| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1700H |
Regents of the University of California
401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right
University’s new access policy effectively eliminated the possibility of unscheduled meetings between union representatives and employees. An access rule that interferes with an employee organization's ability to effectively use its representatives whose availability is “sporadic and unpredictable” is unreasonable. (adopting proposed decision at pp. 71-72.) more or view all topics or full text. |
28 | 270 | 11/01/04 |
| 1700H |
Regents of the University of California
401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right
The Board found that University’s absolute ban on all demonstrations inside a University building was overbroad and not narrowly drawn to time, place, and manner. (adopting proposed decision at pp. 60-61.) more or view all topics or full text. |
28 | 270 | 11/01/04 |
| 1700H |
Regents of the University of California
604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General
An employer must provide to an exclusive representative, upon request, information that is necessary and relevant to the union’s representational obligations. (See Stockton Unified School District (1980) PERB Decision No. 143.) Information that pertains to a matter within the scope of representation is presumptively relevant. (State of California (Departments of Personnel Administration and Transportation) (1997) PERB Decision No. 1227-S, p. 5.) In this case the requested information related to existing access policies at UCOP, a matter within the scope of representation and relevant to UPTE's representational obligations. However, several University witnesses credibly testified that no written access policies existed, except for the relevant collective bargaining agreements. The University could not provide information that does not exist. (Id. at p. 13.) (adopting proposed decision at pp. 57-58.) more or view all topics or full text. |
28 | 270 | 11/01/04 |
| 1700H |
Regents of the University of California
401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right
The Board found respondent’s access policies at UCOP did not interfere with the right of employees to be represented by the union where the access restrictions were reasonable, non-discriminatory, and consistent with the parties’ memorandum of understanding. Specifically, respondent’s policy that a union representative identify an employee he or she intended to visit was a reasonable extension of the employer’s authority to require that visitors to its worksites identify themselves and state their business before entering the premises. However, a rule requiring a union representative to identify an employee or employees with whom he or she seeks to contact before permitting access to a non-work area such as a break room or cafeteria would not withstand HEERA scrutiny. (adopting proposed decision at pp. 53-56.) more or view all topics or full text. |
28 | 270 | 11/01/04 |
| 1700H |
Regents of the University of California
401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right
“HEERA provides employee organization representatives, employee and nonemployee alike, with a presumptive right of access to employees at reasonable times in areas where they work. However, the access afforded must be reasonable in light of particular needs of the workplace in question.” (The Regents of the University of California, UCLA Medical Center (1983) PERB Decision No. 329-H, p. 5.) An employer may rebut the presumptive right of access by evidence that a regulation is necessary to prevent disruption of operations. (Id.) An important factor in weighing the right of access against employer regulation of access is the availability of alternative means of access. (Id. at p. 15.) In striking this balance, the Board has also considered the impact of the employer's regulation on the basic labor law principles set forth in the statutes it administers, which are designed to insure effective and nondisruptive organizational communications. (adopting proposed decision at pp. 45-46, 70, 76.) more or view all topics or full text. |
28 | 270 | 11/01/04 |
| 1700H |
Regents of the University of California
401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right
University’s 30-day campus-wide ban of union representative that included public areas and areas where there was no dispute as to representative’s access was overbroad and not narrowly drawn to time, place, and manner. (p. 3 & adopting proposed decision at pp. 63-65.) more or view all topics or full text. |
28 | 270 | 11/01/04 |
| 1700H |
Regents of the University of California
1000.02002: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Access - Subject of Bargaining
Access rights are within the scope of representation. (p. 2 & adopting proposed decision at pp. 52, 61.) more or view all topics or full text. |
28 | 270 | 11/01/04 |
| 1700H |
Regents of the University of California
401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right
Access rights are within the scope of representation. (p. 2 & adopting proposed decision at p. 52.) more or view all topics or full text. |
28 | 270 | 11/01/04 |
| 1738M |
City of San Diego
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 | 57 | 01/20/05 |
| 1738M |
City of San Diego
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 | 57 | 01/20/05 |
| 1738M |
City of San Diego
1204.01000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; REMEDIES AGAINST UNION; In General
The Board found that the remedial order in the consolidated cases should not apply only to the individual charging party as the cases were not only about discrimination against her, and the remedy was not only retrospective. Furthermore, the complaints alleged not only discrimination against employees but also interference with employee rights and a violation of Association’s duty of fair representation. These allegations on their face were not limited to one employee, nor should the remedy be. (adopting proposed decision at p. 13.) more or view all topics or full text. |
