Decision 1317S – State of California (Department of Corrections)
LA-CE-399-S
Decision Date: March 5, 1999
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: State filed exceptions to a Board agent’s proposed decision finding the State violated the Dills Act when it unilaterally modified its overtime policy for nurses.
Disposition: Reversed. Board found State’s actions permitted by contract. Unfair practice charge and complaint dismissed.
Perc Vol: 23
Perc Index: 30072
Decision Headnotes
602.01000 – In General
The conduct which forms the basis of the dispute in this case is expressly authorized by the parties' overtime policy side letter and thus no unilateral change has been described; p. 9.
602.03000 – Change In Policy
The conduct which forms the basis of the dispute in this case is expressly authorized by the parties' overtime policy side letter and thus no unilateral change has been described; p. 9. Where the language of the parties' overtime policy side letter is clear and unambiguous, it is unnecessary to go beyond the plain meaning of that language; p. 8. Even if past practice is taken into account, failure to exercise contractual rights in the past, does not preclude the employer from doing so in the future, Marysville at p. 10; p. 9. The Board looked to section 1638 of the California Civil Code for guidance in the interpretation of the contractual language which states, in part: "INTENTION TO BE ASCERTAINED FROM LANGUAGE. The language of a contract is to govern its interpretation, if the language is clear and explicit, and does not involve an absurdity." Additionally, the Board considered Civil Code section 1641 which states, in part: "EFFECT TO BE GIVEN TO EVERY PART OF CONTRACT. The whole of a contract is to be taken together, so as to give effect to every part, if reasonably practicable, each clause helping to interpret the other."; p. 7. The conduct which forms the basis of the dispute in this case is expressly authorized by the parties' overtime policy side letter and thus no unilateral change has been described; p. 9.
1404.03000 – General Principles of Contract Interpretation
Where the language of the parties' overtime policy side letter is clear and unambiguous, it is unnecessary to go beyond the plain meaning of that language; p. 8. Even if past practice is taken into account, failure to exercise contractual rights in the past, does not preclude the employer from doing so in the future, Marysville at p. 10; p. 9. The Board looked to section 1638 of the California Civil Code for guidance in the interpretation of the contractual language which states, in part: "INTENTION TO BE ASCERTAINED FROM LANGUAGE. The language of a contract is to govern its interpretation, if the language is clear and explicit, and does not involve an absurdity." Additionally, the Board considered Civil Code section 1641 which states, in part: "EFFECT TO BE GIVEN TO EVERY PART OF CONTRACT. The whole of a contract is to be taken together, so as to give effect to every part, if reasonably practicable, each clause helping to interpret the other."; p. 7.