Regents of the University of California (Davis) (PERB 2101HA)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA	STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE	DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD	PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
COALITION OF UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES,	COALITION OF UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES,
Charging Party,	Charging Party,
V .	v.
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF	REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA (DAVIS),	CALIFORNIA (DA VIS),
Respondent.	Respondent.
Case Nos. SA-CE-246-H;	Case Nos. SA-CE-246-H;
SA-CE-247-H; SA-CE-251-H;	SA-CE-247-H; SA-CE-251-H;
SF-CE-760-H; SF-CE-795-H	SF-CE-760-H; SF-CE-795-H
Request for Reconsideration	Request for Reconsideration
PERB Decision No. 2101-H	PERB Decision No. 2101-H
PERB Decision No. 2101a-H	PERB Decision No.
210la-H
February 24, 2011	February 24, 2011
Appearances: Davis, Cowell & Bowe by Winfred
V.
Kao, Attorney, for Coalition
ofAppearances: Davis, Cowell & Bowe by Winfred V. Kao, Attorney, for Coalition of
University Employees; Hanson Bridgett by Molly A. Lee, Attorney, for Regents
of
theUniversity Employees; Hanson Bridgett by Molly A. Lee, Attorney, for Regents of the
University of California (Davis).	University
of
California (Davis).
McKeag	Before Dowdin Calvillo, Chair; Mckeag and Miner, Members.	Before Dowdin Calvillo, Chair; 	and Miner, Members.
DECISION	DECISION
McKEAG, 	This	McKEAG, Member: This case comes before the Public Employment Relations Board	Member: 	case comes before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on a request for reconsideration by Coalition
of
University Employees(PERB or Board) on a request for reconsideration by Coalition of University Employees
(CUE)
of
the Board's decision in Regents
of
the University
of
California (Davis) (2010) PERB
(CUE) of the Board's decision in Regents of the University of California (Davis) (2010) PERB
Decision No. 2101-H.	Decision No. 2101-H. 1
five	In Regents I, the Board considered five consolidated cases in which CUE alleged the	In Regents
I,
the Board considered 	consolidated cases in which CUE alleged the
Regents
of
the University of California (Davis) (University) failed to provide notice
and
an
Regents of the University of California (Davis) (University) failed to provide notice and an
opportunity to meet and confer in cases involving the University's replacement of a major
opportunity to meet and confer in cases involving the University's replacement of a major
portion
of
work performed by an employee in a CUE bargaining unit with a position outside
portion of work performed by an employee in a CUE bargaining unit with a position outside
the bargaining unit. The Board found the University committed an unlawful unilateral change	the bargaining unit. The Board found the University committed an unlawful unilaterai change
in three cases (Case Nos. SA-CE-246-H, SA-CE-247-H and SF-CE-795-H), but did not	in three cases (Case Nos. SA-CE-246-H, SA-CE-247-H and SF-CE-795-H), but did not
1
For clarity, we shall refer to this decision as Regents I.	For clarity, we shall refer to this decision as Regents I.

commit an unlawful unilateral change in one case (Case No. SF-CE-760-H). In addition, the
commit an unlawful unilateral change in one case (Case No. SF-CE-760-H). In addition, the
Board found the remaining case untimely (Case No. SA-CE-251-H).	Board found the remaining case untimely (Case No. SA-CE-251-H).
the	We have reviewed the entire record in light of CUE's request, the University's response	We have reviewed 	entire record in light
of
CUE's request, the University's response
to the request and the relevant law. 	Based on this review, the Board hereby partially grantsto the request and the relevant law. Based on this review, the Board hereby partially grants
CUE's request for reconsideration.	CUE's request for reconsideration.
