California School Employees Association (Hansen) (PERB 1379E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
JUDITH GLORIA HANSEN,
Charging 	Party,
v.
CALIFORNIA 	SCHOOL 	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION,
Respondent.
Case No. 	LA-CO-789
PERB Decision No. 	1379
February 28, 	2000
Appearances: 	Judith Gloria Hansen, 	on her own behalf; 	Karen L.
Hartman, 	Staff Attorney, 	for California School 	Employees
Association.
Before Caffrey, 	Chairman; 	Dyer and Amador, 	Members.
DECISION
AMADOR, 	Member: 	This 	case comes before the Public
Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(Board) 	on exceptions 	filed by
Judith Gloria Hansen 	(Hansen) 	to a Board administrative 	law
judge's 	(ALJ) 	proposed decision 	(attached). 	The ALJ dismissed
the 	charge 	that 	alleged 	the 	California School 	Employees
Association 	(CSEA) 	breached 	its 	duty of 	fair representation 	in
violation of 	sections 	3544.9 	and 3543.6(a) 	of 	the Educational
Employment 	Relations Act 	(EERA) 	and discriminated against her in
violation of EERA section 3543.6(b).1
1EERA is 	codified at Government 	Code 	section 3540 	et 	seq.
EERA section 3544.9 	provides:
The 	employee 	organization 	recognized 	or
certified as 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	for
the purpose 	of meeting and negotiating 	shall
fairly 	represent 	each and 	every 	employee 	in
the appropriate unit.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
___________ )

Section 3543.6 provides, 	in relevant part:
It 	shall 	be unlawful 	for an employee
organization to:
(a) 	Cause or attempt 	to cause a public
school 	employer 	to violate 	Section 3543.5.
(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 	the unfair practice 	charge, 	the proposed decision,
Hansen's 	appeal 	and CSEA's 	response. 	The Board 	finds 	the ALJ's
proposed decision 	to be 	free 	from prejudicial 	error and adopts 	it
as 	the decision of 	the Board 	itself.
ORDER
The unfair practice 	charge 	and 	complaint 	in Case
No. 	LA-CO-789 	are 	hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
Chairman 	Caffrey and Member Dyer 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
22

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
JUDITH 	GLORIA HANSEN,
Charging 	Party,
v.
CALIFORNIA 	SCHOOL 	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION,
Respondent.
Unfair 	Practice
Case No. 	LA-CO-789
PROPOSED 	DECISION
(11/29/99)
Appearances: 	Judith Gloria Hansen, 	on her own behalf; 	Karen L.
Hartmann, 	Staff Attorney, 	for California 	School 	Employees
Association.
Before Thomas J. 	Allen, 	Administrative Law Judge.
PROCEDURAL 	HISTORY
In this 	case, 	a public 	school 	employee 	alleges 	her exclusive
representative violated 	its 	duty of 	fair 	representation. 	The
exclusive 	representative 	denies 	any violation.
On December 21, 	1998, 	Judith Gloria Hansen 	(Hansen) 	filed an
unfair practice 	charge 	against 	the 	California 	School 	Employees
Association 	(CSEA). 	On March 23, 	1999, 	the Office of the General
Counsel 	of 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(PERB) 	issued a
complaint 	against 	CSEA. 	The 	PERB 	complaint 	alleged that 	on
November 4, 	6, 	12 	and 16 and December 1, 	1998, 	Hansen contacted
CSEA 	requesting 	assistance 	regarding problems 	with her 	employer,
the 	La Mesa-Spring Valley School 	District 	(District). 	The
complaint 	further alleged that 	CSEA failed to 	assist 	Hansen, 	and
also 	failed 	to provide 	her with an explanation 	for 	its 	failure 	to
assist 	her.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
______________ )

