Los Angeles Unified School District (Watts) (PERB 0832E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
HOWARD O. 	WATTS,
Complainant,
v.
LOS ANGELES 	UNIFIED 	SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
) Case No. 	LA-PN-108
PERB 	Decision No. 	832
August 	8, 	1990
)
)
)
)
)
Appearance: 	Howard O. 	Watts, 	on his own behalf.
Before Hesse, 	Chairperson; 	Shank and Cunningham, 	Members.
DECISION
CUNNINGHAM, 	Member: 	This 	case is before the Public
Employment Relations 	Board 	(Board or PERB) 	on an appeal 	filed
by Howard 0. 	Watts 	(Watts) 	to an administrative determination
(attached) 	by a PERB 	Board agent.1 The 	Board agent dismissed the
complaint 	filed by Watts 	against the 	Los Angeles 	Unified 	School
District 	(District) 	which alleged that 	the 	District violated the
Educational Employment Relations Act 	(EERA) 	section 3547(a), 	(b) ,
(c), 	(d) 	and 	(e)2 by actions taken on July 24, August 7 and 	10,
1This appeal 	is 	brought pursuant 	to 	PERB regulation 	32925
which states, 	in pertinent part:
Within 20 	days 	of the date of 	service
of 	a dismissal 	made pursuant 	to 	section
32920(b)(8) 	or a determination made pursuant
to 	section 32920(b)(10), 	any party adversely
affected by 	the 	ruling may 	appeal 	to 	the
Board 	itself.
2EERA 	is 	codified at Government Code 	section 	3540 	et 	seq.
Unless 	otherwise 	indicated, 	all 	statutory references 	herein are
to the Government Code. 	EERA section 3547 	states, 	in pertinent
part:
__ )

1989.3 We have 	reviewed the dismissal 	and, 	finding it 	free 	of
(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.
(c) 	After the public 	has 	had the opportunity
to express 	itself, 	the public 	school 	employer
shall, 	at a meeting which is open to the
public, 	adopt its 	initial proposal.
(d) 	New subjects 	of meeting and negotiating
arising after the presentation 	of 	initial
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.
(e) 	The board may adopt regulations 	for
the purpose of 	implementing this 	section,
which 	are 	consistent with the 	intent of 	the
section; 	namely that the public be informed
of 	the 	issues 	that 	are being negotiated upon
and have 	full 	opportunity 	to 	express 	their
views 	on the 	issues 	to 	the public 	school
employer, 	and to know of the positions 	of
their 	elected 	representatives.
3Unless 	otherwise 	indicated, 	all dates 	refer to 	1989
22

prejudicial 	error, 	adopt 	it as 	the decision of 	the Board 	itself
consistent with 	the discussion below.4
FACTUAL 	SUMMARY
The 	facts 	are 	accurately 	stated 	in the 	Board agent's
administrative determination. 	However, 	we briefly 	summarize
relevant 	events 	here. 	According to 	the minutes 	of 	the July 	24
regular meeting of 	the Los Angeles 	Board of Education, 	member
Mark Slavkin 	(Slavkin) 	announced his 	intention to present a
motion 	for 	an 	initial proposal 	regarding 	an agency 	fee 	election
for the 	United Teachers-Los Angeles 	(UTLA) 	bargaining unit.5
4In addition to the 	events 	recited by the 	Board agent, 	the
District's 	Board 	of 	Education minutes 	of 	the meeting held 	on
September 	11, 	indicate that, 	after extensive public 	comment was
received on the District's 	initial proposal, 	several 	amendments
were added. 	The 	initial proposal and the amendments were 	adopted
by 	the board. 	Although an amendment to 	an already 	sunshined
initial 	proposal 	may constitute 	a violation of 	section 	3547
(Los Angeles Community College District 	(1980) 	PERB Decision
No. 	153), 	Watts did not allege a violation of section 3547
based on this 	action; 	therefore, 	it will not be considered by
the Board. 	(See Tahoe-Truckee Unified School 	District 	(1988)
PERB Decision No. 	668.)
5Evidence 	reveals 	that this proposal was 	being 	raised by 	the
District 	under 	the 	collective 	bargaining 	agreement 	(Agreement)
with 	UTLA then in effect. 	Section 	1.0 	of 	the Agreement 	states:
However, 	there 	shall be negotiations during
the term of the Agreement as 	follows:
c. 	Any other 	subjects which 	UTLA and the
District 	mutually 	agree 	to 	negotiate 	in the
future.
Substantive proposals which 	are 	brought 	forth 	in reopener
situations, 	such as 	the present case, 	must be 	sunshined according
to EERA section 3547(a), 	(b) 	and 	(c). 	(Los Angeles Community
College District 	(1981) 	PERB Decision No. 	158.)
33

Subsequently, 	at the regular board meeting on August 	7, 	public
comment on the 	agency fee motion occurred. 	Slavkin then made
the 	following motion:
That 	the 	Superintendent 	be 	instructed 	to
enter 	into 	an agreement with 	United Teachers-
Los Angeles 	(UTLA) 	as 	to an organizational
security arrangement 	in accordance with
Section 3540, 	et. 	seq., 	of the California
Government Code, 	to include the 	following:
1. 	The organizational 	security arrangement
shall 	require 	an employee within the 	UTLA
certificated employee bargaining unit, 	as
a 	condition of 	continued 	employment, 	either
to 	join UTLA, 	as 	the 	certificated employee
organization, 	or pay UTLA a 	service 	fee not
to 	exceed 	the 	standard 	initiation 	fees 	and
periodic 	dues 	of 	UTLA. 	Such arrangement
shall 	be 	included 	in the Collective
Bargaining Agreement 	between 	the 	District
and UTLA. 	Such 	service 	fees 	shall not
include 	any portion of 	the 	UTLA dues 	that
are 	nonchargeable 	to 	nonmembers 	of 	UTLA
under the 	criteria 	established by 	the 	Public
Employees 	[sic] 	Relations Board 	(PERB), 	the
California 	Courts 	and 	the 	federal 	courts
under the U.S. 	Supreme Court case of
Hudson v. 	Chicago Teachers 	Union.
2. 	PERB 	shall 	conduct a 	secret ballot
election of 	certificated 	employees 	in the
UTLA bargaining unit 	under 	Section 	3546 	of
the Government Code 	and PERB 	regulations 	as
to 	the 	organizational 	security 	arrangement.
3. 	The 	organizational 	security arrangement
shall 	become 	effective 	as provided 	for 	in
Section 	3 546 	of the Government Code 	and the
Regulations of PERB, 	upon a majority of the
certificated 	employees 	of 	the 	UTLA bargaining
unit voting to 	approve 	the 	arrangement.
4. 	The 	election shall 	take place between
September 15, 	1989, 	and November 1, 	1989, 	or
if 	required by PERB as 	close to November 	1,
1989, 	as possible. 	However, 	such election
shall 	not be held during any 	school 	holiday.
4

5. 	The 	election 	shall 	take place at 	school
sites.
6. 	The voter eligibility 	shall 	include all
the 	certificated 	employees 	of 	the 	District
who are 	in the UTLA bargaining unit,
including employees on illness, 	vacation,
or on leave of 	absence 	or 	in the military
service of the United States.
7. 	The District 	shall 	fully cooperate
with UTLA 	in providing 	UTLA with a 	list 	of
eligible voters, 	classifications 	and work
locations.
8. 	Upon 	such organizational 	security
arrangement becoming effective, 	the 	service
fees 	shall 	be 	deducted 	from the 	salary or
wage payments 	of 	certificated 	employees 	in
the 	UTLA bargaining unit 	in accordance with
Section 	45061 	of 	the 	California 	Education
Code.
(Complainant Exh. 	No. 	11, pp. 	3-4.)
Slavkin added 	the 	following provisions:
9. 	The 	initial proposal 	received today 	shall
remain on the 	agenda 	of 	the Personnel 	and
Schools Committee for Thursday, 	August 	10,
1989, 	solely for the purpose of receiving
public 	comment.
10. 	The initial proposal received today
shall be 	"sunshined" 	at 	each Board meeting
through and including September 	11, 	1989,
and be presented 	for adoption at the 	regular
Board meeting of September 	11, 	1989.
(Min., 	Reg. 	Mtg.; 	Bd. 	of Ed., 	City of L.A.;
August 7, 	1989.)
The 	agenda 	for 	the personnel 	and 	schools 	committee 	meeting
scheduled 	for August 	10, 	indicated the 	agency 	fee motion as
an agenda 	item. 	Evidence demonstrated that 	20 persons were
scheduled 	to 	speak on this 	motion during 	the 	meeting.
Subsequently, 	public 	comment was 	received 	on the motion at
regular Board of Education meetings on August 	21, 	28 	and
55

September 	11. 	On September 	11, 	after extensive comment was
received 	from the public, 	Slavkin moved 	to amend Board 	of
Education Report No. 	1 	to 	include the agency fee 	initial
proposal. 	The Report No. 	1, 	as amended to include the agency
fee 	initial proposal, 	was passed by the board on a vote of 	5-2.
DISCUSSION
Watts' 	appeal appears to present one major issue; 	namely,
whether the presentation of 	an 	initial proposal 	in the 	form of 	a
motion complies with EERA section 	3547. 	Watts 	claims 	that 	the
Board's 	use of 	a motion 	form 	in this 	circumstance 	is 	incompatible
with 	the procedure 	required 	for 	the presentation 	of 	an 	initial
proposal. 	He 	cites 	generally Los Angeles 	Unified 	School 	District
(1985) 	PERB Decision No. 	527 	in support of this 	contention.
Watts 	argues 	secondarily that 	a 	motion can be 	amended while 	an
initial proposal 	cannot be amended. 	Finally, 	and alternatively,
Watts 	requests 	that the 	complaint be 	"sent back" 	to the
San Francisco Regional Office, 	presumably 	for 	further
investigation of the 	facts.
In this 	case, 	the Board agent 	correctly concluded that the
initial 	proposal was 	brought 	in 	compliance with 	EERA 	section
3547. 	First, 	the agency fee proposal was presented in the 	form
of 	a motion at a public meeting. 	Second, 	reasonable time 	elapsed
for public 	information and 	comment 	(approximately 	seven weeks).
Last, 	the Board adopted 	its proposal 	at the public 	meeting of
September 	11. 	As 	stated by the Board agent, 	Watts appears 	to
66

V
be 	confusing 	the 	motion which brings 	the proposal 	up 	for public
comment with the adoption of 	the proposal.6 The 	form 	in which
an 	initial proposal 	is 	brought 	to public 	attention 	is 	relevant
only 	insofar as 	it must 	allow time 	for adequate public 	comment.
(Los Angeles 	Unified School 	District 	(1983) 	PERB Decision
No. 	335.) 	As 	the method used here by the District 	satisfies
the requirements of EERA section 3547, 	Watts' 	appeal 	is without
merit.
Finally, 	Watts 	requests 	that the 	case be remanded to the
regional 	office, 	presumably 	for 	further investigation. 	However,
Watts 	does 	not 	allege 	any 	newly discovered 	evidence 	or other
circumstances 	which would 	justify 	renewed 	investigation.
(Los Angeles 	Unified School 	District 	(1988) 	PERB Decision
No. 	705 at p. 	4.) 	Accordingly, 	his request is denied.
ORDER
The complaint 	in Case No. 	LA-PN-108 	is hereby DISMISSED
WITHOUT LEAVE 	TO AMEND.
Chairperson 	Hesse 	and Member 	Shank 	joined 	in this 	Decision.
6Watts' 	argument that Los Angeles Unified School District.
supra, 	PERB Decision No. 	527 	supports his appeal 	is misdirected.
Los Angeles 	Unified 	School 	District 	addressed 	the parameters 	of
what 	information brought 	for board 	action must 	comply with 	public
notice 	requirements. 	The 	Board 	stated 	that a 	resolution which
endorsed 	the 	concept 	of 	implementing 	comparable worth 	proposals
in negotiations was 	indeed 	an 	initial 	proposal which had 	to 	be
sunshined. 	This 	case did not, 	as Watts argues, 	prohibit the
bringing 	of 	an 	initial proposal 	in the 	form of 	a motion 	so 	long
as public 	notice requirements 	are met.
7

STATE OP 	CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS 	BOARD
HOWARD O. 	WATTS,
Complainant,
v.
LOS ANGELES 	UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
) 	Case Ho. 	LA-PN-108
ADMINISTRATIVE
DETERMINATION
February 8, 	1990
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
BACKGROUND
On August 25, 	1989,1 Howard O. 	Watts 	filed the instant
public 	notice 	complaint pursuant 	to PERB regulation 	32910*
against the Los Angeles Unified School District 	(District) . 	The
complaint was held in abeyance 	pending disposition of a 	complaint
regarding the 	same matter 	filed by Watts with the District 	on
August 22 pursuant to the procedure contained in the District's
1All dates referred to herein will be 	1989 unless otherwise
noted.
*PERB regulation 32910 provides:
A complaint alleging that an employer or an exclusive
representative has 	failed to comply with Government Code 	sections
3547 	or 3595 may be filed in the regional office. 	An EERA
complaint may be 	filed by an individual who is a resident of the
school 	district involved in the 	complaint or who is the parent 	or
guardian of a student in the school district or is an adult
student in the district. 	The complaint shall be filed no later
than 	30 days 	subsequent to the date when conduct alleged to be 	a
violation was known or reasonably could have been discovered.
Any period of time used by the 	complainant in first exhausting 	a
complaint 	procedure 	adopted by 	an 	EERA or 	HEERA employer 	shall
not be 	included in the 	30-day limitation.
__ )

Public Notice Policy 	(copy attached). 	The District dismissed
Watts' 	complaint at 	its 	regular Board of Education meeting on
October 	16, 	at which time 	the case before 	PERB was reactivated.
The 	complaint 	alleges 	that 	the 	District 	violated Government
Code sections 3547 (a), 	(b), 	(c) and (d)3by actions taken on
July 24, 	August 7 and August 	10. 	Investigation of this matter
has revealed the 	following 	facts 	regarding 	the 	relevant 	events
which occurred on those dates.
According to the minutes 	of the regular meeting of the 	Los
Angeles City Board of Education on July 24, 	Board Member Mark
Slavkin announced his 	intention to present a motion 	for action
calling 	for an agency fee election in the bargaining unit
1Government Code sections 	3547(a)-(d) 	provide:
(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.
(c) 	After the public has had the opportunity to express itself,
the public 	school employer 	shall, 	at a meeting which is open to
the public, 	adopt its initial proposal.
(d) 	New subjects 	of meeting and negotiating arising after the
presentation of initial 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.
22

