Service Employees International Union, Local 221 (Kroopkin) (PERB 2006M)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD	PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
RON MONTGOMERY REED KROOPKIN,
Charging Party,	Charging Party,
V.
SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL
UNION, LOCAL 221,
Respondent.	Respondent.
Case No. LA-CO-69-M
PERB Decision No. 	2006-M
February 27, 2009	February 27, 2009
Appearance:	Appearance: Jeff Geraci, Attorney, for Ron Montgomery Reed Kroopkin.
Before Neuwald, Wesley and Dowdin Calvillo, Members.	Before Neuwald, Wesley and Dowdin Calvillo, Members.
DECISION	DECISION
NEUWALD, Member: 	This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on appeal by Ron Montgomery Reed Kroopkin 	of a Board
agent's dismissal ( attached) of his unfair practice charge. 	The charge alleged that the Service
Employees International Union, Local 221 (Local 221) violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act
(MMBA)
agent's dismissal (attached) of his unfair practice charge. The charge alleged that the Service
1 by retaliating against Kroopkin for engaging in protected activity. Kroopkin alleged
that this conduct constituted a violation of MMBA sections 3502, 3502.1 and 3506.
(MMBA) by retaliationg against Kroopkin for engaging in protected activity. Kroopkin alleged
The Board has reviewed the entire record in this matter, including but not limited to, the
original and amended unfair practice charge, Local 221 's position statement, the Board agent's
warning and dismissal letters, and Kroopkin' s appeal. Based on this review, the Board finds
the Board agent's warning and dismissal letters to be a correct statement of the law and well
reasoned, and therefore adopts them as the decision of the Board itself, as supplemented by the
discussion below.	discussion below.
1MMBA is codified at Government Code section 3500 et seq. 	Unless otherwise
indicated, all statutory references are to the Government Code.	indicated, all statutory references are to the Government Code.
J
(PERB or Board) on appeal by Ron Montgomery Reed Kroopkin (Kroopkin) of a Board
DECISION OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
UNION, LOCAL 221,
SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL
RON MONTGOMERY REED KROOPKIN,
PERB Decision No. 2006-M
Case No. LA-CO-69-M
eff Geraci, Attorney, for Ron Montgomery Reed Kroopkin.
(Kroopkin)
NEUWALD, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
Employees International Union, Local 221 (Local 221) violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act
that this conduct constituted a violation of MMBA sections 3502, 3502. 1 and 3506.
reasoned, and therefore adopts them as the decision of the Board itself, as supplemented by the
the Board agent's warning and dismissal letters to be a correct statement of the law and well
warning and dismissal letters, and Kroopkin's appeal. Based on this review, the Board finds
original and amended unfair practice charge, Local 221's position statement, the Board agent's
The Board has reviewed the entire record in this matter, including but not limited to, the
'MMBA is codified at Government Code section 3500 et seq. Unless otherwise

DISCUSSION	DISCUSSION
Kroopkin alleges for the first time in his appeal that his nonattendance at Employment
and Eligibility 	(Labor/Management Meetings) was conditioned
on Local 221 filing an unfair practice charge over the County's decision to suspend the
meetings. According to Kroopkin, Local 221 's members agreed that an unfair practice charge
should be filed, but Local 221 never did so.
meetings. According to Kroopkin, Local 221's members agreed that an unfair practice charge
PERB Regulation 32635(b)2 provides in full: 	"Unless good cause is shown, a charging
party may not present on appeal new charge allegations or new supporting evidence." The
Board has found good cause when "the information provided could not have been obtained
through reasonable diligence prior to the Board agent's dismissal of the charge." (Sacramento
City Teachers Association (Ferreira) (2002) PERB Decision No. 1503.) Here, there is no good
cause to consider the new allegation that Local 221 failed to file an unfair practice charge over
the suspension of the Labor/Management Meetings because it is based on facts that occurred
before the dismissal of the charge and thus could have been included in an amended charge.
(See American Federation of Teachers, Local 1521 (Paige) (2005) PERB Decision No. 1769
[no good cause when charging party could have presented new allegation in charge or amended
charge].)
[no good cause when charging party could have presented new allegation in charge or amended
ORDER	ORDER
The unfair practice charge in Case No. LA-CO-69-M is hereby DISMISSE
WITHOUT LEA VE TO AMEND.	WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
Members Wesley and Dowdin Calvillo joined in this Decision.	Members Wesley and Dowdin Calvillo joined in this Decision.
2PERB regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 31001
et seq.	et seq.
PERB regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 31001
2
on Local 221 filing an unfair practice charge over the County's decision to suspend the
D
2
and Eligibility Labor/Management Meetings (Labor/Management Meetings) was conditioned	Labor/Management
Kroopkin alleges for the first time in his appeal that his nonattendance at Employment
Meetings
should be filed, but Local 221 never did so.
(See American Federation of Teachers. Local 1521 (Paige) (2005) PERB Decision No. 1769
before the dismissal of the charge and thus could have been included in an amended charge.
the suspension of the Labor/Management Meetings because it is based on facts that occurred
cause to consider the new allegation that Local 221 failed to file an unfair practice charge over
City Teachers Association (Ferreira) (2002) PERB Decision No. 1503.) Here, there is no good
through reasonable diligence prior to the Board agent's dismissal of the charge." (Sacramento
party may not present on appeal new charge allegations or new supporting evidence." The
PERB Regulation 32635(b) provides in full: "Unless good cause is shown, a charging
Board has found good cause when "the information provided could not have been obtained
charge].)
