All notes for Subtopic 104.03000 – Conclusiveness of Prior Determination by Federal Agencies, Other State Agencies or Courts

DecisionDescriptionPERC Vol.PERC IndexDate
1978S State of California (Department of Personnel Administration)
104.3000: PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF BOARD; Conclusiveness of Prior Determination by Federal Agencies, Other State Agencies or Courts
Court of Appeal decisions are binding precedent on administrative agencies. The court's legal and factual determinations as to the alternate retirement program are binding to the extent they impact the Board's analysis of the program under the Dills Act. more or view all topics or full text.
3214809/26/08
1957C Tehama County Superior Court
104.3000: PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF BOARD; Conclusiveness of Prior Determination by Federal Agencies, Other State Agencies or Courts
When the Board is interpreting a statute section within its jurisdiction for the first time it will look to cases decided under the other statutes administered. Where “the similarity of language and purpose” is found, the Board will generally follow earlier decisions with similar issues. (State of California (California Department of Corrections) (1980) PERB Decision No. 127-S.) The Board uses its decisional authority to harmonize the various statutes where appropriate. (City of San Rafael (2004) PERB Decision No. 1698-M.) However, “in the face of strong evidence of a contrary intent,” the Board is “not free to rewrite the statute.” (Regents of University of California v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 937.) As one court has stated, “The Legislature would be rendered nearly powerless to make changes in law if we were to permit the Board to interpret this obvious change as a attempt to continue the same legal relationships” in the other statutes under its jurisdiction. (Ibid.) MMBA section 3507.5 contains a provision similar to Trial Court Employment Protection and Governance Act (TCEPGA) section 71637.1. This section of the MMBA has been interpreted to “merely [preclude] management from representing nonmanagement (sic) employees; the language does not preclude management from being represented by the [same] bargaining organization.” (Reinbold v. City of Santa Monica (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 433 (Reinbold).) Legislative intent consistent with the ALJ’s interpretation of Section 71637.1 is shown by the Legislature’s inclusion of a prohibition on employee organizations representing both management and non-management employees in EERA, HEERA and the Dills Act and the failure to include that prohibition in the TCEPGA. (See Regents of University of California v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 937, 945.) Additionally, when provisions in a statute have been judicially construed, a subsequent statute on the same subject, using the same language, is generally given a similar interpretation. (County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. Los Angeles County Employees’ Assn. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 564, 592; Moreland v. Department of Corporations (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 506, 512.) Such is the case regarding TCEPGA section 71637.1, which became effective January 1, 2001. (Added Stats. 2000, ch. 1010, sec. 14 (SB 2140).) Section 71637.1 contains the same language as the MMBA section 3507.5, which has existed as presently written since being amended in 1969. (Added by Stats. 1968, ch. 1277, sec. 1.) In Reinbold, MMBA section 3507.5 was interpreted as follows: “Section 3507.5 merely precludes management from representing nonmanagement [sic] employees; the language does not preclude management from being represented by the bargaining organization. Any concern that there may be a conflict of interest between management and the other employees, is obviated by the fact that it is not management representing the employees.” The above-referenced interpretation of the identical language at issue in this case existed more than 30 years before the Legislature enacted TCEPGA section 71637.1. This suggests a legislative intent that Section 71637.1 should be similarly interpreted and we so hold. more or view all topics or full text.
328405/27/08

104.3000: PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF BOARD; Conclusiveness of Prior Determination by Federal Agencies, Other State Agencies or Courts
Determination that imposition of $5 monthly parking fees not trivial and therefore subject to meet and confer by employee relations board created by the employee relations ordinance enacted by city pursuant to the MMBA is final and binding upon respondent city and upon the superior court if no review of determination pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 is sought as ordinance called for final resolution of disputes, not advisory opinions. more or view all topics or full text.
1467E San Diego Community College District
104.3000: PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF BOARD; Conclusiveness of Prior Determination by Federal Agencies, Other State Agencies or Courts
Board declined to follow opinion of the Attorney General interpreting Education Code section 7054 because express words of Section 7054 preclude following opinion in context of dispute over use of District mail system and photocopying services by union for political purposes. more or view all topics or full text.
263301411/28/01

104.3000: PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF BOARD; Conclusiveness of Prior Determination by Federal Agencies, Other State Agencies or Courts
Ratio decidendi is the principle or rule which constitutes the basis of the decision and creates binding precedent, while dictum is a general argument or observation unnecessary to the decision which has no force as precedent. [162 Cal.App.3d at 834] Even if properly characterized as dictum, statements of the Supreme Court should be considered persuasive. [162 Cal.App.3d at 835] more or view all topics or full text.

