Los Angeles Unified School District (PERB 2073E)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
RONALD WILLARD WEIGHTMAN,
Charging Party, 	Case No. LA-CE-5208-E
V . 	PERB Decision No. 2073
October 28, 2009	LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Appearance: Linda Rose Fessler, Attorney, for Ronald Willard Weightman.
Before Dowdin Calvillo, Acting Chair; Mckeag and Wesley, Members.
DECISION
DOWDIN CALVILLO, Acting Chair: This case is before the Public Employment
Relations Board (PERB or Board) on appeal by Ronald Willard Weightman (Weightman) of a
Board agent's dismissal of his unfair practice charge. The charge alleged that the Los Angeles
Unified School District (District) violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA)
by: (1) failing to follow contractual timelines in processing a grievance; and (2) making false
statements and withholding information at a grievance meeting. The Board agent dismissed
the charge for lack of standing and failure to state a prima facie case of interference.
The Board has reviewed the dismissal and the record in light of Weightman's appeal
and the relevant law. Based on this review, the Board affirms the dismissal of the charge for
the reasons discussed below.
EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. Unless otherwise
indicated, all statutory references are to the Government Code.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
RONALD WILLARD WEIGHTMAN,
Charging Party,
V.
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Respondent.	Respondent.
Case No. LA-CE-5208-E
PERB Decision No. 2073
October 28, 2009
Appearance: Linda Rose Fessler, Attorney, for Ronald Willard Weightman.
Before Dowdin Calvillo, Acting Chair; McKeag and Wesley, Members.
DECISION
DOWD IN CALVILLO, Acting Chair: This case is before the Public Employment
Relations Board (PERB or Board) on appeal by Ronald Willard Weightman (Weightman) of a
Board agent's dismissal of his unfair practice charge. The charge alleged that the Los Angeles
Unified School District (District) violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA) 1
by: (1) failing to follow contractual timelines in processing a grievance; and (2) making false
statements and withholding information at a grievance meeting. The Board agent dismissed
the charge for lack of standing and failure to state a prima facie case of interference.
The Board has reviewed the dismissal and the record in light of Weightman's appeal
and the relevant law. Based on this review, the Board affirms the dismissal of the charge for
the reasons discussed below.
1 EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. Unless otherwise
indicated, all statutory references are to the Government Code.

BACKGROUND
Weightman is a computer teacher for the District and a member of the certificated
bargaining unit exclusively represented by United Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA). On
June 19, 2007, UTLA filed a grievance claiming that for the past two years, the District had
the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between UTLA and the District. A Step One
grievance meeting was scheduled for August 22, 2007; it was subsequently rescheduled to
September 24, 2007. Staff Relations Field Director Steve Quon (Quon) represented the
District at the Step One meeting.
When the District did not provide a Step One response within the timelines set forth in
the CBA, UTLA requested that the grievance be moved to Step Two. A Step Two meeting
was held on January 16, 2008. Quon and Director of Secondary School Services Dr. Evelyn
Mahmud (Mahmud) represented the District at the Step Two meeting. The amended charge
described the Step Two meeting as follows:
Mr. Quon immediately announced that Step One did not end
according to contract (which I had no control over), affecting the
views on a pre-Step-Two offer of $62K made by the principal.
Dr. Mahmud misrepresented the financial facts. She implied that
I had agreed to teach additional assignments for free. She was
supposed to have helped the principal discover a method for
paying me, but instead withheld district methods for payment.
Dr. Mahmud did not bargain in good faith. She misclassified my
case as one of class size problems, instead of a matter of class
coverage as I had originally presented it to Mr. Quon. She
completely misconstrued when a fifteen-day time period should
have begun as outlined in the UTLA agreement (which was
is unclear whether a UTLA representative attended the Step One meeting.
Weightman's statement of the charge does not allege that a UTLA representative was present
but the documents submitted in support of the charge include a letter from UTLA Area
Representative Christopher Arellano (Arellano) stating that he would be Weightman's
advocate at the Step One meeting.
