Simi Valley Educators Association (Ake) (Pringle) (PERB 0315E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS 	BOARD
BONNIE H. AKE,
Charging 	Party,
v.
SIMI 	EDUCATORS 	ASSOCIATION,
Respondent.
Case No. 	LA-CO-117
PERB Decision No. 	315
May 27, 	1983
GENEVA M. 	PRINGLE,
Charging 	Party,
v.
SIMI 	EDUCATORS 	ASSOCIATION,
Respondent.
Case No. 	LA-CO-118
Appearances: 	David T. 	Bryant, 	Attorney 	(National 	Right 	to Work
Legal Defense 	Foundation, 	Inc.) 	for 	Bonnie H. 	Ake 	and
Geneva M. 	Pringle; 	Michael R. 	White, 	Attorney for Simi
Educators 	Association.
Before Gluck, 	Chairperson; 	Jaeger 	and Morgenstern, Members.
DECISION
MORGENSTERN, 	Member: 	These 	consolidated 	cases 	are 	before
the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations Board 	(PERB 	or 	Board) 	on
exceptions 	filed 	by 	the 	Simi 	Educators Association
(Association) 	and a 	response 	filed 	by Bonnie H. 	Ake 	and
Geneva M. 	Pringle 	{Charging 	Parties) 	to 	a hearing 	officer's
proposed 	decision.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_______________ )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_______________ )

The 	Charging 	Parties, 	who 	are 	not members of 	the
Association, 	filed 	identical 	charges 	alleging 	that 	they 	had 	a
right 	to pay 	service 	fees 	to 	the Association 	"monthly 	by 	check"
and 	that 	the 	Association 	unlawfully 	demanded 	that 	they 	"either
sign a check-off 	authorization or 	pay 	an entire 	years' 	dues
[sic] 	in 	advance." 	The 	hearing officer 	found 	that 	the
Association's 	practices 	regarding 	the 	collection 	of 	Association
dues 	and 	service 	fees discriminated 	against Charging Parties 	in
violation of 	subsection 	3543.6(b) 	of 	the Educational Employment
Relations Act 	(EERA or 	Act).l
The Association 	excepts 	to 	the 	hearing 	officer's 	reasoning,
conclusion 	and 	ordered 	remedy. 	Charging Parties 	filed 	no
exceptions. 	However, 	in 	their 	response 	to 	the Association's
exceptions, 	Charging 	Parties 	reassert 	the 	substance of 	their
original 	charge.2
1EERA 	is 	codified 	at 	Government 	Code 	section 	3540 	et
seq. 	All 	statutory 	references 	are 	to 	the Government Code
unless 	otherwise 	specified.
Section 3543.6 provides, 	in pertinent part, 	as 	follows:
It 	shall 	be 	unlawful 	for 	an employee
organization 	to:
(b) 	Impose 	or 	threaten 	to 	impose 	reprisals
on 	employees, 	to discriminate 	or threaten to
discriminate 	against employees, 	or 	otherwise
to 	interfere with, 	restrain, 	or 	coerce
employees 	because of 	their 	exercise of
rights 	guaranteed 	by 	this 	chapter.
2Charging 	Parties' 	response 	is 	tantamount 	to an
exception. 	As 	such, 	it was 	untimely 	under 	PERB 	regulation
N
• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	•
2

