Sonoma County Office of Education (PERB A230E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
ASSOCIATION 	OF 	SONOMA COUNTY
OFFICE 	OF 	EDUCATION,
Charging 	Party,
v.
SONOMA 	COUNTY 	OFFICE 	OF
EDUCATION,
Respondent.
Case 	No. 	SF-CE-1449
Administrative 	Appeal
PERB 	Order No. 	Ad-230
March 	23, 	1992.
Appearances: 	California 	Teachers 	Association 	by 	Ramon 	E. 	Romero,
Attorney, 	for 	Association 	of 	Sonoma 	County 	Office 	of 	Education;
School 	and 	College 	Legal 	Services 	by 	Margaret 	M. 	Merchat,
Attorney, 	for 	Sonoma 	County 	Office 	of 	Education.
Before 	Hesse, 	Chairperson; 	Camilli 	and 	Caffrey, 	Members.
DECISION
CAFFREY, 	Member: 	This 	case 	is 	before 	the 	Public 	Employment
Relations 	Board 	(PERB 	or 	Board) 	on 	appeal 	by 	the 	Sonoma 	County
Office 	of 	Education 	(SCOE) 	from 	the 	PERB 	appeals 	assistant's
rejection 	of 	its 	exceptions 	to 	the 	underlying 	proposed 	decision
as 	untimely 	filed. 	After 	a 	second 	extension 	of 	time 	had 	been
granted, 	exceptions 	to 	the 	proposed 	decision 	were 	due 	to 	be 	filed
on 	or 	before 	January 	16, 	1992. 1 On 	January 	16, 	SCOE 	mailed 	a
statement 	of 	exceptions 	and 	supporting 	brief 	by 	regular 	first-
class 	mail 	to 	the 	PERB 	San 	Francisco 	Regional 	Office. 	The
documents 	were 	received 	in 	the 	San 	Francisco 	office 	on
January 	17.
1unless 	otherwise 	noted, 	all 	references 	are 	to 	1992.

On 	January 	22, 	the 	appeals 	assistant 	rejected 	the 	exceptions
and 	supporting 	brief. 	In 	rejecting 	the 	appeal 	as.untimely 	filed,
the 	appeals 	assistant 	relied 	on 	PERB 	Regulations 	32300 	and 	32135 2
which 	require 	exceptions 	to 	be 	filed 	in 	the 	Sacramento
Headquarters 	Office. 	The 	appeals 	assistant 	also 	noted 	that 	the
exceptions 	were 	due 	to 	be 	filed 	on 	January 	16, 	but 	were 	instead
received 	on 	January 	17 	in 	the 	PERB 	San 	Francisco 	office.
In 	its 	appeal 	of 	the 	rejection 	of 	its 	statement 	of
exceptions, 	SCOE 	states 	that 	through 	an 	inadvertent 	clerical
error, 	the 	documents 	were 	sent 	to 	the 	San 	Francisco 	Regional
Office 	rather 	than 	the 	Headquarters 	Office 	in 	Sacramento. 	SCOE
explains 	that 	a 	new 	secretary's 	experience 	was 	limited 	to 	serving
2PERB 	Regulations 	are 	codified 	at 	California 	Code 	of
Regulations, 	title 	8, 	section 	31001 	et 	seq.
PERB 	Regulation 	section 	32300(a) 	states, 	in 	pertinent 	part:
A party 	may 	file 	with 	the 	Board 	itself 	an
original 	and 	five 	copies 	of 	a 	statement 	of
exceptions 	to 	a 	Board 	agent's 	proposed
decision 	issued 	pursuant 	to 	section 	32215,
and 	supporting 	brief, 	within 	20 	days
following 	the 	date 	of 	service 	of 	the 	decision
or 	as 	provided 	in 	section 	32310. 	The
statement 	of 	exceptions 	and 	briefs 	shall 	be
filed 	with 	the 	Board 	itself 	in 	the
headguarters 	office. 	(Emphasis 	added.)
PERB 	Regulation 	section 	32135 	states:
All 	documents 	shall 	be 	considered 	"filed"
when 	actually 	received 	by 	the 	appropriate
PERB 	office 	before 	the 	close 	of 	business 	on
the 	last 	date 	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 	and 	addressed 	to 	the
proper 	PERB 	office. 	(Emphasis 	added.)
2

