United Teachers of Los Angeles (Thomas) (PERB 2150E)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
ANNA M. THOMAS,
Charging Party,
V.
UNITED TEACHERS OF LOS ANGELES,
Respondent.
ANNA M. THOMAS,
Case No. LA-CO-1415-E
PERB Decision No. 2150
December 13, 2010
Case No. LA-CO-1415-E
PERB Decision No. 2150
December 13, 2010
Appearance:	Appearance: Linda A. Albers, Attorney, for Anna
M.
Thomas.
Before Dowdin Calvillo, Chair; McKeag and Wesley, Members.
Linda A. Albers, Attorney, for Anna M. Thomas.
DECISION	DECISION
WESLEY, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on appeal by Anna
M.
Thomas (Thomas)
of
a Board agent's dismissal
(attached)
of
her unfair practice charge. The charge alleged that United Teachers
of
Los Angeles (UTLA) breached its duty
of
fair representation, set forth in section 3544.9
of
the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA or Act),
WESLEY, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
1 and thereby violated EERA
section 3543.6(b), when it failed or refused to file a grievance on her behalf. 	The Board agent
dismissed the charge as untimely filed.
the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA or Act), ' and thereby violated EERA
The Board has reviewed the dismissal and the record in light
of
Thomas' appeal and the
relevant law. Based on this review, the Board finds the Board agent's warning and dismissal
letters to be well-reasoned and a correct statement of the law, and therefore adopts them as the
decision of the Board itself, as supplemented by a discussion of the appeal.
The Board has reviewed the dismissal and the record in light of Thomas' appeal and the
1 EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. Unless otherwise noted,
all statutory references are to the Government Code.
EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. Unless otherwise noted,
Charging Party,
V .
UNITED TEACHERS OF LOS ANGELES,
Respondent.
Before Dowdin Calvillo, Chair; McKeag and Wesley, Members.
(PERB or Board) on appeal by Anna M. Thomas (Thomas) of a Board agent's dismissal
(attached) of her unfair practice charge. The charge alleged that United Teachers of
Los Angeles (UTLA) breached its duty of fair representation, set forth in section 3544.9 of
section 3543.6(b), when it failed or refused to file a grievance on her behalf. The Board agent
dismissed the charge as untimely filed.
relevant law. Based on this review, the Board finds the Board agent's warning and dismissal
letters to be well-reasoned and a correct statement of the law, and therefore adopts them as the
decision of the Board itself, as supplemented by a discussion of the appeal.
all statutory references are to the Government Code.

BACKGROUND	BACKGROUND
Thomas was employed as a nurse by the Los Angeles Unified School District (District).
Between March 2005 and August 2008, Thomas was involved in a series
of
disputes with the
District, primarily regarding her desire to transfer to new school sites. When UTLA declined
to assist Thomas, she retained private counsel to assist with her complaints against the District.
Thomas was employed as a nurse by the Los Angeles Unified School District (District).
On October 22, 2008, Thomas again requested UTLA's assistance regarding a transfer
dispute. UTLA Representative Carl Joseph (Joseph) told Thomas he needed to talk with her
attorney and obtain a written statement. The charge alleges Joseph did not obtain a written
statement from Thomas' attorney and UTLA took no further action.
On October 22, 2008, Thomas again requested UTLA's assistance regarding a transfer
January	On 	19, 2010, Thomas filed the instant unfair practice charge against UTLA.	On January 19, 2010, Thomas filed the instant unfair practice charge against UTLA.
The Board agent found that Thomas knew or should have known in or about
October 2008, well outside the six-month statute
of
limitations, that UTLA would not provide
The Board agent found that Thomas knew or should have known in or about
2
her with assistance. The Board agent, therefore, dismissed the charge as untimely filed. 	Even
if timely filed, the Board agent determined the charge did not state a prima facie violation
of
the duty
of
fair representation.
her with assistance. The Board agent, therefore, dismissed the charge as untimely filed. Even
THOMAS' APPEAL	THOMAS' APPEAL
2
On appeal, Thomas asserts the Board should extend the statute
of
limitations in this
case due to PERB's prejudicial error. The appeal states that in January 2009, Thomas called
and spoke to a Board agent regarding her work complaints. Although Thomas asked
the
Board
agent for assistance, he provided only "technical advice," and did not advise Thomas
to
seek
On appeal, Thomas asserts the Board should extend the statute of limitations in this
2 EERA section 3541.S(a)(l) states that PERB shall not:	EERA section 3541.5(a)(1) states that PERB shall not:
Issue a complaint in respect of any charge based upon an alleged
unfair practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing
of the charge.