After 	a 	review of 	the 	record 	and 	the 	arguments 	on 	appeal,
the 	Board 	reverses 	the 	hearing 	officer's 	proposed 	decision 	and
dismisses 	the 	charges 	for 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	below.
32300 	et 	seq. 	(California Administrative Code, 	title 	8, 	section
32300), 	in effect at all 	times relevant to this case. 	See
South Bay Elementary School District 	(4/30/82) 	PERB Decision
No. 	207, 	note 6.
However, 	we 	note 	that 	effective September 	20, 	1982,
regulation 32310 was amended 	to provide: 	". 	. 	. The response
may 	contain 	a 	statement 	of 	any 	exceptions 	the 	responding 	party
wishes 	to 	take 	to the 	recommended decision. 	. 	. 	." 	The
regulation, 	as 	amended, 	would 	render 	Charging Parties'
exceptions 	timely.
FACTS
The 	case 	was 	submitted 	on 	documentary 	evidence 	and
stipulated 	facts 	which 	are 	summarized, 	in pertinent part, 	below.
Effective July 	1, 	1979, 	the Simi Valley Unified School
District 	(District) 	and 	the 	Association 	agreed 	to 	an
organizational 	security provision which, 	in pertinent part,
provides 	as 	follows:
SERVICE 	FEES
Employees 	in 	the 	bargaining 	unit 	who 	are 	not 	members 	of 	the
Association on 	the effective 	date of 	this 	agreement 	and
members 	who 	hereafter 	come 	into 	the 	bargaining 	unit 	shall
either 	within 	thirty days of 	this 	agreement 	[or] 	their
employment 	apply 	for membership, 	or 	execute 	an
authorization 	for 	service 	fee deduction, 	or 	complete 	a
Religious 	Conviction 	Form.
The 	service 	fee 	shall 	be 	an 	amount 	of 	money 	identical 	to
that paid 	as dues 	by Association members 	(SEA/CTA/NEA).
The District, 	upon written 	authorization, 	shall 	deduct 	the
service 	fee on a 	tenthly basis, 	September 	through June,
annually.
33

If 	an employee 	in 	the bargaining 	unit belongs 	to a
recognized 	religious 	organization, 	prior 	to coming 	under
this 	agreement, 	whose basic 	tenets 	are 	counter 	to 	its
members 	paying 	fees 	or 	joining 	a 	union 	type 	organization,
he/she 	may 	complete 	the 	Religious 	Conviction 	Form.
The Association 	agrees 	that 	the 	District 	will 	withhold
$2.00 	per 	person per 	year 	from 	the 	dues 	deductions 	and/or
service 	fees 	for 	the 	administrative 	cost 	of 	implementing
this article.
NON-COMPLIANCE 	CLAUSE
In 	the 	event 	an 	employee 	within 	the 	unit 	does 	not 	submit 	to
the District a Dues Deduction Form, 	or 	a Religious
Conviction Form, 	within 	30 	days 	from 	the 	signing 	of 	this
contract or 	employment with 	the District, 	the Association
is 	authorized 	to 	request 	Board 	action 	to 	initiate
termination proceedings 	of 	such 	employee 	in 	accordance 	with
this 	agreement, 	recognizing 	the 	failure 	of 	such 	employee 	to
comply with 	this 	provision 	shall 	be 	reasonable 	cause 	for
discharge.
The 	bylaws 	of 	the Association 	provide 	that 	all 	certificated
personnel employed 	in 	the 	District may become members of 	the
Association 	upon payment of 	the 	annual dues, 	that members may
pay 	their 	dues 	by payroll 	deductions or 	by cash, 	and 	that 	the
membership year 	is 	September 	1 	through August 	31.
The 	parties 	jointly 	stipulated 	that 	if 	a member 	of 	the
Association 	does 	not 	pay dues 	by 	payroll 	deduction 	(check-off),
he 	or 	she 	is 	required 	to pay 	the 	entire 	year's 	dues 	in 	advance
in 	cash 	or 	by 	check 	by September 	1. 	Some 	members 	are 	not 	on
check-off, 	and 	they pay a year's 	dues 	in cash or 	by 	check on or
about September 	1 	of 	each 	year.
The 	parties 	further 	stipulated 	that 	the 	Association 	does
not 	accept 	installment 	dues 	payments 	by 	check 	from members 	or
4

service 	fee 	payors. 	The 	only 	acceptable methods of 	payment
recognized 	by 	the Association 	are 	either 	(1) 	payment of 	the
entire year's 	dues or 	service 	fee 	in 	advance 	in cash or 	by
check, 	by September 	1, 	or 	(2) 	payment 	through 	authorization of
payroll 	deduction. 	The 	payroll 	deduction method of 	payment
provides 	for 	remittance 	of 	one-tenth 	of 	the 	entire 	year's 	dues
or 	service 	fee 	to 	the 	Association 	from 	the 	District 	each 	pay
period, September-June, inclusive.
Beginning 	in 	September 	1979 	and 	for 	certain months
thereafter, 	Charging 	Parties 	tendered 	by 	check 	a portion 	of 	the
yearly 	service 	fees 	to 	the Association. 	The Association
accepted 	and 	cashed Charging Parties' 	checks, 	but 	by letters
dated October 	2, 	1979 	and December 	31, 	1979, 	requested 	that
they 	either 	pay 	the 	balance 	of 	the 	year's 	fees 	in advance 	or
sign 	payroll 	authorizations.
As 	of 	the 	date 	the 	stipulation was 	submitted, 	the 	total
amount 	of 	service 	fees 	due 	from Charging 	Parties 	had 	been 	paid.
DISCUSSION
The Association's 	exceptions 	to 	the 	hearing officer's
proposed 	decision 	are 	well 	taken. 	The 	hearing 	officer 	found
that 	the 	Association discriminated 	against 	Charging 	Parties 	by
providing 	in 	its 	bylaws 	that Association members 	could 	pay
membership dues 	annually 	by 	lump sum 	in 	advance, 	as 	an
alternative 	to 	payment 	by 	monthly payroll 	deduction. 	Since
Association 	bylaws 	are 	not 	binding 	on 	nonmembers, 	the 	hearing
5

