Regents of the University of California (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) (PERB 1038H)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
PROTECTIVE 	SERVICE 	OFFICERS
ASSOCIATION,
Petitioner,
and
REGENTS 	OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA 	(LAWRENCE 	LIVERMORE
NATIONAL 	LABORATORY),
Employer.
)
)
)
) 	Case No. 	SF-OB-6-H
(SF-R-724-H)
PERB Decision No. 	1038-H
March 4, 	1994
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances; 	Law Offices 	of Daniel 	Ray Bacon by Daniel 	Ray
Bacon, 	Attorney, 	for Protective Service Officers Association;
Hanson, 	Bridgett, 	Marcus, 	Vlahos & Rudy by Jerrold C. 	Schaefer,
Attorney, 	for Regents 	of 	the University of 	California 	(Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory).
Before Blair, 	Chair; 	Carlyle and Garcia, 	Members.
DECISION
CARLYLE, 	Member: 	This 	case is before the Public Employment
Relations 	Board 	(PERB 	or Board) 	on appeal 	by the Regents 	of 	the
University of 	California 	(University) 	to a proposed decision
(attached hereto) 	of a PERB administrative law judge 	(ALJ). 	The
ALJ 	found 	that 	the 	election objections 	raised by 	the 	University
were 	insufficient 	to void 	the 	election 	for exclusive
representation of 	Protective 	Service Officers 	(PSOs) 	employed by
the 	University at 	its 	Lawrence 	Livermore National 	Laboratory.
The 	election was 	won by 	the 	Protective 	Service 	Officers
Association 	(Association) 	by one vote 	over no representation.
The Board has 	reviewed the 	entire 	record, 	and 	finds 	the
ALJ's 	findings 	of 	fact and conclusions 	of 	law to be 	free 	of

prejudicial 	error and therefore adopts 	them as 	the decision of
the Board 	itself. 	However, 	the Board responds 	to the
University's 	exceptions 	as 	set 	forth below.
UNIVERSITY'S 	EXCEPTIONS
On appeal 	to the Board, 	the University puts 	forth
essentially 	the 	same 	arguments 	that 	were 	raised during 	the 	formal
hearing. 	First and foremost, 	the University argues 	that 	the
ALJ's 	proposed decision 	is 	undermined by 	the 	inability of 	the ALJ
to 	consider 	testimony 	from PERB 	Regional 	Director Anita Martinez
(Martinez). 	The University argues 	that Martinez's 	testimony was
necessary as 	she 	had 	first 	hand accounts 	of 	allegedly 	improper
comments 	made by 	the Association's 	representative 	to voters
during the voting. 	Further, 	the University states 	that
Martinez's 	testimony was 	required 	to provide 	an explanation as 	to
how 	the Board handles 	requests 	for 	challenged ballots 	which were
at 	issue 	in this 	case.
The 	University also 	contends 	that 	the 	electioneering by 	the
Association's 	representative 	during 	the 	balloting 	constituted
objectionable 	conduct 	and 	last 	minute 	electioneering 	as
proscribed 	in 	the National 	Labor Relations 	Board 	case 	of 	Milchem,
Inc. 	(1968) 	170 NLRB 362 	[67 LRRM 1395]. 	Further, 	it is also
argued 	that 	Protective 	Service 	Officer 	Christine 	Ramirez
(Ramirez), 	who had called the 	PERB Regional 	office on the date
prescribed for obtaining a ballot, 	was denied one, 	thus,
potentially altering the outcome of 	the election. 	Finally, 	the
University alleges 	that 	the ALJ 	incorrectly 	concluded 	that 	a
22

protective 	service 	officer did not 	seem to 	harbor any 	fear 	or
concern about 	a death threat made 	against 	him or 	that 	he was
coerced 	in any way as 	to how to vote.
DISCUSSION
PERB Regulation 327381 sets 	out 	two grounds 	for objections
to 	the conduct 	of an election: 	(1) 	The conduct 	complained of
interfered with employee's 	right 	to 	freely 	choose 	a
representative; 	or 	(2) 	serious 	irregularity in the conduct of 	the
election.
The 	Board has 	found 	in the past 	that 	for an election
objection 	to be 	sustained, 	some 	effect 	on the election result
should either be 	shown or 	logically 	inferred. 	(Tamalpais 	Union
High School District 	(1976) 	EERB Decision No. 	I.2) 	The Board has
also 	found 	that 	the 	demonstration of 	unlawful 	conduct 	in 	the
election environment 	is but 	"a 	threshold question." 	(State 	of
California 	(Department of 	Personnel Administration, 	et al.)
(1986) 	PERB Decision No. 	601-S.) 	Thus, 	it is not in every
situation where unlawful 	conduct 	has been demonstrated 	that 	the
election will be rerun. 	Rather, 	the basic question is whether
the various 	unlawful 	activities 	establish a 	"probable 	impact 	on
the 	employee's vote." 	(Jefferson Elementary School 	District
(1981) 	PERB Decision No. 	164.)
P1PERB 	regulations 	are 	codified at 	California 	Code 	of
Regulations, 	title 8, 	section 31001 et seq.
2Prior to January 2, 	1978, 	PERB was known as 	the Educational
Employment Relations Board 	(EERB).
W
ERB
3

In reviewing election objections, 	the Board will 	look 	"upon
the 	totality of 	circumstances 	raised 	in each case and, 	when
appropriate, 	the cumulative effect of 	the conduct which forms 	the
basis 	for 	the 	relief 	requested." 	(Clovis 	Unified School 	District
(1984) 	PERB Decision No. 	389.)
Denial 	of Witness 	Testimony
The University asserts 	that 	its 	case was 	harmed when 	in a
previous 	determination 	the 	Board denied 	the 	University's 	request
to have Martinez 	testify. 	The Board's 	denial was 	issued 	in a
letter 	from Deputy General 	Counsel 	Bob Thompson 	to 	the University
dated July 14, 	1993 	(attached hereto). 	At the time of denial,
the 	Board 	carefully 	evaluated 	the 	University's 	argument 	for
Martinez 	to appear at 	the hearing. 	However, 	after this 	review,
the 	Board 	concluded 	that 	the University had 	failed 	to meet 	the
standard of 	PERB Regulation 32150(e).3 The Board stands by 	its
initial 	determination 	that 	the University 	failed 	to meet 	its
burden of 	proof 	to demonstrate 	that 	the appearance 	of Martinez
was 	essential 	to 	the 	resolution of 	this 	case and that 	no 	rational
decision 	could be 	reached without 	such 	testimony.
3PERB Regulation 32150 	states, 	in pertinent part:
(e) 	Upon a 	finding of 	the Board itself 	that
a Board agent 	is 	essential 	to 	the 	resolution
of 	a 	case and that 	no 	rational 	decision of
the 	Board 	can be 	reached without 	such agent,
the Board itself 	shall produce 	the agent 	if
subpoenaed 	to do 	so by any party 	to 	the
dispute.
44

