Riverside Unified School District (Petrich) (PERB A148E)

STATE
	OF
	CALIFORNIA
DECISION
	OF 	THE
PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
TONY
	PETRICH,
Appellant,
and
CALIFORNIA
	SCHOOL
	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION,
Employee
	Organization,
and
RIVERSIDE 	UNIFIED
	SCHOOL
	DISTRICT,
Employer.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_____________________
)
Case
	No.
	LA-UM-368
PERB
	Order
	No.
	Ad-148
August 	13,
	1985
Appearance:	
Tony
	Petrich, 	in 	his
	own
	behalf.
Before 	Hesse,
	Chairperson; 	Morgenstern
	and
	Burt,
	Members.
DECISION
	AND ORDER
BURT,
	Member:
	This 	case
	is
	before 	the 	Public
	Employment
Relations
	Board 	(Board)
	on
	appeal 	of 	the 	attached
administrative 	decision 	dismissing
	a
	unit 	modification
	petition
without 	leave 	to
	amend. 	Having
	duly 	considered 	the 	appeal
filed
	by 	Tony
	Petrich,
	an
	individual
	Amployee
	of 	the 	employer.
the
	Board
	hereby
	DENIES
	that
	appeal.
Chairperson 	Hesse 	and
	Member
	Morgenstern 	joined 	in
	this
Decision.

STAiE
OF
CALIFORNIA	
GEORGE
OEUKMEJIAN, c;,,...,mo,
PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
LOS
ANGELES REGIONAL
OFFICE
3.470
WILSHIRE
8lVO
.. SUITE
1001
LOS
ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 	90010
(213) 736-3127
June
	19,
	1985
Tony
	Petrich
24536 Vandenberg
	Drive
Sunnymead,
	CA
	92388
A.
	Alan
	Aldrich, 	Field
	Representative
California
	School
	Employees
	Association
326
	West
	Katella
	Avenue,
	Suite
	E
Orange,
	CA
	92667
Charles
	D.
	Fields,
	Esq.
Best,
	Best
	and
	Krieger
4200 	Orange
	Street
Riverside,
	CA
	92667
Re:
	LA-UM-368,
	Riverside
	Unified
	School
	District
Dear
	Interested 	Parties:
On
	June 	10,
	1985,
	Mr. 	Tony
	Petrich, 	assertedly
	as
	a
	delegated
agent 	of
	the
	California
	School
	Employees
	Association,
	(CSEA}.
filed
	a
	unit 	modification
	petition
	seeking
	to
	remove
approximately
	115 	employees
	in
	28
	different 	positions
	with 	the
Riverside
	Unified
	School
	District, 	{District),
	from
	the
existing 	unit.	
Mr.	
Petrich
	seeks 	to
	remove
	the
	positions
	from
the 	existing
	wall
	classified
	unit
	pursuant 	to
	PERB
	Regulation3278l(b)
(5) 	and 	(b)
{5}
(c)
	which
	reads 	as 	follows:
(b) 	A
recognized 	or
	certified
	emeloyee
	organization
an 	emplover, 	or 	both
	jointly
	may
	file
	with
	the
regional 	office
	a
	petition
	for
	change
	in
	unit
modification~
	(emphasis 	added)
(5) 	To
	delete 	classification(s)
	or
	position(s)
•••
	which
	are 	not 	appropriate 	to 	the
	unit
because
	said 	classification{s)
	or
position(s) 	are
	management,
	supervisory 	or
confidential
	provided
	that:
(c) 	The
	petition 	is 	filed
	during 	the
"window
	period" 	of
	a
	lawful 	writtenagreement 	or
	memorandum
	of
understanding 	as 	defined 	in 	those
regulations 	in 	Section
	33020
	forEERA
	•••

