California State University (Watts) (PERB 0478H)

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD

HOWARD O. WATTS,

Charging Party, Case No. LA-PN-52-H

Ve PERB Decision No. 478-H

UNION OF AMERICAN PHYSICIANS & December 31, 1984

DENTISTS,

Respondent.

Appearance: Howard O. Watts on his own behalf.

Before Hesse, Chairperson; Morgenstern and Burt Members.
DECISION

BURT, Member: This case is before the Public Employment
Relations Board (Board) on an appeal by Howard O. Watts
(Complainant) of the Board agent's dismissal of his public
notice complaint alleging that the Union of American Physicians
and Dentists violated section 3595(a) of the Higher Education
Employer-Employee Relations Act (Government Code section 3560
et seq.). The dismissal letter and the November 25, 1983
letter of deficiency are attached hereto.

We have reviewed the Board agent's dismissal in light of
the Complainant's appeal and the entire record in this matter
and adopt that dismissal as the Decision of the Board itself
for the reasons stated therein and in PERB Decision No. 458-H.

The Board denies Watts' request for assistance made

pursuant to California Administrative Code, title 8, section

32163 	for 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	in 	Los Angeles 	Unified 	School
District, 	California 	State 	University 	and 	United 	Professors 	of
California 	(Watts) 	(8/16/84) 	PERB 	Decision 	No. 	396-H.
ORDER
The 	public 	notice 	complaint 	in 	Case 	No. 	LA-PN-52-H 	is
DISMISSED WITHOUT 	LEAVE TO AMEND.
Chairperson 	Hesse 	and 	Member 	Morgenstern 	joined 	in 	this
Decision.

STA";E OF CALIFORNIA 	GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Gow,rnor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Headquarters Office
l 031 	18th Street
Sacramento, California 95814
(916) 322-3088
January 	5, 	1984
Howard 	Watts
1021 	N. 	Mariposa 	Avenue, 	#3 	1/2
Los 	Angeles, 	CA 	90029
Luella Hanberry
Union of 	American 	Physicians 	and 	Dentists
1730 	Franklin 	Street, 	Suite 	200
Oakland, 	CA 	94612
RE: 	REFUSAL 	TO 	ISSUE 	COMPLAINT AND DISMISSAL OF 	PUBLIC NOTICE
COMPLAINT 	H. 	WATTS 	v. 	UNION OF AMERICAN PHYSICIANS 	AND
DENTISTS, 	COMPLAINT NO. 	LA-PN-52-H
Dear 	Parties:
Pursuant 	to 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(PERB) 	regulation
section 	32920(b), 	a 	complaint will 	not 	be 	issued 	in 	the
above-referenced 	case 	and 	the 	pending 	complaint 	is 	dismissed
because 	it 	fails 	to 	allege 	facts 	sufficient 	to 	state 	a 	prima
facie 	violation 	of 	Government 	Code 	section 	3595. 	The 	reasoning
which 	underlies 	this 	dismissal 	follows.
On November 	25, 	1983, 	I 	wrote 	Mr. 	Howard 	Watts 	a 	warning 	letter
pointing 	out 	the 	deficiencies 	in 	the 	public 	notice 	complaint he
filed 	against 	the 	Union 	of 	American 	Physicians 	and 	Dentists 	on
March 	24, 	1983. 	That 	letter 	is hereby 	incorporated by
reference 	as 	though 	set 	forth 	in 	full 	(letter 	attached). 	It
summarizes 	the 	allegation 	of 	the 	complaint 	and 	cites
authorities 	which 	demonstrate 	the 	deficiencies 	of 	the
allegation 	as 	it 	is 	presently 	set 	forth 	in 	the 	complaint.
Additional 	information 	is 	solicited as 	well. 	The 	letter 	set
December 	15, 	1983, 	as 	the 	date 	on 	which 	Mr. 	Watts 	would have 	to
amend 	or 	withdraw 	the 	complaint 	to 	avoid 	dismissal. 	Several
phone 	conversations 	between Mr. 	Watts 	and 	myself 	resulted 	in
the 	granting 	of 	a 	20-day extension 	of 	time 	to 	file 	the 	first
amended 	complaint 	establishing 	the 	new 	due 	date 	as 	January 	4,
1984.
Mr. 	Watts' 	first 	amended 	complaint 	was 	received 	on 	December 	27,
1983. 	However, 	the 	amended 	complaint 	failed 	to 	allege 	any
additional 	facts 	sufficient 	to 	state 	a 	prima 	facie 	violation 	of
Government 	Code 	section 	3595. 	The 	only 	new 	information

