Home | News Items |
October 2024 Board Decisions Summary
In October 2024, the Board issued five decisions. The decision descriptions and dispositions are below.
Employer: City and County of San Francisco (San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency)
Case No. SF-CE-1874-M
Issued date: October 11, 2024
Non-Precedential
Description: The complaint alleged that Respondent City and County of San Francisco (San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency) (SFMTA) violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act by (1) unilaterally removing work from Charging Party International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 6’s (IBEW) bargaining unit without first providing notice and opportunity to bargain over the decision and/or its effects; and (2) denying IBEW’s request for information regarding SFMTA’s decision to assign battery-electric bus maintenance and repair work to Joined Party International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, Local 1414 (IAM) rather than to IBEW. At a formal hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) granted IAM’s motion in limine to exclude evidence of some but not all past practices, finding, with one exception, that evidence regarding past practices prior to 2019 was not admissible based upon a clause in the SFMTA‑IBEW Memorandum of Understanding. After the close of hearing, the ALJ issued a proposed decision dismissing the unilateral change allegation and finding a violation, in part, on the request for information claim.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board found that the ALJ erroneously granted the motion in limine. The Board accordingly vacated the proposed decision and remanded to the Division of Administrative Law for further proceedings.
Employer: Clovis Unified School District
Case Nos. SA-CE-3040-E, SA-CE-3047-E, SA-CE-3051-E, and SA-CO-655-E
Issued date: October 14, 2024
Precedential
Description: Clovis Unified School District asked the Board to reconsider its decision in Clovis Unified School District (2024) PERB Decision No. 2904 (Clovis). There, the Board noted that the ALJ’s findings (to which the District had not excepted), as well as the Board’s additional findings, demonstrated that the District violated EERA and the PEDD by, among other conduct: (1) dominating and interfering with the administration of the Clovis Unified Faculty Senate, an employee organization that is a joined party; (2) providing the Senate with preferential treatment and extensive, unequal support; and (3) encouraging employees to support the Senate while deterring or discouraging them from joining Charging Party Association of Clovis Educators (ACE) and from authorizing ACE to represent them. As to claims against the Senate, the Board concluded that the Senate violated EERA by, among other conduct: (1) soliciting and/or accepting unlawful support from the District; (2) causing or attempting to cause the District to violate EERA; and (3) otherwise interfering with teachers’ protected activity. In addition to the ALJ’s proposed remedial order, the Board granted the “disestablishment” remedy that is standard in all cases involving employer domination of a labor organization, thereby directing the District and the Senate to disestablish all relationships with one another having to do with teachers’ employment terms and conditions. The Board also affirmed the ALJ’s spoken notice order, with multiple adjustments to avoid remedial disputes and better effectuate the purposes of EERA and the PEDD. The District’s reconsideration request claimed the Board made prejudicial mistakes of fact and erred in its remedial order. As part of its reconsideration request, the District asked the Board to consider new evidence that allegedly would alter its remedy.
Disposition: The Board denied the District’s reconsideration request, finding no cause to disturb its conclusions in Clovis, supra, PERB Decision No. 2904. The District’s request was procedurally invalid in that it sought to relitigate legal issues or application of law to facts and sought to raise issues that the District had waived by not filing exceptions to the proposed decision. Furthermore, the Board excluded the District’s proposed new evidence from the record. Even if relevant, the new evidence did not meet PERB Regulation 32410’s other requirements for submitting new evidence in a reconsideration request, as it was clear from the nature of the material that it was previously available, could have been discovered with the exercise of reasonable diligence, and was not submitted close to the time of discovery. In the alternative, the Board considered each of the District’s specific arguments and found that they lacked merit. Finally, while an error or omission in a remedial order can be a proper subject of reconsideration, the Board found that the District’s challenge to its remedy was not only procedurally improper, but unmeritorious as well. The Board affirmed its spoken notice order, including its specification that the District’s highest official should fulfill the spoken notice requirement. The Board also reaffirmed that disestablishment is the appropriate remedy if a school district dominated an employee organization, and that disestablishment is necessary even if domination has ended by the conclusion of the unfair practice case.
Employer: State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation)
Case No. LA-CE-761-S
Issued date: October 22, 2024
Precedential
Description: The complaint alleged that the State’s Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) unlawfully prohibited food service employees from wearing hats akin to their usual ones but with added language on the back reading “SEIU Local 1000” and “Respect Us, Protect Us, and Pay Us.” The ALJ found that the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) allows arbitration over SEIU’s claims that CDCR interfered with and retaliated against employee and union rights. The ALJ therefore deferred all allegations to arbitration and dismissed the case. SEIU appealed the dismissal order.
Disposition: The Board did not sustain SEIU’s appeal. Applying the modern version of PERB’s deferral doctrine to the record, the Board deferred to arbitration and dismissed the complaint and underlying charge. SEIU’s appeal claimed that while the CBA allows arbitration over interference with employee rights under Dills Act § 3519(a), it does not allow arbitration over interference with the union’s own rights under Dills Act § 3519(b), and for that reason none of the claims were deferrable. The Board concluded that both interference claims were deferrable, as the section 3519(b) claim involves the same statutory standards, the same facts, and effectively the same remedies as the section 3519(a) claim. Accordingly, the Board exercised its discretion to defer all claims to arbitration.
Employer: State of California (State Personnel Board)
Case No. SA-CE-2257-S
Issued date: October 23, 2024
Non-Precedential
Description: This case was before the Board on appeal by Charging Party John Wynn from the dismissal of his unfair practice charge by PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC). Wynn, filing as a member of the public, alleged, among other things, that Respondent State of California (State Personnel Board) violated the Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills Act) by depriving employees of union representation at reasonable accommodation meetings and of violating numerous other laws not under PERB’s jurisdiction. OGC dismissed the case because as a member of the public, Wynn lacked standing to file a charge based on the alleged violations; Wynn’s charge had failed to state a prima facie violation of the Dills Act; his remaining allegations arose under laws outside of PERB’s jurisdiction; and because Wynn did not establish that any of his claims were timely filed within the statutory limitations period.
Disposition: The Board affirmed the dismissal without leave to amend the charge.
Employer: SunLine Transit Agency
Case No. LA-CE-1536-M
Issued date: October 31, 2024
Precedential
Description: The amended complaint alleged that SunLine Transit Agency violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act by retaliating against Anthony Garcia for engaging in protected activity by: (1) issuing Garcia notice of an impending written warning in January 2022; (2) placing Garcia on paid administrative leave pending investigation in May 2022; and (3) firing Garcia in September 2022. The ALJ found violations on the first two claims but dismissed the third claim. SunLine excepted to the proposed decision, challenging the ALJ’s rulings in Garcia’s favor, and arguing in the alternative that one of the ALJ’s two cease-and-desist orders was improper.
Disposition: The Board rejected SunLine’s exception challenging its liability for issuing Garcia a written warning. However, the Board sustained SunLine’s exception regarding its decision to place Garcia on paid administrative leave pending investigation, as well as its exception regarding the ALJ’s remedy. Because neither party challenged the ALJ’s dismissal of Garcia’s claim that SunLine terminated him for protected activity, the Board incorporated that dismissal into its order without expressing any opinion on it.