Tustin Unified School District (PERB 0626E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
______)
TUSTIN UNIFIED 	SCHOOL 	DISTRICT,
Charging 	Party,
v.
TUSTIN EDUCATORS ASSOCIATION,
CTA/NEA,
Respondent.
Case 	No. 	LA-CO-377
PERB 	Decision 	No. 	626
June 	23, 	1987
Appearances; 	Parker 	and 	Covert 	by Margaret 	A. 	Chidester 	for
Tustin Unified School 	District; 	Rosalind D. 	Wolf, 	Attorney, 	for
Tustin 	Educators Association, 	CTA/NEA.
Before Hesse, 	Chairperson; 	Porter, 	Craib, 	and Shank, 	Members.
DECISION
This 	case 	is 	before 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board
(Board) 	on 	appeal 	by charging party 	of 	the 	Board 	agent's
dismissal, 	attached hereto, 	of 	its 	charge 	alleging 	that 	the
Tustin 	Educators 	Association 	violated 	section 	3543.6(a) 	and 	(b)
of 	the 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations Act 	(EERA).
We have 	reviewed 	the 	dismissal 	and, 	finding 	it 	free 	from
prejudicial 	error, 	adopt 	it as 	the 	Decision 	of 	the Board 	itself,
insofar 	as 	the Board 	agent 	concludes 	that 	the 	allegations 	in 	the
instant 	charge 	fail 	to 	state 	a prima 	facie 	violation 	of 	EERA.
Finally, 	we 	deny charging party's 	request 	for 	oral 	argument.
ORDER
The 	dismissal 	of 	the 	unfair 	practice 	charge 	in 	Case 	No.
LA-CO-377 	is hereby AFFIRMED.
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
January 26, 	1987
Margaret A. 	Chidester
Parker and Covert
1901 E. 	Fourth Street, Suite 312
Santa Ana, 	California 	9 2705
Re: 	Tustin Unified School District v. 	Tustin Educator's
Association/CTA/NEA, 	Case No. 	LA-CO-0377
Dear Ms. 	Chidester:
In the above-referenced charge filed on September 23, 	1986, 	the
Tustin 	Unified School District alleges 	that 	the 	Tustin
Educator's Association/CTA/NEA committed an unfair 	practice 	by
utilizing 	the 	school mailboxes 	and mail 	system on several
occasions 	to circulate 	flyers 	and other 	communications
soliciting 	support 	for a 	recall 	campaign of 	three members of
the 	District's Board 	of Education. 	This 	conduct 	is 	alleged 	to
violate 	section 3543.6(a) 	and 	(b) 	of 	the Educational 	Employment
Relations 	Act.
I indicated to you 	in my attached letter dated January 16, 	1987
that 	the 	above-referenced 	charge did not state a prima 	facie
case. 	You were advised 	that 	if 	there were any 	factual
inaccuracies or additional 	facts 	which would correct 	the
deficiencies explained 	in 	that 	letter, 	you 	should 	amend 	the
charge accordingly. 	You were 	further 	advised 	that unless you
amended the charge to state 	a prima 	facie case, 	or withdrew 	it
prior 	to January 23, 	1987, 	it would be dismissed.
On January 23, 1987, you stated to me in our telephone
conversation 	that you had no additional 	facts to add to the
charge and you had no additional legal arguments 	to offer 	as to
why a complaint should issue based on 	the 	facts presently
alleged. 	You also stated that the Charging Party had no
intention of withdrawing 	the charge. 	Therefore 	I am dismissing
the charge based on the facts and reasons contained in my
January 	16, 	1987 	letter.

LA-CO-0377
January 	26, 	1987
Pace 	2
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.
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).

LA-CO-0377
January 26, 	1987
Page 	3
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 GINOZA
Regional Att 	Attorney
Attachment
cc: 	Rosalind Wolf

