North Monterey County Unified School District (Bueno) (PERB A274E)

STATE
	OF
	CALIFORNIA
DECISION
	OF
	THE
PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
VINCENTE.
	BUENO,
Charging
	Party,
v.
NORTH
	MONTEREY
	COUNTY
	UNIFIED
SCHOOL
	DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case
	No.
	SF-CE-1750
Administrative
	Appeal
PERB
	Order
	No. 	Ad-274
April
	29, 	1996
___________________ )
Appearances: 	Vincent
	E. 	Bueno, 	on
	his
	own
	behalf;
	Breon,
O'Donnell,
	Miller,
	Brown 	&	
Dannis, 	by
	Laurie
	S.
	Juengert,
Attorney,
	for
	North
	Monterey 	County
	Unified
	School
	District.
Before 	Caffrey,
	Chairni~n;
	Garcia
	and Dyer,
	Members.
DECISION
CAFFREY,
	Chairman:
	This 	case
	is
	before 	the 	Public
Employment
	Relations
	Board
	(PERB
	or
	Board) 	on
	a
	request
	by
Vincent
	E. 	Bueno 	(Bueno)
	that
	the
	Board
	accept
	his
	late 	filed
exceptions 	to 	the
	proposed
	decision 	of
	a
	PERB
	administrative
	law
judge
	(ALJ).
	In
	that
	decision, 	the
	ALJ
	dismissed 	the
	unfair
practice
	charge 	and 	complaint	
which	
alleged 	that
	the 	North
Monterey 	County
	Unified
	School
	District violated
section
	3543.S(a) 	of 	the 	Educational
	Employment
	Relations 	Act
(EERA) 1 when
	it
	rejected
	Bueno
	during
	his 	probationary period.
1
EERA
	is
	codified
	at
	Government 	Code
	section
	3540
	et
	seq.
Section
	3543.5
	states, 	in 	pertinent 	part:
It
	shall
	be 	unlawful 	for
	a
	public 	schoolemployer
	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

STATE
	OF
	CALIFORNIA
DECISION
	OF
	THE
PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
VINCENTE.
	BUENO,
Charging
	Party,
v.
NORTH
	MONTEREY
	COUNTY
	UNIFIED
SCHOOL
	DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case
	No.
	SF-CE-1750
Administrative
	Appeal
PERB
	Order
	No. 	Ad-274
April
	29, 	1996
___________________ )
Appearances: 	Vincent
	E. 	Bueno, 	on
	his
	own
	behalf;
	Breon,
O'Donnell,
	Miller,
	Brown 	&	
Dannis, 	by
	Laurie
	S.
	Juengert,
Attorney,
	for
	North
	Monterey 	County
	Unified
	School
	District.
Before 	Caffrey,
	Chairni~n;
	Garcia
	and Dyer,
	Members.
DECISION
CAFFREY,
	Chairman:
	This 	case
	is
	before 	the 	Public
Employment
	Relations
	Board
	(PERB
	or
	Board) 	on
	a
	request
	by
Vincent
	E. 	Bueno 	(Bueno)
	that
	the
	Board
	accept
	his
	late 	filed
exceptions 	to 	the
	proposed
	decision 	of
	a
	PERB
	administrative
	law
judge
	(ALJ).
	In
	that
	decision, 	the
	ALJ
	dismissed 	the
	unfair
practice
	charge 	and 	complaint	
which	
alleged 	that
	the 	North
Monterey 	County
	Unified
	School
	District violated
section
	3543.S(a) 	of 	the 	Educational
	Employment
	Relations 	Act
(EERA) 1 when
	it
	rejected
	Bueno
	during
	his 	probationary period.
1
EERA
	is
	codified
	at
	Government 	Code
	section
	3540
	et
	seq.
