Decision A246S – State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (California Union of Safety Employees)

As the directed election order was not an appealable administrative determination, both parties were barred from appealing the directed election order prior to the original election, prohibiting any challenge at that time to the release of home addresses; p. 13.

Collateral estoppel is a subsection of res judicata and involves "issue preclusion." Under the rule of issue preclusion, a prior decision 'operates as an estoppel or conclusive adjudication as to such issues in the second action as were actually litigated and determined in the first action;' p. 14. As the Board is faced with a new legal question, the doctrine of res judicata does not apply; p. 15.

It is appropriate to apply the rules of statutory construction to determine the meaning of regulations and when the meaning of terms is ambiguous.

It is appropriate to apply the rules of statutory construction to determine the meaning of regulations and when the meaning of terms is ambiguous.

It is appropriate to apply the rules of statutory construction to determine the meaning of regulations and when the meaning of terms is ambiguous.

32726(b) grants the Board the authority to determine on a case-by-case basis whether release of employee home addresses is likely to be harmful within a specific election context; p. 17. The likelihood of harm may be demonstrated in a physical sense, such as with violence or threats of harm, prompting the Board to conclude that nondisclosure of some or all employee home addresses is appropriate; p. 18. Harm other than physical harm may occur in the context of a representation election. An example of non-physical harm would be the inconsistent or unequal treatment of an employee or group of employees without clear and distinguishable grounds to do so; p. 18. The inconsistent and unequal treatment of a number of unit 7 employees is sufficient for the Board to conclude under Regulation 32726(b) that it is likely to be harmful to these employees to release their home is sufficient for the Board to conclude under Regulation 32726(b) that it is likely to be harmful to these employees to release their home

32350 defines an appealable adminstrative decision as a determination by a Board agent which contains "a statement of the issues, fact, law and rationale used in reaching the determination; p. 11. 32726(b) grants the Board the authority to determine on a case-by-case basis whether release of employee home addresses is likely to be harmful within a specific election context. 32726(b). The consistent and unequal treatment of a number of Unit 7 employees is sufficient for the Board to conclude under Regulation 32726(b) that it is likely to be harmful to these employees to release their home addresses; p. 19. 32726(b). Harm may be demonstrated in either a physical or non-physical sense. Inconsistent treatment of home address release is non-physical harm. 40165. This is different than release granted under 32726 and permits non-physical harm. 40165. This is different than release granted under 32726 and permits activities; p. 16.