Redondo Beach City School District (PERB A083E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYHENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
REDONDO 	BEACH CITY 	SCHOOL 	DISTRICT,
Employer,
APPELLANT,
and
EARLY 	CHILDHOOD 	FEDERATION,
LOCAL 	1475, 	AFT,
Employee 	Organization,
and
REDONDO 	BEACH 	CITY TEACHERS
ASSOCIATION, 	CTA/NEA,
Employee Organization.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
__________________ )
Case 	no. 	LA-R-430B 	(825)
PERB 	Order 	No. 	Ad-83
Administrative Appeal
April 1, 	1980
AE~earances: 	David 	G. 	Miller, 	Attorney 	(Paterson 	& Taggart) 	for
Re 	ondo 	Beach City 	School 	District; 	Anne 	E. 	Fragasso, 	Attorney,
and 	Larry 	Berdan 	for 	Early 	Childhood 	Federation, 	Local 	1475 	AFT;
Charles 	Gustafson, 	Attorney, 	and Lauren 	Sanders 	for 	Redondo 	Beach
City 	Teachers 	Association,
Before 	Gluck, 	Chairperson; 	Gonzales 	and Moore, 	Members.
DECISION
The 	Redondo 	Beach City 	School 	District 	(hereafter 	District)
appeals 	the 	dismissal 	of 	its 	request 	for 	approval 	by 	the 	Public
Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(hereafter 	PERB) 	to 	join 	it 	in 	seeking
judicial 	review 	of 	a 	unit 	determination. 	The 	executive 	assistant

to 	the 	Board 	dismissed 	the 	request 	because 	it 	was 	filed 	either 	three
1
or 	four 	days 	after 	the 	deadline 	established 	by 	Board 	rule 	32500.
2
Rule 	32133 	reads:
Late 	Filing. 	A 	late 	filing 	may 	be 	excused
in 	the 	discretion 	of 	the 	Board 	only 	under
extraordinary 	circumstances.
The 	justification offered by 	the 	District 	in 	this 	case 	includes:
a) 	The 	Board's 	order was 	amended 	and 	modified 	by
a 	memorandum issued by 	the 	executive 	assistant
to 	the 	Board 	dated 	January 	22, 	1980, 	and
received 	by 	the 	District 	on 	February 1, 	1980.
This 	modification 	should 	extend 	the 	time 	for
filing 	the 	request 	to 	seek 	judicial 	review.
1california Administrative 	Code, 	title 	8, 	section 	32500,
reads 	as 	follows:
Review 	of 	Unit 	Determinations. 	Any 	party 	to 	a 	unit
determination 	desision 	by 	the 	Board 	itself 	may 	file
a 	request 	to 	seek 	judicial 	review within 	10 	days
following 	the 	date 	of 	service 	of 	the 	decision. 	The
request 	shall 	include 	statements 	setting 	forth 	those
factors 	upon which 	the 	party 	asserts 	that 	the 	case 	is
one 	of 	special 	importance. 	A copy 	of 	the 	request 	must
have 	been 	actually 	served 	upon 	each 	party of 	record
prior 	to 	filing 	the 	request 	and 	a 	statement 	of 	such
service 	shall 	accompany 	the 	request. 	Any 	party 	shall
have 	five 	calendar 	days 	from 	actual 	service 	to 	file
a 	response 	with 	the 	Board 	itself. 	"Actual 	service"
as 	used 	in 	this 	section 	means 	actual 	receipt 	by 	the
party or 	their 	agent.
2california Administrative 	Code, 	title 	8, 	section 	32133.
2

b) 	The 	time 	for 	filing 	requests 	under 	rule 	32500
is 	too 	short 	to 	accommodate 	the 	process,
including 	service 	on 	affected 	parties. 	The
rule, 	therefore, 	is 	unreasonable.
c) 	An 	inquiry 	of 	the 	PERE 	staff 	caused 	the 	District
to 	serve 	its 	request 	on 	the 	Sacramento 	Regional
Office 	rather 	than 	on 	the 	Board 	itself. 	This
error, 	resulting 	from misinformation, 	should
excuse 	a 	late 	filing.
d) 	The 	effective 	date 	of 	the 	Board 	order 	itself was 	unclear.
The 	amendment/modification 	referred 	to 	by 	the 	District
corrected a 	portion 	of 	the 	Board's 	order 	relating 	to 	the 	mechanics
of 	the 	prospective 	representation 	election. 	It 	did not 	bear 	on 	any
I
substantive 	issue 	under 	consideration 	in 	the 	unit 	determination
case; 	specifically, 	the 	correction was 	totally 	unrelated 	to 	the
finding 	of 	unit 	appropri~teness 	and, 	therefore, 	could not 	have
influenced 	the 	District's 	d~termination 	to 	seek 	judicial 	review.
Furthermore, 	corrections 	of 	the 	kind made 	here 	are 	in 	the 	nature
of 	notices 	of 	errata 	and, 	absent 	a 	showing 	of 	harm 	to 	an 	affected
party, 	do 	not 	operate 	to 	delay 	the 	effective 	date 	of 	a 	Board
decision 	or 	to 	extend 	the 	time 	for 	filing 	appeals 	or 	petitions.
The 	facts 	here, 	do 	not 	justify 	a 	finding 	of 	detrimental 	reliance
by 	the 	District.
3

Though petitioner 	disagrees 	with 	the 	time 	limits 	contained
therein, 	rule 	32500 was 	adopted 	in 	public 	session held 	by 	the 	PERB
after 	proper notice 	and 	receipt 	of 	comment 	from 	the 	public, 	and
has 	been 	in 	effect 	since 	October 	1978. 	Petitioner's 	dissatisfaction
with 	the 	rule 	does 	not 	constitute 	an 	"extraordinary 	circumstance"
as 	contemplated by 	rule 	32133.
The 	deadline 	for 	filing 	the 	District's 	request was
January 	28, 	1980. 	Its 	request was 	actually 	filed with 	the 	regional
office 	on 	January 	31, 	1980. 	Thus, 	even 	that 	filing 	was 	three 	days
late. 	The 	misinformation 	claimed 	by 	the 	District, 	therefore, 	had
no 	bearing on 	the 	District's 	failure 	to 	file 	in 	timely 	fashion.
Finally, 	the 	District's 	claimed 	confusion over 	the 	effective
date 	of 	the 	Board order 	cannot 	serve 	to 	justify 	its 	late 	filing.
Rule 	~2500 	specifically 	states:
Any 	party 	to 	a 	unit 	determination 	decision 	by
the 	Board 	itself may 	file 	a 	request 	to 	seek
judicial 	review within 	10 	days 	following 	the
date 	of 	service 	of 	the 	decision.
I
	. 	,. 	. 	.
It 	is 	date 	of 	service 	of 	the 	order 	rather 	than 	any 	date 	appearing
on 	the 	order 	itself which 	triggers 	the 	time 	requirements 	contained
in 	the 	rule. 	Date 	of 	service 	is 	indicated 	by 	an 	attached 	statement
of 	service.
No 	extraordinary 	circumstances 	having 	been 	demonstrated 	by 	the
District, 	the 	decision 	of 	the 	executive 	assistant 	to 	the 	Board
dismissing 	the 	District's 	request 	for 	approval 	to 	seek 	judicial
review 	is 	affirmed.
PER CURIAM
4