Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District (PERB 0547E)

STATE OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
EDDA 	IRMA PETTYE,
Charging 	Party,
v.
FAIRFIELD-SUISUN UNIFIED 	SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Respondent.
--------------------
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case 	No. 	SF-CE-1037
PERB 	Decision 	No. 	547
December 	16, 	1985
Appearances: 	Edda 	Irma 	Pettye, 	on 	her 	own 	behalf; 	Breon,
Galgani, 	Godino 	and 	O'Donnell 	by 	Gregory 	J. 	Dannis 	for
Fairfield-Suisun 	Unified 	School 	District.
Before 	Hesse, 	Chairperson; 	Jaeger, 	Morgenstern, 	Burt 	and 	Porter,
Members.
DECISION
This 	case 	is 	before 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board
on 	appeal 	by 	charging 	party 	of 	the 	Board 	agent's 	dismissal,
attached 	hereto, 	of 	her 	charge 	alleging 	that 	the
Fairfield-Suisun 	Unified 	School 	District 	violated 	Education
Code 	section 	45110 	and 	the 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Act
(EERA) 	(Gov. 	Code 	sec. 	3540 	et 	seq.).
We 	have 	reviewed 	the 	dismissal 	and 	finding 	it 	free 	from
prejudicial 	error, 	adopt 	it 	as 	the 	Decision 	of 	the 	Board
itself, 	in 	that 	the 	charge 	was 	not 	timely 	filed 	pursuant 	to
EERA section 	3541.5.
ORDER
The 	unfair 	practice 	charge 	in 	Case 	No. 	SF-CE-1037 	is
DISMISSED WITHOUT 	LEAVE 	TO AMEND.
By 	the 	BOARD.

STATE
Cc:'
CAUFORNlA
PUBUC 	E1\~PLOYMENT
	RELA
TlONS 	BOARD
San Francisco Regional
	Office
177
Post Street, 9th 	Floor
Sen
	Francisco,
	California
	9,. 108
(415)
	557-1350
Septeml:er 24, 	1985
Edda
	Irma
Pettye
Greg
Dannis
GEORGE DEUKl>'lt:JIAN, Gav;,rnor
Rr..• 	REFUSAL 'ID ISSUE C0.'1PIAINT
AND
DISMISSA..L OF u'NFAIR PPACTICE GiARGE
Edda
Irma
Pettye
v
..	
Fairfield-Suisun
Unified
School
District
Charge
No. 	SF-CE-1037
Dear
Parties:
Pursuant to
rublic
Err"",J?loyment
Relations
Eoard	
(PR.'<B)	
Regulation
s2cticn	
32730,
a
complaint
will
not
be	
issued in the above-referenced c3se
and
	the
penoing
charge
	is
hereby disil1issed because
	it
fails
	to allege
	facts sufficient to state
a
	prima
facie violation
of the
Educational
Employment
Relations
Act	
(EE.RA)
.1
The
	reascning
which
underlies
	this
decision
	follows.
On
July
12,
	1985
Ms. 	Edda
	Irma
Pettye
filed
an
unfair
practice
charge:~
aga.inst
the Fairfield-Suisun
Unified
School
District
	(District) 	alleging
violation
ofEducation
Code
section
	45110.
	Specifically,
	charging
party alleges
	that
	the
District
refused
to
pay her
equal
pay
for equal
wDrk;
	refused to
pay hGr
management
pay
for
	I_)erfocrnance
of
rnanagerreent
duties
during 	the
	su1r.;ner
	school
program
of
1984;
	and,
	continues to take
retaliatory
action against
her
	for
filing	
a
grievance.
	Charging
party
lists
as
	retaliatory
	the
	following
	co:-:duct::
used
a
non-validated
I	
local
developed
testing
device
to
preclude her
	fron:
pro-
motion;
	refused
to
gr2..nt
her
	an opp:Jrtunity
to
	train
in
a
r;osition witb	
known
pror.iotional
potential;
	forced
	her
	to
use her
private vehicle
as
	a
condition
of
e:mployrr:2nt, 	and
at
t...he
	sawe tiir.e
did not
pay
her
	any more th3.n ot_i--ier e..rnployees
usin:J
District
vehicles.
