July 2026 Board Decisions Summary
Home | News Items | July 2026 Board Decisions Summary
In July 2026, the Board issued 16 decisions. The decision descriptions and dispositions are below.
Employer: Regents of the University of California (UCSF Medical Center)
Case No. SF-CE-1509-H
Issued date: 7/1/2026
Non-Precedential
Description: Charging Party Gina Nejmanowski alleged that Respondent Regents of the University of California (UCSF Medical Center) violated the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA). Nejmanowski alleged that the employer unilaterally changed requirements for education leave, bargained in bad faith, retaliated against her, interfered with her exercise of protected activity, and engaged in bad faith conduct in the grievance process. OGC dismissed the charge because Nejmanowski failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation or interference, and because she did not have standing to bring a claim that her employer made a unilateral change to terms and conditions of employment. Charging Party appealed.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed OGC’s dismissal without leave to amend.
Employer: Regents of the University of California
Case No.: SF-CE-1437-H
Issued Date: 7/1/2026
Precedential
Description: AFSCME requested health and safety records pertaining to employees at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), a national research laboratory owned by the U.S. Department of Energy and operated by the University of California (UC). AFSCME alleged that UC violated HEERA by failing to provide the requested records. The administrative law judge (ALJ) sustained AFSCME’s claim and issued a compromise remedy intended to comply with federal privacy protections. Both parties filed exceptions.
Disposition: The Board affirmed the proposed decision and adjusted the ALJ’s proposed remedy. The Board found that in responding to AFSCME’s request for information (RFI), UC violated HEERA because UC failed to exercise the same diligence and thoroughness as it would in other business affairs of importance. Among other deficiencies, UC’s response was tardy, careless, and unsubstantiated. The Board noted that even if an employer’s RFI response is unlawful, PERB retains discretion to account for legitimate third-party privacy interests when fashioning a remedy. The Board’s remedy therefore accounted for federal privacy protections.
Employer: City of Huntington Park
Case No. LA-CE-1515-M
Issued date: 7/2/2026
Non-Precedential
Description: Charging Party Huntington Park General Employees Association (HPGEA) alleged that Respondent City of Huntington Park retaliated against nine City employees because they engaged in various union-related or other activities that were protected under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA). The complaint alleged that the City derivatively interfered with rights protected under the MMBA and the City unilaterally transferred bargaining unit work to other classifications. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a proposed decision holding that the City had engaged in retaliation in violation of MMBA sections 3502, 3506, and 3506.5(a) when it placed three employees on administrative leave. The ALJ also determined that by this same conduct, the City derivatively interfered with protected rights, in violation of MMBA sections 3506.5(a) and (b). The ALJ dismissed all claims related to the other six employees as well as the unilateral change claim and an unalleged independent interference claim. HPGEA filed exceptions objecting to the dismissal of the claims. The city filed no exceptions of its own but opposed HPGEA’s exceptions.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board denied HGPEA’s exceptions to the proposed decision and affirmed the ALJ’s proposed remedy.
Organization: Sacramento City Teachers Association, CTA/NEA and California Teachers Association (Reilly)
Case Nos. SA-CO-708-E & SA-CO-709-E
Issued date: 7/6/2026
Non-Precedential
Description: Charging Party Patrick Reilly requested special permission to appeal the denials of his motions for recusal pursuant to PERB Regulation 32155(e). On May 1, 2026, Reilly filed identical motions in PERB Case Nos. SA-CO-708-E and SA-CO-709-E for recusal of a Board agent in PERB’s Office of the General Counsel. Reilly’s motions cited PERB Regulation 32155(b). On May 15, 2026, the Board agent subject to recusal denied both motions. Reilly appealed.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board denied Reilly’s request for special permission to appeal the denials of his motion for recusal in PERB Case Nos. SA-CO-708-E and SA-CO-709-E. The Board found that granting the interlocutory appeal of the Board agent’s order denying Reilly’s motions would not effectuate the purposes of the Educational Employment Relations Act.