CSEA answered the 	complaint 	on April 	12, 	1999. 	PERB held an
informal 	settlement 	conference on May 11, 	1999, 	and a 	formal
hearing on September 28, 	1999. 	The 	case was 	submitted for
decision on October 28, 	1999.
FINDINGS 	OF 	FACT
Hansen 	is 	an employee 	under 	the 	Educational 	Employment
Relations Act 	(EERA).1 CSEA 	is 	an employee 	organization under
EERA and 	is 	Hansen's 	exclusive 	representative.
Hansen 	is 	a bus 	driver who has 	been 	employed by 	the 	District
for almost 	2 5 	years. 	CSEA has 	represented her on various
matters, 	and there 	is no apparent 	history of 	animosity between
Hansen 	and 	CSEA.
The 	year 	1998 	was 	hard on Hansen physically. 	In January her
bus was 	broadsided by a 	car, 	and in August 	it was broadsided by a
truck. 	Later, 	in September or early October, 	Hansen had gall
bladder 	surgery. 	On top of 	all 	this, 	she had a difficult
relationship with her 	supervisor, 	District 	Transportation
Director Craig Wood 	(Wood).
In mid-October 	1998, 	Hansen and the 	other District 	bus
drivers 	had the 	opportunity to bid on the various 	bus 	routes.
Because 	Hansen was 	the 	second most 	senior driver at 	that 	time,
she 	had the 	second bid. 	She 	chose 	a route 	that was 	new to her,
and a 	less 	senior driver chose 	her old route. 	Under Article XV,
section 	15.2.1, 	of 	the 	1996-1999 Agreement 	between CSEA and the
1EERA is 	codified at 	Government 	Code 	section 3540 	and
following. 	Unless 	otherwise 	indicated, 	all 	statutory references
are 	to the Government 	Code.
22

District 	(Agreement), 	the 	chosen routes were 	to be 	"retained
until 	the next bidding." 	On November 2, 	1998, 	however, 	when
Hansen first 	drove 	the new route, 	she discovered 	it 	involved
lifting 	special 	education 	students 	on and off 	the bus, 	and 	in her
physical 	condition she 	found this 	to be painful.
The 	PERB 	complaint 	alleges 	Hansen 	contacted 	CSEA on 	five
separate occasions 	(November 4, 	6, 	12 	and 16 	and December 1,
1998) 	about problems with the District. 	Hansen's 	charge 	alleged,
and the 	evidence 	showed, 	that 	on these 	five 	occasions 	Hansen's
contact 	was with CSEA Chapter 	President 	Jane Vorrath 	(Vorrath).
Each of 	these 	occasions 	shall 	be 	discussed 	in 	turn.
November 4, 	1998
On November 4, 	1998, 	Hansen wrote a letter to her
supervisor, 	Wood. 	In the 	letter, 	Hansen stated in part 	that 	on
November 	3, 	1998, 	her doctor had seen her and had said she 	could
not 	do 	the 	activity 	she was 	doing 	(lifting 	students) 	because 	of
her 	injuries. 	Hansen asked to 	return to her old bus 	route.
Hansen 	sent 	a 	copy of 	the 	letter 	to 	CSEA 	Chapter 	President
Vorrath, 	whom Hansen also 	called. 	Vorrath advised Hansen about
her 	option under Article 	XV of 	the Agreement 	to 	exchange 	routes
with another driver, 	if 	that 	driver agreed. 	Vorrath explained
that 	under Article 	XV this 	was 	the 	only way Hansen 	could get 	her
old route 	back at 	that 	point.
Vorrath 	further 	advised Hansen 	that 	not 	much 	else 	could be
done 	unless 	Wood had medical 	documentation 	of 	Hansen's 	physical
limitations. 	Hansen 	said 	she 	assumed Wood had access 	to 	such
33

