City and County of San Francisco (Department of Aging and Adult Services) (PERB 2295M)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
RAGUI H. MICHAEL,
Charging Party, 	Case No. SF-CE-829-M
v . 	PERB Decision No. 2295-M
November 30, 2012	CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
DEPARTMENT OF AGING AND ADULT
SERVICES),
Respondent.
SAN FRANCISCO IN-HOME SUPPORTIVE
SERVICES PUBLIC AUTHORITY,
Joined Party.
Appearances: Ragui H. Michael, on his own behalf; Hanson Bridgett by Angela M. Clements,
Attorney, for San Francisco In-Home Supportive Services Public Authority.
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 Ragui H. Michael (Michael) from the dismissal (attached) of
his unfair practice charge. The charge, as amended, alleged that the City & County of
San Francisco (Department of Aging and Adult Services) (CCSF DAAS) violated the Meyers-
Milias-Brown Act (MMBA)' by withholding agency fees from Michael's pay without his
knowledge or permission. Before the amended charge was dismissed, Michael filed an
application for joinder of parties, requesting that the San Francisco In-Home Supportive
Services Public Authority (Public Authority) be joined as a respondent. By dismissal letter
MMBA is codified at Government Code section 3500 et seq.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
RAGUI H. MICHAEL,
Charging Party,
V.
CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
(DEPARTMENT OF AGING AND ADULT
SERVICES),
Respondent.
SAN FRANCISCO IN-HOME SUPPORTIVE
SERVICES PUBLIC AUTHORITY,
Joined Party.
Case No. SF-CE-829-M
PERB Decision No. 2295-M
November 30, 2012
Appearances: 	Ragui H. Michael, on his own behalf; Hanson Bridgett by Angela M. Clements,
Attorney, for San Francisco In-Home Supportive Services Public Authority.
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 Ragui H. Michael (Michael) from the dismissal (attached) of
his unfair practice charge. The charge, as amended, alleged that the City & County of
San Francisco (Department of Aging and Adult Services) (CCSF DAAS) violated the Meyers-
Milias-Brown Act (MMBA)1 by withholding agency fees from Michael's pay without his
knowledge or permission. Before the amended charge was dismissed, Michael filed an
application for joinder of parties, requesting that the San Francisco In-Home Supportive
Services Public Authority (Public Authority) be joined as a respondent. 	By dismissal letter
1 MMBA is codified at Government Code section 3500 et seq.

dated August 1, 2012, the Office of the General Counsel granted Michael's request for joinder,
but dismissed the charge for failure to state a prima facie case. Michael filed a timely appeal.
The Board has reviewed the record in its entirety and given full consideration to the
appeal and to a statement in opposition to the appeal filed by the Public Authority. Based on
this review, the Board finds the warning and dismissal letters to be well-reasoned, adequately
supported by the record and in accordance with the applicable law. Accordingly, the Board
hereby adopts the warning and dismissal letters as the decision of the Board itself.
On appeal, Michael asserts that the CCSF DAAS falsely represented that union
membership is mandatory for homecare workers working more than 20 hours and coerced him
into paying union membership fees. He asserts that an unfair practice charge is therefore
warranted under the MMBA. Michael also takes issue with the Office of the General
Counsel's determination that the CCSF DAAS is not Michael's employer. Regardless of the
validity of either of Michael's assertions, however, his charge was ultimately dismissed not
because he named the wrong employer, but because he named the wrong respondent.
(Dismissal, pp. 4-5.)
PERB Regulation 32900 et seq." set forth procedures required to be followed by an
employee organization for providing notice and opportunity to object to agency fees. PERB
Regulation 32997 specifically provides that "[ijt shall be an unfair practice for an exclusive
representative to collect agency fees in violation of these regulations." Michael's dispute
is with the Service Employees International Union, Local 250, Health Care Workers Union,
AFL-CIO (SEIU), not with his employer. Therefore, he should have named SEIU, rather than
his employer as respondent. Because the unfair practice charge was filed against the wrong
respondent, we affirm the dismissal of the charge.
PERB Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8,
section 31001 et seq.
2
dated August 1, 2012, the Office of the General Counsel granted Michael's request for joinder,
but dismissed the charge for failure to state a prima facie case. Michael filed a timely appeal.
The Board has reviewed the record in its entirety and given full consideration to the
appeal and to a statement in opposition to the appeal filed by the Public Authority. 	Based on
this review, the Board finds the warning and dismissal letters to be well-reasoned, adequately
supported by the record and in accordance with the applicable law. Accordingly, the Board
hereby adopts the warning and dismissal letters as the decision of the Board itself.
On appeal, Michael asserts that the CCSF DAAS falsely represented that union
membership is mandatory for homecare workers working more than 20 hours and coerced him
into paying union membership fees. 	He asserts that an unfair practice charge is therefore
warranted under the MMBA. Michael also takes issue with the Office of the General
Counsel's determination that the CCSF DAAS is not Michael's employer. Regardless of the
validity of either of Michael's assertions, however, his charge was ultimately dismissed not
because he named the wrong employer, but because he named the wrong respondent.
(Dismissal, pp. 4-5.)
PERB Regulation 32900 et seq.2 set forth procedures required to be followed by an
employee organization for providing notice and opportunity to object to agency fees. 	PERB
Regulation 32997 specifically provides that "[i]t shall be an unfair practice for an exclusive
representative to collect agency fees in violation of these regulations." Michael's dispute
is with the Service Employees International Union, Local 250, Health Care Workers Union,
AFL-CIO (SEIU), not with his employer. Therefore, he should have named SEIU, rather than
his employer as respondent. Because the unfair practice charge was filed against the wrong
respondent, we affirm the dismissal of the charge.
2 PERB Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8,
section 31001 et seq.
2

ORDER
The unfair practice charge in Case No. SF-CE-829-M is hereby DISMISSED
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
Members Dowdin Calvillo and Huguenin joined in this Decision.
