Children of Promise Preparatory Academy (PERB A428E)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
CHILDREN OF PROMISE PREPARATORY
ACADEMY,
Employer,
and
GROUP OF EMPLOYEES,
Petitioner,
and
INGLEWOOD TEACHERS ASSOCIATION,
Exclusive Representative.
Case Nos. LA-DP-403-E
LA-CE-6013-E
PERB Order No. Ad-428
June 29, 2015
Appearances: Bartsch & Haven by Duane L. Bartsch, Attorney, for Children of Promise
Preparatory Academy; Stephanie J. Moore, Lead Petitioner, for Group of Employees;
California Teachers Association by Jean Shin, Attorney, for Inglewood Teachers Association.
Before Huguenin, Winslow and Banks, Members.
DECISION
HUGUENIN, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on appeal by a Group of Employees (Petitioners) and the Children of
Promise Preparatory Academy (Academy) of an administrative determination (attached) by a
PERB Board agent staying a decertification election challenging the status of the Inglewood
Teachers Association (Association) as the exclusive representative of the Academy's
certificated personnel.
We have reviewed the entire record in this matter and find the Board agent's
administrative determination to be well-reasoned, adequately supported by the record and in
accordance with applicable law. Accordingly, we adopt the Board agent's administrative

determination as the decision of the Board itself, subject to our discussion below of the issues
raised on appeal.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Academy is a public school employer within the meaning of section 3540.1 ( d) of
the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA). 1 The Association is an "employee
organization" within the meaning of BERA section 3540.l(k). The Petitioners are a "group of
employees" within the meaning of PERB Regulation 32770(a).2
On November 6, 2013, the Board issued its decision in Children of Promise
Preparatory Academy (2013) PERB Order No. Ad-402 affirming a Board agent's
determination in Case No. LA-RR-1213-E certifying the Association as the exclusive
representative of the Academy's non-managerial, non-supervisory, and non-confidential
certificated personnel.
On December 11, 2013, the Association filed an unfair practice charge against the
Academy. The Association's unfair practice charge alleges that the Academy has failed and
refused to bargain in good faith in violation of BERA section 3543.5(c).3 Specifically, the
Association alleges that the Academy refused to provide employee contact information, copies.
of certificated employee contracts and certificated employee evaluation rubrics. The
Association also alleges that the Academy proposed presumptively unacceptable terms,
submitted proposals it did not intend to agree to and focused bargaining discussion on far-
fetched hypotheticals rather than generally applicable terms or policies.
1 BERA is codified at Government Code section 3450 et seq.
2 PERB regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8,
section 31001 et seq.
3 As of the date of this decision, Case No. LA-CE-5876-E is pending before a PERB
administrative law judge.
2

On January 29, 2015, Petitioners filed a decertification petition seeking to remove the
Association as the exclusive bargaining representative of the Academy's certificated personnel.
On March 16, 2015, a PERB Board agent informed the parties that the decertification petition
was timely filed, that Petitioners had submitted sufficient proof of support and that the parties
would be contacted to discuss the mechanics of a decertification election.
On March 25, 2015, the Association filed another unfair practice charge and requested
a stay of the decertification election. The Association's charge alleges that the Academy has
failed and refused to provide employee contact information and information necessary to
bargaining, and refused to negotiate in good faith with the Association. Additionally, the
Association asserts that the allegations of bad faith in its prior and now pending unfair practice
charge also provide reasons to stay the decertification election.
Stay Order
On May 12, 2015, a Board agent issued an administrative determination granting the
Association's request to stay the decertification election. In doing so, the Board agent
considered the Association's unfair practice allegations against the Academy and the three
parties' positions regarding the Association's request for stay.
The Board agent noted that the issue was whether the unfair practices alleged by the
Association were such that, if true, the unlawful conduct would so affect the election process
as to prevent employees from freely selecting their exclusive representative.4 As the Board
agent noted, PERB's blocking charge rule is not applied mechanically, but determined on a
4 Under PERB Regulation 32752:
The Board may stay an election pending the resolution of an
unfair practice charge relating to the voting unit upon an
investigation and a finding that alleged unlawful conduct would
so affect the election process as to prevent the employees from
exercising free choice ....
3

case-by-case basis (Pleasant Valley Elementary School District (1984) PERB Decision
No. 380 (Pleasant Valley)); a primary goal of EERA is to provide a uniform basis for
recognizing the right of employees to join organizations of their own choice, free from the
possible taint of an employer's unfair practices (Jefferson School District (1979) PERB Order
No. Ad-66); and the role of the Board agent is to determine whether the facts alleged in the
charge, if true, would likely have an effect on the vote of the employees and, therefore,
influence the outcome of the election (Pleasant Valley, supra, PERB Decision No. 380, p. 5).
(Administrative Determination, p. 15.)
The Board agent next examined the Association's primary allegations, viz., the
Academy: (1) refused to provide requested contact information for its bargaining unit
members; (2) refused to provide information relevant to bargaining; and (3) refused to bargain
in good faith. The Board agent determined that a refusal to provide contact information could
alert employees to a contentious relationship between the employer and the exclusive
representative which, in turn, could disrupt employee morale and deter employees from
participating in union activity. Moreover, the lack of traditional contact information could
force the union to attempt other, more intrusive, means of communication with its bargaining
unit members which could negatively impact the relationship between the Association and its
members. (Administrative Determination, p. 20.)
The Board agent also determined that a refusal to provide copies of the performance
evaluation rubric used by the Academy and copies of current employee contracts would
impede the Association's ability to negotiate effectively which would make the Association
appear weak and ineffective and thereby affect the employees' exercise of free choice. The
Board agent also determined that it was appropriate to stay a decertification election where
there is an allegation that the employer refused to bargain in good faith, "since that conduct by
4

its very nature undercuts support for an individual union or unions in general, and renders a
fair election impossible." (Grenada Elementary School District (1984) PERB Decision
No. 387, p. 9 (Grenada); Administrative Determination, pp. 21-22.)
Finally, the Board agent addressed opposition to the Association's stay request. The
lead petitioner opposed the stay request arguing that the Association had engaged in regressive
bargaining and had sufficient access to bargaining unit members. The lead petitioner also
asserted that the decertification vote should not be linked to the pending unfair practice
litigation between the Association and the Academy. The Board agent rejected both arguments
on the basis that a petitioner's motivation in seeking decertification is not determinative
"because the relevant question is not the reasons the petition was filed, but whether the alleged
unlawful conduct would so affect the election process as to prevent the employees from
exercising free choice." (Administrative Determination, p. 23, citing Regents of the University
of California (1984) PERB Decision No. 381-H (Regents) and Grenada, supra, PERB
Decision No. 387.)
The Academy opposed the blocking charge on the grounds that the Association's
allegations were pretextual and false. The Board agent rejected the Academy's assertion that
the blocking charge was pretextual because PERB regulations specifically allow an election to
be stayed based on a finding that alleged unlawful conduct would prevent employees from
exercising free choice. The Board agent also rejected the Academy's assertion that the
Association's claims were false on the basis that her role was not to resolve factual disputes
and she was bound to accept the charging party's allegations as true for the purpose of
assessing the likely impact on employee free choice. (Administrative Determination, p. 24,
citing Golden Plains Unified School District (2002) PERB Decision No. 1489
(Golden Plains).)
5

