Trustees of the California State University (PERB 1451H)

2 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

ACADEMIC PROFESSIONALS OF
CALIFORNIA,

Charging Party, Case No. LA-CE-579-H

Vv. PERB Decision No. 1451-H

TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE June 25, 2001

UNIVERSITY,

Respondent.

Appearances: Rothner, Segall, & Greenstone by Ricardo Ochoa, Attorney, for Academic
Professionals of California; James R. Lynch, University Counsel, for Trustees of the California
State University.
Before Amador, Baker and Whitehead, Members.
DECISION
BAKER, Member: This case comes before the Public Employment Relations Board
(Board) on exceptions filed by the Trustees of the California State University (CSU) to an

administrative law judge's (ALJ) proposed decision (attached) finding a violation of section

3571(a), (b) and (c) of the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA).'

' HEERA is codified at Government Code section 3560 et seq. Unless otherwise
indicated, all statutory references herein are to the Government Code. Section 3571 states:

It shall be unlawful for the higher education employer to do any
of the following:

(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

1

After reviewing the entire record, including the stipulations of the parties, the ALJ's
proposed decision, CSU's statement of exceptions and the response of the Academic
Professionals of California, the Board hereby affirms the ALI's proposed decision in its
entirety and adopts it as the decision of the Board itself.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is found that the Trustees of the California State University
(CSU) violated the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA),
Government Code section 3571(a), (b) and (c) by unilaterally changing its policy on name tags.
Pursuant to HEERA section 3563.3, it is hereby ORDERED that CSU, its governing board and
its representatives shall:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
1 . 	Unilaterally changing its policy on name tags.
2. 	Interfering with the right of employees to be represented by the
Academic Professionals of California (APC).
3. 	Denying APC, its right to represent employees.
B. 	TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE HEERA:
1 . 	If requested by APC, within 10 days of this decision, meet and negotiate
in good faith with APC concerning the name tag policy.
2. If requested by APC, rescind the current name tag policy.
purposes of this subdivision, "employee" includes an applicant
for employment or reemployment.
(b) Deny to employee organizations rights guaranteed to them by
this chapter.
2

3. 	Make whole any unit members adversely affected by the current name
tag policy, with interest at the rate of 7 percent per annum on any back pay.
4. 	Within ten (10) workdays following the date this decision is no longer
subject to appeal, post at all locations where notices are customarily posted, copies of the
Notice attached hereto as an Appendix. The Notice must be signed by an authorized agent of
CSU, indicating that CSU will comply with the terms of this Order. Such posting shall be
maintained for a period of thirty (30) consecutive workdays. Reasonable steps shall be taken
to ensure that the Notice is not reduced in size, altered, defaced or covered with any other
material.
5. 	Written notification of the actions taken to comply with this Order shall
be made to the Sacramento Regional Director of the Public Employment Relations Board in
accordance with the director's instructions. Continue to report, in writing, to the regional
director thereafter as directed. All reports to the regional director shall be concurrently served
on the APC.
Members Amador and Whitehead joined in this Decision.
c) Refuse or fail to engage in meeting and conferring with an
exclusive representative.
3

APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
An agency of the State of California
After a hearing in Unfair Practice Case No. LA-CE-579-H, Academic Professionals of
California v. Trustees of the California State University, in which all parties had the right to
participate, it has been found that the Trustees of the California State University violated the
Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA), Government Code section
3571(a), (b) and (c), by unilaterally changing its policy on name tags.
As a result of this conduct, we have been ordered to post this notice and we will:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
1 . 	Unilaterally changing our policy on name tags.
2. 	Interfering with the right of employees to be represented by the
Academic Professionals of California (APC).
3. 	Denying APC its right to represent employees.
B. 	TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE HEERA:
1 . 	If requested by APC, within 10 days of this decision, meet and negotiate
in good faith with APC concerning the name tag policy.
2. 	If requested by APC, rescind the current name tag policy.
3. 	Make whole any unit members adversely affected by the current name
tag policy, with interest at the rate of 7 percent per annum on any back pay.
Dated: 	TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
UNIVERSITY
By:
Authorized Agent
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE. IT MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR AT LEAST THIRTY
(30) CONSECUTIVE WORKDAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE
REDUCED IN SIZE, DEFACED, ALTERED OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER
MATERIAL.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
ACADEMIC PROFESSIONALS OF
CALIFORNIA,
Charging Party,
v .
TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
UNIVERSITY,
Respondent.
UNFAIR PRACTICE
CASE NO. LA-CE-579-H
PROPOSED DECISION
(3/16/2001)
Appearances: Edward R. Purcell, Consultant, for Academic Professionals of California; James
R. Lynch, University Counsel, for Trustees of the California State University.
Before Thomas J. Allen, Administrative Law Judge.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In this case, a union alleges that a higher education employer made an unlawful
unilateral change in policy concerning name tags. The employer denies any unlawful conduct.
On April 19, 2000, the Academic Professionals of California (APC or Union) filed an
unfair practice charge against the Trustees of the California State University (CSU or
University). On August 9, 2000, the Office of the General Counsel of the Public Employment
Relations Board (PERB) issued a complaint against CSU, which filed an answer on
September 5, 2000.
On September 29, 2000, PERB held an informal settlement conference with the parties.
The case was not settled, but the parties agreed to the use of a stipulation in lieu of a formal
hearing. With the receipt of the final post-stipulation brief on March 5, 2001, the case was
submitted for decision.

FINDINGS OF FACT
CSU is a higher education employer under the Higher Education Employer-Employee
Relations Act." APC is an employee organization under HEERA and is the exclusive
representative of employees in CSU's Unit 4. There has been a collective bargaining
agreement in effect between the parties at all relevant times.
Because the parties' stipulation is relatively brief, I shall quote it in full. It begins:
The parties hereby stipulate that the following definitions and
statements of fact are relevant and true, for the purpose of this
proceeding. In entering this stipulation, the parties do not waive
their respective rights to make any other legal arguments about
these definitions and facts. In writing their "post-hearing" briefs,
either party may refer to and attach copies of the applicable
collective bargaining agreement in effect on December 7, 1999.
Definitions:
"Bargaining Unit" - Unit 4 in the California State University
system, whose exclusive representative is the Academic
Professionals of California.
"Name tag" - a tag, card, or other insignia that displays the name
of the wearer and the division/department in which he/she works.
"Directive" - a memo dated December 7, 1999, issued by Vincent
Lopez, requiring employees within the Division of Student
Affairs under the supervision of Karl Beeler, Assistant Vice
President for Student Affairs, to wear name tags at all times while
on duty. A true and correct copy of the directive is attached
hereto.
The attached directive states in relevant part:
Nametags: In the interest of good customer service, Dr. Beeler
has directed all units under his supervision to wear nametags
Nametags were provided to each full-time staff member. The
nametags provided need to be worn while representing the
university both on and off campus. Please discard any previous
nametags you have.
HEERA is codified at Government Code section 3560 and following.
2

The stipulation continues:
Statements of Fact:
1. All name tags are paid for by the University and provided free
to bargaining unit employees.
2. Until December 7, 1999, no written University policy or
directive compelled employees in the bargaining unit to wear
name tags. It is possible that bargaining unit employees wore
name tags on a voluntary or intermittent basis, or pursuant to non-
written directives prior to December 7, 1999.
3. The policy reflected in the directive is not applied systemwide.
4. The University has not offered to meet and confer regarding
the directive, either before or after its issuance.
5. The University employs some bargaining unit employees in
divisions other than Student Affairs.
6. The bargaining unit's collective bargaining agreement in effect
at the time of the issuance of the directive does not specifically
address or refer to the wearing of name tags. The collective
bargaining agreement contains a "zipper clause," a copy of which
is attached hereto.
The attached "zipper clause" (Article 3 of the collective bargaining agreement) states in
relevant part:
3.1 This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement of the
Trustees [CSU] and the Union, arrived at as a result of
meeting and conferring. The terms and conditions may be
altered, changed, added to, deleted from, or modified only
through the voluntary and mutual consent of the parties in
an expressed written amendment to the Agreement. This
Agreement supersedes all previous Agreements,
understandings, policies, and prior practices related to
matters included within this Agreement.
3.2 The parties acknowledge that, during the negotiations which
resulted in this Agreement, each had the unlimited right and
opportunity to offer proposals with respect to any subject or
matter not removed by law from the area of collective
bargaining, and that the understandings and agreements
arrived at by the parties after the exercise of that right and

