Hart District Teachers Association (Mercado and Bloch) (PERB A312E)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
MARIO MERCADO,
Charging Party,
v.
HART DISTRICT TEACHERS ASSOCIATION,
Respondent.
CANDICE BLOCH,
Charging Party,
v.
HART DISTRICT TEACHERS ASSOCIATION,
Respondent.
Case No. LA-CO-801-E
PERB Order No. Ad-312
December 4, 2001
Case No. LA-CO-802-E
Appearances: Mario Mercado and Candice Bloch, on their own behalf; Charles R. Gustafson,
Attorney, for Hart District Teachers Association.
Before Amador, Baker and Whitehead, Members.
DECISION
WHITEHEAD, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on appeal by the Hart District Teachers Association (Association) to the
PERB appeals assistant’s rejection of its response to the request for reconsideration of Hart
District Teachers Association (Mercado and Bloch) (2001) PERB Decision No. 1456 (HDTA)
as untimely filed.

________________________
DISCUSSION
The Association’s response to the request for reconsideration in HDTA was due to be
filed no later than September 12, 2001. The response was sent on September 12 by regular
U.S. mail and received at PERB on September 14, 2001.
PERB Regulation 321351 states, in pertinent part:
(a) All documents shall be considered "filed" when actually
received by the appropriate PERB office before the close of
business on the last date set for filing, or when mailed by certified
or Express United States mail, as shown on the postal receipt or
postmark, or delivered to a common carrier promising overnight
delivery, as shown on the carrier's receipt, not later than the last
day set for filing and addressed to the proper PERB office.
Because the Association did not use certified or Express United States mail, its September 14
filing failed to comply with Regulation 32135 and was rejected as untimely filed.
The Association asks the Board to find good cause to excuse its late filing because it
made a good faith effort to timely file, but erred by placing the response in regular mail
delivery service not specified in PERB’s regulations. The Association notes that the response
was received by PERB on September 14, 2001, only two days late and that as a result of its
inadvertence in not using certified mail as its custom, the late filing should be excused.
PERB Regulation 32136 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.
In applying this regulation, the Board has found good cause to excuse late filings when a party
1PERB regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 31001
et seq.
2

has made a conscientious effort to timely file. Consequently, the Board has excused various
types of “honest mistakes” involving clerical or mailing errors. (North Orange County
Regional Occupational Program (1990) PERB Decision No. 807; Trustees of the California
State University (1989) PERB Order No. Ad-192-H; Barstow Unified School District (1996)
PERB Order No. Ad-277.)
Here, the Board has considered the request for reconsideration at issue and denied it.
(See Hart District Teachers Association (Mercado and Bloch) (2001) PERB Decision No.
1456a.) Therefore, the request for review of this late filed response is moot and there is no
need to rule on the merits of this appeal.
ORDER
The request by the Hart District Teachers Association that the Board accept its late filed
response to the request for reconsideration in Hart District Teachers Association (Mercado and
Bloch) (2001) PERB Decision No. 1456 is hereby DENIED.
Members Amador and Baker joined in this Decision.
3