All notes for Subtopic 1105.16000 – Adverse Inferences
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2905M |
Consolidated Irrigation District
1105.16000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Adverse Inferences
The Board declined OE3’s invitation to draw an adverse inference against the District under Evidence Code section 413, which provides that “[i]n determining what inferences to draw from the evidence or facts in the case against a party, a trier of fact may consider . . . the party’s failure to explain or to deny by his testimony such evidence or facts in the case against him.” OE3 argues that the Board should draw an adverse inference because the District failed to call a particular manager as a witness to testify regarding the statements an employee witness attributed to him, and that failure “itself leads to the inference that his testimony would not have contradicted the other witnesses’ accounts.” (Alliance Environmental Science and Technology High School et al. (2020) PERB Decision No. 2717-E, p. 23; see Regents of the University of California (1987) PERB Decision No. 640-H, adopting proposed decision at pp. 88-90.) But by calling three different employees to testify, the District presented evidence within its control that directly controverted the witness’ account on a disputed material fact. The Board therefore found that an adverse inference is not appropriate. (p. 19.) more or view all topics or full text. |
49 | 21 | 06/24/24 |
| 2717E |
1105.16000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Adverse Inferences
The Board took an adverse evidentiary inference against employers, and credited an employee’s account, because the employers failed to call their agent to testify regarding conversations that were central to the dispute. (Page 23.) more or view all topics or full text. |
|||
| 2584E |
1105.16000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Adverse Inferences
If weaker and less satisfactory evidence is offered when it was within the power of the party to produce stronger and more satisfactory evidence, the evidence offered should be viewed with distrust. more or view all topics or full text. |
|||
| 1970H |
1105.16000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Adverse Inferences
Based on party’s failure to call presumably favorable witness to testify at hearing, ALJ drew inference that witness’ testimony would have been adverse to party. In light of California Evidence Code section 412, PERB does not draw an adverse inference when either party could have called the witness to testify but neither did so. more or view all topics or full text. |
|||
| 0640H |
Regents of the University of California
1105.16000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Adverse Inferences
ALJ properly drew adverse inference from failure to comply with order to produce; where party refuses to comply with order to produce, it may be prevented from presenting evidence on the subject of the unproduced evidence. more or view all topics or full text. |
12 | 19007 | 12/10/87 |