Section
	3543.5
	states, 	in 	pertinent 	part:
It
	shall
	be 	unlawful 	for
	a
	public 	schoolemployer
	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 	coerceemployees 	because 	of
	their exercise 	of 	rightsguaranteed by
	this 	chapter. 	For purposes 	of
this 	subdivision,
	"employee"
	includes 	an
applicant 	for
	employment
	or
	reemployment.
BACKGROUND
The
	ALJ's
	decision
	in
	this
	case
	was
	issued
	and
	served
	on
Bueno
	on
	October
	25,
	1995.
	The
	decision
	was
	accompanied
	by
	a
cover
	letter
	from 	PERB's
	Chief
	ALJ
	which
	describes 	the 	process
and
	timelines 	for
	appealing 	the
	proposed
	decision
	to
	the
	Board.
In
	accordance 	with
	PERB
	regulations
	and
	timelines 	referenced
	in
the
	cover
	letter,
	exceptions
	to
	the
	proposed
	decision
	were 	due
	to
be
	filed
	no
	later
	than
	November
	20, 	1995.
	As
	of
	that
	date,
	no
exceptions
	had been
	filed,
	and
	the
	PERB
	appeals
	assistant
declared
	the
	ALJ's
	decision
	to
	be
	final.
Bueno
	filed
	a
	statement 	of 	exceptions
	to
	the
	proposed
decision
	on December
	12, 	1995,
	at
	PERB's
	Headquarters
	Office.
The
	exceptions
	were
	dated
	December
	2,
	1995, 	and 	had been
	sent 	to
PERB's 	San
	Francisco
	Regional
	Office,
	which
	received
	them
	on
December 	7, 	1995.
	Included
	in
	the 	exceptions
	is
	the 	following
statement
	from Bueno:
This
	letter 	is 	late
	due
	to 	the 	fact 	that
	my
mother 	had 	a
	massive
	heart 	attack
	on
	11-2-95.
I
	could not
	get
	my
	appeal
	in
	on
	time
	due
	tothe 	fact
	my
	mother
	was
	in 	serious 	condition.
This
	is
	the 	only 	reference
	in
	Bueno's 	exceptions
	to 	the
untimeliness 	of 	the
	filing.
	This 	statement
	is
	being 	considered
	a
request
	by Bueno
	that 	the
	Board
	accept 	his
	late 	filed
	exceptions.
2

DISCUSSION
PERB
	Regulation
	321362
states,
	in 	pertinent 	part:
A
late 	filing
	may
	be
	excused
	in
	the
discretion
	of
	the
	Board
	for
	good
	cause
	only.
has
	to
	In 	applying
	this
	regulation,
	the
	Board 	found 	good
	cause
excuse
	late 	filings
	when 	a
	party
	has 	demonstrated
	that
	a
conscientious
	effort
	to
	timely
	file
	was 	made.
	In
	North
	Orange
County
	Regional 	Occupational
	Program
	(1990)
	PERB
	Decision
No.
	807,
	the
	Board 	found
	good
	cause
	to
	excuse
	a
	late 	filing
	which
resulted
	from
	exceptions 	being
	directed 	to
	the
	wrong
	PERB
	office.
In 	Trustees
	of
	the 	California University
	(1989)
	PERB
	Order
No.
	Ad-192-H,
	the
	Board 	found
	that
	the 	inadvertent,
	incorrect
	use
of
	a
	postage 	meter
	resulting 	in
	late
	delivery 	represented
	good
cause
	to
	excuse
	a
	late 	filing.
However,
	the
	Board
	has
	considered 	circumstances
	relating
	to
the
	illness
	of
	a
	party's
	family
	member
	and
	concluded
	that
	they
did 	not
	constitute
	good
	cause
	to
	excuse
	a
	late 	filing
	where
	there
was
	no
	demonstration 	of
	a
	conscientious
	effort
	to
	timely
	file.
