California State Employees Association (Harris) (PERB 1696S)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
MELODI F. HARRIS,
Charging Party, 	Case No. SA-CO-269-S
V . 	PERB Decision No. 1696-S
September 28, 2004
CALIFORNIA STATE EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION,
Respondent.
Appearance: Melodi F. Harris, on her own behalf.
Before Duncan, Chairman; Whitehead and Neima, Members.
DECISION
DUNCAN, Chairman: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(Board) on appeal by Melodi F. Harris (Harris) of a Board agent's dismissal (attached) of her
unfair practice charge. The charge alleged that the California State Employees Association
failed to seek a waiver of the statute of limitations period for filing a grievance and failed to
pursue reimbursement of expenses for educational course work that had been denied by her
employer in violation of the Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills Act) ' sections 3515.7(g) and 3519.5(b).
The Board has reviewed the entire record in this case, including the unfair practice
charge, the amended charge, the warning and dismissal letters and Harris' appeal. The Board
finds the Board agent's dismissal to be free of prejudicial error and adopts it as the decision of
the Board itself.
The Dills Act is codified at Government Code section 3512, et seq.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
MELODI F. HARRIS,
Charging Party,
V.
CALIFORNIA STATE EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION,
Res ondent.
Case No. SA-CO-269-S
PERB Decision No. 	1696-S
September 	28, 	2004
Appearance: Melodi F. Harris, on her own behalf.
Before Duncan, Chairman; Whitehead and Neima, Members.
DECISION
DUNCAN, Chairman: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(Board) on appeal by Melodi F. Harris (Harris) of a Board agent's dismissal (attached) of her
unfair practice charge. The charge alleged that the California State Employees Association
failed to seek a waiver of the statute of limitations period for filing a grievance and failed to
pursue reimbursement of expenses for educational course work that had been denied by her
employer in violation of the Ralph C. Dills. Act (Dills Act) 1 sections 3515.7(g) and 3519.S(b).
The Board has reviewed the entire record in this case, including the unfair practice
charge, the amended charge, the warning and dismissal letters and Harris' appeal. The Board
finds the Board agent's dismissal to be free of prejudicial error and adopts it as the decision of
the Board itself.
1The Dills Act is codified at Government Code section 3512, et seq.

2
ORDER
The unfair practice charge in Case No. SA-CO-269-S is hereby DISMISSED
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
Members Whitehead and Neima joined in this Decision.
2
ORDER
The unfair practice charge in Case No. SA-C0-269-S is hereby DISMISSED
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
Members Whitehead and Neima joined in this Decision.

==============""'
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	OLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Sacramento Regional Office
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
Telephone: (916) 327-8386
Fax: (916) 327-6377
July 27, 2004
Melodi F. Harris
Re: 	Melodi F. Harris v. California State Employees Association
Unfair Practice Charge No. SA-CO-269-S
DISMISSAL LETTER
Dear Ms. Harris:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on July 13, 2004. Melodi F. Harris alleges that the California State
Employees Association violated the Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills Act)' by failing to properly
represent her
I indicated to you in my attached letter dated July 20, 2004, that the above-referenced charge
did not state a prima facie case. You were advised that, if there 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 July 27, 2004, the charge would be dismissed. I
received your amended charge on July 23, 2004. On July 26, we discussed this charge by
telephone.
As stated in your initial charge, the underlying issue is one which you have pursued since
2002. The grievance procedure of the applicable MOU (Unit 1) provides for the filing of a
formal grievance within 21 days of the affected employee learning of the events leading to the
grievance. Prior to filing a formal grievance there is a provision for informal discussion and
settlement of the matter. In your amended charge you continue to assert that CSEA should
have pursued a grievance on your behalf. You also contend that the informal inquiry stage has
no set time limit.
PERB has held that a Union's failure to assist employee with his/her request that the State
agree to waive timelines to file a grievance does not breach the duty of fair representation
when facts fail to show the union's action was without rational basis or devoid of honest
judgment. California State Employees Association (Bradford) (2001) PERB Decision
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.O. Box 22906
Sacramento, CA 95822
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	TOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENTRELATIONS BOARD
Sacramento Regional Office
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
Telephone: (916) 327-8386
Fax: (916) 327-6377
July 27, 2004
Melodi F. Harris
Re: 	Melodi F. Harris v. California State Employees Association
Unfair Practice Charge No. SA-CO-269-S
DISMISSAL LETTER
Dear Ms. Harris:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on July 13, 2004. Melodi F. Harris alleges that the California State
Employees Association violated the Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills Act)1 by failing to properly
represent her
I indicated to you in my attached letter dated July 20, 2004, that the above-referenced charge
did not state a prima facie case. You were advised that, if there 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 July 27, 2004, the charge would be dismissed. I
received your amended charge on July 23, 2004. On July 26, we discussed this charge by
telephone.
As stated in your initial charge, the underlying issue is one which you have pursued since
2002. The grievance procedure of the applicable MOU (Unit 1) provides for the filing of a
formal gr~evance within 21 days of the affected employee learning of the events leading to the
grievance. Prior to filing a formal grievance there is a provision for informal discussion and
settlement of the matter. In your amended charge you continue to assert that CSEA should
have pursued a grievance on your behalf. You also contend that the informal inquiry stage has
no set time limit.
PERB has held that a Union's failure to assist employee with his/her request that the State
agree to waive timelines to file a grievance does not breach the duty of fair representation
when facts fail to show the union's action was without rational basis or devoid of honest
judgment. 	California State Employees Association (Bradford) (2001) PERB Decision
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.

