Keyword Search by Headnotes - California Public Employment Relations Board

Decision	Description	PERC Vol.	PERC Index	Date
3010H	Regents of the University of California 900.04000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; During Impasse Victor Valley was technically correct that the duty to bargain is “dormant” during impasse resolution procedures, but the decision fails to explain that parties engaged in those processes are bound by a very similar duty (to participate in impasse procedures in good faith), and PERB applies the same per se and totality of conduct tests irrespective of which duty applies. (Compare Victor Valley (1986) PERB Decision No. 565, pp. 7-8 with San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools (2024) PERB Decision No. 2934, pp. 15-16.) Victor Valley and Regents of the University of California (1996) PERB Decision No. 1157-H are overruled to the extent they suggest that the duty to bargain in good faith differs in its nature from the duty to bargain, as well as to the extent the decisions failed to apply the per se and totality of conduct test. more or view all topics or full text.	50	132	02/26/26
3010H	Regents of the University of California 900.04000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; During Impasse In evaluating a claimed failure or refusal to participate in good faith in impasse resolution procedures, PERB applies the same per se and totality of conduct tests that govern bad faith bargaining claims. (Moreno Valley Unified School Dist. v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 191, 196-97; San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools (2024) PERB Decision No. 2934, pp. 15-16; Temple City Unified School District (2008) PERB Decision No. 1972, p. 12, fn. 12.) more or view all topics or full text.	50	132	02/26/26
3010H	Regents of the University of California 900.04000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; During Impasse An impasse dispute resolution procedure continues the bargaining process. (Moreno Valley Unified School Dist. v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 191, 196-97 (Moreno Valley); see also San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools (2024) PERB Decision No. 2934, pp. 15-16 (San Bernardino).) HEERA requires employers and employee organizations to participate in certain impasse resolution procedures, including mediation and, where requested after no settlement occurs in mediation, factfinding. (§§ 3571(e), 3571.1(d); see § 3590 et seq.) Accordingly, both parties must participate in such impasse procedures in good faith. (Moreno Valley, supra, at p. 198; County of Santa Clara (2020) PERB Order No. Ad-483-M, pp. 5-6; City of Davis (2012) PERB Decision No. 2271-M, p. 6.) more or view all topics or full text.	50	132	02/26/26
3010H	Regents of the University of California 900.01000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; In General Victor Valley was technically correct that the duty to bargain is “dormant” during impasse resolution procedures, but the decision fails to explain that parties engaged in those processes are bound by a very similar duty (to participate in impasse procedures in good faith), and PERB applies the same per se and totality of conduct tests irrespective of which duty applies. (Compare Victor Valley (1986) PERB Decision No. 565, pp. 7-8 with San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools (2024) PERB Decision No. 2934, pp. 15-16.) Victor Valley and Regents of the University of California (1996) PERB Decision No. 1157-H are overruled to the extent they suggest that the duty to bargain in good faith differs in its nature from the duty to bargain, as well as to the extent the decisions failed to apply the per se and totality of conduct test. more or view all topics or full text.	50	132	02/26/26
3010H	Regents of the University of California 900.01000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; In General In evaluating a claimed failure or refusal to participate in good faith in impasse resolution procedures, PERB applies the same per se and totality of conduct tests that govern bad faith bargaining claims. (Moreno Valley Unified School Dist. v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 191, 196-97; San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools (2024) PERB Decision No. 2934, pp. 15-16; Temple City Unified School District (2008) PERB Decision No. 1972, p. 12, fn. 12.) more or view all topics or full text.	50	132	02/26/26
3010H	Regents of the University of California 900.01000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; In General An impasse dispute resolution procedure continues the bargaining process. (Moreno Valley Unified School Dist. v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 191, 196-97 (Moreno Valley); see also San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools (2024) PERB Decision No. 2934, pp. 15-16 (San Bernardino).) HEERA requires employers and employee organizations to participate in certain impasse resolution procedures, including mediation and, where requested after no settlement occurs in mediation, factfinding. (§§ 3571(e), 3571.1(d); see § 3590 et seq.) Accordingly, both parties must participate in such impasse procedures in good faith. (Moreno Valley, supra, at p. 198; County of Santa Clara (2020) PERB Order No. Ad-483-M, pp. 5-6; City of Davis (2012) PERB Decision No. 2271-M, p. 6.) more or view all topics or full text.	50	132	02/26/26
