State of California (Department of Health Services) (PERB 1357S)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
CALIFORNIA STATE 	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION, 	SEIU, 	LOCAL 1000,
Charging 	Party,
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	(DEPARTMENT
OF 	HEALTH SERVICES),
Respondent.
)
)
)
) 	Case No. 	SA-CE-1243-S
PERB Decision No. 	1357-S
October 	18, 	1999
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances; 	California State 	Employees Association by Nancy T.
Yamada, 	Attorney, 	for California State Employees Association,
SEIU, 	Local 	1000; 	State of California 	(Department of 	Personnel
Administration) 	by Wendi L. 	Ross, 	Labor Relations Counsel, 	for
State of California 	(Department of Health Services).
Before Caffrey, 	Chairman; 	Dyer and Amador, 	Members.
DECISION AND 	ORDER
AMADOR, 	Member: 	This 	case comes before the Public
Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(Board) 	on appeal by the 	California
State Employees Association, 	SEIU, 	Local 	1000 	(CSEA) 	to a Board
agent's dismissal 	(attached) 	of 	the unfair practice charge. 	The
charge alleged 	that 	the 	State 	of 	California 	(Department 	of 	Health
Services) 	(State) 	violated the Ralph C. 	Dills Act 	(Dills Act)
section 3519 (a) 	and 	(b)l when it terminated the employment of
lThe Dills 	Act 	is 	codified at 	Government 	Code 	section 	3512
et seq. 	Dills Act section 3519 	states, 	in part, 	that:
It 	shall 	be unlawful 	for the 	state 	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

Dana Bass 	in 	retaliation 	for engaging 	in protected 	conduct.
The 	Board agent 	found that 	the 	charge 	did not 	state 	a prima 	facie
case.
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.
The 	Board has 	reviewed the 	original 	and amended 	charge, 	the
warning and dismissal 	letters, 	CSEA's appeal, 	and the State's
response. 	The Board 	finds 	that 	the warning and dismissal 	letters
are 	free 	of prejudicial 	error, 	and adopts 	them as 	the decision of
the 	Board 	itself.
The unfair practice 	charge 	in Case No. 	SA-CE-1243-S 	is
hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT 	LEAVE 	TO AMEND.
Chairman 	Caffrey and Member Dyer 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
22

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	f 	GRAY DAVIS, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Sacramento Regional Office
1031 18th Street, Room 102
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
(916) 322-3198
July 2, 	1999
Nancy T. 	Yamada, 	Staff Attorney
California 	State 	Employees Association
1108 	"0" Street, 	Suite 327
Sacramento, 	CA 	95814
Re: 	California State Employees Association, 	SEIU, 	Local 	1000 v.
State 	of 	California 	(Departmen-_-_-_-_-t 	of 	Health 	Services)
Unfair Practice Charge No. 	SA-CE-1243-S
DISMISSAL 	LETTER
Dear Ms. 	Yamada:
The 	above-referenced unfair practice 	charge 	was 	filed with 	the
Public Employment 	Relations Board on May 19, 	1999. 	The 	charge
alleges 	that 	the 	State 	of 	California 	(Department 	of 	Health
Services) 	violated the Ralph C. 	Dills Act, 	Government Code
section 3519(a) 	and 	(b), 	by retaliating against Dana Bass 	for
engaging 	in protected conduct.
I 	indicated to you in the attached letter dated June 	22, 	1999,
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, 	the 	charge 	should be
amended. 	You were 	further advised 	that 	unless 	the 	charge 	was
amended to 	state 	a prima 	facie 	case 	or 	it 	was withdrawn prior to
June 30, 	1999, 	the charge would be dismissed.
We 	discussed 	the 	charge 	and the 	findings 	in the 	attached 	letter
on June 	29, 	1999. 	An amended unfair practice 	charge was 	filed on
June 30, 	1999.
Mr. 	Bass 	was 	employed by the Department 	of Health 	Services 	as 	a
Health Facilities Evaluator Nurse 	(HFEN). 	In his position,
Mr. 	Bass participated in investigations 	of health facilities 	to
determine 	compliance with 	State 	and 	Federal 	standards.
The charge alleges that on July 31, 	1998, 	Peggy Severns, 	Health
Facilities Evaluator Supervisor, 	informed Mr. 	Bass 	that 	she would
be 	seeking 	adverse 	action against 	him. 	The 	charge 	alleges 	that
despite Mr. 	Bass' 	repeated requests 	for an explanation of the
basis 	of 	the proposed adverse 	action, 	"DHS was vague 	and failed
to provide specifics." 	On December 11, 	1998, 	the Department
served Mr. 	Bass with a Notice 	of Adverse Action of 	dismissal.
.. .
__

