San Juan Teachers Association (Spade) (PERB 1075E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS 	BOARD
HOWARD 	SPADE,
Charging 	Party,
v.
SAN JUAN TEACHERS ASSOCIATION,
CTA/NEA,
Respondent.
Case No. 	S-CO-29 0
PERB Decision No. 	1075
December 	16, 	1994
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances: 	V. 	Dean Close, 	Jr., 	Attorney, 	for Howard Spade;
California Teachers Association by Diane Ross, 	Attorney, 	for
San Juan Teachers Association, 	CTA/NEA.
Before Blair, 	Chair; 	Caffrey and Carlyle, 	Members.
DECISION AND 	ORDER
CARLYLE, 	Member: 	This 	case 	is before 	the Public Employment
Relations 	Board 	(PERB or Board) 	on exceptions 	filed by Howard
Spade 	(Spade), 	to a PERB administrative law judge's 	(ALJ)
proposed decision 	(attached hereto). 	The ALJ dismissed the
complaint 	which alleged 	that 	the 	San Juan Teachers 	Association,
CTA/NEA 	(Association) 	violated section 3543.6(b) 	of 	the
Educational 	Employment Relations Act 	(EERA)1 when it 	failed to
take 	Spade's 	grievance 	to arbitration.
1EERA 	is 	codified at 	Government 	Code 	section 3540 	et 	seq.
Unless 	otherwise noted, 	all 	references herein are to the
Government 	Code. 	Section 3543.6 	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.

The 	Board has 	reviewed the 	entire 	record 	in this 	case,
including the transcript, 	exhibits, 	proposed decision, 	Spade's
exceptions 	and the Association's 	response 	thereto. 	The 	Board
finds 	the ALJ's 	findings 	of 	fact 	and conclusions 	of 	law to be
free 	of prejudicial 	error and adopts 	them as 	the decision of 	the
Board 	itself.2
The 	complaint 	and unfair practice 	charge 	in Case
No. 	S-CO-290 	are hereby DISMISSED.
Chair Blair and Member Caffrey joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
2In March 1994, 	the Board denied Spade's 	request 	for oral
argument.
22

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS 	BOARD
HOWARD SPADE,
Charging 	Party,
v.
SAN JUAN TEACHERS 	ASSOCIATION,
CTA/NEA,
Respondent.
Unfair 	Practice
Case No. 	S-CO-290
PROPOSED 	DECISION
(1/7/94)
Appearances: V. 	Dean Close, 	Jr., 	Attorney, 	for Howard Spade;
Diane Ross, 	Attorney, 	for San Juan Teachers Association, 	CTA/NEA.
Before Allen R. 	Link, 	Administrative Law Judge.
PROCEDURAL 	HISTORY
On July 14, 	1992, 	Howard Spade 	(Spade or Charging Party)
filed 	an unfair practice 	charge 	with 	the 	Public 	Employment
Relations 	Board 	(PERB 	or Board) 	against 	the 	San Juan Teachers
Association, 	CTA/NEA 	(Association or Respondent). 	The charge
alleged violations 	of 	subdivisions 	(a) 	and 	(b) 	of Government Code
section 3543.6, 	a part of 	the Educational 	Employment Relations
Act 	(Act).l
1The Act 	is 	codified at Government 	Code 	section 3540 	et 	seq.
All 	section references, 	unless 	otherwise noted, 	are to the
Government Code. 	Subdivisions 	(a) 	and 	(b) 	of section 3543.6
state:
3543.6. 	It 	shall be unlawful 	for an employee
organization to:
(a) 	Cause or attempt 	to cause a public 	school
employer to violate Section 3543.5.
(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
This proposed decision has been appealed to the
Board itself and may not be cited as precedent
unless the decision and its rationale have been
adopted by the Board.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
-----------~!

On September 29, 	1992, 	the Charging Party filed a first
amended unfair practice 	charge against 	the Association, 	alleging
violations 	of 	the 	same subdivisions 	of 	section 3543.6.
On January 12, 	1993 	the Office of 	the General 	Counsel 	of
PERB, 	pursuant 	to a request by Charging Party, 	filed a notice 	of
partial withdrawal, 	effectively dismissing 	the allegation that
the Association had violated subdivision 	(a) 	of 	section 3543.6.
On January 22, 	1993, 	the Office of the General Counsel 	of
PERB, 	after an investigation of 	the 	charge, 	issued a complaint
alleging a violation of 	subdivision 	(b) 	of 	section 3543.6.
On January 25, 	1993, 	the Association answered the complaint
denying 	all 	material 	allegations 	and asserting 	several
affirmative defenses.
On February 4, 	1993, 	an informal 	conference was held in an
attempt 	to 	reach voluntary settlement. 	No 	settlement 	was
reached.
The 	formal hearing was held on May 3 	and 4, 	1993, 	before the
undersigned. 	Both sides 	filed post-hearing briefs. 	The 	last
brief was 	filed on 	July 21, 	1993, 	and at 	that 	time 	the 	case was
submitted 	for a proposed 	decision.
INTRODUCTION
Howard Spade was 	a 	teacher with 	the 	San Juan Unified School
District 	(District) 	from 1978 	to 1991, 	when he was 	laid off 	in a
budgetary 	cutback. 	When he was 	first 	employed he 	had a
because 	of 	their 	exercise 	of 	rights 	guaranteed by
this 	chapter.
N	2

vocational 	credential. 	Due 	to a misreading 	of 	his 	collective
bargaining agreement 	(CBA), 	he 	failed to timely submit
educational 	transcripts 	which would have 	raised him 	from 	column 	I
to 	column 	III 	on the 	salary schedule. 	He 	came 	to 	the Association
for assistance 	in 	filing a grievance 	to 	retroactively 	obtain 	the
appropriate 	back 	salary.
He believed that 	the Association representative, 	Linda
Gubman 	(Gubman), 	in her attempts 	to help him, 	failed to meet 	the
mandated 	duty 	of 	fair 	representation 	required of 	all 	exclusive
representatives.
JURISDICTION
The parties 	stipulated, 	and it 	is 	therefore 	found, 	that 	the
Charging 	Party 	is 	a public 	school 	employee 	and 	the 	Respondent 	is
an 	employee 	organization and an 	exclusive 	representative 	within
the meaning of 	the Act.
1
FINDINGS 	OF 	FACT
The 	Collective 	Bargaining Agreement
The 	CBA 	contains 	a 	certificated 	employee 	salary 	schedule
together with 	explanatory provisions 	governing placement 	on 	the
schedule. 	The 	salary schedule grants 	"step" 	credit 	for years 	of
experience 	and 	"column" 	credit 	for 	college and university units.
Although 	the 	schedule 	itself 	appears 	to 	credit units 	only 	if 	they
are obtained after receipt 	of a bachelor's degree, 	the
explanatory provisions make 	it 	clear 	that 	a vocational 	credential
(8.0 credential), 	such as the one that Spade had, 	is to be
treated as 	the 	equivalent 	of 	a bachelor's 	degree. 	Under the 	CBA,
3

