Lodi Education Association (Hudock) (PERB 1124E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
NANCY J. 	HUDOCK,
Charging 	Party,
v.
LODI 	EDUCATION ASSOCIATION,
Respondent.
Case No. 	S-CO-353
PERB Decision No. 	1124
November 8, 	1995
Appearances: 	Brown, 	Hall, 	Clair & McKinley by Steven A. 	Clair,
Attorney, 	for Nancy J. 	Hudock; 	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 Nancy J. 	Hudock
(Hudock). 	In her charge, 	Hudock 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;
EERA 	is 	codified at 	Government 	Code 	section 	3540 	et 	seq.
2PERB 	regulations 	are 	codified at 	California 	Code 	of
Regulations, 	title 8, 	section 31001 et seq.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_______________ )

(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, 	Hudock filed an appeal which states
in 	its 	entirety:
NOTICE 	IS 	HEREBY GIVEN that NANCY J. 	HUDOCK
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 	Hudock's
charge must have been filed on or before September 25, 	1995.
(PERB Regs. 	32635(a) 	and 32130(c).) 	On October 26, 	1995, 	Hudock
filed an 	"Amended Notice 	of Appeal" 	and a 	request 	that 	the 	Board
consider 	the 	late 	filed document. 	Hudock asserts 	that 	her
original 	appeal 	satisfies 	the 	requirements 	of 	PERB
22

Regulation 32635(a). 	However, 	if it is found insufficient,
Hudock 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." 	Hudock 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-353 	is hereby
DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE 	TO AMEND.
Members 	Garcia 	and Johnson 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
33