University of California at Berkeley * * * SUPERSEDED by University of California at Berkeley (1984) PERB Decision No. 420-H and by the U.S. Supreme Court, 485 U.S. 589 (PERB 0183HA)

SUPERCEDED by University of California at Berkeley (1984) PERB Decision
No. 420-H and by the U.S. Supreme Court, 485 U.S. 589
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
WILLIAM H. WILSON,
Charging Par ty,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT BERKELEY,
Respondent.
)
)
) 	Case No. SF-CE-4-H
PERB Decision No. 183a-H
March 18, 1983
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances: Andrew Thomas Sinclair , Attorney for William H.
Wilson 	Donald L. Reidhaar , James N. Odle, Susan M. Thomas,
Attorneys for Regents of the Uni versity of California.
Before Gluck, Chair person; Jaeger and Morgenstern, Members.
DECISION
GLUCK, 	Chair person: 	The Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB) issued its Decision No. 183-H on November 25, 1981,
finding that the University of California unlawfully denied
charging party the use of its internal mail system to
distri bute organizational material to employees of the
University. 	The Uni versity appealed this decision to the First
District Court of Appeal, arguing that United States postal
regulations 	prohi bit free use of the mail system 	employee
organizations. 	The Court issued its decision on Febr uary 17,
1983, vacating the PERB Order and remanding the case to
Board to deter mine, 	inter alia, the "reasonableness

University's regulations" in light of the federal postal
regulations. l
The Board , therefore, remands the matter to the Chief
Administrati ve Law Judge to conduct a hearing for the pur pose
of taking additional evidence as to whether the Uni versity's
regulations concerning the use of its internal mail system by
employee organizations are reasonable within the meaning of
section 3568 of the Higher Ed ucation Employer-Employee
Relations Act.2
The Chief Administrati ve Law Judge will solicit evidence as
to the following, but not limited thereto :
(1) 	To what extent are the mater ials charging party seeks
to distri bute "letters" within the meaning of the feder al
postal 	regulations?
(2) 	What compensation, if any, does the Uni versity receive
for deli very of employee organizational materials?
(3) 	What relationship, if any, exists between the
Uni versity's mail system and United States postal routes?
(4) 	Does the University utilize its mail system to
disseminate management material pertinent to employer-employee
re 	ions?
IRegents of the University of California v. Public
Employment Relations Board (Ist Dist Feb. 17, 1983)
CA3d 	(1 Civil No. 54414) .
2codified at Gover nment Code section 3560, et seq.
2

(5) 	Does the University permit the use of its mail system
by char itable and other nonemployee organizations?
(6) 	What burden, if any , would be placed on the
University's mail system if it were made available to employee
organizations ?
The Chief Administrative Law Judge shall give this matter
priority and, upon completion of the hearing, shall forward the
case record together with recommended findings of fact and
conclusions of law d irectly to the Board itself for its
consideration together with the existing record , in determining
the issue remanded.
It is so ORDERED .
Members Jaeger and Morgenstern joined in this Decision.
3