Decision 1730E – San Francisco Unified School District
SF-CE-2383-E
Decision Date: December 27, 2004
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: UESF alleged that the district unilaterally transferred a bargaining unit position from UESF to the United Administrator’s bargaining unit. A grievance was filed relating to this issue.
Disposition: The Board dismissed the charge. The Board would not defer the charge to arbitration since the 3 Collyer requirements were not met. The CBA provision was not provided so that it was impossible to determine if the grievance and charge covered the same subject. The Board also held there was no unilateral change.
Perc Vol: 29
Perc Index: 46
Decision Headnotes
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.
1107.04000 – 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.
1107.20000 – 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.
1100.02000 – 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.
1100.05000 – 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.
1100.08000 – 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.
1100.11000 – 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.
1102.01000 – 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.