is empowered to reweigh the evidence and draw its “and own factual conclusions.” (California (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th Teachers Assn. v. Public Employment Relations Bd. 1076, 1086.) PERB is not bound by the determination of the weight to be ALJ’s accorded to each piece of evidence. not the hearing officer, is the ultimate “ ‘[PERB], fact finder, entitled to draw inferences from the (Id. at p. 1087.) available evidence.’ ” determination on factual issues is upheld if supported by substantial PERB’s evidence. (California (1996) State Employees’ Assn. v. Public Employment Relations Bd. 51 Cal.App.4th 923, 932-933 (California the substantial evidence State).) “ ‘Under standard, when a labor board chooses between two conflicting views, a reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of (Id. at p. 933.) The reviewing [PERB].’ ” court may not reweigh the evidence; if there is a plausible basis for factual PERB’s are not concerned that contrary findings may seem to us equally decisions “ ‘ “we reasonable, or even (Ibid.) more so.” ’ ” The City asserts that this court must review the entire record to determine whether substantial evidence supports factual determinations. The City is correct; PERB’s factual findings must be by substantial evidence on the record PERB’s “supported considered as a 3564, subd. (c).) Nonetheless, the United States whole.” (§ “ ‘[a]s Supreme Court has observed [in a similar be sure, the requirement for context], “To in order to ascertain substantiality does not furnish a canvassing ‘the whole record’ calculus of value by which a reviewing court can assess the evidence. Nor was it intended to negative the function of the Labor Board as one of those agencies presumably equipped or informed by experience to deal with a specialized field of knowledge, whose findings within that field carry the authority of an expertness which courts do not possess and therefore must respect. Nor does it mean that even as to matters not requiring expertise a court may displace the between two fairly conflicting views, Board’s choice
“and is empowered to reweigh the evidence and draw its own factual conclusions.” (California Teachers Assn. v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1086.) PERB is not bound by the ALJ’s determination of the weight to be accorded to each piece of evidence. “ ‘[PERB], not the hearing officer, is the ultimate fact finder, entitled to draw inferences from the available evidence.’ ” (Id. at p. 1087.) PERB’s determination on factual issues is upheld if supported by substantial evidence. (California State Employees’ Assn. v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 923, 932-933 (California State).) “ ‘Under the substantial evidence standard, when a labor board chooses between two conflicting views, a reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of [PERB].’ ” (Id. at p. 933.) The reviewing court may not reweigh the evidence; if there is a plausible basis for PERB’s factual decisions “ ‘ “we are not concerned that contrary findings may seem to us equally reasonable, or even more so.” ’ ” (Ibid.) The City asserts that this court must review the entire record to determine whether substantial evidence supports PERB’s factual determinations. The City is correct; PERB’s factual findings must be “supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole.” (§ 3564, subd. (c).) Nonetheless, “ ‘[a]s the United States Supreme Court has observed [in a similar context], “To be sure, the requirement for canvassing ‘the whole record’ in order to ascertain substantiality does not furnish a calculus of value by which a reviewing court can assess the evidence. Nor was it intended to negative the function of the Labor Board as one of those agencies presumably equipped or informed by experience to deal with a specialized field of knowledge, whose findings within that field carry the authority of an expertness which courts do not possess and therefore must respect. Nor does it mean that even as to matters not requiring expertise a court may displace the Board’s choice between two fairly conflicting views,
H041407.DOCX