This is to advise you that on February 3, 2015, PEF received a copy of GOER’s February 2, 2014 letter responding to the PERB Director of Public Employment Practices and Representation’s letter advising GOER that its December 12, 2014 employers’ application was deficient. As you may recall, in that December 2014 employer application, GOER sought to designate approximately 2500 PEF members as management/confidential.
In conjunction with its response to PERB, GOER did not re-file its original employer application, and it is our understanding it did not re-notify any of the 2500 individuals GOER seeks to designate as M/C as they did when they first filed this employer application in December 2014, and as required by PERB’s rules. If you have in fact been re-noticed, please contact your Field Representative and provide a copy of that new notice to him or her. This information is important as we need it to evaluate whether GOER’s attempt to cure the deficiencies in its first filing meets all of PERB’s requirements. If you do not know who your PEF Field Representative is, call your PEF Regional Office and they can advise you.
As was the case with the original employer application filed by GOER, the next step is for the PERB Director to review the response in conjunction with GOER’s December employer application. If he finds it in compliance with the Taylor Law and PERB’s rules, a copy will be mailed to PEF and our time to answer will begin to run. We would then have 10 working days to answer, but could request an extension (such requests are routinely granted). If he finds GOER’s submission is still deficient, he can either provide them another opportunity to cure the defect(s), or he can simply dismiss GOER’s petition.
GOER’s response does contain the job duty descriptions for the titles at issue, but it does not, as required by PERB’s deficiency notice, provide a statement of the duties of the individual positions that form the basis for the designation requested. Instead, GOER claims in its response that PERB is misconstruing its own rules by requiring it to provide such information. Alternatively, GOER claims that even if PERB is properly construing its rules in this regard, the rules must be changed because they are unfair to employers like GOER, in that they don’t require unions to provide that same information in their petitions seeking to represent unrepresented employees. We strongly disagree with these arguments and will address them if PERB processes the application.
We will continue to keep you advised of the status of this case. If you have any questions, please contact Jane Briggs in my office.