Home | Decisions | Keyword Search by Headnotes

Keyword Search by Headnotes

DecisionDescriptionPERC Vol.PERC IndexDate
2600M County of Ventura
201.04000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; Joint Employer, Single Employer, and Alter Ego Doctrines
A joint employer is required to bargain only with respect to those terms over which it possesses at least a partial right of control. (A joint employer is required to bargain only with respect to those terms over which it possesses at least a partial right of control. (County of Ventura (2012) PERB Decision No. 2272-M, pp. 20-21 (Ventura II).) more or view all topics or full text.		 43 87 12/07/18
2600M County of Ventura
201.04000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; Joint Employer, Single Employer, and Alter Ego Doctrines
In order to demonstrate that two entities constitute joint employers, union must show that they share influence over, or co-determine, one or more terms or conditions of employment. (County of Ventura (2009) PERB Decision No. 2067-M, p. 4. Evidence satisfies this standard if the County retains “the right to control the manner and method in which the work is performed.” (Id. at p. 6) PERB follows the “right to control” test, meaning it is irrelevant whether an employer having such a right of control chooses to use it by exerting actual control over employment terms or conditions. (pp. 28-29.) Board disapproves any suggestion that a joint employer finding depends on actual control, and endorses the right of control test as articulated in PERB caselaw and consistent with both California appellate precedent and the NLRB’s full explanation of the right of control test in in Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc. (2015) 362 NLRB No. 186 (Browning-Ferris II). A public entity with a right of control maintains its status as an employer regardless of the extent to which it exercises actual control. (p. 31-32.) more or view all topics or full text.		 43 87 12/07/18
2600M County of Ventura
201.04000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; Joint Employer, Single Employer, and Alter Ego Doctrines
In assessing a single employer claim, centralized control of labor relations does not necessarily depend on centralized authority over day-to-day matters. (El Camino Hospital District (2009) PERB Decision No. 2033-M, pp. 20-21 (El Camino) [entity has centralized control by virtue of its right to ratify collective bargaining agreements, even though it neither negotiated such agreements nor exercised day-to-day authority].) (pp. 20-21.) Moreover, common management can be found even in the presence of a dispersed management structure. (California Virtual Academies (2016) PERB Decision No. 2484, p. 73 (CAVA); accord Sakrete of Northern California, Inc. v. NLRB (9th Cir. 1964) 332 F.2d 902, 907, cert. den. (1965) 379 U.S. 961 [common management, centralized control of labor relations, and integration of operations can be demonstrated at the executive or top level, even where there is separation at a more localized level].) Practical and economic realities of the entities’ relationship also taken into account. (p. 24-25.) Strong evidence of common ownership and financial control exists between County and private for-profit Clinic corporations where County owns all Clinic premises, as well as all Clinic equipment and all Clinic revenues. All such revenues, and many Clinic expenses, are integrated into the County’s budget. The County covers all Clinic losses. The Clinics’ operating expenses exceed their revenues every year, and the County absorbs this shortfall. (p. 26.) more or view all topics or full text.		 43 87 12/07/18
2600M County of Ventura
201.04000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?; Joint Employer, Single Employer, and Alter Ego Doctrines
In assessing a single employer claim, PERB looks at four factors: (1) functional integration of operations; (2) centralized control of labor relations; (3) common management; and (4) common ownership or common financial control. (California Virtual Academies (2016) PERB Decision No. 2484, p. 64 (CAVA).) Single employer status “does not require the presence of all four factors.” (Ibid.) This is especially the case given that our inquiry must take into account not only how many of the factors are present, but also to what extent they are present. (pp. 18-19.) Single employer relationship found where County and clinic corporations do not operate at arm’s length. more or view all topics or full text.		 43 87 12/07/18
2667Pa San Diego Metropolitan Transit System
1503.03000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; Regulations Considered (By Number) (Continued)
