California State Employees Association (Katka) (PERB 0996S)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
MARIA B. 	KATKA,
Charging 	Party,
v.
CALIFORNIA STATE 	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION,
Respondent.
Case No. 	S-CO-152-S
PERB Decision No. 	996-S
May 19, 	1993
Appearances: 	Maria B. 	Katka, 	on her own behalf; 	Howard Schwartz,
Attorney, 	for California State Employees Association.
Before Blair, 	Chair; 	Caffrey and Carlyle, 	Members.
DECISION
BLAIR, 	Chair: 	This 	case is before the Public Employment
Relations 	Board 	(PERB 	or Board) 	on an appeal 	filed by Maria B.
Katka 	(Katka), 	to the Board agent's dismissal 	(attached hereto)
of 	her unfair practice 	charge. 	The 	charge alleged that 	the
California State Employees Association 	(CSEA) 	violated sections
3515 and 3519.5 	of the Ralph C. 	Dills Act 	(Dills Act)1 by
1The Dills Act 	is 	codified at 	Government 	Code 	section 	3512
et 	seq. 	Section 3515 	states:
Except 	as 	otherwise provided by 	the
Legislature, 	state employees 	shall have
the right 	to form, 	join, 	and participate
in 	the activities 	of 	employee 	organizations
of 	their own choosing 	for 	the purpose 	of
representation on all matters 	of 	employer-
employee 	relations. 	State employees also
shall 	have 	the 	right 	to 	refuse 	to join or
participate 	in the activities 	of employee
organizations, 	except 	that nothing shall
preclude 	the parties 	from agreeing 	to a
maintenance of membership provision, 	as
defined in subdivision 	(i) 	of Section 3513,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
--~----------->

providing misleading ballot 	information 	to 	Bargaining Unit 	4
members 	at 	the 	time 	of 	contract 	ratification. 	The Board agent
dismissed 	the 	charge 	on 	the 	ground 	that 	it 	was 	filed beyond 	the
six-month 	statutory 	limitations 	period.
or a 	fair share 	fee provision, 	as 	defined in
subdivision 	(k) 	of Section 3513, 	pursuant to
a memorandum of understanding. 	In any event,
state 	employees 	shall 	have 	the 	right 	to
represent 	themselves 	individually 	in 	their
employment 	relations with the 	state.
Section 3519.5 	states:
It 	shall 	be unlawful 	for an employee
organization to:
(a) 	Cause 	or attempt 	to 	cause 	the 	state 	to
violate Section 3519.
(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.
(c) 	Refuse 	or fail 	to meet and confer in
good 	faith with a 	state agency employer of
any of 	the 	employees 	of which it 	is 	the
recognized 	employee 	organization.
(d) 	Refuse 	to participate 	in good faith in
the mediation procedure 	set 	forth 	in Section
3518.
The 	Board has 	reviewed 	the 	entire 	record in 	this 	case
de novo and, 	finding 	the dismissal 	to be 	free of prejudicial
error, 	adopts 	it as 	the decision of the Board itself, 	consistent
with 	the 	following 	discussion.
22

DISCUSSION
The 	Board agent 	dismissed 	the 	charge 	on the 	ground 	that 	it
was 	filed beyond 	the 	statutory 	limitations 	period. 	The unlawful
conduct 	(the 	distribution of misleading ballot material) 	occurred
between May 18, 	1992,2 when the ratification vote commenced, 	and
June 	15, 	the last day to return the ballots. 	The charge was
filed on December 21. 	To be 	timely, 	it 	should have been filed on
or before December 	15.
On appeal, 	Katka contends 	that the charge was, 	in fact,
timely 	filed because 	the 	results 	of 	the vote were 	not 	officially
released until 	CSEA distributed a memo 	to 	the membership. 	She
claims 	that 	the memo was dated June 	19, 	but was not actually
distributed until 	"around June 21, 	1992." 	This 	contention,
however, 	does not make the 	charge 	timely. 	The alleged unlawful
conduct was 	the distribution of misleading ballot materials, 	not
the release 	of 	the 	results 	of 	the vote. 	As 	the distribution of
the materials 	did not 	occur within 	six months prior to 	the 	filing
of 	the charge, 	the 	charge 	is untimely and must be dismissed. 	It
is 	irrelevant when the 	results were 	released.
Katka also alleges 	in the 	charge 	that 	the 	contract proposal
discriminates 	against women workers. 	The Board agent 	dismissed
this 	allegation 	on 	the 	ground 	that 	it 	did not 	conform to 	PERB
Regulation 	32615,3 which 	requires 	a 	clear and concise 	statement
2A11 	dates herein refer to 1992, 	unless 	otherwise indicated.
3PERB 	regulations 	are 	codified at 	California Code 	of
Regulations, 	title 8, 	section 31001 et seq.
w3

