Los Angeles Unified School District (PERB 0803E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
LOS ANGELES 	UNIFIED 	SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Charging 	Party,
v.
UNITED 	TEACHERS-LOS ANGELES,
Respondent.
Case No. 	LA-CO-462
PERB Decision No. 	803
March 30, 	1990
Appearances: 	O'Melveny & Myers by Katherine Koyanagi, 	Attorney,
for Los Angeles Unified School District; 	Taylor, 	Roth, 	Bush &
Geffner by Hope J. 	Singer, 	Attorney, 	for United Teachers-
Los Angeles.
Before Hesse, 	Chairperson; 	Craib and Shank, 	Members.
DECISION
HESSE, 	Chairperson: 	This 	case 	is before the Public
Employment Relations 	Board 	(PERB 	or Board) 	on exceptions 	filed by
United 	Teachers-Los Angeles 	(UTLA or Association) 	and 	the
Los Angeles 	Unified School District 	(District) 	to a 	PERB
administrative 	law 	judge's 	(ALJ) 	proposed decision 	(attached
hereto). 	The ALJ 	found that a boycott of 	certain job duties
authorized 	and 	encouraged 	by 	UTLA during 	negotiations 	and 	impasse
proceedings 	violated 	the 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Act
(EERA) 	section 3543.6(c) and (d).l
EERA 	is 	codified at Government Code 	section 	3540 	et 	seq.
Unless 	otherwise 	indicated, 	all 	statutory references 	herein are
to the Government Code. 	Section 3543.6 provides, 	in pertinent
part:
It 	shall be unlawful 	for an employee
organization to:
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_________ )

The Association made 	11 	factual and 	legal 	exceptions 	to 	the
ALJ's proposed decision, 	generally asserting, 	as 	it did during
the 	administrative 	hearing, 	that 	the boycotted duties were 	not
customarily required, 	and that 	UTLA was 	not 	aware 	that 	the
boycotted duties were 	required of 	bargaining unit 	employees. 	The
Association also 	excepted to 	the ALJ's 	refusal 	to 	analogize 	its
actions 	as 	a 	unilateral-change-in-policy 	violation.
The District filed exceptions on two grounds. 	First, 	it
argued 	that 	the ALJ 	incorrectly 	concluded 	that 	the 	record 	does
not 	support 	a 	finding 	that 	UTLA boycotted 	state-required
standardized 	testing with the 	motive 	to 	influence 	the 	District's
bargaining position. 	Second, 	the District maintained that 	UTLA
should have 	been ordered 	to publish 	a 	cease-and-desist 	order 	in
its 	newsletter sent to all members, 	as 	that was 	the means
utilized by UTLA to 	communicate 	its 	boycotting 	strategy 	to
members 	in the 	first 	instance.
We 	have 	carefully reviewed the 	entire record, 	including the
proposed decision, 	transcript, 	exceptions and responses, 	and
finding 	the ALJ's 	findings 	of 	fact 	and conclusions 	of 	law to be
(c) 	Refuse or 	fail 	to meet and negotiate 	in
good 	faith with a public 	school 	employer 	of
any of the employees 	of which it 	is 	the
exclusive 	representative.
(d) 	Refuse to participate 	in good faith 	in
the 	impasse procedure 	set 	forth 	in Article 	9
(commencing with Section 3548).
N	
2

free of prejudicial 	error, 	we 	adopt the ALJ's proposed decision
as 	the decision of 	the 	Board 	itself 	consistent with 	the
discussion 	below.2
DISCUSSION
There 	is 	no 	dispute 	that 	UTLA authorized 	and 	encouraged 	its
members 	to 	cease performing nine 	enumerated activities, 	as 	set
forth in the proposed decision. 	The primary issue, 	therefore, 	is
whether 	those 	activities 	were 	required duties 	of 	the 	certificated
employees 	in the bargaining unit or were 	simply the 	type 	of
activities 	that 	the 	employees 	voluntarily undertook.
The 	Board has 	held that 	the partial withholding of 	services
or a partial 	strike by employees 	is 	unprotected activity. 	In
Palos Verdes 	Peninsula 	Unified School 	District 	(1982) 	PERB
Decision No. 	195, 	page 	10, 	the Board found that 	"[e]mployees may
not pick and 	choose 	the work they wish 	to 	do 	even though 	their
action is 	in 	support of 	legitimate 	negotiating 	interests." 	In
that case, 	during the course of negotiations, 	teachers 	failed to
give required examinations 	as 	a 	"slow down" 	tactic. 	The Board
distinguished between those 	employee 	activities 	that 	are
mandatory, 	discretionary and voluntary. 	Work 	is 	voluntary when
employees 	are free to engage or not 	engage 	in activities, 	without
any 	limitation on their choice. 	While the withholding of
"voluntary" 	activities 	is 	not by itself unprotected, 	the 	same
2Chairperson Hesse disagrees with the ALJ's 	dismissal 	of 	the
boycott 	of 	standardized 	tests 	based 	on his 	finding 	that 	the
evidence was 	inconclusive 	regarding 	UTLA's 	motive 	on that
specific 	subject. 	(See fn. 	4 at p. 	12 of the proposed decision.)
33

cannot 	be 	said 	for those 	activities 	that 	are 	mandatory or
•discretionary. 	In Modesto City Schools 	(1983) 	PERB Decision No.
291, 	at page 	14, 	the Board appropriately 	summarized the Palos
Verde decision, 	stating:
. 	. 	. 	the refusal to perform normally
required duties 	is 	unprotected 	conduct
"tantamount to 	a partial work 	stoppage 	or
slowdown." 	This 	is 	so even where the
assigned duty is discretionary, 	if the
refusal 	is 	"for reasons 	other than their
professional 	judgment, 	namely, 	as a pressure
tactic 	during the 	course of 	negotiations."
In the 	case before the 	Board, 	the ALJ correctly determined that
all 	of 	the boycotted 	activities 	had been customarily 	required.
Both parties 	agree that 	the boycott activities 	began 	in
September 	1988, 	approximating the 	same time the District had
submitted 	its 	first 	salary proposal 	for 	a 	successor 	collective
bargaining agreement. 	The various 	activities were boycotted
through negotiations, 	including a period of 	time that the parties
were 	involved 	in 	impasse proceedings 	and prior 	to 	completion
thereof. 	The Board held in Modesto City Schools, 	supra. 	at pages
62-63:
. 	. 	. 	a strike prior to the completion of
impasse 	"create[s] 	something similar to a
rebuttable presumption" 	of 	an unlawful
refusal 	to 	negotiate 	and/or participate 	in
impasse. 	The presumption of 	illegality 	is
rebuttable, 	however, 	by proof that the strike
was 	provoked by 	employer 	conduct 	and that,
further, 	the employee organization in fact
negotiated 	and participated 	in 	impasse 	in
good faith. 	Absent 	such evidence, 	the
presumption stands 	and a 	violation is
established.
4

