California School Employees Association and its Chapter 724 (Walker) (PERB 2220E)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
AMINAH WALKER,
Charging Party, 	Case No. LA-CO-1449-E
V . 	PERB Decision No. 2220
November 16, 2011	CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION & ITS CHAPTER 724,
Respondent.
Appearances: Aminah Walker, on her own behalf; Sonja J. Woodward, Attorney, for
California School Employees Association & its Chapter 724.
Before Martinez, Chair; Dowdin Calvillo and Huguenin, Members.
DECISION
DOWDIN CALVILLO, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on appeal by Aminah Walker (Walker) from a Board agent's dismissal
(attached) of an unfair practice charge. The charge alleged that the California School
Employees Association & its Chapter 724 (CSEA) breached its duty of fair representation
under the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA).' The Board agent found that the
charge failed to state a prima facie violation of the duty of fair representation.
The Board has reviewed the dismissal and the record in light of Walker's appeal,
CSEA's response thereto, and the relevant law. Based on this review, we find the dismissal
and warning letters to be well-reasoned, adequately supported by the record, and in accordance
with applicable law. Accordingly, the Board adopts the dismissal and warning letters as the
decision of the Board itself, supplemented by the discussion below.
EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
AMIN AH WALKER,
Charging Party,
V.
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION & ITS CHAPTER 724,
Respondent.
Case No. LA-CO-1449-E
PERB Decision No. 2220
November 16, 2011
Appearances: Aminah Walker, on her own behalf; Sonja J. Woodward, Attorney, for
California School Employees Association & its Chapter 724.
Before Martinez, Chair; Dowdin Calvillo and Huguenin, Members.
DECISION
DOWD IN CALVILLO, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on appeal by Aminah Walker (Walker) from a Board agent's dismissal
(attached)
of
an unfair practice charge. The charge alleged that the California School
Employees Association & its Chapter 724 (CSEA) breached its duty
of
fair representation
under the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA). 1 The Board agent found that the
charge failed to state a prima facie violation
of
the duty
of
fair representation.
The Board has reviewed the dismissal and the record in light
of
Walker's appeal,
CSEA' s response thereto, and the relevant law. Based on this review, we find the dismissal
and warning letters to be well-reasoned, adequately supported by the record, and in accordance
with applicable law. Accordingly, the Board adopts the dismissal and warning letters as
decision of the Board itself, supplemented by the discussion below.
1 EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq.

DISCUSSION
Compliance with Requirements for Filing Appeal
Pursuant to PERB Regulation 32635(a), an appeal from dismissal must:
(1) State the specific issues of procedure, fact, law or rationale to
which the appeal is taken;
(2) Identify the page or part of the dismissal to which each
appeal is taken;
(3) State the grounds for each issue stated.
To satisfy the requirements of PERB Regulation 32635(a), the appeal must sufficiently
place the Board and the respondent "on notice of the issues raised on appeal." (State
Employees Trades Council United (Ventura, et al.) (2009) PERB Decision No. 2069-H
(State Employees Trades Council); City & County of San Francisco (2009) PERB Decision
No. 2075-M.) An appeal that does not reference the substance of the Board agent's dismissal
fails to comply with PERB Regulation 32635(a). (United Teachers of Los Angeles (Pratt)
(2009) PERB Order No. Ad-381 (Pratt); Lodi Education Association (Hudock) (1995) PERB
Decision No. 1124; United Teachers - Los Angeles (Glickberg) (1990) PERB Decision No. 846.)
Likewise, an appeal that merely reiterates facts alleged in the unfair practice charge does not
comply with PERB Regulation 32635(a). (Pratt; State Employees Trades Council; Contra Costa
County Health Services Department (2005) PERB Decision No. 1752-M; County of Solano
(Human Resources Department) (2004) PERB Decision No. 1598-M.)
The appeal in this case consists solely of the following statement:
The WARNING LETTER dated April 12, 2011, contained
inaccurate information and I would like to [sic] opportunity to
provide proof to substantiate my claim. Attached are some of my
PERB regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8,
section 31001 et seq.
22
DISCUSSION
Compliance with Requirements for Filing Appeal
Pursuant to PERB Regulation 32635(a),2 an appeal from dismissal must:
(1) State the specific issues of procedure, fact, law or rationale to
which the appeal is taken;
(2) Identify the page or part of the dismissal to which each
appeal is taken;
(3) State the grounds for each issue stated.
To satisfy the requirements of PERB Regulation 32635(a), the appeal must sufficiently
place the Board and the respondent "on notice of the issues raised on appeal." (State
Employees Trades Council United (Ventura, et al.) (2009) PERB Decision No. 2069-H
(State Employees Trades Council); City & County of San Francisco (2009) PERB Decision
No. 2075-M.) An appeal that does not reference the substance of the Board agent's dismissal
fails to comply with PERB Regulation 32635(a). (United Teachers of Los Angeles (Pratt)
(2009) PERB Order No. Ad-381 (Pratt); Lodi Education Association (Hudock) (1995) PERB
Decision No. 1124; United Teachers - Los Angeles (Glickberg) (1990) PERB Decision No. 846.)
Likewise, an appeal that merely reiterates facts alleged in the unfair practice charge does not
comply with PERB Regulation 32635(a). (Pratt; State Employees Trades Council; Contra Costa
County Health Services Department (2005) PERB Decision No. 1752-M; County of Solano
(Human Resources Department) (2004) PERB Decision No. 1598-M.)
The appeal in this case consists solely of the following statement:
The WARNING LETTER dated April 12, 2011, contained
inaccurate information and I would like to [sic] opportunity to
provide proof to substantiate my claim. Attached are some of my
2 PERB regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8,
section 31001 et seq.

emails (71 pages) for your review. At this time, I am asking for
an appeal on Unfair Practice Charge No. LA-CO-1449-E.
(Emphasis in original.)
The appeal fails to reference any portion of the Board agent's determination or
otherwise identify the specific issues of procedure, fact, law or rationale to which the appeal
is taken, the page or part of the dismissal to which appeal is taken, or the grounds for each
issue. Thus, it is subject to dismissal on that basis. (City of Brea (2009) PERB Decision
No. 2083-M.)
New Evidence and Allegations on Appeal
In her appeal, Walker presents new evidence that was not presented in the original charge
or in an amended charge. "Unless good cause is shown, a charging party may not present on
appeal new charge allegations or new supporting evidence." (PERB Reg. 32635(b); see also
CSU Employees Union, SEIU Local 2579 (Kyrias) (2011) PERB Decision No. 2175-H.) 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.)