of 	the 	facts 	and 	conduct 	alleged 	to 	constitute 	an unfair
practice. 	This 	allegation is 	also untimely, 	as any CSEA conduct
relevant 	to drafting 	or promoting 	the proposal 	must 	have 	occurred
prior to the vote. 	Therefore, 	this allegation is untimely for
the 	reasons 	discussed above.
ORDER
The unfair practice 	charge 	in Case No. 	S-CO-152-S 	is 	hereby
DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE 	TO AMEND.
Members 	Caffrey and Carlyle 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
4

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
January 27, 	1993
Maria B. 	Katka
Re: 	Maria B. 	Katka v. 	California State Employees Association
Unfair Practice 	Charge 	Case No. 	S-CO-152-S
DISMISSAL 	LETTER
Dear Ms. 	Katka:
On December 21, 	1992, 	you filed a charge 	in which you allege 	that
the California State Employees Association 	(Association) 	violated
Government Code sections 3515 and 3519.5 	(the Dills Act).
Specifically, 	you allege 	that CSEA violated its 	duty of 	fair
representation by providing misleading ballot 	information 	to
Bargaining Unit 	4 members at 	the 	time 	of 	contract 	ratification 	in
order 	to 	secure 	approval 	of 	the 	contract between 	the Association
and the State.
I 	indicated to you, 	in my attached letter dated January 15, 	1993,
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 22, 	1993 	the 	charge
would 	be 	dismissed.
I 	have not 	received either an amended 	charge 	or a 	request 	for
withdrawal. 	Therefore, 	I am dismissing the 	charge based on the
facts 	and reasons 	contained in my January 	15, 	1993 	letter.
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 	(2 0) 	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.)
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 Michael E. 	Gash
Regional 	Attorney
Attachment
cc: 	Howard Schwartz, 	Assistant Chief Counsel
California 	State 	Employees 	Association
1108 	0 	Street
Sacramento, 	CA 	95814

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
January 15, 	1993
PERB
Maria B. 	Katka
Re: 	Maria B. 	Katka v. 	California State Employees Association
Unfair Practice Charge Case No. 	S-CO152-S
WARNING 	LETTER
Dear Ms. 	Katka:
On December 21, 	1992, 	you filed a charge 	in which you allege 	that
the 	California State Employees Association 	(Association) 	violated
Government Code sections 3515 and 3519.5 	(the Dills Act).
Specifically, 	you allege 	that 	CSEA violated 	its 	duty of 	fair
representation by providing misleading 	ballot 	information 	to
Bargaining Unit 	4 members 	at 	the 	time 	of 	contract 	ratification 	in
order 	to 	secure 	approval 	of 	the 	contract between 	the Association
and 	the 	State. 	My investigation 	revealed 	the 	following 	facts.
On or about May 18, 	1992, 	the ratification vote 	for the 	current
Memorandum of Understanding 	(MOU) 	for State 	Bargaining Unit 	4
commenced when the Association wrote 	all 	Unit 	4 	employees 	and
provided 	them with a 	synopsis 	of 	the 	tentative 	agreement 	and a
ratification ballot.
This 	letter also announced 	that 	all 	ballots 	must 	be 	returned by
June 15, 	1992. 	On June 16, 	1992 	the Unit 4 ballots were counted
and the results were made public. 	On June 	16, 	1992, 	the
Association 	issued a press 	release 	announcing 	the 	results 	of 	the
ratification vote.
In order to 	state a prima 	facie 	case 	a 	Charging 	Party must 	allege
and 	ultimately 	establish 	that 	the 	conduct 	complained 	of 	either
occurred 	or was 	discovered within 	the 	six-month period
immediately preceding the 	filing of 	the 	charge. 	San Dieguito
Union High School District 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	194.
Government 	Code 	section 3514.5(a) 	states 	in relevant part:
Any employee, 	employee organization, 	or
employer shall 	have 	the 	right 	to 	file 	an
unfair practice 	charge, 	except 	that 	the board
shall not 	do either of 	the 	following: 	(1)
'ii!i'	, P·E·R·B +'
.

