September and October Board Decisions Summary

In September of 2021 the Board issued five decisions and in October the Board issued three decisions. The decision descriptions and dispositions are below.

Decision No. 2788-M

Employer: City of Pasadena

Case Nos.: LA-CE-1465-M

Issued date: September 1, 2021

Precedential

Description: Pasadena Non-Sworn Employees Association (PNSEA) alleged that the City of Pasadena unreasonably denied a representation/severance petition and thereby violated the City’s Employer-Employee Relations Resolution (EERR), the MMBA, and PERB regulations. The petitioned-for unit would include the City’s 12 unrepresented Police Supervisors, in addition to nearly 80 employees severed from two represented bargaining units. The complaint alleged the City unreasonably applied its EERR by: (1) requiring PNSEA to demonstrate that its proposed unit was more appropriate than the existing units; (2) rejecting PNSEA’s contention that its proposed unit was appropriate based on evidence of unit configurations in surrounding cities; (3) declining to find a community of interest between supervisory and non-supervisory classifications and (4) denying PNSEA’s alleged alternative request to create a new unit solely comprised of the residual, unrepresented Police Supervisor classification. After the parties filed post-hearing briefs, the Board directed that the record be submitted to the Board itself for decision pursuant to PERB Regulation 32320, subdivision (a)(1).

Disposition: PNSEA did not establish any violation. In determining that it would be inappropriate to sever classifications and parts of classifications from their existing units, the City reasonably applied the EERR’s unit determination criteria, including community of interest factors, labor relations history, efficiency of operations, and freedom to exercise protected rights. Because the City reasonably determined not to sever non-supervisory positions from their existing bargaining units, the City had a valid threshold reason not to create the petitioned-for unit, and the Board did not need to determine whether the EERR was unreasonable in purporting to require that supervisors be in a separate unit from non-supervisors. The Board also found that PNSEA had never requested to represent a unit solely comprised of the residual, unrepresented Police Supervisor classification.


Decision No. 2789-M

Employer: Long Beach Public Transportation Company

Case No.: LA-CE-1374-M

Issued date: September 3, 2021

Non-Precedential

Description: An administrative law judge issued a proposed decision finding that the District violated MMBA by unilaterally rescinding a sick leave buy-back program. The District excepted to the proposed decision. While exceptions were pending before the Board, the parties informed the Board that they had reached a global settlement of all disputes and the Union requested that it be permitted to withdraw the underlying unfair practice charge with prejudice, dismiss the corresponding complaint, and close the administrative case.

Disposition: The Board found the withdrawal of the underlying unfair practice charge and dismissal of the complaint pursuant to a global settlement agreement between the parties to be consistent with the MMBA’s purpose of promoting harmonious labor relations, and granted the request.


Decision No. 2790-M

Employer: City of Compton

Case No.: LA-CE-1400-M

Issued date: September 13, 2021

Non-Precedential

Description: Estella DuBose appealed an order by an ALJ dismissing her complaint against the City of Compton. The complaint, as amended, alleged that the City violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act by: (1) refusing to disqualify the City’s Personnel Board Chairman and replace him with an independent hearing officer for purposes of DuBose’s termination appeal hearing, thereby creating intolerable conditions for DuBose to pursue her appeal; (2) failing to engage in the interactive process to determine if the City could accommodate DuBose’s disability during her appeal proceedings; (3) causing the Personnel Board to sustain the City’s objections to the majority of the proposed exhibits DuBose intended to introduce at her appeal hearing; and (4) refusing to accept DuBose’s request to appeal the Personnel Board’s ruling to binding arbitration pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement between the City and the Compton Management Employees Association, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Local 2325, AFL-CIO, Council 36. The complaint alleged that the City took these actions in retaliation for DuBose’s protected activities, and that the actions interfered with her protected rights.

Disposition: The Board affirmed the dismissal of the unfair practice charge.


