Regents of the University of California (PERB 2884H)

1
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 2010,
Charging Party,
v.
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA,
Respondent.
Case No. SF-CE-1339-H
PERB Decision No. 2884-H
December 6, 2023
Appearances: Beeson, Tayer & Bodine by Susan K. Garea, Attorney, for Teamsters
Local 2010; Sloan Sakai Yeung & Wong by Timothy G. Yeung and Sochie L. Graham,
Attorneys, for Regents of the University of California.
Before Banks, Chair; Krantz and Paulson, Members.
DECISION
KRANTZ, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on exceptions by Charging Party Teamsters Local 2010 (Teamsters)
to a proposed decision of an administrative law judge (ALJ). The dispute, which
involves employees of Respondent Regents of the University of California working in
the Administrative Officer II (AO2) classification, centers on AO2s’ eligibility for
performance-based and achievement-based bonus payments pursuant to incentive
award programs (IAPs) at three University medical centers.
As of 2018, the AO2 classification was not in a bargaining unit, and AO2s were
unrepresented. Teamsters filed a unit modification petition seeking to add AO2s to a
Teamsters-represented bargaining unit of clerical and allied services employees at the

2
University.1 After PERB granted the petition in October 2020, the parties began
bargaining over post-accretion issues. At that time, a 2017-2022 collective bargaining
agreement (CBA) covered clerical unit classifications throughout all University
campuses and medical centers, and the parties mutually acknowledged that AO2s
were eligible for an across-the-board wage increase that the CBA required in fiscal
year 2021-2022. However, the current dispute arose during post-accretion bargaining
when the University’s Davis Medical Center (UCDMC), Irvine Medical Center
(UCIMC), and San Francisco Medical Center (UCSFMC) changed AO2s’ IAP
eligibility. The medical centers relied on a CBA provision that tied clerical employees’
IAP eligibility to that of other represented employees.
The complaint includes two primary claims challenging the above conduct.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that the University unilaterally changed the status
quo and discriminated against employees for protected activity in violation of the
Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA).2 The ALJ found in the
University’s favor as to each claim. Teamsters seeks reversal on both counts, while
the University urges us to affirm the proposed decision.
Having considered the matter de novo, we dismiss both claims, holding as
follows. After a mid-CBA accretion, the parties have a mutual duty to bargain over
terms and conditions of employment for the newly added employees. Depending on
the length of such bargaining, one or more of the employer’s regular wage adjustment
1 For brevity, we refer to the bargaining unit as the “clerical” unit, and we use
the word “accretion” to mean a unit modification that adds employees to a unit.
2 HEERA is codified at Government Code section 3560 et seq.

3
cycles may occur before post-accretion negotiations are complete. To maintain the
status quo in a wage adjustment cycle that occurs during post-accretion negotiations,
the employer must normally afford newly added employees all CBA-mandated wage
adjustments. However, if it is unclear how one or more of the CBA’s adjustments apply
to the newly added employees, then the status quo for that cycle is the adjustments
the newly added employees would have received had they remained unrepresented.
Here, it was sufficiently clear how to apply the CBA’s 2021-2022 wage adjustments,
and the University correctly implemented both the across-the-board increase and the
CBA’s IAP provision. Finally, we dismiss the complaint’s narrow discrimination claim,
which targets only the medical centers’ decision to bring AO2s in line with the clerical
unit.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
There are no exceptions to the ALJ’s factual findings, which we summarize and
supplement to include the facts relevant to our analysis.
I. 	The University’s Wage Structures
At all relevant times, Article 45 of the parties’ CBA has covered wages. Under
this article, each clerical unit classification at a given campus or medical center has a
negotiated wage range that is divided into discrete steps. In contrast, prior to and as of
the date that AO2s joined the clerical unit, their classification wage range was a
continuous one, viz., not divided into discrete steps.
The University operates on fiscal years that run from July 1 through June 30. In
collective bargaining for the clerical unit, Teamsters and the University typically
bargain over one or more types of wage adjustments for a given fiscal year, including