On-Site 	Electioneering
As 	to 	the 	election objection 	concerning 	the 	remarks made by
the Association's 	representative, 	the Board finds 	the ALJ
correctly 	concluded 	that 	the 	comments 	made 	could not 	be 	viewed as
an attempt 	to 	sway voters 	nor encourage 	them to 	find 	other
protective 	service 	officers 	to vote. 	Only three 	statements were
made. 	All 	were brief 	and occurred with no other voters 	around.
The 	conduct 	in this 	case does not 	rise 	to a level 	of
demonstrating serious 	irregularity. 	(See Jefferson, 	supra.)
In the case cited by the University, 	Milchem. 	supra. 	an
officer of 	a union 	stood 	for 	several 	minutes 	where 	employees 	were
waiting in line 	to vote. 	The 	officer engaged several 	employees
in conversation. 	However, 	the 	facts presented in this 	case do
not rise to the level of Milchem. 	supra. 	Here, 	there is no
-
dispute 	that 	no other voters were present 	at 	the 	time 	of 	each
remark and the 	statements were extremely short. 	Further, 	some of
the brief 	comments 	were 	not 	even 	initiated by the Association's
representative. 	Clearly, 	this 	is a situation where remarks made
were by "chance, 	isolated, 	innocuous 	comments" 	and therefore,
will 	not void an election. 	(Milchem. 	supra.)
- - 	- .
Challenged 	Ballots
Concerning 	the University's 	claim that 	Ramirez 	was
improperly denied a 	challenged ballot, 	the University's 	argument
must be 	rejected. 	Officer Ramirez 	testified that 	on 	the day
prescribed 	to 	obtain a ballot 	she 	called 	the 	Regional 	Attorney,
who was 	out 	of 	the 	office. 	Ramirez 	testified that 	she left a
55

message 	to have her 	call 	returned, 	but 	did not 	specifically ask
for a ballot. 	Further, 	Ramirez also testified that 	she had the
opportunity of voting 	in person but 	decided 	on her 	own volition
not 	to do 	so. 	The University's 	argument 	that 	it would not 	have
accepted 	into the 	count, 	the 	five 	challenged ballots 	if 	it was
known that Ramirez had not voted, 	is without 	foundation. 	The
University has 	failed 	to provided any 	evidence 	to 	support 	such an
argument. 	This 	exception is 	rejected.
Threats
Finally, 	relative to the 	threats made 	to Officer Casimer
Szyper 	(Szyper), 	the ALJ concluded that 	neither party appeared to
be 	coerced 	or 	intimidated based upon 	the 	testimony 	and demeanor
of 	the witnesses 	during 	the hearing 	on this 	issue.
While 	the Board 	is 	required to 	consider the 	entire 	record,
including 	the 	totality of 	testimony offered, 	and is 	free 	to draw
its 	own and perhaps 	contrary 	inferences 	from the 	evidence
presented, 	it will 	afford deference 	to the ALJ's 	findings 	of 	fact
which 	incorporate 	credibility determinations. 	(Santa Clara
Unified School District 	(1979) 	PERB Decision No. 	104; 	Los Angeles
Unified School District 	(Villar) 	(1988) 	PERB Decision No. 	659.)
Here, 	it does not appear that 	the 	threats had their 	intended
effect. 	Officer Szyper voted in the election and further, 	the
record 	is 	sufficient 	to 	support 	the ALJ's 	findings 	that 	Szyper
and a 	fellow 	officer appeared neither 	to be 	coerced nor
threatened to vote 	in a manner contrary to 	their own choice.
66

ORDER
Upon 	the 	foregoing 	findings 	of 	fact 	and 	conclusions 	of 	law
and the 	entire 	record in this 	case, 	the 	Board ORDERS 	that 	the
election objections 	in Case No. 	SF-OB-6-H 	(SF-R-724-H) 	be
DISMISSED. 	The Board further ORDERS 	that 	the San Francisco
Regional 	Director 	certify the 	results 	of 	the 	election 	tallied on
May 27, 	1993 	and take all 	other action necessary to carry out
this Decision.
Chair Blair 	and Member Garcia 	joined 	in 	this Decision.
77

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS 	BOARD
PROTECTIVE 	SERVICE 	OFFICERS'
ASSOCIATION,
Petitioner,
a n d
THE REGENTS 	OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA 	(LAWRENCE 	LIVERMORE
NATIONAL 	LABORATORY),
Employer.
)
)
)
)
Representation
Case No. 	SF-R-724-H
PROPOSED DECISION
(8/27/93)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances: 	Law Offices 	of Daniel Ray Bacon, 	by Daniel 	Ray
Bacon, 	Attorney, 	for the Protective Service Officers'
Association; 	Hanson, 	Bridgett, 	Marcus, 	Vlahos & Rudy, 	by Jerrold
C. 	Schaefer, 	Attorney, 	for The Regents of the University of
California 	(Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory); 	Donn Ginoza,
Regional 	Attorney, 	for the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board.
Before 	Fred D'Orazio, 	Administrative 	Law Judge.
PROCEDURAL 	HISTORY
The 	Regents 	of 	the University of 	California 	(University)
seeks 	to 	set 	aside 	an 	election 	for 	exclusive 	representation won
by the 	Protective Service Officers' 	Association 	(PSOA) 	in a
bargaining unit 	consisting 	of 	Protective 	Service 	Officers
employed by 	the 	University at 	its 	Lawrence 	Livermore 	National
Laboratory 	(LLNL).
The election was 	conducted on May 27, 	1993, 	by a combination
of mail 	ballot 	and on-site voting. 	Ballots were 	counted on that
date. 	The 	tally of ballots 	produced the 	following 	result:
Void 	ballots 	1
Votes 	for PSOA 	74
Votes for no Representation 	73	. 	. 	.
Valid votes 	counted 	147
Challenged ballots 	0
. . .
This proposed decision has been appealed to the
Board itself and may not be cited as precedent
unless the decision and its rationale have been
adopted by the Board.

