Jurupa Unified School District (PERB 2283E)

ST ATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
F
PAMELA JEAN LUKKARILA,
Charging Party,
V.
JURUP A UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Respondent.
Case No. LA-CE-5510-E
PERB Decision No. 2283
August 21, 2012
Appearances: David Lukkarila, Representative, and Richard D. Ackerman, Attorney, for
Pamela Jean Lukkarila; Fagen, Friedman & Fullfrost by Kerrie Taylor, Attorney, for Jurupa
Unified School District.
Before Martinez, Chair; Dowdin Calvillo and Huguenin, Members.
DECISION
HUGUENIN, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on an appeal by Pamela Jean Lukkarila (Lukkarila) from dismissal
of
her
unfair practice charge filed on November 12, 2010 against the Jurupa Unified School District
(District) pursuant to the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA). 1
Lukkarila alleges in her initial and amended charge that she engaged in activity
protected under EERA, and that the District's conduct violated 	sections 3543.S(a), as
well as 3543.S(b), (c) and (d). In her initial charge, Lukkarila also alleged violation
of
section 3543.6.
On appeal, Lukkarila asserts that PERB' s Office
of
General Counsel mistakenly
dismissed 	allegations, and urges us to reverse and 	a complaint. 	urges us
to affirm.
1 EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. Unless otherwise
indicated, all statutory references herein are to the Government Code.

We have reviewed the record and the dismissal in light of Lukkarila' s appeal, the
District's response thereto, and the relevant law. Based on this review, we shall affirm in part
and reverse in part the dismissal, and will remand the matter for issuance of a complaint.
We turn first to the procedural history, then an introduction, followed by Lukkarila's
allegations and their disposition by the Office of General Counsel, and finally our discussion
and disposition of the legal issues.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On November 12, 2010, Lukkarila filed her unfair practice charge.
On December 20, 2010, the District filed a position statement opposing the charge.
On April 7, 2011, PERB's Board agent issued a warning letter.
On June 21, 2011, Lukkarila filed an amended charge.
On July 25, 2011, the District filed a supplemental position statement opposing the
amended charge.
On August 25, 2011, PERB's Board agent dismissed the charge.
On October 13, 2011, Lukkarila timely filed her appeal of the dismissal.
On November 4, 2011 the District timely filed its response to the appeal.
On November 7, 2011, Lukkarila served and filed a reply to the District's response.2
On November 17, 2011, PERB 's Appeals Office notified the parties that the filings
were complete, and that the case was placed on 	Board's docket.
2 PERB regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8,
section 31001, et seq. Our regulations governing appeals to the Board itself (PERB
Regs. 32300 - 32325) make no provision for a reply to a response. 	Without foreclosing our
discretion in an appropriate future case to request or consider a reply, we note that in this case
we did not consider the reply.
2

INTRODUCTION
At the outset we observe that Lukkarila filed a lengthy charge, and then a much longer
amended charge, with scores
of
appended exhibits. The exhibits were crucial to a full
understanding
of
the BERA-relevant allegations, but were discussed as well for their other
content. Thus, the charge was not concise, and in some instances less than clear. The Board
agents in the Office
of
General Counsel organized and discussed EERA issues arising from the
allegations. 	Our review here was well served by their work.
We emphasize below Lukkarila's performance evaluation by her Principal Jay Trujillo
(Trujillo) and Lukkarila's subsequent complaint regarding that evaluation. We view these
occurrences differently than did the Office
of
General Counsel, and thus arrive at different
conclusions regarding timeliness and nexus issues.
Finally, we caution that our discussion treats charge allegations. We presume as we
must that the facts alleged are true. 3 We do so because when assessing whether a charge
dismissal is appropriate, we view a charging party's allegations in the light most favorable to
the charging party.
	If
this matter goes to hearing, Lukkarila will bear the significant burden
of
proving through persuasive competent testimony and authenticated documentary evidence all
the allegations in the complaint.
We turn now to the 	allegations.
subject matter. In each section we present 	a summary of Lukkarila's essential allegations
and 	the conclusions reached thereon by 	Office of General Counsel. 	After
3
At this stage of the proceedings, we assume as we must that the essential facts alleged
in the charge are true. (San Juan Unified School District (1977) EERB* Decision No. 12;
Trustees
of
the California State University (Sonoma) (2005) PERB Decision No. 1755 [*Prior
to January 1978, PERB was known as the Educational Employment Relations Board or
EERB.].)

laying out the allegations and the Office of General Counsel's disposition, we will then take up
separately our own assessment and disposition of the legal issues.
CHARGING PARTY'S ALLEGATIONS
Factual Background
Lukkarila is high school teacher employed by the District. She is exclusively
represented by an employee organization, National Education Association (NEA-Jurupa or
Union), which at all times relevant herein has maintained a collective agreement with the
District. Lukkarila is a permanent employee. Accordingly, Lukkarila is subject to
performance evaluation on a biannual cycle under the evaluation procedures set forth in the
Union's collective bargaining agreement and in the Education Code.
During a portion of 2008-09 school year Lukkarila was absent on a maternity leave
pursuant to the collective agreement. She returned to work part way through the 2008-09
school year. As 2008-09 was an evaluation year for Lukkarila, Trujillo evaluated her that year,
rating her as meeting District standards. In Lukkarila's 2008-09 final evaluation, Trujillo
commented on her use of maternity leave. On May 15, 2009, Trujillo informed Lukkarila that
because of her absence on maternity leave during 2008-09, he would evaluate her again in
2009-10. Lukkarila had enjoyed previously a cooperative relationship with Trujillo. 	She did
not object when notified in May 2009 of the consecutive annual evaluation. Following the
events of the Spring of 2010, Lukkarila's 	of her 2008-09 evaluation changed,
then perceived Trujillo's Spring 2009 comments concerning her pregnancy and maternity
leave, his 	,.,."'"~""" that she undergo a consecutive annual evaluation in 2009-10, and his
conduct of her 2009-10 evaluation, all as evidence of improper discrimination.
We summarize the major categories of Lukkarila' s essential allegations, and the Office
of General Counsel's conclusions and disposition. We group them as follows: 	the 2009-10
4

evaluation and complaint; the group complaint; and the parental complaint. Again, we caution
that we here describe allegations, not proven facts.
The 2009-2010 Evaluation and Complaint
1. Lukkarila' s Allegations
a. The January Observation
Trujillo's 2009-10 evaluation of Lukkarila was supposed to commence with an
observation of Lukkarila's teaching in November 2009. Trujillo failed to make the November
observation, however. In late January 2010, Trujillo conducted the first observation of
Lukkarila's teaching. He prepared an evaluation observation report and provided it to
Lukkarila. In February 2010, Lukkarila responded to the report, requesting several changes.
Trujillo replied, offering to make some changes. Thereafter, upon learning that Lukkarila had
obtained the Union's assistance in dealing with the January observation report, Trujillo
withdrew his proposed changes and refused thereafter to discuss with Lukkarila any change to
the report. 	Lukkarila then consulted a Union lawyer about Trujillo's reaction. The Union
lawyer wrote to Trujillo, demanding that he not retaliate against Lukkarila for obtaining Union
assistance in dealing with her evaluation. The lawyer sent a copy of the letter to Lukkarila and
to the District's Assistant Superintendent for Personnel, Tamara Elzig (Elzig).
b. The March Observation
On March 15, 2010, Trujillo conducted a second observation of Lukkarila's teaching.
Concurrently, Trujillo received the Union lawyer's letter. Trujillo immediately issued to
a written warning threatening a charge of insubordination over Lukkarila's alleged
failure to respond with sufficient alacrity to a request from Trujillo's secretary. Several days
thereafter Trujillo issued to Lukkarila a written report summarizing Trujillo's March 15, 2010
observation of her teaching, in which report Trujillo harshly berated Lukkarila's performance.
5