The grounds for reconsideration are limited to claims that: “(1) the decision of the Board itself contains prejudicial errors of fact, or (2) the party has newly discovered evidence which was not previously available and could not have been discovered with the exercise of reasonable diligence.” (PERB Reg. 32410(a).) A party cannot use the reconsideration process to register its disagreement with the Board’s legal analysis, to re-litigate issues that have already been decided, or simply to ask the Board to try again. (p. 2) The Board denied the request for reconsideration because it failed to address either of the required criteria but challenged solely the Board’s legal analysis and conclusions in the underlying decision, which is not a basis for reconsideration. (Ibid.) more or view all topics or full text.		 11/07/19
2667Pa San Diego Metropolitan Transit System
1503.01000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; In General
The grounds for reconsideration are limited to claims that: “(1) the decision of the Board itself contains prejudicial errors of fact, or (2) the party has newly discovered evidence which was not previously available and could not have been discovered with the exercise of reasonable diligence.” (PERB Reg. 32410(a).) A party cannot use the reconsideration process to register its disagreement with the Board’s legal analysis, to re-litigate issues that have already been decided, or simply to ask the Board to try again. (p. 2) The Board denied the request for reconsideration because it failed to address either of the required criteria but challenged solely the Board’s legal analysis and conclusions in the underlying decision, which is not a basis for reconsideration. (Ibid.) more or view all topics or full text.		 11/07/19
2667Pa San Diego Metropolitan Transit System
1107.10000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Request for Reconsideration
The grounds for reconsideration are limited to claims that: “(1) the decision of the Board itself contains prejudicial errors of fact, or (2) the party has newly discovered evidence which was not previously available and could not have been discovered with the exercise of reasonable diligence.” (PERB Reg. 32410(a).) A party cannot use the reconsideration process to register its disagreement with the Board’s legal analysis, to re-litigate issues that have already been decided, or simply to ask the Board to try again. (p. 2) The Board denied the request for reconsideration because it failed to address either of the required criteria but challenged solely the Board’s legal analysis and conclusions in the underlying decision, which is not a basis for reconsideration. (Ibid.) more or view all topics or full text.		 11/07/19
2650Pa San Joaquin Regional Transit District * * * PUC TRANSIT CASE. PERB CASE NUMBER CONTAINS INCORRECT LETTERING, AS CASE DID NOT ARISE UNDER MMBA * * *
1310.08000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION; Accretion, Adding classification(s) to existing unit (PUC transit district units)
Despite some differences between the job classification existing in the bargaining unit and new job classification which union sought to have added to the unit, because the essential functions performed by the new classification closely match those historically performed within the unit, the new classification is properly viewed as remaining within the unit. (Premcor, Inc. (2001) 333 NLRB 1365 (Premcor) [newly-created position may be placed in a bargaining unit without satisfying accretion principles or requiring employee support, if the position’s duties clearly fit within that unit].) more or view all topics or full text.		 44 56 08/30/19
2664M City of Palo Alto
1205.10000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIAL PROVISIONS; Other Affirmative Relief
Where employer withdrew a contact proposal as part of an overall course of bad faith conduct, the Board clarified that the remedial order requiring the employer to bargain in good faith required the employer to reinstate the withdrawn offer. (Mead Corp. v. NLRB (11th Cir. 1983) 697 F.2d 1013, 1022-1023, enforcing The Mead Corp. (1981) 256 NLRB 686.) Such a Mead Corp. order was necessary to restore the situation as nearly as possible to that which would have existed but for the employer’s bad faith conduct and was integral to requiring the employer to cease and desist from its unlawful conduct. Employer therefore directed to put back on the table the proposal it withdrew in bad faith, upon the Union’s request. more or view all topics or full text.		 44 52 08/21/19
2664M City of Palo Alto
1205.04000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIAL PROVISIONS; Attorneys Fees and Costs
