| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2701I |
Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee
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 per se violation of the duty to bargain in good faith will be found where there has been a unilateral change in the status quo concerning a negotiable subject of bargaining. PERB recognizes three general categories of unlawful unilateral actions: (1) changes to the parties’ written agreement; (2) changes in an established past practice; and (3) newly created, implemented, or enforced policies. (p. 46.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 150 | 03/16/20 |
| 2701I |
Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee
104.03000: PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF BOARD; Conclusiveness of Prior Determination by Federal Agencies, Other State Agencies or Courts
An arbitrator’s interpretation of a contract term is not binding on PERB but may be probative of the term’s meaning. (p. 40.) The Board did not find an arbitration decision probative of the question before it—whether the regional committee was contractually obligated to bargain over the impacts of changes to employee pension contributions—because the decision focused solely on the individual trial court’s obligations under the collective bargaining agreement. more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 150 | 03/16/20 |
| 2699H |
Regents of the University of California (Teamsters Local 2010)
1503.03000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; Regulations Considered (By Number) (Continued)
PERB Regulation 32602 generally confers standing upon employee organizations to allege unfair practices, depending upon the rights conferred to them by the applicable statute. (pp. 4-5.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 144 | 02/27/20 |
| 2699H |
Regents of the University of California (Teamsters Local 2010)
1503.01000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; In General
PERB Regulation 32602 generally confers standing upon employee organizations to allege unfair practices, depending upon the rights conferred to them by the applicable statute. (pp. 4-5.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 144 | 02/27/20 |
| 2699H |
Regents of the University of California (Teamsters Local 2010)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Allowing a nonexclusive representative to assert the rights of employees it represents is particularly important during an organizing campaign, when individual employees may be unable or unwilling to file a charge, or they are unaware of their rights in the first place. A nonexclusive representative need not wait until it becomes the exclusive representative to allege employer interference with the campaign. (p. 8.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 144 | 02/27/20 |
| 2699H |
Regents of the University of California (Teamsters Local 2010)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Under HEERA, nonexclusive representatives, i.e., employee organizations not certified as exclusive representatives, have standing to allege violations of the rights of employees they represent. (p. 8.) Although HEERA does not grant them the independent right to represent employees, employees have a statutory right to representation by employee organizations of their own choosing. Nonexclusive representatives thus may assert employees’ rights on their behalf, including their rights to be free from discrimination, interference, or retaliation. (pp. 5-8.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 144 | 02/27/20 |
| 2699H |
Regents of the University of California (Teamsters Local 2010)
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
PERB Regulation 32602 generally confers standing upon employee organizations to allege unfair practices, depending upon the rights conferred to them by the applicable statute. (pp. 4-5.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 144 | 02/27/20 |
| 2699H |
Regents of the University of California (Teamsters Local 2010)
501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case
Under HEERA, nonexclusive representatives, i.e., employee organizations not certified as exclusive representatives, have standing to allege violations of the rights of employees they represent. (p. 8.) Although HEERA does not grant them the independent right to represent employees, employees have a statutory right to representation by employee organizations of their own choosing. Nonexclusive representatives thus may assert employees’ rights on their behalf, including their rights to be free from discrimination, interference, or retaliation. (pp. 5-8.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 144 | 02/27/20 |
| 2699H |
Regents of the University of California (Teamsters Local 2010)
401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case.