issue 	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, 	. 	. 	.
Your 	charge was 	filed with 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board
on December 21, 	1992, 	which means 	that 	to be 	timely any alleged
unfair practice by 	the Association 	should 	have 	occurred 	during
the 	six-month statutory period which began on June 	21, 	1992.
The 	six month 	limitation period 	runs 	from the date 	the 	charging
party knew or 	reasonably 	should 	have 	known 	of 	the 	alleged unfair
practice, 	if 	the knowledge was 	obtained after the 	conduct
occurred. 	Fairfield Suisun Unified School 	District 	(19 85) 	PERB
Decision No. 	547.
The Association's 	letter of May 18, 	1992, 	announced that all
ballots must be 	returned by June 	15, 	1992. 	This 	letter also
contained the allegedly misleading ballot 	information, 	which you
allege 	the Association provided 	to bargaining unit members 	for
the purpose of 	securing approval 	of 	the 	ratification vote.
The Association's May 18, 	1992, 	correspondence, 	which contained
the 	allegedly misleading 	information 	and 	announced 	the 	deadline
for 	the 	return of all ballots, 	indicates 	that you had knowledge
that 	the 	Association may have 	engaged 	in an unfair 	labor practice
prior to June 	16, 	1992. 	Since 	the 	conduct you 	complained of 	and
your receipt 	of 	knowledge 	of 	that 	conduct 	occurred outside 	tine
six-month 	limitation period, 	your 	charge 	is 	untimely and must be
dismissed.
Your charge also 	states,
Bargaining Unit 	4 	employees 	are 	dominated by
women workers 	that 	are making 	lower salaries.
The 	reduction 	in 	salary 	impacts 	them greater
than other bargaining units, 	therefore we
feel 	that 	this 	proposal 	discriminates 	against
women workers. 	This Violates 	[sic] 	3519.5(b)
of 	the Ralph C. 	Dills Act.
PERB Regulation 32615 	(California Code of Regs., 	tit. 	8, 	sec.
32615) 	requires 	that your 	charge 	contain a 	clear and 	concise
statement 	of 	the 	facts 	and 	conduct 	alleged 	to 	constitute 	an
unfair practice.
The 	statement 	contained 	in your 	charge 	fails 	to 	state 	sufficient
facts 	to 	demonstrate 	the 	specific 	conduct 	engaged 	in by 	the
Association which demonstrates 	discrimination. 	In 	the 	absence 	of
a 	clear 	statement 	of 	facts 	and 	conduct 	constituting 	an unfair
practice, 	your charge 	fails 	to 	state a prima 	facie violation of
the Dills 	Act 	and will 	be 	dismissed.
22

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 any additional 	facts 	that 	would 	correct 	the
deficiencies 	explained above, 	please amend the 	charge
accordingly. 	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 must 	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 22, 	1993, 	I shall dismiss your charge. 	If you have any
questions, 	please call me at 	(916) 	322-3198.
Sincerely,
Michael E. 	Gash
Regional 	Attorney
W
I
3