State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (International Union of Operating Engineers Local 39) (PERB 0928S)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
INTERNATIONAL 	UNION OF 	OPERATING
ENGINEERS, 	LOCAL 39,
Charging 	Party,
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	(DEPARTMENT
OF 	PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION),
Respondent.
)
)
)
) 	Case No. 	S-CE-554-S
PERB Decision No. 	928-S
April 	20, 	1992
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearance: 	Van Bourg, 	Weinberg, 	Roger & Rosenfeld by Stewart
Weinberg, 	Attorney, 	for International Union of Operating
Engineers, Local 39.
Before Hesse, 	Chairperson; 	Caffrey and Carlyle, 	Members.
DECISION
CARLYLE, 	Member: 	This case is before the Public Employment
Relations 	Board 	(Board) 	on appeal by the 	International 	Union of
Operating Engineers, 	Local 	39 	(IUOE) 	of a Board agent's
dismissal, 	attached hereto, 	of its 	charge that the State of
California 	(Department 	of 	Personnel Administration) 	violated
sections 3516.5, 	and 3519(a), 	(b), 	and 	(c) 	of the Ralph C. 	Dills
Act 	(Dills Act)1 by 	failing to provide 	IUOE with notice 	and an
opportunity 	to 	bargain prior 	to 	proposing 	an 	initiative 	measure
to 	the Attorney General 	and announcing 	it 	to 	the people 	of
California. 	The 	initiative measure would allow the Governor, 	in
a 	state of 	fiscal 	emergency, 	to 	furlough or reduce 	salaries 	of
state employees.
1Ralph C. 	Dills Act 	is 	codified at Government Code 	section
3512 	et 	seq.
_____ )

The Board has 	reviewed the dismissal 	and, 	finding 	it to be
free 	of prejudicial 	error,2 adopts 	it as 	the decision of the
Board 	itself.
ORDER
The unfair practice 	charge 	in Case No. 	S-CE-554-S 	is 	hereby
DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE 	TO AMEND.
Chairperson Hesse 	and Member Caffrey 	joined 	in this 	Decision.
2
2N
'References 	to 	section 	3516.5 	of the Dills Act 	in the
warning 	letter are 	inadvertently cited as 	3515.6.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	PETE WILSON, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Headquarters Office
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 	95814-4174
(916) 322-3088
January 17, 	1992
Stewart Weinberg, 	Attorney
Van Bourg, 	Weinberg, 	Roger & Rosenfeld
875 	Battery St., 	3rd Floor
San 	Francisco 	CA 	94111
Re: 	International Union of Operating Engineers. 	Local 	3 9 v.
State 	of 	California 	(Department 	of 	Personnel 	Administration)
Unfair Practice Charge Case No. 	S-CE-554-S
DISMISSAL 	LETTER
Dear Mr. 	Weinberg:
I 	indicated to you 	in my attached 	letter dated January 	8, 	1992,
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 	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 January 	16, 	1992, 	the charge would be dismissed.
I 	have 	not 	received 	either a 	request 	for withdrawal 	or 	an amended
charge. 	I 	am therefore dismissing the charge based on the 	facts
and reasons 	contained in my January 	8, 	1992 	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 Code of Regs., 	tit. 	8,
sec. 	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 	(California Code of Regs., 	tit. 	8,
sec. 	32135). 	Code of Civil Procedure section 	1013 	shall apply.
The Board's 	address 	is:
Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board
1031 	18th Street
Sacramento, 	CA 95814

S-CE-554-S
Page 2
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 	Code 	of
Regs., 	tit. 	8, 	sec. 	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 Code of Regs., 	tit. 	8,
sec. 	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 	Code 	of
Regs., 	tit. 	8, 	sec. 	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,
JOHN 	SPITTLER
General 	Counsel
Michael E. 	Gash
Regional 	Attorney
Attachment
cc: 	Christopher Waddell, 	Chief Counsel
Dept, 	of Personnel Administration
1515 S St., 	North Bldg., 	Suite 400
Sacramento 	CA 	95814

