Decision 2674Ma – Orange County Employees Association (Hamilton)

LA-CO-215-M

Decision Date: December 11, 2019

Decision Type: PERB Decision

Description:  Petitioner, Vanessa Hamilton, requested reconsideration of PERB Decision No. 2674-M, in which the Board concluded Hamilton failed to demonstrate harm that would justify ordering payment of attorney fees as damages for OCEA’s violation of its duty of fair representation.

Disposition:  The Board denied the request for reconsideration, finding that Petitioner failed to identify any prejudicial errors of fact in the underlying decision or present any newly discovered evidence in accordance with reconsideration procedures.

View Full Text (PDF)

Decision Headnotes

800.00000 – UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION
800.01000 – In General; Prima Facie Case

In duty of fair representation cases, employees are only entitled to an award of back pay or other damages where they can show that the union’s breach was the actual or proximate cause of their injuries. It is incumbent upon the charging party to put evidence of causation into the record during PERB’s hearing process. (p. 4.)

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
1107.10000 – Request for Reconsideration

The grounds for reconsideration are limited to claims that (1) the Board’s decision contains 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. (p. 2.) A party may not use the reconsideration process to register its disagreement with the Board’s legal analysis, to re-litigate issues that have already been decided, or simply to ask the Board to “try again.” (p. 5.)

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
1107.10000 – Request for Reconsideration

Arguing on reconsideration that the Board’s underlying decision contained prejudicial errors of fact, Petitioner claimed the Board’s factual findings were speculative because they were based on inferences drawn from evidentiary documents. However, PERB may draw reasonable inferences from the record. Petitioner’s failure to elicit testimony clarifying those documents or introduce other evidence supporting her position during PERB’s hearing process do not constitute grounds for reconsideration. (pp. 3-4.)

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
1107.10000 – Request for Reconsideration

In duty of fair representation cases, employees are only entitled to an award of back pay or other damages where they can show that the union’s breach was the actual or proximate cause of their injuries. It is incumbent upon the charging party to put evidence of causation into the record during PERB’s hearing process. Petitioner cannot do so on reconsideration unless the evidence is newly discovered and supported by a declaration establishing several criteria required under PERB Regulation 32410. (pp. 4-5.) The Board denied the request for reconsideration because it was not accompanied by such a declaration and, furthermore, the newly-submitted evidence was available at the time of the hearing. (p. 5.)

1201.00000 – REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; REINSTATEMENT; BACKPAY BENEFITS
1201.01000 – In General

In duty of fair representation cases, employees are only entitled to an award of back pay or other damages where they can show that the union’s breach was the actual or proximate cause of their injuries. It is incumbent upon the charging party to put evidence of causation into the record during PERB’s hearing process. (p. 4.)

1201.00000 – REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; REINSTATEMENT; BACKPAY BENEFITS
1201.03000 – Back Pay; Interest

In duty of fair representation cases, employees are only entitled to an award of back pay or other damages where they can show that the union’s breach was the actual or proximate cause of their injuries. It is incumbent upon the charging party to put evidence of causation into the record during PERB’s hearing process. (p. 4.)

1204.00000 – REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; REMEDIES AGAINST UNION
1204.01000 – In General

In duty of fair representation cases, employees are only entitled to an award of back pay or other damages where they can show that the union’s breach was the actual or proximate cause of their injuries. It is incumbent upon the charging party to put evidence of causation into the record during PERB’s hearing process. (p. 4.)

1204.00000 – REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; REMEDIES AGAINST UNION
1204.04000 – Reimbursement of Dues, Fees and Exactions to Employees; Union Liability

In duty of fair representation cases, employees are only entitled to an award of back pay or other damages where they can show that the union’s breach was the actual or proximate cause of their injuries. It is incumbent upon the charging party to put evidence of causation into the record during PERB’s hearing process. (p. 4.)

1205.00000 – REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIAL PROVISIONS
1205.01000 – In General

In duty of fair representation cases, employees are only entitled to an award of back pay or other damages where they can show that the union’s breach was the actual or proximate cause of their injuries. It is incumbent upon the charging party to put evidence of causation into the record during PERB’s hearing process. (p. 4.)

1205.00000 – REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIAL PROVISIONS
1205.04000 – Attorneys Fees and Costs

In duty of fair representation cases, employees are only entitled to an award of back pay or other damages where they can show that the union’s breach was the actual or proximate cause of their injuries. It is incumbent upon the charging party to put evidence of causation into the record during PERB’s hearing process. (p. 4.)

1503.00000 – MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS
1503.01000 – In General

The grounds for reconsideration are limited to claims that (1) the Board’s decision contains 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. (p. 2.) A party may not use the reconsideration process to register its disagreement with the Board’s legal analysis, to re-litigate issues that have already been decided, or simply to ask the Board to “try again.” (p. 5.)

1503.00000 – MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS
1503.01000 – In General

Arguing on reconsideration that the Board’s underlying decision contained prejudicial errors of fact, Petitioner claimed the Board’s factual findings were speculative because they were based on inferences drawn from evidentiary documents. However, PERB may draw reasonable inferences from the record. Petitioner’s failure to elicit testimony clarifying those documents or introduce other evidence supporting her position during PERB’s hearing process do not constitute grounds for reconsideration. (pp. 3-4.)

1503.00000 – MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS
1503.01000 – In General

In duty of fair representation cases, employees are only entitled to an award of back pay or other damages where they can show that the union’s breach was the actual or proximate cause of their injuries. It is incumbent upon the charging party to put evidence of causation into the record during PERB’s hearing process. Petitioner cannot do so on reconsideration unless the evidence is newly discovered and supported by a declaration establishing several criteria required under PERB Regulation 32410. (pp. 4-5.) The Board denied the request for reconsideration because it was not accompanied by such a declaration and, furthermore, the newly-submitted evidence was available at the time of the hearing. (p. 5.)

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

The grounds for reconsideration are limited to claims that (1) the Board’s decision contains 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. (p. 2.) A party may not use the reconsideration process to register its disagreement with the Board’s legal analysis, to re-litigate issues that have already been decided, or simply to ask the Board to “try again.” (p. 5.)

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

Arguing on reconsideration that the Board’s underlying decision contained prejudicial errors of fact, Petitioner claimed the Board’s factual findings were speculative because they were based on inferences drawn from evidentiary documents. However, PERB may draw reasonable inferences from the record. Petitioner’s failure to elicit testimony clarifying those documents or introduce other evidence supporting her position during PERB’s hearing process do not constitute grounds for reconsideration. (pp. 3-4.)

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

In duty of fair representation cases, employees are only entitled to an award of back pay or other damages where they can show that the union’s breach was the actual or proximate cause of their injuries. It is incumbent upon the charging party to put evidence of causation into the record during PERB’s hearing process. Petitioner cannot do so on reconsideration unless the evidence is newly discovered and supported by a declaration establishing several criteria required under PERB Regulation 32410. (pp. 4-5.) The Board denied the request for reconsideration because it was not accompanied by such a declaration and, furthermore, the newly-submitted evidence was available at the time of the hearing. (p. 5.)