All notes for Subtopic 1105.13000 – Witnesses; Who May Testify; Board Agents as Witnesses; Self-Incrimination; Immunity; Labor Code Section 1151.2
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2514E | Santa Ana Unified School District 1105.13000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Witnesses; Who May Testify; Board Agents as Witnesses; Self-Incrimination; Immunity; Labor Code Section 1151.2 Due process and fair proceedings required by statutory, regulatory and decisional law preclude PERB from resolving material factual disputes or making credibility determinations in the absence of a formal hearing or stipulated record. (p. 3, fn. 6.) Although the charging party had several medical restrictions that would require modifying the schedule of a hearing, for example, by taking frequent breaks, so that she is not required to sit or stand for more than one hour at a time, such modifications are not inherently unreasonable, nor unprecedented in PERB proceedings where necessary to accommodate a party’s medical condition. (38-39.) Even assuming a full hearing on the merits was impractical or impossible in this case because of the charging party’s medical condition, at minimum, a hearing on the disputed facts underlying the District’s motion to dismiss and its laches defense was necessary before dismissing the case. Alternatively, PERB Regulations authorize a hearing officer to order any person, including a party or material witness who is unable to attend a hearing because of illness or infirmity, to be deposed to ensure that oral testimony is subject to cross examination. (pp. 35-36.) more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 132 | 02/08/17 |
| 2514E | Santa Ana Unified School District 1105.13000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Witnesses; Who May Testify; Board Agents as Witnesses; Self-Incrimination; Immunity; Labor Code Section 1151.2 PERB’s fact-finding ability at the pre-hearing stage is also limited by the residuum rule of PERB Regulation 32176 governing evidence in unfair practice cases. Unless subject to an exception, any statement not made by a witness testifying before the factfinder constitutes hearsay evidence when offered for its truth. In the absence of some corroborating, non-hearsay evidence, typically in the form of live testimony, the parties’ declarations are insufficient to support a factual finding in unfair practice proceedings. (pp. 30-31.) more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 132 | 02/08/17 |
| 2449E | Rio School District 1105.13000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Witnesses; Who May Testify; Board Agents as Witnesses; Self-Incrimination; Immunity; Labor Code Section 1151.2 By withdrawing her subpoenas rather than letting the ALJ address the issue of alleged witness tampering and intimidation at the formal hearing, charging party cannot complain that she was unable to prove her case without the witness she had planned to call or that the ALJ failed to protect them. more or view all topics or full text. | 40 | 45 | 08/31/15 |
| A117E | Modesto City Schools and School District 1105.13000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Witnesses; Who May Testify; Board Agents as Witnesses; Self-Incrimination; Immunity; Labor Code Section 1151.2 Board agent's refusal to subpoena chief administrative law judge as witness is upheld. Representation that testimony of chief ALJ would corroborate evidence already in the record is inadequate. Testimony that will corroborate other evidence is not "essential" as required under Board policy. more or view all topics or full text. | 5 | 12133 | 10/15/81 |
| 0135E | Jefferson Elementary School District 1105.13000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Witnesses; Who May Testify; Board Agents as Witnesses; Self-Incrimination; Immunity; Labor Code Section 1151.2 Board agents required to testify where their testimony is necessary to enable hearing officer to reach rational decision; pp. 2-3. more or view all topics or full text. | 4 | 11107 | 06/19/80 |