Los Angeles Community College District (Kimmett) (PERB A041E)

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD

LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT,
Employer,
and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS COLLEGE
GUILD, LOCAL 1521,

Employee Organization,
and

SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION,
LOCAL 99,

Employee Organization, Administrative Appeal

and July 14, 1978

bed .
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,
CHAPTER 507, -

Employee Organization,
and
JULES KIMMETT,
Charging Party, APPELLANT.

Ne Sane Se Se See” See Ne ee” Nee” ee Se? ee” ae ee? Re ee? ee Ne? a ee ee ee ae” ee ee” et Le”
a]
bd
bd
bd
co
hi
Oh
@
cal}
vi
(@)
i>
Ou

i
i
te

Appearances: Jules Kimmett, in pro. per.

Before: Gluck, Chairperson; Gonzales and Cossack Twohey, Members.

OPINION
This appeait is from a determination by the Los Angeles regional
director that a public notice complaint must be dismissed because it

was untimely filed.

charging Party requests oral argument. Since we find the record
submitted in this case sufficient to permit us to render a decision,
we deny the request.

FACTS
On 	December 	6, 	1977, 	Jules 	Kirmnett 	(hereafter 	Charging 	Party)
filed 	a 	complaint 	in 	the 	Los 	Angeles 	Regional 	Office 	alleging 	that
certain 	conduct 	of 	the 	Los 	Angeles 	Gormnunity 	College 	District 	and
exclusive 	representatives 	for 	employees 	of 	that 	District 	constituted
a 	violation 	of 	the 	public 	notice 	provisians2 	of 	the 	Educationc;l 	Employ-
ment 	Relations 	Act 	(hereafter 	EERA). 3 Specifically, 	it was 	charged
that 	meetings 	scheduled 	for 	presentation of 	proposals 	and 	for 	public
response 	to 	the 	proposals 	were 	held 	at 	such 	an 	hour 	of 	the 	day 	that
full 	public 	participation was 	impossible. 	The 	public 	meetings 	in
question were 	held 	intermittently 	from 	June 	29, 	1977, 	to 	October 	12,
1977, 	at 	1:30 	in 	the 	afternoon.
2Gov. 	Code sec. 	3547 provi.des in pert:L."1.ent part that:
(a) 	All initial proposals of exclusive
representatives and of public school employers,
vJbi.ch relate to matters within the scope of
representation, 	shall be presented at a public
meeting of the public school employer and
thereafter shall be public records.
(b) 	Meeting and negotiating shall not
take place on any proposal until a reasonable
tilre has elapsed after the submission of the pro-
posal to enable the public to become informed
and the public has 	the opportunity to express
itself regarding the proposal at a meeting of
the public school employer.
(c) 	After the public has had the oppor-
tunity to express itself, 	the public school
employer shall, 	at a meeting which is open to
the public, 	adopt its initial proposal.
(d) 	Ne-w subjects of meeting and negotiat-
ing arising after the presentation of initial
proposals shall be made public 'Within 24 hours.
If a vote is taken on such subject by the public
school anployer, 	the vote thereon by each rrenber
voting shall also be made public within 24 hours.
3Toe 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Act 	is 	codified 	at 	Gov.
Code 	sec. 	3540 	et 	seq. 	All 	references 	are 	to 	the 	Government 	Code
unless 	otherwise 	specified.
-2-