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	PETE WILSON, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Headquarters Office
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
(916) 322-3088
January 8, 	1992
Stewart Weinberg, 	Attorney
Van Bourg, 	Weinberg, 	Roger & Rosenfeld
875 	Battery Street, 	3rd Floor
San Francisco, 	CA 	94111
Re: 	International Union of Operating Engineersf 	Local 	3 9 v.
State 	of California 	(Department 	of 	Personnel 	Administration)
Unfair Practice Charge No. 	S-CE-554-S
Dear Mr. 	Weinberg:
On December 23, 	1991, 	you filed a charge in which it appears you
allege that the Governor, 	has violated sections 	3515.6, 	3519(a)
I
(b) 	and 	(c) 	of the Government Code 	(the Dills Act).
1Your charge 	states 	in 	its 	totality:
On December 9, 	1991, 	Governor Pete Wilson
began a 	statewide 	initiative measure
including various 	cost 	saving measures, 	among
which is 	a provision which, 	if adopted by the
electorate, 	would give the Governor the
authority to reduce 	salaries 	and benefits 	of
state 	employees 	not 	covered by 	a 	collective
bargaining agreement by up to 	5% 	and to make
other 	changes 	affecting 	employees 	within
Bargaining Units 	12 	and 	13 of the 	State of
California 	represented 	by 	Charging 	Party.
Although 	Charging 	Party has 	the 	right 	to
represent employees in Units 	12 and 	13, 	those
employees 	are not 	always 	covered 	by a
collective bargaining agreement. 	The
Governor 	gave 	no 	notice 	or opportunity 	to
meet 	and 	confer 	to 	charging party 	regarding
the 	initiative before he began to 	use 	the
resources 	of his 	office 	to promote 	the
initiative.
.....,.
,.:.~-
·-=·	).,P-E-11-8
...

Warning 	letter 	- 	S-CE-554-S
Page 2
Specifically, 	you 	allege 	that 	the 	Governor 	has 	violated 	section
3515.6 	of 	the 	Dills 	Act by 	failing 	to provide 	charging party with
written 	notice 	and 	the 	opportunity 	to 	meet 	and 	confer prior 	to
proposing an 	initiative measure to 	the Attorney General, 	which
reforms 	the budget 	process 	and 	the welfare 	system 	and 	empowers
the Governor to 	reduce 	the 	salaries 	of 	state 	employees 	or
furlough 	state 	employees when there 	is 	a 	fiscal 	emergency.
Charging party 	also 	contends 	that 	the 	Governor or 	his 	designee 	by
failing to 	notify and give 	it the 	opportunity 	to 	meet 	and 	confer
over the Governor obtaining, 	through 	the 	initiative process, 	the
power, 	when a 	fiscal 	emergency is declared, 	to reduce 	the
salaries 	of 	state 	employees 	or 	furlough 	state 	employees, 	violated
sections 	3519(a), 	(b) 	and 	(c) 	of the Dills Act. 	My investigation
revealed 	the 	following 	facts.
The 	International 	Union of Operating Engineers, 	Local 	39 	(IUOE)
is 	a 	recognized 	employee organizations 	that 	is 	the 	exclusive
bargaining 	agent 	for approximately 	11,000 	employees 	in 	Bargaining
Units 	12 and 	13.
The 	current Memorandum of 	Understanding 	(MOU or contract) 	between
IUOE 	and the State 	expired at midnight on June 	30, 	1991.
Contract 	extensions were granted by the 	State 	on June 	30, 	1991
and expired on July 	30, 	1991. 	No 	further contract 	extensions
were agreed to, 	as 	such there 	is 	no MOU 	in 	effect between
charging party 	and 	the 	State.
On or about 	December 	9, 	1991, 	the Governor proposed 	an 	initiative
measure 	to 	the Attorney General 	and publicly 	announced 	the
initiative 	measure. 	The 	initiative 	measure would 	if 	approved by
the voters, 	in relevant part, 	add sections 	12.2, 	12.5 	and 	12.7 	to
Article 	IV of 	the 	California 	Constitution 	to 	read:
12.2. 	(a) 	Whenever the budget bill has 	not
been passed 	and 	signed 	by July 	1, 	the
Governor may declare 	a 	state 	of 	fiscal
emergency. 	When a 	fiscal 	emergency 	has 	been
declared, 	the prior year budget, 	adjusted as
required by Article XIII, 	section 	25, 	Article
XIII B, 	sections 	6 and 8, 	Article XVI,
section 8, 	and state debt service, 	shall
become 	the 	state's 	operational 	budget and
shall 	remain 	in effect until 	the 	Legislature
passes 	and the Governor 	signs 	a budget bill.
In 	order 	to 	bring anticipated 	revenues 	and
expenditures 	for 	the 	fiscal 	year 	into
balance, 	the Governor may 	immediately propose

