Decision 2082E – Ventura County Community College District

District’s charge sought a repugnancy review of an arbitration between the parties, however, it did not allege conduct by the Respondent/Federation that violated EERA and therefore did not establish a prima facie case against the respondent for violation of the Act. EERA section 3541.5(a)(2) addresses PERB’s authority relative to matters also covered by collective bargaining agreements between the parties, and provides that PERB may review an arbitration decision resulting from the parties’ grievance/arbitration process, to determine whether it is repugnant to the purposes of EERA. However, PERB’s authority remains limited to the issuance of a complaint that alleges respondent engaged in conduct that violates EERA. A charge based solely on a claim that a third-party arbitration decision is repugnant cannot stand on its own and is insufficient to state a prima facie case for violation of EERA.

EERA section 3541.5 sets forth PERB’s jurisdiction and authority to determine whether or not charges of unfair practices are justified. Section 3541.5(a)(2) addresses PERB’s authority relative to matters also covered by collective bargaining agreements between the parties, and provides that PERB may review an arbitration decision resulting from the parties’ grievance/arbitration process, to determine whether it is repugnant to the purposes of EERA. However, PERB’s authority remains limited to the issuance of a complaint that alleges respondent engaged in conduct that violates EERA. EERA does not provide for an independent de novo review of third-party arbitration decisions. A charge based solely on a claim that a third-party arbitration decision is repugnant cannot stand on its own and is insufficient to state a prima facie case for violation of EERA. Here the District’s charge sought a repugnancy review of an arbitration between the parties, however, it did not allege conduct by the Respondent/Federation that violated EERA and therefore did not establish a prima facie case against the respondent for violation of the Act.

Where an unfair labor practice charge alleges conduct by a respondent that would also violate the CBA between the parties, and is subject to binding arbitration, PERB will defer to the grievance and arbitration process. EERA grants PERB the authority to review the resulting arbitration award to determine whether it is repugnant to the purposes of EERA. However, even upon such a review, PERB’s authority remains limited to the issuance of a complaint that alleges the respondent engaged in conduct that violates EERA. EERA does not provide for an independent de novo review of third-party arbitration decisions. A charge based solely on a claim that a third-party arbitration decision is repugnant cannot stand on its own and is insufficient to state a prima facie case for violation of EERA. Here the District’s charge sought a repugnancy review of an arbitration between the parties, however, it did not allege conduct by the Respondent/Federation that violated EERA and therefore did not establish a prima facie case against the respondent for violation of the Act.

EERA section 3541.5 sets forth PERB’s jurisdiction and authority to determine whether or not charges of unfair practices are justified. Section 3541.5(a)(2) addresses PERB’s authority relative to matters also covered by collective bargaining agreements between the parties, and provides that PERB may review an arbitration decision resulting from the parties’ grievance/arbitration process, to determine whether it is repugnant to the purposes of EERA. However, PERB’s authority remains limited to the issuance of a complaint that alleges respondent engaged in conduct that violates EERA. EERA does not provide for an independent de novo review of third-party arbitration decisions. A charge based solely on a claim that a third-party arbitration decision is repugnant cannot stand on its own and is insufficient to state a prima facie case for violation of EERA. Here the District’s charge sought a repugnancy review of an arbitration between the parties, however, it did not allege conduct by the Respondent/Federation that violated EERA and therefore did not establish a prima facie case against the respondent for violation of the Act.

District’s charge sought a repugnancy review of an arbitration between the parties, however, it did not allege conduct by the Respondent/Federation that violated EERA and therefore did not establish a prima facie case against the respondent for violation of the Act. EERA section 3541.5(a)(2) addresses PERB’s authority relative to matters also covered by collective bargaining agreements between the parties, and provides that PERB may review an arbitration decision resulting from the parties’ grievance/arbitration process, to determine whether it is repugnant to the purposes of EERA. However, PERB’s authority remains limited to the issuance of a complaint that alleges respondent engaged in conduct that violates the EERA. A charge based solely on a claim that a third-party arbitration decision is repugnant cannot stand on its own and is insufficient to state a prima facie case for violation of EERA.

District’s charge sought a repugnancy review of an arbitration between the parties, however, it did not allege conduct by the Respondent/Federation that violated EERA and therefore did not establish a prima facie case against the respondent for violation of the Act. EERA section 3541.5(a)(2) addresses PERB’s authority relative to matters also covered by collective bargaining agreements between the parties, and provides that PERB may review an arbitration decision resulting from the parties’ grievance/arbitration process, to determine whether it is repugnant to the purposes of EERA. However, PERB’s authority remains limited to the issuance of a complaint that alleges respondent engaged in conduct that violates the EERA. A charge based solely on a claim that a third-party arbitration decision is repugnant cannot stand on its own and is insufficient to state a prima facie case for violation of EERA.

EERA section 3541.5 sets forth PERB’s jurisdiction and authority to determine whether or not charges of unfair practices are justified. Section 3541.5(a)(2) addresses PERB’s authority relative to matters also covered by collective bargaining agreements between the parties, and provides that PERB may review an arbitration decision resulting from the parties’ grievance/arbitration process, to determine whether it is repugnant to the purposes of EERA. However, PERB’s authority remains limited to the issuance of a complaint that alleges respondent engaged in conduct that violates EERA. EERA does not provide for an independent de novo review of third-party arbitration decisions. A charge based solely on a claim that a third-party arbitration decision is repugnant cannot stand on its own and is insufficient to state a prima facie case for violation of EERA. Here the District’s charge sought a repugnancy review of an arbitration between the parties, however, it did not allege conduct by the Respondent/Federation that violated EERA and therefore did not establish a prima facie case against the respondent for violation of the Act.

EERA section 3541.5 sets forth PERB’s jurisdiction and authority to determine whether or not charges of unfair practices are justified. Section 3541.5(a)(2) addresses PERB’s authority relative to matters also covered by collective bargaining agreements between the parties, and provides that PERB may review an arbitration decision resulting from the parties’ grievance/arbitration process, to determine whether it is repugnant to the purposes of EERA. However, PERB’s authority remains limited to the issuance of a complaint that alleges respondent engaged in conduct that violates EERA. EERA does not provide for an independent de novo review of third-party arbitration decisions. A charge based solely on a claim that a third-party arbitration decision is repugnant cannot stand on its own and is insufficient to state a prima facie case for violation of EERA. Here the District’s charge sought a repugnancy review of an arbitration between the parties, however, it did not allege conduct by the Respondent/Federation that violated EERA and therefore did not establish a prima facie case against the respondent for violation of the Act.

PERB cannot issue a complaint against an arbitrator; it can only issue a complaint against an employer or an employee organization. Thus, before PERB can determine whether an arbitration decision is repugnant to the Act, the charging party must first establish that the respondent engaged in conduct that violates the Act. A charge based solely on a claim that a third-party arbitration decision is repugnant cannot stand on its own and is insufficient to state a prima facie case for violation of EERA. Here the District’s charge sought a repugnancy review of a third-party arbitration, but did not allege conduct by the Respondent/Federation that violated EERA and therefore did not establish a prima facie case against the respondent for violation of the Act.