United Teachers of Los Angeles (Robinson) (PERB A273E)

STATE
	OF
	CALIFORNIA
DECISION
	OF
	THE
PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
SYLVIA ROBINSON,
Charging
	Party,
v.
UNITED 	TEACHERS
	OF 	LOS
	ANGELES,
Respondent.
)
)
)	
Case
	No. 	LA-CO-657
Administrative
	Appeal
PERB
	Order
	No.
	Ad-273
January
	19,
	1996
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearance:	
Sylvia
	Robinson,
	on
	her
	own
	behalf.
Before 	Caffrey,
	Chairman;
	Garcia
	and 	Johnson,
	Members.
DECISION
GARCIA,
	Member:
	This 	case
	is
	before 	the 	Public
	Employment
Relations
	Board
	(PERB
	or
	Board) 	on
	appeal
	by
	Sylvia
	Robinson
(Robinson)
	df 	the
	PERB
	appeals
	assistant's
	rejection
	of
Robinson's
	-appeal
	of
	a
	Board
	agent's
	dismissal 	of 	the
	unfair
practice
	charge 	she
	filed
	against
	the 	United 	Teachers 	of
Los
	Angeles
	(UTLA).
PROCEDURAL 	HISTORY
The
	dismissal 	of 	Robinson's
	unfair 	practice
	charge
	was
served
	on
	the
	parties
	by mail
	on September 	7, 	1995.
	PERB
Regulation
	32635(a)
1	
requires 	that
	an 	appeal 	of
	a
	dismissal 	of
	an
1PERB
	regulations 	are 	codified
	at 	California
	Code
	of
Regulations,
	title
	8,
	section
	31001
	et
	seq.
	PERB
	Regulation
32635
	states, 	in 	pertinent 	part, 	that:
(a)
	Within
	20
	days 	of 	the 	date 	of 	service 	of
a
	dismissal, 	the 	charging 	party
may
	appeal
the 	dismissal 	to 	the 	Board
	itself.
	The
original 	appeal 	and 	five 	copies 	shall 	be
filed 	in 	writing 	with 	the 	Board
	itself 	in 	the

unfair
	practice
	charge
	be
	filed
	with 	the
	Board
	itself
	within
	20
days
	of 	the 	date
	of
	service
	of 	the
	dismissal.
	PERB
	Regulation
32130(c)
2
provides
	a
	five-day 	extension 	of
	the
	filing
	deadline 	in
response
	to
	documents
	served
	by
	mail.
	Accordingly,
	an
	appeal 	of
the 	dismissal
	of 	Robinson's 	charge
	was
	due
	to
	be
	filed
	with 	the
Board
	no
	later
	than
	October 	2, 	1995.
headquarters
	office,
	and
	shall
	be
	signed
	by
the 	charging
	party 	or
	its
	agent.
	Except
	as
provided
	in 	Section
	32162,
	service
	and proof
of 	service
	of 	the 	appeal
	on
	the 	respondent
pursuant 	to 	Section
	32140
	are 	required.
On
	September
	8, 	1995,
	Robinson
	wrote
	to
	the
	Board
	indicating
that
	she
	was
	appealing
	a
	Board
	agent's
	dismissal.
	The
September
	8
	letter
	was
	not
	accompanied by
	a
	proof 	of
	service 	or
any
	indication
	of
	what
	case
	was
	being 	appealed.
	On
	September 	12,
1995,
	the 	appeals
	assistant
	wrote
	to
	Robinson
	requesting
	a
	proof
of
	service 	for 	the
	letter
	and 	an
	indication
	of
	what
	case
	was
being 	appealed.
On
	September 	21, 	1995, 	Robinson
	filed
	a
	document
	labeled
11
Appeal
11	
whi'ch was
	different
	from
	the
	September
	8
	letter.
	This
"Appeal"
	wa·s
	not 	signed
	or
	accompanied by
	a
	proof 	of
	service
showing
	that
	the 	appeal
	had 	been
	served
	on
	UTLA.
On
	September 	25, 	1995,
	the 	appeals
	assistant
	sent
	a
	letter
to
	Robinson
	reiterating 	that
	if
	she 	intended 	the
	September
	8
2PERB
	Regulation
	32130(c}
	states:
(c) 	The
	extension 	of 	time 	provided by
California
	Code
	of 	Civil 	Procedure
	section
1013,
	subdivision 	(a), 	shall 	apply 	to
	any
filing
	made
	in 	response 	to
	documents 	served
by 	mail. 
2

