American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (Alvarez) (PERB 0984H)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
LUIS ALONSO ALVAREZ,
Charging 	Party,
v.
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE,
COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES,
COUNCIL 	10,
Respondent.
)
)
) 	Case No. 	SF-CO-24-H
PERB Decision No. 	984-H
March 23, 	1993
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearance: 	Mary G. 	Higgins, 	for Luis Alonso Alvarez.
Before Blair, 	Chair; 	Hesse and Caffrey, 	Members.
DECISION AND 	ORDER
BLAIR, 	Chair: 	This 	case 	is before 	the Public Employment
Relations 	Board 	(PERB or Board) 	on an appeal 	filed by Luis Alonso
Alvarez 	(Alvarez), 	to the Board agent's dismissal 	(attached
hereto) 	of his unfair practice 	charge. 	The 	charge alleged that
the American Federation of State, 	County and Municipal 	Employees,
Council 	10 	(AFSCME), 	exclusive representative for the systemwide
clerical 	and patient 	care 	technical 	bargaining units, 	violated
sections 3571(b), 	3571.l(e), 	3578 and 3579 of the Higher
Education Employer-Employee Relations Act 	(HEERA)1 by negotiating
HEERA 	is 	codified at Government 	Code 	section 	3560 	et 	seq.
Unless 	otherwise 	indicated, 	all 	statutory references 	are 	to 	the
Government Code. 	Section 3571 states, 	in pertinent part:
It 	shall 	be unlawful 	for 	the higher education
employer to do any of 	the 	following:
(b) 	Deny to employee 	organizations 	rights
guaranteed 	to 	them by 	this 	chapter.
________________ )

and reaching agreement with the Regents 	of 	the University of
California 	to 	transfer certain job 	classifications 	(classes) 	from
the 	clerical 	to 	the patient 	care 	technical 	unit.2 The amended
charge also alleged a violation of 	the 	"sunshine" 	provisions 	of 	HEERA.3
Section 3571.1 provides, 	in relevant part:
It 	shall 	be unlawful 	for an employee
organization to:
(e) 	Fail 	to represent 	fairly and impartially
all 	the 	employees 	in the unit 	for which it 	is
the 	exclusive 	representative.
Section 3578 provides:
The 	employee 	organization 	recognized 	or
certified as 	the 	exclusive 	representative
shall 	represent all 	employees 	in the unit,
fairly and 	impartially. 	A breach of 	this
duty 	shall 	be 	deemed 	to have 	occurred 	if 	the
employee 	organization's 	conduct 	in
representation is arbitrary, 	discriminatory,
or 	in bad 	faith.
Section 3579 	states, 	in relevant part:
(a) 	In each case where the appropriateness
of a unit 	is an issue, 	in determining an
appropriate unit, 	the board shall 	take 	into
consideration all 	of 	the 	following 	criteria:
[criteria omitted].
2Alvarez 	is an Admitting Worker, 	one of 	the classes
transferred.
3HEERA section 3595 provides, 	in pertinent part:
(a) 	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.
(b) 	Meeting and conferring shall 	not
commence 	on an 	initial 	proposal 	until
N	2

The 	Board has 	reviewed 	the 	entire 	record 	in 	this 	case
de novo4 and, 	finding the dismissal 	to be 	free of prejudicial
error, 	adopts 	it as 	the decision of 	the Board itself.5
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 	higher education 	employer.
The unfair practice 	charge 	in Case No. 	SF-CO-24-H is 	hereby
DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE 	TO AMEND.
Members 	Hesse 	and Caffrey joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
4The 	substantive 	record 	consists 	of 	the warning and
dismissal 	letters, 	charge, 	amended charge and appeal.
