Los Rios College Federation of Teachers, California Federation of Teachers/American Federation of Teachers, Local 2279 (Deglow) (PERB 0896E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
ANNETTE 	M. 	DEGLOW,
Charging 	Party,
V.
LOS 	RIOS COLLEGE 	FEDERATION OF
TEACHERS , CFT/AFT, Local 22 79,
Respondent.
)
) 	Case No. 	S-CO-2 60
PERB Decision No. 	896
August 14, 	1991
)
)
)
)
Appearances: 	Annette M. 	Deglow, 	on her own behalf; 	Robert J.
Bezemek, 	Attorney, 	for Los Rios College Federation of Teachers,
CFT/AFT, Local 2279.
Before Hesse, 	Chairperson; 	Shank and Carlyle, 	Members.
DECISION AND 	ORDER
HESSE, 	Chairperson: 	This case is before the Public
Employment Relations 	Board 	(Board) 	on appeal by Annette M. 	Deglow
of 	a Board agent's dismissal 	(attached hereto) 	of her charge 	that
the Los 	Rios College Federation of Teachers, 	CFT/AFT, 	Local 	2279
(Federation) 	violated section 3543.6(b) 	of the Educational
Employment Relations Act 	(EERA)1 and violated 	its 	duty of 	fair
representation under 	section 	3544.9 	of 	the EERA, 	as 	enforced
under 	section 3543.6(b). 	We have reviewed the dismissal 	and,
finding 	it to be 	free of prejudicial 	error, 	adopt 	it as 	the
decision of 	the 	Board itself.
Further, 	the Board denies 	the Federation's 	request 	for
attorneys' 	fees 	and costs on appeal. 	As the factual allegations
1EERA 	is 	codified at Government Code 	section 	3540 	et 	seq.
Unless 	otherwise 	indicated, 	all 	statutory references 	herein are
to the Government Code.
)
)
)

in the 	original 	and amended unfair practice 	charges 	allege 	the
type 	of 	conduct 	involved 	in Chaffey 	Joint 	Union 	High 	School
District 	(1988) 	PERB Decision No. 	6692, 	the Board finds that the
allegations 	are not without arguable merit. 	(See Unit
Determination 	for the State of California 	(1980) 	PERB 	Decision
No. 	110c-S; 	Chula Vista City School 	District 	(1982) 	PERB Decision
No. 	256; 	Central Union High School District 	(1983) 	PERB Decision
No. 	324; 	Modesto City and High School Districts 	(1986) 	PERB
Decision No. 	566.)
The unfair practice charge 	in Case No. 	S-CO-260 	is 	hereby
DISMISSED WITHOUT 	LEAVE 	TO AMEND.
Members 	Shank and Carlyle 	joined 	in this 	Decision.
2In Chaffey Union High 	School 	District, 	the Board determined
that 	the 	exclusive 	representative's 	removal 	of 	election notices,
its 	assent 	to 	a 	consent 	election agreement 	containing 	limited
polling hours 	and 	locations, 	as well as 	its 	selective
notification only 	of 	those 	unit 	members 	believed 	to 	approve 	of
agency 	fee, 	when considered 	in the totality of 	the 	circumstances,
was 	sufficient to 	state 	a prima 	facie 	case 	of the breach of 	the
duty of 	fair representation. 	Here, 	Deglow alleges 	the 	Federation
failed 	to notify all 	of 	the bargaining unit members 	of 	an
upcoming 	agency 	fee 	election.
N
	2