In El 	Dorado 	Union High School 	District 	(1985) 	PERB Decision
No. 	537, 	the Board concluded that a partial work stoppage or slow
down is not only unprotected, 	but also unlawful. 	There, 	the
Board 	found 	that 	the 	association's 	instigation 	and 	encouragement
of 	employees 	to picket during work hours was 	unlawful. 	A boycott
of 	required 	extracurricular duties 	before 	impasse was 	to 	be
declared a violation of 	section 3546.6(c); 	and 	such activity,
subsequent to the declaration of 	impasse, 	was 	a violation of
section 3543.6(d).3
During 	the hearing, 	UTLA did 	not 	contend 	that 	the 	District
failed to negotiate 	in good 	faith and that 	its 	initiation of 	the
boycott activities was 	in response to the 	District's 	actions.
Therefore, 	we find that UTLA, 	in authorizing, 	encouraging and
advocating employees 	in the unit to boycott required duties, 	has
engaged 	in unlawful 	conduct violative of 	EERA.4
ORDER
Based on the 	entire record 	in this 	case, 	the Public
Employment 	Relations 	Board ORDERS 	that 	the 	United 	Teachers-
Los Angeles 	and its 	representatives 	shall:
3See also 	El 	Dorado Union High School 	District 	(1986) 	PERB
Decision Nos. 	537a and 537b.
4The ALJ 	correctly 	refused 	to 	analogize 	UTLA's 	activities 	to
a 	unilateral 	change 	in policy charge. 	Since Modesto City
Schools. 	supra. 	and El Dorado Union High School District, 	supra,
- -clearly 	established that 	such activity 	is 	unlawful, 	we 	need not
discuss 	the Association's 	novel 	theory.
55

A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
1. 	Failing to meet and negotiate 	in good 	faith with
the Los Angeles Unified School District 	(District) 	by-
authorizing, 	encouraging or advocating 	an employee boycott 	of 	any
of 	the 	following 	job duties 	of unit 	employees, 	and thereby
engaging 	in the 	illegal 	pressure 	tactic 	of 	a partial 	strike:
a. 	Completing progress reports 	(five-week, 	ten-
week and 	fifteen-week grades) 	and 	final 	semester grades 	on the
District's 	forms 	and 	submitting 	them to 	administrators;
b. 	Attending before-school 	and 	after-school
faculty meetings 	of 	any 	kind 	and 	those 	during 	conference 	or
preparation periods, 	and period-by-period 	faculty meetings 	at
secondary 	schools;
c. 	Attending after-school activities, 	including
back-to-school 	events 	and parent 	conferences;
d. 	Supervising 	students 	before 	and after the
school day, 	during recess, 	nutrition and lunch periods, 	and
during preparation periods 	at 	the 	secondary 	schools;
e. 	Submitting any 	completed registers 	or
attendance 	reports 	with 	totals 	filled 	in;
f. 	Providing 	class 	coverage 	for other 	employees
unavailable due to emergencies, 	class preparation, 	special
assignments, 	or collective bargaining negotiations 	unless paid at
an hourly 	rate;
g. 	Submitting lesson plans, 	course outlines 	and
rollbooks 	or allowing administrators 	to 	inspect 	them; 	and
6	6

h. 	Participating 	in the 	elementary progress
quality 	review process.
2. 	By 	that 	same conduct, during the 	course 	of 	impasse
procedures, 	failing to participate 	in impasse procedures 	in good
faith.
B. 	TAKE 	THE 	FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS 	DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE 	THE 	POLICIES 	OF 	THE 	EDUCATIONAL 	EMPLOYMENT
RELATIONS ACT:
1. 	Within thirty-five 	(35) 	days 	following the date
the 	Decision is 	no 	longer 	subject 	to reconsideration, 	post at 	all
work 	locations 	where 	notices 	to 	employees 	customarily 	are 	placed,
copies 	of 	the Notice 	attached as 	an Appendix hereto, 	signed by an
authorized agent of 	United Teachers-Los Angeles. 	Such posting
shall 	be 	maintained 	for a period of 	thirty 	(30) 	consecutive
workdays. 	Reasonable 	steps 	shall 	be taken to 	insure that this
Notice 	is 	not reduced in 	size, 	defaced, 	altered or covered by any
material.
2. 	Written notification of 	the actions 	taken to
comply with 	this 	Order 	shall 	be made 	to 	the 	Los Angeles 	Regional
Director 	of 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	in accordance
with 	her 	instructions.
It 	is 	further ORDERED that all other allegations 	in the
charge 	and 	complaint 	are 	hereby 	DISMISSED.
Member 	Shank 	joined 	in this 	Decision.
Member Craib's 	concurrence begins 	on page 	8.
7
7

Craib, 	Member, 	concurring: 	I 	agree with my colleagues that
the 	Public 	Employment Relations 	(PERB or Board) 	should affirm the
administrative 	law judge 	(ALJ). 	I write 	separately to address
several 	of 	the 	exceptions 	raised by the parties which 	are 	not
adequately dealt with 	in either 	the majority's 	decision or ALJ's
proposed 	decision.
The Los Angeles 	Unified School 	District 	(District) 	excepts
to 	the ALJ's 	finding 	that 	the 	evidence presented was 	inconclusive
as 	to 	the motivation of 	the United 	Teachers-Los Angeles 	(Union or
UTLA) 	in urging the boycott of 	the 	administration of 	the
standardized tests.1 The appropriate 	focus 	of 	our 	inquiry 	is
whether 	the 	evidence presented by 	the 	District 	supported 	its
allegation that the teachers' 	motive 	in boycotting the
administration of 	standardized tests 	was 	the 	same as 	its 	motive
for the general boycott, 	that 	is, 	to 	further the Union's position
at the bargaining table. 	As 	the charging party, 	the District had
the burden of proving 	its 	allegation by a preponderance 	of 	the
evidence. 	(PERB Regulation 32178.)
The 	District 	contends 	that 	the boycott of 	the 	administration
of 	the 	standardized tests was 	part 	of 	the Union's 	overall 	boycott
aimed at 	influencing the bargaining process. 	To 	support this
argument, 	the 	District relied on UTLA's 	publications which 	listed
the 	administration of 	standardized 	tests, 	along with 	other
boycotted activities. 	To rebut the District's 	argument, 	the
1See footnote 	4 	at page 	12 	of 	the proposed decision.
Chairperson Hesse 	disagrees 	with 	the 	majority 	of 	the panel 	on
this 	issue. 	(See Majority opinion at fn. 	2.)
8

