Woodland Joint Unified School District (PERB 1433E)

DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
WOODLAND EDUCATION ASSOCIATION,
CTA/NEA,
Charging Party,
V.
WOODLAND JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Respondent.
Case No. SA-CE-1934-E
PERB Decision No. 	1433
May 	4, 	2001
Appearances: 	California Teachers Association by A. Eugene Huguenin, Jr., Attorney, for
Woodland Education Association, CTA/NEA; Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard by
Robert A. Rundstrom and Stephen E. Chilcott, Attorneys, for Woodland Joint Unified School
District.
Before Amador, Baker and Whitehead, Members.
DECISION
AMADOR, Member: This case comes before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on exceptions filed by both the Woodland Education Association, CTA/NEA
(Association) and the Woodland Joint Unified School District (District) to a PERB
administrative law judge's proposed decision dismissing the Association's unfair practice
charge.
By letter dated January 26, 2001, the Association informed PERR that the parties had
reached an agreement regarding several issues, including instructional minutes, the subject of
the instant unfair practice charge. The letter stated:
Accordingly, the Charging Party [Association] hereby withdraws
its charge, and requests that PERB both dismiss its complaint
issued on November 22, 1999, and vacate PERB's proposed
decision issued on June 30, 2000.

A copy of this letter was served on the District.
On February 6, 2001, PERB's appeals assistant wrote to the Association, stating that:
Because both the Association and the District have filed
exceptions in this case, the Board is: (1) providing the District
with an opportunity to state its position regarding the withdrawal
and request to vacate the proposed decision; and (2) requesting
that the Association provide us with a copy of the settlement
agreement.
The record contains no indication that the District took advantage of the opportunity to respond
to the February 6 letter within the time allowed. The Association responded by letter dated
February 7, attaching a copy of the settlement agreement.
According to the agreement, the parties settled several matters. Paragraph 11 reflects
the parties' agreement with regard to instructional minutes. Paragraph 12 states that "the
Association will drop the pending unfair practice charge regarding instructional minutes."
After reviewing the record in this case, the Board finds that granting the Association's
request is in the best interests of the parties and is consistent with the purposes of the
Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA).1
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 all, or
part, of a case that has reached the appellate stage. We review each such request to determine
whether granting it will effectuate the purposes of the BERA.
1 BERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq.
2

Where, as here, exceptions have been filed to a proposed decision, the Board is guided
by PERB Regulation 32320, which provides:
(a) The Board itself may:
(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. 	[Emphasis added.]
The cited regulation gives the Board broadly-worded authority to dispose of a case in any
fashion it deems appropriate. Here, the Association requested that the Board: (1) permit it to
withdraw its charge; (2) dismiss the complaint; and (3) vacate the proposed decision. The
Association also provided the Board with a copy of the settlement agreement.
After reviewing the parties' settlement agreement, it is plain that the parties did not
reserve any issues upon which further review by PERB was desired.
The Board clearly has discretion to allow the withdrawal of a charge and complaint and
to vacate the underlying proposed decision. (ABC Unified School District (1990) PERB
Decision No. 831 b (ABC) at p. 4.) The question is whether to exercise that discretion. 	The
Board has made it clear that, in determining whether to grant a party's motion to withdraw a
charge, it will not ignore a common sense approach. 	(Id. at p. 5.) Here, it is evident that the
parties have settled their dispute over the essential element of controversy that gave rise to the
filing of the unfair practice charge (instructional minutes).
After reviewing the entire record and the parties' settlement agreement, we are satisfied
that the parties have settled the dispute which formed the basis of the unfair practice charge.
Accordingly, we conclude that it would effectuate the purposes of EERA to grant all three
aspects of the Association's request.
3

ORDER
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: (1) the unfair practice charge in Case
No. SA-CE-1934-E is WITHDRAWN WITH PREJUDICE; (2) the complaint in Case
No. SA-CE-1934-E is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and (3) the proposed decision in
Case No. SA-CE-1934-E, issued on June 30, 2000, is VACATED.
Members Baker and Whitehead joined in this Decision.
4