| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2771M |
City of Long Beach
407.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH DECERTIFICATION OR RIVAL UNION PETITION; In General
City violated the MMBA by interfering with protected rights when it shared a competing union’s unredacted proof of support documents with incumbent union. Employees covered by the MMBA have comparable rights to those covered by EERA, which explicitly provides for proof of support confidentiality. There is no adequate basis for distinguishing the need for confidentiality under the two statutes, and disclosing proof of support documents has the same tendency to harm protected rights under the MMBA as it does under EERA and the other statutes PERB enforces. more or view all topics or full text. |
46 | 1 | 06/09/21 |
| 2771M |
City of Long Beach
400.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
To establish a prima facie interference case, a charging party must show that an employer’s conduct tends to or does result in some harm to union and/or employee rights protected under the statutes PERB enforces. (City of San Diego (2020) PERB Decision No. 2747-M, p. 36.) Once a charging party has established a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the employer. (Ibid.) The degree of harm dictates the employer’s burden. (Ibid.) If the harm is “inherently destructive” of protected rights, the employer must show that the interference results from circumstances beyond its control and that no alternative course of action was available. (Ibid.) For conduct that is not inherently destructive, the respondent may attempt to justify its actions based on business necessity. (Ibid.) In such cases, PERB balances the asserted business necessity against the tendency to harm protected rights; if the tendency to harm outweighs the necessity, PERB finds a violation. (Ibid.) 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 business necessity 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. (Id. at p. 36, fn. 19.) more or view all topics or full text. |
46 | 1 | 06/09/21 |
| 2771M |
City of Long Beach
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, where California statutory provisions are akin to those found in federal law, we consider federal precedent for its potential persuasive value. (City of Santa Monica (2020) PERB Decision No. 2635a-M, p. 47, fn. 16; Contra Costa Community College District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2652, p. 27, fn. 17; see also Social Workers’ Union, Local 535 v. Alameda County Welfare Dept. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 382, 391 [when interpreting California public sector labor relations laws, federal precedent is a “useful starting point,” but it does “not necessarily establish the limits of California public employees’ representational rights”].) more or view all topics or full text. |
46 | 1 | 06/09/21 |
| 2771M |
City of Long Beach
1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements
In City of Bellflower (2021) PERB Decision No. 2770-M, PERB noted that proof of support is a unique type of statement warranting confidentiality protection. (Id. at p. 22.) The e-mails at issue here, in which two employees belatedly attempted to revoke their proof of support, were not technically proof of support documents, and in most instances such documents should not be sent to the employer, as an employer’s possession of proof of support or related documents will often constitute at least as great (if not greater) a confidentiality breach as a competing union’s possession of the same. Parties did not raise question of whether the MMBA permits a local rule in which a union must submit its proof of support to the employer, which tends to create complications such as those at issue here. (See id. at p. 20, fn. 15 [noting issue remains unsettled in the absence of any challenge].) more or view all topics or full text. |
46 | 1 | 06/09/21 |
| 2771M |
City of Long Beach
1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements
The City properly accepted the petitioner’s proof of support which authorized petitioner to represent the signatories in their employment relations with the City without mentioning decertification of the incumbent representative, as the authorization cards provided sufficient evidence that the employees wished to both decertify and replace their exclusive representative. The MMBA does not bar petitioner’s authorization language, particularly given that, in the absence of any applicable local rule, PERB would consider IBEW’s authorization language to be sufficient proof of support for a combined decertification-recognition petition. (PERB Reg. 61350, subd. (b)(2).) more or view all topics or full text. |
46 | 1 | 06/09/21 |
| 2771M |
City of Long Beach
1302.04000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; DECERTIFICATION; Bar To
PERB Regulation 61380, subdivision (c), which applies to MMBA employers that have not adopted a reasonable local rule regarding decertification, permits a decertification petition any time after an MOU expires and before a successor MOU takes effect. However, Madera held the MMBA does not require local rules to permit a decertification petition immediately upon MOU expiration, provided that the rule allows a reasonable and equitable opportunity to file decertification petitions when no MOU is in effect. (City of Madera (2016) PERB Decision No. 2506-M, p. 9; cf. County of Ventura (2018) PERB Decision No. 2600, pp. 44-45 [employer’s local rule violates the MMBA if it establishes certain dates in a calendar year when a union can file a petition to represent unrepresented employees].) more or view all topics or full text. |
46 | 1 | 06/09/21 |
| 2771M |
City of Long Beach
1302.04000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; DECERTIFICATION; Bar To
The MMBA does not contain a “contract bar,” viz., a rule limiting new recognition or decertification petitions while an MOU is in effect. (City of San Rafael (2004) PERB Decision No. 1698-M, p. 2, fn. 2.) The absence of such statutory language provides each MMBA employer some discretion to find a reasonable balance between employees’ right of free association and the need for stable labor relations. (Id. at pp. 2-3, citing Service Employees Internat. Union v. City of Santa Barbara (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 459.) However, an MMBA employer’s local rules may not undercut or frustrate the MMBA’s policies and purposes. (International Federation of Prof. & Technical Engineers v. City & County of San Francisco (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1300, 1306; Huntington Beach Police Officers’ Assn. v. City of Huntington Beach (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 492, 500-502.) more or view all topics or full text. |