SA-CO-269-S
July 27, 2004
Page 2
No. 1421-S. The Board has also held that a union is not required to process a grievance to any
level if it has a reasonable belief that the claim is without merit. Los Rios College Federation
of Teachers (Lowman) (1996) PERB Decision No. 1142. Accordingly, CSEA was not
obligated to seek a waiver of timelines or pursue the matter through informal discussions as
long as its actions were not arbitrary or taken in bad faith.
You contend that a grievance would have merit because you are entitled to employer
reimbursement for your educational courses and upward mobility efforts. You disagree with
the union representative's assessment that such a claim is without merit. As stated in your
initial charge, the union representative, Brian Caldeira, took the position that, after the
employer has denied a request for courses, you are not entitled to then take the courses and
later receive reimbursement. Your charge does not provide facts that demonstrate Caldeira's
position on this issue was devoid of a rational basis. As stated in my prior letter, the duty of
fair representation imposed on the exclusive representative extends to grievance handling.
Fremont Teachers Association (King) (1980) PERB Decision No. 125; United Teachers of
Los Angeles (Collins) (1982) PERB Decision No. 258.) In order to state a prima facie
violation of this section of the Dills Act, Charging Party must show that the Respondent's
conduct was arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith. In United Teachers of Los Angeles
Collins), the Public Employment Relations Board stated:
Absent bad faith, discrimination, or arbitrary conduct, mere
negligence or poor judgment in handling a grievance does not
constitute a breach of the union's duty. [Citations omitted.]
A union may exercise its discretion to determine how far to
pursue a grievance in the employee's behalf as long as it does not
arbitrarily ignore a meritorious grievance or process a grievance
in a perfunctory fashion. A union is also not required to process
an employee's grievance if the chances for success are minimal.
The facts provided with your amended charge do not establish a violation of the duty of fair
representation. Therefore, I am dismissing the charge based on the facts and reasons contained
herein and in my July 20 letter.
Right to Appeal
Pursuant to PERB Regulations," you may obtain a review of this dismissal of the charge by
iling 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 contain the case
name and number, and the original and five (5) copies of all documents must be provided to
the Board.
PERB's Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.
(
.
SA-CO-269-S
July 27, 2004
Page 2
No. 1421-S. The Board has also held that a union is not required to process a grievance to any
level if it has a reasonable belief that the claim is without merit. Los Rios College Federation
of Teachers (Lowman) (1996) PERB Decision No. 1142. Accordingly, CSEA was not
obligated to seek a waiver of timelines or pursue the matter through informal discussions as
long as its actions were not arbitrary or taken in bad faith.
You contend that a grievance would have merit because you are entitled to employer
reimbursement for your educational courses and upward mobility efforts. You disagree with
the union representative's assessment that such a claim is without merit. As stated in your
initial charge, the union representative, Brian Caldeira, took the position that, after the
employer has denied a request for courses, you are not entitled to then take the courses and
later receive reimbursement. Your charge does not provide facts that demonstrate Caldeira's
position on this issue was devoid of a rational basis. As stated in my prior letter, the duty of
fair representation imposed on the exclusive representative extends to grievance handling.
(Fremont Teachers Association (King) (1980) PERB Decision No. 125; United Teachers of
Los Angeles (Collins) (1982) PERB Decision No. 258.) In order to state a prima facie
violation of this section of the Dills Act, Charging Party must show that the Respondent's
conduct was arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith. In United Teachers of Los Angeles
(Collins). the Public Employment Relations Board stated:
Absent bad faith, discrimination, or arbitrary conduct, mere
negligence or poor judgment in handling a grievance does not
constitute a breach of the union's duty. 	[Citations omitted.]
A union may exercise its discretion to determine how far to
pursue a grievance in the employee's behalf as long as it does not
arbitrarily ignore a meritorious grievance or process a grievance
in a perfunctory fashion. A union is also not required to process
an employee's grievance if the chances for success are minimal.
The facts provided with your amended charge do not establish a violation of the duty of fair
representation. Therefore, I am dismissing the charge based on the facts and reasons contained
herein and in my July 20 letter.
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 contain the case
name and number, and the original and five (5) copies of all documents must be provided to
the Board.
2 PERB's Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.

