California State Employeees Association (Barker and Osuna) (PERB 1551S)

2 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD

JOHN DOUGLAS BARKER & DAVID OSUNA,
Charging Party, Case No. SA-CO-253-S

v. PERB Decision No. 1551-S

CALIFORNIA STATE EMPLOYEES October 17, 2003

ASSOCIATION,

Respondent.

Appearance: Steven B. Bassoff, Attorney, for John Douglas Barker & David Osuna.
Before Baker, Whitehead and Neima, Members.
DECISION

WHITEHEAD, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on appeal by John Douglas Barker (Barker) and David Osuna (Osuna) of a
Board agent’s dismissal (attached) of their unfair practice charge. The charge alleged that the
California State Employees Association (CSEA) violated the Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills Act)! by
retaliating against Barker and Osuna for their protected conduct and by imposing unreasonable
restrictions on their membership rights. Barker and Osuna alleged in the original charge that

this conduct constituted a violation of Dills Act section 3519.5(a) and (b),” and in

‘The Dills Act is codified at Government Code section 3512 et seq. Unless otherwise
indicated, all statutory references herein are to the Government Code.

*Dills Act section 3519.5 provides, in part:
It shall be unlawful for an employee organization to:

(a) Cause or attempt to cause the state to violate Section 3519.

(b) Impose or threaten to impose reprisals on employees, to
discriminate or threaten to discriminate against employees, or

the amended charge, Dills Act section 3515.5.3
The Board agent dismissed the charge on the basis that there was no nexus between the
alleged protected conduct and the alleged adverse actions, and because discipline for
interference with the ratification of other bargaining units' memorandum of understandings
(MOU) by CSEA's Civil Service Division (CSD) involved an internal union matter, a matter
not actionable by the Board.
Upon review of the unfair practice charge, amended charge, the warning and dismissal
letters, and Barker's and Osuna's appeal, the Board affirms the Board agent's dismissal
consistent with the discussion below.
BACKGROUND
Barker and Osuna allege in the charge that they are the elected chairpersons of the
bargaining unit negotiating councils (BUNC) for bargaining units 20 and 14, respectively.
Bargaining units 14 and 20 voted not to participate in the master table negotiations that
included the BUNCs of CSEA bargaining units 1, 3, 4, 11 and 15. Although CSEA policies
provide for the autonomy of each unit, Barker and Osuna allege that they were discriminated
against by officials of CSD for not participating in the master table. The alleged
discrimination involved Barker's and Osuna's removal from their respective BUNC
chairmanship positions. Although the CSEA board reinstated them to these positions, CSD did
not recognize the CSEA board's actions. Since February 2002, CSD has allegedly refused to
pay for bargaining unit conference calls in which Barker and Osuna were participating, has
otherwise to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees because
of their exercise of rights guaranteed by this chapter.
3Dills Act section 3515.5 provides, in pertinent part:
Employee organizations may establish reasonable restrictions
regarding who may join and may make reasonable provisions for
the dismissal of individuals from membership.
2

refused to reimburse Barker and Osuna for expenses incurred while attending bargaining unit
meetings and negotiation sessions with their teams, has refused to seat Barker and Osuna at the
June 2002 CSD Council meeting and has refused to pay for expenses incurred in attending that
meeting, and has refused to provide Barker and Osuna with staff support during negotiations
and in presenting their units' positions to unit members and state negotiators. The charge
alleges that CSEA's actions affect Barker's and Osuna's ability to negotiate on behalf of their
unit members. Barker and Osuna further claim that CSD did not treat BUNC chairpersons who
participated in the master table negotiations in this way.
CSEA responded to the charge. The crux of CSEA's response is that Barker and Osuna
lobbied the Legislature to oppose a bill affecting other bargaining units and therefore, CSEA
had the right to discipline them by removing them from their BUNC chairmanships. CSEA
asserts that the master table MOU did not impact Barker's and Osuna's units; and that further,
Barker and Osuna made no attempt to ascertain that fact by contacting CSD officers,
Department of Personnel Administration, or any CSEA staff. Barker's and Osuna's conduct
led to delay in the approval of the master table MOU by the Legislature. As a result, under the
CSD procedures, Barker and Osuna were charged with violating CSD policy file 9CSD0.02(g),
(h) and (j)4 and were disciplined for those violations. CSEA alleges that Barker and Osuna
4As provided in Exhibit A of CSEA's response, these CSD policy file sections provide
the following.
CSD policy file 9CSD0.02(g) prohibits:
Taking a public position, in the name of the Association or the
Division, which is contrary to the adopted policy of the Division
or purporting to act on behalf of the Association, division, a
committee, or a DLC when not so authorized. An individual
retains the right of free expression regarding Association and
Division matters provided s/he clearly indicated s/he is doing so
as an individual and disclaims any intent to represent the position
of the Association or Division; (CSDC 14/93/1).
CSD policy file 9CSD0.02(h) prohibits:
3