represented by the 	United Teachers-Los Angeles 	(UTLA). 	Following
some 	discussion, 	the 	Board 	President determined that the 	matter
should 	be 	discussed 	in the 	Board's 	next 	closed 	session 	since 	it
was 	a collective bargaining 	issue. 	If determined appropriate,
the 	matter would then be 	assigned to a 	Personnel and Schools
Committee meeting on August 	10.
At 	the 	regular 	Board meeting on August 7, 	Slavkin moved 	that
Board Rule 	72 	be waived so that he 	could present his July 	24
motion regarding an agency 	fee 	election. 	Board Rule 	72 	states,
in 	pertinent part:
Board members wishing 	to present a nonprecatory
motion of resolution 	for action by the Board of
Education 	shall 	announce 	the 	subject matter of 	the
intended motion or resolution 	at least three weeks
before 	the Board meeting at which the motion or
resolution will be presented 	for action. 	Prior 	to
Board action, 	the 	President of the board shall 	assign
such motions and resolutions to the appropriate
Standing Committee 	for 	consideration of their
programmatic and 	financial 	effects. 	The Chairperson
shall 	schedule 	a hearing and direct the Clerk 	of 	the
Board to provide 	notice of 	the hearing. 	Draft 	language
of 	the proposed motion or resolution shall be 	presented
at 	least one week prior to 	the meeting at which 	action
is to be taken.
Seven persons, 	including Watts, 	addressed the Board regarding
Slavkin's motion for a waiver. 	It was then voted upon by 	the
Board and carried. 	Slavkin then moved:
That 	the 	Superintendent be 	instructed to enter 	into 	an
agreement with United Teachers-Los Angeles 	(UTLA) 	as 	to
an organizational 	security arrangement in accordance
with Section 3540, 	et seq., 	of the California
Government Code, 	to 	include 	the following:
3
3

1. 	The 	organizational 	security arrangement 	shall
require 	an 	employee 	within 	the 	UTLA certificated
employee bargaining unit, 	as a condition of
continued employment, 	either to 	join UTLA, 	as the
certificated employee 	organization, 	or pay UTLA a
service 	fee 	not 	to exceed 	the 	standard 	initiation
fees 	and periodic dues 	of UTLA. 	Such service fees
shall 	not 	include any portion of 	the UTLA dues
that 	are 	nonchargeable 	to nonmembers 	of 	UTLA under
the 	criteria 	established by the 	Public 	Employees
[sic] Relations Board (perb), the
California Courts and the 	federal 	courts under the
U.S.
Supreme Court 	case of Hudson v. 	Chicago Teachers
Union.
2. 	PERB 	shall 	conduct a 	secret ballot election of
certificated 	employees 	in 	the 	UTLA bargaining unit
under 	Section 	3546 of the Government Code and the
PERB regulations as to the 	organizational 	security
arrangement.
3. 	The organizational security arrangement shall
become 	effective as provided for in Section 3546
of the Government Code and the Regulations of
PERB, 	upon a majority of the 	certificated
employees 	of 	the UTLA bargaining unit voting to
approve the 	arrangement.
4. 	The election 	shall take place between September
15, 	1989, 	and November 1, 	1989, 	or if required by
PERB as close to November 1, 	1989 as possible.
However, 	such election shall 	not be held during
any 	school 	holiday.
5. 	The election shall take place at 	school 	sites.
6. 	The voter eligibility shall 	include all the
certificated employees of 	the district who are in
the UTLA bargaining unit, 	including employees on
illness, 	vacation, or on leave of absence or in
the military 	service of 	the United States.
7. 	The District shall 	fully cooperate with UTLA in
providing UTLA with a 	list of eligible voters,
classifications 	and work locations.
8. 	Upon 	such organizational 	security arrangement
becoming effective, 	the 	service fees 	shall be
deducted 	from the salary or wage payments of
certificated employees 	in 	the 	UTLA bargaining unit
4

