Los Angeles Unified School District (Watts) (PERB 1013E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
HOWARD 0. 	WATTS,
Complainant,
v.
LOS ANGELES 	UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Respondent.
Case No. 	LA-PN-133
PERB Decision No. 	1013
September 9, 	1993
Appearance: 	Howard 0. 	Watts, 	on his own behalf.
Before Blair, 	Chair; 	Carlyle and Garcia, 	Members.
DECISION
CARLYLE, 	Member: 	This 	case is before the Public Employment
Relations Board 	(PERB or Board) 	on appeal by Howard 0. 	Watts
(Watts) 	of 	a Board agent's 	administrative 	determination
(attached) 	dismissing Watts' 	public notice complaint. 	Watts'
complaint 	alleged 	that 	the 	Los Angeles 	Unified School 	District
(District) 	violated section 3547(a) 	of 	the Educational 	Employment
Relations Act 	(EERA)1 by: 	(1) 	not making copies available to the
public of 	the 	exclusive 	representatives' 	(Associated
Administrators 	of 	Los Angeles 	and 	the United Teachers 	of
1EERA is 	codified at Government 	Code 	section 3540 	et 	seq.
Section 3547 	states, 	in pertinent part:
(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.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Los Angeles) 	respective initial proposals, 	and 	(2) 	the proposals
were 	not 	collated properly.
The 	Board has 	reviewed 	the 	entire 	record 	in 	this 	case,
including Watts' 	public notice complaint, 	the administrative
determination and Watts' 	appeal. 	The Board affirms 	the Board
agent's 	dismissal 	but 	reverses 	the Board agent's 	awarding 	of
litigation expenses, 	including 	reasonable attorney 	fees 	against
Watts.
DISCUSSION
In the administrative determination, 	the Board agent
concluded 	that 	Watts 	had 	once 	again 	raised nonmeritorious
complaints. 	This was 	found to be an abuse 	of Board processes 	and
a waste 	of 	state 	resources. 	The Board agent 	then ordered Watts
to reimburse 	the District 	for any litigation expenses, 	including
reasonable attorney 	fees, 	incurred by the District 	in defending
against 	the 	complaint.
"The Board will 	award attorneys' 	fees and costs where a 	case
is without arguable merit, 	frivolous, 	vexatious, 	dilatory,
pursued 	in bad 	faith or otherwise an abuse 	of process." 	(State
of California 	(Office of 	the Lieutenant Governor) 	(1992) 	PERB
Decision No. 	920-S; 	relying on Chula Vista City School District
(1990) 	PERB Decision No. 	834, 	pp. 	73-74; United Professors of
California 	(Watts) 	(1984) 	PERB Decision No. 	398-H; 	El Dorado
Union High School District 	(1985) 	PERB Decision No. 	495,
dismissal 	letter, 	p. 	2.) 	However, 	the Board finds 	that the
issues 	raised by Watts 	are properly before 	the 	Board. 	Although
22

Watts 	has 	several 	charges 	pending before 	the Board 	on 	similar
issues, 	these 	issues have not been the 	subject 	of Board decisions
in the past. 	Finally, 	it 	is 	important 	to note 	that 	the Board has
strongly indicated in the past, 	and does 	so again now, 	that a
balancing 	of 	all 	factors 	on 	future 	complaints 	involving 	the 	same
issues 	already decided by 	this 	Board may 	result 	in different
remedies being meted out 	in the 	future. 	(Los Angeles Unified
School District 	(Watts) 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	181a.)
ORDER
The public notice complaint 	in Case No. 	LA-PN-133 	is hereby
DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. 	The Board agent's 	order 	for
reimbursement 	to 	the District 	of 	any litigation expenses,
including 	reasonable attorney 	fees by Watts, 	and written
notification 	of 	his 	actions 	in 	complying with such 	reimbursement
is 	hereby REVERSED.
Chair Blair and Member Garcia 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
W	3

