All notes for Subtopic 1107.04000 – Unalleged Violations
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2806E | * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * Visalia Unified School District 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations The Board declined to order backpay to begin on the date the District placed affected employee on paid administrative leave, rather than on the date the Board of Education upheld employee’s termination. This was because the complaint alleged only that the District took adverse action against employee by upholding her termination from employment. While the Board found the District was unlawfully motivated in placing employee on administrative leave, the union failed to raise, much less brief, whether this met the requirements of the unalleged violation doctrine, and the Board declined to consider the doctrine sua sponte. (p. 40.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 115 | 02/07/22 |
| 2830S | State of California (State Water Resources Control Board) 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations It was appropriate to consider independent claims that the state employer interfered with representational rights by failing to allow meaningful representation at an investigatory interview for two reasons. First, the complaint adequately alleged both bad faith bargaining and independent interference claims. In the alternative, PERB would still consider those interference claims under the unalleged violation doctrine given that: (1) the state employer had adequate notice and opportunity to defend against these claims based on the union’s opening statement; (2) the acts or omissions at issue were intimately related to the subject matter of the complaint and were part of the same course of conduct; (3) the parties fully litigated the allegations; and (4) the parties had the opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses regarding the acts or omissions at issue. (County of San Joaquin (2021) PERB Decision No. 2761-M, p. 22 [judicial appeal pending].) (pp. 13-14.) more or view all topics or full text. | 47 | 42 | 08/10/22 |
| 2761M | County of San Joaquin 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations While the complaint in the instant case adequately alleged an independent claim of interference with union’s rights, even setting that conclusion aside, the unalleged violation doctrine provided a basis for the Board to consider interference with both employee and organizational rights. (See, e.g., County of Santa Clara (2017) PERB Decision No. 2539-M, pp. 16-17 [applying unalleged violation doctrine to independent interference claim, after having found complaint did not adequately allege it].) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 92 | 04/12/21 |
| 2745M | County of Sacramento 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations The employer did not have sufficient notice to defend against an unalleged unilateral change theory because the union did not raise the theory during PERB’s investigatory or hearing process or in its post-hearing brief. On multiple occasions, the union referred only to allegations that the employer had engaged in surface bargaining. (pp. 15-16.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 39 | 09/18/20 |
| 2745M | County of Sacramento 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations PERB may consider an unalleged violation if: (1) the respondent has had adequate notice and opportunity to defend against the unalleged matter; (2) the unalleged conduct is intimately related to the subject matter of the complaint; (3) the matter has been fully litigated; (4) the parties have had the opportunity to examine and be cross-examined on the issue; and (5) the unalleged violation occurred within the same limitations period as those matters alleged in the complaint. (p. 14.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 39 | 09/18/20 |
| 2745M | County of Sacramento 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations PERB uses a “per se” or “totality of conduct” test to determine whether a respondent violated its obligation to meet and confer in good faith. Although the same conduct may give rise to violations under both per se and surface bargaining theories, they are necessarily different theories and must be alleged as separate unfair practices in the complaint. (pp. 11-12.) The omission of one theory does not foreclose its later consideration if the charging party: (1) moves to amend the complaint to add the independent allegation, or (2) satisfies the unalleged violation doctrine. (p. 13.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 39 | 09/18/20 |
| 2671E | Lake Elsinore Unified School District 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations The Board has the authority to review unalleged violations when the following criteria are met: (1) adequate notice and opportunity to defend has been provided to respondent; (2) the acts are intimately related to the subject matter of the complaint and are part of the same course of conduct; (3) the unalleged violation has been fully litigated; and (4) the parties have had the opportunity to examine and be cross-examined on the issue. The unalleged violation must also have occurred within the applicable statute of limitations period. (Adopting proposed decision at p. 26.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 72 | 09/27/19 |
| 2637S | State of California (California Correctional Health Care Services) (Service Employees International Union Local 1000) 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations The Board may consider previously unalleged protected activities under the same test that it uses for unalleged violations: (1) charging party has provided defendant with adequate notice and opportunity to defend; (2) the acts are intimately related to the subject matter of the complaint and are part of the same course of conduct; (3) the parties have fully litigated the unalleged violation(s); and (4) the parties have had the opportunity to examine and be cross-examined on the issue(s). (pp. 16-17) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 164 | 04/17/19 |
| 2582M | City of Davis 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations The purpose of the unalleged violation test is to ensure that the Board decides a case based on an unalleged theory only when it is clear that the parties have been afforded their due process rights. more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 51 | 09/05/18 |
| 2582M | City of Davis 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations The unalleged violation test does not apply when a charging party relies on evidence of bad faith bargaining that was not pleaded in the complaint or the unfair practice charge. more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 51 | 09/05/18 |
| 2573M | County of Riverside 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations When the unalleged violation arises from the same facts as the allegations in the complaint, the unalleged violation is timely if the complaint allegations are timely. When the unalleged violation is a matter that was alleged in the unfair practice charge but omitted from the complaint, the unalleged violation is timely if the charge was timely filed. more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 17 | 06/25/18 |
| 2572M | San Bernardino Public Employees Association 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations The Board may consider an allegation not included in the complaint if: (1) adequate notice and opportunity to defend has been provided to respondent; (2) the acts are intimately related to the subject matter of the complaint and are part of the same course of conduct; (3) the unalleged violation has been fully litigated; and (4) the parties have had the opportunity to examine and be crossexamined on the issue. more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 7 | 06/21/18 |