Issue a complaint in respect of any charge based upon an alleged
2
Between March 2005 and August 2008, Thomas was involved in a series of disputes with the
District, primarily regarding her desire to transfer to new school sites. When UTLA declined
to assist Thomas, she retained private counsel to assist with her complaints against the District.
dispute. UTLA Representative Carl Joseph (Joseph) told Thomas he needed to talk with her
attorney and obtain a written statement. The charge alleges Joseph did not obtain a written
statement from Thomas' attorney and UTLA took no further action.
October 2008, well outside the six-month statute of limitations, that UTLA would not provide
if timely filed, the Board agent determined the charge did not state a prima facie violation of
the duty of fair representation.
case due to PERB's prejudicial error. The appeal states that in January 2009, Thomas called
and spoke to a Board agent regarding her work complaints. Although Thomas asked the Board
agent for assistance, he provided only "technical advice," and did not advise Thomas to seek
unfair practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing
of the charge.

legal counsel or inform Thomas she could file charges against both the District and UTLA. 	On
February 29, 2009, Thomas filed a charge against the District.
legal counsel or inform Thomas she could file charges against both the District and UTLA. On
Thomas contends PERB erred when it failed to advise her to file a charge against both
the District and UTLA. In the alternative, Thomas asserts PERB should have, on it's own
motion, joined UTLA as a necessary party to her charge against the District pursuant to PERB
Regulation 32164.
Thomas contends PERB erred when it failed to advise her to file a charge against both
3
DISCUSSION	DISCUSSION
Thomas is mistaken in her claim that PERB erred by failing to provide legal assistance
and advise her to file a charge against UTLA. A charging party bears the burden to identify
the respondent and allege facts to state a prima facie violation
of
the Act. (PERB Reg. 32615.)
A Board agent can assist a charging party by answering "procedural questions
of
each party
regarding the processing
of
the case." (PERB Reg. 32620(b)(2).) While Board agents are
authorized to provide technical assistance regarding PERB procedures, they do not provide
legal representation. (Los Angeles Community College District (1981) PERB Decision
No. 186.) PERB bears no burden to inquire
of
charging parties whether they might have a
claim against any other entities covered by EERA, and advise them whether they should
pursue any possible claims. Furthermore, PERB has no authority to "extend" a statute
that
sets
tune	' 	11mits	
1'
	' 	on
fil'	
rnng reqmrernents.	'
Thomas is mistaken in her claim that PERB erred by failing to provide legal assistance
4
" PERB regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8,
section 31001 et seq.
PERB regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8,
section 31001 et seq
3
4 Statutory and equitable tolling of the statute of limitations may apply in cases where a
charging party has filed a grievance against the employer. (Long Beach Community College
District (2009) PERB Decision No. 2002.)
*Statutory and equitable tolling of the statute of limitations may apply in cases where a
3
February 29, 2009, Thomas filed a charge against the District.
the District and UTLA. In the alternative, Thomas asserts PERB should have, on it's own
motion, joined UTLA as a necessary party to her charge against the District pursuant to PERB
Regulation 32164.3
and advise her to file a charge against UTLA. A charging party bears the burden to identify
the respondent and allege facts to state a prima facie violation of the Act. (PERB Reg. 32615.)
A Board agent can assist a charging party by answering "procedural questions of each party
regarding the processing of the case." (PERB Reg. 32620(b)(2).) While Board agents are
authorized to provide technical assistance regarding PERB procedures, they do not provide
legal representation. (Los Angeles Community College District (1981) PERB Decision
No. 186.) PERB bears no burden to inquire of charging parties whether they might have a
claim against any other entities covered by EERA, and advise them whether they should
pursue any possible claims. Furthermore, PERB has no authority to "extend" a statute that sets
time limits on filing requirements."
charging party has filed a grievance against the employer. (Long Beach Community College
District (2009) PERB Decision No. 2002.)

Finally, whether PERB should have orderedjoinder
ofUTLA
as
a necessary party in
Thomas' charge against the District is not an issue that can be raised in this case; the proper
place to raise it was in the case against the District.
Finally, whether PERB should have ordered joinder of UTLA as a necessary party in
Thomas' appeal is denied and the charge is dismissed
as
untimely filed.	Thomas' appeal is denied and the charge is dismissed as untimely filed.
ORDER	ORDER
4
The unfair practice charge in Case No. LA-C0-1415-E is hereby DISMISSED
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
The unfair practice charge in Case No. LA-CO-1415-E is hereby DISMISSED
Chair Dowdin Calvillo and Member McKeag joined in this Decision.	Chair Dowdin Calvillo and Member Mckeag joined in this Decision.
4
Thomas' charge against the District is not an issue that can be raised in this case; the proper
place to raise it was in the case against the District.
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

STATE
OF
CALIFORNIA	STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor	ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD	PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Los Angeles Regional Office
700
N.
Central Ave., Suite 200
Glendale, CA 91203-3219
Telephone: (818) 551-2805
Fax: (818) 551-2820
Los Angeles Regional Office
April
8,
2010	April 8, 2010
Anna M. Thomas	Anna M. Thomas
Re: 	Anna M Thomas
v.
United Teachers
of
Los Angeles
Unfair Practice Charge No. LA-CO-1415-E
DISMISSAL LETTER
Re: 	Anna M. Thomas v. United Teachers of Los Angeles
Unfair Practice Charge No. LA-CO-1415-E
DISMISSAL LETTER
Dear Ms. Thomas:	Dear Ms. Thomas:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on January 19, 2010 and amended on February 9 and April
7,
2010.
Anna M. Thomas (Thomas or Charging Party) alleges that the United Teachers
of
Los Angeles
(Union or Respondent) violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA or Act)
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
1 by
failing to represent her.	failing to represent her. 	·
Charging Party was informed in the attached Warning Letter dated March 29, 2010, that the
above-referenced charge did not state a prima facie case. You were advised that,
if
there were
any factual inaccuracies or additional facts that would correct the deficiencies explained in that
letter, you should amend the charge. You were further advised that, unless you amended the
charge to state a prima facie case or withdrew it prior to April
7,
2010, the charge would be
dismissed. On April 7, 2010, you timely filed a second amended charge.
Charging Party was informed in the attached Warning Letter dated March 29, 2010, that the
This letter provides a brief summary
of
the additional information included in the second
amended charge.
This letter provides a brief summary of the additional information included in the second
Facts as Alleged	Facts as Alleged
Thomas has worked for 25 years as a nurse for the Los Angeles Unified School District
(District). In 2004, Assistant Principal Myrna Brutti (Brutti) began working at Stephen White
Middle School (White M.S.), Thomas' work location. In March 2005, Thomas filed a
grievance (with Union assistance) against Brutti involving an incident where Brutti publicly
reprimanded Thomas while she was conducting student hearing and vision tests. As a result of
the grievance process, Thomas was transferred to a different school site, 95th Preparatory
School (95th School), in July 2005.
Thomas has worked for 25 years as a nurse for the Los Angeles Unified School District
(District). In 2004, Assistant Principal Myrna Brutti (Brutti) began working at Stephen White
Middle School (White M.S.), Thomas' work location. In March 2005, Thomas filed a
grievance (with Union assistance) against Brutti involving an incident where Brutti publicly
reprimanded Thomas while she was conducting student hearing and vision tests. As a result of
the grievance process, Thomas was transferred to a different school site, 95th Preparatory
School (95th School), in July 2005.
1 EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. The text of the EERA and
PERB Regulations may be found at
EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. The text of the EERA and
www.perb.ca.gov.	www.perb.ca.gov
700 N. Central Ave., Suite 200
Glendale, CA 91203-3219
Telephone: (818) 551-2805
Fax: (818) 551-2820
Board (PERB or Board) on January 19, 2010 and amended on February 9 and April 7, 2010.
Anna M. Thomas (Thomas or Charging Party) alleges that the United Teachers of Los Angeles
(Union or Respondent) violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA or Act) by
above-referenced charge did not state a prima facie case. You were advised that, if there were
any factual inaccuracies or additional facts that would correct the deficiencies explained in that
letter, you should amend the charge. You were further advised that, unless you amended the
charge to state a prima facie case or withdrew it prior to April 7, 2010, the charge would be
dismissed. On April 7, 2010, you timely filed a second amended charge.
amended charge.
PERB Regulations may be found at 	.

LA-CO-1415-E
April 8, 2010
Page 2
In June 2007, 95th School Principal Nora Armenta (Armenta) announced that she was
transferring to Gulf Avenue School (Gulf School), and asked Thomas
if
she would like to
transfer to Gulf School as well. Thomas stated that she desired this transfer, because
Gulf
that the transfer request	School is year-round and located near Thomas' home. Thomas alleges
was then blocked by Brutti and/or White M.S. Principal Shannon Lee (Lee). Armenta
specifically requested to Yolanda Lasmarias (Lasmarias)
In June 2007, 95th School Principal Nora Armenta (Armenta) announced that she was
2 that Thomas be transferred to Gulf
School. Lasmarias informed Thomas that
if
she was "not satisfied with [the] arrangements
[Thomas] could grieve it." At that point Thomas contacted Union Representative Carl Joseph
(Joseph), who told Thomas that the Union could not assist her in this situation. Thomas then
obtained a private attorney.
specifically requested to Yolanda Lasmarias (Lasmarias)" that Thomas be transferred to Gulf
transferring to Gulf Avenue School (Gulf School), and asked Thomas if she would like to
transfer to Gulf School as well. Thomas stated that she desired this transfer, because Gulf
School is year-round and located near Thomas' home. Thomas alleges that the transfer request
was then blocked by Brutti and/or White M.S. Principal Shannon Lee (Lee). Armenta
School. Lasmarias informed Thomas that if she was "not satisfied with [the] arrangements
[Thomas] could grieve it." At that point Thomas contacted Union Representative Carl Joseph
(Joseph), who told Thomas that the Union could not assist her in this situation. Thomas then
obtained a private attorney.
In June 2008, Lasmarias contacted Thomas to offer her a transfer to Danna Middle School
(Danna M.S.). Thomas told Lasmarias that she wanted to transfer to this school, because it is
located within walking distance
of
her home. Later that month, Lasmarias called Thomas at
home and directed her to move her belongings to Danna M.S., and Thomas did so. Thomas
alleges that "once again my transfer was blocked by Myrna Brutti and/or Shannon Lee."
In June 2008, Lasmarias contacted Thomas to offer her a transfer to Danna Middle School
At some point in time, Thomas' private attorney filed a civil lawsuit against the District.
During the attorney's investigation
of
Thomas' case against the District, the attorney
reportedly was told by District Legal Counsel Richard L. Ettensohn that "the reason
Anna
did
not get the position at Danna was because she grieved Myrna Brutti in 2005."
At some point in time, Thomas' private attorney filed a civil lawsuit against the District.
In August 2008, Lasmarias sent a letter to Thomas assigning her back to 95th School. ·
On
September 2, 2008, Thomas was placed on stress-related medical leave by her physician.
In August 2008, Lasmarias sent a letter to Thomas assigning her back to 95th School. On
On
October 22, 2008, Thomas again contacted Joseph and told him what the District's lawyer
had said to her attorney. Joseph told Thomas that he needed to talk to the attorney and obtain a
statement from him. Thomas states
t_hat
Joseph never did this, however, and that the
Union
"did nothing in the matter."
On October 22, 2008, Thomas again contacted Joseph and told him what the District's lawyer
As
discussed more fully below, the charge, as amended, has not corrected the timeliness
deficiency outlined in the March 29, 2010 Warning Letter, and therefore does not demonstrate
a prima facie violation
of
EERA.
As discussed more fully below, the charge, as amended, has not corrected the timeliness
not get the position at Danna was because she grieved Myrna Brutti in 2005."
Discussion	Discussion
LA-CO-1415-E
April 8, 2010
Page 2
As
stated in the Warning Letter, EERA section 3541.S(a)(l) prohibits PERB from issuing a
with	complaint 	respect to "any charge based upon an alleged unfair practice occurring more
than six months prior to the filing of the charge." 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 (Gavilan).) A charging
As stated in the Warning Letter, EERA section 3541.5(a)(1) prohibits PERB from issuing a
" LLasmarias' position in the District is not specifically defined in the amended charge,
but it appears that she may be a Nursing Department supervisor.
asmarias' position in the District is not specifically defined in the amended charge,
(Danna M.S.). Thomas told Lasmarias that she wanted to transfer to this school, because it is
located within walking distance of her home. Later that month, Lasmarias called Thomas at
home and directed her to move her belongings to Danna M.S., and Thomas did so. Thomas
alleges that "once again my transfer was blocked by Myrna Brutti and/or Shannon Lee."
During the attorney's investigation of Thomas' case against the District, the attorney
reportedly was told by District Legal Counsel Richard L. Ettensohn that "the reason Anna did
September 2, 2008, Thomas was placed on stress-related medical leave by her physician.
had said to her attorney. Joseph told Thomas that he needed to talk to the attorney and obtain a
statement from him. Thomas states that Joseph never did this, however, and that the Union
"did nothing in the matter."
deficiency outlined in the March 29, 2010 Warning Letter, and therefore does not demonstrate
a prima facie violation of EERA.
complaint with respect to "any charge based upon an alleged unfair practice occurring more
than six months prior to the filing of the charge." 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 (Gavilan).) A charging
but it appears that she may be a Nursing Department supervisor.

