Regents of the University of California (Alderson) (PERB 1002H)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
CRAIG ALDERSON,
Charging 	Party,
v.
REGENTS 	OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA,
Respondent.
Case No. 	SF-CE-361-H
PERB Decision No. 	1002-H
June 23, 	1993
Appearances: 	Mary G. 	Higgins, 	Representative, 	for Craig
Alderson; 	Edward M. 	Opton, 	Jr., 	Attorney, 	for Regents of the
University of 	California.
Before Blair, 	Chair; 	Caffrey and Carlyle, 	Members.
DECISION
BLAIR, 	Chair: 	This 	case 	is before the Public Employment
Relations 	Board 	(PERB 	or Board) 	on appeal 	by Craig Alderson
(Alderson) 	of a Board agent's 	dismissal 	(attached hereto) 	of his
unfair practice 	charge. 	Alderson alleged that 	the Regents 	of 	the
University of California 	(UC) 	violated section 3571(a), 	(b), 	(c)
and 	(d) 	of 	the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act
(HEERA)1 by 	failing to meet 	and 	confer with representatives 	of
1HEERA	EERA 	is 	codified at Government 	Code 	section 3560 	et 	seq.
Unless 	otherwise 	indicated, 	all 	statutory references 	are 	to 	the
Government Code. 	Section 3571 states, 	in pertinent part:
H
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. 	For purposes 	of
)
)
)
)
);
)
)
)
)
)
_______________ )

this subdivision, 	"employee" 	includes an
applicant 	for employment 	or 	reemployment.
(b) 	Deny to employee organizations 	rights
guaranteed 	to 	them by 	this 	chapter.
(c) 	Refuse or fail 	to engage 	in meeting and
conferring with an 	exclusive 	representative.
(d) 	Dominate or interfere with the 	formation
or administration 	of 	any 	employee
organization, 	or contribute 	financial 	or
other support 	to 	it, 	or in any way encourage
employees 	to 	join any organization 	in
preference to another. 	However, 	subject 	to
rules 	and 	regulations 	adopted by 	the 	board
pursuant 	to Section 3563, 	an employer shall
not 	be 	prohibited 	from permitting 	employees
to 	engage 	in meeting and 	conferring or
consulting 	during working 	hours 	without 	loss
of pay or benefits.
the clerical bargaining unit 	(Unit 	12) 	in advance of 	agreeing to
the 	transfer of 	certain classifications 	from Unit 	12 	to Unit 	13.
Both Unit 	12 	and Unit 	13 	are 	represented by the American
Federation of State, 	County and Municipal 	Employees 	(AFSCME).
The 	Board agent 	dismissed 	the 	charge 	on 	the 	following grounds:
(1) 	the charge was untimely filed; 	(2) 	Alderson does not have
standing 	to 	file 	a 	charge 	alleging a violation 	of 	section
3571(b), 	(c) 	and 	(d); 	(3) 	Alderson failed to allege a prima facie
violation of section 3571(d); 	and 	(4) 	Alderson failed to allege a
prima facie violation of 	section 3571(a).
The 	Board has 	reviewed the 	entire 	record in 	this 	case,
including Alderson's 	appeal. 	We 	find the 	dismissal 	to be 	free
of prejudicial 	error and adopt 	it 	as 	the decision of 	the Board
itself 	together with 	the 	following 	discussion.
22

DISCUSSION
Timeliness
UC and AFSCME 	(Unit 	13) 	agreed to 	the 	transfer of 	certain
job 	classifications 	during 	negotiations 	which 	concluded 	on
April 	30, 	1992. 	Alderson filed his unfair practice 	charge
approximately eight months 	later on December 31, 	1992.
HEERA section 3562.2 (a) 	sets 	forth the 	six-month statutory-
limitation period 	for unfair practice 	charges. 	The 	statutory
period begins 	to 	run once 	the 	charging party knows, 	or should
have known, 	of 	the 	conduct underlying the charge. 	(Fairfield-
Suisun Unified School District 	(1985) 	PERB Decision No. 	547;
Healdsburg Union High School 	District 	(1984) 	PERB Decision
No. 467.)
In this 	case, 	to be timely, 	the unlawful 	conduct must have
occurred on or after June 30, 	1992. 	In his charge, 	Alderson did
not allege any date when Unit 	12 	became aware of 	the agreement 	to
transfer 	classifications. 	Even after having been 	informed 	in 	the
warning 	letter 	that 	the 	unlawful 	conduct must 	have 	occurred 	on or
after June 30, 	1992, 	he failed to file an amended charge. 	In his
appeal, 	Alderson argues 	that 	the 	charge was 	timely because both
sides 	agreed 	that 	the 	transfer would be 	"recognized and
completed" 	on July 1, 	1992. 	He did not allege that 	this was
the date 	on which Unit 	13 	became aware of 	the agreement. 	In
fact, 	it 	is unlikely that 	representatives of Unit 	12 	had no
knowledge 	of 	the agreement until 	two months 	after the
negotiations 	had concluded, 	particularly 	in light 	of 	the 	fact
33

