State of California (Association of California State Attorneys and Administrative Law Judges and Professional Engineers in California Government) (California State Employees Association) (California Department of Forestry Employees' Association, Local 2882, International Association of Fire Fighters (PERB A251S)

STATE
	OF
	CALIFORNIA
DECISION
	OF
	THE
PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
ASSOCIATION
	OF
	CALIFORNIA
STATE
ATTORNEYS
	AND
	ADMINISTRATIVE
	LAW
JUDGES
	AND
	PROFESSIONAL
	ENGINEERS
IN 	CALIFORNIA
GOVERNMENT,
Charging
	Party,
V.
STATE
	OF
	CALIFORNIA,
Respondent.
}
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
__________________ )
CALIFORNIA
	STATE
	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION,
Charging
	Party,
v.
STATE
	OF
	CALIFORNIA,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
__________________ )
)
CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT 	OF
	FORESTRY
EMPLOYEES'
	ASSOCIATION,
	LOCAL
	2882,IAFF,
Charging
	Party,
v.
STATE
	OF
	CALIFORNIA,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
__________________ )
Case
	No.
	S-CE-498-S
Motion
	to
	Expedite
PERB
	Order
	No.
	Ad-251-S
March
	3,
	1994
Case
	No.
	S-CE-503-S
Case 	No.
	S-CE-506-S
Appearances: 	Dennis 	F. 	Moss,
	Attorney, 	for 	Association 	of
California State
	Attorneys 	and Administrative
	Law
	Judges 	and
Professional 	Engineers
	in 	California
	Government; 	Howard
	Schwartz,
Attorney, 	for 	California 	State
	Employees
	Association; 	Department
of 	Personnel 	Administration by
	K.
	William Curtis,
	Deputy
	ChiefCounsel, 	for 	State 	of 	California.
Before 	Blair, 	Chair; 	Caffrey and 	Garcia,
	Members.

DECISION
CAFFREY,
	Member:
	This
	case
	is
	before
	the
	Public
	Employment
Relations
	Board
	(PERB
	or
	Board) 	on
	a
	motion
	filed
	by
	the
Department
	of
	Personnel
	Administration
	on
	behalf
	of 	the
	State
	of
California
	(State) 	requesting
	that
	the
	Board
	itself
	hear
	and
decide
	this
	consolidated
	case
	on
	an
	expedited
	basis.
1
The
	Ralph
	C.
	Dills
	Act
	(Dills
	Act
	or
	Act)
2
assigns
	broad
powers 	and
	duties 	to
	the
	Board,
	including 	the
	power
	to
	adopt
regulations 	to 	carry
	out
	its
	responsibilities
	and
	effectuate
purposes 	of 	the
	Act. 
the
3	
Accordingly,
	the
	Board
	has 	adopted
regulations
	which
	govern
	its
	unfair 	practice
	proceedings.
4 	PERB
Regulation
	32680
	provides
	that
	when
	attempts
	to 	voluntarily
settle
	an
	unfair 	practice
	charge
	have
	failed,
	formal
	proceedings
are
	conducted
	in
	accordance 	with
	Board
	regulations
	commencing
	at
section
	32165
	and
	including 	section
	32215, 	which
	states 	in
pertinent 	part:
A
Board
	agent
	shall
	issue
	a
	written
	proposed
decision 	or
	submit
	the 	record 	of
	the 	case
	tothe
	Board
	itself
	for 	decision pursuant
	to
instructions
	from
	the
	Board
	itself.
1
The
	State
	withdrew
	its
	request 	for
	a
	stay
	of 	the
	briefingschedule.
2
The
	Dills
	Act
	is
	codified at
	Government 	Code
	section
	3512
et	
seq
..
3
Dills
	Act
	section
	3513(h)
	incorporating
	Government 	Code
section 	3541.3.
4 PERB
	regulations 	are 	codified 	at 	California
	Code
	of
Regulations,
	title
	8, 	section
	31001
	et 	seq.
2

