Category: California PERB Blog

If enacted, AB 553 would have denied cities and counties the right to seek injunctions directly with the courts when faced with strikes affecting health and safety. Fortunately, the bill was vetoed. Here is the Governor’s message: To the Members of the California State Assembly:I am returning Assembly Bill 553 without my signature. This bill would provide the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) with exclusive authority to determine whether public health and safety would be at risk in strike or lockout situations. Doing so would add an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy and potentially place the public at risk. Cities and…

Desert Community College District (PERB Case No. 1921-E) (8/10/07)PERB held that a community college district violated the EducationalEmployment Relations Act (EERA) when it attempted to prohibit one of its unions from discussing a Board of Trustees election at a union meeting held on campus.The key issue was whether the district’s conduct was justified by the Education Code, specifically sections 7054 and 7055. Section 7054 prohibits the use of district "funds, services, supplies, or equipment" to support or oppose ballot measures and/or candidates. PERB found this language inapplicable since the union was using the district’s “facilities.” PERB also found section 7055…

County of Imperial (PERB Dec. No. 1916M) (Issued 6/28/07)At issue in this case was a local rule requiring that in a representation election, a majority of the employees in the bargaining unit must vote in order for the vote to be valid. PERB held that the rule was “unreasonable” under the MMBA. In reaching its decision, PERB compared the language of MMBA section 3507.l (a) and 3502.5(d). The former section states that a majority of votes cast in representation elections is required, not that a majority of employees must vote. In the latter section - governing rescission elections - the…

Madera Unified School District (PERB Dec. No. 1907E) (Issued 5/25/07)Under the statutes administered by PERB, it has been generally understood that retirement benefits for current employees are within the scope of representation and thus must be negotiated. Benefits affecting current retirees, however, have been understood to be a permissive topic of bargaining.In this case, the union alleged that the employer unilaterally changed the way it calculated its monetary contribution towards health care for retirees. The Board agent dismissed the charge on the ground that the alleged change did not affect any current employees and any changes to the benefits of…

On June 28, 2007, the Governor signed AB 1194 (Karnette) which restores language in EERA section 3543 granting individuals a protected right of representation. In 2000, for reasons never explained (in reality, it was most likely a careless drafting error), the Legislature deleted the following language from EERA when it approved unrelated amendments:Public school employees shall also have the right to refuse to join or participate in the activities of employee organizations and shall have the right to represent themselves individually in their employment relations with the public school employer, except that once the employees in an appropriate unit have…