Trustees of the California State University (PERB 1514H)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
STATE EMPLOYEES TRADES COUNCIL,
Charging Party,
V .
TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
UNIVERSITY,
Respondent.
Case No. LA-CE-561-H
PERB Decision No. 1514-H
April 2, 2003
Appearances: Patrick Hallahan, Attorney, for State Employees Trades Council; Office of the
General Counsel by Steven Raskovich, Attorney, for Trustees of the California State
University.
Before Baker, Whitehead and Neima, Members.
DECISION
NEIMA, Member: This case comes before the Public Employment Relations (PERB or
Board) on exceptions filed by the Trustees of the California State University (CSU) to an
administrative law judge's (ALJ) proposed decision. The ALJ found that CSU violated the
Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA)' section 3571(a) and (c) by
HEERA is codified at Government Code section 3560 et seq. Unless otherwise
indicated, all statutory references herein are to the Government Code.
2 HEERA section 3571 provides, in relevant part:
It shall be unlawful for the higher education employer to do any
of the following:
a) Impose or threaten to impose reprisals on employees, to
discriminate or threaten to discriminate against employees, or
otherwise to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees because
of their exercise of rights guaranteed by this chapter. For

failing to provide timely and relevant information, by issuing a threat against a State
Employees Trade Council (SETC) member, and by separating from employment seven
temporary employees.
On March 20, 2003, CSU and SETC jointly informed the Board that they had "fully and
finally settled all disputed claims at issue in this matter" and that their settlement "complies
with and fulfills the spirit and intent of PERB's Proposed Decision and with HEERA" and is
"fair to all persons and entities concerned." In light of that settlement, CSU and SETC
submitted a joint request for: (1) withdrawal of the unfair practice charge; (2) withdrawal of
CSU's exceptions; and (3) dismissal of the entire action with prejudice.
After reviewing the parties' joint notice of settlement and requests as well as the entire
record in this matter, the Board finds that granting the parties' request is in the best interest of
the parties and is consistent with the purposes of HEERA.
DISCUSSION
When parties are successful in settling a dispute that formed the basis for an unfair
practice charge before PERB, the Board is often presented with a request to withdraw a case
that has reached the Board itself. The Board reviews each such request to determine whether
granting it will effectuate the purposes of the governing statute, in this case HEERA. (See
Orange Unified School District (2001) PERB Decision No. 1437 (Orange USD).) Where, as
purposes of this subdivision, "employee" includes an applicant
for employment or reemployment.
(c) Refuse or fail to engage in meeting and conferring with an
exclusive representative.
2

here, exceptions have been filed to a proposed decision, the Board is guided by PERB
Regulation 32320', which provides, in pertinent part:
(a) The Board itself may:
(1) Issue a decision based upon the record of hearing, or
(2) Affirm, modify or reverse the proposed decision, order the
record re-opened for the taking of further evidence, or take such
other action as it considers proper.
It is clear that the Board has the discretion to grant or deny the request and to allow the
withdrawal of a charge and complaint, and to vacate a proposed decision. (Orange USD; ABC
Unified School District (1991) PERB Decision No. 83 1b.)
In this case, the parties have entered into and jointly notified the Board of a settlement
agreement which very clearly indicates the parties have resolved their dispute which formed
the basis of the instant unfair practice charge. The Board concludes it effectuates the purposes
of HEERA to permit withdrawal of the unfair practice charge, dismiss the complaint with
prejudice, and vacate the proposed decision.
ORDER
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the unfair practice charge in Case No.
LA-CE-561-H is WITHDRAWN WITH PREJUDICE; the complaint is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE; and the proposed decision issued on April 18, 2002, is VACATED.
Members Baker and Whitehead joined in this Decision.
PERB's regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8,
section 31001 et seq.
3