Pasadena Area Community College District (PERB 2218E)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
PASADENA CITY COLLEGE FACULTY
ASSOCIATION,
Charging Party, 	Case No. LA-CE-5361-E
V . 	PERB Decision No. 2218
PASADENA AREA COMMUNITY COLLEGE 	November 9, 2011
DISTRICT,
Respondent.
Appearances: Anderson & Associates by Michael D. Anderson and Patrick Vardapour,
Attorneys, for Pasadena City College Faculty Association; Liebert Cassidy Whitmore by
Mary L. Dowell and Adrianna E. Guzman, Attorneys, for Pasadena Area Community College
District.
Before Martinez, Chair; Mckeag and Dowdin Calvillo, Members.
DECISION
DOWDIN CALVILLO, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on exceptions filed by the Pasadena City College Faculty Association
(Association) to a PERB administrative law judge's (ALJ) proposed decision (attached)
dismissing the complaint and underlying unfair practice charge. The charge and complaint
alleged that the Pasadena Area Community College District (District) violated
section 3543.5(c) of the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA)' by unilaterally
canceling winter intersession classes without bargaining over the effects of the decision. The
ALJ found that the Association failed to establish a violation o
The Board has reviewed the ALJ's proposed decision and the record in light of the
Association's exceptions, the District's response thereto, and the relevant law. Based upon our
EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
PASADENA CITY COLLEGE FACULTY
ASSOCIATION,
Charging Party,
V.
PASADENA AREA COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT,
Respondent.
Case No. LA-CE-5361-E
PERB Decision No. 	2218
November 9, 2011
Appearances: Anderson & Associates by Michael D. Anderson and Patrick Vardapour,
Attorneys, for Pasadena City College Faculty Association; Liebert Cassidy Whitmore by
Mary L. Dowell and Adrianna E. Guzman, Attorneys, for Pasadena Area Community College
District.
Before Martinez, Chair; McKeag and Dowdin Calvillo, Members.
DECISION
DOWD IN CALVILLO, Member: 	This case is before the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on exceptions filed by the Pasadena City College Faculty Association
(Association) to a PERB administrative law judge's (ALJ) proposed decision (attached)
dismissing the complaint and underlying unfair practice charge. The charge and complaint
alleged that the Pasadena Area Community College District (District) violated
section 3543.S(c) of the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA)1 by unilaterally
canceling winter intersession classes without bargaining over the effects of the decision. The
ALJ found that the Association failed to establish a violation of	f EERA.	~~,L~L.
The Board has reviewed the ALJ' s proposed decision and the record in light of the
Association's exceptions, the District's response thereto, and the relevant law. 	Based upon our
1 EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq.

review of the record, we find the proposed decision to be well-reasoned, adequately supported
by the record, and in accordance with applicable law. Accordingly, the Board adopts the
ALJ's proposed decision as the decision of the Board itself with the brief discussion of the
Association's exceptions.
DISCUSSION
The Association excepts to the ALJ's determination that the charge was limited to the
effects of the decision, and contends that the charge included allegations that the District also
failed to bargain over the decision to cancel the classes, but the General Counsel failed to
include those allegations in the complaint. The Association does not except to the ALJ's
determination that the decision to cancel classes was outside the scope of representation.
(Mt. San Antonio Community College District (1983) PERB Decision No. 297.) Accordingly,
this exception is without merit. Regarding the issue of effects bargaining, as the ALJ
determined, no demand to bargain the negotiable effects of the District's decision was ever
made. The remaining exceptions all relate to the ALJ's factual findings. As indicated above,
we find the ALJ's factual findings to be adequately supported by the record and find no basis
to disturb them. (Trustees of the California State University (San Marcos) (2010) PERB
Decision No. 2093-H; State of California (Department of Corrections) (2000) PERB Decision
No. 1388-S; American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (Owens) (2008)
PERB Decision No. 1974-H.)
e Association also excepts to the ALJ's statement of the issue as "Did the District
unlawfully fail to bargain the effects of its decision to 'reduce' the Winter Intersession?" and
contends that the statement should also have encompassed the reinstatement of the Winter
Intersession with a reduced number of sessions. We find that the issue is adequately framed as
set forth by the ALJ.