In
	Pasadena
	Community
	College
	District
	(1992)
	PERB
	Order
No. 	Ad-234
	(Pasadena
	CCD),
	the
	Board
	considered
	a
	party's 
caring
	declaration 	that
	she
	spent
	a
	great 	deal 	of 	time 	and energy
for 	her 	seriously
	ill
	mother
	for 	eight
	days
	prior 	to 	the
	filing
deadline
	and,
	therefore,
	was
	unable
	to
	timely 	request 	an
extension 	of 	time
	to
	file
	a
	response
	to
	a 	Board
agent's 	order.
The 	Board 	determined
	that 	the 	timing 	of 	the 	family
	illness
	made
2PERB
	regulations 	are 	codified at 	California
	Code
	of
Regulations,
	title
	8, 	section
	31001
	et 	seq.
3

it
	possible 	to
	anticipate
	the
	need
	for
	an
	extension 	of 	time,
	and
provided 	the 	opportunity
	to
	make 	a
	timely 	request
	for
	such an
extension.
	Since
	no
	conscientious
	effort
	to
	make a
	timely
request
	had been
made,
	the
	Board
	concluded
	that
	good
	cause
	did
not
	exist
	to
	excuse
	the
	late 	filing.
This 	case
	presents
	circumstances
	similar 	to
	those 	considered
by
	the
	Board
	in
	Pasadena
	CCD.
	The
	Chief ALJ's 	cover
	letter,
served
	on
	Bueno
	on
	October 25,
	1995,
	clearly
	describes 	the
process
	and
	deadline
	for
	filing
	exceptions
	to
	the
	proposed
decision.
	It
	also
	advises
	Bueno
	of 	the 	opportunity
	to 	request
	an
extension
	of
	time
	to
	file
	any
	document
	with 	the
	Board
	itself,
citing
	PERB
	Regulation
	32132(a)
. 3 	Bueno
	states 	that 	his
	mother's
heart 	attack
	occurred
	on
	November
	2, 	1995,
	well 	before 	the
November
	20, 	1995,
	deadline 	for
	filing
	exceptions.
	As 	was
	the
case
	in
	Pasadena
	CCD,
	it
	appears
	that
	Bueno
	had ample
	time
	to
determine
	that 	his
	mother's
	illness
	would
prevent
	him 	from
meeting 	the
	filing
	deadline,
	and
	request
	an
	extension 	of 	time.
3
Regulation
	32132
	states, 	in pertinent 	part:
(a) 	A
request 	for
	an 	extension of
	time
within
	which
	to
	file
	any 	document
	with 	the
Board
	itself
	shall
	be
	in writing
	and
	shall
	be
filed 	at
	the 	headquarters
	office 	at 	leastthree
	days
	before 	the 	expiration 	of 	the 	time
required 	for 	filing.
	The
	request 	shallindicate 	the 	reason
	for 	the 	request
	and,
	if
known,
	the 	position 	of 	each
	other partyregarding 	the 	extension. 	Service and proof
of 	service 	pursuant 	to 	Section
	32140
	arerequired. 	Extensions 	of 	time
	may
	be 	grantedby 	the 	Board
	itself
	or 	an agent 	designated by
the 	Board
	itself
	for
	good 	cause 	only.
4

provides
	However,
	Bueno
	did
	not
	request
	any
	extension,
	and
	no
explanation
	of
	his 	failure
	to
	do
	so.
	There
	simply
	is
	no
kind
	to	indication 	that
	Bueno made
	a
	conscientious
	effort
	of
	any
comply
	with 	the
	November
	20,
	1995,
	filing
	deadline.
	Moreover,
Bueno
	provides
	only
	the
	brief
	reference
	to
	the
	family
	illness,
and
	offers
	no
	specific
	information 	as
	to
	how
	that 	illness
prevented
	his
	timely
	filing.
	Accordingly,
	the
	Board
	finds
	that
good
	cause
	has
	not
	been
	shown
	to
	excuse 	Bueno's
	late 	filing
	of
exceptions
	in
	the
	instant
	case.
ORDER
late
	Vincent
	E.
