Los Angeles Unified School District (PERB A488E)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
JOEI DYES AND THE ANONYMOUSKNOW
NOTHINGS,
Charging Parties,
v.
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Respondent.
Case Nos. 	LA-CE-6161-E
LA-CE-6411-E
Administrative Appeal
PERB Order No. Ad-488
October 12, 2021
Appearance: Jefferey L. Norman, Representative, for Joei Dyes and the
AnonymousKnowNothings.
Before Banks, Chair; Shiners and Krantz, Members.
DECISION
SHINERS, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on appeal by Joei Dyes and the AnonymousKnowNothings1
(Charging Parties) from an administrative decision by PERB’s Office of the General
Counsel (OGC). In its decision, OGC determined that Los Angeles Unified School
District fully complied with the Board’s Order in Los Angeles Unified School District
(2020) PERB Decision No. 2750 (LAUSD), in which the Board found that the District
1 The underlying decision in this case identified Charging Parties as Joei Dyes
and the Anonymous Know-Nothings, but the filings by Charging Parties in this appeal
indicate the correct format of the name of the self-described anonymous citizens group
is AnonymousKnowNothings, without any spaces or hyphens.

2
violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA) by interfering with
employees’ protected communication rights.2 The remedial order in LAUSD directed the
District to cease and desist from similar violations and to post a notice regarding the
Board’s decision, including via electronic means and as otherwise directed by OGC in
light of unusual work circumstances during the COVID-19 pandemic.
During the first six months of 2021, the District submitted evidence reflecting
several different efforts at circulating the required notice, including multiple mass
e-mails and a 60-day website posting as directed by OGC. Charging Parties claimed
some employees had not received the mass e-mails. OGC issued an order to show
cause (OSC) requesting that Charging Parties provide declarations under penalty of
perjury from employees who had not received the electronic notice. Charging Parties
declined to file any declarations because OGC would not allow them to redact the
declarants’ names. Having received no declarations, OGC determined compliance was
achieved and closed the case. On appeal, Charging Parties argue that OGC erred by
not allowing them to file declarations with the declarant’s name redacted, which
Charging Parties assert is necessary to prevent the District from retaliating against the
declarants.
Based on our review of the administrative decision, the entire case file, and
relevant legal authority in light of Charging Parties’ appeal, we affirm OGC’s
determination that the District fully complied with the Order for the reasons stated in
the OSC, supplemented by the following discussion.
2 EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. All statutory
references are to the Government Code unless otherwise indicated.

3
SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE PROCEEDINGS
In LAUSD, the Board concluded that the District violated EERA section 3541.5,
subdivision (c), by directing Joei Dyes “not to contact any District employees during
regular work hours.” Section B.1. of the Board’s Order required the District to post
notice of the violation:
“Within 10 workdays of the date this decision is no longer
subject to appeal, post copies of the Notice attached hereto
as an Appendix at all work locations where notices to
employees in the District’s certificated bargaining unit
customarily are posted. The Notice must be signed by an
authorized agent of the District, indicating that it will comply
with the terms of this Order. Such posting shall be
maintained for a period of 30 consecutive workdays. The
Notice shall also be sent to all bargaining unit employees by
electronic message, intranet, internet site, or other electronic
means customarily used by the District to communicate with
employees in its certificated employee bargaining unit.
Reasonable steps shall be taken to ensure that the Notice is
not reduced in size, altered, defaced, or covered with any
other material.”
The Order further said in footnote 11:
“In light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, Respondent
shall notify PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC) in
writing if, due to an extraordinary circumstance such as an
emergency declaration or shelter-in-place order, a majority
of employees at one or more work locations are not
physically reporting to their work location as of the time the
physical posting would otherwise commence. If Respondent
so notifies OGC, or if Charging Party requests in writing that
OGC alter or extend the posting period, require additional
notice methods, or otherwise adjust the manner in which
employees receive notice, OGC shall investigate and solicit
input from all parties. OGC shall provide amended
instructions to the extent appropriate to ensure adequate
publication of the Notice, such as directing Respondent to

