Los Angeles Unified School District and Los Angeles Community College District (Watts) (PERB 0408E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS BOARD
HOWARD 0. WATTS,
Complainant,
v.
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL 	DISTRICT,
Respondent.
Case No. 	LA-PN-3 6
PERB Decision No. 	408
September 	17, 	1984
HOWARD 0. WATTS,
Complainant,
v.
LOS ANGELES 	COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT,
Respondent.
Case Nos. 	LA-PN-25
LA-PN-35
LA-PN-37
Appearances; 	Howard O. Watts, 	representing himself.
Before Hesse, 	Chairperson; 	Morgenstern and Burt, Members.
DECISION
HESSE, 	Chairperson: 	Howard Watts, 	complainant, 	filed a
request 	for 	an extension of 	time 	in four 	cases 	simultaneously
on December 	22, 	1981. 	The request was 	denied as 	to all 	four
cases 	and, 	on January 4, 	1982, 	he brought these appeals to the
Public Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(Board or 	PERB).
PROCEDURAL 	HISTORY
LA-PN-2 5: 	In this case, 	the complainant 	requested an
extension of 	time 	in which 	to 	reply to the 	response 	by the
)
)
)
)
)
)
) .
)
)
______________ )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
______________ )

Los 	Angeles 	Community College District 	(LACCD) 	to Watts'
request 	for 	reconsideration of Los Angeles 	Community College
District 	(11/30/81) 	PERB Decision No. 	150b. 	The 	request to
extend 	time was 	denied 	for 	failure 	to state 	good 	cause, 	and
this 	appeal 	followed. 	Acting upon 	complainant's 	initial
request to reconsider, 	however, 	PERB rendered Decision No. 	150c
on the merits, 	holding that 	the 	complainant had 	failed to
demonstrate the 	"necessary extraordinary circumstances" 	that
would 	warrant 	reconsideration.
IA-PN-35: 	Complainant 	filed a public notice 	complaint
alleging violations of subsections 3547(a), 	(b) and 	(d) of the
Educational 	Employment 	Relations Act 	(EERA).1 The 	regional
1 The 	EERA 	is 	codified at 	Government 	Code 	section 	3540
et 	seq. 	All 	references herein are to the Government Code
unless 	otherwise 	indicated. 	Section 	3547 reads 	in relevant
part:
(a) 	All 	initial proposals of 	exclusive
representatives 	and 	of 	public 	school
employers, 	which relate to matters
within the scope of 	representation, 	shall be
presented at 	a public meeting of 	the 	public
school 	employer 	and thereafter 	shall 	be
public records.
(b) 	Meeting and negotiating 	shall 	not 	take
place on any proposal 	until 	a 	reasonable
time has 	elapsed after 	the 	submission of 	the
proposal 	to 	enable 	the 	public to become
informed and 	the 	public has 	the 	opportunity
to express 	itself 	regarding the 	proposal 	at
a meeting of 	the 	public 	school 	employer.
(d) 	New 	subjects 	of 	meeting and negotiating
arising after 	the 	presentation of 	initial
2

director 	determined that 	these 	allegations 	failed 	to 	state 	a
prima 	facie case, 	and thus he 	dismissed the 	charge without
leave 	to 	amend. 	After 	PERB 	subsequently affirmed this
dismissal 	in Los 	Angeles 	Community College 	District 	(12/15/81)
PERB Decision No. 	186, 	complainant 	sought 	an extension of 	time
in order 	to 	file 	a request 	for 	reconsideration of 	this 	decision
with the 	Board. 	His 	request 	for 	an extension of 	time was
denied 	for 	failure 	to 	state 	good 	cause 	as 	required by 	PERB
regulation 	32132, 	and this appeal 	followed.
LA-PN-36; 	This charge, 	alleging violation of 	section 3547,
was 	dismissed on the 	regional 	director's 	determination that 	it
failed 	to 	state 	a 	prima 	facie 	case 	and 	could not 	be 	amended 	to
do so. 	The 	Board affirmed the 	regional 	director's 	decision 	in
Los 	Angeles Unified School 	District 	(12/15/81) 	PERB 	Decision
No. 	187. 	Again complainant 	sought 	an extension of 	time in
order 	to submit 	a request 	for 	reconsideration, 	but 	the 	request
for 	an extension was 	denied 	for 	failure to state 	good 	cause.
This 	refusal 	to extend time 	is under 	appeal.
LA-PN-37; 	By timely appeal, 	complainant 	sought to set
aside 	the hearing officer's 	dismissal 	of his 	charge 	for 	failure
to state a prima 	facie 	case. 	He then sought 	an extension
proposals 	shall 	be 	made 	public within 	24
hours. 	If a 	vote 	is 	taken on such subject
by the public school 	employer, 	the vote
thereon by each member 	voting 	shall 	also 	be
made 	public within 	24 hours.
33

