City of Los Altos (PERB Dec. No. 1891M) (Issued 3/14/07)
Union alleged that City had an affirmative obligation to notice the union whenever the City terminated a bargaining unit member, even where the employee had not requested union representation and where the union had not specifically requested the information. The Board held that under well-established precedent, there is no obligation to provide the union information absent a request. Since there was no request, the Board dismissed the charge.
The board also stated that even if the union had requested information about an employee termination, absent consent by the employee, compliance with such a request would have to take into consideration the employee’s privacy rights. This seems like a straight forward and common sense decision.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
DFR Dismissal Adopted
California Faculty Association (Wunder) (PERB Dec. No. 1889H) (Issued 3/1/07)
Employee alleged that the union violated its duty of fair representation by failing to take her grievance to arbitration. This is one of the rarer instances where a complaint actually issues on a DFR charge. In the proposed decision, the ALJ applied well-settled standards and found that the union’s decision not to advance the grievance to arbitration was honest and reasonable.
Employee alleged that the union violated its duty of fair representation by failing to take her grievance to arbitration. This is one of the rarer instances where a complaint actually issues on a DFR charge. In the proposed decision, the ALJ applied well-settled standards and found that the union’s decision not to advance the grievance to arbitration was honest and reasonable.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Unit Determination Decision Vacated by Request
East Whittier City Elementary School District (PERB Dec. No. 1887E) (Issued 2/27/07)
District initially filed exceptions to board agent’s unit determination decision. Subsequently, based on a vote of the affected units, the union withdrew its representation petition. Parties then settled and requested that the Board vacate its decision, which the Board agreed to do.
District initially filed exceptions to board agent’s unit determination decision. Subsequently, based on a vote of the affected units, the union withdrew its representation petition. Parties then settled and requested that the Board vacate its decision, which the Board agreed to do.
DFR Charge Dismissed
United Teachers of Los Angeles (PERB Dec. No. 1888E) (Issued 2/27/07)
Employee alleged that union violated its duty of fair representation. Applying established law, board agent dismissed complaint. Board summarily affirmed.
Employee alleged that union violated its duty of fair representation. Applying established law, board agent dismissed complaint. Board summarily affirmed.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Special Appeal Denied
State of California (Department of Personnel Administration (PERB Dec. No. A359S) (Issued 2/22/07)
Board summarily denied employer’s request for special permission to appeal ALJ’s refusal to disqualify himself from case.
Board summarily denied employer’s request for special permission to appeal ALJ’s refusal to disqualify himself from case.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
No Past Practice Found
Trustees of the California State University (PERB Dec. No. 1886H) (Issued 02/20/07)
Union alleged that employer unilaterally repudiated a policy of granting release time to employees for the purpose of attending PERB proceedings. Board adopted ALJ decision which found that union “failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the University had a binding past practice of granting released time for PERB informal conferences not contemplated within the MOU.” Charge and complaint dismissed.
Analysis: Standard application of well-settled law on unilateral changes to the specific facts in this case.
Union alleged that employer unilaterally repudiated a policy of granting release time to employees for the purpose of attending PERB proceedings. Board adopted ALJ decision which found that union “failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the University had a binding past practice of granting released time for PERB informal conferences not contemplated within the MOU.” Charge and complaint dismissed.
Analysis: Standard application of well-settled law on unilateral changes to the specific facts in this case.
Reconsideration Granted
King City Joint Union High School District (PERB Dec. No. 1777Ea) (Issued 2/16/07)
Another interesting situation. In King City Joint Union High School District (PERB Decision No. 1777), the Board held that the district improperly calculated a negotiated salary formula and ordered make-whole relief. During the enforcement stage, the parties discovered that make-whole relief would cost the district $5.2 million out of a $17-$18 million dollar budget. According to the parties, the effect of forcing the district to pay the $5.2 million at once would mean bankruptcy for the district - an option that neither party wanted.
Based on the dire financial consequences of the ordered relief, the parties jointly submitted a request for reconsideration of the Board’s decision. The parties requested that the Board modify its order as to the amount to be paid employees and to allow installment payments. Finding that the financial consequences of the Board’s order constituted ‘new evidence,’ the Board granted the motion for reconsideration under regulation 32410(a).
Analysis: The Board has generally strictly interpreted regulation 32410(a) which governs requests for reconsideration. Interpreting that regulation strictly, it is not at all clear how the high cost of complying with the Board’s order constitutes “new evidence” within the meaning of 32410(a). Presumably, someone could have done the math before the PERB hearing as well as after. The decision is best explained by the fact that the Board wanted to help the parties given that this was a joint request and the consequences of not acting would be severe. But query, what if all the facts were the same except that it was not a joint request, but a request solely by the district . . . would the decision have been the same?
Another interesting situation. In King City Joint Union High School District (PERB Decision No. 1777), the Board held that the district improperly calculated a negotiated salary formula and ordered make-whole relief. During the enforcement stage, the parties discovered that make-whole relief would cost the district $5.2 million out of a $17-$18 million dollar budget. According to the parties, the effect of forcing the district to pay the $5.2 million at once would mean bankruptcy for the district - an option that neither party wanted.
Based on the dire financial consequences of the ordered relief, the parties jointly submitted a request for reconsideration of the Board’s decision. The parties requested that the Board modify its order as to the amount to be paid employees and to allow installment payments. Finding that the financial consequences of the Board’s order constituted ‘new evidence,’ the Board granted the motion for reconsideration under regulation 32410(a).
Analysis: The Board has generally strictly interpreted regulation 32410(a) which governs requests for reconsideration. Interpreting that regulation strictly, it is not at all clear how the high cost of complying with the Board’s order constitutes “new evidence” within the meaning of 32410(a). Presumably, someone could have done the math before the PERB hearing as well as after. The decision is best explained by the fact that the Board wanted to help the parties given that this was a joint request and the consequences of not acting would be severe. But query, what if all the facts were the same except that it was not a joint request, but a request solely by the district . . . would the decision have been the same?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
