Golden Plains Unified School District (PERB 1414E)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION AND ITS GOLDEN PLAINS
CHAPTER 650,
Charging Party,
v.
GOLDEN PLAINS UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Respondent.
Case No. SA-CE-1916-E
PERB Decision No. 	1414
O c t o b e r 	2 6 , 	2000
Appearances: 	California School Employees Association by Madalyn J. Frazzini, Deputy Chief
Counsel, for California School Employees Association and its Golden Plains Chapter 650;
Stroup & de Goede by Bryan G. Martin, Attorney, for Golden Plains Unified School District.
Before Dyer, Amador and Baker, Members.
DYER, Member: 	This case comes before the Public Employment Relations Board
(Board) on appeal by the California School Employees Association and its Golden Plains
Chapter 650 (CSEA) of a PERB administrative law judge's (ALJ) proposed decision (attached)
dismissing its unfair practice charge. 	CSEA alleged that the Golden Plains Unified School
District (District) violated section 3543.5(a), (b) and (c) of the Educational Employment
Relations Act (EERA)1 when it failed to negotiate the adoption of a District board policy
pertaining to termination of any bus driver employee who failed to pass a re-certification test.
EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. 	Section 3543.5 states, in
pertinent part:
EERA
It shall be unlawful for a public school employer to do any of the
following:

The Board has reviewed the entire record in this case, including the unfair practice
charge, the proposed decision, the briefs of the parties, CSEA's exceptions, and the District's
opposition. 	The Board finds the ALJ's proposed decision to be free from prejudicial error and
adopts it as the decision of the Board itself.
ORDER
The unfair practice charge and complaint in Case No. SA-CE-1916-E is hereby
DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
Members Amador and Baker joined in this Decision.
(a) 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.
(b) Deny to employee organizations rights guaranteed to them by
this chapter.
(c) Refuse or fail to meet and negotiate in good faith with an
exclusive representative.
2

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
CALIFORNIA 	SCHOOL 	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION AND 	ITS 	GOLDEN
PLAINS 	CHAPTER 	650,
Charging 	Party,
v.
GOLDEN 	PLAINS 	UNIFIED 	SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Respondent.
Unfair 	Practice
Case No. 	SA-CE-1916
PROPOSED 	DECISION
(6/22/2000)
Appearances: 	Tim Liermann, 	Senior Labor Relations
Representative, 	for 	California 	School 	Employees Association and
its 	Golden Plains 	Chapter 	650; 	Stroup and de Goede, 	by Brian G.
Martin, 	Attorney, 	for Golden Plains Unified School 	District.
Before Allen R. 	Link, 	Administrative Law Judge.
PROCEDURAL 	HISTORY
On August 	3, 	1999, 	the California School 	Employees
Association and 	its 	Golden Plains 	Chapter 	650 	(CSEA) 	filed an
unfair practice 	charge 	with 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board
(PERB 	or Board) 	against 	the 	Golden Plains 	Unified 	School 	District
(District). 	The 	charge 	alleged violations 	of 	the 	Educational
Employment Relations Act 	(EERA or Act).1
On September 14, 	1999, 	the Office of 	the General 	Counsel
of 	PERB, 	after an 	investigation of 	the 	charge 	issued a 	complaint
alleging violations of subdivisions 	(a), 	(b) 	and 	(c) 	of
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_____________ )
'All 	section references, 	unless otherwise noted, 	are to the
Government 	Code. 	EERA is 	codified at 	section 3540 	et 	seq.

