Category: PERB Decision

City of Commerce (2018) PERB Decision No. 2602-M (Issued on 12/11/18)

As part of a disciplinary arbitration, the attorney for the employer in this case interviewed two employees who were subpoenaed by the union. The union’s representative objected. However, the city’s attorney proceeded with the interviews and allowed both employees to bring a union representative. According to the decision, during the interviews the city’s attorney did not inform the employees that the interviews were voluntary and that if they chose to participate, the city would not impose any consequences based on their answers or on their refusal to answer any of the questions. The city’s attorney also asked one employee if he knew why the union was calling him as a witness.

State of California (Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation) (2018) PERB Decision No. 2598-S (Issued on 11/26/18); San Bernardino Community College District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2599-E (Issued on 12/5/18); County of San Joaquin (Sheriff’s Department) (2018) PERB Decision No. 2619-M (Issued on 12/28/18)

In a trio of decisions, PERB has continued to expand the areas in which an employee is entitled to a union (Weingarten) representative. 

City of Yuba City (2018) PERB Decision No. 2603-M (Issued on 12/12/18)

Under the MMBA, an employer must hold a “public hearing” regarding the impasse between the parties before it may implement its last, best, and final offer (LBFO). (Gov. Code § 3505.7) In this case the union argued that the employer failed to comply with this requirement because the city council agenda item was listed as “Local 1 Imposition”  rather than as a public hearing regarding the impasse between the parties. The Board rejected the union’s arguments.

Los Rios Community College District and Los Rios College Federation of Teachers, Local 2279 (2018) PERB Decision No. 2614-E (Issued on 12/21/18)

This case involved an appeal of two unfair practices charges that were dismissed in 1987. That’s not a typo. Not surprisingly, the Board noted that the appeal was untimely “by more than a quarter century” and affirmed the dismissal.