Los Angeles Community College District (PERB 0623E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
ROBERT 	RAY BRADLEY,
Charging 	Party,
v.
LOS 	ANGELES 	COMMUNITY 	COLLEGE
DISTRICT,
Respondent.
Case No. 	LA-CE-2463
PERB Decision No. 	623
June 17, 1987
Appearances; 	Robert 	R. 	Bradley, 	on his own behalf; Mary L.
Dowell, 	Attorney, 	for Los Angeles 	Community College 	District.
Before Hesse, 	Chairperson; 	Porter, 	Craib and Shank, Members.
DECISION AND 	ORDER
This 	case 	is before 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board
(Board) 	on 	appeal 	by 	Charging 	Party of 	the 	Board 	agent's
dismissal, 	attached hereto, 	of his 	charge 	that 	the Los Angeles
Community 	College 	District 	violated 	section 	3543.5(a) 	of 	the
Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Act. 	We have 	reviewed 	the
dismissal 	and, 	finding 	it 	to be 	free 	of prejudicial 	error,
adopt 	it 	as 	the 	Decision 	of 	the Board 	itself.
The unfair practice 	charge 	in 	Case No. 	LA-CE-2463 	is hereby
DISMISSED 	WITHOUT 	LEAVE TO AMEND.
By 	the 	BOARD
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
______________ )

STATE Of CALIFORNIA 	GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
LOS ANGELES REGIONAL OFFICE
3470 WILSHIRE BLVD., SUITE 1001
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 	90010
(213) 736-3127
March 26, 	1987
Robert R. 	Bradley
Re: 	LA-CE-2463, 	Robert 	R. 	Bradley v. 	Los Angeles Community
College 	D i s t r i c t
DISMISSAL OF UNFAIR PRACTICE CHARGE
Dear 	Mr. 	Bradley:
The 	above-referenced 	charge 	a l l e g e s 	t h a t 	the 	Los 	Angeles
Community College 	D i s t r i c t 	( D i s t r i c t ) 	interfered 	with 	the
Charging 	P a r t y ' s 	r i g h t 	to 	representation 	in 	a 	grievance 	meeting
and 	attempted 	to 	bypass 	the 	exclusive 	r e p r e s e n t a t i v e 	in 	order
to 	obtain 	Charging 	P a r t y ' s 	withdrawal 	of 	the 	grievance. 	It 	is
a l s o 	alleged 	t h a t 	the 	D i s t r i c t 	failed 	to 	meet 	and 	n e g o t i a t e 	in
good 	faith 	by 	d i r e c t i n g 	the 	Charging 	Party 	to 	attend 	meetings
concerning 	a 	merger 	of 	the 	Business 	Administration 	Department
and 	the 	Office 	Administration 	Department, 	which 	the 	Charging
Party 	contends 	c o n s t i t u t e d 	an 	unlawful 	u n i l a t e r a l 	change 	in
terms 	and 	conditions 	of 	employment. 	This 	conduct 	is 	alleged 	to
v i o l a t e 	Government 	Code 	sections 	3543.5(a), 	(b), 	and 	(c) 	of 	the
Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Act 	(EERA). 	By 	your 	l e t t e r
dated 	March 	3, 	1987, 	you withdrew 	without 	prejudice 	the
a l l e g a t i o n 	concerning 	the 	merger.
I 	indicated 	to 	you 	in my 	attached 	l e t t e r 	dated 	March 	19, 	1987
t h a t 	the 	above-referenced 	charge 	did 	not 	s t a t e 	a 	prima 	facie
case. 	You 	were 	advised 	t h a t 	if 	there 	were 	any 	f a c t u a l
inaccuracies 	or 	a d d i t i o n a l 	facts 	which 	would 	c o r r e c t 	the
deficiencies 	explained 	in 	that 	l e t t e r , 	you 	should 	amend 	the
charge 	accordingly. 	You 	were 	further 	advised 	t h a t 	unless 	you
amended 	the 	charge 	to 	s t a t e 	a 	prima 	facie 	case, 	or 	withdrew 	it
prior 	to 	March 	26, 	1987, 	it 	would 	be 	dismissed. 	The 	f i r s t
amended 	charge 	was 	received 	on March 	25, 	1987.