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	PETE WILSON. Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Sacramento Regional Office
1031 18th Street, Room 102
Sacramento, CA 	95814-4174
(916) 322-3198
May 30, 	1991
Annette 	Deglow
Re: 	Annette Deglow v. 	Los 	Rios College 	Federation of
Teachers/CFT/AFT 	(Local 	2279)
Unfair Practice 	Charge 	No. 	S-CO-260
-DISMISSAL 	LETTER
Dear Ms. 	Deglow:
The 	above-referenced 	charge 	alleges 	that 	the 	Los 	Rios 	College
Federation of Teachers, 	Local 2279 	(Federation), 	by failing to
provide 	equal 	notice 	of 	an agency 	fee 	election to 	all 	bargaining
unit 	members 	interfered with 	the 	rights 	of 	bargaining 	unit
members 	in violation of 	Government Code 	section 	3543.6(b) 	(EERA)
and 	violated 	its 	duty 	of 	fair 	representation under 	section 	3544.9
of the EERA, 	as 	enforced under section 	3543.6(b).
I 	indicated to you 	in my attached 	letter dated April 	25, 	1991,
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 May 	2, 	1991, 	the 	charge would be dismissed.
On May 	1, 	1991, 	you 	requested and were 	granted 	an 	extension of
time to 	file an amended charge. 	On May 	13, 	1991, 	you 	filed a
Second 	Amended 	Charge. 	Your 	Second 	Amended 	Charge 	contained 	the
following 	additional 	information:
The 	Sacramento 	City College 	campus 	meeting
held on or about May 23, 	1990, 	was conducted
primarily 	by Kenneth 	Lynch, 	the 	Chief
Negotiator 	for the 	Federation, 	but Federation
President 	Michael 	Crowley 	and 	Federation
Executive 	Director 	Dick 	Hemann were 	also 	in
attendance.

May 30, 	1991
UPC No. 	S-CO-260
Page 2
When 	it was 	time 	to 	review the 	organization
security/fair 	share 	provision 	of 	the 	contract
a 	number of 	unit 	members 	in 	attendance,
myself 	included, 	raised our hands 	to 	ask
question 	[sic]. 	The 	first 	individual 	seeking
information was 	told 	that 	the 	specifics
regarding 	the 	organizational 	security/fair
share provision were 	not 	available 	but 	that
prior to 	that vote, 	there would be numerous
flyers and mailings regarding the 	. 	. 	.
organizational 	security/fair 	share 	issue.
The 	phrasing of 	the Federation's 	answer 	to
the 	first 	question 	asked was 	such 	that 	all
other 	individuals 	including 	myself were 	led
to 	believe 	that 	answers 	to 	our questions 	were
being deferred 	until 	a 	later date when 	the
Federation would provide 	the 	details 	of 	the
contract 	provision 	through 	numerous 	flyers
and 	other written materials.
The 	Federation, 	by deferring our questions 	to
a 	later date with 	the promise 	of 	providing
"numerous 	flyers 	and 	mailings 	regarding 	the
. 	. 	.organizational 	security/fair share vote"
prior to 	the vote, 	was 	in fact 	entering 	into
an 	oral 	contract 	specifically with 	those 	of
us 	seeking 	additional 	information as 	well 	as
all 	other unit members. 	Failure 	to provide
at a minimum, 	two flyers, 	two mailings or a
combination of 	the 	two prior 	to 	the 	vote
equates 	to 	a 	failure 	to 	complete 	the 	oral
contract with 	the 	specific 	unit 	members 	(self
included) 	seeking 	additional 	information and
with 	all 	the unit members 	in general.
Considering 	the 	obvious 	financial 	advantage
for 	the 	Federation 	if 	the vote were 	in 	favor
of 	organizational 	security/fair 	share, 	it 	is
more 	likely that 	the 	"inaction" 	of 	the
Federation 	leadership was 	part 	of 	a
calculated 	scheme 	to 	minimize 	the 	risk 	of
failure 	rather 	than 	a 	simple 	oversight. 	As
such, 	the 	"inaction" 	falls 	in the 	category of
"arbitrary 	and without 	a 	rational 	basis 	or
devoid 	of 	honest 	judgment" 	and 	constitutes 	a
breach of 	the 	duty 	of 	fair representation.
This was 	not 	simple negligence; 	it was
election 	tampering.
.