units 	received 	subsequent 	to 	receipt 	of 	the 	8.0 	credential 	may be
given 	credit 	on the 	salary schedule 	in the 	same manner as post-
bachelor degree units.
However, 	a 	certificated employee may receive 	credit 	for
units 	on the 	salary schedule 	only if 	he 	or she has 	filed
transcripts with the District 	substantiating 	those units. 	To
receive 	credit 	for any school 	year, 	transcripts must be 	filed 	in
the personnel 	office by October 1 	of 	that year. 	These
requirements, 	as well 	as 	the provisions 	regarding treatment 	of
the vocational 	credential, 	have been included in every CBA since
at least 	1978.
The District 	sends 	every 	teacher an annual 	notice 	informing
them of 	their 	step 	and 	column placement 	on 	the 	salary 	schedule
and their actual 	salary. 	These 	letters 	are very terse and
describe, 	in an objective, 	analytical manner, 	the individual
employee's 	status, 	salary and current position. 	It does not
discuss, 	in any detail, 	the units 	filed by such employee with the
District. 	A teacher 	is 	not 	entitled to 	credit 	on the 	salary
schedule until 	his/her educational 	units 	have been 	filed with 	the
District.
Spade 	first became 	aware 	of 	his 	alleged misplacement 	on 	the
salary schedule on July 17, 	1991. 	He had been laid off 	in the
spring of 	1991 	and was applying 	for a 	job as 	a 	substitute
teacher. 	After bringing 	in all 	of 	his 	university transcripts 	to
the District office, 	he was 	informed by Linda Davis 	(Davis),
personnel 	clerk, 	that he 	could receive 	"column" 	credit 	for the
4
4

units 	that 	led to his bachelor's 	degree. 	With these units 	added
to his 	total, 	he would move over two columns 	on the 	salary-
schedule .
Spade was unaware, 	prior to his 	conversation with Davis,
that 	the 	CBA treated his 	8.0 	credential 	as 	if 	it were a
bachelor's degree. 	Thus, 	Spade had not understood that he was
entitled 	to 	salary schedule 	credit 	for his post-credential, 	but
pre-bachelor's 	degree units. 	He 	originally believed 	that 	he was
only entitled 	to 	credit 	for units 	earned after 	receipt 	of 	his
bachelor's degree.2
Spade's 	Grievance
Spade 	first 	met 	with Association 	representative 	Gubman 	on
August 12, 	1991. 	One of her responsibilities was 	the processing
of 	grievances. 	She had ten years 	of 	experience processing
grievances 	prior 	to assuming her position with 	the Association.
Gubman's 	initial 	meeting with 	Spade 	lasted between 	thirty
minutes 	and one hour. 	Spade 	told her that 	he began to work 	for
the District 	in 1978 with a 	8.0 	credential. 	Subsequently, 	he
took university units 	leading 	to a bachelor's degree, 	which was
awarded 	in 1982. 	He 	then took additional 	units which lead 	to a
2Spade was 	hired by 	the District 	as 	a vocational 	instructor.
He 	had 	recently 	retired after a 	twenty-year 	career 	in 	the
military 	service. 	After his 	employment 	commenced he 	began 	taking
courses with the 	objective 	of 	obtaining his bachelor's 	degree 	in
vocational 	education. 	He 	took these 	courses 	at 	night 	and during
the 	summer while maintaining 	full-time 	employment 	with 	the
District.
55

master's 	degree, 	awarded 	in 1985.3 Spade 	told Gubman that he
turned 	in both his bachelor's units 	and his master's 	units 	to 	the
District 	in 1985, 	but 	that 	the District 	apparently lost his
bachelor's 	units 	and 	failed 	to 	give 	him salary 	schedule 	credit
for those units. 	Therefore, 	he 	claimed he had been underpaid
since 	1985. 	He admitted that he made no 	copies 	of his
submission, 	nor did he have any other documentation of his 	claim.
Spade's 	testimony was 	somewhat 	confusing as, 	at various 	times, 	he
testified that he 	turned in his bachelor's units 	in 1982, 	1983
and 1985.
Spade 	insists 	that 	he 	signed a 	log book when he 	turned 	in
his bachelor's units. 	However, 	Gubman insists Spade never told
her, 	at any time, 	about having filled out a log book when he
turned 	in his bachelor's units. 	The 	credential 	unit 	personnel
were aware 	of 	a 	log being used during 	the 	1988-90 	school years,
but 	insisted there was no 	log used 	in the 	1983-85 	school 	years.
Although Gubman was 	unsure 	whether 	Spade 	had a meritorious
grievance or not, 	she 	filed a grievance on his behalf at 	level
one. 	The grievance was 	date 	stamped in the personnel 	office 	on
August 	14, 	1991. 	Both Gubman and Spade agreed that 	the 	only
issue 	in Spade's 	grievance was 	whether he 	had turned 	in his
bachelor's units 	in 1985.
3In this decision, 	the educational units 	leading to the
bachelor's 	degree are 	referred to as 	"bachelor's 	units." 	Units
leading 	to 	the master's 	degree 	are 	referred 	to as 	"master's
units."
66