DISCUSSION
As
	noted
	above,
	Charging
	Party's
	complaint
	was
	not
	filed
	in
	the
Los
	Angeles 	Regional
	Office
	until
	December 	6,
	1977,
	or
	55
	days
	after
the
	last
	in
	the
	series
	of
	challenged 	public
	meetings.
	Thus,
	the
conduct
	alleged
	to
	violate
	the 	public
	notice
	requirements 	occurred
in
	its
	entirety
	more
	than
	30
	days
	prior
	to
	the 	date
	the 	complaint
	was
filed.
Public
	Employment
	Relations
	Board
	(hereafter
	Board)
	rule
	37010
provides
	that
	"[a]
	complaint
	alleging
	that
	an 	employer
	or·
an
	exclusive
representative
	has
	failed 	to	
comply
with 	[the 	public
	notice
	provisions
of 	the
	Government 	Code]
...
shall
	be
	filed
	no
	later
	than
	thirty
	calendar
days
	subsequent 	to 	the 	date
	when
	conduct
	alleged
	to
	be
	a
	violation
was 	known
	or 	reasonably 	could
	have
	0
been
	discovered
•.
-~
~
4
Charging
	Party
contends
	on
	appeal,
	however,
	that
	when
	there
	is
	such
	a
	"deliberate
attempt	
to	
emasculate
	and
	castrate
	public
	participation"
	as 	he
	alleges
occurred 	here,
	that
	the 	timely
	filing
	requirements
	are 	rendered
	null
and
	void.
	We
	do
	not 	agree.
In
	implementing
	the 	public 	notice 	provisions 	of 	the
	EERA,
	the
Board
	has 	adopted
	rules
	and
	regulations 	that
	provide
	for 	expedited 	pro-
ceedings
	so
	that
	the
	right 	of 	the 	public	
to	
receive 	notice, 	learn
	the
positions 	of
	its
	elected 	representatives,
	and	
to	
express
	its
	own
views 	can be
	fully 	protected.
5 The
	public 	notice 	provisions,
	however,
were
	never 	intended 	to 	be
	read 	in
	a 	vacuum
	but
	must 	be
	considered 	in
light 	of 	the 	entire
	EERA.
	The
	Legislature has 	detcrni~ed 	that
	it
	is
4
cal.
	Admin. 	Code,
	tit.
	8, 	sec. 	37010.
5
see 	Cal. 	Admin. 	Code,
	tit.
	8, 	sec. 	37000
	et 	seq. 	(Public 	Notice
Proceedings).

within
	the 	public
	interest
	to 	achieve
	improved
	employer-employee
relations
	within 	public
	school 	systems.
	The
	EERA
	was
	enacted 	to
promote
	this
	goal
	and
	reflects
	the
	Legislative
	judgment
	that
	the
desired
	improvement
	in
	employer-employee
	relations
	can
	best
	be
obtained
	though
	a
	process
	of
	collective
	negotiations
	culminating
in
	final
	agreement
	and
	resulting 	in
	a
	mature
	and
	stable 	negotiating
relationship.
	In
	one
	section 	of
	the
	EERA,
	the 	public
	notice 	section,
the
	Legislature
	secured 	to 	the 	public 	the
	right
	to
	be 	informed
	and
	to
express
	its
	view
	on
	the
	negotiating
	process.
	This
	public
	awareness
and
	input
	was
	intended 	to
	further,
	not
	impede,
	the
	broad
	goals
	of
the
	EERA.
Serious
	injury
	to 	educational
	employment
	relations
	would
	result
if
	concerned
	or
	merely
	disgruntled
	citizens
	could
	utilize
	the 	public
notice 	provisions 	of 	the
	EERA
	to
	bring
	delayed 	challenges 	to 	negotia-
tions
	that
	had
	otherwise
	been
	satisfactorily
	completed. 	Moreover,
there 	are
	compelling 	reasons 	to 	bar 	untimely
	public notice
	complaints
even
	though
	the
	parties
	may
	not 	yet
	have
	reached 	agreement, 	While
the
	Board has
	specifically
	provided
	in
	its
	rules
	and
	regulations 	that
the
	pendency
	of
	a
	public 	notice
	complaint
	will
	not 	cause
	negotiations
to	
cease,
6
the
	filing
	of
	a
	complaint 	nonetheless
	has 	an
	unsettling
effect
	on
	the 	negotiations 	in 	progress. 	This
	is
	so 	because 	should
such 	a
	complaint 	be 	found	
to	
have
	merit, 	the 	status 	of
	any
	final
	agree-
ment 	between 	the
	parties 	is 	uncertain
	and 	they must
	necessarily 	divert
their 	attention
	from 	reaching 	agreement 	to 	defending 	against 	the
charge. 	That 	the 	parties
	may
	ultimately 	be 	vindicated 	in 	their
	conduct
-
6
see 	Cal. 	Admin. 	Code,
	tit.
	8, 	sec. 	37000.
-4-

