United Teachers of Los Angeles (Watts) (PERB 0713E)

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
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD

HOWARD O. WATTS, )

)
Complainant, ) Case No. LA-PN-97

)
Vv. ) PERB Decision No. 713

)

UNITED TEACHERS OF LOS ANGELES, December 29, 1988

)
)
Respondent. )
)

Appearance: Howard 0. Watts, on his own behalf.

Before Hesse, Chairperson; Porter and Shank, Members.
DECISION
HESSE, Chairperson: This case is before the Public
Employment Relations Board (PERB or Board) on appeal by Howard O.
Watts of the Board agent's dismissal, attached hereto, of his.
public notice complaint alleging that the United Teachers of Los
Angeles (UTLA) violated section 3547 of the Educational

Employment Relations Act (EERA).* The complainant asserts that

IRERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq.
Unless otherwise indicated all statutory references are to the
Government Code. Section 3547 reads, in pertinent part:

(a) All initial proposals of exclusive
representatives and of public school
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.

(bo) 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.

UTLA 	failed to present 	its 	proposal 	relative 	to 	the 	change 	in 	the
1987-88 	school 	calendar due 	to the papal 	visit to Los Angeles
September 	15-16, 	1987. 	Mr. 	Watts alleged that 	such failure
denied 	the 	public 	an opportunity 	to 	respond to 	UTLA's 	proposal,
and in his 	appeal, 	he makes reference to copies 	of 	"special
reports" 	received 	subsequent to the 	filing of 	his 	original
complaint.
FACTS
In August 	1987, 	the Los Angeles 	Unified School 	District
(District) 	changed the 	school 	calendar 	to 	avoid traffic
congestion due 	to 	the 	upcoming papal 	visit 	of 	September 	15-16.
Mr. 	Watts 	filed a public 	notice 	complaint against the 	District.
In that 	case, 	the 	Board agent 	found the 	District violated EERA
section 	3547(d) 	by 	failing to 	adequately explain 	its 	proposal 	on
the 	new 	subject of bargaining. 	The 	complaint 	(LA-PN-96) 	resulted
in 	a 	cease 	and desist 	order 	and 	a 	subsequent 	compliance 	letter
issued on July 27, 	1988, 	from the Los Angeles Regional Office.
UTLA 	and 	the 	District 	had 	been meeting 	on 	contract 	reopeners
and other matters on August 5, 	21, 	and 27, 	1987. 	The District
announced, 	at one of these meetings, 	its plan to delay the 	first
day of 	the 	traditional 	school 	year because 	of 	the 	Pope's 	visit.
UTLA 	then 	suggested 	two 	alternatives 	the 	District 	could 	have
pursued. 	On August 	31, 	1987, 	the Los Angeles Board of Education
received 	a recommendation 	to 	revise 	the 	1987-88 	school 	calendar
so as to cancel classes on September 	15, 	1987.
N	
2

Mr. 	Watts 	filed a public 	notice 	complaint 	against 	UTLA on
September 25, 	1987. 	The essence of Mr. 	Watts' 	complaint against
UTLA was 	that 	it 	had 	failed 	to 	comply with the 	public 	notice
(EERA) 	section 	3547 	in making proposals 	to the 	District regarding
the 	change 	of 	the 	1987-88 	school 	calendar. 	The 	Board agent 	found
that 	UTLA had not 	participated 	in 	the 	decision 	to 	close 	the
schools 	during the 	Pope's 	visit and did not present 	a 	"proposal"
to 	the 	District 	regarding 	such decision.
DISCUSSION
Mr. 	Watts' 	appeal arises primarily out of a special report
published by the UTLA dated September 	1, 	1987, 	outlining the
District's 	actions 	and UTLA's 	responses. 	Also dated September 	1,
1987, 	the District issued a 	"special report" 	indicating that UTLA
had rejected 	the 	Board's 	"offer" 	and had offered
"counterproposals." 	Mr. 	Watts 	contends 	that the two reports
published by the District and UTLA, 	as well 	as 	various newspaper
articles 	and 	other 	documents 	are 	more 	than enough proof 	that
negotiations 	took place. 	He 	argues 	the 	Board agent prematurely
dismissed 	the 	complaint.
Assuming that 	UTLA's 	response 	to the 	District's 	action 	could
be 	characterized as 	a 	"counterproposal," 	there 	is 	no requirement
that 	counterproposals 	made 	by 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	be
publicly noticed prior 	to 	the 	commencement 	of 	negotiations
pursuant 	to 	section EERA 	3547. 	(Sacramento City Unified 	School
District 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	205.)
33

ORDER
For the reasons 	stated above, 	the 	Board DENIES Howard O.
Watts' 	appeal 	of the notice of dismissal 	and AFFIRMS the
dismissal in Case No. 	LA-PN-97.
Member 	Shank 	joined 	in this 	Decision.
Member Porter's 	concurrence begins 	on page 	5.
4

Porter, Member, concurring: I concur in the dismissal of

the complaint herein.

