Covina-Valley Unified School District (PERB 0985E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
COVINA UNIFIED 	EDUCATION
ASSOCIATION, 	CTA/NEA,
Charging 	Party,
v.
COVINA-VALLEY 	UNIFIED 	SCHOOL
DISTRICT
Respondent.
Case No. 	LA-CE-3199
PERB Decision No. 	985
March 26, 	1993
Appearances: 	California Teachers Association by Charles 	R.
Gustafson, 	Attorney, 	for Covina Unified Education Association,
CTA/NEA; 	Gibson, 	Dunn & Crutcher by Kenneth W. 	Anderson,
Attorney, 	for Covina-Valley Unified School District.
Before Blair, 	Chair; 	Caffrey and Carlyle, 	Members.
DECISION AND 	ORDER
CARLYLE, 	Member: 	This 	case 	is before the Public Employment
Relations 	Board 	(Board) 	on appeal 	by the 	Covina Unified Education
Association, 	CTA/NEA of 	the Board agent's dismissal, 	attached
hereto, 	of 	its 	charge alleging that 	the Covina-Valley Unified
School District violated section 3543.5(a), 	(b) 	and 	(d) 	of the
Educational Employment Relations Act 	(EERA). *
1EERA is 	codified at 	Government 	Code 	section 3540 	et 	seq.
Section 3543.5 	states, 	in pertinent part:
It 	shall 	be unlawful 	for a public 	school
employer to do any of 	the 	following:
(a) 	Impose or threaten to 	impose 	reprisals
on employees, 	to discriminate or threaten to
discriminate against 	employees, 	or otherwise
to interfere with, 	restrain, 	or coerce
employees 	because 	of 	their exercise 	of 	rights
guaranteed by this 	chapter. 	For purposes 	of
this subdivision, 	"employee" 	includes an
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

applicant 	for 	employment 	or 	reemployment.
(b) 	Deny to employee organizations 	rights
guaranteed 	to 	them by 	this 	chapter.
(d) 	Dominate or interfere with the 	formation
or 	administration 	of 	any employee
organization, 	or contribute 	financial 	or
other support 	to 	it, 	or in any way encourage
employees 	to join any organization 	in
preference 	to another.
The 	Board has 	reviewed 	the 	Board agent's 	warning and
dismissal 	letters, 	and finding 	them to be 	free 	of prejudicial
error, 	adopts 	them as 	the decision of 	the Board itself.
The unfair practice 	charge 	in Case No. 	LA-CE-3199 	is 	hereby
DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE 	TO AMEND.
Chair Blair and Member 	Caffrey 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
22

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	PETE WILSON, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Los Angeles Regional Office
3530 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 650
Los Angeles, CA 90010-2334
(213)736-3127
January 8, 	1993
Charles R. 	Gustafson, 	Esq.
California 	Teachers 	Association
P.O. 	Box 92888
Los Angeles, 	CA 	90009-2888
Re: 	DISMISSAL AND REFUSAL TO 	ISSUE COMPLAINT, 	Unfair
Practice Charge No. 	LA-CE-3199, 	Covina Unified
Education Association. 	CTA/NEA v. 	Covina-Valley Unified
School 	District
Dear Mr. 	Gustafson:
In the above-referenced charge, 	the 	Covina Unified Education
Association, 	CTA/NEA 	(Association) 	alleges 	that 	the Covina-Valley
Unified School District 	(District) 	interfered with employees 	and
the Association. 	This 	conduct 	is alleged to violate Government
Code sections 3543.5(a), 	(b) 	and 	(d) 	of the Educational
Employment Relations Act 	(EERA).
I 	indicated to you, 	in my attached letter dated December 24,
1992, 	that 	the above-referenced charge did not 	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. 	You were 	further advised that, 	unless you amended the
charge 	to 	state a prima facie 	case 	or withdrew it prior to
January 8, 	1993, 	the charge would be dismissed.
On January 7, 	1993, 	I received from you an amended charge, 	adding
two allegations to the original 	charge: 	(1) 	that 	the Association
was 	first 	informed of 	the District's 	alleged 	conduct 	on or after
April 23, 	1992, 	and 	(2) 	that the District's alleged conduct
intimidated 	several 	unit members 	and 	caused 	them to 	refuse 	to
become members 	of 	the Association. 	The 	first 	of 	these 	two
additional 	allegations 	appears 	to 	cure 	the possible untimeliness
of part of 	the charge. 	The second allegation, 	however, 	is
unspecific 	and 	conclusory and does 	not 	cure 	the 	overall 	failure
of the charge to state a prima facie 	case, 	because 	it does not
allege 	facts 	from which 	it 	can be objectively determined 	that 	the
District's 	alleged 	conduct 	contained a 	threat 	of 	reprisal 	or
==--==---- 	-- -

