Moreno Valley Unified School District v. Public Employment Relations Board
142 Cal. App. 3d 191, 191 Cal. Rptr. 60, 1983 Cal. App. LEXIS 1627 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under California's Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA), a public school employer's unilateral implementation of changes to employment conditions after declaring an impasse but before exhausting the statutory impasse procedures constitutes a per se unfair labor practice.
Facts:
- The collective bargaining agreement between the Moreno Valley Unified School District (District) and the Moreno Valley Educators Association (Association) was set to expire on August 31, 1978.
- The parties began negotiating a new agreement on March 23, 1978, but were unable to reach an agreement on most issues after 16 separate meetings.
- The new school year began on September 11, 1978.
- On September 15, 1978, the District and the Association mutually declared that their negotiations were at an impasse.
- On or shortly after September 15, 1978, the District unilaterally implemented the terms of its 'last best offer.'
- This unilateral implementation included eliminating stipends for various teaching and counseling positions, increasing class sizes for grades 1-3, and reducing preparation time for grades 4-6.
- These changes were implemented after the declaration of impasse but before the statutory impasse procedures, including mediation, were completed.
Procedural Posture:
- The Moreno Valley Educators Association filed an unfair labor practice charge against the Moreno Valley Unified School District with the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB).
- A PERB hearing officer conducted a formal hearing and issued a proposed decision concluding the District committed a per se unfair practice.
- The District filed exceptions to the hearing officer's decision, bringing the matter before the full Board.
- PERB reviewed the case de novo and issued a final decision, affirming that the District's unilateral action during the pendency of the impasse procedure constituted a per se unfair labor practice and issued a remedial order.
- The District then filed a petition for a writ of extraordinary relief with the California Court of Appeal, seeking review of the Board's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a public school employer commit a per se unfair labor practice under the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA) by unilaterally implementing changes in employment conditions after declaring an impasse but before exhausting the statutory impasse procedures?
Opinions:
Majority - Morris, P. J.
Yes, a public school employer commits a per se unfair labor practice by unilaterally implementing changes in employment conditions before exhausting statutory impasse procedures. The court defers to the Public Employment Relations Board's (PERB) reasonable interpretation that the EERA's statutory impasse procedure is a continuation of the mutual dispute resolution process, not a signal that economic pressure tactics may begin. Unlike the federal National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) where impasse may permit unilateral action, the EERA's mandatory procedures like mediation and fact-finding are designed to continue bilateral efforts to reach an agreement. An employer's unilateral action before these procedures are exhausted frustrates the EERA’s purpose by removing the employer's incentive to participate in good faith, as it has already imposed its desired terms. Therefore, such action is a per se violation of the duty to participate in good faith in the impasse procedure.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a crucial distinction between California public sector labor law under the EERA and federal private sector labor law under the NLRA regarding the meaning of 'impasse.' It creates a bright-line rule that public school employers cannot resort to self-help by unilaterally implementing terms until all statutory impasse procedures are fully exhausted. The ruling reinforces the mandatory nature of mediation and fact-finding, treating them as an extension of negotiations rather than a mere formality. This precedent significantly strengthens the position of employee unions during the impasse phase by preventing employers from gaining leverage through unilateral action, thereby preserving the integrity of the statutory dispute resolution process.