ORDER
3
The unfair practice charge in Case No. SF-CE-829-M is hereby DISMISSED
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
Members Dowdin Calvillo and Huguenin joined in this Decision.

EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor	STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
San Francisco Regional Office
1330 Broadway, Suite 1532
Oakland, CA 94612-2514
Telephone: (510) 622-1021
Fax: (510) 622-1027
August 1, 2012
Ragui H. Michael
Re: 	Ragui H. Michael v. City & County of San Francisco (Department of Aging and Adult
Services
Unfair Practice Charge No. SF-CE-829-M
DISMISSAL LETTER
Dear Mr. Michael:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on May 4, 2011. In the initial charge, Ragui H. Michael (Michael or
Charging Party) alleges that the City & County of San Francisco (Department of Aging and
Adult Services) (CCSF or Respondent) violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA or
Act) by withholding agency fees from his pay without his knowledge or permission. CCSF
filed a position statement on June 27, 2011.
Charging Party was informed in the attached Warning Letter dated January 24, 2012, 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, the charge should be amended. Charging Party was further advised
that, unless the charge was amended to state a prima facie case or withdrawn on or before
February 13, 2012, the charge would be dismissed. Subsequently, an extension of time to
respond was granted.
On April 16, 2012, Charging Party filed a First Amended Charge. The First Amended Charge
identifies the respondent as the San Francisco In-Home Supportive Services Public Authority
(Public Authority). On May 18, 2012, Charging Party filed an Application for Joinder of
Parties, asking that the Public Authority be joined as a respondent to this case pursuant to
PERB Regulation 32164."
The MMBA is codified at Government Code section 3500 et seq. The text of the
MMBA and PERB Regulations may be found at www.perb.ca.gov.
2 PERB regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.
STATE
OF
CALIFORNIA 	EDMUND
G.
BROWN JR.,
Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
San Francisco Regional Office
1330 Broadway, Suite 1532
Oakland, CA 94612-25 l 4
Telephone (510) 622-1021
Fax (510) 622-1027
August
1,
2012
Ragui H. Michael
214 Garces Drive
San Francisco, CA 94132
Re: 	Ragui
H.
Michael
v.
City & County
of
San Francisco (Department
of
Aging and
Adult
Services)
Unfair Practice Charge No. SF-CE-829-M
DISMISSAL LETTER
Dear Mr. Michael:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
(PERB or Board) on May 4, 2011. 	In the initial charge, Ragui
H.
Michael (Michael or	Board
Charging Party) alleges that the City & County
of
San Francisco (Department
of
Aging
and
Adult Services) (CCSF or Respondent) violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA
or
Act) 1 by withholding agency fees from his pay without his knowledge or permission.
	CCSF
filed a position statement on June 27, 2011.
Charging Party was informed in the attached Warning Letter dated January 24, 2012, 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, the charge should be amended. 	Charging Party was further advised
that, unless the charge was amended to state a prima facie case or withdrawn on or before
February 13, 2012, the charge would be dismissed. 	Subsequently, an extension
of
time to
respond was granted.
On April 16, 2012, Charging Party filed a First Amended Charge. The First Amended Charge
identifies the respondent as the San Francisco In-Home Supportive Services Public Authority
(Public Authority). 	On May 18, 2012, Charging Party filed an Application for Joinder
of
Parties, asking that the Public Authority be joined as a respondent to this case pursuant to
PERB Regulation 32164.2
1 The MMBA is codified at Government Code section 3500 et seq. 	The text of the
MMBA and PERB Regulations may be found at www.perb.ca.gov.
2 PERB regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.

SF-CE-829-M
August 1, 2012
Page 2
On June 4, 2012, the CCSF filed a further position statement asking that it be dismissed with
prejudice as a party in this matter. On June 8, 2012, the Public Authority filed a position
statement objecting to joinder.
For the reasons discussed below, the Public Authority is appropriately joined as a party in this
matter. As further discussed below, the First Amended Charge does not cure the deficiencies
discussed in the Warning Letter. The First Amended Charge does not state a prima facie case
that either the CCSF or the Public Authority committed a violation of the MMBA. Therefore,
for the reasons discussed below and in the January 24, 2012, Warning Letter, the charge is
dismissed.
Summary of Facts and PERB Investigation
As stated in the Warning Letter, Michael provides in-home supportive services (IHSS) to his
disabled parent. The CCSF and its Department of Aging and Adult Services (DAAS)
processes his timesheets and makes payroll deductions, and his paychecks are issued by the
State Controller's Office.
Also as stated in the Warning Letter, PERB's investigation reveals that CCSF has established a
Public Authority to provide for delivery of IHSS services. The Public Authority is established
by California statutory law and City Ordinance. (Welf. & Inst. Code, $ 12301.6; San Francisco
Administrative Code, $8 70.1 et seq.) According to CCSF, there is a Collective Bargaining
Agreement (CBA) between the Public Authority and Service Employees International Union
Local 250 (SEIU). This CBA governs terms and conditions of employment and provides for
deduction of an agency fee for IHSS providers who work more than 25 hours per month.
Michael first learned on January 26, 2011 that the CCSF was deducting money from his
paycheck for union dues. A DAAS social worker named Brenda McGregor (McGregor) told
Michael that the dues were paid to the SEIU. She stated that automatic union membership was
mandatory for homecare providers working 20 or more hours, and did not provide him with
any information about the Public Authority. When Michael enrolled as an IHSS provider for
his parent, the Public Authority was not involved and never contacted Michael about his
employment.
In the First Amended Charge, Michael alleges that he has never applied to be a member of
SEIU and that the deduction of dues is unauthorized. The Public Authority never notified him
of the existence of the CBA. Michael's primary point of contact was with McGregor of the
CCSF DAAS. The DAAS repeatedly provided him with incorrect information about the dues
deduction, and the Public Authority never provided him with any information at all. Michael
learned later that McGregor had sent a union membership enrollment form to SEIU, without
his knowledge or permission.
