California School Employees Association and Its Chapter 007 (Estacio and Martinez) (PERB 1874E)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
ANGELA M. ESTACIO & JUAN A. MARTINEZ,
Charging Party,
v.
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION & ITS CHAPTER 007,
Res ondent.
Case No. SA-CO-503-E
PERB Decision No. 	18 7 4
December 	29, 	2006
Appearance: Angela M. Estacio & Juan A. Martinez, on their own behalf.
Before Shek, McKeag and Neuwald, Members.
DECISION
SHEK, Member: This case comes before the Public Employment Relations Board
(Board) on appeal by Angela M. Estacio and Juan A. Martinez of a Board agent's dismissal
(attached) of their unfair practice charge. The charge alleged that the California School
Employees Association and its Chapter 007 (CSEA) violated the Educational Employment
Relations Act (EERA)1 sections 3544.9 and 3543.6 by failing to comply with the duty of fair
representation. The Board agent found the allegations to be barred under the six-inonth statute
of limitations.
The Board has reviewed the entire record in this case, including, but not limited to, the
unfair practice charge, the amended unfair practice charge, CSEA' s position statement, the
warning and dismissal letters, and the appeal le~er. Based on this review, the Board adopts the
warning and dismissal letters as the decision of the Board itself.
1EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540, et seq.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
ANGELA M. ESTACIO & JUAN A. MARTINEZ,
Charging Party, 	Case No. SA-CO-503-E
v. 	PERB Decision No. 1874
December 29, 2006
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION & ITS CHAPTER 007,
Respondent.
Appearance: Angela M. Estacio & Juan A. Martinez, on their own behalf.
Before Shek, Mckeag and Neuwald, Members.
DECISION
SHEK, Member: This case comes before the Public Employment Relations Board
(Board) on appeal by Angela M. Estacio and Juan A. Martinez of a Board agent's dismissal
attached) of their unfair practice charge. The charge alleged that the California School	(
Employees Association and its Chapter 007 (CSEA) violated the Educational Employment
Relations Act (EERA)' sections 3544.9 and 3543.6 by failing to comply with the duty of fair
representation. The Board agent found the allegations to be barred under the six-month statute
of limitations.
The Board has reviewed the entire record in this case, including, but not limited to, the
unfair practice charge, the amended unfair practice charge, CSEA's position statement, the
warning and dismissal letters, and the appeal letter. Based on this review, the Board adopts the
warning and dismissal letters as the decision of the Board itself.
EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540, et seq.

ORDER
The unfair practice charge in Case No. SA-CO-503-E is hereby DISMISSED
WITHOUT LEA VE TO AMEND.
Members McKeag and Neuwald joined in this Decision.
2
ORDER
The unfair practice charge in Case No. SA-CO-503-E is hereby DISMISSED
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
Members Mckeag and Neuwald joined in this Decision.
N .

EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. The text of the EERA and
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	r· 	ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
.===============--
PUBLIC EMPLOYMEN · i.<ELATIONS BOARD
RB
Sacramento Regional Office
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
Telephone: (916) 327-8383
Fax: (916) 327-6377
July 27, 2005
Angela M. Estacio
P.O. Box 363
Denair, CA 95316
Juan A. Martinez
P.O. Box 363
Denair, CA 95316
Re: 	Angela M. Estacio & Juan A. Martinez v. California School Employees Association &
its Chapter 007
Unfair Practice Charge No. SA-CO-503-E
DISMISSAL LETTER
Dear Ms. Estacio and Mr. Martinez:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on March 28, 2005. Angela M. Estacio & Juan A. Martinez allege
that the California School Employees Association & its Chapter 007 (CSEA) violated the
Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA)1 by failing to comply with its duty of fair
representation.
On July 1, 2005, General Counsel Robert Thompson indicated to you in the attached letter 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 July 15, 2005, the
charge would be dismissed. Your request for an extension of time was granted and a First
Amended Charge was filed on July 25, 2005.
Discussion
In his July 1, 2005 letter, Mr. Thompson separately analyzed four separate sets of facts to
determine whether the charge alleged a prima facie case of the breach of the duty of fair
representation by CSEA. The four separate allegations concerned Ms. Estacio's June 24, 2003
grievance; Ms. Estacio's termination; Mr. Martinez's February 2004 complaint; and Mr.
Martinez's administrative leave and resignation. In addition to finding that each of the
separate allegations failed to state a prima facie case, Mr. Thompson also found that eachof
· t
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Sacramento Regional Office
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
Telephone: (916) 327-8383
Fax: (916) 327-6377
July 27, 2005
Angela M. Estacio
Juan A. Martinez
e:	R 	Angela M. Estacio & Juan A. Martinez v. California School Employees Association &
its Chapter 007
Unfair Practice Charge No. SA-CO-503-E
DISMISSAL LETTER
Dear Ms. Estacio and Mr. Martinez:
he above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations	T
Board (PERB or Board) on March 28, 2005. Angela M. Estacio & Juan A. Martinez allege
that the California School Employees Association & its Chapter 007 (CSEA) violated the
Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA)" by failing to comply with its duty of fair
epresentation.	r
On July 1, 2005, General Counsel Robert Thompson indicated to you in the attached letter 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 July 15, 2005, the
charge would be dismissed. Your request for an extension of time was granted and a First
Amended Charge was filed on July 25, 2005.
Discussion
In his July 1, 2005 letter, Mr. Thompson separately analyzed four separate sets of facts to
determine whether the charge alleged a prima facie case of the breach of the duty of fair
rrepre	epresentation by CSEA. The four separate allegations concerned Ms. Estacio's June 24,
grievance; Ms. Estacio's termination; Mr. Martinez's February 2004 complaint; and Mr.
Martinez's administrative leave and resignation. In addition to finding that each of the
separate allegations failed to state a prima facie case, Mr. Thompson also found that each of
the Board's Regulations may be found on the Internet at www.perb.ca.gov.
EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. The text of the BERA and
the Board's Regulations may be found on the Internet at www.perb.ca.gov.

SA-CO-503-E
July 27, 2005
Page2
( (
the alleged violations involved conduct that occurred more than six months prior to the filing
of the charge.
The First Amended Charge provides a three page narrative, plus voluminous documents
relating to the employment histories of the charging parties and their interaction with CSEA
regarding representation on the various disputes with their employer, the Modesto City School
District. The narrative focuses on allegations that CSEA's representatives provided inaccurate
information to PERB in this matter, as well as assertions regarding the inadequacy of their
representation of, and even hostility exhibited toward, Ms. Estacio and Mr. Martinez.