then made an end-run around the CSD by attempting to obtain reinstatement from the
CSEA
board. 	CSEA further alleges that CSD was not required to accept the CSEA board's
reinstatement nor was the CSEA board authorized by its bylaws to review CSD discipline.
CSEA additionally argues that lobbying the Legislature to reject MOUs negotiated by
other units is not protected conduct. (Konocti Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision
No. 217; Emporium Capwell Co.
v.
Western Addition Community Organization (1975) 420
U.S. 50, 60 [95
S.
Ct. 277]
43
L.Ed.2d 12.) CSEA also contends that it did not discriminate
against Barker and Osuna because units 17 and
21
had also declined to join the master table
and their chairpersons, Ken Hennington and Margo Pacey, have not made similar claims, nor
were similar actions taken against them by CSD. CSEA further states that Barker and Osuna
have the same rights to participate in negotiations as any member. Their only claim is that
CSEA refuses to reimburse them for various expenses, which CSEA claims is properly the
result
of
Barker and Osuna engaging in unprotected conduct. Finally, the State and CSEA
have reached tentative agreement on the MOUs for both units 14 and 20, and Barker
and
Osuna have directly participated in the entire bargaining process. Thus, the charge should be
dismissed.
In their amended charge, Barker and Osuna characterize CSEA's conduct under a
different legal theory. They allege that the master table agreed to waive grievances involving
health and dental benefit premiums pending against the State in order to reach an MOU with
the State. Units 14 and 20 did not agree to the waiver. However, according to Barker and
Misuse of Division, DLC or BUNC funds, equipment or supplies;
(CSDC 14/93/1).
CSD policy file 9CSD0.02(j) prohibits:
Behavior which is determined by the hearing panel or officer to
be of such a nature that it causes discredit to the Association or
4

Osuna, the bill submitted to the Legislature to approve the MOU allegedly included language
subjecting units
14
and 20 to the same provisions despite the fact that those units were still
negotiating with the State. Barker and Osuna allege that their units authorized them to meet
with legislators to object to those units' inclusion in the bill, which they proceeded to do.
Subsequent to their lobbying efforts, around February 2002, CSD removed Barker and Osuna
from their positions as chairpersons
of
their respective BUNCs until May 2003. At some
unidentified date, the CSEA board reinstated Barker and Osuna to their BUNC chairperson
positions. Beginning in February 2002, the CSD engaged in the aforementioned alleged
discriminatory acts, despite the reinstatement to their positions by the CSEA board. Barker
and Osuna argue that as the exclusive representative, only CSEA has authority to place
reasonable restrictions on their membership rights, not CSD. Therefore, according to Barker
and Osuna, CSD's conduct violated Dills Act section 3515.5.
The Board agent found that Barker and Osuna did not state a prima facie case
of
discrimination. Applying the test set forth in Novato Unified School District (1982) PERB
Decision No. 210 (Novato) and assuming that service as a BUNC chairperson was protected
activity, the Board agent found that there was no showing
of
nexus between the protected
activity and CSEA's actions. (Novato; California State Employees Association (Hard, et al.)
(1999) PERB Decision No. 1368-S.) The Board agent also found that the parties disputed
whether or not the waiver
of
the multi-unit grievance impacted units 14 and 20. The Board
agent further noted that there was no evidence that the chairpersons
of
the two other units that
also refused to participate 	the master table negotiations suffered any adverse action.
With regard to the claim that CSEA violated Dills Act section 3515.5, citing California
School Employees Association and its Shasta College Chapter #381 (Parisot) (1983) PERB
the Division, the DLC's, the BUNC's or any of its members;
(CSDC 14/93/1).
5

