California School Employees Association (Rodriquez) (PERB 1121E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
JERRY 	RUBEN RODRIQUEZ,
Charging 	Party,
v.
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION AND 	ITS 	CHAPTER #149,
Respondent.
)
)
) 	Case No. 	SF-CO-489
PERB Decision No. 	1121
November 	7, 	1995
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearance; 	Jerry Ruben Rodriquez, 	on his 	own behalf.
Before Garcia, 	Johnson and Caffrey, 	Members.
DECISION
GARCIA, 	Member: 	This 	case 	is before the 	Public Employment
Relations 	Board 	(Board) 	on appeal 	by Jerry Ruben Rodriquez
(Rodriquez) 	of a Board agent's dismissal 	(attached hereto) 	of his
unfair practice 	charge. 	In the 	charge, 	Rodriquez 	alleged that
the 	California 	School 	Employees Association and 	its 	Chapter 	#149
breached 	its 	duty 	of 	fair 	representation 	guaranteed by 	section
3544.9 	of 	the Educational 	Employment Relations Act 	(EERA),
thereby violating EERA section 3543.6(b)1 when it 	failed to
1EERA is 	codified at Government 	Code 	section 3540 	et 	seq.
Section 3544.9 	states, 	in pertinent part:
The 	employee 	organization 	recognized 	or
certified as 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	for
the 	purpose 	of meeting 	and negotiating 	shall
fairly 	represent 	each 	and 	every 	employee 	in
the 	appropriate 	unit. 	.
Section 3543.6 provides, 	in pertinent part:
It 	shall 	be unlawful 	for an employee
organization to:

fairly 	represent 	him with 	regard 	to 	certain 	employment 	disputes
with his 	employer, 	the Salinas 	City Elementary School 	District.
The 	Board agent 	dismissed Rodriquez's 	charge 	and 	refused 	to 	issue
a 	complaint 	on 	the 	grounds 	that 	his 	allegations 	were untimely
filed.
The 	Board has 	reviewed 	the 	applicable 	statutes 	and 	case 	law,
the warning and dismissal 	letters, 	the 	original 	and amended
charges, 	Rodriguez's 	appeal 	and the entire 	record in this 	case.
The 	Board 	finds 	the 	Board agent's 	warning 	and dismissal 	letters
to be 	free 	of 	prejudicial 	error and adopts 	them as 	the 	decision
of 	the 	Board 	itself.
ORDER
The unfair practice 	charge 	in Case No. 	SF-CO-489 	is hereby
DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE 	TO AMEND.
Members 	Johnson and Caffrey 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
(b) 	Impose 	or threaten to 	impose 	reprisals
on employees, 	to discriminate or threaten to
discriminate against 	employees, 	or otherwise
to interfere with, 	restrain, 	or coerce
employees because 	of 	their exercise 	of 	rights
guaranteed by 	this 	chapter.
22

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	' 	PETE WILSON, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
San Francisco Regional Office
177 Post Street, 9th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108-4737
(415) 557-1350
August 2, 	1995
Jerry Ruben Rodriguez
Re: 	DISMISSAL OF UNFAIR PRACTICE CHARGE/REFUSAL TO 	ISSUE
COMPLAINT
Jerry Ruben Rodriguez v. 	California School Employees
Association and its 	Chapter #149
Unfair Practice Charge No. 	SF-CO-489
Dear Mr. Rodriguez:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge, 	filed on March 14,
1995, 	alleges that the California School Employees Association
and its Chapter #149 	(Association) 	failed to fairly represent
Jerry Ruben Rodriguez with regard to certain employment disputes
with his employer, 	the Salinas City Elementary School District
(District). 	This conduct is alleged to violate Government Code
section 3543.6 of the Educational 	Employment Relations Act
(EERA).
I indicated to you, 	in my attached letter dated July 21, 	1995,
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 which would correct 	the
deficiencies explained in that 	letter, 	you should amend the
charge. 	You were further advised that, 	unless you amended the
charge to state a prima facie case or withdrew it prior to July
21, 	1-995, 	the charge would be dismissed.
A brief extension of time was granted for the filing of an
amended charge. 	An amended charge was filed on July 31, 	1995.
The amended charge contains numerous additional allegations.
However, 	for the reasons explained in the July 21, 	1995 letter,
the new allegations that arise outside of the six month statute
of limitations period 	(i.e., 	prior to September 15, 	1994) 	cannot
be the basis 	for a prima facie violation and need not be
summarized here.
The new allegations within the statute of limitations period that
concern the Association's conduct relate to a November 5, 	1994
letter from District Superintendent Dan Romero, 	responding to a
letter from Rodriguez protesting Romero's May 19, 	1994 adverse
decision on his 	grievance 	concerning the alleged assault by
Association representative Pat 	Bollin. 	Romero contended that his
reasons 	for the decision remained sound. 	Rodriguez alleges 	that
-----==---

