California State University (Wang) (PERB 0813H)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
CHENG T. 	WANG,
Charging 	Party,
v.
CALIFORNIA 	STATE 	UNIVERSITY,
Respondent.
Case No. 	LA-CE-255-H
PERB Decision No. 	813-H
June 13, 	1990
Appearances; 	Cheng T. 	Wang, 	on his own behalf; 	William B.
Haughton, 	Attorney, 	for California State University.
Before Hesse, 	Chairperson; 	Craib and Camilli, 	Members.
DECISION AND 	ORDER
CAMILLI, 	Member: 	This 	case is before the Public Employment
Relations 	Board 	(Board) 	on appeal by Cheng T. 	Wang of a Board
agent's 	dismissal 	(attached hereto) 	of his 	charge that the
California State University violated sections 	3571, 	3572, 	and
3561(b) 	of 	the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act
(HEERA)1 and Education Code 	section 89542.5. 	We have reviewed
the dismissal 	and, 	finding it to be 	free of prejudicial 	error,
adopt 	it as 	the decision of 	the Board 	itself, 	insofar as 	it 	finds
the 	charge 	to be untimely 	filed.
The unfair practice charge 	in Case No. 	LA-CE-255-H 	is 	hereby
DISMISSED WITHOUT 	LEAVE 	TO AMEND.
Chairperson Hesse 	and Member Craib 	joined 	in this 	Decision.
1HEERA 	is 	codified at Government Code 	section 	3560 	et 	seq.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
______________ )

STATE Of CALIFORNIA 	GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Headquarters Office
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 	95814-4174
(916) 322-3088
Office 	of the General Counsel
(916)323-8015
A p r i l 	30, 	1990
Dr. 	Cheng T. 	Wang, 	Ph.D.
Device 	Research 	Institute
3848 Carson Street, 	Ste. 	109
Torrance, 	CA 90503
Re: 	Cheng T. 	Wang v. 	California State University
Unfair Practice Charge No. 	LA-CE-255-H
DISMISSAL 	OF 	UNFAIR PRACTICE 	CHARGE 	AND 	REFUSAL 	TO 	ISSUE
COMPLAINT
Dear Dr. 	Wang:
The 	above-referenced 	charge 	was 	filed with 	the 	Public 	Employment
Relations 	Board 	(PERB) 	Los Angeles 	Regional Office on May 	3, 	1989
and 	served 	as 	the basis 	of your request 	for 	injunctive 	relief;
that 	request, 	entitled Cheng T. 	Wang v. 	California State
University 	(1989), 	Case No. 	IR No. 	295, was denied with prejudice
to renewal 	on May 	18, 	1989.
As 	I 	indicated to you 	in my attached letter dated March 	23, 	1990,
the 	above-referenced 	charge 	did 	not 	state 	a prima 	facie 	case.
You were 	advised 	that 	if 	there were 	any 	factual 	inaccuracies 	or
additional 	facts 	that 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 March 30, 	1990,
the 	charge would 	be dismissed.
I 	have 	not 	received 	either 	a 	request 	for withdrawal 	or 	an amended
charge. 	Your March 26, 	1990 	letter 	specifically disavowed your
intent 	to 	amend 	or withdraw the 	charge. 	Your March 	26 	letter
offered 	certain 	"corrections" 	to 	the 	findings 	of 	fact which did
not 	alter the 	substantive 	legal 	conclusions 	regarding the 	HEERA
statute of 	limitations, 	standing and HEERA section 3572.5. 	I 	am
therefore 	dismissing 	the 	charge based on the 	facts 	and 	reasons
contained 	in my March 23, 	1990 	letter without 	leave to amend.
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

Dr. Cheng T. Wang, Ph.D.
April 30, 1990
Page 2
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 	(California
Administrative Code, 	title 8, 	section 32135). 	Code of Civil
Procedure 	section 	1013 	shall 	apply. 	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 	(California
Administrative Code, 	title 8, 	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 California Administrative Code,
title 	8, 	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 	(California
Administrative Code, 	title 8, 	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.
