Anaheim Union High School District (PERB A042E)

STATE
	OF
	CALIFORNIA
DECISION
	OF
	THE
PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
ANAHEIM
	UNION
	HIGH
	SCHOOL
	DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
ANAHEIM
	SECONDARY
	TEACHERS
	ASSOCIATION,
CTA/NEA,
Employee
	Organization,
APPELLANT.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case
	No. 	LA-CE-128
PERB
	Order
	No. Ad-42
Administrative
	Appeal
July
	17,
	1978
____________________
)
Appearances:	
Kyle
	D. 	Brown,
	Attorney
	(Hill, 	Farrer
	and
Burrill)
	for
	Anaheim
	Union 	High
	School
	District;
	and
	Paul
Crost,
	Attorney
	(Reich, 	Adell
	and
	Crost)
	for
	Anaheim
	Secondary
Teachers
	Association,
	CTA/NEA.
Before 	Gluck,
	Chairperson;
	Gonzales
	and
	Cossack
	Twohey, 	Members.
OPINION
This
	is
	an
	appeal
	by 	Anaheim
	Secondary Teachers
Association,
	CTA/NEA
	(hereafter
	Association)
	from
	the
	rejection
by
	the 	executive
	assistant
	to 	the
	Board
	of
	its
	exceptions 	to
the 	hearing
	officer's
	proposed
	decision.
	The
	executive
assistant
	to 	the
	Board
	rejected 	the 	Association's 	exceptions
	as
untimely
	filed
	pursuant 	to
	Board
	rule
	32300(a)
• 1
lThe 	Board's 	rules 	are 	codified 	at
	Cal.
	Admin. 	Code,
	tit.
8, 	sec.
	31100
	et 	seq. 	Sec.
	32300 (a)
	provides:
A
party
	may
	file
	with 	the
	Board
	itself
	an
original
	and
	four 	copies 	of
	a
	statement 	of
exceptions 	to
	a 	Board
	agent's 	proposed
decision,
	and
	supporting 	brief, 	within
	20
calendar 	days 	following 	the 	date 	of 	service
of 	the 	decision.

FACTS
Exceptions
	to
	the
	proposed
	decision
	were
	originally
	due
	on
May
	1,
	1978. 	Pursuant
	to
	an
	agreement
	between
	the
	parties,
	the
due
	date
	was
	extended
	twice,
	first
	to
	May
	15 	and
	then
	to
May
	22,
	1978.
	The
	exceptions
_were
	filed
	with
	the 	Public
Employment
	Relations
	Board
	(hereafter
	Board) 	on
	Tuesday,
May
	23,
	after
	being 	mailed
	in
	Santa
	Ana
	on
	May
	19,
	1978.
DISCUSSION
This
	is
	the 	Board's
	first
	untimely
	filing
	case
	under
	its
revised 	rules
	which
	became
	effective
	on 	March
	20,
	1978.
	Under
rule
	32300(a),
	parties
	are
	allowed
	20
	days
	after
	service 	in
which
	to
	file
	exceptions 	to
	proposed
	decisions.
	Rule
	32133
provides:
A
late 	filing
	may
	be
	excused
	in 	the
discretion
	of 	the
	Board
	only
	under
extraordinary 	circumstances.
The
	Association's
	appeal
	does
	not
	indicate
	any
extraordinary
	circumstances
	which 	might
	persuade 	the
	Board
	to
excuse
	this
	untimely
	filing.
	The
	Association 	only 	argues
	that
it
	could 	reasonably
	assume
	that
	exceptions 	mailed
	on
	Friday 	in
Santa
	Ana 	would
	arrive 	in
	Sacramento
	on Monday.
	In
	Anaheim
Union 	High
	School
	District,
2
the 	Board, 	under
	its
	old
	rules
which 	allowed 	seven 	days
	for
	filing
	exceptions,
	found 	no
sufficient
	cause 	for 	extending 	the
	due
	date 	for
	an
	appeal
	when
it
	was
	mailed 	on
	Friday 	in 	Santa
	Ana 	and
	arrived
	a 	day
	late
	in
Sacramento 	on 	Tuesday. 	Since
	this 	ostensibly 	unreasonable 	five~
2(3/16/78)
	PERE 	Order 	No. 	Ad-27.
2

