| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A514E | Dailey Elementary Charter School 1306.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; In General; Requirements PERB determines proof of support based on an employee list as of the time an employee organization files a petition for recognition. (Central Basin Municipal Water District (2021) PERB Order No. Ad-486-M, p. 16; Children of Promise Preparatory Academy (2013) PERB Order No. Ad-402, pp. 14-15 [“the initial determination regarding sufficiency of support for the recognition petition, once made, is determinative on the issue of majority support within the petitioned-for unit”]; Regents of the University of California (2017) PERB Order No. Ad-453-H, p. 21.) (pp. 7-8.) more or view all topics or full text. | 04/18/24 | ||
| A514E | Dailey Elementary Charter School 1306.04000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; PROOF OF SUPPORT; Intervenor An intervention petitioner must file with PERB proof of at least 30 percent support in the unit claimed to be appropriate. (PERB Reg. 33070, subd. (b).) The employee organization is required to serve the petition for intervention on all parties. (PERB Reg. 33070, subd. (c).) The Board found that an individual teacher’s petition for intervention was invalid because: (1) it was not filed with the employer within 15 workdays as required by PERB Regulation 33070, subdivision (a); (2) it lacked any proof of support, much less the 30 percent minimum in the unit claimed to be appropriate, as required by section 3544.1, subdivision (b) and PERB Regulation 33070, subdivision (b); and (3) the individual teacher was not an employee organization and did not file the petition for intervention on behalf of such an organization as required by section 3540.1, subdivision (d). (pp. 9-12.) more or view all topics or full text. | 04/18/24 | ||
| A514E | Dailey Elementary Charter School 1300.02000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; CERTIFICATION/VOLUNTARY RECOGNITION; Request for Recognition Under EERA, an employee organization may become the exclusive representative for the employees of an appropriate unit by filing a request with a public school employer alleging that a majority of the employees in an appropriate unit wish to be represented by such organization, providing proof of such support to PERB, and asking the public school employer to recognize it. (§ 3544, subds. (a), (b); PERB Reg. 33050, subds. (a)-(c).) If PERB determines that the petitioning organization submitted adequate proof of support, the public school employer must grant the request for recognition unless, as relevant here, it doubts the appropriateness of the petitioned-for unit (§ 3544.1, subd. (a); PERB Reg. 33190, subd. (d)(3)(A)), or another employee organization either files with the employer a challenge to the appropriateness of the unit or submits a competing claim of representation within 15 workdays of the posting of notice of the written request for recognition (§ 3544.1, subd. (b); PERB Regs. 33070, subd. (a), 33190, subd. (d)(3)(D)). Here, the Board concluded that OGC properly certified FTA as the exclusive representative of the petitioned-for unit because FTA properly filed its petition for recognition with Dailey alleging that a majority of the employees in an appropriate unit wish to be represented by FTA; FTA filed its petition with OGC and supplied it with sufficient proof of support; Dailey did not doubt the appropriateness of the proposed unit; and no employee organization properly intervened to seek to represent any of the employees in the petitioned-for unit. (pp. 7-8.) more or view all topics or full text. | 04/18/24 | ||
| A514E | Dailey Elementary Charter School 1107.21000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Administrative Appeals When appealing an administrative determination, the appellant must demonstrate how or why the challenged decision departs from the Board’s precedents or regulations. (City and County of San Francisco (2022) PERB Order No. Ad-497-M, p. 15.) The Board applies an abuse of discretion standard to OGC’s proof-of-support determination and to OGC’s decision not to hold an evidentiary hearing. (p. 6.) more or view all topics or full text. | 04/18/24 | ||
| A513P | North County Transit District 1107.21000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Administrative Appeals Under PERB Regulation 32730, the Board has discretion to issue a stay of activity. It is appropriate to issue a stay where further action would be rendered unnecessary if the Board reverses a Board agent’s ruling. more or view all topics or full text. | 04/04/24 | ||
| A513P | North County Transit District 1107.20000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Other Under PERB Regulation 32730, the Board has discretion to issue a stay of activity. It is appropriate to issue a stay where further action would be rendered unnecessary if the Board reverses a Board agent’s ruling. more or view all topics or full text. | 04/04/24 | ||