Dismissal 	Letter
SF-CO-489
August 2, 	1995
Page 2
Association Chapter President Maryjane Campbell was 	informed of
this letter but 	"did not pursue appropriate courses 	of action."
These allegations 	fail to cure 	the deficiencies noted in the July
21, 	1995 letter. 	Rodriguez complained about the incident with
Bollin- to Campbell on April 11, 	1994 and to Association Executive
Director Bud Dougherty on June 8, 	1994. 	Although the charge does
not 	specifically indicate whether any response was provided
regarding this particular incident, 	sufficient time passed prior
to September 15, 	1994 for Rodriguez to have reason to know that
the Association would not 	respond to his 	request 	for assistance.
(Regents of the University of California 	(1983) 	PERB Dec. 	No.
359-H.) 	Therefore, 	the charge is untimely and I am dismissing
the 	charge based on the facts and reasons set 	forth above and in
my July 21, 	1995 letter.
Right to Appeal
Pursuant to Public Employment Relations Board regulations, 	you
may obtain a review of this dismissal of the charge by filing
an appeal 	to the Board itself within twenty 	(20) 	calendar days
after service of this dismissal. 	(Cal. 	Code of Regs., 	tit. 	8,
sec. 	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 p.m.) 	or sent by telegraph,
certified or Express United States mail postmarked no later
than the last date set for filing. 	(Cal. 	Code of Regs., 	tit. 	8,
sec. 	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 	(20) 	calendar
days following the date of service of the appeal. 	(Cal. 	Code of
Regs., tit. 8, sec. 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 or
filed with the Board itself. 	(See Cal. 	Code of Regs., 	tit. 	8,
sec. 	32140 	for the required contents and a sample form.) 	The
document will be 	considered properly 	"served" 	when personally

Dismissal 	Letter
SF-CO-489
August 2, 	1995
Page 3
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 	(3) 	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. 	(Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 	8, sec. 32132.)
Final Date
If no appeal 	is filed within the specified time limits, 	the
dismissal will become final when the time limits have expired.
Sincerely,
ROBERT THOMPSON
Deputy General 	Counsel
By DONN Ginoza
Regional Attorney
Attachment
cc: 	Margie Valdez

