| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2575M |
Service Employees International Union Local 521 (Garcia)
202.04000: PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATIONS; Agents (See also 1400)
The Board denied an appeal and adopted the dismissal of an unfair practice charging alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation arising from damages allegedly suffered as the result of an arbitrator’s opinion and award in a grievance brought by the exclusive representative on Charging Parties’ behalf. An arbitrator is not a proper respondent in an unfair practice and therefore PERB had no authority to review the arbitrator’s opinion and award to determine if its provisions constituted an unfair labor practice. Additionally, the facts, as alleged in the charge, demonstrated that Charging Parties had notice and opportunity to give their input before their representative entered into a tentative agreement to settle the dispute and that, because the tentative settlement agreement was never finalized, any harm suffered by Charging Parties was not attributable to the representative’s acts or omissions. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 22 | 06/28/18 |
| 2575M |
Service Employees International Union Local 521 (Garcia)
800.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION; In General; Prima Facie Case
The Board denied an appeal and adopted the dismissal of an unfair practice charging alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation arising from damages allegedly suffered as the result of an arbitrator’s opinion and award in a grievance brought by the exclusive representative on Charging Parties’ behalf. An arbitrator is not a proper respondent in an unfair practice and therefore PERB had no authority to review the arbitrator’s opinion and award to determine if its provisions constituted an unfair labor practice. Additionally, the facts, as alleged in the charge, demonstrated that Charging Parties had notice and opportunity to give their input before their representative entered into a tentative agreement to settle the dispute and that, because the tentative settlement agreement was never finalized, any harm suffered by Charging Parties was not attributable to the representative’s acts or omissions. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 22 | 06/28/18 |
| 2575M |
Service Employees International Union Local 521 (Garcia)
800.02000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION; Grievance Handling/Contract Administration
The Board denied an appeal and adopted the dismissal of an unfair practice charging alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation arising from damages allegedly suffered as the result of an arbitrator’s opinion and award in a grievance brought by the exclusive representative on Charging Parties’ behalf. An arbitrator is not a proper respondent in an unfair practice and therefore PERB had no authority to review the arbitrator’s opinion and award to determine if its provisions constituted an unfair labor practice. Additionally, the facts, as alleged in the charge, demonstrated that Charging Parties had notice and opportunity to give their input before their representative entered into a tentative agreement to settle the dispute and that, because the tentative settlement agreement was never finalized, any harm suffered by Charging Parties was not attributable to the representative’s acts or omissions. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 22 | 06/28/18 |
| 2575M |
Service Employees International Union Local 521 (Garcia)
800.03000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION; Negotiations
The Board denied an appeal and adopted the dismissal of an unfair practice charging alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation arising from damages allegedly suffered as the result of an arbitrator’s opinion and award in a grievance brought by the exclusive representative on Charging Parties’ behalf. An arbitrator is not a proper respondent in an unfair practice and therefore PERB had no authority to review the arbitrator’s opinion and award to determine if its provisions constituted an unfair labor practice. Additionally, the facts, as alleged in the charge, demonstrated that Charging Parties had notice and opportunity to give their input before their representative entered into a tentative agreement to settle the dispute and that, because the tentative settlement agreement was never finalized, any harm suffered by Charging Parties was not attributable to the representative’s acts or omissions. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 22 | 06/28/18 |
| 2575M |
Service Employees International Union Local 521 (Garcia)
800.06000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION; Other
The Board denied an appeal and adopted the dismissal of an unfair practice charging alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation arising from damages allegedly suffered as the result of an arbitrator’s opinion and award in a grievance brought by the exclusive representative on Charging Parties’ behalf. An arbitrator is not a proper respondent in an unfair practice and therefore PERB had no authority to review the arbitrator’s opinion and award to determine if its provisions constituted an unfair labor practice. Additionally, the facts, as alleged in the charge, demonstrated that Charging Parties had notice and opportunity to give their input before their representative entered into a tentative agreement to settle the dispute and that, because the tentative settlement agreement was never finalized, any harm suffered by Charging Parties was not attributable to the representative’s acts or omissions. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 22 | 06/28/18 |
| 2575M |
Service Employees International Union Local 521 (Garcia)
1100.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; In General/Prima Facie Case