documentation, 	because she had a workers' 	compensation claim
pending with 	the 	District. 	Vorrath advised her not 	to 	assume
Wood had 	such documentation unless 	she 	(Hansen) 	had given 	it 	to
him 	directly.
November 6, 	1998
On November 6, 	1998, 	pursuant to Vorrath's advice, 	Hansen
gave 	Wood 	some 	medical 	documentation 	from her 	doctor. 	The
specific 	document 	she 	gave 	Wood appears 	to 	date 	from September
1998. 	It 	stated 	in part 	that Hansen could return to 	"regular"
work on October 	12, 	1998, 	and 	"modified" 	work on September 8,
1998. 	It then specified various 	"restrictions" 	including, 	"No
heavy 	lifting." 	Vorrath obtained 	a 	copy of 	the 	document 	from
Wood once 	he 	received 	it 	from Hansen.
Vorrath 	advised Hansen 	that 	this 	medical 	document 	appeared
to have 	expired, 	because 	it 	said Hansen could return to 	"regular"
work on October 	12, 	1998. 	Hansen acknowledged there was 	some
"error" 	in the dates, 	but 	she 	insisted the document was 	still
valid, 	because 	it 	still 	specified restrictions. 	Hansen
apparently did not 	recognize 	the more 	obvious 	interpretation of
the 	document: 	that 	the 	specified restrictions 	were 	for 	the
period of 	"modified" 	work beginning on September 	8, 	1998, 	not 	for
the period of 	"regular" 	work beginning on October 	12, 	1998.
Vorrath never 	saw 	any 	other medical 	documentation 	of 	Hansen's
physical 	limitations.
Vorrath nonetheless 	sent 	an e-mail 	message 	to 	District
Assistant 	Superintendent Don Royal 	(Royal), 	requesting some
44

relief 	for Hansen. 	Royal 	replied there was 	no 	reason why Hansen
could not 	be provided with a bus 	aide 	to help her. 	Royal 	stated
he 	would 	call 	Wood 	and 	arrange 	to have 	an 	aide 	put 	on Hansen's
route. 	Vorrath 	felt 	assured that 	Royal 	would 	take 	care 	of 	the
problem. 	Vorrath did not, 	however, 	send Hansen a copy of her
message 	to Royal, 	or 	any other written confirmation of 	her
communication with Royal.
November 12, 	1998
On November 	12, 	1998, 	Wood told Hansen that parents were
complaining 	about 	her being 	"negative." 	Wood 	refused 	to 	identify
any complaining parents, 	however. 	Hansen called Vorrath, 	who
advised her 	that 	if 	no 	complaining parents 	were 	identified 	they
"don't 	exist." 	This 	was Vorrath's 	interpretation of Article 	IV,
section 4.7, 	of 	the Agreement, 	which provided in part 	that 	the
District 	shall 	not 	pursue 	any complaints 	against 	employees 	that
are 	not 	in writing and are not given to 	the 	employees, 	and that
the District 	shall 	drop any charges 	if 	complainants 	refuse 	to
appear at 	a conference. 	In fact, 	the District did not pursue any
parental 	complaints 	about 	Hansen being 	"negative," 	if 	any 	such
complaints 	existed.
According 	to Hansen, 	Vorrath 	said 	she would 	send Wood a 	fax
or an e-mail 	message 	on this 	subject. 	Vorrath did not 	deny
saying this, 	but 	there 	is no evidence 	she 	followed through.
November 16, 	1998
On November 16, 	1998, 	Hansen met with Assistant
Superintendent 	Royal, 	who 	told her he would talk to Wood about
55

having an 	"attendant" 	on her 	route 	to 	do 	the 	lifting of 	students.
Hansen testified 	she was 	"in total 	agreement 	with 	that." 	On
November 18, 	1998, 	however, 	she sent a letter to Chapter
President 	Vorrath, 	requesting 	that 	CSEA still 	assist 	her 	in
getting back her old bus 	route.2 She 	asked 	in part 	why 	the
safety article 	of 	the Agreement 	stated 	(at Article XVI, 	section
16.1.1), 	"An employee shall not work under conditions or perform
tasks 	which endanger 	their health or 	safety," 	if 	nothing 	could be
done 	about 	her 	situation.
Vorrath did not 	understand Hansen's 	letter 	to 	be 	a 	request
to 	file 	a 	safety grievance. 	As Vorrath had already advised
Hansen, 	CSEA's practice 	for processing a grievance was 	to 	refer
the matter to 	the 	chief 	job 	steward. 	Furthermore, 	Vorrath did
not 	believe 	the 	safety article 	addressed Hansen's 	need 	for
accommodation of 	her physical 	limitations 	-- 	an 	issue 	not
specifically 	addressed 	anywhere 	in 	the Agreement.
Vorrath 	apparently 	still 	assumed Royal 	would 	take 	care 	of
Hansen's 	lifting problem, 	and 	she 	apparently did not 	respond 	to
Hansen's 	letter.3 The problem was 	in 	fact 	addressed 	soon
thereafter, 	but 	it 	was only partially solved. 	On November 23,
1998, 	Hansen was 	given a bus 	aide 	for one 	of 	the 	runs 	on her
2The 	letter actually bears 	the date 	"11-8-1998," 	but 	Hansen
testified she sent 	it on November 18, 	1998.
3Vorrath 	testified 	she 	answered 	the 	letter 	in 	a 	telephone
conversation, 	but 	she 	also 	testified she 	had no 	contact 	with
Hansen between early November and early December. 	I 	therefore
credit 	Hansen's 	more 	consistent 	testimony 	that 	Vorrath 	did 	not
respond 	(despite 	some 	ambiguity 	about 	whether 	Hansen would 	regard
having a telephone 	conversation as 	"responding").
66