	Charging
party alleged
	that
her claim
for equal
pa.J
for equal
w:xk
consists of
a
	request for
	reclassification
on
the
grou..rd
	that,
although she
,,,as
classified
ai---:d
employed as a
cafeteria assistant
I,
	she
];i:::r-
formed
	the duties of
a
	cafeteria assistant II.
	Charging
party
lists
	sev2;:-a.l
c.ll12g2d
defects in
U-,2
	reclassification
p:cocedure followed
	in her case: 	she
lReferences to	
t.l--i2
IT:..w.~
are to
Goverru,:ent CoJe
sections
	354C1
	et
se•--:::.
PE?-B
Regulations are cc-jif i2d at California
f'.l.drr.inistrati. 0
72
0-.::-<le,
	1itle
	8.

Edda Irma Pettye
Greg Dannis
SeptemJ:::;,er 24, 	1985
Page 2
was not given an opportunity to appear before the l::oard prior to the decision;
the denial was not supported by explanation; 	there was no notification of the
decision; and, 	the decision was not signed by the chairman or president of the
l::oard or the superintendent of schools. 	Charging party alleges that the
procedures denied her 	the right to due process as well as rights established
by District procedures and the collective bargaining agreement.
On September 10, 1985 the regional attorney wrote to charging party apprising
her of the deficiencies in the charge, discussing legal principles applicable
to the factual situation described in her charge, 	and informing her that unless
withdrawn or amended by September 20, 	1985, 	the charge would be dismissed. 	On
September 20, 	1985 the regional attorney initiated a telephone call to the home
of charging party and left a message on her answering tape to the effect that
no amendment or withdrawal had been received by PERE. 	Charging party was
instructed by that message to telephone the PERB office in the event that
either such document had been placed in the mail. 	To date, 	no withdrawal or
amendment has been received.
For 	th,2 reasons stated in the warning letter oE September 10, 	1985, 	it is
concluded that the charge, 	as written 1 does not state a pri.ma facie violation
of EERA section 3543.5. 	The letter of September 10, 1985 is hereby attached
and incorporated by reference. 	Accordingly, 	the allegations are dismissed and
no complaint will be issued.
Pursuant to Public Employment Relations Board regulation section 32635
(california Administrative Code, 	title 8, part III), you rray appeal the
refusal to issue a complaint 	(dismissal) 	to the Board itself.
Right to Appeal
You may obtain a review of this dismissal of the charge by filing an appeal to
the Board itself within t:wenty 	(20) 	calendar days after service of this Notice
(section 32635(a)). 	To be timely filed, 	the original and five 	(5) 	copies of
such appeal must be actually received by the Board itself before the close of
business 	(5:00 p.m.) 	on ~tober 14, 1985, 	or sent by telegraph or certified
United States mail postmarked not later than ~tol::€r 14, 1985 	(section 32135).
The Board's address 	is:
Public Employment Relations Board
103118th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
If you file a 	timely app,eal of the refusal to issue a complaint, 	any other
party may file with the Board an original and five 	(5) 	copies of a state:c:ent

Edda Irma
Pettye
Greg Dannis
September 24, 1985
Page 3
in
opi::osition
within
	t½'enty 	(20)
	calendar
days
	following
	th~
date
of
serviceof
the
	appeal
	(section
	32635(b)).
Service
All
documents
authorized
to be
filed
	herein
must
also
be
	"served"
upon
	all
parties
	to the
proceeding,
	and
a
	11
proof
of service
11
must accompany
each
copy
of
a document
served
upon a
party
or
	filed
with
the
Board
	itself
	(see
section
32140
for 	the required contents
and a sample form).
	The document
will
be
considered properly
	"served
11
	when
personally delivered
or deposited
	in
the
first-class
mail postage paid
and
properly
addressed.
