Decision 0891H – Regents of the University of California (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees)

Providing information in a telephone conversation did not satisfy University's obligation to provide requested information where accuracy of the information provided in the conversation is placed into question by publication of article in campus newspaper which quoted extensively from a University memo; p. 7. While AFSCME might not be entitled to specific copies of internal University memorandum, it was entitled to some definitive source of information other than a mere telephone discussion of the "basic elements" of the memos; pp. 7-8. The fact that various departments were in process of developing individual plans for meeting budget goals does not justify University's failure to provide relevant and readily available information; p. 8. Obligation to provide information is not dependent on when employer information; p. 8. Obligation to provide information is not dependent on when employer

On motion by AFSCME at the formal hearing, complaint was amended to delete reference to AFSCME seeking information solely on behalf of nonexclusively represented university employees. As a result of this motion, and fact that the issue was actually litigated at formal hearing, ALJ determined University was placed on notice that its conduct, vis-a-vis its exclusively represented employees, was at issue. Accordingly, the complaint was amended at the hearing to allege a violation of subdivision (c) of section 3571; pp. 3-4, proposed dec.

By refusing to provide information, University denied AFSCME its right to bargain on behalf of its members for whom it is designated the exclusive representative, in violation of section 3571(b) and, interfered with the rights of employees under section 3565 to have their exclusive representative bargain on their behalf in violation of section 3571(a); p. 10.

On motion by AFSCME at the formal hearing, complaint was amended to delete reference to AFSCME seeking information solely on behalf of nonexclusively represented university employees. As a result of this motion, and fact that the issue was actually litigated at formal hearing, ALJ determined University was placed on notice that its conduct, vis-a-vis its exclusively represented employees, was at issue. Accordingly, the complaint was amended at the hearing to allege a violation of subdivision (c) of section 3571; ALJ Proposed Decision; pp. 3-4.

Although ALJ mistakenly identifies the date of a telephone converation as April 4 instead of April 7, the reference constitutes harmless error since none of the ALJ's findings were dependent upon the precise date of conversation; p. 4.

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.

PERB Regulation 32300(a) provides that a statement of exceptions shall specify the issues, pages and grounds with which each exception is taken to the ALJ's proposed decision. Subdivision (c) further provides that any exception not specifically argued is waived; p. 5, fn. 4.