Very 	truly 	yours,
Christine A. 	Bologna
General 	Counsel
Attachment
cc: 	William Haughton, 	Esq.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	GEORGE 	DEUKMEJIAN,
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS BOARD
Headquarters Office
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, 	CA 	95814-4174
(916) 	322-3198
Office 	of 	the 	General 	Counsel
916/323-8015
March 23, 	1990
Dr. 	Cheng T. 	Wang, 	Ph.D.
Device 	Research 	Institute
3848 Carson Street, 	Ste. 	109
Torrance, 	CA 90503
Re: 	Cheng T. 	Wang v. 	California 	State 	University
Unfair 	Practice 	Charge No. 	LA-CE-255-H
Dear Dr. 	Wang:
The 	above-referenced 	charge 	was 	filed 	with 	the 	Public 	Employment
Relations 	Board 	(PERB) 	Los Angeles 	Regional 	Office 	on May 	3,
1989, 	and 	served 	as 	the basis 	of 	your request 	for 	injunctive
relief.1
The 	charge 	alleges 	that 	you were denied 	your 	right 	to 	a 	faculty
committee 	hearing 	in 	disciplinary 	and 	grievance 	proceedings 	to
contest 	your 	termination, 	an 	entitlement 	conferred 	by 	Education
Code 	section 	89542.5, 	due 	to 	the 	bad 	faith 	collective 	bargaining
conduct 	of 	respondent California 	State 	University 	(CSU). 	The
charge 	further 	alleges 	that 	CSU's 	conduct 	violated 	the 	Higher
Education Employer-Employee Relations Act 	(HEERA), 	specifically
sections 	3571, 	3572 	and 	3561(b). 	Finally, 	the charge alleges 	a
violation of 	Education Code 	section 	89542.5.
My 	investigation 	has 	revealed 	the 	following 	facts.
In 	1987, 	Dr. 	Cheng T. 	Wang 	(Dr. 	Wang) was employed as an
Associate 	Professor 	of 	Chemical 	Engineering 	at 	the 	Long 	Beach
campus 	of 	the CSU. 	Respondent CSU and 	the California 	Faculty
Association 	(CFA) 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	of 	CSU 	faculty
employees, 	such as 	Dr. 	Wang, 	assigned to CSU bargaining unit 	3,
are parties 	to a 	collective bargaining 	agreement 	(CBA) 	effective
1 That request, 	entitled Cheng T. 	Wang v. 	California 	State
University 	(IR No. 	295) 	was denied with prejudice 	to renewal 	on
May 18, 1989.

Dr. 	Cheng T. 	Wang, 	Ph.D.
March 	23, 	1990
Page 	2
July 	1, 	1987 	through June 	30, 	1991. 	This 	agreement 	is 	a
successor 	to 	the 	1983-1986 	CBA.2
In January 	1987, 	Dr. 	Cheng T. 	Wang 	(Dr. 	Wang) 	was 	scheduled to
meet 	with 	CSU 	Vice 	President 	of 	Faculty 	and 	Staff 	Relations 	June
Cooper 	(V.P. 	Cooper). 	Dr. 	Wang asked about the purpose of the
meeting 	and V.P. 	Cooper 	allegedly 	refused 	to 	supply 	one. 	Dr.
Wang 	then reported 	this 	exchange 	in a 	February 	5 	letter 	to 	CSU-
Long 	Beach President 	Stephen 	Horn. 	On 	February 	16, 	President
Horn wrote a 	letter to Dr. 	Wang, 	advising 	him of 	the 	grievance
procedure 	available 	in the 	CBA 	and 	providing 	the 	name 	of 	the 	CFA
campus 	representative.
