State of California (PERB 1617S)

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD

DONALD WAYNE KUNKEL,
Charging Party, Case No. SF-CE-223-S

V. PERB Decision No. 1617-S

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, April 16, 2004

Respondent.

Appearances: Donald Wayne Kunkel, on his own behalf; State of California (Department of
Personnel Administration) by Tricia M. Keegan, Staff Counsel, for State of California.

Before Duncan, Chairman; Whitehead and Nema, Members.
DECISION

NEIMA, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board (Board)
on appeal by Donald Wayne Kunkel (Kunkel) of a Board agent’s dismissal (attached) of his
unfair practice charge. The charge alleged that the State of California (State) violated the
Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills Act)! by retaliating against Kunkel for his protected activities.

The Board has reviewed the entire record in this matter, including the unfair practice
charge, the warning and dismissal letters, Kunkel’s appeal and the State’s response. The Board
finds the warning and dismissal letters to be free of prejudicial error and adopts them as the

decision of the Board itself.

'The Dills Act is codified at Government Code section 3512, et seq.

ORDER
The unfair practice charge in Case No. SF-CE-223-S is hereby DISMISSED
WITHOUT LEA VE TO AMEND.
Chairman Duncan and Member Whitehead joined in this Decision.
2

STATE OF CALIFORNIA	
.{.
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
San Francisco Regional Office
1330 Broadway, Suite 1532
Oakland, CA 94612-2514
Telephone: (510) 622-1022
Fax: (5 I 0) 622-1027
June 18, 2003
Donald Wayne Kunkel
Re: 	Donald Wayne Kunkel
v.
State
of
California
Unfair Practice Charge No. SF-CE-223-S
DISMISSAL LETTER
Dear Mr. Kunkel:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on May 2, 2003. Donald Wayne Kunkel alleges that the State
of
California violated the Ralph
C.
Dills Act (Dills
Act)1
by discriminating against him because
of
his protected activity.
I indicated to you in my attached letter dated May 22, 2003, that the above-referenced charge
did not state a prima facie case. You were advised that, ifthere were any factual inaccuracies
or additional facts which would correct the deficiencies explained in that letter, you should
amend the charge. You were further advised that, unless you amended the charge to state a
prima facie case or withdrew it prior to May 29, 2003, the charge would be dismissed.
I have not received either an amended charge or a request for withdrawal. 	On June 13, 2003,
this office received approximately 75 pages
of
material, most
of
which consisted
of
photocopies
of
certified mail receipts. There is no indication that this material was served on
the Respondent. I will summarize the additional materials below as well as those facts
provided and my communication with you regarding this charge.
You are employed by the State
of
California, Department of Transportation as an Equipment
Operator II. As such, you are exclusively represented by the International Union
of
Operating
Engineers (IUOE). 	The State and IUOE are parties to a collective bargaining agreement which
expires on July 2, 2004. Article 14. l O
of
the Grievance Procedure provides for the binding
arbitration of grievances. Article 20.3 prohibits discrimination based upon protected activities.
In May 2000, you were issued a Letter of Warning for failing to follow the proper chain ofcommand when attempting to change your schedule while on duty.
1 The Dills Act is codified at Government Code section 3512 et seq. The text of the
Dills Act and the Board's Regulations may be found on the Internet at www.perb.ca.gov.
P.
0.
Box 373
Crockett, CA 94525

