State of California (Department of Health) (California State Employees Association) (PERB 0086S)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS 	BOARD
CALIFORNIA 	STATE 	EMPLOYEES;'
ASSOCIATION,
Charging Party,
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
DEPARTMENT 	OF HEALTH,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
) 	Case No. 	LA-CE-1-S
PERB 	Decision 	No. 86-S
January 10, 	1979
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances; 	Bernard L. Allamano, Attorney, 	for California
State Employees' Association, 	Chapter 43; 	and Barbara Stuart,
Attorney, 	for Governor's Office 	of Employee Relations.
Before: 	Gluck, 	Chairperson; 	Cossack Twohey and Gonzales, Members
DECISION
This 	case 	is 	an 	appeal by the California 	State Employees'
Association, 	Chapter 43 	(hereafter CSEA) 	from a hearing officer's
dismissal of an 	unfair practice 	charge without 	leave 	to 	amend,,
The 	charge 	alleges 	violations 	of 	sections 	3522.3 	and 	3522.8 	of
the 	State Employer-Employee Relations Act 	(hereafter SEERA).
11
11All 	references 	are 	to 	the Government Code unless 	other-
wise noted. 	SEERA is 	codified at 	Government Code 	section 	3512
et 	seq.
Sec. 	3522.3 provides:
Supervisory employees 	shall have 	the 	right 	to
form, 	join, 	and participate 	in the activities
of 	employee 	organizations 	of their own 	choos-
ing 	for 	the 	purpose 	of 	representation 	on 	all
matters 	of 	supervisory 	employee-employer
relations 	as 	set 	forth in 	section 	3522.6.
(cont.)
\

Supervisory 	employees 	also 	shall 	have 	the
right 	to 	refuse 	to join or participate 	in
the 	activities 	of 	employee 	organizations
and shall 	have 	the 	right 	to 	represent 	them-
selves 	individually 	in 	their 	employment
relations 	with 	the 	public 	employer.
Sec. 	3522.8 provides:
The 	state 	employer 	and 	employee 	organizations
shall not 	interfere with, 	intimidate, 	restrain,
coerce, 	or 	discriminate 	against 	supervisory
employees 	because 	of 	their 	exercise 	of 	their
rights 	under 	this 	article.
FACTS
On August 22, 	19 78, 	CSEA filed its 	charge2 alleging
violations 	of 	sections 	3522.3 	and 	3522.8 	in 	that 	a personnel
officer 	at 	Camarillo 	State 	Hospital 	told 	designated 	supervisory
employees 	that 	they 	could not 	hold office 	in 	employee
organizations. 	The 	statement was 	reportedly made 	at 	a meeting
on June 	15, 	19 78 	between representatives of CSEA and repre-
sentatives 	of 	the 	California State 	Department 	of Health
(hereafter Department of Health). 	Minutes 	of this meeting
were 	then 	distributed 	to 	180 	designated 	supervisory 	employees.
The precise 	language 	in 	the minutes was:
It will be 	each 	individual's 	responsibility
to 	read 	the 	law and 	determine 	if he 	or she
is 	in 	a position 	that 	should be 	considered
supervisory. 	If a 	supervisor holds 	office
in 	an employee 	organization 	the 	supervisor
must 	decide whether 	to 	continue 	to hold
office 	after July 	1, 	or to 	request 	a
downgrade 	to 	a nonsupervisory position.
20n July 	11, 	1978, 	CSEA 	initially alleged that California
State Department 	of Health 	representatives 	had violated 	section
3522.6 	(meet and confer provisions). 	On July 14, 	1978, 	CSEA
first 	amended 	its 	charge 	to allege 	violations 	of 	sections
3522.3, 	3522.8 and 3519(a), 	(b), and (d) 	(unfair practice
provisions). 	The hearing officer 	dismissed the 	amended charge
of July 	14 with 	leave 	to 	amend. 	Thereupon, 	CSEA filed its
second amended charge of August 22, 	19 78.
(cont.)
— 2-