2
BACKGROUND
Weightman is a computer teacher for the District and a member of the certificated
bargaining unit exclusively represented by United Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA). 	On
June 19, 2007, UTLA filed a grievance claiming that for the past two years, the District had
failed to properly pay Weightman in violation of Article XIV, section 30.0 (Payroll Errors) of
the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between UTLA and the District. A Step One
grievance meeting was scheduled for August 22, 2007; it was subsequently rescheduled to
September 24, 2007. Staff Relations Field Director Steve Quon (Quon) represented the
District at the Step One meeting.2
When the District did not provide a Step One response within the timelines set forth in
the CBA, UTLA requested that the grievance be moved to Step Two. A Step Two meeting
was held on January 16, 2008. Quon and Director of Secondary School Services Dr. Evelyn
Mahmud (Mahmud) represented the District at the Step Two meeting. The amended charge
described the Step Two meeting as follows:
Mr. Quon immediately announced that Step One did not end
according to contract (which I had no control over), affecting the
'V;a.,;.,;rc, A~ 'l "t"'\V'CI s+a- 'T\uA n..f"+'a-¥1 r..f" $?."'K =arlo 1,...,,	1-v_p-.1.vvvv.1_.1_\.,,.tV.l. 	Uk.I_ 	111 uvuy th.a	11\,.,1-'lll\,.;l	
............ ;nn:pnl	a.
Dr. Mahmud misrepresented the financial facts. 	She implied that
I had agreed to teach additional assignments for free. 	She was
supposed to have helped the principal discover a method for
paying me, but instead withheld district methods for payment.
Dr. Mahmud did not bargain in good faith. 	She misclassified my
case as one of class size problems, instead of a matter of class
coverage as I had originally presented it to Mr. Quon. She
completely misconstrued when a fifteen-day time period should
have begun as outlined in the UTLA agreement (which was
l\.,,VV~V.llU._l-'.l\.,,-
It It is unclear whether a UTLA representative attended the Step One meeting.
Weightman's statement of the charge does not allege that a UTLA representative was present
but the documents submitted in support of the charge include a letter from UTLA Area
Representative Christopher Arellano (Arellano) stating that he would be Weightman's
advocate at the Step One meeting.
2

operative even though I was speaking for myself alone in this
Mahmud provided the District's written Step Two response to UTLA representative
Arellano on January 31, 2008. In the letter, Mahmud asserted that Weightman's grievance did
not concern a payroll error but rather a change in class size. Under Article V, Section 8.0 of
the CBA, a grievance over class size must be filed within 15 days of the alleged violation.
Because Weightman filed his grievance two years after the District allegedly failed to pay him
for an increase in class size, Mahmud denied the grievance as untimely.
Weightman then asked UTLA to take his grievance to arbitration. On May 6, 2008,
UTLA declined to do so. Weightman appealed the decision to UTLA's Grievance Review
Committee, which informed him on June 12, 2008, that it had decided not to arbitrate his
grievance.
Unfair Practice Charge. Dismissal and Appeal
Weightman filed the instant unfair practice charge on June 23, 2008. The charge
alleged that the District violated EERA section 3543.2, subdivision (a) by not processing
Weightman's grievance in a timely manner. It further alleged that the District's false
statements during the Step Two grievance meeting violated EERA section 3543.5,
subdivision (c). The Board agent sent Weightman a warning letter stating that, because the
EERA sections cited in the charge deal solely with the rights of employee organizations,
Weightman had no standing to allege violations of those sections. The letter further stated that
the charge failed to state a prima facie case of interference with Weightman's rights under
EERA.
Weightman amended the charge on September 29, 2008. The amended charge alleged
the same conduct by the District but asserted that the conduct violated EERA section 3543,
subdivision (b), which grants an employee the right to "present grievances to his or her
3
operative even though I was speaking for myself alone in thi
matter).
s
matter).
Mahmud provided the District's written Step Two response to UTLA representative
Arellano on January 31, 2008. In the letter, Mahmud asserted that Weightman's grievance did
not concern a payroll error but rather a change in class size. Under Article V, Section 8.0
of
the CBA, a grievance over class size must be filed within
15
days
of
the alleged violation.
Because Weightman filed his grievance two years after the District allegedly failed to pay him
for an increase in class size, Mahmud denied the grievance as untimely.
Weightman then asked UTLA to take his grievance to arbitration. On May 6, 2008,
UTLA declined to do so. Weightman appealed the decision to UTLA's Grievance Review
Committee, which informed him on June 12, 2008, that it had decided not to arbitrate his
gnevance.
