PERB Decision No. 0457H•California State University (Watts) (PERB 0457H)
California State University (Watts) (PERB 0457H)
PERB Decision No. 0457HCalperb10 de dez. de 1984
Texto completo
STATE OF CALIFORNIA STATE OF CALIFORNIA DECISION OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD DECISION OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD HOWARD O. WATTS. Complainant. Case No. LA-PN-50-H v . PERB Decision No. 457-H CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY. December 10, 1984 Respondent. Appearance: Howard O. Watts, on his own behalf. Before Hesse, Chairperson; Tovar and Jaeger, Members. DECISION AND ORDER HESSE, Chairperson: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board on an appeal by Howard O. Watts of a Board agent's denial, attached hereto, of his request for assistance made pursuant to California Administrative Code, title 8, section 32163. We have reviewed the Complainant's request and appeal, and hereby AFFIRM the denial for the reasons set forth in Los Angeles Unified School District and California State University (8/16/84) PERB Decision No. 396-H. Members Tovar and Jaeger joined in this Decision ph&fax HOWARD 0. WATTS. Complainant. v. CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY. Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) _____________________ ) Case No. LA-PN-50-H PERB Decision No. 457-H December 10, 1984 Appearance: Howard O. Watts. on his own behalf. Befo~e Hesse. Chairperson; Tovar and Jaeger. Members. DECISION AND ORDER HESSE. Chairperson: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board on an appeal by Howard o. Watts of a Board agent's denial. attached hereto. of his request for assistance made pursuant to California Administrative Code. title 8. section 32163. We have reviewed the Complainant's request and appeal. and hereby AFFIRM the denial for the reasons set forth in Los Angeles Unified School District and California State University (8/16/84) PERB Decision No. 396-H. Members Tovar and Jaeger joined in this Decision
SSL OF CALIFORNIA 5,· .~ Of Cl\llrO.~NI•\
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
LOS ANGELES REGIONAL OFFICE
34/0 WILSHIRE BIVD., SUITE 1001
LOS ANGELE'S, CALFORNIA 90010
(2131 735-3127
GEORGE DEUXMAEJIAN, Goremar
[>LJBLIC Ei\\PLOY1\/1El'1T r?ELATIOt'-JS BOARD
IC)~.; /,HCEI l:5 r:ECIOl--lAL OrilCl:
:,.1/0 \'IJ!'.,HJ;.:E l\lVD., SUITE 1(>01
l(l:.; J,,~ :Gu.cs. C/- i.JJ'O?NIA S•C,('10
(213) 7J:,J12/
ph&fax
March 21, 1984
Mr. Howard O. Watts Mr. Howa.:rc1 o. Watts
1021 North Mariposa Avenue, Apt. 3 1/2
Los Angeles, CA 90029
Mr. Caesar J. Naples, Assistant Vice Mr. Caesar J. Naples, Assistant Vice
Chancellor, Employee Relations Chancellor, Employee Relations
California State University California State University
400 Golden Shore ~00 Golden Shore
Long Beach, CA 90802 Long Deach, CA 90802
Re: NOTICE OF DISMISSAL Re: N0'I;1CE 01"" DISMISSl\L
Watts v. California State University; LA-PN-50-H Watts v. California State Univers~t_y;. LA-~PN=50---H
Dear Parties: Dear Parties:
The above-referenced Public Notice Complaint (Complaint) was Tht~ ab.ove-•referenced Public: Notice Complc:tint (Complaint) was
filed with our office on March 7, 1983. A First Amended filed with our: office on March 7, 1983. A F'irst Arnt•nu.ea
Complaint was filed February 14, 1984, subsequent to a December Complaint \lat~ filed F'ebruary 14, 1984, subsequerit to a December
1
28, 1983 personal meeting I had with Mr. Watts. 28, 1983 personal meeting I had with Mr. Watts. The The
amendment make's new legal argument but fails to allege any new amendment make~ new legal argument but fails to allege any new
facts. For the reasons which follow, all allegations in the facts. For the reasons which follow, all allegations in the
Complaint fail to state a prima facie violation of Government Cornp1a:i.lll: fail to s c::-:.i te a p:,: im:i f ac:.ie v io2..a t:on 0£ Go-1e:n1me.nt
Code subsections 3595 (a) and (b) 2 and cannot be amended to do Code subsections 3595{a) and (b) 2 and cannot be amended to ao
