Moreno Valley Unified School District v. Public Employment Relations Board

142 Cal. App. 3d 191, 191 Cal. Rptr. 60 (1983)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Moreno Valley Unified School District v. Public Employment Relations Board

California Court of Appeal
142 Cal. App. 3d 191, 191 Cal. Rptr. 60 (1983)

  • Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD

Facts

The Moreno Valley Unified School District (the district) (defendant) and the Moreno Valley Educators Association (the association) began negotiating a new collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) five months before their first expired but were unable to reach agreement on most issues. Four days after the school year began, the parties mutually agreed they had reached an impasse and requested that California’s Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) (plaintiff) appoint a mediator. That same day or shortly afterward, the district unilaterally implemented the terms of its last best offer. Meanwhile, mediation proceeded in accordance with the procedures set by California’s Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA). The association nonetheless filed an unfair-labor-practice charge against the district. The PERB hearing officer concluded the district had committed a per se violation of EERA and several unfair labor practices, including refusing to negotiate in good faith. The PERB held that a unilateral change as to a negotiating subject after declaring impasse but before exhausting impasse procedures was a per se unfair practice absent a valid defense. The district appealed, arguing that (1) the totality-of-conduct test, not the per se test, should apply to unilateral changes, and (2) under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), unilateral changes were per se unfair only before reaching impasse.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Morris, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 735,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 735,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 735,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership