California School Employees Association-Chapter 616 (Tornetta) (PERB 0508E)

STATE 	OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
MARGE 	TORNETTA,
Charging 	Party,
v.
CALIFORNIA 	SCHOOL 	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION AND 	ITS 	LOCAL
CHAPTER NO. 	616,
Respondent.
Case No. 	LA-CO-322
PERB Decision No. 	508
June 21, 	1985
Appearances; 	Marge Tornetta, 	on her own behalf; 	Maureen C.
Whelan, 	Attorney 	for 	California 	School 	Employees Association and
its Local Chapter No. 	616.
Before Hesse, 	Chairperson; Jaeger, Morgenstern, 	Burt and Porter,
Members.
DECISION
This 	case 	is 	before 	the 	Public Employment Relations 	Board
(Board) 	on appeal 	by the 	Charging Party of 	the Board agent's
dismissal, 	attached hereto, 	of her charge alleging that 	the
California 	School 	Employees 	Association 	and 	its 	Local 	Chapter
No. 	616, 	violated section 3543.6(b) 	of the Educational
Employment Relations Act 	(Government 	Code section 3540 et seq.).
We have 	reviewed 	the 	Board 	agent's 	dismissal 	and, 	finding
it 	free 	from prejudicial error, 	adopt 	it as 	the Decision of the
Board itself.1
1we 	disagree, 	however, 	that 	the charge pertains merely to
the 	internal 	activities 	of 	the employee organization. 	Instead,
the 	charge 	challenges 	the 	employee 	organization's 	conduct 	as 	a
1
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

bargaining agent with the employer on 	the employees' 	behalf.
Nevertheless, 	it 	fails 	to state a prima 	facie case of a
violation of 	the 	duty of 	fair 	representation because 	the 	facts
are 	insufficient 	to demonstrate 	arbitrary, 	discriminatory or
bad 	faith 	conduct.
ORDER
The unfair practice charge 	in Case No. 	LA-CO-322 	is hereby
DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
By the 	BOARD
22

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	GEORGE 	DEUKMEJIAN,
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
LOS ANGELES REGIONAL OFFICE
3470 WILSHIRE BLVD.. SUITE 1001
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 	90010
(213) 736-3127
April 30, 1985
Marge Tornetta
Re: 	LA-CO-322, 	Tornetta v. California School
Employees Association, 	Chapter 616
DISMISSAL OF UNFAIR PRACTICE CHARGE
Dear Ms. Tornetta:
The above-referenced 	unfair practice charge 	alleges 	that 	the
California School Employees Association, 	Chapter 	616, 	did not
fairly represent 	you 	in negotiations with the 	Saddleback Valley.
Unified 	School 	District 	because 	it did not 	seek 	to 	reclassify
your 	job classification 	to a 	sufficiently high 	salary range.
The 	charge 	also alleges 	that 	CSEA failed to properly 	inform you
of 	the 	status of 	the negotiations and discriminated against you
by better 	informing other unit members. 	This 	conduct 	is
alleged 	to violate Government Code section 3543.6(b) 	of 	the
Educational Employment Relations Act 	(EERA).
I have 	indicated 	to you 	in my attached letter dated April 	22,
1985 	that certain allegations contained in the 	charge did rot.
state a prima 	facie 	case. 	You were advised that 	if 	there were
any 	factual 	inaccuracies 	or additional 	facts which would
correct 	the deficiencies 	explained in that letter, 	you 	should
amend 	the charge accordingly. 	You were 	further 	advised 	that
unless you amended 	these 	allegations 	to state 	a 	prima 	facie
case, 	or withdrew them prior to April 29, 	1985, 	they would be
dismissed.
I have not 	received 	either a request 	for withdrawal 	or 	an
amended 	charge 	according 	to the 	instructions 	of 	the 	last
paragraph of my April 	22, 	1985 letter. 	I did 	receive a 	letter
from you dated April 	24, 	1985 pointing out certain
disagreements with my letter. 	Your 	letter was 	not 	served 	on
the Respondent and 	therefore 	is attached hereto.
Your 	letter 	states 	that 	your charge does not 	concern 	a personal
argument between yourself and Mrs. Wentworth, 	but a dispute
between yourself and 	CSEA. 	You 	state that 	CSEA's conduct 	in
bargaining was 	arbitrary, 	discriminatory or bad 	faith conduct

LA-CO-322
April 30, 	1985
Page 	2
because it did not represent your interests. 	Finally, 	you
state 	that 	the 	issue 	is not 	whether you obtained a 	salary
increase, 	but 	the 	stress you have suffered because of 	CSEA's
conduct during negotiations.
These 	facts and arguments do not change the 	final 	result 	in
this 	case. 	The charge pertains to the internal activities of
the employee 	organization 	since there 	is no indication of harm
to your 	employment 	relationship with the employer. 	Los 	Angeles
Community College District 	(Kimmett) 	(10/19/79) 	PERB 	Decision
No. 124.
Based on the 	foregoing discussion and the 	facts and 	reasons
contained in my April 	22, 	1985 letter, 	the charge herein is
dismissed. 	Pursuant 	to Public Employment Relations 	Board
regulation section 	32635 	(California Administrative 	Code,
title 8, 	part 	III), 	you may appeal the refusal to issue a
complaint 	(dismissal) 	to the Board itself.
Right 	to Appeal
You nay obtain a review of this dismissal of 	the charge by-
filing 	an appeal 	to 	the Board 	itself within twenty 	(20)
calendar 	days 	after 	service of this dismissal 	(section
32635(a). 	To be timely filed, 	the original and five 	(5) 	copies
of 	such appeal 	must be 	actually received by the Board 	itself
before the close of business 	(5:00 p.m.) on May 20, 	1985, 	or
sent 	by telegraph or 	certified United 	States mail postmarked
wot 	later than May 	20, 	1985 	(section 	32135). 	The 	Board's
address is:
Public Employment 	Relations Board
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, 	CA 	95814
If you 	file a timely appeal of the refusal, 	any other party may
file with the Board an original and five 	(5) 	copies 	of a
statement 	in opposition within twenty 	(20) 	calendar days
following the date of 	service of the appeal 	(section 	32635(b) ).

