Los Angeles Unified School District (United Teachers Los Angeles) (PERB 1041E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
UNITED TEACHERS 	- 	LOS ANGELES,
Charging 	Party,
v.
LOS ANGELES 	UNIFIED 	SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
) 	Case No. 	LA-CE-3227
PERB Decision No. 	1041
March 	17, 	1994
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances: 	Taylor, 	Roth, 	Bush & Geffner by Leo Geffner,
Attorney, 	for United Teachers 	- 	Los Angeles; 	O'Melveny & Myers by
Steven M. 	Cooper, 	Attorney, 	for Los Angeles Unified School
District.
Before Blair, 	Chair; 	Carlyle and Garcia, 	Members.
DECISION AND 	ORDER
CARLYLE, 	Member: 	This 	case 	is before the Public Employment
Relations Board 	(Board) 	on appeal by the United Teachers 	-
Los Angeles 	(UTLA) 	to an administrative law judge's 	(ALJ) 	denial
of 	an amendment 	to a 	complaint 	and 	the 	subsequent 	dismissal 	of
the 	complaint 	(attached). 	UTLA argued that 	the 	reduction by the
Los Angeles Unified School District 	(District) 	of 	the 	1992-93
bilingual 	teacher differentials 	was 	contained within 	its 	initial
unfair practice 	charge and 	therefore was 	a 	timely amendment. 	The
ALJ determined 	that 	the 	subject 	of 	the 	amendment was 	not 	included
in any of 	the various 	unfair practice 	charges 	filed by UTLA nor
was any evidence 	introduced during UTLA's 	case 	in chief. 	The
amendment was 	then 	found to be untimely, 	as 	it was based upon an
unfair practice 	occurring more 	than six months prior to 	the

filing of 	the 	charge 	in accordance with section 3541.5(a)(1) 	of
the 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations Act 	(EERA).1
The 	Board has 	reviewed 	the ALJ's 	dismissal 	of 	UTLA's
proposed amendment 	and dismissal 	of 	the 	complaint, 	UTLA's 	appeal
and 	the District's 	response 	thereto and 	the 	entire 	record 	in 	this
case. 	The Board finds 	the ALJ's 	denial 	of 	the amendment and
dismissal 	of 	the 	complaint 	to be 	free 	of prejudicial 	error and
therefore adopts 	it 	as 	the decision of 	the Board 	itself.
The unfair practice 	charge 	in Case No. 	LA-CE-3227 	is hereby
DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE 	TO AMEND.
Chair Blair 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
Member Garcia's 	dissent begins 	on page 	3.
EERA 	is 	codified at Government 	Code 	section 3540 	et 	seq.
Section 3541.5 	states, 	in pertinent part:
(a) 	Any employee, 	employee organization, 	or
employer shall 	have 	the 	right 	to 	file an
unfair practice 	charge, 	except 	that 	the board
shall 	not do either of 	the 	following:
(1) 	Issue a complaint 	in respect 	of any
charge based upon an alleged unfair practice
occurring more 	than 	six months 	prior 	to 	the
filing of 	the 	charge.
22

Garcia, 	Member, 	dissenting: 	I would reverse the Public
Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(PERB or Board) 	denial 	of 	the proposed
amendment 	(dismissal) 	and 	remand the 	case back to 	the ALJ 	for
issuance 	of 	a 	complaint 	regarding 	the bilingual 	differentials.
My 	reasons 	for 	this 	follow.
DISCUSSION
Effect 	of 	Settlement 	Language
The 	dismissal 	devotes 	much attention 	to a 	"relation back"
doctrine 	to determine whether United Teachers 	- 	Los Angles 	(UTLA)
timely 	filed 	its 	charge 	and places 	insufficient 	emphasis 	on 	the
parties' 	settlement.1 On May 25, 	1993, 	the parties executed a
settlement 	document 	containing 	this 	key 	language:
Both parties shall withdraw/dismiss all 	1992-
93 	negotiations-related litigation, 	or
claims, 	whether asserted or unasserted,
including . 	. 	. 	PERB charges. 	except for
UTLA's 	PERB 	complaint 	regarding 	coordination
of 	benefits 	under 	the 	health plan and 	the
dispute 	over bilingual 	salary differential
reduction. 	[Agreement, Art. 	II, 	sec. 	1.0.]
The 	Los Angeles Unified School 	District 	(District) 	argues
that 	the 	effect 	of 	the language 	is 	to expressly acknowledge 	that
the bilingual 	differential 	was 	not part 	of 	the pending 	PERB
action. 	UTLA, 	on the other hand, 	argues 	that all 	the words after
"PERB complaint 	regarding" 	refer to the 	complaint, 	which includes
two unresolved issues: 	(1) 	coordination of benefits under the
1At page 	5 	of 	the dismissal, 	the ALJ concisely mentions 	that
"The 	settlement 	negotiations 	ultimately were 	successful 	and an
agreement was 	reached between the parties."
w3

