Home | News Items |
September 2025 Board Decisions Summary
In September 2025, the Board issued seven decisions. The decision descriptions and dispositions are below.
Organization: Service Employees International Union Local 1021 (Bragg)
Case No.: SF-CO-893-E
Issued date: September 3, 2025
Non-Precedential
Description: James Bragg alleged that Respondent Service Employees International Union, Local 1021 (SEIU) violated EERA by breaching its duty to fairly represent Bragg during a grievance appealing the termination of his employment with the Oakland Unified School District. After PERB’s Office of General Counsel (OGC) issued Bragg a warning letter, Bragg amended his charge. OGC dismissed the amended charge because the charge did not state a prima facie violation of EERA. Bragg timely appealed.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed the dismissal of Bragg’s charge without leave to amend.
Organization: Poway Federation of Teachers (Bernardy)
Case No.: LA-CO-1883-E
Issued date: September 3, 2025
Non-Precedential
Description: Charging Party Olivia Bernardy filed an appeal from a determination by PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC) to dismiss her unfair practice charge. The charge, as amended, primarily alleges that Respondent Poway Federation of Teachers (PFT) breached its duty of fair representation and thereby violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA). In her charge, Bernardy raises multiple issues, including alleged interference and retaliation, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) interactive process and workplace safety concerns, hiring concerns, and concerns regarding how PFT addressed scheduling and workload in bargaining. After reviewing Bernardy’s charge, its three amendments, and the District’s responses, OGC issued Bernardy a warning letter indicating she did not state a prima facie case for breach of the duty of fair representation and raised certain allegations that fell outside of PERB’s jurisdiction or the applicable statute of limitations. After Bernardy amended her charge a fourth time, OGC found it had neither cured the deficiencies set forth in the warning letter nor stated a prima facie case of any EERA violation. OGC dismissed the charge. Bernardy appealed.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed the OGC’s determination and dismissed Bernardy’s charge.
Employer: Sacramento City Unified School District
Case No.: SA-CE-3211-E
Issued date: September 8, 2025
Non-Precedential
Description: Patrick Reilly alleged that Sacramento City Unified School District violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA) by failing to send monthly contributions for his retirement account even though the District made deductions from his paycheck. OGC issued a warning letter stating that Reilly’s charge did not state a prima facie case. Reilly filed an amended charge, and OGC determined that the amended charge sufficiently alleged that Reilly had engaged in protected activity by filing charges with PERB, but it did not sufficiently state a prima facie case. OGC concluded that Reilly had not cured the deficiencies detailed in the warning letter and dismissed the amended charge. Reilly appealed.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed the dismissal.
Employer: Regents of the University of California (Irvine)
Case No.: LA-CE-1395-H
Issued date: September 8, 2025
Non-Precedential
Description: An administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that University of California, Irvine (UCI) interfered with employee rights in violation of HEERA section 3571(a) by refusing to process Charging Parties’ grievances. The ALJ ordered UCI to cease and desist interfering with employee rights, to post a notice of the final decision and order, and to process Charging Parties’ grievances through their chosen representative. Charging Parties, five employees of UCI, filed exceptions to the Proposed Decision contesting the ALJ’s use of a stipulated record and disputing the awarded remedies. UCI responded urging the Board to affirm the Proposed Decision but filed no exceptions of its own.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board found the remedy ordered by the ALJ sufficiently resolves the matter, and Charging Parties’ exceptions do not impact the outcome of the case. Charging Parties exceptions are denied.
Employer: City and County of San Francisco
Case No.: SF-CE-1972-M
Issued date: September 17, 2025
Non-Precedential
Description: On July 11, 2025, PERB’s Office of General Counsel dismissed Charging Party Eileen Villaruel’s unfair practice charge against Respondent City and County of San Francisco (CCSF). On July 22, the Appeals Office granted Villaruel’s request for an extension of time to file her appeal of the dismissal, providing Villaruel until August 20 to file her appeal. On August 21, Vincent Tong, counsel for Villaruel, contacted the Appeals Office to inquire whether PERB had received the appeal that counsel attempted to file via e-PERB the previous day. That same day, the Appeals Office notified the parties that no appeal had been filed and the case was accordingly closed. On August 26, Villaruel filed the instant appeal, requesting that the Board excuse her late filing under PERB Regulation 32136 due to issues with e‑PERB. CCSF filed no response.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board granted the appeal and directed the Appeals Office to accept Charging Party’s Appeal of Dismissal as timely filed.
Employer: City of Compton
Case Nos.: LA-CE-1676-M & LA-CO-279-M
Issued date: September 17, 2025
Non-Precedential
Description: The City of Compton and the Compton Firefighters Association, IAFF, Local 2216 were simultaneously involved in two sets of negotiations, occurring at separate bargaining tables with different teams. At one table, the parties were negotiating over a proposed change in job specifications for firefighter applicants. At the other table, the parties were negotiating for a successor to their comprehensive MOU. The City declared impasse in successor MOU negotiations, and the Association refused to continue negotiations over the City’s proposed job specification changes. The City filed Case No. LA-CO-279-M, alleging that the Association’s refusal to bargain over job specifications for firefighter applicants violated the MMBA. After the City approved the job specification changes, the Association filed Case No. LA-CE-1676-M, claiming that the City violated its bargaining duty under the MMBA, mainly by changing firefighter job specifications without exhausting its duty to bargain in good faith to impasse or agreement. A PERB ALJ held a consolidated formal hearing and issued a proposed decision dismissing both parties’ charges. The City and the Association filed exceptions.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed the ALJ’s determination to dismiss both charges.
Employer: Trona Joint Unified School District
Case No.: LA-CE-6908-E
Issued Date: September 18, 2025
Non-Precedential
Description: Trona Teachers Association, CTA/NEA (Association) filed an unfair practice charge alleging that the Trona Joint Unified School District violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA) when it unilaterally refused to process an Association grievance to arbitration. After the parties agreed to submit the case on a stipulated record, an administrative law judge (ALJ) issued a proposed decision finding that the District unilaterally changed policy within the scope of representation without providing the Association a meaningful opportunity to bargain over the changes. The ALJ found that under the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and the American Arbitration Association rules incorporated into the CBA, the District had mandatory obligation to forward a Level Three grievance to arbitration and defer any arbitrability issues to the arbitrator. The ALJ concluded that by refusing to arbitrate the grievance based on arbitrability, the District violated EERA. The District filed exceptions asking the Board to reverse the proposed decision because: (1) the Association lacked standing to pursue the charge; and (2) the District was permitted to refuse to arbitrate because former employees were not unit members under the CBA.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board rejected the District’s exceptions and affirmed the ALJ’s conclusion that the District violated EERA.