The 	f i r s t 	amended 	charge 	contained 	no 	new 	f a c t s . 	Although 	it
s t a t e s 	that 	Jean 	Loucks, 	the 	Vice 	President 	of 	Academic 	Affairs
for 	the 	Respondent, 	suggested 	that 	you 	withdraw 	your 	grievance,
you 	indicated 	to me 	in 	our 	telephone 	conversation 	on 	March 	25,
1987, 	t h a t 	t h i s 	did 	not 	c o n t r a d i c t 	the 	facts 	as 	s t a t e d 	in 	my
previous 	l e t t e r 	of 	March 	19, 	1987, 	where 	I 	s t a t e d 	t h a t 	Loucks
did 	not 	ask 	you 	to 	withdraw 	the 	grievance.
------- 	------- ---

- -
LA-CE-2463
March 	26, 	1987
Page 	2
The 	first 	amended 	charge 	did 	contain 	the 	legal 	argument 	that
the 	District 	could 	show 	no 	operational 	necessity 	under 	the 	test
set 	forth 	in 	Carlsbad 	Unified 	School 	District 	(1979) 	PERB
Decision No. 	89. 	However, 	that case held 	that 	in order 	for 	the
charging party 	to 	show 	a 	prima 	facie 	case, 	it 	must 	first 	allege
conduct which 	amounts 	to 	at 	least 	slight 	harm 	to 	its 	rights
guaranteed 	by 	EERA. 	Since 	the 	District 	did 	not 	deprive 	the
Charging 	Party of 	his 	right 	to 	representation, 	no 	harm has 	been
alleged.
The 	first 	amended 	charge 	also 	contained 	the 	legal 	argument 	that
Walnut Valley Unified 	School 	District 	(1981) 	PERB 	Decision
No. 	160 does 	not 	allow the District 	to 	ignore provisions 	of 	the
Government 	Code 	and 	collective 	bargaining 	agreement. 	However,
the Government Code 	and 	the 	collective 	bargaining 	agreement 	in
this case 	allows, 	but does 	not 	require 	in every grievance
meeting, 	that a representative be present. 	Therefore, 	the 	fact
that 	the 	District 	discussed 	the 	grievance 	with 	the 	Charging
Party 	in 	the 	absence 	of 	a 	representative 	is 	not 	a 	violation 	of
EERA or 	the 	agreement.
It 	is 	also 	argued 	the 	District 	had 	no 	right 	to discuss 	the
grievance 	with 	the 	Charging 	Party 	once 	he 	designated 	a
representative 	on 	the 	grievance 	form. 	Since 	the 	Charging 	Party
did 	not object 	to 	the 	conversation 	with 	Loucks 	because 	his
representative 	was 	not 	present, 	the 	District 	did 	not 	deprive
Charging 	Party 	of 	the 	right 	to 	have 	his 	designated
representative 	present, 	and 	such presence 	was 	not 	mandatory.
There 	is 	further 	legal 	argument 	that 	the 	collective 	bargaining
agreement is 	an 	unconscionable 	contract 	as 	defined 	by
California Civil 	Code 	1670.5. 	PERB's 	jurisdiction 	is 	limited
to 	enforcing 	provisions 	of 	the 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations
Act 	and 	not 	other 	statutory 	provisions. 	Government 	Code
section 	3541.3(i); 	Bracey v. 	Los Angeles Unified 	School
District 	(1986) 	PERB Decision No. 	588.
