County of Solano (PERB A458M)

________________________
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD 	THE
COUNTY OF SOLANO,
Employer,
and
SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL
UNION LOCAL 1021,
Exclusive Representative.
Case No. SF-IM-191-M
Administrative Appeal
PERB Order No. Ad-458-M
January 9, 2018
Appearances: Azniv Darbinian, Assistant County Counsel, for County of Solano; Weinberg,
Roger & Rosenfeld by Kerianne R. Steele, Attorney, for Service Employees International
Union Local 1021.
Before Gregersen, Chair; Banks and Winslow, Members.
DECISION
BANKS, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB
or Board) on appeal by Service Employees International Union Local 1021 (Local 1021) from
an administrative determination (attached) in which PERB’s Office of the General Counsel
denied Local 1021’s request for factfinding under section 3505.4 of the Meyers-Milias-Brown
Act (MMBA) and PERB Regulation 32802.1 The factfinding request, which the Office of the
General Counsel rejected as untimely, stems from a dispute between Local 1021 and the County
of Solano (County) over the County’s proposal to create an additional work unit comprised of
Employee Benefit Specialists within the Employment and Eligibility Division of the County’s
Health and Social Services Department.
1 The MMBA is codified at Government Code section 3500 et seq. PERB Regulations
are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 31001 et seq.

The Board has reviewed the case file in its entirety in light of the issues raised by
Local 1021’s appeal. We find the administrative determination to be well-reasoned and in
accordance with applicable law. We deny Local 1021’s appeal and adopt the administrative
determination as the decision of the Board itself.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The relevant facts are adequately set forth in the attached administrative determination
and are summarized here for context. On May 19, 2017, negotiations between Local 1021 and
the County regarding the County’s proposal to create an additional work unit affecting
Employment Benefit Specialists reached impasse, and, pursuant to the County’s local rules, a
representative of the County contacted the State Mediation and Conciliation Services (SMCS)
about mediation of the dispute.
On June 30, 2017, SMCS Mediator Joseph Rios (Rios) advised the parties’
representatives via e-mail that he had been “assigned” as the mediator for their dispute, pursuant
to the County’s request. Local 1021 Field Representative Greg Carter (Carter) asserts in a sworn
declaration that Local 1021 was not provided an opportunity to select from other mediators, as
contemplated by the “mutual agreement, the selection … of a particular mediator” option under
the County’s local rules. However, he and the County’s representative proceeded to exchange
several messages regarding their availability for scheduling the mediation. On July 3, 2017,
Carter agreed to mediation on either August 3 or 10, 2017, and the parties did conduct mediation
on August 10, 2017.
At approximately 7:44 p.m. on August 14, 2017, Local 1021 attempted to file with PERB
a request for factfinding regarding this dispute. Local 1021’s request states that impasse was
declared on May 19 and that a mediator was appointed on June 30, 2017. The following day, the
2

________________________
Board agent assigned to the case contacted Local 1021’s legal counsel Kerianne Steele (Steele)
and informed her that the request was untimely, as it was sent via facsimile to PERB on the
45th day after the appointment of a mediator, but after the close of regular business hours.
After further communications, Steele submitted a position statement, which included a
copy of the County’s local rules and Carter’s declaration indicating that Local 1021 had not
agreed to the appointment of Rios as the mediator until July 3, 2017, after Carter had met with
Local 1021 members. Local 1021’s position statement argued that “PERB must honor the
provision in the County’s local rules that confers upon the employee organization the right to
mutually agree upon the selection and scheduling of a mediator,” and that, because “[i]t is the
date of mutual agreement that triggers the deadline … to invoke factfinding,” Local 1021’s
request for factfinding on August 15 was still timely, as it was submitted within 45 days of
July 3, 2017.2
THE PARTIES’ POSITIONS
Local 1021 argues on appeal that it has advanced a reasonable interpretation of the
process for appointing or selecting a mediator under the County’s local rules, and that the
2 The provision at issue appears in Article 5, section 16.A.2. of the local rules. That
provision reads, in relevant part:
As soon as either party declares impasse or if a declaration of
impasse is deemed to have occurred pursuant to Section 16 (A)(1)
above, the County shall notify the California State Mediation and
Conciliation Service that the parties have failed to reach agreement
and shall obtain therefrom either (1) a designated mediator;
(2) upon mutual agreement, the selection and scheduling of a
particular mediator; or (3) a list of seven mediators. If the parties
are provided a list of seven mediators, the parties shall select one
from the list by, after a toss of coin (with the winner of the coin
toss to decide which party shall move first), alternately striking
names until one name remains. That person remaining shall serve
as the mediator.
3

Office of the General Counsel erred by ignoring this interpretation and finding Local 1021’s
request untimely under a different method and timeline for appointing or selecting a mediator.
Although Local 1021 concedes that the Office of the General Counsel is responsible for
determining whether a request for factfinding is timely under the MMBA and PERB
Regulations, it maintains that PERB has no authority to raise defenses to a factfinding request
or to advance interpretations of the public agency’s local rules that the public agency itself has
not asserted. Because the County itself did not object to the timeliness of Local 1021’s request
for factfinding, but instead proceeded with selection of a factfinding panel until PERB’s
administrative determination raised the timeliness issue, Local 1021 contends that the
administrative determination exceeded PERB’s authority and should be reversed.
In its response to the appeal, the County objects that Local 1021’s interpretation of the
local rules would permit it to unilaterally extend the deadline for requesting factfinding by
indefinitely withholding its “agreement” to the designation or appointment of a mediator long
after such designation or appointment has already occurred. According to the County, this
interpretation would frustrate the legislative purpose of ensuring that any factfinding that may
occur as to a particular dispute begins relatively soon after the parties have reached impasse.
The County contends that, under Board precedent, “it is up to the union to keep track of the
statutory window period and to file its request for factfinding within that period,” and that,
because Local 1021 failed to do so here, the Board should affirm the administrative
determination and deny both Local 1021’s appeal and the underlying request for factfinding.
DISCUSSION
MMBA section 3505.4, subdivision (a), provides, in relevant part:
The employee organization may request that the parties’
differences be submitted to a factfinding panel not sooner than 30
4

