Saddleback Valley Unified School District (PERB 0558E)

2 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD

CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES °
ASSOCIATION AND ITS SADDLEBACK VALLEY
CHAPTER #616,

Charging Party, Case No. LA-CE-2109
Vv. . PERB Decision No. 558
SADDLEBACK VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, December 31, 1985

Respondent.

Nee et Sl Ne a ee et et et et

Appearance: Steven E. Balentine for California School Employees
Association and its Saddleback Valley Chapter #616.

Before Jaeger, Morgenstern and Burt, Members.
| DECISION

BURT, Member: This case is before the Public Employment
Relations Board (Board) on appeal by the California School
Employees Association and its Saddleback Valley Chapter #616
(CSEA) of a Board agent's dismissal of its unfaix practice
charge against Saddleback Valley Unified School District
(District). The charge was dismissed as untimely pursuant to
Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA)

section 3541.5(a)(1),+ which prohibits the issuance of a

LEERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq.
Unless otherwise noted, all statutory references are to the
Government Code.

Section 3541.5 provides, in pertinent part:

(a) Any employee, employee organization, or
employer shall have the right to file an

complaint
	based
	on
	an
	unfair 	practice
	occurring
	more
	than
	six
months
	"prior
	to"
	the
	filing
	of
	the 	charge.
CSEA
	filed
	the 	underlying
	charge
	on 	December
	21. 	1984.
	It
alleges 	that
	the
	District
	made
	an
	unlawful
	unilateral
	change
when
	it
	adopted
	a
	proposal 	for
	a
	change
	in
	the
	employee
medical/dental
	plan
	at
	a
	school
	board 	meeting
	on
	the
	evening 	of
June
	20.
	1984.
On
	February
	14,
	1985,
	the
	Board
	agent 	advised
	CSEA
	that
	the
alleged 	unfair 	practice
	had
	apparently
	occurred
	more
	than
	six
months
	prior
	to 	the
	filing
	of 	the 	charge 	and,
	thus.
	did 	not
meet
	the 	timeliness
	requirement 	of
	section 	3541.S(a)(l).
	He
said
	that
	the
	charge
	would 	be
	dismissed 	unless
	CSEA
	amended
	it
to 	deal 	with
	that
	problem.
	on
	February
	25, 	1985,
	CSEA
responded 	by 	arguing
	that
	the
	charge
	had
	been
	filed
	within 	the
six-month 	period.
	On
	March
	1,
	1985,
	the 	charge
	was
	dismissed.
on
	appeal,
	CSEA
	argues 	again
	that
	it
	filed
	its
	charge
within 	the
	six-month
	period.
	It
	asserts 	that
	the
	six
	month
period
	immediately 	preceding 	the
	December 	21,
	1984
	filing
	runs
from
	June
	20
	to
	December 	20
	because 	the
	statutory
	language
"prior
	to" 	should
	be
	read 	to 	exclude 	the 	date 	of
	filing
	itself.
After
	reviewing 	the 	record 	in 	light
	of 	the 	appeal.
	we
unfair 	practice 	charge, 	except 	that 	the
board
	shall 	not
	do
	either
	of 	the 	following:(1) 	issue
	a
	complaint 	in 	respect 	of 	any
charge 	based 	upon 	an 	alleged 	unfair 	practice
occurring
	more
	than 	six
	months
	prior 	to 	the
filing 	of 	the 	charge:
	...
2

affirm
	the
	dismissal
	based
	on
	the 	reasons
	and
	calculations
which
	follow.
DISCUSSION
The
	issue 	in
	this
	case
	is
	how
	the
	six-month
	statute
	of
limitations
	period
	is
	to
	be
	calculated.
	Al~hough
	we
	have
	not
directly
	addressed
	this 	particular
	point 	before,
	we
	find
	it
straightforward.
	The
	school
	board
	action
	took
	place
	on
June 	20,
	1984.
	Consistent	
with	
section
	12
	of
	the
	Code
	of
	Civil
Procedure,
2 we
	hold
	that.the
	six-month
	period
	is
	to
	be
computed
	by
	excluding 	the
	day
	the 	alleged
	misconduct 	took
	place
and
	including
	the
	last
	day,
	unless 	the
	last
	day
	is
	a
	holiday,
and
	then
	it
	also
	is
	excluded.
	Thus,
	the
	six-month
	period
started
	on
	June 	21, 	1984,
	the
	day
	after
	the 	school
	board
adopted 	the 	proposal,
	and 	ended
	at
	the 	close
	of
	business
	on
December
	20, 	1984. 	For
	this
	reason,
	we
	find 	the
	charge
	filed
on 	December 	21,
	1984
	to
	be
	untimely
	and
	affirm
	its
	dismissal.
ORDER
We
	ORDER
	that
	the 	charge
	filed
	in
	Case
	No. 	LA-CE-2109
	is
hereby
	DISMISSED.
Members
	Jaeger
	and
	Morgenstern 	joined 	in 	this
	Decision.
2
section
	12
	of 	the 	California
	Code
	of 	Civil 	Procedure
provides: 
The 	time 	in 	which 	any	
act 	provided
	by 	law
	is
to
	be 	done
	is
	computed 	by 	excluding 	the
first
	day, 	and 	including 	the 	last, 	unless
the 	last	
day	
is
	a
	holiday, 	and 	then
	it 	is
also 	excluded.
3

PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL
C.C.P. 1013a
I declare that I am employed in the County of ___S_a_c_r_am_e_n_t_o___ , California.
I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within entitled cause: my business address is
1031 	18th 	Street, 	Suite 	200 	Sacramento, 	California 	95814
On 	December 	31, 	1985 	, I served the enclosed" ___________ _
(Oatitl
PERB 	Decision 	No. 	558
Saddleback Yalley 	Unified 	School 	District
Case 	No. 	LA-CE-2109
• 	(Oescnbe Document)
on the parties to this case by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with
postage thereon fully prepaid. in the United States Mail. __....;;;;S..;;a;...;c;...;r;...;a_m=e.;;.;n_t_o_·_.__ _
(City or Town;
California, addressed as follows:
Richard 	W. 	Callister
Director 	of 	Classified 	Personnel
Saddleback 	Valley 	Unified 	School 	District
25631 	Diseno 	Drive
Mission 	Viejo, 	CA 	92691
Steven E. 	Balentine
Field 	Representative, 	CSEA
326 West 	Katella 	Ave., 	#4-E
Orange, 	CA 	92667
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this
declaration was executed on
__D_e_c_e_m_b_e_r__3_1____ . 	9	1 	~ at ____S_a_c_r_a_m_e_n_t_o___ . California.
jOatei 	(Ciry or Townl
Teresa 	Stewart
(Type or print name) 	· 	(Signature I