City of Santa Clarita (PERB 1865M)

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

RUBEN S. KEYMOLENT,
Charging Party, Case No. LA-CE-299-M

Vv. PERB Decision No. 1865-M

CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, December 7, 2006

Respondent.

Appearance: Grace White, Attorney, for Ruben S. Keymolent.
Before Duncan, Chairman; Shek and Neuwald, Members.
DECISION

DUNCAN, Chairman: This case comes before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on appeal by Ruben S. Keymolent (Keymolent) of a Board agent’s dismissal
(attached) of his unfair practice charge. The charge alleged that the City of Santa Clarita
(City) violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA)! by retaliating against Keymolent and
denying him union representation.

The Board has reviewed the entire record in this case, including, but not limited to, the
unfair practice charge, the amended unfair practice charge, the warning and dismissal letters,
and Keymolent’s appeal. Based on a review of the complete record, the Board finds the Board
agent’s dismissal to be free of prejudicial error and adopts it as a decision of the Board itself.

DISCUSSION

Keymolent was employed until July 14, 2006, by Veolia/Connex/ATC, a private

provider of transportation services that contracts with the City. Keymolent alleges that he was

terminated from employment because of filing this charge, the employer disciplined him and

‘The MMBA is codified at Government Code section 3500, et seq.

treated him inhumanly because he sent a letter to the county supervisor, and his employer
suspended him without providing union representation.
None of the information provided demonstrates that Keymolent is a public employee.
The Board agent appropriately cites Fresno Unified School District (1979) PERB Decision
No. 82, to validate this conclusion. Veolia/Connex/ATC is a private company that contracts
with a public employer. It is also useful to note that Andy Perry, labor representative for
Teamsters Local 986, confirmed that Keymolent was not a public employee.
ORDER
The unfair practice charge in Case No. LA-CE-299-M is hereby DISMISSED
WITHOUT LEA VE TO AMEND.
Members Shek and Neuwald joined in this Decision.
2

STATE OF CALIFORNIA ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
PUBLIC EMPL OYME�T-R ELA_T_I_O_N_S_B O-A_R_D_�
t··,;=== =
........ .:c
Los Angeles Regional Office
3530 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1435
Los Angeles, CA 90010-2334
Telephone: (213) 736-3008
Fax: (213) 736-4901
August 22, 2006
Grace White, Attorney
21650 Oxnard Street
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Re: Ruben S. Keymolent v. City of Santa Clarita
Unfair Practice Charge No. LA-CE-299-M
DISMISSAL LETTER
Dear Ms. White:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on July 13, 2006. Ruben S. Keymolent alleges that the City of Santa
Clarita (City) violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act 1
(MMBA) by retaliating against him and
by denying union representation.
I indicated to him in my attached letter dated July 19, 2006, that the above-referenced charge
did not state a prima facie case. He was advised that, if there were any factual inaccuracies or
additional facts which would correct the deficiencies explained in that letter, he should amend
the charge. He was further advised that, unless he amended the charge to state a prima facie
case or withdrew it prior to July 26, 2006, the charge would be dismissed.
On July 24, 2006, I received Mr. Keymolent's letter dated July 21, 2006 and on August 22,
2006, you provided a proof of service showing the letter was served on the City.
In his letter Mr. Keymolent states that he indicated on his unfair practice charge form that the
City is under the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority Transit Employer-Employee Relations Act (TEERA) (Pub. Utilities Code sec. 99560
et seq.). He states "Santa Clarita Transit, a division of Veolia[,] is 'involved' a hundred
percent in this unfair complaint" because everything at his work site has the Santa Clarita City
Seal including a big sign in front of the Santa Clarita maintenance facility and every bus in the
city has the same seal. Moreover, he asserts that the City is his employer because the City
pays Veolia and because the supervisors give him instructions in the same physical location
where City offices are located (28250 Constellation Road, Santa Clarita). Finally, he asserts he
is a City employee because when he asked his supervisors why they all have to work on
holidays the supervisors replied that it was the City's decision.
1 The MMBA is codified at Government Code section 3500 et seq. The text of the
MMBA and the Board's Regulations may be found on the Internet at www.perb.ca.gov.

LA-CE-299-M
August 22, 2006
Page2
He also states that if any federal laws were violated "they were instructed by Santa Clarita City
or transportation facility." He also states the City is the main employer and they own
everything. He also states ATC Van Com just has two old trucks and a van.
Finally, he states that on July 17, 2006, he came to the Los Angeles Regional Office of PERB
and told me Veolia terminated him because he filed this unfair practice charge.
He also states he was referred to PERB by the Labor Department in Van Nuys and he believes
PERB is avoiding responsibility by telling him his charge is outside of PERB 's jurisdiction.
Discussion
On July 28, 2006, I contacted you since you were representing Mr. Keymolent in another
unfair practice charge filed by Mr. Keymolent on July 21, 2006.
On July 31, 2006, I received a notice of appearance indicating you were representing Mr.
Keymolent in this case. The same day, I sent you a copy of my July 19, 2006 Warning Letter
and I gave you until August 7, 2006, to file an amended charge. You have not filed an
amended charge and none of the information Mr. Keymolent provided in his July 21; 2006
letter demonstrates that he is a public employee and that his dispute falls within PERB 's
jurisdiction. Therefore, I am dismissing the charge based on the facts and reasons contained in
my July 19, 2006 letter.
Right to Appeal
Pursuant to PERB Regulations,2 you may obtain a review of this dismissal of the charge by
filing an appeal to the Board itself within twenty (20) calendar days after service of this
dismissal. (Regulation 32635(a).) Any document filed with the Board must contain the case
name and number, and the original and five (5) copies of all documents must be provided to
the Board.
A document is considered "filed" when actually received during a regular PERB business day.
(Regulations 32135(a) and 32130; see also Government Code section l 1020(a).) A document
is also considered "filed" when received by facsimile transmission before the close of business
together with a Facsimile Transmission Cover Sheet which meets the requirements of
Regulation 32135(d), provided the filing party also places the original, together with the
required number of copies and proof of service, in the U.S. mail. (Regulations 32135(b), (c)
and (d); see also Regulations 32090 and 32130.)
The Board's address is:
Public Employment Relations Board
2 PERB 's Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.

