State of California (Franchise Tax Board) (Heyburn) (PERB A144S)

STATE
	OF
	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF
	THE
PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
WILLIAM
	M.
	HEYBURN,
Charging
	Party,
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	(FRANCHISE
	TAX
BOARD)
,
Respondent.
)
)
)	
Case
	No.
	S-CE-19
4-S
PERB
	Order
	No.
	Ad-144-S
Administrative
	Appeal
November
	16,
	1984
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances: 	William
M.
	Heyburn,
	on
	his
	own
	behalf;
	Tamara
	J.
Pierson,
	Attorney,
	Department
	of
	Personnel 	Administration, 	for
State
	of 	California
	(Franchise
	Tax
	Board).
Before 	Hesse,
	Chairperson;
	Tovar 	and
	Morgenstern,
	Members.
DECISION
AND
	ORDER
MORGENSTERN,
	Member:
	In
	the
	instant
	case,
	William
	M.
Heyburn
	appeals 	the 	decision 	of
	the 	executive
	director 	of 	the
Public
	Employment
	Relations
	Board
	(PERB
	or
	Board)
	denying
Heyburn's
	request 	for
	an
	extension
	of
	time
	to
	submit
	exceptions
to 	the
	proposed
	decision
	rendered	
by	
PERB's
	administrative
	law
judge
	(ALJ).
	Upon
	review
	of 	the material 	presented 	to 	the
Board,
	we
	find
	no
	basis 	to
	conclude
	that
	the 	executive
	director
erred 	in 	rejecting 	that 	request.
In
	his 	unfair 	practice
	charge
	filed
	on August 	11, 	1983,
Heyburn 	contended
	that 	the 	State 	of 	California 	(Franchise
	Tax
Board)
	(FTB)
	violated 	provisions 	of 	the 	State
	Employer-Employee
Relations
	Act
	(SEERA) 	when
	it
	ordered
	a
	three-month 	pay
1
lsEERA
	is 	codified 	at
	Government Code
	section
	3512
	et 	seq.

reduction 	in
	retaliation
	against
	Heyburn
	for 	exercising
	rights
guaranteed
	by
	SEERA. 	A
complaint
	was
	issued
	and
	Heyburn
availed
	himself
	of
	PERB's
	evidentiary
	hearing 	process.
	An
	ALJ
assessed 	the
	factual
	and
	legal 	assertions
	and,
	in
	his
	proposed
decision
	that
	issued
	May
	3,
	1984, 	he
	reached
	the 	conclusion
that
	the
	FTB
	had
	not•taken
	action 	against
	Heyburn
	because
	of
any
	protected
	activity
	in
	which
	he
	may
	have 	engaged.
	To
	the
contrary,
	the
	ALJ
	specifical~y
	found
	Heyburn's
	failure
	to
perform 	the
	duties
	required 	of
	his
	job
	to
	be
	the 	cause
	of
	the
pay
	reduction
	he
	received.
In
	the
	instant
	case,
	Heyburn
	wants
	the
	Board
	to
	extend 	the
time
	period 	during
	which
	exceptions
	to
	the
	ALJ's 	proposed
decision
	can
	be
	submitted
	to 	the
	Board.
	Because· Heyburn
believes 	that
	testimony heard
	in 	conjunction with
	an
	appeal
before 	the
	Workers' 	Compensation Appeals
	Board
	("WCA~)
	will
	bear
on
	his
	unfair 	practice
	charge,
	he
	has 	requested
	that
	the
deadline 	for
	filing
	exceptions
	be
	extended
	to
	thirty
	days
	after
the 	date
	a
	decision
	is
	reached 	by
	the
	WCAB.
The
	ALJ's 	proposed
	decision
	details
	various
	self-assigned
projects 	that
	cau?ed
	Heyburn
	to
	ignore
	his
	job
duties
	and 	which
prompted
	the
	pay
	reduction.
	We
	find 	nothing
	in
	Heyburn's
assertions
	or 	in 	the
	documentary 	evidence 	attached 	to 	his
request
	which
	supports. the 	contention 	that 	the
	ALJ's
conclusions 	are 	likely 	tq
	be 	upset
	by any 	testimony 	presented
in 	the
	WCAB
	forum.
2

Accordingly,
	we AFFIRM
	the
	executive
	director's
	denial 	of
Heyburn's
	request 	for
	an
	extension
	of
	time.
Chairperson
	Hesse 	and
	Member
	Tovar
	joined 	in
	this
	Decis.ion.
3