Union presented 	Sam Kresner's 	testimony 	that 	the 	boycott 	of 	the
standardized test 	administration 	"was 	completely 	separate" 	from
the 	other boycott 	activities. 	This 	testimony was 	not 	rebutted by
the 	District. 	Kresner 	also 	testified that 	the boycott 	of
administration of 	standardized 	tests was 	lifted as 	soon as 	the
parties 	reached 	agreement 	on the 	appropriate 	test 	administration
procedures. 	The 	agreement 	on 	standardized test administration
and the 	lifting of 	the 	boycott 	occurred prior to 	the 	end 	of 	the
general 	boycott. 	This 	is 	additional 	evidence that 	the boycott
was 	not 	aimed primarily at the bargaining process. 	Furthermore,
District 	Deputy 	Superintendent 	Thompson 	testified 	that 	the
agreement 	reached by 	the parties 	on test 	administration arose 	out
of 	disputes 	over alleged 	improper handling of 	the 	tests 	by
teachers.
I 	agree with 	the ALJ 	that 	the 	evidence was 	inconclusive.
Since 	the 	District had the burden to prove by a preponderance 	of
the 	evidence 	that 	the boycott 	of 	the 	standardized 	test
administration was 	instigated 	for the purpose 	of 	influencing
negotiations 	and 	since 	it 	failed to present 	sufficient 	evidence
to rebut the Union's 	evidence of 	its motivation, 	its 	allegation
on this 	issue must be dismissed.
The 	Union excepts 	to 	the ALJ's 	overall 	conclusion that 	the
duties which 	it boycotted were 	either 	required by 	the 	contract 	or
customary practices 	within the 	District. 	The 	Union argues 	that
none 	of 	the 	boycotted activities 	were within the 	contract's
provisions, 	and, 	thus, 	their boycott was unlawful only if those
9

activities 	were 	required 	on a 	consistent 	District-wide 	basis.
The 	majority takes 	the 	position that 	the boycotted 	activities
were 	"customarily 	required" 	by the 	District. 	(Majority opinion
at p. 	4.)
UTLA argues 	that 	if 	the 	boycotted activity 	is 	not 	expressly
enumerated 	in the 	contract as 	a required duty, 	then the Board
should 	require 	that 	there 	be 	a 	District-wide policy 	before
determining that 	the 	unit members' 	boycotted activities were
mandatory.2 In 	so arguing, 	UTLA relies 	on Modesto City Schools
and High School District 	(1984) 	PERB Decision No. 	414. 	In
Modesto. 	the union 	sought to prove that the district had made a
unilateral 	change 	in the 	length of duty-free 	lunch periods. 	(Id.
at pp. 	1-2.) 	Specific 	lunch period times 	and duties were 	not
enumerated in the 	contract. 	The Board, 	relying on Grant 	Joint
Union High School District 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	196 	and
Pajaro Valley Unified School 	District 	(1978) 	PERB Decision No.
51, 	analyzed the case as a change in past practice. 	(Modesto,
.... .	MR . . .. .
10
2 The majority, 	in discussing Palos Verdes 	Peninsula 	Unified
School District 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	195, 	indicates that
activities 	can be mandatory, 	discretionary, 	or voluntary. 	The
discussion of 	"discretionary" 	duties 	is 	somewhat misleading under
the 	facts 	currently before 	the 	Board. 	(Majority opinion at pp.
3-4.) 	Palos Verdes 	involved 	the refusal 	of 	teachers 	to 	give
final 	examinations. 	Even though teachers were 	not 	expressly
required to give 	final examinations, 	i.e., 	they had the
discretion to give 	them or not, 	the 	Board held that 	the 	teachers
could 	only 	choose 	not to 	give 	examinations 	for 	legitimate
educational 	reasons. 	(Palos Verdes 	Peninsula 	Unified School
District, 	supra. 	PERB Decision No. 	195, 	at pp. 	9-10.) 	Nothing in
the 	record 	currently before 	the 	Board 	indicates 	that 	the
boycotted activities required 	the 	type 	of 	professional 	discretion
discussed in Palos Verdes. 	It is, 	therefore, 	more appropriate to
focus 	on whether the 	boycotted activities 	were 	mandatory 	or
voluntary.

--	supra	--, 	PERB Decision No. 	414, 	at p. 	13.) 	It found that, 	because
the 	lunch period varied 	from 	school 	to 	school 	within the
district, 	the union had 	failed to 	show that 	the district departed
from past practice when it altered the 	lunch period. 	(Id. 	at
p. 	14.)
As 	noted, 	UTLA, 	in the case currently before the Board,
argues 	that 	a particular duty must 	be 	required 	District wide
before 	that particular duty 	can be 	considered mandatory. 	While
UTLA 	seems 	to believe that 	none 	of 	the boycotted 	activities 	were
within the contract's provisions, 	and, 	thus, 	their boycott was
unlawful 	only 	if 	those 	activities 	were 	required on a 	consistent
District-wide basis, 	I would find that all of the boycotted
activities 	related 	to professional 	duties 	described 	in the
contract. 	We need not 	reach the 	issue of whether the boycotted
duties were required 	District wide 	because all 	of 	the boycotted
activities 	directly 	related 	to professional 	duties 	specifically
required by the 	contract. 	The 	following 	is 	a 	list
of 	the 	stipulated boycotted activities 	and 	the 	sections 	of 	the
contract which 	I 	believe mandate performance of 	those 	activities.
1. 	Progress 	reports 	and 	final 	grades: 	required by
Art. 	IX, 	4.0 	(reviewing and evaluating the work of
pupils; 	maintaining the 	appropriate records.)
2. 	Attending 	faculty meetings: 	required by Art. 	IX,
4.0 	(attending faculty, 	departmental, 	grade level and
other meetings 	called 	or 	approved by 	the 	immediate
administrator.)
3. 	Attending after-school 	activities 	including back-
to-school 	events 	and parent 	conferences: 	required by
Art. 	IX, 	4.0 	(communicating and conferring with pupils,
parents, 	staff, 	and administrators; 	cooperating in
parent, 	community, 	and open house activities.)
11

4. 	Supervising 	students 	outside 	the 	classroom:
required by Art. 	IX, 	4.0 	(supervising 	students 	both
within 	and 	outside 	the 	classroom.)
5. 	Submitting 	any 	completed registers 	or 	attendance
reports with totals 	filled 	in: 	required by Art. 	IX,
4.0 	(maintaining 	appropriate 	records.)
6. 	Providing 	class 	coverage 	for other 	employees
unavailable due 	to 	emergencies, 	class preparation or
special 	assignments 	unless 	paid 	at 	an hourly 	rate:
required by Art. 	IX, 	6.0 	& 	7.0 	(secondary preparation
periods 	shall 	be used 	for professional 	duties 	and
teachers 	shall 	not 	be 	expected 	to perform 	classroom
teaching 	functions 	"except 	as 	reasonably 	needed 	to
provide 	such 	services 	during 	school 	related 	activities,
during emergencies, 	or when replacement or auxiliary
pay 	is 	received" 	and 	elementary preparation periods
shall 	be used 	for professional 	duties 	and 	shall 	not be
used 	for 	classroom teaching 	functions 	except 	"as
reasonably 	needed.")
7. 	Submitting 	lesson plans, 	course outlines 	and roll
books 	or 	allowing 	administrators 	to 	inspect 	them:
required by Art. 	IX, 	4.0 	(instructional planning,
preparing 	lesson plans 	in a 	format 	appropriate 	to 	the
teacher's 	assignment; 	communicating 	and conferring with
pupils, parents, 	staff, and administrators; maintaining
appropriate 	records.)
8. 	Participating 	in the 	Elementary 	Progress 	Quality
Review process: 	required by Art. 	IX, 	4.0
(participating 	in 	staff 	development programs,
professional 	activities 	related 	to 	their 	assignment,
etc. )
Thus, 	all 	of the boycotted activities were 	expressly required by
the contract. 	Therefore, 	the Union's argument, 	that the Board
should 	apply 	an analysis 	similar 	to 	that 	employed 	in Modesto 	City
Schools and High School District, 	supra. 	PERB Decision No. 	414 to
ascertain whether or not 	the 	boycotted 	activities 	were 	required,
must 	be 	rejected.
For these reasons 	and those of 	the ALJ, 	the proposed
decision must 	be 	affirmed.
12

