Regents of the University of California (Ray) (PERB A243H)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION' OF 	THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS 	BOARD
I
DONNA 	C. 	RAY,
Charging 	Party,
v.
REGENTS 	OF 	THE 	UNIVERSITY 	OF
CALIFORNIA,
Respondent.
)
}
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_______________ )
Case 	No. 	SF-CE-347-H
Administrative 	Appeal
PERE 	Order No. 	Ad-243-H
April 	27, 	1993
Appearance: 	Donna 	C. 	Ray, 	on 	her 	own behalf.
Before 	Blair, 	Chair; 	Hesse 	and 	Carlyle, 	Members.
DECISION
BLAIR, 	Chair: 	This 	case 	is 	before 	the 	Public 	Employment
Relations 	Board 	(PERB 	or Board) 	on appeal 	by Donna 	C. 	Ray 	(Ray),
from 	the 	PERB 	appeals 	assistant's 	rejection 	of 	Ray's 	untimely
request 	for 	an 	extension 	of 	time 	to 	file 	an 	appeal 	of 	the 	Board
agent's 	dismissal 	of 	her unfair 	labor 	charge 	in 	Case 	No. 	SF-CE-
347-H.
The 	Board 	agent's 	dismissal 	letter was 	served 	on 	Ray 	by mail
December 	24, 	1992. 	Under 	PERB 	Regulations 	32635(a) 	and 	32136, 1
Ray 	had 	until 	January 	13, 	1993, 	to 	file 	an appeal 	with 	the 	Board
itself. 	A request 	for 	an 	extension 	of 	time 	must 	be 	filed 	at
least 	three 	days 	before 	the 	expiration 	of 	the 	time 	required 	for
filing 	the 	document. 	The 	dismissal 	letter 	informed 	Ray 	of 	this
time 	frame.
1PERB 	regulations 	are 	codified 	at 	California 	Code 	of
Regulations, 	title 	8, 	section 	31001 	et 	seq.

Ray 	filed 	her 	request 	for 	an 	extension 	of 	time 	on
January 	12, 	1993. 	To 	be 	timely 	filed, 	this 	request 	should 	have
been 	received 	by 	the 	Board 	on 	or 	before 	January 	11, 	1993 	(since
the 	third 	day 	prior 	to 	the 	expiration 	of 	the 	time 	required 	for
filing 	an 	appeal 	was 	Sunday, 	January 	10, 	1993). 	Consequently,
the 	PERB 	appeals 	assistant 	denied 	the 	request 	for 	an 	extension
of 	time 	to 	file 	an 	appeal 	of 	the 	dismissal. 	Ray's 	request 	for
an 	extension 	of 	time 	stated 	only:
I 	am writing 	to 	request 	an 	extension 	of 	30
days 	to 	allow me 	to 	again 	review 	the 	evidence
and 	responses 	from 	PERB 	in 	connection with
the 	charges 	against 	the 	defending 	parties.
The 	request 	included 	no 	reasons 	or 	explanation 	as 	to 	why 	it
was 	untimely.
In 	her 	appeal, 	no 	additional 	facts 	are 	alleged 	which 	give
any 	reason 	as 	to 	why 	she 	was 	late 	in 	requesting 	the 	extension
of 	time. 	She 	merely 	states 	that 	on 	January 	19, 	1993, 	after
receiving 	the 	denial 	of 	her 	request 	from 	the 	appeals 	office, 	she
contacted both 	the 	appeals 	assistant 	and 	respondent's 	attorney
asking 	them 	to 	extend 	her more 	time. 	These 	contacts 	were 	made
8 	days 	after 	Ray 	should 	have 	requested 	her 	extension 	of 	time.
PERB 	Regulation 	32136 	states:
A late 	filing 	may 	be 	excused 	in 	the
discretion 	of 	the 	Board 	for 	good 	cause 	only.
A late 	filing 	which 	has 	been 	excused becomes
a 	timely 	filing 	under 	these 	regulations.
The 	Board 	has 	found 	that 	where 	a 	party 	fails 	to 	provide 	any
reason 	for 	filing 	documents 	late, 	the 	Board 	is 	precluded 	from
2

W
finding
	that
	good
	cause
	exists.
	(Sonoma
	County
	Office
	of
Education
	(1992)
	PERB
	Order
	No.
	Ad-230.)
In
	the
	instant
	case,
	Ray
	provided
	no
	excuse
	for
	her
	failure
to 	timely 	request 	the
.extension of
	time,
	as
	indicated
	by
	the
facts
	above.
	Therefore,
	the
	Board
	finds
	that
	good
	cause 	does
	not
exist
	to
	excuse
	Ray's 	untimely
	request
	for
	an
	extension 	of 	time
to
	file
	an
	appeal.
ORDER
Ray's 	appeal
	of 	the
	PERB
	appeals
	assistant's
	rejection
	of
her 	untimely 	request 	for
	an
	extension 	of
	time
	is
	hereby
	DENIED.
Members
	Hesse 	and
	Carlyle 	joined
	in 	this
	Decision.
3