| 2895M | * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * Palomar Health 1205.04000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIAL PROVISIONS; Attorneys Fees and Costs The Board affirmed the ALJ’s conclusion that a make-whole award for the unions must include legal expenses because the unions would not have incurred the costs of defending against the lawsuit absent the employer’s unlawful conduct, viz. interfering with protected rights by pursuing a lawsuit seeking to ban union representatives from various non-work areas of its property. Calculating such expense based on the lodestar rate is consistent with Board precedent. The unions were to have an opportunity to establish in compliance proceedings that they suffered losses from the employer’s various proven unlawful conduct. The Board denied the unions’ request for legal fees and costs as sanctions. (pp. 63-67.) more or view all topics or full text. | 03/15/24 | ||
| 2895M | * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * Palomar Health 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy The Board found the employer changed the status quo when it sought an order from the superior court to deny union representatives access to picket, parade, march, stand, sit, walk, or otherwise be present in areas inside or outside of the employer’s facilities, other than the employee parking lot. The record established a unilateral change as both a change in established past practice and a newly created policy or application or enforcement of existing policy in a new way. In the past the unions regularly engaged in protected conduct in the very areas the employer now insisted such activities were disallowed. This past practice was sufficiently “regular and consistent” (or alternately “historic and accepted”) to constitute an established practice. (See Oakland Unified School District (2023) PERB Decision No. 2875, p. 13; Pittsburg Unified School District (2022) PERB Decision No. 2833, p. 12.) Moreover, the employer also created a new policy or applied or enforced policy in a new way when it for the first time sought to block the Unions from non-patient areas. (pp. 37-41.) more or view all topics or full text. | 03/15/24 | ||
| 2895M | * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * Palomar Health 409.05000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Union Consent or Waiver The employer failed to meet its burden to establish waiver. As a defense to its decision to limit access rights, the employer argued that when the unions agreed in their respective CBAs that each of them “shall designate up to two (2) authorized representatives who shall be granted access to Palomar Health facilities during hours of operation for the purposes of ensuring compliance with the [CBA], adjusting grievances, and updating [union] bulletin boards,” they waived their statutory right to leaflet or table in various non-work areas of a medical center. These arguments failed because the blanket prohibition against solicitation and distribution of literature, without any demonstrated reasonable alternatives, seriously impaired employees’ rights to communicate about union matters and thus could not be waived as a matter of law; because an agreement to grant access to a specific number of representatives for specific reasons does not clearly and unmistakably indicate that the unions waived access for other representatives or for other protected reasons; and because ample record evidence of the parties’ practices under the CBAs included regular leafletting and tabling in the areas the employer then asserted such activities were not allowed, further confirming that the unions did not clearly waive their statutory access rights. (pp. 34-37.) more or view all topics or full text. | 03/15/24 | ||
| 2895M | * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * Palomar Health 403.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE; RESTRAINT, COERCION; SURVEILLANCE; Statements to Employees, Creating Impression of Surveillance An employer engages in unlawful surveillance when the employer photographs or videotapes employees or openly engages in recordkeeping of employees participating in union activities. (Lake Tahoe Unified School District (1999) PERB Decision No. 1361, adopting warning letter at p. 2.) “Photographing and recordkeeping are proscribed because of their ‘tendency to intimidate.’” (County of San Bernardino (2018) PERB Decision No. 2556-M, p. 20.) Here, the Board found that the employer engaged in unlawful surveillance when it, created the impression that it was transmitting, and possibly recording, audio during a meeting of union representatives and bargaining unit members in the medical center’s cafeteria. (pp. 42-48.) more or view all topics or full text. | 03/15/24 | ||
| 2895M | * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * Palomar Health 403.02000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE; RESTRAINT, COERCION; SURVEILLANCE; Taking Photographs or Motion Pictures An employer engages in unlawful surveillance when the employer photographs or videotapes employees or openly engages in recordkeeping of employees participating in union activities. (Lake Tahoe Unified School District (1999) PERB Decision No. 1361, adopting warning letter at p. 2.) “Photographing and recordkeeping are proscribed because of their ‘tendency to intimidate.’” (County of San Bernardino (2018) PERB Decision No. 2556-M, p. 20.) Here, the Board found that the employer engaged in unlawful surveillance when it took and saved 39 photographs of union representatives interacting with bargaining unit employees in front of the main entrance to a medical center. (pp. 42-47.) more or view all topics or full text. | 03/15/24 | ||