According 	to 	CSEA, 	supervisory 	employees 	who 	either hold
office 	currently 	or were 	contemplating 	running 	for 	office were
intimidated 	from 	exercising 	their 	rights 	guaranteed by 	SEERA.
On 	September 1, 	19 78, 	a hearing officer of the Public
Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(hereafter 	PERB 	or 	Board) 	dismissed
the 	charge without 	leave 	to 	amend. 	He held 	that 	supervisors 	do
not 	have 	a 	right 	under 	SEERA 	to 	allege 	as 	an unfair practice 	a
violation 	of 	section 	3522.8.
For 	purposes 	of 	considering 	this 	appeal, 	the 	Board 	assumes
that 	the 	facts 	as 	alleged by 	the 	charging party 	are 	true.
DISCUSSION
We 	agree with 	the 	hearing 	officer's 	dismissal 	of 	the 	charge
for 	lack of 	PERB jurisdiction. 	PERB's 	enforcement 	powers 	and
duties 	under 	SEERA were 	not 	intended 	to 	apply 	in 	the 	same
manner 	to 	supervisors 	as 	to nonsupervisors. 	Expressly 	restrict-
ing 	the 	rights 	and 	coverage 	of 	supervisors 	under 	SEERA, 	section
3522 	states:
Except 	as 	provided by Sections 	3522.1 	to
3522.9, 	inclusive, 	supervisory employees
shall not 	have 	the 	rights 	or be 	covered
by 	any 	provision 	or 	definition 	established
by 	this 	chapter. 	(Emphasis 	added.)
-
Thus, 	whereas 	nonsupervisory 	employees 	are 	covered by 	the 	unfair
practice 	provisions 	of 	section 	3519, 	supervisors 	are not.
J 3Sec. 3519 	provides:
It 	shall be 	unlawful 	for the 	state 	to:
(a) 	Impose 	or 	threaten 	to 	impose 	reprisals
on employees, 	to 	discriminate or 	threaten to 	dis-
criminate 	against 	employees, 	or otherwise 	to
interfere with, 	restrain, 	or 	coerce 	employees
because 	of 	their 	exercise 	of 	rights 	guaranteed
by 	this 	chapter.
(b) 	Deny 	to 	employee 	organizations 	rights
guaranteed 	to 	them by 	this 	chapter. (cont.)
-3-

(c) 	Refuse 	or 	fail 	to meet 	and confer in
good 	faith with 	a 	recognized 	employee 	organization.
(d) 	Dominate 	or 	interfere with 	the 	forma-
tion 	or 	administration 	of 	any 	employee 	organization,
or 	contribute 	financial 	or 	other 	support 	to 	it,
or 	in 	any way 	encourage 	employees 	to 	join 	any
organization 	in preference 	to 	another.
(e) 	Refuse 	to participate 	in 	good faith
in 	the mediation procedure 	set 	forth 	in 	Section
3518.
CSEA 	suggests 	that 	PERB 	itself must 	enact 	rules 	to 	pre-
vent 	employer 	interference with 	supervisors' 	rights 	under
SEERA. 	The express 	language of SEERA, 	however, 	is 	contrary
to this 	suggestion. 	Section 3513Cg), 	in pertinent part, 	states:
The 	powers 	and 	duties 	of 	the 	board 	described
in section 	3541.3 	shall 	also 	apply, 	as 	appro-
priate, 	to 	this 	chapter. 	(Emphasis 	added.)
This 	provision 	is 	a 	reference 	to 	the 	broad 	administrative powers
given 	to 	PERB 	under 	the 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Act
I,4
(hereafter 	EERA). 	In 	particular, 	section 	3541.3(i)5 grants
to 	PERB 	the 	power 	and 	duty 	of 	investigating 	unfair 	practice
charges 	or 	alleged violations 	and 	taking 	remedial 	action.
(cont.)
4The EERA 	is 	codified at 	Government 	Code 	section 	3540
et 	seq
5Sec. 	3541.3(i) provides:
[The 	board 	shall 	have 	all 	of 	the 	following powers 	and
duties]
(i) 	To 	investigate 	unfair practice 	charges 	or
alleged violations 	of 	this 	chapter, 	and 	take
such 	action 	and make 	such 	determinations 	in 	respect
of 	such 	charges 	or 	alleged violations 	as 	the board
deems 	necessary 	to 	effectuate 	the 	policies 	of
this 	chapter.
-4-

