| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2738H |
Trustees of the California State University (San Marcos)
1107.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Weight Given to ALJ's Proposed Decision: Findings, Conclusions, Credibility Resolutions
When resolving exceptions to a proposed decision, the Board applies a de novo standard of review. Under this standard, the Board is free to make different factual findings and reach different legal conclusions than those in the proposed decision. (p. 7.) more or view all topics or full text. |
45 | 26 | 07/28/20 |
| 2738H |
Trustees of the California State University (San Marcos)
1107.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver
When resolving exceptions to a proposed decision, the Board applies a de novo standard of review. Under this standard, the Board is free to make different factual findings and reach different legal conclusions than those in the proposed decision. (p. 7.) more or view all topics or full text. |
45 | 26 | 07/28/20 |
| 2738H |
Trustees of the California State University (San Marcos)
1101.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Statutory and Equitable Tolling
A charging party’s belated discovery of the legal significance of the underlying conduct does not excuse an otherwise untimely filing. To toll the statute of limitations based on lack of notice or discovery, the party must show that it did not previously have clear and unequivocal notice of the alleged misconduct. (p. 12.) more or view all topics or full text. |
45 | 26 | 07/28/20 |
| 2738H |
Trustees of the California State University (San Marcos)
1101.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Statutory and Equitable Tolling
No equitable tolling because the parties expressly exempted the employer’s decisions regarding the issue in dispute from contractual grievance procedures. The union’s efforts to informally dispute the employer’s decision thus could not have tolled the statute of limitations. (p. 11, fn. 9.) more or view all topics or full text. |
45 | 26 | 07/28/20 |
| 2738H |
Trustees of the California State University (San Marcos)
1101.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Continuing Violation
The statute of limitations period does not restart when the respondent’s action during the limitations period merely confirms or reiterates the same position it took outside the limitations period. (p. 11.) more or view all topics or full text. |
45 | 26 | 07/28/20 |
| 2738H |
Trustees of the California State University (San Marcos)
1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period
A charging party’s belated discovery of the legal significance of the underlying conduct does not excuse an otherwise untimely filing. To toll the statute of limitations based on lack of notice or discovery, the party must show that it did not previously have clear and unequivocal notice of the alleged misconduct. (p. 12.) more or view all topics or full text. |
45 | 26 | 07/28/20 |
| 2738H |
Trustees of the California State University (San Marcos)
1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period
The statute of limitations period does not restart when the respondent’s action during the limitations period merely confirms or reiterates the same position it took outside the limitations period. (p. 11.) more or view all topics or full text. |
45 | 26 | 07/28/20 |
| 2738H |
Trustees of the California State University (San Marcos)
1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period
In unilateral change cases, the limitations period begins to run on the date charging party has actual or constructive notice of respondent’s clear intent to implement a unilateral change, provided nothing subsequently evinces a wavering of that intent. (p. 8.) The union knew of the conduct underlying its unilateral change theory, viz., that the employer deviated from existing procedures, more than six months prior to filing the charge. (pp. 9-10.) The belated discovery of the legal significance of the underlying conduct does not excuse an otherwise untimely filing. (p. 12.) more or view all topics or full text. |
45 | 26 | 07/28/20 |
| 2738H |
Trustees of the California State University (San Marcos)
1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General
A charging party’s belated discovery of the legal significance of the underlying conduct does not excuse an otherwise untimely filing. To toll the statute of limitations based on lack of notice or discovery, the party must show that it did not previously have clear and unequivocal notice of the alleged misconduct. (p. 12.) more or view all topics or full text. |
45 | 26 | 07/28/20 |
| 2738H |
Trustees of the California State University (San Marcos)
1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General
The statute of limitations period does not restart when the respondent’s action during the limitations period merely confirms or reiterates the same position it took outside the limitations period. (p. 11.) more or view all topics or full text. |
45 | 26 | 07/28/20 |
| 2738H |
Trustees of the California State University (San Marcos)
1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General
In unilateral change cases, the limitations period begins to run on the date charging party has actual or constructive notice of respondent’s clear intent to implement a unilateral change, provided nothing subsequently evinces a wavering of that intent. (p. 8.) The union knew of the conduct underlying its unilateral change theory, viz., that the employer deviated from existing procedures, more than six months prior to filing the charge. (pp. 9-10.) The belated discovery of the legal significance of the underlying conduct does not excuse an otherwise untimely filing. (p. 12.) more or view all topics or full text. |
45 | 26 | 07/28/20 |
| 2738H |
Trustees of the California State University (San Marcos)
1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General
The six-month statute of limitations period begins to run when the charging party knows or should have known of the conduct underlying the charge. (p. 8.) more or view all topics or full text. |
45 | 26 | 07/28/20 |
| 2622E |
Cabrillo Community College District
1105.07000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Administrative and Judicial Notice
Certain records may be subject to permissive notice under Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (c), unless sufficient notice of the request for administrative notice was provided to each adverse party and there is “sufficient information” for the ALJ or Board to determine whether administrative notice is proper. (p. 10.)