In its position statement dated June 27, 2011, the CCSF alleges that it is not Michael's
employer for any purpose. The Public Authority, in its position statement dated June 8, 2012,
likewise states that it is not Michael's employer and that the MMBA does not apply.
SF-CE-829-M
August
1,
2012
Page 2
On June 4, 2012, the CCSF filed a further position statement asking that it
be
dismissed
with
prejudice as a party in this matter. 	On June 8, 2012, the Public Authority filed a position
statement objecting to joinder.
For the reasons discussed below, the Public Authority is appropriately
joined
as a party
in
this
matter. As further discussed below, the First Amended Charge does not cure the deficiencies
discussed in the Warning Letter. The First Amended Charge does not state a prima facie
case
that either the CCSF or the Public Authority committed a violation
of
the MMBA. Therefore,
for the reasons discussed below and in the January 24, 2012, Warning Letter, the charge is
dismissed.
Summary
of
Facts and PERB Investigation
As stated in the Warning Letter, Michael provides in-home supportive services (IHSS)
to
his
disabled parent. The CCSF and its Department
of
Aging and Adult Services (DAAS)
processes his timesheets and makes payroll deductions, and his paychecks are issued
by
the
State Controller's Office.
Also as stated in the Warning Letter,
PERB's
investigation reveals that CCSF has established a
Public Authority to provide for delivery
of
IHSS services. The Public Authority is established
by California statutory law and City Ordinance. 	(Welf. & Inst.
Code,§
12301.6; San Francisco
Administrative Code,
§§
70.1 et seq.) According to CCSF, there is a Collective
Bargaining
Agreement (CBA) between the Public Authority and Service Employees International
Union
Local 250 (SEIU). This CBA governs terms and conditions
of
employment and provides for
deduction
of
an agency fee for IHSS providers who work more than 25 hours per month.
Michael first learned on January 26, 2011 that the CCSF was deducting money from his
paycheck for union dues. 	A DAAS social worker named Brenda McGregor (McGregor) told
Michael that the dues were paid to the SEIU. She stated that automatic union membership was
mandatory for homecare providers working 20 or more hours, and did not provide him with
any information about the Public Authority. When Michael enrolled as an IHSS provider for
his parent, the Public Authority was not involved and never contacted Michael about his
employment.
In the First Amended Charge, Michael alleges that he has never applied to be a member
of
SEIU and that the deduction
of
dues is unauthorized. The Public Authority never notified him
of
the existence
of
the CBA. Michael's primary point
of
contact was with McGregor
of
the
CCSF DAAS. 	DAAS repeatedly provided 	with 	information about the dues
deduction, and the Public Authority never provided him with any information at all. 	Michael
learned later that McGregor had sent a union membership enrollment form to SEIU, without
his knowledge or permission.
In its position statement dated June 27, 2011, the CCSF alleges that it is not Michael's
employer for any purpose. The Public Authority, in its position statement dated June 8, 2012,
likewise states that it is not Michael's employer and that the MMBA does not apply.

SF-CE-829-M
August 1, 2012
Page 3
The Public Authority is Appropriately Joined as a Party in This Matter
PERB Regulation 32164, subdivision (c), provides:
The Board may allow joinder if it determines that the party has a
substantial interest in the case or will contribute substantially to a
just resolution of the case and will not unduly impede the
proceeding.
PERB Regulation 32164, subdivision (d), provides:
The Board may order joinder of an employer, employee
organization or individual, subject to its jurisdiction, on
application of any party or its own motion if it determines that:
(1) In the absence of the employer, employee organization or
individual, as a party, complete relief cannot be accorded; or
(2) The employer, employee organization or individual has an
interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that
the disposition of the action in their absence may:
(A) As a practical matter impair or impede their ability to
protect that interest; or
B) Leave any of the parties subject to a substantial risk of
incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations
by reason of said interest.
The crux of Michael's charge is that his employer failed to inform him that an agency fee or
union dues would be deducted from his paycheck. Michael alleges that he received conflicting
information from various sources regarding which entity was his employer for the purposes of
agency fee deduction. His paychecks are issued by the State Controller; his parent directs him
with respect to services he provides; the CCSF/DAAS processes his timesheets; and the Public
Authority delivers IHSS services for CCSF. Questions of joint or dual employment may
properly be addressed by the Board. (See, e.g., Ravenswood City Elementary School District
(2004) PERB Decision No. 1660 [finding that charter school, not public school district, was
appropriate employer].)
Providers of IHSS services may sign up for a registry maintained by the Public Authority,
which refers them to recipients in need of services. These registry providers are deemed
employees of the Public Authority for the purposes of wages, benefits, and other terms and
conditions of employment. (Welf. & Inst. Code, $ 12301.6, subd. (c).) Alternatively,
recipients of services may select their own provider, such as a family member. Michael's
disabled parent used this option. These providers are "referred to the Public Authority" for the
purposes of wages, benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment. (Welf. & Inst.
Code, $ 12301.6, subd. (h).)
SF-CE-829-M
August
1,
2012
Page
3
The Public Authoritv
is
Appropriately Joined as a Party in This Matter
PERB
Regulation 32164, subdivision (c), provides:
The Board may allow
joinder
if
it determines that the party has a
substantial interest in the case or will contribute substantially to a
just
resolution
of
the case and will not unduly impede the
proceeding.
PERB Regulation 32164, subdivision (d), provides:
The Board may order joinder
of
an employer, employee
organization or individual, subject to its jurisdiction, on
application
of
any party or its own motion
if
it determines that:
(1) In the absence
of
the employer, employee organization or
individual, as a party, complete relief cannot be accorded; or
(2) The employer, employee organization or individual has an
interest relating to the subject
of
the action and is so situated that
the disposition
of
the action in their absence may:
(A) As a practical
matter
impair or impede their ability to
protect that interest; or
(B) Leave any
of
the parties subject to a substantial risk
of
incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations
by reason
of
said interest.
