Bakersfield City School District (Guerra) (PERB 1191E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
DOMINGO P. 	GUERRA,
Charging 	Party,
v.
BAKERSFIELD CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
) 	Case No. 	LA-CE-3710
PERB Decision No. 	1191
April 	3, 	1997
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances; 	Domingo P. 	Guerra, 	on his own behalf; 	Breon,
O'Donnell, 	Miller, 	Brown & Dannis by Joan Birdt, 	Attorney, 	for
Bakersfield 	City 	School 	District.
Before Caffrey, 	Chairman; 	Johnson and Dyer, 	Members.
DECISION
DYER, 	Member: 	This 	case comes before the Public Employment
Relations 	Board 	(Board) 	on appeal 	from a Board agent's 	dismissal
(attached) 	of Domingo P. 	Guerra's 	(Guerra) 	unfair practice
charge. 	As amended, 	the 	charge alleges 	that 	the Bakersfield City
School District 	(District) 	violated section 3543.5(a) 	and 	(c) 	of
the Educational 	Employment Relations Act 	(EERA)1 by harassing,
1EERA is 	codified at Government 	Code 	section 3540 	et 	seq.
Section 3543.5 provides, 	in relevant 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.
_____ )

(c) 	Refuse or fail 	to meet and negotiate 	in
good 	faith with an 	exclusive 	representative.
retaliating, 	and discriminating against Guerra.
The 	Board has 	reviewed 	the 	entire 	record 	in 	this 	case,
including Guerra's 	original 	and amended unfair practice 	charge,
the warning and dismissal 	letters, 	Guerra's appeal, 	and the
District's 	response 	thereto. 	The Board finds 	the warning and
dismissal 	letters 	to be 	free of prejudicial 	error and adopts 	them
as 	the decision of 	the Board 	itself.
ORDER
The unfair practice 	charge 	in Case No. 	LA-CE-3710 	is hereby
DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE 	TO AMEND.
Chairman 	Caffrey and Member Johnson 	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
PERS
January 9, 	1997
Domingo P. Guerra
Re: 	Domingo 	P. 	Guerra v. 	Bakersfield City School District
Unfair Practice Charge No. 	LA-CE-3710
Dismissal and Refusal 	to Issue a Complaint
Dear Mr. Guerra:
In the above-referenced charge you allege the Bakersfield City
Unified School District 	(District) 	violated the Educational
Employment Relations Act 	(EERA or Act) 	section 3543.5(a) 	and 	(c)
by discriminating against you.
On November 20, 	1996, 	I spoke with you regarding the above-
referenced charge. 	I explained the Public Employment Relations
Board's 	(PERB or Board) 	jurisdiction is limited. 	I indicated to
you, 	in my attached letter dated December 12, 	1996, 	that the
above-referenced charge did not 	state a prima facie violation.
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 violation or withdrew it prior to December 19, 	1996, 	the
charge would be dismissed. 	At your request I extended that
deadline to December 27, 	1996.
On December 31, 	1996, 	I received two amended charges postmarked
December 30, 	1996. 	These amended charges were labeled,
"bilingual teachers rights," 	and 	"promotional opportunities." 	On
January 2, 	1997, 	I received a third amended charge labeled, 	"file
tampering." 	I received a fourth amended charge labeled, 	"problem
resolution," on January 6, 	1997.1
My December 12, 	1996, 	letter indicated many of the allegations of
the original 	charge were untimely filed. 	The bilingual 	teacher
charge similarly presents untimely allegations. 	The charge
includes allegations and/or events dating back to 1993. 	As
previously discussed, 	allegations of conduct falling outside of
the six month statute of limitations period, 	in this case prior
to February 22, 	1996, must be dismissed. 	Although the amended
lAlthough partially amended four times, 	I considered the
partially amended charges together as one amended charge. 	The
combined total of these amendments is approximately 400 pages.
'
:. 	' 	' 	I 	I

January 9, 	1997
LA-CE-3710
charge provided additional 	facts, 	the amended charge did not
correct 	the deficiencies noted in the warning letter.
In the bilingual 	teacher rights 	section of your amended charge
you alleged the District 	transferred you unfairly. 	However,
according to the amended charge, 	the District notified you of
your transfer away from Stella Hills on May 25, 	1994. 	A
complaint may not 	issue on this allegation because 	the conduct
occurred prior to February 22, 	1996, 	and is therefore time-
barred.
The bilingual 	rights 	section of your amended charge also alleges
the District 	refuses to pay you a bonus 	for being a bilingual
teacher, 	while also locking you into a bilingual position.
However, 	the charge does not provide facts indicating the
District was 	unlawfully motivated by your participation in
protected activities when refusing to pay you the bilingual bonus
and refusing to allow you to transfer out 	of the bilingual 	class
you were teaching. 	The collective bargaining agreement between
the District 	and the Bakersfield Elementary Teachers Association
requires unit members seeking a bilingual bonus to have a
bilingual 	certificate.2 You do not possess such certification.
As 	for your allegation that the District 	is locking you into the
bilingual position, 	my investigation revealed the following
information. 	The charge indicates the District notified you of
your transfer away from Stella Hills school on May 25, 	1994. 	You
wanted to 	teach kindergarten but assignment 	selection was based
on seniority. 	Your charge provides, 	"When my turn came, 	the
lowest grade 	to kindergarten was a third grade class 	at McKinley
school. 	I chose it." 	Later in 1994, 	you accepted a position to
teach a bilingual kindergarten class at the Pauly School 	instead
of the 3d grade class at McKinley. 	Because you chose to teach
the kindergarten class at 	Pauly instead of 	staying at McKinley
2Section 14.4.1 Bilingual/Special Education Bonus states, 	in
pertinent part:
. 	. 	. unit members assigned to a bilingual
position who hold one or more of the
following clear California credentials and/or
full 	California certification required for
their assigned position shall 	receive a bonus
of Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars 	($750.00). 	. 	.
2
(
2

January 9, 	1997
LA-CE-3710
the District alleges you are not eligible under the contract to
transfer out of the Pauly position until July 8, 	1997.3
As explained above, 	your allegation that the transfer away from
Stella Hills 	in 1994 was unlawfully motivated is untimely and
therefore not within the jurisdiction of PERB. 	Even if timely
filed, 	the allegation would be dismissed and deferred to binding
arbitration as 	explained in the warning letter. 	Nor does your
allegation that 	the District has 	locked you into a bilingual
position present a prima facie violation of the EERA.
In addition to the 	limitation on your ability to transfer until
July 8, 	1997, 	you also allege the District will not let you
transfer out of the bilingual position until the district 	can
replace you with a bilingual 	teacher. 	The charge does not
provide facts 	establishing this 	limitation on bilingual 	teachers
is a violation of the EERA. 	Your amended charge indicates a 1984
Desegregation Consent Decree by the Office of Civil Rights
resulted in this 	limitation on bilingual teachers. 	The charge
does not present 	facts indicating the District was unlawfully
motivated by your protected activities. 	The charge does not
include 	facts 	demonstrating the District departed from this
policy by applying it 	exclusively to you. 	Nor did the 	charge
provide any other facts indicative of nexus.
In the promotional 	opportunities 	section of your amended charge
you allege the District discriminated against you by refusing to
hire you as a principal and/or vice-principal. 	You also allege
the District denied you due process.
The 	charge did not 	indicate how the District's 	refusal 	to conduct
the hiring of principals and vice-principals 	in accordance with
your requests was a violation of the EERA. 	Hiring decisions are
a matter of management prerogative. 	(See Redwoods Community
College District 	(1994) 	PERB Decision No. 	1047; Newman-Crows
Landing Unified School District 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	223.)
As stated previously, 	PERB's jurisdiction is limited. 	Your due
process rights under other state and/or federal 	law cannot be
addressed by PERB. 	Thus, 	these allegations must be dismissed.
The 	file tampering section of your amended charge alleges 	on
April 12, 	1995, 	you discovered two positive letters had been
deleted and four negative letters had been added to your
personnel 	file. 	You failed to file this unfair practice charge
3The 	collective bargaining agreement Section 8.4.1 	limits
voluntary transfers 	to one per a three year period.
W
	3

