| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2697M |
County of Tulare (Service Employees International Union Local 521)
606.07000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; Inconsistent Position Taken; W/ds or Renege on Tentative Agreement
A party does not engage in regressive bargaining by withdrawing concessions on some subjects, while offering more favorable terms on other subjects, if the overall set of changes do not tend to frustrate an overall compromise—this will typically be true if aggregate movements toward the other party’s position are approximately equal, or greater than equal, to aggregate movements in a regressive direction. (See City of Palo Alto (2019) PERB Decision No. 2664-M, p. 6, fn. 5; Charter Oak Unified School District (1991) PERB Decision No. 873, pp. 17-18.) Proving net regressive conduct often requires some mathematical calculation (when the allegations mainly involve cost items) and requires a more nuanced argument when the allegations involve a mix of cost items and non-cost items. more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 141 | 02/20/20 |
| 2697M |
County of Tulare (Service Employees International Union Local 521)
606.07000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; Inconsistent Position Taken; W/ds or Renege on Tentative Agreement
A party does not engage in regressive bargaining if it offers a sufficiently credible and rationally supported justification of changed circumstances that explain why it has made a proposal that ostensibly appears to move the parties further away from a resolution. (City of Palo Alto (2019) PERB Decision No. 2664-M, p. 6, fn. 5; City of Arcadia (2019) PERB Decision No. 2648-M, p. 39.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 141 | 02/20/20 |
| 2697M |
County of Tulare (Service Employees International Union Local 521)
604.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; Subjects of Information
A union is presumptively entitled to information that is necessary and relevant to the union in exercising its right to represent bargaining unit employees regarding mandatory subjects of bargaining, including but not limited to discipline, retirement benefits, workplace safety, and hostile work environment issues. (Contra Costa Community College District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2652, pp. 15-16, citing other authorities.) This presumptive entitlement to information includes the right to receive investigatory reports relating to hostile work environment claims impacting employees the union represents, though PERB may order appropriate redactions where needed. (City of Redding (2011) PERB Decision No. 2190-M, adopting proposed decision at pp. 17-18.) A refusal to provide presumptively necessary and relevant information upon request constitutes a per se violation of the duty to meet and confer in good faith, as well as interference with protected rights. (State of California (Department of Veterans Affairs) (2004) PERB Decision No. 1686-S, adopting proposed decision at p. 18.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 141 | 02/20/20 |
| 2697M |
County of Tulare (Service Employees International Union Local 521)
604.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; Confidentiality; Privacy
Where an employer has waived its right to negotiate an accommodation of third-party privacy rights with the union, PERB must determine the extent of any appropriate redactions. In most such cases, the best practice is for the ALJ hearing the unfair practice matter to conduct an in camera review and then order production of the full, unredacted document unless there is clear evidence that doing so would lead to a serious invasion of a significant privacy right, in which case the ALJ’s proposed decision should provide clear direction regarding the narrowly tailored redactions that are allowable. Such redactions typically involve replacing names with descriptive but de-identified placeholders, thereby permitting parties to track the important figures within a given record or across multiple records. (Sacramento City Unified School District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2597, p. 13, fn. 7.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 141 | 02/20/20 |
| 2697M |
County of Tulare (Service Employees International Union Local 521)
604.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; Confidentiality; Privacy
An employer may not unilaterally reject an information request based on alleged privacy concerns, as that frustrates the purposes of state labor law “by converting the applicable procedure from a two-way negotiation to a unilateral decision.” (Contra Costa Community College District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2652, p. 19; Sacramento City Unified School District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2597, p. 13.) Where the County flatly denied Union’s request, parties were deprived of the opportunity to work out redactions or a different accommodation. The County waived its privacy concerns by categorically refusing Union’s request instead of offering to meet to seek an accommodation. (Sacramento, supra, PERB Decision No. 2597, p. 12 [employer must raise its confidentiality concerns in a timely manner and then meet with the union to seek an accommodation]. more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 141 | 02/20/20 |
| 2697M |
County of Tulare (Service Employees International Union Local 521)
604.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; Confidentiality; Privacy
