All notes for Subtopic 1100.11000 – Response to Charge
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2530E | Monterey Peninsula Unified School District 1100.11000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Response to Charge Verification in support of respondent’s position statement, signed and dated one day before the date of the position statement, was in compliance with PERB Regulations. more or view all topics or full text. | 42 | 2 | 06/19/17 |
| 2530E | Monterey Peninsula Unified School District 1100.11000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Response to Charge A respondent’s failure to specifically deny an allegation in its response to the charge is not an admission of the truth of the allegation. (Dismissal, p. 10.) more or view all topics or full text. | 42 | 2 | 06/19/17 |
| 2514E | Santa Ana Unified School District 1100.11000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Response to Charge Position statements and other materials filed with the Board as part of its pre-hearing investigation are not confidential. PERB Regulation 32620, subdivision (c), expressly requires that a respondent’s position statement be served on the charging party and, in this case, the party asserting confidentiality provided no statutory or decisional authority exempting its position statement from disclosure as a public record under the California Public Records Act. (p. 3, fn. 7.) Similarly, although diagnoses, treatments and other medical information may be subject to a right of privacy, a charging party has no right to submit documentation ex parte to a hearing officer and keep it from the respondent, if such information is to be used as the basis for a decision affecting the case, including whether to place the matter in abeyance. (p. 32, fn. 35.) more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 132 | 02/08/17 |
| 2452E | Hartnell Community College District 1100.11000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Response to Charge Although PERB’s test for employer interference requires a balancing of protected rights against the employer’s asserted justification of operational necessity, because, as noted above, during the initial investigation of a charge. PERB accepts the charging party's factual allegations as true, it is generally not appropriate to dismiss without a hearing interference allegations on the basis of an affirmative defense, such as an employer's right to free speech, unless the defense can be established as a matter of law. p. 25. Resolving factual disputes raised by the employer's affirmative defense should be considered in a formal hearing and not during the initial investigation into a charge or upon Board review of a dismissal/refusal to issue a complaint. p. 29. more or view all topics or full text. | 40 | 56 | 09/04/15 |
| 2400H | Trustees of the California State University 1100.11000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Response to Charge Failure of Board agent to inform charging party that respondent was entitled to file response to amended charge does not affect outcome of dismissal of charge. Extension of time granted to respond to amended charge did not violate PERB Regulation 32132(b), where there was no basis to conclude that Board agent did not find good cause for extension. more or view all topics or full text. | 39 | 71 | 11/24/14 |
| 2299E | Los Angeles Unified School District 1100.11000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Response to Charge Failure of Board agent to inform charging party that respondent was entitled to file response to amended charge does not affect outcome of dismissal of charge. Extension of time granted to respond to amended charge did not violate PERB Regulation 32132(b), where there was no basis to conclude that Board agent did not find good cause for extension. more or view all topics or full text. | 37 | 138 | 12/20/12 |
| 1764E | United Educators of San Francisco (Banos) 1100.11000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Response to Charge Board agent should not rely on respondent’s position statement where it was not first served on charging party. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 124 | 04/21/05 |
| 1730E | San Francisco Unified School District 1100.11000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Response to Charge Deferral to arbitration is not appropriate in this matter. The party who asserts deferral as an affirmative defense must allege facts that evidence the three prongs required by Collyer Insulated Wire. Neither party has summarized or attached a copy of the current CBA provision alleged to have been violated and so it is impossible to determine if the grievance and charge cover the same subject. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 46 | 12/27/04 |
| 1557E | Chula Vista Elementary School District 1100.11000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Response to Charge Failure to specifically discuss each allegation by the Board agent did not require reversal of the dismissal because the allegations, when treated as true did not state a prima facie case. Use of respondent’s facts where not in conflict with charging party’s allegations is proper. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 14 | 11/20/03 |
| 1541M | City of Sacramento 1100.11000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Response to Charge Board found good cause to excuse late filing of amended charge where charging party made a conscientious attempt to timely file amended charge, provided a proof of service signed under penalty of perjury, and was not informed whether or not PERB Regulation 32135 would apply. more or view all topics or full text. | 27 | 106 | 06/30/03 |
| 2485E | Petaluma City Elementary School District/Joint Union High School District 1100.11000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Response to Charge An unfair practice charge should not be dismissed without a hearing, based on an affirmative defense not raised during the investigation of the charge. p. 52. more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 23 | 06/30/16 |