SF-CE-223-S
June 18, 2003
Page 2
In early 2001, you filed a complaint with the Air Quality Board, asserting violations
of
State
law. 	The Air Quality Board's review found no violation. It does not appear your supervisors
were aware
of
this conduct.
On June 19, 2001, you were issued a Notice
of
Adverse Action from the Department. TheNotice terminated your employment with the State.
On June 21, 2001, the California Highway Patrol and Sheriffs' Office responded to an
anonymous call regarding your welfare. When the officer's arrived at your home, you
indicated that you had been suicidal on the previous day and that you were in possession
of
two firearms. The officers transported you to the County Medical Center for a psychiatric
evaluation and removed the firearms from your home. Your attempts to seek return
of
those
firearms have failed.
On June 27, 2001, you and the State agreed to modify the Notice
of
Adverse Action into a
settlement agreement suspending you without pay for six (6) months, demoting you for six (6)
months and ordering you to attend anger management courses. After agreeing to the
settlement, you attempted to schedule an SPB hearing regarding the Adverse Action. To that
end, you contacted SPB and the Division
of
Judges. You did not inform IUOE
of
these
attempts, and they did not learn
of
your attempted appeal until informed by SPB. IUOE
indicated to SPB and the State that the settlement agreement was being circulated for
signatures and was still the parties' understanding regarding the Adverse Action.
In May 2002, Transaction Supervisor Paula Sypnicki filed a harassment complaint against you.
At that time, Regional Manager Rich Olander instructed you to follow the proper chain
of
command and not to directly contact Transaction personnel.
On September 10, 2002, your Leadworker Dennis McPherson instructed you to tum over your
Department identification badge in order to secure you a new badge. You refused to surrender
your badge, stating you did not have it with you. Department policy requires you to be in
possession
of
your identification card while at work.
On February 18, 2003, supervisor Chuck Hazelwood presented you with information you had
requested on temporary transfers. Upon receiving this information, you crumpled up the paper
and tossed it into the trash.
On February 23, 2003, the Department attempted radio contact with you for approximately 45
minutes. You did not respond to these calls. An inspection
of
your vehicle found that the
radio was working properly.
On February 28, 2003, Mr. Hazelwood verbally reprimanded you for representing yourself as
the Department's representative for bridge reconstruction issues. Apparently such duties are
not within your scope of responsibilities.

SF-CE-223-S
June 18, 2003
Page 3
In March 2003, you contacted the Transaction Department without following the chain
of
command
as
instructed. The Department contends this action disrupted the department and
forced them
to
complete unnecessary research for you.
On March 14, 2003, you and fellow employee Paul Johnson conducted a security inspection
of
the Benicia bridge. 	During this inspection, you "abandoned your assignment" and left your
coworker alone to complete the inspection. Departmental rules state that inspections are to be
conducted in pairs.
On March 17, 2003, Mr. McPherson presented you with your Individual Development Plan.
Mr. McPherson instructed you to complete a portion
of
the IDP and return it to Mr.
Hazelwood. Your reaction to this memorandum was to tear the paper up and state "fuck them
assholes."
On March 21, 2003, while hooking up a warning trailer to a cone truck, you failed to release
the parking brake on the trailer and dragged the trailer approximately 100 feet, leaving skid
marks in the parking lot. When questioned by Department personnel, you stated that you knew
the parking brake was on and stated "Oh well." An accident report was filed over this incident.
On March 24, 2003, you and your fellow coworkers were instructed to attend a safety meeting.
During this meeting, Mr. Hazelwood requested that you stop "tapping" the deck
of
cards in
your hand on the desk, as it was disrupting the meeting. You complied with this request, and
then picked up a newspaper and began to read that during the meeting. On March 26, 2003,
during a staff meeting, you were again instructed to stop "tapping" the deck
of
cards on the
desk. When you put down the deck
of
cards, you picked up a magazine and began reading it
instead
of
paying attention to the meeting. When Mr. Hazelwood asked you to put down the
magazine and join the rest
of
the staff at the table, you refused stating "I can hear you from
where I'm at."
On April 7, 2003, you received a second Notice
of
Adverse Action. The Notice suspends you
without pay for six (6) months.
On May 27, 2003 and June 3, 2003, we spoke at length regarding your allegations and your
Warning Letter. During these conversations, I explained that PERB would investigate your
allegations
of
discrimination and render a decision based on the facts you and the State
provided. You were also informed that any and all documents you sent to PERB must be
served on the State
of
California, Department
of
Personnel Administration. I further indicated
that PERB could not rely on verbal conversations with you in rendering its decision.
Additionally, on May 27, 2003, I explained that the charge lacked specifics regarding your
protected activity and why you believed you were being singled out for discrimination. I then
extended your deadline until June 6, 2003.
On June 3, 2003, I received a telephone message from Dottie Egel, Chief Counsel for the State
Personnel Board. Ms. Egle stated that you had informed SPB that PERB would be
representing you in your appeal of your dismissal and suspension.