Lukkarila thereafter tendered a written rebuttal to Trujillo's report of March 15, 2010
observation. Lukkarila alleges that the evaluation procedure calls for attachment of her
rebuttal to the observation report. Article IX, Evaluation Procedures, Section 3, Paragraph F,
of the collective agreement provides, in pertinent part:
The evaluatee has the right to submit a written rebuttal to the
evaluation at any time. 	Such rebuttal shall become a permanent
attachment to the copy of the valuation in the unit member's
personnel file.
Trujillo failed to attach Lukkarila's rebuttal to the observation report.
c. The Final Evaluation
On May 12, 2010, Lukkarila met with Trujillo for the final evaluation conference. 	She
brought with her a Union representative. Trujillo's final evaluation report negatively assessed
Lukkarila's teaching, departing significantly from Trujillo's final evaluations of Lukkarila
made in prior school years. Trujillo's final report rated Lukkarila "Needs Improvement"
overall and in four of the six assessment categories, and faulted Lukkarila for failing to make
changes he had recommended following his formal observations, although Trujillo had not
visited Lukkarila's classrom since March 15, 2010. During the evaluation conference,
Lukkarila and her Union representative noted that Trujillo had not yet attached Lukkarila's
written rebuttal to Trujillo's written report of the March 15, 2010 observation.
d. The Complaint
On June 21, 2010, Lukkarila filed an individual written complaint under the Unit
Member Complaint Resolution Procedure (Procedure) in Article V, Unit Member Rights,
Section 14, of the collective agreement. The Procedure provides, inter alia, for: 	a written
complaint at Level I within 30 business days or a reasonable time from the incident; a response
to the employee complainant in writing within 10 business days by the administrator receiving
the complaint; an appeal to Level II by the employee complainant within ten business days; a
6

response in writing by the administrator at Level II within 10 business days; an appeal to
Level III within 10 business days; an opportunity at Level III to address the governing board,
with representation and in closed session; and lastly, a final and binding decision by the
governing board no later than the second next regularly scheduled governing board meeting.
In her June 21, 2010, written complaint Lukkarila contended, inter alia, that when
conducting her performance evaluation for 2009-2010 Trujillo violated evaluation and
discrimination provisions of the collective agreement and retaliated against her because she
had obtained Union assistance. 	Lukkarila's complaint asked the District to investigate the
violations of the Union's collective bargaining agreement, and requested as a remedy that the
District destroy the offending 2009-10 evaluation documents.
On August 13, 2010, the District Superintendent Elliott Duchon (Duchon) sent
Lukkarila an untimely initial written response to her June 21, 2010 written complaint. The
response stated that Lukkarila had failed to substantiate the violations she alleged, proposed to
rescind Lukkarila' s 2009-10 evaluation, and directed Lukkarila to submit to a successive
annual evaluation in 2010-2011. On August 27, 2010, Lukkarila timely replied in writing to
the District's response.
In September 2010, the District passed over Level II of the Procedure, moving
Lukkarila' s complaint directly to Level III, the District's governing board. 	Surprised,
Lukkarila objected to 	maneuver, 	requested time to prepare a presentation to
governing board. The District disregarded this request. On September 20, 2010, the governing
board met in a closed session, refused to hear 	and rej 	complaint.
received a letter from Duchon dated September 20, 2010, informing her that the complaint
process was concluded.
7

2. General Counsel Disposition
a.
	The Observations and The Final Evaluation
The Office
of
General Counsel determined that Lukkarila had filed her charge on
November 12, 2010, and that EERA's six-month limitations period therefore precluded
PERB's consideration
of
conduct alleged to occur prior to May 12, 2010. Accordingly, it
dismissed allegations
of
Trujillo's conduct in 2009 and in February, March and May 2010,
including Trujillo's final evaluation report which was dated May 10, 2010, and which Trujillo
discussed with Lukkarila on May 12, 2010. The warning and dismissal letters addressed
neither equitable tolling
of
the EERA limitations period due to Lukkarila' s filing and
processing
of
the complaint under the Procedure, nor application
of
a continuing violation
theory. 
b.
	The Complaint
The Office
of
General Counsel determined that Lukkarila' s June 21, 2010 filing
of
the
complaint was not a "logical continuation
of
group activity," and therefore not protected under
EERA.4 The Office
of
General Counsel likewise determined that because Lukkarila included
in her complaint allegations
of
sexual harassment, that the complaint exceeded PERB' s
jurisdiction. 5 The warning and dismissal letters addressed neither the contractual nature
of
the
Procedure nor the contractual nature
of
the claims Lukkarila made in the complaint.
Lukkarila contends 	the District processed, investigated, and assessed her complaint
perfunctorily and without complying with the Procedure, viz., departing from the Procedure's
constraints, entirely omitting Level 	failing to consult with her about her allegations,
Oakdale Union Elementary School District (1998) PERB Decision No. 1246
(Oakdale); Regents
of
the University
of
California (2010) PERB Decision No. 2153-H.
5 Union
of
American Physicians & Dentists (Menaster) (2007) PERB Decision
No. 1918-S.
8

and denying her the specified Level III hearing in closed session with the governing board.
The warning and dismissal letters did not address Lukkarila' s claims that in processing
her
complaint the District departed from the Procedure and treated her complaint in a perfunctory
fashion.
Lukkarila contends that the District retaliated against her by requiring that she submit
to
a consecutive annual performance evaluation in 2010-11. The Office
of
General Counsel
concluded that the District's directive for a consecutive annual evaluation was not "adverse."
(Trustees
of
the California State University (San Marcos) (2010) PERB Decision No. 2140-H
(CSU San Marcos); Fresno County Office
of
Education (1993) PERB Decision No. 978
(Fresno); Simi Valley Unified School District (2004) PERB Decision No. 1714 (Simi Valley).)
The warning and dismissal letters did not address provisions
of
the contractual evaluation
procedure or cognate provisions
of
the Education Code establishing a biannual evaluation
cycle for permanent employees, and mandating an annual evaluation
of
a permanent employee
only after the employee receives an unsatisfactory rating. (See discussion at pp. 18-19 below.)
Group Complaint
1.	
Lukkarila's Allegations
On June 21, 2010, Lukkarila joined with other employees and, through counsel, filed
with the District a "master grievance/CDE uniform complaint" (group complaint) in which the
employees alleged violations
of
applicable collective agreements as well as external law. 	The
Union took no part in the group complaint.
On 	2010, Elzig sent Lukkarila and other District employees a memo criticizing
their group complaint. 	the memo, Elzig belittled the complaining employees and accused
them of disloyalty and of conspiring against her. On June 30, 2010, citing Elzig's June 25,
9