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	PETE WILSON, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
PERe
San Francisco Regional Office
177 Post Street, 9th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108-4737
(415) 557-1350
July 21, 	1995
Jerry Ruben Rodriguez
Re: 	WARNING LETTER
Jerry Ruben Rodriguez v. 	California School Employees
Association and its Chapter #149
Unfair Practice Charge No. 	SF-CO-489
Dear Mr. Rodriguez:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge, 	filed on March 14,
1995, 	alleges that the California School Employees Association
and its Chapter #149 	(Association) 	failed to fairly represent
Jerry Ruben Rodriguez with regard to 	certain employment 	disputes
with his employer, 	the Salinas City Elementary School District
(District). 	This conduct is alleged to violate Government Code
section 3543.6 	of the Educational Employment Relations Act
(EERA).
Investigation of 	the charge revealed the 	following.1 Jerry Ruben
Rodriguez was employed as a maintenance worker by the District
during the period from February 1990 	through March 1995. 	The
Association is 	the exclusive representative of his bargaining
unit. 	On February 22, 	1990, 	Rodriguez's supervisor ordered
Rodriguez 	to meet him the 	following morning at a school 	for
instructions on repair of a heating unit. 	The supervisor
provided Rodriguez with a wiring diagram which Rodriguez 	could
not understand and which his 	supervisor could not 	explain. 	The
supervisor then physically demonstrated to Rodriguez how to wire
the heating unit. 	He told Rodriguez to complete the repairs
quickly. 	Rodriguez 	completed the wiring and then turned to
ignite the heater. 	The heating unit exploded, 	singing Rodriguez
and throwing him backward. 	Leaving the area, 	Rodriguez
encountered representatives the Association. 	Rodriguez
complained about his supervisor's lack of experience. 	One of the
representatives notified the 	school principal who assisted
Rodriguez 	in boarding a school vehicle to transport him to a
local hospital 	for medical attention. 	Rodriguez returned to work
after his examination and was handed a Workers' 	Compensation form
by the principal.
1 The charge consists of a 49-page chronological 	statement
of facts. 	The recitation of 	facts 	contained herein has been
abbreviated.
-- ---===-- --

Warning Letter
SF-CO-489
July 21, 	1995
Page 2
The following day, 	Rodriguez began to experience problems with
shortness of breath. 	He arranged for a further medical
examination. 	Several days later, 	tests revealed moderate
pulmonary function restriction and possible pneumonitis.
Rodriguez retained a Workers' 	Compensation attorney. 	Rodriguez
was 	referred to psychological 	counseling due to severe 	fear and
anxiety of returning to work. 	During March 1990, 	Rodriguez
complained of 	increasing difficulty breathing, 	particularly when
exercising.
During March and April 1990, 	Rodriguez was not pleased with his
Workers' 	Compensation attorney's failure to act on his complaints
about his 	supervisor and aggressively assert his 	rights 	in the
claim. 	The District's claims adjuster arranged for Rodriguez to
be seen by pulmonary specialists at the Stanford Medical Center.
These 	tests 	revealed moderate 	lung 	capacity reduction,
tentatively attributed to asthma. 	After further tests, 	the
doctors would suggest 	that Rodriguez had had a preexisting
condition, 	which Rodriguez denied.
In June, 	the District offered vocational rehabilitation benefits,
which Rodriguez accepted.
Further tests at Stanford Medical 	Center led doctors 	to the
conclusion that Rodriguez 	suffered hyper-reactive bronchial
airways, 	should be on inhaled steroids, 	and should avoid
exposures 	to precipitating conditions. 	They found no evidence
that 	the accident contributed to any appreciable lung 	injury.
The District's 	superintendent 	ordered that 	staff work with
Rodriguez and the rehabilitation consultant 	to develop
alternative positions. 	The District worked with Rodriguez to
develop a new job description. 	Rodriguez 	rejected a proposed job
description around the time of 	the 	targeted date 	for his 	return
to work in November 1990.
... .4
In December, 	Rodriguez returned to work without a job
description. 	Rodriguez evaluated the District's equipment repair
needs to determine what cost effective alternatives 	existed. 	In
January 1991, 	he proposed dropping an audio visual and equipment
repair contract with an outside vendor. 	In March, 	after further
research by Rodriguez, 	his rehabilitation plan was 	submitted to
the claims adjuster for approval. 	After submission to the
Workers' 	Compensation Rehabilitation District Office, 	the plan
was rejected for lack of documentation. 	Nevertheless, 	Rodriguez
worked for the District making equipment 	repairs during this
period of time, 	while maintaining his eligibility for
rehabilitation benefits. 	His vocational consultant 	continued to
issue progress reports.

