April 2026 Board Decisions Summary
Home | News Items | April 2026 Board Decisions Summary
In April 2026, the Board issued seven decisions. The decision descriptions and dispositions are below.
Employer: Trustees of the California State University
Case No.: SA-CE-422-H
Issued Date: April 10, 2026
Precedential
Description: This case came before the Board a second time. In Trustees of the California State University (2024) PERB Decision No. 2915-H (Trustees I), the Board affirmed the administrative law judge’s conclusion that California State University (CSU) unlawfully began to implement a new policy that reduced the number of immunizations students must obtain without affording California Faculty Association (CFA) notice and opportunity to bargain over its reasonably foreseeable effects on faculty health and safety. CSU filed a writ petition, and the appellate court then issued Trustees of the California State University v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 90 (Trustees II), which partially affirmed and partially reversed Trustees I. The court affirmed the Board’s finding that CSU’s decision to relax its student vaccination policy had reasonably foreseeable impacts on faculty health and safety, thus requiring CSU to afford CFA an adequate opportunity to engage in effects bargaining before CSU began implementing the decision. However, the court reversed the Board’s conclusion that CSU breached its bargaining duty.
Disposition: Based on Trustees II, supra, 118 Cal.App.5th 90, the Board vacated the following portions of Trustees I, supra, PERB Decision No. 2915-H: the first full paragraph on page 3; Part I(B) and Part II of the Discussion; the Order; and the Appendix. The Board’s second decision supersedes the vacated portions of Trustees I and sets forth amended factual findings and legal conclusions consistent with Trustees II. First, the Board confirmed that CFA has the right to bargain over reasonably foreseeable health and safety effects of a student vaccination policy. Next, the Board considered the court’s conclusion that where the employer establishes the union obtained actual notice of a decision with bargainable effects, the burden is on the union if it claims there was insufficient time for good faith negotiations before the employer began implementation. Applying that principle, the Board found CFA failed to show that when it learned of CSU’s decision to relax its immunization policy, there was insufficient time for good faith bargaining before the beginning of implementation. Finally, the Board considered the court’s conclusion that where an employer reaches a decision falling outside the scope of bargaining and has a good faith basis for doubting the union’s claim that the decision has bargainable effects, the employer may satisfy its duty to seek clarification either at the bargaining table or through an informal exchange between the parties. Applying that principle, the Board held that CSU did not violate its duty to bargain because CFA refused CSU’s offer to informally discuss whether there were negotiable effects.
Organization: Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1277 (Valdivia)
Case No. LA-CO-33-X
Issued Date: April 16, 2026
Non-Precedential
Description: Charging Party Gabriel Valdivia alleged that Respondent Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1277 violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act by breaching its duty of fair representation. Charging Party alleged that Respondent approved pension contribution rates above actuarial recommendations without adequate justification or disclosure, failed to disclose material facts affecting member wages, relied on misleading and outdated plan documentation, and failed to meaningfully investigate or respond to member concerns regarding excess pension contributions. PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC) issued a warning letter informing Charging Party that PERB does not have jurisdiction over this charge and provided Charging Party with the opportunity to amend the charge to cure its deficiencies. Charging Party did not amend his charge, and OGC dismissed the charge.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed OGC’s dismissal without leave to amend. The Board explained that although PERB does have jurisdiction to enforce the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Transit Employer-Employee Relations Act (TEERA) (Pub. Util. Code, §§ 99560-99570.4), that statute applies only to supervisory employees of LAMetro. (Pub. Util. Code, § 99560.3, see also Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2023) PERB Decision No. 2916-T.) Because Valdivia is not a supervisory employee under TEERA, or otherwise under PERB’s jurisdiction, the Board affirmed the dismissal.
Organization: American Federation of Teachers Local 1474 (McKeown)
Case No. LA-CO-572-H
Issued Date: April 17, 2026
Non-Precedential
Description: Daniel Frederick McKeown filed an unfair practice charge against University Council – American Federation of Teachers (UC-AFT) but did not file proof of service of the charge on UC-AFT. PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC) sent McKeown a letter advising McKeown that service and proof of service of the charge were needed and provided an opportunity for McKeown to cure the deficiency. McKeown did not respond to OGC’s letter, and thereafter OGC dismissed the charge. McKeown appealed.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed OGC’s dismissal of the charge.
