Regents of the University of California (Los Angeles) (PERB 2526H)

________________________
SEAL OF THE STAR
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
STATE EMPLOYEES TRADES COUNCIL
UNITED,
Charging Party,
v.
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA (LOS ANGELES),
Respondent.
Case No. LA-CE-1215-H
PERB Decision No. 2526-H
May 18, 2017
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 2010,
Interested Party.
CALIFORNIA
Appearances: Beeson, Tayer & Bodine by Susan K. Garea, Attorney, for State Employees
Trades Council United and Teamsters Local 2010; Paul, Plevin, Sullivan & Connaughton by
Sandra L. McDonough, Attorney, for Regents of the University of California (Los Angeles).
Before Gregersen, Chair; Banks and Winslow, Members.
DECISION
BANKS, Member: This case comes before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on exceptions filed by the State Employees Trades Council United (SETC) to
the proposed decision of a PERB administrative law judge (ALJ), which dismissed the
complaint and SETC’s underlying unfair practice charge against the Regents of the University
of California (University). The PERB complaint alleged that the University had violated the
Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA)1 by unilaterally changing the
1 HEERA is codified at Government Code section 3565 et seq. All statutory references
are to the Government Code unless otherwise indicated.

terms of a negotiated “me too” policy and by denying skilled trades employees a collectively-
bargained salary increase for retaliatory reasons.
The PERB Office of the General Counsel issued a complaint on August 21, 2015, and
on September 10, 2015, the University answered the complaint by denying the material
allegations and asserting various affirmative defenses.
On January 11, 2016, Teamsters Local 2010 (Local 2010) filed a motion to substitute
itself as the charging party in the case or, in the alternative, to be joined as an interested party.
In support of the motion, Local 2010 asserted that, on October 23, 2015, SETC had formally
disclaimed interest in the unit at issue in the case and that, on October 30, 2015, Local 2010
had petitioned to represent the unit. Local 2010’s filing included a statement of support by
SETC’s counsel, Fred Quiel. The University opposed the motion.
After further proceedings, on February 17, 2016, the ALJ granted Local 2010’s requests
to join the case as an interested party and its request for official notice of PERB’s files in Case
No. SF-RR-969-H, concerning Local 2010’s petition for the unit, but denied a motion to
amend the complaint to substitute references to “SETC” in the PERB complaint with
“Local 2010.”
After further proceedings concerning pre-hearing motions, the ALJ convened a formal
hearing on March 28, 2016. SETC initially appeared by telephone and, over the University’s
objection, SETC’s representative filed a notice of appearance designating counsel for
Local 2010, Susan K. Garea (Garea), as its representative for purposes of this case. The
hearing resumed on March 29, 2016 and, after further objections from the University and
SETC’s filing of a second notice of appearance form again designating Garea as its
representative in this case, SETC and Local 2010 (collectively, Unions) presented a single case
2

in chief, which completed on March 29, 2016. The University moved to have the case
dismissed for failure to establish a prima facie case for any HEERA violation, which the ALJ
took under submission, before presenting its own case in chief. The hearing concluded on
March 30, 2016 and, with the submission of closing briefs on July 6, 2016, the record was
closed and the matter was considered submitted for decision.
On September 29, 2016, the ALJ issued his proposed decision, in which he ruled on
several issues, including SETC’s status as the charging party and the propriety of Local 2010’s
participation as an interested party and whether the case was subject to deferral, before
addressing the merits and concluding that both the unilateral change and discrimination
allegations in the complaint should be dismissed for failure of proof. He also denied the
University’s motion for sanctions against SETC for any delay caused by SETC initially failing
to appear at the hearing on March 28, 2016.
After requesting and receiving an extension of time, on November 2, 2016, the Unions
filed their statement of exceptions and supporting brief. After also requesting and receiving an
extension of time, on December 12, 2016, the University filed its response to the Unions’
exceptions and its own brief in support of that response. On January 4, 2017, the University
also requested oral argument before the Board.
On April 10, 2017, while the matter was pending before the Board, the parties notified
PERB that they had reached a settlement agreement and submitted a stipulation requesting that
the Unions’ exceptions be withdrawn and that the complaint and underlying unfair practice
charge be dismissed with prejudice as part of a global settlement involving negotiations for a
successor Memorandum of Understanding.
3

________________________
Under its broad powers to “investigate unfair practice charges or alleged violations of
[HEERA], and to take any action and make any determinations in respect of these charges or
alleged violations as the board deems necessary to effectuate the policies of [HEERA],” and to
“take any other action as the board deems necessary to discharge its powers and duties and
otherwise to effectuate the purposes of [HEERA],” the Board has discretion to grant or deny
requests to withdraw and dismiss cases pending before the Board itself. (HEERA, § 3563,
subds. (h), (m); State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (2010) PERB
Decision No. 2152-S, p. 5.) When an appeal pending before the Board involves a matter of
continuing public interest and a precedential ruling on the matter will be instructive to
similarly-situated parties, the Board has exercised its discretion by denying a request for
withdrawal, in the interest of justice. (Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District
(2009) PERB Order No. Ad-380, p. 2; Oakland Unified School District (1988) PERB Order
No. Ad-171a, p. 2; ABC Unified School District (1991) PERB Decision No. 831b, p. 2.)
After carefully reviewing the parties’ stipulation and settlement agreement, the Board
finds withdrawal of the Unions’ exceptions and dismissal of this case to be consistent with the
purposes of HEERA to promote harmonious and cooperative labor relations between the
State’s public institutions of higher education and their employees. Accordingly, the parties’
stipulation and requests for withdrawal and dismissal shall be granted, and the proposed
decision shall become final and binding on the parties only but not precedential. (PERB
Regs. 32215, 32305, subd. (a).)2
2 PERB Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8,
section 31001, et seq.
4

ORDER
The parties’ stipulation and the request by Charging Party State Employees Trades
Council United and Interested Party Teamsters Local 2010 to withdraw their exceptions to the
proposed decision and for dismissal with prejudice of the complaint and unfair practice charge
in Case No. LA-CE-1215-H are hereby GRANTED. The complaint and charge are dismissed
with prejudice and the proposed decision issued on September 29, 2016 is hereby deemed final
and binding as to the parties in this case only.
Chair Gregersen and Member Winslow joined in this decision.
5