Source: http://caperb.blogspot.com/2011/
Timestamp: 2017-12-17 07:58:37
Document Index: 556400839

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§3502', '§ 3519', '§ 3543', '§ 3543', '§ 3500']

California PERB Blog: 2011
We've launched a new version of this blog, the same features and information, but at a new address. As of August 2011, updates will be made at CAPERB.com (instead of the site you're reading now).
Visit CAPERB.com, read articles, archives, find out more about Tim Yeung.
Posted by Tim Yeung at 12:36 PM
I discussed this case in a couple of prior blog posts. (Click here and here for prior posts.) The Court of Appeal decision held that under California’s right to privacy, non-union members of a bargaining unit (i.e. agency fee payers) have a reasonable expectation of privacy that their personal information will remain confidential. The Court held that before the home addresses of non-union members can be released, the employer must provide these employees with notice and an opportunity to object to the disclosure of their personal information.
On June 16, 2011, the Supreme Court granted review of this case. The specific issues that the Court granted review on are:
(1) Under the state Constitution (Cal. Const., art. I, § 1), do the interests of non-union-member public employees in the privacy of their personal contact information outweigh the interests of the union representing their bargaining unit in obtaining that information in furtherance of its duties as a matter of labor law to provide fair and equal representation of union-member and non-union-member employees within the bargaining unit? (2) Did the Court of Appeal err in remanding to the trial court with directions to apply a specific notice procedure to protect such employees' privacy rights instead of permitting the parties to determine the proper procedure for doing so?
Posted by Tim Yeung at 6:03 PM
Menu: Choice of 1) Pork Tenderloin Puttanesca; 2) Salmon Nantua; or 3) French Onion Steak Sandwich
Cost: Reservation by July 5 = $20.00 Members, $30.00 Non Members; After July 5 or at the Door = $25.00 Members, $35.00 Non Members
RSVP by Tuesday, July 5 to Marcia Mooney (916) 928-0399 or email mmooney@local39.org with lunch choice. Make checks payable to IRANC and mail to 1017 L Street #159, Sacramento, CA 95814-3805.
“Public agencies shall not use public funds to pay outside consultants or legal advisors for the purpose of counseling the public employer about ways to minimize or deter the exercise of rights guaranteed under this chapter.”
The bill was amended on April 25th to clarify that:
“Nothing in this section shall be construed to apply to payments for representation of a public sector employer before any court, administrative agency, or tribunal of arbitration, or for payments for engaging in collective bargaining on behalf of the employer with respect to wages, hours, or other terms and conditions of employment.”
Posted by Tim Yeung at 10:50 AM
SB 259 Would Open Door to Unionizing Student Research Assistants
SB 259 was introduced by Senator Hancock on February 10, 2011. SB 259 would amend the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA) to cover student employees whose employment is contingent upon their status as students, without any other conditions. Currently, HEERA section 3562(e) defines “employee” to include student employees if the employment is contingent on their status as students and “only if the services they provide are unrelated to their educational objectives, or that those educational objectives are subordinate to the services they perform and that coverage under this chapter would further the purposes of this chapter.” SB 259 eliminates the latter requirement.
According to the Legislative analysis, the genesis of this bill is PERB’s decision in Regents of the UC & Association of Student Employees, UAW, et al (1998) (PERB Order No. 1301-H) in which PERB held that University of California Teaching Assistants (TAs), Readers, and Tutors had bargaining rights under HEERA, but that Research Assistants (RAs) did not. This bill would grant RAs bargaining rights under HEERA by deleting the statutory language that student employees only have bargaining rights if their employment is unrelated to their educational objectives.
Posted by Tim Yeung at 10:38 AM
Governor Brown has appointed Anita Martinez and Eugene Huguenin to the five-member Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). They will join Alice Dowdin Calvillo and Sally McKeag as the four members of PERB. There is still one vacancy to be filled. Anita Martinez was also named Chair of PERB. The Governor also appointed Suzanne Murphy as PERB's new General Counsel. Here are the bios of the appointees from the Governor's new release:
Posted by Tim Yeung at 3:22 PM
The question on everyone's mind is when Governor Brown will appoint new Board members and who they might be. Hopefully we'll find out soon.
Posted by Tim Yeung at 6:13 PM
This case involved an employee who was rejected during probation. The employee alleged that he was rejected during probation because of protected activities, in violation of the MMBA. Specifically, the employee argued that the City retaliated against him because of comments he made criticizing his supervisor during an employee meeting.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a proposed decision finding that the City rejected the employee during probation because of his protected activities. To establish unlawful motive, the ALJ found that the City decided to reject the employee less than eight hours after the employee’s complaints at the meeting. The ALJ also found that the decision-maker, who knew about the employee’s complaint, decided to reject the employee based on complaints from others even though no investigation was conducted.
On exceptions filed by the City, the Board agreed that these facts could establish a prima facie case of retaliation. However, the Board first questioned whether the employee even engaged in protected activity. The Board noted that under the MMBA, employees have the right to represent themselves individually in their employment relations with their employer. (Gov. Code, §3502.) But individual employee complaints generally have been held to be unprotected when they are undertaken for the employee’s sole benefit or are the result of a personal grudge. (See Los Angeles Unified School District (2003) PERB Decision No. 1552.) Here, the Board found no evidence the employee’s complaints were related to group activity or intended to group action.
