All notes for Subtopic 1405.01000 – In General
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2867M | * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * City and County of San Francisco 1405.01000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA; In General Collateral estoppel precludes the relitigation of an issue already decided in another proceeding where: “(1) the issue is identical to that decided in the former proceeding, (2) the issue was actually litigated in the former proceeding, (3) the issue was necessarily decided in the former proceeding, (4) the decision in the former proceeding is final and on the merits, and (5) preclusion is sought against a person who was a party or in privity with a party to the former proceeding.” (Castillo v. City of Los Angeles (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 477, 481; see also City and County of San Francisco (2022) PERB Order No. Ad-497-M, p. 27.) more or view all topics or full text. | 07/24/23 | ||
| 1738M | City of San Diego 1405.01000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA; In General The Board did not give collateral estoppel effect to a federal court order where (1) it did not appear that the order granting motions to dismiss was final, (2) it did not appear that charging party is in privity with any party to the federal proceeding, and (3) the issue before the federal court was solely one of federal constitutional law, not MMBA law. (adopting proposed decision at pp. 12-13.) more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 57 | 01/20/05 |
| A497M | City and County of San Francisco 1405.01000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA; In General PERB is not bound by the findings and conclusions of another administrative decision unless collateral estoppel applies. (San Diego Unified School District (1991) PERB Decision No. 885, p. 74). The doctrine of collateral estoppel precludes the relitigation of an issue already decided in another proceeding where: (1) the issue decided in the prior proceeding is identical to that sought to be relitigated; (2) the previous proceeding resulted in a final judgment on the merits; and (3) the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted was a party or in privity with a party in the prior proceeding. (State of California (Department of Developmental Services) (1987) PERB Decision No. 619-S, p. 14, citing People v. Sims (1982) 32 Cal.3d 468, 484.) Collateral estoppel effect may be given to decisions of administrative agencies when: (1) the agency is acting in a judicial capacity; (2) it resolves disputed issues of fact properly before it; and (3) the parties have had an adequate opportunity to litigate such disputed issues. (State of California (Department of Developmental Services), supra, pp. 14-15; People v. Sims, supra, 32 Cal.3d at p. 484.) In this matter, the Board did not proceed past the first step of analysis, as the issues decided in the prior proceeding were not identical to those raised by the Association’s severance petition. (pp. 27-28.) more or view all topics or full text. | 47 | 74 | 10/17/22 |
| 2660S | State of California (Office of the Inspector General) 1405.01000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA; In General Court of Appeal decision involving an anti-SLAPP motion in a related state court action did not collaterally estop the Board from deciding whether correctional officers were entitled to representation under NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc. (1975) 420 U.S. 251, 256. In anti-SLAPP motions, the factual record is inherently limited because the filing of a notice of motion immediately suspends all discovery in the action, absent a court order. Accordingly, the union could not have fully litigated the Weingarten issue to the extent it did before PERB. (p. 32.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 48 | 08/15/19 |
| 2660S | State of California (Office of the Inspector General) 1405.01000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA; In General Court of Appeal decision did not have preclusive effect because the court analyzed the correctional officers’ right to representation only under NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc. (1975) 420 U.S. 251, 256; it did not analyze their rights under the Dills Act and the more expansive highly unusual circumstances test articulated in Redwoods College Dist. v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 617. Accordingly, even if res judicata did apply, PERB would still be empowered to determine whether the officers were entitled to a representative under the Redwoods test. (p. 31.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 48 | 08/15/19 |
| 2660S | State of California (Office of the Inspector General) 1405.01000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA; In General Res judicata gives conclusive effect to a former judgment in subsequent litigation involving the same controversy where the following elements are met: (1) a claim or issue raised in the present action is identical to a claim or issue litigated in a prior proceeding; (2) the prior proceeding resulted in a final judgment on the merits; and (3) the party against whom the doctrine is being asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior proceeding. (p. 31.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 48 | 08/15/19 |
| 2637S | State of California (California Correctional Health Care Services) (Service Employees International Union Local 1000) 1405.01000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA; In General Under California law, a party may be collaterally estopped from relitigating an issue if: (1) the issue is identical to an issue decided in a prior proceeding; (2) the issue was actually litigated; (3) the issue was necessarily decided; (4) the decision in the prior proceeding is final and on the merits; and (5) the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted was a party to the prior proceeding or in privity with a party to the prior proceeding. more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 164 | 04/17/19 |
