San Mateo County Community College District (PERB 2395E)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
CAROL REED,
Charging Party, 	Case No. SF-CE-2950-E
PERB Decision No. 2395
SAN MATEO COUNTY COMMUNITY 	October 22, 2014
COLLEGE DISTRICT,
Respondent.
Appearances: Law Office of Ellen Mendelson by Ellen Mendelson, Attorney, for Carol Reed;
Eugene Whitlock, Deputy County Counsel, for San Mateo County Community College
District.
Before Martinez, Chair; Huguenin and Winslow, Members.
DECISION
MARTINEZ, Chair: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on exceptions filed by Carol Reed (Reed) to the proposed decision of a
PERB administrative law judge (ALJ). The complaint and underlying unfair practice charge
allege that the San Mateo County Community College District (District) discriminated against
Reed based on protected activity by (1) issuing a Notice of Intent to Discipline/Demote; and
(2) denying an appeal of a written reprimand based on lack of timeliness. This conduct is
alleged to violate the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA), section 3543.5,
subdivision (a).
On November 12, 2012, the District filed its answer to the complaint, denying the
material allegations. An informal settlement conference was held on January 16, 2013, but the
matter was not resolved. On May 1 and 2, 2013, a formal hearing was held and, on July 11,
The EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. Undesignated section
references are to the Government Code.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
CAROL REED,
Charging Party,
v.
SAN MATEO COUNTY COMMUNITY
COLLEGE DISTRICT,
Respondent.
Case No. SF-CE-2950-E
PERB Decision No. 2395
October 22, 2014
Appearances: Law Office
of
Ellen Mendelson by Ellen Mendelson, Attorney, for Carol Reed;
Eugene Whitlock, Deputy County Counsel, for San Mateo County Community College
District.
Before Martinez, Chair; Huguenin and Winslow, Members.
DECISION
MARTINEZ, Chair: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on exceptions filed by Carol Reed (Reed) to the proposed decision
of
a
PERB administrative law judge (ALJ). The complaint and underlying unfair practice charge
allege that the San Mateo County Community College District (District) discriminated against
Reed based on protected activity by (1) issuing a Notice oflntent to Discipline/Demote;
(2) denying an appeal
of
a written reprimand based on lack
of
timeliness. This conduct is
alleged to violate the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA),
and
1 section 3543.5,
subdivision (a).
On November 12, 2012, the District filed its answer to the complaint, denying the
material allegations. An informal settlement conference was held on January 16, 2013, but the
matter was not resolved. On May 1 and 2, 2013, a formal hearing was held and, on July 11,
1 The EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. Undesignated section
references are to the Government Code.

2013, the matter was submitted for decision with the filing of post-hearing briefs. The ALJ
issued the proposed decision on August 6, 2013. The proposed decision concluded that Reed
failed to establish that the District discriminated or retaliated against her based on protected
activity, and dismissed the complaint and underlying unfair practice charge.
On August 13, 2013, Reed timely filed a statement of exceptions. On September 9,
2013, the District filed a response. On September 13, 2013, Reed filed a letter reporting that
the parties had negotiated a settlement of all claims, including the unfair practice charge. Reed
requested that the case be placed in abeyance until the parties fully performed their respective
obligations under the terms of the agreement. By letter dated September 19, 2013, the Appeals
Assistant informed the parties that the filings were complete and the case had been placed on
the Board's docket. By letter dated October 8, 2013, the Appeals Assistant responded to
Reed's letter of September 13, 2013. The parties were informed that if they wanted to request
that the Board place the case in abeyance, the request needed to be jointly filed and signed by
both parties. The parties did not comply and, therefore, the case was not placed in abeyance.
On September 30, 2014, Reed filed a letter asking the Board to reopen the case,
mistakenly referring to the case as being held in abeyance. Reed stated that the District was
refusing to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement. Reed requested the assistance
of the Board in enforcing the agreement. By letter dated October 3, 2014, the Appeals
Assistant responded to Reed's letter. The parties were informed that the case was not in
abeyance and was currently pending before the Board itself on Reed's exceptions. The parties
were informed that it is not the role of the Board at this stage of the proceedings to provide the
parties with mediation services and that the Board does not have the authority to enforce
agreements between the parties, citing EERA section 3541.5, subdivision (b). The parties were
informed that they were welcome to seek the services of a mediator, but that the Board's
2
2013, the matter was submitted for decision with the filing
of
post-hearing briefs. The ALJ
issued the proposed decision on August 6, 2013. The proposed decision concluded that Reed
failed to establish that the District discriminated or retaliated against her based on protected
activity, and dismissed the complaint and underlying unfair practice charge.
On August 13, 2013, Reed timely filed a statement
of
exceptions. On September 9,
2013, the District filed a response. On September 13, 2013, Reed filed a letter reporting that
the parties had negotiated a settlement of all claims, including the unfair practice charge. Reed
requested that the case be placed in abeyance until the parties fully performed their respective
obligations under the terms
of
the agreement. By letter dated September 19, 2013, the Appeals
Assistant informed the parties that the filings were complete and the case had been placed on
the Board's docket. By letter dated October 8, 2013, the Appeals Assistant responded to
Reed's letter
of
September 13, 2013. The parties were informed that
if
hey wanted to request
that the Board place the case in abeyance, the request needed to be jointly filed and signed by
both parties. The parties did not comply and, therefore, the case was not placed in abeyance.
t
On September 30, 2014, Reed filed a letter asking the Board to reopen the case,
mistakenly referring to the case as being held in abeyance. Reed stated that the District was
refusing to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement. Reed requested the assistance
of
the Board in enforcing the agreement. By letter dated October 3, 2014, the Appeals
Assistant responded to Reed's letter. The parties were informed that the case was not in
abeyance and was currently pending before the Board itself on Reed's exceptions. The parties
were informed that it is not the role of the Board at this stage of the proceedings to provide the
parties with mediation services and that the Board does not have the authority to enforce
agreements between the parties, citing EERA section 3541.5, subdivision (b). The parties were
informed that they were welcome to seek the services of a mediator, but that the Board's
2

