Home | News Items |
October 2026 Board Decisions Summary
In October 2026, the Board issued 12 decisions. The decision descriptions and dispositions are below.
Organization: Service Employees International Union Local 1021 (Burks)
Case No. SF-CO-572-M
Issued Date: 10/09/2026
Non-Precedential
Description: Tiara Burks alleged that SEIU Local 1021 breached its duty of fair representation. In support of her second amended charge, Burks included a document demonstrating that Local 1021 is not her exclusive representative; rather, she is instead in a bargaining unit represented by SEIU-UHW, which is not a party in this case. Thereafter, Burks filed a third amended charge, which confirmed that she had named the wrong union in her charge and in subsequent amendments thereto. PERB’s Office of the General Counsel dismissed the charge, concluding that Burks failed to allege facts that would establish an MMBA violation. Burks appealed.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed the dismissal for the reasons stated in the warning and dismissal letters, as well as because Burks’ pleadings indicated that Local 1021 did not owe her any duty of fair representation, as SEIU-UHW was at all relevant times her exclusive representative.
Employer: San Diego Community College District
Case No. LA-UM-1076-E
Issued Date: 10/12/2026
Non-Precedential
Description: In an Administrative Determination, PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC) resolved two disputed classifications—Student Services Analyst and Contract Specialist—from a unit modification petition filed by American Federation of Teachers Guild, Local 1931 (AFT) pursuant to the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA; Gov. Code, § 3540 et seq.) and PERB Regulations. The determination at issue found that it was more appropriate to place the Contract Specialist in AFT’s Office/Technical unit and place the Student Services Analyst in Supervisory & Professional Administrators Association’s (SPAA) FLSA-Exempt Professionals unit. SPAA appealed placement of the Contract Specialist in AFT’s unit; AFT did not contest placement of the Student Services Analyst, but opposed SPAA’s appeal.
Disposition: In a non-precedential order, the Board reversed the Administrative Determination in part, finding it more appropriate to place both classifications at issue in SPAA’s FLSA-Exempt Professionals unit.
Employer: Regents of the University of California (Berkeley)
Case No. SF-CE-1524-H
Issued Date: 10/14/2026
Non-Precedential
Description: Charging Party James O’Brien filed exceptions to a proposed decision of an administrative law judge. PERB’s Office of the General Counsel issued a complaint alleging that Respondent Regents of the University of California (University) interfered with employee rights guaranteed by the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA; Gov. Code, § 3560 et seq.). The complaint alleged the University interfered with Charging Party’s rights when, on July 15, 2025, it informed him, in writing, that he was prohibited from sharing copies of his five-year merit review file “with anyone other than [his] recognized agent, such as legal counsel.” In subsequent filings with PERB, the University’s representative admitted that the correspondence sent to Charging Party was based on a campus-wide policy or practice existing at that time. The University eventually filed an Amended Answer to the Complaint that admitted all allegations and admitted liability for the one count of interference with employee rights alleged in the Complaint. Based on the University’s admissions the ALJ determined that it had interfered with employee rights in violation of HEERA and the sole issue before the ALJ was that of remedy. In the proposed decision, the ALJ issued a cease-and-desist order referencing the specific facts of the case, rescission of the July 15, 2025, communication to Charging Party and any underlying policy or practice on which it was based, and an opportunity for Charging Party to prove any compensable damages for make-whole relief in compliance proceedings. The ALJ also ordered that the University provide physical and electronic notice of the order to faculty members at the University’s Berkeley campus. Charging Party filed exceptions and the University filed a response.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed the remedies ordered in the Proposed Decision with only slight clarifications.
Employer: Inglewood Unified School District
Case No. LA-CE-7098-E
Issued Date: 10/14/2026
Non-Precedential
Description: Charging Party Shanika Hicks alleged that Respondent Inglewood Unified School District violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA; Gov. Code, § 3540 et seq.) by retaliating against her for protected activity and interfering with her EERA rights. After reviewing Hicks’ charge and an amendment, PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC) issued her a warning letter, explaining that the facts she alleged, if proven, would not state a prima facie case of any EERA violation. The letter afforded Hicks an opportunity to amend her charge and thereby attempt to cure its deficiencies. Hicks subsequently filed a second amended charge. Following review, OGC dismissed the second amended charge, concluding that it failed to allege a prima facie case of any unfair practice.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed the dismissal without leave to amend.