route, 	but 	there were 	still 	other runs 	that 	involved lifting
students. 	Hansen apparently did not 	inform CSEA at 	that 	time,
however, 	that 	she needed assistance with these 	other runs.
December 1, 	1998
On December 	1, 	1998, 	Wood told Hansen the District 	could not
accommodate 	her physical 	limitations 	and 	she 	should go 	on
disability. 	Hansen testified 	she 	called Vorrath, 	who 	told her 	to
call 	District 	employee 	Janice 	Cook 	about 	getting 	disability pay.
Vorrath apparently did not 	remember 	this 	conversation, 	but 	she
did not 	deny it 	occurred. 	There 	is 	no evidence Hansen and
Vorrath 	discussed 	anything 	other 	than 	disability pay.
Although 	this 	was 	the 	last 	contact 	between Hansen 	and CSEA
alleged in the 	complaint, 	in 	fact 	the 	contacts 	continued. 	On
December 7, 	1998, 	after three days on disability, 	Hansen returned
to work, 	only to be 	told she would no 	longer have 	a bus 	aide 	at
all. 	Hansen testified she 	called Vorrath, 	who 	said 	she 	(Vorrath)
would not 	let 	that 	happen. 	Hansen did get 	the bus 	aide back, 	and
she 	acknowledged CSEA probably played 	a part 	in 	that.4 By 	the
time of 	the hearing, 	however, 	Vorrath apparently did not 	remember
this 	contact 	with Hansen.
The 	next 	contact 	Vorrath did 	remember 	occurred 	in a parking
lot 	in early December 	1998, 	when Vorrath asked Hansen how the bus
aide was 	working 	out. 	Hansen 	said that 	she 	only had an aide 	for
a 	couple 	of 	days, 	and also 	that 	the District 	had 	reduced her
4Hansen 	testified 	she 	believed 	that 	assistant 	superintendent
Royal 	told her he 	had 	spoken with Vorrath.
77

hours. 	Vorrath said 	she would look into 	it. 	At 	the next 	regular
CSEA chapter meeting, 	on December 10, 	1998, 	Vorrath referred the
matter to Chief Job Steward Chris Benker 	(Benker), 	who then
followed up 	on 	it.
On January 6, 	1999, 	Benker obtained from Hansen 	(at his
request) 	a 	letter describing the 	change 	in her hours. 	Benker
took this 	information, 	reviewed the original 	bus 	route bid list,
and 	talked to 	Transportation Director Wood. 	Benker 	concluded
Hansen's 	hours 	had decreased 	either 	2.5 	or 	3.5 	hours 	per week,
while 	a decrease of 	5 hours would be necessary to 	support 	a
grievance.5
Benker also concluded, 	from his 	conversation with Wood, 	that
Hansen did have 	a bus 	aide 	on an ongoing basis. 	Benker
apparently did not 	learn, 	however, 	either from Hansen or 	from
Wood, 	that Hansen did not have a bus aide 	for all 	the 	runs 	that
involved 	lifting 	students.
Benker 	informed Hansen the 	decrease 	in her hours 	was
insufficient 	to 	support 	a grievance. 	As 	Hansen acknowledged 	in
her testimony, 	he 	also told her to 	file 	a grievance 	if 	she
disagreed. 	There 	is no evidence Hansen did file 	a grievance.
Hansen's problems were alleviated, 	however, 	on January 15, 	1999,
when Hansen took over a 	retiring driver's 	route, 	which 	involved
more hours 	and no 	lifting.
5Under Article XV, 	section 15.4.1, 	of the Agreement, 	a
decrease 	in one 	hour of 	drive 	time per day 	(as 	computed 	from the
original 	bid list) 	on a 	special 	education bus 	route 	(like
Hansen's) 	would give 	the 	driver 	the 	right 	to bid on any route
held by a 	less 	senior driver.
8

