Category: PERB Decision

Berkeley Unified School District (2012) PERB Decision No. 2268-E (Issued on 5/29/12) This case involves a proposal by a school district to recoup erroneous overpayments in salary by withholding from an employee’s wages the amount of the overpayment over the same period of time the error occurred. The union refused to bargain over the proposal as a non-mandatory subject of bargaining. The district insisted and eventually declared impasse. The union then brought this unfair practice charge alleging that the district committed an unfair practice by insisting to impasse on a non-mandatory subject of bargaining. The ALJ ruled in favor of the union.  In…

Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District (2012) PERB Dec. No. 2262-E (Issued 5/08/12) This case involved an allegation that a school district (district) made an unlawful unilateral change in policy.  Specifically, the parties had a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that required “progressive discipline” to be followed except where the misconduct endangered the safety of others or where there is an emergency.  Subsequently, the district adopted a “zero tolerance” policy for drug use. What gave rise to this specific unfair practice charge was a drug test involving a school bus driver.  During the drug test, the school bus driver refused to comply with the protocols established…

Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (2012) PERB Dec. No. 2263-M (Issued on 5/08/12) The underlying unfair practice charge in this matter was filed by the Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1605 (ATU) against the Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (Authority). The Office of the General Counsel dismissed the charge on the ground that the Authority, as a joint powers authority, is not an employer covered by the MMBA.  This appeal followed. The sole issue on appeal was whether PERB had jurisdiction over the Authority.  What presumably raised this issue was the Board’s decision in North Orange County Regional Occupational Program (1990)…

UPTE-CWA Local 9119 (Witke) (2012) PERB Case No. 2253-H (Issued on 04/23/12) This case involves an appeal from a dismissal.  Charging party asserted two grounds for appeal that I want to discuss.  First, charging party asserted that the Board agent who issued the dismissal engaged in improper “ex parte” contact.  Specifically, charging party asserted that the Board agent improperly talked with the other side without charging party being part of the conversation.  In rejecting any impropriety, the Board held that: [T]here is no prohibition on ex parte communications in the initial charge processing stage of an unfair practice proceeding… Ex parte…