Los Rios College Federation of Teachers, Local 2279 (Deglow) (PERB 1990E)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
ANNETTE M. DEGLOW,
Charging Party,
V.
LOS RIOS COLLEGE FEDERATION OF
TEACHERS, LOCAL 2279,
Respondent.
Case Nos. SA-CO-424-E
SA-CO-426-E
PERB Decision No. 	1990
November 26, 2008
Appearances: 	The Law Offices of Robb Hewitt by Robb Hewitt, Attorney, for Annette M.
Deglow; The Law Offices of Robert J. Bezemek by Robert J. Bezemek, Attorney, for Los Rios
College Federation of Teachers, Local 2279.
Before Neuwald, Chair; McKeag and Rystrom, Members.
DECISION
McKEAG, Member: These cases come before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on appeal by Annette M. Deglow (Deglow) of a proposed decision (attached)
by an administrative law judge (ALJ) dismissing PERB Case Nos. SA-CO-424-E and
SA-CO-426-E. The charges in both cases alleged the Los Rios College Federation of
Teachers, Local 2279 (Federation) violated the Educational Employment Relations Act
(EERA) 1 by breaching its duty of fair representation. In addition, the charges alleged the
Federation interfered with Deglow' s exercise of rights when it refused to submit her grievances
to arbitration, challenging the Los Rios Community College District's (District) performance
evaluations of Deglow. Last, the charges alleged the Federation aided and abetted the
1EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. Unless otherwise indicated, all
statutory references herein are to the Government Code.
ANNETTE M. DEGLOW,
Charging Party, 	Case Nos. SA-CO-424-E
SA-CO-426-E
v .
PERB Decision No. 1990
LOS RIOS COLLEGE FEDERATION OF
TEACHERS, LOCAL 2279, 	November 26, 2008
Respondent.
Appearances: The Law Offices of Robb Hewitt by Robb Hewitt, Attorney, for Annette M.
Deglow; The Law Offices of Robert J. Bezemek by Robert J. Bezemek, Attorney, for Los Rios
College Federation of Teachers, Local 2279.
Before Neuwald, Chair; McKeag and Rystrom, Members.
DECISION
McKEAG, Member: These cases come before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on appeal by Annette M. Deglow (Deglow) of a proposed decision (attached)
by an administrative law judge (ALJ) dismissing PERB Case Nos. SA-CO-424-E and
SA-CO-426-E. The charges in both cases alleged the Los Rios College Federation of
Teachers, Local 2279 (Federation) violated the Educational Employment Relations Act
(EERA)' by breaching its duty of fair representation. In addition, the charges alleged the
Federation interfered with Deglow's exercise of rights when it refused to submit her grievances
to arbitration, challenging the Los Rios Community College District's (District) performance
evaluations of Deglow. Last, the charges alleged the Federation aided and abetted the
EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. Unless otherwise indicated, all
statutory references herein are to the Government Code.

District's violation
of
Deglow' s rights. Deglow contends this conduct constituted violations
of
EERA sections 3544.9, 3543.6(b) and 3543.6(a), respectively.
Relying on the Board's decision in State
of
California (Department
of
Corrections)
(2006) PERB Decision 1806-S, the ALJ dismissed both cases for lack
of
prosecution. Deglow
appealed.2
We have reviewed the entire record in this case and find the matter was properly
dismissed for lack
of
prosecution. Accordingly, the Board hereby affirms the ALJ' s dismissal
of
both cases and adopts the proposed decision as a decision
of
the Board itself.
ORDER
The unfair practice charges in Case Nos. SA-CO-424-E and SA-CO-426-E are hereby
DISMISSED WITHOUT LEA VE TO AMEND.
Chair Neuwald and Member Rystrom joined in this Decision.
2
District's violation of Deglow's rights. Deglow contends this conduct constituted violations of
EERA sections 3544.9, 3543.6(b) and 3543.6(a), respectively.
Relying on the Board's decision in State of California (Department of Corrections)
(2006) PERB Decision 1806-S, the ALJ dismissed both cases for lack of prosecution. Deglow
appealed.
We have reviewed the entire record in this case and find the matter was properly
dismissed for lack of prosecution. Accordingly, the Board hereby affirms the ALJ's dismissal
of both cases and adopts the proposed decision as a decision of the Board itself.
