City and County of San Francisco (PERB 1608M)

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD

SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL
UNION, LOCAL 790, AFL-CIO,

Charging Party, . Case No. SF-CE-18-M

Vv. PERB Decision No. 1608-M

CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, March 22, 2004

Respondent.

Appearances: Van Bourg, Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld by Vincent A. Harrington, Jr.,
Attorney, for Service Employees International Union, Local 790, AFL-CIO; Martin R. Gran,
Deputy City Attorney, for City & County of San Francisco.
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 Service Employees International Union, Local 790, AFL-CIO
(SEIU) of a Board agent’s dismissal (attached) of its unfair practice charge. The charge
alleged that the City & County of San Francisco (City) violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act
(MMBA)' by unilaterally assigning new duties to Senior Clerk/Typists. The Board agent
dismissed the charge on the ground that since the new duties were reasonably related to
existing duties, the assignment was not within the scope of representation.

The Board has reviewed the entire record in this matter, including the original and

amended unfair practice charge, the warning and dismissal letters, SEIU’s appeal, and the

'MMBA is codified at Government Code section 3500 et seq. Unless otherwise indicated,
all statutory references herein are to the Government Code.

City's response. The Board finds the warning and dismissal letters to be free of prejudicial
error and adopts them as the decision of the Board itself, subject to the discussion below.
DISCUSSION
The Board has held that the assignment of duties is not a mandatory subject within the
scope ofrepresentation if the newly assigned duties are reasonably related to existing duties.
(Davis Joint Unified School District (1984) PERB Decision No. 393 (Davis); Rio Hondo
Community College District (1982) PERB Decision No. 279 (Rio Hondo).) SEIU notes that
Davis and Rio Hondo were cases decided under the Educational Employment Relations Act
(EERA)2 and that the scope of representation under the MMBA is broader. 	SEIU also argues
that "work assignments" have been found to be negotiable under the National Labor Relations
Act (NLRA). 3 However, as the Board agent noted, the cases cited by SEIU do not support
either of its arguments. Next, SEIU argues that even if the assignment of duties is not a
mandatory subject of negotiation, it is at least a permissible subject. SEIU notes that the City
willingly entered into negotiations regarding the assignment of duties and that an agreement
was reached. The City then committed an unfair practice by unilaterally breaching that
agreement, according to SEIU.
In dismissing the charge, the Board agent failed to address the legal effect, if any, of the
purported agreement between SEIU and the City. The issue is whether the City committed an
unlawful unilateral change when it breached that agreement regarding a permissive subject. In
2EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq.
3NLRA is codified at 29. U.S.C. 151 et seq.
2

Eureka City School District (1992) PERB Decision No. 955 (Eureka), the Board addressed this
issue with respect to a district's policy on smoking. There, the Board held that:
Matters not within the scope of representation are reserved to the
employer and may not be subject to meeting and conferring. 	[fn.
omitted.] Although employers retain the right to meet and
consult with employee organizations on any subject outside the
scope of representation, the parties are not required to bargain
over a permissive subject. However, once agreement is reached
concerning a permissive subject and it is embodied in the parties'
CBA, the parties are bound by the terms of the agreement until its
expiration or unless modified by the parties.
The employer retains its management prerogative over subjects
outside the scope of representation. Further, by once bargaining
and agreeing on a permissive subject, the parties do not make the
subject a mandatory topic for future bargaining. (Chula Vista City
School District, supra, PERB Decision No. 834; Poway Unified
School District, supra, PERB Decision No. 680.) The nature of a
permissive subject of bargaining permits an employer or an
employee organization to indicate prior to the expiration of the
agreement that it does not intend to bargain the nonmandatory
subject. 	[Emphasis added.]
Thus, Eureka recognizes that there is no obligation on either party to negotiate over permissive
subjects of bargaining. However, once an agreement is reached regarding a permissive subject
and it is embodied in the parties' CBA, the parties are bound to that agreement for its duration.
Once the agreement has expired there is no obligation to adhere to the agreement or bargain
over a new one.
Here, SEIU alleges that an agreement was reached with the City not to assign certain
duties to class 1426 employees until the computer system functioned properly. It is undisputed
that the purported agreement between SEIU and City was not embodied in the parties' CBA
and no term was set forth in the agreement. Further, no modification was made to documents
setting forth the duties of senior clerk/typists.
3

At some point, management again assigned those duties to its senior clerk/typists.
Since the duties at issue were reasonably related to existing duties, the agreement solely
involved a permissive subject of bargaining. Because that agreement involved a permissive
subject of bargaining, and was not embodied in the parties' CBA, the City did not commit an
unlawful unilateral change when it again assigned those duties to its employees. (Eureka.)
Accordingly, the Board agent properly dismissed the charge.
ORDER
The unfair practice charge in Case No. SF-CE-18-M is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT
LEAVE TO AMEND.
Chairman Duncan and Member Whitehead joined in this Decision.
4

