United Teachers of Los Angeles (Adams) (PERB 2012E)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
JOHN W. ADAMS,
Charging Party,
v.
UNITED TEACHERS OF LOS ANGELES,
Respondent.
Case No. LA-CO-1339-E
PERB Decision No. 	2012
March 13, 2009
Appearance: 	John W. Adams, on his own behalf.
Before Rystrom, Chair; Neuwald and Wesley, Members.
DECISION
WESLEY, Member: 	This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(Board) on appeal by John W. Adams (Adams) of a Board agent's dismissal (attached) of his
unfair practice charge. 	The charge alleged that Adams sought assistance from the United
Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA) on several issues against the Los Angeles Unified School
District, beginning in March 2006, and that UTLA either refused to pursue, or did not
adequately pursue, these matters in violation of the duty of fair representation under the
Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA).1
The Board has reviewed the entire record in this matter, including but not limited to, the
original and amended unfair practice charge, the Board agent's warning and dismissal letters,
and Adams' original and amended appeals. 	Based on this review, the Board finds the Board
agent's warning and dismissal letters to be a correct statement of the law and well reasoned,
and therefore adopts them as the decision of the Board itself.
IEERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq.

ORDER
The unfair practice charge in Case No. LA-CO-1339-E is hereby DISMISSED
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
Chair Rystrom and Member Neuwald joined in this Decision.
2

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
PER
Los Angeles Regional Office
3530 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1435
Los Angeles, CA 90010-2334
Telephone: (213) 736-2907
Fax:(213)736-4901
August 7, 2008
John W. Adams
Re: 	John W. Adams v. United Teachers of Los Angeles
Unfair Practice Charge No. LA-CO-1339-E
DISMISSAL LETTER
Dear Mr. Adams:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on April 3, 2008 by John ,V. Adams (Adams or Charging Party). On
June 13, 2008, Adams filed an amended charge. Adams alleges that the United Teachers of
Los Angeles (UTLA) violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA)1 by
breaching its duty of fair representation.
Adams was informed in the attached Warning Letter dated July 15, 2008, that the above-
referenced charge did not state a prima facie case. 	Adams was advised that, if there were any
factual inaccuracies or additional facts that would correct the deficiencies explained in that
letter, he should amend the charge. 	Adams was further advised that, unless he amended the
charge to state a prima facie case or withdrew it prior to July 23, 2008, the charge would be
dismissed. 	On July 29, 2008, the undersigned contacted Adams to inform him that this office
did not receive a withdrawal or an amended charge. 	Adams stated that he was unsure whether
he should amend the charge. 	The undersigned informed Adams that unless he filed an
amended charge or withdrawal by August 1, 2008, the charge would be dismissed. On July 31,
2008, Adams filed an amended charge.
Facts Alleged in the Prior Charges
In the July 31, 2008 amended charge, Adams alleges some new facts, but does not include a
statement of all allegations on which he relies on to meet his burden of stating a prima facie
case, as required by PERB Regulation 32621.2 In an effort to facilitate understanding of the
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 PERB's Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq. 	Because certain allegations that appear in the original charge are not repeated in
the most recent amended charge, those allegations are not properly filed.
B

