CDF Firefighters (Pittman) (PERB 1814S)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
MICHAEL SAMUEL PITTMAN,
Charging Party,
v.
CDF FIREFIGHTERS,
Respondent.
Case No. SA-C0-258-S
PERB Decision No. 	1814-S
February 	7, 	2006
Appearances: Driscoll and Associates by Thomas J. Discoll, Jr., Attorney, for Michael Samuel
Pittman; Carroll, Burdick & McDonough by Gregg McLean Adam, Attorney, for CDF
Firefighters.
Before Duncan, Chairman; Whitehead and McKeag, Members.
DECISION
WHITEHEAD, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(Board) on appeal by Michael Samuel Pittman (Pittman) of a Board agent's dismissal
(attached) of his unfair practice charge. The charge alleged that the CDF Firefighters
(Firefighters) violated the Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills Act)1 by: then-President Tom Gardner
(Gardner) interfering with Pittman's right to pay dues, telling Pittman that the Firefighters
were unable to process Pittman's membership unless deductions were made from his paycheck,
and canceling Pittman's membership during the appeal of his termination; current-President
Bob Wolf interfering with Pittman's pursuit of unfair practice charges against Gardner and
allowing the Hearing Committee to retaliate against Pittman for filing an unfair practice
charge; the Hearing Committee interfering with Pittman's rights by removing Pittman as a
1The Dills Act is codified at Government Code section 3512, et seq.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
MICHAEL SAMUEL PITTMAN,
Charging Party, 	Case No. SA-CO-258-S
V . 	PERB Decision No. 1814-S
CDF FIREFIGHTERS, February 7, 2006
Respondent.
Appearances: Driscoll and Associates by Thomas J. Discoll, Jr., Attorney, for Michael Samuel
Pittman; Carroll, Burdick & McDonough by Gregg Mclean Adam, Attorney, for CDF
Firefighters.
Before Duncan, Chairman; Whitehead and Mckeag, Members.
DECISION
WHITEHEAD, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(Board) on appeal by Michael Samuel Pittman (Pittman) of a Board agent's dismissal
(attached) of his unfair practice charge. The charge alleged that the CDF Firefighters
(Firefighters) violated the Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills Act)' by: then-President Tom Gardner
(Gardner) interfering with Pittman's right to pay dues, telling Pittman that the Firefighters
were unable to process Pittman's membership unless deductions were made from his paycheck,
and canceling Pittman's membership during the appeal of his termination; current-President
Bob Wolf interfering with Pittman's pursuit of unfair practice charges against Gardner and
allowing the Hearing Committee to retaliate against Pittman for filing an unfair practice
charge; the Hearing Committee interfering with Pittman's rights by removing Pittman as a
The Dills Act is codified at Government Code section 3512, et seq.

Director of the San Benito-Monterey Chapter and expelling Pittman from membership for
filing internal charges against Gardner.
The Board has reviewed the entire record in this matter, including the original unfair
practice charge, the first, second, and third amended unfair practice charges, the warning and
dismissal letters of the Board agent, Pittman's appeal and supplemental documents,2 and the
Firefighters responses.
The Board finds the warning and dismissal letters to be free from prejudicial error and
adopts them as the decision of the Board itself.
ORDER
The unfair practice charge in Case No. SA-C0-258-S is hereby DISMISSED
WITHOUT LEA VE TO AMEND.
Chairman Duncan and Member McKeag joined in this Decision.
2The supplemental documents were not relied upon in making our decision because the
documents were not timely filed.
2
Director of the San Benito-Monterey Chapter and expelling Pittman from membership for
filing internal charges against Gardner.
The Board has reviewed the entire record in this matter, including the original unfair
practice charge, the first, second, and third amended unfair practice charges, the warning and
dismissal letters of the Board agent, Pittman's appeal and supplemental documents, and the
Firefighters responses.
The Board finds the warning and dismissal letters to be free from prejudicial error and
adopts them as the decision of the Board itself.
ORDER
The unfair practice charge in Case No. SA-CO-258-S is hereby DISMISSED
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
Chairman Duncan and Member Mckeag joined in this Decision.
"The supplemental documents were not relied upon in making our decision because the
documents were not timely filed.
2

\ '.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	. 	A=·============~ 	-T ARNOLDSCHWARZENEGGER,Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD 	··"'
Office of the General Counsel
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
Telephone: (916) 327-8381
Fax: (916) 327-6377
December 31, 2004
Michael Samuel Pittman
1941 Sweetwater Court
Cool, CA 95614
Re: 	Michael Samuel Pittman v. CDF Firefighters
Unfair Practice Charge No. SA-CO-258-S
DISMISSAL LETTER - 3 rd Amended Charge
Dear Mr. Pittman:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on January 24, 2003. Michael Samuel Pittman alleges that the CDF
Firefighters violated the Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills Act)1 by discriminating against him and
failing to follow their internal bylaws. This conduct is alleged to violate Dills Act sections
3515.5 and 3519.5.
I indicated to you in my attached letter dated May 24, 2004, that the above-referenced charge
did not state a prima facie
1
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 4, 2004, the charge would be dismissed.
On June 4, I received a letter from Thomas J. Driscoll Jr., indicating that he was representing
you in this case and to reconsider my May 24 letter. On June 14, Mr. Driscoll filed a notice of
appearance on your behalf and you filed a third amended charge.
In the third amended charge you allege that: 1.) President Gardner on an unspecified date
violated Dills Act section 3515.5 by telling you that the CDF Firefighters was unable to
process your membership unless deductions were made from y 	paycheck. This was
inconsistent with your experience of paying dues out of pocket during 2000. You were
unaware of Mr. Gardner's interference until you received his letter of July 24, 2002 2.)
President Gardner violated Dills Act section 3519.S(b) by expelling you from membership in
February 2000. 3.) President Wolf violated Dills Act section 3515.5 by interfering with your
rightto pursue charges against Mr. Gardner and allowing the hearing committee to expel you
from membership. 4.) The hearing committee violated Dills Act sections 3515.5 by expelling
our
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.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Office of the General Counsel
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
Telephone: (916) 327-8381
Fax: (916) 327-6377
December 31, 2004
Michael Samuel Pittman
Re: 	Michael Samuel Pittman v. CDF Firefighters
Unfair Practice Charge No. SA-CO-258-S
DISMISSAL LETTER - 3" Amended Charge
Dear Mr. Pittman:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on January 24, 2003. Michael Samuel Pittman alleges that the CDF
Firefighters violated the Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills Act)' by discriminating against him and
failing to follow their internal bylaws. This conduct is alleged to violate Dills Act sections
3515.5 and 3519.5.
I indicated to you in my attached letter dated May 24, 2004, 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 4, 2004, the charge would be dismissed.
On June 4, I received a letter from Thomas J. Driscoll Jr., indicating that he was representing
you in this case and to reconsider my May 24 letter. On June 14, Mr. Driscoll filed a notice of
appearance on your behalf and you filed a third amended charge.
In the third amended charge you allege that: 1.) President Gardner on an unspecified date
violated Dills Act section 3515.5 by telling you that the CDF Firefighters was unable to
process your membership unless deductions were made from your paycheck. This was
inconsistent with your experience of paying dues out of pocket during 2000. You were
unaware of Mr. Gardner's interference until you received his letter of July 24, 2002 2.)
President Gardner violated Dills Act section 3519.5(b) by expelling you from membership in
February 2000. 3.) President Wolf violated Dills Act section 3515.5 by interfering with your
right to pursue charges against Mr. Gardner and allowing the hearing committee to expel you
from membership. 4.) The hearing committee violated Dills Act sections 3515.5 by expelling
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.

I 	SA-CO-258-S
December 31, 2004
Page 2
you from membership and 3519.S(b) by interfering with your membership for filing internal
charges against President Gardner.
Each allegation will be reviewed in order.
Allegation 1
The July 24, 2002, letter to you from President Gardner is Exhibit 6 to your First Amended
Charge. That letter states in its entirety:
Although you submitted the necessary authorization for CDF
Firefighters to deduct a portion of your salary as payment of dues,
we have not yet been able to collect fot the months that followed
your reinstatement.
I
In order for you to maintain your membership status, we must
receive a dues payment from you as soon as possible. It is
necessary that we set up a payment system until such time that
the state controller reflects you as being on the payroll.
This letter does not support your allegation that President Gardner refused to accept dues
payments other than through payroll deduction. Thus, there is no evidence that he interfered
with your right to pay dues. This allegation is dismissed.
Allegation 2
.The allegation that President Gardner expelled you from member~hip in CDF Firefighters in
February 2000 is untimely. This charge was originally filed on January 24, 2003. Thus,
conduct that occurred prior to July 24, 2002 would be untimely. (Dills Act section 3514.S(a).)
This allegation is dismissed.
Allegation 3
This allegation focuses on a violation of Dills Act section 3515.5 by President Wolf when he
interfered with your right to pursue charges against Mr. Gardner and allowing the hearing
committee to expel you from membership.
You pursued charges against President Gardner in September 2002. The Witesman hearing
committee assigned to these charges communicated with you, requesting additional
information regarding certain charges and eventually dismissed some of the charges on
October 11, 2002. You and Mr. Maldonado attended the hearing on your allegations on
November 13, 2002. After losing your motions made to the hearing committee, you left the
hearing without presenting evidence or calling witnesses. Even after considering your claims
that the hearing panel was biased, it is unclear how CDF Firefighter' s conduct related to your
SA-CO-258-S
December 31, 2004
Page 2
you from membership and 3519.5(b) by interfering with your membership for filing internal
charges against President Gardner.
Each allegation will be reviewed in order.
Allegation 1
The July 24, 2002, letter to you from President Gardner is Exhibit 6 to your First Amended
Charge. That letter states in its entirety:
Although you submitted the necessary authorization for CDF
Firefighters to deduct a portion of your salary as payment of dues,
we have not yet been able to collect for the months that followed
your reinstatement.
In order for you to maintain your membership status, we must
receive a dues payment from you as soon as possible. It is
necessary that we set up a payment system until such time that
the state controller reflects you as being on the payroll.
This letter does not support your allegation that President Gardner refused to accept dues
payments other than through payroll deduction. Thus, there is no evidence that he interfered
with your right to pay dues. This allegation is dismissed.
Allegation 2
The allegation that President Gardner expelled you from membership in CDF Firefighters in
February 2000 is untimely. This charge was originally filed on January 24, 2003. Thus,
conduct that occurred prior to July 24, 2002 would be untimely. (Dills Act section 3514.5(a).)
This allegation is dismissed.
Allegation 3
This allegation focuses on a violation of Dills Act section 3515.5 by President Wolf when he
interfered with your right to pursue charges against Mr. Gardner and allowing the hearing
committee to expel you from membership.
You pursued charges against President Gardner in September 2002. The Witesman hearing
committee assigned to these charges communicated with you, requesting additional
information regarding certain charges and eventually dismissed some of the charges on
October 11, 2002. You and Mr. Maldonado attended the hearing on your allegations on
November 13, 2002. After losing your motions made to the hearing committee, you left the
hearing without presenting evidence or calling witnesses. Even after considering your claims
that the hearing panel was biased, it is unclear how CDF Firefighter's conduct related to your

SA-CO-258-S
. December 31, 2004
Page 3
(
charges against President Gardner is a violation of Dills Act section-3515.5. Thus, this
allegation is dismissed.
You were suspended for one year from CDP Firefighters on March 3, 2003, based on the
Witesman hearing committee's determination. On November 23, 2003, a hearing committee.
consisting of Steven Barrett, Dan Todd, and Rich Garcia issued its decision in the Bywater v.
Maldonado and Bywater v. Pittman charges. The Barrett committee dismissed several charges
and found violations in others. The penalties assessed in the tentative decision against Mr.
Maldonado and Mr. Pittman were identical: expulsion from membership and 30% of the total
costs of the Region IV trusteeship. It is not clear what involvement President Wolf had in
these two hearing committees' decisions. The charge alleges: "Mr. Wolf ignored a complaint
against the hearing committee allowing the complaint to expire beyond the time limits set in
the By-laws. Mr. Wolf stonewalled my request for an appeal of the hearing committee's
dismissal of my charges against Mr. Gardner to the State Board Directors. This action allowed
the hearing committee to taint the internal appeal process by providing misrepresented
information concerning the charge against Tom Gardner."
These allegations do not specify how CDP Firefighters enforced either an unreasonable
membership provision or unreasonably applied a provision to this particular case. Without
such information, the allegations must be dismissed. (California State Employees Association
(Hard, et al.) (2002) PERB Decision No. 1479-S.)
Allegation 4
The hearing committee violated Dills Act section 3515.5 by expelling you from membership
and 3519 .5(b) by interfering with your membership for filing internal charges against President
Gardner.
A review of the Witesman hearing committee decision of March 5, 2003 that ordered your
suspension from membership does not indicate that it applied unreasonable rules to your case
or that it applied rules in an unreasonable manner. A review of the Barrett hearing committee
decision of November 23, 2003 likewise does not indicate that it applied unreasonable rules to
your case or that it applied rules in an unreasonable manner. Accordingly, your allegation that
CDP Firefighters violated Dills Act section 3515.5 is dismissed.
The claim that CDP Firefighters interfered with your membership because you filed internal
charges against President Gardner also fails to state a prima facie violation of the Dills Act. To
demonstrate a violation of section 3519.5(b) you must have engaged in protected activity. As
explained in the warning letter, internal union activity such as filing internal charges against a
union officer is not considered protected activity under the Dills Act unless it had an impact on
employer-employee relations. (California State Employees Association (Hard, et al.) (2002)
PERB Decision No. 1479-S.) You have not demonstrated how the filing of internal union
charges against the union president had any impact on your relationship with the employer.
Thus this allegation is dismissed.
SA-CO-258-S
December 31, 2004
Page 3
charges against President Gardner is a violation of Dills Act section 3515.5. Thus, this
allegation is dismissed.
You were suspended for one year from CDF Firefighters on March 3, 2003, based on the
Witesman hearing committee's determination. On November 23, 2003, a hearing committee
consisting of Steven Barrett, Dan Todd, and Rich Garcia issued its decision in the Bywater v.
Maldonado and Bywater v. Pittman charges. The Barrett committee dismissed several charges
and found violations in others. The penalties assessed in the tentative decision against Mr.
Maldonado and Mr. Pittman were identical: expulsion from membership and 30% of the total
costs of the Region IV trusteeship. It is not clear what involvement President Wolf had in
these two hearing committees' decisions. The charge alleges: "Mr. Wolf ignored a complaint
against the hearing committee allowing the complaint to expire beyond the time limits set in
the By-laws. Mr. Wolf stonewalled my request for an appeal of the hearing committee's
dismissal of my charges against Mr. Gardner to the State Board Directors. This action allowed
the hearing committee to taint the internal appeal process by providing misrepresented
information concerning the charge against Tom Gardner."
These allegations do not specify how CDF Firefighters enforced either an unreasonable
membership provision or unreasonably applied a provision to this particular case. Without
such information, the allegations must be dismissed. (California State Employees Association
(Hard, et al.) (2002) PERB Decision No. 1479-S.)
Allegation 4
The hearing committee violated Dills Act section 3515.5 by expelling you from membership
and 3519.5(b) by interfering with your membership for filing internal charges against President
Gardner.
A review of the Witesman hearing committee decision of March 5, 2003 that ordered your
suspension from membership does not indicate that it applied unreasonable rules to your case
or that it applied rules in an unreasonable manner. A review of the Barrett hearing committee
decision of November 23, 2003 likewise does not indicate that it applied unreasonable rules to
your case or that it applied rules in an unreasonable manner. Accordingly, your allegation that
CDF Firefighters violated Dills Act section 3515.5 is dismissed.
The claim that CDF Firefighters interfered with your membership because you filed internal
charges against President Gardner also fails to state a prima facie violation of the Dills Act. To
demonstrate a violation of section 3519.5(b) you must have engaged in protected activity. As
explained in the warning letter, internal union activity such as filing internal charges against a
union officer is not considered protected activity under the Dills Act unless it had an impact on
employer-employee relations. (California State Employees Association (Hard, et al.) (2002)
PERB Decision No. 1479-S.) You have not demonstrated how the filing of internal union
charges against the union president had any impact on your relationship with the employer.
Thus this allegation is dismissed.

SA-CO-258-S
December 31, 2004
Page 4
Therefore, I am dismissing the charge based on the facts and reasons contained in this letter
and my May 24, 2004 letter.
Right to Appeal
rPursuant 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.rn.)
on 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
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).)
2 PERB's Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.
CSA-CO-258-S
December 31, 2004
Page 4
Therefore, I am dismissing the charge based on the facts and reasons contained in this letter
and my May 24, 2004 letter.
Right to Appeal
Pursuant to PERB Regulations," 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 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
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).)
PERB's Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.

SA-CO-258-S
December 31, 2004
Page 5
-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
Attachment
cc: Ronald Yank, Attorney
Thomas J. Driscoll, Jr., Attorney
CSA-CO-258-S
December 31, 2004
Page 5
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
Attachment
cc: Ronald Yank, Attorney
Thomas J. Driscoll, Jr., Attorney

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	(-=============="'( 	OLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Office of the General Counsel
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
Telephone: (916) 327-8381
Fax: (916) 327-6377
May 24, 2004
Michael Pittman
1941 Sweetwater Court
Cool, CA 95614
Re: 	Michael Samuel Pittman v. CDF Firefighters
Unfair Practice Charge No. SA-CO-258-S
WARNING LETTER - 2 nd Amended Charge
Dear Mr. Pittman:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on January 24, 2003. Michael Samuel Pittman alleges that the CDF
Firefighters violated the Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills Act)1 by discriminating against him and
failing to follow their internal bylaws. This conduct is alleged to violate Dills Act sections
3515.5 and 3519.5.
The following information was gathered from this unfair practice charge and related charges. 2
Mr. Pittman began service with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection in
197 5 as a seasonal firefighter. 	In August 1986 he was promoted to Firefighter I and in 1994
was permanently promoted to Fire Captain. On January 17, 2000, he was terminated from
state employment for disciplinary reasons. After appeal, the State Personal Board on
December 18, 2001 reduced the penalty to a thirty-day suspension with full back pay.
In February 2000, Mr. Pittman and Tom Gardner, the President of CDF Firefighters, were
involved in a dispute over Mr. Pittman's access to the union's web site. In 2000, 2001, and
2002, Mr. Pittman corresponded with the union regarding his membership. Although he was
reinstated by the SPB and submitted the necessary authorization for the union dues deduction,
the State failed to make such deductions. On August 1, 2002, Mr. Gardner wrote to the State
complaining about the State's failure to correct Mr. Pittman's payroll status. He asked that Mr.
Pittman be considered a regular employee receiving a regular payroll check with appropriate
deductions.
On September 12, 2002, Mr. Pittman filed a written internal union complaint regarding
misconduct by Mr. Gardner. On September 13, 2002, Mr. Pittman's representative, Richard
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 atwww.perb.ca.gov.
2 Pittman v. CDF Firefighters, case no. SA-CO-262-S, Maldonado v. CDF Firefighters,
case nos. SA-CO-263-.S and SA-CO-264-S and Darrington v. CDF Firefighters case no. SA-
CO-261-S.
...
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	OLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Office of the General Counsel
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
Telephone: (916) 327-8381
Fax: (916) 327-6377
May 24, 2004
Michael Pittman
Re: 	Michael Samuel Pittman v. CDF Firefighters
Unfair Practice Charge No. SA-CO-258-S
WARNING LETTER - 2" Amended Charge
Dear Mr. Pittman:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on January 24, 2003. Michael Samuel Pittman alleges that the CDF
Firefighters violated the Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills Act)' by discriminating against him and
failing to follow their internal bylaws. This conduct is alleged to violate Dills Act sections
3515.5 and 3519.5.
The following information was gathered from this unfair practice charge and related charges.
Mr. Pittman began service with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection in
1975 as a seasonal firefighter. In August 1986 he was promoted to Firefighter I and in 1994
was permanently promoted to Fire Captain. On January 17, 2000, he was terminated from
state employment for disciplinary reasons. After appeal, the State Personal Board on
December 18, 2001 reduced the penalty to a thirty-day suspension with full back pay.
In February 2000, Mr. Pittman and Tom Gardner, the President of CDF Firefighters, were
involved in a dispute over Mr. Pittman's access to the union's web site. In 2000, 2001, and
2002, Mr. Pittman corresponded with the union regarding his membership. Although he was
reinstated by the SPB and submitted the necessary authorization for the union dues deduction,
the State failed to make such deductions. On August 1, 2002, Mr. Gardner wrote to the State
complaining about the State's failure to correct Mr. Pittman's payroll status. He asked that Mr.
Pittman be considered a regular employee receiving a regular payroll check with appropriate
deductions.
On September 12, 2002, Mr. Pittman filed a written internal union complaint regarding
misconduct by Mr. Gardner. On September 13, 2002, Mr. Pittman's representative, Richard
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.
Pittman v. CDF Firefighters, case no. SA-CO-262-S, Maldonado v. CDF Firefighters,
case nos. SA-CO-263-S and SA-CO-264-S and Darrington v. CDF Firefighters case no. SA-
CO-261-S.

SA-CO-258-S
May 24, 2004
Page 2
Maldonado, the union's Region IV Director, filed a motion to disqualify the complete hearing
committee assigned to hear Pittman's complaint. The motion was denied by Vice President
Bob Wolf on September 24, 2002. By letter dated September 26, 2002 Michael Witesman,
chairman of the hearing committee, requested Mr. Pittman provide additional verification and
information regarding the complaint. By letter dated October 11, 2002, Mr. Witesman
informed Mr. Maldonado that six of 13 allegations in Mr. Pittman's complaint were untimely
and therefore dismissed.
On November 12, 2002, Larry German, Supervisor Representative for Region IV and Fresno
Chapter of the union, filed an internal complaint with the union against Mr. Pittman and others.
This complaint alleged that Mr. Pittman and Mr. Maldonado changed the Region IV bylaws to
state that: "Region IV would not allow Assistant Chiefs and above to be elected as Delegates
to Convention." By letter dated November 13, Mr. Witesman requested further information
regarding the allegations. The letter also indicated that the hearing committee would seek a
waiver of Operating Procedures Handbook section 413.03 B (hearing to occur no less than 30
days from receipt of the charge) in order to conduct the hearing prior to the beginning of the
union convention on December 4, 2002.
On November 12, 2002 Mr. Maldonado requested a continuance of the Pittman hearing that
was scheduled for November 13. Mr. Maldonado made several other motions in other letters
dated November 12. Mr. Pittman and Mr. Maldonado attended the hearing on November 13
and made several motions to the committee, all of which were denied. After losing their
motions they did not present evidence or call witnesses but left the hearing without completing
their presentation because of their belief that they could not receive a fair hearing. By letter
dated November 20, Mr. Maldonado requested that the hearing be reconvened on December 4
prior to the beginning of the union convention:
On November 21, 2002, Darla Mills filed a union complaint against Mr. Pittman, Mr.
Maldonado, and others.
By letter dated December 4, 2002, Byron Darrington, CDF Firefighters Region Supervisor
Representative -Region IV filed a formal complaint with the union on behalf of Mr.
Maldonado, Mr. Pittman and Ken Craw against Mr. Gardner, Mr. Witesman and the other
hearing committee members.
At the union's convention in December 2002, Region IV representatives submitted nineteen
resolutions, most of which were directed at reducing the authority of managers and retired
members from holding office in the union and making decisions that affect rank and file
members.
On January 22, 2003, the CDF Firefighters held a regularly scheduled executive board
meeting. Region IV's Director and member of the executive board, Richard Maldonado was
excluded from the meeting by union attorney Ron Yank. Mr. Yank stated that the Board was
in executive session and that no one would be allowed to attend on behalf of Region IV. The
open Board meeting resumed at 1:00 p.m. and Mr. Maldonado was allowed to attend.
SA-CO-258-S
May 24, 2004
Page 2
Maldonado, the union's Region IV Director, filed a motion to disqualify the complete hearing
committee assigned to hear Pittman's complaint. The motion was denied by Vice President
Bob Wolf on September 24, 2002. By letter dated September 26, 2002 Michael Witesman,
chairman of the hearing committee, requested Mr. Pittman provide additional verification and
information regarding the complaint. By letter dated October 11, 2002, Mr. Witesman
informed Mr. Maldonado that six of 13 allegations in Mr. Pittman's complaint were untimely
and therefore dismissed.
On November 12, 2002, Larry German, Supervisor Representative for Region IV and Fresno
Chapter of the union, filed an internal complaint with the union against Mr. Pittman and others.
This complaint alleged that Mr. Pittman and Mr. Maldonado changed the Region IV bylaws to
state that: "Region IV would not allow Assistant Chiefs and above to be elected as Delegates
to Convention." By letter dated November 13, Mr. Witesman requested further information
regarding the allegations. The letter also indicated that the hearing committee would seek a
waiver of Operating Procedures Handbook section 413.03 B (hearing to occur no less than 30
days from receipt of the charge) in order to conduct the hearing prior to the beginning of the
union convention on December 4, 2002.
On November 12, 2002 Mr. Maldonado requested a continuance of the Pittman hearing that
was scheduled for November 13. Mr. Maldonado made several other motions in other letters
dated November 12. Mr. Pittman and Mr. Maldonado attended the hearing on November 13
and made several motions to the committee, all of which were denied. After losing their
motions they did not present evidence or call witnesses but left the hearing without completing
their presentation because of their belief that they could not receive a fair hearing. By letter
dated November 20, Mr. Maldonado requested that the hearing be reconvened on December 4
prior to the beginning of the union convention.
On November 21, 2002, Darla Mills filed a union complaint against Mr. Pittman, Mr.
Maldonado, and others.
By letter dated December 4, 2002, Byron Darrington, CDF Firefighters Region Supervisor
Representative - Region IV filed a formal complaint with the union on behalf of Mr.
Maldonado, Mr. Pittman and Ken Craw against Mr. Gardner, Mr. Witesman and the other
hearing committee members.
At the union's convention in December 2002, Region IV representatives submitted nineteen
resolutions, most of which were directed at reducing the authority of managers and retired
members from holding office in the union and making decisions that affect rank and file
members.
On January 22, 2003, the CDF Firefighters held a regularly scheduled executive board
meeting. Region IV's Director and member of the executive board, Richard Maldonado was
excluded from the meeting by union attorney Ron Yank. Mr. Yank stated that the Board was
in executive session and that no one would be allowed to attend on behalf of Region IV. The
open Board meeting resumed at 1:00 p.m. and Mr. Maldonado was allowed to attend.

SA-CO-258-S
May 24, 2004
Page 3
The Board's retiree representative made a motion to adopt a written by-law change entitled,
"Authority to Impose Trusteeship". Mr. Maldonado objected because he had not had an
opportunity to examine the by-law change and it was not listed as an agenda item. Mr. Yank
stated the change was discussed during executive session and that Mr. Maldonado had no right
to know the issues. Mr. Yank then stated that "nothing prior to or during executive session
was to be disclosed or discussed." The Board approved the by-law change with Mr.
Maldonado voting no. The Board then voted to allow for immediate administrative
enforcement of the addition to the by-laws. Mr. Maldonado was then asked to leave as the
Board returned to executive session. Region IV did not have a representative at the session.
During the meeting the Board returned to executive session to discuss past president Tom
Gardner's destruction of computer files after losing the election to Bob Wolf. Mr. Gardner and
Region IV alternative representative Don Saether were allowed to remain for the session.
However, Mr. Saether was excluded from the session when Region IV issues were discussed.
After returned to general session the Board announced that Region IV was placed in
trusteeship and'that Mr. Maldonado, Mr. Pittman, Mr. Saether and Ken Craw were no longer
officers of the union.
By letter dated January 23, 2003, Mr. Wolf notified "all Managers and Chiefs of CDF,
Financial Institutions, and others who do business or interact with CDF Firefighters or any
Region or Chapter thereof' that he had imposed a trusteeship upon Region IV of the union and
the Fresno-Kings Chapter, Tulare Chapter and San Benito-Monterey Chapter. The letter also
appointed trustees who are responsible for conducting all business involving these entities.
By letter dated January 23, 2003, Mr. Maldonado and Mr. Pittman were informed by the
hearing committee that they had pursued the charges against Mr. Gardner without reasonable
basis, in bad faith and/or by improper malice which is prohibited by the union's Operating
Procedures Handbook section 413.03.H. They were given an opportunity to respond to this
allegation.
By Mr. Wolfs letter dated January 28, 2003, Mr. Maldonado and Mr. Pittman were notified
that Ron Bywater had filed charges against them. The charges were improper use of union
assets in their charge against Mr. Gardner and Mr. Pittman's secret tape recording of a
conversation between him and Mr. Gardner on March 8, 2000.
•
On February 10, 2003, Carol Jolley, Chair of the union Investigative Committee, issued a
written Summary of Investigation concerning the allegation that Mr. Pittman violated Penal
Code section 632 by secretly tape recording a discussion he had with Mr. Gardner and Eric
Sargent on or about March 8, 2000. The report stated in summary that all elements of Penal
Code section 632 appear to have been met.
por
3 Penal Code section 623(a) prohibits an individual from recording a confidential
communication without the consent of all parties. Violation may be punished by a fine or
imprisonment.
CSA-CO-258-S
May 24, 2004
Page 3
The Board's retiree representative made a motion to adopt a written by-law change entitled,
"Authority to Impose Trusteeship". Mr. Maldonado objected because he had not had an
opportunity to examine the by-law change and it was not listed as an agenda item. Mr. Yank
stated the change was discussed during executive session and that Mr. Maldonado had no right
to know the issues. Mr. Yank then stated that "nothing prior to or during executive session
was to be disclosed or discussed." The Board approved the by-law change with Mr.
Maldonado voting no. The Board then voted to allow for immediate administrative
enforcement of the addition to the by-laws. Mr. Maldonado was then asked to leave as the
Board returned to executive session. Region IV did not have a representative at the session.
During the meeting the Board returned to executive session to discuss past president Tom
Gardner's destruction of computer files after losing the election to Bob Wolf. Mr. Gardner and
Region IV alternative representative Don Saether were allowed to remain for the session.
However, Mr. Saether was excluded from the session when Region IV issues were discussed.
After returned to general session the Board announced that Region IV was placed in
trusteeship and that Mr. Maldonado, Mr. Pittman, Mr. Saether and Ken Craw were no longer
officers of the union.
By letter dated January 23, 2003, Mr. Wolf notified "all Managers and Chiefs of CDF,
Financial Institutions, and others who do business or interact with CDF Firefighters or any
Region or Chapter thereof" that he had imposed a trusteeship upon Region IV of the union and
the Fresno-Kings Chapter, Tulare Chapter and San Benito-Monterey Chapter. The letter also
appointed trustees who are responsible for conducting all business involving these entities.
By letter dated January 23, 2003, Mr. Maldonado and Mr. Pittman were informed by the
hearing committee that they had pursued the charges against Mr. Gardner without reasonable
basis, in bad faith and/or by improper malice which is prohibited by the union's Operating
Procedures Handbook section 413.03.H. They were given an opportunity to respond to this
allegation.
By Mr. Wolf's letter dated January 28, 2003, Mr. Maldonado and Mr. Pittman were notified
that Ron Bywater had filed charges against them. The charges were improper use of union
assets in their charge against Mr. Gardner and Mr. Pittman's secret tape recording of a .
conversation between him and Mr. Gardner on March 8, 2000.
On February 10, 2003, Carol Jolley, Chair of the union Investigative Committee, issued a
written Summary of Investigation concerning the allegation that Mr. Pittman violated Penal
Code section 632 by secretly tape recording a discussion he had with Mr. Gardner and Eric
Sargent on or about March 8, 2000. The re 	t stated in summary that all elements of Penal
Code section 632 appear to have been met."
Penal Code section 623(a) prohibits an individual from recording a confidential
communication without the consent of all parties. Violation may be punished by a fine or
imprisonment.

SA-CO-258-S
May 24, 2004
Page 4
On February 12, 2003 the hearing committee chaired by Mr. Barrett commenced the hearing in
the charges filed by Mr. German against Mr. Pittman and Mr. Maldonado.
On February 13, 2003, Mr. Pittman attempted to tape record a membership meeting at a hotel
in Fresno. Mr. Pittman received approval of the recording from all members present in the
meeting. 	The Fresno Police Department was called by Hearing Committee Chair Steve
Barrett but they did not arrest Mr. Pittman for tape recording.
On February 18, 2003, President Wolf informed members of the San Benito-Monterey Chapter
of the union that the trusteeship was lifted.
On March 3, 2003, the Witesman hearing committee held a hearing on the charges that had
been filed against Mr. Pittman and Mr. Maldonado and found both guilty. They expelled both
from the union, Mr. Maldonado for life.
On March 5, 2003, the Witesman hearing committee issued its decision that found Mr. Pittman
40% liable for the violation of prosecuting charges against Mr. Gardner without reasonable
basis and in bad faith. He was ordered to reimburse Mr. Gardner, his representative and the
union for the costs and he was suspended from the union for a one year period beginning April
1, 2003. Mr. Maldonado was found 60% liable and ordered to reimburse the same parties for
costs and expelled from the :union effective April 1, 2003.
On March 6, 2003, Mr. Bywater amended his charges against Mr. Pittman to include a charge
of failure to exhaust internal union procedures prior to filing a unfair practice charge with
PERB. This allegation was withdrawn on March 10, 2003.
On March 14, 2003, Mr. Yank wrote to Mr. Darrington requesting that his clients, Mr.
Maldonado and Mr. Pittman return to the union all minutes and financial records of union
meetings as well as a computer.
On April 15, 2003, Mr. Yank filed charges against Mr. Maldonado with the Fresno Police
Department for felony grand theft of union property. After Mr. Maldonado produced evidence
to the contrary the police did not prosecute.
On November 23, 2003, a union Hearing Committee consisting of Steven Barrett, Dan Todd,
and Rich Garcia issued its decision on the Bywater v. Maldonado and Pittman charges. The
committee dismissed several charges and found violations on others. 	The penalties assessed
in the tentative decision against Mr. Maldonado and Mr. Pittman were identical: expulsion
from membership and 30% of the total costs of the Region IV trusteeship.
Based on the above information, this charge does not state a prima facie violation of the Dills
~~~~~~~~ 	.
SA-CO-258-S
May 24, 2004
Page 4
On February 12, 2003 the hearing committee chaired by Mr. Barrett commenced the hearing in
the charges filed by Mr. German against Mr. Pittman and Mr. Maldonado.
On February 13, 2003, Mr. Pittman attempted to tape record a membership meeting at a hotel
in Fresno. Mr. Pittman received approval of the recording from all members present in the
meeting. The Fresno Police Department was called by Hearing Committee Chair Steve
Barrett but they did not arrest Mr. Pittman for tape recording.
On February 18, 2003, President Wolf informed members of the San Benito-Monterey Chapter
of the union that the trusteeship was lifted.
On March 3, 2003, the Witesman hearing committee held a hearing on the charges that had
been filed against Mr. Pittman and Mr. Maldonado and found both guilty. They expelled both
from the union, Mr. Maldonado for life.
On March 5, 2003, the Witesman hearing committee issued its decision that found Mr. Pittman
40% liable for the violation of prosecuting charges against Mr. Gardner without reasonable
basis and in bad faith. He was ordered to reimburse Mr. Gardner, his representative and the
union for the costs and he was suspended from the union for a one year period beginning April
1, 2003. Mr. Maldonado was found 60% liable and ordered to reimburse the same parties for
costs and expelled from the union effective April 1, 2003.
On March 6, 2003, Mr. Bywater amended his charges against Mr. Pittman to include a charge
of failure to exhaust internal union procedures prior to filing a unfair practice charge with
PERB. This allegation was withdrawn on March 10, 2003.
On March 14, 2003, Mr. Yank wrote to Mr. Darrington requesting that his clients, Mr.
Maldonado and Mr. Pittman return to the union all minutes and financial records of union
meetings as well as a computer.
On April 15, 2003, Mr. Yank filed charges against Mr. Maldonado with the Fresno Police
Department for felony grand theft of union property. After Mr. Maldonado produced evidence
to the contrary the police did not prosecute.
On November 23, 2003, a union Hearing Committee consisting of Steven Barrett, Dan Todd,
and Rich Garcia issued its decision on the Bywater v. Maldonado and Pittman charges. The
committee dismissed several charges and found violations on others. The penalties assessed
in the tentative decision against Mr. Maldonado and Mr. Pittman were identical: expulsion
from membership and 30% of the total costs of the Region IV trusteeship.
Based on the above information, this charge does not state a prima facie violation of the Dills
Act for the reasons that follow.

SA-CO-258-S
May 24, 2004
Page 5
This charge alleges that the CDF Firefighters violated the Dills Act by: 1. Pr~sident Gardner
violated section 3515.5 when he interfered with Mr. Pittman's right to pay dues to CDF
Firefighters, 2. President Gardner violated section 3519.5(b) by canceling Mr. Pittman's
membership during the appeal of his termination, 3. President Wolf violated section 3515.5 by
interfering with Mr. Pittman's pursuit of charges against Mr. Gardner and allowing the hearing
committee to take reprisals against Mr. Pittman for filing an unfair practice charge, 4. the
hearing committee violated section 3515.5(b) by removing Mr. Pittman as a Director of the
San Benito-Monterey Chapter.
PERB has long held that the standard applied in cases involving employer discrimination is
appropriate in cases alleging discrimination by an employee organization. (State of California
(Department of Developmental Services) (1983) PERB Decision No. 344-S; California Faculty
Association (Hale, et al.) (1988) PERB Decision No. 693-H; California Union of Safety
Employees (Coelho) (1994) PERB Decision No. 1032-S.) To demonstrate a violation of Dills
Act section 3519.5(b), the charging party must show that: (1) the employee exercised rights
under the Dills Act; (2) the employee organization had knowledge of the exercise of those
rights; and (3) th~ employee organization 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.)
In discrimination charges filed against employee organizations based on internal union activity
by the charging party, the charge must demonstrate that the internal union conduct had an
impact on employer-employee relations. (California State Employees Association (Hard, et al.)
(2002) PERB Decision No. 1479-S.) In addition, the adverse action taken by the employee
organization must have some impact on employer-employee relations. (California State
Employees Association (Hard, et al.) (1999) PERB Decision No. 1368-S.)
The allegations of discrimination here do not demonstrate that Mr. Pittman's internal union
activities had any impact on his relationship to the State employer. There is no information
that states how the filing of internal charges against CDF Firefighter members or the attempts
to change internal bylaws had an impact of the State employer. Nor did the alleged adverse
actions by CDF Firefighters hearing committee or President Gardner have an impact on the
relationship between Mr. Pittman and the State. Accordingly, these allegations must be
dismissed.
With respect to the alleged violations of Dills Act section 3515.5. That section reads:
Employee organizations shall have the right to represent their
members in their employment relations with the state, except that
once an employee organization is recognized as the exclusive
representative of an appropriate unit, the recognized employee
organization is the only organization that may represent that unit
in employment relations with the state. Employee organizations
SA-CO-258-S
May 24, 2004
Page 5
This charge alleges that the CDF Firefighters violated the Dills Act by: 1. President Gardner
violated section 3515.5 when he interfered with Mr. Pittman's right to pay dues to CDF
Firefighters, 2. President Gardner violated section 3519.5(b) by canceling Mr. Pittman's
membership during the appeal of his termination, 3. President Wolf violated section 3515.5 by
interfering with Mr. Pittman's pursuit of charges against Mr. Gardner and allowing the hearing
committee to take reprisals against Mr. Pittman for filing an unfair practice charge, 4. the
hearing committee violated section 3515.5(b) by removing Mr. Pittman as a Director of the
San Benito-Monterey Chapter.
PERB has long held that the standard applied in cases involving employer discrimination is
appropriate in cases alleging discrimination by an employee organization. (State of California
Department of Developmental Services) (1983) PERB Decision No. 344-S; California Faculty
Association (Hale, et al.) (1988) PERB Decision No. 693-H; California Union of Safety
Employees (Coelho) (1994) PERB Decision No. 1032-S.) To demonstrate a violation of Dills
Act section 3519.5(b), the charging party must show that: (1) the employee exercised rights
under the Dills Act; (2) the employee organization had knowledge of the exercise of those
rights; and (3) the employee organization 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.)
In discrimination charges filed against employee organizations based on internal union activity
by the charging party, the charge must demonstrate that the internal union conduct had an
impact on employer-employee relations. (California State Employees Association (Hard, et al.)
(2002) PERB Decision No. 1479-S.) In addition, the adverse action taken by the employee
organization must have some impact on employer-employee relations. (California State
Employees Association (Hard, et al.) (1999) PERB Decision No. 1368-S.)
The allegations of discrimination here do not demonstrate that Mr. Pittman's internal union
activities had any impact on his relationship to the State employer. There is no information
that states how the filing of internal charges against CDF Firefighter members or the attempts
to change internal bylaws had an impact of the State employer. Nor did the alleged adverse
actions by CDF Firefighters hearing committee or President Gardner have an impact on the
relationship between Mr. Pittman and the State. Accordingly, these allegations must be
dismissed.
With respect to the alleged violations of Dills Act section 3515.5. That section reads:
Employee organizations shall have the right to represent their
members in their employment relations with the state, except that
once an employee organization is recognized as the exclusive
representative of an appropriate unit, the recognized employee
organization is the only organization that may represent that unit
in employment relations with the state. Employee organizations

SA-CO-258-S
May 24, 2004
Page 6
( 	(
may establish reasonable restrictions regarding who may join and
may make reasonable provisions for the dismissal of individuals
from membership. Nothing in this section shall prohibit any
employee from appearing in his own behalf in his employment
relations with the state.
In California State Employees Association (Hard, et al.) (2002) PERB Decision No. 1479-S the
Board stated:
PERB's authority to determine the reasonableness of a
membership provision must include not just the reasonableness of
the provisioI?- itself, but the reasonableness of the provision as it
was applied in the case pending before the Board. (California
Correctional Peace Officers Association (Colman) (1989) PERB
Decision No. 755-S, p. 21.) Here, even if the Board were to find
that the summary suspension procedures were reasonable, a
violation of the Dills Act will be found if their application in this
case was not reasonable.
The test under Dills Act section 3515.5 only applies to an employee who has been suspended
or expelled from union membership. (California State Employees Association (Barker &
Osuna) (2003) PERB Decision No. 1551-S.)
The charge alleges President Gardner violated section 3515.5 when he interfered with Mr.
Pittman's right to pay dues to CDF Firefighters. This conduct occurred while Mr. Pittman was
terminated and waiting for a decision from the State Personnel Board on his appeal. He was
reinstated in December 2001. During 2002 there was an ongoing question concerning the
State's deduction of Mr. Pittman's dues which appears to have culminated in President
Gardner's August 1, 2002 electronic mail message to the State.
Dills Act section 3514.5(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.) The statute of limitations is an affirmative defense which
has been raised by the respondent in this case. (Long Beach Community College District
(2003) PERB Decision No. 1564.) Therefore, charging party now bears the burden of
demonstrating that the charge is timely filed. (cf. Tehachapi Unified School District (1993)
PERB Decision No. 1024; State of California (Department oflnsurance) (1997) PERB
Decision No. 1197-S.)
Based on the January 24, 2003 filing of this charge, any conduct prior to July 24, 2002 is
outside the statute of limitations and therefore must be dismissed. The August 1 e-mail is
within the statute of limitations period but does not indicate any attempt to interfere with Mr.
Pittman's right to have dues deducted. Rather the e-mail urges the State to correct the problem
SA-CO-258-S
May 24, 2004
Page 6
may establish reasonable restrictions regarding who may join and
may make reasonable provisions for the dismissal of individuals
from membership. Nothing in this section shall prohibit any
employee from appearing in his own behalf in his employment
relations with the state.
In California State Employees Association (Hard, et al.) (2002) PERB Decision No. 1479-$ the
Board stated:
PERB's authority to determine the reasonableness of a
membership provision must include not just the reasonableness of
the provision itself, but the reasonableness of the provision as it
was applied in the case pending before the Board. (California
Correctional Peace Officers Association (Colman) (1989) PERB
Decision No. 755-S, p. 21.) Here, even if the Board were to find
that the summary suspension procedures were reasonable, a
violation of the Dills Act will be found if their application in this
case was not reasonable.
The test under Dills Act section 3515.5 only applies to an employee who has been suspended
or expelled from union membership. (California State Employees Association (Barker &
Osuna) (2003) PERB Decision No. 1551-S.)
The charge alleges President Gardner violated section 3515.5 when he interfered with Mr.
Pittman's right to pay dues to CDF Firefighters. This conduct occurred while Mr. Pittman was
terminated and waiting for a decision from the State Personnel Board on his appeal. He was
reinstated in December 2001. During 2002 there was an ongoing question concerning the
State's deduction of Mr. Pittman's dues which appears to have culminated in President
Gardner's August 1, 2002 electronic mail message to the State.
Dills Act section 3514.5(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.) The statute of limitations is an affirmative defense which
has been raised by the respondent in this case. (Long Beach Community College District
(2003) PERB Decision No. 1564.) Therefore, charging party now bears the burden of
demonstrating that the charge is timely filed. (cf. Tehachapi Unified School District (1993)
PERB Decision No. 1024; State of California (Department of Insurance) (1997) PERB
Decision No. 1197-S.)
Based on the January 24, 2003 filing of this charge, any conduct prior to July 24, 2002 is
outside the statute of limitations and therefore must be dismissed. The August 1 e-mail is
within the statute of limitations period but does not indicate any attempt to interfere with Mr.
Pittman's right to have dues deducted. Rather the e-mail urges the State to correct the problem

SA-CO-258-S
May 24, 2004
Page 7
and treat Mr. Pittman_ as a regular employee. Therefore no violation based on this theory has
been presented.
The charge also alleges that President Wolf violated section 3515.5 by interfering with Mr.
Pittman's pursuit of charges against Mr. Gardner and allowing the hearing committee to take
reprisals against Mr. Pittman for filing an unfair practice charge. It appears that the hearing
committee was prepared to hear Mr. Pittman's evidence on November 13, 2003 but that Mr.
Pittman and his representative chose to leave the hearing without presenting any evidence.
The hearing committee then proceeded to determine that Mr. Pittman and Mr. Maldonado had
proceeded against Mr. Gardner without reasonable basis and in bad faith in violation of CDF
Firefighters Operating Procedures Handbook section 413.03.H.
The information presented in the charge does not describe specifically why the hearing
procedure or its application in these circumstances is unreasonable. Without such information,
this allegation must be dismissed.
The charge finally alleges that the hearing committee violated section 3515.5(b) by removing
Mr. Pittman as a Director of the San Benito-Monterey Chapter. Because this allegation does
not concern suspension or expulsion from membership, it does not meet the threshold test for
stating a violation of section 3515 .5 and 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 Third 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 4, 2004, I shall dismiss your charge. If
you have any questions, please call me at the above telephone number.
Sincerely,
Robert Thompson
General Counsel
SA-CO-258-S
May 24, 2004
Page 7
and treat Mr. Pittman as a regular employee. Therefore no violation based on this theory has
been presented.
The charge also alleges that President Wolf violated section 3515.5 by interfering with Mr.
Pittman's pursuit of charges against Mr. Gardner and allowing the hearing committee to take
reprisals against Mr. Pittman for filing an unfair practice charge. It appears that the hearing
committee was prepared to hear Mr. Pittman's evidence on November 13, 2003 but that Mr.
Pittman and his representative chose to leave the hearing without presenting any evidence.
The hearing committee then proceeded to determine that Mr. Pittman and Mr. Maldonado had
proceeded against Mr. Gardner without reasonable basis and in bad faith in violation of CDF
Firefighters Operating Procedures Handbook section 413.03.H.
The information presented in the charge does not describe specifically why the hearing
procedure or its application in these circumstances is unreasonable. Without such information,
this allegation must be dismissed.
The charge finally alleges that the hearing committee violated section 3515.5(b) by removing
Mr. Pittman as a Director of the San Benito-Monterey Chapter. Because this allegation does
not concern suspension or expulsion from membership, it does not meet the threshold test for
stating a violation of section 3515.5 and 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 Third 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
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 I do not receive an
amended charge or withdrawal from you before June 4, 2004, I shall dismiss your charge. If
you have any questions, please call me at the above telephone number.
Sincerely,
Robert Thompson
General Counsel