| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2822E |
Victor Valley Union High School District
409.05000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Union Consent or Waiver
The bargaining unit employees did not waive their confidentiality interest by providing information about their communications with the union president to the District. As part of the disclosures in the dismissal appeal, the bargaining unit member produced the union president’s notes from a meeting with the bargaining unit member as well as e-mail correspondence between the bargaining unit member and the union president. PERB found that this may have weakened the bargaining unit member’s confidentiality interest as to these particular communications, it did not amount to a blanket waiver of confidentiality as to all of bargaining unit member’s communications with the union president. Regarding the other bargaining unit members alleged waiver of confidentiality in their communications with the union president, the District provided no citations to the record for this argument, and PERB therefore need not consider it. more or view all topics or full text. |
47 | 11 | 06/14/22 |
| 2822E |
Victor Valley Union High School District
409.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity
The questions asked of the union president were broad in scope and not narrowly tailored to the allegations in the statement of charges or the union president’s involvement in the bargaining unit member’s defenses, particularly regarding the claims of retaliation for reporting unsafe working conditions and requesting accommodations. If the District had narrowly tailored its questions to the union president’s involvement in co-authoring a complaint, the personal observations of the bargaining unit member’s misconduct, or the involvement in securing accommodations for the bargaining unit member, the District’s interest in obtaining that information may have outweighed the harm to protected rights. The District failed to show it narrowly tailored its actions to attain an important purpose while limiting harm to protected rights to the extent possible. With regard to most of the questions, the questions were not narrowly tailored and District’s need for the answers does not outweigh the employees’ strong interest in confidentiality. more or view all topics or full text. |
47 | 11 | 06/14/22 |
| 2822E |
Victor Valley Union High School District
408.05000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; Other Circumstances
Where a charging party alleges a respondent has interfered with protected activities via litigation, the charging party faces an extra hurdle that is not present in other interference cases: the charging party must establish that the respondent acted without any reasonable basis and for an unlawful purpose. PERB applies private sector labor law principles finding that when an interference claim is based on the employer’s conduct during litigation discovery, the employer’s interest in acquiring the information sought must be balanced against the impact disclosing the information would have on statutorily-protected rights.
PERB adopted the three-part test in Guess?, Inc. (2003) 339 NLRB 432 as the legal standard for determining whether deposition questions interfere with protected rights under the PERB-administered statutes: First, the questioning must be relevant. Second, if the questioning is relevant, it must not have an illegal objective. Third, if the questioning is relevant and does not have an illegal objective, the employer’s interest in obtaining this information must outweigh the employees’ protected rights. Given this broad scope of discovery in teacher dismissal proceedings, PERB could not conclude that the District’s questions were plainly irrelevant to material issues in the dismissal proceeding. PERB did not need to resolve whether the questioning had an illegal objective because it would not change the outcome of the inquiry. PERB found the District’s interest in obtaining the information did not outweigh the president’s and bargaining unit employees’ confidentiality interests, because inquiring into employees’ communications with union representatives chills their exercise of protected rights and the District did not show it had no other means of obtaining the information sought. more or view all topics or full text. |
47 | 11 | 06/14/22 |
| 2822E |
Victor Valley Union High School District
408.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; In General
Where a charging party alleges a respondent has interfered with protected activities via litigation, the charging party faces an extra hurdle that is not present in other interference cases: the charging party must establish that the respondent acted without any reasonable basis and for an unlawful purpose. PERB applies private sector labor law principles finding that when an interference claim is based on the employer’s conduct during litigation discovery, the employer’s interest in acquiring the information sought must be balanced against the impact disclosing the information would have on statutorily-protected rights.