| 2624S | State of California (Department of Social Services (Service Employees International Union Local 1000) 1405.01000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA; In General The Board may grant collateral estoppel effect to a State Personnel Board (SPB) decision if it resolved one or more disputed issues of fact properly before the SPB that are also before the Board, and the SPB afforded the parties an adequate opportunity to litigate such issue(s). more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 128 | 02/05/19 |
| 2624S | State of California (Department of Social Services (Service Employees International Union Local 1000) 1405.01000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA; In General Nothing precludes the Board and the State Personnel Board (SPB) from reaching contrary findings based on the evidence before the respective agencies. That the SPB reached a different finding based on the evidence before it did not automatically render the ALJ’s finding erroneous. more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 128 | 02/05/19 |
| A410M | County of Contra Costa 1405.01000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA; In General PERB is presently not bound by the superior court’s order in County of Riverside v. Public Employment Relations Board (2013) Case No. RIC 1305661 enjoining PERB from appointing a factfinding panel in any bargaining dispute arising under the MMBA other than in MOU negotiations. PERB appealed the court’s decision, which has the effect of staying the effectiveness of the superior court’s decision until the case is finally determined by the appellate court. Because there is no final decision in the County of Riverside litigation yet while an appeal of the superior court’s decision is pending, neither res judicata nor collateral estoppel apply until and unless the judgment is final. more or view all topics or full text. | 38 | 154 | 04/16/14 |
| A419M | City and County of San Francisco 1405.01000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA; In General A necessary element of the doctrine of collateral estoppel or res judicata of separate litigation is that the proceeding in the litigation has ended with a final judgment on the merits. When the lower court decision in the litigation is on appeal, there is no final judgment on the merits in the litigation. more or view all topics or full text. | 39 | 72 | 11/24/14 |
| A414M | County of Fresno 1405.01000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA; In General PERB is not bound by a superior court's injunction and issuance of a writ of mandate where court's order is on appeal, because appeal automatically stays those orders. Doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel do not apply until and unless a court decision is final. more or view all topics or full text. | 39 | 8 | 06/17/14 |
| A387M | Salinas Valley Memorial Healthcare System 1405.01000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA; In General In ruling on election objections, PERB’s inquiry is whether the employer’s conduct interfered with employees’ right to choose a representative. An election will be set aside only when the conduct actually affects, or has a natural or probable effect on, employee free choice. Because the regional director’s administrative determination dismissing election objections addressed only the free choice inquiry, and did not rule on whether the employer’s alleged conduct constituted an unfair practice, the determination had no preclusive effect on a pending unfair practice charge alleging the same conduct by the employer. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 158 | 10/25/10 |
| 2140H | Trustees of the California State University (San Marcos) 1405.01000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA; In General A dismissal of an unfair practice charge based solely on a Board agent’s charge investigation does not have collateral estoppel effect in later PERB proceedings. Although the Board agent’s dismissal of an allegation based on the allegation having been dismissed as part of another unfair practice charge was no longer supported by PERB case law following Grossmont Union High School District (2010) PERB Decision No. 2126, the Board affirmed dismissal of the allegation because it did not state a violation of HEERA under any viable theory. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 165 | 11/02/10 |
| 2126E | Grossmont Union High School District 1405.01000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA; In General A dismissal of an unfair practice charge based solely on a Board agent’s charge investigation does not have collateral estoppel effect in later PERB proceedings. City of Porterville (2007) PERB Decision No. 1905-M overruled in part. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 121 | 08/13/10 |
| 1949H | Trustees of the California State University 1405.01000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA; In General Judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine, the application of which, even when all the elements have been satisfied, is discretionary. However, due to its potentially harsh consequences, judicial estoppel should be applied with caution and limited to egregious circumstances. Thus, it is an extraordinary remedy to be invoked when a party’s inconsistent behavior will otherwise result in a miscarriage of justice. To invoke the doctrine of equitable estoppel, the requesting party must show: (1) the same party has taken two positions; (2) the party was successful in asserting the first position; (3) the two positions are totally inconsistent; (4) the positions were taken in judicial or quasi-judicial administrative proceedings, and (5) the first position was not taken as a result of ignorance, fraud, or mistake. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 59 | 03/24/08 |
