Decision 1570M – County of San Joaquin
SA-CE-148-M
Decision Date: December 19, 2003
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: Union alleged that county violated MMBA by refusing to participate in impasse procedures under local rules. Board found that language of local rule was ambiguous.
Disposition: Board reversed dismissal and remanded case for further processing.
Perc Vol: 28
Perc Index: 37
Decision Headnotes
605.02000 – Insistence on Nonmandatory/Illegal Subjects (See also Scope of Representation, Sec 1000)
PERB has held that retirement benefits for current employees is a mandatory subject of bargaining. In contrast, retirement benefits for retirees – those who are no longer employed by the employer – is only a permissive subject of bargaining. A party may not insist to impasse on a permissive subject of bargaining.
1000.02121 – Retirement
PERB has held that retirement benefits for current employees is a mandatory subject of bargaining. In contrast, retirement benefits for retirees – those who are no longer employed by the employer – is only a permissive subject of bargaining. A party may not insist to impasse on a permissive subject of bargaining.
1100.01000 – In General/Prima Facie Case
It is well-settled that a Board agent must accept the plain language of the contract or rule where it is clear and unambiguous. However, where the contract language or rule is unclear or ambiguous, the Board has held that the parties should be given an opportunity to offer evidence to support their differing interpretations at an evidentiary hearing. In light of union’s factual allegations, Board cannot find the local rule at issue to be clear and unambiguous. To the contrary, the local rule appears to be reasonably susceptible to the interpretation offered by the union. Accordingly, union has established a prima facie case and a complaint should issue.
1100.02000 – Investigation of Charge
It is well-settled that a Board agent must accept the plain language of the contract or rule where it is clear and unambiguous. However, where the contract language or rule is unclear or ambiguous, the Board has held that the parties should be given an opportunity to offer evidence to support their differing interpretations at an evidentiary hearing. In light of union’s factual allegations, Board cannot find the local rule at issue to be clear and unambiguous. To the contrary, the local rule appears to be reasonably susceptible to the interpretation offered by the union. Accordingly, union has established a prima facie case and a complaint should issue. Charging party’s factual allegations must be accepted as true during the investigation.
1407.01000 – General Principles
It is well-settled that a Board agent must accept the plain language of the contract or rule where it is clear and unambiguous. However, where the contract language or rule is unclear or ambiguous, the Board has held that the parties should be given an opportunity to offer evidence to support their differing interpretations at an evidentiary hearing. In light of union’s factual allegations, Board cannot find the local rule at issue to be clear and unambiguous. To the contrary, the local rule appears to be reasonably susceptible to the interpretation offered by the union. Accordingly, union has established a prima facie case and a complaint should issue.