Los Angeles Unified School District (Robinson) (PERB A272E)

STATE
	OF
	CALIFORNIA
DECISION
	OF
	THE
PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
SYLVIA ROBINSON,
Charging
	Party,
V •
LOS
	ANGELES 	UNIFIED
	SCHOOL
	DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
____________________
) 
Case
	No.
	LA-CE-3551
Administrative
	Appeal
PERB
	Order
	No.
	Ad-272
January
	19,
	1996
Appearances:	
Sylvia
	Robinson,
	on
	her
	own
	behalf;
	Rochelle
	J.
Montgomery,
	Attorney,
	for
	Los
	Angeles
	Unified
	School
	District.
Before 	Caffrey,
	Chairman;
	Garcia
	and 	Johnson,
	Members.
DECISION
GARCIA,
	Member:
	This 	case
	is
	before 	the 	Public
	Employment
Relat~ons
	Board
	(PERB
	or
	Board) 	on
	appeal
	by
	Sylvia
	Robinson
{Robinson)
	of
	the
	PERB
	appeals
	assistant's
	rejection
	of
Robinson's 	appeal 	of
	a
	Board
	agent's 	dismissal
	of
	the
	unfair
practice
	charge 	she
	filed
	against 	the
	Los
	Angeles
	Unified
	School
District 	(District).
PROCEDURAL 	HISTORY
was	The
	dismissal 	of 	Robinson's
	unfair practice
	charge
served
	on
	the
	parties
	by
	mail
	on September 	7, 	1995.
	PERB
Regulation
	32635(a)
1	
requires 	that
	an 	appeal 	of
	a
	dismissal 	of 	an
1PERB
	regulations 	are 	codified 	at 	California
	Code
	of
Regulations,
	title
	8,
	section
	31001
	et
	seq.
	PERB
	Regulation
32635
	states, 	in 	part:
(a)
	Within
	20
	days 	of 	the 	date 	of 	service 	of
a
	dismissal, 	the 	charging 	party
	may
	appeal
the 	dismissal 	to 	the 	Board
	itself.
	The
original 	appeal 	and 	five 	copies 	shall 	be

unfair 	practice
	charge
	be
	filed
	with 	the
	Board
	itself
	within
	20
days
	of 	the 	date
	of
	service
	of
	the 	dismissal.
	PERB
	Regulation
32130(c)
2	
provides
	a
	five-day 	extension
	of
	the
	filing
	deadline
	in
response
	to
	documents
	served
	by
	mail.
	Accordingly,
	an
	appeal 	of
the
	dismissal
	of 	Robinson's 	charge
	was
	due
	to
	be
	filed
	with 	the
Board
	no
	later
	than
	October 	2,
	1995.
filed 	in 	writing
	with 	the
	Board
	itself
	in 	the
headquarters
	office,
	and
	shall
	be
	signed
	by
the 	charging
	party 	or
	its
	agent.
	Except
	as
provided
	in 	Section
	32162,
	service
	and
	proof
of
	service 	of 	the 	appeal
	on
	the 	respondent
pursuant 	to 	Section
	32140
	are 	required.
On
	September
	8,
	1995, 	Robinson
	wrote
	to
	the
	Board
	indicating
that
	she
	was
	appealing
	a
	Board
	agent's
	dismissal.
	The
September	
8	
letter
	was
	not
	accompanied 	by
	a
	proof 	of
	service
	or
any
	indication
	of
	what
	case
	was
	being 	appealed.
	On
	September 	12,
1995,
	the
	appeals
	assistant
	wrote
	to
	Robinson
	requesting
	a
	proof
of
	service 	for
	the
	letter
	and 	an
	indication
	of
	what
	case
	was
being 	appealed.
On
	September 	21, 	1995, 	Robinson
	filed
	a
	document
	labeled
"Appeal" 	which
	was
	different
	from
	the
	September	
8	
letter.
	This
"Appeal"	
Wc\.S	
not 	signed
	or
	accompanied 	by
	a
	proof 	of
	service
showing
	that
	the 	appeal
	had 	been
	served
	on
	the
	District.
2 PERB
	Regulation 	32130(c)
	states:
(c) 	The
	extension 	of 	time 	provided by
California
	Code
	of 	Civil 	Procedure 	section
1013,
	subdivision 	(a), 	shall 	apply 	to
	any
filing
	made
	in 	response 	to
	documents 	served
by 	mail. 
2

