California Faculty Association (Halcoussis) (PERB 2117H)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
DEMOSTHENES ANDREW HALCOUSSIS,
Charging Party, 	Case No. LA-CO-502-H
V . 	PERB Decision No. 2117-H
June 14, 2010	CALIFORNIA FACULTY ASSOCIATION,
Respondent.
Appearances: Melanie Stallings Williams, Attorney, for Demosthenes Andrew Halcoussis;
Bernhard Rohrbacher, Director of Representation, for California Faculty Association.
Before Dowdin Calvillo, Chair; Mckeag and Wesley, Members.
DECISION
WESLEY, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(Board) on appeal by Demosthenes Andrew Halcoussis (Halcoussis) of a Board agent's dismissal
(attached) of his unfair practice charge. The charge alleged that the California Faculty
Association (CFA) violated the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA),"
by refusing to allow non-union members to cast a vote to determine employee support for a
proposed two-day-a-month furlough program. The Board agent dismissed the charge for failure
to state a prima facie violation of the HEERA.
The Board has reviewed the warning and dismissal letters and the record in light of
Halcoussis' appeal, CFA's response to the appeal," and the relevant law. Based on this review,
the Board finds the Board agent's warning and dismissal letters to be a correct statement of the
law and well reasoned, and therefore adopts them as the decision of the Board itself.
HEERA is codified at Government Code section 3560 et seq.
The Board did not consider the furlough agreement, dated July 28, 2009, submitted by
CFA with its response to the appeal.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
DEMOSTHENES ANDREW HALCOUSSIS,
Charging Party,
V.
CALIFORNIA FACULTY ASSOCIATION,
Respondent.
Case No. LA-CO-502-H
PERB Decision No. 	2117-H
June 14, 2010
Appearances: Melanie Stallings Williams, Attorney, for Demosthenes Andrew Halcoussis;
Bernhard Rohrbacher, Director
of
Representation, for California Faculty Association.
Before Dowdin Calvillo, Chair; McKeag and Wesley, Members.
DECISION
WESLEY, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(Board) on appeal by Demosthenes Andrew Halcoussis (Halcoussis)
of
a Board agent's dismissal
(attached)
of
his unfair practice charge. The charge alleged that the California Faculty
Association (CFA) violated the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA), 1
by refusing to allow non-union members to cast a vote to determine employee support for a
proposed two-day-a-month furlough program. The Board agent dismissed the charge for failure
to state a prima facie violation
of
the HEERA.
The Board has reviewed the warning and dismissal letters and the record in light
of
Halcoussis' appeal, CF A's response to the appeal,2 and the relevant law. Based on this review,
the Board finds the Board agent's warning and dismissal letters to be a correct statement
of
the
law and well reasoned, and therefore adopts them as the decision of the Board itself.
1 HEERA is codified at Government Code section 3560 et seq.
2 The Board did not consider the furlough agreement, dated July 28, 2009, submitted by
CFA with its response to the appeal.

ORDER
The unfair practice charge in Case No. LA-CO-502-H is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT
LEAVE TO AMEND.
Chair Dowdin Calvillo and Member Mckeag joined in this Decision.
22
ORDER
The unfair practice charge in Case No. LA-CO-502-H
is
hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT
LEA VE TO AMEND.
Chair Dowdin Calvillo and Member McKeag joined in this Decision.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Sacramento Regional Office
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95811-4124
Telephone: (916) 327-8385
P 	Fax: (916) 327-6377
December 14, 2009
Melanie Stallings Williams
College of Business and Economics
18111 Nordhoff Street
Northridge, CA 91330
Re: 	Demosthenes Andrew Halcoussis v. California Faculty Association
Unfair Practice Charge No. LA-CO-502-H
DISMISSAL LETTER
Dear Ms. Stallings Williams:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on July 22, 2009. Demosthenes Andrew Halcoussis (Charging Party)
alleges that the California Faculty Association (CFA or Respondent) violated section 3578 of
the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA or Act)' by refusing to
allow non-union members the opportunity to cast a vote in an internal union matter.
