California State University (Watts) (PERB 0468H)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELA·rIONS 	BOARD
HOWARD 	O. 	WATTS,
Charging 	Party,
v.
CALIFORNIA 	STATE 	UNIVERSITY,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
__________________ )
Case 	Nos. 	LA-PN-60-H
LA-PN-61-H
LA-PN-6 2-H
LA-PN-63-H
LA-PN-64-H
LA-PN-65-H
LA-PN-66-H
PERB 	Decision 	No. 	468-H
December 	27, 	1984
Appearance: 	Howard 	o. 	Watts 	on 	his 	own 	behalf.
Before 	Tovar, 	Jaeger, 	and 	Burt, 	Members.
DECISION
BURT, 	Member: 	Howard 	o. 	Watts 	appeals 	the 	denial 	for
failure 	to 	state 	good 	cause 	by 	the 	executive 	director 	of 	the
Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(PERB 	or 	Board) 	of 	his
request 	for 	an 	extension 	of 	time 	in 	which 	to 	file 	appeals 	of
the 	dismissals 	of 	his 	public 	notice 	complaints 	in 	LA-PN-60-H
through 	LA-PN-66-H.
For 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	below, 	we 	affirm 	the 	executive
director's 	denial 	of 	Watts' 	request.
FACTS
In April 	and 	May 	of 	1983, 	Howard 	0. 	Watts 	filed 	the 	seven
above-referenced 	public 	notice 	complaints 	against 	the
California 	State 	University 	(CSU). 	The 	complaints 	were 	first

placed 	in 	abeyance 	for 	two 	months 	at 	Watts' 	request 	and 	then
dismissed 	by 	the 	regional 	attorney 	on April 	10, 	1984. l On
April 	27, 	1984, 	Watts 	filed 	a 	timely 	request 	for 	an 	extension
of 	time 	to 	appeal 	the 	dismissals. 	He 	offered 	the 	following
reasons 	for 	his 	request: 	{l) 	he 	had 	a 	number 	of 	cases 	that 	he
was 	either 	f~ling 	or 	appealing 	and 	did 	not, 	therefore, 	have
time 	to 	work 	up ~he 	appeals 	in 	the 	above-referenced 	cases
before 	the 	filing 	deadline; 	and 	(2) 	he 	is 	disabled 	and 	suffers
from 	a 	variety 	of 	physical 	ailments. 	watts' 	request 	for 	an
extension 	of 	time 	was 	opposed 	by 	CSU. 	On May 	4, 	1984, 	his
request 	for 	an 	extension 	was 	denied 	for 	failure 	to 	state 	good
cause.
DISCUSSION
Pursuant 	to 	PERE 	Regulation 	32132, 2 a 	timely 	request 	for
an 	extension 	of 	time 	to 	file 	a 	paper 	with 	PERB 	may 	be 	granted
lin 	the 	dismissal 	letter, 	the 	regional 	attorney 	notes
that 	these 	complaints 	all 	make 	"one 	or 	more 	legal 	assertions
already 	made 	in 	cases 	LA-PN-48-H 	and 	IA-PN-50, 	which 	have 	been
dismissed 	by 	this 	office 	without 	leave 	to 	amend 	on 	March 	14,
1984 	and 	March 	21, 	1984. 	The 	instant 	cases 	are 	distinguishable
from 	the 	former 	ones 	only 	on 	an 	immaterial 	factual 	basis, 	i.e.,
they 	allege 	the 	same 	violation(s) 	occurred 	at 	different
meetings 	of 	the 	respondent, 	California 	State 	University .•.. "
Since 	then, 	the 	dismissals 	of 	cases 	LA-PN-48-H 	and
LA-PN-50-H 	have 	been 	summarily 	affirmed 	by 	PERE 	on 	appeal. 	See
California 	State 	University 	(Watts) 	(12/7/84) 	PERB 	Decision 	No.
453-H 	and 	California 	State 	University 	(Watts) 	(12/10/84) 	PERE
Decision 	Nos. 	456-H 	and 	457-H.
2PERB 	Regulation 	32132(a) 	provides 	in 	pertinent 	part:
(a) 	A 	request 	for 	an 	extension 	of 	time
within 	which 	to 	file 	any 	document 	with 	the
2