	Bueno's
	request
	that
	the
	Board
	accept
	his
filed
	exceptions
	in
	Case
	No.
	SF-CE-1750
	is
	hereby
	DENIED.
Member
	Dyer
	joined
	in
	this
	Decision.
Member
	Garcia's 	dissent
	begins
	on
	page 	6.
5

GARCIA,
	Member,
	dissenting:
	I
	disagree 	with 	the
	majority's
conclusion
	and
	I
	would
	find
	that
	Vincent
	E. 	Bueno
	(Bueno)
	has
shown
	good
	cause
	to
	excuse
	the
	late
	filing.
	My
	analysis
	is
	as
follows.
Under
	the
	current 	version
	of 	Public
	Employment
	Relations
Board
	(PERB
	or
	Board)
	Regulation
	32136,
	the
	Board
	has
	discretion
to
	excuse
	a
	late 	filing
	"for
good
	cause,"
	which
	is
	a
	subjective
concept.
	An
	overview
	of 	the
	Board's
	approach
	to
	late 	filings
over 	time
	is
	informative. 	In
	Anaheim Union 	High
	School
	District
(1978)
	PERB
	Order
	No.
	Ad-27 	(Anaheim),
	the
	Board
	applied
	the
then-current
	"sufficient
	cause"
	test
	and
	refused
	to
	excuse
	a
	one-
day
	delay
	in
	filing
	an
	appeal,
	which
	resulted
	from
	a
	postal
delay.
	Explaining
	its
	decision, 	the
	Board
	noted
	that
	the
appellant
	had
	received proper 	notice
	of
	the 	deadline, 	yet
	she
waited
	until
	nine 	of 	the
	ten
	days 	had
	expired before mailing 	her
request 	for
	review.
Four
	months
	later,
	in
	Anaheim Union 	High 	School
	District
(1978)
	PERB
	Order
	No.
	Ad-42,
	the
	Board
	considered
	its 	first
untimely
	filing
	case 	under
	a
	revised 	regulation,
	which
	provided
that
	"A
	late 	filing
	may
	be 	excused
	in
	the
	discretion
	of
	the
	Board
only under 	extraordinary 	circumstances." 	Explaining
	that
"extraordinary 	circumstances"
	means
	"out 	of 	the 	ordinary,
remarkable, 	unpredictable 	situations 	or 	occurrences
	far
	exceeding
the 	usual
	which
	prevent
	a
	timely
	filing," 	the
	Board
	refused 	to
accept
	a
	filing 	that 	arrived
	one 	day
	late
	due
	to
	a
	mail 	delay.
Comparing
	that 	case 	to 	the 	earlier
	Anaheim
	case, 	the 	Board 	noted
6

that
	"Since
	this
	...
	five-day
	mail
	service 	did
	not
	constitute
'sufficient
	cause'
	to
	excuse 	an
	untimely
	filing 	in
Anaheim,
	it
certainly
	does
	not
	constitute 	'extraordinary
	circumstances'
	in
the
	present
	case
	under
	the
	new
	rules."
	(Id.
	at
	pp.
	2-3.)
Therefore, 	the
	Board viewed
	the 	extraordinary
	circumstances
	test
as
	imposing 	an 	even
	greater
	burden
	on
	the
	party
	seeking
	to
	be
excused
	from
	a
	late 	filing
	than 	the
	"sufficient
	cause"
	standard.
In
	1989
	the
	Board 	changed
	the
	late 	filing
	regulation,
replacing
	the
	phrase
	"extraordinary
	circumstances" 	with
	the
present
	"good
	cause" 	wording.
	Examining
	the
	Board
	cases
	that
interpret
	the 	current
	language,
	it
	is
	evident
	that
	the
	good
	cause
threshold
	is
	easier 	to
	meet
	than 	the 	extraordinary
	circumstances
test.
