Office of the Santa Clara County Superintendent of Schools (PERB 0233EA)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA	STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE	OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
SERVICE 	EMPLOYEES 	INTERNATIONAL
UNION, 	LOCAL 	715, 	AFL-CIO
Charging 	Party,
V.
OFFICE 	OF 	THE 	SANTA CLARA COUNTY
SUPERINTENDENT 	OF 	SCHOOLS,
Respondent.
Case 	No. 	SF-CE-155
Request 	for 	Reconsideration
PERB 	Decision No. 	233
PERB 	Decision No. 	233a
October 	26, 	1982
Appearances;
Case No. SF-CE-155
Request for Reconsideration
PERB Decision No. 233
PERB Decision No. 233a
October 26, 1982
Appearances; 	Richard J. 	Loftus, 	Jr., 	Attorney 	(Littler, 	Mendelson,
Fas tiff 	& Tichy) 	for 	the 	Off ice 	of 	the 	Santa 	Clara 	County
Superintendent 	of 	Schools.
Before 	Gluck, 	Chairperson; 	Tovar 	and 	Jensen, 	Members.
DECISION
GLUCK, 	Chairperson: 	The 	Santa 	Clara 	County 	Superintendent
of 	Schools 	(County) 	requests 	that 	the 	Public 	Employment
Relations 	Board 1 s 	(PERB) 	Decision 	and 	Interim Order 	in 	unfair
practice 	case No. 	SF-CE-155, 	PERB Decision No. 	233 	(8/12/82),
be 	vacated 	in 	view 	of 	a 	settlement 	agreement 	reached 	by 	the
parties.
The 	charge 	in 	the 	instant 	case 	was 	filed 	on
October 	7, 	19_77, 	and 	a 	hearing 	thereafter 	held 	before 	a 	PERB
hearing 	officer 	whose 	proposed 	decision 	was 	issued 	on April 	28,
1980. 	The 	County 	thereafter 	filed 	exceptions 	to 	the 	proposed
decision.
DECISION
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL
UNION, LOCAL 715, AFL-CIO
Charging Party,
V .
OFFICE OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY
SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS,
Respondent .
Richard J. Loftus, Jr. , Attorney (Littler, Mendelson,
Fastiff & Tichy) for the Office of the Santa Clara County
Superintendent of Schools.
Before Gluck, Chairperson; Tovar and Jensen, Members'.
DECISION
GLUCK, Chairperson: 	The Santa Clara County Superintendent
of Schools (County) requests that the Public Employment
Relations Board's (PERB) Decision and Interim Order in unfair
practice case No. SF-CE-155, PERB Decision No. 233 (8/12/82) ,
be vacated in view of a settlement agreement reached by the
parties.
The charge in the instant case was filed on
October 7, 1977, and a hearing thereafter held before a PERB
hearing officer whose proposed decision was issued on April 28,
1980. 	The County thereafter filed exceptions to the proposed
decision.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
__________________ )

On February 23, 1978, the Service Employees International
Union, Local 715 (Union) filed unfair practice charge
No. SF-CE-184 which was scheduled to be heard on
December 29, 1980.
On December 11, 1980, however, the Union and County entered
into a complete settlement of both charges pursuant to which
they were to jointly request withdrawal of the cases before
this agency. 	On March 6, 1981, the Union did file the joint
request for withdrawal of SF-CE-184. However, the County
inadvertently failed to request withdrawal of the exceptions it
had filed in case SF-CE-155.
On August 17, 1982, five days after publication of the
Board's Decision in the instant case, the Board's executive.
assistant was orally informed of the settlement agreement and
the County's inadvertent failure to notify the Board thereof.
On August 19 a formal request for reconsideration was filed by .
the County. A copy of the settlement agreement was attached.
It includes the following provision:
5 . 	Case Nos. SF-CE-155 and SF-CE-184 shall
be considered settled in their entirety and
the parties shall request the PERB to close
their files in said matters.
The County's formal request for reconsideration was
properly served on the Union and the time for response has
passed without reply.
