CPER
California Public Employee Relations...since 1969
Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, UC Berkeley

California's number one resource for employer/employee relations

CPER Online PERB Decisions by Act and Case Name

 

DILLS ACT CASES

California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. v. State of California [Dept. of Corrections & Rehabilitation] No. 2156-S/CPER 202 online

The charge failed to include sufficient allegations of interference with protected rights and of a unilateral change in a past practice, and was appropriately dismissed.

 

California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. v. State of California [Dept. of Corrections & Rehabilitation], No. 2250-S/CPER 206 online

Because the board agent’s dismissal of the charge failed to address CCPOA’s allegation that the department did not meet and negotiate in good faith over the effects of scheduling changes affecting correctional officers, the board remanded this allegation to the general counsel.

 

California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. v. State of California [Dept. of Personnel Administration], No. 2106a-S/CPER 202 online

PERB Dec. No. 2106-S is vacated. The board will assess whether allegations state a prima facie case of discrimination and/or interference by applying three distinct standards: one for reprisals against individual employees; one for interference with employees’ rights, and one for discrimination between two groups of employees.

 

California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. v. State of California [Dept. of Personnel Administration], No. 2130-S/CPER 203 online

Dills Act Sec. 3517.8(b) authorizes the state to implement “any or all” of the provisions of its last, best, and final offer of settlement following a bargaining impasse, provided that the bargaining rights of the exclusive representative are not waived or limited. Here, DPA’s failure to implement a LBFO provision concerning activist released time did not violate the act.

 

California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. v. State of California [Dept. of Personnel Administration/Dept. of Corrections & Rehabilitation], No. 2197-S/CPER 204 online

In light of the parties’ settlement, the request to withdraw the exceptions to the ALJ’s proposed decision and to dismiss the complaint was granted.

 

Gutierrez v. Service Employees International Union, Loc. 1000, No. 2191-S/CPER 203 online

The charging party failed to plead sufficient facts to demonstrate that the union abused its discretion, or that its conduct was without a rational basis or devoid of honest judgment.

 

Gutierrez v. State of California [Board of Equalization], No. 2237-S/CPER 206 online

Accepting the ALJ’s credibility determinations and her legal conclusions, the proposed decision dismissing the complaint alleging retaliation for protected activity and denial of Weingarten rights was upheld.

 

McGuire v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Loc. 2620, No. 2286-S/CPER No. 208 online

The charging party failed to allege sufficient facts to demonstrate a prima facie case of the union’s breach of its duty of fair representation.

 

Service Employees International Union, Loc. 1000 v.State of California [Dept. of Developmental Services], No. 2234-S/CPER 206 online

The union’s failure to allege that it previously and exclusively performed the work transferred from its bargaining unit resulted in dismissal of its charge; the allegation that the department failed to bargain regarding the installation of surveillance cameras was untimely filed.

 

Service Employees International Union,  Loc. 1000 v. State of California [Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation], No. 2282-S/CPER No. 208 online

A job steward’s speech and conduct while serving as an employee’s representative during a disciplinary meeting was protected activity, and the discipline imposed by the department for that behavior violated Secs. 3519(a) and (b) of the Dills Act.

 

Service Employees International Union, Loc. 1000 v. State of California [Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation], No. 2285-S/CPER No. 208 online

The department interfered with the right of an employee to participate in protected activity and with the union’s right to represent employees in their employment relations with the state when it ordered a union steward to cease investigating a potential grievance.

 

State of California, IT Bargaining Unit 22, and Service Employees International Union, Loc. 1000, CSEA, No. 2178-S/CPER 203 online

The petition to sever certain employee classifications from State Bargaining Unit 1 was properly dismissed because the petitioner failed to demonstrate that its proposed unit was more appropriate than the existing one.

 

State of California, Peace Officers of California, and California Statewide Law Enforcement Assn., No. 2214-S/CPER 205 online

The board denied the severance petition filed by the Peace Officers of California because the Dills Act does not include language that gives peace officers the right to belong to an employee organization composed solely of peace officers and the POC failed to demonstrate that the proposed bargaining unit was more appropriate than the existing unit.

 

Union of American Physicians and Dentists v. State of California [Dept. of Personnel Administration], No. 2210-S/CPER 204 online

The Dills Act does not limit the legislature’s authority to enact unilateral changes to terms and conditions of employment regardless of funding source.

 

Whitney v. County of Riverside, No. 2184-M/CPER 203 online

The charging party engaged in protected activity when he sought the assistance of his union representative; however, the evidence did not demonstrate that the county’s decision to release him from his probationary position was unlawfully motivated. The evidence showed the county would have terminated his employment even if he had not engaged in protected activity.

 

 

EERA CASES

Abram v. Chula Vista Elementary School Dist., No. 2221/CPER 205 online

The district denied the charging party’s reapplication for a support provider position because she was a union activist; the district failed to show it would have denied her the position absent her protected activity.