PERB adopted the three-part test in Guess?, Inc. (2003) 339 NLRB 432 as the legal standard for determining whether deposition questions interfere with protected rights under the PERB-administered statutes: First, the questioning must be relevant. Second, if the questioning is relevant, it must not have an illegal objective. Third, if the questioning is relevant and does not have an illegal objective, the employer’s interest in obtaining this information must outweigh the employees’ protected rights. Given this broad scope of discovery in teacher dismissal proceedings, PERB could not conclude that the District’s questions were plainly irrelevant to material issues in the dismissal proceeding. PERB did not need to resolve whether the questioning had an illegal objective because it would not change the outcome of the inquiry. PERB found the District’s interest in obtaining the information did not outweigh the president’s and bargaining unit employees’ confidentiality interests, because inquiring into employees’ communications with union representatives chills their exercise of protected rights and the District did not show it had no other means of obtaining the information sought. more or view all topics or full text. |
47 | 11 | 06/14/22 |
| 2822E |
Victor Valley Union High School District
402.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; QUESTIONING/INTERROGATING EMPLOYEES; In General
Where a charging party alleges a respondent has interfered with protected activities via litigation, the charging party faces an extra hurdle that is not present in other interference cases: the charging party must establish that the respondent acted without any reasonable basis and for an unlawful purpose. PERB applies private sector labor law principles finding that when an interference claim is based on the employer’s conduct during litigation discovery, the employer’s interest in acquiring the information sought must be balanced against the impact disclosing the information would have on statutorily-protected rights.
PERB adopted the three-part test in Guess?, Inc. (2003) 339 NLRB 432 as the legal standard for determining whether deposition questions interfere with protected rights under the PERB-administered statutes: First, the questioning must be relevant. Second, if the questioning is relevant, it must not have an illegal objective. Third, if the questioning is relevant and does not have an illegal objective, the employer’s interest in obtaining this information must outweigh the employees’ protected rights. Given this broad scope of discovery in teacher dismissal proceedings, PERB could not conclude that the District’s questions were plainly irrelevant to material issues in the dismissal proceeding. PERB did not need to resolve whether the questioning had an illegal objective because it would not change the outcome of the inquiry. PERB found the District’s interest in obtaining the information did not outweigh the president’s and bargaining unit employees’ confidentiality interests, because inquiring into employees’ communications with union representatives chills their exercise of protected rights and the District did not show it had no other means of obtaining the information sought. more or view all topics or full text. |
47 | 11 | 06/14/22 |
| 2822E |
Victor Valley Union High School District
400.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
To analyze allegations of employer interference with the rights of employees or employee organizations, PERB uses the standard articulated in Carlsbad Unified School District (1979) PERB Decision No. 89. A charging party establishes a prima facie case of interference where an employer’s conduct tends to or does result in at least slight harm to protected rights. The test for whether a respondent has interfered with protected rights does not require that unlawful motive be established. Once a charging party has established a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the respondent. The degree of harm dictates the respondent’s burden. If the harm is “inherently destructive” of protected rights, the respondent must show that the interference results from circumstances beyond its control and that no alternative course of action was available. For conduct that is harmful but not inherently destructive, the respondent may attempt to justify its actions based on operational necessity. In such cases, PERB balances the asserted need against the tendency to harm protected rights; if the tendency to harm outweighs the necessity, PERB finds a violation. Within the category of actions or rules that are not inherently destructive, the stronger the tendency to harm, the greater is the respondent’s burden to show its need was important and that it narrowly tailored its actions or rules to attain that purpose while limiting harm to protected rights as much as possible. more or view all topics or full text. |
47 | 11 | 06/14/22 |
| 2822E |
Victor Valley Union High School District
101.03000: PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; APPLICABILITY OF AND CONFLICTS WITH OTHER STATUTES; NLRA/LMRDA Precedent
