American Federation of Teachers Local 1521 (Paige) (PERB 1769E)

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

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD

JAMES PAUL PAIGE,
Charging Party, Case No. LA-CO-1191-E

Vv. PERB Decision No. 1769

AFT LOCAL 1521, June 10, 2005

Respondent.

Appearance: James Paul Paige, on his own behalf.
Before Duncan, Chairman; Whitehead and Shek, Members.
DECISION

WHITEHEAD, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on appeal by James Paul Paige (Paige) of a Board agent’s dismissal
(attached) of his unfair practice charge. The unfair practice charge alleged that the AFT Local
1521 (AFT) violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA) " by canceling his
arbitration hearing and writing falsehoods about him. Paige alleged that this conduct
constituted a violation of EERA section 3543.6.

The Board has reviewed the entire record in this matter, including the unfair practice
charge and amended unfair practice charge, the Board agent’s warning and dismissal letters,
and Paige’s appeal. The Board concludes that the Board agent’s warning and dismissal letters

are free of prejudicial error and adopts them as the decision of the Board itself.

'EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540, et seq.

DISCUSSION
Paige's appeal consists of a handwritten note stating:
I cooperated. The three evaluations done during the summer do
not count because it is an intersession. The Local falsified the
other evaluations, because they wanted to steal my 60 days of
sick leave for the District, and also use them for a phoney (sic)
excuse to not go to arbitration.
Paige attached to the appeal a copy of a letter dated December 13, 2002 from Dean
Athans, Dean of Academic Affairs, thanking him for his cooperation; a copy of an
unsatisfactory performance review for Paige from July 2003; a page from the District/AFT
memorandum of understanding quoting Article 15, section A.3. that, "Time served on
intersession assignments does not count toward tenure .... "; and a copy of a pay stub showing
a sick leave balance of 60 hours.
The information in the appeal raises new charge allegations and new supporting
evidence that were not previously presented and that were known to Paige when he filed his
unfair practice charge and amended unfair practice charge. PERB Regulation2 32635(b)
precludes a charging party from raising new allegations or new supporting evidence on appeal
without good cause. Paige did not provide any justification for presenting this information at
this point in the proceedings. Consequently, we find no good cause to accept the new
allegations and supporting evidence, and therefore, decline to consider them. Furthermore, the
appeal did not otherwise meet the requirements of PERB Regulation 32635(a)(l).3
2PERB regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001, et seq.
3PERB Regulation 32635(a)(l) provides, in pertinent part:
The Appeal shall:
(1) State the specific issues of procedure, fact, law or rationale to
which the appeal is taken;
2

ORDER
The unfair practice charge in Case No. LA-CO-1191-E is hereby DISMISSED
WITHOUT LEA VE TO AMEND.
Chairman Duncan and Member Shekjoined in this Decision.
(2) Identify the page or part of the dismissal to which each
appeal is taken;
(3) State the grounds for each issue stated.
3