Allowing a nonexclusive representative to assert the rights of employees it represents is particularly important during an organizing campaign, when individual employees may be unable or unwilling to file a charge, or they are unaware of their rights in the first place. A nonexclusive representative need not wait until it becomes the exclusive representative to allege employer interference with employee rights. (p. 8.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 144 | 02/27/20 |
| 2699H |
Regents of the University of California (Teamsters Local 2010)
400.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
Allowing a nonexclusive representative to assert the rights of employees it represents is particularly important during an organizing campaign, when individual employees may be unable or unwilling to file a charge, or they are unaware of their rights in the first place. A nonexclusive representative need not wait until it becomes the exclusive representative to allege employer interference with employee rights. (p. 8.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 144 | 02/27/20 |
| 2699H |
Regents of the University of California (Teamsters Local 2010)
400.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
Under HEERA, nonexclusive representatives, i.e., employee organizations not certified as exclusive representatives, have standing to allege violations of the rights of employees they represent. (p. 8.) Although HEERA does not grant them the independent right to represent employees, employees have a statutory right to representation by employee organizations of their own choosing. Nonexclusive representatives thus may assert employees’ rights on their behalf, including their rights to be free from discrimination, interference, or retaliation. (pp. 5-8.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 144 | 02/27/20 |
| 2685M |
County of Santa Clara
1107.15000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Withdrawal of Appeal; Request that Decision be Vacated
Under the Board’s authority to take any action in a pending case that it deems necessary to discharge its duties and effectuate the purposes of the statutes PERB enforces, the Board has discretion to grant or deny requests to withdraw and dismiss cases pending before the Board itself. (pp. 2-3.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 106 | 12/10/19 |
| 2685M |
County of Santa Clara
1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board
Under the Board’s authority to take any action in a pending case that it deems necessary to discharge its duties and effectuate the purposes of the statutes PERB enforces, the Board has discretion to grant or deny requests to withdraw and dismiss cases pending before the Board itself. (pp. 2-3.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 106 | 12/10/19 |
| 2674Mb |
Orange County Employees Association (Hamilton)
1503.03000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; Regulations Considered (By Number) (Continued)
Under PERB Regulation 32410, a request for reconsideration based upon the discovery of new evidence must be supported by a declaration establishing, among other things, that the evidence impacts or alters the decision of the previously decided case. (p. 4.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 108 | 05/28/20 |
| 2674Mb |
Orange County Employees Association (Hamilton)
1503.01000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; In General
Under PERB Regulation 32410, a request for reconsideration based upon the discovery of new evidence must be supported by a declaration establishing, among other things, that the evidence impacts or alters the decision of the previously decided case. (p. 4.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 108 | 05/28/20 |
| 2674Mb |
Orange County Employees Association (Hamilton)
1205.04000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIAL PROVISIONS; Attorneys Fees and Costs
PERB declined to award attorney fees as damages in a breach of representation case because the employee’s civil complaint involved (1) the same discrimination claims in a grievance that her union failed to file, and (2) additional retaliation claims. (pp. 4-5.) Because both claims were based on the same core set of facts, they were inextricably intertwined and it was impractical or impossible to apportion the attorney’s time spent on each claim. Under these circumstances, the Board ruled it did not further the purposes of the MMBA to require the union to pay the employee’s attorney fees as damages for breaching its duty of fair representation. (pp. 5-6.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 108 | 05/28/20 |
| 2674Mb |
Orange County Employees Association (Hamilton)
1205.01000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIAL PROVISIONS; In General
PERB declined to award attorney fees as damages in a breach of representation case because the employee’s civil complaint involved (1) the same discrimination claims in a grievance that her union failed to file, and (2) additional retaliation claims. (pp. 4-5.) Because both claims were based on the same core set of facts, they were inextricably intertwined and it was impractical or impossible to apportion the attorney’s time spent on each claim. Under these circumstances, the Board ruled it did not further the purposes of the MMBA to require the union to pay the employee’s attorney fees as damages for breaching its duty of fair representation. (pp. 5-6.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 108 | 05/28/20 |
| 2674Mb |
Orange County Employees Association (Hamilton)
1204.04000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; REMEDIES AGAINST UNION; Reimbursement of Dues, Fees and Exactions to Employees; Union Liability
