Civil Service Division, California State Employees Association (Eisenberg) (PERB 2034S)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
IRA EISENBERG,
Charging Party,
V.
CIVIL SERVICE DIVISION, CALIFORNIA
STATE EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION,
Respondent.
Case No. SF-CO-53-S
PERB Decision No. 2034-S
June 4, 2009
Appearances: 	Ira Eisenberg, on his own behalf; Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld by Vincent A.
Harrington, Jr., Attorney, for Civil Service Division, California State Employees' Association.
Before McKeag, Neuwald and Dowdin Calvillo, Members.
DECISION
NEUW,A~LD, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(Board) on appeal by Ira Eisenberg (Eisenberg) of a Board agent's dismissal (attached) of his
unfair practice charge. The charge alleged that the Civil Service Division, California State
Employees' Association (CSEA) violated the Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills Act) 1 by creating the
website 	,	www.dumpseiu.com which interfered with Eisenberg's ability to pursue his
decertification efforts.
The Board has reviewed the entire record including but not limited to, the original and
amended unfair practice charge, CSEA's correspondence, the Board agent's warning and
dismissal letters, Eisenberg's appeal, and CSEA's response to that appeal. Based on this
review, the Board finds the Board agent's warning and dismissal letters to be a correct
1The Dills Act is codified at Government Code section 3512 et seq.

statement
of
the law and well reasoned and, therefore adopts them as the decision
of
the Board
itself.
ORDER
The unfair practice charge in Case No. SF-CO-53-S is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT
LEA VE TO AMEND.
Members McKeag and Dowdin Calvillo joined in this Decision.
2
statement of the law and well reasoned and, therefore adopts them as the decision of the Board
itself.
ORDER
The unfair practice charge in Case No. SF-CO-53-S is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT
LEAVE TO AMEND.
Members Mckeag and Dowdin Calvillo joined in this Decision.
2

STATE
OF
CALIFORNIA 	(
	(-	
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
	----=---========'
	.~-==============
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
'
1
PER.B
Los Angeles Regional Office
3530 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1435
Los Angeles, CA 90010-2334
Telephone: (213) 736-2907
Fax: (213) 736-4901
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on October 22, 2007. Ira Eisenberg alleges that the Civil Service
Division, California State Employees Association' (CSEA) violated the Ralph
C.
Dills Act
(Dills
Act
2
April 25, 2008
Ira Eisenberg
Re: 	Ira Eisenberg
v.
Civil Service Division, CSEA
Unfair Practice Charge No. SF-CO-53-S
DISMISSAL LETTER
Dear Mr. Eisenberg:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on October 22, 2007. Ira Eisenberg alleges that the Civil Service
Division, California State Employees Association (CSEA) violated the Ralph C. Dills Act
(Dills Act)'
/
by creating the website www.dumpseiu.com. 	.
Eisenberg was informed in the attached Warning Letter dated March 17, 2008, that the above-
referenced charge did not state a prima facie case. Eisenberg was advised that, if there were
any factual inaccuracies or additional facts which would correct the deficiencies explained in
that letter, he should amend the charge. Eisenberg was further advised that, unless he amended
the charge to state a prima facie case or withdrew it prior to March 28, 2008, the charge would
be dismissed. Eisenberg requested and received two extensions
of
time to file an amended
charge. 	On April 23, 2008, he timelyJiled an amended charge with PERB.
Eisenberg was informed in the attached Warning Letter dated March 17, 2008, that the above-
referenced charge did not state a prima facie case. Eisenberg was advised that, if there were
any factual inaccuracies or additional facts which would correct the deficiencies explained in
that letter, he should amend the charge. Eisenberg was further advised that, unless he amended
the charge to state a prima facie case or withdrew it prior to March 28, 2008, the charge would
be dismissed. Eisenberg requested and received two extensions of time to file an amended
charge. On April 23, 2008, he timely filed an amended charge with PERB.
In the March 17, 2008 Warning Letter, Eisenberg
yva~
instructed to correct any factual
inaccuracies or provide additional facts to correct the deficiencies discussed in the Warning	or provide additional
f~t{~
tp;c.Qp-ecrihe deficiencies discussed in the Warning
Letter. Eisenberg does not provide a~y,~ddidorial facts or identify any factual inaccuracies
addressing the issues raised in the March 17, 2008 Warning Letter. Instead, Eisenberg appears
to contend 	the investigation overlooked the significance of a March 11, 2008, e-mail
correspondence, sent by Alex Hernandez, to representatives of the Service Employees
International Union (SEIU) and California State Employees United (CSEU). Eisenberg had
previously alleged that Hernandez is a representative for SEID, Local 1000, CSEA, and CSEU.
inaccuracies
that
In the March 11, 2008 e-mail, Hernandez states he participated in the www.dumpseiu.com
website. Hernandez also states that he did not wish to decertify SEIU, Local 1000 as the
exclusive representative of Bargaining Unit 1. Hernandez also stated his belief that he had
prevented a decertification vote
1 The Dills Act is codified at qovernlll~nt~ (:;gqe section 3512 et seq. The text of the
Dills Act and the Board's Regulatiogs1may
l;>,~fmu1d10μ.
the Internet at www.perb.ca.gov .
. t. 	\
'.i,J 	r
..
1-·c U	
: (
:\' ; ,(; ,_J :·:i•~.i
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Los Angeles Regional Office
3530 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1435
Los Angeles, CA 90010-2334
Telephone: (213) 736-2907
Fax: (213) 736-4901
April 25, 2008
Ira Eisenberg
Re: 	Ira Eisenberg v. Civil Service Division, CSEA
Unfair Practice Charge No. SF-CO-53-S
DISMISSAL LETTER
Dear Mr. Eisenberg:
by creating the website www.dumpseiu.com.
In the March 17, 2008 Warning Letter, Eisenberg was instructed to correct any factual
Letter. Eisenberg does not provide any additional facts or identify any factual inaccuracies
addressing the issues raised in the March 17, 2008 Warning Letter. Instead, Eisenberg appears
to contend that the investigation overlooked the significance of a March 11, 2008, e-mail
correspondence, sent by Alex Hernandez, to representatives of the Service Employees
International Union (SEIU) and California State Employees United (CSEU). Eisenberg had
previously alleged that Hernandez is a representative for SEIU, Local 1000, CSEA, and CSEU.