January 9, 	1997
LA-CE-3710
within six months of your discovery of the District's 	conduct.
Thus, 	this allegation must be dismissed.
In the section of your charge labeled problem resolution, 	it is
unclear what 	type of unfair practice you are alleging. 	The
charge makes several allegations: 	(a) 	the District does not
provide employees with a booklet listing their rights, 	(b) 	the
CBA does not contain a discrimination clause, 	(c) 	the District's
process for filing complaints against District employees, 	Policy
300.13, 	is inadequate, 	and 	(d) 	the District and exclusive
representative ignore issues.4
These allegations do not 	factually demonstrate a prima facie
violation of the EERA. 	The EERA does not require the District 	to
provide employees a booklet listing their rights. 	Nor does 	the
District have an obligation to include a discrimination clause 	in
the collective bargaining agreement. 	Moreover, 	as an individual
employee you would not have standing to 	file an unfair practice
against the District 	for failing to negotiate in good faith.
(Oxnar------------d School District 	(Gorcey/Tripp)
667.) -- 	- (1988) 	PERB Decision No.
Although you allege 	the District has not properly resolved your
complaints via District Policy 300.13, 	it is unclear which
section of the EERA you believe the District violated. 	If you
are alleging PERB should be enforcing District Policy 300.13,
that allegation is dismissed. 	PERB does not have jurisdiction to
enforce the District's policy. 	EERA section 3541,5(b) 	states:
The board shall not have the authority to
enforce agreements between the parties, 	and
shall not 	issue a complaint on any charge
based on alleged violation of 	any agreement
that would not also constitute an unfair
practice under this chapter.
Nor would you have standing as an individual employee to allege
the District implemented a unilateral change, 	if your charge
seeks 	redress 	for any alleged change in Policy 300.13.
The final allegation stated above, 	the District and union's
failure to address issues is 	similarly dismissed. 	This letter
4This section of 	the 	charge included approximately 150
pages, 	many of which were included in the three other sections of
the amended charge. 	As such many of the allegations have already
been considered in the preceding pages 	of 	this 	letter and will
not be discussed hereafter.
4
I
4

January 9, 	1997
LA-CE-3710
only addresses conduct by the District, 	it does not address any
alleged unfair practices by the exclusive representative.5 With
regard to the District's conduct 	the allegations in this 	section
repeat allegations 	covered in other sections of the amended
charge.
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
5Allegations of unfair practices by the exclusive
representative were considered in Unfair Practice Charge No. 	LA-
CO- 707, and dismissed on November 21, 1996.
S5

January 9, 	1997
LA-CE-3710
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 Tammy L. 	Samsel
Regional Director
Attachment
cc: David G. Miller