SA-CO-269-S
July 27, 2004
Page 3
A document is considered "filed" when actually received before the close of business (5 p.m.)
on 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).)
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,
(
SA-CO-269-S
July 27, 2004
Page 3
A document is considered "filed" when actually received before the close of business (5 p.m.)
on 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).)
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,

\SJ 	k~lfl
CSA-CO-269-S
July 27, 2004
Page 4
ROBERT THOMPSON
General Counsel
By
Bernard McMonigle
Regional Attorney
Attachment
cc: Paul Harris
SA-CO-269-S
July 27, 2004
Page 4
ROBERT THOMPSON
General Counsel
By<
BernardMcMonigle
Regional Attorney
Attachment
cc: Paul Harris

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	D SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Sacramento Regional Office
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
Telephone: (916) 327-8386
Fax: (916) 327-6377	PERB
July 20, 2004
Melodi F. Harris
Re: 	Melodi F. Harris v. California State Employees Association
Unfair Practice Charge No. SA-CO-269-S
WARNING LETTER
Dear Ms. Harris:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on July 13, 2004. Melodi F. Harris alleges that the California State
Employees Association violated the Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills Act)' by failing to properly
represent her.
Your charge states that on July 12, 2004, you asked union representative Brian Caldeira to file
a grievance on your behalf. You explained that you wanted to grieve a failure to reimburse
you for educational expenses, wage loss and promotion loss. You had been involved with
these issues since 2002 and had filed charges with the State Personnel Board.
Caldeira informed you that he would not pursue a grievance because a grievance would be
untimely under the 21 day limit in the grievance procedure. Apparently, he also informed you
that your grievance was without merit: your charge states he told you "That I could not be
denied from the office to take classes, then take the classes anyway, then later ask for
reimbursement." You disagreed and told him that you had filed proper charges with all
department heads, "And that it would not be unreasonable for the union to inquiry to the
situation." Caldeira reaffirmed that he would not pursue a grievance
You asked Caldeira to provide you with a letter containing his response to your grievance
request. He first stated he would not do so but then told you to make such request in writing
and he would have the union's attorneys review it.
You contend that the union should seek a waiver of the limitations period for filing a grievance
and seek the reimbursement of expenses denied by your employer.
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.
( 	. 	( 	~· ... :..D
==========~==
P.O. Box 22906
Sacramento, CA 95822
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Sacramento Regional Office
I 031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
Telephone: (916) 327-8386
Fax: (916) 327-6377
July 20, 2004
Melodi F. Harris
Re: 	Melodi F. Harris v. California State Employees Association
Unfair Practice Charge No. SA-CO-269-S
WARNING LETTER
Dear Ms. Harris:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on July 13, 2004. Melodi F. Harris alleges that the California State
Employees Association violated the Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills Act)1 by failing to properly
represent her.
Your charge states that on July 12, 2004, you asked union representative Brian Caldeira to file
a grievance on your behalf. You explained that you wanted to grieve a failure to reimburse
you for educational expenses, wage loss and promotion loss. You had been involved with
these issues since 2002 and had filed charges with the State Personnel Board.
Caldeira informed you that he would not pursue a grievance because a grievance would be
untimely under the 21 day limit in the grievance procedure. Apparently, he also informed you
that your grievance was without merit: your charge states he told you "That I could not be
denied from the office to take classes, then take the classes anyway, then later ask for
reimbursement." You disagreed and told him that you had filed proper charges with all
department heads, "And that it would not be unreasonable for the union to inquiry to the
situation." Caldeira reaffirmed that he would not pursue a grievance.
You asked Caldeira to provide you with a letter containing his response to your grievance
request. He first stated he would not do so but then told you to make such request in writingr
and he would have the union's attorneys review it.
You contend that the union should seek a waiver of the limitations period for filing a grievance
and seek the reimbursement of expenses denied by your employer.
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.