In objections to the election, 	filed on June 7, 	1993, 	the
University contends 	that: 	(1) 	serious 	irregularities 	occurred in
the conduct 	of 	the election; 	and 	(2) 	pre-election conduct
interfered with 	employee 	exercise 	of 	free 	choice.
A 	formal 	hearing was 	conducted by 	the 	undersigned 	in 	San
Francisco, 	California on July 15, 	1993. 	With the receipt of
briefs on August 	19, 	1993, 	the case was 	submitted.
FINDINGS 	OF 	FACT
Objection No. 	1: 	On-site Electioneering
The 	election was 	conducted on May 27, 	1993, 	at 	two polling
locations: 	Lawrence Livermore National 	Laboratory and Site 	3 00.
Polling 	hours 	for both locations 	were 	from 7:30 	a.m. 	to 	9:30 	a.m.
and 	from 2:30 	p.m. 	to 	4:00 	p.m. 	This 	objection 	involves 	conduct
at 	the 	LLNL 	site 	during 	the morning 	and afternoon on May 27.1
The University's 	observer at 	the 	LLNL 	site was 	Bruce
Gallegos 	(Gallegos), 	a Protective Service Officer. 	The PSOA
observer was 	Richard Bochover 	(Bochover), 	also a 	Protective
Service Officer, 	and president 	of 	PSOA. 	The voting at 	this 	site
was 	supervised by 	PERB 	Regional 	Director Anita Martinez
(Martinez).
On the morning of May 27, 	prior to the opening of 	the poll,
Martinez, 	Bochover and Gallegos met 	to discuss 	observer
responsibilities 	and 	conduct 	during 	the voting. 	Martinez
instructed both 	observers 	that 	they were 	free 	to 	exchange
cordialities with voters, 	but 	they were not 	free 	to answer
1Unless otherwise stated, 	all 	dates 	refer to 1993.
2

questions 	about 	the voting 	or otherwise assist voters. 	All
questions 	and 	requests 	for assistance 	were 	to be 	directed 	to
Martinez. 	Also, 	a written copy of 	election observer
responsibilities 	was 	provided 	to Bochover and Gallegos 	at 	the
election 	table at 	the beginning of 	the voting.
The 	election was 	conducted 	in an auditorium. 	Both observers
sat 	at a 	table 	located at 	centerstage, 	while Martinez usually
stood at 	the 	right 	side 	of 	the 	stage. 	Voters 	entered through a
doorway, 	walked down an aisle 	on the 	right 	side 	of 	the 	auditorium
to the stage, 	identified themselves 	to Martinez, 	and received a
ballot 	from her. 	Observers 	confirmed 	the 	identification of
voters, 	and checked off voter names 	on the voter eligibility
list. 	Voters 	then proceeded to the left 	side of the stage, 	where
the voting booth was 	located. 	After casting their ballots, 	some
voters 	exited via 	the aisle 	on the 	left 	side 	of 	the auditorium,
while 	others 	retraced 	their steps 	across 	the 	front 	of 	the 	stage
and 	exited via 	the 	aisle 	on 	the 	right 	side 	of 	the 	auditorium.
During the morning session, 	according to Gallegos, 	a voter
asked Bochover 	"how the vote was 	going?" 	Bochover 	responded 	"so
far 	so good." 	Martinez 	immediately•instructed Bochover not 	to
respond to voters. 	Gallegos 	could not 	recall 	the name of 	the
voter who asked 	the 	question. 	There were no 	other voters 	present
when 	this 	exchange 	occurred. 	Although Bochover denied making
this particular statement, 	he admitted that Martinez 	admonished
him on three 	occasions during 	the 	course 	of 	the voting 	for
w
3

similar statements. 	Hence, 	Gallegos 	testimony on this point 	is
credited.
Midway through the afternoon session, 	Gallegos 	testified, 	a
voter asked Bochover 	if 	a particular voter had 	"showed up" 	and
Bochover 	responded 	"I haven't 	seen him yet." 	Gallegos 	could not
recall 	the name 	of 	the person who asked the question. 	Bochover,
on the 	other hand, 	testified 	that 	he 	could not 	recall 	being asked
the question by a voter, 	but he 	said 	it 	could have happened. 	In
any event, 	Martinez 	again 	instructed Bochover not 	to 	respond 	to
voters. 	There were 	no other voters present when this 	exchange
occurred.
Near the end of 	the afternoon session, 	according 	to
Gallegos, 	Bochover said to a voter 	"go get 	them." 	The voter did
not 	reply. 	Once again, 	Gallegos 	could not 	recall 	the name of 	the
voter. 	In response, 	Bochover testified that he may have 	said 	"go
get 	'em" 	or words 	to that effect, 	because it 	is a phrase he
frequently uses. 	However, 	he said he meant 	it as a 	"pleasantry."
After 	this 	comment, 	Martinez 	said to Bochover 	"I warned you about
that."
Bochover admitted that, 	in total, 	he was warned by Martinez
on three 	occasions during the 	course of 	the voting. 	However,
Martinez 	also admonished Gallegos 	on two 	occasions 	for similar
comments 	to voters.
Objection No. 	2: 	Election Irregularities
On March 19, 	the parties 	executed a 	consent 	election
agreement 	which provided 	for both 	on 	site 	and mail 	ballot voting.
4

Pursuant to that agreement, 	James Cain 	(Cain), 	staff relations
representative 	for the LLNL, 	on April 	23 	sent a list 	of 	eligible
voters 	to 	PERB. 	The 	list 	included a 	separate 	list 	of 	employees
who were 	eligible 	to vote by mail ballot. 	These employees 	are:
Bonnie Alarcon, 	Deborah Harris, 	and David Geer 	(Geer).
The mail 	ballot 	provision of 	the 	consent 	election agreement
states:
Mailed Ballots: 	All 	protective 	service
officers 	who are 	on 	scheduled vacation,
official 	Laboratory business 	off-site, 	or on
disability 	or 	extended 	sick 	leave 	will
receive mailed ballots. 	Ballots will be
mailed by PERB 	to 	the home 	address 	of 	each
eligible voter on May 10, 	1993. 	Voters will
be 	informed by 	the Notices 	of 	Election 	that,
if 	they have not 	received a ballot by May 	17,
1993, 	they may contact 	PERB 	in San Francisco
at 	(415) 	557-1350 	and request a duplicate
ballot. 	Collect 	calls will be accepted.
Requests 	for duplicate ballots 	will be
accepted by PERB on May 17, 	1993 	ONLY between
-	the hours 	of 	8:30 	a.m. 	and 4:30 	p.m. 	PERB
will 	accept 	requests 	for ballots 	only 	from
the 	employee him/herself.
Any employee who 	contacts 	PERB and 	requests 	a
ballot will 	be 	issued a duplicate ballot 	if
the 	employee's 	name 	can be 	found on the 	list
of Mailed ballot 	eligible voters. 	If 	the
employee's name is not 	found, 	the employee
will 	be 	issued a 	challenged ballot.
In order to be 	counted, 	a duplicate ballot
must 	be 	accompanied by 	a 	sworn 	statement
signed by 	the voter 	that 	the 	duplicate ballot
is 	the 	only valid ballot 	cast 	by 	the 	employee
in the election. 	PERB will 	include 	such a
prepared 	statement 	for 	signature 	with 	each
duplicate ballot 	issued 	to a voter.
Ballots must be 	received not 	later 	than
3:00 p.m. 	on May 26. 	1993 	in order to be
counted. 	(Emphasis 	in original.)
55

