Los Angeles Unified School District (California School Employees Association) (PERB A268E)

STATE
	OF
	CALIFORNIA
DECISION
	OF
	THE
PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
CALIFORNIA
	SCHOOL 	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION,
Charging
	Party,
v.
LOS 	ANGELES 	UNIFIED
	SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Respondent.
Case
	No. 	LA-CE-3394
Administrative
	Appeal
PERB
	Order
	No.
	Ad-268
May
	24,
	1995
Appearance:	
Office
	of
	the
	General
	Counsel 	by
	Rochelle
	J.
Montgomery,
	Staff
	Counsel,
	for
	Los
	Angeles
	Unified
	School
District.
Before
	Blair,
	Chair; 	Caffrey
	and 	Johnson,
	Members.
DECISION
JOHNSON,
	Member:
	This 	case
	is
	before 	the 	Public
	Employment
Relations
	Board
	(PERB
	or
	Board) 	on
	appeal
	by
	the
	Los
	Angeles
Unified
	School
	District
	(District)
	of
	the
	PERB
	appeals
assistant's
	denial
	of
	its
	untimely 	request 	for
	an
	extension 	of
time
	to
	file
	exceptions
	to
	a 	PERB
	administrative
	law
	judge's
(ALJ)
	proposed
	decision.
BACKGROUND
The
	ALJ's 	proposed
	decision
	was
	served
	on
	the
	parties
	by
mail
	on 	February 	22, 	1995.
	The
	proposed
	decision
	informed
	the
parties 	that 	"the 	statement 	of 	exceptions
	must 	be
	filed
	with 	the
Board
	itself
	within
	20
	days 	of 	service 	of
	this
	Decision
	II
(Emphasis 	added.) 	Including
	weekends 	and 	the 	five-day 	extension

provided
	by
	PERB
	Regulation
	32130(c),
1	
exceptions
	were 	due
	to
	be
filed
	no
	later
	than
	Monday,
	March
	20,
	1995.
The
	District
	requested
	an
	extension 	of
	time
	to
	file
exceptions
	by
	facsimile
	on March
	20, 	1995.
	The
	deadline
	to
	file
a
	request 	for
	an
	extension
	of
	time
	to
	file
	exceptions
	in
	this
case
	was
	Friday,
	March
	17,
	1995
	(three
	days
	before
	March
	20,
1995).
	On
March
	22, 	1995,
	the
	PERB
	appeals
	assistant
	denied
	the
District's
	request 	for
	an
	extension 	as 	untimely
	filed.
DISTRICT'S
	APPEAL
On
	appeal, 	the
	District
	argues
	that
	the
	PERB
	appeals
assistant
	should
	have
	contacted 	the
	District
	upon
	receipt
	of
	its
March
	20
	facsimile 	to
	inform
	the
	District
	that
	its
	request
	for
	an
extension
	was
	denied.
	The
	District
	contends
	that
	it
	would
	then
have 	had 	an
	opportunity 	to
	file
	exceptions
	by
	the
	end
	of
	the
	day.
The
	District
	also 	asserts 	that
	the
	late 	filing
	should
be
	excused 	because
	the 	attorney
	of 	record
	was
	absent
	from 	work
"from
	approximately
	March 	9
	through
	March
	20,"
	due
	to
	an 	extended
period
	of 	recovery 	following 	minor
	surgery.
DISCUSSION
PERB
	Regulation
	32132(a)
	states, 	in 	pertinent 	part:
A
request 	for
	an
	extension 	of 	time 	within
which
	to
	file
	any 	document
	with 	the
	Board
itself
	shall
	be
	in 	writing
	and
	shall
	be
	filed
at
	the 	headquarters
	office 	at 	least 	three
days
	before 	the 	expiration 	of 	the 	time
required 	for 	filing.
	The
	request 	shallindicate 	the 	reason 	for 	the 	request 	and,
1PERB
	regulations 	are 	codified 	at 	California
	Code
	of
Regulations,
	title
	8, 	sectior.
	31001
	et 	seq.
2