On April 12, 2011, the Board agent issued a letter advising Walker that the charge failed
to state a prima facie case and warning her that the charge would be dismissed unless she
amended the charge to state a prima facie case. As set forth in the Board agent's May 18, 2011
letter dismissing the charge, although Walker requested and received an extension of time to file
an amended charge, she failed to do so. Walker filed an appeal from dismissal on June 16, 2011.
Attached to the appeal are documents provided for the first time on appeal that are either undated
or bear dates that all predate the dismissal. The appeal provides no reason why they could not
have been alleged in the original charge or in an amended charge. Thus, we do not find good
cause to consider these new allegations and evidence.
3
emails
(71
pages) for your review. At this time, I am asking for
an appeal on Unfair Practice Charge No. LA-CO-1449-E.
(Emphasis in original.)
The appeal fails to reference any portion
of
the Board agent's determination or
otherwise identify the specific issues
of
procedure, fact, law or rationale to which the appeal
is taken, the page or part
of
the dismissal to which appeal is taken, or the grounds for each
issue. Thus, it is subject to dismissal on that basis. (City
of
Brea (2009) PERB Decision
No. 2083-M.)
New Evidence and Allegations on Appeal
In her appeal, Walker presents new evidence that was not presented in the original charge
or in an amended charge. "Unless good cause is shown, a charging party may not present on
appeal new charge allegations or new supporting evidence." (PERB Reg. 32635(b
);
see also
CSU Employees Union, SEIU Local 2579 (Kyrias) (2011) PERB Decision No. 2175-H.) 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.)
On April 12, 2011, the Board agent issued a letter advising Walker that the charge failed
to state a prima facie case and warning her that the charge would be dismissed unless she
amended the charge to state a prima facie case. As set forth in the Board agent's May 18, 2011
letter dismissing the charge, although Walker requested and received an extension of time to file
an amended charge, she failed to do so. Walker filed an appeal from dismissal on June 16, 2011.
Attached to the appeal are documents provided for the first time on appeal that are either undated
or bear dates that all predate the dismissal. The appeal provides no reason why they could not
have been alleged in the original charge or in an amended charge. Thus, we do not find good
cause to consider these new allegations and evidence.
3

ORDER
The unfair practice charge in Case No. LA-CO-1449-E is hereby DISMISSED
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
Chair Martinez and Member Huguenin joined in this Decision.
44
ORDER
The unfair practice charge in Case No. LA-CO-1449-E is hereby DISMISSED
WITHOUT LEA VE TO AMEND.
Chair Martinez and Member Huguenin joined in this Decision.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT R
Sacramento Regional Office
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95811-4124
Telephone: (916) 327-8387
Fax: (916) 327-6377
May 18, 2011
Aminah Walker
Re: 	Aminah Walker v. California School Employees Association & its Chapter 724
Unfair Practice Charge No. LA-CO-1449-E
DISMISSAL LETTER
Dear Ms. Walker:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on September 3, 2010. Aminah Walker (Walker or Charging Party)
alleges that the California School Employees Association, Chapter 724 (CSEA or Respondent)
violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA or Act).
Charging Party was informed in the attached Warning Letter dated April 12, 2011, that the
above-referenced charge did not state a prima facie case. Charging Party was advised that, if
there were any factual inaccuracies or additional facts that would correct the deficiencies
explained in that letter, she should amend the charge. Charging Party was further advised that,
unless she amended the charge to state a prima facie case or withdrew it prior to April 22,
2011, the charge would be dismissed. On April 22, 2011, the undersigned Board Agent called
Charging Party to discuss this charge. During this telephone conversation, in addition to a
discussion of Charging Party's questions, Charging Party requested an extension of time until
May 13, 2011, to file additional documents. The undersigned Board Agent requested that
Charging Party mail an original letter to memorialize her request for an extension of time.
Having not received an extension of time request letter or an amended charge, the undersigned
Board Agent called Charging Party on May 4, 2011, to discuss the potential dismissal of her
charge. During this telephone conversation Charging Party assured the undersigned Board
Agent that she had mailed an extension of time request letter on May 3, 2011, and that she
going to mail a proof of service later that day.
PERB has not received a request of extension of time letter, an amended charge, a request for
withdrawal or any other correspondence, by mail or telephone, from Charging Party.
Therefore, the charge is hereby dismissed based on the facts and reasons set forth in the April
12, 2011 Warning Letter.
EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. The text of the EERA and
PERB Regulations may be found at www.perb.ca.gov.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	(
==============
EDMUND
G.
BROWN
JR., Governor
PUBLIC
EMPLOYMEN1 ELATIONS BOARD	
_._<ELATIONS
BOARD
Sacramento Regional Office1031
18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95811-4124
Telephone: (916) 327-8387
Fax: (9 I 6) 327-63
77
May 18, 2011
Aminah Walker
4460 Mayberry St.
San Diego, CA 92113
Re: 	Aminah Walker
v.
California School Employees Association & its Chapter 724
Unfair Practice Charge No. LA-CO-1449-E
DISMISSAL LETTER
Dear Ms. Walker:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on September 3, 2010. Aminah Walker (Walker or Charging Party)
alleges that the California School Employees Association, Chapter 724 (CSEA or Respondent)
violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA or Act). 1
Charging Party was informed in the attached Warning Letter dated April 12, 2011, that the
above-referenced charge did not state a prima facie case. Charging Party was advised that,
if
there were any factual inaccuracies or additional facts that would correct the deficiencies
explained in that letter, she should amend the charge. Charging Party was further advised that,
unless she amended the charge to state a prima facie case or withdrew it prior to April 22,
2011, the charge would be dismissed. On April 22, 2011, the undersigned Board Agent called
Charging Party to discuss this charge. During this telephone conversation, in addition to a
discussion
of
Charging Party's questions, Charging Party requested an extension
of
time until
May 13, 2011, to file additional documents. The undersigned Board Agent requested that
Charging Party mail an original letter to memorialize her request for an extension
of
time.
Having not received an extension oftime request letter or an amended charge, the undersigned
Board 1\gent called Charging Party on
}v1ay
4, 2011, to discuss the potential dismissal
of
hercharge. During this telephone conversation Charging Party assured the undersigned Board
Agent that she had mailed an extension
of
time request letter on May 3, 2011, and that she
going to mail a proof
of
service later that day.
PERB has not received a request
of
extension
of
time letter, an amended charge, a request for
withdrawal or any other correspondence, by mail or telephone, from Charging Party.
Therefore, the charge is hereby dismissed based on the facts and reasons set forth in the April
12, 2011 Warning Letter.
1 EERA is codified at Government Code ~ection 3540 et seq. The text of the EERA and
PERB Regulations may be found at www.perb.ca.gov.

