State of California (PERB A524N)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
CHILD CARE PROVIDERS UNITED -
CALIFORNIA,
Charging Party,
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Respondent.
Case No. SA-CE-1-N
PERB Order No. Ad-524-N
February 27, 2025
Appearances: Rothner, Segall & Greenstone by Eli Naduris-Weissman, Attorney, for
Child Care Providers United – California; California Department of Human Resources
by Jennifer M. Pearson, Attorney, for State of California.
Before Banks, Chair; Krantz and Paulson, Members.
DECISION
PAULSON, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on appeal by Charging Party Child Care Providers United –
California (CCPU) from an Administrative Determination by PERB’s Office of the
General Counsel (OGC). The Administrative Determination concluded that
Respondent State of California had complied with a final decision in this matter finding
that the State had violated the Building a Better Early Care and Education System Act
(Childcare Provider Act), designated PERB Decision No. HO-U-1733-N (Decision).1
CCPU contends that the State has not fully complied with the Decision’s remedial
1 The Childcare Provider Act is codified at Welfare and Institutions Code,
section 10420 et seq. Further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare
and Institutions Code.

2
order (Order). Specifically, CCPU argues that the State has not made reasonable
efforts to distribute to all childcare providers a Notice of the Decision and Order
(Notice).2 The State asserts that it fully complied by making reasonable efforts in
accordance with the Order.
We agree with CCPU that the State is not yet in compliance with the Order. The
Decision specifically tailored traditional notice requirements to the circumstances of
the bargaining unit, while providing some flexibility to the State. However, as we will
explain, the State has not shown that it made reasonable efforts to distribute the
Notice to all bargaining unit members by mail or e-mail, as the Decision requires.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND3
I. 	Underlying Charge and Proposed Decision
On July 27, 2020, PERB certified CCPU as the certified provider organization
representing family childcare providers in negotiations with the State pursuant to the
Childcare Provider Act. On September 25, 2020, in the lead-up to the parties’
negotiations for their first memorandum of understanding, CCPU submitted a request
for information. As summarized by the administrative law judge (ALJ) in the proposed
decision in this case, the request “sought provider-level information about subsidies,
program participation, and training to determine whether subsidies and training
opportunities were adequate to attract and retain providers in the market.” On October
30, 2020, CCPU sent a further request for “[a] list of family child care providers who
2 CCPU does not dispute the State’s compliance with the other parts of the
Decision.
3 The facts of the underlying case are drawn from the Decision. Issues relating
to the parties’ compliance dispute are drawn from OGC’s investigation.

3
had waived family fees for September and October,” to include each provider’s name,
license number, all available contact information, the amount of waived fees, and the
agency or agencies with which the provider contracts.
Over the following months, the parties met and exchanged e-mails about the
information requests and tracked the State’s progress on the responses. But, in
January 2021, the parties arrived at a disagreement. The California Department of
Education (CDE) and Department of Social Services (DSS) contract with political
subdivisions of the State, such as cities, counties, and county offices of education, as
well as non-governmental contractors and subcontractors, to administer programs to
distribute childcare subsidies and provide training to providers. The parties and the
ALJ refer to these entities collectively as “contractors” or “vendors.” To again quote the
ALJ: “The central sticking point was whether the State had to request provider-level
information from political subdivisions, contractors, and subcontractors with which
CDE and DSS had contracts or whether it merely had to provide aggregate
information that departments themselves already possessed.” CCPU’s ensuing unfair
practice charge alleged that the State had violated the Childcare Provider Act by
failing or refusing to provide it with necessary and relevant information.
The ALJ held that, because the California Department of Human Resources
(CalHR) is the agent bargaining on behalf of the State as the Governor’s
representative (§ 10425.5, subd. (b)), it “has a duty to work with CDE and DSS to
diligently seek requested information from the political subdivisions, contractors, or
subcontractors those departments contract with.” Furthermore, because contracts
between the State and the certified provider organization are “binding on all state

