All notes for Subtopic 1102.02000 – Post Arbitration; Repugnancy
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A496M | County of Orange 1102.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; DEFERRAL TO ARBITRATION; Post Arbitration; Repugnancy In Trustees of the California State University (East Bay) (2014) PERB Decision No. 2391-H, the Board noted that deciding if an arbitration decision or settlement is repugnant to a PERB-administered statute is equivalent to deciding whether to defer to such a decision or settlement after it is final. (Id. at pp. 21-22.) Indeed, in Trustees, the Board listed four “repugnancy elements” that correspond to the Board’s post-arbitration deferral standard, as follows: “[T]he Board will . . . dismiss and defer a complaint to the arbitrator’s award if: (1) the unfair practice issues were presented to and considered by the arbitrator; (2) the arbitral proceeding was fair and regular; (3) the parties agreed to be bound; and (4) the decision of the arbitrator was not ‘clearly repugnant to the purposes and policies of the Act.’” (Id. at p. 22, citing Santa Ana Unified School District (2008) PERB Decision No. 1951, p. 6 (Santa Ana).) Thus, “repugnancy” is a term of art, because the Board may decline to defer to an arbitration award if the unfair practice issues were not presented to and considered by the arbitrator, a circumstance that does not necessarily fall within the normal English definition of the word “repugnant.” An arbitration decision or settlement is repugnant to the governing act if it is “palpably wrong” or “not susceptible to an interpretation consistent with the Act.” (County of Santa Clara (2020) PERB Order No. Ad-482-M, p. 9, fn. 11.) The mere possibility that the Board may have reached a different conclusion does not render the award repugnant. (Ibid.) A repugnancy claim can also focus, in whole or in part, on allegedly unfair procedures or simply on the fact that the arbitrator did not consider the unfair practice issues. Irrespective of whether the party alleging repugnancy focuses on the ultimate result, the process, or a combination, that party “has the burden of affirmatively demonstrating the defects in the arbitral process or award.” (Santa Ana, supra, PERB Decision No. 1951, p. 6.) (pp. 7-8.) more or view all topics or full text. | 47 | 66 | 10/06/22 |
| A496M | County of Orange 1102.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; DEFERRAL TO ARBITRATION; Post Arbitration; Repugnancy The Board exercised its discretion to resolve charging party’s repugnancy claim rather than remanding it to the ALJ, because doing so promotes administrative efficiency. (Alliance Judy Ivie Burton Technology Academy High School, et al (2022) PERB Decision No. 2809, pp. 23-24 [Board may exercise discretion to promote efficiency by resolving issues at Board level in the first instance]; PERB Reg. 32661, subd. (d) [where charging party files repugnancy claim, the Board itself “may, at any time, direct that the record be submitted to the Board itself for decision”].) (p. 7.) more or view all topics or full text. | 47 | 66 | 10/06/22 |
| A496M | County of Orange 1102.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; DEFERRAL TO ARBITRATION; Post Arbitration; Repugnancy Under MMBA section 3505.8 and PERB Regulation 32620, subdivision (b)(6), PERB is authorized to: (1) grant a deferral motion and place an unfair practice charge in abeyance if the parties’ dispute is subject to final and binding arbitration pursuant to an MOU; and (2) dismiss the charge at the conclusion of the arbitration process, unless the charging party demonstrates that the ultimate settlement or arbitration award is repugnant to the MMBA. (p. 5.) more or view all topics or full text. | 47 | 66 | 10/06/22 |
| 2671E | Lake Elsinore Unified School District 1102.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; DEFERRAL TO ARBITRATION; Post Arbitration; Repugnancy Charging party’s request for repugnancy review was denied on grounds of untimeliness and failure to establish that the arbitration decision was based upon the same underlying dispute. (Adopting proposed decision at p. 3.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 72 | 09/27/19 |
| 2701I | Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee 1102.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; DEFERRAL TO ARBITRATION; Post Arbitration; Repugnancy An arbitrator’s interpretation of a contract term is not binding on PERB but may be probative of the term’s meaning. (p. 40.) The Board did not find an arbitration decision probative of the question before it—whether the regional committee was contractually obligated to bargain over the impacts of changes to employee pension contributions—because the decision focused solely on the individual trial court’s obligations under the collective bargaining agreement. more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 150 | 03/16/20 |