opportunity are set forth in this Agreement. Except as
provided for in this Agreement, the Employer and the
Union, for the life of this Agreement, voluntarily and
unqualifiedly waive the right, and each agrees that the other
shall not be obligated, to bargain collectively with respect to
any subject or matter referred to or covered by this
Agreement, or with respect to any subject or matter not
specifically referred to or covered in this Agreement, even
though such subjects or matters may not have been within
the knowledge of or contemplation of either or both of the
parties at the time that they negotiated or signed this
Agreement.
The stipulation concludes:
7. The directive does not specify penalties or a process for
reviewing violations thereof. The University does treat violation
of the directive as an offense for which, depending on the
circumstances, an employee may be reprimanded or disciplined
(suspended, demoted, or dismissed).
8. Since December 7, 1999, the University has suspended one
employee for various charges that included one violation of the
directive. An appeal of the suspension has been heard and is
pending before the State Personnel Board.
9. When employees in the Department of Outreach and
Recruitment (which is within the Student Affairs division) were
told of the name tag policy, one employee expressed safety
concerns related to a previous incident on campus of an employee
being stalked.
10. The work performed by bargaining unit members in the
Department of Outreach and Recruitment involves substantial
off-campus travel and appearances
This proposed decision is based exclusively on the stipulation and its attachments.
ISSUE
Did CSU make an unlawful unilateral change in policy concerning name tags?
Because it is not within the stipulation, I have not read and shall not consider the State
Personnel Board decision that CSU attached to its brief.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The PERB complaint alleges that CSU violated HEERA section 3571(c) by unilaterally
requiring some Unit 4 employees to wear name tags. In determining whether a party has
violated HEERA section 3571(c), PERB utilizes either the "per se" or "totality of the conduct"
test, depending on the specific conduct involved and the effect of the conduct on the
negotiating process. (Stockton Unified School District (1980) PERB Decision No. 143.)
Unilateral changes are considered "per se" violations if certain criteria are met. Those criteria
are: (1) the employer implemented a change in policy concerning a matter within the scope of
representation, and (2) the change was implemented before the employer notified the exclusive
representative and gave it an opportunity to request negotiations. (Walnut Valley Unified
School District (1981) PERB Decision No. 160; Grant Joint Union High School District (1982)
PERB Decision No. 196.)
In the present case, the crucial question is whether CSU's policy on name tags concerns
a matter within the scope of representation. HEERA section 3562(r) defines the relevant scope
of representation as follows:
(1) For purposes of the California State University only, "scope
of representation" means, and is limited to, wages, hours of
employment, and other terms and conditions of employment. The
scope of representation shall not include:
(A) Consideration of the merits, necessity, or organization of any
service, activity, or program established by statute or regulations
adopted by the trustees, except for the terms and conditions of
employment of employees who may be affected thereby.
(B) The amount of any student fees which are not a term or
condition of employment.
(C) Admission requirements for students, conditions for the
award of certificates and degrees to students, and the content and
conduct of courses, curricula, and research programs.
5

(D) Criteria and standards to be used for the appointment,
promotion, evaluation, and tenure of academic employees, which
shall be the joint responsibility of the academic senate and the
trustees. The exclusive representative shall have the right to
consult and be consulted on matters excluded from the scope of
representation pursuant to this subparagraph. If the trustees
withdraw any matter in this subparagraph from the responsibility
of the academic senate, the matter shall be within the scope of
representation.
(E) The amount of rental rates for housing charged to California
State University employees.
(2) All matters not within the scope of representation are
reserved to the employer and may not be subject to meeting and
conferring, provided that nothing herein may be construed to
limit the right of the employer to consult with any employees or
employee organization on any matter outside the scope of
representation.
PERB has not yet provided general guidance on how to interpret and apply this section of
HEERA.
In the present case, it appears that CSU's name tag policy does not concern "wages" or
"hours of employment." The name tags are paid for by CSU and provided free to the
employees, and wearing the name tags has no apparent effect on the employees' work hours.
The question, therefore, is whether the name tag policy concerns "other terms and conditions
of employment" within the meaning of HEERA section 3562(r).
In its brief, CSU argues that PERB should interpret the phrase "terms and conditions of
employment" in HEERA the same way PERB interprets that phrase in the Educational
Employment Relations Act (EERA)." APC, however, argues that PERB should interpret the
phrase the way PERB interprets it in the Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills Act).* On this point, APC
has the better argument. EERA section 3543.2 differs from HEERA section 3562(r) in that the
EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 and following.
*The Dills Act is codified at Government Code section 3512 and following.

