Decision 1730E – San Francisco Unified School District

SF-CE-2383-E

Decision Date: December 27, 2004

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 29
Perc Index: 46

Decision Headnotes

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
1107.01000 – Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver

The District demonstrated good cause to excuse its late-filed response to UESF’s appeal. Although the charging party’s proof of service indicates service on the District, the District’s address on the proof of service was incorrect and presumably sent to the wrong address. The District filed its response six days after it received the letter from PERB regarding the docketing of the case. Thus, the response was late due to circumstances beyond the District’s control.

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

Charging party did not show good cause to raise new evidence on appeal under PERB Regulation 32635(b), i.e., that the July 1, 2003 grievance language did not evidence UESF’s knowledge of the unlawful effect of the transfer and it only learned of District’s EERA violation through the District’s December 30, 2003 response to the grievance. UESF was advised of the untimeliness of its charge through the District’s response to the charge and the Board agent’s warning letter. UESF did not file an amended charge and chose not to provide this information until its appeal. As the charge was filed on February 25, 2004, the Board deemed the charge to be untimely. UESF has similarly not demonstrated good cause to accept its new allegation raised for the first time on appeal that the charge and grievance cover different issues and so deferral to arbitration is not appropriate.

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

Charging party did not show good cause to raise new evidence on appeal under PERB Regulation 32635(b), i.e., that the July 1, 2003 grievance language did not evidence UESF’s knowledge of the unlawful effect of the transfer and it only learned of District’s EERA violation through the District’s December 30, 2003 response to the grievance. UESF was advised of the untimeliness of its charge through the District’s response to the charge and the Board agent’s warning letter. UESF did not file an amended charge and chose not to provide this information until its appeal. As the charge was filed on February 25, 2004, the Board deemed the charge to be untimely. UESF has similarly not demonstrated good cause to accept its new allegation raised for the first time on appeal that the charge and grievance cover different issues and so deferral to arbitration is not appropriate.

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
1100.02000 – Investigation of Charge

Deferral to arbitration is not appropriate in this matter. The party who asserts deferral as an affirmative defense must allege facts that evidence the three prongs required by Collyer Insulated Wire. Neither party has summarized or attached a copy of the current CBA provision alleged to have been violated and so it is impossible to determine if the grievance and charge cover the same subject.

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
1100.05000 – Dismissal of Charge; Appeal

Deferral to arbitration is not appropriate in this matter. The party who asserts deferral as an affirmative defense must allege facts that evidence the three prongs required by Collyer Insulated Wire. Neither party has summarized or attached a copy of the current CBA provision alleged to have been violated and so it is impossible to determine if the grievance and charge cover the same subject.

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
1100.08000 – Pleading Requirements

Deferral to arbitration is not appropriate in this matter. The party who asserts deferral as an affirmative defense must allege facts that evidence the three prongs required by Collyer Insulated Wire. Neither party has summarized or attached a copy of the current CBA provision alleged to have been violated and so it is impossible to determine if the grievance and charge cover the same subject.

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
1100.11000 – Response to Charge

Deferral to arbitration is not appropriate in this matter. The party who asserts deferral as an affirmative defense must allege facts that evidence the three prongs required by Collyer Insulated Wire. Neither party has summarized or attached a copy of the current CBA provision alleged to have been violated and so it is impossible to determine if the grievance and charge cover the same subject.

1102.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; DEFERRAL TO ARBITRATION
1102.01000 – Pre-Arbitration

Deferral to arbitration is not appropriate in this matter. The party who asserts deferral as an affirmative defense must allege facts that evidence the three prongs required by Collyer Insulated Wire. Neither party has summarized or attached a copy of the current CBA provision alleged to have been violated and so it is impossible to determine if the grievance and charge cover the same subject.