	As
	the 	majority
	opinion
	acknowledges,
	the
	Board
	has
excused
various
	types 	of 	"honest 	mistake"
	and
	other
	unremarkable
occurrences
	(such
	as
	postal
	delays
	and
	clerical
	errors)
	under
	the
good
	cause
	version
	of 	the
	regulation.
Court
	decisions
	on
	late 	filings
	also
	apply
	a 	more
	lenient
threshold
	than 	the 	"extraordinary 	circumstances"
	test;
	if
	the
excuse
	is
	reasonable
	and
	credible, 	they 	then 	focus
	on
	whether
permitting
	a
	late 	filing
	would be
	prejudi~ial 	to 	the 	opposing
party.
1 	PERB's
	opinions
	have 	been
	consistent 	with 	the 	court
1
See,
	e.g.,
	Putnam
v.
	Clague
	(1992) 	3
	Cal.App.4th
	542
[5
	Cal.Rptr.2d
	25] 	(Putnam), 	which
	discussed 	the
	need
	to
	weigh
all
	factors.
	The
	court
	gave
	great
	weight
	to 	the 	fact 	that
	the
defendant 	had
	not
	shown
	actual 	prejudice
	from
	the 	delay and 	held
that:
If
	the 	excuse
	is 	credible 	and not 	clearly
unreasonable
	...
	the 	court 	should 	consider
all 	other 	factors, 	including prejudice 	to 	the
7

cases
	on
	this
	point.
2 	One
	reason
	courts
	are 	willing 	to 	exercise
some
	leniency
	in
	this
	area
	is
	the
	well-established
	principle
	of
law
	that
	an
	appellate
	body
	is
	generally
	reluctant 	to
	permit
	minor
procedural 	defects
	to
	preclude
	an 	examination
	of
	an
	actual
controversy
	on
	its
	merits.
3
Therefore, 	applying 	the
	rules
	of
appellate
	case
	law,
	it
	is
	appropriate
	for
	the
	Board
	to
	weigh
numerous
	factors
	on 	a
	case
	by
	case
	basis 	to
	determine 	whether
	or
not
	"good
	cause"
	exists
	to
	excuse
	a
	late 	filing.
defendant, 	before 	ordering 	dismissal
..
[Id.
	at
	557.]
In
	this
	case,
	the
	following
	factors
	were
	important.
	First,
the 	reason 	for 	the 	delay
	is
	reasonable
	and
	credible.
	It
	is
understandable
	to
	most
	observers
	that
	Bueno
	would
	be
	distressed
Furthermore,
	the 	court 	refused
	to
	imply
	prejudice 	to
	the
defendant
	from 	a 	mere
	delay
	in 	service, 	since 	prejudice
	may
	be
inferred
	only
	from
	an
	unjustified
	and
	protracted
	delay
	in
service, 	particularly
	when
	the
	defendant 	has
	actual
	knowledge
	of
existence
	of
	the 	action.
	Discussing 	the 	defendant's
	failure
	to
show
	prejudice, 	the 	court 	noted
	that
	the
	defendant 	could
	not
	show
that
	a
	single
	item of 	evidence
	was
	lost
	due
	to
	the 	delay, 	nor
that
	a
	single
	witness
	was
	unable
	to
	recall
	material 	events:
	"All
he
	has
	actually
	shown
	is
	that
	time 	has
	passed.
	and
	'the
trial
	court
	may
	not
	presume
	prejudice"simply
	by
	the 	passage 	of
time.'"
	[Id.
	at
	565-566;
	citations
	omitted.]
2
See,
	for
	example,
	University 	of
	C
(1992)
	PERB
Decision
	No. 	961-H, 	where
	the
	Board
	allowed
	a
	late
filing
	because,
	among
	other 	reasons, 	doing 	so posed
	no
	prejudice
to
	opposing 	counsel.
alifornia,
	Los
	Angeles
3
See 	Pesce
	v.
	Dept. 	Alcoholic
	Bev.
