Antelope Valley Hospital District (PERB 2167M)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
DENNIS DALE HAYES,
Charging Party, 	Case No. LA-CE-534-M
V . 	PERB Decision No. 2167-M
February 25, 2011	ANTELOPE VALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT,
Respondent.
Appearance: Ronald G. Johnson, Representative, for Dennis Dale Hayes.
Before Dowdin Calvillo, Chair; McKeag and Miner, Members.
DECISION
MINER, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB
or Board) on appeal by Dennis Dale Hayes (Hayes) from a Board agent's dismissal (attached)
of an unfair practice charge. The charge, as amended, alleged that the Antelope Valley
Hospital District (District) violated numerous sections of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act
(MMBA or Act) by, inter alia, failing to provide Hayes with a mediator in connection with
grievances filed by him; retaliating against him for "promoting" a labor organization, United
Healthcare Workers West; failing to provide Hayes with requested information; and failing to
adequately process his grievances. The Board agent determined that the charge was untimely
filed and failed to establish a prima facie violation of the Act, and therefore dismissed the
charge.
The MMBA is codified at Government Code section 3500 et seq. Unless otherwise
indicated, all statutory references herein are to the Government Code.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
DENNIS DALE HA YES,
Charging Party,
V.
ANTELOPE VALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT,
Respondent.
Case No. LA-CE-534-M
PERB Decision No. 2167-M
February 25, 2011
Appearance: Ronald
G.
Johnson, Representative, for Dennis Dale Hayes.
Before Dowdin Calvillo, Chair; McKeag and Miner, Members.
DECISION
MINER, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB
or Board) on appeal by Dennis Dale Hayes (Hayes) from a Board agent's dismissal (attached)
of an unfair practice charge. The charge, as amended, alleged that the Antelope Valley
Hospital District (District) violated numerous sections
of
the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act
(MMBA or Act) 1 by, inter alia, failing to provide Hayes with a mediator in connection with
grievances filed by him; retaliating against him for "promoting" a labor organization,
United
Healthcare Workers West; failing to provide Hayes with requested information; and failing to
adequately process his grievances. The Board agent determined that the charge was untimely
filed and failed to establish a prima facie violation of the Act, and therefore dismissed
the
charge.
1 The MMBA is codified at Government Code section 3500 et seq. Unless otherwise
indicated, all statutory references herein are to the Government Code.

The Board has reviewed the dismissal and the record in light of Hayes's appeal and the
relevant law. Based on this review, the Board finds the Board agent's warning and dismissal
letters to be well-reasoned and a correct statement of the law, and therefore adopts them as the
decision of the Board itself, subject to the discussion below.
DISCUSSION
An unfair practice charge must include a clear and concise statement of the facts and
conduct by the respondent alleged to constitute an unfair practice under the MMBA. (PERB
Reg. 32615(a)(5);" State of California (Department of Food and Agriculture) (1994) PERB
Decision No. 1071-S; United Teachers-Los Angeles (Ragsdale) (1992) PERB Decision
No. 944.) Mere legal conclusions are not sufficient, and the charging party bears the burden of
alleging all material facts necessary to state a prima facie case. (Los Angeles Unified School
District (1984) PERB Decision No. 473.) In processing a charge, the Board agent has a duty
to:
Assist the charging party to state in proper form the
information required by section 32615;
Answer procedural questions of each party regarding the
processing of the case;
(3) Facilitate communication and the exchange of information
between the parties;
(4) Make inquiries and review the charge and any accompanying
materials to determine whether an unfair practice has been, or is
being, committed, and determine whether the charge is subject to
deferral to arbitration, or to dismissal for lack of timeliness.
( 5) Dismiss the charge or any part thereof as provided in
Section 32630 if it is determined that the charge or the evidence
is insufficient to establish a prima facie case; or if it is determined
2 PERB regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8,
section 31001 et seq.
2
The Board has reviewed the dismissal and the record in light
of
Hayes' s appeal
and
the
relevant law. Based on this review, the Board finds the Board agent's warning and dismissal
letters to be well-reasoned and a correct statement
of
the law, and therefore adopts them as the
decision
of
the Board itself, subject to the discussion below.
DISCUSSION
An
unfair practice charge must include a clear and concise statement
of
the facts
and
conduct by the respondent alleged to constitute an unfair practice under the MMBA.
	(PERB
Reg. 32615(a)(5);2 State
of
California (Department
of
Food and Agriculture) (1994)
PERB
Decision No. 1071-S; United Teachers-Los Angeles (Ragsdale) (1992) PERB Decision
No. 944.) Mere legal conclusions are not sufficient, and the charging party bears the
burden of
alleging all material facts necessary to state a prima facie case. (Los Angeles Unified
School
District (1984) PERB Decision No. 473.) In processing a charge, the Board agent has a duty
to:
(1)	(1) Assist the charging party to state in proper form the
information required by section 32615;
(2)	(2) Answer procedural questions
of
each party regarding the
processing
of
the case;
(3) Facilitate communication and the exchange
of
information
between the parties;
(4) Make inquiries and review the charge and any accompanying
materials to determine whether an unfair practice has been, or is
being, committed, and determine whether the charge is subject to
deferral to arbitration, or to dismissal for lack
of
timeliness.
(5) Dismiss the charge or any part thereof as provided in
Section 32630 if it is determined that the charge or the evidence
is insufficient to establish a prima facie case; or if it is determined
2 PERB regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8,
section 31001 et seq.
2

that a complaint may not be issued in light of Government Code
Sections 3514.5, 3541.5, 3563.2, 71639.1(c) or 71825(c), or
Public Utilities Code Section 99561.2; or if it is determined that a
charge filed pursuant to Government Code section 3509(b) is
based upon conduct occurring more than six months prior to the
filing of the charge.
(6) Place the charge in abeyance if the dispute arises under
MMBA, HEERA, TEERA, Trial Court Act or Court Interpreter
Act and is subject to final and binding arbitration pursuant to a
collective bargaining agreement, and dismiss the charge at the
conclusion of the arbitration process unless the charging party
demonstrates that the settlement or arbitration award is repugnant
to the purposes of MMBA, HEERA, TEERA, Trial Court Act or
Court Interpreter Act, as provided in section 32661.
Issue a complaint pursuant to Section 32640.
(PERB Reg. 32620.)
While the Board agent's duties include assisting the charging party in stating the proper
form of the charge, making inquiries and reviewing the charge and any accompanying
materials, the duty remains with the charging party to provide a clear and concise statement of
the facts. (Regents of the University of California (2004) PERB Decision No. 1585-H; Regents
of the University of California (2004) PERB Decision No. 1592-H.)
proven, would constitute
an unfair practice charge. In addition to speaking with him directly, the Board agent allowed
Hayes to amend his charge five times.' On October 26, 2009, the Board agent issued a
warning letter advising Hayes of the deficiencies in the charge. On appeal, Hayes points to no
specific factual allegations in the charging documents that would establish a prima facie
Subsequent to the filing of the initial charge, PERB's file contains correspondence
from Hayes or his representative dated May 18, 2009, June 4, 2009, June 15, 2009, June 30,
2009 and November 21, 2009.
3
that a complaint may not be issued in light
of
Government Code
Sections 3514.5, 3541.5, 3563.2, 71639.l(c) or 71825(c), or
Public Utilities Code Section 99561.2; or
if
it is determined that a
charge filed pursuant to Government Code section 3509(b) is
based upon conduct occurring more than six months prior to the
filing
of
the charge.
( 6) Place the charge in abeyance
if
the dispute arises under
MMBA, HEERA, TEERA, Trial Court Act or Court Interpreter
Act and is subject to final and binding arbitration pursuant to a
collective bargaining agreement, and dismiss the charge at the
conclusion
of
the arbitration process unless the charging party
demonstrates that the settlement or arbitration award is repugnant
to the purposes
of
MMBA, HEERA, TEERA, Trial Court Act or
Court Interpreter Act, as provided in section 32661.
(7)(7) Issue a complaint pursuant to Section 32640.
(PERB Reg. 32620.)
While the Board agent's duties include assisting the charging party in stating the proper
form
of
the charge, making inquiries and reviewing the charge and anv accompanying
materials, the duty remains with the charging party to provide a clear and concise statement
of
the facts. 	(Regents
of
the University
of
California (2004) PERB Decision No. 1585-H; Regents
of
the University
of
California (2004) PERB Decision No. 1592-H.)
In this case, the Board agent communicated on numerous occasions with Hayes
in
anIn this case, the Board agent communicated on numerous occasions with Hayes in an
attempt to assist him in filing a charge alleging specific facts that,
if
proven, would constitute
attempt to assist him in filing a charge alleging specific facts that, if
an unfair practice charge. In addition to speaking with him directly, the Board agent allowed
Hayes to amend his charge five times.3 On October 26, 2009, the Board agent issued a
warning letter advising Hayes of the deficiencies in the charge. On appeal, Hayes points to no
specific factual allegations in the charging documents that would establish a prima facie
3
Subsequent to the filing of the initial charge, PERB's file contains correspondence
from Hayes or his representative dated May 18, 2009, June 4, 2009, June 15, 2009, June 30,
2009 and November 21, 2009.