does
	not
	save
	the
	negotiating
	process
	from 	harm,
	for
	the
	damage
	occurs
when
	the
	unreasonably 	delayed 	complaint
	is
	filed.
	A
citizen
	who
	seeks
to
	file
	a
	complaint
	alleging
	a
	violation
	of 	the 	public
	notice
	provi-
sions
	after
	the
	prescribed
	time 	has
	elapsed
	could 	thus
	thwart 	the
very
	harmony
	between
	the
	employer 	and
	its
	employees
	sought
	to
	be
promoted by
	the
	EERA.
	Accordingly,
	we
	conclude
	that
	such
	untimely
complaints
	must
	be
	barred.
Charging
	Party 	in 	the
	instant
	case
	does
	not
	assert 	that
	he
	did
not
	know
	of
	the 	events
	now
complained
	of
	at
	such
	a
	time 	as
	to
	allow
	him
to
	file
	a
	timely 	complaint.
	Nor
	does
	Charging
	Party
	assert
	any
	explana-
tion
	as 	to 	the 	reason
	for 	his
	delay
	in
	filing.
	We
	therefore 	sustain
the
	regional
	director's
	dismissal 	of
	the 	complaint.	
\
ORDER
The
	Public
	Employment
	Relations
	Board
	orders 	that:
(1)
	The
	regional
	director's
	dismissal 	of
	the
	complaint
	filed
by
	Jules
	Kimmett
	against
	the
	Los
	Angeles
	Community
	College
	District,
and American
	Federation 	of
	Teachers 	College 	Guild, 	Local 	1521,
	Service
Employees
	International
	Union,
	Local 	99, 	and
	California
	School
Employees
	Association,
	Chapter
	507,
	is
	sustained.
(2) 	The
	request 	for 	oral 
ember
~---(
r;7 97Y:----
~
Gonzales,
'~er
-5-

STAR
OF
CALIFORNIA	
STAR
OF
CALIFORNIA
EDUCATIONAL
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
Los
Angeles Regional Office
3550 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1708
Los
Angeles, California 	90010
(213) 736-3127
CERTIFIED
	MAIL
Return
	Receipt
	Requested
C0
~.
December 	21. 	1977
Mr.
	Jules
	Kimmett
1106-D 	West
	Olive
	Avenue
Burbank,
	CA
	91506
Re: 	LA-PN-1
Dear
	Mr. 	Kimmett:
This
	letter
	will
	acknowledge
	receipt
	of 	the 	complaint
	you
	filed
in
	this
	office
	on December 	6, 	1977
	concerning
	the
	alleged 	vio-
lation
	of
	Article
	S Gover~..ment 	Code
	Section
	3547(a)(b)(c)(d)
(e)
	by
	the
	Los 	Angeles 	Community
	College
	District
	and
	exclusive
representatives
	for 	both
	certificated
	and
	classified
	employees
of
	that 	District.
In
	accordance 	with
	our
	procedure,
	you met
	with
	my
	assistant,
Janet
	Caraway 	on December 	16, 	1977. 	She
	reviewed 	your
	complaint
with
	you 	and
	attempted
	to
	clarify
	the
	rules
	for
	filing
	such
complaint,
	particularly 	in
	regard 	to 	the
	time
	limitation
	for
filing.
Since
	all
	of 	the 	information 	contained 	in
	your 	complaint 	occurred
in
	excess 	of
	thirty
	days
	prior
	to
	filing
	the 	complaint,
	I
	am
herewith 	dismissing 	the 	complaint.
	A copy
	of
	this
	letter
	and
your 	complaint
	are
	being
	sent
	~o
	the
	parties
	named
	therein;
You
	have 	seven 	days 	from
	receipt
	of
	this
	letter
	in
	which
	to
file
	written
	exceptions 	to 	the 	dismissal
	with 	the
	Board
	icself
at
	923 	-
	12th
	Street,
	Sacramento,
	CA
	95814. 	Couies
	of
	such
exceptions
	must 	be 	served 	on
	all
	parties
	and
	proof 	of 	servicE·
provided 	to 	the
	EERB.
	If
	no
	exceptions 	are
	filed,
	the 	dismissal
shall
	became
	final 	at
	the 	end
	of 	seven 	days.
Very
	truly
	yours,
FAK:an
cc: 	Los 	Angeles 	Con:mi.unity 	College 	District
AFT
	College 	Guild, 	Local 	1521
SEIU, 	Local 	99