Los Angeles Unified School District (Service Employees International Union) (PERB A249E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
LOS 	ANGELES 	CITY AND 	COUNTY
EMPLOYEES, 	SERVICE 	EMPLOYEES
INTERNATIONAL 	UNION, 	LOCAL 	99,
AFL-CIO,
Charging 	Party,
v.
LOS 	ANGELES 	UNIFIED 	SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Respondent.
}
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
}
)
Case 	No. 	LA-CE-3189
Administrative Appeal
PERB 	Order No. 	Ad-249
October 	28, 	1993
______________ }
Appearances: 	Taylor, 	Roth, 	Bush 	& Geffner 	by 	Hope 	J. 	Singer,
Attorney, 	for 	Los 	Angeles 	City and 	County 	Employees, 	Service
Employees 	International 	Union, 	Local 	99, 	AFL-CIO; 	Jesus 	Estrada-
Melendez, 	Attorney, 	for 	Los 	Angeles 	Unified 	School 	District.
Before 	Caffrey, 	Carlyle 	and 	Garcia, 	Members.
DECISION AND 	ORDER
CAFFREY, 	Member: 	This 	case 	is 	before 	the 	Public 	Employment
Relations 	Board 	(PERB 	or 	Board) 	on 	appeal 	by 	the 	Los 	Angeles 	City
and 	County 	Employees; 	Service 	Employees 	International 	Union,
Local 	99, 	AFL-CIO 	(Local 	99) 	of 	a 	Board 	agent's 	denial 	of 	Local
99's 	request 	for 	an 	extension 	of 	time 	to 	file 	a 	response 	to
exceptions 	which 	were 	filed 	by 	the 	Los 	Angeles 	Unified 	School
District 	(District) 	in 	Case 	No. 	LA-CE-3189.
In 	accordance 	with 	PERB 	Regulation 	32132, 1 the 	Board 	finds
1PERB 	regulations 	are 	codified 	at 	California 	Code 	of
Regulations, 	title 	8, 	section 	31001 	et 	seq. 	Regulation 	32132(a)
states, 	in pertinent 	part:
Extensions 	of 	time 	may be 	granted by 	the
Board 	itself 	or 	an 	agent 	designated by 	the
Board 	itself 	for 	good 	cause 	only.

that 	good 	cause 	exists 	to 	grant 	the 	extension 	of 	time 	requested
by Local 	99.
Accordingly, 	Local 	99's 	request 	for 	an 	extension 	of 	time 	in
which 	to 	file 	a 	supplemental 	response 	to 	exceptions 	which 	were
filed 	by 	the 	District 	in 	Case 	No. 	LA-CE-3189 	is 	HEREBY GRANTED.
The 	due 	date 	for 	a 	supplemental 	response 	will 	be 	20 	days 	from
date 	of 	service 	of 	this 	Decision.
Member 	Garcia 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
Member 	Carlyle's 	concurrence 	begins 	on 	page 	3.
2

Carlyle, 	Member, 	concurring: 	I 	write 	separately 	so 	that 	my
reasons 	and 	rationale 	are 	set 	forth 	for 	present 	and 	future 	use
as 	deemed 	appropriate 	by 	those 	who 	do 	and 	will 	appear 	before 	us.
It 	seems 	to me 	that 	the 	purpose 	and 	role 	of 	the 	Public
Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(PERB 	or Board) 	in 	issuing 	decisions
is 	to 	not 	only 	decide 	the 	issues 	before 	it 	on 	any 	given 	case 	but
to 	also 	state 	its 	reasons, 	logic, 	thinking, 	rationale, 	etc. 	so
that 	the 	parties 	before 	it 	and 	those 	who 	will 	appear before 	it
have 	some 	idea, 	or 	guidance, 	as 	to 	what 	the 	Board may 	do 	on
similar 	issues 	in 	the 	future.
Reading 	the 	majority 	decision, 	such 	guidance 	is 	simply 	not
there. 	Reading 	the 	majority 	decision, 	one 	first 	observes 	that
PERB 	Regulation 	32132(a) 1 is 	properly 	cited, 	in 	pertinent 	part:
Extensions 	of 	time 	may be 	granted 	by 	the
Board 	itself 	or 	an 	agent 	designated 	by 	the
Board 	itself 	for 	good 	cause 	only.
However, 	one 	next 	notes 	that 	the 	majority 	decision 	then 	simply
states 	"the 	Board 	finds 	that 	good 	cause 	exists 	to 	grant 	the
extension 	of 	time 	requested 	by 	Local 	99." 2
I 	am 	struck by 	two 	aspects 	of 	this 	resolution. 	First, 	the
PERB 	regulation 	in 	question 	does 	not 	define 	good 	cause. 	Second,
neither 	does 	the 	majority 	decision. 	Is 	the 	request 	being 	granted
because 	of 	a 	heavy 	workload? 	Is 	the 	request 	being 	granted
because 	the 	other party 	received a 	prior extension, 	albeit 	for 	a
different 	part 	of 	the 	process? 	Or, 	is 	the 	request 	being 	granted
1PERB 	regulations 	are 	codified 	at 	California 	Code 	of
Regulations, 	title 	8, 	section 	31001 	et 	seq.
2Los 	Angeles 	City 	and 	County 	Employees, 	Service
Employees 	International 	Union, 	Local 	99, 	AFL-CIO 	(Local 	99).
3