The Board lacked sufficient information, and thus was not required, to take notice of a federal agency report because the party requesting notice did not provide the Board or any other Board agent with a copy of the report. Moreover, the Board typically declines to take permissive notice of documents that are of no probative value to the issues before it. Without a copy of the report, the Board was not able to assess its probative value and declined to take permissive notice. (p. 10.) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 126 | 02/04/19 |
| 2736M |
City of Santa Maria
503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General
An employer’s failure to give the assurances enumerated in Johnnie’s Poultry Company (1964) 146 NLRB 770, enf. den. (8th Cir. 1965) 344 F.2d 617, before interrogating an employee about protected activities is evidence that the interrogation/investigation constituted a retaliatory adverse action. (Pages 29-31.) more or view all topics or full text. |
45 | 17 | 06/30/20 |
| 2736M |
City of Santa Maria
503.15000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; Other
A disciplinary investigation initiated in response to protected activities can constitute an adverse action for purposes of establishing unlawful discrimination under the MMBA. (Pages 28-31.) more or view all topics or full text. |
45 | 17 | 06/30/20 |
| 2736M |
City of Santa Maria
505.05000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DEFENSES; Dishonesty or Disloyalty to Employer
Employer could not establish that suspected employee misconduct prompted it to investigate employees and their protected activities. There was no evidence that the employees’ protected activities, viz. issuing a “do not apply” communication to firefighters in outside departments, resulted in any disruption to the employer’s operations. Many protected concerted activities are undertaken for the purpose of disrupting the employer’s unfair practices and operations. In the absence of evidence that such activities “create a substantial and imminent threat to the health or safety of the public” (County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. Los Angeles County Employees Assn. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 564, 586) there is no basis to believe that a communication like the one at issue here was rendered unprotected by its alleged success. (Page 28.) more or view all topics or full text. |
45 | 17 | 06/30/20 |
| 2736M |
City of Santa Maria
505.03000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DEFENSES; Misconduct
Employer could not establish that suspected employee misconduct prompted it to investigate employees and their protected activities. There was no evidence that the employees’ protected activities, viz. issuing a “do not apply” communication to firefighters in outside departments, resulted in any disruption to the employer’s operations. Many protected concerted activities are undertaken for the purpose of disrupting the employer’s unfair practices and operations. In the absence of evidence that such activities “create a substantial and imminent threat to the health or safety of the public” (County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. Los Angeles County Employees Assn. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 564, 586) there is no basis to believe that a communication like the one at issue here was rendered unprotected by its alleged success. (Page 28.) more or view all topics or full text. |
45 | 17 | 06/30/20 |
| 2736M |
City of Santa Maria
300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General
A communication is presumptively protected under the MMBA if its central purpose is to apprise others of a workplace dispute and to enlist their support. Here, the union used its statewide federation to communicate with firefighters in other departments and dissuade them from applying for a fire captain position because the union believed the city’s decision to open the recruitment to outside candidates violated the MMBA. (Page 26.) more or view all topics or full text. |
45 | 17 | 06/30/20 |
| 2736M |
City of Santa Maria
1000.02109: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Promotions
Following County of Orange (2019) PERB Decision No. 2663-M, the Board concluded that promotional opportunities are generally mandatory subjects of negotiation. This was especially true in this instance because the City’s decision to open the fire captain recruitment to outside candidates directly implicated workplace safety concerns. (Pages 20-24.) more or view all topics or full text. |
45 | 17 | 06/30/20 |
| 2736M |
City of Santa Maria
608.07000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Waiver by Union; Contract Waivers; Bargaining History Estoppel; Disclaimer; Supersession
An employer cannot rely on its own municipal code or ordinances to establish that a union waived its right to bargain about a subject within the scope of representation. (Pages 18-20. more or view all topics or full text. |
45 | 17 | 06/30/20 |
| 2736M |
City of Santa Maria
602.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change in or Deviation from Unwritten Past Practice
A binding past practice is one which is “unequivocal, clearly enunciated and acted upon, and readily ascertainable over a reasonable period of time as a fixed and established practice accepted by both parties,” or which is “regular and consistent” or “historic and accepted.” Here, the employer’s practice of promoting fire captains from within the rank-and-file had all the attributes of a binding past practice because it constituted the longstanding, accepted status quo. (Pages 17-18.) more or view all topics or full text. |
45 | 17 | 06/30/20 |
| 2719E |
Alliance Judy Ivie Burton Technology Academy High, et al.
1105.14000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Witnesses: Credibility, Cross Examination and Impeachment; Pretrial Statements
Charter schools and their management organization’s prior inconsistent statements in other Board cases undermined their ability to prove they were part of a single-employer entity. more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 185 | 05/18/20 |
| 2719E |
Alliance Judy Ivie Burton Technology Academy High, et al.
201.04000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; Joint Employer, Single Employer, and Alter Ego Doctrines
Public school employers claiming to be part of a single-employer entity in order to defeat representation petitions could not carry their evidentiary burden in light of extensive prior inconsistent statements. (Pages 44-49.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 185 | 05/18/20 |
| 2719E |
Alliance Judy Ivie Burton Technology Academy High, et al.
1403.02000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; ESTOPPEL; Cause for Estoppel
Charter schools equitably and judicially estopped from asserting they were part of a single-employer entity for purposes of opposing union’s representation petitions. Charter schools and their management organization had previously represented that they were autonomous, independent entities for purposes of opposing unfair practice liability. (Pages 33-44.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 185 | 05/18/20 |
| 2719E |
Alliance Judy Ivie Burton Technology Academy High, et al.
1309.08000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT DETERMINATION/CRITERIA (SEE ALSO WHO IS AN EMPLOYEE?, SECTION 200); Classroom Teachers
School-by-school organizing within a group of affiliated charter schools may be appropriate depending on all the circumstances and community of interest factors. (Page 32.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 185 | 05/18/20 |
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.