| 2575M | Service Employees International Union Local 521 (Garcia) 1102.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; DEFERRAL TO ARBITRATION; Post Arbitration; Repugnancy Charging Parties alleged that their exclusive representative had breached its duty of fair representation by: (1) inducing Charging Parties to continue working misclassified overtime hours with false assurances that they would be fully compensated for all overtime hours worked if the organization prevailed in its grievance against the employer; (2) urging an arbitrator to award all employees an equal lump sum payment to remedy the grievance and capping the employer’s total liability, rather than awarding full back pay only to those employees who actually worked the misclassified hours; and, (3) failing to provide notice and opportunity for input and/or misleading Charging Parties regarding the status of settlement negotiations and the terms of an arbitrator’s opinion and award, despite requests by Charging Parties for such information. The Office of the General Counsel dismissed the charge for lack of jurisdiction over the arbitrator, lack of ripeness for review, and/or failure to state a prima facie case of an unfair practice. more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 22 | 06/28/18 |
| 2575M | Service Employees International Union Local 521 (Garcia) 1102.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; DEFERRAL TO ARBITRATION; Post Arbitration; Repugnancy The Board denied an appeal and adopted the dismissal of an unfair practice charging alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation arising from damages allegedly suffered as the result of an arbitrator’s opinion and award in a grievance brought by the exclusive representative on Charging Parties’ behalf. An arbitrator is not a proper respondent in an unfair practice and therefore PERB had no authority to review the arbitrator’s opinion and award to determine if its provisions constituted an unfair labor practice. Additionally, the facts, as alleged in the charge, demonstrated that Charging Parties had notice and opportunity to give their input before their representative entered into a tentative agreement to settle the dispute and that, because the tentative settlement agreement was never finalized, any harm suffered by Charging Parties was not attributable to the representative’s acts or omissions. more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 22 | 06/28/18 |
| 2391H | Trustees of the California State University (East Bay) 1102.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; DEFERRAL TO ARBITRATION; Post Arbitration; Repugnancy Charging Party may not, by his own conduct, defeat deferral by refusing to participate in the arbitration, and then claim the arbitration award was repugnant to HEERA. To hold otherwise and permit Charging Party a second opportunity to litigate his discipline case would undermine the balance struck by the deferral policy. A party cannot avoid deferral simply by failing to pursue available contractual procedures. more or view all topics or full text. | 39 | 39 | 09/02/14 |
| 2281M | City of Berkeley 1102.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; DEFERRAL TO ARBITRATION; Post Arbitration; Repugnancy Even if charging party were to prevail on repugnancy claim in establishing that PERB should not exercise its discretion to defer to arbitrator’s award on termination grievance, underlying allegations in unfair practice charge relevant to discrimination/retaliation violation are nonetheless untimely. more or view all topics or full text. | 37 | 52 | 08/17/12 |
| 2231Ma | Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District 1102.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; DEFERRAL TO ARBITRATION; Post Arbitration; Repugnancy A deferral to arbitration claim is not jurisdictional and therefore must be raised as an affirmative defense to an unfair practice charge in a timely manner, or it is waived; where neither the issuance of the complaint nor the dismissal of the remaining allegations by the Office of General Counsel occurred until approximately one month after the arbitration, and the respondent knew long before the arbitration that the grievances concerning the Union Time Bank were subject to binding and final arbitration and never raised the issue of deferral to grievance arbitration during the charge processing stage of the PERB proceedings, raising deferral to arbitration for the first time in a request for reconsideration was untimely, and therefore waived. more or view all topics or full text. | 36 | 185 | 05/23/12 |