APPENDIX
NOTICE 	TO 	EMPLOYEES
POSTED 	BY ORDER OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS 	BOARD
An Agency 	of 	the 	State 	of 	California
After a hearing in Unfair Practice Case No. 	LA-CO-462,
Los Angeles 	Unified School 	District v. 	United Teachers-
Los Angeles
-. . 	in which all parties had the right to participate, 	it has	--·
been 	found 	that 	the 	United 	Teachers-Los 	Angeles 	violated 	Educational
Employment Relations Act, 	Government Code section 3543.6(c) 	and 	(d) .
As 	a result of 	this 	conduct, 	we have been ordered to post this
notice 	and we will:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
1. 	Failing to meet 	and negotiate 	in good 	faith with the
Los Angeles 	Unified School 	District 	(District) 	by authorizing,
encouraging 	or advocating an 	employee 	boycott 	of 	any 	of 	the 	following
job duties 	of unit 	employees, 	and thereby engaging 	in the 	illegal
pressure 	tactic 	of 	a partial 	strike:
a. 	Completing progress 	reports 	(five-week, 	ten-week
and 	fifteen-week grades) 	and 	final 	semester grades 	on the 	District's
forms 	and 	submitting 	them to 	administrators;
b. 	Attending before-school 	and 	after-school 	faculty
meetings 	of 	any 	kind 	and 	those during 	conference 	or preparation
periods, 	and period-by-period 	faculty meetings 	at 	secondary 	schools;
c. 	Attending after-school 	activities, 	including back-
to-school 	events 	and parent 	conferences;
d. 	Supervising 	students 	before 	and after 	the 	school
day, 	during recess, 	nutrition and lunch periods, 	and during
preparation periods 	at the 	secondary 	schools;
e. 	Submitting 	any 	completed registers 	or 	attendance
reports with totals 	filled 	in;
f. 	Providing class 	coverage 	for other 	employees
unavailable due to emergencies, 	class preparation, 	special
assignments, 	or collective bargaining negotiations 	unless 	paid at 	an
hourly rate;
g. 	Submitting lesson plans, 	course outlines 	and
rollbooks 	or allowing administrators 	to 	inspect them; 	and
h. 	Participating 	in the 	elementary progress 	quality
review process.

2. 	By that 	same conduct, 	during the course of 	impasse
procedures, 	failing to participate 	in 	impasse procedures 	in good
faith.
Date: 	UNITED 	TEACHERS-LOS 	ANGELES
By
Authorized 	Agent
THIS 	IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE. 	IT MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR AT LEAST THIRTY
(30) 	CONSECUTIVE WORKDAYS 	FROM THE 	DATE 	OF 	POSTING AND MUST NOT BE
REDUCED 	IN SIZE, 	DEFACED, 	ALTERED OR COVERED BY ANY MATERIAL.
22

STATE OF 	CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS 	BOARD
LOS ANGELES 	UNIFIED 	SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Charging 	Party,
V.
UNITED TEACHERS 	- 	LOS ANGELES,
Respondent.
)
)
) 	Unfair 	Practice
Case 	No. 	LA-CO-462
PROPOSED 	DECISION
(8/1/89)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances: 	O'Melveny & Myers by Curt F. 	Kirschner 	for Los
Angeles Unified School District; 	Taylor, 	Roth, 	Bush & Geffner by
Jesus E. 	Quinonez 	for United Teachers 	- Los Angeles.
Before Douglas Gallop, 	Administrative Law Judge.
PROCEDURAL 	HISTORY
On October 31, 	1988, 	Los Angeles Unified School District
(hereinafter 	District) 	filed an unfair practice 	charge 	alleging
that 	United Teachers 	- 	Los Angeles 	(hereinafter 	Respondent)
violated section 	3543.6(c) 	and 	(d) 	of the Educational 	Employment
Relations Act 	(hereinafter 	EERA).1 Subsequently, 	certain
allegations 	in the 	charge were withdrawn or dismissed. 	On
December 5, 	1986, 	the General Counsel of the Public 	Employment
Relations Board 	(PERB) 	issued a complaint, 	alleging that
Respondent violated 	section 	3543.6(c) 	and 	(d) 	by authorizing,
advocating 	and 	encouraging 	a 	partial 	strike 	during 	contract
negotiations and impasse proceedings. 	On December 23, 	1988,
The 	EERA is 	codified at Government Code 	section 	3540, 	et
seq. 	All 	citations herein are 	to the Government Code 	unless
otherwise 	indicated.
This proposed decision has been appealed to the
Board itself and may not be cited as precedent
unless the decision and its rationale have been
adopted by the Board. 	.
---------;-----)

Respondent 	filed 	an 	answer 	to 	complaint 	denying 	the 	commission 	of
unfair practices, 	and alleging various 	affirmative 	defenses.
Thereafter, 	the parties met in an informal 	settlement conference,
but were unable to resolve the case. 	On April 	25, 	26 and 27,
1989, 	a hearing was 	conducted before 	the undersigned on the
complaint allegations, 	as 	amended pursuant to Respondent's
motion. 	The parties 	filed post-hearing briefs, 	and the matter
was 	submitted for decision on July 21, 	1989.
FINDINGS 	OF 	FACT
The District is 	a 	"public 	school 	employer" 	within the
meaning of 	section 	3540.l(k) 	of the EERA, 	and the Association is
an 	"employee organization" 	within 	the meaning of 	section
3540.l(d). 	The District operates 	about 	650 regular primary and
secondary schools, 	serving an estimated 	594,000 	students 	and
employing about 	32,000 	teachers. 	Respondent is 	the 	exclusive
representative 	of the District's 	certificated employees, 	and has
about 24,000 members in the unit. 	Since 	1978, 	the parties have
entered 	into a 	series 	of 	collective 	bargaining agreements.
The 	1985-1988 agreement, 	as amended, 	(hereinafter Agreement)
contained an expiration date of June 	30, 	1988, 	subject to
reopeners. 	The Agreement, 	however, 	contained a day-to-day
evergreen clause 	(e.g., 	that it would continue in effect),
subject 	to notice of termination by either party. 	It is
undisputed 	that neither party had 	terminated 	the Agreement 	as 	of
the hearing.
22

