Decision A414M – County of Fresno

SA-IM-136-M

Decision Date: June 17, 2014

Decision Type: Administrative Appeal

Description: The County appealed an administrative determination that factfinding procedures set forth in MMBA sections 3505.4 through 3505.7 apply to a bargaining impasse between the County and the Union resulting from a bargaining dispute over two County proposals regarding the number of employees working 12-hour shifts at the county jail and the addition of specialized assignments at the jail.

Disposition: The Board affirmed the administrative appeal, based on its decision in County of Contra Costa (2014) PERB Order No. Ad-410-M.  Factfinding procedures under the MMBA are not limited to impasses in negotiations for comprehensive MOUs.

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 39
Perc Index: 8

Decision Headnotes

102.00000 – PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; SCOPE OF PERB JURISDICTION
102.01000 – In General/Exclusive Initial Jurisdiction-Deferral to Arbitration; Deference by Reviewing Courts

PERB has jurisdiction to determine on a case-by-case basis whether the provisions of MMBA section 3505.4 apply to a particular factfinding request, and PERB Regulation 32802(c) empowers the Board to notify the parties whether a request for factfinding has met the requirements of subsection (a)(1) or (2) of PERB Regulation 32802. Such a determination is not an advisory opinion to the Board.

900.00000 – IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH
900.01000 – In General

The plain meaning of AB 646 did not limit MMBA factfinding procedures only to impasses in negotiations for comprehensive MOUs.

900.00000 – IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH
900.04000 – During Impasse

The plain meaning of AB 646 did not limit MMBA factfinding procedures only to impasses in negotiations for comprehensive MOUs. PERB's authority to appoint a factfinding panel derives from MMBA section 3505.4, and is not predicated on an alleged violation of the MMBA. An order directing the parties to factfinding, after PERB concluded that factfinding applied to the dispute, does not necessarily resolve the issues involved in an unfair practice case alleging unilateral change prior to the exhaustion of impasse. Factfinding order, unlike a remedy in an unfair practice proceeding, does not result in a determination of liability for violation of MMBA, and therefore carries no potential for order to rescind or make whole.

1405.00000 – GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA
1405.01000 – In General

PERB is not bound by a superior court's injunction and issuance of a writ of mandate where court's order is on appeal, because appeal automatically stays those orders. Doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel do not apply until and unless a court decision is final.

1407.00000 – GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
1407.01000 – General Principles

The Legislature is presumed to have known when AB 646 was passed that PERB applied the impasse resolution procedures under EERA to single-issue bargaining disputes, mid-term contract negotiations and effects bargaining disputes.