On 	February 	12, 	1987, 	CSU-Long Beach Vice 	President 	for Academic
Affairs 	John Beljan 	(V.P. 	Beljan) 	wrote 	to Dr. 	Wang, 	offering him
a 	one-year reappointment; 	this 	letter 	also 	informed Dr. 	Wang 	that
V.P. 	Cooper 	was 	bringing 	disciplinary 	action 	against 	him which
could affect 	the 	reappointment. 	On February 	23, 	Dr. 	Wang was
notified 	of 	pending 	disciplinary 	action 	alleging 	that 	he 	had
sexually harassed a 	student. 	On March 	3, 	V.P. 	Beljan wrote 	to
Dr. 	Wang, 	informing 	him that he had 	not 	responded to 	the 	offer 	of
reappointment 	set 	forth 	in the 	February 	12 	letter within 	the
requisite 	ten days, 	and thus 	the 	offer was 	withdrawn. 	A March 	23
letter from President Horn, 	signed by V.P. 	Cooper, 	advised Dr.
Wang 	that, 	following 	the 	President's 	review of 	the 	disciplinary
action 	as 	required by 	the 	1983-1986 	CBA, 	he was 	dismissed 	from
his position 	effective May 29, 	1987. 	On March 25, 	University
Counsel 	Thomas 	Trager 	(Trager) 	wrote 	to Dr. 	Wang, 	explaining 	that
the 	March 	2 3 	letter was 	appropriately 	signed by 	President 	Horn 	or
his 	designee, 	in accordance with 	existing 	disciplinary procedures
applicable 	to 	CSU 	faculty.
Dr. 	Wang 	responded 	to 	all 	CSU 	correspondence 	and 	sought 	to 	stay
the 	effective 	date 	of 	his 	termination. 	He 	did 	not 	follow the
disciplinary 	procedures 	set 	forth 	in the 	CBA because 	he 	believed
2 The interim period between June 	30, 	1986 and June 	30,
1987, 	was 	not 	governed by a CBA due to 	an 	impasse 	in negotiations
and 	the processing 	of 	various unfair practice 	charges 	by both CSU
and 	CFA. 	When an agreement was 	subsequently 	reached, 	however,
both parties 	requested 	the 	Board 	to vacate 	and 	dismiss 	the
pending unfair practice 	charge proceedings. 	PERB agreed to 	such
dismissals 	(California 	State University 	(1987) 	PERB Decision Nos.
621a-H, 	633-H, 	634-H and 635-H). 	The 	1983-1986 CBA disciplinary
procedures 	remained 	intact 	and available 	through 	the 	impasse
procedures until 	the 	successor agreement was 	finalized. 	The
successor CBA 	incorporated 	the 	very 	same 	disciplinary 	procedures
into 	the 	current 	1987-1991 	CBA 	(see Anaheim City 	School 	District
(1983) 	PERB Decision No. 	364; 	Pittsburg Unified School District
(1982) PERB Decision No. 	199).

Dr. 	Cheng T. 	Wang, 	Ph.D.
March 23, 	1990
Page 	3
the 	contract 	did 	not 	offer 	any 	chance 	to 	be 	heard 	in 	a 	campus
setting. 	Dr. 	Wang 	ultimately 	contacted 	CFA 	representative
Christine 	Maitland. 	Maitland 	advised 	that 	Dr. 	Wang's 	appeal
under 	either 	of 	the CBA procedures was 	untimely; 	however,
Maitland 	arranged a 	meeting with 	a 	CSU 	representative. 	Dr. 	Wang
filed 	his 	own grievance on May 	8, 	and 	the 	grievance was 	processed
by CSU. 	On September 	1, 	1987, 	Dr. 	Wang requested 	information to
investigate his 	grievance. 	On 	September 	21, 	CSU 	Employee
Relations 	Specialist 	Thomas 	Angell 	responded 	that 	the 	information
had 	already 	been provided to 	Dr. 	Wang.
On 	September 	16, 	1987, 	Dr. 	Wang 	filed an unfair practice 	charge
against CFA with PERB 	(Case No. 	LA-CO-11-H). 	On December 	14, 	the
Board 	Agent 	dismissed 	the 	charge 	and 	refused 	to 	issue 	a 	complaint
due 	to 	failure to 	state a prima 	facie violation of 	HEERA. 	Dr.
