Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District (PERB A336M)

________________________
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
COACHELLA VALLEY MOSQUITO &
VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION & ITS CHAPTER 2001,
Petitioner.
Case No. LA-BR-4-M
Administrative Appeal
PERB Order No. Ad-336-M
May 12, 2004
Appearance: Timothy Taggert, Labor Relations Representative, for California School
Employees Association & its Chapter 2001.
Before Duncan, Chairman; Whitehead and Neima, Members.
DECISION
NEIMA, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB
or Board) on appeal by the California School Employees Association & its Chapter 2001
(CSEA) of a Board agent’s administrative determination. The Board agent determined that
CSEA’s petition for Board review, filed pursuant to PERB Regulation 600001, was untimely.
1PERB regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8,
section 31001, et seq. PERB Regulation 60000 states, in pertinent part:
(a) Any party to a determination by a public agency concerning
unit determination, representation, recognition or elections may
file a petition requesting the Board review the determination.
Such a petition may only be filed within 30 days following
exhaustion of administrative remedies available under the
applicable local rules. A challenge to the validity of a local rule
may not be filed under this section and may only be filed as an
unfair practice charge pursuant to Section 32602 of these
regulations.

________________________
Based on that determination, the Board agent dismissed the petition. On appeal, CSEA argues
that the thirty (30) day time limit specified in PERB Regulation 60000 is not jurisdictional.
Since the time limit is not jurisdictional, CSEA argues that its late filing may be excused for
good cause.
The Board has reviewed the entire record in this matter and affirms the administrative
determination based on the following discussion.
BACKGROUND
CSEA currently represents a unit of employees of the Coachella Valley Mosquito &
Vector Control District (District). On or about November 5, 2002, CSEA submitted a petition
to the District seeking to add the classification of red imported fire ant technician (RIFA) to its
(b) The petition shall be filed with the regional office. Service
and proof of service of the petition pursuant to Section 32140 are
required.
(c) The petition shall contain the following information:
(1) The name, address, county and telephone number of the
public agency and the name, address and telephone number of the
public agency agent to be contacted;
(2) The name, address and telephone number of the petitioner
and the name, address and telephone number of the petitioner's
agent to be contacted;
(3) The name, address and telephone number of any other
interested party and the name, address and telephone number of
the party's agent to be contacted;
(4) A copy of any petition or request filed with the public
agency, a copy of the final determination of the public agency,
and any related materials;
(5) A statement of the issue(s) in dispute;
(6) A statement indicating the specific action(s) requested of the
Board.
2

unit. The District’s general manager denied the request on December 19, 2002. Pursuant to
the District’s local rules, CSEA was provided an opportunity to appeal the general manager’s
decision to the District’s board. CSEA filed such an appeal on January 13, 2003. On
February 12, 2003, the District’s Board denied the appeal and dismissed the petition.
CSEA alleges that on March 3, 2003, it filed a “Notice of Appeal” with both the
District and PERB. The Notice of Appeal states, in its entirety:
COMES NOW the Appellant and RIFA employees to appeal
from the Respondent’s Board of Trustee’s sustaining of the
General Manager’s decision to grant recognition of RIFA’s
request for representation by CSEA, but only as a separate unit.
Denying their request to become members of Appellant.
Although the proof of service indicates that a copy was served on PERB, no such document
was located in PERB’s files. However, a labor relations representative (LRR) for CSEA
claims that he received a telephone call from a Board agent acknowledging receipt of the
appeal and informing him that the proper procedure was to file a petition for Board review
under PERB Regulation 60000.
On April 25, 2003, CSEA filed the present petition for Board review pursuant to PERB
Regulation 60000, et seq. On May 5, 2003, PERB sent CSEA an order to show cause (OSC)
why its petition should not be dismissed as untimely. Specifically, the OSC noted that the final
decision of the District was issued on February 12, 2003, but CSEA’s petition was not filed
until April 25, 2003. As PERB Regulation 60000(a) requires that a petition be filed within
thirty (30) days of the local agency’s decision, CSEA’s petition was untimely.
On May 21, 2003, the LRR responded to the OSC by submitting a declaration under
oath. The LRR asserted that even though he consulted with CSEA’s legal counsel, no one was
familiar with or knew how to file a petition for Board review. However, the LRR also
3

acknowledges that the District informed him that he had thirty (30) days to appeal the
District’s decision. The notice of appeal sent on March 3, 2003, was an attempt to initiate the
appeal, according to the LRR.
The LRR then declares that:
Before I left on vacation out of the country on March 16, 2003, I
received a call from a PERB agent in Los Angeles who informed
me that PERB had received the NOTICE OF APPEAL, but that
the proper procedure was to file a Petition for Board Review
under Regulation 60000.
Upon his return from vacation, the LRR declares that he was occupied in negotiations in a
separate matter. At some point, the LRR obtained a copy of PERB Regulation 60000 and
prepared the petition which was filed on April 25, 2003.
On May 28, 2003, the Board agent issued an administrative decision finding CSEA’s
petition untimely. The Board agent declined to consider whether the late filing could be
excused for good cause as the Board had yet to rule on whether late-filed petitions for Board
review could be so excused. Based on the administrative determination, the Board agent
dismissed the petition for Board review.
On appeal, CSEA argues that a PERB regulation cannot constitute a jurisdictional
statute of limitations. Instead, late-filed petitions for Board review should be excused where
good cause exists. As no prejudice has been shown, CSEA urges the Board to excuse its late-
filed petition.
DISCUSSION
The Board agrees with CSEA that the thirty (30) day time period in PERB
Regulation 60000 does not constitute a jurisdictional statute of limitations. Instead, late-filings
under PERB Regulation 60000 may be excused for good cause pursuant to PERB
4

________________________
Regulation 32136.2 What constitutes good cause has been examined by the Board in a variety
of different situations. (See, e.g., United Teachers of Los Angeles (Kestin) (2003) PERB
Order No. Ad-325 (Kestin); City of Sacramento (2003) PERB Decision No. 1541-M.)
Generally, good cause is shown where the late-filing has been caused by circumstances beyond
the party’s control or from excusable misinformation. (Kestin.)
Here, the Board does not find good excuse to excuse CSEA’s late-filed petition. Based
on the facts recited above, CSEA’s late-filing was caused by its failure to read PERB
Regulation 60000. There were no circumstances beyond its control. Further, there was no
misinformation. Accordingly, CSEA’s appeal must be dismissed.
ORDER
The Board affirms the administrative determination in Case No. LA-BR-4-M that the
petition for Board review filed by the California School Employees Association and its
Chapter 2001was untimely filed.
Chairman Duncan and Member Whitehead joined in this Decision.
2PERB Regulation 32136 states:
A late filing may be excused in the discretion of the Board for
good cause only. A late filing which has been excused becomes a
timely filing under these regulations.
5