Home | News Items |
December 2024 Board Decisions Summary
In December 2024, the Board issued six decisions. The decision descriptions and dispositions are below.
Employer: City of Huntington Park
Case No. LA-CE-1686-M
Issued date: December 4, 2024
Non-Precedential
Description: Huntington Park General Employees Association alleged several violations of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act arising from the City of Huntington Park’s conducting a delayed performance evaluation for an employee. Among other things, the Association alleged that the City unilaterally changed established policies or practices by not granting the employee a retroactive salary step increase to the date when he would have been eligible for a performance evaluation. PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC) determined that all allegations in the charge were untimely or lacked sufficient facts and dismissed the charge. The Association appealed, addressing only the retroactive pay allegation.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board found that the Association’s retroactive pay allegation was timely, and contained sufficient factual information to warrant a formal hearing. The Board therefore reversed OGC’s dismissal of this allegation and remanded for issuance of a complaint.
Employer: Regents of the University of California (Irvine)
Case No. LA-CE-1395-H
Issued date: December 5, 2024
Non-Precedential
Description: Charging parties, five UC Irvine employees, appealed from an order of an administrative law judge (ALJ) dismissing entirely their case. In a prior decision in the same case, the Board reversed a decision by the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) to dismiss the charge, and the Board directed OGC to issue a complaint. OGC did so, and OGC later amended the complaint, before the ALJ dismissed it without holding a formal hearing, while also declining to further amend the complaint and adding Charging Parties’ exclusive representative as a joined party. Charging Parties appealed, claiming the ALJ erred by: (1) adding Charging Parties’ exclusive representative as a joined party; (2) denying a pending, second motion to amend the complaint; and (3) dismissing the complaint without holding an evidentiary hearing, which Charging Parties claimed was wrong on the merits and also a due process violation given that the respondent had not filed a dismissal motion.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed the ALJ’s decisions to add Charging Parties’ exclusive representative as a joined party and to deny Charging Parties’ motion to amend the complaint. However, the Board partially reversed the ALJ’s dismissal and remanded the case to the Division of Administrative Law for further proceedings with respect to the complaint OGC initially issued following PERB Decision No. 2889-H.
Employer: Regents of the University of California (Irvine)
Case No. LA-CE-1414-H
Issued date: December 11, 2024
Non-Precedential
Description: Raffaele Mari alleged that his employer, the Regents of the University of California (Irvine), violated HEERA by interfering with and retaliating against protected activity, among other claims. PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC) issued a warning letter, informing Mari that his retaliation and interference claims failed to state a prima facie case and that he lacked standing to pursue his other claims. OGC provided Mari an opportunity to file an amended charge, and Mari did so. Thereafter, OGC dismissed Mari’s amended charge, finding that it failed to cure the deficiencies outlined in the warning letter. Mari appealed the dismissal
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed the dismissal of Mari’s charge without leave to amend. The Board found no cause to require a second warning letter where the initial warning letter adequately identified the charge’s deficiencies, and Mari failed to cure the identified deficiencies.
Employer: North County Transit District
Case No. LA-DP-470-M
Issued date: December 18, 2024
Non-Precedential
Description: This case concerned an administrative appeal by the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers (SMART) from an administrative determination of the State Mediation and Conciliation Service (SMCS) denying SMART’s motion to dismiss a Group of Employees’ decertification petition, and to proceed with processing the decertification petition. On April 4, 2024, the Board granted SMART’s request that the Board stay SMCS’ administrative determination pursuant to PERB Regulation 32370. On December 16, 2024, while this matter was pending before the Board, SMART disclaimed interest in the affected unit and requested to withdraw its appeal.
Disposition: The Board lifted the stay previously granted in and granted SMART’s request to withdraw its administrative appeal.
Employer: San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools
Case No. LA-CE-6761-E
Issued date: December 20, 2024
Precedential
Description: The complaint alleged that San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools (SBCSS) violated EERA during collective bargaining with California School Employees Association Chapter 633 (CSEA), by: (1) refusing to reach agreement unless CSEA waived employees’ statutory right to be paid for holidays set forth in the Education Code; and (2) continuing to insist, during impasse resolution procedures, that CSEA waive statutorily-required holidays. After the ALJ issued a proposed decision finding no violation, CSEA filed exceptions.
Disposition: The Board affirmed the proposed decision. Although it is illegal to insist to impasse on a permissive or illegal proposal, CSEA did not establish such a violation. Rather, the record showed that: (1) in 1990, the parties agreed to spread holiday accrual and payment throughout the year, which strengthened rather than waived employees’ statutory rights; (2) the parties followed that practice for more than 30 years; and (3) during bargaining and impasse procedures, SBCSS maintained a proposal to continue that practice, before ultimately acceding to the neutral factfinder’s proposal to end it. The Board held that timing of accrual and/or payment is a mandatory bargaining topic. Accordingly, SBCSS complied with its duty to honor the parties’ longstanding practice during negotiations, and SBCSS lawfully proposed, during bargaining and impasse procedures, to continue that practice. In the alternative, even if SBCSS made a proposal that was permissive, CSEA failed to establish that SBCSS conditioned agreement on that proposal.
Employer: State of California (Department of Transportation)
Case No. LA-CE-771-S
Issued date: December 27, 2024
Non-Precedential
Description: This case came before the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB or Board) on an interlocutory appeal from an Administrative Determination (AD) filed by Respondent State of California, Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the Joint Request to Continue Formal Hearing filed by Caltrans and Charging Party Professional Engineers in California Government (PECG). Caltrans appealed and requested a stay pending the Board’s decision. The parties requested a continuance of a hearing set for January 6-10, 2025 in order to provide records responsive to cross-subpoenas with deadlines of December 31, 2024.
Disposition: The Board reversed the ALJ’s order, vacated the pending December 31, 2024 subpoena deadlines and all other prehearing deadlines, and remanded the matter to the ALJ for an order consistent with the Board’s order.