March 2024 Board Decisions Summary
In March 2024, the Board issued eight decisions. The decision descriptions and dispositions are below.
Organization: Transport Workers Union of America Local 250-A (Vikram)
Case No. SF-CO-518-M
Issued date: March 8, 2024
Non-Precedential
Description: Charging Party Bhanu Vikram alleged that Respondent Transport Workers Union of America, Local 250-A violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) by failing to fairly represent Vikram in a grievance arbitration challenging his dismissal from the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency. PERB’s Office of General Counsel (OGC) dismissed the charge because it failed to state a prima facie violation of the duty of fair representation. Vikram timely appealed OGC’s dismissal of the charge.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed OGC’s dismissal of the charge.
Employer: Stockton Unified School District
Case No. SA-CE-3053-E
Issued date: March 8, 2024
Non-Precedential
Description: The complaint alleged that Respondent Stockton Unified School District violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA) by: (1) issuing a Letter of Concern to Charging Party Laureen Thompson in retaliation for her protected activity; and (2) interfering with Thompson’s EERA-protected rights by issuing Thompson a notice regarding union business conducted during work hours. After formal hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a proposed decision dismissing the complaint. The proposed decision found that Thompson failed to establish a prima facie retaliation claim and the memo concerning union business was narrowly tailored to allow union activity during breaks and non-work time. Thompson timely appealed the proposed decision.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed the ALJ’s proposed decision and dismissed the complaint and underlying unfair practice charge.
Employer: St. HOPE Public Schools
Case No. SA-DP-278-E
Issued date: March 11, 2024
Precedential
Description: A group of St. HOPE Public Schools (SHPS) teachers filed a petition to decertify Sacramento City Teachers Association (SCTA) as the exclusive representative of their bargaining unit while SHPS and SCTA were negotiating their first contract. PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC) stayed the Petition in September 2021 based on blocking charges filed by SCTA. In October 2023, SCTA filed a new blocking charge alleging that petitioner’s lead representative was not a unit member and/or was an agent of the employer. OGC issued an administrative determination finding cause to add SCTA’s 2023 blocking charge as a further basis for the existing stay. The 2021 blocking charge and the 2023 blocking charge are currently set for separate formal hearings. SHPS timely appealed OGC’s conclusion that the 2023 blocking charge is a further basis for the existing stay.
Disposition: The Board affirmed OGC’s decision and adopted it as the Board’s decision, as supplemented by further analysis and a clarified order. The Board reaffirmed that there is a lower bar for a stay during first contract negotiations, while noting that the complaint issued in the 2023 blocking charge included multiple claims that may establish a tendency to influence employee free choice. Based on the Board’s order, the Petition remains stayed pending final disposition of all blocking charges that warrant a stay. If SCTA fails to establish any unfair practice in the 2021 and 2023 blocking charges, and there are no further pending allegations of unfair practices warranting a stay, OGC must process the Petition. If SCTA prevails in whole or in part, OGC must determine whether to process or dismiss the Petition. Dismissal is appropriate if the proven conduct: (1) materially tainted solicitation of employee support or employees’ decision to sign the Petition, such that there is a legitimate question whether the Petition would have reached the requisite threshold absent unfair practices; (2) warrants retroactive extension of the certification bar based on SCTA’s status as an emerging union negotiating for a first contract; or (3) has a continuing prospective tendency to harm employee free choice that PERB’s remedies are unlikely to fully address, even in conjunction with the passage of time and any other relevant factors.
Employer: State of California (Department of Public Health)
Case No. SA-CE-2219-S
Issued date: March 11, 2024
Non-Precedential
Description: SEIU Local 1000 filed an unfair practice charge alleging that the State of California Department of Health (CDPH) retaliated against bargaining unit employees working in the Health Facility Evaluator Nurse (HFEN) classification series and interfered with their exercise of protected rights. PERB issued a complaint alleging that CDPH had: (1) refused to address vacancy issues, (2) refused to address recruitment and retention differentials as a solution to hiring and vacancy issues, (3) refused to consider reclassification as a solution to pay and vacancy issues, (4) failed to attend Joint Labor Management Committee (JLMC) meetings in order to avoid addressing employee concerns about their licenses, and (5) failed to reimburse employees for mileage and extended working hours for travel to distant facilities during uncompensated time. The complaint alleged that CDPH took these actions in response to employees raising workplace concerns and serving on JLMCs to advocate for proper safety, assignments, and pay.