officer 	found 	that 	nonmembers 	have 	fewer 	payment 	options 	than
do members 	and 	rejected 	the 	parties' 	joint 	stipulation 	that, 	in
practice, 	both members 	and 	nonmembers 	are 	afforded 	the 	same 	two
payment 	options. 	The 	hearing 	officer 	relied 	on Bagnall v.
Airline 	Pilots Association 	(1980) 	626 F.2d 	336 	[104 LRRM 	2769].
The 	hearing 	officer's 	analysis 	is 	in error. 	First, 	we 	see
no 	reason 	why 	the 	parties' 	stipulation as 	to 	actual practice
should 	be 	rejected.3 We, 	therefore, 	expressly disavow 	the
hearing 	officer's 	purported 	rejection of 	this 	stipulation.
Secondly, 	this 	stipulation clearly 	indicates 	that, 	in actual
practice, 	the Association 	accepted 	annual payment 	in 	advance
from both members 	and 	nonmembers 	and, 	therefore, 	did not
discriminate against nonmembers. 	Thirdly, 	in any event, 	the
existence 	or 	nonexistence 	of 	a 	practice 	of 	accepting 	annual
payment 	is 	immaterial 	to Charging Parties' allegations 	that 	a
payroll 	deduction 	is 	unlawful 	and 	that 	they 	have 	a 	right 	to pay
service 	fees monthly 	by 	check. 	Finally, 	the 	hearing officer
misconstrued Bagnall, 	supra.
3NO 	basis 	for 	rejection of 	the 	stipulation 	exists 	since
the 	stipulation 	is 	not 	controverted by 	the 	record; 	it pertains
to 	a matter 	of 	fact, 	not 	the 	ultimate 	conclusion of 	law before
the Board; 	and 	it 	does 	not contravene 	the Act or 	consistent
policies 	of 	the Board. 	See Hartnell 	Community College 	District
(1/2/79) 	PERB Decision No. 	81; 	Centinela Valley Union High
School District 	(8/7/78) 	PERB Decision No. 	62.
Though both Hartnell, 	supra, 	and Centinela Valley, 	supra,
concern 	stipulations 	regarding 	representational questions, 	we
find 	no 	reason 	to 	apply 	a different 	rule 	here.
66

In that 	case, 	the organizational security provisions 	at 	issue
authorized 	only 	"monthly" 	dues, 	The 	court 	held 	that 	the 	union
could 	not 	further 	regulate 	a 	nonmember's method 	of 	payment.
Therefore, 	the 	union 	could 	not 	require 	annual 	dues 	and 	could 	not
impose 	an 	interest 	charge 	in addition 	to monthly payments. 	Thus,
Bagnall 	stands 	for 	the proposition 	that 	the 	obligations of 	a
nonmember 	with 	respect 	to 	the 	payment of 	service 	fees 	are
established 	by 	the 	terms of 	the 	negotiated 	agreement.
Similarly, 	the California 	Supreme 	Court 	has 	considered
organizational 	security 	provisions 	negotiated 	pursuant 	to 	EERA
and 	has 	held 	that 	"a member 	of 	a 	bargaining 	unit 	is 	bound 	by 	the
terms of 	a valid collective bargaining 	agreement, 	though 	he 	is
not 	formally 	a 	party 	to 	it 	and may 	not 	even 	belong 	to 	the 	union
which 	negotiated 	it," 	San 	Lorenzo 	Education 	Association 	v.
Wilson 	(1982) 	32 Cal.3d 841, 	846; 	modified at 33 Cal.3d 399a.
Here, 	Charging 	Parties 	argue 	essentially 	that 	they 	should 	not
be 	bound 	by 	the 	terms 	of 	the 	contract 	which 	require 	the 	payment
of 	service 	fees 	by payroll 	deduction, 	but 	should 	be permitted 	to
pay 	service 	fees 	monthly 	by 	check. 	We 	disagree.
"Organizational 	security" 	is 	expressly 	enumerated 	as 	a
negotiable 	term 	and 	condition 	of 	employment within 	the 	scope 	of
representation.4 Organizational 	security 	is 	defined 	in
4Section 	3543.2 provides, 	in pertinent part, 	as 	follows:
(a) 	The 	scope of 	representation 	shall 	be
limited 	to matters 	relating 	to wages, 	hours
of employment, 	and other 	terms 	and
conditions of employment. 	"Terms 	and
77

