Board: Original Signatures Only for Proof of Support

Regents of the University of California (2018) PERB Order Ad-459-H (Issued on 1/19/18)

The San Diego House Staff Association (Association) filed a petition for unit modification seeking to add employees to an existing bargaining unit. As proof of support, the Association provided printouts of employees’ electronic signatures in favor of representation by the union. The Office of the General Counsel dismissed the petition on the grounds that the Association did not provide the employees’ original signatures. The Board affirmed. Continue reading

Email this to someoneShare on Google+Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn
Posted in PERB Decision | Leave a comment

Board Declines to Order “Live Reading” Remedy

United Teachers of Los Angeles (2017) PERB Decision No. 2545-E (Issued on 12/28/17)

I’ve been meaning to discuss this case which was issued late last year.  The most interesting issue in this case was the union’s request for a “live reading” order as a remedy to the unfair practices by the employer. In this case, a pair of charter schools were found to have violated the rights of the union and employees when the principal of one of the schools terminated an after-school meeting between a union organizer and teachers, and made coercive statements. The other school principal was found to have refused to allow union organizers to enter into one of the schools to meet with teachers. Continue reading

Email this to someoneShare on Google+Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn
Posted in PERB Decision | Leave a comment

PERB Releases Case Processing Efficiency Report

PERB has released its report on its Case Processing Efficiency Initiative. (Click here.) The goal of the initiative was to find ways to improve PERB’s processing of cases.  A series of meetings were held at PERB’s regional offices to gather stakeholder input.  In addition, PERB held a series of internal meetings with its staff.  The final report lists all the ideas presented at these forums in order of High, Medium, and Low priority.

PERB has scheduled two  meetings in March to review the report.  The meetings are:

  • March 14, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. at the PERB Headquarters Office, 1031 18th Street, Room 103, Sacramento, CA.
  • March 15, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. at the California Dept. of Tax, 505 North Brand Blvd., Ste 700 (Room 705), Glendale, CA.

The PERB has also invited the submission of written comments on the report by March 9, 2018, so that the Board can review them in advance of the public meetings.

Email this to someoneShare on Google+Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn
Posted in News, PERB News | Leave a comment

Governor Appoints New Board Members

Governor Brown has announced the appointment of three Board Members to the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). (Click here for the press release.) Priscilla Winslow was re-appointed to the Board.  Member Winslow has been a Member of PERB since 2013. The Governor also announced two new Board Members: Ari Krantz and Erich Shiners.  Mr. Krantz is an attorney with Leonard Carder LLP, a prominent union-side law firm. Mr. Shiners is an attorney with Liebert Cassidy, and formerly an attorney with Renne Sloan Holtzman Sakai LLP, where he represented public agencies in all areas of labor and employment law. Here are the bios of the appointees from the Governor’s new release: Continue reading

Email this to someoneShare on Google+Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn
Posted in News, PERB News | Leave a comment

Mark Janus v. AFSCME: Oral Argument Highlights

The Supreme Court held oral argument in the Janus v. AFSCME case this morning.  A transcript of the oral argument can be found here. Overall, the argument was very similar to the one held in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association last year. Here are some highlights of the questions and answers:

How are union agency fees any different than student activities fees or bar association fees? (Questions from Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor) William Messenger, the attorney for Mark Janus, responded that compelling state interests justify these other types of fees, but not for union agency fees. Continue reading

Email this to someoneShare on Google+Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn
Posted in Court Decisions, News | Leave a comment