ISSUE
Did 	CSEA violate 	its 	duty of 	fair 	representation?
CONCLUSION
As 	charging party, 	Hansen has 	alleged that 	her 	exclusive
representative 	violated 	its 	duty 	of 	fair 	representation under
EERA. 	The 	duty of 	fair 	representation 	imposed 	on 	an 	exclusive
representative 	extends 	to grievance 	handling. 	(United Teachers
of Los Angeles 	(Collins) 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	258 	(Collins).)
In order to establish a violation of 	the 	duty, 	a 	charging party
must 	show the 	exclusive 	representative's 	conduct 	was 	arbitrary,
discriminatory or 	in bad faith. 	In Collins, 	PERB 	stated 	in part:
Absent bad faith, 	discrimination, 	or
arbitrary conduct, 	mere 	negligence or poor
judgment 	in handling a grievance 	does 	not
constitute 	a breach of 	the union's 	duty.
[Citations.]
A union may 	exercise 	its 	discretion 	to
determine 	how 	far to pursue 	a grievance 	in
the 	employee's 	behalf 	as 	long as 	it 	does 	not
arbitrarily 	ignore 	a meritorious 	grievance 	or
process 	a grievance 	in a perfunctory 	fashion.
A union 	is 	also 	not 	required 	to 	process 	an
employee's grievance 	if 	the 	chances 	for
success are minimal.
In order 	to 	state 	a prima 	facie 	case 	of 	arbitrary conduct
violating the 	duty of 	fair 	representation, 	a 	charging party:
[M]ust 	at 	a minimum include 	an assertion of
sufficient 	facts 	from which 	it 	becomes
apparent 	how or 	in what 	manner 	the 	exclusive
representative's 	action 	or 	inaction was
without 	a 	rational 	basis 	or devoid of 	honest
judgment. 	[Rocklin Teachers 	Professional
Association 	(Romero) 	(1980) 	PERB Decision
No. 	124.]
In order to prevail, 	a charging party then must 	prove 	such 	facts.
99

In the present 	case, 	the 	complaint 	alleges 	in part 	that
Hansen 	contacted 	CSEA requesting 	assistance 	on 	five 	occasions
(November 4, 	6, 	12 	and 16 and December 1, 	1998). 	The facts
proved at 	the 	hearing support 	this 	allegation. 	The 	complaint
further 	alleges 	that 	CSEA failed to 	assist 	Hansen, 	and also
failed to provide 	her with 	an explanation 	for 	its 	failure 	to
assist 	her. 	The 	facts proved at 	the 	hearing do not 	generally
support 	this 	latter allegation, 	however. 	In general, 	the proven
facts 	show 	that 	CSEA did provide 	Hansen with 	some 	assistance 	and
some 	explanation, 	even though it was not 	the assistance Hansen
most wanted 	(her old bus 	route back), 	and not 	always 	an
explanation 	she 	accepted.
On November 4, 	1998, 	Hansen sent 	CSEA Chapter President
Vorrath a 	copy of 	her letter to her supervisor, 	Wood, 	asking to
return to 	her 	old bus 	route. 	Vorrath assisted Hansen by advising
her that 	under Article XV of 	the Agreement 	she 	had 	the 	option of
exchanging routes with another driver, 	if 	that 	driver agreed.
Vorrath 	explained 	that 	under Article 	XV this was 	the 	only way
Hansen could get 	her old route 	back at 	that 	point. 	Vorrath
further 	advised Hansen to give 	Wood medical 	documentation of 	her
physical 	limitations, 	and Hansen apparently accepted this 	further
advice.
On November 6, 	1998, 	Hansen gave Wood a medical 	document,
which Vorrath 	then 	obtained 	from Wood. 	Vorrath 	advised Hansen
that 	the 	document 	appeared to have 	expired. 	Hansen acknowledged
an 	"error" 	in the 	dates 	but 	apparently rejected Vorrath's 	advice.
10

