Decision A458M – County of Solano

SF-IM-191-M

Decision Date: January 9, 2018

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 42
Perc Index: 78

Decision Headnotes

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

Generally, where the exclusive representative has made a request for factfinding that is timely under any plausible interpretation of the public agency’s local rules and that is accompanied by a statement that the parties have been unable to effect a settlement to their dispute, PERB must accept the request as timely and allow the parties to proceed to factfinding. Here, however, while the local rules appear to contemplate selection of a mediator by mutual agreement of the parties as one option, the employee organization’s conduct was inconsistent with that option, regardless of whether it was the default option or simply one option among others. Because the organization appears to have accepted the selection of the mediator and expressed no reservations about this selection, nor suggested any other mediator or any alternative process whereby the parties would mutually agree on the identity of the mediator, the Board rejected its appeal and adopted the administrative determination that the employee organization’s request for factfinding was untimely.

1503.00000 – MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS
1503.01000 – In General

Generally, where the exclusive representative has made a request for factfinding that is timely under any plausible interpretation of the public agency’s local rules and that is accompanied by a statement that the parties have been unable to effect a settlement to their dispute, PERB must accept the request as timely and allow the parties to proceed to factfinding. Here, however, while the local rules appear to contemplate selection of a mediator by mutual agreement of the parties as one option, the employee organization’s conduct was inconsistent with that option, regardless of whether it was the default option or simply one option among others. Because the organization appears to have accepted the selection of the mediator and expressed no reservations about this selection, nor suggested any other mediator or any alternative process whereby the parties would mutually agree on the identity of the mediator, the Board rejected its appeal and adopted the administrative determination that the employee organization’s request for factfinding was untimely.

1503.00000 – MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS
1503.02000 – Regulations Considered (By Number)

Generally, where the exclusive representative has made a request for factfinding that is timely under any plausible interpretation of the public agency’s local rules and that is accompanied by a statement that the parties have been unable to effect a settlement to their dispute, PERB must accept the request as timely and allow the parties to proceed to factfinding. Here, however, while the local rules appear to contemplate selection of a mediator by mutual agreement of the parties as one option, the employee organization’s conduct was inconsistent with that option, regardless of whether it was the default option or simply one option among others. Because the organization appears to have accepted the selection of the mediator and expressed no reservations about this selection, nor suggested any other mediator or any alternative process whereby the parties would mutually agree on the identity of the mediator, the Board rejected its appeal and adopted the administrative determination that the employee organization’s request for factfinding was untimely.

1503.00000 – MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS
1503.03000 – Regulations Considered (By Number) (Continued)

Generally, where the exclusive representative has made a request for factfinding that is timely under any plausible interpretation of the public agency’s local rules and that is accompanied by a statement that the parties have been unable to effect a settlement to their dispute, PERB must accept the request as timely and allow the parties to proceed to factfinding. Here, however, while the local rules appear to contemplate selection of a mediator by mutual agreement of the parties as one option, the employee organization’s conduct was inconsistent with that option, regardless of whether it was the default option or simply one option among others. Because the organization appears to have accepted the selection of the mediator and expressed no reservations about this selection, nor suggested any other mediator or any alternative process whereby the parties would mutually agree on the identity of the mediator, the Board rejected its appeal and adopted the administrative determination that the employee organization’s request for factfinding was untimely.