in accordance with Section 	45061 	of 	the 	California
Eduction Code.
This 	motion was 	seconded by Board Member Korenstein, 	and 	the
following 	two 	paragraphs 	were 	added 	to the motion with 	her
agreement:
9. 	The 	initial 	proposal 	received today 	shall 	remain
on the agenda of the 	Personnel and Schools
Committee for Thursday, August 10, 	1989, 	solely
for 	the purpose of receiving public 	comment.
10. 	The 	initial 	proposal received today 	shall 	be
"sunshined" 	at each Board meeting through 	and
including September 	11, 	1989, 	and be presented for
adoption at 	the 	regular Board meeting 	of 	September
11, 1989.
Board minutes reflect that, 	in the discussion 	following the
presentation of the motion, 	Richard Mason, 	the Superintendent's
Special Counsel, 	clarified that 	"adoption of the motion would
allow the 	initial proposal 	to be received and held 	for public
comment until 	September 	11, 	1989; 	adoption of the 	initial
proposal 	would not take place until 	September 	11, 	1989." 	The
motion carried, 	and the minutes 	indicate that the Board received
the 	organizational 	security arrangement proposal 	as 	its 	policy
position.
The 	proposal 	for the 	agency 	fee 	election appeared on 	the
agenda of the August 	10 meeting of the Personnel and Schools
Committee Meeting. 	Seventeen persons, 	including Watts, addressed
the 	Committee 	on the motion.
Public 	comment on the 	proposal was 	also received at regular
Board meetings on August 21, August 28, 	and September 	11. 	Three
people 	addressed the 	Board regarding the motion at 	the August 	21
un .	
s

meeting, 	six 	at 	the August 	28 meeting, 	and 	43 	at 	the 	September 	11
meeting. 	Watts 	spoke 	at all 	three 	of 	the 	meetings. 	The 	initial
proposal 	was 	adopted 	by 	the 	Board 	on 	September 	11.
DISCUSSION
The 	intent 	of 	the 	public notice 	requirements 	is 	set 	forth 	in
Government 	Code 	section 	3547 	(e): 	"that the public 	be 	informed
of 	the 	issues 	that 	are 	being 	negotiated upon 	and 	have 	full
opportunity 	to 	express 	their views 	on the 	issues 	to 	the 	public
school 	employer, 	and 	to know of 	the 	positions 	of 	their 	elected
representatives." 	PERB's 	regulations 	implementing 	the 	provisions
of 	section 	3547 	were 	adopted to 	fully protect 	the 	public's 	rights
in 	this 	regard. 	Los Angeles 	Community 	College 	District 	(1978)
PERB Order No. 	Ad-41.
Watts' 	complaint 	alleges that 	Slavkin's 	July 	24 	motion 	(and
amendments) 	regarding 	an 	agency 	shop election 	was 	not 	properly
noticed 	under 	either 	the 	Board of 	Education's 	public 	notice
policy or Government Code 	section 	3547. 	Watts 	seems 	to be
confusing 	that motion, 	the 	effect 	of which was 	for 	the 	Board 	to
receive 	the 	proposal 	for 	an 	agency 	shop 	election 	and hold 	it 	open
for public 	comment, 	with 	the adoption of 	an 	initial 	proposal
after 	public 	comment 	has 	been received 	and 	any 	other public
notice 	requirements have been met. 	Thus, 	although the complaint
states 	that 	the 	alleged 	public notice 	violations 	occurred 	on 	July
6

24, 	August 7 and 10 	only,4 it is necessary to review all 	of the
relevant events 	from July 	24 	to September 	11 	to obtain 	a 	complete
picture 	of 	the 	District's 	course 	of 	action and evaluate whether
or not 	a violation occurred.
As 	accurately 	summarized 	in the 	District's 	September 	29
response to Watts' 	complaint, 	Slavkin's motion regarding an
agency 	shop election was 	presented at the July 	24 	Board meeting,
amended and received by 	the 	Board on August 	7, 	and placed on the
agenda of 	the August 	10 meeting of 	the Personnel and School
Committee 	solely for the purpose 	of 	receiving public 	comment.
The proposal was sunshined at Board meetings on August 	21, 	28 and
September 	11, 	and adopted as 	an initial proposal to be presented
to 	UTLA on September 	11.
It is 	clear from this 	sequence of events that the proposal
regarding agency fee was adequately sunshined. 	In fact, 	while
the District's public notice policy requires 	it to allow
opportunities for public 	expression at two separate meetings
following presentation and prior to adoption of 	initial
proposals, 	the District provided four opportunities 	for public
expression regarding this issue. 	Furthermore, 	the original
motion was 	amended specifically to clarify the 	District's 	intent
to comply with the public notice requirements.
4 Watts' 	complaint 	states 	that events relating to the 	same
issue 	occurring thereafter would be 	the subject of a 	later
complaint.
77

