Regents of the University of California (PERB 2783H)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY
& MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES LOCAL 3299;
UNIVERSITY PROFESSIONAL & TECHNICAL
EMPLOYEES, COMMUNICATION WORKERS
OF AMERICA, LOCAL 9119,
Charging Parties,
v.
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA,
Respondent.
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 2010,
Charging Party,
v.
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA,
Respondent.
Case No. SF-CE-1300-H
Case No. SF-CE-1302-H
PERB Decision No. 2783-H
July 26, 2021
Appearances: Leonard Carder by Arthur Liou, Attorney, for American Federation of
State, County & Municipal Employees Local 3299, and University Professional &
Technical Employees, Communication Workers of America, Local 9119; Beeson,
Tayer & Bodine by Robert Bonsall and Kena C. Cador, Attorneys, for Teamsters Local
2010; Sloan Sakai Yeung & Wong by Timothy G. Yeung and Chris Moores, Attorneys,
for Regents of the University of California.
Before Banks, Chair; Shiners and Paulson, Members.

2
DECISION
SHINERS, Member: These consolidated cases are before the Public
Employment Relations Board (PERB or Board) for a decision based on the evidentiary
record from a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). The operative
complaints allege that the Regents of the University of California (University) violated
the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA)1 by issuing an
Executive Order requiring “all students, faculty, and staff living, learning, or working”
on University premises to receive an influenza vaccination by November 1, 2020,2
without providing Charging Parties American Federation of State, County & Municipal
Employees Local 3299 (AFSCME), University Professional and Technical Employees,
Communication Workers of America, Local 9119 (UPTE), and Teamsters Local 2010
(Teamsters) with prior notice or an opportunity to meet and confer over the decision or
its effects. The complaints further allege that this conduct interfered with employee
rights.
We have reviewed the entire administrative record and considered the parties’
arguments in light of applicable law. For the reasons set forth below, we find that the
decision to adopt the influenza vaccination policy was outside the scope of
representation because under the unprecedented circumstances of a potential
confluence of the COVID-19 and influenza viruses, the need to protect public health
was not amenable to collective bargaining or, alternatively, outweighed the benefits of
1 HEERA is codified at Government Code section 3560 et seq. Unless
otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Government Code.
2 Subsequent dates are 2020, unless otherwise noted.

3
bargaining over the policy as to University employees. We also find, however, that the
University was not privileged to implement the vaccination policy before completing
negotiations over its effects because the University did not meet and confer in good
faith prior to implementation. Based on these findings, we conclude that the
University’s implementation of the vaccination policy constituted an unlawful unilateral
change in violation of HEERA.
FINDINGS OF FACT3
The Parties
Charging Parties AFSCME, UPTE, and Teamsters are employee organizations
within the meaning of section 3562, subdivision (f)(1), and exclusive representatives
within the meaning of section 3562, subdivision (i). The University is an employer
within the meaning of section 3562, subdivision (g). AFSCME represents the following
bargaining units at the University: Patient Care Technical (EX), Service (SX), and
Skilled Craft UCSC (K7). UPTE represents the following bargaining units at the
University: Health Care Professionals (HX), Research Support Professionals (RX),
and Technical (TX). Teamsters represents the following bargaining units at the
University: Clerical & Allied Services (CX), Skilled Craft UCLA (K4), Skilled Craft
UCSD (K6), Skilled Craft UCSB (K8), Skilled Craft UCI (K9), and Skilled Craft Merced
(KM).
3 The parties stipulated to many of the material facts. We have made additional
factual findings based on the testimony and exhibits introduced at hearing.

4
University Influenza Vaccination Policies Before July 31, 2020
The University has five medical centers, which are part of the UC Davis Health,
UC Irvine Health, UC Los Angeles Health, UC San Diego Health, and UC San
Francisco Health systems. Before July 31, the five medical centers each maintained
policies regarding influenza vaccinations for employees.
The UC Irvine Health policy entitled Influenza: Seasonal Plan for Mandatory
Personnel Vaccination required an influenza vaccination for all “medical center
employees, College of Health Sciences employees, licensed independent
practitioners, volunteers, students, temporary workers, researchers, physicians and
other College of Health Sciences faculty and staff.” The policy required compliance
“no later than the Friday of the week following Thanksgiving weekend of each year.”
The policy allowed for exemptions based on the following:
“1. 	Persons with moderate (generalized rash) or severe
(life-threatening) allergies to eggs, vaccine components, or
prior influenza vaccines. Documentation from personal
physician is required.
“2. 	Persons with a history of Guillain-Barre Syndrome.
Documentation from personal physician is required.
“3. 	Written documentation of other medical
contraindication from a medical provider. Documentation
from personal physician is required.
“4. 	Written documentation of a qualifying religious
exception. Documentation from religious organization is
required.
“5. 	Pregnancy does not constitute as a contraindication.
Pregnancy is condition at high risk for illness and
complication.”

5
The UC San Diego Health policy entitled Influenza: Seasonal Plan for
Healthcare Worker required an influenza vaccination for “all faculty, staff, clinicians,
students, contractors and volunteers at UC San Diego Health[,] . . . [which] include
(but are not limited to): UC San Diego Health Hillcrest – Hillcrest Medical Center and
UC San Diego Health’s affiliated clinics and clinical practices, UC San Diego Health
La Jolla – Jacobs Medical Center and Sulpizio Cardiovascular Center (SCVC).” The
policy required compliance by the flu season as designated by the San Diego County
Public Health Officer. The policy allowed for exemptions based on the following:
“1. Persons with moderate (generalized rash) or severe
(life-threatening) allergies to eggs, vaccine components, or
prior influenza vaccines.
“i. Persons with a history of Guillain - Barre Syndrome.
“ii. Other medical contraindication from a medical
provider.
“iii. A qualifying religious or strongly held belief
exception.”
The UC San Francisco Health Policy No. 4.02.10 entitled Occupational Health
Services: Influenza Vaccination for Employees and Staff required vaccination for “[a]ll
UCSF Medical Center employees, faculty, temporary workers, trainees, volunteers,
students, and vendors, regardless of employer. This includes staff who provide
services to or work in UCSF Medical Center patient care or clinical areas.” The policy
required compliance by the annual onset of the flu season as published by the San
Francisco Department of Public Health and deemed the flu season to be from
December 15 to March 31. The policy allowed for the following exemptions:

6
“a. Severe allergies to eggs, vaccine components, or prior
influenza vaccines.
“b. History of Guillain-Barre Syndrome.
“c. Declaration of another medical contraindication.
Pregnancy is a high-risk condition for influenza illness
and does not constitute an exception.
“d. Declaration of a qualifying religious contraindication to
vaccination.”
The UC Davis Medical Center policy entitled Employee Immunization Program
required influenza vaccination for “new hires, established employees, visitors,
observers, volunteers, volunteer faculty and those participating in academic/
educational pursuits.” The policy required compliance by the beginning of the flu
season as determined by the UC Davis Health Infection Prevention Officer and the
State/Sacramento County Public Health Officer. The policy allowed for medical
exemptions.
The UCLA Health policy entitled Employee Influenza Vaccination Program -
Occupational Health Administrative HS IC 7404 required “all Health Care Personnel
[to] receive the influenza vaccination.” The policy required compliance by the annual
flu season and/or by October 1. The policy allowed for exemptions for documented
medical contraindication.
These vaccination policies applied to employees in the bargaining units
represented by Charging Parties. With limited exceptions, employees represented by
Charging Parties who worked at University locations other than the medical centers
were not required to be vaccinated against the flu.

7
The COVID-19 Pandemic and Influenza Virus
On March 4, 2020, California Governor Gavin Newsom declared a state of
emergency due to COVID-19. On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization
announced that COVID-19 had become a pandemic.
The intersection of the 2020-2021 flu season with the ongoing COVID-19
pandemic created an unprecedented public health emergency. Like COVID-19, the
influenza virus is also a highly contagious serious illness that is transmitted in ways
that are similar to COVID-19, thereby increasing the need to prevent and manage both
illnesses simultaneously. The California Department of Public Health and the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention accordingly advised the public that being
vaccinated against influenza during the 2020-2021 flu season was “more important
than ever.”
At the hearing, the University offered two witnesses, Dr. Arthur Reingold and
Dr. Lee Riley, who were qualified by the ALJ as experts on infectious diseases. Each
testified about the public policy behind mandatory influenza vaccination during the
COVID-19 pandemic.
Dr. Reingold testified that during the Spring of 2020 many experts were
concerned there would be a large number of people hospitalized with COVID-19 at the
same time as an influenza outbreak, causing an insurmountable patient load in
hospitals.4 Dr. Reingold stated his belief that mandatory influenza vaccination policies
4 Indeed, COVID-19 cases continued to increase during the 2020-2021 flu
season. As of January 13, 2021, California reported 2,781,039 total cases and 31,102
deaths due to COVID-19. That day the state also reported a 1.9% increase in the
number of COVID-19 related deaths from the prior day.

8
generally have the effect of increasing the rate of vaccination, and are more effective
than other methods of encouraging vaccination.
Dr. Riley testified that because the pandemic is the worst in our lifetimes,
managing outbreaks of two respiratory diseases like influenza and COVID-19 at the
same time can place significant stress on testing and healthcare facilities. He also
testified that implementing a mass vaccination effort has the effect of reducing
respiratory symptoms experienced by the population, thereby reducing the number of
people who may need to be tested or receive treatment. The University’s experts
testified that no other safety precaution by itself, such as masking, social distancing,
or social isolation, was sufficient to substitute for vaccination against influenza.
The Executive Order
On July 17, 2020, Executive Vice-President of University Health Systems
Dr. Carrie Byington recommended to then-University President Janet Napolitano that
she issue an Executive Order requiring all students, faculty, and staff on University
premises during the 2020-2021 flu season be vaccinated against influenza. In a
decision memorandum to President Napolitano, Dr. Byington advised issuing such an
Executive Order “[d]ue to the uncertainties regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, the
unknown potential for illness when both the Influenza and SARS-CoV2 viruses have
concurrent widespread community transmission, the high rates of contagion and
morbidity of both of these viruses, the high attack rate of influenza in young adults,
and the anticipated very high burden of illness expected from Influenza and SARS-
CoV2 viruses during the 2020-21 academic year.” Dr. Byington’s memorandum
represented the scientific opinions of professionals in the University Health System

9
that the University’s campuses and hospitals would be healthier and safer with an
influenza vaccination requirement in place.
According to Dr. Byington, “vaccinating against COVID was not possible [in July
2020]. Influenza is a known pathogen that produces every winter outbreaks of disease
that strain our health system . . . I had concern that we would also experience a winter
surge of COVID-19, and that if we had a combination of the normal winter surge for
influenza plus a winter surge for COVID-19, that we would be at risk of overwhelming
our hospital capacity.” Dr. Byington testified that allowing an exemption for personal
reasons while requiring such individuals wear a mask would be ineffectual against
stopping the spread of both infections as the University Health System was already
mandating masking for employees during the pandemic. She testified that for
pandemic disease prevention to be effectual, layering of protections is required,
including social distancing, environmental controls, immunization, handwashing
stations, and the like. When the University issued the Executive Order, a Food and
Drug Administration approved COVID-19 vaccination was not yet available.
On July 31, President Napolitano issued an Executive Order, effective for the
2020-2021 flu season, requiring that “students, faculty, and staff who are living,
learning, or working” at any University location be vaccinated against influenza by
November 1. Specifically, the Executive Order provides:
“WHEREFORE AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA I DECLARE:
“On the authority vested in me by Bylaw 30, Bylaw 22.1,
Regents Policy 1500 and Standing Order 100.4(ee), and
based on the foregoing circumstances, I hereby issue the