2
review of the record, we find the proposed decision to be well-reasoned, adequately supported
by the record, and in accordance with applicable law. Accordingly, the Board adopts the
ALJ' s proposed decision as the decision of the Board itself with the brief discussion of the
Association's exceptions.
DISCUSSION
The Association excepts to the ALJ' s determination that the charge was limited to the
effects of the decision, and contends that the charge included allegations that the District also
failed to bargain over the decision to cancel the classes, but the General Counsel failed to
include those allegations in the complaint. The Association does not except to the ALJ' s
determination that the decision to cancel classes was outside the scope of representation.
(Mt. San Antonio Community College District (1983) PERB Decision No. 297.) Accordingly,
this exception is without merit. Regarding the issue of effects bargaining, as the ALJ
determined, no demand to bargain the negotiable effects of the District's decision was ever
made. The remaining exceptions all relate to the ALJ' s factual findings.2" 	As indicated above,
we find the ALJ's factual findings to be adequately supported by the record and find no basis
to disturb them. (Trustees of the California State University (San Marcos) (2010) PERB
Decision No. 2093-H; State of California (Department of Corrections) (2000) PERB Decision
No. 1388-S; American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (Owens) (2008)
PERB Decision No. 1974-H.)
ThThe Association also excepts to the ALJ' s statement of the issue as "Did the District
unlawfully fail to bargain the effects of its decision to 'reduce' the Winter Intersession?" and
contends that the statement should also have encompassed the reinstatement of the Winter
Intersession with a reduced number of sessions. We find that the issue is adequately framed as
set forth by the ALJ.
2

ORDER
The unfair practice charge and complaint in Case No. LA-CE-5361-E are hereby
DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
Chair Martinez and Member Mckeag joined in this Decision.
w3
ORDER
The unfair practice charge and complaint in Case No. LA-CE-5361-E are hereby
DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
Chair Martinez and Member McKeag joined in this Decision.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
PASADENA CITY COLLEGE FACULTY
ASSOCIATION,
UNFAIR PRACTICE
Charging Party, 	CASE NO. LA-CE-5361-E
PROPOSED DECISION
(5/27/2011)
PASADENA AREA COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT,
Respondent.
Appearances: Anderson & Associates by Michael D. Anderson, Attorney, for Pasadena City
College Faculty Association; Liebert Cassidy Whitmore by Adrianna E. Guzman, Attorney, for
Pasadena Area Community College District.
Before Thomas J. Allen, Administrative Law Judge.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In this case, a faculty association alleges that a community college district cancelled
classes without bargaining over the effects of the decision, in violation of Educational
Employment Relations Act (EERA) section 3543.5(c).' The district denies any violation of
law.
The Pasadena City College Faculty Association (Association) filed an unfair practice
charge against the Pasadena Area Community College District (District) on July 27, 2009. The
Office of the General Counsel of the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB or Board)
issued an unfair practice complaint (Complaint) against the District on June 30, 2010. The
District filed an answer to the Complaint on July 12, 2010. PERB held an informal settlement
conference on October 7, 2010, but the case was not settled. PERB held a formal hearing on
EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
PASADENA CITY COLLEGE FACULTY
ASSOCIATION,
Charging Party,
V.
PAS ADENA AREA COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT,
Respondent.
UNFAIR PRACTICE
CASE NO. LA-CE-5361-E
PROPOSED DECISION
(5/27/2011)
Appearances: Anderson & Associates by Michael D. Anderson, Attorney, for Pasadena City
College Faculty Association; Liebert Cassidy Whitmore by Adrianna E. Guzman, Attorney, for
Pasadena Area Community College District.
Before Thomas J. Allen, Administrative Law Judge.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In this case, a faculty association alleges that a community college district cancelled
classes without bargaining over the effects of the decision, in violation of Educational
Employment Relations Act (EERA) section 3543.5(c). 1 The district denies any violation of
law.
The Pasadena City College Faculty Association (Association) filed an unfair practice
charge against the Pasadena Area Community College District (District) on July 27, 2009. The
Office of the General Counsel of the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB or Board)
issued an unfair practice complaint (Complaint) against the District on June 30, 2010. 	The
District filed an answer to the Complaint on July 12, 2010. PERB held an informal settlement
conference on October 7, 2010, but the case was not settled. PERB held a formal hearing on
1 EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq.

February 28 and March 1, 2011. At the close of the Association's case, the District moved to
dismiss the Complaint. The motion was briefed and submitted for decision on May 17, 2011.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The District is a public school employer under EERA, and the Association is an
exclusive representative under EERA.
