Service Employees International Union Local 1021 (DeLarge) (PERB 2068E)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
DEMETRIA DELARGE,
Charging Party,
V.
SEIU LOCAL 1021,
Respondent.
Case No. SF-CO-731-E
PERB Decision No. 2068
September 29, 2009
Appearance: Demetria DeLarge, on her own behalf.
Before Dowdin Calvillo, Acting Chair; Neuwald and Wesley, Members.
DECISION
WESLEY, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(Board) on appeal by Demetria DeLarge (DeLarge) of a Board agent's dismissal (attached)
of
her unfair practice charge. The charge alleged that SEIU Local I
021
breached its duty
of
fair
representation in violation
of
the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA)1 by its
refusal to: 	(1) file a grievance on DeLarge's behalf; (2) hire an attorney to represent DeLarge;
and (3) represent DeLarge at a hearing before the personnel commission. The charge alleged
this conduct violated EERA section 3543.6.
The Board has reviewed the dismissal and the record in light of DeLarge' s appeal and
the relevant law. 	Based on this review, the Board finds the Board agent's warning and
dismissal letters to be well-reasoned and in accordance with applicable law. Accordingly, the
Board adopts the warning and dismissal letters as the decision of the Board itself.
1 EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. Unless otherwise indicated,
all statutory references herein are to the Government Code.

ORDER
The unfair practice charge in Case No. SF-CO-731-E is hereby,DISMISSED
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
Acting Chair Dowdin Calvillo and Member Neuwald 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: 510-622-1023
Fax: (5 I
0)
622-1027
·
March 16, 2009
Demetria DeLarge
P.
0.
Box 3382
San Leandro, CA 94578
Re: 	Demetria Delarge
·v.
SEIU Local 1021
Unfair Practice Charge No. SF-CO-731-E
DISMISSAL LETTER
Dear Ms. DeLarge:
ARNOLD
SCHWARZENEGGER,
Governor
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on October 20, 2008. Demetria DeLarge (Ms. DeLarge or Charging
Party) alleges that the SEIU Local 1021 (Union or Respondent) violated the Educational
Employment Relations
Act
(EERA or Act)1 by bry3:?hing its duty
of
fair representation.
Charging Party was informed in the attached Warning Letter dated January 21, 2009, that the
above-referenced charge did not state a prima facie case. Charging Party was advised that,
if
there were any factual inaccuracies or additional facts that would correct the deficiencies
explained in that letter, the charge should be amended. Charging Party was further advised
that, unless the charge was amended to state a prima facie case or withdrawn prior to January
30, 2009, the charge would be dismissed.
On January 21, 2009, an amended charge was filed in this office. The amended charge
contains an exhaustive list
of
encounters between Charging Party and her supervisors dating
back to 2006, numerous requests for representation by Charging Party to her Union
representatives, and recitations
of
PERB decisions believed by Charging Party to address her
concerns.
Essentially, Charging Party's argument is that the underlying tension between herself and her
supervisor was the result
of
a severe personality conflict, rather than any misconduct on
Charging Party's part. As her supervisor increased her scrutiny
of
Charging Party over the
course
of
several months, the workplace became fraught with tension for Charging Party. 	In
an attempt to get Charging Party fired, the supervisor made many allegations of misconduct.
According to Charging Party, the supervisor failed to follow the Personnel Commission rules
when she initiated disciplinary action against and ultimately terminated Charging Party.
As noted in the Warning Letter, the District is a Merit District, meaning that personnel matters
are governed by the State Education Code. When Charging Party solicited the assistance
of
the
1 EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. The text ·of the EERA and
the Board's Regulations may be found on the Internet at www.perb.ca.gov.