In the March 11, 2008 e-mail, Hernandez states he participated in the www.dumpseiu.com
website. Hernandez also states that he did not wish to decertify SEIU, Local 1000 as the
exclusive representative of Bargaining Unit 1. Hernandez also stated his belief that he had
because he had collected petitions signed by Unit 1 members
approving decertification of SEID, Local 1000, but presumably did not file those petitions with
prevented a decertification vote because he had collected petitions signed by Unit 1 members
approving decertification of SEIU, Local 1000, but presumably did not file those petitions with
The Dills Act is codified at Government Code section 3512 et seq. The text of the
Dills Act and the Board's Regulations may be found on the Internet at www.perb.ca.gov.

SF-CO-53-S
April 25, 2008
Page 2
PERB. Hernandez concludes the e-mail by stating th'at he supports SEID, Local 1000, but tha
he believed that its current leadership was corrupt and should be deposed.
Eisenberg was informed in the March 18, 2008 Warning Letter that, to demonstrate a prima
facie case
of
interference, the charging party must show that the respondent's conduct tends to
or does result in some harm to employee rights guaranteed by the Dills Act. 	(State
of
California (Department
of
Developmental Services) (1983) PERB Decision No. 344-S; State of
California, Department
of
Developmental Services (1982) PERB Decision No. 228-S;
Carlsbad Unified School District (1979) PERB Decision No. 89.)
In the amended charge, Eisenberg continues to argue that, Hernandez's maintenance
of
the
www.dumpseiu.com website unlawfully interfered with Eisenberg's ability to pursue the
• As stated ii+the March 18, 2008 Warning Letter,
Eisenberg does not provide sufficientinforrnation1to conclude how Hernandez's actions
unreasonably interfered with Eisenberg' s decertification efforts. Eisenberg has not provided
any additional information that clarifies why he could not have pursued his own separate
www.dumpseiu.com
website. Accordingly, Eisenberg has failed to demonstrate how Hernandez's actions resulted
in "some harm" to Eisenberg's decertification effort., (See State
of
California (Department
of
Developmental Services), supra, PERB Decision
NP,r•.344-S;
Los Angeles 	College
District (1987) PERB Decision No. 623 (dismissing a charge for failing to establish "some
harm").) For example, Eisenberg has not established that he was unable to obtain the
necessary signatures to file his decertification petition, nor has he demonstrated that any Unit 1
member forewent signing onto Eisenberg's petition because
of
Hernandez's actions. For these
reasons, Eisenberg does not state a prima facie case for interference.
Community
PERB. Hernandez concludes the e-mail by stating that he supports SEIU, Local 1000, but thatt
he believed that its current leadership was corrupt and should be deposed.
Eisenberg was informed in the March 18, 2008 Warning Letter that, to demonstrate a prima
facie case of interference, the charging party must show that the respondent's conduct tends to
or does result in some harm to employee rights guaranteed by the Dills Act. (State of
California (Department of Developmental Services) (1983) PERB Decision No. 344-S; State of
California, Department of Developmental Services (1982) PERB Decision No. 228-S;
Carlsbad Unified School District (1979) PERB Decision No. 89.)
In the amended charge, Eisenberg continues to argue that, Hernandez's maintenance of the
www.dumpseiu.com 2As stated in the March 18, 2008 Warning Letter,
Eisenberg does not provide sufficient information to conclude how Hernandez's actions
unreasonably interfered with Eisenberg's decertification efforts. Eisenberg has not provided
any additional information that clarifies why he could not have pursued his own separate
decertification petition at the same time that Hernandyz operated the
website unlawfully interfered with Eisenberg's ability to pursue the
decertification
of
SEIU, Local 1000.
www.dumpseiu.com
website. Accordingly, Eisenberg has failed to demonstrate how Hernandez's actions resulted
in "some harm" to Eisenberg's decertification effort, (See State of California (Department of
Developmental Services), supra, PERB Decision No; 344-S; Los Angeles Community College
reasons, Eisenberg does not state a prima facie case for interference."3
2 In the amended charge, Eisenberg continues to assert that Hernandez was acting as an	In the amended charge, Eisenberg continues to assert that Hernandez was acting as an
agent of CSEA when he created the www.dumpseiu.com website. 	No etermination wa	was made
on this issue because, as discussed more thoroughly below, even if Hernandez was an agent
ofCSEA, Eisenberg fails to demonstrate either that Hernandez's 	interfered with
Eisenberg's protected rights or that Hernandez!s actions should not be considered protected
speech.
determination
actions
:,
,
	",
	,, 	1
3 The Board has held that, in the absence
of
some measurable harm to employee rights,
a respondent's actions may constitute unliawful interference where it would be reasonable to
infer that the actions caused some ·"friliereht harrnV·rn employee rights. (Regents of the
University of California, Lawrence Livermore Ntitional Laboratory ( 1982) PERB Decision
No. 212-H.) In that case, the Board found that the''employer's decision to no longer notify
non-exclusive representatives prior to enacting changes to employment conditions inherently
harmed employee rights because it was reasonable to conclude that such a practice would
affect a non-exclusive representative's ability to represent employees. (Ibid.) In the present
case, Eisenberg has not demonstrated how the www .dumpseiu.com website caused "inherent
SF-CO-53-S
April 25, 2008
Page 2
decertification of SEIU, Local 1000."
decertification petition at the same time that Hernandez operated the
District (1987) PERB Decision No. 623 (dismissing a charge for failing to establish "some
harm").) For example, Eisenberg has not established that he was unable to obtain the
necessary signatures to file his decertification petition, nor has he demonstrated that any Unit 1
member forewent signing onto Eisenberg's petition because of Hernandez's actions. For these
agent of CSEA when he created the www.dumpseiu.com website. No d 	s made
on this issue because, as discussed more thoroughly below, even if Hernandez was an agent of
CSEA, Eisenberg fails to demonstrate either that Hernandez's actions interfered with
Eisenberg's protected rights or that Hernandez's actions should not be considered protected
speech.
The Board has held that, in the absence of some measurable harm to employee rights,
a respondent's actions may constitute unlawful interference where it would be reasonable to
infer that the actions caused some "inherent harm" to employee rights. (Regents of the
University of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (1982) PERB Decision
No. 212-H.) In that case, the Board found that the employer's decision to no longer notify
non-exclusive representatives prior to enacting changes to employment conditions inherently
harmed employee rights because it was reasonable to conclude that such a practice would
affect a non-exclusive representative's ability to represent employees. (Ibid.) In the present
case, Eisenberg has not demonstrated how the www.dumpseiu.com website caused "inherent
harm" to Eisenberg's ability to pursue decertification of SEID, Local 1000. Accordingly,
University of California, supra, PERB Decision No. 212-H is inapposite.
harm" to Eisenberg's ability to pursue decertification of SEIU, Local 1000. Accordingly,
University of California, supra, PERB Decision No. 212-H is inapposite.

