Fullerton Elementary School District (PERB 1671E)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
JOSE PEREZ,
Charging Party,
V.
FULLERTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Respondent.
Case No. LA-CE-4377-E
PERB Decision No. 	16 71
July 	28, 	2004
Appearances: 	M. Candice Bryner, Attorney, for Jose Perez; Law Offices of Margaret A
Chidester & Associates by Sharon J. Ormond, Attorney, for Fullerton Elementary School
District.
Before Duncan, Chairman; Whitehead and N eima, Members.
DECISION
DUNCAN, Chairman: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on appeal by Jose Perez (Perez) of an administrative law judge's (ALJ)
proposed decision (attached). 	The unfair practice charge alleged that the Fullerton Elementary
School District (District) violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA) 1 by
retaliating against him following protected activity. Perez alleged that this conduct constituted
a violation ofEERA section 3543.5(a).
After a review of the entire record, including the ALJ' s proposed decision, Perez's
exceptions and request for oral argument2, and the District's response to the exceptions, the
1EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540, et seq. 	Unless otherwise
indicated, all statutory references herein are to the Government Code.
2On June 15, 2004, the request for oral argument was denied.

Board finds the ALJ' s proposed decision to be free of prejudicial error and adopts it as its own
decision and dismisses the charge.
BACKGROUND
Perez was employed as a night custodian in the District. In 2001 he was transferred
involuntarily from Ladera Vista Junior High School (after a three-day suspension) to Nicolas
Junior High School. He filed an unfair practice charge related to the suspension and the case
was resolved at an informal conference in August 2001.
In October 2001, during his shift, a teacher sought him out to clean up juice spilled on
the floor during a school dance. 	Instead of cleaning it up, he pointed to the mop and the
teacher cleaned up the mess. 	This was reported to his supervisor. He also was reported for
writing notes to the day custodian in October and November 2001. 	Although he was not the
supervisor of the day custodian, the notes were written as if he were.
After he became aware that he had been reported to his supervisor, he told the day
custodian, Tom Krazel (Krazel), "It's open season on Tom."
Perez was placed on paid administrative leave while an investigation ensued following
the "open season" comment. Mark Douglas (Douglas), the assistant superintendent of human
resources, was assigned to investigate the situation. Douglas met with Perez and questioned
him about the "open season" comment and other incidents involving interaction with school
employees. 	During the course of the investigation, Douglas did become aware of Perez having
been previously involved in the informal conference related to his prior case.
The investigation was concluded and Douglas prepared a four page memo with six
pages of exhibits. 	This was from Gary Drabek, the District director of maintenance, and
addressed to Perez. It gave notice of proposed discipline which was a five-day unpaid
suspension. As a basis for the discipline five specific charges against Perez were set forth.
2

The discipline was based on the following:
(1) 	The October 25, 2001, incident in which Perez told the teacher where the mop
was so she could clean up the spilled juice at the dance.
(2) 	The note left for Krazel on October 29, 2001. It was described as inappropriate
because the day custodian (Krazel) is the lead custodian and reports directly to the school
principal, not to the night custodian (Perez).
(3) 	The October 31, 2001, meeting in which Perez was called into the principal' s
office and told that he was inappropriate in his discussion with the teacher in the mop incident
and that he was not to write any more notes to Krazel. In that meeting the principal said that
he, not Perez, supervised the day custodian and that Perez was to bring any concerns about
Krazel directly to the principal.
(4) 	The November 1, 2001, confrontation with Krazel where Perez confronted
Krazel and told him it was "open season on Tom" and that it was considered a threat against
Krazel.
(5) 	The May 21, 2001, conversation with Krazel in which Perez referred to Krazel
as the "golden child." That occurred on the day of the custodial promotional exam.
The memo advised that Perez could dispute the allegations and proposed disciplinary
action by filing an appeal before 4 p.m. on the fifth day following service of the document.
Without an appeal, the disciplinary action would become final.
The memo was served by certified mail on November 21, 2001. According to Perez, he
did not get the letter out of his mailbox until December 6, 2001. He then waited until
December 13, 2001, to file an appeal. He was advised by the District that the appeal was
untimely.
3

