## Facts

- A teachers’ union was the recognized exclusive representative for certificated employees in a public school district under the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA).
- After a new superintendent was hired, the district created a recurring “Teachers Forum,” structured as monthly meetings with one teacher representative from each school site and the superintendent.
- The union was not invited to designate an official representative for the Forum, though some participants were union members.
- Forum meetings were held during work hours; the superintendent’s office finalized agendas, and participants were expected to report information back to colleagues at their schools.
- The Forum discussed workplace matters such as class size, workload, break time, and an incentive-award program; topics connected to negotiations sometimes arose, though the superintendent sometimes stated they could not be further discussed.
- Evidence showed some teachers viewed the Forum as a preferable channel for addressing concerns and union meeting attendance declined substantially after the Forum began.
- Separately, the district increased the minimum and maximum minutes of student instructional time, affecting teacher worktime, in connection with an administrative regulation change, without negotiating with the union.
- The district asserted the instructional-minutes changes were consistent with past practice, not a new negotiable change.

## Issues

1. Whether the Teachers Forum constituted an “employee organization” under the EERA and, if so, whether the district unlawfully dominated or interfered with it and bypassed the exclusive representative.
2. Whether increasing minimum and maximum instructional minutes was a unilateral change to a negotiable term and condition of employment requiring bargaining.
3. Whether a make-whole remedy including back pay was permissible where bargaining later occurred over the disputed worktime changes.

## Decision

- The Board largely affirmed the ALJ’s proposed decision and found the Teachers Forum was an employee organization under the EERA.
- The Board held the district unlawfully dominated and interfered with the Forum and thereby interfered with employee rights and bypassed the exclusive representative, violating EERA § 3543.5(d) and related provisions.
- The Board held the district unlawfully made a unilateral change to negotiable worktime by increasing instructional minutes, rejecting the district’s past-practice defense.
- The Board upheld remedial relief, including cease-and-desist and notice posting, and affirmed back pay for affected employees as a make-whole remedy.

## Legal Principles

- An employee group may qualify as an “employee organization” if a primary purpose is dealing with the employer over employment conditions, even if informal and not a formal bargaining agent.
- A public school employer violates EERA § 3543.5(d) by creating, structuring, administering, or otherwise dominating an employee organization, or by supporting it in a way that encourages preference over the exclusive representative.
- Employer dealings with an employer-dominated group over terms and conditions of employment can unlawfully bypass the exclusive representative and interfere with protected rights under EERA § 3543.5(a)–(c).
- Changes to teacher worktime, including increases in instructional minutes, are within the scope of representation and generally require notice and bargaining before implementation absent waiver.
- A past-practice defense requires a consistent, longstanding, and mutually accepted practice; scattered or ambiguous prior adjustments do not authorize broader unilateral changes.
- Back pay may be ordered as make-whole relief for unlawful unilateral changes; later bargaining does not cure the prior violation or eliminate compensation for the period the unlawful change was in effect.

## Conclusion

The Board concluded the district violated the EERA by dominating a management-created “Teachers Forum” that functioned as an employee organization dealing with employment conditions, and by unilaterally increasing instructional minutes without bargaining; it approved traditional remedial orders and back pay to compensate employees for losses caused by the unlawful worktime change.


Oak Grove Educators Ass’n, CTA/NEA v. Oak Grove Sch. Dist., 10 P.E.R.C. ¶ 17,134 (Cal. Pub. Emp. Rels. Bd. 1986)