American Federation of Teachers College Staff Guild, Local 1521 (PERB A349E)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
GEORGE V. MRVICHIN,
Charging Party,
v.
AFT COLLEGE STAFF GUILD, LOCAL 1521,
Respondent
Case No. LA-CO-1185-E
Administrative Appeal
PERB Order No. Ad-349
June 17, 2005.
Appearance: 	George V. Mrvichin, on his own behalf.
Before Duncan, Chairman; Whitehead and Shek, Members.
DECISION
SHEK, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB
or Board) on appeal by George Mrvichin (Mrvichin) of the PERB Appeals Assistant's denial
of his request for a second extension of time to file an appeal of the dismissal of his unfair
practice charge.
BACKGROUND
Mrvichin's unfair practice charge was dismissed by a PERB Board agent on
November 29, 2004. On December 13, 2004, Mrvichin requested an extension of time to file
an appeal of the dismissal of his charge. Mrvichin stated, "This request is part [sic] based upon
my medical condition, holyday [sic] calendar, and additional research necessary to appeal."
On December 14, 2004, the PERB Appeals Assistant granted the request for an extension of
time to file an appeal on or before January 10, 2005.
By letter dated January 20, 2005, the Appeals Assistant notified the parties that no
appeal had been filed and therefore the case was closed.

Mrvichin filed a second request for an extension of time which was received at PERB
on January 20, 2005, after the Appeals Assistant issued her letter to the parties.
On January 24, 2005, the Appeals Assistant informed Mrvichin that his second request
for an extension of time was denied as untimely filed. 	The Appeals Assistant notified
Mrvichin that his request was required to be filed at least three days before the expiration of
the time set for filing the appeal. To meet this requirement, Mrvichin's second extension
request must have been filed on or before January 18, 2005.1 By filing his extension request
on January 20, 2005, his request was filed two days late.
On February 3, 2005, Mrvichin filed this administrative appeal of the Appeals
Assistant's denial of his second request for an extension of time. The appeal states, in relevant
part:
This request is part based upon my medical condition (Both
mental and physical), additional research necessary to appeal
(National Labor Relations Board US Air v. Flight Attendants-
NLRB U.S. Air..., and pending related litigation (NLRB U.S.
Air... 'Contract Coverage of Retired Employees'. As well as
misapplication of time limits and disability accommodation.
(Quoted verbatim.)
DISCUSSION
PERB Regulation 32136 provides that the Board may excuse a late filing for good
cause. The Board has found good cause to exist in situations where the explanation was
"reasonable and credible". (Barstow Unified School District (1996) PERB Order No. Ad-277.)
The Board has interpreted this to mean that the party made a conscientious effort to timely file
This date includes five days for documents served by mail plus additional time to the
next business day. (PERB Reg. 32130(c); PERB regulations are codified at Cal. Code Regs.,
tit. 8, sec. 31001, et seq.)
N
	2

and the delay did not cause prejudice to any party. 	(United Teachers of Los Angeles (Kestin)
(2003) PERB Order No. Ad-325.)
When a late filing is caused by an alleged illness, the party must still demonstrate a
conscientious effort to timely file. 	(North Monterey County Unified School District (1996)
PERB Order No. Ad-274 (North Monterey County): State of California (Department of Social
Services) (2001) PERB Order No. Ad-308-S (Social Services).) In Social Services, the party
claimed a "serious illness" which prevented his timely filing. 	A doctor visit verification form
indicated that the party was unable to work for a specified period of time. 	Although the party
submitted proof of his illness, the Board found he did not explain how the illness prevented
him from making a conscientious effort in timely filing. 	(See also, State of California (State
Teachers Retirement System) (1999) PERB Order No. Ad-296-S [a party's attorney claimed he
was ill but did not explain how his illness affected his ability to timely file]; State of California
(2001) PERB Order No. Ad-309-S [party did not explain how depression and anxiety
prevented a timely filing]; North Monterey County [no explanation how family illness
impacted timely filing].)
The Board has also exercised its discretion in declining to find good cause where a
party claimed that a recent ruling on litigation in another forum excused a late filing. 	The
Board stated that a decision rendered by another forum under the provisions of a different
statute, where there is no connection with PERB's decision in the case at hand, would be
unduly burdensome to the respondent. 	(California State Employees Association. Local 1000
(Janowicz) (1996) PERB Order No. Ad-276-S.)
In the present case, Mrvichin asserts that his late filed request for a second extension of
time was based on his medical condition, the need to conduct additional research and "pending
w	3

related litigation". 	Mrvichin does not explain how his medical condition prevented him from
timely filing. Nor does he explain how litigation pending before the National Labor Relations
Board is relevant to his case before PERB and why it should excuse his late filing. In addition,
we note that Mrvichin has previously been granted an extension of time to file his appeal for
nearly identical reasons. 	Absent any information specifically describing how these conditions
continued to prevent him from making a conscientious effort in timely filing, good cause has
not been shown to excuse the late filing.
ORDER
George Mrvichin's request to excuse his late-filed request for a second extension of
time to file an appeal of the Board agent's dismissal in Case No. LA-CO-1185-E is hereby
DENIED.
Chairman Duncan and Member Whitehead joined in this Decision.
4
4