days, but not more than 45 days, following the appointment or
selection of a mediator pursuant to the parties’ agreement to
mediate or a mediation process required by a public agency’s local
rules. If the dispute was not submitted to mediation, an employee
organization may request that the parties’ differences be submitted
to a factfinding panel not later than 30 days following the date that
either party provided the other with a written notice of a
declaration of impasse.
PERB Regulation 32802, subdivision (a), incorporates these same timelines. Under the statute,
one of two events must occur before the exclusive representative has “not only a right, but a
strict window period within which to request factfinding.” (City & County of San Francisco
(2014) PERB Order No. Ad-419-M, pp. 16-17, citing City of Redondo Beach (2014) PERB
Order No. Ad-409-M, pp. 6-7.) Those two events are the written declaration of impasse or the
appointment of a mediator. (Santa Cruz Central Fire Protection District (2016) PERB Order
No. Ad-436-M (Santa Cruz), pp. 5-6; Lassen County In-Home Supportive Services Public
Authority (2015) PERB Order No. Ad-426-M, pp. 5-6.)
As noted in the administrative determination, the statute contemplates three options, and
thus three potentially different timelines, for the exclusive representative to submit a timely
request for factfinding to PERB. The employee organization must request that the parties’
differences be submitted to factfinding not sooner than 30 days, but not more than 45 days,
following: (1) the appointment of a mediator pursuant to the parties’ agreement to mediate,
(2) the selection of a mediator pursuant to the parties’ agreement, or (3) a mediation process
required by the public agency’s local rules. Which of these three options applies will necessarily
depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case, including whether the parties have agreed
to a process for selecting a mediator and whether the public agency has local rules which include
a process for selecting a mediator.
5

PERB has declared the above timelines to be “clear and unambiguous.” (Santa Cruz,
supra, PERB Order No. Ad-436-M, p. 5.) However, PERB has no control over the procedures or
timelines for conducting mediation or selecting a mediator that may be included in a public
agency’s local rules. The Legislature expressly authorized public agencies to “adopt reasonable
rules and regulations after consultation in good faith with representatives of a recognized
employee organization or organizations for the administration of employer-employee
relations,” including “[a]dditional procedures for the resolution of disputes involving wages,
hours and other terms and conditions of employment.” (MMBA, § 3507, subd. (a)(5).) It
presumably contemplated the possibility that a public agency’s local rules might provide for
several mutually exclusive methods for selecting a mediator and/or initiating the mediation
process without specifying which of the various methods is the default or which shall apply
under what circumstances. Insofar as reasonable minds may differ over such provisions, PERB
may not substitute its judgment for that of the local agency or rewrite its local rules to conform
to PERB’s preferences or views as to what might be more reasonable. (Organization of
Deputy Sheriffs v. County of San Mateo (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 331, 338-339; see also County
of Riverside (2010) PERB Decision No. 2119-M, p. 13; City of Glendale (2007) PERB Order
No. Ad-361-M, p. 4; Alameda County Assistant Public Defenders Assn. v. County of Alameda
(1973) 33 Cal.App.3d 825, 830.)
Here, for example, the County’s local rules provide that a mediator be designated by
SMCS, that he or she be selected by mutual agreement of the parties, or, that he or she be
selected by the parties alternately striking names from a list of candidates until one is left. They
do not, however, identify any of these mutually exclusive procedures as the default method for
selecting a mediator, or specify whether they are to be applied in any particular order. A logical
6

inference is that they are to be applied in the order in which they appear in the local rules. That
is, upon being contacted by one or both parties, SMCS may simply assign a mediator based on
the agency’s available personnel. If the assigned individual is unacceptable to one or both
parties, then they proceed to the second option to determine if they can mutually agree on
another individual. If, however, the parties cannot select a mediator by mutual agreement, then
they would proceed to the next method of alternately striking names as a means of resolving that
disagreement and allowing the mediation process to proceed.
However logical or reasonable this might seem to us, the local rules do not in fact
specify a default preference or order of application for selecting a mediator, and we consider
it both unnecessary and improvident, particularly in the context of a factfinding request, to
make findings or conclusions as to whether the local rules conform to our interpretation or
what we regard as logical or reasonable. (Santa Clara Valley Water District (2017) PERB
Decision No. 2531-M, pp. 16-17; see also City & County of San Francisco (2014) PERB Order
No. Ad-415-M, pp. 13-14.) As we noted in Workforce Investment Board (2014) PERB Order
No. Ad-418-M, PERB’s role in reviewing a factfinding request is limited. (Id. at pp. 32-33.)
Under MMBA section 3505.4 and PERB Regulation 32802, all that is required to trigger the
MMBA factfinding process is either the parties’ participation in mediation, or absent mediation a
declaration of impasse by one of the parties, plus a request by the exclusive representative for
factfinding, accompanied by a statement that the parties have been unable to effect a settlement.
(Workforce Investment Board.)
Moreover:
In reviewing a factfinding request PERB relies on the parties’
representations concerning the status of their bargaining and or
mediation discussions and does not assess an employer’s defenses
to its duty to bargain. Nor does PERB determine whether the party
7

seeking factfinding has articulated with sufficient clarity its
position on the issue. These are matters properly left to clarifying
discussions between the parties and for resolution in an unfair
practice proceeding if either party files a charge. To inject such
issues into a factfinding investigation would encourage both delay
and gamesmanship, thus defeating the principal purpose of
factfinding, namely, through intervention of a neutral to assist the
parties in reaching a voluntary and prompt resolution of their
differences and thereby promote “full communication between
public employers and their employees by providing a reasonable
method of resolving disputes regarding wages, hours, and other
terms and conditions of employment between public employers
and public employee organizations.”
(Workforce Investment Board, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-418-M, p. 33, fns. omitted, citing
MMBA, § 3500.)
As a general matter, where the exclusive representative has made a request for factfinding
that is timely under any plausible interpretation of the public agency’s local rules and
accompanied by a statement that the parties have been unable to effect a settlement to their
dispute, PERB must accept the request as timely and allow the parties to proceed to factfinding.
(Workforce Investment Board, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-418-M, pp. 32-33; City of Folsom
(2015) PERB Order No. Ad-423, pp. 2-3, 5-6.) The problem here is that, while the local rules
appear to contemplate selection of a mediator by mutual agreement of the parties as one option,
Local 1021’s conduct was inconsistent with that option, regardless of whether it was the default
option or simply one option among others. Despite being informed as early as June 30, 2017 that
Rios had been “assigned” to this dispute Carter’s correspondence expressed no reservations
about having Rios serve as the mediator, nor suggested any other mediator or any alternative
process whereby the parties would mutually agree on the identity of the mediator. Instead, his
conduct implicitly accepted that Rios would serve as the mediator as “assigned,” and his
correspondence concerned itself solely with matters of availability and scheduling a date for the
8

