Jurupa Community Services District (PERB 1920M)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
R
JURUPA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,
Charging Party,
v.
JURUPA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT,
Respondent.
Case No. LA-CE-224-M
PERB Decision No. 	1920-M
A u g u s t 	1 0 , 	2007
Appearance: 	Best, Best & Krieger by J. Michael Summerour and Brett A. Harvey, Attorneys,
for Jurupa Community Services District.
Before Duncan, Chairman; Shek and Neuwald, Members.
DECISION
DUNCAN, Chairman: 	This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on exceptions filed by the Jurupa Community Services District (District)
to the proposed decision (attached) of an administrative law judge (ALJ). 	The unfair practice
charge alleged that the District violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA)l 	by
terminating the employment of James Caldaronello (Caldaronello) in retaliation for his
filing a grievance. 	The Jurupa Community Services District Employees Association alleged
that this conduct constituted a violation of MMBA sections 3503 and 3506, and PERB
Regulation 32603(a) and (b).i
MMBA is codified at Government Code section 3500, et seq. Unless otherwise indicated,
all statutory references are to the Government Code.
22 2pERB regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8,
section 31001, et seq.

2
The Board has reviewed the entire record in this matter, including the unfair practice
charge and amended charge, the District's response, the partial dismissal letter, the parties'
briefs, the ALJ's proposed decision and the District's exceptions.w3 We adopt the ALJ's
proposed decision as the decision of the Board itself, except as discussed below.4
DISCUSSION
Whether Smith's Actions Could be Imputed to the District
The proposed decision found that Caldaronello was discharged in retaliation for his
protected activity. 	Analyzing the case under the standard set forth in Novato Unified School
District (1982) PERB Decision No. 210, the ALJ found that there was a sufficient nexus
between Caldaronello's protected activity of filing a grievance and his termination. 	The ALJ
found that the timing of his termination, less than two months after Caldaronello informed his
manager about the grievance was a factor. 	The ALJ also found that the termination was
motivated by anti-union animus, citing Smith's attempts to talk Caldaronello out of filing the
grievance. 	Smith told Caldaronello that he must first talk to his supervisor and advised him
that the District would not pay for his travel time, implying that filing the grievance would be a
The Board has already considered and denied a request for oral argument in this case
on January 4, 2007.
4In the proposed decision, the ALJ found that the testimony by Caldaronello's
immediate supervisor, Steve Jaynes (Jaynes), Operations Manager Charles Smith (Smith) and
General Manager Carol McGreevy (McGreevy) regarding complaints made by other
employees against Caldaronello, was hearsay. 	While evidence of such alleged complaints
may not have been hearsay because it was not necessarily offered for the truth of the matter
asserted, but rather to show the District's motivation in terminating Caldaronello (see County
of San Joaquin (Health Care Services) (2004) PERB Decision No. l649-M; Woodland Joint
Unified School District (1990) PERB Decision No. 808), the ALJ was permitted to take into
account the fact that the alleged complainants did not testify in assessing the credibility of the
District's witnesses on these issues. 	We find that the ALJ's conclusions are supported by the
record and defer to the ALJ's credibility determinations. 	(Beverly Hills Unified School
District (1990) PERB Decision No. 789.)

33
waste of his efforts. 	Additionally, Smith found Caldaronello "insubordinate" and stated that he
had a "bad attitude" when he refused to follow his "advice" about not filing the grievance.
The District excepts to the ALJ's factual determination that there was anti-union
animus, arguing that even if true, Smith's actions should not be imputed to the District.
However, the record is plain that at the time that Caldaronello received the notice and
determination letter from Smith, Smith was a manager for the District and was acting in his
capacity as an agent of the District with the authority to do so. 	(Inglewood Unified School
District (1990) PERB Decision No. 792.)
Furthermore, the District asserts that rather than relying solely on Smith's
recommendation to terminate Caldaronello, McGreevy met independently with Caldaronello at
his so-called Skelly hearing5 and personally interviewed additional witnesses regarding the
incidents in the Notice of Proposed Termination. 	Therefore, the District argues, McGreevy's
actions should be analyzed under the Board's holding in Konocti Unified School District (1982)
PERB Decision No. 217 (Konocti). 	In Konocti the Board held that a school district
superintendent's anti-union animus would not be imputed to the District, where the District
conducted its own disciplinary hearing and rejected his recommendation. 	In this case
McGreevy did rely upon Smith's recommendation as evidenced by her citing to and attaching
Smith's December 14, 2004, notice of proposed termination. 	McGreevy also acknowledged
McGreevy testified that she held a Skelly hearing for Caldaronello on January 3, 2005.
At the hearing, she allegedly discussed each of the items in a December 14, 2004, letter with
Caldaronello. 	In the proposed decision, the ALJ did not find that Caldaronello's meeting with
McGreevy was a Skelly hearing and made no finding as to whether the District deprived
Caldaronello of this right, because the issue was not alleged in the complaint nor fully litigated
at hearing. (Skelly v. State Personnel Board (1975) 15 Ca1.3d 194 (124 Ca1.Rptr. 14).

4
that she was only aware of Caldaronello's October 12, 2004,6 conversation with his immediate
supervisor, Jaynes, and Smith because she read about it in Smith's December 14, 2004, letter.
We find that the record in this case supports a finding that the designees' actions are attributed to
the District.
ORDER7
Based upon the entire record in this matter, the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB) finds that the Jurupa Community Services District (District) violated the Meyers-
Milias-Brown Act (MMBA), Government Code sections 3503 and 3506, and PERB
Regulation 32603(a) and (b) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, sec. 31001, et seq.). The District violated
the MMBA by discharging James Caldaronello (Caldaronello) in retaliation for his filing a
grievance.
Pursuant to MMBA section 3509(b), it is hereby ORDERED that the District, its
governing board and its representatives shall:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
1. Discharging or otherwise disciplining employees because of their
exercise of protected rights;
2. 	Depriving recognized employee organizations of the right to represent
their members.
6 61n the October 12, 2004 conversation, Caldaronello informed Jaynes and Smith of his
intention of filing a grievance.
7The District excepted to the ALJ's determination that Caldaronello should be made
whole by reinstatement and back pay wages with interest. 	The Board's statutory authority
under the MMBA includes the ability to determine the appropriate remedy necessary to
effectuate the purposes of the MMBA including the authority to order reinstatement with or
without back pay. (MMBA sec. 3509(b); PERB Reg. 32325.) In this instance the Board has
determined to revise a portion of the Order to clarify what we intend.

B. 	TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE MMBA:
1. 	Offer to Caldaronello reinstatement to his former position of
employment or if that position no longer exists, then to a substantially similar position;
2. 	Make Caldaronello whole for lost benefits, monetary and otherwise which
he suffered as a result of his discharge in January 2005, including back pay together with
interest computed at the rate of 7 per cent per annum;
3. 	Remove from all District files all notes, written warnings, notices of
proposed termination, determination of proposed termination, and other documents relating to
the discipline or discharge of Caldaronello;
4. 	Within ten (10) workdays following the date this Decision is no longer
subject to appeal, post at all work locations in the District where notices to employees
customarily are posted, copies of the Notice attached hereto as an Appendix. The Notice must
be signed by an authorized agent of the District, indicating that the District will comply with
the terms of this Order. 	Such posting shall be maintained for a period of thirty (30)
consecutive workdays. Reasonable steps shall be taken to ensure that the Notice is not reduced
in size, altered, defaced, or covered with any other material.
5. 	Written notification of the actions taken to comply with this Order shall
be made to the General Counsel of PERB, or the General Counsel's designee. The District
shall provide reports, in writing, as directed by the General Counsel or his/her designee. 	All
reports regarding compliance with this Order shall be concurrently served on the Jurupa
Community Services District Employees Association.
Members Shek and Neuwald joined in this Decision.
5

APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the State of California
R
After a hearing in Unfair Practice Case No. LA-CE-224-M, Jurupa Community
Services District Employees Association v. Jurupa Community Services District, in which all
parties had the right to participate, it has been found that the Jurupa Community Services
District (District) violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA), Government Code
sections 3503 and 3506, and Public Employment Relations Board Regulation 32603(a) and (b)
(Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, sec. 31001, et seq.). The District violated the MMBA by terminating
James Caldaronello (Caldaronello) in retaliation for his filing a grievance.
As a result of this conduct, we have been ordered to post this Notice and we will:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
1. Discharging or otherwise disciplining employees because of their
exercise of protected rights;
2. 	Depriving recognized employee organizations of the right to represent
their members.
B. 	TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE MMBA:
1. 	Offer to Caldaronello reinstatement to his former position of
employment or if that position no longer exists, then to a substantially similar position;
2. 	Make Caldaronello whole for lost benefits, monetary and otherwise which
he suffered as a result of his discharge in January 2005, including back pay together with
interest computed at the rate of 7 per cent per annum;
3. 	Remove from all District files all notes, written warnings, notices of
proposed termination, determination of proposed termination, and other documents relating to
the discipline or discharge of Caldaronello.
Dated: 	JURUPA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
By:
Authorized Agent
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE. 	IT MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR AT LEAST THIRTY
(30) CONSECUTIVE WORKDAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE
REDUCED IN SIZE, DEFACED, ALTERED OR COVERED WITH ANY OTHER
MATERIAL.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD R
JURUPA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,
Charging Party,
v.
JURUPA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT,
Respondent.
UNFAIR PRACTICE
CASE NO. LA-CE-224-M
PROPOSED DECISION
November 7, 2006
Appearances: 	City Employees Associates by David Twedell, Attorney, for Jurupa Community
Services District Employees Association; Best, Best & Krieger by Michael Summerour and
Brett Harvey, Attorneys, for Jurupa Community Services District.
Before Ann L. Weinman, Administrative Law Judge.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On May 31, 2005, the Jurupa Community Services District Employees Association
(Association) filed an unfair practice charge alleging that the Jurupa Community Services
District (District) terminated the employment of James Caldaronello (Caldaronello) in
retaliation for his filing a grievance. 	On December 9, 2005, the General Counsel of the Public
Employment Relations Board (PERB or Board) issued a complaint alleging that by the above
conduct, the District violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) section 3506 and PERB
Regulation 32603(a), and by the same conduct violated section 3503, thereby committing an
unfair practice under section 3509(b) and PERB Regulation 32603(b).1 In its answer to the
1 The MMBA is codified at Government Code section 3500 et seq. 	Section 3506
states: "(P)ublic agencies . . . shall not interfere with, intimidate, restrain, coerce or
discriminate against public employees because of their exercise of their rights under Section
3502." 	Section 3503 provides that "(R)ecognized employee organizations shall have the right
to represent their members in their employment relations with public agencies." 	Section
3509(b) provides that violation of the above sections "shall be processed as an unfair practice
charge by the board." PERB Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title

complaint, the District denied any wrongdoing.
An informal conference was held at the Los Angeles offices of PERB on January 19,
2006, but the matter was not resolved. 	A formal hearing was held before the undersigned on
August 15 and 16, 2006. 	After the submission of post-hearing briefs, the matter was submitted
for decision on October 20, 2006.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The District is a public agency within the meaning of MMBA section 3501(c). 	The
Association is a recognized employee organization within the meaning of section 3501(b).
Caldaronello was at all material times a public employee within the meaning of section
350l(d). He was employed by the District as a Grade I sewer collections worker since July 7,
2003. His immediate supervisor was Steve Jaynes (Jaynes); Jaynes' supervisor is Operations
Manager Charles Smith (Smith), who in turn reports to General Manager Carol McGreevy
(McGreevy). 	Caldaronello was a member of the bargaining unit represented by the
Association. 	On January 30, 2004, Jaynes issued him a Performance Review for the period
July 7, 2003, through January 7, 2004, in which he was rated "Meets Job Requirements" in
each category. 	In the category entitled "Co operation," Jaynes commented:
Jim generally co operates with associates and has assisted the
Water Department staff when asked to do so. 	However he can also
exhibit an abrasive manner whether it be in a joking manner or
otherwise. 	This type of behavior is counterproductive. 	Jim must
exhibit a more positive outlook.
In the "Current & Future Goals" section, one listed item reads:
(U)se a more tactful and less abusive approach when speaking
with his co-workers and the public.
8, section 31001 et seq. Regulation 32603 states in relevant part: 	"It shall be an unfair
practice for a public agency to do any of the following: 	(a) Interfere with, intimidate, restrain,
coerce or discriminate against public employees because of their exercise of rights guaranteed
by (MMBA) . . . (b) Deny to employee organizations rights guaranteed to them by (MMBA).
2