force or a promise of benefit. 	Therefore, 	I am dismissing the
charge, 	based on the 	reasons 	contained 	in my December 24 	letter.
Dismissal 	Letter
LA-CE-3199
January 8, 	1993
Page 2
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. 	(Cal. 	Code of Regs., 	tit. 	8,
sec. 	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 p.m.) 	or sent by telegraph,
certified 	or Express 	United States 	mail 	postmarked no 	later
than the last date set for filing. 	(Cal. 	Code of Regs., 	tit. 	8,
sec. 	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 	(20) 	calendar
days 	following the date of 	service of the appeal. 	(Cal. 	Code of
Regs., tit. 8, sec. 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 Cal. 	Code of Regs., 	tit. 	8,
sec. 	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 	(3) 	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. 	(Cal. 	Code of Regs., 	tit. 	8, 	sec. 	32132.)
Dismissal 	Letter
LA-CE-3199
January 8, 	1993
Page 3
Final Date
If no appeal 	is 	filed within the specified time limits, 	the
dismissal will become 	final when the 	time 	limits have 	expired,
Sincerely,
ROBERT 	THOMPSON
Deputy General 	Counsel
Thomand allTHOMAS J. 	.ALLEN
Regional 	Attorney
Attachment
cc: 	Kenneth W. 	Anderson

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	PETE WILSON. Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Los Angeles Regional Office
3530 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 650
Los Angeles, CA 90010-2334
(213) 736-3127
December 24, 	1992
Charles R. 	Gustafson, 	Esq.
California 	Teachers 	Association
P.O. 	Box 92888
Los Angeles, 	CA 	90009-2888
Re: 	WARNING LETTER, 	Unfair Practice Charge No. 	LA-CE-3199,
Covina Unified Education Association, 	CTA/NEA v.
Covina-Valley 	Unified 	School 	District
Dear Mr. 	Gustafson:
In the above-referenced charge, 	the Covina Unified Education
Association, 	CTA/NEA 	(Association) 	alleges 	that 	the Covina-Valley
Unified School 	District 	(District) 	interfered with employees 	and
the Association. 	This 	conduct 	is alleged to violate Government
Code sections 3543.5(a), 	(b) 	and 	(d) 	of the Educational
Employment Relations Act 	(EERA).
My 	investigation of 	the 	charge 	reveals 	the 	following 	facts.
The charge, 	filed on June 9, 	1992, 	alleges 	in relevant part as
follows, 	at paragraphs 3-5:
3. 	On or about April 21, 	1992, 	at a regular
staff meeting, 	the principal of Covina
Elementary School, 	displaying great anti-
union animus, 	criticized the Association and
denounced Association activities, 	saying
among other things: 	teachers 	are misinformed
by the Association, 	the District would be
happy to 	offer better 	insurance 	if 	they 	could
afford 	it; 	Association behavior 	reminded him
or his 	old labor union days; 	he 	thought 	the
same of 	the meeting 	"last night" 	as 	the union
meetings 	he was 	forced to attend when he was
18 	or 19 	years old. 	Additionally, 	he sent
out a flyer critical 	of union picketing, 	a
copy of 	which 	is 	attached hereto marked
. 	i

Exhibit A.
Warning Letter
LA-CE-3199
December 24, 1992
Page 2
4. 	The Association is informed and believes
that the principal of Covina Elementary-
School 	(a) 	has also done anti-association
politicking in the halls of the school site,
(b) 	that he told a fairly new teacher at the
beginning of the year that he did not have
much faith in the Association team, 	and he
strongly implied that Association leaders
were not to be heeded nor respected, 	and 	(c)
that he stated he was going to meet with his
1The 	flyer stated in full as follows:
CONGRATULATIONS! !
I believe that we had a most satisfactory
turnout and open house. 	Most rooms and the
SCIENCE FAIR were busy all evening.
One important fact stood out . 	. 	.parents
repeatedly told me how impressed they were
with the amount of work and the quality of
the work their kids are doing at Covina
Elementary.
Parents were also impressed with the hard
work teachers do and were appreciative of
what is being done for their children.
Twenty or more parents or sets of parents
made it a point to tell me they were not
impressed with the picketing and a few asked
why 	"they" were picketing our school. 	One
lady said, 	"I'm sure glad our teachers aren't
doing that, 	it's embarrassing for the kids to
see their teachers do that."
Overall, 	it was a very successful evening
thanks 	to all of you who have worked hard all
year to provide the best you can for our
students. 	Thank you for all you do.
Sincerely,
Ron