However, the First Amended Charge does not address the statute of limitations issue raised by
CSEA's response to the charge and Mr. Thompson's July 1, 2005 letter. As discussed in the
July 1, 2005 letter, BERA section 3541.5(a)(l) prohibits PERB from issuing a complaint with
respect to "any charge based upon an alleged unfair practice occurring more than six months
prior to the filing of the charge." The limitations period begins to run once the charging party
knows, or should have known, of the conduct underlying the charge. (Gavilan Joint
Community College District (1996) PERB Decision No. 1177.) The statute of limitations is an
affirmative defense which has been raised by CSEA in this case (Long Beach Community
College District (2003) PERB Decision No. 1564), and the charging parties bear the burden of
demonstrating that the charge is timely filed. (cf. Tehachapi Unified School District (1993)
PERB Decision No. 1024; State of California (Department of Insurance) (1997) PERB
Decision No. 1197-S.)
In this case, neither the charge as originally filed nor the First Amended Charge demonstrates
that the allegations are timely filed, and the charge must be dismissed on this basis. In
addition, even if timely, the information in the First Amended Charge does not cure the other
deficiencies described by Mr. Thompson's earlier letter, and the charge must be dismissed for
failure to state a prima facie case.
Therefore, I am dismissing the charge based on the facts and reasons set forth above as well as
those contained in the July 1, 2005 letter.
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
2 PERB's Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.
SA-CO-503-E
July 27, 2005
Page 2
the alleged violations involved conduct that occurred more than six months prior to the filing
of the charge.
The First Amended Charge provides a three page narrative, plus voluminous documents
relating to the employment histories of the charging parties and their interaction with CSEA
regarding representation on the various disputes with their employer, the Modesto City School
District. The narrative focuses on allegations that CSEA's representatives provided inaccurate
information to PERB in this matter, as well as assertions regarding the inadequacy of their
representation of, and even hostility exhibited toward, Ms. Estacio and Mr. Martinez.
However, the First Amended Charge does not address the statute of limitations issue raised by
CSEA's response to the charge and Mr. Thompson's July 1, 2005 letter. As discussed in the
July 1, 2005 letter, EERA section 3541.5(a)(1) prohibits PERB from issuing a complaint with
respect to "any charge based upon an alleged unfair practice occurring more than six months
prior to the filing of the charge." The limitations period begins to run once the charging party
knows, or should have known, of the conduct underlying the charge. (Gavilan Joint
Community College District (1996) PERB Decision No. 1177.) The statute of limitations is an
affirmative defense which has been raised by CSEA in this case (Long Beach Community
College District (2003) PERB Decision No. 1564), and the charging parties bear the burden of
demonstrating that the charge is timely filed. (cf. Tehachapi Unified School District (1993)
PERB Decision No. 1024; State of California (Department of Insurance) (1997) PERB
Decision No. 1197-S.)
In this case, neither the charge as originally filed nor the First Amended Charge demonstrates
that the allegations are timely filed, and the charge must be dismissed on this basis. In
addition, even if timely, the information in the First Amended Charge does not cure the other
deficiencies described by Mr. Thompson's earlier letter, and the charge must be dismissed for
failure to state a prima facie case.
Therefore, I am dismissing the charge based on the facts and reasons set forth above as well as
those contained in the July 1, 2005 letter.
Right to Appeal
Pursuant to PERB Regulations, " 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
PERB's Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.

SA-CO-503-E
July 27, 2005
Page 3
(
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).)
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.)
II
II
II
II
II
II
SA-CO-503-E
July 27, 2005
Page 3
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).)
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
r deposited in the first-class mail, postage paid and properly addressed. A document filed by	o
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
ling the document. The request must indicate good cause for and, if known, the position of	fi
each other party regarding the extension, and shall be accompanied by proof of service of the
request upon each party. (Regulation 32132.)
11
11

SA-CO-503-E
July 27, 2005
Page 4
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
ByByL&~es Chisholm
Regional Director
Les Chisholm
Attachment
cc: Christina C. Bleuler
SA-CO-503-E
July 27, 2005
Page 4
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
L
Regional Director
Attachment
cc: Christina C. Bleuler

(- 	.===============--(
PUBLIC EMPLOYMEN1' ...<ELATIONS BOARD
Office of the General Counsel
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
Telephone: (916) 327-8381
Fax: (916) 327-6377
July 1, 2005
Angela M. Estacio
Juan A. Martinez
P.O. Box 363
Denair, CA 95316
Re: 	Angela M. Estacio & Juan A. Martinez v. California School Employees Association &
its Chapter 007
Unfair Practice Charge No. SA-CO-503-E
WARNING LETTER
Dear Ms. Estacio and Mr. Martinez:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on March 28, 2005. Angela M. Estacio & Juan A. Martinez allege
that the California School Employees Association & its Chapter 007 violated the Educational
Employment Relations Act (EERA)1 by failing to comply with its duty of fair representation.
Ms. Estacio
Ms. Estacio was terminated on April 6, 2004 after having worked as a District bus driver for
approximately seven years.2 In April 2001, Ms. Estacio was reprimanded for unsafe backing
of her bus which caused an accident with another school bus. In October 2001, she was
suspended for two days without pay for unspecified misconduct. In April 2002, she received a
written reprimand regarding an incident during which she refused to perform duties assigned to
her.
On June 24, 2003, Ms. Estacio filed a grievance against her supervisors Alice Quayle,
Supervisor of Transportation and Kathryn Powell, Dispatch Supervisor alleging harassment,
unfair treatment and a violation of the agreement provision regarding assignment of summer
routes. The grievance asserted that assignment of the new route was vindictive on the two
supervisors' parts and punishment for Ms. Estacio's earlier questions regarding the route
assignments.
1 EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. The text of the EERA and
the Board's Regulations may be found on the Internet at www.perb.ca.gov.
2 Some of the information contained in this letter was obtained during the investigation
of CSEA v. Modesto City School District, unfair practice charge number SA-CE-2248-E and
Angela Estacio v. Modesto City School District, unfair practice charge number SA-CE-2291-
E.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA	STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor	ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Office of the General Counsel
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
Telephone: (916) 327-8381
Fax: (916) 327-6377
July 1, 2005
Angela M. Estacio
Juan A. Martinez
Re: 	Angela M. Estacio & Juan A. Martinez v. California School Employees Association &
its Chapter 007
Unfair Practice Charge No. SA-CO-503-E
WARNING LETTER
Dear Ms. Estacio and Mr. Martinez:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on March 28, 2005. Angela M. Estacio & Juan A. Martinez allege
that the California School Employees Association & its Chapter 007 violated the Educational
Employment Relations Act (EERA)' by failing to comply with its duty of fair representation.