| 2572M | San Bernardino Public Employees Association 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations Making an argument for the first time in a post-hearing brief is not sufficient notice of an unalleged violation. more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 7 | 06/21/18 |
| 2545E | Alliance College-Ready Public Schools, et al. 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations The unalleged violation test was not met with respect to new theories of liability first raised in charging party’s response to cross-exceptions. more or view all topics or full text. | 42 | 76 | 12/28/17 |
| 2517C | Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations Because the charging party referenced the substance of the unalleged violation in its statement, and argued the issue in its brief before the ALJ, the Board determined that the respondent had adequate notice of the issue for purposes of the unalleged violations doctrine. (pp. 14-15.) The notice requirement for PERB’s unalleged violations doctrine may be satisfied by a number of circumstances, including when the charging party identifies the issue in its opening statement and argues the issue in its post-hearing briefing. So long as a respondent is informed of the substance of the charge and afforded the basic, appropriate elements of procedural due process, it cannot complain of a variance between administrative pleadings and proof. (p. 14.) more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 140 | 02/27/17 |
| 2517C | Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations * * * VACATED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C. * * *The Board found that the unalleged conduct was intimately related to the subject matter of the complaint and was part of the same course of conduct because it arose from the same rules of conduct adopted by the Court that were the subject of the complaint. (pp. 15-16.) Even though they may involve different theories of liability, for purposes of the unalleged violations doctrine, unalleged matters are intimately related to matters included in the charge or complaint when they stem from the same incident or course of conduct. (p. 15.) more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 140 | 02/27/17 |
| 2517C | Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations * * * VACATED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C. * * *Because the record include exhibits and extensive testimony from both parties’ witnesses on the Court’s prohibition against distributing literature “at any time for any purpose in working areas,” the Board found that the issue was fully litigated for purposes of the unalleged violations doctrine. (pp. 16-20.) For the purpose of the unalleged violations doctrine, a matter has been fully litigated when both parties have presented evidence on the issue. (p. 16.) more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 140 | 02/27/17 |
| 2517C | Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations * * * VACATED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C. * * *Because the record demonstrated that both sides had had full opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses on the Court’s ban on distributing literature “at any time for any purpose in working areas,” the Board found that this requirement of PERB’s unalleged violations doctrine had been met. (pp. 20-21.) more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 140 | 02/27/17 |
| 2517C | Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations Because the Court’s ban on distributing literature “at any time for any purpose in working areas” was part of the same personnel rules identified in the complaint as unlawful, the matter was timely for purposes of PERB’s unalleged violations doctrine. Where unalleged matters involve the same conduct as that alleged in the complaint, the inclusion of one theory of liability in the complaint reflects a determination by the Office of the General Counsel that other theories arising from the same factual allegations are also timely. (p. 21.) more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 140 | 02/27/17 |
| 2517C | Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations * * * VACATED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C. * * *PERB Regulation 32648 authorizes motions to amend the complaint made during the hearing and, absent a showing of undue prejudice, a timely amendment closely related to the allegations in a pending complaint should be allowed in order to serve the principles of economy and finality. However, PERB Regulation 32648 only governs proposed amendments to a complaint made “[d]uring [a] hearing.” Here, the Board reversed the ALJ’s ruling to grant a motion to amend the complaint to include a separate interference allegation closely related to the allegations of the initial charge, because the motion was not made until after the close of the hearing and was therefore not timely within the meaning of the Regulation. After the record has closed and briefs have been submitted, matters not included in the complaint may only be considered by meeting the stricter standard for consideration of unalleged violations. (pp. 12-13.) more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 140 | 02/27/17 |
| 2517C | Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations * * * VACATED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C. * * *Although the charging party’s motion to amend the complaint to add a separate interference allegation was rejected as untimely because it was made after the close of the evidentiary record, the Board considered the substance of the amendment as an unalleged violation, after determining that each of the requirements of PERB’s unalleged violations test was met. (pp. 13-24.) Under PERB’s unalleged violations doctrine, the Board may consider allegations not included in the charge or complaint when: (1) the respondent has had adequate notice and opportunity to defend against the unalleged matter; (2) the unalleged conduct is intimately related to the subject matter of the complaint and is part of the same course of conduct; (3) the matter has been fully litigated; (4) the parties have had the opportunity to examine and be cross-examined on the issue; and (5) the unalleged conduct occurred within the same limitations period as those matters alleged in the complaint. The evidence justifying application of the unalleged violations doctrine should be expressly stated, so that all parties are aware of the basis for finding that an unalleged violation can be heard without unfairness. (p. 13.) more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 140 | 02/27/17 |
| 2505M | City of Roseville 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations A charging party who wishes to litigate allegations of per se bargaining violations or other independent unfair practices not identified in the complaint must either amend the complaint to identify the additional theories of liability or satisfy the notice requirement and other criteria of PERB’s unalleged violations doctrine. Although a Board agent or the Board itself may disregard minor defects or variations between the complaint allegations and the issues framed at the hearing or actually litigated by the parties, an additional theory of liability necessarily affects the scope of any Board-ordered remedy and substantially affects the rights of the parties. Because Charging Party’s allegations that the Respondent unilaterally implemented an MOU and that it imposed terms not reasonably contemplated by its LBFO, if proven, would constitute separate per se violations of the City’s duty to bargain, and because these theories of liability were not set forth in the complaint, the Board could only consider them if they satisfied the criteria of PERB’s unalleged violations test. (pp. 24-25.) more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 97 | 11/30/16 |