DISCUSSION
To demonstrate a violation ofEERA section 3543.S(a), the charging party must show
that: 	(1) the employee exercised rights under EERA; (2) the employer had knowledge of the
exercise of those rights; and (3) the employer imposed or threatened to impose reprisals,
discriminated or threatened to discriminate, or otherwise interfered with, restrained or coerced
the employees because of the exercise of those rights. 	(Novato Unified School District (1982)
PERB Decision No. 210 (Novato); Carlsbad Unified School District (1979) PERB Decision
No. 89.)
Although the timing of the employer's adverse action in close temporal proximity to the
employee's protected conduct is an important factor (North Sacramento School District (1982)
PERB Decision No. 264 (No. Sacramento)), it does not, without more, demonstrate the
necessary connection or "nexus" between the adverse action and the protected conduct.
(Moreland Elementary School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 227.) Facts establishing one
or more of the following additional factors must also be present: (1) the employer's disparate
treatment of the employee (State of California (Department of Transportation) (1984) PERB
Decision No. 459-S (Transportation)); (2) the employer's departure from established
procedures and standards when dealing with the employee (Santa Clara Unified School District
(1979) PERB Decision No. 104 (Santa Clara)); (3) the employer's inconsistent or contradictory
justifications for its actions (State of California (Department of Parks and Recreation) ( 1983)
PERB Decision No. 328-S (Parks and Recreation)); (4) the employer's cursory investigation of
the employee's misconduct; (5) the employer's failure to offer the employee justification at the
time it took action or the offering of exaggerated, vague, or ambiguous reasons; (6) employer
animosity towards union activists (Cupertino Union Elementary School District (1986) PERE
4

Decision No. 572.); or (7) any other facts which might demonstrate the employer's unlawful
motive. 	(Novato; No. Sacramento.)
Evidence of adverse action is also required to support a claim of discrimination or
reprisal under the Novato standard. (Palo Verde Unified School District (1988) PERB
Decision No. 689.) In determining whether such evidence is established, the Board uses an
objective test and will not rely upon the subjective reactions of the employee. (Ibid.) In a later
decision, the Board further explained that:
The test which must be satisfied is not whether the employee
found the employer's action to be adverse, but whether a
reasonable person under the same circumstances would consider
the action to have an adverse impact on the employee's
employment. 	[Newark Unified School District (1991) PERB
Decision No. 864; emphasis added; fn. omitted.]
The ALJ noted that there was no doubt that Perez had exercised protected rights by his
participation in the informal conference in August 2001, and that the District knew about it,
even though Douglas did not know until he began the investigation. The timing of the
discipline was just a few months after the protected action, but that was not enough for Perez
to prevail. There must be a demonstrated connection, or nexus, between the protected activity
and the adverse action.
To meet this test, there must be disparate treatment of the employee by the employer
(Transportation); the employer departing from established procedures (Santa Clara); and/or
inconsistent or contradictory justifications for the action (Parks and Recreation); a cursory
investigation by the employer, failure to offer justification at the time the adverse action occurs
or employer animosity towards union activists (Cupertino Union Elementary School District
(I 986) PERB Decision No. 572).
The District had argued that the paid administrative leave was not a disciplinary action
because Perez lost no pay or benefits. The ALJ did not reach that issue and we agree that it
5

was unnecessary to do so. We also agree there was no retaliation by the District in response to
protected activity. 	It is true that there was protected activity in August 2001, but Perez'
inappropriate conduct in October and November 2001 was the basis for the discipline.
The District followed its Personnel Commission rules regarding time limits when it
denied Perez the opportunity to appeal the discipline. 	The District had no control over when
Perez picked up his mail or the fact that even then he waited another week before filing an
appeal. Perez clearly did not timely appeal and was not treated in a disparate manner.
Perez has not stated a prima facie case and the charges must be dismissed.
ORDER
The unfair practice charge and complaint in Case No. LA-CE-4377-E is hereby
DISMISSED WITHOUT LEA VE TO AMEND.
Members Whitehead and Neima joined in this Decision.
6

