All notes for Subtopic 1107.06000 – De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A497M | City and County of San Francisco 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board When appealing an administrative determination, the appellant must demonstrate how or why the challenged decision departs from the Board’s precedents or regulations. (Children of Promise Preparatory Academy (2018) PERB Order No. Ad-470, p. 4; Regents of the University of California (2016) PERB Order No. Ad 434-H, p. 8; County of Santa Clara (2014) PERB Order No. Ad-411-M, p. 5.) In representation matters the Board applies an abuse of discretion standard to review a Board agent’s decision whether to hold an evidentiary hearing. (p. 15.) more or view all topics or full text. | 47 | 74 | 10/17/22 |
| 2820M | County of Santa Clara 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board PERB reviews the Office of the General Counsel’s (OGC) dismissal de novo. (City and County of San Francisco (2020) PERB Decision No. 2712-M, p. 2.) At this stage of an unfair practice case, the charging party’s burden is not to produce evidence, but merely to allege facts that, if proven true in a subsequent hearing, would state a prima facie violation. (Ibid.) PERB does not resolve conflicting factual allegations or make conclusive factual findings. (Ibid.) Rather, PERB assumes that the charging party’s factual allegations are true, and views them in the light most favorable to the charging party. (Ibid.) PERB therefore does not rely on the respondent’s factual statements if they explicitly or implicitly create a material factual conflict with charging party’s version of events, even if the respondent’s contentions appear better supported, or more persuasive, than the charging party’s contrary allegations. (Ibid.) PERB directs OGC to issue a complaint if it finds one or more contested, outcome-determinative facts (or mixed questions of law and fact), or if the parties’ positions reveal contested, colorable legal theories. (Id. at p. 3.) (p. 2.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 169 | 05/12/22 |
| 2775M | County of San Joaquin 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board The Board reviews exceptions to a proposed decision de novo. Under this standard of review, the Board is free to draw its own, and perhaps contrary, inferences from the evidence presented, and form its own conclusions. (p. 19.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 20 | 06/30/21 |
| 2765E | Gompers Preparatory Academy 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board When resolving exceptions to a proposed decision, the Board applies a de novo standard of review. Under this standard, we review the entire record and are free to make different factual findings and reach different legal conclusions than those in the proposed decision. The Board need not address alleged errors that would not impact the outcome. (p. 11.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 99 | 04/30/21 |
| A481E | Gompers Preparatory Academy 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board In resolving an appeal of an administrative decision on a request for an election stay, the Board reviews the decision for abuse of discretion. Under this standard, the Board determines whether the decision is supported by the allegations in the blocking charge. (p. 4.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 54 | 10/22/20 |
| 2744E | San Jose/Evergreen Federation of Teachers, AFT Local 6157, and American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO (Crawford et al.) 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board In resolving a dismissal appeal, the Board reviews OGC’s decision de novo. (Lake Elsinore Unified School District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2548, p. 6, fn. 5 (Lake Elsinore).) At this stage of the case, a charging party’s burden “is not to produce evidence, but merely to allege facts that, if proven true in a subsequent hearing, would state a prima facie violation.” (County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Decision No. 2321-M, p. 13, fn. 8.) Furthermore, “where a material factual dispute turns on the respondent’s state of mind,” the Board considers that motive is generally within the respondent’s own knowledge and that there is little opportunity for pre-hearing discovery. The Board therefore imposes on a charging party a relatively low burden to allege facts tending to show the requisite state of mind. (Ibid.) Mere legal conclusions, however, are insufficient to state a prima facie case. (Lake Elsinore, supra, PERB Decision No. 2548, p. 18.) Moreover, although the Board does not resolve conflicting factual allegations, it is appropriate to dismiss an alleged violation without issuing a complaint if the parties’ filings disclose undisputed facts sufficient to defeat the claim. (Cabrillo Community College District (2015) PERB Decision No. 2453, p. 9.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 35 | 08/31/20 |
| 2745M | County of Sacramento 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board When resolving exceptions to a proposed decision, the Board applies a de novo standard of review. Under this standard, the Board reviews the entire record and is free to make different factual findings and reach different legal conclusions than those in the proposed decision. (p. 10.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 39 | 09/18/20 |
| 2738H | Trustees of the California State University (San Marcos) 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board When resolving exceptions to a proposed decision, the Board applies a de novo standard of review. Under this standard, the Board is free to make different factual findings and reach different legal conclusions than those in the proposed decision. (p. 7.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 26 | 07/28/20 |
