Los Angeles Community College District (Watts) (PERB 0330E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
HOWARD O. 	WATTS,
Complainant,
v.
LOS 	ANGELES 	COMMUNITY 	COLLEGE
DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
) 	Case No. 	LA-PN-37
PERB 	Decision No. 	330
August 	15, 	1983
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_____________________ )
Appearances: 	Howard 	o. 	Watts, 	representing 	himself;
Mary 	L. 	Dowell, 	Associate 	General 	Counsel, 	for 	Los Angeles
Community College 	District.
Before Tovar, 	Jaeger 	and 	Burt, 	Members.
DECISION AND 	ORDER
JAEGER, 	Member: 	Howard 	O. 	Watts 	has 	appealed 	the 	regional
director's 	dismissal 	in 	part 	without 	leave 	to 	amend 	of 	his
public 	notice 	complaint, 	in 	which 	he 	alleged 	that 	the 	Los
Angeles 	Community 	College 	District 	violated 	Government 	Code
subsections 	3547 (a), 	(b), 	(c), 	(d) 	and 	(e) 	of 	the 	Educational
Employment 	Relations 	Act.l 	The 	Public Employment 	Relations
Board 	affirms 	the 	dismissal 	of 	the 	subsection 	(a), 	(c), 	(d) 	and
lsubsections 	3547 (a), 	(b), 	(c), 	(d) 	and 	(e) 	of 	the
California Government 	Code 	read:
(a) 	All 	initial 	proposals 	of 	exclusive
representatives 	and 	of 	public 	school
employers, 	which 	relate 	to matters 	within
the 	scope 	of 	representation, 	shall 	be
presented 	at 	a 	public meeting 	of 	the 	public

(e} 	complaints 	for 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	in 	the 	attached
regional 	director's 	decision.
school 	employer 	and 	thereafter 	shall 	be
public 	records.
(b} 	Meeting 	and 	negotiating 	shall 	not 	take
place 	on 	any 	proposal 	until 	a 	reasonable
time 	has 	elapsed 	after 	the 	submission 	of 	the
proposal 	to 	enable 	the 	public 	to 	become
informed 	and 	the 	public 	has 	the 	opportunity
to 	express 	itself 	regarding 	the 	proposal 	at
a 	meeting 	of 	the 	public 	school 	employer.
(c} 	After 	the 	public 	has 	had 	the
opportunity 	to 	express 	itself, 	the 	public
school 	employer 	shall, 	at 	a 	meeting 	which 	is
open 	to 	the 	public, 	adopt 	its 	initial
proposal.
(d} 	New 	subjects 	of 	meeting 	and 	negotiating
arising 	after 	the 	presentation 	of 	initial
proposals 	shall 	be 	made 	public 	within 	24
hours. 	If 	a 	vote 	is 	taken 	on 	such 	subject
by 	the 	public 	school 	employer, 	the 	vote
thereon 	by 	each member 	voting 	shall 	also 	be
made 	public 	within 	24 	hours.
(e} 	The 	board 	may 	adopt 	regulations 	for 	the
purpose 	of 	implementing 	this 	section, 	which
are 	consistent 	with 	the 	intent 	of 	the
section: 	namely 	that 	the 	public 	be 	informed
of 	the 	issues 	that 	are 	being 	negotiated 	upon
and 	have 	full 	opportunity 	to 	express 	their
views 	on 	the 	issues 	to 	the 	public 	school
employer, 	and 	to 	know 	of 	the 	positions 	of
their 	elected 	representatives.
The 	hearing 	officer's 	dismissal 	of 	a 	complaint 	alleging 	the
violation 	of 	subsection 	3547(b} 	arising 	from 	the 	same 	factual
situation 	is 	addressed 	in PERB 	Decision No. 	331.
Members 	Tovar 	and 	Burt 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
2