attorney 	to 	find out what 	he 	could do 	to
"impede 	CUEA activities."
Warning 	Letter
LA-CE-3199
December 24, 	1992
Page 3
2
5. 	On April 23, 	1992, 	the Association wrote
to 	the 	Superintendent 	concerning 	the above
activities 	of 	the 	Covina Elementary
Principal, 	a copy of which is attached hereto
marked Exhibit 	B.3 To date 	the Association
has 	received no 	reply 	from the District.4 By
2No dates are given for this alleged conduct. 	It 	is unclear
whether 	"the beginning of 	the year" 	means 	the beginning of 	the
school 	year 	(July 1, 	1991) 	or the beginning of 	the 	calendar year
(January 1, 	1992).
3The 	letter stated in full as 	follows:
It 	has been brought 	to my attention that 	Ron
Iannone, 	principal at Covina Elementary-
School, 	used last Tuesday's 	staff meeting to
criticize 	and discourage participation 	in
CUEA activities. 	As you are no doubt aware,
such action by an 	administrator 	constitutes
interference 	in Association activities 	and 	is
a violation 	of 	the 	EERA.
Please 	immediately advise 	administrators 	that
such interference 	is 	inappropriate and
unlawful and must not recur. 	Also, 	please
provide me with a 	copy of 	this 	advisory 	so
that we will 	know that you do not 	condone
such interference 	and have 	done your best 	to
assure that 	it will not happen again.
4During the 	investigation of 	this 	charge, 	the District
produced a copy of a letter dated May 14, 	1992, 	from the District
Superintendent 	to 	the Association President. 	It 	appears 	from the
allegations 	that 	this 	letter was 	not 	received by 	the Association.
It stated in full 	as 	follows:
I 	am writing 	in response 	to your 	letter of
April 	23 	concerning alleged activities 	of Dr.
Ron Iannone, 	Principal 	of Covina Elementary
School. 	I don't react 	to allegations made
about 	a 	teacher 	or any employee 	without
knowing 	specific 	details of 	any 	incident.
And 	I 	certainly would not 	issue 	any written

failing 	to 	repudiate the 	activities 	of 	the
principal, 	the District has 	ratified this
conduct.
"advisory" 	to a 	teacher 	in the 	same 	situation
if 	such vague 	and non-specific 	allegations
were made 	in a letter from a parent. 	I
suspect that if 	I did such a thing, 	you, 	as
CUEA President, 	would be unhappy and would
indicate 	that 	I 	acted hastily and 	improperly.
Your 	concern would be 	justified.
Your letter does 	not 	indicate any details 	of
what 	supposedly transpired. 	If you have
specifics 	about 	your allegations 	that 	you
would 	care 	for me 	to 	follow up and which 	are
specifically prohibited 	in any manner, 	please
let me 	or Ron Matejcek know and we will 	be
happy 	to 	look 	into 	them.
Warning 	Letter
LA-CE-3199
December 24, 	1992
Page 	4
Based on the 	facts 	stated above, 	the 	charge does 	not 	state a
prima 	facie violation of 	the 	EERA within 	the 	jurisdiction 	of 	the
Public Employment Relations Board 	(PERB), 	for the 	reasons 	that
follow.
Government 	Code 	section 	3541.5(a)(1) 	states 	that 	PERB 	shall 	not
"[i]ssue a 	complaint 	in 	respect 	of 	any 	charge based upon an
alleged unfair practice 	occurring more 	than 	six months 	prior 	to
the 	filing of 	the 	charge." 	PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5) 	(Cal.
Code of Regs., 	title 8, 	sec. 	32615 	(a)(5)) 	requires that a charge
contain a 	"clear and 	concise 	statement 	of 	the 	facts 	and 	conduct
alleged 	to 	constitute 	an unfair practice."
Paragraph 4 	of 	the present 	charge alleges 	certain 	conduct 	without
giving any date. 	In the absence of a 	clear statement 	that 	this
conduct 	occurred on a date within the 	six months 	before 	the
charge was filed 	(November 14, 	1991, 	to May 14, 	1992), 	the
alleged 	conduct 	is 	not within PERB's 	jurisdiction.
Under Chula Vista City School District) 	(1990) 	PERB Decision
No. 	834, 	an employer has a right of free speech, 	unless 	it 	can be
determined by an objective 	standard 	that 	the 	employer's 	speech
contains 	a threat 	of 	reprisal 	or force or a promise 	of benefit.
The present 	charge 	does 	not allege 	facts 	from which 	it 	can be
objectively determined 	that 	the District's 	conduct 	contained 	such
a 	threat 	or promise.

Warning 	Letter
LA-CE-3199
December 24, 	1992
Page 	5
For these reasons 	the charge, 	as presently written, 	does not
state a prima 	facie 	case. 	If 	there are any 	factual 	inaccuracies
in 	this 	letter or additional 	facts 	which would correct 	the
deficiencies 	explained above, 	please amend the 	charge. 	The
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 January 8, 	1993, 	I
shall dismiss your charge. 	If you have any questions, 	please
call me at 	(213) 	736-3127.
Sincerely,
thomas J. alleThomas 	J. 	Allen
Regional 	Attorney