Howard Watts
Luella 	Hanberry
January 	5, 	1984
Page 	2
provided 	in 	the 	amended 	complaint 	implies 	wrongful 	conduct by
the 	CSUS 	Board 	of 	Trustees 	or 	its 	designated 	committee. 	This
information, 	however, 	is 	irrelevant because 	CSUS 	is 	not 	a 	party
to 	this 	complaint. 	Accordingly, 	the 	allegation 	is 	dismissed
and 	no complaint 	will 	issue.
Pursuant 	to 	PERB 	regulation 	section 	32950 	you may 	appeal 	the
refusal 	to 	issue 	a 	complaint 	(dismissal) 	to 	the 	Board 	itself.
Right 	to 	Appeal
You 	may obtain a 	review 	of 	this 	dismissal 	of 	the 	complaint by
filing 	an 	appeal 	to 	the 	Board 	itself 	within 	twenty 	(20) 	calendar
days 	after 	service 	of 	this 	Notice 	(section 	32925). 	To be
timely 	filed, 	the 	original 	and 	five 	(5) 	copies 	of 	such 	appeal
must 	be 	actually 	received 	by 	the 	Board 	itself before 	the 	close
of 	business 	(5:00 	p.m.) 	on 	January 	25, 	1984, 	or 	sent by
telegraph or 	certified 	United 	States 	mail 	postmarked 	not 	later
than January 	25, 	1984, 	(section 	32135). 	The 	Board's 	address 	is:
Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board
1031 	18th 	Street
Sacramento, 	CA 	9·5914
If 	you 	file 	a 	timely 	appeal 	of 	the 	refusal 	to 	issue 	a
complaint, 	'any other 	party may 	file 	with 	the 	Board 	an 	original
and 	five 	(5) 	copies 	of 	a 	statement 	in 	opposition within 	twenty
(20) 	calendar 	days 	following 	the 	date 	of 	service 	of 	the 	appeal
(section 	32635(b)).
Service
All 	documents 	authorized 	to 	be 	filed 	herein 	must 	also be
"served" 	upon 	all 	parties 	to 	the proceeding, 	and 	a 	"proof 	of
service" 	must 	accompany 	the 	document 	filed 	with 	the 	Board
itself 	(see 	section 	32140 	for 	the 	required 	contents 	and 	a
sample 	form). 	The 	document 	will 	be 	considered 	properly
"served" 	when 	personally 	delivered 	or 	deposited 	in 	the
first-class 	mail 	postage 	paid 	and 	properly 	addressed.
Extension of 	Time
A request 	for 	an 	extension 	of 	time 	in which 	to 	file 	a 	document
with 	the 	Board 	itself 	must 	be 	in 	writing 	and 	filed 	with 	the
Board 	at 	the 	previously 	noted 	address. 	A request 	for 	an

Howard Watts
Luella 	Hanberry
January·S, 	1984
Page 	3
extension must 	be 	filed 	at 	least 	three 	(3) 	calendar 	days 	before
the 	expiration of 	the 	time 	required 	for 	filing 	the 	document.
The 	request 	must 	indicate 	good 	cause 	for 	and, 	if 	known, 	the
position 	of 	each 	other 	party 	regarding 	the 	extension, 	and 	shall
be 	accompanied by 	proof 	of 	service 	of 	the 	request 	upon 	each
party 	(section 	32132).
Final 	Date
If 	no 	appeal 	is 	filed 	within 	the 	specified 	time 	limits, 	the
dismissal 	will 	become 	final 	when 	the 	time 	limits have 	expired.
Very 	truly 	yours,
DENNIS M. 	SULLIVAN
General 	Counsel
By
CARL BESSENT
Staff 	Attorney