2010 memo, Lukkarila requested that Elzig not participate in the District's investigation of
Lukkarila' s own written complaint then pending under the Procedure.
2. 	General Counsel Disposition
The Office of General Counsel concluded that the group complaint was protected "as
an extension of group activity" (Oakdale) and that the June 25, 2010 memo from Elzig was not
adverse to Lukkarila's employment. The warning and dismissal letters did not address
Lukkarila's June 30, 2010 communication regarding her complaint then pending under the
Procedure.
Parental Complaint
1. Charging Party's Allegations
In mid-September 2010, the District notified Lukkarila that she was the subject of a
serious complaint, but did not disclose to Lukkarila the allegations against her. The
contractually-established procedures for parent complaints require, inter alia, that a teacher be
informed promptly of the charges against her and provided an opportunity to meet with the
complaining parent to resolve the matter. The District did neither. 	Later in September, the
District notified Lukkarila that she was required to attend an investigatory meeting on
September 29, 2010 with District officials, including Elzig and an attorney. The District
advised her to have Union representation. Lukkarila pressed the District for information
regarding the complaint. 	late September, the District informed her that the complaint,
a parent, concerned alleged conduct of Lukkarila in her classroom in August 20 l O. Lukkarila
requested that 	be accompanied 	any investigatory meeting by her attorney. The District
refused. 	Lukkarila requested the District reschedule the meeting because she had other
personal business on the September 29, 2010. The District rescheduled the investigatory
meeting to October 11, 2010.

Lukkarila requested Union representation for the October 11, 2010 investigatory
meeting. The District set the meeting during the faculty workday. On October 11, 2010
Lukkarila's customary Union representative was unavailable. The District designated a
different Union representative to attend. Lukkarila requested to confer briefly and in private
with the designated Union representative, prior to commencing the interview. The District
refused. Long after the investigatory interview, the District issued Lukkarila a written
Summary
of
Meeting memo which was disciplinary in nature.
2.
	General Counsel Disposition
The Office
of
General Counsel concluded that the misconduct investigation was
adverse6 and that the subsequent Summary
of
Meeting memo was also adverse, but that
Lukkarila failed to establish a nexus between her earlier protected conduct and either the
District's decision to investigate the parental complaint, or the District's decision to issue the
disciplinary memo. The warning and dismissal letters did not address the alleged irregularities
in the District's investigation
of
the parental complaint or in the issuance
of
the Summary
of
Meeting memo. 	The Office
of
General Counsel concluded as well that Lukkarila's allegations
regarding Union representation at the October 11, 2010 investigatory meeting did not establish
interference with her EERA representation rights.
DISCUSSION
We take up now 	legal issues presented by Lukkarila' s allegations and 	dismissal
of
her charge by the Office of General Counsel. We treat the issues in the following
categories: jurisdiction 	standing, 	and 	prima facie cases for retaliation and
interference. 	We begin with jurisdiction and standing.
6 Poway Unified School District (2001) PERB Decision No. 1430.
11

Jurisdiction and Standing
The Office
of
General Counsel made several rulings on standing and one on
jurisdiction. We look at each.
The Office
of
General Counsel concluded that Lukkarila, an individual employee
pursuing a charge on her own behalf, lacked standing to allege an employer's violation
of
an
employee organization's EERA rights7 (EERA § 3543.5(b)) or an employer's failure to meet
and negotiate in good faith with an employee organization or an employer's failure to provide
information in response to an employee organization's request. 8 (EERA § 3543.5(c).) It
dismissed these allegations. We affirm.
Lukkarila also alleged violation
of
EERA section 3543.5(d). This provision seeks to
assure that employees have a free choice between competing organizations and that employee
organizations remain independent
of
the employer. Lukkarila alleges no facts suggesting
competition among organizations and no employer favoritism as between organizations. 	She
does, however, allege facts possibly suggesting employer domination or interference with
administration
of
an employee organization. Under our precedents only an employee
organization, and not an individual employee, may bring a charge
of
domination or
interference with an employee organization. (Corrections.) Lukkarila, who makes her
allegations as an individual employee and not as an organizational agent or representative,
lacks standing to charge her employer with domination or interference with administration
of
an employee organization. We therefore affirm dismissal
of
the alleged violation
of~~,~~~
3543 .5(d).
7 State
of
California (Department
of
Corrections) (1993) PERB Decision No. 972-S
(Corrections).
8 State
of
California (Department
of
Corrections) (2003) PERB Decision No. 1559-S;
accord, Los Angeles Unified School District (2009) PERB Decision No. 2073.
12

The Office of General Counsel concluded that Lukkarila' s allegations of improper
conduct by NEA-Jurupa, Lukkarila's union, were not properly presented in a charge against
the District. It dismissed these allegations. We affirm. An employee organization's duty of
fair representation runs to the employee, and is enforced by a charge against the employee
organization, not against the employer. 9
The Office of General Counsel concluded that Lukkarila' s allegations of discrimination
against her by the District and its agents based on her age, gender, pregnancy or education,
exceed PERB's jurisdiction. It declined to rule on these discrimination allegations. To the
extent that such allegations were based solely on external law other than EERA, and were
raised only in Lukkarila's individual complaint(s), .we agree and affirm.
Timeliness
The Office of General Counsel determined that all allegations of District conduct
occurring prior to May 12, 2010 were untimely, and on that basis dismissed them. We
disagree.
We conclude that Lukkarila's allegations establish a prima facie case for tolling
EERA's six-month iimitations period while Lukkarila processed a complaint under the
Procedure, a non-binding bi-lateral complaint procedure contained in the collective agreement
covering Lukkarila's employment. (Long Beach Community College District (2009) PERB
Decision No. 2002.) 	conclude that as alleged, Lukkarila' s use of the Procedure qualifies
for equitable tolling under our precedents: (1) the Procedure is contained in the collective
bargaining agreement; (2) Lukkarila's complaint under the Procedure sought to resolve a
dispute which is the subject of the unfair practice charge, to wit, three instances of retaliation
by Trujillo because Lukkarila obtained Union assistance with her evaluation (a written warning
9 We note that Lukkarila has filed a charge against NEA-Jurupa.
13

in mid-March 2010 threatening insubordination, a negative report of the March 15, 2010
evaluation observation, and a negative May 2010 final evaluation); (3) Lukkarila reasonably
and in good faith pursued the Procedure; and (4) tolling does not frustrate the purpose of the
limitations period by causing surprise or prejudice to the District.
Lukkarila's complaint alleges contract and statutory violations, and retaliation for
having utilized Union assistance with her evaluation. As noted above, we deem only those
alleged violations of EERA, to wit, the retaliation allegations, to have been tolled under our
equitable tolling doctrine. (Trustees of the California State University (San Jose) (2009)
PERB Decision No. 2032-H.) Also, as noted above, if this matter proceeds to a hearing,
Lukkarila will bear the burden of establishing by persuasive competent testimony and
authenticated documentary evidence all the allegations in the complaint, including those
concerning equitable tolling.
In sum, Lukkarila alleges that she processed her complaint regarding her evaluation
under the collectively-bargained Procedure between June 21, 2010 and September 20, 2010, at
which time the District's governing board rejected it. She was then notified in writing by the
District superintendent that the Procedure was complete. Thus, Lukkarila and the District
utilized the Procedure for ninety-two (92) days. We deem the EERA limitations period
extended by an equivalent period from May 12, 2010 to February 9, 2010. Allegations of
conduct within the extended period are timely.
Retaliation
The Office of General Counsel dismissed Lukkarila' s allegations that she was retaliated
against because she engaged in activity protected under the EERA. We first review briefly the
elements of a prima facie case, and then the legal analysis.
14