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
Zim
December 12, 	1996
Domingo P. 	Guerra
Re: 	Domingo P. 	Guerra v. 	Bakersfield City School District
Unfair Practice Charge No. 	LA-CE-3710
Warning 	Letter
Dear Mr. Guerra:
In 	the 	above-referenced charge you allege 	the Bakersfield City
Unified School District 	(District) 	violated the Educational
Employment Relations Act 	(EERA or Act) 	section 3543.5(a) 	and 	(c)
by discriminating against you. 	You separated the 	charge 	into
three sections: 	(a) 	race, 	(b) 	professional workplace violations,
and 	(c) 	harassment and retaliation. 	I will address each section
separately below.
On November 20, 	1996, 	I spoke with you regarding the above-
referenced charge. 	I explained the Public Employment Relations
Board's 	(PERB or Board) 	jurisdiction is limited.
Race
This 	section of 	the 	charge 	includes nine 	single-spaced pages
which provide information dating back to 1993, 	and alleges 	the
District 	discriminated against you because of your race.
EERA § 	3541.5(a)(1) 	provides 	the Public Employment Relations
Board shall not, 	"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." 	It is your burden, 	as
the 	charging party to demonstrate the charge has been timely
filed. 	(See Tehachapi Unified School District 	(1993) 	PERB
Decision No. 	1024.)
You filed this charge on August 22, 	1996. 	Thus all allegations
of conduct prior to February 22, 	1996, 	are untimely filed and
will not be addressed further in this 	letter.
Those allegations of conduct occurring after February 22, 	1996,
do not 	state a prima facie violation for the reasons 	that 	follow.
To demonstrate a violation of EERA section 3543.5(a), 	the
charging party must 	show that: 	(1) 	the employee exercised rights
under EERA; 	(2) 	the employer had knowledge of the exercise of

LA-CE-3710
Warning 	Letter
December 12, 	1996
Page 2
those rights; 	and 	(3) 	the employer imposed or threatened to
impose reprisals, 	discriminated or threatened to discriminate, 	or
otherwise interfered with, 	restrained or coerced the employees
because of the exercise of 	those rights. 	(Novato Unified School
District 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	210; 	Carlsbad Unified School
District 	(1979) 	PERB Decision No. 	89; Department of Developmental
Services 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	228-S; 	California State
University 	(Sacramento) 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	211-H.)
Although the timing of 	the employer's adverse action in close
temporal proximity to the employee's protected conduct 	is an
important factor, 	it does not, without more, 	demonstrate the
necessary connection or 	"nexus" 	between the adverse action and
the protected conduct. 	(Moreland Elementary School District
(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	227.) 	Facts establishing one or more
of the following additional 	factors must also be present:
(1) 	the employer's disparate treatment of the employee; 	(2) 	the
employer's 	departure 	from established procedures and standards
when dealing with the employee; 	(3) 	the employer's inconsistent
or contradictory justifications for its actions; 	(4) 	the
employer's 	cursory investigation of the employee's misconduct;
(5) 	the employer's failure to offer the employee justification at
the time it took action or the offering of exaggerated, 	vague, 	or
ambiguous reasons; 	or 	(6) 	any other facts which might demonstrate
the employer's unlawful motive. 	(Novato Unified School District,
supra; 	North Sacramento School District 	(1982) 	PERB Decision
No. 	264.) 	As presently written, 	this charge fails to demonstrate
any of 	these 	factors and therefore does not 	state a prima facie
violation of EERA section 3543.5(a).
The allegations 	in this section do not 	factually support 	the
conclusion that 	the District's actions were unlawfully motivated
by your involvement 	in protected activities. 	Rather you allege
the District's motivation was your race. 	Thus these allegations
do not present a prima facie violation within the jurisdiction of
PERB, 	and must be dismissed.1
Professional Workplace Violations
This 	section includes 	thirteen single-spaced pages which also
include allegations of 	conduct dating back to 1993. 	As
1This letter addresses only your rights under the EERA, 	and
does not address any other rights you may have under state or
federal law.

