Decision 1491Sa – State of California (State Personnel Board)
SA-CE-1295-S
Decision Date: November 12, 2002
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: SPB requests a stay of the Board’s decision in No. 1491-S pending decisions by the Court of Appeal regarding allegedly similar issues. SPB also requests reconsideration, asserting that the Board’s decision in No. 1491 contains prejudicial errors of law and fact.
Disposition: The Board denied the State Personnel Board’s request for stay of proceedings and/or reconsideration.
Perc Vol: 27
Perc Index: 17
Decision Headnotes
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.
1107.03000 – 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.
1109.01000 – 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.
101.02000 – 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.
201.01000 – 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.
1107.20000 – 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.
1503.03000 – 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.