Fresno Unified School District (PERB 0779E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
CALIFORNIA 	SCHOOL 	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION, 	FRESNO CLERICAL
CHAPTER 	#125,
Charging 	Party,
v.
FRESNO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
) 	Case No. 	S-CE-1277
PERB Decision No. 	779
November 27, 	1989
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances: 	William Corman, 	Attorney, 	for California School
Employees Association, 	Fresno Clerical Chapter #125; 	Finkle,
Davenport & Barsamian by Raymond W. 	Dunne, 	Attorney, 	for Fresno
Unified 	School 	District.
Before Craib, 	Shank and Camilli, 	Members.
DECISION
CRAIB, 	Member: 	This 	case is before the Public 	Employment
Relations 	Board 	(PERB or Board) 	on appeal by the California
School 	Employees Association, 	Fresno Clerical Chapter #125
(CSEA), 	of a Board agent's dismissal 	(attached hereto) 	of its
charge 	that 	the 	Fresno 	Unified 	School 	District 	(District)
violated section 3543.5, 	subdivisions 	(a) 	and 	(b), 	of the
Educational 	Employment Relations Act 	(EERA).1 The District
JEERA 	is 	codified at Government Code 	section 	3540 	et 	seq.
Unless 	otherwise 	indicated, 	all 	statutory references 	herein are
to the Government Code. 	Section 3543.5, 	subdivisions 	(a) 	and 	(b)
state:
It 	shall be unlawful 	for a public 	school
employer to:
(a) 	Impose or threaten to 	impose reprisals
on employees, 	to discriminate or threaten to
discriminate against employees, 	or otherwise
________________ )

allegedly 	retaliated 	against 	Janet 	Kincade Wood 	by 	failing 	to
promote her 	to 	the position of 	Office Manager 	and by 	refusing her
request 	for out-of-class pay. 	Wood had held a 	series 	of 	offices
within CSEA and, 	at the time 	in question, 	was 	Second Vice-
President and 	in charge of CSEA's 	"Site Representative" 	program.
The 	Board agent dismissed 	the 	charge 	because 	she 	concluded 	that
it 	must 	be deferred 	to binding 	arbitration pursuant 	to
Lake Elsinore School District 	(1987) 	PERB Decision No. 	646.
We have reviewed the dismissal, 	CSEA's 	appeal 	and the
District's 	response thereto and, 	finding the dismissal 	free 	of
prejudicial 	error, 	adopt it as the decision of the Board itself.2
We write 	separately 	in order to address 	the 	content of CSEA's
appeal.
DISCUSSION
The parties' 	collective bargaining agreement, 	which covers
the period from July 	1, 	1987 to June 30, 	1990, 	contains the
following provision, 	at Article 	16 	(Organizational Rights),
section 8(B):
to interfere with, 	restrain, 	or coerce
employees 	because 	of 	their 	exercise 	of 	rights
guaranteed by this 	chapter.
(b) 	Deny to 	employee organizations 	rights
guaranteed to 	them by this 	chapter.
2
For the reasons 	stated 	in his 	dissent 	in Eureka City 	School
District 	(1988) 	PERB Decision No. 	702, 	at pp. 	9-14, 	Member Craib
would 	condition deferral 	on the willingness 	of 	the 	District 	to
waive procedural defenses. 	However, 	the majority of the panel,
consistent with the majority opinion in Eureka. 	places 	no 	such
condition on deferral 	of 	this 	case 	to binding arbitration.
N
2
2