Prior to the events herein Caldaronello had never been disciplined.
On October 12, 2004,2 Caldaronello had conversations with Jaynes and Smith. He
claimed he should be paid travel time when he was called to work while off duty, and said he
intended to file a grievance on the matter. On October 13 the Association filed a grievance on
his behalf with McGreevy, alleging that the District unilaterally changed its practice of paying
travel time for "on-call 	assignments.
On December 9 Caldaronello had an altercation with another employee, Russell
Duckworth (Duckworth), (described fully, infra) whose supervisor was Robert Frusher
(Frusher). 	On December 10 Jaynes and Frusher issued written reprimands to the two
employees:
As stated in the District's Personnel Manual (citations omitted), the
Districts (sp] goals are to provide a work environment that promotes
respect and cooperation among all employees. 	Harassment of any
employee by another employee is illegal and shall not be tolerated.
(Harassment may consist of verbal, physical, or visual types).
Discourteous treatment of fellow employees is cause for disciplinary
action.
These guidelines will be adhered to during your employment with
the District.
The District was made aware of an incident involving you and a
co-worker on December 9, 2004 at approximately 5:00 p.m. The
District has investigated this matter and determined that a non-
respective (sic] verbal exchange did occur between you and a co-worker.
This exchange involved derogatory and inflammatory remarks by
you (you are a fucking dick, you're a fucking asshole).
Your actions on December 9, 2004 were in violation of the above
stated District rules and policies. 	Failure to follow these procedures
will lead to further disciplinary actions up to and including
dismissal. w	3
All dates hereafter refer to the year 2004 unless otherwise specified.
J Duckworth received a virtually identical written reprimand.
3

Jaynes and Frusher also spoke about the altercation with Smith and with McGreevy (discussed
fully, infra.) 	McGreevy asked Jaynes if there had been other incidents involving
Caldaronell04; when Jaynes responded affirmatively, she told him to document all incidents
and proceed with a proposed termination.
On December 14 Jaynes issued another written reprimand regarding Caldaronello's
December request for credit for eight hours compensatory time. 	The reprimand accuses
Caldaronello of falsely accusing a supervisor of modifying his time card. 	The reprimand also
criticizes Caldaronello for not completing an incident form or providing medical verification
after taking a day of sick leave on December 3 (both incidents are described fully, infra.) 	The
reprimand concludes as follows:
Honesty and truthfulness are traits employers must insist on. 	You
have exhibited a lack of both. 	Your actions on December 7, 2004
(the day he returned to work after the injury) were in violation of
the above stated District rules and policies. 	Failure to follow these
procedures will lead to further disciplinary actions up to and
including dismissal.
Also on December 14, Smith prepared a Notice of Proposed Termination citing seven items,
which McGreevy reviewed and approved before it was given to Caldaronello. 	The only
incidents directly involving Smith were the first and fourth items; the others were reported to
him by Jaynes from the notes Jaynes had prepared at McGreevy's request. 	The Notice reads:
You are hereby advised that intent to terminate of (sic) your employment
with the Jurupa Community Services District (District) has been
proposed, effective the end of the work day on December 22, 2004.
This action is based on the following:
(1) The Field Supervisor warned you on February 19, 2004 for
intentionally slamming doors in the warehouse area.
4 	There is no evidence that McGreevy asked Frusher if there were prior incidents
involving Duckworth.
4

5
(2) 	On August 3, 2004, you were once again warned about using
derogatory comments to describe a co-worker that had received a
promotion in the Collections Department.
(3) 	You were given written instruction on September 2, 2004 to
provide the District with verification of future illnesses by his[ ]5
medical provider due to incurring three separate sick leave
occurrences within a six-month period per District policy Exhibit (A)(6).
(4) 	On October 12, 2004,I confronted you with a problem regarding
grievance procedures for travel time not allowed within District
practice. 	You responded that you would let the representative go
forward. 	You were warned regarding your attitude during the exchange.
(5) 	You called to report that he (see footnote 3) could not report to work on
Friday December 3, 2004 due to an injury. 	It was not known to the District
whether the injury was work related or from after hours activities.
After returning to work on December 7, 2004 from sick leave, you
were asked for verification from your medical provider. 	You stated
that the time off was due to an injury at work. 	You were reminded
that you had not informed a supervisor immediately and had not
completed the required incident/accident report. 	You stated that you
would fie a grievance if you had to submit the verification because
a co-worker knew of your injury and your intent to claim a HEPPA7
violation; for actions that you informed the co-workers of. 	(You
were warned about lifting too much weight on the preceding
Thursday by a lead worker, but you did not heed this warning).
You were instructed to provide the required verification and report.
You have not provided the required information as of this date.
(6) 	On December 7, 2004 you filed a Comp Time Request for
hours from November 11, 2004 that which (sic) you had already been
compensated for. 	You then falsely accused your supervisor of
making modifications to your timecard.
(7) 	On December 10, 2004 you were again involved in a dispute
5 As noted above, Smith got his information from Jaynes' written notes, thus he
incorporated the notes into this Notice without changing the pronoun.
6 This item refers to a memo sent by Jaynes to Caldaronello reciting the District's six-
month sick leave policy, informing him that because he had already taken sick leave three
times during the period April 29, 2004 to August 18, 2004, he was required to provide written
medical verification for any future use of sick leave, and that failure to follow proper
procedures "will lead to further disciplinary actions . . . "
7 This refers to a set of environmental regulations.