The crux
of
Michael's charge is that his employer failed to inform him that an agency fee or
union dues would be deducted from his paycheck. Michael alleges that he received conflicting
information from various sources regarding which entity was his employer for the purposes
of
agency fee deduction. His paychecks are issued by the State Controller; his parent directs him
with respect to services he provides; the CCSF/DAAS processes his timesheets; and the Public
Authority delivers IHSS services for CCSF. Questions
of
joint or dual employment may
properly be addressed by the Board. (See, e.g., Ravenswood City Elementary School District
(2004) PERB Decision No. 1660 [finding that charter school, not public school district, was
appropriate employer].)
Providers
of
IHSS services may sign up for a registry maintained by the Public Authority,
which refers them to recipients in need
of
services. These registry providers are deemed
employees
of
the Public Authority for the purposes
of
wages, benefits, and other terms and
conditions
of
employment. (Welf. & Inst. Code,§ 12301.6, subd. (c).) Alternatively,
recipients
of
services may select their own provider, such as a family member. Michael's
disabled parent used this option. These providers are "referred to the Public Authority" for the
purposes of wages, benefits, and other terms and conditions
of
employment. (Welf. & Inst.
Code, § 12301.6, subd. (h).)

SF-CE-829-M
August 1, 2012
Page 4
The San Francisco Administrative Code, section 70.3, subdivision (f) specifically states that
IHSS providers are not employees of CCSF for any purpose. It further states that the Public
Authority "shall be deemed to be the employer of IHSS personnel" for the purposes of the
MMBA. (San Francisco Administrative Code, $ 70.3, subd. (g).)
Thus, as stated in the Warning Letter, it appears that the Public Authority arguably may be
considered to be Michael's employer for purposes of an unfair practice charge filed under the
MMBA. As such, the Public Authority arguably has a substantial interest in this case or will
contribute substantially to a just resolution of the case. Disallowing joinder at this stage of the
proceedings might subject all parties to inconsistent or multiple obligations. Accordingly, the
request for joinder is granted.
The Charge is Dismissed Because Charging Party Does Not State a Prima Facie Case
Against Either CCSF or the Public Authority
Government Code section 3500 provides that the statutory purpose of the MMBA is to allow
for full communication between public employers and their employees. Michael alleges that
he was enrolled as a member of the union without his knowledge or consent in violation of this
provision and of Government Code section 3502. He contends that this violation impacts
numerous other IHSS providers who are not enrolled in the Public Authority's registry and
who may not be aware of their rights under the MMBA.
Michael alleges that the DAAS provided the State Controller's office with false information,
resulting in the unauthorized dues deduction. Michael contends that this violates Government
Code section 3508.5. Michael further argues that the dues deduction is a violation of Labor
Code sections 224 and 225 and is a misdemeanor.
As stated in the Warning Letter, the MMBA authorizes an agency fee arrangement under
which employees are required, as a condition of employment, to join the union and pay union
dues, or refrain from membership and pay an agency fee. (Gov. Code, $ 3502.5.) The union is
required to provide annual written notice to each nonmember who will be required to pay an
agency fee. (PERB Regulation 32992.) Enough information must be provided to potential
agency fee objectors to make an intelligent objection, and the information must be provided
with the initial collection of the agency fee. (Office of Professional Employees International
Union, Local 29, AFL-CIO & CLC (Fowles) (2012) PERB Decision No. 2236-M.) The
union's failure to provide adequate notice, or its provision of inaccurate information, may be
the basis for an unfair practice charge. (Ibid.)
PERB has held that the proper respondent in an action to challenge the amount of an agency
fee deduction is the union or exclusive representative. (National Education Association
(Henkel, et al.) (1987) PERB Decision No. 656; Capistrano Unified School District (1984)
PERB Decision No. 437.) The union, not the employer, collects the fee, and the union must
follow certain procedures in calculating the amount of the fee, including reducing the fee
proportionally to account for money used for political purposes. (Ibid.) An employer is not
required to obtain written authorization before withholding agency fee deductions from
SF-CE-829-M
August
1,
2012
Page 4
The San Francisco Administrative Code, section 70.3, subdivision (f) specifically states
that
IHSS providers are not employees
of
CCSF for any purpose. It further states that the
Public
Authority "shall be deemed to be the employer
ofIHSS
personnel" for the purposes
of
the
MMBA. 	(San Francisco Administrative Code, § 70.3, subd. (g).)
Thus, as stated in the Warning Letter, it appears that the Public Authority arguably may
be
considered to be Michael's employer for purposes
of
an unfair practice charge filed under
the
MMBA. As such, the Public Authority arguably has a substantial interest in this case
or will
contribute substantially to a
just
resolution
of
the case. Disallowing joinder at this stage
of
the
proceedings might subject all parties to inconsistent or multiple obligations. 	Accordingly,
the
request for
joinder
is granted.
The Charge is Dismissed Because Charging Party Does Not State a Prima Facie Case
Against Either CCSF or the Public Authoritv
Government Code section 3500 provides that the statutory purpose
of
the
MMBA
is to
allow
for full communication between public employers and their employees. Michael alleges
that
he was enrolled as a member
of
the union without his knowledge or consent in violation
of
this
provision and
of
Government Code section 3 502. He contends that this violation impacts
numerous other IHSS providers who are not enrolled in the Public Authority's registry
and
who may not be aware
of
their rights under the MMBA.
Michael alleges that the DAAS provided the State Controller's office with false information,
resulting in the unauthorized dues deduction. 	Michael contends that this violates Government
Code section 3508.5. Michael further argues that the dues deduction is a violation
of
Labor
Code sections 224 and 225 and is a misdemeanor.