. 	. 	. 	. 	It is acknowledged by the district
that 	unit 	representatives 	may participate 	in
any 	legal 	and 	appropriate 	CSEA activities
without threat of reprisals 	or
discrimination.
Though 	section 8(B) 	is 	entitled 	"Job Stewards," 	CSEA acknowledges
that the use of 	the words 	"unit representatives" 	refers 	to union
officials and site representatives, 	as well as to 	job 	stewards.
The 	contract 	contains 	a 	grievance procedure 	culminating 	in
binding arbitration 	(Article 	10). 	Article 	10 	lists those
articles 	of 	the 	contract 	that may be 	grieved by CSEA and 	this
list 	includes Article 	16.
Finding 	that 	the retaliation 	allegations 	were 	covered by 	the
contractual 	grievance machinery, 	the 	Board agent 	concluded that
the 	charge must be deferred to 	arbitration. 	The 	Board 	agent
rejected CSEA's 	argument 	that 	the 	charge 	should 	not 	be 	deferred
because 	the 	alleged 	conduct 	also 	violated the 	Promotion and
Classification articles of the contract 	(Articles 	18 	and 	19),
which CSEA has 	no right to grieve. 	She 	found that, 	although
Articles 	18 	and 	19 were arguably violated, 	CSEA failed to 	explain
how 	such 	contract 	breaches 	also 	constituted unfair practices
pursuant to Grant Joint Union High School District 	(1982) 	PERB
Decision No. 	196 	(Grant).
In its 	appeal, 	CSEA admits that the conduct at 	issue here
could have been the 	subject 	of 	a 	grievance 	alleging a violation
of Article 	16, 	subdivision 8(B). 	It also admits that 	"the gist
of 	this 	charge 	is 	that the District refused to promote Ms. 	Wood
or compensate her for out-of-class work because of Ms. 	Wood's
W	
3

activities 	on behalf of CSEA." 	However, 	CSEA insists 	that 	the
charge 	should not 	be 	deferred because 	the 	same 	conduct 	violated
Articles 	18 	and 	19, 	which are not included in the enumerated
articles 	that 	are 	subject to 	grievances 	filed by CSEA.
Had 	CSEA 	successfully 	stated 	a prima 	facie 	case 	of 	a
unilateral 	change 	involving Articles 	18 	and/or 19, its 	argument
against deferral would be worthy of 	consideration. 	However, 	CSEA
has provided no facts, 	in either its 	charge or its appeal, 	that
would 	illuminate 	its 	unilateral 	change theory. 	Though 	the
articles 	on promotion and 	reclassification 	could 	have 	been
breached 	by 	the 	District's 	alleged 	retaliation 	against 	Wood,
logically, 	such a breach would be of 	a one-time nature that would
not meet the requirement under Grant that a 	contract breach, 	to
be 	an unfair practice within PERB's 	jurisdiction,3 must
constitute 	a 	change 	in policy. 	A change 	in policy 	is 	defined as
having 	"a 	generalized effect 	or 	continuing 	impact upon 	the 	terms
and 	conditions 	of 	employment of 	bargaining unit members."
(Grant, 	at p. 	9.)
CSEA's 	appeal 	simply 	states 	that 	the 	charge 	should 	not 	be
deferred 	because 	the 	alleged 	conduct 	also breached Articles 	18
and 	19 of the parties' 	agreement. 	It does not address the Board
3EERA section 3541.5, 	subdivision 	(b) 	states:
The 	Board 	shall 	not 	have 	authority to 	enforce
agreements between the parties, 	and 	shall not
issue 	a 	complaint 	on any 	charge based 	on
alleged violation of 	such 	an agreement 	that
would not 	also 	constitute 	an unfair practice
under this 	chapter.
A4

agent's 	conclusion that 	such breaches would not 	constitute 	unfair
practices. 	Consequently, 	CSEA has provided no argument that
challenges 	this 	critical portion of 	the 	Board agent's 	analysis.4
Nor 	is 	there any 	information 	in CSEA's 	charge 	or the 	Board
agent's 	dismissal 	that 	supports 	the unilateral 	change theory.
Accordingly, 	there 	is 	no basis 	on which we 	could conclude that
the Board agent was 	in error.
ORDER
The unfair practice 	charge 	in Case No. 	S-CE-1277 	is 	hereby
DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE 	TO AMEND.
Members 	Shank and Camilli 	joined 	in this 	Decision.
4PERB 	Regulations 	are 	codified 	at California Administrative
Code, 	title 8, 	section 31001 	et seq. 	Regulation 32635, 	governing
review of dismissals, 	states, 	in pertinent part:
The appeal 	shall:
(1) 	State the specific 	issues of
procedure, 	fact, 	law or rationale to which
the appeal is taken;
(3) 	State the grounds 	for each issue
stated.
un	
5

