South Coast Air Quality Management District (PERB 2560M)

________________________
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
CALIFORNIA TEAMSTERS PUBLIC,
PROFESSIONAL & MEDICAL EMPLOYEES,
LOCAL 911,
Charging Party,
v.
SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT,
Respondent.
Case No. LA-CE-834-M
PERB Decision No. 2560-M
April 11, 2018
Appearances: Law Offices of Patricia S. Waldeck by Patricia S. Waldeck, Attorney, for
California Teamsters Public, Professional & Medical Employees, Local 911; Wiley Price &
Radulovich by Joseph E. Wiley, Attorney, for South Coast Air Quality Management District.
Before Gregersen, Chair; Banks and Winslow, Members.
DECISION
GREGERSEN, Chair: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on exceptions filed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(District) and cross-exceptions filed by the California Teamsters Public, Professional &
Medical Employees, Local 911 (Teamsters) to a proposed decision by an administrative law
judge (ALJ) pursuant to the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA).1 The complaint alleged the
District violated MMBA sections 3503, 3505, 3506, 3506.5, subdivisions (a), (b) and (c), 3509,
subdivision (b), and PERB Regulation 32603(a), (b) and (c)2 when it failed to complete
negotiations before (1) creating an Investigator I classification; (2) revising the Investigator
1 The MMBA is codified at Government Code section 3500 et seq. All statutory
references herein are to the Government Code unless otherwise specified.
2 PERB Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8,
section 31001 et seq.

________________________
class specifications and changing the classification title to Investigator II; and (3) revising the
Supervising Investigator class specifications.
The ALJ determined that the District failed to meet and confer in good faith when it
unilaterally adopted the job title and class specifications for a new classification, Investigator I,
and revised the job title for its existing Investigator classification to Investigator II. By the
same conduct, the ALJ also determined that the District had interfered with employee rights
and denied the Teamsters its right to represent employees in their employment relations with
the District. The ALJ dismissed all other allegations.
The District timely filed exceptions to the proposed decision and the Teamsters filed
timely cross-exceptions.
On March 26, 2018, the parties filed with the Board a “Joint Request” to withdraw the
District’s and the Teamsters’ exceptions and the unfair practice charge with prejudice, and to
vacate the proposed decision. According to the Joint Request, the parties reached a settlement
resolving all underling issues in dispute. On February 23, 2018, the parties executed the final
settlement agreement, a copy of which was attached to the Joint Request.
The Board has discretion to grant or deny requests to withdraw and dismiss cases
pending before the Board itself. (MMBA, § 3509, subd. (a); EERA, § 3541.3, subds. (i) and
(n);3 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.)
3 The Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA) is codified at section 3540
et seq.
2

The Board has a longstanding policy favoring voluntary settlement of disputes, such as
achieved by the parties in this case. (Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District (1980) PERB
Order No. Ad-81a.) Based on the Board’s review of the parties’ Joint Request and their
settlement agreement, 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 submitted by the parties in Case No. LA-CE-834-M is GRANTED.
The parties’ exceptions to the proposed decision are deemed withdrawn. The complaint and
underlying unfair practice charge are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and the proposed
decision is hereby vacated.
Members Banks and Winslow joined in this Decision.
3