LA-CO-1339-E
August 7, 2008
Page 2
issues raised in the July 31, 2008 amended charge, the following is a brief recitation of the
relevant facts alleged in Adams' earlier charges, as these facts relate to Adams' new
allegations ? A more detailed discussion of these facts can be found in the July 15, 2008
Warning Letter.
In January 2008, Adams' employer Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) issued to
Adams a "Notice of Unsatisfactory Acts" and a five-day suspension. 	At Adams' request,
UTLA representative Bruce Williams informed Adams that he would appeal LAUSD's actions
through the discipline appeal process. 	Around that time, Adams requested that ULTA assist
him with other issues, such as LAUSD's denial of seven days worth of "filer time" pay and
LAUSD's requirement that Adams undergo a psychiatric evaluation prior to returning to work.
Adams also requested an update on an earlier filed grievance concerning LAUSD's failure to
abide by student discipline policies.
Regarding the "filler pay" grievance, Williams informed Adams a grievance would be
untimely but, at Adams' insistence, Williams filed a grievance on that issue anyway. That
grievance was later denied by LAUSD as untimely and UTLA declined to take it to arbitration.
Regarding the psychiatric evaluation requirement, Williams informed Adams that LAUSD had
the authority to order such an evaluation but that Adams should request that LAUSD confirm
its order to undergo the evaluation in writing. Williams also stated that Adams should not be
required to use his sick leave or other personal leave time for the evaluation. 	Williams stated
that he would address the Notice of Unsatisfactory Acts, the five-day suspension, the
psychiatric evaluation requirement, and the student discipline policies during the discipline
appeal hearing.
Williams subsequently advised Adams that one reason that the discipline hearing had not been
scheduled was because Adams had not agreed to return to work. 	LAUSD does not typically
schedule discipline appeal hearings for employees who are absent.
Facts Alleged in the July 31, 2008 Amended Charge
In the July 31, 2008 amended charge, Adams asserts that the discipline appeal hearing has not
been held yet. Adams also alleges that, on June 30, 2008 LAUSD terminated his employment.
Adams informed UTLA of his termination on July 28, 2008.
3 In Adams' earlier filed charges in this case, Adams also makes several other
allegations that are not addressed further in the July 31, 2008 amended charge. 	Because those
allegations were addressed in the July 15, 2008 Warning Letter and no new information or
argument was provided regarding them, these allegations are dismissed for the reasons
discussed in the Warning Letter.

LA-CO-1339-E
August 7, 2008
Page 3
Discussion
As explained in the July 15, 2008 Warning Letter, to establish a violation of the duty of fair
representation guaranteed by EERA section 3544.9, Adams must demonstrate that UTLA's
actions or inactions were arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. 	(See Los Banos Teachers
Association (Ulmschneider) (2007) PERB Decision No. 1922; Reed District Teachers
Association, CTA/NEA (Reyes) (1983) PERB Decision No. 332.) Adams does not allege
sufficient facts in the amended charge to meet this burden.
Adams contends that UTLA failed to address the issues regarding his discipline, the
psychiatric evaluation requirement, and his grievance regarding the student discipline policy
because no discipline appeal meeting has yet been held or scheduled. However, Adams does
not establish that UTLA is responsible for any delays in scheduling of the hearing. Rather, it
appears that Adams' own decision not to return to work may be delaying the resolution of
these issues. Williams informed Adams that one of the reasons why no appeal hearing had
been set was because Adams continued to be absent without justification. 	Accordingly, Adams
has not demonstrated arbitrary, retaliatory, or bad faith conduct by UTLA.
Moreover, as stated in the July 15, 2008 Warning Letter, the Board has held that it is not a
breach of the duty of fair representation to delay the resolution of grievances where the union
preserved any timelines for filing an appropriate action and where the length of the grievance
did not foreclose the employee's ability to obtain a remedy. 	(Service Employees International
Union, Local 250 (Hessong) (2004) PERB Decision No. 1693-M.) In the present, case Adams
has not demonstrated that UTLA failed to preserve any of the relevant timelines to address
Adams' issues, or that UTLA's actions foreclosed Adams' ability to obtain a remedy. 	For
these reasons, Adams does not establish that UTLA breached its duty of fair representation and
this allegation is dismissed.
Adams also alleges that Williams incorrectly advised him that LAUSD had the authority to
require that he undergo a psychiatric evaluation prior to returning to work. Adams does not
provide sufficient information to conclude the reasons, if any, that Williams'' statement was
inaccurate. Adams only states that his attorneys informed him that LAUSD had no such
authority. As stated in the July 15, 2008 Warning Letter, mere conclusory remarks are
insufficient to state a prima facie case. 	(See State of California (Department of Food and
Agriculture) (1994) PERB Decision No. 1071-S; Charter Oak Unified School District (1991)
PERB Decision No. 873.) Therefore, the conclusory remarks of either Adams or his attorneys
are not sufficient to meet the burden of stating a prima facie case. 	Moreover, even if Williams'
gave Adams incorrect information, Adams does not establish that Williams' conduct was more
than mere negligence, which, as stated in the July 15, 2008 Warning Letter, is typically
insufficient to constitute a breach of the duty of fair representation. 	(See United Teachers of
Los Angeles (Collins) (1982) PERB Decision No. 258.) Accordingly, Adams has not
demonstrated that Williams' conduct was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. 	(See
Los Banos Teachers Association (Ulmschneider) (2007) PERB Decision No. 1922.)
Accordingly, this allegation is dismissed.

