Home | News Items |
March 2025 Board Decisions Summary
In March 2025, the Board issued seven decisions. The decision descriptions and dispositions are below.
Employer: Clovis Unified School District
Case No. SA-CE-3141-E
Issued date: March 3, 2025
Non-Precedential
Description: The complaint alleged that the Clovis Unified School District violated the Educational Employment Relations Act by failing and refusing to bargain in good faith with Charging Party California School Employees Association, Chapter 250, unilaterally changing the status quo in a memorandum of understanding, and derivatively interfering with protected employee and union rights. After a formal hearing on the merits, the ALJ sustained all allegations. The District filed exceptions.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed the proposed decision.
Employer: Regents of the University of California
Case No. SF-UM-890-H
Issued date: March 17, 2025
Precedential
Description: UAW Local 4811 filed a unit modification petition to add over 100 Math Fellows to the Postdoctoral Scholars (PX) bargaining unit it exclusively represents at the University of California (UC). A second union, UC-AFT, sought either to place Math Fellows in the Non-Senate Instructional (IX) unit it exclusively represents, or to afford Math Fellows a PX appointment for their research duties and an IX appointment for their teaching duties. PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC) ruled UAW’s favor, and UC-AFT appealed. UC neither responded to the appeal nor filed an appeal of its own.
Disposition: The Board determined that while both unions proposed configurations that would be appropriate for Math Fellows, HEERA’s unit determination criteria favored UAW’s proposal more than either of UC-AFT’s two proposals. As a threshold matter, the Board noted that Math Fellows perform almost equal parts research and teaching. Clarifying prior precedent, the Board held that because the IX unit is not “teaching-only” and the PX unit is not “research only,” there is no bar to placing Math Fellows in either unit. Furthermore, while HEERA’s unit criteria support placing Math Fellows in either the PX or IX units, given that unit placement is a close question, it is significant that UAW submitted proof of majority support while UC-AFT did not submit any proof of support. A showing of mass membership in a single union constitutes a relevant community of interest factor that tipped the scales in UAW’s favor.
Employer: State of California (Military Department)
Case No. SA-CE-2249-S
Issued date: March 17, 2025
Non-Precedential
Description: Charging Party Service Employees International Union Local 1000 (SEIU) appealed a dismissal order by an administrative law judge (ALJ) who found that the collective bargaining agreement between SEIU and
Respondent State of California (Military Department) allows arbitration over SEIU’s claims that the Military Department unilaterally changed employment conditions within the scope of representation and interfered with activity protected under the Ralph C. Dills Act. The ALJ therefore deferred all allegations to arbitration and dismissed the case.
Disposition: The Board denied the appeal and deferred all claims to arbitration, dismissing the complaint and underlying charge.
Employer: Regents of the University of California (San Francisco)
Case No. SF-CE-1221-H
Issued date: March 18, 2025
Non-Precedential
Description: Charging Party Stephen Malloy appealed the decision by then-Interim Chief Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to deny Malloy’s requests for a 16-month abeyance and, in the alternative, a six-month abeyance, determining that there was not sufficient information or medical documentation in support of Malloy’s requests for abeyance. In his appeal, Malloy alleged (1) errors with the Interim Chief ALJ’s denial of the accommodation requests; (2) issues with the prior ALJ’s handling of accommodation requests; (3) failure to allow oral requests for accommodation; and (4) issues with PERB’s handling of confidential medical information.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed Interim Chief ALJ’s denial of the requested accommodations and denied Malloy’s appeal.
Organization: Service Employees International Union Local 1021 (Orozco)
Case No. SF-CO-543-M
Issued date: March 19, 2025
Precedential
Description: Charging Party Tatyana Orozco alleged that SEIU breached its duty of fair representation, primarily because SEIU declined to pursue a grievance to arbitration after Orozco’s employer, Alameda Health System, discharged her in 2012. After issuing Orozco a warning letter and affording her an opportunity to amend her charge, PERB’s Office of General Counsel (OGC) dismissed the charge. OGC found that Orozco failed to file her charge in a timely manner and did not state a prima facie case of any MMBA violation. OGC also noted that Orozco’s claims overlapped with claims she had made in unfair practice charges filed against SEIU in 2019 and 2021. PERB previously dismissed those claims in decisions that were already final before Orozco pursued this case. Orozco appealed OGC’s dismissal.
Disposition: The Board affirmed the dismissal. As a litigation sanction for filing repeated charges that relitigate issues lost in prior cases, the Board directed that in any PERB case initiated by Orozco, the respondent need not respond to Orozco’s filings unless and until PERB directs otherwise.
Employer: Conejo Valley Unified School District
Case No. LA-CE-6901-E
Issued date: March 24, 2025
Non-Precedential
Description: Charging Party Dianna Nunes alleged that Conejo Valley Unified School District retaliated against her for activities EERA protects. After issuing Nunes a warning letter and affording her an opportunity to amend her charge, PERB’s Office of General Counsel (OGC) dismissed the charge. OGC found that Nunes did not state a prima facie case of retaliation for protected activities. Nunes appealed OGC’s dismissal.
Disposition: In a nonprecedential decision, the Board affirmed the dismissal.
Employer: Santa Barbara Community College District
Case No. LA-CE-6811-E
Issued date: March 25, 2025
Non-Precedential
Description: Charging Party Erin O’Connor appealed the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) Order granting in part Respondent Santa Barbara Community College District’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint issued by PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC). The Complaint alleged, among other things, that the District had discriminated against O’Connor and interfered with his protected rights when it cancelled an informal investigatory meeting because O’Connor requested union representation. The ALJ dismissed the portion of the complaint related to the District’s cancellation of the informal meeting because an employer may cancel an investigative meeting in response to an employee’s insistence on the right to union representation at such a meeting. (County of San Bernardino (Office of the Public Defender) (2015) PERB Decision No. 2423-M citing NLRB v. Weingarten (1975) 420 U.S. 251.) O’Connor appealed, alleging that the District’s Motion to Dismiss was untimely and that the ALJ’s dismissal was factually and legally erroneous.
Disposition: The Board denied the appeal on all counts. The Board determined that the District timely filed its Motion to Dismiss. The Board also denied the substantive appeal, finding that PERB precedent, which is based on the Weingarten Doctrine, authorizes an employer to cancel an investigative meeting in response to an employee’s request for union representation without incurring unfair practice liability.