Regents of the University of California (Irvine) (PERB 2255H)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
COALITION OF UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES,
Charging Party,
v.
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA (IRVINE),
Respondent.
Case No. SF-CE-924-H
PERB Decision No. 2255-H
April 25, 2012
Appearances: Beeson, Tayer & Bodine by Jason Rabinowitz and John E. Varga, Attorneys, for
Coalition of University Employees; Renne, Sloan, Holtzman & Sakai by Timothy G. Yeung
and Erich W. Shiners, Attorneys, for Regents of the University of California (Irvine).
Before Martinez, Chair; Dowdin Calvillo and Huguenin, Members. 1
DECISION
DOWDIN CALVILLO: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on exceptions filed by the Coalition of University Employees (CUE) and
cross-exceptions filed by the Regents of the University of California (Irvine) (UCI) to a
proposed decision of an administrative law judge (ALJ). The complaint and underlying unfair
practice charge alleged that UCI violated the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations
Act (HEERA)2 by unilaterally implementing a policy requiring bargaining unit employees at
UCI Medical Center to either wear a surgical mask while at 	or demonstrate that 	had
received an inoculation for the HlNl flu virus, and to wear insignia indicating whether they
without having afforded 	an opportunity to meet and confer over the
decision to implement the change in policy and/or the effects of the change in policy and
Chair Martinez did not participate in this decision.
2 HEERA is codified at Government Code section 3560 et seq.

without having exhausted statutory impasse procedures. After a formal hearing, on May 6,
2011, the ALJ issued a proposed decision finding that UCI did not commit an unlawful
unilateral change and dismissing the complaint and underlying unfair practice charge. Both
CUE and UCI filed exceptions to the ALJ's proposed decision. 3
By letter dated April 3, 2012, CUE notified the Board that it wished to withdraw the charge
in this matter with prejudice, pursuant to a global settlement agreement between the parties.
The Board has the 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-171; ABC Unified School District (1991) PERB Decision No. 831b.)
Based on our review of CUE's letter and the entire record in this matter, the Board finds
withdrawal of the unfair practice charge to be in the best interests of the parties and consistent
with the purposes of HEERA. Accordingly, the Board grants CUE's request to withdraw the
charge with prejudice.
ORDER
The request by the Coalition of University Employees to withdraw the unfair practice
charge with prejudice 	Case No. 	is hereby
3 PERB Regulation 32305 provides: "Unless a party files a timely statement of
exceptions to the proposed decision, the decision shall become final on the date specified
therein." (PERB regs. are codified at Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, sec. 31001, et seq.)
2