A prima face case of retaliation is established by allegations that the employee engaged
in protected activity, the employer knew thereof, the employer took action against or adverse
to the interest of the employee, and the employer acted "because of' the employee's protected
activity. (Novato Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 210 (Novato).) The
motive ("because of') element is established by direct proof or inferred from the record as a
whole. An inference of unlawful motive, i.e., the "nexus" between the protected conduct and
the employer's challenged action, may be found in facts which suggest an unlawful motive,
including suspicious timing, disparate treatment, departure from established policies and
procedures, and employer justifications which are exaggerated, inadequate, inconsistent or
contradictory. (Novato.) We turn next to the analysis of each element of the prima facie case.
I. Protected Activity
The Office of General Counsel concluded that Lukkarila engaged in protected activity
when she sought and obtained Union assistance with her performance evaluation in February
and March 2010, and when she requested Union representation at a meeting in October 2010.
We agree. 	We note that Lukkarila also alleged that she was accompanied by a Union
representative at the May 12, 2010 final evaluation meeting with Trujillo.
The Office of General Counsel concluded that participating with other employees in a
group complaint filed through counsel on June 21, 2010 was protected activity. We agree.
Joining with another employee or employees to enforce external law regarding workplace
rights, is itself group activity protected by EERP,_ against employer interference and retaliation.
(Franklin Iron & Metal 	(1994) 315 	819, enf'd(6 th Cir. 1996) 83F.3d 156
(Franklin Iron); Eastex, Inc. v. NLRB (1978) 437 U.S. 556.) 10
10 Like California courts 	relies on National Labor Relations Act precedent to
construe analogous principles imbedded in California labor relations statutes. (Fire Fighters
Union v. City of Vallejo (1974) 12 Cal.3d 608, 616-617.)
15

The Office of General Counsel concluded that Lukkarila's filing on June 21, 2010 of an
individual complaint under the Procedure was not protected activity. It found "insufficient
information" to conclude that the complaint constituted a "logical extension of group activity."
We disagree. Under EERA, a union and employer may negotiate to incorporate substantive
statutory or constitutional rights in their collective agreement, thus strengthening the rights by
making them enforceable under collectively-bargained procedures. 11 Lukkarila alleges that she
sought individually to enforce under collectively-bargained procedures, both the evaluation
and non-discrimination provisions of the collectively-bargained agreement. We hold that
seeking individually to enforce provisions of a collectively-bargained agreement is "a logical
continuation of group activity" and protected under EERA. (Oakdale; Meyers Industries
(1986) 281 NLRB 882, affd. sub nom. Prill v. NLRB (D.C. Cir. 1987) 835 F.2d 1481;
California Teachers Association, Solano Community College Chapter, CTAINEA (Tsai) (2010)
PERB Decision No. 2096 (Solano Community College).) In so holding we do not distinguish
between those collectively-bargained provisions which reflect rights also protected and
enforceable under external law, and other collectively-bargained rights which spring solely
from the bargained agreement. Our concern in either case is not with the substance of the
collectively-bargained rights, but rather with their source in the agreement and the employee's
use of collectively-bargained enforcement procedures. It is that activity which is implicated by
Lukkarila' s allegations, and protected by 12
1 San Mateo City School Dist. v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (1983)
33 Cal.3d 850, 866.
12 A claim by an individual employee pursuing an individual remedy for alleged
personal racial discrimination is not BERA-protected activity. 	(Los Angeles Unified School
District (1985) PERB Decision No. 550, Warning Letter, at p. 5; Jubilee Manufacturing
Company (1973) 202 NLRB 272, affd. sub nom., Steelworkers v. NLRB (D.C. Cir. 1974)
504 F.2d 271.) But a discrimination complaint is protected activity where the employee is
16

The Office of General Counsel concluded that Lukkarila engaged in protected activity
when she requested and utilized union representation in an investigatory meeting in September
and October of 2010. We agree.
In sum, we conclude that Lukkarila has alleged that she engaged in protected activity
known to the District when she: (1) obtained Union assistance in February 2010 with her
evaluation and informed Trujillo thereof; (2) was represented by a Union lawyer who in March
2010 sent a letter to Trujillo and copied the letter to Elzig; (3) was accompanied by a Union
representative in the final evaluation conference with Trujillo on May 12, 2010; (4)joined with
other employees in filing, through counsel, a group grievance and complaint on June 21, 201O;
( 5) filed herself on June 21, 2010, a written complaint under the Procedure seeking to enforce
provisions of the Union's collective agreement; (6) processed the complaint under the
Procedure by communicating to the District in June, August and September 2010; and
(7) requested and utilized Union representation in October 2010, when participating in an
investigatory meeting with District officials concerning an alleged parental complaint.
2. Adverse Action
The Office of General Counsel concluded the District's 2010 annual performance
evaluation of Lukkarila in May 2010 by Trujillo was adverse. We agree. The Office of
General Counsel deemed untimely, and thus did not address, either Trujillo's negative report
regarding Lukkarila's March 15, 2010 teaching or Trujillo's mid-March 2010 warning to
Lukkarila which threatened insubordination over Lukkarila' s alleged failure to respond with
alacrity to a message 	illo's secretary. We deem both of these mid-March 2010
actions also to be adverse.
seeking to enforce contractual provisions prohibiting discrimination. (Interboro Contractors,
Inc. (1966) 157 NLRB 1295; King Soopers, Inc. (1976) 222 NLRB 1011.)
17