Reimbursement of costs as make-whole remedy: PERB analyzes request for reimbursement of costs incurred as a result of a respondent’s underlying conduct under traditional make-whole principles. (See Omnitrans (2009) PERB Decision No. 2030-M, p. 30 (Omnitrans) [awarding attorney fees in ancillary case made necessary because of respondent’s violation]; Camelot Terrace, Inc. v. NLRB (D.C. Cir. 2016) 824 F.3d 1085, 1092-1093 (Camelot Terrace, Inc.) [upholding NLRB’s order that employer reimburse union for bargaining costs as a remedy for having engaged in bad faith bargaining, and reasoning that “[a]n award of bargaining expenses remedies an unfair labor practice by ensuring that, upon resolution of the [charge], the injured party can return to negotiations on the same footing it occupied before the violation.”].) While a make-whole remedial order under Omnitrans and Camelot Terrace, Inc. may include, among other items, staff costs or attorney’s fees reasonably incurred as a result of a respondent’s unlawful conduct, any attorney’s fees awarded pursuant to such make-whole principles normally may not include attorney’s fees expended simply to litigate the unfair practice charge at issue—under the American Rule, such an attorney fee award is appropriate only as a litigation sanction, if the charging party demonstrates that the claim, defense, motion, or other action or tactic was “without arguable merit” and pursued in “bad faith.” more or view all topics or full text.		 44 52 08/21/19
2664M City of Palo Alto
1205.04000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIAL PROVISIONS; Attorneys Fees and Costs
Litigation sanctions: To obtain reimbursement of attorney’s fees or other litigation expenses incurred while litigating a matter in front of PERB, the moving party must demonstrate that the claim, defense, motion, or other action or tactic was “without arguable merit” and pursued in “bad faith.” To determine whether a claim, defense, motion, or other action is frivolous, the Board examines whether it is so manifestly erroneous that no prudent representative would have filed or maintained it. Even if a party requesting attorney’s fees can meet the “without arguable merit” prong, it must also show that the opposing party acted in bad faith. For the purposes of this test, the term “bad faith” includes conduct that is dilatory, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of process. Showing that an action or tactic was undertaken in “bad faith,” does not require showing that the party and/or representative necessarily acted with an evil motive. Prosecution of a frivolous action or defense may itself be evidence supporting a finding of subjective bad faith, as might other conduct which a party or representative knows or reasonably should know will unreasonably or unnecessarily cause delay or harass or injure an opposing party or representative, or impede the tribunal’s own process. However, PERB follows California Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5 in requiring some showing of subjective bad faith, even if it must be inferred from circumstantial evidence. more or view all topics or full text.		 44 52 08/21/19
2664M City of Palo Alto
1200.01000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; CEASE AND DESIST ORDERS; In General
Where employer withdrew a contact proposal as part of an overall course of bad faith conduct, the Board clarified that the remedial order requiring the employer to bargain in good faith required the employer to reinstate the withdrawn offer. (Mead Corp. v. NLRB (11th Cir. 1983) 697 F.2d 1013, 1022-1023, enforcing The Mead Corp. (1981) 256 NLRB 686.) Such a Mead Corp. order was necessary to restore the situation as nearly as possible to that which would have existed but for the employer’s bad faith conduct and was integral to requiring the employer to cease and desist from its unlawful conduct. Employer therefore directed to put back on the table the proposal it withdrew in bad faith, upon the Union’s request. more or view all topics or full text.		 44 52 08/21/19
2664M City of Palo Alto
606.18000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; Lack of Sufficient Authority
Section 3505.1 allows a union to bring an unfair practice charge alleging that a governing body evidenced bad faith in rejecting a tentative agreement. Such a rejection, like a union membership vote to reject a tentative agreement, does not excuse either party from the duty to refrain from vesting negotiators with insufficient authority and/or engaging in regressive bargaining— indicia of bad faith that can co-occur. If an employer or union fails to obtain ratification, the requirements of good faith bargaining remain the same: A party’s subsequent less favorable offer generally evidences regressive bargaining and/or a failure to vest negotiators with sufficient authority, unless accompanied by a credible, rationally supported explanation of changed economic circumstances sufficient to support the change in position. Alternatively, a party may withdraw concessions on some subjects, while offering more favorable terms on others, if done as part of a genuine attempt to reach an overall compromise. more or view all topics or full text.		 44 52 08/21/19
2664M City of Palo Alto
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
