American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (Smith) (PERB 0859H)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
JAN SMITH,
Charging 	Party,
v.
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF 	STATE,
COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL 	EMPLOYEES,
COUNCIL 	10,
Respondent.
)
)
) 	Case No. 	LA-CO-2 8-H
PERB 	Decision No. 	859-H
December 	17, 	1990
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearance: 	Jan Smith, 	on her own behalf.
Before Hesse, 	Chairperson; 	Shank and Camilli, 	Members.
DECISION AND 	ORDER
CAMILLI, 	Member: 	This case is before the Public 	Employment
Relations Board 	(Board) 	on appeal by Jan Smith 	(Smith) 	of a 	Board
agent's 	dismissal 	(attached hereto) 	of her charge that 	the
American Federation of 	State, 	County and Municipal 	Employees,
Council 	10 	(AFSCME) 	violated section 3571.l(b) 	of the Higher
Education Employer-Employee Relations Act 	(HEERA)1 when it
refused to process 	her grievance to 	arbitration. 	Smith alleges
1HEERA 	is 	codified at Government Code 	section 	3560 	et 	seq.
Unless 	otherwise 	indicated, 	all 	statutory references 	are to 	the
Government Code. 	Section 3571.1 	states, 	in pertinent part:
It 	shall 	be unlawful 	for an employee
organization to:
(b) 	Impose or threaten to 	impose reprisals
on employees, 	to discriminate or threaten to
discriminate against employees, 	or otherwise
to interfere with, 	restrain, 	or coerce
employees 	because 	of 	their 	exercise 	of 	rights
guaranteed by this 	chapter.

that AFSCME's 	refusal 	denied her 	the 	right 	of 	fair 	representation
guaranteed by Government 	Code 	section 	3578.2 We have 	reviewed
the dismissal 	and, 	finding 	it to be 	free of prejudicial 	error
adopt 	it as 	the Decision of 	the Board 	itself.
The unfair practice 	charge 	in Case No. 	LA-CO-28-H 	is 	hereby
DISMISSED WITHOUT 	LEAVE 	TO AMEND.
Chairperson Hesse 	and Member 	Shank 	joined 	in this 	Decision.
2Section 3578 	states:
The 	employee 	organization 	recognized 	or
certified as 	the 	exclusive 	representative
shall 	represent all 	employees 	in the unit,
fairly and 	impartially. 	A breach of 	this
duty 	shall 	be deemed to have 	occurred 	if 	the
employee 	organization's 	conduct 	in
representation is arbitrary, 	discriminatory,
or 	in bad 	faith.
22

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Los Angeles Regional Office
3530 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 650
Los Angeles. CA 90010-2334
(213) 736-3127
August 	15, 	1990
Jan 	Smith
RE: 	WARNING LETTER, 	Unfair Practice Charge No. 	LA-CO-28-H, 	Jan
Smith v. 	American Federation of 	State. 	County and Municipal
Employees 	Council 	10
In the above-referenced 	charge, 	you allege 	that 	the American
Federation of 	State, 	County and Municipal 	Employees 	Council 	10
(AFSCME) 	denied you 	the 	right 	to 	fair 	representation guaranteed
by Government Code 	section 	3578 	of 	the 	Higher 	Education Employer-
Employee 	Relations 	Act 	(HEERA) 	and 	thereby 	violated 	Government
Code section 3571.l(b).
My 	investigation 	of 	this 	charge 	revealed 	the 	following 	facts.
You were 	employed by the 	University of 	California 	(University) 	as
career employee 	in a unit 	for which AFSCME 	is 	the 	exclusive
representative. 	Specifically, 	you were 	employed as 	a part-time
(50%) 	Senior Clerk 	in the 	Department of 	Biology. 	On February 	1,
1989, 	the 	Department 	informed you that you would be 	terminated
effective July 	1, 	1989, 	but would have a 	right to recall 	and a
preference 	for reemployment. 	On March 2, 	1989, 	you filed a
grievance 	challenging 	your 	termination 	and 	alleging 	violations 	of
Articles 	4, 	8 	and 	13 of the collective bargaining agreement.
Article 4 	of the agreement 	(as effective January 4, 	1988, 	through
June 30, 	1989) 	prohibited discrimination because of race, 	color,
religion, 	marital status, 	national origin, 	ancestry, 	sex, 	sexual
orientation, 	handicap, 	veteran status, 	age, 	citizenship, 	or union
(or non-union) 	affiliation. 	Neither the 	original 	grievance nor
an amended 	grievance 	(filed on March 	8, 	1989) 	indicated what 	kind
of 	discrimination was 	alleged to have 	occurred 	in violation of
this 	article. 	It was 	apparently alleged 	later that 	there 	had
been age discrimination, 	but it is 	not apparent what 	evidence
supported 	this 	allegation.
Article 	8 	provided 	in part 	that the University 	could discharge 	or
otherwise discipline 	a 	career employee for 	just 	cause, 	but 	that
the 	employee was 	entitled 	to prior 	notice 	and 	an 	opportunity 	to
respond, 	and 	that 	the 	employee could 	appeal 	the 	action through
the 	contractual 	grievance procedure 	by 	alleging 	that 	the 	action
-
_-_-----