LA-CO-1449-E
May 18, 2011
Page 2
Right to Appeal
Pursuant to PERB Regulations, " Charging Party 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, $ 32635, subd. (a).) Any document filed with the Board
must contain the case name and number, and the original and five (5) copies of all documents
must be provided to the Board.
A document is considered "filed" when actually received during a regular PERB business day.
Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, $8 32135, subd. (a) and 32130; see also Gov. Code, $ 11020, subd. (a).)
A document is also considered "filed" when received by facsimile transmission before the
close of business together with a Facsimile Transmission Cover Sheet which meets the
requirements of PERB Regulation 32135(d), provided the filing party also places the original,
together with the required number of copies and proof of service, in the U.S. mail. (Cal. Code
Regs, tit. 8, $ 32135, subds. (b), (c) and (d); see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, $$ 32090 and
32130.)
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
If you file a timely appeal of the refusal to issue a complaint, any other party may file with the
Board an original and five copies of a statement in opposition within twenty (20) calendar days
following the date of service of the appeal. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, $ 32635, subd. (b).)
Service
All documents authorized to be filed herein must also be "served" upon all parties to the
proceeding, and a "proof of service" must accompany each copy of a document served upon a
party or filed with the Board itself. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, $ 32140 for the required
contents.) The document will be considered properly "served" when personally delivered or
deposited in the mail or deposited with a delivery service and properly addressed. A document
may also be concurrently served via facsimile transmission on all parties to the proceeding.
(Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, $ 32135, subd. (c).)
Extension of Time
PERB Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.
LA-CO-1449-E
May18,2011
Page 2
Right to Appeal
Pursuant to PERB Regulations,2 Charging Party 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, § 32635, subd. (a).) Any document filed with the Board
must contain the case name and number, and the original and five (5) copies of all documents
must be provided to the Board.
A document is considered "filed" when actually received during a regular PERB business day.
(Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, §§ 32135, subd. (a) and 32130; see also Gov. Code,§ 11020, subd. (a).)
A document is also considered "filed" when received by facsimile transmission before the .
close of business together with a Facsimile Transmission Cover Sheet which meets the
requirements of PERB Regulation 32135(d), provided the filing party also places the original,
together with the required number of copies and proof of service, in the U.S. mail. (Cal. Code
Regs, tit. 8, § 32135, subds. (b), (c) and (d); see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 32090 and
32130.)
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
If you file a timely appeal of the refusal to issue a complaint, any other party may file with the
Board an original and five copies of a statement in opposition within twenty (20) calendar days
following the date of service of the appeal. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, § 32635, subd. (b).)
Service
All documents authorized to be filed herein must also be "served" upon all parties to the
proceeding, and a "proof of service" must accompany each copy of a document served upon a
party or filed with the Board itself. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 32140 for the required
contents.) The document will be considered properly "served" when personally delivered or
deposited in the mail or deposited with a delivery service and properly addressed. A document
may also be concurrently served via facsimile transmission on all parties to the proceeding.
(Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, § 32135, subd. (c).)
Extension of Time
2 PERB Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.

LA-CO-1449-E
May 18, 2011
Page 3
A request for an extension of time, in which to file a document with the Board itself, must be
in writing and filed with the Board at the previously noted address. A request for an extension
must be filed at least three (3) calendar days before the expiration of the time required for
filing the document. The request must indicate good cause for and, if known, the position of
each other party regarding the extension, and shall be accompanied by proof of service of the
request upon each party. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, $ 32132.)
Final Date
If no appeal is filed within the specified time limits, the dismissal will become final when the
time limits have expired.
Sincerely,
M. SUZANNE MURPHY
General Counsel
Attachment
cc: Sonja J. Woodward
LA-CO-1449-E
May 18, 2011
Page 3
A request for an extension of time, in which to file a document with the Board itself, must be
in writing and filed with the Board at the previously noted address. A request for an extension
must be filed at least three (3) calendar days before the expiration of the time required for
filing the document. The request must indicate good cause for and, if known, the position of
each other party regarding the extension, and shall be accompanied by proof of service of the
request upon each party. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, § 32132.)
Final Date
If no appeal is filed within the specified time limits, the dismissal will become final when the
time limits have expired.
Sincerely,
M. SUZANNE MURPHY
General Counsel
By
Jonathan Levy
Regional Attorney
Attachment
cc: Sonja J. Woodward

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor	STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Sacramento Regional Office
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95811-4124
Telephone: (916) 327-8387
Fax: (916) 327-6377
April 12, 2011
Aminah Walker
Re: 	Aminah Walker v. California School Employees Association & its Chapter 724
Unfair Practice Charge No. LA-CO-1449-E
WARNING LETTER
Dear Ms. Walker:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on September 3, 2010. Aminah Walker (Walker or Charging Party)
alleges that the California School Employees Association, Chapter 724 (CSEA or Respondent)
violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA or Act)."
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Charging Party's Position
Charging Party is employed as a school bus driver for the San Diego Unified School District
(Employer or District). In November 2008, Charging Party became an active member and
steward for Respondent. In 2009, Charging Party was elected as a conference delegate on
behalf of Respondent. Charging Party was also involved with Respondent's Constitution and
Bylaws Committee. At some point, Charging Party "noticed the leadership was making up
rules about how our chapter business is conducted," and began referring Respondent's
leadership to the Constitution and Bylaws when discrepancies arose.
Charging Party "started noticing [Respondent's agent] Leticia Munguia (Munguia) make
personal attacks towards [her] by stating in Steward Council Meetings, Executive Board
Meetings, and Chapter Meetings," that Respondent's leadership should be concerned by
Charging Party's references to the "Constitution and Bylaws, Job Steward modules, and Site
Representative modules."
In December 2009, Charging Party raised concerns about the Release Time Program because
she believed that the amount of money allocated to this chapter did not align with the
treasurer's report. After expressing those concerns, Munguia, "became very defensive and
accusing me of trying to get her fired. . . ."
EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. The text of the EERA and
PERB Regulations may be found at www.perb.ca.gov.
PUBLIC EMPLOYMEN'1 .KELATIONS BOARD
PERB
Sacramento Regional Office
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95811-4124
Telephone: (916) 327-8387
Fax: (916) 327-6377
April 12, 2011
Aminah Walker
Re: 	Aminah Walker v. California School Employees Association & its Chapter 724
Unfair Practice Charge No. LA-CO-1449-E
WARNING LETTER
Dear Ms. Walker:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on September 3, 2010. Aminah Walker (Walker or Charging Party)
alleges that the California School Employees Association, Chapter 724 (CSEA or Respondent)
violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA or Act). 1
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Charging Party's Position
Charging Party is employed as a school bus driver for the San Diego Unified School District
(Employer or District). In November 2008, Charging Party became an active member and
steward for Respondent. In 2009, Charging Party was elected as a conference delegate on
behalf of Respondent. Charging Party was also involved with Respondent's Constitution and
Bylaws Committee. At some point, Charging Party "noticed the leadership was making up
rules about how our chapter business is conducted," and began referring Respondent's
leadership to the Constitution and Bylaws when discrepancies arose.
