Decision 2394C – Santa Clara County Superior Court
SF-CE-15-C
Decision Date: October 20, 2014
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: The ALJ concluded that the employer had no duty under the Trial Court Act to bargain over the decision to implement furloughs of all employees on court closure days pursuant to former Government Code section 68106. The ALJ also determined that the employer remained obligated to bargain effects of its furlough decision under section 68106, but that SEIU had not made a valid demand for effects bargaining.
Disposition: The Board affirmed the ALJ’s determination that the employer did not violate the Trial Court Act or PERB regulations because it had no duty to bargain the employer’s decision to implement furloughs under former Government Code section 68106, and because the charging party made no demand to bargain over the effects of the furlough decision.
Perc Vol: 39
Perc Index: 56
Decision Headnotes
103.01000 – In General
PERB does not have the authority to declare a statute unconstitutional.
601.03000 – Decision vs Effects Bargaining
The Legislature intended in Government Code section 68106 to authorize the California Judicial Council to close courts and implement furloughs without bargaining over that decision. The Legislature modified the scope of bargaining by absolving the Court of the duty to bargain over the decision to impose furloughs when it enacted Government Code section 68106.
608.03000 – Business Necessity; Emergency Exception
The overriding intent of Government Code section 68106 was to save money so that the judicial branch could continue to function.
1000.01000 – In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated
The Legislature modified the scope of bargaining by absolving the Court of the duty to bargain over the decision to impose furloughs when it enacted Government Code section 68106.
1000.02076 – Lay-Offs
The Legislature modified the scope of bargaining by absolving the Court of the duty to bargain over the decision to impose furloughs when it enacted Government Code section 68106.
1105.07000 – Administrative and Judicial Notice
With regard to the propriety of an ALJ’s taking of official notice, the Board has applied the standards for the taking of judicial notice in a California court of law. The taking of judicial notice is governed by Evidence Code sections 451 and 452.
1107.10000 – Request for Reconsideration
PERB Regulation 32410 governs requests for reconsideration and limits such requests to claims that: (1) the Board’s decision contained prejudicial errors of fact; or (2) the party has newly discovered evidence which was not previously available and could not have been discovered with the exercise of reasonable diligence. Requests for reconsideration based on newly discovered evidence, must be accompanied by a declaration under penalty of perjury establishing that the evidence: (1) was not previously available; (2) could not have been discovered prior to the hearing with the exercise of reasonable diligence; (3) was submitted within a reasonable time of its discovery; (4) is relevant to the issues sought to be considered; and (5) impacts or alters the decision of the previously decided case.
1107.19000 – Motion to Reopen Record
The standard applied by the Board when considering whether to reopen the record to take further evidence is the same standard applied to requests for reconsideration.