EERA section enumerates specific terms and conditions of employment. Dills Act section
3516 is more similar to HEERA section 3562(r) in that it contains no such enumeration. It
thus appears the Dills Act precedents are more directly applicable to HEERA cases.
PERB interpreted Dills Act section 3516 for the first time in State of California
(Department of Transportation) (1983) PERB Decision No. 333-S. In that case, PERB stated
in part:
In interpreting language of [the Dills Act], cognizance should be
taken of the decisions of the National Labor Relations Board
(NLRB) interpreting identical or similar language in the NLRA
[National Labor Relations Act]. Fire Fighters v. City of Vallejo
(1974) 12 Cal.3d 608. In light of the virtually identical scope
language of [the Dills Act] and the NLRA, PERB finds private
sector precedent regarding scope to be applicable to [Dills Act]
cases.
For the same reason, private sector precedents regarding the scope of representation should
also be applicable to HEERA cases.
Unfortunately, neither the parties nor I have found any private sector precedents
specifically concerning name tags. CSU's name tag policy does, however, appear to fall into a
category of policies that in the private sector would be called "plant rules." The NLRB has
long held plant rules to be within the scope of representation. In Miller Brewing Co. (1967)
166 NLRB 831 [65 LRRM 1649], enforced (9" Cir. 1969) 408 F.2d 12 [70 LRRM 2907], the
NLRB declared in part:
There can be no doubt . . . that the contents of plant rules are
mandatory subjects of bargaining
Similarly, in Vernon Fire Fighters v. City of Vernon (1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 802, 815 [165
Cal.Rptr. 908], the court noted in part:
In the private sector it has been found that disciplinary and plant
rules are examples of "terms and conditions of employment," . . .
7

The NLRB has treated dress codes, among other policies, as plant rules within the scope of
representation. (Transportation Enterprises, Inc. (1979) 240 NLRB 551 [100 LRRM 1330],
modified in other respects (5" Cir. 1980) 630 F.2d 421 [105 LRRM 3168]; Concord Docu-
Prep, Inc. (1973) 207 NLRB 981 [85 LRRM 1416].)
PERB again interpreted Dills Act section 3516 in State of California (Department of
Transportation) (1983) PERB Decision No. 361-S. PERB set out to "fashion and state a test to
guide the parties in determining whether given subjects are within scope." PERB stated in
part:
Initially we note that it is unnecessary to apply a test to certain
matters which clearly fall within the category of wages or hours,
for such subjects are expressly enumerated as within scope by the
statute. With respect to other subjects arguably within the less
precise category ". . . terms and conditions of employment . . ..",
PERB will find such matters within scope if they involve the
employment relationship and are of such concern to both
management and employees that conflict is likely to occur, and if
the mediatory influence of collective negotiations is an
appropriate means of resolving the conflict.
Such subjects will be found mandatorily negotiable under [the
Dills Act] unless imposing such an obligation would unduly
abridge the . . . employer's freedom to exercise those managerial
prerogatives (including matters of fundamental policy) essential
to the achievement of the [employer's] mission.
Thus, under the Dills Act, a subject is within the scope of representation as concerning "terms
and conditions of employment" if (1) it involves the employment relationship, (2) it is of such
concern to both management and labor that conflict is likely to occur and the mediatory
influence of collective negotiations is an appropriate means of resolving the conflict, and (3)
the employer's obligation to negotiate would not unduly abridge its freedom to exercise those
managerial prerogatives (including matters of fundamental policy) essential to the achievement

