PERB - California Public Employment Relations Board
10/02/2024 | Press release | Distributed by Public on 10/02/2024 17:09
September 2024 Board Decisions Summary
September 2024 Board Decisions Summary
In September 2024, the Board issued nine decisions. The decision descriptions and dispositions are below.
Employer: West Valley-Mission Community College District
Case No. SF-CE-3482-E
Issued date: September 4, 2024
Precedential
Description: After initially allowing Counseling faculty at West Valley-Mission Community College District to work from home on a hybrid schedule, the District implemented a "100 percent in-person" policy for all Counseling faculty for the Spring 2022 semester, requiring the faculty to conduct in-person and virtual counseling sessions from campus offices. West Valley-Mission Federation of Teachers, AFT Local 6554 (WVMFT) filed an unfair practice charge alleging that the District failed to provide notice or opportunity to bargain before adopting the "100 percent in-person" policy. After a formal hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded that the District unilaterally changed counseling faculty work location without providing WVMFT notice and opportunity to bargain. The District timely filed exceptions, alleging that it was not required to bargain over returning to pre-COVID-19 emergency status quo. WVMFT opposed the District's exceptions.
Disposition: The Board affirmed the ALJ's conclusion that the District unilaterally changed counseling faculty work location without affording WVMFT advance notice and opportunity to bargain. First, the Board found that the "100 percent in-person" policy was not a return to pre-COVID-19 emergency status quo. Not only did some counseling faculty perform work remotely prior to COVID-19, but also, the District's new policy deviated from the collaborative scheduling process found in the parties collective bargaining agreement. Second, the Board affirmed its conclusion in Oxnard Union High School District (2023) PERB Decision No. 2803 that the right to return to the status quo from a public health emergency includes the obligation to provide advance notice and opportunities to bargain when time allows. Next, the Board found that the District's change in work location policy was within the scope of representation. The Board also concluded that the District did not provide advanced notice and opportunity to bargain when it implemented the "100 percent in-person" policy. Finally, the Board rejected the District's claim that WVMFT waived its opportunity to bargain when it agreed to a portion of the collective bargaining agreement that provided for individual faculty remote work requests. The Board additionally made minor clarifying adjustments to the proposed remedy; in addition to traditional cease-and-desist and posting remedies, the Board ordered the District to rescind the "100 percent in-person" policy and bargain with WVMFT over its remote work policy, rescind any discipline issued to unit members based on the "100 percent in-person" policy, and make unit members whole for any losses incurred based on the "100 percent in-person" policy.
Employer: Regents of the University of California (Los Angeles)
Case No. LA-CE-1384-H
Issued date: September 5, 2024
Precedential
Description: PERB Regulation 32300(b), as revised in 2022, directs an excepting party to file "a single integrated document that must not exceed 14,000 words, including footnotes," and which "may be in the form of a brief." In this case, however, Respondent instead filed two separate documents, following a practice that Regulation 32300 permitted before 2022. PERB's Appeals Office rejected Respondent's exceptions and supporting brief because Respondent filed two documents rather than a single document. Respondent appealed the administrative determination.
Disposition: The Board partially granted Respondent's unopposed appeal. PERB has discretion whether to accept or reject either or both documents, or to grant an extension of time to allow an adjusted filing that would comply with PERB Regulations. Although either of Respondent's two filings would have been sufficient to allow the Board to research and resolve the matter, the Board allowed the filing of Respondent's brief because it was more integrated and useful, while disallowing Respondent's other filing.
Employer:International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers, Local 21
Case No. SF-CO-526-M
Issued date: September 6, 2024
Non-Precedential
Description: Charging party Eileen Villaruel appealed a dismissal of her unfair practice charge against respondent International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers, Local 21 (IFPTE). Villaruel alleged that IFPTE violated its duty of fair representation under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) in a dispute between her and her employer. The Office of the General Counsel (OGC) dismissed the charge, finding that Villaruel had not alleged facts showing a prima facie case of an MMBA violation.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed the dismissal.
Employer: County of Monterey
Case No. SF-CE-2050-M
Issued date: September 10, 2024
Non-Precedential
Description: The complaint alleged that Respondent County of Monterey violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act by (1) unilaterally reducing rest breaks, and (2) directly issuing memoranda and forms to employees represented by Charging Party Service Employees International Union, Local 521 (SEIU), thereby bypassing, undermining, and derogating SEIU's authority. After a formal hearing, the ALJ found violations on both claims, and both parties excepted.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed the proposed decision. The Board also clarified and adjusted the remedial order in accordance with the parties' exceptions.