The
	State's
	motion
	essentially
	requests
	the
	Board
	to
instruct
	its
	agent
	to
	submit
	the
	record 	of 	the
	case
	to 	the
	Board
itself
	for 	decision,
	and
	to
	expedite
	its
	decision
	in
	accordance
with
	PERB
	Regulation
	32147.
5
The
	authority
	to
	instruct
	a
	Board
	agent
	to
	submit
	a
	case
record
	to 	the
	Board
	itself
	for 	decision
	is
	exercised
	at
	the
	sole
discretion
	of 	the
	Board.
	The
	Board
	has
	infrequently
	taken
	this
action.
	In
	earlier
	cases 	the
	Board
	used
	its
	authority 	in
	this
area
	on
	several
	occasions 	involving
	issues
	of
	first
	impression
such
	as:
	the
	original 	unit
	determinations
	under
	the
	Dills
	Act
6
and
	the
	Higher 	Education
	Employer-Employee
	Relations
	Act
	(HEERA)
7
(Unit
	Determination
	for 	the 	State
	of
	California
	(1979)
	PERB
Decision
	No.
	110-S;
	Unit 	Determination
	for
	the 	University 	of
California
	(1982)
	PERE
	Order
	Ad-114a-H); 	and
	to
	consider
	the
business 	necessity
	defense
	raised
	by 	numerous
	school
	districts
	in
response
	to 	refusal 	to
	bargain
	charges
	filed 	after
	the 	passage 	of
5
PERB
	Regulation
	32147
	states, 	in pertinent 	part:
The
	Board
	itself,
	the 	Chief 	Administrative
	Law
Judge
	or 	the
	General 	Counsel
	may
	expedite
	any
matter
	pending
	before 	the
	Board
	pursuant
	to 	policy
established
	by
	the
	Board
	itself.
The
	State 	fails
	to
	cite
	PERB
	Regulation
	32215
	in
	its
	motion,
relying 	instead
	on
	the 	Board's 	broad
	authority
	and
	jurisdiction,
and 	on
	PERB
	Regulation
	32147. 	The
	California State
	Employees
Association 	argues
	that
	under
	PERB
	Regulation
	32147
	11
[i]n 	theabsence 	of
	a
	duly 	promulgated
	regulation 	or policy," 	the
	Board
	is
without 	authority 	to 	grant 	the
	State's
	motion,
	apparentlyoverlooking 	the 	specific 	provisions 	of
	PERB
	Regulation 	32215.
6
Prior 	to 	January 	1, 	1987,
	the 	Ralph 	C.
	Dills
	Act 	was 	known
as 	the 	State
	Employer-Employee
	Relations 	Act.
7HEERA
	is 	codified 	at
	Government 	Code
	section
	3560
	et 	seq.
3

Proposition 	13 	(San 	Francisco 	Community 	College 	District 	(1979)
PERB 	Decision No. 	105).
The 	Board 	has 	also 	declined 	to 	exercise 	its 	discretion 	in
this 	area 	in 	cases 	of 	first 	impression, 	preferring 	its 	normal
process 	for 	unfair 	practice 	proceedings 	when 	the 	issue 	involved
the 	legality 	of 	employee 	strikes 	under 	the 	Educational 	Employment
Relations 	Act. 	(Fresno 	Unified 	School 	District 	(1979) 	PERB 	Order
No. 	Ad-72.) 	In Riverside 	Unified 	School 	District 	(1985) 	PERB
Order 	No. 	Ad-152, 	the 	Board 	denied 	a 	similar motion, 	stating 	that
its 	authority 	in 	this 	area 	had 	been 	rarely 	exercised 	"and
primarily 	for 	reasons 	of 	administrative 	efficiency."
In 	the 	present 	case, 	the 	State 	argues 	that 	its 	motion 	should
be 	granted because 	this 	case 	presents 	an 	issue 	of 	first
impression 	involving 	an 	ongoing 	controversy 	of 	great 	importance.
It 	further 	asserts 	that 	judicial 	economy 	would 	be 	served by
expediting 	the 	decision 	in 	this 	case 	since 	the 	parties 	have
stipulated 	to 	the 	material 	facts.
The 	Board 	declines 	to 	exercise 	its 	discretion 	under 	PERE
Regulation 	32215 	to 	grant 	the 	State's 	motion. 	The 	Board believes
that 	the 	deliberative 	decision 	of 	a 	PERB 	administrative 	law 	judge
(ALJ) 	will 	be 	of 	benefit 	to 	both 	the 	parties 	and 	the 	Board 	itself
in 	this 	case. 	Additionally, 	since 	the 	parties 	have 	stipulated 	to
the 	material 	facts, 	the 	Board 	anticipates 	expeditious
consideration 	of 	the 	case 	by 	the 	ALJ.
4

ORDER
The 	Board 	hereby DENIES 	the 	State's 	motion 	in 	consolidated
Case 	Nos. 	S-CE-498-S, 	S-CE-503-S 	and 	S-CE-506-S.
Chair 	Blair 	and Member 	Garcia 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
5