10
following order, to be effective through the 2020-2021 flu
season, and direct the following:
“1. Each campus shall strongly encourage universal
vaccination for all students, faculty, staff, and their
families by October 31, 2020. Subject only to the
exemptions and processes described below or in
Attachment A:
“a. Deadline. Effective November 1, 2020, all
students, faculty, and staff living, learning, or
working at any UC location must receive a flu
vaccine.
[¶] . . . [¶]
“c. Employees. Effective November 1, 2020, no
person employed by the University or working on-
site at any location owned, operated, or otherwise
controlled by the University may report to that site
for work unless they have received the 2020-
2021 flu vaccine or an approved medical
exemption. Requests for disability or religious
accommodations will be adjudicated through the
interactive process consistent with existing
location policies and procedures.
“2. The University’s health plans provide coverage for
routine health maintenance vaccinations, including
seasonal influenza vaccine, without copays to any
covered students, faculty, staff, or their covered families.
“3. The Vice President for Human Resources or her
designee shall ensure that any applicable collective
bargaining requirements are met with respect to the
implementation of this order.
“4. The Provost and the Executive Vice President or their
designee(s) shall immediately consult with the Academic

11
Senate on implementation of this order with respect to
members of the University’s faculty.
“5. The Executive Vice President for UC Health or her
designee shall provide technical guidance to the
campuses at their request to facilitate execution of this
mandate.
“All University policies contrary to the provisions of this
Executive Order, except those adopted by the Regents,
shall be suspended to the extent of any conflict, during the
period of this Order.
“The Executive Vice President - UC Health shall have the
authority to issue further guidance about the parameters
and use of this mandate, in consultation with the Provost
and the Interim Vice President - Systemwide Human
Resources.”
(Emphasis in original.)
Attachment A to the Executive Order provides for medical exemptions:
“Medical Exemptions
“A list of established medical contraindications to and
precautions for flu vaccine can be found at the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention website, Guide to
Contraindications, online at:
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/general-
recs/contraindications.html (scroll to ITV) and currently
includes:
Contraindications: 	Severe allergic reaction (e.g.,
anaphylaxis) after previous dose of
influenza vaccine or to vaccine
component.
Precautions: 	Guillain-Barre Syndrome <6 weeks
after a prior dose of influenza vaccine

12
Moderate or severe acute illness with
or without fever
Egg allergy other than hives, e.g.,
angioedema, respiratory distress,
lightheadedness, recurrent emesis; or
required epinephrine or another
emergency medical intervention (IIV
may be administered in an inpatient or
outpatient medical setting and under
the supervision of a health care
provider who is able to recognize and
manage severe allergic conditions).
“Any request for medical exemption must be documented
on the attached Medical Exemption Request Form and
submitted by an employee to the designated campus
medical official (collectively an ‘Authorized HCP’).”
(Emphasis in original.)
On September 29, the new University President, Dr. Michael Drake, issued a
revised version of the Executive Order. The revised Executive Order extended
religious and disability accommodations to students but did not change the
requirement that employees and other individuals must be vaccinated against
influenza, have an approved medical exemption, or have a disability or religious
accommodation to be on site at a University location. Employee exemptions listed in
Attachment A to the revised Executive Order did not change.
In addition to the Executive Order, the University issued a “frequently asked
questions” (FAQ) explaining additional details of the policy. As of October 27, the FAQ
stated:

13
“Frequently asked questions for employees about the
2020-21 UC influenza vaccination order [Revised Oct.
27, 2020]
“Q1. Is the flu vaccination requirement a permanent
change to the Immunization Policy? Will those subject
to the Executive Order be required to get the flu
vaccine from now on?
“A1. No. The new requirement is based on the University’s
assessment of the current situation and will be revisited as
the situation demands.
“Q2. To whom does the order apply?
“A2. The Executive Order mandates flu vaccination for all
students, faculty, other academic appointees, and staff
living, working, or learning at any UC location, subject only
to medical exemptions. Individuals may also request
disability and religious accommodations. If for any reason
you believe you should receive an exception to the
vaccination requirement, please contact your supervisor to
be referred to the appropriate office to discuss whether you
may be eligible.
“Q3. Why hasn’t UC required flu immunizations of all
faculty, other academic appointees, and staff in the
past? ·
“A3. Faculty, other academic appointees, and staff working
in the university’s clinical facilities have long been required
to participate in a flu immunization program. The additional
action is needed at this time, given the unique and serious
conditions of the COVID-19 pandemic in circulation
simultaneously with influenza. The influenza vaccination
requirement for those faculty, other academic appointees,
and staff living or working on campus was deemed
necessary to maintain a safe workplace. We also believe
the Executive Order will contribute to the health of the
entire community and ensure our health care systems and

14
our communities are able to maintain capacity to care for
our patients.
“Q4. Is there a penalty or consequence for faculty, other
academic appointees, and staff if they do not get a flu
shot?
“A4. Individuals who do not certify that they have received
the 2020-2021 flu vaccine or have an approved exemption
or accommodation will not have access to University
facilities effective November 16, 2020. If the inability to
access University facilities affects an employee’s ability to
perform job functions, supervisors will work with employees
to find alternatives so they can continue to work.”
(Emphasis in original.)
After it issued the Executive Order, the University extended the date for
compliance with the vaccination policy to November 16. As of that date, individuals
were not permitted to be on site at any University location if they were not vaccinated
or did not have an approved exemption or accommodation. At least some employees
in all of the bargaining units represented by Charging Parties are unable to work
remotely and must be on site at their respective campus, medical center, or other
University location to perform their work.
The University’s Meetings with AFSCME and UPTE
On August 7, Peter Chester, Executive Director of Systemwide Labor Relations,
sent an e-mail message to University unions announcing the new Executive Order.
Teamsters sent a written demand to bargain over the decision and effects of the
Executive Order on August 10. AFSCME sent a similar bargaining demand on
August 17, as did UPTE on August 25. Having received no response to its demand,
Teamsters renewed its demand on August 25. In response to these bargaining

15
demands, the University said it would not bargain the decision to issue the new
influenza vaccination policy on the grounds that it was not a mandatory subject of
bargaining but would bargain over effects of the policy.
UPTE and the University met at least four times. On October 8, UPTE identified
specific effects it was seeking to bargain, including: “(1) time off to obtain the vaccine,
(2) payment for costs associated with obtaining the vaccine, (3) the availability of
clinics or sites at University facilities where workers can be vaccinated, (4)
consequences for failure to obtain the vaccine, including the ability to work and
whether the University intends to discipline employees who fail to comply, (5) timelines
for workers to be vaccinated, and (6) exceptions to the vaccination requirements and
the exemption process, including standards for religious, medical, or other
accommodations.” UPTE and the University executed a side letter over time off to
obtain the vaccine. Although the University would not agree to UPTE’s proposal to pay
all costs associated with obtaining the vaccine, it did provide UPTE with a list of
influenza vaccine clinics that employees could go to and suggested that employees
utilize their health insurance to cover the cost of the vaccine. The University did not
agree to UPTE’s proposals on the remaining topics. UPTE and the University then
agreed to place their negotiations on hold pending the outcome of this case.
The University and AFSCME met twice. On September 10, AFSCME identified
the following impacts of the influenza vaccine requirement: “wages, benefits, hours of
work, discipline, and other terms and conditions of employment, including those
currently provided by our contracts, because workers who do not meet the University’s
new requirement will be deprived of the benefits and terms in the agreements.”