C
Dismissal 	Letter
SA-CE-1243-S
Page 2
During our conversation on June 	29, 	1999, 	you stated that 	the
Department 	took adverse action against 	Mr. 	Bass 	on July 31, 	1998
when Ms. 	Severns 	informed Mr. 	Bass 	that 	she would be 	seeking
adverse 	action against 	him. 	Thereafter, 	the Department 	failed to
provide Mr. 	Bass 	with any specifics 	about 	the proposed adverse
action.
PERB 	has 	determined 	that 	adverse 	action 	is 	required 	to 	support 	a
claim of 	discrimination or 	retaliation under Novato 	Unified
School District 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	210. 	In establishing
whether an adverse 	act 	has 	occurred, 	the 	Board uses 	an objective
test 	and will 	not 	rely on the 	subjective 	reactions 	of 	the
employee. 	(Palo Verde Unified School 	District 	(1988) 	PERB
Decision No. 	688; 	Newark Unified School District 	(1991) 	PERB
Decision No. 	864.)
Mr. 	Bass 	was 	informed that 	the Department 	would be 	seeking
adverse action against 	him. 	At 	that point, 	there was 	no 	impact
on the terms and conditions of his 	employment. 	Although Mr. 	Bass
may have 	been 	apprehensive 	about 	a possible 	future 	adverse
action, 	his 	subjective 	reactions 	do not 	establish the 	required
adverse action. 	Therefore, 	this allegation fails 	to 	state a
prima 	facie 	case.
However, 	assuming the July 31, 	1998 	notice 	from his 	supervisor
demonstrates 	adverse 	action, 	this 	allegation is untimely filed.
Dills Act 	section 3514.5(a) 	states 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."
PERB 	has 	held 	that 	the 	six month 	statutory 	limitations 	period
begins 	to 	run when 	the 	charging party knew or 	should 	have 	known
of 	the 	conduct 	giving 	rise 	to 	the 	alleged unfair practice.
(Regents 	of 	the University of 	California 	(1983) 	PERB Decision
No. 	359-H.)
The 	statutory 	limitations 	period extends 	six months 	prior 	to 	the
filing of 	the unfair practice 	charge. 	In this 	case, 	the 	charge
was 	filed on May 19, 	1999. 	Therefore, 	the 	statutory limitations
period began 	to 	run on November 	19, 	1998 	and only alleged unfair
practices which occurred on or after November 	19, 	1998 	are 	timely
filed. 	Accordingly, 	the allegation that 	the Department 	took
adverse action against Mr. 	Bass on July 31, 	1998, 	when it
informed 	him 	that 	it 	would be 	seeking 	adverse 	action 	against 	him,
in untimely 	filed 	and must 	be 	dismissed.
The 	amended 	charge 	again alleges 	that 	the 	Department 	"conducted a
cursory investigation of 	the 	complaint 	lodged against" 	Mr. 	Bass
.. .
(