Dismissal 	and Refusal 	to
Issue Complaint
LA-CE-28-H
August 28, 	1990
Page 	2
Department if your therapist approved) 	on January 21, 	1990, 	the
day before 	the 	appeals panel decided not 	to 	take 	your 	case 	to
arbitration. 	Even assuming that 	Skotnes 	(who was 	not 	on the
panel 	and did not 	appear before 	it) 	could communicate 	your
message to the panel, 	the panel would 	still 	not know whether you
would 	actually 	accept 	reinstatement. 	Since 	reinstatement would
be the normal 	remedy 	for an improper termination, 	the panel 	would
still 	have 	a 	legitimate practical 	concern about 	the 	relative
costs 	and benefits 	of taking your case to 	arbitration. 	The
additional 	facts 	(cited 	in the amended charge) 	that the
University 	Rehabilitation Counselor advised 	you 	not 	to 	go 	back 	to
the Biology 	Department, 	and that 	University Labor Relations
Officer Tony Giorgio 	said 	such a return was 	"not viable," 	would
only 	increase 	the 	panel's 	legitimate practical 	concern.
It 	is 	still 	not 	apparent 	from the 	charge 	as 	amended 	that AFSCME's
decision not to 	take your 	case 	to arbitration was 	without 	a
rational basis 	or devoid of honest 	judgment. 	I 	am therefore
dismissing 	the 	charge based on the 	facts 	and 	reasons 	contained 	in
this 	letter and 	in my August 	15 	letter.
Right 	to Appeal
Pursuant to 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	regulations, 	you
may obtain a 	review of 	this 	dismissal 	of 	the 	charge 	by 	filing 	an
appeal 	to the 	Board 	itself within twenty 	(20) 	calendar days 	after
service of this 	dismissal 	(California Administrative Code, 	title
8, 	section 32635(a)). 	To be timely filed, 	the original and 	five
copies 	of 	such 	appeal 	must be actually 	received 	by 	the 	Board
itself before the close of business 	(5:00 p.m.) 	or 	sent by
telegraph, 	certified 	or Express 	United 	States 	mail 	postmarked 	no
later than the 	last 	date 	set 	for 	filing 	(California
Administrative Code, 	title 8, 	section 32135). 	Code of Civil
Procedure 	section 	1013 	shall apply. 	The Board's 	address 	is:
Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board
1031 	18th Street
Sacramento, 	CA 95814
If you file a timely appeal of the refusal 	to 	issue a 	complaint,
any other party may 	file with the Board 	an original 	and 	five
copies 	of 	a 	statement 	in opposition within twenty 	calendar 	days
following the date 	of 	service of 	the appeal 	(California
Administrative Code, 	title 8, 	section 32635(b)).