Employer: Los Angeles Unified School District
Case No. LA-CE-6973-E
Issued Date: 10/16/2026
Non-Precedential
Description: Charging Party Yvette Graham-Johnson alleged that her employer, Respondent Los Angeles Unified School District, violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA; Gov. Code, § 3540 et seq.) by interfering with protected activities and retaliating against her for such activities. Graham-Johnson, a School Administrative Assistant (SAA), initially alleged that the District retaliated against her because she sought to enforce a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) provision making certain medical training for SAAs voluntary. Graham-Johnson alleged that the District directed her to attend a medication administration training and then communicated with her regarding attendance at the training and her job responsibilities. She initially sought to pursue a grievance regarding her allegations, but ultimately withdrew it and, in her withdrawal filing, encouraged the District to conduct a formal review of the issues. She further alleged that an e-mail the District sent her in response to her request for formal review was retaliatory. PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC) issued Graham-Johnson a warning letter which explained that the facts Graham-Johnson alleged, if proven, would not establish that the District had engaged in retaliation because she had not alleged facts showing that the District had taken adverse action against her. Graham-Johnson filed additional amended charges, however, OGC determined that the amended charges failed to allege a prima facie case of any EERA violation and that several of her allegations remained untimely. OGC dismissed the charge and Graham-Johnson appealed.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed OGC’s dismissal without leave to amend.
Employer: Regents of the University of California
Case No. LA-CE-1417-H
Issued Date: 10/16/2026
Non-Precedential
Description: Charging Party California Nurses Association/National Nurses United alleged that Respondent Regents of the University of California violated the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA; Gov. Code, § 3560 et seq.) by retaliating against Registered Nurse Nicole Cuadra for engaging in protected activity. After a formal hearing, an ALJ issued a proposed decision finding that Respondent retaliated against Cuadra when it initiated and conducted an investigatory interview about her protected activity, and interfered with protected rights. Respondent filed exceptions to the proposed decision. Subsequently, Respondent filed with the Board a request to withdraw its exceptions.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board granted Respondent’s request to withdraw its exceptions to the ALJ’s proposed decision. The ALJ’s proposed decision thereby became final as of the date of issuance of this decision.
Employer: City of Richmond
Case No. SF-CE-2292-M
Issued Date: 10/19/2026
Non-Precedential
Description: Joshua Oliveira’s unfair practice charge alleged that the City of Richmond violated the MMBA by discriminating against him and interfering with his protected rights. While the appeal was pending before the Board, Oliveira asked to withdraw it and dismiss the underlying unfair practice charge based on a settlement agreement he reached with the City.
Disposition: in a non-precedential decision, the Board granted Oliveira’s request to withdraw his appeal and dismiss his unfair practice charge.
Employer: Ventura County Community College District
Case No. LA-CE-7195-E
Issued Date: 10/23/2026
Non-Precedential
Description: Charging Party Olivia Long alleged Respondent Ventura County Community College District violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA; Gov. Code, § 3540 et seq.) by retaliating against her for protected activity. Long alleged she was not selected for a promotional opportunity because she requested union representation during a meeting with management. After reviewing the charge and the District’s response, PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC) issued Long a warning letter. The letter explained that the facts Long alleged, if proven, would not establish that the District had violated EERA. The warning letter informed her that, among other deficiencies, she had failed to allege facts to support the allegation that Gonzalez knew of her protected activity—requesting union representation during the meeting at issue. The warning letter provided Long with an opportunity to further amend her charge and thereby attempt to cure its deficiencies. Long filed an amended charge, however, OGC dismissed it concluding it did not state a prima facie case. Long appealed, and the District filed an opposition.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed OGC’s dismissal without leave to amend.
