Covina-Valley Unified School District (PERB 0968E)

STATE 	OP 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
COVINA 	UNIFIED 	EDUCATION
ASSOCIATION, 	CTA/NEA,
Charging 	Party,
v.
COVINA-VALLEY 	UNIFIED 	SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Respondent.
Case No. 	LA-CE-3177
PERB Decision No. 	968
January 20, 1993
Appearances: 	California Teachers Association by Charles 	R.
Gustafson, 	Attorney, 	for Covina Unified Education Association,
CTA/NEA; 	Gibson, 	Dunn & Crutcher by Kenneth W. 	Anderson,
Attorney, 	for Covina-Valley Unified School 	District.
Before Hesse, 	Chairperson; 	Caffrey and Carlyle, 	Members.
DECISION
CARLYLE, 	Member: 	This 	case is before the Public Employment
Relations 	Board 	(Board) 	on appeal 	by the Covina 	Unified Education
Association, 	CTA/NEA 	(Association) 	of a Board agent's partial
dismissal 	(attached hereto) 	of 	the Association's 	unfair practice
charge. 	The Association alleged 	that 	the 	Covina-Valley 	Unified
School 	District had violated 	section 	3543.5(b) 	and 	(e) 	of 	the
Educational 	Employment Relations Act 	(EERA)1 by refusing to
1/EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq.
Section 3543.5 	states, 	in pertinent part:
It 	shall be unlawful 	for a public 	school
employer to do any of the 	following:
(b) 	Deny to 	employee organizations 	rights
guaranteed 	to 	them by this 	chapter.
(e) 	Refuse to participate 	in good faith 	in
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
____ )

participate 	in good 	faith 	in the 	impasse procedure.
The 	Board has 	reviewed 	the 	Board 	agent's warning 	and partial
dismissal 	letters, 	and finding them to be 	free of prejudicial
error, 	adopts 	them as 	the decision of 	the Board 	itself.
ORDER
The 	Board hereby AFFIRMS 	the 	Board 	agent's 	partial 	dismissal
in Case No. 	LA-CE-3177.
Member Caffrey 	joined 	in this 	Decision.
Chairperson Hesse's 	concurrence/dissent begins 	on page 	3.
the 	impasse procedure 	set 	forth 	in Article 	9
commencing with Section 3548) .
22

HESSE, 	Chairperson, 	concurring and dissenting: 	With the
exception of 	one allegation, 	I 	concur with the 	Public Employment
Relations Board's 	(PERB or Board) 	affirmance of 	the partial
dismissal 	of 	the unfair practice charge in Case No. 	LA-CE-3177.
The 	issue 	presented to 	the 	Board 	in a 	case 	involving an
appeal 	from a dismissal 	of 	a 	charge 	is whether the 	charge 	states
facts, 	which if true,1 establish a prima facie case. 	Here, 	the
second amended 	charge alleges 	that 	the District 	was 	not 	permitted
by a provision 	in 	the 	collective bargaining 	agreement 	to 	adopt
its 	last, 	best and final 	offer. 	The Board agent 	reviewed the
contract provision and citing Speedrack. 	Inc. 	(1989) 	293 NLRB
1054 	[131 	LRRM 1347] 	concluded that 	there was no 	"clear
agreement" 	that 	the 	Covina Valley Unified School 	District
(District) 	could not 	implement 	its 	final 	offer.
Board agents 	are not 	empowered to 	judge 	the merits 	of 	the
charging party's 	case 	or to 	resolve disputed facts 	relating 	to
contract 	interpretation. 	(Saddleback Community College District
(1984) 	PERB Decision No. 	433.) 	The contract 	interpretation and
the determination of whether a violation of 	the 	law occurred 	is 	a
finding 	appropriately made 	only 	after 	an 	evidentiary 	hearing.
With respect 	to 	the 	allegation 	contained 	in 	the 	charge 	that
relates 	to the District's adoption of 	its 	last, 	best and final
offer, 	I would reverse that portion of 	the dismissal 	and order
that 	the matter be 	remanded to 	the 	PERB General 	Counsel 	for
issuance 	of a 	complaint.
1See San Juan Unified School District 	(1982) 	PERB Decision
No. 204.
3

