American Federation of Teachers College Guild, Local 1521 (Watts) (PERB 0740E)

STATE 	OP 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OP 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS 	BOARD
HOWARD O. 	WATTS,
Complainant,
v.
AMERICAN 	FEDERATION OF 	TEACHERS
COLLEGE GUILD, 	LOCAL 	1521,
Respondent.
)
) 	Case No. 	LA-PN-105
PERB Decision No. 	740
June 	14, 	1989
)
)
)
Appearances: 	Howard 0. 	Watts, 	on his own behalf.
Before Hesse, 	Chairperson; 	Porter and Camilli, 	Members.
DECISION
HESSE, 	Chairperson: 	Howard O. 	Watts 	(Watts) 	appeals the
dismissal 	(attached hereto) 	by a 	Public 	Employment 	Relations
Board 	(PERB or Board) 	agent of his public 	notice 	complaint
alleging 	that 	the American Federation of 	Teachers 	College 	Guild,
Local 	1521 	(AFT) 	violated section 3547(b) 	of the Educational
Employment Relations Act 	(EERA) 	by placing on 	its 	public 	meeting
agenda 	a 	non-specific 	salary proposal 	submitted by AFT.
JEERA 	is 	codified at Government Code 	section 	3540 	et 	seq.
Unless 	otherwise 	indicated, 	all 	statutory references 	herein are
to the Government Code. 	Section 3547 	states, 	in pertinent part:
(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.
)
)
)
)
)
_______________ )

Pursuant to Palo Alto Unified School 	District 	(1981) 	PERB
Decision No. 	184, 	the Board agent dismissed the complaint,
concluding 	that AFT's 	proposal 	basing 	certificated 	salary-
schedules 	upon the 	"Los Angeles-Long Beach Consumer Price 	Index-
Urban for the preceding quarter or 	2.5% 	whichever 	is 	higher" 	was
sufficiently 	specific 	to 	inform 	the public 	of 	the 	issue 	to 	be
negotiated. 	As 	a 	second basis 	for dismissal, 	the Board agent
stated that pursuant 	to PERB Regulation 	32910,2 the 	complaint may
be 	untimely 	if 	complainant 	knew or 	reasonably 	could have 	become
aware 	of 	the 	salary proposal 	at any time prior to 	September 	14,
1988.
In his appeal, 	Watts argues that 	(1) 	the present case
involves 	"different 	circumstances" 	than the 	Board decision 	in
----·Palo Alto, 	supra--, 	PERB Decision No. 	184; 	(2) 	the public complaint
was 	timely 	filed within 	30 	days 	from the date of 	the public
hearing; 	(3) 	the Board agent 	failed to contact or assist Watts 	in
the 	investigation of the public 	notice complaint; 	and 	(4) 	the
public 	notice 	complaint 	should be 	adjudicated by 	"lay people 	non-
attorney types."
The Board, 	after review of the entire record, 	adopts 	the
attached Board agent's dismissal, 	consistent with the discussion
below.
2PERB Regulation 32910 provides, 	in pertinent part:
. 	. 	. 	The complaint shall be filed no later
than 	30 	days 	subsequent to the date when
conduct 	alleged to be 	a violation was 	known
or reasonably could have been discovered. 	. 	.
22

Although there 	is 	a 	statement 	in the public 	notice 	complaint
which 	indicates 	that Watts 	may have known of 	the 	salary proposal
prior to September 	14, 	1988, 	the Board finds 	it unnecessary to
resolve 	the 	timeliness 	issue. 	Assuming that the public 	notice
complaint was 	filed 	in a 	timely manner, 	the Board 	finds 	that,
consistent with Palo Alto, 	the 	salary proposal was 	sufficiently
specific 	to 	adequately 	inform the public 	of 	the 	issue 	to 	be
negotiated. 	The 	fact that the actual 	salary increase 	is 	not
subject 	to 	calculation 	in advance does 	not render the proposal
insufficient under section 3547(b).
Finally, 	Watts' 	exceptions to the Board agent's
investigation of 	the public 	notice 	complaint 	and his 	alleged
refusal 	to assist Watts 	have no merit. 	The 	fact that the Board
agent 	is 	an attorney 	is 	irrelevant 	to the 	investigation of 	a
public 	notice 	complaint. 	Regarding the 	Board agent's 	alleged
refusal 	to assist Watts, 	Watts has 	experience and expertise 	in
the 	filing of public 	notice complaints. 	Thus, 	pursuant to Los
Angeles 	Unified 	School 	District 	and 	California 	State 	University
(1984) 	PERB Decision No. 	396-H, 	the Board finds no violation of
PERB 	Regulation 	32920.
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-105.
Members 	Porter and Camilli 	joined 	in this 	Decision.
33