PERB has established the following legal framework covering situations where requested, presumptively relevant documents may contain confidential information that implicates “constitutionally significant privacy rights of third parties”: if a third party possesses a legally protected privacy interest that is based upon an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy, yet the union seeks to invade that privacy in a manner that is serious in both its nature and its scope, then PERB engages in a balancing test; if the serious invasion of privacy outweighs the union’s need for the information, then the union’s presumptive right to relevant information is overcome and narrowly tailored redactions or other accommodations become appropriate. (Contra Costa Community College District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2652, p. 18 (Contra Costa); Los Angeles Unified School District (2015) PERB Decision No. 2438, pp. 13-15, citing County of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles County Employee Relations Commission, et al. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 905, 926, and noting that balancing test applies only if all three elements of a privacy claim exist.) If the circumstances surrounding a union’s request show that third party privacy rights outweigh the union’s presumptive right to information, the employer still may not unilaterally determine how to proceed but must instead negotiate in good faith with the requesting union. (Contra Costa, supra, PERB Decision No. 2652, pp. 18-19; Sacramento City Unified School District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2597, pp. 12-14.) PERB described several common redaction conventions and other possible accommodations. more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 141 | 02/20/20 |
| 2697M |
County of Tulare (Service Employees International Union Local 521)
604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General
Defenses to disclosure under the California Public Records Act, Gov. Code sec. 6250 et seq. (CPRA), cannot be imported into labor law, because a union has a greater right to information than members of the general public. (Sacramento City Unified School District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2597, pp. 10-11.) Thus, while the CPRA prevents members of the public from obtaining a public entity’s internal deliberative records pertaining to certain of its obligations under California labor law (CPRA, Gov. Code sec. 6254(p)), when a union requests relevant information from an employer, the employer benefits only from the more limited privilege that protects both unions and employers from being forced to reveal to the other party their internal collective bargaining strategies or tactics. (Compare Colton Joint Unified School District/Rialto Unified School District/San Bernardino City Unified School District (1981) PERB Order No. Ad-113 [adopting the privilege protecting internal discussions regarding strategy for collective bargaining, as set forth in Berbiglia, Inc. (1977) 233 NLRB 1476, 1495] with Trustees of the California State University (2004) PERB Decision No. 1591-H, pp. 2-3 [the deliberative process privilege is not a valid defense to a union’s information request].) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 141 | 02/20/20 |
| 2697M |
County of Tulare (Service Employees International Union Local 521)
604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General
A union is presumptively entitled to information that is necessary and relevant to the union in exercising its right to represent bargaining unit employees regarding mandatory subjects of bargaining, including but not limited to discipline, retirement benefits, workplace safety, and hostile work environment issues. (Contra Costa Community College District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2652, pp. 15-16, citing other authorities.) This presumptive entitlement to information includes the right to receive investigatory reports relating to hostile work environment claims impacting employees the union represents, though PERB may order appropriate redactions where needed. (City of Redding (2011) PERB Decision No. 2190-M, adopting proposed decision at pp. 17-18.) A refusal to provide presumptively necessary and relevant information upon request constitutes a per se violation of the duty to meet and confer in good faith, as well as interference with protected rights. (State of California (Department of Veterans Affairs) (2004) PERB Decision No. 1686-S, adopting proposed decision at p. 18.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 141 | 02/20/20 |
| 2697M |
County of Tulare (Service Employees International Union Local 521)
604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General
PERB would likely have found that County’s refusal to provide information during the pendency of a rescission petition to have tainted election conditions, had Union sought to block or overturn an election result. (See, e.g., Children of Promise Preparatory Academy (2015) PERB Order No. Ad-428, adopting administrative determination at pp. 19-22 [failure to provide information taints the neutral conditions required for a fair election, as it tends to prevent the union from properly assisting employees, make the union appear weak, increase employees’ dissatisfaction with the union, and otherwise discourage employees from supporting the union].) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 141 | 02/20/20 |
| 2697M |
County of Tulare (Service Employees International Union Local 521)
604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General
An employer’s duty of neutrality between internal union factions does not relieve it from continuing to deal in good faith with the bargaining unit’s chosen representatives during the pendency of the internal dispute, and in doing so the employer complies with its duty of neutrality. (City of Arcadia (2019) PERB Decision No. 2648-M, p. 26.) Similarly, a pending rescission petition did not provide a valid ground for the County to deny Union’s information request, as Union’s rights and duties with respect to representing employees continued unchanged during the pendency of a rescission petition. more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 141 | 02/20/20 |