documents 	on 	the 	San 	Francisco 	office. 	SCOE 	further 	claims 	that
the 	secretary wa~ 	not 	aware 	that 	the 	statement 	of 	exceptions 	was
required 	to 	be 	served 	on 	the 	Sacramento 	Headquarters 	Office.
SCOE 	faiis 	to 	provide 	any 	explanation, 	however, 	for 	filing 	the
exceptions 	late. 	In 	fact, 	SCOE 	claims 	on 	appeal 	that 	the
exceptions 	were 	filed 	11 within 	the 	appropriate 	timeframe."
DISCUSSION
SCOE 	faces 	two 	problems 	with 	the 	filing 	of 	its 	statement 	of
exceptions. 	The 	appeal 	was 	filed 	at 	the 	wrong 	PERB 	office, 	and
it 	was 	filed 	late. 	Pursuant 	to 	PERB 	Regulation 	section 	32136, 3
the 	Board 	may 	excuse 	a 	late 	filing 	for 	good 	cause 	only. 	The
Board 	has 	previously 	excused 	late 	filings 	which 	have 	gone 	astray.
In 	North 	Orange 	County 	Regional 	Occupational 	Program 	(NOCROP)
(1990) 	PERB 	Decision 	No. 	807, 	exceptions 	were 	filed 	well 	before
the 	deadline, 	but 	were 	inadvertently 	filed 	in 	the 	Los 	Angeles
Regional 	Office, 	rather 	than 	the 	Sacramento 	Headquarters 	Office.
NOCROP 	explained 	that 	the 	secretary 	generally 	submitted 	a 	large
volume 	of 	filings 	with 	PERB, 	usually 	with 	the 	Los 	Angeles 	office.
In 	this 	case, 	through 	force 	of 	habit, 	she 	had 	filed 	the
exceptions 	in 	Los 	Angeles. 	The 	Board 	found 	that 	NOCROP 	had
attempted 	to 	fi~e 	in 	a 	timely 	fashion, 	but, 	due 	to 	an 	honest
mistake, 	the 	documents· had 	been 	filed 	in 	the 	wrong 	PERB 	office .
3PERB 	Regulation 	section 	32136 	provides:
A late 	filing 	may 	be 	excused 	in 	the
discretion 	of 	the 	Board 	for 	good 	cause 	only.
A late 	filing ·which has 	been 	excused 	becomes
a 	timely. filing 	under 	these 	regulations.
•
3

The
	Board
	has
	also
	excused
	filings
	which 	were
	mailed
	to
	the
proper
	office,
	but
	were
	not
	timely 	received. 	In
	The
	Regents
	of
the 	University
	of
	California
	(Davis,
	Los
	Angeles, 	Santa
	Barbara
and
	San 	Diego) 	(1989)
	PERB
	Order
	No.
	Ad-202-H,
	the
	Board
	found
good
	cause
	to
	excuse
	the 	respondent's
	untimely
	filed
	opposition
brief.
	In
	an
	unrefuted
	declaration,
	the 	attorney
	stated
	that
	it
was
	the 	policy
	of
	his
	office 	to
	file
	documents
	with
	PERB
	by
certified
	mail, 	but
	his 	secretary
	had
	inadvertently 	sent
	them
	by
regular
	first-class
	mail
	on
	the
	last
	day
	set
	for
	filing.
Similarly, 	in
	Trustees 	of 	the
	California 	State
	University
	(1989)
PERB
	Order
	No.
	Ad-192-H,
	the
	Board 	found
	the
	secretary's
explanation
	that
	~he
	postage
	meter
	had
	been
	incorrectly
	set,
causing 	the
	exceptions
	to
	be
	untimely
	filed,
	constituted
	good
cause.
However,
	the
	Board 	has
	refused 	to
	excuse 	untimely
	documents
where
	no
	explanation
	has 	been
	provided. 	In
	Ventura
	Unified
School
	District
	(1989)
	PERB
	Decision
	No.
	757,
	the
	Board
	did
	not
consider
	an
	untimely 	response
	to
	an
	appeal 	because
	no
	reason 	for
the
	late 	filing
	was
	provided. 	In
	Los
	Angeles
	Community
	College
District
	(1991)
	PERB
	Decision
	No. 	908
	(Los
	Angeles),
	there
	were
two
	problems 	with 	the
	District
1 s
	late 	filing.
	PERB 1 s
	address
	had
been
	incorrectly
	typed
	on
	the 	envelope, 	causing
	it
	to
	be
misdirected,
	and
	the
	documents 	had 	been 	mailed
	by
	regular
	first-
class
	mail
	from 	Los
	Angeles
	to
	Sacramento 	one 	day
	before 	the
filing
	deadline.
	The 	Board 	noted
	that 	the 	District
	focused 	on
the 	envelope
1 s
	typographical 	error, 	failing 	to 	submit 	an
4

explanation 	for 	mailing 	its 	documents 	by 	regular 	first-class
mail. 	The 	Board, 	therefore, 	concluded 	that 	good 	cause 	did 	not
exist 	to 	excuse 	the 	late 	filing.
This 	case 	is 	similar 	to 	Los 	Angeles 	in 	that 	two 	problems
exist 	with 	the 	filing 	of 	SCOE's 	statement 	of 	exceptions. 	SCOE
mail~d 	its 	documents 	to 	the 	wrong 	PERB 	office, 	and 	filed 	them
after 	the 	last 	date 	set 	for 	filing. 	SCOE 	explains 	that 	a 	new
secretary's 	inexperience 	resulted 	in 	the 	documents 	being 	sent 	to
the 	wrong 	PERB 	Office. 	Although 	SCOE 	provides 	an 	explanation 	for
the 	misdirection 	of 	the 	documents, 	it 	offers 	no 	explanation 	for
its 	failure 	to 	timely 	file 	the 	appeal. 	The 	Board's 	discretion 	in
excusing 	a 	late 	filing 	is 	limited 	to 	good 	cause 	only. 	(PERB
Regulation 	32136.) 	Because 	SCOE 	fails 	to 	provide 	any 	reason 	for
filing 	the 	documents 	late, 	the 	Board 	is 	precluded 	from 	finding
that 	good 	cause 	exists 	to 	excuse 	the 	late 	filing. 	Therefore, 	the
Board 	concludes 	that 	good 	cause 	does 	not 	exist 	to 	excuse 	SCOE's
late 	filing.
ORDER
SCOE's 	appeal 	of 	the 	rejection 	of 	its 	statement 	of
exceptions 	and 	supporting 	brief 	is 	hereby 	DENIED.
Chairperson 	Hesse 	and 	Member 	Camilli 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
5