California School Employees Association & its Chapter 47 (Shampine, et al) (2014) PERB Decision No. 2355-E (Issued on 2/14/14)
This is a duty of fair representation case under EERA. One of the allegations was that the union failed to make financial records available to a union member.
County of Fresno (2014) PERB Decision No. 2352-M (Issued on 1/29/14)
It’s not uncommon for a party to request to withdraw exceptions that have been filed to a proposed decision. This usually occurs where there is a settlement. The Board has to consent to the withdrawal of exceptions, but generally allows it. Once the exceptions are withdrawn, the underlying ALJ decision becomes final. Sometimes a party will also ask that the underlying unfair practice charge be withdrawn and/or that the ALJ decision be vacated. That’s what occurred in this case. The party that filed exceptions requested that they be withdrawn and also requested to withdraw the “underlying unfair practice charge without prejudice.” The opposing party had no objections to the withdrawal of the exceptions but argued that the underlying unfair practice charge should only be withdrawn with prejudice. The Board agreed with the opposing party.
One of the difficulties of PERB practice is doing legal research. It's easy enough finding cases on PERB's website or from commercial legal research vendors like Westlaw. But how do you know if a particular point of law in a decision is still good law? Unlike with court decisions, there is no way to "shepardize" a PERB case to find out if it's been overturned. So you really have to be aware of the status of PERB jurisprudence. This is all the more difficult today because the current Board has been particularly active in overturning prior cases. Did you know that the current Board has overturned, at…
County of Orange (2013) PERB Decision No. 2350-M (Issued on 12/23/13)
In this case, an employee alleged that he was laid off in retaliation for filing a grievance in which he prevailed. The union’s theory of retaliation was interesting. As set forth in the decision, the theory was that the employee was given insubstantial assignments that deprived him of the opportunity to promote to a higher position, which in turn left him in the lower position which was subject to layoff. The administrative law judge (ALJ) found that the county was not motivated by unlawful animus. The ALJ also found that even if the employee had established a prima facie case of retaliation, the county met its burden of proving that retaliation was not the true cause of the employee’s layoff. The Board agreed with both these findings.
City of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2351-M (Issued on 12/24/13)
This is a follow-up to my post from January 9th on the City of Sacramento decision. In that post I commented on the Board’s citation to the City of Vallejo case for the proposition that the timing and number of employees to be laid off is a negotiable “effect.” When I went back and read the City of Sacramento decision again, I found an important passage in the case that I previously missed.