The Office of General Counsel concluded that a June 25, 2010 memo, sent to Lukkarila
and other employees by Elzig, was not adverse to Lukkarila's employment interests. We
agree. 13
The Office of General Counsel concluded that the District's directive to Lukkarila on
August 13, 2010, that she submit to a consecutive annual evaluation in the ensuing 2010-11
school year was not adverse. We disagree.
We conclude the authorities discussed in the warning and dismissal letters do not
address squarely the issue posed here, that is, whether a consecutive annual evaluation of a
permanent certificated employee is adverse.14 We thus treat the issue as one of first
impression, absent the assistance or strictures of our precedent. As a permanent certificated
employee, Lukkarila was and is subject to evaluation bi-annually. (Article IX, Evaluation
Procedures, Section 3, Evaluations and Conferences, Paragraph A ["at least once every other
year for unit members with permanent status"]; Education Code § 44664(a)(2) ["At least every
other year for personnel with permanent status"] .) The Education Code establishes and the
negotiated evaluation procedure accordingly provides, for a "uniform system of evaluation" of
certificated employees. Under that system probationary employees are evaluated annually,
while permanent employees are assessed less frequently, either biannually or under specified
We conclude below, however, that the alleged publication and distribution of the
June 25, 2010 memo tends to discourage exercise by employees of their EERA right jointly to
seek enforcement of workplace rights, and would cause at least some harm to, and thus
interfere with, employee rights. (Carlsbad Unified School District (1979) 	Decision
No. 89 (Carlsbad).) (See discussion 	,,,,.,,.,.,_"""'"""'" 	at p. 28
14 CSU San Marcos (supervisor's comments, not part of evaluation, deemed mere
discussion of work performance--not adverse); Simi Valley (supervisor's frequent and
unannounced observation visits to teacher's classroom--adverse. ); Fresno ( consecutive
evaluation not connected to protected activity-no discussion of whether adverse).
18

circumstances even less often. 15 Only in exceptional circumstances, viz., following an
unsatisfactory evaluation and "until the employee achieves a positive evaluation," must a
school district assess annually a permanent employee.16 Thus, requiring a consecutive year
evaluation of a permanent employee treats the permanent employee as though she were
probationary and simultaneously signals a performance deficiency requiring remediation and
or termination. We conclude that as to a permanent employee subject normally to biannual
evaluation under collectively-bargained procedures tracking Education Code sections 446604
et seq., a directive that the employee undergo a consecutive annual evaluation is the functional
equivalent of an unsatisfactory evaluation, and thus adverse.17
15 We take official notice of Education Code section 44660 et seq. and contractual
provisions establishing the evaluation protocols for probationary and permanent certificated
employees.
16 Education Code section 44664(b) provides, in pertinent part:
If any permanent certificated employee has received an
unsatisfactory evaluation, the employing authority shall annually
evaluate the employee until the employee achieves a positive
evaluation or is separated from the district.
Article IX, Evaluation Procedures, Section 3, Paragraph A, of the collective agreement
provides, in pertinent part:
Frequency. Evaiuation and assessment of the performance of
each unit member shall be made on a continuing basis, at least
once each school year for probationary unit members and at least
every other year for unit members with permanent status....
Upon receipt of an unsatisfactory evaluation the employee shall
immediately be returned to the yearly evaluation cycle.
17 The concurrence/dissent construes 	Union's contract to "expressly contemplate
that 	evaluation of 	,.,u.,_...,_,,.,,_.cc 	may occur more frequently 	once every
year," and infers that a decision taken within such authority is not adverse. 	We disagree. 	An
employer's authority to act has no intrinsic bearing on whether the action when taken is or is
not adverse to an employee. Many adverse employment actions are contractually authorized,
viz., discipline, reduction in rank or status, a written warning or reprimand, etc. We here add
to this list an employer's action subjecting to annual evaluation a permanent certificated
employee normally evaluated only biannually. 	However, we caution that to be considered
19

The Office
of
General Counsel concluded that the investigation
of
Lukkarila
commenced in September 2010 over alleged misconduct was adverse. We agree.
The Office
of
General Counsel concluded that a "Summary
of
Meeting" memo dated
October 14, 2010, related to the misconduct charges and issued sometime thereafter to
Lukkarila, was adverse. We agree.
In sum, we conclude that Lukkarila has alleged that the District engaged in conduct
adverse to her when it: (1) issued to Lukkarila a warning threatening insubordination
in
mid-
March 201
O;
(2) issued to Lukkarila a negative second observation report in March 201
O;
(3) issued to Lukkarila a negative final evaluation report in May 2010; (4) directed in August
2010 that Lukkarila undergo a consecutive year annual evaluation during 2010-2011;
(5) investigated Lukkarila in September and October 2011 for alleged misconduct; and
(6) imposed discipline on Lukkarila following an investigatory meeting in October 2010, in the
form
of
a summary
of
meeting memo.
3. Nexus
"Unlawful motive is the specific nexus required in the establishment
of
a prima facie
case
....
Unlawful motive can be established by circumstantial evidence and inferred from the
record as a whole." (Trustees
of
Cal. State University
v.
Public Employment Relations Bd.
(1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1107, 1124.)
PERB has developed and applies a set
of
"nexus" factors 	determining whether a
charging party has alleged a prima facie case
of
retaliation. Although suspicious timing
of
the
employer's adverse action 	proximity to the employee's protected conduct is an important
factor (North Sacramento School District (1982) 	Decision No. 264
(North Sacramento)), it does not, without more, demonstrate nexus between the adverse action
unlawful retaliation under our statutes, any alleged adverse action must be shown to meet as
well the remaining criteria under our retaliation case law. (Novato.)
20

and the protected conduct. (Moreland Elementary School District (1982) PERB Decision
No. 227.) Facts establishing one or more
of
the following additional factors must also be
present: (
1)
the employer's disparate treatment
of
the employee (State
of
California
(Department
of
Transportation) (1984) PERB Decision No. 459-S); (2) the employer's
departure from established procedures and standards when dealing with the employee
(Santa Clara Unified School District (1979) PERB Decision No. 104); (3) the employer's
inconsistent or contradictory justifications for its actions (State
of
California (Department
of
Parks and Recreation) (1983) PERB Decision No. 328-S); (4) the employer's cursory
investigation
of
the employee's misconduct (City
of
Torrance (2008) PERB Decision
No. 1971-M; Coast Community College District (2003) PERB Decision No. 1560); (5) the
employer's failure to offer the employee justification at the time it took action (Oakland
Unified School District (2003) PERB Decision No. 1529) or the offering
of
exaggerated,
vague, or ambiguous reasons (McFarland Unified School District (1990) PERB Decision
No. 786); (6) employer animosity towards union activists (Jurupa Community Services District
(2007) PERB Decision No. 1920-M; Cupertino Union Elementary School District (1986)
PERB Decision No. 572); or (7) any other facts that might demonstrate the employer's
unlawful motive. (North Sacramento,· Novato.)
The Office
of
General Counsel concluded that suspicious timing existed between
Lukkarila's protected activities 	February and March 2010 and the District's May 2010
evaluation, and also between Lukkarila's participation in the group grievance and complaint in
2010 and the District's Fall 2010 investigation of Lukkarila for alleged misconduct.
It concluded, however, that Lukkarila's allegations failed sufficiently to connect her protected
activity to the adverse actions of which she complains, and on that basis dismissed all her
allegations of retaliation. We disagree.
21