4
across-the-board increases and/or step increases. An across-the-board increase
moves the entire wage range upward, including the pay rate of each step in the range,
but such an increase does not move employees from one step to the next. A step
increase, on the other hand, moves incumbent employees upward by one step, while
making no change to the wage range and the steps therein.3
In the 2017-2022 CBA, Article 45 did not provide for step increases. Instead,
the CBA provided a $1,200 lump-sum non-base building wage payment and six
separate across-the-board increases during the CBA’s term. Specifically, the CBA
mandated a three-percent across-the-board increase effective the first pay period after
ratification, plus five additional three-percent across-the-board increases on July 1 of
2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021.
Furthermore, Article 45, section A(7) addressed IAPs. This provision granted
the University the right to “continue, create, modify or abolish” IAPs on either a
systemwide basis or at any location, provided that clerical unit employees must be
eligible for participation to the same extent as other represented employees. Outside
of this provision, the CBA did not address IAPs.
The proposed decision recounted the plan documents setting forth IAP eligibility
at the medical centers. To resolve the claims before us, the following salient facts are
sufficient. The three medical centers each participated in a systemwide IAP called the
3 While the parties’ CBA also references “equity increases,” that term can have
different meanings in different contexts. For instance, an equity increase can be a
negotiated across-the-board raise for a specific classification to address market
pressure or other inequities. Alternatively, individual employees or their supervisors
may ask human resources to review equity considerations and grant step increases,
temporary extra stipends, or other adjustments as warranted.

5
Clinical Enterprise Management Recognition Plan 2 (CEMRP2), though with
significant variation from medical center to medical center. All three medical centers
normally distribute IAP bonuses each fall, reflecting achievement or performance in
the prior fiscal year. Each medical center’s IAP treated represented and
unrepresented employees differently in the types of performance or achievement
measured and in the types of bonuses available, with unrepresented employees
having more favorable bonus terms.4 The record does not show the origin or history of
represented and unrepresented employees being treated differently under the medical
center IAPs and CBA Article 45.
II. 	Teamsters’ Accretion Petition and the Parties’ Post-Accretion Negotiations
After Teamsters filed its accretion petition, a Board agent held a hearing on the
petition in January 2020 and issued a proposed decision granting the petition in
September 2020. When neither party filed exceptions before the deadline for doing so,
the decision became final and binding on the parties a month later. The University
complied with the order, adding AO2s to the clerical unit.
The parties soon commenced post-accretion negotiations. They mutually
understood that even though the 2017-2022 CBA did not include any step increases,
one necessary outcome of post-accretion negotiations was dividing the AO2 pay
range at each location into discrete steps and placing incumbent AO2s on these
steps. The parties also understood that AO2s would receive the across-the-board
4 UCIMC and UCSFMC placed represented employees in a less remunerative
CEMRP2 tier. UCDMC excluded represented employees from CEMRP2, and the
record does not reflect what IAP plan (if any) applied to represented employees at
UCDMC.

6
wage increase that the CBA required for fiscal year 2021-2022, in lieu of any wage
increase that AO2s would have received that year had they remained unrepresented
employees. Both parties saw this as required even though post-accretion bargaining
was still underway when the pay increase became due on July 1, 2021.
Two disagreements over AO2 wages soon arose, however, leading Teamsters
to file two unfair practice charges against the University. First, in July 2021, Teamsters
filed PERB Case No. LA-CE-1365-H, alleging that a University medical center violated
HEERA when it stopped processing most AO2s’ equity increase requests after the
accretion. The ALJ assigned to that case issued a proposed decision in Teamsters’
favor. When neither party filed exceptions, that decision became final and binding on
the parties as PERB Decision No. HO-U-1764-H (non-precedential).5
The parties’ second dispute over AO2s is the one at issue here, involving their
IAP participation. The following findings cover the key facets of the parties’ bargaining
about this issue during post-accretion negotiations: (1) In May 2021, the University
proposed that, pursuant to the CBA’s IAP provision, AO2s’ IAP participation would
match that of other clericals; (2) In August 2021, the University proposed temporarily
grandfathering AO2s’ IAP participation at UCSFMC, so that their eligibility would be
unchanged for fall 2021 bonuses tied to fiscal year 2020-2021; (3) In September 2021,
Teamsters counter-proposed that grandfathering should apply at all three medical
centers and should be extended by a year, to include fiscal year 2021-2022;6 (4) On
5 We take administrative notice of PERB Decision No. HO-U-1764-H (non-
precedential) and the record in Case No. LA-CE-1365-H.
6 At times, the parties’ references to fiscal years were ambiguous, where such
references could mean either the fiscal year in which achievement is measured, or the