The Board agent thus applied PERB 's blocking charge rule and granted the
Association's request for a stay of the decertification election pending resolution of the unfair
practice charge. (Administrative Determination, p. 26.)
Appeals
The Petitioners seeking decertification and the Academy both have filed appeals of the
Board agent's determination.
The Petitioners request that the Board rescind the stay of the decertification vote on the
basis that: (1) the decertification vote is a separate issue from the pending litigation between
the Association and the Academy; (2) the Association has been able to contact the bargaining
unit members; (3) staff turnover at the Academy had brought support for the Association into
question; (4) the Association has created a contentious atmosphere at the Academy; and
(5) union presence has been costly and shifted focus away from education.
In its appeal the Academy challenges the Board agent's reasoning. The Academy
alleges that the Association has engaged in hostile behavior during negotiations which the
Board agent determined was
not necessarily indicative of bad faith because "'disputes over
wages, hours, and working conditions are among the disputes
most likely to engender ill feelings and strong responses' [and]
the parties are afforded wide latitude to engage in 'uninhibited,
robust, and wide-open debate' in the course of those disputes."
(Administrative Determination, p. 25, quoting City of Oakland (Lewis) (2014) PERB Decision
No. 2387-M.)
The Academy also asserts that the Board agent had detennined that the Academy had
engaged in bad faith bargaining when it was seeking clarification of the Association's position
on bypassing disciplinary proceedings to allow immediate termination under certain
circumstances.
6

Further, the Academy asserts that it did not impede Association access to bargaining
· unit members and was prohibited from supplying addresses and phone numbers for many
bargaining unit members under Government Code section 6254.3(b) because those employees
had submitted written requests that such contact information not be divulged to the
Association.
Lastly, the Academy asserts that it provided the Association with the contract and
evaluation information it requested, and therefore the Board agent had no basis for determining
that a stay of the decertification election was proper based on the Academy's refusal to provide
such information.
Association's Response
The Association filed a response to the appeals taken by Petitioners and the Academy
and urges that none of the claims asserted by either of the two appellants provides a basis for
reversing the administrative decision. First, the Association urges that even if the Academy's
allegation that the Association engaged in hostile behavior during negotiations were true, this
would not justify the Academy's own refusal to bargain. The Association also points out that
the Academy never brought an unfair practice charge against the Association over the
allegedly hostile behavior.
· 	Second, urges the Association, the Academy's assertions in defense of its failure to
supply the Association unit member contact information and information relevant to
bargaining do not justify the Academy's failure and refusal to supply that information, nor do
the Academy's assertions provide a basis to rescind the stay of the decertification election. As
to the teacher contact information, the Association notes that the teachers' requests that the
contact information not be divulged were first submitted along with the Academy's response to
the unfair practice charge. Since the Association's request for the contact infonnation
7

preceded the unfair practice charge by nearly two months, the teachers' requests that the
information not be divulged provided no justification for the Academy's failure to respond to
the request during the intervening period. Evidence submitted by the Academy in its
opposition to the Association's request for a stay indicated that the earliest requests from
certificated personnel that their contact information not be divulged to the Association were
dated in early November of 2014 whereas the Association alleges that it requested the contact
information in late September of 2014. Moreover, adds the Association, the Academy's
contentions regarding the Association's information requests present disputed facts or
conflicting theories of law which may not be resolved at this stage in the proceedings.
Citing Grenada, supra, PERB Decision No. 387, p. 9, the Association asserts that the
request that the decertification petition be evaluated without regard to the pending unfair
practice charges contravenes the law. Moreover, the Association contends that Petitioners'
factual disputes do not provide a basis for rescinding the stay of election because a charging
party's factual allegations must be assumed as true at this stage in the proceedings. Lastly, the
Association contends that Petitioners failed to identify any mistake of law or reasoning in the
administrative determination that would justify a reversal of that determination.
Therefore, the Association asks that we affirm the Board agent's determination.
DISCUSSION
Standard of Review
When reviewing a Board agent's detennination to stay or conduct a decertification
election, the proper inquiry on appeal is whether the Board agent abused his or her discretion.
(Jefferson School District (1980) PERB Order No. Ad-82, p. 8.) The Board will generally
defer to the conclusions reached by its agent if it finds the conclusions supported by facts
developed during the course of a properly conducted investigation. (Pleasant Valley, supra,
8

PERB Decision No. 380.) The Board agent's determination should be the result of sufficient
investigation and analysis of the allegations and the potential impact on the employees in the
unit. (Regents, supra, PERB Decision No. 381-H.)
Stay Requests
As noted above, PERB Regulation 32752 allows the Board to stay a representation
election pending the resolution of an unfair practice charge and a finding that the alleged
unlawful conduct could prevent the employees from exercising free choice. In making this
determination, the Board does not resolve factual disputes. Factual disputes and competing
legal theories are resolved through the hearing process after issuance of a complaint. (Eastside
Union School District (1984) PERB Decision No. 466, pp. 6-7.) Rather, at this stage in the
proceedings and for the purpose of making our determination, the Board assumes that the
essential facts alleged in the charge are true. (Golden Plains, supra, PERB Decision No. 1489,
p. 6; Grenada, supra, PERB Decision No. 387, p. 14.) The relevant inquiry for determining
whether to grant a stay of a representation election is whether the facts alleged in the unfair
practice charge, if true, would likely affect the vote of employees, and, thus, the outcome of the
election. (Pleasant Valley, supra, PERB Decision No. 380, p. 5.) The Board's analysis must
examine the conduct alleged and determine whether it is "of such character and seriousness
that, if it were proven to have occurred, it would be reasonable to infer that it would contribute
to employee dissatisfaction and hence prevent a fair election." (Regents, supra, PERB
Decision No. 381-H, p. 6.)
Applying the above standards to the present case, we affirm the Board agent's
determination to stay the decertification election. In conducting her investigation the Board
agent received written responses from all concerned parties on whether the election should be
stayed. Following the responses submitted by the interested parties, the Board agent prepared
9

a thorough and detailed analysis of the allegations in the underlying unfair practice charge, the
additional evidence supplied by the parties in their responses to the request for stay and the
impact of the Academy's alleged misconduct on the Association's bargaining unit members.
While Petitioners and the Academy dispute some of the facts relied on by the Board
agent, those facts were provided by the Association primarily through its unfair practice
charge. Board precedent is very clear that the Board agent must assume that the essential facts
alleged in the charge are true. If the Board agent's investigation reveals conflicting issues of
material fact, the conflict must be resolved via PERB's hearing process; the Board agent may
not resolve the conflict at the investigation stage. (Sacramento City Unified School District
(2010) PERB Decision No. 2129.)
While the Academy contends that the Board agent's reasoning was "faulty" regarding
allegedly hostile behavior engaged in by the Association, the Academy did not explain how that
behavior justified its own allegedly unlawful behavior or why the Board agent's reasoning on
that point is sufficient to reverse her decision that the decertification election should be stayed.
Neither the Petitioners nor the Academy has identified an error of law in the Board
agent's determination. We conclude that the Board agent correctly stated the law, cited to
appropriate PERB precedent and properly applied the law. Her conclusions are supported by
the record. Therefore, we decline to set aside the Board agent's determination and, instead,
adopt it as the decision of the Board itself.
ORDER
The Board agent's administrative determination in Case Nos. LA-DP-403-E and
LA-CE-6013-E is hereby AFFIRMED.
Members Winslow and Banks joined in this Decision.
10