5Charges 	relating 	to HEERA sections 	3571(b) 	and 3579 	are
addressed 	in Regents 	of 	the University of 	California 	(Alvarez)
(1993) 	PERB Decision No. 	983-H.
w	3

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	PETE WILSON, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD San Francisco Regional Office
177 Post Street, 9th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108-4737
(415)557-1350
December 16, 	1992
Mary G. 	Higgins
Re: 	DISMISSAL 	OF UNFAIR PRACTICE 	CHARGE/REFUSAL 	TO 	ISSUE
COMPLAINT
Luis Alonzo Alvarez v. 	American Federation of State. 	County
and Municipal 	Employees. 	Unfair Practice Charge No. 	SF-CO-
24-H
Dear Ms. 	Higgins:
The 	above-referenced unfair practice 	charge, 	filed on May 18,
1992, 	alleges that 	the American Federation of State, 	County and
Municipal 	Employees 	(AFSCME) 	agreed to 	the 	transfer of
classifications 	from the 	Clerical 	and Allied 	Services 	bargaining
unit 	to 	the 	Patient 	Care Technical 	bargaining unit. 	This 	conduct
is 	alleged to violate Government 	Code 	sections 	3571.1(e) 	and 	3578
of 	the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act 	(HEERA).
I 	indicated to you 	in my attached letter dated October 28, 	1992,
that 	the 	above-referenced 	charge 	did not 	state 	a prima 	facie
case. 	You were advised that, 	if 	there were any factual
inaccuracies 	or additional 	facts 	which would 	correct 	the
deficiencies 	explained 	in that 	letter, 	you 	should amend the
charge. 	You were 	further advised that, 	unless you amended the
charge 	to 	state a prima 	facie 	case 	or withdrew it prior to
November 5, 	1992, 	the charge would be dismissed. 	At your request
I 	granted you two extensions 	of 	time, 	first until November 13,
and then until November 16, 	1992, 	to respond.
Your 	amended 	charge 	containing allegations 	intended 	to 	supplement
the 	charge 	and 	respond 	to 	the 	deficiencies 	noted 	in my October
28, 	1992 	letter was 	received by PERB after the 	close of business
on November 16, 	1992. 	Accordingly, 	it was deemed to have been
filed on November 17, 	1992, 	and was, 	therefore, 	late. 	Because I
did not 	receive a 	timely 	filed amended 	charge, 	I 	am dismissing
the 	charge based on 	the 	facts 	and 	reasons 	contained 	in my October
28, 	1992 	letter. 	However, 	I have reviewed the amended charge and
found 	that 	even 	if 	timely 	filed, 	the 	new allegations 	would have
been 	insufficient 	to demonstrate 	a prima 	facie violation
involving 	the 	duty 	of 	fair 	representation.
You 	assert 	that AFSCME 	failed 	to provide 	a process 	for 	informing
employees 	of 	the proposed transfer of 	classifications, 	and that
Mr. 	Alvarez 	learned of 	the proposal 	"second hand" 	from a member
(
---
-----

of 	the Unit 	#13 	bargaining 	team. 	You assert 	that AFSCME was
unwilling to talk to Mr. 	Alvarez and, 	as a consequence, 	that Mr.
Alvarez's 	response 	to the proposal 	"was 	in an 	information
vaccuum."
Dismissal 	Letter
December 16, 	1992
Page 	2
You were 	informed 	in the 	October 28 	warning letter 	that 	facts
must 	be 	alleged 	"indicating 	how and 	in what manner 	the 	union
acted without 	a 	rational 	basis 	or 	in a way that 	is 	devoid of
honest 	judgement." 	In response you 	state 	the 	following:
"'Honest' 	is not 	synonymous with 	'competency'," 	and assert 	that
neither 	the AFSCME 	bargaining 	team nor AFSCME's 	chief 	negotiator
was 	aware 	of 	contractual 	differences 	between Unit 	#12 	and Unit
#13 	or of 	"the 	labor relations 	environmental 	affects 	of
reuniting."