ORDER
The unfair practice charges in Case Nos. SA-CO-424-E and SA-CO-426-E are hereby
DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
Chair Neuwald and Member Rystrom joined in this Decision.
Deglow filed a request for oral argument with her exceptions to the proposed decision.
However, the Board typically denies requests for oral argument when there is an adequate
record, the parties had sufficient opportunity to prepare briefs supporting their positions and
availed themselves of that opportunity, and the issue before the Board is sufficiently clear to
make oral argument unnecessary. (United Teachers of Los Angeles (Valadez, et al.) (2001)
PERB Decision No. 1453; Monterey County Office of Education (1991) PERB Decision
No. 913.) These criteria are met in this case. Therefore, we hereby deny Deglow's request for
oral argument.
2
Deglow filed a request for oral argument with her exceptions to the proposed decision.
However, the Board typically denies requests for oral argument when there is an adequate
record, the parties had sufficient opportunity to prepare briefs supporting their positions and
availed themselves of that opportunity, and the issue before the Board is sufficiently clear to
make oral argument unnecessary. (United Teachers of Los Angeles (Valadez, et al.) (2001)
PERB Decision No. 1453; Monterey County Office of Education (1991) PERB Decision
No. 913.) These criteria are met in this case. Therefore, we hereby deny Deglow's request for
oral argument.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
ANNETTE M DEGLOW,
V.
LOS RIOS COLLEGE FEDERATION OF
TEACHERS, LOCAL 2279,
Respondent.
UNFAIR PRACTICE
CASES NO. SA-CO-424-E
SA-CO-426-E
PROPOSED DECISION
MAY 17, 2007
Appearances: 	Law Offices
of
Robb Hewitt, by Robb Hewitt, Attorney, for Annette
M.
Deglow; Law Offices
of
Robert J. Bezemek, by Martin Fassler, Attorney, for the Los Rios
College Federation
of
Teachers, Local 2279.
Before Bernard McMonigle, Chief Administrative Law Judge.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In these cases, an employee alleges that a union violated its duty
of
fair representation
when it refused to submit a grievance on her behalf and refused to pursue another grievance to
arbitration.
Annete M. Deglow (Deglow) filed these unfair practice charges against the Los Rios
College Federation
of
Teachers, Local 2279 (LRCFT or Federation) in December 1998 and
January 1999. In June 1999, the Office
of
the General Counsel (General Counsel)
of
the
Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) issued complaints in both cases alleging that the
Federation violated its duty of fair representation to Deglow. Partial dismissals also issued in
both cases.
In July 1999, Deglow filed appeals
of
both partial dismissals with the Board itself.
On July 30, 1999, a PERB Board agent held an informal settlement conference for both
of these matters, but the cases were not settled.
ANNETTE M DEGLOW,
UNFAIR PRACTICE
CASES NO. SA-CO-424-E
SA-CO-426-E
V .
PROPOSED DECISION
LOS RIOS COLLEGE FEDERATION OF . 	MAY 17, 2007
TEACHERS, LOCAL 2279,
Respondent.
Appearances: Law Offices of Robb Hewitt, by Robb Hewitt, Attorney, for Annette M.
Deglow; Law Offices of Robert J. Bezemek, by Martin Fassler, Attorney, for the Los Rios
College Federation of Teachers, Local 2279.
Before Bernard McMonigle, Chief Administrative Law Judge.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In these cases, an employee alleges that a union violated its duty of fair representation
when it refused to submit a grievance on her behalf and refused to pursue another grievance to
arbitration.
Annete M. Deglow (Deglow) filed these unfair practice charges against the Los Rios
College Federation of Teachers, Local 2279 (LRCFT or Federation) in December 1998 and
January 1999. In June 1999, the Office of the General Counsel (General Counsel) of the
Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) issued complaints in both cases alleging that the
Federation violated its duty of fair representation to Deglow. Partial dismissals also issued in
both cases.
In July 1999, Deglow filed appeals of both partial dismissals with the Board itself.
On July 30, 1999, a PERB Board agent held an informal settlement conference for both
of these matters, but the cases were not settled.