4
commence posting within ten workdays after a majority of
employees have resumed physically reporting on a regular
basis; directing Respondent to mail the Notice to all
employees who are not regularly reporting to any work
location due to the extraordinary circumstance, including
those who are on a short term or indefinite furlough, are on
layoff subject to recall, or are working from home; or
directing Respondent to mail the Notice to those employees
with whom it does not customarily communicate through
electronic means.”[3]
On January 5, 2021,4 OGC directed the District to file an initial statement of
compliance detailing the affirmative steps it had taken to comply with the notice posting
requirements in section B.1 of the Order. Consistent with footnote 11 of the Order, OGC
also asked the District to notify PERB in writing if employees at one or more work
locations were not physically reporting to work at the time the physical notice posting
would start under the Order.
On January 20,5 the District responded that “[d]ue to the on-going COVID-19
pandemic, the vast majority—if not all—of the members represented by UTLA are
working from home and not at any worksite location. As such, in order to comply with
[PERB Decision No. 2750,] the Notice included in the Decision was instead emailed
directly to all members of Charging party’s former bargaining unit, United Teachers of
Los Angeles (UTLA).” Exhibit B to the initial statement of compliance indicated that on
3 During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Board vested OGC with substantial
discretion to adapt a notice-posting order to situations involving partial or complete
closures and/or remote work. (City of Culver City (2020) PERB Decision No. 2731-M.)
4 All dates are 2021 unless otherwise indicated.
5 The letter erroneously states January 20, 2020.

5
January 19 the District sent the Notice by e-mail to a list-serv designated as “LAUSD-
UTLA-MEMBERS@list.lausd.net.”6
On January 25, OGC asked the parties to propose alternative methods of
physically posting the Notice. OGC also sought clarification from the District about who
the electronic notice was sent to:
“[I]t is not clear from the District’s initial statement that the
District has complied with all requirements of the Board’s
Order in this case. The District’s statement uses ‘bargaining
unit members’ and ‘UTLA members’ interchangeably, though
such terms represent different groups of employees. The
statement does not explain whether all bargaining unit
employees have access to e-mail messages, regardless of
their furlough, lay-off, subject to recall, or other COVID-19-
related employment status. Nor does it state who the e-mail
address ‘LAUSD-UTLA-MEMBERS@list.lausd.net’ reaches.”
On February 8, Charging Parties filed a response to the initial statement of
compliance, asserting that “several employees of LAUSD did not receive” the District’s
January 19 e-mail. Charging Parties also suggested three alternatives in lieu of a
physical posting: (1) that the District send an “Amber alert”-style electronic notice to
bargaining unit members; (2) that PERB send the electronic notice to all bargaining unit
members; and (3) that PERB require the District to give bargaining unit members’ e-mail
addresses to Charging Parties so they could send the electronic notice.
6 All of the District’s filings during the compliance proceedings were submitted
under penalty of perjury that the response was true and complete to the best of the
declarant’s knowledge and belief.

6
On February 9, the District filed an additional statement of compliance. Among
other explanations and responses, the District promised it would engage in two more
efforts to circulate the Notice:
“LAUSD will also post the notice on its website no later than
February 12, 2021 for a period of 30-days.
[¶] . . . [¶]
“Second, Mr. Norman claims that unknown members
claimed to have not received the email with the notice.
Without any additional information, LAUSD cannot evaluate
the veracity or accuracy of such a claim. Nonetheless,
LAUSD will re-send the email with the notice via the list
serve—again, the primary form of communication between
LAUSD and members of UTLA—no later than February 16,
2021. Additionally, LAUSD will forward the notice to any
additional email addresses provided by Charging Party, so
long as those email addresses are shared with LAUSD’s
counsel no later than close of business February 12, 2021.”
(Emphasis in original.)
On February 11, OGC issued a letter finding that the list-serv designated as
“LAUSD-UTLA-MEMBERS@list.lausd.net” includes “all members of the bargaining unit
represented by UTLA” rather than merely bargaining unit members who have chosen to
join UTLA as members.7 OGC also found that Charging Parties’ suggested alternatives
to a physical posting were impractical. OGC directed Charging Parties to “provide
specific names and e-mail addresses of individuals who did not receive the District’s
7 Charging Parties did not appeal that determination, and we therefore express
no opinion as to whether the record supports it.

