Los Angeles Unified School District (PERB A019E)

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE EDUCATIONAL
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD

In the Matter of the Administrative Appeal

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Case Nos. LA-R-6387

LA-C0-7
Employer, LA-CO-8
and EERB Decision No. HO-U-9
HO-R-20
PROFESSIONAL EDUCATORS OF LOS ANGELES, EERB #5
, Ad-14

Employee Organization,

. APPELLANT, |
and EERB Order No. Ad-19
UNITED TEACHERS-LOS ANGELES, November 8, 1977

Employee Organization.

el Seal Soe mel Saget etl Segttl Saal sce! atl nat! eget! Mena! Sige Sagal! Smet! meet! mei Seu! ent! eet

ORDER

The decision of the Executive Assistant to the Board that
appellant's exceptions to the proposed decision of the hearing officer,
in the above-cited case, were not timely filed and cannot, therefore, be
accepted is sustained by the Board itself.

The Board finds that the Executive Assistant correctly applied the
Board's rules and regulations in this matter.

Educational Employment Relations Board
by

Charlee &. Cho

CHARLES L. COLE
Executive Director |

Reginald Alleyne, Chairman, dissenting:

1

I dissent from the Board's November 8, 19777 order as

unnecessary and as having the possible effect of beginning anew on

Lani dates noted are for the year 1977.

November 	8 	a 	judicial 	appeal 	period which 	should have 	commenced 	on
September 	29. 	At 	that 	time, 	the 	Board 	decided 	the 	same 	issue 	it
purports 	to 	decide 	with 	this 	order 	of 	November 	8.
On 	July 	25, 	an EERB 	hearing 	officer 	decided 	a 	representation
election matter 	in 	favor 	of 	United 	Teachers-Los 	Angeles 	(UTLA) 	and
against 	Professional 	Educators 	of Los 	Angeles 	(PELA). 	The 	hearing
officer 	noted 	in 	the 	decision 	that 	pursuant 	to 	Board 	rules 	his 	decision
would 	become 	final 	on August 	9, 	1977 	"unless 	a 	party 	[by August 	3]
files 	a 	timely 	statement 	of 	exceptions." 	PELA's 	exceptions 	were 	not
filed 	by 	August 	3 and were 	accordingly not 	timely.
On August 	1, 	1977, 	PELA 	filed 	a 	request 	to 	extend 	the 	time 	to
file 	exceptions 	to 	the 	hearing 	officer's 	decision. 	This 	request 	was
not 	granted by 	the 	Board's 	Executive 	Assistant. 	On August 	9, 	PELA
appealed 	to 	the 	Board 	the 	Executive Assistant's 	denial 	of 	its 	extension
request. 	Also on 	that 	date, 	the 	hearing 	officer's 	decision 	became 	final.
On 	August 	15, 	PELA 	attempted 	to 	file 	with 	the 	Board 	exceptions
to 	the 	hearing 	officer's 	decision. 	On August 	17, 	the 	Executive
Assistant 	informed 	PELA by 	letter 	that 	as 	a 	result 	of 	PELA's 	failure
to 	timely 	file 	its 	exceptions, 	"the 	enclosed 	exceptions 	cannot 	be 	sub-
mitted 	to 	the 	Board 	itself 	for 	consideration." 	He 	returned 	the
exceptions 	to 	PELA. 	On August 	29, 	1977, 	PELA 	again 	sent 	its 	exceptions
to 	the 	Board. 	This 	time, 	PELA 	asked 	the 	Board 	to 	take 	custody 	of 	the
exceptions 	so 	that 	they might 	be 	"on 	file 	in 	the 	event 	that 	the 	Board
itself 	rules 	in 	PELA's 	favor 	regarding 	the 	extension 	of 	time."
On 	September 	29, 	1977, 	in 	response 	to 	PELA's 	August 	9 	appeal,
the 	Board 	issued 	the 	following 	order:
The 	decision 	of 	the 	Executive 	Assistant
to 	the 	Board, 	in 	the 	above-cited 	case,
-2-

