California State University (Watts) (PERB 0458H)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS 	BOARD
HOWARD O. 	WATTS,
Complainant,
v.
CALIFORNIA 	STATE 	UNIVERSITY,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_____________________ )
Case 	No. 	LA-PN-74-H
PERB 	Decision No. 	458-H
December 	12, 	1984
Appearance: 	Howard 	o. 	Watts, 	on 	his 	own 	behalf.
Before 	Hesse, 	Chairperson; 	Jaeger 	and 	Morgenstern, 	Members.*
DECISION
This 	case 	is 	before 	the 	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 	California 	State 	University 	violated 	section
3595(a) 	and 	(b) 	of 	the 	Higher 	Education Employer-Employee
Relations 	Act 	(Government 	Code 	section 	3560 	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 	8, 	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-74-H 	is
DISMISSED WITHOUT 	LEAVE 	TO AMEND.
By 	the 	BOARD
2

" 	.S1/ rE OF CMIFORNI,\ 	GEORGE DfUK!~.UlAN, Go.-::mor
- -=·==========·=·····-·
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
lOS ANGELES REGIONAL OFFICE
3470 VilLSHIRE Bl V~J., SUITE 1001
LOS MiGElES, CALIFORNIA 	90010
(213) 736-3127
August 	10, 	1984
Mr. 	Howard 	O. 	Watts
1021 	N. 	Mariposa 	Ave.,
-------r;-osA.ngele s, 	cK-90-0-29- Apt. 	3 	1/2
-- · 	-------------------···----------
Re: 	NOTICE 	OF 	DISMISSAL 	- 	LA-PN-74-H
Watts 	v. 	California 	State 	University
Dear 	Mr. 	Watts:
Your 	above 	referenced 	public 	notice 	complaint 	was 	filed 	with 	our
office 	on 	March 	26, 	1984. 	The 	complaint 	alleges 	the 	following
violations 	of 	HEERA 	section 	3595(a) 	and 	(b):
1. 	The Board 	of 	Trustees 	of 	the 	California 	State 	University 	(CSU),
did 	not 	hold 	a 	meeting 	on February 	22, 	1984 	for 	the 	presentation of
union's 	proposals. 	{The 	Committee 	on 	Collective Bargaining
conducted 	this 	meeting.)
2. 	The 	Board 	of 	Trustees 	of 	CSU 	did 	not 	hold 	a 	meeting 	on March 	1,
1984 	for 	public 	response 	to 	the 	unions' 	proposals. 	(The 	Committee
on 	Collective 	Bargaining 	conducted 	this 	meeting.)
3. 	The 	Board 	of 	Trustees 	of 	CSU 	did 	not 	hold 	a 	meeting 	on 	March 	15,
1984 	for 	the 	presentation 	of 	its 	own 	proposals. 	{The 	Committee 	on
Collective 	Ba~gnin~rg 	conduct~d 	thfs 	meeting.)
4. 	The 	Board 	of 	Trustees 	of 	CSU 	had 	failed 	to 	implement 	the
statutory 	intent 	of 	HEERA 	by 	delegating 	to 	the 	Committee 	on
Collective 	Bargaining 	the 	presentation 	of 	collective 	bargaining
proposals 	rather 	than 	assuming 	the 	responsibility 	itself.
5. 	Uhions 	are 	permitted 	to 	submit 	written 	proposals 	to 	the
Committee 	on 	Collective Bargaining 	without 	any 	oral 	presentation or
explanation 	to 	the 	public.
6. 	The Board 	of 	Trustees 	of 	CSU 	denied 	your 	request 	that 	the
exclusive 	representative 	of 	Unit 	8 	employees 	present 	its 	proposals
before 	the 	full 	Board 	at 	a 	public 	meeting.
7. 	The 	Regional 	Director 	of 	the 	local 	PERB 	office 	was 	interfering
with 	your 	right 	to 	assistance 	by 	limiting 	your 	visits 	to 	the
regional 	office.
8. 	The 	Board 	of 	Trustees 	of 	CSU 	had 	not 	held 	a 	public 	meeting 	to
delegate 	authority 	to 	the 	Committee 	on 	Collective 	Bargaining.

