Beaumont Teachers Association/California Teachers Association (Grace) (PERB 2259E)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
DEL
M.
GRACE,
Charging Party,
V.
BEAUMONT TEACHERS
AS
SOCIATION/CTA,
Respondent.
Case No. LA-CO-1410-E
PERB Decision No. 2259
April 26, 2012
Appearance: Anyiam Law Firm Inc. by Christian U. Anyiam, Attorney, for Del M. Grace.
Before Martinez, Chair; Dowdin Calvillo and Huguenin, Members.
DECISION
MARTINEZ, Chair: This case comes before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on appeal by Del
M.
Grace (Grace)
of
a PERB Office
of
the General
Counsel's dismissal (attached)
of
her unfair practice charge. The charge, as amended, alleged
that the Beaumont Teachers Association/CTA (Association) violated the Educational
Employment Relations Act (EERA) 1 by failing to represent Grace in her dispute against her
employer, the Beaumont Unified School District (District), regarding the District's failure to
give her timely notice
of
her non-reelection. 	issue raised by the allegations in the charge	he is
was whether the Association breached its duty of fair representation. The Board agent
dismissed the charge, concluding that it failed to state a prima facie case.
The Board has reviewed the entire record in this matter and given full consideration to
the issues raised on appeal and 	arguments of the parties. Based on our 	and	rguments of the parties. Based on our review and
consideration, the Board finds the Board agent's warning and dismissal letters to be well-
1EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
DEL M. GRACE,
Charging Party, 	Case No. LA-CO-1410-E
v . 	PERB Decision No. 2259
BEAUMONT TEACHERS ASSOCIATION/CTA, 	April 26, 2012
Respondent.
Appearance: Anyiam Law Firm Inc. by Christian U. Anyiam, Attorney, for Del M. Grace.
Before Martinez, Chair; Dowdin Calvillo and Huguenin, Members.
DECISION
MARTINEZ, Chair: This case comes before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on appeal by Del M. Grace (Grace) of a PERB Office of the General
Counsel's dismissal (attached) of her unfair practice charge. The charge, as amended, alleged
that the Beaumont Teachers Association/CTA (Association) violated the Educational
Employment Relations Act (EERA) ' by failing to represent Grace in her dispute against her
employer, the Beaumont Unified School District (District), regarding the District's failure to
give her timely notice of her non-reelection. T 	sue raised by the allegations in the charge
was whether the Association breached its duty of fair representation. The Board agent
dismissed the charge, concluding that it failed to state a prima facie case.
The Board has reviewed the entire record in this matter and given full consideration to
the issues raised on appeal and the a
consideration, the Board finds the Board agent's warning and dismissal letters to be well-
EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq.

reasoned, adequately supported by the record and in accordance with the applicable law.
Accordingly, the Board hereby dismisses the charge, adopting the warning and dismissal letters
of the Board agent as the decision of the Board itself as supplemented by the following brief
discussion of issues raised by the appeal.
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to PERB Regulation 32635, subdivision (a),2 an appeal from dismissal shall:
(1) State the specific issues of procedure, fact, law or rationale to
which the appeal is taken;
(2) Identify the page or part of the dismissal to which each
appeal is taken;
(3) State the grounds for each issue stated.
State the specific issues of procedure, fact, law or rationale to
which the appeal is taken;
(2) Identify the page or part of the dismissal to which each
appeal is taken;
(3) State the grounds for each issue stated.
To satisfy the requirements of this regulation, the appeal must sufficiently place the
Board and the respondent "on notice of the issues raised on appeal." (State Employees
Trades Council United (Ventura, et al.) (2009) PERB Decision No. 2069-H; City & County of
San Francisco (2009) PERB Decision No. 2075-M.) An appeal that does not reference the
substance of the Board agent's dismissal fails to comply with PERB Regulation 32635,
subdivision (a). (United Teachers of Los Angeles (Pratt) (2009) PERB Order No. Ad-381;
Lodi Education Association (Ruddock) (1995) PERB Decision No. 1124; United Teachers
Los Angeles (Glickberg) (1990) PERB Decision No. 846.) Likewise, an appeal that merely
reiterates facts alleged in the unfair practice charge does not comply
Regulation 32635, subdivision (a). (Contra Costa County Health Services Department (2005)
PERB Decision No. 1752-M; County of Solano (Human Resources 	(2004)
Decision No. 1598-M.)