3010H	Regents of the University of California 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 An absolute refusal to meet and confer over a mandatory subject of bargaining is a “per se” violation. (Regents of the University of California (2021) PERB Decision No. 2783-H, p. 31.) Piecemeal bargaining, requiring that bargaining for a mandatory subject occur separately, “reduces the flexibility of collective bargaining and narrows the range of possible compromises by rigidly and unreasonably fragmenting negotiations. . . .” (City of Santa Rosa (2013) PERB Decision No. 2308-M, p. 5, citing NLRB precedent; accord County of Sacramento (2020) PERB Decision No. 2745-M, p. 22; Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee & California Superior Courts of Region 2 (2020) PERB Decision No. 2701-I, pp. 36-37; El Dorado County Superior Court (2017) PERB Decision No. 2523-C, p. 12.) PERB generally evaluates piecemeal or fragmented bargaining allegations as indicia of bad faith under the totality of conduct test. (City of San Jose (2013) PERB Decision No. 2341, p. 37 (San Jose).) However, where such bargaining frustrates the bargaining process to a point that it would have the practical effect of a refusal to bargain, a per se violation exists. (Id. at pp. 38-39.) more or view all topics or full text.	50	132	02/26/26
3010H	Regents of the University of California 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 HEERA, at minimum, requires employers and employee organizations to meet and confer in good faith over wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. (§§ 3570; 3562(q).) In determining whether a party has violated its duty to meet and confer in good faith, PERB uses a “per se” test or a “totality of conduct” analysis, depending on the specific conduct involved. (City of Arcadia (2019) PERB Decision No. 2648-M, p. 34.) Per se violations generally involve conduct that violates statutory rights or procedural bargaining norms. (Id. at pp. 34-35.) In contrast, the totality of conduct test applies to allegations of bad faith bargaining conduct that does not constitute a per se refusal to bargain. (Id. at p. 35.) more or view all topics or full text.	50	132	02/26/26
3006M	County of San Diego 1302.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; DECERTIFICATION; In General; Filing Requirements When one union decertifies another and replaces it as a bargaining unit’s exclusive representative, the succeeding union is not contractually bound by its predecessor’s MOA absent an explicit agreement to be bound. (City of Long Beach (2021) PERB Decision No. 2771-M, p. 11, fn. 6.) Most terms of the predecessor MOA nonetheless constitute the status quo, meaning neither party can deviate from such terms before bargaining to a good faith impasse or agreement. (Ibid.) But statutory rights waivers are an exception; they are purely contractual and therefore normally do not form part of the status quo. (See San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools (2024) PERB Decision No. 2934, pp. 26-27 (San Bernardino).) (p. 15, fn. 8.) more or view all topics or full text.	50	124	02/17/26
3006M	County of San Diego 1201.03000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; REINSTATEMENT; BACKPAY BENEFITS; Back Pay; Interest Where the County violated MMBA section 3505.3(a) by failing and refusing to credit release time for the purpose of determining overtime eligibility, the Board ordered that the County must: (1) prospectively comply with MMBA section 3505.3(a) by crediting release time for the purpose of determining overtime eligibility; and (2) make whole any employee who would have earned overtime by working over 40 hours within a single workweek in the absence of negotiations, yet saw such overtime reduced or eliminated because certain work hours were replaced by release time and therefore not credited for the purpose of determining overtime. (p. 17.) more or view all topics or full text.	50	124	02/17/26
3006M	County of San Diego 1000.02117: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Released Time San Mateo County Community College District (1993) PERB Decision No. 1030 (San Mateo) held that a union cannot prevail in a PERB charge alleging that its negotiated agreement provides a substandard “quantity” of release time. (Id. at p. 16 (emphasis supplied).) County of Riverside (2013) PERB Decision No. 2307-M (Riverside I) clarified San Mateo in an important respect, limiting its holding to its specific context—a union challenging an agreement’s provision as to the quantity of allowable release time. (Id. at pp. 29-30.) Taking San Mateo and Riverside I together, the Board further clarified that a union cannot challenge an operative collective bargaining agreement setting the number of employees released for bargaining or the quantity of allowable release time, as those topics are bargainable. In contrast, the right to receive release time without loss of compensation or other benefits is a non-waivable minimum statutory guarantee. (pp. 7-8.) more or view all topics or full text.	50	124	02/17/26
3006M	County of San Diego 1000.02117: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Released Time MMBA section 3505.3 is one of multiple PERB-administered statutes requiring employers to provide reasonable release time to a reasonable number of employees, without loss of compensation or benefits. The number of employees released and/or the amount of release time provided are bargainable. However, the requirement that release time be provided without loss of compensation and benefits constitutes a measurable, non-waivable minimum statutory guarantee. (County of Riverside (2013) PERB Decision No. 2307-M, pp. 29-30.) (p. 8.) more or view all topics or full text.	50	124	02/17/26
