In early 2019, the Oakland Unified School District and the Oakland Education Association (OEA) ended a seven-day strike and lengthy negotiations by signing a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) covering July 1, 2018, through June 30, 2021. During those negotiations, the District publicly announced that it would close some schools to meet OEA’s wage demands and to satisfy the Board of Education’s cost-control objectives. Although the parties disagreed about whether school closures required bargaining, they executed the agreement.
In March 2019, the District adopted a resolution that prohibited school closures or consolidations unless the District provided a nine-month planning period. The District complied with that resolution when it closed several schools the following academic year.
After the CBA expired, the parties reached a tentative agreement in November 2021 to extend it through October 2022. In December 2021, the District adopted a new resolution that waived the nine-month planning period and directed the Superintendent to identify schools for closure starting in June 2022. On January 31, 2022, the Superintendent issued a proposed school closure list. Three days later, OEA demanded bargaining and objected to the District’s decision to waive the planning period.
On April 25, 2022, OEA notified the District that it intended to hold a one-day strike to protest the school closures and the District’s refusal to bargain. OEA members authorized the strike, and OEA carried it out on April 29, 2022.
On February 15, 2022, OEA filed an unfair practice charge with the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), alleging that the District violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA) by refusing to bargain over the school closures and their effects. PERB expedited the matter. On April 27, 2022, the District filed an unfair practice charge against OEA and asked PERB to enjoin the planned strike. PERB denied the injunction without prejudice but ordered an expedited hearing.
On May 3, 2022, PERB issued a complaint alleging that the District committed unfair practices by refusing to bargain over school closures. PERB issued a separate complaint against OEA, alleging that OEA violated EERA by striking without completing statutory impasse procedures. PERB concluded that the District violated EERA by failing to give OEA advance notice and a meaningful opportunity to bargain over the decision to close schools and its effects. PERB further concluded that OEA did not violate EERA by engaging in the one-day strike on April 29, 2022, because the strike did not occur during active negotiations, the District had already implemented the closures, and the District’s refusal to bargain provoked the union’s response.
The District petitioned the court of appeal for a writ of review. It argued that PERB erred by declaring OEA’s strike lawful and by excluding evidence of educational harm caused by the strike.
The court of appeal rejected the District’s argument that EERA prohibits strikes over unfair labor practices. The court of appeal explained that EERA includes no express ban on such strikes and pointed out that the California Supreme Court has long recognized public employees’ qualified right to strike. Because EERA is silent on whether unfair practice strikes are allowed, the court of appeal emphasized that it must defer to PERB’s reasonable interpretation of the statute unless that interpretation clearly conflicts with EERA’s language or purpose.
The court of appeal reviewed the record and determined that PERB acted within its statutory authority when it concluded that the District violated EERA. It noted that the District failed to bargain over the school closures, implemented them without notice, and engaged in conduct that provoked the union’s response. The court of appeal affirmed PERB’s conclusion that OEA acted lawfully by striking in response to those violations.
The court of appeal then addressed the District’s argument that PERB improperly excluded evidence of educational harm. OEA had moved to exclude that evidence before the administrative hearing, arguing that the evidence related only to remedy, not liability. The administrative law judge granted the motion. The District argued that it intended to introduce testimony and documents showing loss of instructional time and adverse effects on students, particularly those receiving special education services.
The court of appeal agreed that PERB erred when it excluded the educational harm evidence outright. The court of appeal held that the evidence could have been relevant to determining the appropriate remedy, had the District prevailed on liability. However, the Court concluded that the exclusion did not prejudice the outcome. The court of appeal found that PERB properly dismissed the District’s unfair practice charge because the District committed prior violations and failed to bargain in good faith.
The court of appeal also concluded that the educational harm caused by OEA’s one-day strike mirrored the ordinary consequences of any legal strike. The District failed to show that OEA’s strike produced any unique or disproportionate impact. The court of appeal found that the District offered only general assertions about lost instructional time and failed to identify anything unusual about the April 29 strike. Because every public employee strike involves some disruption, the court of appeal rejected the District’s suggestion that this one-day strike crossed a legal threshold. The court of appeal found that such reasoning would effectively bar all strikes, undermining settled law affirming their legality under EERA.
The court of appeal denied the District’s petition for writ of review, leaving PERB’s decision intact and enforceable.
Oakland Unified School Dist. v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2025) __ Cal.App.5th __.