2 PERB regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8,
section 31001 et seq.
2
reasoned, adequately supported by the record and in accordance with the applicable law.
Accordingly, the Board hereby dismisses the charge, adopting the warning and dismissal letters
of the Board agent as the decision of the Board itself as supplemented by the following brief
discussion of issues raised by the appeal.
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to PERB Regulation 32635, subdivision (a)," an appeal from dismissal shall:
(1)
To satisfy the requirements of this regulation, the appeal must sufficiently place the
Board and the respondent "on notice of the issues raised on appeal." (State Employees
Trades Council United (Ventura, et al.) (2009) PERB Decision No. 2069-H; City & County of
San Francisco (2009) PERB Decision No. 2075-M.) An appeal that does not reference the
substance of the Board agent's dismissal fails to comply with PERB Regulation 32635,
subdivision (a). (United Teachers of Los Angeles (Pratt) (2009) PERB Order No. Ad-381;
Lodi Education Association (Huddock) (1995) PERB Decision No. 1124; United Teachers -
Los Angeles (Glickberg) (1990) PERB Decision No. 846.) Likewise, an appeal that merely
reiterates facts alleged in the unfair practice charge does not comply with PERB
Regulation 32635, subdivision (a). (Contra Costa County Health Services Department (2005)
PERB Decision No. 1752-M; County of Solano (Human Resources Department (2004) PERB
Decision No. 1598-M.)
PERB regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8,
section 31001 et seq
2

Here, the appeal consists entirely of allegations and arguments previously made at the
charge processing stage of this proceeding. The appeal advances no argument that was not
considered and addressed by the Board agent in processing the charge. In fact, much of the
appeal repeats in verbatim text from a document that accompanied the amended charge. 	The
appeal does not reference any portion of the Board agent's determination or otherwise state the
specific issues of procedure, fact, law or rationale to which the appeal is taken. Nor does it
identify the page or part of the dismissal to which the appeal is taken or state the grounds.
Thus, the appeal is subject to dismissal on this ground alone. (City of Brea (2009) PERB
Decision No. 2083-M.)
ORDER
The unfair practice charge in Case No. LA-CO-1410-E is hereby DISMISSED
WITHOUT LEA VE TO AMEND.
Members Dowdin Calvillo and Huguenin joined in this Decision.
3
Here, the appeal consists entirely of allegations and arguments previously made at the
charge processing stage of this proceeding. The appeal advances no argument that was not
considered and addressed by the Board agent in processing the charge. In fact, much of the
appeal repeats in verbatim text from a document that accompanied the amended charge. The
appeal does not reference any portion of the Board agent's determination or otherwise state the
specific issues of procedure, fact, law or rationale to which the appeal is taken. Nor does it
identify the page or part of the dismissal to which the appeal is taken or state the grounds.
Thus, the appeal is subject to dismissal on this ground alone. (City of Brea (2009) PERB
Decision No. 2083-M.)
ORDER
The unfair practice charge in Case No. LA-CO-1410-E is hereby DISMISSED
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
Members Dowdin Calvillo and Huguenin joined in this Decision.
3

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
	(.	STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Los Angeles Regional Office
700
N.
Central Ave., Suite 200
Glendale, CA 91203-3219
Telephone: (8 I 8) 551-2805
Fax: (818) 551-2820
September
6, 2011
Christian
U.
Anyiam, Esq.,
Anyiam Law Firm, Inc.
1073 7 Laurel Street, Suite 102
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Re: 	Del M Grace
v.
Beaumont Teachers Association/CTA
Unfair Practice Charge No. LA-CO-1410-E
DISMISSAL LETTER
Dear Mr. Anyiam:
EDMUND G. BROWN 	Governor
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on December 31, 2009. Del
M.
Grace (Ms. Grace or Charging Party)
alleges that the Beaumont Tectch~rs Association/CTA (Association or Respondent) violated the
Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA or Act) 1 by failing to represent her when she
was non-reelected from employment.
Charging Party was infor!lled in the attached Warning Letter
..
