January 2024 Board Decisions Summary

In January 2024, the Board issued three decisions. The decision descriptions and dispositions are below.

Order No. Ad-508-S

Employer: State of California (California Correctional Health Care Services)

Case No. SF-CE-290-S

Issued date: January 9, 2024


Description: PERB’s Office of the General Counsel concluded that Respondent State of California (Correctional Health Care Services) fully complied with the remedial order in State of California (Correctional Health Care Services) (2021) PERB Decision No. 2760-S. Charging Party Kevin Healy appealed, arguing that PERB should change its methodology and use compound interest—rather than simple interest—to calculate interest on back pay.

Disposition: The Board denied the appeal in a non-precedential decision. Based on the unique procedural posture of this case, the Board declined to consider whether to adopt daily compound interest as a new standard for monetary remedies.

Order No. Ad-509-S

Employer: State of California (Department of Veterans Affairs)

Case No. LA-CE-758-S

Issued date: January 10, 2024


Description: Charging Party appealed the decision by Chief administrative law judge (ALJ) to deny Charging Party’s request to recuse the ALJ originally assigned to Case No. LA-CE-758-S.

Disposition: Charging Party’s request for special permission to appeal the order denying recusal in Case No. LA-CE-758-S was granted, as was Charging Party’s request that original ALJ Rohrbacher be recused.

Decision No. 2887

Employer: Oakland Unified School District

Case No. SF-CE-3523-E

Issued date: January 26, 2024


Description: Charging Party Rank and File Caucus alleged that Respondent Oakland Unified School District (District) violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA) by retaliating against Denise Huffstutler. After issuing a Warning Letter and attempting to contact Charging Party’s representative by phone, PERB’s Office of General Counsel (OGC) dismissed the charge because the charge did not demonstrate that Charging Party had standing to file the charge and Charging Party failed to state a prima facie case that the District retaliated against Huffstutler in violation of EERA.

Disposition: In a non-precedential decision, the Board affirmed OGC’s dismissal of the charge.