Charging Party "started noticing [Respondent's agent] Leticia Munguia (Munguia) make
personal attacks towards [her] by stating in Steward Council Meetings, Executive Board
Meetings, and Chapter Meetings," that Respondent's leadership should be concerned by
Charging Party's references to the "Constitution and Bylaws, Job Steward modules, and Site
Representative modules."
In December 2009, Charging Party raised concerns about the Release Time Program because
she believed that the amount of money allocated to this chapter did not align with the
treasurer's report. After expressing those concerns, Munguia, "became very defensive and
accusing me of trying to get her fired .... "
1 EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. The text of the EERA and
PERB Regulations may be found at www.perb.ca.gov.
4460 Mayberry St.
San Diego, CA 92113

LA-CO-1449-E
April 12, 2011
Page 2
In January 2010, Charging Party sent Respondent President Allen Clark (Clark) a 41-page
document, which included correspondence between Munguia and Charging Party, to express
her concerns over the release time allocations. Clark responded, "Aminah you are referring to
the state constitution not your chapter. The exec. Board meeting is not an open meeting and
your eboard is following procedures. I am trying to understand why you are challenging
everything that they do. We have checked into every complaint and have found no wrong
doing. ..." Charging Party states that Clark's lack of interest concerned her because he did
not receive any of the documentation that she sent him before "he became judgmental towards
me."
In January 2010", Munguia's "attitude and demeanor changed towards" Charging Party.
Charging Party states that Munguia:
did everything she could to sabotage my character, integrity, and
abilities to perform as a job steward by influencing the chapter
leadership to bring about false charges' with no evidence to
support alleged accusations. I was removed from my appointed
duties as Site Representative Coordinator and Job Steward
without any of the allegations being substantiated. By removing
me impacted the trust and respect of the union to display
favorable representation. Members now have no trust in CSEA
because all unbiased representatives are being falsely accused,
removed from their offices, and forced to resign due to lack of
support from the LRR and chapter leadership.
In April 2010, Munguia notified the Human Resources Department at the District that
Charging Party had been removed as job steward before the term ended. Charging Party states
that, "[the [contact] was used for her own personal vendetta against me for representing
members truthfully and honestly. [Munguia] influence and intimidate the [District]
Management and CSEA staff because of their lack of knowledge on the in/out of labor laws."
In April 2010, Dorothy Franklin (Franklin) and Charging Party attempted to organize the Food
Service Workers, "only to [be] blocked and discriminated against by Food Service Manager
Gene Robinson (Robinson). Who later stated in an email, he received orders from CSEA."
Charging Party states that Robinson's e-mail message was generated throughout the District
and that it formulated negative and biased opinions towards Franklin and Charging Party.
Charging Party states that, "[the grievance against [Robinson], to my knowledge is pending.
After making several attempts requesting counsel, I have not received any counsel from
[Munguia]."
The charge states "2009," but presumably Charging Party intended to write "2010."
3Charging Party did not provide any detail about these "false charges."
LA-CO-1449-E
April 12, 2011
Page 2
In
January 2010, Charging Party sent Respondent President Allen Clark (Clark) a 41-page
document, which included correspondence between Munguia and Charging Party, to express
her concerns over the release time allocations. Clark responded, "Aminah you are referring to
the state constitution not your chapter. The exec. Board meeting is not an open meeting and
your eboard is following procedures. I am trying to understand why you are challenging
everything that they do. We have checked into every complaint and have found no wrong
doing
....
" Charging Party states that Clark's lack
of
interest concerned her because
he
did
not receive any
of
the documentation that she sent him before "he became judgmental towards
me."
In January 20102, Munguia's "attitude and demeanor changed towards" Charging Party.
Charging Party states that Munguia:
did everything she could to sabotage my character, integrity, and
abilities to perform as a job steward by influencing the chapter
leadership to bring about false charges3 with no evidence to
support alleged accusations. I was removed from my appointed
duties as Site Representative Coordinator and Job Steward
without any
of
the allegations being substantiated. By removing
me impacted the trust and respect
of
the union to display
favorable representation. Members now have no trust in CSEA
because all unbiased representatives are being falsely accused,
removed from their offices, and forced to resign due to lack
of
support from the LRR and chapter leadership.
In April 2010, Munguia notified the Human Resources Department at the District that
Charging Party had been removed as job steward before the term ended. Charging Party states
that, " [t ]he [contact] was used for her own personal vendetta against me for representing
members truthfully and honestly. 	[Munguia] influence and intimidate the [District]
Management and CSEA staff because
of
their lack
of
knowledge on the in/out oflabor laws."
In April 2010, Dorothy Franklin (Franklin) and Charging Party attempted to organize the Food
Service Workers, "only to [be] blocked and discriminated against by Food Service Manager
Gene Robinson (Robinson). 	Who later stated in an email, he received orders from CSEA."
Charging Party states that Robinson's e-mail message was generated throughout the District
and that it formulated negative and biased opinions towards Franklin and Charging Party.
Charging Party states that, "[t]he grievance against [Robinson], to my knowledge is pending.
After making several attempts requesting counsel, I have not received any counsel from
[Munguia]."
2 The charge states "2009," but presumably Charging Party intended to write "2010."
3 Charging Party did not provide any detail about these "false charges."

LA-CO-1449-E
April 12, 2011
Page 3
Charging Party states that on a number of occasions Munguia has coached District
management in what policies and procedures to use to "embark the outcome in their favor."
Charging Party states that Respondent:
[Djid allow the membership a platform to discuss the contract
ratifications, and Health and Welfare ratifications. All
negotiations were decided without any membership input. The
membership was not allowed any time to discuss concerns in a
group setting prior to the opening of polls.
Additionally, Charging Party states that:
Through my involvement as a Union Representative, my spouse
William Thomas have been harassed and treated unfairly, falsely
accused, and not giving due process in his representations from
[Munguia]. The Secretary discriminated against William when
she singled him out by violating the HIPPA ACT by contacted his
doctor.
Respondent's Position
Respondent asserts that: a number of Charging Party's allegations are barred by the statute of
limitations; are outside of PERB's jurisdiction as they relate to internal union affairs; and that
Charging Party fails to meet its burden of providing a clear and concise statement of facts
rather than mere legal conclusions.