4
departments and agencies and any political subdivision of the state that are involved
in the administration of the state-funded early care and education program and the
relevant contractors or subcontractors of those departments and agencies”
(§ 10426, subd. (c)), CalHR may not accept these other parties’ refusal to provide
information. Thus, the State’s duty under the Childcare Provider Act to provide CCPU
with necessary and relevant information required CalHR to “pursue the information
with more vigor” than it had done previously.
To remedy this violation, the ALJ ordered the State to “diligently seek”
responsive information from the political subdivisions, contractors, and subcontractors
with which the State has contracts or business relationships. Further, the ALJ ordered
the State to “work with CCPU in good faith to devise effective techniques to seek this
information, manage responsive information, and track third party compliance.”
The ALJ also ordered the State to distribute the Notice directly to providers. The
ALJ held:
“Because childcare providers are distributed throughout
California and do not work in central locations, it is not
practical to post physical copies of a notice. Instead, the
State must make reasonable efforts to distribute the
attached notice to all providers in the bargaining unit
represented by CCPU, such as by mail or e-mail.”
Neither party filed exceptions to the proposed decision, which therefore became
final on August 23, 2022.
II. 	Compliance Efforts
The State filed its first statement of compliance with OGC on October 27, 2022.
In this unsworn letter, CalHR argued that “[g]iven the unique nature of the child care

5
providers and their relationship to the state, specifically the lack of an employer-
employee relationship, the state determined the reasonable means of distributing the
Notice is via the multiple website postings.” Specifically, CalHR asserted that it would
be “reasonable” to post the Notice on the CDE, DSS, and CalHR websites. But CalHR
resisted the Decision’s instructions to mail or e-mail the Notice directly to providers:
“CalHR contends it is not reasonable to order CalHR to
directly mail the Notice to over 36,000 providers – just the
postage alone would be an estimated $21,600 ($0.60 x
36,000). PERB decisions where direct notice was required
appear to be limited to those matters where the conduct of
the respondent is egregious. (Santa Monica Community
College District (1979) PERB Decision No. 103.)
“It is also not reasonable to require CalHR to email the
notice to the providers. First, as noted, neither CalHR,
CDSS, or CDE customarily email or even directly
communicate with providers. Further, given the providers
are not employees of the state, there is no existing listserv
or similar of emails addresses of providers. While CDSS
and CDE have begun collecting contact information on
providers, no department has a complete list of emails
addresses, nor are the email addresses stored in any email
software, but rather maintained on an Excel spreadsheet.
Thus, to email the notice to providers would not be
sufficient compliance with distribution of the Notice as the
list of addresses is incomplete, but for the emails the CDSS
and CDE do have, CalHR would have to manually email
thousands of addresses.”
CCPU responded on November 4, 2022, arguing that the Decision clearly directed the
State to distribute the Notice directly to providers, and questioning CalHR’s claims
about the feasibility of e-mail given commonly used “mail merge” processes in modern
software. CCPU asserted that CalHR possessed the e-mail addresses for 27,428
providers (76% of the total), and the home or mailing addresses of the remaining

6
8,620 providers, except for six who opted out of providing any personal information.
CalHR did not dispute these figures.
To attempt to resolve this dispute, OGC convened an informal settlement
conference with the parties on December 12, 2022. CalHR claims that, as a result of
this meeting, the parties agreed that CalHR would direct the vendors and
subcontractors who administer the State’s early childcare programs to distribute the
Notice in the same manner they normally communicate with providers. CCPU claims
that its position was additional measures would be needed to track and report
contractors’ distribution of the Notice to see if further efforts were needed. Neither
party addresses how any such alleged facts and related arguments could be
cognizable given California’s mediation privilege. (See Evid. Code, § 1119.)
Nonetheless, it is undisputed that CalHR instructed contractors to distribute the
Notice on at least two occasions, in December 2022 and March 2023. CalHR tracked
contractors’ compliance with these instructions in a spreadsheet, which it provided to
CCPU and PERB. This document indicates that 110 of 137 of contractors responded
that they had successfully distributed the Notice in some manner. Most of these
responses indicated that the Notice was distributed by mail or e-mail, although some
claimed only to have posted a copy in a public office building. Some contractors
serving populous counties, including but not limited to the County of Los Angeles, the
Los Angeles County Department of Education, the County of Orange Social Services
Agency, and the Santa Clara County Department of Social Services, provided no
response.