Ms. Estacio
Ms. Estacio was terminated on April 6, 2004 after having worked as a District bus driver for
approximately seven years." In April 2001, Ms. Estacio was reprimanded for unsafe backing
of her bus which caused an accident with another school bus. In October 2001, she was
suspended for two days without pay for unspecified misconduct. In April 2002, she received a
written reprimand regarding an incident during which she refused to perform duties assigned to
her.
On June 24, 2003, Ms. Estacio filed a grievance against her supervisors Alice Quayle,
Supervisor of Transportation and Kathryn Powell, Dispatch Supervisor alleging harassment,
unfair treatment and a violation of the agreement provision regarding assignment of summer
routes. The grievance asserted that assignment of the new route was vindictive on the two
supervisors' parts and punishment for Ms. Estacio's earlier questions regarding the route
assignments.
EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. The text of the EERA and
the Board's Regulations may be found on the Internet at www.perb.ca.gov.
Some of the information contained in this letter was obtained during the investigation
of CSEA v. Modesto City School District, unfair practice charge number SA-CE-2248-E and
Angela Estacio v. Modesto City School District, unfair practice charge number SA-CE-2291-
E.

SA-CO-503-E
July 1, 2005
Page 2
( (
Ms. Estacio had spoken to Linda Norman, CSEA Labor Relations Representative about the
grievance. Ms. Norman stated that the grievance did not have merit because Ms. Estacio had
been offered the route by the District and she rejected the assignment and accepted a different
route. Subsequently a less senior driver accepted the first route. During the summer that route
had an increase in hours which prompted Ms. Estacio to request assignment to the route. The
District denied her request.
On July 16, 2003, Becky Meredith, Director of Planning and Research, met with Ms. Norman
and Ms. Estacio. Mrs. Meredith requested more time to research the issue and Ms. Norman
agreed. On July 21, they met again with Alice Quayle, Supervisor of Transportation.
Management asserted that Ms. Estacio was a bad employee but did not address why an
assignment was given to Bonnie Mellor, CSEA job steward, an employee with less seniority
than Ms. Estacio. After the July 16 meeting, Mrs. Meredith and Ms. Quayle began soliciting
statements from employees that Ms. Estacio was a threat. Employees who would benefit
monetarily or through favoritism submitted such statements.
On July 22, 2003, Mrs. Meredith denied the grievance. Ms. Meredith asserted that "I can find
no basis, other than the Department's need to efficiently accommodate student transportation,
that stops were added to summer route #66." As to Ms. Estacio's allegation that she was
working fewer hours than lower seniority drivers who were given routes which she could have
accepted, Ms. Meredith replied that "your supervisors attempted to accommodate your
concerns by assigning you summer route #66 after you voiced your displeasure at driving route
#9."
On August 15, Mr. Mello, Associate Superintendent for Personnel Services, denied the
grievance. 	On August 27, 2003, CSEA requested the grievance be advanced to Step III,
arbitration, but indicated that CSEA would not represent Ms. Estacio in the arbitration. Ms.
Estacio requested that CSEA appeal the denial to arbitration. The request was denied by the
Chapter Executive Board. Ms. Estacio then appealed their decision under Policy 606 to the
State CSEA Board. CSEA Director of Field Operations Steve Fraga presented the case to the
State Board. The request was denied in October 2003.
The District school buses are equipped with cameras and VCRs to record conduct on the buses.
After some problems, the District limited access to the recorded tapes to certain employees.
Ms. Estacio was given a time limit in which to observe a video tape from her bus. No one else
had a time limit. On August 15, 2003, Ms. Estacio asked her husband, a mechanic, to remove
a videotape from a bus without authorization from a supervisor as required by written policy.
When confronted, she admitted that she had tapes improperly removed several times prior.
On August 15, 2003, she completed her pre-driving inspection without reporting any damages
to her bus. However later that day the bus had a 12 inch dent in its side. Katie Powell,
Dispatcher/Supervisor, directed Ms. Estacio to fill out an accident report. Despite several
requests to provide a written statement regarding the damage required by district policy, she
took more than 25 days to provide such a statement.
SA-CO-503-E
July 1, 2005
Page 2
Ms. Estacio had spoken to Linda Norman, CSEA Labor Relations Representative about the
grievance. Ms. Norman stated that the grievance did not have merit because Ms. Estacio had
been offered the route by the District and she rejected the assignment and accepted a different
route. Subsequently a less senior driver accepted the first route. During the summer that route
had an increase in hours which prompted Ms. Estacio to request assignment to the route. The
District denied her request.
On July 16, 2003, Becky Meredith, Director of Planning and Research, met with Ms. Norman
and Ms. Estacio. Mrs. Meredith requested more time to research the issue and Ms. Norman
agreed. On July 21, they met again with Alice Quayle, Supervisor of Transportation.
Management asserted that MS. Estacio was a bad employee but did not address why an
assignment was given to Bonnie Mellor, CSEA job steward, an employee with less seniority
than Ms. Estacio. After the July 16 meeting, Mrs. Meredith and Ms. Quayle began soliciting
statements from employees that Ms. Estacio was a threat. Employees who would benefit
monetarily or through favoritism submitted such statements.
On July 22, 2003, Mrs. Meredith denied the grievance. Ms. Meredith asserted that "I can find
no basis, other than the Department's need to efficiently accommodate student transportation,
that stops were added to summer route #66." As to Ms. Estacio's allegation that she was
working fewer hours than lower seniority drivers who were given routes which she could have
accepted, Ms. Meredith replied that "your supervisors attempted to accommodate your
concerns by assigning you summer route #66 after you voiced your displeasure at driving route
#9 "
On August 15, Mr. Mello, Associate Superintendent for Personnel Services, denied the
grievance. On August 27, 2003, CSEA requested the grievance be advanced to Step III,
arbitration, but indicated that CSEA would not represent Ms. Estacio in the arbitration. Ms.
Estacio requested that CSEA appeal the denial to arbitration. The request was denied by the
Chapter Executive Board. Ms. Estacio then appealed their decision under Policy 606 to the
State CSEA Board. CSEA Director of Field Operations Steve Fraga presented the case to the
State Board. The request was denied in October 2003.
The District school buses are equipped with cameras and VCRs to record conduct on the buses.
