State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (PERB 1985S)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA	STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE	DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD	PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE	CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE
OFFICERS	OFFICERS ASSOCIATION,	ASSOCIATION,
Charging Party,	Charging Party,
V.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA (DEPARTMENT OF	ST ATE OF CALIFORNIA (DEPARTMENT OF
PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION),	PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION),
Respondent.	Respondent.
Case No. SA-CE-1650-S	Case No. SA-CE-1650-S
PERB Decision No. 1985-S	PERB Decision No. 	1985-S
November 20, 2008	November 20, 2008
Appearances	Appearances: 	Leonard	: Carroll, Burdick & McDonough by Natalie Leonard and Gregg Mclean Adam,	Carroll, Burdick & McDonough by Natalie 	and Gregg McLean Adam,
Attorneys, for California Correctional Peace Officers Association; Christopher E. Thomas,	Attorneys, for California Correctional Peace Officers Association; Christopher E. Thomas,
Labor	Labor Relations Counsel, for State of California (Department of Personnel Administration).	Relations Counsel, for State
of
California (Department
of
Personnel Administration).
Dowdin	Before Neuwald, Chair; Mckeag and Dowdin Calvillo, Members.	Before Neuwald, Chair; McKeag and 	Calvillo, Members.
DECISION
before	NEUWALD, Chair: This case comes before the Public Employment Relations Board	NEUWALD, Chair: This case comes 	the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on appeal by the California Correctional Peace Officers Association	(PERB or Board) on appeal by the California Correctional Peace Officers Association
(CCPOA)
of
a Board agent's dismissal (attached)
of
its unfair practice charge. The charge(CCPOA) of a Board agent's dismissal (attached) of its unfair practice charge. The charge
alleged that the State
of
California (Department
of
Personnel Administration) (State) violated	alleged that the State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (State) violated
the Ralph
C.
Dills Act (Dills Act) 1 by instructing the State Controller's Office to stop	the Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills Act)' by instructing the State Controller's Office to stop
collecting fair share fees
of
nonmembers in State Bargaining Unit 6 after implementing its last,	collecting fair share fees of nonmembers in State Bargaining Unit 6 after implementing its last,
best and final offer (LBFO). CCPOA alleged that this conduct constituted a violation of Dills	best and final offer (LBFO). 	CCPOA alleged that this conduct constituted a violation
of
Dills
Act section 3515.7.	Act section 3515.7.
of	The Board agent found that CCPOA failed to allege a violation of the Dills Act by the	The Board agent found that CCPOA failed to allege a violation 	the Dills Act by the
State and dismissed the case because, pursuant to Sections 3515.7 and 3517.8, the State is not	State and dismissed the case because, pursuant to Sections 3515. 7 and 3 517.
8,
the State is not
1
The Dills Act is codified at Government Code section 3512 et seq. Unless otherwise	The Dills Act is codified at Government Code section 3512 et seq. Unless otherwise
indicated, all statutory references are to the Government Code.	indicated, all statutory references are to the Government Code.

LBFO.
agent's dismissal subject to the following discussion.
2
required to collect fair share fees after implementing the LBFO. The Board agent reasoned	required to collect fair share fees after implementing the LBFO. The Board agent reasoned
that after the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement, the union's right to receive union	that after the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement, the union's right to receive union
dues survives. However, as noted by the Board agent, this right is not absolute and ends upon	dues survives. However, as noted by the Board agent, this right is not absolute and ends upon
the State's implementation of its LBFO, irregardless of whether the State fully implements the	the State's implementation of its LBFO, irregardless of whether the State fully implements the
entire LBFO. Purusant to Section 3517.8(b) the State is not required to implement the entire	entire LBFO. Purusant to Section 3517.8(b) the State is not required to implement the entire
LBFO.
We reviewed the entire record in this matter. The Board hereby adopts the Board	We reviewed the entire record in this matter. The Board hereby adopts the Board
agent's dismissal subject to the following discussion.
CCPOA'S APPEAL
CCPOA filed an appeal to the Board agent's dismissal. CCPOA first excepted to the	CCPOA filed an appeal to the Board agent's dismissal. CCPOA first excepted to the
dismissal letter because it presumed that agency fee agreements cannot exist absent an entire	dismissal letter because it presumed that agency fee agreements cannot exist absent an entire
collective bargaining agreement. 	CCPOA argues that such a holding is at odds with the plain	collective bargaining agreement. CCPOA argues that such a holding is at odds with the plain
language of the Dills Act because Section 3515. 7(a) permits a fair share agreement outside of a	language of the Dills Act because Section 3515.7(a) permits a fair share agreement outside of a
collective bargaining agreement. 	CCPOA further argues that any other fair share agreement	collective bargaining agreement. CCPOA further argues that any other fair share agreement
under	under Section 3515.7(a) would be obliviated were the Board to hold that fair share agreements	Section 3515.7(a) would be obliviated were the Board to hold that fair share agreements
end as a matter of law upon the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement or the	end as a matter of law upon the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement or the
implementation of a LBFO. 	CCPOA further argues that were the Board to find that fair share	implementation of a LBFO. CCPOA further argues that were the Board to find that fair share
agreements end as an operation of law, the Board would be undermining the integrity of the	agreements end as an operation of law, the Board would be undermining the integrity of the
bargaining process by creating an imbalance in bargaining power: "[a] labor union dependent	bargaining process by creating an imbalance in bargaining power: "[a] labor union dependent
on a fair share agreement could be held hostage to accept unfavorable contract terms for	on a fair share agreement could be held hostage to accept unfavorable contract terms for
employees it represents, knowing that if it does not, it would lose dues as soon as any LBFO	employees it represents, knowing that if it does not, it would lose dues as soon as any LBFO
were implemented."	were implemented."
