California Teachers Association (Bussman) (PERB 2047E)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
JOHN BUSSMAN,
Charging Party,
V.
CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION,
Respondent.
Case No. LA-CO-1330-E
PERB Decision No. 2047
June 30, 2009
Appearances: John Bussman, on his own behalf; John
F.
Kohn, Attorney, for California
Teachers Association.
Before Dowdin Calvillo, Acting Chair; McKeag and Wesley, Members.
DECISION
WESLEY, Member: 	This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on appeal by John Bussman (Bussman)
of
a Board agent's dismissal
of
his
unfair practice charge. The charge alleged that the California Teachers Association (CTA)
breached the duty
of
fair representation in violation
of
the Educational Employment Relations
Act (EERA)1 by failing to represent Bussman in a challenge to the legality
of
certain pay
provisions negotiated in the contract between the Alvord Educator's Association (AEA) and
Bussman's employer, the Alvord Unified School District (District).
The Board has reviewed the dismissal and the record in light
of
Bussman's appeal,
CTA's response and the relevant law. Based on this review, the Board affirms the dismissal of
the charge for the reasons discussed below.
1 EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq.

BACKGROUND
Bussman has been employed by the District as a high school history/government
teacher since 2001. AEA is the exclusive representative
of
the District's certificated
employees. CTA is an independent organization affiliated with AEA.
In 2006, AEA and the District initiated negotiations for a successor collective
bargaining agreement. In the fall
of
2006, Bussman began to express concerns to AEA
representatives that proposed provisions in the new contract regarding salary were unfair and
potentially illegal under the California Education Code.
Bussman's charge identified several communications from October 2006 through
August 2007, between himself and AEA complaining about pay disparity and the allegedly
illegal contract provisions. Among the ongoing communications between Bussman and AEA
was a January 2007 request by Bussman that AEA represent him in challenging these provisions.
AEA promptly denied the request. Thereafter, Bussman requested representation from CT A.
In March 2007, AEA informed bargaining unit employees that the parties had reached a
tentative contract.
In a March 16, 2007 meeting, Bussman again raised concerns about violations
of
the
Education Code and other contract inequities, but was shouted down by AEA representatives.
On March 21, 2007, Bussman was initially denied access to a union site meeting. After
admitting him to the meeting, however, AEA representatives angrily demanded that he leave.
Bussman refused and remained at the meeting. Subsequently, in March and April 2007,
Bussman learned that AEA representatives had made disparaging remarks about him to other
employees and to District officials.
Following the March 21 meeting, CTA advised AEA that certain contract provisions
were illegal.
2

In May 2007, Bussman met with CTA legal counsel Marianne Reinhold (Reinhold).
Reinhold later advised Bussman that a lawsuit regarding the illegal pay issues would be filed on
behalf
of
Bussman and other impacted teachers.
On June 19, 2007, CTA informed Bussman that it was waiting for approval to proceed
with legal assistance.
Bussman attempted to reach Reinhold between June and August 2007, but she failed to
respond.
On August 10, 2007, Bussman received a copy
of
a letter from AEA to the District,
requesting that the District meet to fix the contract.
On September 12, 2007, Bussman sent a fax to CTA making additional demands that
CTA immediately file a lawsuit on his behalf. 	CTA responded that they declined to do so.
BUSSMAN'S APPEAL
On appeal, Bussman repeats the facts and arguments alleged in his charge that a duty
of
fair representation is owed to him by CT A. The appeal emphasizes arguments made primarily in
the amended charge that CT A had at one point promised to provide representation, that this
promise created a duty
of
fair representation, and that failure to proceed was a violation
of
EERA.
DISCUSSION
EERA imposes upon an exclusive representative a duty to fairly represent all bargaining
unit members in matters involving contract negotiations, administration
of
the collective
bargaining agreement and grievances. (Fremont Unified School District Teachers Association,
CTAINEA (King) (1980) PERB Decision No. 125; United Teachers
of
Los Angeles (Collins)
(1982) PERB Decision No. 258.) Under EERA, AEA has been designated as the exclusive
representative of the District's certificated employees. However, Bussman's charge was not
3

filed against the exclusive representative, AEA.2 Rather, Bussman specifically charged CTA
with violating the duty
of
fair representation by failing to represent him in challenging the
illegal provisions
of
the collective bargaining agreement after AEA refused to provide such
representation. While CTA is an affiliate
of
AEA, CTA is not the exclusive representative
of
the certificated employees and it has no independent obligation under EERA to represent
bargaining unit employees. (California Teachers Association and Oakland Education
Association (Welch) (2006) PERB Decision No. 1850; California Teachers Association,
CTAINEA (Torres) (2000) PERB Decision No. 1386.) Because EERA does not impose a duty
of
fair representation on CTA, CTA did not violate a duty
of
fair representation when it
declined to represent Bussman.
ORDER
The unfair practice charge in Case No. LA-CO-1330-E is hereby DISMISSED
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
Acting Chair Dowdin Calvillo and Member McKeag joined in this Decision.
Bussman filed a separate charge against AEA in unfair practice charge Case
No. LA-CO-1329-E.
4