All notes for Subtopic 1105.14000 – Witnesses: Credibility, Cross Examination and Impeachment; Pretrial Statements
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2704H | Regents of the University of California 1105.14000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Witnesses: Credibility, Cross Examination and Impeachment; Pretrial Statements To resolve a dispute over whether supervisor knew Charging Parties participated in a lunchtime union demonstration, the Board needed to make a credibility determination. The ALJ credited the supervisor over Charging Parties on this point because of non-observational factors, noting alleged inconsistencies in Charging Party’s testimony and finding supervisor’s testimony relatively consistent. While the Board generally defers to an ALJ’s credibility determination based on observational factors, it accords no particular deference to those aspects of an ALJ's credibility determination, such as those relied on here, that are not based on the ALJ’s firsthand observations. The Board found that supervisor was repeatedly inconsistent or less than truthful when asked about union activity in the shop. Likewise, the Board rejected employer’s arguments that Charging Party was not credible because of minimal differences in various statements he made during the employer’s investigation. Both Charging Party and supervisor showed efforts—common among witnesses in a fraught trial—to bend events to their pre-determined viewpoint. Neither is inherently more believable than the other as to every point. (pp. 16-21.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 158 | 04/14/20 |
| 2760S | State of California (Correctional Health Care Services) 1105.14000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Witnesses: Credibility, Cross Examination and Impeachment; Pretrial Statements The witness’s “bias, interest or motive” is relevant in determining the credibility of testimony. (State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) (2012) PERB Decision No. 2285-S, p. 10, fn. 15, citing Evid. Code, § 780.) The “existence or nonexistence of facts testified to” also is a relevant factor in determining the credibility of witness testimony. (Ibid.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 91 | 04/12/21 |
| 2760S | State of California (Correctional Health Care Services) 1105.14000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Witnesses: Credibility, Cross Examination and Impeachment; Pretrial Statements Witness’s testimony against the interests of her employer weighs in favor of crediting her testimony. more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 91 | 04/12/21 |
| 2719E | Alliance Judy Ivie Burton Technology Academy High, et al. 1105.14000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Witnesses: Credibility, Cross Examination and Impeachment; Pretrial Statements Charter schools and their management organization’s prior inconsistent statements in other Board cases undermined their ability to prove they were part of a single-employer entity. more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 185 | 05/18/20 |
| 2717E | Alliance Environmental Science and Technology High School, et al. 1105.14000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Witnesses: Credibility, Cross Examination and Impeachment; Pretrial Statements A current employee’s testimony against the interests of her employer is also contrary to her own pecuniary interests, and thus entitled to additional weight for purposes of determining credibility. (Page 22, footnote 15.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 183 | 05/18/20 |
| 2617E | Oxnard Union High School District 1105.14000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Witnesses: Credibility, Cross Examination and Impeachment; Pretrial Statements The Board held the ALJ properly refused to consider documents attached to the charging party’s post-hearing closing brief which were offered in support of her claim that two of respondent’s witnesses testified untruthfully at the hearing. Because she never requested a hearing transcript, the Board had no formal record of their testimony to review and no basis to question the ALJ’s findings of fact based on the witnesses’ testimony. (p. 3.) Nor did charging party explain why she did not introduce the documents, which existed at the time of the hearing, before the evidentiary record closed. Thus, her effort to attack the witnesses’ credibility after they were no longer subject to examination by the employer was inappropriate. (p. 4.) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 111 | 12/27/18 |
| 2544E | Bellflower Unified School District 1105.14000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Witnesses: Credibility, Cross Examination and Impeachment; Pretrial Statements In the absence of any explanation or briefing from a school district who argued that the management rights clause remained in effect after 2010, or a request for reconsideration showing both extraordinary circumstances and that the Board’s determination in a prior decision that the parties’ agreement had expired in 2010 contained prejudicial error of fact, the Board had no grounds to consider the district’s waiver defense, which was based on the management rights language, in this case. (p. 7.) The interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement is not simply a factual finding of the sort which the Board or its agents are free to disregard in a subsequent case involving the same language. Because of its significance for governing the parties’ ongoing relationship, a Board finding as to the meaning of a contract term is more akin to a question of law, particularly where, as here, the question is whether the contract itself is illegal or void for public policy, as declared by the three-year limit for collective bargaining agreements set forth in EERA section 3540.1, subdivision (h). (pp. 6-7.) more or view all topics or full text. | 42 | 70 | 12/15/17 |