Charging Party was informed in the attached Warning Letter dated December 2, 2009, that the
above-referenced charge did not state a prima facie case. Charging Party was advised that, if
there were any factual inaccuracies or additional facts that would correct the deficiencies
explained in that letter, he should amend the charge. He was further advised that, unless he
amended the charge to state a prima facie case or withdrew it prior to December 10, 2009, the
charge would be dismissed.
On December 10, 2009, this office received a letter from you regarding the above-referenced
matter, as well as with respect to Unfair Practice Charge No. LA-CO-501-H. A copy of your
letter is attached and states in total as follows:
Thank you for your letters in the above referenced matters. We
do not plan to file amended complaints. We appreciate the time
taken in drafting your letters, but disagree with your conclusion.
Can you advise about the opportunities for review of your
determination?
Since PERB has not received either an amended charge or a request for withdrawal in this
case, the charge is hereby dismissed based on the facts and reasons set forth in the December 2,
2009 Warning Letter.
THEERA is codified at Government Code section 3560 et seq. The text of the HEERA
and PERB's Regulations may be found at www.perb.ca.gov.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA	
(.	
'· 	ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
=============aoa==
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Sacramento Regional Office
I 031 18th Street
Sacramento,
CA
95811-4124
Telephone: (916) 327-8385
Fax: (916) 327-6377
December 14, 2009
Melanie Stallings Williams
Coilege
of
Business and Economics
18111 Nordhoff Street
Northridge, CA 91330
Re: 	Demosthenes Andrew Halcoussis
v.
California Faculty Association
Unfair Practice Charge No. LA-CO-502-H
DISMISSAL LETTER
Dear Ms. Stallings Williams:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on July 22, 2009. Demosthenes Andrew Halcoussis (Charging Party)
alleges that the California_Faculty Association (CF A or Respondent) violated section 3578
of
the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA or Act)1 by refusing to
allow non-union members the opportunity to cast a vote in an internal union matter.
Charging Party was informed in the attached Warning Letter dated December 2, 2009, that the
above-referenced charge did not state a prima facie case. 	Charging Party was advised that,
if
there were any factual inaccuracies or additional facts that would correct the deficiencies
explained in that letter, he should amend the charge. He was further advised that, unless he
amended the charge to state a prima facie case or withdrew it prior to December 10, 2009, the
charge would be dismissed.
On December 10, 2009, this office received a letter from you regarding the above-referenced
matter, as well as with respect to Unfair Practice Charge No. LA-CO-501-H. A copy
of
your
ietter is attached and states in total as follows:
Thank you for your letters in the above referenced matters. We
do not plan to file amended complaints. We appreciate the time
taken in drafting your letters, but disagree with your conclusion.
Can you advise about the opportunities for review
of
your
determination?
Since PERB has not received either an amended charge or a request for withdrawal in this
case, the charge is hereby dismissed based on the facts and reasons set forth in the December 2,
2009 Warning Letter.
1 HEERA is codified at Government Code section 3560 et seq. The text of the HEERA
and PERB's Regulations may be found at www.perb.ca.gov.

LA-CO-502-H
December 14, 2009
Page 2
Right to Appeal
Pursuant to PERB Regulations," Charging Party may obtain a review of this dismissal of the
charge by filing an appeal to the Board itself within twenty (20) calendar days after service of
this dismissal. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, $ 32635, subd. (a).) Any document filed with the Board
must contain the case name and number, and the original and five (5) copies of all documents
must be provided to the Board.
A document is considered "filed" when actually received during a regular PERB business day.
(Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, $8 32135, subd. (a) and 32130; see also Gov. Code, $ 11020, subd. (a).)
A document is also considered "filed" when received by facsimile transmission before the
close of business together with a Facsimile Transmission Cover Sheet which meets the
requirements of PERB Regulation 32135(d), provided the filing party also places the original,
together with the required number of copies and proof of service, in the U.S. mail. (Cal. Code
Regs, tit. 8, $ 32135, subds. (b), (c) and (d); see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, $$ 32090 and
32130.)
The Board's address is:
Public Employment Relations. Board
Attention: Appeals Assistant
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95811-4124
(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. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, $ 32635, subd. (b).)
