| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2517C |
Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C
409.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity
Because some Court employees had regular contact with the public as part of their duties, while others did not, and the record contained little evidence as to particular job classifications the Board rejected the Court’s analogy to federal cases involving patient-care areas in hospitals to justify its ban on displaying writings or union insignia anywhere in the courthouse visible to the public. (.) Under the PERB-administered statutes, the organizational right of access to the workplace is presumed and the burden is on the employer to establish that its regulation is reasonable and necessary under the circumstances to prevent disruption of operations. PERB has long held that wearing union clothing, buttons or pins in the workplace is protected, absent a showing of special circumstances to justify the restriction. (pp. 21-22.) The Board adopted the ALJ’s findings and conclusions that the Court’s rules prohibiting employees from wearing union regalia anywhere in the courthouse and the display of union writings and images in all work areas visible to the public were overly broad and interfered with protected rights under the Trial Court Act. more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 140 | 02/27/17 |
| 2514E |
Santa Ana Unified School District
1401.01000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; LACHES; In General
Generally, unreasonable delay, by itself, does not establish prejudice for the purpose of laches. Rather, the respondent’s reliance on such delay must have been detrimental in some respect and the detrimental change must have been caused by or at least occurred during the period of the unreasonable delay. Because here, the charging party requested that the case be placed in medical abeyance in January 2009, before the respondent’s witness suffered a debilitating medical condition allegedly affecting his memory, any prejudice suffered by the respondent as a result of witness’s memory loss was not caused by charging party’s delay. (p. 34.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 132 | 02/08/17 |
| 2515M |
City of San Luis Obispo
1107.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver
Under its broad powers to “investigate unfair practice charges or alleged violations of [the MMBA], the Board has discretion to grant or deny requests to withdraw and dismiss cases pending before the Board itself. When an appeal pending before the Board involves a matter of continuing public interest and a precedential ruling on the matter will be instructive to similarly-situated parties, the Board has exercised its discretion by denying a request for withdrawal, in the interest of justice. After carefully reviewing the settlement agreement in this case, the Board found the parties’ requests for withdrawal and dismissal to be in the best interest of the parties and consistent with the purposes of the MMBA to promote harmonious labor relations. more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 134 | 02/13/17 |
| 2515M |
City of San Luis Obispo
1107.15000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Withdrawal of Appeal; Request that Decision be Vacated
Under its broad powers to “investigate unfair practice charges or alleged violations of [the MMBA], the Board has discretion to grant or deny requests to withdraw and dismiss cases pending before the Board itself. When an appeal pending before the Board involves a matter of continuing public interest and a precedential ruling on the matter will be instructive to similarly-situated parties, the Board has exercised its discretion by denying a request for withdrawal, in the interest of justice. After carefully reviewing the settlement agreement in this case, the Board found the parties’ requests for withdrawal and dismissal to be in the best interest of the parties and consistent with the purposes of the MMBA to promote harmonious labor relations. more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 134 | 02/13/17 |
| 2515M |
City of San Luis Obispo
1202.02000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; FACTORS LIMITING OR TERMINATING LIABILITY; Agreement Between. the Parties
Under its broad powers to “investigate unfair practice charges or alleged violations of [the MMBA], the Board has discretion to grant or deny requests to withdraw and dismiss cases pending before the Board itself. When an appeal pending before the Board involves a matter of continuing public interest and a precedential ruling on the matter will be instructive to similarly-situated parties, the Board has exercised its discretion by denying a request for withdrawal, in the interest of justice. After carefully reviewing the settlement agreement in this case, the Board found the parties’ requests for withdrawal and dismissal to be in the best interest of the parties and consistent with the purposes of the MMBA to promote harmonious labor relations. more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 134 | 02/13/17 |
| 2517C |
Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C
1107.05000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Precedential Authority of PERB Decisions
* * * VACATED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C. * * *
As part of its de novo review, the Board itself may address matters not excepted to correct an error or prevent a serious mistake of law from becoming part of Board precedent. Although neither party had excepted, the proposed decision contained a typographical error whose effect was to suggest that an employer may restrict employees from solicitation during nonworking time, which is contrary to Board precedent. The Board corrected the editing oversight to avoid confusion regarding Board precedent. (p. 3, fn. 5.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 140 | 02/27/17 |
| 2517C |
Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C
1107.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board
* * * VACATED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C. * * *
As part of its de novo review, the Board itself may address matters not excepted to correct an error or prevent a serious mistake of law from becoming part of Board precedent. Although neither party had excepted, the proposed decision contained a typographical error whose effect was to suggest that an employer may restrict employees from solicitation during nonworking time, which is contrary to Board precedent. The Board corrected the editing oversight to avoid confusion regarding Board precedent. (p. 3, fn. 5.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 140 | 02/27/17 |
| 2517C |
Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C
1107.18000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Review of Findings Not Excepted To
* * * VACATED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C. * * *
As part of its de novo review, the Board itself may address matters not excepted to correct an error or prevent a serious mistake of law from becoming part of Board precedent. Although neither party had excepted, the proposed decision contained a typographical error whose effect was to suggest that an employer may restrict employees from solicitation during nonworking time, which is contrary to Board precedent. The Board corrected the editing oversight to avoid confusion regarding Board precedent. (p. 3, fn. 5.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 140 | 02/27/17 |
| 2517C |
Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C
101.01000: PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; APPLICABILITY OF AND CONFLICTS WITH OTHER STATUTES; In General
* * * VACATED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C. * * *
The Legislature directed that complaints alleging any violation of the Trial Court Act or of any local rules and regulations adopted by a trial court be investigated as an unfair practice charge and that PERB apply and interpret unfair labor practices consistent with existing judicial interpretations of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, where the language of the two statutes are the same or substantially similar. In light of this legislative delegation of authority, PERB concluded that its adjudication of unfair practice allegations under the Trial Court Act does not violate the constitutional separation of powers doctrine nor invade the province of Superior Court judges to control their courtrooms. (p. 9.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 140 | 02/27/17 |
| 2517C |
Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C
101.02000: PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; APPLICABILITY OF AND CONFLICTS WITH OTHER STATUTES; Conflicts Between PERB-Administered Laws and Other California Statutes; Education Code/Supersession; MMBA Supersession
* * * VACATED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C. * * *
The Legislature directed that complaints alleging any violation of the Trial Court Act or of any local rules and regulations adopted by a trial court be investigated as an unfair practice charge and that PERB apply and interpret unfair labor practices consistent with existing judicial interpretations of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, where the language of the two statutes are the same or substantially similar. In light of this legislative delegation of authority, PERB concluded that its adjudication of unfair practice allegations under the Trial Court Act does not violate the constitutional separation of powers doctrine nor invade the province of Superior Court judges to control their courtrooms. (p. 9.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 140 | 02/27/17 |
| 2517C |
Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C
102.01000: PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; SCOPE OF PERB JURISDICTION; In General/Exclusive Initial Jurisdiction-Deferral to Arbitration; Deference by Reviewing Courts
* * * VACATED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C. * * *
The Legislature directed that complaints alleging any violation of the Trial Court Act or of any local rules and regulations adopted by a trial court be investigated as an unfair practice charge and that PERB apply and interpret unfair labor practices consistent with existing judicial interpretations of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, where the language of the two statutes are the same or substantially similar. In light of this legislative delegation of authority, PERB concluded that its adjudication of unfair practice allegations under the Trial Court Act does not violate the constitutional separation of powers doctrine nor invade the province of Superior Court judges to control their courtrooms. (p. 9.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 140 | 02/27/17 |
| 2517C |
Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C
102.02000: PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; SCOPE OF PERB JURISDICTION; Concurrent or Conflicting Jurisdiction with Other Agencies or Courts; Interpretation or Enforcement of Other Statutes
* * * VACATED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C. * * *