Decision No. 280, California Correctional Peace Officers Association (Colman) (1989) PERB
Decision No. 755-S, California State Employees Association (Hackett, et al.) (1993) PERB
Decision No. 979-S (Hackett), the Board agent found that CSEA could reasonably discipline
Barker and Osuna for interfering with the employer's ratification of tentative agreements of
other bargaining units. According to the Board agent, the Hackett case involved a similar set
of facts. 	In Hackett, CSEA suspended the membership of certain unit 1 bargaining committee
members, an action that prevented two of them from running for union office. CSEA
disciplined these individuals because they distributed fliers and in other ways, criticized and
opposed ratification of MO Us for other bargaining units.
Accordingly, the Board agent determined that CSEA disciplined Barker and Osuna
because of their efforts to oppose ratification of the MO Us for other bargaining units. 	The
Board agent thus found that Barker and Osuna failed to allege a prima facie violation of the
Dills Act and dismissed the charge.
BARKER'S AND OSUNA'S APPEAL
Barker's and Osuna's appeal focuses on the alleged violation of Section 3515.5 but
does not dispute the Board agent's dismissal of the discrimination charge. 	On appeal, they
argue that the Board agent's dismissal is based on the erroneous conclusion that the CSD has
authority to overrule the CSEA board's reinstatement of Barker and Osuna to their BUNC
chair positions for units 14 and 20. Barker and Osuna further contend that CSD's conduct in
removing them from their BUNC chair positions places unreasonable restrictions on
membership rights without authority to do so 	violation of Dills Act section 3515.5. 	As
CSEA is the exclusive representative of units 14 and 20, not CSD, only CSEA has the
authority to make reasonable restrictions on their membership rights; yet, CSEA has not
disciplined Barker and Osuna. Without authority, CSD may not deny Barker and Osuna their
rights under Sections 3515.5 and 3519.5(b). As CSEA has failed to remedy CSD's violation of
6

Barker's and Osuna's rights, CSEA is also unreasonably restricting their membership rights
and thereby interfering with their rights under the Dills Act.
DISCUSSION
As Barker and Osuna did not appeal the Board agent's ruling regarding discrimination,
it is unnecessary to address that allegation. Accordingly, the Board adopts that portion of the
Board agent's dismissal.
Instead, Barker's and Osuna's appeal only disputes the Board agent's determination
regarding the violation of Dills Act sections 3515.5 and 3519.5(b) for removing them from
their respective BUNC chairmanships. Barker and Osuna claim that the decision was based
upon the erroneous conclusion that CSD has the right to overrule the CSEA board's decision to
reinstate them. However, they fail to cite any CSEA or CSD policy, bylaw or rule that
supports this contention.5 Despite that, the Board must assume that facts alleged by the
charging party are true. 	(San Juan Unified School District (1977) EERB Decision No. 126;
Golden Plains Unified School District (2002) PERB Decision No. 1489.) Even assuming that
CSD should honor Barker's and Osuna's reinstatement to their BUNC chair positions, that
assumption is not relevant to the Board's determination in this matter as explained below.
A recent decision, California State Employees Association (Hard, et al.) (2002) PERB
Decision No. 1479-S (CSEA (Hard)), addressed a violation of Section 3515.5. In CSEA
(Hard), the Board found that CSEA failed to follow its own procedures in suspending a
member. In addition, the suspension occurred during the nomination period for CSEA office
and prevented the member from seeking office. The Board concluded 	CSEA's conduct
5CSEA also did not cite or reference any provisions to support its contentions that
CSEA has no authority to review CSD's disciplinary actions.
6Prior to January 1978, PERB was known as the Educational Employment Relations
Board or EERB.
7