Warning Letter
SF-CO-489
July 21, 	1995
Page 3
In July 1991, 	the District rejected Rodriguez's claim for
permanent partial 	disability.
Rodriguez complained about breathing problems in his new job as a
result of exposure to certain chemical solvents. 	He was examined
by a doctor who advised that 	he be provided with protective
equipment.
In November 1991, 	the District Board accepted Rodriguez's
proposed job description, 	including a $100 month raise, 	following
reports 	that his 	repair program resulted in cost savings 	to the
District.
A doctor's evaluation in December 1991 	concluded that 	Rodriguez
suffered from chronic airways 	inflammation due to the 	short-term,
high-level exposure to irritant materials during the accident.
Another specialist 	concurred in this 	evaluation and recommended
equipment 	that would avoid exposure 	to irritants.
During March 1992, 	Rodriguez's 	condition worsened and he took a
100-day medical 	leave. 	He requested that the District agree to
an evaluation by the same doctors he had seen beginning in
December 1991. 	He believed the District had agreed but
discovered that this was not the case. 	In the summer of 1992,
the District 	eliminated Rodriguez's position by signing a
contract with an outside vendor. 	Rodriguez claims 	that 	this
information was 	intentionally 	concealed 	from him.
Further medical 	examination by yet 	another physician concluded
that Rodriguez's asthma was not the result of the heater
explosion and that he could continue working as an audio-visual
equipment repairman if he avoided exposure to toxic chemicals.
In October 1992, 	Rodriguez requested the right to return to work
with accommodations. 	The District advised him that he 	should
speak to their attorney. 	Rodriguez 	then sought assistance from
the Association. 	The Association referred him to a panel
attorney who handled Workers' 	Compensation cases. 	This attorney
concurred in his 	first attorney's opinion that, 	apart from the
Workers' 	Compensation claim, 	there were no other potential claims
for negligence or discrimination.
The Association's 	referral attorney arranged for an 	informal
rehabilitation conference with the District 	in October to discuss
accommodation in the workplace. 	The District admitted at 	the
meeting that Rodriguez's position no longer existed. 	Rodriguez
requested that 	the attorney file discrimination charges.

Warning Letter
SF-CO-489
July 21, 	1995
Page 4
A second 	informal 	conference with Rodriguez's 	attorney and 	the
District's attorney in December failed to resolve 	the dispute.
The attorneys agreed to work on mutually selecting a medical
examiner. 	The District urged Rodriguez to continue his job
search outside of the District. 	Rodriguez's attorney refused to
file discrimination charges at 	this 	time and advised him to
obtain assistance 	from the Association regarding the 	contracting
out of the repair work.
The agreed medical 	examiner concluded that Rodriguez's 	condition
persisted, 	was caused by the initial accident, 	and that he should
be reemployed with proper safety equipment. 	In response, 	the
District offered only a unpaid leave of absence or placement on
the 39-month reemployment list.
In March 1993, 	Rodriguez filed charges under the Americans with
Disability Act 	(ADA) 	with the Equal 	Employment Opportunities
Commission. 	Marci Seville, 	an Association attorney, 	wrote the
District demanding Rodriguez's 	reinstatement and asserting that
his ADA rights had been violated. 	Seville informed Rodriguez
that the Association had not yet determined whether to provide
him with formal 	legal 	representation in the ADA claim.
In April 1993, 	Seville referred Rodriguez to a private attorney
who determined that his ADA claim lacked merit. 	She advised
Rodriguez to agree to the settlement agreement being proposed by
the District, 	which included his right to return to work.
Seville concurred in this assessment 	and advised him to accept
the terms of the settlement agreement proposal.
During May 1993, 	the District insisted on Rodriguez's release of
all claims, 	including Workers' 	Compensation and ADA. 	Seville
left employment with the Association and assigned his 	case to
another attorney, 	Maureen Whelan. 	Rodriguez told Whelan that he
was opposed to the settlement agreement because of 	the
rehabilitation plan.
On May 27, 	1993, 	a meeting of the all of the principals involved
occurred at which time the District presented Rodriguez with its
comprehensive settlement agreement. 	Whelan and his Workers'
Compensation attorney urged him to sign the agreement. 	Whelan
told him that his ADA case was weak and that 	the Association
would not 	continue 	to represent him if he did not accept 	the
agreement. 	Rodriguez balked and raised an issue of needing funds
to repair his truck that he used in his work. 	The District
offered a portion of his demand in a handwritten addendum.
Rodriguez 	continued to feel pressured into signing the agreement.
He did not like the agreement. 	He signed reluctantly. 	Shortly