Dismissal 	and 	Refusal 	to
Issue 	Complaint
LA-CE-28-H
August 28, 	1990
Page 	3
Service
All 	documents 	authorized 	to be 	filed herein must 	also 	be 	"served"
upon all parties 	to the proceeding, 	and a 	"proof of 	service" 	must
accompany 	each 	copy of 	a 	document 	served upon a party 	or 	filed
with the Board 	itself. 	(See 	California Administrative Code,
title 	8, 	section 	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.
Extension of 	Time
A 	request 	for 	an extension 	of 	time 	in which to 	file 	a 	document
with 	the 	Board 	itself 	must 	be 	in writing 	and 	filed with 	the 	Board
at 	the previously noted 	address. 	A request 	for 	an extension must
be 	filed 	at 	least 	three 	calendar days 	before 	the 	expiration 	of
the 	time required 	for 	filing 	the 	document. 	The 	request 	must
indicate good cause 	for and, 	if 	known, 	the position of 	each other
party regarding 	the 	extension, 	and 	shall 	be accompanied by proof
of 	service 	of 	the 	request 	upon 	each party 	(California
Administrative Code, 	title 8, 	section 32132).
Final 	Date
If 	no appeal 	is 	filed within the 	specified time 	limits, 	the
dismissal will 	become 	final when the 	time 	limits 	have 	expired.
Sincerely,
JOHN W. 	SPITTLER
General 	Counsel
By 	_
Thomas 	J. 	Allen
Regional 	Attorney
Attachment
cc: 	Nadra Floyd

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor
PUBLIC. EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Los Angeles Regional Office
3530 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 650
Los Angeles, CA 90010-2334
(213)736-3127
August 29, 	1990
Jan 	Smith
RE: 	DISMISSAL AND REFUSAL TO ISSUE COMPLAINT, 	Unfair Practice
Charge No. 	LA-CE-28-H, 	Jan Smith v. 	American Federation of
State, County 	and Municipal 	Employees 	Council 	10
Dear Ms. 	Smith:
I 	indicated to you 	in my attached 	letter dated August 	15, 	1990,
that 	the 	above-referenced 	charge 	did 	not 	state 	a 	prima 	facie
case. 	You were 	advised that 	if 	there were any 	factual
inaccuracies 	or 	additional 	facts 	that would 	correct 	the
deficiencies 	explained 	in that 	letter, 	you 	should amend 	the
charge 	accordingly. 	You were 	further 	advised 	that unless 	you
amended 	the 	charge to state a prima 	facie 	case, 	or withdrew 	it
prior to August 22, 	1990, 	the charge would be dismissed.
On August 20, 	1990, 	you filed 	(by certified mail) 	a First Amended
Charge. 	In this 	amended charge, 	you point out 	in part that
AFSCME's 	letter to you dated March 	1, 	1990, 	did not address 	your
claim of age discrimination. 	No 	evidence 	of 	age discrimination
was 	cited, 	however, 	in the appeal of your grievance on June 	29,
1989, 	in your letter to AFSCME on November 	1, 	1989, 	or in the
statement you prepared 	to 	read 	to 	the AFSCME 	appeals 	panel 	on
January 20, 	1990. 	In your letter of November 	1, 	1989, 	the only
discriminatory 	reason 	for your 	termination 	that 	you 	mentioned was
that 	"[t]hey fired me, 	period, 	in a gross act of reprisal, 	for
going to the 	Ombudsman" 	-- 	a 	kind of 	discrimination that 	the
collective 	bargaining agreement 	apparently 	does 	not 	prohibit.
Especially 	since 	it 	is 	still 	not apparent what 	evidence 	supported
the 	claim of 	age discrimination, 	it does 	not 	seem unreasonable
that AFSCME did 	not 	address 	this 	claim 	in 	its 	letter of 	March 	1,
1990.
Moreover, 	the 	law does 	not require AFSCME 	to address 	in detail
every argument 	in 	support of 	your grievance. 	As 	stated 	in my
August 	15 letter, 	the law requires you, 	as a charging party, 	to
assert 	sufficient 	facts 	from which 	it 	becomes 	apparent 	how
AFSCME's 	action or 	inaction was without 	a 	rational 	basis 	or
devoid 	of honest 	judgment. 	The 	fact 	that AFSCME was 	apparently
unpersuaded 	by 	arguments 	that 	you 	and AFSCME 	representative 	Peggy
J. 	Skotnes 	apparently found persuasive 	is 	not 	sufficient.
In the 	amended 	charge, 	you make 	it 	clear 	that 	you 	called 	Skotnes
(and 	left 	the message that you would 	go 	back 	to 	the Biology

