February 2026 Board Decisions Summary
Home | News Items | February 2026 Board Decisions Summary
In February 2026, the Board issued eleven decisions. The decision descriptions and dispositions are below.
Employer: International Union of Operating Engineers, Stationary Engineers Local 39 (Kavousi)
Case No. SA-CO-176-M
Issued date: February 3, 2026
Non-Precedential
Description: Charging Party Bahram Kavousi appealed a dismissal of his unfair practice charge by PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC). Charging Party alleged that Respondent International Union of Operating Engineers, Stationary Engineers Local 39, breached its duty of fair representation and violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act by failing to advocate for Charging Party during the termination of his employment and failing to respond to his complaints and requests for assistance. After Kavousi amended his charge, OGC dismissed the charge. Kavousi appealed.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed the dismissal of Charging Party’s charge without leave to amend.
Employer: Lynwood Teachers Association
Case Nos. LA-CO-1881-E & LA-CO-1882-E
Issued date: February 3, 2026
Precedential
Description: Charging Parties Nicole Perrotta and Ivonne Lopez alleged that they did not have a meaningful opportunity to express their views on an agreement that their employer, Lynwood Unified School District, negotiated with Lynwood Teachers Association regarding a single employment term. PERB’s Office of the General Counsel found that the facts alleged, if proven, would not establish a prima facie case that the Association breached its duty of fair representation. Charging Parties appealed.
Disposition: The Board affirmed. Even if the facts alleged were proven true, the Association would still meet the legal threshold of showing some consideration of the views of various groups of employees and some access for communication of those views.
Employer: Sierra Joint Community College District
Case No. SA-CE-3214-E
Issued date: February 9, 2026
Non-Precedential
Description: Charging Party Nalo Pelago alleged that Respondent Sierra Joint Community College District interfered with protected activities and retaliated against him for such activities in violation of EERA. The main retaliatory act Pelago alleged is the District’s decision to terminate his employment before the end of his probationary period. PERB’s Office of the General Counsel dismissed the charge explaining that Pelago had not alleged facts that would establish causation between the termination and his protected activities or that the District had otherwise violated EERA. Pelago appealed.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed the dismissal.
Employer: Regents of the University of California (Los Angeles)
Case No. SF-CE-1435-H
Issued date: February 9, 2026
Precedential
Description: Employees of the Respondent Regents of the University of California, Los Angeles (University) Facilities Management department conducted two unscheduled “delegations” to department management, to complain about the impacts of staffing practices used by the department. At least one employee at each delegation made a video recording with a smartphone. The employees later received counseling memoranda and negative comments in performance evaluations referencing one of those delegations, asserting that the employees had behaved in a “confrontational” manner and violated the University’s values and the collective bargaining agreement, and that the recording violated “State law.” The University also posted notices in the employees’ workplaces with similar statements, and admonished employees not to speak to managers about their concerns without scheduling a meeting through the University’s labor relations office. The University also sent those employees’ exclusive representative, Charging Party American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees Local 3299 (AFSCME) “Warning Letters” with similar statements. AFSCME alleged that the University’s conduct violated the Higher Education Employer Employee Relations Act (HEERA) by interfering with employee and organization rights, retaliating against employees for protected activity, and unilaterally changing terms and conditions of employment.
The University also sent AFSCME a “warning letter” asserting that AFSCME did not comply with University access rules when it held a tabling event in an outdoor area on campus. AFSCME further alleged that this conduct violated HEERA by interfering with employee and organization rights, and unilaterally changing terms and conditions of employment.
A PERB Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held a formal hearing and issued a proposed decision upholding AFSCME’s interference and retaliation allegations but rejecting the unilateral change allegations. The University filed exceptions and AFSCME filed cross-exceptions.
Disposition: The Board reversed the proposed decision in part and found that the University’s responses to the employee delegation retaliated against employees for protected activity, interfered with employee and organization rights, and unilaterally changed terms and conditions of employment, and that its response to AFSCME’s tabling event interfered with employee and organization rights. The Board also modified the ALJ’s proposed remedy to require a live reading of the notice of the decision to employees, and other measures intended to effectuate the purposes of HEERA.
Employer: City of Azusa
Case No. LA-CE-1707-M
Issued date: February 11, 2026
Precedential
Description: International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 18 (IBEW) filed a charge alleging that the City of Azusa violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) by changing the job duties of water workers, failing to meet and confer over the decision to implement the change in policy and/or the effects of the change in policy, interfering with the rights of bargaining unit employees to be represented by IBEW, and denying IBEW the right to represent unit members. After a hearing and briefing by the parties, the ALJ determined that the City had violated the MMBA, and ordered that the City cease and desist the misconduct and post a notice that it had violated the MMBA. The ALJ also issued a notice reading, also known as spoken notice, requiring that a City representative read aloud PERB’s notice of findings and remedial order.