August 	10, 	1984
Ll';.··PN·-7 4-H
Page 	2
9. 	The 	Board 	of 	Trustees 	of 	CSU 	has 	been 	in 	violation 	of 	Government
Code 	Section 	11122 	by 	granting 	authority 	to 	the 	Committee 	on
Collective 	Bargaining 	rather 	than making 	decisions 	as 	a 	state 	body.
10. 	The 	Board 	of 	Trustees 	of 	CSU 	violated 	the 	law 	by 	not 	conducting
the 	public 	notice 	meetings 	and 	negotiations 	itself, 	as 	the 	Board 	is
"the 	employer" 	not 	the 	Committee 	on 	Collective Bargaining 	nor 	staff
from 	the 	Employee-Relations 	Department.
After 	reviewing 	your 	allegations 	and 	discussing 	them 	with 	you, 	my
analysis 	is 	as 	follows. 	In 	this 	complaint 	you 	attack 	the 	Board 	of
'11 rustees 	of 	CSUS 	as 	the 	employer 	for 	not 	conducting 	the 	meeting 	and
conferring 	with 	employee 	organizations. 	That 	is 	the 	basis 	for 	your
allegations 	1, 	2, 	3, 	4, 	6, 	8, 	9 	and 	10.
Section 	3562(h) 	of 	HEERA defines 	the 	term 	employer 	as 	follows:
.. Employer" 	or 	"higher 	education 	employer" 	means
the 	regents 	in 	the 	case 	of 	University 	of
California, 	the 	Directors 	in 	the 	case 	of 	Hastings
College 	of 	the 	Law, 	and 	the 	trustees 	in 	the 	case
of 	the 	California 	State 	University, 	includiE3.2.ny
person 	acting 	as 	an 	agent 	of 	an 	employe~.
(emphasis 	~dded)
Section 	3652 	(n) 	of 	HEERA 	defines 	a 	person 	as:
"Person" 	means 	one 	or 	more 	individuals,
organizations, 	asaociations, 	corporations,
boards, 	committees, 	commissions, 	agencies, 	or
their 	representatives. 	(emphasis 	added)
Section 	89035 	of 	the 	Education 	Code 	provides:
Wherever 	in 	this 	code 	a 	power 	is 	vested 	in 	the
Trustees, 	the 	Trustees 	by majority 	vote 	may 	adopt
a 	rule 	delegating 	such 	power 	to 	any 	officer
employee 	or 	committee 	as 	the 	Trustees 	may
delegate. 	(emphasis 	added)
In 	conjunction 	with 	the 	adoption 	of 	HEERA, 	the 	CSU 	Trustee~
established 	a 	Committee 	on 	Collective 	Bargaining. 	•rhe 	statutory
authority 	outlined 	above 	clearly 	permits 	CSU 	to 	delegate 	to 	its
Committee 	on 	Collective 	Bargaining 	or 	to 	any 	"person," 	authority 	to

August 	10, 	1984
LA-PN-74-H
Page 	3
act 	in 	the 	realm 	of 	meeting 	and 	conferring 	including 	"sunshining" 	of
collective 	bargaining 	proposals. 	You 	have 	presented 	no 	facts 	that
would 	support 	the 	complaint. 	Your 	legal 	argument 	does 	not 	stand
firm 	in 	the 	face 	of 	the 	clear 	and 	concise 	definitions 	of 	HEERA 	and
the 	Education 	Code. 	Based 	on 	the 	foregoing, 	your 	allegations 	1, 	2,
3, 	4, 	6, 	8, 	9 	& 	10 	are 	hereby 	dismissed.
As 	to 	allegation 	15, 	nothing 	in 	the 	relevant 	section 	of 	the 	statute
requires 	an 	employer 	or 	employee 	organization 	to 	present 	bargainin9
proposal 	in 	person 	in 	order 	to 	constitute 	a 	presentation, 	HEERA
Section 	3595(a} 	provides:
All 	initial 	proposals 	of 	exclusive
representatives 	and 	of 	higher 	education
employers, 	which 	relate 	to 	matters 	within 	the
scope 	of 	representation, 	shall 	be 	presented 	at 	a
public 	meeting 	of 	the 	higher 	education 	employer
and 	thereafter 	shall 	be 	public 	records.
