Board Decisions Summary – June 2022

In June, the Board issued four decisions. The decision descriptions and dispositions are below.

Decision No. 2821-M

Employer: County of Monterey

Case No. SF-CE-1886-M

Issued date: June 1, 2022


Description: California Nurses Association (CNA) filed a unit modification petition with County of Monterey, seeking to add unrepresented per diem Registered Nurses (RNs) and per diem Nurse Practitioners (NPs) to “Unit S,” an existing County bargaining unit of regular RNs and NPs. The County denied CNA’s petition and instead created a new unit containing solely per diem RNs and NPs. CNA filed an unfair practice charge alleging that, in denying the petition, the County violated its Employer-Employee Relations Resolution (EERR), the MMBA, and PERB Regulations.

Disposition: The Board resolved the charge based upon the evidentiary record, finding in CNA’s favor and directing the County to add the per diem RNs and NPs to Unit S. The Board found the County provided minimal analysis in support of its conclusions and unreasonably applied its EERR by ignoring its most critical unit determination criteria and misapplying other factors. The Board found the only reasonable interpretation of the EERR was to place per diem RNs and NPs in the same unit as regular RNs and NPs who perform the same work at the same hospital.

Order No. Ad-492

Employer: Oakland Unified School District

Case No. SF-CE-3426-E

Issued date: June 9, 2022


Description: Charging Party Junnie Verceles appealed the Appeals Assistant’s rejection of his exceptions that were filed approximately one month after the deadline to file exceptions had passed and the decision became final.

Disposition:  Non-Precedential decision. Rejection affirmed – the decision remains final.

Decision No. 2822-E

Employer: Victor Valley Union High School District

Case No. LA-CE-6562-E

Issued date: June 14, 2022


Description: The Victor Valley Teachers Association alleged that the Victor Valley Union High School District interfered with Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA) protected rights when, during a deposition, the District’s attorney asked Association President questions about: (1) confidential communications with a bargaining unit member concerning a disciplinary matter; and (2) confidential communications with other bargaining unit members and union personnel. The District excepted to the proposed decision finding the District’s questioning of the Association President during the deposition interfered with EERA-protected rights.

Disposition: Precedential decision. The Board affirmed the proposed decision’s legal conclusions, granted one of the Association’s cross-exceptions related to the administrative law judge’s factual findings, and supplemented the proposed decision’s analysis with discussion of the District’s exceptions and the Association’s cross-exceptions.

Decision No. 2823-S

Employer: State of California (California Correctional Health Care Services)

Case No.: SA-CE-2168-S

Issued date: June 29, 2022

Precedential (In Part)

Description: The State of California (California Correctional Health Care Services) (CCHCS) commenced two new programs to treat inmates with substance use disorder. Union of American Physicians & Dentists (UAPD) alleges that CCHCS violated the Dills Act by failing to engage in good faith bargaining over its decision and/or bargainable effects on employment terms for UAPD-represented primary care providers (PCPs). The ALJ concluded that while CCHCS had no duty to bargain over its decision to offer new programs, the Dills Act required CCHCS to bargain in good faith over the decision’s negotiable effects, and CCHCS failed to comply with this duty.

Disposition: In a partially precedential decision, the Board affirmed the ALJ’s overall conclusion that CCHCS violated the Dills Act, but adjusted certain of the ALJ’s factual findings, legal conclusions, and remedial order. In the published part of the decision, the Board held that CCHCS materially changed terms and conditions of employment. To determine if a reasonable PCP would find the changes material, the Board compared PCPs’ new duties, qualifications, and workload with the status quo. The Board determined, among other things, that CCHCS imposed new duties that were not reasonably comprehended within PCPs’ previous duties.