Warning 	letter 	- 	S-CE-554-S
Page 3
reductions 	in any 	category 	of 	expenditure,
including 	any 	state 	entitlement, 	except
expenditures 	required 	by Article 	XIII,
Section 25, 	Article XIIIB, 	Sections 	6 and 8,
funding 	for 	education 	as 	provided 	in Article
XVI, 	section 8, 	and state debt 	service.
(b) 	Any reductions 	proposed 	under 	subdivision
(a) 	shall become 	effective 	30 days 	after the
proposal 	is 	transmitted 	to 	the 	Legislature
unless, 	prior to 	the 	end of 	the 	30-day-
calendar period, 	the 	Legislature passes 	the
budget bill 	and the bill 	is 	signed by the
Governor.
12.5. 	(a) 	After the budget bill has been
enacted, 	the Governor may declare 	a 	state of
fiscal 	emergency and, 	in order to bring
anticipated 	State 	General 	Fund 	revenues 	and
expenditures 	for the 	fiscal 	year 	into
balance, 	may reduce 	any category of
expenditure, 	including any 	state 	entitlement,
except 	expenditures 	protected 	by Article
XIII, 	Section 25, Article XIII B, 	sections 6
and 	8, 	funding 	for education as 	provided 	in
Article XVI, 	section 8, 	and 	state debt
service 	if 	at the 	end of 	any quarter:
(1) 	Cumulative 	fiscal 	year State General
Fund 	cash 	receipts 	fall 	at 	least 	three
percent 	(3%) 	below revenues 	as 	estimated by
the 	Department 	of 	Finance 	upon enactment of
the budget: 	or
(2) 	Cumulative 	fiscal 	year State General
Fund 	expenditures 	exceed budgeted 	amounts 	by
three percent (3%); or
(3) 	Cumulative 	fiscal 	year State General
Fund 	cash 	receipts 	fall 	at 	least 	one and 	one-
half percent 	(1-1/2%) 	below revenues as
estimated 	by 	the 	Department 	of 	Finance 	upon
enactment 	of 	the 	budget 	and 	cumulative 	fiscal
year 	expenditures 	exceed budgeted 	amounts 	by
at least one and one-half percent 	(1-1/2%).