Dismissal 	Letter
SA-CE-1243-S
Page 3
because 	the 	investigation 	failed 	to 	include 	an 	investigatory-
interview of Mr. 	Bass. 	However, 	as 	I 	explained in the attached
letter, 	the 	charge 	fails 	to provide 	facts 	alleging that
Department 	policy 	requires 	such 	interviews 	or 	that 	the 	Department
routinely conducts 	interviews 	under these 	circumstances, 	and that
the Department 	departed 	from this policy. 	Therefore, 	these 	facts
fail 	to 	demonstrate 	the 	required nexus 	to 	establish 	a prima 	facie
case.
Finally, 	the 	amended charge alleges 	that 	in July 1998, 	a
complaint 	was 	lodged against 	Mr. 	Bass 	by a health 	facility which
complained about 	Mr. 	Bass' 	behavior during a recent 	inspection of
the 	facility. 	The 	charge alleges 	that 	this 	complaint 	was 	the
impetus 	for 	the Notice 	of Adverse Action of 	dismissal 	issued on
December 11, 	1998. 	The charge contends that 	it 	is not unusual
for Department 	employees 	who participate 	in 	the 	inspection of
health 	facilities 	to 	receive 	complaints 	because 	their 	findings
can affect 	the 	continued operation of 	these 	facilities. 	CSEA
states 	that 	it 	does 	not 	know of 	any 	"other 	instance where 	an
HFEN, 	with no prior 	formal 	disciplinary action, 	has been
dismissed as 	a 	result of 	a complaint 	of 	this nature."
The 	charge 	attempts 	to demonstrate 	that 	the 	Department 	treated
Mr. 	Bass 	differently because 	of his participation in protected
activity by dismissing him 	for 	the 	July 	1998 	complaint. 	However,
Mr. 	Bass 	was 	not 	dismissed solely because 	of 	the 	July 1998
complaint. 	The Notice of Adverse Action cites, 	for example, 	five
instances where Mr. 	Bass 	left 	early or arrived late 	to 	training
classes; 	falsification of 	training class 	attendance 	records;
complaints 	of 	unprofessional, 	angry and 	threatening behavior
while 	conducting 	investigations 	filed by co-workers; 	inaccurate
and unsubstantiated 	investigative 	findings; 	failure 	to 	accurately
account 	for 	the 	use 	of 	a 	State 	car; 	and 	inaccuracies 	in expense
claim, 	overtime 	authorization and July 1998 	time 	sheet. 	The
charge, 	therefore, 	fails to demonstrate that the Department
engaged 	in disparate 	treatment 	of Mr. 	Bass when 	it 	issued him the
Notice of Adverse Action of dismissal. 	Accordingly, 	the charge
fails 	to 	state 	a prima 	facie 	case 	and 	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. 	(Cal. 	Code Regs., 	tit. 	8,
sec. 	32635(a).) 	Any document 	filed with the Board must 	contain
the case name and number, 	and the original 	and five 	(5) 	copies of
all 	documents 	must 	be provided 	to 	the 	Board.

Dismissal 	Letter
SA-CE-1243-S
Page 4
A document 	is 	considered 	"filed" 	when 	actually received before
the 	close of business 	(5 p.m.) 	on the 	last 	day set 	for 	filing or
when mailed by certified or Express 	United States 	mail, 	as 	shown
on the postal 	receipt 	or postmark, 	or delivered to 	a 	common
carrier promising 	overnight 	delivery, 	as 	shown on the 	carrier's
receipt, 	not 	later than the 	last day set 	for filing. 	(Cal. 	Code
Regs., 	tit. 	8, 	sec. 	32135(a); see also Cal. Code Regs., 	tit. 8,
sec. 	32130.)
A document 	is 	also 	considered 	"filed" 	when 	received by 	facsimile
transmission before 	the 	close 	of 	business 	on the 	last 	day for
filing 	together with 	a 	Facsimile 	Transmission 	Cover 	Sheet 	which
meets the requirements of Cal. 	Code Regs., 	tit. 	8, 	sec. 	32135(d),
provided the 	filing party also places 	the original, 	together with
the required number of 	copies 	and proof of 	service, 	in the U.S.
mail. 	(Cal. 	Code. 	Regs., 	tit. 	8, 	secs. 	32135(b), 	(c) 	and 	(d) ;
see also Cal. 	Code Regs., 	tit. 	8, 	secs. 	32090 and 32130.)
The Board's address 	is:
Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board
Attention: 	Appeals Assistant
1031 	18th Street
Sacramento., 	CA 	95814-4174
FAX: 	(916) 	327-7960
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 	(2 0) 	calendar
days 	following the date of service of 	the appeal. 	(Cal. 	Code
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 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. 	A document 	filed by 	facsimile 	transmission
may be 	concurrently 	served via 	facsimile 	transmission 	on 	all
parties to the proceeding. 	(Cal. 	Code Regs., 	tit. 	8, 	sec.
32135(c) .)
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

Dismissal 	Letter
SA-CE-1243-S
Page 5
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 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,
ROBERT 	THOMPSON
Deputy General 	Counsel
Robin 	W. 	Wesley
Regional 	Attorney
Attachment
cc: 	Wendi L. 	Ross