=ST=A=T=E=O=F=CA=L=I=FO=R=N_IA====-==.,.;'r;:,,.. 	ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
-~=========~======·="--r-:
Sacramento Regional Office
I 031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
Telephone: (916)327-8384
Fax: (916) 327-6377
February 25, 2005
James Paul Paige
9514 Millergrove Drive
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
Re: 	James Paul Paige v. AFT Local 1521
Unfair Practice Charge.No. LA-CO-1191-E
DISMISSAL LETTER
Dear Mr. Paige:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on February 1, 2005. James Paul Paige alleges that the Los Angeles
College Faculty Guild, Local 152 AFT violated the Educational Employment Relations Act
(EERA)1 by denying him its duty of fair representation.
I indicated to you in my attached letter dated February 7, 2005, that the above-referenced
charge did not state a prima facie case. You were advised that, if there were any factual
inaccuracies or additional facts which would correct the deficiencies explained in that letter,
you should amend the charge. You were further advised that, unless you amended the charge
to state a prima facie case or withdrew it prior to February 17, 2005, the charge would be
dismissed. 	j
The warning letter indicated that the Guild had explained its decision not to proceed to
arbitration on Paige's behalf, and that the charge failed to demonstrate the Guild had acted in
an arbitrary, discriminatory or bad faith manner.
The first amended charge alleges that Michael Morse, an administrator at the Los Angeles
Community College, evaluators, and the campus police officers harassed Paige. These
individuals are not agents of the Guild. (See generally Inglewood Unified School District
(1990) PERB Decision No. 792.) As their conduct is not attributable to the Guild these
allegations must be dismissed.
As discussed in the Warning Letter, the Guild initially agreed to take Paige's grievance to
arbitration in a November 3, 2003, letter. The Guild later refused to proceed to arbitration in
an August 4, 2004, letter. The Warning Letter indicated that in the August 4, 2004, letter the
Guild explained why it was not pursuing the grievance to arbitration and that the charge failed
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-1191-E
February 25, 2005
Page 2
C
to provide facts demonstrating the Guild's conduct was arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad
faith.
Paige contends the Guild's conduct was arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith because the
Guild did not inform him that its initial agreement to proceed to arbitration was "provisional"
pending further review of the documents underlying his grievance. When Guild
Representative Christine Rodriguez requested the documents underlying his grievance she
indicated she was "missing documents" and "wanted as many as possible." Paige alleges that
Chief Grievance Officer Darrell Eckersley' s statement in the August 4, 2004, letter that, "Our
decision [to proceed to arbitration] was provisional based on our being able to review all of the
documents in your issue, documents that we did not have at the time," was a lie because the
Guild never informed Paige that its original decision was merely provisional. Paige believed
that Rodriguez was going to get him rehired before the arbitration because his performance
evaluations were incorrect.
As stated in the warning letter, in order to state a prima facie violation of this section of EERA,
Charging Party must show that the Respondent's conduct was arbitrary, discriminatory or in
bad faith. 	(United Teachers of Los Angeles (Collins) (1982) PERB Decision No. 258.) Even
if the Guild's initial decision to proceed to arbitration was not provisional and the Guild's
letter characterizing it as such was a lie, the charge does not state a prima facie violation.
Although Paige relied on the Guild's initial letter and is very upset by the Guild's reversal of
course without warning, the Guild provided a reasonable explanation for its decision to no
longer proceed to arbitration.2 The filing of a grievance does not commit the union to proceed
through all steps of the grievance process. A union may withdraw a grievance later in the
process if facts come to light which cast doubts on the merits of the grievance. (See California
State Employees Association (Cohen) (1993) PERB Decision No. 980-S.) The charge does not
demonstrate that the Guild failed to base its decision on a rational assessment of the grievance.
Thus, the charge fails to state a prima facie violation and is dismissed.
Right to Appeal
Pursuant to PERB Regulations,3 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
2 The Guild's August 4, 2004, letter stated in pertinent part, "Your department gave you
a process of several evaluations with recommendations for improvement. Following the final
evaluation in Spring 2003, which was unsatisfactory, a committee was formed to evaluate you
in the Summer 2003 session. You refused to cooperate with your evaluators during each of the
evaluations of Spring 1999, Fall 2002, Spring 2003, and Summer 2003. You refused to accept
the written recommendation for improvement for each of these evaluations. Your have
received a progressive evaluation over several semesters. [sic] You were removed from the
seniori7 list following this long process, according to Article 19."
PERB's Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.

LA-CO-1191-E
February 25, 2005
Page 3
C
name and number, and the original and five (5) copies of all documents must be provided to
the Board.
A document is considered "filed" when actually received before the close of business (5 p.m.)
on the last day set for filing. 	(Regulations 32135(a) and 32130.) A document is also
considered "filed" when received by facsimile transmission before the close of business on the
last day for filing together with a Facsimile Transmission Cove~ Sheet which meets the
requirements of Regulation 32135(d), provided the filing party also places the original,
together with the required number of copies and proof of service, in the U.S. mail.
(Regulations 32135(b), (c) and (d); see also Regulations 32090 and 32130.)
The Board's address is:
Public Employment Relations Board
Attention: Appeals Assistant
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
FAX: (916) 327-7960
If you file a timely appeal of the refusal to issue a complaint, any other party may file with the
Board an original and five copies of a statement in opposition within twenty (20) calendar days
following the date.of service of the appeal. (Regulation 32635(b).)
Service
All documents authorized to be filed herein must also be "served" upon all parties to the
proceeding, and a "proof of service" must accompany each copy of a document served upon a
party or filed with the Board itself. (See Regulation 32140 for the required contents and a
sample form.) The document will be considered properly "served" when personally delivered
or deposited in the first-class mail, postage paid and properly addressed. A document filed by
facsimile transmission may be concurrently served via facsimile transmission on all parties to
the proceeding. (Regulation 32135(c).)
Extension of Time
A request for an extensio~ of time, in which to file a document with the Board itself, must be
in writing and filed with the Board at the previously noted address. A request for an extension
must be filed at least three (3) calendar days before the expiration of the time required for
filing the document. The request must indicate good cause for and, if known, the position of
each other party regarding the extension, and shall be accompanied by proof of service of the
request upon each party. (Regulation 32132.)

