Decision 2826M – Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency
SA-CE-1090-M
Decision Date: July 7, 2022
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: This case came before the Board on exceptions by the Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency and cross-exceptions by Philip Stephen Fay to the proposed decision of an administrative law judge, which concluded that the Agency violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) when it issued Fay a disciplinary memorandum and terminated his employment in retaliation for his protected activities. While the matter was pending before the Board on the Agency’s exceptions and Fay’s cross-exceptions, the parties notified PERB that they settled this matter, and requested to withdraw their exceptions and have the complaint, underlying amended unfair practice charges, and the entire matter dismissed with prejudice.
Disposition: The Board granted the parties’ request to withdraw, finding it to be in the parties’ best interest and consistent with the purposes of the MMBA to promote harmonious labor relations, and dismissed the matter with prejudice. The Board noted that Fay’s cross-exceptions raised the issue of whether PERB should adopt the practice of augmenting monetary damages by compound, rather than by simple, interest. The Board did not reach the issue in light of the parties’ request to withdraw, but noted it does not foreclose the possibility of considering whether PERB should adopt that method of calculating interest in a future case.
Perc Vol: 47
Perc Index: 30
Decision Headnotes
1201.03000 – Back Pay; Interest
In 2010 the NLRB began including daily compound interest in all monetary relief. (Bellflower Unified School District (2022) PERB Decision No. 2544a, p. 41, fn. 23 [judicial appeal pending] (Bellflower), citing Kentucky River Medical Center 356 NLRB 6, 6.) The Board declined to reach that issue in Bellflower due to an agreement between the parties to apply simple annual interest. (Ibid.) Although the Board similarly did not reach the issue in this matter in light of the parties’ request to withdraw, it noted the possibility of considering whether PERB should adopt that method of calculating interest in a future case.
1107.15000 – Withdrawal of Appeal; Request that Decision be Vacated
The Board has discretion to grant or deny requests to withdraw and dismiss cases pending before the Board itself. (§§ 3509, subd. (a), 3541.3, subds. (i) and (n); PERB Reg. 32320, subd. (a)(2) [“The Board itself may . . . [¶] . . . take such other action as it considers proper.”]; County of Riverside (2020) PERB Decision No. 2707-M, p. 2.) The Board has a longstanding policy favoring voluntary settlement of disputes. (Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District (1980) PERB Order No. Ad-81a.) The Board generally grants such requests where it finds the request to be in the best interest of the parties and consistent with the purposes of the applicable Act. (See, e.g., County of Riverside, supra, PERB Decision No. 2707-M, p. 3; Sanitation Districts, supra, PERB Decision No. 2656-M, p. 2; Santa Rosa, supra, PERB Decision No. 2653-M, p. 2.)
1107.15000 – Withdrawal of Appeal; Request that Decision be Vacated
The Board has on occasion denied a request to withdraw an unfair practice charge, e.g., in order to avoid infringing on statutory rights (Lake Elsinore Unified School District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2633, p. 1, fn. 1), or when an appeal involves a matter of continuing public interest and a precedential ruling on the matter will be instructive to all parties similarly situated (Oakland Unified School District, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-171a, p. 1). The Board, for example, has denied requests to withdraw in the interest of justice in representation matters involving large bargaining units (id. at p. 2; Grossmont, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-380, p. 2), and to address allegations that the State of California unlawfully implemented furloughs (State of California, supra, PERB Decision No. 2152-S, p. 5).