| 2895M | * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * Palomar Health 403.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE; RESTRAINT, COERCION; SURVEILLANCE; In General; Unlawful Surveillance An employer engages in unlawful surveillance when the employer photographs or videotapes employees or openly engages in recordkeeping of employees participating in union activities. (Lake Tahoe Unified School District (1999) PERB Decision No. 1361, adopting warning letter at p. 2.) “Photographing and recordkeeping are proscribed because of their ‘tendency to intimidate.’” (County of San Bernardino (2018) PERB Decision No. 2556-M, p. 20.) Here, the Board found that the employer engaged in unlawful surveillance when it photographed union representatives interacting with bargaining unit employees in front of the main entrance to a medical center and when, during a meeting of union representatives and bargaining unit members in the medical center’s cafeteria, it created the impression that it was transmitting, and possibly recording, audio. (pp. 42-48.) more or view all topics or full text. | 03/15/24 | ||
| 2895M | * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * Palomar Health 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right An employer must allow an exclusive representative reasonable access to employer property to communicate with bargaining unit employees, distribute literature, investigate workplace conditions, and assess contractual and statutory compliance. (County of San Joaquin (2021) PERB Decision No. 2775-M, pp. 26-39 (San Joaquin).) An employer bears the burden of proving that a restriction on access to its premises is: (1) necessary to safe or efficient operations; and (2) narrowly drawn to avoid overbroad, unnecessary interference with protected rights. (Id. at p. 27.) These principles apply irrespective of whether the person seeking access is a bargaining unit member or a union representative who does not work for the employer. (Ibid.) An employer generally does not afford reasonable access if it infringes on an employee’s ability to engage in protected activity either in a nonwork area or during a nonwork time. (County of Tulare (2020) PERB Decision No. 2697-M, pp. 19-20; Petaluma City Elementary School District/Joint Union High School District (2016) PERB Decision No. 2485, pp. 45-47 (Petaluma).) Even if a workplace includes sensitive areas focused on national defense, acute patient care, or social services, the employer must narrowly tailor its rules and afford access to the fullest degree possible given its unique constraints. (San Joaquin, supra, PERB Decision No. 2775-M, pp. 28, 33-34, 38-39.) In assessing an employer’s claim that it has narrowly tailored its rule to a particularized operational need, PERB considers whether the rule allows access to alternative venues that are a reasonable substitute for the restricted venue. (San Joaquin, supra, PERB Decision No. 2775-M, p. 29.)Foundational labor law principles under each PERB-administered labor relations statute protect nondisruptive picketing (San Marcos Unified School District (2003) PERB Decision No. 1508, p. 27 (San Marcos USD)), as well as “leafleting to advertise a labor dispute” (Regents of the University of California (2012) PERB Decision No. 2300-H, pp. 3 & 16). As summarized in Petaluma, supra, PERB Decision No. 2485, both unions and employees engage in protected activity when they conduct “peaceful picketing” or “distribution of leaflets or other materials to advertise grievances or solicit support from employees and the public.” (Id. at p. 43.)Here, the employer’s policy appeared to be a neutral rule in that it bans all solicitation and distribution, whether union or otherwise. But the Board found it unlawful on its face, because it was not limited to patient care areas and prohibited union representatives from engaging in solicitation and distribution in nonwork areas and during nonwork times. The Board also found the policy unlawful as applied, because the employer failed to show that its rules were necessary for safe or efficient operations, and because the record overwhelmingly disproved any possibility that its rules are narrowly drawn to avoid overbroad, unnecessary interference with protected rights. (pp. 28-34.) more or view all topics or full text. | 03/15/24 | ||
| 2895M | * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * Palomar Health 401.03000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Ban on Distribution or Solicitation An employer must allow an exclusive representative reasonable access to employer property to communicate with bargaining unit employees, distribute literature, investigate workplace conditions, and assess contractual and statutory compliance. (County of San Joaquin (2021) PERB Decision No. 2775-M, pp. 26-39 (San Joaquin).) An employer bears the burden of proving that a restriction on access to its premises is: (1) necessary to safe or efficient operations; and (2) narrowly drawn to avoid overbroad, unnecessary interference with protected rights. (Id. at p. 27.) These principles apply irrespective of whether the person seeking access is a bargaining unit member or a union representative who does not work for the employer. (Ibid.) An employer generally does not afford reasonable access if it infringes on an employee’s ability to engage in protected activity either in a nonwork area or during a nonwork time. (County of Tulare (2020) PERB Decision No. 2697-M, pp. 