Decision A437H – Regents of the University of California and Teamsters Clerical, Local 2010 (Polk)

PERB is a public entity which must make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures to accommodate individuals with disabilities, unless it can be demonstrated that making such modifications would result in undue financial and administrative burdens or would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity offered. While charging party provided PERB’s Appeals Office with documentation of her medical impairments or conditions and restrictions, that documentation did not explain how granting a fifth extension of time (which extended beyond her return-to-work dates on previous medical releases) would enable her to complete the appeals process, given that the previous four extensions of time granted by PERB had not been sufficient to enable her to complete and file an appeal from dismissal of her unfair practice charges. For this reason, PERB was unable to assess the reasonableness of granting the charging party’s request for another extension of time and denied her appeal from the Appeals Assistant’s administrative determination.

The indefinite and continuing nature of charging party’s requests for extensions of time to appeal the dismissal of her unfair practice charges would fundamentally alter the nature of PERB’s unfair practice proceedings. PERB affords parties to an unfair practice charge a relatively user-friendly administrative process for adjudication of labor disputes. The expectation is that unfair practice charges are handled as expeditiously as possible at both the case processing and administrative appellate stages. Especially in a case where the Office of the General Counsel has dismissed an unfair practice charge after conducting an investigation and concluding that a prima facie case has not been established by the allegations of the charge, it is imperative that any appeal from dismissal be handled as promptly as possible. The Board denied charging party’s appeal from the Appeals Assistant’s administrative determination denying her a fifth extension of time.

The indefinite and continuing nature of charging party’s requests for extensions of time to appeal the dismissal of her unfair practice charges would fundamentally alter the nature of PERB’s unfair practice proceedings. PERB affords parties to an unfair practice charge a relatively user-friendly administrative process for adjudication of labor disputes. The expectation is that unfair practice charges are handled as expeditiously as possible at both the case processing and administrative appellate stages. Especially in a case where the Office of the General Counsel has dismissed an unfair practice charge after conducting an investigation and concluding that a prima facie case has not been established by the allegations of the charge, it is imperative that any appeal from dismissal be handled as promptly as possible. The Board denied charging party’s appeal from the Appeals Assistant’s administrative determination denying her a fifth extension of time.

PERB is a public entity which must make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures to accommodate individuals with disabilities, unless it can be demonstrated that making such modifications would result in undue financial and administrative burdens or would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity offered. While charging party provided PERB’s Appeals Office with documentation of her medical impairments or conditions and restrictions, that documentation did not explain how granting a fifth extension of time (which extended beyond her return-to-work dates on previous medical releases) would enable her to complete the appeals process, given that the previous four extensions of time granted by PERB had not been sufficient to enable her to complete and file an appeal from dismissal of her unfair practice charges. For this reason, PERB was unable to assess the reasonableness of granting the charging party’s request for another extension of time and denied her appeal from the Appeals Assistant’s administrative determination.

PERB is a public entity which must make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures to accommodate individuals with disabilities, unless it can be demonstrated that making such modifications would result in undue financial and administrative burdens or would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity offered. While charging party provided PERB’s Appeals Office with documentation of her medical impairments or conditions and restrictions, that documentation did not explain how granting a fifth extension of time (which extended beyond her return-to-work dates on previous medical releases) would enable her to complete the appeals process, given that the previous four extensions of time granted by PERB had not been sufficient to enable her to complete and file an appeal from dismissal of her unfair practice charges. For this reason, PERB was unable to assess the reasonableness of granting the charging party’s request for another extension of time and denied her appeal from the Appeals Assistant’s administrative determination.