Los Angeles Unified School District (Watts) (PERB 0866E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS 	BOARD
HOWARD O. 	WATTS,
Charging 	Party,
v.
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
) 	Case No. 	LA-PN-115
PERB 	Decision No. 	866
February 5, 	1991
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearance: 	Howard O. 	Watts, 	on his own behalf.
Before Shank, 	Camilli and Cunningham, 	Members.
DECISION
CUNNINGHAM, 	Member: 	This 	case comes before the Public
Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(Board) 	on an appeal by 	Howard O.
Watts 	(Watts) 	of 	an administrative determination 	(attached
hereto) 	by a 	Board agent who dismissed 	a public 	notice 	complaint
filed by Watts 	against 	the 	Los 	Angeles 	Unified 	School 	District
(District). 	The 	complaint alleged that the District violated
section 3547(a) 	and 	(b) 	of the Educational Employment Relations
Act 	(EERA) 	by 	failing to provide 	sufficient 	information
1EERA	EERA 	is 	codified at Government Code 	section 3540 	et 	seq.
Unless 	otherwise 	indicated, 	all 	statutory references 	herein are
to the Government Code. 	EERA section 3547(a) 	and 	(b) 	states:
(a) 	All 	initial proposals 	of exclusive
representatives 	and 	of public 	school
employers, 	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.
(b) 	Meeting and negotiating 	shall not take
place 	on any proposal 	until 	a reasonable

regarding 	its 	proposal 	for 	reopener 	negotiations 	presented 	at
District Board of Education meetings 	on April 	23, 	April 	30 	and
May 7, 	1990.
time has 	elapsed after the 	submission of
the proposal 	to 	enable 	the public 	to become
informed 	and 	the public 	has 	the 	opportunity
to 	express 	itself 	regarding the proposal 	at
a meeting of 	the public 	school 	employer.
We have reviewed the Board agent's 	dismissal, 	the
complainant's 	appeal 	and the 	entire record 	in this 	matter,
and adopt 	the 	attached dismissal 	as 	the decision of 	the 	Board
itself.2
ORDER
The public 	notice complaint 	in Case No. 	LA-PN-115 	is hereby
DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE 	TO AMEND.
Members 	Shank and Camilli 	joined 	in this 	Decision.
2We note that Article II, 	Section 	1.0 and Article XXXII,
Section 	3.0 	of 	the 	collective bargaining 	agreement 	between
the 	District 	and United Teachers 	of 	Los 	Angeles provide 	that
negotiations 	may 	occur during 	the 	term of 	the 	agreement
by mutual 	consent of the parties, 	rather than Article XVIII,
as 	stated by 	the 	Board 	agent 	in the 	attached administrative
determination.
22

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
HOWARD 0. 	WATTS,
Complainant,
and
LOS 	ANGELES 	UNIFIED 	SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Employer.
Case No. 	LA-PN-115
ADMINISTRATIVE
DETERMINATION
September 24, 	1990
The 	above-captioned 	public 	notice 	complaint 	was 	filed
with 	the 	Public 	Employment Relations Board on May 26, 	1990. 	The
complaint 	alleges 	that 	the 	Los 	Angeles 	Unified 	School 	District
(District) 	violated section 	3547(a) 	and 	(b) 	of 	the Educational
Employment 	Relations 	Act 	(EERA)1 by presenting 	an 	initial
proposal 	which 	lacked 	sufficient 	detail 	to 	permit the 	public 	to
understand 	and 	express 	itself 	with 	regard 	thereto.
lSection 	3547(a) 	and 	(b) 	provide:
(a) 	All 	initial 	proposals 	of 	exclusive 	representatives
and 	of 	public 	school 	employers, 	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.
(b) 	Meeting 	and negotiating 	shall 	not 	take 	place 	on
any 	proposal 	until 	a 	reasonable 	time 	has 	elapsed 	after
the 	submission 	of 	the 	proposal 	to 	enable 	the 	public 	to
become 	informed 	and 	the 	public 	has 	the 	opportunity 	to
express 	itself 	regarding 	the 	proposal 	at 	a meeting 	of
the 	public 	school 	employer.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
______________ )

