Los Angeles Community College District (Kimmett) (PERB 0167E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
JULES 	KIMMETT,
Charging 	Party,
v.
LOS 	ANGELES 	COMMUNITY
COLLEGE 	DISTRICT
Respondent.
JULES 	KIMMETT,
Charging 	Party,
v.
AFT 	COLLEGE GUILD, 	LOCAL 	1521,
AMERICAN 	FEDERATION 	OF
TEACHERS, 	AFL-CIO,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case 	No. 	LA-CE-1059
1073
1138
1141
1168
PERB 	Decision 	No. 	167
June 	24, 	1981
Case 	No. 	LA-CO-112
~ppearances: 	Jules 	Kimmett, 	representing 	himself.
Before 	Gluck, 	Chairperson, 	Moore 	and 	Tovar, 	Members.
DECISION
Jules 	Kimmett 	excepts 	to 	the 	attached 	hearing 	officer
dismissal 	without 	leave 	to 	amend 	of 	unfair 	practice 	charges
filed 	by 	him. 	After 	considering 	the 	entire 	record 	in 	light 	of
the 	exceptions, 	the 	Board 	affirms 	the 	hearing 	officer's
conclusions 	of 	law 	and 	dismissal 	of 	the 	charges.l
1Not 	all 	of 	the 	instant 	unfair 	practice 	charges 	were
covered 	by 	the 	complainant's 	public 	notice 	cases 	LA-PN-23 	and
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
JULES KIMMETT,
Charging Party, 	Case No. LA-CE-1059
1073
v . 	1138
1141
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY 	1168
COLLEGE DISTRICT
Respondent.
PERB Decision No. 167
JULES KIMMETT, 	June 24, 1981
Charging Party, 	Case No. LA-CO-112
V .
AFT COLLEGE GUILD, LOCAL 1521,
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
TEACHERS, AFL-CIO,
Respondent.
Appearances: Jules Kimmett, representing himself.
Before Gluck, Chairperson, Moore and Tovar, Members.
DECISION
Jules Kimmett excepts to the attached hearing officer
dismissal without leave to amend of unfair practice charges
filed by him. After considering the entire record in light of
the exceptions, the Board affirms the hearing officer's
conclusions of law and dismissal of the charges. 1
Not all of the instant unfair practice charges were
covered by the complainant's public notice cases LA-PN-23 and

ORDER
LA-PN-24 	as
	asser
	by
	ing
	officer.
	However,
	sincering 	officer 	correctly 	holds 	that 	ic 	noticecomplaints 	cannot
	be
	filed
	as 	unfair 	practice 	rges, 	his
error 	is
	not 	prejudicial.
ORDER
Upon
	the
	foregoing
	decision
	and
	the
	entire
	record	
in
	this
case,
	the
	Public
	Employment
	Relations
	Board
	ORDERS
	that:
	the
charges
	filed
	by
	Jules
	Kimmett
	against
	the
	Los
	Angeles
Community
	College
	District	
in	
Cases 	Nos.
	LA-CE-1059,
	1073,
1138, 	1141,
	1168
	and 	LA-CO-112
	are
	DISMISSED
	without
	leave
	to
amend.
PER CURIAM	
PER
	CURIAM
2
Upon the foregoing decision and the entire record in this
case, the Public Employment Relations Board ORDERS that: the
charges filed by Jules Kimmett against the Los Angeles
Community College District in Cases Nos. LA-CE-1059, 1073,
1138, 1141, 1168 and LA-CO-112 are DISMISSED without leave to
amend .
LA-PN-24 as asserted by the hearing officer. However, since
the hearing officer correctly holds that public notice
complaints cannot be filed as unfair practice charges, his
error is not prejudicial.
2

PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
OF 	THE
	STATE
	OF
	CALIFORNIA
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
~......,,,,~=---,.==------------)
)
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
}
)
)
)
)
)
___________________
)
PROCEDURAL
	HISTORY
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
JULES
	KIMMETT,
Charging
	Party,
v.
LOS
	ANGELES
	COMMUNITY
	COLLEGE
DISTRICT,
Respondent.
JULES KI
KIMMETT,
Charging
	Party,
v.
AFT 	COLLEGE
	GUILD,
	LOCAL
	1521,
AMERICAN
	FEDERATION
	OF
	TEACHERS,
AFL-CIO,
Respondent.
