County of Madera (PERB 2477M)

________________________
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL
UNION, LOCAL 521,
Charging Party,
v.
COUNTY OF MADERA,
Respondent.
Case No. SA-CE-650-M
PERB Decision No. 2477-M
March 29, 2016
Appearances: Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld by Kerianne R. Steele, Attorney, for Service
Employees International Union, Local 521; Cota Cole LLP by Dennis M. Cota, Carolyn J.
Frank and David G. Ritchie, Attorneys, for County of Madera.
Before Martinez, Chair; Winslow and Gregersen, Members.
DECISION
MARTINEZ, Chair: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on exceptions filed by the County of Madera (County) and cross-exceptions
filed by Service Employees International Union, Local 521 (SEIU) to a proposed decision by a
PERB administrative law judge (ALJ). The unfair practice complaint alleges that the County
failed and refused to meet and confer in good faith when it unilaterally changed policy by
implementing furloughs; bypassed, derogated and undermined SEIU’s authority by sending
two memoranda regarding the furloughs to bargaining unit employees; and derivatively denied
SEIU the right to represent unit employees and interfered with unit employees’ rights to be
represented by SEIU. The complaint alleges that this conduct violated sections 3503, 3505
and 3509, subdivision (b), of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA)1 and PERB
1 The MMBA is codified at Government Code section 3500 et seq.

________________________
Regulation 32603, subdivisions (a), (b) and (c).2 The complaint was subsequently amended to
allege that the County unilaterally changed policy by repudiating contractual wage increases.
The formal hearing was held on May 3 and 4, 2011, in Sacramento, California. The
case was submitted for decision after receipt of post-hearing briefs on August 26, 2011. After
initial submission, the ALJ requested additional briefing on a Board decision of which SEIU
had sought official notice. After the additional requested briefing was received, the case was
resubmitted for decision on February 11, 2013.3 On January 27, 2015, the ALJ issued her
proposed decision, concluding in favor of SEIU on the allegations relating to the furloughs and
one of the two memoranda, and in favor of the County on the allegations relating to the
contractual wage increases and the other of the two memoranda.
The County filed a timely statement of exceptions, supporting legal brief and request
for oral argument on April 17, 2015, and SEIU filed its response, its own cross-exceptions,
supporting legal brief and request for oral argument on May 11, 2015. By letter dated June 1,
2015, the Appeals Assistant notified the parties that the filings were complete.
On February 26, 2016, the parties filed a joint request to withdraw the exceptions, the
unfair practice charge and the requests for oral argument with prejudice, and to vacate the
proposed decision (Joint Request). According to the Joint Request, in early January 2016, the
parties reached a tentative agreement resolving all underlying issues in dispute. On
January 26, 2016, the County executed the final Settlement and Release Agreement, a copy of
2 PERB regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, Title 8,
section 31001 et seq.
3 The Board decision subject to SEIU’s request for official notice is City of Long Beach
(2012) PERB Decision No. 2296-M. The City of Long Beach appealed the Board’s decision
and, on August 29, 2014, the Court of Appeal issued its unpublished opinion denying the City
of Long Beach’s appeal and affirming the decision of the Board.
2

which was attached to the Joint Request. The parties cooperated in authoring the Joint
Request, which they intend to give effect to the provisions of the Settlement and Release
Agreement.
The Board has discretion to grant or deny requests to withdraw and dismiss cases
pending before the Board itself. (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.)
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-81a.) The parties have entered into a comprehensive settlement
agreement covering the entire dispute that gave rise to the unfair practice charge and
administrative proceedings. As the County stated in the supporting legal brief:
The Agreement itself expressly states that it is entered into based
on each Party’s belief that it is consistent with the promotion of
harmonious labor relations between them, and therefore is
consistent with the purposes of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act;
and, separately, that each Party’s own individual interests are
served in resolution of the dispute through the Settlement and
Release Agreement. The settlement itself serves to document a
collaborative effort between the Parties toward enhanced
communication and understanding, and amelioration in the labor-
management relationship that is further evidenced by the joint
nature of the request to withdraw the Parties’ exceptions,
withdraw the charge and vacate the proposed decision.
We commend the parties on their efforts, not just in resolving this dispute but in
working to improve their relationship and enhance the quality and level of their
communications, so that protracted disputes like this one might be avoided in the future.
3

Accordingly, the Board finds granting the Joint Request to be in the best interests 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. SA-CE-650-M is granted.
The County of Madera’s exceptions and Service Employees International Union, Local 521’s
cross-exceptions, and their respective requests for oral argument, are deemed withdrawn, and
the proposed decision is vacated. The unfair practice complaint and underlying unfair practice
charge are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Members Winslow and Gregersen joined in this Decision.
4