Spade's 	Personnel 	File
Gubman and Spade agreed to meet 	on August 27, 	1991, 	at
2 p.m. 	at 	the District's personnel 	office 	to review Spade's 	file.
Gubman confirmed the meeting by letter dated August 	16, 	1991.
Spade 	insisted Gubman never 	showed up 	for 	the meeting 	and 	that 	he
went 	through his 	file by himself. 	Gubman stated that 	she
attended 	the meeting 	and 	that 	she 	and 	Spade 	inspected his
personnel 	file. 	She produced notes 	she 	took while 	reviewing his
file. 	The notes are dated August 	27. 	She 	received a copy of all
of 	the 	transcripts 	that were 	in Spade's 	file. 	Spade 	later called
the 	personnel 	office 	to 	find out 	if 	Gubman had 	independently
examined his personnel 	file. 	He was 	told that 	she was 	not
permitted to do 	that. 	She had to have his permission to view the
file. 	As more 	fully described below, 	it 	is 	found that Gubman met
Spade 	on August 	27 	and examined his 	personnel 	file with him.
The District 	has 	an envelope 	inside 	each personnel 	file 	in
which 	copies 	of 	transcripts and 	credentials 	are kept. 	This
envelope 	also 	contains 	a 	card on which 	submitted 	transcripts 	are
recorded. 	When transcripts are 	received, 	an entry is made on the
card and 	the 	transcripts 	are placed 	in the 	envelope. 	Neither the
card nor 	the 	envelope 	in Spade's 	file 	reflected 	the 	submission of
his bachelor's units 	in 1982, 	1983 	or 1985. 	His Master's unit
submission 	in 	1985 	(along with a number of 	in-service units) 	were
reflected on both 	the 	card and 	the 	envelope. 	Gubman 	found
nothing 	in Spade's 	file 	to 	substantiate 	his 	claim that 	he 	had
turned 	in his bachelor's unit 	transcripts 	in 	1985.
77

Spade's personnel 	file also 	contained copies 	of 	the
District's 	annual 	letters 	informing him of both his 	salary, 	and
step and 	column placement 	on the 	salary 	schedule 	for 	each 	school
year 	from 1978-79 	through 	1990-91.
Spade's Grievance 	- 	Levels One and Two
A level 	one grievance hearing was 	set 	for August 	30, 	1991.
Gubman 	informed Spade 	of 	the 	date 	of 	this 	hearing by 	letter dated
August 	16, 	1991. 	The meeting was attended by Gubman, 	Spade and
District 	representative Errol 	Belt 	(Belt). 	Before the meeting
started, 	Gubman verified with Spade 	that 	he was 	claiming 	that 	he
submitted all 	of his units 	in 1985. 	She 	then asked if he would
agree 	to 	her 	changing 	the 	grievance 	to 	state 	that 	he 	had been
misplaced since 	1985 	(rather than 1978, 	which was his 	date of
hire, 	as 	the grievance originally stated.) 	Spade agreed and
Gubman 	changed the date at 	that 	time. 	At 	the 	formal 	hearing,
Spade 	denied that 	the 	change 	of 	the 	operative date 	from 1978 	to
1985 	was 	ever discussed at 	any grievance meeting and 	that 	he 	has
no knowledge of how this 	occurred. 	However, 	his 	claim, 	even at
the 	PERB 	formal 	hearing, 	was 	that he had been underpaid 	from the
1985-86 	school year through that 	of 	1990-91. 	As more 	fully
discussed below, 	it 	is 	found that 	Spade agreed to this 	change 	in
the 	grievance's 	operative date 	from 1978 	to 	1985.
At 	the 	level 	one hearing, 	Gubman described Spade's 	claim and
gave 	him an 	opportunity 	to add anything he wished. 	She 	said he
repeated his 	story, 	and added an allegation 	that 	Esther Brown
(Brown), 	personnel clerk, 	would recall his submission of the
8

bachelor's units. 	Spade 	insisted that 	at 	this 	grievance meeting
no 	one 	asked him any questions 	and 	that 	he 	just 	"sat 	and
listened." 	Later, 	on cross-examination, 	he admitted he 	"may have
contributed some, 	but not very much." 	In response 	to Spade's
comments 	about Brown, 	Belt 	called her 	into 	the meeting and she
stated 	that 	she 	remembered his 	coming 	into 	the 	office 	and 	filing
some units 	but 	she had no 	recollection of 	those units 	including
his 	bachelor's units. 	Spade 	had no 	recollection of 	Brown having
even attended this meeting. 	At 	the 	conclusion of 	the meeting,
Gubman described to Spade 	the next 	grievance 	step. 	She also 	told
him she was 	concerned about 	the 	lack 	of 	any evidence 	in his
personnel 	file of a 	1985 	submission of his bachelor's units.
Spade's 	level 	one grievance was 	denied on 	the 	ground 	that
the 	District 	had no 	evidence 	of 	having 	received 	copies 	of 	Spade's
bachelor's 	units prior to July 	1991.
Following receipt of 	the 	level 	one denial, 	Spade's 	grievance
was 	filed at 	level 	two. 	Before 	the 	level 	two hearing, 	Gubman had
a 	conversation with Brown 	to 	see 	if 	she 	could 	remember any more
details about 	Spade's 	submission of his units. 	Brown was not
able 	to 	recall 	anything 	further. 	Later Spade asked Brown 	if
Gubman had 	ever 	come 	to 	her 	to ask 	if 	she 	remembered anything
more about 	his 	transcript 	submissions. 	Spade 	said Brown told him
that Gubman had not 	come 	to her to discuss 	this matter. 	As more
fully described below, 	it 	is 	found that Gubman did discuss 	the
matter with Brown.
9
9

Gubman also talked to Linda Landreth 	(Landreth), 	supervisor
of 	the certificated 	(employee) 	processing unit, 	regarding
procedures 	in her unit. 	She asked 	if 	there was any other
procedural 	documentation of 	the 	submission of units 	besides 	the
cards and transcripts 	in the employees' 	personnel 	files.
Landreth 	said 	that 	she was 	unaware 	of 	any other 	such 	records 	or
documentation.
Spade 	insisted he had no 	contact 	with Gubman between 	the
first 	level 	meeting 	on August 	16 	and 	the 	second 	level meeting 	on
September 30, 	1991, 	and that 	she was 	late 	for the second meeting.
Present at 	the level 	two hearing were Spade, 	Gubman, 	Mike
Roberts 	(Roberts), 	the then District director of 	certificated
personnel, 	Merle 	Padilla, 	the person who would have been Spade's
supervisor had he been hired as 	a substitute, 	and, 	for a short
period of 	time, 	Landreth. 	Gubman presented Spade's 	case and
responded to Roberts' 	questions. 	Roberts asked Landreth about
the 	current 	status 	of 	Spade's units 	and she 	confirmed that 	he had
received credit 	for all 	the units 	he had brought 	in.
Roberts 	denied 	the 	level 	two grievance 	on both procedural
and substantive grounds. 	On the 	issue of procedure, 	Roberts
found 	that 	the 	grievance was 	untimely since 	the 	alleged event
occasioning the 	grievance 	occurred 	in 	1982. 	Roberts 	also 	found
the grievance was untimely using Spade's 	"awareness" 	date 	of 	July
17, 	1991.4 Roberts admitted, 	however, 	when he testified at the
4Roberts 	testified that he makes 	it 	"a practice 	to 	say 	it
[the grievance] 	wasn't 	filed in a timely manner" 	whenever he
denies 	a grievance. 	He 	explained this practice by stating 	that
10

