Decision A458M – County of Solano
SF-IM-191-M
Decision Date: January 9, 2018
Decision Type: Administrative Appeal
Description: An employee organization appealed from an administrative determination denying its request for factfinding as untimely, based on the Office of the General Counsel’s interpretation of the public agency’s local rules which set forth various options for requesting factfinding, including one option for selecting the factfinder by mutual agreement. The appeal asserted that, because it had not had an opportunity to participate in the mutual selection of the factfinder, its request for factfinding remained timely.
Disposition: The Board denied the appeal. 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.
Perc Vol: 42
Perc Index: 78
Decision Headnotes
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.
1503.01000 – 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.
1503.02000 – 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.
1503.03000 – 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.