The unfair practice charge in Case No. LA-CO-69-M is hereby DISMISSED

3
ST
A
TE OF
CALIFORNIA	
ARNOLD
SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Los Angeles Regional Office
3530 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1435
Los Angeles, CA 900!0-2334
Telephone: (213) 736-7508
Fax: (213) 736-4901
December 19, 2008
Jeff Geraci, Attorney
Law Office
of
Jeff Geraci
2550 Fifth Avenue, Ninth Floor
San Diego, CA 92103
Re: 	Ron Montgomery Reed "MONTY" Kroopkin
v.
SEIU Local 221
Unfair Practice Charge No. LA-CO-69-M
DISMISSAL LETTER
Dear Mr. Geraci:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on February 26, 2008 and was amended on April
8,
2008. Ron
Mo11tgomery Reed "MONTY" Kroopkin1 alleges that SEIU Local 221 (Local 221 or Union)
violated sections 3502, 3502.1 and 3506 of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA or Act)2 by
retaliating against him for engaging in protected activity.
Mr. Geraci was informed in the attached Warning Letter dated November 14, 2008, that the
above-referenced charge did not state a prima facie case. 	Mr. Geraci was advised that, if there
were any factual inaccuracies or additional facts which would correct the deficiencies
explained in the November 14 Warning Letter, he should amend the charge. 	Mr. Geraci was
further advised that, unless the charge was amended to state a prima facie case or withdrawn
prior to November 26, 2008, the charge would be dismissed.
On November 25 and December 4, 2008, Mr. Geraci requested and received extensions
of
time
to file an amended charge. 	On December 12, 2008, PERB received an amended charge in the
above-referenced case. The December 12 amended charge provides in relevant part:
The approximately 2,000 people to whom the County's
defamatory letter[ ] was published are not only union members,
1 Mr. Kroopkin is represented by attorney Jeff Geraci.
2 The MMBA is codified at Government Code section 3500 et seq. The text of the
MMBA and the Board's Regulations may be found on the Internet at www.perb.ca.gov.
3 In a letter dated August 23, 2007, the County wrote:
As a result of the incident involving SEIU Steward, Monty
Kroopkin, members of the management feel threatened and have
requested that Labor Relations suspend the E & E

(
LA-CO-69-M
December 19, 2008
Page 2	Page 2
they are Mr. Kroopkin's co-workers. There is an undeniable,
daily impact
on
his working conditions as a result
of
the Union
choosing to publish the information in the manner that it did.
While there may be situations in which publishing the
information about one employee would not harm his working
relationships, this is not one
of
them. Each
of
these co-workers,
and potential co-workers and supervisors, was notified that
Mr.
Kroopkin made "threats"
of
such magnitude that multiple
"members
of
management feel threatened," and that they no
longer felt "safe" to attend a long standing meeting, and, because
"employee safety," is the County's "number one priority," the
meeting had to be completely suspended.	
It
is clear that attitudes
toward a co-worker identified in this way would be changed. At
a minimum, it is enough to allow a full evidentiary hearing to
determine the extent
of
the negative impact the publication
of
information has had on Mr. Kroopkin.
toward a co-worker identified in this way would be changed. At
The
future impact
of
the information is also obvious. People who
now,
or
will in the future, have input into promotional and other
employment decisions, have information which is likely to
disqualify Mr. Kroopkin and certainly places him at a severe
disadvantage. 	It also exposes him to further retaliation by the
County. He has filed multiple grievances and Unfair Labor
Practice charges. A publication
of
this type is known to his
supervisors and to Labor Relations and makes it far more likely
actions will be taken against him in the future.	
It
is inevitable
that he has been marginalized and made to appear that not only
will the County will [sic] threaten to,
or
actually discipline him, it
Labor/Management Meeting. This meeting is a valuable source
of
information for both SEIU and the County; however, employee
safety is the County's number one priority. At this time the E &
E Labor/Management Meeting will be suspended indefinitely.	E Labor/Management Meeting will be suspended indefinitely.
On August 27, 2007, Local 221 President Sharon-Frances Moore sent a letter to "the entire
Chapter, about 2,000 members." President Moore's August 27 letter provides in relevant part:	Chapter, about 2,000 members." President Moore's August 27 letter provides in relevant part:
Attached is a copy
of
a letter sent to,
me by the County of San
Diego. 	I am asking the Chapter and the Labor Management team
for their opinions as to how they would like me to proceed. 	I will
take all opinion under advisement and keep you informed
of my
response to the County.	response to the County.
take all opinion under advisement and keep you informed of my
for their opinions as to how they would like me to proceed. I will
Diego. I am asking the Chapter and the Labor Management team
Attached is a copy of a letter sent to me by the County of San
Please submit all responses in writing no later than September 15,
2007.	2007.