so. so. The entire Complaint is, accordingly, hereby dismissed. The entire Complaint is, accoraingly, hereby aisrnissed~
Allegation No. One: The respondent, California State Allegation No. One: The respondent; California State
University (CSU) , violated subsections 3595 (a) and (b) by the Unive.t:s1ty (CSff),~violated subsections 3595(a) and (b) by the
presentation of its initial proposals at Long Beach and the presentation of its initial proposals at Long Beach and the
conduct of a meeting for public response to those proposals conduct of a meeting for public response to those proposals
1
lat that meeting I explained to Mr. Watts the Complaint's At that m2eting I explai.nea to Mr. Wa.t-:ts th2 Complaint's
deficiencies and the apparent impossibility of perfecting deficiencies and the apparent impossibility of perfecting
them. However, at his insistence, I allowed time to amend the them. However, at his insistence, I allowed time to amend the
Complaint. Cor.1plaint.
2
All statutory references are to the Government Code All statutory references are to the Government Coae
unless otherwise specified. unless otherwise specifiea.
- --_:_·.-:-...-.-::.-----·--- ------ ·•--·-•·•·---- _..:_:_ . ..::.. . -- ---------··· ---··- ··.... :·.·_::::·:,.,·.:=.:-:-::-::...:.:-:Watts & Naples LA-PN--50-H March 21, 1984 Page 2 \'7 at tr; Ei Nap 1 er; LA·-·P01··--5O···H Harc11 21, 198 11 Pa.9e 2 only at San Francisco~ There was no meeting held for public only at San Francisco. There was no meeting held for publicresponse in southern California. Since Mr. Watts could not response in southern California. Since Mr. Watts could notaffoJ~d to tr.avel to San Francisco, (so0 cas0 No. LA-P"N-·-48~H) afford to travel to San Francisco, (see case No. LA-PN-48-H)preswn~bly he could not express himself regarding those presumably he could not express himself regarding thoseproposals. proposals. Determination: Nothing in section 3595 requires the public Determination: Nothing in section 3595 requires the publicmeetings for presentation and response to initial proposalr~ to meetings for presentation and response to initial proposals tobe held at the same location. The only requirement of be held at the same location. The only requirement ofsubsection 3595(b) is that the public be given an opportunity subsection 3595 (b) is that the public be given an opportunityto express itself at a (i.e. one) meeting of the higher to express itself at a (i.e. one) meeting of the highereducation ernploy2:r. This was done.education employer. This was done. While conaucting the meeting in San Francisco may have While conducting the meeting in San Francisco may have precluded Mr. Watts from attending the meeting, other members precluded Mr. Watts from attending the meeting, other membersof the public would no doubt have been precluded from attending of the public would no doubt have been precluded from attendingif the meeting had been held in Long Beach. In other words, noif the meeting had been held in Long Beach. In other words, no matter where an employer c\ec.i.d2s to conduct such meetings,matter where an employer decides to conduct such meetings,someone will potentially be inconvenienced. This is especially someone will potentially be inconvenienced. This is especiallytrue with respect to an employer with statewide facilities such true with respect to an employer with statewide facilities suchas CSU. It is noted that CSU has attempted to mitigate this as CSU. It is noted that CSU has attempted to mitigate thisproblem through its acceptance of ·wr i tl:E:n comrnentf3 from the problem through its acceptance of written comments from thepublic as inclicc:d:ed by an unmarl:ed exhibit to tbe Complaintpublic as indicated by an unmarked exhibit to the Complaint entitled "Corrdnittee on Collective Bargaining A92nda Item I for entitled "Committee on Collective Bargaining Agenda Item I for~-· "'·'n •),, 2[;'. 1981 March 24-25, 1981. "3 1-·1a,_c_ ,,.