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
Sacramento Regional Office
1031 18th Street, Room 102
Sacramento, CA 	95814-4174
(916) 322-3198
A u g u s t 	2 3 , 	1989
William 	Corman
California 	School 	Employees 	Association
Fresno 	Clerical 	Chapter 	#125
P.O. 	Box 	640
2045 Lundy Ave.
San Jose, 	California 	95106
Raymond W. 	Dunne
Finkle, 	Davenport & Barsamian
2344 Tulare Street, 	Suite 400
P.O. 	Box 	1752
Fresno, 	California 	93717-1752
Re: 	California School 	Employees Association, 	Fresno Clerical
Chapte
- - r v. 	Fresno 	Unified 	School District
Unfair Practice Charge 	No. 	S-CE-1277
DISMISSAL 	LETTER
Dear Mr. 	Corman:
The 	California 	School 	Employees 	Association 	(CSEA or Association)
filed 	a 	charge 	against 	the 	Fresno 	Unified 	School 	District
(District) 	in which 	it alleged 	that 	the District took two adverse
actions 	against 	unit member Janet 	Kincade Wood because 	of 	her
exercise of protected 	activities. 	These adverse actions were the
District's 	failure to promote Ms. 	Wood to the position of office
manager1, 	and its refusal 	to grant Ms. 	Wood's request for out-of-
class pay. 	By this 	conduct, 	the Association alleged that the
District violated 	sections 	3543.5(a) 	and 	(b) 	of the Educational
Employment Relations Act 	(EERA).
I 	indicated 	to 	you 	in my attached 	letter dated August 	8, 	1989,
that the above-referenced charge, 	as 	currently alleged, 	must be
dismissed 	and deferred to 	arbitration. 	You were 	advised 	that 	if
there were 	any 	factual 	inaccuracies 	or 	additional 	facts 	that
would 	correct 	the deficiencies 	explained 	in that 	letter, 	you
should 	amend 	the 	charge 	accordingly. 	You were 	further 	advised
that unless 	you amended the 	charge to 	state a prima 	facie 	case,
or withdrew it prior to August 	16, 	1989, 	the 	charge would be
dismissed.
1 The charge, 	in addition, 	refers to the District's
unlawfully motivated 	refusal 	to promote 	Ms. 	Wood to 	the position
of help-desk operator. 	However, 	inasmuch as Ms. 	Wood was
notified 	that 	she was 	not 	selected 	for 	this 	position on July 	19,
1988, 	and the charge was not 	filed until March 22, 	1989, 	this
allegation 	is 	clearly 	untimely. 	PERB 	further 	lacks 	jurisdiction
on the 	basis 	that 	this 	allegation 	also 	must 	be deferred 	to
arbitration.

August 23, 	1989
Unfair Practice Charge No. 	S-CE-1277
Page 2
On August 	11, 	1989, 	I 	received from you 	information supplementing
the merits of 	the above-referenced charge. 	In 	sum, 	this
information concerned Ms. 	Wood's 	qualifications 	for the positions
of help-desk operator, 	and office manager, 	as well 	as 	facts
helping to 	show a 	nexus 	between Ms. 	Wood's 	exercise of protected
activity 	and 	the 	District's 	refusal 	to 	grant 	her promotions 	to
positions 	for which 	she 	interviewed. 	The 	supplementary
information also 	included 	additional 	facts 	relevant 	to 	the
District's 	alleged discriminatory denial 	of 	out-of-class 	pay.
On August 	16, 	1989, 	you requested and 	I 	granted an extension of
the dismissal deadline to August 	23, 	1989. 	On this 	occasion we
also 	discussed 	the 	additional 	facts 	I 	received 	from you on August
11, 	1989. 	In addition, 	you indicated to me that you objected to
footnote 	1 	of the warning letter, 	to the extent that it indicates
that 	the 	charge 	failed 	to 	allege 	facts 	establishing how those
articles 	in the parties' 	contract governing Promotion and
Reclassification were 	violated, 	and 	under what 	theory 	this
constituted 	an 	unfair practice.
During our conversation on August 	16, 	1989, 	your elaboration on
the 	additional 	facts 	previously 	submitted 	to 	me 	helped 	establish
potential 	violations 	of 	the 	contractual 	articles 	dealing with
Promotion 	(Article 	18)2 and Reclassification 	(Article 	19).
However, 	the 	charge 	and your communication to me of 	additional
facts 	still 	do 	not 	show how 	such possible 	violations 	constituted
an unfair practice within the parameters 	of 	PERB's 	jurisdiction.
See 	EERA 	section 	3541.5(b) 	and Grant Joint 	Union High School
District 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	196. 	The essence of the timely
portion of 	the 	instant charge remains 	that Ms. 	Wood was denied
the promotional position of office manager, 	and out-of-class pay,
because of 	her 	exercise of protected 	activity. 	Inasmuch as 	such
conduct 	is prohibited by Article 	16 	of the contract, 	and the
grievance 	machinery, 	culminating 	in binding 	arbitration 	covers
the matter at 	issue, 	PERB 	lacks 	jurisdiction to 	entertain the
allegations of this 	charge. 	For these reasons, 	the allegations
of 	this 	charge 	are dismissed.
2 The warning 	letter erroneously refers 	to Article 	16 	as
covering 	Promotion. 	Promotion 	is 	actually 	contained 	at Article
18.

