City of Hayward and Service Employees International Union Local 1021 (PERB 2620M)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL
UNION LOCAL 1021,
Charging Party,
v.
CITY OF HAYWARD,
Respondent.
CITY OF HAYWARD,
Charging Party,
v.
SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL
UNION LOCAL 1021,
Respondent.
Case Nos. SF-CE-1075-M,
SF-CE-1117-M, SF-CE-1118-M,
SF-CE-1174-M
Case Nos. SF-CO-320-M,
SF-CO-321-M
PERB Decision No. 2620-M
January 8, 2019
Appearances: Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld by Paul K. Pfeilschiefter, Attorney, for Service
Employees International Union Local 1021; Liebert Cassidy Whitmore by Richard C. Bolanos
and Matthew M. Nakano, Attorneys, for City of Hayward.
Before Banks, Shiners, and Krantz, Members.
DECISION
SHINERS, Member: These consolidated cases are before the Public Employment
Relations Board (PERB or Board) on exceptions by the City of Hayward (City) to a proposed
decision of an administrative law judge (ALJ). The complaints issued by PERB’s Office of the

________________________
General Counsel alleged that the City violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA or Act)1
and PERB Regulations2 by: (1) interfering with employee rights by telling employees there
would be layoffs if Service Employees International Union Local 1021 (SEIU) did not agree to
concessions in contract bargaining; (2) interfering with employee rights by questioning two
employees about their support for a potential strike by SEIU, and engaging in surveillance of
SEIU members’ protected activity; (3) attempting to bypass SEIU by distributing City
bargaining proposals not previously shared with SEIU to its members, and issuing a
memorandum disparaging SEIU and its negotiators; (4) failing to meet and confer in good faith
by failing to respond to a bargaining proposal and prematurely declaring an impasse in
negotiations; and (5) failing to meet and confer in good faith by implementing a last, best, and
final offer (LBFO) without bargaining in good faith to impasse, and attempting to bypass SEIU
by blaming SEIU for the City’s implementation of its LBFO. The complaints also alleged that
SEIU violated the MMBA and PERB Regulations by: (1) engaging in unlawful pressure
tactics during bargaining by engaging in a strike and/or threatening a strike, and by
encouraging or causing a strike by employees essential to public health and safety; and
(2) failing to meet and confer in good faith by failing to meet for a bargaining session,
engaging in a pre-impasse strike, failing to discuss subjects or make counterproposals,
threatening non-bargaining unit members to prevent them from crossing picket lines, and
issuing false public statements about negotiations.
1 The MMBA is codified at Government Code section 3500 et seq. Hereafter all
statutory references are to the Government Code unless otherwise indicated.
2 PERB Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8,
section 31001 et seq.
2

________________________
After ten days of hearing, the ALJ determined that the City engaged in surface
bargaining, prematurely declared impasse, undermined and bypassed SEIU by communicating
directly with employees, and unilaterally implemented its LBFO without negotiating in good
faith to impasse. The ALJ dismissed all other allegations in the complaints. The City timely
filed exceptions to the proposed decision, and SEIU filed a response to the exceptions.
On January 2, 2019, the parties filed with the Board a “Joint Request for Dismissal”
(Joint Request) of the complaints in this matter with prejudice. In the Joint Request, the City
also withdrew its exceptions to the proposed decision with prejudice. According to the Joint
Request, the parties reached a settlement resolving all disputed issues underlying the
complaints. A copy of the executed settlement agreement was attached to the Joint Request.
The Board has discretion to grant or deny requests to withdraw and dismiss cases pending
before the Board itself. (MMBA, § 3509, subd. (a); EERA, § 3541.3, subds. (i) and (n);3 PERB
Reg. 32320, subd. (a)(2) [“The Board itself may . . . [¶] . . . take such other action as it considers
proper.”]; State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (2010) PERB Decision
No. 2152-S; Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District (2009) PERB Order No. Ad-380;
Oakland Unified School District (1988) PERB Order No. Ad-171a; ABC Unified School District
(1991) PERB Decision No. 831b.)
The Board has a longstanding policy favoring voluntary settlement of disputes, such as
achieved by the parties in this case. (Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District (1980) PERB
Order No. Ad-81a.) Based on the Board’s review of the parties’ Joint Request and their settlement
agreement, and the entire record in this matter, the Board finds granting the request to be in the
best interest of the parties and consistent with the purposes of the MMBA to promote harmonious
labor relations.
3 The Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA) is codified at section 3540 et
seq.
3

ORDER
The parties’ Joint Request for Dismissal is GRANTED. The City of Hayward’s exceptions
to the proposed decision are deemed withdrawn. The complaints and underlying unfair practice
charges in Case Nos. SF-CE-1075-M, SF-CE-1117-M, SF-CE-1118-M, SF-CE-1174-M,
SF-CO-320-M, and SF-CO-321-M are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and the proposed
decision is hereby vacated.
Members Banks and Krantz joined in this Decision.
4