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	r 	(	
____________
...
,,	
---------------	
GRAY
DA
VIS, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
4:'-0.._v,ENf..B{¼t,,O
+ 	't,
\
.,.
Sacramento Regional Office
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
Telephone: (9 I 6) 322-3 I 98
Fax: (916) 327-6377
August 2, 2002
Vincent Harrington, Jr., Attorney
Van Bourg, Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld
180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1400
Oakland, CA 94612
Re: 	Service Employees International Union, Local 790, AFL-CIO
v.
City & County
of
San
Francisco
Unfair Practice Charge No. SF-CE-18-M
DISMISSAL LETTER
Dear Mr. Harrington:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on December 12, 2001. The Service Employees International Union,
T
,y~9l
790
A FL-CIO alleges that the City and County
of
San Francisco violated the Meyers-
Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) 1 by unilaterally changing the duties
of
Class 1426 employees and
by refusing to meet and confer over the implementation
of
the Child Welfare Services/Case
Management System (CWS/CMS).
On April 26, 2002, I called you and left a message stating that I had concerns about the
sufficiency
of
your the charge. I informed you that I would send you a warning letter and
invited you to call
if
you had questions. You did not call to discuss the charge.
In my letter dated April 26, 2002, I indicated that your charge did not state a prima facie case.
You were advised that
if
there were any factual inaccuracies or additional facts which would
correct the deficiencies explained in that letter, you should amend the charge. You were
further advised that unless you amended the charge to state a prima facie case or withdrew it
prior to May 14, 2002, the charge would be dismissed. Your request for an extension
of
time
was granted and an amended unfair practice charge was filed on May 17, 2002.
In early 2000, the parties negotiated over implementation
of
the CWS/CMS and reached an
agreement in March 2000. A copy
of
the parties' final written agreement was not included in
the charge. However, assuming the parties had a valid agreement that Senior Clerk/Typists
would not be required to enter contacts into the CWS/CMS, as discussed in the attached letter
the assignment
of
duties is not a mandatory subject within the scope
of
representation
if
the
newly assigned duties are reasonably related to existing duties. (Davis Joint Unified School
1 The MMBA is codified at Government Code section 3500 et seq. The text of the
MMBA and the Board's Regulations may be found on the Internet at www.perb.ca.gov.

SF-CE-18-M
August 2, 2002
Page 2
( 	(
District (1984) PERB Decision No. 393 (Davis); Rio Hondo Community College District
(1982) PERB Decision No. 279 (Rio Hondo).)2
You contend that "work assignments" have been found negotiable under the MMBA and the
NLRA, citing the following cases. In Los Angeles County Employees Association v. Los
Angeles County (1973) 33 Cal.3d
1,
the Court determined that the size
of
caseload carried by
eligibility workers is a negotiable subject. In Independent Union
of
Public Service Employees
v.
County
of
Sacramento (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 482, the Court found the assignment
of
workshifts, a change in the time that custodian shifts started and ended, was a mandatory
subject
of
bargaining. In AMF Bowling Co. (1991) 3003 NLRB 167, 138 LRRM 1017, the
"work assignment" found negotiable was a transfer
of
work out
of
the bargaining unit byassigning bargaining unit work to non-unit employees. Finally, in Engineered Control Systems
(1985) 274 NLRB 1308, 119 LRRM 1038, the NLRB held that a unilateral change in the work
duties
of
employees in the "helper" classification violated the NLRA. However, the NLRB did
not describe the change in assigned duties and it is arguable that these duties were assigned to
an employee who was removed from the bargaining unit and hired as an independent
contractor.
These cases do not find negotiable the assignment
of
duties to employees. Under similar labor
relations statutes, PERB has long held that the assignment
of
work,
if
reasonably related to
existing duties, is a management prerogative. (Davis; Rio Hondo) Thus, when the City
assigned the duty to enter contacts into the CWS/CMS to Senior Clerk/Typists, Class 1426
employees, this conduct did not violate the MMBA.3
Your charge also alleges that the City refused to meet and confer over the implementation
of
the CWS/CMS.
During the summer
of
2001, the City began requiring Senior Clerk/Typists to enter contacts
into the CWS/CMS. When the Union became aware
of
this change, SEIU Field Representative
Faye Roe made a demand to bargain the matter on August 23, 2001. Employee Relations
Manager Patricia Bums responded in a letter dated September 25, 2001, stating that the City
believed that discussions on the matter had been "exhausted." Ms. Bums stated that the City
did not have an obligation to meet and confer because the introduction
of
the CWS/CMS did
not significantly change employee working conditions.
In a letter dated October 1, 2001, Ms. Roe reminded Ms. Bums that the parties had previously
negotiated and reached an agreement over implementation
of
the CWS/CMS. Ms. Roe
When interpreting the MMBA, it is appropriate to take guidance from cases
interpreting the National Labor Relations Act and California labor relations statutes with
parallel provisions. (Firefighters Union v. City of Vallejo (i974) 12 Cal.3d 608.)
3 Even excluding the April 27, 1998 Senior Clerk/Typist duty statement, the description
of the duties of Senior Clerk/Typists from the "Characteristics of the Class" document
demonstrates that employees in this class perform related work.

