California State Employees Association (Hutchinson) (PERB 1355S)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
CESSALY D. 	HUTCHINSON,
Charging 	Party,
v.
CALIFORNIA STATE 	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION,
Respondent.
Case No. 	SF-CO-39-S
PERB Decision No. 	1355-S
October 7, 	1999
Appearance; 	Cessaly D. 	Hutchinson, 	on her own behalf.
Before Caffrey, 	Chairman; 	Dyer and Amador, 	Members.
DECISION
CAFFREY, 	Chairman: 	This 	case is before the Public
Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(Board) 	on appeal by Cessaly D.
Hutchinson 	(Hutchinson) 	of 	a Board agent's 	dismissal 	(attached)
of her unfair practice charge. 	In the charge, 	Hutchinson alleged
that 	the 	California 	State 	Employees Association breached 	its 	duty
of 	fair 	representation by 	retaliating 	against 	her 	for protected
activities 	in violation of 	section 3519.5(b) 	of 	the Ralph C.
Dills Act 	(Dills Act), 	and by causing the State of California
(Department 	of Transportation) 	to terminate her employment 	in
violation of Dills Act section 3519.5 (a)1.
lThe Dills Act 	is 	codified at Government 	Code 	section 	3512
et seq. 	Section 3519.5 	states, 	in pertinent part:
It 	shall 	be unlawful 	for an employee
organization to:
(a) 	Cause or attempt 	to cause 	the state to
violate 	Section 3519.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
______________ i

(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.
The Board has 	reviewed the 	entire 	record 	in this 	case,
including 	Hutchinson's 	original 	and 	amended unfair practice
charge, 	the Board agent's warning and dismissal 	letters 	and
Hutchinson's 	appeal. 	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. 	SF-CO-39-S 	is hereby
DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE 	TO AMEND.
Members 	Dyer and Amador 	joined 	in this 	Decision.
22

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	PETE WILSON, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
San Francisco Regional Office
177 Post Street, 9th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108-4737
(415)439-6940
July 12, 	1999
Cessaly D. 	Hutchinson
Re: 	DISMISSAL OF UNFAIR PRACTICE CHARGE/REFUSAL TO ISSUE
COMPLAINT
Cessaly D. 	Hutchinson v. 	California State Employees
Association
Unfair Practice Charge No. 	SF-CO-39-S
Dear Ms. Hutchinson:
The 	above-referenced unfair practice 	charge 	filed on March 8,
1999, 	and amended on March 15, 	March 24, 	May 11, 	and July 12,
1999, 	alleges that the California State Employees Association
(Association) 	has retaliated against Charging Party as a result
of her participation in certain activities within the
Association. 	This conduct is alleged to violate Government Code
section 3519.5(b) 	of the Ralph C. Dills Act 	(Dills Act).
I indicated to you, 	in my attached letter dated July 7, 	1999,
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 July
16, 	1999, 	the charge would be dismissed.
On July 12, 	1999, 	an amended charge was filed. 	The amended
charge reiterates a previous allegation that Hutchinson was
denied outside counsel to represent her in the appeal of her
termination from the Department of Transportation 	(Department).
Nothing new is added with respect to this allegation.
Hutchinson alleges 	that 	the Association activists named in an
unfair practice 	complaint previously issued by this 	agency 	(case
number SF-CE-108-S) 	on January 15; 	1993,-as well as two others,
were also terminated by the Department. 	At the time of her
termination, 	she was the only remaining activist of those named
in the complaint. 	In addition, 	Hutchinson alleges that Gladys
Perry, 	who was 	identified previously as having denied one or more
of Hutchinson's travel claims, 	was the person in charge of the
Association's Alameda office that was responsible for
representing these other employees. 	It 	is not demonstrated how
these allegations bolster in any meaningful way Hutchinson's