IBEW filed exceptions to the ALJ’s remedy, requesting that the Board order make-whole relief for the affected employees who performed work outside of their job classifications. The City filed cross-exceptions to the ALJ’s decision itself, arguing that the work was within the scope of the employees’ job classifications, that the City did not fail to meet and confer regarding the decision and its effects, and that IBEW had waived its right to bargain effects.
Disposition: The Board affirmed the ALJ’s conclusion that the City violated the MMBA. The Board sustained IBEW’s exceptions and concluded that the ALJ erred in failing to order a make whole remedy, awarding backpay consistent with similar terms that the City had bargained in prior instances where employees worked outside of their job classifications. The Board removed the spoken notice from the order, however.
Employer: Standard Elementary School District
Case No. LA-CE-7062-E
Issued date: February 13, 2026
Non-Precedential
Description: A group of employees of the Standard Elementary School District filed a decertification petition with PERB to remove Charging Party Service Employees International Union, Local 521 (SEIU) as the exclusive representative of the District’s classified bargaining unit. SEIU filed a charge alleging that the District violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA) by providing unlawful assistance or breaching its duty of strict neutrality, denying SEIU access to new employee orientations, and unilaterally changing terms and conditions of employment concerning health and welfare premium deductions. PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC) issued a complaint on those allegations. SEIU also alleged that the District violated EERA when it used PERB’s electronic filing portal to file the list of employees in the bargaining unit utilized by OGC in verifying the decertification petitioner’s proof of support for the decertification petition, causing the list to be served on representatives of the group of employees and SEIU. SEIU alleged that by failing to keep the employee list confidential, the District provided unlawful support to the decertification petitioner, and breached its duty of strict neutrality. OGC determined that employee lists are not confidential, and dismissed from the charge SEIU’s allegations relating to the service of that list. SEIU appealed the partial dismissal to the Board.
Disposition: In an non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed OGC’s partial dismissal of the charge.
Employer: County of San Diego
Case No. LA-CE-1769-M
Issued date: February 17, 2026
Precedential
Description: The dispute arose during bargaining between the County of San Diego and Teamsters, after Teamsters decertified and replaced the prior exclusive representative. The County, applying the terms of its compensation ordinance and the predecessor union’s collective bargaining agreement, refused to credit bargaining team members’ release time for purposes of determining overtime eligibility. PERB’s Office of the General Counsel issued a complaint alleging the County thereby violated MMBA section 3505.3(a), which requires release time to be “without loss of compensation or other benefits.” The parties agreed to forego an evidentiary hearing and instead submit the matter based on a stipulated record. When briefing was complete, the Board transferred the record to the Board itself for decision pursuant to PERB Regulations 32215 and 32320(a)(1).
Disposition: The Board found that the County’s ordinance and the predecessor union’s contract violated the MMBA. While the number of employees to be released and the amount of release time allowed are bargainable topics, the right to release time without loss of compensation and benefits constitutes a minimum statutory guarantee that is not waivable. Accordingly, the County violated section 3505.3, as its policy led to a loss in compensation (compared to employees’ regular compensation) in those instances in which released employees would have earned overtime by working over 40 hours within a single work week, absent negotiations.
Employer: City and County of San Francisco (San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency)
Case No. SF-CE-1874-M
Issued date: February 19, 2026
Non-Precedential
Description: Respondent City and County of San Francisco (San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency) (SFMTA) assigned primary maintenance duties for a battery-electric bus (BEB) pilot to employees in the 7381 Automotive Mechanics classification, represented by Joined Party International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, Local 1414 (IAM). Charging Party International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 6 (IBEW), alleged that SFMTA violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) when it failed to assign maintenance work on BEBs, which are electrically‑powered transit vehicles, to employees in the 7371 Electrical Transit System Mechanics classification within IBEW’s bargaining unit. A previous Board decision found that SFMTA violated the MMBA when it failed to provide necessary and relevant information regarding the BEB assignment decision and remanded for further hearing on the BEB assignment decision itself. After remand, the Chief ALJ issued a proposed decision dismissing the remaining complaint allegations and incorporating the previous request for information order.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed the Chief ALJ’s proposed decision dismissing the remaining complaint and charge allegations. The decision incorporated the order from the previous request for information finding.