August 23, 	1989
Unfair Practice 	Charge 	No. 	S-CE-1277
Page 3
Right 	to Appeal
Pursuant to Public 	Employment Relations 	Board regulations, 	you
may 	obtain a 	review of 	this 	dismissal 	of 	the 	charge by 	filing an
appeal 	to 	the 	Board 	itself within twenty 	(20) 	calendar days 	after
service of 	this 	dismissal 	(California Administrative Code, 	title
8, 	section 32635(a)). 	To be timely filed, 	the original and five
copies 	of 	such 	appeal 	must be 	actually received by the 	Board
itself before 	the 	close of business 	(5:00 p.m.) 	or 	sent by
telegraph, 	certified 	or Express 	United States 	mail postmarked 	no
later than the 	last 	date 	set 	for 	filing 	(California
Administrative Code, 	title 8, 	section 32135). 	Code of Civil
Procedure 	section 	1013 	shall 	apply. 	The Board's 	address 	is:
Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board
1031 	18th Street
Sacramento, 	CA 95814
If you 	file a 	timely appeal 	of 	the refusal 	to 	issue a 	complaint,
any 	other party 	may 	file with 	the 	Board an original 	and 	five
copies 	of 	a 	statement 	in opposition within twenty 	calendar days
following 	the date of 	service of 	the appeal 	(California
Administrative Code, 	title 8, 	section 32635(b)).
Service
All 	documents 	authorized 	to be 	filed herein must 	also be 	"served"
upon all parties 	to 	the proceeding, 	and a 	"proof of 	service" 	must
accompany 	each 	copy 	of 	a 	document 	served upon a party or 	filed
with 	the 	Board 	itself. 	(See California Administrative Code,
title 	8, 	section 	32140 	for the required contents 	and a 	sample
form.) 	The document 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 	calendar days 	before 	the 	expiration of
the 	time 	required 	for 	filing 	the document. 	The 	request 	must
indicate good cause 	for and, 	if known, 	the position of 	each other
party regarding 	the 	extension, 	and 	shall 	be 	accompanied by proof
of 	service 	of 	the 	request 	upon 	each party 	(California
Administrative Code, 	title 8, 	section 32132).

August 23, 	1989
Unfair 	Practice Charge No. 	S-CE-1277
Page 4
Final 	Date
If no appeal 	is 	filed within the 	specified time 	limits, 	the
dismissal will 	become 	final when the 	time 	limits 	have 	expired.
Sincerely,
CHRISTINE A. 	BOLOGNA
Genera1 	Counsel
By
Jennifer A. Chambers
Regional 	Attorney
Attachment
I

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
Sacramento Regional Office
1031 18th Street, Room 102
Sacramento, CA 	95814-4174
(916) 322-3198
August 8, 	1989
William 	Corman
California 	School 	Employees 	Association
Fresno 	Clerical Chapter 	#125
P.O. 	Box 	640
2045 	Lundy Ave.
San Jose, 	CA 95106
Re: 	California School Employees Association. 	Fresno Clerical
Chapter #125 	v. 	Fresno Unified School 	District
Unfair Practice Charge No. 	S-CE-1277
WARNING 	LETTER
Dear Mr. 	Corman:
The 	California 	School 	Employees Association 	(CSEA or Association)
has 	filed a 	charge 	against 	the 	Fresno 	Unified 	School 	District
(District) 	in which it alleges 	that the District took two adverse
actions 	against unit 	member Janet Kincade Wood because 	of 	her
exercise of protected activities. 	These 	adverse 	actions were 	the
District's 	failure to promote Ms. 	Wood to the position of Office
Manager, 	and its refusal to grant Ms. 	Wood's request for out-of-
class pay. 	By this 	conduct, 	the Association alleges 	that the
District violated sections 	3543.5(a) 	and 	(b) 	of the Educational
Employment Relations Act 	(EERA).
The 	charge and my investigation revealed the following 	facts. 	Ms.
Wood has been employed by the District 	since 	1978, 	in the
position of 	Clerk-Typist. 	She 	has 	held 	numerous 	offices 	in 	the
Association throughout the 	years 	of 	her 	employment with 	the
District. 	For example, 	she was 	the Association's Chapter
President 	in 	1982-83, 	and 	in 	1984-85 	held the office 	of Junior
Past Chapter President. 	In 	1987-88 	and 	1988-89 	Ms. 	Wood held 	the
office of 	Second Vice-President, 	and was 	in charge of 	the
Association's 	"Site Representative" 	program. 	During the 	time
Ms. 	Wood 	served 	in the 	latter capacity, 	her name was 	posted on
bulletin boards 	in 	numerous 	District 	facilities 	identifying 	her
in this position.