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
HOWARD WATTS,
Complainant,
v.
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
) 	Case No. 	LA-PN-133
ADMINISTRATIVE
DETERMINATION
May 28, 	1993
)
)
)
)
)
)
This 	administrative 	determination dismisses 	the 	above-
captioned public 	notice 	complaint 	filed by Mr. 	Howard Watts
(Complainant 	or Watts) 	against 	the 	Los Angeles 	Unified School
District 	(District).
BACKGROUND
On October 9, 	1992,1 Complainant 	filed a public 	notice
complaint 	in the Los Angeles Regional 	Office 	of 	the 	Public
Employment Relations 	Board 	(PERB or Board) 	pursuant 	to 	PERB
regulation 32190.2 The 	complaint 	contended 	that 	the District
1All dates 	referenced herein are 	calendar year 	1992 	unless
otherwise 	noted.
2PERB 	regulation 32190 	states 	in part:
32190. 	Filing of EERA . 	. 	. 	Complaint. 	A
complaint 	alleging 	that 	an 	employer 	or 	an
exclusive 	representative 	has 	failed 	to 	comply
with Government Code section 3547 	. 	. 	. 	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 district. 	The
complaint 	shall be 	filed no later 	than 	3 0
days 	subsequent 	to 	the date when 	conduct
alleged to be a violation was 	known 	or
reasonably 	could 	have 	been 	discovered 	. . . .

violated Government 	Code 	section 	3547(a)3 by not making available
to 	the public 	copies 	of 	the 	exclusive 	representatives'
(Associated Administrators 	of 	Los Angeles, 	"AALA," 	and the United
Teachers of Los Angeles, 	"UTLA")4 respective initial proposals,
and 	that 	these 	proposals 	were 	not 	collated properly.5
The 	complaint 	also 	alleged 	that 	the 	District 	violated 	its
own public notice policy by not 	resolving 	an 	internal 	public
3The 	Educational 	Employment Relations Act 	(EERA) 	is 	codified
at 	Government 	code 	section 	354 	0 	et 	seq. 	Unless 	otherwise
indicated, 	all 	statutory references 	herein are 	to 	the Government
Code. 	Section 3547(a) 	states:
(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.
The 	complaint 	on its 	face 	states 	that 	it 	is 	not 	alleging an
EERA violation. 	However, 	based upon the 	information articulated
in the 	complaint we are 	construing 	it 	as 	an allegation of 	a
violation of section 3547(a).
4AALA represents 	the 	District's 	certificated 	supervisory
bargaining unit. 	The 	certificated bargaining unit 	is 	represented
by 	UTLA.
5A review of 	the District's 	Public Notice 	Policy 	reveals
that 	there 	is 	no 	requirement 	for the 	exclusive 	representatives 	to
physically present 	its proposals 	in a particular manner. 	The
proposals 	were 	stacked and 	separated by a 	colored 	sheet 	of 	paper.
Watts 	asserts 	that 	he 	felt 	that 	the manner 	in which 	the
proposals 	were 	collated was 	inappropriate 	because 	there 	was 	a
possibility 	that 	someone 	could have 	picked up 	a part 	rather 	than
the entire proposal. 	Watts' 	complaint 	is based on speculation,
rather than an actual 	incident. 	There 	is 	no evidence 	that
indicates 	that 	the 	public 	was 	prevented 	or precluded 	from
obtaining 	an 	entire 	copy of 	either proposal 	because 	of 	how or 	the
way 	in which 	they were 	stacked. 	A requirement 	to 	separate 	the
proposals 	in a manner different 	from what 	was 	done 	in this 	case
is 	beyond EERA's 	public 	notice 	requirements.
22