~- ::>, .. • 11 3 Subsection 3595(b) does not require the higher education Subsection 3595 (b) does not require the higher educationemployer to schedule meetings in both northern and southern employer to schedule meetings in both northern and southernCalifornia, nor does it require that the meeting conducted for California, nor does it require that the meeting conducted forpublic response be held at the same location as the meeting at public response be held at the same location as the meeting atwhich the initial pro:posals WE.,re presented. CSU' s internal which the initial proposals were presented. CSU's internalpolicy implementing the statute appears to be a reasonable policy implementing the statute appears to be a reasonableaccommodation to its statewide constituency. It is, therefore, accommodation to its statewide constituency. It is, therefore,_found that this allegation aoes not constitute a violation of found that this allegation does not constitute a violation of subsections 3595 (a) or (b) .subsections 3595(a) or (b). 3This is CSU's internal procedure implementing section3This is CSU's internal proc~dure implementing section 3595. See California Administrative Code, title 5, section 3595. See California Administrative Code, title 5, Section43725.43725.
Watts & Naples LA-PN-50-HI March 21, 1984 Page 3 Watt~: Et Napler:, Ll\. -· P.N ... ~> 0 ·-·H Mcu~ch ?.l, 19BI! Page 3 Allegation No. Two: The February 9, 1903 meeting of Allegation No. Two: The February 9, 1983 meeting of CSU's CStJ 1 s committee on collective bargaining was not an appropriate COJn1fl.1.L. ' - - -, -• ·- ·t· ,.,_ on . ·t 'l C:-.-.::.C.' 0c t· ." -c.., \. ·- -· . c i . • . ' ' .J.V .... Ud1.ga .. 111ng ,.,,1..:,c- llOC • ' c1n • ~-f>}_.>:COp_ ·1 . . . " C(J . .. r' lace • • ..._ meet of the h education becau:::e the com.mi tee, meeting of the higher education employer because the committee, in.g ighe1: cmployT:r.· t being composed of staff rather than trustees, cannot tflke being composed of staff rather than trustees, cannot take "official action." "official action.n The Complaint goes on to argue that Education Code section The Complaint goes on to argue that Education Code section 89035 precludes the board of trustees from delegating the 89035 precludes the boara of trust0.0.s fLorn delegating the authority for conduct of such meetings to the committee onauthority for conduct of such rn0e:tin9s to the co:;n;ni ttee on collective bargaining. collective bm.:·gainin9 ~ Determination: Subsection 3562(h) defines "higher educationDetermination: Subsection 3562 (h) defines "higher education employer" as follows: employer" as follows: "higher (h) (h) "Employer" or "higher education "Employer" or eaucation employer» means the regents in theemployer" means the regents in the case of case of the University of California, the directors the University of California, th2 directors in the case of Hastings College of Lnw, and in the case of Hastings College of Law, and the Trustees in the case of the California the Trustees in the case of the California State University and Colleges, including any Stat0~ University and Collc--:-9es, il~S:J.:~~-~]t1_1_9__;!DY per_son __ actin9 person acting as an agent of an employer. as_ an agent of_ an e~Jl~e_r. (Emph~sis added.) (Emphasis added.) Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Ed., defines "agent" in the Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Ed~, ae~ine?:. 11 a~,ent" :i.n th~ following manner : follo~ing manner: person authorized another 'coAgent. A person authorized by another toAg_f!l~t. A by act for him, one intrusted with another's act for him, one int::rusted with c.1noth2:r:'s busines!::;.. (Citation omitted.