Since 2004, the District has offered a Winter Intersession in January and February,
providing educational opportunities for students and job opportunities for faculty. From 2004
to 2009, the number of sections offered increased from 463 to 597. During the first half of
2009, the District was planning to offer a Winter Intersession as usual in 2010.
At a District Board of Trustees meeting on July 1, 2009, however, a motion was made
and passed to cancel virtually the entire 2010 Winter Intersession. At a subsequent meeting on
August 5, 2009, the Board of Trustees rescinded the cancellation and reinstated the Winter
Intersession but offered a reduced number of sections. Ultimately, the District offered 340
sections in 2010, less than 60 percent of those offered in 2009. As a result, many faculty
members experienced a significant decrease in income and benefits.
The District gave the Association no advance notice of the motion to cancel the 2010
Winter Intersession, but Association President Roger Marheine (Marheine) and other
Association officers were present at the meeting on July 1, 2009, and opposed the motion.
After the motion passed, Marheine filed the unfair practice charge in this case. The District
provided no advance notice to the Association of the Board of Trustees action to reinstate a
reduced Winter Intersession, but the Association was again represented at the meeting of
August 5, 2009. Marheine and the Association continuously opposed the reduction in the
Winter Intersession. According to Marheine, the Association was "pretty much on message ...
2
February 28 and March 1, 2011. At the close of the Association's case, the District moved to
dismiss the Complaint. The motion was briefed and submitted for decision on May 17, 2011.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The District is a public school employer under EERA, and the Association is an
exclusive representative under EERA.
Since 2004, the District has offered a Winter Intersession in January and February,
providing educational opportunities for students and job opportunities for faculty. 	From 2004
to 2009, the number of sections offered increased from 463 to 597. During the first half of
2009, the District was planning to offer a Winter Intersession as usual in 2010.
At a District Board of Trustees meeting on July 1, 2009, however, a motion was made
and passed to cancel virtually the entire 2010 Winter Intersession. At a subsequent meeting on
August 5, 2009, the Board of Trustees rescinded the cancellation and reinstated the Winter
Intersession but offered a reduced number of sections. Ultimately, the District offered 340
sections in 2010, less than 60 percent of those offered in 2009. As a result, many faculty
members experienced a significant decrease in income and benefits.
The District gave the Association no advance notice of the motion to cancel the 2010
Winter Intersession, but Association President Roger Marheine (Marheine) and other
Association officers were present at the meeting on July 1, 2009, and opposed the motion.
After the motion passed, Marheine filed the unfair practice charge in this case. The District
provided no advance notice to the Association of the Board of Trustees action to reinstate a
reduced Winter Intersession, but the Association was again represented at the meeting of
August 5, 2009. Marheine and the Association continuously opposed the reduction in the
Winter Intersession. According to Marheine, the Association was "pretty much on message ...
2

that any kind of cancellation of Winter [Intersession] was inappropriate, both educationally and
financially."
Marheine acknowledged that the Association made no formal request to bargain over
the effects of the District's decision about Winter Intersession. He admitted that he was
unfamiliar with the concept of effects bargaining at the time. The District never offered to
bargain the effects of its decision. There was no evidence that there was insufficient time for
effects bargaining between its decision and the intended implementation.
The Association points to the testimony of Suzanne Anderson (Anderson), an
Association officer and bargaining team member, as the clearest evidence of a request for
effects bargaining. Anderson testified in part that she lost sick leave and retirement benefits
due to the reduction in the 2010 Winter Intersession. Her testimony was:
Q 	Okay, when you spoke - - Did you ever identify those
issues to the District, that you wanted to negotiate those items?
A 	Myself or on behalf of everybody?
O 	On behalf of the Association, as a member of the Faculty
Association?
A 	Yeah, Dr. Jacobs and I had many heated conversations
about all of this.
Q 	In negotiations?
A 	Yes.
Q 	Okay, an
A 	But that was after the fact, because we didn't really, we
weren't informed of any of this.
Dr. Jacqueline Jacobs (Jacobs) is the District's vice-president for instruction. She is not the
District's lead negotiator. Subpoenaed to testify by the Association, Jacobs did not testify that
she received a request for effects bargaining or had the authority to accept such a request.