19-20; Petaluma City Elementary School District/Joint Union High School District (2016) PERB Decision No. 2485, pp. 45-47 (Petaluma).) Even if a workplace includes sensitive areas focused on national defense, acute patient care, or social services, the employer must narrowly tailor its rules and afford access to the fullest degree possible given its unique constraints. (San Joaquin, supra, PERB Decision No. 2775-M, pp. 28, 33-34, 38-39.) In assessing an employer’s claim that it has narrowly tailored its rule to a particularized operational need, PERB considers whether the rule allows access to alternative venues that are a reasonable substitute for the restricted venue. (San Joaquin, supra, PERB Decision No. 2775-M, p. 29.)Foundational labor law principles under each PERB-administered labor relations statute protect nondisruptive picketing (San Marcos Unified School District (2003) PERB Decision No. 1508, p. 27 (San Marcos USD)), as well as “leafleting to advertise a labor dispute” (Regents of the University of California (2012) PERB Decision No. 2300-H, pp. 3 & 16). As summarized in Petaluma, supra, PERB Decision No. 2485, both unions and employees engage in protected activity when they conduct “peaceful picketing” or “distribution of leaflets or other materials to advertise grievances or solicit support from employees and the public.” (Id. at p. 43.)Here, the employer’s policy appeared to be a neutral rule in that it bans all solicitation and distribution, whether union or otherwise. But the Board found it unlawful on its face, because it was not limited to patient care areas and prohibited union representatives from engaging in solicitation and distribution in nonwork areas and during nonwork times. The Board also found the policy unlawful as applied, because the employer failed to show that its rules were necessary for safe or efficient operations, and because the record overwhelmingly disproved any possibility that its rules are narrowly drawn to avoid overbroad, unnecessary interference with protected rights. (pp. 28-34.) more or view all topics or full text. | 03/15/24 | ||
| 2895M | * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * Palomar Health 401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case. An employer must allow an exclusive representative reasonable access to employer property to communicate with bargaining unit employees, distribute literature, investigate workplace conditions, and assess contractual and statutory compliance. (County of San Joaquin (2021) PERB Decision No. 2775-M, pp. 26-39 (San Joaquin).) An employer bears the burden of proving that a restriction on access to its premises is: (1) necessary to safe or efficient operations; and (2) narrowly drawn to avoid overbroad, unnecessary interference with protected rights. (Id. at p. 27.) These principles apply irrespective of whether the person seeking access is a bargaining unit member or a union representative who does not work for the employer. (Ibid.) An employer generally does not afford reasonable access if it infringes on an employee’s ability to engage in protected activity either in a nonwork area or during a nonwork time. (County of Tulare (2020) PERB Decision No. 2697-M, pp. 19-20; Petaluma City Elementary School District/Joint Union High School District (2016) PERB Decision No. 2485, pp. 45-47 (Petaluma).) Even if a workplace includes sensitive areas focused on national defense, acute patient care, or social services, the employer must narrowly tailor its rules and afford access to the fullest degree possible given its unique constraints. (San Joaquin, supra, PERB Decision No. 2775-M, pp. 28, 33-34, 38-39.) In assessing an employer’s claim that it has narrowly tailored its rule to a particularized operational need, PERB considers whether the rule allows access to alternative venues that are a reasonable substitute for the restricted venue. (San Joaquin, supra, PERB Decision No. 2775-M, p. 29.)Foundational labor law principles under each PERB-administered labor relations statute protect nondisruptive picketing (San Marcos Unified School District (2003) PERB Decision No. 1508, p. 27 (San Marcos USD)), as well as “leafleting to advertise a labor dispute” (Regents of the University of California (2012) PERB Decision No. 2300-H, pp. 3 & 16). As summarized in Petaluma, supra, PERB Decision No. 2485, both unions and employees engage in protected activity when they conduct “peaceful picketing” or “distribution of leaflets or other materials to advertise grievances or solicit support from employees and the public.” (Id. at p. 43.)Here, the employer’s policy appeared to be a neutral rule in that it bans all solicitation and distribution, whether union or otherwise. But the Board found it unlawful on its face, because it was not limited to patient care areas and prohibited union representatives from engaging in solicitation and distribution in nonwork areas and during nonwork times. The Board also found the policy unlawful as applied, because the employer failed to show that its rules were necessary for safe or efficient operations, and because the record overwhelmingly disproved any possibility that its rules are narrowly drawn to avoid overbroad, unnecessary interference with protected rights. (pp. 28-34.) more or view all topics or full text. | 03/15/24 | ||