(
LA-CO-1339-E
August 7, 2008
Page 4
Adams also alleges that Wiliams's statement contradicted his earlier advice that Adams obtain
written confirmation of the psychiatric evaluation requirement from LAUSD and that Adams
not use personal leave during the time it would take for the evaluation. 	Adams does not
explain how this statement contradicts Williams' earlier statement that LAUSD had the
authority to order a psychiatric evaluation. Williams never advised Adams not to undergo the
evaluation ordered by LAUSD, only that Adams LAUSD should first confirm its order in
writing and that Adams should not be required to use his sick days or other personal leave for
the evaluation. 	Furthermore, even if the advice were contradictory, Adams does not
demonstrate that Williams' actions constituted more than mere negligence. 	(Collins, supra,
PERB Decision No. 258.) For these reasons, this allegation does not state a prima facie case
and is dismissed.
Adams also states that, on July 28, 2008, he notified UTLA by letter that LAUSD terminated
his employment on June 30, 2008. By July 31, 2008, the date of the most recent amended
charge, UTLA has not responded to Adams' letter. Adams demands to know what UTLA is
doing to prevent further harm to him, but Adams did not request that UTLA initiate the
grievance process or take some other specific action over the termination. 	Therefore, it is
unclear what actions, if any, Adams contends to be the breach of UTLA's duty of fair
representation. 	Even if the duty of fair representation required UTLA to take some action on
Adams' behalf, Adams does not establish how failing to take such action during the three-day
period at issue here constitutes a breach of the duty of that duty. 	As noted in the July 15, 2008
Warning Letter and above, the timeliness of a union's actions does not breach the duty of fair
representation where any delay in action does not foreclose the employee's ability to obtain a
remedy. (See Hessong, supra, (2004) PERB Decision No. 1693-M.) Here, Adams does not
demonstrate that UTLA's failure to act between July 28, 2008 and July 31, 2008 foreclosed his
ability to obtain assistance from UTLA. 	Therefore, this allegation does not state a prima facie
case and is dismissed.
Adams also alleges that UTLA gave preferential treatment to another unit member because it
assisted that member after he was involuntarily transferred to another school site. 	Adams does
not provide sufficient facts to demonstrate that his circumstances were similar to the other unit
member, warranting similar treatment. 	Thus, Adams does not demonstrate how UTLA's
treatment of this other unit member is relevant to the present case. 	In addition, as stated in the
July 15, 2008 Warning Letter, UTLA has discretion regarding how to pursue grievances and
other complaints from unit members. 	(See California Teachers Association and Oakland
Education Association (Welch) (2006) PERB Decision No. 1850; Public Employees Union 1
(2005) PERB Decision No. 1780-M; College of the Canyons Faculty Association (Lynn)
(2004) PERB Decision No. 1706.) In this case, UTLA filed grievances and pursued a
discipline appeal on Adams' behalf. Those actions are still pending. 	Adams does not
demonstrate how UTLA's representation with respect to these or other matters was arbitrary,
discriminatory, or in bad faith. 	Accordingly, this allegation is dismissed.
Adams also alleges that UTLA breached the duty of fair representation when it denied Adams'
grievance regarding seven days of missing filer pay. As stated in the July 15, 2008 Warning
Letter, a union is not required to pursue grievances that it believes are unmeritorious. 	(Lynn,- -