On September 29, 1999 the Board issued four decisions upholding Board agent
dismissals and partial dismissals in unfair practice charges filed by Deglow, including the
partial dismissals in these matters (Los Rios College Federation
of
Teachers/CFT/AFT/
Local 2279 (Deglow) (1999) PERB Decision No. 1350 and Los Rios College Federation
of
Teachers/CFT/AFT/Local 2279 (Deglow) (1999) PERB Decision No. 1351.)
In May
of
2006, the matters were assigned to this administrative law judge for formal
hearing.
On January 23, 2007, the Federation filed a letter requesting that the cases be dismissed
pursuant to State
of
California (Department
of
Corrections) (2006) PERB Decision
No. 1806-S. On January 26, an Order To Show Cause (OSC) why the case should not be
dismissed for lack
of
prosecution issued in both matters. On March 23, 2007, Deglow filed a
Response and Opposition to the OSC. Several factual allegations therein were disputed by the
Federation. A hearing was held on April 24, 2007. After closing oral arguments the matter
was submitted.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The official PERB files in these matters contain no entries from September 1999 to
December 2005. On December 20, 2005, a notice
of
appearance was filed stating that Deglow
would be represented by an attorney, Robb Hewitt. A letter received by the General Counsel
on May 17, 2006, from the Federation reflects the General Counsel's attempt to establish
mutually acceptable dates for a formal hearing for both cases. The letter provided September
2006 dates that the Federation could be available.
At the hearing, Deglow testified that she was present at the settlement
conference regarding both of these matters in July 1999. Also present were Robert Perrone
(Perrone), the Executive Director of LRCFT and PERB Deputy General Counsel Robert
2
On September 29, 1999 the Board issued four decisions upholding Board agent
dismissals and partial dismissals in unfair practice charges filed by Deglow, including the
partial dismissals in these matters (Los Rios College Federation of Teachers/CFT/AFT/
Local 2279 (Deglow) (1999) PERB Decision No. 1350 and Los Rios College Federation of
Teachers/CFT/AFT/Local 2279 (Deglow) (1999) PERB Decision No. 1351.)
In May of 2006, the matters were assigned to this administrative law judge for formal
hearing.
On January 23, 2007, the Federation filed a letter requesting that the cases be dismissed
pursuant to State of California (Department of Corrections) (2006) PERB Decision
No. 1806-S. On January 26, an Order To Show Cause (OSC) why the case should not be
dismissed for lack of prosecution issued in both matters. On March 23, 2007, Deglow filed a
Response and Opposition to the OSC. Several factual allegations therein were disputed by the
Federation. A hearing was held on April 24, 2007. After closing oral arguments the matter
was submitted.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The official PERB files in these matters contain no entries from September 1999 to
December 2005. On December 20, 2005, a notice of appearance was filed stating that Deglow
would be represented by an attorney, Robb Hewitt. A letter received by the General Counsel
on May 17, 2006, from the Federation reflects the General Counsel's attempt to establish
mutually acceptable dates for a formal hearing for both cases. The letter provided September
2006 dates that the Federation could be available.
At the hearing, Deglow testified that she was present at the settlement
conference regarding both of these matters in July 1999. Also present were Robert Perrone
(Perrone), the Executive Director of LRCFT and PERB Deputy General Counsel Robert
2

Thompson (Thompson). No settlement was reached. According to Deglow, there was an
agreement to continue the settlement conference and not set the matter for formal hearing.
However, on cross examination she could not recall whether Perrone had agreed to a
continuance.
On August 22, 1999, Deglow faxed a letter referencing the two cases to Perrone
requesting "that arrangement be made for me to meet with Dennis Smith, President, LRCFT to
discuss settlement terms and conditions for the above referenced cases."
By letter of August 26, 1999, Smith declined the request and directed Deglow to
contact the LRCFT Grievance Chair or Perrone as they were handling the cases. He also urged
her to contact Thompson whose services as an impartial facilitator remained available. There
was no further contact between the parties regarding these cases for over six years.
Deglow testified that later, after a public PERB meeting in 1999, she was told by
Thompson that there exists no "timeline" for settling her cases, that they were "in settlement."
Thompson testified that he recalled conducting a settlement conference in a case that
involved Deglow and LRCFT but wasn't sure that it involved the cases at issue. He could not
recall an agreement to continue the settlement conference. However, he did recall that later he
had a conversation with Deglow in which she indicated that she was dealing with the LRCFT
on other matters and did not wish to proceed to another settlement conference at that time.
