Decision 1491S – State of California (State Personnel Board)

Although the Board does not have jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality of the SPB’s actions, the Board may harmonize provision of the laws under its jurisdiction with other laws.

Although the Board does not have jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality of the SPB’s actions, the Board may harmonize provision of the laws under its jurisdiction with other laws.

The case is remanded for the ALJ to determine on the merits if the SPB, whether or not acting in a quasi-adjudicatory capacity, is an “employer” under Section 3513(j) of the Dills Act. The ALJ’s ruling that PERB lacks jurisdiction over a state agency acting in an adjudicatory capacity is overly broad.

Under PERB Regulation 32164(d), on its own motion, the Board may order joinder of a party. Since any decision in this matter would impact DPA in the same manner as IUOE, in order to ensure a just resolution, the Board orders DPA be joined under Section 32164(d). Such joinder would also eliminate any confusion as to DPA’s status as a party in this case.

Because of confusion in the conduct of PERB’s informal and formal hearing processes in this matter, IUOE did not file a timely response to SPB’s motion to dismiss. In these circumstances, the ALJ’s notice of dismissal without considering IUOE’s response does not yield a just result.

The significance of the issues in this case are so critical that only a hearing would provide sufficient information to yield a fair and well-reasoned result. Consequently, the Board remands this case to the ALJ for hearing on the merits of SPB’s motion to dismiss.