Decision 2201H – Trustees of the California State University (Long Beach)
LA-CE-1026-H
Decision Date: September 13, 2011
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: On a request for repugnancy review after deferral to arbitration, the charge alleged that CSU Long Beach retaliated against a teacher by failing to assign her classes due to her prior grievances and PERB charge.
Disposition: The Board dismissed the request for repugnancy review as untimely and for failure to establish that the arbitration award was repugnant to the purposes of HEERA.
Perc Vol: 36
Perc Index: 43
Decision Headnotes
102.01000 – In General/Exclusive Initial Jurisdiction-Deferral to Arbitration; Deference by Reviewing Courts
Unfair practice charge filed based upon a claim that a settlement or arbitration award is repugnant to HEERA are subject to all of the requirements applicable to the filing of unfair practice charges under PERB Regulation 32615 and must allege with specificity the facts underlying the charging party’s claim that the arbitrator’s award is repugnant to the purposes of the applicable statute. Amended charge filed nearly nine months after issuance of arbitration award was untimely. A party cannot avoid deferral simply by failing to pursue available contractual procedures by failing to include charging party’s retaliation claim in stipulation of issues before the arbitrator. Board deferred to arbitrator’s award where the arbitrator’s conclusions encompassed the same factual issues that would have been presented on the retaliation claim before PERB and award itself was not clearly repugnant to the purposes and policies of HEERA.
1102.02000 – Post Arbitration; Repugnancy
Unfair practice charge filed based upon a claim that a settlement or arbitration award is repugnant to HEERA are subject to all of the requirements applicable to the filing of unfair practice charges under PERB Regulation 32615 and must allege with specificity the facts underlying the charging party’s claim that the arbitrator’s award is repugnant to the purposes of the applicable statute. Amended charge filed nearly nine months after issuance of arbitration award was untimely. A party cannot avoid deferral simply by failing to pursue available contractual procedures by failing to include charging party’s retaliation claim in stipulation of issues before the arbitrator. Board deferred to arbitrator’s award where the arbitrator’s conclusions encompassed the same factual issues that would have been presented on the retaliation claim before PERB and award itself was not clearly repugnant to the purposes and policies of HEERA.
1503.02000 – Regulations Considered (By Number)
Unfair practice charge filed based upon a claim that a settlement or arbitration award is repugnant to HEERA are subject to all of the requirements applicable to the filing of unfair practice charges under PERB Regulation 32615 and must allege with specificity the facts underlying the charging party’s claim that the arbitrator’s award is repugnant to the purposes of the applicable statute. Board deferred to arbitrator’s award where the arbitrator’s conclusions encompassed the same factual issues that would have been presented on the retaliation claim before PERB and award itself was not clearly repugnant to the purposes and policies of HEERA.