The Legislature directed that complaints alleging any violation of the Trial Court Act or of any local rules and regulations adopted by a trial court be investigated as an unfair practice charge and that PERB apply and interpret unfair labor practices consistent with existing judicial interpretations of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, where the language of the two statutes are the same or substantially similar. In light of this legislative delegation of authority, PERB concluded that its adjudication of unfair practice allegations under the Trial Court Act does not violate the constitutional separation of powers doctrine nor invade the province of Superior Court judges to control their courtrooms. (p. 9.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 140 | 02/27/17 |
| 2517C |
Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C
1103.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT; Amendments
* * * VACATED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C. * * *
PERB Regulation 32648 authorizes motions to amend the complaint made during the hearing and, absent a showing of undue prejudice, a timely amendment closely related to the allegations in a pending complaint should be allowed in order to serve the principles of economy and finality. However, PERB Regulation 32648 only governs proposed amendments to a complaint made “[d]uring [a] hearing.” Here, the Board reversed the ALJ’s ruling to grant a motion to amend the complaint to include a separate interference allegation closely related to the allegations of the initial charge, because the motion was not made until after the close of the hearing and was therefore not timely within the meaning of the Regulation. After the record has closed and briefs have been submitted, matters not included in the complaint may only be considered by meeting the stricter standard for consideration of unalleged violations. (pp. 12-13.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 140 | 02/27/17 |
| 2517C |
Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C
1104.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; PROCEDURE BEFORE ALJ; Motions
PERB Regulation 32648 authorizes motions to amend the complaint made during the hearing and, absent a showing of undue prejudice, a timely amendment closely related to the allegations in a pending complaint should be allowed in order to serve the principles of economy and finality. However, PERB Regulation 32648 only governs proposed amendments to a complaint made “[d]uring [a] hearing.” Here, the Board reversed the ALJ’s ruling to grant a motion to amend the complaint to include a separate interference allegation closely related to the allegations of the initial charge, because the motion was not made until after the close of the hearing and was therefore not timely within the meaning of the Regulation. After the record has closed and briefs have been submitted, matters not included in the complaint may only be considered by meeting the stricter standard for consideration of unalleged violations. (pp. 12-13.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 140 | 02/27/17 |
| 2517C |
Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C
1105.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Background Evidence and Matters Not Alleged
* * * VACATED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C. * * *
PERB Regulation 32648 authorizes motions to amend the complaint made during the hearing and, absent a showing of undue prejudice, a timely amendment closely related to the allegations in a pending complaint should be allowed in order to serve the principles of economy and finality. However, PERB Regulation 32648 only governs proposed amendments to a complaint made “[d]uring [a] hearing.” Here, the Board reversed the ALJ’s ruling to grant a motion to amend the complaint to include a separate interference allegation closely related to the allegations of the initial charge, because the motion was not made until after the close of the hearing and was therefore not timely within the meaning of the Regulation. After the record has closed and briefs have been submitted, matters not included in the complaint may only be considered by meeting the stricter standard for consideration of unalleged violations. (pp. 12-13.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 140 | 02/27/17 |
| 2517C |
Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C
1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations
* * * VACATED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C. * * *
PERB Regulation 32648 authorizes motions to amend the complaint made during the hearing and, absent a showing of undue prejudice, a timely amendment closely related to the allegations in a pending complaint should be allowed in order to serve the principles of economy and finality. However, PERB Regulation 32648 only governs proposed amendments to a complaint made “[d]uring [a] hearing.” Here, the Board reversed the ALJ’s ruling to grant a motion to amend the complaint to include a separate interference allegation closely related to the allegations of the initial charge, because the motion was not made until after the close of the hearing and was therefore not timely within the meaning of the Regulation. After the record has closed and briefs have been submitted, matters not included in the complaint may only be considered by meeting the stricter standard for consideration of unalleged violations. (pp. 12-13.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 140 | 02/27/17 |
| 2517C |
Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C
1503.02000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; Regulations Considered (By Number)
* * * VACATED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C. * * *
