Category: PERB Decision

Berkeley Unified School District (2015) PERB Decision No. 2411-E (Issued on 02/19/15)

[Note: There was a typo in my original post.  I forgot the word “not” in the second sentence below]

This case involves a teacher who alleges that he was retaliated against by his school district for engaging in protected activity.  The issue before the Board was what constitutes protected activity under EERA. Specifically, the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) had determined that the employee’s filing of a curriculum complaint was not protected activity because it was not done to enforce a collective bargaining agreement and did not involve concerted activity.

Trustees of the California State University (East Bay) (2015) PERB Decision No. 2408-H (Issued on 01/13/15)

When PERB determines that there has been an unfair practice, the traditional remedy is that the party found to have committed the unfair practice is ordered to post a notice incorporating the terms of the order. The notice in such cases states that the offending party has acted unlawfully, is being required to cease and desist from its unlawful activity, and will comply with the order.  PERB requires that the notice be posted in places where the employer customarily posts notices to employees (eg. break room bulletin boards.).

Los Angeles Community College District (2014) PERB Decision No. 2404-E (Issued on 12/24/14) In 2012, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued its decision in Banner Health System (2012) 358 N.L.R.B. No. 93, holding that a “blanket” instruction to employees to maintain confidentiality during a workplace investigation violated Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.  Section 7 provides employees the right to engage in “concerted activity” regarding their working conditions.  (Click here to view my post on Banner Health). In Los Angeles Community College District (2014) PERB Decision No. 2404-E, PERB adopted the Banner Health holding.  In this case, an…

County of Sacramento (2014) PERB Decision No. 2393-M (Issued on 10/16/14)

This case involved the Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting Division bargaining unit of the County of Sacramento.  The firefighters in this bargaining unit are represented by Local 522 of the International Association of Firefighters (Local 522).  Local 522 provides its members a “Class B” t-shirt and hat bearing the union logo. In 2011, the County issued a directive stating that t-shirts and hats bearing the union logo were not approved to be worn while on duty.  The decision referred to this rule as the “No Union Logo” policy. The union promptly filed an unfair practice charge over this policy alleging that it interfered with protected rights.