Home | News Items |
February 2025 Board Decisions Summary
In February 2025, the Board issued six decisions. The decision descriptions and dispositions are below.
Employer: City and County of San Francisco (San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency)
Case No. SF-CE-1932-M
Issued date: February 5, 2025
Non-Precedential
Description: Transportation Workers Union of America Local 250A (Local 250A) filed an unfair practice charge against the City and County of San Francisco alleging that the City violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) when it eliminated pay practices known as “inconvenience pay” without notice and an opportunity to meet in confer in good faith to impasse or agreement. Following a formal hearing, a PERB Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that the City unlawfully failed to meet and confer in good faith over the effects of its decision. Both Local 250A and the City filed exceptions to the ALJ’s proposed decision.
Disposition: While exceptions were pending, the parties informed PERB that they had reached a settlement of the dispute. Local 250A later requested to withdraw the underlying unfair practice charge with prejudice. In a nonprecedential decision, the Board granted Local 250A’s request to withdraw the charge, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
Employer: Regents of the University of California (Los Angeles)
Case No. LA-CE-1384-H
Issued date: February 10, 2025
Precedential
Description: The complaint alleged that the University began employing a new classification (Teacher Apprentice) at the UCLA Lab School, and in doing so violated its bargaining obligation via a unilateral change in two respects. First, the complaint alleged that the University transferred job duties from UC-AFT represented Development Teachers to the new, unrepresented Teacher Apprentice classification, without affording UC-AFT advance notice and an opportunity to bargain. Second, the complaint alleged that the University assigned Development Teachers a new duty—mentoring Teacher Apprentices—again without affording UC-AFT advance notice and an opportunity to bargain. An ALJ found in favor of UC-AFT on both claims. The University filed exceptions seeking reversal of the proposed decision, while UC-AFT sought an adjustment of the proposed remedial order.
Disposition: The Board affirmed the ALJ’s liability conclusions and adjusted the proposed remedial order. As to the first claim, mentoring Teacher Apprentices was a new job duty not “reasonably comprehended” within the Demonstration Teachers’ prior duties, and accordingly constituted a change material enough to trigger a bargaining obligation. As to the second claim, the transfer of lesson planning and instruction duties to non-unit Teacher Apprentices was material because non-bargaining unit personnel had not performed these duties before. The Board clarified that while the topic of job duties falls within the scope of representation, the Board uses different standards to determine if adding or subtracting a duty is a material change. To assess whether adding a new job duty is a material change, the Board applies the “reasonably comprehended” standard. To assess whether transferring a duty out of a represented bargaining unit is a material change, the Board uses a standard first developed in Eureka City School District (1985) PERB Decision No. 481, p. 15. While both standards date to a time when the Board’s unilateral change test combined its scope of representation analysis with a materiality analysis, the Board has since separated those elements. Under the modern unilateral change test, PERB should normally apply its job duty standards as part of assessing whether a change is material enough to trigger a bargaining obligation, absent a contractual waiver.
Employer: Trustees of the California State University (San Jose)
Case No. SF-CE-1329-H
Issued date: February 18, 2025
Non-Precedential
Description: Katarzyna Tarnowska filed an unfair practice charge against the Trustees of the California State University (San Jose) (CSU) alleging that CSU violated the Higher Education Employment Relations Act (HEERA) when it took the following adverse actions because of Tarnowska’s protected activity: (1) placed Tarnowska on administrative leave pending investigation and disciplinary action; (2) denied Tarnowska’s request for retention and placing her in a terminal year appointment, thus ending her employment; (3) issued a Reverification Notice of Employment Eligibility, which provided a one-day deadline to produce documentation of work authorization or face termination of employment; (4) issued Tarnowska a letter of reprimand; and (5) issued an assignment memorandum to Tarnowska, which required her to participate in meetings and teach all of her classes in person on campus. Following a formal hearing, a PERB Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that Tarnowska established a prima facie case with respect to some of the complaint allegations, but ultimately dismissed these allegations because CSU established that it would have taken the same action absent Tarnowska’s protected activity. The ALJ dismissed the remaining allegations for failure to establish a prima facie violation. Tarnowska filed exceptions to the ALJ’s proposed decision.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed the ALJ’s proposed decision. The Board found that ample record evidence supported CSU’s affirmative defense that it would have placed Tarnowska on administrative leave, denied her request for retention, and issued her a Letter of Reprimand even absent Tarnowska’s grievance filings and California Faculty Association service.