policy 	complaint 	which Watts 	filed against 	the District 	on July
15. 	Watts 	contends 	that 	the 	settlement 	of a prior charge
prompted 	the 	District 	to 	issue 	local 	public notice 	complaint
resolution procedures. 	Watts alleges 	that 	the District has
failed to 	comply with these 	rules, 	and asks 	PERB 	to enforce 	the
District's 	local policies.
FACTS
In 	1979 	public 	notice 	complaints 	filed by Watts 	(Case Nos.
LA-PN-9 	and LA-PN-10) 	against 	the District 	resulted 	in a 	signed
stipulation 	for settlement. 	The 	settlement 	reads 	in pertinent
part:
The District 	hereby agrees 	to 	the 	following 	changes 	in
policy and 	further agrees 	to 	incorporate 	these 	changes
into 	the next 	revision of 	Los Angeles Unified School
District Office of 	the Superintendent Bulletin No. 	18
(Rev 7-7-79).	.
1. 	A staff 	report 	on 	the 	complaint 	(filed pursuant 	to
Section IV of Bulletin No. 	18) 	shall be submitted to Board
Members 	and 	to 	the 	complainant at 	least 	one week prior to
the Board's 	consideration of 	said complaint. 	The Board's
agenda will 	note 	the complaint on the day it 	is 	considered.
(Above 	to be 	inserted 	in Bulletin #18 	Section 	IV A.)
In 19 88 	the District 	revised its 	Public Notice policy6 which
in pertinent part 	states:
III. 	Complaint Procedure
A. 	Any person 	representing himself 	or herself 	or an
organization may 	file 	a 	formal 	complaint 	to 	the 	Board
on a 	form provided by 	the District 	citing 	failure 	to
comply with 	the provisions 	of 	Government 	Code 	Section
6The 	Complainant 	provided 	PERB with a 	copy of 	the 	District's
most 	current public notice policy, 	Bulletin No. 	18 	(Rev)
September 26, 	1988, 	section V (A) .
W
	3

3547 or this policy. 	Such complaints 	to the Board must
be 	filed in the 	office of 	the 	Clerk, of 	the Board within
thirty 	(30) 	calendar days after the 	event giving 	rise
to the 	complaint.
A staff 	report 	on 	the 	complaint 	shall 	be 	submitted 	to
Board Members 	and to 	the 	complainant 	at 	least 	two weeks
prior to 	the Board's 	consideration of 	said 	complaint.
The 	Board's 	agenda will 	note 	the 	complaint 	on the 	day
it 	is 	considered. 	Within thirty 	(30) 	working days
after receipt 	of 	the 	complaint, 	the Board shall 	review
the 	complaint 	and, 	upon a motion requested by the
Superintendent, 	make a decision on said complaint 	at 	a
regular meeting 	of 	the Board unless 	additional 	time 	for
further 	investigation 	is 	requested by the Board. 	Such
extension shall not be for more than 	(30) 	days. 	The
decision of 	the Board shall be 	final.
B. 	The Board's 	complaint procedure 	shall 	not prohibit
any person 	from 	filing a 	complaint 	with 	the 	Public
Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(PERB) 	as provided in
Chapter 7, 	Public Notice Proceedings, 	of that Board's
rules and regulations. 	A copy of 	Chapter 7 will 	be
provided by 	the 	PIO 	or the 	Office 	of 	Staff 	Relations
upon request. 	The Board or PERB's 	complaint procedures
shall 	not prohibit 	the parties 	from continuing 	the
negotiate process pending the 	resolution of 	any
complaint 	filed.
V. 	Accessibility of 	Initial 	Proposals
A. 	Certificated 	Proposals
The District 	shall make 	the Board's 	and 	the
exclusive 	representative's 	proposals
accessible 	to the public 	in 	the 	following
manner:
3. 	A copy of 	initial proposals
presented at 	a 	regular public
meeting of 	the 	Board 	shall 	be
posted 	and 	available 	for 	inspection
and 	review through the 	PIO until
such time as 	negotiations 	are
completed. 	(The exclusive
representative will 	provide 	the
District with copies 	of 	its 	initial
proposals 	which shall 	be
distributed 	through 	regular
District mail 	service procedures.
On June 	15 	the District's board held 	its 	first public notice
4