| 2505M | City of Roseville 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations Charging Party’s allegation that the City had unilaterally imposed a Memorandum of Understanding, in violation of MMBA section 3505.7, and its allegation that the City had unilaterally imposed terms materially different from those in its LBFO, arose from the same City Council action, but were not sufficiently identified as separate theories of liability at hearing. Because the requirement of notice is not satisfied, the Board could not consider the illegal MOU allegation under PERB’s unalleged violations test. (pp. 26-27.) more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 97 | 11/30/16 |
| 2505M | City of Roseville 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations Although the City’s brief before the ALJ argued that it did not have adequate notice and opportunity to defend against an allegation that it had imposed terms different from those in its LBFO, it also acknowledged that this allegation had never been formally dismissed and that it had been raised in the charging party’s opening statement at hearing. The City’s brief also included citations in the record in which this issue was the subject of witness testimony. Accordingly, the notice requirement of PERB’s unalleged violations test was satisfied. (pp. 27-28.) more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 97 | 11/30/16 |
| 2505M | City of Roseville 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations Where a party argues that the same facts constitute separate unfair practices, one alleged in the complaint and one unalleged, the separate theories of liability are intimately related to one another and involve the same course of conduct. Because they involve the same course of conduct, the fact that one theory was included in the complaint necessarily means that the other, unalleged theory is also timely. (p. 28.) more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 97 | 11/30/16 |
| 2505M | City of Roseville 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations Under PERB’s test for unalleged violations, the requirement that a matter be “fully litigated” is satisfied when both parties have presented evidence on the issue, including submission of one or more joint exhibits reference or pertaining to the unalleged matter. (p. 29.) more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 97 | 11/30/16 |
| 2505M | City of Roseville 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations Unless alleged as separate unfair practices, which would expand the respondent’s liability beyond what is already alleged in the complaint, indicators of bad faith alleged in the charge but not included in the complaint were proper for consideration as part of the totality of evidence considered in a surface bargaining case without resort to PERB’s unalleged violations doctrine. As its name suggests, the unalleged violation doctrine applies when, if proven, factual allegations presented at hearing but not included in the complaint would constitute a separate unfair practice in addition to the theories of liability set forth in the complaint. [citations omitted.] Because surface bargaining was alleged in the complaint, there was no additional or unalleged surface bargaining “violation” to consider. Although recognized as evidence of bad faith, making predictably unacceptable proposals and prematurely declaring impasse are not independent unfair practices. (p. 17.) more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 97 | 11/30/16 |
| 2505M | City of Roseville 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations The language of PERB Regulation 32648 governing amendments at hearing and the policy favoring liberal amendment of pleadings make it the respondent’s burden to show that a proposed amendment would result in undue prejudice. Absent a showing of undue prejudice, a timely amendment closely related to the allegations in a pending complaint should be allowed in order to serve the principles of economy and finality. By contrast, the more elaborate test for considering unalleged violations presumes prejudice, unless the charging party can show otherwise by meeting each of the criteria of PERB’s unalleged violations test. (p. 22, fn. 15.) more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 97 | 11/30/16 |
| 2505M | City of Roseville 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations Conduct which is alleged in an unfair practice charge as evidence of bad-faith bargaining but not addressed in the pre-complaint investigation and not included in the complaint is proper for consideration at hearing because, under PERB Regulation 32620, the charging party must have notice in writing of any deficiencies in the charge before an allegation is dismissed. By restricting a charging party to only those indicia of bad faith specified in the complaint, where other indicia have been alleged in the charge but not included in the complaint, PERB would effectively dismiss charge allegations without notice of deficiencies to the charging party. PERB cannot change its Regulations through decisional law. (pp. 13-14.) more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 97 | 11/30/16 |
| 2505M | City of Roseville 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations A surface bargaining complaint complies with PERB Regulations and decisional law when it alleges that, by the totality of its conduct, “including but not limited to,” the specific conduct described in the complaint, the respondent has failed and refused to meet and confer in good faith. Notwithstanding the phrase “including but not limited to” or similar language, the complaint identifies the specific acts or indicia that are sufficient to state a prima facie case, while also giving the respondent notice that, under PERB’s totality of conduct test, the specific acts or indicia described in the complaint are not necessarily exhaustive of the evidence the charging party may present at hearing to prove the surface bargaining allegation. (p. 12.) more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 97 | 11/30/16 |
| 2505M | City of Roseville 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations Although a charge must include a clear and concise statement of the facts and conduct alleged to constitute an unfair practice (PERB Reg. 32615, subd. (a)(5)), a complaint alleging surface bargaining need not list every possible indicator of bad faith that may be presented at the hearing. Under PERB’s fact pleading standard, the charging party must include the essential facts (often described as the “who, what, when, where and how” of the charge) with sufficient specificity to permit the Board agent to determine whether “the facts as alleged in the charge state a legal cause of action and [whether] the charging party is capable of providing admissible evidence in support of the allegations.” However, PERB does not require the charging party to identify or provide all of its evidence in the charge. (pp. 12-13.) more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 97 | 11/30/16 |
| 2540M | City and County of San Francisco * * * VACATED IN PART by City and County of San Francisco (2019) PERB Decision No. 2540a-M 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations * * * VACATED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by City & County of San Francisco (2019) PERB Decision No. 2540a-M. * * *Respondent had adequate notice and an opportunity to defend where charging parties mentioned issue in their opening statement, argued it in their briefs, and respondent’s reply brief responded to the argument on its merits, without objecting that it was an unalleged violation. Respondent raised its unalleged violation objection only in its exceptions to the Board. more or view all topics or full text. | 42 | 50 | 10/20/17 |
