Decision 2617E – Oxnard Union High School District

LA-CE-6036-E

Decision Date: December 27, 2018

Decision Type: PERB Decision

Description:  A public school employee excepted to a proposed decision concluding that she did not prove her employer retaliated against her in response to her protected conduct or that it violated her right to representation during meetings with management.

Disposition:  The Board affirmed the proposed decision dismissing the unfair practice charge and complaint, rejecting charging party’s exceptions asserting that respondent’s witnesses were untruthful.  Charging party’s exceptions relied on documents in existence before the evidentiary record closed and she failed to show good cause or any rationale why she had not presented them at hearing.

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 43
Perc Index: 111

Decision Headnotes

1105.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE
1105.14000 – Witnesses: Credibility, Cross Examination and Impeachment; Pretrial Statements

The Board held the ALJ properly refused to consider documents attached to the charging party’s post-hearing closing brief which were offered in support of her claim that two of respondent’s witnesses testified untruthfully at the hearing. Because she never requested a hearing transcript, the Board had no formal record of their testimony to review and no basis to question the ALJ’s findings of fact based on the witnesses’ testimony. (p. 3.) Nor did charging party explain why she did not introduce the documents, which existed at the time of the hearing, before the evidentiary record closed. Thus, her effort to attack the witnesses’ credibility after they were no longer subject to examination by the employer was inappropriate. (p. 4.)

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
1107.01000 – Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver

Compliance with PERB Regulation 32300 is necessary to afford the respondent and the Board an adequate opportunity to address the issues raised. When a party fails to comply with those requirements, the Board may dismiss the exceptions without reviewing their merits. (p. 2.)

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
1107.01000 – Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver

The Board need not consider arguments in a party’s exceptions that the ALJ adequately addressed in the proposed decision. (p. 2.)

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
1107.01000 – Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver

Absent good cause, after the evidentiary record closes, a party cannot belatedly proffer evidence it had the opportunity to present during an earlier stage of the proceedings. (p. 3.)

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
1107.01000 – Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver

An ALJ did not err in declining to consider documents not introduced at the hearing that the charging party submitted with her post-hearing closing brief. (p. 3.) To the extent the charging party argued the documents were intended to show that the respondent’s witnesses testified untruthfully, the charging party failed to offer any explanation for why she could not have introduced the documents at hearing. (p. 4.)

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
1107.02000 – Weight Given to ALJ’s Proposed Decision: Findings, Conclusions, Credibility Resolutions

The Board held the ALJ properly refused to consider documents attached to the charging party’s post-hearing closing brief which were offered in support of her claim that two of respondent’s witnesses testified untruthfully at the hearing. Because she never requested a hearing transcript, the Board had no formal record of their testimony to review and no basis to question the ALJ’s findings of fact based on the witnesses’ testimony. (p. 3.) Nor did charging party explain why she did not introduce the documents, which existed at the time of the hearing, before the evidentiary record closed. Thus, her effort to attack the witnesses’ credibility after they were no longer subject to examination by the employer was inappropriate. (p. 4.)

1503.00000 – MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS
1503.02000 – Regulations Considered (By Number)

Compliance with PERB Regulation 32300 is necessary to afford the respondent and the Board an adequate opportunity to address the issues raised. When a party fails to comply with those requirements, the Board may dismiss the exceptions without reviewing their merits. (p. 2.)

1503.00000 – MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS
1503.03000 – Regulations Considered (By Number) (Continued)

Compliance with PERB Regulation 32300 is necessary to afford the respondent and the Board an adequate opportunity to address the issues raised. When a party fails to comply with those requirements, the Board may dismiss the exceptions without reviewing their merits. (p. 2.)