of the employer's mission." Presumably the same test should be used under HEERA, which
has language similar to Dills Act section 3516.
Applying this test to the present case I conclude, first, that CSU's name tag policy
"involves the employment relationship." As the parties stipulated, the policy requires
employees to wear name tags "at all times while on duty." Furthermore, as also stipulated,
CSU treats violations of the policy as offenses for which employees may be "reprimanded or
disciplined (suspended, demoted, or dismissed)." Also, while CSU employees may be CSU
students or tenants of CSU housing, the name tag policy applies to them only as employees,
not as students or tenants."
Second, I conclude that CSU's name tag policy is of sufficient concern as to give rise to
conflicts that collective negotiations may appropriately resolve. The fact is that some people
hate to wear name tags. To accommodate such people, APC and CSU could conceivably
negotiate exceptions or alternatives to CSU's policy. For example, the parties might negotiate
exceptions for employees working away from public view (on computers or telephones, for
example). For another example, the parties might negotiate alternative ways for employees to
identify themselves, such as the use of nameplates or business cards.
Some people are concerned that name tags may compromise their personal security.
Unfortunately, one cannot dismiss the possibility that a disgruntled or unstable student might
use the information on an employee's name tag to harass the employee at home. To
accommodate such concerns, some employers have allowed employees to choose what goes on
This test is parallel to but somewhat different from the test for subjects not
specifically enumerated under EERA. (See Anaheim Union High School District (1981)
PERB Decision No. 177.)
HEERA section 3562(r)(1) specifically excludes from the scope of representation both
student fees and rental rates for housing.
9

their name tags, so employees can identify themselves without necessarily giving out their full
names (or even their real names). This is another example of an issue that the parties might
negotiate.
The final question is whether obliging CSU to negotiate its name tag policy would
unduly abridge CSU's freedom to exercise managerial prerogatives essential to CSU's mission.
In its brief, CSU argues that "the decision to identify Student Affairs employees to customers
is a management prerogative." I do not disagree. CSU should be free to decide that its
Division of Student Affairs will not be a nameless bureaucracy where follow-up and
accountability are unnecessarily difficult. As I have already indicated, however, a blanket
requirement that all employees wear name tags is not necessarily the only way or the best way
to implement such a decision. For some employees, nameplates or business cards may serve
the employer's purpose as well as name tags do, while for other employees (working on
computers or telephones) name tags may not serve that purpose at all. I conclude that obliging
CSU to negotiate its name tag policy would not unduly abridge CSU's freedom to exercise
managerial prerogatives.
For all the foregoing reasons, I conclude that CSU's name tag policy does concern
"terms or conditions of employment" within the meaning of HEERA section 3562(r). Given
that conclusion, the parties' stipulation meets all the criteria for a violation of HEERA section
3571(c), in that (1) CSU implemented a change in policy concerning a matter within the scope
of representation, and (2) the change was implemented before CSU notified APC and gave it
an opportunity to request negotiations. Because CSU's conduct interfered with the right of
By giving examples of issues the parties might negotiate, I do not imply that the
parties should necessarily agree on those issues, or that there are no other issues the parties
might negotiate.
10

employees to be represented on an issue within scope, and denied APC its right to represent
employees on that issue, CSU's conduct also violated HEERA section 3571(a) and (b).
REMEDY
HEERA section 3563.3 gives PERB:
. . the power to issue a decision and order directing an offending
party to cease and desist from the unfair practice and to take such
affirmative action, including but not limited to the reinstatement
of employees with or without back pay, as will effectuate the
policies of this chapter [HEERA].
In the present case, CSU has been found to have violated HEERA section 3571(a), (b) and (c)
by unilaterally changing policy on name tags. It is therefore appropriate to direct CSU to cease
and desist from such conduct. It is also appropriate to direct CSU to take the affirmative action
of meeting and conferring in good faith with APC concerning name tag policy, if APC so
requests within 10 days of this proposed decision becoming final.
In California State Employees' Association v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (1996)
51 Cal.App.4 923, 946 [59 Cal.Rptr.2d 488], the court stated in part:
Restoration of the status quo is the normal remedy for a unilateral
change in working conditions or terms of employment without
permitting bargaining members' exclusive representative an
opportunity to meet and confer over the decision and its effects.
(See, e.g., Oakland Unified School Dist. v. Public Employment
Relations Bd. (1981) 120 Cal.App.3d 1007, 1014-1015 [175
Cal.Rptr. 105].) This is usually accomplished by requiring the
employer to rescind the unilateral change and to make employees
"whole" from losses suffered as a result of the unlawful unilateral
change.
It is therefore appropriate to direct CSU to rescind its name tag policy, if APC so requests. It
is also appropriate to direct CSU to make whole any employees adversely affected by the name
tag policy. To the extent any employees have lost pay due to the name tag policy, they shall
11