33
that any kind
of
cancellation
of
Winter [Intersession] was inappropriate, both educationally and
financially."
Marheine acknowledged that the Association made no formal request to bargain over
the effects
of
the District's decision about Winter Intersession. He admitted that he was
unfamiliar with the concept
of
effects bargaining at the time. The District never offered to
bargain the effects
of
its decision. There was no evidence that there was insufficient
time
for
effects bargaining between its decision and the intended implementation.
The Association points to the testimony
of
Suzanne Anderson (Anderson), an
Association officer and bargaining team member, as the clearest evidence
of
a request for
effects bargaining. Anderson testified in part that she lost sick leave and retirement benefits
due to the reduction in the 2010 Winter Intersession. Her testimony was:
Q 	Okay, when you spoke - - Did you ever identify those
issues to the District, that you wanted to negotiate those items?
A 	Myself or on behalf
of
everybody?
Q 	On behalf
of
the Association, as a member
of
the Faculty
Association?
A 	Yeah, Dr. Jacobs and I had many heated conversations
about all
of
this.
Q 	In negotiations?
A 	Yes.
Q 	Okay, and - -	d - -
A 	But that was after the fact, because we didn't really, we
weren't informed
of
any
of
this.
Dr. Jacqueline Jacobs (Jacobs) is the District's vice-president for instruction. 	She is not the
District's lead negotiator. 	Subpoenaed to testify by the Association, Jacobs did not testify that
she received a request for effects bargaining or had the authority to accept such a request.

ISSUE
Did the District unlawfully fail to bargain the effects of its decision to reduce the
Winter Intersession?
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
In determining whether a party has violated EERA section 3543.5(c), PERB utilizes
either the "per se" or "totality of the conduct" test, depending on the specific conduct involved
and the effect of such conduct on the negotiating process. (Stockton Unified School District
(1980) PERB Decision No. 143.) Unilateral changes are considered "per se" violations if
certain criteria are met. Those criteria are: (1) the employer implemented a change in policy
concerning a matter within the scope of representation, and (2) the change was implemented
before the employer notified the exclusive representative and gave it an opportunity to request
negotiations. (Walnut Valley Unified School District (1981) PERB Decision No. 160; Grant
Joint Union High School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 196.)
PERB has long held that a community college district's decision to cancel classes,
including an entire session of classes, is outside of the scope of representation under EERA.
(Mt. San Antonio Community College District (1983) PERB Decision No. 297.) A district may
still have a duty to bargain the effects of such a decision, however. (Ibid.)
The law governing effects bargaining was recently summarized in County of Riverside
(2010) PERB Decision No. 2097-M (Riverside), in which PERB stated:
Where a change is made to a matter that is not within the
scope of representation, or where the right to demand bargaining
over the decision to change has been waived by the employee
organization, the employer is obligated to provide notice and an
opportunity to bargain over the negotiable effects of the decision,
but not the decision itself. (Sylvan Union Elementary School
District (1992) PERB Decision No. 919 (Sylvan), citing Mt.
Diablo Unified School District (1984) PERB Decision No. 373b;
Newman-Crows Landing Unified School District (1982) PERB
Decision No. 223 (Newman-Crows Landing).)
ISSUE
Did the District unlawfully fail to bargain the effects
of
its decision to reduce
the
Winter Intersession?
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
In determining whether a party has violated EERA section 3543.5(c), PERB utilizes
either the "per se" or "totality
of
the conduct" test, depending on the specific conduct involved
and the effect
of
such conduct on the negotiating process. (Stockton Unified School District
(1980) PERB Decision No. 143.) Unilateral changes are considered "per se" violations
if
certain criteria are met. Those criteria are: 	(1) the employer implemented a change in policy
concerning a matter within the scope
of
representation, and (2) the change was implemented
before the employer notified the exclusive representative and gave it an opportunity to request
negotiations. (Walnut Valley Unified School District (1981) PERB Decision No. 160; Grant
Joint Union High School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 196.)
PERB has long held that a community college district's decision to cancel classes,
including an entire session
of
classes, is outside
of
the scope ofrepresentation under EERA.
(Mt. San Antonio Community College District (1983) PERB Decision No. 297.) A district may
still have a duty to bargain the effects
of
such a decision, however. (Ibid.)
