Trustees of the California State University (Sacramento) (PERB 1740H)

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD

CALIFORNIA STATE EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 1000, CSU DIVISION,

Charging Party, Case No. SA-CE-224-H

V. PERB Decision No. 1740-H

TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE January 26, 2005

UNIVERSITY (SACRAMENTO),

Respondent.

Appearance: California State Employees Association by Phillip $8.0. Coonley, Labor
Relations Representative, for California State Employees Association, Local 1000, CSU
Division.
Before Duncan, Chairman; Whitehead and Shek, Members.
DECISION

SHEK, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB
or Board) on appeal by the California State Employees Association, Local 1000, CSU Division
(CSEA) of a Board agent’s dismissal (attached) of its unfair practice charge. The unfair
practice charge alleged that the Trustees of the California State University (Sacramento)
(CSU) violated the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA)! by
discriminating against Mark Christl (Christl) for engaging in protected activity.

The Board has reviewed the entire record in this matter, including the original and

amended unfair practice charge, the warning and dismissal letters and CSEA’s appeal. The

‘HEERA is codified at Government Code section 3560, et seq.

Board finds the warning and dismissal letters to be free of prejudicial error and adopts them as
the decision of the Board itself, subject to the discussion below.
DISCUSSION
The unfair practice charge filed by CSEA alleges that CSU unlawfully discriminated
against Christi for his protected activities. To demonstrate a violation of HEERA
section 3571(a), the charging party must show that: (1) the employee exercised rights under
HEERA; (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.) It is undisputed that for purposes of
establishing a prima facie case, CSEA has demonstrated that Christi participated in protected
activities and that he subsequently suffered adverse actions. The sole issue before the Board is
whether CSEA has established the required nexus.
CSEA argues that the adverse actions imposed upon Christi occurred close in time to
his protected activities. 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 (North Sacramento)), it is well-settled that
timing alone is insufficient to establish nexus. (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); (2) the
employer's departure from established procedures and standards when dealing with the
2

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.)
CSEA argues nexus has been established by the fact that CSU departed from its
established procedures and policies by failing to conduct a full and fair investigation before
imposing discipline on Christi. CSEA has not established, however, that the letters issued by
the Dean to Christi on December 15, 2003, and February 6, 2004, constituted "discipline".
Although the warning and dismissal letters adopt CSEA's use of the term "letter of reprimand"
when referring to the December 15 or February 6 letters, nothing in the record establishes that
they were in fact letters of reprimand. In the December 5 letter, Christi was informed that the
Dean had directed Christi's supervisor to warn him ifhe were to exhibit certain behaviors. The
Dean referred to the February 6 letter as a "warning letter" and placed it in Christi's personnel
file.
Even assuming, arguendo, that they were letters of reprimand, CSEA has not
established that these letters were issued in violation of any policy. CSEA has neither
established that a full and fair investigation must be conducted prior to imposing discipline,
nor provided a copy of the alleged policy stating what type of investigation is required.
3

There is insufficient evidence to show that CSU departed from any established
procedures and policies. The dismissal is therefore affirmed.
ORDER
The unfair practice charge in Case No. SA-CE-224-H is hereby DISMISSED
WITHOUT LEA VE TO AMEND.
Chairman Duncan and Member Whitehead joined in this Decision.
4

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Sacramento Regional Office
103118thStreet
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
Telephone: (916) 327-8385
Fax: (916) 327-6377
October 4, 2004
Phillip .Coonley, Labor Relations Representative
California State Employees Association
2159 New Hampshire Way
Sacramento, CA 95835-
,-- "
( 	.>
Re: 	California State Employees Association, Local 1000, CSU Division v. Trustees of the
California State University (Sacramento)
Unfair Practice Charge No. SA-CE-224-H
DISMISSAL LETTER
Dear Mr. Coonley:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on April 30, 2004. The California State Employees Association,
Local 1000, CSU Division alleges that the Trustees of the California State University
(Sacramento) violated the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA)1 by
discriminating against Mark Christi for engaging in protected activity.
I indicated in the attached letter dated September 17, 2004, that the above-referenced charge
did not state a prima facie case. You were advised that if there were any factual inaccuracies
or additional facts which would correct the deficiencies explained in that letter, you should
amend the charge. You were further advised that unless you amended the charge to state a
prima facie case or withdrew it prior to September 27, 2004, the charge would be dismissed.
After a brief extension of time, an amended charge was timely filed on September 28, 2004.
Mr. Christi is employed as a Graphic Design Specialist at the CSUS campus. As amended, the
charge alleges that in October 2003, the Graphics Center office, consisting of a shared office
for Mr. Christi and Steven O'Donnell, was moved from the first floor to the second floor to
allow the supervisor, Martha Velasco, to provide closer supervision. In October 2003,
Ms. Velasco directed Mr. Christi to leave his office door open, greet and assist visitors and
post his office hours. Mr. Christi did not agree with this directive and informed Ms. Velasco
that he had sought the assistance of the Union with this matter.
On December 4, 2003, Ms. Velasco came to the office where Mr. Christi and Mr. O'Donnell
were working and verbally reprimanded Mr. Christi for using Mr. O'Donnell's computer.
1HEERA is codified at Government Code section 3560 et seq. The text of the HEERA
and the Board's Regulations may be found on the Internet at www.perb.ca.gov.

