City of Huntington Park (PERB 1485M)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
CARLOS A. VELTRUSKI,
Charging Party,
V .
CITY OF HUNTINGTON PARK,
Respondent.
Case No. LA-CE-47-M
PERB Decision No. 1485-M
June 17, 2002
Appearance: Carlos A. Veltruski, on his own behalf.
Before Baker, Whitehead and Neima, Members.
DECISION
BAKER, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board (Board)
on appeal by Carlos A. Veltruski (Veltruski) of a Board agent's dismissal (attached) of his
unfair practice charge. The charge alleged that the City of Huntington Park violated the
Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA)' by refusing to consider his employment application on
its merits.
After reviewing the entire record in this matter including the unfair practice charge, the
warning and dismissal letters, and Veltruski's appeal, the Board adopts the dismissal of the
Board agent as the decision of the Board itself.
MMBA is codified at Government Code section 3500 et seq. Unless otherwise indicated,
all statutory references herein are to the Government Code.

ORDER
The unfair practice charge in Case No. LA-CE-47-M is hereby DISMISSED
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
Members Whitehead and Neima joined in this Decision.
2

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	GRAY DAVIS, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
PER.B
Sacramento Regional Office
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
Telephone: (916) 327-7242
Fax: (916) 327-6377
March 15, 2002
Carlos A. Veltruski
Re: 	Carlos A. Veltruski v. City of Huntington Park
Unfair Practice Charge No. LA-CE-47-M
DISMISSAL LETTER
Dear Mr. Veltruski:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on February 26, 2002. You allege that the City of Huntington Beach
violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA)' by refusing to consider your application on
its merits.
I indicated to you in my attached letter dated March 1, 2002, 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 which would correct the deficiencies explained in that letter, you should
amend the charge. You were further advised that, unless you amended the charge to state a
prima facie case or withdrew it prior to March 8, 2002, the charge would be dismissed.
Essentially, the deficiencies in your charge were both technical and substantive. Technically,
the charge did not allege actions which occurred less than three years prior to the filing of the
charge. This deficiency constituted a jurisdictional bar to PERB's consideration of the
charges. Substantively, your charge did not indicate how agents of the City of Huntington
Park were responsible for adverse actions against you, nor did you address the manner in
which you had suffered harm by any alleged actions.
Since receiving my warning letter, we have had numerous phone conversations in which you
address the date on which our office considered your charge against the City of Huntington
Park filed. As you know, all filings must comply with PERB Regulations before they are
considered "filed." The date you propose as the proper date of filing is December 10, 2001,
the same date that you filed charge number LA-CE-573-S. When you filed charge number
LA-CE-573-S, I contacted you regarding the inability of this office to consider that charge as
simultaneously a Dills Act and a Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) charge. Also at that
time, you had not served the City of Huntington Park with the charge, rather you had served
The Meyers-Milias-Brown Act is codified at Government Code section 3000 et seq.
The text of the MMBA and the Board's Regulations may be found on the Internet at
www.perb.ca.gov.

LA-CE-47-M
March 15, 2002
Page 2
the State as the Respondent. Because of these deficiencies, you were informed that the charge
would be processed only as a charge under SEERA, with the State as Respondent, and it was
treated accordingly.
You subsequently corrected the technical deficiencies above in a new filing against the City of
Huntington Park in LA-CE-47-M. This charge was filed on February 26, 2002. You have
contended throughout the processing of charge LA-CE-47-M, that the date of filing should
relate back to December 10, 2001. This is not possible for the reasons stated above-reasons
you were made aware of in December of 2001.
Furthermore, you have not provided any evidence that would tend to correct the substantive
deficiencies in your charge. You have not demonstrated how you were harmed by any alleged
actions of agents of the City of Huntington Park, nor have you demonstrated how the
individuals named in your charge were agents of the City of Huntington Park at the time that
the alleged adverse actions were taken against you. Therefore, I am dismissing the charge
based on the facts and reasons contained in my March 1, 2002 Warning letter.
Right to Appeal
Pursuant to PERB 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. (Regulation 32635(a).) Any document filed with the Board must contain the case
name and number, and the original and five (5) copies of all documents must be provided to
the Board.
A document is considered "filed" when actually received before the close of business (5 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.
(Regulations 32135(a) and 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 requirements of Regulation 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.
Regulations 32135(b), (c) and (d); see also Regulations 32090 and 32130.)
The Board's address is:
Public Employment Relations Board
Attention: Appeals Assistant
1031 18th Street
PERB's Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.

