Victor Valley Joint Union High School District (PERB 0148E)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
VICTOR VALLEY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION,
Charging Party, 	Case No. LA-CE-266-77/78
LA-CE-386-78/79
v .
PERB Decision No. 148
VICTOR VALLEY JOINT UNION HIGH
SCHOOL DISTRICT,
December 11, 1980
Respondent.
Appearances: Charles R. Gustafson, Attorney for Victor Valley
Teachers Association; Steven J. Andelson, Attorney (Paterson &
Taggart) for Victor Valley Joint Union High School District.
Before: Gluck, Chairperson; Moore, Member.
DECISION
The Victor Valley Teachers Association appeals the attached
hearing officer's notice of dismissal of its unfair practice
charges with prejudice and without leave to amend.
After considering the entire record in light of the appeal,
the Board has decided to affirm the hearing officer's findings
and conclusions and adopt his decision and order.
ORDER
Upon the foregoing decision and the entire record in this
case, the Public Employment Relations Board ORDERS that:
The unfair practice charges LA-CE-266-77/78 and
LA-CE-386-78/79 filed by the Victor Valley Teachers Association
STATE
	OF
	CALIFORNIA
DECISION
	OF
	THE
PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
VICTOR
	VALLEY
	TEACHERS
	ASSOCIATION,
Charging
	Party,
v.
VICTOR
	VALLEY
	JOINT UNION
	HIGHSCHOOL
	DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_____________________ ) 
case
	No.
	LA-CE-266-77/78
LA-CE-386-78/79
PERB
	Decision
	No. 148
December
	11,
	1980
Appearances:	
Charles
	R.
	Gustafson, 	Attorney
	for 	Victor 	Valley
Teachers
	Association;
	Steven
	J.
	Andelson,
	Attorney 	(Paterson
	&
Taggart)
	for 	Victor 	Valley
	Joint
	union
	High
	School
	District.
Before:
	Gluck,
	Chairperson;
	Moore, 	Member.
DECISION
The
	Victor 	Valley Teachers
	Association 	appeals 	the
	attached
hearing
	officer's
	notice 	of 	dismissal 	of
	its
	unfair 	practice
charges 	with 	prejudice
	and
without 	leave 	to
	amend.
After 	considering 	the
	entire
	record 	in
	light
	of 	the
	appeal,
the
	Board 	has 	decided
	to 	affirm 	the 	hearing
	officer's
	findings
and
	conclusions
	and
	adopt
	his 	decision
	and
	order.
ORDER
Upon
	the 	foregoing 	decision
	and	
the	
entire
	record 	in
	this
case, 	the 	Public	
Employment	
Relations
	Board
	ORDERS
	that:
The	
unfair 	practice	
charges	
LA-CE-266-77/78 	and
LA-CE-386-78/79
	filed	
by	
the 	Victor 	Valley 	Teachers 	Association

against the Victor Valley Joint Union High School District are
hereby DISMISSED with prejudice and without leave to amend.
PER CURIAM
2
against
	the
	Victor
	Valley
	Joint
	Union High
	School
	District
	are
hereby
	DISMISSED
	with
	prejudice
	and
	without 	leave
	to
	amend.
PER
CURIAM
2

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
VICTOR VALLEY TEACHERS
ASSOCIATION ,
Charging Party, 	Case Nos. LA-CE-266-77/78
LA-CE-386-78/79
v .
VICTOR VALLEY JOINT UNION HIGH 	NOTICE OF DISMISSAL
SCHOOL DISTRICT, 	WITH PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT
LEAVE TO AMEND
Respondent. 	(8/31/79)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the above-captioned unfair
practice charges filed by the Victor Valley Teachers
Association (Association) against the Victor Valley Joint Union
High School District (District) are hereby dismissed with
prejudice and without leave to amend for the following
reasons :
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Unfair Practice Charge LA-CE-266-77/78
On June 30, 1978 the Association filed unfair practice
charge LA-CE-266-77/78 against the District alleging a
violation of section 3543.5 (a) , (b) and (c) .