formal 	hearing 	that 	the 	latter determination was 	in 	error 	since
the grievance had been filed on August 	14, 	1991, 	20 work days
after July 	17. 	Roberts 	had based his 	Untimeliness 	determination
on the 	"delivery date", 	August 	15, 	1991 	that had been incorrectly
typed 	in the upper 	right 	hand corner of 	the 	grievance.
With 	regard to 	the 	substantive 	issue, 	the grievance was
denied because 	there was 	no 	record of 	the bachelor's 	units 	having
been submitted to the District prior to July 17, 	1991, 	and
because 	the District 	had 	furnished 	the 	grievant 	with an annual
notice, 	from 1978 	through 1991, 	explaining his 	step and column
placement 	on 	the 	salary schedule.
Following 	the 	level 	two hearing, 	Gubman had a 	lengthy
discussion with Spade 	on the 	telephone. 	Spade 	focused entirely
on the 	issue of 	timeliness. 	Spade admitted, 	at 	the 	formal
hearing, 	that after receiving the level 	two decision, 	he put 	"all
of his 	effort" 	on the 	issue of 	timeliness. 	Gubman informed him
that 	the grievance had been timely 	filed on August 	14, 	and that
even 	if 	the grievance had not been timely filed, 	this would not
be a basis 	for refusing 	to 	take his 	case 	to arbitration. 	She
also 	explained 	to him why she 	felt 	his 	case 	had 	insufficient
merit.
Spade 	claimed that 	it was 	in this 	conversation, 	that Gubman
told him that 	she was 	not 	going 	to 	speak with him any more 	and
would only 	communicate with him in writing. 	Gubman denied making
he never knows 	"when an arbitrator will 	agree with me."
11

such a 	statement. 	Spade 	admitted 	that 	Gubman 	continued 	to 	speak
to him after 	this 	conversation.
Following receipt of 	the 	level 	two denial, 	Gubman filed a
request 	to 	take 	the grievance 	to arbitration. 	These 	requests 	are
routinely 	filed 	so as 	to avoid violating 	the 	timelines 	for
requesting arbitration. 	Spade 	admitted 	that 	Gubman did not 	tell
him that 	the Association would actually 	take 	his 	case 	to
arbitration.
The Association's 	Executive Director Yale Wishnick
(Wishnick) 	admitted that 	grievances 	are 	filed for a number of
different 	reasons. 	Sometimes 	they are 	filed 	for no more 	reasons
that 	to 	see 	if 	they can get 	some 	sort 	of 	settlement 	for the
individual 	grievant. 	However, 	the decision to take a grievance
to arbitration 	is 	based 	on an entirely different 	set 	of 	criteria.
The most 	important 	of 	these 	criteria 	is 	the possibility of
winning.
Settlement 	Offer
Before 	the Association's 	grievance 	committee made 	a
recommendation as 	to whether or not 	to 	take 	the 	case 	to
arbitration, 	Gubman pursued 	settlement 	possibilities 	with 	the
District. 	Since Roberts 	had no authority to make any settlement
offer, 	she asked him if 	he would mind 	if 	she discussed the matter
with the District's Superintendent, 	Dr. 	Jeffers 	(Jeffers). 	He
did not 	have any problem with this. 	When she 	spoke 	to Jeffers 	he
agreed to offer Spade $1,000 	or, 	in the alternative, 	to attempt
to 	obtain an emergency credential 	for Spade 	so 	that 	he 	could be
12

given a 	teaching position 	for 	the upcoming year. 	As 	Spade's
program had been 	abolished and he 	had 	such a 	limited 	credential,
he was 	not 	qualified 	for any existing position 	in 	the District 	at
that 	time. 	The District 	had no obligation to provide him a
position 	for which he was 	not 	appropriately 	credentialed, 	nor any
obligation 	to attempt 	to 	obtain an 	emergency 	credential 	for him.
The 	offer was made 	solely 	in an attempt 	to 	settle 	the grievance.
Gubman had not 	yet 	communicated 	the District's 	offer 	to
Spade when 	she 	ran 	into him in a District 	office 	hallway 	in early
December 	1991. 	In the ensuing conversation, 	she described the
offer to him. 	Spade 	told Gubman that 	if 	there was 	a position 	in
the District 	that he was qualified for, 	it was her job to 	see
that 	he got 	it. 	He asked Gubman 	to 	find out what 	the position
was. 	He 	testified that 	she never got back to him, 	and that he
had no 	further 	contact 	with her 	concerning 	the 	position.
Gubman admitted that Spade, 	in this hallway meeting, 	asked
her to 	find out what 	the position would be. 	However, 	before 	she
could proceed with this 	effort, 	Spade 	called her and left 	a
message 	that 	he was 	not 	interested 	in the 	settlement 	offer. 	When
Gubman phoned Spade he was 	adamant 	that 	he 	did not 	want 	to accept
the 	job 	offer or 	the 	$1,000 	settlement 	and was 	very 	interested 	in
going 	forward 	to arbitration. 	Spade 	explained 	that 	he wanted 	the
full 	back pay 	to which he believed he was 	entitled 	to 	open his
own business. 	Spade 	denies 	that 	he 	ever spoke 	again to Gubman
about 	the potential 	position after he 	asked her 	to 	find 	out more
13