w
if 	known, 	the 	position 	of 	each 	other 	party
regarding 	the 	extension. 	Service 	and proof
of 	service pursuant 	to 	Section 	32140 	are
required. 	Extensions 	of 	time 	may 	be 	granted
by 	the 	Board 	itself 	or 	an 	agent 	designated
by 	the 	Board 	itself 	for 	good 	cause 	only.
(Emphasis 	added.)
The 	requirement 	that 	the 	request 	for 	an 	extension be
made 	three 	days 	prior 	to 	the 	filing 	deadline 	provides 	PERB 	with
time 	to 	determine 	whether 	good 	cause 	exists 	before 	the 	filing
deadline. 	(Regents 	of 	University 	of 	California 	(1993) 	PERB 	Order
No. 	Ad-243-H.) 	If 	the 	request 	is 	found 	to 	be 	without 	good 	cause,
sufficient 	time 	may 	remain 	for 	the 	requesting 	party 	to 	make 	a
proper 	filing. 	In 	this 	case, 	the 	District 	filed 	its 	extension
request 	three 	days 	late.
On 	appeal, 	the 	District 	argues 	that 	as 	a 	professional
courtesy both 	the 	California 	School 	Employees 	Association 	and
the 	PERB 	appeals 	assistant 	should have 	contacted 	the 	District
immediately with 	respect 	to 	its 	request 	for 	a~ extension 	of 	time.
The 	District 	contends 	that 	it 	would 	then 	have 	had 	an 	opportunity
to 	file 	exceptions 	by 	the 	end 	of 	the 	day. 	PERB 	Regulation 	32132
mandates 	that 	the 	Board 	receive 	the 	request 	at 	least 	three 	days
before 	the 	expiration 	of 	the 	time 	required 	for 	filing 	so 	that
ample 	time 	is 	available 	to 	consider 	the 	request. 	We, 	therefore,
reject 	this 	argument 	because 	it 	is 	unreasonable 	for 	a 	party 	to
demand 	an 	immediate 	response 	to 	its 	late 	request.
The 	District 	also 	asserts 	that 	the 	late 	filing 	should 	be
excused 	because 	the 	attorney 	of 	record was 	absent 	from work
3

"from
	approximately
	March 	9
	through
	March
	2"0,
"
	due
	to
	an
	extended
period
	of
	recovery 	following
	minor
	surgery.
	Pursuant
	to
	PERB
Regulation
	32136,
2	
the
	Board
	may
	excuse
	a
	late 	filing
	for
	good
cause
	only.
The
	District's
	attorney
	was
	aware
	of
	the
	scheduled
	surgery
well
	before 	the 	deadline
	to
	file
	an
	extension 	request.
	The
attorney's 	failure
	to 	plan
	ahead
	and
	timely
	file
	the 	request 	for
an
	extension
	does
	not
	constitute
	good
	cause.
	{Pasadena
	Community
College
	District
	{1992)
	PERB
	Order
	No.
	Ad-234.)
	Accordingly,
	the
Board
	finds
	that
	good
	cause
	does
	not
	exist
	to
	excuse
	the
	late
filing
	of
	the
	District's
	request 	for
	an
	extension
	of 	time.
ORDER
The
	District's
	appeal 	of
	its
	untimely
	filed
	request
	for
	an
extension
	of 	time
	to
	file
	exceptions
	in
	Case
	No. 	LA-CE-3394
	is
hereby
	DENIED.
Chair
	Blair
	and
	Member
	Caffrey 	joined
	in 	this
	Decision.
2
PERB
	Regulation
	secti011 	3213 6
	states:
A
late 	filing
	may 	be 	excused
	in 	the
discretion 	of 	the
	Board
	for
	good 	cause 	only.
A
late 	filing
	which 	has 	been 	excused becomes
a
	timely 	filing
	under 	these 	regulations.
4