Warning 	Letter
LA-CO-28-H
August 	15, 	1990
Page 	2
was 	not based on 	just cause. 	Article 	13 	governed layoffs, 	which
it defined 	(in 	section B.I.) 	to 	include 	"an involuntary
separation from employment." 	This 	article provided 	(in 	section
A . ) , 	"The University shall determine when temporary or indefinite
layoffs 	. 	. 	. 	are necessary." 	Section C.I. 	of the article
provided as 	follows:
If, 	in the 	judgment of the University,
budgetary 	or 	operational 	considerations 	make
it necessary to curtail operations,
reorganize, 	reduce the hours 	of the workforce
and/or 	reduce the workforce, 	staffing 	levels
will 	be 	reduced 	in accordance with 	this
Article. 	The 	selection of 	employees 	for
layoff 	shall 	be 	at 	the 	sole 	discretion of 	the
University. 	[Emphasis 	added.]
Sections 	E. 	and F. 	provided for recall 	and preferential 	rehire 	to
"an active, 	vacant 	career position," 	with the 	following
condition: 	"the 	employee must, 	as determined at the sole, 	non-
grievable discretion of 	the University, 	be 	qualified to perform
the duties of the position 	[emphasis added]."
Your 	amended 	grievance 	alleged 	that 	your 	termination, 	while
disguised as 	a 	layoff, 	was disciplinary 	in nature and unwarranted
under the 	circumstances. 	As 	a 	remedy, 	it requested reinstatement
with no 	loss 	in wages and benefits.
In response to your grievance, 	the 	Department 	of 	Biology asserted
that 	your termination was 	a 	layoff 	under Article 	13, 	based on
budgetary 	and 	operational 	needs 	and 	on plans 	to 	automate 	and
reorganize. 	It 	asserted that 	funds 	saved by your 	layoff would
fund 	other priorities, 	including another person 	in the 	Student
Affairs 	Office. 	The Department denied that the 	termination was
disciplinary or discriminatory. 	On appeal, 	the Vice Chancellor
responded to 	the 	grievance 	in the 	same way, 	pointing out 	that
Article 	13 	"states 	that 	the decision to 	layoff 	and 	the 	selection
of 	the 	classification(s) 	for layoff are at the discretion of 	the
University 	and are 	not 	grievable."
In a 	further appeal of your grievance, 	AFSCME representative
Peggy J. 	Skotnes pointed out that you, 	a part-time 	(50%) 	Senior
Clerk, 	were the 	only one 	laid-off, 	and that the person to be
hired 	in the 	Student Affairs 	Office was 	a 	50% 	Senior Typist
Clerk. 	Skotnes 	continued as 	follows:

Warning 	Letter
LA-CO-28-H
August 	15, 	1990
Page 3
Jan Smith 	is 	eligible 	for recall 	into this
position. 	She was offered this position in
November 	1988 	and turned 	it down before 	she
was 	ever 	informed 	she was 	to be 	laid off.
This 	50% 	Sr. 	Clerk Typist position was 	never
posted and has 	since been filled. 	Aside 	from
the 	evidence 	that the 	layoff was 	engineered
to eliminate this particular individual, 	the
Department knowingly deceived Ms. 	Smith
regarding this 	other 	50% 	position and 	clearly
violated 	the 	recall 	section of 	the 	Layoff
Article.
Additionally, 	we have 	also discovered that
the 	proposed 	automation of 	the 	department 	has
not been implemented at this 	time; 	further
evidence 	that 	this was 	just 	a 	ruse used 	to
get 	rid of this 	individual.
The 	Union requests 	as 	a remedy 	for 	the
Department 	of 	Biology 	in conjunction with
U.C. 	Riverside to find a 	50% 	career variable
time position 	for this 	employee 	and
reinstatement of all 	benefits with no 	loss 	of
seniority. 	The Department 	of 	Biology has
refused 	to even give 	the 	employee 	a
recommendation 	in order 	for her 	to 	take
advantage of her preferential 	rehire 	rights.
At 	minimum they 	should be 	required to 	do 	so.
The 	University's 	Office 	of 	Labor 	Relations 	nonetheless 	found 	no
reason to 	change 	the earlier response 	to 	the 	grievance.
On October 	25, 	1989, 	AFSCME 	informed you by 	letter that 	it had
"determined 	that 	this 	case 	lacks 	sufficient 	merit 	to 	justify
processing 	to 	an arbitration hearing" 	and had 	therefore 	"decided
not to take your case to arbitration." 	You were 	given an
opportunity to appeal that decision, 	and you responded with 	a
letter that 	stated in part as 	follows:
Please 	let me know 	just what would 	constitute
sufficient merit to processing 	this 	case 	to
arbitration. 	UC Riverside has 	done
everything wrong in my case; 	even to the
point of using my case 	in management 	training
classes 	as what not to do, 	or they will be 	in
a union grievance case. 	Also, 	at the time