STATE Of CALIFORNIA 	GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor,
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS 	BOARD
LOS ANGELES REGIONAL OFFICE
3470 WILSHIRE BLVD. , SUITE 1001
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 	90010
(213) 736-3)27
January 16, 	1987
Margaret A. 	Chidester
Parker and Covert
1901 E. 	Fourth Street, Suite 312
Santa Ana, 	California 	92705
Re: 	Tustin Unified 	School District v. 	Tustin Educators
Association /CTA/NEA, Case No. LA-CO-0377
Dear Ms. 	Chidester:
In 	the 	above-referenced charge filed on September 	23, 	1986, 	the
Tustin 	Unified 	School District 	("District") 	alleges 	that 	the
Tustin Educator's Association/CTA/NEA 	("TEA" 	or Association)
committed an unfair practice 	by utilizing 	the school mailboxes
and mail 	system on 	several occasions 	to circulate 	flyers 	and
other communications 	soliciting 	support 	for a 	recall campaign
of 	three members of the 	District's 	Board 	of Education. 	This
conduct 	is alleged 	to violate 	section 3543.6 (a) 	and 	(b) 	of 	the
Educational Employment Relations Act 	("EERA").
My 	investigation revealed the following facts. 	Beginning 	in
the 	spring of 1985 TEA, 	through 	i t s 	"Crisis Committee,"
distributed 	flyers 	to 	certificated 	employees 	soliciting 	release
time 	funds 	for 	its 	negotiators 	and designating 	that some 	of 	the
proceeds would support a campaign to elect new Board of
Education members more 	"sympathetic" to TEA. 	This distribution
utilized 	the District's 	internal mail 	system. 	The practice of
utilizing 	the 	internal mail 	system to 	s o l i c i t 	funds continued
on several occasions through 	the 	spring 	and summer of 1986, 	at
which 	time 	flyers 	indicated 	that monies 	contributed would 	be
used 	to support 	the 	recall of 	three members of 	the 	District's
Board.
TEA's 	"Crisis Committee" has chosen to call 	this campaign
"Adopt A Negotiator." 	In July 	1985 	the Crisis Committee, 	after
formally organizing 	a 	separate 	committee 	called 	"Committee 	to
Adopt a Negotiator," 	filed a "Statement of Organization" with
the Orange County Registrar of Voters. 	In July 	1986 	the
"Committee to Adopt a Negotiator" 	filed a 	"Recipient Committee
Campaign Statement" with the Registrar. 	TEA appears on these
documents as 	an affiliated organization 	through 	the 	listing of
its own name or 	that of the 	"Committee 	to Adopt a Negotiator."

LA-CO-0377
January 	16, 	1987
Pace 	2
The 	mail 	system 	for 	the 	District 	consists 	of 	mailboxes 	for 	the
individual 	teachers 	located 	at each of 	the 	schools. 	There 	is
also 	a 	central 	mail 	drop 	in 	the 	District 	office 	where 	mail
addressed 	to 	teachers 	at 	the 	schools 	is 	sorted 	for 	delivery.
After 	the 	mail 	is 	sorted 	and 	delivered 	to 	the 	designated
schools, 	a clerk 	at 	each 	school distributes 	the mail 	to the
individual 	teacher 	mailboxes. 	In 	some cases the 	campaign
flyers were deposited at 	the central mail drop and 	in 	at 	least
one 	instance 	the 	flyers 	were 	placed 	directly 	into 	the
individual 	mailboxes.
TEA 	and 	the 	District 	are 	parties 	to 	a 	collective 	bargaining
agreement which currently 	extends 	to June 	30, 	1988. 	The
agreement 	grants 	access 	rights 	to 	the 	Association 	to 	use 	the
internal mail 	system of 	the District. 	Article 	14, 	section F
states:
The 	Association 	shall 	have 	reasonable 	use 	of
the 	local 	site 	mailboxes 	to distribute
organizational 	material 	which conforms 	to
the 	content 	restrictions 	in Section G.
Article 	14, 	section G provides:
Any 	literature 	to 	be 	distributed 	or 	posted
must 	be 	dated 	and 	must 	identify 	the 	person
and 	organization 	responsible 	for 	its
promulgation. 	The 	Association mad/or 	its
representative 	may 	use 	the District
mailboxes 	to communicate 	with 	bargaining
unit members. 	The 	District 	shall 	allow
reasonable 	use 	of 	the 	delivery 	system of 	the
District 	for 	Association 	business.
Article 	12 	of 	the 	contract 	provides 	a procedure 	for 	the
resolution of 	grievances which ends 	in 	binding 	arbitration. 	A
"grievant" 	must 	be 	a member 	of 	the 	bargaining 	unit.
(Article 	12, 	section B(l).)
According 	to 	the 	Charging 	Party, 	Respondent's 	"Crisis
Committee" 	utilized 	the 	school mail 	system on April 	16,
April 	21, 	May 	14, 	and June 	17, 	1986 to 	solicit 	support 	for 	the
recall 	of 	three 	members 	of 	the 	District's 	Board 	of 	Education.
Charginq 	Party 	alleges 	that 	these 	mailings 	violated 	Education
Code 	section 	7054, 	which 	reads 	as 	follows:

LA-CO-0377
January 	16, 	1987
Pace 	3
Use 	of 	District 	Property. 	Except 	as
provided 	in Sections 	7056, 	35174, 	and 	72632,
no 	school 	district 	or 	community 	college
district funds, 	services, 	supplies, 	or
equipment 	shall 	be 	used 	for 	the 	purpose 	of
urging 	the 	passage 	or 	defeat 	of 	any 	school
measure of 	the 	district, 	including, 	but 	not
limited 	to, 	the 	candidacy 	of 	any 	person 	for
election 	to 	the 	governing 	board 	of 	the
district.
Government Code 	section 	3543.6 provides, 	in pertinent 	part, 	as
follows:
It 	shall 	be 	unlawful 	for 	an 	employee
organization 	to:
(a) 	Cause 	or 	attempt 	to cause 	a public
school 	employer 	to 	violate 	Section 	3543.5.
(b) 	Impose 	or 	threaten 	to 	impose 	reprisals
on employees, 	to discriminate 	or 	threaten 	to
discriminate 	against 	employees, 	or 	otherwise
to 	interfere with, 	restrain, 	or coerce
employees 	because 	of 	their 	exercise of
rights guaranteed 	by 	this chapter.
In our 	telephone conversation on November 	14, 	1986 you
explained 	how the 	use 	of 	the 	District's 	mail 	system 	to
distribute 	recall 	campaign 	literature 	violated 	the
above-mentioned 	subsections 	of 	the 	statute. 	In 	regard 	to 	the
(a) 	charge, 	you 	stated that TEA'S 	use of 	the mail 	system 	to
circulate 	political 	literature placed 	the 	District 	in 	a
position 	of 	potential 	liability 	for 	violating 	Education 	Code
section 	7054. 	In 	turn, 	you 	asserted 	that 	the District has 	only
one 	option 	for preventing 	the 	unlawful 	use, 	namely, 	to 	employ
censorship. 	Such 	action, 	you argued, 	would 	interfere 	with
TEA'S 	access 	rights 	as mandated 	by 	Regents 	of 	the 	University 	of
California v. 	PERB 	(1986) 	139 Cal.App.3d 	1037.
As 	to 	the 	(b) 	charge, 	you 	argued 	that TEA was 	abusing 	its 	right
to communicate with members. 	Citing 	the 	Regents case, 	you
asserted 	that 	PERB 	has 	jurisdiction 	to 	determine 	if 	the 	type 	of
communication 	involved 	here 	was 	a 	lawful 	exercise 	of 	its 	rights
under 	EERA.
For 	the 	following 	reasons, 	the charge 	as 	filed 	fails 	to 	state 	a
prima 	facie 	case 	for 	violations 	of 	either 	subsection 	3543.6(a)
or -3543.6(b) .