After some problems, the District limited access to the recorded tapes to certain employees
Ms. Estacio was given a time limit in which to observe a video tape from her bus. No one else
had a time limit. On August 15, 2003, Ms. Estacio asked her husband, a mechanic, to remove
a videotape from a bus without authorization from a supervisor as required by written policy.
When confronted, she admitted that she had tapes improperly removed several times prior.
On August 15, 2003, she completed her pre-driving inspection without reporting any damages
to her bus. However later that day the bus had a 12 inch dent in its side. Katie Powell,
Dispatcher/Supervisor, directed Ms. Estacio to fill out an accident report. Despite several
requests to provide a written statement regarding the damage required by district policy, she
took more than 25 days to provide such a statement.

SA-CO-503-E
July 1, 2005
Page 3
(
On August 20, 2003, Mr. Mello ended a meeting with Ms. Meredith, Ms. Estacio, and Ms.
Norman after Ms. Estacio continued efforts to discuss her grievance in spite of Mr. Mello
advising her that the purpose of the meeting was not to discuss her grievance but rather to
address the other drivers' perceptions of Ms. Estacio's displays of anger. Mr. Mello would not
accept a package of witness statements refuting management's theory that Ms. Estacio was a
threat to other employees.
On September 2, 2003, Ms. Estacio reported 1/4 hour of overtime which she did not work.
Between September 2 and September 18, 2003, Ms. Estacio reported 10 occasions of overtime
although she had been told previously not to work overtime. On September 5, 2003, Ms.
Quayle rode along with Ms. Estacio during her morning route. Her need to work overtime to
complete her bus route was inconsistent with the time required by substitute drivers to
complete her route. On September 18, 2003, Ms. Powell accompanied Ms. Estacio on her bus
route and noted that she drove well under safe posted speed limits and made unnecessary stops.
Although the morning and afternoon routes ran late, only one change was suggested.
However, it was never incorporated into the route.
Ms. Estacio was placed on paid administrative leave on September 19, 2003. The District
memorandum stated that there were concerns that needed to be investigated such as her failures
to drive in a safe manner, report an accident, comply with Transportation guidelines, work in a
cooperative manner with other employees, her unprofessional conduct directed at District
employees and threatening and/or taking retaliatory action against the other employees. The
letter advised her that she was to be available at home and that she was not to contact anyone at
work during the work day.
On September 23, 2003, Ms. Estacio contacted Ms. Powell advising her that she was going to
visit her sister in the hospital and that she could be reached by cell phone. Ms. Meredith asked
for verification from her sister's physician that would explain the necessity of Ms. Estacio
visiting the hospital. Ms. Estacio did not respond to the request, nor did she respond to two
subsequent letters. Mr. Norman advised Ms. Estacio that she did not have to be confined to
her home during the administrative leave. On October 14, 2003, CSEA representative Linda
Norman, acting on behalf of Ms. Estacio, sent a letter to the District refusing to provide the
information and disputing the District's right to even ask for this information. The District
never received an explanation.
On October 15, Ms. Estacio and Ms. Norman attended an investigatory meeting with Mr.
Mello. Ms. Norman had prepared Ms. Estacio prior to the meeting.
Mr. Mello via letter of November 10 advised Ms. Estacio that he would recommend to the
Modesto City School's Board of Education that she be dismissed as a classified employee from
the District. Ol;l. November 19, 2003, Ms. Estacio was notified that the Board had received the
recommendation that she be dismissed.
A disciplinary hearing was held before an ALJ and lasted four days. Ms. Estacio was
represented by Ms. Norman and Labor Relations Representative James Britton. Ms. Estacio's
SA-CO-503-E
July 1, 2005
Page 3
On August 20, 2003, Mr. Mello ended a meeting with Ms. Meredith, Ms. Estacio, and Ms.
Norman after Ms. Estacio continued efforts to discuss her grievance in spite of Mr. Mello
advising her that the purpose of the meeting was not to discuss her grievance but rather to
address the other drivers' perceptions of Ms. Estacio's displays of anger. Mr. Mello would not
accept a package of witness statements refuting management's theory that Ms. Estacio was a
threat to other employees.
On September 2, 2003, Ms. Estacio reported 1/4 hour of overtime which she did not work.
Between September 2 and September 18, 2003, Ms. Estacio reported 10 occasions of overtime
although she had been told previously not to work overtime. On September 5, 2003, Ms.
Quayle rode along with Ms. Estacio during her morning route. Her need to work overtime to
complete her bus route was inconsistent with the time required by substitute drivers to
complete her route. On September 18, 2003, Ms. Powell accompanied Ms. Estacio on her bus
route and noted that she drove well under safe posted speed limits and made unnecessary stops.
Although the morning and afternoon routes ran late, only one change was suggested.
However, it was never incorporated into the route.
Ms. Estacio was placed on paid administrative leave on September 19, 2003. The District
memorandum stated that there were concerns that needed to be investigated such as her failures
to drive in a safe manner, report an accident, comply with Transportation guidelines, work in a
cooperative manner with other employees, her unprofessional conduct directed at District
employees and threatening and/or taking retaliatory action against the other employees. The
letter advised her that she was to be available at home and that she was not to contact anyone at
work during the work day.
On September 23, 2003, Ms. Estacio contacted Ms. Powell advising her that she was going to
visit her sister in the hospital and that she could be reached by cell phone. Ms. Meredith asked
for verification from her sister's physician that would explain the necessity of Ms. Estacio
visiting the hospital. Ms. Estacio did not respond to the request, nor did she respond to two
subsequent letters. Mr. Norman advised Ms. Estacio that she did not have to be confined to
her home during the administrative leave. On October 14, 2003, CSEA representative Linda
Norman, acting on behalf of Ms. Estacio, sent a letter to the District refusing to provide the
information and disputing the District's right to even ask for this information. The District
never received an explanation.
On October 15, Ms. Estacio and Ms. Norman attended an investigatory meeting with Mr.
Mello. Ms. Norman had prepared Ms. Estacio prior to the meeting.
Mr. Mello via letter of November 10 advised Ms. Estacio that he would recommend to the
Modesto City School's Board of Education that she be dismissed as a classified employee from
the District. On November 19, 2003, Ms. Estacio was notified that the Board had received the
recommendation that she be dismissed
A disciplinary hearing was held before an ALJ and lasted four days. Ms. Estacio was
represented by Ms. Norman and Labor Relations Representative James Britton. Ms. Estacio's

-~~~"'!'•,q,~
SA-CO-503-E
July 1, 2005
Page 4
( 	(
request to be represented by an attorney was denied by CSEA as these cases are normally
presented by Labor Relations Representatives. Ms. Norman had a list of approximately 20
witnesses. Ms. Estacio had a list of approximately 60 witnesses.