The Agreement 	contained a grievance procedure, 	culminating
in binding arbitration. 	The 	grievance/arbitration provisions,
however, 	defined a 	grievance 	as 	a claim by Respondent or an
employee 	that the 	District had violated the Agreement, 	and did
not provide 	for grievances by the 	District. 	The Agreement
further 	contained a District rights 	clause, 	but 	specified that
said 	clause did not bestow any rights 	on Respondent 	or the 	unit
employees, 	and was not 	subject to the grievance procedure.
While 	several 	other portions 	of 	the Agreement 	are 	also
relevant to this 	case, 	the 	following are particularly noteworthy:
ARTICLE 	IX
HOURS, 	DUTIES, AND WORK YEAR
1.0 	General Workday Provisions: 	It 	is
agreed that 	the professional workday of 	a
full-time regular 	employee 	requires 	no 	fewer
than eight hours 	of 	on-site 	and off-site
work, 	and that the varying nature of
professional 	duties 	does 	not 	lend itself 	to 	a
total 	maximum daily work time 	of definite 	or
uniform length. 	The work day 	for part-time
employees 	shall be proportionate, 	or governed
by 	the 	employee's 	individual 	employment
contract.
* * *
4.0 	Other Professional 	Duties: 	Each
employee 	is 	responsible 	not only for
classroom duties 	(or, 	in the 	case of non-
classroom teachers, 	scheduled duties) 	for
which properly 	credentialed, 	but also 	for 	all
related professional duties. 	Such
professional 	duties 	include 	the 	following
examples: 	instructional planning; 	preparing
lesson plans 	in a 	format 	appropriate 	to 	the
teacher's 	assignment; 	preparing and 	selecting
instructional materials; 	reviewing and
evaluating the work of pupils; 	communicating
and conferring with pupils, 	parents, 	staff,
and 	administrators; 	maintaining appropriate
W	3

records; 	providing leadership and 	supervision
of 	student activities 	and organizations;
supervising pupils 	both within 	and 	outside
the 	classroom; 	supervising teacher 	aides when
assigned; 	cooperating in parent, 	community,
and open house activities; 	participating in
staff development programs, 	professional
activities 	related 	to 	their 	assignment,
independent 	study 	and 	otherwise 	keeping
current with developments 	within their 	areas
or 	subjects of assignment; 	assuming
reasonable responsibility 	for 	the 	proper 	use
and control of District property, 	equipment,
material, 	and supplies; 	and attending
faculty, 	departmental, 	grade level and other
meetings 	called 	or 	approved by the 	immediate
administrator.
4.1 	All 	duties 	required of 	each
employee 	shall meet the test of
reasonableness, 	and shall be assigned and
distributed by 	the 	site 	administrator 	in 	a
reasonable 	and 	equitable manner 	among 	the
employees 	at the 	school 	or center.
4.2 Faculty, 	Departmental, 	Grade Level,
Staff 	Development and Committee 	Meetings: 	No
employee 	shall 	be 	expected 	to 	attend more
than five 	(5) 	such meetings per school month,
except 	as 	provided herein. 	Exempt 	from 	this
limitation 	are 	administrative 	conferences
with individual employees, 	meetings on
released time, 	community meetings, 	voluntary
meetings 	and meetings 	necessitated by 	special
circumstances 	or emergencies. 	These meetings
should not, 	except in special 	circumstances
or emergencies, 	exceed one hour in duration.
Agendas 	for 	faculty meetings 	are 	to be
distributed at 	least one day in advance, 	and
employees 	shall 	be 	permitted to propose
agenda items. 	Employees 	shall be permitted
to participate 	in discussions 	during the
meetings. 	If a meeting is 	scheduled after
school, 	it should be 	started as 	soon as
practicable 	after 	the 	student day is
completed.
The parties 	commenced negotiations 	for a new agreement 	in
about February, 	1988. 	The District made its 	first 	salary
4

proposals 	in mid- 	to late August, 	1988, 	and Respondent 	submitted
its 	first 	salary proposal 	on or about September 	10, 	1988.
Subsequent to the District's 	first 	salary proposal, 	the parties
met 	in negotiations 	approximately twice 	each week. 	In November
or December 	1988, 	impasse was declared, 	and as of the hearing,
the 	parties were 	in 	factfinding. 	While 	tentative 	agreement had
been reached on 	several 	issues 	as 	of the hearing, 	some 	50
unresolved 	issues 	remained at 	that time. 	Official 	notice 	is
taken that 	subsequent 	to the hearing, 	the parties 	reached
agreement 	for 	a new contract.
At the 	hearing, 	the parties 	entered 	into 	the 	following
stipulation:
1. 	Beginning on or about September 	13,
1988, 	UTLA, 	acting through its officers,
agents and employees, 	authorized, 	encouraged
and 	advocated 	employees 	in 	the 	bargaining
unit 	to refrain 	from:
a) 	Completing progress 	reports
(five-week, 	ten-week 	and 	fifteen-week 	grades)
and 	final 	semester 	grades 	on 	the 	District's
forms 	and 	submitting them 	to 	administrators;
(b) 	Attending before-school 	and
after-school 	faculty meetings 	of 	any kind 	and
those 	during 	conference 	or preparation
periods, 	and period-by-period faculty
meetings 	at 	secondary 	schools;
(c) 	Attending after-school
activities including, 	back-to-school 	events
and parent conferences, 	except those 	for
which 	extra 	compensation was 	received;
(d) 	Supervising 	students 	before
and after the 	school 	day, 	during recess,
nutrition and lunch periods, 	and during
preparation periods 	at 	the 	secondary 	schools;
(e) 	Submitting any 	completed
5

registers 	or 	attendance 	reports 	with totals
filled 	in;
(f) 	Administering, 	scoring and
handling 	standardized tests, 	including but
not 	limited 	to 	the 	California 	Test 	of 	Basic
Skills 	and Write 	tests;
(g) 	Providing class 	coverage 	for
other 	employees 	unavailable 	due 	to
emergencies, 	class preparation or 	special
assignments 	unless 	paid at 	an hourly rate;
(h) 	Submitting lesson plans,
course 	outlines 	and rollbooks 	or 	allowing
administrators 	to inspect them; 	and
(i) 	Participating in the
elementary Progress 	Quality 	Review Process.
2. 	Employees 	in the 	bargaining unit
represented 	by 	UTLA 	have 	refrained 	from 	the
activities 	described 	in 	the 	above
paragraph 	1.
According to Respondent's 	newsletter of November 	4, 	1988,
the boycott began on September 	13, 	with a boycott 	of 	after-school
meetings, 	and was 	escalated thereafter to 	include 	the 	other
activities 	listed above. 	The primary evidence 	as 	to the 	motive
for 	the boycott 	is 	also 	contained 	in Respondent's 	publications,
including articles by Respondent's president. 	The publications,
with one exception, 	very 	clearly 	show that the boycott was 	urged
as 	a means 	to pressure 	the 	District 	to 	accept Respondent's
contract demands, 	some of which called for the elimination of, 	or
extra pay for 	some 	of the boycotted duties. 	While 	some 	of
Respondent's literature, 	including the November 4 newsletter,
accused the 	District of bad 	faith bargaining tactics, 	many other
articles 	simply 	stated 	that 	the 	boycott would 	force 	the 	District
6
9