Section 	3541.3(n)6 is 	even broader 	in 	allowing PERB 	to 	take
such 	other 	action 	deemed necessary 	to 	effectuate 	the 	purposes
of the EERA. 	Both these 	sections of the EERA are, 	however,
inapplicable 	to 	supervisors 	under 	SEERA 	since 	section 	35l3(g)
precludes 	PERB 	from establishing 	greater 	rights 	and 	coverage
for 	supervisors 	than were 	originally 	intended 	for 	them by 	the
Legislature under 	section 	3522. 	The 	PERB 	is 	confronted not
merely with 	a matter 	of 	choosing whether 	to 	adopt 	administra-
tive 	rules 	but 	rather with 	a 	lack of 	statutory 	authority 	to
do so under SEERA. 7	7
Prior 	to 	the 	enactment 	of SEERA, 	labor relations 	of
supervisory 	and nonsupervisory 	employees 	in 	state 	civil
service were 	governed by 	the 	George 	Brown 	Act.8 Under 	SEIERA
however, 	the 	rights 	and 	coverage 	of 	supervisory employees
6 Sec. 3541.3(n) provides:
[The board 	shall have 	all 	of 	the 	following powers 	and
duties]
(n) 	To 	take 	such other action as 	the board deems
necessary 	to 	discharge 	its 	powers 	and duties 	and
otherwise 	to 	effectuate 	the purposes 	of this 	chapter.
7 See also Gov. 	Code sec. 	11374, which, 	in pertinent part,
provides:
Whenever by 	the 	express 	or 	implied 	terms 	of any
statute 	a state 	agency has 	authority 	to 	adopt
regulations 	to implement, 	interpret, 	make specific
or otherwise 	carry out 	the 	provisions 	of 	the
statute, 	no 	regulation adopted is valid or effective
unless 	consistent 	and not 	in 	conflict with 	the
statute 	and 	reasonably necessary 	to 	effectuate
the purpose of 	the 	statute.
8The 	George 	Brown Act 	is 	codified at 	Government 	Code 	section
3523 	et 	seq.
-5-
7

are not 	coextensive with 	the 	largely 	expanded rights 	and
coverage 	of nonsupervisors. 	Provisions 	regarding 	supervisors
are by 	comparison limited as 	seen, 	for example, 	in the absence
of PERB 	unfair practice machinery 	and 	the 	absence 	of 	an
exclusive 	representative 	in 	the meet 	and 	confer process.
CSEA 	argues 	that 	supervisors 	should not 	be 	left without
an 	administrative 	remedy 	to 	implement 	section 	3522.8. 	Since
the 	statutory 	scheme 	indicates 	an 	intention 	to 	exclude 	supervisors
from PERB jurisdiction, 	CSEA must 	look 	elsewhere 	to 	vindicate
the 	rights 	granted 	supervisory 	employees.
For 	the 	foregoing reasons, 	we hold that PERB 	lacks 	juris-
diction 	to 	resolve 	CSEA's 	claim regarding 	supervisors 	through
the 	unfair practice 	process 	under 	SEERA.
Although we dismiss 	the charge, we, 	for two reasons, 	disagree
with 	the 	hearing officer's 	decision not 	to 	allow 	charging 	party
leave 	to 	amend. 	First, 	charging party's 	appeal 	alleges 	an
irregularity 	in 	the PERB process. 	It 	claims 	that 	the hearing
officer 	suggested 	to 	the 	charging 	party 	the 	proper 	form and
information required in making 	its 	charge. 	Since 	it 	allegedly
was 	allowed 	to 	believe 	that 	PERB had jurisdiction 	over 	supervisory
employees, 	CSEA urges 	that 	any blame 	for using 	the wrong 	form
or vehicle 	for 	processing 	a violation 	of 	SEERA 	should 	lie with
the board agent. 	We make no 	decision here 	as 	to whether CSEA's
allegations 	are 	correct 	or whether 	it was misled. 	Because 	the
appeal 	is 	framed in 	these 	terms, 	we now grant 	leave 	to amend
the charge.
-6-