Organization: Coast Federation of Classified Professionals, Local 4794 (Chaudhry)
Case No. LA-CO-1878-E
Issued date: February 23, 2026
Non-Precedential
Description: Atif Chaudhry alleged that Respondent Coast Federation of Classified Professionals, Local 4794 (the Federation) violated EERA by breaching its duty of fair representation when its president represented Chaudhry during a meeting with his supervisor. After PERB’s Office of General Counsel (OGC) issued Chaudhry a warning letter, Chaudhry amended to include an allegation that the Federation failed to file a grievance on his behalf. OGC dismissed the amended charge because it did not state a prima facie violation of EERA.
Disposition: In a non-precedential Decision, the Board affirmed the dismissal of Chaudhry’s charge without leave to amend.
Organization: Administrators Association of San Diego (Lincoln)
Case No. LA-CO-1919-E
Issued date: February 23, 2026
Non-Precedential
Description: Charging Party Lormen Lincoln appealed the dismissal of his unfair practice charge by PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC). Charging Party alleged that Respondent Administrators Association of San Diego breached its duty of fair representation and violated the Educational Employment Relations Act by failing to disclose a conflict of interest, refusing to file a grievance on his behalf, and refusing to proceed to arbitration for his grievance. OGC issued a warning letter stating that Charging Party’s allegations were either untimely or did not allege a prima facie violation of the duty of fair representation. Charging Party amended his charge. OGC found that the amended charge did not correct the deficiencies described in the warning letter and did not allege a prima facie violation, and dismissed the charge. Charging Party appealed.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed the dismissal of Charging Party’s charge without leave to amend.
Employer: Regents of the University of California
Case No. SF-CE-1502-H
Issued date: February 26, 2026
Precedential
Description: University Professional and Technical Employees, Communication Workers of America Local 9119 (UPTE) alleged in part that Regents of the University of California (UC) violated HEERA by refusing to bargain over wages for a recently accreted Research and Development Engineer (RDE) classification during successor agreement bargaining. On December 16, 2024, UPTE requested that PERB determine that impasse existed in successor bargaining and appoint a mediator; PERB subsequently appointed a mediator. On December 30, 2024, PERB issued a Unit Modification Order accreting RDE employees into UPTE’s TX unit. In early January 2025, UC repeated its request to bargain accreted classification wages separately from successor bargaining, although UPTE had previously requested that bargaining over accreted wages occur in successor bargaining. After UPTE reiterated its previous request and pointed out that the parties should discuss accretion wages with the impasse mediator, UC continued to demand separate bargaining and accused UPTE of bad faith bargaining. PERB’s Office of General Counsel dismissed the allegation because the duty to bargain in good faith was dormant during impasse, citing Victor Valley Union High School District (1986) PERB Decision No. 565, pp. 7-8 (Victor Valley), and UC did not refuse to bargain over RDE wages.
Disposition: The Board reversed OGC’s partial dismissal and remanded for a complaint to issue. While Victor Valley is correct that the duty to bargain is “dormant” during impasse resolution procedures, the Board found that the decision fails to explain that parties engaged in impasse processes are bound by a very similar duty to participate in impasse procedures in good faith, and PERB applies the same per se and totality of conduct tests irrespective of which duty applies. The Board therefore overruled Victor Valley and Regents of the University of California (1996) PERB Decision No. 1157-H to the extent they suggest that the duty to participate in impasse procedures in good faith differs in its nature from the duty to bargain.
Analyzing the prima facie case under the facts as alleged, the Board first rejected OGC’s finding that UPTE failed to establish that UC refused to bargain RDE wages, as such a reading did not match PERB’s obligation before a complaint issues to view facts in a light most favorable to the charging party. Second, the fairest reading of UC’s January 2025 communications demonstrates that UC refused to discuss any accreted wages, including the RDE classification, as part of the impasse resolution stage.
Applying the same per se and totality tests to the instant dispute, the Board found that UC’s refusal to include a mandatory subject of bargaining (wages) in impasse resolution procedures and insist on bargaining a mandatory subject separately, at minimum, are evidence of several totality of circumstances factors, including piecemeal bargaining, dilatory and evasive conduct, and conduct that tends to frustrate negotiations. And because there is a colorable theory that UC’s conduct had the practical effect of an outright refusal to participate in impasse procedures regarding a mandatory subject, a prima facie per se violation also exists.
Legal Disclaimer:
EIN Presswire provides this news content "as is" without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.