Warning 	letter 	- 	S-CE-554-S
Page 4
For purposes of this provision, 	a quarter is
any 	three 	month period 	ending September 	30,
December 31, 	or March 31.
(b) 	Any reduction proposed under 	subdivision
(a) 	shall become effective 	30 days 	after the
proposal 	is 	transmitted 	to 	the 	Legislature
unless, 	prior to the end of the 30-day-
calendar period, 	the Legislature 	enacts 	in
each house by rollcall 	vote 	entered 	in the
journal, 	two thirds of the membership
concurring, 	alternate legislation to bring
anticipated 	revenues 	and 	expenditures 	for 	the
fiscal 	year 	into 	balance 	and 	that 	legislation
is 	signed by the 	Governor.
12.7. 	(a) 	When a state of 	fiscal 	emergency
has 	been declared pursuant to 	Section
-
s 	12.2
or 	12.5, 	the Governor may, 	by Executive
Order, 	reduce the 	salaries 	of 	state 	employees
or furlough 	state 	employees, 	provided that
the 	total 	reduction 	from 	such 	actions 	does
not 	exceed 	five percent 	(5%) 	of 	an 	employee's
salary 	in 	any pay period.
(b) 	The Governor may not reduce 	the 	salary of
or 	furlough a 	state 	employee during the
agreed 	upon term 	of 	a 	Memorandum 	of
Understanding that 	has 	been negotiated
pursuant 	to Chapter 	10.3 	(commencing with
Section 3512), 	Division 4, 	Title 	1 of the
Government Code, 	which covers 	the 	terms 	and
conditions 	of 	employment 	for 	such 	employee,
unless 	the 	Memorandum 	of 	Understanding 	itself
allows 	such 	actions 	to 	be 	taken by 	the
Governor or his 	or her designee.
(c) 	the 	issuance of 	an Executive Order
pursuant to 	subsection 	(a) 	shall 	not be
subject 	to 	Chapter 	10.3 	(commencing with
Section 3512), 	Division 4, 	Title 	1 of the
Government Code or the provisions 	of 	any
other 	state 	law governing 	salary 	setting 	for
state officers 	and 	employees.
(d) 	As used in this 	section, 	the term
"employee" 	or 	"state employee" 	includes 	those

Warning 	letter 	- 	S-CE-554-S
Page 5
employees 	defined 	in Government 	Code 	Section
19815(d).
Based on the 	facts 	set 	forth above, 	I do not 	find that you have
established a prima 	facie violation of 	sections 	3515.6, 	3519(a),
(b) 	and 	(c) 	of the Dills Act.
The 	violation alleged 	in this 	unfair practice 	charge 	revolve
around 	sections 	3516.5 	and 	3517 	of 	the 	Dills Act. 	Section 	3516.5
reads:
Except 	in cases 	of 	emergency as 	provided 	in
this 	section, 	the 	employer 	shall 	give
reasonable written notice 	to 	each 	recognized
employee 	organization 	affected by 	any 	law,
rule, 	resolution, 	or regulation directly
relating 	to matters within 	the 	scope of
representation proposed 	to 	be 	adopted 	by 	the
employer, 	and 	shall 	give 	such recognized
employee 	organizations 	the 	opportunity 	to
meet 	and 	confer with 	the 	administrative
officials 	or 	their delegated 	representatives
as 	may be properly 	designated 	by 	law.
In 	cases 	of 	emergency when 	the 	employer
determines that a 	law, 	rule, 	resolution, 	or
regulation 	must 	be 	adopted 	immediately
without prior notice 	or meeting with a
recognized 	employee 	organization, 	the
administrative 	officials 	or 	their 	delegated
representatives 	as 	may be 	properly designated
by 	law 	shall 	provide 	such 	notice 	and
opportunity to meet 	and 	confer 	in good 	faith
at 	the 	earliest practical 	time 	following 	the
adoption of such law, 	rule, 	resolution, 	or
regulation.
Section 3517 	reads:
The Governor, 	or his 	representative as 	may be
properly designated by 	law, 	shall 	meet 	and
confer in good faith regarding wages, 	hours,
and 	other 	terms 	and 	conditions 	of 	employment
with 	representatives 	of 	recognized 	employee
organizations, 	and 	shall 	consider 	fully 	such
presentations 	as 	are made 	by the 	employee
organization on behalf 	of 	its 	members prior