SF-CO-731-E
March 16, 2009
Page 2
Union to defend her against the allegations
of
misconduct, she was informed that she
had to
appeal the disciplinary action herself utlilizng the process contained in the Personnel
Commission rules, as disciplinary actions are not grievable under the collective bargaining
agreement.
Charging Party now argues that even
if
she was unable to grieve the substance
of
the
disciplinary action, the supervisor's failure to comply with the Personnel Commission
rules
should have given rise to a valid grievance. 2 At the time
of
the events in question,
Union
representatives with whom Charging Party spoke, instructed her to appeal the disciplinary
action utilizing the Personnel Commission rules. Charging Party followed the advice
of
her
Union representatives, and submitted her appeal to the Personnel Commission. Her
appeal was
ultimately denied and her discipline and termination were upheld. It is not clear what
argument(s) Charging Party made in her own defense at the appeal to the Personnel
Commission. 3
Discussion
As stated in the January 21, 2009 Warning 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
BERA,
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.
Under the terms
of
the collective bargaining agreement, which is available on-line at
www.seiul02l.org, a grievance is "a claim regarding the interpretation or application
of
this
Agreement."
3 According to the Personnel Commission rules, there are four grounds upon which an
appeal may be made. The first possible ground for appeal is "[t]hat the procedure set forth in
these rules has not been followed."

SF-CO-731-E
March 16, 2009
Page 3
(
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.
(Reed District Teachers Association, CTAINEA (Reyes) (1983) PERB Decision No. 332, p. 9,
quoting Rocklin Teachers Professional Association (Romero) (1980) PERB Decision No. 124;
emphasis in original.)
With regard to when "mere negligence" might constitute arbitrary conduct, the Board observed
in Coalition
of
University Employees (Buxton) (2003) PERB Decision No. 1517-H that,
under
federal precedent, a union's negligence breaches the duty
of
fair representation "in cases
in
which the individual interest at stake is strong and the union's failure to perform a ministerial
act completely extinguishes the employee's right to pursue his claim." (Quoting Dutrisac
v.
Caterpillar Tractor
Co.
(9th Cir. 1983) 749 F.2d 1270, at p. 1274; see also, Robesky
v.
Quantas Empire Airways Limited (9th Cir. 1978) 573 F.2d 1082.)
However, the duty
of
fair representation does not extend to claims that are outside
of
the scope
of
the collective bargaining agreement. 	(California School Employees Association (Garcia)
(2001) PERB Decision No.1444; California School Employees Association and its Chapter
130 (Simpson) (2003) PERB Decision No. 1550.)
Based on these facts, the charge fails to establish the prima facie elements
of
a complaint for a
breach
of
the Union's duty
of
fair representation for the following reasons.
It
appears that the information and/or advice that the Union provided to Charging Party was
correct-there
were no grounds for a grievance pursuant to the terms
of
the collective
bargaining agreement. As noted in the January 21, 2009 Warning Letter, the District is a Merit
District, meaning that personnel matters were not subject to collective bargaining. Further,
Charging Party's claim that her supervisor failed to properly comply with the District's
disciplinary procedural requirements was a subject that needed to be raised in Charging Party's
appeal to the Personnel Commission. Accordingly, there does not appear to be a duty on the
part
of
the Union to represent Charging Party at the hearing before the Personnel Commission.
Indeed, according to the Personnel Commission rules, employees are permitted to have
representation at any stage in the disciplinary process, but are authorized at all levels, including
a formal hearing, to act in their own behalf. 4
It
does appear that Charging Party pursued an appeal of the Personnel Commission's discipline
and termination. Charging Party could have timely raised procedural defenses at her
4 The Personnel Commission rules are available on-line at www.haywardusd.org.