that 	both units 	are 	represented by 	the 	same 	employee 	organization
(AFSCME). 	Therefore, 	the Board agent properly dismissed the
charge 	as 	being untimely 	filed.
Standing
The 	Board agent's warning 	letter 	informs Alderson 	that
he, 	as an individual 	employee, 	does not have standing to file
a 	charge 	alleging a violation 	of 	the 	employer's 	duty 	to bargain
in good faith. 	(Oxnard School District 	(1988) 	PERB Decision
No. 	667 and Regents of the University of California 	(1990) 	PERB
Decision No. 	849-H.) 	Alderson was 	informed that a 	charge based
on a violation of section 3571(b), 	(c) 	and 	(d) 	could only be
brought 	by an 	employee 	organization.
In his appeal, 	Alderson states 	that 	a special meeting was
called of 	"all 	bargaining delegates." 	At 	the meeting 	there was
a unanimous 	decision 	to 	file 	a 	charge against both UC and AFSCME.
It 	was 	further determined that Alderson was 	the 	"correct 	elected
official 	to proceed with the actions." 	Even 	if Alderson 	could
be 	found 	to be 	representing 	an 	employee 	organization 	other 	than
AFSCME, 	in Hanford Joint Union High School District 	(1978) 	PERB
Decision No. 	58, 	the Board held that a nonexclusive employee
organization may not 	file a 	section 3543.5(c) 	charge because
to do 	so would interfere with the 	rights 	of 	the 	exclusive
representative 	to represent 	its members.
It was AFSCME who petitioned 	for the unit modification with
PERB on April 	9, 	1992. 	As Alderson's own appeal 	reveals, 	AFSCME
was not 	interested in filing this 	charge, 	but 	rather was 	to
44

become a 	respondent 	to a 	charge based on the 	same 	facts.
Alderson filed a charge against AFSCME on July 15, 	1992, 	which
was ultimately dismissed by PERB Order No. 	Ad-242-H. 	Alderson
did not 	file 	this 	charge as a representative of AFSCME, 	but as an
individual 	employee. 	Consequently, 	the Board agent was 	correct
in determining 	that 	he does 	not 	have 	standing to 	file a 	charge
based on a violation of section 3571(b), 	(c) 	and 	(d).
ORDER
The unfair practice 	charge 	in Case No. 	SF-CE-361-H is hereby
DISMISSED WITHOUT 	LEAVE 	TO AMEND.
Members 	Caffrey and Carlyle 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
5

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	•- 	PETE WILSON, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
San Francisco Regional Office
177 Post Street, 9th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108-4737
(415) 557-1350
February 26, 	1993
Mary G. 	Higgins
586 	Clarinada 	#20
Daly City, 	CA 94015
Re: 	DISMISSAL 	OF UNFAIR PRACTICE 	CHARGE/REFUSAL 	TO 	ISSUE
COMPLAINT
Craig Alderson v. 	The Regents 	of 	the University of
California
Unfair Practice Charge No. 	SF-CE-361-H
Dear Ms. 	Higgins:
The 	above-referenced unfair practice 	charge, 	filed on December
31, 	1992, 	alleges 	that the Regents of the University of
California 	(Regents) 	failed to meet 	and confer with
representatives 	of 	the 	Clerical 	bargaining unit 	in advance 	of
agreeing 	to 	the 	transfer 	of 	classifications 	from the 	Clerical
bargaining unit 	to 	the 	Patient 	Care 	Technical 	bargaining unit.
This 	conduct 	is 	alleged 	to violate 	Government 	Code 	sections
3571(a),(b),(c), 	and 	(d) 	of the Higher Education Employer-
Employee Relations Act 	(HEERA).
I 	indicated 	to you, 	in my attached letter dated 	February 	17,
1993, 	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 	which would 	correct 	the
deficiencies 	explained 	in 	that 	letter, 	you 	should amend 	the
charge. 	You were 	further advised that, 	unless you amended the
charge 	to 	state 	a prima 	facie 	case 	or withdrew it prior to
February 26, 	1993, 	the charge would be dismissed.
I 	have 	not 	received 	either an amended 	charge 	or a 	request 	for
withdrawal. 	Therefore, 	I 	am dismissing the 	charge based on the
facts 	and reasons 	contained in my February 	17, 	1993 	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. 	(Cal. 	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
(