46 | 1 | 06/09/21 |
| 2771M |
City of Long Beach
1302.03000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; DECERTIFICATION; Stay of
Election stay lifted following adjudication of unfair practice charge, where established violations were so limited that they would not tend to prevent a fair election from going forward. The first violation---that the City applied a rule concerning revocation of proof of support that was not contained in its EERR---has little tendency to impact employee free choice in the instant circumstances, as the only two revocations at issue were insufficient in number to change the petitioner’s proof of support and in any event, they arrived too late to be counted. The second of the two violations---that the City disclosed the identity of two employees who had sought to revoke their support for the Petition---could harm free choice for the two employees whose identities the City disclosed and possibly for other employees who learned of the disclosure. Nonetheless, PERB determined to dissolve the stay given that the record does not indicate whether the City’s disclosure tended to materially inhibit unit employees from freely deciding whether to change their exclusive representative in the coming months. To the extent evidence emerges suggesting that the City’s disclosure of two employees’ identities may, in fact, impact fair election conditions, incumbent union remains free to introduce such evidence via a post-election objection. more or view all topics or full text. |
46 | 1 | 06/09/21 |
| 2771M |
City of Long Beach
1302.03000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; DECERTIFICATION; Stay of
When PERB stays representation proceedings pending resolution of unfair practice allegations that could impact employee free choice, PERB must determine at the close of unfair practice proceedings whether representation proceedings can resume. If the charging party fails to establish any unfair practice, representation proceedings can go forward. However, where the charging party prevails in its charge in whole or in part, PERB must assess whether the conduct found unlawful has a continuing tendency to harm employee free choice and, if so, whether PERB’s remedies, combined with the passage of time or other factors, are sufficient to remedy that tendency and permit fair representation proceedings to go forward. (Children of Promise Preparatory Academy (2018) PERB Order No. Ad-470. p. 6 & adopting administrative determination at p. 4.) more or view all topics or full text. |
46 | 1 | 06/09/21 |
| 2771M |
City of Long Beach
1302.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; DECERTIFICATION; In General; Filing Requirements
City cannot enforce a quorum requirement that permits decertification only if a majority of unit employees participate in the vote. This provision violates the MMBA and is therefore unenforceable. (County of Imperial (2007) PERB Decision No. 1916-M, pp. 15-19.) more or view all topics or full text. |
46 | 1 | 06/09/21 |
| 2771M |
City of Long Beach
1302.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; DECERTIFICATION; In General; Filing Requirements
The City reasonably concluded that the petition adequately described the unit sought to be decertified. The City reasonably construed the local rules to mean that a recognition petition covering unrepresented positions must specify all classifications at issue, but a petition to decertify and replace an incumbent union need only identify the unit at issue. Moreover, the petitioner exercised due diligence in attempting to determine the classifications in the petitioned-for unit, both by examining the City’s website and submitting a CPRA request. Given that an MMBA employer must interpret its local rules in a reasonable manner (City of Madera (2016) PERB Decision No. 2506-M, p. 5), local rules should not be interpreted so strictly that they become a minefield freezing the status quo in place until a petitioner runs a gauntlet of unreasonably difficult requirements. more or view all topics or full text. |
46 | 1 | 06/09/21 |
| 2771M |
City of Long Beach
1302.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; DECERTIFICATION; In General; Filing Requirements
The City reasonably concluded that petitioner’s failure to include a statement required by the local rules that it would agree “to abide with any existing [MOU] covering [bargaining unit] employees” should it succeed in decertifying the incumbent bargaining representative was not required where the incumbent’s expired MOU was not an “existing” agreement for the purposes of the local rules. The City’s interpretation also avoided conflict between the local rules and precedent holding that a succeeding union is not contractually bound by an MOU its decertified predecessor executed, even if negotiations are required before implementing employment terms that deviate from the status quo. (Compton Community College District (1989) PERB Decision No. 728, adopting proposed decision at p. 69.) more or view all topics or full text. |
46 | 1 | 06/09/21 |
| 2771M |
City of Long Beach
750.01000: EMPLOYER ADOPTION/ENFORCEMENT OF UNREASONABLE RULE; In General
When evaluating an MMBA employer’s application of its local rules, PERB follows a reasonableness standard. (City of Madera (2016) PERB Decision No. 2506-M, p. 5.) PERB finds no unfair practice where the agency reasonably interprets its own rules in a manner that effectuates the MMBA’s purposes. (Ibid.) The inverse is true if the public agency acted inconsistently with a reasonable interpretation of the rule. (County of Riverside (2011) PERB Decision No. 2163-M, adopting proposed decision at pp. 8-9.) more or view all topics or full text. |
46 | 1 | 06/09/21 |
| 2772M |
County of Sonoma * * * VACATED IN PART by County of Sonoma (2023) PERB Decision No. 2772a-M * * *
1503.02000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; Regulations Considered (By Number)