subsection 	3540.1(i)5 	and, 	in 	order 	for 	an 	organizational
security 	arrangement 	to be 	effective, 	compliance with 	the
procedures 	specified 	in 	sections 	3546 	and 	3546.3 	is 	required.6
conditions 	of 	employment" 	mean 	health 	and
welfare benefits . . 	. 	leave, 	transfer 	and
reassignment policies, 	safety conditions of
employment, 	class size, procedures to be
used 	for 	the 	evaluation of 	employees,
organizational security . 	. 	., procedures
for processing grievances 	. 	. 	., 	and the
layoff 	of 	probationary 	certificated 	school
district 	employees 	. . . . 	(Emphasis 	added.)
5Section 	3540.1 provides, 	in pertinent part, 	as 	follows ..
{i) 	"Organizational 	security" means:
(2) 	An 	arrangement 	that 	requires 	an
employee, 	as a condition of 	continued
employment, 	either 	to 	join 	the
recognized 	or 	certified 	employee
organization, 	or 	to pay 	the
organization 	a 	service 	fee 	in 	an 	amount
not 	to exceed 	the 	standard 	initiation
fee, 	periodic dues, 	and general
assessments of 	such 	organization 	for
the duration of 	the agreement, 	or 	a
period of 	three 	years 	from 	the
effective 	date 	of 	such 	agreement,
whichever 	comes 	first.
6Section 	3546 	provides, 	in pertinent part, 	as 	follows
(a) 	An organizational 	security 	arrangement,
in order 	to be effective, 	must 	be 	agreed
upon 	by both parties 	to 	the 	agreement. 	At
the 	time 	the 	issue 	is 	being 	negotiated, 	the
public 	school employer 	may 	require 	that 	the
organizational 	security 	provision 	be 	severed
from 	the 	remainder 	of 	the 	proposed 	agreement
and 	cause 	the 	organizational 	security
provision 	to 	be 	voted 	upon 	separately 	by 	all
members 	in 	the 	appropriate 	negotiating 	unit,
in 	accordance 	with 	rules 	and 	regulations
promulgated 	by 	the 	board. 	Upon 	such 	a 	vote,
the 	organizational 	security 	provision 	will
become 	effective 	only 	if 	a majority of 	those
8