7
January 19, 2021 electronic notice [and] respond to the District’s February 9, 2021
additional statement of compliance” by February 25.
On February 25, Charging Parties filed a letter claiming that providing names and
e-mail addresses of employees who did not receive the District’s January 19 e-mail
would subject those employees to retaliation by the District. Charging Parties asked
PERB to “find a way to investigate the posting to each teacher’s individual computer” so
names would not have to be provided, or alternatively to postpone physical notice
posting until employees returned to their worksites.
The District responded on March 4 that it would send the Notice again to the
same list-serv no later than March 9. On March 19, Dyes sent OGC an e-mail stating
that a number of unit members had contacted her about receiving the Notice from the
District via e-mail.
On March 24, OGC issued a letter directing the District to post the Notice on its
website for 60 days in lieu of physical posting. On April 5, the District notified OGC that
it had posted the Notice on its website that day and that the posting would remain there
until June 7.
On June 16, OGC issued a letter finding compliance had been achieved as the
District had e-mailed the Notice to all members of the certificated bargaining unit on
January 19 and had posted the Notice on its website for 60 calendar days.
On June 18, Charging Parties filed a letter disputing that compliance had been
achieved, claiming they knew “a handful of LAUSD employees” did not receive either
District e-mail containing the Notice, which led Charging Parties to believe the e-mails
were not sent to the entire bargaining unit. Charging Parties again asked PERB to send

8
the Notice to bargaining unit employees or to “find a way to investigate the posting to
each teacher’s individual computer [because] we have no way of doing this without
exposing the names of the teachers.”
On June 30, OGC issued an OSC stating that the District had submitted
“overwhelming evidence” of its compliance with the electronic notice posting order and
that Charging Parties’ “broad, non-specific concern” about retaliation did not “create an
issue of material fact to prevent finding compliance.” The OSC ordered Charging Parties
to show cause why OGC should not find compliance had been achieved. Charging
Parties were directed to provide, no later than July 15, “declarations under penalty of
perjury by witnesses with personal knowledge” that any bargaining unit member did not
receive the District’s electronic notice posting e-mails.
On July 2, Charging Parties’ representative told OGC they would not be filing a
response to the OSC. On July 22, OGC issued an administrative decision finding that
the District had fully complied with the Order and closing the case.
On August 2, Charging Parties timely filed an appeal of the administrative
decision.8 In their appeal, Charging Parties admit they failed to respond to the OSC
because they believed “it would be a waste of time” to file declarations if they could not
redact the declarants’ names. They urge the Board to allow a party to file declarations
with the declarant’s name redacted to protect the declarant from retaliation by their
employer.
8 If a compliance investigation is conducted and a written administrative
decision issued, it may be appealed to the Board. (PERB Reg. 32980, subds. (b), (c).)
(PERB Regulations are codified at Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 31001 et seq.)

9
DISCUSSION
“Compliance proceedings are governed by PERB Regulation 32980,
subdivision (a), which provides in relevant part that ‘[t]he General Counsel or his/her
designate may conduct an inquiry, informal conference, investigation, or hearing, as
appropriate, concerning any compliance matter.’” (Bellflower Unified School District
(2019) PERB Order No. Ad-475, p. 8.) This provision grants OGC considerable
discretion to determine the most effective method for ensuring compliance with a
Board order. (Public Employment Relations Bd. v. Bellflower Unified School Dist.
(2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 927, 943.) In some circumstances, compliance may be
determined based solely on documents submitted to OGC. (Bellflower Unified School
District, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-475, p. 8.) In others, an evidentiary hearing is
necessary to resolve disputed factual issues. (Id. at pp. 8-9.) When it is unclear
whether a hearing is necessary, an OSC may be used “to determine if there are
material facts in dispute and whether or not there is sufficient evidence to decide a
disputed matter without convening an evidentiary hearing.” (Children of Promise
Preparatory Academy (2013) PERB Order No. Ad-402, p. 19.)
In compliance proceedings, the respondent has the burden to prove that it
complied with the Board’s order. (Hacienda La Puente Unified School District (1998)
PERB Decision No. 1280, pp. 8-9.) In the context of physical mail, we have adopted
the generally accepted rebuttable presumption that documents correctly addressed
and properly mailed were received by the addressee. (State of California (Department
of Corrections) (2006) PERB Decision No. 1806-S, pp. 8-9, citing Evid. Code, §§ 604,
641.) We find it appropriate to adopt a similar rebuttable presumption for electronic