| 2721M | County of San Diego 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board In resolving an appeal of a dismissal, PERB reviews the Office of General Counsel’s decision de novo. (Lake Elsinore Unified School District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2548, p. 6, fn. 5 (Lake Elsinore); City of San Jose (2013) PERB Decision No. 2341-M, p. 47.) When the sufficiency of a charge turns on interpreting a statute, contract, or employer rule or policy, the Board must accept the plain meaning of the language at issue if it is “clear and unambiguous on its face.” (County of Monterey (2018) PERB Decision No. 2579-M, p. 8.) If the language is ambiguous, “the parties must be afforded the opportunity to offer evidence in support of their respective interpretations at a formal hearing.” (Ibid.) At the charge investigation stage, “the appropriate question is not which of two competing interpretations . . . is the more plausible, but whether the language in dispute is reasonably susceptible to the charging party’s interpretation and whether that interpretation supports a viable, i.e., non-frivolous, theory of liability under the applicable PERB-administered statute.” (Ibid.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 187 | 05/22/20 |
| 2715M | Eastern Municipal Water District 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board When resolving exceptions to a proposed decision, the Board applies a de novo standard of review. Under this standard, PERB reviews the entire record and is free to make different factual findings and reach different legal conclusions than those in the proposed decision. The Board may affirm, modify, or reverse the proposed decision, order the record re-opened for the taking of further evidence, or “take such other actions as it considers proper.” (PERB Reg. 32320, subd. (a)(2); Regents of the University of California (2018) PERB Decision No. 2601-H, p. 12.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 176 | 05/13/20 |
| 2701I | Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board An arbitrator’s interpretation of a contract term is not binding on PERB but may be probative of the term’s meaning. (p. 40.) The Board did not find an arbitration decision probative of the question before it—whether the regional committee was contractually obligated to bargain over the impacts of changes to employee pension contributions—because the decision focused solely on the individual trial court’s obligations under the collective bargaining agreement. more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 150 | 03/16/20 |
| 2685M | County of Santa Clara 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board Under the Board’s authority to take any action in a pending case that it deems necessary to discharge its duties and effectuate the purposes of the statutes PERB enforces, the Board has discretion to grant or deny requests to withdraw and dismiss cases pending before the Board itself. (pp. 2-3.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 106 | 12/10/19 |
| 2674M | Orange County Employees Association (Hamilton) 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board Although the Board reviews exceptions to a proposed decision de novo, to the extent an adopted proposed decision properly resolves issues underlying particular exceptions, the Board need not further address those exceptions. (p. 7.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 76 | 10/15/19 |
| 2622E | Cabrillo Community College District 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board On appeal of dismissal of an unfair practice charge, the Board’s inquiry is limited to the legal sufficiency of the charging party’s allegations, i.e. whether the factual allegations, if accepted as true, would state a prima facie violation. It does not determine whether a preponderance of the evidence will ultimately establish the factual allegations as true. (p. 4.) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 126 | 02/04/19 |
| 2631E | Antelope Valley Union High School District 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board As the ultimate finder of fact, the Board is free to draw contrary inferences from the evidence presented, and to form its own conclusions. (p. 5.) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 148 | 03/05/19 |
| 2629M | County of Santa Clara 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board Although the Board reviews exceptions to a proposed decision de novo, to the extent that a proposed decision adequately addresses issues raised by certain exceptions, the Board need not further analyze those exceptions. (City of San Ramon (2018) PERB Decision No. 2571-M, p. 5.) The Board also need not address alleged errors that would not impact the outcome. (Ibid.) (p. 6.) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 145 | 02/27/19 |
| 2597E | Sacramento City Unified School District 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board Although the Board reviews exceptions to a proposed decision de novo, the Board need not address alleged errors that have no bearing on the outcome. (Los Angeles Unified School District (2015) PERB Decision No. 2432, p. 2; Regents of the University of California (1991) PERB Decision No. 891-H, p. 4.) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 77 | 11/19/18 |
| 2578H | Regents of the University of California (Teamsters Local 2010) 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board Although the Board reviews exceptions to a proposed decision de novo, where the proposed decision adequately addresses the issues raised by certain exceptions, the Board need not further analyze those exceptions. Nor does the Board need to address alleged errors that would not affect the result, particularly where the excepting party has simply reasserted claims without identifying a specific error of fact or law to justify reversal. more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 31 | 07/18/18 |
