American Federation of Teachers Guild (Early) (PERB 0892E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
JOHN B. 	EARLY and ROBERT L. 	SMITH,
Charging Parties,
v.
AMERICAN 	FEDERATION OF 	TEACHERS
GUILD 	("A.F.T.")/
Respondent.
)
)
) 	Case No. 	LA-CO-55 1
PERB Decision No. 892
July 	3, 1991
)
)
)
Appearance: 	John B. 	Early, 	on his own behalf, 	and on behalf of
Robert L. 	Smith.
Before Hesse, 	Chairperson; 	Camilli and Carlyle, 	Members.
DECISION AND 	ORDER
CAMILLI, 	Member: 	This 	case is before the Public Employment
Relations 	Board 	(PERB or Board) 	on appeal by John B. 	Early
(Early) 	on behalf of charging parties, 	of a Board agent's
dismissal 	of 	their 	charge 	that 	the American Federation of
Teachers 	Guild 	(AFT) 	violated the 	Educational 	Employment
Relations Act (EERA) 	sections 3543.6(b), 	3544.9 and 3571.l(c).1
EERA 	is 	codified at Government Code 	section 	3540 	et 	seq.
Unless 	otherwise 	indicated, 	all 	statutory references 	herein are
to 	the Government Code.
It 	is 	noted that 	although 	the 	charge 	alleged violations 	of 	the
Higher Education Employer-Employee 	Relations Act, 	Government 	Code
section 3571.l(b), 	(c) and (e), the Board agent correctly
analyzed the 	charge under the 	EERA 	sections 	noted above, 	as 	the
charging parties 	are 	employed 	by the 	San 	Diego 	Community 	College
District.
It 	is 	unclear whether the appeal 	is 	filed on behalf 	of both of
the 	charging parties 	or 	solely by Early. 	As 	Early represents
both charging parties 	in this matter, 	the appeal 	is 	considered to
be 	on behalf 	of 	both 	charging parties.
)
)
)
_______________ )

PERB 	Regulation 	326352 concerning 	review of 	dismissals
states, 	in pertinent part:
The appeal 	shall:
(1) 	State the 	specific 	issues 	of procedure,
fact, 	law or rationale to which the appeal 	is
taken;
(2) 	Identify the page or part of 	the
dismissal 	to which each appeal 	is 	taken;
(3) 	State the grounds 	for each issue 	stated.
The 	substance of the appeal reads, 	in its 	entirety, 	as
follows:
I 	would 	like to 	appeal 	the decision made 	by
Marc 	S. 	Hurwitz 	in not filing a 	formal
complaint 	against A.F.T.
This 	appeal does 	not 	comport with the 	above-cited
requirements of 	PERB Regulation 32635, 	as 	it fails 	to 	state with
any 	specificity the 	issues 	to which the appeal 	is 	taken, 	the
specific portion(s) 	of the dismissal being appealed, 	or the
grounds 	for the 	appeal. 	The 	Board has 	held that 	compliance with
regulations 	governing appeals 	is 	required 	to 	afford 	the
respondent 	and 	the 	Board 	an adequate 	opportunity 	to 	address 	the
issues 	raised, 	and non-compliance will warrant dismissal 	of 	the
appeal. 	(United Teachers 	- Los Angeles 	(Glickberg) 	(1990) 	PERB
Decision No. 	846, p. 	2.)
For the reasons 	stated above, 	the Board rejects 	the appeal,
and 	finds 	it unnecessary to determine whether the 	charge was
2PERB 	Regulations 	are 	codified 	at 	California 	Code 	of
Regulations, 	title 8, 	section 31001 	et seq.
22

otherwise 	sufficient to 	state a prima 	facie 	case. 	Th	4 	e unfair
practice 	charge 	in Case No. 	LA-CO-551 	is 	hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT
LEAVE 	TO AMEND.
Chairperson Hesse 	and Member 	Carlyle 	joined 	in this 	Decision.
3While 	the appeal was 	timely 	filed with PERB 	on May 	14,
1991, 	AFT was 	not 	served with the appeal until May 23, 	1991. 	As
the Board 	finds 	the appeal 	fails 	to meet the requirements 	of 	PERB
Regulation 32635, 	it is unnecessary to determine the effect, 	if
any, 	of 	the 	lack of 	concurrent 	service of the appeal.
3
'
3