section 3543. 5.2
On October 	8, 	1999, 	the 	District 	answered 	the 	complaint
denying 	all 	material 	allegations 	and 	propounding 	various
affirmative 	defenses. 	An 	informal 	conference 	was 	held 	on
October 27, 	1999, 	in an unsuccessful 	attempt 	to 	reach a voluntary-
settlement . 	One 	day of 	formal 	hearing was 	held before 	the
undersigned on March 	8, 	2000. 	With 	the 	filing 	of 	briefs 	by each
side, 	the matter was 	submitted May 10, 	2000.
INTRODUCTION
On July 1, 	1999, 	Ted Pumarejo 	(Pumarejo), 	a bus
driver/maintenance 	employee 	was 	dismissed 	from 	District
employment 	due 	to 	his 	failure 	to 	pass 	his 	bus 	driver
recertification 	test, 	thereby 	losing 	his 	license.3 The 	District
cites 	a 	recently passed 	board 	policy 	provision 	as 	authority 	for
2 Subdivisions (a), 	(b) 	and 	(c) 	of section 3543.5 	state, 	in
pertinent 	part:
It 	shall 	be 	unlawful 	for 	a 	public 	school
employer 	to 	do 	any 	of 	the 	following:
(a) 	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.
(b) 	Deny 	to employee 	organizations 	rights
guaranteed 	to 	them by 	this 	chapter.
(c) 	Refuse 	or 	fail 	to meet 	and negotiate 	in
good 	faith 	with 	an 	exclusive 	representative.
3 By 	statute 	bus 	drivers 	are 	given 	three 	opportunities 	to
pass 	the 	written 	test 	before 	their 	license 	is 	revoked. 	After
such 	revocation, 	applicants 	must 	wait 	a 	year before 	retesting.
22

its 	dismissal 	action. 	CSEA complains, 	that 	prior to the 	adoption
of 	this provision, 	the District 	had a policy of 	accommodating
employees 	that 	failed to 	attain license 	recertification. 	This
accommodation took 	the 	form of 	providing 	such 	employees 	with a
non-bus 	driving position with 	the 	same 	number 	of 	weekly hours 	the
employee 	worked prior 	to 	his/her 	failed recertification. 	CSEA
also 	contends 	that 	the 	subject 	board policy affected 	"terms 	and
conditions" 	of employment, 	i.e., 	wages, 	hours of employment, 	and
discipline; 	therefore, 	the District's unilateral 	adoption
violated 	its 	duty to negotiate 	such matters.
FINDINGS 	OF 	FACT
Jurisdiction
The parties 	stipulated, 	and it 	is 	therefore 	found, 	that 	CSEA
is 	both 	an employee 	organization 	and an exclusive 	representative,
and the District 	is 	a public 	school 	employer, 	within the meaning
of 	the EERA.
Maria 	Cardenas
In November 1998, 	Maria Cardenas 	(Cardenas), 	a District bus
driver/custodian who 	failed her written 	recertification, 	asked
CSEA for 	assistance, 	as 	she was 	concerned her District 	employment
would be 	terminated. 	Edna Munguia, 	CSEA's chapter president, 	met
with 	the 	administration to 	determine 	if 	Cardenas 	could be 	given a
full-time custodial position. 	In January 1999, 	the District's
response was 	that 	she was 	to be 	terminated. 	Shortly thereafter
w	3

she 	received 	a 	Skelly4 hearing with 	regard 	to 	the 	charge 	against
her, 	i.e., 	her failure to maintain a valid bus driver's 	license.
CSEA and the District 	met 	several 	times 	to 	discuss 	the
possibility of 	creating 	an 	alternative- employment 	opportunity 	for
her. 	Mike St. Andre 	(St. Andre), 	director of maintenance, 	stated
that 	he 	had need 	for a 	full-time 	custodian at 	one 	of 	the 	high
schools 	and that 	Cardenas 	could fill 	that 	position. 	In 	late
January or early February 	1999, 	the District 	agreed to provide
Cardenas 	a 	full-time 	custodian position.
While 	discussing Cardenas' 	situation the parties 	attempted
to 	develop 	collective bargaining 	agreement 	(CBA) 	language 	to
cover this 	type of 	circumstance, 	should it 	arise 	in the 	future.
CSEA was 	willing 	to 	agree 	to 	a 	"termination upon 	failure 	to
recertify" 	policy, 	but wanted all 	current 	employees 	to be
"grandfathered" 	into what 	it 	believed to be 	the 	current 	policy of
accommodation. 	The District 	declined to 	accept 	this 	condition
and determined 	that 	the matter would be 	better 	addressed by a
modification of 	its 	policy 	file.
Board 	Policy 	4219.3
On May 11, 	1999, 	the District 	approved Board Policy 	(BP)
4219.3, 	Bus Driver Positions, 	which stated that 	any bus driver
employee who 	failed to pass 	a 	re-certification test 	in the 	future
"shall 	be 	terminated as 	no 	longer 	qualified 	to 	hold 	the
position."
4Skelly v. 	State Personnel 	Board 	(1975) 	15 	Cal.3d 194 	[124
Cal.Rptr. 	14] 	(Skelly).
4