Unfair
	Practice
	Cases
LA-CE-1059
LA-CE-1073
LA-CE-1138
LA-CE-1141
LA-CE-1168
Unfair
	Practice
	Cas~
LA-CO-112
NOTICE
	OF
	DISMISSAL
WITHOUT 	LEAVE 	TO
	AMEND
(8728780)
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
JULES KIMMETT,
v .
Charging Party, 	Unfair Practice Cases
LA-CE-1059
LA-CE-1073
SEP PUBLI
RELATIO
HEADQUAR
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE LA-CE-1138 OFFICE
DISTRICT, 	LA-CE-1141
LA-CE-1168
Respondent.
JULES 	MMETT, Unfair Practice Case . WV TO |1 2
Charging Party, LA-CO-112
v .
NOTICE OF DISMISSAL	AFT COLLEGE GUILD, LOCAL 1521,
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS , 	WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND
(8/28/80)	AFL-CIO,
Mr. Jules Kimmett (hereafter Charging Party) has filed five	Mr.
	,Jules
	Kimmett
	(hereafter
	Charging
	Party)
	has
	filed
	five
(5)
	unfair 	practice
	charges
	against 	the
	Los
	Angeles
	Community
(5) unfair practice charges against the Los Angeles Community
College
	District
	(hereafter 	District}
	on
	January 	14, 	1980,
College District (hereafter District) on January 14, 1980,
March 11, 1980, April 9, 1980, April 17, 1980 and July 1, 1980March
	11, 	1980,
	April 	9,
	1980,
	April	
17,	
1980 	and
	July 	1,
	1980
alleging 	violations 	of	
section
	3543.
5 (a) ,	
(b)	
and
alleging violations of section 3543.5 (a) , (b) and (c) .
(c).
Mr. 	Kimmett 	has	
also 	filed
	one
	unfair 	practice
	charge
	against
Mr. Kimmett has also filed one unfair practice charge against
the
	AFT
	College 	Guild, 	Local 	1521, 	American
	Federation 	of
the AFT College Guild, Local 1521, American Federation of
Teachers,
	AFL-CIO
	(hereafter 	College 	Guild) 	on 	January 	14,
	1980
Teachers, AFL-CIO (hereafter College Guild) on January 14, 1980
alleging 	violations 	of 	section 	3543.G(a) 	and 	(b).
	The
alleging violations of section 3543.6 (a) and (b) . The

above-mentioned
	charges
	were
	consolidated 	for 	processing
	since
they 	involved
	the
	same
	issue:
	Whether
	the
	District
	and
	the
College
	Guild
	violated 	section
	3543.S(a),
	(b) 	and 	(c) 	and
section
	3543.6(a)
	and 	(b)
	respectively
	by
	curtailing
	Charging
Party's
	opportunty
	to
	address 	the
	District's
	Board
	of
	Trustees
at
	its
	public
	meetings
	in
	reprisal
	for
	Charging
	Party's
exercise
	of 	public 	notice
	rights
	pursuant
	to 	section
	3547.
An
	informal 	conference
	between
	the
	parties
	in
	unfair
practice
	charges
	LA-CE-1059, 	LA-CE-1073, 	LA-CE-1138, 	LA-CE-1141
and 	LA-CO-112
	held
	on
	May
	2,
	1980
	failed
	to 	resolve
	the
	matters.
For
	the 	reasons 	discussed
	below,
	the 	above-captioned
	unfair
practice
	charges 	are 	dismissed 	without 	leave
	to
	amend.
FINDINGS
	OF
	FACT
CONCLUSIONS
	OF
	LAW
	AND
	DISCUSSION
2
FINDINGS OF FACT
For
	purposes 	of
	this
	Notice 	of 	Dismissal
	Without
	Leave
	to
Amend,
	it
	is
	assumed
	that
	the
	essential 	facts
	alleged 	in
	unfair
practice
	charges
	LA-CE-1059, 	LA-CE-1073, 	LA-CE-1138,
LA-CE-1141, 	LA-CE-1168 	and 	LA-CO-112
	are
	true.
	San
	Juan
Unified
	School
	District
	(3/10/77)
	EERB
	Decision
	No.
