CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; DEFERRAL TO ARBITRATION – Pre-Arbitration

Single Topic for Decision 1026S

View all topics for Decision 1026S

Full Decision Text (click on the link to view): Full Text

* * * OVERRULED IN PART by multiple decisions, as recognized in State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) (2024) PERB Decision No. 2926-S, pp. 16-19 & fn. 11, because relied on notion that deferral was jurisdictional rather than discretionary, applied standards that are now superseded, and improperly bifurcated interrelated claims. * * *

As no MOU was in effect for Unit 12 members, no duty to arbitrate a retaliation claim; p. 3; p. 10, proposed dec. Articles of the MOU covered the allegations raised by unfair practice complaint and therefore the 3519(a) allegation concerning Unit 13 must be dismissed and deferred to binding arbitration; p. 11, proposed dec. Where the contract prohibits retaliation and interference against employees, but does not also contain language barring the State from denying employee organizations their rights under the Dills Act, the section 3519(b) violation should not be deferred; p. 3; p. 11, proposed dec.