10
mail. The District submitted statements based on personal knowledge under penalty of
perjury that it e-mailed the Notice to all certificated bargaining unit members on
January 19 and March 9, thereby creating a rebuttable presumption that it did so.
To investigate Charging Parties’ claim that some bargaining unit members did
not receive these e-mails, OGC issued an OSC to determine whether there was a
material factual dispute that necessitated an evidentiary hearing. Specifically, OGC
directed Charging Parties to provide declarations based on personal knowledge under
penalty of perjury showing that any District certificated bargaining unit member did not
receive the January 19 or March 9 e-mail notice. Charging Parties declined to provide
such declarations, citing concerns that the declarants would face retaliation from the
District. In the absence of any countervailing evidence, OGC correctly relied on the
District’s unrebutted evidence to conclude that it had e-mailed the Notice to all
bargaining unit members on January 19 and March 9, thereby complying with the
electronic notice posting order. (See Children of Promise Preparatory Academy,
supra, PERB Order No. Ad-402, pp. 17-18 [employer failed to submit evidence in
response to OSC and thus failed to create a material dispute over whether certain
employees included in representation petition were management employees, so an
evidentiary hearing was not warranted].)
In their appeal, Charging Parties reiterate their contention that redaction of
declarants’ names should be permitted to prevent the District from retaliating against
the declarants. Charging Parties cite PERB Regulation 32125 in support of this
contention. But that regulation governs filing confidential information with PERB, such
as social security numbers, birthdates, a minor’s identity, and financial account

11
information. (PERB Reg. 32125, subd. (a).) The names of potential witnesses in a
compliance hearing do not fall under any of those criteria. Also, as identified in
subdivision (b), a caveat to redacting sensitive information is that it is “not relevant to
resolution of any matter before PERB.” (Ibid.) The names of any individuals claiming
they did not receive the District’s e-mail notices were relevant and necessary to
determine the veracity of their statements. Indeed, under these circumstances a
declaration that did not identify the declarant would have questionable evidentiary
value, as it would not allow the District or PERB to determine whether, in fact, the
e-mail had been sent to the declarant or whether some transmission error had
prevented the declarant from receiving it. Simply put, Charging Parties’ unsupported
speculation that the District might retaliate against an employee who submitted a
declaration is not a substitute for actual evidence that a bargaining unit member did
not receive the District’s e-mail notices.
Because Charging Parties declined to produce declarations of District
employees who allegedly did not receive the e-mail notice, there was no material
factual dispute over whether the District e-mailed the Notice to the entire certificated
bargaining unit. Accordingly, OGC correctly determined that the District complied with
the Board’s electronic notice posting order.9
9 Because Charging Parties did not appeal OGC’s determination that posting
the Notice on the District’s website for 60 days was a sufficient alternative to the
physical posting requirement, that issue is not before us and we express no opinion
about whether that was a sufficient alternative means to comply with the physical
posting order.

12
ORDER
Joei Dyes and the AnonymousKnowNothings’ appeal from the Office of the
General Counsel’s administrative decision is DENIED. The determination that Los
Angeles Unified School District fully complied with all aspects of the Board’s Order in
Los Angeles Unified School District (2020) PERB Decision No. 2750 is AFFIRMED.
Chair Banks and Member Krantz joined in this Decision.