mediation. Regardless of the availability of an option to select a mediator by mutual agreement,
Local 1021, by its conduct, appears to have permitted the appointment of a mediator by SMCS
pursuant to the first-stated option in the local rules and/or pursuant to an implied agreement to
mediate with knowledge that Rios had been assigned to the case by SMCS.
Local 1021 also complains on appeal that, while the Office of the General Counsel is
responsible for determining whether a factfinding request is timely, under Workforce Investment
Board, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-418-M, it does not “assess an employer’s defenses to its duty
to bargain” or have authority to raise issues or advance interpretations of a local agency’s public
rules that the agency itself has not advanced. The MMBA itself is silent on this subject and,
unlike unfair practice proceedings, PERB does not as yet have detailed regulations or a well-
developed decisional law assigning burdens of proof in MMBA factfinding proceedings or
specifying whether all factual assertions must be accepted as true, even where, as here, the
requesting party’s own filings include contradictory facts, such as Local 1021’s
acknowledgement in its factfinding request form, that a mediator was appointed on June 30,
2017. (cf. County of Santa Clara (2015) PERB Decision No. 2431-M, pp. 20-22.) The issue is
one of first impression. However, we find it unnecessary to decide the issue here because, even
accepting Local 1021’s interpretation that the County’s local rules guarantee it an absolute right
to select a mediator by mutual agreement, Local 1021’s communications and other conduct were
inconsistent with that interpretation and/or with the exercise of that right.
Again, we make no pronouncement as to the parties’ rights and obligations under the
County’s local rules. To the extent Local 1021 alleges that it was denied the opportunity to
mutually select Rios or a different mediator in violation of the County’s local rules, it has the
option of litigating that issue in separate unfair practice proceedings where PERB is better
9

equipped to resolve complex legal and material factual disputes and to determine what remedial
measures, if any, are appropriate.
ORDER
Service Employees International Union Local 1021’s appeal from the administrative
determination in Case No. SF-IM-191-M is hereby DENIED.
Chair Gregersen and Member Winslow joined in this Decision.
10

EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor	EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Los Angeles Regional Office
700 N. Central Ave., Suite 200
Glendale, CA 91203-3219
Telephone: (818) 551-2809
P.E.R.B 	Fax: (818) 551-2820
STATE OF CALIFORNIA	STATE OF CALIFORNIA
August 24, 2017
Kerianne R. Steele, Attorney
Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld
1001 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 200
Alameda, CA 94501
Azniv Darbinian, Assistant County Counsel
County of Solano
675 Texas Street, Suite 6600
Fairfield, CA 94533
Re: 	County of Solano / SEIU Local 1020
Case No. SF-IM-191-M
ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION
Dear Interested Parties:
On August 15, 2017," the Service Employees International Union Local 1021 (SEIU) filed a
request for factfinding with the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB or Board)
pursuant to section 3505.4 of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) and PERB Regulation
32802." SEIU's factfinding request form, completed and signed by SEIU Field Representative
Greg Carter (Carter), states that the dispute concerns the "Meet and Confer/Impasse process"
with respect to Bargaining Unit 5. The request further states that impasse was declared on
May 19 and a mediator was appointed on June 30.
Facts
On August 15, the undersigned Board agent contacted SEIU's legal counsel Kerianne Steele
(Steele) and explained that the request for factfinding was untimely as it was filed more than
45 days after the appointment of a mediator. Steele asserted that a mediator was appointed on
June 30 thus the request had to be filed on or before August 14, exactly 45 days later. The
Board agent agreed and stated that it appeared that SEIU's request was submitted by facsimile
at 7:44 p.m. on August 14, and that PERB Regulation 32135(b) provides that "All documents,
..., shall also be considered 'filed' when received during a regular PERB business day by
facsimile transmission at the appropriate PERB office together with a Facsimile Transmission
Cover Sheet...." Since PERB's business day ends at 5:00 p.m. in accordance with
All dates are in the year 2017.
The MMBA is codified at Government Code section 3500 et seq. PERB Regulations
are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 31001 et seq. The text of the
MMBA and PERB Regulations may be found at www.perb.ca.gov.
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Los Angeles Regional Office
700 N. Central Ave., Suite 200
Glendale, CA 91203-3219
Telephone: (818) 551-2809
Fax: (818) 551-2820
August 24, 2017
Kerianne R. Steele, Attorney
Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld
1001 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 200
Alameda, CA 94501
Azniv Darbinian, Assistant County Counsel
County
of
Solano
675 Texas Street, Suite 6600
Fairfield, CA 94533
Re: 	County
of
Solano / SEIU Local 1020
Case No. SF-IM-191-M
ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION
Dear Interested Parties:
On August 15, 2017, 1 the Service Employees International Union Local 1021 (SEIU) filed a
request for factfinding with the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB or Board)
pursuant to section 3505.4
of
the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) and PERB Regulation
32802.2 SEIU's factfinding request form, completed and signed
by
SEIU Field Representative
Greg Carter (Carter), states that the dispute concerns the "Meet and Confer/Impasse process"
with respect to Bargaining Unit 5. The request further states that impasse was declared on
May 19 and a mediator was appointed on June 30.
Facts
On August 15, the undersigned Board agent contacted SEIU's legal counsel Kerianne Steele
(Steele) and explained that the request for factfinding was untimeiy as it was filed more than
45 days after the appointment
of
a mediator. Steele asserted that a mediator was appointed on
June 30 thus the request had to be filed on or before August 14, exactly 45 days later. The
Board agent agreed and stated that it appeared that SEIU' s request was submitted
by facsimile
at 7:44 p.m. on August 14, and that PERB Regulation 32135(b) provides that "All documents,
... , shall also be considered 'filed' when received during a regular PERB .business day by
facsimile transmission at the appropriate PERB office together with a Facsimile Transmission
Cover Sheet ....
''
Since PERB's business day ends at 5:00 p.m. in' accordance with
1 All dates are in the year 2017.
2 The MMBA is codified at Government Code section 3500 et seq. PERB Regulations
are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 31001 et seq. The text of the
MMBA and PERB Regulations maybe found at www.perb.ca.gov.