Dismissal, etc.
SF-CE-361-H
February 26, 	1993
Page 2
before 	the 	close of business 	(5 p.m.) 	or sent by telegraph,
certified 	or 	Express 	United States mail 	postmarked no 	later
than the last date set 	for filing. 	(Cal. 	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
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 	(20) 	calendar
days 	following the date of service of 	the appeal. 	(Cal. 	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 Cal. 	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 	(3) 	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. 	(Cal. 	Code of Regs., 	tit. 	8, 	sec. 	32132.)
(

Dismissal, etc.
SF-CE-361-H
February 26, 	1993
Page 3
Final Date
If no appeal is filed within the specified time limits, 	the
dismissal will become final when the time limits have expired.
Sincerely,
ROBERT THOMPSON
Deputy General 	Counsel
CHARLES F. MCCLAMMA
Public Employment Relations Specialist
Attachment
cc: 	Edward M. Upton, Jr.
(

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	' 	PETE WILSON, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
San Francisco Regional Office
177 Post Street, 9th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108-4737
(415) 557-1350
February 17, 	1993
Mary G. 	Higgins
586 	Clarinada 	#20
Daly City, 	CA 94015
Re: 	WARNING LETTER
Craig Alderson v. 	The Regents 	of 	the University of
California
Unfair Practice Charge No. 	SF-CE-361-H
Dear Ms. Higgins:
The 	above-referenced unfair practice 	charge, 	filed 	on December
31, 	1992, 	alleges that the Regents of the University of
California 	(Regents) 	failed to meet 	and confer with
representatives 	of 	the 	Clerical 	bargaining unit 	in advance 	of
agreeing 	to 	the 	transfer 	of 	classifications 	from the 	Clerical
bargaining unit 	to 	the 	Patient 	Care 	Technical 	bargaining unit.
This 	conduct 	is 	alleged 	to violate Government 	Code 	sections
3571(a),(b),(c), 	and 	(d) 	of the Higher Education Employer-
Employee Relations Act 	(HEERA).
My investigation revealed the 	following facts. 	On July 11, 	1983,
the American 	Federation of 	State, 	County and Municipal 	Employees
(AFSCME) 	was 	certified by PERB as 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	of
employees 	of 	the Regents 	in the 	Patient 	Care Technical 	bargaining
unit 	(Unit #13). 	On July 12, 	1983, 	AFSCME was also certified by
PERB as 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	of 	employees 	of 	the Regents
in the 	Clerical 	and Allied Services bargaining unit 	(Unit 	#12).
Craig Alderson 	is 	employed by 	the 	Regents 	at 	the 	University of
California at 	San Francisco 	(UCSF). 	He also serves as an AFSCME
representative 	of Unit 	#12, 	a position to which he was 	elected on
March 13, 	1992.
On April 30, 	1992, 	AFSCME, 	through its Chief Negotiator,
concluded Unit 	#13 	collective 	bargaining 	negotiations 	with 	the
Regents. 	A part 	of 	the parties' 	tentative agreement provided for
the 	transfer 	of 	certain 	classifications 	from Unit 	#12 	to Unit
#13. 	The Regents 	failed to provide notice to, 	or to meet and
confer with, 	Unit 	#12 	representatives 	concerning 	the 	transfer of
classifications. 	Further, 	the transfer was 	contingent upon
ratification of 	the 	collective bargaining agreement, 	and only
AFSCME members 	within Unit 	#13 	were 	allowed 	to vote 	on 	contract
ratification.

