California School Employees Association and its Chapter 500 (Williams) (PERB 2304E)

2 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

YOULANDA O. WILLIAMS,

Charging Party, Case No. LA-CO-1503-E
vy, PERB Decision No. 2304
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES December 28, 2012

ASSOCIATION & ITS CHAPTER 500,

Respondent.

Appearances: Youlanda O. Williams, on her own behalf; Sonja J. Woodward, Attorney, for
California School Employees Association and its Chapter 500.

Before Martinez, Chair; Dowdin Calvillo and Huguenin, Members.
DECISION

MARTINEZ, Chair: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(Board) on appeal by Youlanda O. Williams (Williams) from the dismissal (attached) of her
unfair practice charge. The charge, as amended, alleges that the California School Employees
Association & its Chapter 500 (CSEA) violated the Educational Employment Relations Act
(EERA)! in regard to its handling of the following disputes between Williams and her
employer, the Los Angeles Unified School District: (1) a reassignment from Banning High
School to Mark Twain Middle School in or around February 2010; (2) a pay discrepancy for
7.25 hours on or about September 2, 2010; and (2) a lay-off effective on or about

September 23, 2011.” EERA section 3544.9 imposes an obligation on the exclusive

"EERA is codified at California Government Code section 3540 et seq. Unless
otherwise noted, all statutory references herein are to the Government Code.

* As stated in the introductory paragraphs of the warning and dismissal letters,
Williams’ charge, as amended, alleges generally that CSEA failed to properly handle
grievances, delayed in resolving the pay discrepancy, failed to represent Williams in dealing

representative to fairly represent each and every employee in the bargaining unit.3 The Office
of the General Counsel dismissed the charge for failure to state a prima facie violation of the
duty of fair representation. Williams filed a timely appeal from the dismissal. CSEA filed a
timely opposition.
The Board has reviewed the record in its entirety and given full consideration to the
issues raised on appeal. Based on this review, the Board finds the warning and dismissal
letters to be well-reasoned, adequately supported by the record and in accordance with the
applicable law. The Board also finds that there are no issues raised on appeal that were not
addressed and disposed of in the dismissal of the charge by the Office of the General Counsel.4
Accordingly, the Board hereby adopts the warning and dismissal letters as the decision of the
Board itself.5
with the employer, delayed in providing a response and failed to communicate regarding
grievances, California Public Employees' Retirement System and seniority rights. It is noted
that CSEA filed a grievance on behalf of Williams regarding the reassignment dispute, but
closed it prior to arbitration; no grievances were filed by CSEA on behalf of Williams
regarding the pay discrepancy dispute or the lay-off dispute.
3 A violation of rights guaranteed by 	section 3544.9 is made unlawful by EERA
section 3543.6(b).
4 CSEA correctly asserts that Williams introduced new charge allegations and
supporting evidence on appeal without a showing of good cause 	violation of PERB
Regulation* 32635(b). It is simply noted that even it good cause existed, none of the new
charge allegations or supporting evidence would support a change in the outcome of this case.
(*PERB Regs. are codified at Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, sec. 31001 et seq.)
5 Adoption of the dismissal letter is with one exception. The Board does not adopt the
last full sentence on page 2. CSEA's March 14, 2012, supplemental position sttatement states
that CSEA did not proceed with the February 2010 seniority rights grievance because there
was no meaningful remedy available and "there were contractual considerations affecting
whether CSEA could be successful," not because CSEA believed Williams' seniority to be
accurately calculated as stated in the dismissal.
2

ORDER
The unfair practice charge in Case No. LA-CO-1503-E is hereby DISMISSED
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
Members Dowdin Calvillo and Huguenin joined in this Decision.
3