Service
All documents authorized to be filed herein must also be "served" upon all parties to the
proceeding, and a "proof of service" must accompany each copy of a document served upon a
party or filed with the Board itself. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, $ 32140 for the required
contents.) The document will be considered properly "served" when personally delivered or
deposited in the mail or deposited with a delivery service and properly addressed. A document
may also be concurrently served via facsimile transmission on all parties to the proceeding.
(Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, $ 32135, subd. (c).)
PERB's Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.
LA-CO-502-H
December 14, 2009
Page 2
Right to Appeal
(
Pursuant to PERB Regulations,2 Charging Party may obtain a review
of
this dismissal
of
the
charge by filing an appeal to the Board itself within twenty (20) calendar days after service
of
this dismissal. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, § 32635, subd. (a).) Any document filed with the Board
must contain the case name and number, and the original and five (5) copies
of
ail documents
must be provided to the Board.
A document is considered "filed" when actually received during a regular PERB business day.
(Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8,
§§
32135, subd. (a) and 32130; see also Gov.
Code,§
11020, subd. (a).)
A document is also considered "filed" when received by facsimile transmission before
theclose
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
and32130.)
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. (Cal. Code Regs, tit.
8,
§ 32635, subd. (b).)
Service
All documents authorized to be filed herein must also be "served" upon all parties to the
proceeding, and a "proof
of
service" must accompany each copy
of
a docwnent 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).)
2 PERB's Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.

LA-CO-502-H
December 14, 2009
Page 3
LA-CO-502-H
December 14, 2009
Page 3
Extension of Time
A request for an extension of time, in which to file a document with the Board itself, must be
in writing and filed with the Board at the previously noted address. A request for an extension
must be filed at least three (3) calendar days before the expiration of the time required for
filing the document. The request must indicate good cause for and, if known, the position of
each other party regarding the extension, and shall be accompanied by proof of service of the
request upon each party. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, $ 32132.)
Final Date
If no appeal is filed within the specified time limits, the dismissal will become final when the
time limits have expired.
Sincerely,
TAMI R. BOGERT
General Counsel
By
Wendi L. Ross
Deputy General Counsel
Attachments
cc: Bernhard Rohrbacher
Extension of Time
A request for an extension of time, in which to file a document with the Board itself, must be
in writing and filed with the Board at the previously noted address. A request for an extension
must be filed at least three (3) calendar days before the expiration of the time required for
filing the document. The request must indicate good cause for and, if known, the position of
each other party regarding the extension, and shall be accompanied by proof of service of the
request upon each party. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, § 32132.)
Final Date
If no appeal is filed within the specified time limits, the dismissal will become final when the
time limits have expired.
Sincerely,
TAMI R. BOGERT
General Counsel
By W,. 	.endi L. Ross
Deputy General Counsel
Attachments
cc: Bernhard Rohrbacher
-

California State University 	PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT
RELATIONS BOARD
HEADQUARTERS OFFICE
Department of Business Law
2009 DEC 10 PM 12: 51 	College of Business and Economics
December 4, 2009
Wendi L. Ross
Public Employment Relations Board
1031 18th St.
Sacramento, CA 95811-4124
Re: 	Melanie Stallings Williams v. CFA
Unfiar Practice Charge No. LA-CO-501-H
Demosthenes Andrew Halcoussis,, v. CFA
Unfair Practice Charge No. LA-CO-502-H
Dear Ms. Ross:
Thank you for your letters in the above referenced matters. We do not plan to file
amended complaints. We appreciate the time taken in drafting your letters, but disagree with
your conclusion. Can you advise about the opportunities for review of your determination?
Professor & Chair
18111 Nordhoff Street . Northridge . California 91330-8375 - (818) 677-2905 - fax (818) 677-6079 - e-mail Business.law@csun.edu
The California State University - Bakersfield - Channel Islands . Chico . Dominguez Hills . East Bay - Fresno . Fullerton - Humboldt - Long Beach . Los Angeles -	The California State University. Bakersfield . Channel Islands. Chico• Dominguez Hills • East Bay • Fresno • Fullerton •Humboldt• long Beach • Los Angeles·
Maritime Academy . Monterey Bay . Northridge - Pomona . Sacramento - San Bernardino . San Diego - San Francisco - San jose . San Luis Obispo . San Marcos . Sonoma - Stanislaus	Maritime Academy. Monterey Bay• Northridge • Pomona •Sacramento. San Bernardino • San Diego
..