STATE 	OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS 	BOARD
Howard O. 	Watts,
Complainant,
v.
American 	Federation of 	Teachers
College Guild, 	Local 	1521,
Respondent.
)
)
) 	Case 	No. 	LA-PN-105
NOTICE 	OF 	DISMISSAL
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
The 	above-captioned public 	notice 	complaint was 	filed with
this office on October 	14, 	1988.l The complaint alleges that the
American Federation of Teachers College Guild, 	Local 	1521 	(AFT)
violated 	section 	3547(b) 	of the Educational 	Employment Relations
Act 	(EERA) 	by 	failing to be 	sufficiently 	specific 	concerning a
proposed 	salary 	schedule 	increase. 	The 	complaint 	further alleges
that the proposal was presented on August 31,.-1988, 	and that the
date for public comment was September 	14, 	1988.
An exhibit 	filed with the 	complaint 	shows 	that the AFT
submitted 	the 	following proposal:
All 	certificated 	salary 	schedules 	including 	increments
and differentials, 	shall be increased quarterly
beginning October 	1, 	1988, 	based upon the Los Angeles-
Long Beach Consumer 	Price 	Index-Urban 	for 	the 	preceding
quarter period or 	2.5% 	whichever 	is 	higher.
1Although the 	complaint was 	actually received 	by 	PERB 	on
October 	17, 	1988, 	it was postmarked October 14, 	1988. 	Pursuant to
PERB regulation 32135, 	because it was 	sent by certified mail, 	the
date of 	filing is October 	14.
_____________ )

The 	complainant 	argues 	that 	this 	proposal 	is 	not 	sufficiently
specific 	in that 	it requires 	the public 	"to 	guess what 	the 	CPI
will 	be 	after the proposal 	has 	gone 	to the 	negotiating table."
A 	similar 	complaint was 	considered by 	the 	Board 	in 	Palo Alto
Unified 	School 	District 	and 	Palo Alto 	Educators 	Association
(Fein) 	(1981) 	PERB Decision No.184. 	There, 	a proposed salary
increase was 	also tied to the Consumer Price 	Index. 	The 	Board
observed 	that 	"[a]lthough 	the 	actual 	dollar 	and 	cents 	cost 	of
such a proposal 	is not 	subject to calculation in advance, 	it is
sufficiently developed 	to 	inform 	the 	public 	what issue will 	be 	on
the table at negotiations." 	The Board held, 	therefore, 	that the
requirements of 	subsections 	3547(a) 	and 	(b) 	had been met.
As 	the 	Regional 	Director 	observed 	in 	dismissing 	the 	complaint
in Fein, 	this 	complaint 	confuses 	specificity of 	a proposal with
the 	ability to determine 	the 	cost 	of the proposal. 	A belief 	that
the proposal 	was 	unwise 	because of 	the difficulty of 	calculating
the 	cost 	is 	the 	kind of 	input which 	could 	have 	been given 	to 	the
District 	at 	the meeting held on September 	14, 	which the
complainant 	states 	he 	attended.
Therefore, 	because the instant complaint does not state a
prima 	facie 	violation of 	EERA 	section 	3547, 	and cannot be 	amended
to do 	so, 	it is 	hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.2
2It 	appears 	that a 	second basis 	for dismissal 	may 	also
exist. 	As noted, 	the complaint was 	filed 30 days 	after the
September 	14, 	1988 public hearing. 	Complainant does not state
when he 	learned of the proposal, 	although he does 	state 	that the
proposal was presented on August 31, 	1988. 	If complainant knew of
or 	reasonably 	could have 	become 	aware 	of 	the 	proposal 	at 	any 	time
prior to 	September 	14, 	the 	complaint would be untimely pursuant
22

to PERB regulation 	32910, 	which requires 	a 	complaint to 	"be 	filed
no 	later 	than 	30 	days 	subsequent 	to 	the date when conduct alleged
to be 	a 	violation was 	known or reasonably 	could have 	been
discovered."
Right 	of 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 decision. 	To be timely 	filed, 	the original 	and five 	(5)
copies 	of any appeal must be 	filed with the 	Board itself 	at 	the
following address:
Members, 	Public Employment Relations 	Board
1031 	18th Street, 	Suite 200
Sacramento, 	CA 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, 	". 	. 	. o r 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 must 	state the 	specific 	issues of procedure, 	fact,
law or rationale 	that are 	appealed 	ana must 	state 	the 	grounds 	tor
the appeal.
If 	a 	timely appeal 	is 	filed, 	any other party may 	file with
the Board an original and five 	(5) 	copies 	of a response to the
appeal within twenty 	(20) 	calendar days 	following the date of
service of the appeal.
Service
33

All 	documents 	authorized 	to 	be 	filed herein must 	also 	be
"served" 	upon all 	parties 	to the proceeding and on the 	Los
Angeles 	Regional Office. 	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.
Dated: 	December 8, 	1988
Charles F. 	McClamma
Labor 	Relations 	Specialist
4