The 	District's 	job 	description 	for 	a 	bus 	driver position
requires 	the possession of 	a
Valid unrestricted Type 	I 	School 	Bus
Operator's 	Certificate 	issued 	through
examination by 	the 	California 	Highway 	Patrol.
BP 4219.3 	went 	on to state:
Termination under 	these 	circumstances 	is 	also
expressly 	applicable 	to 	any 	employee 	holding
a 	bus 	driver position 	that 	is 	combined with
another position.
The 	stated 	intent 	of 	this policy was:
. 	. 	. t o establish a 	"base line" 	for
requiring drivers 	to possess 	the proper bus
certification. 	The 	assumption was 	that 	the
employee who was 	reinstated as 	a 	result 	of
that 	February 4th meeting would be 	the 	last
exception 	in allowing 	any 	flexibility with
regard 	to 	the 	continued possession of 	a valid
bus 	driver 	certificate 	for employees 	in
multiple 	classifications.
Dr. 	David Vaughn 	(Vaughn), 	the District's superintendent,
testified that 	the 	District's 	purpose
. 	. 	. 	was to satisfy a difference of opinion
between 	the 	District 	and the 	Union and 	to
clarify 	from that 	point 	forward 	that 	what 	we
had stated 	in job description, 	what 	the 	law
required, 	what 	our administrative 	regulations
required would be 	clearly outlined 	in 	a 	new
policy 	so 	that 	there 	would be 	no
misunderstanding 	among 	anyone 	from that 	point
forward.
He went 	on to 	state 	that 	he 	did not 	believe 	BP 	4219.3 	changed
anything, 	"it 	just 	amplified what 	our expectations were."
The District, 	in its Administrative Regulations 	section
4218.l.q. 	lists, 	as grounds for discipline,
[f]ailure 	to 	. . . 	keep 	in 	effect 	any
license, 	. 	. 	. 	specified in the employee's
class specification 	. 	. 	. 	necessary for the
55

employee 	to perform the 	duties 	of 	the
position.
The District 	stated that, 	in accordance with their CBA, 	CSEA
was 	given an opportunity to 	consult 	prior 	to 	the passage 	of
BP 4219.3.
On April 	13, 	1999, 	Ricardo Ornelas 	(Ornelas), 	the CSEA labor
relations 	representative 	assigned to 	the District, 	wrote Vaughn
protesting the proposed BP 4219.3, 	insisting that 	on February 26,
1999, 	in a meeting with the District 	and 	its 	attorney Brian G.
Martin 	(Martin), 	the parties 	agreed they would jointly develop
board policy 	language 	with regard 	to 	this 	subject. 	He 	closed his
letter with a 	request 	the 	District 	"cease 	and desist" 	from 	its
implementation of 	BP 4219.3. 	The 	District 	did not 	respond to
this 	letter.
On May 24, 	Ornelas 	again wrote Vaughn complaining 	about 	the
passage of BP 4219.3, 	"imploring" 	the District 	to return to the
bargaining 	table 	to 	continue 	the 	February 	26 	negotiations 	on 	this
matter. 	Once again, 	the District 	failed to respond to Ornelas'
letter.
Ted 	Pumarejo
In January or February 	1999, 	after he 	failed to pass 	his
first 	written license examination, 	Pumarejo was 	told that 	it 	was
necessary 	for him to maintain his 	license 	and 	certification 	in
order to keep his 	job with the District. 	On July 1, 	1999, 	after
he 	failed to pass his 	second test, 	he was 	notified that,
consistent with BP 4219.3, 	his 	third failure 	to pass his bus
driver's 	recertification would 	result 	in his 	employment
6