On July 27, 1978 the District timely filed an Answer to
unfair practice charge LA-CE-266-77/78.
An informal conference in the unfair practice charge
LA-CE-266-77/78 held on July 28, 1978 resulted in a stipulation
whereby the parties agreed that the matter should be held in
abeyance without prejudice until either party notified the
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
OF 	THE 	STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
VICTOR VALLEY 	TEACHERS
ASSOCIATION,
Charging 	Party,
v.
VICTOR VALLEY JOINT UNION 	HIGH
SCHOOL 	DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
___________________ )
Case 	Nos. 	LA-CE-266-77/78
LA-CE-386-78/79
NOTICE 	OF 	DISMISSAL
WITH 	PREJUDICE 	AND WITHOUT
LEAVE 	TO 	AMEND
(8/31/79)
NOTICE 	IS 	HEREBY 	GIVEN 	that 	the 	above-captioned 	unfair
practice 	charges 	filed 	by 	the 	Victor 	Valley 	Teachers
Association 	(Association) 	against 	the 	Victor 	Valley 	Joint 	Union
High 	School 	District 	(District) 	are 	hereby 	dismissed 	with
prejudice 	and 	without 	leave 	to 	amend 	for 	the 	following
reasons:
PROCEDURAL 	HISTORY
Unfair 	Practice 	Charge 	LA-CE-266-77/78
On 	June 	30, 	1978 	the 	Association 	filed 	unfair 	practice
charge 	LA-CE-266-77/78 	against 	the 	District 	alleging 	a
violation 	of 	section 	3543. 5 (a), 	(b) 	and 	(c).
On 	July 	27, 	1978 	the 	District 	timely 	filed 	an 	Answer 	to
unfair 	practice 	charge 	LA-CE-266-77/78.
An 	informal 	conference 	in 	the 	unfair 	practice 	charge
LA-CE-266-77/78 	held 	on 	July 	28, 	1978 	resulted 	in 	a 	stipulation
whereby 	the 	parties 	agreed 	that 	the 	matter 	should 	be 	held 	in
abeyance 	without 	prejudice 	until 	either 	party 	notified 	the

Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) to set a formal
hearing .
On October 17, 1978 the Association filed a Request for
Hearing asking that said matter be set for formal hearing as
soon as possible.
Unfair Practice Charge LA-CE-386-78/79
On October 17, 1978 the Association filed unfair practice
charge LA-CE-386-78/79 against the District alleging violation
of sections 3543, 3543. 1 (a) , and 3543.5 (a) , (b) , (c) , (d) and
(e) .
On November 22, 1978 the District timely filed Answer to
unfair practice charge denying generally and specifically that
it had engaged in an unfair practice within the meaning of
section 3543.5.
Unfair Practice Charge LA-CO-61-78/79
On September 29, 1978 the District filed unfair practice
charge LA-CO-61-78/79 against the Association alleging
violation of section 3543.6 (c) and (d) .
On November 3, 1978 the below-named hearing officer issued
a Notice of Consolidation in Case Nos. LA-CE-386-78/79 and
LA-CO-61-78/79.
On November 22, 1978 the Association timely filed Answer to
unfair practice charge LA-CO-61-78/79 wherein the Association
denied generally and specifically the allegations contained in
the unfair practice charge.
On December 5, 1978 an informal conference in consolidated
charges LA-CE-386-78/79 and LA-CO-61-78/79 was held in San
Bernardino, California.
2
Public
	Employment
	Relations
	Board
	(PERB)
	to
	set
	a
	formal
hearing.
On
	October 	17,
	1978
	the 	Association
	filed
	a
	Request
	for
Hearing
	asking
	that
	said
	matter
	be
	set
	for
	formal
	hearing 	as
soon
	as
	possible.