SA-CE-224-H
October 4, 2004
Page 2
C
Mr. Christi explained that he needed to use some software that did not exist on his own
computer.
On December 15, 2003, Mr. Christi received a letter of reprimand from the Dean ofth~
College of Education, Michael Lewis. The letter ofreprimand directed Mr. Christi to keep his
office door open, greet and assist visitors and post his office hours. The letter also discussed
Mr. Christi's responsibility to obtain prior approval of class schedule changes which affected
his work hours. Finally, Dean Lewis addressed Mr. Christi's "interpersonal behaviors
exhibited" during the December 4, 2003 meeting with Ms. Velasco and Mr. O'Donnell
regarding computer use. The letter stated, in part:
It has been reported to me that your behaviors during this
discussion suggested that you were about to lose control: barely
controlled aggression, hostile body language, tensed arms,
clenched teeth, for example. To be quite frank, those involved
were frightened by your behavior and came away with a concern
for their own safety. This is unacceptable in the workplace. In
the future, I expect that you will allow yourself to be supervised
without exhibiting angry, threatening behaviors-either verbal or
non-verbal.
The letter of reprimand did not accuse Mr. Christi of violating the University's Violence in the
Workplace policy.
Thereafter, Mr. Christi filed a grievance alleging that the University had violated the contract
by the actions· of Ms. Velasco and Dean Lewis.
On February 6, 2004, Mr. Christi received a second letter of reprimand from Dean Lewis
covering several issues. The letter stated that Mr. Christi had challenged Ms. Velasco's
authority in an e-mail that was "threatening and confrontive." Mr. Christi inappropriately
monitored the work time of other staff and failed to communicate with staff over work issues.
Dean Lewis again reminded Mr. Christi to keep his door open and greet and assist visitors to
the office. Finally, the letter discussed Mr. Christi's work on a college website that was outside
his specified duties.
On March 24, 2004, Dean Lewis issued a written Level II grievance response to Mr. Christi's
grievance. Dean Lewis stated that the December 4, 2003 meeting arose after Ms. Velasco
discovered that Mr. Christi was using Mr. O'Donnell's computer without his knowledge or
permission. Dean Lewis described the December 4 meeting not as a reprimand but as "an
informal joint discussion with her staff over sharing computers." Ms. Velasco directed both
Mr. Christi and Mr. O'Donnell to check with each other before using the other person's
computer.
Dean Lewis also defended the December 15, 2003 letter of reprimand and explained the
reasoning behind the letter. He stated that Ms. Velasco had been "working with the Employee

