All notes for Subtopic 1107.05000 – Precedential Authority of PERB Decisions
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2819E | Cerritos Community College District 1107.05000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Precedential Authority of PERB Decisions Dissenting opinions are not considered precedential Board decisions. (See PERB Regs. 32320, subd. (c) [“all decisions and orders issued by the Board itself are precedential”] & 32030 [“‘Board itself’ means only the five-member Public Employment Relations Board, or members thereof authorized by law to act on behalf of the Board”]; People v. Lopez (2012) 55 Cal.4th 569, 585 [dissenting opinions are not binding precedent].) (p. 26, fn. 10.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 168 | 05/06/22 |
| 2643E | California School Employees Association (Williams) 1107.05000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Precedential Authority of PERB Decisions When neither party excepts to the merits of a proposed decision, the merits are not before the Board and are thus final and binding only on the parties to that proposed decision. (p. 2, fn. 2.) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 185 | 05/17/19 |
| 2604E | Mount San Jacinto Community College District Faculty Association 1107.05000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Precedential Authority of PERB Decisions Initial exceptions filed by prevailing party dismissed where good cause for the Board to consider the exceptions not shown. Board declines to adopt ALJ’s findings as a decision of the Board itself; the proposed decision remains nonprecedential and binding on the parties only with respect to the specific controversy involved in the case. This holding prevents prevailing parties from unilaterally turning a favorable ALJ decision into a precedential decision of the Board. more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 91 | 12/12/18 |
| 2556M | County of San Bernardino 1107.05000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Precedential Authority of PERB Decisions Even if a previous decision is not factually on all fours with, its reasoning may still be persuasive. more or view all topics or full text. | 42 | 114 | 03/06/18 |
| 2567E | Hartnell Community College District 1107.05000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Precedential Authority of PERB Decisions The Charging Party cannot rely on factual allegations made at the pre-hearing stage of PERB proceedings, which PERB accepts as true, with factual findings resulting from a formal hearing and developed record, which are the Charging Party’s burden to prove with competent and admissible evidence. (PERB Regs. 32178.) On review of a dismissal without hearing, the Board treats the charging party’s factual allegations as true and considers them in the light most favorable to the charging party’s case. However, after a complaint issues, the charging party bears the burden of prove the complaint’s allegations by a preponderance of the evidence in order to prevail. (PERB Reg. 32178.) A prior Board decision reversing the dismissal of an unfair practice charge is neither evidence in support of a complaint’s allegations, nor the law of the case as to the merits of the dispute. (pp. 6-7.) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 2 | 06/12/18 |
| 2544E | Bellflower Unified School District 1107.05000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Precedential Authority of PERB Decisions 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 |
| 2532C | Sonoma County Superior Court 1107.05000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Precedential Authority of PERB Decisions Under PERB Regulation 32320, subdivision (d), the Board has discretion whether to designate a decision resolving the appeal of a dismissal of an unfair practice charge precedential. The precedential designation is appropriate for a decision that overrules a prior Board decision. more or view all topics or full text. | 42 | 6 | 06/27/17 |
| 2532C | Sonoma County Superior Court 1107.05000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Precedential Authority of PERB Decisions The fact that the Board’s previous precedential decision articulated its legal conclusion on an issue presented by the case does not mean the Board has prejudged the merits of the case or denied the respondent due process. more or view all topics or full text. | 42 | 6 | 06/27/17 |
| 2517C | Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C 1107.05000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Precedential Authority of PERB Decisions * * * VACATED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C. * * *As part of its de novo review, the Board itself may address matters not excepted to correct an error or prevent a serious mistake of law from becoming part of Board precedent. Although neither party had excepted, the proposed decision contained a typographical error whose effect was to suggest that an employer may restrict employees from solicitation during nonworking time, which is contrary to Board precedent. The Board corrected the editing oversight to avoid confusion regarding Board precedent. (p. 3, fn. 5.) more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 140 | 02/27/17 |
| 1826S | State of California (Department of Corrections) 1107.05000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Precedential Authority of PERB Decisions Board vacates decision 1579-S and adopts regional attorney’s ruling in that case. more or view all topics or full text. | 30 | 82 | 03/03/06 |
| 1093Ha | California State University (California State Employees Association) 1107.05000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Precedential Authority of PERB Decisions Unappealed proposed decisions do not have a precedential effect in other cases, and accordingly the Board does not consider them. more or view all topics or full text. | 19 | 26112 | 07/21/95 |
| A439S | Service Employees International Union, Local 1000 (Mykles) 1107.05000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Precedential Authority of PERB Decisions An exclusive representative appealed from an administrative determination that it had not complied with the time limits set forth in PERB regulations for filing its opposition to an appeal from dismissal of an unfair practice charge brought by an employee against the representative. Because charging party’s appeal from the dismissal of his unfair practice charge was addressed in a non-precedential decision, the Board issued a separate, precedential decision summarily denying the representative’s appeal from an administrative determination as moot. more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 2 | 06/16/16 |