Second, 	it 	is not 	altogether clear whether the 	facts 	as
alleged by 	CSEA 	reveal 	that 	nonsupervisory 	employees 	suffered
a 	detrimental 	impact. 	An employer's 	conduct 	against 	supervisors
is 	generally not 	grounds 	for an unfair practice 	charge. 	However,
if 	there 	is 	a reasonable 	inference 	that 	the 	conduct had an
adverse 	effect 	on nonsupervisory employees 	in 	the 	exercise 	of
their rights, 	an unfair practice 	charge will be 	entertained
vis 	a vis 	the nonsupervisory employees.9 In this 	case, 	if CSEA
can 	show that 	the personnel 	officer's 	comments 	would have had
the 	effect 	of restraining, 	coercing or 	interfering with
nonsupervisors 	in 	the exercise of their SEERA rights, 	the 	unfair
practice process 	is 	the proper vehicle 	for resolving the 	dispute.
However, 	the charge, 	as 	it presently stands, 	is 	silent regarding
whether 	nonsupervisors 	were 	adversely 	affected by 	the 	distribu-
tion 	of 	the minutes 	or whether 	they were 	aware 	of 	the minutes
at 	all. 	We 	therefore 	allow CSEA an opportunity 	to 	amend its
charge to allege, 	if possible, 	harm to nonsupervisory employees.
ORDER
The 	Public Employment Relations 	Board ORDERS 	that:
The 	unfair practice 	charge 	filed by California 	State
Employees' 	Association, 	Chapter 43 against 	the California
9 Vail Mfg. 	Co. 	(1945) 	61 NLRB 181 	[16 LRRM 85], 	enfd.
(7th Cir., 	1947) 	158 F.2d 664 [19 LRRM 2177], 	cert, 	denied
(1947) 	331 U.S. 	835 	[20 LRRM 2185]; 	Better Monkey Grip Co.
115 NLRB 1170 	[38 LRRM 1025], 	enfd (5th Cir., 	1957) 	243
F.2d 836 	[40 LRRM 2027], 	cert, 	denied 	(1957) 	355 U.S. 	864
[41 LRRM 2007]; Talladegh Cotton Factory, 	Inc. 	(1954) 	106
NLRB 295 [ 32 LRRM 1479], enfd. 	(5th Cir., 1954) 213 F.2d
208 	[34 LRRM 	2196].
-7-

State 	Department 	of Health, 	is 	hereby 	dismissed with 	leave
to 	amend. 	Any 	amendment must 	be 	filed within 	twenty 	(20)
calendar 	days 	following 	the 	date 	of 	service 	of 	this 	Decision,
By: 	Jerilou Cossack Twohey, 	Member 	Harry 	Gluck, 	Chairperson
Raymond J. 	Gonzales , Member
-8-

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA 	STATE 	EMPLOYEES'
ASSOCIATION,
Charging Party,
v.
EDMUND G. BROWN, JR.,
Respondent.
Case No. LA-CE-1-S;78/79
ORDER DISMISSING UNFAIR
PRACTICE CHARGE WITHOUT
LEAVE TO AMEND
( 9-1-78 	)
Upon the advice of the General Counsel, it is hereby ordered that
the above-captioned unfair practice charge is dismissed without leave
to amend pursuant to PERB Regulation 32630(a) for the reasons set forth
herein.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On July 11, 1978, the California State Employees' Association
(hereafter CSEA) filed an unfair practice charge against Edmund G. Brown, Jr.
Governor of the State of California, and the California Department of Health
alleging a violation of sections 3519 and 3522.61 in that on
June 15, 1978 Joann Newton, Camarillo State Hospital Personnel Officer,
stated to employee representatives at Camarillo State Hospital that after
July 1, 	1978 supervisors must decide whether to continue to hold office in
11All statutory references are to the Government Code unless otherwise
specified. 	For the purposes of this dismissal, the facts stated in the charge
are deemed to be true. 	See San Juan Unified School District (3/10/77) EERB
Decision No. 12, at p. 4.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

employee organizations or request a downgrade to a non-supervisory
position.
On July 14, 1978, CSEA filed a first amended unfair practice charge
which realleged the facts as alleged in the original charge but which further
alleged violation of sections 3522.3, 3522.8 and 3519(a), (b) and (d).
On August 2, 1978, the below-named hearing officer, upon the advice
of the General Counsel, dismissed the first amended unfair practice charge
with leave to amend within twenty (20) calendar days on the grounds that
the charge failed to allege: 	(1) which specific rights guaranteed by the
State Employer-Employee Relations Act (hereafter SEERA) employees exercised
and because of which exercise, respondent interfered with, restrained and
coerced employees; 	(2) which specific rights guaranteed to employee
organizations pursuant to SEERA have been denied by employer; and (3)
whether the employees to whom Joann Newton spoke on June 15, 1978 are
"supervisors" pursuant to SEERA.
On August 22, 1978, CSEA filed a second amended unfair practice charge.
Said charge alleges a violation of sections 3522.3 and 3522.82 in that on
222Sec. 3522.3 states:
Supervisory employees shall have the right to form, join,
and participate in the activities of employee organizations
of their own choosing for the purpose of representation or.
all matters of supervisory employee-employer relations as set
forth in sec. 3522.6. 	Supervisory employees also shall have
the right to refuse to join or participate in the activities
of employee organizations and shall have the right to represent
themselves individually in their employment relations with the
public employer.
Sec. 3522.8 states:
The state employer and employee organizations shall not inter-
fere with, intimidate, restrain, coerce, or discriminate against
supervisory employees because of their exercise of their rights
under this article.
-2-

