November 2022 Board Decisions Summary

In November 2022, the Board issued seven decisions. The decision descriptions and dispositions are below.


Decision No. 2840-M

Employer: City and County of San Francisco (San Francisco General Hospital)

Case No. SF-CE-1978-M

Issued date: November 3, 2022

Non-Precedential

Description: Geoffrey Lynch alleged that his employer, City and County of San Francisco (San Francisco General Hospital), violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act by terminating Lynch’s employment. The Office of the General Counsel (OGC) dismissed the charge for failure to timely amend the unfair practice charge after issuance of a warning letter. Lynch timely appealed.

Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed OGC’s dismissal.


Decision No. 2841-M

Organization: Service Employees International Union Local 1021 (Lynch)

Case No. SF-CO-500-M

Issued date: November 3, 2022

Non-Precedential

Description: Geoffrey Lynch alleged that his union, Service Employees International Union Local 1021, violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act by breaching the duty of fair representation. The Office of the General Counsel (OGC) dismissed the charge for failure to timely amend the unfair practice charge after issuance of a warning letter. Lynch timely appealed.

Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed OGC’s dismissal.


Decision No. 2842-M

Employer: County of Madera

Case No. SA-CE-1164-M

Issued date: November 8, 2022

Non-Precedential

Description: An administrative law judge (ALJ) sustained one of two claims Madera County Probation Peace Officers Association brought against the County of Madera. First, the ALJ found that the County did not retaliate against two deputy probation officers when it removed them from special assignments as paid rangemasters. Second, the ALJ found the County unilaterally implemented a rangemaster rotation policy without affording the Association adequate notice and an opportunity to bargain. The County excepted to some of the ALJ’s conclusions on the unilateral change issue, and the Association cross-excepted on the retaliation claim.

Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed the proposed decision.


Decision No. 2843-M

Employer: County of Orange

Case No. LA-CE-1511-M

Issued date: November 10, 2022

Non-Precedential

Description: Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs (AOCDS) alleged that the County of Orange violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act and PERB Regulations by ceasing to collect and remit employee pension contributions, and ceasing to pay employer pension contributions, on compensation for time spent in on call status or working as a canine handler. The administrative law judge (ALJ) dismissed the complaint, finding AOCDS had actual notice of the upcoming change but failed to request effects bargaining within a reasonable time, and therefore waived any right to effects bargaining. The ALJ also denied the County’s request for attorney fees and costs as litigation sanctions against AOCDS. AOCDS excepted to the dismissal while the County cross-excepted to the denial of litigation sanctions.

Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed the proposed decision.


Decision No. 2844

Employer: Los Rios Community College District

Case No. SA-CE-3087-E

Issued date: November 14, 2022

Non-Precedential

Description: Deglow appealed the dismissal of her unfair practice charge alleging that the District violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA) by failing to correct Deglow’s hire date, thus depriving her of a step increase, in retaliation for her protected activities. The Office of the General Counsel (OGC) summarily dismissed the charge for failure to state a prima facie case, based on application of the litigation sanction the Board articulated in Los Rios Community College District and Los Rios College Federation of Teachers, Local 2279 (2021) PERB Decision No. 2776. OGC found that the underlying basis for the present charge—that the District has failed to correct Deglow’s hire date in retaliation for protected activity—is the same dispute previously litigated and dismissed in prior matters. Deglow appealed.

Disposition: The Board dismissed the unfair practice charge without leave to amend.


Decision No. 2845-M

Employer: City of Sunnyvale

Case No. SF-CE-1745-M

Issued date: November 14, 2022

Non-Precedential

Description: Judieth Sullivan-Ojuola (Sullivan) excepted to the proposed decision of an administrative law judge (ALJ). Sullivan filed an unfair practice charge against her former employer, the City of Sunnyvale, for allegedly rejecting her from probation in retaliation for activities protected by the Meyers‑Milias‑Brown Act (MMBA). The ALJ found that Sullivan failed to establish a causal nexus between her protected activity and her rejection from probation. The ALJ further found that in any event, the City established its affirmative defense that it rejected her from probation for a legitimate business reason, viz., Sullivan’s deficient work performance. Sullivan filed exceptions challenging several of the ALJ’s factual findings and arguing that she had established nexus through evidence of disparate treatment. The City filed no exceptions and urged the Board to affirm the proposed decision.

Disposition: The Board affirmed the ALJ’s factual findings and the conclusion that the City did not violate the MMBA. The Board found that Sullivan did not establish a prima facie case of retaliation because all the evidence she marshaled to show nexus either happened before she engaged in protected activity or failed to support the inferences Sullivan argued.


Decision No. 2846-M

Employer: City and County of San Francisco

Case No. SF-CE-1884-M

Issued date: November 17, 2022

Precedential

Description: Service Employees International Union Local 1021 (SEIU) appealed a partial dismissal of its unfair practice charge by PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC), which alleged that the City and County of San Francisco (City) violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA), the Prohibition on Public Employers Deterring or Discouraging Union Membership, and PERB Regulations by adopting a policy requiring employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19 and implementing various measures to enforce the policy. OGC dismissed the allegations that the City violated the MMBA and PERB Regulations by: (1) unilaterally deciding to adopt the mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy; (2) requiring employees to disclose their vaccination status; and (3) refusing to allow employees to submit SEIU-created vaccination ascertainment forms in lieu of the City’s form. SEIU appealed the partial dismissal, arguing that: (1) OGC erred in analyzing the decisional bargaining allegation regarding the mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy; (2) the allegation that the City required employees to disclose their vaccination status adequately stated a prima facie case of both unilateral change and direct dealing violations; and (3) the allegation that the City required employees to use a City-generated self-certification form instead of an alternate form SEIU created stated a prima facie case of interference with MMBA-protected rights.

Disposition: The Board affirmed the dismissal of the direct dealing allegation, but reversed the dismissal of the remaining allegations and remanded the matter to OGC to issue an amended complaint consistent with the decision.