2

(1)
( )
(3)
(4) 	T
3
Second, CCPOA argued that even if an agency fee agreement cannot survive the	Second, CCPOA argued that even if an agency fee agreement cannot survive the
expiration of a collective bargaining agreement, the State did not satisfy Section 3515.7(b ).	expiration of a collective bargaining agreement, the State did not satisfy Section 3515.7(b).
The State failed to gain legislative approval of any part of the LBFO.The State failed to gain legislative approval of any part of the LBFO.
RESPONSE
The State filed a response to CCPOA's exceptions arguing that the Board agent	The State filed a response to CCPOA's exceptions arguing that the Board agent
appropriately dismissed the unfair practice charge in accordance with Section 3515.7(b) whichappropriately dismissed the unfair practice charge in accordance with Section 3515.7(b) which
expressly provides that after a collective bargaining agreement expires, "fair share fee	expressly provides that after a collective bargaining agreement expires, "fair share fee
deductions	deductions shall continue until the effective date of a successor agreement or implementation	shall continue until the effective date of a successor agreement or implementation
of the state's [LBFO], whichever occurrs first." The State also argues that:	of the state's [LBFO], whichever occurrs first." The State also argues that:
(1) 	Even if the Board were to recognize that an agency fee agreement can exist	Even if the Board were to recognize that an agency fee agreement can exist
outside a memorandum of understanding, there was no such agreement here;	outside a memorandum of understanding, there was no such agreement here;
(2)	2 	It may impose only some of its LBFO in accordance with Section 3517.8;	It may impose only some of its LBFO in accordance with Section 3517.8;
(3) 	The policy arguments raised by CCPOA are unpersuasive; and	The policy arguments raised by CCPOA are unpersuasive; and
(4) 	The State properly implemented its LBFO.he State properly implemented its LBFO.
DISCUSSION
This is a case of first impression for the Board: whether Section 3 515. 7 requires the	This is a case of first impression for the Board: whether Section 3515.7 requires the
State to continue to collect fair share fees after the State implements its LBFO. 	We agree with	State to continue to collect fair share fees after the State implements its LBFO. We agree with
the Board agent and hold that the State's obligation to collect fair share fees terminates upon	the Board agent and hold that the State's obligation to collect fair share fees terminates upon
implementation of the LBFO even if the State does not fully implement the entire LBFO. As	implementation of the LBFO even if the State does not fully implement the entire LBFO. 	As
such, we adopt the warning and dismissal letters as a decision of the Board itself.	such, we adopt the warning and dismissal letters as a decision of the Board itself.
CCPOA argues that the dismissal letter erroneously interprets the Dills Act to preclude	CCPOA argues that the dismissal letter erroneously interprets the Dills Act to preclude
fair share fee provisions where no "master" collective bargaining agreement exists. The Board	fair share fee provisions where no "master" collective bargaining agreement exists. The Board
makes no finding regarding this issue because CCPOA failed to demonstrate that there was an	makes no finding regarding this issue because CCPOA failed to demonstrate that there was an
agreement outside a memorandum of understanding regarding fair share fees.	agreement outside a memorandum of understanding regarding fair share fees.
3

4
CCPOA argues for the first time on appeal that the State's failure to achieve	CCPOA argues for the first time on appeal that the State's failure to achieve
legislative approval of the LBFO bars it from ending the agency fee agreement. PERB	legislative approval of the LBFO bars it from ending the agency fee agreement. PERB
Regulation 32635(b)2 precludes a charging party from raising new allegations or new	Regulation 32635(b) precludes a charging party from raising new allegations or new
supporting evidence on appeal without good cause. CCPOA fails to demonstrate good cause	supporting evidence on appeal without good cause. CCPOA fails to demonstrate good cause
for the presentation of new allegations and/or supporting evidence on appeal, and nothing in	for the presentation of new allegations and/or supporting evidence on appeal, and nothing in
the documents filed related to the appeal indicates there is good cause. Additionally, this	the documents filed related to the appeal indicates there is good cause. Additionally, this
argument is without merit because in its amended complaint CCPOA stated:	argument is without merit because in its amended complaint CCPOA stated:
CCPOA understands that, upon reaching impasse, the State may	CCPOA understands that, upon reaching impasse, the State may
implement all or part of its entire last, best and final offer under	implement all or part of its entire last, best and final offer under
section 3517.8(b) of the Dills Act. While CCPOA objects to the	section 3 517. 8(b) of the Dills Act. While CCPOA objects to the
way that the purported impasse was determined, and disputes	way that the purported impasse was determined, and disputes
whether the LBFO was ever lawfully implemented, these items	whether the LBFO was ever lawfully implemented, these items
are not the subject of this charge. For the purposes of this charge,	are not the subject of this charge. For the purposes of this charge,
CCPOA will assume that the State lawfully implemented a	CCPOA will assume that the State lawfully implemented a
portion of its LBFO. 	That is not the subject of this charge.	portion of its LBFO. That is not the subject of this charge.
As such, this argument goes against the facts, and the Board does not address this issue.	As such, this argument goes against the facts, and the Board does not address this issue.
ORDER
The unfair practice charge in Case No. SA-CE-1650-S is hereby DISMISSED	The unfair practice charge in Case No. SA-CE-1650-S is hereby DISMISSED
WITHOUT	WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.	LEAVE TO AMEND.
Members McKeag and Dowdin Calvillo joined in this Decision.	Members Mckeag and Dowdin Calvillo joined in this Decision.
2
PERB regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 31001	PERB regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 31001
et seq.	et seq.