violated Dills Act section 3515.5, which in tum interfered with the member's rights, also in
violation
of
Section 3519.5(b). (Id., California State Employees Association (Hard, et al.)
(2002) PERB Decision No. 1479a-S.)
This case differs from CSEA (Hard) in that CSD removed Barker and Osuna from their
positions as BUNC chairs and refused to reimburse them for expenses incurred by individuals
in those positions; but CSEA did not suspend or dismiss them from membership. As worded,
Dills Act section 3515.5 only provides the Board with authority to determine the
reasonableness
of
restrictions regarding who may join, and
of
rules for the dismissal
of
individuals from membership. (Section 3515.5; CSEA (Hard).) Barker and Osuna have not
cited any authority to support the application
of
this section to removal
of
individuals as
bargaining unit chairs or for CSD's refusal to reimburse them for expenses incurred
by
participating in negotiations. We therefore disagree that the reasonableness
of
CSEA' s
conduct is at issue in this case.
Historically, the Board has been reluctant to interfere in the internal union affairs
of
employee organizations unless those affairs impact the member's relationship with his/her
employer. (Service Employees International Union, Local 99 (Kimmett) (1979) PERB
Decision No. 106; California School Employees Association and its Shasta College Chapter
#381 (Parisot) (1983) PERB Decision No. 280; California State Employees Association
(Roberts) (1993) PERB Decision No. 1005-S.) Here, there was no showing
of
any impact
of
CSEA's removal
of
Barker and Osuna from their BUNC chair positions on their relationship
with 	employer. 	fact, Barker and Osuna did not dispute CSEA's contention that they
continued to participate 	negotiations, 	only claimed that they were not reimbursed for
expenses. They were neither suspended nor dismissed from membership in CSEA, conduct
which could have invoked Board evaluation of disciplinary rules under Section 3515.5.
8

Barker and Osuna otherwise have not provided any facts that would invoke the Board's
review
of
CSEA's procedures to remove chairpersons from the bargaining table. Although
Barker and Osuna purported only to lobby against the bill's impact on units 14 and 20, it is
undisputed that their conduct created sufficient confusion to delay the bill, which in
tum
affected the ratification
of
MO Us for other bargaining units. Barker and Osuna further did not
dispute CSEA's contention that they failed to confirm that the bill actually applied to units
14
and 20.
Under the circumstances in this case, we conclude that CSEA's choice
of
its bargaining
representatives is purely an internal matter. Consequently, CSEA's removal
of
Barker and
Osuna as units 20 and 14 BUNC chairpersons, respectively, does not violate the Dills Act.
We conclude that Barker and Osuna did not state a prima facie violation
of
the Dills
Act.
ORDER
The unfair practice charge in Case No. SA-CO-253-S is hereby DISMISSED
WITHOUT LEA VE TO AMEND.
Members Baker and Neima joined in this Decision.
9

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	(
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Sacramento Regional Office
1031 ! 8th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
Telephone: (916) 327-8386
Fax: (916) 327-6377
February 7, 2003
Steven B. Bassoff, Labor Relations Counsel
2000 "O" Street, Suite 250
Sacramento, CA 95814
GRAY DA VIS, Governor
Re: 	John Douglas Barker & David Osuna v. California State Employees Association
Unfair Practice Charge No. SA-CO-253-S
DISMISSAL LETTER
Dear Mr. Bassoff:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on July 11, 2002. John Douglas Barker & David Osuna allege that the
California State Employees Association violated the Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills Act)1 by taking
reprisals against them.
I indicated to you in my attached letter dated January 3, 2003, 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 January 10, the charge would be dismissed. You
requested and were granted an extension of time.
I received your amended charge on January 27, 2003. You contend that it was an unreasonable
restriction on membership rights for the Civil Service Division to discipline Mr. Osuna and
Mr. Barker for actions they took while bargaining committee chairmen for units 14 and 20.
Specifically, they lobbied the legislature against the master table agreement because they
believed that there was a provision in it which detrimentally affected their units and
undermined their positions at the bargaining table.
As I described in my letter of January 3, the Board has ruled on similar case, also involving
CSEA, in the past. In California State Employees Association (Hackett, et al.) (1993) PERB
Decision No. 979-S the Board determined that the imposition of discipline for interfering with
the ratification of other bargaining units is a matter for a union's internal judgement; it is not a
reprisal for protected activity. In CSEA (Hackett) the union suspended the membership of
certain bargaining committee members from unit 1; an action which prevented two of them
from running for union office. CSEA took the disciplinary action because the unit 1
1 The Dills Act is codified at Government Code section 3512 et seq. The text of the
Dills Act and the Board's Regulations may be found on the Internet at www.perb.ca.gov.

