December 2023 Board Decisions Summary
In December 2023, the Board issued four decisions. The decision descriptions and dispositions are below.
Employer: Regents of the University of California
Case No. SF-CE-1339-H
Issued date: December 6, 2023
Precedential
Description: After PERB accreted the Administrative Officer II (AO2) classification into a clerical bargaining unit at the University of California, three University medical centers unlawfully changed AO2s’ eligibility for incentive award programs (IAPs). The University and the union representing the clerical unit both acknowledged that AO2s were immediately eligible for an across-the-board wage increase under the parties’ then-current contract, and the medical centers asserted that the contract became the status quo for IAPs, too. The ALJ found the University acted in a lawful manner, and the union filed exceptions.
Disposition: The Board affirmed, holding as follows. After a mid-contract accretion, the parties have a right to bargain over terms and conditions of employment for newly added employees. Depending on the length of such bargaining, one or more of the employer’s wage adjustment cycles may occur before post-accretion negotiations are complete. To maintain the status quo during a cycle that occurs during post-accretion negotiations, the employer must normally afford newly added employees all contractually mandated wage adjustments. However, if it is unclear how one or more of the contract’s wage adjustments apply to the newly added employees, then the status quo for that cycle is the adjustments the employees would have received had they remained unrepresented. Here, it was sufficiently clear how to apply the contract, and the University correctly implemented both the across-the-board increase and the contract’s IAP provision.
Organization: Public Employees Union, Local 1
Case No. SF-CO-506-M
Issued date: December 19, 2023
Non-Precedential
Description: Charging Party Evelyn Christian alleged that Respondent Public Employees Union, Local 1 (Local 1) violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act by breaching its duty of fair representation in deciding not to pursue a grievance. After PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC) issued Christian a warning letter, Christian amended the charge. OGC subsequently dismissed the charge on the ground that, even accepting Christian’s allegations as true at the pleading stage, Local 1 considered her case and evaluated its merits before lawfully exercising discretion in deciding not to pursue it further. On appeal, Christian claimed her charge stated a prima facie case that Local 1 breached its duty of fair representation, improperly supporting her argument with multiple new factual allegations.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed OGC’s dismissal of the charge.
Employer: City of Stockton
Case No. SA-IM-246-M
Issued date: December 21, 2023
Precedential
Description: Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 (OE3) filed a request with PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC) to submit its bargaining differences with the City of Stockton to a factfinding panel pursuant to MMBA section 3505.4. OGC granted the request, and the City appealed.
Disposition: The Board reversed, dismissing OE3’s factfinding request on the ground that OE3 did not file it within 30 days of the City’s written impasse declaration. OE3 claimed that the filing window was 30 to 45 days following the impasse declaration because PERB should find that the parties’ pre-impasse mediator was constructively reappointed as a post-impasse mediator on the date of the impasse declaration. The Board rejected that argument.
Employer/Organization: Sacramento City Unified School District and Sacramento City Teachers Association
Case Nos. SA-CE-3122-E and SA-CO-666-E
Issued date: December 22, 2023
Non-Precedential
Description: Charging party’s appealed the dismissal of her unfair practice charges against Sacramento City Unified School District (Case No. SA-CE-3122-E) and against the Sacramento City Teachers Association (Case No. SA CO 666-E). The cases were consolidated because they arose from a related set of facts.
Disposition: Both appeals were denied, as PERB found no basis to disturb OGC’s conclusions in either case. The Board also found the Charging party did not show good cause to present new evidence on appeal. As such, the unfair practice charges in each case were dismissed without leave to amend.