As stated in the Warning Letter, the
:t-AMBA
authorizes an agency fee arrangement under
which employees are required, as a condition
of
employment, to
join
the union and pay
union
dues, or refrain from membership and pay an agency fee. 	(Gov. Code, § 3502.5.) The union is
required to provide annual written notice to each nonmember who will be required to pay an
agency fee. 	(PERB Regulation 32992.) Enough information must be provided to potential
agency fee objectors to make an intelligent objection, and the information must be provided
with the initial collection
of
the agency fee. 	( Office
of
Professional Employees International
Union, Local 29, AFL-CIO & CLC (Fowles) (201 	PERB Decision No. 	6-M.) The
union's failure to provide adequate notice, or its provision
of
inaccurate information,
may be
the basis for an unfair practice charge. (Ibid)
PERB has held that the proper respondent in an action to challenge the amount
of
an agency
fee deduction is 	union or exclusive representative. (National Education Association
(Henkel, et al.) (1987) PERB Decision No. 656; Capistrano Unified School District (1984)
PERB Decision No. 437.) The union, not the employer, collects the fee, and the union must
follow certain procedures in calculating the amount
of
the fee, including reducing the fee
proportionally to account for money used for political purposes. (Ibid) 	An employer is not
required to obtain written authorization before withholding agency fee deductions from

SF-CE-829-M
August 1, 2012
Page 5
employee paychecks. (Sweetwater Union High School District (2001) PERB Decision
No. 1417.) The employer does not have an obligation to ensure that a union complies with
notice requirements. (Ibid.; see also San Ramon Valley Unified School District (1989) PERB
Decision No. 751.)
Accordingly, neither the Public Authority nor the CCSF has an affirmative obligation under the
MMBA to advise Michael of agency fee deductions, procedures or requirements. The general
statutory purpose of the MMBA to promote communication between public employers and
their employees does not impose a specific obligation on the employer to inform employees
about agency fee requirements or union membership. (Gov. Code, $ 3500.) MMBA section
3508.5, subdivision (b), requires a public employer to deduct agency fees and transmit them to
an exclusive representative as provided by an agency fee agreement. The facts presented here
do not state a prima facie violation of either of these sections. Regardless of whether the
Public Authority or the CCSF is considered Michael's employer, a prima facie violation of the
MMBA is not stated.
Michael alleges that either the CCSF or Public Authority violated Labor Code sections 224 and
225. PERB does not have jurisdiction to enforce violations of the Labor Code. (State of
California (Department of Personnel Administration) (2009) PERB Decision No. 2018-S.)
Therefore, these allegations do not state a prima facie case.
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.)
SF-CE-829-M
August
1,
2012
Page 5
employee paychecks. (Sweetwater Union High School District (2001) PERB Decision
No. 1417.) The employer does not have an obligation to ensure that a union complies with
notice requirements. 	(Ibid.; see also San Ramon Valley Unified School District (1989)
PERB
Decision No. 751.)
Accordingly, neither the Public Authority nor the CCSF has an affirmative obligation under the
MMBA to advise Michael
of
agency fee deductions, procedures or requirements. 	The general
statutory purpose
of
the MMBA to promote communication between public employers and
their employees does not impose a specific obligation on the employer to inform employees
about agency Jee requirements or union membership. (Gov. Code, § 3500.) 	MMBA section
3508.5, subdivision (b ), requires a public employer to deduct agency fees and transmit
them
to
an exclusive representative as provided by an agency fee agreement. The facts presented here
do not state a prima facie violation
of
either
of
these sections. Regardless
of
whether the
Public Authority or the CCSF is considered Michael's employer, a prima facie violation
of
the
MMBA is not stated.
Michael alleges that either the CCSF or Public Authority violated Labor Code sections 224 and
225. PERB does not have jurisdiction to enforce violations
of
the Labor Code. (State
of
California (Department
of
Personnel Administration) (2009) PERB Decision No. 2018-S.)
Therefore, these allegations do not state a prima facie case.
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, §§ 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, 	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.)

111
SF-CE-829-M
August 1, 2012
Page 6
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).)
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.)
11 1
SF-CE-829-M
August
1,
2012
Page 6
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).)
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.)
I
II
I
II

SF-CE-829-M
August 1, 2012
Page 7
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. SUZANNE MURPHY
General Counsel
By
Laura Z. Davis
Regional Attorney
Attachment
cc: 	Molly L. Kaban, Attorney
Janet Richardson, Deputy City Attorney
SF-CE-829-M
August
1,
2012
Page 7
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. SUZANNE MURPHY
aura
Z.
Davis
Regional Attorney
Attachment
cc: 	Molly L. Kaban, Attorney
Janet Richardson, Deputy City Attorney

EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor	STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
San Francisco Regional Office
1330 Broadway, Suite 1532
Oakland, CA 94612-2514
Telephone: (510) 622-1021
Fax: (510) 622-1027
January 24, 2012
Ragui H. Michael
Re: 	Ragui H. Michael v. City & County of San Francisco (Department of Aging and Adult
Services)
Unfair Practice Charge No. SF-CE-829-M
WARNING LETTER
Dear Mr. Michael:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on May 4, 2011. Ragui H. Michael (Michael or Charging Party)
alleges that the City & County of San Francisco (Department of Aging and Adult Services)
(CCSF or Respondent) violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA or Act) by
withholding agency fees from his pay without his knowledge or permission.
Facts Alleged by Charging Party
The State of California provides services programs for disabled adults who choose to live
independently in their homes, with assistance. The In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS)
program is authorized by California Welfare and Institutions Code section 12000 et seq. The
Personal Care Services Program (PCSP) is authorized by California Welfare and Institutions
Code section 14000 et seq.
Michael provides in-home care and services to his permanently disabled mother and is paid for
these services. Michael does not allege when he began providing these services. The CCSF
Department of Aging and Adult Services (DAAS) processes Michael's timesheets and makes
payroll deductions, but his paychecks are issued by the State Controller's Office.