SF-CO-53-S
April 25, 2008
Page 3
(
As stated in the March 17, 2008 Warning Letter,,a respondent's speech causes no cognizable
harm to employee rights unless it contains a "threat
of
reprisal or promise of benefit."
(Rio Hondo Community College District (1980) PERB Decision No. 128; (State
of
California
(Department
of
Developmental Services);,supra,
l?ERB
Decision No. 344-S.) Under this
standard, even
if
Hernandez's actions:affected Eisenberg's ability to pursue decertification,
Eisenberg has not demonstrated that the www.dumps.t?iu.com website constitutes a "threat
of
Eisenberg also alleges that CSEA President J .J. J elincic expelled Eisenberg from membership
of
SEIU, Local 1000 in retaliation for filing the instant unfair practice charge. To demonstrate
a violation
of
Dills Act section 3519(a), the charging party must show that: (1) the employee
exercised rights under the Dills Act; (2) the employer had knowledge
of
the exercise
of
those
rights; and (3) the employer imposed or threatened to impose reprisals, discriminated or
threatened to discriminate, or otherwise interfered with, restrained, or coerced the employees
because
of
the exercise of those rights. (Novato Unified School District (1982) PERB
Decision No. 210 (Novato); Carlsbad Unified School District (1979) PERB Decision No. 89.)
·,,,
I 	'
'>
,::--~_y;
,,
	' ' 	;
';
,·~.~
f'
-n
, 	1,
Although the timing
of
the employet\;' adverse; aytibn ln close temporal proximity to the
employee's protected conduct is an important factor (North Sacramento School District (1982)
PERB Decision No. 264), it does not, without more, demonstrate the necessary connection or
"nexus" between the adverse action and the protected conduct. (Moreland Elementary School
District (1982) PERB Decision No. 227.) Facts establishing one or more of the following
additional factors must also be present: (1) the employer's disparate treatment of the employee
State of California (Department of Transportation) (1984) PERB Decision No. 459-S); (2) the ,
employer's depart	parture from established procedures and standards when dealing with the
Unified School District (1979) PERB Decision No. 104); (3) the
employer's inconsistent or contradictory justifications for its actions (State of California
(Department
of
Parks and Recreation) (1983) PERB Decision No. 328-S); (4) the employer's
cursory 	of the employee's misconduct; (5) the employer's failure to offer the
employee justification at the time it took action or the offering of exaggerated, vague, or
ambiguous reasons; (6) employer animosity towards union activists (Cupertino Union
Elementary School District (1986) PERB 	No. 572); or (7) any other facts that might
demonstrate the employer's unlawful motive. (Novato, supra, PERB Decision No. 210; North
Sacramento School District, supra, PERB Decision No. 264.)
employee's protected conduct is an important factor (North Sacramento School District (1982)
PERB Decision No. 264), it does
n~~;,.
witl}~W,mop1;\~,fm~mstrate the necessary connection or
"nexus" between the adverse action
~~d
f~~;",p5ot9~,~r,fcoriduct. 	(Moreland Elementary School
Dis~r~ct (1982) PERB Decision No.
2'2r,7.)
Fact~)!,~f~~yshing
_one
or more
of
the following
additional factors must also
be
present:
	(1;)
the em~l,qyer' s disparate treatment
of
the employee
(State
of
California (Department
of
Transportation)' (1984) PERB Decision No. 459-S); (2) the
employer's de
employee (Santa Clara
investigation
Decision
Evidence of adverse action is also req~ired to suppo~t aclaim of discrimination or reprisal
under the Novato standard. (Palo Verde UnifiedSchool District (1988) PERB Decision No.
689.) In determining whether such eyideri.ce
is
established, the Board uses an objective test
and will not rely upon the subjective reactions of the employee. (Ibid.) In a later decision, the
Board further explained that: 	· 	· · ' 	·
.... , : j
SF-CO-53-S
April 25, 2008
Page 3
As stated in the March 17, 2008 Warning Letter, a respondent's speech causes no cognizable
harm to employee rights unless it contains a "threat of reprisal or promise of benefit."
Rio Hondo Community College District (1980) PERB Decision No. 128; (State of California
Department of Developmental Services), supra, PERB Decision No. 344-S.) Under this
standard, even if Hernandez's actions affected Eisenberg's ability to pursue decertification,
Eisenberg has not demonstrated that the www.dumpseiu.com website constitutes a "threat of
reprisal or a promise
of
benefit." (Ibid.) Thus, Eisenberg does not establish how Hernandez's
maintenance
of
the website was more thari merely a legitimate exercise
of
his protected right to
either pursue his own decertification petition
on
to criticize SEIU, Local 1000 or its leadership.
For these reasons, Eisenberg does not state a prima facie case.
reprisal or a promise of benefit." (Ibid.) Thus, Eisenberg does not establish how Hernandez's
maintenance of the website was more than merely a legitimate exercise of his protected right to
either pursue his own decertification petition on to criticize SEIU, Local 1000 or its leadership.
For these reasons, Eisenberg does not state a prima facie case.
Eisenberg also alleges that CSEA President J.J. Jelincic expelled Eisenberg from membership
of SEIU, Local 1000 in retaliation for filing the instant unfair practice charge. To demonstrate
a violation of Dills Act section 3519(a), the charging party must show that: (1) the employee
exercised rights under the Dills Act; (2) the employer had knowledge of the exercise of those
rights; and (3) the employer imposed or threatened to impose reprisals, discriminated or
threatened to discriminate, or otherwise interfered with, restrained, or coerced the employees
because of the exercise of those rights. (Novato Unified School District (1982) PERB
Decision No. 210 (Novato); Carlsbad Unified School District (1979) PERB Decision No. 89.)
Although the timing of the employer's adverse, action in close temporal proximity to the
ure from established procedures and standards when dealing with the
employee (Santa Clara Unified School District (1979) PERB Decision No. 104); (3) the
employer's inconsistent or contradictory justifications for its actions (State of California
(Department of Parks and Recreation) (1983) PERB Decision No. 328-S); (4) the employer's
cursory investigation of the employee's misconduct; (5) the employer's failure to offer the
employee justification at the time it took action or the offering of exaggerated, vague, or
ambiguous reasons; (6) employer animosity towards union activists (Cupertino Union
Elementary School District (1986) PERB Decision No. 572); or (7) any other facts that might
demonstrate the employer's unlawful motive. (Novato, supra, PERB Decision No. 210; North
Sacramento School District, supra, PERB Decision No. 264.)
