California Teachers Association, CTA/NEA (Torres) (PERB 1386E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
MARY 	LOU TORRES,
Charging 	Party,
v.
CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION,
CTA/NEA,
Respondent.
)
)
) 	Case No. 	SA-CO-436
PERB Decision No. 	1386
May 18, 	2000
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearance; 	Mary Lou Torres, 	on her own behalf; 	Ramon E. 	Romero,
Attorney, 	for California Teachers Association, 	CTA/NEA.
Before Dyer, 	Amador and Baker, 	Members.
DECISION
AMADOR, 	Member: 	This 	case comes before the Public
Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(Board) 	on appeal 	from a Board agent's
dismissal 	(attached) 	of Mary Lou Torres' 	(Torres) 	unfair practice
charge. 	The 	charge alleges 	that 	the 	California Teachers
Association, 	CTA/NEA 	(CTA) 	breached its duty of 	fair
representation in violation of 	sections 	3544.9 	and 3543.6(a) 	of
the 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations Act 	(EERA) 	and discriminated
against 	her 	in violation 	of 	EERA section 	3 5 4 3 . 1
6 (b) . -
1EERA is 	codified at Government 	Code 	section 3540 	et 	seq.
EERA section 	3544.9 	provides:
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 relevant part:
6 (b) • -

It 	shall 	be unlawful 	for an employee
organization to:
(a) 	Cause 	or attempt 	to cause a public
school 	employer to violate 	Section 3543.5.
(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.
The 	Board has 	reviewed the 	entire 	record 	in 	this 	case,
including the unfair practice 	charge, 	the warning and dismissal
letters, 	Torres' 	appeal and CTA's response. 	The Board finds 	the
warning 	and dismissal 	letters 	to be 	free 	from prejudicial 	error
and adopts 	them as 	the 	decision of 	the Board 	itself.
ORDER
The unfair practice 	charge 	in Case No. 	LA-CO-436 	is hereby
DISMISSED WITHOUT 	LEAVE 	TO AMEND.
Member Dyer and Member Baker 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
22

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	GRAY DAVIS, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Sacramento Regional Office
1031 18th Street, Room 102
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
(916) 322-3198
November 23, 	1999
Mary 	Lou 	Torres
Re: 	Mary Lou Torres v. 	California Teachers Association
Unfair Practice Charge No. 	SA-CO-43 6
DISMISSAL 	LETTER
Dear Ms. 	Torres:
The 	above-referenced unfair practice 	charge 	was 	filed with the
Public Employment 	Relations Board 	(PERB) 	on August 	12, 	1999. 	An
amended charge was 	filed on September 22, 	1999. 	As 	amended, 	the
charge 	alleges 	that 	the 	California 	Teachers 	Association 	(CTA)
breached 	its 	duty of 	fair 	representation, 	guaranteed by
Government 	Code 	section 3 544.9, 	and thereby violated the
Educational 	Employment Relations Act 	(EERA), 	Government 	Code
section 3543.6(b), 	when it 	failed to adequately represent you in
your grievance 	against 	the 	Winton 	Elementary School 	District
(District) 	and refused to 	take 	your grievance 	to 	arbitration.
I 	indicated 	to you 	in my attached 	letter dated October 	15, 	1999,
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
October 25, 	1999, 	the charge would be dismissed.
On October 28, 	1999, 	you requested additional 	time to 	file an
amended charge. 	An extension was granted to November 	12, 	1999.
A 	second 	amended unfair practice 	charge 	was 	filed on November 	12,
1999.
In your cover 	letter, 	you reaffirmed that 	you 	intended to 	file
your charge 	against 	CTA, 	rather 	than the Winton Teachers
Association, 	a CTA affiliate.
In 	the 	amended charge, 	you provide 	additional 	detail 	concerning
the 	conduct 	of 	Donna Jefferson, 	CTA staff 	representative. 	In
essence, 	you allege 	that 	you brought 	matters 	to 	the 	attention of
Ms. 	Jefferson, 	however, 	she did not act on them. 	Furthermore, 	on
June 21, 	1999, 	Ms. 	Jefferson attended a meeting with
Superintendent 	Crass, 	Principal 	Fauerbach and two 	other union
representatives 	concerning your grievance. 	However, 	you were not
r 	,
-~---·~-