 

Adams v. United Teachers of Los Angeles, No. 2205-E/CPER 204 online

The charging party failed to demonstrate that the board agent held a fixed anticipatory prejudgment against him that would establish a basis for disqualification.

 

Baprawski v. Los Angeles Community College Dist., No. 2219/CPER 205 online

The charging party failed to demonstrate that she suffered an adverse action when the district changed her work location or that the office move was taken in retaliation for her protected activities.

 

Berkeley Council of Classified Employees v. Berkeley Unified School Dist., No. 2268/CPER 207 online

The district’s proposal seeking to recoup erroneous wage payments by paycheck deduction is inconsistent with state laws and is a non-mandatory subject of bargaining. Insisting to impasse violated its duty to negotiate in good faith.

 

Bonner v. Charter Oak Unified School Dist., No. 2159/CPER 202 online

The charge alleging that the district forced the charging party into retirement in retaliation for her protected activities was untimely filed.

 

Bussman v. Alvord Educators Assn., No. 2189/CPER 203 online

The dismissal of a charge for failure to state a prima facie case does not serve to collaterally estop a subsequent charge raising the same issues. However, the charging party’s subsequent charge is untimely.

 

California School Employees Assn. and its Chap. 354 v. Red Bluff Union High School Dist., No. 2193/CPER 204 online

The association’s request to withdraw the complaint and underlying unfair practice charge was granted.

 

Castaic Union School Dist. and CSEA Chap. 401, No. Ad-384/CPER 205 online

The association’s unit modification petition to add part-time playground monitors to its unit of classified employees is denied because the Education Code withholds from noon-duty aides who do not otherwise work for the district the status of classified employees; there is no community of interest between noon-duty aides and classified cmployees. (Note: After this decision, the legislature amended Gov. Code Sec. 3540.1(e) to change the definition of “exclusive representative” and “public school employer” so that EERA covers employees of Joint Powers Agencies and those who are neither classified nor certificated.)

 

Cauble v. Barstow College Faculty Assn., No. 2256/CPER 206 online

The charging party failed to demonstrate good cause for consideration of new allegations presented for the first time on appeal.

 

Centinela Valley Union High School Dist. v. Centinela Valley Secondary Teachers Assn., No. 2270/CPER 207 online

The board denied the district’s appeal of a board agent’s dismissal of its unfair practice charge because the district failed to identify the issues to which the appeal was taken.

 

Chukwu v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., No. 2269/CPER 207 online

The board granted the charging party’s request to withdraw his appeal of the partial dismissal of his unfair practice charge.

 

Coalinga-Huron Joint Unified School Dist. and Coalinga-Huron Teachers Assn., No. 2180/CPER 203 online

The board granted the district’s request to withdraw its appeal of the ALJ’s proposed decision granting the association’s unit modification petition.

 

Collins v. Oxnard Union High School Dist., No. 2265/CPER 207 online

The charge failed to state a prima facie case of retaliation or interference. On appeal, the charging party merely reiterated the allegations asserted in the unfair practice charge and did not reference any portion of the dismissal said to form the basis for her appeal.

 

Collins v. Oxnard Federation of Teachers, No. 2266/CPER 207 online

The charge failed to allege sufficient facts in support of the claim that the federation breached its duty of fair representation by refusing to pursue a grievance to arbitration or interfering with her rights by threatening her.

 

Corrigan v. Federation of United School Employees, Loc. 1212, No. Ad-395/CPER No. 208 online

The charging party failed to demonstrate good cause for failing to file a timely appeal of the dismissal of his charge.

 

Council of Classified Employees/AFT, Loc. 4522 v. Palomar Community College Dist., No. 2213/CPER 204 online

The district did not make a unilateral change in policy when it processed a letter of reprimand under the terms of a side letter that predated the MOU.

 

Davis v. California School Employees Assn. and its Chap. 724, No. 2208/CPER 204 online

The charging party failed to demonstrate that the association breached its duty of fair presentation by failing to adequately assist her in processing various complaints concerning her employment with the San Diego USD.

 

Erwin v. California School Employees Assn., No. 2240/CPER 206 online

The charging party’s contention that the association breached its duty of fair representation by reaching a settlement agreement on behalf of another employee that was unfavorable to him does not state a prima facie case.

 

Fallbrook Elementary Teachers Assn. v. Fallbrook Union Elementary School Dist., No. 2171/CPER 205 online

The charging party failed to demonstrate the district decided not to reemploy a second-grade teacher because of her work as a union site representative.

 

Garchow et al. v. Standard School Dist., No. 2273/CPER 207 online

The six-month statute of limitations in public notice cases begins to run when the charging party is put on notice of the district’s intent to sunshine its proposals or when the proposals are sunshined in a manner inconsistent with statutory requirements.