4

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor	STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Sacramento Regional Office	Sacramento Regional Office
1031 18th Street	1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95811-4124	Sacramento, CA 95811-4124
Telephone: (916) 327-7242	Telephone: (916) 327-7242
Fax: (916) 327-6377	Fax: (916) 327-6377	PERB
July 21, 2008	July 21, 2008
Gregg McLean Adam, Attorney	Gregg McLean Adam, Attorney
Carroll,	Carroll, Burdick & McDonough LLP	Burdick & McDonough LLP
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 400	44 Montgomery Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94104	San Francisco, CA 94104
Re:	Re: 	California Correctional Peace Officers Association v. State of California (Department	California Correctional Peace Officers Association v. State
of
California (Department
of Personnel Administration)	
of
Personnel Administration)
Unfair Practice Charge No. SA-CE-1650-S	Unfair Practice Charge No. SA-CE-1650-S
DISMISSAL LETTER	DISMISSAL LETTER
Dear Mr. Adam:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed	The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations	with the Public Employment Relations
Board	Board (PERB or Board) on January 14, 2008 (original charge) and amended on June 17, 2008	(PERB or Board) on January 14, 2008 (original charge) and amended on June 17, 2008
(First	(First Amended Charge). The California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA o	Amended Charge). The California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA orr
Union)	Union) alleges that the State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (State)	alleges that the State
of
California (Department
of
Personnel Administration) (State)
violated the Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills Act or Act)1
violated the Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills Act or Act)" at section 3515.7 by instructing the Office	at section 3515.7 by instructing the Office
of
the California State Controller
ta
stop	of the California State Controller to stop collecting fair share fees of nonmembers in	collecting fair share fees
of
nonmembers in
Bargaining	Bargaining Unit 6 (BU 6).	Unit 6 (BU 6).
CCPOA was informed by the attached Warning Letter, dated June 3, 2008, that the above-	CCPOA was informed by the attached Warning Letter, dated June 3, 2008, that the above-
referenced charge did not state a prima facie case. You were advised that, if there were any	referenced charge did not state a prima facie case. You were advised that,
if
there were any
factual inaccuracies or additional facts that would correct the deficiencies explained in that	factual inaccuracies or additional facts that would correct the deficiencies explained in that
letter,	letter, you should amend the charge. You were further advised that, unless you amended the	you should amend the charge. You were further advised that, unless you amended the
charge	charge to state a prima facie case or withdrew it prior to June 17, 2008, the charge would be	to state a prima facie case or withdrew it prior to June 17, 2008, the charge would be
dismissed.	dismissed. On June 17, 2008, a First Amended Charge was filed with PERB.	On June 17, 2008, a First Amended Charge was filed with PERB.
According to the First Amended Charge, the State allegedly never discussed ending collection
of fair share fees either during negotiations, in any proposed successor Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU), or in its written last, best, and final offer (LBFO). In addition,
according to the First Amended Charge, the State allegedly did not implement the portion of
the LBFO that involved collection of fair share fees. CCPOA asserts that, under these
circumstances, the State should continue to deduct fair share fees.
In the Warning Letter, you were advised of the legislative history of Government Code section
3515.7. Beginning with Litton Financial Printing Div. v. NLRB (1991) 501 U.S. 190, the
United States Supreme Court stated that, with the exception of union security provisions, a
unilateral change in existing terms and conditions cannot be effectuated after the expiration of
The Dills Act is codified at Government Code section 3512 et seq. The text of the
Dills Act and the Board's Regulations may be found on the Internet at w
r 	<
=P=U=B=L=IC=E==M=P=L=O=Y=M=E=N=T==-R~E=L=A=T=IO=N=S
=B=O=A=RD=.====ia.
According to the First Amended Charge, the State allegedly never discussed ending collection
of
fair share fees either during negotiations, in any proposed successor Memorandum
of
Understanding (MOU), or in its written last, best, and final offer (LBFO). In addition,
according to the First Amended Charge, the State allegedly did not implement the portion
of
the LBFO that involved collection
of
fair share fees. 	CCPOA asserts that, under these
circumstances, the State should continue to deduct fair share fees.
In the Warning Letter, you were advised
of
the legislative history
of
Government Code section
3515.7. Beginning with Litton Financial Printing Div. v. NLRB (1991) 501 U.S. 190, the
United States Supreme Court stated that, with the exception of union security provisions, a
unilateral change in existing terms and conditions cannot be effectuated after the expiration
of
1 The Dills Act is codified at Government Code section 3512 et seq. The text of the
Dills Act and the Board's Regulations may be found on the Internet at www.perb.ca.gov	ww.perb.ca.gov..

SA-CE-1650-S
July 21, 2008
Page 2
a collective bargaining agreement. Notably, in 2000, the California Legislature amended
Government Code section 3515.7 and added Government Code section 3517.8 such that, after
the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement, the union's right to receive union dues
survives. However, this right is not unlimited as the State's duty to collect fair share fees
extinguishes upon the State's implementation of its last, best, and final offer. Specifically,
section 3515.7(b) of the Government Code provides that "fair share fee deduction shall
continue until the effective date of a successor agreement or implementation of the State's last,
best, and final offer, whichever occurs first."
You were also advised in the Warning Letter that Government Code section 3517.8(b) does not
require the State to fully implement the entire LBFO. Furthermore, the language of
Government Code section 3515.7 does not specify that fair share fees must continue unless and
until the State implements its entire LBFO. Given these statutory provisions, the State may
discontinue giving effect to the provisions of the expired contract, including fair share fee
provisions, upon implementing any or all of its LBFO. Accordingly, based on the history and
language of the pertinent provisions of the Dills Act, the State is not required to continue to
collect fair share fees after implementing the LBFO.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above and in the June 3, 2008 Warning Letter, this charge is
dismissed.