Unfair
	Practice
	Charge
	LA-CE-386-78/79
On
	October
	17,
	1978
	the 	Association
	filed
	unfair
	practice
charge
	LA-CE-386-78/79
	against
	the
	District
	alleging
	violation
of
	sections
	3543,
	3543.l(a),
	and
	3543.5(a), 	(b), 	(c),
	(d)
	and
(
e)
•
On
	November
	22,
	1978
	the
	District
	timely
	filed
	Answer
	to
unfair
	practice
	charge
	denying
	generally
	and
	specifically 	that
it
	had
	engaged
	in
	an
	unfair 	practice
	within 	the
	meaning
	of
section
	3543.5.
Unfair
	Practice
	Charge 	LA-C0-61-78/79
On
	September 	29,
	1978
	the
	District 	filed
	unfair
	practice
charge
	LA-C0-61-78/79
	against
	the
	Association 	alleging
violation
	of
	section
	3543.6(c)
	and
	(d).
On
	November
	3,
	1978
	the
	below-named
	hearing
	officer
	issued
a
	Notice 	of 	Consolidation 	in
	Case 	Nos. 	LA-CE-386-78/79 	and
LA-C0-61-78/79.
On
	November
	22,
	1978
	the 	Association 	timely
	filed
	Answer
	to
unfair 	practice
	charge 	LA-C0-61-78/79 	wherein 	the 	Association
denied 	generally
	and
	specifically
	the 	allegations 	contained 	in
the 	unfair 	practice 	charge.
On 	December
	5,
	1978 	an 	informal 	conference 	in 	consolinated
charges 	LA-CE-386-78/79 	and 	LA-C0-61-78/79 	was
	held 	in
	San
Bernardino, 	California.
2

Pursuant to the informal conference on December 5, 1978,
the District and the Association entered into a stipulation in
Case Nos. LA-CE-266-77/78, LA-CE-386-78/79 and LA-CO-61-78/79.
DISCUSSION
At the informal conference in unfair practice charges
LA-CE-386-78/79 and LA-CO-61-78/79 on December 5, 1978 the
parties verbally entered into a stipulation which was
memorialized by a letter from the below-named hearing officer
to the parties dated December 5, 1978.
Pursuant to said agreement, the Association and the
District agreed inter alia:
The above-referenced unfair practice charges
[LA-CO-61-78/79, LA-CE-266-77/78 and
LA-CE-386-78/79] shall be held in abeyance
by the PERB and shall be withdrawn in
writing by the District and the Association
with prejudice when a final contract is
agreed to by the Association and the
District.
By letter dated June 13, 1979 from Mr. Kilgore, Director of
Employer-Employee Relations for the District, PERB was advised
that the District and the Association had successfully reached
agreement through mediation and arrived at a contract operative
through June 30, 1980. A copy of said agreement was enclosed
which bears the signature of Ms. Jeannette Echols, president of
the Association, and is dated June 12, 1979.
W
Pursuant 	to 	the 	informal 	conference 	on 	December 	5, 	1978,
the 	District 	and 	the 	Association 	entered 	into 	a 	stipulation 	in
Case 	Nos. 	LA-CE-266-77/78, 	LA-CE-386-78/79 	and 	LA-CO-61-78/79.
DISCUSSION
At 	the 	informal 	conference 	in 	unfair 	practice 	charges
LA-CE-386-78/79 	and 	LA-CO-61-78/79 	on 	December 	5, 	1978 	the
parties 	verbally 	entered 	into 	a 	stipulation 	which 	was
memorialized 	by 	a 	letter 	from 	the 	below-named 	hearing 	officer
to 	the 	parties 	dated 	December 	5, 	1978.