In November 2010, Michael's mother appealed an action taken by DAAS. The resulting
decision by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), dated January 26, 2011, found that Michael
was a PCSP provider, not an IHSS provider as he had always thought. This incident caused
Michael to question a notation on his paystub, which showed that some money was deducted
from his pay as "dues".
The MMBA is codified at Government Code section 3500 et seq. The text of the
MMBA and PERB Regulations may be found at www.perb.ca.gov.
STATE
OF
CALIFORNIA 	EDMUND
G.
BROWN
JR., Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
PE.R.B
San Francisco Regional Office
l 330 Broadway, Suite 1532
Oakland, CA 94612-25 l 4
Telephone (510) 622-1021
Fax: (510) 622-1027
January 24,
2012
Ragui H. Michael
214 Garces
Drive
San Francisco, CA 94132
Re: 	Ragui H Michael
v.
City & County
of
San Francisco (Department
of
Aging and
Adult
Services)
Unfair Practice Charge No. SF-CE-829-M
WARNING LETTER
Dear Mr. Michael:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on May 4, 2011. 	Ragui H. Michael (Michael or Charging Party)
alleges that the City & County
of
San Francisco (Department
of
Aging and Adult Services)
(CCSF or Respondent) violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act
(MMBA
or Act) 1 by
withholding agency fees from his pay without his knowledge or permission.
Facts Alleged by Charging Party
The State
of
California provides services programs for disabled adults who choose to live
independently in their homes, with assistance. The In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS)
program is authorized by California Welfare and Institutions Code section 12000 et seq.
	The
Personal Care Services Program (PCSP) is authorized by California Welfare and Institutions
Code section 14000 et seq.
Michael provides in-home care and services to his permanently disabled mother and is
paid
for
these services. Michael does not allege when he began providing these services. The
CCSF
Department
of
Aging and Adult Services (DAAS) processes Michael's timesheets and
makes
payroll deductions, but his paychecks are issued by the State Controller's Office.
November 2010, Michael's mother appealed an action taken by DAAS. 	The resulting
decision by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), dated January 26, 2011, found that Michael
was a PCSP provider, not an IHSS provider as he had always thought. This incident caused
Michael to question a 	on 	paystub, which showed that some money was deducted
from his pay as "dues".
The MMBA is codified at Government Code section 3500 et seq, 	The text of the
MMBA and PERB Regulations may be found at www.perb.ca.gov,

SF-CE-829-M
January 24, 2012
Page 2
Michael asked a DAAS representative to explain what the dues were for and was told they
were union dues payable to SEIU because Michael "was a DAAS employee." SEIU told
Michael that there was no Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between SEIU and DAAS.
Michael alleges that he never consented to join a union or have union dues withheld, and that
the dues are not authorized by a CBA.
Fact Provided by Respondent
CCSF asserts that Michael is not an employee of CCSF. CCSF provides a declaration from its
Director of Human Resources stating that according to CCSF personnel records from January
2000 to the present, Michael has not been employed by any department of CCSF, including
DAAS.
Under California Welfare and Institutions Code section 12301.6, CCSF has established an
independent Public Authority to provide for the delivery of IHSS. The Public Authority is
established by City Ordinance. (San Francisco Administrative Code, Section 70.1 et seq.) The
Ordinance provides that the Public Authority is deemed to be the employer for Independent
Providers (IPs) who provide IHSS services to individual recipients.
DAAS employs a Director of IHSS, Megan Elliott (Elliott). Elliott provides a declaration
stating that the Public Authority is the employer of record for IPs who provide services directly
to recipients. Recipients hire, fire, and supervise the work of the IPs. The Public Authority
bargains collectively with the exclusive representative of the IPs. The State of California
issues paychecks directly to the IPs and makes deductions from their paychecks, including
union dues and agency fees. The CCSF DAAS receives IP timesheets and forwards the data to
the State of California. DAAS has never employed Ragui Michael.
CCSF provides portions of an undated CBA between the Public Authority and Service
Employees International Union Local 250 (SEIU 250). A complete executed copy of the CBA
is available on the Public Authority's website. Section 2 of the CBA recites that the Public
Authority recognizes SEIU 250 as the exclusive representative of IHSS IPs in CCSF. Section
4(D) of the CBA provides that providers who work 25 or more hours per month must either
become union members or pay a fair share fee, also known as an agency fee.
PERB's Investigation
According to the Public Authority, IHSS IPs provide services under one of three funding
programs. One is the PCSP, authorized by California Welfare and Institutions Code section
14132.95. The other two are referred to as "IHSS-Residual" (Welf. & Inst. Code, $$ 12300 et
seq.) and "IHSS Independence Plus." (Welf. & Inst. Code, $ 14132.951.) Recipients of IP
services are covered by one of the three funding programs, depending upon the individual's
age, family relationships, and source of income. IPs of services under all three funding
programs are considered IHSS IPs, and are in the bargaining unit covered by the CBA,
employed by the Public Authority, and exclusively represented by SEIU. The CBA has a
SF-CE-829-M
January 24, 2012
Page 2
Michael asked a DAAS representative to explain what the dues were for and was told they
were union dues payable to SEIU because Michael "was a DAAS employee." SEIU told
Michael that there was no Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between SEIU and
DAAS.
Michael alleges that he never consented to join a union or have union dues withheld, and
that
the dues are not authorized by a CBA.
Fact Provided by
Respondent
CCSF asserts that Michael is not an employee
of
CCSF. CCSF provides a declaration from its
Director
of
Human Resources stating that according to CCSF personnel records from January
2000 to the present, Michael has not been employed by any department
of
CCSF, including
DAAS.
Under California Welfare and Institutions Code section 12301.6, CCSF has established an
independent Public Authority to provide for the delivery
of
IHSS. The Public Authority is
established by City Ordinance. (San Francisco Administrative Code, Section 70
.1
et seq.) The
Ordinance provides that the Public Authority is deemed to be the employer for Independent
Providers (IPs) who provide IHSS services to individual recipients.