LA-CO-322
April 30, 	1985
Page 3
Service
All documents 	authorized 	to be 	filed herein must also be
"served" 	upon all parties 	to the proceeding, 	and a 	"proof 	of
service" 	must 	accompany each copy of a document 	served upon a
party or 	filed with the Board 	itself. 	(See 	section 	32140 	for
the required 	contents and a sample 	form.) 	The documents 	will
be 	considered properly 	"served" 	when personally delivered 	or
deposited 	in 	the 	first-class mail postage paid and properly
addressed.
Extension of 	Time
A request 	for 	an extension of 	time 	in which to file 	a document
with 	the 	Board 	itself 	must be 	in writing 	and 	filed with the
Board at 	the 	previously noted address. 	A request 	for 	an
extension must be 	filed at 	least 	three 	(3) 	calendar days 	before
the expiration of 	the 	time 	required 	for 	filing the document.
The 	request must 	indicate good cause 	for the position of 	each
other party 	regarding 	the 	extension and 	shall be accompanied 	by
proof of 	service of the request upon each party 	(section 	32132).
Final Date
If no appeal 	is 	filed within the specified time limits, 	the
dismissal will become 	final when the time 	limits have 	expired.
Very truly yours,
Dennis 	Sullivan
General 	Counsel
Barbara T. 	Stuart
Regional 	Attorney
cc: 	Steve Balentine
Attachments
BTS:djm

STATE Of CALIFORNIA 	GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN. Governor
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
LOS ANGELES REGIONAL OFFICE
3470 WILSHIRE BLVD.. SUITE 1001
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 	90010
(213) 736-3127
April 22, 	1985
Ms. 	Marge Tornetta
Re: 	LA-CO-322, 	Tornetta v. 	California School Employees
Association, 	Chapter 	616
Dear Ms. 	Tornetta:
The 	above-referenced 	unfair 	practice 	charge 	alleges 	that 	the
California School 	Employees Association, 	Chapter 	616, 	did 	not
fairly 	represent 	you 	in 	negotiations 	with 	the 	Saddleback 	Valley
Unified 	School 	District 	because 	it 	did 	not 	seek 	to 	reclassify
your 	job 	classification 	to 	a 	sufficiently high 	salary 	range.
The 	charge 	also 	alleges 	that 	CSEA 	failed 	to properly 	inform you
of 	the 	status 	of 	the 	negotiations 	and discriminated 	against 	you
by better 	informing 	other 	unit 	members. 	This 	conduct 	is
alleged 	to 	violate 	Government 	Code 	section 	3543.6 (b) 	of 	the
Educational Employment 	Relations Act 	(EERA).
Facts
In addition 	to 	the 	allegations 	contained 	in 	the 	charge, 	you
provided 	further 	details 	in our 	conversations 	of 	March 	4 	and
14, 	1985. 	Facts 	occurring prior 	to the 	six month 	statute of
limitations 	which 	serve 	as 	background 	information 	are 	as
follows. 	In early 	1984, 	your classification of 	Attendance
Account 	Clerk 	was 	one 	of 	16 being 	considered 	for
reclassification 	by 	CSEA and 	the 	District. 	You 	are 	the 	only
incumbent 	in 	this 	classification. 	In late 	spring 	1984, 	the
parties 	agreed 	to 	suspend 	negotiations 	and 	each 	form 	committees
for 	further 	evaluation of 	the 	classifications 	because 	the
reclassification 	requests 	and 	job descriptions 	were 	more 	than
two years 	old. 	Also, 	CSEA had been unable 	to 	negotiate 	a
salary 	range 	upgrade 	for 	the high 	school 	and 	intermediate
school 	Counselor 	Assistant 	classification 	and 	did 	not 	wish 	to
abandon 	its 	position 	by 	reaching 	agreement 	on 	upgrading 	other
classifications, 	including yours. 	When 	a list 	of 	the
classifications 	to 	be 	addressed 	by 	the 	committees 	was
circulated, 	the 	Attendance 	Account 	Clerk 	classification 	was 	not
on 	it. 	You 	confronted 	the 	District 	administration and 	was 	told

Page 2
that 	CSEA's 	negotiating 	team 	had 	removed 	the 	classification
from the table. 	You then called 	Pat Prezioso, 	CSEA Field
Director, 	and discussed 	the possibility of 	filing 	an unfair
practice against CSEA for 	failure to fairly represent you. 	Mr.
Prezioso stated 	to you 	that 	CSEA could not 	find any 	information
or 	justification 	for 	upgrading your 	classification.
April 22, 	1985
LA-CO-322
Within the 	six months prior 	to the 	filing of the charge, 	during
the fall of 	1984, 	CSEA's 	reclassification committee considered
the proper 	salary 	range 	upgrade 	for each classification 	under
consideration. 	Your classification, 	involving solely your
position, 	was then at salary range 	29. 	You had advised 	the
committee of your desire to have the range increased to 	34, 	a
five step increase. 	The 	reclassification committee
recommended, 	after evaluation of all 16 classifications, 	that
your classification remain at 	the 	same level. 	You have 	no
-direct knowledge of 	the process by which the committee 	arrived
at its 	recommendation regarding your classification, 	but 	were
Informed by one committee member 	that the committee 	had 	not
•ought or 	used 	information 	regarding 	comparable 	job
classifications 	in other 	school districts.
Negotiations 	between CSEA and 	the 	District began on 	the
reclassification issues on December 18, 	1984. 	The 	District
proposed to upgrade your position to range 	32. 	It 	sought 	to
upgrade your classification 	and 	certain data processing
classifications 	for hiring 	and 	retention purposes. 	CSEA
proposed that your 	salary range 	should remain at 	29. 	It
desired 	to 	spread 	the available money for 	reclassification
among the other classes 	in issue.
In the negotiations, 	CSEA sought to increase the salary 	range
of the high school 	counselor assistants 	from range 	22 	to 	28, 	a
six step increase.
Of the 	five 	CSEA negotiating 	team members, 	three 	were 	in
classifications under consideration. 	Two members, 	including
CSEA President 	Carmella Wentworth, were high 	school 	counselor
assistants. 	One member was a bus driver. 	Chief negotiator 	Roy
Hall was not 	in a classification under consideration, 	nor was
the 	remaining member.
The second 	negotiations meeting was held on January 8, 	1985 	and
the parties 	agreed 	that 	they had 	reached 	impasse. 	At 	this
meeting 	CSEA proposed 	that 	your 	salary 	range be 	upgraded 	to 	30
while the District 	still proposed range 	32.

