Category: PERB Decision

City of Redondo Beach (2014) PERB Decision No. A409-M (Issued on 4/09/14) Since 2001, PERB has had jurisdiction to enforce the MMBA with some limited exceptions.  Two of those exceptions involve peace officers under Penal Code section 830.1 and management employees.  These two groups are not subject to PERB’s traditional powers even though they are subject to the MMBA.  (Gov. Code, §§3509(f); 3511.)  But how does this system work now that there is factfinding?  Especially with the change that allows PERB’s decision to grant or deny a factfinding request to be appealed to the Board? In this decision, PERB held…

County of Riverside (2014) PERB Decision No. 2360-M (Issued on 3/25/14)

This was the oldest case on the Board’s docket.  The facts date back to bargaining between the County and SEIU in 2009.   Basically, the County declared impasse and imposed its last, best, and final offer (LBFO).  (Note: This was before AB 646, so no factfinding was required.)  SEIU argued that the County’s imposition of its LBFO was improper because the parties were not at a genuine impasse.

Los Angeles Unified School District (2014) PERB Dec. No. 2359-E (Issued on 3/19/14)

This case involved exceptions to a proposed decision issued by an administrative law judge (ALJ).  The ALJ dismissed the underlying unfair practice charge as untimely.  In reversing the ALJ, the Board stated that, “[T]his case illustrates the flaws in Board precedent governing the allocation of the burden of proof on the timeliness issue.”  Under current precedent, the burden is on the charging party to prove that an unfair practice charge is timely even after the Office of the General Counsel has issued a complaint.  (See Long Beach Community College District (2009) PERB Decision No. 2002 (“Long Beach II”).)  But according to the Board, “By placing the burden on [charging party] to prove a matter outside the complaint … the Board has created a system that is a trap for the unwary.” Accordingly, the Board overturned Long Beach II as it relates to the allocation of the burden of proof on the timeliness of an unfair practice charge.

City of Sacramento (2014) PERB Decision No. 2354-M (Issued on 2/14/14)

This is a unit modification case.  The fight was between two unions, each of whom asserted that a newly created classification should be in its bargaining unit.  The City did not have a local rule governing unit determination matters so the matter went to PERB. One union argued that PERB should adopt the NLRB standard set forth in Premcor, Inc. 333 NLRB 1365 (2001) (Premcor). 

Claremont Unified School District (2014) PERB Decision No. 2357-E (Issued on 2/21/14)

This case involves an unfair practice charge filed by an individual employee alleging various acts of discrimination and interference with employee rights.  The employer responded by asserting that the charge should be deferred to arbitration.  Consistent with PERB’s application of the Collyer deferral standards, the Board agent requested and received confirmation from the employer that it was willing to arbitrate the dispute.  The charge was then deferred to arbitration and dismissed.