SF-CO-731-E
March 16, 2009
Page4
(
disciplinary hearing. 	Charging Party does not provide facts establishing the grounds for
that
appeal, however.
Additionally,
if
Charging Party believed that there were matters that were subject to the
grievance provisions under the collective bargaining agreement, she could have filed a
grievance on her own behalf.5 It does not appear that she ever filed or pursued a grievance
on
her own behalf, instead she repeatedly requested that the Union take such action on her behalf.
Even assuming there were grounds for a grievance under the collective bargaining agreement,
Charging Party has not provided facts establishing how the Union's failure to file a grievance
on her behalf was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. 	As noted above, mere negligence
in failing to file a grievance, even
if
warranted by the facts presented, would not rise to
the
level
of
a breach
of
the Union's duty
of
fair representation.
Finally, many
of
the facts alleged in this charge occurred more than six months before
the
date
this charge was filed. 	The only facts in this charge that remain timely occurred in April
and
May
of
2008, after Charging Party had been terminated by her employer. Essentially,
these
facts appear to establish Charging Party's repeated attempts during April and May
of
2008 to
secure Union representation at the appeal
of
her dismissal before the Personnel Commission.
The facts tend to indicate that Charging Party continued to ~equest Union assistance to appeal
her dismissal, in an extra-contractual forum, while the Union continually informed her that
there was no further conduct they would take on her behalf and that
if
she appealed the
termination, she would have to do so without Union assistance. As noted above, the fact that
the Union chose not to assist Charging Party in her appeal
of
an extra-contractual dismissal
hearing does not give rise to a breach
of
the duty
of
fair representation.
Therefore, the charge is hereby dismissed based on the facts and reasons set forth in this and
the January 21, 2009 Warning Letter.
Right to Appeal
Pursuant to PERB Regulations,6 Charging Party 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. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, sec. 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.
-----,.--------,
Under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, unit members may file
grievances with or without the assistance of the exclusive representative through step 2. 	The
exclusive representative must agree to proceed through step 3, binding arbitration. Forms for
filing grievances are prepared and distributed by the District.
6 PERB's Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.

SF-CO-731-E
March 16, 2009
Page 5
(
A document is considered "filed" when actually received during a regular PERB business day.
(Cal. Code Regs, tit.
8,
secs. 32135(a) and 32130; see also Gov. Code, sec. 11020(a).) A
document is also considered "filed" when received by facsimile transmission before the
close
of
business together with a Facsimile Transmission Cover Sheet which meets the requirements
_of PERB 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. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8,
secs. 32135(b), (c) and (d); see also Cal. Code Regs., tit.
8,
secs. 32090 and 32130.)
The Board's address is:
Public Employment Relations Board
Attentio11: Appeals Assistant
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95811-4124
(916) 322-8231
FAX: (916) 327-7960
the
	If
you file a timely appeal
of
the refusal to issue a complaint, any other party may file
with
Board an original and five copies
of
a statement in opposition within twenty (20)calendar days
following the date
of
service
of
the appeal. (Cal. Code Regs, tit.
8,
sec. 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 Cal. Code Regs., tit.
8,
sec. 32140 for the required
contents.) The document will be considered properly "served" when personally delivered or
deposited in the mail or deposited with a delivery service and properly addressed. A document
may also be concurrently served via facsimile transmission on all parties to the proceeding.
(Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, sec. 32135(c).)
Extension
of
Time
be	A request for an extension
of
time, in which to file a document with the Board itself, must
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. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, sec. 32132.)

SF-CO-731-E
March 16, 2009
Page 6
Final Date
(
If
no appeal is filed within the specified time limits, the dismissal will become final when the
time limits have expired.
Sincerely,
TAMI
R.
BOGERT
General Counsel
Byt.__~-------------
Alicia Clement
Regional Attorney
Attachment
cc: 	Vincent Harrington, Jr., Attorney