receive back pay with interest at the rate of 7 percent per annum. (See Regents of the
University of California (1997) PERB Decision No. 1188-H.)
It is also appropriate to direct CSU to post a notice incorporating the terms of the order
in this case. Posting of such a notice, signed by an authorized agent of CSU, will provide
employees with notice CSU has acted in an unlawful manner, is being required to cease and
desist from this activity and take affirmative remedial actions, and will comply with the order.
It effectuates the purposes of HEERA that employees be informed both of the resolution of this
controversy and of CSU's readiness to comply with the ordered remedy. (Placerville Union
School District (1978) PERB Decision No. 69.)
PROPOSED ORDER
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire
record in this matter, it is found the Trustees of the California State University (CSU) violated
the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA or Act), Government Code
section 3571(a), (b) and (c), by unilaterally changing policy on name tags.
Pursuant to HEERA section 3563.3, it is hereby ORDERED that CSU, its governing
board and its representatives shall:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
1 . 	Unilaterally changing policy on name tags.
2. 	Interfering with the right of employees to be represented by the
Academic Professionals of California (APC).
"It is not clear whether there are any such employees. The parties' stipulation states
only that one employee was suspended "for various charges that included one violation of the
[name tag] directive." From the stipulation, I cannot determine whether the employee was
actually suspended because of the name tag policy, that is, whether the employee would not
have been suspended (or suspended for as long) but for the name tag policy.
12

3. 	Denying APC its right to represent employees.
B. 	TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE ACT:
1 . 	If requested by APC within 10 days of this proposed decision becoming
final, meet and negotiate in good faith with APC concerning name tag policy.
2. 	If requested by APC, rescind the current name tag policy.
3 . 	Make whole any unit members adversely affected by the current name
tag policy, with interest at the rate of 7 percent per annum on any back pay.
4. 	Within ten (10) workdays of the service of a final decision in this matter,
post at all work locations where notices to unit employees customarily are posted, copies of the
Notice attached hereto as an Appendix. The Notice must be signed by an authorized agent of
CSU, indicating CSU will comply with the terms of this Order. Such posting shall be
maintained for a period of thirty (30) consecutive workdays. Reasonable steps shall be taken
to ensure the Notice is not reduced in size, altered, defaced or covered with any other material.
5 . 	Upon issuance of a final decision, make written notification of the
actions taken to comply with the Order to the San Francisco Regional Director of the Public
Employment Relations Board Board (PERB or Board), in accord with regional director's
instructions.
Pursuant to California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 32305, this Proposed
Decision and Order shall become final unless a party files a statement of exceptions with the
Board itself within 20 days of service of this Decision. The Board's address is:
Public Employment Relations Board
Attention: Appeals Assistant
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
FAX: (916) 327-7960
13

In accordance with PERB regulations, the statement of exceptions should identify by
page citation or exhibit number the portions of the record, if any, relied upon for such
exceptions. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, sec. 32300.)
A document is considered "filed" when actually received before the close of business
(5 p.m.) on the last day set for filing or when mailed by certified or Express United States mail,
as shown on the postal receipt or postmark, or delivered to a common carrier promising
overnight delivery, as shown on the carrier's receipt, not later than the last day set for filing.
(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, secs. 32135(a) and 32130.)
A document is also considered "filed" when received by facsimile transmission before
the close of business on the last day for filing together with a Facsimile Transmission Cover
Sheet which meets the requirements of California Code of Regulations, title 8,
section 32135(d), provided the filing party also places the original, together with the required
number of copies and proof of service, in the U.S. mail. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, sec. 32135(b),
(c) and (d); see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, secs. 32090 and 32130.)
Any statement of exceptions and supporting brief must be served concurrently with its
filing upon each party to this proceeding. Proof of service shall accompany each copy served
on a party or filed with the Board itself. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, secs. 32300, 32305,
32140, and 32135(c).)
THOMAS J. ALLEN
Administrative Law Judge
14