LA-CE-47-M
March 15, 2002
Page 3
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
FAX: (916) 327-7960
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 (20) calendar days
following the date of service of the appeal. (Regulation 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 Regulation 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. A document filed by
facsimile transmission may be concurrently served via facsimile transmission on all parties to
the proceeding. (Regulation 32135(c).)
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 (3) 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. (Regulation 32132.)

LA-CE-47-M
March 15, 2002
Page 4
Final Date
If no appeal is filed within the specified time limits, the dismissal will become final when the
time limits have expired.
Sincerely,
ROBERT THOMPSON
General Counsel
By
Alicia A. Clement
Board Agent
Attachment
cc: Scott Campbell
AAC

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	GRAY DAVIS, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
PERB
Sacramento Regional Office
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
Telephone: (916) 327-7242
Fax: (916) 327-6377
March 1, 2002
Carlos A. Veltruski
Re: 	Carlos A. Veltruski v. City of Huntington Park
Unfair Practice Charge No. LA-CE-47-M
WARNING LETTER
Dear Mr. Veltruski:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on February 26, 2002. You allege that the City of Huntington Beach
violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA)' by refusing to consider your application on
its merits.
There are three deficiencies in your charge. First, you cannot demonstrate that the actions
which form the basis of your unfair practice charge occurred less than three years prior to the
filing of the charge. As such, your allegations are untimely because the three year statute of
limitations applicable under the MMBA has lapsed. Second, you cannot demonstrate that the
individuals who allegedly discriminated against you were acting as agents of the City of
Huntington Park at the time they refused your application for employment. Third, you have
not shown that you were damaged by the actions of any agent of the City of Huntington Park
because you have not shown that you were eligible for employment or reinstatement at the
time you requested employment or reinstatement.
The first deficiency in your charge is that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the PERB as it does
not comply with the statute of limitations for unfair practice charges. Code of Civil Procedure
section 338 prohibits PERB from issuing a complaint with respect to any charge based upon an
alleged unfair practice occurring more than three years prior to the filing of the charge. The
limitations period begins to run once the charging party knows, or should have known, of the
conduct underlying the charge. (Gavilan Joint Community College District (1996) PERB
Decision No. 1177.)" The charging party bears the burden of demonstrating that the charge is
timely filed. (Tehachapi Unified School District (1993) PERB Decision No. 1024; State of
California (Department of Insurance) (1997) PERB Decision No. 1197-S.)
The Meyers-Milias-Brown Act is codified at Government Code section 3000 et seq.
The text of the MMBA and the Board's Regulations may be found on the Internet at
www.perb.ca.gov.
When interpreting the MMBA, it is appropriate to take guidance from cases
interpreting the National Labor Relations Act and California labor relations statutes with
parallel provisions. (Firefighters Union v. City of Vallejo (1974) 12 Cal.3d 608.)