Since approximately 	1984, 	Ms. 	Wood has 	sought, 	but has not been
selected 	for, 	approximately eighteen promotional positions. 	In
September 1988, Ms. 	Wood 	interviewed 	for 	the promotional position
of 	Office 	Manager. 	She was 	notified on September 	23, 	1988, 	that
she 	was 	not 	selected 	for this 	position because 	she 	did 	not 	speak
Spanish. 	However, 	fluency 	in Spanish had never been 	stated by
the District as 	a qualification 	for the 	job.
Charging Party also alleges that 	for a 	long while, 	Ms. 	Wood has
been 	entitled 	to 	compensation 	for performing 	out-of-class 	work.
On or about November 	17, 	1988, 	a representative of the
Association, 	Lloyd Ramirez, 	met with Patricia Hogan-Newsome, 	a
District administrator in charge of Classified 	Personnel, 	to
discuss Ms. 	Wood's performance of out-of-class duties. 	On
December 	13, 	1988, 	the parties met again to discuss the issue.
At this 	time, 	the District's Assistant 	Superintendent 	in charge
of personnel, 	Jack Stewart, 	was 	in attendance, 	and said that he
would 	favorably consider Ms. 	Wood's 	request 	for 	out-of-class 	pay.
At a 	subsequent meeting on the 	same 	issue on January 	25, 	1989,
however, 	Ms. 	Wood's request for out-of-class pay was 	refused. 	In
refusing to compensate Ms. 	Wood, 	the District asserted that 	she
had never been requested to work out 	of 	classification, 	and had
even been 	requested 	to refrain 	from performing 	such work. 	The
Association disputes 	the District's 	contentions, 	and asserts 	that
its 	refusal 	to pay Ms. 	Wood 	constituted 	an unlawfully motivated
adverse action.
The parties' 	collective bargaining agreement 	covering the period
July 	1, 	1987 through June 30, 	1990, 	provides at Article 	16(8)(B)
[Organizational Rights] 	in pertinent part:
CSEA activities 	of 	Job 	Stewards 	shall 	be 	conducted
before and after working hours, 	or during 	lunch
and 	rest periods 	It 	is 	acknowledged 	by
the 	district that 	unit 	representatives 	may
participate 	in any 	legal 	and 	appropriate 	CSEA
activities without threat 	of 	reprisals 	or
discrimination.
(Emphasis 	added.)
The Association acknowledges that the parties' 	use of the words,
"unit representatives," 	refers 	not only to 	job 	stewards, 	but also
to 	union officials 	and 	site 	representatives.
The parties' 	agreement contains 	a grievance-arbitration procedure
which 	culminates 	in binding arbitration. 	A grievance 	is 	defined
at Article 	10(1)(A) 	as:
[A] 	formal written allegation by a grievant
that he/she 	has 	been adversely 	affected 	by a
violation of 	the 	specific 	provisions 	of 	[the]
Agreement.
22