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
CHILDREN OF PROMISE PREPARATORY
ACADEMY,
Employer,
and
GROUP OF EMPLOYEES,
Petitioner,
and
INGLEWOOD TEACHERS ASSOCIATION,
Exclusive Representative.
REPRESENTATION
CASE NO. LA-DP-403-E
UNFAIR PRACTICE
CHARGE NO. LA-CE-6013-E
ADMINISTRATIVE
DETERMINATION
(May 12, 2015)
Appearances: Stephanie J. Moore, Teacher, for the Group of Employees; Duane Bartsch,
Attorney, for the Children of Promise Preparatory Academy; Jean Shin, Attorney, for the
Inglewood Teachers Association.
Before Mary Weiss, Senior Regional Attorney.
INTRODUCTION
This is the administrative determination of an election stay request by the Inglewood
Teachers Association (Association) in the pending decertification petition filed by a Group of
Employees (Petitioner) on January 29, 2015. This Determination sets forth background
information, a description of the unfair practice charge seeking to block the decertification
petition, the parties' positions concerning the blocking charge, the applicable law for
evaluating a blocking charge, application of the law to the allegations contained in the blocking
charge and consideration of the parties' positions, and the resultant determination that the
request to stay the decertification election is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND1
On January 18, 2013, the Association filed representation petition LA-RR-1213-E,
seeking certification of a unit of certificated teachers employed at the Children of Promise
Preparatory Academy (Academy). The Academy denied the representation petition on the
ground that the unit was inappropriate. PERB issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC), which
included an explanation that the proposed unit of certificated teachers is presumed appropriate
under relevant caselaw. The OSC provided the Academy with the opportunity to show cause
as to the reasons why PERB should not certify the Association as the exclusive representative
of the proposed unit. Upon submission of briefs by both the Academy and the Association in
response to the OSC, the Board agent determined that a formal hearing was unnecessary
because the Academy failed to overcome the presumption that the petitioned for unit was
appropriate. On August 5, 2013, the Board agent rendered an administrative determination
finding that the petitioned for unit was appropriate and certifying the Association as the
exclusive representative of certificated Academy employees, effective August 5, 2013.
The Academy appealed the Board agent's administrative determination on several
grounds and also requested a stay. On October 4, 2013, the Board denied the Academy's
request for a stay. (Children of Promise Preparatory Academy (2013) PERB Order No. Ad-
401.) On November 6, 2013, the Board issued Children of Promise Preparatory Academy
(2013) PERB Order No. Ad-402, affirming the Board agent's administrative determination
certifying the Association, effective August 5, 2013.
On December 11, 2013, the Association filed Unfair Practice Charge No. LA-CE-5876-
E, alleging that the Academy had engaged in bad faith bargaining by refusing to bargain and
1 Many of the background facts summarized herein are found in Children of Promise
Preparatory Academy (2013) PERB Order No. Ad-402.
2

by refusing to provide requested information. PERB issued a complaint and the matter
proceeded to a hearing before a PERB Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).2 The matter has been
fully briefed and submitted to the ALJ for a decision.
On January 29, 2015, the Petitioner-a group of employees-filed the decertification
petition that is at issue here; the petition contends there was no agreement in effect between the
The complaint issued in LA-CE-5876-E is a public record and PERB may take notice
of its contents. (County of Riverside (2012) PERB Decision No. 2280-M.) The complaint
alleges the following:
3. 	On August 28, 2013 and September 19, 2013, Charging
Party sun shined an initial proposal and requested that
Respondent meet with Charging Party to negotiate an initial
contract.
4. 	On September 23, 2013, Respondent, acting through its
agent Carleton Lincoln, stated it was "premature" to bargain
"[g]iven the outstanding appeal."
5. 	By the acts and conduct described in paragraph 4,
Respondent failed and refused to bargain in good faith with
Charging Party in violation of Government Code section
3543.5(c).
9. 	On or about December 18, 2013, Charging Party
requested [enumerated] information that is relevant and necessary
to Charging Party's discharge of its duty to represent
employees[.]
10. 	On or about December 24, 2013, Respondent, acting
through its legal counsel Duane Bartsch, asserted "[t]he
Education Employment Act applies to charter schools such as the
Academy, but does not require disclosure of the information you
seek." Respondent has failed to provide Charging Party with any
of the information it had requested.
11. 	By the conduct described in paragraph 10, Respondent
failed and refused to meet and negotiate in good faith with
Charging Party in violation of Government Code section
3543.S(c).
3

Association and the Academy. On February 9, 2015, the Academy filed a letter confirming
there is no agreement between the employer and the exclusive representative, and provided a
list of all twelve bargaining unit employees. On March 11, 2015, the Association filed a letter
asserting that the Academy had "engaged in persistent and egregious unlawful behavior" from
the date of "certification of the Association and continuing to the [present] day" by refusing to
provide the names and contact information of unit members to the Association, and by refusing
to meet and confer in good faith.
On March 16, 2015, the undersigned Board agent issued a letter to the parties informing
them that the decertification petition was timely filed, that the proof of support submitted by
the Petitioner was sufficient and that the parties would soon be contacted to discuss the
mechanics of an election. (PERB Regulations 32776, subd. (c), 32770, subd. (b)(l).)3
BLOCKING CHARGE
On March 25, 2015, the Association filed Unfair Practice Charge No. LA-CE-6013-E
seeking a stay of the decertification election. The charge contends that the Academy refused to
provide employee contact information, refused to provide information necessary to bargaining
and refused to negotiate in good faith with the Association. The Association asserts that earlier
allegations of bad faith contained in Unfair Practice Charge No. LA-CE-5876-E also provide
reasons to stay the decertification election.
Refusal to Provide Employee Contact Information and Bargaining Information
3 PERB Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq. The text of PERB's Regulations may be found at www.perb.ca.gov.
4