After Deglow asked, Thompson told her that there was no problem in putting it off.
In 2005, Thompson contacted Deglow and inquired into the status of the two cases in
this matter. She told Thompson that she was looking into legal representation. Deglow
testified that Thompson again told her that there were no "timelines". In December 2005,
Deglow called Thompson and said that he would hear from her attorney. In that same month
Thompson received a notice of appearance identifying Deglow's attorney.
3
Thompson (Thompson). No settlement was reached. According to Deglow, there was an
agreement to continue the settlement conference and not set the matter for formal hearing.
However, on cross examination she could not recall whether Perrone had agreed to a
continuance.
On August 22, 1999, Deglow faxed a letter referencing the two cases to Perrone
requesting "that arrangement be made for me to meet with Dennis Smith, President, LRCFT to
discuss settlement terms and conditions for the above referenced cases."
By letter of August 26, 1999, Smith declined the request and directed Deglow to
contact the LRCFT Grievance Chair or Perrone as they were handling the cases. He also urged
her to contact Thompson whose services as an impartial facilitator remained available. There
was no further contact between the parties regarding these cases for over six years.
Deglow testified that later, after a public PERB meeting in 1999, she was told by
Thompson that there exists no "timeline" for settling her cases, that they were "in settlement."
Thompson testified that he recalled conducting a settlement conference in a case that
involved Deglow and LRCFT but wasn't sure that it involved the cases at issue. He could not
recall an agreement to continue the settlement conference. However, he did recall that later he
had a conversation with Deglow in which she indicated that she was dealing with the LRCFT
on other matters and did not wish to proceed to another settlement conference at that time.
After Deglow asked, Thompson told her that there was no problem in putting it off.
In 2005, Thompson contacted Deglow and inquired into the status of the two cases in
this matter. She told Thompson that she was looking into legal representation. Deglow
testified that Thompson again told her that there were no "timelines". In December 2005,
Deglow called Thompson and said that he would hear from her attorney. In that same month
Thompson received a notice of appearance identifying Deglow's attorney.

ISSUE
Should the complaint in this matter be dismissed for lack of prosecution from July 1999
to December 2005?
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
In State of California (Department of Corrections) (2006) PERB Decision No. 1806-S
(Corrections), the Board affirmed the obligation of a charging party to exercise due diligence
in prosecuting their unfair practice claim. Therein, the Board also determined that an ALJ can
dismiss a complaint for failure to exercise due diligence in moving the case forward to a
formal hearing, absent a showing of good cause. Such power is inherent in the authority to
regulate the course and conduct of a hearing (PERB Regulation 32170.)
In that case, as in this one, there were no defined time requirements for proceeding to a
formal hearing. Neither the governing statute or PERB regulations set forth a "timeline". 1
However, the Board determined that the charging party's "[f]ailure to take any action for
eighteen months [was] not due diligence." In addition, good cause for the delay was absent
"[b]ecause [charging party] failed to demonstrate reasons that were either unanticipated or
beyond his control."
Deglow allowed her cases to remain dormant for 6 ½ years before attempting to revive
them. Accordingly, I find that she did not exercise due diligence in prosecuting them. The
issue here is whether Deglow has established reasons for the delay that demonstrate good
cause. I find that she has not.
Initially, Deglow contends that there was an agreement to continue the informal
settlement conference. However, she does not recall that the other party to this matter
(LRCFT) was part of that agreement. Nor could the PERB agent, Thompson, recall such an
1 A prior PERB regulation, repealed in 1989, required that a formal hearing be
requested within six months from the date a complaint issued.
4
ISSUE
Should the complaint in this matter be dismissed for lack of prosecution from July 1999
to December 2005?
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
In State of California (Department of Corrections) (2006) PERB Decision No. 1806-S
(Corrections), the Board affirmed the obligation of a charging party to exercise due diligence
in prosecuting their unfair practice claim. Therein, the Board also determined that an ALJ can
dismiss a complaint for failure to exercise due diligence in moving the case forward to a
formal hearing, absent a showing of good cause. Such power is inherent in the authority to
regulate the course and conduct of a hearing (PERB Regulation 32170.)