termination. 	After he 	lost 	his 	license 	Pumarejo was 	dismissed
from District 	employment. 	He 	appealed this 	dismissal 	to 	the
District's governing board. 	It 	upheld his 	dismissal 	on a 4 	to 	3
vote.
Prior District 	Bus 	Driver 	Licensing 	Circumstances
Hope 	Hernandez
Either during or shortly after the 	1991-92 	school 	year, 	Hope
Hernandez 	(Hernandez), 	a District bus driver/custodian, 	let her
bus 	driver's 	license expire. 	She wanted to become 	a 	full-time
custodian and was 	concerned the 	District 	would 	force 	her 	to 	renew
her 	license. 	CSEA 	spoke 	to 	the 	superintendent 	and determined
there was 	no problem with her becoming 	a 	full-time 	custodian.
Tony Baraias 	Jr.
Sometime 	in 1994 	Tony Barajas Jr. 	(T. 	Barajas Jr.)
voluntarily terminated his 	District 	bus 	driving 	responsibilities.
The 	District 	permitted him to 	transfer 	from a position 	in 	a bus
driver/groundskeeper 	classification to 	one 	in 	a 	groundskeeper
classification.
Dale 	Baraias
In or about 	1994 Dale Barajas 	(D. 	Barajas) 	held a
combination position with the 	District 	as 	a bus 	driver/
maintenance 	employee. 	He 	lost 	his bus driver's 	license
and was 	permitted 	to 	expand his 	maintenance 	duties 	to 	a 	full-time
position.
77

Gilbert 	Cantu
1994-95 	Incident
Sometime 	in the 	1994-95 	school 	year Gilbert 	Cantu 	(Cantu)
was 	concerned about 	an 	impending District 	drug 	test. 	He 	admitted
to 	a 	degree 	of 	substance 	abuse 	and asked 	for and was 	granted
an opportunity to 	attend a 	rehabilitation program. 	For 	a
period of 	time 	his 	bus driving privileges were 	suspended. 	The
District 	cites mandatory federal 	law as 	one 	of 	the
reasons 	it provided this 	accommodation to 	Cantu.
1998 	Incident
In August 	1998, 	Cantu had his bus 	driver's 	license 	revoked
by the State of California, 	Department of Motor Vehicles 	(DMV),
due 	to a 	random drug 	test 	results. 	The 	District's 	administration
recommended 	employment 	termination. 	He 	appealed 	this 	action 	to
the District's governing board. 	At 	its meeting, 	the board
members 	decided 	that 	Cantu 	should continue 	his 	employment 	as 	a
non-bus 	driving 	employee.
There was 	no 	other 	evidence proffered with 	regard 	to 	any
other District 	employees 	either 	resigning 	or 	losing 	his/her 	bus
driving 	license.
CBA Article V 	- 	Procedure 	for Consultation
CBA section 5.1 	states, 	in pertinent part:
The parties 	agree 	and acknowledge 	that 	a
variety of 	items 	are 	or may be 	outside 	the
scope 	of 	representation 	. . . . 	The 	parties
agree, 	. . . 	to utilize 	the 	consultation
procedure 	. 	. 	. whenever a board policy
change 	or adoption 	is 	one 	that 	affects 	the
specific 	employment 	rights 	and obligations 	of
bargaining unit 	members.
8

