Decision 2170M – City of Guadalupe

LA-CE-595-M

Decision Date: February 28, 2011

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 35
Perc Index: 52

Decision Headnotes

102.00000 – PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; SCOPE OF PERB JURISDICTION
102.01000 – In General/Exclusive Initial Jurisdiction-Deferral to Arbitration; Deference by Reviewing Courts

The Board deferred to the binding decision of the personnel commission convened pursuant to the final step of the grievance procedure in the parties’ MOU. The commission proceedings were essentially a binding arbitration, the commission was presented with and considered all of the evidence relevant to the unfair practice charge, and its decision that the employer’s imposition of furloughs did not violate the MOU was not repugnant to the MMBA. Thus, the Board dismissed the charge pursuant to PERB Regulation 32620(b)(6).

1102.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; DEFERRAL TO ARBITRATION
1102.02000 – Post Arbitration; Repugnancy

The Board deferred to the binding decision of the personnel commission convened pursuant to the final step of the grievance procedure in the parties’ MOU. The commission proceedings were essentially a binding arbitration, the commission was presented with and considered all of the evidence relevant to the unfair practice charge, and its decision that the employer’s imposition of furloughs did not violate the MOU was not repugnant to the MMBA. Thus, the Board dismissed the charge pursuant to PERB Regulation 32620(b)(6).

1503.00000 – MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS
1503.02000 – Regulations Considered (By Number)

When allegations in an unfair practice charge are also subject to binding arbitration under an applicable collective bargaining agreement, PERB Regulation 32620(b)(6) requires PERB to dismiss the charge at the conclusion of the arbitration process unless the charging party establishes that the arbitration award is repugnant to the purposes of the MMBA. Charge dismissed because personnel commission’s binding decision that the employer did not violate the agreement when it furloughed employees was not repugnant to the MMBA.