Los Angeles Unified School District (PERB A014E)

STATE
OF CALIFOR!.'i!IA
DECISION
OF
THE
EDUCATIONAL
EMPIDYMEN'T
RELATIONS
BOARD
In
the
Matter
of
the
Administrative Appeal
LOS .ANGEI.ES
UNIFIED
SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
PROFESSIONAL
EDUCATORS
OF
LOS
.ANGELES,
Employee Organization,
	APPEILANT,
and
UNITED
TEACHERS-LOS
.ANGEIES,
Employee Organization.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
____________________ )
Case
Nos.
	IA-R-687
I.A-C0-7
I.A-C0-8
EERB
Decision
No.
	HO-U-9
HO-R-20
EERB
#5
EERB
Order No. 	Ad-14
ORDER
The
decision
of
the
Executive
Assistant to
	the Board,
	in
the above-cited
case,
	c:lenying
an extension
of
time requested by appellant to
file
	exceptions to
the
hearing officer's
proposed decision
is
sustained by the Board
itself.
11.1.e
Board finds
	that
	the Executive Assistant correctly
applied
the
Board's
rules
and regulations
in this
matter.
Educational Employment Relations Board
by
~~~
STEPHEN BARBER
Executive Assistant to the Board
9/29/77
Jerilou
H.
	Cossack, Member, 	concurring:
Pursuant to a decision and order of the Educational Employment Relations
Board (EERB), 	an election
was held on January 12, 	13, 	and 14, 	1977
in
I..os .Angeles

Unified School
District
	(District)
	in
the
negotiating
unit
fmmd
appropriate.
1
According to the
tally of
ballots
issued on January 29, 	1977, 	United Teachers-
1os .Angeles
	(UTIA)
was
	selected
as the ex.clusive
representative.
2
Professional
Educators
of
Los
Angeles
	(PELA)
	filed
objections
	to
	the
con-
duct
of
the
election
ori
February
7,
	1977.	
PEI.A
had previously
filed
	two
unfair
practice
charges
against
UTIA,
	which were consolidated
for
hearing
with
the
objections to
	the conduct
of
the
election.
	A hearing
was
held
by a hearing
officer of
EERB.
	The
hearing
officer
issued a proposed decision on
July
25,
1977, 	reconmending
that
the
unfair practice
charges and the objections
	to
	the
conduct
of
the
election
be dismissed and
that
UI'1A be
certified
as
	the
exclusive
representative of
the negotiating
unit.
½he negotiating
unit
found appropriate
in
Los
.Angeles Unified School
District,
	EERB
Decision
No.
	5, 	Novenber 24,
	1976 was
	as follows:
Included:
	All
certificated
employees including
secondary school counselors.
Excluded:
	All other
employees, 	including medical
examiners,
	psychiatrists,
	school
dentists,
school physicians, 	chest
specialists,
managerial employees, 	supervisory employees
and confidential employees.
2:rbe
talley of ballots states:
Approximate number
of eligible
voters 	31,517
Void
ballots
	59
Votes
cast for United Teachers-Los Angeles 	12,882
Votes cast for Professional Educators
of 1os Angeles 	3,755
Votes cast for no representation 	3,165
Valid votes counted 	19,802
Challenged ballots 	1,154
Valid votes counted plus challenged
ballots 	20,956
-2-

Pursuant
to
EERB
Regulation
33380, 3 and as
set
forth
in
the
proposed
decision,
the
parties
had
until
August
9,
	1977
in
which
to
file
exceptions
to
the
proposed
decision.
A
request
for
an extension
of
time
pursuant
to
EERB
Regulation
334104 was
received
by
the
EERB
on August
1,
	1977.
	PEIA
requested
an
extension
of
30 days
in
which
to
file
its
exceptions,
	relying
on
the length
of
the decision, 	the
extensive research
necessary
to
prepare
a support:ing
brief,
	and
the
length
of
the case
and
nwer
of
issues
involved.
	:&>th
the
District
and
UTI.A
objected to
granting
an
extension
of
time.
3
c.a.1.
Admin.
	Code,
	Title
8, 	Sec. 	33380
states:
33380. 	Exceptions
	to
Hearing
Officer
Decision.
(a) 	A
party
may
file
with the
Board
an
original
and
four
copies
of
a
	statement
of
exceptions
to the
proposed
decision,
	and
supporting
brief,
within
seven
calendar
days
after
receipt
of
the
proposed
decision.
