PERB - California Public Employment Relations Board
05/01/2025 | Press release | Distributed by Public on 05/01/2025 10:18
April 2025 Board Decisions Summary
April 2025 Board Decisions Summary
In April 2025, the Board issued ten decisions. The decision descriptions and dispositions are below.
Employer: Twin Rivers Unified School District
Case No. SA-CE-2867-E
Issued date: April 7, 2025
Non-Precedential
Description: Charging Party Rebecca Dawn Wu filed an unfair practice charge against Twin Rivers Unified School District alleging that the District violated the Educational Employment Relations Act by refusing to offer Wu an employment contract in June 2016 because of Wu's protected activities. An Administrative Law Judge conducted a formal hearing and issued a proposed decision finding that Wu failed to state a prima facie case of retaliation, and that the District proved its affirmative defense that it would have taken the same action even if Wu had not engaged in protected activity. Wu filed exceptions to the proposed decision.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed the proposed decision.
Organization: International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1245 (Bignone)
Case No. SF-CO-533-M
Issued date: April 8, 2025
Non-Precedential
Description: Charging Party John Bignone alleged that Respondent International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1245 (Union) violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) by breaching its duty of fair representation. After issuing Bignone a warning letter and affording him an opportunity to amend his charge, PERB's Office of General Counsel (OGC) dismissed the charge. OGC found that Bignone did not state a prima facie case of violation of the duty of fair representation and that certain allegations were time barred. Bignone appealed OGC's dismissal.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed the dismissal.
Employer: Regents of the University of California
Case Nos. SF-UM-913-H, SF-UM-914-H, SF-UM-915-H, and SF-UM-916-H
Issued date: April 9, 2025
Precedential
Description: University Professional and Technical Employees, Communication Workers of America Local 9119 (UPTE) filed four petitions for unit modification to add various classifications of employees of the University of California (UC) to an existing bargaining unit UPTE exclusively represents. While UPTE's petitions were pending, Student Services and Advising Professionals - United Auto Workers (SSAP-UAW) filed a request for recognition accompanied by proof of support seeking to represent a proposed bargaining unit of student services and advising professionals, some of whom were also included in UPTE's unit modification petitions. PERB's Office of the General determined that, under PERB Regulation 32781(e)(2), UPTE's petitions required proof of at least 30 percent employee support. OGC provided UPTE an opportunity to provide proof of support, but UPTE did not do so. OGC issued an administrative determination dismissing UPTE's petitions because they lacked sufficient proof of support. UPTE filed an appeal.
Disposition: In a precedential decision, the Board upheld OGC's dismissal of UPTE's unit modification petition. For decades, the Board has balanced two competing interests in representation cases: stable and harmonious labor relations based on appropriate bargaining units, and employee free choice. When one representation petition creates a question concerning representation, and a conflicting petition does not, the Board has historically given priority to deciding the question concerning representation, even if doing so renders moot an otherwise properly filed unit appropriateness question. PERB Regulation 32781(e)(2) gives effect to this policy by requiring a unit modification petitioner to provide proof of at least 30 percent proof of support if the employees to be added to the existing bargaining unit are also included in a pending request for recognition or petition for certification. OGC therefore correctly required UPTE to provide proof of support. The Board ordered UPTE's petitions for unit modification dismissed without prejudice, because UPTE may re-file its petitions upon the conclusion of SSAP-UAW's request for recognition as to any employees who may remain unrepresented at that time.
Organization: Teamsters Local 572 (Graham-Johnson)
Case No. LA-CO-1848-E
Issued date: April 10, 2025
Non-Precedential
Description: Charging Party Yvette Graham-Johnson alleged that Teamsters Local 572 violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA) by breaching its duty of fair representation. After issuing Graham-Johnson a warning letter and affording her an opportunity to amend her charge, PERB's Office of General Counsel (OGC) dismissed the charge. OGC found that Graham-Johnson did not state a prima facie case of violation of the duty of fair representation. Graham-Johnson appealed OGC's dismissal.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed the dismissal.
Employer: City of Alameda
Case No. SF-CE-2180-M
Issued date: April 14, 2025
Non-Precedential
Description: Charging Party John Bignone alleged that Respondent City of Alameda violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) by terminating him in retaliation after he informed management of unsafe work practices. After issuing Bignone a warning letter and affording him an opportunity to amend his charge, PERB's Office of General Counsel (OGC) dismissed the charge. OGC found that he had failed to state a prima facie case of retaliation for protected activity, that PERB lacked jurisdiction over several of his other claims, and that certain allegations were time barred. OGC explained its determination that to the extent Bignone alleged that the City violated its statutory duty to bargain in good faith with the Union, Bignone lacked standing to assert such allegations Bignone appealed OGC's dismissal.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed the dismissal.
Employer: Hughson Unified School District
Case No. SA-CE-3181-E
Issued date: April 15, 2025
Non-Precedential
Description: Cynthia Ruiz alleged that her employer, Hughson Unified School District, retaliated against her for engaging in protected activities. PERB's Office of the General Counsel dismissed Ruiz's charge, finding that she:(1) failed to state a prima facie case of retaliation for protected activity; (2) failed to file her charge within the applicable statute of limitations; (3) failed to allege facts showing how a contractual arbitration award was repugnant to the purposes of EERA; and (4) raised certain allegations that fall outside PERB's jurisdiction. Ruiz appealed.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board concluded that Ruiz timely filed her charge, but the Board affirmed the dismissal because Ruiz failed to state a prima facie case of retaliation or any other EERA violation. The Board also noted that Ruiz's "repugnancy" argument is inapposite, for the Board is not deferring to a grievance arbitration award as a basis for dismissal.