BACKGROUND	BACKGROUND
CUE represents a bargaining unit composed
of
clerical and other administrative supportCUE represents a bargaining unit composed of clerical and other administrative support
employees. The underlying dispute arose out
of
the alleged unilateral repudiation
ofemployees. The underlying dispute arose out of the alleged unilateral repudiation of
Article 2.E
of
the parties' 2003-2004 memorandum
of
understanding (2003-04 MOU). 	TheArticle 2.E of the parties' 2003-2004 memorandum of understanding (2003-04 MOU). The
relevant portion
of
Article 2.E is as follows:	relevant portion of Article 2.E is as follows:
that	In the event the University determines that a position or title	In the event the University determines 	a position or title
should be reclassified or designated for exclusion from the unit,	should be reclassified or designated for exclusion from the unit.
or the University intends to replace a major portion
of
a	or the University intends to replace a major portion of a
bargaining unit position with a position in a classification outside	bargaining unit position with a position in a classification outside
of
the unit, the University shall notify CUE in writing at least	of the unit, the University shall notify CUE in writing at least
thirty (30) calendar days prior to the proposed implementation.	thirty (30) calendar days prior to the proposed implementation.
According to CUE, this provision required the University to give CUE notice
and
anAccording to CUE, this provision required the University to give CUE notice and an
opportunity to meet and confer when the University determined: (1) that a position or titleopportunity to meet and confer when the University determined: (1) that a position or title
should be reclassified; (2) a position or title should be designated for exclusion from
the
unit;should be reclassified; (2) a position or title should be designated for exclusion from the unit;
or (3) when the University intended to replace a major portion
of
a bargaining unit positionor (3) when the University intended to replace a major portion of a bargaining unit position
with a position in a classification outside of the unit. The University, on the other hand,with a position in a classification outside of the unit. The University, on the other hand,
contended that notice was only required when there was a formal request for reclassification
contended that notice was only required when there was a formal request for reclassification
that would result in an incumbent leaving the bargaining unit by virtue of the reclassification.
that would result in an incumbent leaving the bargaining unit by virtue of the reclassification.
The Board concluded that Article 2.E obligated the University to give CUE notice andThe Board concluded that Article 2.E obligated the University to give CUE notice and
an opportunity to meet and confer when the University determined: (1) that a bargaining unitan opportunity to meet and confer when the University determined: (1) that a bargaining unit
position or title should be reclassified to a non-bargaining unit position; (2) a bargaining unit	
position or title should be reclassified to a non-bargaining unit position; (2) a bargaining unit
position or title should be designated for exclusion from the unit; or (3) the University intended
position or title should be designated for exclusion from the unit; or (3) the University intended
2

to replace a major portion
of
a bargaining unit position with a position in a classification
to replace a major portion of a bargaining unit position with a position in a classification
outside of the unit. Further, with regard to the third factor, the Board found the duty to provide	outside
of
the unit. Further, with regard to the third factor, the Board found the duty to provide
notice and an opportunity to meet and confer was only triggered when the University intended	notice and an opportunity to meet and confer was only triggered when the University intended
to replace more than 50 percent
of
the work
of
a bargaining unit position with that
of
a non-to replace more than 50 percent of the work of a bargaining unit position with that of a non-
bargaining unit position. The Board applied this standard in Regents I and determined the	bargaining unit position. The Board applied this standard in Regents I and determined the
University violated Article 2.E in three of the five consolidated cases.	University violated Article 2.E in three
of
the five consolidated cases.
DISCUSSION	DISCUSSION
A.	A. 	Requests for Reconsideration	Requests for Reconsideration
32410(a),	Under PERB Regulation 32410(a)," the gr	Under PERB Regulation 2 the grounds for requesting reconsideration
of
a	ounds for requesting reconsideration of a
final Board decision are limited to claims that:	
"(I)
the decision
of
the Board itself contains	final Board decision are limited to claims that: "(1) the decision of the Board itself contains
prejudicial errors
of
fact, or (2) the party has newly discovered evidence which was notprejudicial errors of fact, or (2) the party has newly discovered evidence which was not
previously available and could not have been discovered with the exercise
of
reasonable	previously available and could not have been discovered with the exercise of reasonable
diligence." These limited grounds preclude a party from using the reconsideration process to	diligence." These limited grounds preclude a party from using the reconsideration process to
reargue or re-litigate issues that have already been decided. (Chula Vista Elementary Schoolreargue or re-litigate issues that have already been decided. (Chula Vista Elementary School
District (2003) PERB Decision No. 1557; San Bernardino Teachers Association, CTAINEADistrict (2003) PERB Decision No. 1557; San Bernardino Teachers Association, CTA/NEA
(Cooksey) (2000) PERB Decision No. 1387.)	(Cooksey) (2000) PERB Decision No. 1387.)
