Los Angeles Unified School District (Watts) (PERB 0151E)

STATE
	OF
	CALIFORNIA
DECISION
	OF THE
PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
HOWARD
	O.
	WATTS,
Complainant,
v.
LOS
	Ai..:JGELES
	UNIFIED
	SCHOOL
DISTRICT
____________________
Respondent.
Case
	No. 	LA-PN-27
PERB
	Decision no.
	151
December
	30,
	1980
Appearances:	
Howard 	O.
	Watts,
	representing 	himself.
Before 	Gluck,
	Chairperson;
	Moore, 	Member.
DECISION AND ORDER	DECISION
	AND
	ORDER
This
	public 	notice
	complaint
	was
	filed
	on
	May
	7, 	1980,
alleging 	that
	the
	Los
	Angeles
	Unified
	School
	District
(hereafter
	District) 	violated 	section
	3547
(a},
	(b),
	(c},
	(d),
and 	(e)
	of 	the 	Educational
	Employment
	Relations
	Act
	(hereafter
EERA)
1	
by 	the 	following 	conduct:
	(1)
	the
	District,
pursuant
to
	its
	own
	rules
	and
	regulations,
	provided 	twenty
	copies 	of 	the
initial
	negotiating 	proposals 	of 	Service
	Employees
	International
l
lAll 	statutory 	references 	are 	to 	the
	California
Government 	Code
	unless 	otherwise 	specified.
Section
	3547	
provides:
(a)
	All	
initial	
proposals 	of 	exclusive
representatives
	and
	of 	public 	school
HOWARD O. WATTS,
Complainant, 	Case No. LA-PN-27
v . 	PERB Decision No. 151
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT
December 30, 1980
Respondent.
Appearances: Howard O. Watts, representing himself.
Before Gluck, Chairperson; Moore, Member.
This public notice complaint was filed on May 7, 1980,
alleging that the Los Angeles Unified School District
(hereafter District) violated section 3547(a) , (b) , (c) , (d) ,
and (e) of the Educational Employment Relations Act (hereafter
EERA) - by the following conduct: (1) the District, pursuant
to its own rules and regulations, provided twenty copies of the
initial negotiating proposals of Service Employees International
All statutory references are to the California
Government Code unless otherwise specified.
Section 3547 provides:
(a) All initial proposals of exclusive
representatives and of public school

Union, 	Local 	99 	(hereafter 	SEIU) 	for 	distribution 	to 	the 	public
in 	the 	board 	room 	on 	April 	7, 	1980, 	the 	date 	the 	union's
proposals 	were 	presented. 	Complainant 	alleges 	that 	twenty
copies 	are 	insufficient 	and 	further 	alleges 	that 	no more 	copies
were 	available 	in 	the 	board 	room 	on 	April 	14 	or 	21, 	1980,
employers, 	which 	relate 	to 	matters 	within
the 	scope 	of 	representation, 	shall 	be
presented 	at 	a 	public 	meeting 	of 	the 	public
school 	employer 	and 	thereafter 	shall 	be
public 	records.
(b) 	Meeting 	and 	negotiating 	shall 	not 	take
place 	on 	any 	proposal 	until 	a 	reasonable
time 	has 	elapsed 	after 	the 	submission 	of 	the
proposal 	to 	enable 	the 	public 	to 	become
informed 	and 	the 	public 	has 	the 	opportunity
to 	express 	itself 	regarding 	the 	proposal 	at
a 	meeting 	of 	the 	public 	school 	employer.
(c) 	After 	the 	public 	has 	had 	the
opportunity 	to 	express 	itself, 	the 	public
school 	employer 	shall, 	at 	a 	meeting 	which 	is
open 	to 	the 	public, 	adopt 	its 	initial
proposal.
(d) 	New 	subjects 	of 	meeting 	and 	negotiating
arising 	after 	the 	presentation 	of 	initial
proposals 	shall 	be 	made 	public 	within 	24
hours. 	If 	a 	vote 	is 	taken 	on 	such 	subject
by 	the 	public 	school 	employer, 	the 	vote
thereon 	by 	each 	member 	voting 	shall 	also 	be
made 	public 	within 	24 	hours.