~9-.?-ted
August 11, 2011, that the
above-referenced charge did not state a prima facie case. 	You were advised that,
if
there were
any factual inaccuracies or additional facts that would correct the deficiencies explained in that
letter, you should amend the charge. You were further advised that, unless you amended the
charge to state a prima facie case or withdrew it prior to August 18, 2011, the charge would be
dismissed.
After receiving the Warning Letter, Ms. Grace contacted the undersigned and was granted an
extension
of
time to file an amended charge until August 25, 2011. On August 24, 2011, I had
a telephone conversation with Ms. Grace and answered a question regarding service
of
the
amended charge on the Respondent. 	On the morning
of
August 25, 2011, I had another
telephone conversation with Ms. Grace, wherein she stated that the amended charge would be
filed via facsimile that afternoon. 	Shortly thereafter, I received a telephone call from Christian
Anyiam, who stated that he had been retained as counsel for Ms. Grace. Mr. Anyiam
requested an additional extension of time of between five and seven days to respond to the
Warning Letter. I stated to Mr. Anyiam that I had had several conversations with Ms. Grace,
including most recently that morning, and Ms. Grace had not indicated either that .she needed
additional time to respond to 	Warning Letter, or that she had retained counsel. To the
contrary, Ms. Grace had stated that the amended charge would be filed that afternoon. I
reminded Mr. Anyiam that Ms. Grace had already been granted an extension of time, and thus
1 EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. The text of the EERA and
PERB Regulations may be found at www.perb.ca.gov.
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Los Angeles Regional Office
700 N. Central Ave., Suite 200
Glendale, CA 91203-3219
Telephone: (818) 551-2805
Fax: (818) 551-2820
September 6, 2011
Christian U. Anyiam, Esq.,
Anyiam Law Firm, Inc.
10737 Laurel Street, Suite 102
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Re: 	Del M. Grace v. Beaumont Teachers Association/CTA
Unfair Practice Charge No. LA-CO-1410-E
DISMISSAL LETTER
Dear Mr. Anyiam:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on December 31, 2009. Del M. Grace (Ms. Grace or Charging Party)
alleges that the Beaumont Teachers Association/CTA (Association or Respondent) violated the
Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA or Act)' by failing to represent her when she
was non-reelected from employment.
Charging Party was informed in the attached Warning Letter dated August 11, 2011, that the
above-referenced charge did not state a prima facie case. You were advised that, if there were
any factual inaccuracies or additional facts that would correct the deficiencies explained in that
letter, you should amend the charge. You were further advised that, unless you amended the
charge to state a prima facie case or withdrew it prior to August 18, 2011, the charge would be
dismissed.
After receiving the Warning Letter, Ms. Grace contacted the undersigned and was granted an
extension of time to file an amended charge until August 25, 2011. On August 24, 2011, I had
a telephone conversation with Ms. Grace and answered a question regarding service of the
amended charge on the Respondent. On the morning of August 25, 2011, I had another
telephone conversation with Ms. Grace, wherein she stated that the amended charge would be
filed via facsimile that afternoon. Shortly thereafter, I received a telephone call from Christian
Anyiam, who stated that he had been retained as counsel for Ms. Grace. Mr. Anyiam
requested an additional extension of time of between five and seven days to respond to the
Warning Letter. I stated to Mr. Anyiam that I had had several conversations with Ms. Grace,
including most recently that morning, and Ms. Grace had not indicated either that she needed
additional time to respond to the Warning Letter, or that she had retained counsel. To the
contrary, Ms. Grace had stated that the amended charge would be filed that afternoon. I
reminded Mr. Anyiam that Ms. Grace had already been granted an extension of time, and thus
EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. The text of the EERA and
PERB Regulations may be found at www.perb.ca.gov.

LA-CO-1410-E
September 6, 2011
Page 2
I did not find good cause under the circumstances to grant the additional extension he sought.
Shortly after that conversation ended, I received a conference call from both Ms. Grace and
Mr. Anyiam. 	Ms. Grace confirmed that Mr. Anyiam now represented her. I granted a one-day
additional extension
of
time until August 26, 2011 to file an amended charge. 	Later that
afternoon, PERB received via facsimile from Mr. Anyiam a document "in response to" the
Warning Letter. On August 26, 2011, an amended charge was timely filed. 	I consider these
documents together to constitute the amended charge.