Evidence of adverse action is also required to support a claim of discrimination or reprisal
under the Novato standard. (Palo Verde Unified School District (1988) PERB Decision No.
689.) In determining whether such evidence is established, the Board uses an objective test
and will not rely upon the subjective reactions of the employee. (Ibid.) In a later decision, the
Board further explained that:

SF-CO-53-S
April 25, 2008
Page4 
The test which must be satisfied is not whether the employee
found the employer's action to
b~
adyerse, but whether a
reasonable person
und:e,r
thy
~a;rn,~
cihcu,rnstances would consider
the action to have an 'a'dverse•impaclort the employee's
employment. 	[Newark Unified School District (1991) PERB
Decision No. 864; emphasis added; foqtnote omitted.]:
.,
	..
:')
	.
These standards, originally developed to analyze retaliation allegations rendered against
employers, apply equally to retaliation allegations against employee organizations. (State ofCalifornia (Department
of
Developmental Services), supra, PERB Decision No. 344-S.)
In this case, even assuming it was an adverse action for SEIU, Local 1000 to terminate
Eisenberg's union membership, the present charge was filed against CSEA, not SEIU, Local
1000. Thus, even if SEID, Local 1000 violated the Dills Act, because that organization was
not named
as
a party to this case, this issue is not properly before PERB at this time.
Moreover, even assuming the issue was raised in the present charge, Eisenberg does not
provide any facts suggesting a causal connection, or nexus, between the filing of this unfair
practice charge and SEIU, Local lO00's decision to terminate his membership. He does not
even allege when his membership was terminated or what actions Jelincic took to cause SEIU,
Local 1000 to terminate Eisenberg's membership. As stated in the March 17, 2008 Warning
Letter, mere legal conclusions are in~vfficien,~
,tQ
's.~at~;a
prima facie case. (Charter Oak Unified	~~,"\_=·.!
	,.,
.-··,,,11•.i~\;
..
,·
School District (1991) PERB Decisi1ltNo: 873\)
"''
Moreover, even assuming the issue was raised in the present charge, Eisenberg does not
provide any facts suggesting a causal connection, or nexus, between the filing of this unfair
practice charge and SEIU, Local 1000's decision to terminate his membership. He does not
even allege when his membership was terminated or what actions Jelincic took to cause SEIU,
Local 1000 to terminate Eisenberg's membership. As stated in the March 17, 2008 Warning
Letter, mere legal conclusions are insufficient to state a prima facie case. (Charter Oak Unified
School District (1991) PERB Decision No: 873.) _"
In addition, Dills Act section 3515.5 frov,ides e~pl,oy~e organizations with the ability to
"establish reasonable restrictions ori'who may joi~and may make reasonable provisions for the
dismissal of individuals from membership.''
(Barker & Osuna) (2003) PERB Decision
(
	\.
No.
. •
.(Se,e:itl~~
/
	,,
J ,.. '
~	
,,,
California'
	State Employees Association
155k;.~p Eisenberg does not provide facts
establishing either that SEIU, Local lO0O's rules co'iicerning membership were unreasonable or
that those rules were unreasonably applied to Eisenberg in the present case. For these reasons,
this allegation does not state a prima f~cie case.
When drafting the March 18, 2008 Warning Letter, the undersigned believed that Eisenberg
was alleging that CSEA, through Hernandez, violated an oral agreement regarding the
maintenance of the www.dumpseiu.com website. This belief was based on the undersigned's
reading
For the reasons discussed in this letter and the March 17, 2008 Warning Letter, the charge is
dismissed.
SF-CO-53-S
April 25, 2008
Page 4
The test which must be satisfied is not whether the employee
found the employer's action to be adverse, but whether a
reasonable person under the same circumstances would consider
the action to have an adverse impact on the employee's
employment. [Newark Unified School District (1991) PERB
Decision No. 864; emphasis added; footnote omitted.]
These standards, originally developed to analyze retaliation allegations rendered against
employers, apply equally to retaliation allegations against employee organizations. (State of
California (Department of Developmental Services), supra, PERB Decision No. 344-S.)
In this case, even assuming it was an adverse action for SEIU, Local 1000 to terminate
Eisenberg's union membership, the present charge was filed against CSEA, not SEIU, Local
1000. Thus, even if SEIU, Local 1000 violated the Dills Act, because that organization was
not named as a party to this case, this issue is not properly before PERB at this time.
In addition, Dills Act section 3515.5 provides employee organizations with the ability to
"establish reasonable restrictions on who may join and may make reasonable provisions for the
dismissal of individuals from membership." (See also California State Employees Association
(Barker & Osuna) (2003) PERB Decision No. 1551-S.) Eisenberg does not provide facts
establishing either that SEIU, Local 1000's rules concerning membership were unreasonable or
that those rules were unreasonably applied to Eisenberg in the present case. For these reasons,
this allegation does not state a prima facie case.
When drafting the March 18, 2008 Warning Letter, the undersigned believed that Eisenberg
was alleging that CSEA, through Hernandez, violated an oral agreement regarding the
maintenance of the www.dumpseiu.com website. This belief was based on the undersigned's
of the original charge. Eisenberg has clarified that this allegation was never intended
to be part of the charge. For that reason, this allegation is not considered further in this letter.
reading of the original charge. Eisenberg has clarified that this allegation was never intended
to be part of the charge. For that reason, this allegation is not considered further in this letter.
For the reasons discussed in this letter and the March 17, 2008 Warning Letter, the charge is
dismissed.

SF-CO-53-S
April 25, 2008
Page 5
Right to Appeal
Pursuant to PERB Regulations,
Right to Appeal
4
Pursuant to PERB Regulations, 	you may obtain a review of this dismissal of the charge by
an appeal to the Board itself within twenty (20) calendar days after service of this
dismissal. (Regulation 32635(a).) Any document filed with the Board must contain the case
name and number, and the original and five (5) copies of all documents must be provided to
the Board.
A document is considered "filed" when actually received during a regular PERB business day.
(Regulations 32135(a) and 32130; see also Government Code section 1 1020(a).) A document
is also considered "filed" when received by facsimile transmission before the close of businesss
together with a Facsimile Transmission Cover Sheet which meets the requirements of
Regulation 32135(d), provided the filing party also places the original, together with the
required number of copies and proof of service, in the U.S. mail. (Regulations 32135(b), (c)
and (d); see also Regulations 32090 and 32130.)
filing
A document is considered "filed"
whe11
actu,aJiyre9,eived during a regular PERB business day.
