Home | News Items |
June 2025 Board Decisions Summary
In June 2025, the Board issued four decisions. The decision descriptions and dispositions are below.
Employer: Sacramento City Unified School District
Case No. SA-CE-3173-E
Issued date: June 19, 2025
Non-Precedential
Description: Charging Party Patrick Reilly sought review by the Board of several bench orders by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) presiding over the formal hearing on Reilly’s unfair practice charge against Respondent Sacramento City Unified School District. Reilly did not seek or obtain the ALJ’s certification of any interlocutory appeal from his orders before filing the appeal directly with the Board.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board determined that Reilly had not complied with PERB Regulation 32200, which states that the Board will not accept an appeal of an interlocutory order or ruling on a motion unless the Board agent joins in the request. Because Reilly did not comply with Regulation 32200, the Board denied the appeal.
Employer: Pasadena Unified School District
Case No. LA-CE-6829-E
Issued date: June 23, 2025
Non-Precedential
Description: California School Employees Association-Chapter 434 (CSEA) filed an unfair practice charge alleging that Pasadena Unified School District violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA) when it unilaterally approved the reduction of hours for the Library Coordinator position without providing CSEA prior notice and an opportunity to bargain the decision and/or the effects of the decision. After a formal hearing, a PERB Administrative Law Judge issued a proposed decision finding that the District violated its duty to bargain in good faith. The proposed decision found that CSEA established a unilateral change and the District did not establish that CSEA waived its right to bargain over the reduction in hours in any form. The District filed exceptions asking the Board to reverse the proposed decision and find that the District established waiver.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed the proposed decision. The Board first found that contract language defining reduction in hours as a layoff did not, on its own, establish waiver by contract. Second, the Board found that the District did not show that the parties fully discussed or consciously explored reduction in hours during its bargaining over layoffs provisions. Third, the Board found that CSEA did not consciously abandon its right to bargain over reductions in hours when it failed to request bargaining over many examples of reductions in hours. Finally, the Board affirmed the presumption of loss as a result of unilateral changes and required a make-whole remedy where the District presented evidence that it did not actually reduce the Library Coordinator’s hours.
Employer: East Bay Regional Park District
Case No. SF-CE-1993-M
Issued date: June 25, 2025
Precedential
Description: The complaint alleged that the East Bay regional Park District violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act when it: (1) unilaterally changed its telework policy without bargaining in good faith to impasse or agreement with Charging Party American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 57, Local 2428 (AFSCME); (2) engaged in unlawful direct dealing when it bypassed AFSCME and required unit employees to complete new telework agreements or else work fully in-person; (3) interfered with protected rights by muting the microphone of AFSCME’s lead negotiator during the public comment portion of a District Board of Directors meeting; and (4) derivatively interfered with protected rights by the direct dealing and unilateral change violations. Following a formal hearing, the ALJ found violations on all four claims, and the District excepted.
Disposition: The Board affirmed the proposed decision, subject to additional discussion.
Employer: Los Angeles Unified School District
Case No. LA-CE-6949-E
Issued date: June 25, 2025
Non-Precedential
Description: Donald James Vargo alleged that his former employer Los Angeles Unified School District violated EERA by placing a misconduct entry in his California Commission for Teacher Credentialling file in retaliation for his protected activity. PERB’s Office of General Counsel dismissed the charge, as amended, because the charge was untimely and did not state a prima facie violation of EERA. Vargo timely appealed, reiterating his previous claims and alleging constitutional violations.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board asserted that it did not have jurisdiction to consider Vargo’s constitutional claims and affirmed the dismissal of Vargo’s charge without leave to amend.