SF-CE-18-M
August 2, 2002
Page 3
(
demanded that the City cease requiring clerks to perform the disputed job duties, halt training
on the CWS/CMS and meet and confer over these matters.
As discussed above, the assignment
of
work is not a matter within the scope ofrepresentation.
An employer does not have an obligation to meet and confer over nonmandatory subjects
of
bargaining. (Building Material and Construction Teamsters' Union
v.
Farrell (1986)
41
Cal.3d
651,660,224
Cal.Rptr. 688.) Thus, the City did not violate the MMBA when it refused
SEIU's request to bargain the decision to require clerks to enter contacts into the CWS/CMS.
An employer is required to meet and confer over any negotiable effects
of
its decision.
However, a request to bargain effects must clearly identify the bargainable impacts.
(Newman-Crows Landing Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 223.)
On August 23, 2001, Ms. Roe made a demand to bargain after the Union learned that the City
began requiring clerks to enter contacts into CWS/CMS. Ms. Bums responded on
September 25, 2001, stating that the City did not have an obligation to bargain this matter.
Ms. Roe again demanded to bargain in her October
1,
2001 letter, but she did not identify for
the City the negotiable effects
of
the implementation
of
the CWS/CMS which the Union
sought to negotiate. Ms. Roe did not clarify for the City that it sought to bargain the effects
of
its decision to require Senior Clerk/Typists to enter contacts. Absent a specific demand to
bargain
1cic::rn~.t".:...,~
~mpacts, Ms. Roe's request to bargain was reasonably interpreted to be a
general demand to bargain the City's nonnegotiable decision. This is especially true given that
the parties had exhaustively negotiated over the implementation
of
CWS/CMS and its impacts.
Accordingly, this allegation also fails to state a prima facie case and is dismissed.
Right to Appeal
Pursuant to PERB Regulations,4 you 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. (Regulation 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.
A document is considered "filed" when actually received before the close
of
business (5 p.m.)
on the last day set for filing or when mailed by certified or Express United States mail, as
shown on the postal receipt or postmark, or delivered to a common carrier promising overnight
delivery, as shown on the carrier's receipt, not later than the last day set for filing.
(Regulations 32135(a) and 32130.)
A document is also considered "filed" when received by facsimile transmission before the
close of business on the last day for filing together with a Facsimile Transmission Cover Sheet
which meets the requirements of Regulation 32135( d), provided the filing party also places the
4 PERB's Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.

SF-CE-18-M
August 2, 2002
Page 4
(
original, together with the required number
of
copies and proof
of
service, in the U.S. mail.
(Regulations 32135(b), (c) and (d); see also Regulations 32090 and 32130.)
The Board's address is:
Public Employment Relations Board
Attention: Appeals Assistant
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
FAX: (916) 327-7960
If
you file a timely appeal
of
the refusal to issue a complaint, any other party may file with the
Board an original and five copies
of
a statement in opposition within twenty (20) calendar days
following the date
of
service
of
the appeal. (Regulation 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 Regulation 32140 for the required contents and a
sample form.) The document will be considered properly "served" when personally delivered
or deposited in the first-class mail, postage paid and properly addressed. A document filed by
facsimile transmission may be concurrently served via facsimile transmission on all parties to
the proceeding. (Regulation 32135(c).)
Extension
of
Time
A request for an extension
of
time, in which to file a document with the Board itself, must be
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. (Regulation 32132.)

