Decision 2392C – San Bernardino County Superior Court

LA-CE-43-C

Decision Date: September 26, 2014

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 39
Perc Index: 52

Decision Headnotes

407.00000 – EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH DECERTIFICATION OR RIVAL UNION PETITION
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.

1104.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; PROCEDURE BEFORE ALJ
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.

1104.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; PROCEDURE BEFORE ALJ
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.

1301.00000 – REPRESENTATION ISSUES; CONTRACT BAR
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.

1301.00000 – REPRESENTATION ISSUES; CONTRACT BAR
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.

1301.00000 – REPRESENTATION ISSUES; CONTRACT BAR
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.