	Control
	(1958) 	51
	Cal.2d
310, 	313 	[333
	P.2d 	15). 	This
	principle
	is
	also
	followed
	in
administrative 	agencies.
	Gibson
	v.
	Unemployment
	Ins.
	Appeals
	Bd.
(1973} 	9
	Cal.3d
	494 	[108
	Cal.Rptr.
	1]
	discusses 	cases 	which 	hold
that
	"whether good 	cause
	is
	shown
	for 	relief
	from an 	appeal
deadline
	depends 	upon
	the 	factual 	circumstances 	of 	each 	case."
(Id.
	at
	498,
	fn. 	5;
	citations 	omitted.) 	See
	also, 	Flores 	v.
Unemployment
	Ins. 	Appeals 	Bd. 	(1973) 	30 	Cal.App.3d 	681 	[106
Cal. Rptr.
	543] ) .
8

of
	and
	drop
	everyday
	w~tters
	to
	help 	deal 	with
	the
	emergency
	his
mother's
	heart
	attack.
	The
	emergency
	could
	easily
	have
contributed 	to
	the 	misdirection
	of 	the
	late
	appeal,
	especially
for
	a
	party 	that
	is
	not 	experienced
	in
	filing
	documents
	with
PERE,
	as
	in 	this
	case.
4
Second,
	this 	illness
	was
	unanticipated
and 	beyond
	Buena's
	control.
	Third,
	the 	delay
	was
	not
	protracted.
Fourth,
	there
	is
	no 	showing
	that
	the
	North
Monterey 	County
Unified
	School
	District's
	(District)
	interests
	were
	prejudiced
	by
the
	relatively 	brief
	time
	delay,
	especially since 	the
	District
had
	actual
	knowledge
	of 	the
	case
	and
	there
	is
	no
	claim
	that
witnesses 	or
	evidence
	had
	become
	unavailable
	in
	the
	interim.
Prejudice
	will
	not
	be 	presumed
	simply
	by
	the
	passage 	of 	time
(Putnam,
	supra,
	at
	566).
at
	I
	disagree
	with 	the
	majority's
	comparison
	of 	the 	case 	bar
to
	Pasadena
	Community
	College
	District
	(1992)
	PERB
	Order
No.
	Ad-234
	(Pasadena
	CCD)
	since
	that
	case 	bears 	only
	a
superficial
	resemblance
	to
	this
	case.
	A
close 	reading 	of
Pasadena
	CCD
	reveals 	that
	the 	Board's
	rationale 	for 	deciding 	not
4	
to
	I 	would
	like 	to 	point 	out
	that
	Bueno
	first
	attempted
file
	his
	exceptions 	as
	early
	as
	December
	2,
	1995 	(12
	days
	after
the
	filing
	deadline),
	when
	he
	sent 	his
	exceptions 	to 	the
	wrong
PERB
	office.
	It
	was 	December 	12
	before 	his
	statement 	of
exceptions
	was
	filed
	with 	the 	correct
	PERE
	office.
	As
	the excuse
	majority 	opinion notes, 	the
	Board has 	found 	good
	cause
	to
a
	late 	filing
	which
	resulted
	from
	exceptions 	being
	directed 	to
the
	wrong
	PERB
	office 	(citing
	North 	Orange 	County Regional
Occupational
	Program 	(1990) 	PERB
	Decision
No.
	807). 	Although
Buena's 	lateness 	in 	the 	case
	at 	bar
was
	not 	solely
	a
	result 	of
misdirecting 	his 	exceptions 	to 	the
	wrong
	PERB
	office, 	since
	we
dealing 	with
	a
	discretionary 	standard, 	this 	factor 	carries	are
some
	weight 	because
	it
	shows
	that 	an attempt
	was 	ma.de
	to 	file
close 	to 	the 	deadline. 
9

to
	excuse
	the
	late 	filing
	was
	that
	it
	did
	not
	believe
	the
	party's
assertion 	that
	it
	had
	made 	a
	conscientious
	effort
	to
	file
	on
time:
...
	the
	response
	the
	Teamsters
	claim
	to
have
	misdirected
	to
	the
	Los
	Angeles
	office
was
	never
	received
....