SF-CE-223-S
June 18, 2003
Page 4
On June 4, 2003, I sent you the attached letter reiterating our May 27, 2003 and June 3, 2003,
conversations. I further noted that I had extended your deadline until June 12, 2003. On June
9, 2003, we again spoke by telephone about your charge and my June 4, 2003, letter. I again
reiterated PERB's role in investigating your charge and the need for you to indicate :what,
if
any, protected activity you engaged in.
Based on the above stated facts, and those provided in the original charge, the charge fails to
state a prima facie violation
of
the Dills Act, for the reasons provided below.
To demonstrate a violation
of
Dills Act section 3519(a), the charging party must show that:
(1) the employee exercised rights under the Dills Act; (2) the employer had knowledge
of
the
exercise
of
those rights; and (3) the employer imposed or threatened to impose reprisals,
discriminated or threatened to discriminate, or otherwise interfered with, restrained or coerced
the employees because
of
the exercise
of
those rights. (Novato Unified School District (1982)
PERB Decision No. 210 (Novato); Carlsbad Unified School District (1979) PERB Decision
No. 89.)
Although the timing
of
the employer's adverse action in close temporal proximity to the
employee's protected conduct is an important factor (North Sacramento School District (1982)
PERB Decision No. 264), it does not, without more, demonstrate the necessary connection or
"nexus" between the adverse action and the protected conduct. (Moreland Elementary School
District (1982) PERB Decision No. 227.) Facts establishing one or more
of
the following
additional factors must also be present: (1) the employer's disparate treatment
of
the employee
(State
of
California (Department
of
Transportation) (1984) PERB Decision No. 459-S); (2) the
employer's departure from established procedures and standards when dealing with the
employee (Santa Clara Unified School District (1979) PERB Decision No. 104.); (3) the
employer's inconsistent or contradictory justifications for its actions (State
of
California
(Department
of
Parks and Recreation) (1983) PERB Decision No. 328-S; (4) the employer's
cursory investigation
of
the employee's misconduct; (5) the employer's failure to offer the
employee justification at the time it took action or the offering
of
exaggerated, vague, or
ambiguous reasons; (6) employer animosity towards union activists (Cupertino Union
Elementary School District) (1986) PERB Decision No. 572.); or (7) any other facts which
might demonstrate the employer's unlawful motive. (Novato; North Sacramento School
District, supra, PERB Decision No. 264.)
As noted in my May 22, 2003, letter and in each subsequent conversation we have had, the
charge fails to provide any facts regarding protected activity. While you made a request to the
Air Quality Board in early 2000, there is no evidence that your employer was aware
of
this
complaint. During our verbal conversations, you indicated you had participated in some union
activity in 1999, and I instructed you to provide a written explanation of those events. None of
the information you have provided mentions this early protected activity and you have failed to
provide a written explanation of the protected activity. As such, this charge is dismissed as it
fails to provide any protected activity and any of the relevant nexus factors.
·

SF-CE-223-S
June 18, 2003
Page 5
Right to Appeal
Pursuant to PERB Regulations,2 you may obtain a review
of
this dismissal
of
the charge
by
filing an appeal to the Board itself within twenty (20) calendar days after service
of
this
dismissal. (Regulation 32635(a).) Any document filed with the Board must containthe case
name and number, and the original and five (5) copies
of
all documents must be provided to
the Board.
A document is considered "filed" when actually received before the close
of
business (5 p.m.)
on the last day set for filing or when mailed
by
certified or Express United States mail, as
shown on the postal receipt or postmark, or delivered to a common carrier promising overnight
delivery, as shown on the carrier's receipt, not later than the last day set for filing.
(Regulations 32135(a) and 32130.)
A document is also considered "filed" when received
by
facsimile transmission before the
close
of
business on the last day for filing together with a Facsimile Transmission Cover Sheet
which meets the requirements
of
Regulation 32135(d), provided the filing party also places the
original, together with the required number
of
copies and
proof
of
service, in the U.S. mail.
(Regulations 32135(b), (c) and (d); see also Regulations 32090 and 32130.)
The Board's address is:
Public Employment Relations Board
Attention: Appeals Assistant
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
FAX: (916) 327-7960
If
you file a timely appeal
of
the refusal to issue a complaint, any other party may file with the
Board an original and five copies
of
a statement in opposition within twenty (20) calendar days
following the date
of
service
of
the appeal. (Regulation 32635(b).)
Service
All documents authorized to be filed herein must also be "served" upon all parties to the
proceeding, and a "proof
of
service" must accompany each copy
of
a document served upon a
party or filed with the Board itself. (See Regulation 32140 for the required contents and a
sample form.) The document will be considered properly "served" when personally delivered
or deposited in the first-class mail, postage paid and properly addressed. A document filed by
facsimile transmission may be concurrently served via facsimile transmission on all parties to
the proceeding. (Regulation 32135(c).)
2 PERB's Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.
\