| 2459E | Claremont Unified School District 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations No unalleged violation where employer had no notice of a need to defend, the unalleged violation was not fully litigated, and where charging party had ample opportunity to move to amend the complaint prior to hearing, but did not. more or view all topics or full text. | 40 | 88 | 10/27/15 |
| 2349M | Santa Clara Valley Water District 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations Board declined to consider whether requiring employee to continue performing higher-level duties, even after the employer’s denial of his grievance and request for reclassification was based on his higher-level duties being reassigned to other employees, was a separate adverse action, because the charging party failed to except to the ALJ’s decisions to deny a motion to amend the complaint and to exclude all evidence pertaining to the continued assignment of higher level duties. more or view all topics or full text. | 38 | 96 | 12/19/13 |
| 2261M | Service Employees International Union, Local 1021 (Sahle) 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations The Board will not consider an unalleged violation where: (1) the respondent had insufficient notice that the unalleged violation was being litigated; (2) the conduct was not intimately related to the subject matter of the complaint; (3) the matter was not fully litigated; and (4) the parties did not have an opportunity to examine and cross examine on the relevant MOU provision. more or view all topics or full text. | 36 | 175 | 05/08/12 |
| 2286S | American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Local 2620 (McGuire) 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations Appeal that merely restates facts alleged in original charge but failed to reference any portion of the Board agent’s determination or otherwise identify the specific issues of procedure, fact, law or rationale to which the appeal is taken, the page or part of the dismissal to which appeal is taken, or the grounds for each issue, is subject to dismissal. No good cause to consider new factual allegations provided for the first time on appeal that all predate dismissal letter, where no reason provided why they could not have been alleged in the original charge or in an amended charge. more or view all topics or full text. | 37 | 75 | 09/24/12 |
| 2258M | County of San Diego 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations Appeal that merely restates facts alleged in original charge but fails to reference any portion of the Board agent’s determination or otherwise identify the specific issues of procedure, fact, law or rationale to which the appeal is taken, the page or part of the dismissal to which appeal is taken, or the grounds for each issue, is subject to dismissal. No good cause to consider new factual allegations provided for the first time on appeal that all predate dismissal letter, where no reason provided why they could not have been alleged in the original charge or in an amended charge. more or view all topics or full text. | 36 | 169 | 04/26/12 |
| 2241E | Lake Elsinore Unified School District 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations Allegations of additional instances of protected activity that were not alleged in either the charge or the complaint constitute unalleged basis for retaliation claim that will not be considered, where respondent was not afforded adequate notice and an opportunity to defend against the unalleged claim that it took adverse action against employee for having engaged in that activity. more or view all topics or full text. | 36 | 129 | 02/27/12 |
| 2240E | California School Employees Association (Erwin) 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations Appeal that merely restates facts alleged in original charge but failed to reference any portion of the Board agent’s determination or otherwise identify the specific issues of procedure, fact, law or rationale to which the appeal is taken, the page or part of the dismissal to which appeal is taken, or the grounds for each issue, is subject to dismissal. No good cause to consider new factual allegations provided for the first time on appeal that all predate dismissal letter, where no reason provided why they could not have been alleged in the original charge or in an amended charge. more or view all topics or full text. | 36 | 127 | 02/24/12 |
| 2224E | California School Employees Association (Milner) 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations Appeal that merely restates facts alleged in original charge but failed to reference any portion of the Board agent’s determination or otherwise identify the specific issues of procedure, fact, law or rationale to which the appeal is taken, the page or part of the dismissal to which appeal is taken, or the grounds for each issue, is subject to dismissal. No good cause to consider new factual allegations provided for the first time on appeal that all predate dismissal letter, where no reason provided why they could not have been alleged in the original charge or in the amended charge. more or view all topics or full text. | 36 | 91 | 11/30/11 |
| 2225M | Service Employees International Union Local 1021 (Joshua) 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations No good cause to consider new factual allegations provided for the first time on appeal where no reason provided why they could not have been alleged in the original charge or in an amended charge. more or view all topics or full text. | 36 | 92 | 11/30/11 |
| 2097M | County of Riverside * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Decision No. 2321-M 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Decision No. 2321-M. * * *The Board rejected the County’s argument that the ALJ’s restatement of the issue at hearing amounted to an improper consideration of an unalleged violation. The Board held that the issue as stated by the ALJ reflected the actual issue litigated by the parties more accurately than the issue stated in the complaint. The record showed that throughout the hearing process both parties understood the issue in the matter to be the issue as stated by the ALJ. The ALJ’s statement of the issue involved the same alleged act of misconduct as that stated in the complaint, the parties had adequate notice that the issue as stated by the ALJ was the issue under consideration, and both parties fully litigated the issue as stated by the ALJ. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 49 | 02/10/10 |
| 2086E | Garden Grove Unified School District 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations Documents referring to events that occurred long before the filing of the charge will not be considered on appeal, where charging party failed to offer any evidence of good cause for her failure to obtain and provide the evidence to the Board agent to consider. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 25 | 12/28/09 |
| 2074M | City of Clovis 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations The issue of whether or not the Union’s telephone call to the City constituted a “changed circumstance” that revived the City’s obligation to bargain cannot be considered as it was not alleged in the charge, was not alleged in the complaint, was not introduced at hearing, and was not raised by the Union until its post- hearing brief. The City was not provided notice, or adequate opportunity to fully litigate the issue, and did not have the opportunity to examine or cross-examine witnesses on the issue. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 179 | 10/30/09 |
| 2046E | Alvord Educator's Association (Bussman) 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations Pursuant to PERB Regulation 32635(b) “unless good cause is shown, a charging party may not present on appeal new allegations or new supporting evidence.” Charging Party failed to demonstrate good cause as to why new claims that the union provided false information to PERB, and new details regarding the claim for violation of the duty of fair representation, were not included in the original or amended charge, and should be considered for the first time on appeal. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 128 | 06/30/09 |