violation of the MMBA. Instead, as he did before the Board agent, he asserts that he is willing
to provide evidence "should it be needed." The purpose of the Board agent's review is to
determine if the charge states sufficient facts that, if proven, would constitute an unfair
practice. It is incumbent upon the charging party to provide such facts to the Board agent, not
merely to assert that the factual information will be made available at a later time. (Regents of
the University of California, supra, PERB Decision No. 1585-H.) The remainder of the appeal
consists of brief, conclusivesponses to the dismissal and warning letters but fails to identify
any specific factual allegations in the charge that would support finding a prima facie case.
Because Hayes failed to provide specific facts to support his charge, it was properly dismissed
by the Board agent.*
ORDER
The unfair practice charge in Case No. LA-CE-534-M is hereby DISMISSED
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
Chair Dowdin Calvillo and Member Mckeag joined in this Decision.
* Hayes' assertion that the Board agent advised him against providing "too much
evidence" does not affect our analysis or the outcome of this case. As the charging party,
Hayes had the burden of providing a sufficient statement of the specific facts and conduct by
the District alleged to constitute an unfair practice, and that the charge was timely filed.
violation
of
the MMBA. Instead, as he did before the Board agent, he asserts that he is willing
to provide evidence "should it be needed." The purpose
of
the Board agent's review is to
determine
if
the charge states sufficient facts that,
if
proven, would constitute an unfair
practice. It is incumbent upon the charging party to provide such facts to the Board agent,
not
merely to assert that the factual information will be made available at a later time. (Regents
of
the University
of
California, supra, PERB Decision No. 1585-H.) The remainder
of
the appeal
consists
of
brief, conclusory responses to the dismissal and warning letters but fails to identify
any specific factual allegations in the charge that would support finding a prima facie case.
Because Hayes failed to provide specific facts to support his charge, it was properly
dismissed
by the Board agent.4
ORDER
The unfair practice charge in Case No. LA-CE-534-M is hereby DISMISSED
WITHOUT LEA VE TO AMEND.
Chair Dowdin Calvillo and Member McKeag joined in this Decision.
4
Hayes' assertion that the Board agent advised him against providing "too much
evidence" does not affect our analysis or the outcome of this case. As the charging party,
Hayes had the burden of providing a sufficient statement of the specific facts and conduct by
the District alleged to constitute an unfair practice, and that the charge was timely filed.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Los Angeles Regional Office
700 N, Central Ave., Suite 200
Glendale, CA 91203-3219
Telephone: (818) $51-2809
Fax: (818) 551-2820
January 7, 2010
Ronald Glen Johnson
Re: 	Dennis Dale Hayes v. Antelope Valley Hospital District
Unfair Practice Charge No. LA-CE-534-M
DISMISSAL LETTER
Dear Mr. Johnson:
Hayes (Charging Party) alleged that the Antelope Valley Hospital District (Respondent)
violated sections "3500-inclusive; 3500.5; 3501(A), (1), (2), (B), (C), (D), (E); 3504;
3504.5(A); 3505; 3507-(5), (6), [and] (7)" of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA or Act).
In the November 21 amended charge, Charging Party alleges that Respondent also violated
sections 3501(a) through (i), 3501(b), (d), and (e), 3506, 3507(a) (5), (6), and (7) of the
MMBA.
Charging Party was informed in the attached Warning Letter dated October 26, 2009, that the
above-referenced charge did not state a prima facie case. Charging Party was advised that, if
there were any factual inaccuracies or additional facts that would correct the deficiencies
explained in the Warning Letter, Charging Party should amend the charge. Charging Party was
further advised that, unless he amended the charge to state a prima facie case or withdrew it
prior to November 3, 2009, the charge would be dismissed.
In a facsimile dated November 14, 2009, Charging Party's representative, Ronald Glen
Johnson, notified the undersigned that he did not receive the October 26 Warning Letter until
November 4, 2009, and thus he could not file an amended charge on Charging Party's behalf
prior to the November 3, 2009 deadline. On November 16, 2009, the undersigned granted
Charging Party's request for an extension of time to file an amended charge. As stated above,
PERB received Charging Party's fourth amended charge on November 21, 2009.
On May 7, 2009, Mr. Hayes also filed an unfair practice charge against United
Healthcare Workers West (LA-CO-97-M), and another against United Healthcare Workers
West affiliate, Service Employees International Union (LA-CO-96-M).
2 The MMBA is codified at Government Code section 3500 et seq. The text of the
MMBA and PERB'S Regulations may be found at www.perb.ca.gov.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
PER.B
Los Angeles Regional Office
700 N. Central Ave., Suite 200
Glendale, CA 91203-3219
Telephone: (8 I 8) 551-2809
Fax: (818) 551-2820
f
January 7, 2010
Ronald Glen Johnson
5711 Columbia Way #174
Quartz Hill, CA 93536
Re: 	Dennis Dale Hayes v. Antelope Valley Hospital District
Unfair Practice Charge No. LA-CE-534-M
DISMISSAL LETTER
Dear Mr. Johnson:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations	The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on May 7, 2009, and was amended on May 21, June 8, June 17, and	Board (PERB or Board) on May 7, 2009, and was amended on May 21, June 8, June 17, and
November 21, 2009." In the original charge and first three amended charges, Dennis Dale	November 21, 2009. 1 In the original charge and first three amended charges, Dennis Dale
Hayes (Charging Party) alleged that the Antelope Valley Hospital District (Respondent)
violated sections "3500-inclusive; 3500.5; 3501(A), (1), (2), (B), (C), (D), (E); 3504;
3504.5(A); 3505; 3507-(5), (6), [and] (7)" of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA or Act).2
In the November 21 amended charge, Charging Party alleges that Respondent also violated
sections 3501(a) through (i), 3501(b), (d), and (e), 3506, 3507(a) (5), (6), and (7) of the
MMBA.
Charging Party was informed in the attached Warning Letter dated October 26, 2009, that the
above-referenced charge did not state a prima facie case. 	Charging Party was advised that, if
there were any factual inaccuracies or additional facts that would correct the deficiencies
explained in the Warning Letter, Charging Party should amend the charge. Charging Party was
further advised that, unless he amended the charge to state a prima facie case or withdrew it
prior to November 3, 2009, the charge would be dismissed.
In a facsimile dated November 14, 2009, Charging Party's representative, Ronald Glen
Johnson, notified the undersigned that he did not receive the October 26 Warning Letter until
November 4, 2009, and thus he could not file an amended charge on Charging Party's behalf
prior to the November 3, 2009 deadline. On November 16, 2009, the undersigned granted
Charging Party's request for an extension of time to file an amended charge. As stated above,
PERB received Charging Party's fourth amended charge on November 21, 2009.
1 On May 7, 2009, Mr. Hayes also filed an unfair practice charge against United
Healthcare Workers West (LA-CO-97-M), and another against United Healthcare Workers
West affiliate, Service Employees International Union (LA-CO-96-M).
2 The MMBA is codified at Government Code section 3500 et seq. 	The text of the
MMBA and PERB'S Regulations may be found at www.perb.ca.gov.