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	' 	PETE WILSON, Governor
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Los Angeles Regional Office
3530 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 650
Los Angeles, CA 90010-2334
(213) 736-3127
June 24, 	1992
Charles R. 	Gustafson, 	Staff Counsel
California 	Teachers 	Association
P.O. 	Box 	92888
Los Angeles, 	CA 	90009
Re: 	PARTIAL DISMISSAL AND REFUSAL TO ISSUE COMPLAINT, 	Unfair
Practice Charge No. 	LA-CE-3177, 	Covina Unified Education
Association. 	CTA/NEA v. 	Covina-Valley Unified School
District
Dear Mr. 	Gustafson:
I 	indicated to you in my attached letter dated May 27, 	1992, 	that
the above-referenced charge did not 	state 	a prima 	facie case.
You were 	advised that 	if 	there were any factual 	inaccuracies 	or
additional 	facts 	that would 	correct the deficiencies 	explained 	in
that letter, 	you 	should amend the charge accordingly. 	You were
further advised that 	unless 	you amended the 	charge to 	state 	a
prima facie case, 	or withdrew it prior to June 5, 	1992, 	the
charge would be dismissed.
On June 	8, 	1992, 	you filed a Second Amended Charge, 	amending only
one previously-filed allegation: 	that 	the 	District 	failed to
provide 	information on the Great-West medical plan. 	I 	am
therefore dismissing 	all 	the 	other previously-filed 	allegations,
based on the 	facts 	and reasons 	contained 	in my May 	27 	letter.
The 	Second Amended Charge 	also 	contains 	a 	brand 	new allegation:
that the District's 	adoption of 	its 	last, 	best and final offer
was 	unauthorized under the 	collective bargaining agreement. 	The
allegation cites Article I, 	paragraph 4, 	of the agreement, 	which
provides as 	follows:
The Association 	shall 	have 	the 	right 	by 	serving 	notice
upon the District 	in writing prior to January 	1, 	1991
to reopen negotiations 	after January 	1, 	1991 with the
District 	to 	seek to 	amend 	this 	Agreement 	effective on
September 	1, 	1991 	solely with respect to Article XVI, 	Health
and Welfare Benefits, 	and Article XVII, 	Salaries. 	If the
parties 	cannot reach agreement on such reopened matters, 	the
impasse procedures 	of 	the 	California Government 	Code 	Section
3548-3548.4 	shall be 	the 	sole 	recourse 	for resolving 	the
impasse. 	[Emphasis 	added.]
. 	.

