October 2023 Board Decisions Summary
In October 2023, the Board issued seven decisions. The decision descriptions and dispositions are below.
Organization: California School Employees Association-Chapter 183 (Kimery)
Case No. LA-CO-1842-E
Issued date: October 6, 2023
Non-Precedential
Description: Charging Party Liz Kimery alleged that Respondent California School Employees Association, Chapter 183 (CSEA) violated the Educational Employment Relations Act by breaching its duty of fair representation. After PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC) issued Kimery a warning letter, Kimery amended the charge. OGC subsequently dismissed the charge for failure to state a prima facie case of any unfair practice. On appeal, Kimery alleged that the charge stated a prima facie case that CSEA breached its duty of fair representation by: (1) failing to conduct an adequate investigation of her case; (2) depriving her of “the necessary support for [her] to continue with [her] dispute or grievance with the [San Bernardino City Unified School District];” and (3) discriminating against her based on “racial animus.”
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed OGC’s dismissal of the charge.
Employer: Oakland Unified School District
Case No. SF-CE-3481-E
Issued date: October 16, 2023
Precedential in part and non-precedential in part.
Description: The complaint alleged that Oakland Unified School District violated its bargaining obligation to Oakland Education Association (OEA) when the District made two decisions without affording OEA adequate notice and opportunity to bargain over the decision and/or the effects thereof: (1) changing a policy that generally prohibited the District from implementing a school closure, merger, or consolidation without a planning period lasting at least nine months following a vote to approve the action; and (2) deciding to merge or close certain schools (including partial closure by truncating certain grades). The ALJ issued a proposed decision finding an effects bargaining violation as to the second claim. The District filed exceptions.
Disposition: In a decision that is precedential in part and non-precedential in part, the Board affirmed the ALJ’s central holdings that a decision to close schools is a non-mandatory subject of bargaining and that the District violated its effects bargaining duty. The Board adjusted the proposed decision in several respects, such as explaining the nature of an employer’s obligation to bargain over the amount of notice employees receive.
Employer: County of Santa Clara
Case No. SF-CE-1796-M
Issued date: October 17, 2023
Precedential
Description: The complaint alleged that the County of Santa Clara violated its bargaining obligations to Registered Nurses Professional Association (RNPA) and Service Employees International Union Local 521 (SEIU) when it responded to COVID-19 by changing policies and assignments without affording the unions adequate notice and opportunity to bargain over the County’s decisions and/or their negotiable effects. The ALJ issued a proposed decision concluding that even though the pandemic qualified as an emergency, the County nonetheless violated its bargaining obligations. The parties filed cross-exceptions.
Disposition: In a precedential decision, the Board held that: (1) the County could take necessary measures to save lives without first reaching an impasse or agreement, though it had a duty to afford the unions notice and an opportunity to bargain in good faith to the extent practicable under the circumstances; and (2) the County failed to comply with this duty.
Employer: Sacramento City Unified School District
Case No. SA-CE-3008-E
Issued date: October 20, 2023
Non-Precedential
Description: Charging Party Francine Stevens (Stevens) alleged that Respondent Sacramento City Unified School District (District) violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA) by retaliating against Stevens. PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC) dismissed some of the charge allegations because, among other reasons, they were untimely, not subject to PERB’s jurisdiction, duplicative of previous PERB filings, and failed to state a prima facie case that the District retaliated against Stevens in violation of EERA. Stevens timely appealed the partial dismissal.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed OGC’s partial dismissal of the charge.
Organization: Service Employees International Union Local 1000 (Brown)
Case No. SA-CO-522-S
Issued date: October 23, 2023
Non-Precedential
Description: Charging Party Richard Louis Brown alleged that Respondent Service Employees International Union Local 1000 (Local 1000) breached its duty of fair representation when it removed him from office, in violation of the Ralph C. Dills Act. Brown claimed Local 1000’s conduct interfered with his right to participate in Local 1000 activities and negatively impacted his ability to communicate with his employer, the State of California. The Office of the General Counsel (OGC) subsequently dismissed the charge, as amended, for failure to state a prima facie case of any unfair practice. On appeal, Brown restated the basis for his charge and claimed PERB allowed Local 1000 to violate its internal procedures as well as the California Corporations Code.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed OGC’s dismissal of the charge.
Employer: Alliance College-Ready Public Charter Schools
Case No. LA-CE-6728-E
Issued date: October 23, 2023
Precedential
Description: Charging Party United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA) alleged that Respondent refused to recognize and bargain with UTLA as the exclusive representative of certificated employees at two schools within the Alliance College-Ready Public Schools Network, in violation of the Board’s order in Alliance Morgan McKinzie High School et al. (2022) PERB Order No. Ad-491. Both schools admitted that they failed and refused to bargain in good faith with UTLA to obtain judicial review of PERB Order No. Ad-491. They contended that the Board wrongly decided PERB Order No. Ad-491 and that changed circumstances, namely, a corporate reorganization, rendered the certified units inappropriate.
Disposition: The Board issued its decision based on a stipulated record pursuant to PERB Regulations 32215 and 32320, subdivision (a)(1), finding that Respondent’s conduct violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA). Specifically, the Board concluded that the reorganization did not affect the appropriateness of the units, nor did it excuse the two schools from recognizing or meeting and negotiating with UTLA. Therefore, Respondent’s refusal to bargain with UTLA violated EERA.
Employer: Regents of the University of California
Case No. SF-CE-1198-H
Issued date: October 24, 2023
Precedential
Description: Charging Party excepted to a proposed decision finding that Respondent’s policy prohibiting union insignia on employer-provided vehicles did not interfere with employee protected rights, and that even had Charging Party proven a prima facie case, the University established its affirmative defense by showing special circumstances required the prohibition.
Disposition: The Board reversed, finding that Charging Party did prove a prima facie case and that Respondent failed to demonstrate that special circumstances justified its prohibition of magnets bearing union insignia on employer-provided vehicles, thus concluding that Respondent violated the HEERA.