} One whobusiness. (Citation omitted.) One who represents and acts for another under therepresents and acts for another under the contract or relation of agency. A businesscontract or relation of agency. A businessrepresentative, who~e function is to bringrepresentative, whose function is to bring about, modify, affect, accept p2:rforrnanc2 about, modify, affect, accept performanceof, or terminate contractual obligationsof, or terminate contractual obligations between principal and third persons. Onebetween principal and third persons. one who undertakes to transact some business, orwho undertakes to transact some business, or to manage some ~ffair for another, by theto manage some affair for another, by the authority and on account of the latter, and authority and on account of the latter, and to render an account of it. One who acts to render an account of it. One who acts for or in place of another by authority from for or in place of c:i.nother by authority from him; a substitute, a deputy, appointedhim; a substitute, a deputy, appointed by by principal with power to do the things whichprincipal with power to do the things whichprincipal may do. One who deals not onlyprincipal may do. One who deals not only
Watts & Naples
LA-PN-50-H
March 21, 1984
Page 4
with things, as does a servant, but with with things, as does a servant, but with
persons, using his own discretion as to persons, using his own discretion as to
means, and frequently establishing means, and fr~quently e~lablishing
contractual relations between his principal contractuaJ. rel.ations between his principal
and third persons. ana third persons.
The above-specified functions which an agent may perform on The above-specified functions which an agent may perform on
behalf of a principal are certainly broad enough to encompass behRlf of a principal are certainly broad enough to encompass
the functions of the committee on collective bargaining thEi functions of tbE:) committee on collective b~,r~Ftin:i.n9
pursuant to subsections 3595 (a) and (b) . pursuant to subsections 3595(a) and (b).4
Education Code section 89035 provides: Education Code section 89035 provides:
Wherever in this code a power is vested in Wher.eve:r~ in this code a po\·JEX: is vesteu in
the trustees, the trustees by majority vote the trustees, the trustees by majority vote
may adopt a rule delegating such power to may adopt a rule delegating such power to
any officer, employes or committee as the any officer, employee or committee as the
trustees may designate. trustees may designate.
Subsection 5(h) of article VI of the Rules of Procedure of CSU's Subsection 5(h) of article VI of the Rules of ProceJure of CSU's
board of trustees provides as follows: board of trustees provides as follo~s:
,·
(h) (h) . Committee on Collective Bargaining ~ Corn,-rt:i.tteE: on Collectiv(_:: Bargaining
The Committee on Collective Bargaining Shall 'l'he Commith~c-~ Co1lect:i.ve _BargaiD:inq r...;hall
have delegated authority to act for the have delegated authority to act for the
Board of Trustees in order to comply with Board of Trustees in order to comply 0ith
the requirements of the Higher Education the re~irements of the Hi9hr~r. EcJucation
Employer Employee Relations Act (HEERA) Ernplqye r-Ernploy_c=f.:- Re lat ions Ac'l: . (B.R0;:RA)
(including section 3595) and implement the (including sect.ion 359 5) .?.!.!9. .:~.!~J?}.':0.:C~~-r1~S: _!:_!:)_~
collective bargaining policy of the board of E_OJ_}c~_S;ti_y_§:_ ba~gaining 11olicy .. of the Board of
Hzitts t Naple[;
LA-·PN--'.5 0- I-I
l-iarch 21, 198'1
Pugo '1
on_
~Mr. Mr. Watts implies that since the Los Angeles Unified Watts implies that since the Los Angeles Unified
School District (LAUSD) board of education and the Los Angeles School District (LAUSD) board of education ana the Los Angeles
Community College District (LACCD) board of trustees themselves Community College District {LACCD) board of trustees them~elves
conduct these meetings, the instant board of trustees must do conduct th2se meetings, the instant board of trustees must do
so.. However, the definition of employer under the Educational However, the definition of employer under the Educational
Employment Relations Act (Government Code section 3540 et seg. ) Employment Relations Act (Government Code section 3510 ct seq.)