 

Grace v. Beaumont Teachers Assn./CTA, No. 2259/CPER 206 online

The association’s alleged failure to represent an employee in her claim that the district failed to comply with applicable Education Code requirements was outside the scope of its duty of fair representation.

 

Grace v. Beaumont Teachers Assn./CTA, No. 2260/CPER 206 online

The association’s failure to file a timely level III grievance did not breach its duty of fair representation where the contract permits the employee to advance her claim independent of the union.

 

Harris v. SEIU, Loc.1021, No. 2275/CPER 207 online

The charging party failed to allege sufficient facts supporting his claim that the union failed to satisfy its duty of fair representation with respect to an FMLA request.

 

Hayek et al. v. Baldwin Park Education Assn., No. 2223/CPER 205 online

Because the exclusive representative enjoys a wide range of bargaining latitude, a showing that the collective bargaining agreement negotiated by the union and the employer has an unfavorable effect on some members of the bargaining unit is not sufficient to demonstrate a breach of the duty of fair representation.

 

Heron v. Santa Ana Unified School Dist., No. 2235/CPER 206 online

The charging party engaged in protected activity, but failed to establish that the district would not have dismissed him from his position as a substitute teacher but for that conduct; the record established the charging party was removed because he falsified his timecard.

 

Hood v. Fillmore Unified Teachers Assn., No. 2274/CPER 207 online

The charging party’s allegations that the collective bargaining agreement forged by the association and the school district unfavorably impacted his relationship with his employer were not sufficient to show a breach of the association’s duty of fair representation.

 

Inglewood Unified School Dist. v. Inglewood Teachers Assn., No. 2290/CPER No. 208 online

The timely allegations in the charge failed to demonstrate that the association was under an obligation to bargain.

 

Lagos v. United Educators of San Francisco, No. 2232/CPER 206 online

Because the charging party submitted his amended charge to the board prior to the deadline imposed by the board agent, PERB did not uphold dismissal and instead remanded the case to the general counsel for further investigation.

 

Lake Elsinore Teachers Assn., CTA v. Lake Elsinore Unified School Dist., No. 2241/CPER 206 online

The association failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the reason the district did not reelect a probationary teacher was because he had served as a member of the union bargaining team.

 

Lucas v. Rio Teachers Assn., No. 2157/CPER 202 online

The charging party’s allegation that the association failed to provide her the 2009 financial reports under Sec. 3546.5 was timely filed. Claims of non-compliance with that section for fiscal years 2000 through 2008, when the charging party was not a member of the association, were untimely.

 

Lukkarila v. Jurupa Unified School Dist., No. 2283/CPER No. 208 online

The charging party timely filed a charge alleging sufficient facts to support a prima facie case that the district retaliated against her for engaging in protected activity and interfered with her rights conveyed by EERA.

 

Mendocino County Federation of School Employees, American Federation of Teachers, Local 4345 v. Mendocino County Office of Education, No. 2200/CPER 204 online

AFT’s request to withdraw its appeal of the dismissal of its unfair practice charge was granted.

 

Milner v. California School Employees Assn., No. 2224/CPER 205 online

The charging party’s allegations that the association failed to file a grievance contesting a change in her lunch schedule, did not pursue race-based discrimination charges against her employer, and did not file a grievance concerning a written reprimand failed to state a prima facie case of a breach of the duty of fair representation.

 

Mutual Organization of Supervisors v. Fairfield-Suisun Unified School Dist., No. 2262/CPER 207 online

The district unilaterally changed the progressive discipline provision of the parties’ contract when it enforced a “zero tolerance” regulation and terminated an employee for failure to submit to a random drug and alcohol test. The union did not waive its right to negotiate because it did not receive notice of the policy.

 

Orcutt Union Elementary School Dist. and Orcutt Education Assn., CTA/NEA, No. 2183/CPER 203 online

The district failed to demonstrate that teachers in its charter school did not share a community of interest with the teachers in its other schools. Therefore, the association’s unit modification petition was granted.

 

Pasadena City College Faculty Assn. v. Pasadena Area Community College Dist., No. 2218/CPER 205 online

The association failed to establish that the district violated the act because it made no request to negotiate the effects of the district’s decision to reduce the number of intersession classes.

 

Peavy v. AFT Part-Time Faculty United, Loc. 6286, No. 2194/CPER 204 online

The union’s decision not to represent the charging party or take his grievance to arbitration was not devoid of honest judgment, and did not deprive him of his right to pursue his claim on his own behalf.

 

Perez v. California School Employees Assn. and its Chap. 746, No. 2187/CPER 203 online

The charging party failed to file a timely appeal to the board agent’s dismissal of his charge alleging a duty of fair representation breach, and failed to allege a procedural, factual, or legal basis for his appeal.

 

Raines v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., No. 2244/CPER 206 online

The charging party alleged sufficient facts linking her protected activity to the district’s decision to bar her from serving as a substitute teacher at a school where she had worked more than her average number of days.