Partial 	Dismissal
LA-CE-3177
Page 2
You have 	told me 	that 	there 	is 	no relevant bargaining history or
past practice with 	regard to 	this 	provision. 	You have 	also 	told
me 	that 	the 	theory underlying the 	new allegation was 	first 	raised
with the 	District on or about June 4, 	1992, 	when unit members
filed 	a 	grievance 	on the 	same 	theory. 	An Association 	"Impasse
Bulletin" 	dated January 	8, 	1992, 	had acknowledged as 	a possible
"worst 	scenario" 	that 	the 	District 	"would unilaterally 	impose 	the
fringe benefit 	package which 	they've proposed 	from 	the 	start."
Based on the 	facts 	stated above, 	the 	new allegation does 	not
state a prima 	facie case, 	for the reasons 	that follow.
There 	appears 	to be 	no EERA precedent directly on point, 	but 	PERB
has 	held 	that 	after 	exhaustion of 	the 	impasse procedures 	"impasse
under 	EERA 	is 	identical 	to 	impasse under the NLRA." 	Modesto City
Schools 	(1983) 	PERB Decision No. 	291, 	at p. 	32. 	It is therefore
appropriate 	to 	look to NLRA precedent.
Under the NLRA, 	it has been held that, 	in the absence of a clear
agreement 	to 	the 	contrary, 	an employer's 	obligation to bargain
over a 	reopened term carries with it the 	right to 	implement 	a
final offer upon genuine impasse. 	Speedrack. 	Inc. 	(1989) 	293
-	NLRB 	1054 	[131 LRRM 1347]: NKS Distributors. 	Inc. 	(1991) 	304 NLRB
No. 	69 	[139 LRRM 1226]; 	Local Union No. 	47 v. 	NLRB 	(D.C. 	Cir.
1991) 	937 	F.2d 	635 	[137 	LRRM 	2723].
There 	appears 	to be 	no dispute 	in the present 	case 	that 	the
District had 	an obligation to bargain the reopened terms 	and that
there was 	a 	genuine 	impasse. 	The question therefore 	is whether
or not 	there was 	a 	"clear agreement" 	that the District 	could not
implement 	its 	final 	offer.
Article 	I, 	paragraph 4, 	of the agreement cannot be 	said be
represent 	such a 	"clear agreement." 	In 	its 	reference 	to 	the
statutory 	impasse procedures, 	it does 	not 	clearly exclude one 	of
the normal 	outcomes 	of those procedures: 	the employer's 	right to
implement. 	There 	appears 	to be no bargaining history or past
practice 	to 	help 	establish 	that 	there was 	a 	"clear agreement"
against 	implementation; 	on the contrary, 	the Association's
slowness 	in 	raising 	the 	issue 	may 	suggest 	that 	not 	even the
Association thought 	(prior to June 	4, 	1992) 	that there was 	such a
"clear agreement." 	The new allegation 	is 	therefore 	also
dismissed.
Right 	to Appeal
Pursuant 	to 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board regulations, 	you
may obtain a 	review of 	this 	dismissal 	of 	certain allegations
contained 	in 	the 	charge 	by 	filing an appeal 	to 	the 	Board 	itself
within twenty 	(20) 	calendar days 	after 	service of 	this 	dismissal

Partial 	Dismissal
LA-CE-3177
Page 3
(California Code of Regulations, 	title 8, 	section 32635(a)). 	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:
Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board
1031 	18th Street
Sacramento, 	CA 	95814
If you file 	a timely appeal 	of 	the refusal 	to 	issue a 	complaint,
any 	other party may 	file with 	the 	Board 	an original 	and 	five
copies 	of 	a 	statement 	in opposition within 	twenty 	calendar days
following 	the 	date of 	service of 	the appeal 	(California Code 	of
Regulations, title 8, 	section 32635(b)).
Service
All 	documents 	authorized to be 	filed herein must also be 	"served"
upon all parties 	to the proceeding, 	and a 	"proof of 	service" 	must
accompany 	each 	copy 	of 	a 	document 	served upon a party of 	filed
with the Board 	itself. 	(See California Code of Regulations,
title 	8, 	section 	32140 	for the required contents 	and a 	sample
form.) 	The document 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 	a document
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 	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 	Code 	of
Regulations, title 8, 	section 32132).

Partial 	Dismissal
LA-CE-3177
Page 4
Final 	Date
If no appeal 	is 	filed within the 	specified time 	limits, 	the
dismissal 	will 	become 	final when the 	time 	limits 	have 	expired.
Sincerely,
JOHN W. 	SPITTLER
General 	Counsel
By
70'[~Thomas 	J.Allen
Regional 	Attorney
Thomas ? all
TJA:lgf
Attachment
cc: 	Kenneth W. 	Anderson

