County of Riverside (PERB 2700M)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL
UNION LOCAL 721,
Charging Party,
v.
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE,
Respondent.
Case No. LA-CE-1238-M
PERB Decision No. 2700-M
March 12, 2020
Appearances: Rothner, Segall & Greenstone by Maria Keegan Meyers, Hannah
Weinstein, and Juhyung H. Lee, Attorneys, for Service Employees International Union
Local 721; Liebert Cassidy Whitmore by Frances E. Rogers and Kevin J. Chicas,
Attorneys, for County of Riverside.
Before Banks, Shiners, and Krantz, Members.
DECISION
BANKS, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on exceptions filed by the County of Riverside (County) to the
proposed decision of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The ALJ found that the
County’s communications to employees regarding a strike violated the Meyers-Milias
Brown Act (MMBA) sections 3503, 3506, and 3506.5, subdivisions (a) and (b), and
PERB Regulation 32603, subdivisions (a), (b), and (g).1
________________________
1 The MMBA is codified at Government Code section 3500 et seq. All statutory
references are to the Government Code unless otherwise indicated. PERB
Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 31001 et
seq.

2
On February 26, 2020, while the matter was pending before the Board on the
County’s exceptions and Charging Party Service Employees International Union
Local 721’s (Local 721) cross-exceptions, the parties notified PERB that they had
reached a successor memorandum of understanding and had settled this matter along
with a number of other pending unfair practice charges. Based on these
commitments, the parties requested to withdraw the underlying unfair practice charge
with prejudice, dismiss the corresponding complaint, and close the administrative
case.2
The Board has discretion to grant or deny requests to withdraw and dismiss
cases pending before the Board itself. (§§ 3509, subd. (a), 3541.3, subds. (i) and (n);
PERB Reg. 32320, subd. (a)(2) [“The Board itself may . . . [¶] . . . take such other
action as it considers proper.”]; Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (2019)
PERB Decision No. 2656-M, p. 2 (Sanitation Districts); City of Santa Rosa (Fire
Department) (2019) PERB Decision No. 2653-M, p. 2 (Santa Rosa); 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 achieved by the parties in this case. (Dry Creek Joint Elementary School
District (1980) PERB Order No. Ad-81a.) While the Board has on occasion denied a
________________________
2 The Board treats this as a joint request to withdraw the underlying unfair
practice charge and the related exceptions and cross-exceptions.

3
request to withdraw an unfair practice charge, e.g. in order to avoid infringing on
statutory rights (Lake Elsinore Unified School District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2633,
p. 1, fn. 1), no such circumstances appear to be present here. Rather, based on the
Board’s review of the parties’ settlement agreement, and the entire record in this
matter, the Board finds granting the request to be in the best interest of the parties and
consistent with the purposes of the MMBA to promote harmonious labor relations.
(Sanitation Districts, supra, PERB Decision No. 2656-M, p. 2; Santa Rosa, supra,
PERB Decision No. 2653-M, p. 2.) Moreover, none of the settlement’s terms requires
employees to release future rights, such as the right to file PERB charges, or
otherwise offends the policies and purposes of the MMBA. For these reasons, we
grant the parties’ joint request to withdraw Local 721’s charge with prejudice.
ORDER
The request by Service Employees International Union Local 721 (Local 721)
and the County of Riverside (County) to withdraw the unfair practice charge in Case
No. LA-CE-1238-M is hereby GRANTED. The County’s exceptions and Local 721’s
cross-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 Shiners and Krantz joined in this Decision.