LA-CO-1339-E
August 7, 2008
Page 5
supra, PERB Decision No. 1706.) The Warning Letter also noted that Adams was informed
that a grievance on this issue was not timely because the alleged denial of pay occurred outside
time frame for filing grievances. 	Adams was given the opportunity to appeal UTLA's decision
not to pursue the grievance and he does not allege that he did so. Adams has not provided any
additional information supporting this allegation. Therefore, it is dismissed for the reasons
discussed in the July 15, 2008 Warning 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 during a regular PERB business day.
(Regulations 32135(a) and 32130; see also Government Code section l1020(a).) A document
is also considered "filed" when received by facsimile transmission before the close of business
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 95811-4124
(916)322-8231
FAX: (916) 327-7960
If you file a timely appeal of the refusal to issue a complaint, any other party may fie 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.) 	The
document will be considered properly "served" when personally delivered or deposited in the
mail or deposited with a delivery service and properly addressed. 	A document may also be
concurrently served via facsimile transmission on all parties to the proceeding. 	(Regulation
32135(c).)

LA-CO-1339-E
August 7, 2008
Page 6
Extension of Time
A request for an extension of time, in which to fie 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,
TAMI R. BOGERT
General Counsel
By
Regional Attorney
Attachment
cc: Jesus E. Quinones
Eric J. Cu

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	( 	( 	ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
PERB
Los Angeles Regional Office
3530 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1435
Los Angeles, CA 90010-2334
Telephone: (213) 736-2907
Fax:(213)736-4901
July 15, 2008
John W. Adams
Re: 	John W. Adams v. United Teachers of Los Angeles
Unfair Practice Charge No. LA-CO-1339-E
WARNING LETTER
Dear Mr. Adams:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on April 3, 2008 by John W. Adams. On June 13, 2008, Adams filed
an amended charge. 	Adams alleges that the United Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA) violated
the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA)1 by breaching its duty of fair
representation.
UTLA is the exclusive representative of certificated personnel at the Los Angeles Unified
School District (LAUSD). UTLA and LAUSD are parties to a Collective Bargaining
Agreement (CBA) that contains a grievance procedure ending in binding arbitration. Adams is
a certificated employee at LAUSD. He is credentialed to teach social studies.
On March 10, 2006, UTLA representative Paula Parr withdrew a grievance Adams filed over
LAUSD's refusal to allow Adams to "assign standards" to students. 	She informed Adams that
there was no policy allowing teachers to assign standards to students and that a teacher could
only suspend students.
Between April and July 2006, LAUSD teacher Mr. Sekiyoba, who is African-American, ran
for the position of Testing Coordinator. 	UTLA did not put Sekiyoba on the ballot. 	Adams ran
for the position of Social Studies Department Chair. 	UTLA representative Karina "Dee"
Segura collected the ballots but did not allow all unit members to vote. Tom Chavez won the
election.
In July 2006, UTLA representative Bruce Williams declined to file a grievance on behalf of
Adams for LAUSD's failure to give Adams an out-of-classroom assignment in retaliation for
reporting ongoing corruption, incompetence, and racism. Williams stated that Adams was not
entitled to an out-of-classroom assignment and LAUSD was free to assign such positions to
whomever it wished. Williams also stated that he had already instructed Adams on how to file
claims with LAUSD's Equal Opportunity Section for investigation.
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.

