Home | News Items |
November 2025 Board Decisions Summary
In November 2025, the Board issued four decisions. The decision descriptions and dispositions are below.
Employer: Kern County Hospital Authority
Case No. LA-CE-1573-M
Issued date: November 7, 2025
Non-Precedential
Description: Charging Party Service Employees International Union, Local 521 (SEIU) filed an unfair practice charge alleging that Respondent Kern County Hospital Authority (KCHA) violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) when it began strictly enforcing its dress code to prohibit employees from wearing SEIU T-shirts on working time without first providing notice and an opportunity to bargain. SEIU also alleged that KCHA’s restriction on SEIU T-shirts interfered with employee and employee organization rights, and that KCHA retaliated against an employee for protected activity when it issued him a written reprimand for wearing an SEIU T-shirt.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board remanded the matter to the Division of Administrative Law for further proceedings.
Employer: State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and California Correctional Health Care Services)
Case No. SF-CE-308-S
Issued date: November 10, 2025
Non-Precedential
Description: In October 2023, Charging Party Kevin Healy learned of efforts by Respondent State of California to investigate and discipline Healy for actions he took in his role as a union steward. In October 2024, Healy filed an unfair practice charge alleging that the conduct he had uncovered a year earlier constituted unlawful interference and retaliation for protected activities. PERB’s Office of the General Counsel dismissed Healy’s charge, concluding that he did not file it within the statute of limitations.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed the dismissal.
Organization: Service Employees International Union Local 721 (Mohammad)
Case No. LA-CO-28-X
Issued date: November 13, 2025
Non-Precedential
Description: Charging Party Esroruleh Mohammad filed an appeal from the dismissal of his unfair practice charge by PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OSC). Charging Party alleged in his amended unfair practice charge that his representative, Respondent Service Employees International Union, Local 721 violated the Meyers-Milas-Brown Act by breaching the duty of fair representation. OGC issued a warning letter informing Charging Party that PERB does not have jurisdiction over unfair practice charges involving the City or County of Los Angeles, and the charge would be dismissed unless Charging Party amended the charge to add or clarify facts that would correct the deficiencies stated in the warning letter. Charging Party filed an amended charge and added the County of Los Angeles as an additional respondent alleging additional facts to support his assertion PERB should have jurisdiction over his charge. OGC evaluated the amended charge and concluded it did not cure the deficiencies stated in the warning letter. OGC dismissed the charge as to both respondents. Charging Party appealed.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board dismissed Charging Parties amended charge without leave to amend.
Employer: State of California (California Correctional Health Care Services)
Case No. SA-CE-2198-S
Issued date: November 24, 2025
Non-Precedential
Description: This matter came before the Public Employment Relations Board for a second time. CCHCS terminated one of its pharmacists, Sean Kane, but the State Personnel Board later reduced the discipline to a 30-day suspension. In an initial proposed decision, the administrative law judge (ALJ) found the termination retaliated against Kane for protected activity, while also finding that CCHCS would have suspended Kane for at least 30 days even absent any protected activity. The Board’s first decision in this case, State of California (California Correctional Health Care Services) (2024) PERB Decision No. 2888-S (CCHCS), found the record was insufficient to decide what level of discipline CCHCS would have chosen absent protected activity. The Board remanded for further proceedings on that issue. (Id. at p. 34.) After remand, the ALJ found that CCHCS would have issued Kane at least a 30-day suspension even absent protected activity. The ALJ ordered CCHCS to rescind the termination to the extent it had not already done so, as well as cease and desist from further retaliation. CCHCS filed exceptions, arguing that the case should be dismissed.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board exercised its discretion to close the case given its unusual facts and procedural posture.