of 	time 	in order 	to reply to the LACCD response to his 	appeal.
This 	request was 	denied and he 	appeals 	the 	denial. 	In the
meantime, 	the 	Board affirmed the hearing officer's 	dismissal 	of
the 	charge 	in Los 	Angeles 	Community College 	District 	(8/15/83)
PERB Decision Nos. 	330 and 	331.
DISCUSSION
In both LA-PN-25 and LA-PN-37, 	complainant 	requested an
extension of 	time 	in order 	to 	file 	a reply to the 	responding
party's 	response 	to his 	request 	for 	reconsideration 	and his
appeal of 	the dismissal 	of his 	charge, 	respectively. 	PERB
regulations2 do 	not 	specifically permit 	a 	complainant 	to
submit 	a reply brief. 	Therefore, 	those 	timelines 	associated
with PERB's other 	filings 	are 	inapposite. 	For 	this 	reason, 	the
Board's 	executive 	assistant 	inappropriately denied 	these
requests 	for 	time 	extensions 	since 	he 	based his 	denial 	on
Watts' 	failure to 	demonstrate that 	good 	cause warranted such
extensions. 	Nonetheless, 	we 	find no prejudicial 	error was
committed.
Since 	the 	submission of 	such 	replies 	is 	neither 	expressly
permitted nor 	precluded, 	it would appear that 	the acceptance of
such 	filings 	is 	discretionary with the 	Board. 	Where 	the
response raises new issues, 	discusses new case law or
2PERB 	regulations 	are 	codified at 	California
Administrative Code, 	title 	8, 	section 	31001 	et seq.
4

formulates new defenses 	to 	allegations, 	the Board might well be
persuaded 	to permit 	the 	complainant 	to 	submit 	a reply 	in order
to 	aid the 	Board 	in 	its 	review of 	the 	underlying dispute. 	In
neither 	of 	these cases, 	however, 	did the 	complainant's 	request
to 	submit 	a 	reply suggest 	that 	any such 	factors 	justified the
submission of 	a reply. 	Indeed, 	complainant's 	requests 	dealt
only with a 	desire 	for 	an 	extension of 	time 	and advanced no
reasons 	why a brief 	should be 	accepted. 	For 	this 	reason, 	we
affirm 	the 	determination below to the 	extent 	that 	it 	correctly
declined to permit Watts 	to submit 	reply briefs.
In LA-PN-35 and 36, 	the issue is somewhat 	different. 	In
those 	cases, 	the 	requests 	for 	reconsideration were never
considered because they were 	not 	received. 	When 	it 	became
apparent 	to Watts 	that 	he 	would miss 	the 	filing deadline to
request 	reconsideration, 	he 	sought 	an extension of 	time 	under
PERB 	regulation 	321323 	in which 	to 	file the 	request.
Complainant's mailgram request 	for 	an extension of 	time 	in
these 	cases 	was 	not 	clear.4 The 	only statement 	that 	could
3pERB 	rule 	32132 	states 	in pertinent 	part:
Extensions of 	time may be granted 	. 	. 	. 	for
good 	cause only.
4Reasons 	constituting 	"good 	cause" 	for 	an 	extension of
time must be 	filed pursuant 	to PERB rule 	32132. 	In this 	case,
the 	short, 	ambiguous mailgram requesting the 	extension of 	time
was 	timely filed. 	However, 	the longer 	letter, 	which explained
the 	details 	and was 	sent 	nearly two weeks 	after 	the 	filing
deadline, 	was 	not 	timely filed and 	is 	not 	considered in arriving
at 	this decision.
5

arguably constitute 	"good 	cause" 	for his 	request was 	the
reference 	to 	"no opportunity to 	get 	the 	position of 	the
parties." 	If 	complainant were referring to the position of 	the
parties 	on the 	requests 	for 	reconsideration, 	his 	inability to
obtain that 	information is 	not 	"good 	cause" 	because 	such
information 	is 	neither 	referred 	to 	nor 	required by 	the
regulations. 	If, 	as 	seems more 	likely,5 Watts 	is 	referring
to the position of 	the 	parties on the extension of 	time, 	it
still 	does 	not 	constitute 	"good 	cause."
Not 	only 	is 	that 	information 	not 	required 	by the
regulations, 	but 	it does 	not 	in any way relate to the
underlying documents 	complainant 	wished to file 	late, 	the
requests 	for 	reconsideration. 	Absent 	a statement 	of 	"good
cause," 	complainant's 	request 	for 	extensions 	of 	time 	in these
cases 	was 	properly denied.
ORDER
For 	the 	foregoing reasons, 	Howard 0. Watts' 	appeal 	to the
Public Employment 	Relations Board of 	the 	denial 	of 	an extension
of 	time in PN-25, 	35, 	36 and 37 is hereby DENIED.
Members Morgenstern 	and 	Burt 	joined 	in this Decision.
5Regulation 	32132 	requires 	"the 	request 	shall 	indicate 	the
reason for the request 	and, 	if 	known, 	the position of 	each other
party regarding 	the 	extension." 	(Emphasis 	added.)
6