LA-CE-534-M
January 7, 2010
Page 2
The November 21 amended charge provides in relevant part:
1 	Withdraw alleged violations to MMBA sections 3500,
3500.5, 3501A-(2), 3501(C), 3504, 3504.5(A), and 3505.
2. 	The following MMBA section violations we charge:
3501A-(1), 3501-(B), 3501-(D), 3501-(E), 3506,
3507-(5), 3507-(6), and 3507-(7).
3501A-(1): C 	in fact an employee
of a Special District for many years.
3501-(B): 	To the point, Antelope Valley Hospital
District is a Special District.
3501-(D): 	Charging [Plarty maintains he was a public
employee.
3501-(E): 	Charging [Plarty was not afforded a
mediator at anytime for either grievance.
3506 	Charging [Plarty was protected under this
section of MMBA as an employee of a
Special District.
3507A-(5): Charging [Plarty was among the first to
promote the Union. Subsequently, [he] was
punished. Specifically, with respect to
scheduling, wages, hours, and other
conditions of employment.
3507A-(6): 	Charging [PJarty states that access to his
hospital representatives and Union
representatives for information concerning
scheduling, wages, hours, and seniority was
not afforded [to] him by either at any time
prior to filing [the above-titled charge] with
PERB.
3507A-(7): 	An employment position was appointed
arbitrarily instead of collectively.
LA-CE-534-M
January 7, 2010
Page 2
The November 21 amended charge provides in relevant part:
1. 	Withdraw alleged violations to MMBA sections 3500,
3500.5, 3501A-(2), 3501(C), 3504, 3504.5(A), and 3505.
2. 	The following MMBA section violations we charge:
3501A-(1), 3501-(B), 3501-(D), 3501-(E), 3506,
3507-(5), 3507-(6), and 3507-(7).
3501A-(1): 	Charging [P]aiiy was in fact an employee	harging [Plarty was
of a Special District for many years.
3501-(B): 	To the point, Antelope Valley Hospital
District is a Special District.
3501-(D): 	Charging [P]arty maintain$ he was a public
employee.
3501-(E): 	Charging [P]arty was not afforded a
mediator at anytime for either grievance.
3506 	Charging [P]arty was protected under this
section of MMBA as an employee of a
Special District.
3507 A-(5): 	Charging [P]arty was among the first to
promote the Union. Subsequently, [he] was
punished. 	Specifically, with respect to
scheduling, wages, hours, and other
conditions of employment.
3507A-(6): 	Charging [P]arty states that access to his
hospital representatives and Union
representatives for information concerning
scheduling, wages, hours, and seniority was
not afforded [to] him by either at any time
prior to filing [the above-titled charge] with
PERB.
3507 A-(7): 	An employment position was appointed
arbitrarily instead of collectively.

LA-CE-534-M
January 7, 2010
Page 3
Mr. Mckee, I assure you the following statements are based on
evidence of the conduct which constitutes unfair labor practices
towards Dennis D Hayes under the MMBA guidelines/statutes.
3501A-(1): No [Respondent accepted responsibility for
grievances or remedies filed from May 2007
through May 2009 from Board of Directors to
immediate superiors Maria Kelly, Director of
Radiology and Jill Bunch, Ultrasound Section
Supervisor at the time, including Vladimir
Dominguez, Union Representative or any of his
people.
3501-(B)[:] [Respondent] would not disclose responsibilities
under the articles of a Collective Bargaining
Agreement from May 2007 through May 2009.
3501-(D)[:] Human Resources management John Sullivan,
Vice President; Gregg Goins, Director; Staci
Johnson, Employee Relations Officer; and Rick
Rowe, Vice President Clinical Support Services
charge]
3501-(E): 	Sue Vradenberg, Union Steward; Leo Ward, Union
Steward; Alonso Salinas, Union Steward; Rick
Rowe, Vice President Clinical Support Services;
Staci Johnson, Employee Relations Officer;
Dwayne Roberts, Chief Union Steward, Vladimir
Dominguez, Union Representative; John Sullivan,
Vice President Human Resources; Gregg Goins,
Director [of] Human Resources; all could have and
should have represented Charging [P]arty
comprehensively instead of provable negligence in
their duty from May 2007 through May 2009.
3506 	No e 	dent] or [United
Healt 	treated Charging
[Plarty's case objectively from May 2007 through
May 2009 when complaint of violations of MMBA
guidelines/statutes was filed with PERB. Names
not withheld but too numerous to list here.
LA-CE-534-M
January 7, 2010
Page 3
Mr. McKee, I assure you the following statements are based on
evidence of the conduct which constitutes unfair labor practices
towards Dennis D Hayes under the MMBA guidelines/statutes.
3501A-(1): 	No [R]espondent accepted responsibility for
grievances or remedies filed from May 2007
through May 2009 from Board of Directors to
immediate superiors Maria Kelly, Director of
Radiology and Jill Bunch, Ultrasound Section
Supervisor at the time, including Vladimir
Dominguez, Union Representative or any of his
people.
3501-(B)[:] 	[Respondent] would not disclose responsibilities
under the articles of a Collective Bargaining
Agreement from May 2007 through May 2009.
3501-(D)[:] 	Human Resources management John Sullivan,
Vice President; Gregg Goins, Director; Staci
Johnson, Employee Relations Officer; and Rick
Rowe, Vice President Clinical Support Services
never released information to clarify my status as a	never released information to clarify my status as a
Special District employee or as a member of the	Special District employee or as a member of the
Collective Bargaining Agreement frorri May 2007	Collective Bargaining Agreement from May 2007
through May 2009 when [the above-titled charge]	through May 2009 when [the above-titled
was filed with PERB in May 2009.	was filed with PERB in May 2009.
3501-(E): 	Sue Vradenberg, Union Steward; Leo Ward, Union
Steward; Alonso Salinas, Union Steward; Rick
Rowe, Vice President Clinical Support Services;
Staci Johnson, Employee Relations Officer;
Dwayne Roberts, Chief Union Steward, Vladimir
Dominguez, Union Representative; John Sullivan,
Vice President Human Resources; Gregg Goins,
Director [of] Human Resources; all could have and
should have represented Charging [P]arty
comprehensively instead of provable negligence in
their duty from May 2007 through May 2009.
3506 	No employees 	[Respondent] or [United	mployees of [Respon
Healthcare	hcare Workers West]	Workers West] treated Charging
[P]arty's case objectively from May 2007 through
May 2009 when complaint of violations of MMBA
guidelines/statutes was filed with PERB. Names
not withheld but too numerous to list here.