Employer: Chino Valley Unified School District
Case No. LA-CE-6828-E
Issued Date: April 20, 2026
Precedential
Description: Associated Chino Teachers (ACT) filed an unfair practice charge alleging that Chino Valley Unified School District violated the Educational Employment Relations Act when it (1) issued new regulations prohibiting most displays of flags in a manner that could reasonably be interpreted to prohibit EERA-protected activities, (2) unilaterally adopted those regulations without affording ACT adequate advance notice and an opportunity to bargain, (3) unilaterally adopted policies and regulations requiring employees to notify parents or guardians of student requests to change their gender identity, and (4) unilaterally replaced the parental notification policy with a revised policy and regulation. After a formal hearing, an Administrative Law Judge issued a proposed decision finding that the District’s flag display policy interfered with protected rights under EERA, and that the District violated EERA when it unilaterally adopted that policy. The proposed decision further found that the District violated EERA when it unilaterally adopted the student gender identity parental notification policy, and when it adopted some portions of the revised policy and regulation. The District filed exceptions challenging the interference finding as to the flag display policy, and the proposed decision’s reliance on the Board’s decision in Rocklin Unified School District (2025) PERB Decision No. 2939.
Disposition: In a precedential decision, the Board found that the proposed decision did not err by finding that the District’s flag display policy interfered with employee rights to display union insignia and ACT’s right of reasonable access to District facilities to communicate with employees. The Board further found that the proposed decision did not err in relying on the Board’s precedential decision in Rocklin Unified School District (2025) PERB Decision No. 2939.
Employer: Downey Unified School District
Case No. LA-CE-6977-E
Issued Date: April 24, 2026
Precedential
Description: David Ferrer primarily alleged that Downey Unified School District interfered with protected activities and retaliated against him for such activities. In a fifth amended charge, Ferrer withdrew his earlier allegations and instead alleged for the first time that the District had retaliated against and interfered with protected activities by suing him in retaliation for pursuing earlier versions of his charge. PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC) dismissed the fifth amended charge on two grounds. First, OGC found that the charge could not proceed because Ferrer was not a District employee when the District sued him. In the alternative, OGC found that Ferrer’s charge did not state a prima facie case of interference or retaliation because the facts Ferrer had alleged would not establish that the District’s lawsuit both lacked a reasonable basis and was filed for an unlawful purpose. Ferrer appealed.
Disposition: The Board affirmed OGC’s dismissal. First, the Board held that an employee’s post‑separation allegations are actionable if they are integrally tied to the employment relationship and satisfy all other substantive and procedural requirements. For an employee’s charge against an employer, “integrally tied” normally requires that the post-separation conduct arise directly from the employment relationship or its termination. (See, e.g., Hartnell Community College District, supra, PERB Decision No. 2452, pp. 30-33.) When the respondent is a union, “integrally tied” normally requires that the post-separation conduct directly involves the union’s acts or omissions in a matter in which it owes the employee a duty of fair representation. (See, e.g., SEIU (Lacy) (2016) PERB Decision No. 2486-M, adopting proposed decision at pp. 4-7.) The Board was not required to decide whether Ferrer sufficiently alleged that the District’s lawsuit was integrally tied to his employment relationship, for the Board affirmed OGC’s dismissal on the alternate ground.
Employer: Trustees of the California State University (San Jose)
Case No. SF-CE-1470-H
Issued Date: April 24, 2026
Non-Precedential
Description: Winncy Du filed an unfair practice charge against Trustees of the California State University, San Jose (SJSU), alleging that SJSU violated the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA) when it placed two letters of reprimand in her personnel file, added three students to a course she was teaching, and refused to consider her for the position of Mechanical Engineering department chair. After issuing a warning letter advising Du that the charge allegations were untimely or did not state a prima facie case, PERB’s Office of the General Counsel dismissed the charge. Du appealed.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed OGC’s dismissal of the charge.
Employer: Trustees of the California State University
Case No. LA-CE-1436-H
Issued date: April 29, 2026
Non-Precedential
Description: Charging Party George Georgiou appealed the dismissal of his unfair practice charge by PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC). Charging Party alleged that Respondent Trustees of the California State University engaged in unlawful retaliation and interfered with his protected rights. Charging Party subsequently filed two separate amended charges. OGC issued a warning letter stating that Charging Party’s allegations, as amended, did not state a prima facie case of retaliation or interference. Following receipt of the warning letter, Charging Party amended his charge for a third time. OGC dismissed the third amended charge because it did not correct the deficiencies described in the warning letter and the new allegations in the amended charge did not state a prima facie case. Charging Party appealed. Charging Party then filed a request to correct the record to remove sensitive information.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed the dismissal of Charging Party’s unfair practice charge without leave to amend. Additionally, the Board ordered that sensitive information identified by Charging Party be redacted from the record pursuant to PERB Regulation 32125.
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.