meeting where AALA's 	and UTLA's 	initial 	proposals 	were made
available 	to 	the public.
Complainant affirms 	that he attended the June 	15 meeting and
received a 	copy of AALA's 	and UTLA's proposals. 	He 	further
states 	that 	he 	addressed 	the District's 	board at 	the 	two public
comment meetings 	held on June 	25 	and July 	6.
On July 15, 	Watts 	filed a public notice procedure 	complaint
with the District. 	The 	complaint 	indicated the 	following:
Public 	notice 	requirements 	were violated by 	not 	having
the UTLA and AALA Initial 	Proposals available at 	the
time 	Watts 	was 	scheduled 	to 	speak at 	the Board meeting
of June 25, 	1992. 	Additionally, 	on July 6, 	1992, 	the
unions' 	initial proposals available at 	the Board
meeting 	were 	not 	collated properly.
The District's 	response 	to Watts' 	internal 	complaint was as
follows:
For public 	input, 	district policy requires 	that an
opportunity be provided at 	two 	separate meetings 	of 	the
Board of 	Education with a 	three minute 	time 	allocation
to address proposals. 	In this 	case, 	the UTLA and AALA
proposals were 	sunshined on June 15, 	1992 	and 50 	copies
were made available 	to the public. 	The Order of
Business 	was posted prior to 	the June 	25 meeting as
usual, 	giving the public advance notice of 	the
presentation of 	the proposals. 	The proposals were made
available 	to 	the public 	for 	review during 	the meeting,
the 	three minute 	time allocation was 	available 	to you
to speak to proposals; 	in fact, 	the three minute
allocation was 	utilized by you 	for 	this 	purpose. 	A
similar 	opportunity to 	speak was 	provided 	to you 	on
July 6, 	1992.
On June 	25, 	1992 	there was a brief delay in placing 	the
UTLA proposals 	on 	the 	table 	outside 	the 	Board meeting
room. 	The 	delay occurred because UTLA delivered 	copies
of 	the 	200+ page document 	to 	the wrong 	location 	[which
they acknowledged]. 	However, 	since the Bulletin does
not 	contain any regulations 	concerning 	the 	exact 	time
the proposals are 	to be provided for viewing, 	staff
believes 	the 	District 	substantially 	complied with 	its
own regulations.
S
5

Regarding 	the 	fact 	that 	the proposals 	were 	not
collated, 	there 	is no requirement 	in District policy
that 	the unions' 	proposals be 	separated and rubber-
banded. 	It was 	bur understanding that 	the 	200+ page
sets 	were 	separated by a 	colored 	sheet 	of 	paper.
In your complaint, 	you pointed out 	that all 	proposals
should be presented at 	a 	regular meeting. 	In 	this
case, 	the proposals were received at 	the meeting of
June 	15, 	1992, 	which clearly was a regular Board
meeting.
ISSUES
Did 	the District 	fail 	to make AALA's 	and UTLA's 	initial
proposals 	available 	to 	the public? 	Did the District 	fail 	to
comply with 	its 	local 	public 	notice policy?
DISCUSSION
Availability 	of 	Proposals
In Los Angeles Unified School District 	(Watts) 	(1980) 	PERB
Decision No. 	153, 	the Board held that:
[T]he 	statute 	requires 	that all 	initial
proposals 	be presented at 	a public meeting
and, 	thereafter, 	become public records.
Beyond this 	the statute 	is 	silent. 	It does
not 	specify 	that 	copies 	of proposals must be
made available at all 	subsequent meetings.
The 	issue 	regarding 	the 	availability of proposals 	at
subsequent 	public 	comment meetings 	was 	also addressed by 	the
Board 	in Los 	Angeles 	Unified School 	District 	(1981) 	PERB Decision
No. 	181a. 	In that 	case, 	the Board affirmed the regional
director's 	dismissal 	of 	an allegation 	that 	the District 	failed 	to
make 	its proposal 	available at 	subsequent meetings, 	finding that
"Mr. 	Watts 	has 	failed to 	state any sufficient 	facts 	to 	constitute
a prima 	facie 	complaint."
In order 	for 	the District 	to meet 	its 	public 	notice
6

