Los Angeles Unified School District (Watts) (PERB 0865E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
HOWARD O. 	WATTS,
Charging 	Party,
v.
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
) 	Case No. 	LA-PN-114
PERB 	Decision No. 	865
February 5, 	1991
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearance: 	Howard O. 	Watts, 	on his own behalf.
Before Shank, 	Camilli and Cunningham, 	Members.
DECISION
CUNNINGHAM, 	Member: 	This 	case comes before the Public
Employment Relations 	Board 	(Board) 	on an appeal 	by 	Howard O.
Watts 	(Watts) 	of 	an administrative determination 	(attached
hereto) 	by a Board agent who dismissed a public 	notice 	complaint
filed by Watts 	against 	the 	Los 	Angeles 	Unified 	School 	District
(District). 	The complaint alleged that the District violated
section 	3547(a) 	and 	(b) 	of the Educational Employment Relations
Act 	(EERA)1 by 	failing to provide 	sufficient information
1EERA 	is 	codified at Government Code 	section 	3540 	et 	seq.
Unless 	otherwise 	indicated, 	all 	statutory references 	herein are
to the Government Code. 	EERA section 3547(a) 	and 	(b) 	states:
(a) 	All 	initial proposals 	of exclusive
representatives 	and 	of 	public 	school
employers, 	which relate to matters within the
scope of representation, 	shall be presented
at a public meeting of the public 	school
employer and thereafter 	shall 	be public
records.
(b) 	Meeting and negotiating 	shall not take
place on any proposal 	until 	a 	reasonable

regarding 	its 	proposal 	for 	reopener 	negotiations 	presented 	at
District Board of Education meetings 	on April 	23, 	April 	30 	and
May 7, 	1990.
time has 	elapsed after the 	submission of
the proposal 	to 	enable the public 	to become
informed 	and 	the public 	has 	the 	opportunity
to 	express 	itself 	regarding the proposal 	at
a 	meeting of 	the public 	school 	employer.
We have reviewed the Board agent's dismissal, 	the
complainant's 	appeal 	and the 	entire 	record 	in this 	matter,
and 	adopt 	the 	attached dismissal 	as 	the decision of 	the 	Board
itself.2
ORDER
The public 	notice complaint in Case No. 	LA-PN-114 	is hereby
DISMISSED WITHOUT 	LEAVE 	TO AMEND.
Members 	Shank and Camilli 	joined 	in this 	Decision.
2We 	note that Article XVIII 	of 	the 	agreement between the
District 	and 	the 	Los Angeles 	Unified 	School 	District 	Peace
Officers Association states, 	in pertinent part:
Nothing herein 	is 	intended to prevent 	the
parties 	from meeting 	and 	negotiating during
the term of this Agreement, 	pursuant to
mutual 	consent.
This 	provision was 	inadvertently misquoted 	in 	the 	attached
administrative 	determination.
22

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
HOWARD 0. 	WATTS,
Complainant,
and
LOS 	ANGELES 	UNIFIED 	SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Employer.
Case No. 	LA-PN-114
ADMINISTRATIVE
DETERMINATION
September 24, 	1990
The 	above-captioned 	public 	notice 	complaint 	was 	filed
with 	the 	Public Employment Relations Board on May 26, 	1990. 	The
complaint 	alleges 	that 	the 	Los 	Angeles 	Unified 	School 	District
(District) 	violated 	section 3547(a) 	and 	(b) 	of the Educational
Employment Relations 	Act 	(EERA)1 by presenting 	an 	initial
proposal 	which 	lacked 	sufficient 	detail 	to 	permit 	the 	public 	to
understand 	and 	express 	itself 	with 	regard 	thereto.
1Section 3547(a) 	and 	(b) 	provide:
(a) 	All 	initial 	proposals 	of 	exclusive 	representatives
and 	of 	public 	school 	employers, 	which 	relate 	to matters
within the 	scope 	of 	representation, 	shall be presented
at a 	public meeting 	of 	the 	public 	school 	employer 	and
thereafter 	shall 	be 	public 	records.
(b) 	Meeting 	and negotiating 	shall 	not 	take 	place 	on
any proposal 	until 	a 	reasonable 	time 	has 	elapsed 	after
the 	submission 	of 	the 	proposal 	to 	enable 	the 	public 	to
become 	informed 	and 	the 	public 	has 	the 	opportunity 	to
express 	itself 	regarding 	the 	proposal 	at 	a meeting 	of
the 	public 	school 	employer.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
)
______________ )