Dismissal 	Letter
SA-CO-436
Page 2
permitted to 	attend 	the 	meeting. 	You 	contend 	that 	Ms. 	Jefferson
accepted 	the 	"false 	allegations 	presented 	on hearsay" 	concerning
you 	at 	the meeting 	in deciding not 	to 	take 	your grievance 	to
arbitration.
Based on 	the 	factual 	allegations 	in your 	charge, 	the 	charge 	fails
to 	state 	a prima 	facie violation of 	the 	duty of 	fair
representation.
As 	an initial 	matter, 	the 	charge 	is 	filed against 	CTA, 	rather
than the Winton Teachers Association 	(WTA). 	In a prior 	telephone
conversation with you, 	I 	explained that 	CTA is not 	the 	exclusive
representative 	of 	the 	certificated bargaining unit. 	However, 	in
your 	cover 	letter 	accompanying your 	second amended 	charge, 	you
stated that 	you 	did 	intend to 	file 	the 	charge against 	CTA.
The 	WTA 	is 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	of 	the 	certificated
bargaining unit. 	As 	such, 	WTA has 	a duty to represent 	bargaining
unit 	members 	fairly. 	In providing 	additional 	services 	and
resources 	to 	its 	members, 	the 	WTA may affiliate with other
organizations 	such as 	CTA. 	However, 	CTA is not 	the 	exclusive
representative 	and 	it 	has 	no 	obligation 	to bargain with 	an
employer, 	nor does 	it 	owe 	a duty of 	fair representation to unit
members. 	(Fresno Unified School 	District 	(1982) 	PERB Decision
No. 	208.) 	Since 	CTA does not 	owe you a duty of 	fair
representation, 	your 	charge 	alleging 	that 	CTA breached 	its 	duty
of 	fair 	representation when 	it 	did not 	adequately represent 	you
and refused to 	take your grievance 	to 	arbitration, 	must 	be
dismissed.
Assuming your 	charge 	was 	properly filed against 	the 	WTA, 	the
charge 	fails 	to provide 	factual 	allegations 	which demonstrate 	a
violation of 	the 	duty of 	fair 	representation.
As 	I 	explained 	in the 	attached 	letter, 	in order to 	state 	a prima
facie violation of 	the duty of 	fair 	representation, 	a 	charging
party must 	show 	that 	the Association's 	conduct 	was 	arbitrary,
discriminatory or 	in bad 	faith. 	(Rocklin 	Teachers 	Professional
Association 	(Romero) 	(1980) 	PERB Decision No. 	124.) 	A union has
broad discretion to 	determine 	the manner of 	representation. 	For
example, 	a union's 	failure 	to meet 	with a unit member or consider
and present 	certain evidence-does 	not 	violate 	the 	duty of 	fair
representation. 	(United Teachers-Los Angeles 	(1992) 	PERB
Decision No. 	932; 	California Faculty Association 	(Pomerantsev)
(1988) 	PERB Decision No. 	698-H; 	Los Angeles City and County
School 	Employees Union 	(1987) 	PERB Decision No. 	645.)
Furthermore, 	an 	exclusive 	representative 	has 	discretion to
determine 	how 	far 	to pursue 	a grievance, 	including whether 	to
take 	a grievance 	to 	arbitration, 	as 	long as 	the union 	"does 	not
(

