San Francisco Unified School District (PERB A360E)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
LE ROY F. GILLEAD,
Charging Party,
v.
SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Respondent.
Case No. SF-CE-2499-E
Administrative Appeal
PERB Order No. 	Ad- 360
A p r i l 	1 0 , 	2007
Appearances: Le Roy F. Gillead, on his own behalf; Lozano Smith by Namita S. Brown,
Attorney, for San Francisco Unified School District.
Before Shek, McKeag and Neuwald, Members.
DECISION
NEUWALD, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on appeal by Le Roy F. Gillead (Gillead) from the Appeals Assistant's
June 21, 2005, administrative determination of the filing deadlines for his appeal in Case
No. SF-CE-2499-E.1
The Board has reviewed the entire record in this matter, including, but not limited to,
correspondence by Gillead and the Appeals Assistant regarding the appeal in the above-
mentioned case, the administrative appeal filed by Gillead and the San Francisco Unified
School District's response to Gillead's administrative appeal. 	In light of our
review, subject to the discussion below, the Board denies Gillead's appeal in Case
No. SF-CE-2499-E, because it was untimely filed.
1Case Nos. SF-CE-2499-E and SF-CO-657-E were consolidated for administrative
appeal purposes only. 	Case No. SF-CO-657-E is issued under a separate decision.

BACKGROUND
On June 16, 2005, Gillead requested information from the Board's Appeals Assistant
regarding deadlines for the filing of an appeal of dismissal of his unfair practice charge in the
above-mentioned case as well as in Case No. SF-CO-657-E. The Appeals Assistant replied to
Gillead on June 21, 2005, with the following information:
(1) The Board agent dismissed the unfair practice charge in Case
No. SF-CE-2499-E on June 2, 2005. Pursuant to PERB
Regulation 326352, you have 20 days from service of the
dismissal to file an appeal of the dismissal, with an additional
five days for mailing. Your appeal in Case No. SF-CE-2499-E is
due to be filed in this office no later than June 27, 2005. Service
of the appeal is required.
(2) The Board agent dismissed the unfair practice charge in Case
No. SF-CO-657-E on June 13, 2005. Pursuant to PERB
Regulation 32635, you have 20 days from service of the dismissal
to file an appeal of the dismissal, with an additional five days for
mailing. Your appeal in Case No. SF-CO-657-E is due to be filed
in this office on July 8, 2005. Service of the appeal is required.
Our records show that both of these cases were complete
dismissals of the unfair practice charges. 	Any appeal to these
dismissals need to be filed by the due dates referenced above. If
you need additional time to file an appeal of the dismissals,
PERB Regulation 32132[ 3 ] states what is required for an
extension of time.
2PERB regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8,
section 31001, et seq.
3PERB Regulation 	states:
(a) A request for an extension of time within which to file any
document with the Board itself shall be in writing and shall be
filed at the headquarters office at least three days before the
expiration of the time required for filing. The request shall
indicate the reason for the request and, if known, the position of
each other party regarding the extension. 	Service and proof of
service pursuant to Section 32140 are required. Extensions of
time may be granted by the Board itself or an agent designated by
the Board itself for good cause only.
22

On July 5, 2005, the Board received a letter from Gillead disagreeing with the due dates
for the appeals of the dismissals and requested that PERB make July 10, 2005, the "reasonable,
equitable and statutory date" for filing his appeals of dismissal. 	The Board treats the July 5,
2005 letter as an administrative appeal of the Appeals Assistant's administrative determination.
DISCUSSION
On June 21, 2005, the Appeals Assistant clearly informed Gillead of PERB's
process/regulations regarding the filing deadlines for appeals and requests for extension of
time to file documents. 	Specifically, he had 20 days from the service of dismissal, i.e., until
June 27, 2005, to file an appeal of the dismissal of the unfair practice charge in Case No. SF-
CE-2499-E. Gillead did not comply with the June 27, 2005, deadline nor did he request an
extension as set forth in PERB Regulation 32132. Instead, Gillead filed a document on July 5,
2005, after the due date, alleging that PERB should make July 10, 2005, the "reasonable,
equitable and statutory date" for filing this appeal. In addition, Gillead failed to provide any
information to demonstrate good cause for his late filing.4 As such, the Board denies Gillead's
appeal of dismissal as untimely filed.
ORDER
Le Roy F. Gillead's appeal of the Appeals Assistant's June 21, 2005, administrative
determination in Case No. SF-CE-2499-E is hereby DENIED.
Members Shek and McKeag joined in this Decision.
33
Under PERB Regulation 32136, "[a] late filing may be excused in the discretion of the
Board for good cause only."