Decision 0871S – State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (California State Employees Association)
S-UM-380, 383-S
Decision Date: March 20, 1991
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Perc Vol: 15
Perc Index: 22063
Decision Headnotes
104.03000 – Conclusiveness of Prior Determination by Federal Agencies, Other State Agencies or Courts
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 as 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. While there are many instances in which the function of SPB and PERB may be in conflict, the Board split over whether such conflict is While there are many instances in which the function of SPB and PERB may be in conflict, the Board split over whether such conflict is
200.01000 – In General
Conservation Corps members are state civil service (nonmerit system) employees for the purposes of the Dills Act; pp. 18-19.
200.04000 – Supervisors
Supervising Cook I and Food Service Supervisor I classifications were determined to be supervisory classes and therefore excluded from bargaining Unit 15. Legislature intended PERB consider job descriptions, duty statements, or civil service classification structure established by SPB in determining whether an employee or classification is supervisory under the Act; p. 12. Once there has been a determination (under the Dills Act) that a classification is supervisory, subsequent exclusionary challenges should be made on a position-by-position approach based on the actual duties performed by the incumbent(s) in the disputed positions. The Board split on whether in such instances, PERB should allow SPB, or its designee, the opportunity to review the classification to assure that the positions in question are properly allocated and classified under the personnel classification plan; pp. 13-14. that the positions in question are properly allocated and classified under the personnel classification plan; pp. 13-14. authority, and duties described in the class specification, job description, or duty statement created by SPB. They do not create a rebuttable presumption, nor are they typically sufficient by themselves to support an exclusionary claim; p. 13 and 15. The mere inclusion of the word(s) "supervisor" or "supervisory" in the class title, specification, job description, or duty statement is not sufficient to support a finding by PERB that the class is supervisory; p. 13.
1309.13000 – Supervisors
Supervising Cook I and Food Service Supervisor I classifications were determined to be supervisory classes and therefore excluded from bargaining Unit 15. Legislature intended PERB consider job descriptions, duty statements, or civil service classification structure established by SPB in determining whether an employee or classification is supervisory under the Act; p. 12. In determining whether particular classification is "supervisory," Board may give some weight to scope of responsibilities, authority, and duties described in the class specification, job description, or duty statement created by SPB. They do not create a rebuttable presumption, nor are they typically sufficient by themselves to support an exclusionary claim; p. 13 and 15. The mere inclusion of the word(s) "supervisor" or "supervisory" in the class title, specification, job description, or duty statement is not The mere inclusion of the word(s) "supervisor" or "supervisory" in the class title, specification, job description, or duty statement is not Once there has been a determination (under the Dills Act) that a classification is supervisory, subsequent exclusionary challenges should be made on a position-by-position approach based on the actual duties performed by the incumbent(s) in the disputed positions. The Board split on whether in such instances, PERB should allow SPB, or its designee, the opportunity to review the classification to assure that the positions in question are properly allocated and classified under the personnel classification plan; pp. 13-14. Burden of proof in exclusionary claim is on party asserting the claim.
1405.01000 – 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.
1503.02000 – Regulations Considered (By Number)
PERB Regulation 32781(b)(5) (Regulation was renumbered as 32781(b)(4) on January 1, 1989). Petitions assert the classifications were "supervisory," an issue previously decided, a question arose over whether the doctrine of res judicata (collateral estoppel) applied; pp. 4-5.