health plan; 	and 	(2) 	the dispute over bilingual 	salary
differential 	reduction.
Under contract 	interpretation principles, 	a 	contract may be
explained by reference 	to 	the 	circumstances under which it was
made. 	(Witkin, 	Summary of Calif. 	Law, 	Contracts 	(9th ed. 	1987)
sec. 	688, 	p. 	621.) 	Given the evidence in the file, 	I find that
the 	intent 	of 	the underlined language 	conforms 	to 	the
interpretation advanced by UTLA. 	If 	the parties 	had 	intended 	to
separate 	the 	topic 	of 	dispute 	over bilingual 	salary differential
reduction, 	they 	could have done 	so by recasting 	the 	language 	to
more 	clearly delineate 	the 	two 	categories, 	for example by placing
a 	comma before 	the 	second clause 	(after the word 	"plan"). 	As
written, 	the 	"PERB 	complaint" 	includes both issues and the
parties 	agreed to reserve UTLA's 	right 	to have 	PERB adjudicate
the health and differentials 	issues. 	To escape 	PERB
jurisdiction, 	the District 	contradicts 	the 	inclusive 	language 	it
agreed 	to and makes 	the 	strained argument 	that 	the 	sentence
incorporates 	two 	subjects 	(a 	PERB 	complaint 	dealing with health
benefits, 	and a bilingual 	salary differential 	reduction) 	rather
than one 	(the PERB complaint). 	It is unlikely that, 	after
protracted negotiations, 	the parties would not 	have a 	common
understanding 	of 	the 	settlement 	language 	referring 	to 	the 	PERB
complaint.
4
4

Based on the Documents 	in the File, 	the First Amended. Charge May
be 	Read as 	Including 	the 	Concept 	of 	Differentials 	in 	the 	Term
"Salary"
There 	is 	evidence 	to 	support 	a 	conclusion 	that 	both parties
intended 	that 	the 	term 	"salary" 	included differentials, 	an
interpretation 	that 	dated 	from the 	early stages 	of 	their
negotiations. 	For example, 	in a memo to the Board of Education
dated May 18, 	1992 	regarding budget proposals, 	the District used
the 	following 	language:
. 	. 	. 	the District proposes careful
discussion and 	review of 	the 	following
matters 	for possible adjustment, 	reduction or
curtailment:
b. 	All 	salary schedules and rates, 	including
differentials.
(UTLA Exh. 	3, 	p. 	2; 	emphasis added.)
A few months 	later, 	in its 	Final 	1992-93 	Economic Offer,
implemented October 2, 	1992, 	the District described 	its 	offer as
covering:
. 	. 	. 	all salary schedules and rates.
including 	those 	which are 	not 	calculated as 	a
percentage of 	regular base salary, 	such as
differentials. 	professional expert rates,
substitute rates, 	temporary personnel 	rates,
etc.
(UTLA Exh. 	16; 	emphasis added.)
UTLA 	filed 	its 	first 	amended 	charge within weeks 	of 	the
District's 	implementing 	the 	final 	offer just 	quoted. 	Presumably
that 	offer was 	still 	fresh in the minds 	of both parties, 	a 	factor
which 	lends 	credibility 	to 	the 	conclusion 	that 	UTLA was 	using 	the
term 	"salary" 	as 	the District had defined it 	in its 	recent 	offer.
Based on those documents, 	I 	find that UTLA pled the 	issue of
differentials 	specifically enough 	in 	its 	first 	amended 	charge 	to
5