SF-IM-191-M
August 24, 2017
Page 2
Government Code section 11020, it appeared SEIU's factfinding request was filed the next
business day on August 15, which was outside of the period to timely request factfinding.
Later that day, Steele informed the Board agent that SEIU would not withdraw SEIU's request
for factfinding. Steele subsequently submitted an Entry of Appearance and Position Statement,
the Declaration of Greg Carter Regarding Sufficiency of SEIU Local 1021's Factfinding
Request, and a proof of service.
In the Position Statement, SEIU asserts:
SEIU Local 1021 has previously challenged through an unfair
practice charge the impasse resolution procedures in the County's
local rules. Except in one respect that is not relevant here, the
Public Employment Relations Board's ("PERB") Administrative
Law Judge ("ALJ") upheld the County's impasse resolution
procedures in its local rules as reasonable. (See Exhibit B' to the
Declaration of Greg Carter.) In that earlier case, the ALJ did not
analyze the process for selecting and scheduling an arbitrator
[sic], (Section 16(A)(2)), yet she expressed deference to the
County's rulemaking authority in all but one respect. Therefore,
PERB must honor the provision in the County's local rules that
confers upon the employee organization the right to mutually
agree upon the selection and scheduling of a mediator. It is the
date of mutual agreement that triggers the deadline in
Government Code section 3505.4(a) to invoke factfinding. (See
Government Code section 3505.4(a) ["but not more than 45 days,
following the appointment or selection of a mediator pursuant to
the parties' agreement to mediate or a mediation process required
by a public agency's local rules," emphasis supplied].)
SEIU provides a copy of the County's Local Rules, including Section 16, "Impasse, Mediation
and Fact-Finding," which provides, in relevant part:
If a party does not request, in writing, to participate in mediation
and/or fact-finding within the specified time limits below, the
party shall be deemed to have waived its rights to mediation
and/or fact-finding. If a party waives its participation in
mediation and/or fact-finding, the County may, after holding a
public hearing regarding the impasse, implement the last, best
and final offer.
A. Mediation
'Exhibit B is a copy of HO-U-1184-M, October 27, 2015, which "was not expressly
adopted by the Board itself" and "may not be cited in other cases as precedent."
Government Code section 11020, it appeared SEID' s factfinding request was filed the next
business day on August 15, which was outside
of
the period to timely requ~st factfinding.
SF-IM-191-M
August 24, 2017
Page2
Later that day, Steele informed the Board agent that SEIU would not withdraw SEIU's request
for factfinding. 	Steele subsequently submitted an Entry
of
Appearance and Position Statement,
the Declaration
of
Greg Carter Regarding Sufficiency
of
SEIU Local 1021
's
Factfinding
Request, and a
proof
of
service.
In the Position Statement, SEIU asserts:
SEIU Local 1021 has previously challenged through an unfair
practice charge the impasse resolution procedures
in
the County's
local rules. Except in one respect that is not relevant here, the
Public Employment Relations Board's ("PERB") Administrative
Law Judge ("ALJ") upheld the County's impasse resolution
procedures in its local rules as reasonable. (See Exhibit B3 to the
Declaration
of
Greg Carter.) In that earlier case, the ALJ did not
analyze the process for selecting and scheduling an arbitrator
[sic], (Section 16(A)(2)), yet she expressed deference to the
County's rulemaking authority in all but one respect. Therefore,
PERB must honor the provision in the County's local rules that
confers upon the employee organization the right to mutually
agree upon the selection and scheduling
of
a mediator. It is the
date
of
mutual agreement that triggers the deadline in
Government Code section 3505.4(a) to invoke factfinding. 	(See
Government Code section 3505.4(a) ["but not more than 45 days,
following the appointment or selection
of
a mediator pursuant to
the parties' agreement to mediate or a med_iation process required
by a public agency's local rules," emphasis supplied].)
SEIU provides a copy
of
the County's Local Rules, including Section 16, "Impasse, Mediation
and Fact-Finding," which provides, in relevant part:
If
a party does not request, in writing, to participate in mediation
and/or fact-finding within the specified time limits below, the
party shall be deemed to have waived its rights to mediation
and/or fact-finding.	
If
a party waives its participation in
mediation and/or fact-finding, the County may, after holding a
public hearing regarding the impasse, implement the last, best
and final offer.
A. Mediation
3 Exhibit Bis a copy ofHO-U-1184-M, October 27, 2015, which "was not expressly
adopted by the Board itself' and "may not be cited in other cases as precedent."

SF-IM-191-M
August 24, 2017
Page 3
1. If representatives of the County and the recognized employee
organization have reached impasse, then either may file with the
other party a written declaration of impasse and its detailed
position on all issues. As a means to resolve the impasse, the
parties may mutually agree to use mediation.
2. As soon as either party declares impasse or if a declaration of
impasse is deemed to have occurred pursuant to Section 16(A)(1)
above, the County shall notify the California State Mediation and
Conciliation Service that the parties have failed to reach
agreement and shall obtain therefrom either (1) a designated
mediator; (2) upon mutual agreement, the selection and
scheduling of a particular mediator; or (3) a list of seven
mediators. If the parties are provided a list of seven mediators,
the parties shall select one from the list by, after a toss of coin
(with the winner of the coin toss to decide which party shall move
first), alternately striking names until one name remains. That
person remaining shall serve as the mediator. All mediation
proceedings shall be private. The mediator shall make no public
recommendation, nor take any public position, at any time
concerning the issues. The mediator shall not hold a hearing or
make any recommendation (except privately to the parties), nor
have authority to resolve the dispute.
3. If mediator fees are incurred for mediation, they shall be
divided equally by the number of parties in mediation.
4. If the dispute is not settled within 45 calendar days after the
appointment of the mediator, or upon agreement in writing by
both parties within a longer period, the mediation shall be
deemed to have concluded. Mediation shall be deemed
concluded when at least one party determines mediation is
unsuccessful and sends written notice to that effect to the other
party.
SEIU also provides Carter's sworn Declaration wherein he asserts, among other things, the
following:
5. Although the County's local rules expressly provide SEIU
Local 1021 the opportunity to endeavor to reach "mutual
agreement [regarding the] selection and scheduling of a particular
mediator," SMCS and the County never provided SEIU Local
1021 that opportunity. Instead, on June 30, 2017, Joseph Rios
[(Rios)] sent Marc Fox [(Fox)] and me an email ... that said "I
am assigned to your request." (He did not state anything about
being "appointed.") SEIU Local 1021 was not provided an
opportunity to select from various mediators. In my prior
experience, when either SEIU Local 1021 or the County contacts
SF-IM-191-M
August 24, 2017
Page 3 
1.
If
representatives
of
the County and the recognized employee
organization have reached impasse, then either may file with the
other party a written declaration
of
impasse and its detailed
position on all issues. As a means to resolve the impasse, the
parties may mutually agree to use mediation.
2. As soon as either party declares impasse or
if
a declaration
of
impasse is deemed to have occurred pursuant to Section l 6{A)(l)
above, the County shall notify the California State Mediation and
Conciliation Service that the parties have failed to reach
agreement and shall obtain therefrom either (1) a designated
mediator; (2) upon mutual agreement, the selection and
scheduling
of
a particular mediator; or (3) a list
of
seven
mediators.	
If
the parties are provided a list
of
seven mediators,
the parties shall select one from the list by, after a toss
of
coin
(with the winner
of
the coin toss to decide which party shall move
first), alternately striking names until one name remains. That
person remaining shall serve as the mediator. All mediation
proceedings shall be private. The mediator shall make no public
recommendation, nor take any public position, at any time
concerning the issues. The mediator shall not hold a hearing or
make any recommendation (except privately to the parties), nor
have authority to resolve the dispute.
3.
If
mediator fees are incurred for mediation, they shall be
divided equally by the number
of
parties in mediation.
4.
If
the dispute is not settled within 45 calendar days after the
appointment
of
the mediator, or upon agreement in writing by
both parties within a longer period, the mediation shall
be
deemed to have concluded. Mediation shall be deemed
concluded when at least one party determines mediation is
unsuccessful and sends written notice to that effect to the other
party.
SEIU also provides Carter's sworn Declaration wherein he asserts, among other things, the
following:
5. Although the County's local rules expressly provide SEIU
Local 1021 the opportunity to endeavor to reach "mutual
agreement [regarding the] selection and scheduling
of
a particular
mediator," SMCS and the County never provided SEID Local ·
1021 that opportunity. Instead, on June 30, 2017, Joseph Rios
[(Rios)] sent Marc Fox [(Fox)] and me an email ... that said "I
am assigned to your request." (He did not state anything about
being "appointed.") SEIU Local 1021 was not provided an
opportunity to select from various mediators. In my prior
experience, when either SEIU Local 1021 or the County contacts
·

