Decision 2548E – Lake Elsinore Unified School District (Edwards)
LA-CE-6118
Decision Date: February 2, 2018
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: A public school employee appealed from the dismissal of her unfair practice charge, which alleged that her employer had discriminated against her by reporting inaccurate retirement service credit information to the California State Teachers’ Retirement System because of the employee’s protected activity.
Disposition: Because the charge allegations stated a viable theory of liability in an unsettled area of retirement law outside PERB’s jurisdiction and special expertise, the Board vacated the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings to determine if the charge allegations were timely.
Perc Vol: 42
Perc Index: 102
Decision Headnotes
1107.01000 – Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver
Despite its highly repetitive and often misplaced or entirely irrelevant arguments, charging party’s appeal from dismissal/refusal to issue a complaint identified the asserted error by the Office of the General Counsel in dismissing her charge, and thus substantially complied with PERB Regulation 32635. While clarity and conciseness are always appreciated, the regulation governing appeals does not expressly require a “clear and concise statement” of the appeal. (p. 11.)
1107.03000 – Remand for Further Hearing; Remand to General Counsel
Despite its highly repetitive and often misplaced or entirely irrelevant arguments, charging party’s appeal from dismissal/refusal to issue a complaint identified the asserted error by the Office of the General Counsel in dismissing her charge, and thus substantially complied with PERB Regulation 32635. While clarity and conciseness are always appreciated, the regulation governing appeals does not expressly require a “clear and concise statement” of the appeal. (p. 11.)
1107.06000 – De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board
Despite its highly repetitive and often misplaced or entirely irrelevant arguments, charging party’s appeal from dismissal/refusal to issue a complaint identified the asserted error by the Office of the General Counsel in dismissing her charge, and thus substantially complied with PERB Regulation 32635. While clarity and conciseness are always appreciated, the regulation governing appeals does not expressly require a “clear and concise statement” of the appeal. (p. 11.)
1503.01000 – In General
Despite its highly repetitive and often misplaced or entirely irrelevant arguments, charging party’s appeal from dismissal/refusal to issue a complaint identified the asserted error by the Office of the General Counsel in dismissing her charge, and thus substantially complied with PERB Regulation 32635. While clarity and conciseness are always appreciated, the regulation governing appeals does not expressly require a “clear and concise statement” of the appeal. (p. 11.)
1503.02000 – Regulations Considered (By Number)
Despite its highly repetitive and often misplaced or entirely irrelevant arguments, charging party’s appeal from dismissal/refusal to issue a complaint identified the asserted error by the Office of the General Counsel in dismissing her charge, and thus substantially complied with PERB Regulation 32635. While clarity and conciseness are always appreciated, the regulation governing appeals does not expressly require a “clear and concise statement” of the appeal. (p. 11.)
1503.03000 – Regulations Considered (By Number) (Continued)
Despite its highly repetitive and often misplaced or entirely irrelevant arguments, charging party’s appeal from dismissal/refusal to issue a complaint identified the asserted error by the Office of the General Counsel in dismissing her charge, and thus substantially complied with PERB Regulation 32635. While clarity and conciseness are always appreciated, the regulation governing appeals does not expressly require a “clear and concise statement” of the appeal. (p. 11.)
101.01000 – In General
Although the charge relied extensively on the Education Code and other matters outside PERB’s jurisdiction, because it alleged that a public school district employer had denied charging party retirement or other employment benefits to which she was legally entitled because of her protected activity, the matter constitutes an unfair practice allegation within PERB’s legislatively designated field of expertise. (p. 12.) The Office of the General Counsel correctly determined that while PERB has no authority to enforce or order remedies for violations of the Education Code, the Board and its agents may interpret the provisions of the Education Code or other matters of external law where necessary to administer EERA or to harmonize it with external law. (pp. 11-12.) To avoid acting in excess of its authority, PERB has an obligation to determine whether it has jurisdiction over a dispute, regardless of whether the parties themselves have raised the issue. (p. 11.)
101.02000 – Conflicts Between PERB-Administered Laws and Other California Statutes; Education Code/Supersession; MMBA Supersession
Although the charge relied extensively on the Education Code and other matters outside PERB’s jurisdiction, because it alleged that a public school district employer had denied charging party retirement or other employment benefits to which she was legally entitled because of her protected activity, the matter constitutes an unfair practice allegation within PERB’s legislatively designated field of expertise. (p. 12.) The Office of the General Counsel correctly determined that while PERB has no authority to enforce or order remedies for violations of the Education Code, the Board and its agents may interpret the provisions of the Education Code or other matters of external law where necessary to administer EERA or to harmonize it with external law. (pp. 11-12.) To avoid acting in excess of its authority, PERB has an obligation to determine whether it has jurisdiction over a dispute, regardless of whether the parties themselves have raised the issue. (p. 11.)