Information Provided in the Amended Charge
As summarized in the Warning Letter, Ms. Grace was employed as a probationary Nurse
Practitioner in the Beaumont Unified School District (District) until June 3, 2009 when she
was released from employment. The Warning Letter characterized her release by the District
as due to a reduction in force, which Ms. Grace states is incorrect. Ms. Grace asserts that
while a reduction in force was simultaneously underway at the District, her release from
employment was due to non-reelection under Education Code section 44929. As such, Ms.
Grace asserts that she was entitled to personal service
of
notice
of
non-reelection by the
District, rather than service via U.S. mail. Ms. Grace asserts that the Association erroneously
concluded by examination
of
some e-mail communications that she had· authorized the District
to serve her by mail. The Association informed Ms. Grace in writing on August 14, 2009 that
it declined to represent her.· The amended charge states:
It is more than mere negligence to deliberately rely on unreliable
email communication to decline representation
of
a dues paying
member where it is evident that the union action or inaction can
subject the affected member to loss
of
her job.
For the reasons
to
follow, the charge, as amended, fails to correct the deficiencies outlined in
the Warning Letter.
Discussion
As discussed in the Warning Letter, a union's duty
of
fair representation only applies to the
enforcement
of
contract-based remedies under the union's exclusive control, and therefore
does not apply to actions in "extra-contractual forums," such as the pursuit
of
a civil lawsuit
(SEIU Local 790 (Hein) (2004) PERB Decision No. 1677), or enforcement of Education Code
violations. (California Teachers Association (Radford) (2005) PERB Decision No. 1763.) It
is clear that Ms. Grace wanted the Association to represent her regarding the District's alleged
non-compliance with Education Code notice and service requirements for non-reelection.
Thus, the Association did not violate its duty of fair representation by refusing to pursue action
against the District on Ms. Grace's behalf regarding violations of the Education Code. (Ibid)
Furthermore, even if the Association's fair representation duty attached to this situation, Ms.
Grace's disagreement with the Association's legal conclusion regarding her case is not enough
to demonstrate arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct by the Association. (Service
Employees International Union, Local 250 (Hessong) (2004) PERB Decision No. 1693-M
LA-CO-1410-E
September 6, 2011
Page 2
I did not find good cause under the circumstances to grant the additional extension he sought.
Shortly after that conversation ended, I received a conference call from both Ms. Grace and
Mr. Anyiam. Ms. Grace confirmed that Mr. Anyiam now represented her. I granted a one-day
additional extension of time until August 26, 2011 to file an amended charge. Later that
afternoon, PERB received via facsimile from Mr. Anyiam a document "in response to" the
Warning Letter. On August 26, 2011, an amended charge was timely filed. I consider these
documents together to constitute the amended charge.
Information Provided in the Amended Charge
As summarized in the Warning Letter, Ms. Grace was employed as a probationary Nurse
Practitioner in the Beaumont Unified School District (District) until June 3, 2009 when she
was released from employment. The Warning Letter characterized her release by the District
as due to a reduction in force, which Ms. Grace states is incorrect. Ms. Grace asserts that
while a reduction in force was simultaneously underway at the District, her release from
employment was due to non-reelection under Education Code section 44929. As such, Ms.
Grace asserts that she was entitled to personal service of notice of non-reelection by the
District, rather than service via U.S. mail. Ms. Grace asserts that the Association erroneously
concluded by examination of some e-mail communications that she had authorized the District
to serve her by mail. The Association informed Ms. Grace in writing on August 14, 2009 that
it declined to represent her. ' The amended charge states:
It is more than mere negligence to deliberately rely on unreliable
email communication to decline representation of a dues paying
member where it is evident that the union action or inaction can
subject the affected member to loss of her job.
For the reasons to follow, the charge, as amended, fails to correct the deficiencies outlined in
the Warning Letter.
Discussion
As discussed in the Warning Letter, a union's duty of fair representation only applies to the
enforcement of contract-based remedies under the union's exclusive control, and therefore
does not apply to actions in "extra-contractual forums," such as the pursuit of a civil lawsuit
(SEIU Local 790 (Hein) (2004) PERB Decision No. 1677), or enforcement of Education Code
violations. (California Teachers Association (Radford) (2005) PERB Decision No. 1763.) It
is clear that Ms. Grace wanted the Association to represent her regarding the District's alleged
non-compliance with Education Code notice and service requirements for non-reelection.
