CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD – Unalleged Violations

Single Topic for Decision 2830S

View all topics for Decision 2830S

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

It was appropriate to consider independent claims that the state employer interfered with representational rights by failing to allow meaningful representation at an investigatory interview for two reasons. First, the complaint adequately alleged both bad faith bargaining and independent interference claims. In the alternative, PERB would still consider those interference claims under the unalleged violation doctrine given that: (1) the state employer had adequate notice and opportunity to defend against these claims based on the union’s opening statement; (2) the acts or omissions at issue were intimately related to the subject matter of the complaint and were part of the same course of conduct; (3) the parties fully litigated the allegations; and (4) the parties had the opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses regarding the acts or omissions at issue. (County of San Joaquin (2021) PERB Decision No. 2761-M, p. 22 [judicial appeal pending].) (pp. 13-14.)