Warning Letter
SF-CO-489
July 21, 	1995
Page 5
after the meeting, 	he discovered that 	the final 	copy he received
differed from the one he signed in that 	it 	substituted a
different rehabilitation plan. 	The charge does not explain
precisely how the substituted plan differed, 	but does suggest
that a reference to his last leave of absence being a cumulative
injury rather than an independent 	injury was his main concern.
On this basis, 	Rodriguez claims that the District intentionally
discriminated against him as disabled person, 	violated safety
regulations 	requiring a safe working environment, 	and denied him
his Workers' 	Compensation benefits.
Rodriguez returned to work in the fall of 1993. 	He was fitted
with a respirator. 	He was 	subsequently fitted with a second
respirator after the 	first proved to be unsatisfactory.
Rodriguez fired his Workers' 	Compensation attorney and pursued a
malpractice action against him.
An 	industrial 	hygienist 	inspected Rodriguez's workplace and
recommended better room ventilation. 	The agreed medical 	examiner
concurred in this recommendation. 	No new measures were taken.
Rodriguez 	complained about 	inadequate heating and had to keep the
existing windows and doors closed. 	His request for improved
heating and ventilation was apparently not acted upon.
In January 1994, 	Rodriguez's condition worsened, 	during a time he
had to keep the windows close to avoid the cold.
In February 1994, 	Rodriguez filed a complaint with the Monterey
County District Attorney's office claiming Workers' 	Compensation
fraud based on the alteration of the agreement. 	The office
declined to proceed. 	Rodriguez also began gathering information
regarding a breach of the Association's duty to represent him.
Also in February, 	Rodriguez suffered another respiratory episode.
He filed a new Workers' 	Compensation claim.
An Association representative, 	Pat Bollin, 	verbally and
physically assaulted Rodriguez by grabbing him on March 18, 	1994
when she learned that he was gathering 	information against 	the
Association. 	He 	filed assault and battery charges with the
Salinas Police Department. 	On March 22 and 23, 	he also requested
an investigation of Seville and Whelan by the Association's 	Chief
Counsel, Margie Valdez. 	On March 27, 	Rodriguez filed a grievance
based on the Bollin incident. 	He pursued this grievance, 	but the
District rejected it at the first two levels, 	on April 	11 and May
19, 	respectively, 	despite Bollin's admission of the confrontation
and her grabbing of Rodriguez. 	A final 	review resulted in a
denial of the grievance on July 29, 	1994. 	The Salinas Police
Department produced a report which Rodriguez 	submitted at 	the
last step of 	the grievance procedure. 	He later complained that