6
with another co-worker that involved your use of derogatory and
inflammatory remarks and a written reprimand was issued Exhibit (B).
Due to your unwillingness to affect needed conduct changes and
your unresponsiveness to multiple warnings I am recommending as
of December 22, 2004 that you be relieved of your position with
the District.
On December 20 Smith issued a Notice of Proposed Termination, Clarification of Verbage (sp)
in which he changed the original Notice as follows: 	a few grammatical changes were made;
the words "once again" were deleted from paragraph (2); and the following language was
added to paragraph (4), indicated by underline:
You responded that you would let the representative go forward
with the grievance without following the guidelines. 	You were
warned regarding your attitude during the exchange of information
because you were insubordinate during the conversation.
In early January 2005, McGreevy spoke one-on-one with Caldaronello and other
witnesses regarding the various incidents cited in the Notice and the other incidents reported
by Jaynes. 	On January 27, 2005, McGreevy issued a Determination of Proposed Termination,
which states:
You are hereby advised that in accordance with the District's
At the hearing, McGreevy characterized her January meeting with Caldaronello as a
Skelly hearing. (In Skelly v. State Personnel Board, (1975) 15 Ca1.3d 194 (124 Cal.Rptr. 14),
the court determined that public employees have a due process right to a pre-termination
hearing). 	The Association disputes that a due process hearing was held. 	The District's
Personnel Manual provides that upon notice of a proposed termination, the employee may
respond orally or in writing to the Manager, who "shall review the matter" and render a
determination, which is what happened here. 	The Manual also provides that the employee may
appeal the Manager's determination, in which case a hearing would be held before the
Personnel Committee. 	Here, Caldaronello filed an appeal but the District rejected it as
untimely. 	In its original unfair practice charge the Association alleged that the District
unlawfully denied Caldaronello his right to a hearing; however, the amended charge did not
address this issue and it was dismissed by PERB prior to complaint. 	Based on the Personnel
Manual, I do not find that Caldaronello's meeting with McGreevy was a Skelly hearing.
However, as the issue of his right to a due process hearing was not alleged in the complaint or
fully litigated at the hearing, I make no finding as to whether the District deprived him of this
right.

7
Personnel Manual (citations omitted), I have considered and
reviewed all the relevant facts concerning the proposed termination
notice provided to you on December 14, 2004, and letter of
clarification dated December 20, 2004 (both attached).
It is with regret that I must inform you that due to the previous
disciplinary memorandums provided to you on September 2, 2004,
December 10, 2004 and December 14, 2004 (copies attached), and
above all, the seriousness of the actions by you, as described within
the December 10, 2004 written reprimand, your release from
employment with the District will be upheld, and is effective on
January 29, 2005.
The Determination letter then recites the items in Smith's corrected Notice with the following
changes: 	various sections of the District Personnel Manual are cited as being violated by these
items; and paragraph (4) is eliminated.
The District contends that its decisions were motivated by Caldaronello's misconduct
and that it would have taken the same actions in the absence of his grievance. 	Both Smith and
McGreevy testified that the incidents cited in the Notice and the Determination include all the
reasons for his termination and that there are no other reasons. 	As to those incidents, the
parties contend as follows:
(1) 	Door slamming: 	On February 19 Smith was in the warehouse area when he saw
Caldaronello head for the bathroom. 	Smith could not see the bathroom door, but heard it slam
when Caldaronello exited, which caused it some damage. 	Smith called out to him that
slamming doors wouldn't solve anything; Caldaronello responded that he didn't slam it, but it
had slipped. 	According to Caldaronello, Smith also said, "We can send people home for that,"
to which Caldaronello responded, "For what?" At the hearing Smith testified that he did not
believe the door slipped, as it was a heavy door, very hard to open and close, and he believed
Caldaronello deliberately slammed it. 	There was no further discussion on the matter, and no
action was taken.

(2) Derogatory comments to coworker: 	In August Jaynes told Smith that employee
John Faber (Faber), who had successfully competed against Caldaronello for a promotion, said
Caldaronello subjected him to "repeated verbal abuse" by saying, "(T)he only way to get ahead
in this District is to be a kiss-ass." Smith testified that his reference to Caldaronello's being
"once again warned," (which was included in his original December 14 Notice but removed in
his December 20 Clarification) was because Jaynes told him that Faber had made prior
complaints. 	Smith did not explain why he deleted the reference to prior warnings in his
Clarification.
McGreevy, in her investigation of the events leading to the discharge in January 2005,
spoke to Faber; according to her notes, Faber said no adverse remarks were made to his face
but Caldaronello had told other coworkers that he (Caldaronello) should have gotten the
promotion. 	For his part, Caldaronello denied insulting Faber, rather, he claimed to have
congratulated him on the promotion. 	Faber did not testify.
(3) Sick leave instructions: When asked whether Jaynes' giving Caldaronello the
September 2, 2004, memo regarding sick leave policy was disciplinary, Smith claimed that it
was a "corrective action." However, Caldaronello was not counseled or disciplined regarding
this memo. 	There is no allegation that prior to the issuance of the memo Caldaronello had
violated any sick leave policy.
(4) Travel time grievance: On December 3 Caldaronello was called to work while off
duty; on his time card he claimed travel time. 	On December 12 he spoke with Jaynes, who
said the District does not pay for travel time. 	According to Caldaronello, he said if Jaynes
could not get it resolved, he would fie a grievance. 	Jaynes admitted that Caldaronello "may
have said" he might fie a grievance. 	Later that day Jaynes told Smith about the travel time
problem and the potential grievance. 	Smith testified that Jaynes said Caldaronello had not
8

spoken with him about it; but Smith could not explain how Jaynes knew there was a problem if
he hadn't spoken to Caldaronello about it. 	Shortly after talking with Jaynes, Smith went to
where Caldaronello was working and approached him to discuss the potential grievance.
Smith told him there were "steps to go through," i.e., he must first speak with his supervisor,
then go through the "chain of command," i.e., the General Manager, then the Personnel
Committee. 	Smith said the District had an "open door" policy and problems should be worked
out at the personal level.9 Smith also explained to Caldaronello that the District did not
reimburse travel time. 	However, according to Smith, Caldaronello seemed intent on going
forward with a grievance, and responded: "(W)ell, the grievance is filed and I'll let my
representatives handle it. 	That's one of the pleasures and joys of having representation. 	I paid
for representation, let them do it." 	Smith testified that what upset him was Caldaronello's
attitude and his unwillingness to follow proper procedures. 	At the hearing Smith was asked
several times, by the undersigned and by District counsel, if an employee must first go through
the entire chain of command before filing a grievance; Smith said no, you could fie a
grievance simultaneously; however, if that were so, Smith could not explain how Caldaronello
was abusing the grievance procedure. 	Smith was also asked why he felt Caldaronello was
insubordinate; he responded that it was because Caldaronello had put travel time on his time
card knowing the District would not pay for it, and because he indicated he did not care about
the procedures and did not have to follow them but would go forward with his grievance.
On October 13 the Association filed the grievance with McGreevy in a letter
explaining, inter alia, that Caldaronello had already pursued Step 1 of the grievance procedure
by speaking with Jaynes, who could not resolve the problem. Neither Smith nor any other
At the hearing, Smith did not explain whether this "chain of command" process was
part of the parties' written grievance procedure, part of the District's Personnel Manual, or an
unwritten informal process of which employees were aware.
9