| 2895M | * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * Palomar Health 400.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards Where a charging party alleges that a respondent has interfered with or retaliated against protected activities via litigation-related conduct, PERB applies the principles articulated in Bill Johnson’s Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB (1983) 461 U.S. 731, thereby following “a qualified litigation privilege that preserves parties’ ability to litigate colorable legal rights while disallowing baseless, bad faith conduct that tends to harm protected labor rights.” (Victor Valley Union High School District (2022) PERB Decision No. 2822, p. 10 (Victor Valley).) Under these principles, the charging party must prove that the respondent acted without any reasonable basis and for an unlawful purpose. (Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, AFL-CIO (Wagner et al.) (2021) PERB Decision No. 2782-M, p. 11.) Here, the Board applied the traditional Bill Johnson’s analysis, and concluded that the entirety of the employer’s lawsuit, which alleged trespassing and unlawful picketing and sought to ban union representatives from non-work areas of a public medical center, was without a reasonable basis and for an unlawful purpose, and thus constituted interference. more or view all topics or full text. | 03/15/24 | ||
| 2895M | * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * Palomar Health 102.04000: PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; SCOPE OF PERB JURISDICTION; Preemption PERB’s jurisdiction preempts a court’s jurisdiction if the conduct at issue is “arguably protected” or “arguably prohibited” by a labor relations statute administered by PERB and the controversy presented to the state court “may fairly be termed the same” as that presented to PERB. (El Rancho Unified School Dist. v. National Education Assn. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 946, 953-960 (El Rancho); accord Pittsburg Unified School Dist. v. California School Employees Assn. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 875, 887.) Preemption prevents and avoids “‘conflicting adjudications which may interfere with [a labor] board’s ability to carry out its statutory role.’” (El Rancho, supra, 33 Cal.3d at pp. 960-961, citing Kaplan’s Fruit & Produce Co. v. Superior Court (1979) 26 Cal.3d 60, 75.) “In deciding whether something is an unfair labor practice, and whether PERB consequently has exclusive jurisdiction to hear a matter (Gov. Code, § 3563.2), [the courts] consider the underlying conduct on which the suit is based rather than a superficial reading of the pleadings.” (Teamsters Local 2010 v. Regents of University of California (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 659, 669.)The Court of Appeal articulated its reasons for finding that the employer’s lawsuit in a corollary to this unfair practice charge was preempted by the MMBA, and properly adjudicated at PERB: “[t]he conduct at issue, i.e. the alleged trespass by CNA and CHEU representatives within [Escondido Medical Center] and leafletting at the hospital’s entrance, will be adjudicated by PERB as either protected or unprotected by the parties’ agreement and the MMBA. This is the identical question presented before the trial court in this litigation. There is unquestionably a risk of conflicting decisions in these two competing forums. Because the questions are the same, we agree with the unions that PERB has exclusive jurisdiction of this dispute.” (Palomar Health v. National Nurses United (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 1189, 1208.) more or view all topics or full text. | 03/15/24 | ||
| 2890M | El Centro Regional Medical Center 1201.01000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; REINSTATEMENT; BACKPAY BENEFITS; In General The MMBA grants PERB broad discretion to order remedies necessary to effectuate the policies and purposes of the Act. (County of Lassen (2018) PERB Decision No. 2612-M, p. 7.) “Back pay, front pay and/or other monetary awards, plus interest, are an ordinary part of Board-ordered remedies where necessary to compensate injured parties or affected employees for out-of-pocket losses caused, in whole or in part, by an unfair practice.” (Sonoma County Superior Court (2017) PERB Decision No. 2532-C, p. 42 [Banks concurring in part and dissenting in part, citing Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District (2012) PERB Decision No. 2262 (Fairfield-Suisun), pp. 18-19; Los Angeles Unified School District (2001) PERB Decision No. 1469 (LAUSD), pp. 5-6, 11; San Ysidro School District (1997) PERB Decision No. 1198, p. 5; Fresno County Office of Education (1996) PERB Decision No. 1171 (Fresno), pp. 7-8, and proposed decision at pp. 1-2.].) PERB precedent awarding interest on monetary damages as part of a make whole remedy is well established. (State of California (California Correctional Health Care Services) (Healy) (2021) PERB Decision No. 2760-S, pp. 48-49, fn. 31 [judicial appeal pending]). Moreover, monetary awards should be calculated to account for the loss of the present value of money to ensure that the respondent does not retain the fruits of its wrongful conduct. (County of San Joaquin v. PERB (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 1053, 1068.) more or view all topics or full text. | 48 | 128 | 02/21/24 |