 

Sanders v. Los Angeles County Education Assn., No. 2264/CPER 207 online

The association’s decision not to file a grievance on the charging party’s behalf did not breach its duty of fair representation.

 

Santa Barbara Community College Dist. and Teamsters Local Union No. 186, No. 2212/CPER 204 online

The dean of instruction and the senior director of international studies are managerial employees and should not be included in the petitioned-for unit.

 

Santa Monica College Faculty Assn. v. Santa Monica Community College Dist. No. 2243/CPER 206 online

The district did not bargain in bad faith; its refusal to comply with the ground rule requiring the parties to sign off on tentative agreements first occurred outside the statute of limitations period and was not a continuing violation that retained its unlawful character into the six-month limitations period.

 

Santa Monica College Faculty Assn. v. Santa Monica Community College Dist., No. Ad-393-E/CPER 206 online

The district’s untimely filing of its response to the faculty association’s appeal was excused because the district conscientiously tried to timely file its response.

 

Service Employees International Union, Loc. 1021 v. Sonoma County Office of Education, No. 2160-E/CPER 202 online

Because the parties’ collective bargaining agreement did not obligate the employer to maintain a specific level of heathcare benefits, the increase in premiums after the contract expired was not a unilateral change.

 

Stever v. Palos Verdes Faculty Assn., No. 2289/CPER No. 208 online

The charging party presented new evidence and factual allegations to the board that could have been presented to the board agent prior to the dismissal of her charge; the board upheld the dismissal.

 

Trotter v. San Bernardino City Unified School Dist., No. 2278/CPER 207 online

The charging party filed an untimely charge and did not allege sufficient facts demonstrating that the district violated the act.

 

Victor Valley Community College Dist. and Police Officers Assn., Victor Valley Community College Dist.-Police Dept. and California School Employees Assn., and its Chap. 584, Ad-No. 388a/CPER 202 online

The board denied the request of the association to reconsider the dismissal of the association’s petition to sever most of the campus police officers and campus reserve officers from the existing bargaining unit.

 

Walker v. California School Employees Assn. and its Chap. 724, No. 2220/CPER 205 online

The charging party failed to demonstrate that the association breached its duty of fair representation.

 

 

HEERA CASES

California Faculty Assn. v. Trustees of the California State University, No. 2287-H/CPER No. 208 online

The reasonably foreseeable prospective effects of a non-negotiable management decision are negotiable.

 

California State University Employees Union v. Trustees of the California State University [San Marcos], No. 2195-H/CPER 204 online

Because the underlying unfair practice charge was withdrawn under the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement, the board ordered that the charge and complaint be withdrawn, the complaint be dismissed, and the proposed ALJ decision be vacated despite the parties’ failure to request withdrawal of the appeal.

 

Coalition of University Employees v. Regents of the University of California [Davis], No. 2101a-H/CPER 202 online

The union’s request for reconsideration was partially granted because the board’s order should have included a make-whole remedy discussed in the decision.

 

Coalition of University Employees v. Regents of the University of California [Irvine], No. 2177-H/CPER 202 online

The university did not discriminate against represented employees when it granted non-represented employees a $600 bonus. Nor did this interfere with employees’ protected rights to be represented by the union.

 

Coalition of University Employees v. Regents of the University of California [Irvine], No. 2255-H/CPER 206 online

The charging party’s request to withdraw its unfair practice charge was granted by the board.

 

Coalition of University Employees v. Regents of the University of California [Santa Barbara], No. 2254-H/CPER 206 online

The charging party’s request to withdraw its unfair practice charge due to a settlement agreement reached by the parties was granted by the board.

 

Coalition of University Employees, Loc. 4, v. Regents of the University of California [Los Angeles], No. 2257-H/CPER 206 online

The board granted the charging party’s request to withdraw its unfair practice charge.

 

Kyrias v. CSU Employees Union, SEIU Loc. 2579, No. 2175-H/CPER 202 online

The allegation that the union breached its duty of fair representation when it failed to make a timely request to take the charging party’s grievance to arbitration refers to conduct that occurred more than six months prior to the filing of the charge.

 

Regents of the University of California and Coalition of University Employees, No. 2185-H/CPER 203 online

The newly acquired duties of incumbents in 14 positions reflect the exercise of independent judgment and professional skills; they no longer share a community of interest with employees in the clerical bargaining unit represented by CUE.

 

Regents of the University of California v. Coalition of University Employees, Order No. JR-26-H/CPER 204 online

Because the union did not present a unique issue of special importance, the board denied its request for judicial review.

 

Regents of the University of California and Federated University Police Officers Assn., No. 2217-H/CPER 205 online

The university met its burden of demonstrating that police sergeants are supervisors within the meaning of HEERA and must be excluded from the bargaining unit of rank-and-file police officers.

