Board Decisions Summary – February 2022
In February of 2022, the Board issued four decisions. The decision descriptions and dispositions are below.
Decision No. 2806
Employer: Visalia Unified School District
Case No.: SA-CE-2979-E
Issued date: February 7, 2022
Description: The complaint alleged that the Visalia Unified School District violated EERA by terminating the CSEA Chapter President in retaliation for her protected activities. The ALJ found the District liable for the alleged violation and ordered the District to offer the affected employee immediate reinstatement and provide her backpay from the date of termination to the date she is reinstated or declines reinstatement. Both parties filed exceptions to the proposed decision.
Disposition: The Board affirmed the proposed decision. The Board adjusted the remedial order to require that the District offer the affected employee reinstatement to her former position or, if that position no longer exists, a substantially similar position within 30 days the decision is no longer subject to appeal. In addition, the Board ordered the District to make the affected employee whole for any financial losses she suffered as a result of her termination, including backpay.
Decision No. 2807-M
Employer: County of Solano
Case No.: SF-CE-1592-M
Issued date: February 8, 2022
Description: Tennison filed an unfair practice charge alleging that the County of Solano, while implementing a departmental reorganization, denied her a preferable assignment, and thereby retaliated against her for activities protected under the MMBA. Following a formal hearing, the ALJ dismissed the complaint and underlying unfair practice charge. The ALJ concluded that Tennison failed to establish a prima facie case and that, in any event, the County established its affirmative defense that it would have taken the same action even if Tennison had not engaged in protected activity. Tennison filed timely exceptions.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed the proposed decision.
Decision No. 2808
Organization: United Teachers Los Angeles (Dyes, et al.)
Case Nos.: LA-CO-1688-E and LA-CO-1762-E
Issued date: February 10, 2022
Description: Dyes and the AnonymousKnowNothings (Charging Parties) appealed the dismissal of their consolidated unfair practice charges alleging that UTLA violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA) by retaliating against Dyes for protected activity and breaching its duty of fair representation related to a series of disputes with Dyes’ then employer, Los Angeles Unified School District. The Office of the General Counsel dismissed the charges on the grounds that they failed to state a prima facie case. Charging Parties appealed.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board dismissed the unfair practice charges without leave to amend.
Decision No. 2809
Employer: Alliance Judy Ivie Burton Technology Academy High School et al.
Case No.: LA-CE-6600-E
Issued date: February 28, 2022
Description: Charging Party United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA) alleged that Respondents, three Alliance Charter Schools, refused to recognize and bargain with UTLA in violation of EERA. Respondents alleged that they were committing a technical refusal to bargain in order to obtain appellate court review of Alliance Judy Ivie Burton Technology Academy High, et al. (2020) PERB Decision No. 2719, which certified UTLA as the exclusive representative of the certificated bargaining units at each school. Respondents also alleged that a recent reorganization constituted changed circumstances that warranted reversing the finding that the individual school units were appropriate. Based on the reorganization, UTLA requested an amendment of certification to change Respondents’ names to the name adopted during the reorganization.
Disposition: The Board issued its decision based on a stipulated record pursuant to PERB Regulations 32215 and 32320, subdivision (a)(1), finding that Respondents’ conduct violated EERA. The Board concluded that the reorganization did not render the bargaining units inappropriate or excuse the Respondents from recognizing or negotiating with UTLA; and therefore, the Charter Schools’ refusal to bargain with UTLA violated EERA. The Board further found that the purported changed circumstances do not warrant modification of the units, and amended UTLA’s certifications to reflect the employers’ new name.