obligations under EERA, 	it must make 	copies 	of 	the 	exclusive
representative's 	initial 	proposals 	available 	to 	the public 	at 	a
public meeting. 	There 	is 	no requirement 	for the District 	to make
available copies 	of proposals at subsequent meetings. 	Thus, 	when
it provided 	copies 	of 	the 	initial proposals at 	the June 	15 	public
meeting, 	the District 	fulfilled 	its public notice 	obligation
under 	the 	EERA. 	The 	Complainant 	offers 	no evidence 	or argument
to 	support 	or 	require a different 	finding 	in this 	case.
District's 	Failure 	To 	Comply With Local 	Public Notice 	Policy
Nothing 	in 	section 	3547 	requires 	school 	districts 	to have a
local public notice complaint resolution procedure, 	nor does 	it
define how a 	school 	board's 	local policy shall be 	regulated. 	The
regulation of 	those procedures 	is 	left 	to 	the discretion of 	the
local 	school boards.
Although 	there 	is 	no 	statutory requirement 	for school 	boards
to have a 	local 	public notice 	complaint 	resolution procedure,
PERB may 	entertain a 	complaint 	and 	intercede 	if 	the 	complaint
alleges 	that 	the 	locally adopted 	rules 	facially 	conflict 	with 	the
law and 	if 	the application of 	such rules 	deprives 	the public 	of
their 	statutory 	rights.
In Los Angeles Unified School District 	(1983) 	PERB Decision
No. 	335, 	the Board found that 	the regional 	director erred when
she 	dismissed Watts' 	public 	notice 	complaint based specifically
on the 	fact 	that 	he alleged violations 	of 	the District's 	own
public 	notice policy. 	It 	concluded that:
... 	we must 	determine whether 	the 	statutory public
notice provisions have been violated. 	If 	the 	locally
77

adopted 	rules 	facially 	conflict 	with 	a public 	notice
requirement, 	the Board will 	necessarily intercede.
Where 	the application of 	local 	rules 	results 	in
deprivation of 	statutory rights, 	we will 	likewise
entertain 	the 	complaint.
In Los Angeles 	Unified School District 	(1980) 	PERB Decision
No. 	152, 	the Board found that 	"whether or not 	the complaint
asserts violation of 	local 	rules 	is not determinative." 	In Los
Angeles 	Community College District 	(Watts) 	(1981) 	PERB Decision
No. 	150a, 	the Board 	found that a dismissal may not 	rely solely on
the 	fact 	that 	a 	complaint 	alleges violation of a 	school
district's 	own public 	notice 	rules.
In order for PERB to 	intercede 	in this matter, 	there must be
evidence 	that 	the 	local 	rules 	adopted by the 	school 	board
facially 	conflict 	with 	the 	EERA public 	notice 	requirement 	and
that 	the 	application of 	those 	rules 	resulted in deprivation of
statutory 	rights.
Although Watts 	asserts 	that 	the District 	failed 	to adhere
to a 	local 	rule 	(public notice 	complaint 	resolution procedure),
he offers 	no evidence 	to support 	such an assertion. 	In fact, 	the
District's 	written 	response 	regarding Watt's 	internal 	complaint
is 	evidence 	of 	action 	taken by the District 	which conforms 	to
its 	Public Notice Complaint procedures. 	Further, 	the allegation
articulated 	in 	the 	Complainant's 	internal 	complaint 	involved
District 	public 	notice 	requirements 	which are 	beyond 	those
mandated by the EERA. 	It appears 	that Watts' 	contention is based
on his 	dissatisfaction with the District's 	response 	to his
complaint 	rather 	than a 	failure 	on 	their part 	to 	follow the 	local
8

rule. 	Additionally 	there 	is 	no evidence 	to substantiate 	the
Complainant's 	contention 	that 	the 	application of 	the District's
complaint 	procedures 	deprived 	the 	public 	of 	any 	statutory 	rights.
PERB's Authority 	to 	Enforce Agreements
Government 	Code 	section 3541.5(b) 	states:
The 	Board 	shall 	not 	have authority 	to 	enforce
agreements between the parties, 	and shall 	not
issue 	a 	complaint 	on any charge based 	on
alleged violation 	of 	such an agreement 	that
would not 	also 	constitute 	an unfair practice
under 	this 	chapter.
In Los Angeles 	Unified School District 	(1984) 	PERB Decision
No. 	448 	and Los Angeles 	School District 	Peace Officer's
Association 	(19 87) 	PERB Decision No. 	627, 	the Board held that
PERB does 	not have, the authority to enforce agreements between
the parties. 	Rather, 	PERB 	can only investigate conduct 	alleged to
violate an agreement if 	such 	conduct 	also 	constitutes 	a
deprivation 	of 	statutory rights 	under EERA.
In the 	instant 	case, 	it has not been established that any of
the 	purported 	settlement 	agreement 	violations 	deprived 	the 	public
of 	their statutory rights under EERA. 	Further, 	the 	instant
complaint 	clearly articulates 	issues 	beyond 	the 	scope 	of 	public
notice 	requirements. 	It appears 	that Watts has attempted to
utilize 	the 	public notice 	complaint procedure 	to 	involve 	PERB 	in
the 	enforcement 	of 	an agreement 	between the parties.
CONCLUSION AND 	ORDER
Based on 	the 	facts, 	law and precedent 	discussed above, 	the
following 	conclusions have been reached. 	First, 	the District met
its 	public 	notice 	obligation under 	EERA by making AALA's 	and
9

