Labor Relations Fundamentals for Community College Districts

105 State of California (Department of Transportation) (1994) PERB Dec. No. 1049-S [18 PERC ¶ 25099]. 106 N.L.R.B. v. Texaco, Inc. (9th Cir. 1981) 659 F.2d 124.

107 N.L.R.B. v. J. Weingarten, Inc. (1975) 420 U.S. 251 [95 S.Ct. 959]. 108 N.L.R.B. v. J. Weingarten, Inc. (1975) 420 U.S. 251, 260 [95 S.Ct. 959]. 109 N.L.R.B. v. J. Weingarten, Inc. (1975) 420 U.S. 251, 260 [95 S.Ct. 959]. 110 Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. N.L.R.B. (9th Cir. 1983) 711 F.2d 134.

111 Modesto City Schools (1983) PERB Dec. No. 291 [13 PERC ¶ 14090]; Rio Hondo Community College District (1982) PERB Decision No. 272 [7 PERC ¶ 14028; Santa Monica Community College District (1979) PERB Dec. No. 103 [3 PERC ¶ 10123]; Mount Diablo Unified School District, et al. (1977) EERB Decision No. 44 [2 PERC ¶ 2048]. 112 Gov. Code, §71600. 113 Sonoma County Superior Court (2015) PERB Dec. No. 2409-C. 114 Gov. Code § 12940, et seq. 117 Gov. Code, § 3505.5. 118 Gov. Code, § 3505.7. 119 White v. Davis (2003) 30 Cal.4th 528, 564-565 [133 Cal.Rptr.2d 648, 677-678]. 120 Gov. Code, § 3543.2. 121 Chula Vista City School District (1990) PERB Dec. No. 834-E [14 PERC ¶ 21162]; South Bay Union School Dist. v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 502 [279 Cal.Rptr. 135]. 122 Mt. Diablo Unified School District (1990) PERB Dec. No. 844-E [14 PERC ¶ 21192]; South Bay Union School Dist. v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 502 [279 Cal.Rptr. 135]; Travis Unified School District (1992) PERB Dec. No. 917-E [16 PERC ¶ 23022]. 123 Rio Hondo Community College District (1982) PERB Dec. No. 272-E [7 PERC ¶ 14028]. 124 Gov. Code, §§ 3548.5 &3548.6; Mt. Diablo Unified School District (1990) PERB Dec. No. 844-E [14 PERC ¶ 21192]. 125 Mt. Diablo Unified School District (1990) PERB Dec. No. 844-E [14 PERC ¶ 21192]. 126 In Florio v. City of Ontario , the California Court of Appeal held that a common provision in a labor agreement that requires that an employee pay one-half the cost of the hearing officer in a discipline or discharge case violates the employee's due process rights. In light of this case employers should review existing contract language to ensure those provisions are in compliance with the law. Florio v. City of Ontario (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1462 [30 Cal.Rptr.3d 841], review den. (Oct. 26, 2005). 127 Code Civ. Proc., § 1286.2. But see Mayo v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. (N.D.Cal. 2003) 258 F.Supp.2d 1097, finding that federal law (§ 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act) preempts the application of California standards to self-regulatory organizations. 128 Department of Personnel Admin. v. California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1193 [62 Cal.Rptr.3d 110], rehg. & review den. 129 Department of Personnel Admin. v. California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1193 [62 Cal.Rptr.3d 110], rehg. & review den. 130 Vasserman v. Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 236. 131 Gov. Code, § 3543.2. 115 Sonoma County Superior Court (2015) PERB Dec. No. 2409-C. 116 Gov. Code, §§ 3548 and 3548.1.

Labor Relations Fundamentals for Community College Districts ©2019 (c) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 91