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT R::LATl01'--> BO.ARD
Los Ang~!es P.egional Office
3470 Wilshira Blvd., Suite i G01
Los Ang:!f=s, California 90010
(213) 735-3i27 o: tober 15 , 	19a!.
Mr. Howard O. 	Wat~s
1021 N. Ma.ri7>sa Ave., A?t. 	3-1/2
Los A.11geles, CA 	90029
~..r. Daniel Msans, Staff P..elations
LOS k,geles C):::::ill.l.l'tit:y College District
617 w. 	7th Street
Los A.."'lgeles, cali:Eo~ia 	90017
Re: 	LA-PN-37
Amended Dismissa.l in Part Without Leave to Amend
Th'E! above•!:'ef~renc:ed complaint was received in this office Olt June
.18, 1981. 	0.1 ~-·..1gi.1st: lJ, 	I.981, 	a dismissal with lea7e to amend was issued. by
the P..eg ional Director ?ursuant to PERB regulation 37030 (c} • 	The amended
cOI?:?laint, 	received on August 20, 	1981, 	stated that aile;~tio::is No. l 	and No.
6 of the ori~inal ccm?l.aint were resolved by the Ch~-:cel.l:n: 's action on June
1.7, 1981 (Co::. 	:No. 3), requiring posting of all initial proposals, new
subjects of bargaining 2nd proposed amendi-nents 	to collective bargaining
contracts.
I?ursua:.-it to P.::.?..!:i regulation 37030 (el, certain po::-tions of the public:
no·.;1ce cor.:;;>.i.air..t !.A-F!i-37 c:gaine:t the Lo3 hngeles C;:;zr.."lWii':y College
Dis~rict are hereby dis::tti.ssed as fol.laws:
(l} 	nose parts of allegations No. 	l 	and ?ro. 	2 -.;hich are based on
the co1'.!plaL,ant • s 	alJ.eged lack of opportunity to add::-ass Dr. 	Hewitt ts
Legislative- R~port and Agenda Item VIII A at the Board of 'l'rust-oes'
meeting en &y 20, 1981 are dismissed.
{2) 	Allagaticns No. 4 and No. 	5 are di~missad · i."l thdr 	entirety.
(3) 	)...J.l:gati=n No. 	7 	is dismissed in its entirety.
Discussion
(l} 	A2.legc?.'do'."ls 	{!.} 	and 	(2) 	- 	Violatio::i of Govern.~nt: Code 	sections
3547 { e.; (:::) ('?)
S-ec tic::s 3547 (a) (b.} (c) 	and 	(e) 	provide that:
(a) 	~..ll 	ir.it:al proposals of exclusive repres~~=~t:ives and
of u·.10::!..:c 	s.-::~~ol employers, 	which relate 	to ~tt~cs within

Cctober 	15, 	1931
~-.;ended Dis:iiss:l in Part Without Leave to A.-nend
!..A-P?l-37
Pa~e 2
the scope of re?resentation, 	shall be presentec zt a public meeting
of the public school employer and thereaf.t::r s~.:-11 b~ public records.
{b} 	!-"..eeting a:?d negotiating shall not 	take pla=~ oh any proposal.
until a 	reasona:>le time has elapsed after the s::.::>mission of the
pro?Osal to enable the public 	to become 	in:for:n=!-c and the publ.ic bas
the opportunity .to express itself regarding th~ proposal. at a meeting
of th~ public school. employer.
(c) 	k::ter 	the public has· had the opportuni~y t:o express itself, 	the
public 	school et:?loyer shall, 	at a meeting w~ic'.:! is open to the
public, adopt its 	initial proposal.
(e) 	T~e board may adopt regulatio.~s for 	th~ pu:-;>ose of implemen~ing
this s~tion, ....,.hich are consistent with the int<:::1t of the section;
namely that tr.e public be· informed of the issue:. that are being
n~otiated upo:i and have fully opportunity to e:..c?ress their views on
the issues to the public 	school employer, 	and to kno-..1 of the
positions of their elected representatives.
The a:c::ended co:nplaint alleges that the District's 	five minute
liraitation on t:ie leng~l-i of corranents on collective ba~ga:...,ing proposals fro::i
members of tr.e public 	(Ex..,.ibit No. 	8} 	prevented the co:::plainant from speaking
to iJ.r. Hewitt's 	legislative report and to agenda Ite:a VIII A. 	The latter 	itera
co1.::::arned a 	shooting in::: idei::t at Valley College on April 2~, 	1981. 	Since
neithei:: o:: the~e .ag~ntla it~ms co:::icerns =1.n :.:.~1it:.al p.:apos2!~. .:if an E:}.-c].usive:
representative or a public school employer concerni~g a ::atter within the
scope of representation under Government Code sec. 3543.• 1, 	this part of the
COin?laint fails 	to allege and cannot be amended to. alleg~ a 	prima facie
violation of sections 3547 (a) (bl {c) &(e). 	It is therefore dismissed without
1eave to a:;iend.
(2) 	Alle<J"?:tions 	{~) 	and 	(5) 	- 	Violation of Gove::-nzer:t Code section 3547 !.9L
Se:::tion 3547{c} 	provides that:
(d) 	Ne·..1 subjects of meeting and negotiatir.q ar.:s1.ng after
the presentatio~ of initial proposals shall be ~de public
within 24 hou!'s. 	If a vote is 	taken on sue?? su::-ject by the
public 	schex>l employer, 	the vote thereon by e2~i member
voting 	shall also be made public within 24 ho~rs.
The co=?laint alleges that the District violatec sec. 	3547(d) 	by
failing 	to publish a 	vote on its proposed w~endments 	to t~e Maintenance and
Operations u~it, 	Unit 2, 	a3reement and to the Techni~al Clerical Unit, 	Unit 1,