San Francisco • San Jose• San Luis Obispo · San Marcos · Sonoma · Stanislaus
California State
University	
:--
;::
EL
1~c
E
t1
r LO y
HEN
r
Northrl
.dge	
~tl_:,.r19Ns
80/d?D
___
H_L_,
D_L:u_l,_i<
_H_R
S_O_FF-------'IC'--=--E
_______
_
2DU9
DEC
I O
PM
12:
51
Northridge Department
of
Business Law
College of Business
and
Economics
December 4, 2009
Wendi
L.
Ross
Public Employment Relations Board
1031
18
th St.
Sacramento, CA 95811-4124
Re: 	Melanie Stallings Williams
v.
CFA
Unfiar Practice Charge No. LA-CQ-501-H
Demosthenes Andrew Halcoussis,,v. CFA
Unfair Practice Charge No. LA-CO-502-H
Dear Ms. Ross:
Thank you for your letters in the above referenced matters. We do not plan to file
amended complaints. We appreciate the time taken in drafting your letters, but disagree with
your conclusion.
Can
you advise about the opportunities for review
nrk,_teITllination?
s
elanie Stallings Williams,
Sincerely,
Melanie Stallings Williams, J.D.	J.D.
Professor & Chair
18111 Nordhoff Street• Northridge • California 91330-8375 • (818) 677-2905 • fax (818) 677-6079 · e-mail Business.!aw@csun.edu

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor	STATE OF CALIFORNIA	STA TE OF CALIFORNIA 	ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Sacramento Regional Office
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95811-4124
Telephone: (916) 327-8385
Fax: (916) 327-6377
December 2, 2009
Melanie Stallings Williams
College of Business and Economics
18111 Nordhoff Street
Northridge, CA 91330
Re: 	Demosthenes Andrew Halcoussis v. California Faculty Association
Unfair Practice Charge No. LA-CO-502-H
WARNING LETTER
Dear Ms. Stallings Williams:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on July 22, 2009. Demosthenes Andrew Halcoussis (Charging Party)
alleges that the California Faculty Association (CFA or Respondent) violated section 3578 of
the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA or Act)" by refusing to
allow non-union members to cast a vote in an internal union matter.
Background
My investigation reveals the following information.
Charging Party is a member of the faculty bargaining unit at California State University (CSU)
Northridge. CFA is the exclusive representative for the bargaining unit. Charging Party is not
a member of CFA, but rather pays agency fees to CFA. CFA and the CSU are parties to a
collective bargaining agreement (CBA).
At the time the charge was filed, CFA was in the midst of conducting an internal vote to
determine whether CSU faculty members supported the Union renegotiating the CBA in order
to implement a two-day-a-month furlough program (furlough program). CFA permitted only
union members-as opposed to non-members-to actually cast a vote. The voting period was
originally scheduled to occur from July 13, to July 20, 2009." The vote was subsequently
extended until 5:00 p.m. on July 22.
CFA's main website solicited questions about the proposed furloughs from all bargaining unit
members. Further, on the CFA website specifically for the CSU Northridge campus, CFA
HEERA is codified at Government Code section 3560 et seq. The text of the HEERA
and PERB's Regulations may be found at www.perb.ca.gov.
2 All dates occurred in 2009, unless otherwise specified.
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Sacramento Regional Office
1031
18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95811-4124
Telephone: (916) 327-8385
Fax: (916) 327-6377
December 2, 2009
Melanie Stallings Williams
College
of
Business and Economics
18111 Nordhoff Street
Northridge, CA 91330
Re: 	Demosthenes Andrew Halcoussis
v.