Thus, the Association did not violate its duty of fair representation by refusing to pursue action
against the District on Ms. Grace's behalf regarding violations of the Education Code. (Ibid.)
Furthermore, even if the Association's fair representation duty attached to this situation, Ms.
Grace's disagreement with the Association's legal conclusion regarding her case is not enough
to demonstrate arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct by the Association. (Service
Employees International Union, Local 250 (Hessong) (2004) PERB Decision No. 1693-M

LA-CO-1410-E
September 6, 2011
Page 3
[disagreement with a union's position does not demonstrate a breach
of
the duty
of
fair
representation; the Board does not assess whether a union's decision was correct, only whether
it was devoid
of
any rational basis or whether it was reached for arbitrary reasons].)
Accordingly, the charge does not state a prima facie case and must be dismissed.
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, 	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.
tit.
A document is considered "filed" when actually received during a regular PERB business day.
(Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, §§ 32135, subd. (a) and 32130; see also Gov.
Code,§
11020, subd. (a).)
A document is also considered "filed" when received by facsimile transmission before the
close
of
business together with a Facsimile Transmission Cover Sheet which meets the
requirements
of
PERB Regulation 32135(d), provided the filing party also places the original,
. together with the required number
of
copies and proof
of
service, in the U.S. mail. (Cal. Code
Regs, tit.
8,
§ 32135, subds. (b), (c) and (d); see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8,
§§
32090 and
32130.)
The Board's address is:
Public Employment Relations Board
Attention: Appeals Assistant
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95811-4124
(916) 3 22-8231
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, 	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
2 PERB Regulations are codified at Caiifornia Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.
LA-CO-1410-E
September 6, 2011
Page 3
[ disagreement with a union's position does not demonstrate a breach of the duty of fair
representation; the Board does not assess whether a union's decision was correct, only whether
it was devoid of any rational basis or whether it was reached for arbitrary reasons].)
Accordingly, the charge does not state a prima facie case and must be dismissed.
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, $5 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
PERB Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.

LA-CO-1410-E
September 6, 2011
Page 4
deposited in the mail or deposited with a delivery service and properly addressed. A document
may also be concurrently served via facsimile transmission on all parties to the proceeding.
(Cal. Code Regs, tit.
8,
§ 32135, subd. (c).)
Extension
of
Time
A request for an extension
of
time, in which to file a document with the Board itself, must be
in writing and filed with the Board at the previously noted address. A request for an extension
must be filed at least three (3) calendar days before the expiration
of
the time required for
filing the document. The request must indicate good cause for and,
if
known, the position
of
each other party regarding the extension, and shall be accompanied by proof
of
service
of
the
request upon each party. (Cal. Code Regs, tit.
8,
§ 32132.)
Final Date
If
no appeal is filed within the specified time limits, the dismissal will become final when the
time limits have expired.
Sincerely,
M.	M. SUZANNE MURPHY
General Counsel
By~	By
Valerie Pike Racho
Regional Attorney
Attachment
cc: Robert E. Lindquist, Attorney
LA-CO-1410-E
September 6, 2011
Page 4
deposited in the mail or deposited with a delivery service and properly addressed. A document
may also be concurrently served via facsimile transmission on all parties to the proceeding.
(Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, $ 32135, subd. (c).)
Extension of Time
A request for an extension of time, in which to file 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,
SUZANNE MURPHY
General Counsel
Valerie Pike Racho
Regional Attorney
Attachment
cc: Robert E. Lindquist, Attorney

STATE
OF
CALIFORNIA	STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
PE.AB
Los Angeles Regional Office
700 N. Central Ave., Suite 200
Glendale, CA 91203-3219
Telephone: (818) 551-2805
Fax: (818) 551-2820
August 11, 2011
Del
M.
Grace
29120 Sandlewood Place
Highland, CA 92346
August 11, 2011
Del M. Grace
Re: 	Del M Grace
v.
Beaumont Teachers Association/CTA
Unfair Practice Charge No. LA-CO-1410-E
WARNING LETTER
Dear Ms. Grace:
EDMUND G.
