Los Rios California Federation of Teachers (Deglow) (PERB 0992E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
ANNETTE M. 	DEGLOW,
Charging 	Party,
v.
LOS 	RIOS 	COLLEGE 	FEDERATION OF
TEACHERS, 	LOCAL 2279, 	CFT/AFT,
AFL-CIO,
Respondent.
)
)
) 	Case No. 	S-CO-297
PERB Decision No. 	992
April 	27, 	1993
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearance: 	Annette M. 	Deglow, 	on her own behalf.
Before Blair, 	Chair; 	Hesse and Caffrey, 	Members.
DECISION AND 	ORDER
CAFFREY, 	Member: 	This 	case 	is before the Public Employment
Relations 	Board 	(Board) 	on appeal 	by Annette M. 	Deglow 	(Deglow)
of 	a Board agent's 	dismissal 	(attached hereto) 	of her unfair
practice 	charge. 	In the 	charge, 	Deglow alleged that 	the 	Los 	Rios
College Federation of Teachers, 	Local 2279, 	CFT/AFT, 	AFL-CIO
violated section 3543.6(b) 	of 	the Educational 	Employment
Relations Act 	(EERA)1 by violating 	its 	duty of 	fair
representation.
1EERA is 	codified at Government 	Code 	section 3540 	et 	seq.
Section 3543.6 states, 	in pertinent part:
It 	shall 	be unlawful 	for an employee
organization to:
(b) 	Impose 	or threaten to 	impose 	reprisals
on employees, 	to discriminate 	or threaten to
discriminate against 	employees, 	or otherwise
to interfere with, 	restrain, 	or coerce
employees because 	of 	their exercise 	of 	rights
guaranteed by 	this 	chapter.
e

The 	Board has 	reviewed 	the warning and dismissal 	letters,
the original 	and amended charge, 	Deglow's appeal 	and the 	entire
record 	in this 	case. 	The Board 	finds 	the Board agent's 	dismissal
to be 	free 	of prejudicial 	error and adopts 	it as 	the 	decision of
the Board 	itself.
The unfair practice 	charge 	in Case No. 	S-CO-297 	is hereby
DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE 	TO AMEND.
Chair Blair and Member Hesse 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
N
	2

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	PETE WILSON. Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Sacramento Regional Office
1031 18th Street, Room 102
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
(916) 322-3198
December 31, 	1992
Annette 	Deglow
Re: 	Annette Deglow v. 	Los Rios 	College 	Federation of Teachers
Unfair Practice Charge No. 	S-CO-297
DISMISSAL 	LETTER
Dear Ms. 	Deglow:
On October 	5, 	1992 	you 	filed 	the above-referenced charge alleging
a violation of 	the 	duty of 	fair 	representation by 	the 	Los 	Rios
College 	Federation of Teachers 	(Federation).
I 	indicated to you, 	in my attached letter dated November 30,
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
December 7, 	1992, 	the charge would be dismissed. 	At your
request, 	that 	deadline was 	extended.
On December 28, 	1992, 	you filed an amended charge. 	In that
amended 	charge, 	you 	continue 	to allege 	that 	the 	Los Rios 	College
Federation 	of 	Teachers violated 	its 	duty 	of 	fair 	representation
because 	of 	remarks made by 	the 	Federation's president 	to 	the
Sacramento 	County 	School 	Board. 	Your amended 	charge 	contains 	a
great 	deal 	more 	background 	information 	regarding 	the 	issue 	of
longevity pay 	and your 	relationship with 	the 	Federation. 	You
also 	included 	several 	new arguments 	which had not 	been made 	in
the prior charge. 	However, 	no new facts are presented in your
amended 	charge 	which would 	affect 	either 	the 	reasoning 	or 	the
conclusion which 	I 	reached in my letter of November 30, 	1992.1
1It is 	true 	that 	under 	the 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations
Act 	the 	County Board of 	Education may be 	deemed an 	employer.
However, 	the 	Sacramento 	County Board of 	Education has 	no
collective bargaining relationship with 	the 	Los 	Rios 	College
Federation of 	Teachers which 	includes you as 	a member of 	the
bargaining unit. 	Accordingly, 	the 	Federation's 	appearance before
the 	Sacramento 	County Board 	of 	Education was 	unconnected with
negotiating 	or 	administering 	a 	collective 	bargaining 	agreement.