| 1905M | City of Porterville * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Grossmont Union High School District (2010) PERB Decision No. 2126 1405.01000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA; In General * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Grossmont Union High School District (2010) PERB Decision No. 2126, where the Board held that the Board agent’s dismissal of identical allegations in a separate unfair practice charge does not meet the “actually litigated” requirement for collateral estoppel. * * *Res judicata barred the addition of a claim (not alleged in the complaint) during the hearing where the same incident formed the basis of a prior unfair practice charge alleging the same cause of action on the same facts, which was dismissed by the Board agent, and the prior dismissal was not appealed. more or view all topics or full text. | 31 | 98 | 05/10/07 |
| 1711S | State of California, (Department of Consumer Affairs) 1405.01000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA; In General Collateral estoppel is not applicable where the SPB did not consider the identical issues before PERB, that of whether the discipline was motivated by protected activity and interfered with the rights of bargaining unit employees; p. 22. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 15 | 11/23/04 |
| 1649M | County of San Joaquin (Health Care Services) 1405.01000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA; In General Board may take notice of prior decision involving same parties. However, each separate unfair practice complaint must be decided on the merit of its own record. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 187 | 06/29/04 |
| 1471E | State Center Community College District 1405.01000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA; In General No collateral estoppel as settlement of previous unfair practice charge did not provide basis for District to withhold employee home telephone numbers from union on the basis of a general form stating an employee's choice to exclude his or her telephone number from the District's home directory publication. more or view all topics or full text. | 26 | 33027 | 12/12/01 |
| A246S | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (California Union of Safety Employees) 1405.01000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA; In General Collateral estoppel is a subsection of res judicata and involves "issue preclusion." Under the rule of issue preclusion, a prior decision 'operates as an estoppel or conclusive adjudication as to such issues in the second action as were actually litigated and determined in the first action;' p. 14. As the Board is faced with a new legal question, the doctrine of res judicata does not apply; p. 15. more or view all topics or full text. | 17 | 24102 | 05/18/93 |
| A081Ea | Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District 1405.01000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA; In General Prior court ruling which determined that arbitrator had not exceeded his authority in fashioning award is not conclusive on subsequent Board action to determine whether award was repugnant to EERA; prior court ruling is not res judicata because it addressed a different issue; pp. 9-10. more or view all topics or full text. | 4 | 11141 | 07/21/80 |
| 1299S | State of California (Department of Industrial Relations) 1405.01000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA; In General The doctrine of collateral estoppel precludes a party to an action from relitigating in a second proceeding, matters litigated and decided in a prior proceeding, citing People v. Sims 1982) 32 Cal.3d 468; p. 8. Collateral estoppel is an aspect of, but not co-extensive with, the broader concept of res judicata. Collateral estoppel traditionally has barred religation of an issue if: (1) the issue is identical to one necessarily decided at a previous proceeding; (2) the previous proceeding resulted in a final judgment on the merits; and (3) the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted was a party or in privity with a party at the prior proceeding, city People v. Sims; p. 9. The Board concluded that collateral estoppel effect can not be given to the SPB proceeding in this case since the issue considered by the The Board concluded that collateral estoppel effect can not be given to the SPB proceeding in this case since the issue considered by the established in People v. Sims has not been met; p. 10. more or view all topics or full text. | 23 | 30012 | 11/02/98 |
| 1238E | Los Rios College Federation of Teachers (Deglow) 1405.01000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA; In General Doctrine of collateral estoppel precludes Board from issuing complaint where charge raises issues identical to those dismissed in earlier charge involving the same parties; p. 7, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29021 | 12/02/97 |
| 1133E | Los Rios College Federation of Teachers (Deglow) 1405.01000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA; In General The doctrine of collateral estoppel prohibits the charging party from complaining about the duty of fair representation when the same issue has been previously litigated before a PERB ALJ and is the subject of a final hearing officer decision; p. 18, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 20 | 27029 | 01/19/96 |
| 1104S | State of California (Department of Corrections) (California Correctional Peace Officers Association) 1405.01000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA; In General Collateral estoppel is applicable to decisions of administrative agencies when: (1) the agency is acting in a judicial capacity; (2) it resolves disputed issues of fact properly before it; and (3) the parties have had an adequate opportunity to litigate the disputed issues. Collateral estoppel inappropriate when the issues litigated before the SPB are not identical to the issues litigated before PERB; p. 4. more or view all topics or full text. | 19 | 26097 | 05/18/95 |