102.01000 – In General/Exclusive Initial Jurisdiction-Deferral to Arbitration; Deference by Reviewing Courts
Although the charge relied extensively on the Education Code and other matters outside PERB’s jurisdiction, because it alleged that a public school district employer had denied charging party retirement or other employment benefits to which she was legally entitled because of her protected activity, the matter constitutes an unfair practice allegation within PERB’s legislatively designated field of expertise. (p. 12.) The Office of the General Counsel correctly determined that while PERB has no authority to enforce or order remedies for violations of the Education Code, the Board and its agents may interpret the provisions of the Education Code or other matters of external law where necessary to administer EERA or to harmonize it with external law. (pp. 11-12.) To avoid acting in excess of its authority, PERB has an obligation to determine whether it has jurisdiction over a dispute, regardless of whether the parties themselves have raised the issue. (p. 11.)
102.02000 – Concurrent or Conflicting Jurisdiction with Other Agencies or Courts; Interpretation or Enforcement of Other Statutes
Although the charge relied extensively on the Education Code and other matters outside PERB’s jurisdiction, because it alleged that a public school district employer had denied charging party retirement or other employment benefits to which she was legally entitled because of her protected activity, the matter constitutes an unfair practice allegation within PERB’s legislatively designated field of expertise. (p. 12.) The Office of the General Counsel correctly determined that while PERB has no authority to enforce or order remedies for violations of the Education Code, the Board and its agents may interpret the provisions of the Education Code or other matters of external law where necessary to administer EERA or to harmonize it with external law. (pp. 11-12.) To avoid acting in excess of its authority, PERB has an obligation to determine whether it has jurisdiction over a dispute, regardless of whether the parties themselves have raised the issue. (p. 11.)
1100.01000 – In General/Prima Facie Case
Although the charge relied extensively on the Education Code and other matters outside PERB’s jurisdiction, because it alleged that a public school district employer had denied charging party retirement or other employment benefits to which she was legally entitled because of her protected activity, the matter constitutes an unfair practice allegation within PERB’s legislatively designated field of expertise. (p. 12.) The Office of the General Counsel correctly determined that while PERB has no authority to enforce or order remedies for violations of the Education Code, the Board and its agents may interpret the provisions of the Education Code or other matters of external law where necessary to administer EERA or to harmonize it with external law. (pp. 11-12.) To avoid acting in excess of its authority, PERB has an obligation to determine whether it has jurisdiction over a dispute, regardless of whether the parties themselves have raised the issue. (p. 11.)
1100.02000 – Investigation of Charge
Although the charge relied extensively on the Education Code and other matters outside PERB’s jurisdiction, because it alleged that a public school district employer had denied charging party retirement or other employment benefits to which she was legally entitled because of her protected activity, the matter constitutes an unfair practice allegation within PERB’s legislatively designated field of expertise. (p. 12.) The Office of the General Counsel correctly determined that while PERB has no authority to enforce or order remedies for violations of the Education Code, the Board and its agents may interpret the provisions of the Education Code or other matters of external law where necessary to administer EERA or to harmonize it with external law. (pp. 11-12.) To avoid acting in excess of its authority, PERB has an obligation to determine whether it has jurisdiction over a dispute, regardless of whether the parties themselves have raised the issue. (p. 11.)
1100.05000 – Dismissal of Charge; Appeal
Although the charge relied extensively on the Education Code and other matters outside PERB’s jurisdiction, because it alleged that a public school district employer had denied charging party retirement or other employment benefits to which she was legally entitled because of her protected activity, the matter constitutes an unfair practice allegation within PERB’s legislatively designated field of expertise. (p. 12.) The Office of the General Counsel correctly determined that while PERB has no authority to enforce or order remedies for violations of the Education Code, the Board and its agents may interpret the provisions of the Education Code or other matters of external law where necessary to administer EERA or to harmonize it with external law. (pp. 11-12.) To avoid acting in excess of its authority, PERB has an obligation to determine whether it has jurisdiction over a dispute, regardless of whether the parties themselves have raised the issue. (p. 11.)
1100.08000 – Pleading Requirements
Although the charge relied extensively on the Education Code and other matters outside PERB’s jurisdiction, because it alleged that a public school district employer had denied charging party retirement or other employment benefits to which she was legally entitled because of her protected activity, the matter constitutes an unfair practice allegation within PERB’s legislatively designated field of expertise. (p. 12.) The Office of the General Counsel correctly determined that while PERB has no authority to enforce or order remedies for violations of the Education Code, the Board and its agents may interpret the provisions of the Education Code or other matters of external law where necessary to administer EERA or to harmonize it with external law. (pp. 11-12.) To avoid acting in excess of its authority, PERB has an obligation to determine whether it has jurisdiction over a dispute, regardless of whether the parties themselves have raised the issue. (p. 11.)
