Los Angeles Unified School District (Watts) (PERB A104E)

STATE
	OF
	CALIFORNIA
DECISION
	OF
	THE
PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
HOWARD
	WATTS,
Complainant,
	APPELLANT
v.
LOS 	ANGELES
	UNIFIED
	SCHOOL
	DISTRICT,
Respondent,
and
UNITED
	TEACHERS
	OF 	LOS
	ANGELES,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case
	No. 	LA-PN-18
PERB
	Order
	No.
	Ad-104
AmHNISTRATIVE
	APPEAL
December
	10, 	1980
Appearances:	
Howard
Watts,
	representing 	himself;
	William
	J.
	Sharp,
representing
	the
	District.
Before
	Gluck,
	Chairperson;
	Moore, 	Member
DECISION
Howard
	Watts
	excepts 	to 	the 	attached 	administrative
determination
	issued
	by
	the
	Los
	Angeles
	regional 	director
dismissing 	his 	public 	notice
	complaint without 	leave 	to
amend.
	After 	considering 	the
	entire
	record
	in 	light
	of
the 	exceptions, 	the
	Board
	has 	decided 	to 	affirm 	the
regional
	director's
	findings
	and
	conclusions
	and
	affirm
her 	administrative 	determination.
ORDER
Upon
	the 	foregoing 	decision
	and 	the
	entire 	record 	in
this 	case, 	the 	Public
	Employment
	Relations 	Board
	ORDERS
	that:

The 	public 	notice 	complaint, 	LA-PN-18, 	filed 	by
Howard Watts 	against 	the 	Los 	Angeles 	Unified 	School 	District
and 	the 	United Teachers 	of Los 	Angeles 	is 	hereby 	DISMISSED
in 	its 	entirety without 	leave 	to 	amend.
PER CURIAM
2

P0BL.£C
EMPIDYMENT
RELATICNS
EOARD
OF
'IHE
STAT.E
OF
CALIIOPNIA
.HCWARD
1-v.ATIS,
Ccmplainant,
V •
IDS
ANGELES
UNIFIED
SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Resi:ondent.
and
UNIT.ED TEACHERS OF
IDS
Af..~,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
________________
)
Case
No. 	I.A-PN-18
DISMISSAL WITHOOT
LEAVE
'IO
AMEND
PUBLIC
N::n'ICE CCMPIAINr
roris:E
IS
HEREBY
GIVEN
that
the above-captioned
public notice
canplaint
	is
dismissed without leave to
amend
on
the
following ground:
Ccmplainant has
	failed to allege facts
which
state
a prima
facie
violation of the
Educational
Employment
Relations Act,
	C-overnment
Cede
section
35471•
PRCC:EIX.TP-ZI.L
HIS'IORY
.On
December 13, 	1979 Mr. 	Howard
Watts 	(hereafter Ccmplainant)
filed
	a public notice canplaint against the
I.Ds
Angeles Unified Schcol
District
	(hereafter District)	
a~d the United Teachers
of
Los Angeles
(hereafter
u"TI.A}
	alleging violation of section 3457(a), 	(b), 	(c),
	(d)	
a~d
(e).
	On January
7,
	1980 Complainant
filed
	an
Amendment
	to the
CCIP".plaint. 	'I'he Amendment also alleges violation
of
section 3547 (a)
through 	(e) •
1A11 statutory references are 	to the Government Cede
u.."i.less other-.,;ise noted. 	(Cont'd. 	on page 2)

After
careful
review
of
	the above-captioned
public notice
canplaint
and
amendment,
	the Los Angeles Regional
Director
of
	the
p,,~lic
Enployment Relations Board 	(hereafter
PERE)	
has determined
	that
said
canplaint
and
amendment
does not
state
a
prima.
facie violation of section
3547(a), 	(b),
	(c),
	(d)
	and 	(e). 	This dismissal without leave
to
a~end
accordingly follcws.
(fn.	
l
	cont'd.)
Section
3547 provides:
(a)
	All
	initial
pror;:osals
of
exclusive
representatives and
of public schcol employers,
whic:h
	relate
to
matters within the scope
ofrepresentation,
	shall
be presented
at
a public
meeting
of
the public schc:ol employer and
thereafter
shall
ce
public records.
(b}
	Mee·ting and
negotiating
shall
not take
place
on any proposal lll"l.til a reasonable time has
elapsed
after
	the subnission
of	
the prop::,sal
toenable the public to
beo:me informed and the
public has the opportunity to express
	itself
regarding the proposal
at
a meeting
of
the public
school employer0(c) 	After the public has had the opportunity
toexpress
	itself,
	the public school employer
shall,
at
a rr=et.:ng which
	is
ope~:
to the
publ k:,
	a.c.opt
its
	initial
proposal.
(d)
	New
subjects of meeting and negotiating
arising after
	the presentation of
	initial
pro-posals
shall
be
made
public within
24
	hours.
If
a vote
	is
	ta.ken on such subject by the public
schcol employer, 	the vote thereon by each
member
voting
shall also be
made
public within
	24
hours.(e) 	The t::oard
may
adopt regulations	
for	
the
purpose of implementing
	this section, 	which are
consistent with the intent of the section; 	namely
that the public be informed of the issues that
are being negotiated upon and have
fullopportunity to express their views on the issu~s
to the public school employer, 	and to
know
of the
p:::,sitions of their elected representatives.
Page 2

