Decision 1539M – City of Folsom
SA-CE-54-M
Decision Date: June 26, 2003
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: Siroky alleged that the City is retaliating against him by attempting to collect a judgment for attorney’s fees soon after Siroky filed an unfair practice charge against the City.
Disposition: The Board dismissed the charge. Siroky’s unfair practice charge arises out of the City’s failure to sign a proposed settlement agreement in 1998. Siroky had fulfilled his part of the agreement to abandon his appeal of a court-ordered attorney fee award and to resign. There was no evidence that the settlement agreement was executed. Siroky does not qualify as “public employee” under the MMBA under the circumstances in this case. Even if he were, he failed to state a prima facie case.
Perc Vol: 27
Perc Index: 99
Decision Headnotes
200.01000 – In General
As Siroky had not worked for the City of Folsom since 1998 but worked for the State of California at the time the alleged protected activity and adverse action occurred (2002), he is not a “public employee” under MMBA sections 3501(c), (d) and 3506 for purposes of this charge.
502.01000 – In General
As Siroky had not worked for the City of Folsom since 1998 but worked for the State of California at the time the alleged protected activity and adverse action occurred (2002), he is not a “public employee” under MMBA sections 3501(c), (d) and 3506 for purposes of this charge.
503.01000 – In General
Siroky did not allege that a proposed settlement agreement which precluded the City from recovering an attorneys’ fee award against him, was executed by the parties. Therefore, City’s attempt to recover the fee award is not an adverse action.
503.15000 – Other
Siroky did not allege that a proposed settlement agreement which precluded the City from recovering an attorneys’ fee award against him, was executed by the parties. Therefore, City’s attempt to recover the fee award is not an adverse action.
1100.01000 – In General/Prima Facie Case
Siroky did not allege that a proposed settlement agreement which precluded the City from recovering an attorneys’ fee award against him, was executed by the parties. Therefore, City’s attempt to recover the fee award is not an adverse action.
1100.03000 – Standing
As Siroky had not worked for the City of Folsom since 1998 but worked for the State of California at the time the alleged protected activity and adverse action occurred (2002), he is not a “public employee” under MMBA sections 3501(c), (d) and 3506 for purposes of this charge.
1107.01000 – Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver
As Siroky had not worked for the City of Folsom since 1998 but worked for the State of California at the time the alleged protected activity and adverse action occurred (2002), he is not a “public employee” under MMBA sections 3501(c), (d) and 3506 for purposes of this charge.
1404.01000 – In General
Siroky did not allege that a proposed settlement agreement which precluded the City from recovering an attorneys’ fee award against him, was executed by the parties. Therefore, City’s attempt to recover the fee award is not an adverse action.