We address nexus for each instance of alleged retaliation.
a. Trujillo's mid-March 2010 warning threatening insubordination
The Office of General Counsel did not address this warning, deeming it to be beyond
the limitations period and thus to be considered, if at all, only as background in characterizing
conduct within the limitations period. 	Having determined that this conduct itself falls within
the limitations period, we address nexus.
The alleged timing was highly suspicious. 	Lukkarila alleges the warning threatening
insubordination occurred: (1) within a month after she informed Trujillo she had used Union
assistance in her unsuccessful effort to convince Trujillo to amend his first observation report
from the January 2010 of her teaching, and (2) on the very day Trujillo received from the
Union lawyer a demand letter, copied to Elzig, asserting Lukkarila's EERA right to Union
assistance and representation in her evaluation issues.
Lukkarila alleges that Trujillo departed from established practice. Trujillo made a
routine request, through his secretary, that Lukkarila visit the school office. Teachers routinely
get such requests, and routinely respond when they can conveniently do so. After Lukkaila
responded routinely, visiting the school office early the following morning, Trujillo
characterized her behavior tardy and verging on insubordination.
Lukkarila alleges that the alleged tone and content of Trujillo's warning were
exaggerated, given: (1) the very brief delay 	Lukkarila's compliance with 	secretary's
request, viz., visiting Trujillo's office before class early the following morning rather than after
classes on the day of the request, and (2) the commonplace nature of the transaction,
responding to request from school office staff to retrieve a document.
We thus conclude that Lukkarila has alleged sufficient nexus between her protected
activity immediately preceding the warning, and the warning itself.
22

b. 	Trujillo's negative report
of
his March 15, 2010 observation
of
Lukkarila's
teaching, forming part
of
her 2009-2010 annual evaluation
The Office
of
General Counsel did not address this observation report, deeming it to be
beyond the limitations period and thus to be considered,
if
at all, only as background. Having
determined that this conduct falls within the limitations period, we address nexus.
As with Trujillo's warning threatening insubordination, the alleged timing
of
Trujillo's
report for the March 15,2010 observation also was highly suspicious. Although the
observation report was required to be issued shortly after March 15, 2010, and thus the timing
itself was prescribed by the evaluation procedure and not within Trujillo's discretion, it
nonetheless occurred, like the warning, immediately following Lukkarila's protected activity.
Lukkarila alleges that Trujillo departed from the evaluation procedure: He failed to
attach to his observation report
of
Lukkarila, Lukkarila's written response to that report.
We thus conclude that Lukkarila has alleged sufficient nexus between her protected
activity immediately preceding Trujillo's negative report
of
the March 15, 2010 observation,
and the negative report itself.
c. Trujillo's May 2010 negative final evaluation ofLukkarila's teaching,
forming part
of
her 2009-10 evaluation
The Office
of
General Counsel concluded the Trujillo's alleged final evaluation for
2009-10 was adverse, but not timely, and did not consider nexus. 	Having concluded above that
the alleged 2009-10 final evaluation is adverse, we here address nexus.
alleged timing
of
	evaluation was suspicious, albeit not as suspicious by
temporal proximity as that for Trujillo's warning and his March 15, 2010 observation report
discussed immediately above. 	We note, however, that it was only in regard to her 2009-10
evaluation that Lukkarila alleges that she sought and utilized assistance of the Union, and thus
23

such protected activity would come inexorably to the parties' minds in early May 2010 during
the ensuing and final step of the 2009-10 evaluation process. Thus, any lessening of Trujillo's
animus owing to passage of time between mid-March and early-May 2010, would be offset by
the parties' return to the matter of Lukkarila's 2009-10 evaluation, which required Trujillo to
revisit previously-made observation reports and to provide an end of the year update.
Lukkarila alleges that Trujillo departed from the evaluation procedure. First, alleges
Lukkarila, Trujillo failed even in May 2010 to attach Lukkarila's written response to Trujillo's
written report of the March 15, 2010 observation. Second, alleges Lukkarila, Trujillo did not
visit her classroom after March 15, 2010. Thus, alleges Lukkarila, Trujillo had no
observational basis for the claims in the final evaluation report that Lukkarila failed to
implement his recommendations, inter alia, that she employ non-lecture methodologies to
increase student participation.
The foregoing factors, coupled with allegations of Trujillo's conduct in February and
March 2010, convince us that Lukkarila has alleged sufficient nexus between Trujillo's final
evaluation report and Lukkarila's protected activity. We include here Trujillo's alleged early
February 2010 refusal, after learning of Lukkarila's consultation with the Union, to consider
previously discussed changes in the evaluation observation report for January 201 0; 18
Trujillo's alleged mid-March warning threatening insubordination; Trujillo's alleged negative
1 We consider here Trujillo's alleged early February 2010, about-face on changes
Lukkarila proposed to Trujillo's report of the January 2010 observation, on the basis that such
background events may be relied upon in characterizing conduct falling within the limitations
period. (Service Employees International Union, Local 1021 (Sahle) (2012) PERB Decision
No. 2261-M; Sacramento City Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 214; Marin
Community College District (1980) PERB Decision No. 145, Proposed Decision, at p. 45;
lvfachinists Local v. National Labor Relations Board (1960) 362 US. 411, 416 [events
occurring prior to the limitations period may be utilized to shed light on the true character of
matters occurring within the limitations period].)
24

report of his March 15, 2010 observation; and Trujillo's alleged continuing failure to attach
thereto Lukkarila' s written response to the report of the March 15, 2010 observation.
d. Duchon' s August 13, 2010 directive to Lukkarila that she undergo a
consecutive annual evaluation during 2010-2011
The Office of General Counsel concluded this directive was not adverse, and thus it did
not consider nexus. Having concluded above that the alleged directive is adverse, we here
address nexus.
The timing of the alleged August 13, 2010 directive for a consecutive annual evaluation
in 2010-11 is suspicious, coming less than two months after Lukkarila' s June 21, 2010 filing of
an individual written complaint and her June 21, 2010 participation in a group grievance and
complaint, and less than two months after Lukkarila' s written request of June 30, 20 IO to Elzig
not participate in the District's investigation of her individual complaint.
In addition to suspicious timing, Lukkarila alleges other factors suggesting that
Duchon's directive requiring Lukkarila to undergo a consecutive annual evaluation was
"because of' Lukkarila's protected activity. First, Lukkarila alleges that the District departed
from the Procedure by failing to respond within the specified timelines. The Procedure calls
for a response at Level I within ten business days from the date the complaint is filed. 	The
District instead responded on August 13, 2010, an unexplained delay of more than five weeks.
Second, Lukkarila alleges that between June 21, and August 13, 2010, the 	departed
from the Procedure by failing to confer or consult with Laukkarila regarding her complaint.
Lukkarila alleges that during September 	on September 20, 2010, the District
continued to depart from the Procedure when it skipped altogether Level II, moved the
complaint directly to Level III (the governing board), denied Lukkarila the right afforded by
25