April 22, 	1985
LA-CO-322
Page 3
After this 	meeting on the 	same date Mrs. 	Wentworth held a
private meeting with the high 	school 	counselor assistants. 	You
do not have knowledge of what occurred at 	this meeting.
On January 	23, 	1985, 	a CSEA chapter meeting was held. 	You did
not 	attend 	because you had 	to attend 	school and 	did 	not believe
the 	union would give 	any detailed 	information regarding
negotiations. 	Further, 	you felt there was no point 	in going
because 	in your view Mrs. 	Wentworth becomes belligerent when
she 	is 	asked 	questions. 	Instead of 	going 	to chapter meetings,
it 	was your general practice to telephone or personally
question Steve Balentine, 	CSEA Field Representative, 	regarding
the 	status of the negotiations.
On January 	23, 	1985, 	you wrote the following letter to Mrs.
Wentworth:
Dear Mrs. Wentworth:
I am writing 	this 	letter 	in regards to the present
status 	of 	the 	negotiations between CSEA and 	the
Saddleback Valley Unified 	School 	District. 	The 	area
of 	the negotiations 	I am referring to 	is 	the
re-classification of 	certain positions. 	As 	the
position of Attendance Account 	Clerk 	(the position 	X
hold) 	is one being considered, 	I would like to know
why the negotiations have come to a stalemate.
I would appreciate your responding, 	in writing, 	to the
above 	request as 	soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Marge Tornetta
cc: 	Pat Prezioso, 	Field Director
Steve Balentine, 	Field Representative
Dick Calister, 	Classified Personnel
Director
Manuel M. Melgoza, 	Regional Attorney,
Public Employment 	Relations 	Board

April 22, 	1935
LA-CO-322
Page 	4
Mrs. 	Wentworth 	responded 	to your 	letter 	the 	following day, 	on
January 24, 	1985, 	as follows:
Dear Mrs. 	Tornetta:
In response 	to your 	letter dated January 23, 	1985, 	I
would 	like 	to bring 	you 	up 	to date on 	the 	status 	of
the 	Reclassification 	Negotiations.
As 	I'm 	sure you 	are 	aware, 	there 	are 	16 positions
currently being 	studied 	in 	these 	negotiations. 	Some
of 	these 	requests 	for 	reclassification/reallocation
date back 	as 	far 	as 	1960. 	The 	Chapter 	has 	attempted
to 	negotiate 	these 	positions 	many 	times 	in 	the 	past
years. 	As 	a 	result 	of 	the most 	recent 	contract
negotiations 	which 	concluded 	in April 	1984, 	the
District 	agreed 	to 	review by 	way 	of 	a 	Reclassification
Committee 	the 	16 	positions 	currently being 	discussed,
and 	then 	return 	to 	the 	negotiation 	table.
I'm 	sure 	that 	you 	are 	aware 	that 	the 	results 	of 	the
negotiation 	will 	then be 	returned 	to 	the 	Chapter 	for
ratification.
The 	Reclassification 	Committee 	consisted 	of 	3 	District
representatives 	and 	3 CSEA, 	Chapter 	616,
representatives. 	The 	committee 	met 	several 	times
during 	the 	summer 	and 	fall. 	Negotiations 	commenced
with 	the 	chapter 	in December 1984. 	The 	second
negotiation 	session was 	held 	January 	8, 	1985 	at 	which
time 	the 	District 	indicated 	they 	were 	ready 	to 	go 	to
impasse. 	A mediation date has 	been 	set 	for
February 8, 	1985.
There 	are 	several 	issues 	in 	this 	negotiation 	which 	are
of 	concern 	to 	all 	employees 	involved 	in 	the
reclassification. 	The 	total 	of 	employees 	involved 	is
over 	100.
Since 	it 	is 	the responsibility of 	the 	Chapter 	to
represent 	all 	employees, 	whether 	or 	not 	they 	are
members 	of 	the 	association, 	I 	can only assure 	you 	that
everything 	is 	being 	done 	to break 	the 	stalemate 	that
currently 	exists.
Again, 	I 	will 	re-extend 	my 	invitation 	to you 	to 	attend
the 	next 	Chapter 	meeting 	which 	will 	be 	held 	on

April 22, 	1985
LA-CO-322
Page 5
February 13, 	1985. 	I can only hope that you will
continue 	to 	read 	the 	newsletter 	and 	even though you
could 	not 	attend the Chapter meeting on January 	23, 	I
hope that you will 	not hesitate to keep informed by
attending 	the meetings.
Sincerely,
FOR CHAPTER 616, 	CSEA
Carmella V7entworth
President
cc: 	Steve Balentine, 	Field Representative
Pat Brezioso, 	Field Director
Roy Hall, 	Chief Negotiator
Chapter 	File
On January 29, 	1985, 	you again wrote Mrs. Wentworth as 	follows
'
Dear Mrs. 	Wentworth: 	;
I 	am in 	receipt 	of your 	letter dated January 	24,
1985. 	After having 	read it 	several times, 	I have cone
to 	the 	conclusion that you DID NOT respond to my
original 	request. 	Perhaps you misunderstood my
request 	as you gave me a history of what has
transpired weeks ago. 	My request was, 	what the
"present 	status 	of 	the 	negotiations between CSEA and
Saddleback Valley Unified School District" 	is. 	I know
all 	about 	CSEA's and the District's committees,
meeting 	singularly and collectively, 	making 	their
recommendations 	and 	also of 	the many positions 	that
have been under consideration for many years. 	My
position 	also has been under consideration 	for 	many
years, 	to be exact 	it is 12 years and ten months. 	I
also know that 	16 positions are under consideration.
That 	fact 	is very clear 	to me as when CSEA's
negotiating 	team 	started 	their 	formal 	negotiations,
for the year 	83-84, 	they chose to arbitrarily remove
the position of Attendance Account 	Clerk 	from 	the
negotiation table. 	It was only after 	I called 	the
Field Office and 	spoke to Mr. 	Pat 	Prezioso and