DISCUSSION
The undersigned Board Agent understands Charging Party's charge as consisting of the
following allegations: (1) Munguia made personal attacks towards Charging Party during
union meetings; (2) Charging Party's concerns regarding allocations of money to the Release
Time Program were largely ignored; (3) Munguia's attitude and demeanor changed towards
Charging Party and Munguia influenced Respondent to bring about false charges against her;
(4) Charging Party was removed from her position as steward; (5) Munguia notified District's
Human Resources Department that Charging Party was no longer a steward for Respondent;
(6) Respondent gave Food Service Manger Robinson orders to block/discriminate against
Charging Party and Robinson's e-mail message generated negative and biased opinions
towards Charging Party; (7) Respondent failed to provide Charging Party with representation
for a grievance filed against Robinson; (8) membership was not allowed any time to discuss
concerns in a group setting prior to the opening of polls; and (9) Charging Party's spouse has
been harassed, falsely accused, not given due process in his representations from Munguia, and
his HIPPA Act rights were violated.
LA-CO-1449-E
April 12, 2011
Page 3
Charging Party states that on a number
of
occasions Munguia has coached District
management in what policies and procedures to use to "embark the outcome in their favor."
Charging Party states that Respondent:
[D]id allow the membership a platform to discuss the contract
ratifications, and Health and Welfare ratifications. All
negotiations were decided without any membership input. The
membership was not allowed any time to discuss concerns in a
group setting prior to the opening
of
polls.
Additionally, Charging Party states that:
Through my involvement as a Union Representative, my spouse
William Thomas have been harassed and treated unfairly, falsely
accused, and not giving due process in his representations from
[Munguia]. The Secretary discriminated against William when
she singled him out by violating the HIPP A ACT by contacted his
doctor.
Respondent's Position
Respondent asserts that: a number
of
Charging Party's allegations are barred by the statute
of
limitations; are outside
of
PERB' s jurisdiction as they relate to internal union affairs; and that
Charging Party fails to meet its burden
of
providing a clear and concise statement
of
facts
rather than mere legal conclusions.
DISCUSSION
The undersigned Board Agent understands Charging Party's charge as consisting
of
the
following allegations: (1) Munguia made personal attacks tmvards Charging Party during
union meetings; (2) Charging Party's concerns regarding allocations
of
money to the Release
Time Program were largely ignored; (3) Munguia's attitude and demeanor changed towards
Charging Party and Munguia influenced Respondent to bring about false charges against her;
(4) Charging Party was removed from her position as steward; ( 5) Munguia notified District's
Human Resources Department that Charging Party was no longer a steward for Respondent;
(6) Respondent gave Food Service Manger Robinson orders to block/discriminate against
Charging Party and Robinson's e-mail message generated negative and biased opinions
towards Charging Party; (7) Respondent failed to provide Charging Party with representation
for a grievance filed against Robinson; (8) membership was not allowed any time to discuss
concerns in a group setting prior to the opening of polls; and (9) Charging Party's spouse has
been harassed, falsely accused, not given due process in his representations from Munguia, and
his HIPP A Act rights were violated.

LA-CO-1449-E
April 12, 2011
Page 4
A. 	Charging Party's Burden
PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5)* equires, 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.) Mere legal conclusions are not sufficient to state a prima facie case. (Ibid.; Charter
Oak Unified School District (1991) PERB Decision No. 873.)
The charging party's burden also includes alleging facts showing that the unfair practice
charge was timely filed; i.e., that the alleged unfair practice occurred no more than six months
prior to the filing of the charge. (Los Angeles Unified School District (2007) PERB Decision
No. 1929; City of Santa Barbara (2004) PERB Decision No. 1628-M.) PERB is prohibited
from issuing a complaint with respect to any charge based upon an alleged unfair practice
occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge. (Coachella Valley Mosquito
and Vector Control District v. Public Employment Relations Board (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1072.)
The limitations period begins to run once the charging party knows, or should have known, of
the conduct underlying the charge. (Gavilan Joint Community College District (1996) PERB
Decision No. 1177.) Additionally, PERB Regulation 32615(a)(4) requires a charging party to
provide:
The sections of the Government Code and/or, under MMBA, Article 3 of the
Trial Court Act, or the Court Interpreter Act, the applicable local rules, or the
sections of the Public Utilities Code, alleged to have been violated.
Charging Party's charge alleges that Respondent violated Government Code sections, "3542.1;
3543.1 a-d; 3543.2 a-e; 3543.5 a-d; 3543.6 a-d; 3544.9; 3546.5; 3548; and 3569." Charging
Party's charge fails to allege the appropriate sections of the EERA that Respondent allegedly
violated. The Board has held that, where a charging party fails to allege that a section of the
Government Code has been violated, the Board agent, upon a review of the charge, may
determine under what section the charge should be analyzed. (See Los Banos Unified School
District (2007) PERB Decision No. 1935; Los Angeles County Office of Education (1999)
PERB Decision No. 1360.)
B. 	Statute of Limitations
EERA section 3541.5(a)(1) prohibits PERB from issuing a complaint with respect to "any
charge based upon an alleged unfair practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing
of the charge." As noted above, the limitations period begins to run once the charging party
knows, or should have known, of the conduct underlying the charge. (Gavilan Joint
4 PERB Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.
LA-CO-1449-E
April 12, 2011
Page 4
A. 	Charging Party's Burden
PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5)4rrequires, 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.) Mere legal conclusions are not sufficient
to
state a prima facie case. (Ibid.; Charter
Oak Unified School District (1991) PERB Decision No. 873.)
The charging party's burden also includes alleging facts showing that the unfair practice
charge was timely filed; i.e., that the alleged unfair practice occurred no more than six months
prior to the filing
of
the charge. (Los Angeles Unified School District (2007) PERB Decision
No. 1929; City
of
Santa Barbara (2004) PERB Decision No. 1628-M.) PERB is prohibited
from issuing a complaint with respect to any charge based upon an alleged unfair practice
occurring more than six months prior to the filing
of
the charge. (Coachella Valley Mosquito
and Vector Control District
v.
Public Employment Relations Board (2005)
35
Cal.4th 1072.)
The limitations period begins to run once the charging party knows, or should have known,
of
the conduct underlying the charge. (Gavilan Joint Community College District (1996) PERB
Decision No. 1177.) Additionally, PERB Regulation 32615(a)(4) requires a charging party to
provide:
The sections
of
the Government Code and/or, under MMBA, Article 3
of
the
Trial Court Act, or the Court Interpreter Act, the applicable local rules, or the
sections
of
the Public Utilities Code, alleged to have been violated.