CONCLUSION
The 	facts 	in this case clearly 	show that the public had
ample 	opportunity 	to express 	their views 	regarding the 	District's
proposal for an agency shop election. 	The public notice
requirements 	contained not only 	in Government Code 	section 	3547
but also 	in the 	District's policy were 	complied with, 	both in
letter 	and 	spirit.5 Therefore, 	the 	instant 	complaint is
DISMISSED.
Right to Appeal
Pursuant 	to 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board regulations,
any party 	adversely affected by 	this 	ruling may 	appeal 	to the
Board 	itself by filing a written appeal 	within twenty 	(20)
calendar days 	after 	service of 	this 	ruling 	(California
Administrative Code, 	title 8, 	section 32925). 	To be timely
filed, 	the original 	and five 	copies 	of 	such appeal must be
actually 	received by the Board 	itself 	before 	the 	close 	of
business 	(5:00 p.m.) 	or sent by telegraph, 	certified or Express
United States mail postmarked no later than the 	last date 	set 	for
filing 	(California Administrative Code, 	title 8, 	section 32135).
Code of Civil Procedure section 	1013 	shall apply. 	The Board's
address is:
Members, 	Public Employment Relations Board
1031 	18th Street
Sacramento, 	CA 95814
5In Los Angeles Unified School 	District 	(1983) 	PERB Decision
No. 	335, 	the Board held that it would entertain a public notice
complaint 	"[w]here 	the application of 	local 	rules results 	in
deprivation of 	statutory rights..."
8

10
The appeal must state the 	specific 	issues of procedure, 	fact, 	law
or 	rationale 	that 	are 	appealed, 	must 	clearly and concisely 	state
the 	grounds 	for each 	issue 	stated, 	and must be 	signed by 	the
appealing 	party or 	its 	agent.
If a timely appeal of 	this 	ruling is 	filed, 	any other party
•ay 	file with the 	Board 	itself 	an original 	and 	five 	copies 	of a
statement 	in 	opposition within 	twenty 	calendar days 	following the
date 	of 	service 	of 	the 	appeal 	(California Administrative 	Code,
title 	8, 	section 32625). 	If no timely appeal is filed, 	the
aforementioned ruling 	shall 	become 	final 	upon the 	expiration of
the 	specified time 	limits.
Service
All 	documents 	authorized 	to be 	filed herein must 	also 	be
"served" 	upon all 	parties 	to the 	proceeding and the 	San Francisco
Regional Office. 	A 	"proof 	of 	service" 	must accompany each 	copy
of 	a document served upon a party or 	filed with the 	Board 	itself.
(See California Administrative Code, 	title 8, 	section 32140 	for
the 	required contents 	and a 	sample 	form.) 	The appeal 	and any
opposition to an appeal will 	be 	considered properly 	"served" 	when
personally delivered or deposited 	in the 	first-class mail 	postage
paid 	and 	properly 	addressed.
Extension of Time
A request 	for an extension of time 	in which to 	file 	an
appeal 	or opposition to an appeal with the Board 	itself 	must be
in writing and 	filed with 	the 	Board at the previously noted
address. 	A request 	for an extension must be 	filed at 	least 	three
9

calendar 	days 	before the 	expiration of 	the 	time required 	for
filing the document. 	The 	request must 	indicate good 	cause 	for
and, 	if known, 	the 	position of each other party regarding 	the
extension, 	and 	shall be 	accompanied by proof 	of 	service 	of 	the
request upon 	each 	party 	(California Administrative Code, 	title 	8,
section 	32132).
Jerilyn 	Gelt
Labo
\	r 	Relations 	Specialist
Attachment
10