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	PETE WILSON, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
Los Angeles Regional Office
3530 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 650
Los Angeles, CA 90010-2334
(213) 736-3127
May 27, 	1992
Charles 	Gustafson
California 	Teachers 	Association
P.O. 	Box 	92888
Los Angeles, 	CA 	90009
Re: 	WARNING LETTER, 	Unfair Practice Charge No. 	LA-CE-3177
Covina 	Unified 	Education Association CTA/NEA 	v. 	Covina-
Valley 	Unified 	School 	District
Dear Mr. 	Gustafson:
In the 	above-referenced 	charge, 	the Covina 	Unified Education
Association, 	CTA/NEA 	(Association) 	alleges 	that the Covina-
Valley Unified 	School 	District 	(District) 	refused 	to participate
in good 	faith 	in the 	impasse procedure. 	This 	conduct 	is 	alleged
to violate Government Code 	sections 	3543.5(b) 	and 	(e) 	of the
Educational Employment Relations Act 	(EERA).
My 	investigation of 	this 	charge reveals 	the 	following 	facts.
The Association and the 	District 	are parties 	to 	a 	collective
bargaining agreement effective through August 31, 	1992. 	The
"Health and Welfare Benefits" 	article 	(Article XVI) 	requires 	the
District 	to provide 	(among other plans) 	"Medical 	Insurance
(optional participation—three plans presently available)," 	with
the 	District 	to 	contribute the 	employee-only premium up 	to 	a
specified maximum. 	The 	"Agreement" 	article 	(Article 	I) 	gives 	the
Association the 	right 	to reopen the 	"Health and Welfare Benefits"
article 	each year.
The Association 	reopened 	the 	"Health 	and Welfare 	Benefits"
article 	for 	the 	1991-92 	school year. 	The Association proposed 	in
part 	to 	replace 	the 	District's 	Great-West 	medical 	insurance plan
with a 	PERS 	Care plan. 	The District proposed to 	replace 	the
Great-West plan with 	a CIGNA PPO plan. 	The 	District 	also 	had 	a
CIGNA 	HMO plan and a 	Kaiser plan.
Impasse was determined on September 	17, 	1991. 	The mediator
certified the matter 	for 	factfinding on December 	13, 	1991.
Factfinding was 	conducted 	in January, 	February and March 	1992,
and a factfinding report was 	issued on March 20, 	1992. 	The
chairperson recommended that 	the 	Great-West plan 	remain 	in
effect. 	The Association panel 	member concurred; 	the District
panel member dissented. 	On April 	13, 	1992, 	the parties held a
post-factfinding meeting, 	at which the District ultimately

Warning 	Letter
LA-CE--3177
May 27, 	1992
Page 2
informed the Association that effective June 	1, 	1992, 	it would
implement the CIGNA PPO, 	as proposed in its 	last, 	best and final
offer.
The Association alleges 	that 	the 	implementation of 	the
District's 	last, 	best and final offer is unlawful because the
District 	allegedly did not participate 	in 	the 	impasse procedures
in good faith. 	The Association alleges 	four examples 	of the
District's 	alleged 	bad 	faith:
1. 	An alleged unilateral 	change 	in the 	CIGNA HMO plan on or
about March 	1. 	1992.
On or about March 	1, 	1992, 	employees 	enrolled in the CIGNA
HMO plan received 	new 	identification 	cards 	that 	indicated 	that
the 	cost 	of 	office visits would 	increase 	from $4 	to 	$5 	and 	the
cost of non-generic drugs would increase 	from $2 	to 	$5. 	The
District denied knowledge of the changes. 	On March 27, 	1992, 	the
District 	obtained 	from CIGNA a 	letter 	stating that 	the 	release 	of
the 	cards was 	in error and did not reflect 	changes 	applicable 	to
employees 	in the unit. 	The District notified employees 	of 	the
letter from CIGNA. 	In a bulletin dated April 2, 	1992, 	the
Association acknowledged 	the 	"error" 	and 	the 	District's
"immediate response." 	The Association now states, 	however, 	that
the problem has 	not yet been corrected and that 	employees 	are
still being 	charged the 	increased amounts. 	The District 	states
that the problem 	is 	now being corrected and that new cards 	are
being 	sent out.
2. 	An alleged 	failure to provide 	information on the Great-West
plan and 	the 	CIGNA 	PPO plan.
In late August 	1991, 	the Association asked the District 	for
information on the 	CIGNA PPO plan. 	The 	District 	stated that 	it
had 	"no plan 	information." 	On November 26, 	1991, 	the Association
asked CIGNA 	for 	a 	copy of 	the plan but was 	told 	that 	"nothing had
been prepared." 	On or about December 	11, 	1991, 	the Association
asked 	the 	District 	for the 	existing 	Great-West 	contract 	and 	the
1991-92 CIGNA PPO plan. 	In a letter dated December 	16, 	1991, 	the
District 	stated 	that 	the 	existing 	Great-West 	contract was
provided on December 	13, 	1991, 	but that 	"no contract or records
are available" 	for the 	1991-92 	CIGNA PPO plan.
On February 	11, 	1992, 	the Association requested a 	copy 	of
the CIGNA PPO plan. 	In a 	letter dated February 	13, 	1992, 	the
District 	stated that 	"no 	formal plan exists" 	but that 	it was
enclosing 	the 	materials 	provided 	to 	employees 	outside 	the 	unit
who 	enrolled 	in the plan.
22