Decision No. 2791-S

Employer: State of California (Department of Fish & Wildlife)

Case No.: SA-CE-2191-S

Issued date: September 23, 2021

Non-Precedential

Description: The amended unfair practice charge alleged that the State of California (Department of Fish & Wildlife) violated the Ralph C. Dills Act by refusing to promote its in-house attorneys to the Attorney V classification and instead outsourcing legal work to a private law firm. The Office of the General Counsel found the charge failed to state a prima facie case of bad faith bargaining under either the “per se” or “totality of conduct” tests, and dismissed the charge.

Disposition: The Board affirmed the dismissal of the unfair practice charge.


Decision No. 2792

Employer: Glendale Unified School District

Case No.: LA-CO-1800-E

Issued date: September 23, 2021

Non-Precedential

Description: The Glendale Unified School District alleged that the Glendale Teachers Association violated its duty to bargain in good faith when one of its negotiators recorded a bargaining session even though the parties had agreed not to do so. An administrative law judge granted the Association’s prehearing motion to dismiss, and the District appealed. While the District’s appeal was pending before the Board, the parties informed the Board that they had settled their dispute and the District requested that it be permitted to withdraw the underlying unfair practice charge and appeal.

Disposition: The Board found the District’s withdrawal request to be consistent with EERA’s purpose of promoting harmonious labor relations. The Board therefore granted the District’s request.


Decision No. 2793

Employer: Bellflower Unified School District

Case No.: LA-CE-6303-E

Issued date: October 12, 2021

Non-Precedential

Description: An administrative law judge issued a proposed decision finding that the Bellflower Unified School District violated EERA by unilaterally denying a certificated employee paid bereavement and personal necessity leaves during his summer teaching assignment, without providing the Association notice and a prior opportunity to bargain over the decision. The District excepted to the proposed decision.

Disposition: The Board rejected the District’s exceptions and affirmed the proposed decision.


Order No. Ad-488

Employer: Los Angeles Unified School District

Case Nos.: LA-CE-6161-E and LA-CE-6411-E

Issued date: October 12, 2021

Precedential

Description: Charging Parties Joei Dyes and the AnonymousKnowNothings (Charging Parties) appealed an administrative determination by PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC) finding that the Los Angeles Unified School District complied with the Board’s Order in Los Angeles Unified School District (2020) PERB Decision No. 2750. After an investigation, OGC determined that the District had complied with the order because the District submitted evidence reflecting several different efforts at circulating the required notice, including multiple mass e mails and a 60-day website posting as directed by OGC. Charging Parties claimed some employees had not received the mass e-mails. OGC issued an order to show cause requesting that Charging Parties provide declarations under penalty of perjury from employees who had not received the electronic notice. Charging Parties declined to file any declarations because OGC would not allow them to redact the declarants’ names. Having received no declarations, OGC determined compliance was achieved and closed the case. Charging Parties argue on appeal that OGC erred by not allowing them to file declarations with the declarant’s name redacted, which Charging Parties assert is necessary to prevent the District from retaliating against the declarants.

Disposition: The Board held that because Charging Parties declined to produce declarations of District employees who allegedly did not receive the e-mail notice, there was no material factual dispute over whether the District e-mailed the Notice to the entire certificated bargaining unit. Thus, the Board denied the appeal and affirmed the administrative determination.


Decision No. 2627a

Organization: Oroville Union High School District

Case No.: SA-CE-2843-E

Issued date:  October 22, 2021

Precedential

Description:  The Board issued a modified decision in this matter after the Third District Court of Appeal partially vacated a portion of the original decision. The court found that the Oroville Union High School District did not violate the Educational Employment Relations Act by requiring two Oroville Secondary Teachers Association bargaining team members to use Personal Necessity Leave to engage in Association business. The Third District affirmed the Board’s conclusion that EERA section 3543.1, subdivision (c) provides a reasonable amount of released time for negotiations preparation.

Disposition:  The Board issued a modified decision in accordance with the order of the Third District Court of Appeal in Oroville Union High School District v. Public Employment Relations Board (Aug. 20, 2021, C089108) [nonpub. opn.].)