16
AFSCME’s negotiator Seth Newton Patel testified that at a mid-November bargaining
session, Chester explicitly said the University would not entertain proposals about
alternatives to discipline or leave without pay as consequences for failure to comply
with the vaccination policy.5 The University’s negotiator, E. Kevin Young, testified that
the subject of consequences for noncompliance was discussed during bargaining but
did not give any detail about what those discussions included. AFSCME did not make
any proposals related to the effects of the influenza vaccine requirement, and did not
come to any agreement with the University regarding such effects.6
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
AFSCME and UPTE filed the unfair practice charge in Case No. SF-CE-1300-H
on October 19, alleging that the University violated HEERA section 3571 by not
providing notice and meeting and conferring with AFSCME and UPTE before issuing
the July 31 Executive Order. On the same day, Teamsters filed a similar charge in
5 Although Chester did not testify at the hearing, the statements attributed to
him are not hearsay because they were made during negotiations while Chester was
acting in his role as Executive Director of Systemwide Labor Relations, and therefore
constitute party admissions, a recognized exception to the hearsay rule. (Bellflower
Unified School District (2014) PERB Decision No. 2385, pp. 10-11, citing Evid. Code,
§ 1220; see Evid. Code, § 1222.) Because Chester’s statements fall under an
exception to the hearsay rule, they would be admissible in a civil action and thus can
form the evidentiary basis for a factual finding. (Bellflower Unified School District,
supra, PERB Decision No. 2385, pp. 8-11; PERB Reg. 32176 [PERB Regulations are
codified at Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 31001 et seq].)
6 Teamsters did not introduce evidence of effects bargaining with the University
because it withdrew its effects bargaining allegation at the start of the hearing.

17
Case No. SF-CE-1302-H.7 Concurrently with its charge, Teamsters filed a Request for
Injunctive Relief asking the Board to seek a court injunction to stay implementation of
the Executive Order. The Board denied the Request on October 27.
OGC issued the complaint in Case No. SF-CE-1302-H on October 28. The
complaint alleged the University violated HEERA section 3571, subdivisions (a) and
(c) by issuing the Executive Order without providing Teamsters prior notice or an
opportunity to meet and confer over the decision or its effects. On October 29, the
Board granted Teamsters’ request to expedite the case at all divisions of PERB. The
University answered the complaint on November 17, denying all material allegations
and asserting additional defenses.
OGC issued a largely identical complaint in Case No. SF-CE-1300-H on
December 15. The University answered the complaint on January 4, 2021, again
denying all material allegations and asserting additional defenses.
On December 28, the ALJ consolidated the cases for a formal hearing, which
was held by videoconference on January 20, 21, 22 and 26, 2021. The parties filed
closing briefs on March 19, 2021.
On March 24, 2021, the Board’s Appeals Office notified the parties that the
consolidated cases had been placed on the Board’s docket for decision.8 The
7 A third charge, Case No. SF-CE-1303-H, was filed on October 20 by the
International Association of Firefighters, Local 4920 (IAFF). All three cases were
consolidated for hearing, but IAFF withdrew its charge on the first day of hearing.
8 PERB Regulation 32320, subdivision (a)(1) allows the Board itself to “[i]ssue a
decision based upon the record of hearing.” PERB Regulation 32215 allows the Board
itself to direct a Board agent to “submit the record of the case to the Board itself for
decision.”

18
University requested the cases be remanded to the ALJ for decision, arguing that the
ALJ is better suited than the Board to make credibility determinations because he
observed the witnesses testify at the hearing. After considering responses from
Charging Parties, the Board denied the University’s request.
DISCUSSION
I. 	Unilateral Change
HEERA section 3570 requires a higher education employer or its designee to
meet and confer “with the employee organization selected as exclusive representative
of an appropriate unit on all matters within the scope of representation.” Refusal or
failure to meet and confer as required by section 3570 is an unfair practice. (HEERA,
§ 3571, subd. (c).)
“An employer’s unilateral change in terms and conditions of employment within
the scope of representation is, absent a valid defense, a per se refusal to negotiate
and a violation of HEERA.” (California State Employees’ Assn. v. Public Employment
Relations Bd. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 923, 934.) To establish a prima facie unilateral
change violation, the charging party must prove that: (1) the employer took action to
change policy; (2) the change in policy concerns a matter within the scope of
representation; (3) the change has a generalized effect or continuing impact on
represented employees’ terms and conditions of employment; and (4) the employer
reached its decision without first providing advance notice of the proposed change to
the employees’ union and negotiating in good faith at the union’s request, until the
parties reached an agreement or a lawful impasse. (Regents of the University of
California (2018) PERB Decision No. 2610-H, p. 32.)