about 	it. 	As more 	fully discussed below, 	it 	is 	found that 	Spade
called Gubman to direct 	her not 	to pursue 	the 	settlement 	offer.
Spade 	did not 	accept 	the 	settlement 	offer because 	he
believed 	that 	he was 	already entitled 	to 	the position,
independent 	of 	the grievance, 	and he believed he 	should not have
to give up his 	claim to back pay to 	receive 	it. 	Gubman explained
that 	he 	had no 	entitlement 	to any position and 	that 	it 	was 	only
offered as 	a 	settlement 	of 	his 	grievance. 	She also 	explained
that 	she 	would be 	recommending 	to 	the Association's 	grievance
committee 	that 	the 	case not be 	taken to arbitration.
Decision Not 	to Go 	to Arbitration
Spade 	knew that 	the Association's 	grievance 	committee would
make 	the 	initial 	determination whether 	the 	case would proceed 	to
arbitration. 	He was 	informed 	in advance of 	its meeting. 	The
grievance 	committee met 	and 	recommended 	to 	the 	Association's
Executive 	Board 	that 	Spade's 	grievance 	not be 	taken 	to
arbitration. 	Gubman phoned Spade 	and 	told him of 	this
recommendation. 	The grievance 	committee also sent 	Spade 	a 	letter
telling him of 	its 	decision. 	It 	suggested he more 	fully explore
Jeffers' 	settlement offer.
Again Spade wanted 	to 	talk about 	the 	timeliness 	issue and he
indicated 	that 	this 	had 	to be 	the 	reason 	that Gubman had decided
his 	case was 	not meritorious. 	Gubman explained again that 	the
grievance 	had been 	filed 	in a 	timely manner and 	that 	even 	if 	it
had not been timely, 	this 	would not be a valid reason not 	to
proceed to arbitration. 	She 	explained that 	this was 	so as 	there
14

are many ways 	to get around 	claims 	of Untimeliness 	when the 	case
is before an arbitrator. 	Gubman told Spade 	that 	the 	committee's
decision was based on the merits 	of 	the 	case. 	She 	once again
reviewed the merits 	of the case, 	in detail. 	Spade 	refused to
believe 	that 	timeliness was 	not 	the 	reason 	for the 	decision not
to go 	to arbitration.
On December 9, 	1991, 	Gubman sent 	Spade a letter confirming
the 	grievance 	committee's 	recommendation 	that his 	grievance 	not
be 	taken 	to arbitration. 	The 	letter explained that 	this 	decision
was based on 	(1) 	the lack of documentation, 	and 	(2) 	the fact 	that
so much 	time 	had passed before 	Spade 	came 	forward with his 	claim.
Gubman also 	encouraged Spade 	to 	reconsider 	the 	District's
settlement 	offer. 	Finally, 	the letter explained that 	the
Association's 	Executive 	Board would 	review 	the 	grievance
committee's 	recommendation and 	that 	if 	Spade 	did not 	agree with
the 	Executive Board's 	decision, 	he would be given an opportunity
to appeal 	the decision, 	in person, 	at a future meeting.
After 	the winter break, 	and shortly before 	the Association's
Executive 	Board met 	to 	consider 	the 	grievance 	committee's
recommendation, 	Gubman again discussed 	the District's 	settlement
offer with Spade. 	She 	insisted he was 	still 	adamant 	in rejecting
the offer.
The Executive Board met 	on January 7, 	1992. 	Gubman prepared
a packet 	of 	information with all 	of 	the 	relevant 	documents 	from
Spade's grievance. 	She reviewed the 	facts, 	the grievance team's
recommendation, 	the settlement offer, 	Spade's position on the
15

settlement 	offer and his 	desire 	to go 	to arbitration. 	She
consulted, 	at 	length, 	with the Association's attorney and her
supervisor, 	Wishnick. 	Although she mentioned his 	concern about
timeliness, 	she 	stated that 	this was not 	an issue and her
discussion 	centered on the merits 	of 	the 	case. 	The 	Executive
Board asked questions 	and discussed 	the 	case 	for approximately an
hour and a half. 	It 	eventually decided 	to affirm the 	grievance
committee's recommendation. 	On January 8, 	1992, 	Gubman
communicated 	the 	Executive 	Board's 	decision 	to 	Spade.
Spade 	had a 	telephone 	conversation 	following 	the 	Executive
Board's meeting 	in which he 	insists 	Gubman 	told him once 	again
she would no 	longer 	talk 	to him. 	Gubman denied making 	such a
statement. 	Spade 	insists 	that 	this 	is 	the 	second time 	that
Gubman told him that 	she would refuse 	to 	speak to him. 	However,
even Spade admits 	that after the 	first 	alleged 	incident, 	Gubman
continued 	to 	speak directly to him. 	This 	second alleged
statement 	was made 	near 	the 	end of 	their 	contacts 	and there was
little 	reason 	for Gubman 	to have 	future 	communications 	with
Spade.
It 	is 	found that 	even 	if Gubman made 	the 	statements, 	and as
more 	fully described below that 	is 	questionable, 	the 	incident was
fairly minor and did not 	materially affect 	the 	level 	of
representation provided by 	the Association 	to 	Spade.
Spade 	talked to Gubman's 	immediate supervisor, 	Wishnick, 	to
complain of her 	representation. 	He 	insisted that 	the 	issues 	were
not 	being properly 	communicated 	to 	the District. 	Wishnick agreed
16

that 	they spoke 	regarding Spade's 	concerns 	about 	Gubman. 	Spade
received no 	satisfaction 	from Wishnick 	regarding 	his 	request 	to
either replace 	Gubman as 	his 	representative 	or 	to greatly 	improve
her representation 	of 	him.
Independent 	of 	Spade's 	communication, 	Gubman admitted to
Wishnick 	that 	she was 	having difficulty with Spade 	regarding
getting 	him to 	accept 	either her 	counsel 	or 	the 	information 	that
she 	had been 	collecting 	and 	researching.
Pursuant 	to the Association's 	internal procedure, 	Spade was
given 	the 	opportunity 	to appeal 	the 	Executive Board's 	decision 	in
a personal meeting with 	the board. 	Gubman 	informed Spade, 	in a
telephone 	conversation, 	that he had the 	right 	to bring a
representative. 	Spade and his 	representative made 	a presentation
to 	the board. 	He 	claimed that 	the District's 	acknowledgement 	of
their error regarding his 	33-1/2 master's units 	was proof 	that 	he
had submitted his bachelor's units 	in 	1985.
Gubman explained to 	the board 	that 	at 	one 	time 	the District
had 	incorrectly 	counted 	Spade's 	master's 	units 	and 	shortly
thereafter had 	corrected 	the miscount. 	The 	document 	that 	Spade
had presented merely 	reflected 	this 	confusion 	over his 	master's
units 	and had nothing 	to 	do with his 	claim that 	he 	had 	submitted
his bachelor's units.5
5Spade's 	personnel 	file 	contained a memo dated October 	12,
1984, 	stating 	that 	he would have 	to be moved 	from column 	III 	to
column II 	since his 	file 	contained only 29 	units, 	one 	short 	of
the 	30 	required for column III. 	This was 	corrected 	five days
later when 	the District verified 	that 	his 	file 	contained
sufficient units 	for column III. 	These 	30+ units were the 	result
of various 	computer 	inservice 	classes, 	District-sponsored
17