Wang 	appealed 	this 	determination 	to 	the 	Board. 	While 	the 	appeal
was pending, 	on April 	26, 	1988, 	Dr. 	Wang filed a written
complaint 	against 	CSU 	and 	request 	for 	administrative 	relief
against 	CSU with 	the 	PERB 	Executive 	Director. 	PERB 	Executive
Director 	Dennis 	Batchelder 	responded 	to 	Dr. 	Wang 	on May 	5,
advising 	that 	the 	conduct 	complained 	of 	and 	relief 	sought was 	not
included within the 	Board's 	jurisdiction; 	Dr. 	Wang was 	also
provided 	with 	an 	informational 	brochure 	entitled 	"How 	to 	File 	an
Unfair 	Practice 	Charge." 	In 	California 	Faculty Association
(Wang) 	(1988) 	PERB Decision No. 	692-H, 	issued July 26, 	1988, 	the
Board 	affirmed the 	Board Agent's 	dismissal 	of 	the 	charge without
leave 	to 	amend.
Dr. 	Wang 	sought 	reconsideration of 	the 	PERB decision 	and
injunctive relief 	on August 	5, 	1988. 	The 	PERB General 	Counsel
denied 	Dr. 	Wang's 	request 	for 	injunctive 	relief 	on August 	9, 	on
the 	ground that 	no 	jurisdictional 	basis 	for 	injunctive 	relief
existed, 	given the 	Board's 	finding 	that 	an unfair practice
complaint 	could 	not 	i6sue. 	Dr. 	Wang was 	also 	informed 	that 	the
request 	for 	injunctive 	relief 	failed 	to 	comply with 	PERB
regulations 	(tit. 	8, Code of Regul., 	secs. 	32450-32470). 	In
California Faculty Association 	(Wang) 	(1988) 	PERB Decision No.
692a-H, 	issued December 29, 	1988, 	the Board denied Dr. 	Wang's
request 	for 	reconsideration.
In 	addition, 	Dr. 	Wang 	requested reconsideration of 	the 	denial 	of
his August 9 	request 	for 	injunctive 	relief 	on August 	12 	and
September 7, 	1988. 	On August 31 and September 27, 	respectively,
PERB General 	Counsel 	advised Dr. 	Wang that his 	request 	for
injunctive relief was 	denied 	due 	to 	noncompliance 	with 	the
governing statute 	and PERB regulations. 	Dr. 	Wang was 	further
informed 	that 	the 	conduct alleged 	in his April 	26, 	1988,
correspondence 	to 	the 	PERB 	Executive 	Director 	could potentially
be 	the 	subject of 	an unfair practice 	charge 	against CSU. 	The
General 	Counsel cautioned Dr. 	Wang, 	however, 	that 	such a charge
must 	be 	filed within 	the 	HEERA 	statute 	of 	limitations 	and 	set

Dr. 	Cheng T. 	Wang, 	Ph.D.
March 23, 	1990
Page 4
forth 	a 	prima 	facie 	violation of 	that Act. 	Again, 	Dr. 	Wang was
provided 	with 	informative 	pamphlets 	and 	unfair 	practice 	charge
forms 	and 	advised 	to 	contact 	the 	Los 	Angeles 	Regional 	Office 	for
information 	and/or 	assistance.