Finally, 	it 	is 	argued 	that 	there 	are 	facts 	alleged 	to 	indicate
there 	is 	a collusive 	relationship 	between 	the 	District 	and 	the
exclusive 	representative 	which 	necessitates 	your 	being 	"given
the 	benefit 	of 	the 	doubt 	on 	all matters 	relating 	to my
charge." 	No 	authority 	is 	cited 	why 	any 	of 	these 	facts 	should
alter 	the 	manner 	in 	which 	the 	facts 	alleged 	are 	assessed 	in
terms 	of 	whether 	a prima 	facie 	case 	has 	been 	stated. 	The
Regional 	Attorney 	assumes 	that 	the 	facts 	as 	alleged 	are 	true

LA-CE-2463
March 26, 	1987
Page 3
for 	purposes 	of 	this 	analysis. 	I 	have 	concluded 	that 	the 	facts
as 	alleged 	do 	not 	state 	a 	prima 	facie 	case 	for 	the 	reasons
stated 	in my 	letter 	of March 	19, 	1987 	and 	I 	am aware 	of 	no
legal 	authority 	requiring 	that 	facts 	concerning 	a 	"sweetheart"
arrangement 	between 	the 	District 	and 	the 	exclusive
representative 	be 	considered 	relevant 	in 	determining 	whether
the 	elements 	of 	a prima 	facie 	case 	exist 	under 	the 	theories
alleged 	in 	this case. 	I 	am 	therefore 	dismissing 	the 	charge
based 	on 	the 	facts 	and 	reasons 	contained 	in my March 	19, 	1987
letter.
Right 	to 	Appeal
Pursuant 	to 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	regulations, 	you
may obtain 	a 	review 	of 	this 	dismissal 	of 	the 	charge 	by 	filing
an 	appeal 	to 	the 	Board 	itself 	within 	twenty 	(20) 	calendar 	days
after 	service 	of 	this 	dismissal 	(California Administrative
Code, 	title 	8, 	section 32635(a)). 	To be timely filed, 	the
original 	and 	five 	copies 	of 	such 	appeal must 	be 	actually
received 	by 	the 	Board 	itself 	before 	the 	close 	of 	business
(5:00 p . m . ) , 	or sent by telegraph, certified or Express United
States 	mail 	postmarked 	no 	later 	than 	the 	last 	date 	set 	for
filing. 	Code 	of 	Civil 	Procedure 	section 	1013 	shall 	apply.
(See 	section 	32135.) 	The Board's 	address 	is:
Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board
1031 	18th 	Street
Sacramento, 	CA 95814
If you 	file 	a 	timely 	appeal 	of 	the 	refusal 	to 	issue 	a
complaint, 	any 	other 	party 	may 	file 	with 	the Board 	an 	original
and 	five 	copies 	of 	a 	statement 	in 	opposition within 	twenty
calendar 	days 	following 	the 	date 	of 	service 	of 	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 	"proof 	of
service" 	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" 	when 	personally 	delivered 	or
deposited 	in 	the 	first-class 	mail 	postage 	paid 	and 	properly
addressed.

LA-CE-2463
March 26, 	1987
Page 4
Extension 	of 	Time
A 	request 	for 	an 	extension 	of 	time 	in which 	to 	file 	a 	document
with 	the 	Board 	itself 	must 	be 	in 	writing 	and 	filed 	with 	the
Board 	at 	the 	previously noted 	address. 	A 	request 	for 	an
extension 	must 	be 	filed 	at 	least 	three 	calendar 	days 	before 	the
expiration 	of 	the 	time 	required 	for 	filing 	the 	document. 	The
request must 	indicate good cause 	for 	and, 	if 	known, 	the
position 	of 	each 	other 	party 	regarding 	the 	extension, 	and 	shall
be 	accompanied 	by proof 	of 	service 	of 	the 	request 	upon 	each
party 	(section 	32132).
Final 	Date
If 	no appeal 	is 	filed 	within the 	specified 	time 	limits, 	the
dismissal 	will 	become 	final 	when 	the 	time 	limits 	have 	expired.
Sincerely,
JEFFREY 	SLOAN
General 	Counsel
By Donn 	Donn Ginoza
Regional 	Attorney
Attachment
cc: 	Mary Dowell

STATE Of CALIFORNIA 	GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
LOS ANGELES REGIONAL OFFICE
3470 WILSHIRE BLVD. SUITE 1001
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 	90010
(213) 736-3127
March 19, 1987
Robert R. Bradley
Re: 	LA-CE-2463, Robert R. Bradley v. Los Angeles Community
College 	District
Dear Mr. Bradley:
The above-referenced charge alleges that the Los Angeles
Community College 	District 	(District) 	interfered with 	the
Charging Party's 	right to representation 	in a grievance meeting
and attempted to bypass 	the exclusive 	representative 	in order
to obtain Charging Party's withdrawal of 	the grievance. 	It 	is
also alleged 	that 	the District 	failed 	to meet 	and negotiate 	in
good 	faith 	by directing 	the 	Charging Party to attend meetings
concerning a merger of 	the Business Administration Department
and the Office Administration Department, 	which you contend
constituted 	an unlawful unilateral change 	in 	terms 	and
conditions of employment. 	This conduct 	is alleged 	to violate
Government Code sections 3543.5(a), 	(b) 	and 	(c) 	of the
Educational Employment Relations Act 	(EERA). 	By your letter
dated March 3f 	1987, you withdrew without prejudice 	the
allegation 	concerning 	the merger.
