Decision 2205E – United Teachers of Los Angeles (Adams)


Decision Date: September 27, 2011

Decision Type: PERB Decision

Description:  Adams alleged that UTLA violated EERA section 3544.9 by failing to file a grievance and failing to enforce a settlement agreement.  In amended charges and in his appeal, Adams contended that the Board agent was biased against him and requested that the Board agent disqualify himself.

Disposition:  The Board upheld the dismissal of an unfair practice charge.  The Board also ruled that Adams failed to establish prejudice sufficient for Board agent disqualification, that is, that the Board agent demonstrated a fixed anticipatory judgment against Adams.

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 36
Perc Index: 52

Decision Headnotes

1100.02000 – Investigation of Charge

While the Board agent’s duties include assisting the charging party in stating the proper form of the charge, making inquiries and reviewing the charge and any accompanying materials, the ultimate responsibility remains with the charging party to provide a clear and concise statement of the facts constituting a prima facie case. The Board agent fulfilled his duties to assist the charging party in stating the proper form of the charge when he allowed the charging party to amend the charge three times, spoke with charging party by phone at least once and issued two warning letters to the charging party. A fixed anticipatory prejudgment against a party must be shown to establish prejudice sufficient for Board agent disqualification. Such prejudgment is established through statements or conduct by the Board agent indicating a clear predisposition against a party. Adverse rulings by a Board agent against a party in a previous case, or erroneous legal or factual rulings, do not alone indicate prejudice. There can be no bias attributed to a Board agent based on an earlier dismissal of a different charge by a different Board agent. An adverse ruling on a legal issue is not of itself sufficient to indicate bias.