Decision 0410E – Gonzales Union High School District

SF-CE-633

Decision Date: September 28, 1984

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 8
Perc Index: 15177

Decision Headnotes

1103.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT
1103.04000 – Amendments

1) ALJ properly treated charging party's "memo" entitled "Amendment to Unfair Practice Charge" as the timely filing of a motion to amend. Respondent was put on notice by the memo, was given the opportunity to fully litigate the matter and cannot claim it was prejudiced by the procedural irregularity. 2) ALJ properly permitted amendment alleging that acts previously alleged as unilateral change also constitute retaliation. The amendment, although past the six-month period, simply adds a new theory to events that were timely alleged as a violation. It is the same conduct at issue and there is no evidence of prejudice to the respondent.

608.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES
608.07000 – Waiver by Union; Contract Waivers; Bargaining History Estoppel; Disclaimer; Supersession

Charging party did not waive its right to negotiate about school calendar by failing to present specific proposals. Charging party's failure was reasonable given respondent's refusal to acknowledge that it had an obligation to negotiate.

1104.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; PROCEDURE BEFORE ALJ
1104.04000 – Substitution of ALJ

Post-hearing substitution of ALJ because of resignation of ALJ who heard case does not deny due process and rehearing not required. Board itself made independent review of evidence and found it unnecessary to make credibility resolutions.

401.00000 – EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS
401.01000 – In General; Prima Facie Case.

Employer removal of union Pepsi machine was not unlawful, even if for retaliatory reasons. In order to establish a violation, employee organization must establish the "rights guaranteed by this chapter" were at issue. Organization has no right to maintain a soft drink machine for its own profit on employer's property. Operation of the machine could constitute unlawful assistance.