B.	
B. 	Interference	Interference
the	In Regents I, the Board found the University committed unlawful unilateral change in	In Regents
I,
the Board found 	University committed unlawful unilateral change in
Case Nos. SA-CE-246-H, SA-CE-247-H and SF-CE-795-H. The Board, however, did
not	ase Nos. SA-CE-246-H, SA-CE-247-H and SF-CE-795-H. The Board, however, did not
make an independent finding of unlawful interference. CUE asserts that the order in Regents Imake an independent finding of unlawful interference. CUE asserts that the order in Regents I
should be amended to include such a finding of interference.	should be amended to include such a finding
of
interference.
C
3
2
PERB regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8,	PERB regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8,
section 31001 et seq.	section 31001 et seq.
3

4
Since the Board did not address interference in its decision, CUE is essentially arguing	Since the Board did not address interference in its decision, CUE is essentially arguing
that the Board erred when it failed to find the University's conduct also constituted unlawful	that the Board erred when it failed to find the University's conduct also constituted unlawful
interference. It is noteworthy, however, that CUE failed to present any argument regarding the	interference. It is noteworthy, however, that CUE failed to present any argument regarding the
interference claim on appeal. Accordingly, the Board finds CUE waived this claim.	interference claim on appeal. Accordingly, the Board finds CUE waived this claim.
Notwithstanding this waiver, requests for reconsideration will only be granted when they	Notwithstanding this waiver, requests for reconsideration will only be granted when they
identify prejudicial errors
of
fact or present newly discovered evidence. Accordingly, theidentify prejudicial errors of fact or present newly discovered evidence. Accordingly, the
Board denies this request for reconsideration.	Board. denies this request for reconsideration.
C.	C. 	Restoration of all Positions	Restoration
of
all Positions
The order in the Regents I provides:	The order in the Regents I provides:
[T]he University and its representatives shall ... [r]estore bargaining unit	[The University and its representatives shall ... [rjestore bargaining unit
positions vacated or eliminated as a result
of
the unlawful transfer
of
apositions vacated or eliminated as a result of the unlawful transfer of a
major portion
of
their duties to non-bargaining unit positions in Case	major portion of their duties to non-bargaining unit positions in Case
Nos. SA-CE-246-H, SA-CE-247-H and SF-CE-795-H.	Nos. SA-CE-246-H, SA-CE-247-H and SF-CE-795-H.
CUE' s second issue for reconsideration is a request that the Board modify the
order
inCUE's second issue for reconsideration is a request that the Board modify the order in
Regents I to clarify that the University is required to restore all bargaining unit positions	Regents I to clarify that the University is required to restore all bargaining unit positions
removed or replaced by virtue
of
the University's narrow interpretation
of
Article 2.E.
removed or replaced by virtue of the University's narrow interpretation of Article 2.E.
According to CUE, it is "arguably" unclear whether the order is limited to the three specificAccording to CUE, it is "arguably" unclear whether the order is limited to the three specific
positions addressed in Case Nos. SA-CE-246-H, SA-CE-247-H and SF-CE-795-H or whetherpositions addressed in Case Nos. SA-CE-246-H, SA-CE-247-H and SF-CE-795-H or whether
the order extends to all positions vacated or eliminated due to the University's interpretation of	the order extends to all positions vacated or eliminated due to the University's interpretation of
Article 2.E.	Article 2.E.