 

Scholz v. Trustees of the California State University [Long Beach], No. 2201-H/CPER 204 online

The charging party’s request for repugnancy review of an arbitrator’s award was untimely filed but, if considered, did not demonstrate that the arbitrator’s decision was clearly repugnant to the purposes of HEERA.

 

Witke v. UPTE-CWA Local 9119, No. 2253-H/CPER 206 online

A board agent investigating an unfair practice charge may use ex parte communications as a means of investigating the charge; an orally sought request for an extension of time was permitted absent a showing of prejudice to the charging party. PERB has no jurisdiction over a charge alleging an arbitrator failed to give notice of an agency fee arbitration.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Amalgamated Transit Union, Loc. 1605 v. Central Contra Costa Transit Authority, No. 2263-M/CPER 207 online

The transit authority, a joint powers agency, is subject to PERB’s jurisdiction as a public agency under the MMBA.

 

Brewington v. County of Riverside, No. 2090-M/CPER 202 online

The county retaliated against the charging party by taking adverse action, including termination, against him because he engaged in protected activities.

 

Bruno v. County of Contra Costa, No. 2174-M/CPER 202 online

While the charge alleged that the charging party engaged in protected activity and suffered an adverse action when she was laid off, the charge did not allege the administrators who made the decisions that culminated in the layoff were aware of her protected activity or acted in retaliation for her protected activity.

 

Carlsbad City Employees Assn. v. City of Carlsbad, No. 2276-M/CPER 207 online

An unfair practice charge that was dismissed before the charging party filed a timely amendment to its charge was remanded to the general counsel for further processing.

 

City of Inglewood, Inglewood Police Civilians Assn., and SEIU, Loc. 721, No. Ad-390-M/CPER 204 online

Because the city’s local rules provide a process to achieve severance from an existing bargaining unit that does not place an undue burden on the petitioner seeking severance, the board lacks jurisdiction to entertain the association’s severance petition.

 

City of Palmdale and Teamsters Loc. 911, No. 2203-M/CPER 204 online

The maintenance division lead workers share a community of interest with the crews they oversee and are appropriately included in the petitioned-for unit.

 

City of San Jose v. Association of Building, Mechanical, and Electrical Inspectors, No. 2141-M/CPER 205 online

The association violated the MMBA when it picketed at four private construction sites, thereby putting undue pressure on the city to accede to its bargaining demands.

 

Chow v. Service Employees International Union, Loc. 521, No. 2186-M/CPER 205 online

The charging party failed to allege sufficient facts to support her claim that the union breached its duty of fair representation by failing to assist her in rectifying what she perceived as a hostile work environment.

 

Committee of Interns & Residents/SEIU v. County of Riverside, No. 2176-M/CPER 202 online

The charge alleging that the county’s denial of the union’s request for recognition violated the MMBA and the county’s local rules was filed more than six months after the county denied the union’s request. Subsequent communication from the county merely reiterated its prior position and was not a continuing violation.

 

Crandell v. City and County of San Francisco, No. 2206-M/CPER 204 online

The charging party failed to demonstrate that the city violated the act by stalking him and photographing him using cell-phone cameras during work time in retaliation for filing reports with city officials.

 

Crandell v. City and County of San Francisco, No. 2207-M/CPER 204 online

The charging party failed to demonstrate that the city terminated his employment in retaliation for filing reports with city officials.

 

Crandell v. Service Employees International Union, Loc. 1021, No. 2169-M//CPER 202 online

The charging party failed to allege sufficient facts to support his allegation that the union breached its duty of fair representation by failing to arbitrate his suspension and termination. His amended charge was not timely filed.

 

Crandell v. Service Employees International Union, Loc. 1021, No. 2202-M/CPER 204 online

The charging party failed to allege sufficient facts to demonstrate that the union breached its duty of fair representation.

 

Davis City Employees Assn. v. City of Davis, No. 2271-M/CPER 207 online

The city violated the MMBA when it unilaterally bypassed the impasse procedure established by local rules and took its last, best, and final offer to the city council for final resolution of the parties’ bargaining impasse.

 

Fowles v.Office and Professional Employees International Union, Loc. 29, Nos. 2236-M, 2236a-M/CPER 206 online

The board ordered issuance of a complaint based on the charging party’s allegation that the union failed to notify her of her right as an agency fee payer not to become a union member.

 

Glendale City Employees Assn. v. City of Glendale, No. 2251-M/CPER 206 online

A board agent dismissed the charge that the city failed to bargain in good faith with the association. The board adopted the board agent’s decision and refused to consider a retaliation charge raised for the first time on appeal.

 

Gordon v. City of Santa Monica, No. 2246-M/CPER 206 online

The unfair practice charge and a series of amendments to the original charge failed to include sufficient factual allegations that occurred within the six-month statute of limitations period. An individual does not have standing to file charges on behalf of the union or other employees.

