Decision 2604E – Mount San Jacinto Community College District Faculty Association
LA-CO-1567-E
Decision Date: December 12, 2018
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: Charging party Vasek, who prevailed in the proposed decision, filed exceptions to two of the ALJ’s findings of fact.
Disposition: Absent good cause, the Board will decline to consider initial exceptions filed by a prevailing party. Vasek did not show good cause for the Board to consider his exceptions. Accordingly the Board dismissed Vasek’s exceptions and did not adopt the ALJ’s findings as a decision of the Board itself.
Perc Vol: 43
Perc Index: 91
Decision Headnotes
1107.01000 – Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver
Absent good cause, the Board declines to consider initial exceptions filed by a prevailing party.
1107.01000 – Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver
Initial exceptions filed by prevailing party dismissed where good cause for the Board to consider the exceptions not shown. Board declines to adopt ALJ’s findings as a decision of the Board itself; the proposed decision remains nonprecedential and binding on the parties only with respect to the specific controversy involved in the case. This holding prevents prevailing parties from unilaterally turning a favorable ALJ decision into a precedential decision of the Board.
1107.01000 – Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver
The Board need not correct an ALJ’s harmless error. (Fremont Unified School District (2003) PERB Decision No. 1528 (Fremont), p. 2.) “This is especially true where the party asserting the errors seeks only to correct them, and does not seek to overturn the ALJ decision itself.” (Id. at pp. 2-3.)
1107.05000 – Precedential Authority of PERB Decisions
Initial exceptions filed by prevailing party dismissed where good cause for the Board to consider the exceptions not shown. Board declines to adopt ALJ’s findings as a decision of the Board itself; the proposed decision remains nonprecedential and binding on the parties only with respect to the specific controversy involved in the case. This holding prevents prevailing parties from unilaterally turning a favorable ALJ decision into a precedential decision of the Board.