7
In all, CalHR filed three statements of compliance, though it did not verify any of
them by filing a declaration under penalty of perjury, as OGC had directed. CalHR
eventually filed a declaration describing its efforts at distributing the Notice on April 15,
2024, in response to an Order to Show Cause issued by OGC.
III. 	OGC Determines that Compliance has been Achieved
On September 18, 2024, OGC issued an Administrative Determination finding
that the State had complied with the Order. The only disputed issue was whether the
State had complied with the directive to undertake “reasonable efforts to distribute the
attached notice to all providers in the bargaining unit represented by CCPU, such as
by mail or e-mail.” OGC found that the State had done so, based on its directive to all
contractors to distribute the Notice, and follow-up directives to contractors who did not
respond.
IV. 	Arguments on Appeal
CCPU appealed the Administrative Determination arguing that the State’s
efforts have not achieved compliance because, at best, approximately 80% of
contractors confirmed that they distributed the Notice to providers. CCPU argues that
the State has reasonable means to achieve compliance via mail or e-mail directly to
the providers. Finally, CCPU argues, even if the State may comply with the Notice
posting requirement through contractors, additional steps must be taken to track and
manage compliance.
CalHR argues that posting the Notice on the DSS and CDE websites was
reasonable and sufficient to achieve compliance with the Order. But, even if this alone
was not sufficient, CalHR argues, its instructions to contractors to distribute the Notice

8
are “reasonable efforts.” CalHR further contends that the parties agreed that it could
achieve compliance by using the contractors, and that CCPU does not contend that
any specific providers did not receive the Notice. CalHR urges us to affirm the
Administrative Determination.
DISCUSSION
In compliance proceedings, the respondent has the burden to prove that it
complied with each part of the Board’s order. (Los Angeles Unified School
District (2021) PERB Order No. Ad-488, p. 9.) Absent extraordinary circumstances,
the parties may not use compliance proceedings to re-litigate any issues already
decided and no longer subject to appeal. (Bellflower Unified School District (2022)
PERB Decision No. 2544a, pp. 14-15, citing City of Pasadena (2014) PERB Order
No. Ad-406-M, pp. 14, 16-17.)
I. 	Childcare Provider Act
Unlike the other statutes under PERB’s jurisdiction, the Childcare Provider Act
covers persons who are not public employees. (§ 10420.5, subd. (b).) The Act was
intended to “promote quality, access, and stability in the early care and education
system” through a collective bargaining model. (§ 10420.5, subd. (a).) Providers who
operate family childcare homes and participate in State-funded early care and
education programs may select a single organization to act as their representative in
negotiations with the State over matters specified in the Act. (§ 10420.5, subd. (a).)
These include improved recruitment and retention of providers, professional
development and training opportunities, payments for State-funded programs,
reimbursement rates, and other matters. (§ 10424.5.) The Act’s provisions are

9
intended to “promote full communication” between providers and the State.
(§ 10420.5, subd. (a).)
As the ALJ noted, although providers are not public employees, “many features
of traditional labor relations apply” under the Childcare Provider Act. The purposes of
the Childcare Provider Act mirror those of the Ralph C. Dills Act, which governs
collective bargaining between the State and its employees. (Compare § 10420.5,
subd. (a) with Gov. Code, § 3512.) Both are intended to promote full communication
between the State and persons covered by the respective statutes, and both
accomplish this through exclusive representation on enumerated matters.
In another parallel with a traditional labor relations statute, the Board’s powers
to enforce the Childcare Provider Act are incorporated from PERB’s existing
jurisdiction over statutes governing collective bargaining between public sector
employers and their employees. (§ 10421, subd. (e).) As with other statutes under
PERB jurisdiction, the Childcare Provider Act grants the Board broad powers. “The
initial determination as to whether the charges of unfair practices are justified and, if
so, what remedy is necessary to effectuate the purposes of this chapter, shall be a
matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the board.” (§ 10428, subd. (b).)
Because of these parallels with a traditional labor relations statute, it is
appropriate to review well-established caselaw on notice postings. As we will explain
further, the ALJ appropriately relied on this caselaw, and tailored the remedy to the
circumstances of the CCPU-represented bargaining unit.

10
II. 	Basis for the Posting Requirement
Directing a respondent to post a notice of a violation has been a standard
remedy in unfair practice cases since PERB’s early days. Where there is a final
decision sustaining a violation, “it is important that the employees affected by this
decision and order be notified of their rights . . . and the findings of the Board in
relationship thereto.” (Placerville Union School District (1978) PERB Decision No. 69,
p. 26.) Notice postings “inform[] employees of the resolution of the matter and of the
employer's readiness to comply with the ordered remedy.” (City of Selma (2014)
PERB Decision No. 2380-M, p. 26.)
To effectuate the purposes of the relevant statute, the manner of notice posting
has always been adapted to the circumstances of the case. There has never been a
one-size-fits-all approach. For example, in Antelope Valley Community College
District (1979) PERB Decision No. 97, an employer interfered with employees’ rights
to select an exclusive representative, carrying out its plan though face-to-face
meetings and direct communications with employees. (Id. at p. 28.) Because “[t]he
harm to the employees and to [their preferred union] was extreme from which recovery
may well be slow,” the Board found that mere posting of a notice at the worksite was
inadequate. (Ibid.) The Board thus directed the employer to individually notify
employees of the Board’s decision and order by mail. (Ibid.)
In 2013, the Board updated its standard posting remedy to adapt to the
realities of modern workplace communications. While physical postings in the
workplace remain an “essential tool” for remedying unfair practices, where the
respondent “regularly communicates with public employees by e-mail, intranet,