| 2201H | Trustees of the California State University (Long Beach) 1102.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; DEFERRAL TO ARBITRATION; Post Arbitration; Repugnancy Unfair practice charge filed based upon a claim that a settlement or arbitration award is repugnant to HEERA are subject to all of the requirements applicable to the filing of unfair practice charges under PERB Regulation 32615 and must allege with specificity the facts underlying the charging party’s claim that the arbitrator’s award is repugnant to the purposes of the applicable statute. Amended charge filed nearly nine months after issuance of arbitration award was untimely. A party cannot avoid deferral simply by failing to pursue available contractual procedures by failing to include charging party’s retaliation claim in stipulation of issues before the arbitrator. Board deferred to arbitrator’s award where the arbitrator’s conclusions encompassed the same factual issues that would have been presented on the retaliation claim before PERB and award itself was not clearly repugnant to the purposes and policies of HEERA. more or view all topics or full text. | 36 | 43 | 09/13/11 |
| 2170M | City of Guadalupe 1102.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; DEFERRAL TO ARBITRATION; Post Arbitration; Repugnancy The Board deferred to the binding decision of the personnel commission convened pursuant to the final step of the grievance procedure in the parties’ MOU. The commission proceedings were essentially a binding arbitration, the commission was presented with and considered all of the evidence relevant to the unfair practice charge, and its decision that the employer’s imposition of furloughs did not violate the MOU was not repugnant to the MMBA. Thus, the Board dismissed the charge pursuant to PERB Regulation 32620(b)(6). more or view all topics or full text. | 35 | 52 | 02/28/11 |
| 2082E | Ventura County Community College District 1102.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; DEFERRAL TO ARBITRATION; Post Arbitration; Repugnancy EERA section 3541.5 sets forth PERB’s jurisdiction and authority to determine whether or not charges of unfair practices are justified. Section 3541.5(a)(2) addresses PERB’s authority relative to matters also covered by collective bargaining agreements between the parties, and provides that PERB may review an arbitration decision resulting from the parties’ grievance/arbitration process, to determine whether it is repugnant to the purposes of EERA. However, PERB’s authority remains limited to the issuance of a complaint that alleges respondent engaged in conduct that violates EERA. EERA does not provide for an independent de novo review of third-party arbitration decisions. A charge based solely on a claim that a third-party arbitration decision is repugnant cannot stand on its own and is insufficient to state a prima facie case for violation of EERA. Here the District’s charge sought a repugnancy review of an arbitration between the parties, however, it did not allege conduct by the Respondent/Federation that violated EERA and therefore did not establish a prima facie case against the respondent for violation of the Act. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 14 | 12/09/09 |
| 1813H | California State Employees Association (Sarca) 1102.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; DEFERRAL TO ARBITRATION; Post Arbitration; Repugnancy Board deferred to agency fee arbitration award because (1) proceedings were fair and regular, (2) decision of arbitrator was not clearly repugnant to purposes of HEERA. more or view all topics or full text. | 30 | 57 | 01/27/06 |
| 1765E | Los Angeles Unified School District 1102.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; DEFERRAL TO ARBITRATION; Post Arbitration; Repugnancy When an arbitration award covers the subject of an unfair practice charge, a post-arbitration repugnancy review is conducted to determine whether the charge must be dismissed and deferred to the arbitration award; p. 3. The party seeking to have the Board reject deferral to arbitration has the burden of showing that the deferral standard has not been met; p. 4. The Board has previously addressed the parallel between contractual and statutory claims in cases alleging repugnancy of arbitration awards; p. 4. The facts considered by the arbitration panel, including the interpretation of the applicable contract provisions, are identical to those facts relevant to resolving an unfair practice charge before PERB alleging that the District unilaterally changed the class size policy; p. 6. The Board will not substitute its judgment for that of the arbitrator; p. 6. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 128 | 05/03/05 |