In March 2004, after an evidentiary hearing before Administrative Law Judge Leonard Scott, a
proposed decision was issued which sustained the termination of Ms. Estacio and denied her
appeal of the same. All the witnesses who testified on behalf of the District received special
treatment or monetary compensation. The findings were that Ms. Estacio was involved in a
number of instances which subjected her to discipline: she removed a videotape from the bus
which she operated without the required authorization from her supervisor, she failed to report
damage to her bus which must have occurred while the bus was in her possession, and when
her supervisor, Kathryn Powell directed her to make a statement, Ms. Estacio failed and
refused to provide the required written statement in a timely manner. Ms. Estacio also falsely
claimed overtime hours which she had not earned because she did not have the prior approval
required. On April 6, 2004, the District Board of Trustees upheld ALJ Scott's decision and
terminated Ms. Estacio.
On June 25, 2004. the California School Employees Association filed an unfair practice charge
alleging that Ms. Estacio had been unlawfully terminated. 3 The charge was amended on
November 12, 2004. On November 29, 2004 the undersigned issued a dismissal letter in that
case. CSEA did not appeal the dismissal. On December 17, 2004, PERB denied Ms. Estacio's
attempts to file an appeal or request an extension of time.
:.,:•\t~:~--;-,<;'. ;_.,
Ms. Estacio had an Unemployment Insurance Hearing on August 4, 2004 to appeal the
District's denial of her application for unemployment benefits. Mr. Norman attended the
hearing and assisted Ms. Estacio but did not represent her because the hearing officer limited
participation to one individual and Ms. Estacio elected to represent herself.
This charge was filed on March 28, 2005. On April 12, 2005, CSEA responded to the charge.
Mr. Martinez
In February 2004 Mr. Martinez filed an administrative complaint against Supervisors of
Transportation Katie Powell and Alice Quayle.4 The complaint concerned the unfair treatment
of Ms. Estacio. On March 10, Mr. Martinez met with Mr. Mello, Ms. Norman, and Ms.
Meredith. During the meeting Mr. Mello asked Mr. Martinez why he hadn't followed the
chain of command, discussing the issue first with his supervisor. Mr. Mello declared the
complaint invalid, told Mr. Martinez to only make complaints through the union and
threatened Mr. Martinez with a slander lawsuit.
Mr. Martinez met with Ms. Norman after the meeting and Ms. Norman returned immediately
to Mr. Mella's office to meet regarding an insurance information request.
3 Unfair practice charge number SA-CE-2248-E.
4 All dates occurred in 2004 unless otherwise noted.
SA-CO-503-E
July 1, 2005
Page 4
request to be represented by an attorney was denied by CSEA as these cases are normally
presented by Labor Relations Representatives. Ms. Norman had a list of approximately 20
witnesses. Ms. Estacio had a list of approximately 60 witnesses.
In March 2004, after an evidentiary hearing before Administrative Law Judge Leonard Scott, a
proposed decision was issued which sustained the termination of Ms. Estacio and denied her
appeal of the same. All the witnesses who testified on behalf of the District received special
treatment or monetary compensation. The findings were that Ms. Estacio was involved in a
number of instances which subjected her to discipline: she removed a videotape from the bus
which she operated without the required authorization from her supervisor, she failed to report
damage to her bus which must have occurred while the bus was in her possession, and when
her supervisor, Kathryn Powell directed her to make a statement, Ms. Estacio failed and
refused to provide the required written statement in a timely manner. Ms. Estacio also falsely
claimed overtime hours which she had not earned because she did not have the prior approval
required. On April 6, 2004, the District Board of Trustees upheld ALJ Scott's decision and
terminated Ms. Estacio.
On June 25, 2004. the California School Employees Association filed an unfair practice charge
alleging that Ms. Estacio had been unlawfully terminated." The charge was amended on
November 12, 2004. On November 29, 2004 the undersigned issued a dismissal letter in that
case. CSEA did not appeal the dismissal. On December 17, 2004, PERB denied Ms. Estacio's
attempts to file an appeal or request an extension of time.
Ms. Estacio had an Unemployment Insurance Hearing on August 4, 2004 to appeal the
District's denial of her application for unemployment benefits. Mr. Norman attended the
hearing and assisted Ms. Estacio but did not represent her because the hearing officer limited
participation to one individual and Ms. Estacio elected to represent herself.
This charge was filed on March 28, 2005. On April 12, 2005, CSEA responded to the charge.
Mr. Martinez
In February 2004 Mr. Martinez filed an administrative complaint against Supervisors of
Transportation Katie Powell and Alice Quayle." The complaint concerned the unfair treatment
of Ms. Estacio. On March 10, Mr. Martinez met with Mr. Mello, Ms. Norman, and Ms.
Meredith. During the meeting Mr. Mello asked Mr. Martinez why he hadn't followed the
chain of command, discussing the issue first with his supervisor. Mr. Mello declared the
complaint invalid, told Mr. Martinez to only make complaints through the union and
threatened Mr. Martinez with a slander lawsuit.
Mr. Martinez met with Ms. Norman after the meeting and Ms. Norman returned immediately
to Mr. Mello's office to meet regarding an insurance information request.
Unfair practice charge number SA-CE-2248-E.
All dates occurred in 2004 unless otherwise noted.

SA-CO-503-E
July 1, 2005
Page 5
Mr. Martinez, Ms. Norman, and Mr. Mello met on March 17 regarding the complaint. Mr.
Martinez failed to provide any specifics to support his general allegations. Ms. Norman urged
Mr. Martinez to provide specific information to help the District correct the issues. Mr.
Martinez informed Mr. Mello that the meeting was futile. Eventually, the complaint was
dismissed.
Mr. Martinez took seven days of sick leave in late May. The collective bargaining agreement
between CSEA and the Modesto City School District allows the District to require employees
to provide medical verification for absences that the District suspects are inappropriate. 	He
failed to provide the District with verification for two of the days and was placed on
administrative leave for a few days to obtain the medical verifications.
At unspecified dates after the March 17 meeting, management began to refuse Mr. Martinez's
doctor notes and placed Mr. Martinez on paid administrative leave. Because Ms. Norman was
on vacation at the time, Mr. Martinez was represented by the CSEA Chapter President Ken
Oxley.