7
February 14, 2022, the University counter-proposed that the one-year grandfathering
would be (and had been) extended to all three medical centers; (5) On an unknown
date, Teamsters notified the University that it was no longer seeking to bargain over
the IAP issue and instead would pursue this ULP; and (6) On February 14, 2022,
Teamsters presented a proposal that did not mention IAPs.
On February 28, 2022, the parties settled their post-accretion bargaining. The
agreement did not mention IAPs, and it noted the parties had not settled this case or
the charge regarding equity review for AO2s (PERB Case No. LA-CE-1365-H). The
agreement included terms that: (1) provided AO2s an $800 lump-sum non-base
building wage payment; (2) divided the AO2 wage range at each location into discrete
steps that were generally at least 2 percent apart from one another; (3) placed AO2s
on the steps closest to, but not less than, their existing pay rates; and (4) provided
AO2s with a one-step increase retroactive to January 1, 2022.7
The three medical centers removed AO2s from the IAP program tiers in which
they had previously participated as unrepresented employees, effective with fall 2022
bonus payments corresponding to fiscal year 2021-2022.
subsequent fiscal year in which employees receive any corresponding bonuses. We
resolve such ambiguities by inferring the parties’ apparent meaning, but these
inferences do not impact the outcome.
7 Recognizing that the parties had begun bargaining over a successor to the
2017-2022 CBA, the parties’ post-accretion agreement specified that AO2s’ January
2022 step increase would count as an offset against any general clerical unit step
increase that the parties might negotiate for the 2021-2022 fiscal year.

8
III. 	The Parties’ 2022-2026 CBA
The 2017-2022 CBA expired on March 31, 2022. The parties negotiated a
successor CBA effective from October 22, 2022, through March 31, 2026.8
Article 45, section A(7) of the 2022-2026 CBA contains the same provision
regarding IAPs as the prior CBA. There is no allegation before us that the University
refused to bargain in good faith over section A(7) during those negotiations.
Article 45 of the 2022-2026 CBA provides employees with a lump-sum payment
after ratification, further lump-sum payments for employees achieving 20 years’
seniority, and various other adjustments, including: (1) equity increases for certain
titles; (2) four across-the-board pay raises, effective on July 1 of 2022, 2023, 2024,
and 2025; and (3) three step increases, effective on July 1 of 2023, 2024, and 2025.
The step increase provision in the 2022-2026 CBA contains an explicit
agreement reflecting that the parties recognize new employee groups may join the unit
mid-CBA, and if a newly added group has traditionally been subject to a continuous
pay range rather than a step-based range, then it could be unclear how to afford those
employees step increases scheduled to occur before post-accretion bargaining is
complete. To address that situation, Article 45, section D(5) of the new CBA provides:
“When a classification is accreted and a step increase is
due while the parties are negotiating the accretion of the
classification into the title. [sic] Those employees who are
eligible for as step increase as provided under this section,
8 We take permissive administrative notice of the 2022-2026 CBA, found at
https://ucnet.universityofcalifornia.edu/labor/bargaining-units/cx/contract.html [as of
December 6, 2023]. (See, e.g., Bell v. City of Torrance (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 189,
192 fn. 2 [taking judicial notice of public sector collective bargaining agreement].)

9
shall receive a 2% wage adjustment as a proxy to the step
increase.”
IV. 	Procedural History
Teamsters filed this case in November 2021. After PERB’s Office of General
Counsel issued the complaint in this matter, the ALJ held a remote formal hearing in
February 2023 and issued the proposed decision in June 2023.
DISCUSSION
When resolving exceptions to a proposed decision, the Board applies a de novo
standard of review. (City of San Ramon (2018) PERB Decision No. 2571-M, p. 5.)
However, the Board need not address alleged errors that would not affect the
outcome. (Ibid.) Here, Part I addresses the complaint’s unilateral change claim, while
Part II addresses the discrimination claim.
I. 	Unilateral Change Analysis
To establish a prima facie case that a respondent employer made an unlawful
unilateral change, a charging party union that exclusively represents a bargaining unit
must prove that (1) the employer changed or deviated from the status quo; (2) the
change or deviation concerned a matter within the scope of representation; (3) the
change or deviation had a generalized effect or continuing impact on represented
employees’ terms or conditions of employment; and (4) the employer reached its
decision without first providing adequate advance notice of the proposed change to
the union and bargaining in good faith over the decision, at the union’s request, until
the parties reached an agreement or a lawful impasse. (Bellflower Unified School
District (2021) PERB Decision No. 2796, p. 9.)