The Association states that on or about September 29, 2014,4 Association
Representative Andrew Staiano (Staiano) met with Academy Chief Executive Officer Carleton
Lincoln (Lincoln), Academy Administrator Trena Thompson (Thompson) and Academy legal
representative Duane Bartsch (Bartsch). Staiano requested the names, home addresses, and
telephone numbers for all bargaining unit members. 	Lincoln and Thompson agreed to provide
the information. During the same meeting, Staiano requ_ested a copy of the employee
performance evaluation currently in use by the Academy and a copy of any current
employment agreements in use by the Academy. The Academy did not provide any of the
requested information.
The Association states that on October 6, and again on October 22, Staiano sent an
electronic mail (e-mail) message to Lincoln and Thompson reiterating his request for a copy of
the employee performance evaluation form and employment agreements currently in use by the
Academy. The Academy did not respond to the email, nor did it provide the requested
documents.
The Association asserts that on October 28, Staiano sent an e-mail message to Bartsch,
Lincoln, and Thompson reiterating the request for contact information and requesting a copy of
the employment agreements currently in use.by the Academy. There was no response to
Staiano's e-mail message.
The Association contends that on November 5, Staiano sent another e-mail message to
Bartsch, Lincoln, and Thompson and reiterated the request for contact information and the
employment agreements. There was no response to Staiano's e-mail message.
4 All subsequent dates refer to 2014 unless otherwise specified.
5

The Association states that the parties met on November 6, and Bartsch stated that the
Academy would not provide mailing addresses or phone numbers of bargaining unit employees
because the Academy already produced e-mail addresses for some bargaining unit members in
August, and the Academy had no obligation to provide mailing addresses or phone numbers.
The Association further contends that Staiano responded that the list of names and e-mail
addresses was incomplete and that the Association was entitled to phone numbers and mailing
addresses. According to the Association, Lincoln stated that the Academy would provide the
requested information.
The Association alleges that on November 11, Bartsch sent an e-mail message to
Staiano stating that he believed that the Academy did not have an obligation to provide
bargaining unit members' mailing addresses and phone numbers to the Association. Bartsch
cited Government Code section 6254.3 and the provisions prohibiting a school district from
disclosing an employee's home address or home telephone number upon written request of any
employee.
According to the charge, Staiano responded to Bartsch on November 13, and asserted
that the Association was entitled to the mailing addresses and telephone numbers of bargaining
unit members.
The charge further states that on November 21, Bartsch sent an e-mail message to
Staiano, which included the mailing addresses and phone numbers of two bargaining unit
members. The charge further contends that Bartsch had not asserted that the other employees
had provided written requests not to disclose contact information.
6

Refusal to Negotiate in Good Faith
The Association asserts that during the parties' meeting on September 29, the parties
discussed the Academy's bargaining proposal. The Association further contends that the
Academy "proposed presumptively unacceptable terms, including numerous terms that waived
the Association's right to bargain over matters within the scope of representation." The
Association further states that the Academy's bargaining proposal "referenced decertification
of the Association" and was "insulting or hostile to the Association." The Association also
contends that part of the Academy's September 29 proposal were terms governing the work
calendar for bargaining unit employees and that the Association considered the calendar
proposal in good faith, and the parties discussed the calendar for several hours. The
Association further claims that "[a]bout fourhours after negotiations on this proposal had
begun, [the Academy] revealed that the written terms under discussion did not refle,ct [the
Academy's] actual intentions. In other words, [the Academy] revealed that it would not agree
to its own proposal regarding the work year for bargaining unit employees. [The Academy's]
retraction of its own proposal derailed negotiations and wasted time."
The Association asserts that during the parties' meeting on November 6, it attempted to
discuss its proposals for grievances and discipline, but the Academy bargaining team refused
to discuss generally-applicable terms or policies and "[i]nstead" "repeatedly brought up highly
specific, far-fetched hypotheticals and insisted on discussing them individually. For example,
the [Academy] bargaining team insisted on discussing how the [Academy] should handle ...
scenarios, such as 'if a teacher walks into my office and shows me pictures of child porn on her
phone' or 'if a teacher shoots another teacher in the face in the school parking lot.' This had
7

the effect of derailing the discussion, and made it impossible for the parties to negotiate a
generally-applicable disciplinary policy."
The Association further contends that at the November 6 meeting, the parties reached a
verbal agreement on a recognition clause, but the Academy "refused to sign off on the article
or to execute a tentative agreement."
PARTIES' POSITIONS CONCERNING THE BLOCKING CHARGE
On April 3, 2015, the undersigned contacted the Petitioner, the Academy and the
Association and provided each of them until April 13, 2015, to provide a response to the
blocking charge.
Petitioner filed a response to the blocking charge requesting that the decertification
election be allowed to proceed and that PERB deny the Association's request to block or
postpone the vote. Petitioner asserts the Association is "interfer[ing] with the election process
by preventing a true exercise of the free choice among bargaining members." Petitioner
further asserts:
[T]his vote is a separate issue from the issue that [the]
Association is bringing up as a reason to postpone the vote. Our
voting should not be linked to the litigation that [the Association
and the Academy] are currently involved in. I do not think it is
fair to the teachers that [the Association] is claiming to help
protect so I am asking that you not consider the [Association's]
request. [It] feel[s] that this is an attack against teachers and in
retaliation for the decertification petition. I really believe that
this request is an attempt by CTA and Inglewood Teachers
Association to put off the vote for as long as they can in order to
bully the teachers or wear us down until we drop the
decertification. They think that if they can tie us to other
decisions that may or may not be made in their favor, then they
can waste our time and eventually stop the decertification. We
are not [Academy] administration. We are a group of teachers
who do not want a union. We are not going to go away or be
worn down. We do not want to be forced to get a lawyer of our
own but if we have to, we will. We thought that PERB was
8

neutral and that if we followed the rules, filled out the petition,
and sent in the paper work we could take an official vote. I am
asking PERB to honor that.
Petitioner further states:
[T]the claims made [by the Association] are not all true. [T]he
[Association] lawyer says that, "[the Academy] impeded and
prevented the [] Association from communicating with its
bargaining unit members by unlawfully withholding the names
and contact information of bargaining unit members." Last year,
I was inundated with union emails, flyers and communication that
Idid not want, none of which was impeded by [the Academy].
How did they get my information if it wasn't given to them?
There were also several meetings both on and off campus that
were attended by teachers. If they did not have access, why were
they, on and off campus meeting? Towards the end of last year it
seems to me that there was a meeting every week. They also met
with teachers who were there to support them at meetings
between the school and union. How much more unimpeded
access did they want?
This year there have been emails, a flyer, invitations to meet and
greets, phone calls and site visits. Again, if they did not have
access, then how did they get this information to us? How did
they get on campus? They had access. What they did not have
was the interest of this year's teachers to be accessed. The school
did not impede communication. Each teacher made his or her
own decision to be or not to be bothered or participate.
According to Petitioner, another untruth made by the Association in the blocking
charge is that the Academy "participated in 'regressive bargaining practices"':
Last year it was the union if anyone, who engaged in regressive
bargaining practices. In the emails that I received it was the
union representative who reverted to name calling, slurs, worn
out negotiation jargon, all of which was sent via email to all staff
members and even former staff members who no longer worked
at the school. Then they all shared laughs and jokes based on
what was sent and emailed it all about. It was also a union
negotiator who invited a lawyer to "take it to the parking lot," (I
am assuming to fight) at a public meeting in which parents,
community, teachers, children and staff were all there to witness
it. They are now using these practices on me and my colleagues
who signed the petition. They would assert and have you believe
9

