Mount San Jacinto Community College District Faculty Association (PERB 2604E)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
ANTHONY G. VASEK,
Charging Party,
v.
MOUNT SAN JACINTO COMMUNITY
COLLEGE DISTRICT FACULTY
ASSOCIATION,
Respondent.
Case No. LA-CO-1567-E
PERB Decision No. 2604
December 12, 2018
Appearance: Anthony G. Vasek, on his own behalf.
Before Banks, Winslow, and Krantz, Members.
DECISION
KRANTZ, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on exceptions filed by Anthony G. Vasek (Vasek) to the proposed decision
issued by a PERB administrative law judge (ALJ) in this matter. Vasek, who prevailed below,
excepts only to two findings of fact made by the ALJ. Specifically, Vasek contends that the
ALJ erroneously attributed two statements to certain witnesses. Vasek states that he has “no
reason to challenge any of the conclusions [the ALJ] reached in her Proposed Decision” and
that correction of these “two errata” would not alter the disposition of the case. Respondent
Mt. San Jacinto Community College District Faculty Association (Association) did not respond
to Vasek’s exceptions and did not file exceptions of its own.
We dismiss Vasek’s exceptions. Absent good cause, we decline to consider initial
exceptions filed by a prevailing party. (Fremont Unified School District (2003) PERB
Decision No. 1528 (Fremont), p. 3; cf. Oak Valley Hospital District (2018) PERB Decision

________________________
No. 2583-M, pp. 1-2 [Board resolved prevailing party’s initial exceptions to prevent the parties
from being bound by an erroneous legal standard should similar facts arise in the future].) As
discussed below, Vasek has not shown good cause for the Board to consider his exceptions.
We therefore dismiss the exceptions and do not adopt the ALJ’s findings as a decision of the
Board itself. Rather, the proposed decision will be nonprecedential and binding on the parties
only with respect to the specific controversy involved in the case.
DISCUSSION
In Fremont, supra, PERB Decision No. 1528, the prevailing party filed exceptions to
the ALJ’s ruling on evidentiary matters, seeking only to correct those errors but not to overturn
the ALJ decision itself. We dismissed the prevailing party’s exceptions and declined to adopt
the proposed decision as our own. (Id. at p. 3.) We explained that our holding was “required
to prevent prevailing parties from unilaterally turning a favorable ALJ decision into a
precedential decision of the Board.” (Ibid.) This holding makes sense, as ALJ decisions
which are not appealed to the Board are nonprecedential and binding on the parties only with
respect to the specific controversy involved in the case. (Id. at pp. 2-3, citing PERB
Regulation 322151; Regents of the University of California (1990) PERB Decision No. 806-H,
p. 2.) Furthermore, the Board need not correct an ALJ’s harmless error. (Fremont, supra,
PERB Decision 1528, p. 2.) “This is especially true where the party asserting the errors seeks
only to correct them, and does not seek to overturn the ALJ decision itself.” (Id. at pp. 2-3.)
Here, Vasek does not seek to overturn the ALJ’s decision. Indeed, Vasek prevailed and
concluded that he had no reason to challenge any of the ALJ’s legal conclusions. Vasek’s
exceptions seek only to correct two alleged misstatements of fact in the ALJ’s proposed
1 PERB Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.
2

decision, which Vasek concedes did not affect the ultimate outcome. Vasek explains that he
filed exceptions to alleviate “any concerns the aggrieved witnesses might have about what is
now being erroneously attributed to them.” Yet, he makes no argument regarding specific
harm that may befall the allegedly aggrieved witnesses. Accordingly, we find that Vasek has
not shown the required good cause for us to consider his exceptions, and we dismiss them.
In dismissing Vasek’s exceptions, the Board itself declines to adopt the proposed
decision of the ALJ, which will become final upon issuance of this decision. (See Fremont,
supra, PERB Decision No. 1528, p. 3.)
ORDER
Vasek’s exceptions to the administrative law judge’s proposed decision in Case
No. LA-CO-1567-E are hereby DISMISSED.
Members Banks and Winslow joined in this Decision.
3