California Faculty Association
Unfair Practice Charge No. LA-CO-502-H
WARNING LETTER
Dear Ms. Stallings Williams:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on July 22, 2009. Demosthenes Andrew Halcoussis (Charging Party)
alleges that the California Faculty Association (CFA or Respondent) violated section 3578
of
the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA or Act)1 by refusing to
allow non-union members to cast a vote in an internal union matter.
Background
My investigation reveals the following information.
Charging Party is a member
of
the faculty bargaining unit at California State University (CSU)
N orthridge. CFA is the exclusive representative for the bargaining unit. Charging Party is not
a member
of
CF A, but rather pays agency fees to CF A. CF A and the CSU are parties to a
collective bargaining agreement (CBA).
At the time the charge was filed, CF A was in the midst of conducting an internal vote to
determine whether CSU faculty members supported the Union renegotiating the CBA
in
order
to implement a two-day-a-month furlough program (furlough program). CF A permitted only
union
members-as
opposed to non-members-to actually cast a vote. The voting period was
originally scheduled to occur from July 13, to July 20, 2009.2 The vote was subsequently
extended until 5:00 p.m. on July 22.
CF A's main website solicited questions about the proposed furloughs from all bargaining unit
members. Further, on the CF A website specifically for the CSU Northridge campus, CF A
1 HEERA is codified at Government Code section 3560 et seq. The text of the HEERA
and PERB's Regulations may be found at www.perb.ca.gov.
2 All dates occurred in 2009, unless otherwise specified.

LA-CO-502-H
December 2, 2009
Page 2
(
LA-CO-502-H
December 2, 2009
Page 2
stated, "CSUN CFA chapter invite all faculty to participate in a discussion regarding the
furloughs and layoffs. The discussion will take place on Thursday, June 25" from 10am-12pm
in the Noski Auditorium." The CSU Northridge website also provided, "You can follow
updates on http://twitter.com/cfasun. You can share comments with all CSUN CFA Twitter
followers by including] #cfacsun in your tweet."
Charging Party's Charge
Charging Party's charge states in pertinent part as follows:
CFA is currently conducting an election to determine whether
CSU faculty will authorize the union to renegotiate the contract to
permit faculty furloughs. The union will permit only its union
members (as opposed to all represented members of the unit) to
vote in the election.
It violates Government Code $ 3578 to discriminate between
union members and agency fee payers when taking a vote on
matters subject to the sole representation of the union. Non-
members have paid a fee for such representation and are barred
from obtaining alternative representation. The CFA, then, is the
sole avenue for representation in the bargaining process. Despite
that, CFA has excluded agency fee payers from voting on a
contract negotiation issue. This violates [Government Code] $
3578 because it discriminates against non-members, effectively
disenfranchiseng them.
Further, the conduct violates non-members' rights to freely
associate under the U.S. Constitution. That is, CSU faculty have
a right to determine the groups with whom they wish to associate,
including those political activities they wish to support
financially. Permitting voting only by those unit members
willing to contribute to the union's non-chargeable political
activities violates that right.
Discussion
PERB has held that matters concerning internal union affairs are immune from review by
PERB, unless they have a "substantial impact" on the relationship of unit members to their
employer so as to give rise to a duty of fair representation. (California State Employees
Association (Hutchinson and Laosantos) (1998) PERB Decision No. 1304-S; Service
stated, "CSUN CF A chapter invite all faculty to participate in a discussion regarding the
furloughs and layoffs. The discussion will take place on Thursday, June 25 th from 10am- l
2pm
in the Noski Auditorium." The CSU Northridge website also provided, "You can follow
updates on http://twitter.com/cfasun. 	You can share comments with all CSUN CF A Twitter
followers by includ[ing] #cfacsun in your tweet."
Charging Party's Charge
Charging Party's charge states in pertinent part as follows:
CF A is currently conducting an election to determine whether
CSU faculty will authorize the union to renegotiate the contract to
permit faculty furloughs. 	The union will permit only its union
members (as opposed to all represented members
of
the unit) to
vote in the election.
