Decision 1600M – County of San Joaquin

SA-CE-41-M

Decision Date: February 24, 2004

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 28
Perc Index: 86

Decision Headnotes

102.00000 – PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; SCOPE OF PERB JURISDICTION
102.02000 – Concurrent or Conflicting Jurisdiction with Other Agencies or Courts; Interpretation or Enforcement of Other Statutes

Local 790’s argument that state policy favors mediation and by ignoring the mediator’s recommendation, the County violated this policy fails. The cases cited by Local 790 pertain to the State’s policy favoring binding arbitration, not non-binding mediation

750.00000 – EMPLOYER ADOPTION/ENFORCEMENT OF UNREASONABLE RULE
750.01000 – In General

There is no precedent for the Board to enforce a non-binding mediator’s recommendation.Local 790 failed to show how the County’s failure to provide a rationale for not adopting the mediator’s recommendations violated the MMBA.The County’s Employer-Employee Relations Policy gives the County discretion to adopt a hearing officer’s proposed decision.Local 790’s citation to the standard in Topanga Association for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal. 3d 506, 515 [113 Cal. Rptr. 836] that “the agency must make findings that bridge the analytic gap between the raw evidence and the ultimate decision or order” is inapplicable to this case. This is because it involves a local agency review of a variance permit under standards set by statute, the variance hearing occurred and was under review by the court. Here, Local 790 alleged violation of a local rule which the County adopted after good faith negotiations with Local 790 or its predecessor and there is no evidence that the mediator’s decision was ever brought before the County’s board for adoption.

900.00000 – IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH
900.07000 – Mediation

There is no precedent for the Board to enforce a non-binding mediator’s recommendation. Local 790 failed to show how the County’s failure to provide a rationale for not adopting the mediator’s recommendations violated the MMBA. The County’s Employer-Employee Relations Policy gives the County discretion to adopt a hearing officer’s proposed decision. Local 790’s citation to the standard in Topanga Association for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal. 3d 506, 515 [113 Cal. Rptr. 836] that “the agency must make findings that bridge the analytic gap between the raw evidence and the ultimate decision or order” is inapplicable to this case. This is because it involves a local agency review of a variance permit under standards set by statute, the variance hearing occurred and was under review by the court. Here, Local 790 alleged violation of a local rule which the County adopted after good faith negotiations with Local 790 or its predecessor and there is no evidence that the mediator’s decision was ever brought before the County’s board for adoption. Local 790’s argument that state policy favors mediation and by ignoring the mediator’s recommendation, the County violated this policy fails. The cases cited by Local 790 pertain to the State’s policy favoring binding arbitration, not non-binding mediation. Local 790’s allegation on appeal that the charge incorporated by reference the mediator’s findings regarding failure to provide information is ambiguous. If it refers to “changed conditions” or “retaliation” allegations in the charge, then this allegation is dismissed under PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5), which requires a charge to contain a clear and concise statement of the facts. Otherwise, Local 790 appears to raise a new issue on appeal and under PERB Regulation 32635(b) has not provided good cause to present new allegations on appeal.

604.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION
604.01000 – In General

Local 790’s allegation on appeal that the charge incorporated by reference the mediator’s findings regarding failure to provide information is ambiguous. If it refers to “changed conditions” or “retaliation” allegations in the charge, then this allegation is dismissed under PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5), which requires a charge to contain a clear and concise statement of the facts. Otherwise, Local 790 appears to raise a new issue on appeal and under PERB Regulation 32635(b) has not provided good cause to present new allegations on appeal

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
1100.08000 – Pleading Requirements

Local 790’s allegation on appeal that the charge incorporated by reference the mediator’s findings regarding failure to provide information is ambiguous. If it refers to “changed conditions” or “retaliation” allegations in the charge, then this allegation is dismissed under PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5), which requires a charge to contain a clear and concise statement of the facts. Otherwise, Local 790 appears to raise a new issue on appeal and under PERB Regulation 32635(b) has not provided good cause to present new allegations on appeal.

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
1107.04000 – Unalleged Violations

Local 790’s allegation on appeal that the charge incorporated by reference the mediator’s findings regarding failure to provide information is ambiguous. If it refers to “changed conditions” or “retaliation” allegations in the charge, then this allegation is dismissed under PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5), which requires a charge to contain a clear and concise statement of the facts. Otherwise, Local 790 appears to raise a new issue on appeal and under PERB Regulation 32635(b) has not provided good cause to present new allegations on appeal.

1503.00000 – MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS
1503.02000 – Regulations Considered (By Number)

Local 790’s allegation on appeal that the charge incorporated by reference the mediator’s findings regarding failure to provide information is ambiguous. If it refers to “changed conditions” or “retaliation” allegations in the charge, then this allegation is dismissed under PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5), which requires a charge to contain a clear and concise statement of the facts. Otherwise, Local 790 appears to raise a new issue on appeal and under PERB Regulation 32635(b) has not provided good cause to present new allegations on appeal.