Meyers-Milias-Brown Act - Revision history

Sysop at 19:38, 2 January 2020

2020-01-02T19:38:26Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:38, 2 January 2020
Line 59:		Line 59:
	collective bargaining agreement, the unilateral change may also be a contract violation, over which a		collective bargaining agreement, the unilateral change may also be a contract violation, over which a
	grievance may be filed.		grievance may be filed.

			==PERB==
			PERB has exclusive initial jurisdiction to hear and decide whether any of the statutes it administers has been
			violated. Such unlawful acts are termed "unfair practices." Govt C §3509(b) (MMBA);


			They generally include claims
			that either party has violated its duty to bargain in good faith or to participate in the required impasse
			procedures, that the employer or the union has taken reprisal against an employee for activity protected by the
			statute, that the employer has interfered with the union's representation activities, or that the union has
			violated its duty of fair representation. Govt C §§3506.5, 3509(b) (MMBA);

			Unfair practice proceedings are governed by regulations adopted by PERB. 8 Cal Code Regs
			§§31001–32980.
			A charge alleging that an unfair practice has been committed must be filed in one of PERB's three regional
			offices within 6 months after the alleged unfair practice occurred. Govt C §3514.5 (Dills Act); Govt C
			§§3524.55(a)(1), 3524.72 (JCEERA); Govt C §3541.5 (EERA); Govt C §3563.2 (HEERA); Coachella Valley
			Mosquito & Vector Control Dist. v PERB (2005) 35 C4th 1072 (MMBA); Govt C §71639.1(c) (TCEPGA);
			Govt C §71825(c) (TCIELRA). A charge must be in writing, identify the charging party and the respondent,
			be signed by the charging party, identify the statutory sections allegedly violated, and include a clear and
			concise statement of the facts and conduct alleged to be unlawful. It must state whether a grievance has been
			filed on the same conduct and if the collective bargaining agreement provides for binding arbitration, so that
			PERB may determine whether it must defer the matter to arbitration. 8 Cal Code Regs §32615. Forms and
			information for filing unfair practices charges can be found on PERB's website: https://www.perb.ca.gov.
			A PERB agent reviews the charge to determine whether it states a prima facie violation of the statute. The
			agent has authority to issue a "complaint" or to dismiss the charge because it fails to state a prima facie case,
			it is untimely, or it must be deferred to arbitration under an agreement's grievance procedure. 8 Cal Code
			Regs §32620.
			PRACTICE TIP: The agent's decision not to issue a complaint may be appealed to the Board itself. 8 Cal Code
			Regs §32635. The Board's decision not to issue a complaint may be appealed to superior court by means of a
			petition for writ of mandate under CCP §1085. International Ass'n of Fire Fighters v Public Employment
			Relations Bd. (2011) 51 C4th 259.


			If a complaint issues, a PERB administrative law judge (ALJ) conducts an evidentiary hearing. 8 Cal Code
			Regs §§32168–32170. Following the hearing and submission of closing arguments, the ALJ issues a
			proposed decision. 8 Cal Code Regs §32215. The ALJ's proposed decision becomes final if neither party files
			exceptions (i.e., appeals the decision to the Board). 8 Cal Code Regs §§32215, 32300.
			In reviewing the ALJ's proposed decision, the Board does not hold an evidentiary hearing, but may allow oral
			argument. 8 Cal Code Regs §32315. The Board may adopt the ALJ's decision as its own decision or may
			issue a full opinion resolving all legal and factual issues. 8 Cal Code Regs §32320(a). On appeal, the Board
			applies a de novo standard of review, but defers to the ALJ's credibility determinations based on observation
			of witness testimony. Anaheim Union High Sch. Dist. (2016) PERB Dec. No. 2504E, 41 PERC 80; Santa
			Clara Unified Sch. Dist. (1979) PERB Dec. No. 104E, 3 PERC 10124.
			The ALJ or the Board may order any remedy that effectuates the purpose of the applicable statute, including
			an order to cease and desist the unlawful conduct, or to make an affected employee whole through
			reinstatement and back pay. Govt C §3514.5(c) (Dills Act); Govt C §3524.55(c) (JCEERA); Govt C
			§3541.3(i), (n) (EERA); Govt C §3563.3 (HEERA); Govt C §3509(a)–(b) (MMBA); Govt C §71639.1(b)–(c)
			(TCEPGA); Govt C §71825(b)–(c) (TCIELRA); Pub Util C §99561(h), (m) (TEERA); 8 Cal Code Regs
			§32325. Board monetary remedies are traditionally limited to back pay and benefits, including interest.
			Attorney fees may be awarded only when the charge "is without arguable merit and pursued in bad faith."
			City of Alhambra (2009) PERB Dec. No. 2036M, 33 PERC 103.
			Decisions of the Board are precedent for future cases under PERB's jurisdiction. 8 Cal Code Regs §32320(c).
			Effective July 1, 2013, a Board decision reviewing an agent's decision not to issue a complaint is not
			precedential unless so designated by a majority of the Board members participating in the decision. 8 Cal
			Code Regs §32320(d). Unappealed ALJ decisions are binding on the parties to the dispute, but are not
			precedent-setting and may not be appealed to a court. 8 Cal Code Regs §§32215, 32305(a).