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	I 	GRAY DAVIS, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Sacramento Regional Office
1031 18th Street, Room 102
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
(916) 322-3198
June 22, 	1999
Nancy T. 	Yamada, 	Staff Attorney
California 	State 	Employees 	Association
1108 "0" Street, 	Suite 327
Sacramento, 	CA 	95814
Re: 	California State Employees Association, 	SEIU, 	Local 	1000 v.
State 	of 	California 	(Department 	of 	Health 	Services)
Unfair Practice 	Charge No. 	SA-CE-1243-S
WARNING 	LETTER
Dear Ms. 	Yamada:
The 	above-referenced 	unfair practice 	charge 	was 	filed with 	the
Public Employment 	Relations Board on May 19, 	1999. 	The 	charge
alleges 	that 	the 	State 	of 	California 	(Department 	of 	Health
Services) 	violated the Ralph C. 	Dills Act, 	Government Code
section 3519(a) 	and 	(b), 	by retaliating against Dana Bass 	for
engaging 	in protected 	conduct,.
Dana Bass 	is 	employed by the Department 	of 	Health 	Services 	as 	a
Health Facilities Evaluator Nurse. 	In 1995, 	Mr. 	Bass was
appointed 	a 	job 	steward 	for 	the 	California 	State 	Employees
Association 	(CSEA). 	During 1996-98, 	Mr. 	Bass served as the
District 	Bargaining Unit 	Representative 	and as 	a member 	of 	the
Statewide Bargaining 	Committee 	for Unit 	17.
In 1998, 	while 	serving as a CSEA representative, 	Mr. 	Bass made
complaints 	to 	the 	district 	manager 	about 	supervisors 	who
intimidated, 	harassed and threatened unit 	members; 	organized and
picketed at 	his 	worksite 	over contract 	and grievant 	issues;
distributed 	and posted employee 	rights 	notices; 	and 	counseled
employees 	concerning 	working 	conditions 	and 	represented 	employees
before management.
On July 3, 	1998, 	Mr. 	Bass met with District Administrator Edgar
Quam concerning 	the 	Department's 	"disrespectful 	and 	demeaning
treatment of 	rank-and-file employees." 	Thereafter, 	the
Department 	sent 	Mr. 	Bass 	on a 	three week out-of-town assignment.
Mr. 	Quam informed Peggy Severns, 	Health Facilities 	Evaluator
Supervisor, 	about 	the 	concerns 	raised by Mr. 	Bass 	and instructed
Ms. 	Severns 	to address and resolve these concerns.
On July 31, 	1998, 	upon Mr. 	Bass' 	return from the out-of-town
assignment, 	Ms. 	Severns 	informed Mr. 	Bass 	that 	she would be
seeking 	adverse 	action against 	him. 	The 	Department 	refused 	to
r
==-==---==----==-----==----==----==----==----==--

Warning 	Letter
SA-CE-1243-S
Page 2
advise Mr. 	Bass 	of 	the 	specific 	allegations 	supporting any-
adverse 	action.
On December 11, 	1998, 	the Department 	served Mr. 	Bass with a
Notice 	of 	Adverse 	Action 	of 	dismissal 	and placed him on
administrative 	leave. 	The 	charge alleges 	that, 	"[o]ne of 	the
charges 	against 	Bass 	[in the Notice 	of Adverse Action] 	was 	in
regard 	to his 	attendance 	at 	a 	Statewide 	Bargaining 	Committee
meeting 	in April 	1997." 	The Notice 	of Adverse 	action alleged,
among other things, 	five 	instances where Mr. 	Bass 	left 	early or
arrived 	late 	to 	class 	while 	attending 	an 	extended 	training
seminar. 	The 	allegation concerning his 	"attendance 	at 	a
Statewide Bargaining 	Committee meeting" 	states:
On Friday, 	April 	18, 	1997, 	you left the
training 	class 	at 	10:10 	a.m. 	and the 	class
did not 	conclude until 	2:35 	p.m. 	that 	day.
When your 	supervisor 	asked why you 	left 	the
training 	five 	hours 	early, 	you 	said you
returned 	home 	because 	you 	were 	flying 	from
Sacramento 	to 	Southern California 	to 	attend 	a
Labor Union meeting over 	the weekend. 	You
chose 	to 	take 	an earlier 	flight 	rather 	than
remain at 	the 	training class. 	You 	failed to
request 	time off 	in 	the 	approved manner
before 	you 	took any of 	these 	absences.
The Department 	terminated Mr. 	Bass' 	employment 	on December 23,
1998. 	On February 5, 	1999, 	Mr. 	Bass received notice that
following the 	Skelly hearing held on January 29, 	1999, 	the
Department 	refused 	to 	withdraw 	or modify 	the 	termination.
Based upon the 	facts 	stated above, 	the 	charge 	fails 	to 	state 	a
prima 	facie 	case.
To demonstrate 	a violation of Dills Act 	section 3519(a), 	the
charging party must 	show that: 	(1) 	the employee engaged 	in
activity protected by the Dills Act; 	(2) 	the employer was 	aware
of 	that 	activity; 	(3) 	the employer took adverse action against
the 	employee; 	and 	(4) 	the employer's 	action was motivated by the
employee's participation 	in the protected activity. 	(Novato
Unified School District 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	210; 	Carlsbad
Unified School District 	(1979) 	PERB Decision No. 	89; 	Department
of Developmental 	Services 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	228-S;
California State University 	(Sacramento) 	(1982) 	PERB Decision
No. 	211-H.)
Although 	the 	timing 	of 	the 	employer's 	adverse 	action 	in 	close
temporal 	proximity 	to 	the 	employee's 	protected 	conduct 	is 	an
important 	factor, 	it does not, 	without more, 	demonstrate the

