California State Employees Association (Myers) (PERB 0942S)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
LINDA 	KAY MYERS,
Charging 	Party,
v.
CALIFORNIA 	STATE 	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION, 	LOCAL 	1000, AFL-CIO,
SERVICE 	EMPLOYEES 	INTERNATIONAL
UNION,
Respondent.
)
)
) 	Case No. 	LA-CO-51-S
PERB Decision No. 	942-S
June 	10, 	1992
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances: 	Linda Kay Myers, 	on her own behalf; 	James W.
Milbradt, 	Statewide Arbitrations Coordinator, 	for California
State Employees Association, 	Local 	1000, AFL-CIO, 	Service
Employees 	International 	Union.
Before Hesse, 	Chairperson, 	Caffrey and Carlyle, 	Members.
DECISION AND 	ORDER
HESSE, 	Chairperson: 	This 	case is before the Public
Employment Relations 	Board 	(PERB or Board) 	on appeal 	by Linda 	Kay
Myers 	(Myers) 	of a Board agent's dismissal 	of her charge that the
California State Employees Association, 	Local 	1000, 	AFL-CIO,
Service 	Employees 	International 	Union violated 	section 	3519(a) 	of
the Ralph C. 	Dills Act.1
PERB Regulation 	32635(a),2 which governs review of
dismissals, 	states, 	in pertinent part:
1The Ralph C. 	Dills Act 	is 	codified at Government Code
section 3512 	et 	seq.
2PERB 	Regulations 	are 	codified 	at 	California Administrative
Code, 	title 8, 	section 31001 et seq.
________________ )

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.
PERB Regulation 32635(b) 	states:
(b) 	Unless good cause is 	shown, 	a charging
party may not present 	on appeal 	new charge
allegations 	or new 	supporting 	evidence.
Myers' 	appeal, 	in its entirety, 	consists of an amended
unfair practice charge. 	This 	appeal does 	not comply with PERB
Regulation 32635, 	as 	it does 	not 	identify which portions 	of the
dismissal 	are 	challenged, 	nor does 	it 	indicate the grounds 	for
the appeal. 	Further, 	Myers has 	not demonstrated good cause 	for
the 	Board to 	consider her new charge 	allegations 	or new
supporting 	evidence. 	The 	Board has 	held 	that 	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. 	(Oakland Education Association 	(Baker) 	(1990) 	PERB
Decision No. 	827, p. 	2; 	United Teachers - Los Angeles 	(Abboud, 	et
al. ) 	(1989) 	PERB Decision No. 	738, p. 	2.) 	The Board, therefore,
rejects 	the appeal.
The unfair practice charge in Case No. 	LA-CO-51-S 	is hereby
DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE 	TO AMEND.
Members 	Caffrey and Carlyle 	joined 	in this 	Decision.
2