put 	the District 	on notice of 	the topic. 	Furthermore, 	PERB
precedent 	has 	not 	required 	technical 	precision 	in pleading
requirements 	and 	encourages 	concise 	statements 	in pleading.2
As phrased, 	the 	first 	amended charge put 	the District 	on
notice that 	the general 	topic of wages was at 	issue.3 Thus, 	the
concept 	of 	differentials was 	included 	in the 	charge when written
and 	the 	Board 	should not 	be 	sidetracked 	into 	considering whether
a 	later amendment 	"relates 	back" 	and would be 	timely.
2See Moreno Valley Unified School Dist, 	v. 	Public Employment
Relations Bd. 	(1983) 	142 Cal.App.3d 191, 	202-203, 	citing National
Labor 	Relations 	Board precedent:
Actions before 	the 	[NLRB] 	are not 	subject 	to
the 	technical 	pleading 	requirements 	that
govern private lawsuits. 	[Citation.] 	The
charge 	need not 	be 	technically precise 	as
long as 	it 	generally 	informs 	the party
charged of 	the nature 	of 	the alleged
violations. 	[Citations.]
Similarly, 	PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5) 	only requires 	that 	the
charge 	contain 	"[a] 	clear and concise statement 	of 	the 	facts 	and
conduct 	alleged 	to 	constitute 	an unfair practice." 	(PERB
regulations are codified at Cal. 	Code of Regs., 	tit. 	8, 	sec.
31001 	et 	seq.) 	UTLA's 	charge 	clearly and 	concisely referenced
the District's 	unilateral 	implementation of 	its 	offer as 	the
conduct 	giving 	rise 	to 	the 	alleged unfair practice.
3We also note 	that 	in Moreno Valley Educators Association v.
Moreno Valley Unified School 	District 	(1982) 	PERB Decision
No. 	206, 	extra duty stipends 	for teachers who did sports
supervision, 	special education, 	journalism, 	yearbook, 	drama,
reading, 	vocal music and band were 	considered as part 	of 	the
concept 	of wages. 	The differentials at 	issue 	in the present 	case
are 	similar 	to 	the 	concept 	of 	extra duty stipends 	in Moreno
Valley, 	a 	teacher earns 	extra money 	for performing an additional
function. 	Admittedly, 	the 	issue 	in Moreno Valley was 	different
(whether 	certain 	topics 	were within 	the 	scope 	of bargaining or
not), 	but the analogy is relevant because in both cases, 	we must
identify what parties 	intended a particular term 	(wages) 	to
encompass.
6
-------
6

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
UNITED TEACHERS--LOS ANGELES,
Charging 	Party,
v.
LOS 	ANGELES 	UNIFIED 	SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
) 	Unfair 	Practice
Case No. 	LA-CE-3227	)
)
)
)
)
)
)
NOTICE 	OF 	DENIAL 	OF 	PROPOSED 	AMENDMENT
AND 	DISMISSAL 	OF 	COMPLAINT
NOTICE 	is 	given 	that 	the proposed amendment 	to 	complaint 	and
request 	of 	Charging 	Party 	for 	further proceedings 	in the 	above
case 	are hereby denied. 	Notice also 	is 	given that 	the 	remaining
portions 	of 	the 	charge and complaint 	are 	hereby DISMISSED. 	The
proposed amendment 	is 	denied because 	it 	would add new matter
regarding 	events 	that 	occurred 	outside 	the 	statutory period 	for
timeliness. 	The 	charge and 	complaint 	are 	dismissed because
without 	the amendment, 	there 	is no remaining issue 	in dispute,
all 	other matters 	having been withdrawn by 	the 	Charging 	Party.
This 	case 	grows 	out 	of 	protracted negotiations 	during 	1992
and 	1993 	between the United Teachers--Los Angeles 	(Union or UTLA)
and the Los Angeles Unified School District 	(District). 	The
Union 	filed 	the 	original 	charge 	against 	the District 	on
August 	19, 	1992. 	The charge accused the District 	of engaging in
surface bargaining, 	of 	refusing 	to respond to 	the Union's 	request
for 	information 	relevant 	and necessary 	to bargaining 	and 	of
unilaterally 	implementing 	changes 	in 	the 	health plan.
I (

