Decision 1104S – State of California (Department of Corrections) (California Correctional Peace Officers Association)

S-CE-551-S

Decision Date: May 18, 1995

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 19
Perc Index: 26097

Decision Headnotes

102.00000 – PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; SCOPE OF PERB JURISDICTION
102.01000 – In General/Exclusive Initial Jurisdiction-Deferral to Arbitration; Deference by Reviewing Courts

PERB has exclusive initial jurisdiction over unfair practices and SPB has jurisdiction over disciplinary action taken against civil service employees. Employer interference with a union's representational rights is an unfair practice to be adjudicated by PERB and not deferred to the SPB; pp. 2-3.

102.00000 – PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; SCOPE OF PERB JURISDICTION
102.02000 – Concurrent or Conflicting Jurisdiction with Other Agencies or Courts; Interpretation or Enforcement of Other Statutes

PERB has exclusive initial jurisdiction over unfair practices and SPB has jurisdiction over disciplinary action taken against civil service employees. Employer interference with a union's representational rights is an unfair practice to be adjudicated by PERB and not deferred to the SPB; pp. 2-3.

104.00000 – PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF BOARD
104.03000 – Conclusiveness of Prior Determination by Federal Agencies, Other State Agencies or Courts

Collateral estoppel is applicable to decisions of administrative agencies when: (1) the agency is acting in a judicial capacity; (2) it resolves disputed issues of fact properly before it; and (3) the parties have had an adequate opportunity to litigate the disputed issues. Collateral estoppel inappropriate when the issues litigated before the SPB are not identical to the issues litigated before PERB; p. 4.

400.00000 – EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES
400.01000 – In General; Standards

In employer interference with union's right to represent case, Board balanced employer's interest in preparing for disciplinary case and investigating employee misconduct against interference with union's right to call uncoerced witnesses in SPB hearing. Violation found because employer was not engaged in an investigation; p. 19, proposed dec.

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

In employer interference with union's right to represent case, Board balanced employer's interest in preparing for disciplinary case and investigating employee misconduct against interference with union's right to call uncoerced witnesses in SPB hearing. Violation found because employer was not engaged in an investigation; p. 19, proposed dec.

1200.00000 – REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; CEASE AND DESIST ORDERS
1200.01000 – In General

Based on the facts of this case, Board finds remedy overly broad in employer interference with union's right to represent case and eliminates the prerequisite that witnesses be informed that interviews are voluntary and free of reprisal. Remedy limited to cease and desist; pp. 4-5.

1205.00000 – REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIAL PROVISIONS
1205.10000 – Other Affirmative Relief

Based on the facts of this case, Board finds remedy overly broad in employer interference with union's right to represent case and eliminates the prerequisite that witnesses be informed that interviews are voluntary and free of reprisal. Remedy limited to cease and desist; pp. 4-5.

1405.00000 – GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA
1405.01000 – In General

Collateral estoppel is applicable to decisions of administrative agencies when: (1) the agency is acting in a judicial capacity; (2) it resolves disputed issues of fact properly before it; and (3) the parties have had an adequate opportunity to litigate the disputed issues. Collateral estoppel inappropriate when the issues litigated before the SPB are not identical to the issues litigated before PERB; p. 4.