Right to Appeal
Pursuant to PERB Regulations," 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 during a regular PERB business day.
(Regulations 32135(a) and 32130; see also Government Code section 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
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. (Regulations 32135(b), (c)
and (d); see also Regulations 32090 and 32130.)
The Board's address is:
2 PERB's Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.
SA-CE-1650-S
July 21, 2008
Page 2
a collective bargaining agreement. Notably, in 2000, the California Legislature amended
Government Code section 3515.7 and added Government Code section 3517.8 such that, after
the expiration
of
the collective bargaining agreement, the union's right to receive union dues
survives. However, this right is not unlimited as the State's duty to collect fair share fees
extinguishes upon the State's implementation
of
its last, best, and final offer. Specifically,
section 3 515. 7(b)
of
the Government Code provides that "fair share fee deduction shall
continue until the effective date
of
a successor agreement or implementation
of
the State's last,
best, and final offer, whichever occurs first."
You were also advised in the Warning Letter that Government Code section 3517.8(b) does not
require the State to fully implement the entire LBFO. Furthermore, the language
of
Government Code section 3515.7 does not specify that fair share fees must continue unless and
until the State implements its entire LBFO. 	Given these statutory provisions, the State may
discontinue giving effect to the provisions
of
the expired contract, including fair share fee
provisions, upon implementing any or all
of
its LBFO. Accordingly, based on the history and
language
of
the pertinent provisions
of
the Dills Act, the State
is
not required to continue to
collect fair share fees after implementing the LBFO.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above and in the June 3, 2008 Warning Letter, this charge
is
dismissed.
Right to Appeal
Pursuant to PERB Regulations,2 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 during a regular PERB business day.
(Regulations 32135(a) and 32130; see also Government Code section l 1020(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
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. 	(Regulations 32135(b), (c)
and (d); see also Regulations 32090 and 32130.)
The Board's address is:
2 PERB's Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.

SA-CE-1650-S
July 21, 2008
Page 3
Public Employment Relations Board
Attention: Appeals Assistant
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95811-4124
916) 322-8231
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.) 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. (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.)
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
By
Yaron Partovi
SA-CE-1650-S
July 21, 2008
Page 3
Public Employment Relations Board
Attention: Appeals Assistant
1031 18th Street
Sacramento,
CA
95811-4124
(916) 322-8231
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.)
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. (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.)
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
By_-..,.,,..._ 	_,..
_________
_
Yaroi'Partdvi
Regional Attorney	Regional Attorney

SA-CE-1650-S
July 21, 2008
Page 4
Attachment
cc: Christopher Thomas
SA-CE-1650-S
July 21, 2008
Page 4
Attachment
cc: Christopher Thomas

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor	ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Sacramento Regional Office
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95811-4124
Telephone: (916) 327-7242
Fax: (916) 327-6377
June 3, 2008
Gregg McLean Adam, Attorney
Carroll, Burdick & McDonough LLP
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94104
Re: 	California Correctional Peace Officers Association v. State of California (Department
of Personnel Administration)
Unfair Practice Charge No. SA-CE-1650-S
WARNING LETTER
Dear Mr. Adam:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on January 14, 2008. The California Correctional Peace Officers
Association (CCPOA or Union) alleges that the State of California (Department of Personnel
Administration) (State) violated the Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills Act or Act)' at section 3515.7 by
instructing the Office of the California State Controller to stop collecting fair share fees of
nonmembers in Bargaining Unit 6 (BU 6).
Investigation of the charge revealed the following information. CCPOA is the exclusive
representative of BU 6 employees of the State. CCPOA and the State were parties to a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that expired by its terms on June 30, 2006.
MOU section 3.02 (Agency Shop) provides, in relevant part:
The fair share shall operate in accordance with the following:
A. The State employer agrees to deduct and transmit to CCPOA
all deductions authorized on a form provided by CCPOA, and
pursuant to Government Code Section 3515.7, to deduct and
transmit to CCPOA all fair share fees from State employees
in Unit 6 who do not elect to become members of CCPOA.
The State employer agrees to deduct and transmit all
deductions and fair share fees during the life of this MOU and
after the expiration of this MOU until: (1) a successor
agreement is reached, or (2) implementation of the State's
last, best, and final offer after negotiations, whichever comes
first.
The Dills Act is codified at Government Code section 3512 et seq. The text of the
Dills Act and the Board's Regulations may be found on the Internet at www.perb.ca.gov.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	(F 	c~==============
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
PER.B
Sacramento Regional Office
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95811-4124
Telephone: (916) 327• 7242
Fax: (916) 327-6377
June 3, 2008
Gregg McLean Adam, Attorney
Carroll, Burdick & McDonough LLP
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94104
Re: 	California Correctional Peace Officers Association v. State of California (Department
of Personnel Administration)
Unfair Practice Charge No. SA-CE-1650-S
WARNING LETTER
Dear Mr. Adam:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on January 14, 2008. The California Correctional Peace Officers
Association (CCPOA or Union) alleges that the State of California (Department of Personnel
Administration) (State) violated the Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills Act or Act)1 at section 3515.7 by
instructing the Office of the California State Controller to stop collecting fair share fees of
nonmembers in Bargaining Unit 6 (BU 6).
Investigation of the charge revealed the following information. CCPOA is the exclusive
representative of BU 6 employees of the State. CCPOA and the State were parties to a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that expired by its terms on June 30, 2006.
MOU section 3.02 (Agency Shop) provides, in relevant part:
The fair share shall operate in accordance with the following:
A. The State employer agrees to deduct and transmit to CCPOA
all deductions authorized on a form provided by CCPOA, and
pursuant to Government Code Section 3515.7, to deduct and
transmit to CCPOA all fair share fees from State employees
in Unit 6 who do not elect to become members of CCPOA.