10
The outcome of the unilateral change claim in this case turns on correctly
defining the University’s duty to maintain the status quo during post-accretion
negotiations. While the parties define this obligation differently from one another, both
find at least partial support for their positions in Baltimore Sun Co. (2001) 335 NLRB
163 (Baltimore Sun).9 There, the National Labor Relations Board held that an existing
CBA should immediately apply to newly accreted employees, but parties must bargain
over “how to apply” the CBA, “including the slotting of job titles into the existing wage
scales, and any issues that are ‘unique’” to the added employees. (Id. at p. 163.) The
University argues that it followed Baltimore Sun by applying the CBA’s wages article to
AO2s, including the IAP provision, in fiscal year 2021-2022. Teamsters, on the other
hand, cites Baltimore Sun (id. at p. 163, fn. 2) to argue that AO2s’ prior coverage in
different IAP tiers from clerical unit employees makes the IAP issue “unique” and
therefore not covered by the CBA pending negotiations.
Baltimore Sun is persuasive to a degree, but there are multiple reasons why it
serves only as an initial reference point that does not by itself fulfill the purposes of
HEERA or resolve the parties’ dispute. First, Baltimore Sun is ambiguous as a
statement of what terms are subject to bargaining, and even less clear as to what
9 California public sector labor relations precedent frequently protects employee
and union rights to a greater degree than does federal precedent governing private
sector labor relations, and we accordingly consider federal precedent only for its
potential persuasive value. (The Accelerated Schools (2023) PERB Decision
No. 2855, pp. 20-31; Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 (Wagner et al.) (2021)
PERB Decision No. 2782-M, p. 9, fn. 10; County of San Joaquin (2021) PERB
Decision No. 2761-M, pp. 24, 33, 45-48 & fn. 19; City of Bellflower (2020) PERB
Order No. Ad-480-M, p. 11; accord County of San Joaquin v. Public Employment
Relations Bd. (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 1053, 1073; Social Workers’ Union, Local 535 v.
Alameda County Welfare Dept. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 382, 391.)

11
terms comprise the status quo pending negotiations. This is true, in part, because the
word “unique” is open to a wide range of interpretation. Here, as noted, the parties
relied on Baltimore Sun to reach opposite conclusions.
Furthermore, public sector collective bargaining is often quite protracted, in part
because it may involve required or agreed-upon post-impasse mediation and/or
factfinding that are less common in the private sector. Protracted post-accretion
negotiations can lead to labor strife and instability if newly added employees’ pay
remains frozen or otherwise in limbo for an extended period while the amount of
potential retroactive payment grows. This type of negative consequence has the
potential to arise more frequently in the public sector not only because of the length of
public sector negotiations, but also because accretions are more common in the public
sector given that PERB’s accretion precedent deviates significantly from federal law.
(County of Santa Clara (2019) PERB Decision No. 2670-M, p. 28; Regents of the
University of California (2017) PERB Order No. Ad-453-H, pp. 5-9, affd. Regents of
the University of California v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th
159.) Lastly, public entities tend to differ from private entities in their wage structures
and in their budget and wage adjustment cycles, making it particularly important to
explain how such entities must implement post-accretion wage adjustments absent an
agreement to the contrary.
Accordingly, we do not adopt Baltimore Sun in defining the parties’
post-accretion obligations. Instead, the below analysis explains more tailored, fair,
practicable, and understandable principles, which better promote stability, full
communication, and harmonious labor relations.