	12.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISCUSSION
In 	essence,
	Charging
	Party 	alleges 	that	
the 	College 	Guild
and
	the
	District
	have
	conspired 	to
	and
	are 	discriminating
against
	and
	taking
	reprisals 	against
	him 	by
	curtailing 	his
right 	to 	address 	the
	District's
	Board
	of 	Trustees
	at 	its
	public
meetings 	because 	of 	his 	exercise 	of 	rights
	guaranteed
	by
	the
Educational
	Employment
	Relations
	Act
	(hereafter
	EERA),
	to 	wit,
section
	3547
	public 	notice 	rights.
above-mentioned charges were consolidated for processing since
they involved the same issue: Whether the District and the
College Guild violated section 3543.5 (a) , (b) and (c) and
section 3543.6 (a) and (b) respectively by curtailing Charging
Party's opportunty to address the District's Board of Trustees
at its public meetings in reprisal for Charging Party's
exercise of public notice rights pursuant to section 3547.
An informal conference between the parties in unfair
practice charges LA-CE-1059, LA-CE-1073, LA-CE-1138, LA-CE-1141
and LA-CO-112 held on May 2, 1980 failed to resolve the matters.
For the reasons discussed below, the above-captioned unfair
practice charges are dismissed without leave to amend.
For purposes of this Notice of Dismissal Without Leave to
Amend, it is assumed that the essential facts alleged in unfair
practice charges LA-CE-1059, LA-CE-1073, LA-CE-1138,
LA-CE-1141, LA-CE-1168 and LA-CO-112 are true. San Juan
Unified School District (3/10/77) EERB Decision No. 12.
In essence, Charging Party alleges that the College Guild
and the District have conspired to and are discriminating
against and taking reprisals against him by curtailing his
right to address the District's Board of Trustees at its public
meetings because of his exercise of rights guaranteed by the
Educational Employment Relations Act (hereafter EERA) , to wit,
section 3547 public notice rights.
2

While
	recognizing
	Charging
	Party's
	right
	as
	an 	employee
	to
file
	unfair
	practice
	charges
	against 	his
	public
	school
	employer
and
	union,
	it
	is
	concluded
	that
	it
	was
	not 	the
	intent
	of
	either
the
	California 	State
	Legislature
	or 	the
	Public
	Employment
Relations
	Board
	(hereafter
	PERB)
	to
	permit 	the
	filing
	of
	unfair
practice
	charges
	over
	matters
	concerning
	public
	notice.
It
	is
	first
	noted
	that
	the
	alleged 	discrimination
	and
reprisals
	concern
	Charging
	Party
	as
	a
	citizen 	vis-a-vis
	the
public
	meetings
	of 	the
	District's
	Board
	of 	Trustees
	rather
	than
Charging
	Party
	as
	an 	employee
	vis-a-vis
	his
	employer.
	No
actions
	have 	been
	taken
	against
	Charging
	Party
	as
	an
	employee.
Secondly, 	the
	PERB
	itself
	has
	established
	a
	specific
	and
detailed
	procedure 	for
	filing
	complaints 	regarding
	alleged
violations
	of
	the
	public 	notice
	procedures 	of 	the
	EERA
	of
	which
1	
the
	Charging
	Party
	has
	availed 	himself.
	To
	allow 	Charging
Party 	to
	simultaneously 	pursue
	alleged 	violations
	of
	section
3547
	as 	both
	unfair 	practice
	charges
	and
	public 	notice
complaints
	would
	give
	Charging
	Party
	"two
	bites 	at
	the
	apple,"
open
	the
	door
	for 	possibly 	conflicting 	results
	and 	would 	be
clearly 	contrary 	to 	the
	legislative 	intent
	of
	both 	the
California 	State 	Legislature
	and
	the
	PERB
	itself.
1
official
	notice 	is
	taken 	of 	the 	fact 	that
	Charging
	Party
has
	filed
	the 	following 	public 	notice 	complaints
	which
	allege
facts 	similar 	to 	the 	above-captioned 	matters:
	LA-PN-23 	andLA-PN-24.
	PERB 1 s
	regulations 	regarding 	the
	filing 	of 	public
notice 	complaints 	are 	codified 	at
	PERB
	Regulations 	37000-37100.
3
While recognizing Charging Party's right as an employee to
file unfair practice charges against his public school employer
and union, it is concluded that it was not the intent of either
the California State Legislature or the Public Employment
Relations Board (hereafter PERB) to permit the filing of unfair
practice charges over matters concerning public notice.