Unfair Practice Charge, Dismissal and Appeal
Weightman filed the instant unfair practice charge on June 23, 2008. The charge
alleged that the District violated EERA section 3543.2, subdivision (a) by not processing
Weightman's grievance in a timely manner. It further alleged that the District's false
statements during the Step Two grievance meeting violated EERA section 3543.5,
subdivision (c). The Board agent sent Weightman a warning letter stating that, because the
EERA sections cited in the charge deal solely with the rights
of
employee organizations,
Weightman had no standing to allege violations
of
those sections. The letter further stated that
the charge failed to state a prima facie case
of
interference with Weightman' s rights under
EERA.
Weightman amended the charge on September 29, 2008. The amended charge alleged
the same conduct by the District but asserted that the conduct violated EERA section 3543,
subdivision (b ), which grants an employee the right to "present grievances to his or her
3

employer, and have those grievances adjusted, without the intervention of the exclusive
representative." The Board agent rejected this argument because the grievance at issue was
filed by UTLA, not by Weightman as an individual. The Board agent dismissed the charge on
October 1, 2008.
On October 27, 2008, Weightman filed a timely appeal of the dismissal. On appeal,
Weightman argues that he has standing to bring the charge because his grievance sought to
vindicate his own rights, not those of UTLA. He further contends that it is inconsistent for
PERB to consider him an individual for purposes of the unfair practice charge but not for
purposes of his grievance.
DISCUSSION
Weightman's charge alleged that the District failed to follow contractual grievance
timelines and that Mahmud made misrepresentations and withheld information during the
Step Two grievance meeting. Weightman asserts that, by engaging in this conduct, the District
failed to participate in the grievance process in good faith.
Weightman's assertion can be characterized as alleging that the District either breached
the grievance provisions of the CBA or unilaterally changed terms and conditions of
employment. PERB has no authority to remedy a breach of a CBA unless the breach also
constitutes an unfair practice. (EERA $ 3541.5, subd. (b); Los Angeles Unified School District
(1993) PERB Decision No. 1013.) Thus, to the extent the charge alleged a contractual breach,
PERB is without authority to provide a remedy. (Regents of the University of California
(1990) PERB Decision No. 849-H.)
EERA section 3543.5, subdivision (c) makes it unlawful for a public school employer
to "[refuse or fail to meet and negotiate in good faith with an exclusive representative." A
unilateral change in an established policy, such as that set forth in a CBA, may demonstrate a
employer, and have those grievances adjusted, without the intervention
of
the exclusive
representative." The Board agent rejected this argument because the grievance at issue was
filed by UTLA, not by Weightman as an individual. The Board agent dismissed the charge on
October
1,
2008.
On
October 27, 2008,
\X/eightman
filed a timely appeal
of
the dismissal.
	On
appeal,
Weightman argues that he has standing to bring the charge because his grievance sought to
vindicate his own rights, not those
of
UTLA. He further contends that it is inconsistent for
PERB to consider him an individual for purposes
of
the unfair practice charge but not for
purposes
of
his grievance.
DISCUSSION
Weightman's charge alleged that the District failed to follow contractual grievance
timelines and that Mahmud made misrepresentations and withheld information during the
Step Two grievance meeting. Weightman asserts that, by engaging in this conduct, the District
failed to participate in the grievance process in good faith.
Weightman' s assertion can be characterized as alleging that the District either breached
the grievance provisions
of
the CBA or unilaterally changed terms and conditions
of
employment. PERB has no authority to remedy a breach
of
a CBA unless the breach also
constitutes an unfair practice. (EERA § 3541.5, subd. (b); Los Angeles Unified School District
(1993) PERB Decision No. 1013.) Thus, to the extent the charge alleged a contractual breach,
PERB is without authority to provide a remedy. (Regents
of
the University
of
California
(1990) PERB Decision No. 849-H.)
EERA section 3543.5, subdivision (c) makes it unlawful for a public school employer
to "[r]efuse or fail to meet and negotiate in good faith with an exclusive representative." A
unilateral change in an established policy, such as that set forth in a CBA, may demonstrate a
4

violation of the statutory duty to negotiate in good faith. However, this duty is owed only
between the employee organization and the employer. Because the employer's duty to bargain
in good faith is owed to the employee organization and not to the individual employees the
organization represents, PERB has long held that an individual employee lacks standing to
Decision No. 667.) In Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2006) PERB Decision
No. 1807-M, the Board held that an individual employee lacked standing to allege that his
employer's failure to comply with contractual grievance procedures constituted an unlawful
unilateral change. Consequently, Weightman lacks standing to allege that the District violated
EERA by failing to follow the grievance procedures in the CBA.