for 	some 	other 	reason? 	No 	one 	can 	tell 	by 	reading 	the 	majority
decision.
As 	for 	myself, 	I 	prefer 	to 	apply 	(and 	let 	the 	parties 	know)
the 	general 	standard 	enunciated 	in 	California 	State 	University
(Watts) 	(1984) 	PERB 	Decision No. 	468-H:
We 	feel 	the 	proper 	approach 	is 	to 	weigh 	the
nature 	of 	the 	reasons 	asserted 	to 	be 	"good
cause" 	against 	the 	length 	of 	the 	delay 	and
the 	possible 	prejudice 	to 	the 	opposing 	party.
In general, 	for 	"good 	cause" 	to 	be 	found, 	a
party's 	request 	for 	an 	extension 	should be
based 	on 	circumstances 	that 	are 	unanticipated
or beyond 	the 	party's 	control.
Applying 	said 	general 	standard 	to 	the 	salient 	facts 	in 	the
case 	at 	bar, 	I 	agree 	with 	granting 	Local 	99's 	request 	for 	a 	20-
day 	extension 	of 	time 	in 	which 	to 	file 	a 	response 	to 	the
exceptions 	filed 	by 	the 	Los 	Angeles 	Unified 	School 	District
(District).
It 	is 	initially 	noted 	that 	the 	District 	requested and
received 	an 	extension 	of 	time 	in which 	to 	file 	its 	exceptions 	to
the 	administrative 	law 	judge's 	proposed decision. 	Such 	request
was 	made 	and granted 	so 	that 	the 	District 	could 	obtain and 	review
a 	copy 	of 	the 	transcript 	prior 	to 	filing 	its 	exceptions. 	Local
99 	did 	not 	object 	to 	this 	request. 	Because 	of 	the 	time 	needed 	to
prepare 	said 	transcript, 	the 	result 	of 	the 	extension amounted 	to
an approximate 	seven week 	delay 	(from June 	4, 	1993 	to 	July 	23,
1993) 	compared 	to 	when 	the 	District's 	exceptions 	would 	have 	been
originally 	required 	to 	be 	filed.
As 	a 	result 	of 	this 	seven 	week 	delay, 	the 	time 	frame 	for
filing 	a 	response 	to 	the 	exceptions 	by 	Local 	99 	apparently
coincided 	with 	a 	particularly heavy 	workload, 	thus 	prompting 	a
4

somewhat 	modest 	(compared 	to 	seven 	weeks) 	20-day 	extension
request. 	Further, 	the 	request 	to 	file 	a 	thorough 	response 	to 	the
District's 	exceptions 	was 	also 	prompted 	in 	part 	by 	the 	length 	of
the 	District's 	exceptions.
I 	therefore 	conclude 	that 	the 	totality 	or 	combination 	of
facts 	in 	this 	case 	collectively 	meets 	the 	standard 	of 	good 	cause
as 	set 	forth 	in 	California 	State 	University 	(Watts), 	supra, 	PERB
Decision No. 	468-H, 	to 	wit: 	1) 	An 	extension 	of 	time 	had been
granted 	to 	one 	party, 	resulting 	in 	a 	seven week 	delay 	in 	the
appeal 	perfection process; 	2) 	by 	comparison, 	the 	request 	before
the 	Board 	at 	this 	time 	was 	for 	a 	20-day extension by 	the 	other
party; 	3) 	the 	initial 	seven week 	extension 	resulted 	in a 	response
due 	during 	a 	particularly 	heavy 	workload period 	for 	Local 	99; 	and
4) 	the 	District's 	exceptions 	were 	rather 	lengthy 	in 	nature, 	thus
necessitating more 	than 	a 	"boilerplate" 	response 	by 	Local 	99.
5
I 	see 	no 	possible 	prejudice 	to 	the 	opposing 	party 	in 	the
granting 	of 	this 	request. 	Indeed, 	it 	appears 	that 	the
circumstances 	which 	caused 	Local 	99's 	request 	were 	driven 	in
large 	part, 	if 	not 	exclusively, 	by 	the 	District. 	Accordingly,
the 	20-day 	extension 	should 	be 	granted.