Lake Elsinore Unified School District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2548 (Issued on 2/2/18)

This case involved an unfair practice charge that alleged various forms of retaliation. After being amended three times, and a warning letter being issued, the Board agent dismissed the charge. On appeal, the Board reversed the dismissal for further consideration by the Office of the General Counsel. Specifically, the Board held that the warning letter and dismissal did not consider an alternative theory of retaliation advanced by the charging party.

Board held that, Continue reading →

City of Salinas (2017) PERB Order No. Ad-457-M (Issued on 1/4/18)

One of the triggers for requesting factfinding under the MMBA is a “written notice of a declaration of impasse.” (Gov. Code §3505.4.) The issue in this case was whether a letter from a City stating that it had met its obligations to meet and confer with the union—but never uses the term “impasse”—nevertheless constitutes a written declaration of impasse under the MMBA. The Office of the General Counsel held that such a letter did not constitute a declaration of impasse.  The Board reversed.

The Board held that the meaning of the City’s letter was clear: that the City believed it had fulfilled its obligation to meet and confer because the parties were at a point where continued negotiations would be futile. The Board also noted that the City did not respond to the union’s request for clarification on whether it had declared impasse. The Board conceded that the City’s letter would “undoubtedly be clearer” if it used the term “impasse.” But the Board held that PERB looks at the substance of a party’s words, not their form, to determine their legal effect. Here, under these facts, the Board held that the City’s letter constituted a written declaration of impasse even though it did not use that term.

San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (2018) PERB Order No. Ad-460-M (Issued on 1/23/18)

This case was interesting because most independent transit districts, such as the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (System), are not subject to PERB’s jurisdiction.  But here, the System’s enabling statutes give the State Mediation and Conciliation Service (SMCS) jurisdiction to investigate and issue determinations concerning representation. These enabling statutes were enacted back when SMCS was under the jurisdiction of the Department of Industrial Relations. But in 2012, SCMS was transferred to PERB. Following the transfer PERB issued regulations governing SMCS’s handling of cases arising under the various public transit statutes.

In this case, the Transit Electromechanics Union’s (TEU) filed a petition for certification to represent certain employees at the System. SMCS denied the petition on the grounds that federal authority did not allow the severing of a smaller unit of employees from an existing bargaining unit. Initially, the Office of Appeals said that it did not have jurisdiction over this matter. However, the Board held that under its regulations, it did have jurisdiction to consider TEU’s appeal.

Comments:

1. I thought this case was interesting because it’s rare for an independent transit agency to fall under PERB’s jurisdiction. Here, it’s the very narrow area of dealing with petitions for certification. Under PERB’s regulations, the Board is required to apply the “relevant federal law and administrative practice developed under the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended” in resolving questions of representation.