In that case, as in this one, there were no defined time requirements for proceeding to a
formal hearing. Neither the governing statute or PERB regulations set forth a "timeline". '
However, the Board determined that the charging party's "[flailure to take any action for
eighteen months [was] not due diligence." In addition, good cause for the delay was absent
"[blecause [charging party] failed to demonstrate reasons that were either unanticipated or
beyond his control."
Deglow allowed her cases to remain dormant for 6 1/2 years before attempting to revive
them. Accordingly, I find that she did not exercise due diligence in prosecuting them. The
issue here is whether Deglow has established reasons for the delay that demonstrate good
cause. I find that she has not.
Initially, Deglow contends that there was an agreement to continue the informal
settlement conference. However, she does not recall that the other party to this matter
(LRCFT) was part of that agreement. Nor could the PERB agent, Thompson, recall such an
A prior PERB regulation, repealed in 1989, required that a formal hearing be
requested within six months from the date a complaint issued.

agreement. He did recall a later conversation (in 1999) in which Deglow stated that she did
not wish to proceed with the cases at that time. Even assuming there had been an
understanding that the parties would continue to consider settlement, and that Thompson's
services remained available, there is no evidence
of
an "agreement" that would justify the time
lag. Nor would such an understanding survive a reasonable time for settlement.
Deglow next argues that she had a right to rely on Thompson's assurance that
PERB did not have "timelines" for proceeding to a formal hearing. As discussed, PERB
regulations set no time limits for an unfair practice charge to proceed from complaint to formal
hearing2. However, as the Board found in Corrections, even without official timelines or time
limits, a charging party must prosecute a case before PERB in a reasonable period
of
time.	
It
is not the responsibility
of
PERB agents to remind or cajole.	
It
is not the duty
of
a respondent
to push a matter charging it with a violation
of
law. After a failed settlement effort, the
charging party must use due diligence to proceed to a formal hearing before an administrative
law judge.
That the charging party must move an unfair practice complaint to a formal hearing is
inherent in the PERB processes. Here, charging party is no stranger to those processes. As the
Board has noted, "PERB' s decision index lists
15
Board decisions involving Deglow' s charges
against the Federation, the majority
of
which affirm dismissals by Board agents. In several
of
these decisions, the Board has advised Deglow that her repeated filings
of
the same charges
over the same circumstances constitute an abuse
of
process." Los Rios College Federation of
Teachers, Local 2279 (Deglow) (2003) PERB Decision No. 1515.
For these cases to proceed to a formal hearing would constitute another form of abuse
of process. One supposed advantage of processing unfair labor practices through PERB is a
2 As Thompson testified, each case is "driven by the parties." Settlement depends on a
variety of factors that differ with each case.
5
agreement. He did recall a later conversation (in 1999) in which Deglow stated that she did
not wish to proceed with the cases at that time. Even assuming there had been an
understanding that the parties would continue to consider settlement, and that Thompson's
services remained available, there is no evidence of an "agreement" that would justify the time
lag. Nor would such an understanding survive a reasonable time for settlement.
Deglow next argues that she had a right to rely on Thompson's assurance that
PERB did not have "timelines" for proceeding to a formal hearing. As discussed, PERB
regulations set no time limits for an unfair practice charge to proceed from complaint to formal
hearing . However, as the Board found in Corrections, even without official timelines or time
limits, a charging party must prosecute a case before PERB in a reasonable period of time. It
is not the responsibility of PERB agents to remind or cajole. It is not the duty of a respondent
to push a matter charging it with a violation of law. After a failed settlement effort, the
charging party must use due diligence to proceed to a formal hearing before an administrative
law judge.
That the charging party must move an unfair practice complaint to a formal hearing is
inherent in the PERB processes. Here, charging party is no stranger to those processes. As the
Board has noted, "PERB's decision index lists 15 Board decisions involving Deglow's charges
against the Federation, the majority of which affirm dismissals by Board agents. In several of
these decisions, the Board has advised Deglow that her repeated filings of the same charges
over the same circumstances constitute an abuse of process." Los Rios College Federation of
Teachers, Local 2279 (Deglow) (2003) PERB Decision No. 1515.
For these cases to proceed to a formal hearing would constitute another form of abuse
of process. One supposed advantage of processing unfair labor practices through PERB is a
As Thompson testified, each case is "driven by the parties." Settlement depends on a
variety of factors that differ with each case.