The Board finds that both the order and the decision in Regents I very clearly
limit
theThe Board finds that both the order and the decision in Regents I very clearly limit the
scope
of
the University's duty to restore bargaining unit positions to those positions considered	scope of the University's duty to restore bargaining unit positions to those positions considered
by the Board in Case Nos. SA-CE-246-H, SA-CE-247-H and SF-CE-795-H. 	CUE's request toby the Board in Case Nos. SA-CE-246-H, SA-CE-247-H and SF-CE-795-H. CUE's request to
apply this ruling to cases that have not been presented to the Board would not only vastlyapply this ruling to cases that have not been presented to the Board would not only vastly
expand the scope of the Board's order, but would also violate long-standing precedent that
expand the scope of the Board's order, but would also violate long-standing precedent that
4

5
prohibits the Board from issuing advisory opinions or granting declaratory relief. (County
of
prohibits the Board from issuing advisory opinions or granting declaratory relief. (County of
Orange (2006) PERB Decision No. 1868-M.)	Orange (2006) PERB Decision No. 1868-M.)
instant	The instant request for reconsideration neither identifies prejudicial errors of fact, nor	The 	request for reconsideration neither identifies prejudicial errors
of
fact,
nor
presents newly discovered evidence. Rather, the request seeks to significantly expand the
presents newly discovered evidence. Rather, the request seeks to significantly expand the
scope of the Board's order. Accordingly, the Board denies this request for reconsideration.	scope
of
the Board's order. Accordingly, the Board denies this request for reconsideration.
D.	D. 	Application of the Make-Whole Remedy	Application of the Make-Whole Remedy
CUE notes that the make-whole remedy discussed in connection with the unilateral	CUE notes that the make-whole remedy discussed in connection with the unilateral
change violations in Case Nos. SA-CE-246-H, SA-CE-247-H and SF-CE-795-H is not	
change violations in Case Nos. SA-CE-246-H, SA-CE-247-H and SF-CE-795-H is not
reflected in the Board's order. 	Accordingly, CUE argues that the Board should grant	
reflected in the Board's order. Accordingly, CUE argues that the Board should grant
reconsideration for the purpose
of
aligning the order with the Board's decision.
reconsideration for the purpose of aligning the order with the Board's decision.
In Desert Sands Unified School District (2004) PERB Decision No. 1682
In Desert Sands Unified School District (2004) PERB Decision No. 1682
(Desert Sands), the Board granted reconsideration for the purpose
of
conforming an
order
with
(Desert Sands), the Board granted reconsideration for the purpose of conforming an order with
the Board's decision. According to the Board, reconsideration was warranted under
the
newly
the Board's decision. According to the Board, reconsideration was warranted under the newly
discovered evidence standard because the error did not exist and could not have been	discovered evidence standard because the error did not exist and could not have been
discovered until the issuance
of
its initial decision. (Ibid.)
discovered until the issuance of its initial decision. (Ibid.)
We agree with CUE that the Board erred by not articulating the make-whole
remedy
in
We agree with CUE that the Board erred by not articulating the make-whole remedy in
the order and find that conforming the order and decision in Regents I with regard to
this
issue
the order and find that conforming the order and decision in Regents I with regard to this issue
is warranted. Accordingly, pursuant to Desert Sands, the Board grants CUE's request
foris warranted. Accordingly, pursuant to Desert Sands, the Board grants CUE's request for
reconsideration and modifies the order to conform to the decision in Regents
I.
reconsideration and modifies the order to conform to the decision in Regents I.