After the presentation, 	the Executive Board discussed
Spade's 	grievance 	at 	length and voted 	once 	again not 	to 	take 	the
case to arbitration. 	It did so, 	because 	it 	felt 	the case was
insufficiently meritorious. 	Gubman 	communicated the board's
decision 	to Spade by letter dated February 5, 	1992.
Spade's 	Discussion with 	Linda 	Page
Shortly after Spade 	received the denial 	of his 	appeal, 	he
saw Linda Page 	(Page), 	an Executive Board member, 	at 	the Casa
Robles High School 	library, 	where he was 	substituting. 	Spade
insisted that 	Page 	told him, 	"I 	think I 	can speak for the board.
We 	all 	feel 	you're 	right. 	We hope you get 	an attorney and 	I 	hope
you win." 	Page denied making 	these 	statements. 	She admitted
meeting and speaking to him. 	However, 	she 	stated that 	she 	told
him that 	she was 	sorry about 	the 	fact 	that 	he had not 	received
the pay to which he believed he was 	entitled. 	Spade 	then told
her 	that 	he believed 	that 	Gubman had 	lied 	to him and 	that 	he
believed Gubman was 	a 	"dangerous 	person." 	She 	also 	said 	that
Spade 	told her 	in a 	later 	conversation 	that 	Gubman was 	"against
him and 	lying 	to him and 	that 	she 	should not 	be part 	of 	our
Association, 	and that 	everybody had to watch out 	for her."
A short 	time 	later Spade 	came 	into 	Page's 	classroom while
there 	were 	students 	present 	and 	immediately 	launched 	into 	a
discussion of 	his 	case. 	He 	insisted that 	she had agreed with him
that Gubman had lied 	to him. 	Page 	told Spade 	that 	she never said
conferences 	and courses he 	took when he was 	first 	employed. 	He
referred 	to 	these 	last 	courses 	as 	having been given by a
"consortium."
18

such a 	thing and 	that 	she had 	only 	stated 	that 	she 	felt 	badly
about 	his 	situation and had not 	agreed anything 	improper had been
done. 	Spade 	told her 	that 	he 	intended to have 	her testify at
some 	sort 	of 	future proceeding.
Page 	explained 	she voted against 	taking 	Spade's 	grievance 	to
arbitration as she believed the case was weak, 	due 	in part, 	to
the 	long period of 	time between the 	time he 	earned the units 	in
question and 	the 	filing 	of 	the grievance. 	During 	this 	time he
received annual 	notifications 	of 	his 	salary placement. 	In
addition, 	she continued, 	there was no empirical 	evidence to prove
his 	allegation that 	his bachelor's units 	had been 	filed 	in 	1985.
Although Spade's 	discussions 	with 	Page 	are 	not 	directly
relevant 	to 	the 	issue 	of whether the Association met 	its 	duty of
fair representation, 	it 	helps 	to explain why Spade believed 	so
strongly that 	his 	case had merit.
Credibility determination between Spade, 	Gubman and 	Page
Howard Spade 	is 	obviously a man 	of 	intelligence with a
tremendous 	amount 	of 	drive and 	initiative. 	After he 	retired 	from
military 	service he 	was 	determined 	to get 	a 	formal 	education and
he did just 	that. 	He did it 	in the most 	difficult manner
possible, 	as an adult, 	at night, 	and while maintaining a full-
time 	job and meeting his 	responsibilities 	to his 	family.
However, 	despite this 	intelligence and drive, 	with regard to
the 	crucial 	issues at 	the 	formal 	hearing, 	Spade displayed a lot
of 	confusion and 	critical 	memory 	lapses 	regarding pertinent
information. 	The 	lapses 	in memory were not 	all 	clearly defined,
19

nor did they all 	reflect 	an attempt 	to bolster his 	own 	case.
Some 	just 	displayed an 	inability 	to 	remember 	specific 	events.
For example:
a. 	He 	testified at various 	times 	that 	he 	filed his
bachelor's units 	in 1982, 	1983 and 1985.
b. 	He 	forgot, 	until 	it 	came up in the 	formal hearing, 	that
he 	filled out 	a 	log book when he 	submitted his 	bachelor's 	units,
although 	the 	employees 	in 	that 	unit 	insist 	they had no 	log book
in 1985.
c. 	He 	insists 	that 	Gubman never met 	him to 	jointly 	examine
his personnel 	file, 	and yet 	she has 	notes 	from such examination.
As 	she was 	not permitted to 	examine 	the 	file without 	his
approval, 	she must have attended the meeting with him to know
what was 	in his personnel 	file.
d. 	Spade 	originally 	insisted 	that 	he 	"just 	sat 	and
listened" 	to the 	first level 	grievance meeting. 	Later he
admitted he may have 	"contributed some, 	but 	not very much."
However, 	Certification Unit 	Employee Esther Brown was brought 	to
the meeting 	in direct 	response 	to Spade's 	insistence 	that 	she
would remember his 	filing his 	bachelor's 	units. 	He 	obviously
contributed 	considerably more 	than 	he 	remembered.
e. 	He 	also 	failed 	to 	remember 	that 	Brown even attended
that meeting.
f. 	Spade 	insisted 	that 	Gubman never got 	back 	to him with
regard 	to 	specifics 	concerning 	the potential 	job 	offer 	from the
District. 	He denies 	ever stating that 	he did not want 	her to
20