 

Gutierrez v. SEIU Loc. 221, No. 2277-M/CPER 207 online

The union did not retaliate against the charging party for seeking to persuade his coworkers to drop their full union membership and become agency fee payers; the decision to suspend his union membership for two years was reasonable.

 

Harper v. Alameda County Management Employees Assn., No. 2198-M/CPER 204 online

The unfair practice charge was timely filed, but the association did not breach its duty of fair representation because the charging party was not a member of the bargaining unit.

 

Hayes v. Antelope Valley Hospital Dist., No. 2167-M/CPER 202 online

Despite assistance by the board agent, the charging party failed to allege sufficient facts to provide a clear and concise statement of the facts in support of his unfair practice allegations.

 

Hayes v. SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, Loc. 2005, No. 2168-M/CPER 202 online

The charging party failed to allege sufficient facts to support his allegation that the union breached its duty of fair representation.

 

Hitchcock v. County of Orange, No. 2155-M/CPER 202 online

Because the charging party was terminated after the expiration of the memorandum of understanding, he did not have a right to participate in arbitration, and his claim that the county’s failure to arbitrate his grievance was unlawful interference was appropriately dismissed.

 

Horan v. Service Employees International Union, Loc. 1021, No. 2204-M/CPER 204 online

The charging party failed to allege sufficient facts to support his claim that the union breached its duty of fair representation.

 

Hosny v. IFPTE, Local 21, AFL-CIO, No. 2192-M/CPER 203 online

The charging party failed to show good cause why the board should consider new supporting evidence first produced on appeal that concerned events predating the dismissal of the charge. The underlying charge was filed well after the six-month statute of limitations.

 

Jacala v. Service Employees International Union, Loc. 1021, No. 2188-M/CPER 203 online

The charging party failed to demonstrate that the union breached its duty of fair representation by the manner in which it represented her in her dispute with her supervisor.

 

Jaroslawsky v. City and County of San Francisco, No. 2222-M/CPER 205 online

PERB lacks jurisdiction to address the charging party’s age discrimination claim. Her allegations that the city violated her Weingarten right to union representation and retaliated against her for engaging in protected activity failed to state a prima facie case.

 

Jones v. County of Santa Clara, No. 2267-M/CPER 207 online

The charging party’s exceptions to the ALJ’s proposed decision provided no basis for reversing the dismissal of the charge.

 

Joshua v. SEIU Loc. 1021, No. 2225-M/CPER 205 online

The charging party failed to allege sufficient facts to demonstrate that the union failed to file a contractual grievance on his behalf, that the manner in which the union processed his grievance precluded him from obtaining a remedy, or that the alleged violation of the union bylaws impacted the employer-employee relationship.

 

Laborers International Union of North America, Loc. 777 v. County of Riverside, No. 2248-M/CPER 206 online

The parties settled the dispute underlying the unfair practice charge, and the board granted the union’s request to withdraw its appeal of a board agent’s partial dismissal of the charge.

 

Larsen-Orta v. City of Berkeley, No. 2281-M/CPER No. 208 online

The charging party’s allegation that she was terminated by the city because of protected activity was untimely filed, and she failed to demonstrate entitlement to the doctrine of equitable tolling.

 

McKnight v. City of Santa Monica, No. 2211-M/CPER 204 online

The charging party failed to demonstrate that he was released from his probationary position because he engaged in protected activity. His poor performance formed the basis for termination.

 

Moore v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 36, No. 2165-M/CPER 207 online

The charging party’s allegation that the association failed to represent him in his dispute with the employer was untimely filed. Even assuming the charge was timely, it failed to state a prima facie case of a breach of the duty of fair representation.

 

Moore v. Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles, No. 2166-M/CPER 207 online

The charge was untimely and failed to state a prima facie case that HACLA interfered with his right to union representation or retaliated against him by refusing to allow him to return to his position following a medical leave.

 

National Union of Healthcare Workers v. SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, No. 2249-M/CPER 206 online

The National Union of Healthcare Workers alleged sufficient factual allegations to support its charge that unnamed agents of SEIU interfered with employees’ right to freely select a bargaining representative during a decertification election.

 

National Union of Healthcare Workers v. SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, No. 2249a-M/CPER 207 online

The board denied SEIU’s request for reconsideration of its decision to issue a complaint based on claims that it interfered with the conduct of a decertification election.

 

Nnachi v. City and County of San Francisco, No. Ad-391-M/CPER 205 online

The charging party failed to allege that the city demoted him in retaliation for his protected activity. His charge was untimely, but the late filing was excused because an original envelope proved he mailed his appeal timely.

 

O’Keefe v. Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation Dist., No. 2209-M/CPER 204 online

The charging party failed to demonstrate that the district took adverse action against him for engaging in protected activity.

 

O’Keefe v. Inlandboatmen’s Union of the Pacific, No. 2199-M/CPER 204 online

The charging party failed to allege sufficient facts to establish that a reprimand issued to him by the union constituted an adverse action affecting his employment and the basis for a prima facie case of retaliation.

