Decision 2392C – San Bernardino County Superior Court
LA-CE-43-C
Decision Date: September 26, 2014
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: The ALJ concluded that the charging party failed to establish that the employer’s Employee Relations Rules (ERR) were unreasonable, that is, they were neither inconsistent with, nor did they fail to effectuate the purposes of, the Trial Court Act. The ALJ found that the employer’s ERR and the existing MOU’s extension language provided for window periods for filing decertification petitions and that none of those window periods was ever eliminated or shortened. Thus, the ALJ concluded that the employer’s ERR did not interfere with the employees’ right to choose an employee organization to represent them before the employer. Moreover, the ALJ found that charging party’s decertification petition was filed outside the window period provided by the employer’s ERR and concluded therefore that the petition had been properly dismissed.
Disposition: The Board affirmed the ALJ’s findings, reasoning and conclusions to dismiss the charge. The Board ruled that ERR were not unreasonable and covered the matter in dispute, that application of PERB’s own rules was therefore inappropriate, that taken together the respective MOUs and the ERR afforded charging party appropriate window periods within which to file a decertification petition, and the charging party failed to file its decertification petition within one of those window periods.
Perc Vol: 39
Perc Index: 52
Decision Headnotes
407.03000 – Premature Extension Doctrine
The extension language in the parties’ MOU, which provided that the extension would expire on November 30, 2012, or when the parties reached a successor agreement if that occurred sooner, did not render the 2011-2012 MOU or its extension a contract of indefinite duration.
1104.01000 – In General; Conduct of Hearing
PERB does not generally follow the summary judgment procedure utilized in California state courts. When facts are not in dispute, as they were not in this case, a matter may be deemed submitted on the record based on stipulated facts, briefs and responsive arguments. (PERB Reg. 32207.) Even if this matter were treated as a motion for summary judgment, a moving party bears the burden of proving that no disputed issue of fact exists and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
1104.02000 – Motions
PERB does not generally follow the summary judgment procedure utilized in California state courts. When facts are not in dispute, as they were not in this case, a matter may be deemed submitted on the record based on stipulated facts, briefs and responsive arguments. (PERB Reg. 32207.) Even if this matter were treated as a motion for summary judgment, a moving party bears the burden of proving that no disputed issue of fact exists and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
1301.01000 – In General
The extension language in the parties’ MOU, which provided that the extension would expire on November 30, 2012, or when the parties reached a successor agreement if that occurred sooner, did not render the 2011-2012 MOU or its extension a contract of indefinite duration. PERB’s regulations do not supplant a lawful local rule for determining the window period for a decertification petition.
1301.02000 – Automatic Renewal
The extension language in the parties’ MOU, which provided that the extension would expire on November 30, 2012, or when the parties reached a successor agreement if that occurred sooner, did not render the 2011-2012 MOU or its extension a contract of indefinite duration.
1301.04000 – Window Period
The extension language in the parties’ MOU, which provided that the extension would expire on November 30, 2012, or when the parties reached a successor agreement if that occurred sooner, did not render the 2011-2012 MOU or its extension a contract of indefinite duration. PERB’s regulations do not supplant a lawful local rule for determining the window period for a decertification petition.