| 2697M |
County of Tulare (Service Employees International Union Local 521)
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
To be lawful, a rule must not only be nondiscriminatory in language and in application, it must also permit protected activities in nonwork times and nonwork areas. In drafting a prohibition that carves out nonwork time and nonwork areas, an employer should refrain from using vague or overbroad phrases such as “during the workday” or “off school property,” which fail to note explicitly that the prohibition does not apply in those places and times in which the employer tolerates other nonofficial activities, such as during breaks. (Petaluma City Elementary School District/Joint Union High School District (2016) PERB Decision No. 2485, pp. 44-47.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 141 | 02/20/20 |
| 2697M |
County of Tulare (Service Employees International Union Local 521)
401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right
The MMBA affords both employee and non-employee representatives of employee organizations access to areas in which employees work, subject to reasonable employer regulation. (County of Orange (2018) PERB Decision No. 2611-M, p. 3 (Orange); County of Riverside (2012) PERB Decision No. 2233-M, p. 8.) Any such regulation must be both necessary to the employer’s efficient operations or safety of employees or others, and narrowly drafted to avoid overbroad, unnecessary interference with the exercise of statutory rights. (Orange, supra, PERB Decision No. 2611-M, p. 3.) Moreover, an otherwise lawful rule will violate the MMBA if its language or application singles out union or other protected activities, as compared to non-protected activities. (Orange, supra, PERB Decision No. 2611-M, pp. 3-4; Regents of the University of California (Irvine) (2018) PERB Decision No. 2593-H, p. 8; Petaluma City Elementary School District/Joint Union High School District (2016) PERB Decision No. 2485, p. 50.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 141 | 02/20/20 |
| 2697M |
County of Tulare (Service Employees International Union Local 521)
401.03000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Ban on Distribution or Solicitation
“A categorical prohibition against distributing literature or other means of communication interferes with fundamental rights of employee organizations to represent and communicate with employees and of employees to self-organize and communicate with one another in the workplace.” (Petaluma City Elementary School District/Joint Union High School District (2016) PERB Decision No. 2485, p. 44, emphasis in original.) Such a rule must not only be nondiscriminatory in language and in application, it must also permit protected activities in nonwork times and nonwork areas. (Id. at pp. 45-47.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 141 | 02/20/20 |
| 2697M |
County of Tulare (Service Employees International Union Local 521)
401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case.
Challenged local rule stated: “Employee organizations or any of their members shall neither directly nor indirectly [¶ . . . ¶] [e]ngage in organizing activities, including distribution of literature within County buildings.” PERB found such rule inconsistent with the MMBA because it is both discriminatory and overbroad. The rule was discriminatory because it explicitly addressed only protected activities, and there was no evidence that County had a comparable rule restricting employees from soliciting others, or engaging in organizing or publicity in the workplace, about issues or organizations unrelated to protected employee or union rights. The rule was overbroad because by its terms because it included both nonwork times and nonwork areas. The County violated the MMBA by maintaining the rule, irrespective of whether it enforced the rule. more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 141 | 02/20/20 |
| 2697M |
County of Tulare (Service Employees International Union Local 521)
401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case.
The MMBA affords both employee and non-employee representatives of employee organizations access to areas in which employees work, subject to reasonable employer regulation. (County of Orange (2018) PERB Decision No. 2611-M, p. 3 (Orange); County of Riverside (2012) PERB Decision No. 2233-M, p. 8.) Any such regulation must be both necessary to the employer’s efficient operations or safety of employees or others, and narrowly drafted to avoid overbroad, unnecessary interference with the exercise of statutory rights. (Orange, supra, PERB Decision No. 2611-M, p. 3.) Moreover, an otherwise lawful rule will violate the MMBA if its language or application singles out union or other protected activities, as compared to non-protected activities. (Orange, supra, PERB Decision No. 2611-M, pp. 3-4; Regents of the University of California (Irvine) (2018) PERB Decision No. 2593-H, p. 8; Petaluma City Elementary School District/Joint Union High School District (2016) PERB Decision No. 2485, p. 50.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 141 | 02/20/20 |
| 2697M |
County of Tulare (Service Employees International Union Local 521)
401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case.
Under the MMBA, a local agency may adopt reasonable access rules. (MMBA, § 3507, subd. (a)(6), (a)(7).) In order to be lawful, such rules and regulations may not undercut or frustrate the MMBA’s policies and purposes. (Int’l Federation of Professional & Technical Eng’rs, Local 21 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. |
44 | 141 | 02/20/20 |
| 2697M |
County of Tulare (Service Employees International Union Local 521)
401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case.