On October 28, 	1992, 	the Union filed a first 	amended charge
which 	supplemented 	and 	clarified 	the 	original 	charge 	and added
new allegations 	including 	the 	following 	contention:
... :
On or about October 2, 	1992, 	prior to
reaching 	a bona 	fide 	impasse 	in negotiations
and without 	exhausting 	all 	reasonable 	efforts
to achieve a negotiated agreement, 	the
District 	unilaterally 	implemented 	salary 	and
benefit reductions, 	including 	(a) 	a salary
cut 	of 	12 	percent 	from the 	salaries 	in effect
on July 1, 	1992, 	(b) 	increases 	in co-payments
and deductibles 	in medical plans, 	and
(c) 	complete elimination of 	a Blue Shield
indemnity medical 	plan 	that 	has 	been
available 	to employees.
The 	first 	amended 	charge 	also 	accused 	the District 	of 	eliminating
the 	"coordination of benefits" 	provisions 	of 	the health plan
without 	first 	negotiating 	this 	issue with 	the Union.
The Union filed a second amended charge on October 30, 	1992,
which 	added 	an 	additional 	allegation 	regarding 	the 	District's
failure 	to 	reply 	to 	the Union's 	request 	for bargaining
information.
On November 2, 	1992, 	the general 	counsel 	of 	the Public
Employment 	Relations Board 	(PERB or Board) 	issued a 	complaint
against 	the District. 	The 	complaint 	alleged that 	the District
had violated section 3543.5(a), 	(b) 	and 	(c) 	of the Educational
Employment Relations Act.1 In summary, 	the 23-paragraph
1 Unless otherwise 	indicated, 	all 	statutory references 	are 	to
the Government 	Code. 	The EERA is 	found at 	Government 	Code
section 3540 	et 	seq. 	In relevant part, 	section 3543.5 provides
as 	follows:
It 	shall 	be unlawful 	for a public 	school
employer 	to do any of 	the 	following:
22

complaint 	alleged 	that 	the 	District:
(a) 	Impose or 	threaten to 	impose 	reprisals
on employees, 	to discriminate 	or threaten to
discriminate against 	employees, 	or otherwise
to interfere with, 	restrain, 	or coerce
employees 	because 	of 	their exercise 	of 	rights
guaranteed by 	this 	chapter. 	For purposes 	of
this 	subdivision, 	"employee" 	includes an
applicant 	for 	employment 	or 	reemployment.
(b) 	Deny to employee 	organizations 	rights
guaranteed 	to 	them by 	this 	chapter.
(c) 	Refuse or 	fail 	to meet 	and negotiate 	in
good 	faith with 	an 	exclusive 	representative.
1) 	Had 	failed and 	refused 	to 	respond 	to 	six 	specific 	items
of 	information 	requested by 	the 	Union 	as 	relevant 	and 	necessary
for 	bargaining;
2) 	On or about October 2, 	1992, 	had cut 	salaries by 	12
percent, 	increased co-payments 	and deductibles 	in medical 	plans,
and 	eliminated 	a 	Blue 	Shield 	indemnity medical 	plan;
3) 	On or about October 15, 	1992, 	had eliminated the
"coordination 	of 	benefits" 	provision 	from the District 	health
plan.
On December 	15, 	1992, 	the Union 	filed a 	third amended charge
which 	alleged new 	information 	in 	support 	of 	its 	earlier
contention 	that 	the 	District 	had 	engaged 	in 	surface 	bargaining.
This 	amended 	charge 	also 	alleged 	that 	the 	District 	had 	entered
into 	"me 	too" 	and 	so 	called 	"equitable 	treatment 	clauses" 	with
six 	other bargaining units 	which 	had 	the 	effect 	of 	restricting
the 	District's 	ability 	to 	reach agreements 	with 	the Union.
W
(
3

On December 22, 	1992, 	the general 	counsel 	of the PERB issued
a 	first 	amended complaint. 	To the prior complaint, 	this
amendment 	added an allegation 	that 	the 	District 	had 	entered 	"me
too" 	agreements with exclusive 	representatives 	in six other
bargaining units. 	These agreements, 	the complaint alleged, 	had
hindered negotiations between 	the Union and the District.
Meanwhile, 	the District 	filed a 	countering unfair practice
charge 	against 	the Union alleging 	failure 	to negotiate 	in good
faith and surface bargaining.2 On December 18, 	1992, 	the general
counsel 	issued a 	complaint 	against 	the 	Union alleging a violation
of section 3543.6 (c).3
The 	countering 	complaints 	were 	consolidated 	for a 	hearing,
which commenced on January 19, 	1993, 	in Los Angeles.4 There
2This was unfair practice 	charge LA-CO-604.
3EERA section 3543.6 	in relevant part provides as 	follows:
It 	shall 	be unlawful 	for an employee
organization to:
(c) 	Refuse or fail 	to meet and negotiate 	in
good 	faith with a public 	school 	employer of
any of 	the employees 	of which it 	is 	the
exclusive 	representative.
4On the 	first day of hearing, 	the 	complaint against 	the
District 	was 	amended to add an allegation 	that 	the District's
actions 	also violated section 3543.5(e). 	That 	section provides
It 	shall 	be unlawful 	for a public 	school
employer 	to do any of 	the 	following:
(e) 	Refuse to participate 	in good faith in
the 	impasse procedure 	set 	forth 	in Article 	9
(
4