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
JOSE PEREZ,
Charging Party,
V.
FULLERTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Respondent.
UNFAIR PRACTICE
CASE NO. LA-CE-4377-E
PROPOSED DECISION
(4/14/04)
Appearances: 	Cheryl Thomas, Attorney, for Jose Perez; Margaret A. Chidester & Associates
by Sharon
J.
Ormond, Attorney, for Fullerton Elementary School District.
Before Thomas
J.
Allen, Administrative Law Judge.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In this case, an employee alleges that a school district retaliated against him for
participating in an informal settlement conference. The district denies any retaliation.
Jose Perez (Perez) filed an unfair practice charge against the Fullerton Elementary
School District (District) on January 31, 2002. The Office
of
the General Counsel
of
the
Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) issued a complaint on May 21, 2002, to which
the District filed an answer on June
6,
2002. PERB held an informal settlement conference on
August 14, 2002, and a formal hearing on March 25-27, 2003. With the receipt
of
the final
post-hearing briefs on June 23, 2003, the case was submitted for decision.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The District is a public school employer under the Educational Employment Relations
Act (EERA). 1 Perez is an employee under EERA, employed by the District in a unit for which
the California School Employees Association (CSEA) is the exclusive representative.
1 EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 and following.

Back in May 2001, CSEA filed an unfair practice charge against the District (Case No.
LA-CE-4295-E), alleging that the District had denied Perez representation at an investigative
meeting. PERB issued a complaint and later held an informal settlement conference, on
August 27, 2001, at which the case was settled. Perez participated in the informal conference
and signed the settlement agreement, along with two CSEA representatives and one District
representative.
Later, on November 5, 2001, the District placed Perez on a paid administrative leave,
and on December 5, 2001, it placed him on a five-day unpaid suspension. The PERB
complaint alleges that the District took these actions because of Perez's participation in the
August informal settlement conference and thus violated EERA section 3543.5(a).
In the fall of 2001, Perez was working as a night custodian at the District's Nicolas
Junior High School. Several of the events of this case involve his relationship with Tom
Krazel (Krazel), a day custodian at the same school site. Perez and Krazel had tested for the
day custodian position at the same time. Perez felt he was the better custodian, but it was
Krazel who got the position. For this or some other reason, there has been mutual antagonism
between Perez and Krazel.
On November 1, 2001, Krazel reported to Principal Allan Waterman (Waterman) a
conversation Krazel had with Perez. On Waterman's advice, Krazel wrote a note describing
the conversation, stating in part:
Just a note to let you know that it is "open season on Tom
[Krazel]" according to Jose [Perez]. Jose confronted me today
(Nov. 1si, 3 p.m.) regarding the fact that he was called into Mr.
Waterman's office about some recent complaints (from a few
teachers) on Jose's work ... Jose tells me he wanted to keep all
complaints "In House", and/or that I should have "come to him,"
however, it was out of my hands as the teacher(s) had already
gone to Mr. Waterman. I tried reasoning with Jose and offered
that we try to communicate. But he says, "He doesn't have to."
And from now on "He will try and find any little thing" that I
2