| 2544E | Bellflower Unified School District 1105.14000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Witnesses: Credibility, Cross Examination and Impeachment; Pretrial Statements The Board rejected a school district’s exception that it had no notice that the ALJ considered the duration language of the parties’ agreement ambiguous or that the meaning of the duration language would be dispositive in the case by determining whether the management rights clause remained in effect. (p. 5-6.) A PERB hearing officer has the power and the duty to “[i]nquire fully into all issues and obtain a complete record upon which the decision can be rendered” and to “[r]ender and serve the proposed decision on each party.” (PERB Reg. 32170.) A hearing officer is not required to advise the parties of which factual disputes or legal issues may determine the outcome of the case, nor to make preliminary factual findings at the hearing itself so that the parties may object or offer additional evidence or argument on the issue. (Ibid.) more or view all topics or full text. | 42 | 70 | 12/15/17 |
| 2544E | Bellflower Unified School District 1105.14000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Witnesses: Credibility, Cross Examination and Impeachment; Pretrial Statements Because the uncontradicted, unimpeached testimony of three union witnesses and one management witness was that the parties’ collective bargaining agreement had expired in 2010, the Board denied a school district’s exception arguing that the agreement’s management rights clause had remained in effect and served as a waiver of the union’s right to bargain over subcontracting of the district’s bus services. (p. 5.) Uncontradicted, unimpeached testimony at hearing is sufficient to carry the burden of proof in an unfair practice case. (PERB Reg. 32178.) more or view all topics or full text. | 42 | 70 | 12/15/17 |
| 2514E | Santa Ana Unified School District 1105.14000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Witnesses: Credibility, Cross Examination and Impeachment; Pretrial Statements 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 1105.14000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Witnesses: Credibility, Cross Examination and Impeachment; Pretrial Statements 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 |
| 2450E | Jurupa Unified School District 1105.14000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Witnesses: Credibility, Cross Examination and Impeachment; Pretrial Statements Consistency is a factor lending to the credibility of students who made complaints against a charging party. Charging party’s testimony disputing student complaints raises doubts when his testimony was brief, conclusory, and only elicited during cross-examination, he made no effort to elaborate further either in re-direct examination or in his case in rebuttal, and his limited testimony gave no factual basis for disbelieving the students’ complaints. more or view all topics or full text. | 40 | 46 | 08/31/15 |
| 2476M | City of Santa Clara 1105.14000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Witnesses: Credibility, Cross Examination and Impeachment; Pretrial Statements Hearsay evidence contained in declarations is insufficient, by itself, to make findings and resolve disputed material facts. (PERB Reg. 32176.) ALJ had discretion to convene a hearing to take live testimony on disputed material facts in order to inquire fully into all issues and obtain a complete record on which a decision could be rendered, even where parties had agreed to proceed on a stipulated record and declarations containing disputed factual issues. more or view all topics or full text. | 40 | 154 | 03/10/16 |
| 2427M | County of San Luis Obispo 1105.14000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Witnesses: Credibility, Cross Examination and Impeachment; Pretrial Statements Because the unions admitted in their answers to the complaints that they had “refused to bargain” over the county’s proposal to change the formula for allocating pension costs between employees and the county, under the conclusiveness of pleadings doctrine, unions were not free to argue otherwise in subsequent proceedings. more or view all topics or full text. | 39 | 176 | 06/03/15 |
| 2463E | Chico Unified School District 1105.14000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Witnesses: Credibility, Cross Examination and Impeachment; Pretrial Statements If a party believes testimony of an individual to not be credible, it has an obligation to discredit it either through impeachment on cross-examination or by offering more credible testimony through its own witnesses. Without having done that, the ALJ, and now the Board, have no basis to disregard, discount or discredit the testimonial evidence. more or view all topics or full text. | 40 | 106 | 12/22/15 |
| 2337E | Palo Verde Unified School District 1105.14000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Witnesses: Credibility, Cross Examination and Impeachment; Pretrial Statements ALJs and the Board make credibility determinations based on both observational and non-observational factors. When reviewing a Board decision which assesses credibility based on non-observational factors, a court nonetheless approaches the Board’s findings, including credibility determinations, with deference. For those credibility determinations turning on observational factors, which are appropriately documented, as required by Government Code section 11425.50(b), the court must accord great weight to the Board’s findings as so determined. more or view all topics or full text. | 38 | 69 | 10/29/13 |
| 2449E | Rio School District 1105.14000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Witnesses: Credibility, Cross Examination and Impeachment; Pretrial Statements 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 |