	The
statement
of
exceptions
shall:
(1)	
State
the
specific
issues
of
procedure,
	fact,
law
or
policy to
which each
exception
is
taken;
(2)
	Identify the
part of
the
recomnended
decision
to
which each exception
is
	taken;
(3) Designate by page
citation
the portions
of the
record
relied
upon
for
each
exception;
(4)
	State the
grounds
for
each exception.
(b)
	J:i!o
reference
shall
be made
in
the statement
of
excep-
tions to
any
matter not contained
in
.the
record
of
the case.
(c) 	An
exception not specifically
urged
shall
be waived.
(d) 	The
party
shall
serve
a copy
of
the statement and
supporting
brief
upon each
party to the proceeding.A state!.lent
of
service shall
be
filed
with the
Board.
(e) 	The
filing of the
state!.lellt
of
exceptions submits
the case to the
Board
itself.
4ea1. Aclmin. 	Code,
	Title
8, 	Sec. 	33410
states:
Extension
of
Time. 	A request for an extension of
time
withinwhich to file
a statement of exceptions or response to the
statement of exceptions and briefs shall be in writing and
shall be filed with the :&>ard
at the headquarters office at
-3-

least three calendar days before the expiration of the
time required for filing. 	Copies of such request shall
be concurrently served upon each party. 	Extensions
of time shall be granted only under extraordinary
circumstances .
PEI.A filed no exceptions; 	neither did the District nor UTIA.
On August 9, 	1977 the Executive Assistant to the Board issued an order in
Case Nos. IA-CO- 7 and IA-C0-8 which stated:
Pursuant to California Administrative Code Sections 35029
and 35030, no exceptions having been filed in the above-
captioned matter, 	the reconrnended decision of the hearing
officer is hereby declared the final decision, 	to wit:
The unfair practice charges 	filed by the Professional
Educators of Los Angeles are dismissed.
On the same date the Executive Assistant to the Board also issued an order in
EERB Decision No. 	5 (Case No. 	IA-R-687) 	stating:
Pursuant to California Administrative Code Sections 33380,
33390, and 33640, no exceptions having been timely filed
in the above-captioned matter, 	the proposed decision of
the hearing officer is hereby declared the final decision,
to wit:
1. 	The objections to the conduct of the election
are dismissed.
2. 	The Regional Director shall certify the United
Teachers-Los Angeles as the exclusive repre-
~sentative of the certificated negotiating unit
described in the directed election order.5
On August 9, 	1977 PEI.A requested review by the Board itself of the denial
of the extension of t:i.Jn?., 	contending that it had not had sufficient time to file
exceptions. 	PEI.A claimed to have been unaware of any objections to the request
for extension of time until after the deadline to file the appeal had run,
acknowledging that it was aware that an extension of tirre would be granted only
if no objections were ma.de. 	PEI.A further requested the Board to stay the certi-
fication of UI1A as the exclusive representative pending review of its request.
50n August 10, 1977 the Regional Director issued a certification of
UI1A as the exclusive representative in the negotiating unit found appro-
priate by the Board.
(cont.)
-4-

On August 15, 	1977
UTIA
objected
to
PEI.A's
request
that
the
Board
itself
review
the
decision
of
the
Executive
.Assistant
in
refusing
to grant
PELA's
request
for
an
extension
of
time and
objected to
PEI.A's
request
that
the
Board
stay
the
certification
of
UTIA
as
	the exclusive
representative.
6
EERB
Regulation
33410
clearly
states that
extensions
of
time
within
vJh.ich
exceptions
may
be
filed
shall
be
granted only
in
extraordinary
circumstances.
Th.ere
is
nothing
extraordinary
about
the
circumstances
in
this
	case. 	''Extraor-
dinary"
	is
a word conm:mly
understood
to
mean something
vJh.ich
is
out-of-the
ordinary,
	not
nonna.1
or
which
with reasonable
prudence, might
not
have been
foreseen.
	PEI.A,
	which
filed
the objections
and
charges, 	thus
	framed
the
issues
in
the
instant
case.	
PEI.A
also
argued
the issues
at
the
hearing
and
subsequently
in
a
brief
to
	the hearing
officer.	
PEI.A
cannot now
claim
that either
the
number
or
canplexity
of
the issues
is
a
matter
of
surprise for
vJh.ich
it
was
	ill-prepared.
Accordingly,
	I 	concur
that this
	case
does
not
warrant the
special
consideration
PEI.A
seeks
and
that
PEI.A's
request
for
an extension
of
time
and
revocation
of
the
certification of
UTIA
as
	the exclusive
representative
should
be denied.
~~~
lou
H.
	Cossack,
	Member
61n
fact, 	since the certification
had already issued, 	granting PEI.A's
request would require rewcation of the certification.
-5-