Federation of United School Employees, Local 1212 (Corrigan) (PERB A395E)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
JOSEPH B. CORRIGAN,
Charging Party,
V.
FEDERATION OF UNITED SCHOOL
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1212,
Respondent.
Appearances: Joseph
B.
Corrigan, on his own behalf.
Case No. SA-CO-565-E
Administrative Appeal
PERB Order No. Ad-395
June 29, 2012
Before Martinez, Chair, Dowdin Calvillo and Huguenin, Members.
DECISION
HUGUENIN, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on an appeal by Joseph B. Corrigan (Corrigan) from an administrative
determination by PERB's Appeals Assistant denying, as untimely, Corrigan's· appeal from a
Board agent's dismissal
of
his unfair practice charge, filed on July 21, 2011, against the
Federation
of
United School Employees, Local 1212 (Federation).
We have reviewed the Appeals Assistant's determination and the record and conclude
good cause does not exist to excuse Corrigan's late filing. Consequently, the Board declines to
accept the untimely appeal
of
the dismissal of the charge. We explain.
BACKGROUND
Corrigan filed his unfair practice charge on July 21, 2011, alleging the Federation
breached its duty of fair representation when it declined to move a grievance to the next level.
On December 23, 2011, the Board agent issued a warning letter, and thereafter on

January
17,
2012 Corrigan filed an amended charge. On February 2, 2012, the Board agent
dismissed the charge for failure
to
state a prima facie case. The dismissal letter, served on
February 2, 2012, cautioned Corrigan that he had twenty (20) calendar days within which to
file and serve an appeal, and explained the procedure for seeking an extension
of
the filing
deadline. Corrigan asserts he received the dismissal letter on February
7,
2012.
CORRIGAN' S APPEAL
Corrigan filed his appeal by fax filing on March
1,
2012. He did not request an
extension
of
time to
do so. The Appeals Assistant notified Corrigan by letter on
March 6, 2012, that the appeal had been due in PERB's Headquarters Office no later than
February 27, 2012, and thus the appeal was denied as untimely filed. 	In the March 6 letter, the
Appeals Assistant notified Corrigan that he could appeal to the Board itself the administrative
determination to deny his appeal, and that such administrative appeal must be filed within ten
(10) days following service
of
the administrative determination. 	Corrigan filed his
administrative appeal by fax filing on March
19,
2012. Thus, Corrigan's administrative appeal
was timely.
DISCUSSION
PERB Regulation 321361 provides that the Board may excuse a late filing for good
cause. 	The Board has found good cause when the explanation for the late filing was
"reasonable and credible" and
,the
delay did not cause prejudice to any party. (Barstow Unified
School District (1996) PERB Order No. Ad-227
.)
Good cause is typically found when the late
filing was caused by circumstances beyond the party's control. (United Teachers
of
Los
Angeles (Kestin) (2003) PERB Order No. Ad-325.)
1 PERB regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.
2

Here, Corrigan claims
as
his good cause only that he changed his mailing address, and
that the change caused a five (5) day delay in the delivery
of
the Board agent's dismissal letter.
Corrigan states that he received the dismissal letter, served by the Board agent on
February 2, 2012, at his new address in California on February
7,
2012.
We conclude that a mere five (5) day mailing delay for a letter within California does
not qualify, without more, as good cause to excuse a late filing. 	As noted in Corrigan's appeal,
PERB Regulation 32130(c) affords a party an extra five days to file where the filing is made
"in response to documents served by mail
if
the place
of
address is within the State
of
California
....
" The Board agent's dismissal letter was served on February 2, 2012, and the
due date for the appeal was twenty (20) calendar days plus five (5) additional days for service
by mail, or February 27, 2012. Corrigan received the dismissal on February
7,
2012, precisely
five (5) days from the date
of
service by the Board agent. Corrigan then had twenty (20) days
in which to prepare and file his appeal. He does not explain what
if
anything prevented him
from filing within the 20 days after he received the dismissal letter.2 Nor does he explain why
he could not have sought an extension
of
the February 27, 2012 deadline pursuant to PERB
Regulation 32132, as described in the dismissal letter.
We conclude that Corrigan was not prejudiced by the five day period taken by the Post
Office to deliver the dismissal letter, which corresponds exactly to the five (5) days provided
Corrigan by 	Regulation 32130(c). Nor does he offer a "reasonable and credible"
explanation for his failure either to seek an extension or to file his appeal by the deadline
of
Implicit in Corrigan' s administrative appeal is a suggestion that he was uncertain
about the filing deadline for his appeal from dismissal of his charge. Were he uncertain about
the filing deadline, he might have inquired of PERB' s Appeals Assistant, whose phone and fax
numbers were displayed prominently in the Board agent's dismissal letter under the heading,
"Right to Appeal." He did not do so.
3

February 27, 2012. Thus, we conclude that good cause does not exist to excuse Corrigan's late
filing of the appeal from the Board agent's dismissal of his unfair practice charge.
ORDER
Joseph B. Corrigan's request that the Public Employment Relations Board accept his
late-filed appeal in Case No. SA-CO-565-E is hereby DENIED.
Chair Martinez and Member Dowdin Calvillo joined in this Decision.
4