5

faster disposition
of
these controversies than would otherwise be available. The six month
statutory limitations period for filing an unfair practice charge obviously reflects legislative
intent that there be a rapid resolution. Permitting a charging party to file within the statutory
time limitation and fail to prosecute for over six years would be contrary to the purpose
of
the
limitations period.
Because due diligence was not exercised in prosecuting these cases and good cause to
excuse the delay has not been established, these cases are dismissed for lack
of
prosecution.
PROPOSED ORDER
Based on the foregoing findings
of
fact, conclusions
of
law and the entire record, the
complaints and underlying unfair practice charges in Case No. SA-CO-424-
E,
Annette M.
Deglow v. Los Rios College Federation
of
Teachers, Local 2279 and Case No. SA-CO-426-E
Annette M. Deglow
v.
Los Rios College Federation
of
Teachers, Local 2279 are hereby
dismissed.	dismissed.
Pursuant to California Code
of
Regulations, title
8,
section 32305, this Proposed
Decision and Order shall become final unless a party files a statement
of
exceptions with the
Public Employment Relations Board (PERB or Board) itself within 20 days
of
service
of
this
Decision. The Board's address is:
Public Employment Relations Board
Attention: Appeals Assistant
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
(916) 322-8231
FAX: (916) 327-7960
In accordance with PERB regulations, the statement of exceptions should identify by
page citation or exhibit number the portions of the record, if any, relied upon for such
exceptions. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, sec. 32300.)
6
faster disposition of these controversies than would otherwise be available. The six month
statutory limitations period for filing an unfair practice charge obviously reflects legislative
intent that there be a rapid resolution. Permitting a charging party to file within the statutory
time limitation and fail to prosecute for over six years would be contrary to the purpose of the
limitations period.
Because due diligence was not exercised in prosecuting these cases and good cause to
excuse the delay has not been established, these cases are dismissed for lack of prosecution.
PROPOSED ORDER
Based on the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law and the entire record, the
complaints and underlying unfair practice charges in Case No. SA-CO-424- E, Annette M.
Deglow v. Los Rios College Federation of Teachers. Local 2279 and Case No. SA-CO-426-E
Annette M. Deglow v. Los Rios College Federation of Teachers, Local 2279 are hereby
Pursuant to California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 32305, this Proposed
Decision and Order shall become final unless a party files a statement of exceptions with the
Public Employment Relations Board (PERB or Board) itself within 20 days of service of this
Decision. The Board's address is:
Public Employment Relations Board
Attention: Appeals Assistant
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
(916) 322-8231
FAX: (916) 327-7960
In accordance with PERB regulations, the statement of exceptions should identify by
page citation or exhibit number the portions of the record, if any, relied upon for such
exceptions. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, sec. 32300.)
6

A document is considered "filed" when actually received during a regular PERB
business day. 	(Cal. Code Regs.,
tit.
8,
secs. 32135(a) and 32130; see also Government Code
sec. 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
California Code
of
Regulations, title
8,
section 32135(d), provided the
filing party also places the original, together with the required number of copies and proof
of
service, in the U.S. mail. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, sec. 32135(b), (c) and (d); see also Cal. Code
Regs., tit. 8, secs. 32090 and 32130.)
Any statement
of
exceptions and supporting brief must be served concurrently with its
filing upon each party to this proceeding. Proof
of
service shall accompany each copy served
on a party or filed with the Board itself. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit.
8,
secs. 32300, 32305,
32140, and 32135(c).)
Bernard McMonigle t
Chief Administrative Law Judge
7
A document is considered "filed" when actually received during a regular PERB
business day. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, secs. 32135(a) and 32130; see also Government Code
sec. 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 California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 32135(d), provided the
filing party also places the original, together with the required number of copies and proof of
service, in the U.S. mail. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, sec. 32135(b), (c) and (d); see also Cal. Code
Regs., tit. 8, secs. 32090 and 32130.)
Any statement of exceptions and supporting brief must be served concurrently with its
filing upon each party to this proceeding. Proof of service shall accompany each copy served
on a party or filed with the Board itself. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, secs. 32300, 32305,
32140, and 32135(c).)
Bernard McMonigle
Chief Administrative Law Judge
7