My investigation revealed the following facts. 	Robert R.
Bradley 	is employed as a professor 	in 	the Business
Administration Department at 	the Pierce College campus of 	the
Los Angeles Community College District. 	He 	is also chairperson
of his department. 	On November 4, 	1986, Bradley filed a
grievance 	against 	the 	District alleging 	that 	the 	District was
impermissibly withholding 	information pertinent 	to 	the merger
of the two departments. 	He also alleged that the District was
depriving him of his contractual 	right as 	the 	chairperson 	to
represent his 	department during 	discussions concerning 	the
merger. 	Specifically, 	he cited a 	letter dated October 22, 	1986
from the Vice 	President of Academic Affairs 	at 	the 	Pierce
College campus, Jean Loucks, 	stating that he was to recommend
three 	faculty members, 	excluding 	himself, 	to participate 	in 	the
meetings to discuss 	the merger.
Bradley obtained the grievance 	form for 	Step One of the
grievance process 	from 	the offices of 	the 	exclusive
representative, 	American 	Federation of Teachers, 	College Guild,
...-- ... ;,-..
	. ;" ',
	,.., .. 	_.,..,,,

March 19, 	1987
Page 	2
Local 	1521, 	CFT/AFT, 	AFL/CIO. 	There 	is a place on the 	form 	to
indicate 	the grievant's 	representative. 	In this place, 	Bradley
listed 	three 	names, 	including 	Eloise Crippens, 	Kay Dunagan 	and
Hal Fox. 	Although 	he did 	not 	indicate 	the 	name 	of 	the 	employee
organization, 	he 	assumes 	that 	the 	District 	knew 	that 	these
persons were officials 	in 	the 	union. 	Crippens 	is a campus
representative 	responsible 	for 	processing 	grievances. 	Kay
Dunagan 	is 	a district 	representative 	for 	the union. 	Hal 	Fox 	is
the president 	of 	the 	union.
On November 	12, 	1986, 	Jean Loucks 	telephoned Bradley 	to discuss
the grievance 	he 	had 	filed. 	Loucks 	stated 	that 	the 	October 	22
letter 	she 	had 	written 	was 	not 	intended 	to 	indicate 	that
Bradley would 	be 	excluded 	from 	the 	merger meetings, 	rather 	that
he 	should 	indicate 	three 	faculty members 	in 	addition 	to 	himself
to participate.
Bradley 	suspects 	that 	Loucks 	was 	employing 	a gambit 	to 	obtain
his withdrawal 	of 	the grievance. 	She 	did 	not ask 	him 	to
withdraw 	the 	grievance, 	but concluded 	the 	conversation 	by
saying 	that 	she 	assumed 	that her 	explanation of 	the 	letter
would 	resolve 	the grievance. 	She 	is 	alleged 	to have 	said, 	"If
I 	don't hear 	from you, 	I will 	assume 	that 	the grievance 	is
resolved." 	Loucks did 	not 	offer 	to 	discuss 	the 	allegation 	in
the 	grievance 	concerning 	the 	withholding 	of 	information
pertinent 	to 	the 	merger 	from the 	faculty 	-- 	a 	point 	of 	some
significance 	in Bradley's 	view 	in 	relation 	to his 	theory 	of 	the
attempt 	to 	bypass 	the 	exclusive 	representative. 	Bradley 	did
not 	object 	to Loucks 	talking 	to 	him about 	the grievance 	in 	the
absence of his 	representative. 	Bradley 	later 	sent 	a 	letter
asserting 	that 	the 	grievance was 	not 	resolved. 	He 	did 	not
object 	in 	this 	letter 	to 	his 	not 	having 	representation 	during
the 	conversation.