It is first noted that the alleged discrimination and
reprisals concern Charging Party as a citizen vis-a-vis the
public meetings of the District's Board of Trustees rather than
Charging Party as an employee vis-a-vis his employer. No
actions have been taken against Charging Party as an employee.
Secondly, the PERB itself has established a specific and
detailed procedure for filing complaints regarding alleged
violations of the public notice procedures of the EERA of which
the Charging Party has availed himself. To allow Charging
Party to simultaneously pursue alleged violations of section
3547 as both unfair practice charges and public notice
complaints would give Charging Party "two bites at the apple,"
open the door for possibly conflicting results and would be
clearly contrary to the legislative intent of both the
California State Legislature and the PERB itself.
official notice is taken of the fact that Charging Party
has filed the following public notice complaints which allege
facts similar to the above-captioned matters: LA-PN-23 and
LA-PN-24. PERB's regulations regarding the filing of public
notice complaints are codified at PERB Regulations 37000-37100.
3

Therefore,
	it
	is
	concluded
	that
	alleged
	violations
	of 	the
public 	notice
	procedures
	of 	the
	EERA
	are
	best
	remedied
	as
charges.	public 	notice
	complaints
	rather
	than
	unfair
	practice
Accordingly,
	Charging
	Party's
	unfair 	practice
	charges
	are
dismissed 	without 	leave
	to
	amend.
ORDER	ORDER
Unfair
	practice
	charges
	LA-CE-1059, 	LA-CE-1073, 	LA-CE-1138,
LA-CE-1141, 	LA-CE-1168 	and 	LA-CO-112
	are
	hereby
	dismissed
without 	leave
	to
	amend.
This dismissal without leave to amend is made pursuant to	
This
	dismissal
	without 	leave
	to
	amend
	is
	made
	pursuant 	to
PERB
	Regulation 	32630(a).
	The
	Charging
	Party
	may
	obtain
	review
PERB Regulation 32630(a) . The Charging Party may obtain review
of the dismissal by filing an appeal to the Board itself within	
of 	the
	dismissal
	by
	filing
	an
	appeal
	to
	the
	Board
	itself
	within
twenty
	(20)
	calendar
	days
	after
	service 	of
	this
	Notice.	
(PERB
twenty (20) calendar days after service of this Notice. (PERB
Regulation
	32630(b)
.)
	Such
	appeal
	must
	be
	actually
	received
	by
Regulation 32630 (b) .) Such appeal must be actually received by
the 	Executive
	Assistant
	to 	the
	Board
	before 	the
	close 	of
the Executive Assistant to the Board before the close of
business (5:00 p.m. ) on September 17, 1980 in order to be	
business
	(5:00 	p.m.)
	on
	September
	17,
	1980
	in 	order 	to
	be
timely filed.	
timely
	filed.
	(PERB
	Regulation
	32135.)
	Such
	appeal
	must 	be
	in
(PERB Regulation 32135. ) Such appeal must be in
writing, must be signed by the Charging Party or its agent, and	
writing,
	must 	be
	signed
	by
	the
	Charging
	Party
	or
	its
	agent,
	and
must
	contain 	the
	facts
	and
	arguments
	upon 	which
	the 	appeal
	is
must contain the facts and arguments upon which the appeal is
based.
	(PERB
	Regulation
	32630(b)
.)
	The
	appeal
	must 	bebased. 	(PERB Regulation 32630 (b) . ) The appeal must be
accompanied
	by
	proof 	of 	service
	upon
	all 	parties. 	(PERB	
(PERB
accompanied by proof of service upon all parties.
Regulations 32135, 32142 and 32630 (b) .)	
Regulations
	32135, 	32142 	and 	32630(b)
.)
DATED:
	August 	28, 	1980 	WILLIAM
	P.
	SMITH
Chief 	Admi~)strative
	Law
	Ju9ge
4
✓	
Kenneth 	A. 	Perea
Hearing 	Officer
Therefore, it is concluded that alleged violations of the
public notice procedures of the EERA are best remedied as
public notice complaints rather than unfair practice charges.
Accordingly, Charging Party's unfair practice charges are
dismissed without leave to amend.
Unfair practice charges LA-CE-1059, LA-CE-1073, LA-CE-1138,
LA-CE-1141, LA-CE-1168 and LA-CO-112 are hereby dismissed
without leave to amend.
DATED : August 28, 1980 	WILLIAM P. SMITH
Chief Administrative Law Judge
Kenneth A. Perea
Hearing Officer