Warning 	Letter
SF-CE-361-H
February 17, 	1993
Page 2
On June 	9, 	1992, 	AFSCME Council 	10 	filed a unit modification
petition with 	PERB 	seeking approval 	of 	the 	aforementioned
transfer. 	The Regents 	concurred in the 	request. 	Therefore, 	on
June 9, 	1992, 	the Regional Director of 	the PERB San Francisco
Regional 	Office 	issued 	a Unit Modification 	Order 	approving 	the
deletion of 	the 	identified classifications 	from the 	Clerical 	and
Allied Services 	Unit and their addition 	to 	the 	Patient 	Care
Technical 	Unit.
Based on the 	facts 	stated above, 	the 	charge as presently written
fails 	to 	state 	a prima 	facie violation of 	the HEERA for 	the
reasons 	that 	follow.
Initially, 	it must be noted that unfair practice 	charges must be
timely filed. 	Government Code section 3563.2(a) 	states, 	in
pertinent 	part:
Any employee, 	employee organization, 	or
employer shall 	have 	the 	right 	to 	file 	an
unfair practice 	charge, 	except 	that 	the board
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.
The 	charge was 	filed on December 31, 	1992. 	Claims arising prior
to June 30, 	1992, 	are therefore untimely and outside of 	PERB's
jurisdiction. 	(California State University. 	San Diego 	(1989)
PERB Decision No. 	718-H; 	United Teachers 	- 	Los Angeles 	(Farrar)
(1990) 	PERB Decision No. 	797.) 	It appears that 	the unfair
practices alleged 	in the 	charge occurred prior to June 	30, 	1992,
and must 	be 	dismissed as 	untimely.
Even if 	the 	charge were 	timely filed, 	it 	fails 	to state a prima
facie violation of 	the HEERA. 	The 	thrust 	of Mr. 	Alderson's
charge 	is 	that 	the Regents violated HEERA section 3571(b) 	and
(c)1 "by failing to meet and confer with the exclusive
1HEERA section 3571 provides, 	in pertinent part:
It 	shall be unlawful 	for 	the higher education
employer to do any of 	the 	following:
(b) 	Deny to employee organizations 	rights
guaranteed 	to 	them by 	this 	chapter.
(c) 	Refuse or fail 	to engage 	in meeting and
conferring with 	an 	exclusive 	representative.

Warning 	Letter
SF-CE-361-H
February 17, 	1993
Page 3
representative of Unit 	12." 	Mr. 	Alderson also alleges 	that the
Regents violated HEERA section 3571(d) 	because 	the transfer of
classifications 	resulted 	in 	changes 	to 	the 	administrative makeup
of AFSCME 	locals 	on some university campuses.
(d) 	Dominate or interfere with the 	formation
or administration 	of 	any 	employee
organization, 	or contribute 	financial 	or
other support 	to it, 	or in any way encourage
employees 	to 	join any organization 	in
preference to another. 	. 	.
In Hanford Joint 	Union School 	District 	(1978) 	PERB Decision No.
58, 	the Board noted that, 	although the 	right 	to 	file an unfair
practice 	charge 	extends 	to any employee, 	employee organization,
or employer, 	the 	specific 	grounds which 	can be 	alleged are
limited. 	The 	Board went 	on 	to hold 	that 	a nonexclusive 	employee
organization may not 	file a section 3543.5(c)2 charge because 	to
do 	so would 	interfere with the 	right 	of 	the 	exclusive
representative 	to determine matters 	on which 	it 	decides 	to
negotiate.
The 	Board 	subsequently 	extended 	the 	reasoning 	in 	Hanford 	to 	such
claims 	filed by 	individual 	employees. 	Under both 	the 	EERA
(Oxnard School District 	(1988) 	PERB Decision No. 	667), 	and the
HEERA 	(Regents 	of 	the University of 	California 	(1990) 	PERB
Decision No. 	849-H) 	the Board has 	found that an individual
employee 	does 	not 	have 	standing 	to 	file 	a 	charge 	alleging a
violation of 	the 	employer's 	duty to bargain 	in good 	faith.
More 	recently, 	in State 	of 	California 	(Department 	of 	Corrections)
(1993) 	PERB Decision No. 	972-S, 	the Board addressed the question
of whether 	individual 	employees 	had standing 	to pursue
allegations 	of a violation of sections 	3519(b) 	and 	(d) 	of the
Dills Act.3 The Board, 	concluding that 	they did not, 	stated,
To 	grant 	an individual 	standing 	to 	file
charges 	of 	this 	nature would undermine 	stable
labor-management 	relations 	existing 	between
2This 	subsection of 	the 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Act
(EERA or Act) 	makes 	it unlawful 	for a public 	school 	employer to
"[r]efuse or 	fail 	to meet 	and negotiate 	in good 	faith with an
exclusive 	representative." 	It 	is 	essentially 	identical 	to HEERA
section 3571(c).
3These 	sections 	are 	essentially 	identical 	to 	sections
3571(b) 	and 	(d) 	of the HEERA.