April 22, 1985
LA-CO-322
Page 6
confronted him with this 	fact 	and my considerations
filing 	an unfair practice 	against 	the association 	and
the negotiators, 	that my position re-appeared.
I don't want 	to 	start quoting 	from the 	file 	I have
been keeping 	regarding this natter and 	re-hash 	this
entire episode. 	I am simply confused 	since two
committees have met and 	concluded 	their
recommendations. 	Now I hear that CSEA is not even
taking 	their own committees 	recommendations, 	much 	less
the Districts. 	In fact they want to spread one
classifications' 	upgrading amongst the rest of 	the
classifications'.
I know things never 	stay the same, 	but when I was
President of CSEA, 	we represented the classified
employees, 	ALL CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEES, 	whether they were
members or not. 	We never tried to stop any employee
from getting 	any kind of upgrading 	in their position,
whether the District 	initiated 	it or CSEA, 	it was 	for
the betterment of the employee, 	who they are supposed
to be representing. 	It 	seems 	this present 	regime does
not agree with that philosophy, 	to quote a 	statement
featured 	in the October 1984 Classi-News, 	"There were
members 	who 	felt 	strongly that 	to withhold
ratification would 	point 	out more clearly to
non-menbers 	the 	importance of 	joining CSEA, 	Chapter
616."
With an attitude 	like 	that, 	how can anything positive
be 	resolved? 	No wonder 	the 	classified employees 	feel
so strongly
CSEA.
Sincerely,
Marge 	Tornetta
cc: 	Roy Hall, 	Chief Negotiator
Pat Prezioso, 	Field Director
Steve Balentine, 	Field Representative
Dick Calister, 	Classified Personnel
Director
Manuel M. Melgoza, 	Regional Attorney,
Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board

April 22, 	1985
LA-CO-322
Page 	7
Mrs. 	Wentworth 	responded 	the 	following day, 	on January 	30, 	1985:
I
Dear Mrs. 	Tornetta:
Thank you 	for your 	letter of 	January 	29, 	1985.
In 	response 	to your 	question of 	the 	status 	of
negotiations 	between 	CSEA and 	Saddleback 	Valley
Unified 	School 	District, 	I 	can only re-state ray
response 	to you of January 	24, 	1985.
The 	Chapter 	and 	the 	District 	are 	at 	impasse
regarding 	those 	negotiations. 	A mediation date
has been 	set 	for 	February 	8, 	1985 	at 	9:30 	a.m.
You 	are 	invited 	to 	attend 	the 	Chapter 	Meeting 	on
February 	13, 	1985 	at 	4:30 p.m. 	for 	an update of
the 	Reclassification 	Negotiations. 	At 	that time
any questions you would 	like 	to 	ask, 	will be
answered 	as 	fully as possible.
Again, 	thank you 	for your 	interest 	as 	it 	relates
to 	chapter 	business.
Sincerely,
FOR CHAPTER 616, 	CSEA,
Carmella 	Wentworth
President
cc: 	Steve Balentine, 	Field Representative
Pat 	Prezioso, 	Field 	Director
Roy Hall, 	Chief Negotiator
Chapter 	File
On 	a 	number 	of 	occasions 	since 	fall 	1984 	you 	spoke personally
to Mrs. 	Wentworth and Mr. 	Balentine. 	They 	informed you
regarding 	the 	general progress of 	negotiations but: 	not
regarding 	the 	status 	of 	your 	particular 	classification 	in 	the
negotiations. 	Mrs. Wentworth once 	told you 	it 	could 	jeopardize
the progress 	of 	negotiations 	as 	a whole 	to disseminate
information 	to 	each 	individual 	regarding 	their 	particular
position.

April 22, 	1985
LA-CO-322
Page 	8
You did 	not 	attend 	the 	February 13, 	1985 	chapter 	meeting 	for
the 	same 	reasons 	you 	did 	not 	attend 	the January 	23 	meeting.
You 	did 	attend 	the 	contract 	ratification 	meeting 	held 	on
February 	26, 	1985, 	although you are 	not 	a member of 	CSEA and
could 	not 	vote 	on 	the 	ratification of 	the 	contract.
As 	a 	result 	of 	the 	negotiations, 	the new contract 	provides 	that
your 	salary 	range 	is 	increased 	from 29 to 	32, 	a 	three 	step
increase. 	Salary 	range 	29 provides 	compensation 	from 	$1294 	to
$1569. 	Salary 	range 	32 	provides 	compensation 	from 	$1389 	to
$1689. 	The 	High School 	and 	Intermediate 	School 	Counselor
Assistants 	were 	increased 	from range 	22 	to 	25, 	likewise 	a 	three
step 	increase.
Of 	the other 	14 classifications 	in 	issue, 	three 	remained 	at 	the
status quo, 	four were upgraded one 	step, 	three were 	upgraded
two steps, 	two 	were 	upgraded 	three 	steps, 	one 	was 	upgraded 	nine
steps, 	one was 	upgraded 	thirteen steps, 	and 	one 	was 	a 	new
classification. 	The 	two classifications 	upgraded 	nine 	and
thirteen steps, 	respectively, 	were data processing
classifications 	which 	the 	District 	needed 	to hire 	and 	retain
qualified 	personnel.
You have 	done 	a 	telephone 	survey of 	three 	surrounding 	school
districts 	to 	establish 	a 	comparison 	of 	your 	salary 	to 	those 	in
other districts. 	The 	job 	titles and 	job descriptions 	of 	the
comparison 	classifications 	are not 	exactly the 	sane, 	but 	you
state they 	are 	very 	close 	to your 	responsibilities. 	They are
as 	follows:
District 	Title 	Salary 	Range
Capistrano 	Unified 	School 	District 	Att./Acct.Tech 	1464-1786
Irvine 	Unified 	School 	District 	Comm.Serv/Acct.
Tech. 	1501-1871
Orange 	Unified 	School 	District 	Acct.Tech. 	1383-1685
There has 	been 	a history 	of 	animosity between you 	and 	Mrs.
Wentworth. 	You have 	been 	an 	outspoken member 	of 	the bargaining
unit 	since 	1982 	when 	you 	stepped down 	as 	CSEA 	President. 	You
claim Mrs. 	Wentworth has 	a 	personal 	vendetta 	against 	you 	and
has 	influenced 	the 	CSEA chief 	negotiator 	and 	other 	bargaining
team 	members 	to 	seek 	to 	avoid 	a 	salary 	range 	increase 	for 	you.
Based 	on 	the 	foregoing 	facts, 	the 	charge 	basically 	alleges
three 	unfair practices 	on 	the part 	of 	CSEA. 	First, 	CSEA 	failed
to 	fairly 	represent 	you 	in 	the 	reclassification 	negotiations