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	EDMUND G.
BROWN
	Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
R
Los Angeles Regional Office
700
N.
Central Ave., Suite 200
Glendale, CA 91203-3219
Telephone: (818) 551-2809
Fax:
(8
I 8) 551-2820
R
May 4, 2012
Youlanda
0.
Williams
P.
0.
Box 891
Lakewood, CA 90714
Re: 	Youlanda Williams
v.
California School Employees Association & its Chapter 500
Unfair Practice Charge No. LA-CO-1503-E
DISMISSAL LETTER
Dear Ms. Williams:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on December 14, 2011. Youlanda Williams (Charging Party) alleges
that the California School Employees Association & its Chapter 500 (CSEA) violated section
3543.6
of
the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA or Act) 1 by (a) failing to properly
handle grievances; (b) delaying in resolving a pay discrepancy; (c) failing to fairly represent
Charging Party in dealing with the employer; (d) delaying to provide response; and (e) failing
to communicate regarding grievances, PERS and seniority rights.
Charging Party was informed in the attached Warning Letter dated April 13, 2012, that the
above-referenced charge did not state a prima facie case. Charging Paiiy was advised that,
if
there were any factual inaccuracies or additional facts that would correct the deficiencies
explained in that letter, Charging Party should amend the charge. Charging Party was further
advised that, unless she amended the charge to state a prima facie case or withdrew it on or
before April 27, 2012, the charge would be dismissed.
Charging Party filed a First Amended Charge on April 27, 2012. Charging Party states her
allegations regarding CSEA' s handling
of
her March 17, 2010 seniority rights grievance and
her September 2, 2010 pay dispute grievance are timely because she was in contact with CSEA
regarding her seniority rights grievance from March 17, 2010, through December 6, 2011, and
was in contact with CSEA regarding her pay dispute grievance from September 2010 through
at least August 31, 2011. During this time, Charging Party believed the grievances were being
pursued by CSEA because she had several conversations with CSEA Labor Representatives
Robert O'Reily and Tron Burdick. At the same time, Charging Party alleges that for seven
months after the seniority rights grievance was filed, "it wasn't looked into by the Union. No
communication to the member. Member asked for information regarding court case and [was]
told 'No one in CVFO has that information and it would not be accessible until its
conclusion."'
1 EERA is coqified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. The text of the EERA and
PERB Regulations may be found at www.perb.ca.gov.

LA-CO-1503-E
May 4, 2012
Page 2
Charging Party also alleges Moreno wrongfully refused
to
file a grievance regarding an August
10, 2011 Reduction
in
Force (RIF) letter:
Moreno asked me which article I believe should be used for the
lay-off.
	I'm
paying my dues for them to know this information:
10/4/11, Mrs. Moreno states "Being on Worker's Comp does not
exempt you from lay-off,["] but
if
the member has seniority
rights they should not have been laid-off, plus
if
the member is
out on and [sic] Industrial Medical leave they can't be laid-off,
it's retaliatory from the District. The Union is aware
of
this, but I
was informed by Leticia Munguia, Field Director per telephone
conversation that time is not accured [sic]
if
a member is out on
medical leave. That's false information as well, so the Union
is
given [sic] false information and misleading union members
of
their rights.
CSEA and its member have not intended to help me with
grievances with my employers in fact they seem to want to help
the District to terminate me because
I'm
an outspoken union
member in the·meetings as [sic] ask for accountability from them.
Charging Party further aileges "CSEA delay[ ed] in transferring my files to other employees
who were to handle my case please see email dated 9/7/11." The September 7, 2011 e-mail
message attached to the First Amended Charge consists
of
a June 2, 2011 e-mail message from
Charging Party to CSEA Labor Representative Tron Burdick and forwarded to Moreno. 	It
states:
I have spoken to you severa[l] times regarding not receiving
payment for 9/2/10, from Florence Griffith-Joyner. 	I informed
you that the Labor Board stated the Union must help me with this
issue, since you have a Union. 	Will the Union assist me with this
issue[?] It has [been] nine months to the day.
Among the many documents Charging Party attached to the First Amended Charge, she
included an October 4, 2011 e-mail message from CSEA Labor Representative Connie Moreno
to Charging Party which states "As far as I know, no grievances have been filed on your behalf
about your seniority. If you believe that other Office Techs, with less seniority, have been
retained by the district while you have been laid off, please tell me their names."
CSEA acknowledges in its March 14, 2012 Supplemental Position Statementthat it did not
proceed with a grievance over Charging Party's September 2011 layoff because there was no
basis to believe a grievance was warranted and CSEA believed William's seniority to be
accurately calculated. CSEA did not proceed with the February 2010 seniority rights grievance
because there was no meaningful remedy available and CSEA believed William's seniority to
be accurately calculated. CSEA also alleges it did not pursue a grievance over the pay dispute