Warning 	Letter
SF-CE-361-H
February 17, 	1993
Page 	4
the 	employer and 	the 	exclusive
representative.
This 	charge 	identifies Mr. 	Alderson as 	the 	charging party, 	and
describes him to be a 	"Unit 	12 AFSCME Representative." 	However,
the 	fact 	that Mr. 	Alderson holds a position with 	the organization
does 	not 	suggest 	or establish that Mr. 	Alderson filed on behalf
of AFSCME. 	Rather, 	he appears 	to be 	filing as an individual
employee. 	As 	such, 	he 	lacks 	standing to 	file a charge alleging a
violation of section 3571(b),(c), 	and 	(d).
Even 	if Mr. 	Alderson had standing 	to allege a violation 	involving
section 3571(d), 	the charge would be insufficient. 	Domination
occurs 	when 	the 	employer 	controls 	the 	administration of 	an
employee 	organization and 	renders 	it 	unable 	to make wholehearted
efforts 	on behalf 	of 	the employees 	it 	represents. 	(Santa Monica
Unified School District 	(1978) 	PERB Decision No. 	52; 	Antelope
Valley Community School District 	(1979) 	PERB Decision No. 	97;
Clovis Unified School District 	(1984) 	PERB Decision No. 	389.)
Interference under section 3571(d) 	involves 	intruding 	into 	the
internal 	functioning of 	the employee 	organization, 	setting up a
rival 	organization, 	or engaging 	in a 	campaign 	to 	induce 	employees
to 	support 	a particular 	employee 	organization. 	(Antelope Valley
---------·--·Community College District, 	supra. 	PERB Decision No. 	97.)
- -	However, 	the 	facts 	alleged in the 	charge 	do not 	constitute 	either
domination or 	interference by 	the Regents 	within 	the meaning 	of
section 3571(d). 	The fact 	that 	the transfer of some
classifications 	from one bargaining unit 	to 	another 	resulted 	in
changes 	to 	the makeup of AFSCME 	locals does 	not, 	without more,
indicate 	the 	Regents 	attempted to 	intrude 	into 	the 	internal
functioning 	of 	the 	organization.
Finally, 	Mr. 	Alderson alleges 	that 	the transfer of
classifications 	from Unit 	#12 	to Unit 	#13 	has 	had 	"a 	significant
negative 	impact 	on 	the 	labor 	relations 	environment 	for 	the
classes 	involved," 	constituting, 	therefore, 	discrimination by the
Regents 	against 	those 	employees 	in violation of 	Government 	Code
section 3571(a).
To demonstrate a violation of HEERA section 3571(a), 	the 	charging
party must 	show that: 	(1) 	the employee 	exercised rights under
the HEERA, 	(2) 	the employer had knowledge of the 	exercise of
those 	rights, 	and 	(3) 	the employer imposed or threatened to
impose reprisals, 	discriminated or threatened to discriminate, 	or
otherwise 	interfered with, 	restrained 	or 	coerced 	the 	employees
because 	of 	the 	exercise 	of 	those rights. 	(Novato Unified School
District 	(1982) 	PERB Dec. 	No. 	210; 	Carlsbad Unified School
District 	(1979) 	PERB Dec. 	No. 	89; 	Department of Developmental
(

Warning 	Letter
SF-CE-361-H
February 17, 	1993
Page 5
Services 	(1982) 	PERB Dec. 	No. 	228-S; 	California State University
(Sacramento) 	(1982) 	PERB Dec. No. 	211-H.)
The 	facts 	as 	alleged show that Mr. 	Alderson exercised 	rights
under 	the HEERA by serving as 	the Unit 	#12 	representative 	at
UCSF. 	Knowledge 	of 	such visible activity reasonably 	can be
imputed to the 	employer. 	However, 	the 	charge 	fails 	to allege
facts 	from which 	it 	can be 	concluded that 	the Regents' 	motive 	for
the 	transfer of 	classifications was 	this protected activity. 	The
appropriate 	"nexus" 	elements are 	lacking 	(Novato Unified School
District 	(1982) 	PERB Dec. No. 	210). 	In addition, 	although the
charge 	alleges 	harm to employees 	resulting 	from 	"a negative
impact 	on the 	labor relations 	environment," 	it 	fails 	to allege
specific facts 	supporting this conclusion. 	Thus, 	the 	charge
fails 	to provide prima 	facie 	evidence 	of 	a violation 	either 	of
HEERA section 3571(a) 	or, 	concurrently, 	of section 3571(b) 	based
on the 	same 	facts. 	Further, 	there are no additional 	facts
indicating an independent violation of 	section 3571(b), 	even if
Mr. 	Alderson had standing to allege 	such a violation.
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,
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 	filed with PERB. 	If 	I 	do not
receive 	an 	amended 	charge 	or withdrawal 	from you before 	February
26, 	1993, 	I shall dismiss this charge. 	If you have any
questions, 	please call me at 	(415) 	557-1350.
Sincerely,
CHARLES 	F. 	McCLAMMA
Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Specialist