LA-CO-1339-E
July 15, 2008
Page 2
Adams alleges that another certificated employee, Robert Wang, attempted to file grievances
regarding teaching assignments but that Williams would not agree to file those grievances.
Williams instead suggested the Wang transfer to a different school.
On April 17, 2007, Adams filed a grievance regarding LAUSD's failure to comply with
student discipline rules. 	On August 30, 2007, Adams asked Williams' the reasons why no Step
1 meeting was scheduled for the grievance. Williams stated that he would notify Adams when
a meeting was scheduled. Williams also said "sorry you never heard of summer vacations but
it happens all the time."
On August 30, 2007, Adams asked Williams' for advice about LAUSD's requirement that
Adams undergo a psychiatric evaluation prior to returning to work for the 2007-2008 semester.
Williams advised Adams not to call in sick and not to sign an application for leave of absence
by LAUSD.
In January 2008, LAUSD issued Adams a Notice of Unsatisfactory Acts and a five-day
suspension. Williams stated that he would appeal the suspension through the disciplinary
appeal process.
On January 10, 2008, Williams stated that he could not file a grievance over LAUSD's failure
to report seven days of "filer time" that Adams accrued in January 2007. Williams stated that
grievances must be filed within 15 days and that, typically, "filer time" is not reported. 	He
suggested that Adams resolve the matter with an LAUSD payroll specialist. Williams' also
stated that he would not fie a grievance over LAUSD's requirement that Adams have the
psychiatric evaluation prior to returning to work because he believed that LAUSD has the
authority to do so. Williams' also stated that he was having trouble scheduling a meeting
regarding Adams' April 17, 2007 grievance. Williams stated that he would arrange to meet
with LAUSD to discuss the grievance at the same time as the already scheduled discipline
appeal hearing.
On January 18, 2008, Williams filed a grievance over LAUSD's failure to compensate Adams
for seven days of filer pay in January 2007.
On January 28, 2008, Williams' stated that he would discuss LAUSD's psychiatric evaluation
requirement with them during the discipline appeal hearing.
On March 12, 2008, Williams again stated that he would hold a meeting for the student
discipline policy grievance at the same time as the appeal hearing for Adams' January 2008
Notice of Unsatisfactory Acts. Williams also informed Adams that the grievance over the
seven days of "filer time" was denied by LAUSD because it was untimely.
Adams had requested that Williams address LAUSD's violation of the process for issuing
Notices of Unsatisfactory Acts. Williams stated that he would address Adams' issues during
Adams' discipline appeal hearing.

LA-CO-1339-E
July 15, 2008
Page 3
On March 25, 2008, UTLA denied Adams' earlier request to reimburse his legal fees for a
charge filed with PERB.
On March 26, 2008, UTLA informed Adams that its Grievance Review Committee (GRC)
would not be pursuing his grievance regarding the denial of "filer pay" any further and
informed Adams of his right to appeal the GRC's decision.
On April 24, 2008, Adams contacted UTLA President A.J. Duffy requesting that UTLA
reconsider its decision not to reimburse Adams for legal fees incurred in filing a PERB charge
against LAUSD. 	Adams also stated that he did not believe Williams could adequately
represent him and requested assistance from another UTLA representative.
Discussion:
Adams contends that UTLA denied him the right to fair representation guaranteed by EERA
section 3544.9 and thereby violated section 3543.6(b). 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) PERB Decision No. 332, p. 9,
citing Rocklin Teachers Professional Association (Romero) (1980) PERB Decision No. 124.)
In other words to state a prima facie case for an unfair labor practice, Adams must demonstrate
that UTLA's conduct was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. 	(Los Banos Teachers
Association (Ulmschneider) (2007) PERB Decision No. 1922.)
In addition, PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5) requires, inter alia, that an unfair practice charge
include a "clear and concise statement of the facts and conduct alleged to constitute an unfair
practice." Adams' burden includes alleging the "who, what, when, where and how" of an
unfair practice. 	(State of California (Department of Food and Agriculture) (1994) PERB
Decision No. 1071-S, citing United Teachers-Los Angeles (Ragsdale) (1992) PERB Decision
No. 944.) Mere legal conclusions are not sufficient to state a prima facie case. 	(Ibid.; Charter
Oak Unified School District (1991) PERB Decision No. 873.)
A. 	Statute of Limitations
Adams' burden also includes alleging facts showing that the unfair practice charge was timely
filed; i.e., that the alleged unfair practice occurred no more than six months prior to the filing
of the charge. 	(Los Angeles Unified School District (2007) PERB Decision No. 1929; City of
Santa Barbara (2004) PERB Decision No. 1628-M.) PERB is prohibited 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, 	(Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector

LA-CO-1339-E
July 15, 2008
Page 4
Control District v. Public Employment Relations Board (2005) 35 Ca1.4th 1072.) 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.)
In this case, the charge was first filed on April 3, 2008. This means that the statutory period
extends back to October 3, 2007. 	Several of Adams' allegations are for conduct by UTLA
occurring before October 3, 2007. Therefore, to the extent that Adams claims conduct
occurring outside the statutory period as part of this charge, he has not established that such
claims were timely filed.
B. 	Allegations of Election Misconduct
Adams alleges that UTLA ran the April-July 2006 elections for Testing Coordinator and for
Social Studies Department Chair improperly. 	As stated above, the alleged conduct occurred
outside of the statutory period and is therefore untimely. 	Even if the allegations were timely,
there is insufficient information to state a prima facie case. 	For example, Adams does not
explain what UTLA's role was in managing the elections in question or what UTLA did to fail
in this role. Adams states that not all teachers were permitted to vote for the Social Studies
Chair position, but does not establish what teachers were entitled to vote. 	Nor does Adams
establish how UTLA's conduct impacted the results of the elections. 	Accordingly, Adams
does not establish that UTLA's actions or inactions were arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad
faith. (Los Banos Teachers Association (Ulmschneider), supra, PERB Decision No. 1922.)
In addition, it is unclear from the charge whether the elections were for positions within the
UTLA's internal administration, or whether UTLA simply played a role in managing elections
for LAUSD positions. 	PERB has held that matters concerning internal union affairs are
immune from review by PERB, unless they have a substantial impact on the relationship of
unit members to their employer so as to give rise to a duty of fair representation. 	(Service
Employees International Union, Local 99 (Kimmett) (1979) PERB Decision No. 106;
California State Employees Association (Hutchinson and Laosantos) (1998) PERB Decision
No. 1304-S.) Adams does not provide sufficient facts to determine whether the elections
concerned solely internal UTLA activities. 	If so, then Adams does not establish how the loss
of a UTLA position had a substantial impact on his relationship with LAUSD. 	Accordingly,
this allegation does not state a prima facie case.
C. 	Allegations Regarding Grievance Handling
Adams alleges that the Union breached its duty of fair representation by failing to represent
him properly during certain grievances. 	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 United Teachers of Los Angeles (Collins), the Public Employment
Relations Board stated:

LA-CO-1339-E
July 15, 2008
Page 5
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.
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.
Caterpilar Tractor Co. (9th Cir. 1983) 749 F.2d 1270, at p. 1274; see also, Robesky v. Quantas
Empire Airways Limited (9th Cir. 1978) 573 F.2d 1082.)
Adams alleges that UTLA breached the duty of fair representation by withdrawing a 2006
grievance filed over LAUSD's refusal to allow him to "assign standards" to students. 	As
stated above, Adams does not establish that this allegation is timely filed. Even if Adams'
claim over this grievance was timely, there is insufficient information to conclude that UTLA
breached the duty of fair representation. 	Adams contends that the grievance was "legitimate,"
but does not provide facts to support this conclusion. 	For example, Adams does not clarify
what it means to "assign standards," nor does he demonstrate that teachers had the ability to do
so. Accordingly, he does not meet his burden of providing a "clear and concise statement" of
facts supporting his claim. 	(PERB Regulation 32615(a).) Adams' mere legal conclusions are
insufficient. 	(See State of California (Department of Food and Agriculture), supra, PERB
Decision No. 1071-S.) Without more information, it cannot be said that UTLA abused its
discretion deciding not pursue the grievance further. 	In other words, Adams does not
demonstrate that UTLA's decision was arbitrary, discriminatory, or made in bad faith.
(Los Banos Teachers Association (Ulmschneider), supra, PERB Decision No. 1922.)
Adams next alleges that, in July 2006, UTLA improperly refused to fie a grievance over being
denied an out-of-class assignment in retaliation of having complained about LAUSD's ongoing
incompetence and discrimination. 	Again, Adams does not establish that this allegation was
timely filed. 	Even if it was timely, Adams does not establish that UTLA's decision not to
pursue the grievance was arbitrary, discriminatory, or made in bad faith. (Los Banos Teachers
Association (Ulmschneider), supra, PERB Decision No. 1922.) For example, Adams does not
address what LAUSD's alleged misconduct was and how it violated any specific section of the
CBA. 	According to the facts provided, UTLA representative Williams informed Adams that it
may be more appropriate to file a complaint with LAUSD's Equal Opportunity Section, and
instructed Adams on how to do so. 	This suggests that the CBA may not address some of the
racial discrimination and retaliation issues Adams wished to be part of the grievance. 	There is
insufficient information to conclude that Williams' decision was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in