might do wrong, and "report me" ... I do not "take kindly" to
"threats", verbal or otherwise. [Underlining in the original.]
In his testimony at the hearing, Perez disputed the accuracy of this note.
Krazel's account of the conversation with Perez, including the "open season" comment,
came to the attention of Gary Drabek (Drabek), the District's director of maintenance and
operations. Drabek considered the comment threatening and decided it was "in everybody's
best interest" to place Perez on paid administrative leave pending an investigation.
Drabek consulted Mark Douglas (Douglas), the District's assistant superintendent of
human resources. Douglas agreed that the "open season" comment could be assumed to be a
threat and that a paid administrative leave for Perez was appropriate, pending an investigation.
Douglas explained at the hearing:
In fact, removing him [Perez] on paid leave during this
time was also in his benefit so that no other allegations could be
made against him.
Drabek and Douglas agreed that Douglas would take responsibility for investigating the "open
season" comment as well as some other aspects of Perez's recent conduct.
Drabek consulted Douglas on Friday, November 2, 2001. At the time, Drabek knew
about Perez's participation in the August informal settlement conference, but Douglas (who
was new to the District) did not. There is no evidence that they discussed or otherwise
considered Perez's participation in that conference.
On Monday, November 5, 2001, the next day that Perez was at work, Drabek called
Perez and told him that he was being placed on paid administrative leave pending an
investigation and that he should turn in his keys to the school site. Drabek also told Perez that
any further information would come from Douglas, who was responsible for the investigation.
Perez was unable to reach Douglas that day, but they met two or three days later, along with
the CSEA chapter president. Douglas told Perez that the administrative leave "wasn't a
3

discipline." Douglas instructed Perez to stay home during work hours and not to talk to any
co-workers. Douglas also asked Perez about the "open season" comment and some other
recent incidents.
Douglas continued his investigation over the next week or so, delegating some
of
the
interviewing to Principal Waterman and some
of
the drafting to the District's director
of
classified personnel. Douglas himself met with Perez two more times. During the course
of
the investigation, he did become aware
of
Perez's participation in the August informal
settlement conference.
The end product
of
the investigation was a four-page memo, with six pages
of
exhibits,
from Drabek to Perez. The memo gave notice
of
a proposed disciplinary action: 	an unpaid
five-day suspension, with an effective date to be determined. The memo identified five
specific charges against Perez, described in part as follow:
1.0 On or about October 29, 2001 a teacher and custodian at
Nicol::is
Jnnior High ~khool hoth reported to Principal Allan
Waterman that your [sic] had acted inappropriately on
October 25, 2001. According to certificated staff member
Ms. Beth Boak, you told her to mop a spill on the floor. 	The spill
occurred during a school dance when a student accidentally
spilled juice on the floor
of
the cafeteria creating a potentially
dangerous situation in that students and/or staff could have
slipped and fallen, causing injury. Ms. Boak, who was
supervising the dance, left the dance and students to find a night
custodian. When she located you she asked you to mop the floor.
Your response to this request was to point to the mop and state,
"there it is." Ms. Boak, a new teacher, took the mop and mopped
the floor herself. (exhibit 1)
2.0 On or about October 29, 2001, you left an inappropriate note
for the day custodian at the site. This day custodial position is a
lead position and reports directly to the site principal. You report
to the Maintenance Department. Employees serving in this day
custodial classification are often called away from regularly
assigned duties to perform additional tasks not necessarily
reflected on a routine cleaning schedule. The note you left not
only chastised the custodian, Mr. Krazel, for not completing
duties you felt were assigned to him, but directed him to perform
4

