Decision 2674Mb – Orange County Employees Association (Hamilton)

LA-CO-215-M

Decision Date: May 28, 2020

Decision Type: PERB Decision

Description:  Petitioner, attempting to cure the defects of her first request for reconsideration, submits newly discovered evidence which she claims warrants the Board’s reconsideration of PERB Decision No. 2674-M, in which the Board concluded she was not entitled to payment of attorney fees as damages for OCEA’s violation of its duty of fair representation.

Disposition:  The Board denied Petitioner’s second request for reconsideration.

View Full Text (PDF)

Decision Headnotes

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

PERB declined to award attorney fees as damages in a breach of representation case because the employee’s civil complaint involved (1) the same discrimination claims in a grievance that her union failed to file, and (2) additional retaliation claims. (pp. 4-5.) Because both claims were based on the same core set of facts, they were inextricably intertwined and it was impractical or impossible to apportion the attorney’s time spent on each claim. Under these circumstances, the Board ruled it did not further the purposes of the MMBA to require the union to pay the employee’s attorney fees as damages for breaching its duty of fair representation. (pp. 5-6.)

800.00000 – UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION
800.02000 – Grievance Handling/Contract Administration

PERB declined to award attorney fees as damages in a breach of representation case because the employee’s civil complaint involved (1) the same discrimination claims in a grievance that her union failed to file, and (2) additional retaliation claims. (pp. 4-5.) Because both claims were based on the same core set of facts, they were inextricably intertwined and it was impractical or impossible to apportion the attorney’s time spent on each claim. Under these circumstances, the Board ruled it did not further the purposes of the MMBA to require the union to pay the employee’s attorney fees as damages for breaching its duty of fair representation. (pp. 5-6.)

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

A party may file only one request for reconsideration of a Board decision, except in those cases where a prior request for reconsideration has resulted in the issuance of a completely revised decision. (p. 2.)

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

Under PERB Regulation 32410, a request for reconsideration based upon the discovery of new evidence must be supported by a declaration establishing, among other things, that the evidence impacts or alters the decision of the previously decided case. (p. 4.)

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

PERB declined to award attorney fees as damages in a breach of representation case because the employee’s civil complaint involved (1) the same discrimination claims in a grievance that her union failed to file, and (2) additional retaliation claims. (pp. 4-5.) Because both claims were based on the same core set of facts, they were inextricably intertwined and it was impractical or impossible to apportion the attorney’s time spent on each claim. Under these circumstances, the Board ruled it did not further the purposes of the MMBA to require the union to pay the employee’s attorney fees as damages for breaching its duty of fair representation. (pp. 5-6.)

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

PERB declined to award attorney fees as damages in a breach of representation case because the employee’s civil complaint involved (1) the same discrimination claims in a grievance that her union failed to file, and (2) additional retaliation claims. (pp. 4-5.) Because both claims were based on the same core set of facts, they were inextricably intertwined and it was impractical or impossible to apportion the attorney’s time spent on each claim. Under these circumstances, the Board ruled it did not further the purposes of the MMBA to require the union to pay the employee’s attorney fees as damages for breaching its duty of fair representation. (pp. 5-6.)

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

PERB declined to award attorney fees as damages in a breach of representation case because the employee’s civil complaint involved (1) the same discrimination claims in a grievance that her union failed to file, and (2) additional retaliation claims. (pp. 4-5.) Because both claims were based on the same core set of facts, they were inextricably intertwined and it was impractical or impossible to apportion the attorney’s time spent on each claim. Under these circumstances, the Board ruled it did not further the purposes of the MMBA to require the union to pay the employee’s attorney fees as damages for breaching its duty of fair representation. (pp. 5-6.)

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

PERB declined to award attorney fees as damages in a breach of representation case because the employee’s civil complaint involved (1) the same discrimination claims in a grievance that her union failed to file, and (2) additional retaliation claims. (pp. 4-5.) Because both claims were based on the same core set of facts, they were inextricably intertwined and it was impractical or impossible to apportion the attorney’s time spent on each claim. Under these circumstances, the Board ruled it did not further the purposes of the MMBA to require the union to pay the employee’s attorney fees as damages for breaching its duty of fair representation. (pp. 5-6.)

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

PERB declined to award attorney fees as damages in a breach of representation case because the employee’s civil complaint involved (1) the same discrimination claims in a grievance that her union failed to file, and (2) additional retaliation claims. (pp. 4-5.) Because both claims were based on the same core set of facts, they were inextricably intertwined and it was impractical or impossible to apportion the attorney’s time spent on each claim. Under these circumstances, the Board ruled it did not further the purposes of the MMBA to require the union to pay the employee’s attorney fees as damages for breaching its duty of fair representation. (pp. 5-6.)

1503.00000 – MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS
1503.01000 – In General

Under PERB Regulation 32410, a request for reconsideration based upon the discovery of new evidence must be supported by a declaration establishing, among other things, that the evidence impacts or alters the decision of the previously decided case. (p. 4.)

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

Under PERB Regulation 32410, a request for reconsideration based upon the discovery of new evidence must be supported by a declaration establishing, among other things, that the evidence impacts or alters the decision of the previously decided case. (p. 4.)