LA-CE-3710
Warning 	Letter
December 12, 	1996
Page 3
previously discussed, 	allegations of conduct prior to February
22, 	1996, 	are outside of PERB's six month statute of limitations
and must be dismissed. 	Four allegations 	in this 	section remain.2
On March 6, 199 6, you filed a complaint against the District
regarding bilingual teacher rights. 	You allege:
. 	. 	. 	the Union and the BCSD have refused to
provide 	the 	requested supportive and
justifying documentation 	for the negative
actions 	they have taken against me.
On March 11, 	1996, 	the District refused to provide you with the
"merit based criteria" 	for hiring principals and vice-principals.
The District 	similarly refused to video tape the interviews 	for
these positions.
On April 3, 199 6, the District's Mike Lingo, wrote you a letter
which 	failed to address your concerns 	regarding the bilingual
teacher rights. 	Lingo also informed you that your next
opportunity to transfer would be on July 8, 	1997. 	Lingo
explained because your current position was due 	to a voluntary
transfer you would not be eligible to transfer again until July
8, 	1997. 	You assert your last transfer was involuntary.
On May 20, 	1996, 	you requested the criteria the District planned
to use to select principals and vice-principals. 	You also
requested, 	"your due process rights to pursue the
discrimination." 	The District did not 	respond to your requests.
The allegations 	in this 	section do not 	factually demonstrate a
prima facie violation of 	the EERA. 	The charge did not 	indicate
how the District's 	refusal 	to conduct the hiring of principals
and vice-principals 	in accordance with your requests was a
violation of the EERA. 	Nor did the charge indicate how the
District denied your due process 	rights 	to pursue your
discrimination claims.
With regard to Lingo's, 	April 3, 	1996 letter limiting your next
transfer opportunity to 1997, 	the charge fails 	to demonstrate the
2This 	section also 	included four allegations which
exclusively refer to the 	conduct of 	the exclusive representative,
not 	the District. 	Those allegations do not present 	facts
establishing 	the District violated the EERA and must be
dismissed.

LA-CE-3710
Warning 	Letter
December 12, 	1996
Page 4
District 	was unlawfully motivated by your participation 	in
protected activities. 	It 	is unclear when the prior transfer
which you allege was 	involuntary occurred. 	The charge does 	not
include a copy of the April 	3, 	1996 	letter. 	Nor does the charge
include any documentation regarding your allegation that 	the
transfer was 	involuntary.
Even if 	factually supported, 	and timely filed, 	this allegation
may not be within the jurisdiction of 	PERB. 	In Lake Elsinore
School District 	(1987) 	PERB Decision No. 	646, 	PERB held that
section 3541.5(a) 	of the Educational Employment Relations Act,
established a jurisdictional 	rule 	requiring that a charge be
dismissed and deferred if: 	(1) 	the grievance machinery of the
agreement 	covers 	the matter at 	issue and culminates 	in binding
arbitration; 	and 	(2) 	the conduct complained of in the unfair
practice 	charge 	is prohibited by the provisions of 	the agreement
between the parties. 	PERB Regulation 32620(b)(5) 	(Cal. 	Code of
Regs., 	tit. 	8, 	section 32620(b)(5)) 	also requires the
investigating Board agent 	to dismiss a charge where the
allegations 	are properly deferred to binding arbitration.
The 	collective bargaining agreement between the District 	and the
exclusive 	representative 	includes 	a grievance procedure which
ends 	in binding arbitration. 	The agreement 	continues 	in effect
from December 12, 	1994, 	until June 30, 	1997. 	Article 2 of the
agreement allows a grievant 	to file a grievance alleging there
has been a violation, 	misapplication or misinterpretation of 	the
specific terms of the agreement.
Article 	8.5.1 provides:
No unit member shall 	be 	transferred without 	justifiable
reason 	in fact 	and supported by a reasonable
interpretation of 	the Policies and Procedures of 	the
District and/or the 	Education Code and/or pertinent
State and Federal 	laws. 	Transfers 	shall not be used to
punish or discipline unit members.
In the 	instant 	charge the grievance machinery of 	the agreement
covers 	the matter at 	issue and culminates 	in binding arbitration.
The provisions of 	the agreement between the parties arguably
prohibits the District's 	conduct. 	Thus even if this allegation
were 	factually supported and timely filed, 	it must be dismissed
and deferred to binding arbitration.
Harassment 	and Retaliation
This 	section of 	the 	charge 	includes 21 	single-spaced pages. 	As

