Category: PERB Decision

Anaheim Union High School District (2015) PERB Decision No. 2434-E (Issued on 6/19/15)

This is another very long decision. I’m just going to focus on one issue: One of the members of the union’s bargaining team was an employee who was in the process of being terminated by the school district (District). The allegations against the employee included harassment of other employees. The District felt that allowing the employee to be on the union’s bargaining team would intimidate or cause fear for members of the employer’s bargaining team. So the employer refused to bargain with the union if the employee at issue was on the team.

Capistrano Unified School District (2015) PERB Decision No. 2440-E (Issued on 6/30/15)

Facts:

The issue in this case was whether an employee had the right to union representation in a meeting with her supervisor. It was undisputed that the employee and supervisor had a “strained” relationship. During a telephone call in which the supervisor was trying to explain a new program, the employee became argumentative because she felt the new program was unworkable. Before the supervisor could explain the benefits of the new program, the employee hung up the phone. A few days later the supervisor went to visit the employee to make sure the employee understood the protocols for the new program. When the supervisor asked to meet privately with the employee, the employee asked for a union representative if the meeting was “going to be disciplinary.” The supervisor assured the employee that the meeting was not disciplinary and continued without responding to the employee’s request for union representation.

[Note: There have been quite a few important PERB cases in the last couple of months. Due to various litigation matters, I’ve fallen behind on blogging about them but will try to catch-up on all of them in the next few weeks.]

Los Angeles Unified School District (2015) PERB Decision No. 2438-E (Issued on 6/25/15)

Facts

When teachers are investigated by the Los Angeles Unified School District (District) for serious misconduct, they are reassigned to one of six educational service centers (ESC) during the investigation. The union wanted to bargain over the working conditions of teachers assigned to an ESC and as part of its bargaining demand, the union submitted an information request for the names of all teachers assigned to an ESC. The union alleged that it wanted to communicate with the affected teachers in order to develop its bargaining proposals. In response, the District, asserting the employees’ privacy interests, agreed to comply only after giving all affected teachers the ability to opt out of having their information released to the union. The union objected to the opt-out procedure and offered to sign a confidentiality agreement instead. The District declined the union’s offer of a confidentiality agreement and proceeded to notify the affected teachers of the union’s request and provide them an opt-out opportunity. The District eventually provided the union the names of 261 of the 276 teachers who were assigned to an ESC at any time. Fifteen employees selected the opt-out option.

County of Tulare (2015) PERB Decision No. 2414-M (Issued on 02/26/15)

The County of Tulare (County) and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) were parties to a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that expired on August 1, 2011.  The MOU contained a provision “freezing” merit increases during the term of the MOU. However, the MOU provided that “commencing the first full pay period following expiration of the agreement” any frozen merit increases would be restored. In 2011, the parties began bargaining for a successor agreement. Due to the economic environment, the County proposed a continuation of the merit increase “freeze.” SEIU refused. The parties eventually reached impasse and the County imposed its proposal to continue freezing merit increases. SEIU then filed an unfair practice charge with PERB.