All notes for Subtopic 1103.07000 – Parties

DecisionDescriptionPERC Vol.PERC IndexDate
2687H Trustees of the California State University (Northridge)
1103.7000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT; Parties
Where underlying unfair practice charge listed both union and alleged discriminatee as charging parties, but complaint and proposed decision listed only union as charging party, the Board noted that in practical effect, there is often no difference in the outcome of a discrimination charge, irrespective of whether the charging parties include the alleged discriminatee, her union, or both. Given the possibility that this technical question could impact who has right to seek reconsideration or judicial review of Board’s decision, the Board clarified that both union and alleged discriminatee were charging parties. more or view all topics or full text.
12/13/19
2475E United Teachers of Los Angeles (Raines, et al)
1103.7000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT; Parties
Under relation back doctrine, PERB may include additional charging parties after the limitations period has run if their allegations are identical to those included in a previously-filed charge. PERB’s regulations neither expressly authorize nor prohibit processing unfair practice charges as class or representative actions and PERB may consolidate separately-filed charges including the same or overlapping allegations to promote administrative efficiency. more or view all topics or full text.
4014702/29/16
2424M City of Inglewood
1103.7000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT; Parties
Once the exclusive representative, the sole charging party identified in the complaint, withdrew from a case involving the alleged failure of the employer to bargain in good faith, the affected employee lacked party status to litigate the matter further; even if the affected employee had been joined as a party, she lacked standing to pursue a bad faith bargaining charge. more or view all topics or full text.
3916906/01/15
A411M County of Santa Clara
1103.7000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT; Parties
PERB Regulation 32164(d) authorizes PERB to order joinder of a party if the party has an interest in the subject matter of the proceeding. more or view all topics or full text.
3815804/18/14
2082E Ventura County Community College District
1103.7000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT; Parties
PERB cannot issue a complaint against an arbitrator; it can only issue a complaint against an employer or an employee organization. Thus, before PERB can determine whether an arbitration decision is repugnant to the Act, the charging party must first establish that the respondent engaged in conduct that violates the Act. A charge based solely on a claim that a third-party arbitration decision is repugnant cannot stand on its own and is insufficient to state a prima facie case for violation of EERA. Here the District’s charge sought a repugnancy review of a third-party arbitration, but did not allege conduct by the Respondent/Federation that violated EERA and therefore did not establish a prima facie case against the respondent for violation of the Act. more or view all topics or full text.
341412/09/09
1927M Bay Area Air Quality Management District
1103.7000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT; Parties
PERB Regulation 32164(a) provides that an “employee, employee organization or employer” may file an application for joinder. A party who does not fall within one of those three categories lacks standing to file such an application. PERB Regulation 32164(d) authorizes the Board, on its own motion, to order joinder of a party in specific situations. Joinder by the Board pursuant to this regulation is appropriate when the party has an interest that is related to the subject matter of the unfair practice charge at issue. more or view all topics or full text.
3115311/06/07
1491S State of California (State Personnel Board)
1103.7000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT; Parties
Under PERB Regulation 32164(d), on its own motion, the Board may order joinder of a party. Since any decision in this matter would impact DPA in the same manner as IUOE, in order to ensure a just resolution, the Board orders DPA be joined under Section 32164(d). Such joinder would also eliminate any confusion as to DPA’s status as a party in this case. more or view all topics or full text.
263310207/18/02
0644S Police Officers Research Association of California (Eckstein); California Association of Food and Drug Officials (Eckstein)
1103.7000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT; Parties
The proper respondent for an agency fee challenge is the exclusive representative, not an affiliate. more or view all topics or full text.
121901012/18/87