Decision J015S – State of California (Department of Personnel Administration)

S-D-131-S (S-SR-7)(PERB Order No. Ad-246-S)

Decision Date: August 9, 1993

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 17
Perc Index: 24136

Decision Headnotes

1311.00000 – REPRESENTATION ISSUES; JUDICIAL REVIEW, REPRESENTATION, DECISIONS
1311.01000 – In General

The Legislature has emphasized the importance of insuring that representation elections are not delayed by including in the statute the directive that an election shall not be stayed even if the Board joins in a request for judicial review; p. 3. The Board has applied a relatively strict standard in considering whether cases are of "special importance" because the fundamental rights of employees to form, join and participate in the activities of employee organizations, and of employee organizations to represent their members in their employment relations cannot be exercised if PERB's unit determination decisions are routinely subject to legal challenges and the significant delays in the implementation of those decisions which may result; p. 3. The considerations which have lead the Board to apply a strict standard in judicial review requests involving unit determinations The considerations which have lead the Board to apply a strict standard in judicial review requests involving unit determinations regulations is at issue in this case, and not construction of a statutory provision unique to the Dills Act which the Board might consider appropriate for judicial review; p. 7.

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

32500. The Board has applied a relatively strict standard in considering whether cases are of "special importance" because the fundamental rights of employees to form, join and participate in the activities of employee organizations, and of employee organizations to represent their members in their employment relations cannot be exercised if PERB's unit determination decisions are routinely subject to legal challenges and the significant delays in the implementation of those decisions which may result; p. 3. 32726(b). The interpretation by the Board of one of its own regulations is at issue in this case, and not construction of a statutory provision unique to the Dills Act which the Board might consider appropriate for judicial review; p. 7.