In following Bill Johnson’s Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB (1983) 461 U.S. 731 (Bill Johnson’s). PERB has held that an employer’s decision to litigate claims against a union is generally not an unfair practice, unless the union can demonstrate that the claim had no reasonable basis and was subjectively motivated by an unlawful purpose. (County of Riverside (2018) PERB Decision No. 2591-M, p. 7, fn. 5; State of California (State Personnel Board) (2004) PERB Decision No. 1680-S, adopting warning letter at pp. 2-4; Rim of the World Unified School District (1986) PERB Order No. Ad-161, pp. 16-18; Bill Johnson’s Restaurants, supra, 461 U.S. at pp. 745-747.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 141 | 02/20/20 |
| 2697M |
County of Tulare (Service Employees International Union Local 521)
300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General
An exclusive representative has a right to engage in direct and indirect advocacy with an employer’s elected and unelected officials, up to and including the employer’s highest levels, provided that the exclusive representative does not make new collective bargaining proposals that the exclusive representative has not already made in negotiations with the employer’s chosen bargaining team. (Anaheim Union High School District (2015) PERB Decision No. 2434, pp. 52-53; Westminster School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 277, p. 10; San Ramon Valley Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 230, pp. 16-18.) Union representative’s e-mails to County’s Board of Supervisors were protected advocacy and not impermissible direct dealing, where Union representative’s e-mails did not present any proposals that the Union had not already made in negotiations or advocate for contract terms differing materially from previous Union proposals. (PARTIALLY OVERRULING County of Inyo (2005) PERB Decision No. 1783-M, to extent it found that union engaged in direct dealing during a presentation to the employer’s board where there was no allegation that the union made new proposals from those union sought in bargaining during the presentation.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 141 | 02/20/20 |
| 2579M |
County of Monterey
1100.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; In General/Prima Facie Case
When a charge alleges the existence of a past practice, the charging party must specifically identify and describe the practice allegedly altered by a unilateral change. However, when, as here, the charging party alleges the employer has established a new policy where none previously existed, “[t]here is no way to more specifically allege the non-existence of something than to state it did not exist.” more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 33 | 07/20/18 |
| 2579M |
County of Monterey
602.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Absent a clear and unmistakable waiver of the union’s right to bargain, an employer may not unilaterally add new terms to an existing collective bargaining agreement or adopt or enforce new rules of conduct where previously none had existed. This prohibition extends to the enforcement of existing rules. An employer’s more stringent enforcement of an existing policy constitutes a different term or condition of employment for which notice and opportunity to bargain is necessary. (Venture Packaging (1989) 294 NLRB 544, 550; Fry Foods, Inc., supra, 241 NLRB 76, 93; Master Slack (1977) 230 NLRB 1054, 1055-1056.) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 33 | 07/20/18 |
| 2691M |
City and County of San Francisco
1200.01000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; CEASE AND DESIST ORDERS; In General
PERB orders the City, in future negotiations with union, to interpret its Charter consistently with PERB’s decision, and to cease and desist from failing or refusing to devote a reasonable and adequate amount of time to good faith negotiations, mediation, and interest arbitration. more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 124 | 01/17/20 |
| 2691M |
City and County of San Francisco
1107.20000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Other
PERB granted City’s request to file a reply brief regarding its exceptions, where union raised new matters in its responsive briefing. more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 124 | 01/17/20 |
| 2691M |
City and County of San Francisco
1107.13000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Administrative and Judicial Notice
PERB declined to resolve the parties’ numerous disagreements regarding the City’s request that it take administrative notice of certain records and documents, as none of its findings would differ based on the outcome of the City’s request. (County of Santa Clara (2019) PERB Decision No. 2629-M, p. 6, fn. 5.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 124 | 01/17/20 |
| 2691M |
City and County of San Francisco
1101.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Continuing Violation
A charging party timely challenges a local rule by filing a charge within six months of any independent instance in which the employer has applied the rule, or, alternatively, at any time under the continuing violation doctrine, if a union or employee would risk an adverse consequence by violating the rule. Union’s challenge was timely under both theories. First, union risked an adverse consequence under the Charter’s penalty provision, should union have missed the submission deadline. Second, union filed its charge early in the negotiations cycle, just as the City was beginning to apply its Charter provisions. The new negotiations cycle qualified as an independent application of the Charter, which triggered a new statute of limitations. more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 124 | 01/17/20 |
| 2691M |
City and County of San Francisco
1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General
A charging party timely challenges a local rule by filing a charge within six months of any independent instance in which the employer has applied the rule, or, alternatively, at any time under the continuing violation doctrine, if a union or employee would risk an adverse consequence by violating the rule. Union’s challenge was timely under both theories. First, union risked an adverse consequence under the Charter’s penalty provision, should union have missed the submission deadline. Second, union filed its charge early in the negotiations cycle, just as the City was beginning to apply its Charter provisions. The new negotiations cycle qualified as an independent application of the Charter, which triggered a new statute of limitations. more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 124 | 01/17/20 |
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.