Warning 	Letter
LA-CE-3177
May 27, 	1992
Page 3
On April 23, 	1992, 	the Association requested the Great-West
master contract. 	On May 7, 	1992, 	the District responded that the
Great-West 	master 	contract had been provided 	on December 	13,
1991. 	The 	District also 	stated that the CIGNA PPO master
contract 	"won't be available 	for some time yet." 	On May 	18,
1992, 	the Association replied that 	it had not been provided the
Great-West 	master 	contract and requested 	it 	again. 	The
Association also 	characterized as 	"bewildering" 	the 	District's
"inability to 	fulfill 	our request 	for 	[CIGNA PPO] 	plan
information. "
3. 	An allegedly prejudicial 	submission to 	the 	factfinding panel.
At the 	evidentiary factfinding hearing on February 	18, 	1992,
the 	District panel 	member 	allegedly 	stated 	that 	the 	District
panel would not be 	raising an 	inability-to-pay defense. 	The
allegation cites 	the 	factfinding report, 	which 	states 	in part as
follows:
The 	[D]istrict does 	not 	contend 	it 	lacks 	the 	financial
ability to bear such a cost for this 	school year. 	However,
it does 	contend that for it to do 	so, 	on top of the cost of
the 	step and 	column 	increases 	already 	granted 	retroactive 	to
September 	1, 	1991, 	would be unwise and even fiscally
irresponsible.
On March 	13, 	1992, 	the District panel member submitted to
the panel 	a 	letter 	stating in part 	that 	since the 	evidentiary
hearing 	the 	District's 	projected 	ending balance 	had 	slipped 	from
$831,000 	to 	$571,000. 	The District denied 	in the 	submission that
it had 	substantial 	available monies 	to 	fund 	increased
compensation. 	The Association alleges 	that 	this 	submission was
in direct 	conflict with the District's 	statement 	at 	the
evidentiary hearing, 	that 	its 	timing prevented 	the Association
from refuting it, 	and that it 	"did prejudice" 	the chairperson.
The panel members met again on March 	17, 	1992, 	before the report
was issued 	(on March 20, 	1992).
4. 	An alleged withdrawal of an offer of a 	"Section 	125" 	plan.
On October 24, 	1992, 	the District informed employees 	that a
tax-saving 	"Section 	125" 	plan had been discussed with 	the
Association and would be 	"implemented 	around 	the 	first part 	of
1992 	or as 	soon as practicable." 	In a memo dated October 	31,
1991, 	the Association objected that the plan had 	not 	been agreed
upon and stated, 	"Until the contract dispute 	is 	settled, 	contract
language has 	been agreed upon, 	and Association members 	have had
an opportunity to vote, 	no negotiable 	items 	may be 	implemented."
The Association requested a retraction, 	and on November 	6, 	1991,
33

