Decision A447E – Bellflower Unified School District

LA-CE-5955-E

Decision Date: June 28, 2017

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 42
Perc Index: 15

Decision Headnotes

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
1107.01000 – Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver

PERB’s Appeals Assistant correctly determined that Charging Party’s response to the exceptions was untimely, as it was not filed and served until more than 20 days following the date of service of the opposing party’s exceptions. The fact that a document is also filed and served by e-mail does not alter the five-day extension of time under PERB Regulation 32130, subd. (c), if the document is also filed and served by regular mail in accordance with PERB Regulations. However, the same is not true for documents filed and served by facsimile. The Regulation states that, “No extension of time applies in the case of documents served in person, or by facsimile transmission as defined in Section 32090.”

1503.00000 – MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS
1503.01000 – In General

PERB’s Appeals Assistant correctly determined that Charging Party’s response to the exceptions was untimely, as it was not filed and served until more than 20 days following the date of service of the opposing party’s exceptions. The fact that a document is also filed and served by e-mail does not alter the five-day extension of time under PERB Regulation 32130, subd. (c), if the document is also filed and served by regular mail in accordance with PERB Regulations. However, the same is not true for documents filed and served by facsimile. The Regulation states that, “No extension of time applies in the case of documents served in person, or by facsimile transmission as defined in Section 32090.”

1503.00000 – MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS
1503.02000 – Regulations Considered (By Number)

PERB’s Appeals Assistant correctly determined that Charging Party’s response to the exceptions was untimely, as it was not filed and served until more than 20 days following the date of service of the opposing party’s exceptions. The fact that a document is also filed and served by e-mail does not alter the five-day extension of time under PERB Regulation 32130, subd. (c), if the document is also filed and served by regular mail in accordance with PERB Regulations. However, the same is not true for documents filed and served by facsimile. The Regulation states that, “No extension of time applies in the case of documents served in person, or by facsimile transmission as defined in Section 32090.”

1503.00000 – MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS
1503.03000 – Regulations Considered (By Number) (Continued)

PERB’s Appeals Assistant correctly determined that Charging Party’s response to the exceptions was untimely, as it was not filed and served until more than 20 days following the date of service of the opposing party’s exceptions. The fact that a document is also filed and served by e-mail does not alter the five-day extension of time under PERB Regulation 32130, subd. (c), if the document is also filed and served by regular mail in accordance with PERB Regulations. However, the same is not true for documents filed and served by facsimile. The Regulation states that, “No extension of time applies in the case of documents served in person, or by facsimile transmission as defined in Section 32090.”

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
1107.01000 – Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver

The Board denied Charging Party’s appeal from an administrative determination which denied its filing as untimely due to attorney error. Although an untimely filing may be excused at the discretion of the Board for “good cause” (PERB Reg. 32136), generally, “the Board has not found good cause [to excuse a late filing] in situations where the party’s attorney was directly responsible for the late filing.” Board precedent considers whether good cause exists separate from whether excusing a late filing would result in prejudice. Thus, even if a late filing would not result in prejudice, PERB has no discretion to accept the untimely filing in the absence of good cause.

1503.00000 – MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS
1503.01000 – In General

The Board denied Charging Party’s appeal from an administrative determination which denied its filing as untimely due to attorney error. Although an untimely filing may be excused at the discretion of the Board for “good cause” (PERB Reg. 32136), generally, “the Board has not found good cause [to excuse a late filing] in situations where the party’s attorney was directly responsible for the late filing.” Board precedent considers whether good cause exists separate from whether excusing a late filing would result in prejudice. Thus, even if a late filing would not result in prejudice, PERB has no discretion to accept the untimely filing in the absence of good cause.

1503.00000 – MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS
1503.02000 – Regulations Considered (By Number)

The Board denied Charging Party’s appeal from an administrative determination which denied its filing as untimely due to attorney error. Although an untimely filing may be excused at the discretion of the Board for “good cause” (PERB Reg. 32136), generally, “the Board has not found good cause [to excuse a late filing] in situations where the party’s attorney was directly responsible for the late filing.” Board precedent considers whether good cause exists separate from whether excusing a late filing would result in prejudice. Thus, even if a late filing would not result in prejudice, PERB has no discretion to accept the untimely filing in the absence of good cause.

1503.00000 – MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS
1503.03000 – Regulations Considered (By Number) (Continued)

The Board denied Charging Party’s appeal from an administrative determination which denied its filing as untimely due to attorney error. Although an untimely filing may be excused at the discretion of the Board for “good cause” (PERB Reg. 32136), generally, “the Board has not found good cause [to excuse a late filing] in situations where the party’s attorney was directly responsible for the late filing.” Board precedent considers whether good cause exists separate from whether excusing a late filing would result in prejudice. Thus, even if a late filing would not result in prejudice, PERB has no discretion to accept the untimely filing in the absence of good cause.