Dismissal 	Letter
SF-CO-39-S
July 12, 	1999
Page 	2
claim 	that 	the 	Association 	caused or 	attempted 	to 	cause 	the
Department 	to 	terminate 	her because 	of 	her union
activities.
Hutchinson 	further 	alleges 	in 	the 	amended 	charge 	that 	she 	lost
the vote 	to be 	elected vice-president 	in 	September 	1998 	when a
white 	female was 	nominated 	from the 	floor. 	This 	allegedly-
deprived Hutchinson of votes 	needed 	to win the 	election.
Hutchinson 	also 	alludes 	to 	racially motivated 	statements 	by
Yolanda Solari,' a past president of 	the Association. 	However,
there 	is 	nothing demonstrating 	that 	Solari 	was 	connected to 	the
alleged 	ongoing 	conspiracy 	among 	certain prominent 	Association
officials. 	The 	allegations 	of 	racial 	animus 	are 	attenuated and
not 	germane 	to 	the 	claims 	of 	discrimination based on
Hutchinson's 	protected activities 	within 	the Association.
Indeed, 	in one of 	the allegations, 	Hutchinson cites 	the racially
discriminatory conduct of Tut 	Tate, 	who 	is herself African-
American.
Lastly, 	Hutchinson 	includes 	in her amended charge 	a 	copy of 	the
book The 	Last 	Days 	of Marilyn Monroe by Donald H. 	Wolfe. 	The
book purportedly contains parallels 	to 	her 	case 	in 	terms 	of 	the
role 	of 	organized crime 	in executing conspiracy plans. 	The book
has 	no material 	evidentiary value 	to Hutchinson's 	case 	due 	to 	the
attenuated nature 	of 	its 	subject 	matter.
The 	amended 	charge 	fails 	to 	cure 	the 	deficiencies 	identified 	in
the attached letter dated July 7, 	1999. 	Therefore, 	I 	am
dismissing 	the 	charge 	based on 	the 	facts 	and reasons 	contained
above 	as well 	as 	in my July 7, 	1999 	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 Regs., 	tit. 	8,
sec. 	32635(a).) 	Any document 	filed with the Board must 	contain
the 	case name and number, 	and the original 	and five 	(5) 	copies of
all 	documents 	must 	be 	provided 	to 	the 	Board.
A document 	is 	considered 	"filed" 	when actually received before
the 	close of business 	(5 p.m.) 	on the 	last 	day set 	for 	filing or
when mailed by certified or Express 	United 	States 	mail, 	as 	shown
on the postal 	receipt 	or postmark, 	or delivered to a 	common
carrier promising overnight 	delivery, 	as 	shown on the 	carrier's
receipt, 	not 	later than the 	last day set 	for filing. 	(Cal. 	Code
Regs., tit. 	8, 	sec. 	32135 (a); see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 	8,
sec. 	32130.)

c
Dismissal 	Letter
SF-CO-39-S
July 12, 	1999
Page 3
A 	document 	is 	also 	considered 	"filed" 	when 	received by 	facsimile
transmission before 	the 	close 	of 	business 	on the 	last 	day 	for
filing 	together with 	a 	Facsimile 	Transmission 	Cover 	Sheet 	which
meets the requirements of Cal. 	Code Regs., 	tit. 	8, 	sec. 	32135(d),
provided the 	filing party also places 	the 	original, 	together with
the 	required number of 	copies 	and proof 	of 	service, 	in the U.S.
mail. 	(Cal. 	Code. 	Regs., 	tit. 	8, 	secs. 	32135(b), 	(c) 	and 	(d);
see also Cal. 	Code Regs., 	tit. 	8, 	secs. 	32090 and 32130.)
The Board's 	address 	is:
Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board
Attention: 	Appeals Assistant
1031 	18th Street
Sacramento, 	CA 	95814-4174
FAX: 	(916) 	327-7960
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
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 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. 	A document 	filed by 	facsimile 	transmission
may be 	concurrently 	served via 	facsimile 	transmission 	on 	all
parties to the proceeding. 	(Cal. 	Code Regs., 	tit. 	8, 	sec.
32135(c) .)
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 Regs., 	tit. 	8, 	sec. 	32132.)

Dismissal 	Letter
SF-CO-39-S
July 12, 	1999
Page 4
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
DONN GINOZA
Regional Attorney
Attachment
cc: 	Harry J. 	Gibbons