 

Operating Engineers Loc. Union No. 3 v. City of Hughson, No. 2158-M/CPER 202 online

Having settled their dispute, the exceptions filed by the city were withdrawn, the proposed decision of the administrative law judge vacated, and the case dismissed with prejudice.

 

Pecore v. Fallbrook Public Utility Dist., No. 2229-M/CPER 206 online

Although the board agent did not receive the charging party’s amended charge until after the deadline, the charging party provided the board with proof of service, signed under penalty of perjury, that the charge had been mailed prior to the deadline and thereby demonstrated good cause to excuse the late filing.

 

Quinn v. County of Santa Barbara, No. 2279-M/CPER No. 208 online

Some allegations were untimely, but the charging party alleged sufficient facts to support a prima facie case of retaliation for his activities as a shop steward and for filing grievances on his own behalf.

 

Riverside County Attorneys Assn. v. County of Riverside, No. 2228-M/CPER 205 online

The association failed to demonstrate why the county’s decision not to create a bargaining unit consisting of employees serving in the position of deputy county counsel was a violation of the act and why the dismissal of that allegation should be overturned.

 

Riverside Sheriffs’ Assn. v. County of Riverside, No. 2239-M/CPER 206 online

The county’s rule requiring a showing of support from 15 percent of the donor unit in order to effectuate a unit modification is unreasonable, and the county’s denial of the association’s unit modification petitions on that basis is unlawful.

 

Rosa v. California Nurses Assn., No. 2182-M/CPER 203 online

The charging party failed to show that the association breached its duty of fair representation or that CNA’s conduct extinguished her right to pursue a claim against her employer.

 

Sahle v. SEIU Loc. 1021, No. 2261-M/CPER 207 online

The union did not fail to represent the charging party in his claim that an agreement had been reached with his employer to promote him to a higher classification. The unalleged violation concerning the union’s failure to seek a reclassification on the charging party’s behalf was not fully litigated before the ALJ.

 

Salas v. City of Alhambra, No. 2161-M/CPER 205 online

The charging party’s comments at a meeting about his supervisor were not protected activity; even if his remarks were protected, the city demonstrated it would have rejected him on probation absent any protected activity because of his poor work behavior.

 

San Juan Capistrano Management & Professional Employees Assn. v. City of San Juan Capistrano, No. 2238-M/CPER 206 online

Violations of personnel rules, absent a showing of generalized effect or continuing impact on the bargaining unit, are processed as grievances and are outside the board’s jurisdiction.

 

Scholink v. SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, No. 2172-M/CPER 202 online

Because the six-month statute of limitations began to run when the charging party learned of the letter of understanding executed by SEIU and his employer, not at a later date when he understood the significance of the agreement, the charge is untimely.

 

 

Service Employees International Union, Loc. 221 v. County of San Diego, No. 2258-H/CPER 206 online

The union failed to adequately allege that the county retaliated against a union steward by involuntarily transferring him because he engaged in protected activity known to relevant county officials.

 

Service Employees International Union, Loc. 620 v. City of Guadalupe, No. 2170-M/CPER 202 online

The personnel commission’s final and binding ruling was not repugnant to the purposes of the act and, therefore, the board deferred to its ruling.

 

Service Employees International Union, Loc. 721 v. County of Riverside, No. 2233-M/CPER 206 online

Non-employee union representatives have a presumptive right of access to public facilities, and the burden of proof to demonstrate the reasonableness of its restrictions falls on the employer.

 

Service Employees International Union,  Loc. 721 v. County of Riverside, No. 2280-M/CPER No. 208 online

The county was required to process the union’s unit modification petition under its existing local rules that do not require a showing of support among the employees the union seeks to add to existing bargaining units it represents.

 

Service Employees International Union, Loc. 721 v. County of Ventura [Office of Agricultural Commissioner], No. 2227-M/CPER 205 online

The county’s unilateral decision to reduce the hours of a bargaining unit employee was permissible because the plain language of the parties’ MOU gives the county the right to reduce employee hours.

 

Service Employees International Union, Loc. 1021 v. City of Redding, No. 2190-M/CPER 203 online

The city violated the act when it refused to provide the union with investigative reports that examined charges of harassment and general working conditions of its customer service representatives.

 

Service Employees International Union, Loc. 1021 v. County of Calaveras; Calaveras County Public Safety Employees Assn., intervener, No. 2252-M/CPER 206 online

The local rule precluding a mixed bargaining unit comprised of peace officers and non-peace officers is unreasonable, and its enforcement would be contrary to the provisions of the MMBA.

 

Service Employees International Union, Loc. 1021 and County of Sonoma, No. 2242-M/CPER 206 online

The union failed to demonstrate the existence of a contractual requirement or binding past practice linking retiree health benefit contributions to those of active bargaining unit employees. The evidence showed that retiree benefits were tied to those of unrepresented management employees and had been so linked for 20 years.