to which LAUSD and LACCD are subject, has an employer to which LAUSD ana LACCD are subject, has an employer
definition definition distinguishable from subsection 3562 (h) . Further, distinguishable from subsection 35G2(h). Further,
PERB has never found that those governing boards must perform PERB has nev2r found that those governing bonras must perform
these functions as a matter of law. Hence, what LAUSD and these functions as a mnt ter. of law. Hence, what: I,KrJ;',;n c:rnd
LACCD do with respect to public notice is irrelevant. LACCD do with respect to public notice is irrcl0vant.Watts & Naples
LA-PN-50-HI
March 21, 1984
Page 5
Trustees. The delegation to the Committee Trur;t:ees. 'I'he cfolega.t:ton to the- CornH!i'ctoe
on Collective Bargaining includes, but is on Collective Bargaining includes, but is
not limited to, authority to negotiate not limited to, authority to ne9oti2te
memoranda of understanding pursuant to thememoranda of understandin0 pursuint lo the
policies of the Board of Trustees. The policies of the Board of Trustees~ The
Committee on Collective Bargaining shall Comrni'ct:ee on Collective B2irga:i.n:i.n9 ::;h«11
submit periodic progress reports to the submit periodic progress ~eports to the
Board of Trustees on matters pertaining to Board of Trustees on matters pertaining to
collective bargaining and actions which it collective bargaining and actions.which it
has taken. (Emphasis supplied.) h w<> S ·•-L<">.J ··,k"'r'l c ... ., (t',rtp' .C.1 ... ~ ..,..ud··....r:•,..i..u -: "' ._;,. ..--1.1np· J:' l~ ..··, C(J o }
The above plainly permits the board of trustees to delegate to The above plainly permits the hoard of trustees to delegate to
the committee on collective bargaining authority to act in the the co~mittee on collective bargaining authority to act in the
realm of collective bargaining, including the public notice realm of collective bargain:i.ng, including thE~ public not.ice
requirements of section 3595.5 requirements of section 3595.5
As to Mr. Watts' allegation that a committee composed entirely As to r,1r .. Watts' alle9ation that a conmdttee composed entirely
of staff cannot take "official action," this argument is of staff cannot take "official action, n this argument: is
also irrelevant. The Complaint alleges only that subsections also irrelevant. The Complaint alleges only that subsections
3595 (a) and (b) were violated. Unlike subsection (c), these 3595 (a) and (b) were vi.ol<.tted. UnlikC:-; subss-c-:tion (c), ther::c~
subs':.:ctions do not requ:trc:'! the subsections do not require the committee to take any action. comrnH:l-.e:,e to take~ c1ny c:1ctior1.
They require only the holding of a meeting open to the public, They require only the holding of a meeting open to the public.
This was done. This W3S done. Hence, this allegation is also without merit. Hence, this allegation is also without merit.
'L,·1111· C.'
• J. - •··-' c'"tJ __·1,::_,,·,·~'-·
Allegation No. Three: l ·1· .:.,}--~---~- J r->C 1 a·1 ,...._.._ L---~-:~J.1 No ~1 ;;~....
,.l.'l1r,-:.,-,.. ___ -·c eo This allegation, raised for the first.·L('!c , ••.l!tC'('.,,:l
.. U ~or '··'11c, r.r:· 1' -,-,-~'- .-._;~,ci.t.. v i 1 J~<- . .. :, L L ,,.. .J . •• L
time in the first Amended Complaint, is that CSU violated tim,:: in the first AmendE~d C01npla:i.nt, is that CSU violatc~d
Government Code section 11120 et seq., the so-called "state Gov2rnment Code section 11120 et seg., the so-called "state
open meeting act." open meeting act."
Determination: PERB does not administer the open meeting act. Determination: PERB aoes not adrninist:e:r the open meeting act.