Dismissal 	Letter
SA-CO-436
Page 3
arbitrarily 	ignore 	a 	meritorious 	grievance 	or process 	a 	grievance
in 	a perfunctory 	fashion." 	(United Teachers 	of 	Los Angeles
(Collins) .-)
In the present 	charge, 	the WTA evaluated your grievance,
determined not 	to 	advance 	the 	grievance 	to 	arbitration 	and
informed you 	of 	its 	decision. 	The 	charge 	fails 	to provide 	facts
which demonstrate 	that 	the 	union's 	conduct 	concerning 	the
handling of 	your grievance was 	arbitrary, 	discriminatory or 	in
bad 	faith. 	Accordingly, 	the 	charge 	fails 	to 	state 	a prima 	facie
case 	and must 	be 	dismissed.
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 	(2 0) 	calendar days
after service of this dismissal. 	(Cal. 	Code Regs., 	tit. 	8,
sec. 	32635 (a) .) 	Any document 	filed with the Board must 	contain
the 	case name 	and number, 	and the original 	and five 	(5) 	copies of
all 	documents 	must 	be provided 	to 	the 	Board.
A document 	is 	considered 	"filed" 	when 	actually 	received before
the 	close of business 	(5 p.m.) 	on the 	last 	day set 	for 	filing or
when mailed by certified or Express United States 	mail, 	as 	shown
on 	the postal 	receipt 	or postmark, 	or delivered to 	a 	common
carrier promising overnight 	delivery, 	as 	shown on the 	carrier's
receipt, 	not 	later than the 	last day set 	for filing. 	(Cal. 	Code
Regs., 	tit. 	8, 	sec. 	32135(a); see also Cal. Code Regs., 	tit. 	8,
sec. 	32130.)
A document 	is 	also 	considered 	"filed" 	when 	received by 	facsimile
transmission before 	the 	close 	of 	business 	on 	the 	last 	day 	for
filing 	together with 	a 	Facsimile 	Transmission 	Cover 	Sheet 	which
meets the requirements of Cal. 	Code Regs., 	tit. 	8, 	sec. 	32135(d),
provided the 	filing party also places 	the 	original, 	together with
the 	required number of copies 	and proof of 	service, 	in the U.S.
mail. 	(Cal. 	Code. 	Regs., 	tit. 	8, 	secs. 	32135(b), 	(c) 	and 	(d) ;
see also Cal. 	Code Regs., 	tit. 	8, 	secs. 	32090 and 32130.)
The Board's address 	is:
Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board
Attention: 	Appeals Assistant
1031 	18th Street
Sacramento, 	CA 	95814-4174
FAX: 	(916) 	327-7960
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
(

Dismissal 	Letter
SA-CO-436
Page 4
copies of 	a 	statement 	in opposition within twenty 	(2 0) 	calendar
days 	following the date of 	service of 	the 	appeal. 	(Cal. 	Code
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 Regs., 	tit. 	8,
sec. 	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. 	A document 	filed by 	facsimile 	transmission
may be 	concurrently 	served via 	facsimile 	transmission 	on 	all
parties to the proceeding. 	(Cal. 	Code Regs., 	tit. 	8, 	sec.
32135 (c) .)
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 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 Robin W. 	Wesley
Regional 	Attorney
Attachment
cc: 	Ramon E. 	Romero

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	GRAY DAVIS. Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Sacramento Regional Office
1031 18th Street, Room 102
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
(916) 322-3198
October 15, 	1999
Mary 	Lou 	Torres
Re: 	Mary Lou Torres v. 	California Teachers Association
Unfair Practice Charge No. 	SA-CO-43 6
WARNING 	LETTER
Dear Ms. 	Torres:
The 	above-referenced 	unfair practice 	charge 	was 	filed with 	the
Public Employment 	Relations Board 	(PERB) 	on August 	12, 	1999. 	An
amended charge was 	filed on September 22, 	1999. 	As 	amended, 	the
charge 	alleges 	that 	the 	California 	Teachers Association 	(CTA)
breached 	its 	duty 	of 	fair 	representation, 	guaranteed by
Government 	Code 	section 	3544.9, 	and 	thereby violated the
Educational 	Employment Relations Act 	(EERA), 	Government 	Code
section 3543.6(b), 	when it 	failed to adequately represent you in
your 	grievance 	against 	the 	Winton 	Elementary School 	District
(District) 	and 	refused to 	take your grievance 	to 	arbitration.
We discussed your original 	charge on August 	25, 	1999. 	I
telephoned you on October 13 	and again on October 	14, 	1999, 	to
clarify certain facts, 	but was unable to reach you. 	I 	understand
you work 	late 	and often do 	not 	return home 	until 	after 	6:00 	p.m.
My 	investigation 	of 	the 	charge 	revealed 	the 	following
information. 	The Winton Teachers Association, 	CTA/NEA 	(WTA) 	is
the 	exclusive 	representative 	of 	the 	certificated bargaining 	unit
within the District. 	In the 	statement 	of 	the 	charge you 	refer to
both the WTA and CTA interchangeably. 	Therefore, 	it 	is 	clear
that 	WTA is 	the 	subject 	of your charge.1
You 	are 	employed by the 	District 	as 	a 	teacher. 	In a 	letter dated
May 	13, 	1999, 	the District 	informed you that you were being
involuntarily 	transferred 	to 	another 	school.
On May 20, 	1999, 	you and CTA representative Donna Jefferson met
with Superintendent 	Crass. 	At 	this meeting, 	Mr. 	Crass 	informed
you of 	the 	reasons 	for your administrative 	transfer. 	You were
1CTA, 	the 	state 	affiliate 	of 	the WTA, 	is not 	the 	exclusive
representative 	and, 	therefore, 	is not 	subject 	to the duty of 	fair
representation.