19
AFSCME and UPTE argue the University was required to meet and confer in
good faith over both the decision to require an influenza vaccination and the
foreseeable effects of that decision, and that the University did neither. Teamsters
argues only that the University failed to meet and confer over the decision to adopt the
vaccination policy. The University admits it refused to meet and confer over the
decision to adopt the vaccination policy but argues the decision is outside the scope of
representation. The University further contends that it satisfied its obligation to
negotiate with AFSCME and UPTE over the foreseeable effects of the decision.
The primary issue in this case is whether the University’s decision to mandate
that all employees who work on University premises receive an influenza vaccination
is within the scope of representation. Before reaching that issue, we briefly address
the other elements of the unilateral change test as applied to the University’s decision.
A. 	Change in Policy
There are three primary types of policy changes that may constitute an unlawful
unilateral change: (1) a deviation from the status quo set forth in a written agreement
or written policy; (2) a change in established past practice; and (3) a newly created
policy or application or enforcement of existing policy in a new way. (County of Merced
(2020) PERB Decision No. 2740-M, p. 9; Pasadena Area Community College District
(2015) PERB Decision No. 2444, p. 12, fn. 6.)
Prior to July 31, 2020, each University medical center had its own policy
regarding employee influenza vaccination and all provided for a medical
contraindication exemption. The general medical contraindications included a form of
egg allergy and/or swelling, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, or other medically documented

20
contraindication. Generally, the University Health System policies allowed an
exemption for a history of the Guillain-Barre Syndrome, while the Executive Order
changed the exemption to seemingly require a diagnosis within less than six weeks
after a prior dose of the influenza vaccine. This changed one of the medical
exemptions related to Guillain-Barre Syndrome.
While the UC Irvine, UC San Diego, and UC San Francisco policies had a
religious exemption, only UC San Diego had a strongly held belief exemption. The
Executive Order did not allow an employee to decline to receive an influenza
vaccination for strongly held personal reasons. The Executive Order thus changed the
types of exemptions from mandatory influenza vaccination available at UC San Diego
Health.
The Executive Order also changed the date by which the employees were
required to provide proof of vaccination. The UC Irvine Health System defined the
beginning of the flu season as the “week following Thanksgiving weekend of each
year,” while UCLA Health System defined it as October 1, and UC San Francisco
defined it as December 15. The remainder defined the flu season to begin when local
health departments deemed it began. By unilaterally changing the date for requiring
the influenza vaccination, the Executive Order changed policy.
Finally, prior to July 31, 2020, no University or campus policy required
employees working at locations other than medical centers to receive an influenza
vaccination. Starting on July 31, 2020, the Executive Order required “all students,
faculty, and staff living, learning, or working” on University premises to receive an
influenza vaccination by November 1, 2020.

21
The Executive Order thus changed the written policy for a subset of medical
center employees, and also created a new policy for employees who work at locations
other than the medical centers, as they were not previously required to receive an
influenza vaccination. We therefore easily conclude that the Executive Order
constituted a change in policy.
B. 	Generalized Effect or Continuing Impact
“A change of policy has, by definition, a generalized effect or continuing impact
upon the terms and conditions of employment of bargaining unit members.” (Grant
Joint Union High School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 196, p. 9.) As discussed
ante, the Executive Order changed the existing written influenza vaccination policy at
University medical centers and created a new vaccination policy for non-medical
center employees where none existed before. While the University’s new policy was
only effective during the 2020-2021 flu season, the requirement of a vaccination has a
generalized or continuing effect as employees may suffer the consequences of failure
to obtain the vaccine well into the future. (City of Davis (2016) PERB Decision
No. 2494-M, 24, citing San Jacinto Unified School District (1994) PERB Decision
No. 1078 [the duration of the unilateral act does not necessarily determine whether
there was a unilateral change].) Furthermore, because the University relied on the
management rights clause in its contracts with Charging Parties when making the
decision to require influenza vaccinations, employees could be subject to similar
vaccination mandates in the future. (City of Davis, supra, PERB Decision No. 2494-M,
p. 21.) Because these policy changes applied on an ongoing basis to all employees
represented by Charging Parties, they have a generalized effect or continuing impact

22
on bargaining unit members’ employment conditions. (State of California (Departments
of Veterans Affairs and Personnel Administration) (2008) PERB Decision No. 1997-S,
pp. 18-19.)
C. 	Notice and Opportunity to Meet and Confer
Although the amount of time varies depending on the circumstances of each
case, “an employer must give notice sufficiently in advance of reaching a firm decision
to allow the representative an opportunity to consult its members and decide whether
to request information, demand bargaining, acquiesce to the change, or take other
action.” (Regents of the University of California, supra, PERB Decision No. 2610-H,
p. 45.) The University issued the Executive Order on July 31, but did not provide
notice of the change to Charging Parties until August 7. The University clearly did not
give Charging Parties advance notice or an opportunity to meet and confer before
reaching a firm decision.
D. 	Scope of Representation
The scope of representation applicable to the University includes “wages, hours
of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment” but excludes
“[c]onsideration of the merits, necessity, or organization of any service, activity, or
program established by law or resolution of the regents or the directors, except for the
terms and conditions of employment of employees who may be affected thereby.”
(HEERA, § 3562, subd. (q)(1).) The “merits, necessity, or organization” language of
HEERA section 3562, subdivision (q)(1) recognizes “the right of employers to make
unconstrained decisions when fundamental management or policy choices are
involved.” (See Building Material & Construction Teamsters’ Union v. Farrell (1986)

23
41 Cal.3d 651, 663 (Building Material) [interpreting similar language in the Meyers-
Milias-Brown Act, § 3500 et seq.].)
Under HEERA, “[a] subject is within the scope of representation” “as a ‘term or
condition of employment’” “if: (1) it involves the employment relationship, (2) it is of
such concern to both management and employees that conflict is likely to occur and
the mediatory influence of collective bargaining is an appropriate means of resolving
the conflict, and (3) the employer’s obligation to negotiate would not unduly abridge its
freedom to exercise those managerial prerogatives (including matters of fundamental
policy) essential to the achievement of the employer’s mission. [Citation.]” (California
Faculty Assn. v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 609, 616;
Regents of the University of California (2012) PERB Decision No. 2300-H, p. 21.)
As to the first prong, the Executive Order involves the employment relationship
because it created new conditions that had to be met for employees to perform their
work on University premises: receiving an influenza vaccination or being granted a
medical exemption, or disability or religious accommodation. The first prong therefore
is met.
As to the second prong, mandatory influenza vaccination is not an issue that
tends to create conflict between employees and management that could be resolved
through collective bargaining. In Riverside Unified School District (1989) PERB
Decision No. 750 (Riverside USD), the district unilaterally changed its policy by
instituting an indoor smoking ban on district premises. The Board found this subject “is
not one that divides people along management-union lines, but rather tends to split
smokers and nonsmokers in both camps.” (Id. at p. 19.) The Board further found that