10
District witness pointed to any abuse of the contractual grievance procedure by Caldaronello or
the Association.
McGreevy testified that during her January 2005 investigation, she spoke with
employee Mark Center (Center), who overheard the conversation between Smith and
Caldaronello and said that Caldaronello was "verbally aggressive." 	However, her investigation
notes, entered into evidence, show that Center reported as follows: 	"The conversation was
normal on both sides. Calm, no raised voices. When he (Center) heard it was personnel
problem he walked away." In her Determination letter, she omitted the entire incident; when
asked why it was omitted, she testified as follows:
I didn't consider that was part and parcel of why I should be
terminating Mr. Caldaronello ... It wasn't something that I was
concerned with ... my main concern was the fact that Mr.
Caldaronello's actions towards employees had escalated and was
getting worse as time went on. My main concern was for the safety
of my employees and the safety of the public ... Mark Center had
said to me that there were no raised voices so I didn't even take that
portion into consideration.
(5) Sick leave: 	On December 3 Caldaronello phoned Jaynes and said he could not
report to work because his back was hurting. 	When he returned to work on December 7, the
next scheduled work day, he told Jaynes he injured his back at work. 	Jaynes told him he
needed a doctor's note for the absence and should fill out an incident report for the work
injury. 	Caldaronello said he had not seen a doctor, so he was sent to the City's medical
provider, who presumably provided a written report to the City. 	Caldaronello did not submit
an incident report because he decided not to fie a Workers Compensation claim.l 0
Caldaronello testified that he believed the City's sick leave policy did not require a doctor's
note for his December 3 absence, as it was beyond the six-month period referred to in Jaynes'
TO The District did not provide evidence regarding what circumstances require an
incident report; I assume it is a precedent to filing a work injury claim.

11
September 2 memo, i.e., beginning April 29. Jaynes did not speak to him about this again, but
issued him a written reprimand on December 14. The only testimony Smith gave was that
Jaynes told him Caldaronello was asked to bring in a doctor's note and he did not comply.
McGreevy testified that when she spoke with Caldaronello in January 2005, she learned that he
was confused about how the "rolling six months" applied to the sick leave policy.
(6) Making a false accusation: 	On December 7 Caldaronello went to the District
payroll office to inquire why compensatory time, which he believed he earned, did not show on
his pay stub. 	The secretary showed him his time card and explained that he had been properly
paid. 	According to Caldaronello, the secretary then asked if he were accusing someone of
altering his time card and he said no. 	However, Jaynes testified that Caldaronello "made an
allegation that a supervisor had changed his time card;" 	Jaynes did not say which supervisor
was accused or how he learned of it. Jaynes issued a December 14 written reprimand accusing
Cadaronello of making a false accusation. 	The only testimony Smith gave was that Jaynes told
him Caldaronello made a false accusation. 	The payroll secretary did not testify
(7) Duckworth altercation: According to the District, this was the incident which
precipitated the termination. 	It is undisputed that Caldaronello and Duckworth were involved
in an angry exchange of words on December 9. 	Duckworth, whose truck was missing a piece
of equipment, called Caldaronello a "lens thief," and the men swore at each other; they also
made some body contact. 	According to Caldaronello, at the start of the incident he was bent
over looking into his mailbox when Duckworth came over to him and they "made contact;"
shortly thereafter he was at the ice machine when Duckworth approached him, called him a
thief, and they swore at each other. 	He denied that he pushed or shoved or made any
intentional contact with Duckworth. 	The two men were spoken to by their supervisors, Jaynes
and Frusher. 	According to Jaynes, Duckworth said Caldaronello deliberately "banged into

12
him" or "shoved him," while Caldaronello said he just lightly "bumped him." Jaynes testified
that he did not cite physical contact in his reprimand because, while the two employees agreed
as to the words spoken, they disagreed as to the physical contact. 	Frusher testified that
Duckworth reported the incident as follows: 	Caldaronello brushed up against him and nudged
him with an elbow; he asked what the problem was and Caldaronello said he heard Duckworth
accused him of stealing; the two men then got into name-calling; Caldaronello went into the
lunchroom, came back out, nudged Duckworth again, knocking a clipboard out of his hand,
and there was more name-calling. 	Frusher said another employee was nearby but did not see
or hear anything; there were no other witnesses. Frusher said he believed Duckworth, who was
shaken by the incident, and that Caldaronello was the aggressor. Jaynes and Frusher issued
written reprimands to their respective supervisees dated December 10.
Jaynes reported the incident to both Smith and McGreevy. 	Jaynes testified reporting to
Smith that there was verbal abuse, as the two men admitted swearing at each other, but that
there was only "possible" physical abuse as the men disagreed on whether there was
intentional physical contact. 	Smith, whose entire knowledge of the incident came from Jaynes
and Frusher, testified, in contradiction to Jaynes, that he believed Caldaronello intentionally
approached Duckworth and pushed him. 	Smith also testified that other employees told Frusher
that Caldaronello was the principal aggressor; Smith did not know the names of these other
employees. 	However, according to Frusher's testimony, there were no witnesses to the
incident. 	Smith claimed the City has "zero tolerance" for abuse and that upon this incident he
decided to issue a proposed termination. 	However, physical contact was not mentioned in his
Notice; Smith did not say why it was not mentioned.
As for McGreevy, Jaynes reported to her that there was a verbal altercation, but he did
not say it was physical. She asked Jaynes if there were any previous incidents involving