Cain's understanding, 	based on discussions 	at 	the March 	19
meeting, 	was 	that 	no 	exceptions 	would be made 	to permit voters
not 	on the 	official mail 	ballot 	list 	to 	cast 	a mail 	ballot.
According 	to 	PERB records, 	on May 17 Geer requested and
received a duplicate mail ballot, 	which he 	cast 	in the 	election.
In addition, 	PERB records indicate, 	Michael Stephan 	(Stephan),
who was 	not 	on the 	list 	of voters 	eligible 	to 	cast 	a mail 	ballot,
on May 	17 	requested and 	received a 	challenged ballot. 	Stephan
cast 	a 	challenged ballot 	in the 	election.2 Stephan was 	not 	on
the mail 	ballot 	list because 	Cain was 	not 	informed 	that 	he would
be 	on vacation.
Protective 	Service 	Officer Christine Ramirez 	(Ramirez) 	was
eligible 	to vote 	in the election. 	She was 	not 	on the mail ballot
list because 	Cain was 	not 	informed that 	she would be 	on leave.
2Cain testified that 	on or about May 4 	he 	called Martinez 	to
determine 	if 	officers 	on emergency assignment 	to 	Los Angeles 	(to
provide 	security after the verdict 	in 	the 	Rodney King 	trial)
could vote by mail 	ballot. 	Martinez 	informed Cain 	that 	there
were no exceptions, 	and only those 	on the mail 	ballot 	list would
be permitted 	to 	cast 	a ballot 	by mail. 	Asked on direct
examination 	if 	any officers were 	sent 	to Los Angeles 	during 	the
election, 	Cain responded 	"to the best 	of my knowledge, 	there
were, 	but 	I don't know how many." 	On cross 	examination, 	however,
Cain admitted 	that 	he 	did not 	know if 	any officers were 	sent 	to
Los Angeles, 	even though that 	information was available 	to him.
Based on this 	testimony, 	I 	conclude 	that no officers were denied
the 	opportunity 	to vote because 	they were 	in Los Angeles 	at 	the
time 	of 	the election. 	If any officers were denied the
opportunity 	to vote because 	they were 	on 	emergency assignment 	in
Los Angeles, 	the University had the burden of producing evidence
to support this 	claim. 	It has not done so. 	Therefore, 	even
assuming 	that Martinez' 	comment 	to Cain that no exceptions would
be made 	for officers 	in 	this 	status 	constituted an election
irregularity, 	it had no 	impact on the election.
66

Ramirez was 	on sick leave 	from April 	3 0 	to June 	14 	and 	from
June 	21 	to June 	24. 	She had surgery on May 3.
After the mail ballot 	list was 	submitted to 	PERB, 	but prior
to 	the election, 	Bochover said he discussed Ramirez' 	situation
with Martinez. 	He 	felt Ramirez' 	leave 	status 	should have been
known and 	thus 	she 	should have been placed 	on 	the 	list 	of
employees 	eligible 	to cast a mail ballot. 	However, 	Martinez
responded that 	no 	exceptions would be made 	for Ramirez. 	Bochover
then 	contacted Ramirez and explained to her 	that, 	pursuant 	to 	the
consent 	election agreement, 	she was 	required to call 	the 	PERB
office on May 	17 	to request a 	challenged ballot. 	Otherwise, 	she
would have 	to vote 	in person.
In May, 	Ramirez placed two calls 	to Anita Martinez at 	the
PERB Regional 	Office 	in San Francisco. 	The 	first 	call was 	on May
17.3 In response 	to questions by University counsel 	on direct
examination, 	Ramirez 	testified that 	she 	called the 	PERB 	office 	to
"see what 	the motions were 	to go 	through to 	obtain a ballot."
Also on direct 	examination, 	she 	testified that 	she 	told a 	PERB
secretary 	she was 	calling 	"about 	an absentee ballot." 	However,
on cross-examination, 	Ramirez was asked if 	she asked specifically
for a ballot 	and she 	responded 	"I 	just 	asked for her 	(Martinez)".
Upon learning that Martinez was 	not available, 	Ramirez 	left 	her
residence 	telephone 	number.
3On direct 	examination, 	Ramirez 	testified 	that 	she 	could not
remember when she placed the 	call 	to 	PERB. 	On 	cross-examination,
however, 	counsel 	for PSOA introduced a copy of Ramirez' 	home
telephone 	records 	indicating 	that 	she 	called 	PERB 	on May 	17 	at
1:16 	p.m.
7

Martinez 	returned Ramirez' 	call 	during the afternoon of
May 17 	and 	left 	a message 	on an answering machine. 	Ramirez
described the message as 	follows: 	". 	. 	. i f 	I'd like 	to get hold
of 	her, 	get 	hold of 	her before 	five 	o'clock that 	day." 	Ramirez
had 	left 	her 	residence 	for a medical 	appointment 	and did not
receive 	the message 	until 	about 	6:30 	p.m.
On May 25, 	Ramirez placed a second call 	to Martinez. 	During
this 	call, 	Ramirez 	testified, 	she expressly asked Martinez 	for a
mail ballot. 	Martinez 	informed Ramirez 	that 	she 	could not vote
by mail 	ballot, 	and 	the 	only way to 	cast 	a vote 	in 	the 	election
was 	to do so at 	one 	of 	the 	two sites.
After talking 	to Martinez 	on May 25, 	Ramirez 	testified that
it was her choice not 	to vote: 	"I didn't have any intentions 	on
voting because 	there were 	so many different 	things 	going 	in my
life at 	that 	time."
The 	election was 	conducted two days 	later, 	on May 27. 	After
voting ended but prior to 	the 	official 	tally of ballots, 	Martinez
explained 	to 	the 	respective parties 	(Cain and Bochover) 	that
there were 	five 	challenged ballots. 	She 	explained the
circumstances 	surrounding each ballot. 	With respect 	to Stephan,
Martinez 	told Bochover and Cain that, 	in her view, 	he 	(Stephan)
was 	on an approved vacation and his 	ballot 	should not 	have 	been
challenged.
Both parties 	were given 	the 	opportunity 	to 	challenge 	any or
all 	of 	the 	challenged ballots 	but 	neither party 	raised any
challenge. 	Both parties 	agreed to 	count 	the 	five 	challenged
8