denying 	an 	extension of 	time 	requested
by 	appellant 	to 	file 	exceptions 	to 	the
hearing 	officer's 	proposed 	decision 	is
sustained by 	the 	Board 	itself.
The 	Board 	finds 	that 	the 	Executive
Assistant 	correctly 	applied 	the 	Board's
rules 	and 	regulations 	in 	this 	matter.
With 	this 	order 	of 	September 	29, 	sustaining 	the 	refusal 	to 	extend
PELA's 	time 	to 	file 	exceptions, 	PELA's 	exceptions 	were 	not 	then
validly 	before 	the 	Board 	and 	had never 	been validly before 	the 	Board.
By 	September 	29, 	the 	time within which 	to 	file 	exceptions 	(August 	3)
had 	passed. 	As 	a 	result 	of 	the 	September 	29 	Board 	decision, 	there
remained nothing 	for 	the 	Board 	to 	act upon 	in 	this 	case. 	No 	other
PELA 	appeal 	was 	or 	has 	been before 	the 	Board 	itself 	in 	respect 	to
the 	election 	objections. 	It 	is 	apparent 	that 	even PELA 	considers
its 	case 	as 	having 	been 	closed 	before 	the 	Board with 	the 	Board's
decision 	of 	Se.ptember 	29. 	The 	present 	order 	of 	November 	8, 	deciding
that 	PELA's 	late 	exceptions 	cannot be 	accepted 	does 	not 	differ
in 	effect 	from.the 	order 	of 	September 	29, 	sustaining 	the 	Executive
Assistant's 	refusal 	to 	submit 	the 	exceptions 	to 	the 	Board. 2
I 	believe 	that 	the 	time 	within which 	an 	appeal 	to 	the 	judiciary
might 	be 	taken 	from 	the 	Board's 	refusal 	to 	extend 	the 	time 	to 	file
PELA's 	exceptions 	began 	to 	run 	on 	September 	29 	and not 	on
2The August 	17 	letter 	of 	the 	Executive 	Assistant 	had 	not 	been
written when 	PELA 	on August 	9 	appealed 	the 	decision 	not 	to 	extend
its 	time 	to 	file 	exceptions. 	But 	the 	Board had 	official 	notice 	of
that 	letter 	as 	well 	as 	PELA's 	provisional 	resubmission 	of 	its
exceptions 	on August 	29, 	when 	it 	decided 	PELA's 	August 	9 	appeal 	on
September 	29.
-3-

November
	8,
	in 	that
	the
	action 	of
	November 	8
	attempts
	to
	decide
a
	nonexistent
	case
	and 	does
	nothing
	that
	was
	not
	effectively
	done
on
	September 	29.
r-
--	
/)
-----~-:~--~:~~
1-_	
Uc~~-
Reginal(d
	Alleyne,
	Chairman	
i
-4-

.
.,,,---,
..
_
..
-~fE"Of
CAL110RNIA
:DUCAT10NAL
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS	
BOARD
~dquariers Office
~	
12th Street, Suite
201
5acrament0, Ccdifcrnia
	9.58
l 4
916) 322--3088
·
August: 17, 	1977
Leona M.	
Pfeifer
AttcI:ney
at
Law
7801
Mission
Cent:er Ca.Irr:
Suite
212S.sn
Diego,
	CA
	92108
< •
.
Educators	Re: 	Los Angeles
Unified
School
District
and
Professional
	of
Los Angeles 	(Case
No.
	lA-R-687) 	and
Professional
Educators
of
Los
Angeles
vs.
	Utlited Teachers
of
Los Angeles 	(Case
No.
	lA-C0-7, 	lA-C0-8)
~
Ms.
	Pfeifer:
the	This
will
acknowledge
receipt
of
your exceptions
	to
	proposed
decision
to election
in
the
above-captioned
case
filed
by Professional
on obj
actions
Edncar-.crs
of
Los Angeles. 	UnforttJnat:ely, 	your
dco.m:en:t:s
were
net
	timely
filed
pursuant: t:c
California
Adrn:f
ni sttat:ive
Code
Sections
	35030 and 33380.
in
	With
regard
to
filing
exceptions
to
recomDe:lded decisions
	unfair pract:ice
Section
35030
stat:es
t:ha.t:
..
exceptions
lillSt: be
filed
wit:hin seven calendar
cases,
days
	aft:er service.	
The recomnended
decision
was served on
July
25, 	1977,
maki:lg exceptions due on August
l,
	1977.
·.
cases
is
	'Ille dmeJ i:ce
for
proposed
decisions
	in
:t:epr:esent:a.ti.on
	calcula.ted
by receipt:
rather
th.an
service. 	Section
3:3380
states	
that: e.""«:eptions 	t:c proposed
decisions
	in
representation
cases tmlSt
be
filed
within
seven
calendar
days aft:er
decision.
	Toe proposed
decision
was
	delivered
t:o
your
receipt:
of
t:he proposed p't"Oposcd
office
on
July
27, 	1977, making e.-..cc:eptions
	t:o
	t:he reprcsent:.:ition
decision
due on August: 3, 	1977
for
PELA.
Exceptions by PElA were
filed
on August 15, 	1977.
exceptions	
P..s	
a result:
of this failure 	to timely
file,	
the enclosed 	carrnoc
be submit:ced co 	the Board
itself
for consideration. 	Please be advised
	ch,:1c
ch~re
are
no
rules
	to
	this
	effect: you
are
welcone
	to appeal 	chis
while
rej
ect:ion
at
your
	filing
	to 	the Board
itself.
	Should you choose to do so,
your app-aal 	days	should be filed in this office
on
or before seven
CZJ.1E¥ldar
from receipt: of this	
cOI!lllUilication
..
Sincerely, 	.
~&~Q~~
(__
Stephen Barber
Executive Assiscanc:
t:o 	the Board

- แนนแนนปล้ำ