Cadaronello; Jaynes said there were and that other employees were afraid of him because he
was aggressive. 	McGreevy told Jaynes to document all previous incidents and to proceed with
a proposed termination. 	She also spoke about the December 9 incident with Duckworth; she
testified that he told her that Caldaronello purposely bumped into him and that he felt
threatened. 	McGreevy testified that her main concern with the incident was that it went from
verbal to physical, because the City has zero tolerance for verbal and physical abuse.
However, physical contact was not mentioned in her Determination letter; when asked at the
hearing why it was not mentioned, she said she did not know.
Duckworth did not testify; at the time of the hearing he was no longer employed by the
City.
Other Incidents
At the hearing, Jaynes also testified that Caldaronello's behavior was improper on other
occasions not cited in the Notice or Determination letter: 	In August 2003 he made negative
remarks to an employee assigned to train him; in October 2003 he "belittled" Faber who
complained to Jaynes; in December 2003 a customer complained when Caldaronello caused
water to be blown out of her toilet and he blamed her for it; he made various other disparaging
remarks about fellow employees and about his job, including once saying, e.g., "(N)o matter
how hard you work you'll get a crappy evaluation;" the medical clinic where Caldaronello and
others were sent for physical exams phoned Jaynes to report that he was being uncooperative;
once when Jaynes phoned him after he failed to report to work, he said he thought he was on
vacation, Jaynes told him to come in to work, and he did. 	Frusher also testified that
Caldaronello made derogatory remarks to Duckworth on two occasions shortly before the
December 9 incident. 	None of the affected individuals testified.
13

McGreevy claimed that Caldaronello's history of retaliatory and aggressive behavior
led her to her decision to terminate him, that her major consideration was "the escalation of the
aggressiveness from verbal to physical and going from the field into the office, from field
employees now to an office employee who is a female."ll However, she also testified that her
Determination letter, which does not allege any physical abuse by Caldaronello, contains all
the reasons for his termination.
ISSUE
Did the District discharge James Caldaronello in retaliation for his protected activity?
DISCUSSION
To establish a prima facie case of retaliation in violation of Government Code section
3506 and PERB Regulation 32603(a), the charging party must show that: 	(1) the employee
exercised rights under MMBA; (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 employee because of the
exercise of those rights. 	(Campbell Municipal Employees Association v. City of Campbell
(1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 416 (Campbell); San Leandro Police Officers Association v. City of
San Leandro (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 553 (San Leandro).)
Although the timing of the employer's adverse action in close temporal proximity to the
employee's protected conduct is an important factor, 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 nexus factors should be present: 	(1) the employer's disparate
The only female mentioned in connection with any of the incidents was the office
secretary to whom Caldaronello allegedly made a false accusation. 	She did not testify. 	There
was no allegation of either verbal or physical abuse regarding this incident.
14

treatment of the employee (Campbell); (2) the employer's departure from established
- -
procedures and standards when dealing with the employee (San Leandro); (3) the employer's
inconsistent or contradictory justifications for its actions (San Leandro); (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; or (6) employer animosity towards union activists (San Leandro; Los
Angeles County Employees Association v. County of Los Angeles (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d
683).
Timing and Animus
Here, there is no dispute that Caldaronello spoke to Smith about a grievance on October
12 and filed it on October 13, and that the District had knowledge of it. The decision to
terminate his employment was made on December 10, less than two months later. 	Thus,
timing is a factor. 	(Mountain Empire Unified School District (1998) PERB Decision No. 1298
(three months between protected activity and adverse action); Novato Unified School District
(1982) PERB Decision No. 210 (four months between most recent protected activity and
adverse action].)
Further, Smith's remarks during his October 12 travel time conversation with
Caldaronello reveal his animus toward a union grievance. 	In that conversation Smith told
Caldaronello he must first talk with his supervisor, and contended that he had not done so.
This not only contradicts both Caldaronello's and Jaynes' testimony, but contradicts the fact
that Smith discussed the travel time problem and the looming grievance with Jaynes
immediately before his conversation with Caldaronello. 	Smith continued to try to convince
Caldaronello to either give up his complaint because the District would not pay for travel time,
or go up the "chain of command" pursuant to the District's "open door" policy, either before or
15

in lieu of filing a grievance; yet there is no evidence that these steps are required. However,
Caldaronello stood on his right to fie a grievance; this is what angered Smith, and it was over
this stand that Smith accused Caldaronello of being "insubordinate" and having a "bad
attitude." These phrases have been seen as evidence of an employer's anti-union animus and
as pretext for its anti-union actions. 	(County of San Joaquin (2003) PERB Decision No. 1524,
citing NLRB v. Florida Medical Center, Inc. (5 th Cir. 1978) 576 F.2d 666 (98 LRRM 3144).) I
find that to be the case here.
I find therefore that the Association has shown a sufficient nexus between
Caldaronello's protected activity and his termination.
District defenses
Once the charging party has established a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the
employer to show that its actions were not unlawfully motivated, but that it would have taken
the same actions even in the absence of the employee's protected conduct. 	(Wright Line, a
Division of Wright Line, Inc. (1980) 251 NLRB 1083 (105 LRRM 1169)12; Martori Brothers
Distributors v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board (1981) 29 Ca1.3d 721 (175 Cal.Rptr. 626).
The District contends that it was motivated solely by Caldaronello's misconduct:
In Jaynes testimony and in the District's post-hearing brief, examples were given of
alleged acts of misconduct which are not included in the corrected Notice of December 20
(which deleted the reference to Caldaronello being previously warned about derogatory
comments) or the Determination letter of January 27. 	However, Smith and McGreevy stated
without reservation that the Notice and the Determination letter contain all the reasons for the
termination. 	As Smith and McGreevy, the District agents who made the decision to discharge
TZ It is appropriate that PERB take guidance from cases decided by the National Labor
Relations Board where, as here, the statutes are sufficiently similar. 	(Inglewood Teachers
Association v. PERB (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 767 (278 Cal.Rptr. 228).)
16