explore 	the 	job offer, 	that he preferred a back pay cash
settlement 	so as 	to pursue other business 	opportunities. 	And
yet, 	there 	is no reason Gubman would go to the 	trouble of
negotiating 	a 	settlement 	on 	Spade's 	behalf 	and 	then 	not 	follow up
on the offer, 	unless 	she was 	thwarted by Spade's disinterest.
g. 	Gubman 	insisted 	that 	Executive 	Board Member 	Page 	told
him, 	"I 	think I 	can speak for the board. 	We all 	feel you're
right. 	We hope you get 	an attorney and 	I hope you win." 	She
denies making this 	statement. 	It 	is 	illogical 	for her to have
made 	this 	statement 	within days 	of 	the board having upheld 	the
grievance 	committee's 	decision 	to deny arbitration.
h. 	Spade persisted 	in believing 	that 	Page 	told him that
she 	and 	the 	other Executive 	Board members 	supported his 	cause
even after 	she 	denied making 	such 	statements 	during 	a
confrontation with her 	in her own 	classroom at 	a 	time when
students were present.
Spade's 	testimony is 	in direct 	conflict with 	that 	of both
Gubman and Page, 	as well as logic. 	Therefore, 	it must be
determined 	that 	the 	testimony of 	Gubman and 	Page 	is more 	credible
than that 	of 	Spade.
ISSUES
Did 	the Association process 	Spade's 	grievance 	improperly
to 	the 	extent 	that 	it 	failed to meet 	its 	duty of 	fair
representation, 	thereby violating subdivision 	(b) 	of
section 	3543.6?
21

CONCLUSIONS 	OF 	LAW
Standard 	for Duty 	of 	Fair Representation
In order to prove a violation of 	the duty of 	fair
representation, 	the 	charging party must 	show that 	the 	employee
organization's 	conduct was 	arbitrary, 	discriminatory or 	in bad
faith. 	(Rocklin Teachers 	Professional Association 	(1980) 	PERB
Decision No. 	124 	(Rocklin), 	citing precedent set by the National
Labor Relations 	Board and affirmed by the U.S. 	Supreme 	Court 	in
Vaca v. 	Sipes 	(1967) 	386 U.S. 	171 	[64 LRRM 2369].)
-
The Board in Rocklin, 	affirmed this 	concept as 	set 	forth in
Griffin v. 	United Auto Workers 	(4th Cir. 	1972) 	469 	F.2d 181 	[81
LRRM 2485], 	as 	follows:
A union must 	conform its 	behavior 	to 	each of
these standards. 	First, 	it must treat all
factions 	and segments 	of 	its membership
without 	hostility or discrimination. 	Next,
the broad discretion of 	the union 	in
asserting 	the 	rights 	of 	its members must be
exercised 	in 	complete 	good 	faith and honesty.
Finally, 	the union must avoid arbitrary
conduct. 	Each of 	these 	requirements
represents 	a distinct 	and 	separate
obligation, 	the breach of which may
constitute 	the basis 	for civil 	action. 	The
repeated 	references 	in Vaca 	to 	"arbitrary"
union 	conduct 	reflected a 	calculated
broadening 	of 	the 	fair representation
standard. 	[Citations] 	Without any hostile
motive 	of 	discrimination and 	in 	complete 	good
faith, 	a union may nevertheless pursue a
course 	of 	action or inaction that 	is 	so
unreasonable and arbitrary as 	to 	constitute 	a
violation of 	the duty of 	fair representation.
Allegations 	Set 	Forth 	in 	the 	Complaint
The 	complaint 	alleges 	that 	the 	Respondent violated 	the Act
when it did the 	following: 	(1) 	failed to 	file the grievance 	in a
22

timely manner, 	(2) 	changed the date 	for requested back pay-
without 	informing Charging Party, 	(3) 	refused to answer Spade's
questions 	regarding 	the 	timeliness 	of his grievance, 	and 	(4)
informed 	Charging 	Party 	that 	she 	(Gubman) 	would no 	longer
communicate with him verbally. 	In addition, 	much of 	the 	evidence
at 	the 	formal 	hearing attacked 	the Association's 	decision not 	to
take Spade's 	grievance 	to arbitration. 	Each of 	these allegations
will be examined, 	in turn.
1. 	Failure 	to 	file grievance 	in a timely manner.
The 	only piece 	of 	evidence 	that 	Spade has 	to support 	his
allegation 	that 	the 	grievance was 	untimely 	filed was 	the
statement by Mike Roberts 	in his 	second level 	response, 	that 	the
grievance 	"wasn't 	filed 	in a 	timely manner." 	At 	the hearing
Roberts 	admitted that 	he added this 	only because he makes 	it 	a
practice 	to 	insert 	this 	statement 	into every grievance he denies.
He 	admitted an arbitrator would determine 	the 	grievance 	was 	filed
in a 	timely manner.
Gubman 	told Spade 	that 	there was 	no problem with 	timeliness.
He 	did not believe 	her. 	A simple mathematical 	computation 	should
have shown him that 	the document was 	filed August 	14, 	1991, 	which
was within 20 work days 	of July 17, 	the date he 	learned of 	the
problem.
The Association did not violate 	its 	duty of 	fair
representation with 	regard 	to 	the 	time 	Spade's 	grievance 	was
filed.
23

2. 	Changed back pay date without 	informing 	Spade.
Gubman stated 	that 	she 	changed 	this 	date 	from 1978 	to 	1985
while 	she was 	waiting 	for 	the 	first 	level 	grievance meeting 	to
commence. 	She did so after asking Spade, 	who was with her at 	the
time, 	if he was 	still maintaining that he 	first 	filed his
bachelor's units with the District 	in 1985. 	He does not 	remember
that 	conversation and 	contends 	that 	he 	has 	no 	idea when 	the 	date
was 	changed. 	This was 	only one 	of many conflicts 	in the
testimony between 	Spade 	and Gubman.
As 	the 	conflict 	between 	Spade 	and Gubman has 	been 	resolved
in 	favor of 	crediting Gubman's 	testimony, 	a 	conclusion 	follows
that 	the Association did not violate 	its 	duty of 	fair
representation with 	regard 	to 	the 	changed back pay date.
3. 	Refused to answer Spade's 	questions 	regarding
timeliness.
The 	evidence 	supports 	a 	conclusion 	that 	there was 	no 	refusal
to answer questions, 	Spade 	just did not believe Gubman's
insistence that 	there was no timeliness problem. 	(See No. 	1,
supra.) 	This 	alleged refusal 	does 	not 	support 	a 	conclusion that- -
the Association violated 	its 	duty of 	fair 	representation.
4. 	Gubman told Spade 	she would no 	longer speak to him.
Once 	again the 	testimony of Gubman and Spade 	is 	in direct
conflict. 	According 	to Spade, 	Gubman twice 	told him she would no
longer 	speak directly 	to 	him and 	that 	all 	future 	communications
had to be 	in writing. 	Gubman denied making 	such statements.
24