Employer: Trustees of the California State University (San Diego)
Case No. LA-CE-1370-H
Issued date: September 12, 2024
Non-Precedential
Description: The complaint alleged that Respondent Trustees of the California State University, San Diego, violated the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act when its police officers directed employees represented by Charging Party Teamsters Local 2010 to remove the sticks from their picket signs during an informational picket outside a university building. After a formal hearing, the ALJ found a violation and ordered standard cease-and-desist and make-whole remedies, and a notice posting. Teamsters filed exceptions to the remedy, and CSU filed exceptions to the ALJ's finding of a violation.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed the proposed decision.
Employer: West Contra Costa Unified School District
Case No. SF-CE-3500-E
Issued date: September 16, 2024
Non-Precedential
Description: The complaint alleged that West Contra Costa Unified School District violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA) by refusing, in two separate occurrences, to bargain in good faith with the exclusive representative, Adult School Teachers United (ASTU); unilaterally changing terms and conditions of employment in two distinct instances; twice attempting to bypass, undermine, and derogate the authority of ASTU; and dominating or interfering with the administration of ASTU. The complaint further alleged that by this same conduct, the District interfered with the protected rights of bargaining unit employees and denied ASTU its right to represent bargaining unit members, altogether in violation of EERA section 3543.5, subdivisions (a), (b), and (c). The ALJ found that the District violated EERA section 3543.5 subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) when it (1) refused to bargain with ASTU over terms and conditions of employment for dual-unit employees and over the effects of the 2022-23 Student Master Schedule; (2) unilaterally and unlawfully changed established past practices for deciding English as a Second Language (ESL) teaching assignments; and (3) bypassed ASTU by communicating directly with ESL teachers about work assignments before the Fall 2022 semester. The ALJ also found that the District interfered with bargaining unit employees' rights, and ASTU's right to represent bargaining unit employees, when it unilaterally adopted a new procedure for deciding ESL teaching assignments. Similarly, the ALJ found that the District's refusal to bargain in good faith over terms and conditions of employment for dual-unit employees interfered with bargaining unit employees' rights and ASTU's right to represent them. The ALJ dismissed all other claims.
Disposition: The Board clarified and modified several of the ALJ's findings of fact, but affirmed the holdings of the proposed decision.
Employer: San Diego Community College District
Case No. LA-RR-1306-E
Issued date: September 18, 2024
Non-Precedential
Description: Petitioner Supervisory & Professional Administrators Association filed a Representation Petition requesting representation as the exclusive representative of employees of San Diego Community College District in three proposed bargaining units: a Classified Supervisors Unit, an Academic Supervisors Unit, and an FLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act) Exempt Professional Employees Unit. The American Federation of Teachers Guild, Local 1931 (AFT), exclusive representative of three bargaining units at the District, intervened to object to certain classifications in SPAA's proposed bargaining units. After PERB's Office of General Counsel processed the Petition and determined that a hearing was necessary, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) conducted a formal hearing and issued a proposed decision. The ALJ found that PERB could not independently make FLSA exemption determinations and did not consider AFT's objections based on FLSA exemptions. The ALJ also evaluated AFT's objections based on supervisory status and EERA section 3545, subdivision (b)(2) and concluded that some should be included in SPAA's proposed bargaining units and some should be excluded. SPAA and AFT filed exceptions and cross exceptions to the proposed decision, challenging the ALJ's determinations on AFT's objections.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed the ALJ's decision with one exception, excluding a classification from the FLSA Exempt Unit.
Employer: California Online Community College District-Calbright College
Case No. LA-CE-6864-E
Issued date: September 25, 2024
Non-Precedential
Description: Charging Party Velvet Miscione filed an unfair practice charge alleging that the California Online Community College District-Calbright College (the District or Calbright) violated section 3543.5, subdivision (a) of the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA) by retaliating against her for role as a lead negotiator for the exclusive representative in collective bargaining agreement (CBA) negotiations. Charging Party also alleged violations of the CBA, the Education Code, and the District's board policy. The Office of General Counsel (OGC) dismissed Miscione's charge as untimely, finding that she filed her charge outside of the six-month statute of limitations period and the doctrine of equitable estoppel did not apply to her claims. OGC also dismissed Miscione's remaining claims because they were outside of PERB's jurisdiction.
Disposition: The Board affirmed OGC's dismissal, and supplemented OGC's determination by holding that equitable tolling was inapplicable and did not revive charging party's claims.
Organization: Service Employees International Union Local 1000 (Scott)
Case No. LA-CO-154-S
Issued date: September 26, 2024
Non-Precedential
Description: Charging Party Preston Lee Brown Scott alleged in an unfair practice charge, as amended, that Respondent Service Employees International Union Local 1000 violated the Ralph C. Dills Act by failing to fairly represent him during his Skelly hearing process, failing to process a grievance on his behalf, and discriminating against him. After reviewing the charge, the Office of General Counsel dismissed the charge, finding that charge did not state a prima facie case. Scott timely appealed the dismissal.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed the dismissal.