Decision 1905M – City of Porterville * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Grossmont Union High School District (2010) PERB Decision No. 2126
SA-CE-164-M
Decision Date: May 10, 2007
Decision Type: PERB Decision
* * * OVERRULED IN PART by Grossmont Union High School District (2010) PERB Decision No. 2126 * * *
Description: Exceptions challenged the ALJ’s finding that the City of Porterville unlawfully denied site access to a union representative on two occasions.
Disposition: The Board reversed the ALJ’s proposed decision. With regard to the first alleged incident, the Board held that the denial of access was justified because the union representative had not requested consent according to the city’s access policy, and had sought access to a work area during work time.
With regard to the second alleged incident, the Board held that res judicata barred the addition of a claim (not alleged in the complaint) during the hearing where the same incident formed the basis of a prior unfair practice charge alleging the same cause of action on the same facts, which was dismissed by the Board agent, and the prior dismissal was not appealed.
Perc Vol: 31
Perc Index: 98
Decision Headnotes
401.04000 – Access – Union Right
* * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Grossmont Union High School District (2010) PERB Decision No. 2126. * * *
The Meyers-Milias-Brown Act authorizes the City to adopt its own reasonable access rules. This provision gives the City a measure of discretion in drafting its own access policy. Denial of access was justified by legitimate business reasons because the union representative had not requested consent according to the City’s access policy, and had sought access to a work area during work time.
.
408.01000 – In General
* * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Grossmont Union High School District (2010) PERB Decision No. 2126. * * *
The Meyers-Milias-Brown Act provides a claim for interference with employee organization rights.
1405.01000 – In General
* * * OVERRULED IN PART by Grossmont Union High School District (2010) PERB Decision No. 2126, where the Board held that the Board agent’s dismissal of identical allegations in a separate unfair practice charge does not meet the “actually litigated” requirement for collateral estoppel. * * *
Res judicata barred the addition of a claim (not alleged in the complaint) during the hearing where the same incident formed the basis of a prior unfair practice charge alleging the same cause of action on the same facts, which was dismissed by the Board agent, and the prior dismissal was not appealed.