SA-CE-224-H
October 4, 2004
Page 3
(
Assistance Program (EAP) and Human Resources over Mr. Christi's behavior as long ago as
November 2002." He also referenced two e-mail messages written by Mr. O'Donnell in
support of his comments that Mr. Christi's behavior had worsened since he moved upstairs.
Dean Lewis also wrote that other employees were also concerned about his behavior, stating,
in part:
I also have verbal reports that Mr. Christi has made remarks to
staff such as "Good thing I don't own a gun"; "Good thing the
campus does not have a clock tower"; and "Hope I don't see (staff
member's name) in the crosswalk on my way home from work."
While it is reported that these remarks were not taken as actual
threats, they add to the context of concern given Mr. Christi's
other behaviors. As administrator over the College of Education,
I must take the concerns of staff for workplace safety with the
utmost seriousness. The description of Mr. Christi's behavior in
my letter of December 15 is founded on the written report of two
witnesses and fits with descriptions from other staff over time.
In July 2004, Mr. Christi "received his first evaluation containing negative marks." Prior to
this evaluation, all of Mr. Christi's evaluations have been above average or excellent.
The charge alleges that Mr. Christi was professional and in control during the December 4
meeting, and the behaviors described in the December 15 letter of reprimand do not violate the
Violence in the Workplace policy. The charge also alleges that the University relied on "three
issues" to justify the December 15 letter of reprimand that were not previously brought to
Mr. Christi's attention. These matters include: (1) Mr. O'Donnell's October 21, 2003 e-mail to
Ms. Velasco describing tension between himself and Mr. Christl since the office was moved
upstairs; (2) remarks reportedly made by Mr. Christi to other employees which "might be
considered violations of the Violence in the Workplace policy."; and (3) that Ms. Velasco had
utilized EAP and Human Resources concerning Mr. Christi's behavior as far back as November
2002.
As discussed in the attached letter, to demonstrate unlawful discriminatory conduct in violation
of HEERA section 3571(a), the charging party must show that: (1) the employee exercised
rights under HEERA; (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.)
Mr. Christi engaged in protected activity when he sought the assistance of the Union and a
grievance was filed on his behalf. The University took adverse action against Mr. Christi when
it issued him two letters of reprimand and a negative evaluation. However, there is no
evidence of nexus alleged in the charge. The December 15 letter of reprimand did not accuse
Mr. Christi of violating the Violence in the Workplace policy. Thus, the charge does not show

SA-CE-224-H
October 4, 2004
Page 4
(
that the University departed from its policy by inappropriately applying the policy to
Mr. Christi.
The charge also alleges that Dean Lewis' grievance response demonstrates that the University
improperly relied on allegations of misconduct against Mr. Christi that were not previously
brought to his attention. There is nothing in the statements in the grievance response which
accuse Mr. Christi of wrongdoing. Even the remarks reported by coworkers were "not taken as
actual threats" and, thus, were not alleged to violate the workplace violence policy.
Accordingly, the charge does not demonstrate the required nexus and fails to state a prima
facie case.
Right to Appeal
Pursuant to PERB Regulations,2 you may obtain a review of this dismissal of the charge by
filing an appeal to the Board itself within twenty (20) calendar days after service of this
dismissal. (Regulation 32635(a).) 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.
A document is considered "filed" when actually received before the close of business (5 p.m.)
on the last day set for filing. 	(Regulations 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 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.
(Regulations 32135(b), (c) and (d); see also Regulations 32090 and 32130.)
The Board's address is:
Public Employment Relations Board
Attention: Appeals Assistant
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
FAX: (916) 327-7960
If you file a timely appeal of the refusal to issue a complaint, any other party may file with the
Board an original and five copies of a statement in opposition within twenty (20) calendar days
following the date of service of the appeal. (Regulation 32635(b).)
2 PERB's Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.

SA-CE-224-H
October 4, 2004
Page 5
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 Regulation 32140 for the required contents and a
sample form.) The document will be considered properly "served" when personally delivered
or deposited in the first-class mail, postage paid and properly addressed. A document filed by
facsimile transmission may be concurrently served via facsimile transmission on all parties to
the proceeding. (Regulation 32135(c).)
Extension of Time
A request for an extension of time, in which to file a document with the Board itself, must be
in writing and filed with the Board at the previously noted address. A request for an extension
must be filed at least three (3) calendar days before the expiration of the time required for
filing the document. The request must indicate good cause for and, if known, the position of
each other party regarding the extension, and shall be accompanied by proof of service of the
request upon each party. (Regulation 32132.)
Final Date
If no appeal is filed within the specified time limits, the dismissal will become final when the
time limits have expired.
Sincerely,
ROBERT THOMPSON
General Counsel
ByR/ihet4rRegional Attorney
Attachment
cc: Donna Selnick
Regional Attorney