ISSUE
Did 	the 	District when 	it 	failed to negotiate 	the 	adoption of
BP 	4219.3 	unilaterally modify a 	term and 	condition 	of 	employment,
in violation of 	subdivision 	(c) 	of 	section 3543.5?
CONCLUSIONS 	OF 	LAW
A unilateral 	modification of 	terms 	and 	conditions 	of
employment 	within 	the 	scope 	of 	negotiations 	that 	has 	a
generalized effect 	or continuing 	impact 	is 	a per 	se 	refusal 	to
negotiate. 	(NLRB v. 	Katz 	(1962) 	369 U.S. 	736 	[50 LRRM 2177]
(Katz).) 	PERB has 	long recognized this principle. 	(Pajaro
Valley Unified School District 	(1978) 	PERB Decision No. 	51
(Pajaro); 	San Mateo County Community College District 	(1979) 	PERB
Decision No. 	94; 	and Grant 	Joint Union High School 	District
(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	196.)
Under subdivision 	(c) 	of 	section 3543.5, 	the public 	school
employer 	is 	obligated 	to meet 	and negotiate 	in good 	faith with 	an
exclusive 	representative 	about 	matters 	within 	the 	scope 	of
representation. 	This 	section precludes 	such employer 	from making
unilateral 	changes 	in the 	status quo, 	whether 	such status 	quo 	is
evidenced by a 	collective 	bargaining 	agreement 	or past 	practice.
(Anaheim City School 	District 	(1983) 	PERB Decision No. 	364;
Pittsburg Unified School 	District 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	199.)
The 	EERA's 	scope 	of 	representation 	is 	found 	in 	subdivision
(a) 	of section 3543.2, 	which states, 	in pertinent part:
The 	scope 	of 	representation 	shall 	be 	limited
to matters relating to wages, 	hours of
employment, 	and other terms 	and conditions 	of
e m p l o y m e n t . . . .
99

PERB, 	in Pajaro, 	citing Katz, 	with approval, 	stated:
. 	. 	. 	the NLRB has held that the 	"status quo"
against 	which an employer's 	conduct 	is
evaluated must 	take 	into 	account 	the 	regular
and consistent 	past 	patterns 	of 	changes 	in
the 	conditions 	of 	employment. 	The NLRB has
held that 	changes 	consistent 	with 	such a
pattern are not violations 	of 	the 	"status
quo." 	[Citations.]
CSEA insists 	that 	as 	BP 	4219.3 	concerned 	the 	discipline 	of
employees, 	its unilateral 	implementation was a violation of
subdivision 	(c) 	of section 3543.5. 	However, 	BP 4218, 	enacted
long before BP 4219.3, 	already made 	it very clear that 	failure 	to
maintain a bus 	license was grounds 	for discipline. 	In addition,
the District's 	job 	specifications 	for bus 	drivers 	state 	that 	all
employees 	holding positions 	in 	that 	classification must 	have 	a
bus 	driver's 	license.
Therefore, 	the 	crucial 	question is not whether BP 4219.3
unilaterally 	imposed a new discipline 	on District 	employees, 	but
rather what 	would happen to 	those 	employees' 	employment 	status
once 	they no 	longer were 	legally able 	to drive 	a bus. 	In order
to 	answer 	this 	question 	it 	is 	necessary to determine whether or
not 	a past 	practice 	of post-revocation accommodation has 	been
established. 	The 	charging party contends 	six 	separate 	instances
of 	post-revocation 	accommodation provide 	sufficient 	evidence 	such
a past practice 	existed. 	Each of 	these 	instances 	will 	be
examined 	below:
10