 

Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, Loc. 2005 v. West Contra Costa County Healthcare Dist., No. 2164-M/CPER 202 online

The charging party failed to allege sufficient facts to show that a lead person who exercised some supervisory authority was acting or appeared to be acting on behalf of the employer when he circulated a petition calling for restrictions on SEIU’s access rights during a decertification election.

 

Smith v. SEIU United Long-Term Care Workers, No. 2247-M/CPER 206 online

The unfair practice charge failed to allege that the union’s decision not to pursue a grievance on her behalf violated its duty of fair representation.

 

Sonoma County Law Enforcement Assn. v. County of Sonoma, No. 2173-M/CPER 202 online

The county did not unilaterally change the manner by which it calculated retiree health benefit contributions.

 

Stanislaus Consolidated Firefighters, Loc. 3399 v. Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection Dist., No. 2231-M/CPER 206 online

The charging party alleged sufficient facts to demonstrate the district unilaterally repudiated a contract provision that provided employee access rights and abolished a policy permitting a union time bank for organization purposes, interfered with employee rights, and retaliated against the union for filing grievances.

 

Stanislaus Consolidated Firefighters, Loc. 3399 v. Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection Dist., No. 2231a-M/CPER 207 online

Defenses relating to arbitration of a dispute similar to the underlying charge are not grounds for reconsideration of the board’s decision where they were not raised previously and there is no authority supporting collateral estoppel of issues decided in arbitration.

 

Stanislaus Consolidated Firefighters, Loc. 3399 v. Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection Dist., No. Ad-392-M/CPER 207 online

Good cause to excuse the late filing was not demonstrated.

 

Stanislaus Consolidated Firefighters, Loc. 3399 v. Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection Dist., No. Ad-394/CPER 207 online

The request for reconsideration was deemed untimely, and the board’s order was made final.

 

Stationary Engineers Loc. 39, IUOE, AFL-CIO v. City of Lincoln, No. 2284-M/CPER No. 208 online

The city council satisfied the requirement of the MMBA that it make a determination about a tentative agreement with the union when it directed city staff to continue to negotiate.

 

Teamsters Loc. 150, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Rio Linda/Elverta Community Water Dist., No. 2230-M/CPER 206 online

The union’s request to withdraw its appeal of a dismissal of its unfair practice charge and the underlying charge was granted by the board following a settlement agreement between the parties.

 

Terris v. County of Santa Barbara, No. 2181-M/CPER 205 online

PERB lacks jurisdiction to entertain an unfair practice charge alleging retaliation against a management employee. To challenge an alleged improper management classification, the charging party must use the local unit modification process.

 

Union of American Physicians & Dentists v. County of Ventura, No. 2272-M/CPER 207 online

The issue of the county’s joint employer status over physicians employed at its satellite clinics was remanded to the ALJ for issuance of an expedited proposed decision.

 

United Professional Firefighters, Loc. 1230 v. City of Pinole, No. 2288-M/CPER No. 208 online

The charge failed to allege sufficient facts in support of the charging party’s claims that the city failed to provide information, engaged in surface bargaining, made an unlawful unilateral change, and improperly implemented its last, best, and final offer. The charging party stated a viable legal theory in support of the union’s assertion that the city insisted to impasse on a non-mandatory subject of bargaining.

 

Warren v. Service Employees International Union, Loc. 1021, No. 2215-M/CPER 205 online

The charging party failed to allege sufficient facts showing that the union breached its duty of fair representation when it declined to file a grievance on her behalf.

 

 

TRIAL COURT ACT CASES

California Federation of Interpreters, Loc. 39521 v. Los Angeles Superior Court, No. 2179-I/CPER 203 online

The board granted the parties’ request to withdraw and dismiss the court’s appeal and to vacate the ALJ’s proposed decision.

 

Haines v. Marin County Superior Court, No. 2216-C/CPER 205 online

The charging party lacked standing to allege that the court failed to provide the union with sufficient and timely notice of its intended reduction in force. There was no showing that the charging party was subject to layoff for engaging in protected activity or that the layoff interfered with her rights under the Trial Court Act.

 

Williams v. Operating Engineers Loc. 3, No. 2226-C/CPER 205 online

The charging party failed to allege sufficient facts to demonstrate that, as a court supervisor, she was not a management employee outside the protections afforded by the Trial Court Employment Protection and Governance Act and beyond PERB’s jurisdiction. This case was upheld in Williams v. Public Employment Relations Board (California Faculty Assn.) (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 1119, 2012 Cal.App.LEXIS 394, CPER 206 online.

 

Zhang v. California Media Workers Guild/CWA/Loc. 39521, No. 2245-I/CPER 206 online

The charging party’s allegation that the union failed to represent her had been the subject of a prior unfair practice charge which had been dismissed; this charge was untimely filed.