California State Employees Association (Morrow) (PERB 0568S)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
HOWARD S. 	MORROW,
Charging 	Party,
v.
CALIFORNIA 	STATE 	EMPLOYEES'
ASSOCIATION,
Respondent.
Case 	No. 	S-CO-54-S
PERB Decision No. 	568-S
April 18, 	1986
Appearances: 	Howard S. 	Morrow, 	on his own behalf; 	Howard
Schwartz, 	Attorney 	for 	California 	State Employees' Association.
Before Hesse, 	Chairperson; 	Morgenstern and Burt, 	Members.
DECISION AND 	ORDER
MORGENSTERN, 	Member: 	This 	case 	is 	before the Public
Employment Relations 	Board 	(PERB or 	Board) 	on appeal 	of a
dismissal 	by 	a 	Board 	agent 	of 	an unfair 	practice 	charge.
Charging Party, 	Howard 	S. 	Morrow, 	alleges 	that Respondent,
California 	state Employees' 	Association, 	violated section
3519.5(b) 	of 	the 	State 	Employer-Employee Relations Act1 by
failing 	to 	properly 	represent 	him 	in 	a 	grievance 	and 	by 	failure
to 	pursue 	other 	remedies 	on 	his 	behalf.
On April 	9, 	1986, 	the general 	counsel 	of this agency
requested 	that 	this 	case 	be 	remanded 	for 	further
investigation. 	The 	Board 	has 	adopted 	a 	procedure whereby 	the
1 The 	1The State Employer-Employee Relations Act is codified at
Government 	Code 	section 	3512 	et 	seq.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

general 	counsel 	conducts 	a 	routine 	review of 	cases 	dismissed 	by
Board 	agents. 	As 	the 	Board noted 	in 	response 	to 	a 	similar
request 	in 	state 	of 	California 	(Employment 	Development
Department) 	(1985) 	PERB Decision No. 	483-S, 	the purpose of the
review procedure 	is 	to minimize, 	and hopefully eliminate,
appellate 	litigation 	prompted 	by 	inadequacies 	in 	the 	processing
of 	unfair 	practice 	charges. 	A 	request 	for 	remand 	reflects 	the
general 	counsel's 	reasoned 	conclusion 	that 	further
investigation 	would 	serve 	that 	purpose.
As 	the 	Board 	further 	noted 	in 	State 	of 	California, 	supra:
Barring 	those 	instances 	where 	a 	charge
unequivocally 	fails 	to 	state 	a 	prima 	facie
case, 	or 	conversely, 	where it clearly
requires 	issuance of a 	complaint, 	there
would 	be 	little 	purpose 	to 	the 	Board's
policy 	if 	the 	General 	Counsel's 	request 	for
remand 	were 	given 	short 	shrift.
We 	conclude 	that 	the 	request 	for 	remand 	should 	be 	granted.
Therefore, 	upon 	review of 	the 	entire 	record, 	we 	find that 	the
case 	is 	appropriately REMANDED 	to 	the 	general 	counsel 	for
further 	investigatory 	proceedings. 	It 	is 	so 	ORDERED.
Chairperson 	Hesse 	and 	Member 	Burt 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
N2