PERB Regulation 32648 authorizes motions to amend the complaint made during the hearing and, absent a showing of undue prejudice, a timely amendment closely related to the allegations in a pending complaint should be allowed in order to serve the principles of economy and finality. However, PERB Regulation 32648 only governs proposed amendments to a complaint made “[d]uring [a] hearing.” Here, the Board reversed the ALJ’s ruling to grant a motion to amend the complaint to include a separate interference allegation closely related to the allegations of the initial charge, because the motion was not made until after the close of the hearing and was therefore not timely within the meaning of the Regulation. After the record has closed and briefs have been submitted, matters not included in the complaint may only be considered by meeting the stricter standard for consideration of unalleged violations. (pp. 12-13.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 140 | 02/27/17 |
| 2517C |
Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C
1503.03000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; Regulations Considered (By Number) (Continued)
* * * VACATED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C. * * *
PERB Regulation 32648 authorizes motions to amend the complaint made during the hearing and, absent a showing of undue prejudice, a timely amendment closely related to the allegations in a pending complaint should be allowed in order to serve the principles of economy and finality. However, PERB Regulation 32648 only governs proposed amendments to a complaint made “[d]uring [a] hearing.” Here, the Board reversed the ALJ’s ruling to grant a motion to amend the complaint to include a separate interference allegation closely related to the allegations of the initial charge, because the motion was not made until after the close of the hearing and was therefore not timely within the meaning of the Regulation. After the record has closed and briefs have been submitted, matters not included in the complaint may only be considered by meeting the stricter standard for consideration of unalleged violations. (pp. 12-13.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 140 | 02/27/17 |
| 2517C |
Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C
1103.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT; Variance of Complaint from Charge; Evidence, Findings, or Order Varying from Complaint; Events Subsequent to Charge or Complaint
Although the charging party’s motion to amend the complaint to add a separate interference allegation was rejected as untimely because it was made after the close of the evidentiary record, the Board considered the substance of the amendment as an unalleged violation, after determining that each of the requirements of PERB’s unalleged violations test was met. (pp. 13-24.) Under PERB’s unalleged violations doctrine, the Board may consider allegations not included in the charge or complaint when: (1) the respondent has had adequate notice and opportunity to defend against the unalleged matter; (2) the unalleged conduct is intimately related to the subject matter of the complaint and is part of the same course of conduct; (3) the matter has been fully litigated; (4) the parties have had the opportunity to examine and be cross-examined on the issue; and (5) the unalleged conduct occurred within the same limitations period as those matters alleged in the complaint. The evidence justifying application of the unalleged violations doctrine should be expressly stated, so that all parties are aware of the basis for finding that an unalleged violation can be heard without unfairness. (p. 13.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 140 | 02/27/17 |
| 2517C |
Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C
1105.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Background Evidence and Matters Not Alleged
* * * VACATED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C. * * *
Although the charging party’s motion to amend the complaint to add a separate interference allegation was rejected as untimely because it was made after the close of the evidentiary record, the Board considered the substance of the amendment as an unalleged violation, after determining that each of the requirements of PERB’s unalleged violations test was met. (pp. 13-24.) Under PERB’s unalleged violations doctrine, the Board may consider allegations not included in the charge or complaint when: (1) the respondent has had adequate notice and opportunity to defend against the unalleged matter; (2) the unalleged conduct is intimately related to the subject matter of the complaint and is part of the same course of conduct; (3) the matter has been fully litigated; (4) the parties have had the opportunity to examine and be cross-examined on the issue; and (5) the unalleged conduct occurred within the same limitations period as those matters alleged in the complaint. The evidence justifying application of the unalleged violations doctrine should be expressly stated, so that all parties are aware of the basis for finding that an unalleged violation can be heard without unfairness. (p. 13.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 140 | 02/27/17 |
| 2517C |
Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C
1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations
* * * VACATED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C. * * *