LA-CO-1415-E
April 8, 2010
Page 3
party bears the burden
of
demonstrating that the charge is timely filed. 	(Tehachapi Unified
School District (1993) PERB Decision No. 1024; State a/California (Department
of
Insurance) (1997) PERB Decision No. 1197-S.)
party bears the burden of demonstrating that the charge is timely filed. (Tehachapi Unified
The second amended charge does not provide any facts to demonstrate that the charge was
timely filed. As discussed in the Warning Letter, Thomas knew as
of
October 2008 that the
Union was not assisting her with filing a grievance over the District's decision to deny
her
transfer. 	This is the conduct underlying the unfair practice charge, and thus, the time
that
the
limitations period commenced. (Gavilan, supra, PERB Decision No. 1177.) This charge was
not filed until January 2010, well beyond the six-month period in which the charge
could be
timely filed. Accordingly, the charge is untimely and must be dismissed.
The second amended charge does not provide any facts to demonstrate that the charge was
Right
to
Appeal	Right to Appeal
Pursuant to PERB Regulations	Pursuant to PERB Regulations,3," Charging Party may .obtain a review
of
this dismissal
of
the
of
	charge
by
filing an appeal to the Board itself within twenty (20) calendar days after service
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
to	must
be
provided 	the Board.
charge by filing an appeal to the Board itself within twenty (20) calendar days after service of
A document is considered "filed" when actually received during a regular PERB business day.
(Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8,
§§
32135, subd. (a) and 32130; see also Gov.
Code,§
11020,
subd.
(a).)
A document is also considered "filed" when received
by
facsimile transmission before
the
close
of
business together with a Facsimile Transmission Cover Sheet which meets
the
requirements
of
PERB Regulation 32135(d), provided the filing party also places the original,
together with the required number
of
copies and
proof
of
service, in the U.S. mail. 	(Cal. Code
Regs, tit. 8, § 32135, subds. (b), (c) and (d); see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 32090
and
32130.)
A document is considered "filed" when actually received during a regular PERB business day.
The Board's address is:	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
Public Employment Relations Board
Attention: Appeals Assistant
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95811-4124
(916) 322-8231
FAX: (916) 327-7960
LA-CO-1415-E
April 8, 2010
Page 3
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
).)
If you file a timely appeal of the refusal to issue a complaint, any other party may file with the
3 PERB' s Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.
PERB's Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
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.
School District (1993) PERB Decision No. 1024; State of California (Department of
Insurance) (1997) PERB Decision No. 1197-S.)
timely filed. As discussed in the Warning Letter, Thomas knew as of October 2008 that the
Union was not assisting her with filing a grievance over the District's decision to deny her
transfer. This is the conduct underlying the unfair practice charge, and thus, the time that the
limitations period commenced. (Gavilan, supra, PERB Decision No. 1177.) This charge was
not filed until January 2010, well beyond the six-month period in which the charge could be
timely filed. Accordingly, the charge is untimely and must be dismissed.
Charging Party may obtain a review of this dismissal of the
Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, $$ 32135, subd. (a) and 32130; see also Gov. Code, $ 11020, subd. (a).)
A document is also considered "filed" when received by facsimile transmission before the
close of business together with a Facsimile Transmission Cover Sheet which meets the
requirements of PERB Regulation 32135(d), provided the filing party also places the original,
together with the required number of copies and proof of service, in the U.S. mail. (Cal. Code
Regs, tit. 8, $ 32135, subds. (b), (c) and (d); see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, $$ 32090 and
32130.)
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).)
31001 et seq.

LA-CO-1415-E
April 8, 2010
Page 4
Service	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).)
All documents authorized to be filed herein must also be "served" upon all parties to the
Extension
of
Time	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.)
A request for an extension of time, in which to file a document with the Board itself, must be
Final Date	Final Date
If no appeal is filed within the specified time limits, the dismissal will become final when the
time limits have expired.
If no appeal is filed within the specified time limits, the dismissal will become final when the
Sincerely,	Sincerely,
TAMI R. BOGERT
General Counsel
TAMI R. BOGERT
General Counsel
LA-CO-1415-E
April 8, 2010
Page 4
By
Valerie Pike Racho
Regional Attorney
By
Attachment	Attachment
______
_
cc: Dana S. Martinez, Attorney	
cc:
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).)
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.)
time limits have expired.