12
California public sector employers typically adjust wages on a cyclical basis—
most commonly upward, though budget crises can lead to wage freezes or reductions.
After a mid-CBA accretion, the parties must bargain in good faith over employment
terms for the newly added employees. Because tradeoffs among different issues are
common, it is counterproductive—and would foster unnecessary uncertainty and
litigation—to limit negotiations only to those issues that are “unique,” whatever that
term may mean. Rather, the parties are best in a position to know what post-accretion
issues may be unique, unclear, interconnected, or otherwise significant enough that
discussion should not await contract expiration. Indeed, the facts of this case well
illustrate how different elements of wages are interrelated and should be bargained
comprehensively; here, in mid-contract post-accretion bargaining, the parties in fact
negotiated two wage adjustments (a step increase and a lump sum payment) that
AO2s were not scheduled to receive as unrepresented employees and were not called
for under the CBA then in effect. Limiting the post-accretion duty to bargain could have
blocked such free exchange and the parties’ resulting agreement. Thus, the
bargaining obligation we clarify today is broader than Baltimore Sun’s vague
formulation.10
10 The proposed decision noted that when the Board granted a unit modification
in Palo Alto Unified School District (1983) PERB Decision No. 352 (Palo Alto), it held
that even if the unit modification required additional negotiations regarding newly
added employees, this was a minimal burden because the employer could reject
proposals that would modify terms for the unit’s previously existing employees. (Id. at
p. 5.) Palo Alto thus acknowledged that a unit modification can trigger bargaining over
newly added employees, but such a negotiation is different from reopening an existing
CBA for all employees.

13
The crux of the parties’ dispute relates to the University’s obligations with
respect to AO2 wage adjustments. Initially, during the period in which Teamsters and
the University litigated the accretion petition’s merits, AO2s remained unrepresented.
In that timeframe, the University had no bargaining obligation with respect to AO2s,
but the University would have discriminated against protected activity had it used the
pending unit modification petition as a reason to deny AO2s the wage adjustments
due to them as unrepresented employees. (See, e.g., Regents of the University of
California (1997) PERB Decision No. 1188-H, pp. 31 & 36 [University discriminated
against protected activity by failing to implement wage adjustments for nonexclusively
represented employees because representation petition was pending; as a remedy,
University ordered to implement such adjustments retroactively].)
Once the University took no exceptions to the Board agent’s proposed decision
granting accretion, the University took on a bargaining obligation and with it the duty to
maintain the status quo in each wage adjustment cycle. The default status quo at that
stage, absent an agreement to different interim arrangements, is as follows. In each
wage adjustment cycle, newly accreted employees must normally receive the wage
adjustments called for in the applicable CBA, provided it is sufficiently clear how such
wage adjustments apply to them. In those circumstances, the CBA’s wage
adjustments set the status quo. Here, the accretion took effect during the 2020-2021
fiscal year, and both parties concurred that AO2 wages should be adjusted like
unrepresented employee wages for that year. The University correctly recognized that
in the next wage adjustment cycle (fiscal year 2021-2022), the CBA superseded the
wage adjustments that AO2s would have received had they remained unrepresented.

14
The University therefore maintained the status quo when It provided AO2s with the
contractually required across-the-board increase while also shifting their IAP
participation for fiscal year 2021-2022.11
In contrast, if it is legitimately unclear how to apply a CBA’s wage adjustments
to newly added employees during a wage adjustment cycle, the status quo is
measured by the wage adjustments that would have applied to the newly added
employees had they remained unrepresented.12 This could be the case if a
classification has a continuous wage range that is not divided into steps at the time of
accretion, but the operative CBA requires a step increase. In this scenario, it may still
be sufficiently clear how to apply the step increase if there is a past practice indicating
how to apply a step increase or the parties anticipated the possibility and reached
agreement on how to deal with it, as the University and Teamsters did in their
2022-2026 CBA. (See ante at pp. 8-9.)
The above principles are comparable to those that apply pending first contract
negotiations after employees in a previously unrepresented unit become represented.
In those circumstances, since it is clear that there is no CBA that defines any required
wage adjustments, the status quo is measured by employees’ previous expectation.
(Daily News of Los Angeles v. National Labor Relations Bd. (D.C. Cir. 1996) 73 F.3d
406, 411-414 (Daily News), cited with approval in County of Kern (2018) PERB
11 Because the equity review process at issue in SF-CE-1365-H was the same
for both non-represented employees and clerical unit employees, the outcome of that
case would have been the same irrespective of which set of arrangements prevail.
12 While we see no reason that different principles would apply to terms other
than wages, the only terms before us in this matter relate to wages.