Although California public sector labor relations precedent frequently protects employee and union rights to a greater degree than does federal precedent governing private sector labor relations, PERB considers federal precedent for its potential persuasive value. more or view all topics or full text. |
47 | 11 | 06/14/22 |
| 2822E |
Victor Valley Union High School District
101.02000: PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; APPLICABILITY OF AND CONFLICTS WITH OTHER STATUTES; Conflicts Between PERB-Administered Laws and Other California Statutes; Education Code/Supersession; MMBA Supersession
To avoid acting in excess of its authority, PERB has an obligation to determine whether it has jurisdiction over a dispute, regardless of whether the parties themselves have raised the issue. The Legislature has granted and the courts have consistently upheld PERB’s primary and exclusive jurisdiction over alleged unfair practices. PERB rejected the argument that because the Education Code grants the Office of Administrative Hearings jurisdiction over teacher dismissal proceedings, including pre-hearing discovery, it deprives PERB of jurisdiction over the inquiry into whether the District’s questioning of a union president during a deposition interfered with EERA-protected rights. The allegations in the complaint that the District interfered with employee and union rights under EERA by extensively questioning the union president regarding protected communications with a bargaining unit member, other unit members, and a California Teachers Association staff member, are squarely within PERB’s jurisdiction. more or view all topics or full text. |
47 | 11 | 06/14/22 |
| 2822E |
Victor Valley Union High School District
101.01000: PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; APPLICABILITY OF AND CONFLICTS WITH OTHER STATUTES; In General
To avoid acting in excess of its authority, PERB has an obligation to determine whether it has jurisdiction over a dispute, regardless of whether the parties themselves have raised the issue. The Legislature has granted and the courts have consistently upheld PERB’s primary and exclusive jurisdiction over alleged unfair practices. PERB rejected the argument that because the Education Code grants the Office of Administrative Hearings jurisdiction over teacher dismissal proceedings, including pre-hearing discovery, it deprives PERB of jurisdiction over the inquiry into whether the District’s questioning of a union president during a deposition interfered with EERA-protected rights. The allegations in the complaint that the District interfered with employee and union rights under EERA by extensively questioning the union president regarding protected communications with a bargaining unit member, other unit members, and a California Teachers Association staff member, are squarely within PERB’s jurisdiction. more or view all topics or full text. |
47 | 11 | 06/14/22 |
| 2822E |
Victor Valley Union High School District
100.01000: PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; OPERATION OF EERA, DILLS (SEERA), HEERA; In General
To avoid acting in excess of its authority, PERB has an obligation to determine whether it has jurisdiction over a dispute, regardless of whether the parties themselves have raised the issue. The Legislature has granted and the courts have consistently upheld PERB’s primary and exclusive jurisdiction over alleged unfair practices. PERB rejected the argument that because the Education Code grants the Office of Administrative Hearings jurisdiction over teacher dismissal proceedings, including pre-hearing discovery, it deprives PERB of jurisdiction over the inquiry into whether the District’s questioning of a union president during a deposition interfered with EERA-protected rights. The allegations in the complaint that the District interfered with employee and union rights under EERA by extensively questioning the union president regarding protected communications with a bargaining unit member, other unit members, and a California Teachers Association staff member, are squarely within PERB’s jurisdiction. more or view all topics or full text. |
47 | 11 | 06/14/22 |
| 2819E |
Cerritos Community College District
608.15000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Hard Bargaining
Under the totality of conduct test, a party is permitted to maintain a “hard bargaining” position on one or more issues, if the entire course of its bargaining conduct, both at the table and away from it, manifests good faith efforts toward reaching an overall agreement. (City of San Ramon (2018) PERB Decision No. 2571-M, pp. 7-8.) The ultimate question is whether the respondent’s conduct, when viewed in its totality, was sufficiently egregious to frustrate negotiations. (Id. at p. 7.) What the District did here was beyond the bounds of permissible hard bargaining, given its rigid stance on negotiability that effectively led to an early impasse on the Article 13 proposal, as well as its lack of substantive counterproposals and engagement at the bargaining table. (p. 40.) more or view all topics or full text. |
46 | 168 | 05/06/22 |
| 2819E |