Hernandez
Hernandez 	did not 	lose her 	license, 	she merely wanted to
discontinue 	her bus 	driving duties. 	She 	was 	concerned the
District 	would 	force 	her to 	continue 	such duties. 	The District
agreed 	to permit 	her 	to become 	a 	full-time 	custodian 	and
discontinue her bus driving duties. 	In essence, 	she asked for a
change 	of 	duties 	and the 	District 	granted her 	request.
This 	instance 	does 	not 	provide 	any evidence 	of 	the 	existence
of 	a past 	practice 	of post-revocation accommodation.
T. 	Barajas Jr.
Similarly, 	T. 	Barajas Jr. 	voluntarily terminated his bus
driving 	responsibilities 	and 	asked 	for 	a 	full-time 	groundskeeper
position. 	The District 	merely granted his 	request.
This 	instance 	does 	not provide 	any evidence 	of 	the 	existence
of 	a past practice 	of post-revocation accommodation.
P. 	Baraias
D. 	Barajas 	lost 	his 	license 	and was permitted to 	expand his
maintenance 	duties 	to 	include 	the 	time 	he 	had previously 	spent
driving a bus.
This 	instance does provide evidence 	of 	the 	existence 	of 	a
past 	practice 	of 	post-revocation accommodation.
Cantu
1994-95 	Incident
Cantu asked 	for help with 	regard 	to 	a 	substance 	abuse
problem. 	The District 	agreed to assist 	him, 	but 	conditioned 	such
assistance 	upon 	the 	temporary suspension of 	his 	bus 	driving
11

privileges 	and his 	enrollment 	in a 	rehabilitation program. 	Once
both of 	these 	conditions were met 	he 	returned to his 	bus 	driving
duties. 	The District 	cites 	federal 	law as one 	of 	its 	reasons 	for
providing his 	accommodation 	to 	Cantu.
This 	instance 	does not provide 	evidence of 	the 	existence 	of
a 	past 	practice 	of 	post-revocation accommodation.
August 	1998 	Incident
Cantu's 	license 	was 	revoked due 	to 	a 	second 	substance 	abuse
incident. 	The District 	recommended termination of 	Cantu's
employment 	status. 	Cantu 	appealed 	to 	the 	governing board which
overruled the 	administration's 	recommendation. 	Cantu maintained
his 	employment 	status 	without 	bus 	driving duties.
The 	original 	recommendation of 	the 	District's 	administration
to 	terminate him as 	a 	result 	of 	his 	license 	revocation 	strongly
supports 	a 	conclusion there was 	no past 	practice 	of 	post-
revocation accommodation. 	However, 	as 	the District's governing
board did eventually overrule 	the 	administration, 	this 	incident
provides 	some 	evidence of 	the 	existence 	of 	such a past 	practice.
Cardenas
Cardenas 	lost 	her 	license 	and was 	notified 	she 	was 	going 	to
be 	terminated. 	She 	received a 	Skelly hearing, 	but 	prior to her
actual 	termination the 	District 	placed her 	in 	a 	full-time
custodial 	position. 	Once 	again the District's 	original 	decision
to 	terminate 	Cardenas 	strongly supports 	a 	conclusion there was 	no
past practice of 	a post-revocation accommodation. 	However, 	as
Cardenas 	was 	eventually given a 	full-time 	non-driving position,
12

this 	incident provides 	some 	evidence 	of 	such a past 	practice.
Summary
Of 	the 	six 	incidents 	CSEA relied on 	to 	support 	the 	existence
of 	a past practice 	of post-revocation accommodation, 	three were
found not 	to have 	supported 	its position. 	In two of 	the 	other
three 	incidents, 	the District's 	initial 	position was 	to terminate
the employee. 	It was only after 	(1) 	governing board action in
one instance, 	and 	(2) 	the maintenance supervisor's
acknowledgement 	of 	an opening position in the 	other, 	that 	the
initial 	decision to terminate was 	reversed. 	This 	supports 	a
conclusion 	that 	over 	a nine-year period 	there 	was 	only one 	clear
instance 	of 	post-revocation 	accommodation 	and 	two 	somewhat
tainted 	instances.
When 	the 	Pajaro 	requirement 	of 	evaluating 	the 	"regular 	and
consistent past patterns 	of 	changes" 	in the employer's 	conduct 	is
applied to 	this 	conclusion, 	it 	is 	clear that no past practice of
post-revocation 	accommodation has 	been established. 	In 	the
absence of 	such a past practice, 	there 	is no 	"status quo" 	for the
District 	to 	have 	unilaterally modified when 	it 	enacted BP 	4219.3.
As 	the 	District 	has 	been 	found not 	to 	have 	unilaterally
modified the 	status quo, 	there 	is no support 	to an allegation
that 	subdivision 	(c) 	of 	section 3543.5 was violated.
PROPOSED 	ORDER
Based on the 	foregoing 	findings of 	fact, 	conclusions 	of 	law
and the 	entire 	record in this 	case, 	it 	is 	found that 	the Golden
13