day
	mail
	service
	did 	not
	constitute 	"sufficient
	cause"
	to
excuse
	an
	untimely
	filing
	in
	Anaheim,
	it
	certainly
	does
	not
constitute
	"extraordinary
	circumstances" 	in 	the
	present
	case
under
	the
	new
	rules.
	"Extraordinary 	circumstances"
	means
exactly 	that
	-
	out 	of 	the
	ordinary,
	remarkable,
	unpredictable
situations
	or
	occurrences
	far
	exceeding
	the 	usual
	which
	prevent
a
	timely
	filing.
	Mail
	delays 	are
	ordinary,
	commonly
	accepted
occurrences
	and,therefore,will
	generally
	not
	serve 	to
	excuse
	a
late 	filing.
ORDER
The
	decision
	of 	the 	executive
	assistant
	to
	the 	Board,
rejecting
	the
	exceptions 	to 	the 	hearing
	officer's
	proposed
decision
	filed	
by	
the
	Anaheim
	Secondary Teachers
	Association,
CTA/NEA,
	is 	sustained.
HaryGluck,
	Chairperson
---- . -
Jeri
lou
	C9s
sg_cl<
__
Jwc:2.J1e_y
,
__
Me_!Ilber, .
concurring:
~-
-·-···--
I
	agree with
	my
	colleagues 	that 	in 	this
	case 	the 	executive
assistant
	to 	the
	Board
	properly 	rejected
	the 	Association's
	untimely
filed
	exceptions 	to 	the 	hearing
	officer's
	proposed
	decision.
I
	have 	vigorously 	opposed 	the 	mechanical 	application 	of 	the
Board's 	rules
	where 	the 	result
	was
	to 	deprive 	parties 	of 	the
3

~UBLJC 	EMPLOYMENT R£LAT10NS 	BOARD
"eadquarters· Office
923 12th Street, Suite 201
Sacramento, Colifornia 	95814
(916) 322-3088
May 	26 	1978
M:r. 	Paul Crest, 	Attorney
Reich, 	Adell & Crost
1722' No. 	Broadway
Santa Ana, 	CA 	92706
Re: 	ANAHEIM SECONDARY TEACHERS.ASSOCIATION/CTA/NEA vs.
ANAHEIM UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
CASE NO. 	LA-CE-128
Dear Mr. 	Crest:
EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Govwnor
This will acknowledge receipt of the Exceptions and Supporting Brief
filed on behalf of the Anaheim Secondary Teachers Association/CTA/NEA,
in the above-captioned case. 	Unfortunately, 	your exceptions were not
filed 	timely in accordance with Section 32300(a) 	of the Board's 	rules
and 	regulations.-
Exceptions 	to 	the proposed decision were originally due on May 1, 	but
with two subsequent time extensions, 	the deadline was extended 	to
May 22, 	1978. 	Your exceptions were not 	filed in this office until
May 23, 	1978. 	As a result of this 	failure 	to 	timely file, 	the exceFtions
cannot be submitted to 	the Board itself for consideration.
Please be advised that while there are no rules 	to 	this effect, 	you may
appeal 	this 	rejection of your filing 	to 	the Board itself. 	Should you
choose to do so, 	your appeal should be 	filed 	in this 	office on or before
ten 	(10) 	days after service of this 	letter.
Sincerely,
I
Stephen Barber
Executive Assistant 	to 	the Board
CV/jd
cc.: 	Kyle D. 	Brown, 	Attorney
Hill, 	Farrer & Burrill

rig
	. 	h t
	to
	appea
1 	a 	1 ewer 	d
ecision.
	· 	· 	l 	The 	graveman
	of
	my
	opposition
was
	that
	the
	time
	set
	out
	in
	the 	Board's
	rules
	was
	unreasonably
short
	and
	did not
	afford
	the
	parties
	adequate
	time
	to 	review 	the
facts
	and
	issues 	in 	the
	case,
	meet
	with
	their 	clients,
	prepare
the
	exceptions
	and
	supporting
,rationale
	and
	physically 	deposit
the
	exceptions
	with 	the
	Board
	itself.
	However,
	as
	my
	colleagues
point
	out, 	the
	Board
	has 	modified 	the
	time
	requirements	
to	
afford
the
	parties
	a
	reasonable
	and
	more
	realistic
!:J:.irie
_frame
	w:Ctb.In-- 	-~,
which	
to	
appeal
	a
	lower
	decision 	to 	the
	Board
	itself.
	In 	these
circumstances,
	parties
	must
	not
	be
	permitted 	to 	ignore
	the
	Board's
time 	requirements. 	Accordingly,
	I
	join
my
	colleagues
	in 	sustain-
ing 	the 	executive
	assistant.
-------rr
Uerilou
	Cossack Twohey, 	Member
1
see
	my
	dissents 	in
	Manteca
	Unified 	School
	District
	(8/5/77)
PERB
	Decision
	No. 	21; 	San
	Francisco 	Unified 	School
	District
(9/8/77)
	PERB
	Decision
	No. 	23;
	Santa
Ana
	Unified
	School
	District
(10/28/77)
	PERB
	Decision
	No. 	36; 	Anaheim Union High 	School
District
	(3/16/78)
	PERB
	Order No. 	Ad-27;
	Lincoln 	Unified 	School
District
	(5/30/78)
	PERB
	Order 	No. 	Ad-35; 	and 	Redding 	Elementary
School
	District
	(6/21/78)
	PERB
	Order 	No. 	Ad-39.
4