ballots. 	One of 	the 	these was 	the 	challenged ballot 	cast by
Michael 	Stephan.
Objection No. 	3: 	The Death Threat
At 	about 	5:30 	a.m. 	on May 26, 	the day before 	the election,
Casimer Szyper 	(Szyper), 	a Protective Service Officer eligible 	to
vote 	in 	the 	election, 	distributed a 	flyer to 	Protective 	Service
Officers. 	The 	flyer urged a vote against 	PSOA. 	Later that 	day,
Szyper 	and 	Protective 	Service 	Officer 	Paul 	Waschkowsky
(Waschkowsky) 	were 	on duty at 	the 	East Gate when 	two 	telephone
calls 	were 	received.
Waschkowsky 	received 	the 	first 	call 	at 	approximately
1:00 a.m. 	Answering 	for Szyper, 	Waschkowsky testified, 	"I picked
the phone up answered the phone and said Szyper. 	. 	. 	. 	And there
was 	no answer back. 	And I 	said Szyper. 	And then the person on
the 	opposite end of 	the phone said, 	'fuck 	you,' 	and hung up."4
Waschkowsky then relayed 	the message 	to Szyper, 	who 	"just 	kind of
. . .
shrugged and didn't 	know what 	to 	say." 	Waschkowsky 	said 	the
voice 	sounded like a male who was 	trying to disguise his voice.
Waschkowsky 	could not 	identify 	the voice 	of 	the 	caller.
Telephone 	calls 	which originate 	outside 	the 	LLNL 	ring 	twice
in rapid 	succession. 	Telephone 	calls which originate within 	the
LLNL have 	a normal 	ringing pattern. 	The 	call 	received by
Waschkowsky had 	the 	normal 	ringing pattern and 	thus 	originated
from within 	the 	LLNL.
4Szyper's 	testimony is 	slightly different. 	He 	said
Waschkowsky, 	upon answering the phone, 	turned to him 	(Szyper) 	and
said someone 	had 	told him 	(Waschkowsky) 	to 	"fuck off."
.9

Approximately 	thirty minutes 	later, 	Szyper 	received a 	second
telephone 	call 	from within the 	LLNL. 	Upon answering, 	Szyper
testified, 	he 	heard a voice 	say 	"vote yes 	or die," 	then 	the
caller hung up. 	Szyper 	immediately told Waschkowsky, 	"dude,
someone 	threatened my 	life." 	Waschkowsky's 	response 	was 	that 	the
caller was 	"pretty 	stupid." 	Waschkowsky was 	not 	threatened by
the 	call, 	he 	said, 	because 	it was not directed at him.
Szyper was 	not 	able 	to 	identify 	the voice 	of 	the 	caller,
although he 	assumed 	it was 	from a 	PSOA supporter. 	He 	testified
the 	caller 	sounded 	like 	a male 	who was 	trying 	to 	disguise 	his
voice.
Later 	that 	day, 	Waschkowsky 	reported 	the 	call 	received by
Szyper 	to 	Sergeant 	Vincent 	Curran, 	a 	supervisory Protective
Service 	Officer.
DISCUSSION
Introduction
PERB 	regulations 	set 	out 	two 	grounds 	for objections 	to 	the
conduct 	of 	an 	election:5
1) 	The 	conduct 	complained 	of 	interfered with
the 	employees' 	right 	to 	freely 	choose a
representative, 	or
2) 	Serious 	irregularity 	in the 	conduct 	of
the 	election.
It 	is 	well 	established 	that 	for 	election objections 	to be
sustained, 	some 	effect 	on 	the 	election 	result 	either be 	shown 	or
logically 	inferred.
5See California Code of Regulations, 	title 8, 	section 32738.
10

In 	the 	absence 	of 	evidence 	that voters 	were
discouraged 	from voting, 	we would sustain
. 	. 	. 	objections only on 	[a] 	finding that
those 	events 	had 	the 	natural 	and probable
effect 	of 	discouraging voter participation 	in
the 	representation 	election.6
In subsequent 	cases, 	the Board has 	held that even the
demonstration of 	unlawful 	conduct 	in 	the 	election 	environment 	is
but 	"a 	threshold question." 	(State 	of 	California 	(Department 	of
Personnel Administration et al.) 	(1986) 	PERB Decision No. 	601-S.)
The 	Board will 	not 	in every situation where unlawful 	conduct 	has
been demonstrated, 	order that 	the 	election be rerun. 	The basic
question 	is whether 	the various unlawful 	activities 	establish a
"probable 	impact 	on the 	employees' 	vote." 	(Jefferson Elementary
School District 	(1981) 	PERB Decision No. 	164.)
In deciding whether to set 	aside 	the 	election result, 	the
Board will 	look 	"upon 	the 	totality of 	circumstances 	raised 	in
each case and, 	when appropriate, 	the cumulative effect 	of 	the
conduct which 	forms 	the basis 	for the 	relief 	requested." 	(Clovis
Unified School District 	(1984) 	PERB Decision No. 	389.)
It 	is 	against 	these 	standards 	that 	LLNL's 	contentions must
be 	tested.
On-site 	Electioneering
The University's 	objections 	in 	this 	area boil 	down to 	three
isolated 	comments 	made by Bochover 	to unidentified voters 	at 	the
polling place. 	Asked 	"how the vote was 	going," 	Bochover
Tamalpais 	Union High School 	District 	(1976) 	EERB Decision
No. 	1. 	Prior to 19 78, 	the Public Employment Relations Board was
known as 	the 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Board.
11