| 2566C | Los Angeles County Superior Court 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board Although the Board generally reviews exceptions to a proposed decision de novo, it will generally decline to review an argument not raised to the ALJ. more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 1 | 06/12/18 |
| 2572M | San Bernardino Public Employees Association 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board The Board declined to consider an argument not made to the ALJ. more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 7 | 06/21/18 |
| 2567E | Hartnell Community College District 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board 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 |
| 2567E | Hartnell Community College District 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board The Board found it unnecessary to consider most of Charging Party’s exceptions, as they concerned issues that were not material to the outcome of his case. Although the Board’s review of exceptions to a proposed decision is de novo, it need not address arguments that have already been adequately addressed in the same case or that would not affect the result. (pp. 3-4.) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 2 | 06/12/18 |
| 2548E | Lake Elsinore Unified School District (Edwards) 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board Despite its highly repetitive and often misplaced or entirely irrelevant arguments, charging party’s appeal from dismissal/refusal to issue a complaint identified the asserted error by the Office of the General Counsel in dismissing her charge, and thus substantially complied with PERB Regulation 32635. While clarity and conciseness are always appreciated, the regulation governing appeals does not expressly require a “clear and concise statement” of the appeal. (p. 11.) more or view all topics or full text. | 42 | 102 | 02/02/18 |
| 2544E | Bellflower Unified School District 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board Because the Board adopted the proposed decision, which fully considered and explained why certain information requested by the union was necessary and relevant, these same issues, presented to the Board as exceptions to the proposed decision, warranted no further discussion from the Board. Although the Board’s review of exceptions to a proposed decision is de novo, it need not address arguments that have already been adequately addressed in the same case or that would not affect the result. (p. 11.) more or view all topics or full text. | 42 | 70 | 12/15/17 |
| 2571M | City of San Ramon 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board Although the Board reviews exceptions to a proposed decision de novo, to the extent that a proposed decision adequately addresses issues raised by certain exceptions, the Board need not further analyze those exceptions. (City of Calexico (2017) PERB Decision No. 2541-M, pp. 1 2.) The Board also need not address alleged errors that would not impact the outcome. (Los Angeles Unified School District (2015) PERB Decision No. 2432, p. 2; Regents of the University of California (1991) PERB Decision No. 891-H, p. 4.) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 6 | 06/20/18 |
| 2517C | Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board * * * 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 |
| 2514E | Santa Ana Unified School District 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board Notwithstanding the deference usually shown by the Board toward an ALJ’s factual findings based on credibility determinations, because in this case, there was no formal hearing on the record and no live testimony to serve as the basis for observational or non-observational credibility factors, the Board owed no deference to the ALJ’s findings or credibility determinations. The Board applies a de novo standard of review and is required to consider the entire record. As the ultimate finder of fact, it is free to draw its own findings and conclusions from the record, even where they are contrary to those of an ALJ. (PERB Reg. 32300.) more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 132 | 02/08/17 |
| 2504E | Anaheim Union High School District 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board While the Board applies a de novo standard of review and is free to draw its own conclusions from the record, because an ALJ is in a much better position than the Board to accurately make credibility determinations based on live testimony, “the Board has determined that it will normally afford deference to administrative law judges’ findings of fact involving credibility determinations unless they are unsupported by the record as a whole.” [citations omitted.] Because the record as a whole in this case supported the ALJ’s factual findings and credibility determinations, which were based on a variety of observational and non-observational factors, and because the excepting party provided no grounds to undermine these findings and determinations, the Board declined to disturb the proposed decision finding that the charging party failed to prove the complaint’s allegations of bad-faith bargaining. (p. 14.) more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 80 | 10/14/16 |
| 2452E | Hartnell Community College District 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board Following Board review of a dismissal, it was unnecessary to remand to the Office of the General Counsel for further investigation, where the charge and supporting documents already contained sufficient information to state a prima facie case of employer interference with protected employee rights. Newly-submitted evidence that became available only after dismissal of the charge may be considered on appeal upon a showing a good cause. However, the evidence, which concerned charging party’s satisfactory performance of job duties for an employer other than the respondent was only marginally relevant at this stage of the proceedings and did not affect any of the issues on appeal. more or view all topics or full text. | 40 | 56 | 09/04/15 |