Vorrath never 	saw any other medical 	documentation, 	but 	she
nonetheless 	contacted Assistant 	Superintendent 	Royal 	and 	obtained
an assurance 	that 	Royal 	would provide 	a bus 	aide 	to help Hansen.
On November 	12, 	1998, 	Hansen told Vorrath that Wood had said
unidentified parents 	were 	complaining 	about 	Hansen 	being
"negative." 	Vorrath advised Hansen that, 	in effect, 	the
unidentified parents 	"don't 	exist," 	because, 	under Article 	IV,
section 4.7, 	of 	the Agreement, 	Wood could not pursue 	complaints
from unidentified complainants. 	In 	fact, 	no complaints 	about
Hansen being 	"negative" 	were pursued.
Hansen testified, 	and Vorrath did not 	deny, 	that Vorrath
said 	she 	would 	send Wood 	a 	fax or 	an e-mail 	message 	on 	this
subject. 	Vorrath apparently did not 	follow through. 	As 	far 	as
the 	facts proved at 	the hearing show, 	this was 	the 	only occasion
on which Vorrath 	failed 	to 	do 	something 	she 	said 	she 	would do.
On November 16, 	1998, 	Hansen talked to Assistant
Superintendent 	Royal 	and was 	(according 	to her own 	testimony) 	"in
total 	agreement" 	with Royal 	arranging to have 	an 	"attendant" 	on
her route to lift 	students. 	On November 18, 	1998, 	however,
Hansen wrote Vorrath asking 	CSEA again to 	help 	her get 	her old
bus 	route back. 	Vorrath apparently did not 	respond. 	As 	far as
the 	facts proved at 	the hearing 	show, 	this was 	the 	only occasion
(of 	the 	five 	alleged 	in the 	complaint) 	on which Vorrath did not
respond at 	all 	to a 	request 	from Hansen. 	At 	that 	time, 	Vorrath
apparently assumed 	(from her previous 	communication with 	Royal)
that 	Royal 	would take 	care of 	Hansen's 	lifting problem. 	Also,
11

Vorrath 	had 	already 	discussed with 	Hansen 	the 	only 	option Hansen
then had under Article XV of 	the Agreement 	to get 	her old route
back 	(by an agreed exchange with the 	other driver).
On December 	1, 	1998, 	Hansen told Vorrath that 	Wood had said
Hansen 	should go 	on disability. 	Vorrath advised Hansen whom to
call 	about 	getting disability pay. 	There 	is 	no 	evidence Hansen
and Vorrath 	discussed 	anything 	other 	than 	disability pay.
The 	facts proved at 	the 	hearing 	thus 	show that 	on 	four of
the 	five 	occasions 	alleged 	in 	the 	complaint 	CSEA did 	assist
Hansen at 	least 	by giving her pertinent 	advice, 	whether or not
Hansen accepted 	that 	advice. 	The 	facts 	also 	show that 	on one
occasion 	CSEA went 	further 	and 	obtained 	an 	assurance 	from 	the
District 	assistant 	superintendent 	(Royal) 	that 	Hansen would get
an aide 	to help her with 	lifting. 	CSEA Chapter 	President 	Vorrath
took 	this 	action even 	though 	she 	then believed 	that 	the 	medical
documentation of 	Hansen's 	physical 	limitations 	had 	expired.
The 	facts 	also 	show Vorrath did 	fail 	to do 	one 	thing 	she
said 	she 	would do 	(send Wood 	a 	fax or 	an 	e-mail 	message 	about
unidentified complainants) 	and also 	failed to 	respond at 	all 	to
one request 	(Hansen's 	letter of November 18, 	1998). 	PERB has
held that 	such 	failures 	may be part 	of 	"a pattern of 	conduct 	by
[an exclusive representative] 	which, 	considered in its entirety,
demonstrates 	a prima 	facie 	showing 	of 	an 	arbitrary 	failure 	to
fairly represent 	[an employee]." 	(American Federation of 	State,
County and Municipal 	Employees, 	International, 	Council 	57
(Dehler) 	(1996) 	PERB Decision No. 	1152-H 	(Dehler).)
12