________
Valerie Pike Racho
Regional Attorney
Dana S. Martinez, Attorney

STATE OF CALIFORNIA	STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	AR"IOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor	ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD	PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
PER.B
Los Angeles Regional Office
700 N. Central Ave., Suite 200
Glendale, CA 91203-3219
Telephone: (818) 551-2805
Fax: (8 I 8) 551-2820
Los Angeles Regional Office
700 N. Central Ave., Suite 200
Glendale, CA 91203-3219
Telephone; (818) 551-2805
Fax: (818) 551-2820
March 29, 2010	March 29, 2010
Anna M. Thomas	Anna M. Thomas
Re: 	Anna M Thomas v. United Teachers of Los Angeles
Unfair Practice Charge No. LA-CO-1415-E
WARNING LETTER
Re:
Dear Ms. Thomas:	Dear Ms. Thomas:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on January 19, 2010 and amended.on February 9, 2010. Anna M.
Thomas (Charging Party) alleges that the United Teachers of Los Angeles (Union or
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
1
Respondent) violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA or Act) 	by failing to
represent her.
Respondent) violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA or Act)' by failing to
Facts as Alleged	Facts as Alleged
The charge filed on January 19, 2010 provides the following brief statement:	The charge filed on January 19, 2010 provides the following brief statement:
I notified UTLA (Denise Rockwell and Carl Joseph) on October
22, 2008 [that] I w~nted to file a grievance against Myrna Brutti
for retaliation. I also filed Unfair Practice Charge Number LA-
CE-5299-E regarding this matter [against] Los Angeles Unified
School District [on] 2-26-09. The Union would not support me.
I notified UTLA (Denise Rockwell and Carl Joseph) on October
22, 2008 [that] I wanted to file a grievance against Myrna Brutti
for retaliation. I also filed Unfair Practice Charge Number LA-
CE-5299-E regarding this matter [against] Los Angeles Unified
School District [on] 2-26-09. The Union would not support me.
The amended charge filed on February 9, 2010 adds the following statement:	The amended charge filed on February 9, 2010 adds the following statement:
I was discriminated against[,] retaliated against, and harassed.
UTLA would not represent me in this matter.
I was discriminated against[,] retaliated against, and harassed.
UTLA would not represent me in this matter.
For the reasons to follow, the above-stated facts do not demonstrate a prima facie violation of
EERA.
For the reasons to follow, the above-stated facts do not demonstrate a prima facie violation of
EERA.
Discussion	Discussion
1. 	Filing Deficiencies	1. 	Filing Deficiencies
1 EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. The text of the EERA and
PERB Regulations may be found at
EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. The text of the EERA and
www.perb.ca.gov.
Anna M. Thomas v. United Teachers of Los Angeles
Unfair Practice Charge No. LA-CO-1415-E
WARNING LETTER
Board (PERB or Board) on January 19, 2010 and amended on February 9, 2010. Anna M.
Thomas (Charging Party) alleges that the United Teachers of Los Angeles (Union or
represent her.
PERB Regulations may be found at www.perb.ca.gov.

LA-CO-1415-E
March 29, 2010
Page 2
LA-CO-1415-E
March 29, 2010
Page 2
On February
8,
2010, I sent a letter informing you that the charge was not properly filed.
Specifically, PERB did not receive an original signed charge and Proof
of
Service as required
by PERB Regulation 32140.
On February 8, 2010, I sent a letter informing you that the charge was not properly filed.
2 In addition, the Proof
of
Service did not include the
a	Respondent's address or facsimile number. I also discussed these problems with you in
telephone call on or about February 18, 2010. During this call I explained that filing a charge
electronically (the February 9 amended charge)
by PERB Regulation 32140." In addition, the Proof of Service did not include the
3 or via facsimile (the original charge filed
January 19) only provides PERB with a "copy"
of
the charge, and that to complete the filing
PERB must receive "original," (i.e., signed in ink) documents. I also stated that you should
either mail or deliver the charge documents to be received by PERB no later than February 23,
2010.
electronically (the February 9 amended charge) or via facsimile (the original charge filed
On February 22, 2010, PERB received the signed original charge filed January 19 with a
corrected proof
of
service, and so that filing deficiency has been corrected. However, as
of
the
date
of
this letter, PERB still has not received by mail or delivery signed original charge
documents for the amended charge filed February
9.
	Accordingly, the amended charge has not
been properly filed and is not considered a part
of
the official record
of
the unfair practice
charge. 	(Cal. Code Regs, tit.
8,
§ 32135, subd. (c).)