tasks you felt he should be performing. In addition to having no
supervisory responsibilities over Mr. Krazel, your understanding
of his assigned responsibilities was inaccurate. (exhibit 2)
In the note left for Mr. Krazel, you also cited a conversation you
supposedly had with interim Lead Custodial Supervisor Larry
Reyes. You state that "as per Larry Reyes, Acting Supervisor, it
is your job and duties (sic) to bring in the flags and lock your
doors". Not only was this information inaccurate, it was
dishonest, in that, according to Mr. Reyes, he had not talked to
you until late in the afternoon on October 31, 2001. It was at that
time, not prior to October 29, 2001 when you actually left the
offensive note, that you approached Mr. Reyes to complain about
"Tom's continuing habit of leaving doors unlocked, mop bucket
out, not communicating with the night staff, etc." Your "after-
the-fact" conversation with Mr. Reyes appears to have been an
attempt to cover your false statement in the October 29, 2001
note that you had previously talked to Mr. Reyes. (Exhibit 3)
3.0 On or about October 31, 2001 at approximately 3:00 p.m.,
Mr. Waterman asked you to come to his office. He discussed
your inappropriate behavior with Ms. Boak during this meeting
and told you that "no one is to speak to one another as you did
during the 'mop' incident". You agreed with him. He also
directed you to not send notes to Mr. Krazel. He told you that he
is Mr. Krazel' s supervisor and that if you had to make comments,
to make them to him. Contrary to that directive, [the] following
night you left a note for Mr. Krazel which complimented Mr.
Krazel in a supervisory tone for his "good job" on his "little extra
effort", (exhibit 5). This was insubordination.
4.0 The following afternoon, November 1, 2001, at
approximately 3:00 p.m., you confronted Mr. Krazel and told him
that it was "Open season on Tom". According to Mr. Krazel,
"Jose confronted me today regarding the fact that he was called
into Mr. Waterman's office about some recent complaints (from a
few teachers) on Jose's work. Jose tells me he wanted to keep all
complaints "In-house" and/or that I should "come to him".
However, it was out of my hands as the teacher(s) had already
gone to Waterman. I tried reasoning with Jose and offered that
we try to communicate, but he says "He doesn't have to", and
from now on "'he will try and find any little thing' that I might
do wrong, and 'report me' ... I do not take kindly to threats,
verbal or otherwise." (exhibit 6)
5.0 This was not your first abusive conversation with Mr. Krazel.
He also reported that on May 23, 2001, you loudly referred to
him as the "golden child" on the day you and he were taking the
5

custodial promotional test. This was in front of other applicants.
You also stated that he had a conversation with him [sic] during
which he told you he did not have prior custodial experience.
This was untrue and appears to be part of a pattern of harassment
against Mr. Krazel.
The memo stated that Perez could dispute the charges and the proposed disciplinary action by
filing a appeal hearing request "by 4:00 p.m. on the fifth working day following service of this
notice;" otherwise, the disciplinary action would become final.
The memo was sent by certified mail on November 21, 2001. Unfortunately, Perez did
not collect it from his post office box until December 6, 2001. Perez filed a hearing request on
December 13, 2001, but the District replied the next day that the request was untimely and that
the unpaid suspension was effective December 5, 6, 7, 10 and 11, 2001. The District's
Personnel Commission Rule 160.2.4 stated:
The Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action shall be in writing
and served in person or by certified mail (Return Receipt
Requested) to the employee. This requirement will be deemed to
have been met if the Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action is
sent certified mail to the last known home address on file in the
Personnel Commission Office. Failure of the employee to retrieve
delivered mail, or respond to notifications by the US Postal
Service of attempted delivery shall not be grounds for voiding
notification, or the staying of the timelines outlined in these rules.
The responsibility for keeping the District informed of a home
address is the requirement of the employee. For purposes of this
rule, if a notice is mailed, the second working day following
postmark date of the notice shall be considered to be the official
date of receipt. [Emphasis added.]
Under this rule, Perez was deemed to have received the memo on November 27, 2001, and his
hearing request was due on December 4, 2001.
At the PERB hearing and in the post-hearing briefs, Perez has disputed the charges
against him. With regard to charges 2.0 and 3.0, Perez points out that the notes to Krazel
attached to the disciplinary memo as exhibits 2 and 5 bear the names of two additional night
custodians, who were not disciplined. It is clear, however, that Perez was the one who wrote
6

the notes,2 as well
as
the one directed by Principal Waterman not to send them. Perez also
points out that Krazel wrote him some similar notes, but Perez admitted at hearing that he did
not complain about those notes to his superiors.
ISSUE
· Did the District retaliate against Perez for participating in an informal settlement
conference?
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
To demonstrate a violation
of
EERA section 3543.5(a), the charging party must show
that (1) the employee exercised rights under EERA, (2) the employer had knowledge
of
the
exercise
of
those rights, and (3) the employer imposed or threatened to impose reprisals,
discriminated or threatened to discriminate, or otherwise interfered with, restrained or coerced
the employee because
of
the exercise
of
those rights. (Novato Unified School District (1982)
PERB Decision No. 210 (Novato); Carlsbad Unified School District (1979) PERE Decision
No. 89.)
In the present case, there is no serious dispute that Perez exercised rights under EERA,
by participating in the informal settlement conference, or that the District knew about it
( although Douglas found out only after he began his investigation).
Although the timing
of
the employer's adverse action in close temporal proximity to the
employee's protected conduct is an important factor (North Sacramento School District (1982)
PERB Decision No. 264), it does not, without more, demonstrate the necessary connection or
"nexus" between the adverse action and the protected conduct. (Moreland Elementary School
District (1982) PERB Decision No. 227.) Facts establishing one or more
of
the following
additional factors must also be present: (1) the employer's disparate treatment of the employee
2 One note referred to the night custodians as "Duane, Luis and I [Jose Perez]."
7