{e) 	The 	board 	may 	adopt 	regulations 	for 	the
purpose 	of 	implementing 	this 	section, 	which
are 	consistent 	with 	the 	intent 	of 	the
section; 	namely 	that 	the 	public 	be 	informed
of 	the 	issues 	that 	are 	being 	negotiated 	upon
and 	have 	full 	opportunity 	to 	express 	their
views 	on 	the 	issues 	to 	the 	public 	school
employer, 	and 	to 	know 	of 	the 	positions 	of
their 	elected 	representatives.
2
Union, Local 99 (hereafter SEIU) for distribution to the public
in the board room on April 7, 1980, the date the union's
proposals were presented. Complainant alleges that twenty
copies are insufficient and further alleges that no more copies
were available in the board room on April 14 or 21, 1980,
employers, which relate to matters within
the scope of representation, shall be
presented at a public meeting of the public
school employer and thereafter shall be
public records.
(b) Meeting and negotiating shall not take
place on any proposal until a reasonable
time has elapsed after the submission of the
proposal to enable the public to become
informed and the public has the opportunity
to express itself regarding the proposal at
a meeting of the public school employer.
(c) After the public has had the
opportunity to express itself, the public
school employer shall, at a meeting which is
open to the public, adopt its initial
proposal.
) New subjects of meeting and negotiating
arising after the presentation of initial
proposals shall be made public within 24
hours. If a vote is taken on such subject
by the public school employer, the vote
thereon by each member voting shall also be
made public within 24 hours.
(e) The board may adopt regulations for the
purpose of implementing this section, which
are consistent with the intent of the
section; namely that the public be informed
of the issues that are being negotiated upon
and have full opportunity to express their
views on the issues to the public school
employer, and to know of the positions of
their elected representatives.
N

the
	dates
	scheduled
	for
	public
	response
	to
	the
	proposals;
	(2)
the
	presentation
	of
	SEIU's
	initial
	proposals
	was
	not
	listed
	as
an 	agenda
	item
	on
	April
	7,
	1980;
	(3)
	the
	District's
	rule
providing
	at 	least
	two 	weeks
	for 	public
	response
	after
	the
presentation
	of
	collective
	bargaining 	proposals
	is
	inadequate--
complainant
	wants
	thirty
	days;
	(4)
	the
	District's
	rule 	limiting
speakers 	to 	three
	minutes
	is
	inadequate;
	and,
	(5)
	the
District's
	rules
	for 	the 	sunshining
	of
	collective
	bargaining
proposals 	for
	units
	of
	classified
	employees
	is
	not 	as
	extensive
as
	its
	rules
	for 	sunshining 	the 	proposals 	of
	certificated 	units.
A
notice 	of 	deficiency
	issued
	on
	July
	3,
	1980.
	The
complaint
	was
	adjudged
	insufficient
	for
	failure
	to
	state
	a
prima
	facie 	violation
	of 	section
	3547
	in
	that
	the
	complainant
failed
	to
	establish 	that
	a 	two-week
	period 	for 	public
	response
was
	insufficient, 	that
	three
	minutes
	was
	not
	sufficient
	time
	to
address
	collective
	bargaining 	proposals,
	that
	the 	public
	had
inadequate 	access
	to 	negotiating 	proposals,
	or
	that
	the
District
	otherwise
	failed 	to 	properly 	sunshine 	the 	proposals
for
	units 	of
	classified
	employees.
	The
	notice 	did 	not
	refer 	to
the 	alleged
	failure
	of 	the
	District
	to 	properly
	agenda
	the
collective
	bargaining 	proposals.
	It
	stated 	that 	several 	of
	the
allegations
	simply 	repeated 	those
	of	
an
	earlier
	complaint
(LA-PN-2) . 2
2Los 	Angeles 	Unified 	School
	District	
{1/8/79)	
PERB 	Order
No. 	Ad-53. 	While 	the 	complaint
	was
	dismissed 	at 	the 	regional
level 	because
	it
	was
	determined
	that 	the 	District
	was
3
the dates scheduled for public response to the proposals; (2)
the presentation of SEIU's initial proposals was not listed as
an agenda item on April 7, 1980; (3) the District's rule
providing at least two weeks for public response after the
presentation of collective bargaining proposals is inadequate--
complainant wants thirty days; (4) the District's rule limiting
speakers to three minutes is inadequate; and, (5) the
District's rules for the sunshining of collective bargaining
proposals for units of classified employees is not as extensive
as its rules for sunshining the proposals of certificated units.
