Alhambra City and High School District (PERB A170E)

)
STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
ALHAMBRA 	CITY AND 	HIGH 	SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
CALIFORNIA 	SCHOOL 	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION AND 	ITS 	ALHAMBRA
CHAPTER 	#295,
Exclusive 	Representative,
and
LOCAL 660, 	SERVICE EMPLOYEES
INTERNATIONAL UNION, 	AFL-CIO,
Petitioner.
Case No. 	LA-D-213
LA-D-214
(R-273A, 	273B)
PERB Order No. 	Ad-170
June 20, 1988
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances; 	Van Bourg, 	Weinberg, 	Roger & 	Rosenfeld by Vincent
A. 	Harrington, 	Jr. 	for Local 	660 	Service Employees 	International
Union, 	AFL-CIO; 	E. 	Luis Saenz, 	Attorney, 	for California School
Employees 	Association 	and 	its Alhambra 	Chapter 	#295; 	and
O'Melveny 	& 	Myers by 	Thomas 	H. 	Reilly 	for Alhambra 	City 	and High
School 	District.
Before Hesse, 	Chairperson; 	Craib and Shank, 	Members.
DECISION AND 	ORDER
HESSE, 	Chairperson: 	Local 	660, 	Service Employees
International 	Union, 	AFL-CIO 	(Local 	660) 	requests 	that 	the
Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(PERB 	or 	Board) 	accept 	a 	late
filing of 	its 	appeal 	of 	our 	regional 	director's 	decision
dismissing 	the 	decertification 	petition 	filed by 	Local 	660
against 	the 	California 	School 	Employees 	Association 	and 	its
Alhambra Chapter 	#295. 	PERB Regulation No. 	32136 	reads 	as
follows:
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_____________ )

A 	late 	filing may be 	excused 	in 	the
discretion 	of 	the 	Board 	only 	under
extraordinary circumstances. 	A 	late 	filing
which has 	been 	excused becomes 	a 	timely
filing 	under 	these 	regulations.
See 	also Anaheim 	Union High 	School 	District 	(1978) 	PERB
Decision No. 	Ad-42. 	Local 	660 admits 	that 	it 	received the
dismissal 	petition before 	the 	time 	to appeal had 	run, 	but
claims 	that 	the 	attorney who 	read 	the 	dismissal 	"was 	under 	the
impression that at the time 	. 	. 	. 	the notice of 	the dismissal
[was 	received], 	the 	time 	for 	filing an appeal had already
passed." 	No 	declaration 	was 	attached 	from 	the 	attorney who 	was
under 	this 	misimpression, 	nor 	was 	any 	reason given 	for 	the
misimpression. 	We 	therefore 	find 	that 	the 	late 	filing 	cannot
be 	excused 	for 	extraordinary 	circumstances.1 The 	dismissal
unambiguously sets 	out 	the appeal 	rights 	of Local 	660, 	and 	the
attorney's 	misimpression 	is 	an error 	we 	cannot 	erase.
The 	request 	for 	late 	filing 	is 	DENIED and 	the
decertification petition 	is 	DISMISSED.
Members 	Craib 	and 	Shank 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
1Nor 	do we believe 	that 	this 	late 	filing 	could be 	excused
under 	a good 	cause 	standard.
22