to accept Respondent's 	contract demands. 	Respondent has not, 	in
this 	proceeding, 	contended that 	the 	District 	failed to negotiate
in good 	faith, 	and the 	evidence does not establish 	such conduct.
The 	one 	subject 	of 	the 	boycott which Respondent 	seriously
disputes, 	with respect to its motivation, 	is the boycott of
standardized test duties. 	Sam Kresner, 	Respondent's 	Director of
Organizational 	Services 	and one of 	the planners 	of 	the boycott,
testified 	that 	the 	boycott 	of 	standardized 	testing resulted
entirely 	from accusations 	that 	teachers 	were 	mishandling 	the
tests, 	and that once the parties met and reached agreement 	on the
issue, 	the boycott of those duties was 	lifted. 	The remainder of
the boycott remained in effect as 	of the hearing. 	Kresner's
testimony, 	to an extent, 	is 	corroborated by Respondent's
newsletter of October 21, 	1988, 	which states that accusations of
tampering with the 	tests 	led 	to the boycott of 	their
administration by unit employees. 	Respondent's November 	4
newsletter, 	however, 	in addition to urging a boycott of
administering the 	tests 	for that reason, 	also urged a boycott
because 	such work is 	purportedly 	"not professional," 	disrupts
instruction and because 	of 	the 	alleged 	"negative" 	effect 	of 	such
testing on American education. 	Other newsletters 	simply 	listed
the boycott of the testing duties, 	and the 	success 	of that
boycott, 	along with the other duties under boycott, 	with the
possible 	implication that 	the 	standardized 	tests were 	part 	of 	the
package 	of 	services 	to be withheld to attain Respondent's
contract demands. 	It is found, 	however, 	that the evidence, 	as a
7
7

whole, 	is 	inconclusive as 	to whether the boycott of 	standardized
test 	administration was 	directed 	toward 	Respondent's 	bargaining
position.
Respondent 	contends 	that 	some 	or all 	of 	the 	boycotted 	job
duties were voluntary, 	or not performed at all 	by 	certificated
employees. 	Kresner testified that 	the 	boycott was 	directed
toward activities 	conducted outside 	normal 	school 	hours 	for which
no extra pay was 	received, 	and duties 	not 	specifically required
by the Agreement. 	It is 	undisputed that 	some 	of the boycotted
duties were 	not 	performed by all 	of 	the 	certificated 	employees,
and 	that 	the 	District's 	regional 	administrations 	and 	school 	site
supervisors have 	adopted varying 	job requirements. 	Furthermore,
the manner 	in which 	some 	of 	these 	job duties 	are performed has
been left to the 	discretion of 	the unit employees.
The 	credible evidence,2 however, 	amply establishes 	that 	for
- .. . .
2' This	This 	finding is based 	on the 	credible 	testimony of 	Sidney
A. 	Thompson, 	Deputy Superintendent; 	Richard Fisher, 	Attorney;
Shirley Woo, 	Assistant Superintendent; 	Robert Collins, 	Principal;
and Barbara Kamon, 	Principal, 	in addition to a plethora of
documentary 	evidence.
Respondent's witnesses, 	at best, 	established that some of
the 	job duties 	are not required for all 	of the employees, 	and
that enforcement of 	a 	few of 	the 	duties may be 	lax 	at 	some
schools. 	Respondent contends 	that it only urged a boycott of
totalling attendance 	statistics, 	and that this was 	not a required
duty. 	While 	some of Respondent's 	literature was 	ambiguous 	as 	to
what 	should be boycotted, 	the 	credible 	evidence 	establishes 	that
some teachers 	have 	totalled attendance 	statistics, 	an activity
admittedly boycotted. 	It is 	also 	concluded that 	the unit
employees 	reasonably understood 	Respondent's 	literature 	to 	call
for a total refusal 	to complete attendance 	forms, 	an activity
that 	some participated 	in. 	Respondent's 	participation 	in 	this
conduct is 	exemplified by a 	statement in its 	November 	10, 	1988
"Update", 	which reads, 	"UTLA boycotted elementary 	[attendance]
registers - 	90% 	of 	teachers 	handed in blank registers 	- 	an
8

10
many years, 	all 	of 	the boycotted duties 	have 	customarily been
required of 	at least 	some 	of the 	certificated employees. 	It 	is
clear 	that while 	the Agreement 	listed 	examples 	of 	required
duties, 	such 	job 	functions were not limited to those 	set 	forth
therein, 3 but 	also 	included policies 	established by 	District
bulletins, 	employee handbooks, 	administrative manuals and
unwritten directives. 	It is 	also 	clear that while 	Respondent
objected to the appropriateness 	of 	some 	of these duties, 	and the
lack of extra pay for the performance 	thereof, 	it was 	aware 	that
these 	duties were required of 	unit 	employees.
incredible 	show of 	strength!" 	(Emphasis 	added.) 	Finally, 	it is
extremely unlikely 	that 	Respondent would have 	urged 	a 	boycott 	of
duties 	that none 	of the unit members were performing, 	and the
record 	establishes 	that 	those who 	performed 	such duties 	were
required to do 	so.
Respondent's 	contention, 	that Fisher's testimony
establishes 	that the Agreement provided 	an exclusive 	list 	of 	job
duties, 	or that 	said testimony can be 	interpreted in 	such a
manner, 	is rejected.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS OF 	LAW
Respondent 	argues 	that 	the 	charge 	should be 	deferred 	to
arbitration because 	the 	issue 	of whether the boycotted duties 	are
required 	is 	one 	of 	contract 	interpretation which 	could be 	decided
by an arbitrator. 	During the 	investigation of the 	charge, 	a PERB
regional 	attorney rejected 	this 	argument because 	the 	contract 	did
not provide 	for 	grievances 	filed by the 	District. 	That rationale
is 	adopted herein. 	Also, 	in agreement with the District,
deferral 	would be 	inappropriate 	because 	Respondent's 	conduct
amounted to a partial 	strike 	or 	slowdown, 	and Article VI 	of 	the
9