Mr. Martinez was instructed to remain at home. Ms. Norman did not challenge the
administrative leave decision or the requirement that Mr. Martinez was required to supply
additional documents as proof of illness. Ms. Norman sent e-mails to Mr. Martinez in June
asking him to contact her, however, Mr. Martinez did not respond. 	Ms. Norman asked Mr.
Martinez in person why he had not contacted her and he replied that he had been too busy with
school. She asked him to give her copies of the District papers he had received but he did not
do so.
On July 28, Mr. Martinez asked Ms. Norman to recuse herself from his case. The matter was
referred to River Delta Field Office Director Rose Roach and Director of Field Operations
Steve Fraga who declined to remove Ms. Norman from the case.
Mr. Martinez was absent from work without leave for a number of days. The District sent him
a letter on July 1, indicating that unless he contacted the District within five days, the District
would consider him to have abandoned his job. District Associate Superintendent for Human
Resources Chris Flesuras told Mr. Martinez on July 13, that he would not terminate him, but
that he would forego summer work based on his failure to report. Mr. Flesuras sent Mr.
Martinez a letter on July 26 that assured him that he would be employed in his regular 10
month position beginning on August 26, but reminded him that he must provide doctor's notes
for his previous absences prior to that time.
Mr. Martinez met with Ms. Norman on August 5, and provided her copies of the District's July
13 and 26 letters. He failed to provide copies of his doctor's notes although he had previously
promised Ms. Norman that he would bring them to the meeting. On August 6, Ms. Norman
requested the document by certified letter to Mr. Martinez. On August 12, Mr. Flesuras
informed Ms. Norman by electronic mail that the Turlock School District had offered Mr.
Martinez a bus driver position. On August 24, Mr. Flesuras informed Ms. Norman that Mr.
SA-CO-503-E
July 1, 2005
Page 5
Mr. Martinez, Ms. Norman, and Mr. Mello met on March 17 regarding the complaint. Mr.
Martinez failed to provide any specifics to support his general allegations. Ms. Norman urged
Mr. Martinez to provide specific information to help the District correct the issues. Mr.
Martinez informed Mr. Mello that the meeting was futile. Eventually, the complaint was
dismissed.
Mr. Martinez took seven days of sick leave in late May. The collective bargaining agreement
between CSEA and the Modesto City School District allows the District to require employees
to provide medical verification for absences that the District suspects are inappropriate. He
failed to provide the District with verification for two of the days and was placed on
administrative leave for a few days to obtain the medical verifications.
At unspecified dates after the March 17 meeting, management began to refuse Mr. Martinez's
doctor notes and placed Mr. Martinez on paid administrative leave. Because Ms. Norman was
on vacation at the time, Mr. Martinez was represented by the CSEA Chapter President Ken
Oxley.
Mr. Martinez was instructed to remain at home. Ms. Norman did not challenge the
administrative leave decision or the requirement that Mr. Martinez was required to supply
additional documents as proof of illness. Ms. Norman sent e-mails to Mr. Martinez in June
sking him to contact her, however, Mr. Martinez did not respond. Ms. Norman asked Mr.	a
Martinez in person why he had not contacted her and he replied that he had been too busy with
school. She asked him to give her copies of the District papers he had received but he did not
do so.
On July 28, Mr. Martinez asked Ms. Norman to recuse herself from his case. The matter was
referred to River Delta Field Office Director Rose Roach and Director of Field Operations
Steve Fraga who declined to remove Ms. Norman from the case.
Mr. Martinez was absent from work without leave for a number of days. The District sent him
a letter on July 1, indicating that unless he contacted the District within five days, the District
would consider him to have abandoned his job. District Associate Superintendent for Human
Resources Chris Flesuras told Mr. Martinez on July 13, that he would not terminate him, but
that he would forego summer work based on his failure to report. Mr. Flesuras sent Mr.
Martinez a letter on July 26 that assured him that he would be employed in his regular 10
month position beginning on August 26, but reminded him that he must provide doctor's notes
for his previous absences prior to that time.
Mr. Martinez met with Ms. Norman on August 5, and provided her copies of the District's July
13 and 26 letters. He failed to provide copies of his doctor's notes although he had previously
promised Ms. Norman that he would bring them to the meeting. On August 6, Ms. Norman
requested the document by certified letter to Mr. Martinez. On August 12, Mr. Flesuras
informed Ms. Norman by electronic mail that the Turlock School District had offered Mr.
Martinez a bus driver position. On August 24, Mr. Flesuras informed Ms. Norman that Mr.

SA-CO-503-E
July 1, 2005
Page 6
( 	(
Martinez had accepted the job with Turlock but had not resigned from the Modesto City
School District and had not provided the doctor's notes as requested.
Mr. Martinez did not report for work with the other drivers on August 26. The District
intended to terminate him for abandonment of his job. Ms. Norman met with Mr. Martinez
and Mr. Flesuras on August 27.
On August 27, 2004, Mr. Martinez signed a document of resignation including a waiver or
release of all claims against the District. Ms. Norman informed him that this was standard
language. The document also included provisions that required the District to remove all prior
disciplinary actions from his personnel file and pay him an amount equal to four weeks of
summer service.
Discussion
Ms. Estacio and Mr. Martinez assert that CSEA failed to comply with its duty to fairly
represent them in their employment with the District.
Charging Party has alleged that the exclusive representative denied Charging Party the right to
fair representation guaranteed by EERA section 3544.9 and thereby violated section 3543.6(b).
The duty of fair representation imposed on the exclusive representative extends to grievance
handling. (Fremont Teachers Association (King) (1980) PERB Decision No. 125; United
Teachers of Los Angeles (Collins) (1982) PERB Decision No. 258.) In order to state a prima
facie violation of this section of EERA, Charging Party must show that the Respondent's
conduct was arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith. 	In United Teachers of Los Angeles
(Collins), the Public Employment Relations Board stated:
Absent bad faith, discrimination, or arbitrary conduct, mere
negligence or poor judgment in handling a grievance does not
constitute a breach of the union's duty. 	[Citations omitted.]
A union may exercise its discretion to determine how far to
pursue a grievance in the employee's behalf as long as it does not
arbitrarily ignore a meritorious grievance or process a grievance
in a perfunctory fashion. A union is also not required to process
an employee's grievance if the chances for success are minimal.
In order to state a prima facie case of arbitrary conduct violating the duty of fair representation,
a Charging Party:
" ... must at a minimum include an assertion of sufficient facts
from which it becomes apparent how or in what manner the
exclusive representative's action or inaction was without a
rational basis or devoid of honest judgment. (Emphasis added.)"