The State employer agrees to deduct and transmit all
deductions and fair share fees during the life of this MOU and
after the expiration of this MOU until: (1) a successor
agreement is reached, or (2) implementation of the State's
last, best, and final offer after negotiations, whichever comes
first.
1 The Dills Act is codified at Government Code section 3512 et seq. The text of the
Dills Act and the Board's Regulations may be found on the Internet at www.perb.ca.gov.

SA-CE-1650-S
June 3, 2008
Page 2
From July 2006 through September of 2007, the parties were negotiating a successor MOU.
During this period, the State deducted, and transmitted to CCPOA, fair share fees from
nonmember BU 6 employees. Further, the State never discussed ending collection of fair share
fees under any proposed successor MOU.
On September 12, 2008, the State presented its last, best, and final offer (LBFO) to CCPOA.
CCPOA did not accept the State's LBFO.
On September 18, 2007, the State notified CCPOA that, "[pjursuant to the Ralph C. Dills Act,
Government Code Section 3517.8, the State is exercising its right to implement. . . its last,
best, and final offer. . . ."
It is alleged that effective October 2007, the State instructed the Office of the State Controller
to stop collecting fair share fees of BUG employees that have not joined CCPOA.
The applicable statutory provisions in this case read as follows:
3515.7. 	Maintenance of membership or fair share fee
deductions
(b) The state employer shall furnish the recognized employee
organization with sufficient employment data to allow the
organization to calculate membership fees and the appropriate
fair share fees, and shall deduct the amount specified by the
recognized employee organization from the salary or wages of
every employee for the membership fee or the fair share fee.
These fees shall be remitted monthly to the recognized
employee organization along with an adequate itemized record
of the deductions, including, if required by the recognized
employee organization, machine readable data. Fair share fee
deductions shall continue until the effective date of a
successor agreement or implementation of the state's last,
best, and final offer, whichever occurs first. The Controller
shall retain, from the fair share fee deduction, an amount equal
to the cost of administering this section. The state employer
shall not be liable in any action by a state employee seeking
recovery of, or damages for, improper use or calculation of
fair share fees.
SA-CE-1650-S
June 3, 2008
Page 2
From July 2006 through September of 2007, the parties were negotiating a successor MOU.
During this period, the State deducted, and transmitted to CCPOA, fair share fees from
nonmember BU 6 employees. Further, the State never discussed ending collection of fair share
fees under any proposed successor MOU.
On September 12, 2008, the State presented its last, best, and final offer (LBFO) to CCPOA.
CCPOA did not accept the State's LBFO.
On September 18, 2007, the State notified CCPOA that, "[p]ursuant to the Ralph C. Dills Act,
Government Code Section 3517.8, the State is exercising its right to implement ... its last,
best, and final offer. ... "
It is alleged that effective October 2007, the State instructed the Office of the State Controller
to stop collecting fair share fees of BU6 employees that have not joined CCPOA.
DISCUSSION	DISCUSSION
The applicable statutory provisions in this case read as follows:
3515.7. 	Maintenance of membership or fair share fee
deductions
(b) The state employer shall furnish the recognized employee
organization with sufficient employment data to allow the
organization to calculate membership fees and the appropriate
fair share fees, and shall deduct the amount specified by the
recognized employee organization from the salary or wages of
every employee for the membership fee or the fair share fee.
These fees shall be remitted monthly to the recognized
employee organization along with an adequate itemized record
of the deductions, including, if required by the recognized
employee organization, machine readable data. Fair share fee
deductions shall continue until the effective date of a
successor agreement or implementation of the state's last,
best, and final offer, whichever occurs first. 	The Controller
shall retain, from the fair share fee deduction, an amount equal
to the cost of administering this section. The state employer
shall not be liable in any action by a state employee seeking
recovery of, or damages for, improper use or calculation of
fair share fees.

SA-CE-1650-S
June 3, 2008
Page 3
3517.8. 	Expiration
of
memoranda
of
understanding; continued effect.
Expiration of memoranda of
understanding; continued effect.
(a) If a memorandum of understanding has expired, and the
Governor and the recognized employee organization have not
agreed to a new memorandum of understanding and have not
reached an impasse in negotiations, subject to subdivision (b), the
parties to the agreement shall continue to give effect to the
provisions of the expired memorandum of understanding,
including, but not limited to, all provisions that supersede
existing law, any arbitration provisions, any no strike provisions,
any agreements regarding matters covered in the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 (Chapter 8 (commencing with Section
201) of Title 29 of the United States Code)), and any provisions
covering fair share fee deduction consistent with Section 3515.7.
(b) If the Governor and the recognized employee organization
reach an impasse in negotiations for a new memorandum of
understanding, the state employer may implement any or all of its
last, best, and final offer. Any proposal in the state employer's
last, best, and final offer that, if implemented, would conflict with
existing statutes or require the expenditure of funds shall be
presented to the Legislature for approval and, if approved, shall
be controlling without further legislative action, notwithstanding
Sections 3517.5, 3517.6, and 3517.7. Implementation of the last,
best, and final offer does not relieve the parties of the obligation
to bargain in good faith and reach an agreement on a
memorandum of understanding if any circumstances change, and
does not waive any rights that the recognized employee
organization has under this chapter.
A. The State is not required to collect fair share fees after implementing its LBFO.
CCPOA argues that the State has an obligation to continue collecting fair share fees of
nonmembers in BU6 and remitting them to CCPOA in the same manner that occurred under
the parties' expired MOU.