On
	September
	25, 	1995,
	the 	appeals
	assistant
	sent
	a
	letter
to
	Robinson
	reiterating
	that
	if
	she
	intended 	the
	September
	8
letter
	to
	operate
	as
	her
	appeal
	she
	would
	need
	to
	serve
	it
	on
	the
District
	and
	indicate
	what
	case
	was
	being 	appealed.
	The
	letter
also
	requested
	that
	if
	the
	document
	entitled
	"Appeal"
	was
	to
serve 	as 	her
	appeal 	of
	the 	dismissal
	she
	needed
	to
	provide
	PERB
with
	a
	signed
	copy
	of
	the
	appeal
	and
	a
	proof 	of
	service.
	The
appeals
	assistant
	gave 	Robinson
	until
	October 	5,
	1995
	to 	perfect
her 	appeal.
Having
	received
	no
	response
	from
	Robinson,
	on
	October 	12,
1995,
	the 	appeals
	assistant
	wrote
	to
	Robinson
	informing
	her
	that
the
	Board
	agent's
	dismissal
	of
	her
	charge
	was
	final.
	The
	appeals
assistant
	also
	informed 	Robinson
	that
	the
	rejection
	of
	her
	appeal
was
	appealable 	to
	the
	Board
	itself.
in
	On
	October 	16, 	1995, 	Robinson
	wrote
	to
	the
	Board
	stating,
pertinent 	part:
My
	initial
	inquiry 	to
	you
	[September
	8
letter]
	was
	in
	letter
	format 	and meant
	to
	be
only 	an
	inquiry
	into
	the 	appeals 	process.
My
	appeal
	was
	labeled
	11
APPEAL"
	and
	sent 	with
the 	Proofs 	of 	Service 	attached
	after
	I
received 	those
	documents 	from 	you
	in
	the
mail.
[3 ]
On
	October 	24, 	1995,
	the 	appeals
	assistant
	wrote
	to 	the
parties
	informing
	them
	that
	Robinson's 	October
	16
	letter
	was
being 	considered 	an appeal 	of 	the 	appeals
	assistant's
	October
	12
3
The
	proof 	of 	service
	showed
	that 	the
	"Appeal" 	was
	served
	on
PERE.
	There 	was 	no 	proof 	of 	service
	showing
	that 	the 	District
had 	been 	served 	with
	a 	copy 	of 	Robinson's 	appeal.
3

4
rejection
	of
	Robinson
1 s
	appeal 	of
	a
	Board 	rlgent
1 ~
	ni~mi~qrl1
	of
her
	unfair 	practice
	charge.
	The
	appeals
	assistant
1 s
	letter
	also
informed
	the
	District
	of
	its
	right
	to
	respond
	to
	Robinson
1 s
appeal.
The
	District 	filed
	a
	response
	which
	asserted 	that
	Robinson's
appeal
	is
	defective
	and
	should
	be
	dismissed.
DISCUSSION
PERB
	Regulation
	32360
	provides,
	in
	part:
(a)
	An
	appeal
	may
	be
	filed
	with 	the
	Board
itself
	from
	any
	administrative 	decision,
except 	as 	noted
	in
	Section
	32380.
(c) 	The
	appeal
	must 	be
	in
	writing
	and
	must
state
	the
	specific
	issue(s)
	of 	procedure,
fact,
	law
	or
	rationale 	that
	is
	appealed
	and
state
	the
	grounds
	for 	the 	appeal.
Robinson's
	October
	16,
	1995
	appeal
	fails
	to
	state
	the
grounds
	for 	her
	appeal 	of 	the 	appeals
	assistant
1 s
	rejection
	of
her 	underlying 	appeal.
	Nor
	does
	it
	explain
	why
	she
	failed 	to
perfect
	the 	appeal 	of 	the 	dismissal
	of 	her
	charge 	as
	directed
	by
the 	appeals
	assistant.
	Accordingly,
	Robinson 	has
	failed 	to
comply
	with
	PERB
	Regulation
	32360
	and
	her 	appeal
	must 	be
	denied.
ORDER
The
	appeal 	of 	the
	PERB
	appeals
	assistant's
	rejection 	of
Sylvia 	Robinson's 	appeal 	of
	a
	Board
	agent's 	dismissal 	of
	her
unfair 	practice
	charge
	in
	Case
	No. 	LA-CE-3551
	is
	hereby
	DENIED.
Chairman
	Caffrey 	and
	Member
	Johnson 	joined 	in 	this
	Decision.
4