Decision 1167E – Ventura County Community College District (Mickle)
LA-CE-3679
Decision Date: September 11, 1996
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: Employee appealed dismissal of his charge alleging District unlawfully applied a provision of a collective bargaining agreement.
Disposition: Dismissed. District compiled with the provision of the agreement.
Perc Vol: 20
Perc Index: 27136
Decision Headnotes
102.02000 – Concurrent or Conflicting Jurisdiction with Other Agencies or Courts; Interpretation or Enforcement of Other Statutes
Absent an independent violation of EERA, Board has no jurisdiction over other Government Code sections, the Education Code or federal law; p. 2, fn. 2.
1000.02109 – Promotions
The negotiation of seniority protection in a promotional system is a mandatory subject of bargaining under the EERA; p. 2, warning letter.
1000.02128 – Seniority
The negotiation of seniority protection in a promotional system is a mandatory subject of bargaining under the EERA; p. 2, warning letter.
1100.01000 – In General/Prima Facie Case
PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5) provides that a charge must contain a "clear and concise statement of the facts and conduct alleged to constitute an unfair practice;" a charging party must allege the "who, what, when, where, and how" of the unfair practice; mere legal conclusions are insufficient; p. 2, warning letter.
1100.08000 – Pleading Requirements
PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5) provides that a charge must contain a "clear and concise statement of the facts and conduct alleged to constitute an unfair practice;" a charging party must allege the "who, what, when, where and how" of the unfair practice; mere legal conclusions are insufficient; p. 2, warning letter.
1503.03000 – Regulations Considered (By Number) (Continued)
PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5) provides that a charge must contain a "clear and concise statement of the facts and conduct alleged to constitute an unfair practice;" a charging party must allege the "who, what, when, where, and how" of the unfair practice; mere legal conclusions are insufficient; p. 2, warning letter.