LA-CO-1503-E
May 4, 2012
Page 3
because Charging Party left the work site and did not work the hours at issue
so
there is no
basis for a formal grievance.
As explained in the April
13,
2012 Warning Letter,
to
state a prima facie case that CSEA failed
CSEA'
s	to meet its duty
of
fair representation, Charging Party must allege facts demonstrating
conduct was in bad faith, was discriminatory or was arbitrary. Arbitrary conduct can be shown
by facts demonstrating CSEA's action or inaction was without a rational basis or was devoid
of
honest judgment. (Reed District Teachers Association, CTA/NEA (Reyes) (1983) PERB
(1980)	Decision No. 332,
p.
9, quoting Rocklin Teachers Professional Association (Romero)
PERB Decision No. 124; emphasis in original.) Also explained in the April 13, 2012 letter is
the fact that "mere negligence" might constitute arbitrary conduct in cases where the individual
interest at stake
is
strong and the union's failure to perform a ministerial act completely
extinguishes the employee's right to pursue his claim. (Coalition
of
University Employees
(Buxton) (2003) PERB Decision No. 1517-H.)
Assuming for the purposes
of
this analysis that the allegations are timely and assuming CSEA
failed to look into or pursue grievances, delayed in pursuing grievances and failed to
communicate with Charging Party, none
of
this conduct breaches CSEA's duty
of
fair
determine	representation because CSEA
is
entitled to use its own discretion or judgment to
whether to pursue a bargaining unit members' grievances. CSEA's conduct would violate the
of
fair representation only
if
CSEA' s conduct was in bad faith, was discriminatory or was	duty
arbitrary. Charging Party does not provide facts demonstrating CSEA's conduct was arbitrary,
discriminatory or in bad faith. 	Charging Party does, however, allege CSEA did not want to
her because she was "outspoken." Merely alleging CSEA did not intend to help Charging	help
Party and "seem[ ed] to want to help the District terminate" Charging Party because she is "an
outspoken union member in meetings [that] ask[s] for accountability" is conclusory and lacks
facts necessary to establish CSEA's conduct was discriminatory.
Assuming also for the purposes
of
this analysis that CSEA wrongfully stated information
regarding grievances would not be available until conclusion, was wrong or negligent in its
asking Charging Party to identify the part
of
the CBA that was violated by the lay off, was
wrong about leaves and time accrual and/or delayed in processing Charging Party's grievances,
ministerial act	the allegations fail to provide.facts demonstrating that CSEA failed to perform a
that completely extinguished Charging Party's rights.
Each allegedly wrongful action or inaction by CSEA involved an exercise of CSEA's
discretion to determine whether or not to pursue grievances and none
of
the alleged wrongs
consisted of CSEA failing to perform a ministerial act that completely extinguished Charging
Party's rights. 	all the reasons stated here and in the April 13, 2012 Warning 	the
allegations fail to state a prima facie case and the charge is dismissed.

LA-CO-1503-E
May 4, 2012
Page 4
Right to Appeal
Pursuant to PERB Regulations,2 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,
together with the required number
of
copies and proof
of
service, in the U.S. mail. (Cal. Code
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
(Y
lb)
SlL-~Lj
l
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. 	(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., 	8, § 32135, subd. (c).)
2 PERB' s Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.

LA-CO-1503-E
May 4, 2012
Page 5
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.)
Final Date
If no appeal is filed within the specified time limits, the dismissal will become final
when the
time limits have expired.
Sincerely,
M. SUZAN'NE MURPHY
General Counsel
By~-
Mary Weiss
Senior Regional Attorney
Attachment
cc: 	Sonja J. Woodward

