Reopening of Negotiations Related to California Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) Proposition B litigation Sample Clauses

Reopening of Negotiations Related to California Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) Proposition B litigation. The parties acknowledge that, in January 2012, MEA filed an unfair labor practice charge with the California Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) related to Proposition B, and that three other recognized employee organizations (REOs) filed similar charges which were consolidated with MEA’s case (hereinafter “PERB litigation”). PERB issued its Decision in favor of REOs which was upheld by the California Supreme Court in Xxxxxx v. Public Employment Relations Board (2018) 5 Cal.5th 898, and then, on remand, by the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Xxxxxx v. Public Employment Relations Board (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 376. In furtherance of PERB’s Court- approved Remedial orders, MEA and the other three REOs sought leave from the State Attorney General to sue the City in quo warranto to seek an order invalidating the Proposition B charter amendments which became effective on July 20, 2012. After the Attorney General granted their application for leave to sue in its Indexed Letter Opinion No. 19-404, the REOs filed a Verified Complaint in the Superior Court as Plaintiff-Relators on behalf of the People of the State of California. The City answered the Complaint on November 18, 2019, admitting that, on the relation of Plaintiff- Relator Unions, the People of the State of California are entitled to a judgment determining that the Proposition B charter amendments are invalid, null and void and of no legal effect and, on this basis, that a judicial writ should issue under Code of Civil Procedure section 803 commanding the City and its City Council to strike these invalid provisions from its charter and to conform all subsequent enactments accordingly. The three official ballot proponents for Proposition B (Xxxxx Xxxxxx, X. X. Xxxx and Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx) intervened in the action to oppose the invalidation of the Proposition B charter amendments. After a bench trial, an invalidation judgment was entered on February 8, 2021, and became final on April 9, 2021. This judgment includes a writ in quo warranto issued to the City and its City Council directing that the Proposition B charter amendments, which took effect on July 20, 2012, be removed from the City Charter and for the City to conform the San Diego Municipal Code and any other related enactments accordingly. The City intends to take all legislative actions necessary to comply and this MOU will be amended accordingly by mutual agreement.
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Reopening of Negotiations Related to California Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) Proposition B litigation

  • Technical Objections to Grievance No grievance will be defeated or denied by any minor technical objection.

  • Technical Objections to Grievances It is the intent of both Parties of this Agreement that no grievance shall be defeated merely because of a technical error, other than time limitations in processing the grievance through the grievance procedure. To this end, an arbitration board shall have the power to allow all necessary amendments to the grievance and the power to waive formal procedural irregularities in the processing of a grievance, in order to determine the real matter in dispute and to render a decision according to equitable principles and the justice of the case.

  • Central Dispute Resolution Committee a) There shall be established a Central Dispute Resolution Committee (CDRC), which shall be composed of two (2) representatives from each of the central parties, and two (2) representatives of the Crown.

  • Scope, Consultations, Mediation and Conciliation Disputes between the Contracting Parties concerning the interpretation or application of this Agreement shall, as far as possible, be settled amicably or through consultations, mediation or conciliation.

  • Office of Inspector General Investigative Findings Expert Review In accordance with Senate Bill 799, Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., if Texas Government Code, Section 531.102(m-1)(2) is applicable to this Contract, Contractor affirms that it possesses the necessary occupational licenses and experience.

  • Alternative to Litigation 13.2.1 The Parties desire to resolve disputes arising out of this Agreement without litigation. Accordingly, the Parties agree to use the following Dispute Resolution procedures with respect to any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement or its breach.

  • Dispute Resolution/Mediation (a) Either party may commence the dispute resolution process of this Section 8.2 by giving the other party written notice (a “Dispute Notice”) of any controversy, claim or dispute of whatever nature arising out of or relating to or in connection with this Agreement, any Ancillary Agreement or the breach, termination, enforceability or validity thereof (a “Dispute”) which has not been resolved in the normal course of business or as provided in the relevant Ancillary Agreement. The parties shall attempt in good faith to resolve any Dispute by negotiation between executives of each party (“Senior Party Representatives”) who have authority to settle the Dispute and, unless discussions between the parties are already at a senior management level, who are at a higher level of management than the Persons who have direct responsibility for the administration of this Agreement or the relevant Ancillary Agreement. Within fifteen (15) days after delivery of the Dispute Notice, the receiving party shall submit to the other a written response (the “Response”). The Dispute Notice and the Response shall include (i) a statement setting forth the position of the party giving such notice and a summary of arguments supporting such position and (ii) the name and title of such party’s Senior Party Representative and any other Persons who will accompany the Senior Party Representative at the meeting at which the parties will attempt to settle the Dispute. Within thirty (30) days after the delivery of the Dispute Notice, the Senior Party Representatives of both parties shall meet at a mutually acceptable time and place, and thereafter as often as they reasonably deem necessary, to attempt to resolve the Dispute. The parties shall cooperate in good faith with respect to any reasonable requests for exchanges of Information regarding the Dispute or a Response thereto.

  • Recognition of Union Stewards and Grievance Committee In order to provide an orderly and speedy procedure for the settling of grievances, the Employer acknowledges the rights and duties of the Union Stewards. The Xxxxxxx shall assist any Employee, which the Xxxxxxx represents, in preparing and presenting her grievance in accordance with the grievance procedure.

  • LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS COMMITTEE Section 1. The Employer and the Federation agree to the establishment of Labor- Management Relations Committees for Divisions represented by the Federation. The purpose of these Committees is to discuss any item of concern, including safety, to either party and to improve communications between the Employer and the members of the bargaining unit.

  • THE COURT’S FINAL APPROVAL HEARING The Court will hold a hearing to decide whether to approve the settlement. You may attend and you may ask to speak, but you don’t have to.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.