United Teachers of Los Angeles (Chambers) (PERB 1781E)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
THOMAS JOSEPH CHAMBERS,
Charging Party,
V.
UNITED TEACHERS OF LOS ANGELES,
Respondent.
Case No. LA-CO-1194-E
PERB Decision No. 	17 81
October 	27, 	2005
Appearances: Thomas Joseph Chambers, on his own behalf; Geffner & Bush by
Erica Deutsch, Attorney, for United Teachers of Los Angeles.
Before Duncan, Chairman; McKeag and Neuwald, Members.
DECISION
NEUWALD, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on appeal by Thomas Joseph Chambers (Chambers) of a Board agent's
dismissal (attached) of his unfair practice charge. The unfair practice charge alleges that
United Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA) violated the Educational Employment Relations Act
(EERA)1 by its failure to meet its duty of fair representation.
The Board has reviewed the entire record including the unfair practice charge, the
amended unfair practice charge and attached documents, UTLA's position statement, the
warning and dismissal letters, Chambers' appeal and UTLA's response. The Board finds the
Board agent's dismissal to be free of prejudicial error and adopts it as a decision of the Board
. itself.
1EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540, et seq.

On appeal, Chambers concedes that he failed to state a prima facie case, but presents
new charge allegations and new supporting evidence that were not previously presented and
that were known to Chambers when he filed his unfair practice charge and amended unfair
practice charge. PERB Regulation2 32635(b) precludes a charging party from raising new
allegations or new supporting evidence on appeal without good cause. Chambers has failed to
demonstrate good cause for the presentation of new allegations and/or supporting evidence on
appeal, and nothing in the documents filed related to the appeal indicates good cause.
ORDER
The unfair practice charge in Case No. LA-CO-1194-E is hereby DISMISSED
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
Chairman Duncan and Member McKeag joined in this Decision.
2PERB regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8,
section 3100 I, et seq.
2

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor	STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	1-· ==============='"(·: ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Sacramento Regional Office
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
Telephone: (916) 327-8384
Fax: (916) 327-6377
June 29, 2005
Thomas Joseph Chambers
1047 3/4 S. Ogden Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90019
Re: 	Thomas Joseph Chambers v. United Teachers of Los Angeles
Unfair Practice Charge No. LA-CO-I 194-E
DISMISSAL LETTER
Dear Mr. Chambers:
I indicated to you in my attached letter dated June 8, 2005, 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 which 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 June 17, 2005, the charge would be dismissed. That
deadline was later extended, and you filed a First Amended Charge on June 20, 2005.
The warning letter indicated that the charge failed to demonstrate that UTLA acted in arbitrary
discriminatory or bad-faith manner. The first amended charge indicates that UTLA should
have pursued Chambers' grievance regarding a service report to arbitration. The warning letter
indicated that Chambers had acknowledged that he had falsified his resume and told the
principal "screw you, screw you." In the first amended charge, Chambers alleges he did not
make those admissions.
UTLA did not pursue Chambers' 2004 grievance because he was not a member of the
bargaining unit according to Article 1.1 of the parties' collective bargaining agreement.
Chambers alleges UTLA engaged in bad-faith by capitulating to the District on this issue.
Chambers contends that UTLA's failure to perform this ministerial act extinguished his rights.
The warning letter stated, in pertinent part,
Although UTLA ignored Chambers' request to have a different
representative, the charge does not demonstrate Laurans acted in
an arbitrary, discriminatory or bad-faith manner. Moreover,
Laurans did not decide whether Chambers' grievances would be
pursued to arbitration. The GRC made those decisions. As such,
the charge must be dismissed.