CSU 	procedure 	for 	public 	notice 	of 	initial 	bargaining 	proposals 	is
included 	in 	Title 	5, 	Article 	16.1, 	Section 	43725(b). 	It 	states:
At 	the 	first 	meeting 	called 	for 	a 	particular
representation 	unit, 	the 	exclusive 	representative
shall 	present 	its 	proposal 	in 	writing 	and 	shall
have 	ten 	{10} 	copies 	of 	such 	proposal 	for 	members
of 	the 	Board 	of 	Trustees 	or 	its 	designated
eomrnit.tee 	present, 	twenty 	(2J) 	additiondl 	copies
for 	distribution 	to 	the 	main 	library 	at 	each
campus 	and 	in 	the 	Office 	of 	the 	Chancellor, 	and 	a
sufficient 	quantity, 	but 	not 	fewer 	than 	twenty
{20), 	for 	interested 	members of 	the 	public 	in
attendance 	at 	the 	public 	meeting. 	At 	the 	time 	of
such 	presentation, 	a 	representative 	of 	the
exclusive 	representative 	may 	address 	the Board 	of
Trustees 	of 	its 	designated 	committee 	for 	the
purpose 	of 	clarifying 	or 	amplifying 	upon 	any
portion of 	its 	proposal. 	Thereafter, 	the 	Board
of 	Trustees 	or 	its 	designated 	committee- 	shall_ set
a 	time 	for 	a 	second 	public 	hearing.
Neither 	the 	law 	nor 	the 	CSU 	procedures 	require 	that 	the 	exclusive
representative 	appear 	in 	person 	before 	the 	Trustees 	or 	its
designated 	agent 	when 	offering 	their 	proposals. 	This 	allegation 	is
hereby 	dismissed.

August 	10, 	1984
LA·-PN-74-H
Page 	4
Allegation 	#7 	appears 	to 	be 	added 	as 	spice 	to 	your 	cornpla int.
Clearly CSUS 	cannot 	be 	held 	responsible 	for 	PERB's 	internal 	policies
regarding 	assistance 	in 	processing 	your 	complaints. 	Thif; 	allegation
is 	also 	hereby 	dismissed.
Finally 	as 	to 	your 	reliance 	on 	Government 	Code 	section 	11122 	to
support 	your 	complaint, 	PERB 	does 	not 	adjudicate 	violations 	of 	the
ttopen 	Meeting 	Act," 	thus 	it 	is 	not 	a 	matter 	for 	PERB 	to 	decide.
Your 	request 	for 	assistance 	in 	this 	case 	has 	been 	reviewed 	and 	is
hereby 	denied. 	Due 	to 	the 	fact 	that 	technical 	assistance 	as
prescribed 	by 	the 	PERB 	in Watts 	v. 	Los 	Angeles 	Community 	College
District, 	Decision 	No. 	186 	(December 	15, 	1981), 	and 	Watts 	v. 	Los
Angeles 	Unified 	School 	District 	and 	California 	School 	Employees
Association, 	Decision No. 	181a, 	(February 	22, 	1982), 	could 	not 	cure
the 	defects 	in 	this 	complaint, 	your 	request 	is 	inappropriate. 	I
will 	remain 	available 	to 	assist 	you 	in 	the 	technical 	processing 	of
your 	complaints 	as 	PERB 	has 	described 	in 	the 	above-referenced 	cases.
Therefore, 	because 	none 	of your 	allegations 	state 	a 	prima 	facie
violation 	of 	HEERA 	section 	3595, 	nor 	can 	they 	be 	amenaea 	to 	do 	so,
your 	complaint 	is 	hereby 	DISMISSED WITIIOU'l' 	LEAVE 	TO 	AMEND.
An 	appeal of 	this 	decision 	pursuant 	to PERB 	Regulation 	32925 	may 	be
made 	within 	20 ~alendar 	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. 	Co?ies
of 	any 	appeal 	must 	be 	concurrently 	served 	upon 	all 	parties 	and 	the
Los 	Angeles 	Regional 	Office. 	Proof 	of 	service 	pursuant 	to
Regulation 	32140 	is 	required.
Sincerely,
Frances A. 	Kreiling
z;iona;:;tr
~~mith
Regional 	Representative
RS:bw
cc: 	William B. 	Haughton, 	Esq.