The 	proposal 	to which 	the 	complaint 	is 	directed was 	set
forth 	in 	a memorandum2 to 	the 	Committee 	of 	the 	Whole 	of 	the 	Los
Angeles 	Unified 	School 	District 	from 	the 	Superintendent 	dated
April 23, 	1990. 	The proposal reads 	as 	follows:
It 	is proposed that 	the 	1988-91 	collective 	bargaining
agreement with 	the 	Los 	Angeles 	Unified 	School 	District
Peace Officers Association 	(LAUSD POA), 	exclusive
representative 	for Unit A, 	School Police, 	be 	reopened
for 	the 	purpose 	of 	partially 	addressing 	the 	$150-$220
million 	financial 	deficit 	facing 	the 	District 	for
fiscal 	1990-91. 	Such 	reopeners 	could 	include 	any
contractual 	provisions 	which 	involve 	financial
obligations, 	including 	items 	such as 	reduction 	in the
number of paid days, 	suspension of Employee Assistance
Program, 	and various 	alternatives to 	layoffs.
Significantly, 	the April 	23 memo 	includes 	a 	section 	entitled
"BACKGROUND," 	which notes 	that
[i]n 	order to 	consider 	the 	above 	negotiable 	items 	for
potential 	budget reductions, 	the District must 	submit
initial 	reopener proposals. 	Pursuant to 	Section 	3547
of 	the Government Code, 	these 	will 	be 	presented 	to 	the
public at two 	regular meetings. 	. 	.(emphasis 	added)
The 	memo 	also 	comments 	upon 	the 	budget 	implications 	"[i]f 	LAUSD
POA were 	to 	agree 	to 	reopen 	negotiations 	and 	then 	agree 	to 	any
cost 	reduction proposals."
Section 	3547(a) 	does 	not 	require 	public 	noticing 	of 	all
proposals, 	but rather only those 	initial 	proposals 	"which 	relate
to 	matters 	within the 	scope 	of 	representation." 	In 	Palo Alto
Unified 	School 	District 	and 	Palo 	Alto 	Educators 	Association
(Fein) 	(1981) 	PERB Decision No. 	189, 	the Board noted that 	"the
2The 	complaint 	erroneously 	indicated 	that 	a 	copy 	of 	the
memorandum 	was 	attached 	as 	Exhibit 	1. 	The 	undersigned 	informed
the 	complainant of 	the 	omission, 	and he 	later 	filed 	it 	contained
in 	a document 	entitled 	"Items 	Postponed."
22

initial 	proposals 	must 	be 	sufficiently 	developed 	to 	permit the
public 	to 	comprehend 	them," 	and went 	on 	to 	criticize 	a proposal
which 	"does 	not 	adequately 	inform 	the 	public 	of 	the 	issues 	that
will be negotiated." 	(emphasis added)
The essence 	of 	the 	"proposal" 	set 	forth 	in 	the April 	23
memorandum 	is 	simply the 	desire 	of 	the 	District 	to 	reopen 	the
collective bargaining agreement 	in 	an 	attempt 	to 	address 	a
looming 	financial 	crisis. 	Review of 	the 	1988-91 	Agreement
between LAUSD 	POA 	and 	the 	District 	on 	file 	with 	PERB 	reveals 	that
it does not provide 	for specific 	reopeners. 	Rather, 	Article
XVIII 	provides 	that nothing 	in 	the 	agreement 	"is 	intended to
prevent 	the 	parties 	from 	meeting 	and 	negotiating 	during 	the 	term
of this Agreement, 	by mutual 	consent." 	At best, 	the District's
"proposal" 	constituted 	a 	request to 	bargain pursuant to Article
XVIII, 	and, 	as such, 	is quite different from a District
bargaining proposal. 	The 	former is 	procedural, 	the 	latter 	is
substantive. 	Therefore, 	since the 	"proposal" 	did not constitute
a presentation 	of 	initial 	proposals 	relating 	to 	matters 	within
the 	scope 	of 	representation 	as 	contemplated by Section 	3547,
there 	was 	no 	requirement 	that 	it 	conform 	to 	the 	public notice
provisions. 	It would be 	premature 	to 	require 	an 	employer to
provide 	specific 	information 	about 	the 	substance 	of 	its
collective 	bargaining proposals 	prior 	to 	the 	time 	the 	parties
have even agreed 	to bargain. 	In 	the 	event LAUSD 	POA agreed to
reopen contract negotiations, 	however, 	any proposals 	advanced by
33