Pursuant 	to 	said 	agreement, 	the 	Association 	and 	the
District 	agreed 	inter 	alia:
The 	above-referenced 	unfair 	practice 	charges
[LA-CO-61-78/79, 	LA-CE-266-77/78 	and
LA-CE-386-78/79] 	shall 	be 	held 	in 	abeyance
by 	the 	PERB 	and 	shall 	be 	withdrawn 	in
writing 	by 	the 	District 	and 	the 	Association
with 	prejudice 	when 	a 	final 	contract 	is
agreed 	to 	by 	the 	Association 	and 	the
District.
By 	letter 	dated 	June 	13, 	1979 	from 	Mr. 	Kilgore, 	Director 	of
Employer-Employee 	Relations 	for 	the 	District, 	PERB 	was 	advised
that 	the 	District 	and 	the 	Association 	had 	successfully 	reached
agreement 	through mediation 	and 	arrived 	at 	a 	contract 	operative
through 	June 	30, 	1980. 	A copy 	of 	said 	agreement 	was 	enclosed
which 	bears 	the 	signature 	of 	Ms. 	Jeannette 	Echols, 	president 	of
the 	Association, 	and 	is 	dated 	June 	12, 	1979.
3

Having not received letters of withdrawal with prejudice
from either the District or the Association, the below-named
hearing officer wrote to representatives of the Association and
the District on August 20, 1979 setting forth therein the
history of the cases to that date, including conversations
between the below-named hearing officer and Ms. Echols on
June 19, 1979, June 22, 1979 as well as conversations between
Assistant General Counsel Terry Filliman and Ms. Echols on
June 29, 1979 and Assistant General Counsel Al Link and
Ms. Echols.
The letter dated August 20, 1979 advised the parties to
either withdraw unfair practice charges LA-CE-266-77/78,
LA-CE-386-78/79 and LA-CO-61-78/79 or said unfair practice
charges would be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the
parties stipulation of December 5, 1978.
By letter dated August 22, 1979, Ms. Echols wrote to the
below-named hearing officer stating, inter alia:
In reference to correspondence dated
August 20, 1979, all statements are true to
June 29, 1979.
On August 24, 1979, the District requested withdrawal with
prejudice of unfair practice charge LA-CO-61-78/78 and by
letter dated August 24, 1979, unfair practice charge
LA-CO-61-78/79 was withdrawn with prejudice and the PERB case
file therein closed.
Having
	not
	received
	letters
	of
	withdrawal 	with
	prejudice
from
	either
	the
	District
	or
	the
	Association, 	the
	below-named
hearing
	officer
	wrote
	to
	representatives
	of 	the 	Association
	and
the
	District
	on
	August 	20,
	1979
	setting
	forth 	therein
	the
history
	of 	the 	cases
	to
	that 	date,
	including 	conversations
between
	the
	below-named
	hearing
	officer
	and
	Ms.
	Echols
	on
June
	19,
	1979, 	June 	22,
	1979
	as
	well
	as
	conversations
	between
Assistant
	General 	Counsel
	Terry
	Filliman
	and
	Ms.
	Echols
	on
June 	29,
	1979 	and
	Assistant
	General
	Counsel
	Al
	Link
	and
Ms.
	Echols.
The
	letter
	dated
	August
	20,
	1979
	advised 	the
	parties
	to
either
	withdraw
	unfair
	practice
	charges
	LA-CE-266-77/78,
LA-CE-386-78/79 	and 	LA-CO-61-78/79
	or
	said 	unfair 	practice
charges
	would
	be
	dismissed 	with
	prejudice 	pursuant 	to 	the
parties 	stipulation
	of
	December
	5, 	1978.
By
	letter
	dated
	August 	22, 	1979,
	Ms.
	Echols 	wrote
	to 	the
below-named
	hearing
	officer 	stating, 	inter 	alia:
In
	reference 	to
	correspondence 	dated
August 	20, 	1979,
	all
	statements 	are
	true 	toJune 	29, 	1979.