Plains Unified School District 	did not violate 	subdivision 	(c)5
of 	Government 	Code 	section 3543.5 	of 	the 	Educational 	Employment
Relations Act, 	when 	it 	enacted Board Policy section 4219.3.
Therefore, 	it 	is ORDERED that 	all 	aspects of the 	charge and
complaint 	in this 	case 	are hereby DISMISSED.
Pursuant 	to California Code of Regulations, 	title 	8, 	section
32305, 	this 	Proposed Decision and Order 	shall 	become 	final 	unless
a party 	files 	a 	statement 	of 	exceptions 	with the 	Board 	itself
within twenty days 	of 	service 	of 	this 	Proposed Decision. 	The
Board's address 	is:
Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board
Attention: 	Appeals Assistant
1031 	18th 	Street
Sacramento, 	CA 95814-4174
FAX: 	(916) 	327-7960
In accordance with PERB Regulations, 	the 	statement 	of
exceptions 	should 	identify by page, 	citation or 	exhibit 	number
the portions of 	the record, 	if any, 	relied upon for such
exceptions. 	(See Cal. 	Code of Regs., 	tit. 	8, 	sec. 	32300.)
A document 	is 	considered 	"filed" 	when 	actually 	received
before 	the 	close 	of business 	(5:00 	p.m.) 	on the 	last 	day set 	for
filing or when mailed by certified or Express 	United 	States 	mail,
as 	shown on the postal 	receipt 	or postmark, 	or delivered to a
common carrier promising overnight 	delivery, 	as 	shown on the
carrier's 	receipt, 	not 	later than the 	last 	day set 	for filing.
5In 	the 	absence 	of 	evidence 	to 	support 	a violation of
subdivision 	(c) 	of 	section 3543.5, 	the allegations of violations
of subdivisions 	(a) 	and 	(b) 	must also fail. 	There was no
evidence 	proffered 	regarding 	an 	independent 	violation 	of 	either
of 	these 	subdivisions.
14

(See Cal. 	Code of Regs., 	tit. 	8, 	sec. 	32135 (a); 	see also Cal.
Code Regs., 	tit. 	8, 	section 32130.)
A document 	is 	also 	considered 	"filed" 	when 	received by
facsimile 	transmission before 	the 	close 	of 	business 	on 	the 	last
day 	for 	filing 	together with 	a 	Facsimile 	Transmission 	Cover 	Sheet
which meets the requirement of Cal. 	Code Regs., 	tit. 	8, 	sec.
32135(d), 	provided the filing party also places 	the original,
together with 	the 	required number of 	copies 	and proof 	of 	service
in the U.S. 	mail. 	(Cal. 	Code Regs., 	tit. 	8, 	secs. 	32125(b), 	(c)
and 	(d); 	see also Cal. Code Regs., 	tit. 	8, 	secs. 	32090 and
32130.)
Any 	statement 	of 	exceptions 	and 	supporting brief 	must 	be
served 	concurrently with 	its 	filing upon 	each party 	to 	this
proceeding. 	Proof 	of 	service 	shall 	accompany each copy 	served on
a party or 	filed with the Board itself. 	(See 	Cal. 	Code 	Regs.,
tit. 	8, 	secs. 32300, 	32305, 32140, and 32135(c).)
Allen R. 	Link
Administrative 	Law 	Judge
15