1500.01000 – In General
Although the charge relied extensively on the Education Code and other matters outside PERB’s jurisdiction, because it alleged that a public school district employer had denied charging party retirement or other employment benefits to which she was legally entitled because of her protected activity, the matter constitutes an unfair practice allegation within PERB’s legislatively designated field of expertise. (p. 12.) The Office of the General Counsel correctly determined that while PERB has no authority to enforce or order remedies for violations of the Education Code, the Board and its agents may interpret the provisions of the Education Code or other matters of external law where necessary to administer EERA or to harmonize it with external law. (pp. 11-12.) To avoid acting in excess of its authority, PERB has an obligation to determine whether it has jurisdiction over a dispute, regardless of whether the parties themselves have raised the issue. (p. 11.)
1500.02000 – Education Code Sections Considered by PERB (By Number)
Although the charge relied extensively on the Education Code and other matters outside PERB’s jurisdiction, because it alleged that a public school district employer had denied charging party retirement or other employment benefits to which she was legally entitled because of her protected activity, the matter constitutes an unfair practice allegation within PERB’s legislatively designated field of expertise. (p. 12.) The Office of the General Counsel correctly determined that while PERB has no authority to enforce or order remedies for violations of the Education Code, the Board and its agents may interpret the provisions of the Education Code or other matters of external law where necessary to administer EERA or to harmonize it with external law. (pp. 11-12.) To avoid acting in excess of its authority, PERB has an obligation to determine whether it has jurisdiction over a dispute, regardless of whether the parties themselves have raised the issue. (p. 11.)
1500.03000 – Education Code Sections Considered by PERB (By Subject)
Although the charge relied extensively on the Education Code and other matters outside PERB’s jurisdiction, because it alleged that a public school district employer had denied charging party retirement or other employment benefits to which she was legally entitled because of her protected activity, the matter constitutes an unfair practice allegation within PERB’s legislatively designated field of expertise. (p. 12.) The Office of the General Counsel correctly determined that while PERB has no authority to enforce or order remedies for violations of the Education Code, the Board and its agents may interpret the provisions of the Education Code or other matters of external law where necessary to administer EERA or to harmonize it with external law. (pp. 11-12.) To avoid acting in excess of its authority, PERB has an obligation to determine whether it has jurisdiction over a dispute, regardless of whether the parties themselves have raised the issue. (p. 11.)
101.01000 – In General
Where Charging Party’s discrimination allegation turns on a matter of law outside PERB’s traditional expertise, i.e., whether the public school employer complied with state law and/or regulations governing certificated employee retirement credit, the appropriate question is not which of two competing interpretations of external law is the more plausible, but whether the language in dispute is reasonably susceptible to the charging party’s interpretation and whether that interpretation supports a viable, i.e., non-frivolous, legal theory of an unfair practice or other violation of a PERB-administered statute. Where the investigation of an unfair practice charge results in receipt of conflicting allegations of fact or contrary theories of law, fair proceedings, if not due process, demand that a complaint be issued and the matter be sent to formal hearing to test a novel theory or competing theories of law, so long as the theory advanced is “viable,” i.e. non-frivolous. The Board is necessarily cautious about rejecting allegations involving statutory, decisional, regulatory, or other authority outside PERB’s jurisdiction and special expertise in labor relations, particularly when the area of external law is itself unsettled.
101.02000 – Conflicts Between PERB-Administered Laws and Other California Statutes; Education Code/Supersession; MMBA Supersession
Where Charging Party’s discrimination allegation turns on a matter of law outside PERB’s traditional expertise, i.e., whether the public school employer complied with state law and/or regulations governing certificated employee retirement credit, the appropriate question is not which of two competing interpretations of external law is the more plausible, but whether the language in dispute is reasonably susceptible to the charging party’s interpretation and whether that interpretation supports a viable, i.e., non-frivolous, legal theory of an unfair practice or other violation of a PERB-administered statute. Where the investigation of an unfair practice charge results in receipt of conflicting allegations of fact or contrary theories of law, fair proceedings, if not due process, demand that a complaint be issued and the matter be sent to formal hearing to test a novel theory or competing theories of law, so long as the theory advanced is “viable,” i.e. non-frivolous. The Board is necessarily cautious about rejecting allegations involving statutory, decisional, regulatory, or other authority outside PERB’s jurisdiction and special expertise in labor relations, particularly when the area of external law is itself unsettled.
