Centinela Valley Union High School District (PERB 2270E)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
F
CENTINELA VALLEY UNION HIGH SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Charging Party,
V.
CENTINELA VALLEY SECONDARY
TEACHERS ASSOCIATION,
Respondent.
Case No. LA-CO-1494-E
PERB Decision No. 2270
June
7,
2012
Appearances: Dannis, Woliver & Kelley by Candace M. Bandoian, Attorney, for Centinela
Valley Union High School District; California Teachers Association by Michael D. Hersh,
Attorney, for Centinela Valley Secondary Teachers Association.
Before Martinez, Chair; Dowdin Calvillo and Huguenin, Members.
DECISION
DOWD IN CALVILLO, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on appeal by the Centinela Valley Union High School District
(District) from the dismissal
of
an unfair practice charge. The charge alleged that the
Centinela Valley Secondary Teachers Association (Association) violated section 3543.6(a)
of
the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA) 1 by failing to reimburse the District for
compensation provided to Association officials for union leave time as required by Education
Code section 44987(a).2 The Office
of
the General Counsel dismissed the charge on the
1 EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq.
2 Education Code section 44987(a) provides, in relevant part:
The governing board of a school district shall grant to any
employee, upon request, a leave of absence without loss of
compensation for the purpose of enabling the employer to serve
as an elected officer
....

grounds that PERB does not have jurisdiction to enforce rights under the Education Code and
that the charge failed to allege a prima facie violation of EERA. The District appeals from that
determination.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
From July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2011, the District and the Association were parties
to collective bargaining agreements that provided for the Association president to be released
from 40 percent of his or her assignment to perform various functions related to his or her
Association duties. 	For nearly ten years, the District granted the Association's president the
40 percent leave time (two school periods per day) while compensating the president his or her
full salary and benefits.
On January 21, 2011, the District presented an invoice to the Association requesting
reimbursement of $323,470.49 for all compensation paid to Association presidents on account
of the 40 percent leave from September 2001 through December 2010. After the Association
failed to pay, the District discontinued its practice of providing the 40 percent leave time to the
Association president. The District asserted that it took these actions in order to comply with
Education Code section 44987 and to avoid violating EERA section 3543.S(d).3
Following the school district's payment of the employee for the
leave of absence, the school district shall be reimbursed by the
employee organization of which the employee is an elected officer
all compensation paid the employee on account of
The leave of absence without loss of compensation provided for
by this section is in addition to the release time without loss of
compensation granted to representatives of an exclusive
representative by subdivisions (c) of Section 3543. l of
Government Code.
3 EERA section 3543.S(d) makes it unlawful for a public school employer to "Dominate
or interfere with the formation or administration of any employee organization, or contribute
financial or other support to it, or in any way encourage employees to join any organization in
preference to another."
2

On May 2, 2011, the District filed an action against the Association in Los Angeles
County Superior Court requesting enforcement
of
its right to reimbursement under Education
Code section 44987, damages for unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief. The District
asserted that the filing
of
this action was an additional affirmative act to prevent a violation
of
EERA section 3543.S(d).
On June 21, 2011, the Association filed a demurrer to the District's superior court
complaint and asserted that PERB had initial exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute because
the District alleged an arguable unfair practice under EERA section 3543.S(d). The District
opposed the demurrer on the grounds that it alleged only a violation
of
Education Code
section 44987, not EERA. The Association responded that the District also alleged a violation
of
EERA section 3543.6(a),4 on the grounds that the Association caused or attempted to cause
the District to violate EERA section 3543.S(d).
On August 10, 2011, the superior court sustained the demurrer on the grounds that the
District stated an arguable unfair practice under either EERA section 3543.S(d) or 3543.6(a).
The court stayed the proceedings before it pending the exhaustion
of
administrative remedies
before PERB.
In response to the court's ruling, the District filed the instant charge on October 24,
2011. In that charge, as amended, the District alleged that the Association violated Education
Code section 44987(a) by failing to reimburse 	District for leave taken by District
employees to serve as elected union officials.
On March 5, 2012, 	the charge on the
ground that PERB does not have jurisdiction to enforce rights under Education Code
section 44987(a) and the charge failed to allege sufficient facts to demonstrate that the
4 EERA section 3543.6(a) makes it unlawful for an employee organization to "Cause or
attempt to cause a public school employer to violate Section 3543.5."
3

Association's conduct violated EERA's prohibition against providing financial support to
employee organizations under EERA section 3543.S(d).5
APPEAL AND RESPONSE
On March 30, 2012, the District filed a timely appeal from the dismissal of the charge.
The appeal asserts that the District appeals "in order to exhaust its administrative remedies."
Following a recitation of the facts surrounding the superior court action and the dismissal of
the charge, the appeal states, verbatim:
Appeal
Charging Party does not dispute the Regional Attorney's findings
but files this appeal in order to exhaust its administrative
remedies. The District respectfully requests the Board's attention
to this matter and swift determination.
In its response, the Association asserts that the appeal fails to meet the requirements of
PERB Regulation 326356 in that it fails to state the specific issues of procedure, fact, law or
rationale to which the appeal is taken. As a result, the Association contends, the District "has
essentially filed no appeal, and PERB should reject it, not as an 'exhaustion of administrative
remedies' but as a failure to comply with Regulation 32635."
DISCUSSION
PERB Regulation 32635(a) provides:
(a) Within 20 days of the date of service ofa dismissal, the
charging party may appeal the dismissal to 	Board itself.
original appeal and five copies shall be filed in writing with the
Board itself in the headquarters office, and shall be signed by the
charging party or its agent. 	Service and proof of service of the
appeal on the respondent pursuant to Section 32140 are required.
5 We construe this finding as a finding that the charge failed to establish a prima facie
violation of EERA section 3543.6(a).
6 PERB regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8,
section 31001 et seq.
4

The Appeal 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.
PERB repeatedly has held that, to satisfy the requirements of Regulation 32635(a), the
appeal must sufficiently place the Board and the respondent on notice of the issues raised on
appeal, and noncompliance will warrant dismissal of the appeal. 	(California School Employees
Association & its Chapter 724 (Walker) (2011) PERB Decision No. 2220 (CSEA); California
State Employees Association, Local I 000, AFL-CJO, Service Employees International Union
(Myers) (1992) PERB Decision No. 942-S; Oakland Education Association (Baker) (1990)
PERB Decision No. 827.) An appeal that does not reference the substance of the Board
agent's dismissal fails to comply with PERB Regulation 32635(a). (CSEA; United Teachers of
Los Angeles (Pratt) (2009) PERB Order No. Ad-381; Lodi Education Association (Hudock)
(1995) PERB Decision No. 1124; United Teachers 	Los Angeles (Glickberg) (1990) PERB
Decision No. 846.)
The appeal before us does not 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 appeal is taken or state the grounds for appeal. Instead, the appeal specifically states
that the District "does not dispute the Regional Attorney's findings." Thus, the appeal fails to
comply with the requirements of 	Regulation 32635(a). 	we deny the appeal.
Given that the District has not objected to any of the findings set forth in the dismissal, we
have no basis upon which to review the merits of the dismissal. The Board has long held that
5

it does not render advisory opinions or provide declaratory relief. ( County
of
Orange (2006)
PERB Decision No. 1868-M; Jefferson School District (1980) PERB Order No. Ad-82.)
ORDER
The unfair practice charge in Case No. LA-CO-1494-E is hereby DISMISSED
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
Chair Martinez and Member Huguenin joined in this Decision.
6