Please submit all responses in writing no later than September 15,
LA-CO-69-M
information has had on Mr. Kroopkin.
determine the extent of the negative impact the publication of
a minimum, it is enough to allow a full evidentiary hearing to
December 19, 2008
meeting had to be completely suspended. It is clear that attitudes
"employee safety," is the County's "number one priority," the
longer felt "safe" to attend a long standing meeting, and, because
"members of management feel threatened," and that they no
Kroopkin made "threats" of such magnitude that multiple
and potential co-workers and supervisors, was notified that Mr.
relationships, this is not one of them. Each of these co-workers,
information about one employee would not harm his working
While there may be situations in which publishing the
choosing to publish the information in the manner that it did,
daily impact on his working conditions as a result of the Union
they are Mr. Kroopkin's co-workers. There is an undeniable,
that he has been marginalized and made to appear that not only
actions will be taken against him in the future. It is inevitable
supervisors and to Labor Relations and makes it far more likely
Practice charges. A publication of this type is known to his
County. He has filed multiple grievances and Unfair Labor
disadvantage. It also exposes him to further retaliation by the
disqualify Mr. Kroopkin and certainly places him at a severe
employment decisions, have information which is likely to
now, or will in the future, have input into promotional and other
The future impact of the information is also obvious. People who
safety is the County's number one priority. At this time the E &
of information for both SEIU and the County; however, employee
Labor/Management Meeting. This meeting is a valuable source
On August 27, 2007, Local 221 President Sharon-Frances Moore sent a letter to "the entire

LA-CO-69-M
December 19, 2008
Page 3
will falsely label him as dangerous and defame him to co-workers
and others, and refuse to even meet with him.
As described above, the retaliatory actions by the Union have had
an impact on his working conditions and the relationship with his
employer.
Mr. Kroopkin had a right to participate in union activities and
neither the County nor the Union can interfere with that right. It
is clear that barring his attendance at union-management
meetings and branding him as dangerous, interfered with his
ability to participate.
Discussion
As stated in the November 14 Warning Letter, PERB has long held that the standard applied in
cases involving employer retaliation is appropriate in cases alleging retaliation 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 establish a prima facie case of retaliation in violation of MMBA section 3506 and
PERB Regulation 32604(b), the charging party must show that: (1) the employee exercised
rights under the MMBA; (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 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.)
Although the timing of the employee organization'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 must be present: (1) the employee
organization's disparate treatment of the employee (Campbell, supra, 131 Cal.App.3d 416); (2)
the employee organization's departure from established procedures and standards when dealing
with the employee (San Leandro Police Officers Association, supra, 55 Cal.App.3d 553); (3)
the employee organization's inconsistent or contradictory justifications for its actions (Ibid.);
When interpreting the MMBA, it is appropriate to take guidance from cases
interpreting the National Labor Relations Act and California labor relations statutes with
parallel provisions. (Fire Fighters Union v. City of Vallejo (1974) 12 Cal.3d 608.)
LA-CO-69-M
December 19, 2008
Page 3
will falsely label him
as
dangerous and defame him to co-workers
and others, and refuse to even meet with him.
As described above, the retaliatory actions by the Union have had
an impact on his working conditions and the relationship with his
employer.
[<JD
Mr. Kroopkin had a right to participate in union activities and
neither the County nor the Union can interfere with that right.
	Itis
clear that barring his attendance at union-management
meetings and branding him
as
dangerous, interfered with his
ability to participate.
Discussion
As stated in the November 14 Warning Letter, PERB has long held that the standard applied in
cases involving employer retaliation is appropriate in cases alleging retaliation 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.)4 To establish a prima facie case
of
retaliation in violation of MMBA section 3506 and
PERB Regulation 32604(b), the charging party must show that: 	(1) the employee exercised
rights under the MMBA; (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 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.)
Although the timing of the employee organization'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 must be present: (1) the employee
organization's disparate treatment of the employee (Campbell, supra, 131 Cal.App.3d 416); (2)
the employee organization's departure from established procedures and standards when dealing
with the employee (San Leandro Police Officers Association, supra, 55 Cal.App.3d 553); (3)
the employee organization's inconsistent or contradictory justifications for its actions (Ibid.);
4 When interpreting the MMBA, it is appropriate to take guidance from c~ses
interpreting the National Labor Relations Act and California labor relations statutes with
parallel provisions. (Fire Fighters Union v. City of Vallejo (1974) 12 Cal.3d 608.)

LA-CO-69-M
December 19, 2008
Page4
(
(4) the employee organization's cursory investigation of the employee's misconduct; (5) the
employee organization's failure to offer the employee justification at the time it took action or
the offering of exaggerated, vague, or ambiguous reasons; or (6) animosity towards union
activists (Ibid.; Los Angeles County Employees Association v. County of Los Angeles (1985)
168 Cal.App.3d 683).
activists (Ibid.; Los Angeles County Employees Association v. County of Los Angeles (1985)
of a job steward, finding no substantial impact on the employment relationship.
PERB has held that matters concerning internal union affairs are immune from review by
PERB, unless they have a substantial impact on the relationship of unit members to their
employer so as to give rise to a duty of fair representation. 	(Service Employees International
Union, Local 99 (Kimmett) (1979) PERB Decision No. 106; California State Employees
Association (Hutchinson and Laosantos) (1998) PERB Decision No. 1304-S.) In numerous
cases, the Board has refused to intervene where the alleged unlawful conduct involved internal
union affairs and there was no showing of a substantial impact on the employee-employer
relationship. For example, in California State Employees Association (Hackett) (1993) PERB
Decision No. 1012-S, the Board found no substantial impact on the employee-employer
relationship where the union suspended the bargaining team; submitted a proposal for
ratification to the membership that was not approved by the bargaining team; failed to provide
a secret ballot; and failed to give the membership any choice on the ballot except to vote for
ratification or strike. 	In California State Employees Association (Garcia) (1993) PERB
Decision No. 1014-S, the Board rejected claims of union election irregularities and suspension
of a job steward, finding no substantial impact on the employment relationship.
The Board has intervened in the internal affairs of a union when alleged reprisals against
members for engaging in union activity substantially impacted the employment relationship.
