PERB Will “Honor” Settlement Agreement For Charging Party To Withdraw Charge And Related Exceptions
In California State University Employees Union v. Trustees of the California State University (San Marcos) (2011) PERB Decision No. 2195-H, an association filed an unfair practice charge alleging that the university unilaterally transferred bargaining unit work to non-bargaining unit employees, interfered with protected rights exercised by an employee, and retaliated against another employee for having engaged in protected activities. The regional attorney dismissed the first and third allegations, but issued a complaint regarding the interference allegation. The association appealed from the partial dismissal of the charge. While that appeal was pending, the parties entered into a settlement agreement at a PERB settlement conference. In the agreement, the association agreed to withdraw the instant unfair practice charge (and another identified unfair practice charge) with prejudice, and the parties further agreed that the settlement agreement represented a full and complete resolution of the claims and disputes between the parties “based upon the above-referenced matter. In other words, it was not clear by the time this Settlement Agreement was signed just what was settled and what was not. PERB decided to dismiss everything based on the Settlement Agreement.
There’s an important lesson here: if a settlement agreement is unclear regarding what aspects of an unfair practice charge the parties agreed should be settled, PERB may determine that the parties intended to withdraw all aspects of the charge.
Author: Kerianne Steele
