Decision 0899E – California School Employees Association (Gilligan)

SF-CO-378

Decision Date: August 30, 1991

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 15
Perc Index: 22139

Decision Headnotes

801.00000 – UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION
801.05000 – Union Threats; Violence

Charging party must establish that the union's conduct tends to or does result in some harm to employee rights guaranteed under EERA.

1103.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT
1103.09000 – Consolidation, Severance, or Bifurcation of Proceedings

Charging party failed to provide any information indicating the charges against the District and the Association were related by a similarity of facts or issues, or any other evidence in support of her consolidation request; pp. 2-3.

1104.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; PROCEDURE BEFORE ALJ
1104.03000 – Proposed Decision

The expedited decision procedure adopted by the Board allows the parties to waive preparation of the written transcript of the formal hearing and requires the ALJ to issue a proposed decision within 30 days of the close of the case, if possible. Generally, this procedure is implemented upon agreement of the parties. Although charging party did not expressly agree to the expedited decision procedure, no prejudice was found as the decision relied upon a credibility determination; pp. 3-4.

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
1107.20000 – Other

Charging party failed to provide any information indicating the charges against the District and the Association were related by a similarity of facts or issues, or any other evidence in support of her consolidation request; pp. 2-3.

1503.00000 – MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS
1503.02000 – Regulations Considered (By Number)

Reg. 32147 and 32212 permit an ALJ to expedite a matter before the Board. Use of the procedure in the absence of charging party's consent is not prejudicial where decision based solely on credibility determinations; p. 4. Charging party had not objected to the ALJ's decision to expedite until after the proposed decision issued.