11
websites, or other electronic means, it shall [additionally] be required to use those
same media to post notice of the Board's decision and remedial order.” (City of
Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2351-M, pp. 44-45.)
The Board continues to tailor the notice posting remedy to the specific
circumstances of a violation. In Mt. San Jacinto Community College District (2023)
PERB Decision No. 2865 (Mt. San Jacinto), the Board found that a college district had
retaliated against two academic employees for their protected activity when it removed
them from their positions as department chairs. (Id. at p. 38.) The Board declined to
fully restore the status quo because it could not do so without harming innocent
incumbents. (Id. at p. 42.) Because the remedy did not fully restore the status quo,
and because the employer’s conduct likely harmed the employees’ reputations in a
way that could impair their ability to compete in future chair elections, the Board
supplemented its remedy to include spoken notice reading by an employer’s
representative to the employees’ bargaining unit. (Ibid.) This remedy was necessary to
“blunt the impact” of the employer’s conduct where other means of doing so were
unavailable. (Id. at p. 43.) Similarly, in Hacienda La Puente Unified School District
(2024) PERB Decision No. 2930 (Hacienda La Puente), the Board found that the
employer’s egregious violations, power to control terms and conditions of employment,
and the employees’ economic dependence on the employer merited a spoken notice
reading. (Id. at p. 18.)
III. 	The State Has Not Met its Burden to Prove It Complied with the Order
Here, the Decision plainly requires the State to use reasonable efforts to
distribute the Notice personally to “all providers in the bargaining unit represented by

12
CCPU, such as by mail or e-mail.” The ALJ concluded that physical posting of the
Notice in the workplace was insufficient, and neither party filed exceptions to this
conclusion. The State’s argument that personal distribution of the Notice by mail or
e-mail would be “unreasonable” is therefore procedurally improper. The State may not
re-litigate issues that were already decided and are no longer subject to appeal.
(Bellflower Unified School District, supra, PERB Decision No. 2544a, pp. 14-15.)
In principle, the State could comply with the Notice-posting requirement in this
Order by using contractors. Some PERB orders identify a specific person who must be
involved in providing at least one means of notice, but this Order did not so specify.
(See, e.g., Hacienda La Puente, supra, PERB Decision No. 2930, p. 19 [directing
school district superintendent to read notice to employees].) Even so, the State cannot
avoid the Order’s “reasonable efforts” requirements by shunting responsibility to third
parties and then failing to make reasonable efforts to monitor their success and follow
up as may be reasonably necessary. If the State elects to use contractors to deliver
the Notice, these efforts are ultimately subject to the same scrutiny as any acts
directed at compliance with a posting requirement. And even if the State uses
contractors to distribute the Notice, the burden remains on the State to prove
compliance. Thus, the State had the burden to prove it used reasonable efforts to
achieve compliance through contractors, but it failed to meet that burden.4
4 For this reason, even if CalHR could overcome the mediation privilege and
establish that the parties had an “informal agreement” to permit CalHR to distribute the
notice via contractors, our decision would be the same, as the problem is not that
CalHR took such an approach but rather its failure to monitor and follow up with
additional reasonable efforts as necessary.

13
Los Angeles Unified School District, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-488 illustrates
the level of scrutiny PERB applies to notice posting compliance. There, as part of a
final order of the Board, PERB directed an employer to post a notice. However, due to
the COVID-19 pandemic that was then ongoing, most, if not all, members of a
certificated bargaining unit affected by the decision were working from their homes.
(Id. at p. 4.) The employer therefore sent the Notice to employees directly, by e-mail.
(Id. at pp. 4-5.) OGC questioned the employer about whether the e-mail list-serv it had
used included all affected employees. (Id. at p. 5.) In response, the employer filed a
statement affirming that it would re-send the Notice to all affected employees via the
list-serv and supplement the recipient list with any additional e-mail addresses for
employees who purportedly did not receive the first message. (Ibid.) Consistent with
its rule for physical mail, the Board adopted a rebuttable presumption that correctly
addressed e-mails are received by the addressee. (Id. at p. 9, citing State of California
(Department of Corrections) (2006) PERB Decision No. 1806-S, pp. 8-9.) Because the
charging parties did not attempt to provide evidence rebutting this presumption, the
Board found that the employer satisfied its burden to prove compliance with the order.
(Id. at p. 11.)
Here, CalHR does not benefit from any presumption that the Notice was
received. The data collected from contractors indicates only those contractors’
responses to CalHR’s instruction, but it contains no information that could confirm
whether these messages were correctly addressed. The information that some
contractors distributed the Notice is second hand; none of the contractors themselves
provided a declaration under penalty of perjury to verify their attempts to distribute the