| 1682E | Desert Sands Unified School District 1102.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; DEFERRAL TO ARBITRATION; Post Arbitration; Repugnancy CSEA’s motion to amend its charge at the hearing to add an allegation of retaliation was denied as untimely. The proposed amendment also did not fall within an exception to the limitations provision in that it did was not fully litigated during the hearing. It should be noted that since the issuance of the proposed decision and the submission of exceptions and responses, the Board issued Long Beach Community College District (2003) PERB Decision No. 1564 (Long Beach) in which it reexamined whether the statute of limitations is a jurisdictional bar and found it instead to be an affirmative defense. As neither party excepted to the ALJ’s ruling on this issue, the Board did not address the effect of Long Beach on this case. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 241 | 08/25/04 |
| 1691S | State of California (Department of Transportation) 1102.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; DEFERRAL TO ARBITRATION; Post Arbitration; Repugnancy The allegations in the charge that the State unilaterally changed the workweek schedule at Shop #31 in Kearney Mesa is covered by the workweek provisions and entire agreement clause of the collective bargaining agreement. As the allegations in the charge are covered by the CBA, an alleged violation of the CBA provision may be submitted to binding arbitration, and the State has agreed to waive procedural defenses, the charge must be dismissed and deferred to arbitration. Lengthy resolution of the grievance and arbitration process does not demonstrate futility. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 255 | 09/17/04 |
| 1607H | California Nurses Association (O'Malley) 1102.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; DEFERRAL TO ARBITRATION; Post Arbitration; Repugnancy The Board will defer to an arbitrator’s award, including arbitration of an agency fee dispute, so long as the proceedings were fair and regular and the award is not repugnant to the purposes of HEERA. O’Malley did not allege sufficient facts showing that the arbitration proceeding was unfair or procedurally defective or that the arbitrator’s award was repugnant. The arbitrator’s award was not repugnant to HEERA since it was not “palpably wrong.” more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 117 | 03/18/04 |
| 1626H | California State Employees Association, California State University Division (Sarca) 1102.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; DEFERRAL TO ARBITRATION; Post Arbitration; Repugnancy Even though charging party’s closing brief was not forwarded to arbitrator, arbitration decision was not repugnant to HEERA because arbitrator took notice of charging party’s position during closing arguments at hearing. Failure of arbitrator and parties to discuss law during arbitration does not form the basis for repugnancy. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 147 | 04/29/04 |
| 1595E | Newark Unified School District 1102.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; DEFERRAL TO ARBITRATION; Post Arbitration; Repugnancy Board dismissed complaint alleging arbitration decision was repugnant to EERA. Arbitration decision held that written reprimands are not grievable or arbitrable under the collective bargaining agreement. This issue is factually parallel to the issue in the unfair practice complaint of unilateral change. Even if the arbitrator relied on an argument advanced in the District’s post-hearing brief, that does not make the award repugnant to the Act. Arbitrators interpretation is not beyond dispute but not palpably wrong. Arbitrator must be presented generally with facts relevant to resolving the unfair practice not all evidence deemed relevant by the grievant. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 77 | 02/09/04 |
| 1521E | Willits Unified School District 1102.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; DEFERRAL TO ARBITRATION; Post Arbitration; Repugnancy Arbitrator’s decision finding language of the contract ambiguous and relying instead upon past practice was not “palpably wrong.” Where a claim of unilateral change is grounded in the contract, and there is no suggestion that the arbitrator failed to consider all of the evidence relevant to the alleged repudiation of the contractual provisions, the arbitrator’s award is not repugnant to EERA. more or view all topics or full text. | 27 | 70 | 05/08/03 |
