Los Angeles City and County School Employees Union (Lewis) (PERB A118E)

STATE
	OF
	CALIFORNIA
DECISION
	OF
	THE
PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
WILLIE 	L. 	LEWIS,
Charging
	Party,
APPELLANT,
v.
LOS
	ANGELES
	CITY 	&
COUNTY
	SCHOOL
EMPLOYEES
	UNION,
	Local
	99,
	SEIU,
AFL-CIO,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
____________________
)
Case
	No. 	LA-CO-167
PERB
	Order
	No. 	Ad-
118
Administrative
	Appeal
November
25, 	1981
~I.?..E_earanqe_§_:	
Richard
	A.
	Cherry, 	Attorney 	for 	Willie
	Lewis.
Before 	Gluck,
	Chairperson;
	Jaeger,
	Moore
	and
	Tovar,
	Members.
DECISION
This
	case
	is
	before 	the
	Public
	Employment
	Relations
	Board
(hereafter
	PERB
	or
	Board)
	on 	an
	appeal
	by
	the 	charging
	party 	to
the
	determination
	by
	the 	executive
	assistant
	to
	the
	Board
	that
the 	appeal 	of 	the 	dismissal
	of 	the
	unfair 	practice
	charge
	was
untimely
	filed.
	We
	find
	that
	the
	appellant
	has 	not
demonstrated 	the 	existence 	of 	extraordinary 	circumstances 	which
would
	justify
	the
	late 	filing
	as 	required
	by
	PERB
	rule
	32133.1
lPERB 	Rules 	are 	codified 	at 	California Administrative
Code,
	title
	8, 	section
	31000
	et
	seq. 	Section
	32133
	provides:
A
late 	filing
	may 	be 	excused 	in 	the
discretion 	of 	the 	Board 	only 	under
extraordinary 	circumstances.

Mr. 	Lewis 	was
	clearly
	informed
	of 	the
	20-day 	time
	limit,
and
	ultimately
	obtained
	a
	lawyer
	to
	assist
	him
	with 	the
appeal.
	Nothing
	in
	the 	record
	indicates
	why
	he
	could 	not
	have
done
	this
	within
	20
	days
	of
	the
	hearing
	officer's
	refusal
	to
issue
	a
	complaint.
ORDER
The 	Board
	affirms
	the
	determination 	of 	the 	executive
assistant
	to 	the
	Board
	and 	DENIES
	the
	appeal. 	Accordingly,
	the
dismissal
	of 	the
	unfair
	practice
	charge
	stands
	and 	no
	complaint
shall
	issue.
PER	
CURIAM

Irene
	Tovar,
	Member,
	concurring:
The
	current
	rules
	and
	regulations 	of
	the
	Public
	Employment
Relations
	Board 	compel
	the
	decision	
we	
reach
	today
	in
	the
instant
	matter.
	To
	my
	mind,
	however,
	the
	effect
	of
	our
decision 	is
	to 	underscore 	the
	inadequacy
	of
	those
	rules
	as
	they
attempt
	to
	prescribe
	fair
	and
	appropriate 	regulation
	on
	the
subject
	of
	timely
	filing.
	The
	instant
	case
	is
	only 	the
	latest
of 	several
	dealing
	with 	the
	problem
of
	late 	filing
	which
	have
come
	before
	this
	Board
	over 	the
	past 	year. 	In
	each 	such
instance
	I 	have
	been 	concerned
	by
	the 	harshness
	of
	the
	result
which 	stems
	from
	the
	application
	of 	our
	current 	rules
	on
	the
subject.
	I
	am
	especially
	troubled
	by
	the
	instant
	case,
	in
which
	the 	underlying 	charge 	appears 	to
	raise
	very
	serious
allegations
	concerning 	the
	exclusive
	representative's
	breach
	of
its
	duty 	of
	fair
	representation
	(Indeed, 	the 	record
	suggests
that
	the
	exclusive 	representative
	may
	itself
	have 	been
	largely
responsible
	for 	the 	delay
	which
	resulted
	in 	the 	untimely
	filing
in
	this
	case;
	had
	the 	record 	contained
	sufficient
	evidence 	to
substantiate 	this
	suggestion,
	I 	would 	have 	favored
	a
	finding 	of
"extraordinary circumstances" 	pursuant 	to
	section
	32133
	of
	our
rules
	and
	regulations}.
	Where 	a
	system
	of 	labor
	relations
provides,
	as 	does
	ours, 	for 	the
	recognition 	of
	a
	single
employee
	representative
	to 	the 	exclusion 	of
	all
	others,
	it
	is
paramount
	that 	the 	exclusive 	representative
	be
	held 	to 	the
strictest
	standard 	of
	good
	faith 	representation.

In
	my
	view,
	review
	and
	rule-change 	regarding
	our
	rules
	for
timely
	filings
	are 	in
	order.
	Moreover,
	I
	feel 	that
	it
	behooves
this
	board
	to
	reconsider
	its
	past
	approach
	to 	the
	application
of
	our
	"extraordinary
	circumstances"
	rule
	32133 .
.....
2