San Bernardino Public Employees Association (Coelho) (PERB 2014M)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
ANDREW CHRISTIAN COELHO,
Charging Party,
V.
SAN BERNARDINO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION,
Respondent.
Case No. LA-CO-92-M
PERB Decision No. 	2014-M
March 23, 2009
Appearances: 	Andrew Christian Coelho, on his own behalf; Dennis J. Hayes, Attorney, for
San Bernardino Public Employees Association.
Before McKeag, Neuwald and Dowdin Calvillo, Members.
DECISION
DOWD IN CALVILLO, Member: 	This case is before the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on appeal by Andrew Christian Coelho (Coelho) of a Board agent's
dismissal of his unfair practice charge. 	The charge alleged that the San Bernardino Public
Employees Association (Association) violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) 1 by
failing to fairly represent Coelho regarding the termination of his employment with the City of
Big Bear Community Services District. 	The Board agent dismissed the charge for failure to
state a prima facie case that the Association breached its duty of fair representation.
The Board has reviewed the entire record in this matter, including but not limited to, the
original and amended unfair practice charge, the Association's position statement, the Board
agent's warning and dismissal letters, Coeiho' s appeal and the Association's response thereto.
1 MMBA is codified at Government Code section 3 500 et seq.

Based on this review, the Board dismisses Coelho's appeal for failure to comply with PERB
Regulation 32635(a)2 as discussed below.
DISCUSSION
PERB Regulation 32635(a) states, in relevant part, that an appeal of a dismissal must:
(1) 	State the specific issues of procedure, fact, law or
rationale to which the appeal is taken;
(2) 	Identify the page or part of the dismissal to which each
appeal is taken;
(3) 	State the grounds for each issue stated.
"[C]ompliance with regulations governing appeals is required to afford the respondent
and the Board an adequate opportunity to address the issues raised, and noncompliance will
warrant dismissal of the appeal." (California State Employees Association (Myers) (1992)
PERB Decision No. 942-S.)
Appeals that state nothing more than the charging party appeals the dismissal of the
unfair practice charge have been dismissed by the Board for failure to comply with PERB
Regulation 32635(a). For example, in United Teachers - Los Angeles (Glickberg) (1990)
PERB Decision No. 846, the Board dismissed an appeal that stated in its entirety: "Claimant
David Glickberg hereby appeals the decision by the Public Employment Relations Board, dated
June 29, 1990, Dismissing and Refusing to issue a complaint in the above-captioned matter."
(Accord Lodi Education Association (Hudock) (1995) PERB Decision No. 1124; California
School Employees Association and its San Juan Chapter #127 (Hare) (1995) PERB Decision
No. 1089; Los Angeles Community College District (1990) PERB Decision
No. 847.) The Board has also dismissed appeals for failure to comply with PERB Regulation
32635(a) that merely reiterate facts alleged in the unfair practice charge. (Contra Costa
2 PERB regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.

County Health Services Department (2005) PERB Decision No. 1752-M; County
of
Solano
(Human Resources Department) (2004) PERB Decision No. 1598-M.)
Coelho's appeal states in its entirety:
I am appealing the dismissal
of
my charge.
Enclosed are 5 copies.
Attached to the appeal
is
a copy
of
Coelho' s amended charge.
Like the appeals in the cases cited above, Coelho's appeal fails to state specific issues
or parts
of
the dismissal to which appeal is taken, or to state grounds for the appeal.
Accordingly, the Board dismisses Coelho's appeal for failure to comply with PERB Regulation
32635(a).
ORDER
The unfair practice charge in Case No. LA-CO-92-M is hereby DISMISSED
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
Members McKeag and Neuwald joined in this Decision.
W