SF-IM-191-M
August 24, 2017
Page 4
SMCS to request a neutral, SMCS issues the parties a list of five
or seven arbitrators or mediators and we have a conversation over
the phone about who to select.
6. [] Rios and [] Fox exchanged several emails back and forth
regarding scheduling of the mediation. It was not until July 3,
2017, after I conferred with my members that [] on behalf of
SEIU Local 1021, I expressed our mutual agreement to mediate
with [] Rios on the dates August 3 or August 10, 2017. The
parties did proceed to mediate on August 10, 2017, which is one
of the dates SEIU Local 1021 had mutually agreed to. A true and
correct copy of the emails exchanged between [] Rios, [] Fox and
me are attached hereto, marked as Exhibit C, and are incorporated
by reference as though fully set forth at length herein.
7. I prepared and filed a factfinding request on August 15,
2017.[*] In the field of the PERB form that asks the date a
mediator was appointed (if applicable), I wrote June 30, 2017,
since that was the date that the County has mentioned to me in a
letter dated August 11, 2017 as an "appointment" date. I have
since reviewed the County's local rules more closely. The
County was obligated under the local rules to obtain our mutual
agreement to select and schedule a particular mediator. (Exhibit
B, p. 21.) It was not appropriate, in light of the County's local
rules, for SMCS to unilaterally appoint a mediator to our table. If
the County requested of SMCS that a mediator be "appointed,"
that request was improper.
8. Given that SEIU Local 1021 did not express mutual agreement
to select and/or schedule [] Rios as the mediator until July 3,
2017, SEIU Local 1021's factfinding demand was clearly timely.
PERB and the County cannot ignore Article 5, Section 16(A)(2),
which provides SEIU Local 1021 the right to mutually agree to
and schedule a mediator.
SEIU also provides copies of the electronic mail (e-mail) messages from SMCS Mediator Rios.
On June 30 at 2:22 p.m., Rios sent an e-mail message to County representative Fox and Carter,
labeled "Subject: County of Solano v SEIU 1021 impasse mediation request," and stating:
"Good Afternoon[,] I am assigned to your request. Currently, I am available July 13 or 14.
Will any of these dates work? Let me know." Fox replied to all at 4:19 p.m. the same day and
stated: "Joe, sorry, but July 13 and 14 do not work. What dates from July 24 - August 4 (but
not either Tuesday) might you have available?" Rios replied to all at 4:21 p.m. the same day
and stated: "Currently, July 24, 25, 28, 31 and Aug 3 are available."
* The sworn declaration appears to contradict SEIU's assertion that it filed the request
on August 14.
SF-IM-191-M
August 24, 201 7
Page4
SMCS to request a neutral, SMCS issues the parties a list of five
or seven arbitrators or mediators and we have a conversation over
the phone about who to select.
6. [] Rios and[] Fox exchanged several emails back and forth
regarding scheduling of the mediation. It was not until July 3,
2017, after I conferred with my members that [] on behalf of
SEIU Local 1021, I expressed our mutual agreement to mediate
with [] Rios on the dates August 3 or August 10, 2017. The
parties did proceed to mediate on August 10, 2017, which is one
of the dates SEIU Local 1021 had mutually agreed to. A true and
correct copy of the emails exchanged between[] Rios,[] Fox and
me are attached hereto, marked as Exhibit C, and are incorporated
by reference as though fully set forth at length herein.
7. I prepared and filed a factfinding request on August 15,
201 7. [4] 	In the field of the PERB form that asks the date a
mediator was appointed (if applicable), I wrote June 30, 2017,
since that was the date that the County has mentioned to me in a
letter dated August 11, 201 7 as an "appointment" date. I have
since reviewed the County's local rules more closely. The
County was obligated under the local rules to obtain our mutual
agreement to select and schedule a particular mediator. (Exhibit
B, p. 21.) It was not appropriate, in light of the County's local
rules, for SMCS to unilaterally appoint a mediator to our table. If
the County requested of SMCS that a mediator be "appointed,"
that request was improper.
8. Given that SEIU Local 1021 did not express mutual agreement
to select and/or schedule [] Rios as the mediator until July 3,
2017, SEIU Local 1021 's factfinding 4emandwas clearly timely.
PERB and the County cannot ignore Article 5, Section 16(A)(2),
which provides SEIU Local 1021 the right to mutually agree to
and schedule a mediator.
SEIU also provides copies of the electronic mail (e-mail) messages from SMCS Mediator Rios.
On June 30 at 2:22 p.m., Rios sent an e-mail message to County representative Fox and Carter,
labeled "Subject: County of Solano v SEIU 1021 impasse mediation request," and stating:
"Good Afternoon[,] I am assigned to your request. Currently, I am available July 13 or 14.
Will any of these dates work? Let me know." Fox replied to all at 4:19 p.m. the same day and
stated: "Joe, sorry, but July 13 and 14 do not work. What dates from July 24 - 	August 4 (but
not either Tuesday) might you have available?" Rios replied to all at 4:21 p.m. the same day
and stated: "Currently, July 24, 25, 28, 31 and Aug 3 are available."
4 The sworn declaration appears to contradict SEIU' s assertion that it filed the request
on August 14.