members 	of 	the 	negotiating 	unit 	voting
approve 	the 	agreement. 	Such 	vote 	shall 	not
be 	deemed 	to 	either 	ratify or defeat 	the
remaining 	provisions of 	the proposed
agreement.
(b) 	An organizational 	security 	arrangement
which 	is 	in effect may 	be 	rescinded 	by
majority 	vote 	of 	the 	employees 	in 	the
negotiating 	unit 	covered 	by 	such 	arrangement
in 	accordance 	with 	rules 	and 	regulations
promulgated 	by 	the 	board.
Section 3546.3 	provides, 	in pertinent part, 	as 	follows..
. 	. 	. 	[A]ny 	employee who 	is a member of a
religious 	body 	whose 	traditional 	tenets 	or
teachings 	include 	objections 	to 	joining 	or
financially 	supporting 	employee 	organizations
shall 	not be 	required 	to 	join, 	maintain
membership 	in, 	or 	financially 	support 	any
employee 	organization 	as 	a 	condition of
employment; 	except that 	such employee may foe
required, 	in 	lieu of a service fee, 	to pay
sums 	equal 	to 	such 	service 	fee 	either 	to a
nonreligious, 	nonlabor 	organization,
charitable 	fund 	exempt 	from 	taxation 	under
Section 	501(c)(3) 	of Title 	26 of 	the 	Internal
Revenue Code, 	chosen 	by 	such 	employee 	from a
list of 	at 	least 	three 	such 	funds, 	designated
in 	the organizational security 	arrangement, 	or
if 	the 	arrangement 	fails 	to designate 	such
funds, 	then 	to 	any 	such 	fund 	chosen 	by 	the
employee. 	Either 	the employee 	organization or
the 	public 	school 	employer 	may 	require 	that
proof of 	such 	payments 	be made 	on 	an 	annual
basis 	to 	the public 	school employer 	as a
condition of 	continued 	exemption 	from 	the
requirement 	of 	financial 	support 	to 	the
recognized 	employee 	organization. 	If 	such
employee 	who 	holds 	conscientious 	objections
pursuant 	to 	this 	section 	requests 	the 	employee
organization 	to 	use 	the 	grievance 	procedure 	or
arbitration procedure 	on 	the 	employee's
behalf, 	the 	employee 	organization 	is
authorized 	to 	charge 	the employee 	for 	the
reasonable 	cost 	of 	using 	such 	procedure.
The Act 	neither 	authorizes 	nor 	prohibits 	any 	specific
method 	of payment 	of 	service 	fees. 	The 	Board 	has 	previously
99

held 	that 	payroll 	deductions of 	service 	fees 	are 	lawful 	under
the 	Act. 	King 	City Joint 	Union High School District 	(3/3/82)
PERB Decision No. 	197.7 	There 	the Board 	considered 	an
organizational 	security provision which 	required 	the 	district
to withhold 	service 	fees 	without 	the 	prior 	written
authorization of 	the 	payor. 	The Board majority 	stated 	as
follows, 	at page 25:
Service fees 	. 	. 	. 	are mandatory if
negotiated 	pursuant 	to 	the 	legislative
authority 	found 	in EERA 	section 	3546. 	Prior
approval of 	the payor 	is 	not only
unnecessary 	but 	inconsistent 	with 	the
involuntary 	nature of 	such 	fees.
Withholding 	approval would 	enable 	the
nonmember 	to circumvent 	the 	legislative
purpose 	and 	negotiated 	agreement.
The 	fact 	that 	the 	organizational 	security 	provision 	at
issue 	here 	requires 	the 	written 	authorization of 	the 	payor 	does
not alter 	the mandatory 	nature of 	the provision. 	To hold, 	as
Charging 	Parties 	urge, 	that 	nonmembers 	can 	avoid 	the 	contract
requirements 	and 	pay 	service 	fees 	in 	any manner 	they 	choose:
. 	. 	. 	would 	inevitably lead 	to unduly
burdensome 	collection problems 	and
ultimately 	to 	the 	wholesale 	enforcement of
the 	employment 	termination provisions of
section 3540.l(i), 	a consequence 	that would
be 	detrimental 	to 	the 	educational 	system and
to peaceful 	labor 	relations 	in the
districts. 	(King City, supra, 	at p. 	25.)
Moreover, 	the 	organizational security provision, 	by 	its
terms, 	requires both Association members 	and 	nonmembers 	to
7Review pending, Civ. No. A016723.
10