102.01000 – In General/Exclusive Initial Jurisdiction-Deferral to Arbitration; Deference by Reviewing Courts
Where Charging Party’s discrimination allegation turns on a matter of law outside PERB’s traditional expertise, i.e., whether the public school employer complied with state law and/or regulations governing certificated employee retirement credit, the appropriate question is not which of two competing interpretations of external law is the more plausible, but whether the language in dispute is reasonably susceptible to the charging party’s interpretation and whether that interpretation supports a viable, i.e., non-frivolous, legal theory of an unfair practice or other violation of a PERB-administered statute. Where the investigation of an unfair practice charge results in receipt of conflicting allegations of fact or contrary theories of law, fair proceedings, if not due process, demand that a complaint be issued and the matter be sent to formal hearing to test a novel theory or competing theories of law, so long as the theory advanced is “viable,” i.e. non-frivolous. The Board is necessarily cautious about rejecting allegations involving statutory, decisional, regulatory, or other authority outside PERB’s jurisdiction and special expertise in labor relations, particularly when the area of external law is itself unsettled.
102.02000 – Concurrent or Conflicting Jurisdiction with Other Agencies or Courts; Interpretation or Enforcement of Other Statutes
Where Charging Party’s discrimination allegation turns on a matter of law outside PERB’s traditional expertise, i.e., whether the public school employer complied with state law and/or regulations governing certificated employee retirement credit, the appropriate question is not which of two competing interpretations of external law is the more plausible, but whether the language in dispute is reasonably susceptible to the charging party’s interpretation and whether that interpretation supports a viable, i.e., non-frivolous, legal theory of an unfair practice or other violation of a PERB-administered statute. Where the investigation of an unfair practice charge results in receipt of conflicting allegations of fact or contrary theories of law, fair proceedings, if not due process, demand that a complaint be issued and the matter be sent to formal hearing to test a novel theory or competing theories of law, so long as the theory advanced is “viable,” i.e. non-frivolous. The Board is necessarily cautious about rejecting allegations involving statutory, decisional, regulatory, or other authority outside PERB’s jurisdiction and special expertise in labor relations, particularly when the area of external law is itself unsettled.
1100.01000 – In General/Prima Facie Case
Where Charging Party’s discrimination allegation turns on a matter of law outside PERB’s traditional expertise, i.e., whether the public school employer complied with state law and/or regulations governing certificated employee retirement credit, the appropriate question is not which of two competing interpretations of external law is the more plausible, but whether the language in dispute is reasonably susceptible to the charging party’s interpretation and whether that interpretation supports a viable, i.e., non-frivolous, legal theory of an unfair practice or other violation of a PERB-administered statute. Where the investigation of an unfair practice charge results in receipt of conflicting allegations of fact or contrary theories of law, fair proceedings, if not due process, demand that a complaint be issued and the matter be sent to formal hearing to test a novel theory or competing theories of law, so long as the theory advanced is “viable,” i.e. non-frivolous. The Board is necessarily cautious about rejecting allegations involving statutory, decisional, regulatory, or other authority outside PERB’s jurisdiction and special expertise in labor relations, particularly when the area of external law is itself unsettled.
1100.02000 – Investigation of Charge
Where Charging Party’s discrimination allegation turns on a matter of law outside PERB’s traditional expertise, i.e., whether the public school employer complied with state law and/or regulations governing certificated employee retirement credit, the appropriate question is not which of two competing interpretations of external law is the more plausible, but whether the language in dispute is reasonably susceptible to the charging party’s interpretation and whether that interpretation supports a viable, i.e., non-frivolous, legal theory of an unfair practice or other violation of a PERB-administered statute. Where the investigation of an unfair practice charge results in receipt of conflicting allegations of fact or contrary theories of law, fair proceedings, if not due process, demand that a complaint be issued and the matter be sent to formal hearing to test a novel theory or competing theories of law, so long as the theory advanced is “viable,” i.e. non-frivolous. The Board is necessarily cautious about rejecting allegations involving statutory, decisional, regulatory, or other authority outside PERB’s jurisdiction and special expertise in labor relations, particularly when the area of external law is itself unsettled.