Warning 	Letter
LA-CE-3177
May 27, 	1992
Page 4
the 	District 	informed 	employees 	that 	it would 	"not 	allow any 	unit
members 	to 	take 	advantage 	of 	this 	tax-saving plan until 	agreement
is 	reached on all 	issues." 	According to 	the 	factfinding report,
the Association had 	been 	"reluctant 	to 	accept 	the 	[D]istrict's
proposal because under the 	[D]istrict's 	Section 	125 plan, 	the
teacher's 	preferred 	provider 	option would 	have 	been 	limited 	to
the 	[D]istrict's 	proposed C[IGNAJ 	PPO." 	As 	the Association
itself told its 	members on November 6, 	1991, 	"the District
management 	team refused to 	negotiate 	any 	issues 	separately."
On February 27, 	1992, 	and March 17, 	1992, 	the District
allegedly withdrew 	its 	offer 	and 	conditioned 	any 	establishment 	of
a 	"Section 	125" 	plan upon the Association's 	agreement 	to 	the
District's 	total 	fringe benefit proposal. 	The allegation cites
the 	District panel 	member's 	dissenting opinion, 	which 	states 	that
the 	District did not 	implement the plan 	in view of 	the
Association's 	objection but 	that 	the plan 	continued to 	be
available with 	the 	inclusion of 	the CIGNA PPO plan.
Based on the 	facts 	stated above, 	the 	charge does 	not 	state a
prima facie violation of 	the EERA, 	for the 	reasons 	that 	follow.
1. 	Alleged unilateral change of March 	1. 	1992. 	The undisputed
documentary evidence 	shows 	only an error on the part 	of 	CIGNA.
It does 	not 	show any policy change attributable to 	the 	District.
2. 	Alleged 	failure to provide 	information. 	The undisputed
documentary 	evidence 	shows 	that the 	District 	responded 	to 	each
request 	for 	information, 	although sometimes 	by 	stating that the
requested 	information was 	unavailable. 	There appears 	to be a
dispute 	about whether 	or not 	the 	District 	actually provided 	a
copy of the Great-West contract on December 	13, 	1991, 	as the
District stated in its 	letter of December 	16, 	1991, 	but there 	is
no 	allegation or 	evidence 	that 	the Association questioned 	the
adequacy of the District's 	response 	at that 	time. 	When the
Association requested the contract again 	(on April 	23, 	1992, 	and
May 	18, 	1992), 	factfinding was 	over.
3. 	Allegedly prejudicial 	submission. 	The 	undisputed documentary
evidence does 	not 	show that 	the District was 	inconsistent 	in
maintaining that, 	although 	it was 	not 	"unable to pay," 	it also
did 	not 	have 	"substantial 	available monies." 	To 	regard 	the
District's 	submission of March 	13, 	1992, 	as 	"prejudicial" 	seems
unjustified, 	since 	the 	factfinding panel 	met 	once 	again before
the 	report was 	issued, 	and 	the Association panel 	member
(presumably unprejudiced) 	ultimately 	concurred with 	the 	report.
Furthermore, 	there 	appears 	to be no authority 	for the proposition
that 	a 	mere 	submission of 	argument 	and 	information 	can 	evidence
bad 	faith.
·.
4

Warning 	Letter
LA-CE-317 7
May 27, 	1992
Page 5
4. 	Alleged withdrawal of offer. 	The undisputed documentary
evidence 	shows 	either 	(1) 	that the District's 	offer of 	a 	"Section
125" 	plan was 	always 	conditioned upon a wider agreement 	or 	(2)
that 	if 	and when the 	District offered 	the 	"Section 	125" 	plan
unconditionally 	the Association rejected 	it. 	The 	documentary
evidence 	does 	not 	show that 	the 	District 	bargained 	regressively.
For these reasons, 	the charge as presently written does 	not
state a prima 	facie 	case. 	If there 	are any 	factual 	inaccuracies
in this 	letter or any additional 	facts 	that would correct 	the
deficiencies 	explained above, 	please amend the 	charge
accordingly. 	The 	amended 	charge 	should be prepared on a 	standard
PERB unfair practice 	charge 	form 	clearly 	labeled 	First 	Amended
Charge, contain all 	the 	facts 	and allegations 	you wish to 	make,
and must 	be 	signed under penalty of 	perjury by 	the 	charging
party. 	The amended charge must be 	served on the 	respondent 	and
the original proof of 	service must be 	filed with PERB. 	If 	I 	do
not 	receive 	an amended charge or withdrawal 	from you before
June 5. 	1992. 	I 	shall dismiss your charge. 	If you have any
questions, please call me at 	(213) 	736-3127.
Sincerely,
thomasJ . alle
Thomas J. 	Allen
Regional 	Attorney
TJA:lgf
5