In California Union of Safety Employees (Coelho) (1994) PERB Decision No. 1032-S, the
union filed a citizen's complaint against a unit member with his employer and subsequently
refused to represent the member in the resulting investigation conducted by the employer. 	In
finding a violation, the Board held that the union's conduct directly impacted the unit
member's relationship with his employer. 	In California Union of Safety Employees (John)
(1994) PERB Decision No. 1064-S, the Board found a violation where the union refused to
provide representation to a member challenging an adverse action imposed by his employer,·
after the unit member allegedly participated in the activities of a rival employee organization.	after the unit member allegedly participated in the activities of a rival employee organization.
PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5)	PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5)" requires, inter alia, that an unfair practice charge include a
LA-CO-69-M
December 19, 2008
Page 4
5 requires, inter alia, that an unfair practice charge include a
"clear and concise statement of the facts and conduct alleged to constitute an unfair practice."
The charging party's burden includes alleging the "who, what, when, where and how" of an
unfair practice. 	(State of California (Department of Food and Agriculture) (1994) PERB
Decision No. 1071-S, citing United Teachers-Los Angeles (Ragsdale) (1992) PERB Decision
No. 944.) Speculation, conjecture or legal conclusions.are insufficient to state a prima facie
case. (Regents of the University of California (2005) PERB Decision No. 1771-H.)	case. (Regents of the University of California (2005) PERB Decision No. 1771-H.)
No. 944.) Speculation, conjecture or legal conclusions are insufficient to state a prima facie
unfair practice. (State of California (Department of Food and Agriculture) (1994) PERB
The charging party's burden includes alleging the "who, what, when, where and how" of an
"clear and concise statement of the facts and conduct alleged to constitute an unfair practice."
Decision No. 1071-S, citing United Teachers-Los Angeles (Ragsdale) (1992) PERB Decision
5 PERB 's Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.
the offering of exaggerated, vague, or ambiguous reasons; or (6) animosity towards union
employee organization's failure to offer the employee justification at the time it took action or
(4) the employee organization's cursory investigation of the employee's misconduct; (5) the
168 Cal.App.3d 683).
Decision No. 1014-S, the Board rejected claims of union election irregularities and suspension
ratification or strike. In California State Employees Association (Garcia) (1993) PERB
a secret ballot; and failed to give the membership any choice on the ballot except to vote for
ratification to the membership that was not approved by the bargaining team; failed to provide
relationship where the union suspended the bargaining team; submitted a proposal for
Decision No. 1012-S, the Board found no substantial impact on the employee-employer
relationship. For example, in California State Employees Association (Hackett) (1993) PERB
union affairs and there was no showing of a substantial impact on the employee-employer
Association (Hutchinson and Laosantos) (1998) PERB Decision No. 1304-S.) In numerous
Union. Local 99 (Kimmett) (1979) PERB Decision No. 106; California State Employees
employer so as to give rise to a duty of fair representation. (Service Employees International
PERB, unless they have a substantial impact on the relationship of unit members to their
PERB has held that matters concerning internal union affairs are immune from review by
cases, the Board has refused to intervene where the alleged unlawful conduct involved internal
provide representation to a member challenging an adverse action imposed by his employer,
(1994) PERB Decision No. 1064-S, the Board found a violation where the union refused to
member's relationship with his employer. In California Union of Safety Employees (John)
finding a violation, the Board held that the union's conduct directly impacted the unit
refused to represent the member in the resulting investigation conducted by the employer. In
In California Union of Safety Employees (Coelho) (1994) PERB Decision No. 1032-S, the
members for engaging in union activity substantially impacted the employment relationship.
The Board has intervened in the internal affairs of a union when alleged reprisals against
union filed a citizen's complaint against a unit member with his employer and subsequently
PERB's Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.

LA-CO-69-M
December 19, 2008
Page 5
(
1 . 	resident Moore's August 27 Letter	
1.
	President Moore's August 27 Letter
Mr. Kroopkin' s allegation that President Moore's August 27 letter substantially impacted his
employment relationship with the County
is
speculative. While Mr. Kroopkin alleges that
President Moore's distribution
of
the County's August
23
letter would cause his co-workers'
and supervisors' attitudes toward him to change, there
is
no evidence that Mr. Kroopkin's co-
workers' or supervisors' attitudes toward him have in fact changed. Similarly, Mr. Kroopkin's
allegation that President Moore's distribution of the County's August
23
letter will
substantially impact his relationship with the County in the future is speculative because it
requires the prediction of future events. Accordingly, Mr. Kroopkin' s allegation that Local
221 retaliated against him for exercising his rights under the MMBA by sending the August 27
letter to "the entire Chapter" is dismissed for the reasons stated above and for the reasons
provided in the November 14 Warning Letter.	provided in the November 14 Warning Letter.
2 .	
2.
	Union-Management Meetings
letter to "the entire Chapter" is dismissed for the reasons stated above and for the reasons
The test for whether a respondent has interfered with the rights of employees under the MMBA
does not require that unlawful motive be established, only that at least slight harm to employee
rights results from the conduct. The courts have described the standard
as
follows:	rights results from the conduct. The courts have described the standard as follows:
All [a charging party] must prove to establish an interference
violation of section 3506 is: (1) That employees were engaged in
protected activity; (2) that the employer engaged in conduct
which tends to interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the
exercise of those activities, and (3) that employer's conduct was
not justified by legitimate business reasons.	not justified by legitimate business reasons.
(Public Employees Association of Tulare County, Inc.
v.
Board of Supervisors
of
Tulare County (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 797, 807.)	of Tulare County (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 797, 807.)