After a hearing and briefing, the ALJ dismissed the retaliation claim, finding that although SEIU could prove some of the elements of a prima facie case, it ultimately failed to prove the nexus element of the retaliation claim. The ALJ alternately found that even if SEIU successfully established a prima facie case, the charge would still be dismissed because CDPH established its affirmative defense. The ALJ also dismissed the interference charge, finding that that a reasonable employee would not have been intimidated by CDPH’s conduct.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board upheld ALJ’s factual and substantive legal determinations, and dismissed both the retaliation and interference claims.
Employer: Trustees of the California State University (San Diego)
Case No. LA-CE-1370-H
Issued date: March 13, 2024
Non-Precedential
Description: Charging Party Teamsters Local 2010 (Teamsters) appealed an administrative determination by PERB’s Appeals Office rejecting its statement of exceptions and brief in support of exceptions on the grounds that they were filed as two separate documents rather than a single, integrated document as required by PERB Regulation 32300, subdivision (b).
Disposition: The Board granted Teamsters’ appeal and reversed the administrative determination.
Employer: Palomar Health
Case No. LA-CE-1581-M
Issued date: March 15, 2024
Precedential
Description: This case came before the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB or Board) on exceptions by Charging Parties California Nurses Association (CNA) and Caregivers & Healthcare Employees Union (CHEU) (collectively, Unions) and cross-exceptions by Respondent Palomar Health (Palomar) to the proposed decision of an administrative law judge (ALJ). The underlying unfair practice charge and complaint, as amended, primarily allege that Palomar violated the MMBA by (1) maintaining and enforcing an unreasonable access rule, (2) engaging in unlawful surveillance, (3) unilaterally changing its past policy or practice to disallow the Unions access to certain non-patient care areas by filing a lawsuit to enjoin the Unions from being present in those areas, and (4) interfering with protected rights by filing that lawsuit.
The ALJ found that Palomar maintained and enforced an unreasonable access rule, engaged in unlawful surveillance, and interfered with protected rights by pursuing some parts of the lawsuit, but dismissed the unilateral change allegation, as well as the allegation that Palomar interfered with protected rights via the trespass cause of action in its lawsuit. Both the Unions and Palomar filed exceptions to the proposed decision. The Unions challenged the ALJ’s dismissal of the unilateral change allegation, his conclusion that only part of the Lawsuit constituted interference under Bill Johnson’s Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB (1983) 461 U.S. 731 (Bill Johnson’s), and perceived omissions in the remedy. Palomar challenged the ALJ’s legal conclusions that Palomar violated the MMBA, one evidentiary determination, and several aspects of the ALJ’s remedial order. After the proposed decision issued and while the parties’ exceptions were pending, the Court of Appeal issued a published decision, remanding the lawsuit to the trial court with an order to dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction, as the lawsuit is preempted by the MMBA and subject to PERB’s exclusive jurisdiction.
Disposition: The Board affirmed the ALJ’s factual findings and affirmed in part and reversed in part the proposed decision’s legal conclusions, sustaining each claim in the complaint to find that Palomar maintained and enforced an unreasonable access rule, engaged in unlawful surveillance, unilaterally changed its past policy or practice to disallow the Unions access to certain non-patient care areas via its lawsuit, and interfered with protected rights by filing that lawsuit. Notably, the Board applied the traditional Bill Johnson’s analysis and concluded that the entirety of Palomar’s lawsuit was without a reasonable basis and for an unlawful purpose, and thus constituted interference.
Employer: City of Montebello
Case No. LA-CE-1656-M
Issued date: March 18, 2024
Non-Precedential
Description: PERB’s Office of General Counsel dismissed a charge filed by Charging Party International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Workers, Local 1701 (SMART) alleging that Respondent City of Montebello violated the MMBA by: (1) not following overtime, seniority, ranks and rotational procedures; (2) refusing to pay approved overtime; and (3) not following due process. While SMART’s appeal of the dismissal was pending before the Board, SMART filed an unopposed request to withdraw the underlying unfair practice charge after the parties executed a settlement agreement resolving their issues.
Disposition: The Board found the withdrawal of the unfair practice charge pursuant to the parties’ agreement to be consistent with the MMBA’s purpose of promoting harmonious labor relations and granted the request.
Employer: City of Montebello
Case No. LA-CE-1662-M
Issued date: March 18, 2024
Non-Precedential
Description: PERB’s Office of General Counsel dismissed a charge filed by Charging Party International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Workers, Local 1701 (SMART) alleging that Respondent City of Montebello violated the MMBA by failing to provide requested information regarding route changes and by failing to provide bid calendars. While SMART’s appeal of the dismissal was pending before the Board, SMART filed an unopposed request to withdraw the underlying unfair practice charge after the parties executed a settlement agreement resolving their issues.
Disposition: The Board found the withdrawal of the unfair practice charge pursuant to the parties’ agreement to be consistent with the MMBA’s purpose of promoting harmonious labor relations and granted the request.