You also raise, 	for the first 	time, 	the 	issue of whether the
proposed 	transfer 	of 	classifications 	was 	"sunshined" 	as 	required
by HEERA. 	You 	state 	that AFSCME 	and 	the 	employer 	engaged 	in
discussions 	concerning 	the 	issue 	of 	classification 	transfer which
were 	separate, 	but parallel 	to, 	their negotiations 	for a new
agreement. 	You also 	state 	that 	the proposal 	to 	transfer
classifications was not a part 	of' the 	latter negotiations until
a 	tentative 	agreement was 	nearly 	reached. 	You 	expressed a belief
that 	there was 	neither a public presentation of, 	nor an
opportunity 	for public 	comment upon, 	the proposal 	to 	transfer
classes.
Public 	notice 	complaints 	under HEERA may not be 	adjudicated 	in
the 	context 	of an unfair practice 	charge. 	Rather, 	they must be
filed 	in accordance 	with 	PERB's 	regulations 	governing public
notice 	complaints. 	(State 	of 	California 	(Department 	of 	Personnel
Administration) 	(1992) 	PERB Decision No. 	921-S.) 	However, 	this
does 	not 	preclude 	consideration of 	the 	allegations 	in evaluating
AFSCME's 	conduct as 	it 	relates 	to 	its 	duty of 	fair
representation.
The 	assertions 	that 	you have made 	in 	the 	amended charge,
including 	the assertion of 	a 	failure 	to 	"sunshine" 	the proposed
transfer of 	classifications, 	express 	a profound dissatisfaction
with 	the process 	utilized by AFSCME 	in advance 	of 	its 	agreement
to 	transfer 	classes. 	The 	facts 	as 	alleged do reflect 	an
unwillingness 	on AFSCME's part 	to 	involve Mr. 	Alvarez 	in the
decisionmaking process, 	and further, 	a 	failure to consider
factors which Mr. 	Alvarez perceived to be 	important. 	However, 	in
substance, 	these allegations portray the 	same picture as 	those
which were discussed in the warning letter, 	and therefore, 	must
be viewed as 	simply 	cumulative. 	Even with 	the 	additional
allegations, 	the 	charge 	fails 	to 	show that AFSCME's 	conduct
toward 	a member 	of 	the 	bargaining unit 	was 	arbitrary,
discriminatory, 	or 	in bad faith.
(

Dismissal 	Letter
December 16, 	1992
Page 3
Finally, 	you appear 	to be asserting 	that 	by demonstrating 	that
AFSCME 	lacked 	competency, 	you 	effectively are 	demonstrating 	that
the union acted without 	"honest 	judgement." 	However, 	neither
negligence 	nor poor 	judgement violates 	the 	duty of 	fair
representation. 	(Los Angeles 	City and County School 	Employees
Union 	(Scates and Pitts) 	(1983) 	PERB Decision No. 	341.)
Right 	to Appeal
Pursuant 	to 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board regulations, 	you
may obtain a 	review of 	this 	dismissal 	of 	the 	charge by 	filing
an appeal 	to 	the 	Board 	itself 	within 	twenty 	(20) 	calendar days
after service of this dismissal. 	(Cal. 	Code of Regs., 	tit. 	8,
sec. 	32635(a).) 	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 p.m.) 	or sent by telegraph,
certified 	or 	Express 	United 	States 	mail 	postmarked no 	later
than the last date set for filing. 	(Cal. 	Code of Regs., 	tit. 	8,
sec. 	32135.) 	Code of Civil 	Procedure 	section 1013 	shall apply.
The Board's address 	is:
Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board
1031 	18th Street
Sacramento, 	CA 95814
If you 	file a 	timely appeal 	of 	the 	refusal 	to 	issue a 	complaint,
any 	other party may 	file 	with 	the 	Board 	an 	original 	and 	five
copies 	of 	a 	statement 	in opposition within 	twenty 	(20) 	calendar
days 	following the date of 	service of 	the appeal. 	(Cal. 	Code of
Regs., 	tit. 8, sec. 32635(b).)
Service
All 	documents 	authorized 	to 	be 	filed 	herein must 	also be 	"served"
upon all 	parties 	to 	the proceeding, 	and a 	"proof 	of 	service"
must 	accompany 	each 	copy 	of 	a 	document 	served upon a party 	or
filed with the Board itself. 	(See Gal. 	Code of Regs., 	tit. 	8,
sec. 	32140 	for the 	required contents 	and a sample 	form.) 	The
document 	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 a document
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 	(3) 	calendar days before
the 	expiration of 	the 	time 	required 	for 	filing 	the document.