STAiE Of CAUFORNIA
Plf:''..~C EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
.Son Froncisco Regional Office
177 Post Street, 9th Floor
Son Francisco, 	California 94108
(4-15) 557-1350
:tbverriber 25, 	1983
Mr. Howard o. Watts
1021 N:>rth Mariposa Avenue, Apt. 	3 1/2
los Angeles, 	CA 	90029
Re: 	IA-PN-52-H
Dear Mr. Watts:
The puq:ose of this letter is to: 	1) analyze your complaint
(IA-PN-52-H); 	2) explain why, as presently written, 	the
complaint does not state a prirna facie case; and 3) 	to provide
you an opportunity to amend your charge.
;r.
Your above-referenced Public Notice Complaint alleges that the
Union of J'lm.erican Physicians and Dentists 	(UAPD), 	the exclusive
representative of the physicians unit at California State
University {CSU), violated Government Ccxle section 3595{a) by
failing to present its initial prop:>sals in person and
verbally. 	Your contention is that the availability of
50 copies of the proposal at the February 23, 	1983, public
meeting of the committee on collective bargaining does not meet
the section 3595(a) req_t'.irements for a presentation.
~ investigation revealed that the initial response meeting for
the exclusive representatives and employer was held in
long Beach, California on February 23, 1983 for UAPD - Unit 1,
Physicians; California State Employees' 	Association for Unit 2,
Health Care Supp:>rt; Unit 5 Operations Supp:::>rt; Unit 7,
Clerical/Administrative Support; and Unit 9, 	Technical support
Services; and State Employees Trades Council for Unit 6,
Skilled Crafts.· Your Complaint shows that 50 copies of the
UAPD proposal were available to the public at the public
meeting held February 23, 	1983.
IA-PN-52-H does not allege that the UAPD prop:>sal was not
sufficient for 	the public to know the issues being proposed.
(See Palo Alto Unified School District 	(12/2/81) 	PERB Decision
:tb. 184.}
II.
For the folla,11ing reasons, 	the complaint, as presently framed,
does not state a prima facie case.

.Heward O. Watts
No?.a.mber 25, 	1983
Pag-e 2
1. 	Section 3595(a) states that:
(a) 	All initial proposals of exclusive
representatives and of higher education
employers, which relate to matters within
the scope of representation, 	shall be
presented at a public meeting of the higher
education employer and thereafter shall be
public records.
The Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary definition of the verb
"present" is "to bring before the public ••• to offer to
view. 11 	Nothing in the definition or the statute requires that
the offering be made in person or verbally to constitute a
"presentation" and logic dictates otherwise. 	The public notice
provisions of HEERA were enacted to ensure tht the public has
an opp:)rtunity to be informed about the substance of collective
bargaining proposals submitted by HEERA employers and employee
organizations. 	The documents submitted by UAPD were the best
evidence of the prop:)sal UAPD wished to make. 	UAPD's failure
to orally reiterate the contents of·its documents cannot
reasonably be considered violative of the statute.
For the aforementioned reasons, 	your complaint, 	as presently
written; does not state a prim.a facie case. 	If you feel that
there are any factual inaccuracies in tl1is letter or any
additional facts which would correct the deficiencies explained
above, please amend the public notice complaint accordingly.
The amended complaint should be prepared on a standard PERB
public notice complaint form clearly labeled First Amended
Complaint, 	contain all the facts and allegatia.,s you wish to
make, 	and be signed under penalty of perjury by the complainant.
If I 	do not receive an amended complaint or withdrawal from you
within 20 days of service of this letter, your complaint will
be dismissed. 	If you have any questions on how to proceed,
please call me at 	(916) 	322-1320.
Sincerely yours,
Carl J. Bessent
Graduate legal Assistant