Extension
of
Time
A
request for
	an
extension
of
	tLrne
	in
which
	to
	file
	a
dcx:::urnent
with
the
	Board
itself
must
be in writing
and
filed
with th2
Board
at
the previously noted
address.	
A
request for
	an exte:i.sion must
be
filed
	at
least
three	
(3)	
calendar
days
before the
	expiration of the
time .:equired
for
	filing
	the
document. 	'I'he
request
must
	indicate
good
cause for
	a..'1d,
	if
	J,-J1O•,m,
	the
position
of
each other
party
regarding the extension,
	and
shall
be accompanied by
proof
of
service
of
the·
request
	up:>n
each
party
	(section
32132).
Final
Date
If
no
	appeal
	is
filed
within
the
	s;:--vecific time
limits, 	the
dismissal
will
become
final
when
	the
	time
limits
have
expired.
Very
truly
yours,
JEFFREY
SLOAN
Acting General Counsel
/I
By/---..-~-PETER HABER.l'i'EI.p
Regional Attorney
cc:
	General Counsel

Ex,."ri.bit 1
JT;,
7E
01.
CALIFORNIA 	GEO;?GE DEUK.MEJiAN.
Gov,.mor
PUBUC
	Ef'.r\PLOYMENT
	REL::'.:.
1lOi"iS 	BOARD
Sen	
Francisco Reg:onol	
Office
l
77
Post Street,
	9th
	F!oor
San
	Francisco,
	Colifornio
	94108
(415) 557-1350
~~
Sept~~J::er
10
1 	1985
.
E:lda
Lana
Pettye
Re:
	Edda
Irma
P2ttve
v.
	Fairfield-Suisuri. Unified
School
District
Charge No. 	SF-CE-1037
Dear
Ms.
	Pettye:
On
July
12,
	1985
.Ms. Edda I:rrna
Pettye
filed
an
u.,.'1£air
p:ractice
cha::ge
against
the Fairfield-Suisun
Unified
School
District
	(District) 	alleging
violation
of
:Education
Code
section
45110~
	Sf:ecifically,
	cha:cging
party
allege~
that
the
District
refused
to
pay
her equal
pay
for equal
v,o:rk;
	refused
to
pay
her
management
pay
for
perfor:m.ance
of
man2g21T,en.t
duties dudng the
su1-rr::=.t:
school
program
of
1984;
and,
	continues
to
take
retaliatory
2.-::tion
against
hei::-
	fo-r
filir:g
	a
	grievance.
	Charging
p::.r:ty
lists
as
	retaliatory
t.b2
follcwir:g
con
1
_:;_uct:
used
a
	non-•1alidated,
	local
d'2velo~ed
testing
device
to
precL1de
h2r from
prorr:otion;
	refused
to grant
her:
	a:.7
opportu..r1ity
to
t.;::ain
	i;:-.
a
positio:.i
with
known
prou0tior13.l
r::ote~tial; 	forced her
	to
use
her
private
vehicle
a~ c
condition of
employrr:ent,
	aJ1d
at
the
saT.e
tirr.-'2
did not
pay
her
any
rr;0re
than.
other
employees using
	District
vehicles.
	Charging
party
alleg.::d
	that
her
claim for
	c:qual pay
for
equal
\,ork
consists of
a recjf1est fo.c
	reclassification
on
the
ground
	that,
	alt.hough
she was
cl2ssified
aI1d
E:il'J?loye-j
as
	a
cafeteri2.
assistant
I,
	she perfom.ed
t,.--ie
duties of
a
cafeteria
assistar1t
	II.
	Cbar,;r
in:-:J
party
lists
severe.I
alleged defects
	in
the
reclassification
prccecur::e followed
in
her
case:
	she was
not
given
an
opportunity
to
appear
before the
boc.rd
priorto
t.'rie
de-::ision;
	the denial
was
not suppJrted
by explar..ation;
	there
wcs	
r:8
notification
of
	the decision;
	and,
	the
d2eision
was
not signed
by	
th2
chairr-.2n
or president of
	b.~2
bo2rd
or the
superintendent of schools.