LA-CE-534-M
January 7, 2010
Page 4
3507A-(5) 	Directly after [Charging Party's] promotion of the
[United Healthcare Workers West] beginning May
2007, John Sullivan, Vice President Human
Resources; Rick Rowe, Vice President Clinical
Support Services; Maria Kelly, Director Radiology
Services; and Jill Bunch, Ultrasound Section
Supervisor instigated a document called the Last
Chance Agreement (LCA) at which time I was
threatened with termination should I choose not to
sign. I immediately provided a response to the
LCA and all concerned parties.
3507A-(6) 	In a direct communique from Gail Buhler, Union
Coordinator I was informed absolutely that any
communication with anyone other than her was
prohibited and then only by telephone or fax. For
a period of months I was unable to contact Ms.
Buhler through her office. So I sought alternative
means for remedy through John Sullivan, Vice
President [of] Human Resources; Rick Rowe, Vice
... President [of] Clinical Support Services; Jill
Bunch, Ultrasound Section Supervisor; Alonso
Salinas, Union Steward; Leo Ward, Union
Steward. Come to find out, Ms. Buhler had been
dismissed and no one listed above bothered to
inform me.
3507A-(7) 	On or about December 2007, Karina Morales,
Ultrasound Student was hired by Jill Bunch,
Ultrasound Section Supervisor for a position of
which I had made many requests proving neither
[Respondent] nor [United Healthcare Workers
West] fulfilled any employee agreement related to
above.
REMEDY
Financial restitution for loss of monies, long-term
detriment to personal character and professional
reputation and other adverse impacts on my life.
LA-CE-534-M
January 7, 2010
Page 4
3507 A-(5) 	Directly after [Charging Party's] promotion
of
the
[United Healthcare Workers West] beginning May
2007, John Sullivan, Vice President Human
Resources; Rick Rowe, Vice President Clinical
Support Services; Maria Kelly, Director Radiology
Services; and Jill Bunch, Ultrasound Section
Supervisor instigated a document called the Last
Chance Agreement (LCA) at which time I was
threatened with termination should I choose not to
sign. I immediately provided a response to the
LCA and all concerned parties.
3507 A-(6) 	In a direct communique from Gail Buhler, Union
Coordinator I was informed absolutely that any
communication with anyone other than her was
prohibited and then only by telephone or fax. 	For
a period
of
months I was unable to contact Ms.
Buhler through her office. 	So I sought alternative
means for remedy through John Sullivan, Vice
President [of] Human Resources; Rick Rowe, Vice
... President [of] Clinical Support Services; Jill
Bunch, Ultrasound Section Supervisor; Alonso
Salinas, Union Steward; Leo Ward, Union
Steward. Come to find out, Ms. Buhler had been
dismissed and no one listed above bothered to
inform me.
3507A-(7) 	On or about December 2007, Karina Morales,
Ultrasound Student was hired by Jill Bunch,
Ultrasound Section Supervisor for a position
of
which I had made many requests proving neither
[Respondent] nor [United Healthcare Workers
West] fulfilled any employee agreement related to
above.
REMEDY
Financial restitution for loss of monies, long-term
detriment to personal character and professional
reputation and other adverse impacts on my life.

LA-CE-534-M
January 7, 2010
Page 5
Discussion
1. 	A Charging Party's Burden to Provide PERB with a Clear and Concise
Statement of Facts and Conduct Alleged to Constitute an Unfair Practice
equires, among other things, that an unfair practice
charge include a "clear and concise statement of the facts and conduct alleged to constitute an
unfair practice." The charging party's 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.)
The November 21 amended charge does not provide a clear and concise statement of fact.
Instead, the November 21 amended charge is comprised mostly of conclusions and citations to
Government Code sections with little or no explanation why Charging Party believes the
particular Government Code section was violated by Respondent. Consequently, Charging
Party has failed to satisfy his burden of providing PERB with a clear and concise statement of
facts and conduct alleged to constitute a violation of the MMBA. (PERB Regulation
32615(a)(5).)
2 . 	The MMBA's Six-Month Statute of Limitations
The charging party's 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 m
In Oakland Unified School District (2003) PERB Decision No. 1544, the Board held that the
statement, "within the past six months," does not specify the time of a violation sufficient to
make the charge timely. (See also, City of Santa Barbara (2004) PERB Decision No. 1628-M
[by failing to allege the date of a meeting at which an alleged violation occurred, th 	g
party failed to demonstrate that the charge was timely].) In the October 26 Warnin
Charging Party was advised that since the above-titled charge was filed on May 7, 2009, PERB
' PERB's Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.
LA-CE-534-M
January 7, 2010
Page 5
Discussion
1. 	A Charging Party's Burden to Provide PERB with a Clear and Concise
Statement of Facts and Conduct Alleged to Constitute an Unfair Practice
Charging	Charging Party was advised in a letter dated May 8, 2009 and in the October 26 Warning	Party was advised in a letter dated May 8, 2009 and in the October 26 Warning
Letter that PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5)3 requires, among other things, that an unfair practice	Letter that PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5) r
charge include a "clear and concise statement of the facts and conduct alleged to constitute an
unfair practice." The charging party's 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) (l 992)
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.)
The November 21 amended charge does not provide a clear and concise statement of fact.
Instead, the November 21 amended charge is comprised mostly of conclusions and citations to
Government Code sections with little or no explanation why Charging Party believes the
particular Government Code section was violated by Respondent. 	Consequently, Charging
Party has failed to satisfy his burden of providing PERB with a clear and concise statement of
facts and conduct alleged to constitute a violation of the MMBA. (PERB Regulation
32615(a)(5).)
2. 	The MMBA's Six-Month Statute of Limitations
The charging party's 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	onths prior to the filing of the charge. (Coachella Valley Mosquito
and Vector Control District v. Public Employment Relations Board (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1072.)	and Vector Control District v. Public Employment Relations Board (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1072.)
The limitations period begins to run once the charging party knows, or should have known, of	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	the conduct underlying the charge. (Gavilan Joint Community College District (1996) PERB
Decision No. 1177.)	Decision No. 1177.)
In Oakland Unified School District (2003) PERB Decision No. 1544, the Board held that the
statement, "within the past six months," does not specify the time of a violation sufficient to
make the charge timely. 	(See also, City of Santa Barbara (2004) PERB Decision No. 1628-M
[by failing to allege the date of a meeting at which an alleged violation occurred, the charging	e chargin
party failed to demonstrate that the charge was timely].) 	the October 26 Warningg Letter,
Charging Party was advised that since the above-titled charge was filed on May 7, 2009, PERB
3 PERB' s Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.

