Decision A081Ea – Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District

S-CE-139

Decision Date: July 21, 1980

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 4
Perc Index: 11141

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

Post-arbitration deferral appropriate under EERA if: matters presented in the unfair practice charge were presented to and considered by the arbitrator; arbitration proceedings were fair and regular; all parties to the arbitration proceeding must have agreed to be bound by the award; and the award must not be repugnant to EERA; pp. 4-7. Board will not necessarily find an arbitration award repugnant because it would have granted a different award; it may well do so if that award fails to protect the essential and fundamental principles of good faith negotiations; p. 7. Arbitrator's remedy found to be repugnant where unilateral action found to have occurred but return to status quo ante not ordered; Board ordered issuance of complaint; p. 9.

104.00000 – PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF BOARD
104.03000 – Conclusiveness of Prior Determination by Federal Agencies, Other State Agencies or Courts

Prior court ruling which determined that arbitrator had not exceeded his authority in fashioning award is not conclusive on subsequent Board action to determine whether award was repugnant to EERA; prior court ruling is not res judicata because it addressed a different issue; pp. 9-10.

1102.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; DEFERRAL TO ARBITRATION
1102.02000 – Post Arbitration; Repugnancy

Post-arbitration deferral appropriate under EERA if: matters presented in the unfair practice charge were presented to and considered by the arbitrator; arbitration proceedings were fair and regular; all parties to the arbitration proceeding must have agreed to be bound by the award; and the award must not be repugnant to EERA; pp. 4-7. Board will not necessarily find an arbitration award repugnant because it would have granted a different award; it may well do so if that award fails to protect the essential and fundamental principles of good faith negotiations; p. 7. Arbitrator's remedy found to be repugnant where unilateral action found to have occurred but return to status quo ante not ordered; Board ordered issuance of complaint; p. 9.

1103.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT
1103.02000 – Issuance of Complaint

Arbitrator's remedy found to be repugnant where unilateral action found to have occurred but return to status quo ante not ordered; Board ordered issuance of complaint; p. 9.

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

Prior court ruling which determined that arbitrator had not exceeded his authority in fashioning award is not conclusive on subsequent Board action to determine whether award was repugnant to EERA; prior court ruling is not res judicata because it addressed a different issue; pp. 9-10.