Category: PERB Decision

Santa Ana Unified School District (2017) PERB Decision No. 2514-E (Issued on 02/08/17)

The unfair practice charge in this case was filed on March 10, 2006. A complaint was issued on 6/12/06. On September 19, 2008, notice was sent for a formal hearing to be held on February 6, 2009. The charging party then asked to place the matter in abeyance due to her medical condition. Nothing happened in the case until August 24, 2012, when a new ALJ was assigned. In 2012, the new ALJ began discussions with the parties on how to move the case forward. The district argued that laches should apply since witness memories had faded. The ALJ held a couple of pre-trial conferences and entertained a motion to dismiss by the district with supporting declarations.  The charging party responded with an opposition and more declarations. On January 31, 2014, the ALJ granted the district’s motion to dismiss. The charging party then filed exceptions which were completed on or about April 14, 2014. The Board issued this decision on February 8, 2017.

City of Madera (2016) PERB Dec. No. 2506-M (Issued on 12/13/16) This case involved a decertification petition filed after the expiration of a contract. Under the City’s local rules, once a contract expires a decertification petition may only be filed during the month of March. The contract at issue expired on June 30th and the union seeking to decertify the incumbent filed its decertification petition in November.  Pursuant to the City’s local rules, the petition was rejected. The union then filed an unfair practice charge asserting that the City’s local rule was unreasonable. The Board affirmed that when a local rule is challenged…

City of San Luis Obispo (2016) PERB Dec. No. A444-M (Issued on 12/13/16) If you are familiar with PERB's regulations, you probably know that the regulations do not provide for the filing of a reply brief in matters before PERB. The regulations simply provide for the filing of moving papers and then a response. But since the regulations do not expressly prohibit the filing of a reply brief, I often get asked whether reply briefs are allowed. In this case, PERB provides some more guidance on this issue. Because PERB Regulations neither expressly permit nor preclude the submission of reply briefs,…

Anaheim Union High School District (2016) PERB Decision No. 2504-E (Issued on 10/14/16) In 2012, the Anaheim Union High School District (District) and AFSCME were engaged in negotiations for a successor agreement. Facing a multi-million dollar budget deficit, the District asked AFSCME for significant economic concessions, including furlough days for employees. The District also informed AFSCME that even with concessions, some layoffs would still be required. In terms of the number of layoffs, the District told AFSCME that if agreement was reached on the concessions by July 1, 2012, a “short list” of six employees would be laid off; but…

California Virtual Academies (2016) PERB Decision No. J027-E (Issued on 9/30/16)

This cases involves a request for “judicial review” of a unit determination decision arising under the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA). Under EERA, with a very limited exception, there can be no judicial review of a unit determination decision unless that Board joins in the request for judicial review. By law, the Board can only join in such a request when the case is one of “special importance.” The same rules apply under HEERA and the Dills Act.  Judicial review cases are rare.  According to my records, the last judicial review case decided by the Board was in October 2011.  So this is a good time to review what constitutes a case of “special importance.”