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	B O A R D
UNITED TEACHERS OF LOS ANGELES,
Employee Organization,
and
HOWARD 0. WATTS,
Complainant.
)
)
) 	Case No. 	LA-PN-97
July 	14, 	1988
NOTICE 	OF 	DISMISSAL
)
)
)
)
)
)
The 	above-captioned 	public 	notice 	complaint 	was 	filed 	with
this 	office 	on September 	25, 	1987. 	The complaint 	alleges 	that
.,
the 	United 	Teachers of 	Los 	Angeles 	(UTLA) 	violated 	Section
3547(b) 	of 	the Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Act 	(EERA or
Act) 	by 	failing 	to present 	its proposal 	relative 	to 	the change
in 	the 	1987-88 	school calendar 	due 	to 	the 	papal 	visit 	to 	Los
Angeles on September 	15-16, 	1987. 	By 	its 	failure to present
its proposal, 	UTLA has 	allegedly denied 	the public 	an
opportunity 	to 	respond 	to 	its 	proposal 	of 	the 	rescheduling 	of
the 	opening 	day of 	the 	Los Angeles 	Unified 	School 	District
1987-1988 	school year.
This 	office 	in another 	case 	(LA-PN-96) 	found 	that 	the 	Los
Angeles 	Unified 	School 	District 	(District) 	violated 	EERA
section 	3547(d) 	by 	its 	failure 	to adequately 	explain 	its
proposal 	on 	this 	new 	subject 	of 	bargaining.
Investigation 	of 	this 	complaint 	has 	revealed 	that 	UTLA
never 	made a proposal on 	this 	subject. 	Discussions did 	occur

between the District and UTLA subsequent 	to the 	district's
unilateral 	action, 	but 	the 	nature of 	those 	discussions 	appear
to 	have 	been 	to accommodate the 	rest 	of 	the 	school 	calendar 	to
its 	180 day 	schedule. 	Due 	to 	the 	fact 	there 	was no proposal
from UTLA to alter 	the 	school calendar, 	it cannot 	be 	found 	that
UTLA 	violated 	the 	Act.
Thus, 	the Complaint is hereby DISMISSED.
RIGHT TO 	APPEAL
An 	appeal 	of 	this decision 	to the Board 	itself 	may 	be made
within 	twenty 	(20) 	calendar 	days 	following 	the date 	of 	service
of 	this decisio
... n 	(PERB 	regulation 	32925). 	To 	be 	timely 	filed,
the 	appeal 	must 	be 	filed with 	the 	Board 	itself 	at 	the 	following
address:
Members, 	Public 	Employment 	Relations Board
1031 	18th 	Street
Sacramento, 	California 	95814-4174
A document 	is considered 	"filed" 	when 	actually 	received
before 	the close 	of business 	(5:00 	p.m.) 	on the 	last 	day 	set
for 	filing, 	" . . . 	or 	when 	sent 	by 	telegraph or certified 	or
Express 	United 	States 	mail, 	postmarked 	not 	later 	than 	the 	last
day 	set 	for 	filing 	. . . " 	(regulation 	32135). 	Code of 	Civil
Procedure 	section 	1013 	shall 	apply.
The 	appeal 	shall 	be 	filed 	in 	writing 	and 	be 	signed 	by 	the
appealing 	party 	or 	its 	agent.
If 	a 	timely 	appeal 	is 	filed, 	any other 	party may 	file 	with
the 	Board 	an 	opposition 	to 	the 	appeal 	within 	twenty 	(20)

calendar 	days 	following 	the 	date 	of 	service 	of 	the 	appeal
(regulation 	32925).
Service
All 	documents 	authorized 	to 	be 	filed 	herein must 	also 	be
"served" 	upon 	all parties 	to 	the 	proceeding. 	A 	"proof 	of
service" 	must 	accompany 	each copy 	of 	a document 	served 	upon 	a
party 	or 	filed 	with 	the 	Board 	itself 	(see 	regulation 	32140 	for
the 	required 	contents 	and a 	sample 	form). 	The 	document 	will 	be
considered 	properly 	"served" 	when 	personally 	delivered 	or
deposited 	in 	the 	first-class 	mail 	postage 	paid 	and 	properly
addressed. 	••
Robert R. 	Bergeson
Regional 	Director
Roger 	Smith
Labor 	Relations 	Specialist