The Board denied an appeal and adopted the dismissal of an unfair practice charging alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation arising from damages allegedly suffered as the result of an arbitrator’s opinion and award in a grievance brought by the exclusive representative on Charging Parties’ behalf. An arbitrator is not a proper respondent in an unfair practice and therefore PERB had no authority to review the arbitrator’s opinion and award to determine if its provisions constituted an unfair labor practice. Additionally, the facts, as alleged in the charge, demonstrated that Charging Parties had notice and opportunity to give their input before their representative entered into a tentative agreement to settle the dispute and that, because the tentative settlement agreement was never finalized, any harm suffered by Charging Parties was not attributable to the representative’s acts or omissions. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 22 | 06/28/18 |
| 2575M |
Service Employees International Union Local 521 (Garcia)
1102.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; DEFERRAL TO ARBITRATION; Post Arbitration; Repugnancy
The Board denied an appeal and adopted the dismissal of an unfair practice charging alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation arising from damages allegedly suffered as the result of an arbitrator’s opinion and award in a grievance brought by the exclusive representative on Charging Parties’ behalf. An arbitrator is not a proper respondent in an unfair practice and therefore PERB had no authority to review the arbitrator’s opinion and award to determine if its provisions constituted an unfair labor practice. Additionally, the facts, as alleged in the charge, demonstrated that Charging Parties had notice and opportunity to give their input before their representative entered into a tentative agreement to settle the dispute and that, because the tentative settlement agreement was never finalized, any harm suffered by Charging Parties was not attributable to the representative’s acts or omissions. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 22 | 06/28/18 |
| 2575M |
Service Employees International Union Local 521 (Garcia)
1102.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; DEFERRAL TO ARBITRATION; Other
The Board denied an appeal and adopted the dismissal of an unfair practice charging alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation arising from damages allegedly suffered as the result of an arbitrator’s opinion and award in a grievance brought by the exclusive representative on Charging Parties’ behalf. An arbitrator is not a proper respondent in an unfair practice and therefore PERB had no authority to review the arbitrator’s opinion and award to determine if its provisions constituted an unfair labor practice. Additionally, the facts, as alleged in the charge, demonstrated that Charging Parties had notice and opportunity to give their input before their representative entered into a tentative agreement to settle the dispute and that, because the tentative settlement agreement was never finalized, any harm suffered by Charging Parties was not attributable to the representative’s acts or omissions. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 22 | 06/28/18 |
| A449E |
Lake Elsinore Unified School District
1503.02000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; Regulations Considered (By Number)
Pursuant to PERB Regulations 323601 and 32136, Charging Parties appealed from the Appeals Assistant’s determination and request that the Board excuse the late filing and consider the attempted amendment to their statement of exceptions when deciding the merits of the underlying unfair practice charge. Because Charging Parties’ appeal from an administrative determination was itself untimely filed, the Board denied the appeal and declined to consider whether Charging Parties had established good cause to excuse their prior late filing, which was the subject of the appeal. more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 17 | 06/28/17 |
| A449E |
Lake Elsinore Unified School District
1503.03000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; Regulations Considered (By Number) (Continued)
Pursuant to PERB Regulations 323601 and 32136, Charging Parties appealed from the Appeals Assistant’s determination and request that the Board excuse the late filing and consider the attempted amendment to their statement of exceptions when deciding the merits of the underlying unfair practice charge. Because Charging Parties’ appeal from an administrative determination was itself untimely filed, the Board denied the appeal and declined to consider whether Charging Parties had established good cause to excuse their prior late filing, which was the subject of the appeal. more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 17 | 06/28/17 |
| A447E |
Bellflower Unified School District
1107.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver
PERB’s Appeals Assistant correctly determined that Charging Party’s response to the exceptions was untimely, as it was not filed and served until more than 20 days following the date of service of the opposing party’s exceptions. The fact that a document is also filed and served by e-mail does not alter the five-day extension of time under PERB Regulation 32130, subd. (c), if the document is also filed and served by regular mail in accordance with PERB Regulations. However, the same is not true for documents filed and served by facsimile. The Regulation states that, “No extension of time applies in the case of documents served in person, or by facsimile transmission as defined in Section 32090.” more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 15 | 06/28/17 |
| A447E |
Bellflower Unified School District
1503.01000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; In General
PERB’s Appeals Assistant correctly determined that Charging Party’s response to the exceptions was untimely, as it was not filed and served until more than 20 days following the date of service of the opposing party’s exceptions. The fact that a document is also filed and served by e-mail does not alter the five-day extension of time under PERB Regulation 32130, subd. (c), if the document is also filed and served by regular mail in accordance with PERB Regulations. However, the same is not true for documents filed and served by facsimile. The Regulation states that, “No extension of time applies in the case of documents served in person, or by facsimile transmission as defined in Section 32090.” more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 15 | 06/28/17 |
| A447E |
Bellflower Unified School District