It violates Government
Code§
3578 to discriminate between
union members and agency fee payers when taking a vote on
matters subj ecf to the sole representation
of
the union. Non-
members have paid a fee for such representation and are barred
from obtaining alternative representation. The CFA, then, is the
sole avenue for representation in the bargaining process. Despite
that, CF A has excluded agency fee payers from voting on a
contract negotiation issue. This violates [Government Code] §
3578 because it discriminates against non-members, effectively
disenfranchising them.
Further, the conduct violates non-members' rights to freely
associate under the U.S. Constitution. That is, CSU faculty have
a right to determine the groups with whom they wish to associate,
including those political activities they wish to support
financially. 	Permitting voting only by those unit members
willing to contribute to the union's non-chargeable political
activities violates that right.
Discussion
PERB has held that matters concerning internal union affairs are immune from review by
PERB, unless they have a "substantial impact" on the relationship of unit members to their
employer so as to give rise to a duty of fair representation. ( California State Employees
Association (Hutchinson and Laosantos) (1998) PERB Decision No. 1304-S; Service

LA-CO-502-H
December 2, 2009
Page 3
LA-CO-502-H
December 2, 2009
Page 3
Employees International Union, Local 99 (Kimmett) (1979) PERB Decision No. 106.) In
numerous cases, the Board has refused to intervene where the alleged unlawful conduct
involved internal union affairs and there was no showing of a substantial impact on the
employee-employer relationship. (California State Employees Association (Hackett) (1993)
PERB Decision No. 1012-S.)
In the instant charge, Charging Party's sole claim is CFA's refusal to permit non-members the
opportunity to vote in CFA's internal vote regarding the proposed furlough program. The
Board has previously addressed this issue and held that a "union may exclude non-members
from voting as long as the union provides them with an opportunity to communicate their
views." (Kern High Faculty Association, CTA/NEA (Maaskant) (2006) PERB Decision
No. 1834 (adopting the Board agent's dismissal), citing El Centro Elementary Teachers
Association, supra, PERB Decision No. 232 (El Centro).)
In El Centro, supra, PERB Decision No. 232, the Board discussed the duty an exclusive
representative owes to non-members. Therein, the Board, citing Service Employees
International Union, Local 99 (Kimmett), supra, PERB Decision No. 106, stated:
the duty of fair representation implies some consideration of the
views of various groups of employees and some access for
communication of those views, but there is no requirement that
formal procedures be established. . . .
(Emphasis added.)
Similarly, in Kern High Faculty Association, CTA/NEA (Maaskant), supra, PERB Decision
No. 1834, the Board affirmed the same as noted in the following:
In his third allegation, Mr. Maaskant charges that the Association
violated the duty of fair representation by excluding non-
members from providing input and voting. In order to state a
prima facie violation of the duty of fair representation, Charging
Party must show that the Respondent's conduct was arbitrary,
discriminatory, or in bad faith. A union violates its duty if non-
members are left completely uninformed about the status of
negotiations or if they are not provided an opportunity to express
their viewpoints. (Fontana Teachers Association (1984) PERB
Decision No. 416.) . . .
hen interpreting the HEERA, it is appropriate to take guidance from cases
interpreting the National Labor Relations Act and California labor relations statutes with
parallel provisions. (Firefighters Union v. City of Vallejo (1974) 12 Cal.3d 608.)
Employees International Union, Local 99 (Kimmett) (1979) PERB Decision No. 106.)3 In
numerous cases, the Board has refused to intervene where the alleged unlawful conduct
involved internal union affairs and there was no showing of a substantial impact on the
employee-employer relationship. 	(California State Employees Association (Hackett) (1993)
PERB Decision No. 1012-S.)
In the instant charge, Charging Party's sole claim is CF A's refusal to permit non-members the
opportunity to vote in CF A's internal vote regarding the proposed furlough program. The
Board has previously addressed this issue and held that a "union may exclude non-members
from voting as long as the union provides them with an opportunity to communicate their
views." (Kern High Faculty Association, CTA/NEA (Maaskant) (2006) PERB Decision
No. 1834 (adopting the Board agent's dismissal), citing El Centro Elementary Teachers
Association, supra, PERB Decision No. 232 (El Centro).)