Agreement 	expressly excluded 	strikes, 	slowdowns 	and other work
stoppages 	from the 	grievance/arbitration procedure. 	Finally,
most of 	the District's 	rights 	clause was 	excluded 	from 	the
grievance/arbitration article, 	and thus, 	a significant aspect of
the 	District's 	argument 	in a 	grievance 	concerning 	job duties
could not be heard by an arbitrator. 	Accordingly, 	since 	the
subject of the dispute is not grievable by the District, 	and
hence not 	subject to binding arbitration, 	deferral 	is 	not
appropriate 	herein.
It 	is well 	established that 	an employee 	organization engages
in an unlawful 	bargaining tactic 	by urging unit 	employees 	to
refuse 	to perform required duties 	in 	order 	to 	advance 	its
position in contract negotiations. 	Said conduct 	is 	tantamount 	to
urging a partial 	strike 	or work 	slowdown. 	Palos Verdes 	Peninsula
Unified School District 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	195; 	Modesto
City Schools, 	et al. 	(1983) 	PERB Decision No. 	291; 	El Dorado
Union High School 	District Faculty Association 	(1985) 	PERB
Decision No. 	537. 	See also San Ramon Valley Education
Association, 	CTA/NEA (1984) 	PERB Order No. 	IR-46.
The parties 	have 	stipulated 	that 	Respondent 	authorized,
encouraged and advocated 	employees 	to 	refrain 	from 	the 	duties 	set
forth in the complaint. 	With one exception, 	the administration
of 	standardized tests, 	the record establishes 	that the 	expressed
reason 	for advocating a boycott of 	those 	duties was 	to 	further
Respondent's 	position at the bargaining table. 	As 	noted above,
Respondent has not contended, 	as a defense, 	that the boycott was
10

in response 	to 	a 	failure 	by the 	District 	to bargain 	in good
faith, 	and no 	conclusion is 	reached as 	to whether 	such a 	defense,
if established, 	would be valid.
Contrary to Respondent's 	assertions, 	it has been concluded
that 	all 	of 	the 	boycotted 	activities 	customarily have 	been
required of 	at 	least 	some 	of 	the 	District's 	certificated
employees, 	and that extra payment 	for 	such 	services 	is 	not
determinative as 	to the required nature of 	such duties. 	The
above-cited PERB 	cases 	have 	already 	found 	several 	of 	the 	job
duties 	boycotted by Respondent to be required, 	under 	similar
factual 	circumstances. 	Respondent's argument, 	which would make
any 	job duty not 	expressly 	set 	forth 	in the Agreement 	voluntary,
is without merit. 	Furthermore, 	to the extent that the District
has 	granted 	certificated employees 	discretion 	in 	the manner 	in
which they perform 	some 	of 	their 	job duties, 	Respondent 	still
engaged in an unlawful 	bargaining tactic 	because, 	with the 	one
possible exception, 	it urged employees 	to cease performing those
duties 	based on bargaining tactics, 	and not professional
judgment. 	Palos Verdes 	Peninsula Unified School 	District, 	supra;
Modesto City Schools, 	supra. 	Finally, 	contrary to Respondent's
position, 	the 	District 	is 	not required to 	show that 	the 	boycotted
duties were performed by all 	of 	the unit 	employees. 	Respondent's
attempt 	to analogize the 	herein charge 	to 	a unilateral 	change 	in
policy is 	erroneous. 	The gravamen of the 	alleged violation 	is
urging unit members 	to withhold portions 	of their 	services, 	not
advocating a change 	in existing policies. 	It is 	clear that
11

Respondent 	advocated unit 	employees 	to 	refrain 	from 	performing
job duties 	customarily performed 	by 	them.
Accordingly, 	it is 	concluded that by authorizing,
encouraging 	and 	advocating 	certificated 	employees 	to 	refuse 	to
perform their 	customary and required 	job duties, 	both during pre-
impasse 	negotiations 	and during 	the 	course 	of 	impasse
proceedings, 	Respondent violated section 3543.6(c) 	and 	(d) 	of the
EERA.4 See 	El 	Dorado Union 	High 	School 	District 	Faculty
Association 	(1986) 	PERB Decision No. 	537a.
THE 	REMEDY
In the charge, 	the District, 	in addition to cease and desist
order and notice 	posting remedies, 	requested a make-whole remedy
for 	"all measurable damages," 	costs 	and losses, 	including its
costs 	for hiring 	additional 	personnel 	to perform 	the 	boycotted
duties. 	In El Dorado, 	supra, 	the only PERB decision issuing a
remedy 	for this 	type of violation, 	no award for costs 	or other
monetary losses was 	made.
The 	PERB has 	adopted the National 	Labor Relations 	Board's
standard 	for 	the 	award of 	litigation 	costs 	and 	attorney 	fees5
Based 	on the 	inconclusive 	evidence 	presented as 	to 	the
expressed motive 	for the boycott of 	the 	standardized tests, 	the
allegation concerning that boycott will 	be dismissed. 	It 	is
concluded, 	however, 	that 	said duties were required, 	and could not
be 	lawfully boycotted on 	the 	basis 	of 	bargaining 	considerations.
Furthermore, 	no finding is made as to whether that boycott, 	even
if based on the motivation alleged by the 	Respondent, 	was 	lawful,
inasmuch as 	the 	parties 	neither 	raised nor 	litigated 	that 	issue.
5Respondent did not 	specifically request 	attorney 	fees, 	but
it appears that this is 	a remedy that it 	seeks.
12

against respondents. 	That 	standard requires 	that 	the 	conduct
complained of 	be 	repetitive 	and 	that 	the 	defenses 	raised be
without 	arguable merit. 	King City High 	School 	District
Association, 	et al. 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	197; 	Fresno Unified
School District, 	et al. 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	208; 	Modesto
City and High School Districts, 	et al. 	(1986) 	PERB Decision No.
566. 	It is 	concluded that while 	Respondent engaged 	in this
unlawful 	conduct over a period of 	several months, 	it has 	not been
shown that the 	conduct was 	repetitive 	in the 	sense 	that
Respondent had 	engaged 	in 	similar 	conduct prior 	to 	the 	instant
dispute, 	and that by the term, 	"repetitive 	conduct," 	the 	cases
are referring to recidivism. 	It is 	also 	concluded 	that while
Respondent's 	defenses 	are 	largely without merit, 	they are 	not
frivolous, 	and that 	Respondent 	is 	entitled to reasonably 	contest
allegations 	against 	it without 	being penalized with 	a 	litigation
costs 	award. 	Therefore, 	no 	litigation costs 	or attorney 	fees
remedy will 	be 	proposed.
The PERB has declined, 	in the 	absence of proof as 	to
monetary losses, 	to reimburse 	employers 	for 	such 	losses 	arising
from unlawful 	strike 	conduct. 	Westminster School 	District, 	et
al. 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	277. 	See Fresno Unified School
District v. 	National Education Association, 	et al. 	(1981) 	125
Cal.App.3d 259 	[177 Cal.Rptr. 	888]. 	In Fresno Unified School
District 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	208, 	the PERB decided,
irrespective 	of 	its 	authority to 	award monetary damages 	for 	such
13