BROWN
JR., Governor
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on December 31, 2009. Del
M.
Grace (Ms. Grace or Charging Party)
alleges that the Beaumont Teachers Association/CTA (Association or Respondent) violated the
Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA or Act}1 by failing to represent her when she
was non-reelected from employment. 	Investigation
of
the charge revealed the following
relevant information.2
Facts as Alleged
Ms. Grace was employed as a probationary Nurse Practitioner in the Beaumont Unified School
District (District) until June 3, 2009,3 when she was non-reelected for the 2009-2010 school
year due to a reduction in force. 	Ms. Grace was included	. 	in a bargaining unit exclusively
represented by the Association. Ms. Grace asserts that she was not provided a timely,
personally served notice
of
non-reelection by the District, and was also not afforded due
process hearing rights. At some point, Ms. Grace enlisted the help
of
the Association and was
referred
to
Attorney Ronald Skipper.
.
On August 14, Mr. Skipper informed Ms. Grace in writing that the Association declined to
pursue any action against the District on her behalf. The letter stated in relevant part:
1 EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. The text of the EERA and
PERB Regulations may be found at www.perb.ca.gov.
2 The Association filed a position statement in response to the charge on January 28,
2010. A Board agent is permitted to consider undisputed facts supplied by a respondent during
charge investigation. (Service Employees International Union #790 (Adza) (2004) PERB
Decision No. 1632-M.)
3 All dates herein refer to 2009 unless otherwise stated.
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Los Angeles Regional Office
700 N. Central Ave., Suite 200
Glendale, CA 91203-3219
Telephone: (818) 551-2805
Fax: (818) 551-2820
Re: 	Del M. Grace v. Beaumont Teachers Association/CTA
Unfair Practice Charge No. LA-CO-1410-E
WARNING LETTER
Dear Ms. Grace:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on December 31, 2009. Del M. Grace (Ms. Grace or Charging Party)
alleges that the Beaumont Teachers Association/CTA (Association or Respondent) violated the
Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA or Act)' by failing to represent her when she
was non-reelected from employment. Investigation of the charge revealed the following
relevant information.
Facts as Alleged
Ms. Grace was employed as a probationary Nurse Practitioner in the Beaumont Unified School
District (District) until June 3, 2009,' when she was non-reelected for the 2009-2010 school
year due to a reduction in force. Ms. Grace was included in a bargaining unit exclusively
represented by the Association. Ms. Grace asserts that she was not provided a timely,
personally served notice of non-reelection by the District, and was also not afforded due
process hearing rights. At some point, Ms. Grace enlisted the help of the Association and was
referred to Attorney Ronald Skipper.
On August 14, Mr. Skipper informed Ms. Grace in writing that the Association declined to
pursue any action against the District on her behalf. The letter stated in relevant part:
EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. The text of the EERA and
PERB Regulations may be found at www.perb.ca.gov.
2. The Association filed a position statement in response to the charge on January 28,
2010. A Board agent is permitted to consider undisputed facts supplied by a respondent during
charge investigation. (Service Employees International Union #790 (Adza) (2004) PERB
Decision No. 1632-M.)
3 All dates herein refer to 2009 unless otherwise stated.

LA-CO-1410-E
August 11, 2011
Page 2
This will confirm that I have concluded my research on your
case. I understand that your position is thatthe failure of the
[District] to serve you personally with the Notice of Non-
Reelection ... should "trigger" the application of the Hoschler
case, [4l compelling your retention as an employee of the District.
Unfortunately, the facts establish that you authorized the District
administration to serve you by mail. The e-mails I obtained
confirmed that finding.
Indeed, the District served the Notice upon you by mail prior to
the statutory cut-off date. I believe, with the concurrence of the
California Teachers Association's Legal Counsel that we would
be estopped from successfully raising the holding in the Hoschler
case.
On December 22, Ms. Grace sent Mr. Skipper a letter requesting clarification of his reasoning
not to pursue her case, but did not receive any reply.
Ms. Grace argues that the Association had an obligation to provide her with legal fees and/or
legal representation, and failed to do so.
The above-discussed facts do not demonstrate a prima facie violation of EERA for the reasons
discussed below.
