Los Angeles Community College District (Watts) (PERB 0454E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
HOWARD 0. 	WATTS,
Complainant.
v.
LOS 	ANGELES 	COMMUNITY COLLEGE 	DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_____________________ )
Case 	No. 	LA-PN-83
PERB 	Decision No. 	454
December 	7, 	1984
Appearance: 	Howard 	O. 	Watts. 	on 	his 	own 	behalf.
Before 	Hesse. 	Chairperson; 	Jaeger 	and 	Morgenstern. 	Members.*
DECISION
This 	case 	is 	before 	t~e 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board
(Board) 	on 	an 	appeal 	by Howard 	O. 	Watts 	of 	the 	Board 	agent's
dismissal. 	attached 	hereto. 	of 	his 	public 	notice 	complaint
alleging 	that 	the 	Los 	Angeles 	Community 	College 	District
violated 	section 	3547(a). 	(b). 	(c). 	and 	(d) 	of 	the 	Educational
Employment 	Relations 	Act 	(Government 	Code 	section 	3540 	et 	seq.).
We 	have 	reviewed 	the 	Board 	agent's 	dismissal 	in 	light 	of
the 	Complainant's 	appeal 	and 	the 	entire 	record 	in 	this 	matter
and 	adopt 	that 	dismissal 	as 	the 	decision 	of 	the 	Board 	itself.
The 	Board 	agent's 	denial 	of 	Watts' 	request 	for 	assistance 	made
pursuant 	to 	California 	Administrative 	Code. 	title 	a. 	section
32163 	is 	affirmed 	for 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	in 	Los 	Angeles
*Members 	Tovar 	and 	Burt 	did 	not 	participate 	in 	this 	Decision.

Unified 	School 	District 	and 	California 	State 	University
(8/16/84) 	PERB 	Decision No. 	396-H.
ORDER
The 	public 	notice 	complaint 	in 	Case 	No. 	LA-PN-83 	is
DISMISSED WITHOUT 	LEAVE 	TO AMEND.
By 	the 	BOARD
2

STArF. OF ::ALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELA1
TIONS BOAR[,
(OS ANGELES REGiOi-.lAL OFFICE
3470 WIISHIRE BLVD., SUITE 1001
LOS ANGELES, CAllFORNIA 90010
{213) 736-3127
August 15, 1984
Mr. Howard 0. Watts
1021 North Mariposa Avenue, Apt. 3 1/2
Los Angeles, CA 90029
Re: NOTICS OF DISMISSAL
LA-PN-83, Watts v. Los Angeles Com:ruunity_Coll.ege District
Dear Mr. Watts:
Your above-captioned public notice complaint was filed with our office on June
22, 1984. The complaint alleges that the Los Angeles Community College
District, (LACCD), violated EERA sections 3547(a),(b),(c) and (d) by adopting
a salary adjustment for the Police Unit at its June 20, 1984 Board of
Trustees' meeting without presenting the exclusive representative's or its m-m
proposal, and by not allowing the public to address the proposed adjustment
before it was adopted�
Attached in support of your complaint was a bulletin from the Personnel
Services Division of LACCD dated June 20, 1984 (Your Exhibit 1). It is an
action bulletin stating adopted salary adjustments and adopted salary
adjustments subject to ratification by the appropriate bargaining agents.
There are six employee groups named by LACCD as having been granted salary
adjustner..t'3. Thn P'JlicE' Pni t is one of :.t.ese six. 'Thr1 backzrc-md pa •agrarh
which concludes the bulletin states "!t1he above salary increases for
represente<l employees except the Police Unit are a result of collective
bargaining negotiations pursu.a.nt to the various collective bargatning
contracts. The sala�y increase for the Police Unit is pursuant to Article
19.7 which allows the District to grant salary increases as it deems
appropriate. (No·negotiations have taken elac� with the Police Unit for
1983-84.)11 (Emphasis added)
On July 6, 1984 you reviewed a copy of the recently expired agreement between
LACCD and the California School Employees Association Chapter 331 in this
office. I explained to you that PERB had recently conducted a decertification
election in the Police Unit of LACCD and that as of June 16, 1984 P.O.R.A�C
was the exclusive representative of the members of the unit. The relevant
article of the contract (19.7) provides that 11 The District reserves the right
to grant additional salary increases to any class.or classes of positions as
it deems appropriate.n

August 15, 	1984
LA-PN-83
Page 2
No negotiating occurred regarding the 3. 75% salary increase grarite<l Police
Unit members. 	Therefore, 	there were no initial proposals to be presented as
required by 3547(a). 	No meeting and negotiating took place before the public
had an opportunity to express itself because there were no proposals, 	thus no
violations 	of 35l-17(b) 	or 	(c) 	can be found. 	No new subjects arose after the
presentation of initial proposals because no initial proposals were
exchanged. 	The District simply and unilaterally raised wages of the Police
Unit members as was permitted by the collective bargainjng agreement.
Your instant complaint does not state a prima facie violation of EERA section
3547, 	and cannot be amended to do so. 	The complatnt is hereby DISMISSED
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
In addition your request for assistance which was filed on August 3, 	1981! is
also hereby dismissed. 	Albeit that PERB Regulation 32163 was not discussed in
Hoard Decision No. 181a Watts v. Los Angeles·Unified School District and
California School Employees Association, 	(February 22, 1982) or 186 Watts v.
Los 	Angeles Community College District, 	(December 15, 1981), 	the Board's
rationale certainly remains the same. 	Technical assistance wi.11 be provided
where needed, 	but legal advice or opinion will not be proffered.
fl~~ appeal of this decision pursuant to PERB Regulation 32925 may be made
within 20 calendar days following the date of service of this decision by
filing an original and 5 copies of a statement of the facts upon which the
appeal is based with the Board itself at 1031 - 	18th Street, 	Suite 200,
Sacramento, 	California 95814. 	Copies of any appeal must be concurrently
served upon all Jfarties and the Los Angeles Regional Office. 	Proof of service
pursuant to Regulation 32140 is required.
Sincerely,
Frances A. 	Kreiling
Regional Director
J->--~~R~;n ~mith
Regional Representative
RS:bw
cc: 	Carmen Hawkins