LA-CO-1191-E
February 25, 2005
Page 4
Final Date
If no appeal is filed within the specified time limits, the dismissal will become final when the
time limits have expired.
Sincerely,
ROBERT THOMPSON
General Counsel
By 	fuw:/UtWTammySaml
Regional Attorney
.
Attachment
cc: Lawrence Rosenzweig

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	r·· 	(__,_ 	ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
===========~ ~=============='-
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Sacramento Regional Office
1031 !"8th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
Telephone: (916)327-8384
Fax: (916) 327-6377
February 7, 2005
James Paul Paige
9514 Millergrove Drive
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
Re: 	James Paul Paige v. Los Angeles College Faculty Guild, Local 152 AFT
Unfair Practice Charge No. LA-CO-1191-E
WARNING LETTER
Dear Mr. Paige:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on February 1, 2005. James Paul Paige alleges that the Los Angeles
College Faculty Guild, Local 152 AFT violated the Educational Employment Relations Act
(EERA)1 by denying you its duty of fair representation. My investigation revealed the
following information.2
The Los Angles College Guild, Local 152 AFT exclusively represents you. On
November 3, 2003, the Guild agreed to proceed with your grievance to arbitration. On
August 4, 2004, the Guild informed you that it would not proceed to arbitration. The
August 4, 2004 letter indicated that its initial decision on your grievance was provisional
pending a thorough review of the documents underlying the grievance. The letter also
indicated that the Guild's Grievance Review Committee decided not to pursue the grievance
based on the following reasons:
Your department gave you a process of several evaluations with
recommendations for improvement: Following the final
evaluation in Spring 2003, which was unsatisfactory, a committee
was formed to evaluate you in the Summer 2003 session. You
refused to cooperate with your evaluators during each of the
evaluations of Spring 1999, Fall 2002, Spring 2003, and Summer
2003. You refused to accept the written recommendation for
improvement for each of these evaluations. Your have received a
progressive evaluation over several semesters. [sicJYou were
removed from the seniority list following this long process,
according to· Article 19.
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 On February 7, 2004, I called the telephone number listed on the charge, but did not
reach you. Nor did that number provide an opportunity to leave a voicemail message.

LA-CO-1191-E
February 7, 2005
Page 2
(
The above-stated information fails to demonstrate a prima facie violation for the reasons that
follow .
. Charging Party has alleged that the exclusive representative denied Charging Party the right to
fair representation guaranteed by EERA section 3544.9 and thereby violated section 3543.6(b).
The duty of fair representation imposed on the exclusive representative extends to grievance
handling. (Fremont Teachers Association (King) (1980) PERB Decision No. 125; United
Teachers of Los Angeles (Collins) (1982) PERB Decision No. 258.) In order to state a prima
facie violation of this section of EERA, Charging Party must show that the Respondent's
conduct was arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith. In United Teachers of Los Angeles
(Collins), the Public Employment Relations Board stated:
Absent bad faith, discrimination, or arbitrary conduct, mere
negligence or poor judgment in handling a grievance does not
constitute a breach of the union's duty. 	[Citations omitted.]
A union may exercise its discretion to determine how far to
pursue a grievance in the employee's behalf as long as it does not
arbitrarily ignore a meritorious grievance or process a grievance
in a perfunctory fashion. A union is also not required to process
an employee's grievance if the chances for success are minimal.
In order to state a prima facie case of arbitrary conduct violating the duty of fair representation,
a Charging Party:
11 ••• 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 (Re)ll:s) (1983)
PERB Decision No. 332, p. 9, citing Rocklin Teachers
Professional Association (Romero) (1980) PERB Decision
No. 124.]
The Guild explained its refusal to pursue your grievance to arbitration in its August 4, 2004
letter. The Guild's stated reasons do not, on their face, demonstrate the Guild acted in an
arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith manner. Nor does the charge provide information
explaining the Guild's actions were arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. A charging party
should allege the "who, what, when, where, and how" of an unfair practice. (!Jnited Teachers
Los Angeles (Ragsdale) (1992) PERB Decision 944.) Mete legal conclusions are insufficient.
(See State of California{Department of Food and Agriculture (1994) PERB Decision No.
1071-S.) Thus, this charge fails to demonstrate a prima facie violation and must be dismissed.

LA-CO-1191-E
February 7, 2005
Page 3
(
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
comer of the charge form. The amended charge must be served on the respondent's
representative and the original proof of service must be filed with PERB. If I do not receive an
amended charge or withdrawal from you before February 17, 2005, I shall dismiss your charge.
If you have any questions, please call me at the above telephone number.
Sincerely,
Tammy Samsel
Regional Attorney
TLS