April 22, 	1985
LA-CO-322
Page 9
because 	it did not 	seek 	to upgrade your classification
sufficiently. 	Second, 	CSEA failed 	to properly 	inform you of
the 	status of negotiations. 	Third, 	CSEA discriminated 	against
you because 	it 	informed the high school counselor assistants of
the status 	of negotiations on January 8, 	1985 and denied you
the 	same information. 	These 	issues all 	involve the 	exclusive
representative's duty of 	fair 	representation of unit members.
Duty of 	Fair 	Representation
The duty of 	fair 	representation 	imposed on 	the 	exclusive
representative extends 	to contract negotiations. 	Redlands
Unified School District 	(Faeth) 	(9/24/78) 	PERB Decision No. 	72;
Los Angeles 	Community College District 	(Kimmett) 	(10/19/79)
PERB Decision No. 	106; 	Rocklin Unified School District 	(Romero)
(3/26/80) PERB Decision No. 	124.
In the Redlands, 	supra, 	case the Board looked to federal 	law to
determine the 	scope of 	the duty of 	fair representation 	in
negotiations. 	It noted that an exclusive representative has
wide discretion 	in 	negotiating a contract 	which may 	not 	please
every bargaining unit member 	so long as 	it does 	not 	engage 	in
arbitrary, 	discriminatory or bad faith conduct. 	Regarding 	such
discretion, 	the 	Board quoted 	from the United States 	Supreme
Court opinion in Ford Motor Company v. 	Huffman, 	(1953) 	345 U.S.
330, 	31 LRRM 2548, 	2551:
Any authority to 	negotiate derives 	its principal
strength from a 	delegation to the negotiators 	of 	a
discretion 	to make 	such concessions and accept 	such
advantages as, 	in the light of all relevant
considerations, 	they believe will best 	serve 	the
interests of the parties 	represented. 	A major
responsibility of negotiators 	is 	to weigh the 	relative
advantages 	and 	disadvantages of differing
proposals... .Inevitably differences arise 	in the
manner and degree 	to which the terms of any negotiated
agreement affect 	individual 	employees 	and classes 	of
employees. 	The mere existence of such differences
does not 	make 	them 	invalid. 	The 	complete 	satisfaction
of all 	who are 	represented 	is hardly to be 	expected.
A wide 	range of 	reasonableness must be allowed 	a
statutory bargaining 	representative 	in 	serving 	the
unit 	it 	represents, 	subject always to complete 	good
faith and honesty of 	purpose 	in the exercise 	of 	its
discretion.

April 22, 1985
LA-CO-322
Page 10
In the Rocklin case, 	supra, 	the Board also discussed the broad
discretion 	afforded 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	in
representing 	its unit members. 	This case 	involved 	a situation
where the exclusive representative 	failed to negotiate with, 	the
employer regarding 	employee benefits 	notwithstanding a
provision in a prior agreement providing 	for annual
negotiations as to such benefits. 	The Board stated that 	the
charging party's pleadings 	merely 	suggested 	that 	the union
could have 	negotiated as 	to benefits but did not do so. 	Since
the union's duty of 	fair 	representation does not 	encompass 	an
obligation 	to negotiate 	any particular 	item 	the 	charge 	was
dismissed. 	The Board held 	that 	to establish a 	prima 	facie 	case
alleging arbitrary conduct, 	the charge must:
at a minimum include an assertion of 	sufficient 	facts 	from
which it becomes apparent how or 	in what manner the
exclusive 	representative's 	action or 	inaction 	was 	without 	a
rational basis or devoid of honest 	judgment.
In Sacramento City Teachers Association 	(11/6/84) 	PERB Decision
No. 	428, 	the Board dismissed another case alleging 	a failure 	to
fairly represent 	employees during negotiations. 	The 	exclusive
representative's board 	of directors 	voted 	not 	to 	negotiate 	a
specific proposal 	that 	would have 	resulted 	in an 	increased
salary for 	certain teachers. 	The proposal was 	turned down
after the board of 	directors heard arguments 	for 	and 	against
the 	insertion of the proposal 	into the bargaining 	package. 	The
Board 	found no arbitrary, 	discriminatory or bad 	faith conduct
because 	the 	union had provided 	access 	for members 	to
communicate 	their 	views 	and 	considered the 	views presented.
The Board 	stated 	that 	the 	union had 	no obligation 	to take 	the
proposal to the table, 	so long as it had legitimate
non-discriminatory 	and 	non-arbitrary 	reasons 	for 	refusing 	to 	do
so.
Internal Activities of 	an Employee Organization
The duty of 	fair representation 	involves 	the union's
representation of 	unit 	members 	in their 	relationship with 	the
employer. 	It does 	not 	involve 	regulation of the relationship
between 	the exclusive 	representative and unit 	members.
The Board so held in the Kimmett, 	supra, 	case:
The EERA does not describe 	the 	internal workings or
structure of 	employee organizations nor does 	it define 	the