15
Decision No. 2615-M, p. 7, fn. 6; Liberty Telephone & Communication, Inc. (1973) 204
NLRB 317, 318.)13
For these reasons, we dismiss the unilateral change claim.
II. 	Discrimination Analysis
To prove discrimination, a charging party must prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that the respondent acted with an improper motive, intent, or purpose.
(Contra Costa Fire Protection District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2632-M. p. 40
(Contra Costa).) A charging party may do so using either of two frameworks.
First, under the framework set forth in Novato Unified School District (1982)
PERB Decision No. 210 and its progeny, the charging party’s prima facie case
requires each of four elements: (1) one or more employees engaged in activity
protected by a labor relations statute that PERB enforces; (2) the respondent had
knowledge of such protected activity; (3) the respondent took adverse action against
one or more employees; and (4) the respondent took the adverse action “because of”
the protected activity, which PERB interprets to mean that the protected activity was a
substantial or motivating cause of the adverse action. (City and County of San
Francisco (2020) PERB Decision No. 2712-M, p. 15.) If the charging party establishes
13 Employees may have an established expectation that must be honored
pending negotiations even if they cannot know the exact wage adjustments that they
are likely to receive, such as when an employer runs a merit-based wage adjustment
program that involves individualized performance assessments. (Daily News, supra,
73 F.3d 406, 412-413; see also California State Employees Assn. v. Public
Employment Relations Bd. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 923, 937-939 [to maintain status
quo after contract expiration, employer required to continue established practice of
annually reviewing employees’ performance and awarding merit increases pursuant to
a merit increase framework].)

16
a prima facie case but the evidence also reveals a non-discriminatory reason for the
employer’s decision, the respondent may prove, by a preponderance of the evidence
as an affirmative defense, that it would have taken the exact same action even absent
protected activity. (Ibid.) In such “mixed motive” or “dual motive” cases, the question
becomes whether the adverse action would not have occurred “but for” the protected
activity. (Id. at p. 16.)
Alternatively, if conduct facially discriminates based on protected activity, that is
“discrimination in its simplest form,” and PERB may infer unlawful discrimination
without further evidence of motive. (County of San Joaquin, supra, PERB Decision
No. 2761-M, p. 27; Los Angeles County Superior Court (2018) PERB Decision
No. 2566-C, p. 14 (LA Superior Court).) Common examples of facial discrimination
include: (1) providing different pay, benefits, or other working conditions based
explicitly on union membership or other protected activity; and (2) changing policies in
response to protected activity. (City of Yuba City (2018) PERB Decision No. 2603-M,
pp. 10-11 (Yuba City).) The conduct at issue may, but need not, involve disparate
conduct toward different employee groups. (Regents of the University of California
(Berkeley) (2018) PERB Decision No. 2610-H, p. 81; LA Superior Court, supra, PERB
Decision No. 2566-C, p. 15.)
If an employer extends a benefit or increase to an unrepresented employee
group while withholding it from a represented employee group (or vice versa), that can
establish discrimination under either or both above standards, unless the difference is
legitimately based on a non-discriminatory business reason. (Contra Costa, supra,
PERB Decision No. 2632-M, pp. 41-42.) The employer has the burden to prove that

17
the difference is based on a non-discriminatory reason, which may include differing
skills, qualifications, or duties, market pressures, promotional incentives, or lawful
collective bargaining in which a union has exerted pressure to achieve better terms
than other employee groups, traded one benefit for another, or rejected a
nondiscriminatory offer and thereby fallen behind other groups. (Id. at pp. 38-42
& 51-52; Yuba City, supra, PERB Decision No. 2603-M, pp. 11-13; LA Superior Court,
supra, PERB Decision No. 2566-C, pp. 15-17.)
Here, the complaint narrowly alleges discrimination only as to the three medical
centers treating AO2s the same as all other clerical employees for IAP purposes. The
complaint does not allege any broader discrimination claim challenging disparate
treatment of represented and unrepresented employees under the IAPs, nor does the
complaint allege any such claim challenging the CBA’s IAP provision and/or the
University’s conduct in bargaining over it. Moreover, the unalleged violation doctrine
does not cover such potential claims, as the parties did not litigate the dispositive
discrimination issues identified above. We therefore express no opinion as to such
potential claims. We dismiss the narrow discrimination claim the complaint does
allege, because Teamsters did not establish that UCDMC, UCIMC, and/or UCSFMC
discriminated based on protected activity by bringing AO2s in line with other clerical
employees for fiscal year 2021-2022.
ORDER
The complaint and underlying unfair practice charge in Case No. SF-CE-1339-H
are DISMISSED.
Chair Banks and Member Paulson joined in this Decision.