City and County of San Francisco (PERB 1779M)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
SAN FRANCISCO INSTITUTIONAL POLICE
OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION,
Charging Party,
v.
CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
Respondent.
Case No. SF-CE-256-M
PERB Decision No. 	1779-M
O c t o b e r 	7, 	2005
Appearances: 	Mark R. Kruger, Attorney, for San Francisco Institutional Police Officers'
Association.
Before Duncan, Chairman; Whitehead and Shek, Members.
DECISION
DUNCAN, Chairman: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on appeal by the San Francisco Institutional Police Officers' Association
(Association) of a Board agent's dismissal of its unfair practice charge. 	The charge alleges
that the City & County of San Francisco violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA)1 by
unilaterally changing past practices.
On September 29, 2005, the PERB General Counsel requested that this case be
remanded for further processing. 	With that request, he noted that the Association did in fact
file an amendment in response to the warning letter that was timely received at PERB on
August 16, 2005, but was not forwarded to the assigned Board agent until after the dismissal
letter issued.
The MMBA is codified at Government Code section 3500, et seq.
'
I)

The Board has adopted a procedure whereby the General Counsel reviews cases
dismissed by Board agents. As explained in similar requests from the General Counsel (Santa
Ana Educators Association (2005) PERB Decision No. 1776; California School Employees
Association and its Chapter #302 (Lauer) (1990) PERB Decision No. 809; California State
Employees' Association (Morrow) (1986) PERB Decision No. 568-S), the purpose of the
review is to minimize and reduce appellate litigation caused by inadequate handling in the
processing of unfair practice charges. 	The request for remand is based on the General
Counsel's conclusion that (1) further investigation would serve that purpose, (2) it would be
the most efficient method for review of this case, and (3) based on Hartnell Community
College District (2000) PERB Decision No. 1405 (Hartnell). In Hartnell, as here, the Board
agent stated in the dismissal letter he had not received an amended complaint. Here, the appeal
filed September 1, 2005, indicates that an amendment was timely filed and this is documented
by the General Counsel. As in Hartnell, we believe the case is appropriate for remand to the
Board agent for further processing.
ORDER
Upon review of the entire record, the Board ORDERS that Case No. SF-CE 256-M be
REMANDED to the General Counsel for further processing.
Members Whitehead and Shek joined in this Decision.
22