| 2019E | Escondido Union Elementary School District 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations The Board declined to address alleged retaliatory issuance of improvement plan that were not alleged in complaint because there was no notice to the employer of a need to defend and the unalleged violation was not fully litigated. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 74 | 04/30/09 |
| 2031M | Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by City of Roseville (2016) PERB Decision No. 2505-M 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations * * * OVERRULED IN PART by City of Roseville (2016) PERB Decision No. 2505-M, where the Board held that PERB applies a four-pronged unalleged violation doctrine test, without speculating as to whether the charging party could or should have moved to amend the complaint. * * *Board declined to consider unalleged violation of discrimination and interference with unit employees’ right to communicate with the union by denying them email access while providing it for non-unit employees, where union had ample opportunity to amend the complaint prior to hearing, but did not. In the absence of clearly articulated rationale in support of the requirements for consideration of the unalleged violation, the issue will not be considered. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 92 | 05/29/09 |
| 2021E | Alvord Unified School District 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations Pursuant to PERB Regulation 32635(b) “unless good cause is shown, a charging party may not present on appeal new allegations or new supporting evidence.” Charging Party failed to demonstrate good cause as to why these matters should be considered for the first time on appeal. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 76 | 04/30/09 |
| 2011E | Los Angeles Unified School District 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations Pursuant to PERB Regulation 32635(b) “unless good cause is shown, a charging party may not present on appeal new allegations or new supporting evidence.” Charging Party failed to demonstrate good cause to allow presentation of new allegations or evidence on appeal and nothing in the appeal indicates that such good cause exists. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 55 | 03/13/09 |
| 1985S | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations PERB Regulation section 32635(b) requires a showing of good cause to include a new charge or new supporting evidence on appeal. Charging party provided nothing to the Board indicating why it’s new allegation (i.e., that the State’s failure to achieve legislative approval of the last, best and final offer bars the State from ending the agency fee agreement) was not included in the underlying charge. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 160 | 11/20/08 |
| 1998M | Service Employees International Union, Local 1021 (Estival) 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations Raising an issue for the first time on appeal is precluded by PERB Regulation 32635(b), absent a showing of good cause to include a new charge or new supporting evidence on appeal. Charging party failed to demonstrate good cause. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 29 | 01/14/09 |
| 1979C | Los Angeles County Superior Court * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Napa Valley Community College District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2563 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Napa Valley Community College District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2563. * * *The Board may review violations not alleged in complaint when all of the following requirements are met: (1) adequate notice and opportunity to defend has been provided to the respondent; (2) the acts are intimately related to the subject matter of the complaint and are part of the same course of conduct; (3) the unalleged violation has been fully litigated; (4) the parties have had the opportunity to examine and be cross-examined on this issue; and (5) the unalleged violation must be within the applicable statute of limitations. Though the complaint alleged only interference, the Board could consider discrimination allegation arising out of the same facts because parties had extensively litigated whether the employer applied its e-mail use policy to an employee’s union e-mails in a discriminatory manner and in its post-hearing brief the employer defended against the allegation on the alternative grounds of interference and discrimination. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 151 | 10/07/08 |
| 1942C | Fresno County Superior Court * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2315-M 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by County of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2315-M. * * *In determining whether to review unalleged violations, PERB bears in mind the significant importance of giving all parties litigating disputes under California’s public labor relations statutes adequate notice and a fair opportunity to litigate their claims. PERB must be very circumspect when determining that all of the criteria for reviewing an unalleged violation have been met. Toward this end, it is strongly recommended that the evidence justifying the above criteria always be expressly enunciated, so that all parties are aware of the basis for the finding that an unalleged violation can be heard without any unfairness. The Board may review unalleged violations when all of the following requirements are met: (1) adequate notice and opportunity to defend has been provided to the respondent; (2) the acts are intimately related to the subject matter of the complaint and are part of the same course of conduct; (3) the unalleged violation has been fully litigated; (4) the parties have had the opportunity to examine and be cross-examined on this issue; and (5) the unalleged violation must be within the applicable statute of limitations. In this case the requirements were met. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 38 | 01/31/08 |
| 1858E | California School Employees Association and Its Chapter 198 (Bruce) 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations A charging party may not raise new allegations or present new supporting evidence on appeal without establishing good cause. Charging party articulated facts on appeal in an apparent effort to clarify her original charge, but she did not established good cause for this additional information to be considered. more or view all topics or full text. | 31 | 3 | 09/07/06 |
| 1822E | Santee Elementary School District 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations Two unalleged violations of interference found. The language of the Board Policy, “or other strike related activities” interferes with employee rights because of its ambiguity, the possibility of a broad interpretation in the future, and its chilling effect on employees’ protected rights. The language of the administrative regulation which threatens to eliminate employee payroll deduction privileges per se interferes with employees’ rights under EERA unalleged violations may be found if intimately related to complaint, part of respondent’s same conduct, fully litigated at hearing with respondent having opportunity to examine and cross examine witnesses. more or view all topics or full text. | 30 | 72 | 02/22/06 |
| 1825M | County of Riverside 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations To address unalleged violations, all four requirements of the Tahoe-Truckee test must be met. (Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District (1988) PERB Decision No. 668.) In this case the four requirements were not fully discussed to provide a clear rationale for discussing issues not found in the complaint. more or view all topics or full text. | 30 | 78 | 03/01/06 |