Caldaronello, limited the reasons for their decision, I shall accordingly not consider as relevant
to the discharge any alleged acts of misconduct cited in their directives.
As to the items in the Notice, only three are cited which occurred prior to the filing of
Caldaronello's grievance:
(1) Door slamming: 	There was no follow-up to this incident by counseling, verbal
warning, written warning, or discipline. Rather, it seems to have been so inconsequential that
Smith ignored it until December when he pulled it out of his memory and cited it in the Notice.
I therefore do not find that it supports a reason for discharge.
(2) Derogatory comments to coworker: 	Caldaronello denied that he made derogatory
comments about Faber. 	Faber did not testify, thus any evidence about what he told Jaynes is
hearsay. Nor did any employee to whom Caldaronello's comments were allegedly made
testify, thus whatever they told Faber is double-hearsay. 	PERB Regulation 32176 provides
that "(H)earsay evidence is admissible but shall not be sufficient in itself to support a
finding..." 	Here, the hearsay and double hearsay presented by Jaynes, Smith and McGreevy is
the only evidence regarding this incident, and is contradicted by Caldaronello's denial. Thus it
cannot support a finding that Caldaronello engaged in the alleged misconduct. 	Further, the
testimony of Smith and McGreevy were contradictory: 	according to Smith, Jaynes reported
that Faber accused Caldaronello of "repeated verbal abuse," while according to McGreevy,
Faber did not say Caldaronello spoke directly to him, but rather he told other employees
(whom McGreevy did not interview) that he should have been promoted instead of Faber. 	In
addition to contradicting Smith, McGreevy's account hardly rises to the level of an incident
worthy of discipline. 	Finally, there is Smith's unexplained removal of the reference, in his
corrected Notice, to Caldaronello being previously warned about derogatory comments. 	I
therefore find, for many reasons, that this incident does not support the District's defense.
17

(3) Sick leave instructions: 	Jaynes' September memorandum regarding the District sick
leave policy cannot be considered disciplinary or even critical, as Caldaronello had not yet
exceeded three sick leave days in the relevant six-month period and had not yet been accused
of violating the policy. 	This item therefore cannot support a misconduct defense.
As to the incidents which occurred on or after October 12:
(4) Travel time grievance: The October 12 conversation with Smith is, as discussed
above, evidence of anti-union animus. 	Beyond that, I do not find that Caldaronello engaged in
any misconduct to support the District's defense. 	Caldaronello might have been less than
polite to Smith, but he did nothing more than insist on his right to fie a grievance in the face of
Smith's attempts to dissuade him. 	Further, McGreevy removed the incident from her
Determination letter; she gave no reason for the removal other than that she was not
"concerned" with it. 	In light of this admitted limitation of the District's reasons for the
discharge, I shall not find this incident relevant to the discharge, notwithstanding the District's
citation of it in the post-hearing brief.
(5) Sick leave: Caldaronello's December 3 sick leave is the only cited incident
arguably worth discipline, as he admittedly did not submit a doctor's note or an incident report.
However, although he did not see a doctor during his one-day absence, he was sent to the
District's doctor who presumably provided the District with a written report. 	Further, as
McGreevy was aware, Caldaronello was confused about the sick leave policy and believed he
was in a new six-month period. As to the incident report, Caldaronello did not submit it
because he decided not to fie a work injury claim, and the District did not provide evidence
that this was required in the absence of a claim. 	I therefore do not find that Caldaronello's
failure to submit an incident report constituted any misconduct. 	I do not contest that
18

Caldaronello should have submitted a doctor's note. However, his failure to do so was merely
a technical violation and far from worthy of termination.
(6) Making a false accusation: 	Caldaronello denied that he accused anyone of altering
his time card. 	Jaynes' contrary testimony, and the District's decision to discharge, were based
solely on a hearsay report from the payroll secretary; the secretary herself did not testify. 	In
Woodland Joint Unified School District (1987) PERB Decision No. 628 (Woodland), written
complaints about a discharged employee were rejected as evidence of the employee's
misconduct. Although the letters were relied on by the school district in discharging him, the
letter writers did not appear as witnesses, thus the letters could not be used to support the
school district's defense where the employee himself testified that he had not engaged in
misconduct. 	(See also, Midland Hilton and Towers (1997) 324 NLRB 1141 (157 LRRM
1222), citing RJR Communications (1980) 248 NLRB 920 (104 LRRM 1141); (Sea Crest
Construction Corp. (2000) 330 NLRB 584 ( 	LRRM 	.) Here, Jaynes' hearsay testimony
cannot be credited. 	Accordingly, I reject it and find that Caldaronello did not falsely accuse
any supervisor of altering his time card. 	Nor do I find that Jaynes believed in good faith that
Caldaronello made such an accusation. Jaynes did not counsel, reprimand, or otherwise
discipline Caldaronello; to the contrary, Jaynes testified that he "did not think about any
further action." 	Accordingly, I find that this allegation is itself a false accusation, without any
basis in fact, and is used as a pretext to hide the real reason for the discharge.
(7) Duckworth altercation: 	This incident, which precipitated the discharge, does not
ring true as a reason for the District's decision. 	It is undisputed that the two men swore at each
other and there was some physical contact. 	However, there was a dispute about how the
physical contact occurred and who was to blame, such that neither Jaynes nor Frusher cited it
in their warning letters; Jaynes told Smith there was only "possible" physical abuse. 	Thus,
19

notwithstanding the District's reference to a "physical altercation" in its post-hearing brief, as
well as the testimony of Smith and McGreevy that what motivated them toward termination
was the escalation of the verbal altercation into a physical one, neither the Notice or the
Determination letter cited any physical contact. 	Further, although Duckworth was equally
reprimanded, there is no evidence that his discharge was considered. 	I therefore do not credit
the testimony of Smith and McGreevy that they believed there was physical abuse, nor do I
credit their contention that this incident was so serious that it convinced them to prepare for
Caldaronello's discharge.
Summary and Conclusion
Based on all the above, I do not find any of the items in the Notice or the
Determination, alone or in the aggregate, sufficient to satisfy the District's defense. 	To the
contrary, except for the technical sick leave violation, I find them to be pretextual, some
exaggerated, some untrue, some pulled out of a hat, some based solely on hearsay, cited in an
attempt to mask the true motivation for the discharge, i.e., the grievance. 	I particularly note
that the District called as witnesses only members of its supervisory and managerial staff, i.e.,
Jaynes, Frusher, Smith, and McGreevy. Not one unit witness was called to substantiate the
District's allegations that Caldaronello engaged in misconduct. 	This serves to weaken the
District's case. 	(Woodland; see also, Central Union High School District (1983) PERB
Decision No. 324, where charging party failed to call corroborating witnesses and respondent
relied on hearsay evidence.)
The timing is close, as the termination wheel began spinning on December 10, just
short of two months after the grievance was filed, prior to which Caldaronello had received no
written warnings or discipline during his tenure with the District. 	Anti-union animus is present
in Smith's October 12 reaction to the grievance. 	And with nothing occurring after October 12
20