(Regulations 32135(a) and 32130; see also Government Code section 11020(a).) A document
is also considered "filed" when received by facsimile transmission before the close of busines
together with a Facsimile Transmission Cover Sheet which meets the requirements
ofRegulation 32135(d), provided the filing party also
pl.;ices
the original, together with the
required number of copies and
proofof
service, in,the, U.S. mail. (Regulations 32135(b), (c)
and (d); see also Regulations 32090 and 32130.)
The Board's address is:
Public Employment Relations Board
Attention: Appeals Assistant
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95811-4124
(916) 322-8231
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., (Regμlation 32635(b).)
',',,'
	, .
°'
-
•..
,.t1C-v~''
Service
All documents authorized to be filed herein must· also be "served" upon all parties to the
proceeding, and a "proof of service"
IT1ust,accom1}a,rXy
each copy of a 	served upon a
party or filed with the Board itself. (See Regutati~rf32140 for the requiredcontents.) Th	The
document will be considered properly "served" when personally delivered 	deposited in the
mail or deposited with a delivery service and properly addressed. A document may also be
concurrently served via facsimile transmission on all parties to the proceeding. (Regulation
32135(c).)
..
l.t,. :
D"::t
1
.-	
f.'
{_\·, ;'.i.:.:h' 	.
document
contents.)
or
4 PERB 's Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.
SF-CO-53-S
April 25, 2008
Page 5
" you may obtain a review of this dismissal of the charge by
filing an appeal to the Board itself within twenty (20) calendar days after service of this
dismissal. (Regulation 32635(a).) Any document filed with the Board must contain the case
name and number, and the original and five (5) copies of all documents must be provided to
the Board.
The Board's address is:
Public Employment Relations Board
Attention: Appeals Assistant
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95811-4124
(916) 322-8231
FAX: (916) 327-7960
If you file a timely appeal of the refusal to issue a complaint, any other party may file with the
Board an original and five copies of a statement in opposition within twenty (20) calendar days
following the date of service of the appeal. (Regulation 32635(b).)
Service
All documents authorized to be filed herein must also be "served" upon all parties to the
proceeding, and a "proof of service" must accompany each copy of a document served upon a
party or filed with the Board itself. (See Regulation 32140 for the required 	e
document will be considered properly "served" when personally delivered or deposited in the
mail or deposited with a delivery service and properly addressed. A document may also be
concurrently served via facsimile transmission on all parties to the proceeding. (Regulation
32135(c).)
* PERB's Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.

SF-CO-53-S
April 25, 2008
Page 6
Extension of Time
" 	,
l~\d''
A request for an extension of time,
inwhichto
fil~ta:tlocument with the Board itself, must be
in writing and filed with the Board at the prevfously,noted address. A request for an extension
must be filed at least three (3) calendar days 	expiration
of
the time required for
filing the document. The request must indicate
	if
known, the position
of
each other party regarding the extension, and shall be accompanied by proof of service
of
the
request upon each party. (Regulation 32132.)
before the
good cause for and,
Final Date
If no appeal is filed within the specified time limits, the dismissal will become final when the
time limits have expired.
Sincerely,
Final Date
If no appeal is filed within the specified time limits, the dismissal will become final when the
time limits have expired.
Sincerely,
TAMI R. BOGERT
General Counsel
By	
~	
•~
	.,,,,
EricJ.Cu
//
Regional
f.¥t-torney
Attachment
By
Eric J. Cu
Regional Attorney
Attachment
cc: 	Vincent Harrington, Jr.
SF-CO-53-S
April 25, 2008
Page 6
Extension of Time
A request for an extension of time, in which to file a document with the Board itself, must be
in writing and filed with the Board at the previously noted address. A request for an extension
must be filed at least three (3) calendar days before the expiration of the time required for
filing the document. The request must indicate good cause for and, if known, the position of
each other party regarding the extension, and shall be accompanied by proof of service of the
request upon each party. (Regulation 32132.)
TAMIR. BOGERT
General Counsel
cc: Vincent Harrington, Jr.

STATE
OF
CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD	PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
.
Los Angeles Regional Office
3530 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1435
Los Angeles, CA 90010-2334
Telephone: (213) 736-2907
Fax: (213) 736-4901
March 17, 2008
Ira Eisenberg
Re: 	Ira Eisenberg
v.
Civil Service Division, CSEA
Unfair Practice Charge No. SF-CO-53-S
WARNING LETTER
Dear Mr. Eisenberg:
( 	ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
The above-referenced unfair practice~cp.atge
Wqs:;filed
with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on October 22, 2007. ·Ira Eisenberg alleges that the Civil Service
Division, California State Employees Assocition (CSEA) violated the Ralph
C.
Dills
Act
(Dills
Act) 1 by creating the website www.dumpseiu.com. 	.
My investigation uncovered the following facts
as
alleged by Eisenberg.
Eisenberg is employed by the State
of
California at the Employment Development Department
(EDD). Alex Hernandez
is
also employed at the EDD. Both are in Bargaining Unit
1.	
The
Service Employees International Union, Local 1000 (SEIU, Local 1000) is the exclusive
representative of Unit
1.
Previously, Unit 1 was represented by CSEA but as part of an
agreement SEIU, Local 1000 was named the bargaining representative of Unit
1;
SEIU
remained an affiliate organization of CSEA. After this agreement was reached, in 2005, a
group of SEIU, Local 1000 employees created a group calling themselves California State
Employees United (CSEU). CSEU often criticizes the policies of SEIU, Local 1000 President
Jim Hard. Hernandez is an officer in both SEIU, Local 1000 and in CSEA. He is also a
founding member of CSEU and currently serves as its president.
Eisenberg is employed by the State of California at the Employment Development Department
(EDD). Alex Hernandez is also employed at the EDD. Both are in Bargaining Unit 1. The
Service Employees International Union, Local 1000 (SEIU, Local 1000) is the exclusive
representative of Unit 1. Previously, Unit 1 was represented by CSEA but as part of an
agreement SEIU, Local 1000 was named the bargaining representative of Unit 1; SEIU
remained an affiliate organization of CSEA. After this agreement was reached, in 2005, a
group of SEIU, Local 1000 employees created a group calling themselves California State
Employees United (CSEU). CSEU often criticizes the policies of SEIU, Local 1000 President
Jim Hard. Hernandez is an officer in both SEIU, Local 1000 and in CSEA. He is also a
founding member of CSEU and currently serves as its president.