Charging Party's charge alleges that Respondent violated Government Code sections, "3542.l;
3543.1 a-d; 3543.2 a-e; 3543.5 a-d; 3543.6 a-d; 3544.9; 3546.5; 3548; and 3569." Charging
Party's charge fails to allege the appropriate sections
of
the EERA
..
that Respondent allegedly
violated. The Board has held that, where a charging party fails to allege that a section
of
the
Govem_-rnent Code has been violated, the Board agent, upon a review
of
the charge, may
determine under what section the charge should be analyzed. (See Los Banos Unified School
District (2007) PERB Decision No. 1935; Los Angeles County Office
of
Education (1999)
PERB Decision No. 1360.)
B. 	Statute
of
Limitations
EERA section 354] .5(a)(l) prohibits PERB from issuing a complaint with respect to "any
charge based upon an alleged unfair practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing
of
the charge." As noted above, the limitations period begins to run once the charging party
knows, or should have known, of the conduct underlying the charge. (Gavilan Joint
4 PERB Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
3 1001 et seq.

LA-CO-1449-E
April 12, 2011
Page 5
Community College District, supra, PERB Decision No. 1177.) A charging party bears the
burden of demonstrating that the charge is timely filed. (Tehachapi Unified School District
(1993) PERB Decision No. 1024; State of California (Department of Insurance) (1997) PERB
Decision No. 1197-S.)
Charging Party filed this charge with PERB on September 3, 2010. This filing date establishes
that allegations concerning conduct occurring before March 3, 2010, may not be considered by
PERB because they are outside of the six month statute of limitations period.
Based on the facts provided by Charging Party, allegations (1) - (4) as listed above, occurred
before March 3, 2010, and thus cannot be considered by PERB and are therefore dismissed.
The remainder of Charging Party's allegations appear to be timely and will be discussed
below.
(5) 	Notification to District - Removal of Charging Party as Steward
Charging Party provides that:
April of 2010, [Munguia] notified the Human Resource
Department of my removal as Job Steward before the term ended.
The contract [presumably meant to be "contact"] was used for her
own personal vendetta against me for representing members
truthfully and honestly.
While no analysis or allegation of a specific EERA section violation was provided, it appears
from the charge that Charging Party is asserting a duty of fair representation violation under
EERA section 3544.9 and thereby section 3543.6(b). In order to state a prima facie violation
of this section of EERA, Charging Party must show that the Respondent's conduct was
arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. The charge does not allege that the District was
provided with the reasons why Charging Party was removed as steward or any other detail that
would reflect poorly on Charging Party. Respondent states that according to the collective
bargaining agreement (CBA) Article 3, section 1(C), Respondent is responsible for providing
the District with a list of all officers, including stewards. Respondent states that after Charging
Party was removed, it merely updated the list and submitted the list of officers and stewards to
the District. As written, Charging Party fails to establish a violation of the duty of fair
representation.
To the extent that this allegation relates to internal union affairs, Charging Party fails to
demonstrate that harm or injury was caused to the employer-employee relationship because of
Respondent's submittal of the updated representation list. (California School Employees
Association and its Local Chapter No. 616 (Tornetta) (1985) PERB Decision No. 508.')
In comparison, the Board has intervened in the internal affairs of a union when alleged
union reprisals against members substantially impacted the employment relationship. For
example, in California Union of Safety Employees (Coelho) (1994) PERB Decision No. 1032-
LA-CO-1449-E
April 12, 2011
Page 5
Community College District, supra, PERB Decision No. 1177.) A charging party bears the
burden of demonstrating that the charge is timely filed. 	(Tehachapi Unified School District
(1993) PERB Decision No. 1024; State of California (Department of Insurance) (1997) PERB
Decision No. 1197-S.)
Charging Party filed this charge with PERB on September 3, 2010. 	This filing date establishes
that allegations concerning conduct occurring before March 3, 2010, may not be considered by
PERB because they are outside of the six month statute of limitations period.
Based on the facts provided by Charging Party, allegations (1) - (4) as listed above, occurred
before March 3, 2010, and thus cannot be considered by PERB and are therefore dismissed.
The remainder of Charging Party's allegations appear to be timely and will be discussed
below.
(5) 	Notification to District- Removal of Charging Party as Steward
Charging Party provides that:
April of 2010, [Munguia] notified the Human Resource
Department of my removal as Job Steward before the term ended.
The contract [presumably meant to be "contact"] was used for her
own personal vendetta against me for representing members
truthfully and honestly.
While no analysis or allegation of a specific EERA section violation was provided, it appears
from the charge that Charging Party is asserting a duty of fair representation violation under
EERA section 3544.9 and thereby section 3543.6(b). In order to state a prima facie violation
of this section of EERA, Charging Party must show that the Respondent's conduct was
arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. The charge does not allege that the District was
provided with the reasons why Charging Party was removed as steward or any other detail that
would reflect poorly on Charging Party. Respondent states that according to the collective
bargaining agreement (CBA) Article 3, section l(C), Respondent is responsible for providing
the District with a list of all officers, including stewards. Respondent states that after Charging
Party was removed, it merely updated the list and submitted the list of officers and stewards to
the District. As written, Charging Party fails to establish a violation of the duty of fair
representation.
To the extent that this allegation relates to internal union affairs, Charging Party fails to
demonstrate that harm or injury was caused to the employer-employee relationship because of
Respondent's submittal of the updated representation list. (California School Employees
Association and its Local Chapter No. 616 (Tornetta) (1985) PERB Decision No. 508.5)
5 In comparison, the Board has intervened in the internal affairs of a union when alleged
union reprisals against members substantially impacted the employment relationship. For
example, in California Union a/Safety Employees (Coelho) (1994) PERB Decision No. 1032-

LA-CO-1449-E
April 12, 2011
Page 6
(6) 	Robinson's E-mail Message
As noted above, 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), supra,
PERB Decision No. 1071-S, citing United Teachers-Los Angeles (Ragsdale), supra, PERB
Decision No. 944.) Charging Party does not provide many details regarding the incident with
the Food Service Department.
Respondent provides that Charging Party went to the Food Service Department during working
hours to talk with members who were on duty." Neither Charging Party nor Franklin held any
official position for Respondent during this time. Workers from Food Service complained to
Respondent's vice president and manager Derek Howard about Charging Party's visit at their
department. Howard then contacted Respondent President Larkins who informed Robinson
that Charging Party and Franklin were not at Food Service on official business. That was
communicated in order to protect Respondent's relationship with the District. In its response,
Respondent points to specific procedures for visiting a campus, checking in, and only making
contact with members before and after school or on a break with a manager's approval.