responded 	"so 	far 	so 	good." 	Asked 	if 	a particular voter had
"showed up," 	Bochover responded 	"I haven't 	seen him yet." 	Near
the 	end of 	the afternoon session, 	Bochover said to a voter 	"go
get 	them" 	or 	"go get 	'em." 	Under PERB 	case 	law, 	these 	comments,
standing alone 	or viewed 	in their 	totality, 	do not 	represent 	the
kind of 	conduct 	sufficient 	to 	set 	aside an election. 	Two 	cases
are 	particularly 	instructive 	here.
In Tamalpais Union High School District, 	supra, 	the losing
employee 	organization 	objected 	to poll 	monitoring by 	the 	rival
employee organization. 	In Tamalpais, 	contrary to PERB's pre-
election directions 	prohibiting poll 	monitoring, 	representatives
of 	an employee 	organization sat 	in 	chairs 	adjacent 	to 	the polling
place 	and monitored 	the vote. 	Despite being admonished by a 	PERB
election 	officer, 	these union 	representatives 	did not 	cease 	their
conduct. 	They 	simply 	continued monitoring voters 	from other
locations 	near the 	polling place. 	The 	Board 	concluded 	that 	this
conduct 	did not 	have 	the 	"natural 	and probable 	effect 	of
discouraging voter participation 	in 	the 	representation 	election."
(Tamalpais Union High School District, 	supra, 	p. 	9.)
In Jefferson Elementary School District, 	supra, 	the Board
rejected 	two 	objections 	concerning 	conduct 	similar 	to 	Bochover's
comments here. 	First, 	despite a pre-election agreement
prohibiting 	campaigning within 25 	feet 	of 	the polling area, 	a
union member, 	upon entering the voting area, 	said 	"here's 	five
more votes 	for AFT." 	The 	comment was 	heard by the 	rival 	union's
election observer. 	The Board concluded that 	these 	comments, 	in
12

themselves, 	were not 	of 	such a nature as 	to persuade potential
voters how they should cast 	their ballot. 	Second, 	the
association 	objected 	to 	two 	federation 	representatives 	escorting
approximately 	four voters 	through 	the 	25 	foot 	area 	adjacent 	to
the voting booths 	where 	campaigning was 	off 	limits 	pursuant 	to
the 	pre-election agreement. 	The 	federation 	representatives
addressed voters 	as 	they walked. 	The 	Board 	concluded 	that 	any
comments 	made during the 	time 	it 	took to walk the 	25 	feet
involved 	"chance and innocuous 	encounters" 	and, 	as 	such, 	did not
rise 	to 	the 	type 	of 	conduct meriting disruption of 	the 	election
results. 	(Jefferson Elementary School District, 	supra. 	pp. 	8-9.)
Viewed objectively, 	the 	comments made by Bochover 	in 	this
case are 	far 	less 	objectionable 	than 	the 	conduct 	in Jefferson and
Tamalpais. 	Made 	in the absence of other voters, 	they were 	truly
chance and innocuous 	comments, 	extremely brief, 	and plainly not
designed 	to 	influence voters. 	The 	comment made during 	the
morning 	session was 	not 	initiated by Bochover, 	but 	rather was
made 	only 	in 	response 	to 	a 	harmless 	question 	("how's 	the 	vote
going?") 	put 	to him by another voter. 	The 	response 	("so 	far 	so
good") 	was 	equally bland. 	Since 	the vote was by secret ballot,
Bochover's 	response under 	objective 	standards 	could not 	possibly
have been 	construed as 	anything more 	than an 	observation 	that 	the
election was 	proceeding 	in accordance with 	PERB procedures.
The 	comments made 	during 	the 	afternoon 	session were
similarly unremarkable. 	Once again, 	a voter, 	not Bochover,
initiated 	the 	first 	exchange. 	Bochover merely 	responded 	that 	he
13

had not yet 	seen a particular voter. 	This 	isolated 	response
cannot 	reasonably be 	construed as 	an attempt 	to monitor voting,
nor is 	it 	otherwise objectionable. 	Finally, 	the 	"go get 	them"
comment made 	near 	the 	end of 	the 	afternoon 	carries 	no direct 	or
indirect message designed to 	influence employee 	choice. 	Having
viewed Bochover on the witness 	stand, 	I 	conclude 	that he 	said
either 	"go get 	them" 	or 	"go get 	'em, " 	but 	it was an off 	the cuff
comment meant 	as 	a mere 	pleasantry and plainly 	not 	an 	exhortation
to vote 	for PSOA.
While 	the 	Board 	observed 	in Jefferson 	Elementary 	School
District, 	supra, 	p. 	7-8 	that 	"prolonged" 	last minute
-
electioneering 	is 	antithetical 	to 	free 	and untrammeled 	election
choice, 	it also pointed out 	that, 	absent a showing of 	serious
irregularity, 	the 	results 	of 	an election 	should not be 	lightly
disturbed. 	The Board noted 	that 	evaluation of 	last minute
electioneering 	claims 	must 	be 	"informed by a 	sense 	of 	realism."
(Id.; 	See also Michem. 	Inc. 	(1968) 	170 NLRB 362 	[67 LRRM 1395].)
Following 	this 	approach, 	it 	cannot 	realistically be 	concluded
that 	the 	election day 	comments 	made by Bochover were 	the 	kind 	of
prolonged 	conversations 	with waiting voters 	which would 	have 	the
natural 	and probable 	effect 	of 	discouraging 	employee 	free 	choice.
-
Mail 	Ballot 	Election 	Irregularities
This 	objection 	involves 	primarily 	the 	issuing 	of 	a mail
ballot 	to 	Stephan and 	the 	refusal 	to 	issue a mail 	ballot 	to
Ramirez. 	To address 	this objection, 	the 	conduct 	of 	these
employees 	and 	the 	requirements 	set 	forth 	in 	the 	consent-election
14

agreement 	are 	of paramount 	importance, 	for it is well 	established
that 	"the 	parties 	to 	a validly approved 	consent-election
agreement 	are bound by its 	terms." 	(See 	Tamalpais Union High
School District, 	supra, 	p. 	4; 	Gilroy Unified School District
(1991) 	PERB Order No. 	Ad-226.)
In this 	case, 	the consent election agreement provided, 	in
relevant part,
Any 	employee who 	contacts 	PERB 	and 	requests 	a
ballot will 	be 	issued a duplicate ballot 	if
the 	employee's 	name 	can be 	found on the 	list
of Mailed ballot 	eligible voters. 	If 	the
employee's name 	is not 	found, 	the employee
will 	be 	issued a 	challenged ballot.
In addition, 	the 	election agreement 	provided 	that 	requests would
only be 	received on May 	17 	between the hours 	of 	8:30 	a.m. 	and
4:30 	p.m., 	and 	only 	requests 	by employees 	would be 	accepted.
Hence, 	under standard election practice and the 	express 	terms 	of
the agreement, 	the burden to secure a mail ballot 	is placed
squarely on the 	shoulders 	of 	individual 	employees 	to make 	the
appropriate 	request 	in a 	timely manner.
Of 	crucial 	importance 	here 	is 	the plain language 	of 	the
agreement 	which provides 	that 	"any" 	employee was 	free 	to 	request
a ballot 	on May 17. 	If 	the 	requestor's name was 	on the 	list 	of
voters 	eligible 	to vote by mail, 	that 	employee would receive 	a
duplicate ballot. 	If 	the 	requestor's name was 	not 	on the mail
ballot 	list, 	the agreement provided 	that 	the 	employee would be
issued a challenged ballot. 	Thus, 	under this 	consent agreement,
neither Ramirez 	nor 	Stephan was 	precluded 	from 	requesting 	a
ballot 	on May 	17, 	even though they were not 	on the mail ballot
15