Warning 	letter 	- 	S-CE-554-S
Page 6
to 	arriving at 	a 	determination of policy or
course of action.
"Meet and 	confer 	in good 	faith" 	means 	that
the Governor or 	such representatives 	as 	the
Governor 	may designate, 	and representatives
of 	recognized 	employee 	organizations, 	shall
have 	the 	mutual 	obligation personally to 	meet
and 	confer 	promptly 	upon 	request 	by 	either
party 	and 	continue 	for a 	reasonable period 	of
time 	in 	order 	to 	exchange 	freely 	information,
opinions, 	and proposals, 	and to endeavor to
reach 	agreement 	on matters 	within 	the 	scope
of 	representation prior to 	the 	adoption by
the 	state of 	its 	final budget 	for the 	ensuing
year. 	The process 	should 	include 	adequate
time 	for the 	resolution of 	impasses.
Although 	not 	stated 	in your charge, 	your charge 	appears 	to rely
on People ex 	rel. 	Seal Beach Police Officers Association v. 	City
of 	Seal 	Beach 	(1984) 	36 Cal.3d 591, 	as requiring the Governor to
give 	written 	notification 	and 	the 	opportunity 	to 	meet 	and 	confer
prior to proposing 	an 	initiative 	measure which reforms 	the 	budget
process 	and 	empowers 	the 	Governor, 	when a 	fiscal 	emergency 	is
declared, 	to reduce the 	salaries 	of 	state 	employees 	or furlough
state employees.
In City of 	Seal 	Beach, 	supra, 	sections 	3504.5 	and 	35052 of 	the
Meyers-Milias-Brown Act 	(Government Code 	sections 	3500-3510) 	were
interpreted 	by 	the 	California 	Supreme Court. 	The 	Supreme 	Court
held 	that 	a 	city 	council was 	required to 	comply with 	the 	meet 	and
confer 	requirements 	of Government Code 	section 	3505 	before 	it
proposes 	an 	amendment 	to 	the 	city 	charter 	concerning the 	terms
and 	conditions 	of public 	employment.
In City of Seal 	Beach, 	supra, 	it was 	undisputed that the 	charter
amendments 	concerned 	the 	terms 	and conditions 	of public
employment.3 However, 	in this 	case, 	charging party has 	failed to
2 Sections 	3516.5 	and 	3517 	of the Dills Act 	are nearly
identical 	to 	sections 	3504.5 	and 	3505 	of 	the MMBA.
3In City of 	Seal 	Beach, 	one 	amendment 	required 	the 	immediate
firing, 	subject to an administrative hearing procedure, 	of any
city 	employee who participated 	in a 	strike; 	it also prohibited
the 	city 	council 	from 	granting 	amnesty 	or 	otherwise 	rehiring 	any

Warning 	letter 	- 	S-CE-554-S
Page 7
demonstrate 	that 	the power 	conveyed 	to 	the 	Governor by 	the
proposed 	initiative 	is 	a 	subject within the 	scope 	of
representation.
striking public 	employee. 	The 	Supreme Court 	stated 	that 	"since
the substantive validity of the amendments 	is 	not before us, 	.
. 	it 	is 	undisputed that they 	[the charter amendments] 	deal with
terms 	and conditions of public 	employment. 	(See, 	City of 	Seal
Beach. 	(1984) 	36 Cal.3d 591, 	595 footnote No. 	2 ) .
The 	threshold 	issue 	is whether the Governor by obtaining the
power, 	through the initiative process, 	to reduce the salaries of
state 	employees 	or 	furlough 	state 	employees 	when a 	fiscal
emergency is declared, 	is a 	subject within the scope of
representation. 	Section 3516 of the Dills Act provides 	that:
The 	scope of representation shall be 	limited
to wages, 	hours, 	and other terms 	and
conditions of employment, 	except, however,
that 	the 	scope 	of 	representation 	shall 	not
include 	consideration of the merits,
necessity, 	or organization of 	any 	service 	or
activity provided 	by 	law or 	executive 	order.
In State of California. 	(Department of Transportation) 	(1983)
PERB Decision No. 	361-S, 	the Board set 	forth the test 	for
determining whether given 	subjects 	are within 	the 	scope 	of
representation. 	The Board 	stated in State of California.
(Department of Transportation, 	supra, 	that
PERB will 	find such matters within 	scope 	if
they 	involve 	the 	employment relationship 	and
are of 	such concern to both management 	and
employees 	that conflict 	is 	likely to occur,
and 	if 	the mediatory 	influence 	of 	collective
negotiations 	is 	an appropriate means of
resolving the 	conflict.
Such 	subject will 	be 	found 	mandatorily
negotiable 	under 	SEERA 	unless 	imposing 	such
an obligation would 	unduly 	abridge 	the 	State
employer's 	freedom 	to 	exercise 	those
managerial prerogatives 	(including matters 	of
fundamental policy) 	essential 	to 	the
achievement of the State's mission. 	If
requiring 	negotiations 	on a 	subject would