LA-CO-1339-E
July 15, 2008
Page 6
bad faith. 	(Los Banos Teachers Association (Ulmschneider), supra, PERB Decision
No. 1922.)
Adams next alleges that UTLA is not properly representing him in his April 17, 2007
grievance regarding student discipline policies. 	Specifically, Adams alleges that UTLA did
not follow the timelines set forth in the grievance procedure and took too much time to arrange
the Step 1 meeting. In Service Employees International Union, Local 250 (Hessong) (2004)
PERB Decision No. 1693-M, the Board held that it did not breach the duty of fair
representation for a union to take two years to resolve a grievance where the union preserved
its timelines and the length of the grievance did not foreclose the employee's ability to obtain a
remedy. 	Similarly in this case, Williams acknowledged that he had difficulty in scheduling a
date with LAUSD for the Step 1 meeting but informed Adams that the meeting would take
place at the same time as the hearing appealing Adams' January 18, 2008 disciplinary five-day
suspension. 	Adams does not demonstrate that Williams' actions foreclosed Adams' ability to
achieve a favorable result from the grievance. Thus, he does not demonstrate that UTLA's
actions were arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. 	(Los Banos Teachers Association
(Ulmschneider), supra, PERB Decision No. 1922.)
Adams next alleges that UTLA failed to represent him properly regarding a grievance over
LAUSD's denial of "filer time" pay. 	A union is not required to pursue grievances that it
reasonably believes are unmeritorious. 	(College of the Canyons Faculty Association (Lynn)
(2004) PERB Decision No. 1706.) Moreover, a disagreement over whether a grievance should
be taken to arbitration does not, in itself, establish a breach of the duty of fair representation.
(SEIU Local 1000, CSEA (Burnett) (2007) PERB Decision No. 1914-S.) In this case, on
January 10, 2008, Williams informed Adams that he would not fie a grievance over this issue
because LAUSD's alleged denial of "filer pay" occurred in January 2007 and grievances must
be filed within 15 days of the wrongdoing. Nevertheless, at Adams' continued insistence,
Williams filed the grievance on January 18, 2008. LAUSD denied the grievance as untimely.
On March 26, 2008 the UTLA GRC informed Adams that it would not elevate the grievance to
arbitration and offered Adams the ability to appeal its determination. 	Adams contends that
UTLA should have "defended the grievance vigorously," but does not provide sufficient
information to conclude that UTLA's determination not to pursue this grievance was arbitrary,
discriminatory, or made in bad faith. 	(Los Banos Teachers Association (Ulmschneider), supra,
PERB Decision No. 1922.)
Adams also alleges that UTLA breached its duty of fair representation by failing to file a
grievance over LAUSD's requirement that he undergo a psychiatric evaluation prior to
returning to work. Williams' stated that he would address this issue during Adams' appeal
hearing. 	The duty of fair representation does not require an union to fie a grievance where it
reasonably believes that the issue can be resolved outside the grievance process. 	(College of
the Canyons Faculty Association (Lynn) (2004) PERB Decision No. 1706; International
Association of Firefighters Local 55 (Waqia) (2004) PERB Decision No. 1621-M.) In this
case, Adams does not demonstrate that Wiliam's decision to address the psychiatric evaluation
requirement during Adams' disciplinary appeal hearing was arbitrary, discriminatory, or made
in bad faith. 	(Los Banos Teachers Association (Ulmschneider), supra, PERB Decision