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
Sacramento Regional Office
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
Telephone: (916) 327-8385
Fax: (916) 327-6377
September 17, 2004
Phillip Coonley, Labor Relations Representative
California State Employees Association
2159 New Hampshire Way
Sacramento, CA 95835
(
Re: 	California State Employees Association, Local 1000, CSU Division v. Trustees of the
California State University (Sacramento)
Unfair Practice Charge No. SA-CE-224-H
WARNING LETTER
Dear Mr. Coonley:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on April 30, 2004. The California State Employees Association,
Local 1000, CSU Division alleges that the Trustees of the California State University
(Sacramento) violated the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA)1 by
discriminating against Mark Christi for engaging in protected activity.
The charge makes following factual allegations. Mark Christi has been employed by the
University for seven years. He works as a Graphic Design Specialist at the CSUS campus. In
October 2003, Mr. Christi's supervisor, Martha Velasco, told Mr. Christi and his officemate,
Steven O'Donnell, that they must leave the door to their office open, greet visitors and post
their office hours.
In an e-mail to Ms. Velasco dated November 4, 2003, Mr. Christi addressed concerns over
requirements that he leave his office door open, greet visitors, post his work hours and be
responsible for locking and unlocking the duplicating center. Mr. Christi advised Ms. Velasco
that he had sought assistance from the union with these issues.
On December 4, 2003, Ms. Velasco verbally reprimanded Mr. Christi in front of
Mr. O'Donnell. The charge does not describe the nature of the reprimand.
On December 15, 2003, Mr. Christi received a letter ofreprimand from the Dean of the
College of Education, Michael Lewis. Dean Lewis reminded Mr. Christi of Ms. Velasco's
instruction and directed that he keep his door open, greet and assist visitors, and post his office
hours. He also informed Mr. .Christi of his responsibility to notify his supervisor prior to
1
• 	HEERA is codified at Government Code section 3560 et seq. The text of the HEERA
and the Board's Regulations may be found on the Internet at www.perb.ca.gov.

SA-CE-224-H
September 17, 2004
Page 2
changing his previously approved class schedule due to the impact on his work hours. Finally,
Dean. Lewis addressed Mr. Christi's conduct during the December 4, 2003 meeting with
Ms. Velasco stating, in part:
It has been reported to me that your behaviors during this
discussion suggested that you were about to lose control: barely
controlled aggression, hostile body language, tensed arms,
clenched teeth, for example. To be quite frank, those involved
were frightened by your behavior and came away with a concern
for their own safety. This is unacceptable in the workplace. In
the future, I expect that you will allow yourself to be supervised
without exhibiting angry, threatening behaviors-either verbal or
non-verbal.
The charge denies that Mr. Christi's conduct was angry or hostile.
On an unspecified date, a grievance involving Mr. Christi was filed, although the charge does
not provide any information concerning the subject of the grievance.
On February 6, 2004, Mr. Christi received another letter of reprimand from Dean Lewis. The
letter addressed Mr. Christi's interpersonal relations with his supervisor and other staff.
Specifically, Dean Lewis commented on the tone of an e-mail that Mr. Christi sent to
Ms. Velasco. In addition, he noted that Mr. Christi was inappropriately monitoring the work
time of other staff and was not communicating with staff over work issues. Dean Lewis
described a consequence of his refusal to communicate which resulted from his failure to
consult with his supervisor and the IT manager before performing work on a College website.
The charge alleges that either the work rules or the facts describing a violation of the work
rules are "vague and unsupported by facts."
Based on the facts stated above, the charge does not state a prima facie case.
To demonstrate a violation ofHEERA section 3571(a), the charging party must show that:
(1) the employee exercised rights under HEERA; (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), 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

SA-CE-224-H
September 17, 2004
Page 3
(
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); (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
Dis~rict, supra, PERB Decision No. 264.)
· Mr. Christi engaged in protected activity when he sought the assistance of the union and a
grievance was filed on his behalf. Although the charge does not indicate when the grievance
was filed. Adverse action was taken against Mr. Christi when he received two letters of
reprimand. However, the charge does not provide evidence which demonstrates a connection
or nexus between the protected activity and the letters of reprimand. The charge merely denies
that Mr. Christi's conduct was hostile. The charge also contends that the work rules or the
facts describing a violation of work rules are "vague and unsupported by facts." However, the
directives to Mr. Christi are very specific. He was instructed to keep his office door open,
greet and assist visitors, post work hours, notify his supervisor of changes to his class schedule
and behave in a professional manner. There is no evidence that Mr. Christi was held to a
different standard or that the work rules were so vague that he was unable to comply with
them. Thus, the charge does not establish the required nexus and must be dismissed.
For these reasons the charge, as presently written, does not state a prima facie case. If there
are any factual inaccuracies in this letter or additional facts that would correct the deficiencies
explained above, please amend the charge. The amended charge should be prepared on a
standard PERB unfair practice charge form, clearly labeled First Amended Charge, contain all
the facts and allegations you wish to make, and be signed under penalty of perjury by the
charging party. The amended charge must have the case number written on the top right hand
corner of the charge form. The amended charge must be served on the respondent's
representative and the original proof of service must be filed with PERB. If I do not receive an
amended charge or withdrawal from you before September 27, 2004, I shall dismiss your
charge. If you have any questions, please call me at the above telephone number.
· Sincerely,
~wi!!::f
Regional Attorney