STATE OF
CALIFORNIA 	EDMUND G.
BROWN
	Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
R
Los Angeles Regional Office
700
N,
Central Ave., Suite 200
Glendale, CA 91203-3219
Telephone: (818) 551-2809
Fax: (818) 551-2820
R
April 13, 2012
Youlanda
O.
Williams
P.
0.
Box
891
Lakewood, CA 90714
Re: 	Youlanda Williams
v.
California School Employees Association & its Chapter 500
Unfair Practice Charge No. LA-CO-1503-E
WARNING LETTER
Dear Ms. Williams:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on December 14, 2011. Youlanda Williams (Charging Party) alleges
that the California School Employees Association & its Chapter 500 \CSEA) violated section
3543.6
of
the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA or Act) 	by (a) failing to properly
handle grievances; (b) delaying in resolving a pay discrepancy; (c) failing to fairly represent
Charging Party in dealing with the employer; ( d) delaying to provide response; and (e) failing
to communicate regarding grievances, PERS and seniority rights. 2
I.
	Facts as Alleged in Charge
The Charging Party's allegations are, in their entirety:
On Dec
6,
2011 I received certified letter from Leticia Munguia,
[CSEA] Field Director stating "We do not have an active
grievance on file for you." I have two grievances that were filed
with CSEA;
[]
2/10 and 8/2011. CSEA has delayed in resolving
my pay discrepancy for 9/2/10 for 7 .25 hrs. I have several emails
addressing this issue and it's been over a yr. They have failed to
1 EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. The text
of
the EERA and
PERB Regulations may be found at -vvww.perb.ca.gov.
2 Charging Party also alleges violations of Government Code sections 3 519
.5
and 3 571
but those provisions pertain to the Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills Act; Gov. Code,§ 3512 et seq.)
and Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA; Gov. Code, § 3560 et
seq.) which do not apply to Charging Party's employment at the Los Angeles Unified School
District. Charging Party's employment was governed by EERA and Charging Party properly
references section 3543.6 of EERA. It thus appears Charging Party included references to the
Dills Act and HEERA unintentionally and this investigation analyzes the allegations solely
under EERA.
1

LA-CO-1503-E
April
13,2012
Page 2
fairly represent me with dealing with LAUSD, with the delay in
response, no communication with status
of
grievances, and issues
with PERS, seniority rights.
Attached to the Charge is a document labeled "Remedy Statement" which states:
1.	
I would like to receive all dues returned to me from CSEA.
2.	
Pay for 9/2/10 7.25 hours.
3.	
PERS status to show actual yrs
of
service with LAUSD 9.8
not 7
½.
4.	
Compensation for Pain & Suffering which they (CSEA)
added to me during this time
10-20-06-present.
Charging Party attached over two dozen additional unreferenced documents to the Charge.
These miscellaneous documents consist of, but are not necessarily limited to, e-mail messages,
letters, grievances, notes, charge forms and computer screen printouts. Charging Party did not
reference these documents in her Unfair Practice Charge nor did she label or explain their
relevance.
On January 30, 2012, CSEA filed and served its Position Statement. Among other things,
CSEA's position statement stated that the Charge failed to provide
"'a
clear and concise
statement
of
the facts and conduct alieged to constituted an unfair practice,' as required
by
PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5)."
On February
9,
2012, Charging Party filed and served a Reply to CSEA's Position Statement
which sets forth ten paragraphs apparently disputing or denying contentions CSEA raised in its
Position Statement. Charging Party attached over a dozen documents to her Reply, and again,
the Reply does not reference any
of
the attached documents and none
of
the documents are
labeled.
On March 14, 2012, CSEA filed and served a Supplemental Position Statement which, again
and among other things, stated that the Charge was not clear and concise and lacked required
specificity.
II. 	Discussion
A 	Charging Partv's Burden to Establish a Prima Facie Case
PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5)3 	inter alia, 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
3 PERB Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.

LA-CO-1503-E
April 13, 2012
Page 3
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 a/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.)
B. 	Duty
of
Fair Representation
Charging Party alleges 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 Unified District Teachers Association, CTA/NEA (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.
[Citations omitted.]
order to state a 	facie case of arbitrary conduct violating the 	fair representation,
a Charging Party:
must at a minimum include an assertion of sufficient facts from
which it becomes apparent how or in what manner the exclusive
representative's action or inaction was without a rational basis or
devoid of honest judgment.