Organization: Sacramento City Teachers Association, CTA/NEA and California Teachers Association (Reilly)
Case Nos. SA-CO-705-E & SA-CO-707-E
Issued Date: 7/6/2026
Non-Precedential
Description: Charging Party Patrick Reilly alleged that Respondents Sacramento City Teachers Association, CTA/NEA (SCTA) and California Teachers Association (CTA) violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA) when they declined to represent Reilly during a Commission on Teaching Credentialing hearing. PERB’s Office of General Counsel (OGC) issued warning letters in the cases, finding that neither stated a prima facie violation of the duty of fair representation and CTA did not owe Reilly such a duty. Reilly filed amended charges in both cases; OGC dismissed the charges, finding that they did not correct the issues identified in the warning letters. Reilly appealed.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed OGC’s dismissal of the charges.
Organization: Teamsters Local 2010 (Morin)
Case No. SA-CO-292-H
Issued Date: 7/6/2026
Non-Precedential
Description: Carlo Morin alleged that Teamsters Local 2010 breached its duty of fair representation in its handling of an out-of-class pay grievance it filed on his behalf. PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC) issued Morin a warning letter, explaining that the facts he alleged, if proven, would not demonstrate that Teamsters breached its fair representation duty or otherwise violated HEERA. Morin amended his charge to add a new basis for his claim, challenging the fact that the Teamsters attorney handling the grievance also represents Teamsters in this matter. OGC dismissed the amended charge, concluding that Morin had not alleged a prima facie case of any HEERA violation. Morin appealed, and Teamsters filed an opposition.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed OGC’s dismissal of the amended charge. Morin’s abuse of PERB’s processes by citing to fabricated authority in his charges and his appeal constituted a further independent reason for the Board’s decision.
Employer: Lodi Unified School District
Case No. SA-CE-3186-E
Issued Date: 7/9/2026
Non-Precedential
Description: Lodi Education Association alleged that Lodi Unified School District violated EERA by changing terms and conditions of employment without affording it adequate notice and opportunity to bargain. After a formal hearing, the ALJ found the District deviated from a collectively bargained formula for crediting vocational teachers for their prior work experience. Specifically, the ALJ found the Association demonstrated that service credit enhancements for prior work experience applied to all vocational teachers, not just to new hires. The District filed exceptions.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed the ALJ’s interpretation as the best construction of the parties’ CBA, notwithstanding that the parties may not have interpreted the language the same way at the time they reached agreement. The Board noted that the CBA includes no limiting language that would exclude existing employees from the new formula, nor does the CBA contain language stating or even suggesting that the value of credit awarded for prior vocational experience becomes forever fixed once an employee is initially placed on the salary schedule and can never be adjusted pursuant to later collective bargaining.
Employer: County of Contra Costa
Case No. SF-CE-2330-M
Issued Date: 7/13/2026
Non-Precedential
Description: Charging Party Willie Coleman alleged that the County of Contra Costa retaliated against Coleman for engaging in various protected activities. The Office of the General Counsel (OGC) issued a complaint on some of the allegations in the charge, and issued a partial warning letter addressing allegations of the County’s conduct that occurred more than six months prior to the date the unfair practice charge was filed. Coleman filed an amended charge. OGC determined that the amended charge did not demonstrate that the allegations addressed in the warning letter were timely, and therefore dismissed the allegations. Coleman appealed OGC’s partial dismissal.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed OGS’s dismissal, without leave to amend, of all allegations except those addressed in the complaint issued by OGC.
Organization: American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees Local 2076 (Whelan)
Case No. LA-CO-307-M
Issued Date: 7/15/2026
Non-Precedential
Description: Charging Party Susan Whelan alleged that Respondent American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Local 2076 (AFSCME) violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) by breaching its duty of fair representation. Whelan asserted that AFSCME refused to assist her with long-term and short-term disability benefits, workers’ compensation benefits, and the County’s classification of Whelan’s separation from employment. PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC) reviewed Whelan’s charge and five subsequent amendments and issued a warning letter explaining the facts alleged, if proven, would not establish that AFSCME had breached its duty of fair representation or otherwise violated the MMBA and that certain allegations were untimely. OGC also admonished Whelan for including citations to six nonexistent PERB decisions and multiple misstatements of law in her Fifth Amended Charge. OGC gave Whelan an opportunity to amend her charge to cure its deficiencies. Whelan filed an amended charge, and OGC concluded Whelan had not cured the deficiencies explained in the warning letter. OGC dismissed the charge and Whelan appealed.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed OGC’s dismissal without leave to amend.