SA-CO-253-S
February 7, 2003
Page 2
(
representatives had distributed fliers and taken other action to criticize and oppose the
ratification
of
agreements
of
other bargaining units.
Similarly, in this case, CSEA (through its Civil Service Division) has taken disciplinary action
against Mr. Osuna and Mr. Baker because
of
their activities to oppose the ratification
of
the
collective bargaining agreements for bargaining units other than the ones that they represent.
Accordingly, this charge must be dismissed.
Right to Appeal
Pursuant to PERB Regulations,2 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 or when mailed by certified or Express United States mail, as
shown on the postal receipt or postmark, or delivered to a common carrier promising overnight
delivery, as shown on the carrier's receipt, not later than the last day set for filing.
(Regulations 32135(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
2 PERB's Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
3100 l et seq.

SA-CO-253-S
February 7, 2003
Page 3
( 	(
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
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~~	
~C
Bernard McMonigle
Regional Attorney
Attachment
cc: Richard Burton

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Sacramento Regional Office
l 03 l 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
Telephone: (916) 327-8386
Fax: (916) 327-6377
January 3, 2003
Steven B. Bassoff, Labor Relations Counsel
331 J Street, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95814
( 	GRAY DA VIS, Governor
Re: 	John Douglas Barker & David Osuna v. California State Employees Association
Unfair Practice Charge No. SA-CO-253-S
WARNING LETTER
Dear Mr. Bassoff:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on July 11, 2002. John Douglas Barker & David Osuna allege that the
California State Employees Association violated the Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills Act)1 by taking
reprisals against them.
David Osuna is the elected CSEA negotiations chairperson for state bargaining unit 14. John
Barker holds the same position for unit 20. In recent bargaining with the state employer
several bargaining units joined together as part of the CSEA Civil Service Division Master
Table negotiations. Bargaining units 14, 20, 17 and 21 did not join the master table.
In the spring of 2002, Osuna and Barker were removed from their chairperson positions by the
Civil Service Division; that action was later overturned by the CSEA Board of Directors.
However, you contend that since February 2002, they have been prevented from carrying out
their duties. 	Specifically, the Civil Service Division refuses to pay for bargaining unit
conference calls if Mr. Osuna or Mr. Barker participate. They are also not reimbursed for
expenses incurred for attending bargaining unit meetings, sessions with their bargaining teams
and Civil Service Division meetings. The Civil Service Division also refused to seat them at
its meetings or provide them with staff support in negotiations.
You contend that Mr. Osuna and Mr. Barker have been discriminated against by CSEA
because their units did not participate in the master table.
In its response to this charge, CSEA states that Mr. Osuna and Mr. Barker have been
disciplined because they lobbied legislators to reject the master table agreement reached in
1 The Dills Act is codified at Government Code section 3 512 et seq. The text of the
Dills Act and the Board's Regulations may be found on the Internet at www.perb.ca.gov.