A notice of deficiency issued on July 3, 1980. The
complaint was adjudged insufficient for failure to state a
prima facie violation of section 3547 in that the complainant
failed to establish that a two-week period for public response
was insufficient, that three minutes was not sufficient time to
address collective bargaining proposals, that the public had
inadequate access to negotiating proposals, or that the
District otherwise failed to properly sunshine the proposals
for units of classified employees. The notice did not refer to
the alleged failure of the District to properly agenda the
collective bargaining proposals. It stated that several of the
allegations simply repeated those of an earlier complaint
(LA-PN-2) . 2
2Los Angeles Unified School District (1/8/79) PERB Order
No. Ad-53. While the complaint was dismissed at the regional
level because it was determined that the District was

in 	voluntary 	compliance,
	on
	appeal
	PERB
	upheld 	the 	dismissal
	on
the 	grounds 	that 	the	
complainant 	did 	not 	have
	standing 	to	
file
a
	pubiic 	notice	
complaint
	under
	California Administrative	
Code,
title	
8, 	section 	37010. 	Thus,	
PERB
	never 	reached 	the 	merits 	ofthat 	case.
On
	October
	29, 	1980,
	a
	letter
	of 	dismissal
	issued 	for
failure
	to
	amend
	the
	complaint
	within 	the
	allotted
	time.
Complainant
	appeals
	this
	dismissal.
The
	Board 	summarily
	affirms 	the 	dismissal
	of 	the
	complaint
for
	failure
	to
	amend
	with
	the 	exception 	of 	the
	allegation 	that
the
	District
	violated 	section
	3547
	by
	failing
	to
	schedule
	the
presentation
	of
	collective
	bargaining 	proposals
	on
	its
	agenda
for 	April 	7,
	1980.
	This
	allegation
	does
	not
	require
	amendment
in 	order 	to
	state
	a
	prima
	facie
	violation.
	The
	statutory
requirement
	that
	initial
	collective
	bargaining 	proposals
	be
presented
	at
	public
	meetings
	is
	undercut
	by
	the
	failure
	to
notify
	the 	public
	by
	placing 	the
	subject
	on
	the
	agenda.
	The
District's
	own
	rule
	providing
	that
	copies 	of 	the
	union's
initial
	proposals 	are
	available
	for 	general
	distribution 	to
	the
public
	only
	at
	the
	time
	they 	are
	initially
	presented 	gives
additional 	significance 	to
	the
	failure 	to
	advise 	the 	public 	of
the
	presentation	
of	
the
	collective
	bargaining 	proposals.
It
	is
	hereby
	ORDERED
	that 	this
	case
	be 	remanded
	to 	the
	Los
Angeles 	Regional
	Office 	for 	further 	processing
	consistent
	with
this
	decision. 
PER
CURIAM
4
On October 29, 1980, a letter of dismissal issued for
failure to amend the complaint within the allotted time.
Complainant appeals this dismissal.
The Board summarily affirms the dismissal of the complaint
for failure to amend with the exception of the allegation that
the District violated section 3547 by failing to schedule the
presentation of collective bargaining proposals on its agenda
for April 7, 1980. This allegation does not require amendment
in order to state a prima facie violation. The statutory
requirement that initial collective bargaining proposals be
presented at public meetings is undercut by the failure to
notify the public by placing the subject on the agenda. The
District's own rule providing that copies of the union's
initial proposals are available for general distribution to the
public only at the time they are initially presented gives
additional significance to the failure to advise the public of
the presentation of the collective bargaining proposals.
It is hereby ORDERED that this case be remanded to the Los
Angeles Regional Office for further processing consistent with
this decision.
PER CURIAM
in voluntary compliance, on appeal PERB upheld the dismissal on
the grounds that the complainant did not have standing to file
a public notice complaint under California Administrative Code,
title 8, section 37010. Thus, PERB never reached the merits of
that case.