	Char,]ing
pazty
alleges that
th2 prccedures denied
her
the
right to
due
process as
weLl
	as
rights established
by
District
procedures
2nd
the
collect.iv?-: b3.r:.;:i.ini::i.g
agree..rnent.
Jurisaictio:1:
FF2B -do2s
not
h3.ve	
jucis:Ji,-:tian
to
resol\./2 claizsns s29!<.ing L>~t::::fits
ur1-:-5:::.c	
·tL~e
Ec
-,,11c;:;'-L~1.on,.
/"',,7-::,
___	
l\,-,::,,.:i<'"',..
1';,,170~7
S::,.,-·o"'•.:J.::,r;7
	·-
~
	~	
~·-
	1-
....
,v..._....,._,v.1-.
	'1-':L -~---
	.....
..._,.
...
0
.........
( T.',11,,~-,..-r-~
	.L.•._J.._.;._..G_I.),_'::,
t~:J'-~--.loL.	
'\,--,.,,,.,i;:,'··i.-1'1-	...):.1 ...
\,,
....
.,._,..,,,,7;,...,
	,,_
(1979) 	88
c:al
..
r..pp
..
3.:1
	~~j'-1,
,1_.t..J.J.~
!?.ce;nG crr1ifi-2~~
::.:_-:~-1
1
.)01
I)i.:3t.:r:Lc;t
V-.
	l'~2t..i.0~12_r-r~1
L~
...
::.~:::io.:1
k,soci,:1.ti.on 	(1981) 	125 Cal.l,[J_?,3::: 2:/J; 	Le::; A
..
,g~l:;s
Couc:ci1
o~'.::
	S:.~>.c-Jl.
1,:·.:c.~-~:;-V:-
l'
.
.,c-	
~,-,c:;l.::,~
	·u•~-ic1·-cc,.s
	n~rl..~i,.--'-
	·o-1	
J.....f-.._J,.~'	
-·
	r,.1.:-,-::__L.._;:.:J
	ll._.,_
	-~'n""'l
	";,,::.u
	0\..-
i.\.
..
,\I.,_
J.,'..LS.:.·<.-.L-•-...._,l_
	11e:0T\-·11=:-r.11
	\-
::.;uVJ
	_	
.)
..__.,:
...L
...
:-,.,:..1;-_	
?--,....
~-L	
-------··
U~i.Ei2:J Scf:1oc\l D~_stric:t V".,	
P1..1
1
J1if:: l:}~?l<.Y/T!·~n~ F.~:::l-?.-~.i,'J;;;
r:..-.•:1:cd
	{1S81)
l~:O
	C:ll
..
J,.~~;p.3d 1007.. 	Con~>2<JL1:~n:l~y, 	P.s.?~3 h~·ls
n:-)	
~i
1-~:-i.:di.-=t:.ioc1
	to
	resnl\:-.~
d
ic::-;:-Y.2
:Ecs un:1:::
r Educ::a
tion
Cc:x:12
sc_'C
,·j_o;-,
L\
5110.
•1
•.•
~

Statute of limitations;
In San Dieguito Union High School District 	(1982) 	PEPB Decision t\O. 	l94, 	P:EP.3
held that, 	to state a prir.B. facie violation, charging party must allege and
ulti."r'.ately establish t.'-:at the alleged unfair practice either cccurred or was
discovered witt1in the six-month period i..m;-;-:ediately preceding the filing 	of the
charge with PERE. 	ESRA. section 354L 5; Danzanskv-Goldberg E~-rKJrial
Chapels, 	Inc. 	(1982) 	264 NLRB ll2 	[112 LRRM 1108]; PJrerican Olea11 Tile Co.