21
except for a misunderstanding regarding sick leave policy and a verbal altercation with
Duckworth, who was equally disciplined, Caldaronello's employment was terminated.
I find that the District has not sustained its burden of showing that it would have
discharged Caldaronello in the absence of his filing a grievance. Accordingly, I conclude that
the District discharged Caldaronello in retaliation for his protected activity, in violation of
MMBA section 3506 and PERB Regulation 32603(a), and that by the same conduct the
District deprived the Association of the right to represent its members, in violation of MMBA
section 3503 and PERB Regulation 32603(b).
REMEDY
MMBA section 3509(b) gives PERB the exclusive jurisdiction to
(m]ake a "determination as to whether the charge of unfair practice
is justified and, if so, the appropriate remedy necessary to
effectuate the purposes of this chapter..."
It has been found that the District unlawfully discharged Caldaronello in retaliation for
his filing a grievance. 	It is therefore appropriate that the District be ordered to cease and desist
from such conduct. 	The District should also be ordered to offer Caldaronello reinstatement to
his former position or if that position no longer exists, then to a substantially similar position,
and to make him whole by paying him for financial losses suffered as a result of the discharge,
including back pay for wages lost along with interest computed at the rate of 7 per cent per
annum. 	(San Jacinto Unified School District (1994) PERB Decision No. 1078; Oakland
Unified School District (1985) PERB Decision No. 540.)
The District should also be required to post a notice incorporating the terms of the
order. 	Posting of such a notice, signed by an authorized agent of the District, will provide
employees with notice that the District has acted in an unlawful manner, is being required to
cease and desist from this activity, and will comply with the order. 	It effectuates the purposes

of the MMBA that employees be informed of the resolution of this controversy and of the
District's readiness to comply with the ordered remedy. 	(Placerville Union High School
District (1978) PERB Decision No. 69.)
PROPOSED ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the entire record in the
case, it is found that the Jurupa Community Services District (District) violated the Meyers-
Milias-Brown Act (Act), Government Code section 3500 et seq. 	The District violated the Act
by discharging James Caldaronello (Caldaronello) in retaliation for his filing a grievance.
Pursuant to section 3509(b) of the Government Code, it hereby is ORDERED that the
District, its governing board and its representatives shall:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
1. 	Discharging or otherwise disciplining employees because of their
exercise of protected rights;
2. 	Depriving recognized employee organizations of the right to represent
their members.
B. 	TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE ACT:
1. 	Offer to James Caldaronello reinstatement to his former position of
employment or, if that position no longer exists, then to a substantially similar position;
2. 	Make James Caldaronello whole for all financial losses which he
suffered as a result of his discharge in January 2005, including back pay together with interest
computed at the rate of 7 per cent per annum;
22

3. 	Remove from all District files all notes, written warnings, notices of
proposed termination, determination of proposed termination, and other documents relating to
the discipline or discharge of James Caldaronello;
4. 	Within ten (10) workdays of the service of a final decision in this matter,
post at all work locations where notices to employees customarily are posted, copies of the
Notice attached hereto as an Appendix. The Notice must be signed by an authorized agent of
the District, indicating that it will comply with the terms of this Order. 	Such posting shall be
maintained for a period of thirty (30) consecutive workdays. 	Reasonable steps shall be taken
to ensure that the Notice is not reduced in size, altered, defaced or covered with any other
material.
5. 	Written notification of the actions taken to comply with this Order shall
be made to the General Counsel of the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB or Board),
or the General Counsel's designee. Respondent shall provide reports, in writing, as directed by
the General Counsel or his/her designee. 	All reports regarding compliance with this Order
shall be concurrently served on the Jurupa Community Services District Employees
Association.
Pursuant to California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 32305, this Proposed
Decision and Order shall become final unless a party files a statement of exceptions with the
Public Employment Relations Board (PERB or Board) itself within 20 days of service of this
Decision. The Board's address is:
Public Employment Relations Board
Attention: Appeals Assistant
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
FAX: (916) 327-7960
23

In accordance with PERB regulations, the statement of exceptions should identify by
page citation or exhibit number the portions of the record, if any, relied upon for such
exceptions. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, sec. 32300.)
A document is considered "filed" when actually received during a regular PERB
business day. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, secs. 32135(a) and 32130; Gov. Code sec. l I020(a).) A
document is also considered "filed" when received by facsimile transmission before the close
of business together with a Facsimile Transmission Cover Sheet which meets the requirements
of California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 32135(d), provided the filing party also
places the original, together with the required number of copies and proof of service, in the
U.S. mail. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, sec. 32135(b), (c) and (d); see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8,
secs. 32090 and 32130.)
Any statement of exceptions and supporting brief must be served concurrently with its
filing upon each party to this proceeding. 	Proof of service shall accompany each copy served
on a party or filed with the Board itself. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, secs. 32300, 32305,
32140, and 32135(c).)
Ann L. Weinman
Administrative Law Judge
24

APPENDIX
R
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the State of California
After a hearing in Unfair Practice Case No. 224-M, Jurupa Community Services
District Employees Association v. Jurupa Community Services District, in which all parties
had the right to participate, it has been found that the Jurupa Community Services District
(District) violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA), Government Code section 3500 et
seq. by terminating James Caldaronello (Caldaronello) in retaliation for his filing a grievance.
As a result of this conduct, we have been ordered to post this Notice and we will:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
1. 	Discharging or otherwise disciplining employees because of their
exercise of protected rights;
2. 	Depriving recognized employee organizations of the right to represent
their members.
B. 	TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE MMBA:
1. 	Offer to Caldaronello reinstatement to his former position of
employment or, if that position no longer exists, then to a substantially similar position;
2. 	Make Caldaronello whole for all financial losses which he suffered as a
result of his discharge in January 2005, including back pay together with interest computed at
the rate of 7 per cent per annum;
3. 	Remove from all District files all notes, written warnings, notices of
proposed termination, determination of proposed termination, and other documents relating to
the discipline or discharge of Caldaronello.
Dated: 	JURUPA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
By:
Authorized Agent
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE. 	IT MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR AT LEAST THIRTY
(30) CONSECUTIVE WORKDAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE
REDUCED IN SIZE, DEFACED, ALTERED OR COVERED WITH ANY OTHER
MATERIAL.