| 2453E | Cabrillo Community College District 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board Because this case is an appeal from a dismissal and refusal to issue a complaint by the Office of the General Counsel, our inquiry at this stage is focused on the sufficiency of the charging party’s allegations. In addition, we may also consider information provided by the respondent, but only when such information is submitted under oath, complements without contradicting the facts alleged in the charge, and is not disputed by the charging party. more or view all topics or full text. | 40 | 57 | 09/17/15 |
| 2341M | City of San Jose 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board As part of its de novo review of an appeal, the Board may address issues or apply legal analysis not urged by the parties. more or view all topics or full text. | 38 | 94 | 12/06/13 |
| 1969E | Beverly Hills Unified School District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Trustees of California State University (2012) PERB Decision No. 2287-H and County of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2315-M 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Trustees of California State University (2012) PERB Decision No. 2287-H and County of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2315-M. * * *Board applies de novo standard when reviewing Board agent’s dismissal of an unfair practice charge. In using the phrase “free of prejudicial error” when adopting a Board agent’s warning and dismissal letters as the decision of the Board itself, PERB did not intend to establish an abuse of discretion standard of review. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 115 | 07/08/08 |
| 1616E | San Juan Unified School District 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board The Board must assume that the essential facts alleged in the charge are true. Disputed facts must be resolved under the Board’s hearing process. Therefore, the allegation concerning the teachers’ shared position, that the Association learned of the elimination of the shared contract position within the limitations period, is timely. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 128 | 04/05/04 |
| 1716E | California School Employees Association and Its Chapter 183 (Richards) 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board PERB Regulation 32635(b) requires a showing of good cause to present new supporting evidence on appeal. As Richards has not explained the need to raise new evidence at this time, and not in the charge or amended charge, he has not shown good cause to raise the new evidence on appeal. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 22 | 11/30/04 |
| 1653E | Compton Community College District 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board An appeal filed in response to a board agent dismissal must include facts related to the who, what, when or how of the underlying charge. Without facts as to dates or conduct giving rise to the charge the appeal cannot be considered. PERB regulation 32635(a) requires that the appeal state the specific issues of procedure, fact, law or rationale, identify the page or part of the dismissal to which the appeal is taken and state the grounds for each issue included. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 192 | 06/30/04 |
| 1503E | Sacramento City Teachers Association (Ferreira) 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board Board refused to consider new documents on appeal where charging party failed to demonstrate any good cause because they simply add detail to allegations rejected as untimely, no indication they could not have been obtained through reasonable diligence prior to the dismissal. more or view all topics or full text. | 27 | 6 | 11/01/02 |
| 1487E | California School Employees Association and its Chapter 77 (Vincelet) 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board Charging party’s new evidence was not considered by the Board because she failed to show good cause or any rationale why it hadn’t been presented to the Board agent. more or view all topics or full text. | 26 | 33097 | 06/28/02 |
| 1502E | Sacramento City Unified School District 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board Board refused to consider new documents on appeal where charging party failed to demonstrate any good cause because they simply add detail to allegations rejected as untimely, no indication they could not have been obtained through reasonable diligence prior to the dismissal. more or view all topics or full text. | 27 | 5 | 11/01/02 |
| 1571E | Fremont Unified School District 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board Charging party may not, without good cause, present new evidence or new allegations on appeal of a dismissal. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 38 | 12/24/03 |
| 1513E | Service Employees International Union, Local 790 (Fanene) 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board On appeal from dismissal, Board refused to consider charging party’s amended charge where charging party failed to serve amended charge on respondent. 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 |
| 1470H | Trustees of the California State University 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board A charging party may not, without good cause, present new evidence or new allegations on appeal. more or view all topics or full text. | 26 | 33016 | 12/05/01 |
| 1479S | California State Employees Association (Hard, et al.) 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board Board may review issues not excepted to, to avoid a serious mistake of law; p. 13. Evidence of CSEA’s animosity toward CDU is contained in its motion to dismiss; p. 21. more or view all topics or full text. | 26 | 33065 | 05/02/02 |