(1982) 	265 NL..~ No. 	206 	[112 LRRM 1080]; A.F .C. 	Industries, 	Inc. 	(.t1JI.Car
Division) 	(1978) 	234 NL.cm 1063 	[98 LP.Pl.~ 1287], en£ 1 d as ~odified. 	(8 Cir. 	1979}
596 F. 2d 1344 	[100 1RPM 3074]. 	The National Labor Relations Board cases cited
here hold th.at the six-rrorr-Jl period commences on the date the conduct consti-
tuting 	the unfair practice is discovered. 	It does not run from the discovery
of the legal significance of that conduct.
Discrimination:
The PERE has ruled that for a charge to state a pr~T.a facie U,.'1:tair practice
case of unlawful discrimination, 	it roust allege facts which, 	if pro·-1en,.
establish: 	(1) 	employer conduct which singles out the errrployee and denies
him/ner a 	benefit ot.i.11erwise accorded to effif?loyees siniilarly situated; 	(2) 	ar1
exercise by the ernployee of a protected right; 	and, 	(3) 	such selective
treatment v.--ould not have occurred "but for II his/ner ex-=::rcise of a protected
right. 	Kovato Unified School District 	(1982) 	P:S:C3 cecision t~o. 	210;
california State University 	(Sacrc.;7:':ento) 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	211-R.
The nexus retween the e'TI}?loyer conduct and t...l-J.e prote-cted activity is
established by alleging un.law-ful rr:-:Jtivation on the part of: th2 employer. 	In
Placerville Union School District 	(1984) 	PR.0 J3 Decision No. 	377, PERS statc<l
that where direct evidence of unlawful motivation is lacking, 	it has generally
lool<ed 	to such factors as t:L-rtLrr-3 	(No.rth Sacra.rr:.2nto School DisL.rict 	(1982) 	PERB
Decision No. 	254; Coast Corr;rm.1u.ity College Distric:t 	(19-32) 	:?ERB Gecision
No. 	251), disparate treat.IT:2nt 	(San Joaqm.n D:;lta C'crcCT.unity College District
(1982) 	PEPJ3 Decision No. 	261; Sa.r1 Leandro Unified Schcol District 	(1933) 	PER3
Decision No. 	288), departure from past procedures 	(Novato Urnf 1E.<l School
District 	{1982) 	PE.RB Decision No. 	210), arid inconsistent justificatio.i.s 	(State
of california 	(Department of Parks a,.-;d Recreation) 	(1983) 	P&1<.8 D:.cision
No. 	328-S} 	which, 	under certain circu:rnstances, m:1y SL1pport fu"'1 inference of
unlawful rrDtivation. 	Also see University of california 	(1983) 	PERS cecision
No. 	308-H.
Investigation:
Investigation and examination of this charge rev::,210'.:.1 the follo,1::.nq. 	C'1.J?'."(Jing
party filed her 	request for 	reel,:1.ssificatiotl 0'.1 J:-1:,2 27, 	1983. 	u::x:n n-,jc:,cti_c:1
at step 1, charging p:1rty appealed d?nial$ to s 1 Y_x:::':?ssi.v:::1-y highe,:: st-c-z>s. 	':i:'h:::
g0\7.2rning board rr.et and ultis~:2-:ely c1enie:c1 ti::=:r rt~:Cf:.c:.; 1: on Jc~t----t'.JJr~l 6,. 	19(i!::,.
T'nis c1'2-eision \•72.S co1T·cn1
.1:1.Lca1:ccl to cha~gin,J p:1ct~, L~/ letter c~ l?o:-Jru.,:1::~, J_, 	lSJ~:1>
2

On June 25, 1983 char:gir.,g party filed a grievance complaining of the reclaasi-
fication procedure. 	'Ihat grievance was never pursued b2yond level l 	of the
procedure set forth in the collective bargaining agreement. 	The denial of the
grievance on February 8, 	1984 was final.l
Olarging party concedes that she has used her private vehicle in the course of
performing services for 	the District and that such practice has been in effect
for a considerable i?eriod of time. 	(See Attachrr!ent 10 of charge.) 	On
Janua..ry 17, 1984 	(or 1985) 	chargir1g party stated to the Distric½- that t11e
25 cents per mile it pays is inadequate. 	On F:arch 5, 1985 charging party
addressed the District by letter refusing to use her personal vehicle a~y
longer.