followed nine non-consecutive 	days 	of 	hearing. 	The Union called
two witnesses 	who 	testified 	over 	the 	two and a half 	days 	during
which the Union presented 	its 	case 	in 	chief.5 The 	hearing was
recessed 	in March while 	the 	parties 	pursued 	further 	settlement
negotiations. 	By the time 	the hearing was 	suspended, 	the Union
had 	introduced 40 	exhibits. 	The 	settlement negotiations
ultimately were 	successful 	and an agreement 	was 	reached between
the parties.
(commencing with Section 3548).
On August 	30, 	1993, 	the Union filed with the PERB a document
entitled 	"Request 	for Dismissal 	of 	Portions 	of 	Complaint 	and
Unfair Practice 	Charges; 	Request 	for Further Proceedings." 	That
document 	in 	its 	entirety reads 	as 	follows:
Charging 	Party, 	United Teachers--Los
Angeles 	hereby requests 	dismissal 	of 	the
Complaint, 	as amended, 	and underlying unfair
practices 	in this proceeding, 	except as 	set
forth below:
Paragraph 14 	of 	the Amended
Complaint 	in this matter provides 	in
part, as follows:
On or about October 2, 	1992,
Respondent 	changed policy 	by
deciding 	to 	do 	the 	following:
a. 	Cut 	salaries by twelve
percent;
Charging 	Party wishes 	to proceed 	solely
with 	this 	portion of 	the Amended Complaint
insofar as 	it 	relates 	to the District's
unilateral 	implementation of 	a 	12 	percent
reduction 	in the 	salary differential 	paid to
3The Union rested its 	case on January 21, 	1993. 	(Reporter's
Transcript, Vol. III, p. 	99.)
5
(
5

UTLA represented 	employees 	in 	the District's
bilingual 	education program.
Charging 	Party 	respectfully 	requests
that 	this portion of 	the Complaint be 	set 	for
further proceedings 	at 	the Board's 	earliest
convenience.
On August 	30, 	the undersigned sent 	to the parties a proposed
amendment 	to 	the 	complaint 	to 	reflect 	the Union's partial
withdrawal 	and revised allegation. 	However, 	the District 	on
September 1, 	filed objections 	to the Union's proposed
amendment. 	The District 	challenged the Union's 	assertion that
the 	reduction 	in 	the differential 	paid 	to bilingual 	teachers 	was
ever a part 	of 	the unfair practice case. 	"At no 	time," 	the
District asserted, 	"was 	this 	issue the 	subject 	of an unfair
practice 	charge 	filed by UTLA, 	investigated by the Board, 	or part
of 	any Complaint 	filed by the Board." 	Rather, 	the District
asserted, 	the Union was 	simply attempting 	to 	file a new unfair
practice 	charge. 	Separately, 	the District withdrew its unfair
practice 	charge 	against 	the Union and asked 	that 	it 	be 	dismissed.
On September 	15, 	the District 	filed an objection to 	the
proposed 	second amended 	complaint. 	The 	District 	restated 	its
contention that 	the 	reduction of 	the 	differential 	paid 	to
bilingual 	teachers 	was 	never a part 	of 	any earlier 	charge 	filed
by the Union. 	The District asserted, 	further, 	that 	the
allegations 	stated by 	the 	Union were 	time-barred 	since 	they were
not 	raised 	in the 	earlier charge, 	complaint 	or at any time 	during
the nine days 	of hearing. 	The District wrote:
In fact, 	despite having ample opportunity to
raise 	this 	issue both prior 	to and at 	the
6
(