On April 2, 2007, Eisenberg began soliciting support for a petition to decertify SEIU, Local
1000 as the exclusive representative o,f Unit
1.,
ijyrnandez offered to help Eisenberg "from
behind the scenes." Eisenberg and Hernandez began collaborating on formation of a website
to make information about the decertification petition available to unit members. They agreed
that Eisenberg would control the content of the website. They decided to name the website
www.dumpseiu.com. Hernandez researched the availability of site names and paid all the fees
necessary for registering the website.
Hernandez researched the availability of site names and paid all the fees
necessary for registering the website.
The Dills Act is codified at Governme~t Code section 3512 et seq. The text of the
Dills Act and the Board's Regulations may be found on the nternet at	Internet at www.perb.ca.gov.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
Los Angeles Regional Office
3530 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1435
Los Angeles, CA 90010-2334
Telephone: (213) 736-2907
Fax: (213) 736-4901
March 17, 2008
Ira Eisenberg
Re: 	Ira Eisenberg v. Civil Service Division, CSEA
Unfair Practice Charge No. SF-CO-53-S
WARNING LETTER
Dear Mr. Eisenberg:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on October 22, 2007. Ira Eisenberg alleges that the Civil Service
Division, California State Employees Assocition (CSEA) violated the Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills
Act)' by creating the website www.dumpseiu.com. .
My investigation uncovered the following facts as alleged by Eisenberg.
On April 2, 2007, Eisenberg began soliciting support for a petition to decertify SEIU, Local
1000 as the exclusive representative of Unit 1. Hernandez offered to help Eisenberg "from
behind the scenes." Eisenberg and Hernandez began collaborating on formation of a website
to make information about the decertification petition available to unit members. They agreed
that Eisenberg would control the content of the website. They decided to name the website
www.dumpseiu.com.
The Dills Act is codified at Government Code section 3512 et seq. The text of the
Dills Act and the Board's Regulations may be found on the I 	www.perb.ca.gov.
1

SF-CO-53-S
March 17, 2008
Page2
SF-CO-53-S
March 17, 2008
Page 2
Eisenberg
On May 29, 2007, Hernandez told Eisenberg
thathe
believed they had different goals
regarding what to do in the event that SEIU, Local 1000 was decertified. Hernandez then
offered to meet with Eisenberg or to set up a separate website for 	to operate on his
own. On June
1,
2007, Eisenberg agreed to meet with Hernandez and other representatives
from CSEU. No meeting was ever occurred.
On or around August 2, 2007, Hernandez activated the www.dumpseiu.com website. 	Unit 1	On or around August 2, 2007, Hernandez activated the www.dumpseiu.com website. Unit 1
members publicized it to others. The website contains a document	document entitled "Bargaining Unit 1
Decertification Petition" that cites PERB
's
Regulations on decertification petitions and
provides space for employees to sign if they no longer desired to be represented by SEIU,
Local 1000.
On or around March 11, 2008, Hernandez sent an e-mail to Unit 1 members accusing Local
1000
of
financial impropriety and admitting to involvement in creating the
www.dumpseiu.com website. Hernandez also stated that he is opposed to decertifying SEIU
Local 1000	Local 1000
Neither Eisenberg nor Hernandez filed a decertification petition pursuant to PERB Regulation
32770 at any time relevant to this case.
Discussion:
Eisenberg contends that CSEA, through Hernandez, interfered with Eisenberg's ability to
pursue his decertification efforts by creating and.activating the www.dumpseiu.com website,
alleging
Teachers-Los
Services
ebsite,
despite the agreement to generate the content of the ~ebsite together. Eisenberg alleges that
this conduct violates Dills Act section 3519.S(b).
PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5) requires, 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 	the "who, what, when, where and how"
of
an
unfair practice. (State of California (Department of Food and Agriculture) ( 1994) PERB
Decision No. 1071-S, citing United 	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.)
To demonstrate a prima facie case of interference, the charging party must show that the
respondent's conduct tends to or does result in some harm to employee rights guaranteed by
the Dills Act. (Carlsbad Unified School District (1979) PERB Decision No. 89, State of	the Dills Act. (Carlsbad Unified School District (1979) PERB Decision No. 89, State
ofCalifornia, Department of Developmental 	(1982) PERB Decision No. 228-S.) In
Chula Vista City School District (1990) PERB Decision No. 834, the Board reviewed and
quoted from its decision in Rio Hondo Community College District (1980) PERB Decision No.
128, stating:
As more fully explained below, empi6y~r speech causes no
cognizable harm to employee rights granted under EERA unless
On May 29, 2007, Hernandez told Eisenberg that he believed they had different goals
regarding what to do in the event that SEIU, Local 1000 was decertified. Hernandez then
offered to meet with Eisenberg or to set up a separate website for Eisenberg to operate on his
own. On June 1, 2007, Eisenberg agreed to meet with Hernandez and other representatives
from CSEU. No meeting was ever occurred.
members publicized it to others. The website contains a 	entitled "Bargaining Unit 1
Decertification Petition" that cites PERB's Regulations on decertification petitions and
provides space for employees to sign if they no longer desired to be represented by SEIU,
Local 1000.
On or around March 11, 2008, Hernandez sent an e-mail to Unit 1 members accusing Local
1000 of financial impropriety and admitting to involvement in creating the
www.dumpseiu.com website. Hernandez also stated that he is opposed to decertifying SEIU
Neither Eisenberg nor Hernandez filed a decertification petition pursuant to PERB Regulation
32770 at any time relevant to this case.
Discussion:
Eisenberg contends that CSEA, through Hernandez, interfered with Eisenberg's ability to
pursue his decertification efforts by creating and activating the www.dumpseiu.com w
despite the agreement to generate the content of the website together. Eisenberg alleges that
this conduct violates Dills Act section 3519.5(b).
PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5) requires, 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
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.)
To demonstrate a prima facie case of interference, the charging party must show that the
respondent's conduct tends to or does result in some harm to employee rights guaranteed by
California, Department of Developmental Services (1982) PERB Decision No. 228-S.) In
Chula Vista City School District (1990) PERB Decision No. 834, the Board reviewed and
quoted from its decision in Rio Hondo Community College District (1980) PERB Decision No.
128, stating:
As more fully explained below, employer speech causes no
cognizable harm to employee rights granted under EERA unless

SF-CO-53-S
March 17, 2008
Page 3
it contains "threats
of
reprisal or force
or
promise
of
a benefit."