LA-CE-534-M
January 7, 2010
Page 6
is prohibited from issuing a complaint based upon an alleged unfair practice by Respondent
occurring prior to November 7, 2008. The November 21 amended charge alleges that
Respondent violated the MMBA from "May 2007 through May 2009" but fails to provide
specific day(s) or even the month(s) Respondent allegedly violated the MMBA. Thus,
Charging Party has failed to establish that the above-titled charge was filed within six-months
of the date Charging Party knew or should have known of the conduct alleged to violate the
MMBA. Accordingly, for this reason alone, the above-titled charge does not state a prima
facie case. (City of Santa Barbara, supra, PERB Decision No. 1628-M; Oakland Unified
School District, supra, PERB Decision No. 1544.) Even if the above-titled charge was filed
within the MMBA's six-month statute of limitations, it does not state a prima facie case for the
following reasons.
3. 	Failing to Provide Charging Party a Mediator
Charging Party alleges that "[he] was not afforded a mediator at anytime for either grievance."
Nothing contained in the MMBA requires that public employers provide grievants with a
mediator or utilize a mediator as part of a grievance procedure. Accordingly, this allegation is
dismissed.
4. 	Retaliation for "Promoting" United Healthcare Workers West
Charging Party alleges that he was "punished" for being "among the first to promote the
Union." Charging Party also alleges that Respondent threatened to terminate his employment
unless he signed a last-chance agreement because he "promoted" United Healthcare Workers
West. To demonstrate that an employer discriminated or retaliated against an employee in
violation of Government Code section 3506 and PERB Regulation 32603(a), the charging
party must show that: (1) the employee exercised rights under MMBA; (2) the employer had
knowledge of the exercise of those rights; (3) the employer took adverse action against the
employee; and (4) the employer took the action because of the exercise of those rights.
The test which must be satisfied is not whether the employee
found the employer's action to be adverse, but whether a
reasonable person under the same circumstances would consider
# When interpreting the MMBA, it is appropriate to take guidance from cases
interpreting the National Labor Relations Act and California labor relations statutes with
parallel provisions. (Fire Fighters Union v. City of Vallejo (1974) 12 Cal.3d 608.)
LA-CE-534-M
January 7, 2010
Page 6
is prohibited from issuing a complaint based upon an alleged unfair practice by Respondent
occurring prior to November 7, 2008. The November
21
amended charge alleges that
Respondent violated the MMBA from "May 2007 through May 2009" but fails to provide
specific day(s) or even the month(s) Respondent allegedly violated the MMBA. Thus,
Charging Party has failed
to
establish that the above-titled charge was filed within six-months
of
the date Charging Party knew or should have known
of
the conduct alleged to violate the
MMBA. 	Accordingly, for this reason alone, the above-titled charge does not state a
prima
facie case. (City
of
Santa Barbara, supra, PERB Decision No. 1628-M; Oakland Unified
School District, supra, PERB Decision No. 1544.) Even
if
the above-titled charge was filed
within the MMBA's six-month statute
of
limitations, it does not state a prima facie case for the
following reasons.
3. 	Failing to Provide Charging Party a Mediator
Charging Party alleges that "[he] was not afforded a mediator at anytime for either grievance."
Nothing contained in the MMBA requires that public employers provide grievants with a
mediator or utilize a mediator as part
of
a grievance procedure. Accordingly, this allegation is
dismissed.
4. 	Retaliation for "Promoting" United Healthcare Workers West
Charging Party alleges that he was "punished" for being "among the first to promote
the
Union." Charging Party also alleges that Respondent threatened to terminate his employment
unless he signed a last-chance agreement because he "promoted" United Healthcare Workers
West. To demonstrate that an employer discriminated or retaliated against an employee
in
violation
of
Government Code section 3506 and PERB Regulation 32603(a), the charging
party must show that: (1) the employee exercised rights under MMBA; (2) the employer had
knowledge
of
the exercise
of
those rights; (3) the employer took adverse action against
the
employee; and (4) the employer took the action because
of
the exercise
of
those rights.
(Campbell Municipal Employees Assn.
v.
City
of
Campbell (1982)
13
I Cal.App.3d 4161 Cal.App.3d 416
(Campbell); San Leandro Police Officers Assn.
v.
City
of
San Leandro (1976)
55
Cal.App.3d(Campbell); San Leandro Police Officers Assn. v. City of San Leandro (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d553
(San Leandro); Novato Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 210 (Novato).)4553 (San Leandro); Novato Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 210 (Novato).)"
In
determining whether evidence
of
adverse action is established, the Board uses an objective	In determining whether evidence of adverse action is established, the Board uses an objective
test and will not rely upon the subjective reactions
of
the employee. (Palo Verde Unifiedtest and will not rely upon the subjective reactions of the employee. (Palo Verde Unified
School District (1988) PERB Decision No. 689.) In a later decision, the Board further	School District (1988) PERB Decision No. 689.) In a later decision, the Board further
explained that:	explained that:
Campbell Municipal Employees Assn. v. City of Campbell (1982) 13
The test which must be satisfied is not whether the employee
found the employer's action to be adverse, but whether a
reasonable person under the same circumstances would consider
When interpreting the MMBA, it is appropriate to take guidance from cases
interpreting the National Labor Relations Act and California labor relations statutes with
parallel provisions. (Fire Fighters Union v. City of Vallejo (1974) 12 Cal.3d 608.)

LA-CE-534-M
January 7, 2010
Page 7
the action to have an adverse impact on the employee's
employment.
(Newark Unified School District (1991) PERB Decision No. 864; emphasis added; footnote
omitted.)
Although the timing of the employer's adverse action in close temporal proximity to the
employee's protected conduct is an important factor (North Sacramento School District (1982)
PERB Decision No. 264), it does not, without more, demonstrate the necessary connection or
"nexus" between the adverse action and the protected conduct. (Moreland Elementary School
District (1982) PERB Decision No. 227.) Facts establishing one or more of the following
additional factors must also be present: (1) the employer's disparate treatment of the employee
(State of California (Department of Transportation) (1984) PERB Decision No. 459-S;
Campbell, supra, 131 Cal.App.3d 416); (2) the employer's departure from established
procedures and standards when dealing with the employee (Santa Clara Unified School
District (1979) PERB Decision No. 104; San Leandro, supra, 55 Cal.App.3d 553); (3) the
The charge and amended charges are devoid of facts demonstrating that Respondent knew that
Charging Party "promoted" United Healthcare Workers West. Additionally, even if
Respondent knew that Charging Party "promoted" United Healthcare Workers West, there are
no facts establishing a causal connection or "nexus" between Charging Party's protected
activity and Respondent's insistence that Charging Party sign a last-chance agreement.
Accordingly, Charging Party's allegation that Respondent retaliated against him for exercising
his rights under the MMBA is dismissed.
5 . 	Failure to Provide Charging Party with Requested Information
Individual employees lack standing to alleg 	mployer violated the Act by failing to
provide requested information. (State of California (Department of Corrections) (2003) PERB
Decision No. 1559-S.) Charging Party filed the above-titled charge as an individual employee.
LA-CE-534-M
January 7, 2010
Page 7
the action to have an adverse impact on the employee's
employment.
(Newark Unified School District (1991) PERB Decision No. 864; emphasis added; footnote
omitted.)
Although the timing of the employer's adverse action in close temporal proximity to the
employee's protected conduct is an important factor (North Sacramento School District (1982)
PERB Decision No. 264), it does not, without more, demonstrate the necessary connection or
"nexus" between the adverse action and the protected conduct. (Moreland Elementary School
District (1982) PERB Decision No. 227.) Facts establishing one or more of the following
additional factors must also be present: (1) the employer's disparate treatment of the employee
(State of California (Department of Transportation) (1984) PERB Decision No. 459-S;
Campbell, supra, 131 Cal.App.3d 416); (2) the employer's departure from established
procedures and standards when dealing with the employee (Santa Clara Unified School
District (1979) PERB Decision No. 104; San Leandro, supra, 55 Cal.App.3d 553); (3) the
empl "Y""r'semployer's inconsistent or contradictory justifications for its actions (State of California
;nr>AT\C';c<tP.nt r\1" 	,,..{'f',,.,J;f',,..vM;,.,	V 	\,.., 	.1.1.1\.IV.l.l,.JJ..JLV.LJ.L V.l contrad1'cto"'y	.l 	j;us+;-F;c,,;-;,....n"	l,.lJ...l UL.lVJ. .:> .l.V.l	.p,....,,. .ll,
;+s ac+1'ons	l, 	(State	l- I, VJ \....,Ul,ljUf /1,1,W
(Department of Parks and Recreation) (1983) PERB Decision No. 328-S; San Leandro, supra,	(Department of Parks and Recreation) (1983) PERB Decision No. 328-S; San Leandro, supra,
55 Cal.App.3d 553); (4) the employer's cursory investigation of the employee's misconduct	55 Cal.App.3d 553); (4) the employer's cursory investigation of the employee's misconduct
((City of Torrance (2008) PERB Decision No. 1971-M; Coast Community College District	City of Torrance (2008) PERB Decision No. 1971-M; Coast Community College District
(2003) PERB Decision No. 1560); (5) the employer's failure to offer the employee justification	(2003) PERB Decision No. 1560); (5) the employer's failure to offer the employee justification
at the time it took action (Oakland Unified School District (2003) PERB Decision No. 1529) or	at the time it took action (Oakland Unified School District (2003) PERB Decision No. 1529) or
the offering of exaggerated, vague, or ambiguous reasons (McFarland Unified School District	the offering of exaggerated, vague, or ambiguous reasons (Mcfarland Unified School District
(1990) PERB Decision No. 786); (6) employer animosity towards union activists (Jurupa	(1990) PERB Decision No. 786); (6) employer animosity towards union activists (Jurupa
Community Services District (2007) PERB Decision No. 1920-M; Cupertino Union	Community Services District (2007) PERB Decision No. 1920-M; Cupertino Union
Elementary School District (1986) PERB Decision No. 572); or (7) any other facts that might	Elementary School District (1986) PERB Decision No. 572); or (7) any other facts that might
demonstrate the employer's unlawful motive. (North Sacramento School District, supra,	demonstrate the employer's unlawful motive. (North Sacramento School District, supra,
PERB Decision No. 264; Novato, supra, PERB Decision No. 210.)	PERB Decision No. 264; Novato, supra, PERB Decision No. 210.)
The charge and amended charges are devoid of facts demonstrating that Respondent knew that
Charging Party "promoted" United Healthcare Workers West. Additionally, even if
Respondent knew that Charging Party "promoted" United Healthcare Workers West, there are
no facts establishing a causal connection or "nexus" between Charging Party's protected
activity and Respondent's insistence that Charging Party sign a last-chance agreement.
Accordingly, Charging Party's allegation that Respondent retaliated against him for exercising
his rights under the MMBA is dismissed.
5. 	Failure to Provide Charging Party with Requested Information
Individual employees lack standing to allege that 	employer violated the Act by failing to	e that their e
provide requested information. (State of California (Department of Corrections) (2003) PERB
Decision No. 1559-S.) Charging Party filed the above-titled charge as an individual employee.
Consequently, Charging Party lacks standing to allege that Respondent violated the MMBA by	Consequently, Charging Party lacks standing to allege that Respondent violated the MMBA by
not providing him with requested information. Accordingly, all of Charging Party's	not providing him with requested information. Accordingly, all of Charging Party's
allegations that Respondent failed to provide him with requested information are dismissed.	allegations that Respondent failed to provide him with requested information are dismissed.