LA-CO-1339-E
July 15, 2008
Page 7
No. 1922.) Rather, since Adams contends that both the evaluation requirement and the Notice
of Unsatisfactory Acts were retaliatory, it may have been reasonable to address both of the
issues in the same forum.
Similarly, Adams does not demonstrate that Williams decision not to pursue a grievance over
LAUSD's issuance of a Notice of Unsatisfactory Acts breached the duty of fair representation.
Williams stated that, because the Notice was related to the suspension, he believed it that these
issues should be addressed together through the discipline appeals process. 	He explained that
UTLA does not typically file a separate grievance in these situations since it could all be
resolved during the appeal hearing. Adams does not establish how Williams' determination
was arbitrary, discriminatory, or made in bad faith. 	(Los Banos Teachers Association
(Ulmschneider), supra, PERB Decision No. 1922.)
Adams also alleges that Williams failed to offer certain documents as evidence. 	It is not clear
where Adams contends Williams should have presented the documents. 	Assuming that Adams
is alleging that Williams failed to present certain evidence in a grievance, that is not sufficient
to demonstrate a breach of the duty of fair representation. 	The Board has held that a union's
failure to pursue a grievance in the manner requested by the grievant, including not calling
witnesses the grievant believed were relevant, was insufficient to demonstrate a violation of
the union's duty. 	(SEIU Local 790 (Paez) (2005) PERB Decision No. 1774-M.) Accordingly,
this allegation does not state a prima facie case.
Adams also alleges that UTLA breached its duty of fair representation by failing to grant his
request for a representative other than Williams'. The duty of fair representation does not
obligate a union to provide an employee with the representative of his or her choice.
(American Federation of Teachers College Guild, Local 1521 (Saxton) (1995) PERB Decision
No. 1109.) A union's decision to appoint a representative is an internal union matter not
subject to the duty of fair representation. 	(Ibid.) 	Accordingly, this allegation does not state a
prima facie case.
D. 	Allegations Regarding Reimbursement for Legal Expenses
Adams also alleges that UTLA breached its duty of fair representation by failing to reimburse
him for the legal expenses incurred filing an unfair practice charge number LA-CE-5177-E
against LAUSD. 	An exclusive representative does not owe a duty of fair representation to unit
members in a forum over which the union does not exclusively control the means to a
particular remedy. 	(California State Employees Association (Parisi) (1989) PERB Decision
No. 733-S.) The duty of fair representation does not attach to an exclusive representative in
extra-contractual proceedings before government agencies, including PERB. 	(Ibid.) Adams
has not established that UTLA had a duty to represent Adams in PERB unfair practice charge
number LA-CE-5177-E. 	Accordingly, this allegation does not state a prima facie case.

LA-CO-1339-E
July 15, 2008
Page 8
E. 	General Allegations
Adams makes a number of general allegations such as that UTLA "blocked much needed
mayoral reform of LAUSD," or that UTLA fails to expose corruption at LAUSD or retaliation
against teachers. 	Adams provides no facts supporting these allegations and accordingly fails to
provide a "clear and concise statement" of facts demonstrating a violation of the duty of fair
representation. 	(PERB Regulation 32615(a).) Therefore, these allegations do not state a prima
facie case.
Adams also alleges that UTLA does not provide adequate training on how to file a "Williams
Complaint," apparently referencing the complaint process that was part of a settlement
agreement and subsequent legislation in the Williams v. State of California lawsuit, filed in the
Superior Court of San Francisco, Case Number 312336. 	Adams does not establish either that
"Williams Complaints" are a forum over which the union exclusively controls the means to a
remedy, or what specific actions or inactions by UTLA are said to have violated the duty of
fair representation. 	(See California State Employees Association (Parisi), supra, PERB
Decision No. 733-S.) For these reasons, this allegation does not state a prima facie case.
F. 	Allegations of Misconduct Towards Other Certificated Personnel
Adams also apparently alleges that UTLA breached its duty to represent other certificated
personnel such as Mr. Sekiyoba and Robert Wang. These individuals were not named as
charging parties and did not sign the charge form. PERB Regulation 32615(a) requires that a
charge be signed by the charging party or his or her authorized agent. 	(See also Riverside
County Office Teachers Association, C T A / E A (McAlpine, et al.) (2000) PERB Decision
No. 1401, fn. 1.) Sekiyoba and Wang did not comply with the requirements to be charging
parties in this case, and Adams has not established that he is authorized to represent them.
Thus, Adams is the only charging party in this case.
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.

(
LA-CO-1339-E
July 15, 2008
Page 9
If no amended charge or withdrawal is received before July 23, 2008, the charge will be
dismissed. 	If there are any questions, please contact the undersigned at the above telephone
number.
Sincerely"
Bfic, J. Cu
Regional Attorney
EC