1100.05000 – Dismissal of Charge; Appeal
Where Charging Party’s discrimination allegation turns on a matter of law outside PERB’s traditional expertise, i.e., whether the public school employer complied with state law and/or regulations governing certificated employee retirement credit, the appropriate question is not which of two competing interpretations of external law is the more plausible, but whether the language in dispute is reasonably susceptible to the charging party’s interpretation and whether that interpretation supports a viable, i.e., non-frivolous, legal theory of an unfair practice or other violation of a PERB-administered statute. Where the investigation of an unfair practice charge results in receipt of conflicting allegations of fact or contrary theories of law, fair proceedings, if not due process, demand that a complaint be issued and the matter be sent to formal hearing to test a novel theory or competing theories of law, so long as the theory advanced is “viable,” i.e. non-frivolous. The Board is necessarily cautious about rejecting allegations involving statutory, decisional, regulatory, or other authority outside PERB’s jurisdiction and special expertise in labor relations, particularly when the area of external law is itself unsettled.
1100.08000 – Pleading Requirements
Where Charging Party’s discrimination allegation turns on a matter of law outside PERB’s traditional expertise, i.e., whether the public school employer complied with state law and/or regulations governing certificated employee retirement credit, the appropriate question is not which of two competing interpretations of external law is the more plausible, but whether the language in dispute is reasonably susceptible to the charging party’s interpretation and whether that interpretation supports a viable, i.e., non-frivolous, legal theory of an unfair practice or other violation of a PERB-administered statute. Where the investigation of an unfair practice charge results in receipt of conflicting allegations of fact or contrary theories of law, fair proceedings, if not due process, demand that a complaint be issued and the matter be sent to formal hearing to test a novel theory or competing theories of law, so long as the theory advanced is “viable,” i.e. non-frivolous. The Board is necessarily cautious about rejecting allegations involving statutory, decisional, regulatory, or other authority outside PERB’s jurisdiction and special expertise in labor relations, particularly when the area of external law is itself unsettled.
1500.01000 – In General
Where Charging Party’s discrimination allegation turns on a matter of law outside PERB’s traditional expertise, i.e., whether the public school employer complied with state law and/or regulations governing certificated employee retirement credit, the appropriate question is not which of two competing interpretations of external law is the more plausible, but whether the language in dispute is reasonably susceptible to the charging party’s interpretation and whether that interpretation supports a viable, i.e., non-frivolous, legal theory of an unfair practice or other violation of a PERB-administered statute. Where the investigation of an unfair practice charge results in receipt of conflicting allegations of fact or contrary theories of law, fair proceedings, if not due process, demand that a complaint be issued and the matter be sent to formal hearing to test a novel theory or competing theories of law, so long as the theory advanced is “viable,” i.e. non-frivolous. The Board is necessarily cautious about rejecting allegations involving statutory, decisional, regulatory, or other authority outside PERB’s jurisdiction and special expertise in labor relations, particularly when the area of external law is itself unsettled.
1500.02000 – Education Code Sections Considered by PERB (By Number)
Where Charging Party’s discrimination allegation turns on a matter of law outside PERB’s traditional expertise, i.e., whether the public school employer complied with state law and/or regulations governing certificated employee retirement credit, the appropriate question is not which of two competing interpretations of external law is the more plausible, but whether the language in dispute is reasonably susceptible to the charging party’s interpretation and whether that interpretation supports a viable, i.e., non-frivolous, legal theory of an unfair practice or other violation of a PERB-administered statute. Where the investigation of an unfair practice charge results in receipt of conflicting allegations of fact or contrary theories of law, fair proceedings, if not due process, demand that a complaint be issued and the matter be sent to formal hearing to test a novel theory or competing theories of law, so long as the theory advanced is “viable,” i.e. non-frivolous. The Board is necessarily cautious about rejecting allegations involving statutory, decisional, regulatory, or other authority outside PERB’s jurisdiction and special expertise in labor relations, particularly when the area of external law is itself unsettled.
1500.03000 – Education Code Sections Considered by PERB (By Subject)
Where Charging Party’s discrimination allegation turns on a matter of law outside PERB’s traditional expertise, i.e., whether the public school employer complied with state law and/or regulations governing certificated employee retirement credit, the appropriate question is not which of two competing interpretations of external law is the more plausible, but whether the language in dispute is reasonably susceptible to the charging party’s interpretation and whether that interpretation supports a viable, i.e., non-frivolous, legal theory of an unfair practice or other violation of a PERB-administered statute. Where the investigation of an unfair practice charge results in receipt of conflicting allegations of fact or contrary theories of law, fair proceedings, if not due process, demand that a complaint be issued and the matter be sent to formal hearing to test a novel theory or competing theories of law, so long as the theory advanced is “viable,” i.e. non-frivolous. The Board is necessarily cautious about rejecting allegations involving statutory, decisional, regulatory, or other authority outside PERB’s jurisdiction and special expertise in labor relations, particularly when the area of external law is itself unsettled.