On February 22, 2010, PERB received the signed original charge filed January 19 with a
2. 	Statute
of
Limitations	
2. 	Statute of Limitations
Even
if
Charging Party corrects the filing deficiency discussed above, the charge is untimely.
EERA section 3541.S(a)(l) prohibits PERB 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." 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 (Gavilan).) 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.)
Even if Charging Party corrects the filing deficiency discussed above, the charge is untimely.
The charge states 	on October 22, 2008, Charging Party notified Union representatives that
she wanted to file a grievance against the employer, and that the Union would not support or
represent her. This shows that as
of
October 2008, Charging Party knew
of
the conduct
underlying the charge, and thus commenced the limitations period. (Gavilan, supra,
PERB
Decision No. 1177.) This charge was filed approximately 15 months later in January
2010.
	As
this is well beyond the six-month limitations period, the charge is untimely and must
be
dismissed.
that	The charge states that on October 22, 2008, Charging Party notified Union representatives that
2 PERB' s Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8,
section
31001 et seq.
PERB's Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
3 On February 11, 2010, PERB received by U.S. mail the February 9 amended charge.
The declaration section of the charge form does not contain Charging Party's signature.
Therefore, this does not constitute a signed original charge document.
3On February 11, 2010, PERB received by U.S. mail the February 9 amended charge.
Specifically, PERB did not receive an original signed charge and Proof of Service as required
Respondent's address or facsimile number. I also discussed these problems with you in a
telephone call on or about February 18, 2010. During this call I explained that filing a charge
January 19) only provides PERB with a "copy" of the charge, and that to complete the filing
PERB must receive "original," (i.e., signed in ink) documents. I also stated that you should
either mail or deliver the charge documents to be received by PERB no later than February 23,
2010.
corrected proof of service, and so that filing deficiency has been corrected. However, as of the
date of this letter, PERB still has not received by mail or delivery signed original charge
documents for the amended charge filed February 9. Accordingly, the amended charge has not
been properly filed and is not considered a part of the official record of the unfair practice
charge. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, $ 32135, subd. (c).)
EERA section 3541.5(a)(1) prohibits PERB 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." 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 (Gavilan).) 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.)
she wanted to file a grievance against the employer, and that the Union would not support or
represent her. This shows that as of October 2008, Charging Party knew of the conduct
underlying the charge, and thus commenced the limitations period. (Gavilan, supra, PERB
Decision No. 1177.) This charge was filed approximately 15 months later in January 2010. As
this is well beyond the six-month limitations period, the charge is untimely and must be
dismissed.
31001 et seq.
The declaration section of the charge form does not contain Charging Party's signature.
Therefore, this does not constitute a signed original charge document.

LA-CO-1415-E
March 29, 2010
Page 3
3. 	Duty of Fair Representation	3. 	Duty of Fair Representation
Assuming Charging Party could demonstrate that the charge is not time-barred, the facts
provided do not show that the Union breached its duty of fair representation. The duty of fair
representation imposed on the exclusive representative extends to grievance handling. 	(United
Teachers of Los Angeles (Collins) (1982) PERB Decision No. 258; Fremont Teachers
Association (King) (1980) PERB Decision No. 125.) In order to state a prima facie violation
of this section of EERA, Charging Party must show that the Respondent's conduct was
arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith. 	In United Teachers of Los Angeles (Collins), the
Public Employment Relations Board stated:
Assuming Charging Party could demonstrate that the charge is not time-barred, the facts
provided do not show that the Union breached its duty of fair representation. The duty of fair
representation imposed on the exclusive representative extends to grievance handling. (United
Teachers of Los Angeles (Collins) (1982) PERB Decision No. 258; Fremont Teachers
Association (King) (1980) PERB Decision No. 125.) In order to state a prima facie violation
of this section of EERA, Charging Party must show that the Respondent's conduct was
arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith. In United Teachers of Los Angeles (Collins), the
Public Employment Relations Board stated:
Absent bad faith, discrimination, or arbitrary conduct, mere
negligence or poor judgment in handling a grievance does not
constitute a breach of the union's duty. 	[Citations omitted.]
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.
A union may exercise its discretion to determine how far to
In order to state a prima facie case of arbitrary conduct violating the duty of fair representation,
a Charging Party:
In order to state a prima facie case of arbitrary conduct violating the duty of fair representation,
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.
must at a minimum include an assertion of sufficient facts from
which it becomes apparent how or in what manner the exclusive
representative's action or inaction was without a rational basis or
devoid of honest judgment.