On
	August 	24, 	1979,
	the
	District
	requested 	withdrawal 	with
prejudice 	of 	unfair 	practice
	charge
	LA-CO-61-78/78 	and 	by
letter
	dated 	August 	24, 	1979,
	unfair 	practice
	charge
LA-CO-61-78/79
	was
	withdrawn 	with 	prejudice
	and
	the
	PERB
	case
file 	therein 	closed.
4

On August 28, 1979, Ms. Echols filed a mailgram which
failed to withdraw unfair practice charges LA-CE-266-77/78 and
LA-CE-386-78/79 and further stated that Ms. Echols did not have
the authority to withdraw said unfair practice charges.
This Notice of Dismissal with Prejudice and Without Leave
to Amend then resulted.
The stipulation between the parties to unfair practice
charges LA-CE-266-77/78, LA-CE-386-78/79 and LA-CO-61-78/79
that the said unfair practice charges would be withdrawn with
prejudice when a final contract is agreed to between the
Association and the District is clear and unambiguous. 	That
Ms. Echols agreed, on behalf of the Association, to withdraw
unfair practice charges LA-CE-266-77/78 and LA-CE-386-78/79 is
not disputed by her as evidenced by her letter dated August 22,
1979. 	Nevertheless, Ms. Echols has refused to comply with her
earlier agreement and most recently contends in her mailgram
filed August 28, 1979 that she does not have authority to
withdraw said unfair practice charges.
An examination of unfair practice charges LA-CE-266-77/78
and LA-CE-386-78/79, however, indicates that Ms. Echols has
authority to withdraw said unfair practice charges. Unfair
practice charge LA-CE-266-77/78 indicates that the name and
title of the agent to be contacted regarding said charge is
none other than Ms. Jeannette Echols, president of the
Association and is further signed by Ms. Echols as president of
the Association. Unfair practice charge LA-CE-386-78/79
5
On 	August 	28, 	1979, 	Ms. 	Echols 	filed 	a 	mailgram 	which
failed 	to 	withdraw 	unfair 	practice 	charges 	LA-CE-266-77/78 	and
LA-CE-386-78/79 	and 	further 	stated 	that 	Ms. 	Echols 	did 	not 	have
the 	authority 	to 	withdraw 	said 	unfair 	practice 	charges.
This 	Notice 	of 	Dismissal 	with 	Prejudice 	and 	Without 	Leave
to 	Amend 	then 	resulted.
The 	stipulation 	between 	the 	parties 	to 	unfair 	practice
charges 	LA-CE-266-77/78, 	LA-CE-386-78/79 	and 	LA-C0-61-78/79
that 	the 	said 	unfair 	practice 	charges 	would 	be 	withdrawn 	with
_prejudice 	when 	a 	final 	contract 	is 	agreed 	to 	between 	the
Association 	and 	the 	District 	is 	clear 	and 	unambiguous. 	That
Ms. 	Echols 	agreed, 	on 	behalf 	of 	the 	Association, 	to 	withdraw
unfair 	practice 	charges 	LA-CE-266-77/78 	and 	LA-CE-386-78/79 	is
not 	disputed 	by 	her 	as 	evidenced 	by 	her 	letter 	dated 	August 	22,
1979. 	Nevertheless, 	Ms. 	Echols 	has 	refused 	to 	comply 	with 	her
earlier 	agreement 	and 	most 	recently 	contends 	in 	her 	mailgram
filed 	August 	28, 	1979 	that 	she 	does 	not 	have 	authority 	to
withdraw 	said 	unfair 	practice 	charges.
