County of Fresno (PERB 2436M)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
FRESNO COUNTY PROSECUTORS
ASSOCIATION,
Charging Party,
V.
COUNTY OF FRESNO,
Respondent.
Case No. SA-CE-776-M
PERB Decision No. 2436-M
June 22, 2015
Appearances: Wylie, McBride, Platten & Renner by Christopher E. Platten, Attorney, for
Fresno County Prosecutors Association; Liebert, Cassidy & Whitmore by Che I. Johnson,
Attorney, for County of Fresno.
Before Huguenin, Banks and Gregersen, Members.
DECISION
HUGUENIN, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on exceptions filed by the County of Fresno (County) to a proposed decision
issued on May 21, 2014, by an administrative law judge (ALJ) pursuant the Meyers-Milias
Brown Act (MMBA).1 The complaint issued by PERB's Office of the General Counsel on
February 10, 2012, alleged that the County violated MMBA sections 3503, 3505 and 3506, and
PERB Regulation 32603(a), (b) and (c)2 for failing to meet and confer in good faith with the
Fresno County Prosecutors Association (Association) by: (1) demanding to begin negotiations
for a successor memorandum of understanding (MOU) eight months before the expiration of
the current MOU; (2) rejecting the Association's ratified proposal without explanation;
(3) refusing to submit the Association's ratified proposal to the County Board of Supervisors
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.

for consideration; (4) conducting negotiations by email without consent from the Association;
(5) declaring impasse prematurely; and (6) implementing its last, best and final offer (LBFO)
without a face-to-face meeting.
In his proposed decision, the ALJ concluded that the County engaged in surface and
per se bad faith bargaining in violation of its duty to meet and confer under the MMBA. On
July 15, 2014, the County filed exceptions to the ALJ's proposed decision. On August 25,
2014, the Association filed its response. On August 26, 2014, the parties were notified that the
filings were complete and the matter was placed on the Board's docket.
On May 12, 2015, the County notified the Board that the parties had resolved the
underlying dispute in Case No. SA-CE-776-M and withdrew its exceptions. On May 20, 2015,
the Association also notified PERB that the parties had resolved the underlying dispute,
withdrew its charge and requested that PERB dismiss the complaint.
The withdrawal and request conveyed by the parties was based upon an agreement
between the Association and the County providing for settlement of the dispute. On May 5,
2015, the Fresno County Board of Supervisors (County Board) approved the parties'
settlement agreement through Agenda Item Number 43. In relevant part, Agenda Item
Number 43 states:
As it pertains to the Unfair Labor Practice Charge filed by the
Association against the County, and contingent upon the approval
by the Fresno County Board of Supervisors of the settlement
agreement and the successor corresponding Memorandum of
Understanding effective May 11, 2015, through July 2, 2017, the
parties agree to execute the following actions after the Board of
Supervisor's approval:
1. Within one (1) week of Board of Supervisor's
approval, the County of Fresno agrees to withdraw, with
prejudice, the statement of exceptions to the
administrative law judge's proposed decision dated
May 21, 2014, and filed on July 14, 2014, as it pertains to
2

Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) Case
No. SA-CE-776-M
2. Within one (1) week of Board of Supervisor's
approval, the Fresno County Prosecutors Association
agrees to withdraw, with prejudice, its Unfair Labor
Practice Charge (Case No. SA-CE-776-M) and request
that PERB dismiss the complaint and vacate the proposed
decision against the County of Fresno in that case.
Both parties submitted County Board Agenda Item 43 in their requests. We therefore deem
that the County Board Item accurately reflects the agreement reached by the parties.
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
Administration) (2010) PERB Deci_sion No._2152-S; Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community
College District (2009) PERB Order No. Ad-380; Oakland Unified School District (1988)
PERB Order No. Ad-17la; ABC Unified School District (1991) PERB Decision No. 83lb.)
Here, both parties in Case No. SA-CE-776-M agree to the disposition described above.
The Board has a longstanding policy favoring the voluntary settlement of disputes. 	(Dry Creek
Joint Elementary School District (1980) PERB Order No. Ad-81.) Based on the Board's
review of the parties' requests pursuant to the parties' settlement agreement, County Board
Agenda Item 43 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.
3

ORDER
The joint request in Case No. SA-CE-776-M by the County of Fresno (County) and the
Fresno County Prosecutors Association (Association) is hereby GRANTED. The County's
exceptions to the proposed decision are deemed withdrawn. The Association's unfair practice
charge is withdrawn with prejudice. The complaint is DISMISSED and the proposed decision
is hereby VACATED.
Members Banks and Gregersen joined in this Decision.
4