University of California (Kasbati) (PERB 0926H)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
ABDUL H. 	KASBATI,
Charging 	Party,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF 	CALIFORNIA,
Respondent.
Case No. 	LA-CE-300-H
PERB Decision No. 	926-H
March 17, 	1992
Appearance: 	Abdul H. 	Kasbati, 	on his own behalf.
Before Camilli, 	Caffrey and Carlyle, 	Members.
DECISION AND 	ORDER
CAFFREY, 	Member: 	This 	case 	is before the Public 	Employment
Relations 	Board 	(Board) 	on appeal by Abdul H. 	Kasbati 	of the
Board agent's partial dismissal 	(attached hereto) 	of his 	charge
that 	the 	University of California violated 	section 	3571(a) 	of 	the
Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act 	(HEERA).1 We
have reviewed the dismissal and, 	finding 	it to be 	free of
prejudicial 	error,2 adopt 	it as 	the decision of the Board 	itself.
1HEERA 	is 	codified at Government Code 	section 	3560 	et 	seq.
Section 3571 	states, 	in pertinent part:
It 	shall 	be unlawful 	for the higher 	education
employer 	to do 	any of 	the 	following:
(a) 	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.
2It 	is 	noted that the Board agent's 	reference 	to 	the
Educational Employment Relations Act 	(EERA), 	on page one of the
dismissal 	letter, 	should be to HEERA.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
______________ )

The 	Board hereby AFFIRMS 	the 	Board agent's 	partial 	dismissal
in Case No. 	LA-CE-300-H.
Members 	Camilli 	and Carlyle 	joined 	in this 	Decision.
N
	2

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	PETE WILSON, Governor
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS BOARD
Los Angeles Regional Office
3530 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 650
Los Angeles, CA 90010-2334
(213) 736-3127
January 7, 	1992
Abdul H. 	Kasbati
Re: 	PARTIAL 	DISMISSAL AND REFUSAL TO 	ISSUE COMPLAINT
Unfair Practice Charge No. 	LA-CE-300-H
Abdul H. 	Kasbati v. 	University of California
Dear Mr. 	Kasbati:
I 	indicated 	to you 	in my attached 	letter dated September 	27,
1991, 	that certain allegations 	contained 	in the 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 these allegations 	to 	state a prima 	facie 	case, 	or
withdrew them prior to October 6, 	1991, 	the allegations would be
dismissed.
On October 7, 	1991, 	you filed an amended charge. 	The amended
charge does not, 	however, 	correct the deficiencies 	explained in
my 	September 	27 	letter. 	Other than with respect to 	the 	alleged
threat by Noelleen Gonzales 	in March 	1991, 	the amended charge
still 	does 	not 	clearly and 	concisely 	state 	facts 	and 	conduct
constituting 	an 	EERA violation within 	the 	six-month 	limitation
period. 	I 	am therefore dismissing those allegations which 	fail
to 	state 	a prima 	facie case based on the 	facts 	and reasons
contained 	in my September 	27 	letter.
Right 	to Appeal
Pursuant 	to Public 	Employment Relations 	Board regulations, 	you
may obtain a 	review of 	this 	dismissal 	of 	certain allegations
contained 	in 	the 	charge by 	filing an appeal 	to 	the Board 	itself
within twenty 	(20) 	calendar days 	after 	service of 	this 	dismissal
(California Code of Regs., 	tit. 	8, 	sec. 	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 Code of Regs., 	tit. 	8, 	sec. 	32135). 	Code of
Civil 	Procedure 	section 	1013 	shall 	apply. 	The Board's 	address
is:
Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board
1031 	18th Street
Sacramento, 	CA 95814
@

Partial 	Dismissal
LA-CE-300-H
January 7, 	1992
Page 2
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
Regs., tit. 8, sec. 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 Regs., 	tit. 	8,
sec. 	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 Code of
Regs., 	tit. 	8, 	sec. 	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: 	Sandra J. 	Rich
Leslie L. 	Van Houten

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	PETE WILSON, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Los Angeles Regional Office
3530 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 650
Los Angeles, CA 90010-2334
(213) 736-3127
September 27, 	1991
Abdul H. 	Kasbati
Re: 	PARTIAL WARNING LETTER, 	Unfair Practice Charge No.
LA-CE-300-H, 	Abdul H. 	Kasbati v. 	University of California
Dear Mr. 	Kasbati:
In the above-referenced charge, 	you allege that the University of
California 	(University) 	has 	since 	1989 	committed a variety of
unfair labor practices, 	in alleged violation of Government Code
section 	3571 	of 	the 	Higher Education Employer-Employee 	Relations
Act 	(HEERA). 	You have more 	specifically alleged that 	in March
1991 	the 	University's 	agent Noelleen Gonzales 	threatened 	to
retaliate 	against you because of your protected 	activity. 	Your
charge was 	filed on August 	7, 	1991.
The 	allegations 	in your 	charge 	other than the 	alleged 	threat 	by
Noelleen Gonzales do not 	state a prima 	facie case within the
jurisdiction of the Public Employment Relations 	Board 	(PERB), 	for
the reasons 	that 	follow.
Government Code 	section 3563.2(a) 	states 	in part that PERB 	"shall
not 	issue 	a 	complaint 	in respect of 	any charge based upon an
alleged unfair practice 	occurring more 	than 	six 	months 	prior 	to
the 	filing of 	the 	charge." 	Because your charge was 	filed 	on
August 7, 	1991, 	any alleged unfair practice occurring before
February 7, 	1991, 	is outside PERB's 	jurisdiction.
PERB 	Regulation 	32615(a)(5) 	requires 	that 	an unfair practice
charge 	set 	forth 	"[a] 	clear and concise 	statement of 	the 	facts
and 	conduct 	alleged 	to 	constitute 	an unfair practice." 	The 	only
allegation 	in your 	charge 	that 	clearly 	identifies 	an alleged
unfair practice as 	occurring on or after February 7, 	1991, 	is 	the
alleged threat by Noelleen Gonzales 	in March 	1991. 	That 	alleged
threat 	is 	therefore 	the only allegation 	in your charge 	that
states 	a prima 	facie 	case within PERB's 	jurisdiction.
For these reasons, 	the allegations 	in your charge as presently
written, 	other than the alleged threat by Noelleen Gonzales, 	do
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

Partial 	Warning 	Letter
LA-CE-300-H
September 27, 	1991
Page 2
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,
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
October 6. 	1991. 	I 	shall dismiss the above-described allegation
from your charge. 	If you have any questions, 	please call me at
(213) 736-3127.
Sincerely,
Thomas J. 	Allen
Regional 	Attorney