United Professors of California (Watts) (PERB 0398H)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
HOWARD 0. WATTS,
Complainant,
APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED 	PROFESSORS 	OF CALIFORNIA,
Respondent.
Case No. 	LA-PN-47-H
PERB Decision No. 	398-H
August 16, 	1984
Appearances; 	Howard O. 	Watts, 	in propria persona.
Before Jaeger, Morgenstern, 	and Burt, Members.
DECISION
JAEGER, 	Member: 	Howard O. 	Watts appeals 	the attached
decision 	of 	a 	Regional 	Representative 	dismissing 	without 	leave
to 	amend 	a public 	notice complaint. 	After 	considering 	the
complaint 	in 	the 	light 	of 	the 	appeal 	and 	the 	entire 	record 	in
this matter, 	the 	Public Employment Relations Board 	(Board)
adopts 	the Regional Representative's dismissal of 	the 	complaint
without 	leave 	to 	amend as 	the 	determination of 	the 	Board
itself.
The Board 	further 	concludes 	that Watts' 	complaint 	is
vexatious 	and 	frivolous 	and defies 	the 	Board's 	Order 	in
Los Angeles Unified School District 	(Watts) 	(2/22/82) 	PERB
Decision No. 	181a, 	in which we ordered Watts 	to cease and
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

desist 	from 	filing 	complaints 	that 	abuse 	the 	administrative
processes 	of 	this Board. 	This case 	represents 	one of 	a number 	of
frivolous complaints 	and 	appeals 	filed 	by Watts 	since 	that
Order. 	Accordingly, 	we 	shall once again order Watts 	to cease 	and
desist from such conduct and, 	in addition, 	shall order 	that Watts
be 	assessed quantifiable costs, 	including 	reasonable attorneys 1
fees, 	incurred by the Respondent, 	United Professors of
California, 	to offset the expenses 	and 	time 	incurred by 	the
latter 	in processing 	and 	defending 	this 	complaint.
ORDER
Upon 	the 	foregoing 	Decision 	and 	the 	entire 	record 	in 	this
case, 	the Public Employment Relations Board ORDERS that 	the
public 	notice 	complaint 	against 	the 	United 	Professors 	of
California 	in Case No. 	LA-PN-47-H 	is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT
LEAVE TO AMEND.
The 	Board 	further 	ORDERS 	that Howard 0. 	Watts 	CEASE 	and
DESIST 	from abusing 	the 	administrative 	processes 	of 	the 	Board 	by
filing 	public 	notice 	complaints 	which 	are 	not 	supported 	by 	the
type 	of 	evidence which 	the Board has made 	clear 	is 	necessary 	to
file 	a valid complaint, 	or 	which merely state 	facts or 	raise
questions 	of 	law which the Board has previously resolved. 	In
order 	to 	effectuate 	the purposes 	of 	the 	Educational Employment
Relations Act, 	we ORDER that Howard 0. 	Watts be assessed
quantifiable 	costs 	incurred 	by 	the 	Respondent, 	United 	Professors
of California, 	including reasonable attorneys' 	fees, 	to offset
N	2

the 	expenses 	and 	time 	incurred 	by 	the 	latter 	in processing 	and
defending 	this complaint.
Written 	notification 	of 	the 	actions 	taken 	to 	comply 	with 	this
Order 	shall be made 	to 	the 	Regional 	Director 	of 	the Public
Employment Relations Board 	in 	accordance 	with 	his/her
instructions.
Members Morgenstern 	and Burt 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
3
3

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA 	. 	GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN. Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Los Angeles Regional Office
3470 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1001
Los Angeles, California 90010
(213) 736-3127
March 	1, 	1983
Mr. 	Howard 0. 	Watts
1021 Mariposa 	Avenue, 	Apt. 	3 	1/2
Los 	Angeles, 	CA 9002S
Re: 	NOTICE 	OF 	DISMISSAL
LA-PN-47-H
Dear Mr. 	Watts:
Your 	above-referenced 	public 	notice 	complaint 	was 	filed 	with
our 	office 	January 31, 	1983. 	The 	complaint 	alleges 	that 	the
United 	Professors 	of 	California 	(UPC or 	Union), 	the 	exclusive
representative 	of 	the 	Academic 	Support 	Services Unit 	at
California 	State University 	(CSD), 	presented 	its 	initial
proposal 	to 	the 	employer's 	collective 	bargaining 	subcommittee
on 	December 	30, 	1982 	and 	thus 	violated 	HEERA 	because 	a 	meeting
of 	the 	collective 	bargaining 	subcommittee 	is 	not 	a 	public
meeting 	of 	the 	higher 	education 	employer 	pursuant 	to 	section
3595{a) 	of 	the Act.
The 	complaint 	fails 	to 	assert 	why 	a 	masting 	of 	the 	collective
bargaining 	subcommittee 	should 	not 	be 	considered 	a 	public
meeting 	of 	the 	higher 	education 	employer. 	However, 	for 	the
reasons 	which 	follow, 	it 	is 	unnecessary 	to 	reach 	this 	issue 	in
order 	to 	conclude 	that 	UPC 	could 	not 	have 	violated 	the 	Act
under 	the 	facts 	alleged 	in 	the 	complaint.
HEERA 	section 	3595(a) 	provides 	as 	follows:
(a) 	All 	initial 	proposals 	of 	exclusive 	repre-
sentatives 	and 	of 	higher 	education 	employers,
which 	relate 	to matters 	within 	the 	scope 	of
representation, 	shall 	be 	presented 	at 	a 	public
meeting 	of 	the 	higher 	education 	employer 	and
thereafter 	shall 	be 	public 	records.
Kith 	the 	exception 	of 	the 	definition 	of 	employer, 	this 	section
of 	the 	HEERA 	is 	identical 	to 	section 	3547(a) 	of 	the 	Educational
Employment 	Relations 	Act 	(see 	California 	Government 	Code
section 3547(a)) .
Interpreting 	Government 	Code 	section 	3547(a), 	PERB 	said 	in
Kimmett 	v. 	Los 	Angeles 	Community 	College 	District 	and