| J020E | San Diego Community College District 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board In reviewing a unit determination decision on appeal from a Board agent’s decision, the Board utilized a de novo review of the record and reached a different conclusion than the Board agent. more or view all topics or full text. | 26 | 33045 | 02/26/02 |
| A232E | Los Angeles Unified School District (Service Employees International Union Local 99/Members for Union Democracy) 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board Section 32360. Appeal from administrative determination is rejected by Board as defective where appeal does not state the issues on appeal nor the grounds for the appeal. more or view all topics or full text. | 16 | 23066 | 05/05/92 |
| A114Ha | Unit Determination for Employees of the Regents of University of California 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board Board directs submission of record on exclusionary issues directly to itself for decision, without proposed decision by hearing officer. more or view all topics or full text. | 04/20/82 | ||
| A072E | Fresno Unified School District 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board Board will not transfer a hearing to itself unless case is unique. more or view all topics or full text. | 3 | 10100 | 07/19/79 |
| 1299Sa | State of California (Department of Industrial Relations) 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board While the Board gives deference to an ALJ's factual findings which incorporate determinations of witness credibility, the Board reviews the record of the cases before it de novo, and has the duty and responsibility to take actions based on that review which it deems appropriate; p. 5. more or view all topics or full text. | 23 | 30043 | 01/14/99 |
| 1294E | Kern High School District 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board PERB Regulation 32640(c) provides that a decision of a Board agent to issue a complaint is not appealable to the Board itself except in accordance with Section 32200; p. 3. more or view all topics or full text. | 23 | 30008 | 10/22/98 |
| 1282E | Southwestern Community College District 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board 32635 - Board finds no good cause to admit new evidence presented for the first time on appeal where Board agent requested said evidence during investigation of the charge and charging party presented no justification, whatsoever, for its failure to provide the evidence to the Board agent; p. 2, fn. 2. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29153 | 09/03/98 |
| 1271H | Regents of the University of California (Federated University Police Officer’s Association) 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board Alleged newly discovered evidence or new allegations will not be considered on appeal without its proponent showing good cause for the Board to consider it for the first time on appeal. The charging party should have amended its charge and presented this information to the Board agent. (PERB Regulation 32635(b).); p. 2. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29114 | 06/30/98 |
| 1259Ea | Fall River Joint Unified School District 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board The Board reviews the record of cases before it de novo and may review issues that have not been raised in a party's exceptions when it deems it appropriate to do so; p. 5. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29108 | 06/18/98 |
| 1202S | State of California (State Teachers Retirement System (Ramirez and Roberts) 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board Regulation 32635(b) requires the charging party to show good cause for submitting new evidence and allegations for the first time on appeal, or it will not be considered by the Board; p. 2. more or view all topics or full text. | 21 | 28109 | 06/04/97 |
| 1203S | State of California (Prison Industry Authority) 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board If charging party does not correct misinterpretations expressed in the warning letter, it cannot do so on appeal. If they are raised on appeal, they will be treated as "new charge allegations" and not considered by the Board unless good cause for submitting the allegations for the first time on appeal is shown. more or view all topics or full text. | 21 | 28115 | 06/18/97 |
| 1189H | Regents of the University of California (Woods, et al.) 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board Regs. 32635: Board refuses to consider documents presented for the first time on appeal where party fails to provide good cause why evidence could not have been presented during the Board agent's investigation; p. 2, fn. 3. more or view all topics or full text. | 21 | 28066 | 03/19/97 |
| 1178E | Santa Clarita Community College District 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board Regs. 32635: Board refuses to consider document presented for the first time on appeal where party fails to provide good cause why evidence should not have been presented during Board agent's investigation; p. 2, fn. 2. more or view all topics or full text. | 21 | 28018 | 12/04/96 |
| 0963E | Apple Valley Unified School District 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board Board dismissed case on the basis of de novo review; p. 2. more or view all topics or full text. | 17 | 24020 | 12/07/92 |
| 0952E | Sacramento City Unified School District 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board 32635(b) provides that new charge allegations or supporting evidence may not be presented on appeal without showing good cause. Here the evidence presented dealt with events which occurred after the dismissal. Charging party may file a new charge including this evidence. more or view all topics or full text. | 16 | 23152 | 09/10/92 |