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	(
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
San Francisco Regional Office
1330 Broadway, Suite 1532
Oakland, CA 94612-2514
Telephone: 5 I 0-622-1023
Fax: (510) 622-1027
January 21, 2009
Demetria DeLarge
P.
0.
Box 3382
San Leandro, CA 94578 ·
Re: 	Demetria Delarge
v.
SEIU Local 1021
Unfair Practice Charge No. SF-CO-731-E
WARNING LETTER
Dear Ms. DeLarge:
ARNOLD
SCHWARZENEGGER,
Governor
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on October 20, 2008. Demetria DeLarge (Ms. DeLarge
or
Charging
Party) alleges that the SEIU Local
1021
(Union or Respondent) violated the Educational
Employment Relations Act (EERA or Act)1
by breaching its duty
of
fair representation.
My investigation revealed the following facts. 	Charging Party was employed at the
Hayward
Unified School District (District) as a para-professional. This was a classified position,
exclusively represented by the Union. The District is a Merit District organized under
the
Education Code. As such, personnel matters concerning classified employees are administered
by District's Human Resources Department in accordance with the Personnel Commission
Rules based on the merit system principles
of
the State Education Code. These rules include a
description
of
the grounds for discipline and the procedures to be taken in the event that
an
employee is charged with misconduct.
In November 2007, Ms. DeLarge filed an unfair practice charge alleging that the Union
violated the Act by failing to file a grievance with respect to the District's action of conducting
a disciplinary hearing in which Ms. DeLarge was accused of, among other actions,
"discourteous, abusive or threatening treatment
of
the public, employees or students."
That
unfair practice charge was withdrawn by Ms. DeLarge on April 10, 2008, without prejudice.
Also in November 2007, Ms. DeLarge filed an unfair practice charge against the District
alleging retaliation and interference in violation
of
the EERA, and a number of violations
of
other statutes not administered by PERB. That charge resulted in PERB issuing a complaint
which was subsequently w;ithdrawn by Ms. DeLarge as the result
of
a settlement agreement she
reached with the District.
On October 20, 2008, Charging Party filed the present charge in which she alleges that the
Union failed to represent her at a disciplinarx hearing despite her repeated requests, and that
1 EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. The text of the EERA and
the Board's Regulations may be found on the Internet at www.perb.ca.gov.

SF-CO-731-E
January 21, 2009
. Page 2
(
the District terminated her
as
a result
of
the Union's:
1)
refusal to file grievances on
Charging
Party's behalf;
2)
refusal to hire
an
attorney to represent Charging Party; and 3) refusal to
represent her at hearings
of
the Personnel Commission. In support
of
her allegations, Charging
Party provides the following facts.
From November 2007 through March 13, 2008, Charging Party was on paid leave. During this
period, she made repeated requests
of
various Union representatives for assistance. Also
during this period, she charges the Union with failing to prevent the District from sending
her
written notices of disciplinary actions against her, and
of
refusing
to
hire an attorney to
represent her in her defense
of
the District's disciplinary action against her. 2 According to
Charging Party, Union Representative Angela Thomas refused to process
her
grievance, and
Union Field Supervisor Nely Obligacion refused to provide her a grievance form or to file one
on her behalf. Instead, Ms. Obligacion encouraged and counseled Charging Party to appeal the
disciplinary decision of the District's Personnel Commission, per the Personnel Commission's
rules.
Charging Party
w'as
terminated
:from
her employment with the District on
or
about March 17,
2008. At the time, Charging Party's earlier unfair practice charges were still pending against
both the Union and the District.
On April 29, 2008, Charging Party sent a letter to Ms. Thomas, informing her that the appeal
of
her dismissal before the Personnel Commission was scheduled to take place at 5:30
on May
7, and that she wished to meet with Ms. Thomas before the meeting to "go over her rights."
On May 5, 2008, Charging Party participated in an informal settlement conference at
PERB's
Oakland office, which resulted in the settlement
of
her unfair practice charge against the
District. On May 7, 2008, the Personnel Commission heard Charging Party's appeal.
However, the Union did not represent Charging Party at the appeal, and although she
participated in the appeal hearing, she did so without representation.
Discussion
PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5)3 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."
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
Though not explicitly stated in the current charge, the disciplinary charges which are
presently complained of are a continuation of the same disciplinary process which began with
Charging Party's November 2007 suspension.
3 PERB regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.