1503.02000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; Regulations Considered (By Number)
PERB’s Appeals Assistant correctly determined that Charging Party’s response to the exceptions was untimely, as it was not filed and served until more than 20 days following the date of service of the opposing party’s exceptions. The fact that a document is also filed and served by e-mail does not alter the five-day extension of time under PERB Regulation 32130, subd. (c), if the document is also filed and served by regular mail in accordance with PERB Regulations. However, the same is not true for documents filed and served by facsimile. The Regulation states that, “No extension of time applies in the case of documents served in person, or by facsimile transmission as defined in Section 32090.” more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 15 | 06/28/17 |
| A447E |
Bellflower Unified School District
1503.03000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; Regulations Considered (By Number) (Continued)
PERB’s Appeals Assistant correctly determined that Charging Party’s response to the exceptions was untimely, as it was not filed and served until more than 20 days following the date of service of the opposing party’s exceptions. The fact that a document is also filed and served by e-mail does not alter the five-day extension of time under PERB Regulation 32130, subd. (c), if the document is also filed and served by regular mail in accordance with PERB Regulations. However, the same is not true for documents filed and served by facsimile. The Regulation states that, “No extension of time applies in the case of documents served in person, or by facsimile transmission as defined in Section 32090.” more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 15 | 06/28/17 |
| A447E |
Bellflower Unified School District
1107.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver
The Board denied Charging Party’s appeal from an administrative determination which denied its filing as untimely due to attorney error. Although an untimely filing may be excused at the discretion of the Board for “good cause” (PERB Reg. 32136), generally, “the Board has not found good cause [to excuse a late filing] in situations where the party’s attorney was directly responsible for the late filing.” Board precedent considers whether good cause exists separate from whether excusing a late filing would result in prejudice. Thus, even if a late filing would not result in prejudice, PERB has no discretion to accept the untimely filing in the absence of good cause. more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 15 | 06/28/17 |
| A447E |
Bellflower Unified School District
1503.01000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; In General
The Board denied Charging Party’s appeal from an administrative determination which denied its filing as untimely due to attorney error. Although an untimely filing may be excused at the discretion of the Board for “good cause” (PERB Reg. 32136), generally, “the Board has not found good cause [to excuse a late filing] in situations where the party’s attorney was directly responsible for the late filing.” Board precedent considers whether good cause exists separate from whether excusing a late filing would result in prejudice. Thus, even if a late filing would not result in prejudice, PERB has no discretion to accept the untimely filing in the absence of good cause. more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 15 | 06/28/17 |
| A447E |
Bellflower Unified School District
1503.02000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; Regulations Considered (By Number)
The Board denied Charging Party’s appeal from an administrative determination which denied its filing as untimely due to attorney error. Although an untimely filing may be excused at the discretion of the Board for “good cause” (PERB Reg. 32136), generally, “the Board has not found good cause [to excuse a late filing] in situations where the party’s attorney was directly responsible for the late filing.” Board precedent considers whether good cause exists separate from whether excusing a late filing would result in prejudice. Thus, even if a late filing would not result in prejudice, PERB has no discretion to accept the untimely filing in the absence of good cause. more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 15 | 06/28/17 |
| A447E |
Bellflower Unified School District
1503.03000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; Regulations Considered (By Number) (Continued)
The Board denied Charging Party’s appeal from an administrative determination which denied its filing as untimely due to attorney error. Although an untimely filing may be excused at the discretion of the Board for “good cause” (PERB Reg. 32136), generally, “the Board has not found good cause [to excuse a late filing] in situations where the party’s attorney was directly responsible for the late filing.” Board precedent considers whether good cause exists separate from whether excusing a late filing would result in prejudice. Thus, even if a late filing would not result in prejudice, PERB has no discretion to accept the untimely filing in the absence of good cause. more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 15 | 06/28/17 |
| A446E |
Lake Elsinore Unified School District
1107.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver
The Board denied a school district’s appeal from an administrative determination which rejected the district’s filing as untimely where the untimeliness was due to attorney error, including failure to carefully review PERB Regulations or other materials regarding the filing deadlines, counsel’s failure to seek clarification or an extension of time when confronted with conflicting information as to the filing deadline. (pp. 10-11.) Although an untimely filing may be excused at the discretion of the Board for “good cause” (PERB Reg. 32136), generally, “the Board has not found good cause [to excuse a late filing] in situations where the party’s attorney was directly responsible for the late filing.” (Ibid.) more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 18 | 06/28/17 |
| A446E |
Lake Elsinore Unified School District
1503.01000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; In General