LA-CO-69-M
P
MMBA section 3502 provides in relevant part: "public employees shall have the right to form,	MMBA section 3502 provides in relevant part: "public employees shall have the right to form,
join, and participate in the activities of employee organizations of their own choosing for the	join, and participate in the activities of employee organizations of their own choosing for the
purpose of representation on all matters of employer-employee relations." Mr. Kroopkin	purpose of representation on all matters of employer-employee relations." Mr. Kroopkin
alleges	alleges that he has "a right to participate in union activities and neither the County nor the	that he has "a right to participate in union activities and neither the County nor the
Union	Union can interfere with that right. It is clear that barring his attendance at union-management	can interfere with that right. 	It is clear that barring his attendance at union-management
meetings and branding him as dangerous, interfered	meetings and branding him as dangerous, interfered with his ability to participate." However,	with his ability to participate." However,
the	the record does not support Mr. Kroopkin's allegation that he was barred from attending	record does not support Mr. Kroopkin' s allegation that he was barred from attending
Union-management meetings. Instead, the record shows that Union-management meetings	Union-management meetings. 	Instead, the record shows that Union-management meetings
were	were "suspended indefinitely."	"suspended indefinitely."
Moreover, even
if
Local 221 barred Mr. Kroopkin from Union-management meetings, Mr.
Kroopkin has not established that he has an individual right to attend Union-management
meetings. Employee organizations have the right to select those individuals who will represent
them in meetings with the employer. (See generally, Savanna School District (1982) PERB
Decision No. 276; Westminster Scho_ol District (1982) PERB Decision No. 277.) As	Decision No. 276; Westminster School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 277.) As
221 retaliated against him for exercising his rights under the MMBA by sending the August 27
requires the prediction of future events. Accordingly, Mr. Kroopkin's allegation that Local
substantially impact his relationship with the County in the future is speculative because it
allegation that President Moore's distribution of the County's August 23 letter will
workers' or supervisors' attitudes toward him have in fact changed. Similarly, Mr. Kroopkin's
and supervisors' attitudes toward him to change, there is no evidence that Mr. Kroopkin's co-
President Moore's distribution of the County's August 23 letter would cause his co-workers'
employment relationship with the County is speculative. While Mr. Kroopkin alleges that
Mr. Kroopkin's allegation that President Moore's August 27 letter substantially impacted his
December 19, 2008
Page 5
does not require that unlawful motive be established, only that at least slight harm to employee
The test for whether a respondent has interfered with the rights of employees under the MMBA
Union-Management Meetings
exercise of those activities, and (3) that employer's conduct was
which tends to interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the
protected activity; (2) that the employer engaged in conduct
violation of section 3506 is: (1) That employees were engaged in
All [a charging party] must prove to establish an interference
(Public Employees Association of Tulare County, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors
them in meetings with the employer. (See generally, Savanna School District (1982) PERB
meetings. Employee organizations have the right to select those individuals who will represent
Kroopkin has not established that he has an individual right to attend Union-management
Moreover, even if Local 221 barred Mr. Kroopkin from Union-management meetings, Mr.

previously stated, PERB does not intervene in the internal affairs of a union absent a showing
that the union's conduct substantially impacts an employee's relationship with his or her
employer. (California State Employees Association (Hackett), supra, PERB Decision
No. 1012-S.) Thus, even if Local 221 barred Mr. Kroopkin from Union-management
meetings, Mr. Kroopkin has not provided evidence that Local 221 's actions substantially
impacted his employment relationship with the County. Accordingly, this allegation is
dismissed.
Right to Appeal
Pursuant to PERB Regulations, Mr. Kroopkin 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. 	(Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, sec. 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 during a regular PERB business day.
(Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, secs. 32135(a) and 32130; see also Gov. Code, sec. 11020(a).) A
document is also considered "filed" when received by facsimile transmission before the close
of business together with a Facsimile Transmission Cover Sheet which meets the requirements
of PERB Regulation 32135(d), provided the filing party also places the original, together with
the required number of copies and proof of service, in the U.S. mail. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8,
secs. 32135(b), (c) and (d); see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, secs. 32090 and 32130.)
The Board's address is:
LA-CO-69-M
December 19, 2008
Page6
(\
meetings, Mr. Kroopkin has not provided evidence that Local 221's actions substantially
Right to Appeal
must contain the case name and number, and the original and five (5) copies of all documents
secs. 32135(b), (c) and (d); see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, secs. 32090 and 32130.)
The Board's address is:
Public Employment Relations Board
Attention: Appeals Assistant
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95811-4124
(916) 322-8231
FAX: (916) 327-7960
1031 18th Street
LA-CO-69-M
December 19, 2008
Page 6
y.
sec. 32635(b).)
calendar days following the date of service of the appeal. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8,
file with the Board an original and five copies of a statement in opposition within twenty (20)
If Mr. Kroopkin files a timely appeal of the refusal to issue a complaint, any other party may	If Mr. Kroopkin files a timely appeal of the refusal to issue a complaint, any other party may
file with the Board an original and five copies of a statement in opposition within twenty (20)
calendar days following the date of service of the appeal. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8,
sec. 32635(b).)