Organization: United Teachers Los Angeles (Lukens)
Case No. LA-CO-1942-E
Issued Date: 10/23/2026
Non-Precedential
Description: Charging Party Monique Lukens alleged that Respondent United Teachers Los Angeles violated the Education Employment Relations Act (EERA; Gov. Code, § 3540 et seq.) by removing her name from the ballot for an internal union election. After reviewing her charge, subsequent amended charge, and Respondent’s corresponding position statements, PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC) issued Lukens a warning letter, explaining that the facts alleged did not state a prima facie case of any EERA violation. The warning letter provided Lukens the opportunity to further amend her charge and thereby attempt to cure the deficiencies addressed in the letter. Lukens subsequently filed second and third amended charges. OGC determined that the amended charges did not cure the deficiencies described in the warning letter and did not state a prima facie violation of EERA. Therefore, OGC dismissed the charge. Lukens appealed the dismissal.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed the dismissal without leave to amend.
Employer: Oakland Unified School District
Case No. SF-CE-3772-E
Issued Date: 10/23/2026
Non-Precedential
Description: Charging Party Pamela Kennedy alleged that Respondent Oakland Unified School District violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA; Gov. Code, § 3540 et seq.) by issuing her a notice of probationary non-reelection in retaliation for her protected activity. After reviewing Kennedy’s charge and three amendments, PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC) issued her a warning letter, explaining that the facts she alleged, if proven, would not state a prima facie case of any EERA violation. The letter provided Kennedy an opportunity amend her charge and thereby attempt to cure its deficiencies. On the same day Kennedy received the warning letter, she attempted to file a fourth amended charge. OGC rejected the charge pursuant to PERB Regulation 32125, noting that it contained confidential information and directing her to refile the fourth amended charge with all confidential information redacted. Kennedy did not refile the charge by the deadline, and OGC subsequently dismissed the charge based on the reasoning in the warning letter.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed the dismissal without leave to amend.
Employer: Elk Grove Unified School District
Case No. SA-CE-3268-E
Issued Date: 10/27/2026
Non-Precedential
Description: Charging Party Kevin Pratt alleged that Respondent Elk Grove Unified School District violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA; Gov. Code, § 3540 et seq.) by interfering with protected employee rights, failing to bargain in good faith, and retaliating against him for protected conduct. Charging Party alleged that the District did not respond to information requests submitted by himself and his exclusive representative, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 258 (AFSCME) and that it improperly rejected a wage-adjustment proposal he and AFSCME submitted to the District. He further alleged that the District interfered with his protected rights when it rejected the proposal. PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC) issued Charging Party a warning letter, which explained that the facts Charging Party alleged, if proven, would not establish that the District had violated EERA. The warning letter provided Charging Party an opportunity to amend his charge to cure its deficiencies. Charging Party filed a second amended charge asserting that the District’s response to his salary request was insufficient and had therefore interfered with his rights. He further alleged that the District’s failure to respond to the information requests had interfered with his rights because it had discouraged him from seeking AFSCME’s further assistance. Additionally, he alleged that the District’s rejection of his salary adjustment was in retaliation for his seeking assistance from AFSCME. OGC dismissed the amended charge, concluding it did not state a prima facie case. Charging Party appealed, and the District filed an opposition.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed OGC’s dismissal without leave to amend.
Employer: Sequoia Unified School District
Case No. SF-CE-3698-E
Issued Date: 10/28/2026
Non-Precedential
Description: Charging Party Dorotea Vidovic alleged that Respondent Sequoia Union High School District violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA; Gov. Code, § 3540 et seq.) by retaliating against her for engaging in protected activity, failing to respond to requests for information, and implementing unilateral changes. After reviewing Vidovic’s charge, subsequent amendments, and the District’s responses, PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC) issued Vidovic a warning letter, explaining that the facts alleged in the charge did not state a prima facie violation of EERA. The warning letter provided Vidovic an opportunity to further amend the charge and attempt to cure the deficiencies explained in the letter. Vidovic filed a third amended charge, which sought to clarify the allegations addressed in the warning letter and further alleged that the District interfered with protected rights. The District filed a position statement in response. OGC determined that the amended charge did not cure the deficiencies described in the warning letter and did not state a prima facie violation of EERA. Therefore, OGC dismissed the charge. Vidovic appealed.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed the dismissal without leave to amend.