Sysop at 19:35, 2 January 2020

2020-01-02T19:35:01Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:35, 2 January 2020
Line 17:		Line 17:
	Anaheim Union High School District (1981) PERB Dec. No. 0177E [5 PERC ¶ 12148]		Anaheim Union High School District (1981) PERB Dec. No. 0177E [5 PERC ¶ 12148]
	Claremont Police Officers Ass'n v. City of Claremont (2006) 39 Cal.4th 623		Claremont Police Officers Ass'n v. City of Claremont (2006) 39 Cal.4th 623

			==Duty to Bargain==
			Gov. Code 3505

			An unfair practice to refuse or fail to negotiate in good faith. Gov. Code 3506.5(c)
			8 Cal Code Regs §§32603(c), 32604(c), 32606(c), 32607(c), 32608(c), 32609(c),
			32610(c), 32611(c).

			Good faith bargaining requires a genuine effort to reach agreement. Placentia Fire Fighters v City of
			Placentia (1976) 57 CA3d 9. Negotiations must continue until agreement is reached, or negotiations have
			reached impasse. Public Employment Relations Bd. v Modesto City Schs. Dist. (1982) 136 CA3d 881.
			Examples of "bad faith bargaining" include "surface bargaining" with no effort at compromise; unreasonably
			delaying bargaining sessions; not giving negotiators enough authority; reneging on a tentative agreement; or
			attempts by either side to bypass negotiators, such as a union's dealing directly with the employer's governing
			body or the employer negotiating directly with employees. See City of San Jose (2013) PERB Dec. No.
			2341M, 38 PERC 94; Chino Valley Unified Sch. Dist. (1999) PERB Dec. No. 1326, 23 PERC 30097;
			Oakland Unified Sch. Dist. (1983) PERB Dec. No. 0326E, 7 PERC 14195; Walnut Valley Unified Sch. Dist.
			(1981) PERB Dec. No. 0160E, 5 PERC 12038. However, it is not bad faith to fail to reach agreement on
			mandatory subjects, as long as a good faith effort has been made and impasse procedures have been
			exhausted. See City of Davis (2018) PERB Dec. No. 2582M, 43 PERC 51; State of Cal. Dep't of Forestry &
			Fire Protection (1993) PERB Dec. No. 0999S, 17 PERC 24112; Davis Joint Unified Sch. Dist. (1984) PERB
			Dec. No. 0393E, 8 PERC 15136. It also is not bad faith to refuse to negotiate over a nonmandatory subject of
			bargaining. Berkeley Unified Sch. Dist. (2012) PERB Dec. No. 2268E, 37 PERC 7; Lake Elsinore School
			Dist. (1986) PERB Dec. No. 0603E, 11 PERC 18022. Whether conduct satisfies the duty to bargain is
			measured by the totality of circumstances. See Fresno County In-Home Supportive Servs. Pub. Auth. (2015)
			PERB Dec. No. 2418M, 39 PERC 133; Muroc Unified Sch. Dist. (1978) PERB Dec. No. 0080E, 3 PERC
			10004. See also Zerger, California Public Sector Labor Relations, chap 6 (2018) for a detailed summary and
			citations to leading cases defining the duty to bargain in good faith and indicia of bad faith.

			It is "per se" bad faith for the employer unilaterally to change the terms and conditions of employment that
			are within the scope of representation without providing the exclusive representative with notice of the
			proposed change and the opportunity to negotiate over it. See California State Employees Ass'n v Public
			Employment Relations Bd. (1996) 51 CA4th 923; Fairfield-Suisun Unified Sch. Dist. (2012) PERB Dec. No.
			2262, 36 PERC 176. Stockton Police Officers Ass'n v City of Stockton (1988) 206 CA3d 62. The employer
			may unilaterally implement a proposed change only after negotiations have reached an impasse and impasse
			procedures (see §21.26) have been exhausted without an agreement being reached. Public Employment
			Relations Bd. v Modesto City Schs. Dist. (1982) 136 CA3d 881. However, if the employer notified the union
			of the proposed change and the union did not request to negotiate within a reasonable time thereafter, the
			employer may implement the change without negotiations. Metropolitan Water Dist. of So. Cal. (2009) PERB
			Dec. No. 2055M, 33 PERC 144. If the proposed change addresses a matter already covered by the current
			collective bargaining agreement, the unilateral change may also be a contract violation, over which a
			grievance may be filed.

Sysop at 19:33, 2 January 2020

2020-01-02T19:33:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:33, 2 January 2020
Line 11:		Line 11:

	8 Cal Code Regs §§61000–61630.		8 Cal Code Regs §§61000–61630.

			==Scope of representation==
			Gov. Code 3504
			Fire Fighters Union v. City of Vallejo (1974) 12 Cal.3d 608.
			Anaheim Union High School District (1981) PERB Dec. No. 0177E [5 PERC ¶ 12148]
			Claremont Police Officers Ass'n v. City of Claremont (2006) 39 Cal.4th 623

Sysop: Created page with "Also known as MMBA Gov. Code sections 3500-3511 Local provisions IBEWR IBEW v City of Gridley (1983) 34 Cal.3d 191; Huntington Beach Police Officers Ass'n v City of Hunti..."

2020-01-02T19:23:23Z

Created page with "Also known as MMBA Gov. Code sections 3500-3511 Local provisions IBEWR IBEW v City of Gridley (1983) 34 Cal.3d 191; Huntington Beach Police Officers Ass'n v City of Hunti..."

New page

Also known as MMBA

Gov. Code sections 3500-3511

Local provisions
IBEWR

IBEW v City of Gridley (1983) 34 Cal.3d 191;
Huntington Beach Police Officers Ass'n v City of Huntington Beach (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 492;
County of Amador (2013) PERB Dec. No. 2318M, 38 PERC 23.

8 Cal Code Regs §§61000–61630.