that we are so weak minded and afraid of our bosses that we
cannot vote for ourselves, that there are others who really want
the union but can't speak up for themselves. That there are those
who don't want to see this vote. This is condescending and
insulting. But even if any of this were so, we should all still get
the chance to vote one way or the other. In 2015, why should I
have to beg to vote, prove that I should have the opportunity? ...
Petitioner further states:
What it boils down to is that we have an undue burden of proving
that we are competent enough to vote and in union eyes the only
way to do that is to be subject to them. Is this fair? I am asking
you to not block or postpone our vote, and that you schedule it so
that we can officially decide once and for all whether we want to
have [the] Association represent us or not. I am asking you to
keep this decision the separate issue that it is. We are not being
coerced into this decision. We are being coerced by the union
against voting. Let us vote, then PERB, Inglewood Teachers
Association and Children of Promise can move_ forward and get
our focus back on the students. We should not have to wait on
that. PERB has already decided thatJ fil[]ed the proper papers in
the proper time. Now let us take the vote.
The Academy filed a response to the blocking charge on April 13, 2015. The Academy
asserts that the Association's blocking charge should be denied, because it is just a "pre-text"
and the Association's "true purpose in filing the [Charge] is to prevent the teachers from voting
to decide whether to stay with the Union." The Academy further alleges that the Association's
claims are false and there is no cause to stay the teachers' election to decertify the Association.
The Academy further states that "[ e] arlier," it provided e-mail addresses to the
Association, but some teachers "complained to the Academy about the emails that Union
representative Andrew Staiano was sending to the teachers." The Academy further contends
that in September, "the Union representative physically entered the Academy with the
Academy's permission and waited outside each teacher's classroom so that the Union
representative could 'personally speak' with the teacher. Several teachers considered this
10

borderline harassment and again complained to the Academy." Thereafter, nine teachers
"made written and signed requests that the Academy not tum over their home addresses and
home telephone numbers to the union." Attached to the Academy's response to the blocking
charge are nine written requests from teachers that the Academy not share personal contact
information. Five of the attached requests are dated November 7, one is dated November 12,
and one is dated November 14. Two requests are undated. The Academy asserts that it did not
provide employee home addresses and phone numbers, because it was prohibited from doing
so by Government Code section 6254.3. The Academy alleges it provided the contact
information of two teachers who "did not make written requests to invoke their privacy rights."
The Academy contends that it provided all information requested relevant to bargaining
when it provided Staiano a blank teacher contract on November 6. The Academy provides the
sworn affidavits of witnesses to this event. The Academy also claims that the Academy "does
not specifically recall whether the evaluation rubric was photocopied along with the teacher
contract and handed to the Union with the teacher contract," but, because the Association "did
not ask again for the evaluation rubric after the November 6th bargaining session," it
presumably "received a copy of the evaluation rubric along with the teacher contract." 5
The Academy contends that the Association falsely claims that the Academy refused to
meet and confer in good faith. It states "[t]he union claims that the Academy's positions are
'insulting or hostile' to the Union[] [b]ut it was the Union President who called the Academy's
counsel a 'dick.' And it was the Union representative who challenged the Academy's counsel
5 The undated declaration of Thompson additionally asserts: "In September 2014, the
Union representative, Andrew Staiano, physically entered the Children of Promise Preparatory
Academy with permission and waited outside each female teachers' classroom so that Andrew
Staiano could personally speak with the teachers. [i!] Several teachers told me that they
considered this borderline harassment and complained."
11

to a fight/' With regards to the hypotheticals posed by the Academy during negotiations over
grievances and discipline, the Academy states that it learned from posing these hypotheticals to
the Association that "the Union will never agree that an employee can ever be immediately
terminated for anything. And that seems to be in bad faith." The Academy further states: "The
Union makes much of the fact that the Academy has tentatively agreed to provisions but has
not signed these provisions. But the Union has never cited a case, statute or regulation
requiring one party to a negotiation to sign piecemeal provisions."
The Academy further states that the Board should not stay the election, because the
Academy has not committed any unfair practice and has not attempted to prevent the teachers
frorμ exercising free choice. Finally, the Academy contends the Association's "objective is to
deny teachers their free choice to decide whether to stay with the Union."
The Association contends its request for a stay pending the outcome of its blocking
charge should be granted because "the employee dissatisfaction behind this decertification
petition was directly caused by [the Academy's] unlawful actions. Allowing an election to
proceed on this decertification petition would reward [the Academy's] illegal conduct and
thwart the exercise of true employee free choice. PERB should therefore stay the election in
this case pending resolution of the unfair practice charges that have been filed against [the
Academy]."
ISSUE
Would the unfair practices allegedly committed by the Academy so affect the election
process as to prevent the employees from freely selecting their exclusive representative?
12

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA), codified at Government Code
section 3540 et seq. contains the following express purpose:
It is the purpose of this chapter to promote the improvement of
personnel management and employer-employee relations within
the public school systems in the State of California by providing
a uniform basis for recognizing the right of public school
employees to join organizations of their own choice, to be
represented by the organizations in their professional and
employment relationships with public school employers, to select
one employee organization as the exclusive representative of the
· employees in an appropriate unit, and to afford certificated
employees a voice in the formulation of educational policy.
Section 3543, subdivision (a), provides that "[p]ublic school employees shall have the right to
form, join, and participate in the activities of employee organizations of their own choosing for
the purpose of representation on all matters of employer-employee relations." Pursuant to
PERB Regulations 32720 and 33490,6 PERB is authorized to conduct elections in order to
implement the guarantee of rights provided by Government Code section 3543. Moreover,
PERB has held that where a decertification petition raises a question concerning
representation, PERB's statutory obligation is to expeditiously resolve the issues raised by the
petition. (International Union of Operating Engineers, State of California Locals 3, 12, 39
6 PERB Regulation 32720 provides:
An election shall be conducted when the Board issues a decision
directing an election or approves an agreement for a consent
election ... [i!] The Board shall determine the date, time, place
and manner of the election absent an approved agreement of the
parties.
PERB Regulation 33490 provides:
All elections shall be conducted by the Board in accordance with
election procedures described in ... these Regulations.
13