Further, 	CSEA had a right to grieve 	certain articles, 	including
Article 	16 	governing Organizational 	Rights.
Discussion
Section 3541.5(a)(2) 	of EERA states, 	in pertinent part, 	that
PERB, shall not. 	. 	. 	issue a complaint against
conduct 	also prohibited 	by 	the provisions 	of
the. 	. 	. 	[collective bargaining agreement in
effect] 	between the parties until the
grievance machinery of the agreement, 	if 	it
exists 	and covers 	the matter at issue, 	has
been 	exhausted 	either by 	settlement 	or
binding 	arbitration.
In Lake Elsinore School District. 	(1987) 	PERB Decision No. 	646,
PERB held 	that 	this 	section established 	a 	jurisdictional 	rule
requiring that a 	charge be dismissed and deferred 	if: 	(1) 	the
grievance 	machinery 	of 	the 	agreement 	covers 	the 	matter at 	issue
and culminates 	in binding arbitration; 	and, 	(2) 	the conduct
complained of 	in the unfair practice 	charge 	is prohibited by 	the
provisions 	of 	the agreement between the parties. 	PERB Rule
32620(b)(5) 	(California Administrative Code title 	8,
section 	32620(b)(5)) 	also 	requires 	the 	investigating board agent
to dismiss 	a 	charge where 	the allegations 	are properly deferred
to binding arbitration.
These 	standards are met with respect to this 	case. 	First, 	the
grievance 	machinery of 	the 	agreement 	covers 	the dispute 	raised by
the 	unfair practice 	charge 	and 	culminates 	in binding
arbitration.1 Second, 	the 	conduct complained of 	in this 	charge
is 	that 	the 	District 	unlawfully 	discriminated and 	took reprisals
against Ms. 	Wood by failing to promote her, 	and by refusing to
grant her request 	for out-of-class 	compensation, 	because of her
activities 	on behalf of the Association. 	This 	conduct 	is
prohibited by Article 	16(8)(B) 	of the 	contract.
It 	should 	finally be mentioned that the Charging Party, 	in
addition to asserting 	that 	EERA 	section 	3543.5(a) 	was 	violated,
also alleged a violation of 	section 3543.5(b). 	The 	latter
1 The Association's 	representative has 	asserted, 	in
conversations with the 	regional 	attorney, 	that the 	true
underlying basis 	of 	the 	instant 	unfair 	is 	that the 	District
violated Article 	16 	[Promotion] 	and Article 	19
[Reclassification]; 	articles which the Association has 	no ability
to grieve. 	However, 	the charge 	fails 	to allege 	facts
establishing how 	these articles were 	viola±ed. 	Moreover, 	the
charge does 	not 	indicate 	how 	such 	violation	-·	s 	assuming 	that 	they
can be 	found 	to 	exist, 	constitute unfair practices 	under EERA.
33

allegation must 	be deferred also. 	An 	examination of 	the 	charge
does 	not 	reveal 	facts 	establishing how there occurred a 	denial 	of
employee organization rights. 	Further, 	this 	charge must be
-deferred 	even 	assuming 	that 	Charging 	Party 	could 	supply 	facts
establishing that 	it has 	been denied rights 	as 	a 	consequence of
the District's 	conduct toward Ms. 	Wood. 	Deferral 	is 	appropriate
because any harm to CSEA would 	flow from 	the 	same 	set 	of
operative 	facts 	establishing 	the 	District's 	alleged 	misconduct
toward Ms. 	Wood, 	namely, 	its failure to promote her, 	and to pay
her 	for out-of-class work, 	because of her exercise of protected
activity.
Accordingly, 	this 	charge must be deferred to arbitration and will
be dismissed. 	Such dismissal 	is without prejudice to the
Charging Party's right, 	after arbitration, 	to 	seek a repugnancy
review by 	PERB 	of 	the 	arbitrator's 	decision under the 	Dry Creek
criteria. 	See 	PERB 	Regulation 	32661 	(California Administrative
Code, 	title 8, 	section 32661); 	Los Angeles Unified School
District 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	218; 	Dry Creek Joint Elementary
School District. 	(1980) 	PERB Order No. 	Ad-81a.
If 	you 	feel 	that 	there are 	any 	factual 	inaccuracies 	in this
letter or 	any 	additional 	facts 	which would 	require 	a different
conclusion than the 	one 	explained above, 	please 	amend the 	charge
accordingly. 	This 	amended 	charge 	should be prepared on a
standard 	PERB 	unfair practice 	charge 	form 	clearly 	labeled 	First
Amended Charge, 	contain all 	the 	facts 	and allegations you wish to
make, 	and be 	signed under penalty of perjury by 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
August 	16, 	1989, 	I 	shall dismiss your charge without leave to
amend. 	If you have any questions on how to proceed, 	please call
me at 	(916) 	322-3198.
Sincerely,
Jennifet
JAC:djt
A
_ftilcerely,
1Jennifef,t Jennifer A. Chambers
Regional 	Attorney
4