The Board denied a school district’s appeal from an administrative determination which rejected the district’s filing as untimely where the untimeliness was due to attorney error, including failure to carefully review PERB Regulations or other materials regarding the filing deadlines, counsel’s failure to seek clarification or an extension of time when confronted with conflicting information as to the filing deadline. (pp. 10-11.) Although an untimely filing may be excused at the discretion of the Board for “good cause” (PERB Reg. 32136), generally, “the Board has not found good cause [to excuse a late filing] in situations where the party’s attorney was directly responsible for the late filing.” (Ibid.) more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 18 | 06/28/17 |
| A446E |
Lake Elsinore Unified School District
1503.02000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; Regulations Considered (By Number)
The Board denied a school district’s appeal from an administrative determination which rejected the district’s filing as untimely where the untimeliness was due to attorney error, including failure to carefully review PERB Regulations or other materials regarding the filing deadlines, counsel’s failure to seek clarification or an extension of time when confronted with conflicting information as to the filing deadline. (pp. 10-11.) Although an untimely filing may be excused at the discretion of the Board for “good cause” (PERB Reg. 32136), generally, “the Board has not found good cause [to excuse a late filing] in situations where the party’s attorney was directly responsible for the late filing.” (Ibid.) more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 18 | 06/28/17 |
| A446E |
Lake Elsinore Unified School District
1503.03000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; Regulations Considered (By Number) (Continued)
The Board denied a school district’s appeal from an administrative determination which rejected the district’s filing as untimely where the untimeliness was due to attorney error, including failure to carefully review PERB Regulations or other materials regarding the filing deadlines, counsel’s failure to seek clarification or an extension of time when confronted with conflicting information as to the filing deadline. (pp. 10-11.) Although an untimely filing may be excused at the discretion of the Board for “good cause” (PERB Reg. 32136), generally, “the Board has not found good cause [to excuse a late filing] in situations where the party’s attorney was directly responsible for the late filing.” (Ibid.) more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 18 | 06/28/17 |
| A446Ea |
Lake Elsinore Unified School District
1107.10000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Request for Reconsideration
Because a public school employer’s request for reconsideration concerned a Board decision resolving an appeal from an administrative determination, there was no factual record to reconsider. Prior board precedent had determined that reconsideration is not available for decisions arising from administrative appeals. There are only two grounds for reconsideration authorized by PERB Regulation 32410: (1) the decision of the Board itself contains prejudicial errors of fact, or (2) the party requesting reconsideration has newly discovered evidence which was not previously available and could not have been discovered with the exercise of reasonable diligence. The Regulation’s focus on prejudicial error of fact or newly-discovered evidence indicates that the reconsideration procedure is limited to Board decisions based on a proposed decision and developed factual record following a formal hearing or stipulated record. (pp. 3-5.) more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 148 | 05/15/18 |
| A446Ea |
Lake Elsinore Unified School District
1503.01000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; In General
Because a public school employer’s request for reconsideration concerned a Board decision resolving an appeal from an administrative determination, there was no factual record to reconsider. Prior board precedent had determined that reconsideration is not available for decisions arising from administrative appeals. There are only two grounds for reconsideration authorized by PERB Regulation 32410: (1) the decision of the Board itself contains prejudicial errors of fact, or (2) the party requesting reconsideration has newly discovered evidence which was not previously available and could not have been discovered with the exercise of reasonable diligence. The Regulation’s focus on prejudicial error of fact or newly-discovered evidence indicates that the reconsideration procedure is limited to Board decisions based on a proposed decision and developed factual record following a formal hearing or stipulated record. (pp. 3-5.) more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 148 | 05/15/18 |
| A446Ea |
Lake Elsinore Unified School District
1503.02000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; Regulations Considered (By Number)
Because a public school employer’s request for reconsideration concerned a Board decision resolving an appeal from an administrative determination, there was no factual record to reconsider. Prior board precedent had determined that reconsideration is not available for decisions arising from administrative appeals. There are only two grounds for reconsideration authorized by PERB Regulation 32410: (1) the decision of the Board itself contains prejudicial errors of fact, or (2) the party requesting reconsideration has newly discovered evidence which was not previously available and could not have been discovered with the exercise of reasonable diligence. The Regulation’s focus on prejudicial error of fact or newly-discovered evidence indicates that the reconsideration procedure is limited to Board decisions based on a proposed decision and developed factual record following a formal hearing or stipulated record. (pp. 3-5.) more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 148 | 05/15/18 |
Notice Regarding Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) at PERB
For information about use of AI in PERB filings, see Atwater Elementary Teachers Association, CTA/NEA (Garcia) (2025) PERB Decision No. 2995-E and our FAQ.