Under PERB Regulation 32215, the Board may order the Division of Administrative Law to conduct an expedited hearing and, upon completion of the hearing, submit the record to the Board itself for a decision on the merits. more or view all topics or full text. |
46 | 8 | 06/23/21 |
| 2772M |
County of Sonoma * * * VACATED IN PART by County of Sonoma (2023) PERB Decision No. 2772a-M * * *
1208.01000: DECLARATORY RELIEF; In General
Where an ordinance was adopted without meeting and conferring with two exclusive representatives, the Board declared the negotiable provisions of the ordinance void and unenforceable, and ordered the employer to cease and desist enforcing those provisions as to those exclusive representatives, but not as to exclusive representatives that did not participate in the case. more or view all topics or full text. |
46 | 8 | 06/23/21 |
| 2772M |
County of Sonoma * * * VACATED IN PART by County of Sonoma (2023) PERB Decision No. 2772a-M * * *
1205.08000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIAL PROVISIONS; Expunging Employee Personnel Files
An unfair practice finding creates a presumption that employees suffered some financial loss as a result of the employer’s unlawful conduct. Consistent with the presumption, it is appropriate to give the Associations an opportunity to establish in compliance proceedings that any employees they represent suffered financial harm as a result of the application of any of the unlawfully adopted ballot measure amendments. Similarly, in compliance proceedings the Associations may present evidence that represented officers have been subject to discipline or had items placed in their personnel files as a result of the application of any of the unlawfully adopted ballot measure amendments. (p. 61.) more or view all topics or full text. |
46 | 8 | 06/23/21 |
| 2772M |
County of Sonoma * * * VACATED IN PART by County of Sonoma (2023) PERB Decision No. 2772a-M * * *
1205.07000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIAL PROVISIONS; Restoration of Status Quo
Although PERB’s remedial authority is broad, the Board lacks the authority to overturn the results of an election in order to remedy a failure of procedure required by the MMBA. PERB can declare provisions enacted in violation of the MMBA to be void and/or unenforceable, in whole or in part. Because the ballot measure was enacted by the voters at the November 3, 2020 election, the Board could not order the County to rescind the unlawfully adopted amendments as part of restoring the status quo. Thus, the Board declared the amendments that required either decisional or effects bargaining as void and unenforceable as to any employees the charging party Associations represent. (p. 60.) more or view all topics or full text. |
46 | 8 | 06/23/21 |
| 2772M |
County of Sonoma * * * VACATED IN PART by County of Sonoma (2023) PERB Decision No. 2772a-M * * *
1200.01000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; CEASE AND DESIST ORDERS; In General
Where an ordinance was adopted without meeting and conferring with two exclusive representatives, the Board declared the negotiable provisions of the ordinance void and unenforceable, and ordered the employer to cease and desist enforcing those provisions as to those exclusive representatives, but not as to exclusive representatives that did not participate in the case. more or view all topics or full text. |
46 | 8 | 06/23/21 |
| 2772M |
County of Sonoma * * * VACATED IN PART by County of Sonoma (2023) PERB Decision No. 2772a-M * * *
1107.20000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Other
Under PERB Regulation 32215, the Board may order the Division of Administrative Law to conduct an expedited hearing and, upon completion of the hearing, submit the record to the Board itself for a decision on the merits. more or view all topics or full text. |
46 | 8 | 06/23/21 |
| 2772M |
County of Sonoma * * * VACATED IN PART by County of Sonoma (2023) PERB Decision No. 2772a-M * * *
1000.02125: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Salaries or Wages
A ballot measure authorized the county’s police review agency to have direct, unfettered access to witnesses without indicating whether Association-represented witnesses would be paid during the interview. Similarly, the requirement of the Sheriff’s Office to provide the police review agency with supervisors of an employee subject to an investigation but does not specify whether any such Association-represented supervisor will be paid during any discussion with the police review agency. These provisions accordingly were within scope and subject to effects bargaining. (p. 46.) more or view all topics or full text. |
46 | 8 | 06/23/21 |
| 2772M |
County of Sonoma * * * VACATED IN PART by County of Sonoma (2023) PERB Decision No. 2772a-M * * *
1000.02124: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Safety of Employees
Workplace safety is subject to effects bargaining. A ballot measure gave the police review agency authority to post every body worn camera video where force was used on its website. The provision was silent about whether Sheriff’s Office policy requiring the Office to give the impacted individual advance notice and an opportunity to review the video, perform a threat assessment, provide safety detail for the affected member and their family, and provide context for the released video consistent with Sheriff’s Office practice that helps explain policy, practice, and deputy perception, would apply when the police review agency posted video. These protocols are intended to protect the safety of officers. The public disclosure of body worn camera video by the police review agency without following existing Sheriff’s Office protocols impacts workplace safety. (p. 45.) more or view all topics or full text. |
46 | 8 | 06/23/21 |
| 2772M |
County of Sonoma * * * VACATED IN PART by County of Sonoma (2023) PERB Decision No. 2772a-M * * *
1000.02030: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Disciplinary Procedures
The Board held that the ballot measure’s amendments directly affect employment by changing—or at least creating ambiguity about—disciplinary procedures and standards because it establishes a parallel investigative scheme for County peace officers. Since the police review agency’s procedures may deviate from the investigations conducted by the Sheriff’s Office, those procedures are within the scope of representation. (p. 40.)