list 	submitted 	to 	PERB by Cain on April 	23. 	The 	remaining
question 	is 	whether 	these 	employees 	made 	an appropriate 	request
on that date.
It 	is 	clear 	that 	Ramirez 	called the 	PERB office 	on May 	17 	at
1:16 	p.m. 	Whether 	she met 	her burden 	of 	actually 	requesting 	a
ballot 	is 	less 	clear. 	On direct 	examination 	she 	said 	she 	called
the 	PERB 	office 	to 	"see what 	the motions 	were 	to go 	through 	to
obtain a ballot." 	She also 	said 	she 	told a 	PERB 	secretary 	that
she was 	calling 	"about 	an absentee ballot." 	This 	testimony 	is
not 	a model 	of 	clarity for purposes 	of 	determining whether
Ramirez 	actually requested a ballot. 	A call 	to 	"see what 	the
motions were 	to go through" 	to obtain a ballot 	or a 	call 	"about"
an absentee ballot 	is 	not 	precisely 	the 	same as 	a 	call 	which
expressly requests a ballot, 	as 	required by the 	terms 	of 	the
agreement. 	Thus, 	I 	find her testimony on direct 	examination is
less 	than 	convincing and 	falls 	short 	of 	establishing 	that 	she
actually 	requested a mail 	ballot. 	Any ambiguity 	in her direct
testimony is dispelled, 	however, 	when her testimony on cross-
examination 	is 	examined. 	When pressed on 	cross 	examination 	if
she 	specifically asked for a ballot, 	she 	frankly admitted that 	"I
just asked for her 	(Martinez)." 	Martinez 	returned Ramirez' 	call
in a 	timely 	fashion during 	the 	afternoon 	of May 	17 	and 	informed
her 	that 	she needed 	to 	contact 	the 	PERB office by 5:00 	p.m. 	that
day, 	but Ramirez did not do so until May 25.
16

In addition, 	Ramirez' 	testimony, 	viewed as part of the
totality of her actions, 	points 	to 	the 	conclusion that 	she was
not 	serious 	about 	obtaining a ballot 	or voting 	in 	the 	election,
and 	thus 	tends 	to 	support 	the 	conclusion 	reached 	immediately
above. 	It 	cannot be 	overlooked here 	that 	ultimately Ramirez
admitted it was her decision not 	to vote. 	Further, 	earlier
events 	similarly 	suggest 	no 	real 	intent 	to 	obtain a ballot 	or
vote. 	For example, 	she 	called the PERB office on May 17 at
Bochover's urging, 	but was 	less 	than clear about 	her purpose.
She did not 	expressly, request a ballot, 	and asked only to speak
to Martinez. 	She left her home 	telephone number, 	but 	then
departed and did not 	return until 	6:30 	p.m., 	fully aware 	that
mail 	ballot 	requests 	had 	to be 	submitted on 	that 	date. 	In
effect, 	she precluded receipt 	of 	a 	return 	call 	from Martinez
during the 	crucial 	afternoon period of May 17, 	and there 	is 	no
evidence 	that 	she made any effort 	to 	call 	the 	PERB 	office 	again
on that 	date 	from her doctor's 	office 	or elsewhere. 	Thereafter,
she waited until May 25 	to 	call Martinez again. 	She 	claimed she
expressly asked for a mail ballot 	on that 	date. 	But by this 	time
she was well 	aware that 	it was 	too late.
All 	of 	this 	occurred against 	the background of 	a plainly
worded 	consent 	election 	agreement 	which 	expressly provided 	that
requests 	for mail 	ballots 	had 	to be made by 	individual 	employees
on May 17, 	and Bochover's 	earlier advice 	to Ramirez 	that 	it was
her 	responsibility to 	contact 	the 	PERB 	office 	on May 	17 	to
request 	a ballot.
17

Based on the 	foregoing, 	it 	is 	concluded that 	Ramirez 	did not
request 	a ballot 	as 	required pursuant 	to 	the 	consent 	election
agreement 	on May 17. 	Her call 	to 	the 	PERB office asking 	for
Martinez, 	her subsequent 	failure 	to 	timely return Martinez'
message, 	and her 	tardy May 25 	request 	for a mail 	ballot 	do not
constitute 	compliance with the 	terms 	of 	the agreement.
Therefore, 	the 	failure to provide Ramirez with a mail ballot 	does
not 	constitute 	an 	irregularity 	in 	the 	conduct 	of 	the 	election.
Officer Stephan, 	on the other hand, 	called the 	PERB office
on May 17, 	requested and received a 	challenged ballot, 	and cast
the ballot. 	Stephan's 	conduct 	was 	in strict 	accord with the
ground 	rules 	set 	forth in 	the 	consent 	election agreement.
Nevertheless, 	Stephan's vote was automatically a 	challenged
ballot under the 	terms of 	the agreement. 	But 	the University
affirmatively waived 	its 	right 	to do 	so 	at 	the 	post-election
ballot count. 	At 	that time, 	Cain considered Martinez' 	view that
Stephan 	should not 	have voted a 	challenged ballot 	because 	he 	was
on 	leave 	and nevertheless 	agreed 	to 	count 	all 	challenged ballots.
Based on the 	foregoing, 	it 	is 	concluded that 	no election
irregularity 	occurred with 	respect 	to 	the 	ballot 	cast 	by
Stephan.7
7The 	University's 	reliance 	on Gilroy Unified 	School
District, 	supra. 	as authority to set aside this election is
misplaced. 	In Gilroy, 	employees not 	eligible 	to cast a mail
ballot 	under 	the 	terms 	of 	a directed 	election order were
permitted to do so for, 	among other things, 	convenience. 	The
consent 	election agreement 	in 	this 	case 	is 	different 	in material
respects. 	Unlike Gilroy, 	the 	consent 	election agreement 	here
permitted employees who were 	on the mail ballot 	list, 	as well 	as
employees who were not on the 	list, 	to request 	a mail ballot.
18