Finally, it is worth noting that this decision continues a trend of the Board reversing cases where the ALJ’s proposed decision has found a violation. Since July 1, 2010, the Board has considered seven (7) cases, including this case, where the ALJ’s proposed decision found a violation. The Board overturned, either partially or entirely, every one of those decisions. During that same time, the Board considered seven (7) cases where the ALJ’s proposed decision found no violation. The Board affirmed every one of those decisions.
Posted by Tim Yeung at 8:45 PM
I’m saddened to report that John Liebert, a founding partner of Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, passed away today. You can visit Liebert Cassidy’s website (click here) for further information. John Liebert was truly one of the great pioneers of public sector labor law in California and in the nation. He will be missed by all of us in the field.
Jeff Sloan, a partner in my firm, knew John well and had this to say, “John was and is the most esteemed public sector labor lawyer in California, and beyond that an extraordinarily kind, compassionate and forward-thinking person. From its very humble beginnings, he built LCW into what is now by far the largest public sector labor and employment law firm in California. Our firm and our partners will miss him.”
Posted by Tim Yeung at 6:47 PM
AB 195 Would Codify Employer Unfair Practices Under MMBA
Last week Assembly members Roger Hernandez and Michael Allen introduced AB 195 which would codify employer unfair practices under the MMBA. The bill would delete Government Code section 3506 and replace it with the following:
3506. A public agency shall not do any of the following:
(c) Refuse or fail to meet and negotiate in good faith with a recognized employee organization. For purposes of this subdivision, knowingly providing a recognized employee organization with inaccurate information, whether or not in response to a request for information, constitutes a refusal or failure to meet and negotiate in good faith.
The MMBA is unique among the four major public sector labor relations statutes because it does not set forth specific unfair practices in the statute itself. Because of this, PERB promulgated regulations setting forth unfair practices under the MMBA for both employers and employee organizations. (PERB Regs. 32604, 32604.) The regulations are substantially similar to the language defining unfair practices under the other acts. (See, e.g., Gov. Code, § 3519, 3543.5, 3571.)
Interestingly, AB 195 uses language from EERA (Gov. Code, § 3543.5) rather than just using the current MMBA regulation language. The big difference is that EERA contains language making it an unfair practice for a school employer to provide “inaccurate information” regarding its financial resources to an exclusive representative. (Gov. Code, § 3543.5.) AB 195 adopts this language but tweaks it slightly. Under AB 195, it would become an unfair practice to provide an exclusive representative with “inaccurate information” whether related to finances or not.
Finally, it should be noted that Gov. Code section 3506 currently prohibits both employers and employee organizations from intimidating or discriminating against employees. AB 195 would delete this language and replace it with language only prohibiting employers from such actions. There would be no similar prohibition against unions from engaging in such conduct. Is the intent therefore that unions would be free to intimidate and discriminate against employees—for example, by pressuring employees to vote a certain way during representation elections? It’s not clear. Because the bill was just introduced there isn't an analysis yet for the bill. Once the analysis is released perhaps we'll learn more.
Posted by Tim Yeung at 10:08 AM
As I predicted, the Court answered "yes" to the first question and "no" to the second. I'll have more on this decision after I've had a chance to thoroughly read it.
Posted by Tim Yeung at 10:18 AM
IAFF v. City of Richmond Decision Expected on Monday
The California Supreme Court has given notice that a decision in International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 188, AFL-CIO v. Public Employment Relations Board (City of Richmond) (Case No. S172377) ("Richmond") will be issued on Monday morning.
As a recap, the Richmond case presents the following issues:
(1) Is the decision by the Public Employment Relations Board not to issue an unfair labor practices complaint under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (Gov. Code, § 3500 et seq.) subject to judicial review? (2) Is a decision to lay off firefighters for fiscal reasons a matter that is subject to collective bargaining under the act?
Given the questions asked by the Justices at oral argument, my prediction is that the Court will answer the first question "yes" and the second question "no." We'll see if I'm right.
Posted by Tim Yeung at 12:39 PM
Court Grants Rehearing on Whether Right to Privacy Prevents Release of Non-Member Employee Addresses to Union
County of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles County Employee Relations Commission (Court of Appeal Case No. B217668) (Issued on 12/14/10; Rehearing granted on 1/11/11)
I discussed this case in a prior blog post. (Click here for prior post) In short, the Court of Appeal held that under California’s right to privacy, non-union members of a bargaining unit (i.e. agency fee payers) have a reasonable expectation of privacy that their personal information will remain confidential. The Court held that before the home addresses of non-union members can be released, the employer must provide these employees with notice and an opportunity to object to the disclosure of their personal information.
After this ruling was issued, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) filed a petition for rehearing. On January 11, 2011, the Court of Appeal granted the request for rehearing with the following order:
“In order to allow sufficient time for consideration of the issues raised in the petition for rehearing filed by real party in interest and respondent Service Employees International Union, Local 721, and in order to obtain an answer to the petition for rehearing from appellant the County of Los Angeles, Chief Executive Office, the court grants rehearing on its own motion as of this date. Appellant has 15 days from the date of this order file and serve an answer to the petition for rehearing. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.268.) Klein, P.J., Croskey, J., Aldrich, J.)”
Under Rule 8.268, subdivision (d), of the California Rules of Court, “An order granting a rehearing vacates the decision and any opinion filed in the case and sets the cause at large in the Court of Appeal.” Accordingly, the underlying published decision in this case has been vacated.
It’s rare for a court to grant a petition for rehearing. It’s not clear from Court’s order whether the Court is focused on a specific part or section of the decision. Without knowing more it’s hard to speculate how the Court may rule on rehearing the case. As soon as I know more I’ll post another entry.
Posted by Tim Yeung at 10:57 AM