14
Notice on behalf of CalHR. Even if we were to overlook these evidentiary problems,
the information from CalHR does not purport to show that contractors correctly
addressed mail or e-mail messages to all providers. Some contractors, serving Contra
Costa, San Bernardino, Monterey, El Dorado, and Tulare counties, responded only
that they posted the Notice in a public building rather than directly to providers via mail
or e-mail. Worse, some contractors serving other relatively populous counties, such as
Los Angeles, Orange, and San Mateo, apparently did not provide any description of
their posting efforts. In short, the information CalHR provided does not show that
messages containing the Notice were correctly addressed to providers, and so we
cannot presume that they were received.
Nor can we conclude, based on the information provided by CalHR in
compliance proceedings, that it has carried its burden to prove it complied with the
Order. That a significant number of contractors failed to respond, and others
seemingly failed to distribute the Notice directly to providers, leaves no other
interpretation. CalHR’s self-commendation that its “diligence resulted in more than
80% of the vendors reporting their efforts to CalHR” only highlights the shortcomings
in the State’s approach. We again note that the Decision found that the State “must
make reasonable efforts to distribute the attached notice to all providers in the
bargaining unit represented by CCPU, such as by mail or e-mail.” (Emphasis added.)
Our view is not changed by CalHR’s claim that it “has no enforcement authority”
over the contractors, which CCPU disputes. First, and most importantly, the Order was
directed at the State, not the contractors. Thus, even if it is true that the State is
unable to compel the contractors to distribute the Notice, the responsibility remains

15
with the State. Any failure by the contractors to follow CalHR’s instructions only means
that the State itself has not complied with the Order. The State’s argument might be
more persuasive if its only remaining options for achieving greater distribution were
unreasonable ones. But the State has made no such showing, as there is more it
could reasonably have done, through further follow up with contractors and direct
options it has available to it.
The State’s argument also conflicts with the central point of the Decision
discussed above at pages 2-3 that, due to the structure of the Act, “the political
subdivisions, contractors, and subcontractors . . . are not true third parties to the
bargaining relationship.” The ALJ reasoned that the State could not simply accept
refusals from political subdivisions, contractors, and subcontractors to provide
necessary and relevant information. CalHR did not except to these conclusions, and
we believe they are also relevant to understanding the State’s duties to comply with
the notice posting requirement. If the State elects to have contractors distribute the
Notice, it cannot simply accept their failure to do so when other reasonable efforts are
available to it.
For these reasons, we cannot agree with OGC that CalHR has, to date,
satisfied its duty to make “reasonable efforts” to distribute the Notice in compliance
with the Decision.
IV. 	Further Compliance Efforts
For the above reasons, we will reverse the Administrative Determination and
remand the matter to OGC for further compliance proceedings consistent with this
decision. Because a significant amount of time has passed since the underlying

16
Decision became final and the State has not yet fully complied, we direct the State to
distribute the Notice directly to providers by mail or e-mail by a reasonable deadline to
be set by OGC. As discussed above, although distribution via third party contractors
may have been a viable means to comply with the Order, the record of the compliance
proceedings demonstrates that State did not use reasonable efforts to develop an
administrative infrastructure to ensure compliance with the Order in this manner and
prove that compliance to PERB. The parties may work in good faith to develop more
efficient means to ensure consistent, effective, and provable compliance with notice
posting orders, but these efforts may not delay compliance with the Order in this case
any further.
ORDER
Child Care Providers United – California’s appeal from the Administrative
Determination is GRANTED. The matter is remanded to PERB’s Office of the General
Counsel for further proceedings to ensure compliance with all aspects of the final
decision in PERB Decision No. HO-U-1733-N consistent with the findings and
conclusions herein.
Chair Banks and Member Krantz joined in this Decision.