| 1805E | Compton Unified School District 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations To raise an issue for the first time on appeal is a violation of PERB Regulation section 32635(b) which requires a showing of good cause to include a new charge or new supporting evidence on appeal. Charging Party demonstrated good cause because the evidence being presented didn’t exist at the time of the dismissal. more or view all topics or full text. | 30 | 50 | 01/05/06 |
| 1781E | United Teachers of Los Angeles (Chambers) 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations To raise an issue for the first time on appeal is a violation of PERB Regulation section 32635(b) which requires a showing of good cause to include a new charge or new supporting evidence on appeal. Charging Party included nothing indicating why the issue of reclassification of duties was not included in his underlying charge. more or view all topics or full text. | 30 | 6 | 10/27/05 |
| 1774M | Service Employees International Union Local 790 (Paez) 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations Regulation 32635(b) prevents charging party to present new allegations or supporting evidence on appeal unless good cause is shown. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 150 | 08/10/05 |
| 1743E | Los Angeles County Office of Education 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations Under PERB Regulation 32635(b), Cummings did not show good cause to present new evidence on appeal. The evidence predated the warning letter and so was known to Cummings before filing the appeal. In addition, Cummings was advised of the deficiencies in his charge but did not file an amended charge. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 60 | 01/26/05 |
| 1749S | California State Employees Association (Chen) 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations Chen alleged new information on appeal but did not show good cause to raise this new supporting evidence as required by PERB Regulation 32635(b). Therefore, the Board did not consider this new information in rendering its decision. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 74 | 02/07/05 |
| 1750S | California State Employees Association (Chen) 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations Chen did not show good cause to raise new details for the first time on appeal under PERB Regulation 32635(b). Chen was aware of these facts from CSEA’s response to the charge and the Board agent’s warning letter but neglected to file an amended charge. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 75 | 02/07/05 |
| 1664M | City and County of San Francisco 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations Local 790 did not allege a date for which the City issued a directive that a job steward must be available to employees during an investigation. This allegation did not specify the facts alleged to constitute an unfair practice under PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5). Although it did not provide this information in an amended charge, Local 790 alleged a time element on appeal but did not allege facts to show good cause to add the information at this stage of the proceedings. Therefore, under PERB Regulation 32635(b), the allegation is dismissed. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 231 | 07/27/04 |
| 1708M | County of Alameda 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations Pursuant to PERB regulation 32635(b), Board declined to consider alleged Weingarten violation raised for the first time on appeal. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 12 | 11/16/04 |
| 1600M | County of San Joaquin 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations Local 790’s allegation on appeal that the charge incorporated by reference the mediator’s findings regarding failure to provide information is ambiguous. If it refers to “changed conditions” or “retaliation” allegations in the charge, then this allegation is dismissed under PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5), which requires a charge to contain a clear and concise statement of the facts. Otherwise, Local 790 appears to raise a new issue on appeal and under PERB Regulation 32635(b) has not provided good cause to present new allegations on appeal. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 86 | 02/24/04 |
| 1566S | State of California (Department of Parks and Recreation) 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations Board finds that when raising a violation for the first time on appeal there must be an identification of facts to support such violation. A charging party may not present new charge allegations or supporting evidence in an appeal unless good cause is shown. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 31 | 12/16/03 |
| 1567S | State of California (Department of Mental Health) 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations Board finds that when raising a violation for the first time on appeal there must be an identification of facts to support such violation. A charging party may not present new charge allegations or supporting evidence in an appeal unless good cause is shown. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 32 | 12/16/03 |
| 1518E | Compton Unified School District 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations Allegation in complaint that employer instructed employee to warn new teachers not to be influenced by union placed employer on notice that agency was at issue in the case. Even if employer was not placed on notice by the complaint, the agency issue could be addressed as an unalleged violation since the issue was addressed at hearing, both parties presented evidence on the issue and cross-examined witnesses, and both parties thoroughly briefed the issue establish that the issue. more or view all topics or full text. | 27 | 56 | 04/18/03 |
| 1513E | Service Employees International Union, Local 790 (Fanene) 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations Board will not consider new allegations on appeal that were not raised before the Regional Attorney where no good cause shown. more or view all topics or full text. | 27 | 44 | 03/25/03 |
| 1187E | Hacienda La Puente Unified School District 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations An unalleged violation can be considered only if it is intimately related to the subject matter of the complaint, is part of the same course of conduct, has been fully litigated, and the parties have had the opportunity to examine and be cross-examined on the issued (Santa Clara Unified School District (1979) PERB Decision No. 104) (Santa Clara USD); p. 3. The failure to meet any of these conditions prevents the Board from considering an unalleged violation (Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District (1988) PERB Decision No. 668; p. 3. The purpose of the Santa Clara USD standard is to insure that the Board decides a case based on an unalleged theory only when it is clear that the parties have been afforded their due process rights. The parties must have adequate notice and opportunity to litigate the issue, including the respondent's opportunity to defend against the The parties must have adequate notice and opportunity to litigate the issue, including the respondent's opportunity to defend against the result; pp. 3-4; where there is virtually no reference to the theory prior to the ALJ's proposed decision, the parties did not have an opportunity to fully litigate the theory. more or view all topics or full text. | 21 | 28065 | 03/17/97 |