24
“[c]ollective negotiations between the District and employee organizations is not an
appropriate means of dealing with this public health hazard.” (Ibid.)
Like smoking, the subject of influenza vaccinations is not one that divides
people along management-union lines, but rather splits people—students, faculty, and
staff—into those who can and will get vaccinated versus those who cannot or will not
get vaccinated. And just like Riverside USD, the Executive Order “was implemented to
alleviate a potential health hazard to all persons who may enter public school facilities,
as opposed to assuring the safety of employees only.” (Riverside USD, supra, PERB
Decision No. 750, p. 19; see Trustees of the California State University (2009) PERB
Decision No. 1876a-H, p. 16 [collective bargaining was not appropriate to resolve
conflict over parking location and availability because students’ interests would not be
represented at the bargaining table].) The decision to require influenza vaccinations in
response to a public health hazard that affects not just employees, but also students
and the general population, thus was not amenable to collective bargaining.
As to the third prong, both the courts and PERB have repeatedly recognized
that a public employer’s concern for employee and public safety can outweigh the
benefits of bargaining. (See, e.g., Building Material, supra, 41 Cal.3d 651, 664, citing
San Jose Police Officer’s Assn. v. City of San Jose (1978) 78 Cal.App.3d 935,
948-949.) For example, decision bargaining was not required when a county decided
to staff a particular shift at a health center with a non-bargaining unit sworn peace
officer rather than a public safety officer within the unit because the county made the
decision based on a legitimate concern for employee and public safety. (County of
Santa Clara (2019) PERB Decision No. 2680-M, p. 11.)

25
The University issued the Executive Order because of grave concerns by its
experts (as well as the California Department of Public Health and the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention) that the 2020-2021 flu season, combined with the
ongoing COVID-19 global pandemic, had the potential to overwhelm its hospitals due
to the simultaneous spread of both respiratory illnesses. Dr. Riley testified that
managing outbreaks of two respiratory diseases like influenza and COVID-19 at the
same time can place significant stress on healthcare facilities. Dr. Reingold explained
that the convergence of COVID-19 at the same time as an influenza outbreak would
cause insurmountable patient load in hospitals. Dr. Reingold also agreed that
mandatory influenza vaccination policies increase the rate of vaccination, and are
more effective than an optional vaccination policy. The implementation of the
University’s influenza vaccination policy was a direct response to a potential
confluence of the COVID-19 global pandemic and an outbreak of the influenza virus
causing catastrophic outcomes and needless loss of life. This potential catastrophe
affected not just University employees, but also its students and the general public
who may have needed to use University hospitals. Under these unprecedented
circumstances, requiring the University to negotiate the decision to require influenza
vaccination would abridge its right to determine public health policy during a
pandemic.
Charging Parties urge us to follow a series of private sector decisions involving
one Washington hospital that purportedly hold influenza vaccination policies are within
the scope of representation—Virginia Mason Hospital (2012) 358 NLRB 531; Virginia
Mason Hospital (2011) 357 NLRB 564; and Virginia Mason Hosp. v. Washington State

26
Nurses Assn. (9th Cir. 2007) 511 F.3d 908 (collectively referred to as the Virginia
Mason decisions). Although federal judicial and administrative precedent is not binding
on PERB, it may provide persuasive guidance in construing California’s public sector
labor relations statutes. (County of Santa Clara (2019) PERB Decision No. 2670-M,
p. 19, fn. 20 & p. 28; Capistrano Unified School District (2015) PERB Decision
No. 2440, p. 15, citing Fire Fighters Union v. City of Vallejo (1974) 12 Cal.3d 608,
616-617.) Having reviewed the proffered federal authorities, we do not find them
persuasive.
First, the two National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decisions cited by
Charging Parties, Virginia Mason Hospital, supra, 358 NLRB 531 and Virginia Mason
Hospital, supra, 357 NLRB 564, did not involve a vaccination mandate but rather an
influenza prevention policy requiring nurses who declined to get an immunization or
take antiviral medication to wear masks while on duty. (Virginia Mason Hospital, supra,
357 NLRB at p. 565.) The NLRB concluded the policy was a work rule that affected
nurses’ working conditions and thus was within the scope of representation. (Id. at
p. 566.) The University’s influenza vaccination mandate, in contrast, is more than a
mere work rule because it applies to all individuals who work, live, or study on University
premises.
Second, in Virginia Mason Hospital, supra, 511 F.3d 908, the court affirmed an
arbitration award that required the hospital to bargain with the nurses’ union over a
mandatory influenza vaccination policy. (Id. at pp. 912-913.) The arbitrator reasoned
that “inherent in every collective bargaining agreement” is “the foundational labor law
principle that management must bargain with recognized union representatives over

27
terms and conditions of employment.” (Id. at p. 915.) Although the court recognized that
this principle is embodied in the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), neither the
arbitrator nor the court analyzed why this particular immunization requirement was
within the NLRA’s scope of representation.9 Absent such analysis, we decline to
extrapolate the court’s deferential affirmance of the arbitrator’s conclusion into a general
holding that all mandatory vaccination policies are within the scope of representation.
Finally, and arguably most importantly, none of the Virginia Mason decisions
addressed an influenza vaccination mandate in the context of a “once-in-a-century
pandemic.” (Gompers Preparatory Academy (2021) PERB Decision No. 2765, p. 14.)
Nor did any of the Virginia Mason decisions balance whether the public safety
justification for the influenza prevention policy outweighed the benefits of bargaining
over it. Unlike the flu prevention policies in those cases, the University’s decision to
mandate influenza vaccinations for employees and students serves a greater public
health purpose by preventing University medical centers and other healthcare facilities
from being overwhelmed by a simultaneous influx of COVID-19 and influenza patients.
Because the Virginia Mason decisions did not have to weigh such a factor, we find them
unpersuasive in these circumstances.10
We conclude for these reasons that the University’s decision to adopt a
mandatory influenza vaccination policy was outside HEERA’s scope of
9 The NLRA is codified at 29 U.S.C. section 151 et seq.
10 Because this case does not present such a situation, we express no opinion
on whether a policy mandating influenza vaccination in the absence of a concurrent
global pandemic would be within the scope of representation.