SF-CE-223-S
June 18, 2003
Page 6
Extension
of
Time
A request for an extension
of
time, in which to file a document with the Board itself, must be
in writing and filed with the Board at the previously noted address. A request for an extension
must be filed at least three (3) calendar days before the expiration
of
the time required for
filing the document. The request must indicate good cause for and,
if
known, the position
of
each other party regarding the extension, and shall be accompanied by proof
of
service
of
the
request upon each party. 	(Regulation 32132.)
Final Date
If
no appeal is filed within the specified time limits, the dismissal will become final when the
time limits have expired.
Sincerely,
ROBERT THOMPSON
General Counsel
By Kristin L. Rosi
Regional Attorney
Attachment
cc: Patricia Keegan
k/42-

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	GRAY
DA VIS, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
San Francisco Regional Office
1330 Broadway, Suite 1532
Oakland, CA 94612-2514
Telephone: (510) 622-1022
Fax: (510) 622-1027
May 22, 2003
Donald Wayne Kunkel
P.
0.
Box 373
Crockett, CA 94525
( 	'
Re: 	Donald Wayne Kunkel v. State
of
California
Unfair Practice Charge No. SF-CE-223-S
WARNING LETTER
Dear Mr. Kunkel:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on May 2, 2003. Donald Wayne Kunkel alleges that the State
of
California violated the Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills Act) 1 by discriminating against him because
of
his protected activity.
Investigation
of
the charge revealed the following. The charge itself is devoid
of
a statement
of
facts and includes only a copy
of
the April 7, 2003, Notice
of
Adverse Action, the first page
of
the Stipulated Settlement Agreement, and a two page list
of
statutes you believe have been
violated. The following facts have been gleamed from the limited information provided.
You are employed by the State
of
California, Department
of
Transportation as an Equipment
Operator II. As such, you are exclusively represented by the International Union
of
Operating
Engineers (IUOE). 	The State and IUOE are parties to a collective bargaining agreement which
expires on July 2, 2004. Article 14.10
of
the Grievance Procedure provides for the binding
arbitration
of
grievances. Article 20.3 prohibits discrimination based upon protected activities.
With regard to Discipline, Article
15
states in relevant part:
c. The notice shall include:
(1) A statement
of
the nature
of
the discipline;
(2) The effective dates
of
the action;
(3) The reason for the action in ordinary language;
(4) A statement advising the employee thats/he may answer
orally or in writing in advance of the effective date to a
representative of the appointing authority who has the authority
to make or recommend a final disciplinary action;
1 The Dills Act is codified at Government Code section 3512 et seq. The text of the
Dills Act and the Board's Regulations may be found on the Internet at www.perb.ca.gov.

Page 2
(5) A statement advising employees subject to major discipline
about their right to file a grievance or appeal to the State
Personnel Board;
(6) A statement advising the employee
of
the time within which a
grievance must be filed, and the name
of
the person specified by
the State with whom the grievance must be filed; and,
(7) A copy
of
all materials upon which the action is based.
SF-CE-223-S
May 22, 2003
On June 19, 2001, you were issued a Notice
of
Adverse Action from the Department. The
Notice terminated your employment with the State. On June 27, 2001, you and the State
agreed to modify the Notice
of
Adverse Action into a settlement agreement suspending you
without pay for six (6) months, demoting you for six (6) months and ordering you to attend
anger management courses.
In May 2002, Transaction Supervisor Paula Sypnicki filed a harassment complaint against you.
At that time, Regional Manager Rich Olander instructed you to follow the proper chain
of
command and not to directly contact Transaction personnel.
On September 10, 2002, your Leadworker Dennis McPherson instructed you to tum over your
Department identification badge in order to secure you a new badge. You refused to surrender
your badge, stating you did not have it with you. Department policy requires you to be in
possession
of
your identification card while at work.
On February 18, 2003, supervisor Chuck Hazelwood presented you with information you had
requested on temporary transfers. Upon receiving this information, you crumpled up the paper
and tossed it into the trash.
On February 23, 2003, the Department attempted radio contact with you for approximately 45
minutes. You did not respond to these calls. An inspection
of
your vehicle found that the
radio was working properly.
On February 28, 2003, Mr. Hazelwood verbally reprimanded you for representing yourself as
the Department's representative for bridge reconstruction issues. Apparently such duties are
not within your scope
of
responsibilities.
In March 2003, you contacted the Transaction Department without following the chain
of
command as instructed. The Department contends this action disrupted the department and
forced them to complete unnecessary research for you.
On March 14, 2003, you and fellow employee Paul Johnson conducted a security inspection
ofthe Benicia bridge. During this inspection, you "abandoned your assignment" and left your
coworker alone to complete the inspection. Departmental rules state that inspections are to be
conducted in pairs.

