Decision A415M – City and County of San Francisco
SF-IM-140-M; SF-IM-141-M
Decision Date: August 19, 2014
Decision Type: Administrative Appeal
Description: The Board declined to consider joint employer issues raised in an administrative appeal from a decision regarding factfinding when the same allegations were included in an unfair practice charge pending before PERB’s Office of the General Counsel.
Disposition: The Board affirmed the administrative determination because, unlike an administrative appeal, PERB’s unfair practice proceedings include the opportunity for sworn testimony and the development of a detailed factual record on which a decision can be made. The Board explained that the unfair practice process is thus more appropriate for considering complex factual and legal issues included in an unfair practice charge.
Perc Vol: 39
Perc Index: 28
Decision Headnotes
104.01000 – Authority of Board In General; Validity and Application of Regulations (See also 102.01)
The Board stated that the issue of whether the former redevelopment agency of the City and County was a joint employer was best determined through unfair practice proceedings when the same factual and legal issues were also raised in an unfair practice charge pending investigation. PERB has the authority under MMBA section 3505.4 to determine whether factfinding applies to the particular dispute in which the request for factfinding arises. In the course of responding to a factfinding request the Board has jurisdiction to decide all factual and legal issues pertinent to the request, even if some of those issues are also pending in an unfair practice case. In this case, however, it was unnecessary for the Board to resolve the overlapping legal and factual issues to determine that a request for factfinding was sufficient.
900.05000 – Post-Impasse
PERB has the authority under MMBA section 3505.4 to determine whether factfinding applies to the particular dispute in which the request for factfinding arises. In the course of responding to a factfinding request the Board has jurisdiction to decide all factual and legal issues pertinent to the request, even if those issues are also raised in an unfair practice case. In this case, it was unnecessary for the Board to resolve the overlapping legal and factual issues to determine that a request for factfinding was sufficient.