Discussion
Although not specifically plead in the charge, the facts presented are most logically analyzed
as alieging a breach of the Association's duty of fair representation. The duty of fair
representation imposed on the exclusive representative extends to grievance handling.
(Fremont Teachers Association (King) (1980) PERB Decision No. 125; United Teachers of
Los Angeles (Collins) (1982) PERB Decision.No. 258.) In order to state a prima facie
violation of this section of EERA, Charging Party must show that the Respondent's conduct
was arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith. 	In United Teachers of Los Angeles (Collins), the
Public Employment Relations Board stated:
Absent bad faith, discrimination, or arbitrary conduct, mere
negligence or poor judgment in handling a grievance does not
constitute a breach of the union's duty. 	[Citations omitted.]
Attached as an exhibit to the charge is an advisory legal opinion by the California
Teachers Association stating that an appellate court in Hoschler v. Sacramento City USD
(citation not provided) held that non-reelection notices must be personally served (rather than
served by mail) on .probationary employees. This advisory opinion aiso stated thatthfa rule
does not apply to RIF (Reduction in Force) notices, which are allowed to be served by mail.
LA-CO-1410-E
August 11, 2011
Page 2
This will confirm that I have concluded my research on your
case. I understand that your position is that the failure of the
[District] to serve you personally with the Notice of Non-
Reelection...should "trigger" the application of the Hoschler
case, "" compelling your retention as an employee of the District.
Unfortunately, the facts establish that you authorized the District
administration to serve you by mail. The e-mails I obtained
confirmed that finding.
Indeed, the District served the Notice upon you by mail prior to
the statutory cut-off date. I believe, with the concurrence of the
California Teachers Association's Legal Counsel that we would
be estopped from successfully raising the holding in the Hoschler
case.
On December 22, Ms. Grace sent Mr. Skipper a letter requesting clarification of his reasoning
not to pursue her case, but did not receive any reply.
Ms. Grace argues that the Association had an obligation to provide her with legal fees and/or
legal representation, and failed to do so.
The above-discussed facts do not demonstrate a prima facie violation of EERA for the reasons
discussed below.
Discussion
Although not specifically plead in the charge, the facts presented are most logically analyzed
as alleging a breach of the Association's duty of fair representation. The duty of fair
representation imposed on the exclusive representative extends to grievance handling.
(Fremont Teachers Association (King) (1980) PERB Decision No. 125; United Teachers of
Los Angeles (Collins) (1982) PERB Decision No. 258.) In order to state a prima facie
violation of this section of EERA, Charging Party must show that the Respondent's conduct
was arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith. In United Teachers of Los Angeles (Collins), the
Public Employment Relations Board stated:
Absent bad faith, discrimination, or arbitrary conduct, mere
negligence or poor judgment in handling a grievance does not
constitute a breach of the union's duty. [Citations omitted.]
*Attached as an exhibit to the charge is an advisory legal opinion by the California
Teachers Association stating that an appellate court in Hoschler v. Sacramento City USD
(citation not provided) held that non-reelection notices must be personally served (rather than
served by mail) on probationary employees. This advisory opinion also stated that this rule
does not apply to RIF (Reduction in Force) notices, which are allowed to be served by mail.

LA-CO-1410-E
August 11, 2011
Page 3
A union may exercise its discretion to determine how far to
pursue a grievance in the employee's behalf as long as it does not
arbitrarily ignore a meritorious grievance or process a grievance
in a perfunctory fashion. 	A union is also not required to process
an employee's grievance if the chances for success are minimal.
(Id. at Proposed Decision, p. 8.)
In order to state a prima facie case of arbitrary conduct violating the duty of fair representation,
a charging party:
must at a minimum include an assertion of sufficient facts from
which it becomes apparent how or in what manner the exclusive
representative's action or inaction was without a rational basis or
devoid of honest judgment.
(Reed District Teachers Association, CTA/NEA (Reyes) (1983) PERB Decision No. 332, p. 9,
quoting Rocklin Teachers Professional Association (Romero) (1980) PERB Decision No. 124;
emphasis in original.)
