Marin County Law Library (PERB A338M)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
ELIZABETH GEISMAR,
Charging Party,
v.
MARIN COUNTY LAW LIBRARY,
Respondent.
Case No. SF-CE-159-M
Administrative Appeal
PERB Order No. Ad-338-M
July 2, 2004
Appearances: James Baker, Labor Relations Specialist, for Elizabeth Geismar; Murchison &
Cumming by Michael B. Lawler and Ronda Crowley, Attorneys, for Marin County Law
Library.
Before Duncan, Chairman; Whitehead and Neima, Members.
DECISION
DUNCAN, Chairman: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(Board) on appeal of the administrative determination denying Elizabeth Geismar’s (Geismar)
“Motion to Amend Unfair Practice Charge.”
The Board has reviewed the entire record in this matter including Geismar’s appeal and
the Marin County Law Library’s response and denies the motion to amend.
BACKGROUND
Geismar was advised in the Board agent’s warning letter of January 29, 2004, that she
had until February 5, 2004, to amend the charge. An amended charge was filed but still did not
state a prima facie case and the charge was dismissed on March 1, 2004. On March 22, 2004,
Geismar filed a “Motion to Amend Unfair Practice Charge.” The appeals assistant advised
Geismar this amendment was untimely as the charges had been dismissed and the Board agent
no longer had jurisdiction to consider an amendment.

________________________
DISCUSSION
Geismar objected to this with an argument based on “American Common Law” and
“Basic American Civil Procedure” without citing any actual authority. Geismar had an
opportunity to amend the charge and did so timely. She did not state a prima facie case and the
charge was dismissed. After an unfair practice charge is dismissed, it is untimely to attempt to
amend it.1
The key here is that the amendment must be filed before the complaint issues or is
dismissed. In this case the dismissal had already issued. The Board agent no longer had
jurisdiction and the charge could not be further amended.
In conclusion, good cause has not been shown as to why the amendment filed six weeks
after the warning letter should be accepted by the Board.
ORDER
The administrative appeal in Case No. SF-CE-159-M is hereby DENIED.
Members Whitehead and Neima joined in this Decision.
1See PERB Regulation 32621. (PERB regs. are codified at Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8,
sec. 31001, et seq.)
2