and 501, AFL-CIO (California State Employees' Association, SEIU, AFL-CIO) (1984) PERB
Decision No. 390-S.)
The object of this administrative determination is to apply PERB Regulation 32752 to
the alleged facts of this case in accordance with appropriate precedent. PERB Regulation
32752 provides:
The Board may stay an election pending the resolution of an
unfair practice charge relating to the voting unit upon an
investigation and a finding that alleged unlawful conduct would
so affect the election process as to prevent the employees from
exercising free choice. . ..
The issue is whether the alleged unfair practices by the Academy would so affect the election
process as to prevent the employees from freely selecting their exclusive representative.
(Manton Joint Union Elementary School District (1992) PERB Decision No. 960.)
In similar circumstances, PERB has adopted the "blocking charge rule" used by the
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in the private sector. (See, e.g., NLRB v. Big Three
Industries, Inc. (5th Cir. 1974) 497 F.2d 43.) PERB does not apply the blocking charge rule
mechanically, but rather determines on a case-by-case basis whether applying the rule will
serve the purposes of the statutes enforced by PERB. (Pleasant Valley Elementary School
District (1984) PERB Decision No. 380 (Pleasant Valley).) The Board has made clear, even
prior to the adoption of PERB Regulation 32752, that each stay request is to be investigated
and evaluated on its merits rather than being disposed ofby rote application of a blocking
charge rule. (Jefferson School District (1979) PERB Order No. Ad-66.) As the Board noted, a
primary goal of the statutes it administers is to provide a "uniform basis for recognizing the
right of [employees] to join organizations of their own choice." (Ibid., emphasis added; Gov.
Code, § 3540.) The Board found it appropriate, therefore, for PERB:
14

to delay decertification elections in circumstances in which the
employees' dissatisfaction with their representative is in all
likelihood attributable to the employer's unfair practices rather
than to the exclusive representative's failure to respond to and
serve the needs of the employees it represents.
(Jefferson School District, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-66, pp. 5-6, citations omitted.)
Pleasant Valley, supra, PERB Decision No. 380, interpreted PERB Regulation 32752
such that "the Board agent's obligation is to determine whether the facts alleged in the unfair
practice complaint, if true, would be likely to affect the vote of the employees, and, thus, the
outcome of the election." (Id. at p. 5, emphasis added.) Under Board precedent, the Board
agent is obligated to presume that the allegations in the blocking charge are true:
The District also complains that the Board agent improperly
presumed that the allegations in the complaint are true for
purposes of his analysis. However, it is clear that the Board has
directed its agents to do so for purposes of evaluating whether or
not an election should be blocked.
The District's defense and answer on the merits of the complaint
allegations are matters to be addressed in the unfair practice
hearing. It is neither the Board agent's obligation nor function to
resolve disputed facts or venture into a pre-judgment of the merits
of the unfair practice complaint.
(Grenada Elementary School District (1984) PERB Decision No. 387, p. 14, quoting Pleasant
Valley, supra, PERB Decision No. 380.) These decisions, as well as the plain meaning of
PERB Regulation 32752, make it clear that a determination to stay an election is not intended
to involve adjudication of the unfair practice charge itself.
In Regents of the University of California (1984) PERB Decision No. 381-H, the Board
held that the Board agent correctly analyzed "whether [the conduct alleged] is of such
character and seriousness that, if it were proven to have occurred, it would be reasonable to
infer that it would contribute to employee dissatisfaction and hence prevent a fair election."
15

(Id. at p. 6, emphasis added.) And, although the truth of all relevant allegations contained in
the charges must be assumed ( Golden Plains Unified School District (2002) PERB Decision
No. 1489), allegations are not evaluated separately and without regard to the factual contexts in
which they arose. (Grenada Elementary School District, supra, PERB Decision No. 387;
Antelope Valley Community College District (1979) PERB Decision No. 97.) The
circumstances in which they arise may be considered. (Ibid.; Service Employees International
Union #790 (Azda) (2004) PERB Decision No. 1632-M [nothing in PERB case law requires
the Board agent to ignore facts provided by the respondent or other parties and consider only
the facts provided by the charging party].)
The blocking charge alleges bad faith conduct. An employer's refusal to provide
necessary and relevant information is a per se violation of the duty to bargain in good faith.
(Regents of the University of California (Davis) (2010) PERB Decision No. 2101-H; Stockton
Unified School District (1980) PERB Decision No. 143.) Failure to provide contact
information is a per se violation of the duty to bargain in good faith because it is "fundamental
to the expanse of a union's relationship with the employees." ( Golden Empire Transit District
(2004) PERB Decision No. 1704-M.) The exclusive representative is entitled to the phone
numbers and addresses of all unit employees, and, under the balancing test, this may include
employees who request confidentiality. (Ibid. [ employer violated its duty by refusing to
provide contact information of four employees who requested confidentiality where the
employer provided no compelling need for privacy].)
In Grenada Elementary School District, supra, PERB Decision No. 387, the Board
affirmed the administrative determination finding that alleged bad faith bargaining, if found to
16

be true, would preclude the holding of a fair election. (Id. at p. 6.) The Board cited NLRB
precedent to explain:
It would be particularly anomalous and disruptive of industrial
peace to allow the employer's wrongful refusal to bargain in good
faith to dissipate the union's strength, and then to require a new
election which "would not be likely to demonstrate the
employee's true undistorted desires."
The reasoning underlying this limitation on temporary employee
sentiment flows from the Supreme Court's decision in Frank
Bros. [(1944)] 321 U.S. 702, 14 LRRM 591[]. As the Court there
stated, "Out of its wide experience, the Board many times has
expressed the view that the unlawful refusal of an employer to
bargain collectively with its employees" chosen representative
disrupts the employees' morale, deters their organizational
activities, and discourages their membership in unions.
[ii ... ,0
[]Blocking a decertification petition[] works no injustice to the
employees. In the first place, courts have long recognized that
employee free choice is not necessarily reflected in an election
where the employer, by committing substantial unfair labor
practices, has poisoned the electoral well. [Citations omitted.]
Indeed, a decertification petition tendered on the heels of
employer unfair labor practices may "merely indicate that the
unfair labor practices ... continue to affect employee sentiment
and make a fair election impossible."
(Id. at pp. 8-9.)
Given the NLRB precedent, the Board reasoned that "an election may properly be
blocked where there has been a failure to bargain in good faith, since that conduct by its very
nature undercuts support for an individual union or unions in general, and renders a fair
election impossible." (Id. at p. 9.)
17