deliberation process was moving forward and that a decision on the merits would be issued
forthwith.
On October 8, 2014, Reed filed a letter requesting that the Board "dismiss any further
proceedings," the parties having resolved whatever outstanding disputes they may have had
over compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement. We construe Reed's request to be
a request to withdraw her exceptions to the proposed decision.
The Board has the discretion to grant or deny requests to withdraw and dismiss cases
pending before the Board itself. (PERB Reg. 32320, subd. (a)(2) ["The Board itself may . . .
take such other action as it considers proper."];" State of California (Department of Personnel
Administration (2010) PERB Decision No. 2152-S; Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College
District (2009) PERB Order No. Ad-380; Oakland Unified School District (1988) PERB Order
No. Ad-171a; ABC Unified School District (1991) PERB Decision No. 831b.)
The Board has a longstanding policy favoring voluntary settlement of disputes.
(Dry Creek Elementary School District (1980) PERB Order No. Ad-81.) Absent special
circumstances, exceptions may be withdrawn unilaterally by request of the party who filed
them. (County of Fresno (2014) PERB Decision No. 2352-M.) Although Reed did not
explicitly request withdrawal of her exceptions, by asking that the Board dismiss any further
proceedings, she has done so implicitly. The Board finds withdrawal of the exceptions to be in
the best interests of the parties and consistent with the purposes of the EERA to promote
harmonious labor relations.
By operation of PERB Regulation 32305, subdivision (a), with the withdrawal of the
exceptions, the proposed decision becomes final.
PERB Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8,
section 31001 et seq.
3
deliberative process was moving forward and that a decision on the merits would be issued
forthwith.
On October 8, 2014, Reed filed a letter requesting that the Board "dismiss any further
proceedings," the parties having resolved whatever outstanding disputes they may have had
over compliance with the terms
of
the settlement agreement. We construe Reed's request to be
a request to withdraw her exceptions to the proposed decision.
The Board has the discretion to grant or deny requests to withdraw and dismiss cases
pending before the Board itself. (PERB Reg. 32320, subd. (a)(2) ["The Board itself may
...
take such other action as it considers proper."];2 State
of
California (Department
of
Personnel
Administration (2010) PERB Decision No. 2152-S; Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College
District (2009) PERB Order No. Ad-380; Oakland Unified School District (1988) PERB Order
No. Ad-171a;
ABC
Unified School District (1991) PERB Decision No. 831b.)
The Board has a longstanding policy favoring voluntary settlement of disputes.
(Pry Creek Elementary School District (1980) PERB Order No. Ad-81.) Absent special
circumstances, exceptions may be withdrawn unilaterally by request
of
the party who filed
them. (County
of
Fresno (2014) PERB Decision No. 2352-M.) Although Reed did not
explicitly request withdrawal of her exceptions, by asking that the Board dismiss any further
proceedings, she has done so implicitly. The Board finds withdrawal of the exceptions to be in
the best interests of the parties and consistent with the purposes
of
the EERA to promote
harmonious labor relations.
By operation of PERB Regulation 32305, subdivision (a), with the withdrawal of the
exceptions, the proposed decision becomes final.
2 PERB Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8,
section 31001 et seq.
3

ORDER
The request by Carol Reed to dismiss further proceedings in Case No. SF-CE-2950-E is
hereby GRANTED. The exceptions to the proposed decision are deemed withdrawn. The
proposed decision is final.
Members Huguenin and Winslow join in this Decision.
A
ORDER
4
The request by Carol Reed to dismiss further proceedings in Case No. SF-CE-2950-E is
hereby GRANTED. The exceptions to the proposed decision are deemed withdrawn. The
proposed decision is final.
Members Huguenin and Winslow join in this Decision.