April 22, 	1985
LA-CO-322
Page 	11
internal 	rights 	of 	organization members. 	We 	cannot 	believe
that by 	the 	use 	of 	the phrase 	"participate 	in 	the
activities of employee organizations 	. 	. 	. 	for 	the purpose
of 	representation on all 	matters 	of 	employer-employee
relations" 	in section 	3543, 	the Legislature 	intended 	this
Board 	to 	create 	a 	regulatory 	set 	of 	standards 	governing 	the
solely 	internal 	relationship between 	a 	union 	and 	its
members. 	Rather, 	we believe 	that the Legislature 	intended
in 	the 	EERA to grant 	and 	protect 	employees' 	rights 	to be
represented 	in 	their 	employment 	relations 	by 	freely 	chosen
employee 	organizations.
Thus, 	unless 	the 	internal activities of an employee
organization have 	such 	a 	substantial 	impact 	on 	employees'
relationship 	with 	their 	employer 	as 	to give 	rise 	to 	a 	duty
of 	fair 	representation, 	we 	find 	that public 	school
employees 	do 	not 	have 	any protected 	rights 	under 	the 	EERA
in 	the 	organization of 	their 	exclusive 	representative.
Applying 	the 	above 	law 	to the 	facts 	in your 	case, 	it 	is 	my
preliminary 	determination 	that 	the 	charge 	as 	written does 	not
state 	a prima 	facie 	case 	of 	an unfair practice 	on 	the 	part 	of
CSEA. 	From 	the 	information you have provided, 	it 	appears 	that
CSEA acted 	lawfully 	within 	its 	broad 	discretion 	during 	recent
negotiations. 	You have 	not 	suffered 	any harm 	in your
relationship 	with 	the 	employer 	which 	would 	indicate 	a 	violation
of 	the 	duty of 	fair 	representation.
---·------------·--------Failure 	to 	Negotiate 	Classification 	Upgrade 	to 	Salary 	Range 	34
----·-
CSEA has 	broad 	discretion 	to bargain 	for 	the 	good 	of 	the
bargaining 	unit 	as 	a whole. 	In doing 	so 	it 	may 	reasonably
sacrifice 	the 	economic 	interests 	of 	individual 	members 	for 	the
benefit 	of 	the 	total 	salary package. 	It has 	no 	obligation 	to
pursue 	specific proposals 	urged by 	unit 	members, 	so 	long 	as 	it
has 	afforded 	access 	for 	the presentation of 	views 	and
considered 	such 	views.
According 	to 	the 	information you provided, 	CSEA did 	hear 	your
views 	on many 	occasions 	regarding 	your 	desires 	to 	upgrade 	your
classification. 	After 	consideration of 	these 	views 	CSEA had 	no
duty 	to 	seek 	the 	highest 	possible 	salary 	range 	increase 	for
your 	classification 	when 	it 	determined 	such 	a 	proposal 	would
not be 	in 	the 	interests 	of 	the bargaining 	unit 	as 	a 	whole. 	It
could 	permissibly 	seek 	to 	allocate 	available 	monies 	to 	the
upgrading 	of 	more 	and 	different 	classifications 	than 	desired 	by
the 	District.

April 22, 	1985
LA-CO-322
Page 	12
You have 	alleged 	various 	factors 	indicating 	discriminatory 	or
arbitrary conduct 	against 	you 	and 	your 	classification. 	In
particular, 	you cite 	the background 	information 	that 	in
previous 	negotiations 	a 	year 	ago 	CSEA had 	removed 	your
classification 	from consideration 	in negotiations. 	Second, 	you
note that 	in 	the 	recent 	negotiations, 	three of 	the 	five
negotiating 	team members 	were 	in 	classifications 	under
consideration. 	You 	assert 	they 	were 	therefore biased 	to
negotiate 	a 	range 	increase 	of 	their 	own 	Counselor 	Assistant
classification at 	the 	expense 	of your own. 	Third, 	you 	state 	a
member 	of 	the 	CSEA 	reclassification 	committee 	advised 	you 	that
the 	committee had 	not 	done 	a 	survey 	of 	comparable
classifications 	in 	nearby 	school 	districts 	to determine 	the
appropriate 	salary 	range of 	your 	classification. 	Finally, 	you
cite 	a history 	of 	animosity between yourself 	and 	Mrs.
Wentworth, 	CSEA President 	and 	negotiating 	team member 	which
caused her 	to pursue 	a 	personal 	vendetta 	against 	you 	and
influence 	the 	entire 	negotiating 	team 	to 	seek 	to deny you 	a
salary range increase. .
Assuming 	that 	these allegations 	are 	true, 	none alone 	requires 	a
finding 	that 	CSEA failed 	to 	fairly 	represent you. 	There 	is 	no
requirement 	under 	the 	EERA that 	a 	specific 	proposal 	regarding
your 	classification must 	remain on the 	table. 	There 	is 	no
requirement 	under 	the 	EERA 	that 	the 	bargaining 	team 	must 	not 	be
composed 	of 	unit 	members 	interested 	in 	the 	various proposals
negotiated. 	Nor 	is 	the 	fact 	of 	interest 	alone 	sufficient 	to
prove bias 	of 	the 	negotiating 	team members. 	There 	is 	no
requirement that 	a 	reclassification 	committee 	seek 	data 	on
comparable 	classifications 	in other 	districts. 	You 	have 	not
shown 	that 	any personal 	animosity Mrs. 	Wentworth 	may 	have
toward you 	caused 	a 	discriminatory 	result.
It 	could be 	argued 	that 	all 	of 	these 	factors 	together
constitute 	a 	course 	of 	conduct 	on 	the part 	of 	CSEA that 	was
discriminatory or 	arbitrary 	toward you, 	but 	for 	one 	persuasive
fact. 	In the 	end, 	the 	reclassification negotiations 	did 	result
in 	a 	salary 	range 	increase 	for you of 	three 	steps. 	This 	was
the 	identical 	step 	increase 	that 	was 	received 	by 	the 	counselor
assistants. 	Only 	two of 	the 	16 	classifications 	in 	issue 	were
upgraded 	more 	than your 	classification, 	due 	to the 	District's
position 	that 	they 	must 	be 	upgraded 	for 	recruitment 	and
retention purposes. 	Further, 	the 	salary 	range 	negotiated 	for
your 	classification 	is 	nearly 	identical 	to 	that 	of 	the
Accounting 	Technician 	at 	the 	Orange 	Unified 	School 	District 	and
thus 	not 	out 	of 	line 	with 	the 	prevailing 	salaries 	which 	you
cite.