| 1080S | State of California (Department of Youth Authority) (Janowicz) 1405.01000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA; In General Doctrine of collateral estoppel precludes a party to an action from relitigating in a second proceeding matters litigated and decided in a prior proceeding, if (1) the issue is identical to one necessarily decided at a previous proceeding; (2) the previous proceeding resulted in a final judgment on the merits; and (3) the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted was a party or in privity with a party at the prior proceeding; p. 14, proposed dec., citing People v. Sims (1982) 32 Cal.3d 468. The three elements of the collateral estoppel test were met in this case because (1) the issues adjudicated in a prior state court action filed by Janowicz were identical to the issues before PERB, and in that prior case, judgment was entered against Janowicz; (2) the state court judgment was final and was a conclusive determination of the retaliation issue raised in that case; and (3) the parties were the court judgment was final and was a conclusive determination of the retaliation issue raised in that case; and (3) the parties were the more or view all topics or full text. | 19 | 26038 | 01/12/95 |
| 0954S | State of California (Franchise Tax Board) 1405.01000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA; In General No implied application of the doctrines of exhaustion of administrative remedies or collateral estoppel found where all alleged violations dismissed for other reasons. more or view all topics or full text. | 16 | 23164 | 10/21/92 |
| 0871S | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (California State Employees Association) 1405.01000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA; In General Doctrine of res judicata involves two general concepts: "claim preclusion" is the primary aspect of res judicata and collateral estoppel is the second aspect and refers to "issue preclusion." Under issue preclusion a prior judgment operates an estoppel or conclusive adjudication as to the issues in the second action which were actually litigated and determined in the first action; pp. 5-6, fn. 3. Res judicata applies in administrative hearings to decisions of an administrative agency made pursuant to its quasi-judicial functions; p. 6. Res judicata is an affirmative defense and may be waived if not properly raised; p. 6. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22063 | 03/20/91 |
| 0805Hb | Trustees of the California State University (Statewide University Police Association) 1405.01000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA; In General Where PERB issues a decision which conflicts with an earlier SPB decision issued while acting in its statutory capacity in connection with employee disciplinary matters, PERB not required to apply collateral estoppel doctrine; pp. 3-11. more or view all topics or full text. | 14 | 21217 | 11/14/90 |
| 0727S | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (California Union of Safety Employees) 1405.01000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA; In General Original unit determination proceedings are not similar to a prior judicial adjudication of a disputed action between two parties. Nor was present exclusive representative a party to the original proceedings. more or view all topics or full text. | 13 | 20075 | 04/03/89 |
| 0630E | Kern County Office of Education 1405.01000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA; In General PERB will apply principles of collateral estoppel where all of the elements present; in this case application not necessary. more or view all topics or full text. | 11 | 18133 | 07/14/87 |
| 0631E | San Diego Unified School District 1405.01000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA; In General Remand to ALJ to determine collateral estoppel effect of prior civil service commission findings; issue not fully litigated before ALJ. (But see, California State University (1990) PERB Decision No. 805b-H, review denied.) more or view all topics or full text. | 11 | 18148 | 08/18/87 |
| 0619S | State of California (Department of Developmental Services) 1405.01000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA; In General Termination upheld by State Personnel Board given collateral estoppel effect by PERB where SPB took evidence and ruled upon identical issue before PERB. (But see PERB Decision No. 805b-H, review denied.) more or view all topics or full text. | 11 | 18085 | 04/17/87 |
| 0459S | State of California (Department of Transportation) 1405.01000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA; In General PERB not obligated to defer to SPB decision [where collateral estoppel not required]. SPB holding that discipline warranted does not preclude contrary PERB decision. Although SPB found employee engaged in proscribed conduct for which he disciplined, PERB in mixed motive case finds that employee would not have been disciplined but for his union activity. (See also PERB Decision No. 805b-H, review denied.) more or view all topics or full text. | 9 | 16027 | 12/12/84 |
| 0993H | Regents of the University of California (San Francisco Interns and Residents Association/California Association of Interns and Residents/Service Employees International Union) 1405.01000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA; In General While the doctrine of res judicata is not applicable and therefore does not bind the parties to the earlier holding, the Board's previous unit determination decision is certainly persuasive and entitled to great weight; p. 8, proposed dec. Previous unit determinations are binding only to the extent that circumstances and Board precedent remain the same; p. 8, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 17 | 24086 | 04/27/93 |