Warning 	letter 	- 	S-CE-554-S
Page 8
significantly 	abridge 	the 	State 	employer's
managerial prerogative as 	set 	forth above,
the 	subject will be held outside the 	scope 	of
mandatory 	negotiations.
Although 	the 	proposed 	initiative 	involves 	the 	employment
relationship 	between the State employer and 	state 	employees 	the
mediatory 	influence of negotiations 	is 	not 	suited to 	the
resolution of 	conflict over whether the Governor 	should have 	the
power, 	when a fiscal emergency is declared, 	to reduce the
salaries of 	state employees, 	or furlough state employees. 	In
addition 	imposing 	such an 	obligation would unduly 	abridge 	the
State 	employer's 	freedom to 	exercise 	those managerial
prerogatives 	essential 	to the achievement of the 	State's 	mission.
This 	proposed 	initiative 	conveys power to 	the Governor during 	a
fiscal 	emergency. 	The provisions 	of the proposed initiative do
not 	impair or destroy the bargaining process. 	The proposed
initiative empowers the Governor, 	when a fiscal emergency is
declared, 	to reduce the salaries of 	state employees 	or furlough
state 	employees. 	The terms and conditions of an existing MOU
would not be 	abrogated, 	unless 	its 	terms 	specifically permitted
the Governor to act.4 Accordingly, 	the subject of the Governor
obtaining the power, 	through the initiative process, 	to reduce
the 	salaries 	of 	state 	employees 	or to 	furlough state employees
when a 	fiscal 	emergency is declared is 	not a 	subject within the
scope of representation. 	Therefore, 	charging party has 	failed to
establish a prima facie violation of 	sections 	3516.5, 	3519(b) 	and
(c) 	the Dills Act.
Your 	charge 	also 	alleges 	that 	the 	Governor has 	violated 	section
3519(a) 	of the Dills Act. 	To demonstrate a violation of 	section
3519(a), 	the charging party must show that: 	(1) 	the employee
exercised rights 	under the Dills Act, 	(2) 	the employer had
knowledge of the exercise of those rights, 	and 	(3) 	the 	employer
imposed or threatened to 	impose reprisals, 	discriminated or
threatened 	to 	discriminate, 	or otherwise 	interfered with,
restrained 	or 	coerced the 	employees 	because 	of 	the 	exercise 	of
those rights. 	Novato Unified School 	District 	(1982) 	PERB
Decision No. 	210; 	Carlsbad Unified School District 	(1979) 	PERB
Decision No. 	89; 	Department of Developmental Services 	(1982) 	PERB
Decision No. 	228-S; 	California State University 	(Sacramento)
(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	211-H. 	As presently written, 	your
See 	section 	12.7(b) 	of Government Accountability and
Taxpayer Protection Act of 	1992, 	at p. 	4, 	supra.

Warning 	letter 	- 	S-CE-554-S
Page 9
charge 	fails 	to allege any of 	these 	factors 	and 	therefore does
not 	state a prima facie violation of 	section 3519(a).
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
January 16, 	1992, 	I 	shall dismiss your charge. 	If you have any
questions, 	please call me at 	(916) 	322-3198.
Sincerely, 	-. .
Michael E. 	Gash
Regional Attorney