May 30, 	1991
UPC No. 	S-CO-260
Page 3
The 	Chief 	Negotiator 	for 	the 	Federation,
Lynch 	voluntarily 	entered 	into 	an 	oral
contract with 	all 	unit 	members 	when he 	stated
that 	there would be 	"numerous 	flyers 	and
mailing 	regarding 	the 	organizational
security/fair 	share vote" 	in exchange 	for
terminating dialog 	[sic] 	at the May 	23, 	1990
meeting with unit 	members.
As 	the 	exclusive agent, 	the 	Federation
represents 	all unit members. 	It has 	a
fiduciary 	obligation 	to 	insure 	equal
awareness 	of 	the 	basic 	information necessary
to 	insure 	equal 	access 	and 	opportunity 	to 	the
voting process. 	Considering 	the 	oral
contract with 	the 	unit 	members 	and 	the 	fact
that 	the 	Federation 	is 	the 	exclusive
representative, 	it had a duty 	(fiduciary
obligation) 	to provide advance notice of
times, 	dates and locations 	for the 	election
to all 	of 	its 	unit members. 	Failure to
provide 	such notice 	to 	all 	unit 	members
equates 	to 	negligence 	but when 	the 	Federation
chose 	to 	notify 	its 	members 	and 	not 	the 	non-
members, 	the Federation's 	action or
"inaction" 	transformed 	from 	simple 	negligence
to gross 	negligence.
Based 	on 	the 	allegations 	set 	forth 	above 	and 	the 	reasons
contained in this 	letter and my letter of April 	25, 	1991, 	I 	find
that your allegations 	fail 	to 	state 	a prima 	facie 	case.
The 	allegations 	contained 	in 	your 	Second 	Amended 	Charge 	contend
that 	the 	Federation 	failed 	to 	comply with 	the 	oral 	contract
entered 	into 	by 	Chief 	Negotiator 	Lynch 	and 	unit 	members 	during
the May 	23, 	1991 	meeting. 	Assuming the 	oral 	contract between
Federation 	Chief 	Negotiator 	Lynch 	and 	unit 	members 	is 	a 	valid
contract, 	under Government Code 	section 	3541.5(b) 	the 	Public
Employment 	Relations 	Board 	"shall 	not 	have 	authority 	to 	enforce
agreements 	between the parties, 	and 	shall 	not 	issue 	a 	complaint
on 	any 	charge 	based 	on 	alleged 	violation 	of 	such 	an 	agreement
that would 	not 	also 	constitute 	an unfair practice 	under 	this
chapter." 	Since 	you 	have 	failed 	to 	allege 	an 	independent 	theory
for 	an unfair practice, 	a 	complaint 	cannot 	issue merely to
require 	compliance with the oral 	contract. 	(See, 	Los Angeles
Unified 	school 	District 	(1984) 	PERB Decision No. 	448; 	Regents 	of
the 	University of California 	(1990) 	PERB Decision No. 	849-H.

May 30, 	1991
UPC No. 	S-CO-260
Page 	4
As 	I 	informed you in my warning 	letter of April 	25, 	1991, 	the
EERA 	does 	not 	impose 	upon 	employee 	organizations 	the 	affirmative
duty 	to 	publicize 	agency 	fee 	elections 	to 	all 	bargaining 	unit
members. 	Chaffey Joint 	Union High 	School 	District 	(1988) 	PERB
Decision No. 	669. 	The allegations 	contained 	in your amended
charge 	fail 	to 	demonstrate 	how the 	Federation's 	failure 	to
provide 	notice 	to all 	bargaining unit 	members 	rises 	to 	the 	level
of 	conduct 	found 	to 	state 	a prima 	facie 	case of 	interference 	in
Chaffey, 	supra. 	Furthermore, 	your Second Amended Charge 	also..
fails 	to 	allege 	facts which 	show arbitrary, 	discriminatory, 	or
bad 	faith 	conduct 	by 	the 	Federation 	to 	establish 	a 	prima 	facie
violation of 	the duty of 	fair representation. 	Therefore, 	for 	the
reasons 	contained 	in this 	letter and my 	letter of April 	25, 	1991,
your 	charge 	is 	dismissed
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 Code of 	Regulations, 	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 	Code 	of
Regulations, 	title 8, 	section 32635(b)).
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 	Code 	of 	Regulations,
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.

May 30, 	1991
UPC No. 	S-CO-260
Page 5
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 	Code 	of
Regulations, 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
Regional 	Attorney
MEG:djt
Attachment
cc: 	Michael J. 	Crowley
Los 	Rios College POT, 	Local 	2279