[Reed District Teachers Association, CTA/NEA (Reyes) (1983)
SA-CO-503-E
July 1, 2005
Page 6
Martinez had accepted the job with Turlock but had not resigned from the Modesto City
School District and had not provided the doctor's notes as requested.
Mr. Martinez did not report for work with the other drivers on August 26. The District
intended to terminate him for abandonment of his job. Ms. Norman met with Mr. Martinez
and Mr. Flesuras on August 27.
On August 27, 2004, Mr. Martinez signed a document of resignation including a waiver or
release of all claims against the District. Ms. Norman informed him that this was standard
language. The document also included provisions that required the District to remove all prior
disciplinary actions from his personnel file and pay him an amount equal to four weeks of
summer service.
Discussion
Ms. Estacio and Mr. Martinez assert that CSEA failed to comply with its duty to fairly
represent them in their employment with the District.
Charging Party has alleged that the exclusive representative denied Charging Party the right to
fair representation guaranteed by EERA section 3544.9 and thereby violated section 3543.6(b).
The duty of fair representation imposed on the exclusive representative extends to grievance
handling. (Fremont Teachers Association (King) (1980) PERB Decision No. 125; United
Teachers of Los Angeles (Collins) (1982) PERB Decision No. 258.) In order to state a prima
facie violation of this section of EERA, Charging Party must show that the Respondent's
conduct was arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith. In United Teachers of Los Angeles
(Collins), the Public Employment Relations Board stated:
Absent bad faith, discrimination, or arbitrary conduct, mere
negligence or poor judgment in handling a grievance does not
constitute a breach of the union's duty. [Citations omitted.]
A union may exercise its discretion to determine how far to
pursue a grievance in the employee's behalf as long as it does not
arbitrarily ignore a meritorious grievance or process a grievance
in a perfunctory fashion. A union is also not required to process
an employee's grievance if the chances for success are minimal.
In order to state a prima facie case of arbitrary conduct violating the duty of fair representation,
a Charging Party:
". . . must at a minimum include an assertion of sufficient facts
from which it becomes apparent how or in what manner the
exclusive representative's action or inaction was without a
rational basis or devoid of honest judgment. (Emphasis added.)"
Reed District Teachers Association, CTA/NEA (Reyes) (1983)

SA-CO-503-E
July 1, 2005
Page 7
( 	(
PERB Decision No. 332, p. 9, citing Rocklin Teachers
Professional Association (Romero) (1980) PERB Decision
No. 124.]
With regard to when "mere negligence" might constitute arbitrary conduct, the Board observed
in Coalition of University Employees (Buxton) (2003) PERB Decision No. 1517-H that, under
federal precedent, a union's negligence breaches the duty of fair representation "in cases in
which the individual interest at stake is strong and the union's failure to perform a ministerial
act completely extinguishes the employee's right to pursue his claim." (Quoting Dutrisac v.
Caterpillar Tractor Co. (9th Cir. 1983) 749 F.2d 1270 [113 LRRM 3532], at p. 1274; see also,
Robesky v. Quantas Empire Airways Limited (9th Cir. 1978) 573 F.2d 1082 [98 LRRM 2090].)
Based on the information provided in the charge and gathered during the investigation, this
charge does not state a prima facie violation of the EERA for the following reasons.
Estacio June 24, 2003 grievance
CSEA representative Norman initially indicated that this grievance did not have merit because
Ms. Estacio have been offered the route in question and chose to reject the route. Ms. Norman
met twice with Ms. Estacio and District representatives in an effort to resolve the grievance.
After the District denied the grievance, CSEApreserved Ms. Estacio's right to proceed to
arbitration but indicated that it would not represent Ms. Estacio in the arbitration. Ms. Estacio
appealed CSEA' s decision to the Chapter Executive Board and the State CSEA Board. The
appeals were denied, the last one in October 2003.
EERA section 3541.5(a)(l) prohibits PERB from issuing a complaint with respect to "any
charge based upon an alleged unfair practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing
of the charge." The limitations period begins to run once the charging party knows, or should
have known, of the conduct underlying the charge. (Gavilan Joint Community College District
(1996) PERB Decision No. 1177.) The statute of limitations is an affirmative defense which
has been raised by the respondent in this case. (Long Beach Community College District
(2003) PERB Decision No. 1564.) Therefore, charging party now bears the burden of
demonstrating that the charge is timely filed. (cf. Tehachapi Unified School District (1993)
PERB Decision No. 1024; State of California (Department oflnsurance) (1997) PERB
Decision No. 1197-S.) 	'
This allegation is untimely because the statute of limitations began to run with the denial in
October 2003 and the charge was not filed until March 28, 2005.
Estacio Termination
Ms. Norman accompanied Ms. Estacio to an investigatory meeting with the District on October
15, 2003. Ms. Norman and Mr. Britton represented Ms. Estacio at her termination hearing
before ALJ Scott in February 2004 although Ms. Estacio had requested an attorney. Ms.
Norman called fewer witnesses to testify than Ms. Estacio had requested. The District
SA-CO-503-E
July 1, 2005
Page 7
PERB Decision No. 332, p. 9, citing Rocklin Teachers
Professional Association (Romero) (1980) PERB Decision
No. 124.]
With regard to when "mere negligence" might constitute arbitrary conduct, the Board observed
in Coalition of University Employees (Buxton) (2003) PERB Decision No. 1517-H that, under
federal precedent, a union's negligence breaches the duty of fair representation "in cases in
which the individual interest at stake is strong and the union's failure to perform a ministerial
act completely extinguishes the employee's right to pursue his claim." (Quoting Dutrisac v.
Caterpillar Tractor Co. (9" Cir. 1983) 749 F.2d 1270 [113 LRRM 3532], at p. 1274; see also,
Robesky v. Quantas Empire Airways Limited (9" Cir. 1978) 573 F.2d 1082 [98 LRRM 2090].)
Based on the information provided in the charge and gathered during the investigation, this
charge does not state a prima facie violation of the EERA for the following reasons.
Estacio June 24. 2003 grievance
CSEA representative Norman initially indicated that this grievance did not have merit because
Ms. Estacio have been offered the route in question and chose to reject the route. Ms. Norman
met twice with Ms. Estacio and District representatives in an effort to resolve the grievance.
After the District denied the grievance, CSEA preserved Ms. Estacio's right to proceed to
arbitration but indicated that it would not represent Ms. Estacio in the arbitration. Ms. Estacio
appealed CSEA's decision to the Chapter Executive Board and the State CSEA Board. The
appeals were denied, the last one in October 2003.