C 	C
Warning 	Letter
SA-CE-1243-S
Page 3
necessary connection or 	"nexus" 	between 	the 	adverse 	action and
the protected 	conduct. 	(Moreland Elementary School 	District
(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	227.) 	Facts 	establishing one or more
of 	the 	following additional 	factors 	must 	also be present:
(1) 	the employer's disparate treatment of the employee; 	(2) 	the
employer's 	departure 	from 	established 	procedures 	and 	standards
when dealing with the 	employee; 	(3) 	the 	employer's 	inconsistent
or contradictory justifications 	for its 	actions; 	(4) 	the
employer's 	cursory 	investigation of 	the 	employee's 	misconduct;
(5) 	the 	employer's 	failure to offer the 	employee justification at
the time 	it 	took action or the offering of 	exaggerated, 	vague, 	or
ambiguous 	reasons; 	or 	(6) 	any other facts which might 	demonstrate
the 	employer's unlawful 	motive. 	(Novato Unified School 	District,
supra; 	North Sacramento 	School District 	(1982) 	PERB Decision
No. 	264.)
Although 	the 	unfair practice 	charge 	clearly demonstrates 	the
requisite protected activity, 	knowledge 	and adverse 	action, 	the
charge 	fails 	to 	establish a 	connection or nexus between Mr. 	Bass'
protected 	activity 	and 	his 	termination.
CSEA contends 	that 	the Department 	dismissed Mr. 	Bass because he
attended 	a 	CSEA 	Statewide 	Bargaining 	Committee 	meeting 	in April
1997. 	However, 	the Notice of Adverse Action indicates 	that 	the
Department pursued adverse action, 	in part, 	because Mr. 	Bass did
not 	request 	time 	off 	in the 	approved manner. 	Furthermore, 	the
adverse 	act 	was 	remote 	in time 	from the 	protected activity.
Mr. 	Bass 	attended the 	CSEA meeting 	in April 	1997 	and he was 	not
served with the Notice of Adverse Action until December 	11, 	1998.
CSEA 	also 	asserts 	that 	the 	Department 	failed 	to 	hold 	an
investigatory 	interview with Mr. 	Bass 	prior 	to 	serving him with
the Notice 	of Adverse Action. 	CSEA contends 	that 	an
investigatory 	interview 	should be 	held when 	the 	adverse 	action
recommends 	the most 	serious 	form of 	discipline, 	that 	of
dismissal. 	However, 	CSEA is not 	aware of a 	formal policy
requiring 	an 	investigatory 	interview before 	a 	Notice 	of 	Adverse
Action is 	issued. 	Nor does 	CSEA allege 	that 	the 	Department
routinely conducts 	such 	interviews.
These 	facts 	fail 	to 	demonstrate 	that 	the 	State 	departed 	from
standard policies 	or practices 	when serving Mr. 	Bass 	with 	the
Notice of Adverse Action. 	Accordingly the 	charge 	fails 	to
demonstrate 	a connection or nexus between Mr. 	Bass' 	protected
activity and the 	adverse 	action and, 	thus, 	the charge must 	be
dismissed.
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 	additional 	facts 	which would correct 	the
(
---------

Warning 	Letter
SA-CE-1243-S
Page 	4
deficiencies 	explained above, 	please 	amend the 	charge. 	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
be 	signed under penalty of 	perjury by the 	charging party. 	The
amended charge 	must 	have 	the 	case 	number written on 	the 	top 	right
hand corner of 	the 	charge 	form. 	The 	amended charge must 	be
served on the 	respondent's 	representative 	and 	the 	original 	proof
of 	service must 	be 	filed with PERB. 	If 	I 	do not 	receive 	an
amended charge or withdrawal 	from you before June 	30, 	1999, 	I
shall 	dismiss your charge. 	If you have any questions, 	please
call me at 	(916) 	327-8385.
Robin W. Wesley
Regional 	Attorney