Warning 	Letter
SA-CO-436
Page 2
told 	there 	was 	a 	personality 	conflict 	between you 	and 	the
principal 	at 	your 	school.
You 	initiated 	a 	grievance 	challenging 	the 	involuntary 	transfer 	on
June 	7, 	1999 	in a meeting with Mr. 	Crass. 	Mr. 	Crass 	instructed
you 	to begin 	the 	grievance 	process 	at 	the 	first 	level 	by
submitting your grievance 	to 	the 	school 	principal.
On June 	9, 	1999, 	you met with the principal. 	The principal
denied your grievance 	in a written 	response. 	You pointed out
errors 	in 	the 	response 	to WTA President 	Toby Masterson, 	however,
the 	charge 	alleges 	"he did not 	react 	nor 	clarify the 	response."
On June 	15, 	1999, 	you and a union representative met with
Mr. 	Crass 	at 	the 	second level 	of 	the grievance procedure.
Immediately after 	the meeting, 	the 	union representative 	spoke
privately with Mr. 	Crass. 	You were not 	allowed to participate 	in
this meeting.
Your grievance was 	denied by Mr. 	Crass.
On June 	21, 	1999, 	the union decided not 	to 	elevate your grievance
to arbitration, 	the 	third level 	of 	the grievance procedure. 	You
were notified of 	the union's 	decision on June 	22, 	1999.
On June 	24, 	1999, 	you filed a written appeal 	of 	the union's
decision. 	On July 9, 	1999, 	you met with Donna Jefferson
concerning 	the 	union's 	decision not 	to 	take 	your grievance 	to
arbitration.
The 	charge 	alleges 	that 	the 	union 	failed 	to 	adequately 	represent
you when 	it 	did not 	speak 	for you 	in meetings with 	the 	District
and 	excluded you 	from meetings. 	The 	charge 	also 	alleges 	that
when 	the 	union decided not 	to 	take 	your grievance 	to 	arbitration
it 	made 	its 	decision without 	giving you 	an opportunity 	to provide
input, 	it 	considered biased 	information provided by your
supervisor 	and 	denied you 	the 	opportunity 	to 	"review 	false
allegations, 	witnesses 	and evidence." 	You also allege 	that 	the
union 	denied 	you 	representation because 	you 	are 	hispanic.
Based on the 	facts 	stated above, 	the 	charge 	fails 	to 	state 	a
prima facie case..
The 	duty of 	fair 	representation 	imposed 	on 	the 	exclusive
representative 	extends 	to grievance 	handling. 	(Fremont 	Teachers
Association 	(King) 	(1980) 	PERB Decision No. 	125; 	United Teachers
of Los Angeles 	(Collins) 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	258.) 	In order
to 	state 	a prima 	facie violation of 	the 	duty of 	fair
representation, 	a 	charging party must 	show that 	the Association's
conduct was 	arbitrary, 	discriminatory or 	in bad faith. 	(Rocklin