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	! 	I 	PETE WILSON, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
San Francisco Regional Office
177 Post Street, 9th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108-4737
(415) 439-6940
July 7, 	1999
Cessaly D. 	Hutchinson
Re: 	WARNING LETTER
Cessalv P., Hutchinson v. 	California State Employees
Association
Unfair Practice Charge No. 	SF-CO-39-S
Dear Ms. Hutchinson:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge 	filed on March 8,
1999, 	and amended on March 15, March 24, 	and May 11, 	1999,
alleges 	that 	the California State Employees Association
(Association) 	has retaliated against Charging Party as a result
of her participation in certain activities within the
Association. 	This conduct 	is alleged to violate Government Code
section 3519.5(b) 	of the Ralph C. 	Dills Act 	(Dills Act).
Investigation of the charge revealed the following. 	For the past
nine or more years, 	Cessaly D. 	Hutchinson has been employed as a
Legal Analyst 	for the Legal Division of Department of
Transportation 	(Department). 	During this period of time, 	she has
been active in the Association, 	serving as a chief steward and a
president of the Association's District Labor Council 	(DLC) 	750.
On or about September 18, 	1998, 	the Department gave notice of its
intent to terminate Hutchinson. 	The notice of adverse action
included charges of 	failing to do work within her job description
and unauthorized use of state equipment 	for personal business.
The Association is a large employee organization that exclusively
represents numerous bargaining units within the State.
Organizationally, 	the Association is divided into four divisions.
These divisions include the Civil Service Division, 	the Retirees
Division, 	the Supervisors Division, 	and the State University
Division. 	The Civil Service Division is divided geographically
into 56 DLCs. 	A DLC is governed similarly to a local union
chapter. 	It elects a president -and other officers. 	Each DLC
president 	serves on the Association's Civil 	Service Division
Council 	(Council). 	The Council governs the Civil Service
Division, 	although the Association Board of Directors has
ultimate authority over the Civil 	Service Division. 	The
Association Board of Directors governs all of the 	four divisions.
. . . ."
Early in the 1990s, 	the Caucus for a Democratic Union 	(CDU) 	began
as an internal 	reform movement, 	challenging the 	leadership within
the Association. 	As the CDU movement gathered strength, 	it was
•

Warning Letter
SF-CO-39-S
July 7, 	1999
Page 2
able to gain control of the leadership within the Civil 	Service
Division. 	Hutchinson was opposed to the CDU movement. 	The CDU
campaign advocated a more aggressive 	stance 	in bargaining during
the period between 1995 and 1999, 	when the Association refused to
sign agreements with Governor Pete Wilson.
During late 	1997 and early 1998, 	the Civil 	Service Division under
the 	leadership of 	individual 	CDU sympathizers undertook to
realign the geographic boundaries of the DLCs. 	Hutchinson and
others opposed to CDU believed that 	the realignment was 	for the
purpose of gerrymandering the DLCs in a way that would
disenfranchise non-CDU DLC presidents 	including herself.
Hutchinson and another DLC president, 	Jean Laosantos, 	took action
to oppose the 	realignment by protesting to the Association Board
of Directors, 	filing an unfair practice charge with the Public
Employment Relations Board (PERB) 	(case no. SF-CO-35-S), and
filing Superior Court 	civil 	suits 	in the counties of San
Francisco and Sacramento.
As a result of these efforts, 	Hutchinson, 	Laosantos, 	and their
supporters were able to convince the Board of Directors to
rescind the Civil 	Service Division action prompting the
realignment. 	This occurred in the spring of 1998. 	New elections
were then held during the summer of 	1998.
During the summer of 1998, 	Hutchinson ran for the office of vice-
president of 	the Civil 	Service Division Council.
Hutchinson alleges that her supervisor at the Department, 	Daniel
C. 	Murphy, 	was coerced into terminating her by unnamed agents of
the Association. 	Her claim relies on circumstantial 	evidence
consisting of a series of encounters she has had with various
officials of the Association. 	In this connection, 	she alleges
that the Association has undertaken a systematic campaign of
race, 	sexual, 	and financial abuse against her so as to deny her
the opportunity to advance 	in the Association as 	an elected
official. 	This campaign has been orchestrated principally by
Perry Kenny, 	President of the Association. 	Hutchinson also
alleges 	that 	Kenny orchestrated her termination because 	she
opposed his 	idea of 	incorporating the Civil 	Service Division as a
separate entity from the Association. Incorporation of the Civil
Service Division is viewed as a means to remove the division from
the control of the Board of Directors.
Hutchinson further alleges 	that 	Kenny permitted CDU to gain
control of the Civil 	Service Division because he knew its
leaders, 	including its director, 	Jim Hard, 	would violate internal
Association policies, 	leading directly to Hard's removal 	from his
I