The 	request must 	indicate good cause 	for and, 	if known, 	the
(
--- ---- ----- ----- - 	-

Dismissal 	Letter
December 16, 	1992
Page 4
position of each other party regarding the extension, 	and shall
be accompanied by proof of 	service of 	the request upon each
party. 	(Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 8, sec. 32132.)
Final Date
If no appeal is filed within the specified time limits, 	the
dismissal will become final when the time limits have expired.
Sincerely,
ROBERT THOMPSON
Deputy General 	Counsel
By CHARLES F. McCLAMMA
Public Employment Relations Board
Cha Imice
Attachment
cc: 	Linda Preston

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	PETE WILSON, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
San Francisco Regional Office
177 Post Street, Suite 900
San Francisco, CA 94108-4737
(415) 557-1350
October 28, 	1992
Mary G. 	Higgins
Re: 	WARNING 	LETTER
Luis Alonzo Alvarez v. 	American Federation of 	State 	County
and Municipal Employees. 	Unfair Practice Charge No. 	SF-CO-
24-H
Dear Ms. 	Higgins:
The 	above-referenced unfair practice 	charge, 	filed on May 	18,
1992, 	alleges that the American Federation of State, 	County and
Municipal 	Employees 	(AFSCME) 	agreed to 	the transfer of
classifications 	from the 	Clerical 	and Allied 	Services 	bargaining
unit 	to 	the 	Patient Care Technical 	bargaining unit. 	This 	conduct
is 	alleged to violate Government Code 	sections 	3571.l(e) 	and 	3578
of 	the 	Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act 	(HEERA).
My 	investigation revealed the 	following 	facts. 	Luis Alonzo
Alvarez 	is 	employed by the 	Regents 	of 	the 	University of
California 	(Regents) 	at the University of 	California at San
Francisco as 	an admitting worker. 	His 	job duties 	are
predominantly clerical 	in nature, 	although he has 	contact with
hospital patients 	in the performance of 	these duties.
On July 	11, 	1983, 	AFSCME was 	certified by PERB as 	the exclusive
representative of 	employees 	of 	the 	Regents 	in Unit #13 	(Patient
Care Technical). 	On July 	12, 	1983, 	AFSCME was also certified by
PERB 	as 	the 	exclusive representative 	of 	employees 	of 	the 	Regents
in Unit 	#12 	(Clerical and Allied Services). 	Employees 	in the
classification of 	admitting worker were 	included 	in Unit 	#12.
On April 	30, 	1992, 	AFSCME, 	through the Executive Director of
AFSCME Council 	10, 	concluded Unit 	# 	13 	collective bargaining
negotiations with the Regents. 	A part of the parties' 	tentative
agreement 	provided 	for 	the 	transfer 	of 	certain 	classifications,
including that of 	admitting worker, 	from Unit #12 	to Unit 	#13.
The 	transfer was 	contingent 	upon ratification of 	the 	collective
bargaining agreement. 	Members 	of 	Unit 	#12 were not allowed to
participate 	in 	the 	decision-making process 	which 	led 	to 	the
agreement to transfer classifications.1 Further, 	the 	employees
1AFSCME asserts 	that 	affected 	employees were 	made 	aware 	of
the 	possible 	transfer 	in advance 	of 	the 	tentative 	agreement, 	and
. 	.' 	I

in the 	affected 	classifications 	were 	not 	allowed 	to 	vote 	on the
transfer, 	and only AFSCME members within Unit 	#13 were 	allowed 	to
vote 	on 	contract 	ratification.