DISCUSSION
The question presented is whether the alleged unfair practices by the Academy, if true,
are likely to affect the vote of the employees, and thus, the outcome of the election. (Manton
Joint Union Elementary School District, supra, PERB Decision No. 960; Pleasant Valley,
supra, PERB Decision No. 380.) In other words, would the alleged unlawful conduct
described in the blocking charge, if true, "so affect the election process as to prevent the
employees from exercising free choice." (PERB Reg. 32752; Pleasant Valley, supra, PERB
Decision No. 380.) As noted above, the question is resolved by applying the blocking charge
rule to the facts alleged in the blocking charge and not by a mechanical or rote application of
the rule. (Ibid.)
Refusal to Provide Contact Information
The charge asserts that through November 21, the Academy did not provide the home
address or home telephone contact information of the teachers in the bargaining unit. On
November 21, the Academy provided the contact information of two teachers, but refused to
provide the contact information of nine teachers that requested that the District not provide
their contact information.
Lack of contact information for all the employees through November 21 would deprive
the Association of the ability to contact bargaining unit employees by mail or telephone
through November 21. The lack of contact infonnation would hamper the Associations ability
to represent the unit and negotiate on its behalf. For example, the inability before November
21 to contact members by phone or mail, and the inability after November 21 to contact all but
two members by phone or mail likely hampered the Association's ability to establish
18

communication or effectively schedule meetings with members and therefore reduced the
Association's ability to establish bargaining goals and strategy.
An inability to effectively negotiate with the Academy could have the effect of making
the Association appear weak and ineffective in the eyes of bargaining unit members. "'Out of
its wide experience, the Board many times has expressed the view that the unlawful refusal of
an employer to bargain collectively with its employees' chosen representative disrupts the
employees' morale, deters their organizational activities, and discourages their membership in
unions." (Grenada Elementary School District, supra, PERB Decision No. 387, p. 9.) If it is
true that the Academy refused to provide contact information, such conduct would therefore
affect the exercise of free choice. (PERB Reg. 32752.)
The circumstances and factual context surrounding the Academy's refusal to provide
contact information are also_relevant: the Association had only been recognized as the
exclusive representative in August 2013 and the Academy challenged the recognition and
allegedly avoided its obligations to bargain and provide information during the appeal.
(Children of Promise Preparatory Academy, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-401; Unfair Practice
Charge No. LA-CE-5876-E.) The Petitioner was aware of the contentious relationship
between the parties, as Petitioner wrote in its opposition to the blocking charge that:
Last year it was the union if anyone, who engaged in regressive
bargaining practices. In the emails that I received it was the
union representative who reverted to name calling, slurs, worn
out negotiation jargon, all of which was sent via email to all staff
members and even former staff members who no longer worked
at the school .... [A] union negotiator [] invited a lawyer to
"take it to the parking lot," (I am assuming to fight) at a public
meeting in which parents, community, teachers, children and staff
were all there to witness it. They are now using these practices
on me and my colleagues who signed the petition.
19

It appears that the contentious relationship between the Academy and the Association
would have the effect of disrupting employee morale, deterring Association activities and
discouraging membership in the Association. Employees would reasonably be deterred from
engaging in communications or activities with the Association when they know that their
employer is opposed to the Association and/or its status as a representative, or they are aware
that the employer and representative have a contentious relationship such that name-calling
and threats of physical altercations have allegedly occurred.
One apparent outgrowth of the Association's lack of contact information was that its
representative resorted to initiating contact with teachers outside of their classrooms in
September. According to the Academy, "[s]everal teachers considered this borderline
harassment and again complained to the Academy. Thereafter nine teachers prepared and
signed written instructions that the Academy" not provide contact information to the
Association. It therefore appears that the Academy's refusal to provide contact information
had the real effect of causing the Association to embark on personal contact with teachers
which, according to the Academy, was viewed by several teachers as harassment and caused
nine teachers to opt-out of providing contact information.
Under all the circumstances, it appears that the neutral conditions required for a fair
election were tainted by the Academy's alleged conduct. The employees' dissatisfaction with
the Association in this case may likely be attributed to the employer's refusal to provide
contact information, rather than to the Association's failure to respond to and serve the needs
of the employees it represents. It is therefore appropriate for PERB to delay the decertification
election. (Jefferson School District, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-66.)
20

Refusal to Provide Information Relevant to Bargaining
The Association asserts that it requested copies of the performance evaluation used by
the Academy and a copy of any current employment agreements. The March 25, 2015
blocking charge asserts: "To date, [the Academy] has not provided a copy of its employment
agreement or performance evaluation to the Association." The Academy presents conflicting
facts. The Academy claims it provided Staiano a blank teacher contract on November 6 and it
also believes it may have provided "a copy of the evaluation rubric along with the teacher
contract."7
As noted, the Board agent is obliged to accept the allegations in the charge as true even
where the parties present conflicting facts. 	( Grenada Elementary School District, supra,
PERB Decision No. 387, p. 14; Golden Plains Unified School District, supra, PERB Decision
No. 1489 [the Board agent does not resolve factual disputes].) Thus, it is assumed for the
purpose of evaluating the blocking charge that the Academy never provided the performance
evaluation used by the Academy or any copies of current employment agreements.
Accordingly, the Association lacked information necessary to carry out its duties to represent
employees, and its ability to effectively negotiate the parties' first agreement appears to have
been impeded. As with the asserted refusal to provide contact information, the Academy's
alleged refusal to provide information relevant to bargaining would impede the Association's
ability to effectively negotiate with the Academy and could have the effect of making the
Association appear weak and ineffective in the eyes of bargaining unit members. If it is true
that the Academy refused to provide requested information, such conduct would affect the
It is noted that even if the Academy provided documents, it does not necessarily mean
that the Academy fully complied with the Association's request for information, e.g., the
Association requested "current employment agreements" however the Academy asserts it
provided "the teacher contract."
21

exercise of free choice. (PERB Reg. 32752.) The circumstances and factual context
surrounding the Academy's alleged refusal to provide requested information also support the
conclusion that the Academy's conduct would affect the exercise of free choice for the reasons
stated above.
Refusal to Negotiate in Good Faith
The Association asserts that the Academy engaged in bad faith bargaining, including
reneging on proposals, proposing "presumptively unacceptable terms," refusing to reduce
tentative agreements to writing and regressing from proposals the Academy made. The
Association also alleges the Academy refused to discuss the Association's proposals for
grievances and discipline and the Academy instead derailed negotiations by insisting on posing
"highly specific, far-fetched hypotheticals." If it is true that the Academy engaged in bad faith
bargaining, such conduct would affect the exercise for free choice and "an election may
properly be blocked where there has been a failure to bargain in good faith, since that conduct
by its very nature undercuts support for an individual union or unions in general, and renders a
fair election impossible." (Grenada Elementary School District, supra, PERB Decision No.
387, p. 9; PERB Reg. 32752.) The circumstances and factual context surrounding the
Academy's alleged refusal to negotiate in good faith also support the conclusion that the
Academy's conduct would affect the exercise of free choice for the reasons stated above.
Petitioner's Opposition to the Blocking Charge
The decertification petitioner asserts the Association "engaged in regressive bargaining
practices," "reverted to name calling, slurs [and] worn out negotiation jargon," "invited a
lawyer to 'take it to the parking lot,"' and "[is] now using these practices on me and niy
colleagues who signed the petition." Petitioner further asserts it is "condescending and
22