| 1085E | Cajon Valley Union School District 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations The Board may consider unalleged violations when: (1) the respondent has had adequate notice and an opportunity to defend the charge; (2) the unalleged act(s) intimately relate to the subject matter of the complaint and involve the same course of conduct; and (3) the matter has been fully litigated, meaning the parties have had an opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses on the issue; pp. 6-7. Failure to meet any of the above-listed requirements will prevent the Board from considering unalleged conduct as violative of the Act; p. 7. While the information requested by CSEA was discussed as an item of evidence at the hearing before the ALJ, the district did not have adequate notice nor an opportunity to defend, inasmuch as CSEA did not inform the ALJ or the district that the refusal to provide the requested information should be considered a change; p. 7. inform the ALJ or the district that the refusal to provide the requested information should be considered a change; p. 7. more or view all topics or full text. | 19 | 26063 | 03/01/95 |
| 1067S | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (Association of California State Attorneys and Administrative Law Judges and Professional Engineers in California Government; California State Employees' Association; California Department of Forestry Employees' Association, Local 2881, International Association of Fire Fighters) 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations Unalleged violations may be entertained only when adequate notice and the opportunity to defend has been provided to the respondent, and where such acts are intimately related to the subject matter of the complaint, are part of the same course of conduct, have been fully litigated, and the parties have had the opportunity to examine and be cross-examined on the issue; p. 15, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 19 | 26010 | 11/09/94 |
| 1057E | Oakland Education Association (Freeman) 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations Board will not consider new allegations or evidence for the first time on appeal absent good cause (reg. 32635(b)). There is no good cause where party fails to offer an explanation. more or view all topics or full text. | 18 | 25130 | 09/14/94 |
| 1058H | Regents of the University of California (Higgins) 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations Board will not consider new allegations or evidence for the first time on appeal absent good cause (reg. 32635(b)). There is no good cause where a party fails to offer an explanation. more or view all topics or full text. | 18 | 25131 | 09/15/94 |
| 0868E | Whisman Elementary School District 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations Board will not address argument which was not raised by the parties before the ALJ; p. 20. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22043 | 02/14/91 |
| 0838E | Yolo County Superintendent of Schools 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations Complaint alleging an interfenence violation cannot be construed as a discrimination violation. Board will entertain an unalleged violation where it is intimately related to complaint, conduct in question part of the same course of conduct, it was fully litigated, and parties had an opportunity to examine and cross-examine. Respondent must be given adequate notice and opportunity to defend. more or view all topics or full text. | 14 | 21180 | 09/17/90 |
| 0802E | San Ramon Valley Education Association CTA/NEA (Abbot/Cameron) 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations An issue not stipulated to will not be considered as an unalleged violation, particularly if it was not presented in the underlying complaint; p. 14. more or view all topics or full text. | 14 | 21075 | 03/29/90 |
| 0748E | Los Angeles Community College District 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations Where the unalleged violation is intimately related to the subject matter of the complaint, part of the same course of conduct and is fully litigated, the retaliation charge will be properly considered and when the respondent was specifically notified that it should be prepared to defend allegations of retaliation; p. 18, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 13 | 20145 | 06/28/89 |
| 0668E | Tahoe - Truckee Unified School District 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations Board will dismiss unalleged and unlitigated violations. more or view all topics or full text. | 12 | 19081 | 05/27/88 |
| 0658E | Berkeley Federation of Teachers, Local 1078, AFL-CIO (Moore) 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations Issues on appeal of regional attorney's dismissal must first be raised in the unfair practice charge. more or view all topics or full text. | 12 | 19043 | 02/22/88 |
| 0659E | Los Angeles Unified School District 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations For the ALJ or the Board to consider an unalleged violation, one critical element is that the matter be fully litigated. An unalleged violation is not fully litigated, even though substantial evidence on the issue was presented by opposing parties, where the charging party stated during hearing that it would not pursue an independent violation on the unalleged conduct. more or view all topics or full text. | 12 | 19049 | 03/16/88 |
| 0640H | Regents of the University of California 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations Unalleged violation may not be entertained when conduct occurred more than 6 months prior to filing of original charge. more or view all topics or full text. | 12 | 19007 | 12/10/87 |
| 0642E | Palo Verde Unified School District 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations Adoption by employer of a resolution dealing with substitute teachers in the event of a strike not a violation. Resolution was not alleged in the charge or the complaint, not introduced into evidence, and not fully litigated. more or view all topics or full text. | 12 | 19008 | 12/15/87 |
| 0543E | San Mateo Community College District 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations ALJ properly declined to consider alternative legal theory never raised by charging party. more or view all topics or full text. | 10 | 17015 | 12/13/85 |
| 2491M | City of Montebello 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations Pursuant to PERB’s statutory and regulatory authority, a Board agent may “disregard any error or defect in the complaint that does not substantially affect the rights of the parties.” Where the issues actually litigated at hearing and argued in parties’ briefs involved a job classification not identified in the complaint, the Board affirmed the ALJ’s sua sponte amendment to the complaint to conform to the evidence and issues presented at hearing. Distinguishing City of Inglewood (2015) PERB Decision No. 2424-M. more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 30 | 06/30/16 |
| 1757M | County of Colusa 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations To raise an issue for the first time on appeal is a violation of PERB Regulation section 32635(b) which requires a showing of good cause to include a new charge or new supporting evidence on appeal. Charging Party included nothing indicating why the issue of reclassification of duties was not included in her underlying charge. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 101 | 03/08/05 |
| 1748E | Alum Rock Union Elementary School District 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations New allegation on appeal rejected by Board because charging party did not show good cause. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 73 | 02/07/05 |
| 1728E | Oxnard Elementary School District 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations Ybarra-Grosfeld did not show good cause to raise new allegations and evidence on appeal. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 42 | 12/21/04 |
