Oakland Education Association (Baker) (PERB 0827E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
e
JOEL 	BAKER,
Charging 	Party,
v.
OAKLAND EDUCATION ASSOCIATION,
Respondent.
)
)
) 	Case No. 	SF-CO-361
PERB 	Decision No. 	827
July 	10, 	1990
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances: 	Joel Baker, 	on his own behalf; 	California Teachers
Association by A. 	Eugene Huguenin, 	Jr., 	Attorney, 	for Oakland
Education Association.
Before Craib, 	Camilli and Cunningham, 	Members.
DECISION
CRAIB, 	Member: 	This 	case is before the Public Employment
Relations 	Board 	(PERB or Board) 	on an appeal by Joel Baker, 	of
the dismissal 	of his 	unfair practice 	charge against the Oakland
Education Association 	(Association). 	A Board agent dismissed
four of 	Baker's 	seven allegations 	as 	untimely. 	The remaining
three 	allegations, 	which assert 	that the Association breached 	its
duty 	of 	fair 	representation by 	failing 	to 	file 	grievances 	on
Baker's 	behalf, 	were dismissed 	for 	failure to allege 	facts which
indicate 	the Association's 	actions 	were 	arbitrary,
discriminatory, 	or in bad faith. 	(See, 	e.g., 	Rocklin Teachers
Professional Association 	(Romero) 	(1980) 	PERB Decision No. 	124.)
Baker's appeal, 	in its entirety, 	consists of the following:
I 	am hereby 	filing an appeal 	to 	the above
referenced case number SF-CO-361. 	I 	am
seeking that this 	case 	is 	transferred to the
Superior Court of alifornia 	[sic].
(

PERB 	Regulation 	32635,1 which 	governs 	review of 	dismissals,
states, 	in pertinent part:
The appeal 	shall:
(1) 	State the 	specific 	issues of
procedure, 	fact, 	law or rationale to
which the appeal 	is 	taken;
(2) 	Identify the page or part of 	the
dismissal 	to which each appeal 	is 	taken;
(3) 	State the grounds 	for each 	issue
stated.
Baker's 	appeal 	fails 	to meet the requirements 	of 	Regulation
32635. 	The appeal provides 	no 	indication of what portions 	of 	the
dismissal Baker challenges, 	or the grounds 	for such challenge.
Compliance with 	regulations 	governing appeals 	is 	required 	to
afford 	the 	respondent 	and 	the 	Board 	an 	adequate 	opportunity 	to
address 	the 	issues 	raised, 	and noncompliance will warrant
dismissal 	of the appeal. 	(Los Angeles 	Unified School 	District
(Mindel) 	(1989) 	PERB Decision No. 	785, 	at p. 	2; 	California State
Employees Association 	(O'Connell) 	(1989) 	PERB Decision No. 	726-H,
at p. 	3.) 	The Board therefore rejects 	the appeal 	and affirms 	the
Board 	agent's 	dismissal.
-------------	- 	-
Baker's 	request 	that 	this 	case be transferred to 	the
Superior Court of California 	is 	inappropriate, 	as 	this 	case 	is
properly before 	the Board. 	Pursuant 	to 	section 	3541.5 	of 	the
1PERB 	Regulations 	are 	codified 	at 	California Administrative
Code, 	title 8, 	section 31001 	et seq.
N
	2

Educational Employment Relations Act 	(EERA),2 the Board has
exclusive 	initial 	jurisdiction to 	determine whether 	charges 	of
unfair practices 	are 	justified and, 	if 	so, 	what remedy is
appropriate. 	In addition, 	EERA section 3542 provides, 	in
pertinent part:
(b) 	Any charging party, 	respondent, 	or
intervenor aggrieved by 	a 	final 	decision or
order of 	the board 	in an unfair practice
case, 	except a decision of the board not to
issue a complaint 	in such a case, 	may
petition 	for a writ 	of 	extraordinary 	relief
from 	such decision or 	order.
(c) 	Such petition 	shall be 	filed 	in the
district 	court 	of 	appeal 	in the 	appellate
district where 	the unit 	determination or
unfair practice 	dispute 	occurred.
(Emphasis 	added.)
ORDER
The unfair practice charge in Case No. 	SF-CO-361 	is 	hereby
DISMISSED WITHOUT 	LEAVE 	TO AMEND.
Members 	Camilli 	and Cunningham 	joined 	in this 	Decision.
2EERA 	is 	codified at Government Code 	section 	3540 	et 	seq.
Unless 	otherwise 	indicated, 	all 	statutory references 	herein are
to the Government Code.
W
	3