Warning 	Letter
LA-CO-28-H
August 	15, 	1990
Page 	4
they 	fired me 	they 	opened up 	a 	career
position in the 	same department with a 	Sr.
Clerk title, 	at 50%, 	variable time. 	This is
the exact 	job classification, 	only with
different duties, 	that I had before they
started 	fooling 	around with my 	job, 	in
October 	1987. 	Even with my 	limited knowledge
of the AFSCME contract, 	this does 	not 	seem
right to me.
Also, 	just to let you know, 	mine was not a
layoff, 	it was a definite termination. 	They
fired me, 	period, 	in a gross act of reprisal,
for 	going 	to 	the 	Ombudsman to 	seek help with
the 	harassment 	and 	other 	things 	they 	had 	been
putting me 	through 	for over a 	year and 	a
half. 	The word 	"termination" 	was 	used as
opposed to 	"layoff" 	as 	further harassment 	and
degradation. 	Please 	find the 	enclosed
termination 	[notice] 	that you requested.
On January 20, 	1990, 	you appeared 	in person before an AFSCME
appeals 	panel 	to tell 	your 	story. 	You also 	told 	the panel 	that
your 	therapist had 	told 	you 	not 	to 	go 	back to 	the 	Biology
Department. 	On March 	1, 	1990, 	AFSCME Executive Director Nadra
Floyd 	sent 	you a 	letter 	stating 	in 	full 	as 	follows:
The AFSCME Council 	10 	Southern Appeals 	Panel,
met on January 	22, 	1990 	and arrived at 	the
following decision 	in your arbitration 	case.
The 	Panel 	voted 	to 	uphold 	the 	decision not 	to
got 	[sic] 	forward on your case. 	The panel
after reviewing all 	the 	evidence, 	decided the
following:
a. 	The 	University does 	have 	the 	right 	to
reorganize work 	in a department.
b. 	You did not possess 	the 	qualifications
necessary 	for 	the 	Senior 	Clerk Typist
position which was 	subsequently 	created.
When you received this 	letter, 	you 	called AFSCME 	representative
Skotnes 	and 	left a message1 to the 	effect 	that 	if 	the 	arbitrator
ruled 	that 	you had to 	go back 	to 	the 	Biology 	Department 	you 	would
do so, 	if your therapist approved.

Warning 	Letter
LA-CO-28-H
Page 5
AFSCME 	Executive 	Director Nadra 	Floyd has 	told me 	that 	the
appeals 	panel's 	decision was 	influenced 	by 	the 	collective
bargaining agreement's 	grant 	of 	discretion to 	the 	University 	in
layoff decisions; 	by what the panel 	saw as 	insufficient 	evidence
that your termination was 	disciplinary; 	and by your apparent
reluctance, 	based on your therapist's 	advice, 	to accept
reinstatement 	to the Biology Department, 	which was 	the 	remedy
that 	the 	grievance 	requested. 	She 	told me 	that 	the panel 	decided
you did 	not possess 	the 	qualifications 	necessary 	for 	the 	Senior
Clerk 	Typist 	position because 	it understood 	that 	you 	do 	not 	type.
You have 	also 	told me that you are 	"not a 	typist."
Based on the 	facts 	stated above, 	the 	charge 	fails 	to 	state a
prima 	facie 	violation of 	the 	HEERA 	for 	the 	reasons 	that 	follow.
You have alleged that AFSCME, 	as 	the 	exclusive 	representative,
denied you 	the 	right to 	fair representation. 	The duty of 	fair
representation 	imposed 	on 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	extends 	to
grievance handling. 	Fremont Teachers Association 	(King) 	(1980)
PERB Decision No. 	125; 	United Teachers 	of 	Los Angeles 	(Collins)
(1983) 	PERB Decision No. 	258. 	In order to state a prima 	facie
violation of 	this 	section of 	the 	EERA, 	a 	charging party must 	show
that 	the 	exclusive 	representative's 	conduct was 	arbitrary,
discriminatory, 	or 	in bad 	faith. 	In United Teachers 	of 	Los
Angeles 	(Collins). 	id., 	the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB) 	stated:
Absent bad faith, 	discrimination, 	or
arbitrary conduct, 	mere negligence or poor
judgment 	in handling a grievance 	does 	not
constitute a breach of the union's duty.
A union may 	exercise 	its 	discretion 	to
determine how far to pursue 	a 	grievance 	on
the 	employee's 	behalf as 	long as 	it does 	not
arbitrarily 	ignore 	a meritorious 	grievance 	or
process 	a 	grievance 	in a perfunctory 	fashion.
A union 	is 	also 	not 	required 	to process 	an
employee's 	grievance 	if 	the 	chances 	for
success 	are minimal.
In order to 	state 	a prima 	facie 	case 	of 	arbitrary 	conduct
violating the duty of 	fair representation, 	a 	charging party:

