Keyword Search by Headnotes - California Public Employment Relations Board

Decision	Description	PERC Vol.	PERC Index	Date
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 Extreme variation of educational and workplace environments in charter schools does not favor mechanistic application of Peralta presumption and instead requires the Board to ensure that operational efficiency does not trump representational rights. (Pages 30-31.) more or view all topics or full text.	44	185	05/18/20
2719E	Alliance Judy Ivie Burton Technology Academy High, et al. 1307.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION (QCR); In General/Definition The Board must process the petition for recognition that an employee organization actually filed and will generally make unit determinations based on the facts present on the date of filing of the petition. (Pages 27-28.) more or view all topics or full text.	44	185	05/18/20
2719E	Alliance Judy Ivie Burton Technology Academy High, et al. 1300.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; CERTIFICATION/VOLUNTARY RECOGNITION; In General The Board must process the petition for recognition that an employee organization actually filed and will generally make unit determinations based on the facts present on the date of filing of the petition. (Pages 27-28.) more or view all topics or full text.	44	185	05/18/20
2717E	Alliance Environmental Science and Technology High School, et al. 1105.16000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Adverse Inferences The Board took an adverse evidentiary inference against employers, and credited an employee’s account, because the employers failed to call their agent to testify regarding conversations that were central to the dispute. (Page 23.) more or view all topics or full text.	44	183	05/18/20
2717E	Alliance Environmental Science and Technology High School, et al. 1105.14000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Witnesses: Credibility, Cross Examination and Impeachment; Pretrial Statements A current employee’s testimony against the interests of her employer is also contrary to her own pecuniary interests, and thus entitled to additional weight for purposes of determining credibility. (Page 22, footnote 15.) more or view all topics or full text.	44	183	05/18/20
2717E	Alliance Environmental Science and Technology High School, et al. 401.05000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Union Activity During Nonworking Time or in Nonworking Areas Employer violated EERA when its agent, without business justification, instructed union organizer and off-duty employee to leave the premises and not engage in protected organizing activities on-campus. (Page 29.) more or view all topics or full text.	44	183	05/18/20
2717E	Alliance Environmental Science and Technology High School, et al. 409.03000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Discontinuance of Illegal Activity; Retraction; Repudiation; Public Disavowal Employer did not successfully repudiate its unlawful conduct because it did not communicate with all affected employees and did not give assurances that it would not engage in future misconduct. (Page 26) more or view all topics or full text.	44	183	05/18/20
2717E	Alliance Environmental Science and Technology High School, et al. 401.05000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Union Activity During Nonworking Time or in Nonworking Areas Employer interfered with protected right to engage in organizing activities while off-duty when it summoned the police in response to employees distributing union flyers. (Page 23.) more or view all topics or full text.	44	183	05/18/20
2717E	Alliance Environmental Science and Technology High School, et al. 607.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DUTY TO CONSULT; In General The duty to meet and discuss under EERA requires an employer to engage in the process in good faith, i.e., with a willingness to listen and to give and accept reasons for their actions or positions. Employer violated this duty when it met only once and refused to schedule additional meetings requested by the non-exclusive representative to discuss changes to an employee evaluation program. (Page 20.) more or view all topics or full text.	44	183	05/18/20
2717E	Alliance Environmental Science and Technology High School, et al. 607.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DUTY TO CONSULT; In General Upon request of a non-exclusive representative, an employer must meet and discuss changes to an employee evaluation program because such changes are of fundamental concern to employees. (Pages 18-19.) more or view all topics or full text.	44	183	05/18/20
2717E	Alliance Environmental Science and Technology High School, et al. 504.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Prior Employer Unfair Practices; Prior History of Confrontation/Strife/Discord In discrimination cases, where employer motive is key consideration, past anti-union statements may be relied upon to establish animus even if they do not constitute a discrete unfair practice. (Page 15.) more or view all topics or full text.	44	183	05/18/20
2716E	Alliance College-Ready Public Schools, et al. 402.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; QUESTIONING/INTERROGATING EMPLOYEES; Union Views; Voting; Questionnaires; Polling of Employees Employer violated EERA by soliciting employees to sign an online anti-union petition. The petition allowed the employer to determine the identity and number of teachers who were still undecided or might favor the union. Teachers would reasonably read such a petition to mean that their employer was soliciting their support and that it was assessing teacher sentiment. Such conduct constitutes unlawful interference because an employer may not pressure employees into making an observable choice about a union that indicates rejection or support. (Pages 26-29.) more or view all topics or full text.	44	177	05/18/20
2716E	Alliance College-Ready Public Schools, et al. 1400.01000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; AGENCY; In General Record evidence contained a management services agreement that imbued a charter management organization (CMO) with sufficient authority to establish that it was acting as charter schools’ agent during antiunion campaign. (Pages 24-26.) more or view all topics or full text.	44	177	05/18/20
2716E	Alliance College-Ready Public Schools, et al. 607.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DUTY TO CONSULT; In General Public employer has a duty to meet and discuss organizing or neutrality agreements with non-exclusive representatives upon request. Union organizing is a matter of fundamental concern to employees and affects a number of subjects that the Board has previously found to be within the duty to meet and discuss/consult. Employers’ failure to respond to union’s request constituted a violation of EERA. (Pages 19-24) more or view all topics or full text.	44	177	05/18/20
2716E	Alliance College-Ready Public Schools, et al. 1104.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; PROCEDURE BEFORE ALJ; Motions PERB Regulations give ALJs the authority to entertain any motion regarding the record evidence, including a motion to reopen the record to receive additional evidence if warranted. A motion to reopen the record is governed by the same standard as applies to motions for reconsideration based on new evidence. (Page 18.) more or view all topics or full text.	44	177	05/18/20