Employer/Organization: Regents of the University of California and University Council-American Federation of Teachers
Case Nos. LA-CE-1474-H, LA-CE-1481-H, LA-CE-1487-H, LA-CE-1491-H, LA-CO-571-H, LA-CO-577-H, and LA-CO-578-H
Issued Date: 7/16/2026
Precedential
Description: Daniel Frederick McKeown filed four charges against the Regents of the University of California and three charges against University Council – American Federation of Teachers (UC-AFT). McKeown alleged that the University violated the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA) by taking various actions in retaliation for his speech during working time concerning his wages. McKeown alleged that UC-AFT violated the duty of fair representation under HEERA by failing or refusing to file grievances over various actions by the University. After PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC) sent warning letters in these cases, McKeown filed requests for the Board agent assigned to his cases to recuse herself. The Board agent denied McKeown’s recusal requests, and OGC dismissed the charges. McKeown appealed.
Disposition: In a precedential decision, the full Board upheld OGC’s dismissals of McKeown’s charges and the Board agent’s determinations denying McKeown’s recusal requests. The Board further found that McKeown had engaged in an abuse of process by filing duplicative, filing error-filled documents containing fictious legal authority, and filing documents not authorized by PERB Regulations. To address McKeown’s abuse of process, the Board imposed non-monetary litigation sanctions on McKeown.
Employer/Organization: Montebello Unified School District and Montebello Teachers Association
Case Nos. LA-CE-7060-E and LA-CO-1936-E
Issued Date: 7/22/2026
Non-Precedential
Description: Charging Party Manasha S. Alvarado filed unfair practice charges against Respondents Montebello Unified School District (District) and Montebello Teachers Association (Association). Alvarado alleged that the District violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA) by changing her work assignments and constructively discharging her from employment in retaliation for her protected activity. Alvarado alleged that the Association violated the duty of fair representation by failing or refusing to assist her in contesting the reassignment. PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC) reviewed Alvarado’s charge and amended charges against the District and determined that Alvarado did not allege sufficient facts showing that her protected activity was a substantial or motivating cause of the reassignment, and that she did not allege sufficient facts to establish constructive discharge. OGC determined that Alvarado’s charge against the Association did not state a prima facie case of a violation of EERA because Alvarado did not ask the Association to undertake any action that would trigger the duty of fair representation. OGC dismissed both charges, and Alvarado appealed both dismissals to the Board.
Disposition: In a non-precedential consolidated decision, the Board affirmed OGC’s dismissals without leave to amend.
Employer: City of Pleasanton
Case No. SF-CE-2144-M
Issued Date: 7/23/2026
Precedential
Description: Pleasanton City Employees Association, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 955 (AFSCME) alleged that the City of Pleasanton violated the MMBA by changing terms and conditions of employment without providing it adequate advance notice and opportunity to bargain. After an evidentiary hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) found that the City changed its criteria for awarding educational incentive pay, applied the new criteria to withhold such pay, and decided to require repayment of incentive pay provided under the City’s previous criteria. The City filed exceptions.
Disposition: The Board affirmed, finding that the City adopted a new approach to determining incentive pay eligibility. The Board also found that the City committed a second unilateral change when it decided to require reimbursement for past receipt of educational incentive pay that fell outside the City’s new criteria.