O::~ober 	15, 	1931
A..::~nded Dis::i:.ssal in Part Without Leave to ;...1tend
LA.-P~-37
Pase 3
ag::er:ient. 	?E?.3 Decision No. 	158, Kinnett v. 	Los ~-,q-=!.a.s Co=iunity College
District and California School Employees As sq:: iatic:i, 	C:-.=.::>t:er 507, hoJ.ds 	that
prcposals mad.e during negotiations to amend existing p:::-c7isio:i.s of an
ag::-ee:aent 	(i:x::luding reopeners} 	are 	"initial proposals .. ·-it...hin the meaning of
sectio.i 3547 (a). 	Thus the proposed amendments were no~ .:e·~ st=bject:s of
.ile~t:ing and :-.~otiating subject to the procedural requira:::?ents of sec.
35~7 (d}. 	Ins~ead, 	they were subject to the require~e:n:ts of sec.
35~7 (a} (b} & (i::). 	Since the essence of tl)e complaint i$ 	t::3t. no votes on the
prc?<)sed am.enc..~nts were made public within twenty-four tours of thae May 20
oeeting, 	it fails 	to state and cannot be amended to state a 	prima facie
violation of section 3547(d). 	Allegations (4) 	and 	(5} 	a~e 	therefore dismissed
without .leave to amerid.
(3) 	All:gation 	(7) 	- 	Violation of Government Code s2etio~s 3547 fal (o)
and 	(e)
All:gation 	(7) 	simply reiterates allegatio~ 	(1): 	that the five
minute r!!le did not provide enough time for 	the co::??:.ainant to comment on
the District's pro:;>osed amendment to the Maintenar-.ce and IJ;lerations Unit,
Unit 2, asr~eer;::ent. 	In addition, 	the allegation in t::.s 	a!!:,mded complaint
that there was no explanation of the 	issue beforehan~ so that the·
complainar1t: was not given an opportunity to become i:::.forE~ would appea:::
to be co:::~i:adictad by complainant's Exhibit No. 	6. 'L"'!at do:::t.r.."'ltent indicates
tb,1t the p.:op.::ised ar:temlment to U1e t:CJt?•:rac·:.: was fiz:s:: man~ knawn to the
public on ?-f..ay 6, 1981.~ 	Allegation 7 	is therefm:e dis::iisssd without leave
to amend.
The Regional Director has determined that the following portions of
the complaint state a prima facie violation of Govern.-::.~nt COde section 3547:
Allc-gati.ons 	(ll 	and 	(2): 	The contention that 	t::.e District's 	fiw~
minute rule 	interfered w.ith complainant's right to e:9ress his views on
the District's 	initial proposal for 	the College Safe::-_T and Police Service
Unit, 	and on its Proposed A.~endments 	to the Mainte~a:x:e and Operations
Unit, 	Unit 2, Agree~ent and 	to the Technical Cle=ical Uni~, Unit No. 	1,
Agreement, 	since all of these items were on the May 2J, 	1981 agenda
meeting a::-:d he was allowed only five minutes to'::al s~a.king time.
kccrdingly, 	this portion only of the complaint will be :;?:-o::essed further.

October 	15, 	:98.'i.
Amended Dis2:ssal in Part Without Leave to Amend
LA-PN-37
Page 4
Purs~a~t 	to PERB regulation 37050, Respondent 	is 	required to file an
answer 	to on:y t~at portion of allegation {l} 	and 	(2) 	of t:he complaint
indicated ab-:,·1'l. 	The answer must be received by this of::ice not later than
O:::tober 30, 	:981- 	I 	a.'!1 ere losing for Respondent copies of 	the initial
complaint filed on June 18, 	1981, 	and of the amended com?laint fil.ed on August
20, 1981.
Com.;>lainant may appeal. this dismissal in part without leave to amend
to the Board it:self at the headquarters office in accorda::c:e with the
provisions o:: Division l, 	Chapter 4, Article 2 o.f the ?K?..3 Regulations. 	Any
appeal must be 	fil.ed within 10 days foll0".-1ing the date of service of this
1.etter of dismissal- 	Please contact this office if you r..=1ve any questions.
Very truly yoursr
Frances A. 	Kre il.ir.g
Regional Director
~tu~~
Marjorie Weinzweig
Graduate Legal Assistant
MW:eb