ORDER	ORDER
The request for reconsideration
of
Regents
of
the University
of
California (Davis)
The request for reconsideration of Regents of the University of California (Davis)
(2010) PERB Decision No. 2101-H is GRANTED and the Order is hereby AMENDED to read	(2010) 	Decision No. 2101 	is GRANTED and 	Order is hereby AMENDED to read
as follows:	
as follows:
5

6
Based upon the foregoing findings
of
fact, conclusions
of
law, and the entire record inBased upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record in
this matter, it has been found that the Regents
of
the University
of
California (University)	this matter, it has been found that the Regents of the University of California (University)
violated the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA) by: (1)violated the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA) by: (1)
unilaterally implementing changes in the policy requiring notice to the Coalition
of
University
unilaterally implementing changes in the policy requiring notice to the Coalition of University
Employees (CUE) when it reclassifies, designates a position for exclusion from the unit, orEmployees (CUE) when it reclassifies, designates a position for exclusion from the unit, or
replaces a major portion
of
a unit position with a position in a classification outside the unit;replaces a major portion of a unit position with a position in a classification outside the unit;
and (2) refusing to provide information to CUE consisting
of
vacancies in non-bargaining unit
and (2) refusing to provide information to CUE consisting of vacancies in non-bargaining unit
positions which may have assumed work
of
since-vacated bargaining unit positions and
the
positions which may have assumed work of since-vacated bargaining unit positions and the
history
of
those positions as described by the job descriptions.	history of those positions as described by the job descriptions.
The unfair practice charge and complaint in Case No. SA-CE-251-H is herebyThe unfair practice charge and complaint in Case No. SA-CE-251-H is hereby
DISMISSED. The unilateral change allegation in Case No. SF-CE-760-H is also DISMISSED.DISMISSED. The unilateral change allegation in Case No. SF-CE-760-H is also DISMISSED.
to	Pursuant to HEERA section 3563.3, it is hereby ordered that the University and its	Pursuant 	HEERA section 3563.3, it is hereby ordered that the University and its
representatives shall:	representatives shall:
A.	A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
1.1. Unilaterally implementing changes in the policy requiring notice
to
CUE
Unilaterally implementing changes in the policy requiring notice to CUE
when it reclassifies, designates a position for exclusion from the unit, or replaces a majorwhen it reclassifies, designates a position for exclusion from the unit, or replaces a major
portion
of
a unit position with a position in a classification outside the unit.	portion of a unit position with a position in a classification outside the unit.
2.	
2. 	Refusing to provide information to CUE regarding vacancies in
non-Refusing to provide information to CUE regarding vacancies in non-
bargaining unit positions which may have assumed work of since-vacated bargaining
unitbargaining unit positions which may have assumed work of since-vacated bargaining unit
positions and the history
of
those positions as described through job descriptions.	positions and the history of those positions as described through job descriptions.
B.	B. 	TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS DESIGNED TO	TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF HEERA:	EFFECTUATE 	POLICIES OF HEERA:
1
1.. 	Rescind the policy limiting notice required by Article 2.E to those casesRescind the policy limiting notice required by Article 2.E to those cases
where a formal reclassification has commenced and adhere to the obligation to provide noticewhere a formal reclassification has commenced and adhere to the obligation to provide notice
to CUE pursuant to the terms of the 2003-2004 memorandum of understanding. The	
to CUE pursuant to the terms of the 2003-2004 memorandum of understanding. The
6

University shall provide notice to CUE when it intends to replace more than
50
percent
of
the
University shall provide notice to CUE when it intends to replace more than 50 percent of the
work
of
a bargaining unit position with that
of
a non-bargaining unit position consistent with
work of a bargaining unit position with that of a non-bargaining unit position consistent with
this decision.	this decision.
eliminated	2.	
2.	
Restore bargaining unit positions vacated or 	as a result
of
theRestore bargaining unit positions vacated or eliminated as a result of the
unlawful transfer
of
a major portion
of
their duties to non-bargaining unit positions in Case	
unlawful transfer of a major portion of their duties to non-bargaining unit positions in Case
Nos. SA-CE-246-H, SA-CE-247-H and SF-CE-795-H.	Nos. SA-CE-246-H, SA-CE-247-H and SF-CE-795-H.
3.	
3.	