Employer: Los Angeles Unified School District
Case Nos. LA-CE-6257-E and LA-CE-6555-E
Issued date: April 17, 2025
Non-Precedential
Description: The complaint in Case No. LA-CE-6257-E alleged that Respondent Los Angeles Unified School District violated the Educational Employment Relations Act by issuing Charging Party Ginger Rose Fox a Notice of Unsatisfactory Act (NOUA), eight-day suspension, and "below standard performance" rating on a Final Performance Evaluation, in retaliation for Fox's protected activity. Arising from a different and subsequent set of facts, the complaint in Case No. LA-CE-6555-E alleged that the District retaliated against Fox for protected activity by issuing her an NOUA and 15-day suspension. The Division of Administrative Law consolidated the cases for hearing. After a formal hearing in the consolidated matter, the ALJ found a violation in Case No. LA-CE-6257-E and dismissed the allegations in Case No. LA-CE-6555-E. Fox filed exceptions to the proposed decision.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed the ALJ's factual findings while adjusting them in minor part. The Board affirmed in part and reversed in part the ALJ's conclusion regarding the District's affirmative defense in Case No. LA-CE-6555-E. While the Board concluded that the District proved it would have issued Fox an NOUA and suspension regardless of her protected activity, it found insufficient record evidence to determine what level of discipline the District would have imposed had the District not unlawfully disciplined Fox and unlawfully issued her a substandard evaluation as found in Case No. LA-CE-6257-E. The Board therefore remanded the matter for mediation, and, absent a settlement, for further proceedings on the discrete issue of what level of discipline the District would have issued to Fox had she not received the previous NOUA and eight-day suspension, i.e., whether progressive discipline would have applied.
Employer: Los Angeles Unified School District
Case No. LA-CE-6914-E
Issued date: April 18, 2025
Non-Precedential
Description: Charging Party Monique M. Lukens filed an unfair practice charge against Los Angeles Unified School District alleging that the District had failed to provide substitute teachers adequate illness pay under applicable law. PERB's Office of the General Counsel (OGC) found that Lukens's allegations failed to state a prima facie case of the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA) and that the Public Employment Relations Board lacked jurisdiction over Lukens's allegations and therefore dismissed the charge. Lukens timely appealed.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed OGC's dismissal of the charge.
Employer: City and County of San Francisco
Case No. SF-CE-2157-M
Issued date: April 25, 2025
Precedential
Description: In collective bargaining with the City and County of San Francisco (City), Municipal Attorneys Association of San Francisco, Teamsters Local 856 (MAA) proposed MOU language that would require the City to show just cause for terminating MAA-represented attorneys, among other job protection proposals. The City acknowledged that MAA's proposals involved a mandatory subject of bargaining but refused to agree to the proposals or submit the issues to binding interest arbitration under the City Charter's impasse resolution procedures. An administrative law judge (ALJ) found that the City violated the MMBA in multiple respects, mainly because the Charter allows interest arbitration over MAA's job protection proposals. The ALJ found one of the three Charter provisions on which the City relied was facially inconsistent with the MMBA because it limited good faith negotiations over job protection proposals. Both parties filed exceptions.
Disposition: Like the ALJ, the Board found that the City violated its Charter-and therefore also violated the MMBA-by refusing to submit MAA's job protection proposals to interest arbitration. Charter drafters removed other matters from interest arbitration, but these narrow exceptions do not cover MAA's job protection proposals. The Board reversed the ALJ's finding that one Charter provision is facially inconsistent with the MMBA. Unlike the ALJ, the Board interpreted the provision as permitting good faith negotiations over job protection proposals.
Employer: Berkeley Unified School District
Case No. SF-CE-3556-E
Issued date: April 28, 2025
Non-Precedential
Description: Berkeley Council of Classified Employees (BCCE) filed an unfair practice charge alleging that Berkeley Unified School District violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA) when it involuntarily transferred bargaining unit employee Amber Spencer in retaliation for her protected activity. After a formal hearing, a PERB Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a proposed decision finding that BCCE established its prima facie case that the District retaliated against Spencer because of her protected activity. The proposed decision also found, however, that the District established its affirmative defense that it would have taken the same action absent protected activity and dismissed the complaint. BCCE filed exceptions asking the Board to reverse the proposed decision, including reversal of the ALJ's determination regarding redaction of a proposed exhibit.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board reversed the proposed decision. First, the Board found that the ALJ erred by ruling that a disputed sentence required redaction based upon attorney-client privilege. Second, the Board found that the District did not establish its affirmative defense that it would have taken the same action absent protected activity. While the District alleged that "irreconcilable staff differences" were the reason for the involuntary transfer, the Board found that the District relied on Spencer's protected activity to support its claim of "irreconcilable staff differences." Third, the Board declined BCCE's requests to award non-customary remedies. The Board ordered standard remedies and provided Spencer the opportunity to elect to return to her previous position. Further, provided that Spencer elects to return, the Board ordered the parties to participate in a mediation presided over by the State Mediation and Conciliation Service.
PERB - California Public Employment Relations Board published this content on May 01, 2025, and is solely responsible for the information contained herein. Distributed via Public Technologies (PUBT), unedited and unaltered, on May 01, 2025 at 16:18 UTC. If you believe the information included in the content is inaccurate or outdated and requires editing or removal, please contact us at [email protected]