The primary issue here is whether Dills Act section 3515.7 requires the State to continue to
collect fair share fees after the State implemented its LBFO. Generally, the provisions of an
expired agreement that affect terms and conditions of employment must be maintained until
the parties reach impasse in successor negotiations. (State of California (Board of Prison
Terms) (2005) PERB Decision No. 1758-S.) However, as the legislative history below
demonstrates, an exception was created such that the State is not obligated to collect fair share
fees after the State implements its last, best, and final offer.
SA-CE-1650-S
June 3, 2008
Page 3
3517.8.
(a)
If
a memorandum
of
understanding has expired, and the
Governor and the recognized employee organization have not
agreed to a new memorandum of understanding and have not
reached an impasse in negotiations, subject to subdivision (b), the
parties to the agreement shall continue to give effect to the
provisions
of
the expired memorandum
of
understanding,
including, but not limited to, all provisions that supersede
existing law, any arbitration provisions, any no strike provisions,
any agreements regarding matters covered in the Fair Labor
Standards Act
of
1938 (Chapter 8 (commencing with Section
201)
of
Title 29
of
the United States Code)), and any provisions
covering fair share fee deduction consistent with Section 3 515.
7.
(b)	
If
the Governor and the recognized employee organization
reach an impasse in negotiations for a new memorandum
of
understanding, the state employer may implement any or all
of
its
last, best, and final offer. Any proposal in the state employer's
last, best, and final offer that,
if
implemented, would conflict with
existing statutes or require the expenditure
of
funds shall be
presented to the Legislature for approval and,
if
approved, shall
be controlling without further legislative action, notwithstanding
Sections 3517.5, 3517.6, and 3517.7. Implementation
of
the last,
best, and final offer does not relieve the parties
of
the obligation
to bargain in good faith and reach an agreement on a
memorandum
of
understanding
if
any circumstances change, and
does not waive any rights that the recognized employee
organization has under this chapter.
A. 	The State is not required to collect fair share fees after implementing its LBFO.
CCPOA argues that the State has an obligation to continue collecting fair share fees
of
nonmembers in BU6 and remitting them to CCPOA in the same manner that occurred under
the parties' expired MOU.
The primary issue here is whether Dills Act section 3515.7 requires the State to continue to
collect fair share fees after the State implemented its LBFO. 	Generally, the provisions of an
expired agreement that affect terms and conditions of employment must be maintained until
the parties reach impasse in successor negotiations. (State of California (Board of Prison
Terms) (2005) PERB Decision No. 1758-S.) However, as the legislative history below
demonstrates, an exception was created such that the State is not obligated to collect fair share
fees after the State implements its last, best, and final offer.

SA-CE-1650-S
June 3, 2008
Page 4
In Litton Financial Printing Div. v. NLRB (1991) 501 U.S. 190, the United States Supreme
Court discussed the principle that an employer cannot, after expiration of a collective
bargaining agreement and without bargaining to impasse, effect a unilateral change of an
existing term or condition of employment. (Id. at 198.) Many terms and conditions of
employment are subject to this prohibition on unilateral changes, which derives from the
statutory requirement to bargain in good faith. (Id. at 203.) However, the Supreme Court
identified three exceptions to the prohibition on unilateral changes. The exceptions are union
security and dues-checkoff provisions, no-strike clauses, and arbitration clauses. (Id. at pp.
199-200.) These provisions do not continue in effect during bargaining without the consent of
both parties. (Los Angeles County Association of Environmental Health Specialists v. County
of Los Angeles (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1112.) With respect to each of the three exceptions,
the basis for requiring consent of both the employer and union to the continuation of the
provision after expiration of the collective bargaining agreement is statutory. (Ibid.) (See, e.g.,
Roman Iron Works 292 NLRB 1292, 1293 [Even after the expiration of a collective bargaining
agreement, an employer, (and a union), must continue, with the exception of union security and
checkoff clauses, the existing terms and conditions of employment, (as represented by the
terms of the collective bargaining agreement), until such time as the parties reach an impasse
in bargaining, reach a new agreement modifying those terms, or until the employer is legally
discharged from its obligation to bargain with the union]; McClatchy Newspapers (1996) 321
NLRB 1386 at 1390 [union security, dues-checkoff, and no-strike provisions are "contract
bound" or involve a "statutorily guaranteed right" and could not appropriately be unilaterally
thrust upon a party without agreement to be bound].)
Prior to the year 2000, the law under the Dills Act section 3515.7(b) relating to fair share fee
deductions stated the following:
Fair share fee deductions shall continue for the duration of the
agreement, or a period of three years from the effective date of
the agreement, whichever comes first.
On February 24, 1999, Senate Bill 683 (SB 683) was introduced to amend Government Code
section 3515.7 and to add Government Code section 3517.8. In considering the enactment of
section 3517.8, the Third Reading analysis of the bill prepared for the Assembly Committee on
Public Employees, Retirement and Social Security noted that:
In the case of DPA v.Greene (1992) [5 Cal.App.4th 1551], the
court considered whether the state could unilaterally implement its
last, best, and final offer after declaring "impasse" at the
bargaining table. The court held that, where the terms are the
subject of Government Code provisions which were superceded by
the MOU, once the MOU expired, the Government Code
provisions spring back into existence, and DPA must implement
those provisions. Therefore, DPA can implement its last, best, and
final offer only as to those terms not covered by government codes.