Make-whole all employees restored to bargaining unit positions vacated	
Make-whole all employees restored to bargaining unit positions vacated
or eliminated as a result
of
the unlawful transfer
of
a major portion
of
their duties to non-
or eliminated as a result of the unlawful transfer of a major portion of their duties to non-
bargaining unit positions in Case Nos. SA-CE-246-H, SA-CE-247-H and SF-CE-795-H. 	The
bargaining unit positions in Case Nos. SA-CE-246-H, SA-CE-247-H and SF-CE-795-H. The
University, however, shall not be required to impose a make-whole remedy upon employees	
University, however, shall not be required to impose a make-whole remedy upon employees
who, pursuant to the University's conduct, received the benefit
of
movement to a higher paying
who, pursuant to the University's conduct, received the benefit of movement to a higher paying
position.	position.
specialist	4.	
4.	
Upon request, provide lists
of
Berkeley campus administrative
Upon request, provide lists of Berkeley campus administrative specialist
and assistant administrative analyst positions posted for recruitment in the years 2003
andand assistant administrative analyst positions posted for recruitment in the years 2003 and
2004, as well as the "classification history" for each
of
the positions including before
and
after
2004, as well as the "classification history" for each of the positions including before and after
job descriptions
if
a bargaining unit position became vacant (or was eliminated) as a result.
job descriptions if a bargaining unit position became vacant (or was eliminated) as a result.
5.	
5.	
Upon request, provide the job titles
of
all positions filled since
March
12,
Upon request, provide the job titles of all positions filled since March 12,
2002 where the new position replaced, in large part, a clerical bargaining unit position, as well
2002 where the new position replaced, in large part, a clerical bargaining unit position, as well
as the job descriptions for both positions.	as the job descriptions for both positions.
6.	
6. 	With regard to the provision of information described in Sections 	.4
With regard to the provision of information described in Sections B.4
and B.5, above, the University is not required to provide information that is contained
on
the
and B.5, above, the University is not required to provide information that is contained on the
University's website 	is otherwise equally accessible to both parties or information theUniversity's website and is otherwise equally accessible to both parties or information the
University is not able to obtain through the exercise ofreasonable diligence. In circumstances
University is not able to obtain through the exercise of reasonable diligence. In circumstances
77

involving information that is equally available to both parties on the University's website, the
involving information that is equally available to both parties on the University's website, the
University shall provide CUE with the location where the information resides on the website.	University shall provide CUE with the location where the information resides on the website.
7
7.. 	Within ten (10) workdays
of
service
of
a final decision in this matter,	Within ten (10) workdays of service of a final decision in this matter,
post at all work locations at the campuses, medical centers and laboratories
of
the University ofpost at all work locations at the campuses, medical centers and laboratories of the University of
where	California where notices to employees are customarily posted, copies of the Notice attached	California 	notices to employees are customarily posted, copies
of
the Notice attached
hereto as the Appendix. The Notice must be signed by an authorized agent
of
the University,hereto as the Appendix. The Notice must be signed by an authorized agent of the University,
indicating that the University will comply with the terms
of
the Order. Such posting shall beindicating that the University will comply with the terms of the Order. Such posting shall be
maintained for a period
of
thirty (30) consecutive workdays. 	Reasonable steps shall be takenmaintained for a period of thirty (30) consecutive workdays. Reasonable steps shall be taken
to ensure that the Notice is not reduced in size, altered, defaced or covered with any other	to ensure that the Notice
is
not reduced in size, altered, defaced or covered with any other
material.	material.
8
8.. 	Within thirty (30) workdays
of
service
of
a final decision in this matter,	Within thirty (30) workdays of service of a final decision in this matter,
notify the General Counsel
of
the Public Employment Relations Board, or her designee,
innotify the General Counsel of the Public Employment Relations Board, or her designee, in
writing,
of
the steps the employer has taken to comply with the terms
of
this Order. 	Continue
writing, of the steps the employer has taken to comply with the terms of this Order. Continue
to report in writing to the Regional Director periodically thereafter as directed.	