serve
	letter
	to 	operate
	as
	her
	appeal 	she
	would
	need
	to
	it
	on
UTLA
	and
	indicate
	what
	case
	was
	being 	appealed.
	The
	letter
	also
requested
	that
	if
	the
	document
	entitled
	"Appeal"
	was
	to 	serve
	as
PERB
	with
	a
	her
	appeal 	of 	the 	dismissal
	she
	needed
	to
	provide
signed
	copy
	of
	the
	appeal
	and
	a
	proof 	of
	service.
	The
	appeals
assistant
	gave 	Robinson
	until
	October
	5,
	1995
	to 	perfect 	her
appeal.
12,
	Having
	received
	no
	response
	from
	Robinson,
	on
	October
1995,
	the 	appeals
	assistant
	wrote
	to
	Robinson
	informing
	her
	that
the
	Board
	agent's
	dismissal
	of
	her
	charge
	was
	final.
	The
	appeals
assistant
	also
	informed
	Robinson
	that
	the
	rejection
	of
	her
	appeal
was
	appealable
	to 	the
	Board
	itself. 
stating,
	On
	October
	16, 	1995, 	Robinson
	wrote
	to
	the
	Board
	in
pertinent 	part:
My·
initial
	inquiry 	to
	you 	[September
	8
letter]
	was
	in
	letter
	format 	and meant
	to
	be
~hly 	an
	inquiry 	into 	the 	appeals 	process.
My
	appeal
	was
	labeled
	"APPEAL"
	and
	sent
	with
the
	Proofs 	of 	Service 	attached
	after
	I
received 	those
	documents 	from you
	in
	the
mail.
[3 ]
to
	On
	October 	24, 	1995,
	the 	appeals
	assistant
	wrote
	the
parties
	informing
	them
	that
	Robinson's 	October
	16
	letter
	was
October
	12
	being 	considered 	an 	appeal 	of 	the 	appeals
	assistant's
rejection
	of 	Robinson's 	appeal 	of
	a
	Board
	agent's 	dismissal 	of
3
The
	proof 	of 	service
	showed
	that 	the 	"Appeal" 	was
	served
	on
PERB.
	There 	was 	no 	proof 	of 	service
	showing
	that
	UTLA
	had 	been
served with
	a 	copy 	of 	Robinson's 	appeal.
3

her
	unfair 	practice
	charge.
	The
	appeals
	assistant's
	letter
	also
informed
	UTLA
	of
	its
	right
	to
	respond
	to
	Robinson's
	appeal.
DISCUSSION
PERB
	Regulation
	32360
	provides,
	in 	part:
(a)
	An
	appeal
	may
	be
	filed
	with 	the
	Board
itself
	from
	any
	administrative 	decision,
except
	as
	noted
	in
	Section
	32380.
(c) 	The
	appeal
	must
	be
	in 	writing
	and 	must
state
	the
	specific
	issue(s)
	of 	procedure,
fact,
	law
	or
	rationale 	that
	is
	appealed
	and
state
	the
	grounds
	for
	the 	appeal.
Robinson's 	October
	16,
	1995
	appeal
	fails
	to
	state
	the
grounds
	for 	her 	appeal 	of 	the 	appeals
	assistant's
	rejection
	of
her 	underlying 	appeal.
	Nor
	does
	it
	explain
	why
	she
	failed 	to
perfect
	the 	appeal 	of
	the 	dismissal
	of
	her
	charge
	as
	directed
	by
the 	appeals
	assistant.
	Accordingly,
	Robinson
	has
	failed 	to
comply_
with
	PERB
	Regulation
	32360
	and
	her 	appeal
	must 	be
	denied.
ORDER
The
	appeal 	of 	the
	PERB
	appeals
	assistant's
	rejection 	of
Sylvia
	Robinson's 	appeal 	of
	a
	Board
	agent's
	dismissal
	of
	her
unfair 	practice
	charge
	in
	Case
	No. 	LA-CO-657
	is
	hereby
	DENIED.
Chairman
	Caffrey
	and
	Member
	Johnson
	joined
	in 	this
	Decision.
4