Robinson's e-mail message stated that Charging Party was not permitted to be in Food Service
unless she was investigating a grievance. Respondent states that it did not dictate the terms of
the e-mail message sent by Robinson or have any control over its content. Respondent also
states that it cannot be responsible for Robinson's e-mail message because he is a manager for
the District and was not acting with or on behalf of Respondent.
In this case, Charging Party fails to demonstrate a violation of EERA based on this factual
allegation. Charging Party does not provide any detail as to what was actually communicated
in Robinson's e-mail message. Based on the duty of fair representation analysis presented
above, it does not appear that Respondent acted in an arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith
manner.
(7) Grievance Against Robinson
Charging Party's entire statement relating to the grievance against Robinson provides:
S, the union filed a citizen's complaint against an employee with his employer, causing the
employer to initiate an investigation of the employee's conduct. In finding a violation, the
Board held that the union's conduct directly and substantially impacted the employee's
employment relationship with his employer.
"Absent a factual dispute, a Board Agent may rely on information that does not appear
in the charge, including information provided by the Respondent. (Service Employees
International Union #790 (Adza) (2004) PERB Decision No. 1632-M.)
LA-CO-1449-E
April 12, 2011
Page 6
(6) 	Robinson's E-mail Message
As noted above, 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), supra,
PERB Decision No. 1071-S, citing United Teachers-Los Angeles (Ragsdale), supra, PERB
Decision No. 944.) Charging Party does not provide many details regarding the incident with
the Food Service Department.
Respondent provides that Charging Party went to the Food Service Department during working
hours to talk with members who were on duty.6 Neither Charging Party nor Franklin held any
official position for Respondent during this time. Workers from Food Service complained to
Respondent's vice president and manager Derek Howard about Charging Party's visit at their
department. 	Howard then contacted Respondent President Larkins who informed Robinson
that Charging Party and Franklin were not at Food Service on official business. That was
communicated in order to protect Respondent's relationship with the District. In its response,
Respondent points to specific procedures for visiting a campus, checking in, and only making
contact with members before and after school or on a break with a manager's approval.
Robinson's e-mail message stated that Charging Party was not permitted to be in Food Service
unless she was investigating a grievance. Respondent states that it did not dictate the terms
of
the e-mail message sent by Robinson or have any control over its content. Respondent also
states that it cannot be responsible for Robinson's e-mail message because he is a manager for
the District and was not acting with or on behalf
of
Respondent.
In this case, Charging Party fails to demonstrate a violation
of
EERA based on this factual
allegation. Charging Party does not provide any detail as to what was actually communicated
in Robinson's e-mail message. Based on the duty
of
fair representation analysis presented
above, it does not appear that Respondent acted in an arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith
manner.
(7) 	Grievance Against Robinson
Charging Party's entire statement relating to the grievance against Robinson provides:
S, the union filed a citizen's complaint against an employee with his employer, causing the
employer to initiate an investigation
of
the employee's conduct. 	finding a violation, the
Board held that the union's conduct directly and substantially impacted the employee's
employment relationship with his employer.
6 Absent a factual dispute, a Board Agent may rely on information that does not appear
in the charge, including information provided by the Respondent. (Service Employees
International Union #790 (Adza) (2004) PERB Decision No. 1632-M.)

LA-CO-1449-E
April 12, 2011
Page 7
The grievance against Gene Robinson, to my knowledge is
pending. After making several attempts requesting counsel, I
have not received any counsel from [Munguia].
Charging Party, again, fails to meet her burden of providing a clear and concise statement of
facts and conduct to demonstrate that an unfair practice has occurred. Respondent provides
that Charging Party sent an e-mail message to the District stating, "she did not want [Munguial
to have anything to do with her grievance" against Robinson. According to the CBA, members
can represent themselves through Level II of the grievance process. As written, Charging
Party has failed to provide facts demonstrating that Respondent violated its duty of fair
representation by acting arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith.
(8) 	Membership Not Provided Time to Discuss Contract Ratifications
Charging Party's entire allegation concerning membership's discussion of contract issues
provides:
[Munguia] and President Larkins did [presumably meant to allege
'did not"] allow the membership a platform to discuss the
contract ratifications, and Health and Welfare ratifications. All
negotiations were decided without any membership input. The
membership was not allowed any time to discuss concerns in a
group setting prior to the opening of the polls.
Charging Party does not provide a sufficient amount of detail to demonstrate that an unfair
practice occurred. As it appears in the charge, this matter is an internal union affair and is
therefore outside of PERB's scope.
Generally, PERB will not review matters concerning internal union affairs unless they have a
substantial impact on the relationship of unit members to their employer so as to give rise to
the duty of fair representation. (Service Employees International Union, Local 99 (Kimmett)
(1979) PERB Decision No. 106 [holding that only such activities that have a substantial impact
on the relationships of unit members to their employer are subject to the duty]; see also,
California State Employees Association (Hutchinson, et al.) (1998) PERB Decision No. 1304-
S [noting that PERB has traditionally refrained from reviewing the internal affairs of unions];
California State Employees Association (Hard, et al.) (1999) PERB Decision No. 1368-S
holding that, "PERB's function is to interpret and administer the statutes which govern the
employer-employee relationship, not to police internal relationships among various factions
within employee organizations ... internal union disputes are more appropriately presented in a
different forum"]; California State Employees Association (Gonzalez-Coke, et al.) (2000)
PERB Decision No. 1411-S [holding that charging parties fail to meet their threshold burden
when no factual evidence of impact on the employer-employee relationship is provided in the
charge].)
LA-CO-1449-E
April 12, 2011
Page 7
The grievance against Gene Robinson, to my knowledge is
pending. After making several attempts requesting counsel, I
have not received any counsel from [Munguia].
Charging Party, again, fails to meet her burden
of
providing a clear and concise statement
of
facts and conduct to demonstrate that an unfair practice has occurred. Respondent provides
that Charging Party sent an e-mail message to the District stating, "she did not want [Munguia]
to have anything to do with her grievance" against Robinson. According to the CBA, members
can represent themselves through Level II
of
the grievance process. As written, Charging
Party has failed to provide facts demonstrating that Respondent violated its duty
of
fair
representation by acting arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith.
(8) 	Membership Not Provided Time to Discuss Contract Ratifications
Charging Party's entire allegation concerning membership's discussion
of
contract issues
provides:
[Munguia] and President Larkins did [presumably meant to allege
"did not"] allow the membership a platform to discuss the
contract ratifications, and Health and Welfare ratifications. All
negotiations were decided without any membership input. The
membership was not allowed any time to discuss concerns in a
group setting prior to the opening
of
the polls.
Charging Party does not provide a sufficient amount
of
detail to demonstrate that an unfair
practice occurred. As it appears in the charge, this matter is an internal union affair and is
therefore outside
of
PERB' s scope.