Ll
11
rP-nort<, tr.
to report in writing to the Regional Director periodically thereafter as directed. All reports toLJ,...J.J.. .1.vy'-"..1..,._....,
"'-'
the Regional Director shall be served concurrently on the charging parties.	the Regional Director shall be served concurrently on the charging parties.
This order shall become effective immediately upon service
of
a true copy
thereof
onThis order shall become effective immediately upon service of a true copy thereof on
the parties.	the parties.
Chair Dowdin Calvillo and Member Miner joined in this Decision.	Chair Dowdin Calvillo and Member Miner joined in this Decision.
8

APPENDIX	APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES	NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE	POSTED
BY
ORDER OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD	PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the State of California	An Agency
of
the State
of
California
SA-CE-247-H,	After a hearing in Unfair Practice Case Nos. SA-CE-246-H, SA-CE-247-H,	After a hearing in Unfair Practice Case Nos. SA-CE-246-H,
for hearing and decision
under	SA-CE-251-H, SF-CE-760-H and SF-CE-795-H, consolidated for hearing and decision under	SA-CE-251-H, SF-CE-760-H and SF-CE-795-H, consolidated
the title Coalition
of
University Employees
v.
Regents
of
the University
of
California,
in whichthe title Coalition of University Employees v. Regents of the University of California, in which
the parties had the right to participate, it has been found that the Regents
of
the University
ofthe 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	California (University) violated the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations
Act
(HEERA), Government Code section 357l(a) and (c), by: (1) unilaterally implementing	(HEERA), Government Code section 3571(a) and (c), by: (1) unilaterally implementing
changes in the policy requiring notice to the Coalition
of
University Employees (CUE)
when
itchanges in the policy requiring notice to the Coalition of University Employees (CUE) when it
reclassifies, designates a position for exclusion from the unit, or replaces a major portion
of
areclassifies, designates a position for exclusion from the unit, or replaces a major portion of a
unit position with a position in a classification outside the unit; and (2) refusing to provideunit position with a position in a classification outside the unit; and (2) refusing to provide
information to CUE consisting
of
vacancies in non-bargaining unit positions which
may have	information to CUE consisting of vacancies in non-bargaining unit positions which may have
assumed work
of
since-vacated bargaining unit positions and the history
of
those positions asassumed work of since-vacated bargaining unit positions and the history of those positions as
described through job descriptions.	described through job descriptions.
As a result
of
this conduct, we have been ordered to post this Notice and we will:	As a result of this conduct, we have been ordered to post this Notice and we will:
A.	A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
notice	1
1.. 	Unilaterally implementing changes in the policy requiring
	to
CUEUnilaterally implementing changes in the policy requiring notice to CUE
when it reclassifies, designates a position for exclusion from the unit, or replaces a
major	when it reclassifies, designates a position for exclusion from the unit, or replaces a major
portion
of
a unit position with a position in a classification outside the unit.	portion of a unit position with a position in a classification outside the unit.
information	2.2. . Refusing to provide information to CUE consisting of vacancies in non-	Refusing to provide 	to CUE consisting
of
vacancies
in
non-
bargaining unit positions which may have assumed work
of
since-vacated bargaining
unitbargaining unit positions which may have assumed work of since-vacated bargaining unit
positions and the history of those positions as described through job descriptions.	positions and the history
of
those positions as described through job descriptions.
B.	B. 	TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS DESIGNED TO	TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS DESIGNED
TO
EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF HEERA:	EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF HEERA:
notice 	section	limiting 	2,	1
1.. 	Rescind the policy 	required by Article 	E
toRescind the policy limiting notice required by Article 2, section E to
those cases where a formal reclassification has commenced and adhere to the obligation
tothose cases where a formal reclassification has commenced and adhere to the obligation to
provide notice to CUE pursuant to the terms
of
the 2003-2004 memorandum
of
understanding.provide notice to CUE pursuant to the terms of the 2003-2004 memorandum of understanding.