Warning 	Letter
SF-CO-24-H
October 28, 	1992
Page 	2
On June 	9, 	1992, 	AFSCME Council 	10 	filed a unit modification
petition with 	PERB 	seeking 	approval 	of 	the 	aforementioned
transfer. 	The Regents 	concurred 	in the request. 	Therefore, 	on
June 	9, 	1992, 	the Regional Director of 	the PERB San Francisco
Regional 	Office 	issued 	a 	Unit 	Modification Order 	approving 	the
deletion 	of 	the 	identified 	classifications 	from the 	Clerical 	and
Allied 	Services 	Unit and 	their 	addition 	to 	the 	Patient 	Care
Technical Unit.
Based 	on the 	facts 	stated 	above, 	the 	charge as presently written
fails 	to 	state 	a prima 	facie violation of 	the 	HEERA for the
reasons 	that 	follow.
In this 	case, 	Mr. 	Alvarez has 	alleged that AFSCME has 	failed to
represent 	all 	the 	employees 	in 	the 	unit 	fairly 	and 	impartially by
agreeing to the transfer of 	classifications, 	and further, 	of
acting arbitrarily, discriminatorily, 	or 	in bad 	faith 	in that 	it
failed 	to 	consult with 	or 	allow participation of 	affected
employees 	concerning the decision to 	transfer 	classes. 	He
further 	alleges 	that AFSCME 	has 	violated 	Government 	Code 	section
3579 	(HEERA Article 6. 	Unit Determinations), 	noting that the
HEERA directs 	PERB 	to resolve 	cases 	where 	the 	appropriateness 	of
a 	unit 	is 	an issue. 	Finally, 	he alleges 	unspecified provisions
of 	HEERA have 	been violated 	by 	the 	failure 	to 	allow him 	to 	vote
on whether he wished to 	be 	transferred 	to a different bargaining
unit.
Duty 	of 	Fair 	Representation
The 	Public 	Employment Relations 	Board 	(PERB) 	has 	held that 	a
breach 	of 	the 	duty of 	fair 	representation occurs when a 	union's
conduct 	toward a 	member of 	the bargaining unit 	is 	arbitrary,
discriminatory, 	or in bad 	faith. 	(Rocklin Teachers 	Professional
Association (Romero) 	(1980) 	PERB Dec. 	No. 	124.)
An 	exclusive 	representative 	is 	accorded 	considerable 	discretion
in the 	negotiations process. 	In Redlands 	Teachers Association
(Faeth and McCarty) 	(1978) 	PERB Dec. 	No. 	72, 	PERB quoted the
following 	language 	of 	the 	Supreme 	Court:
that 	some of these employees, 	including Alvarez, 	communicated
their disapproval 	to AFSCME.
(

m
Warning 	Letter
SF-CO-24-H
October 28, 	1992
Page 3
Any 	authority 	to 	negotiate 	derives 	its
principal 	strength 	from a 	delegation to 	the
negotiators 	of 	a 	discretion to make 	such
concessions 	and accept 	such advantages 	as, 	in
the 	light of 	all 	relevant 	considerations,
they believe will 	best 	serve 	the 	interests 	of
the parties 	represented. 	A major
responsibility of 	negotiators 	is 	to weigh 	the
relative 	advantages 	and disadvantages 	of
differing 	proposals 	. . . . 	Inevitably,
differences 	arise 	in the manner and degree 	to
which 	the 	terms 	of 	any 	negotiated agreement
affect 	individual 	employees 	and 	classes 	of
employees. The 	mere 	existence 	of 	such
differences 	does 	not make 	them 	invalid. 	The
complete 	satisfaction of 	all who are
represented 	is 	hardly 	to be 	expected. 	A wide
range of 	reasonableness 	must be 	allowed 	a
statutory 	bargaining 	representative 	in
serving the unit it represents, 	subject
always 	to 	complete 	goof 	faith 	and honesty 	of
purpose 	in the 	exercise 	of 	its 	discretion.
Ford Motor Co. 	v. 	Huffman 	(1953) 	345 U.S. 	330, 	31 LRRM 2548, 	at
2551.