Cerritos Community College District
601.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); In General, Per Se and Totality of Conduct; Prima Facie Case
A single indicator of bad faith, if egregious, can be a sufficient basis for finding that a party has failed to bargain in good faith. However, here the District’s conduct demonstrates multiple bad faith indicia, including: failing to respond to proposals in a timely manner (State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (1989) PERB Decision No. 739-S, pp. 4-5); failing to prepare adequately for negotiations and failing to take one’s bargaining obligation seriously (Children of Promise Preparatory Academy (2018) PERB Decision No. 2558, p. 26; Oakland Unified School District (1983) PERB Decision No. 326, pp. 33-34 (Oakland)); failing to explain a bargaining position in sufficient detail or to provide requested information supporting a bargaining position, without an adequate reason for such failure (City of Davis (2018) PERB Decision No. 2582-M, pp. 19-20; City of San Jose (2013) PERB Decision No. 2341-M, p. 42); incorrectly labeling the other party’s proposal as non-mandatory or failing to seek clarification of a proposal to determine if it relates to a mandatory subject (City of Palo Alto (2017) PERB Decision No. 2388a-M, p. 33; City of Selma (2014) PERB Decision No. 2380-M, p. 16); and making predictably unacceptable proposals (Oakland, supra, PERB Decision No. 326, p. 38). Taken in their totality, these indicia demonstrate the District’s lack of intent to come to an agreement about any of the Federation’s just cause proposals. (pp 37-38.) more or view all topics or full text. |
46 | 168 | 05/06/22 |
| 2819E |
Cerritos Community College District
605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain
Per se violations generally involve conduct that violates statutory rights or procedural bargaining norms. (City of Arcadia (2019) PERB Decision No. 2648-M, pp. 34-35.) Unlike the totality of conduct analysis, a per se violation requires no inquiry into the respondent’s subjective intent or finding of bad faith. (Fresno County In-Home Supportive Services Public Authority (2015) PERB Decision No. 2418-M, p. 15 (Fresno).) The District’s outright refusal to negotiate over lesser discipline of full-time faculty and paid administrative leave constituted a per se violation of its duty to bargain. (City of Glendale (2020) PERB Decision No. 2694-M, pp. 67-70; Fresno, supra, PERB Decision No. 2418-M, p. 15.) (p. 36.) more or view all topics or full text. |
46 | 168 | 05/06/22 |
| 2819E |
Cerritos Community College District
1000.02030: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Disciplinary Procedures
Misconduct investigations and information to be disclosed to the exclusive representative and accused employee during such investigations are within the scope of representation as they are subjects reasonably related to disciplinary procedures. (p. 33.) more or view all topics or full text. |
46 | 168 | 05/06/22 |
| 2819E |
Cerritos Community College District
1000.02029: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Disciplinary Action
Reassignment, assignment loss, and mandatory training are bargainable when employed as a form of discipline. (pp. 29-30.) more or view all topics or full text. |
46 | 168 | 05/06/22 |
| 2819E |
Cerritos Community College District
1000.02159: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Workloads
There are several means of establishing that an employer must bargain regarding changes to represented employees’ job duties, absent a waiver. Pertinent here, an employer must normally bargain a change to represented employees’ job duties if it is a material change, meaning that the employer is assigning work that was not “reasonably comprehended within the employee’s existing job duties.” (Oakland Unified School District (2003) PERB Decision No. 1544, pp. 5-8 & adopting warning letter at p. 2.) The material change standard also covers decisions to transfer a job duty between employees within the same bargaining unit. (Desert Sands Unified School District (2001) PERB Decision No. 1468, pp. 3-4.) Furthermore, an employer also must bargain over a material change in represented employees’ workload or performance standards. (County of Kern (2018) PERB Decision No. 2615-M, p. 10 & adopting proposed decision at p. 11.) To the extent the ALJ asserted that Davis Joint Unified School District (1983) PERB Decision No. 393, held that an employer need not bargain over work assignments, the ALJ failed to acknowledge that employers must bargain over duties or assignments impacting workload, performance standards, or preservation of bargaining unit work, as well as over revised duties or assignments that are not “reasonably understood” to be among the employees’ existing duties or assignments. Davis’ thrust was thus more muted than the ALJ’s characterization suggested, and we disavow any categorical rule that work assignments are outside the scope of representation. (pp. 29-31.) more or view all topics or full text. |
46 | 168 | 05/06/22 |
| 2819E |
Cerritos Community College District