April 22, 	1985
LA-CO-322
Page 	13
In 	short, 	the 	results 	of 	the 	negotiations do 	not 	reflect 	any
harm 	to your 	economic 	interests 	and 	in 	fact 	indicate 	that 	you
were 	fairly 	represented. 	Absent 	a 	showing 	of 	any 	harm 	to 	you
in your 	employment 	relationship with 	the 	District, 	the 	Board
will decline 	to 	involve 	itself 	in this 	case.
Information 	Regarding 	the 	Status 	of 	Negotiations
With 	regard 	to 	informing 	you 	regarding 	the 	progress 	of
negotiations, 	the 	charge 	and 	other 	facts presented 	do 	not 	state
a prima 	facie 	case. 	CSEA 	informed 	all 	members 	of 	the 	progress
of 	negotiations 	at 	chapter 	meetings 	open to 	all 	members 	of 	the
unit. 	Mrs. 	Wentworth and Mr. 	Balentine also 	informed you
regarding 	the 	general 	progress 	of 	negotiations 	when you 	made
oral 	and written 	inquiries. 	There 	is 	no 	requirement 	in 	the
EERA that 	a 	union 	must 	individually 	advise 	individual 	employees
of 	the 	status 	of 	each particular 	proposal 	affecting 	them.
Absent 	a 	showing 	of 	any harm 	to you 	in your 	employment
relationship 	with 	the 	District, 	this 	allegation must 	be
dismissed.
Discrimination 	by 	Meeting With 	the 	High 	School 	Counselor
Assistants
Finally, 	with 	regard 	to 	the 	allegation 	that 	CSEA provided 	the
high 	school 	counselor 	assistants 	with more 	information 	than
that 	provided 	to you, 	the 	charge 	as 	written also does 	not 	state
a prima 	facie 	case. 	The 	charge 	basically alleges 	only 	the 	fact
that Mrs. 	Wentworth 	met 	with 	the high 	school 	counselor
assistants 	at 	one 	meeting 	on 	January 	8, 	1985 	after 	an 	impasse
was declared 	in negotiations. 	You do 	not have 	any knowledge 	of
what 	occurred 	at 	the 	meeting 	and 	assume 	that 	it 	was held 	for
the purpose 	of 	informing 	the 	counselor 	assistants 	of 	the 	status
of 	negotiations. 	In contrast, 	you were 	advised by Ms.
Wentworth 	to 	attend 	the 	chapter 	meetings 	if 	you 	desired 	more
information 	than 	was 	given you 	in private 	conversations 	with
her and Mr. 	Balentine.
The 	allegations 	do 	not 	establish discriminatory conduct 	in
favor 	of 	the 	high 	school 	counselor 	assistants 	and 	and 	against
your 	interests. 	The 	exclusive 	representative 	may 	have 	many
reasons 	for 	meeting 	with 	various 	unit 	members, 	including 	the
gathering 	of 	facts 	necessary 	for 	negotiations. 	Given 	the 	broad
discretion 	afforded 	an 	exclusive 	representative 	in 	representing
its members 	in 	negotiations, 	there 	is 	no prohibition against
holding 	meetings 	with particular 	groups 	of 	employees. 	Again,
absent 	a 	showing 	of 	harm 	in your 	employment 	relationship 	with
the 	District, 	this 	allegation must 	be 	dismissed.

April 22, 1985
LA-CO-322
Page 14
Opportunity to Amend
For the reasons 	stated above, 	the charge as presently written
does not state a prima facie violation of the EERA. 	If you
feel 	that 	there are 	facts 	which would require a different
conclusion, 	please amend the charge accordingly. 	An amended
charge 	should be prepared on a 	standard PERB unfair 	practice
charge and 	clearly 	labeled First Amended Charge, 	contain all
the 	facts and allegations you wish to make, 	and be 	signed under
penalty of 	perjury by 	the 	charging party. 	The amended 	charge
must be served on the 	respondent and the original proof 	of
service must be 	filed with PERB. 	If 	I do not receive an
amended charge or withdrawal 	from you before April 	29, 	1985, 	I
shall dismiss the charge. 	If you have any questions 	regarding
how to proceed, 	please call me at 	(213) 	736-3127.
Sincerely yours,
Barbara T. 	Stuart
Regional Attorney
BTS:djm