Nonetheless, Weightman does have standing to allege that the District's conduct during
the grievance process interfered with his exercise of rights granted by EERA. (Bay Area Air
Quality Management District, supra.) The test for whether a respondent has interfered with
the rights of employees under the EERA does not require that unlawful motive be established,
only that at least slight harm to employee rights results from the conduct. In State of
California (Department of Developmental Services) (1983) PERB Decision No. 344-S, citing
Carlsbad Unified School District (1979) PERB Decision No. 89 and Service Employees
International Union, Local 99 (Kimmett) (1979) PERB Decision No. 106, the Board described
the standard as follows:
[In order to establish a prima facie case of unlawful interference,
the charging party must establish that the respondent's conduct
tends to or does result in some harm to employee rights granted
under EERA.
Under the above-described test, a violation may only be found if EERA provides the
claimed rights. Weightman alleged that the District's conduct interfered with his ability to
receive a reasonable settlement offer from the District and to have UTLA take his grievance to
5
violation
of
the statutory duty to negotiate in good faith. 	However, this duty is owed only
between the employee organization and the employer. Because the employer's duty to bargain
in good faith is owed to the employee organization and not to the individual employees the
organization represents, PERB has long held that an individual employee lacks standing to
allege a unilateral change violation. (Oxnard School District (Gorcey and Tripp) (1988) PERB
Decision No. 667.) In Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2006) PERB Decision
No. 1807-M, the Board held that an individual employee lacked standing to allege that his
employer's failure to comply with contractual grievance procedures constituted an unlawful
unilateral change. Consequently, Weightman lacks standing to allege that the District violated
EERA by failing to follow the grievance procedures in the CBA.
Nonetheless, Weightman does have standing to allege that the District's conduct during
the grievance process interfered with his exercise
of
rights granted by EERA. (Bay Area Air
Quality Management District, supra.) The test for whether a respondent has interfered with
the rights
of
employees under the EERA does not require that unlawful motive be established,
only that at least slight harm to employee rights results from the conduct. In State
of
California (Department
of
Developmental Services) (1983) PERB Decision No. 344-S, citing
Carlsbad Unified School District (1979) PERB Decision No. 89 and Service Employees
International Union, Local 99 (Kimmett) (1979) PERB Decision No. 106, the Board described
the standard as follows:
[I]n order to establish a prima facie case of unlawful interference,
the charging party must establish that the respondent's conduct
tends to or does result in some harm to employee rights granted
under EERA.
Under the above-described test, a violation may only be found if EERA provides the
claimed rights. Weightman alleged that the District's conduct interfered with his ability to
receive a reasonable settlement offer from the District and to have UTLA take his grievance to
5

arbitration. No provision of EERA grants an employee the right to receive a reasonable
settlement offer from his or her employer. The filing and pursuit of a grievance is protected by
EERA. (Ventura County Community College District (1999) PERB Decision No. 1323; North
Sacramento School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 264.) However, EERA does not give
an employee the right to have a grievance taken to arbitration. (Hart District Teachers
Association (Mercado and Bloch) (2001) PERB Decision No. 1456; Castro Valley Unified
School District (1980) PERB Decision No. 149.)' Accordingly, the charge did not state a
prima facie case of interference with "employee rights granted under EERA."
ORDER
The unfair practice charge in Case No. LA-CE-5208-E is hereby DISMISSED
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
Members Mckeag and Wesley joined in this Decision.
here such a right exists, it is bestowed by the terms of a CBA. (California School
Employees Association & its Chapter 379 (Dunn) (2009) PERB Decision No. 2028.)
6
arbitration. No provision of EERA grants an employee the right to receive a reasonable
settlement offer from his or her employer. The filing and pursuit of a grievance is protected by
EERA. (Ventura County Community College District (1999) PERB Decision No. 1323; North
Sacramento School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 264.) However, EERA does not give
an employee the right to have·a grievance taken to arbitration. Cl-fart District Teachers
Association (Mercado and Bloch) (2001) PERB Decision No. 1456; Castro Valley Unified
School District (1980) PERB Decision No. 149.)3 Accordingly, the charge did not state a
prima facie case of interference with "employee rights granted under EERA."
ORDER
The unfair practice charge in Case No. LA-CE-5208-E is hereby DISMISSED
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
Members McKeag and Wesley joined in this Decision.
WWhere such a right exists, it is bestowed by the terms of a CBA. (California School
Employees Association & its Chapter 379 (Dunn) (2009) PERB Decision No. 2028.)
6