Therefore, a prima facie case
of
interference cannot be based on
speech that contains no "threats
of
reprisal or force or promise
of
a benefit."
* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	*
In Rio Hondo Community College District (1980) PERB
Decision No. 128, this Board looked· to the National Labor
Relations Act (NLRA) for guidance in formulating a test for
determining when employer communications will be considered
violative
of
the provisions
of
EERA. Specifically, the Board
examined section 8(c)
of
the NLRA which provides:
The expressing
of
any views, argument,
oropinion, or the dissemination thereof, whether in
written, printed, graphic, or visual form, shall not
constitute or be evidence
of
an unfair labor
practice under any
of
the provisions of this Act,
ifsuch expression contains no threat
of
reprisal or
force or promise
of
benefit.
Noting that EERA contains no provision parallel to section 8(c),
the Board nevertheless found that
"a
public school employer is
entitled to express its views on employment-related matters over
which it has legitimate concerns in order to facilitate full and
knowledgeable debate" and set forth the test to be applied as
follows:
Noting that EERA contains no provision parallel to section 8(c),
the Board nevertheless found that "a public school employer is
entitled to express its views on employment-related matters over
which it has legitimate concerns in order to facilitate full and
knowledgeable debate" and set forth the test to be applied as
follows:
[T]he Board finds that an employer's speech which
contains a threat
of
reprisal or force or promise
ofbenefit will be 'perceived as,;ameans of violating
the Act and will, therefore, lose its protection and
constitute strong evidence
of
conduct which is
prohibited by section 3543 .5 of the EERA.
(MJ
Whether the employer's speech is protected or constitutes a
proscribed threat or promise is determined by applying an
objective rather than a subjective standard. 	State
University (1989) PERB Decision No. 777-H.) Thus, "the
charging party must show that the employer's
would tend to coerce or interfere with a reasonable employee in
the exercise of protected rights." The fact, "That [sic] employees
may interpret statements, which are otherwise protected, as
coercive does not necessarily render those statements unlawful."
(California
communications
SF-CO-53-S
March 17, 2008
Page 3
it contains "threats of reprisal or force or promise of a benefit."
Therefore, a prima facie case of interference cannot be based on
speech that contains no "threats of reprisal or force or promise of
a benefit."
In Rio Hondo Community College District (1980) PERB
Decision No. 128, this Board looked to the National Labor
Relations Act (NLRA) for guidance in formulating a test for
determining when employer communications will be considered
violative of the provisions of EERA. Specifically, the Board
examined section 8(c) of the NLRA which provides:
The expressing of any views, argument, or
opinion, or the dissemination thereof, whether in
written, printed, graphic, or visual form, shall not
constitute or be evidence of an unfair labor
practice under any of the provisions of this Act, if
such expression contains no threat of reprisal or
force or promise of benefit.
The Board finds that an employer's speech which
contains a threat of reprisal or force or promise of
benefit will be perceived as a means of violating
the Act and will, therefore, lose its protection and
constitute strong evidence of conduct which is
prohibited by section 3543.5 of the EERA. (Id.)
Whether the employer's speech is protected or constitutes a
proscribed threat or promise is determined by applying an
objective rather than a subjective standard. (California State
University (1989) PERB Decision No. 777-H.) Thus, "the
charging party must show that the employer's communications
would tend to coerce or interfere with a reasonable employee in
the exercise of protected rights." The fact, "That [sic] employees
may interpret statements, which are otherwise protected, as
coercive does not necessarily render those statements unlawful."

SF-CO-53-S
March 17, 2008
Page4 
(Regents of the University of California (1983) PERB Decision
No. 366-H, fn. 9; BMC Manufacturing Corporation (1955) 113
NLRB 823.)
The Board has also held that statements made by an employer are
to be viewed in their overall context (i.e., in light of surrounding
circumstances) to determine if they have a coercive meaning.
(Los Angeles Unified School District (1988) PERB Decision No.
659, and cases cited therein.)
Additionally, the Board has placed considerable weight on the
accuracy
of
the content of the speech in determining whether the
communication constitutes an unfair labor practice. (Alhambra
City and High School Districts (1986) PERB Decision No. 560;
Muroc Unified School District (1978) PERB Decision No. 80.)
Thus, where employer speech accurately describes an event, and
does not on its face carry the threat
of
reprisal or force, or
promise
of
benefit,
the.
Board will not find the speech unlawful.
Although the majority
of
cases discussing interference violations concern an employer's
interference with employee rights, the Board uses the same analysis when determining
interference by employee organizations under Dills Act section 3519.S(b). (State of California
(Department of Developmental Services) (1983) PERB Decision No. 344-S.)
In the present case, Eisenberg alleges that Hernandez was acting on behalf of CSEA when he
created and activated the website, www.dumpseiu.com. Eisenberg further contends that CSEA
is an employee organization within the meaning of Dills Act, section 3513(a). Assuming that
this is the case, Eisenberg does not establish that CSEA, through Hernandez, unlawfully
interfered with any of Eisenberg' s protected rights. Eisenberg does not provide sufficient
information to conclude how Hernandez's decertification efforts unreasonably interfered with
Eisenberg' s own ability to pursue a decertification petition or to create a new employee
organization 	Unit
1.
Under the facts provided by Eisenberg, after Hernandez
realized that the two had different goals, Hernandez_ even offered to provide Eisenberg with
another website to promote his independent views. It is unclear why Eisenberg did not or
could not have arranged to create another website for his own positions or informed Unit 1 of
his views in some other way. Thus, Eisenberg fails to provide a "clear and concise statement"
of facts supporting the finding of a violati,on.
Eisenberg's own ability to pursue a decertification petition or to create a new employee
to represent
Moreover, even if the creation of www.dumpseiu.com interfered with Eisenberg's efforts,
promise
SF-CO-53-S
March 17, 2008
Page 4
(Regents of the University of California (1983) PERB Decision
No. 366-H, fn. 9; BMC Manufacturing Corporation (1955) 113
NLRB 823.)
The Board has also held that statements made by an employer are
to be viewed in their overall context (i.e., in light of surrounding
circumstances) to determine if they have a coercive meaning.
(Los Angeles Unified School District (1988) PERB Decision No.
659, and cases cited therein.)
Additionally, the Board has placed considerable weight on the
accuracy of the content of the speech in determining whether the
communication constitutes an unfair labor practice. (Alhambra
City and High School Districts (1986) PERB Decision No. 560;
Muroc Unified School District (1978) PERB Decision No. 80.)