Conclusion:
Charging party has failed to state a prirr.a facie violation of ERB!\
section 3543.5 for 	the following 	reasons. 	First, allegations that the District
violated the requirements of the Education Code cor.cerning reclassification of
employees is not properly ~fore PERB. 	If those claims are not stale 1 	relief
might be sought by filing an action in the suoerior court.
Second, 	ari.y cla:L-n in this case that the District retaliated against cha.r9in-;
party for ha~1ing filed a grievance apf-2a.::s 	to b-2 tirr2-barr2d. 	No allegs-dly
unlawful District conduct is alleged to have t=1.l~en place within the six r:cont:hs
preceding the filir:g 0£ the unfair practice ch2rg2 oil Ju]_y 12, 1985. 	An
explanation follo·t1s,
1. 	Charging party has allegsd that she was reqt::.ired by t.rie District to drive
her personal vehicle 2.s a condition of er:ploy:-.,:mt. 	Howeve::-, 	the practice of
driving a f)2rsonal vehicle prE.-dates the filing of the grie,1ai--i::::e on June 	25,
1983. 	Tnere is no suggestion that t..~e District's position changed subseq~ent
to the filing of the grievance and that the grievance precip.itate.-d the
requireuent. 	It is not sufficient that charging party concluded 1 	subs2qu~nt
to the date on which the grievance was filed, 	that driving b.2r persor1al car was
a condition of emplop,ent. 2 	Charging party has not alleged facts which could
l1t aDcears	~ ;_ 	from corr,::;soo::1d2nce	;J... 	b€:tw22:1 ch.:ffoina	_, 	-' ,I..
oc1rt·-1	..l 	end th:::
california School qloyees .l\ssociatioi1 	(CS2.l\ or Assc::::fo;.:.ioci) 	tlkrt th,2
g.r_ievar:ce was held in abeyanc2 pending m.:tco;-;-.2 of the n=:,1u:::"!::;t for
re.classification. 	Scee unfair p::actic,? charge filed by c>a:-qing :p-::i.rt.y
(SF-CC-'.:'.79) 	on July 12, 1985.
2cha.rgir:g part~/ ~;t2t2~; 	th2: tb",~ 1Jls:-=.r .i_ct contin~1~:~3 .,:0
onal car 	is 2. cor-.:·:.1ition oE c:·.~~10_/:~·~~~.:~, 1-fJ~·- 	nz.~i~:::~~ L:r::_t f:.t"'.-2
arriv2 at -"
th-2 	joO lc"::c\tic:·l in s·:)n::: r..,J.~_t'l~::c.. 	CC1:~rg f\1 p.]rf~~/ st2tes tl:..:l t 	[\ -~ 1.:
a y~:s
3

derrcnstrate
	that
the
	requirement
	that
she
drive
her
private
vehicle
was
	i..rrip<Jsed
in
	retaliation
for
	her
	having
filed
	a grieva..--::c:e.
2.
	Charging
party
alleges further
	that,
	subseq~ent
to
filing
	a
griev~1ce
on
June
	25, 	1983, 	she
was
denied
a.i
opportunity
to
train
in
a
	position
wi-th
pro-
motional
p:itential.
	Th:
District
has informed
the regional
attorney
that
charging
party
was
hired as
a
	food
service
assistant
II
during the
SUITITT:e..r	
of
1984,
	as
well as for
	three
days
at
Grar.,ge
School
	in
August
1984.
	This
information
is
confirmed
by
attacb.Jrients
to
the
unfair practice
charge
filed
against
CSE../\	
(SF-C0-279).
	Both
occasions occurred subsequent
to her
having
filed
	a
	grievance.
