Correspondence - Non Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I public employees because of their exercise of their rights under Section 3502." 2 70. Government Code §3506.5 provides, in part, "A public agency shall not do 3 any of the following: (b) Deny to employee organizations the rights guaranteed to them 4 by this chapter." 5 71. An exclusive representative is entitled to all information that is "necessary 6 and relevant"to the discharge of its duty to represent bargaining unit employees. 7 (Stockton Unified School District (1980) PERB Decision No. 143, p. 13.), An 8 employer's failure or refusal to provide such information violates the duty to bargain in 9 good faith unless the employer proves the information is "plainly irrelevant" or raises a 10 valid defense to production of the information. (ibid.; State of California (Departments of 11 Personnel Administration and Transportation) (1997) PERB Decision No. 1227-S, p. 12 28.) But when the requested information does exist in some form, the fact that the 13 employer may have to compile it from various sources does not excuse the employer 14 from producing it unless the employer can prove doing so would be unduly 15 burdensome. (Regents of the University of California (Davis) (2010) PERB Decision No. 16 2101-H, pp. 33-34; Chula Vista City School District (1990) PERB Decision No. 834, p. 17 56.) . 18 72. The Santa Ana Police Officers Association made a request for information 19 related to Defendants unlawful disclosure of information about the Association's 20 members. Defendants denied the request for information; thereby interfering with 21 and/or restraining the Association's ability to represent its members and the members 22 ability to be represented by its employee organization. 23 73. Government Code section 1222, makes a public officer's "willful omission 24 to perform any duty enjoined by law" a misdemeanor. Defendants' failure (omission) to 25 treat the impacted officers' personnel documents as confidential was willful, in that the 26 defendants acted on purpose with the intent to inhibit and restrain the Association's 27 representation of its members and the members ability to be represented by the 28 Association. Defendants' actions, as described above constituted a willful omission to 15 COMPLAINT