Orange Unified School District (PERB 1437E)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
ORANGE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Charging Party,
V.
ORANGE UNIFIED EDUCATION
ASSOCIATION, CTA/NEA,
Respondent.
Case No. LA-CO-822-E
PERB Decision No. 	143 7
May 	16, 	2001
Appearances: Hill, Farrer & Burrill by James A. Bowles, Attorney, for Orange Unified School
District; Charles R. Gustafson, Attorney, for Orange Unified Education Association,
CTA/NEA.
Before Amador, Baker and Whitehead, Members.
DECISION
BAKER, Member: This cases comes before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on exceptions filed by the Orange Unified Education Association, CT A/NEA
(Association) to an administrative law judge's (ALJ) proposed decision. 	The ALJ found the
Association failed to bargain in good faith in violation of section 3543.6(c) of the Educational
Employment Relations Act (EERA)1 when it refused to provide the Orange Unified School
District (District) with certain information requested by the District.
1 EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. Section 3543.6(c)
provides, in relevant part:
It shall be unlawful for an employee organization to:

( c) Refuse or fail to meet and negotiate in good faith with a
public school employer of any of the employees of which it is the
exclusive representative.
By letter dated March 27, 2001, the District informed the Board that the District and the
Association, the parties to the instant unfair practice charge, had reached a settlement
agreement. In the agreement, the District agreed to withdraw the unfair practice charge and
request that it be dismissed with prejudice. The March 27, 2001 letter included a copy of the
settlement agreement. 	Specifically, the District agreed, among other items:
To seek dismissal, with prejudice, of the following matters now
pending before the California Public Employment Relations
Board [PERB]:
iii. The unfair practice decision and complaint entitled Orange
Unified School District, et al. v. Orange Unified Education
Association, et al., Case No. LA-CO-822-E.
(Emphasis included in original.)
After reviewing the settlement agreement and the entire record in this matter, the Board
finds that granting the District's request is in the best interest of the parties and is consistent
with the purposes of the EERA.
DISCUSSION
When parties are successful in settling a dispute that formed the basis for an unfair
practice charge before PERB, the Board is often presented with a request to withdraw a case
that has reached the Board itself. The Board reviews each such request to determine whether
granting it will effectuate the purposes of the EERA.
Where, as here, exceptions have been filed to a proposed decision, the Board is guided
by PERB Regulation 323202, which provides, in pertinent part:
(a) The Board itself may:
2 PERB regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.
2

(1) Issue a decision based upon the record of hearing, or
(2) Affirm, modify or reverse the proposed decision, order the
record re-opened for the taking of further evidence, or take such
other action as it considers proper.
It is clear that the Board has the discretion to grant or deny the request and to allow the
withdrawal of a charge and complaint, and to vacate a proposed decision. 	(ABC Unified
School District (1990) PERB Decision No. 831 b.)
In this case, the parties have entered into and provided the Board with a copy of the
settlement agreement which very clearly indicates the parties have settled their dispute which
formed the basis of the instant unfair practice charge. The Board concludes it effectuates the
purposes of EERA to dismiss the unfair practice charge and complaint and vacate the proposed
decision.
ORDER
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the unfair practice charge in Case
No. LA-CO-822-E is WITHDRAWN WITH PREJUDICE; the complaint is DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE; and the proposed decision issued on February 22, 2001 is VACATED.
Members Amador and Whitehead joined in this Decision.
3