Los Angeles City and County School Employees Union, Local 99, Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO (Watts) (PERB 0490E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
HOWARD O. 	WATTS,
Complainant,
v.
LOS 	ANGELES 	CITY AND COUNTY 	SCHOOL
EMPLOYEES 	UNION, 	LOCAL 	99,
SERVICE 	EMPLOYEES 	INTERNATIONAL
UNION, AFL-CIO,
Respondent.
)
)
) 	Case 	No. 	LA-PN-80
PERB 	Decision 	No. 	490
February 	28, 	1985
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearance: 	Howard O. 	Watts, 	in his own behalf.
Before Tovar, 	Jaeger 	and Burt, 	Members.
DECISION 	AND 	ORDER
JAEGER, 	Member: 	Howard O. 	Watts appeals 	the dismissal of
his 	public 	notice 	complaint 	alleging 	that 	Los 	Angeles 	City 	and
County School 	Employees Union, 	Local 	99, 	Service 	Employees
International 	Union, 	AFL-CIO, 	violated 	section 	3547 	of 	the
Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Act 	by 	failing 	to 	present
in 	writing 	its 	proposal 	to 	reopen 	an 	existing 	collective
agreement 	for 	the 	purpose 	of 	renegotiating 	certain 	salaries.
l
A 	regional 	representative 	of 	the 	Public 	Employment
Relations 	Board 	dismissed 	the 	complaint, 	finding 	that 	by 	orally
specifying 	at 	two 	public 	meetings 	of 	the 	Los 	Angeles 	Community
College 	District 	the 	dollar 	amount 	of 	salary 	increase 	being
1Codified 	at 	Government 	Code 	section 	3540 	et 	seq.

proposed, 	Local 	99 	complied 	with 	the 	requirements 	of
section 	3547.
The 	Board 	summarily 	affirms 	the 	attached 	ruling 	of 	the
regional 	representative. 	The complaint 	is 	DISMISSED.
Members 	Tovar 	and 	Burt 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
N
2

DEI
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	GEORGE DEUKM€JIAN,
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
LOS ANGELES REGIONAL OFFICE
470 WILSHIRE BLVD., SU1TE 1001
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9 0 1 0
(213) 736-3127
June 28, 	1984
Howard O. 	Watts
Re: 	NOTICE OF DISMISSAL
LA-PN-SO 	Watts v. 	Los Angeles City and County ,school
Employees 	Union Local 99
Dear Mr. Watts:
Your 	above-captioned 	public 	notice complaint was 	filed 	with 	our
office on April 20, 	1984. 	The complaint: alleges 	that Los
Angeles City 	and County School Employees Union, 	Local 	99
(Local 99) 	violated 	3547(a) 	of 	the Act by not presenting 	its
proposal on salary 	reopeners 	at 	the March 21, 	1984 meeting 	of
the Board of 	Trustees 	of 	Los Angeles Unified School District,
in 	a 	complete 	written 	form. 	You 	state 	that Business
Representative Pat Pretè of 	Local 99, 	did 	not specifically
identify what 	the 	exclusive 	representative's 	proposal 	on 	wages
and 	salaries 	was going 	to be 	in 	the 	addendum 	to 	the Board's
agenda on March 21, 	1984. 	You did 	indicate however 	that Mr.
Prete gave an oral presentation 	at 	the March 21, 	1934 meeting
in 	which he 	explained 	that Local 	99 	sought a $2.00 	per 	hour
increase for all classifications in the mainntenance/Operations
Unit 	effective July 1, 	1983.
As 	I 	informed 	you when we met on June 	15, 	1984 to discuss 	this
case, 	you 	failed to state a prima 	facie violation 3547 	and 	the
complaint could 	not be 	amended 	to do so. 	You 	felt 	that 	the
intent of 	3547(a) 	was 	that all 	initial proposals 	should 	be
specific and 	should 	be 	in written 	form. 	The 	statute provides
that:
All 	initial proposals 	of 	exclusive
representatives 	and of public 	school
employer, 	which 	relate 	to matters within 	the
scope of 	representation, 	shall be presented
at 	a 	public meeting 	of 	the public 	school
employer 	and 	thereafter 	shall be public
records. 	(emphasis 	added)0

June 28, 198 4
LA-PN-80
Page 	2
The 	PERB upheld 	the Regional Director's 	dismissal of 	a 	similar
public notice complaint 	in Fein 	v. 	Palo Alto Unified School
District 	and Palo Alto Educãts' 	Association (12/2/8l) PERB
Dec. 	No. 	184. 	The complainant alleged 	that 	the written
proposals 	initially 	presented 	at 	a 	public 	meeting 	were
incomprehensible. 	The Regional Director 	found 	that an 	employee
organization's written proposal was 	little more 	than 	an
invitation 	to bargain with no 	indication 	to 	the public 	as 	to
what 	the parameters of 	the proposal were. 	Because 	the 	union
orally corrected 	its 	proposal at 	the public 	school 	employer's
meeting 	and 	also 	corrected 	its written proposal at 	the
subsequent public response meeting1 	the Regional Director 	found
that 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	had corrected 	its 	technical
difficulties 	in 	sunshining 	its proposal and 	therefore 	dismissed
the 	complaint. 	In 	the 	instant 	complaint 	the 	exclusive
representative orally clarified 	its proposal at 	the March 	21,.
198 4 meeting and, ~at 	the following meeting 	for public 	response,
the 	agenda clearly 	identified 	the 	$2.00 	per 	hour 	wage 	increase
sought by Local 99.
Because Local 99 	corrected 	its 	initial proposal on wage
reopeners at the earliest stage possible, 	the public was 	able
to 	compreb~nd what 	th~ proposal 	intended 	and was 	able 	to
inte1ligentiy respond at 	the April 4, 	198 4 Board meeting.
There~nr.e1 	the 	instant 	complaint does not 	state 	a prima 	facie
violation of 	EERA 	section 	3547 	and 	and 	cannot be 	amended 	to 	do
so. 	It 	is 	hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
In 	addition, 	your 	request 	for 	assistance 	filed pursuant 	to
Regulation 32163 	is 	dismissed. 	The PERB did 	not 	envision 	its
agents drafting public 	notice complaints or 	pro"1iding 	legal
advice on how 	to 	perfect 	those 	complaints. 	Your 	complaint 	in
this 	case had no 	technical deficiencies 	so 	there 	was 	no
additional assistance 	that I 	could 	provide.

June 28, 198 4
LA-PN-80
Page 3
An 	appeal of 	this decision pursuant to PERB Regulation 3 29 25
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 9 58l4. 	Copies 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
Regional Director
Roger 	Smith
Regional Representative
cc: 	Jeff Paule, Esq.