	The
	Teamsters
assert 	that
	a
	response
	to
	the
	Board
	agent's
Order
	was
	filed
	by
	express
	mail
	to
	the
Los
	Angeles
	PERB
	office
	on
	July
	23, 	1992.
The 	Los
	Angeles
	office,
	however,
	received
	no
such
	filing,
	and
	the
	Teamsters
	submitted
	no
proof 	of
	service
	relating
	to
	this 	filing
	or
any
	further
	evidence
	that
	it
	ever 	occurred.
As 	a
	result,
	the
	Board
	concludes
	that
	no
response
	was
	filed.
	contrary
	to
	the
assertion.
	[Id.
	at
	p.
	5; 	emphasis
	added.]
Here, 	by
	contrast, 	there
	is
	no
	indication 	that
	Buena's 	excuse
	is
not
	credible.
	Also,
	in
	Pasadena
	CCD
	the
	Board 	found
	that
	the
cause 	of 	delay
	offered
	was
	one 	which
	could
	have 	been
	anticipated,
yet
	no
	extension
	was
	requested,
	a
	situation 	that 	further
	weakened
the
	credibility
	of
	the
	excuse.
5
Review
	of
	appellate
	case
.law
and 	Pasadena
	CCD
	illustrates
the
	need
	for
	a
	discretionary,
	case
	by
	case 	approach
	when
	testing
for
	good
	cause
	rather
	than
	imposing
	a
	rigid
	standard.
	Cases
	like
this
	do
	not 	lend
	themselves
	to bright 	line 	rules 	or 	rote
adherence
	to 	prior
	decisions 	with
	similar 	fact 	patterns, 	since
each
	late 	filing 	situation 	is
	the 	product 	of
	a
	unique 	combination
5
Although 	the
	argument 	can be
	made
	that
	Bueno
	could have
requested
	an 	extension 	of 	time,
	I
	think
	it
	is
	worthwhile
	to
	note
that
	he
	is
	inexperienced
	in
	PERB
	procedure, 	whereas
	the 	party
seeking
	relief
	from 	a
	late 	filing 	in
	Pasadena	
CCD	
was
	experienced
in
	PERB
	procedure,
	whose
	business 	agent 	had 	family
	illnesses 	that
prevented her
	from
	filing
	on 	time. 	Although
	we 	do
	not 	have
	all
the 	facts 	before us, 	presumably 	the 	business 	agent 	in
	Pasadena
CCD
	could have 	requested 	other 	experienced union 	representatives
to 	assist 	her 	in meeting 	the 	filing 	deadline.
10

of
	facts
	and
	circumstances.
	This
	is
	a
	major
	reason
	that
	the
regulation
	was
	framed
	as
	a
	discretionary 	tool.
	I
	would
	also
emphasize
	that
	although
	the
	Board
	has
	discretion 	in
	this
	area,
that
	does
	not
	mean
	that 	parties
	may
	ignore
	deadlines 	without
penalty.
	To
	the 	contrary, 	the
	Board
	has
	the
	obligation 	to
	ensure
that
	all
	aspects
	of
	its
	process
	are
	administered as
	fairly
	as
possible,
	and
	filing
	deadlines
	must
	be
	respected
	and
	enforced
except
	in 	the
	rare
	cases
	where 	good
	cause
	is
	shown.
	Under
longstanding 	court
	approved
	appellate 	practice,
	the
	good
	cause
approach
	would
	not 	permit
	abuse
	of
	timelines, 	yet
	it
	would
	be
forgiving
	in
	justifiable
	circumstances.
I
	conclude
	that,
	based
	on
	all
	the
	facts
	of
	this
	case,
	good
cause
	to
	excuse
	the
	la.te
	filing
	has 	been
	shown.
11