UTLA's proposals 	available 	to 	the public 	at 	its 	first 	public
notice meeting. 	Second, 	there 	is no 	factual 	information from
which 	it 	can be determined 	that 	the 	application 	of 	the District's
public 	notice policy resulted 	in a 	deprivation 	of 	statutory
rights. 	Finally, 	PERB does not have 	the authority to enforce
settlements between the parties. 	It 	is 	therefore determined that
the 	instant public 	notice 	complaint 	fails 	to 	state 	a prima 	facie
violation of Government 	Code 	section 3547.
In addition, 	it 	is 	concluded that Watts has again raised
nonmeritorious 	complaints 	which 	the 	Board has 	already 	fully
considered. 	In this case, 	Watts' 	complaint regarding the
availability of proposals 	at 	subsequent meetings 	is 	not 	only an
issue 	decided 	often 	and 	consistently by 	the 	Board 	but 	was 	also an
issue he 	raised in several 	recent 	complaints 	(LA-PN-129, 	LA-PN-
130, 	and LA-PN-132). 	Further, 	it is apparent that Watts has
asserted allegations 	that 	go beyond 	the 	scope 	of 	PERB's
authority, 	i.e., 	resolving 	internal 	complaints 	and enforcement 	of
settlement agreements. 	On the 	face 	of 	the 	instant 	complaint
Watts 	indicated 	that 	he 	recognized 	that 	the 	allegations 	he
articulated were outside of 	PERB's boundaries, 	yet 	he 	still 	chose
to 	file the instant 	complaint. 	Therefore, 	the 	filing of 	this
complaint 	is 	considered an abuse 	of 	Board processes 	and a waste
of State resources. 	(See Los Angeles Unified School District
(Watts) 	(1992) 	PERB Decision No. 	181a.) 	It is again appropriate,
under these circumstances, 	to assess 	litigation expenses against
the 	complainant. 	(United Professors 	of 	California 	(Watts) 	(1984)
10

PERB Decision No. 	398-H.)
For the 	foregoing reasons, 	the 	instant 	complaint 	is
DISMISSED without 	leave to amend. 	Further, 	Watts 	is 	hereby
ORDERED 	to:
1. 	CEASE AND DESIST 	from abusing 	the 	Board's 	administrative
processes 	by 	filing public 	notice 	complaints 	not 	supported by
evidence which the Board has made 	clear is 	necessary, 	or which
merely 	raise 	questions 	of 	law previously 	decided by 	the 	Board.
2. 	Reimburse any litigation expenses, 	including reasonable
attorney fees, 	incurred by the District 	in defending against 	this
complaint.
3. 	Make written notification of 	the actions 	taken to 	comply
with the Order to the Los Angeles 	Regional Director of 	the 	Public
Employment 	Relations 	Board 	in accord with 	the 	director's
instructions.
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 	Code 	of
Regulations, 	title 8, 	section 3295). 	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
Code of Regulations, 	title 8, 	section 3215). 	The Board's address
11

is:
Members, 	Public Employment Relations Board
1031 	18th Street
Sacramento, CA 9 5814
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
may 	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 	Code 	of 	Regulations,
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 	Los Angeles
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 Code of Regulations, 	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.
12

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
calendar days before 	the 	expiration of 	the 	time 	required for
filing 	the document. 	The 	request must 	indicate 	good 	cause 	for
and, 	if know, 	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 Regulation, 	title 	8,
section 	32132).
May 28 , 199 3 Nora M. 	Baltierrez
Labor 	Relations 	Specialist
13