Warning 	Letter
SA-CO-436
Page 3
Teachers 	Professional 	Association 	(Romero) 	(1980) 	PERB Decision
No. 	124.) 	In United Teachers of Los Angeles 	(Collins), 	the Board
stated:
Absent bad faith, 	discrimination, 	or
arbitrary 	conduct, 	mere 	negligence 	or poor
judgment 	in handling 	a grievance 	does 	not
constitute 	a breach of 	the 	union's 	duty.
[Citations.]
A union may 	exercise 	its 	discretion 	to
determine 	how 	far 	to 	pursue 	a grievance 	in
the 	employee's behalf 	as 	long as 	it does 	not
arbitrarily 	ignore 	a 	meritorious 	grievance 	or
process 	a 	grievance 	in a perfunctory 	fashion.
A union 	is 	also 	not 	required 	to process 	an
employee's 	grievance 	if 	the 	chances 	for
success 	are minimal.
In 	order 	to 	state 	a prima 	facie 	case 	of 	arbitrary 	conduct
violating 	the 	duty of 	fair representation, 	a 	charging party:
" . . . 	must 	at 	a minimum include 	an assertion
of 	sufficient 	facts 	from which 	it 	becomes
apparent 	how or 	in what 	manner 	the 	exclusive
representative's 	action 	or 	inaction was
without 	a 	rational 	basis 	or 	devoid of 	honest
judgment. 	(Emphasis added.)" 	[Reed District
Teachers Association, 	CTA/NEA 	(Reyes) 	(1983)
PERB Decision No. 	332, 	p. 	9, 	citing Rocklin
Teachers 	Professional 	Association 	(Romero)
(1980) 	PERB Decision No. 	124.]
The 	charge 	alleges 	that 	the 	union did not 	adequately represent
you 	in your grievance 	with 	the 	District 	when 	it 	did not 	speak 	for
you 	in meetings 	and 	failed 	to 	include 	you 	in meetings 	with 	the
District. 	However, 	a union has discretion in the manner of
representation. 	For example, 	the Board has 	held that 	a union's
decision 	to 	conduct 	an 	arbitration 	hearing 	contrary 	to 	the 	wishes
of 	the 	charging party, 	by 	failing 	to meet 	with the 	charging party
before 	the 	hearing 	and failing 	to present 	certain evidence, 	does
not 	violate 	the 	duty of 	fair representation. 	(United Teachers-
Los Angeles 	(1992) 	PERB Decision No. 	932.) 	Nor does 	a union's
refusal 	to 	call 	witnesses 	or 	subpoena 	records 	requested by 	the
charging party demonstrate 	a 	breach of 	the 	duty of 	fair
representation. 	(California 	Faculty Association 	(Pomerantsev)
(1988) 	PERB Decision No. 	698-H; 	Los Angeles City and County
School 	Employees Union 	(1987) 	PERB Decision No. 	645.) 	In the
same manner, 	the WTA's 	failure 	to 	speak 	for you 	in a meeting or

Warning 	Letter
SA-CO-436
Page 	4
include 	you 	in another meeting with 	the 	District, 	does 	not
violate 	the 	duty of 	fair 	representation.
Furthermore, 	as noted above, 	an exclusive representative has
discretion to determine 	how far 	to pursue 	a grievance, 	including
whether to 	take 	a grievance 	to arbitration, 	as 	long as 	the 	union
"does 	not 	arbitrarily 	ignore 	a meritorious 	grievance 	or process 	a
grievance 	in 	a perfunctory 	fashion." 	(United Teachers 	of 	Los
Angeles 	(Collins).)
In 	the present 	charge, 	the WTA evaluated your grievance,
determined not 	to 	advance 	the 	grievance 	to 	arbitration 	and
informed you of 	its 	decision. 	To 	state 	a violation of 	the
union's 	duty of 	fair 	representation, 	your 	charge must 	allege
facts 	which 	show that 	the union's 	decision not 	to 	take 	the
grievance 	to 	arbitration was without 	a 	rational basis, 	was 	devoid
of 	honest 	judgement, 	discriminatory or 	in bad faith. 	(American
Federation of 	State, 	County and Municipal 	Employees 	(Smith)
(1990) 	PERB Decision No. 	859.) 	Since 	it 	is not 	apparent 	from the
charge 	that 	the 	union's 	conduct 	was 	arbitrary, 	discriminatory or
in bad faith, 	the 	charge 	fails 	to 	state 	a prima 	facie 	case 	and
must 	be 	dismissed.
Finally, 	you 	allege 	that 	the union did not 	represent 	you because
you are hispanic. 	Allegations 	of 	racial 	discrimination are 	not
covered by the 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations Act 	and,
therefore, 	PERB 	is without 	jurisdiction to address 	this
allegation.
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 	Second 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 	have 	the 	case 	number written on 	the 	top 	right
hand corner of 	the 	charge 	form. 	The 	amended charge 	must 	be
served 	on 	the 	respondent's 	representative 	and the 	original 	proof
of 	service must 	be 	filed with PERB. 	If 	I 	do not 	receive 	an
amended charge or withdrawal 	from you before October 25, 	1999, 	I
shall dismiss your charge. 	If you have any questions, 	please
call me at 	(916) 	327-8385.
Sincerely,
Robin 	W. Wesley
Regional 	Attorney