LA-CE-3710
Warning 	Letter
December 12, 	1996
Page 5
previously discussed, 	allegations of 	conduct prior to February
22, 	1996, 	are outside of PERB's six month statute of limitations
and must be dismissed.
Only two of 	the allegations 	are within the statute of 	limitations
period. 	However the 	first 	of 	these allegations 	simply reiterates
an allegation discussed in another section of your charge, 	and
addressed 	in the preceding section of 	this 	letter.3 The second
of these allegations states 	the following:
June, 	1995 	-- August 1996 Procedural
Harassment
Thereafter, 	the BCSD has harassed in a
different form, 	as indicated in section two,
Professional Workplace Violations - -
Discriminatory Behavior. 	The relentless and
continual obstruction, 	denial of due process,
denial 	of access 	to problem resolution
mechanisms, 	discrimination in promotional
opportunities has gone beyond the bounds of
professionalism and 	administrative
discretion. 	When the most basic 	formulated
policies and procedures are violated, 	the
effect to me is harassic. 	[sic]
The district 	is no longer fully supporting my
teaching efforts positively but 	is
undermining my efforts by, 	with full
conscious knowledge, 	promoting negative
conditions on me, 	and ignoring the most basic
mechanisms 	of 	employee-employer 	conflict
resolutions, 	the union and due process. 	The
choice to avoid this 	type of negative conduct
is inherent in the: 	1. 	informal problem
resolution professionalism inherent 	in human
relations 	2. 	formal problem resolution
mechanisms within the district 	3. 	formal
problem resolution mechanisms within the
union relationship.
Yet 	the union and district have 	repeatedly
avoided them with respect 	to administrative
wrongful acts and problem complaints, 	to the
point of even denying access to the Board.
3The allegation refers 	to the District's 	failure to address
the hiring concerns that you raised in your May 20, 	1996 	letter.
(

LA-CE-3710
Warning 	Letter
December 12, 	1996
Page 6
Instead, 	the wrongful acts have been allowed
to damage my reputation, 	defame my
character, undermine my promotional
opportunities 	and 	cause untold emotional
distress 	to my family and the district 	in
general.
As previously discussed, 	allegations of 	conduct prior to February
22, 	1996, 	are outside of PERB's six month statute of limitations
and must be dismissed. 	Since 	the allegation indicates 	the
District engaged in conduct between June 1995 and August 	199 6, 	it
is unclear from the allegation what 	specific actions 	the District
engaged in during the 	relevant 	statute of limitations period.
Moreover, 	PERB regulation 32615(a)(5) 	states a charge shall
contain a 	"clear and concise 	statement 	of 	the facts and conduct
alleged to 	constitute an unfair practice." 	A charging party
should allege the "who, what, 	when, 	where, 	and how" of an unfair
practice. 	(United Teachers-Los Angeles 	(Ragsdale) 	(1992) 	PERB
Decision No. 	944.) 	Mere legal conclusions are insufficient.
(See State of 	California 	(Department of 	Food and Agriculture
(1994) 	PERB Decision No. 	1071-S.) 	To the extent the statement is
meant to allege separate violations of the EERA, 	and not to
simply summarize 	conduct discussed in more detail 	elsewhere 	in
the charge it 	fails to identify the who, 	what, 	when and how of an
unfair practice. 	Accordingly this allegation fails to state a
prima facie violation within the jurisdiction of 	PERB.
The charge also alleges a violation of EERA section 3543.5 (c).
That 	section of 	the EERA states 	it 	shall be unlawful 	for a public
school employer to, 	"refuse or fail to meet and negotiate in good
faith with an exclusive representative." 	As an employee you are
without 	standing to allege such a violation. 	(Oxnard School
District 	(1988) 	PERB Decision No. 	667.)
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

LA-CE-3710
Warning 	Letter
December 12, 	1996
Page 7
proof of service must be filed with PERB. 	If 	I do not 	receive an
amended charge or withdrawal 	from you before December 19. 	1996. 	I
shall dismiss your charge. 	If you have any questions, 	please
call me at 	(213) 	736-3008.
Sincerely,
Tammy L. 	Samsel
Regional Director