1000.02145: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Training
There are several means of establishing that an employer must bargain regarding changes to represented employees’ job duties, absent a waiver. Pertinent here, an employer must normally bargain a change to represented employees’ job duties if it is a material change, meaning that the employer is assigning work that was not “reasonably comprehended within the employee’s existing job duties.” (Oakland Unified School District (2003) PERB Decision No. 1544, pp. 5-8 & adopting warning letter at p. 2.) The material change standard also covers decisions to transfer a job duty between employees within the same bargaining unit. (Desert Sands Unified School District (2001) PERB Decision No. 1468, pp. 3-4.) Furthermore, an employer also must bargain over a material change in represented employees’ workload or performance standards. (County of Kern (2018) PERB Decision No. 2615-M, p. 10 & adopting proposed decision at p. 11.) To the extent the ALJ asserted that Davis Joint Unified School District (1983) PERB Decision No. 393, held that an employer need not bargain over work assignments, the ALJ failed to acknowledge that employers must bargain over duties or assignments impacting workload, performance standards, or preservation of bargaining unit work, as well as over revised duties or assignments that are not “reasonably understood” to be among the employees’ existing duties or assignments. Davis’ thrust was thus more muted than the ALJ’s characterization suggested, and we disavow any categorical rule that work assignments are outside the scope of representation. (pp. 29-31.) more or view all topics or full text. |
46 | 168 | 05/06/22 |
| 2819E |
Cerritos Community College District
1000.02071: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Job Duties
There are several means of establishing that an employer must bargain regarding changes to represented employees’ job duties, absent a waiver. Pertinent here, an employer must normally bargain a change to represented employees’ job duties if it is a material change, meaning that the employer is assigning work that was not “reasonably comprehended within the employee’s existing job duties.” (Oakland Unified School District (2003) PERB Decision No. 1544, pp. 5-8 & adopting warning letter at p. 2.) The material change standard also covers decisions to transfer a job duty between employees within the same bargaining unit. (Desert Sands Unified School District (2001) PERB Decision No. 1468, pp. 3-4.) Furthermore, an employer also must bargain over a material change in represented employees’ workload or performance standards. (County of Kern (2018) PERB Decision No. 2615-M, p. 10 & adopting proposed decision at p. 11.) To the extent the ALJ asserted that Davis Joint Unified School District (1983) PERB Decision No. 393, held that an employer need not bargain over work assignments, the ALJ failed to acknowledge that employers must bargain over duties or assignments impacting workload, performance standards, or preservation of bargaining unit work, as well as over revised duties or assignments that are not “reasonably understood” to be among the employees’ existing duties or assignments. Davis’ thrust was thus more muted than the ALJ’s characterization suggested, and we disavow any categorical rule that work assignments are outside the scope of representation. (pp. 29-31.) more or view all topics or full text. |
46 | 168 | 05/06/22 |
| 2819E |
Cerritos Community College District
1000.02112: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Reassignments
There are several means of establishing that an employer must bargain regarding changes to represented employees’ job duties, absent a waiver. Pertinent here, an employer must normally bargain a change to represented employees’ job duties if it is a material change, meaning that the employer is assigning work that was not “reasonably comprehended within the employee’s existing job duties.” (Oakland Unified School District (2003) PERB Decision No. 1544, pp. 5-8 & adopting warning letter at p. 2.) The material change standard also covers decisions to transfer a job duty between employees within the same bargaining unit. (Desert Sands Unified School District (2001) PERB Decision No. 1468, pp. 3-4.) Furthermore, an employer also must bargain over a material change in represented employees’ workload or performance standards. (County of Kern (2018) PERB Decision No. 2615-M, p. 10 & adopting proposed decision at p. 11.) To the extent the ALJ asserted that Davis Joint Unified School District (1983) PERB Decision No. 393, held that an employer need not bargain over work assignments, the ALJ failed to acknowledge that employers must bargain over duties or assignments impacting workload, performance standards, or preservation of bargaining unit work, as well as over revised duties or assignments that are not “reasonably understood” to be among the employees’ existing duties or assignments. Davis’ thrust was thus more muted than the ALJ’s characterization suggested, and we disavow any categorical rule that work assignments are outside the scope of representation.