Howard 	O. 	Watts
March 	1, 	1983
Page 	2
California 	School 	Employees 	Association, 	Chapter 	507 	(3/3/81)
PERB Dec. 	No. 	158 	that:
The 	preparation 	of 	the 	agenda 	for 	public 	meet-
ings 	and 	the 	conduct 	of 	such 	meetings 	are 	the
province 	of 	the 	[the 	employer] 	and 	under 	its
control. 	While 	an 	employee 	organization 	may
request 	that 	its 	proposals 	be 	placed 	on 	the
agenda 	of 	the 	public 	meeting, 	it 	is 	the
[employer's] 	obligation 	and 	responsibility
to 	provide 	proper 	public 	notice 	and 	to 	present
all 	initial 	proposals—its 	own 	as 	well 	as 	those
of 	the 	exclusive 	representative—to 	the 	public
at 	an 	appropriate meeting.
Id, 	at pp. 	3-4.
The 	complaint 	admits 	that 	the 	union 	made 	its 	presentation 	in
accordance 	with 	the 	employer's 	policy. 	Even 	assuming, 	without
deciding, 	that 	a 	meeting 	of 	the 	collective 	bargaining
subcommittee 	is 	not 	a 	public 	meeting 	of 	the 	higher 	education
employer, 	as 	discussed 	above 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	has
no authority 	to 	dictate 	to 	the 	employer 	at 	which 	type 	of
meeting 	the 	initial 	proposal 	may 	be 	presented. 	UPC 	therefore
could 	not 	be, found 	to 	violate 	section 	3595(a) 	even 	if 	the
complaint, could 	be 	amended 	to 	successfully 	allege 	why 	the
collective 	bargaining 	subcommittee 	is 	not 	a 	public 	meeting 	of
the 	higher 	education 	employer.
Case 	number 	LA-PN-4 8-H, 	filed 	with 	our 	office 	on 	February 	11,
1983, 	makes 	this 	same 	allegation 	against 	CSU. 	Given 	the 	PERB's
rationale 	in 	Kimmett, 	supra, 	the 	proper 	respondent 	for 	this
allegation 	is 	the 	employer 	only. 	I 	will 	make 	a 	determination
on 	this 	legal 	issue 	in 	the 	processing 	of 	that 	case.
The instant 	complaint 	does 	not 	presently 	state 	a 	prima 	facie
violation 	of 	EERA 	section 	3595(a). 	It cannot 	be 	amended 	to 	do
so. 	The 	complaint 	is 	therefore 	hereby 	DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE -
TO 	AMEND.
An 	appeal 	of 	this 	decision 	pursuant 	to 	PERB 	Regulations 	32350
through 	32380 	may 	be 	made 	within 	10 	calendar 	days 	following 	the
date 	of 	service 	of 	this 	decision 	by 	filing 	an 	original 	and 	5
copies 	of 	a 	statement 	of 	the 	facts 	upon 	which 	the 	appeal 	is
based with 	the 	Board 	itself 	at 	1031 	18th 	Street, 	Suite 	200,
Sacramento, 	California 	95814. 	Copies 	of 	any 	appeal 	must 	be
li	
1
I	
j	
!

Howard O. 	Watts
March 	1, 	1983
Page 	3
concurrently 	served 	upon 	all 	parties 	and 	the 	Los 	Angeles
Regional 	Office. 	Proof 	of 	service 	pursuant 	to Regulation 	32140
is 	required.
Very 	truly 	yours,
Frances 	A. 	Kreiling
Regional 	Director
Robert 	R. 	Bergeson
Sr. 	Regional Representative
cc: 	Stewart 	Long, 	UPC 	(informational)
Mayer Chapman, CSU (informational)