| 0891H | Regents of the University of California (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees) 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board The University's exceptions merely restate arguments made before the ALJ at the formal hearing. Thus, while Board applies a de novo standard of review and is free to draw its own conclusions from the record, no justification was found in this case to deviate from ALJ's analysis since his findings of fact and conclusion of law were amply supported by the record; p. 6. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22117 | 07/03/91 |
| 0873E | Charter Oak Unified School District 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board For determining whether the charge states a prima facie case, the factual allegations in the charge are deemed true. However, factually unsupported legal conclusions in the charge need not be accepted as true; fn. 6. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22067 | 04/04/91 |
| 0870E | United Teachers Los Angeles (Malin) 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board Charging party's allegations of causal connection between the union's actions and his protected activity will not be considered when raised for the first time on appeal; p. 2. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22053 | 03/01/91 |
| 0856E | Elk Grove Unified School District 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board Where the only charging party with standing to appeal dismissal of 3543.5(c) violation does not appeal, the Board may have discretion to examine the propriety of the dismissal, but here there is no compelling interest for Board to review dismissal of that portion of the charge; p. 6. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22009 | 12/17/90 |
| 0552E | Modesto City Schools and High School District 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board In reviewing dismissal, allegations presumed true; dismissal reversed. Hearing required for factual determinations. more or view all topics or full text. | 10 | 17029 | 12/20/85 |
| 1748E | Alum Rock Union Elementary School District 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board 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 |
| 1755H | Trustees of the California State University (Sonoma) 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board Where there is a material factual dispute the initial investigation, the charging party's allegations must be accepted as true, citing Golden Plains Unified School District (2002) PERB Decision No. 1489; p. 6. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 97 | 03/01/05 |
| 0356H | Regents of the University of California (Statewide University Police Association) 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board Evidence raised for the first time on exceptions will not be considered by the Board. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14288 | 11/14/83 |
| 0302S | State of California (Department of General Services) 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board In considering a motion to dismiss, the Board will assume that the essential facts alleged in the charge are true; p. 5. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14132 | 04/08/83 |
| 0983H | Regents of the University of California (Alavarez) 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board Board dismissed case on the basis of de novo review; p. 2. more or view all topics or full text. | 17 | 24063 | 03/22/93 |
| 0984H | American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (Alvarez) 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board Board dismissed case on the basis of de novo review; p. 3. more or view all topics or full text. | 17 | 24064 | 03/23/93 |
| 0948S | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board Directed election order in this case is not an administrative decision within the meaning of PERB Regulations 32350; p. 5. more or view all topics or full text. | 16 | 23131 | 08/06/92 |
| 0945E | California School Employees Association (Flannagan) 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board Board dismisses appeal which is insufficient under PERB Regulation section 32635(a), where it does not identify portions of the dismissal challenged nor indicate grounds for appeal. more or view all topics or full text. | 16 | 23099 | 06/24/92 |
| 0935Ea | Lindsay Teachers Association (Gonzalez) 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board Board considered entire record, thus contention that Board abused its discretion by failing to condsider material submitted by the charging party is without merit; p. 4. more or view all topics or full text. | 16 | 23114 | 07/16/92 |
| 0936Ea | Lindsay Unified School District 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board Board considered entire record, thus contention that Board abused its discretion by failing to consider material submitted by the charging party is without merit; p. 4. more or view all topics or full text. | 16 | 23115 | 07/16/92 |
| 0012E | San Juan Unified School District 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board On ruling on an appeal of a dismissal, the Board assumes that the essential facts alleged in the charge are true. more or view all topics or full text. | 1 | 77 | 03/10/77 |
| 0072E | Redlands Teachers Association (Faeth and McCarty) 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board In reviewing dismissal for failure to state a prima facie case, the Board assumes the facts alleged in the charge are true; p. 2. more or view all topics or full text. | 2 | 2200 | 09/25/78 |
| 0074E | Amador Valley Joint Union High School District 1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board For purposes of reviewing dismissal for failure to state a prima facie case, allegations are deemed to be true; p. 1. more or view all topics or full text. | 2 | 2192 | 10/02/78 |