SF-IM-191-M
August 24, 2017
Page 5
On July 3, at 7:57 a.m., Fox replied to all and stated: "The County is available on (in date
preference): Friday, July 28 from 1-5 [p.m.,] Monday, July 24 all day[,] Monday, July 31 all
day[.]" Carter replied to all at 1:00 p.m. and stated: "Hello Joe, Unfortunately none of those
dates work for us. I can offer the following dates: Thursday August 3rd 1-5 pm [and]
Thursday [A Jugust 10th 1-5 pm."
On August 17, at 6:46 p.m., Steele forwarded to PERB, by e-mail message, a copy of a letter
authored by the County of Solano and asked the undersigned Board agent to "Please confirm
that PERB has concluded that SEIU Local 1021's request satisfies the requirements of the
statute/local rule." The attached letter was from Assistant County Counsel Azniv Darbinian
(Darbinian) to Steele and was dated August 16. Therein, the County "acknowledge[d] the
Factfinding Request made by SEIU, Local 1021, dated August 14, 2017," and designated the
County's panelist and also suggested two individuals to potentially serve as the neutral.
On August 18, the undersigned Board agent received Steele's e-mail message, reviewed the
County's August 16 letter, and called Darbinian to confirm that the County was waiving the
45-day timeline. Darbinian informed the undersigned that the County was "not waiving
the timeliness issue. We were actually operating under the good faith belief that they got their
request in on the 14th, August[,] before 5 o'clock. We received a copy of their request after
5:00 o'clock, we received it at 5:30 or 6:00 and that is what our acknowledgement is, that if
they did not get it to PERB before 5:00 we are certainly not waiving the timeliness issue."
The same day, the undersigned Board agent sent a letter notifying the parties that SEIU's
factfinding request was denied. The letter also informed the parties that a written
administrative determination confirming the denial of the factfinding request would be
provided to the parties.
Discussion
MMBA section 3505.4, subdivision (a) provides as follows:
(a) The employee organization may request that the parties'
differences be submitted to a factfinding panel not sooner than 30
days, but not more than 45 days, following the appointment or
selection of a mediator pursuant to the parties' agreement to
mediate or a mediation process required by a public agency's
local rules. If the dispute was not submitted to mediation, an
employee organization may request that the parties' differences
be submitted to a factfinding panel not later than 30 days
following the date that either party provided the other with a
written notice of a declaration of impasse. Within five days after
receipt of the written request, each party shall select a person to
serve as its member of the factfinding panel. The Public
Employment Relations Board shall, within five days after the
selection of panel members by the parties, select a chairperson of
the factfinding panel.
SF-IM-191-M
August 24, 2017
Page 5
On July 3, at 7:57 a.m., Fox replied to all and stated: "The County is available on (in date
preference): Friday, July 28 from 1-5 [p.m.,] Monday, July 24 all day[,] Monday, July
31
all
day[.]" Carter replied to all at 1:00 p.m. and stated: "Hello Joe, Unfortunately none
of
those
dates work for us. I can offer the following dates: Thursday August 3rd 1-5 pm [and]
Thursday [A ]ugust 10th 1-5 pm."
On August 17, at 6:46 p.m., Steele forwarded to PERB,
by
e-mail message, a copy
of
a letter
authored by the County
of
Solano and asked the undersigned Board agent to "Please confirm
that PERB has concluded that SEIU Local 1021
's
request satisfies the requirements
of
the
statute/local rule." The attached letter was from Assistant County Counsel Azniv Darbinian
(Darbinian) to Steele and was dated August 16. Therein, the County "acknowledge[d] the
Factfinding Request made
by
SEIU, Local 1021, dated August 14, 2017," and designated the
County's panelist and also suggested two individuals to potentially serve as the neutral.
On August 18, the undersigned Board agent received Steele's e-mail message, reviewed the
County's August 16 letter, and called Darbinian to confirm that the County was waiving the
45-day timeline. Darbinian informed the undersigned that the County was "not waiving
the timeliness issue. We were actually operating under the good faith belief that they got their
request in on the 14th, August[,] before 5 o'clock. We received a copy
of
their request after
5:00 o'clock, we received it at 5:30 or 6:00 and that is what our acknowledgement is, that
if
they did not get it to PERB before 5:00 we are certainly not waiving the timeliness issue."
The same day, the undersigned Board agent sent a letter notifying the parties that SEIU' s
factfinding request was denied. The letter also informed the parties that a written
administrative determination confirming the denial
of
the factfinding request would be
provided to the parties.
Discussion
MMBA section 3505.4, subdivision (a) provides as follows:
(a) The employee organization may request that the parties'
differences be submitted to a factfinding panel not sooner than 30
days, but not more than 45 days, following the appointment or
selection
of
a mediator pursuant to the parties' agreement to
mediate or a mediation process required by a public agency's
local rules.
	If
the dispute was not submitted to mediation, an
employee organization may request that the parties' differences
be submitted to a factfinding panel not later than 30 days
following the date that either party provided the other with a
written notice
of
a declaration
of
impasse. Within five days after
receipt of the written request, each party shall select a person to
serve as its member
of
the factfinding panel. The Public
Employment Relations Board shall, within five days after the
selection of panel members by the parties, select a chairperson of
the factfinding panel.