execute 	an authorization for 	payroll deduction. 	Thus, 	the
contract 	treats 	members 	and 	nonmembers 	in 	the 	same 	fashion 	and
does 	not discriminate 	against 	nonmembers.
We, 	therefore, 	find 	that 	the 	contract provision requiring
payroll 	deduction 	authorization 	is 	lawful 	under 	EERA. 	Further,
contrary 	to Charging parties' contention, 	nothing 	in 	the
Education Code 	renders 	this provision 	unlawful.
At 	the 	time 	this 	provision 	was 	agreed 	to 	and 	implemented,
the Education 	Code 	was 	silent 	regarding 	the 	payment of 	service
fees. 	Though 	the Legislature 	has 	subsequently 	amended 	the
Education Code 	to provide 	for 	the 	payment of 	service 	fees
either 	by 	payroll 	deduction 	or 	directly 	to 	the 	employee
organization 	in 	lieu of 	payroll deductions, 	this amendment
became 	effective on January 1, 	1983, 	more 	than 	three 	years
after 	the 	events 	complained 	of 	here.8 Inasmuch 	as 	nothing 	in
8Education 	Code 	section 	45061 	provides 	as 	follows;
Deductions 	for 	service 	fees 	as 	required 	by
organizational 	security 	arrangement
The 	governing 	board 	of 	each 	school 	district
when 	drawing 	an 	order 	for 	the 	salary 	or 	wage
payment 	due 	to a 	certificated employee of
the district 	shall, 	with or 	without charge,
reduce 	the 	order 	for 	the 	payment of 	service
fees 	to 	the 	certified 	or 	recognized
organization as 	required 	by 	an
organizational 	security 	arrangement 	between
the 	exclusive 	representative 	and 	a 	public
school employer. 	. 	. 	. 	However, the
organizational 	security 	arrangement 	shall
provide 	that 	any 	employee 	may 	pay 	service
11

the 	legislation expressly 	declares 	that 	it 	is 	intended 	to 	have
retroactive 	application, 	such 	application 	is 	not proper. 	(See
California Civil Code 	section 	3, 	California Code 	of 	Civil
Procedure 	section 	3).9
fees 	directly 	to 	the 	certified 	or 	recognized
employee 	organization 	in 	lieu of 	having 	such
service 	fees 	deducted 	from 	the 	salary or
wage 	order.
If 	the 	employees of a district do not
authorize 	the 	board 	to make 	a 	deduction 	to
pay 	their 	pro 	rata 	share 	of 	the 	costs 	of
making 	deductions 	for 	the 	payment of 	service
fees 	to 	the 	certificated 	or 	recognized
organization, 	the board shall deduct 	from
the 	amount 	transmitted 	to 	the 	organization
on whose 	account 	the 	payments 	were 	deducted
the actual costs, 	if 	any, 	of making 	the
deduction. 	No 	charge 	shall 	exceed 	the
actual cost 	to 	the 	district 	of 	the
deduction. 	These 	annual costs 	shall be
determined 	by 	the 	board 	and 	shall 	include
startup and ongoing 	costs. 	(AB 	404, 	added
by stats. 	1982, 	ch. 	1148, section 2.)
Additional authorities 	cited 	by Charging Parties, 	allegedly
in 	support 	of 	their 	position, 	are 	inapposite.10 Therefore,
9AS 	discussed, 	supra, 	the 	undisputed practice afforded
nonmembers 	the option 	to pay 	service 	fees 	either 	by 	payroll
deduction 	or 	directly 	to 	the Association 	by 	lump sum payment.
We 	do 	not 	decide 	whether 	the 	requirements 	of 	Education Code
section 45061, 	if 	applicable, 	would 	be satisfied 	either 	by 	such
lump 	sum payment 	or 	by 	such practice 	not 	incorporated 	in 	the
written 	collective 	bargaining 	agreement 	between 	the 	parties 	or
any 	mutually 	agreed 	to 	modification 	thereof.
10California 	School Employees 	Association 	v. 	Solano
Community College 	District Board or Trustees, et 	al., 	(Super.
Ct. Solano Co., No. 	69729) 	and 60 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 	370-374
(1977) 	both 	address 	the 	extent of 	a district's obligation 	to
enforce 	an organizational security provision, 	a matter 	not 	at
issue here.
12

we 	find 	that 	the 	contract 	requirement 	for 	payroll 	deduction
authorization 	is 	lawful 	under 	EERA and 	the 	Education Code, 	that
the provision 	is 	not discriminatory, 	and 	that 	the 	lawfulness of
the 	provision 	is 	not 	affected 	by 	the Association's 	offer 	of 	an
additional, 	voluntary and non-discriminatory payment option. 	We
find 	no 	authority 	for 	Charging Parties' 	asserted 	right 	to 	pay
service 	fees 	"monthly 	by 	check." 	Accordingly, 	the 	charges 	are
dismissed.
ORDER
After 	a 	review of 	the 	entire 	record 	in 	this 	case, 	the
Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	ORDERS 	that 	the 	unfair
practice 	charges 	in Case Nos. 	LA-CO-117 	and LA-CO-118 	are
hereby 	DISMISSED.
Chairperson 	Gluck 	and Member 	Jaeger 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
13