C
Accordingly, 	for the 	reasons given in that 	letter, 	your charge
must 	be 	dismissed.
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.)
2
(
•
2

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
By Bernard 	McMonigle
Regional 	Attorney
Attachment
cc: 	Michael Crowley, 	President
Los 	Rios 	College Federation of 	Teachers
1225 8th Street, 	Suite 465
Sacramento, 	CA 	95814
. Michael Jack for
w
•
3

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	PETE WILSON. Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Sacramento Regional Office
1031 18th Street, Room 102
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
(916)322-3198
November 30, 	1992
Annette 	Deglow
Re: 	Annette Deglow v. 	Los Rios 	College 	Federation of Teachers
Unfair Practice Charge No. 	S-CO-297
WARNING 	LETTER
Dear Ms. Deglow:
On October 5, 	1992, 	you 	filed the above-referenced charge
alleging a violation of 	the 	duty of 	fair 	representation by 	the
Los Rios 	College 	Federation of Teachers 	(Federation). 	On this
date, 	I attempted to reach you by telephone to discuss 	the
charge. 	You were not 	in and I 	left a message.
Your charge 	reveals 	the 	following. 	You are employed by the 	Los
Rios Community College District. 	On December 3, 	1991, 	you
". 	. 	. a s resource person for the 17 Pre-67 instructors,
addressed 	the 	Sacramento 	County 	School 	Board with 	reference 	to
our 	concerns 	for 	full 	recognition of 	benefits 	based on our being
employed with the 	Los 	Rios District prior to November 	8,
1967. 	. 	. 	." 	You asked the County Board to support an
investigation by 	the 	Sacramento 	County Grand 	Jury 	and Attorney
General's 	office 	into 	the withholding 	of 	said benefits. 	Your
issue was placed on the agenda for the April 	21, 	1992 meeting 	of
the 	County Board. 	At 	that meeting, 	you 	restated your 	request 	to
have 	Board 	support 	for an 	investigation by 	the 	Sacramento 	Grand
Jury and 	the Attorney General's 	office 	for your dispute 	with 	the
District 	over benefits. 	The next 	speaker was Mike 	Crowley,
President 	of 	the 	Federation. 	Crowley 	indicated that 	he would not
address 	the 	issue 	of 	sick 	leave as 	that was an 	issue between
yourself 	and the District. 	Crowley did address 	the 	issue 	of 	a
four percent 	longevity bonus. 	Crowley 	indicated 	that 	you were
(