	At
this
f<)int
	it
is
undisputed
that
i;:harging
party
	receivoo
an
opportu.~ity
to
train
subsequent
to
having
filed
a
grievance.
3.
	Charging
party
has
objected
to
the
test
required as
a
pre-condition
for
promotion.
	Yet she
has
not alleged the dates
on'which she took such
a
	test,
whether she
was
obliged
to
take
a
different
test
from
that
giv2n
to
oth,2r
applicants,
	whether
	there
were
other applicants, 	or in
what
rnarmer t:'1e
	test
did
not
consist of fair
	a.rid
objective
questions
directly
related to
the job
being
applied for.
	Consequently,
	t:J1ere
are
no
allegations to support a-claim
	that
she
was	
adversely
affected or
	that,
	if
t.here
was
scch
an 2.dverse
effect,
	th:1t
it
was
	con.7ected
	in
any
way
with her
	having
	filed
	a
gri2v2.nce on June 	25,
	1933.
4.
	It
could
be
that
charging
party
	is
alleging
	that
she
was
	required
	to
J?2r-
form
:r._an.age-nent
duties 	in
H1e st.rrrrr;er
of
1984 ar:d
	that
such
requirement
was	
in
retaliation
for
	her
	having
filed
a griev2r:.ce on
June
	25,
	1983.	
Ec,,,qever-, 	no
date
	is
alleged
on which
sud-1
duties
wer:-e
performed.
	Nor	
are	
the
duties
described~
	Consequently, charging
party
has not
	alleged
cond~ct
which
h2d
2-n
advc:rse
effect
on
her
wib.t-iin t.he
six
rr:ontl:..s
preceding
tc~e
	filing
of
	tc'7.e
	clnrge.
Consequently,
	there
	is
also
no
nexus
	sho,.vn betw2-en
2.n
al1eg':;Cl c1dvers2
effect
a.11d
the
	filing
	of the grievance
approxi.1TB.tely
1-1/2 ye2rs
	earlier.
Charging
party's
allegations
concerning alleg~j defects
	in
	the reclassificationprocedure
do
not st.ate
a
prirna
facie violation.
	The
impact
of the procedures
on
charging
party
occurred
prior to
February
1,
	1984,
	the
date
on which she
was
	infom.ed
that
her
	request for
	reclassification
was
rejs-cted.
	The
charge
is
untimely. 	Instead of
being
filed
within
six
months from
	the
d:ite
of
	the
alleged injury,
	it
was
not
filed until
July
12, 1985,
	a;:;iproxirr.ately s2ve.r.tee:1
months
	later.
If
you
feel	
tl-iat there are facts
\;hich
1;ould
correct
the d2fici.encies
e:::s.1)lained
above,
	please
arr:end
t112
charge=
accordingly.
	Ti12 ar..end2d ch:1rg2
only
IT:eu;ks
of 	tra\
7elin,3	
to
th·2
other
	~l-~e;ols
	is
	bj·
at..:.::.c:~.::::··1:i_lf:;
,:t.~(J,	
t-Jr::·L~':"?~C)Ct~,.
the Dis:::rict
	is
	"in effect"
	co;:-:ditioni,,g h::c jo·:.i on
h::::c
	io:i.
ot
	c:'1
autorr.:)bile.

should be prepared on a stai,dard PERB unfair pr2ctice charge form clearly
label=Cl. First J...mended Cnarge, contain all the facts and allegations you wish
to rr.ake, 	ar:d l:::;.e signed ur.der penalty of perjur_;t by the charging party 	(forms
enclosed) . 	'I'n2 ar.:ended charge sust be served on the respondent and th:?
original proof of service must be filed with PEr~ 	(forrns enclosed). 	If I do
not 	receive an aT.ended charge or withdrawal from you on or before Septerrber
20, 	1985, 	I 	shall dismiss your charge. 	If you have any questions on how to
proceed, please call ~eat 	(415) 	557-1350.
Sin::erely yours, 	/
Peter Haberfeld
Regional Attorney
En::losures
5