(State of California (Department of Transportation) (1984) PERB Decision No. 459-S); (2) the
employer's departure from established procedures and standards when dealing with the
employee (Santa Clara Unified School District (1979) PERB Decision No. 104.); (3) the
employer's inconsistent or contradictory justifications for its actions (State of California
(Department of Parks and Recreation) (1983) PERB Decision No. 328-S); (4) the employer's
cursory investigation of the employee's misconduct; (5) the employer's failure to offer the
employee justification at the time it took action or the offering of exaggerated, vague, or
ambiguous reasons; (6) employer animosity towards union activists (Cupertino Union
Elementary School District) (1986) PERB Decision No. 572.); or (7) any other facts which
might demonstrate the employer's unlawful motive. (Novato; North Sacramento School
District, supra, PERB Decision No. 264.)
Evidence of adverse action is also required to support a claim of discrimination or
reprisal under the Novato standard. (Palo Verde Unified School District (1988) PERB
Decision No. 689.) In determining whether such evidence is established, the Board uses an
objective test and will not rely upon the subjective reactions of the employee. (Ibid.) In a later
decision, the Board further explained that:
... The test which must be satisfied is not whether the employee
found the employer's action to be adverse, but whether a
reasonable person under the same circumstances would consider
the action to have an adverse impact on the employee's
employment. ... [Newark Unified School District (1991) PERB
Decision No. 864; emphasis added; fn. omitted.]
In the present case, the District argues that Perez's paid administrative leave was not an
adverse action, but I do not find it necessary to address that issue in order to decide the case.
The key issue in this case, as in most cases of alleged retaliation, is whether the
charging party has shown a nexus with protected activity. I conclude that Perez has not.
8

Perez argues that he suffered disparate treatment in that neither his fellow night
custodians (whose names were on the notes to Krazel) nor Krazel (who also wrote notes) were
disciplined. It is clear, however, that Perez was the one who wrote the notes to Krazel, as well
as the one directed not to send them, and that Perez never complained about Krazel's notes. It
thus does not appear that Perez was singled out for any suspicious reason.
Perez also points out that he was placed on paid administrative leave before the charges
against him were investigated. In context, this too does not appear suspicious. The District
had reason to fear that Perez had threatened Krazel with the "open season" comment. I would
not second-guess the District's decision to remove Perez from the workplace (with pay) until
the alleged threat could be investigated.
Perez is understandably unhappy that he missed the opportunity to appeal the
disciplinary memo, but again I find nothing suspicious about the District's conduct. It appears
that the District simply followed Personnel Commission Rule 160.2.4. There is no evidence
that the District departed from that rule for other employees. In short, there is no persuasive
evidence that the District treated Perez any differently because of his participation in the
informal settlement conference.
PROPOSED ORDER
Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the entire record in
this case, it is ordered that the complaint and the underlying unfair practice charge in Case
No. LA-CE-4377-E, Jose Perez v. Fullerton Elementary School District, are hereby 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:
9

Public Employment Relations Board
Attention: Appeals Assistant
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
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.)
A document is considered "filed" when actually received before the close
of
business
(5
p.m.) on the last day set for filing. 	(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, secs. 32135(a) and 32130.) A
document is also considered "filed" when received by facsimile transmission before the close
of
business on the last day for filing 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).)
TMOMAS	
J.	
ArZ°EN 	.
Administrative
	Law
	Judge
10