The University shall provide notice to CUE when it intends to replace more than 50
percent ofThe University shall provide notice to CUE when it intends to replace more than 50 percent of
a	the work of a bargaining unit position with that of a non-bargaining unit position.	the work of 	bargaining unit position with that
of
a non-bargaining unit position.
2.	2. 	Restore bargaining unit 	vacated or eliminated as a	Restore bargaining unit positions vacated or eliminated as a result of the
unlawful transfer of a major portion of their duties to non-bargaining unit positions in
Caseunlawful transfer of a major portion of their duties to non-bargaining unit positions in Case
Nos. SA-CE-246-H, SA-CE-247-H and SF-CE-795-H.	Nos. SA-CE-246-H, SA-CE-247-H and SF-CE-795-H.
3.	3. 	Make-whole all employees restored to bargaining unit positions vacated	Make-whole all employees restored to bargaining unit positions vacated
or eliminated as a result of the unlawful transfer of a major portion of their duties to non-	
or eliminated as a result of the unlawful transfer of a major portion of their duties to non-

bargaining unit positions in Case Nos. SA-CE-246-H, SA-CE-247-H and SF-CE-795-H. 	Thebargaining unit positions in Case Nos. SA-CE-246-H, SA-CE-247-H and SF-CE-795-H. The
University shall not be required
to
impose a make-whole remedy upon employees who,	University shall not be required to impose a make-whole remedy upon employees who,
pursuant to the University's conduct, received the benefit
of
movement to a higher payingpursuant to the University's conduct, received the benefit of movement to a higher paying
position.	position.
4.	
4.	
Upon request, provide lists
of
Berkeley campus administrative specialist	Upon request, provide lists of Berkeley campus administrative specialist
andand assistant administrative analyst positions posted for recruitment in the years 2003 and	and assistant administrative analyst positions posted for recruitment in the years 2003
2004, as well as the "classification history" for each
of
the positions including before and after2004, as well as the "classification history" for each of the positions including before and after
job descriptions
if
a bargaining unit position became vacant (or was eliminated) as a result.	job descriptions if a bargaining unit position became vacant (or was eliminated) as a result.
5
5.. 	Upon request, provide the job titles
of
all positions filled since March
12,Upon request, provide the job titles of all positions filled since March 12,
2002 where the new position replaced, in large part, a clerical bargaining unit position, as well	2002 where the new position replaced, in large part, a clerical bargaining unit position, as well
as the job descriptions for both positions.	as the job descriptions for both positions.
6.	
6.	
With regard to the provision
of
information described in sections B.4 and	With regard to the provision of information described in sections B.4 and
B.5, above, the University is not required to provide information that is contained on the	B.5, above, the University is not required to provide information that is contained on the
University's website and is otherwise equally accessible to both parties or information theUniversity's website and is otherwise equally accessible to both parties or information the
University is not able to obtain through the exercise
of
reasonable diligence. 	In circumstances	University is not able to obtain through the exercise of reasonable diligence. In circumstances
involving information that is equally available to both parties on the University's website, the	involving information that is equally available to both parties on the University's website, the
University shall provide CUE with the location where the information resides on the website.	University shall provide CUE with the location where the information resides on the website.
Dated:	Dated: 	REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF	REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA	CALIFORNIA
By:	By: Authorized Agent	Authorized Agent
---------------
2
AT	THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE. IT MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR AT LEAST THIRTY	THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE. IT MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 	LEAST THIRTY
(30)	(30) CONSECUTIVE WORKDAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE	CONSECUTIVE WORKDAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE
REDUCED IN SIZE, DEFACED, ALTERED OR COVERED WITH ANY OTHER	REDUCED IN SIZE, DEF ACED, ALTERED OR COVERED WITH ANY OTHER
MATERIAL.	MATERIAL.
2