The 	collective 	bargaining 	agreement 	between 	the 	District 	and
the exclusive 	representative 	states 	at Article 	28, 	section B.1,
in pertinent part:
The 	grievant 	may 	elect 	to 	be 	represented 	by
the AFT 	at 	Step One 	or 	Two 	of 	the 	Grievance
Procedure 	or 	may 	have 	the 	grievance 	adjusted
without 	the 	intervention 	of 	the 	AFT so 	long
as 	the 	adjustment 	is 	not 	inconsistent 	with
the terms of this Agreement 	. 	. 	. 	The
grievant 	and/or 	the grievant's
representative 	may 	be 	present 	at 	all
meetings. 	The 	representative 	as defined 	in
this 	Article 	may present 	the 	case 	for 	the
grievant 	or 	respondent 	or 	serve 	as 	an
advisor.

LA-CE-2463
March 	19, 	1987
Page 	3
The 	agreement 	also 	requires 	that 	a 	conference 	be 	held 	with 	the
grievant 	at 	Step One 	following 	the 	submission of 	the 	grievance
in writing. 	It 	states 	in pertinent part:
The 	administrator 	or 	designee 	shall 	hold 	a
conference 	with 	the 	grievant 	within 	five 	(5)
working 	days 	after 	receipt 	of 	the grievance.
Based 	on 	the 	facts 	stated 	above, 	the 	allegation 	that 	the
District 	interfered 	with 	Charging 	Party's 	right 	to 	be
represented 	during 	the processing 	of 	a 	grievance 	fails 	to
state 	a prima 	facie 	case 	for 	the 	reasons 	that 	follow.
Carlsbad 	Unified 	School District 	(1979) 	PERB Decision No. 	89
held 	that 	a prima 	facie 	case 	for 	interference 	with 	employee
rights 	guaranteed 	by 	EERA 	requires 	that 	the 	Charging 	Party
establish that 	the 	employer's 	conduct 	tends 	to 	or 	does 	result
in 	some 	harm to 	the 	employee's 	rights. 	The Board 	stated:
Where 	the 	harm to 	the 	employees 	rights 	is
slight 	and 	the 	employer 	offers 	justification
based 	on 	operational 	necessity 	the 	competing
rights 	of 	the 	employer 	and 	the 	rights 	of 	the
employees will be balanced and 	the charge 	''
resolved accordingly. 	Id., 	at p. 	10.
In 	this case, 	it does 	not appear 	that 	any harm has 	resulted
from the 	District 	discussing 	the 	grievance 	with 	the 	Charging
Party over 	the 	telephone without 	the presence of 	a
representative. 	There 	has 	been 	no 	showing 	that 	the 	Charging
Party 	demanded 	to 	have 	the 	representative 	present 	before 	any
further 	discussions 	transpired. 	No 	showing 	has 	been made 	that
the 	District 	persisted 	in 	discussing 	the 	grievance 	with 	the
Charging 	Party 	over 	his objection, 	or 	that the District
coerced 	the 	Charging 	Party 	to withdraw 	the 	grievance. 	In
fact, 	the 	Charging 	Party 	did 	not 	withdraw 	the 	grievance 	and
lost 	no 	rights 	concerning 	the grievance 	by 	the 	absence 	of 	a
representative.
The 	Charging 	Party 	claims 	that 	the 	mere 	fact 	that 	the 	District
designee 	telephoned 	him 	once 	he 	had 	designated 	the 	union
constituted 	a 	violation. 	The 	contract 	does 	not 	require 	that
the 	District 	meet 	with 	the 	grievant 	and 	the 	representative 	at
the 	Step 	One 	conference. 	The 	Charging 	Party may 	elect 	to 	have
the 	representative 	present, 	but may 	also 	elect 	not 	to 	have 	the
representative present. 	If 	a grievant 	lists 	the 	union 	as 	the
representative 	on 	the grievance, 	nothing 	in 	the 	contract
denies 	him 	the 	right 	later 	to 	proceed 	without 	the
representative. 	Therefore 	the Charging 	Party 	has 	failed 	to

LA-CE-2463
March 19, 	1987
Page 4
show 	any 	harm 	resulted 	from 	the 	conversation 	supporting 	his
allegation 	of 	interference.