The provision allowing the police review agency’s director to personally sit in and observe the investigative interview of a deputy subject to investigation also impacts discipline, as the director could use any information from that interview as part of the police review agency’s investigation of the same deputy (either as substantive evidence or to impeach the deputy in a later police review agency’s investigative interview). The Board does not depart from decisional law that a board of review hearing does not requiring bargaining as management must have the most unfettered right to determine who is in the room to allow it to reach an informed decision. However, because the ballot measure impacts disciplinary procedures by expanding the types of evidence the County could use as a basis for discipline, the Associations had the right to bargain over those decisions. (pp. 42-43.) more or view all topics or full text. |
46 | 8 | 06/23/21 |
| 2772M |
County of Sonoma * * * VACATED IN PART by County of Sonoma (2023) PERB Decision No. 2772a-M * * *
1000.02023: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Confidential Files
The Board held that the ballot measure impacts disciplinary procedures by expanding the types of evidence the County could use as a basis for discipline. The ballot measure permits the police review agency to use complaints that are exonerated, unfounded, or not sustained as a basis for recommending discipline. The County Sheriff’s Office’s investigation thus could find that a peace officer is exonerated or that a complaint was unfounded, while the police review agency could find otherwise, creating a conflict in whether or not discipline should be imposed. Similarly, the ballot measure amendments granting the police review agency authority to subpoena records or testimony in investigations and review an officer’s discipline record, including all prior complaints, also could expand the evidence the County uses as a basis for discipline. For example, the police review agency now has the ability to review whether and why officers are on a Brady list, which could impact the police review agency’s discipline recommendations. (pp. 41-42.) more or view all topics or full text. |
46 | 8 | 06/23/21 |
| 2772M |
County of Sonoma * * * VACATED IN PART by County of Sonoma (2023) PERB Decision No. 2772a-M * * *
1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated
There are three distinct categories of managerial decisions, each with its own implications for the scope of representation. Regarding the third category, decisions that affect employment conditions but are not concerned primarily with employment, the Board must balance the benefits of bargaining over the decision against the employer’s managerial interest in making the decision. Aspects of a ballot measure that directly affect employment (e.g., investigating and disciplining employees) tend to fall on the negotiable side, unlike measures that relate primarily to public safety. Thus, decision bargaining is required for those amendments. (pp. 36-44.)
The ballot measure’s creation of a parallel investigative scheme for peace officers was subject to decision bargaining because it related to investigation and discipline of employees. Other amendments in the measure were not subject to decision bargaining but were subject to effects bargaining because they impacted subjects within the scope of representation such as wages and safety. (pp. 39-40) more or view all topics or full text. |
46 | 8 | 06/23/21 |
| 2772M |
County of Sonoma * * * VACATED IN PART by County of Sonoma (2023) PERB Decision No. 2772a-M * * *
605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain
“[T]he MMBA’s duty to bargain extends to the implementation and effects of a decision that has a foreseeable effect on matters within the scope of representation, even where the decision itself is not negotiable.” A failure or refusal to bargain over the effects of a non-negotiable change is equally as harmful as a failure to bargain over a negotiable change, as it disrupts and destabilizes employer-employee relations by creating an imbalance in the power between management and employee organizations. While the County was entitled to unilaterally decide to make changes to body worn camera policies and to permit the police review agency to interview an investigator, supervisor, witness, or custodian of records, the refusal to bargain over the effects of those decisions is a per se violation of the duty to bargain. (pp. 44-46.) more or view all topics or full text. |
46 | 8 | 06/23/21 |
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.
