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

SA-CE-1295-S

Decision Date: November 12, 2002

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 27
Perc Index: 17

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

The Board rejects SPB’s contention that the appropriate remedy for aggrieved employees should the Board find SPB in violation of the Dills Act is through writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1084 and 1085; the Board would be relinquishing its responsibilities under the Dills Act to allow such a result. Such a result would conflict with the principles of exhaustion of administrative remedies and PERB’s preemptive jurisdiction over Dills Act issues.

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
1107.03000 – Remand for Further Hearing; Remand to General Counsel

Remand is in part for determination of whether the SPB is either the “State" or the “employer.” Such determination is necessary to decide whether SPB violated the Dills Act.

1109.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; ISSUES ON APPEAL
1109.01000 – In General

The Board rejects SPB’s contention that the appropriate remedy for aggrieved employees should the Board find SPB in violation of the Dills Act is through writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1084 and 1085; the Board would be relinquishing its responsibilities under the Dills Act to allow such a result. Such a result would conflict with the principles of exhaustion of administrative remedies and PERB’s preemptive jurisdiction over Dills Act issues.

101.00000 – PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; APPLICABILITY OF AND CONFLICTS WITH OTHER STATUTES
101.02000 – Conflicts Between PERB-Administered Laws and Other California Statutes; Education Code/Supersession; MMBA Supersession

The Board denied SPB’s request for stay pending resolution of the appellate court proceedings because the issues before the appellate court differ from those before the Board. The appellate court’s ruling in the parties’ litigation may not resolve the Dills Act questions before the Board. Nothing in the injunctive relief ordered by the Sacramento Superior Court in Case No. 01CS00109 prohibits IUOE and DPA from continuing to pursue this unfair practice charge before the Board.

201.00000 – PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?
201.01000 – In General

Remand is in part for determination of whether the SPB is either the “State" or the “employer.” Such determination is necessary to decide whether SPB violated the Dills Act.

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
1107.20000 – Other

The Board denied SPB’s request for stay pending resolution of the appellate court proceedings because the issues before the appellate court differ from those before the Board. The appellate court’s ruling in the parties’ litigation may not resolve the Dills Act questions before the Board. Nothing in the injunctive relief ordered by the Sacramento Superior Court in Case No. 01CS00109 prohibits IUOE and DPA from continuing to pursue this unfair practice charge before the Board. SPB’s request for reconsideration automatically stays the proceedings pending the Board’s determination on reconsideration.

1503.00000 – MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS
1503.03000 – Regulations Considered (By Number) (Continued)

A request for reconsideration under PERB Regulation 32410(c) automatically stays the proceedings before the Board pending the Board’s determination on reconsideration. The Board denied SPB’s request to extend the stay under PERB Regulation 32370 beyond that required by PERB Regulation 32410(c) because the issues before the appellate court differ from those before the Board. The appellate court’s ruling in the parties’ litigation may not resolve the Dills Act questions before the Board. Nothing in the injunctive relief ordered by the Sacramento Superior Court in Case No. 01CS00109 prohibits IUOE and DPA from continuing to pursue this unfair practice charge before the Board.