SA-CE-1650-S
June 3, 2008
Page 4
In Litton Financial Printing Div. v. NLRB (1991)
501
U.S. 190, the United States Supreme
Court discussed the principle that an employer cannot, after expiration
of
a collective
bargaining agreement and without bargaining to impasse, effect a unilateral change
of
an
existing term or condition
of
employment. (Id. at 198.) Many terms and conditions
of
employment are subject to this prohibition on unilateral changes, which derives from the
statutory requirement to bargain in good faith. 	(Id. at 203.) However, the Supreme Court
identified three exceptions to the prohibition on unilateral changes. The exceptions are union
security and dues-checkoff provisions, no-strike clauses, and arbitration clauses. (Id. at pp.
199-200.) These provisions do not continue in effect during bargaining without the consent
of
both parties. (Los Angeles County Association
of
Environmental Health Specialists
v.
County
of
Los Angeles (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1112.) With respect to each
of
the three exceptions,
the basis for requiring consent
of
both the employer and union to the continuation
of
the
provision after expiration
of
the collective bargaining agreement is statutory. (Ibid.) (See, e.g.,
Roman Iron Works 292 NLRB 1292, 1293 [Even after the expiration
of
a collective bargaining
agreement, an employer, (and a union), must continue, with the exception
of
union security and
checkoff clauses, the existing terms and conditions
of
employment, (as represented by the
terms
of
the collective bargaining agreement), until such time as the parties reach an impasse
in bargaining, reach a new agreement modifying those terms, or until the employer is legally
discharged from its obligation to bargain with the union]; McClatchy Newspapers (1996) 321
NLRB 1386 at 1390 [union security, dues-checkoff, and no-strike provisions are "contract
bound" or involve a "statutorily guaranteed right" and could not appropriately be unilaterally
thrust upon a party without agreement to be bound].)
Prior to the year 2000, the law under the Dills Act section 3515.7(b) relating to fair share fee
deductions stated the following:
Fair share fee deductions shall continue for the duration
of
the
agreement, or a period of three years from the effective date
of
the agreement, whichever comes first.
On February 24, 1999, Senate Bill 683 (SB 683) was introduced to amend Government Code
section 3515.7 and to add Government Code section 3517.8. In considering the enactment
of
section 3517.8, the Third Reading analysis of the bill prepared for the Assembly Committee on
Public Employees, Retirement and Social Security noted that:
In the case ofDPA v.Greene (1992)
[5
Cal.App.4th 1551], the
court considered whether the state could unilaterally implement its
last, best, and final offer after declaring "impasse" at the
bargaining table. The court held that, where the terms are the
subject of Government Code provisions which were superceded by
the MOU, once the MOU expired, the Government Code
provisions spring back into existence, and DP A must implement
those provisions. Therefore, DP A can implement its last, best, and
final offer only as to those terms not covered by government codes.

SA-CE-1650-S
June 3, 2008
Page 5
Aside from the discussion of the implications of the Greene decision, the legislative history
regarding the enactment of this new provision focused on the policy reasons for providing for the
continuation of binding grievance arbitration and fair share fees following the expiration of a
negotiated agreement. In this respect, the bill analyses prepared for the legislative committees
noted the Board's decision in State of California, Department of Youth Authority (1992) PERB
Decision No. 962-S. In that case, the Board adopted the holding of Litton Financial Printing v.
NLRB, supra, 501 U.S. 190, that negotiated grievance arbitration provisions do not survive the
expiration of the agreement.
In 2000, following approval of SB 683, Government Code section 3515.7 was amended and
section 3517.8 was added to the Dills Act. In considering the addition of section 3517.8, the
sponsor of the bill, CCPOA, noted that:
The most important, time consuming, and often expensive service
a union performs for its bargaining unit is usually the
negotiations of a new MOU. . . It is precisely during this period
that the union is incurring the expenses which entitle it to the fair
share fees of nonmembers who are in the bargaining unit. The
union should not be prevented from collecting fees for this
representation work.
SB 683 amended the Dills Act to, inter alia, provide for the continuation of both binding
arbitration and fair share fees upon the expiration of memoranda of understanding but only until
a successor agreement has been reached or a last, best, and final offer has been implemented,
whichever occurs first. (Gov. Code, $ 3515.7(b).)
Here, under Litton Financial Printing v. NLRB, supra, 501 U.S. 190, the State's obligation to
collect fair share fees and CCPOA's right to receive them would have otherwise ended when
the parties' MOU expired in July 2006. However, because of the amendment to Government
Code section 3515.7 and addition of Government Code section 3517.8, CCPOA continued to
receive fair share fees deductions for an additional 14 months. While the sponsor of SB 683
emphasized the importance of collecting fair share fees during negotiations when the MOU
expires, that duty applies only to the period after the MOU has expired and the parties have not
yet reached an impasse in negotiations. (See Gov. Code, $8 3515.7(b); 3517.8(a).)
Accordingly, when the MOU expired in July 2006, the State continued to collect the fair share
fees of nonmembers during negotiations in compliance with the Dills Act. The Legislature
was clear that that the duty to collect fair share fees is legally discharged upon the State's
implementation of its last, best, and final offer. Since the State implemented its LBFO on
September 18, 2007, the State's obligation to collect fair share fees terminated.
The same conclusion must be drawn when the above facts are applied to the provision of the
MOU relating to fair share fee collection. Here, MOU section 3.02(A) incorporates Dills Act
3515.7 such that, upon the expiration of the MOU, the State is not obligated to deduct and
transmit fair share fees to CCPOA when either of the following conditions occurs first: (1) a
successor agreement is reached, or (2) implementation of the State's last, best, and final offer
SA-CE-1650-S
June 3, 2008
Page 5
Aside from the discussion
of
the implications
of
the Greene decision, the legislative history
regarding the enactment
of
this new provision focused on the policy reasons for providing for the
continuation
of
binding grievance arbitration and fair share fees following the expiration
of
a
negotiated agreement. In this respect, the bill analyses prepared for the legislative committees
noted the Board's decision in State
of
California, Department
of
Youth Authority (1992) PERB
Decision No. 962-S.