conduct, 	that if a district failed to mitigate its damages by-
seeking injunctive 	relief, 	no monetary damages would be 	ordered.6
The District did not 	present 	any direct testimonial 	evidence
with respect 	to boycott-related monetary 	losses, 	and 	the 	record
as 	a whole 	is virtually 	silent on the 	issue.7 Inasmuch as 	the
PERB has 	yet to adopt 	such a remedy, 	and 	since there 	is 	little
evidence 	to 	support 	such an order, 	the proposed remedy 	in this
case will be 	limited to 	a 	cease 	and desist 	order 	and a 	30-day
notice posting. 	The 	order 	shall 	be 	subject to 	any 	changes 	in 	job
duties 	or 	compensation 	therefore 	negotiated 	in 	the 	current
agreement. 	The 	notice 	shall 	be 	subscribed by an authorized agent
'of Respondent 	indicating that 	it will 	comply with 	the 	terms
thereof, 	and 	shall be posted at 	all 	school 	sites 	and other work
locations 	throughout 	the 	District where 	notices 	to 	unit members
customarily are 	placed.8 The 	notices 	shall 	not be 	reduced 	in
^Official notice is hereby taken that the District, 	in PERB
Case Nos. 	IR-287 	and IR-288, 	requested injunctive relief 	in this
matter. 	The District withdrew Case No. 	IR-287, 	and the PERB, 	by
letter dated November 	16, 	1988, 	denied the request in Case No.
IR-288.
7The District, 	in its brief, 	incorrectly asserts that it was
requested to defer proof 	of 	"specific" 	monetary 	losses 	to
compliance proceedings. 	Irrespective 	of whether the 	District
believes 	this 	to have been the 	case, 	the 	District was 	in no way
precluded 	from 	introducing 	evidence 	that 	at 	least 	some 	monetary
losses 	resulted 	from Respondent's 	conduct.
'The District, 	in its brief, 	requests that the order direct
Respondent to publish the notice 	in its 	newsletter. 	Inasmuch as
it appears 	that Respondent maintains 	bulletin boards 	at most, 	if
not all 	of the 	school 	sites, 	postings 	at these numerous 	locations
will 	adequately inform unit members 	of 	the 	outcome 	of 	this 	case.
In addition, 	the 	District is 	free to post and distribute 	the
notice 	in order to 	inform unit members 	thereof.
14

size, 	and reasonable efforts 	made 	to 	insure that 	they are 	not
defaced, 	replacing them, 	if necessary.
PROPOSED 	ORDER
Upon 	the 	foregoing 	findings 	of 	fact 	and 	conclusions 	of 	law,
and the 	entire record in this 	case, 	and pursuant 	to 	EERA 	section
3541. 5(c), 	it is hereby ordered that United Teachers 	- Los
Angeles 	and its 	representatives 	shall:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
1. 	Failing to meet 	and negotiate 	in good 	faith with
Los Angeles 	Unified School 	District by authorizing, 	encouraging
or 	advocating an employee 	boycott 	of 	any 	of 	the 	following 	job
duties 	of unit employees, 	and thereby engaging 	in 	the 	illegal
pressure 	tactic 	of 	a partial 	strike:
(a) 	Completing progress reports 	(five-week, 	ten-
week and 	fifteen-week grades) 	and 	final 	semester 	grades 	on 	the
District's 	forms 	and 	submitting 	them 	to 	administrators;
(b) 	Attending before-school 	and after-school
faculty meetings 	of 	any 	kind 	and 	those 	during 	conference 	or
preparation periods, 	and period-by-period 	faculty meetings 	at
secondary 	schools;
(c) 	Attending after-school activities, 	including
back-to-school 	events 	and parent 	conferences;
(d) 	Supervising 	students 	before 	and after 	the
school day, 	during recess, 	nutrition and lunch periods, 	and
during preparation periods 	at 	the 	secondary 	schools;
15

(e) 	Submitting any 	completed registers 	or
attendance 	reports with 	totals 	filled 	in;
(f) 	Providing class 	coverage 	for 	other 	employees
unavailable due 	to emergencies, 	class 	preparation or 	special
assignments 	unless 	paid at 	an hourly rate;
(g) 	Submitting lesson plans, 	course outlines 	and
rollbooks 	or allowing administrators 	to 	inspect 	them; 	and
(h) 	Participating 	in the 	elementary Progress
Quality 	Review process.
2. 	By that 	same 	conduct, 	during the 	course of 	impasse
procedures, 	failing to participate 	in impasse procedures 	in good
faith.
B. 	TAKE 	THE 	FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS 	DESIGNED 	TO
EFFECTUATE 	THE 	POLICIES 	OF 	THE 	EDUCATIONAL 	EMPLOYMENT
RELATIONS ACT:
1. 	Within ten 	(10) 	workdays 	from 	service 	of 	the 	final
decision in this matter, 	post at all 	school 	sites 	and other
locations 	utilized by Respondent 	to 	communicate with 	employees 	of
Los Angeles 	Unified 	School 	District 	copies 	of 	the 	Notice 	attached
as 	an Appendix hereto, 	signed by an authorized agent 	of
Respondent. 	Such posting 	shall 	be maintained 	for 	a period of
thirty 	(30) 	consecutive workdays. 	Reasonable 	steps 	shall be
taken to insure 	that this Notice 	is not reduced in 	size, 	defaced,
altered 	or 	covered 	by any material.
2. 	Upon issuance of this 	Decision, 	written
notification 	of 	the 	actions 	taken 	to 	comply with 	this 	Order 	shall
16

be made 	to the 	Los Angeles 	Regional 	Director of 	the 	Public
Employment 	Relations 	Board 	in 	accordance with her 	instructions.
It 	is 	further ordered that all 	other 	allegations 	in 	the
charge 	and 	complaint are 	hereby 	DISMISSED.
Pursuant to California Administrative Code, 	title 	8,
section 	32305, 	this 	Proposed Decision and Order 	shall 	become
final 	unless 	a party files 	a 	statement 	of 	exceptions with the
Board 	itself 	at 	the 	headquarters 	office 	in 	Sacramento within 	20
days of 	service of this Decision. 	In accordance with PERB
Regulations, 	the 	statement of 	exceptions 	should identify by page
citation or exhibit number the portions 	of the record, 	if 	any,
relied upon 	for 	such exceptions. 	See 	California Administrative
Code, title 	8, 	section 	32300. 	A document 	is 	considered 	"filed"
when actually received before 	the 	close 	of 	business 	(5:00 	p.m.)
on the last day set for filing, 	". 	. 	. o r when sent by telegraph
or certified or 	Express 	United 	States mail, 	postmarked not 	later
than the 	last day 	set 	for 	filing. 	. . . " 	See 	California
Administrative Code, 	title 8, 	section 32135. 	Code of Civil
Procedure 	section 	1013 	shall 	apply. 	Any 	statement of 	exceptions
and 	supporting brief must be 	served 	concurrently with 	its 	filing
upon each party to 	this proceeding. 	Proof 	of 	service 	shall
accompany each copy 	served on 	a party or 	filed with 	the 	Board
itself. 	See California Administrative Code, 	title 	8, 	sections
32300, 	32305 and 32140.
Dated: 	August 	1, 	1989 Douglas 	Gallop
Administrative 	Law Judge
17 
--