PERB - California Public Employment Relations Board
07/01/2022 | Press release | Distributed by Public on 07/01/2022 10:44
Board Decisions Summary – June 2022
Board Decisions Summary - June 2022
In June, the Board issued three decisions. The decision descriptions and dispositions are below.
Employer: County of Monterey
Case No. SF-CE-1886-M
Issued date: June 1, 2022
Precedential
Description: California Nurses Association (CNA) filed a unit modification petition with County of Monterey, seeking to add unrepresented per diem Registered Nurses (RNs) and per diem Nurse Practitioners (NPs) to "Unit S," an existing County bargaining unit of regular RNs and NPs. The County denied CNA's petition and instead created a new unit containing solely per diem RNs and NPs. CNA filed an unfair practice charge alleging that, in denying the petition, the County violated its Employer-Employee Relations Resolution (EERR), the MMBA, and PERB Regulations.
Disposition: The Board resolved the charge based upon the evidentiary record, finding in CNA's favor and directing the County to add the per diem RNs and NPs to Unit S. The Board found the County provided minimal analysis in support of its conclusions and unreasonably applied its EERR by ignoring its most critical unit determination criteria and misapplying other factors. The Board found the only reasonable interpretation of the EERR was to place per diem RNs and NPs in the same unit as regular RNs and NPs who perform the same work at the same hospital.
Employer: Oakland Unified School District
Case No. SF-CE-3426-E
Issued date: June 9, 2022
Non-Precedential
Description: Charging Party Junnie Verceles appealed the Appeals Assistant's rejection of his exceptions that were filed approximately one month after the deadline to file exceptions had passed and the decision became final.
Disposition: Non-Precedential decision. Rejection affirmed - the decision remains final.
Employer: Victor Valley Union High School District
Case No. LA-CE-6562-E
Issued date: June 14, 2022
Precedential
Description: The Victor Valley Teachers Association alleged that the Victor Valley Union High School District interfered with Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA) protected rights when, during a deposition, the District's attorney asked Association President questions about: (1) confidential communications with a bargaining unit member concerning a disciplinary matter; and (2) confidential communications with other bargaining unit members and union personnel. The District excepted to the proposed decision finding the District's questioning of the Association President during the deposition interfered with EERA-protected rights.
Disposition: Precedential decision. The Board affirmed the proposed decision's legal conclusions, granted one of the Association's cross-exceptions related to the administrative law judge's factual findings, and supplemented the proposed decision's analysis with discussion of the District's exceptions and the Association's cross-exceptions.