| 2890M | El Centro Regional Medical Center 1201.03000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; REINSTATEMENT; BACKPAY BENEFITS; Back Pay; Interest In its discussion of interest, the Bellflower decision noted that “the ending accrual date is normally the date on which an employee resumes work after accepting a reinstatement offer or declines reinstatement.” (Bellflower Unified School District (2022) PERB Decision No. 2544a, p. 42.) But the date on which an employee resumes work after accepting a reinstatement offer or declines reinstatement is when new damages normally stop accruing. Interest on an amount owed stops accruing on the date of payment. more or view all topics or full text. | 48 | 128 | 02/21/24 |
| 2890M | El Centro Regional Medical Center 1201.03000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; REINSTATEMENT; BACKPAY BENEFITS; Back Pay; Interest In 2010 the NLRB began including daily compound interest in all monetary relief. (Bellflower Unified School District (2022) PERB Decision No. 2544a, p. 41, fn. 23 [judicial appeal pending] (Bellflower), citing Kentucky River Medical Center 356 NLRB 6, 6.) The Board declined to reach that issue in Bellflower due to an agreement between the parties to apply simple annual interest. (Ibid.) The Board considered the issue in Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency (2022) PERB Decision Number 2826-M, noting the possibility of considering whether PERB should adopt that method of calculating interest in a future case. (Tahoe-Truckee, pp. 3-4 [declining to award daily compounding interest because of the parties’ request to withdraw.].) more or view all topics or full text. | 48 | 128 | 02/21/24 |
| 2890M | El Centro Regional Medical Center 1201.03000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; REINSTATEMENT; BACKPAY BENEFITS; Back Pay; Interest The Board adopts a policy under which interest on backpay will be compounded on a daily basis. Consistent with the Board’s practice, the Board will apply this policy retroactively in this case and in all pending cases in whatever stage, given the absence of any manifest injustice in doing so. more or view all topics or full text. | 48 | 128 | 02/21/24 |
| A507M | City of Stockton 900.07000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; Mediation “Appointment or selection of a mediator” in MMBA section 3505.4 and PERB Regulation 32802 means appointment or selection of a post-impasse mediator. Where an employer and a union agree to use a pre-impasse mediator to fulfill a post-impasse mediation process required pursuant to local rules or negotiation ground rules, the mediator selected pre-impasse takes on a legally significant new role after impasse, which amounts to a constructive reappointment or reselection. In contrast, where mediation is purely voluntary, PERB will not find constructive reappointment when a mediator chosen pre-impasse meets with the parties post-impasse. In that circumstance, the window for requesting factfinding is the 30 days after a written declaration of impasse. (pp. 6-7.) more or view all topics or full text. | 48 | 97 | 12/21/23 |
| A507M | City of Stockton 900.04000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; During Impasse MMBA section 3505.4, subdivision (a) and PERB’s implementing regulation (PERB Reg. 32802) provide two alternate deadlines for a union to request factfinding: (1) Not sooner than 30 days, but not more than 45 days, following the appointment or selection of a mediator pursuant either to the parties’ agreement to mediate or a mediation process required by a public agency’s local rules; or (2) If the dispute was not submitted to mediation, not later than 30 days following the date that either party provided the other with written notice of a declaration of impasse. (pp. 4-5.) more or view all topics or full text. | 48 | 97 | 12/21/23 |
| A507M | City of Stockton 900.01000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; In General “Appointment or selection of a mediator” in MMBA section 3505.4 and PERB Regulation 32802 means appointment or selection of a post-impasse mediator. Where an employer and a union agree to use a pre-impasse mediator to fulfill a post-impasse mediation process required pursuant to local rules or negotiation ground rules, the mediator selected pre-impasse takes on a legally significant new role after impasse, which amounts to a constructive reappointment or reselection. In contrast, where mediation is purely voluntary, PERB will not find constructive reappointment when a mediator chosen pre-impasse meets with the parties post-impasse. In that circumstance, the window for requesting factfinding is the 30 days after a written declaration of impasse. (pp. 6-7.) more or view all topics or full text. | 48 | 97 | 12/21/23 |
| A507M | City of Stockton 900.01000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; In General MMBA section 3505.4, subdivision (a) and PERB’s implementing regulation (PERB Reg. 32802) provide two alternate deadlines for a union to request factfinding: (1) Not sooner than 30 days, but not more than 45 days, following the appointment or selection of a mediator pursuant either to the parties’ agreement to mediate or a mediation process required by a public agency’s local rules; or (2) If the dispute was not submitted to mediation, not later than 30 days following the date that either party provided the other with written notice of a declaration of impasse. (pp. 4-5.) more or view all topics or full text. | 48 | 97 | 12/21/23 |