Thus, where employer speech accurately describes an event, and
does not on its face carry the threat of reprisal or force, or
promise of benefit, the Board will not find the speech unlawful.
Although the majority of cases discussing interference violations concern an employer's
interference with employee rights, the Board uses the same analysis when determining
interference by employee organizations under Dills Act section 3519.5(b). (State of California
(Department of Developmental Services) (1983) PERB Decision No. 344-S.)
In the present case, Eisenberg alleges that Hernandez was acting on behalf of CSEA when he
created and activated the website, www.dumpseiu.com. Eisenberg further contends that CSEA
is an employee organization within the meaning of Dills Act, section 3513(a). Assuming that
this is the case, Eisenberg does not establish that CSEA, through Hernandez, unlawfully
interfered with any of Eisenberg's protected rights. Eisenberg does not provide sufficient
information to conclude how Hernandez's decertification efforts unreasonably interfered with
organization to represent Unit 1. Under the facts provided by Eisenberg, after Hernandez
realized that the two had different goals, Hernandez even offered to provide Eisenberg with
another website to promote his independent views. It is unclear why Eisenberg did not or
could not have arranged to create another website for his own positions or informed Unit 1 of
his views in some other way. Thus, Eisenberg fails to provide a "clear and concise statement"
of facts supporting the finding of a violation.
Moreover, even if the creation of www.dumpseiu.com interfered with Eisenberg's efforts,
Eisenberg fails to establish that Hernandez's actions were not protected activity as discussed in
Chula Vista, supra, PERB Decision No. 834. (See also Rio Hondo, supra, PERB Decision No.
128.) Eisenberg does not allege that Hernandez or CSEA made a 	of benefit or threat
of reprisal. (See Ibid.) Eisenberg is correct to assert that employees have the protected right to
engage in decertification activities. (California School Employees Association and its Shasta
College Chapter #381 (Parisot) (1983) PERB Decision No. 280.) However, this right extends
Eisenberg fails to establish that Hernandez's actions were not protected activity as discussed in
Chula Vista, supra, PERB Decision No. 834. (See also Rio Hondo, supra, PERB Decision No.
128.) Eisenberg does not allege that Hernandez or CSEA made a promise of benefit or threat
of reprisal. (See Ibid.) Eisenberg is correct to assert that employees have the protected right to
engage in decertification activities. (California School Employees Association and its Shasta
College Chapter #381 (Parisot) (1983) PERB Decision No. 280.) However, this right extends

SF-CO-53-S
March 17, 2008
Page 5
violation.
equally to both Eisenberg and Hernandez. Therefore, Eisenberg does not demonstrate that
Hernandez's actions lost their protection under the Dills Act and can form the basis
of
an
interference violation.
Eisenberg apparently contends that CSEA, through Hernandez, breached an oral agreement to
collaborate on the www.dumpseiu.com website. Even if this were the case, the Dills Act only
The board shall not have authority to enforce agreements between
the parties, and shall not issue a complaint on any charge based
on alleged violation
of
such an agreement that would not also
constitute an unfair practice under this chapter.
As stated above, Eisenberg does not establish that CSEA's conduct unlawfully interfered with
his protected rights under the Dills Act. Therefore, even
if
CSEA breached 	agreement
regarding the creation of the website, PERB is without authority to issue a complaint on this
issue.
an
For these reasons the charge, as presently written, dqes not state a prima facie case.
If
there
are any factual inaccuracies in this letter or additional facts that would correct the deficiencies
explained above, please amend the charge. The amended charge should be prepared on a
standard PERB unfair practice charge form, clearly labeled First Amended Charge, contain all
the facts and allegations you wish to make, and be signed under penalty of perjury by the
charging party. The amended charge must have the case number written on the top right hand
comer of the charge form. 	The amended charge must be served on the respondent's
representative and the original proof of service must be filed with PERB.
If
an amended
charge or withdrawal is not received from you before March 28, 2008, your charge shall be
dismissed.	
If
yo~ave
any questions, please call me at the above telephone number.
Sincere!
✓
Erl5.J. Cu"--._
Regional Attorney
EC
SF-CO-53-S
March 17, 2008
Page 5
equally to both Eisenberg and Hernandez. Therefore, Eisenberg does not demonstrate that
Hernandez's actions lost their protection under the Dills Act and can form the basis of an
interference
Eisenberg apparently contends that CSEA, through Hernandez, breached an oral agreement to
collaborate on the www.dumpseiu.com website. Even if this were the case, the Dills Act only
places a duty on the Governor, or his or her representatives, to negotiate with the recognized
exclusive representative
of
a group of employees. (Dills Act, § 3517.) Eisenberg does not
establish that he or CSEA falls into either of these categories and accordingly does not
establish that the Dills Act enforces CSEA' s duty to negotiate with Eisenberg. Thus,
Eisenberg lacks standing to assert a violation
of
the duty to negotiate in good faith.
Furthermore, Dills Act section 3514.S(b) states:
places a duty on the Governor, or his or her representatives, to negotiate with the recognized
exclusive representative of a group of employees. (Dills Act, $ 3517.) Eisenberg does not
establish that he or CSEA falls into either of these categories and accordingly does not
establish that the Dills Act enforces CSEA's duty to negotiate with Eisenberg. Thus,
Eisenberg lacks standing to assert a violation of the duty to negotiate in good faith.
Furthermore, Dills Act section 3514.5(b) states:
The board shall not have authority to enforce agreements between
the parties, and shall not issue a complaint on any charge based
on alleged violation of such an agreement that would not also
constitute an unfair practice under this chapter.
As stated above, Eisenberg does not establish that CSEA's conduct unlawfully interfered with
his protected rights under the Dills Act. Therefore, even if CSEA breached an agreement
regarding the creation of the website, PERB is without authority to issue a complaint on this
issue.
For these reasons the charge, as presently written, does not state a prima facie case. If there
are any factual inaccuracies in this letter or additional facts that would correct the deficiencies
explained above, please amend the charge. The amended charge should be prepared on a
standard PERB unfair practice charge form, clearly labeled First Amended Charge, contain all
the facts and allegations you wish to make, and be signed under penalty of perjury by the
charging party. The amended charge must have the case number written on the top right hand
corner of the charge form. The amended charge must be served on the respondent's
representative and the original proof of service must be filed with PERB. If an amended
charge or withdrawal is not received from you before March 28, 2008, your charge shall be
dismissed. If you have any questions, please call me at the above telephone number.
Sincerely
Erie J. Cu 1.. L	Regional Attorney
EC