1'~r. l..7 r,r-~, t·c• ,w aJ.F]..., na C f" ..., t 0 exc•·r·;, 1__ fl..lD . _. h. QF!,. ,-·c-. u~•.C t.lOllV ] ....• "l] 2 l~J e,l·~ ..r.•r.,r ,,;:.-J. h.a.:."'Mr. Watts fails to explain how section 11120 et seq. has been i."' JJ,.:.cen
violated, much less how such a violation would also constitute violat:ca, much less how snch a violc::1.tior1 would also constitute
a violation of section 3595. In any event, the opening meeting a violation o{ section 3595. In any ev2ntr tht~ opening meeting
act does not appear to in any manner buttress Mr. Watts' act does not appear to. in any rnanne:r buttrer-;;s Mr. Watts'
arguments dismissed above. arguments dismissed above. Thus, this allegation, too, lacks Thus, this allegation, too, lacks
merit. merit.
\Ii.! t U.; & l'Japlc:s
LA·-PN····50-If
Mcl r c L 2 1 , 19 fJ 4
Paqe 5
5
The fact that Mr. Watts can find no appellate decisionsThe fact that Mr. Watts can find no appellate aecisions
allowing the board of trustees to aelegate this ~uthority to allowing the board of trustees to delegate this authority to
the committee on collective bargaining does not decide, nor the committee on collective bargo.inin9 does not decide, nor.
even imply, that such delegation is improper.even imply, that such delegation is improper.Watts & Naples
LA-PN--50-II
March 21, 1984
Page 6
REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE
Mr. Mir. Watts has filed PERB form GC-5 requesting assistance with Watts has filed PERB form GC-5 requesting assistance with
his Complaint. A cover letter to the request states that he h .:L'-'._.,. Cc1i·1•·J: 1·01~1·r1·~- '=--.. . L ~ 1"t). c-ov·•·I· , C. ....le,'('"',•,::,,,• \..,.. -• ,_..__..t.,. '-co tl·1{C•~-- J
''('',..Jll'-'•'-''l· .. --'-~L .-C~,.~ • ,J
c•{··i'··,:,c- \--C. .. I..,~•~• th·,i- CJ. t., \.l_c, l ~-
hopes that he will not " . hopu; that he vlill not 11 .... have to appcc11 this rcqueGt for
.Assistance since (he) did qualify for this Assistance in theA<-;... sl 1' ....
r:: ·)•\,, ;,1·1c· .. e·:• C' -! 0 ..•l ···1c i;:.:;:
c., ( 1·1 .: have to appeal this request for1 c,:, ) a _1' c·1· c,u :l '~---, 1 7\ . J... .\.,Fu _ 1"'or - {-...... '11. .'L •··•:~ .l.. J. "s· 1-..> •
1·- ,_,,
{.' ,L....c~ nn....... r:,~ 1· n t· 1
(1 ,,:,.. 1
past." While it is true that Mr. Watts financially qualified Pc·1c·t ,_, • II •r171·1,·L -'-· "-...... J''c . )'c:· .0 t·r·t1~, . c. '·l~·,1- L ~",· ",1
..,c,-.. 1'11- • ~·1c-1t·'-~ \..,. f':ir1···r·c;1'·-.1·Lv .. .., n J ··--<'--- . .l (;ill"'l-i£:-j,,,;i :, c1- .... J.• -"'-U
for Board assistance in prior cases, PERS denied his requests f -.,...,.,,. 1'•c·,.,,·c] .,.,-,·•·i c:-•,11r-e 1·1·1 1·,"'1•0,~ c•·>~tc·(o, o. :::, PFrH:> x·,.u c:",_
1
: '-, ,_ ,_, - c, ~ n ..-, ~-, .,. ,::, ~ w " - ; J. - ,_ C ,:, , .. _..., ,·•1"ir.('.l l -- ,. - 1---1· .J ·••
c•:, ,.