28
representation.11 This conclusion does not end our inquiry, however, because we still
must determine whether the University complied with its duty to meet and confer over
reasonably foreseeable effects of the decision that are within the scope of
representation. (County of Santa Clara, supra, PERB Decision No. 2680-M,
pp. 11-12.)
II. 	Effects Bargaining
Before implementing a non-negotiable change, the parties must first negotiate
over aspects of the change that impact matters within the scope of representation.
(Trustees of the California State University (2012) PERB Decision No. 2287-H, p. 11.)
Once a firm non-negotiable decision is made, the employer must “provide notice and a
meaningful opportunity to bargain over the reasonably foreseeable effects of its
decision before implementation, just as it would be required to do before making a
decision on a mandatory subject of bargaining.” (County of Santa Clara, supra, PERB
Decision No. 2680-M, p. 12.)
In Compton Community College District (1989) PERB Decision No. 720
(Compton CCD), the Board identified the limited circumstances under which an
employer may implement a decision on a non-mandatory subject prior to exhausting
its effects bargaining obligation: (1) the implementation date is based on an immutable
deadline or an important managerial interest, such that a delay in implementation
beyond the date chosen would effectively undermine the employer’s right to make the
decision; (2) the employer gives sufficient advance notice of the decision and
11 In light of this conclusion, we do not address the University’s argument that
Charging Parties contractually waived their right to meet and confer over the decision.

29
implementation date to allow for meaningful negotiations prior to implementation; and
(3) the employer negotiates in good faith prior to implementation and continues to
negotiate afterwards as to the subjects that were not resolved by virtue of
implementation. (Id. at pp. 14-15.) The University claims it sufficiently satisfied this
bargaining obligation before implementing the vaccine policy; AFSCME and UPTE
disagree.12
We need not address whether the first and second requirements were met
because the University did not satisfy the third requirement that it meet and confer in
good faith prior to implementation.13 AFSCME and UPTE claim the University was
unwilling to bargain over several subjects, including payment of vaccine costs for
employees who did not have insurance, the availability of influenza vaccine clinics,
alternatives to unpaid leave or discipline as consequences for not getting vaccinated,
when the University would begin enforcing the access ban for workers who had not
complied, and exemptions to the vaccination requirement. We need not address all of
these subjects because the record shows that the University refused to bargain over
alternative consequences for not getting vaccinated.
The Executive Order and FAQ did not expressly state the consequences
employees could face for noncompliance with the vaccination requirement; the FAQ
merely said that non-compliant employees would not be allowed on University
12 As noted above, Teamsters withdrew its effects bargaining allegation.
13 While it is not at issue here, vaccination requirements set by the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, state or local public health departments, or
municipalities could supply immutable deadlines for the purposes of Compton CCD’s
first requirement.

30
premises as of November 16. But during negotiations the University indicated that
non-compliant employees could be disciplined or put on unpaid leave.
“PERB has long held that implementation of policies that include the potential
for disciplinary action may have a direct impact on wages, health and welfare benefits,
and other terms and conditions of employment since such action may reduce or
eliminate entitlement to those items.” (Trustees of the California State University
(2003) PERB Decision No. 1507-H, adopting proposed decision at p. 12.) Accordingly,
when a non-negotiable decision has foreseeable effects on discipline, such as
creating a new type of evidence that may be used to support discipline or a new
ground for discipline, those effects are negotiable. (See, e.g., Rio Hondo Community
College District (2013) PERB Decision No. 2313, pp. 14-16 [use of surveillance
camera video for disciplinary purposes was a negotiable effect of non-negotiable
decision to install cameras]; Trustees of the California State University, supra, PERB
Decision No. 1507-H, pp. 3-4 & adopting proposed decision at pp. 12-13 [disciplinary
effects of computer use policy are within the scope of representation].) And, of course,
placing an employee on unpaid leave has a direct effect on wages, an enumerated
subject within the scope of representation. (HEERA, § 3562, subd. (q)(1).) An
employer’s outright refusal to bargain over matters within the scope of representation
constitutes a per se violation of the duty to bargain in good faith. (Los Angeles Unified
School District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2588, pp. 8-10; Mount San Antonio
Community College District (1983) PERB Decision No. 334, pp. 10-11.)
AFSCME’s and UPTE’s negotiators testified that the University was unwilling to
discuss any alternatives to leave without pay or discipline for an employee’s failure to

31
comply with the vaccination policy. Most notably, at a mid-November bargaining
session, Chester explicitly said the University would not entertain proposals about
alternatives to discipline or leave without pay as consequences for failure to comply
with the vaccination policy. Although University negotiator Young testified that the
subject of consequences for noncompliance was discussed during bargaining, neither
he nor any other witness contradicted Charging Parties’ testimony that University
representatives refused to discuss alternatives to discipline or unpaid leave. Based on
this evidence, we find the University outright refused to bargain over the vaccination
policy’s effect(s) on discipline and wages. We accordingly find the University did not
meet and confer in good faith over negotiable effects of the decision to mandate
influenza vaccinations.
Because the University failed to satisfy all of the requirements under Compton
CCD, it was not privileged to implement the influenza vaccination policy prior to
completing effects bargaining with AFSCME and UPTE. The University’s
implementation of the policy thus constituted an unlawful unilateral change in violation
of HEERA.
REMEDY
A “properly designed remedial order seeks a restoration of the situation as
nearly as possible to that which would have obtained but for the unfair labor practice.”
(Modesto City Schools (1983) PERB Decision No. 291, pp. 67-68.) The usual remedy
for an employer’s violation of its effects bargaining obligation is an order to bargain
with the exclusive representative over the effects, with a limited backpay award to
make employees whole for losses suffered and to mitigate as much as possible the