| 2237S | State of California (Board of Equalization) 1105.14000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Witnesses: Credibility, Cross Examination and Impeachment; Pretrial Statements When the Board considers the record, it is free to draw its own and perhaps contrary inferences from evidence; it is a well-established principle, however, that the Board will defer to credibility determinations of the administrative law judge absent evidence to support overturning such conclusions; where charging party asserted that he was more credible than witness for the employer because the administrative law judge incorporated his undisputed testimony into the findings of fact, he was consistent in his own account of what occurred, and his supervisor did not know of any instances in which he lied, credibility determination in favor of witness for employer was not overturned. more or view all topics or full text. | 36 | 121 | 02/07/12 |
| 2093H | Trustees of the California State University (San Marcos) 1105.14000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Witnesses: Credibility, Cross Examination and Impeachment; Pretrial Statements Charging party’s witness testimony was contradicted by that of four other witnesses. Thus, charging party did not prove the complaint by a preponderance of the evidence. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 40 | 02/02/10 |
| 1958E | Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District 1105.14000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Witnesses: Credibility, Cross Examination and Impeachment; Pretrial Statements Witness’ contradictory testimony not credited where other testimony by the witness shows a strong and negative bias. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 85 | 05/29/08 |
| 1091E | Los Angeles Community College District (Mrvichin) 1105.14000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Witnesses: Credibility, Cross Examination and Impeachment; Pretrial Statements The Board generally gives deference to ALJ's factual findings that are based on credibility determinations; p. 9. By virtue of having witnessed the live testimony, an ALJ is in a better position than the Board itself to accurately make credibility determinations because the Board only reviews the written transcript of the hearing; p. 10. more or view all topics or full text. | 19 | 26069 | 03/16/95 |
| 0554E | Morgan Hill Unified School District 1105.14000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Witnesses: Credibility, Cross Examination and Impeachment; Pretrial Statements Self-serving and confused testimony not credited. more or view all topics or full text. | 10 | 17032 | 12/27/85 |
| 0500E | Santa Clara Unified School District 1105.14000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Witnesses: Credibility, Cross Examination and Impeachment; Pretrial Statements Witness' credibility discounted due to evasiveness, improbable memory lapses and failure to explain inconsistencies in testimony. more or view all topics or full text. | 9 | 16116 | 04/11/85 |
| 0449H | Regents of the University of California (California State Employees Association) 1105.14000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Witnesses: Credibility, Cross Examination and Impeachment; Pretrial Statements Demeanor; selective memory on cross examination; evasive, exaggerated, inconsistent testimony, inherently unbelievable testimony. more or view all topics or full text. | 9 | 16014 | 12/04/84 |
| 0378S | State of California (Department of Developmental Services, Napa State Hospital) (Matta) 1105.14000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Witnesses: Credibility, Cross Examination and Impeachment; Pretrial Statements While Board will afford deference to ALJ's findings of fact which incorporate credibility determinations, Board is required to consider entire record; p. 2. more or view all topics or full text. | 8 | 15039 | 02/15/84 |
| 0328S | State of California (Department of Parks and Recreation) * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Santa Clara (2017) PERB Decision No. 2539-M 1105.14000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Witnesses: Credibility, Cross Examination and Impeachment; Pretrial Statements * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by County of Santa Clara (2017) PERB Decision No. 2539-M * * *ALJ's credibility determination is supported by record as whole. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14211 | 07/29/83 |
| 0324E | Central Union High School District 1105.14000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Witnesses: Credibility, Cross Examination and Impeachment; Pretrial Statements Charging party believes that his evidence had been rebuffed by the other side - he should have brought other witnesses to overcome the same. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14189 | 06/30/83 |
| 0296E | Colusa Unified School District 1105.14000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Witnesses: Credibility, Cross Examination and Impeachment; Pretrial Statements In light of credited testimony of first-hand witnesses as to intent of parties upon entering the contract, District's argument in support of a different construction of contract language was unpersuasive; p. 3. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14106 | 03/21/83 |
| 0060E | Santa Clara Unified School District 1105.14000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Witnesses: Credibility, Cross Examination and Impeachment; Pretrial Statements Where resolution of conflicting testimony is necessary to making findings of fact, hearing officer, who is able to observe witnesses, must make credibility determinations; p. 9. more or view all topics or full text. | 2 | 2157 | 08/03/78 |