An 	examination 	of 	unfair 	practice 	charges 	LA-CE-266-77/78
and 	LA-CE-386-78/79, 	however, 	indicates 	that 	Ms. 	Echols 	has
authority 	to 	withdraw 	said 	unfair 	practice 	charges. 	Unfair
practice 	charge 	LA-CE-266-77/78 	indicates 	that 	the 	name 	and
title 	of 	the 	agent 	to 	be 	contacted 	regarding 	said 	charge 	is
none 	other 	than Ms. 	Jeannette 	Echols, 	president 	of 	the
Association 	and 	is 	further 	signed 	by Ms. 	Echols 	as 	president 	of
the 	Association. 	Unfair 	practice 	charge 	LA-CE-386-78/79
5

indicates that the name and title of the agent filing the
charge is again Ms. Jeannette Echols as president of the
Association. 	Since Ms. Echols is indicated on both charges as
the person to contact and is indicated as the person who filed
charge LA-CE-266-77/78, it is concluded Ms. Echols has complete
authority to withdraw unfair practice charges LA-CE-266-77/78
and LA-CE-386-78/79 but has failed to do so.
The PERB's policy of encouraging parties to reach a
voluntary settlement in unfair practice charges such as these
is seriously undermined when a party refuses to honor an
agreement to withdraw an unfair practice charge. Similar
concerns have been expressed by the National Labor Relations
Board (NLRB) when a party has attempted to withdraw from a
settlement agreement to an unfair labor practice charge. 	In
George Banta Co., Inc. and Graphic Arts Union (1978) 236
NLRB No. 224 LRRM 1581], wherein an employer attempted to
withdraw from a settlement agreement after NLRB's delay in
approving the settlement stipulation, the NLRB held:
Finally, policy considerations militate
against granting respondents the right to
withdraw from formal settlement stipulations
executed with the General Counsel pending
Board approval. Such a right would
undermine the continued efficacy of the
settlement process which, as an alternative
to lengthy adjudication, allows the Board as
well as respondents and charging parties to
save time, expense, and the inevitable risk
of litigation. In Johnson, supra, the
Seventh Circuit alluded to such
considerations which it found justified the
refusal to permit a respondent to withdraw
6
indicates 	that 	the 	name 	and 	title 	of 	the 	agent 	filing 	the
charge 	is 	again Ms. 	Jeannette 	Echols 	as 	president 	of 	the
Association. 	Since Ms. 	Echols 	is 	indicated 	on 	both 	charges 	as
the 	person 	to 	contact 	and 	is 	indicated 	as 	the 	person 	who 	filed
charge 	LA-CE-266-77/78, 	it 	is 	concluded 	Ms. 	Echols 	has 	complete
authority 	to 	withdraw 	unfair 	practice 	charges 	LA-CE-266-77/78
and 	LA-CE-386-78/79 	but 	has 	failed 	to 	do 	so.
The 	PERB's 	policy 	of 	encouraging 	parties 	to 	reach 	a
voluntary 	settlement 	in 	unfair 	practice 	charges 	such 	as 	these
is 	seriously 	undermined when 	a 	party 	refuses 	to 	honor 	an
agreement 	to 	withdraw 	an 	unfair 	practice 	charge. 	Similar
concerns 	have 	been 	expressed 	by 	the 	National 	Labor 	Relations
Board 	(NLRB) 	when 	a 	party 	has 	attempted 	to 	withdraw 	from 	a
settlement 	agreement 	to 	an 	unfair 	labor 	practice 	charge. 	In
George 	Banta 	Co., 	Inc. 	and 	Graphic 	Arts 	Union 	(1978) 	236
NLRB 	No. 	224 	LRRM 	1581], 	wherein 	an 	employer 	attempted 	to
withdraw 	from 	a 	settlement 	agreement 	after 	NLRB's 	delay 	in
approving 	the 	settlement 	stipulation, 	the 	NLRB 	held:
Finally, 	policy 	considerations 	militate
against 	granting 	respondents 	the 	right 	to
withdraw 	from 	formal 	settlement 	stipulations
executed 	with 	the 	General 	Counsel 	pending
Board 	approval. 	Such 	a 	right 	would
undermine 	the 	continued 	efficacy 	of 	the
settlement 	process 	which, 	as 	an 	alternative
to 	lengthy 	adjudication, 	allows 	the 	Board 	as
well 	as 	respondents 	and 	charging 	parties 	to
save 	time, 	expense, 	and 	the 	inevitable 	risk
of 	litigation. 	In 	Johnson, 	supra, 	the
Seventh 	Circuit 	alluded 	to 	such
considerations 	which 	it 	found 	justified 	the
refusal 	to 	permit 	a 	respondent 	to 	withdraw
6

from a consent order prior to FTC's final
approval. A similar approach is warranted
herein where the situation is basically
analogous to that in Johnson (98 LRRM at p. 1584.)