,-,:,ul''->,....{·c• ~- J. l (_, c:, l.. ,c.>
for assistance in those cases because Mr . Watts had already for ~ss1stnnce 1n th~se c~ses because.Mr. Watts hacl a~~eady
received the level of assistance required by Board policy. received th8 l0vel ot assistance required by Board policy. For For
the same reason, the instant request must also be denied. the same reason, the instant request mus~ also be denied.
In Los Angeles Community College District (12/15/81) PERB Order In Lo::-:, ll.n_gyle8 5ormrmnisr .. ~ol_le.5y: -~is_trict (12/lS/81) P~~;RH O:cder
No. No. Ad-119, Los Angeles Community College District (12/15/81) Ad-119, Los Angeles Community College District (12/15/81)
PERB Decision No. 186 and Los Angeles Unified School District PERR Dc,cision No • ..,186 and Los A11q1cd.es U:r1:i:Li.ed School District
(2/22/82) PERS Decision No. 18la, the Board itself affirmed the (2/22/82} PERB Decision No& 181a: the Boi::.rd itself aff irrned · the
regional director's denial of Mr. Watts' requests for regional director's denial of Mr. Watts' requests for
assistance. PERB regulation 37030 (now regulation 32920) was assistance. PERB re9ula-tion 37030 (now :re9ulation 32920} was
then the only regulation which addressed the assistance to be then the only regulation which addressed the assistance to be
given public notice complainants. The Board itself stated that given public notice complainants. The Doara itsslf stated that
that_regul~tion that regulation required that a public notice complainant re~uired that a p~blic_not~ce co0plainant
receive only technical (as opposed to legal) assistance. rec0J.ve- only tecbr11cal (as opposed to .Le9tLl.) assJ.stnnc2 ~
\-h1 t U_: t N,1pl0::;
J.A-PN-·~iO--II
Hctr-c:h 7.1, 19 n1
Pz19,: G
Effectiva Effective September 20, 1982, public notice complainants were September 20, 1982, public notice complainants were
pl2c0d placed under PERS regulation 32163, which had previously unclr:>r. pj,;RH regulation 32163, ,,.1hich hac1 pre·viously
applied only to charging parties in unfair practice cases. applied only to cha;:ging partic:3 in unL-·d.r pi:,:.ic:ticE.~ car:-r~s.
As As Mr. Watts suggests, that regulation provides as follows: Mr. Watts suggests, that regulation provides as follows:
32163. Board Assistance. If a party is 32163. Board Assistance. If a party is
unable to retain counsel or demonstrates unable to t·e-ta:in--C{J·unsel or. demm:1st.rat0s
extenuating circumstances, as determined extenuating circumstances, as determin2a
by the Board, a Board agent may be assigned by the Board, a Board ngent may be assigned
to assist the party in accordance with to assist the party in accordance with
Board policy. Boa:ca policy.
As I have previously advised Mir. Watts, there presently exists As I have previously advised Mr. Watts, there presently exists
no different Board policy delineating the assistance to be no different Board policy delineating the assist<lnce to be
given under regulation 32163. Mr. Watts has already been given under regulation 32163. Mr. Watts has already been
provided the same manner of assistance the Board found to be provided the same mann2~ of assistance the Board found to b2
appropriate in the above-cited decisions. Although those appropriate in the Dbove-citea aecisions. Although those
decisions were issued prior to regulation 32163 becoming decisions were issued prior to regulation 32163 becomingWatts & Naples
LA- PN-50-HI
March 21, 1984
Page 7
\'-1 c1 Lt r~ ~·~ 1-J ~ll? le~~:;
Ll\- PH-~.>0-·ll
Mc,t'Ch ?.l, 19[l,1
Pz,9e 7
re levc:,n t to public not ic(:~ r.equc-~s t:s con~; t
relevant to public notice requests, they constitute the onlyr they :i tu te 'che only
Boar<l policy regarding the appropriate extent of Board
Board policy regarding the appropriate extent of Board ass i :,; t,Jncct.assistance.
furtherIn the absence of any further direction from the Board itselfIn the absenc~ of nny direction from the Board itself
as to the assistDnce to be 9rantea a public notice comp].oin~nt,as to the assistance to be granted a public notice complainant,
it is determined that, for the reasons stated above, Mr. Watts'it is determined that, for the reasons stated above, Mr. W2tts 1
request for assistance must be DENIED.request for assistance must be DENIED.