| 1446H | University Professional and Technical Employees, Communications Workers of America Local 9119 (Witke) 1102.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; DEFERRAL TO ARBITRATION; Post Arbitration; Repugnancy In light of the fact that the arbitrator kept the fair share hearing open while he waited for the exclusive representative to comply with his request for documents regarding jurisdiction, the award complied with the 30-day requirement of PERB Regulation 32994(b)(8); pp. 2-3, warning letter. When the agency fee arbitration has already concluded, PERB will defer to an arbitrator's award and refuse to issue a complaint in which: (1) the arbitration proceedings were fair and regular; and (2) the arbitrator's award is not clearly repugnant to the purposes of the Act; p. 3, warning letter. The charge demonstrated that the arbitration proceeding violated several AAA rules. Although failure to comply with the AAA rules is a serious matter, the rule violations involved a jurisdictional issue tangential to the issues raised by the charging party. The charging party raised objections regarding whether the respondent's expenses were chargeable or non-chargeable, not whether the respondent's notice adequately informed him of the possibility of other forums. As such, the proceedings appear to have been fair and regular as they pertained to the charging party's objections, except as to whether the award was issued in a timely manner; p. 3, dismissal letter. The failure of the arbitrator to issue the award in a timely manner was insufficient to demonstrate the proceedings were conducted in an irregular and unfair manner; p. 3, dismissal letter. Charging party alleged the arbitrator's award was repugnant to the Act because a comparison of the respondent's financial statements and the respondent's IRS forms revealed different figures, and that the respondent used different accounting methods to calculate these figures. However, the charge failed to demonstrate that such a comparison rendered the decision clearly repugnant to the Act. The award analyzed the respondent's system for identifying chargeable and non-chargeable expenses and concluded the system was fair and reasonable. Even in a case where PERB may have reached different conclusions than the arbitrator, that alone does not demonstrate the award is repugnant to the Act; p. 4, dismissal letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 25 | 32086 | 06/21/01 |
| 1482H | California Faculty Association (Malamud) 1102.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; DEFERRAL TO ARBITRATION; Post Arbitration; Repugnancy The Board will defer to an arbitrator’s ruling that is not repugnant to HEERA. An arbitrator’s ruling that rejected Malamud’s claims that agency fees should be based upon actual expenditures and neither include CFA affiliate expenditures nor be calculated at a percentage of membership dues is not repugnant to HEERA. more or view all topics or full text. | 26 | 33074 | 05/30/02 |
| A231S | State of California (Department of Corrections) (California Correctional Peace Officers Association) 1102.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; DEFERRAL TO ARBITRATION; Post Arbitration; Repugnancy Board affirmed ALJ's denial of motion to dismiss on grounds of deferral to arbitration where grievance machinery did not cover an alleged violation of 3519(b) of the Dills Act. This is a case of first impression where a (b) case stands alone before PERB. There is a dissent. more or view all topics or full text. | 04/09/92 | ||
| A143Ea | Modesto City Schools and High School District 1102.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; DEFERRAL TO ARBITRATION; Post Arbitration; Repugnancy No deferral required to advisory arbitration. Advisory arbitration cannot be converted into binding arbitration because the employer agrees voluntarily to abide by the arbitrator's decision. more or view all topics or full text. | 9 | 16062 | 01/16/85 |
| A081E | Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District 1102.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; DEFERRAL TO ARBITRATION; Post Arbitration; Repugnancy Board has jurisdiction to reactivate unfair practice proceedings which had been held in abeyance pending completion of binding arbitration proceedings; purpose of reactivation is to determine through investigation by general counsel whether the arbitrator's award is repugnant to the purposes of the EERA; p. 1. In repugnancy review of arbitrator's ruling, general counsel instructed to conduct investigation and hearing into party's claim of repugnancy and to submit his record, findings, and recommendation to the Board itself; Board will issue final decision and order after completion of these proceedings; pp. 2-3. more or view all topics or full text. | 4 | 11036 | 03/06/80 |
| A081Ea | Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District 1102.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; DEFERRAL TO ARBITRATION; Post Arbitration; Repugnancy Post-arbitration deferral appropriate under EERA if: matters presented in the unfair practice charge were presented to and considered by the arbitrator; arbitration proceedings were fair and regular; all parties to the arbitration proceeding must have agreed to be bound by the award; and the award must not be repugnant to EERA; pp. 4-7. Board will not necessarily find an arbitration award repugnant because it would have granted a different award; it may well do so if that award fails to protect the essential and fundamental principles of good faith negotiations; p. 7. Arbitrator's remedy found to be repugnant where unilateral action found to have occurred but return to status quo ante not ordered; Board ordered issuance of complaint; p. 9. more or view all topics or full text. | 4 | 11141 | 07/21/80 |