Marge 	.Tornetta
25251 	Tasman 	Road
Laguna 	Hills 	, 	CA 	92653
A p r i l 	2 4 , 	1935
B a r b a r a 	T . 	S t u a r t , 	R e g i o n a l 	A t t o r n e y
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
Los 	A n g e l e s 	R e g i o n a l 	O f f i c e
3470 	W i l s h i r e 	B l v d . , 	S u i t e 	1001
Los 	A n g e l e s , 	CA 	90010
RE: 	LA-CO-322
Dear 	B a r b a r a :
I 	a m 	i n 	r e c e i p t 	o f 	your 	l e t t e r 	d a t e d 	A p r i l 	2 2 , 	1 9 8 5 , 	i n 	w h i c h y o u
s t a t e 	" t h e 	c h a r g e 	a s 	p r e s e n t l y 	w r i t t e n 	does 	n o t 	s t a t e 	a 	p r i m a
f a c i e 	v i o l a t i o n 	o f 	t h e 	EERA".
B y 	n o t i c e 	o f 	t h i s 	l e t t e r , 	I 	a m 	a s k i n g 	t h e 	EERA 	b o a r d 	t o 	r e v i e w
i t s 	d e c i s i o n , 	I 	want 	t o 	e x e r c i s e 	m y 	Appeal 	R i g h t s .
One 	s t a t e m e n t 	made 	b y 	y o u , 	" T h e r e 	has 	been 	a 	h i s t o r y 	o f 	a n i m o s i t y
b e t w e e n 	you 	and 	M r s . 	W e n t w o r t h " , 	I 	t a k e 	p e r s o n a l 	o f f e n s e 	t o . 	I
c a n 	c o u n t 	on 	my 	f i n g e r s 	t h e 	t i m e s 	M r s . 	W e n t w o r t h 	a n d 	I 	have
c o n v e r s e d . 	T h i s 	i s 	n o t 	a 	p e r s o n a l 	a r g u m e n t 	b e t w e e n 	u s . 	M y
p o s i t i o n 	has 	and 	w i l l 	c o n t i n u e 	t o 	b e 	t h a t 	t h e 	A s s o c i a t i o n 	has 	a
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y 	t o 	FAIRLY 	REPRESENT 	ITS 	BARGAINING 	U N I T , 	w h i c h 	i n
my 	case 	has 	n o t 	h a p p e n e d . 	I 	was 	a 	P a s t 	P r e s i d e n t 	who 	became
d i s e n c h a n t e d 	w i t h 	t h e 	A s s o c i a t i o n , 	a 	p o s i t i o n 	w h i c h 	h a s 	h u r t 	m e
t o 	t h e 	e x t e n t 	m y 	r e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n 	was 	pushed 	a s i d e , 	a l m o s t 	t o 	t h e
p o i n t 	o f 	e x t i n c t i o n .
You 	a l s o 	q u o t e d 	t h e 	" R e d l a n d s , supra 	c a s e , 	i n 	w h i c h 	i t 	s t a t e s , 	" I t
n o t e d 	t h a t 	a n 	e x c l u s i v e 	r e p r e s e n t a t i v e 	has 	wide 	d i s c r e t i o n 	i n
n e g o t i a t i n g 	a 	c o n t r a c t 	w h i c h 	may 	n o t 	p l e a s e 	every 	b a r g a i n i n g 	u n i t
member 	s o 	l o n g 	a s 	i t 	does 	n o t 	engage 	i n 	a r b i t r a r y , 	d i s c r i m i n a t o r y
o r 	bad 	f a i t h 	c o n d u c t . "
The 	A s s o c i a t i o n 	has 	ENGAGED 	IN 	ARBITRARY, 	DISCRIMINATORY 	OR 	BAD
FAITH 	CONDUCT. 	T h i s 	f a c t 	would 	b e 	p r o v e n 	i f 	t h e 	P u b l i c
Employment 	R e l a t i o n s 	Board 	were 	t o 	s u b p o e n a 	t h e 	D i s t r i c t ' s
r e c o r d s . 	M y 	r e c l a s s 	r e q u e s t 	would 	s t i l l 	b e 	i n 	n e v e r 	n e v e r 	l a n d
i f 	i t 	were 	n o t 	f o r 	the 	D i s t r i c t 	s u p p o r t i n g 	m e 	i n 	n e g o t i a t i o n s .
The 	i s s u e d 	h e r e , 	i s 	n o t 	w h e t h e r 	I 	o b t a i n e d 	a n 	i n c r e a s e , 	b u t 	w h a t
has 	t r a n s p i r e d 	i n 	n e g o t i a t i o n s . 	I 	f e e l 	t h a t 	t h e 	s t r e s s 	l e v e l 	i n
m y 	l i f e 	f o r 	t h e 	p a s t 	two 	y e a r s 	has 	been 	v e r y 	h i g h , 	b r o u g h t 	upon
b y 	the 	d i s c r i m i n a t o r y 	and 	bad 	f a i t h 	c o n d u c t 	e x e r c i s e d 	b y 	t h e
A s s o c i a t i o n .
Please 	c o n t a c t 	me 	as 	to 	what 	the 	p r o c e d u r e s 	a r e 	to 	p u r s u e 	my
Appeal 	R i g h t s .
S i n c e r e l y ,
Marge 	T o r n e t t a

PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL
C C P . 	1013a
I 	declare 	that 	I am employed in the County of Sacramento, 	California.
I am over the 	age of eighteen years and not a party to 	the within
entitled cause; 	my business address 	is 	1031 18th Street, 	Suite 200 .
Sacramento, California 95814.
On 	June 21. 	1985 	. 	I 	served the 	attached
PERB Decision No. 	509
Earlean B. 	Sanders v. 	Compton Education Association
Case No. 	LA-CO-305
on 	the 	parties 	listed below 	by placing 	a 	true 	copy 	thereof 	enclosed
in a 	sealed envelope with postage 	thereon fully prepaid, 	in the
United States Mail at 	Sacramento, 	CA 	addressed as 	follows:
Georgia Maryland, 	Director
Compton 	Education 	Association
333 	South 	Santa Fe
Compton, 	CA 	90220
Ms. 	Earlean Saunders
2305 	Killen 	Court
Compton, 	CA 	90221
Ronald A. 	Knell
510 West 	Sixth Street, 	Suite 	1221
Los Angeles, 	CA 	90014
I 	declare under penalty of perjury that 	the 	foregoing 	is 	true 	and correct
and that 	this 	declaration was 	executed on 	June 	21, 	1985
at 	Sacramento 	, 	California.
Teresa 	Stewart
(Type 	or print name) 	(Signature)
PERB 	119 	(3/83)