Employer: City of California City
Case No. LA-CE-1668-M
Issued date: February 26, 2025
Non-Precedential
Description: California City Police Officers Association (Association) filed an unfair practice charge against the City of California City alleging that the City violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) when it failed to follow disciplinary procedures when issuing Notices of Termination for three police officers represented by the Association. Following a formal hearing, a PERB Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that the City deviated from disciplinary policy within the scope of representation without providing notice or an opportunity to bargain over the changes. The City filed exceptions to the ALJ’s proposed decision.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board reversed the proposed decision. The Board found that the decision to have the City Manager issue the Notices of Termination instead of the Chief of Police when the officers had waived their rights to Skelly hearings did not have “a significant and adverse effect on wages, hours, or working conditions of the bargaining-unit employees.” (Claremont Police Officers Assn. v. City of Claremont (2006) 39 Cal.4th 623, 638.) Therefore, the Board found that the City’s change was not within the scope of representation and dismissed the complaint.
Employer: State of California
Case No. SA-CE-1-N
Issued date: February 27, 2025
Precedential
Description: Charging Party Childcare Providers United – California (CCPU) filed an unfair practice charge alleging that the State of California had failed to adequately respond to the union’s request for information that is necessary and relevant to CCPU’s duties under the Building a Better Early Care and Education System Act (Childcare Provider Act). After a formal hearing, a PERB ALJ issued a proposed decision sustaining the allegations and, as part of the remedial Order, directing the State to distribute a Notice to all childcare providers in the bargaining unit. Neither party filed exceptions to the proposed decision, which therefore became final and binding on the parties. To attempt to achieve compliance with the Decision and Order, the State directed contractors and subcontractors who help administer the State’s subsidized childcare programs to distribute the Notice directly to employees. CCPU contended that the State’s efforts were not sufficient to achieve compliance. PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC) is tasked with ensuring compliance with PERB orders. OGC issued an Administrative Determination finding that the State had complied with the Decision and Order. CCPU appealed OGC’s Administrative Determination.
Disposition: The Board found that the undisputed information provided to OGC was not sufficient to ensure compliance with the Decision and Order. While the remedy in this case gave the State some flexibility to utilize contractors and subcontractors to distribute the Notice, such efforts are ultimately subject to the same scrutiny as any other acts directed at compliance. Because a significant number of contractors failed to respond to the State’s instructions at all, and others failed to distribute the Notice in accordance with the Decision and Order, while other reasonable options for compliance were available, the Board found that the State had not made reasonable efforts at distributing the Notice. The Board therefore reversed the Administrative Determination and remanded the matter to OGC for further compliance proceedings.
Employer: Twin Rivers Unified School District
Case No. SA-CE-2888-E
Issued date: February 27, 2025
Non-Precedential
Description: Rebecca Dawn Wu, an employee of the Twin Rivers Unified School District, alleged that the District terminated her employment and e-mail access in retaliation for activities protected by the Educational Employment Relations Act. After a formal hearing, the ALJ dismissed the complaint and underlying unfair practice charge. The ALJ concluded that Wu’s termination allegation was untimely and that no exception to the statute of limitations applied. Moreover, the ALJ found that the deactivation of Wu’s e-mail account was not an adverse action independent of Wu’s termination for purposes of analyzing a retaliation claim.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed the proposed decision.