STATE Of CALIFORNIA 	PETE WILSON, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Headquarters Office
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
(916) 322-3088
April 25, 	1991
Annette 	Deglow
Re: 	Annette Deglow v. 	Los 	Rios College Federation of Teachers.
Local 	2279
Unfair Practice Charge 	No. 	S-CO-260
WARNING 	LETTER
Dear Ms. 	Deglow:
On March 	18, 	1991, 	you filed a 	charge 	in which you alleged that
the 	Los 	Rios College Federation of Teachers, 	Local 	2279
(Federation), 	by 	failing to provide equal 	notice of an agency 	fee
election to 	all 	bargaining unit 	members, 	interfered with 	the
rights 	of 	bargaining unit 	members 	in violation of 	Government 	Code
section 	3543.6(b) 	(EERA) 	and violated 	its 	duty of 	fair
representation under 	section 	3544.9 	of 	the EERA, 	as 	enforced
under section 3543.6(b). 	Specifically, 	you allege that the
Federation, 	by issuing a memorandum on October 5, 	1990, 	providing
notice 	of 	an 	agency 	fee 	election to 	some 	bargaining 	unit 	members
and not 	all 	bargaining unit members, 	interfered with the 	rights
of 	bargaining unit 	members 	and 	breached 	its 	duty of 	fair
representation.
My 	investigation 	revealed 	the 	following 	facts.
Charging 	Party 	is 	a 	regular 	instructor 	in the Los 	Rios 	Community
College 	District 	(District) 	and has 	been 	employed by 	the 	District
since 	1962. 	Charging Party 	is 	currently a member of the
certificated 	employee 	bargaining 	unit 	exclusively 	represented 	by
the 	Federation. 	There 	is 	in place 	a 	contract between the
District 	and the 	Federation which 	expires 	on June 	30, 	1993.
During May, 	1990, 	the 	Federation 	scheduled and held campus
meetings 	to 	summarize 	the 	tentative 	agreement 	for 	the 	1990-93
contract. 	All 	unit 	members were 	invited to the 	information
meetings 	but 	those 	attending were 	informed 	that 	only 	Federation
members were 	eligible 	to vote 	on ratification of 	all 	contract
provisions.
i 	a---·-·:	--
-..
" 	.- • 	'I-·•·.: 	-:. 1 	...
..

April 25, 	1991
Warning 	Letter, 	UPC 	S-CO-260
Page 	2
During our telephone conversation of March 	28, 	1991, 	you 	informed
me 	that during 	this 	meeting a 	Federation representative, 	in
response 	to 	a 	question raised 	about 	the 	organizational 	security
election, 	looked 	in your direction and 	stated that all 	unit
members 	would 	vote 	on 	the 	organizational 	security/fair 	share
provision of 	the 	contract 	and prior to 	that vote, 	there would be
numerous 	flyers 	and mailings 	regarding the 	times, 	dates 	and
conditions.
Prior to October 	16, 	1990, 	Charging Party made at 	least two
inquiries 	to 	the 	Public 	Employment Relations 	Board 	(PERB) 	seeking
the 	election date 	and was 	informed 	that 	PERB had 	no 	knowledge 	or
information 	regarding 	an 	organizational 	security/fair 	share 	vote
for 	the 	District 	certificated 	employees.
The 	election was 	conducted 	by 	the 	State 	Conciliation 	Service
(SCS). 	Notices 	for the 	election were 	first posted by the 	SCS 	on
or about Monday, 	October 	15, 	1990.
On or about October 	16, 	1990, 	Charging Party 	learned that
notices 	had 	been posted 	at American River College 	(ARC) 	regarding
the 	organizational 	security/fair 	share 	election.
The following day, Wednesday, 	October 17, 	19 90, 	between
10:00 	a.m. 	and 	12 	noon, 	a 	similar notice 	appeared on the wall
above 	the 	campus 	mail 	boxes 	in the 	mail 	room at 	Sacramento 	City
College 	(SCC). 	No notice was posted at the 	front of the boxes.
Thursday, 	October 18, 	1990, 	and Friday, 	October 19, 	1990, were
scheduled 	District 	non-teaching 	"Flex" 	days 	and 	many 	of 	the
administrative 	and 	department 	offices 	including 	the 	SCC 	campus
mail 	room were 	closed 	to 	all 	faculty 	until 	the 	following 	Monday,
October 22, 	1990.
Following the posting of 	the notice 	in the 	mail 	room, 	Charging
Party 	found 	in her 	campus 	mail 	box 	a 	flyer 	from Norman Barth. 	In
his 	flyer 	Mr 	Barth 	referenced 	a 	mailing 	by 	the 	Federation dated
October 5, 	1990, 	to its members. 	The October 5, 	1990, 	memorandum
stated 	that 	the 	election would 	be 	held 	at 	four 	different 	sites
between October 22, 	1990, 	and October 25, 	1990, 	and provided the
times 	for the 	election.
Based 	on the 	facts 	set 	forth above, 	I 	do 	not 	find that you have
established 	a 	prima 	facie 	violation of 	either 	section 	3544.9 	of
the EERA as 	enforced under section 3543.6(b), 	or 	section
3543.6(b) 	under a theory of 	interference.