EERA section 3541.5(a)(1) prohibits PERB from issuing a complaint with respect to "any
charge based upon an alleged unfair practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing
of the charge." The limitations period begins to run once the charging party knows, or should
have known, of the conduct underlying the charge. (Gavilan Joint Community College District
(1996) PERB Decision No. 1177.) The statute of limitations is an affirmative defense which
has been raised by the respondent in this case. (Long Beach Community College District
(2003) PERB Decision No. 1564.) Therefore, charging party now bears the burden of
demonstrating that the charge is timely filed. (cf. Tehachapi Unified School District (1993)
PERB Decision No. 1024; State of California (Department of Insurance) (1997) PERB
Decision No. 1197-S.)
This allegation is untimely because the statute of limitations began to run with the denial in
October 2003 and the charge was not filed until March 28, 2005.
Estacio Termination
Ms. Norman accompanied Ms. Estacio to an investigatory meeting with the District on October
15, 2003. Ms. Norman and Mr. Britton represented Ms. Estacio at her termination hearing
before ALJ Scott in February 2004 although Ms. Estacio had requested an attorney. Ms.
Norman called fewer witnesses to testify than Ms. Estacio had requested. The District

SA-CO-503-E
July 1, 2005
Page 8
( 	(
accepted the ALJ'-s determination to uphold the termination. CSEA filed an unfair practice
with PERB to challenge the termination. The charge was dismissed on November 29, 2004
and CSEA did not appeal.
With respect to CSEA's conduct at the February 2004 hearing, this allegation is untimely
because it occurred more than 6 months prior to the filing of the charge. Even if the allegation
was timely filed, Ms. Estacio is not entitled to a representative of her choosing. Rather, the
exclusive representative determines who will represent her. (American Federation of Teachers
College Guild, Local 1521 (Saxton) (1995) PERB Decision No. 1109.)
With respect to CSEA' s conduct in pursuing the unfair practice charge, the duty of fair
representation does not apply to the pursuit of claims in a noncontractual administrative forum
such as PERB. (California School Employees Association (DeLauer) (2003) PERB Decision
No. 1523.) Therefore CSEA's refusal to appeal the dismissal is not a violation of the duty of
fair representation.
Mr. Martinez's February 2004 complaint
Ms. Norman represented Mr. Martinez in two meetings with the District regarding his
complaint of unfair treatment. When Ms. Norman requested that he provide specific
information, Mr. Martinez declared the process futile and the complaint was eventually
dismissed. These events occurred more than six months prior to the filing of this charge and
are therefore untimely. Even if the allegations were timely, there is nothing in the charge that
demonstrates Ms. Norman's conduct was arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith. 	Therefore
this allegation must be dismissed.
Mr. Martinez's administrative leave and resignation
Ms. Norman and Mr. Oxley represented Mr. Martinez regarding the District's decision to place
him on administrative leave. Ms. Norman contacted Mr. Martinez by e-mail and in person
during the summer of 2004. During this same period River Delta Field Office Director Rose
Roach and Director of Field Operations Steve Fraga reviewed and denied Mr. Martinez's
request to remove Ms. Norman from the case. Ms. Norman met with Mr. Martinez and District
representatives on August 27, 2004. As a result of this meeting, Mr. Martinez resigned from
Dfatrict employment and received pay equivalent to four weeks of summer service. These
events occurred more than six months prior to the filing of this charge. and are therefore
untimely.
Even if the allegations were timely, there is nothing in the charge that demonstrates that Ms.
Norman's or the other Association representative's conduct was arbitrary, discriminatory or in
bad faith. 	Therefore this allegation 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
SA-CO-503-E
July 1, 2005
Page 8
accepted the ALJ's determination to uphold the termination. CSEA filed an unfair practice
with PERB to challenge the termination. The charge was dismissed on November 29, 2004
and CSEA did not appeal.
With respect to CSEA's conduct at the February 2004 hearing, this allegation is untimely
because it occurred more than 6 months prior to the filing of the charge. Even if the allegation
was timely filed, Ms. Estacio is not entitled to a representative of her choosing. Rather, the
exclusive representative determines who will represent her. (American Federation of Teachers
College Guild, Local 1521 (Saxton) (1995) PERB Decision No. 1109.)
With respect to CSEA's conduct in pursuing the unfair practice charge, the duty of fair
representation does not apply to the pursuit of claims in a noncontractual administrative forum
such as PERB. (California School Employees Association (DeLauer) (2003) PERB Decision
No. 1523.) Therefore CSEA's refusal to appeal the dismissal is not a violation of the duty of
fair representation.
Mr. Martinez's February 2004 complaint
Ms. Norman represented Mr. Martinez in two meetings with the District regarding his
complaint of unfair treatment. When Ms. Norman requested that he provide specific
information, Mr. Martinez declared the process futile and the complaint was eventually
dismissed. These events occurred more than six months prior to the filing of this charge and
are therefore untimely. Even if the allegations were timely, there is nothing in the charge that
demonstrates Ms. Norman's conduct was arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith. Therefore
this allegation must be dismissed.
Mr. Martinez's administrative leave and resignation
Ms. Norman and Mr. Oxley represented Mr. Martinez regarding the District's decision to place
him on administrative leave. Ms. Norman contacted Mr. Martinez by e-mail and in person
during the summer of 2004. During this same period River Delta Field Office Director Rose
Roach and Director of Field Operations Steve Fraga reviewed and denied Mr. Martinez's
request to remove Ms. Norman from the case. Ms. Norman met with Mr. Martinez and District
representatives on August 27, 2004. As a result of this meeting, Mr. Martinez resigned from
District employment and received pay equivalent to four weeks of summer service. These
events occurred more than six months prior to the filing of this charge and are therefore
untimely.
Even if the allegations were timely, there is nothing in the charge that demonstrates that Ms.
Norman's or the other Association representative's conduct was arbitrary, discriminatory or in
bad faith. Therefore this allegation 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

SA-CO-503-E
July 1, 2005
Page 9
(
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
comer 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 July 15, 2005, I shall dismiss your charge. If
you have any questions, please call me at the above telephone number.
Sid~~rely,
/!~Robert Thompson
General Counsel
SA-CO-503-E
July 1, 2005
Page 9
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
mended charge or withdrawal from you before July 15, 2005, I shall dismiss your charge. If	a
you have any questions, please call me at the above telephone number.
Sincerely,
Robert Thompson
General Counsel