Decision 1771H – Regents of the University of California
LA-CE-811-H
Decision Date: June 24, 2005
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: Sarka alleged that the district did not comply with Skelly requirements when his immediate supervisor presided over the Skelly hearing and the district failed to provide him with requested documents before the hearing. Sarka further alleged that an independent party reviewer improperly considered whether union activity was the basis for his termination.
Disposition: The Board dismissed the violations related to the Skelly hearing as untimely and the allegation regarding the independent party reviewer for failure to show the reviewer was an agent of the university.
Perc Vol: 29
Perc Index: 144
Decision Headnotes
201.02000 – Agents (See also 1400)
Sarka failed to present evidence that the Independent Party Reviewer, who conducted the fact-finding hearing, was an agent of the University. Sarka’s belief that the Independent Party Reviewer was an agent does not suffice to support an allegation of agency. Mere surprise is insufficient to impose liability based on a theory of apparent authority.
1100.08000 – Pleading Requirements
Under PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5), the charging party must provide a “clear and concise statement of the facts and conduct alleged to constitute an unfair practice.” Mere speculation, conjecture or legal conclusions are insufficient. Sarka’s belief that the Independent Party Reviewer was an agent comprises “mere speculation, conjecture or legal conclusions.”
1101.01000 – In General
The allegations surrounding the Skelly hearing were untimely filed since the hearing occurred on July 18, 2002, the date Sarka alleged that he learned about certain supporting documents was May 6, 2003, and the charge was filed on April 2, 2004, well in excess of the six month limitations period. Since these allegations were untimely, the Board declined to address the merits of these allegations.
1400.02000 – Employer Responsibility
Sarka failed to present evidence that the Independent Party Reviewer, who conducted the fact-finding hearing, was an agent of the University. Sarka’s belief that the Independent Party Reviewer was an agent does not suffice to support an allegation of agency. Mere surprise is insufficient to impose liability based on a theory of apparent authority.
1503.02000 – Regulations Considered (By Number)
Under PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5), the charging party must provide a “clear and concise statement of the facts and conduct alleged to constitute an unfair practice.” Mere speculation, conjecture or legal conclusions are insufficient. Sarka’s belief that the Independent Party Reviewer was an agent comprises “mere speculation, conjecture or legal conclusions.”