hearing 	. 	. 	. 	, UTLA presented no evidence,
testamentary or documentary, 	concerning
reductions 	by 	the District 	in 	the bilingual
pay differential 	to 	teachers 	for 	1992-93.
Clearly, 	UTLA never considered this 	issue
part of 	its 	charge. 	Similarly, 	the Board
never 	considered 	this 	issue part 	of 	its
Complaints. 	The Board never 	inquired 	into
the 	District's 	negotiations 	with 	respect 	to
bilingual 	teaching differentials 	or
investigated UTLA's 	instant 	allegation.
Further, 	neither of 	the Board's 	complaints 	in
this 	action ever mentioned 	the 	negotiations
regarding bilingual 	teaching 	differentials.
Under section 3541.5(a)(1), 	the PERB 	is precluded from
issuing 	"a 	complaint 	in 	respect 	of 	any 	charge based upon an
alleged unfair practice 	occurring more 	than 	six months 	prior 	to
the 	filing of 	the 	charge." 	However, 	an exception 	"may be made
where an amended charge 	is 	found to 	'relate back' 	to 	the 	original
charge." 	(See Temple City Unified School District 	(1989) 	PERB
Order No. 	Ad-190 	and cases 	cited therein.)
The 	relation back 	exception allows 	the 	charging party 	to
amend a 	charge, 	after the period of 	limitations, 	to add a new
legal 	theory to,, challenge the events already alleged. 	(Gonzales
Union High School District 	(1984) 	PERB Decision No. 	410.) 	But
this 	exception will 	not 	allow an amendment 	that 	relies 	on 	factual
allegations 	not 	set 	out 	in the 	original 	charge. 	(Burbank Unified
School District 	(1986) 	PERB Decision No. 	589.)
The 	Union's 	request 	to proceed with 	the hearing 	on a
12-percent 	cut 	in 	salary differential 	for bilingual 	teachers 	is
in substance, 	although not in form, 	an amendment. 	There is no
mention 	in any of 	the Union's 	earlier charges 	of 	a 	cut 	in 	the
differential 	paid 	to unit members 	in 	the bilingual 	education
7
(

program. 	Nor 	is 	there a mention of 	a 	reduction 	in the
differential 	in 	the original 	or first 	amended complaint. 	The
amendment 	is 	thus 	timely only 	if 	the 	reduction 	in salary
differentials 	can be 	considered 	to have 	been 	included within 	the
allegation of 	a 	12 	percent 	salary reduction.
While 	a 	salary and a differential 	are both 	forms 	of
compensation, 	the 	term 	"differential" 	is 	not ordinarily included
within 	the 	term 	"salary." 	A differential 	is 	a 	form of
compensation 	earned 	in addition 	to and 	apart 	from an 	employee's
salary. 	Differentials 	typically are provided 	to 	employees who
perform some 	extra 	duty or have 	some 	special 	skill 	in addition 	to
what 	is 	required 	for the base 	salary. 	Differentials 	typically
are 	negotiated 	separately 	from the base 	salary and do not
necessarily have 	a 	fixed 	relationship with 	the 	base 	salary.
Indeed, 	the bilingual differential at 	issue here 	is not 	even
contained 	in 	the 	salary section of 	the 	1988-91 	agreement 	between
the parties.6 Thus, 	the Union's allegation that 	salaries were
reduced by 	12 	percent 	does 	not 	include 	within 	it 	an allegation
that 	differentials 	were 	reduced by 12 	percent.
The Union, 	in a response 	to the District's position here,
argues 	that 	the District's 	final 	1992-93 	offer by 	its 	own terms
included 	cuts 	in the 	salary differential.7 It was 	this 	offer
6The bilingual 	education differentials 	are 	described 	in
Article XI-B, 	section 3.0, 	of 	the agreement between the parties.
The 	salary provisions are 	set 	out in section XIV. 	(See District
Exhibit no. 	33.)
7Union Exhibit no. 	17.
8
(
8