| 1295E | ABC Federation of Teachers, American Federation of Teachers (Murray, et al.) 1102.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; DEFERRAL TO ARBITRATION; Post Arbitration; Repugnancy PERB will defer to an arbitrator's award in an agency fee objection case and refuse to issue a complaint where: (1) the arbitration proceedings were fair and regular; and (2) the arbitrator's award is not clearly repugnant to the purposes of EERA. Established case law as well as PERB Regulation 32994(b)(6) specifically require the exclusive representative to bear the burden of establishing the reasonableness of the agency fee amount. Since the arbitrator placed the burden on the opposite party (the objectors), the Board agent found that the arbitrator's award is contrary to PERB regulations and is, therefore, repugnant to the purposes of EERA. Although the union bears the burden of proving reasonableness of the agency fee, absolute precision is not required in the calculation of the agency fee. agency fee, absolute precision is not required in the calculation of the agency fee. An error of less than one-tenth of one percent of total expenses does not violate union's duty to set amount of agency fee. more or view all topics or full text. | 23 | 30007 | 10/22/98 |
| 1204S | State of California (Department of Corrections) 1102.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; DEFERRAL TO ARBITRATION; Post Arbitration; Repugnancy PERB will not find an arbitrator's award to be repugnant simply because the Board would have provided a different remedy. To show that an arbitrator's award is repugnant to the purposes of the Dills Act, the proponent must show that the award fails to protect the fundamentals of good faith negotiations. (Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District (1980) PERB Order No. Ad-81a.) Restoration of the status quo ante is not an appropriate remedy when an employer is only required to bargain the effects of a change in policy. (Moreno Valley Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 206.) more or view all topics or full text. | 21 | 28116 | 06/18/97 |
| 1191E | Bakersfield City School District (Guerra) 1102.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; DEFERRAL TO ARBITRATION; Post Arbitration; Repugnancy Charging party bears burden of proving charge timely filed; p. 1, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 21 | 28071 | 04/03/97 |
| 1107S | State of California (Department of Corrections) (California Correctional Peace Officers Association) 1102.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; DEFERRAL TO ARBITRATION; Post Arbitration; Repugnancy Once an arbitration award has been issued, the post-arbitration deferral standard must be applied to determine PERB's jurisdiction. PERB will defer to an arbitrator's award based on the conduct in dispute, not on the basis of the section of the statute alleged to have been violated; p. 13. more or view all topics or full text. | 19 | 26100 | 05/19/95 |
| 1095E | Yuba City Unified School District 1102.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; DEFERRAL TO ARBITRATION; Post Arbitration; Repugnancy In a post-arbitration context the Board's jurisdiction is discretionary and limited solely to a determination of whether the requirements of Spielberg and Olin have been met; p. 13. A statement by an arbitrator that he declines to determine any unfair labor practice issues is not dispositive of the Board's exercise of its jurisdiction under EERA; p. 15. In a post-arbitration context, the Board declines to continue the practice of applying dual jurisdictional standards based on the section of the statute alleged to have been violated. Accordingly, the Board overrules San Diego County Office of Education (1991) PERB Decision No. 880. Once an arbitration award has been issued, the Board applies the post-arbitration deferral standard; p. 17. more or view all topics or full text. | 19 | 26081 | 04/27/95 |
| 1036E | Fremont Unified School District 1102.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; DEFERRAL TO ARBITRATION; Post Arbitration; Repugnancy The possibility that the Board may reach a different result does not render the arbitrator's award unreasonable or repugnant. The Board adopts the NLRB standard for post-arbitration deferral. The award is not repugnant if the unfair practice issue is "parallel" to the contractual issue, the arbitrator considered all of the evidence relevant to the unfair practice charge; the award is not clearly repugnant or palpably wrong. more or view all topics or full text. | 18 | 25041 | 02/04/94 |