29 | 57 | 01/20/05 |
| 1738M |
City of San Diego
1205.01000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIAL PROVISIONS; In General
The Board found that the remedial order in the consolidated cases should not apply only to the individual charging party as the cases were not only about discrimination against her, and the remedy was not only retrospective. Furthermore, the complaints alleged not only discrimination against employees but also interference with employee rights and a violation of Association’s duty of fair representation. These allegations on their face were not limited to one employee, nor should the remedy be. (adopting proposed decision at p. 13.) more or view all topics or full text. |
29 | 57 | 01/20/05 |
| 1738M |
City of San Diego
1405.01000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA; In General
The Board did not give collateral estoppel effect to a federal court order where (1) it did not appear that the order granting motions to dismiss was final, (2) it did not appear that charging party is in privity with any party to the federal proceeding, and (3) the issue before the federal court was solely one of federal constitutional law, not MMBA law. (adopting proposed decision at pp. 12-13.) more or view all topics or full text. |
29 | 57 | 01/20/05 |
| 1738M |
City of San Diego
800.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION; In General; Prima Facie Case
MMBA does not expressly impose a statutory duty of fair representation on employee organizations. In Hussey v. Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1213, however, the court stated that under the MMBA “unions owe a duty of fair representation to their [unit] members, and this requires them to refrain from representing their [unit] members arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith.” Because the Board found that the City and Association negotiated an MOU that discriminated against employees who abstained from participation in the Association, it also found that the Association’s actions in negotiating that MOU were discrimination and in violation of its duty of fair representation. (adopting proposed decision at pp. 11-12.) more or view all topics or full text. |
29 | 57 | 01/20/05 |
| 1738M |
City of San Diego
400.02000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; Right Not to Participate
Employee engaged in protected activity by abstaining from participation in the Association. The benefit policy in question tended to interfere with non-Association employees by denying them a benefit opportunity. The more the employees needed or wanted that benefit opportunity, the more they were coerced into abandoning their protected activity of non-participation in the Association, and the employer had no legitimate business justification for that policy. (adopting proposed decision at p. 11.) more or view all topics or full text. |
29 | 57 | 01/20/05 |
| 1738M |
City of San Diego
801.05500: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Discrimination
The Board found that the Association discriminated against employee by negotiating an MOU that denied her a benefit based upon the fact that she was not an Association member. (adopting proposed decision at p. 10.) more or view all topics or full text. |
29 | 57 | 01/20/05 |
| 1738M |
City of San Diego
503.12000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; Employee Benefits; Insurance, Pensions, Vacations, Holiday Leave, Etc.
Applying the Campbell Municipal Employees Assn. v. City of Campbell (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 416 standard, the Board found the employer discriminated against employee by denying her a benefit based upon the fact that she was not an Association member. There was no dispute that the benefit opportunity in question, i.e., the opportunity to use pretax money to enroll in employee group dental and eye care plans, was objectively a good thing. If the benefit opportunity is a good thing, favorable enough to be an inducement, then being denied that opportunity is unfavorable and adverse. (p. 9 and adopting proposed decision at pp. 7-8.) more or view all topics or full text. |
29 | 57 | 01/20/05 |
| 1738M |
City of San Diego
800.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION; In General; Prima Facie Case
The Board found that the Association violated its duty of fair representation by negotiating an MOU that discriminated against non-Association members. (p. 6.) more or view all topics or full text. |
29 | 57 | 01/20/05 |
| 1738M |
City of San Diego
300.02000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; Abstention From Concerted Activity - Protected Activity
Employee engaged in protected activity by abstaining from participation in the Association. (pp. 5-6.) more or view all topics or full text. |
29 | 57 | 01/20/05 |
| 1737E |
Colton Joint Unified School District
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
While health and safety concerns may be possible subjects for effects bargaining, CSEA never indicated that it requested to negotiate the changes in working conditions with the District or that the District refused to respond to such a request. Absent a request to meet and negotiate regarding effects of changes on matters within scope, it should not be assumed that charging party made such a request simply by acknowledging the changes. (adopting warning letter at p. 2.) more or view all topics or full text. |
29 | 58 | 01/20/05 |
| 1737E |
Colton Joint 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