LA-CE-47-M
March 1, 2002
Page 2
From your own accounts, your contact with Rosario Marin (Marin) occurred in 1998. As your
current charge against the City of Huntington Park was filed on February 26, 2002, I cannot
consider any events that occurred prior to February 26, 1999 in an allegation of unfair practice
charges.
The second deficiency in your charge is that you have not shown that the alleged unfair
practices that were taken against you were made by agents of the City of Huntington Park. In
the Warning Letter that I sent to you on February 11, 2002 in regards to charge LA-CE-573-S,
I stated,
I am unable to consider their [Rosario Marin's and Sara Luque's]
actions in this charge because you have not indicated whether the
parties were State employees or City of Huntington Park
employees at the time they allegedly discriminated against you.
The letter you sent to PERB on December 31, 2001 did not
correct this deficiency. If you wish for me to consider their
actions as unfair labor practices, you must show either that they
were acting as State employees at the time they allegedly took
adverse actions against you, or you may file a separate charge
that shows that they were acting as City of Huntington Park
employees at the time that they allegedly took adverse actions
against you.
In response to that warning, you have filed the current charge against the City of Huntington
Park, still without correcting the deficiency of alleging whether the individuals named were
agents of the City of Huntington Park or agents of the State of California at the time they
allegedly discriminated against you.
When unfair labor practice charges are filed against a public employer, PERB has applied
general agency principles to SEERA, concluding that a state employer may be held responsible
for the actions of supervisors acting within their actual or apparent authority. State of
California (Department of Forestry)/State of California, Governor's Office of Employee
Relations (1981) PERB Decision No. 174-S. My understanding of your allegations is that
when Marin refused to consider your application for employment, she was an agent of the State
of California. As such, her conduct would be governed by the SEERA, and not the Meyers-
Milias-Brown Act. In order to consider Ms. Marin's actions under the Meyers-Milias-Brown
Act, you must show that at the time she took the alleged actions against you, that she was
acting in her capacity as an agent of the City of Huntington Park. Your charge states that Ms.
Marin was "assistant to Gnor Pete Wilson" when she allegedly discriminated against you. As
such, her actions cannot be attributed to the City of Huntington Park, are not governed by the
Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, and are not subject to the three year statute of limitations under the
Meyers-Milias-Brown Act. If Ms. Marin was acting as an agent of the State of California at
the time she allegedly discriminated against you, then her actions are governed by the State

LA-CE-47-M
March 1, 2002
Page 3
Employer-Employee Relations Act (SEERA), and are subject to a six month statute of
limitations.
The third deficiency in your charge is that you have not shown that you were harmed by any
agent of the City of Huntington Park. You have not provided any evidence that you applied for
or were eligible for any available position with the City of Huntington Park. Instead, you
allege that you were harmed by agents of the City of Huntington Park when they refused to
hire you for a position as a civil servant for the State of California. In the Dismissal Letter I
sent to you on February 25, 2002 in regards to charge LA-CE-573-S, I stated,
At the time that you were allegedly discriminated against, both
Ms. Luque and Ms. Marin were employees of the State of
California, and were acting as agents of the State. Because both
Ms. Luque and Ms. Marin are currently agents for the City of
Huntington Park, you claim that your charge arises under the
Meyers-Milias-Brown Act. However, under the MMBA, an
employer is "any public agency]... which has been held to
include only local governmental entities." Sacramento County
Employees Organization v. County of Sacramento (1988) 201
Cal.App.3d 845, 850. Applying this definition, the State and its
agents cannot be considered an "employer" for the purposes of
the MMBA. Because Ms. Luque and Ms. Marin were agents of
the State of California at the time they allegedly discriminated
against you, and were not subject to the MMBA, you have failed
to show how you were discriminated against by an employer
subject to the MMBA.
In response to my dismissal of charge LA-CE-573-S, you have filed the current unfair labor
practice charge. However, the deficiency stated above has not been corrected. You have not
explained how an agent of the State of California can be held to the standards articulated by the
Meyers-Milias-Brown Act.
The only possible explanation for your actions in filing a separate charge under the Meyers-
Milias-Brown Act under the circumstances described is in order to take advantage of the three
year statute of limitations under the MMBA. The scope of the MMBA does not reach so far as
you would suggest. It is limited to local governments and their agents, and does not extend to
the State and its agents. Even if the individuals named were serving concurrently as agents of
the State of California and as agents of the City of Huntington Park, you must demonstrate
how the individuals were acting in their capacity as agents of the City of Huntington Park
when they refused your application for State civil service.
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 additional facts that would correct the deficiencies
explained above, please amend the charge. The amended charge should be prepared on a
standard PERB unfair practice charge form, clearly labeled First Amended Charge, contain all

LA-CE-47-M
March 1, 2002
Page 4
the facts and allegations you wish to make, and be signed under penalty of perjury by the
charging party. The amended charge must have the case number written on the top right hand
corner of the charge form. The amended charge must be served on the respondent's
representative and the original proof of service must be filed with PERB. If I do not receive an
amended charge or withdrawal from you before [***7 days], I shall dismiss your charge. If
you have any questions, please call me at the above telephone number.
Sincerely,
Alicia A. Clement
Board Agent
AAC