Service	Service
deposited in the mail or deposited with a delivery service and properly addressed. A document
contents.) The document will be considered properly "served" when personally delivered or
party or filed with the Board itself. (See C 	ode Regs., tit. 8, sec. 32140 for the required
proceeding, and a "proof of service" must accompany each copy of a document served upon a
All documents authorized to be filed herein must also be "served" upon all parties to the
(916) 322-8231
FAX: (916) 327-7960
impacted his employment relationship with the County. Accordingly, this allegation is
No. 1012-S.) Thus, even if Local 221 barred Mr. Kroopkin from Union-management
employer. (California State Employees Association (Hackett), supra, PERB Decision-
that the union's conduct substantially impacts an employee's relationship with his or her
previously stated, PERB does not intervene in the internal affairs of a union absent a showing
dismissed.
this dismissal. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, sec. 32635(a).) Any document filed with the Board
charge by filing an appeal to the Board itself within twenty (20) calendar days after service of
Pursuant to PERB Regulations, Mr. Kroopkin may obtain a review of this dismissal of the
must be provided to the Board.
the required number of copies and proof of service, in the U.S. mail. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8,
of PERB Regulation 32135(d), provided the filing party also places the original, together wit
of business together with a Facsimile Transmission Cover Sheet which meets the requiremen
document is also considered "filed" when received by facsimile transmission before the close
Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, secs. 32135(a) and 32130; see also Gov. Code, sec. 1 1020(a).) A
A document is considered "filed" when actually received during a regular PERB business da
Sacramento, CA 95811-4124
Attention: Appeals Assistant
Public Employment Relations Board
ts
h
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 al. C	Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, sec. 32140 for the required
contents.) The document will be considered properly "served" when personally delivered or
deposited in the mail or deposited with a delivery service and properly addressed. A document

may also be concurrently served via facsimile transmission on all parties to the proceeding.
(Cal.	al. Code Regs, tit. 8, sec. 32135(c).)
LA-CO-69-M
December 19, 2008
Page 7
(
Extension of Time	Extension of Time
A request for an extension of time, in which to file a document with the Board itself, must be
in writing and filed with the Board at the previously noted address. A request for an extension
must be filed at least three (3) calendar days before the expiration
of
the time required for
filing the document. The request must indicate good cause for and, if known, the position
of
each other party regarding the extension, and shall be accompanied by proof
of
service
of
the
request upon each party. 	(Cal. Code Regs, tit.
8,
sec. 32132.)	request upon each party. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, sec. 32132.)
Final Date	Final Date
If
no appeal is filed within the specified time limits, the dismissal will become final when the
time limits have expired.	time limits have expired.
Sincerely,	Sincerely,
TAMIR. BOGERT
General Counsel	General Counsel
~~~'---..------r-""'"-,.-,-----
LA-CO-69-M
December 19, 2008
Page 7
Sean McKee
Regional Attorney	Regional Attorney
Sean Mckee
Attachment	Attachment
cc:
may also be concurrently served via facsimile transmission on all parties to the proceeding.
cc: 	Fem M. Steiner, Attorney
each other party regarding the extension, and shall be accompanied by proof of service of the
Fern M. Steiner, Attorney
C 	Code Regs, tit. 8, sec. 32135(c).)
filing the document. The request must indicate good cause for and, if known, the position of
must be filed at least three (3) calendar days before the expiration of the time required for
in writing and filed with the Board at the previously noted address. A request for an extension
A request for an extension of time, in which to file a document with the Board itself, must be
If no appeal is filed within the specified time limits, the dismissal will become final when the
TAMI R. BOGERT

I
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	( 	ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Los Angeles Regional Office
3530 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1435
Los Angeles, CA 90010-2334
Telephone: (213) 736-7508
Fax: (213) 736-4901
November 14, 2008
Jeff Geraci, Attorney
Law Office of Jeff Geraci
2550 Fifth Avenue, Ninth Floor
San Diego, CA 92103
Re: 	Ron Montgomery Reed "MONTY" Kroopkin v. SEIU Local 221
Unfair Practice Charge No. LA-C0-69-M
WARNING LETTER
Dear Mr. Geraci:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERE or Board) on February 26, 2008 and was amended on April 8, 2008. Ron
Montgomery Reed "MONTY" Kroopkin alleges that SEIU Local 221 (Local 221) violated
sections 3502, 3502.1and3506 of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA or Act)1 by
retaliating against him for engaging in protected activity.
Background
Mr. Kroopkin iS employed by the County of San Diego (County) as a Human Services
Specialist. The County's Human Services Specialists belong to a bargaining unit exclusively
represented by Local 221. Mr. Kroopkin is both a union steward and member of Local 221 's
negotiation team. 	"Mr. Kroopkin has been outspoken about the need for [Local 221] to
adequately represent the needs of its members."
On August 21, 2007, Local 221 President Sharon-Frances Moore informed Local 221 's
Executive Board that Mr. Kroopkin was going to "sue the Union." The following day, Local
221 member Linda Corea questioned Mr. Kroopkin about President Moore's accusation.
"Feelings were strong and voices were raised. No threats were made and nothing was done or
said which could have possibly been construed as a threat." However, County Manager Kim
Medeiros heard Mr. Kroopkin and Ms. Corea speaking with raised voices and intervened. Ms.
Medeiros informed Mr. Kroopkin and Ms. Corea that "she would not tolerate this situation."
Mr. Kroopkin responded by informing Ms. Medeiros that "this was a discussion between
Union members, on Union time, on Union property, and that she had no authority." Ms.
Medeiros left without incident.
1 The MMBA is codified at Government Code section 3500 et seq. The text of the
MMBA and the Board's Regulations may be found on the Internet at www.perb.ca.gov.