In determining whether a party has violated EERA section 3543.5(c), PERB utilizes either the “per se” or “totality of the conduct” test, depending on the specific conduct involved and the effect of such conduct on the negotiating process. (Stockton Unified School District (1980) PERB Decision No. 143.) Unilateral changes are considered “per se” violations if certain criteria are met. Those criteria are: (1) the employer implemented a change in policy concerning a matter within the scope of representation, and (2) the change was implemented before the employer notified the exclusive representative and gave it an opportunity to request negotiations. (Walnut Valley Unified School District (1981) PERB Decision No. 160; Grant Joint Unified High School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 196.) In order to prevail on a theory of a change in job responsibilities, the charging party must demonstrate actual changes in the employee's job duties. If the changes are reasonably comprehended within the existing job duties, an assignment of such duties, even if never performed before, is not a violation. (Rio Hondo Community College District (1982) PERB Decision No. 279.) Here, the employees in question were still employed by the District while at work at Las Banderas. While their work locations were changed two days per week, CSEA did not indicate that their job duties had changed. Moreover, the transfer language of the current agreement gave the District discretion to transfer employees so long as the transfer is not for disciplinary reasons. CSEA did not assert that the transfer was for disciplinary reasons; thus, the language of the agreement appeared to support the District’s position that there had been no change. (adopting warning letter at p. 2.) more or view all topics or full text. |
29 | 58 | 01/20/05 |
| A498E |
Barstow Community College District
1503.03000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; Regulations Considered (By Number) (Continued)
Under PERB Regulation 32092, subdivision (a), a digital pen is not required to execute a valid electronic signature. Under subdivision (b), PERB would have deemed the District’s response to have been signed when it was electronically filed, even without the written signature of a digital pen. Therefore, the District’s counsel could have timely submitted the District’s response through e-PERB without spending time searching for a battery for his digital pen. The Board found that the existence of a regulation which would have allowed the District to timely file, even given the circumstances outlined in the appeal, supports that the District did not have good cause for an untimely filing. more or view all topics or full text. |
47 | 94 | 12/13/22 |
| A498E |
Barstow Community College District
1503.03000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; Regulations Considered (By Number) (Continued)
The Board affirmed the Appeals Office’s determination that the District’s response to CSEA’s exceptions was due by 11:59 p.m. on November 7, and that because PERB Regulation 32110, subdivision (f) deems a document filed after 11:59 p.m. as being filed the next business day, the District’s response through e-PERB on November 8, at 12:01 a.m., was untimely. more or view all topics or full text. |
47 | 94 | 12/13/22 |
| A498E |
Barstow Community College District
1110.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; GOOD CAUSE FOR LATE FILING; In General; Standards
On multiple occasions, the Board has found no good cause where the party’s attorney failed to follow or misconstrued PERB’s filing regulations. (See Lake Elsinore Unified School District (2017) PERB Order No. Ad-446, pp. 10-11; State of California (Department of Corrections) (2003) PERB Order No. Ad-328-S, pp. 3-5; State of California (Water Resources Control Board) (1999) PERB Order No. Ad-294-S, pp. 5-6; Calipatria Unified School District (1990) PERB Order No. Ad-217, pp. 12-13.) Here, the Board found that the existence of a regulation which would have allowed the District to timely file, even given the circumstances outlined in the appeal, supports that the District did not have good cause for an untimely filing. more or view all topics or full text. |
47 | 94 | 12/13/22 |
| A498E |
Barstow Community College District
1110.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; GOOD CAUSE FOR LATE FILING; In General; Standards
Generally, “good cause to excuse a late filing exists where the delay is of short duration and based on circumstances that were either unanticipated or beyond the party’s control.” (City and County of San Francisco (2021) PERB Decision No. 2757-M, p. 9, citing Regents of the University of California (2018) PERB Decision No. 2601-H, p. 15; see, e.g., Trustees of the California State University (2016) PERB Order No. Ad-432-H, p. 8; State of California (Department of Corrections) (2006) PERB Decision No. 1806-S, p. 7; United Teachers of Los Angeles (Kestin) (2003) PERB Order No. Ad-325, p. 4.) A late filing will generally be excused when it has resulted in a short and non-prejudicial delay, and it was the result of either “circumstances beyond the control of the filing party or from excusable misinformation, where the filing party’s explanation was credible on its face or was corroborated by other facts or testimony.” (Bellflower Unified School District (2017) PERB Order No. Ad-447, p. 4 (Bellflower).) Regardless of the particular reason(s) given, the party must provide sufficient factual detail to establish a “reasonable and credible” explanation for its untimely filing or show that it at least made a conscientious effort to comply with the filing deadline. (Trustees of the California State University, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-432-H, p. 8; Newport-Mesa Unified School District (2008) PERB Order No. Ad-373, p. 3.) more or view all topics or full text. |
47 | 94 | 12/13/22 |
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.