In 	Service 	Employees 	International Association 	(Kimmett) 	(1979)
PERB Dec. 	No. 	106, 	PERB Stated:
The duty 	of 	fair 	representation 	implies 	some
consideration of 	the 	views 	of 	various 	groups
of 	employees 	and 	some 	access 	for
communication of those views, 	but there is no
requirement 	that 	formal 	procedures 	be
established, 	(citations 	omitted)
In order 	to 	state 	a prima 	facie 	case 	involving 	a 	breach of 	the
duty of 	fair representation, 	facts 	must be alleged 	in the 	charge
indicating 	how and 	in what 	manner 	the 	union acted without 	a
rational 	basis 	or in a way that 	is 	devoid of honest 	judgement.
(Reed District Teachers Association, 	CTA/NEA 	(Reyes) 	(1983) 	PERB
Dec. 	No. 	332.)
The 	facts 	alleged do not 	indicate 	that AFSCME 	failed 	to 	consider
the 	views 	of Mr. 	Alvarez 	and other affected employees 	or to
provide 	a 	means 	by which they 	could 	communicate 	those views. 	The
rights 	which Mr. 	Alvarez 	alleges 	have been denied him by AFSCME,
namely, 	the right to vote on and to be 	a part of 	the decision
making process 	concerning 	the 	unit 	transfer of 	a 	classification,
(

are 	not 	rights 	that 	are 	expressly granted to an employee 	by
HEERA, 	and thus, 	are not 	rights which 	could have been harmed or
denied 	by AFSCME.
Warning 	Letter
SF-CO-24-H
October 28, 	1992
Page 	4
Unit 	Appropriateness
Mr. 	Alvarez 	also alleges 	that AFSCME violated 	"all of Article 	6.
Unit determination." 	However, 	Article 	6 	(HEERA section 	3579)
imposes 	no duty upon an exclusive representative, 	but rather
imposes 	on 	PERB 	the duty 	to 	consider 	the 	criteria 	listed 	in that
section 	in determining an appropriate unit. 	Such consideration
by PERB 	occurs 	only when raised as 	an 	issue by a party 	to 	a 	PERB
proceeding. 	Further, 	through 	its 	regulations 	governing unit
modifications 	(sections 	32781 	through 	32786), 	PERB has
established procedures 	for 	either 	an 	employer or 	an 	exclusive
representative 	to 	raise 	unit 	appropriateness 	issues 	involving
changes 	to 	existing bargaining units. 	However, 	a petition for
unit 	modification may only be 	filed 	by 	an 	employer or 	an
exclusive representative, 	or both, 	and need not be 	filed at 	all
if they 	are 	in agreement. 	(PERB 	Regulation 	32781.) 	An
individual 	employee does 	not have 	standing 	to 	file 	a unit
modification petition 	(Riverside 	Unified 	School 	District 	(1985)
PERB Order No. 	Ad-148.), 	and cannot attempt to accomplish the
same 	result by 	filing an unfair practice 	charge. 	(Riverside
Unified School District 	(1985) 	PERB Dec. 	No. 	512.)
For 	these 	reasons 	the 	charge 	as 	presently written does 	not 	state
a prima 	facie 	case. 	If 	there 	are 	any 	factual 	inaccuracies 	in
this 	letter or any 	additional 	facts 	that would 	correct 	the
deficiencies 	explained 	above, 	please 	amend the 	charge
accordingly. 	The 	amended 	charge 	should be prepared 	on 	a 	standard
PERB 	unfair 	practice 	charge 	form 	clearly 	labeled 	First 	Amended
Charge, 	contain all 	the 	facts 	and allegations 	you wish 	to make,
and 	mus	- - 	t 	be 	signed 	under penalty 	of 	perjury by 	the 	charging
party. 	The 	amended 	charge 	must 	be 	served on the 	respondent 	and
the 	original proof 	of 	service 	filed with PERB. 	If 	I 	do 	not
receive 	an 	amended 	charge 	or withdrawal 	from you 	before 	November
5, 	1992, 	I 	shall dismiss this charge. 	If you have any questions,
please call me at 	(415) 	557-1350.
Sincerely,
CHARLES F. 	MCCLAMMA
Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Specialist