The law governing effects bargaining was recently summarized in County
of
Riverside
(2010) PERB Decision No. 2097-M (Riverside), in which PERB stated:
Where a change is made to a matter that is not within the
scope
of
representation, or where the right to demand bargaining
over the decision to change has been waived by the employee
organization, the employer is obligated to provide notice and an
opportunity to bargain over the negotiable effects
of
the decision,
but not the decision itself. (Sylvan Union Elementary School
District (1992) PERB Decision No. 919 (Sylvan), citing Mt.
Diablo Unified School District (1984) PERB Decision No. 373b;
Newman-Crows Landing Unified School District (1982) PERB
Decision No. 223 (Newman-Crows Landing).)
4

PERB further stated:
In dealing with effects bargaining, the employee
organization is entitled to reasonable notice and an opportunity to
bargain over the negotiable effects of a non-negotiable decision.
(Trustees of the California State University (2007) PERB
Decision No. 1926-H; Newman-Crows Landing.) Failure by the
employee organization to make a valid request to bargain the
negotiable effects of the decision constitutes a waiver of the right
to bargain regarding those effects. (Ibid.)
Moreover, where formal notice is not given, but the
"[a]ssociation receives actual notice of a decision, the effects of
which it believes to be negotiable, the employer's 'failure to give
formal notice is of no legal import'" and the burden is on the
employee organization to request bargaining. (Sylvan, citing
Regents of the University of California (1987) PERB Decision
No. 640-H (Regents).) Therefore, in order to make a prima facie
case for violation of the duty to bargain in good faith over effects,
the employee organization must demonstrate that it made a valid
request to bargain the negotiable effects of the employer's
decision. (See Sylvan; Regents; State of California (Department
of Corrections) (2006) PERB Decision No. 1848-S.)
In the present case, the Association had no advance notice of the District's decision to cancel
Winter Intersession classes, but it received actual notice at the Board of Trustees meeting
where the decision was made. There is no evidence that there was insufficient time for effects
bargaining between the decision in July 2009 and its intended implementation in January 2010.
The question in this case is whether the Association made a valid request for effects
bargaining. In Riverside, supra, PERB stated:
A valid request to bargain need not consist of specific
verbiage, "where there is a clear demand to meet and discuss a
matter." (Calistoga Joint Unified School District (1989) PERB
Decision No. 744 (Calistoga); Newman-Crows Landing.)
However, it must clearly identify negotiable areas of impact, and
clearly indicate the employee organization's desire to bargain
over the effects of the decision as opposed to the decision itself.
(Sylvan; Allan Hancock Community College District (1989)
PERB Decision No. 768 (Allan Hancock CCD); Newman-Crows
Landing.) A request that clearly demands to meet and discuss a
5
PERB further stated:
In dealing with effects bargaining, the employee
organization is entitled to reasonable notice and an opportunity to
bargain over the negotiable effects
of
a non-negotiable decision.
(Trustees
of
the California State University (2007) PERB
Decision No. 1926-H; Newman-Crows Landing.) Failure by the
employee organization to make a valid request to bargain the
negotiable effects
of
the decision constitutes a waiver
of
the right
to bargain regarding those effects. (Ibid.)
Moreover, where formal notice is not given, but the
"[a]ssociation receives actual notice
of
a decision, the effects
of
which it believes to be negotiable, the employer's 'failure to give
formal notice
is
of
no legal import"' and the burden is on the
employee organization to request bargaining. (Sylvan, citing
Regents
of
the University
of
California ( 1987) PERB Decision
No. 640-H (Regents).) Therefore, in order to make a prima facie
case for violation
of
the duty to bargain in good faith over effects,
the employee organization must demonstrate that it made a valid
request to bargain the negotiable effects
of
the employer's
decision. (See Sylvan; Regents; State
of
California (Department
of
Corrections) (2006) PERB Decision No. 1848-S.)
In the present case, the Association had no advance notice
of
the District's decision to cancel
Winter Intersession classes, but it received actual notice at the Board
of
Trustees meeting
where the decision was made. There is no evidence that there was insufficient time for effects
bargaining between the decision in July 2009 and its intended implementation in January 2010.
The question in this case is whether the Association made a valid request for effects
bargaining. 	In Riverside, supra, PERB stated:
A valid request to bargain need not consist
of
specific
verbiage, "where there is a clear d 	and discuss a
matter." (Calistoga Joint Unified School District (1989) PERB
Decision No. 744 (Calistoga); Newman-Crows Landing.)