insulting" that the teachers now have "an undue burden of proving that we are competent
enough to vote." Petitioner states the Association had access to teachers and Petitioner
questions "How much more unimpeded access did they want?" Petitioner also asserts that the
decertification voting "should not be linked to the litigation" between the Association and the
Academy.
In Regents of the University of California (SUPA), supra, PERB Decision No. 381-H,
the Board addressed a similar argument raised by a petitioning group of employees-that the
filing of the decertification petition was not motivated by any action of the employer, but
rather by a wish to eliminate the exclusive representative. The Board found that the motivation
of the petitioner in seeking a decertification election is not determinative, because the relevant
question is not the reasons the petition was filed, but whether the alleged unlawful conduct
would so affect the election process as to prevent the employees from exercising free choice.
(Id. at p. 6; Grenada Elementary School District, supra, PERB Decision No. 387, pp. 10-11.)
Under this holding, Petitioner's assertions about the Association, including Petitioner's belief
that the Association engaged in regressive bargaining and had sufficient access, are not
determinative. Similarly, Petitioner's request that the decertification election "not be linked to
the litigation" must be rejected because the Academy's alleged unlawful conduct may be
inextricably linked with the decertification petition; "employee free choice is not necessarily
reflected in an election where the employer, by committing substantial unfair labor practices,
has poisoned the electoral well." (Grenada Elementary School District, supra, PERB Decision
No. 387, p. 9.)
The Petitioner's motives are not determinative and the only question to be answered is
whether the alleged unlawful conduct by the Academy, if true, "would so affect the election
23

process as to prevent the employees from exercising free choice." (PERB Reg. 32752.) Thus,
even if the Petitioner's motives stem only from a desire to be free of the Association, the
election must be stayed nonetheless because the circumstances in this case are such that
employee dissatisfaction with the Association is in all likelihood attributable to the employer's
failure to provide information and bargain in good faith, rather than to the Association's failure
to respond to and serve the needs of the employees it represents. (Jefferson School District,
supra, PERB Order No. Ad-66.) Each allegation of unlawful conduct by the Academy, if
ultimately proved true, would reasonably have the effect of frustrating the ability to reach a
negotiated settlement, and might well have contributed to the teachers' view that the
Association is impotent and unnecessary. It is therefore appropriate for PERB to delay the
decertification election. (Ibid.)
Academy's Opposition to the Blocking Charge
The Academy asserts the Association's charge is a "pre-text" and the Association's
"true purpose in filing the [Charge] is to prevent the teachers from voting to decide whether to
stay with the Union." However, PERB Regulation 32752 specifically allows an election to be
stayed based on allegations in an unfair practice charge that Respondent's alleged unfair
conduct would so affect the election process as to prevent the employees from exercising free
choice. There is no pretext here as the Association's charge specifically requests "an order
staying any decertification election, holding Case No. LA-DP-403-E in abeyance."
The Academy asserts that the Association's claims are false; however, as explained
above, the Board agent does not resolve factual disputes and instead must accept the
allegations in the charge as true. ( Golden Plains Unified School District, supra, PERB
Decision No. 1489.)
24

The Academy asserts that it refused to provide contact information pursuant to
Government Code section 6254.3. The teacher's dated requests for confidentiality indicate the
earliest requests were made on November 7, 2014. Thus, it is not evident what basis, if any,
justified the Academy's withholding of contact information from September 29, the date of the
Association's request, through November 7. Moreover, failure to provide contact information
is a per se violation of the duty to bargain in good faith, and whether the Academy can
ultimately establish that it was justified in withholding the contact information before or after
the teachers provided written requests is a matter that may not be resolved at this stage of the
investigation into the blocking charge. (Golden Empire Transit District, supra, PERB
Decision No. 1704-M; Golden Plains Unified School District, supra, PERB Decision
No. 1489.)
The Academy states that the Union President called the Academy's counsel a "dick,"
and the Academy implies that the Association's conduct was "insulting or hostile." 	The
Academy also states that it learned from its hypotheticals that "the Union will never agree that
an employee can ever be immediately terminated for anything. And that seems to be in bad
faith." Such comments, however, are not necessarily indicative of bad faith because "'disputes
over wages, hours, and working conditions are among the disputes most likely to engender ill
feelings and strong responses' [and] the parties are afforded wide latitude to engage in
'uninhibited, robust, and wide-open debate' in the course of those disputes." (City of Oakland
(Lewis) (2014) PERB Decision No. 2387-M, p. 23.) Nonetheless, the Academy's allegations
are taken into consideration pursuant to the Board agent's ability to consider the circumstances
in which the charge arose. (Grenada Elementary School District, supra, PERB Decision No.
387; Antelope Valley Community College District, supra, PERB Decision No. 97; Service
25

Employees International Union #790 (Azda), supra, PERB Decision No. 1632-M.) The
Association's conduct, as asserted by the Academy, together with all the circumstances and
factual context surrounding the Academy's alleged unlawful conduct, as described above,
support the conclusion that employee dissatisfaction is in all likelihood attributable to the
Academy's alleged refusal to provide contact information and bargaining information and
refusal to negotiate in good faith, rather than to the Association's failure to respond to and
serve the needs of the employees it represents. It is therefore appropriate for PERB to delay
. the decertification election. (Jefferson School District, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-66.)
DETERMINATION
Based on the above, the blocking charge rule shall be applied in this case and the
decertification election will be stayed pending the outcome of the blocking charge. PERB will
not conduct an election where there is a likelihood that alleged unlawful conduct by the
Academy has affected voter choice. Staying the election until the blocking charge is resolved
serves the purpose of EERA to promote the improvement of personnel management and
employer-employee relations within the public school systems in the State of California by
providing a uniform basis for recognizing the right of public school employees to join
organizations of their own choice, to be represented by the organizations in their professional
and employment relationships with public school employers, to select one employee
organization as the exclusive representative of the employees in an appropriate unit, and to
afford certificated employees a voice in the formulation of educational policy.
Right to Appeal
Pursuant to PERB Regulations, an aggrieved party may file an appeal directly with the
Board itself and can request an expedited review of this administrative determination. (Cal.
26

Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 32147, subd. (a), 32350, 32360, 32802, 61060.) An appeal must be filed
with the Board itself within 10 days following the date of service of this determination. (Cal.
Code Regs., tit. 8, § 32360, subd. (b).) Any document filed with the Board must contain the
case name and number, and the original ai:i-d five (5) copies of all documents must be provided
to the Board. (Ibid.)
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, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95811-4124
(916) 322-8231
FAX: (916) 327-7960
If an aggrieved party appeals this determination, any other party may file with the Board an
original and five copies of a statement in opposition within 10 calendar days following the date
of service of the appeal. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 32375.)
27

Service
All documents authorized to be filed herein must also be "served" upon all parties to
the proceeding and on the Sacramento regional office. 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 an appeal or opposition to an appeal
with the Board itself must be in writing and filed with the Board at the previously noted
address. A request for an extension mustbe 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).
28