LA-CO-1503-E
April 13, 2012
Page 4
(Reed District Teachers Association, CTA/NEA (Reyes) (1983) PERB Decision No. 332, p. 9,
quoting Rocklin Teachers Professional Association (Romero) (1980) PERB Decision No. 124;
emphasis in original.)
With regard to when "mere negligence" might constitute arbitrary conduct, the Board observed
in Coalition
of
University Employees (Buxton) (2003) PERB Decision No. 1517-H that, under
federal precedent, a union's negligence breaches the duty
of
fair representation "to cases
in
which the individual interest at stake is strong and the union's failure to perform a ministerial
act completely extinguishes the employee's right to pursue his claim." (Quoting Dutrisac
v.
Caterpillar Tractor Co. (9th Cir. 1983) 749 F.2d 1270, at p. 1274; see also Robesky
v.
Quantas
Empire Airways, Ltd. (9th Cir. 1978) 573 F.2d 1082.) The burden
is
on
the charging party to
show how
an
exclusive representative abused its discretion, and not on the exclusive representative
to
show how
it
properly exercised
its
discretion. (United Teachers - Los Angeles (Wyler) (1993)
PERB Decision No. 970.)
C. 	Interference
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 BERA.
Under the above-described test, a violation may only be found
if
BERA provides the claimed
rights. In Clovis Un(fied School District (1984) PERB Decision No. 389, the Board held that a
finding
of
coercion does not require evidence that the employee actually felt threatened or
intimidated or was in fact discouraged from participating in protected activity.
D. Unfair Practice Charge Fails to State a Prima Facie Violation of EERA
The Unfair Practice Charge filed herein does not provide a "clear and concise statement
of
the
facts and conduct alleged to constitute an unfair practice" and Charging Party does not meet
burden of alleging the "who, what, when, where and how" of an unfair practice. (State
of
California (Department
of
Food and Agriculture), supra, PERB Decision No. 1071-S, citing
United Teachers-Los Angeles (Ragsdale), supra, PERB Decision No. 944.) For example,
Charging Party states there were two grievances, but CSEA informed her they had no active
grievances. 	Perhaps Charging Party is alleging CSEA failed to follow through or lost her
grievances, but the lack of a clear and concise statement with the "who, what, when, where and
why" renders it impossible to conclude, from the facts as presented, that CSEA 's conduct, with

LA-CO-1503-E
April 13, 2012
Page 5
respect
to
Charging Party's grievances, was arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith, or
that
CSEA' s conduct was irrational or devoid
of
honest judgment.
It
is Charging Party's
burden
to
provide allegations that would demonstrate Respondent's conduct was arbitrary,
discriminatory, or in bad faith or that would demonstrate Respondent's action or inaction was
without a rational basis or devoid
of
honest judgment, or that CSEA abused its disrection.
(See, e.g., United Teachers - Los Angeles (Wyler) (1993) PERE Decision No. 970.) Similarly, to
state a prima facie case
of
interference, Charging Party must provide allegations that
demonstrate Respondent interfered with Charging Party's EERA provided rights. The
allegations also fail to allege facts demonstrating the unfair practice charge was filed in a
timely manner.
Charging Party's allegations that CSEA delayed in resolving her pay discrepancy for
over
a
year fail to specify many details, including but not limited to, when and how Charging Party
presented the issue to CSEA, how CSEA delayed and what CSEA did that was a violation
of
the law. Charging Party alleges CSEA filed to fairly represent her in dealing with her
employer, delayed in response, and had no communication
of
status
of
grievances, issues with
PERS and seniority rights, but, again, there is no clear and concise statement that includes the
"who, what, when, where and how"
of
the unfair practice. 	Without a clear and concise
statement
of
the alleged violations, including the "who, what, when, where and how"
of
the
unfair practice(s), it is not possible for PERB to conclude that Charging Party has stated a
prima facie violation
of
EERA.	
It
is also not possible, from the allegations provided, to
determine the unfair practice charge was timely filed.
For these reasons the charge, as presently written, does not state a prima facie case. 4
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 First Amended
Charge, contain all the facts and allegations you wish 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 the Respondent's representative and the original proof of service must be filed with
4 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." (Ibid)

LA-CO-1503-E
April 13, 2012
Page 6
PERB. 	If an amended charge or withdrawal is not filed on or before April 2
7, 5 PERB will
dismiss your charge. If you have any questions, please call me at the above telephone number.
Sincerely,
Mary Weiss
Senior Regional Attorney
MW
5 A document is "filed" on the date the document is actually received by PERB,
including if transmitted via facsimile. 	(PERB Regulation 32135.)