Based upon my investigzi.tion of t:h0 instant Cc>rnpla:lnt and th'c.'~
Based upon my investigation of the instant Complaint and theabove rationale, it is determined that none of the c:il.Jegations
above rationale, it is determined that none of the allegationsrnade by Mr. Watts state a prima facie violation of Governmentmade by Mr. Watts state a prima facie violation of GovernmentCode subsections 3595(a) or (b}. They cannot be amenaea to doCode subsections 3595 (a) or (b) . They cannot be amended to do
so. Accordingly, they ar0 hereby DISMISSED without further
so. Accordingly, they are hereby DISMISSED without further
leave to amend~ Moreover, Mr. Watts• request for further
leave to amend. Moreover, Mr. Watts' request for furtherassistance in this matter is also hereby DENIED.assistance in this matter is also hereby DENIED.
Pursuant to PERB re9ulaU.on 32925, Mr. Watts may appr~al the
Pursuant to PERB regulation 32925, Mr. Watts may appeal thedismissal to the Boara itself as follows.dismissal to the Board itself as follows.
Right to Appeal
.i::-'t.--:c._... ')]
An appeal of this decision pursuant to PERR regulation 32925~·;..'l\ 1-l C.i.j: ., ,-}r -- o.r;JO# ¾·}11· r• ,._ . ,._·.:, c"'.! c.:c.c 1· s~ 1·- on l")ll J:: ..I. ..(.'_. ll CA'"rl- '·- t-- ~) Y),,'RT' J_J ). t.:.•·,erJ u] _(:at.·• -i C'" >.U. ..)? ') t., ~\.. .t u..~ . L. 9 2.j .)
r-
may be mad0 v-Ji'<:hin 20 caJ.enaar da.yr; followin9 th<::-:- dr:tte ofmay be made within 20 calendar days following the date of
service of this decision by filing an original and five copies
c:• (~ ,. \)' <'.• ro 1.· J-· (f ... > _ .CJ
.t_ ·-
,• (';''· _.. -· 0 r- t~1 i c·1"' 1' c; •M
i v··n l->Y .. .I...
-~ 1· .L r1n .. l n () ·j ~J ·i·'-· r1" ::J (,J..
,l .. , ,, (' .L _t -- .....- C.\..~ ·- t........ . ., ~ C. 1 \ .,l .. 1· v· '---
,.., C"<')1.·) ,J'- J";' J.,t.,
·i ., ,.,•>
of a stateraent of the facts upon which the appe~l ~s based withof a statement of the facts upon which the appeal is based with
the Board itf,'.'!lf at 1031 18th Street,. Suite 200, Sac:ca.m~::nto,the Board itself at 1031 18th Street, Suite 200, Sacramento, concurrentlyCalifornia 95815. Copies of any appeal must be concurrentlyCalifornia 95815. Copies of any appeal must be
served upon all parties and the Los Angeles regional office.served upon all parties and the Los Angeles regional office.Proof of service pursuant to regulation 32140 is required.Proof of service pursuant to regulation 32140 is required.
Very tr~ly yours,Very truly yours,
Frances A. KreilingFrances A. Kreiling
Regional Director?-9.g.J.,.o.:o,:i. 1 Dir CC t Or
.
/c;:f_- re- . 0,~t-~'----:-·-------.Robert R. DergesonkoDerC K. BeLyesun
Sr. RepresentativeSr. Representative
7
RRB:bw RRB : bwContinue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude
Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.