SF-CE-18-M
August 2, 2002
Page 5
Final Date
(
If no appeal is filed within the specified time limits, the dismissal will become final when the
time limits have expired.
Sincerely,
ROBERT THOMPSON
General Counsel
By
�
Regional Attorney
Attachment
cc: Philip A. Ginsburg

STATE OF CALIFORNIA	
____________
GRAY
DA
VIS, Governor
(
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Sacramento Regional Office
I 031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
Telephone: (916) 327-8385
Fax: (916) 327-6377
April 26, 2002
Vincent Harrington, Jr., Attorney
Van Bourg, Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld
180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1400
Oakland, CA 94612
Re: 	Service Employees International Union, Local 790, AFL-CIO
v.
City and County
of
San Francisco
Unfair Practice Charge No. SF-CE-18-M
WARNING LETTER
Dear Mr. Harrington:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on December 12, 2001. The Service Employees International Union,
Local 790, AF L-CIO
,.,
11Pges
that the City and County
of
San Francisco violated the Meyers-
Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) 1
by unilaterally changing the duties
of
Class 1426 employees and
by refusing to meet and confer over the implementation
of
the Child Welfare Services/Case
Management System.
The charge makes the following factual allegations.
	SEru
Local 790 is the exclusive
representative
of
numerous miscellaneous employees, including certain clerical employees
of
the City and County
of
San Francisco, Department
of
Human Services. As a result
of
State
legislation, the City was required to implement a new computer-based case management
system for Child Welfare Services (CWS/CMS) in October 1997. The new system permits
access to the information entered into the system by the State and other participating agencies.
The CWS/CMS requires significant changes in the way case files and data are recorded and
maintained. The charge states that the implementation
of
the CWS/CMS had an impact on
bargaining unit employees, including workload, changes in job scope and duties, and adequate
staffing.
Beginning in late 1998 and continuing through the early part
of
2000, SEID and Department
representatives met and conferred over workload, staffing, compensation and the designation
of appropriate classifications to perform CWS/CMS tasks. In early 1999, the parties reached
an agreement to retain a consultant to conduct a study and make recommendations concerning
implementation
of
the new computer system. After the study was issued, the parties met and
conferred over an extended period of time concerning implementation of the recommendations
in the report.
1 The MMBA is codified at Government Code section 3500 et seq. The text of the
MMBA and the Board's Regulations may be found on the Internet at www.perb.ca.gov.

SF-CE-18-M
April 26, 2002
Page 2
(
In October 1999, the City agreed that Class 1426 employees, Senior Clerk Typists, were no
longer required to enter "contacts" into the CWS/CMS. There are approximately 35 Senior
Clerk Typists in the Family and Children's Services Division. In an October 12, 1999 memo
from Bill Bettencourt, Deputy Director
of
Family and Children's Services, to all staff,
Mr. Bettencourt stated, in pertinent part:
Effective immediately, staff no longer have to enter contacts on
the CWS/CMS system. Documentation will only be done on
form l 03 7 and kept in the case file.
It is clear from the recently completed IBM study that the
entering
of
contacts is a significantly problematical area. I will
be advising the state that we are no longer going to enter contacts
into the system until such time that the system functions as it
should.
On Friday, Jan and I met with representatives
of
Local 535 and
Local 790 to review the report
of
the recent study done by IBM.
We will begin working together on the recommendations
of
that
report in order to address the problem areas noted.
In a letter to Jan Esbaugh, Program Director
of
the Family and Children's Services Division,
dated March 6, 2000, SEIU attorney Vincent Harrington summarized the agreements reached
by the parties during their prior meetings.
On March 24, 2000, SEIU and Department representatives met to review SEIU's March 6,
2000 letter. With certain minor clarifications, the parties reaffirmed their agreement on the
issues contained in the letter.2 Only two issues remained for further discussion: reorganization
of
the clerical staff and the feasibility
of
re-establishing a Class 2904 employee in each unit, as
well as a Class 1426 clerical floater position. These issues were dependent upon appropriate
budgetary resources being made available within the City.
Beginning in the summer
of
2001, the City began rescinding or renouncing agreements
previously reached concerning the duty functions
of
employees in Class 1426. On an
unspecified date, the City reneged on the agreement that.entering contacts into the CWS/CMS
is not a duty function
of
Class 1426 employees. The charge does not explain what action or
policy was issued by the City concerning this matter. It is assumed that Class 1426 employees
are now required to enter contacts into the CWS/CMS system.
The charge does not include either a copy of a signed written agreement or a tentative
agreement which has been initialed by the parties.

