County of Orange (PERB 2429M)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
ORANGE COUNTY ATTORNEYS
ASSOCIATION,
Charging Party,
v.
COUNTY OF ORANGE,
Respondent.
Case No. LA-CE-814-M
PERB Decision No. 2429-M
June 4, 2015
Appearances: Reich, Adell & Cvitan by Marianne Reinhold, Attorney, for Orange County
Attorneys Association; Liebert Cassidy Whitmore by Adrianna E. Guzman, Attorney, for
County of Orange.
Before Martinez, Chair; Huguenin and Gregersen, Members.
DECISION
GREGERSEN, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or B_oard) on exceptions filed by the County of Orange (County) to the proposed
decision of a PERB administrative law judge (ALJ). In this case, an exclusive representative,
the Orange County Attorneys Association (Association), contends that a public agency violated
the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA)1 and PERB regulations2 by negotiating in bad faith.
The County denies any violation.
On November 16, 2012, the Association filed the instant unfair practice charge alleging
that the County violated the duty to meet and confer in good faith during successor agreement
negotiations. On April 8, 2013, the PERB Office of the General Counsel issued a complaint.
1 The MMBA is codified at Government Code section 3500 et seq.
2 PERB Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.

On April 29, 2013, the Association filed a motion to amend the PERB complaint to add
the claim that the County also unlawfully imposed terms on the Association's bargaining unit
on or around March 5, 2013. The Association alleged that the imposition was unlawful
because, among other reasons, the terms violated portions of the Public Employees' Pension
Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA).3
On May 2, 2013, the parties participated in an informal settlement conference but the
case did not settle. On May 3, 2013, the County filed an answer to the PERB complaint,
denying the substantive allegations and asserting affirmative defenses, including timeliness.
The parties participated in a formal hearing on October 28-31, 2013. On the first day of .
hearing, the ALJ granted the Association's motion to amend the PERB complaint over the
County's objection and leftthe record open until November 8, 2013, to allow the County time
to amend its answer. The County did so that day, again denying the substantive allegations
and asserting affirmative defenses. On February 19, 2014, the parties filed simultaneous
closing briefs. At that point, the record was closed and the matter was submitted for decision.
The ALJ issued the proposed decision on April 28, 2014, finding that the County
violated MMBA sections 3503, 3505, and 3506 and PERB Regulation 32603(a), (b), and (c).
According to the ALJ, the County violated the MMBA by negotiating in bad faith and by
imposing terms subject to negotiations upon the Association bargaining unit prior to reaching
bona fide impasse.
On June 23, 2014, the County filed exceptions to the proposed decision, and the
Association responded on July 28, 2014. On July 29, 2014, the parties were notified that the
filings were complete and the matter was placed on the Board's docket.
3 PEPRA was passed by the Legislature in 2012 and modified multiple sections of the
Government Code concerning public employee pensions. The portions of PEPRA implicated
by the parties are at Government Code sections 31581.1, 31581.2, and 31631.
2

On May 12, 2015, the County sent a letter to the Board, which states, in pertinent part:
The parties ... have settled their dispute ... and are working on a
stipulated request for dismissal. The parties mutually believe that
such a withdrawal would be in the best interest of the parties and
consistent with the MMBA's purpose of promoting harmonious
labor relations. (City of Lompoc (2013) PERB Decision No.
2328-M.)
Accordingly, the parties respectfully request that the Board place
final review and disposition of this matter in abeyance. The parties
will prepare and submit the stipulated request for dismissal within
the next 5 days.
On May 15, 2015, the Association sent a joint request for dismissal executed by both
parties to the Board. In that request, the County withdrew with prejudice its exceptions to the
proposed decision. The Association withdrew with prejudice its unfair practice charge in the
instant matter and requested that the proposed decision be vacated. Finally, both parties
requested that the Board dismiss the complaint that was filed in this matter, and that it dismiss
this case in its entirety and with prejudice.
The Board has the discretion to grant or deny requests to withdraw and dismiss cases
pending before the Board itself. (PERB Reg. 32320(a)(2) ["The Board itself may: ... take such
other action as it considers proper."]; State of California (Department of Personnel
Admintstration) (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. 83 lb.) Here, both parties
in Case No. LA-CE-814-M agree to the disposition described above. The Board has a
longstanding polioy favoring voluntary settlement of disputes. (Dry Creek Joint Elementary
School District (1980) PERB Order No. Ad-81).
3

Based on the Board's review of the request, and the entire record in this matter, the Board
finds the request to be in the best interest of the parties and consistent with the purposes of the
MMBA to promote harmonious labor relations.
ORDER
The joint request by the County of Orange (County) and the Orange County Attorneys
Association (Association) in Case No. LA-CE-814-M is hereby GRANTED. The County's
exceptions to the proposed decision are deemed withdrawn with prejudice. The Association's
unfair practice charge in this matter is deemed withdrawn with prejudice. The complaint is
DISMISSED, and the proposed decision is hereby VACATED.
Chair Martinez and Member Huguenin joined in this Decision.
4