2
On 	February 	23, 	1978, 	the 	Service 	Employees 	International
Union, 	Local 	715 	(Union) 	filed 	unfair 	practice 	charg~
No. 	SF-CE-184 	which was 	scheduled 	to 	be 	heard 	on
December 	29, 	1980.
On December 	11, 	1980, 	however, 	the 	Union and County entered
into 	a 	complete 	settlement 	of 	both 	charges 	pursuant 	to 	which
they 	were 	to 	jointly 	request 	withdrawal 	of 	the 	cases 	before
this 	agency. 	On March 	6, 	1981, 	the 	Union did 	file 	the 	joint
request 	for 	w~thdrawal 	of 	SF-CE-184. 	However, 	the 	County
inadvertently 	failed 	to 	request 	withdrawal 	of 	the 	exceptions 	it
had 	filed 	in 	case 	SF-CE-155.
On August 	17, 	1982, 	five 	days 	after 	publication of 	the
Board's 	Decision 	in 	the 	instant 	case, 	the 	Board's 	executive·
assistant 	was 	orally 	informed 	of 	the 	settlement 	agreement 	and
the 	County's 	inadvertent 	failure 	to 	notify 	the 	Board 	thereof.
On August 	19 	a 	formal 	request 	for 	reconsideration was 	filed 	by·
the 	County. 	A copy 	of 	the 	settlement 	agreement 	was 	attached.
It 	includes 	the 	following 	provision:
5. 	Case 	Nos. 	SF-CE-155 	and 	SF-CE-184 	shall
be 	considered 	settled 	in 	their 	entirety 	and
the 	parties 	shall 	request 	the 	PERB 	to 	close
their 	files 	in 	said matters.
The 	County's 	formal 	request 	for 	reconsideration was
properly 	served 	on 	the 	Union 	and 	the 	time 	for 	response 	has
passed 	without 	reply.
2

DISCUSSION
It is the Board's policy to favor voluntary settlement of
disputes. 	Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District (7/21/80)
PERB Order No. Ad-81a. The Board has reviewed the settlement
reached by the parties here and finds it not to be repugnant to
the purposes of the Act. It has been in effect for 22 months.
The Board finds no overriding reason to depart from its
established policy favoring settlement.
Therefore, in view of the parties amicable resolution of
the dispute giving rise to unfair practice charge SF-CE-155 and
the affected employee's concurrence in that settlement, the
Board ORDERS that the complaint issued in unfair practice case
No. SF-CE-155 and the charges upon which the complaint was
issued be DISMISSED and that the Decisions of the hearing
officer and the Board itself be accordingly VACATED.
Members Tovar and Jensen concurred.
W
DISCUSSION
It 	is 	the 	Board's 	policy 	to 	favor 	voluntary 	settlement 	of•
disputes. 	D;fY 	C~eek 	Joint 	E~ementary 	School 	District 	(7/21/80)
PERE 	Order 	No. 	Ad-81a. 	The 	Board 	has 	reviewed 	the 	settlement
reached 	by 	the 	parties 	here 	and 	finds 	it 	not 	to 	be 	repugnant 	to
the 	purposes 	of 	the Act. 	It 	has 	been 	in 	effect 	for 	22 	months.
The 	Board 	finds 	no 	overriding 	reason 	to 	depart 	from 	its
established 	policy 	favoring 	settlement.
Therefore, 	in view 	of 	the 	parties 	amicable 	resolution of
the 	dispute 	giving 	rise 	to 	unfair 	practice 	charge 	SF-CE-155 	and
the 	affected 	employee's 	concurrence 	in 	that 	settlement, 	the
Board 	ORDERS 	that 	the 	complaint 	issued 	in 	unfair 	practice 	case
No. 	SF-CE-155 	and 	the 	charges 	upon 	which 	the 	complaint 	was
issued .be 	DISMISSED 	and 	that 	the 	Decisions 	of 	the 	hearing
officer 	and 	the 	Board 	itself 	be 	accordingly VACATED.
Members 	Tovar 	and 	Jensen 	concurred.
3