Jun..•e 15, 1978 a statement was made by Joann Newton, Camarillo State
Hospital Personnel Officer, at a meeting of employee organization
representatives and representatives of the Department of Health, 	to the
effect that supervisory employees could not hold office in employee
organizations and that "the minutes of this meeting were distributed to
approximately 180 supervisory employees at the hospital sometime after
July 1, 1978."
Said charge further alleges that as a result of the publication of
the July 15, 1978 meeting minutes, CSEA has received expressions of concern,
fear and intimidation by members who are either currently holding office or
are contemplating running for office. 	The charge then states in the second
from the last paragraph in the charge:
CSEA is therefore filing this unfair practice
charge on behalf of its members at Camarillo
State Hospital who have been designated by the
state as supervisory employees and who wish to
freely exercise their rights under Government
Code Section 3522.3 without interference,
intimidation, restraint, coercion, or without
the threat of discriminatory treatment.
DISCUSSION
Csea has clearly amended the above-captioned unfair practice charge to
allege which specific rights guaranteed by SEERA employees have exercised
and because of which exercise employer has interfered with, restrained and
coerced said employees. 	CSEA has alleged that the distribution of the
July 15 meeting minutes constitutes interference, intimidation, restraint
and coercion with rights guaranteed to supervisory employees pursuant to
section 3522.3 to form, join and participate in the activities of employee
organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of representation on all
-3-

matters of supervisory employee-employer relations as set forth in
section 3522.6. 3	3
It is equally clear that CSEA has filed the instant unfair practice
charge on behalf of its members who are designated by the state to be
supervisory employees and does not specifically allege that any rights
guaranteed to employee organizations pursuant to SEERA have been denied by
employer.
It is therefore concluded that CSEA in alleging in the second amended
unfair practice* charge that the respondent has violated section 3522.3 by
taking actions which interfere with, intimidate, restrain, coerce or
discriminate against supervisory employees pursuant to SEERA because of the
supervisors exercise of rights pursuant to section 3522.3. 	A threshold
issue to the charge, therefore, is whether "supervisory employees" have a right
pursuant to SEERA to allege as an unfair practice before the Public
Employment Relations Board (PERB) a violation of section 3522.8.
333Sec. 3522.6 states:
Upon request, the state shall meet and confer
with employee organizations representing super-
visory employees. 	"Meet and confer" means that
they shall consider as fully as the employer
deems reasonable such presentations as are made
by the employee organization on behalf of its
supervisory members prior to arriving at a
determination of policy or course of action.
-4-

definition established by this chapter 	[Emphasis added.]
Section 3255 clearly states:
Except as provided by sections 3522.1 to 3522.9,
inclusive, supervisory employees shall not have
the right or be covered by any provision or
definition established by this chapter. 	[Emphasis added.]	.
Therefore, section 3519, which makes it unlawful for the state to interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees because of their exercise of rights
guaranteed by this chapter, not falling within sections 3522.1 to 3522.9,
inclusive, is not applicable to supervisory employees.
Supervisory employees, however, have statutory rights parallel
to those enumerated in section 3519(a). 	Section 3522.8 states:
The state employees and employee organizations
shall not interfere with, intimidate, restrain,
coerce, or discriminate against supervisory
employees because of their exercise of their
rights under this article.
A similar issue pursuant to the Educational Employment Relations Act
(EERA) was considered by the PERB itself quite recently in Quarrick and
O'Brien v. Mt. Diablo Unified School District and Mt. Diablo Education
Association, CTA/NEA.3
In considering the charging parties' allegation of respondent
Mt. Diablo Education Association's breach of its duty to fair representation,
the PERB itself asked: 	"Is an unfair practice charge an appropriate vehicle
for processing this claim?"
In answering this question in the affirmative, 	the PERB itself, after
first noting the broad powers granted it in section 3541.3(i),4 held that
3PERB Decision No. 68 (8/21/78).
4Sec. 3541.3(i), a part of the EERA reads:
The Board shall have all of the following powers and
duties:
(i) To investigate unfair practice charges or alleged
violations of this chapter, and take such action and
make such determinations in respect to such charges or
alleged violations as the board deems necessary to
effectuate the policies of this chapter.
-5-
.....