the Procedure for a hearing, with representation, in closed session with the governing board,
and then summarily considered and rejected Lukkarila' s complaint.
19
The foregoing allegations establish that the District departed consistently from the
Procedure and processed Lukkarila's complaint perfunctorily. We consider as well here the
District's alleged immediate and sharply-hostile response
of
June 25, 2010 to the group
grievance and complaint, and the District's alleged negative evaluation
of
Lukkarila.
Together, they provide a sufficient nexus between Lukkarila's protected activity and
Duchon's
directive that she undergo a consecutive annual evaluation in 2010-11.
e.
	Investigation
of
Lukkarila in September and October 2011 for alleged
misconduct following a parental complaint
The Office
of
General Counsel concluded this investigation was adverse, but that
Lukkarila had alleged insufficient nexus to her protected activity. We disagree.
We conclude that suspicious timing exists. Lukkarila alleges protected conduct which
both preceded and overlapped some
of
the alleged investigation events in September 2010.
Such protected conduct includes filing and processing the complaint under the Procedure, on
June 21, June 30, August 13, and August 27, 2010, and in mid-September.
In addition to suspicious timing, Lukkarila alleges that the District departed from
established procedures stated in the collectively-bargained agreement by: (1) failing to notify
1 We note here the District's alleged treatment
of
Lukkarila's complaint both before
and after the August 13, 2010 directive for a consecutive year evaluation. Ordinarily, we
consider 	conduct occurring prior to an event 	assessing 	motivation for
that event. Here, however, we deem it relevant that the District's alleged treatment of
Lukkarila' s complaint departed consistently from the Procedure. Thus, while one might
excuse a tardy response at Level I of the Procedure as mere inadvertence and not purposeful,
when viewed in the context with the alleged September events, the earlier events are seen as
part of a consistent pattern of failing to process Lukkarila' s complaint in accordance with the
Procedure.
26

her promptly
of
the charges against her, and (2) failing to afford her an opportunity to
meet
with the complaining parent.
We conclude that Lukkarila alleged sufficient nexus between her protected activity and
the District's investigation
of
her alleged misconduct.
f.
	Discipline imposed via a summary
of
meeting memo following an
investigatory meeting in October 2010
The Office
of
General Counsel concluded this discipline was adverse, but that
Lukkarila had alleged insufficient nexus to her protected activity. We disagree.
We rely on the same allegations discussed above regarding the District's investigation,
plus Lukkarila' s allegation that the District departed from established procedures by failing
promptly to deliver to her the summary
of
meeting memo which she alleges she received much
later. 	We conclude that Lukkarila alleged sufficient nexus between her protected activity and
the District's imposition
of
discipline over her alleged misconduct.
In sum, we conclude that the following alleged District actions are adverse and have
sufficient nexus to Lukkarila' s protected activity to state a prima facie case
of
retaliation:
(1) Trujilio's mid-March 2010 warning threatening insubordination; (2) Trujillo's negative
report
of
his March 15, 2010 observation
of
Lukkarila's teaching, forming part
of
her 2009-
2010 annual evaluation; (3) Trujillo's May 2010 negative final evaluation
of
Lukkarila's
teaching, forming part
of
	2009-10 evaluation; (4) 	August 13, 2010 directive to
Lukkarila that she undergo a consecutive annual evaluation during 2010-2011; (5)
investigation
of
Lukkarila 	September and October 2010 for alleged misconduct based on a
parental complaint, and (6) the discipline imposed via a summary of meeting memo following
an investigatory meeting 	October 2010.
We turn now to Lukkarila' s allegations of interference.
27

Interference
The Office of General Counsel dismissed Lukkarila's allegations that the District
interfered with her exercise of rights under EERA. 	We first review briefly the elements of a
prima facie case, and then the legal analysis.
A prima facie case of interference is established by allegations that an employer's
conduct tends to or does result in some harm to employee rights under our statutes.
(Carlsbad.) Employees have the right to engage in activities protected by EERA, viz.,
forming, joining and participating in activities of an employee organization for the purpose of
representation. (EERA § 3543.5(a).) Employer conduct which tends to or does result in some
harm to an employee's exercise of these rights interferes therewith in violation of the EERA.
(EERA § 3543.5(a).)
Protected employee activity includes, without limitation: (1) seeking to enforce
collectively-bargained agreements, either individually or jointly with other employees; and
(2) with one or more other employees, seeking to enforce workplace rights through
administrative or judicial means. (Oakdale; Franklin Iron.) In addition, protected activity
includes representation rights, known colloquially as "Weingarten rights," so named for a
decision of the United States Supreme Court affirming the National Labor Relations Board
(NLRB) decision which enforced them. (NLRB v. J 	Weingarten, Inc. (1975) 420 U.S. 251.)
These rights protect an employee's request for union representation, 	when an
employer seeks to question an employee under circumstances which are unusual or could lead
to discipline for 	employee.
We consider several instances of alleged District conduct which Lukkarila contends
violate the EERA by interfering with employee rights. These are: 	( 1) Elzig' s June 25, 2010
written communication to employees, including Lukkarila, criticizing the employees for filing
28

the group grievance and complaint on June 21, 2010; (2) the District's alleged scheduling
of
an
investigatory interview meeting with Lukkarila on October 11, 2010 at a time when her
preferred Union representative was unavailable; (3) the District's alleged insistence that
Lukkarila proceed with the scheduled investigatory interview accompanied by a Union
representative chosen by the District; (4) the District's alleged denial to Lukkarila and the
Union representative an opportunity to confer briefly immediately prior to the investigatory
interview; and (5) the District's refusing to permit Lukkarila to be accompanied during the
investigatory interview by her attorney.
The Office
of
General Counsel determined that none
of
these interference allegations
stated a prima facie violation
of
the EERA. We disagree.
We conclude that Lukkarila has alleged prima facie District interference with her rights
under the EERA in regard to the publication
of
the June 25, 2010 Elzig memo to employees.
We explain.
Lukkarila alleges that the Elzig memo criticized those employees who, with Lukkarila,
had joined together to file through counsel a grievance and complaint seeking to enforce
workplace rights. 	Such alleged conduct by the District's assistant superintendent for personnel
is attributable to the District. (Antelope Valley Community College District (1979) PERB
Decision No. 97.) Employees reading the memo would understand the District to be hostile to
their participation in activity protected by the
~~a~
~-
	We conclude this would 	in at least
some harm to employee rights. 	(Carlsbad.) Thus, we conclude that the allegation states
facie an instance of impermissible interference with employee rights.
Lukkarila alleges that the District scheduled the investigatory interview at a time during
the workday when her customary representative was not available, that the District arranged
which Union representative would attend the interview, and that the District denied her request
29

just
prior to the interview to confer in private with the Union representative. To be effective,
the right to Union representation in an investigatory interview includes an opportunity for the
employee prior to the interview to confer with the Union. Where the employer schedules the
interview in such fashion that the employee has no opportunity to confer with the Union
on
the
employee's own time prior to the interview, then upon request
of
either the employee or the
Union representative the employer must provide a reasonable time for the employee and the
Union representative to confer, in private, before proceeding with the interview so that
the
union representative "can provide meaningful representation" not merely be an observer.20 We
conclude that Lukkarila had sufficient time after learning
of
the impending investigatory
interview to consult the Union for advice. The interview was scheduled for September 29,
2010, and rescheduled at Lukkarila's request for October 11, 2010. Thus, we conclude
that
the
District did not interfere with Lukkarila's EERA right to representation in the investigatory
interview, when on October 11, 2010, the District declined Lukkarila' s request to meet
privately with the Union representative prior to commencing the scheduled investigatory
interview.
As to Lukkarila' s remaining allegations
of
interference, we conclude with the Office
of
General Counsel that each fails to state prima facie interference with EERA rights. Under
EERA a union designates the union's agents,
21
including without limitation union agents who
will represent employees 	investigatory interviews. 	does not oblige an employer or
the union to accommodate an employee's choice
of
union representative,22 either in scheduling
20
Higgins, The Developing 	2006) 	234; Postal Service
(1988) 288 NLRB 864.
21
Chaffey Joint Union High School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 202.
22 State
of
California (Department of Transportation) (1994) PERB Decision
No. 1049-S.
30