LA-CO-1194-E
June 29, 2005
Page 2
In the first amended charge Chambers alleges that UTLA representative Lydia Laurans
deliberately delayed his grievance and is incompetent to represent employees due in part to a
brain injury she received.
The above-stated information fails to state a prima facie violation for the reasons that follow.
As explained more thoroughly in the warning letter, 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 .. (See United Teachers of Los Angeles (Collins) (1982) PERB
Decision No. 258.)
With regard to when "mere negligence" might constitute arbitrary conduct, the Board observed
in Coalition of University Employees (Buxton) (2003) PERB Decision No. 1517-H that, under
federal precedent, aunion's negligence breaches the duty of fair representation "in cases in
which the individual interest at stake is strong and the union's failure to perform a ministerial
act completely extinguishes the employee's right to pursue his claim." (Quoting Dutrisac v.
Caterpillar Tractor Co. (9 th Cir. 1983) 749 F.2d 1270 [113 LRRM 3532], at p. 1274; see also,
Robesky v. Ouantas Empire Airways Limited (9th Cir. 1978) 573 F.2d 1082 [98 LRRM 2090].)
Chambers' statements that he did not admit to falsifying his resume or saying "screw you,
screw you" to his principal are taken as true at this level of the process. (Mark West Union
School District (1993) PERB Decision No. 1011.) However, even taking Chambers' denial as
true, the charge does not demonstrate UTLA acted in a discriminatory, bad faith or arbitrary
manner when it decided not to purse that grievance to arbitration. It appears instead that
UTLA exercised its discretion to determine how far to pursue the grievance. UTLA also
provided Chambers' with an opportunity to appeal the initial decision of the Grievance Review
Committee.
Chambers also argues UTLA should have challenged the District's determination that he could
not file a grievance based on Article 1.1 of the parties' collective bargaining agreement, which
excludes individuals from the bargaining unit if they have not worked the requisite number of
hours. Chambers contends the District created the conditions by which Article I.I could be
invoked by blackballing him and therefore UTLA should have argued that the article did not
apply to him. Although UTLA's decision extinguished Chambers' right to purse this
grievance, that conduct was not a negligent failure to perform a ministerial act, but a legitimate
exercise of its discretion. UTLA has the right under EERA to exercise its discretion to
determine how far to pursue a grievance. (United Teachers of Los Angeles (Collins) (1982)
PERB Decision No. 258.) 	Here, the parties' collective bargaining agreement had specific
language excluding Chambers from the unit, and thereby from filing a grievance, and UTLA's
decision to abide by that language, even if there was a rational argument to be made for
pursuing the grievance does not demonstrate that UTLA acted in an arbitrary, discriminatory or
bad faith manner.
Chambers also alleges Laurans deliberately delayed his grievance. Chamber~ contends the
GRC was not reviewing the grievance for the six months between his Step II meeting and the

LA-CO-1194-E
June 29, 2005
Page 3
(
GRC 's decision. Instead Chambers alleges the grievance was simply sitting on Laurans' desk.
As UTLA acted to toll the grievance timelines with the employer, the facts do not demonstrate
that UTLA's conduct violated the Act.
For the above-stated reasons, and those stated in the warning letter, the above-referenced
charge is dismissed.
Right to Appeal
Pursuant to PERB Regulations, 1 you 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. (Regulation 32635(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 before the close of business (5 p.m.)
on the last day set for filing. (Regulations ~2135(a) and 32130.) A document is also
considered "filed" when received by facsimile transmission before the close of business on the
last day for filing together with a Facsimile Transmission Cover Sheet which meets the
requirements of 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.
(Regulations 32135(b), (c) and (d); see also Regulations 32090 and 32130.)
The Board's address is:
Public Employment Relations Board
Attention: Appeals Assistant
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
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. (Regulation 32635(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 Regulation 32140 for the required contents and a
sample form.) The document will be considered properly "served" when personally delivered
or deposited in the first-class mail, postage paid and properly addressed. A document filed by
1 PERB's Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.

LA-CO-1194-E
June 29, 2005
Page 4
(
facsimile transmission may be concurrently served via facsimile transmission on all parties to
the proceeding. (Regulation 32135(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. (Regulation 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,
ROBERT THOMPSON
General Counsel
~By
Tammy S 	sel
Regional Attorney
_________---11-------
Attachment
cc: Erica Deutsch

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	r- 	( -	,'ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
============~ 	==============='-
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Sacramento Regional Office
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
Telephone: (916) 327-8384
Fax: (916) 327-6377
June 8, 2005
Thomas Joseph Chambers
1047 3/4 S. Ogden Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90019
Re: 	Thomas Joseph Chambers v. United Teachers of Los Angeles
Unfair Practice Charge No. LA-CO-1194-E
WARNING LETTER
Dear Mr. Chambers:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on March 30, 2005. Thomas Joseph Chambers alleges that the United
Teachers of Los Angeles violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA)1 by
failing to provide him its duty of fair representation. My investigation revealed the following
information.
Chambers is an Adult Education substitute teacher for the Los Angeles Unified School District.
Chambers alleges UTLA violated the BERA by failing to submit his grievances to arbitration
in a timely manner. More specifically, Chambers alleges UTLA representative Lydia Laurans
engaged in the pattern of careless representation which led to his termination.
On October 18, 2004,Chambers filed Grievance No. 2002-01514 regarding the District's
decision to give his Southgate class to another instructor. Chambers alleges, "Ms. Laurans left
my Southgate grievance to linger on her desk for nearly a year." On May 22, 2003, UTLA' s
Grievance Review Committee reviewed this grievance to determine whether to proceed to
arbitration. The GRC decided not to proceed and on June 17, 2003, UTLA acknowledged
Chambers' decision to appeal that determination. The GRC continued to meet on several
occasions regarding Chambers' appeal. On July 25, 2003, Laurans requested information
regarding the grievance from the District. On June 21, 2004, the parties settled this grievance.
On October 9, 2003, Principal Theresa Villa issued Chambers an unsatisfactory Certificated
Day-To-Day Substitute Teacher Service Report. On October 20, 2003, Chambers filed a
grievance regarding this report. Chambers admitted that he had falsified his resume and had
told the Principal, "screw you, screw you." On January 23, 2004, the parties held a Step I
meeting. On January 26, 2004, Laurans requested a Step II meeting, but it was not held
because the District had requested to toll the grievance timelines until March- 22, 2004. The
parties scheduled a Step II meeting for May 6, 2004. They later rescheduled that meeting for
1 BERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. The text of the BERA and
the Board's Regulations may be found on the Internet at www.perb.ca.gov.