	In
that case, the Board adopted the holding
of
Litton Financial Printing
v.
NLRB, supra,
501
U.S. 190, that negotiated grievance arbitration provisions do not survive the
expiration
of
the agreement.
In 2000, following approval
of
SB 683, Government Code section 3515.7 was amended and
section 3
51
7.
8 was added to the Dills Act. In considering the addition
of
section 3517. 8, the
sponsor
of
the bill, CCPOA, noted that:
The most important, time consuming, and often expensive service
a union performs for its bargaining unit is usually the
negotiations
of
a new MOU
...
It is precisely during this period
that the union is incurring the expenses which entitle it to the fair
share fees
of
nonmembers who are in the bargaining unit. The
union should not be prevented from collecting fees for this
representation work.
SB 683 amended the Dills Act to, inter alia, provide for the continuation
of
both binding
arbitration and fair share fees upon the expiration
of
memoranda
of
understanding but only until
a successor agreement has been reached or a last, best, and final offer has been implemented,
whichever occurs first. (Gov. Code,§ 3515.7(b).)
Here, under Litton Financial Printing v. NLRB, supra,
501
U.S. 190, the State's obligation to
collect fair share fees and CCPOA's right to receive them would have otherwise ended when
the parties' MOU expired in July 2006. However, because
of
the amendment to Government
Code section 3515.7 and addition
of
Government Code section 3517.8, CCPOA continued to
receive fair share fees deductions for an additional 14 months. 	While the sponsor
of
SB 683
emphasized the importance
of
collecting fair share fees during negotiations when the MOU
expires, that duty applies only to the period after the MOU has expired and the parties have not
yet reached an impasse in negotiations. 	(See Gov. Code,§§ 3515.7(b); 3517.8(a).)
Accordingly, when the MOU expired in July 2006, the State continued to collect the fair share
fees
of
nonmembers during negotiations in compliance with the Dills Act. The Legislature
was clear that that the duty to collect fair share fees is legally discharged upon the State's
implementation
of
its last, best, and final offer. 	Since the State implemented its LBFO on
September 18, 2007, the State's obligation to collect fair share fees terminated.
The same conclusion must be drawn when the above facts are applied to the provision
of
the
MOU relating to fair share fee collection. Here, MOU section 3.02(A) incorporates Dills Act
3 515. 7 such that, upon the expiration of the MOU, the State is not obligated to deduct and
transmit fair share fees to CCPOA when either of the following conditions occurs first: (1) a
successor agreement is reached, or (2) implementation of the State's last, best, and final offer

SA-CE-1650-S
June 3, 2008
Page 6
after negotiations. As such, even if one were to argue in this case that the terms and conditions
of the agreement survive expiration, the State was discharged from its legal duty to collect fair
share fee on September 18, 2007 due to the LBFO implementation.
Therefore, the State's failure to collect fair share fees and remit them to CCPOA does not
constitute to an unfair labor practice within the meaning of the Dills Act.
. The State is not required to implement a fair share fee provision in the LBFO.
Although not clear from the charge, it appears that CCPOA is also alleging that the State must
fully implement the entire LBFO and cannot exclude implementation of a portion of the LBFO
involved in collecting fair share fees.
Assuming arguendo that the State failed to implement the portion of the LBFO relating to fair
share fees, Government Code section 3517.8(b) specifically states that upon impasse for a
successor MOU, the State "may implement any or all of its last, best, and final offer."
(Emphasis added.) This language in its plain meaning does not require the State to fully
implement the entire LBFO. Therefore, the State's alleged failure to implement any fair share
fee proposals in its 2007 LBFO does not demonstrate a prima facie violation of the Dills Act.
CONCLUSION
Sincerely,
Yaron Partovi
Regional Attorney
YP
SA-CE-1650-S
June 3, 2008
Page 6
after negotiations. As such, even if one were to argue in this case that the terms and conditions
of the agreement survive expiration, the State was discharged from its legal duty to collect fair
share fee on September 18, 2007 due to the LBFO implementation.
Therefore, the State's failure to collect fair share fees and remit them to CCPOA does not
constitute to an unfair labor practice within the meaning of the Dills Act.
B. The State is not required to implement a fair share fee provision in the LBFO.	B
Although not clear from the charge, it appears that CCPOA is also alleging that the State must
fully implement the entire LBFO and cannot exclude implementation of a portion of the LBFO
involved in collecting fair share fees.
Assuming arguendo that the State failed to implement the portion of the LBFO relating to fair
share fees, Government Code section 3517.S(b) specifically states that upon impasse for a
successor MOU, the State "may implement any or all of its last, best, and final offer."
(Emphasis added.) This language in its plain meaning does not require the State to fully
implement the entire LBFO. Therefore, the State's alleged failure to implement any fair share
fee proposals in its 2007 LBFO does not demonstrate a prima facie violation of the Dills Act.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons the charge, as presently written, does not state a prima facie case. If there	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	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	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	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	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	charging party. The amended charge must have the case number written on the top right hand
corner of the charge form. The amended charge must be served on the respondent'	corner of the charge form. 	The amended charge must be served on the respondent's	s
representative and the original proof of service must be filed with PERB. If an amended	representative and the original proof of service must be filed with PERB. If an amended
charge	charge or withdrawal is not received from you before June 17, 2008, your charge shall be	or withdrawal is not received from you before June 17, 2008, your charge shall be
dismissed. If you have any questions, please call me at the above telephone number.	dismissed. If you have any questions, please call me at the above telephone number.
Sincerely,
Y aron Partov1
Regional Attorney
yp