(pp. 29-31.) more or view all topics or full text. |
46 | 168 | 05/06/22 |
| 2819E |
Cerritos Community College District
1107.05000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Precedential Authority of PERB Decisions
Dissenting opinions are not considered precedential Board decisions. (See PERB Regs. 32320, subd. (c) [“all decisions and orders issued by the Board itself are precedential”] & 32030 [“‘Board itself’ means only the five-member Public Employment Relations Board, or members thereof authorized by law to act on behalf of the Board”]; People v. Lopez (2012) 55 Cal.4th 569, 585 [dissenting opinions are not binding precedent].) (p. 26, fn. 10.) more or view all topics or full text. |
46 | 168 | 05/06/22 |
| 2819E |
Cerritos Community College District
1407.01000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION; General Principles
The fundamental task in interpreting statutory language is ascertaining the Legislature’s intent so as to effectuate the purpose of the law. (Regents of the University of California (2021) PERB Decision No. 2755-H, p. 20.) When PERB interprets a statute, usually “we begin with its plain language, affording the words their ordinary and usual meaning.” (Santa Clara Valley Water District (2013) PERB Decision No. 2349-M, p. 16, citing Shady Tree Farms, LLC v. Omni Financial, LLC (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 131, 137.) But when the statute itself gives the words a special meaning different from their ordinary and usual meaning, we must follow that special meaning. (Irvine Valley College Academic Senate v. South Orange County Community College Dist. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1482, 1489.) If the terms of the statute are unambiguous, we assume the Legislature meant what it said; the plain meaning controls and there is nothing to interpret or construe. (State of California (Office of the Inspector General) (2019) PERB Decision No. 2660-S, p. 15.) Only when the statutory terms are ambiguous may we resort to extrinsic sources such as maxims of construction and legislative history to discern legislative intent. (Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee & California Superior Courts of Region 2 (2020) PERB Decision No. 2701-I, p. 33.) (pp. 24-25.) more or view all topics or full text. |
46 | 168 | 05/06/22 |
| 2819E |
Cerritos Community College District
601.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); In General, Per Se and Totality of Conduct; Prima Facie Case
The District’s failure to seek clarification from the Federation about its proposal or to analyze the proposal more broadly, instead rejecting it out of hand, evinced a failure on the District’s part to take its bargaining obligation seriously. (p. 23, fn. 9.) more or view all topics or full text. |
46 | 168 | 05/06/22 |
| 2819E |
Cerritos Community College District
1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated
A proposal that is outside the scope of representation for some employees is not outside scope for all employees to whom the proposal may apply. (p. 23, fn. 9.) more or view all topics or full text. |
46 | 168 | 05/06/22 |
| 2819E |
Cerritos Community College District
101.02000: PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; APPLICABILITY OF AND CONFLICTS WITH OTHER STATUTES; Conflicts Between PERB-Administered Laws and Other California Statutes; Education Code/Supersession; MMBA Supersession
Under the Anaheim/San Mateo standard, a public school employer and exclusive representative have latitude to bargain over subjects expressly covered by the Education Code provided that contract terms do not replace, set aside, or annul Education Code provisions. For instance, parties may incorporate into a CBA mandatory Education Code provisions or additional employee protections beyond those afforded in the Education Code. (See San Francisco Unified School District (2009) PERB Decision No. 2040, p. 5, fn. 4.) Similarly, where the Education Code merely provides a governing board with discretion to determine employment terms or conditions, without specifying the terms that shall apply, the general grant of authority does not extinguish the employer’s bargaining duty. (Los Angeles Unified School District (2017) PERB Decision No. 2518, pp. 34-35 & adopting proposed decision at pp. 23-25.) (pp. 22-23.) more or view all topics or full text. |
46 | 168 | 05/06/22 |
| 2819E |
Cerritos Community College District
101.02000: PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; APPLICABILITY OF AND CONFLICTS WITH OTHER STATUTES; Conflicts Between PERB-Administered Laws and Other California Statutes; Education Code/Supersession; MMBA Supersession
EERA requires an additional consideration unique to the statutes under PERB’s jurisdiction. Because EERA exists alongside the Education Code, the former must give way to the latter when there is a specific conflict between the statutes. However, the Education Code’s supersession over EERA is not absolute. EERA’s scope of representation is not strictly limited to its enumerated terms, and parties may bargain over matters that are regulated by the Education Code provided that its provisions would not be “replaced, set aside or annulled by the language of the proposed contract clause.” (San Mateo City School Dist. v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 850, 864.) Indeed, parties can negotiate over subjects regulated by the Education Code provided a proposal “would not supersede the relevant part of the Education Code, but would strengthen it.” (Id. at p. 866.) Thus, “[u]nless the statutory language [of the Education Code] clearly evidences an intent to set an inflexible standard or insure immutable provisions, the negotiability of a proposal should not be precluded.” (Id. at pp. 864-865.) (pp. 20-21, 27.) more or view all topics or full text. |
46 | 168 | 05/06/22 |
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.