the 	District would 	require 	adequate 	public 	notice 	sufficient 	to
enable 	the 	public 	to 	understand 	and 	respond 	thereto.3
For the 	foregoing 	reasons, 	the 	public notice 	complaint 	is
DISMISSED.
Right to Appeal
Pursuant to Public 	Employment Relations Board 	regulations,
any 	party adversely 	affected 	by 	this 	ruling 	may 	appeal 	to 	the
Board 	itself 	by filing 	a written 	appeal 	within 	twenty 	(20)
calendar days after 	service 	of 	this 	ruling 	(California
Administrative Code, 	title 	8, 	section 32925). 	To be 	timely
filed, 	the 	original 	and 	five 	copies 	of 	such appeal 	must be
actually 	received 	by the 	Board 	itself 	before 	the 	close 	of
business 	(5:00 p.m.) 	or 	sent 	by telegraph, 	certified or Express
United 	States mail 	postmarked 	no 	later 	than the 	last 	date 	set 	for
filing 	(California Administrative Code, 	title 8, 	section 32135).
Code 	of Civil Procedure 	section 	1013 	shall 	apply. 	The 	Board's
address is:
Members, 	Public Employment Relations Board
1031 	18th 	Street
Sacramento, 	CA 95814
The 	appeal must state the 	specific 	issues of procedure, 	fact, 	law
or 	rationale 	that 	are 	appealed, 	must 	clearly 	and 	concisely 	state
the 	grounds 	for each issue 	stated, 	and must be 	signed 	by the
appealing party or 	its 	agent.
3In conversations with 	the 	undersigned, 	the 	District
indicated 	that LAUSD POA 	did 	not 	agree 	to 	reopen 	the 	agreement.
44

If 	a timely appeal 	of this 	ruling 	is 	filed, 	any other party
•ay file with the Board 	itself 	an original 	and 	five copies of 	a
statement 	in opposition 	within 	twenty 	calendar 	days 	following 	the
date 	of 	service of the 	appeal 	(California Administrative 	Code,
title 8, 	section 32625). 	If no timely appeal is filed, 	the
aforementioned 	ruling 	shall 	become 	final 	upon 	the 	expiration 	of
the 	specified time 	limits.
Service
All 	documents authorized 	to be 	filed 	herein must also 	be
"served" 	upon all 	parties 	to 	the 	proceeding and 	the San Francisco
Regional Office. 	A 	"proof 	of 	service" 	must accompany each 	copy
of 	a 	document 	served 	upon 	a party 	or 	filed 	with 	the 	Board 	itself.
(See California Administrative Code, 	title 	8, 	section 32140 	for
the 	required contents 	and a 	sample 	form. ) 	The 	appeal and any
opposition 	to 	an 	appeal 	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 	an
appeal 	or opposition 	to 	an 	appeal 	with 	the 	Board 	itself 	must 	be
in writing 	and 	filed 	with 	the 	Board 	at 	the 	previously noted
address. 	A request 	for 	an 	extension must 	be 	filed 	at 	least 	three
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
55

request upon 	each party 	(California Administrative 	Code, 	title 	8,
section 	32132).
Dated: 	September 24, 	1990 Jerilyn)Gelt
Labor 	Relations 	Specialist
66