SF-CO-731-E
January 21, 2009
Page 3
(
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.)
The·charging party's burden also includes alleging facts showing that the unfair practice
charge was timely filed; i.e., that the alleged unfair practice occurred
no
more than six
months
prior to the filing
of
the charge. (Los Angeles Unified School District (2007) PERB Decision
No. 1929; City
of
Santa Barbara (2004) PERB Decision No.
1628;..M.)
PERB is prohibited
from issuing a complaint with respect to any charge based upon an alleged unfair practice
occurring more than six months prior to the filing
of
the charge. (Coachella Valley Mosquito
and Vector Control District
v.
Public Employment Relations Board (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1072.)
The limitations period begins to run once the charging party knows, or should have known,
of
the conduct underlying the charge. (Gavilan Joint Community College District (1996) PERB
Decision No. 1177.)
In cases alleging a breach
of
the duty
of
fair representation, the six month statutory limitations
period begins to run on the date when the charging party, in the exercise
of
reasonable diligence,
knew or should have known that further assistance from the union was unlikely. (Los Rios
College Federation
of
Teachers, CFT/AFT (1991) PERB Decision No. 889; United Teachers
of
Los Angeles (2001) PERB Decision No. 1441.) Repeated union refusals to process a grievance
over a recurring issue
do
not start the limitations period anew. (California State Employees
Association (1985) PERB Decision No. 497-S.)
Charging Party's statement
of
facts is a chronological list
of
her attempts to secure the Union's
assistance with the disciplinary hearing and appeal. The Union appears
to
have consistently
refused to assist Charging Party throughout the time period detailed in her charge. 	Indeed,
given the earlier unfair practice charge against the Union, filed on November 27, 2007, it
appears that Charging Party knew or should have known
as
early
as
November 2007 that the
Union would no longer provide her assistance with the disciplinary charges she was facing.
Even assuming that after November 2007 Charging Party still did not know that the Union
would no longer provide her assistance, Charging Party must still allege facts that occurred
on	within six months
of
this charge that support her allegations. Because this charge was filed
October 20, 2008, only those events occurring on or after April 20, 2008 will be considered as
evidence
of
an unfair practice.
2008 	29,	The only actions alleged to have occurred after April 20, 	were Charging Party's April
2008 request to Ms. Thomas to assist her at her appeal before the Personnel Commission on
May 7, 2008, and the Union's failure to assist Charging Party at the appeal.
Charging Party has alleged that the exclusive representative denied Charging Party the right to
fair representation guaranteed by BERA section 3544.9 and thereby violated section 3543 .6(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 BERA, Charging Party must show that the Respondent's

SF-CO-731-E
January 21, 2009
Page 4
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.
9,	(Reed District Teachers Association, CTA/NEA (Reyes) (1983) PERB Decision No. 332, p.
quoting Rocklin Teachers Professional Association (Romero) (1980) PERB Decision No. 124;
emphasis in original.)
Additionally, PERB has held that there is no duty
of
fair representation owed to a unit member
unless the exclusive representative possesses the exclusive means by which such an employee
can obtain a particular remedy. 	(San Francisco Classroom Teachers Association (Chestangue)
(1985) PERB Decision No. 544.) The general rule is that when bargaining unit members are
free to represent themselves or hire an attorney to pursue their claim, the union is not bound by
the duty
of
fair representation. 	(CSEA and its Chapter 130 (Simpson) (2003) PERB Decision
No; 1550.)
Based on the standard stated above, Charging Party must demonstrate more than simply that
the Union failed to assist her at a disciplinary hearing before the Personnel Commission.
Charging Party must demonstrate that the Union owed her a duty to take the specific conduct
she requested of thein and that its failure to take such action was the result
of
bad faith,
discrimination or arbitrary conduct. In this case, it is not clear that the Union was required to
represent Charging Party before the Personnel Commission. The duty of fair representation
attaches to matters within the scope of the collective bargaining agreement. (California School
Employees Association (Garcia) (2001) PERB Decision No. 1444.) Indeed, it appears that the
Personnel Commission operates independently from the collective bargaining relationship
between the Union and the District, such that the Union would owe no duty to assist bargaining
unit members with Commission proceedings.

SF-CO-731-E
January 21, 2009
Page 5
Charging Party also alleges that the Union's refusal to hire an attorney to represent
her
in
her
appeal
of
the Personnel Commission's decision was a breach
of
the Union's duty to
represent
her. PERB has long held that unions do not owe a duty to their members to provide
financial
assistance for securing outside counsel. (California State Employees Association (Fox) (1995)
PERB Decision No. 1099.)
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, Charging Party may 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
an authorized agent
of
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
an amended charge or withdrawal is not filed on or before January 30, 2009,
PERB
will dismiss your charge.
	If
you have any questions, please call
me
at the above telephone
number.
Sinc~ly,
Alicia Clement
Regional Attorney
AC