Warning 	Letter
SF-CO-39-S
July 7, 	1999
Page 3
position and allowing Kenny to use his power as president 	to
appoint a successor.
The charge and amended charge contain approximately 3 6 pages of
typewritten allegations and voluminous documentation. 	It is not
practicable 	to 	include anything but 	an abbreviated summary of 	the
allegations 	supporting Hutchinson's claims 	that 	the Association
orchestrated her termination.
Around the time' Hutchinson was served with the notice of action,
Michael E. 	Soffa, 	a regional director within the Association,
informed her that the chief counsel 	for the Association, 	Gary
Reynolds, 	"took it personally" 	that she had gotten the Board of
Directors to rescind the DLC realignment. 	Soffa claimed to have
connections 	to organized crime. 	Soffa falsely accused Hutchinson
of 	failing to reimburse him for Association activities. 	Soffa
informed Hutchinson that 	Kenny and Kenny's 	father were members of
the Teamsters.
Ray Vanzant, 	also a friend of Kenny's, 	revealed that he knew that
Hutchinson had been accused by the Department 	of 	falsifying
documents 	-- 	something that was not public knowledge. 	Vanzant
told Hutchinson that as a Teamster, 	if he was told to 	"drop a
load," 	he would do that.
Christy Christensen is a friend of Kenny. 	In the summer of 1998,
she reported to another Association member that 	she expected to
be nominated as a candidate 	for vice-president of 	the Civil
Service Division, 	the position Hutchinson was unsuccessful 	in
winning. 	Kenny expressed to another member that 	he was very
upset 	that Hutchinson had decided to run for vice-president 	and
abandon him. 	Ron Franklin, 	a candidate for president, 	with whom
Hutchinson ran as a vice-presidential candidate, 	also opposed
incorporation of the Civil 	Service Division.
Hutchinson claims that in August 	1995 	she was harassed by Frank
Sulla, 	a chief steward in another DLC. 	Sulla told Hutchinson
that 	she was 	"high up in the union" 	and that she would "go to
bed" 	with whom he told her. 	Sulla also told her that his
ancestor was 	a Roman who wrote Roman law. 	He told her he was
attracted to her. 	In the .same month, 	Hutchinson filed a police
report charging Sulla with sexual harassment and extortion. 	In
the report, 	she named Kenny as a possible accomplice. 	Sulla
approached her offering her assistance after the Association had
refused to provide her with a travel advance to attend an out-of-
town conference. 	Kenny acted suspiciously during the 	conference
by avoiding her and her problem. 	Hutchinson asserts 	that 	she was
fired because 	she refused to be used to provide 	sexual 	favors as
demanded by Sulla.
(

Warning 	Letter
SF-CO-39-S
July 7, 	1999
Page 4
In February 1998, 	the Association denied travel 	claims 	filed by
Hutchinson for lack of adequate documentation.
In the spring of 1998, 	Kenny put pressure on Laosantos to remove
herself 	from the San Francisco county action. 	Laosantos 	told
Hutchinson that 	after she told another union member's 	supervisor
that the member was 	"destroying" 	the Association, 	the supervisor
vowed to discipline the employee. 	Hutchinson believes that 	the
same thing has happened in her case.
Hutchinson also claims that 	she has been subjected to abuse by
Gladys Perry, 	Association Coastal Office Manager. 	In July 1998,
Perry also refused to authorize 	reimbursement 	for some of
Hutchinson's travel expenses. 	In addition, 	Perry supported
another staff member who was abusive toward her.
In December 1998, 	Harry Gibbons, 	attorney for the Association,
became agitated with her when she made an offer to settle the San
Francisco County lawsuit. 	In response, 	he threatened to move to
dismiss the entire action.
Based on the 	facts stated above, 	the charge as presently written
fails to state prima facie violation of the Dills Act 	for the
reasons that 	follow.
As a preliminary matter, 	it 	is noted that the charging party is
required to provide a 	"clear and concise" 	statement of the
conduct underlying the alleged unfair practice. 	(Cal. 	Code of
Regs., 	tit. 	8, 	sec. 	32615(a)5.) 	Hutchinson has failed to comply
with this requirement because many of the allegations appear to
be unrelated to one another. 	There is voluminous documentation
without 	a clear and concise explanation of their relationship to
the written allegations.
In the written statement of the charge, 	Hutchinson specifically
alleges 	that 	the Association has 	retaliated against her because
she has taken positions opposed by Kenny. 	However, 	since the
gravamen of the charge is that 	the Association caused the
Department to terminate her because she was a dissident, 	the
principal 	theory of 	the charge 	involves a claim under section
3519.5 (a). 	In. order to. state a prima facie violation, the
charging party must 	allege 	facts 	showing how and in what manner
the Association caused or attempted to cause the 	State to commit
an unfair practice against the employee. 	(Tustin Unified School
District 	(1987) 	PERB Decision No. 	626.)
The 	charge 	fails 	to provide 	sufficient 	allegations demonstrating
that 	the Association orchestrated or caused the employer to
terminate her. 	There is no direct evidence that the Department's
( 	(