Section 3505.1 allows a union to bring an unfair practice charge alleging that a governing body evidenced bad faith in rejecting a tentative agreement. Such a rejection, like a union membership vote to reject a tentative agreement, does not excuse either party from the duty to refrain from vesting negotiators with insufficient authority and/or engaging in regressive bargaining— indicia of bad faith that can co-occur. If an employer or union fails to obtain ratification, the requirements of good faith bargaining remain the same: A party’s subsequent less favorable offer generally evidences regressive bargaining and/or a failure to vest negotiators with sufficient authority, unless accompanied by a credible, rationally supported explanation of changed economic circumstances sufficient to support the change in position. Alternatively, a party may withdraw concessions on some subjects, while offering more favorable terms on others, if done as part of a genuine attempt to reach an overall compromise. more or view all topics or full text.		 44 52 08/21/19
2664M City of Palo Alto
606.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; Predictably Unacceptable Offer
Where employer made predictably unacceptable offer and withdrew alternative proposal as part of an overall course of bad faith conduct, the Board clarified that the remedial order requiring the employer to bargain in good faith required the employer to reinstate the withdrawn offer. (Mead Corp. v. NLRB (11th Cir. 1983) 697 F.2d 1013, 1022-1023, enforcing The Mead Corp. (1981) 256 NLRB 686.) Such a Mead Corp. order was necessary to restore the situation as nearly as possible to that which would have existed but for the employer’s bad faith conduct and was integral to requiring the employer to cease and desist from its unlawful conduct. Employer therefore directed to put back on the table the proposal it withdrew in bad faith, upon the Union’s request. more or view all topics or full text.		 44 52 08/21/19
2659M County of Kern and Kern County Hospital Authority
1201.03000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; REINSTATEMENT; BACKPAY BENEFITS; Back Pay; Interest
The Board crafts make-whole remedies, including “back pay, front pay or other forms of compensation,” as necessary “to make injured parties and/or affected employees whole.” (Sonoma County Superior Court (2017) PERB Decision No. 2532-C, p. 40; see, e.g., Mt. San Antonio Community College Dist. v. PERB (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 178, 184, fn. 3 [where respondent unilaterally changed employment terms, respondent ordered to pay “to the affected employees the difference in wages between that which they earned and that which they should have earned in the absence of the employer’s unilateral action, minus any mitigation”].) When a public employer subcontracts operations in violation of a PERB-enforced statute, and the record shows that private sector subcontracted employees are harmed, PERB should order reasonably requested economic remedies tailored to make such employees whole. If the parties develop a sufficient record in compliance proceedings or otherwise, that remedy may include the difference in total compensation, including benefits, between subcontracted employees’ actual compensation and the compensation the public employer pays to comparable employees. Such an order is appropriate even though it necessarily involves approximation. (City of Pasadena (2014) PERB Order No. Ad-406-M, pp. 8, 13-14 & 26-27.) Doing so is generally preferable to “permitting the employer to evade liability because of uncertainty caused by the employer’s own unlawful conduct, and thus leaving an unfair practice unremedied. (Pasadena, supra, Order No. Ad-406-M, p. 26, emphasis in original.) more or view all topics or full text.		 44 40 08/06/19
2659M County of Kern and Kern County Hospital Authority
1201.01000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; REINSTATEMENT; BACKPAY BENEFITS; In General
A properly designed remedial order seeks a restoration of the situation as nearly as possible to that which would have obtained but for the unfair labor practice. PERB’s standard remedy for an employer’s unlawful unilateral change therefore restores the prior status quo and provides make-whole relief—including back pay, lost benefits, and interest—to the extent necessary to remedy the respondent’s unlawful conduct. Restoring the parties and affected employees to their respective positions before the unlawful conduct occurred is critical to remedying unilateral change violations, because it prevents the employer from gaining a one-sided and unfair advantage in negotiations. The Board crafts make-whole remedies, including “back pay, front pay or other forms of compensation,” as necessary “to make injured parties and/or affected employees whole.” (Sonoma County Superior Court (2017) PERB Decision No. 2532-C, p. 40; see, e.g., Mt. San Antonio Community College Dist. v. PERB (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 178, 184, fn. 3 [where respondent unilaterally changed employment terms, respondent ordered to pay “to the affected employees the difference in wages between that which they earned and that which they should have