SF-IM-191-M
August 24, 2017
Page 6
PERB Regulation 32802 provides as follows:
(a) An exclusive representative may request that the parties'
differences be submitted to a factfinding panel. The request shall
be accompanied by a statement that the parties have been unable
to effect a settlement. Such a request may be filed:
(1) Not sooner than 30 days, but not more than 45 days, following
the appointment or selection of a mediator pursuant either to the
parties' agreement to mediate or a mediation process required by
a public agency's local rules; or
(2) If the dispute was not submitted to mediation, not later than
30 days following the date that either party provided the other
with written notice of a declaration of impasse.
The factfinding timelines provided in the MMBA and PERB Regulations are clear and
unambiguous. (Santa Cruz Central Fire Protection District (2016) PERB Order No. Ad-436-
M, p. 5 (Santa Cruz).) One of two events must occur before the exclusive representative has
"not only a right, but a strict window period within which to request factfinding." (City &
County of San Francisco (2014) PERB Order No. Ad-419-M, pp. 16-17, citing Redondo Beach
(2014) PERB Order No. Ad-409-M, pp. 6-7.) Those two events are the written declaration of
impasse or the appointment of a mediator. (Santa Cruz, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-436-M,
pp. 5-6, citing City of Redondo Beach (2014) PERB Order No. Ad-409-M and Lassen County
In-Home Supportive Services Public Authority (2015) PERB Order No. Ad-426-M.)
SEIU's factfinding request stated that the mediator was appointed on June 30, which was
confirmed by SMCS Meditator Rios' e-mail message of the same date. After the Board agent
informed Steele that the request was untimely because it was not filed within 45 days
following the date that the mediator was appointed, SEIU filed a Position Statement asserting
that Carter erred in stating the mediator was appointed on June 30, and, instead, after
reviewing the County's local rules, Carter determined that "[the County was obligated under
the local rules to obtain our mutual agreement to select and schedule a particular mediator" and
"[ijt was not appropriate, in light of the County's local rules, for SMCS to unilaterally appoint
a mediator to our table [and] [i]f the County requested of SMCS that a mediator be
'appointed,' that request was improper." Carter asserts that "[gliven that SEIU Local 1021 did
not express mutual agreement to select and/or schedule Mr. Rios as the mediator until July 3 []
SEIU Local 1021's factfinding demand was clearly timely."
As shown above, section 3505.4(a) provides three options: "The employee organization may
request that the parties' differences be submitted to a factfinding panel not sooner than 30
days, but not more than 45 days, following the appointment or selection of a mediator pursuant
to the parties' agreement to mediate or a mediation process required by a public agency's
local rules." (Emphasis added.)
SF-IM-191-M
August 24, 201 7
Page 6
PERB Regulation 32802 provides as follows:
(a) An exclusive representative may request that the parties'
differences be submitted to a factfinding panel. The request shall
be accompanied by a statement that the parties have been unable
to effect a settlement. Such a request may ~e filed:
(1) Not sooner than 30 days, but not more than 45 days, following
the appointment or selection
of
a mediator pursuant either to the
parties' agreement to mediate or a mediation process required by
a public agency's local rules; or
(2)
If
the dispute was not submitted to mediation, not later than
30 days following the date that either party provided the other
with written notice
of
a declaration
of
impasse.
The factfinding timelines provided in the MMBA and PERB Regulations are clear and
unambiguous. (Santa Cruz Central Fire Protection District (2016) PERB Order No. Ad-436-
M, p. 5 (Santa Cruz).) One
of
two events must occur before the exclusive representative has
"not only a right, but a strict window period within which to request factfinding." (City &
County
of
San Francisco (2014) PERB Order No. Ad-419-M, pp. 16-17, citing Redondo Beach
(2014) PERB Order No. Ad-409-M, pp. 6-7.) Those two events are the written declaration
of
impasse or the appointment
of
a mediator. (Santa Cruz, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-436-M,
pp. 5-6, citing City
of
Redondo Beach (2014) PERB Order No. Ad-409-M and Lassen County
In-Home Supportive Services Public Authority (2015) PERB Order No. Ad-426-M.)
SEIU's factfinding request stated that the mediator was appointed on June 30, which was
confirmed by SMCS Meditator Rios' e-mail message
of
the same date. After the Board agent
informed Steele that the request was untimely because it was not filed within 45 days
following the date that the mediator was appointed, SEIU filed a Position Statement asserting
that Carter erred in stating the mediator was appointed on June 30, and, instead, after
reviewing the County's local rules, Carter determined that "[t]he County was obligated under
the local rules to obtain our mutual agreement to select and schedule a particular mediator" and
"[i]t was not appropriate, in light
of
the County's local rules, for SMCS to unilaterally appoint
a mediator to our table [and] [i]fthe County requested
of
SMCS that a mediator be
'appointed,' that request was improper." Carter asserts that "[g]iven that SEIU Local 1021 did
not express mutual agreement to select and/or schedule Mr. Rios as the mediator until July 3 []
SEIU Local 1021 's factfinding demand was clearly timely."
As shown above, section 3505.4(a) provides three options: "The employee organization may
request that the parties' differences be submitted to a factfinding panel not sooner than 30
days, but not more than 45 days,following the appointment or selection
of
a mediator pursuant
to the parties' agreement to mediate or a mediation process required by a public agency's
local rules." (Emphasis added.)

