MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS – Regulations Considered (By Number) (Continued)

Single Topic for Decision A488E

View all topics for Decision A488E

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

In their appeal, the charging party argued that the declarants’ names should be redacted to prevent the employer from retaliating against the declarants, citing PERB Regulation 32125 in support of this contention. But that regulation governs filing confidential information with PERB, such as social security numbers, birthdates, a minor’s identity, and financial account information. The names of potential witnesses in a compliance hearing do not fall under any of those criteria. Also, as identified in subdivision (b), a caveat to redacting sensitive information is that it is “not relevant to resolution of any matter before PERB.” (pp. 9-10.)