Santa Cruz County Superior Court (PERB 1931I)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
CALIFORNIA FEDERATION OF
INTERPRETERS/TNG/CW A,
Charging Party,
V.
SANTA CRUZ COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT,
Respondent.
Case No. SF-CE-6-I
PERB Decision No. 	1931-I
November 29, 2007
Appearances: 	Beeson, Tayer & Bodine by Sheila K. Sexton, Attorney, for California
Federation oflnterpreters/TNG/CWA; Wiley, Price & Radulovich by Joseph E. Wiley,
Attorney, for Santa Cruz County Superior Court.
Before Neuwald, Chair; McKeag and Rystrom, Members.
DECISION
NEUW ALD, Chair: 	This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on appeal by the California Federation oflnterpreters/TNG/CWA (Union) of
a Board agent's partial dismissal of an unfair practice charge. 	In regards to the partial
dismissal, the charge alleged that the Santa Cruz County Superior Court (Court) violated the
Trial Court Interpreter Employment and Labor Relations Act (Court Interpreter Act)1 by the
following acts: 	(1) giving independent contractors priority for assignments over employees, in
violation of Section 71802(c)(l); (2) hiring non-certified/registered independent contractors
despite the availability of certified and registered contractors for the same work, in violation of
Section 71802( d); and (3) retaliating against bargaining unit employees for their exercise of
protected rights, in violation of Section 71805(±).
1The Court Interpreter Act is codified at Government Code section 71800, et seq. Unless
otherwise indicated, all statutory references herein are to the Government Code.

The Board reviewed the entire record, including the unfair practice charge, the amended
unfair practice charge, the warning and partial dismissal letters, the Court's response to the
charges, the complaint, the Union's appeal of the partial dismissal, and the Court's response to
the Union's appeal. 	The Board affirms the Board agent's partial dismissal subject to the
discussion below.2
BACKGROUND
The Union is the exclusive representative of all employees of the Superior Courts of
California in Region 2 that provide language interpretation services in court and related
proceedings. The Court is a member of Region 2 as defined by the Court Interpreter Act.
The Union filed an unfair practice charge with PERB on March 15, 2006. 	The events
upon which this partial dismissal is based began on or around July 5, 2005,3 when the Court
hired a large number of independent contractors for a multi-defendant preliminary examination
(PX) referred to as the "Honda Express."4 In late August, the Union heard rumors that the
Court was paying premium rates to independent contractors hired to work on the Honda
Express PX. As such, on August 25, the Union made an information request to which the
Court responded on September 14. The written request for information sought information on
interpreter calendaring, activity logs, and compensation data. The data showed that both
certified and non-certified contract interpreters were paid a per diem amount that was
significantly higher than the standard rate. For example, certified contract interpreters were
hired and paid for each day as follows:
The Board is not adopting the warning and dismissal letters as decisions of the Board
itself.
3Unless otherwise stated, all date references are to the year 2005.
4The mere fact that the Court was hiring additional contract interpreters was neither a
violation of the Court Interpreter Act nor cause for the Union to believe that the Court
Interpreter Act had been violated.
2

Raul Hernandez, $800 per day plus travel from Turlock, California, July 6-8,
11-15, 18-22 and 25-29.
Jose Zavala, $720 per day, July 5-7.
Mila Magallanes, $1,000 per day, July 7-8, 11-15, 18-22, 26-29, August 10-12
and 15-19.
Mario Guzman, $960 per day, July 12-14, 18-21 and 25-29.
Irene Tenney, $1,000 per day, July 7-8, 11-15, 18-22, 25-29, August 10-12 and
15-19.
Edgar Rivera, $720 per day plus travel from Los Angeles, meals and lodging,
July 18-22, 25-29, August 8-12 and 15-19.
Alex Teran, $750 per day, July 5-6, and $675, July 7-8.
Araceli Zavala, $450 per day, July 1, 7, 15, 29, August 2-3, 5, 8-10, 12, 15-17
and 19.
Additional certified contract interpreters hired at the regular rate plus travel, meals and lodging
include Juan Jose Negrete, Joseph Tobin, Andrew Erickson, Melvyn Quinones, Ursula
Shlaepfer, Esther Navarro-Hall and Glen Garcia. 5
The standard rate of pay for non-certified contractors was $175 per day and $92 per
half day. The Court hired a number of non-certified contract interpreters who were paid
significantly higher than the standard rate. The Court began seeking out non-certified contract
interpreters from the start of the PX, before it completed a diligent search for certified
interpreters. 	Examples of non-certified contract interpreter hired include:
Rosa Hernandez, $600 per day plus travel, July 18-22 and 25-29.
5Rates paid to Melvyn Quinones, Ursula Shlaepfer, Esther Navarro-Hall and Glen
Garcia were unknown.
3