June 	19,
	1985
LA-UM-368
Page
	2
The
	petition
	was
	filed
	apparently
	during
	the
	window
	period 	of
the 	current
	lawful
	written
	agreement.
	(Effective 	dates 	ofOctober
	4,
	1982
	-
	September 	30,
	19850) 	The
	question 	to
	be
considered
	is
	whether
	Mr.
	Petrich
	is
	a
	recognized 	or
	certified
employee
	organization.
	(Mr~
	Petrich
	does
	not
	contend
	that
	he
is
	an
	employer.)	
·
Mr.
	Petrich
	relies
	upon 	a
	complaint
	which
	issued 	in
	unfair
practice
	charge
	number 	LA-CE-2112
	in
	which
	the
	Regional
Attorney
	inadvertently 	alleged
	that
	Mre
	Petrich
	as 	charging
party,
	is
	an 	employee
	organizationc
	The
	District
	in
	its
	answer
to
	the 	complaint
	admittedp
	again
	inadvertently, 	that
	Mr.
Petrich
	is
	a
	labor 	organization.
	An
	order
	amending
	thecomplaint 	to
	delete
	the 	paragraph
	alleging
	Mro
	Petrich
1 s
	status
as
	an 	employee
	organization
	has
	since 	issued	
by	
the
Administrative
	Law
	Judge
	assigned 	the
	case.
The
	definition
	of
	employee
	organization
	is
	found	
at	
GovernmentCode
	Sec. 	3540.l(d)
"Employee
	organizationn
	means 	any
	organization
	which
includes
	employees
	of
	a
	public 	school
	employer 	and
which
	has
	as
	one
	of
	its
	primary purposes
	representing
such 	employees
	in
	their 	relations
	with
	that
	public
schocl
	employer.
	"Employee
	organization" 	should
	alsoinclude
	any
	person
	such
	an
	organization 	authorizes
	toact
	on
	its
	behalf.
When 	I
	contacted
	Mr.
	Aldrich,
	on June 	13,
	l98Su
	CSEA
	FieldRepresentative 	assigned 	to 	the 	Riverside 	Unified 	School
District,
	he
	indicated 	that 	neither
	he
	nor
	CSEA
	had
	delegated
authority
	to
	Mr.
	Petrich 	to
	act
	on
	behalf 	of 	the 	exclusive
representative
	on 	any
	matter.
Due
	to
	Mr.
	Aldrich's 	representation 	that
	Mro
	Petrich
	has 	no,
nor
	had 	no
	authority 	to
	file
	the
	petition
	on
	behalf 	of
	CSEA,
	to
rely
	on
	the
clerical 	error 	created 	by 	the 	unfair 	practicecomplaint
	and 	answer 	as
	a
	basis 	for 	finding
	Mr.
	Petrich
	anemployee
	organization
0 	would 	be
	to 	ignore 	the 	obvious 	andcompound 	what 	was
	clearly
	a
	typographical
	mistakeQ
	Further
PE:RB
	Regulations 	require 	that
	a
	unit 	modification 	request
	be
filed
	by 	an 	employer 	recognized 	or 	Board
	certified
	employee
organization, 	Therefore, 	the 	instant 	petition 	is
	herebyDISMISSED 	WITHOUT 	LEAVE 	TO 	AMEND.

June 	19, 	1985
LA-UM-368
Page 	3
An 	appeal 	of 	this 	decision 	pursuant 	to 	PERB 	Regulation 	32360
may 	be 	made 	within 	10 	calendar 	days 	following 	the 	date 	of
service 	of 	this 	decision 	by 	filing 	an 	original 	and 	5 	copies 	of
a 	statement 	of 	the 	facts 	uporr which 	the 	appeal 	is 	based 	with
the 	Board 	itself 	at 	1031 	- 	18th 	Street, 	Suite 	200, 	Sacramento,
California 	95814. 	Copies 	of 	any 	appeal must 	be 	concurrently
served 	upon 	all 	parties 	and 	the 	Los 	Angeles 	Regional 	Office.
Proof 	of 	service 	pursuant 	to 	Regulation 	32140 	is 	required.
Sincerely
Robert 	R. 	Bergeson
Regional 	Director
Rog~r 	Smith
Labor 	Relations 	Specialist
RS/gml