SA-CO-269-S
July 20, 2004
Page 2
Charging Party has alleged that the exclusive representative denied Charging Party the right to
fair representation guaranteed by Dills Act section 3515.7(g) and California State Employees'
Association (Norgard) (1984) PERB Decision No. 451-S and thereby violated section
3519.5(b). The duty of fair representation imposed on the exclusive representative extends to
grievance handling. (Fremont Teachers Association (King) (1980) PERB Decision No. 125;
United Teachers of Los Angeles (Collins) (1982) PERB Decision No. 258.) In order to state a
prima facie violation of this section of the Dills Act, Charging Party must show that the
Respondent's conduct was arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith. In United Teachers of Los
Angeles (Collins), the Public Employment Relations Board stated:
Absent bad faith, discrimination, or arbitrary conduct, mere
negligence or poor judgment in handling a grievance does not .
constitute a breach of the union's duty. [Citations omitted.]
A union may exercise its discretion to determine how far to
pursue a grievance in the employee's behalf as long as it does not
arbitrarily ignore a meritorious grievance or process a grievance
in a perfunctory fashion. A union is also not required to process
an employee's grievance if the chances for success are minimal.
In order to state a prima facie case of arbitrary conduct violating the duty of fair representation,
a Charging Party:
'. . . must at a minimum include an assertion of sufficient facts
from which it becomes apparent how or in what manner the
exclusive representative's action or inaction was without a
rational basis or devoid of honest judgment. (Emphasis added.)"
[Reed District Teachers Association, CTA/NEA (Reyes) (1983)
PERB Decision No. 332, p. 9, citing Rocklin Teachers
Professional Association (Romero) (1980) PERB Decision
No. 124.]
From your charge, it appears that Caldeira refused to pursue the grievance because it was
untimely and he believed it did not have merit. You have not presented facts that demonstrate
that conclusion was "without a rational basis or devoid of honest judgment." Accordingly, this
charge must be dismissed.
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
corner 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
(
SA-CO-269-S
July 20, 2004
Page2
Charging Party has alleged that the exclusive representative denied Charging Party the right to
fair representation guaranteed by Dills Act section 3515.7(g) and California State Employees'
Association (Norgard) (1984) PERB Decision No. 451-S and thereby violated section
3519.5(b). The duty of fair representation imposed on the exclusive representative extends to
grievance handling. (Fremont Teachers Association (King) (1980) PERB Decision No. 125;
United Teachers of Los Angeles (Collins) (1982) PERB Decision No. 258.) In order to state a
prima facie violation of this section of the Dills Act, Charging Party must show that the
Respondent's conduct was arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith. 	In United Teachers of Los
Angeles (Collins). the Public Employment Relations Board stated:
Absent bad faith, discrimination, or arbitrary conduct, mere
negligence or poor judgment in handling a grievance does not
constitute a breach of the union's duty. 	[Citations omitted.]
A union may exercise its discretion to determine how far to
pursue a grievance in the employee's behalf as long as it does not
arbitrarily ignore a meritorious grievance or process a grievance
in a perfunctory fashion. A union is also not required to process
an employee's grievance if the chances for success are minimal.
In order to state a prima facie case of arbitrary conduct violating the duty of fair representation,
a Charging Party:
" ... must at a minimum include an assertion of sufficient facts
from which it becomes apparent how or in what manner the
exclusive representative's action or inaction was without a
rational basis ot devoid of honest judgment. (Emphasis added.)"
[Reed District Teachers Association. CTA/NEA (Reyes) (1983)
PERB Decision No. 332, p. 9, citing Rocklin Teachers
Professional Association (Romero) (1980) PERB Decision
No. 124.]
From your charge, it appears that Caldeira refused to pursue the grievance because it was
untimely and he believed it did not have merit. You have not presented facts that demonstrate
that conclusion was "without a rational basis or devoid of honest judgment." Accordingly, this
charge must be dismissed.
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 prepar.ed 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

SA-CO-269-S
July 20, 2004
Page 3
amended charge or withdrawal from you before July 27, 2004, I shall dismiss your charge. If
you have any questions, please call me at the above telephone number.
Sincerely,
Bernard McMonigle
Regional Attorney
BMC
(
SA-CO-269-S
July 20, 2004
Page 3
amended charge or withdrawal from you before July 27, 2004, I shall dismiss your charge. If
you have any questions, please call me at the above telephone number.
Sincerely,
Bernard McMonigle
Regional Attorney
BMC