SF-CE-18-M
April 26, 2002
Page 3
(
The charge states that in a letter
to
SEID representative Faye Roe, dated September 25, 2001,
Patricia Bums, Employee Relations Manager, refused
to
meet and confer with the Union.
Ms. Bums stated, in pertinent part:
I also discussed meeting again with members
of
the management
team, and our position continues to be that we have exhausted our
discussions on this matter, as we stated in our last meeting. We
met outside
of
an obligation to meet and confer, since the
introduction
of
CMS was not a significant change affecting the
working conditions
of
employees. We continue to disagree on
that and other issues involving the duties
of
the 1426
classification.
Based on the facts stated above, the charge fails to state a prima facie case.
In determining whether a party has violated Government Code section 3505 and PERB
Regulation 32603(c ), 3 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.)4 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. 	(Vernon Fire Fighters
v.
City
of
Vernon (1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 802 [165 Cal.Rptr. 908]; Walnut Valley Unified School
District (1981) PERB Decision No. 160; San Joaquin Co. Employees Assn.
v.
City
of
Stockton
(1984)
161
Cal.App.3d 813; Grant Joint Unified High School District (1982) PERB Decision
No. 196.) The direction
of
the work force and the determination
of
work to be performed is a
management prerogative and is not subject to negotiations
if
the newly assigned duties are
reasonably comprehended within the scope
of
existing duties. 	(Davis Joint Unified School
District (1984) PERB Decision No. 393; Rio Hondo Community College District (1982) PERB
Decision No. 279.)
The charge alleges that in October 1999, the City agreed that Class 1426 employees would not
be required to enter contacts into the CWS/CMS system. Sometime during the summer
of2001, the City reneged on this agreement. 	It is presumed that the City began requiring Class
1426 employees to enter contacts into the case-tracking system. As noted above, however, the
assignment
of
work is not a matter within the scope ofrepresentation, unless the newly
assigned job duties are not reasonably related to the existing duties.
3 PERB Regulations are codified at California Code
of
Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.
4 When interpreting the MMBA, it is appropriate to take guidance from cases
interpreting the National Labor Relations Act and California labor relations statutes with
parallel provisions. (Firefighters Union v. City of Vallejo (1974) 12 Cal.3d 608.)

SF-CE-18-M
April 26, 2002
Page 4
(
Examples
of
the duties assigned
to
Class 1426 Senior Clerk Typists, from the "Characteristics
of
the Class" document submitted by the City include:
• Complies and condenses technical and statistical data from
vanous sources
...
• Types accounting and financial statements, letters, contracts,
pay-rolls, receipt vouchers, departmental reports, permits and
similar materials, frequently requiring the use
of
independent
judgement.
• Posts a variety
of
information and data in connection with the
maintenance
of
office records; codes correspondence for files;
assembles materials and information from various sources
relative to the typing
of
various reports.
The Duty Statement for the 1426 Senior Clerk/Typist, dated April 27, 1998, provides, in part:
• Maintain a current case record system. Utilize automated
systems including CDS, CMS and other systems to maintain a
current case record.
• Print reports from CMS as directed by the Supervisor.
• Enter record
of
contacts in the CMS notebooks from a hard
copy as assigned by the supervisor. Enter changes from Form
1502 and Form 1132 into CMS notebooks as directed by the
supervisor.
• Make photocopies
of
various reports, documents and forms as
specified on the copy docket.
• Type brief memorandums, letters and various forms required
by the Department and complete any other necessary clerical
duties as requested by the Supervisor.
• Attend training sessions as appropriate and approved.
As filed, the present charge does not provide facts which demonstrate that the requirement that
Class 1426 employe·es enter contacts into the CWS/CMS system is not reasonably
comprehended within the duties listed above. Thus, this allegation fails to demonstrate that the
City unilaterally changed a matter within the scope
of
representation.
The charge also alleges that the City refused to meet and confer concerning the implementation
of
the CWS/CMS system.
An absolute refusal to bargain is a per se violation of the duty to bargain in good faith.
(Stockton Unified School District (1980) PERB Decision No. 143; Dublin Professional Fire
Fighters v. Valley Community Services District (1975) 119 Cal Rptr. 182.)

SF-CE-18-M
April 26, 2002
Page 5
(
The charge alleges that beginning in late 1998 and continuing through the early part
of
2000,
SEIU and City representatives met and conferred over CWS/CMS implementation issues such
as workload, staffing, compensation and the designation
of
appropriate classifications to
perform CWS/CMS tasks. The charge also states that on March 24, 2000, SEIU and City
representatives met to reaffirm the agreements set forth in SEIU's March 6, 2000 letter. These
facts do not demonstrate that the City refused to meet and confer over the implementation
of
the CWS/CMS system. There are no facts alleged which demonstrate that SEIU otherwise
made a demand to bargain a matter within the scope
of
representation which was refused bythe City.
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, please 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 the
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
I do not receive an
amended charge or withdrawal from you before May 14, 2002, I shall dismiss your charge.
If
you have any questions, please call me at the above telephone number.
Sincerely,
~~~
Regional Attorney