LA-CE-534-M
January 7, 2010
Page 8
6. 	Grievances Filed by Charging Party
It appears that Charging Party is not satisfied with how Respondent processed his grievance(s).
As explained in the October 26 Warning Letter, while the MMBA may provide individual
employees the right to file grievances on their own behalf (Gov. Code, $ 3503; see also
Omnitrans (2009) PERB Decision No. 2010-M [exclusive representatives have the statutory
right to file grievances in their own name]), nothing contained in the MMBA requires that an
employer process an employee's grievance. Grievance procedures are a creation of contract.
"[TJhus[,] individual employees at best have the right to a grievance procedure (in which the
employer is bound to respond) only to the extent it is created by the contract negotiated and
administered by the union." (Lillebo v. Davis (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1421, 1445-1446.)
PERB does not have jurisdiction "to remedy a violation of a collective bargaining agreement. . .
" (City of Long Beach (2008) PERB Decision No. 1977-M.) Thus, even if Respondent failed
and/or refused to process Charging Party's grievance(s), Charging Party has not established that
doing so violates his rights under the MMBA.
7 . 	Remaining Allegations
As previously stated, Charging Party alleges that numerous MMBA sections were violated by
Respondent but provides no facts, theories, or arguments in support of his allegations."
Furthermore, Charging Party lacks standing to allege that Respondent violated sections of the
MMBA applicable to the collective bargaining relationship between employee organizations
and employers. (See generally Oxnard Educators Association (Gorcey and Tripp) (1988)
PERB Decision No. 664.) Accordingly, the above-titled charge is hereby dismissed for the
reasons stated above and for the reasons stated in the October 26 Warning Letter.
Right to Appeal
Charging Party may obtain a review of this dismissal of the
Board itself within twenty (20) calendar days after service of
this dismissal. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, $ 32635, subd. (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.
(Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, $$ 32135, subd. (a) and 32130; see also Gov. Code, $ 11020, subd. (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
requirem 	n 32135(d), provided the filing party also places the original,
together 	opies and pro 	of service, in the U.S. mail. (Cal. Code
For example, Charging Party alleges that Respondent violated MMBA section 3501.
MMBA section 3501 merely defines words used in the MMBA. MMBA section 3501 does not
convey rights or prohibit conduct and thus, MMBA section 3501 cannot be violated.
LA-CE-534-M
January 7, 2010
Page 8 
6.
	Grievances Filed by Charging Party
It appears that Charging Party is not satisfied with how Respondent processed his grievance(s).
As explained in the October 26 Warning Letter, while the MMBA may provide individual
employees the right to file grievances on their own behalf (Gov. Code, § 3503; see also
Omnitrans (2009) PERB Decision No. 2010-M [exclusive representatives have the statutory
right to file grievances in their own name]), nothing contained in the MMBA requires
that
an
employer process an employee's grievance. 	Grievance procedures are a creation
of
contract.
"[T]hus[,] individual employees at best have the right to a grievance procedure (in which the
employer is bound to respond) only to the extent it
is
created by the contract negotiated and
administered by the union." (Lillebo
v.
Davis (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1421, 1445-1446.)
PERB does not have jurisdiction "to remedy a violation
of
a collective bargaining agreement
...
." (City
of
Long Beach (2008) PERB Decision No. 1977-M.) Thus, even
if
Respondent failed
and/or refused to process Charging Party's grievance(s), Charging Party has not established that
doing so violates his rights underthe MMBA.
7. 	Remaining Allegations
As previously stated, Charging Party alleges that numerous MMBA sections were violated by
Respondent but provides no facts, theories, or arguments in support
of
his allegations. 5
Furthermore, Charging Party lacks standing to allege that Respondent violated sections
of
the
MMBA applicable to the collective bargaining relationship between employee organizations
and employers. (See generally Oxnard Educators Association (Gorcey and Tripp) (1988)
PERB Decision No. 664.) Accordingly, the above-titled charge
is
hereby dismissed for the
reasons stated above and for the reasons stated in the October 26 Warning Letter.
Right to Appeal
Pursuant to PERB'Regulations, Charging Party 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. 	(Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, § 32635, subd. (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.
(Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, §§ 32135, subd. (a) and 32130; see also Gov. Code,§ 11020, subd. (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
PERB Regulation 32135( d), provided the filing party also places the original,RB Regulatio
together with 	required number 	copies and proof of service, 	the U.S. mail. (Cal. Code
5 For example, Charging Party alleges that Respondent violated MMBA section 3501.
MMBA section 3501 merely defines words used in the MMBA. MMBA section 3501 does not
convey rights or prohibit conduct and thus, MMBA section 3501 cannot be violated.

LA-CE-534-M
January
7,
2010
Page 9
Regs, tit. 8, § 32135, subds. (b), (c) and (d); see also Cal. Code Regs., tit.
8,
§§ 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 Charging Party files 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. 	(Cal. Code Regs, tit.
8,
§ 32635,
subd. (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 Cal. Code Regs., tit.
8,
§ 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.
(Cal. Code Regs, tit.
8,
§ 32135, subd. (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. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, § 32132.)

LA-CE-534-M
January 7, 2010
Page 10
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~~
Sean McKee
Regional Attorney
Attachment
cc: Troy A. Schell, Vice President and General Counsel

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Los Angeles Regional Office
700 N. Central Ave., Suite 200
Glendale, CA 91203-3219
Telephone: (818) 551-2809
Fax: (8 I 8) 551-2820
October 26, 2009
Ronald Glen Johnson
5711 Columbia Way #174
Quartz Hill, CA 93536
Re: 	Dennis Dale Hayes v. Antelope Valley Hospital District
Unfair Practice Charge No. LA-CE-534-M
WARNING LETTER
Dear Mr. Johnson:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on May 7, 2009, and was amended on May 21, June 8, and June 17,
2009. 1 Dennis Dale Hayes (Charging Party) alleges that the Antelope Valley Hospital District
(Respondent) violated sections "3500-inclusive; 3500.5; 350l(A), (1), (2), (B), (C), (D), (E);
3504; 3504.5(A); 3505; 3507-(5), (6), [and] (7)" of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA or
Act).2
Background as Alleged
The original charge provides in relevant part: "Due to the volume of evidence, I request a
meeting for review with myself & my advocate-Ron Johnson." Attached to the charge is a
copy of a National Labor Relations Board form titled, "NOTICE AND
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF FILING OF CHARGE."
On May 7, 2009, I contacted Mr. Hayes3 via telephone and advised him that the above-titled
charge had been assigned to me for processing. I also advised Mr. Hayes that the charge was
not properly filed in accordance with PERB's Regulations.4 Specifically, PERB Regulation
32615(a)(5) requires, among other things, that an unfair practice charge include a "clear and
1 On May 7, 2009, Mr. Hayes also filed an unfair practice charge against United
Healthcare Workers West (LA-CO-97-M), and another against United Healthcare Workers
West affiliate, Service Employees International Union (LA-CO-96-M).
2 The MMBA is codified at Government Code section 3500 et seq. The text of the
MMBA and PERB'S Regulations may be found at www.perb.ca.gov.
3 Mr. Hayes did not complete a notice of appearance form designating Mr. Johnson as
his representative until May 21, 2009.
4 PERB's Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.