SF-IM-191-M
August 24, 2017
Page 7
As also shown above, Local Rule Section 16(A)(2), also provides three options:
[TJhe County shall notify the California State Mediation and
Conciliation Service that the parties have failed to reach
agreement and shall obtain therefrom either (1) a designated
mediator; (2) upon mutual agreement, the selection and
scheduling of a particular mediator; or (3) a list of seven
mediators.
The information provided by SEIU is devoid of authority supporting its assertion that "[ijt is
the date of mutual agreement that triggers the deadline in Government Code section 3505.4(a)
to invoke factfinding" because section 3505.4(a) contemplates any of three methods to start the
45-day clock: "following the appointment or selection of a mediator pursuant to the parties
agreement to mediate or a mediation process required by a public agency's local rules." The
first method does not require "mutual agreement," and the third method provides for mediation
as required by local rules. The information provided by SEIU indicates that the parties
proceeded under the first method of section 3505.4, appointment, or they proceeded under the
third method of section 3505.4, local rules. If they proceeded under the local rules, it appears
that the parties proceeded under the first option of the local rules, "a designated mediator,"
which, like section 3505.4, does not require "mutual agreement."
The information provided by SEIU is also devoid of information demonstrating that "SEIU
Local 1021 was not provided an opportunity to select from various mediators." SEIU provides
no information demonstrating that it objected to the appointment of Mediator Rios or was
denied the right to demand that the parties mutually select the mediator. By its own words,
SEIU claims that "when either SEIU Local 1021 or the County contacts SMCS to request a
neutral, SMCS issues the parties a list of five or seven arbitrators or mediators and we have a
conversation over the phone about who to select," yet SEIU did not object or request "a list of
five or seven arbitrators" when it learned on June 30 that Mediator Rios had been "assigned to
your request."
It is undisputed that Mediator Rios was appointed on June 30 and SEIU submitted its request
for factfinding at 7:44 p.m. on August 14. The request, therefore, was filed on August 15,
which is more than 45 days after the appointment of Mediator Rios. (PERB Regulation
32135(b); Gov. Code, $ 1 1020.) Accordingly, the factfinding request does not satisfy the
requirements of MMBA section 3505.4, subdivision (a), and PERB Regulation 32802, and is
therefore denied.
Right to Appeal
Pursuant to PERB Regulations, an aggrieved party may file an appeal directly with the Board
itself and can request an expedited review of this administrative determination. (Cal. Code
It is unnecessary to reach SEIU's assertion that "PERB's [ALJ] upheld the County's
impasse resolution procedures in its local rules as reasonable" because the reasonableness of
the County's local rules is not at issue in this matter.
SF-IM-191-M
August 24, 2017
Page 7
As also shown above, Local Rule Section 16(A)(2), also provides three options:
[T]he County shall notify the California State Mediation and
Conciliation Service that the parties have failed to reach
agreement and shall obtain therefrom either (1) a designated
mediator; (2) upon mutual agreement, the selection and
scheduling
of
a particular mediator; or (3) a list
of
seven
mediators.
The information provided
by
SEIU is devoid
of
authority supporting its assertion that "[i]t is
the date
of
mutual agreement that triggers the deadline in Government Code section 3505.4(a)
to invoke factfinding" because section 3505.4(a) contemplates any
of
three methods to start the
45-day clock: "following the appointment or selection
of
a mediator pursuant to the parties'
agreement to mediate
or
a mediation process required by a public agency's local rules." The
first method does not require "mutual agreement," and the third method provides for mediation
as required
by
local rules. 	The information provided
by
SEIU indicates that the parties
proceeded under the.first method
of
section 3505.4, appointment, or they proceeded under the
third method
of
section 3505.4, local rules.
If
they proceeded under the local rules, it appears
that the parties proceeded under the first option
of
the local rules,
"a
designated mediator,"
which, like section 3505.4, does not require "mutual agreement."5
The information provided by SEIU is also devoid
of
information demonstrating that "SEIU
Local 1021 was not provided an opportunity to select from various mediators." SEIU provides
no information demonstrating that it objected to the appointment
of
Mediator Rios
or
was
denied the right to demand that the parties mutually select the mediator.
By
its own words,
SEIU claims that "when either SEIU Local 1021 or the County contacts SMCS to request a
_neutral, SMCS issues the parties a list
of
five or seven arbitrators or mediators and we have a
conversation over the phone about who to select," yet SEIU did not object or request
"a
list
of
five or seven arbitrators" when it learned on June 30 that Mediator Rios had been "assigned to
your request."
It
is undisputed that Mediator Rios was appointed on June 30 and SEIU submitted its request
for factfinding at 7:44 p.m. on August 14. The request, therefore, was filed on August 15,
which is more than 45 days after the appointment
of
Mediator Rios. 	(PERB Regulation
32135(b); Gov. Code, § 11020.) Accordingly, the factfinding request does not satisfy the
requirements ofMMBA section 3505.4, subdivision (a), and PERB Regulation 32802, and is
therefore denied.
Right to Appeal
Pursuant to PERB Regulations, an aggrieved party may file an appeal directly with the Board
itself and can request an expedited review
of
this administrative determination. (Cal. Code
It
is unnecessary to reach SEIU's assertion that "PERB' s [ALJ] upheld the County's
impasse resolution procedures in its local rules as reasonable" because the reasonableness of
the County's local rules is not at issue in this matter.

SF-IM-191-M
August 24, 2017
Page 8
Regs., tit. 8, $8 32147, subd. (a), 32350, 32360, 32802, 61060.) An appeal must be filed with
the Board itself within 10 days following the date of service of this determination. (Cal. Code
Regs., tit. 8, $ 32360, subd. (b).) Any document filed with the Board must contain the case
name and number, and the original and five (5) copies of all documents must be provided to
the Board. (Ibid.)
A document is considered "filed" when actually received during a regular PERB business day.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, $8 32135, subd. (a) and 32130; see also Gov. Code, $ 11020, subd.
(a).) A document is also considered "filed" when received by facsimile transmission before
the close of business together with a Facsimile Transmission Cover Sheet which meets the
requirements of PERB Regulation 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, $ 32135, subds. (b), (c) and (d); see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, $8 32090 and
32130.)
The Board's address is: 	Public Employment Relations Board
Attention: Appeals Assistant
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95811-4124
Telephone: (916) 322-8231
Facsimile: (916) 327-7960
E-File: PERBe-file.Appeals@perb.ca.gov
If a party appeals this determination, the other party(ies) may file with the Board an original
and five copies of a statement in opposition within 10 calendar days following the date of
service of the appeal. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, $ 32375.)
Service
All documents authorized to be filed herein must also be "served" upon all parties to the
proceeding, and a "proof of service" must accompany each copy of a document served upon a
party or filed with the Board itself. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, $ 32140 for the required
contents.) The document will be considered properly "served" when personally delivered or
deposited in the mail or deposited with a delivery service and properly addressed. A document
may also be concurrently served via facsimile transmission on all parties to the proceeding.
(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, $ 32135, subd. (c).)
Mary Weiss
Senior Regional Attorney
MW
SF-IM-191-M
August 24, 2017
Page 8
Regs., tit. 8, §§ 32147, subd. (a), 32350, 32360, 32802, 61060.) An appeal must be filed with
the Board itself within IO days following the date of service of this determination. (Cal. Code
Regs., tit. 8, § 32360, subd. (b ).) Any document filed with the Board must contain the case
name and number, and the original and five (5) copies of all documents must be provided to
the Board. (Ibid.)
A document is considered "filed" when actually received during a regular PERB business day.
(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 32135, subd. (a) and 32130; see also Gov. Code, § 11020, subd.
{a).) A document is also considered "filed" when received by facsimile transmission before
the close of business together with a Facsimile Transmission Cover Sheet which meets the
requirements of PERB Regulation 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, § 32135, subds. (b), (c) and (d); see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 32090 and
32130.)
The Board's address is: 	Public Employment Relations Board
Attention: Appeals Assistant
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95811-4124
Telephone: (916) 322-8231
Facsimile: (916) 327-7960
E-File: PERBe-file.Appeals@perb.ca.gov
.If a party appeals this determination, the other party(ies) may file with the Board an original
and five copies of a statement in opposition within 10 calendar days following the date of
service of the appeal. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 32375.)
Service
All documents authorized to be filed herein must also be "served" upon all parties to the
proceeding, and a "proof of service" must accompany each copy of a document served upon a
party or filed with the Board itself. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 32140 for the required
contents.) The document will be considered properly "served" when personally delivered or
deposited in the mail or deposited with a delivery service and properly addressed. A document
may also be concurrently served via facsimile transmission on all parties to the proceeding.
(Cal. Code Regs ., tit. 8, § 32135, subd. (c).)
Sincerely.
Mary We iss
Senior Regional Attorney
MW