Warning 	Letter
SF-CO-39-S
July 7, 	1999
Page 5
action was 	in 	response 	to 	a 	request 	or demand 	from 	the
Association, 	and the 	circumstantial 	evidence 	alleged 	is 	too weak
to 	support 	an 	inference 	that 	such occurred.
The 	only 	evidence 	that 	remotely 	suggests 	some 	involvement 	by 	the
Association 	is 	the 	knowledge 	that 	some Association officers 	had
knowledge 	of 	the nature of 	the 	charges against 	her. 	There 	is
also 	a 	showing 	that 	the 	termination occurred 	in 	close 	proximity
to her efforts 	to 	rescind the 	realignment. 	But 	this 	is
insufficient, 	by itself 	or 	in conjunction with other allegations,
to 	raise 	an 	inference 	that 	the Association demanded 	or 	requested
her 	termination.
Hutchinson also 	alleges 	that 	Laosantos 	told her of 	another
supervisor who 	vowed 	to 	discipline 	a 	member who 	had 	been
criticized within 	the Association. 	But 	Hutchinson does 	not
allege 	that 	the 	employee was 	actually disciplined 	nor 	does 	she
offer 	anything 	remotely 	suggesting 	a 	pattern of 	retaliatory
discharges.
To 	the 	extent 	any of 	the 	allegations 	may be 	construed 	as
suggesting 	interference 	or 	retaliation 	in violation 	of 	section
3519.5(b), 	the charge also fails 	to state a prima 	facie
violation. 	The 	alleged 	sexual 	harassment 	by Sulla 	and the
denials 	of 	travel 	claims 	occurred more 	than 	six months 	prior to
the 	filing of 	the 	charge 	and are 	therefore untimely. 	(Sec.
3514. 5 (a) .)
Even if 	timely, 	Hutchinson has 	failed to 	allege 	sufficient 	facts
demonstrating 	that 	Sulla 	acted 	as 	an agent 	of 	the Association.
It must be 	shown that 	the union 	"instigated, 	supported, 	ratified
or encouraged" 	the 	activity in question. 	In the 	absence 	of
evidence 	that 	Sulla 	acted with 	express 	authority of 	Kenny and 	the
Association, 	apparent authority would suffice. 	However, 	" [in] ere
surmise 	as 	to 	the 	authority of 	an agent 	is 	insufficient 	to 	impose
liability on 	a 	principal 	based 	on 	theory of 	apparent 	authority."
(Inglewood Unified School 	District 	(1990) 	PERB Decision No. 	792.)
There 	are 	insufficient 	facts 	showing 	that 	the Association
instigated, 	ratified or encouraged any of 	Sulla's 	improper
conduct.
. 1
There 	are 	also 	insufficient 	facts 	demonstrating 	that 	the 	denial
of 	travel 	claims 	was 	retaliatory. 	(Carlsbad Unified 	School
District 	(1978) 	PERB Decision No. 	89; 	California State Employees'
Association 	(O'Connell) 	(1989) 	PERB Decision No. 	753-H; 	Novato
Unified School 	District 	(1983) 	PERB Decision No. 	210; 	California
State Employees Association 	(Hackett) 	(1995) 	PERB Decision No.
1126-S.) 	In order to 	state 	a prima 	facie violation 	involving
retaliation, 	the charging party must 	establish that 	(1) 	the
( 	(

Warning Letter
SF-CO-39-S
July 7, 	1999
Page 6
charging party engaged in protected activity, 	(2) 	that the
respondent had knowledge of such activity, 	and 	(3) 	that the
respondent's 	harmful 	action against 	the charging party was
motivated by unlawful 	intent. 	In determining whether sufficient
evidence of 	intent exists, 	PERB will examine direct and
circumstantial evidence to see whether, 	but for the exercise of
protected rights, 	the disputed action would not have been taken
against 	the charging parties. 	Respondent's words 	indicating
unlawful motivation, 	failure to follow usual procedures, 	shifting
justifications and cursory investigation, 	disparate treatment of
the charging party, 	timing 	of the action, 	and a pattern of
antagonism toward persons engaging in protected activity. 	(Id.)
The travel 	claim denials do not 	appear to have been motivated by
any of Hutchinson's protected activity. 	There 	is 	an insufficient
showing of the other elements demonstrating a nexus between the
two. 	(Id.)
Finally, 	the alleged threat by Harry Gibbons in December 1998
does not constitute an illegal threat, 	because statements of
intention to pursue legal remedies is protected speech. 	(See Rio
Hondo Community College District 	(1980) 	PERB Decision No. 	128.)
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 have the case number written on the top right
hand corner of the charge form. 	The amended charge must be
served on the respondent's representative and the original proof
of service must be filed with PERB. 	If I do not receive an
amended charge or withdrawal 	from you before July 16, 	1999. 	I
shall dismiss your charge. 	If you have any questions, 	please
call me at 	(415) 	439-6940.
Sincerely,
DONN GINOZA
Regional Attorney