or conducting an investigatory interview; provided that, where an employee's preferred union
representative is available, an employer may not insist upon a different representative.
(Consolidation Coal Co. (1992) 307 NLRB 976.) Nor does EERA afford an employee the
right to be represented by the employee's own attorney in an investigatory interview conducted
by employer officials. (Solano Community College.)
In sum, we conclude that the District's alleged conduct interfered with theexercise by
Lukkarila of rights protected under EERA, as follows: Elzig's June 25, 2010 written
communication to employees, including Lukkarila, criticizing the employees for filing the
group grievance and complaint on June 21, 2010.
CONCLUSION
Based on review of the entire record, we conclude with the Office of General Counsel
that Lukkarila lacks standing to allege violations of EERA sections 3543.5(b), (c) and (d), and
3543.6, and we therefore affirm the dismissal thereof. 	We likewise conclude, with the Office
of General Counsel, that PERB lacks jurisdiction to entertain and remedy allegationsmade by
an individual employee of employment discrimination in violation of state or federal law other
than statutes administered by PERB, and on that basis affirm the dismissal thereof.
We conclude, however, that an individual employee who seeks to enforce rights stated
in a collectively-bargained agreement or memorandum of understanding, engages in activity
protected by 	addition that employees engage 	activity protected by
when they jointly seek to enforce statutory or other prohibitions against employment
alleged violations of workplace rights regardless of
the source thereof. 	We conclude therefore that Lukkarila has alleged prima facie violationsof
section 3543.5(a), both interference with protected activity and retaliation because of
protected activity, as discussed above in this opinion.
31

ORDER
The Public Employment Relations Board (PERB or Board) reverses, in part, the
dismissal of Pamela Jean Lukkarila' s (Lukkarila) unfair practice charge as to alleged violations
of section 3543.S(a) of the Education Employment Relations Act (EERA), and REMANDS the
charge to PERB 's Office of General Counsel for issuance of a complaint in accordance with
this Decision.
The Board affirms, in part, the dismissal of Lukkarila' s unfair practice charge, as to
alleged violations of sections 3543.S(b), (c) and (d), and 3543.6, of the EERA. 	Such violations
are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
Chair Martinez joined in this Decision.
Member Dowdin Calvillo's concurrence and dissent begins on page 33.
32

DOWDIN CALVILLO, Member, concurring in part and dissenting in part. I concur in
the result with the exception of one issue, as discussed below.
With regard to the retaliation allegations, I concur that the charge states a prima facie
case of retaliation with respect to the following actions taken by the Jurupa Unified School
District (District): (1) Jay Trujillo's (Trujillo) mid-March 2010 warning threatening Pamela Jean
Lukkarila (Lukkarila) with insubordination; (2) Trujillo's negative report of his March 15, 2010
observation ofLukkarila's teaching; (3) Trujillo's May 2010 final evaluation ofLukkarila's
teaching; (4) the investigation of Lukkarila for alleged misconduct based on a parental
complaint; and (5) the summary of meeting disciplinary memo following the October 2010
investigatory meeting. I disagree, however, that the directive to submit to consecutive
evaluations is an adverse action. Specifically, I disagree that the system established in the
Education Code and the parties' collective bargaining agreement (CBA) provides for the annual
evaluation of permanent employees only in exceptional circumstances. Instead, given the
language requiring the evaluation of permanent employees "at least" every other year, I find
nothing in the Education Code or the parties' CBA that would preclude the District from
evaluating an employee more frequently than every other year under the circumstances of this
case. Accordingly, I dissent on that issue.
The Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) has long held:
The test which must be satisfied is not whether the employee found
the employer's action to be adverse, but whether a reasonable
person under the same circumstances would consider the action to
have an adverse impact on the employee's employment.
(Newark Unified School District (1991) PERB Decision No. 864; fn. omitted.) Applying this
test to the allegations of the charge, I disagree that the charge alleges facts establishing that a
reasonable person would consider the requirement that Lukkarila submit to a second annual
33

evaluation, after returning from an extended leave, to have an adverse impact on her
employment. In reaching this conclusion, I have examined both the parties' CBA and the
provisions of the Education Code governing teacher evaluations. Education Code section 44664
provides, in relevant part:
(a) Evaluation and assessment of the performance of each
certificated employee shall be made on a continuing basis as
follows:
(1) At least once each school year for probationary personnel.
(2) At least every other year for personnel with permanent status.
(3) At least every five years for personnel with permanent status
who have been employed at least 10 years with the school district,
are highly qualified, if those personnel occupy positions that are
required to be filled by a highly qualified professional by the
federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (20 U.S.C. Sec. 6301,
et seq.), as defined in 20 U.S.C. Sec. 7801, and whose previous
evaluation rated the employee as meeting or exceeding standards,
if the evaluator and certificated employee ... agree ....
(b) The evaluation shall include recommendations, if necessary, as
to areas of improvement in the performance of the employee. If an
employee is not performing his or her duties in a satisfactory
manner according to the standards prescribed by the governing
board, the employing authority shall notify the employee in writing
of that fact and describe the unsatisfactory performance. The
employing authority shall thereafter confer with the employee
making specific recommendations as to areas of improvement in
the employee's performance and endeavor to assist the employee in
his or her performance. If any permanent certificated employee
has received an unsatisfactory evaluation, the employing authority
shall annually evaluate the employee until the employee achieves a
positive evaluation or is separated from the district.
(Emphasis added.)
Consistent with the statutory language, Article IX, section 3, of the CBA states that
evaluations "shall be made on a continuing basis, at least once each school year for probationary
unit members and at least every other year for unit members with permanent status." (Emphasis
34

added.) Therefore, neither the statute nor the contract language requires only biannual
evaluations; rather, they expressly contemplate that the evaluation of permanent employees may
occur more frequently than once every other year. 	While subdivision (b) of Education Code
section 44664 and the parties' CBA require annual evaluations in the event a certificated
employee has received an unsatisfactory evaluation, the majority construes these provisions to
mean that requiring a consecutive year evaluation of a permanent employee is an exceptional
circumstance, treats the permanent employee as though she were probationary, or otherwise
"signals a performance deficiency requiring remediation and or termination." I find no support
for this position in the facts alleged in the charge. Instead, I find that the decision to require a
consecutive annual evaluation so that the employer may have a fair basis for evaluating an
employee after a lengthy absence to be consistent with the language of the Education Code and
the CBA. 1 Accordingly, I find that the charge fails to allege facts demonstrating that the decision
to require Lukkarila to undergo consecutive annual evaluations was an adverse action.
Accordingly, I would find that the charge fails to states a prima facie case ofretaliation with
respect to that allegation.
1 In reaching this conclusion, I do not intend to suggest that a decision taken within
statutory or contractual authority can never be adverse. Rather, contrary to the majority, I find
that the statutory and contractual language in this case does not support the conclusionthat the
decision to require consecutive annual evaluations of a permanent employee under the
circumstances of this case constitutes an adverse action.
35