PERB declined to award attorney fees as damages in a breach of representation case because the employee’s civil complaint involved (1) the same discrimination claims in a grievance that her union failed to file, and (2) additional retaliation claims. (pp. 4-5.) Because both claims were based on the same core set of facts, they were inextricably intertwined and it was impractical or impossible to apportion the attorney’s time spent on each claim. Under these circumstances, the Board ruled it did not further the purposes of the MMBA to require the union to pay the employee’s attorney fees as damages for breaching its duty of fair representation. (pp. 5-6.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 108 | 05/28/20 |
| 2674Mb |
Orange County Employees Association (Hamilton)
1204.01000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; REMEDIES AGAINST UNION; In General
PERB declined to award attorney fees as damages in a breach of representation case because the employee’s civil complaint involved (1) the same discrimination claims in a grievance that her union failed to file, and (2) additional retaliation claims. (pp. 4-5.) Because both claims were based on the same core set of facts, they were inextricably intertwined and it was impractical or impossible to apportion the attorney’s time spent on each claim. Under these circumstances, the Board ruled it did not further the purposes of the MMBA to require the union to pay the employee’s attorney fees as damages for breaching its duty of fair representation. (pp. 5-6.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 108 | 05/28/20 |
| 2674Mb |
Orange County Employees Association (Hamilton)
1201.01000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; REINSTATEMENT; BACKPAY BENEFITS; In General
PERB declined to award attorney fees as damages in a breach of representation case because the employee’s civil complaint involved (1) the same discrimination claims in a grievance that her union failed to file, and (2) additional retaliation claims. (pp. 4-5.) Because both claims were based on the same core set of facts, they were inextricably intertwined and it was impractical or impossible to apportion the attorney’s time spent on each claim. Under these circumstances, the Board ruled it did not further the purposes of the MMBA to require the union to pay the employee’s attorney fees as damages for breaching its duty of fair representation. (pp. 5-6.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 108 | 05/28/20 |
| 2674Mb |
Orange County Employees Association (Hamilton)
1107.10000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Request for Reconsideration
Under PERB Regulation 32410, a request for reconsideration based upon the discovery of new evidence must be supported by a declaration establishing, among other things, that the evidence impacts or alters the decision of the previously decided case. (p. 4.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 108 | 05/28/20 |
| 2674Mb |
Orange County Employees Association (Hamilton)
1107.10000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Request for Reconsideration
A party may file only one request for reconsideration of a Board decision, except in those cases where a prior request for reconsideration has resulted in the issuance of a completely revised decision. (p. 2.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 108 | 05/28/20 |
| 2674Mb |
Orange County Employees Association (Hamilton)
800.02000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION; Grievance Handling/Contract Administration
PERB declined to award attorney fees as damages in a breach of representation case because the employee’s civil complaint involved (1) the same discrimination claims in a grievance that her union failed to file, and (2) additional retaliation claims. (pp. 4-5.) Because both claims were based on the same core set of facts, they were inextricably intertwined and it was impractical or impossible to apportion the attorney’s time spent on each claim. Under these circumstances, the Board ruled it did not further the purposes of the MMBA to require the union to pay the employee’s attorney fees as damages for breaching its duty of fair representation. (pp. 5-6.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 108 | 05/28/20 |
| 2674Mb |
Orange County Employees Association (Hamilton)
800.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION; In General; Prima Facie Case
PERB declined to award attorney fees as damages in a breach of representation case because the employee’s civil complaint involved (1) the same discrimination claims in a grievance that her union failed to file, and (2) additional retaliation claims. (pp. 4-5.) Because both claims were based on the same core set of facts, they were inextricably intertwined and it was impractical or impossible to apportion the attorney’s time spent on each claim. Under these circumstances, the Board ruled it did not further the purposes of the MMBA to require the union to pay the employee’s attorney fees as damages for breaching its duty of fair representation. (pp. 5-6.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 108 | 05/28/20 |
| 2674Ma |
Orange County Employees Association (Hamilton)
1503.03000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; Regulations Considered (By Number) (Continued)
In duty of fair representation cases, employees are only entitled to an award of back pay or other damages where they can show that the union’s breach was the actual or proximate cause of their injuries. It is incumbent upon the charging party to put evidence of causation into the record during PERB’s hearing process. Petitioner cannot do so on reconsideration unless the evidence is newly discovered and supported by a declaration establishing several criteria required under PERB Regulation 32410. (pp. 4-5.) The Board denied the request for reconsideration because it was not accompanied by such a declaration and, furthermore, the newly-submitted evidence was available at the time of the hearing. (p. 5.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 108 | 12/11/19 |
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.