DAAS employs a Director
of
IHSS, Megan Elliott (Elliott). Elliott provides a declaration
stating that the Public Authority is the employer
of
record for IPs who provide services directly
to recipients. Recipients hire, fire, and supervise the work
of
the IPs. 	The Public Authority
bargains collectively with the exclusive representative
of
the IPs. The State
of
California
issues paychecks directly to the IPs and makes deductions from their paychecks, including
union dues and agency fees. 	The CCSF DAAS receives IP timesheets and forwards the
data
to
the State
of
California. DAAS has never employed Ragui Michael.
CCSF provides portions
of
an undated CBA between the Public Authority and Service
Employees International Union Local 250 (SEIU 250). A complete executed copy
of
the
CBA
is available on the Public Authority's website. Section 2
of
the CBA recites that the Public
Authority recognizes SEIU 250 as the exclusive representative ofIHSS IPs in CCSF. 	Section
4(D) of the CBA provides that providers who work 25 or more hours per month must either
become union members or pay a fair share fee, also known as an agency fee.
PERB's Investigation
According to the Public Authority, IHSS IPs provide services under one
of
three funding
programs. One is the PCSP, authorized by California Welfare and Institutions Code section
14132.95. The other two are referred to as "IHSS-Residual" (Welf. & Inst. Code,§§ 12300 et
seq.) and 	S Independence Plus." (Welf. & Inst. Code,§ 14132.951.) Recipients 	IP
services are covered by one of the three fonding programs, depending upon the individual's
age, family relationships, and source of income. IPs of services under all three funding
programs are considered IHSS IPs, and are in the bargaining unit covered by the CBA,
employed by the Public Authority, and exclusively represented by SEIU. 	The CBA has a

SF-CE-829-M
January 24, 2012
Page 3
duration of November 30, 2006 to November 30, 2007, and continues in force and effect by
consent of the parties.
Discussion
A. 	Statutory Authority for Agency Fee
MMBA section 3502.5 authorizes a public agency and a recognized exclusive representative
(i.e., union) to enter into an agency shop agreement. This statute provides that, under an
agency shop agreement, employees of the public agency are required, as a condition of
employment, either to join the union and pay union dues, or to refrain from joining the union
and pay an agency fee in lieu of union dues. Here, there is a bargaining relationship between
the Public Authority and SEIU. SEIU is the exclusive representative of IPs covered by the
IHSS. Under the MMBA, Michael may be required to pay union dues, or, in the alternative, an
agency fee. Section 4(D) of the CBA requires IPs who work 25 or more hours per month to
pay an agency fee or union dues. Based upon the facts provided, this is a lawful requirement
authorized under the MMBA.
B. 	The Public Authority is Michael's Employer for Purposes of the MMBA
As authorized by the Welfare and Institutions Code, CCSF has established an independent
agency, the Public Authority, to provide for the delivery of IHSS. The Public Authority is a
separate entity from CCSF and employees of the Public Authority shall not be employees of
the CCSF for any purpose. (San Francisco Administrative Code, $8 70.3(a); (f).) The Public
Authority is the employer of IHSS personnel for the purposes of the MMBA. (San Francisco
Administrative Code, $ 70.3(g).)
No facts are alleged to establish that CCSF is Michael's employer." CCSF/DAAS serves as the
financial liaison between the Public Authority and the State of California. Its role appears
limited to receiving timesheets from IPs and forwarding them to the State Controller's Office,
along with procuring and distributing funds for the Public Authority. (San Francisco
Administrative Code, $ 70.4(c).) The CBA between the Public Authority and SEIU 250 recites
that the Public Authority is the employer for purposes of collective bargaining.
According to the information received, the Public Authority-not CCSF-is the employer for
bargaining purposes of IPs providing PCPS services as well as IPs providing services under the
other two funding programs. The CCSF is not Michael's employer within the meaning of the
MMBA. A charging party who is not an employee of the respondent at the time a charge is
filed does not have legal standing to pursue the charge. (San Francisco Unified School District
See also Service Employees International Union, Local 434 v. County of Los Angeles
(1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 761, holding that IHSS providers in Los Angeles County were not
County employees for the purposes of the MMBA.
SF-CE-829-M
January 24, 2012
Page 3
duration
of
November 30, 2006 to
November
30, 2007, and continues in force and effect
by
consent
of
the parties.
Discussion
A. 	Statutory Authority for Agency Fee
MMBA
section 3502.5 authorizes a public agency and a recognized exclusive representative
(i.e., union) to enter into an agency shop agreement. 	This statute provides that, under an
agency shop agreement, employees
of
the public agency are required, as a condition
of
employment, either to join the union and pay union dues, or to refrain from
joining
the
union
and pay an agency fee in lieu
of
union dues. Here, there is a bargaining relationship
between
the Public Authority and SEIU. 	SEIU is the exclusive representative
of
IPs covered by
the
IHSS. 	Under the MMBA, Michael may be required to pay union dues, or, in the alternative, an
agency fee. 	Section 4(D)
of
the CBA
requires IPs who work 25 or more hours per
month
to
pay
an agency fee or union dues. Based upon the facts provided, this is a lawful requirement
authorized under the MMBA.
.
B. 	The Public Authority is Michael's Employer for Purposes
of
the
MMBA
As authorized by the Welfare and Institutions Code, CCSF has established
an
independent
agency, the Public Authority, to provide for the delivery
of
IHSS. 	The Public Authority is a
separate entity from CCSF and employees
of
the Public Authority shall not
be
employees
of
the CCSF for any purpose. (San Francisco Administrative Code, §§ 70.3(a); (f).) The Public
Authority is the employer
of
IHSS personnel for the purposes
of
the MMBA. 	(San Francisco
Administrative Code, § 70.3(g).)