LA-CO-69-M
November 14, 2008
Page 2
In a letter dated August 23, 2007, the County sent President Moore a letter that states in
relevant part:	relevant part:
As a result of the incident involving SEID Steward, Monty
Kroopkin, members of the management feel threatened and have
requested that Labor Relations suspend the E & E
Labor/Management Meeting. This meeting is a valuable source
of information for both SEID and the County; however, employee
safety is the County's number one priority. At this time the E &
E Labor/Management Meeting will be suspended indefinitely.
safety is the County's number one priority. At this time the E &
On August 27, 2007, President Moore sent a letter to "the entire Chapter, about 2,000
members." President Moore's August 27 letter provides in relevant part:	members." President Moore's August 27 letter provides in relevant part:
Attached is a copy of a letter sent to me by the County of San
Diego. 	I am asking the Chapter and the Labor Management team
for their opinions as to how they would like me to proceed. 	I will
take all opinion under advisement and keep you informed of my
response to the County.	response to the County.
Please submit all responses in writing no later than September 15,
2007.
Please submit all responses in writing no later than September 15,
Discussion	Discussion
PERB has long held that the standard applied in cases involving employer retaliation is
appropriate in cases alleging retaliation 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.)
Association (Hale, et al.) (1988) PERB Decision No. 693-H; California Union of Safety2 To establish a prima facie case of
retaliation in violation of MMBA section 3506 and PERB Regulation 32604(b ), the charging
party must show that: 	(1) the employee exercised rights under the MMBA; (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 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.)(1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 553.)
2 When interpreting the MMBA, it is appropriate to take guidance from cases
interpreting the National Labor Relations Act and California labor relations statutes with
parallel provisions. (Firefighters Union v. City of Vallejo (1974) 12 Cal.3d 608.)	parallel provisions. (Firefighters Union v. City of Vallejo (1974) 12 Cal.3d 608.)
CLA-CO-69-M
E Labor/Management Meeting will be suspended indefinitely.
2007.
In a letter dated August 23, 2007, the County sent President Moore a letter that states in
of information for both SEIU and the County; however, employee
Labor/Management Meeting. This meeting is a valuable source
requested that Labor Relations suspend the E & E
Kroopkin, members of the management feel threatened and have
As a result of the incident involving SEIU Steward, Monty
On August 27, 2007, President Moore sent a letter to "the entire Chapter, about 2,000
take all opinion under advisement and keep you informed of my
for their opinions as to how they would like me to proceed. I will
Diego. I am asking the Chapter and the Labor Management team
Attached is a copy of a letter sent to me by the County of San
November 14, 2008
Page 2
(Department of Developmental Services) (1983) PERB Decision No. 344-S; California Faculty
appropriate in cases alleging retaliation by an employee organization. (State of California
PERB has long held that the standard applied in cases involving employer retaliation is
rights. (Campbell Municipal Employees Association v. City of Campbell (1982) 131
otherwise interfered with, restrained or coerced the employee because of the exercise of those
imposed or threatened to impose reprisals, discriminated or threatened to discriminate, or
party must show that: (1) the employee exercised rights under the MMBA; (2) the employee
Employees (Coelho) (1994) PERB Decision No. 1032-S.)" To establish a prima facie case of
retaliation in violation of MMBA section 3506 and PERB Regulation 32604(b), the charging
organization had knowledge of the exercise of those rights; and (3) the employee organization
Cal.App.3d 416 (Campbell); San Leandro Police Officers Association v. City of San Leandro
interpreting the National Labor Relations Act and California labor relations statutes with
When interpreting the MMBA, it is appropriate to take guidance from cases

LA-CO-69-M
November 14, 2008
Page 3
Although the timing
of
the employee organization'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 must be present: 	(1) the employee
organization's disparate treatment
of
the employee (Campbell, supra,
131
Cal.App.3d 416); (2)
the employee organization's departure from established procedures and standards when dealing
with the employee (San Leandro Police Officers Association, supra, 55 Cal.App.3d 553); (3)
the employee organization's inconsistent or contradictory justifications for its actions (Ibid.);
(4) the employee organization's cursory investigation of the employee's misconduct; (5) the
employee organization's failure to offer the employee justification at the time it took action or
the offering of exaggerated, vague, or ambiguous reasons; or (6) animosity towards union
activists (Ibid.; Los Angeles County Employees Association
v.
County of Los Angeles (1985)
168 Cal.App.3d 683).
activists (Ibid.; Los Angeles County Employees Association v. County of Los Angeles (1985)
PERB has held that matters concerning internal union affairs are immune from review by
PERB, unless they have a substantial impact on the relationship of unit members to their
employer so as to give rise to a duty of fair representation. (Service Employees International
Union, Local 99 (Kimmett) (1979) PERB Decision No. 106; California State Employees
Association (Hutchinson and Laosantos) (1998) PERB Decision No. 1304-S.) In numerous
cases, the Board has refused to intervene where the alleged unlawful conduct involved internal
union affairs and there was no showing of a substantial impact on the employee-employer
relationship. For example, in California State Employees Association (Hackett) (1993) PERB
Decision No. 1012-S, the Board found no substantial impact on the employee-employer
relationship where the union suspended the bargaining team; submitted a proposal for
ratification to the membership that was not approved by the bargaining team; failed to provide
a secret ballot; and failed to give the membership any choice on the ballot except to vote for
ratification or strike. In California State Employees Association (Garcia) (1993) PERB
Decision No. 1014-S, the Board rejected claims of union election irregularities and suspension
of a job steward, finding no substantial impact on the employment relationship.	of a job steward, finding no substantial impact on the employment relationship
The Board has intervened in the internal affairs of a union when alleged reprisals against
members for engaging in union activity substantially impacted the employment relationship.