April 25, 	1991
Warning 	Letter, 	UPC 	S-CO-260
Page 3
Charging 	Party 	has 	alleged 	that 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	by
failing 	to provide 	equal 	notice 	of 	an agency 	fee 	election 	to 	all
bargaining 	unit 	members 	denied 	Charging 	Party the 	right 	to 	fair
•	representation 	guaranteed 	by 	EERA 	section 	3544.9 	and 	thereby
violated 	section EERA 	3543.6(b). 	In order to 	state a prima 	facie
violation of 	this 	section of 	the 	EERA, 	Charging 	Party must 	show
that the Association's 	conduct was 	arbitrary, 	discriminatory, 	or
in bad 	faith. 	In order to 	state 	a prima 	facie 	case of 	arbitrary
conduct violating the duty 	of 	fair 	representation, 	a 	Charging
Party:
. 	. 	. 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.
Your 	charge 	alleges 	that 	since 	the 	Federation 	"provided 	advance
notice 	of 	times, 	dates 	and 	locations 	for the 	fair 	share 	election
to 	its 	members, 	it had a 	fiduciary obligation to provide 	similar
advance notice 	. 	. 	. 	for the fair share election to the remaining
unit members." 	The 	EERA does 	not 	impose upon employee
organizations 	the 	affirmative 	duty 	to publicize 	agency 	fee
elections 	to 	all 	bargaining 	unit 	members. 	(See 	Chaffey Joint
Union High School 	District 	(1988) 	PERB Decision No. 	669.
Although 	your 	charge 	alleges 	that 	the 	Federation during 	May,
1990, 	"assured all unit members 	of prior notice 	and numerous
flyers and mailings regarding the 	. 	. 	. 	organizational
security/fair 	share 	vote," 	and 	a 	Federation representative 	at 	the
May, 	1990, 	meeting 	looked 	in your direction and 	stated that prior
to 	the 	vote 	there would be 	numerous 	flyers 	and mailings 	regarding
the 	election. 	This 	comment 	alone 	does 	not 	impose 	a duty upon the
Federation to provide 	notice 	to 	all 	bargaining unit 	members.
This 	election was 	conducted by 	the 	SCS. 	Notices 	were 	first
posted by 	the 	SCS 	on or about October 	15, 	1990. 	The 	election was
held 	at 	four different 	sites 	during various 	times. 	You have 	not
established 	that 	the 	Federation's 	conduct was 	part 	of 	a
comprehensive 	plan to 	exclude 	teachers 	from participating 	in 	the
election, 	nor have 	you demonstrated that 	the 	Federation engaged
in 	any 	other 	conduct 	to prevent 	bargaining 	unit 	members 	from
participating 	in this 	election. 	Therefore, 	considering your
allegations 	under a 	totality 	of 	the 	circumstances 	analysis, 	your

April 25, 	1991
Warning 	Letter, 	UPC 	S-CO-260
Page 	4
charge 	fails 	to 	establish 	a 	prima 	facie 	violation of 	EERA 	section
3544.9, 	as 	enforced under section 3543.6(b). 	(See Chaffey
supra.) 	In addition, 	you have 	failed to demonstrate how the
Federation's 	failure 	to provide 	notice 	to 	all 	bargaining 	unit
members 	rises 	to 	the 	level 	of 	conduct 	found to 	state 	a prima
facie 	case of 	interference 	in Chaffey, 	supra.-
- -
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 	explaine
• d above, 	please 	amend the 	charge
accordingly. 	The 	amended 	charge 	should 	be prepared 	on 	a 	standard
PERB 	unfair practic. e 	charge 	form 	clearly 	labeled 	First Amended
Charge. 	contain all 	the 	facts 	and 	allegations you wish to make,
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
May 2, 	1991, 	I 	shall dismiss your charge. 	If you have any
questions, 	please call me at 	(916) 	322-3198.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL E. 	GASH
Regional 	Attorney
MEG:djt
cc: 	Michael J. 	Crowley
Los 	Rios 	College 	FOT