Regents of the University of California (Printing Trades Alliance) (PERB 0524H)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
PRINTING 	TRADES 	ALLIANCE.
Charging 	Party,
v.
REGENTS 	OF 	THE 	UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA.
Respondent.
Case No. 	SF-CE-197-H
PERB Decision No. 	524-H
September 25, 	1985
Appearances: 	Van Bourg, 	Weinberg. 	Roger 	& Rosenfeld by
William A. 	Sokol 	for 	Printing Trades Alliance.
Before Jaeger. 	Morgenstern and Burt. 	Members.
DECISION
JAEGER. 	Member: 	The 	Printing Trades Alliance 	appeals 	the
attached Order 	of 	Dismissal 	of 	Complaint. 	It 	argues 	that 	the
administrative 	law 	judge 	(ALJ) 	erred 	in 	ordering 	the 	dismissal
after 	being 	advised 	that 	the 	parties 	had 	reached 	a 	tentative
settlement 	and 	that 	the 	charge would 	be withdrawn upon
execution of written settlement 	documents. 	For 	the 	reasons 	set
forth below, 	we 	find 	no 	error 	in the 	action of 	the ALJ 	and 	on
that 	basis we 	affirm 	the 	dismissal.
DISCUSSION
The 	record 	in 	this 	case 	indicates 	that 	the 	charge was 	filed
in November 	1984. 	After 	several 	continuances 	requested 	by the
parties, 	a 	hearing was 	ultimately scheduled 	for 	the 	dates 	of
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_______________ )

May 2. 	3 	and 	7, 	1985. 	When the participants 	assembled 	on May 2
at 	the 	place 	designated 	for 	the hearing, 	the parties 	informed
the ALJ 	that 	they had 	reached 	a 	settlement 	of 	the matter 	and
that 	Charging 	Party would 	therefore withdraw 	its 	charge.
In an effort 	to 	bring 	the 	case 	to an expeditious 	end. 	and
in 	recognition 	of 	the 	several 	previous 	continuances 	granted 	in
this 	case, 	the ALJ 	that 	same 	day sent written notice 	to 	the
parties 	that, 	unless 	Charging Party appeared 	on May 7 	as
scheduled 	to 	begin presentation of 	its 	case, 	the 	charge would
be dismissed. 	When no appearance was made on that date, 	the
ALJ 	ordered 	the 	case 	dismissed 	on 	the 	grounds 	that 	Charging
Party had 	failed 	to 	appear 	and 	present 	its 	evidence 	as 	directed.
Printing Trades 	Alliance 	argues 	on 	appeal 	that 	it 	did 	in
fact 	appear 	on the 	scheduled 	hearing date, 	i.e., 	May 2, 	and
that 	the ALJ 	acted 	contrary 	to 	his 	proper 	role 	of 	encouraging
voluntary 	settlements 	by 	the 	parties.
Certainly 	Charging 	Party's 	argument 	that 	it 	appeared 	before
the ALJ 	on May 	2 	is 	nonresponsive 	to 	the 	question 	of 	its
failure 	to 	appear 	as 	later 	directed 	on May 7. 	Thus, 	it 	offers
no 	explanation for 	its 	failure 	to 	abide 	by 	the ALJ's
direction. 	In view of 	the 	record 	of 	delays 	and 	continuances 	in
this 	case, 	the ALJ's 	effort 	to 	bring 	the case 	to a 	prompt
conclusion was 	not 	unreasonable. 	We 	are 	cognizant 	that 	the
period 	between May 2 	and May 7. 	which contained 	a weekend, 	left
little 	time 	in which 	to 	draft 	and 	execute 	settlement
2

documents. 	However, 	Charging Party has 	not 	indicated 	any
reason why 	it 	could 	not 	have 	communicated 	its 	progress 	toward
settlement 	to 	the ALJ, 	either 	by appearing as 	directed 	or
simply 	by 	contacting 	the ALJ 	in advance 	of 	that 	date.
ORDER
Upon the 	foregoing Decision, 	Case No. 	SF-CE-197-H is 	hereby
DISMISSED.
Members Morgenstern and 	Burt 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
33

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
PRINTING 	TRADES 	ALLIANCE,
Charging 	Party,
v.
REGENTS 	OF 	THE 	UNIVERSITY
OF 	CALIFORNIA,
Respondent.
Case No. 	SF-CE-197-H
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER OF
DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT
Inasmuch 	as 	the 	charging 	party 	has 	made 	no 	effort 	to
present 	any 	evidence 	in 	support 	of 	its 	charge 	on 	the days
designated 	for 	the 	hearing, 	the 	Complaint 	herein 	is 	DISMISSED.
This 	action 	may 	be 	appealed 	to 	the 	Public 	Employment
Relations 	Board 	(hereafter 	PERB) 	itself 	within 	twenty 	(20)
calendar 	days 	after 	service 	of 	this 	Order 	pursuant 	to
California Administrative Code, 	title 	8, 	part 	III, 	section
32635. 	To be 	timely 	filed, 	such 	appeal must be 	actually
received 	by 	the 	PERB 	before 	the 	close 	of 	business 	(5:00 	p.m.)
on May 	29, 	1985, 	or 	sent 	by 	telegraph 	or 	certified 	United 	States
mail postmarked 	not 	later 	than May 	29, 	1985. 	(See 	Section
32135.) 	The Board's 	address 	is: 	1031 	18th Street, 	Suite 	200,
Sacramento,CA 95814. 	Such 	appeal must 	be 	in writing and
signed 	by 	the 	charging 	party 	or 	its 	agent. 	The 	appeal must 	be
accompanied 	by 	proof 	of 	service 	upon 	all 	parties.
DATED: 	May 9, 	1985
MARTIN 	FASSLER
Administrative 	Law 	Judge
)
)
)
)
)
- ------ -----