Generally, PERB will not review matters concerning internal union affairs unless they have a
substantial impact on the relationship
of
unit members to their employer so as to give rise to
the duty
of
fair representation. (Service Employees Irzternational Union, Local 99
(.L"Ki1nn1ett)
(1979) PERB Decision No. 106 [holding that only such activities that have a substantial impact
on the relationships
of
unit members to their employer are subject to the duty]; see also,
California State Employees Association (Hutchinson, et al.) (1998) PERB Decision No. 1304-
S [noting that PERB has traditionally refrained from reviewing the internal affairs
of
unions];
Calif..0rnia State Employees Association (Hard, et al.) (1999) PERB Decision No. 1368-S
[holding that, "PERB' s function is to interpret and administer the statutes which govern the
employer-employee relationship, not to police internal relationsl:iips among various factions
within employee organizations ... internal union disputes are more appropriately presented in a
different forum"]; California State Employees Association (Gonzalez-Coke, et al.) (2000)
PERB Decision No. 1411-S [holding that charging parties fail to meet their threshold burden
when no factual evidence of impact on the employer-employee relationship is provided in the
charge].)

LA-CO-1449-E
April 12, 2011
Page 8
(9) 	Retaliation Against Charging Party's Spouse
Charging Party's entire allegation regarding retaliation against her spouse provides:
Through my involvement as a Union Representative, my spouse
William Thomas have been harassed and treated unfairly, falsely
accused, and not giving due process in his representation from
[Munguia]. The Secretary discriminated against William when
she singled him out by violating the HIPPA ACT by contacted his
doctor.
As written, Charging Party fails to provide a sufficient level of factual detail to demonstrate
that an unfair practice has occurred. As stated above, Charging Party has the burden of
alleging the "who, what, when, where and how" of an unfair practice. (Citations omitted.)
Additionally, it is not clear if Charging Party has standing to allege unfair practice allegations
on behalf of her spouse. The United States Supreme Court stated, ". . . the question of standing
depends upon whether the party has alleged such a 'personal stake in the outcome of the
controversy, ' [citation omitted] as to ensure that 'the dispute sought to be adjudicated will be
presented in an adversary context and in a form historically viewed as capable of judicial
resolution.'" [Citation omitted.] (Sierra Club v. Morton (1972) 405 U.S. 727 at p. 732.) The
Board has also held that an individual employee does not have standing to challenge the
violation of another employee's rights. (United Teachers of Los Angeles (Hopper) (2001)
PERB Decision No. 1441.)
CONCLUSION
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, Charging Party may amend the charge. The amended charge should be
prepared on a standard PERB unfair practice charge form, clearly labeled First Amended
Charge, contain all the facts and allegations you wish to make, and be signed under penalty of
perjury by an authorized agent of Charging Party. The amended charge must have the case
number written on the top right hand corner of the charge form. The amended charge must be
served on the Respondent's representative and the original proof of service must be filed with
PERB.
"In Eastside Union School District (1984) PERB Decision No. 466, the Board
explained that a prima facie case is established where the Board agent is able to make "a
determination that the facts as alleged in the charge state a legal cause of action and that the
charging party is capable of providing admissible evidence in support of the allegations.
Consequently, where the investigation results in receipt of conflicting allegations of fact or
contrary theories of law, fair proceedings, if not due process, demand that a complaint be
issued and the matter be sent to formal hearing." (Ibid.)
LA-CO-1449-E
April 12, 2011
Page 8
(9) 	Retaliation Against Charging Party's Spouse
Charging Party's entire allegation regarding retaliation against her spouse provides:
Through my involvement as a Union Representative, my spouse
William Thomas have been harassed and treated unfairly, falsely
accused, and not giving due process in his representation from
[Munguia]. The Secretary discriminated against William when
she singled him out by violating the HIPP A ACT by contacted his
doctor.
As written, Charging Party fails to provide a sufficient level
of
factual detail to demonstrate
that an unfair practice has occurred. As stated above, Charging Party has the burden
of
alleging the "who, what, when, where and how"
of
an unfair practice. (Citations omitted.)
Additionally, it is not clear
if
Charging Party has standing to allege unfair practice allegations
on behalf
of
her spouse. The United States Supreme Court stated, "
...
the question
of
standing
depends upon whether the party has alleged such a 'personal stake in the outcome
of
the
controversy,' [citation omitted] as to ensure that 'the dispute sought to be adjudicated will be
presented in an adversary context and in a form historically viewed as capable
of
judicial
resolution."' [Citation omitted.] (Sierra Club
v.
Morton (1972) 405 U.S. 727 at p. 732.) The
Board has also held that an individual employee does not have standing to challenge the
violation
of
another employee's rights. ( United Teachers
of
Los Angeles (Hopper) (2001)
PERB Decision No. 1441.)
CONCLUSION
For these reasons the charge, as presently written, does not state a prima facie case. 7
If
there
are any factual inaccuracies in this letter or additional facts that would correct the deficiencies
explained above, Charging Party may amend the charge. The amended charge should be
pre.pared
on a standard
PEPJ3
unfair practice charge form, clearly labeled First
P.~mended
Charge, contain all the facts and allegations you wish to make, and be signed under penalty
of
perjury by an authorized agent
of
Charging Party. The amended charge must have the case
number written on the top right hand corner
of
the charge form. 	The amended charge must be
served on the Respondent's representative and the original proof
of
service must be filed with
PERB.
7 In Eastside Union School District (1984) PERB Decision No. 466, the Board
explained that a prima facie case is established where the Board agent is able to make
"a
determination that the facts as alleged in the charge state a legal cause
of
action and that the
charging party is capable of providing admissible evidence in support
of
the allegations.
Consequently, where the investigation results in receipt of conflicting allegations of fact or
contrary theories of law, fair proceedings, if not due process, demand that a complaint be
issued and the matter be sent to formal hearing." (Ibid.)

LA-CO-1449-E
April 12, 2011
Page 9
If an amended charge or withdrawal is not filed on or before April 22, 2011, PERB will
dismiss your charge. If you have any questions, please call me at the above telephone number.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Levy
Regional Attorney
JL
A document is "filed" on the date the document is actually received by PERB,
including if transmitted via facsimile. (PERB Regulation 32135.)
LA-CO-1449-E
April 12, 2011
Page 9
If
an amended charge or withdrawal is not filed on or before April 22, 2011, 8 PERB will
dismiss your charge.	
If
you have any questions, please call me at the above telephone number.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Levy
Regional Attorney
JL
8 A document is "filed" on the date the document is actually received by PERB,
including if transmitted via facsimile. 	(PERB Regulation 32135.)