State of California (PERB A309S)

________________________
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
CARLOS A. VELTRUSKI,
Charging Party,
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Respondent.
Case No. LA-CE-556-S
Administrative Appeal
PERB Order No. Ad-309-S
June 19, 2001
Appearances: Carlos A. Veltruski, on his own behalf; State of California (Department of
Personnel Administration) by Linda M. Nelson, Labor Relations Counsel, for State of
California.
Before Amador, Baker and Whitehead, Members.
DECISION
WHITEHEAD, Member: This case comes before the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on a request by Carlos A. Veltruski (Veltruski) that the Board accept
his late-filed notice of appeal.
On February 22, 2001,1 a Board agent issued a partial dismissal of Veltruski's unfair
practice charge. The appeal was due to be filed no later than March 19. Veltruski filed an
appeal of the partial dismissal with PERB on March 20, one day late. The proof of service
attached to the appeal was dated March 19, the appeal was postmarked March 20 by U.S.
Express Mail and received by PERB on March 21.
In his appeal from the partial dismissal, Veltruski states that the reason for his late
filing was "due to my severe state of depression and anxiety caused by new retaliation and new
1All dates refer to 2001.

________________________
acts of discrimination" committed by various officials. On April 5, Veltruski submitted an
additional explanation for his untimely filing. In this supplemental pleading, Veltruski stated
that, although he brought the notice of appeal to the post office on March 19, it was given an
untimely stamp date due to unanticipated post office procedures.
DISCUSSION
PERB Regulation 321362 provides that:
A late filing may be excused in the discretion of the Board for
good cause only. A late filing, which has been excused, becomes
a timely filing under these regulations.
The Board has found good cause exists where a party has demonstrated that a
conscientious effort to timely file was made. (See, e.g., North Orange County Regional
Occupational Program (1990) PERB Decision No. 807 [good cause existed in a late filing
which resulted from exceptions being directed to the wrong PERB office]; Trustees of the
California State University (1989) PERB Order No. Ad-192-H [inadvertent, incorrect use of a
postage meter resulting in late delivery represented good cause to excuse a late filing]; and
State of California (Department of Forestry and Fire Protection) (1998) PERB Order
No. Ad-286-S [good cause found where party made a conscientious effort to timely file but
inadvertently utilized an overnight mail delivery system not specified in PERB's regulation].)
When the late filing is caused by alleged physical illness, the party still must
demonstrate a conscientious effort to timely file. (See, e.g., North Monterey County Unified
School District (1996) PERB Order No. Ad-274; State of California (Department of Social
Services) (2001) PERB Order No. Ad-308-S.)
2PERB regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8,
section 31001 et seq.
2

In the case at bar, Veltruski has not met this burden. As to Veltruski's original reason
for his late filing, although he stated it was due to depression and anxiety, he has not explained
how that illness prevented him from making a conscientious effort to timely file.
Veltruski's supplemental reason for his late filing, i.e. that it was caused by unforeseen
post office procedures, appears to be disingenuous. Veltruski presumably brought the notice of
appeal to the post office on March 19, anticipating a timely filing. It is therefore difficult to
understand how Veltruski had the prescience to include in his original papers a detailed, typed
discussion explaining why the notice was untimely filed.
For these reasons, we find that no good cause has been shown to excuse this late filing.
ORDER
Carlos Veltruski's request to accept his late-filed notice of appeal in Case
No. LA-CE-556-S is hereby DENIED.
Members Amador and Baker joined in this Decision.
3