In El Centro, supra, PERB Decision No. 232, the Board discussed the duty an exclusive
representative owes to non-members. Therein, the Board, citing Service Employees
International Union, Local 99 (Kimmett), supra, PERB Decision No. 106, stated:
the duty of fair representation implies some consideration of the
views of various groups of employees and some access for
communication of those views, but there is no requirement that
formal procedures be established ....
(Emphasis added.)
Similarly, in Kern High Faculty Association, CTA/NEA (Maaskant), supra, PERB Decision
No. 1834, the Board affirmed the same as noted in the following:
In his third allegation, Mr. Maaskant charges that the Association
violated the duty of fair representation by excluding non-
members from providing input and voting. In order to state a
prima facie violation of the duty of fair representation, Charging
Party must show that the Respondent's conduct was arbitrary,
discriminatory, or in bad faith. A union violates its duty if non-
members are left completely uninformed about the status of
negotiations or if they are not provided an opportunity to express
their viewpoints. (Fontana Teachers Association (1984) PERB
Decision No. 416.) ...
WWhen interpreting the HEERA, it is appropriate to take guidance from cases
interpreting the National Labor Relations Act and California labor relations statutes with
parallel provisions. (Firefighters Union v. City of Vallejo (1974) 12 Cal.3d 608.)

LA-CO-502-H
December 2, 2009
Page 4
LA-CO-502-H
December 2, 2009
Page 4
Mr. Maaskant has not properly alleged that he was completely
uninformed about the status of negotiations or that he lacked an
opportunity to express his viewpoints. The Association
conducted a survey of all bargaining unit members before
submitting an initial proposal. Additionally, Mr. Maaskant had
access to information through the Association's website and
through a binder that was kept in the staff lounge. He was also
given one document by Ms. Gibson, the Association's site
representative.
Similarly, Mr. Maaskant has not adequately alleged that he
lacked an opportunity to communicate his views. Mr. Maaskant
had the opportunity to communicate his views by completing and
returning the Association's survey. He also had the opportunity to
attend both ratification meetings and participate in the question
and answer sessions. Therefore, because Mr. Maaskant was not
completely uninformed and he had the opportunity to
communicate his views, Mr. Maaskant has not properly alleged
that the Association violated its duty of fair representation by
restricting voting to members.
Here, the evidence is quite clear that CFA provided all unit members with notice of the
proposed furlough program and an opportunity to communicate their individual views.
CFA's main website solicited questions about the proposed furloughs from all
bargaining unit members.
CFA's website specifically established for the CSU Northridge campus invited all
bargaining unit members to the June 25 discussion regarding the furlough program.
CFA's CSU Northridge website also explained how individual unit members could post
a message about the proposed furlough program on the website, "Twitter."
This evidence does in fact show that CFA notified all bargaining unit members of the proposed
furlough program as well as sought and obtained input about the program from both members
and non-members.
Thus, it is determined that Charging Party was not denied notice or an opportunity to express
his viewpoints as to the proposed furlough program. Since non-members are not entitled to
vote, this charge fails to state facts sufficient to demonstrate a prima facie violation.
Finally, Charging Party asserts that CFA's actions ". . . violates non-members' rights to freely
associate under the U.S. Constitution." PERB, however, does not have jurisdiction to enforce
the provisions of the U.S. Constitution. (Union of American Physicians & Dentists (Menaster)
(2007) PERB Decision No. 1918-S.) Accordingly, this allegation will be dismissed.
Mr. Maaskant has not properly alleged that he was completely
uninformed about the status of negotiations or that he lacked an
opportunity to express his viewpoints. The Association
conducted a survey of all bargaining unit members before
submitting an initial proposal. Additionally, Mr. Maaskant had
access to information through the Association's website and
through a binder that was kept in the staff lounge. He was also
given one document by Ms. Gibson, the Association's site
representative.
Similarly, Mr. Maaskant has not adequately alleged that he
lacked an opportunity to communicate his views. Mr. Maaskant
had the opportunity to communicate his views by completing and
returning the Association's survey. He also had the opportunity to
attend both ratification meetings and participate in the question
and answer sessions. Therefore, because Mr. Maaskant was not
completely uninformed and he had the opportunity to
communicate his views, Mr. Maaskant has not properly alleged
that the Association violated its duty of fair representation by
restricting voting to members.