Death 	Threats
Relying 	on private 	sector 	case 	law,8 the Board has 	recently-
stated 	that 	the 	test 	for determining whether an 	election 	should
be 	set 	aside based on 	threats 	is
whether 	the 	election was 	held with a 	general
atmosphere 	among 	the 	employees 	of 	confusion
violence, 	and threats of violence, 	such as
might 	reasonably be 	expected 	to 	generate
anxiety and fear of 	reprisal, 	and to 	render
impossible 	a 	rational 	uncoerced 	expression 	of
choice 	as 	to bargaining 	representative.
(State 	of 	California 	(Department 	of 	Personnel
Administration) 	(1992) 	PERB Decision No. 	948-
S, 	adopting decision of administrative law
judge at 16 PERC Para. 	23037, 	p. 	113.)
The 	test 	is 	objective 	and not 	determinative upon the 	effect 	of
the particular 	statement 	upon an 	individual 	employee 	or
employees. 	The 	PERB 	looks 	to 	see whether the particular threat
"may 	reasonably 	tend 	to 	coerce 	or 	intimidate 	employees 	in 	the
exercise 	of 	their rights." 	(State 	of 	California 	(Department 	of
Personnel Administration), 	supra, 	adopting decision of
administrative law judge at 16 PERC Para. 	23037, 	p. 	113.)
Applying this 	test here, 	I 	conclude 	for the 	following
reasons 	that 	the 	threat 	received by Officer 	Szyper 	is
insufficient 	to overturn the 	election. 	There 	is 	no 	credible
evidence 	or a 	general 	atmosphere 	of 	coercion during 	the 	election
or during 	the period leading up 	to 	the 	election. 	The 	threat 	was
made by an anonymous 	caller and 	there 	is 	no 	concrete 	evidence
tying 	the 	call 	to 	PSOA or 	PSOA supporters. 	The 	threat was
8See Hardin, 	The Developing Labor Law, 	BNA, 	1992, 	Vol. 	1,
pp. 	3 63-365, 	and cases cited therein.
19

immediately 	relayed 	to Officer Waschkowsky, 	who understandably
testified 	that 	he 	was 	not 	intimidated 	and merely viewed 	the 	call
as 	"pretty 	stupid."
Finally, 	I have viewed both Szyper and Waschkowsky on 	the
witness 	stand. 	Neither witness 	seemed 	to harbor any 	fear or
concern about 	the 	threat, 	nor did either witness 	convincingly
indicate 	they were 	coerced in any way. 	In fact, 	there 	is 	no
evidence 	that 	Szyper 	took any steps 	to 	launch a 	formal
investigation of 	the 	call. 	He merely hung up 	the 	receiver and
proceeded with his 	duties 	at 	East Gate.
In any event, 	since this was a secret ballot election, 	the
threat 	to 	Szyper 	cannot 	be viewed as 	a 	legitimate 	threat 	which
carried a 	coercive message. 	There was 	no way that 	the person who
delivered the 	threat 	could know how Szyper voted. 	Thus, 	the
ultimatum to 	"vote yes 	or die" 	was 	in reality an empty one.
Based on the 	foregoing, 	it 	cannot 	realistically be 	concluded
under an 	objective 	standard 	that 	employees 	were 	coerced as 	a
result 	of 	the 	calls 	received at 	East Gate 	on May 26. 	Both 	calls
were 	ill 	advised, 	but 	in my view amounted 	to no more 	than a
foolish prank. 	Plainly, 	the 	calls were not made 	in a general
atmosphere 	of 	"threats 	of violence," 	could not 	"reasonably be
expected 	to 	generate 	anxiety and 	fear of 	reprisal," 	and did not
"render 	impossible 	a 	rational 	uncoerced 	expression 	of 	choice 	as
to bargaining representative." 	(State of 	California, 	Department
of Personnel Administration, 	supra.)
20

CONCLUSION
Based on the 	foregoing 	findings 	of 	fact, 	conclusions 	of 	law
and the entire 	record in this matter, 	the election objections 	in
case 	number 	SF-R-724-H are 	hereby dismissed.
Pursuant 	to California Code of Regulations, 	title 	8,
section 	32305, 	this 	Proposed Decision and Order shall 	become
final 	unless 	a party 	files 	a 	statement 	of 	exceptions 	with 	the
Board 	itself 	at 	the 	headquarters 	office 	in Sacramento within
20 	days 	of 	service of 	this Decision. 	In accordance with PERB
Regulations, 	the 	statement 	of 	exceptions 	should 	identify by page
citation or exhibit number the portions 	of 	the 	record, 	if 	any,
relied upon for such exceptions. 	(See Cal. 	Code of Regs.,
tit. 	8, 	sec. 	32300.) 	A document 	is 	considered 	"filed" 	when
actually 	received before 	the 	close 	of business 	(5:00 	p.m.) 	on the
last day set 	for filing 	". 	. 	. 	or when sent by telegraph or
certified or Express 	United States mail, 	postmarked not 	later
than the last day set for filing 	. 	. 	. 	." 	(See Cal. 	Code of
Regs., 	tit. 	8, 	sec. 	32135; Code Civ. Proc. sec. 	1013 shall
apply.) 	Any 	statement 	of 	exceptions 	and supporting brief must be
served 	concurrently with 	its 	filing 	upon 	each party 	to 	this
proceeding. 	Proof 	of 	service 	shall 	accompany each 	copy 	served 	on
a party or filed with the Board 	itself. 	(See Cal. 	Code of Regs.,
tit. 	8, 	secs. 	32300, 	32305 and 32140.)
Fred D'Orazio
Administrative Law Judge
. .
21

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	PETE WILSON. Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Office of the General Counsel
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
(916) 322-3198
July 14, 	1993
Jerrold C. 	Schaefer
Hanson, Bridgett, Marcus, Vlahos & Rudy
333 Market Street, 	Suite 2300
San Francisco, 	CA 94105-2173
Re: 	Regents of the University of California and Protective
Service Officers' Association
Case No. 	SF-R-724-H
Dear Mr. Schaefer:
Your request of July 7, 	1993 to Executive Director Del
Pierce was 	forwarded to the Board. 	After a review of 	the
information presented in your request, 	the Board found that you
have not met the standard described in PERB Regulation 32150(e).
Accordingly, 	Regional Director Anita Martinez will not be
produced to testify at 	the hearing in the above-referenced case,
If you have any questions, 	please contact me.
Sincerely,
Robert Thompson
Deputy General 	Counsel
cc: Daniel Ray Bacon, 	Esq.
Fred 	D'Orazio