active 	in a 	competing organization which challenges 	the
Federation on a variety of 	issues. 	Crowley stated:
Letter 	to Annette Deglow
UPC No. S-CO-297
. . . 	I 	think 	it 	is 	important 	that you
understand on the 	issue 	itself 	it 	is 	like
this 	every 	tenured 	faculty person in 	the
Los 	Rios District 	is 	entitled to the 	20 	year
longevity bonus 	when 	they have 	served 	the
full equivalent of 20 years. 	This means 	that
a great 	number of 	full-time 	faculty do not
get 	the bonus 	in 20 	years. 	Suddenly we
discover that Mrs. 	Deglow is 	taking this 	case
to 	PERB and claiming 	that we 	have been unfair
to her 	organization because 	we 	didn't 	bargain
for 	that particular 	item and that's 	all 	I
have 	to say.
You allege 	that 	through his 	presentation to the 	County Board and
because 	he was 	not 	informed and disclaimed any 	responsibility
with regard to the 	sick leave 	issue, 	Crowley violated the duty of
fair representation. 	According to your charge, 	Crowley also
denied 	knowledge 	of 	how the 	collective bargaining 	agreement
between 	the 	Federation and the 	District 	relates 	to 	the 	four
percent bonus. 	During the meeting of 	the County Board, 	Board
Member Joe Buonaiuto at 	one 	time 	stated 	" . . . 	this 	is 	a 	sad
incident 	of 	labor 	forgetting 	their 	interest 	and 	forgetting who,
and what 	side 	of 	the 	table 	they are 	supposed to be 	on." 	At 	the
meeting, 	the Board's attorney, 	Terry Filliman, 	indicated that 	the
17 	Pre-67 	instructors 	had their 	status 	improperly 	stated by 	the
District 	and that 	a 	complicated 	issue was how to make 	the 	17 	Pre-
67 	instructors whole again. 	You 	contend that 	Crowley's
presentation did not 	offer 	to 	help make 	these 	instructors 	whole
for their losses. 	In sum, 	you 	contend that 	" . . . 	labor's
presence at 	this meeting was 	without 	the 	intent 	to 	serve 	the
interest 	of 	the 	17 unit members was devoid of honest
judgment . . 	. . "
To 	set 	forth the 	elements 	of 	a violation of 	the 	duty of 	fair
representation, 	the 	Charging 	Party must 	demonstrate 	that 	a 	labor
organization's 	conduct 	is arbitrary, 	discriminatory, 	or in bad
faith 	towards 	a union member 	concerning a matter arising 	out 	of
the 	collective bargaining 	relationship 	(Rocklin 	Professional
Association 	(1980) 	PERB Decision No. 	124. 	The duty of fair
representation does 	not 	extend to aspects 	of 	the 	employment
relationship beyond 	collective 	bargaining 	areas 	where 	the 	labor
organization has 	an 	exclusive 	right 	to act 	San 	Francisco
Classroom Teachers Association. 	CTA/NEA 	(Chestangue) 	(19 85) 	PERB
Page 	2
(
•

Letter 	to Annette Deglow
UPC No. 	S-CO-297
Page 3
Decision No. 	544. 	In California State Employees Association
(Parisi) 	(1989) 	PERB Decision No. 	733-S, 	the Board stated,
The 	duty 	of 	fair 	representation 	evolved 	out
of 	the 	exclusive 	representative's 	duty 	to
represent 	each and 	every unit 	member,
regardless of membership status, 	in actions
that arise out 	of 	the obligations of
collective bargaining, 	specifically
negotiation and administration 	of 	a
collective 	bargaining 	agreement.
In that 	case, 	the Board determined that 	PERB's 	jurisdiction 	is
limited 	to an examination of 	the 	Union's 	role as 	exclusive
representative. 	The duty of 	fair representation does not 	extend
to a 	forum that 	has 	no 	connection with 	collective bargaining,
i.e., 	where an employee has 	the 	right 	to appear and/or concerns
an 	individual 	right 	unconnected with negotiating 	or 	administering
a 	collective bargaining agreement. 	"There 	is no duty of 	fair
representation owed 	to a unit member unless 	the 	exclusive
representative 	possesses 	the 	exclusive means 	by which 	such
employee 	can 	obtain a particular 	remedy. 	. . . " 	California 	State
Employees' 	Association 	(Darzins) 	(1985) 	PERB Decision No. 	546-S.
In this 	case, 	the 	forum in which you and the Federation appeared
was 	an entity which 	is 	not your employer nor part 	of 	the
employment 	relationship between yourself 	and 	the 	Los 	Rios
Community College District. 	Requesting 	that 	the 	Sacramento
County Board 	of 	Education 	support 	your position before 	the
Sacramento 	County Grand Jury and 	the 	District 	Attorney's 	office
is 	not 	a matter arising out 	of 	the 	collective bargaining
relationship. 	The Union does 	not possess 	the 	exclusive means by
which you 	can obtain a 	favorable 	response by the 	Board.
Accordingly, 	your 	charge must be 	dismissed.
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
(

Letter to Annette Deglow
UPC No. 	S-CO-297
Page 4
proof of service must be filed with PERB. 	If I do not receive an
amended charge or withdrawal from you before December 7, 	1992, 	I
shall dismiss your charge. 	If you have any questions, 	please
call me at 	(916) 	322-3198.
Sincerely,
B & MchamidBernard McMonigle
Regional Attorney
i