Here, the evidence is quite clear that CF A provided all unit members with notice of the
proposed furlough program and an opportunity to communicate their individual views.
CF A's main website solicited questions about the proposed furloughs from all
bargaining unit members.
CF A's website specifically established for the CSU N orthridge campus invited all
bargaining unit members to the June 25 discussion regarding the furlough program.
CF A's CSU Northridge website also explained how individual unit members could post
a message about the proposed furlough program on the website, "Twitter."
This evidence does in fact show that CF A notified all bargaining unit members of the proposed
furlough program as well as sought and obtained input about the program from both members
and non-members.
Thus, it is determined that Charging Party was not denied notice or an opportunity to express
his viewpoints as to the proposed furlough program. 	Since non-members are not entitled to
vote, this charge fails to state facts sufficient to demonstrate a prima facie violation.
Finally, Charging Party asserts that CF A's actions" ... violates non-members' rights to freely
associate under the U.S. Constitution." PERB, however, does not have jurisdiction to enforce
the provisions of the U.S. Constitution. (Union of American Physicians & Dentists (Menaster)
(2007) PERB Decision No. 1918-S.) Accordingly, this allegation will be dismissed.

LA-CO-502-H
December 2, 2009
Page 5
LA-CO-502-H
December 2, 2009
Page 5
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, Charging Party may amend the charge.
The amended charge should be prepared on a standard PERB unfair practice charge form,
clearly labeled First Amended Charge, contain all the facts and allegations you wish to make,
and be signed under penalty of perjury by an authorized agent of Charging Party. The
amended charge must have the case number written on the top right hand corner of the charge
form. The amended charge must be served on the Respondent's representative and the original
proof of service must be filed with PERB. If an amended charge or withdrawal is not filed on
or before December 10, 2009, PERB will dismiss your charge. If you have any questions,
please call me at the above telephone number.
Sincerely,
Wendi L. Ross
Deputy General Counsel
WR
In Eastside Union School District (1984) PERB Decision No. 466, the Board
explained that a prima facie case is established where the Board agent is able to make "a
determination that the facts as alleged in the charge state a legal cause of action and that the
charging party is capable of providing admissible evidence in support of the allegations.
Consequently, where the investigation results in receipt of conflicting allegations of fact or
contrary theories of law, fair proceedings, if not due process, demand that a complaint be
issued and the matter be sent to formal hearing." (Ibid.)
A document is "filed" on the date the document is actually received by PERB,
including if transmitted via facsimile. (PERB Regulation 32135.)
For these reasons the charge, as presently written, does not state a prima facie case. 4 If there
are any factual inaccuracies in this letter or additional facts that would correct the deficiencies
explained above, Charging Party may amend the charge.
The amended charge should be prepared on a standard PERB unfair practice charge form,
clearly labeled First Amended Charge, contain all the facts and allegations you wish to make,
and be signed under penalty of perjury by an authorized agent of Charging Party. The
amended charge must have the case number written on the top right hand corner of the charge
form. 	The amended charge must be served on the Respondent's representative and the original
proof of service must be filed with PERB. If an amended charge or withdrawal is not filed on
or before December 10, 2009,5 PERB will dismiss your charge. If you have any questions,
please call me at the above telephone number.
Sincerely,
Wendi L. Ross
Deputy General Counsel
WR
4 In Eastside Union School District (1984) PERB Decision No. 466, the Board
explained that a prima facie case is established where the Board agent is able to make "a
determination that the facts as alleged in the charge state a legal cause of action and that the
charging party is capable of providing admissible evidence in support of the allegations.
Consequently, where the investigation results in receipt of conflicting allegations of fact or
contrary theories of law, fair proceedings, if not due process, demand that a complaint be
issued and the matter be sent to formal hearing." (Ibid.)
5 A document is "filed" on the date the document is actually received by PERB,
including if transmitted via facsimile. 	(PERB Regulation 32135.)