The 	proposal to which 	the 	complaint 	is 	directed was 	set
forth 	in 	a memorandum2 to 	the 	Committee 	of 	the Whole 	of 	the 	Los
Angeles 	Unified School 	District 	from 	the 	Superintendent 	dated
April 23, 	1990. 	The proposal 	reads as follows:
It 	is 	proposed 	that 	the 	1988-91 	collective 	bargaining
agreement with United 	Teachers-Los 	Angeles 	be 	reopened
for the 	purpose 	of 	partially 	addressing 	the 	$150-$220
million 	financial 	deficit 	facing 	the 	District 	for
fiscal 	1990-91. 	Such 	reopeners 	could 	include 	any
contractual 	provisions 	which 	involve 	financial
obligations, 	including 	items 	such 	as 	reduction 	in 	the
number of paid non-work days, 	suspension of 	paid
sabbatical leaves, 	and 	suspension of the Employee
Assistance 	program.
Significantly, 	the 	April 	23 	memo 	includes 	a 	section 	entitled
"BACKGROUND," 	which notes 	that
[i]n 	order to 	consider 	the 	above 	negotiable 	items 	for
potential budget 	reductions, 	the 	District must 	submit
initial 	reopener 	proposals. 	Pursuant to Section 	3547
of the Government Code, 	these will 	be 	presented 	to 	the
public at two regular meetings. 	. 	.(emphasis added)
The 	memo 	also 	comments 	upon 	the 	budget 	implications 	"[i]f 	UTLA
were 	to 	agree 	to 	reopen 	negotiations 	and 	then agree 	to 	any 	cost
reduction 	proposals."
Section 	3547(a) 	does 	not 	require 	public 	noticing 	of 	all
proposals, 	but 	rather 	only 	those 	initial 	proposals 	"which 	relate
to 	matters 	within 	the 	scope 	of 	representation." 	In 	Palo 	Alto
Unified 	School District 	and 	Palo 	Alto 	Educators 	Association
(Fein) 	(1981) 	PERB Decision No. 	189, 	the Board noted that 	"the
initial 	proposals 	must 	be 	sufficiently 	developed 	to 	permit 	the
public 	to 	comprehend 	them," 	and 	went 	on 	to 	criticize 	a 	proposal
2A copy of 	the memorandum 	was 	attached 	to 	the 	complaint as
Exhibit 1.
22

which 	"does 	not 	adequately 	inform 	the 	public 	of 	the 	issues 	that
will 	be 	negotiated." 	(emphasis 	added)
The essence 	of 	the 	"proposal" 	set 	forth 	in 	the 	April 	23
Memorandum 	is 	simply 	the 	desire 	of 	the 	District 	to 	reopen 	the
collective 	bargaining 	agreement 	in an 	attempt 	to 	address 	a
looming 	financial 	crisis. 	Review of 	the 	1988-91 	agreement
between UTLA and 	the 	District on 	file 	with 	PERB 	reveals 	that 	it
does 	not provide 	for 	specific 	reopeners. 	Rather, 	Article XVIII
provides 	that 	nothing 	in 	the 	agreement 	"is 	intended 	to 	prevent
the 	parties 	from 	meeting 	and 	negotiating 	during 	the 	term 	of 	this
Agreement, 	pursuant 	to mutual 	consent." 	At best, 	the 	District's
"proposal" 	constituted 	a 	request to 	bargain 	pursuant 	to 	Article
XVIII, 	and, 	as 	such, 	is quite different from a District
bargaining proposal. 	The 	former is procedural, 	the 	latter is
substantive. 	Therefore, 	since 	the 	"proposal" 	did 	not constitute
a 	presentation 	of 	initial 	proposals 	relating 	to 	matters 	within
the 	scope 	of 	representation 	as 	contemplated 	by 	Section 	3547,
there 	was 	no 	requirement 	that 	it 	conform 	to 	the 	public 	notice
provisions. 	It 	would be 	premature 	to 	require 	an 	employer 	to
provide 	specific 	information 	about 	the 	substance 	of 	its
collective 	bargaining 	proposals 	prior 	to 	the 	time 	the 	parties
have 	even 	agreed 	to 	bargain. 	In 	the 	event 	UTLA 	agreed 	to 	reopen
contract negotiations, 	however, 	any proposals 	advanced by the
33