3006M	County of San Diego 1000.02117: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Released Time MMBA section 3505.3 is one of multiple PERB-administered statutes requiring employers to provide reasonable release time to a reasonable number of employees, without loss of compensation or benefits. For those two aspects of release time, the PERB-administered statutes provide an enforceable statutory right in the absence of any collective bargaining agreement, but if an operative agreement specifies the number of employees to be released, then it controls as to that specific term, and the same is true if there is operative agreement as to the number of days or hours of release time afforded. (San Mateo County Community College District (1993) PERB Decision No. 1030, pp. 14-16.) Indeed, this principle is true irrespective of whether the governing statute includes a provision stating that an operative agreement will control as to the number of employees released and/or the amount of release time provided; certain PERB-administered statutes include such a provision while other statutes do not, but PERB interprets these disparate laws in the same manner. (Ibid.) (pp. 7-8.) more or view all topics or full text.	50	124	02/17/26
3006M	County of San Diego 401.10000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Released Time Bargaining release time covers not only time spent negotiating but also reasonable time for preparation and internal union caucuses. (Oroville Union High School District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2627, pp. 14-18 [vacated in part on other grounds].) (p. 5, fn. 5.) more or view all topics or full text.	50	124	02/17/26
3006M	County of San Diego 401.10000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Released Time A union may not waive the right to receive release time without loss of compensation or benefits. Parties, however, are not prevented from agreeing to release-time terms that are more generous than those required by MMBA section 3505.3(a). (See San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools (2024) PERB Decision No. 2934, p. 22 [where a statutory right is non-waivable, parties may nonetheless agree to more generous terms].) Moreover, the same principles apply to release time for bargaining as to other forms of release time that MMBA section 3505.3 protects. (pp. 5, fn. 15 & 15-16.) more or view all topics or full text.	50	124	02/17/26
3006M	County of San Diego 401.10000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Released Time An employer’s failure to provide full compensation for work hours missed due to negotiations would create a chilling effect on the exercise of protected rights. An employer cannot provide full compensation for work hours missed due to negotiations, measured against released employees’ regular compensation, if it withholds hourly leave accruals, pension service credit, credit toward overtime, or other compensation or benefits that derive from total hours. “To construe it otherwise would exact a penalty on employees for engaging in formal negotiations, and create a chilling effect on the exercise of protected employee rights, i.e., participation in organizational activities.” (County of Riverside (2013) PERB Decision No. 2307-M, pp. 32-33.) Moreover, the same principles apply to release time for bargaining as to other forms of release time that MMBA section 3505.3 protects. (pp. 5, fn. 15 & 13-14.) more or view all topics or full text.	50	124	02/17/26
3006M	County of San Diego 401.10000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Released Time Where MMBA section 3505.3 and similar PERB-administered statutes require employers to provide reasonable release time to a reasonable number of employees, without loss of compensation or benefits, the Board construes “‘loss” as measured against the amount of pay the employee would have earned if the employee had not been released for bargaining. (County of Riverside (2013) PERB Decision No. 2307-M, p. 32 (Riverside I); see also County of Riverside (2018) PERB Decision No. 2573-M, p. 26 (Riverside II) ([“loss of compensation or other benefits” must always be measured against what employees would have received if they had not been released for bargaining].) In sum, the statutory standard—“without loss of compensation or other benefits”—requires that release time and associated benefits at least equals what the released employees would have earned had they not been released for bargaining or another purpose set forth in section 3505.3. However, the statutory standard does not require employees to be paid for time spent in collective bargaining negotiations if that time exceeds the regular work hours they are missing due to negotiations. In other words, section 3505.3(a) holds employees harmless for replacing regular work time with release time but does not mandate that they are better off financially for having done so. Moreover, the same principles apply to release time for bargaining as to other forms of release time that MMBA section 3505.3 protects. (pp. 5, fn. 15 & pp. 9-12, 17.) more or view all topics or full text.	50	124	02/17/26
3006M	County of San Diego 401.10000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Released Time San Mateo County Community College District (1993) PERB Decision No. 1030 (San Mateo) held that a union cannot prevail in a PERB charge alleging that its negotiated agreement provides a substandard “quantity” of release time. (Id. at p. 16 (emphasis supplied).) County of Riverside (2013) PERB Decision No. 2307-M (Riverside I) clarified San Mateo in an important respect, limiting its holding to its specific context—a union challenging an agreement’s provision as to the quantity of allowable release time. (Riverside I, at pp. 29-30.) Taking San Mateo and Riverside I together, the Board further clarified that a union cannot challenge an operative collective bargaining agreement setting the number of employees released for bargaining or the quantity of allowable release time, as those topics are bargainable. In contrast, the right to receive release time without loss of compensation or other benefits is a non-waivable minimum statutory guarantee. (pp. 7-8.) more or view all topics or full text.	50	124	02/17/26