SF-CE-223-S
May 22, 2003
Page 3
On March 17, 2003, Mr. McPherson presented you with your Individual Development Plan.
Mr. McPherson instructed you to complete a portion
of
the IDP and return it to Mr.
Hazelwood. Your reaction to this memorandum was to tear the paper up and state "fuck them
assholes."
On March 21, 2003, while hooking up a warning trailer to a cone truck, you failed to release
the parking brake on the trailer and dragged the trailer approximately 100 feet, leaving skid
marks in the parking lot. When questioned by Department personnel, you stated that you knew
the parking brake was on and stated "Oh well." An accident report was filed over this incident.
On March 24, 2003, you and your fellow coworkers were instructed to attend a safety meeting.
During this meeting, Mr. Hazelwood requested that you stop "tapping" the deck
of
cards in
your hand on the desk, as it was disrupting the meeting. You complied with this request, and
then picked up a newspaper and began to read that during the meeting. On March 26, 2003,
during a staff meeting; you were again instructed to stop "tapping" the deck
of
cards on the
desk. When you put down the deck
of
cards, you picked up a magazine and began reading it
instead
of
paying attention to the meeting. When Mr. Hazelwood asked you to put down the
magazine and join the rest
of
the staff at the table, you refused stating "I can hear you from
where
I'm
at."
On April 7, 2003, you received a second Notice
of
Adverse Action. The Notice suspends you
without pay for six (6) months.
Based on the above stated facts, the charge as presently written fails to state a prima facie
violation
of
the Dills Act, for the reasons provided below.
To demonstrate a violation
of
Dills Act section 3519(a), the charging party must show that:
(1) the employee exercised rights under the Dills Act; (2) the employer had knowledge
of
the
exercise
of
those rights; and (3) the employer imposed or threatened to impose reprisals,
discriminated or threatened to discriminate, or otherwise interfered with, restrained or coerced
the employees because
of
the exercise
of
those rights. (Novato Unified School District (1982)
PERB Decision No. 210 (Novato); Carlsbad Unified School District (1979) PERB Decision
No. 89.)
Although the timing
of
the employer's adverse action in close temporal proximity to the
employee's protected conduct is an important factor (North Sacramento School District (1982)
PERB Decision No. 264), it does not, without more, demonstrate the necessary connection or
"nexus" between the adverse action and the protected conduct. (Moreland Elementary School
District (1982) PERB Decision No. 227.) Facts establishing one or more
of
the following
additional factors must also be present: (1) the employer's disparate treatment of the employee
(State of California (Department of Transportation) (1984) PERB Decision No. 459-S); (2) the
employer's departure from established procedures and standards when dealing with the
employee (Santa Clara Unified School District (1979) PERB Decision No. 104.); (3) the
employer's inconsistent or contradictory justifications for its actions (State of California
(Department of Parks and Recreation) (1983) PERB Decision No. 328-S; (4) the employer's

