PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; APPLICABILITY OF AND CONFLICTS WITH OTHER STATUTES – NLRA/LMRDA Precedent
Single Topic for Decision 2440E
Full Decision Text (click on the link to view): Full Text
101.03000 – NLRA/LMRDA Precedent
The federal Weingarten doctrine and other non-California authorities must be harmonized with the language and purposes of the PERB administered statutes. Where California statutes provide for broader rights not found in the federal private sector law, the Board must follow the intent of the Legislature to effectuate the purposes of the statute. Where PERB chooses to follow federal authority on an issue, it is not automatically bound by subsequent developments in federal law on that point. The touchstone for whether private-sector decisional law or any other authority is applicable to the PERB-administered statutes is whether the underlying reasoning is consistent with the language and policies of the California statutes. It was not reversible error for the ALJ to rely on federal authority that is no longer controlling federal law because the underlying reasoning was consistent with the language and purposes of EERA and because the ALJ also relied on controlling PERB authority for the same point of law. Although California has generally imbibed the federal policy, as it applies to the scope of representation under the Weingarten decision, the representational rights of public-sector employees in California, and of employee organizations to represent them, have statutory bases and judicial approval which are independent from, and broader than, the "mutual aid or protection" language of section 7 of the NLRA on which Weingarten was decided. It was not reversible error for ALJ to rely on some federal authorities which have since been disavowed, because the underlying reasoning of those authorities was consistent with the language, policies and purposes of EERA and because the ALJ also relied on controlling PERB authority for the same point of law.