(Reed District Teachers Association, CTAINEA (Reyes) (1983) PERB Decision No. 332, p. 9,
quoting Rocklin Teachers Professional Association (Romero) (1980) PERB Decision No. 124;
emphasis in original.)
(Reed District Teachers Association, CTA/NEA (Reyes) (1983) PERB Decision No. 332, p. 9,
quoting Rocklin Teachers Professional Association (Romero) (1980) PERB Decision No. 124;
emphasis in original.)
Charging Party has not provided any facts from which it can be concluded that the Union acted
here without a rational basis. PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5) requires, inter alia, that an unfair
practice charge include a "clear and concise statement of the facts and conduct alleged to
constitute an unfair practice." A charging party's burden includes alleging the "who, what,
when, where and how" of an unfair practice. (State of California (Department of Food and
Agriculture) (1994) PERB Decision No. 1071-S, citing United Teachers-Los Angeles
(Ragsdale) (1992) PERB Decision No. 944.} Mere legal conclusions are not sufficient to state
aprima facie case. (Ibid.; Charter Oak Unified School District (1991) PERB Decision No.	a prima facie case. (Ibid.; Charter Oak Unified School District (1991) PERB Decision No.
873.) Because Charging Party has not provided any details regarding the specific conduct by
the Union alleged to be unlawful, there are no grounds, based on the current record, for PERB
to issue a complaint.
Charging Party has not provided any facts from which it can be concluded that the Union acted
here without a rational basis. PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5) requires, inter alia, that an unfair
practice charge include a "clear and concise statement of the facts and conduct alleged to
constitute an unfair practice." A charging party's burden includes alleging the "who, what,
when, where and how" of an unfair practice. (State of California (Department of Food and
Agriculture) (1994) PERB Decision No. 1071-S, citing United Teachers-Los Angeles
(Ragsdale) (1992) PERB Decision No. 944.) Mere legal conclusions are not sufficient to state
873.) Because Charging Party has not provided any details regarding the specific conduct by
the Union alleged to be unlawful, there are no grounds, based on the current record, for PERB
to issue a complaint.
LA-CO-1415-E
March 29, 2010
Page 3
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.
a Charging Party:

LA-CO-1415-E
March 29, 2010
Page 4
For these reasons the charge, as presently written, does not state a prima facie case. 4
If
theref there
are any factual inaccuracies in this letter or additional facts that would correct the deficiencies
explained above, Charging Party may amend the charge. The amended charge should be
prepared on a standard PERB unfair practice charge form, clearly labeled First Amended
Charge, contain all the facts and allegations you wish to make, and be signed under penalty
of
perjury by an authorized agent
of
Charging Party. The amended charge must have the case
number written on the top right hand corner
of
the charge form. 	The amended charge must be
served on the Respondent's representative and the original proof
of
service must be filed with
PERB.	
If
an amended charge or withdrawal is not filed on or before April
7,
2010,
are any factual inaccuracies in this letter or additional facts that would correct the deficiencies
For these reasons the charge, as presently written, does not state a prima facie case." I
5 PERB will
dismiss your charge.	
If
you have any questions, please call me at the above telephone number.
' PERB will
Sincerely,	Sincerely,
Valerie Pike Racho
Regional Attorney
Valerie Pike Racho
Regional Attorney
VR	VR
* In Eastside Union School District (1984) PERB Decision No. 466, the Board
explained that a prima facie case is established where the Board agent is able to make
"a
determination that the facts as alleged in the charge state a legal cause
of
action and that the
charging party is capable
of
providing admissible evidence in support of the allegations.
Consequently, where the investigation results in receipt of conflicting allegations of fact or
contrary theories of law, fair proceedings, if not due process, demand that a complaint be
issued and the matter be sent to formal hearing." (Ibid.)
In Eastside Union School District (1984) PERB Decision No. 466, the Board
explained that a prima facie case is established where the Board agent is able to make "a
determination that the facts as alleged in the charge state a legal cause of action and that the
charging party is capable of providing admissible evidence in support of the allegations.
Consequently, where the investigation results in receipt of conflicting allegations of fact or
contrary theories of law, fair proceedings, if not due process, demand that a complaint be
issued and the matter be sent to formal hearing." (Ibid.)
LA-CO-1415-E
March 29, 2010
Page 4
5 A document is "filed" on the date the document is actually received by PERB,
including if transmitted via facsimile. (PERB Regulation 32135.)
" A document is "filed" on the date the document is actually received by PERB,
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 April 7, 2010,
dismiss your charge. If you have any questions, please call me at the above telephone number.
including if transmitted via facsimile. (PERB Regulation 32135.)