District would 	require 	adequate 	public 	notice 	sufficient 	to
enable 	the 	public 	to 	understand 	and 	respond 	thereto.3
For the 	foregoing 	reasons, 	the 	public 	notice 	complaint 	is
DISMISSED.
Right to Appeal
Pursuant to Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	regulations,
any party adversely 	affected 	by 	this 	ruling 	may 	appeal 	to 	the
Board 	itself 	by 	filing 	a 	written 	appeal 	within 	twenty 	(20)
calendar 	days 	after 	service 	of 	this 	ruling 	(California
Administrative Code, 	title 	8, 	section 32925). 	To be 	timely
filed, 	the 	original 	and 	five 	copies 	of 	such appeal 	must be
actually 	received 	by 	the 	Board 	itself 	before 	the 	close 	of
business 	(5:00 p.m.) 	or 	sent by telegraph, 	certified 	or 	Express
United 	States 	mail 	postmarked 	no 	later 	than 	the 	last 	date 	set 	for
filing 	(California Administrative 	Code, 	title 8, 	section 32135).
Code 	of 	Civil 	Procedure 	section 	1013 	shall 	apply. 	The 	Board's
address is:
Members, 	Public Employment Relations Board
1031 	18th 	Street
Sacramento, 	CA 95814
The 	appeal must state 	the 	specific 	issues 	of procedure, 	fact, 	law
or 	rationale 	that 	are 	appealed, 	must 	clearly 	and 	concisely 	state
the 	grounds 	for 	each 	issue 	stated, 	and must be 	signed 	by the
appealing 	party or 	its 	agent.
3In 	conversations with 	the 	undersigned, 	the 	District
indicated 	that UTLA 	did 	not 	agree 	to 	reopen 	the 	agreement.
4

If 	a timely appeal 	of 	this 	ruling 	is 	filed, 	any other party
nay 	file 	with the 	Board 	itself 	an 	original 	and 	five 	copies 	of 	a
statement 	in 	opposition 	within 	twenty 	calendar 	days 	following 	the
date 	of 	service 	of 	the 	appeal 	(California Administrative 	Code,
title 8, 	section 32625). 	If no timely appeal 	is 	filed, 	the
aforementioned 	ruling 	shall 	become 	final 	upon 	the 	expiration 	of
the 	specified time 	limits.
Service
All 	documents 	authorized 	to 	be 	filed 	herein 	must 	also 	be
"served" 	upon 	all 	parties 	to 	the 	proceeding 	and 	the 	San Francisco
Regional Office. 	A 	"proof 	of 	service" 	must 	accompany each 	copy
of 	a 	document 	served 	upon 	a 	party 	or 	filed 	with 	the 	Board 	itself.
(See 	California Administrative 	Code, 	title 	8, 	section 	32140 	for
the 	required contents 	and 	a 	sample 	form.) 	The 	appeal 	and 	any
opposition 	to 	an 	appeal 	will 	be 	considered 	properly 	"served" 	when
personally 	delivered 	or 	deposited 	in 	the 	first-class 	mail 	postage
paid 	and 	properly 	addressed.
Extension 	of Time
A 	request 	for 	an 	extension of 	time 	in 	which 	to 	file 	an
appeal 	or 	opposition 	to 	an 	appeal 	with 	the 	Board 	itself 	must 	be
in writing 	and 	filed 	with 	the 	Board 	at 	the 	previously 	noted
address. 	A request 	for 	an 	extension must 	be 	filed 	at 	least three
calendar 	days 	before 	the 	expiration 	of 	the 	time 	required 	for
filing the 	document. 	The 	request must 	indicate 	good cause 	for
and, 	if known, 	the 	position 	of 	each 	other party 	regarding 	the
extension, 	and 	shall 	be 	accompanied by proof 	of 	service 	of 	the
UT
	5

request upon each party (California Administrative Code, 	title 8,
section 32132).
Dated: 	September 24, 	1990 Jerilyn Gelt
Labor Relations 	Specialist
Je , . 	delt	Je , 	.
66