Decision A444M – City of San Luis Obispo

LA-CE-729-M

Decision Date: December 13, 2016

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 41
Perc Index: 108

Decision Headnotes

1104.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; PROCEDURE BEFORE ALJ
1104.02000 – Motions

Because the subject of reply briefs is not specifically set forth in or limited by PERB Regulations, it falls under the Board’s broad, statutory powers to “investigate unfair practice charges or alleged violations of [the MMBA], and [to] take any action and make any determinations in respect of these charges or alleged violations as the board deems necessary to effectuate the policies of [the MMBA].” Where a reply brief clarifies the issues by narrowing the scope of the dispute, the Board may consider a reply, as it would aid the Board in its review of the matter and, by narrowing the scope of issues in dispute, will not prejudice other parties. (pp. 4-5.)

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
1107.20000 – Other

Because the subject of reply briefs is not specifically set forth in or limited by PERB Regulations, it falls under the Board’s broad, statutory powers to “investigate unfair practice charges or alleged violations of [the MMBA], and [to] take any action and make any determinations in respect of these charges or alleged violations as the board deems necessary to effectuate the policies of [the MMBA].” Where a reply brief clarifies the issues by narrowing the scope of the dispute, the Board may consider a reply, as it would aid the Board in its review of the matter and, by narrowing the scope of issues in dispute, will not prejudice other parties. (pp. 4-5.)

1101.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE
1101.01000 – In General

Although PERB Regulation PERB Reg. 32164 governing applications for joinder as a part to an unfair practice charge contains no express time limit, an employer, employee organization or employee cannot use the joinder procedure to circumvent the six-month limitations period set forth in the statute and PERB Regulations. Where an employee organization could have filed its own timely unfair practice charge to challenge an employer action, but failed to do so within the limitations period, it cannot later join the proceedings initiated by another organization out of concern that a negotiated settlement may affect employees in its bargaining unit. (p. 9.)

1101.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE
1101.05000 – Parties; Service

Although PERB Regulation PERB Reg. 32164 governing applications for joinder as a part to an unfair practice charge contains no express time limit, an employer, employee organization or employee cannot use the joinder procedure to circumvent the six-month limitations period set forth in the statute and PERB Regulations. Where an employee organization could have filed its own timely unfair practice charge to challenge an employer action, but failed to do so within the limitations period, it cannot later join the proceedings initiated by another organization out of concern that a negotiated settlement may affect employees in its bargaining unit. (p. 9.)

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
1107.20000 – Other

Although PERB Regulation PERB Reg. 32164 governing applications for joinder as a part to an unfair practice charge contains no express time limit, an employer, employee organization or employee cannot use the joinder procedure to circumvent the six-month limitations period set forth in the statute and PERB Regulations. Where an employee organization could have filed its own timely unfair practice charge to challenge an employer action, but failed to do so within the limitations period, it cannot later join the proceedings initiated by another organization out of concern that a negotiated settlement may affect employees in its bargaining unit. (p. 9.)

1205.00000 – REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIAL PROVISIONS
1205.01000 – In General

When an employer’s conduct is alleged to constitute a unilateral change or other bargaining violation simultaneously affecting more than one bargaining unit, the exclusive representative of each unit must bring its own timely charge on behalf of itself and the employees in its respective unit(s). In such circumstances, the Board’s usual practice is to limit any remedy to only the unit or units where the designated representative has successfully litigated the case. This approach is necessary to protect the rights of the respondent to notice of the allegations against it and to protect the rights of other employee organizations who may prefer to acquiesce to an employer’s conduct. (pp. 5-6.)