No
facts are alleged to establish that CCSF is Michael's employer.2 CCSF/DAAS serves as the
financial liaison between the Public Authority and the State
of
California. Its role appears
limited to receiving timesheets from IPs and forwarding them to the State Controller's Office,
along with procuring and distributing funds for the Public Authority. 	(San Francisco
Administrative
Code,§
70.4(c).) The CBA between the Public Authority and SEIU 250 recites
that the Public Authority is the employer for purposes
of
collective bargaining.
According to the information received, the Public
Authority-not CCSF--is
the employer for
bargaining purposes
of
IPs providing PCPS services as well as IPs providing services under the
other two funding programs. The CCSF is not Michael's employer within the meaning
of
the
MMBA. A charging party who is not an employee
of
the respondent at the time a charge is
filed does not have legal standing to pursue the charge. (San Francisco Unified School District
See also Service Employees International Union, 	Local 434
v.
County
of
Los Angeles
(1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 761, holding that IHSS providers in Los Angeles County were not
County employees for the purposes of the MMBA.

SF-CE-829-M
January 24, 2012
Page 4
(2009) PERB Decision No. 2000.) Therefore, Michael's charge against CCSF must be
dismissed.
C. 	Timeliness Not Established
Michael alleges that he first became aware that an agency fee was being deducted from his
paycheck on January 26, 2011, following a hearing before an ALJ which caused him to
question the accuracy of information provided by the DAAS.
PERB is prohibited from issuing a complaint with respect to any charge based upon an alleged
unfair practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge. (Coachella
Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District v. Public Employment Relations Board (2005) 35
Cal.4th 1072.) The limitations period begins to run once the charging party knows, or should
have known, of the conduct underlying the charge. (Gavilan Joint Community College District
(1996) PERB Decision No. 1177.)' A charging party bears the burden of demonstrating that
the charge is timely filed. (Tehachapi Unified School District (1993) PERB Decision No.
1024; State of California (Department of Insurance) (1997) PERB Decision No. 1197-S.) The
instant charge was filed on May 4, 2011. Therefore, allegations occurring prior to November
4, 2010, are untimely filed.
It is unclear from the facts alleged whether there had been a deduction for "dues" on Michael's
paycheck prior to January 26, 2011. Michael does not allege that this was his first paycheck,
but rather that this was the first paycheck he scrutinized and noticed that there was a deduction
for dues. Michael does not affirmatively allege that he did not know and should not have
known, before November 4, 2010, that union dues or agency fees were being deducted from
his paycheck.
In conclusion, PERB's investigation reveals that Michael may be lawfully required to pay an
agency fee to SEIU as a condition of his employment. Michael's employer for purposes of the
MMBA is the Public Authority, not CCSF and CCSF is not the proper respondent in this case.
Moreover, Michael does not affirmatively allege facts sufficient to establish that the charge is
timely filed.
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
When interpreting the MMBA, it is appropriate to take guidance from cases
interpreting the National Labor Relations Act and California labor relations statutes with
parallel provisions. (Fire Fighters Union v. City of Vallejo (1974) 12 Cal.3d 608.)
* 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
SF-CE-829-M
January 24, 2012
Page 4
(2009) PERB Decision No. 2000.) Therefore, Michael's charge against CCSF must be
dismissed.
C. 	Timeliness Not Established
Michael alleges that he first became aware that an agency fee was being deducted from his
paycheck on January 26, 2011, following a hearing before an ALJ which caused him to
question the accuracy
of
information provided by the DAAS.
PERB is prohibited from issuing a complaint with respect to any charge based upon an alleged
unfair practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing
of
the charge. (Coachella
Valley Mosquito
and
Vector Control District
v.
Public Employment Relations
Board
(2005) 35
Cal.4th 1072.) The limitations period begins to run once the charging party knows, or should
have known,
of
the conduct underlying the charge. (Gavilan Joint Community College District
( 1996) PERB Decision No. 1177.)3 A charging party bears the burden
of
demonstrating that
the charge is timely filed. 	(Tehachapi Unified School District (1993) PERB Decision No.
1024; State
of
California (Department
of
Insurance) (1997) PERB Decision No. 1197-S.) The
instant charge was filed on May 4, 2011. 	Therefore, allegations occurring prior to November
4, 2010, are untimely filed.
It is unclear from the facts alleged whether there had been a deduction for "dues" on Michael's
paycheck prior to January 26, 2011. Michael does not allege that this was his first paycheck,
but rather that this was the first paycheck he scrutinized and noticed that there was a deduction
for dues. Michael does not affirmatively allege that he did not know and should not have
known, before November 4, 2010, that union dues or agency fees were being deducted from
his paycheck.
In conclusion, PERB' s investigation reveals that Michael may be lawfully required to pay an
agency fee to SEIU as a condition
of
his employment. Michael's employer for purposes
of
the
MMBA is the Public Authority, not CCSF and CCSF is not the proper respondent in this case.
Moreover, Michael does not affirmatively allege facts sufficient to establish that the charge is
timely filed.
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
When interpreting the MMBA, it is appropriate to take guidance from cases
interpreting the National Labor Relations Act and California labor relations statutes with
parallel provisions. (Fire Fighters Union
v.
City
of
Vallejo (1974) 12 Cal.3d 608.)
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

SF-CE-829-M
January 24, 2012
Page 5
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 February 13, 2012,"
PERB will dismiss your charge. If you have any questions, please call me at the above
telephone number.
Sincerely/
LD
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.)
SF-CE-829-M
January 24, 2012
Page 5
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 February 13, 2012, 5
PERB will dismiss your charge.	
If
you have any questions, please call me at the above
telephone number.
Laura Davis
Regional Attorney
Laura Davis
Regional Attorney
LD
contrary theories of law, fair proceedings, if not due process, demand that a complaint be
issued and the matter be sent to formal hearing." (lb id.)
5 A document is "filed" on the date the document is actually received by PERB,
including if transmitted via facsimile. 	(PERB Regulation 32135.)