I 	conclude, 	however, 	that Dehler and the present 	case can
and 	should be 	distinguished. 	Vorrath's 	apparent 	failures
occurred 	in a pattern of 	conduct 	which, 	considered 	in 	its
entirety, 	was 	one 	in which CSEA did assist 	Hansen. 	This 	includes
four of 	the 	five occasions 	alleged in the 	complaint; 	it 	also
includes 	the 	earlier 	and 	later occasions 	on which 	CSEA
represented, 	advised or otherwise 	assisted Hansen, 	as 	shown at
the hearing.
Furthermore, 	Hansen has 	not 	proved that 	CSEA arbitrarily
ignored 	or otherwise 	mishandled a meritorious 	grievance. 	There
is 	no evidence 	that 	Hansen asked Vorrath to 	file 	a grievance 	on
any of 	the 	five 	occasions 	alleged 	in the 	complaint. 	Had Hansen
done 	so, 	presumably Vorrath would have 	referred the matter to 	the
chief 	job steward, 	as was 	CSEA's practice, 	and as Vorrath did
with the 	issues Hansen raised later. 	Nor 	is 	it 	apparent 	Hansen
had a meritorious 	grievance 	to pursue. 	Article 	XV of 	the
Agreement 	did not 	appear 	to 	allow her 	to get 	back her 	old bus
route 	(which another driver had chosen), 	and neither the 	safety
article 	(Article XVI) 	nor 	any other provision 	specifically
addressed her need 	for accommodation.6 Finally, 	Vorrath 	did not
ignore 	Hansen's 	need 	for 	accommodation but 	rather 	obtained 	an
assurance 	from Assistant 	Superintendent 	Royal 	that 	it 	would be
addressed 	(even 	if 	that 	assurance 	later proved 	inadequate).
6There 	may have 	been other 	legal 	authorities 	specifically
addressing 	that 	need, 	but 	the 	duty of 	fair 	representation does
not 	generally apply to matters 	unconnected 	to 	a 	collective
bargaining agreement. 	(Los Angeles Unified School 	District
(1994) 	PERB Decision No. 	1061.)
13

As 	the 	charging party in this 	case, 	Hansen has 	the burden of
proof. 	(PERB Regulation 32178.7) 	I 	conclude Hansen has not met
the 	burden of 	proving 	that 	CSEA violated 	its 	duty of 	fair
representation, 	as 	alleged in the 	complaint.
PROPOSED 	ORDER
Based upon the 	foregoing 	findings 	of 	fact 	and 	conclusions 	of
law, 	and upon the entire record in this matter, 	it 	is ordered
that 	the 	complaint 	and the 	underlying unfair practice 	charge 	in
Case No. 	LA-CO-789, 	Judith Gloria Hansen v. 	California School
Employees Association, 	are hereby DISMISSED.
Pursuant 	to California Code of Regulations, 	title 	8,
section 	32305, 	this 	Proposed Decision and Order 	shall 	become
final 	unless 	a party 	files 	a 	statement 	of 	exceptions 	with the
Board 	itself within 20 	days 	of 	service 	of 	this Decision. 	The
Board's address 	is:
Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board
Attention: 	Appeals Assistant
1031 	18th 	Street
Sacramento, 	CA 95814-4174
FAX: 	(916) 	327-7960
In accordance with PERB 	regulations, 	the 	statement 	of
exceptions 	should 	identify by page 	citation 	or 	exhibit 	number 	the
portions of 	the record, 	if any, 	relied upon for such exceptions.
(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 	8, 	sec. 	32300.)
A document 	is 	considered 	"filed" 	when 	actually 	received
before the close of business 	(5 p.m.) 	on the last day set 	for
7PERB 	regulations 	are 	codified at 	California 	Code 	of
Regulations, 	title 8, 	section 31001 et seq.
14

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.)
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.)
Any 	statement 	of 	exceptions 	and 	supporting brief 	must 	be
served 	concurrently with 	its 	filing 	upon 	each party 	to 	this
proceeding. 	Proof 	of 	service 	shall 	accompany each 	copy 	served on
a party or 	filed with the Board itself. 	(See 	Cal. 	Code Regs.,
tit. 	8, 	secs. 32300, 	32305, 	32140, and 32135(c).)
THOMAS 	J. 	ALLEN
Administrative 	Law Judge
15