Service Employees International Union Local 1000 (Isom) (PERB A375S)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
MARION W. ISOM,
Charging Party,
V.
SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL
UNION LOCAL 1000,
Respondent.
Case No. SA-CO-370-S
Administrative Appeal
PERB Order No. Ad-375-S
August 13, 2008
Appearances: 	Marion W. Isom, on her own behalf; Brooke D. Pierman, Attorney, for Service
Employees International Union Local 1000.
Before Neuwald, Chair; McKeag and Wesley, Members.
DECISION
WESLEY, Member: 	This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on an administrative appeal by Marion W. Isom (Isom) of the PERB Appeals
Assistant's denial oflsom's late-filed request for an extension ohime to appeal the dismissal of
her unfair practice charge. 	Isom's charge alleged that the Service Employees International
Union Local 1000 (Local 1000) breached its duty of fair representation in violation of the
Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills Act)1 by failing to provide her with adequate representation.
The Board has reviewed the entire record in this case. 	For the reasons set forth below,
the Board finds that good cause does not exist to excuse the late filing.
BACKGROUND
On January 15, 2008,2 Isom filed an unfair practice charge with PERB. 	The charge
alleged that Local 1000 failed to adequately represent Isom in a dispute with her employer and
assist her with an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint. 	On February 13,
1The Dills Act is codified at Government Code section 3512 et seq.
2Dates hereafter refer to 2008.

the Board agent issued a warning letter informing Isom that the charge was deficient in that it
failed to state a prima facie case. No response was received to the warning letter before the
Board agent issued a dismissal letter on March 26.
The dismissal letter sets forth the procedures to appeal a charge dismissal, including the
timeframe and manner in which to request an extension oftime to file an appeal. The
dismissal letter states, in relevant part:
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.l
1
An appeal
of
the dismissal
oflsom's
charge was due to be filed by April 21. 	On
April 18, Isom left a voicemail message requesting an extension oftime to file an appeal with
the Board agent who dismissed her charge. The Board agent returned Isom's call on April 21,
the next business day, advising her to request an extension from the Appeals Assistant.
Isom filed a written request for an extension
of
time with the Appeals Assistant on
April 21. On April 22, the Appeals Assistant denied the extension request as untimely and also
noted that Isom failed to submit a proof
of
service showing service
of
her extension request on
Local 1000. The Appeals Assistant informed Isom she had 10 days to appeal the
administrative determination.
Isom filed the instant administrative appeal on May
1,
stating she was not aware that
she should have requested the extension oftime from the Board's Appeals Assistant. In
response to the appeal, Local 1000 argued that Isom received sufficient notice of the
3PERB regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 31001
et seq.
2

requirements to request an extension
of
time and failed to demonstrate that good cause should
excuse her late filing.
DISCUSSION
Under PERB Regulation 32132, a party requesting an extension
of
time must file their
request in writing at least three days before expiration
of
the time to file an appeal. PERB
Regulation 32136 states:
A late filing may be excused in the discretion
of
the Board for
good cause only. A late filing which has been excused becomes a
timely filing under these regulations.
In San Leandro Unified School District (2007) PERB Order No. Ad-366, the Board
held that parties have a duty to review the documents pertaining to their case. 	Similarly, in
Los Angeles Unified School District (1993) PERB Order No. Ad-247, the Board did not find
good cause where the charging party failed to review the PERB documents setting forth the
filing deadline.
In the present case, Isom contacted the Board agent by phone on the last day for filing
an extension request, rather than submitting a written request to the Appeals Assistant. PERB
regulations require that the request must be in writing and filed with the Appeals Assistant at
least three days prior to the deadline for filing an appeal. These procedures were clearly set
forth in the dismissal letter. 	Isom did not attempt to comply with the extension request
procedures by submitting a timely written request to the Appeals Assistant. 	Isom's failure to
review the procedures set forth in the dismissal letter does not demonstrate good cause to
excuse the late-filed extension request.
3

ORDER
Marion W. Isom' s administrative appeal
of
her late-filed request for an extension
of
time to appeal the dismissal
of
her unfair practice charge in Case No. SA-CO-370-S is hereby
DENIED.
Chair Neuwald and Member McKeag joined in this Decision.
4