LA-CO-0377
January 	16, 	1987
Page 	4
Alleged 	Violation 	of 	Section 	3543.6(a)
In order 	for 	the 	charge 	to 	state 	a 	violation 	of 	section
3543.6(a) 	it must 	be clear 	how 	and 	in what 	manner 	the
Respondent 	has 	caused 	or 	attempted 	to 	cause 	the 	District 	to
violate 	section 	3543.5. 	The 	investigation 	indicates 	that 	TEA'S
only 	action 	to date 	has 	been 	use 	of 	the mail 	system 	to
circulate 	political 	literature. 	The 	District 	has 	not censored
or 	otherwise 	attempted 	to 	stop 	the 	circulation of 	the 	flyers.
Nor 	has 	it 	demanded 	that 	TEA cease 	using 	the 	mail 	system 	for
the 	flyers. 	Since 	the District 	has 	taken 	no 	action against 	the
flyers 	as yet, 	it cannot 	have 	been 	"caused" 	to commit 	any 	act
violating 	section 	3543.5. 	Thus, 	at 	best, 	the charge presents
the 	theory 	that 	TEA 	"attempted 	to 	cause" 	the 	District 	to
violate 	section 	3543.5.
To 	succeed 	under 	this 	theory, 	the 	District 	must 	6how 	that
distribution 	of 	the 	flyers 	was 	an 	attempt 	by 	the 	TEA 	to 	cause
it 	to 	violate 	section 	3543.5 	of 	the 	EERA. 	The 	District 	has
failed 	to 	identify 	which 	specific 	subsections of 	section 	3543.5
TEA attempted 	to cause 	the 	District 	to violate. 	However, 	the
charge 	conceivably contends 	that 	TEA 	attempted 	to 	cause 	the
District 	to 	interfere 	with 	TEA'S 	access 	rights 	by 	censoring 	or
refusing 	to 	send 	TEA'S nail, 	thereby 	violating 	the
Association's 	access 	rights 	(section 	3543.5(b)) 	and
derivatively 	interfering 	with 	employees' 	exercise 	of 	rights
guaranteed 	by 	EERA 	(section 	3543.5(a)).
To 	demonstrate 	that 	TEA attempted 	to cause 	the 	District 	to
violate EERA 	section 	3543.5(b), 	the 	District must 	show 	that 	its
only 	response 	to circulation 	of 	the 	political 	leaflets 	was 	to
den	- 	y 	the Association 	access 	to 	the 	mail system. 	The 	District
has 	failed 	to meet 	this 	obligation.
The 	District 	may 	have 	the 	option 	of 	refusing 	to circulate
material 	that contravenes 	the Education Code. 	Assuming 	that
distribution 	of 	the 	recall 	campaign 	literature 	violated 	section
7054, 	District 	restraint 	on 	the content 	of 	employee
organization communications 	is 	permissible 	under 	EERA 	if
narrowly 	drawn" 	to prohibit 	only 	material 	which presents 	a
substantial 	threat 	to peaceful 	school 	operations. 	Richmond
Unified School Dist. 	(1979) 	PERB Decision No. 	99. 	Stated
differently, 	"accommodation 	to 	valid 	employer 	concerns" 	is
appropriate 	so long as 	the 	"rules 	are 	narrowly drawn 	to 	avoid
overbroad, 	unnecessary 	interference 	with 	the 	exercise 	of
statutory 	rights." 	Regents 	of 	the 	University of 	California,
Lawrence 	Livermore 	Laboratory 	(1982) 	PERB 	Decision No. 	212-H,
at p. 	13-14. 	It 	would 	appear 	that 	both parties 	recognized 	the
possibility 	of 	the 	District 	regulating 	content 	by 	virtue 	of 	the

LA-CO-0377
January 	16, 	1987
Pace 5
language in 	the 	contract 	limiting 	access 	to 	the 	mail 	system 	to
"reasonable use 	. 	. 	. 	for Association business." 	(Article 	14,
section 	G.)
In 	addition 	to 	the 	District 	objecting 	to 	the 	leaflets 	and
seeking 	to 	implement 	a 	reasonable, 	and 	therefore 	valid, 	policy
to 	accommodate 	its 	concerns, 	the 	District 	may 	have 	at 	least 	two
other 	options 	that 	would 	not 	cause 	it 	to 	violate 	Association
access 	rights. 	First, 	distribution 	of 	the 	leaflets may 	be
permitted 	by 	section 	7054. 	Second, 	the 	District could 	file 	a
civil 	action 	for 	declaratory 	relief 	seeking 	a 	judicial 	order 	to
enjoin 	the 	Association's 	use 	of 	the 	mail 	system. 	With all
these 	possibilities, 	the 	District 	has 	failed 	to 	show 	that 	its
only 	option 	is 	to 	violate 	the 	EERA 	and 	thus 	has 	failed 	to
demonstrate 	that 	TEA was 	attempting 	to 	cause 	the 	District 	to
interfere 	with 	its 	access 	rights 	under 	EERA.1
It 	is 	also 	conceivable 	that 	the Association was 	attempting 	to
cause 	the 	District 	to 	unilaterally 	implement 	a 	new access
policy 	in violation of 	subsection 	(c) 	of 	3543.5. 	If 	the
District 	decided 	to 	harmonize 	its 	access 	policy 	with 	the
requirements 	of 	the Education Code, 	there 	are 	no 	facts 	alleged
to 	indicate 	that 	the 	District 	could 	not 	negotiate 	with 	the 	TEA
over 	such a change. 	In San Mateo City School Dist, 	v. 	PERB
(1983) 	33 Cal.3d 	850, 	866, 	the Court 	stated: 	"PERB 	[does]
• H o w 	negotiations 	which 	might 	culminate 	in 	the 	inclusion 	of
the 	terms 	established 	by 	the 	Education 	Code 	within 	a
collectively 	negotiated 	contract. 	Such 	an 	agreement 	would 	not
supersede 	the 	relevant part 	of 	the 	Education Code, 	but 	would
strengthen 	it." 	Id.
The mandate 	of 	section 	7054 	may 	even 	be 	outside 	the 	scope 	of
representation 	to 	the 	extent 	it 	can 	be 	said 	that 	"the 	statutory
language [of 	the 	Education 	Code] 	clearly 	evidences 	an 	intent 	to
set 	an 	inflexible 	standard 	or 	insure 	immutable 	provisions."
Id., 	at p. 	864-865 	(quoting 	Board 	member 	Moore 	in California
School Employees Assn. 	v. 	Healdsburg Union High Sen. 	Dist.
1 The 	thrust 	of 	this 	charge 	is 	that 	the 	District 	seeks 	an
advisory 	opinion 	from 	PERB 	as 	to whether 	it 	could 	restrict
access 	based 	on 	section 	7054. 	Even 	if 	the case 	were 	ripe 	for
resolution 	by 	virtue 	of 	the 	District 	taking 	some 	action 	to
create 	the 	existence 	of 	a controversy, 	the 	dispute 	would
essentially 	be 	a 	contract 	matter 	which 	would 	be 	more 	properly
adjudicated 	through 	the 	grievance 	procedure.