| 1730E | San Francisco Unified School District 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations Charging party did not show good cause to raise new evidence on appeal under PERB Regulation 32635(b), i.e., that the July 1, 2003 grievance language did not evidence UESF’s knowledge of the unlawful effect of the transfer and it only learned of District’s EERA violation through the District’s December 30, 2003 response to the grievance. UESF was advised of the untimeliness of its charge through the District’s response to the charge and the Board agent’s warning letter. UESF did not file an amended charge and chose not to provide this information until its appeal. As the charge was filed on February 25, 2004, the Board deemed the charge to be untimely. UESF has similarly not demonstrated good cause to accept its new allegation raised for the first time on appeal that the charge and grievance cover different issues and so deferral to arbitration is not appropriate. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 46 | 12/27/04 |
| 1220E | Duarte Unified Education Association (Fox) 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations An appeal containing no explanation of good cause for presenting allegations for the first time on appeal cannot be considered by the Board; p. 4. The Board per Reg. 32635(b) will not consider new allegations (not raised in charge, complaint or at hearing) on appeal absent good cause; p. 4. more or view all topics or full text. | 21 | 28160 | 09/26/97 |
| 0487E | Victor Valley Union High School District 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations Allegation neither included in charge nor fully litigated at hearing will not be considered. more or view all topics or full text. | 9 | 16085 | 02/15/85 |
| 0481E | Eureka City School District 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations Allegation properly entertained because fully litigated, related to subject matter of charge and opportunity to examine and be cross-examined. more or view all topics or full text. | 9 | 16060 | 01/15/85 |
| 0461E | La Canada Unified School District 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations Where charge fails to allege decrease in preparation time as a violation of EERA, and is directed solely to increase in instructional time, unalleged violation for decrease in prep time must be dismissed. more or view all topics or full text. | 9 | 16029 | 12/13/84 |
| 0373Ec | Mt. Diablo Unified School District 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations Where unalleged violations were intimately related to subject matter of complaint, were fully litigated and parties had opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, the Board properly considered issues, even though based on conduct occuring after issuance of complaint. more or view all topics or full text. | 8 | 15191 | 10/17/84 |
| 0373E | Mt. Diablo Unified School District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Mt. Diablo Unified School District (1984) PERB Decision No. 373b and OVERRULED IN PART by The Accelerated Schools (2023) PERB Decision No. 2855 * * * 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Mt. Diablo Unified School District (1984) PERB Decision No. 373b, where the Board held that it can address unalleged violations of unilateral changes to counselors’ and librarians’ workloads. * * ** * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by The Accelerated Schools (2023) PERB Decision No. 2855 * * *No backpay ordered for unalleged violation; p. 68-69. (Note: Board’s discussion of this issue is superseded by Decision No. 373b.) more or view all topics or full text. | 8 | 15017 | 12/30/83 |
| 0373Eb | Mt. Diablo Unified School District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by The Accelerated Schools (2023) PERB Decision No. 2855 * * * 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by The Accelerated Schools (2023) PERB Decision No. 2855 * * *Where unalleged violations were intimately related to subject matter of complaint, were fully litigated and parties had opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, the Board properly considered issues, even though based on conduct occuring after issuance of complaint; p. 11. more or view all topics or full text. | 8 | 15142 | 08/15/84 |
| 0361S | State of California (Department of Transportation) 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations Issue not properly raised or litigated until the briefing stage and not considered by the ALJ would not be considered by the Board; p. 15. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14295 | 11/28/83 |
| 0291E | Modesto City Schools 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations Unalleged violations will be examined where they are intimately related to the subject matter of the complaint, where the issues have been fully litigated and where the parties have had a chance to examine and cross-examine witnesses; pp. 23-24. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14090 | 03/08/83 |
| 0230E | San Ramon Valley Unified School District 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations Unalleged violation (Board refused to find violation concerning matter not alleged in charge/complaint; matter was not intimately related to subject of complaint, and Respondent never had full opportunity to litigate.) more or view all topics or full text. | 6 | 13184 | 08/09/82 |
| 0223E | Newman-Crows Landing Unified School District 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations ALJ exceeded his jurisdictional authority by finding that District failed to bargain over effects of decision to lay-off since the effects were never raised during course of hearing and neither party knew those matters would be ruled on; p. 11. more or view all topics or full text. | 6 | 13162 | 06/30/82 |
| 0210E | Novato Unified School District 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations Case properly before Board despite deficient charge because all issues were raised and fully litigated. more or view all topics or full text. | 6 | 13114 | 04/30/82 |
| 0206E | Moreno Valley Unified School District 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations Hearing officer finding of violation for unilateral increase in preparation time for certain grades improper because charging party did not allege it or raise isssue at any time; p. 10. more or view all topics or full text. | 6 | 13107 | 04/30/82 |
| 0157E | Belridge School District 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations Discriminatory conduct introduced only as evidence of unlawful motivation held to be basis of separate, unalleged violation. The conduct was fully litigated and it related to the specifically alleged violation. more or view all topics or full text. | 5 | 12015 | 12/31/80 |
| 0999S | State of California (Department of Forestry and Fire Protection) 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations The complaint broadly alleges the unlawful conduct and is sufficiently clear to put the parties on notice of the issue to be addressed; pp. 6-7, footnote. more or view all topics or full text. | 17 | 24112 | 06/22/93 |
| 0104E | Santa Clara Unified School District 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations Separate, though unalleged, discrimination violation proper where the evidence giving rise to the unalleged violation was the same as for the alleged violation and the parties had the opportunity to thoroughly litigate; pp. 17-19. more or view all topics or full text. | 3 | 10124 | 09/26/79 |
| 0937E | Eastside Union School District 1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations As unfair practice charge, complaint and charging party's opening statement included allegations that District refused to negotiate decision and effects of the implementation of a satellite food service program, ALJ did not exceed his authority in finding a violation based upon District's refusal to negotiate upon demand; pp. 4-5. more or view all topics or full text. | 16 | 23084 | 06/02/92 |