104.3000: PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF BOARD; Conclusiveness of Prior Determination by Federal Agencies, Other State Agencies or Courts
Attorney General opinion reconciling statutory schemes is entitled to great respect. more or view all topics or full text.
A081Ea Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District
104.3000: PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF BOARD; Conclusiveness of Prior Determination by Federal Agencies, Other State Agencies or Courts
Prior court ruling which determined that arbitrator had not exceeded his authority in fashioning award is not conclusive on subsequent Board action to determine whether award was repugnant to EERA; prior court ruling is not res judicata because it addressed a different issue; pp. 9-10. more or view all topics or full text.
41114107/21/80
A084E Oakland Unified School District
104.3000: PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF BOARD; Conclusiveness of Prior Determination by Federal Agencies, Other State Agencies or Courts
While entitled to considerable weight, opinion of attorney general, which held that disclosure of employees' addresses by employer is unlawful, is not law and is not controlling in the determination of the legality of PERB Regulation 32726 requiring disclosure of employees' home addresses on eligible voter list; p. 4. more or view all topics or full text.
41106204/15/80
1185E Healdsburg Union High School District
104.3000: PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF BOARD; Conclusiveness of Prior Determination by Federal Agencies, Other State Agencies or Courts
Where District both presided over the discipliniary hearing and acted as a party to the action, disciplinary hearing lacked judicial character and the doctrine of collateral estoppel does not apply; p. 51, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text.
212805502/24/97
1104S State of California (Department of Corrections) (California Correctional Peace Officers Association)
104.3000: PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF BOARD; Conclusiveness of Prior Determination by Federal Agencies, Other State Agencies or Courts
Collateral estoppel is applicable to decisions of administrative agencies when: (1) the agency is acting in a judicial capacity; (2) it resolves disputed issues of fact properly before it; and (3) the parties have had an adequate opportunity to litigate the disputed issues. Collateral estoppel inappropriate when the issues litigated before the SPB are not identical to the issues litigated before PERB; p. 4. more or view all topics or full text.
192609705/18/95
1080S State of California (Department of Youth Authority) (Janowicz)
104.3000: PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF BOARD; Conclusiveness of Prior Determination by Federal Agencies, Other State Agencies or Courts
Doctrine of collateral estoppel precludes a party to an action from relitigating in a second proceeding matters litigated and decided in a prior proceeding, if (1) the issue is identical to one necessarily decided at a previous proceeding; (2) the previous proceeding resulted in a final judgment on the merits; and (3) the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted was a party or in privity with a party at the prior proceeding; p. 14, proposed dec., citing People v. Sims (1982) 32 Cal.3d 468. The three elements of the collateral estoppel test were met in this case because: (1) the issues adjudicated in a prior state court action filed by Janowicz were identical to the issues before PERB, and in that prior case, judgment was entered against Janowicz; (2) the state court judgement was final and was a conclusive determination of the retaliation issue raised in that case; and (3) the parties were the court judgement was final and was a conclusive determination of the retaliation issue raised in that case; and (3) the parties were the more or view all topics or full text.
192603801/12/95
0871S State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (California State Employees Association)
104.3000: PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF BOARD; Conclusiveness of Prior Determination by Federal Agencies, Other State Agencies or Courts
Doctrine of res judicata involves two general concepts: "claim preclusion" is the primary aspect of res judicata and collateral estoppel is the second aspect and refers to "issue preclusion." Under issue preclusion a prior judgment operates as an estoppel or conclusive adjudication as to the issues in the second action which were actually litigated and determined in the first action; pp. 5-6, fn. 3. Res judicata applies in administrative hearings to decisions of an administrative agency made pursuant to its quasi-judicial functions; p. 6. Res judicata is an affirmative defense and may be waived if not properly raised; p. 6. While there are many instances in which the function of SPB and PERB may be in conflict, the Board split over whether such conflict is While there are many instances in which the function of SPB and PERB may be in conflict, the Board split over whether such conflict is more or view all topics or full text.
152206303/20/91
0805Hb Trustees of the California State University (Statewide University Police Association)
104.3000: PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF BOARD; Conclusiveness of Prior Determination by Federal Agencies, Other State Agencies or Courts
Where PERB issues a decision which conflicts with an earlier SPB decision issued while acting in its statutory capacity in connection with employee disciplinary matters, PERB not required to apply collateral estoppel doctrine; pp. 3-11. more or view all topics or full text.
142121711/14/90
0631E San Diego Unified School District
104.3000: PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF BOARD; Conclusiveness of Prior Determination by Federal Agencies, Other State Agencies or Courts
Remand to ALJ to determine collateral estoppel effect of prior civil service commission findings; issue not fully litigated before ALJ. (But see, California State University (1990) PERB Decision No. 805b-H.) more or view all topics or full text.
111814808/18/87
0630E Kern County Office of Education
104.3000: PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF BOARD; Conclusiveness of Prior Determination by Federal Agencies, Other State Agencies or Courts
PERB will apply principles of collateral estoppel where all of the elements present; in this case application not necessary. more or view all topics or full text.
111813307/14/87
0619S State of California (Department of Developmental Services)
104.3000: PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF BOARD; Conclusiveness of Prior Determination by Federal Agencies, Other State Agencies or Courts
Termination upheld by State Personnel Board given collateral estoppel effect by PERB where SPB took evidence and ruled upon identical issue before PERB. more or view all topics or full text.
111808504/17/87
0534H Regents of the University of California (Berkeley)
104.3000: PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF BOARD; Conclusiveness of Prior Determination by Federal Agencies, Other State Agencies or Courts
Arbitrator's decision not given collateral estoppel effect where issue before the Board was unlawful interference and that before the arbitrator was just cause for dismissal. more or view all topics or full text.
91623911/04/85
0459S State of California (Department of Transportation)
104.3000: PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF BOARD; Conclusiveness of Prior Determination by Federal Agencies, Other State Agencies or Courts
PERB not obligated to defer to SPB decision [where collateral estoppel not required]. SPB holding that discipline warranted does not preclude contrary PERB decision. Although SPB found employee engaged in proscribed conduct for which he disciplined, PERB in mixed motive case finds that employee would not have been disciplined but for his union activity. more or view all topics or full text.
91602712/12/84
0040E Sonoma County Office of Education
104.3000: PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF BOARD; Conclusiveness of Prior Determination by Federal Agencies, Other State Agencies or Courts
Board finds attorney general's opinion re: Education Code section 45268 to be controlling in resolving dispute. more or view all topics or full text.
158811/23/77