CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT – Request for Deferral to Arbitration

Single Topic for Decision 2926S

View all topics for Decision 2926S

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

Union claimed that the CBA does not allow arbitration over interference with the union’s own rights in violation of section 3519(b), and for that reason PERB cannot defer any of the claims. PERB assessed whether the section 3519(b) claim involves any standards or facts that could make its outcome or remedy materially diverge from the section 3519(a) claim. Notably, a section 3519(b) claim may, but need not, be derivative of a section 3519(a) claim. (See, e.g., County of San Joaquin (2021) PERB Decision No. 2761-M, pp. 20-22 [finding interference with union’s right to be independent claim].) If and only if the section 3519(b) claim will necessarily involve the same standards applied to the same facts as the section 3519(a) claim, and therefore have the same outcome (and materially the same potential remedies), then PERB can safely defer both claims. Under current Board precedent, the Union’s section 3519(b) claim involves the same statutory standards, the same facts, and effectively the same remedies as the section 3519(a) claim, allowing PERB to defer both claims. PERB noted that the following decisions no longer have precedential value on deferral issues because they relied on the notion that deferral was jurisdictional rather than discretionary, applied standards that are now superseded, and improperly bifurcated interrelated claims: State of California (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection) (1989) PERB Decision No. 734-S; State of California (Department of Parks and Recreation) (1990) PERB Decision No. 810-S; State of California (Department of Corrections) (1992) PERB Order No. Ad-231-S, pp. 8-10; and State of California (Department of Parks and Recreation) (1993) PERB Decision No. 1026-S. (pp. 15-16; see also pp. 22-23.)