DISOJSSICN
1ne essence
of
	the
canplaint
	is
	that
	the
District
and
UT.CA
held
meetings
	to
discuss 	"re-openers" provided for
	in Article
XXI
Section 3.0
of
their
1979-80
contract,
	without
	first
making
said
	items
public.
	The
items discussed were
	(1)
	Adult Education Hours
of
Assignment and	
(2)
Special
Services Career Increments.
The
amendment
cites
an
additional
meeting
	in
which Special
Services career Increments, 	as well as a
	"new
subject" of
meeting and
negotiating,
	were discussed.
	The
new
subject
was
Early Retirement.
As
held by
the
PERB
itself
	in-Kirr.mett
v.	
los
Angeles Unified
School
District,
	PERB
Decision
No.
	Ad-53
	the
	intent of section
3547,
	as
stated
by the Legislature in section
3547(e),
	is
	that:
The
public l:e 	informed
of the issues
	that
are
being
negotiated upon and have
full
opp:,rtunity
to
express
their
	view on the issues
	to
the public school employer,
and	
to
know
of
the p::,sitions
of
	their
	elected
representatives.
In
order
	to effectuate
the
	intent of
the law,
	section
3547(a) 	and
(d)
	specify
what
shall
be
made
public~
	All
	initial
proPJSals and
new
subjects of
meeting and negotiating must be publicly noticed.
The
public notice canplaint indicates that Article
XXI,
	Section
3.0
of
	the 1979-80 contract was invoked by
the f),;lrties 	in order
	to
discuss 	the "re-openers". 	Article
XXI,
	Section 3.0 reads as follows:
Negotiations for Successor Agreement and Limited Open
Items: 	Negotiations for a successor agreement
shall
carmence upon request
of either
	the
District
or
UTLA
at
any time
after
April 15, 1980. 	However, 	negotiations
relating to
compensation 	(including additional conference
period)
	of
secondary department chairmen, Adult Education
hours of assignment, 	and Special Services career
increment
shall
remain open for 	negotiation throughout
the 1979-80 school year 	in preparation for 	the 1980
agreement. 	UT!A
may bring the issue of Special Services
career 	increment to factfinding after January 1, 1980.
(Emphasis added)
Page 3

Section 3.0
do:.
	not
	refer
	to re-openers.
	It
c-~arly
provides
that
specific
items
shall
re.main
g:en.
	The
effect
of subjects
remaining
open
after
	a
contract
has been signed
	is
	that
	the
parties
would
continue
to
negotiate
until
settlement
	is
	reached.
	The
subject
matter does not
change; 	negotiations prcceed normally except
that
a
contract
	is
	already
in place.
	The
subjects, 	therefore,
	need not be presented again
at
a
public
meeting.
	The
puclic
was
	informed concerning the
	issues to
b:
negotiated
on
at
	the time
	initial
proposals were presentede 	Moreover,
subjects
which are
	to
	remain q:en, 	as 	in
this
case, 	do not
constitute
initial
proposals or
new
subjects
of
rneeting·and negotiating.
h:iult
Education
Hours
of Assignment and Special Services
career
Increments
were
included
in
tJTIA.'s
	initial
proposals presented
on
June
25, 1979. 	Thus, 	the public notice requirements for the 1979-80
contract
were met.
	The
only question remaining has
to
do with the
actual
ag.reements reached
on
the items..
	If
	the
parties
	intend the agreements or
settlements
	to
extend beyond the duration of the present contract, 	they
must be presented
at
a public meeting again., 	In other words, while the
parties
have ~..et the public
notice
	requirements for 	the 1979-80
contract,
they must
also
obsm:ve them
for 	the lS.50-81
contract.
With resr::ect to the amendment,
	it
appears Ccmplainant
	is
alleging
that Early
Retirement
	is
a
new
subject of meeting and negotiating as well
as a re-opener. 	The cc::mplaint indicates that
on
Dece.mbar
12, 1979 a
meeting took place in which
u"'T'.i.A
told the
District
	it
was
	not acting on
Early Retire,~ent as ·required by the master agre<snent. 	The
District
responded that the Board of Education needed
m:::n:-e
data on the subject
Page 4

before acting. 	Based r 	this exchange, Canplainant f il 	his ~_ncment.
Conplai.nant states the exchange cccurred pursuant to Article XX, Section
15.0 of the contract. 	It reads as follows:
Article XX Section 15.0. 	nimplementation of Education cede
Section 24211: 	The Board of Education shall by Board rule
implement the early retire.'!lent provisions to Education Code
24211, with such qualifications and requirements as 	the
Board may in its discretion i.mj;:ose.~ 	·
Section 15.0 states that the Board of Education shall by Board rule
implement Early Reti.re.rnent. 	Thus, on.A was requesting implementation of
a provisicn ?,Irsuant to the contract. 	Requests such as these are neither
re-openers nor initial proposals as alleged by CanJ?lainant. 	Additionally,
it is clear that under the Educational Employment Relations Act there 	is
no requirenent to present at a public meeting requests 	to administer
contract provisions.
Ccnplainant has failed to state a prL-na facie violation of
section 3547. · Items which are to remain open for 	negotiations and
requests 	to implement provisions of a contract are not matters subject to
section 3547. 	The canplaint, 	therefore, 	cannot be amended 	to state a
prima facie violation and is herewith dismissed without leave to amend.
Page 5

ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the al::ove-captioned public notice
can:plaint is dismissed without leave to amend.
Pursuant to California Administrative Co:le, 	title 8, 	section
37030(e), Conplainant may ai;::peal this dismissal by filing written
exceptions with the Executive Assistant to the Board at 923 12th Street,
Suite 201, 	Sacramento, CA 	95814 within seven 	(7) 	calendar days following
the date of receipt of t.'1-iis order. 	The exceptions shall state the
grounds upon which dismissal should be reversed and shall be acccmpanied
by a proof of service of the dcet.mtent upon Resp:mdents and the Regional
Director.
Dated: 	February 27, 	1980
Page 6
Frances A.. 	Kreilizit
Regional Director 0