On April 	18, 	1989, 	Dr. 	Wang requested the Board to 	issue an
immediate complaint 	against the CFA. 	As 	grounds, 	Dr. 	Wang
asserted 	that 	the 	Los 	Angeles 	Superior 	Court 	had 	upheld 	Board
jurisdiction 	over 	his 	allegations 	against 	CFA 	in 	a 	March 	18
demurrer 	hearing 	in 	his 	lawsuit 	against CFA, 	and 	that 	this
jurisdiction had 	been previously denied by 	PERB. 	On May 	1, 	1989,
the 	PERB General 	Counsel 	responded to Dr. 	Wang, 	informing him
that 	PERB 	possesses 	exclusive 	jurisdiction 	to 	determine 	whether
unfair 	practice 	charges 	are 	established 	under 	HEERA 	section
3563.2, 	and 	the 	Board 	exercised this 	jurisdiction when 	it
determined that 	his 	charge 	did 	not 	state 	a 	prima 	facie 	violation
of 	HEERA. 	(California 	Faculty Association 	(Wang) 	PERB 	Decision
Nos. 	692-H and 	692a-H, 	supra). 	The PERB General Counsel 	further
- -advised 	Dr. 	Wang 	that 	PERB Decision Nos. 	692-H 	and 	692a-H were
final 	and 	could 	not 	be 	reopened 	since 	he 	had 	not 	filed 	timely
appeals 	of those decisions. 	Therefore, 	the 	PERB General 	Counsel
advised 	Dr. 	Wang 	that 	the 	Board would 	not 	grant 	his 	request 	for
relief.
Based on 	the 	facts 	as 	alleged 	above, 	this 	charge does 	not present
a 	prima 	facie 	violation 	of 	the 	HEERA 	for 	the 	reasons 	that 	follow.
First, 	the charge 	is 	untimely 	filed under 	HEERA 	section
3563.2(a). 	Your dismissal 	from CSU 	employment occurred 	on May
29, 	1987, 	while you 	filed 	the unfair practice 	charge 	on May 	3,
1989, 	approximately 	two years 	later. 	Board precedent holds 	that
the 	six-month 	limitation 	period 	set 	forth 	in 	HEERA 	section
3563.2(a) 	is 	a 	jurisdictional 	limitation upon the 	Board's
authority to 	issue 	a 	complaint. 	(California 	State 	University.
San Diego (1989) 	PERB Decision No. 	718-H).
Moreover, 	you 	have 	failed 	to 	establish good 	cause 	for 	the 	late
filing 	of the 	charge. 	You 	contend 	that 	CSU's 	conduct 	is 	a
continuing violation 	and 	thus 	you 	could 	not 	timely 	file 	the
charge 	because 	PERB 	earlier 	refused 	to 	assert 	jurisdiction. 	No
supporting 	legal 	authority 	is 	presented 	for 	this 	proposition.
You 	assert only that you did 	not 	know of 	the McCammon v. 	Los
Angeles 	Unified 	School 	District 	(1987) 	195 Cal.App.3d 	661, 	ruling
until 	the March 	31, 	1989 demurrer hearing. 	An examination of 	the
McCammon 	case 	demonstrates 	that 	it 	is 	inapplicable 	to 	conduct
attributed to 	the 	CSU 	in this 	unfair practice 	charge. 	The
McCammon decision held 	that 	an 	exclusive 	representative's 	conduct
in negotiating 	a 	contract may violate 	its 	duty 	of 	fair
representation 	and 	constitute 	an unfair practice. 	Simply put,
the 	McCammon 	case 	is 	irrelevant 	to 	evaluation of 	a 	charge 	against
an employer. 	Finally, 	insofar as 	the 	charge alleges 	employer bad

Dr. 	Cheng T. 	Wang, 	Ph.D.
March 	23, 	1990
Page 	5
faith 	bargaining, 	it 	too 	is 	untimely 	filed 	since 	you 	contest 	the
alternative 	disciplinary 	appeal 	procedure 	negotiated 	in 	1983 	in
your 	May 	1989 	charge 	filed 	some 	six 	years 	thereafter.
The 	doctrine 	of 	laches 	also 	applies 	to prevent 	excusal 	of 	your
refusal 	to 	comply with 	the 	limitations 	period on 	an 	equitable
basis. 	In May 	1988, 	and again in September 	1988, 	you were
provided 	with 	information 	relevant 	to 	filing 	unfair 	practice
charges 	yet 	you 	did 	not 	file 	the 	instant 	charge 	until 	May 	3,
1989. 	(see Wood v. 	Elling Corporation 	(1977) 	20 Cal.3d 	353, 	362,
holding 	that 	statutes 	of 	limitations, 	like 	laches, 	apply to bar
stale claims).