Warning Letter
SF-CO-489
July 21, 	1995
Page 6
the police officer had altered the report which the District had
reviewed. 	On April 	11, 	Rodriguez requested that Mary Jane
Campbell, 	Chapter President, 	take some action against Bollin for
her assault.
The District rejected the new Workers' 	Compensation claim.
Rodriguez 	informed the District 	that he would not be returning to
work until 	the agreed medical 	examiner recommended adequate
ventilation and heat. 	The District 	responded by requiring a
medical 	release 	from the examiner prior to his return to work.
In a deposition, 	the medical examiner asserted that Rodriguez
could no longer work in his position and should seek another
position.
On June 8, 	1994, 	Rodriguez telephoned Association Executive
Director Bud Dougherty to request an internal 	investigation of
Seville, 	Whelan and Bollin. 	He confirmed this request in a
letter dated June 15. 	Also on June 8, 	Rodriguez called Valdez to
request an inquiry as 	to whether Seville and Whelan had followed
procedures in investigating his claims. 	He confirmed this
request 	in a letter dated June 11. 	Valdez responded on June 24
that her investigation revealed no improprieties. 	On June 9,
Rodriguez requested that 	the Association Board of Directors and
Association President Steve Araujo also initiate an internal
investigation regarding Seville, 	Whelan and Bollin.
On June 20, 	1994, 	the District claimed that Rodriguez was not
participating in the vocational 	rehabilitation program and
threatened to terminate these benefits. 	It also disputed
Rodriguez's claimed permanent disability rating. 	In July, 	the
District proposed two part-time positions for Rodriguez, 	which he
rejected. .
On September 15, 	1994, Rodriguez requested a medical leave, 	which
the District denied. 	Twice he requested reconsideration but was
denied both times. 	He continued to be eligible 	for vocational
rehabilitation benefits during the fall of 1994.
In December, 	the District's attorney advised Rodriguez that his
medical condition was 	such that he was not capable of working in
any environment, 	except an office environment. 	The attorney
invited Rodriguez to submit a settlement proposal, 	which he did.
On January 26, 	1995, 	the District notified Rodriguez that he was
no longer employed, 	but placed on the 39 month reemployment list.
Subsequently, 	Rodriguez sought action from the District's Board
of Education to address the serious and wilful 	conduct of the
District 	that 	resulted in his 	irreversible lung damage and

Warning Letter
SF-CO-489
July 21, 	1995
Page 7
inability to perform his 	job duties 	and requested a permanent
leave of absence. 	On February 28, 	1995, 	the Board rejected him
on both requests. 	The District claimed that it had complied with
the settlement agreement, 	and would not make any special
exceptions for him.
Rodriguez contends that the conduct of 	the Association
demonstrates 	that 	it 	intentionally breached its duty of 	fair
representation, 	conspired with the District to violate his civil
rights, 	and failed to investigate issues of misconduct by
Association representatives.
Based on the facts stated above, 	the charge as presently written
fails to state a prima facie violation of 	the EERA for the
reasons that follow.
Government Code section 3541.5(a) 	states that PERB 	"shall not
. 	. 	. 	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."
PERB has held that the six month period commences 	to run when the
charging party knew or should have known of 	the conduct giving
rise to the alleged unfair practice. 	(Regents of the University
of California 	(1983) 	PERB Dec. No. 	359-H.)
The charge was filed on March 14, 	1995. 	Therefore, 	only those
acts or omissions by the Association on or after September 14,
1994 are timely. 	There is no conduct alleged to have been
engaged in by the Association in violation of his rights after
September 14, 	1994. 	Therefore, 	the charge is not timely filed.
Nevertheless, 	Rodriguez asserts that the alleged breach of the
duty of fair representation, 	acts of conspiracy, 	and failure to
investigate misconduct by Association representatives 	are 	timely
allegations because he did not understand at the 	time 	the events
took place that his 	rights under the EERA were being violated.
He did not discover the legal significance of these events until
shortly before he filed the unfair practice charge. 	However,
this late discovery does not excuse the untimely filing. 	The
time for filing begins to run from the date that the charging
party is aware of 	the conduct constituting the unfair practice,
not from the date he discovers its legal significance.
(Operating Engineers International Union 	(Reich) 	(1986) 	PERB Dec.
No. 591-H.)
Rodriguez also contends that his charge is 	timely filed because
at no time prior to the filing of 	the charge did the Association
ever discharge 	its obligation to investigate his complaints.

Warning Letter
SF-CO-489
July 21, 	1995
Page 8
This argument appears to assert that the Association's violation
was of. a continuing nature. 	This argument must also be rejected.
The violations alleged do not appear to be of a continuing
nature. 	Rodriguez knew or should have known prior to September
14, 	1994 	that the Association had engaged in conduct that would
have supported his claims. 	(Regents of the University of
California, supra. PERB Dec. No. 359-H.)
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 additional 	facts which would correct 	the
deficiencies explained above, 	please amend the charge. 	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
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 July 28, 	1995. 	I
shall dismiss your charge. 	If you have any questions, 	please
call me at 	(415) 	557-1350.
ginrarely
DONN GINOZ	YOZA	A
Regional Attorney