Riverside Transit Agency (PERB 2053M)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA	STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE	DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD	PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION, LOCAL	AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION, LOCAL
1277 and DALE MOORE,	1277 and DALE MOORE,
Charging Parties,	Charging Parties,
V.
RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY,	RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY,
Respondent.	Respondent.
Case No. LA-CE-472-M	Case No. LA-CE-472-M
PERB Decision No. 2053-M	PERB Decision No. 	2053-M
July 23, 2009	July 23, 2009
Appearance:	Appearance:
Before Dowdin Calvillo, Acting Chair; McKeag and Neuwald, Members.	Before Dowdin Calvillo, Acting Chair; McKeag and Neuwald, Members.
DECISION	DECISION
DOWDIN CALVILLO, Acting Chair: This case is before the Public Employment	DOWDIN CALVILLO, Acting Chair: This case is before the Public Employment
Relations Board (Board) on appeal by Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1277 and Dale	Relations Board (Board) on appeal by Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1277 and Dale
Moore (Moore) ( collectively Charging Parties) of a Board agent's partial dismissal of their	Moore (Moore) (collectively Charging Parties) of a Board agent's partial dismissal of their
unfair practice charge. The charge alleged that the Riverside Transit Agency violated theunfair practice charge. The charge alleged that the Riverside Transit Agency violated the
Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA)1 by refusing to hire Moore as a bus operator because of	Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA)' by refusing to hire Moore as a bus operator because of
his union activity. 	The Office of the General Counsel issued a complaint based on this	his union activity. The Office of the General Counsel issued a complaint based on this
allegation. 	However, the Board agent simultaneously dismissed Moore as a charging party,	allegation. However, the Board agent simultaneously dismissed Moore as a charging party,
concluding that because Moore was an applicant for employment, he lacked standing under the	concluding that because Moore was an applicant for employment, he lacked standing under the
MMBA to file an unfair practice charge.	MMBA to file an unfair practice charge.
Neyhart, Anderson, Flynn & Grosboll by William J. Flynn, Attorney, for	Neyhart, Anderson, Flynn & Grosboll by William J. Flynn, Attorney, for
Transit Union, Local 1277 & Dale Moore.	Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1277 & Dale Moore.	Amalgamated
By letter dated July 2, 2009, Charging Parties notified the Board that they "are	By letter dated July 2, 2009, Charging Parties notified the Board that they "are
withdrawing, with prejudice, the entire action, including the appeal of the partial dismissal."	withdrawing, with prejudice, the entire action, including the appeal of the partial dismissal."
Based on our review of Charging Parties' letter and the entire record in this matter, the Board	Based on our review of Charging Parties' letter and the entire record in this matter, the Board
1
The MMBA is codified at Government Code section 3500 et seq.	The MMBA is codified at Government Code section 3500 et seq.

2
best interests
of
the parties and consistent with the purposes
of
the	finds withdrawal is in the best interests of the parties and consistent with the purposes of the	finds withdrawal is in the
MMBA. Accordingly, the Board grants Charging Parties' request to withdraw the appeal
of
theMMBA. Accordingly, the Board grants Charging Parties' request to withdraw the appeal of the
partial dismissal.	partial dismissal.
ORDER	ORDER
The request by Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1277 and Dale Moore to withdraw	The request by Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1277 and Dale Moore to withdraw
the appeal
of
the partial dismissal in Case No. LA-CE-472-M is hereby GRANTED.	the appeal of the partial dismissal in Case No. LA-CE-472-M is hereby GRANTED.
Members McKeag and Neuwald joined in this Decision.	Members Mckeag and Neuwald joined in this Decision.
2