The 	allegation 	that 	CSU 	deprived 	you 	of 	a 	faculty 	hearing 	in
disciplinary 	and 	grievance 	proceedings 	is 	premised 	on 	the
allegation 	that 	CSU 	secured 	an 	alternate 	appeal 	procedure 	through
bad 	faith 	collective 	bargaining 	in 	violation of 	HEERA 	section
3571(c). 	This 	claim must 	fail 	under the 	Board precedental
holding 	of Oxnard School 	District 	(1988) 	PERB Decision No. 	667.
In 	Oxnard. 	the 	Board 	held 	that 	an 	individual 	employee 	lacks
standing 	to 	maintain 	bad 	faith 	bargaining 	allegations 	against 	an
employer under the 	Educational 	Employment Relations Act 	(EERA).
HEERA 	section 	3571(c) 	is 	virtually 	identical 	to 	EERA 	section
3543.5(c). 	Accordingly, 	you 	lack the requisite 	standing to
pursue 	the 	charged 	violation 	and 	there 	is 	no 	jurisdictional 	basis
upon which 	a 	complaint may 	issue.
Your 	claim 	that 	CSU 	improperly 	conspired 	to 	violate 	Education
Code 	section 	89542.5 	by 	securing 	the 	supersession 	language 	set
forth 	in 	that 	statute 	is 	also 	fatally defective. 	You 	rely 	on 	the
McCammon 	case, 	supra. 	arguing that 	the 	relationship between EERA
- -section 	3543.2(d) 	and Education Code 	section 45028 	is 	equivalent
to 	that 	of 	HEERA 	section 	3572.5 	and 	Education Code 	section
89542.5. 	EERA section 3543.2(d) 	provides that:
Notwithstanding 	section 	45028 	of 	the
Education Code. 	the public 	6chool 	employer
and 	exclusive 	representative 	shall 	meet 	and
negotiate 	regarding payment 	of 	additional
compensation 	based 	upon 	criteria 	other 	than
years 	of 	training 	and years 	of 	experience.
If 	the public 	school 	employer 	and 	exclusive
representative 	do 	not 	reach mutual agreement,
then Education Code 	section 	45028 	shall
-apply
- . 	(Emphasis 	added.)
By 	contrast, 	HEERA 	section 	3572.5 	specifically 	supercedes
Education Code 	section 	89542.5 	when 	there 	is 	a 	an agreement 	that
contains 	different provisions. 	HEERA 	section 	3572.5
affirmatively 	provides 	that 	the 	memorandum of 	understanding 	or
collective 	bargaining 	agreement 	shall 	be 	controlling. 	The

Dr. 	Cheng T. 	Wang, 	Ph.D.
March 23, 	1990
Page 	6
statutory 	language 	of 	EERA 	section 	3542(d) 	and 	HEERA 	section
3572.5 	are 	thus 	in 	no way 	comparable.
For 	the 	foregoing 	reasons, 	your unfair practice 	charge No. 	LA-CE-
255-H, 	as 	presently written, 	does 	not 	state 	a prima 	facie 	case 	of
violation 	of 	HEERA. 	The 	charge 	is 	subject 	to the 	absolute
jurisdictional 	bar 	of 	the 	six-month 	statute 	of 	limitations 	as
untimely 	filed, 	you 	lack 	standing 	to pursue 	a 	bad 	faith
bargaining 	allegation 	against 	the 	CSU 	employer 	and 	HEERA 	section
3572.5 	is 	not 	the 	statutory parallel 	of 	EERA 	section 	3543.2(d).
For 	these 	reasons, 	the 	charge 	as 	presently written does 	not 	state
a prima 	facie 	case. 	If 	there 	are 	any 	factual 	inaccuracies 	in
this 	letter 	or 	any 	additional 	facts 	that 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 	clearly 	labeled 	First 	Amended
Charge. 	contain all 	the 	facts 	and 	allegations 	you wish 	to make,
and 	must 	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
30. 	1990. 	I 	shall 	dismiss your charge without 	leave to amend.
Sincerely,
Christine 	Bologna
General 	Counsel
'