LA-CE-299-M
August 22, 2006
Page 3
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.) The
document will be considered properly "served" when personally delivered or deposited in the
mail or deposited with a delivery service and properly addressed. A document may also be
concurrently served via facsimile transmission on all parties to the proceeding. (Regulation
32135(c).)
Extension of Time
A request for an extension of time, in which to file a document with the Board itself, must be
in writing and filed with the Board at the .previously noted address. A request for an extension
must be filed at least three (3) calendar days before the expiration of the time required for
filing the document. The request must indicate good cause for and, if known, the position of
each other party regarding the extension, and shall be accompanied by proof of service of the
request upon each party. (Regulation 32132.)
Final Date
If no appeal is filed within the specified time limits, the dismissal will become final when the
time limits have expired.
Sincerely,
ROBIN WESLEY
Acting General Counsel
By~
Mary Creith
Regional Attorney
Attachment
cc: Paul Tucker, Director of Maintenance

1

STATE OF CALIFORNIA ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
(
Los Angeles Regional Office
3530 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1435
Los Angeles, CA 90010-2334
Telephone: (213) 736-3008
Fax: (213) 736-4901
July 19, 2006
Ruben S. Keymolent
29009 Morning Side Drive
Val Verde, CA 91384
Re: Ruben S. Keymolent v. City of Santa Clarita
Unfair Practice Charge No. LA-CE-299-M
WARNING LETTER
Dear Mr. Keymolent:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on July 13, 2006. You allege that the City of Santa Clarita violated
the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act 1
(MMBA) by retaliating against you and by denying union
representation.
Until July 14, 2006, you were employed by Veolia/Connex/ATC, a private provider of
transportation services that contracts with the City of Santa Clarita. You allege that: (1) you
were terminated from your employment because you filed this charge; (2) your employer
disciplined you and treated you inhumanely because you sent a letter to the County Supervisor;
and (3) your employer suspended you without providing union representation.
You state that you were employed by the City of Santa Clarita Transportation Department and
Veolia/Connex/ATC, a private company that·contracts with the City to provide transportation
services. You were paid by ATC and ATC is written on the buses. There is a union contract
between ATC and Teamsters Local 986. Your union representative is Andy Perry. You told
me your supervisor was Paul Tucker and he is the one that terminated your employment. You
said Tucker is employed by the City of Santa Clarita and Veolia/Connex/ATC.
On July 19, 2006 I contacted Mr. Perry and he confirmed that he is a labor representative for
Teamsters Lo.cal 986. He stated you were employed by ATCNan Com/Veolia but you were
terminated. He also stated you filed a grievance and a meeting regarding your grievance is
scheduled for July 26, 2006. He said ATCNan Com/Veolia is a private company and that the
contract between ATCNan Com/Veolia and Local 986 falls under the purview of the National
Labor Relations Board and-the National Labor Relations Act. Mr. Perry stated you were not a
state or public employee and you had the right to present claims to the National Labor
Relations Board.
Discussion
1 The MMBA is codified at Government Code section 3500 et seq. The text of the
MMBA and the Board's Regulations may be found on the Internet at www.perb.ca.gov.

LA-CE-299-M
July 19, 2006
Page2
The Public Employment Relations Board (PERB or Board) is a quasi-judicial administrative
agency charged with administering the collective bargaining statutes covering public
employees. PERB only has jurisdiction over public employees and it does not have any
authority over collective bargaining laws covering employees of private companies. The
National Labor Relations Board has jurisdiction and authority over collective bargaining laws
covering employees of private companies. You assert that you were a public employee since
you worked for ATC/Connex/ATC which contracted with the City of Santa Clarita to provide
public transportation.
In a case similar to yours, PERB decided that employees of a private company that contracted
to provide transportation services to the Fresno Unified School District were private employees
and not public employees because the dismissal of the employees was carried out by
supervisory personnel at the private company and Fresno Unified School District personnel
were not in any way involved with the dismissals. (Fresno Unified School District (1979)
PERB Decision No. 82.) Since the employees were not found to be public employees, PERB
had no jurisdiction over their claims and PERB dismissed their unfair practice charge.
Similar to the facts in Fresno described above, Veolia/Connex/ATC is a private entity that
contracts with a public employer, the City of Santa Clarita, to provide transportation services.
Also similar to the facts in Fresno, your supervisor, Pau·I Tucker, was a Veolia/Connex/ATC
employee and he terminated your employm1/nt. Nobody from the City of Santa Clarita was
involved in Veolia/Connex/ATC's termination of your employment. Therefore, the
information you have provided indicates you were an employee of a private company and you
were not a public employee. As PERB lacks jurisdiction over private employees, your
allegations must be dismissed. Please note that as an employee of a private company, your
allegations are more properly considered by the National Labor Relations Board.
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 charg.e form, clearly labeled First Amended Charge, contain all
the facts and allegations you wish to make, and be signed under penalty of perjury by the
charging party. The amended charge must have the case number written on the top right hand
corner of the charge form. The amended charge must be served on the respondent's
representative and the original proof of service must be filed with PERB. If I do not receive an
amended charge or withdrawal from you before July 26, 2006, I shall dismiss your charge. If
you have any questions, please call me at the above telephone number.
Sincerely,
~~~Mary Creith
Regional Attorney
MC