Decision 1100S – State of California (Department of Corrections) * * * OVERRULED IN PART by multiple decisions, as recognized in State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) (2024) PERB Decision No. 2926-S, pp. 16-19 & fn. 11 * * *
SF-CE-105-S
Decision Date: May 4, 1995
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: State denied union its rights when it discriminated against an employee for his exercise of protected activity.
Disposition: Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Board deferred to contractual grievance and arbitration provision.
Perc Vol: 19
Perc Index: 26090
Decision Headnotes
102.01000 – In General/Exclusive Initial Jurisdiction-Deferral to Arbitration; Deference by Reviewing Courts
* * * OVERRULED IN PART by multiple decisions, as recognized in State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) (2024) PERB Decision No. 2926-S, p. 18, because relied on notion that deferral was jurisdictional rather than discretionary and applied standards that are now superseded. * * *
Dills Act section 3514.5(a) does not permit a determination of PERB jurisdiction based on the sections of the statute alleged to have been violated. It requires that the determination of PERB jurisdiction be based on the conduct which is the basis of the dispute; Deferral to an alternative jurisdiction must be consistent with the fundamental rule that alternative jurisdiction has authority to order an appropriate remedy; p. 14. The public policy considerations on which PERB's dispute resolution jurisdiction is based, ensures that: 1) parties have right to one neutral administrative forum for resolution of dispute; 2) parties have right to chose a grievance and arbitration process rather than PERB and PERB should defer to that choice; and 3) deferral will eliminate overlapping and duplicative proceedings, lead to more timely resolution of diputes, and contribute to employer-employee relations eliminate overlapping and duplicative proceedings, lead to more timely resolution of diputes, and contribute to employer-employee relations
1102.01000 – Pre-Arbitration
* * * OVERRULED IN PART by multiple decisions, as recognized in State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) (2024) PERB Decision No. 2926-S, p. 18, because relied on notion that deferral was jurisdictional rather than discretionary and applied standards that are now superseded. * * *
Dills Act section 3514.5(a) does not permit a determination of PERB jurisdiction based on the sections of the statute alleged to have been violated. It requires that the determination of PERB jurisdiction be based on the conduct which is the basis of the dispute; Deferral to an alternative jurisdiction must be consistent with the fundamental rule that alternative jurisdiction has authority to order an appropriate remedy; p. 14. The public policy considerations on which PERB's dispute resolution jurisdiction is based, ensures that: 1) parties have right to one neutral administrative forum for resolution of dispute; 2) parties have right to chose a grievance and arbitration process rather than PERB and PERB should defer to that choice; and 3) deferral will eliminate overlapping and duplicative proceedings, lead to more timely resolution of disputes, and contribute to employer-employee relations eliminate overlapping and duplicative proceedings, lead to more timely resolution of disputes, and contribute to employer-employee relations
1107.20000 – Other
* * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by multiple decisions, as recognized in State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) (2024) PERB Decision No. 2926-S, p. 18 * * *
Nothing shall preclude any Board member from participating in any case pending before the Board; p. 16, fn. 8.