Warning 	Letter
LA-CO-28-H
August 	15, 	1990
Page 	6
. 	. 	. must, at a minimum, 	include an
assertion of 	sufficient 	facts 	from which 	it
becomes 	apparent how or 	in what manner the
exclusive 	representative's 	action or 	inaction
was without a 	rational 	basis 	or devoid of
honest 	judgment. 	Reed 	District Teachers
Association. 	CTA/NEA 	(Reyes) 	(1983) 	PERB
Decision No. 	332, 	citing Rocklin Teachers
Professional Association 	(Romero) 	(1980) 	PERB
Decision No. 	124.
It 	is 	not 	apparent 	that AFSCME's 	decision not to take your 	case
to 	arbitration was without 	a 	rational 	basis 	or devoid 	of 	honest
judgment. 	Article 	13 	of 	the collective bargaining agreement
allows 	the University, 	in its 	judgment, 	to determine when 	layoffs
and 	reorganizations 	are necessary and, 	in its 	"sole discretion,"
to 	select 	employees 	for 	layoff. 	Presumably the 	University's
discretion 	is 	limited by Article 	4, 	which prohibits 	various 	kinds
of discrimination; 	Article 4 does not, 	however, 	appear to
prohibit discrimination because 	an 	employee went 	to 	the
University Ombudsman. 	AFSCME 	could therefore 	conclude, 	with 	some
rational basis 	and honest 	judgment, 	that 	it would not be 	likely
to 	succeed 	in arbitration 	in challenging your termination, 	which
the 	University had portrayed 	as 	a 	layoff 	due 	to 	reorganization.
Whether 	or 	not AFSCME 	found 	you 	actually possessed 	the
qualifications 	necessary 	for 	the 	Senior Clerk Typist 	position 	may
not have been significant, 	since Article 	13 	also allowed the
University, 	in its 	"sole, 	non-grievable discretion," 	to determine
whether or not a 	laid-off 	employee 	is 	"fully qualified" 	for 	a
vacant 	position, 	and AFSCME 	could 	reasonably 	have 	concluded 	that
an 	arbitrator would 	therefore 	feel 	bound 	by 	the 	University's
determination on this 	issue. 	Furthermore, 	considering 	the 	effort
and 	expense of arbitration, 	it was 	not unreasonable 	for AFSCME 	to
be 	concerned that you might 	ultimately decline, 	on your
therapist's 	advice, 	the 	remedy of 	reinstatement that 	you
originally 	sought.
For these reasons, 	the charge as presently written does 	not 	state
a prima 	facie case. 	If 	there are any 	factual 	inaccuracies 	in
this 	letter or any 	additional 	facts 	that would 	correct 	the
deficiencies 	explained above, 	please 	amend the 	charge
accordingly. 	The amended 	charge 	should be prepared 	on 	a 	standard
PERB 	unfair practice 	charge 	form 	clearly 	labeled 	First 	Amended
Charge. 	contain all the 	facts 	and allegations 	you wish to make,
-

Warning 	Letter
LA-CO-28-H
August 15, 	1990
Page 	7
and must 	be 	signed 	under 	penalty 	of 	perjury 	by 	the 	charging
party. 	The 	amended 	charge must be 	served on the respondent 	and
the original proof 	of 	service must be 	filed with PERB. 	If 	I 	do
not 	receive 	an amended 	charge 	or withdrawal 	from you before
August 22, 	1990, 	I 	shall dismiss your charge. 	If you have any
questions, please call me at 	(213) 	736-3127.
Sincerely,
Thomas J. 	Allen
Regional 	Attorney