earned in the absence of the employer’s unilateral action, minus any mitigation”].) To remedy a unilateral subcontracting violation, the Board ordered employer to cease and desist from unilaterally subcontracting bargaining unit work at newly-opened medical clinics and to rescind the unilaterally adopted subcontract for medical assistant services at those clinics. Because it can take time to rescind a contract, the Board looks for a reasonable deadline, and in the interim, extends make-whole relief, with interest, until employees cease accruing harm. Taking the contract’s provisions into account, the Board required termination of the contract within 30 days after Board’s decision no longer subject to appeal. more or view all topics or full text.		 44 40 08/06/19
2659M County of Kern and Kern County Hospital Authority
1000.02137: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Subcontracting
PERB generally finds that subcontracting decisions are within the scope of bargaining. To prevail in showing that the Richmond Firefighters balancing test warrants finding a particular subcontracting decision to have been bargainable, a union generally must establish one of three circumstances: (1) the employer’s reasons for subcontracting included labor costs, personnel issues or other issues that are amenable to bargaining; (2) the subcontractors performed substantially the same duties as that traditionally or historically performed by unit employees, even absent evidence of the employer’s motivation; or (3) where the employer unilaterally alters the terms of a written policy or agreement, or applies such policy or agreement in a new way. While the union need only establish one viable theory to bring the employer’s subcontracting decision within the scope of bargaining, the Board found that the union prevailed under all three where the employer began using contract medical assistants to staff newly-opened clinics, without notifying the union or giving it an opportunity to bargain. Just as a union has no need to establish the employer’s motivation for subcontracting when the employer replaces existing bargaining unit employees with employees of an outside organization, the same is true when an employer opens new operations, if the nature of the subcontracted job duties is sufficiently similar to the duties that bargaining unit employees already perform for the employer. (Mi Pueblo Foods (2014) 360 NLRB 1097, 1098-1099; Overnite Transportation Co. Overnite Transportation Co. (2000) 330 NLRB 1275, 1276, affd. in part, reversed in part mem. (3d Cir. 2000) 248 F.3d 1131.) more or view all topics or full text.		 44 40 08/06/19
2659M County of Kern and Kern County Hospital Authority
1000.02026: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Contracting Out
PERB generally finds that subcontracting decisions are within the scope of bargaining. To prevail in showing that the Richmond Firefighters balancing test warrants finding a particular subcontracting decision to have been bargainable, a union generally must establish one of three circumstances: (1) the employer’s reasons for subcontracting included labor costs, personnel issues or other issues that are amenable to bargaining; (2) the subcontractors performed substantially the same duties as that traditionally or historically performed by unit employees, even absent evidence of the employer’s motivation; or (3) where the employer unilaterally alters the terms of a written policy or agreement, or applies such policy or agreement in a new way. While the union need only establish one viable theory to bring the employer’s subcontracting decision within the scope of bargaining, the Board found that the union prevailed under all three where the employer began using contract medical assistants to staff newly-opened clinics, without notifying the union or giving it an opportunity to bargain, Just as a union has no need to establish the employer’s motivation for subcontracting when the employer replaces existing bargaining unit employees with employees of an outside organization, the same is true when an employer opens new operations, if the nature of the subcontracted job duties is sufficiently similar to the duties that bargaining unit employees already perform for the employer. (Mi Pueblo Foods (2014) 360 NLRB 1097, 1098-1099; Overnite Transportation Co. Overnite Transportation Co. (2000) 330 NLRB 1275, 1276, affd. in part, reversed in part mem. (3d Cir. 2000) 248 F.3d 1131.) more or view all topics or full text.		 44 40 08/06/19
2659M County of Kern and Kern County Hospital Authority
1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated
In determining whether a matter is within the scope of representation, the Board applies a framework initially deriving from the U.S. Supreme Court’s analysis in First National Maintenance Corporation v. NLRB (1981) 452 U.S. 666, 676-680 (First National Maintenance) and Richmond Firefighters. Under First National Maintenance, there are three categories of managerial decisions, each with its own implications for the scope of representation: (1) “‘decisions that “have only an indirect and attenuated impact on the employment relationship” and thus are not mandatory subjects of bargaining,’ such as advertising, product design, and financing; (2) ‘decisions directly defining the employment relationship, such as wages, workplace rules, and the order of succession of layoffs and recalls,’ which are ‘always mandatory subjects of bargaining’; and (3) ‘decisions that directly affect employment, such as eliminating jobs, but nonetheless may not be mandatory subjects of bargaining because they involve “a change in the scope and direction of the enterprise” or, in other words, the employer’s “retained freedom to manage its affairs unrelated to employment.’” (County of Orange (2018) PERB Decision No. 2594-M, p. 18, citing Richmond Firefighters, 51 Cal.4th at pp. 272-273.) In the closest cases—the third category of managerial decisions—PERB applies a balancing test, under which bargaining is required only if “the benefit, for labor-management relations and the collective-bargaining process, outweighs the burden placed on the conduct of the business.” (County of Orange, supra, PERB Decision No. 2594-M, p. 18, quoting Richmond Firefighters, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 273 and First National Maintenance, supra, 452 U.S. at p. 679.) more or view all topics or full text.		 44 40 08/06/19
2659M County of Kern and Kern County Hospital Authority
602.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
An employer’s unilateral change violates the duty to bargain in good faith where: (1) the employer took action to change existing policy; (2) the policy change concerned a matter within the scope of representation; (3) the action was taken without giving the exclusive representative notice or opportunity to bargain over the change; and (4) the change has a generalized effect or continuing impact on terms and conditions of employment. In order to satisfy the first element, a charging party generally must show at least one of the following: (1) changes to the parties’ written agreements; (2) changes in established past practices; or (3) newly created policies, or application or enforcement of an existing policy in a new way. Where County and County Hospital Authority began using contract medical assistants to staff newly-opened clinics, without notifying the union or giving it an opportunity to bargain, County and County Hospital Authority at least implemented a new policy, and/or applied existing policy in a new way. more or view all topics or full text.		 44 40 08/06/19
A476M 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. Board found that withdrawal of an appeal of an administrative determination granting a stay in a decertification election pending resolution of a related unfair practice charge to be consistent with the MMBA’s purpose of promoting harmonious labor relations because the charge underlying the stay had reached a final resolution. (p. 2.) more or view all topics or full text.		 44 82 10/24/19
2674M Orange County Employees Association (Hamilton)
1205.04000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIAL PROVISIONS; Attorneys Fees and Costs
When a union fails to fairly represent an employee in grievance processing, attorney fees may only be awarded when the employee hires private counsel to pursue the claims in the grievance that were impacted by the union’s unlawful conduct. (p. 10.) Employee not entitled to attorney fees because her lawsuit against her employer did not encompass the MOU violation alleged in her grievance. (p. 11.) more or view all topics or full text.		 44 76 10/15/19
2674M Orange County Employees Association (Hamilton)
1204.04000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; REMEDIES AGAINST UNION; Reimbursement of Dues, Fees and Exactions to Employees; Union Liability
When a union fails to fairly represent an employee in grievance processing, attorney fees may only be awarded when the employee hires private counsel to pursue the claims in the grievance that were impacted by the union’s unlawful conduct. (p. 10.) Employee not entitled to attorney fees because her lawsuit against her employer did not encompass the MOU violation alleged in her grievance. (p. 11.) more or view all topics or full text.		 44 76 10/15/19
2674M Orange County Employees Association (Hamilton)
1204.01000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; REMEDIES AGAINST UNION; In General
When a union fails to fairly represent an employee in grievance processing, attorney fees may only be awarded when the employee hires private counsel to pursue the claims in the grievance that were impacted by the union’s unlawful conduct. (p. 10.) Employee not entitled to attorney fees because her lawsuit against her employer did not encompass the MOU violation alleged in her grievance. (p. 11.) more or view all topics or full text.		 44 76 10/15/19