Although the charging party’s motion to amend the complaint to add a separate interference allegation was rejected as untimely because it was made after the close of the evidentiary record, the Board considered the substance of the amendment as an unalleged violation, after determining that each of the requirements of PERB’s unalleged violations test was met. (pp. 13-24.) Under PERB’s unalleged violations doctrine, the Board may consider allegations not included in the charge or complaint when: (1) the respondent has had adequate notice and opportunity to defend against the unalleged matter; (2) the unalleged conduct is intimately related to the subject matter of the complaint and is part of the same course of conduct; (3) the matter has been fully litigated; (4) the parties have had the opportunity to examine and be cross-examined on the issue; and (5) the unalleged conduct occurred within the same limitations period as those matters alleged in the complaint. The evidence justifying application of the unalleged violations doctrine should be expressly stated, so that all parties are aware of the basis for finding that an unalleged violation can be heard without unfairness. (p. 13.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 140 | 02/27/17 |
| 2514E |
Santa Ana Unified School District
1503.02000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; Regulations Considered (By Number)
Unlike most PERB failure to prosecute cases, in which the charging party fails or refuses to attend or participate in a duly noticed hearing, in this case, the complaint was dismissed without hearing based on a pre-hearing motion. Because the matter was dismissed without hearing, the Board applied the standard governing the pre-complaint investigation of an unfair charge to consideration of pre-hearing motions to dismiss. Although designated as “exceptions” to a proposed decision, the charging party’s filing, which substantially complied with the requirements of PERB Regulation 32635, subdivision (a), was treated as an appeal from dismissal. (pp. 2, 28.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 132 | 02/08/17 |
| 2514E |
Santa Ana Unified School District
1503.03000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; Regulations Considered (By Number) (Continued)
Unlike most PERB failure to prosecute cases, in which the charging party fails or refuses to attend or participate in a duly noticed hearing, in this case, the complaint was dismissed without hearing based on a pre-hearing motion. Because the matter was dismissed without hearing, the Board applied the standard governing the pre-complaint investigation of an unfair charge to consideration of pre-hearing motions to dismiss. Although designated as “exceptions” to a proposed decision, the charging party’s filing, which substantially complied with the requirements of PERB Regulation 32635, subdivision (a), was treated as an appeal from dismissal. (pp. 2, 28.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 132 | 02/08/17 |
| 2514E |
Santa Ana Unified School District
1105.13000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Witnesses; Who May Testify; Board Agents as Witnesses; Self-Incrimination; Immunity; Labor Code Section 1151.2
Due process and fair proceedings required by statutory, regulatory and decisional law preclude PERB from resolving material factual disputes or making credibility determinations in the absence of a formal hearing or stipulated record. (p. 3, fn. 6.) Although the charging party had several medical restrictions that would require modifying the schedule of a hearing, for example, by taking frequent breaks, so that she is not required to sit or stand for more than one hour at a time, such modifications are not inherently unreasonable, nor unprecedented in PERB proceedings where necessary to accommodate a party’s medical condition. (38-39.) Even assuming a full hearing on the merits was impractical or impossible in this case because of the charging party’s medical condition, at minimum, a hearing on the disputed facts underlying the District’s motion to dismiss and its laches defense was necessary before dismissing the case. Alternatively, PERB Regulations authorize a hearing officer to order any person, including a party or material witness who is unable to attend a hearing because of illness or infirmity, to be deposed to ensure that oral testimony is subject to cross examination. (pp. 35-36.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 132 | 02/08/17 |
| 2514E |
Santa Ana Unified School District
1105.14000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Witnesses: Credibility, Cross Examination and Impeachment; Pretrial Statements
Due process and fair proceedings required by statutory, regulatory and decisional law preclude PERB from resolving material factual disputes or making credibility determinations in the absence of a formal hearing or stipulated record. (p. 3, fn. 6.) Although the charging party had several medical restrictions that would require modifying the schedule of a hearing, for example, by taking frequent breaks, so that she is not required to sit or stand for more than one hour at a time, such modifications are not inherently unreasonable, nor unprecedented in PERB proceedings where necessary to accommodate a party’s medical condition. (38-39.) Even assuming a full hearing on the merits was impractical or impossible in this case because of the charging party’s medical condition, at minimum, a hearing on the disputed facts underlying the District’s motion to dismiss and its laches defense was necessary before dismissing the case. Alternatively, PERB Regulations authorize a hearing officer to order any person, including a party or material witness who is unable to attend a hearing because of illness or infirmity, to be deposed to ensure that oral testimony is subject to cross examination. (pp. 35-36.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 132 | 02/08/17 |
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.
