Lodi Education Association (Casey) (PERB 1123E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
LU ANN CASEY,
Charging 	Party,
v.
LODI 	EDUCATION ASSOCIATION,
Respondent.
Case No. 	S-CO-354
PERB Decision No. 	1123
November 3, 	1995
Appearances: 	Brown, 	Hall, 	Clair & McKinley by Steven A. 	Clair,
Attorney, 	for Lu Ann Casey; 	California Teachers Association by
A. 	Eugene Huguenin, 	Jr., 	Attorney, 	for Lodi Education
Association.
Before Garcia, 	Johnson and Caffrey, 	Members.
DECISION
CAFFREY, 	Member: 	This 	case 	is before 	the Public Employment
Relations 	Board 	(PERB or Board) 	on appeal 	of 	a Board agent's
dismissal 	of 	an unfair practice 	charge 	filed by Lu Ann Casey
(Casey). 	In her charge, 	Casey alleged that 	the Lodi Education
Association breached 	its 	duty 	of 	fair 	representation 	guaranteed
by 	section 	3544.9 	of 	the 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations Act
(EERA),1 thereby violating EERA section 3543.6(b).
PERB Regulation 32635(a)2 provides 	that an appeal 	of 	the
dismissal 	of 	an unfair practice 	charge 	shall:
(1) 	State the specific 	issues of procedure,
fact, 	law or rationale to which the appeal 	is
taken;
1EERA is 	codified at 	Government 	Code 	section 3540 	et 	seq.
2PERB 	regulations 	are 	codified at 	California Code 	of
Regulations, 	title 8, 	section 31001 et seq.
)
)
)
)
)
)
---~---_-____________ i

(2) 	Identify the page or part 	of 	the
dismissal 	to which each appeal 	is 	taken;
(3) 	State 	the grounds 	for each issue 	stated.
On September 18, 	1995, 	Casey filed an appeal which states 	in
its 	entirety:
NOTICE 	IS 	HEREBY GIVEN that 	LU ANN CASEY
appeals 	from the Notice 	of Dismissal 	and
Refusal 	to 	Issue 	Complaint 	dated August 	29,
1995, 	and from the whole 	thereof.
This 	notice 	of 	appeal 	does 	not 	comply with the 	requirements
of 	PERB Regulation 32635(a) 	as 	it does not 	identify which
portions 	of 	the dismissal 	are 	challenged, 	nor does 	it 	indicate
the grounds 	for the appeal.
The 	Board has 	held 	that 	compliance 	with 	regulations
governing 	appeals 	is 	required 	to afford 	the 	respondent 	and 	the
Board with an adequate 	opportunity 	to address 	the 	issues 	raised,
and noncompliance with this 	requirement 	warrants 	dismissal 	of 	the
appeal. 	(Oakland Education Association 	(Baker) 	(1990) 	PERB
Decision No. 	827; 	International Union of Operating Engineers.
Local 	12. 	Public Service Division 	(Myers) 	(1992) 	PERB Decision
No. 	941-S; 	Regents of the University of California 	(Chan) 	(1994)
PERB Decision No. 	1069-H.)
To be 	timely filed, 	an appeal 	of 	the dismissal 	of 	Casey's
charge must have been filed on or before September 25, 	1995.
(PERB Regs. 	32635(a) 	and 32130(c).) 	On October 26, 	1995, 	Casey
filed an 	"Amended Notice 	of Appeal" 	and a 	request 	that 	the Board
consider 	the 	late 	filed document. 	Casey asserts 	that 	her
original 	appeal 	satisfies 	the 	requirements 	of 	PERB
22

Regulation 32635 (a) . 	However, 	if it is found insufficient, 	Casey-
urges 	the Board 	to 	consider 	the amended statement 	of 	appeal.
PERB Regulation 32136 	states, 	"A late 	filing may be excused
in 	the discretion of 	the Board 	for good 	cause 	only." 	Casey has
failed to demonstrate good cause and, 	therefore, 	the Board
declines 	to 	consider the 	late 	filed, 	amended appeal.
Based on the 	foregoing, 	the Board rejects 	the appeal 	for
failure 	to 	comply with PERB 	regulations.
ORDER
The unfair practice 	charge 	in Case No. 	S-CO-354 	is hereby
DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE 	TO AMEND.
Members 	Garcia and Johnson 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
3
3