SA-CO-253-S
January 3, 2003
Page 2
December 2001. 2 According
to
CSEA, such activities are a violation
of
reasonable Civil
Service Division rules. The Civil Service Division does not recognize the CSEA Board action
which reinstated Mr. Osuna and Mr. Barker
to
their BUNC chair positions.
To determine whether a union has illegally retaliated against an employee for engaging in
protected internal union activity PERB applies the same test which has long been applied to
employers under Dills Act section 3519(a). California State Employees Association (1999)
PERB Decision No. 1368-S.
To demonstrate a violation
of
Dills Act section 3519(a), the charging party must show that:
(1) the employee exercised rights under the Dills Act; (2) the employer had knowledge
of
the
exercise
of
those rights; and (3) the employer imposed or threatened to impose reprisals,
discriminated or threatened to discriminate, or otherwise interfered with, restrained or coerced
the employees because
of
the exercise
of
those rights. (Novato Unified School District (1982)
PERB Decision No. 210 (Novato); Carlsbad Unified School District (1979) PERB Decision
No. 89.)
Although the timing
of
the employer's adverse action in close temporal proximity to the
employee's protected conduct is an important factor (North Sacramento School District (1982)
PERB Decision No. 264), it does not, without more, demonstrate the necessary connection or
"nexus" between the adverse action and the protected conduct. (Moreland Elementary School
District (1982) PERB Decision No. 227.) Facts establishing one or more
of
the following
additional factors must also be present: (1) the employer's disparate treatment
of
the employee
(State
of
California (Department
of
Transportation) (1984) PERB Decision No. 459-S); (2) the
employer's departure from established procedures and standards when dealing with the
employee (Santa Clara Unified School District (1979) PERB Decision No. 104.); (3) the
employer's inconsistent or contradictory justifications for its actions (State
of
California
(Department
of
Parks and Recreation) (1983) PERB Decision No. 328-S; (4) the employer's
cursory investigation
of
the employee's misconduct; (5) the employer's failure to offer the
employee justification at the time it took action or the offering
of
exaggerated, vague, or
ambiguous reasons; (6) employer animosity towards union activists (Cupertino Union
Elementary School District) (1986) PERB Decision No. 572.); or (7) any other facts which
might demonstrate the employer's unlawful motive. (Novato; North Sacramento School
District, supra, PERB Decision No. 264.)
In your charge, you have not demonstrated that CSEA, through the Civil Service Division, was
improperly motivated by the protected activity of Mr. Barker and Mr. Osuna. Assuming that
service as a chairperson is protected activity, there is no indicia of reprisal because
of
that
service or their refusal to participate in master table negotiations.3
2 Mr. Osuna and Mr. Barker contended that the master agreement impacted their units
by waiving a pending multi-unit grievance. CSEA contends that they were in error and the
master agreement did not affect the rights of their units.
3 I note that two other units also refused to participate in the master table and there are
no facts demonstrating that those chairpersons suffered any adverse action.

SA-CO-253-S
January 3, 2003
Page 3
An alternative theory is that the disciplining of Mr. Osuna and Mr. Barker because they went
to the Legislature (the employer) and lobbied against ratification of the tentative master table
agreement violates Government Code section 3515.5. That section states in relevant part:
... Employee organizations may establish reasonable restrictions
regarding who may join and may make reasonable provisions for
dismissal of individuals from membership.
Reviewing similar statutory language, PERB has long recognized the right of employee
organizations to impose reasonable discipline in addition to membership suspension.
California School Employees Association Chapter 381 (Parisot) (1983) PERB Decision No.
280. PERB grants great deference to a union's interpretation of what conduct is sufficient to
violate its own bylaws. California Correctional Peace Officers Association (Colman) (1989)
PERB Decision No. 755-S The imposition of discipline for interfering with the ratification of
the contracts of other bargaining units is a matter for a union's internal judgement; it is not
reprisal for protected activity. California State Employees Association (Hackett, et al.) (1993)
PERB Decision No. 979-S. Under these cases, it is clear that a union could reasonably
discipline members who interfere with the employer's ratification of tentative agreements of
other bargaining units.
For these reasons the charge, as presently written, does not state a prima facie case. Ifthere
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 January 10, 2003, I shall dismiss your charge.
If you have any questions, please call me at the above telephone number.
Sincerely,
Bernard McMonigle
Regional Attorney
BMC