3006M	County of San Diego 401.10000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Released Time MMBA section 3505.3 is one of multiple PERB-administered statutes requiring employers to provide reasonable release time to a reasonable number of employees, without loss of compensation or benefits. The number of employees released and/or the amount of release time provided are bargainable. However, the requirement that release time be provided without loss of compensation and benefits constitutes a measurable, non-waivable minimum statutory guarantee. (County of Riverside (2013) PERB Decision No. 2307-M, pp. 29-30.) (p. 8.) more or view all topics or full text.	50	124	02/17/26
3006M	County of San Diego 401.10000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Released Time MMBA section 3505.3 is one of multiple PERB-administered statutes requiring employers to provide reasonable release time to a reasonable number of employees, without loss of compensation or benefits. For those two aspects of release time, the PERB-administered statutes provide an enforceable statutory right in the absence of any collective bargaining agreement, but if an operative agreement specifies the number of employees to be released, then it controls as to that specific term, and the same is true if there is operative agreement as to the number of days or hours of release time afforded. (San Mateo County Community College District (1993) PERB Decision No. 1030, pp. 14-16.) Indeed, this principle is true irrespective of whether the governing statute includes a provision stating that an operative agreement will control as to the number of employees released and/or the amount of release time provided; certain PERB-administered statutes include such a provision while other statutes do not, but PERB interprets these disparate laws in the same manner. (Ibid.) (pp. 7-8.) more or view all topics or full text.	50	124	02/17/26
3004M	City of Azusa 1201.01000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; REINSTATEMENT; BACKPAY BENEFITS; In General Board-ordered remedies for unfair practices, including back pay awards, may appropriately serve both compensatory and deterrent functions, so long as they are not punitive. more or view all topics or full text.	50	123	02/11/26
3004M	City of Azusa 1202.01000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; FACTORS LIMITING OR TERMINATING LIABILITY; In General Uncertainty as to the appropriate remedy for an unfair practice must be resolved against the respondent whose unlawful conduct made such doubts possible. Absolute certainty is not required when calculating the back pay necessary to remedy an unfair practice. Because there is inevitable uncertainty as to what would have occurred absent unlawful conduct, make-whole relief typically relies on estimates—which are a better option than allowing unfair practices to go without a fully effective remedy. (City and County of San Francisco (2023) PERB Decision No. 2858-M, pp. 14-15.) Provided that an estimate has a rational basis and is not so excessive as to be punitive, it appropriately serves both a compensatory and deterrent function. (Pasadena Area Community College District (2024) PERB Order No. Ad-518, p. 14.) more or view all topics or full text.	50	123	02/11/26
3004M	City of Azusa 1201.03000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; REINSTATEMENT; BACKPAY BENEFITS; Back Pay; Interest Back pay is appropriate when necessary to restore the economic status quo that would have been obtained but for the respondent’s wrongful conduct. When more traditional methods of calculating back pay awards are not available, alternative methods relying on “reasonable approximations and averages” may be used. more or view all topics or full text.	50	123	02/11/26
3004M	City of Azusa 1201.03000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; REINSTATEMENT; BACKPAY BENEFITS; Back Pay; Interest In a long line of decisions, PERB has held that if the charging party establishes a unilateral change involving extra work, then extra pay is a proper remedy as long as there is a reasonable basis for estimating it. (City of Pasadena, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-406-M, pp. 8, 12-13 & adopting compliance order at pp. 7, 10; Mark Twain Union Elementary School District (2003) PERB Decision No. 1548, p. 9; Corning, supra, PERB Decision No. 399, pp. 10, 16-17; San Mateo City School District (1984) PERB Decision No. 375a, p. 6; see also California State Employees Assn. v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 923, 946-947 [citing with approval the Board’s remedial approach in Corning, supra, PERB Decision No. 399].) more or view all topics or full text.	50	123	02/11/26
2995E	Atwater Elementary Teachers Association, CTA/NEA (Garcia) 1205.01000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIAL PROVISIONS; In General Had an attorney representative relied on fabricated case law, the Board would have been more inclined to issue sanctions even in this initial case, and indeed will likely not hesitate to do so in any future cases. It is a fundamental duty of attorneys to read the legal authorities they cite in order to determine that the authorities exist and stand for the propositions for which they are cited. (See Rules Prof. Conduct, rules 1-1, 1-3.) more or view all topics or full text.	50	99	12/15/25