for
	"good
	cause."
	PERB
	has
	not
	previously
	directly
	addressed
what
	may
	constitute
	the
	"good
	cause"
	required 	in
	this
	instance
other
	than
	indicating
	that
	it
	is
	a
	lower
	standard
	than
	the
"extraordinary
	circumstances" 	required
	to
	excuse
	a
	late
filing.
	We
	feel
	the
	proper
	approach
	is
	to
	weigh
	the
	nature
	of
the
	reasons
	asserted
	to
	be
	"good
	cause"
	against
	the 	length 	of
the
	delay
	and
	the
	possible 	prejudice
	to 	the
	opposing
	party.
	In
general,
	for
	"good
	cause"
	to
	be
	fauna,·
a
	party's
	request 	for
	an
extension
	should
	be
	based
	on
	circumstances
	that
	are
unanticipated
	or
	beyond
	the
	party's
	control.
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
....
	Extensions
of 	time
	may 	be
	granted
	by
	the
	Board
	itself
or 	an 	agent 	designated
	by
	the
	Board
	itself
for
	good 	cause 	only.
In 	the
	instant
	case,
	we
	note
	that
	Mr.
	Watts'
	physical
disabilities
	are 	apparently 	longstanding 	ailments
	and
	that,
despite 	his 	uncertain 	physical 	condition,
	he
	manages
	to
	file
complaints
	and
	appeals,
	appear
	at
	school
	board 	meetings
	to
express 	his
	views,
	and
	participate
	in 	informal 	conferences 	with
PERB
	and
	school
	officials.
	Thus,
	it
	is 	clear 	that
	any
	problems
resulting
	from
	his 	physical
	infirmities
	are 	neither
unanticipated
	nor
	insuperable;
	Mr.
	Watts 	has
	successfully
3

managed 	to 	pursue 	considerable 	legal 	action 	in 	the 	past 	despite
his 	continuing 	ailments. 	Under 	these 	circumstances, 	we 	do 	not
feel 	an 	exception 	to 	the 	normal 	timelines 	for 	filing 	appeals
should 	be 	mad~ 	because 	of 	his 	physical 	problems.
With 	regard 	to 	Mr. 	watts' 	admittedly 	heavy 	workload, 	we
note 	that 	he 	voluntarily 	chooses 	to 	appeal 	almost 	every
dismissal 	or 	administrative 	order 	related 	to 	his 	complaints,
regardless 	of 	the 	merits. 	Clearly, 	Mr. 	Watts' 	workload 	is
entirely 	self-inflicted 	and 	under 	his 	personal 	control. 	We
note 	that 	Watts 	has 	been 	warned 	several 	times 	about 	his
penchant 	for 	filing 	frivolous 	and 	nonmeritorious 	complaints 	and
appeals 	that 	address 	the 	same 	issues 	as 	complaints 	previously
filed 	by 	him. 3 For 	these 	reasons, 	we 	feel 	his 	workload 	is
not 	sufficient 	"good 	cause" 	to 	justify 	an 	extension 	of 	time.
This 	latter 	consideration 	also 	bears 	on 	the 	question 	of
prejudice 	to 	respondent 	CSU; 	a 	significant 	burden 	is 	obviously
imposed 	on CSU 	when 	it 	must 	continually 	prepare 	and 	defend
against 	such 	appeals.
ORDER
For 	the 	above 	reasons, 	the 	denial 	of 	Howard 	O. 	Watts'
request 	for 	an 	extension 	of 	time 	is AFFIRMED.
Members 	Tovar 	and 	Jaeger 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
3 see, 	for 	example, 	Los Angeles 	Unified 	School 	District
(Watts) 	(2/22/82) 	PERB 	Decision 	No. 	181a 	and 	United 	Professors
of 	California 	(Watts) 	(8/16/84) 	PERB 	Decision 	No. 	398-H.
4