The duty of fair representation only applies to the enforcement of contract-based remedies
under a union's exclusive control, and therefore does not apply to actions in "extra-contractual
forums," such as pursuing a lawsuit in civil court (SEIU Local 790 (Hein) (2004) PERB
Decision No. 1677), or enforcing provisions of the Education Code. (California Teachers
Association (Radford) (2005) PERB Decision No. 1763.) A union has rio obligation to provide
an employee with legal counsel or to assist an employee with legal fees. 	(SEIU Local 1021
(Delarge) (2009) PERB Decision No. 2068.)
Pursuant to the PERB case law cited above, the Association had no duty to provide Ms. Grace
with legal representation or assistance with legal fees, and did not breach its duty of fair
representation by refusing to pursue any action against the District for alleged violation of non-
reelection notice requirements under the Education Code. Furthermore, even if it was found
that the duty of fair representation applied to this situation, nothing in the Association's
conduct can be deemed arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith, because the Association
provided Ms. Grace with its rationale for refusing to pursue action against the District. The
duty of fair representation does not contemplate or require the complete satisfaction of all
represented employees. (California School Employees Association & its· Chapter 3 74
(Wyman) (2007) PERB Decision No. 1903.) 	As it cannot be established that the Association
acted without a rational basis, or that the Association had an affirmative duty to represent Ms.
Grace regarding her non-reelection, no breach of the duty of fair representation is
demonstrated under these facts. 	Accordingly, the charge must be dismissed.
LA-CO-1410-E
August 11, 2011
Page 3
A union may exercise its discretion to determine how far to
pursue a grievance in the employee's behalf as long as it does not
arbitrarily ignore a meritorious grievance or process a grievance
in a perfunctory fashion. A union is also not required to process
an employee's grievance if the chances for success are minimal.
(Id. at Proposed Decision, p. 8.)
In order to state a prima facie case of arbitrary conduct violating the duty of fair representation,
a charging party:
must at a minimum include an assertion of sufficient facts from
which it becomes apparent how or in what manner the exclusive
representative's action or inaction was without a rational basis or
devoid of honest judgment.
(Reed District Teachers Association, CTA/NEA (Reyes) (1983) PERB Decision No. 332, p. 9,
quoting Rocklin Teachers Professional Association (Romero) (1980) PERB Decision No. 124;
emphasis in original.)
The duty of fair representation only applies to the enforcement of contract-based remedies
under a union's exclusive control, and therefore does not apply to actions in "extra-contractual
forums," such as pursuing a lawsuit in civil court (SEIU Local 790 (Hein) (2004) PERB
Decision No. 1677), or enforcing provisions of the Education Code. (California Teachers
Association (Radford) (2005) PERB Decision No. 1763.) A union has no obligation to provide
an employee with legal counsel or to assist an employee with legal fees. (SEIU Local 1021
(DeLarge) (2009) PERB Decision No. 2068.)
Pursuant to the PERB case law cited above, the Association had no duty to provide Ms. Grace
with legal representation or assistance with legal fees, and did not breach its duty of fair
representation by refusing to pursue any action against the District for alleged violation of non-
reelection notice requirements under the Education Code. Furthermore, even if it was found
that the duty of fair representation applied to this situation, nothing in the Association's
conduct can be deemed arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith, because the Association
provided Ms. Grace with its rationale for refusing to pursue action against the District. The
duty of fair representation does not contemplate or require the complete satisfaction of all
represented employees. (California School Employees Association & its Chapter 374
(Wyman) (2007) PERB Decision No. 1903.) As it cannot be established that the Association
acted without a rational basis, or that the Association had an affirmative duty to represent Ms.
Grace regarding her non-reelection, no breach of the duty of fair representation is
demonstrated under these facts. Accordingly, the charge must be dismissed

LA-CO-1410-E
August 11, 2011
Page 4
For these reasons the charge, as presently written, does not state a prima facie case. 5
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 August 18, 2011,6 PERB
will dismiss your charge.	
If
you have any questions, please call me at the above telephone
number.
Sincerely,
Valerie Pike Racho
Regional Attorney
VR
5 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.)
6 A document is "filed" on the date the document is actually received by PERB,
including if transmitted via facsimile. 	(PERB Regulation 32135.)
LA-CO-1410-E
August 11, 2011
Page 4
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 August 18, 2011, PERB
will dismiss your charge. If you have any questions, please call me at the above telephone
number.
Sincerely,
Valerie Pike Racho
Regional Attorney
VR
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.)