LA-CO-0377
January 	16, 	1987
Page 	6
(1980) 	PERB Decision No. 	132). 	In 	that case the District's
implementation of 	a 	new policy 	would 	not 	violate 	section
3543.5(c). 	Therefore, 	the Charging 	Party 	has not 	established
that 	the 	TEA attempted 	to 	cause 	it 	to 	make 	a 	unilateral change
in 	violation of 	EERA section 	3543.5(c).
This 	investigation 	has 	revealed 	no 	additional 	theories 	by 	which
it 	could 	be 	argued 	that 	TEA caused 	or 	attempted 	to 	cause 	the
District 	to violate 	section 	3543.5.
Alleged 	Violation 	of 	3543.6(b)
Based 	on Regents 	of University 	of 	California v. 	PERB, 	supra,
the 	District's 	theory 	here 	is 	that 	because 	PERB 	has 	enforced
employee 	organization 	access 	rights 	it 	should 	exercise 	its
jurisdiction 	in this case. 	It contends that 	PERB 	should
determine 	whether 	TEA has 	abused 	its 	access 	rights 	by
distributing 	mail 	allegedly 	in 	violation 	of 	Education 	Code
section 	7054. 	This 	argument 	is 	fallacious for 	at 	least 	two
reasons.
First, 	the Regents case 	was 	based 	on 	the 	employer's 	violation
of 	access 	rights provided 	by 	the 	statute 	to employee
organizations. 	There 	is 	nothing 	in 	the 	wording 	of 	subsection
3543.6(b) 	indicating 	that 	it 	is 	intended 	to 	require 	PERB 	to
police 	an 	organization's 	use 	of 	its 	own access 	rights.
Second, 	the 	fact 	that 	PERB may consider 	non-EERA 	statutes 	or
regulations 	does 	not 	grant 	PERB 	the 	authority 	to 	remedy
possible 	violations of 	those 	statutes. 	In the Regents case,
the 	court 	held 	that 	PERB could decide 	the 	reasonableness 	of 	the
employer's 	regulation by 	determining 	whether, 	as 	a 	threshold
matter, 	the 	regulation and 	the 	federal 	postal 	laws 	could 	be
harmonized, 	without deciding 	the 	scope 	of 	the 	latter 	laws. 	In
contrast, 	here 	the 	Charging 	Party 	seeks 	to 	have 	PERB 	directly
enforce 	a 	provision of 	the 	Education Code. 	PERB's 	jurisdiction
is 	limited 	to 	enforcing 	violations 	of 	EERA 	and 	does 	not 	extend
to 	remedying 	violations 	of 	the Education Code. 	Bracey 	v.
Los Angeles Unified School Dist. 	(1986) 	PERB Decision No. 	588;
Mountain View School Dist. 	(1977) 	PERB Decision No. 	17.
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

LA-CO-0377
January 	16, 	1987
Pace 	7
prepared 	on 	a 	standard 	PERB 	unfair 	practice 	charge 	form 	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 	*n anended charge 	or
withdrawal from you before January 	23, 	1987, 	I 	shall dismiss
your 	charge. 	If you 	have 	any questions 	on how to proceed,
please call me at 	(213) 	736-3127.
Sincerely,,
Regional 	Attorney