Very similar policy considerations require dismissal with
prejudice in the instant matter. Should the Association be
allowed to refuse to honor its agreement to withdraw with
prejudice the above-referenced unfair practice charges,
particularly in light of the District's withdrawal with
prejudice of unfair practice charge LA-CO-61-78/79, the
integrity of the entire settlement procedures of the PERB would
be clearly damaged irreparably.
For the above reasons, unfair practice charges
LA-CE-266-77/78 and LA-CE-386-78/79 are hereby dismissed with
prejudice and without leave to amend.
The Charging Party may obtain review of this dismissal by
filing an appeal to the Board itself within twenty (20)
calendar days after service of this dismissal. (PERB
Regulation 32630 (b) . ) Such appeal must be actually received by
the Executive Assistant to the Board before the close of
business on September 20 , 1979 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
7
from 	a 	consent 	order 	prior 	to 	FTC's 	final
approval. 	A similar 	approach 	is 	warranted
herein 	where 	the 	situation 	is 	basically
analogous 	to 	that 	in 	Johnson 	(98 	LRRM at 	p. 	1584.)
Very 	similar 	policy 	considerations 	require 	dismissal 	with
prejudice 	in 	the 	instant 	matter. 	Should 	the 	Association 	be
allowed 	to 	refuse 	to 	honor 	its 	agreement 	to 	withdraw 	with
prejudice 	the 	above-referenced 	unfair 	practice 	charges,
particularly 	in 	light 	of 	the 	District's 	withdrawal 	with
prejudice 	of 	unfair 	practice 	charge 	LA-CO-61-78/79, 	the
integrity 	of 	the 	entire 	settlement procedures 	of 	the 	PERB 	would
be 	clearly 	damaged 	irreparably.
For 	the 	above 	reasons, 	unfair 	practice 	charges
LA-CE-266-77/78 	and 	LA-CE-386-78/79 	are 	hereby 	dismissed 	with
prejudice 	and 	without 	leave 	to 	amend.
The 	Charging 	Party may 	obtain 	review 	of 	this 	dismissal 	by
filing 	an 	appeal 	to 	the 	Board 	itself 	within 	twenty 	(20)
calendar 	days 	after 	service 	of 	this 	dismissal. 	(PERB
Regulation 	32630(b) .) 	Such 	appeal 	must 	be 	actually 	received 	by
the 	Executive 	Assistant 	to 	the 	Board 	before 	the 	close 	of
business 	on 	September 	20, 	1979 	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
7

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. California Administrative Code,
title 8, part III, sections 32135, 32142 and 32630 (b) , as
amended.
By
the
	facts
	and
	arguments
	upon
	which
	the
	appea1
	is
	based.
	(PERB
Regulation
	32630(b)
.)
	The
	appeal
	must 	be
	accompanied	
by	
proof
of
	service
	upon
	all
	parties.
	California
	Administrative
	Code,
title
	8,
	:;>art
	III,
	sections
	32135,
	32142
	and
	32630
(b),
	as
amended.
Dated:
	August 	31,
	1979
8
WILLI~	
P.
	SMITH
General
	Counsel
,,
,;
Dated: August 31, 1979 	WILLIAM P. SMITH
General Counsel
By
Kenneth A. Perea
Hearing Officer
/ Kenneth
A.
	Perea
Hearing
Officer