LA-CE-534-M
October 26, 2009
Page 2
concise statement
of
the facts and conduct alleged to constitute an unfair practice:" In
addition, PERB Regulations 32615( c) and 32140 require that a copy
of
an unfafr practice
charge be served on the respondent.
During our May 7 telephone conversation, I explained
to·
Mr. Hayes that !he above-referenced
charge did not provide a cleat and concise statement
ofconduct
alleged to constitute an unfair
practice or a completed proof
of
service form. 	I advised Mr. Hayes that his failure to
correctthe above-described deficiencies by May 18, 2009, could result in the above-titled charge
being dismissed. 	On May
8,
2009, I sent Mr. Hayes a letter confirming our May 7
conversation. l also included instructions with my May 9 letter
on
how to file an unfair
practice charge.
PERB received an amehded charge from Mr. Hayes on May 21, 2009. The May
21
amendedcharge was accompanied by a deficient
prodf
of
service form (the name and address
of
theperson served the unrair practice charge
do'l.~s
not appear on the proof
of
service form). 	(PERB
Regulation 32140.) Nevertheless, Resporiclent has not denied receiving a copy
of
the
May
21
amended charge.
	TD
the contrary, on Jurte 2, 2009, Respondent filed a response to the above-referenced charge.
The
May
21
amended charge consists
of
a letter dated February 4, 2008, an undated lettersigned
by
Vladimir Dominguez concerning a meetirfg that took place in April 2008,
several
e-
mail messages dated between March and April 2008, one e-mail message dated January 6,
2009, and a timeline titled, "Stateriient
of
Facts." The "Statement
of
Facts provides verbatim:
#1. 	On or about 8/22/2007,
a"
collective bargaining agreement
was signed by all parties authorized to make it a legal document.
#2. 	From September
200-7
to February 2008: I personally
contacted evety steward available to me with questions regarding
scheduling, seniority, and bargaining unit language. Their names
include Sue Vradenburg, Leo Ward, Viadirp.ir Dominguez,
Alonso Salinas, and Duane Roberts, among others.
#3. 	2/04/2008: Personally delivered the attached document
(#1
of
the evidence packet), to the Union and the hospital with
proof
of
service.
#4. 	3/26/2008: All attempts failing, I wrote a letter to the
Union (#2
of
evidence packet) expressing my dismay over the
utter lack
of
representation for which I had been paying.
#5. 	4/20/2008: This document (#3
of
the evidence packet)
proves the Union and the hospital acknowledged that there was a
grievance. 	It further proves they chose to ignore the collective
bargaining agreement and refused grievance procedures.

LA-CE-534-M
October 26, 2009
Page 3
#6. 	4/21/2008: This document (#4
of
the evidence packet) is
proof
of
collusion between UHW-West and AV Hospital
authorities. 	Other evidence is available.
#7. 	4/25/2008: This document was acquired by a demand
from me alluding to charges in an attempt to justify his station.
Mr. Dominguez must have sent this to himself. His error is
evident.
#8. 	4/26/2008: This (#6
of
evidence packet) was evidence
of
Mr. Vladimir Dominguez' refusal to represent me in my
grievance is proved by the date(s) cited this document sent to me
as an attachment to an e-mail.
#9. 	4/26/2008: (#7 in the evidence packet): In my attempts
for recognition
of
my grievance I made everyone accountable,
aware
of
the Union's failure to represent. The result was the
denial
of
access to any person other than one Gail Buhler, and
only by personal phone or fax.
#10. 	1/07/2009: (#8 in evidence packet): To this date I have
not been afforded representation by SEIU, UHW-West, AV
Hospital, or NLRB.
The e-,mail message dated January
1,
2009, was sent from Mr. Ward to Ms. Buhler
with
a
simultaneous copy
of
the e-mail sent to Mr. Dominguez. The January 1 e-mail message
provides in relevant part:
Dennis Hayes spoke to me last night inquiring about the status
of
a Grievance filed on his behalf several months back regarding
Seniority/Job Vacancies as it pertains to night-shift weekends (his
previous schedule which he wants reinstated). I confirmed with
Alonso Salinas that Alonso Salinas did contact you regarding 3
past attempts by Mr. Hayes to contact you through Alonso. Mr.
Hayes stated that he has not heard from you regarding this matter.
I told Mr. Hayes that I would follow up with you on his behalf
and provide you with contact numbers and include him (Cc) in
this correspondence. Since I am not privy to the status
of
his
Grievance or the progression
of
the steps I can only inquire.
The June 8 amended charge provides in its entirety:
In response to the correspondence sent [to] me from Mr. Schell,
attorney for AVHD, I would clarify our position. Mr. Schell's
own admission verifies prior knowledge of my grievance with

LA-CE-534-M
October 26, 2009
Page 4
AVHD. He further concedes a second grievance provable on
4/22/2008.
Issues at the forefront stand on their merit! 	They clearly show
absolutely no one from SEIU, UHW-West, or AVHD did
anything but ignore a simple problem and impugn Mr. Hayes'
integrity and professionalism. The very fact that Mr. Schell used
an opinionated response to describe certain e-mails prior to
4/22/2008 proves lack
of
representation and collusion between
both UHW-West and AVHD.
Mr. McKee, please be assured we've much more evidence than
the one's sent. The box simply wouldn't fit in the envelope.
A solution can be reached.
The June 17 amended charge provides in relevant part:	
"It
seems a hearing is forthcoming.
	I'd
appreciate any correspondence from Mr. D. Regan to your agency. The only communication
I've had thus far from Mr. Regan is that he dialed my personal cell by mistake."
On July
6,
2009, PERB received a letter from Mr. Johnson re-requesting "correspondence
between [PERB] and [Respondent]." On July 9, 2009, I contacted Mr. Johnson via telephone
and informed him that PERB Regulation 32620, subdivision (c), requires that any written
response filed by a respondent with PERB must be simultaneously served on the charging
party. 	I also assured Mr. Johnson that the only response I had received from Respondent
regarding the above-titled charge was Respondent's response to the above-titled charge dated
June 2, 2009. Mr. Johnson confirmed that he had received a copy
of
the response filed
by
Respondent dated June 2, 2009.
Discussion
1.	
PERB's Jurisdiction
PERB is a quasi-judicial administrative agency charged with administering California's
collective bargaining statutes covering public employees. One
of
the statutes PERB
administers is the MMBA, a comprehensive statutory scheme governing labor relations
California cities, counties, and special districts. 	(Gov. Code,
§§
3500, 3509.) However, the
MMBA is limited in scope, regulating only certain conduct by employers and unions
and
not
every aspect of an employer's conduct. (Los Angeles Community College District (1979)
PERB Order No. Ad-64. 5) 	For example, the MMBA does not specially address allegations of
5 When interpreting the MMBA, it is appropriate to take guidance from cases
interpreting the National Labor Relations Act and California labor relations statutes with
parallel provisions. (Fire Fighters Union
v.
City
of
Vallejo (1974) 12 Cal.3d 608.)