In California Union of Safety Employees (Coelho) (1994) PERB Decision No. 1032-S, the
union filed a citizen's complaint against a unit member with his employer and subsequently
refused to represent the member in the resulting investigation conducted by the employer. 	In
finding a violation, the Board held that the union's conduct directly impacted the unit
member's relationship with his employer. 	In California Union of Safety Employees (John)
(1994) PERB Decision No. 1064-S, the Board found a violation where the union refused to
provide representation to a member challenging an adverse action imposed by his employer,
after the unit member allegedly participated in the activities of a rival employee organization.
Here, Local 221 President Moore forwarded the County's August 23 letter to the Local 221
Chapter and invited members to provide President Moore with their "opinions as to how they
would like [President Moore] to proceed." There are no facts demonstrating that President
LA-CO-69-M
The Board has intervened in the internal affairs of a union when alleged reprisals against
In California Union of Safety Employees (Coelho) (1994) PERB Decision No. 1032-S, the
finding a violation, the Board held that the union's conduct directly impacted the unit
Here, Local 221 President Moore forwarded the County's August 23 letter to the Local 221
Decision No. 1014-S, the Board rejected claims of union election irregularities and suspension
168 Cal.App.3d 683).
the offering of exaggerated, vague, or ambiguous reasons; or (6) animosity towards union
employee organization's failure to offer the employee justification at the time it took action or
4) the employee organization's cursory investigation of the employee's misconduct; (5) the
the employee organization's inconsistent or contradictory justifications for its actions (Ibid.);
with the employee (San Leandro Police Officers Association, supra, 35 Cal.App.3d 553); (3)
the employee organization's departure from established procedures and standards when dealing
organization's disparate treatment of the employee (Campbell, supra, 131 Cal.App.3d 416); (2)
conduct. (Moreland Elementary School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 227.) Facts
demonstrate the necessary connection or "nexus" between the adverse action and the protected
to the employee's protected conduct is an important factor, it does not, without more,
Although the timing of the employee organization's adverse action in close temporal proximity
establishing one or more of the following nexus factors must be present: (1) the employee
November 14, 2008
Page 3
members for engaging in union activity substantially impacted the employment relationship.
union filed a citizen's complaint against a unit member with his employer and subsequently
refused to represent the member in the resulting investigation conducted by the employer. In
member's relationship with his employer. In California Union of Safety Employees (John)
(1994) PERB Decision No. 1064-S, the Board found a violation where the union refused to
provide representation to a member challenging an adverse action imposed by his employer,
after the unit member allegedly participated in the activities of a rival employee organization.
Chapter and invited members to provide President Moore with their "opinions as to how they
would like [President Moore] to proceed." There are no facts demonstrating that President
ratification or strike. In California State Employees Association (Garcia) (1993) PERB
a secret ballot; and failed to give the membership any choice on the ballot except to vote for
ratification to the membership that was not approved by the bargaining team; failed to provide
relationship where the union suspended the bargaining team; submitted a proposal for
Decision No. 1012-S, the Board found no substantial impact on the employee-employer
relationship. For example, in California State Employees Association (Hackett) (1993) PERB
union affairs and there was no showing of a substantial impact on the employee-employer
cases, the Board has refused to intervene where the alleged unlawful conduct involved internal
Association (Hutchinson and Laosantos) (1998) PERB Decision No. 1304-S.) In numerous
Union, Local 99 (Kimmett) (1979) PERB Decision No. 106; California State Employees
employer so as to give rise to a duty of fair representation. (Service Employees International
PERB, unless they have a substantial impact on the relationship of unit members to their
PERB has held that matters concerning internal union affairs are immune from review by

LA-CO-69-M
November 14, 2008
Page4
Moore's conduct substantially impacted
Mr.
Kroopkin's employment relationship with the
County. Therefore, the present charge complains
of
conduct that is an internal union matter
and PERB intervention is not warranted under the above-discussed precedent. (See, e.g.,
California State Employees Association (Hutchinson and Laosantos), supra, PERB Decision
No. 1304-S.)	No. 1304-S.)
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 Second Amended Charge, contain
all the facts and allegations Mr. Kroopkin wishes to make, and be signed under penalty
of
perjury. The amended charge must have the case number written on the top right hand corner
of
the charge form. 	The amended charge must be served on the respondent's representative
and the original proof
of
service must be filed with PERB. 	If an amended charge or
withdrawal is not received from Mr. Kroopkin before November 26, 2008, the charge shall be
dismissed. Questions concerning this matter should be directed to me at the above telephone
number.	number.
Sincerely,	Sincerely,
Sean McKee
Regional Attorney	Regional Attorney
SM	SM
LA-CO-69-M
November 14, 2008
Page 4
dismissed. Questions concerning this matter should be directed to me at the above telephone
California State Employees Association (Hutchinson and Laosantos), supra, PERB Decision
and PERB intervention is not warranted under the above-discussed precedent. (See, e.g.,
County. Therefore, the present charge complains of conduct that is an internal union matter
Moore's conduct substantially impacted Mr. Kroopkin's employment relationship with the
Sean Mckee
withdrawal is not received from Mr. Kroopkin before November 26, 2008, the charge shall be
and the original proof of service must be filed with PERB. If an amended charge or
of the charge form. The amended charge must be served on the respondent's representative
perjury. The amended charge must have the case number written on the top right hand corner
all the facts and allegations Mr. Kroopkin wishes to make, and be signed under penalty of
standard PERB unfair practice charge form, clearly labeled Second Amended Charge, contain
explained above, please amend the charge. The amended charge should be prepared on a
are any factual inaccuracies in this letter or additional facts that would correct the deficiencies
For these reasons, the charge, as presently written, does not state a prima facie case. If there