Employer: County of San Mateo
Case No. SF-CE-2124-M
Issued Date: 7/24/2026
Precedential
Description: SEIU Local 521 (Local 521) alleged that the County of San Mateo violated the Public Employee Communication Chapter (PECC) and the MMBA, and committed unfair practices under PERB Regulations by holding new employee orientations without: (1) providing Local 521 with 10 days’ notice, (2) negotiating over the structure, time, and manner of Local 521’s access to the orientations, and (3) providing Local 521 access to the new employee orientations. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a proposed decision finding that the County failed to provide 10 days’ notice of the new employee orientations, and that the County derivatively interfered with protected rights in violation of the MMBA, but dismissed all other allegations. Both parties filed exceptions. The County’s exceptions challenged the ALJ’s conclusion that it violated the PECC, MMBA and committed an unfair practice under PERB Regulations by failing to notify Local 521 of the new employee orientations. Local 521’s exceptions challenged the dismissal of the allegations that the County failed to: (1) negotiate over the structure, time and manner of Local 521’s access to the orientations; and (2) failed to provide Local 521 access to the orientations. Local 521 also argued for additional remedies beyond those ordered by the ALJ.
Disposition: In a precedential decision, the Board found that the County held new employee orientations without: (1) providing Local 521 with 10 days’ notice, (2) negotiating over the structure, time, and manner of Local 521’s access to the orientations, and (3) providing Local 521 access to the new employee orientations. Accordingly, the County violated the PECC and committed unfair practices under PERB Regulations, and derivatively interfered with protected rights, in violation of the MMBA. The Board ordered that the County make whole Local 521 for any increased costs resulting from the County’s violations, but did not order that the County pay lost dues for affected new employees who did not become bargaining unit employees.
Organization: North Coast States Carpenters Union Local 646 (Varier)
Case No. SF-CO-567-M
Issued Date: 7/27/2026
Non-Precedential
Description: George Varier alleged that Carpenters Local 646 breached its duty of fair representation when it refused to assist Varier in pursuing a wage misclassification grievance against his employer, Moss Landing Harbor District. After reviewing Varier’s charge and subsequent amendments, PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC) issued him a warning letter, explaining that the facts Varier alleged, if proven, would not establish that Carpenters had breached its duty of fair representation in violation of the MMBA. The warning letter gave Varier an opportunity to amend his charge. Varier did so, but OGC concluded that Varier had not sufficiently cured the deficiencies explained in the warning letter. OGC therefore dismissed the amended charge. Varier appealed.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed OGC’s dismissal.
Employer: Twin Rivers Unified School District
Case No. SA-CE-3246-E
Issued Date: 7/28/2026
Non-Precedential
Description: Charging Party Ninad Bhatt appealed the dismissal of his unfair practice charge by PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC). Bhatt filed a charge against Respondent Twin Rivers Unified School District, and subsequently filed two amended charges. In the second amended charge, Bhatt alleged that the District violated EERA by retaliating against him for filing the charge with PERB, and issued Bhatt a directive that interfered with protected rights. OGC issued a warning letter stating that Bhatt’s allegations did not state a prima facie violation of EERA. Bhatt then filed a third amended charge. OGC found that the third amended charge did not correct the deficiencies described in the warning letter and dismissed the allegations. Bhatt appealed the dismissal.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed the dismissal of the retaliation allegation, without leave to amend. However, the Board reversed the dismissal of the interference allegation and remanded the matter to OGC for issuance of a complaint on the interference allegation.
Organization: Transport Workers Union of America Local 250A (Porter)
Case No. SF-CO-553-M
Issued Date: 7/31/2026
Non-Precedential
Description: Afiya Porter alleged that Transport Workers Union of America Local 250A breached its duty of fair representation by failing to respond to her request to appeal to arbitration a grievance denial by her employer. Porter’s grievance concerned a disability accommodation denial and a discrimination claim. After a formal hearing, an ALJ dismissed the complaint and underlying unfair practice charge, finding that the duty of fair representation likely did not apply to the claims raised in Porter’s grievance and her employer’s grievance response. The ALJ further concluded that even if the duty of fair representation applied in this context, Porter failed to establish Local 250A’s actions were without a rational basis or honest judgment. Porter filed exceptions.
Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed the proposed decision.
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.