However, it must clearly identify negotiable areas of impact, and
clearly indicate the employee organization's desire to bargain
over the effects of the decision as opposed to the decision itself.
(Sylvan; Allan Hancock Community College District (1989)
PERB Decision No. 768 (Allan Hancock CCD); Newman-Crows
Landing.) A request that clearly demands to meet and discuss a
emand to meet
5

matter, but fails to indicate a desire to bargain effects as opposed
to the decision itself, is not valid.
In the present case, the Association points to Anderson's testimony as the clearest evidence of
a request for effects bargaining.
I do not find Anderson's testimony to be that clear, however. It is not clear what
Anderson said to Jacobs, when she said it, or what authority Jacobs might have had to act on it.
The Association has not met its burden of proving a valid request for effects bargaining. The
case must therefore be dismissed.
PROPOSED ORDER
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the entire record
in this matter, the complaint and the underlying unfair practice charge in Case No.
LA-CE-5361-E, Pasadena City College Faculty Association v. Pasadena Area Community
College District, are hereby DISMISSED.
Pursuant to California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 32305, this Proposed
Decision and Order shall become final unless a party files a statement of exceptions with the
Public Employment Relations Board (PERB or Board) itself within 20 days of service of this
Decision. The Board's address is:
Public Employment Relations Board
Attention: Appeals Assistant
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95811-4124
(916) 322-8231
FAX: (916) 327-7960
In accordance with PERB regulations 	ent of exceptions should identify by
page citation or exhibit number the portions of the record, if any, relied upon for such
exceptions. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, $ 32300.)
66
matter, but fails to indicate a desire to bargain effects as opposed
to the decision itself, is not valid.
In the present case, the Association points to Anderson's testimony as the clearest evidence of
a request for effects bargaining.
I do not find Anderson's testimony to be that clear, however. It is not clear what
Anderson said to Jacobs, when she said it, or what authority Jacobs might have had to act on it.
The Association has not met its burden of proving a valid request for effects bargaining. 	The
case must therefore be dismissed.
PROPOSED ORDER
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the entire record
in this matter, the complaint and the underlying unfair practice charge in Case No.
LA-CE-5361-E, Pasadena City College Faculty Association v. Pasadena Area Community
College District, are hereby DISMISSED.
Pursuant to California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 32305, this Proposed
Decision and Order shall become final unless a party files a statement of exceptions with the
Public Employment Relations Board (PERB or Board) itself within 20 days of service of this
Decision. The Board's address is:
Public Employment Relations Board
Attention: Appeals Assistant
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95811-4124
(916) 322-8231
FAX: (916) 327-7960
In accordance with PERB regulations, 	statement of exceptions should identify by	, the statem
page citation or exhibit number the portions of the record, if any, relied upon for such
exceptions. 	(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 32300.)

A document is considered "filed" when actually received during a regular PERB
business day. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, $$ 32135, subd. (a) and 32130; see also Gov. Code,
$ 1 1020, subd. (a).) A document is also considered "filed" when received by facsimile
transmission before the close of business together with a Facsimile Transmission Cover Sheet
which meets the requirements of PERB Regulation 32135(d), provided the filing party also
places the original, together with the required number of copies and proof of service, in the
U.S. mail. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, $ 32135, subds. (b), (c) and (d); see also Cal. Code Regs.,
tit. 8, $$ 32090 and 32130.)
Any statement of exceptions and supporting brief must be served concurrently with its
filing upon each party to this proceeding. Proof of service shall accompany each copy served
on a party or filed with the Board itself. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, $$ 32300, 32305, 32140,
and 32135, subd. (c).)
Thomas J. Allen
Administrative Law Judge
77
A document is considered "filed" when actually received during a regular PERB
business day. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 32135, subd. (a) and 32130; see also Gov. Code,
§ 11020, subd. (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, § 32135, subds. (b), (c) and (d); see also Cal. Code Regs.,
tit. 8, §§ 32090 and 32130.)
Any statement of exceptions and supporting brief must be served concurrently with its
filing upon each party to this proceeding. Proof of service shall accompany each copy served
on a party or filed with the Board itself. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 32300, 32305, 32140,
and 32135, subd. (c).)
Thomas J. Allen
Administrative Law Judge