view all topics or full text.	36	14	06/30/11
2189E	Alvord Educator's Association (Bussman) 1109.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; ISSUES ON APPEAL; Statute of Limitations In cases alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation, the six-month statutory limitations period begins to run on the date when the charging party, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, knew or should have known that further aid from the union was unlikely. Repeated union refusals to process a grievance over a recurring issue do not start the limitations period anew. more or view all topics or full text.	36	13	06/29/11
A332E	Santa Clarita Community College District 1107.15000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Withdrawal of Appeal; Request that Decision be Vacated Respondent filed an administrative appeal to lift a stay imposed by a Board agent. Before the Board could rule on the merits of the appeal, the Board agent lifted the stay. At respondent’s request, the Board granted respondent’s withdrawal of its administrative appeal. (pp. 1-2.) more or view all topics or full text.	28	94	02/26/04
1742M	Contra Costa County Health Services Department 1400.01000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; AGENCY; In General To establish an agency relationship between an employee and the employer, the Board has held that a charging party must allege facts which show that the employee was acting with some direction, instigation, approval or ratification by the employer. (Compton Community College District (1987) PERB Decision No. 649; Inglewood Unified School District (1990) PERB Decision No. 792.) In Moreland Elementary School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 227, the Board stated that nonsupervisory employees would not be found agents absent evidence that such employees were informants or were in some other manner serving as agents or representatives of the employer. Herein, the charge fails to present any facts demonstrating a fellow charge nurse was acting as an informant for management; moreover, she was not a supervisor nor did she serve as charging party’s supervisory in any capacity. As such, this allegation fails to state a prima facie case. (adopting warning letter at p. 3, adopting dismissal letter at p. 2.) more or view all topics or full text.	29	65	01/26/05
1742M	Contra Costa County Health Services Department 504.05000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Union Activity of Discriminatee Even if charging party’s statement to a fellow charge nurse that he was pro-union and had served as a union steward during previous employment experiences constituted protected activity, the charge failed to demonstrate that the county knew of charging party’s statements and that the county terminated charging party because of his protected activity. While charging party’s termination came within three weeks of his protected statement, charging party received his first negative evaluation before he made the statement. The charge failed to present any other nexus factors. (adopting warning letter at p. 3.) more or view all topics or full text.	29	65	01/26/05
1742M	Contra Costa County Health Services Department 1100.05000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Dismissal of Charge; Appeal Charging party’s appeal did not comply with PERB Regulation 32635(a) as required for an appeal to the Board. Instead, the appeal reiterated the facts alleged in the unfair practice charge and did not specifically address why the dismissal should be reversed. (adopting warning letter at p. 2.) more or view all topics or full text.	29	65	01/26/05
2852H	Regents of the University of California 1201.08000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; REINSTATEMENT; BACKPAY BENEFITS; Other To make employees whole for the denial of lecturer appointments under an unlawfully adopted policy prohibiting concurrently holding a FLSA non-exempt staff position and a FLSA-exempt academic position, the Board ordered that affected employees be granted appropriate credit toward the six-year requirement for “continuing status” under the University’s collective bargaining agreement with UC-AFT. (p. 22.) more or view all topics or full text.	47	121	02/09/23
2852H	Regents of the University of California 1205.10000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIAL PROVISIONS; Other Affirmative Relief To remedy the University’s unilateral modification of the Non-Senate Faculty (NSF) Unit, the Board ordered the University to restore the 15 percent full-time equivalent lecturer position formerly held by an NSF Unit Member, make the Unit Member whole for any wages, benefits, or credit toward the six-year requirement for continuing status he lost as a result of the elimination of the lecturer position with interest at a rate of seven percent per year, and cease-and-desist from modifying the NSF Unit without UC-AFT’s agreement or utilizing PERB’s unit modification process. (p. 22.) more or view all topics or full text.	47	121	02/09/23
2852H	Regents of the University of California 1310.06000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; Unfair Practice and Unit Modification As a result of applying its unilaterally-adopted concurrent appointment policy, UC Santa Cruz eliminated a Non-Senate Faculty (NSF) Unit Member’s appointment as a 15 percent full-time equivalent lecturer and modified his non-exempt appointment to include the NSF Unit work. Because this conduct unilaterally modified the NSF Unit without UC-AFT’s agreement or utilization of PERB’s unit modification procedures, and also unilaterally modified Article 1 of the parties’ Agreement without providing UC-AFT notice and an opportunity to bargain, the Board concluded that the University violated HEERA section 3571, subdivisions (a) and (c). (pp. 20-21.) more or view all topics or full text.	47	121	02/09/23
2852H	Regents of the University of California 1310.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; In General As a result of applying its unilaterally-adopted concurrent appointment policy, UC Santa Cruz eliminated a Non-Senate Faculty (NSF) Unit Member’s appointment as a 15 percent full-time equivalent lecturer and modified his non-exempt appointment to include the NSF Unit work. Because this conduct unilaterally modified the NSF Unit without UC-AFT’s agreement or utilization of PERB’s unit modification procedures, and also unilaterally modified Article 1 of the parties’ Agreement without providing UC-AFT notice and an opportunity to bargain, the Board concluded that the University violated HEERA section 3571, subdivisions (a) and (c). (pp. 20-21.) more or view all topics or full text.	47	121	02/09/23
2852H	Regents of the University of California 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 Announcing a new policy as a fait accompli does not trigger a duty to demand bargaining and cannot support a waiver defense. (p. 18, fn. 10.) more or view all topics or full text.	47	121	02/09/23
2852H	Regents of the University of California 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 Although the amount of time varies depending on the circumstances of each case, “an employer must give notice sufficiently in advance of reaching a firm decision to allow the representative an opportunity to consult its members and decide whether to request information, demand bargaining, acquiesce to the change, or take other action.” Here, UC-AFT first learned of the University’s new concurrent employment policy when UC Santa Cruz announced the implementation of the policy in its November 25, 2020 letter. Indeed, UC Santa Cruz had already implemented the policy when it rescinded a lecturer appointment the prior month. The Board thus had no difficulty concluding that the University did not provide UC-AFT adequate notice or opportunity to meet and confer over UC Santa Cruz’s decision to adopt the concurrent appointment policy. (pp. 17-18.) more or view all topics or full text.	47	121	02/09/23
2852H	Regents of the University of California 1000.02162: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Temporary/Short-term Employees Criteria for reemployment of temporary faculty is within the scope of representation. Because UC Santa Cruz’s concurrent appointment policy establishes a general hiring criterion for every lecturer appointment, i.e., that they cannot also be employed in a FLSA non-exempt position, it “involves the employment relationship.” (pp. 13-14.) more or view all topics or full text.	47	121	02/09/23