City of San Jose (International Federation of Professional and Technical Employees) (PERB 2569M)

________________________
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF
PROFESSIONAL & TECHNICAL ENGINEERS,
LOCAL 21, AFL-CIO,
Charging Party,
v.
CITY OF SAN JOSE,
Respondent.
Case No. SF-CE-996-M
PERB Decision No. 2569-M
June 14, 2018
Appearances: Wylie, McBride, Platten & Renner, by Christopher E. Platten, Diane Sidd-
Champion, Attorneys, for International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers,
Local 21, AFL-CIO; Renne Sloan Holtzman Sakai LLP, by Charles D. Sakai and Steven P.
Shaw, Attorneys, for City of San José.
Before Gregersen, Chair; Banks and Winslow, Members.
DECISION
WINSLOW, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on exceptions filed by the City of San Jose (City) from a proposed decision
by a PERB administrative law judge (ALJ). The unfair practice complaint alleged that the City
violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act1 by failing to provide accurate financial information
and by approving a ballot measure that would change retirement benefits without completing
good faith negotiations.
The formal hearing took place on February 10-12, 2014, after which the case was
submitted for decision. The ALJ issued his proposed decision on November 5, 2014,
concluding that the City failed to meet and confer in good faith prior to approving resolutions
1 The MMBA is codified at Government Code section 3500 et seq. All undesignated
section references are to the Government Code.

________________________
to place measures before the voters to alter employees’ pension plans. Timely exceptions to
the proposed decision were filed. On December 9, 2015, after the exceptions were placed on
the Board’s docket, the parties requested the matter be placed in abeyance, and the Board
granted that request.
Over the course of the next couple of years the Board was informed both in writing and
in telephone conversations between attorneys for both parties and PERB’s General Counsel
that settlement was imminent and finally that one had been reached. However, no requests for
withdrawal of exceptions were forthcoming. On May 18, 2018 PERB’s General Counsel wrote
to the parties in this case stating in pertinent part: “With the Board’s understanding that these
cases have now settled, and are therefore moot, we will consider the complaints withdrawn and
close the cases on June 1, 2018, unless any party provides grounds to continue with their
adjudications.”2 After receiving no response from the parties, the General Counsel again wrote
on June 4, 2018, in relevant part: “Having received no objections from the parties, this letter
serves as notice that the . . . complaints are withdrawn and the cases closed.”
The Board has discretion to grant or deny requests to withdraw and dismiss cases
pending before the Board itself. (EERA section 3541.3, subd. (i) & (n); MMBA section 3509,
subd. (a); PERB Reg. 32320, subd. (a)(2); State of California (Department of Personnel
Administration (2010) PERB Decision No. 2152-S p. 5; City of Pinole (2016) PERB Decision
No. 2496, p. 3.) And the Board has a longstanding policy favoring voluntary settlement of
disputes, such as that achieved by the parties in this case. (Dry Creek Joint Elementary School
District (1980) PERB Order No. Ad-81.)
2 This letter also referred to two other cases, Unfair Practice Charge No. SF-CE-900-M
and SF-CE-924-M. Those cases were placed in abeyance at the parties’ request before
exceptions were filed, so they were never placed on the Board’s docket.
2

ORDER
The complaint and the underlying unfair practice charge in Case No. SF-CE-996-M are
hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Chairperson Gregersen and Member Banks joined in this Decision.
3