the acts prohibited by sections 3543.5 and 3543.6 EERA 	(identical in
language to sections 3519 and 3519 of SEERA), while commonly perceived as
unfair practices, are described by the EERA not as "unfair practices"
but as "unlawful." 	The PERB then stated:
No definition of unfair practices appear in
the chapter. 	It is possible, therefore, that
the range of actions which may be deemed as
unfair practices may have been left to PERB's
own determination and might include statutory
violations other than those in 3543.5 and 3543.6.
The PERB itself concluded by holding that section 3543.6(a) and (b)
appear broad enough to shelter the allegations of a duty of fair
representation charge.
Section 3522's clear exemption of the supervisory employees from the
protections afforded employees pursuant to section 3519, however, would
appear to preclude similarly sheltering the allegations of the instant charge
within section 3519.
Where statutory violations other than those proscribed by sections
3543.5 and 3543.6 appear in the EERA the PERB itself, rather than incorporate
them in the sections 3543.5 and 3543.6, has chosen to establish a separate
vehicle for processing claims arising thereunder. 	For example, Article 8 of
EERA contains detailed public notice procedures which allow considerable
community involvement in all aspects of negotiations between a public school
employer and exclusive representation of public school employees. 	Pursuant
to section 3547 (e), the PERB itself adopted regulations implementing said
procedures which are codified in PERB Regulations 37000-37100.5S5
55It is noted that employees, employee organizations or employers as
defined by EERA but not members of the public may file unfair practice
charges. 	Pursuant to PERB Regulation 37010, however, a complaint alleging a
violation of section 3547 may be filed by any individual who is a resident of
the school district involved in the complaint or who is the parent or guardian
of a student in the school district or is an adult student in the district.
-6-

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons 	the unfair practice charge filed by charging
party in the above-captioned matter is DISMISSED without leave to amend.
The above action is taken pursuant to FERB Regulation 32630(a)
Charging party may obtain review of the dismissal by filing an appeal to the
Board itself within twenty (20) calendar days after service of this Notice.
(PERB Regulation 32630(b)). 	Such appeal must be actually received by the
Executive Assistant to the Board before the close of business (5:00 P.M.)
on September 21, 1978 in order to be timely filed. 	(PERB Regulation 32135).
Such appeal must be in writing, must be signed by the charging party or his
agent, and must contain the facts and arguments upon which the appeal is
based. 	(PERB Regulation 32630(b)). 	The appeal must be accompanied by proof
of service upon all parties, (PERB Regulation 32135, 32142 and 32630(b)), as
amended.
Dated: 	September 	1, 1978 	WILLIAM P. SMITH
GENERAL COUNSEL
Kenneth A. Perea
Hearing Officer
-7-

PROOF CF SERVICE BY MAIL - C C P . 1013a
I declare that I am employed in the County of Sacramento, California. 	I am over the
age of 18 years and not a party to the within entitled cause; my business address is
923 - 12th Street, Suite 201, Sacramento, CA 95814. 	On September 1, 1978 	,
I served the 	attached Notice of Dismissal W/0 Leave to Amend, IA-CE-l-S;78/79 on the
below listed parties 	by placing a true copy thereof
enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, 	in the U.S. Mail
at 	Sacramento. California 	addressed as follows:
Mr. 	Dennis 	M. Hardaker
Southern Area Manager
California State Employees' Association
4929 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1030
Los Angeles, Ca. 90010
Mr. Marty Morgenstern Director
Office of Employee Relations
Governor's Office
State Capitol
Sacramento, Ca. 95814
California Department of Health
Attn: 	Edwin W. Beach, Interim Director
714/744 P Street
Sacramento, Ca. 95814
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, 	and that
this declaration was executed on 	September 1, 1978 	at 	Sacramento
, California.
Marie S. Macaulay
(Type or print name) 	(Signature)