SF-CE-223-S
May 22, 2003
Page 4
(
cursory investigation
of
the employee's misconduct; (5) the employer's failure to offer the
employee justification at the time it took action or the offering
of
exaggerated, vague, or
ambiguous reasons; (6) employer animosity towards union activists (Cupertino Union
Elementary School District) (1986) PERB Decision No. 572.); or (7) any other facts which
might demonstrate the employer's unlawful motive. (Novato; North Sacramento School
District, supra, PERB Decision No. 264.)
Herein, the charge fails to provide any evidence
of
your protected activity. Although there is a
passing reference to "whistleblower" statutes, nothing in the charge provides specific facts
regarding protected activity. The charge does not state what activity you engaged in, when
such actions took place or how the State became aware
of
your protected activity. PERB
Regulation 32615(a)(5) requires, inter alia, that an unfair practice charge include a "clear and
concise statement
of
the facts and conduct alleged to constitute an unfair practice." Thus, the
charging party's burden includes alleging the "who, what, when, where and how"
of
an unfair
practice. (State
of
California (Department
of
Food and Agriculture) (1994) PERB Decision
No. 1071-S, citing United Teachers-Los Angeles (Ragsdale) (1992) PERB Decision No. 944.)
Mere legal conclusions are not sufficient to state a prima facie case. (Ibid.; Charter Oak
Unified School District (1991) PERB Decision No. 873.)
Additionally, the charge fails to provide any facts demonstrating nexus as there are no facts
demonstrating other employees who damaged Department equipment, disrupted Department
meetings or disobeyed Departmental rules were not similarly punished. As such, this charge
fails to state a prima facie case.
Moreover, even assuming you engaged in protected activity and could demonstrate the
requisite nexus, the charge still fails to state a prima facie case within PERB's jurisdiction.
Section 3514.5(a)
of
the Dills Act states, in pertinent part, that PERB shall not:
Issue a complaint against conduct also prohibited by the
provisions
of
the [collective bargaining] agreement between the
parties until the grievance machinery
of
the agreement,
if
it exists
and covers the matter at issue, has been exhausted, either by
settlement or binding arbitration.
In Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District (1980) PERB Order No. Ad-8la, the Board
explained that:
While there is no statutory deferral requirement imposed on the.
National Labor Relations Board (hereafter NLRB), that agency
has voluntarily adopted such a policy both with regard to post-
arbitral and pre-arbitral award situations.2 EERA
section 3541.5(a) essentially codifies the policy developed by the
NLRB regarding deferral to arbitration proceedings and awards.
It is appropriate, therefore, to look for guidance to the private

SF-CE-223-S
May 22, 2003
Page 5
(
sector. 3 [Fn. 2 omitted;
fn.
3 to Fire Fighters Union
v.
City
of
Vallejo (1974)
12
Cal.3d 608.]
Although Dry Creek was decided under the Educational Employment Relations Act2 the NLRB
deferral standard has also been applied
to
the Dills Act. (State
of
California (Department
of
Food and Agriculture) (2002) PERB Decision No. 1473-S.)
In Collyer Insulated Wire (1971) 192 NLRB 837 [77 LRRM 1931] and subsequent cases, the
National Labor Relations Board articulated standards under which deferral to the contractual
grievance procedure is appropriate in prearbitral situations. These requirements are: 	(1) the
dispute must arise within a stable collective bargaining relationship where there is no enmity
by the respondent toward the charging party; (2) the respondent must be ready and willing to
proceed to arbitration and must waive contract-based procedural defenses; and (3) the contract
and its meaning must lie at the center
of
the dispute.
These standards may be met with respect to this case. First, no evidence has been produced
to
indicate that the parties are not operating within a stable collective bargaining relationship.
Second, the issue raised by this charge that the Stated discriminated against you because
of
your protected activity directly involves an interpretation
of
20.3
of
the collective bargaining
agreement. Finally, should the State choose to waive procedural defenses in this case, this
charge would be subject to deferral.
For these reasons the charge, as presently written, does not state a prima facie case.	
If
there
are any factual inaccuracies in this letter or additional facts that would correct the deficiencies
explained above, please amend the charge. The amended charge should be prepared on a
standard PERB unfair practice charge form, clearly labeled First Amended Charge, contain all
the facts and allegations you wish to make, and be signed under penalty
of
perjury by the
charging party. The amended charge must have the case number written on the top right hand
comer
of
the charge form. 	The amended charge must be served on the respondent's
representative and the original proof
of
service must be filed with PERB.
If
I do not receive an
amended charge or withdrawal from you before May 29, 2003, I shall dismiss your charge.	
If
you have any questions, please call me at the above telephone number.
2 The Educational Employment Relations Act is codified at Government Code section
3540 et seq.

SF-CE-223-S
May 22, 2003
Page 6

Sincerely,

Kristin L. Rosi —
Regional Attorney

KLR