LA-CE-534-M
October 26, 2009
Page 5
"collusion" between employee organizations and employers. Additionally, "PERB has no
jurisdiction to remedy a violation
of
a collective bargaining agreement.
...
" (City
of
Long Beach
(2008) PERB Decision No. 1977-M.)
2.
	Charging Party's Burden and the MMBA's Six-Month Statute
of
Limitations
PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5) requires, among other things, that an unfair practice charge
include a "clear and concise statement
of
the facts and conduct alleged to constitute an unfair
practice." The charging party's 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.)
The charging party's 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 Control District
v.
Public Employment Relations Board (2005) 35 Cal.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
Regents
of
the University
of
California (2004) PERB Decision No. 1592-H, a charging party
filed a charge that consisted
of
a brief conclusory statement followed by approximately 3 00
pages
of
attached documents. 	The Board agent assigned to investigate the charge issued the
charging party a Warning Letter advising the charging party that the charge did not comply
with PERB Regulation 32615(a) because it did not contain "a clear and concise statement
of
facts." (Ibid.) On appeai of the Board agent's decision to dismiss the charge, the charging
party argued that the charge need only "alert the [respondent]
of
the general nature
of the
allegations made." (Ibid.) The Board disagreed and affirmed the Board agent's application
of
PERB Regulation 32615(a). (Ibid.)
As previously stated, the above-titled charge was filed on May 7, 2009. Thus, PERB is
prohibited from issuing a complaint based upon an alleged unfair practice by Respondent
occurring prior to November 7, 2008. Nothing Charging Party has filed with PERB to date
alleges that Respondent violated the MMBA on or after November 7, 2008. Similarly, the
current record does not establish that Respondent violated the MMBA on or after November 7,
2008. The only fact provided by Charging Party that occurred on or after November 7, 2008 is
the January
1,
2009 e-mail message between United Healthcare Workers West representatives.
The January 1 e-mail provides no facts demonstrating that Respondent has violated the
MMBA. In addition, Charging Party provides no explanation regarding why he believes that
the January 1 e-mail message demonstrates that Respondent violated the MMBA.

LA-CE-534-M
October 26, 2009
Page 6
Accordingly, Charging Party has failed to provide a clear and concise statement
of
facts
establishing that Respondent violated the MMBA within the
MMBA's
six-month statute
of
limitations.
3. 	Interference
It appears that Charging Party is alleging that Respondent violated the MMBA by failing
and/or refusing to process one or more grievances filed by Charging Party. 6 The
MMBA
provides that public employers may not interfere with, intimidate, restrain, coerce, or
discriminate against public employees because
of
the exercise
of
their protected rights. 	(Gov.
Code, § 3506.) The test for whether a respondent has interfered with the rights
of
employees
under the MMBA does not require that unlawful motive be established, only that at least slight
harm to employee rights results from the conduct. 	The courts have described the standard as
follows:
All [a charging party] must prove to establish an interference
violation
of
section 3506 is: (1) That employees
'.Vere
engaged in
protected activity; (2) that the employer engaged in conduct
which tends to interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the
exercise
of
those activities, and (3) that employer's conduct was
not justified by legitimate business reasons.
(Public Employees Association
of
Tulare County, Inc.
v.
Board
of
Supervisors
of
Tulare
County (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 797, 807.)
While the MMBA may provide individual employees the right to file grievances on
their
own
behalf (Gov.
Code,§
3503; see also Omnitrans (2009) PERB Decision No. 2010-M [exclusive
representatives have the statutory right to file grievances in their own name]), nothing
contained in the MMBA requires that an employer process an employee's grievance.
Grievance procedures are a creation
of
contract. "[T]hus[,] individual employees at
best
have
the right to a grievance procedure (in which the employer is bound to respond) only to
the
extent it is created by the contract negotiated and administered by the union." (Lillebo v. Davis
(1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1421, 1445-1446.) As previously stated, PERB does not have
jurisdiction "to remedy a violation
of
a collective bargaining agreement.
...
" (City
of
Long
Beach, supra, PERB Decision No. 1977-M.) Thus, even
if
Respondent failed and/or refused to
process Charging Party's grievance(s), Charging Party has not established that doing so violates
his rights under the MMBA.
Charging Party has not provided a copy of the Collective Bargaining Agreement
(CBA or Agreement) between the Respondent and his union, United Healthcare Workers West
or described the grievance procedure set forth in the CBA.

LA-CE-534-M
October 26, 2009
Page 7
4. 	Collusion
While the MMBA does not specifically address allegations
of
collusion between an
employer
and an employee organization, the MMBA does make it unlawful for an employer to
dominate
or interfere with the internal activities
of
an employee organization. (Gov. Code,
§§
3502,
3503; Redwoods Community College District (1987) PERB Decision No. 650; Santa Monica
Community College District (1979) PERB Decision No. 103.) However, only employee
organizations have standing to file unfair practice charges alleging that a employer unlawfully
dominated or interfered with the internal activities
of
the employee organization. (State
of
California (Department
of
Corrections) (1993) PERB Decision No. 972-S.) In State
of
California (Department
of
Corrections), supra, PERB Decision No. 972-S, the Board
stated
in
relevant part:
The rights at issue in this case, the right to represent and the right
to be free from employer interference with internal union
activities, are union rights which require that an alleged violation
of
these rights be prosecuted by the union. To grant an individual
standing to file charges
of
this nature would undermine stable
labor-management relations existing between the employer and
the exclusive representative.
The above-titled charge was filed by Mr. Hayes. Mr. Hayes is an individual employee,
not
an
employee organization. Accordingly, Mr. Hayes does not have standing to allege that
Respondent violated the MMBA by dominating or interfering with the internal activities
of
United Healthcare Workers West.
5. 	Remaining Allegations
As previously stated, Charging Party alleged sections "3500-inclusive; 3500.5; 3501(A), (1),
(2), (B), (C), (D), (E); 3504; 3504.5(A); 3505; 3507-(5), (6), [and] (7)"
of
the MMBA
were
violated by Respondent. 	However, Charging Party provides no facts, theories, or argurnents
regarding why he believes these sections
of
the MMBA were violated by Respondent.
Additionally, PERB has held that individual employees do not have standing to allege unilateral
change violations (Oxnard School District (Gorcey and Tripp) (1988) PERB Decision
No. 667), nor allege violations
of
sections that protect the collective bargaining rights
of
employee organizations. (State
of
California (Department a/Corrections) (1993) PERB
Decision No. 972-S.) A number
of
the MMBA sections Charging Party alleges Respondent
violated protect the collective bargaining rights
of
employee organizations. For example,
MMBA section 3505 requires that public employers and employee organizations negotiate in
good faith. 	Charging Party lacks standing to pursue alleged violations 	these sections
MMBA.

LA-CE-534-M
October 26, 2009
Page 8
For these reasons the charge,
as
presently written, does not state a prima facie case. 7
If
there
are any factual inaccuracies in this letter or additional facts that would correct the deficiencies
explained above, Charging Party may amend the charge. The amended charge should be
prepared on a standard PERB unfair practice charge form, clearly labeled Fourth Amended
Charge, contain all the facts and allegations Charging Party wishes to make, and be signed
under penalty
of
perjury by an authorized agent
of
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 Respondent's representative and the original proof
of
service
must
be
filed with PERB.
If
an amended charge or withdrawal is not filed on or before November 3,
2009,8 PERB will dismiss the above-titled charge. 	Questions concerning this matter should be
directed to me at the above telephone number.
Sincerely,
Sean McKee
Regional Attorney
SM
7 In Eastside Union School District (1984) PERB Decision No. 466, the Board
explained that a prima facie case is established where the Board agent is able to make
"a
determination that the facts as alleged in the charge state a legal cause of action and that the
charging party is capable of providing admissible evidence in support of the allegations.
Consequently, where the investigation results in receipt of conflicting allegations of fact or
contrary theories of law, fair proceedings, if not due process, demand that a complaint
be
issued and the matter be sent to formal hearing." (lb id.)
8 A document is "filed" on the date the document is actually received by PERB,
including if transmitted via facsimile. 	(PERB Regulation 32135.)