As 	the 	conflict 	between Spade 	and Gubman has 	been 	resolved
in favor of 	crediting Gubman's 	testimony, 	it 	is 	concluded that
the Association did not violate 	its 	duty of 	fair 	representation
with 	regard 	to Gubman 	allegedly 	telling 	Spade 	that 	she would 	no
longer 	speak 	to 	him.
5. 	Association's decision not 	to go to arbitration.
There 	is 	absolutely no 	evidence 	to 	show that 	the Association
based 	its 	decision not 	to 	take 	Spade's 	grievance 	to 	arbitration
on anything but 	the merits 	of 	the 	case. 	The evidence 	supporting
the 	grievance was 	too weak 	to 	expect 	anything but 	a perfunctory
denial 	from an arbitrator. 	Spade's 	grievance was based on the
concept 	that 	he 	turned his bachelor's units 	in 	1985 	and 	the
District 	lost 	them. 	However, 	according to his own testimony, 	he
also 	turned 	in his master's units at 	the 	same 	time and the
District 	did not 	lose 	them. 	He 	insisted that he 	filled out 	a 	log
and there was 	no 	log. 	Spade 	insisted that 	Esther Brown would
remember him turning 	in 	the 	subject 	units 	and 	there 	was 	evidence
that 	she was not able 	to substantiate 	this 	submission. 	There was
no 	evidence 	that 	the District 	did anything 	other 	than 	follow 	its
normal 	routine with regard to Spade's 	submission(s). 	In short,
he had absolutely no 	evidence, 	other than his 	own assertions,
that 	he 	submitted these units 	in 1985.
It 	is 	hardly 	surprising 	that 	the Association declined 	to
take 	the 	case 	to arbitration. 	Gubman discussed the 	case with
Wishnick as well 	as 	the Association's 	legal 	counsel. 	The matter
was 	then turned over to 	two membership 	committees, 	each of which
25

exercised 	its 	independent 	discretion. 	The Association has
limited 	resources 	and 	they must 	be used 	in 	those 	areas 	that 	have
the best possibility of 	success. 	The Association's 	two 	labor
relations 	experts, 	legal 	counsel and two membership committees
all 	agreed that 	this was not 	one of 	those areas. 	There was
absolutely no 	evidence 	to 	suggest 	that 	any of 	these 	independent
decisionmakers, 	with the possible exception of Gubman, 	harbored
any negative 	feelings 	towards 	Spade.
In Sacramento City Teachers Association 	(1984) 	PERB Decision
No. 	428, 	the Board was faced with a similar circumstance. 	It, 	in
pertinent part, 	stated as 	follows:
The Association's major 	reasons 	for
refusing to pursue arbitration . 	. 	. were
that 	the potential 	success 	at 	arbitration
was 	doubtful 	and 	that 	there were potential
negative 	implications 	for 	other bargaining
unit members. 	Whether or not 	this 	judgment
by the Association was 	correct 	is 	not 	at
issue. 	Our 	inquiry 	focuses 	on whether the
Association's 	judgment 	had a 	rational 	basis,
or was 	reached 	for reasons 	that were arbitrary
or based upon 	invidious 	discrimination. 	At no
time 	did 	Charging 	Parties 	allege 	facts 	which
tend 	to 	show that 	the 	decision 	reached by 	the
Association was 	based upon any 	of 	these
unlawful motives. 	Therefore, 	PERB will not
stand in judgment 	as 	to 	the 	relative merits 	of
the 	decision made by 	the Association when 	it
refused 	to 	take 	the 	grievance 	to arbitration.
In this 	case, 	as 	in Sacramento City Teachers Association.
Charging 	Party did not 	allege 	facts 	or present 	convincing
evidence 	that 	showed 	that 	the 	decision 	reached by 	the Association
was 	arbitrary, 	discriminatory or 	in bad 	faith.
26

It 	is 	therefore determined that 	the Association did not
violate 	its 	duty of 	fair 	representation with 	regard 	to 	its
decision not 	to 	take Spade's 	grievance 	to arbitration.
PROPOSED 	ORDER
Based upon the 	foregoing 	findings 	of 	fact, 	conclusions of
law and the entire 	record of 	this 	case, 	it 	is 	found that 	the
San Juan Teachers Association, 	CTA/NEA, 	did not violate
Government 	Code 	section 	3543.6(b) 	of 	the 	Educational 	Employment
Relations Act. 	It 	is ORDERED that all 	aspects 	of 	the 	charge and
complaint 	are 	hereby DISMISSED.
Pursuant 	to California Code of Regulations, 	title 	8, 	section
32305, 	this 	Proposed Decision and Order shall become 	final 	unless
a party 	filed a 	statement 	of 	exceptions 	with 	the 	Board 	itself 	at
the 	headquarters 	office 	in Sacramento within twenty days 	of
service of 	this Decision. 	In accordance with PERB Regulations,
the 	statement 	of 	exceptions 	should 	identify by page 	citation 	or
exhibit number the portions 	of 	the record, 	if any, 	relied upon
for such exceptions. 	(See Cal. 	Code of Regs., 	tit. 	8, 	sec.
32300.) 	A document 	is 	considered 	"filed" 	when actually 	received
before 	the 	close of business 	(5:00 p.m.) 	on the 	last 	day set 	for
filing. 	. 	. 	or when sent by telegraph or certified or Express
United states mail, 	postmarked no 	later than the 	last 	day set 	for
filing. 	. 	." 	(See Cal. Code of Regs., 	tit. 	8, 	sec. 	32315; Code
Civ. 	P r o c , 	sec. 	1013.) 	Any statement of exceptions and
supporting brief 	must 	be 	served 	concurrently with 	its 	filing upon
27

each party to this proceeding. 	Proof of service shall accompany
each copy served on a party or filed by the Board itself. 	(See
Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 8, secs. 32300, 32305 and 32410.)
ALLEN R. 	LINK
Administrative Law Judge
2 8
)