2716E	Alliance College-Ready Public Schools, et al. 504.12000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Employer Statements or Conduct; Threats Coercive statements made at or around time of adverse action are evidence of unlawful motive, whether or not the complaint alleges that the statements are discrete unfair practice allegations. (Page 16.) more or view all topics or full text.	44	177	05/18/20
2716E	Alliance College-Ready Public Schools, et al. 504.12000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Employer Statements or Conduct; Threats Where employer is determined to stamp out a nascent union, Board will infer for purposes of analyzing a prima facie case of discrimination that key decisionmakers were inclined to effectuate the employer’s policies by targeting union adherents. (Page 15.) more or view all topics or full text.	44	177	05/18/20
2704H	Regents of the University of California 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case To demonstrate that an employer has discriminated or retaliated against an employee in violation of the Act, the charging party must show: (1) the employee exercised rights under HEERA; (2) the employer had knowledge of the exercise of those rights; (3) the employer took adverse action against the employee; and (4) the employer took the action because of the exercise of those rights, meaning that protected activity was at least a motivating or substantial reason for the adverse action. If a charging party proves each of these elements, a respondent may still prevail by proving that it also had a non-discriminatory reason and would have taken the same actions based solely on that reason, even absent any protected activity. (pp. 14-15.) more or view all topics or full text.	44	158	04/14/20
2704H	Regents of the University of California 504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General PERB’s analytic framework for discrimination allegations differs from that applied by an arbitrator making a just cause determination, though the facts evidencing intent may also be relevant in a just cause determination. (p. 15, fn. 1.) more or view all topics or full text.	44	158	04/14/20
2704H	Regents of the University of California 102.01000: PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; SCOPE OF PERB JURISDICTION; In General/Exclusive Initial Jurisdiction-Deferral to Arbitration; Deference by Reviewing Courts In this case, the parties had no neutral, binding arbitration process in place, because the parties’ contract had expired. In lieu of a labor arbitration, the University offered Charging Parties a post-deprivation hearing that involved an arbitrator making a non-binding recommendation to a UCLA Vice Chancellor. After the close of the PERB hearing, the University added to the record a copy of the arbitrator’s recommendation that the terminations be upheld. The ALJ declined the University’s request that the arbitrator’s decision be found to be binding on any issue in the instant case. Neither party excepted to that ruling and we find no cause to defer to the arbitrator’s non-binding ruling on any issue, although we do consider it for its persuasive value. (p. 15, fn. 1.) more or view all topics or full text.	44	158	04/14/20
2671E	Lake Elsinore Unified School District 1205.04000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIAL PROVISIONS; Attorneys Fees and Costs PERB will award attorneys’ fees only if the charge is without arguable merit and pursued in bad faith. Bad faith includes conduct that is dilatory, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of process. Here, the employer requested that charging party be ordered to pay its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in this matter because she engaged in dilatory tactics. Specifically, that her slow pace in putting on evidence extended the length of the hearing for an additional two days. While charging party’s pace was deliberate, that had more to do with her inexperience as an advocate than bad faith. Nothing suggests her conduct was intended to delay or otherwise frustrate the proceedings. To the contrary, charging party arrived at each day of hearing prepared to prosecute her case. Accordingly, the employer’s request for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs was denied. (Adopting proposed decision at p. 27.) more or view all topics or full text.	44	72	09/27/19
2671E	Lake Elsinore Unified School District 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations The Board has the authority to review unalleged violations when the following criteria are met: (1) adequate notice and opportunity to defend has been provided to respondent; (2) the acts are intimately related to the subject matter of the complaint and are part of the same course of conduct; (3) the unalleged violation has been fully litigated; and (4) the parties have had the opportunity to examine and be cross-examined on the issue. The unalleged violation must also have occurred within the applicable statute of limitations period. (Adopting proposed decision at p. 26.) more or view all topics or full text.	44	72	09/27/19
2671E	Lake Elsinore Unified School District 1102.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; DEFERRAL TO ARBITRATION; Post Arbitration; Repugnancy Charging party’s request for repugnancy review was denied on grounds of untimeliness and failure to establish that the arbitration decision was based upon the same underlying dispute. (Adopting proposed decision at p. 3.) more or view all topics or full text.	44	72	09/27/19
2671E	Lake Elsinore Unified School District 1100.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Withdrawal of Charge In light of the concerns raised by the allegations in charging party’s motion that the employer breached the parties’ settlement agreement and that some of the terms of the agreement violated charging party’s rights under the Educational Employment Relations Act, the Board denied charging party’s request to withdraw the charge in this case. (p. 2., fn. 2.) more or view all topics or full text.	44	72	09/27/19
2671E	Lake Elsinore Unified School District 504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General While the timing of the employer’s adverse action in close temporal proximity to the employee’s protected conduct is an important factor it does not, without more, demonstrate the necessary connection or “nexus” between the adverse action and the protected conduct. Facts establishing one or more of the following additional factors must also be present: (1) the employer’s disparate treatment of the employee; (2) the employer’s departure from established procedures and standards when dealing with the employee; (3) the employer’s inconsistent or contradictory justifications for its actions; (4) the employer’s cursory investigation of the employee’s misconduct; (5) the employer’s failure to offer the employee justification at the time it took action or the offering of exaggerated, vague, or ambiguous reasons; (6) employer animosity towards union activists; or (7) any other facts that might demonstrate the employer’s unlawful motive. (Adopting proposed decision at p. 24.) more or view all topics or full text.	44	72	09/27/19