32
imbalance in the parties’ bargaining positions resulting from the employer’s unlawful
conduct. (County of Santa Clara, supra, PERB Decision No. 2680-M, p. 14; Bellflower
Unified School District, supra, PERB Decision No. 2385, pp. 12-13.)
The University’s influenza vaccination policy expired by its own terms at the end
of the 2020-2021 flu season. There is thus no reason to order the University to bargain
with AFSCME and UPTE over foreseeable negotiable effects of that particular policy.
It is appropriate, however, to order the University to make employees whole for
any losses suffered as a result of the University’s failure to meet and confer in good
faith over the policy’s effects. Although AFSCME and UPTE presented no evidence
that any employee suffered a loss as a result of noncompliance with the vaccination
policy, an unfair practice finding creates a presumption that employees suffered some
loss as a result of the employer’s unlawful conduct. (Bellflower Unified School District
(2019) PERB Order No. Ad-475, p. 10; Desert Sands Unified School District (2010)
PERB Decision No. 2092, pp. 31-32.) Consistent with the presumption, AFSCME and
UPTE will have the opportunity to establish in compliance proceedings that any
employees they represent suffered a loss as a result of the vaccination policy, such as
discipline, unpaid leave, and out-of-pocket payment of vaccine costs.
It also is appropriate to order the University to cease and desist from the
unlawful conduct found in this decision, and to post physical and electronic notices of
its violation. (City of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2351-M, pp. 43-45.)
ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the entire
record in the case, it is found that the Regents of the University of California

33
(University) violated the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act
(HEERA), Government Code section 3571, subdivision (c), by failing to meet and
confer in good faith with Charging Parties American Federation of State, County &
Municipal Employees Local 3299 (AFSCME), and University Professional and
Technical Employees, Communication Workers of America, Local 9119 (UPTE)
(collectively Unions) over negotiable effects prior to implementing the mandatory
influenza vaccination policy. All other allegations in Case No. SF-CE-1300-H are
DISMISSED.
Because Teamsters Local 2010 withdrew the allegation in Case
No. SF-CE-1302-H that the University failed to meet and confer in good faith over
negotiable effects of the Executive Order, and we find that the University was not
required to negotiate over the decision to require mandatory influenza vaccinations,
the complaint in Case No. SF-CE-1302-H is DISMISSED.
Pursuant to Government Code section 3563, subdivisions (h) and (m), it is
ORDERED that the University, its governing board, and its representatives shall:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
1. 	Failing and refusing to meet and confer in good faith with the
Unions by unilaterally deciding to mandate influenza vaccinations, without giving the
Unions reasonable notice and an opportunity to meet and confer over foreseeable
effects of the decision.
2. 	Interfering with employees’ right to participate in the activities of
an employee organization of their own choosing.
B. 	TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF HEERA:

34
1. 	Make employees whole for any losses suffered as a result of the
University’s unlawful implementation of the mandatory influenza vaccination policy.
Any compensation awarded shall be augmented by interest at a rate of 7 percent per
year.
2. 	Within 10 workdays of the date this decision is no longer subject
to appeal, post at all work locations where notices to employees in AFSCME’s and
UPTE’s bargaining units customarily are posted, copies of the Notice attached hereto
as Appendix A. The Notice must be signed by an authorized agent of the University,
indicating that it will comply with the terms of this Order. Such posting shall be
maintained for a period of 30 consecutive workdays.14 The Notice shall also be sent to
all bargaining unit employees by electronic message, intranet, internet site, or other
electronic means customarily used by the University to communicate with employees
14 In light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the University shall notify
PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC) in writing if, due to an extraordinary
circumstance such as an emergency declaration or shelter-in-place order, a majority
of employees at one or more work locations are not physically reporting to their work
location as of the time the physical posting would otherwise commence. If the
University so notifies OGC, or if a Unions requests in writing that OGC alter or extend
the posting period, require additional notice methods, or otherwise adjust the manner
in which employees receive notice, OGC shall investigate and solicit input from all
relevant parties. OGC shall provide amended instructions to the extent appropriate to
ensure adequate publication of the Notice, such as directing the University to
commence posting within 10 workdays after a majority of employees have resumed
physically reporting on a regular basis; directing the University to mail the Notice to all
employees who are not regularly reporting to any work location due to the
extraordinary circumstance, including those who are on a short term or indefinite
furlough, are on layoff subject to recall, or are working from home; or directing the
University to mail the Notice to those employees with whom it does not customarily
communicate through electronic means.

35
in AFSCME’s and UPTE’s bargaining units. Reasonable steps shall be taken to
ensure that the Notice is not reduced in size, altered, defaced, or covered with any
other material.
3. 	Written notification of the actions taken to comply with this Order
shall be made to the General Counsel of the Public Employment Relations Board, or
the General Counsel’s designee. The University shall provide reports, in writing, as
directed by the General Counsel or his/her designee. All reports regarding compliance
with this Order shall be concurrently served on each of the Unions.
Chair Banks and Member Paulson joined in this Decision.

APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the State of California
After a hearing in Unfair Practice Case No. SF-CE-1300-H, American
Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees Local 3299; University
Professional and Technical Employees, Communication Workers of America, Local
9119 v. Regents of the University of California, in which all parties had the right to
participate, it has been found that the Regents of the University of California
(University) violated the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act, by
failing to meet and confer in good faith with Charging Parties American Federation of
State, County & Municipal Employees Local 3299, and University Professional and
Technical Employees, Communication Workers of America, Local 9119 (collectively
Unions) over negotiable effects prior to implementing the mandatory influenza
vaccination policy.
As a result of this conduct, we have been ordered to post this Notice and we
will:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
1. 	Failing and refusing to meet and confer in good faith with the
Unions by unilaterally deciding to mandate influenza vaccinations, without giving the
Unions reasonable notice and an opportunity to bargain over foreseeable effects of
the decision.
2. 	Interfering with employees’ right to participate in the activities of
an employee organization of their own choosing.
B. 	TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE HEERA:
1. 	Make employees whole for any losses suffered as a result of the
University’s unlawful implementation of the mandatory influenza vaccination policy.
Any compensation awarded shall be augmented by interest at a rate of 7 percent per
year.
Dated: _____________________ 	REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA
By: _________________________________
Authorized Agent
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE. IT MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR AT LEAST 30
CONSECUTIVE WORKDAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE
REDUCED IN SIZE, DEFACED, ALTERED OR COVERED WITH ANY OTHER
MATERIAL.