| 0880E | San Diego County Office of Education * * * OVERRULED by Yuba City Unified School District (1995) PERB Decision No. 1095 * * * 1102.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; DEFERRAL TO ARBITRATION; Post Arbitration; Repugnancy * * * OVERRULED by Yuba City Unified School District (1995) PERB Decision No. 1095, where the Board held that once an arbitration award has issued, PERB applies the Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District (1980) PERB Order No. Ad-81a standard to determine if the contractual issue and unfair practice charge issue are factually parallel, and the arbitrator was presented with the relevant facts, as well as to what extent different contractual and statutory standards may exist. * * *Where an arbitration award has been issued which covers a matter at issue, Board uses post-arbitration repugnancy analysis. Board adopts NLRB standards set forth in Spielberg Manufacturing Company (1955) 112 NRLB 1080 [36 LRRM 1152], Collyer Insulated Wire (1971) 192 NLRB 837 [77 LRRM 1931], and Olin Corporation (1984) 268 NLRB 573 [115 LRRM 1056]; pp. 9-10. Olin Corp. "parallelism" requirement met where the contractual issue considered by the arbitrator is factually parallel to the unfair labor practice issue. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22089 | 05/21/91 |
| 0861E | Perris Union High School District 1102.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; DEFERRAL TO ARBITRATION; Post Arbitration; Repugnancy PERB's jurisdiction to review "settlements" is limited to those arrived at through the grievance machinery of a collective bargaining agreement, and not through the mediation process, and then only to determine if the settlement is repugnant to the purposes of EERA; p. 2. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22018 | 12/20/90 |
| 0538E | Oakland Unified School District 1102.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; DEFERRAL TO ARBITRATION; Post Arbitration; Repugnancy Charging party fails to establish Spielberg factors for repugnancy where the arbitrator considered the same matter as the unfair practice and the only irregularity alleged resulted from charging party's failure to introduce allegedly critical testimony. Arbitration award is not repugnant to the Act even if Board would have reached a different result. more or view all topics or full text. | 10 | 17007 | 12/04/85 |
| 1951E | Santa Ana Unified School District 1102.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; DEFERRAL TO ARBITRATION; Post Arbitration; Repugnancy Under the post arbitration deferral standard, the Board found that the unfair practice issues were presented to and considered by the arbitrator, the arbitral proceeding was fair and regular, the parties agreed to be bound, and the decision of the arbitrator was not clearly repugnant. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 63 | 03/28/08 |
| 0517E | Ramona Unified School District 1102.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; DEFERRAL TO ARBITRATION; Post Arbitration; Repugnancy Arbitrator's award found repugnant to the Act where the arbitrator found that the District's unilateral action to have changed employees' wages but did not order repayment of lost compensation and benefits. more or view all topics or full text. | 9 | 16192 | 08/05/85 |
| 0414Ea | Modesto City Schools and High School District 1102.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; DEFERRAL TO ARBITRATION; Post Arbitration; Repugnancy After winning an advisory arbitrator's award but losing a later PERB decision on the same matter, the charging party cannot retroactively defer to arbitration. The PERB will defer only to precedures culminating in binding arbitration or in response to a motion from both parties. Despite the employer's acceptance of the award, the underlying procedure was advisory. Charging party had the opportunity to accept the award but choose to proceed with the unfair practice charge. more or view all topics or full text. | 9 | 16062 | 01/16/85 |
| 0218E | Los Angeles Unified School District 1102.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; DEFERRAL TO ARBITRATION; Post Arbitration; Repugnancy Union's charge of unilateral change of bus parking locations properly deferred (post-arbitration) and award not repugnant to Act where: (a) the arbitral and statutory issues are clearly parallel, both turning on whether the District had the contractual right to unilaterally change bus parking locations; (b) the arbitrator was presented with and considered all evidence relevant to the unfair charge, including bargaining history relevant to waiver issue; (c) finding of waiver was not contrary to "clear and unmistakable" standard adopted by PERB; pp. 7-9. more or view all topics or full text. | 6 | 13153 | 06/30/82 |