May 19, 2004. 	On May 20, 2004, UTLA requested the timelines be tolled while the GRC
reviewed the grievance. On November 4, 2004, the GRC met and decided not to pursue the
grievance to arbitration based on Chambers' acknowledgment of his actions. On January 13,
2005, the GRC heard Chambers' appeal. On January 19, 2005, UTLA notified Chambers that
it was not proceeding to arbitration.
LA-CO-1194-E
June 8, 2005
Page 2
( 	(
On October 21, 2004, Site Administrator Dominick Cistone of the Abram Friedman
Occupational Center issued Chambers an unsatisfactory Certificated Day-to-Day Substitute
Teacher Service Report for inadequate service on October 11, 2004 and October 12, 2004. On
October 26, 2004, Chambers filed a grievance regarding this report.
Although UTLA exclusively represents the certificated bargaining unit, Article 1.1 of the
parties' CBA excludes certain positions from the bargaining unit. Article 1.1 provides, in
pertinent part:
Excluded: All day-to-day substitutes, who are paid for fewer than
one hundred days during the preceding school year; all part-time
adult education teachers, including ROC/ROP and specially-
funded adult education teachers, who are assigned for fewer than
ten hours per week;
The District determined that Chambers was not a member of the UTLA-represented bargaining
unit during the 2004-2005 school year based on the above-quoted language. UTLA accepted
the District's refusal to process Chambers' grievance on this basis.
·
On January 24, 2005, Chambers confronted Laurans regarding his October 2003 grievance.
Laurans noted that Chambers had selected another representative to represent him at the Step II
meeting. 	Chambers believes Laurans made it clear she was punishing him for his decision to
have this other representative accompany hini to Step II meeting.
In addition to the handling the above referenced grievances, Chambers alleges UTLA violated
its duty of fair representation by failing to change his union representative. In November 2004,
Chambers requested that the UTLA President assign someone other than Laurans to his cases.
In November 2004, Chambers made this request in writing to Terry Skotness. Skotness did not
reply, nor did he return Chambers' telephone calls. On Carl Joseph's instruction, Chambers
wrote another letter on November 26, 2004. UTLA did not reply.
The above-stated information fails to state a prima facie violation for the reasons that follow.
Charging Party has alleged that the exclusive representative denied Charging Party the right to
fair representation guaranteed by EERA section 3544.9 and thereby violated section 3543.6(b).
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

LA-CO-1194-E
June 8, 2005
Page 3
(
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.]
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.
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. (Emphasis added.)"
[Reed District Teachers Association, CTA/NEA (Reyes) (1983)
PERB Decision No. 332, p. 9, citing Rocklin Teachers
Professional Association (Romero) (1980) PERB Decision
No. 124.]
With regard to when "mere negligence" might constitute arbitrary conduct, the Board observed
in Coalition of University Employees (Buxton) (2003) PERB Decision No. 1517-H that, under
federal precedent, a union's negligence breaches the duty of fair representation "in cases in
which the individual interest at stake is strong and the union's failure to perform a ministerial
act completely extinguishes the employee's right to pursue his claim." (Quoting Dutrisac v.
Caterpillar Tractor Co. (9 th Cir. 1983) 749 F.2d 1270 [113 LRRM 3532], at p. 1274; see also,
Robesky v. Quantas Empire Airways Limited (9 th Cir. 1978) 573 F.2d 1082 [98 LRRM 2090].)
The facts demonstrate that UTLA successfully settled Chambers' 2002 grievance. Chambers'
2003 grievance proceeded on schedule until the District requested the timelines be tolled.
UTLA accommodated the District's request, and in tum, the District accommodated UTLA's
subsequent request to toll the timelines while the GRC reviewed the grievance. The facts do
not demonstrate that UTLA's conduct and eventual refusal to proceed to arbitration was
arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. Nor does UTLA's refusal to pursue Chambers' 2004
grievance demonstrate a prima facie violation as the parties' CBA excludes Chambers from the
bargaining unit.
Although UTLA ignored Chambers' requests to have a different representative, the charge does
not demonstrate Laurans acted in an arbitrary, discriminatory or bad faith manner. Moreover,

LA-CO-1194-E
June 8, 2005
Page 4
(
Laurans did not decide whether Chambers' grievances would be pursued to arbitration. The
GRC made those decisions. As such, the charge must be dismissed.
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, please 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 the
charging party. The amended charge must have the case number written on the top right hand
·comer 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 I do not receive an
amended charge or withdrawal from you before June 17, 2005, I shall dismiss your charge. If
you have any questions, please call me at the above telephone number.
Sincerely,
Tammy Samsel
Regional Attorney
TLS