David Perez, $225 per half-day and $300 per full day plus travel from
Los Angeles, July 6-8.
Daniel Zavala, $300 per full day plus travel from Windsor, California, meals
and lodging, July 7-8, 11-15, 18-22 and 25-29.
Gabriela Saks, $175 per full day plus local mileage, July 5, 11, 13-14, 18-19 and
25.
The amount of $200 per day was paid for the following non-certified contract interpreters for a
combined total of 61 days: 	Mario Vilchis-Gutierrez, Joshua Mattei, Marie Cardon, Brenda
Oliver and Irene Elias.
The Court also hired cross-assigned employee interpreters from other courts as follows:
Alex Teran, from Santa Clara, $65 per hour ( or $520 per day), July 11-15, 18-
22, 25-29, and August 22-26.
Maria Galves, from Sonoma, at an unknown rate, July 25-28.
Marta Duncan, from Santa Clara, $400 per day, August 24-25.
Ana de Trinidad, from Santa Clara, $365 per day, August 25.
Thelma Oros Fotedar, from Santa Clara, $365 per day, August 25.
After the Honda Express PX concluded on September 27, the Court continued to
employ contract interpreters for the same premium rates of pay and with similar working
conditions as the Honda Express trial.
On December 19, 2006, the Board agent issued a partial dismissal because all events
prior to September 14, 2005, were untimely.
APPEAL
The Union's sole appeal to the Board agent's partial dismissal was limited solely to the
finding regarding the statute of limitations. Specifically, the Union argues that it
4

was entitled to a reasonable amount of time to review the Court's
voluminous response to the Union's information request. 	It was
only after review of this information that the Union became
aware of the extraordinarily high compensation and other types of
favorable treatment being afforded independent contractor[ s] as
compared with members of the bargaining unit who were
performing the same duties.
The Union "was required not only to review each invoice presented to the Union on
September 14, 2005, but it then had to contact members of the bargaining unit to determine
whether they had been offered the same premiums."
OPPOSITION TO APPEAL
The Court argues that the Board agent's partial dismissal was correct.
DECISION
Court Interpreter Act section 71825(c) provides, in part:
The board shall not issue a complaint in respect of any charge
based upon an alleged unfair practice occurring more than six
months prior to the filing of the charge, except that if the rules
and regulations adopted by a regional court interpreter
employment relations committee require exhaustion of a remedy
prior to filing an unfair practice charge or the charging party
chooses to exhaust a regional court interpreter employment
relations committee's remedy prior to filing an unfair practice
charge, the six-month limitation set forth in this subsection shall
be tolled during such reasonable amount of time it takes the
charging party to exhaust the remedy, but nothing herein shall
require a charging party to exhaust a remedy when that remedy
would be futile.
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. 11 77.)6 In this case, the Union filed an unfair practice charge with
PERB on March 15, 2006. 	Six months prior to March 15, 2006 was September 15, 2005.
When interpreting the Court Interpreter Act, it is appropriate to take guidance from
cases interpreting the National Labor Relations Act and California labor relations statutes with
parallel provisions. 	(Sec. 71826(b); Firefighters Union v. City of Vallejo (1974) 12 Cal.3d 608
[ 116 Cal.Rptr. 507].)
5

Therefore, all allegations that occurred prior to September 14, 2005, were untimely and
correctly dismissed by the Board agent.
ORDER
The partial dismissal of the unfair practice charge in Case No. SF-CE-6-I is hereby
AFFIRMED.
Members McKeag and Rystrom joined in this Decision.
6