The 	Charging 	Party 	also 	claims 	that 	the 	language 	at 	EERA
section 	3543, 	stating 	"once 	the employees 	in an appropriate
unit 	have 	selected 	an 	exclusive 	representative 	and 	it 	has 	been
recognized 	. . . 	no 	employee 	in 	that 	unit 	may 	meet 	and
negotiate 	with 	the 	public 	school 	employer," 	requires 	that 	the
employer 	deal 	only with 	the 	representative. 	There 	is 	no merit
to 	this 	contention 	since 	the 	same 	statute 	provides 	that 	any
employee 	may 	"at 	any 	time 	present 	grievances 	to 	his 	employer,
and have 	such grievances 	adjusted, 	without 	the 	intervention 	of
the 	exclusive 	representative." 	The 	latter 	provision 	relates
to grievance 	processing, 	while 	the 	former 	pertains 	to 	the
process 	of collective 	bargaining. 	Similarly, 	the 	Charging
Party's 	claim 	that 	failing 	to 	deal 	with 	the 	exclusive
representative 	violates 	EERA section 	3543.5(c) 	is 	without
merit 	because 	that 	section concerns 	illegal 	conduct 	within 	the
context of 	the collective 	bargaining 	process. 	It 	only 	applies
to 	the 	extent 	that 	the 	alleged conduct 	involves 	bypassing, 	as
discussed 	below.
The 	Charging 	Party 	also 	contends 	that 	by 	discussing 	the
grievance 	with 	him, 	the 	District 	bypassed 	the 	exclusive
representative. 	In Walnut Valley 	Unified 	School 	District
(1981) 	PERB Decision No. 	160, 	the Board 	stated that to prove
that 	the 	District 	has 	unlawfully 	bypassed 	the 	exclusive
representative 	by 	"negotiating" 	directly 	with 	the 	employees
"it must 	be 	demonstrated 	that 	the 	District 	sought 	either 	to
create a new 	. 	. 	. 	policy of general application or 	to obtain
a 	waiver 	or 	modification 	of 	an 	existing 	policy 	applicable 	to
those 	employees." 	There 	are 	no 	facts 	alleged 	to 	suggest 	that
the 	District 	was 	attempting 	to create 	a 	new policy 	of 	general
application 	concerning 	the processing 	of 	grievances. 	The 	only
possible 	theory 	is 	that 	the District was 	seeking 	to 	obtain 	a
waiver 	of 	an 	existing 	policy. 	However, 	the 	District 	never
requested 	that 	the 	Charging 	Party 	waive 	his 	right 	to
representation. 	Since 	representation 	at 	Step One 	of 	the
grievance procedure 	is 	not 	obligatory, 	the 	District 	was 	not
necessarily 	attempting 	to 	obtain 	a 	waiver 	of 	a mandatory 	right,
For 	these 	reasons, 	the 	charge 	as presently 	written does 	not
state 	a prima 	facie 	case. 	If you 	feel 	that 	there 	are 	any
factual 	inaccuracies 	in 	this 	letter 	or 	any 	additional 	facts
which would 	correct 	the 	deficiencies 	explained 	above, 	please
amend 	the 	charge 	accordingly. 	The 	amended 	charge 	should 	be
prepared 	on 	a 	standard 	PERB 	unfair 	practice 	charge 	form

LA-CE-2463
March 	19, 	1987
Page 5
clearly 	labeled 	First 	Amended 	Charge, 	contain 	all 	the 	facts
and 	allegations you wish 	to 	make, 	and 	be 	signed 	under 	penalty
of 	perjury 	by 	the 	Charging 	Party. 	The 	amended 	charge 	must 	be
served 	on 	the 	Respondent 	and 	the 	original proof 	of 	service
must 	be 	filed 	with 	PERB. 	If 	I 	do not 	receive 	an amended
charge or withdrawal from you before March 26, 	1987, 	I 	shall
dismiss your 	charge. 	If 	you 	have 	any questions 	on 	how to
proceed, 	please call me at 	(213) 	736-3127.
Sincerely,
Donn Ginoza
Regional 	Attorney