that 	was 	unilaterally 	implemented by 	the 	District 	on October 	2,
1992. 	The Union contends 	that 	in its unfair practice charges 	it
challenged 	the 	unilateral 	implementation 	of 	the 	salary 	reduction,
in all 	its parts, 	including the 	cut 	in the bilingual
differential. 	There is no basis, 	the Union contends, 	for an
assertion 	that 	the 	reduction of 	the 	salary differentials 	was 	a
separate 	transaction 	or 	occurrence 	which was 	treated 	separately.
The Union 	contends 	that 	had 	it prevailed 	on the 	original
complaint 	any 	remedy 	necessarily would 	have 	included 	restoration
of 	the 	reduction 	in salary differentials.
While 	it 	is 	clear that 	the District 	did reduce 	salary
differentials in its October 2, 	1992, 	resolution, 	this reduction
is 	nowhere mentioned 	in any of 	the various 	unfair practice
charges 	filed by the Union. 	Nor did 	the Union present 	any
evidence about 	the 	reduction of 	differentials 	in 	its 	case 	in
chief 	during 	the nine days 	of 	hearing 	that 	already have been
completed. 	If, 	as the Union maintains, 	reduction of the
bilingual 	differentials 	was 	necessarily 	included within 	its
charges 	one 	would expect 	that 	the Union would have 	introduced
evidence about 	the 	issue during the portion of 	the hearing
already 	completed.
Yet, 	in its 	response here, 	the Union asserted that 	the PERB
should,
. 	. 	. 	reopen the proceedings and commence a
full-blown, 	essentially separate, 	hearing on
the 	narrow 	issue 	set 	forth 	in 	the proposed
amended 	complaint, 	with the UTLA putting on
its 	case-in-chief at 	the 	outset.
9
(
9

The very 	fact 	that 	the 	Union would request 	that 	it be 	allowed 	to
reopen 	its 	case 	in 	chief 	and present 	evidence 	about 	the bilingual
differentials 	amounts 	to a concession that 	the 	issue 	is new. 	If
the 	question had been part 	of 	the 	original 	charge 	and 	complaint,
the 	Union already would have 	presented 	all 	necessary 	evidence 	on
the 	question. 	It would be unnecessary 	to 	"commence a 	full-blown,
essentially separate hearing" 	on the 	issue 	of 	reduction of
bilingual 	education 	differentials.
Nor 	is 	the Union correct 	in its 	assertion that had 	it
prevailed on the 	original 	charge, 	the 	remedy necessarily would
have 	included 	restoration of 	the differentials. 	In the 	absence
of 	an allegation about 	the bilingual 	differentials 	in the 	charge
or 	complaint 	and 	in 	the 	absence 	of 	evidence 	about 	them in 	the
record, 	there would have been no basis 	for a remedy to 	even
consider 	the 	subject.
Accordingly, 	I 	conclude 	that 	the proposed amendment 	of 	the
charge 	and 	complaint 	and the Union's 	request 	to 	contest 	the
reduction 	of 	bilingual 	teaching differentials must be 	denied as
untimely. 	All 	other matters 	having been withdrawn by the Union,
no 	further proceedings 	are 	necessary because 	there 	remains 	no
issue 	to litigate. 	Therefore, 	the 	remaining portion of unfair
practice charge LA-CE-3227, 	United Teachers 	- - 	Los Angeles v. 	Los
Angeles Unified School District, 	and its 	accompanying complaint
are 	hereby DISMISSED.
10
(

Right 	to Appeal
Pursuant 	to 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	regulations,
the 	Charging 	Party may obtain a 	review of 	this 	refusal 	to amend
complaint 	and dismissal 	of 	the 	charge 	and 	complaint by 	filing an
appeal 	to 	the 	Board 	itself within twenty 	(20) 	calendar days 	after
service of this dismissal. 	(Cal. 	Code of Regs., 	tit. 	8,
sec. 	32635(a).) 	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 p.m.) 	or sent by telegraph,
certified 	or 	Express 	United 	States mail 	postmarked no 	later 	than
the last date set for filing. 	(Cal. 	Code of Regs., 	tit. 	8,
sec. 	32135.) 	Code of Civil Procedure section 1013 	shall apply.
The Board's address 	is:
Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board
1031 	18th Street
Sacramento, 	CA 95814
If 	the 	Charging Party files a 	timely appeal 	of 	the 	refusal
to 	amend 	the 	complaint 	and dismissal, 	any 	other party may 	file
with 	the 	Board an 	original 	and five 	copies 	of 	a 	statement 	in
opposition within twenty 	(20) 	calendar days 	following the date 	of
service of the appeal. 	(Cal. 	Code of Regs., 	tit. 	8,
sec. 	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 each 	copy of 	a document 	served upon a
party or filed with the Board itself. 	(See Cal. 	Code of Regs.,
11
(

tit. 	8, 	sec. 	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
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. 	(Cal. 	Code of Regs., 	tit. 	8, 	sec. 	32132.)
Final 	Date
If 	no appeal 	is 	filed within the 	specified time limits, 	the
dismissal 	will 	become 	final 	when the 	time 	limits 	have 	expired.
RONALD E. 	BLUBAUGH
Administrative 	Law Judge
October 5, 	1993
12
(