State of California (Department of General Services) (PERB 1420S)

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD

ARMOND DOVAL BRADFORD,
Charging Party, Case No. SA-CE-1276-S
v. PERB Decision No. 1420-S
STATE OF CALIFORNIA (DEPARTMENT OF February 26, 2001
GENERAL SERVICES),
Respondent.

Appearance: Armond Doval Bradford, on his own behalf.
Before Amador, Baker and Whitehead, Members.
DECISION

BAKER, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board (Board)
on appeal by Armond Doval Bradford (Bradford) from the Board agent's dismissal (attached)
of his unfair practice charge.

The charge alleged that the State of California (Department of General Services)
violated section 3519(a) of the Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills Act)! by refusing to provide requested

information and taking reprisals against Bradford.

' Dills Act is codified at Government Code section 3512 et seq. Dills Act section 3519
provides, in relevant part:
It shall be unlawful for the state 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

The Board has reviewed the entire record in this case, including the unfair practice
charge, the warning and dismissal letters and Bradford's appeal. 	The Board finds the warning
and dismissal letters to be free from prejudicial error and adopts them as the decision of the
Board itself.
ORDER
The unfair practice charge in Case No. SA-CE-1276-S is hereby DISMISSED
WITHOUT LEA VE TO AMEND.
Members Amador and Whitehead joined in this Decision.
purposes of this subdivision, "employee" includes an applicant
for employment or reemployment.
2

ST A TE OF CALIFORNIA	
GRAY
DA VIS, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Sacramento Regional Office
I 03 l ! 8th Street
Sacramento, CA
958!4-4!74
Telephone: (9 l 6) 327-8386
Fax (916) 327-63
77
September 29, 2000
Armond Bradford
PO Box 1156
Davis, California 95617-1156
Re: 	Armond Doval Bradford
v.
State
of
California, Department
of
General Services
Unfair Practice Charge No. SA-CE-1276-S
DISMISSAL LETTER
Dear Mr. Bradford:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on July 21, 2000. Your charge alleges that the State
Of
California,
Department
Of
General Services (DGS or employer) violated the Ralph
C.
Dills Act (Dills
Act) 1 by refusing to provide requested information and taking reprisals against you. 	On
September 21, 2000, we discussed this charge.
I indicated to you in my attached letter dated September 22, 2000, 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 September 29, 2000, 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 September 22, 2000
letter.
Right to Appeal
Pursuant to PERB Regulations2, 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
1 The Dills Act is codified at Government Code section 3512 et seq. The text
of
the
Dills Act and the Board's Regulations may be found on the Internet at www.perb.ca.gov.
2 PERB's Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq. Copies of the Regulations may be purchased from PERB's Publications
Coordinator, 1031 18th Street, Sacramento, CA 95814-4174, and the text is available at
vvww.perb.ca.gov.

SA-CE-1276-S
September 29, 2000
Page 2
dismissal. 	(Regulation 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.
(Regulations 32135(a) and 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
Regulation 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.
(Regulations 32135(b), (c) and (d); see also Regulations 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 (20) calendar days
following the date
of
service
of
the appeal. 	(Regulation 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 Regulation 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. 	(Regulation 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

SA-CE-1276-S
September 29, 2000
Page 3
each other party regarding the extension, and shall be accompanied by
proof
of
service
of
the
request upon each party. 	(Regulation 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	
fll~a&x
~i
6	
nV~
_
~
~
BernardMcMonigle
Regional Attorney
Attachment
cc: 	Wendi Ross, Esquire
BMC:cke

STATE
OF CALIFORNIA	
GRAY
DAVIS,
Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYl\1ENT RELATIONS BOARD
Sacramt:nto Regional Office
l 031 I 8th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
Telephone (916) 327-8386
Fax (916) 327-6377
September 22, 2000
Armond D. Bradford
PO
Box 1156
Davis, California 95617-1156
Re: 	Armond Doval Bradford
v.
State
of
California. Department
of
General Services
Unfair Practice Charge No. SA-CE-1276-S
WARNING LETTER (DEFERRAL TO ARBITRATION)
Dear Mr. Bradford:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on July 21, 2000. 	Your charge alleges that the State
Of
California,
Department Of General Services (DGS or employer) violated the Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills
Act) 1 by refusing to provide requested information and taking reprisals against you. On
September 21, 2000, we discussed this charge.
In your charge you state that Ms. Lois Kugelmass
of
the California State Employees
Association (CSEA or union), who was representing you, requested certain documents from
the employer on March 31, 2000. On April 10, 2000, Donald Cady, senior staff counsel for
DGS replied to Ms. Kugelmass denying a significant part
of
her information request and
instructing Ms. Kugelmass how she might obtain the information that the employer was willing
to share with CSEA. 	On April 19, 2000, Mr. Cady sent another letter to Ms. Kugelmass
advising her "that CSEA, not Mr. Bradford alone, should contact OPSC [Office
of
Public
School Instruction] concerning the documents records request. CSEA, not Mr. Bradford alone,
will be allowed to inspect the relevant documents."
Among the attachments to your charge is a June 2, 2000 letter to you from Judy Otis, a labor
relations analyst with the employer, denying your request for a waiver
of
time limits in order to
file a grievance. The letter
of
June 2, 2000, does not state the substance
of
the grievance. On
June 10, 2000, you made a public records request
of
the employer for a significant number of
documents. On June 28, 2000, that request was granted in part and denied in part.
During our discussion on September 21, you indicated that the thrust of your charge is that the
employer improperly rejected the information requested by CSEA. In addition, you allege that
the employer improperly directed CSEA not to release information to you. 	You believe that in
this manner, the employer improperly interfered with your right to the information requested
and also improperly discriminated against you.
1 The Dills Act is codified at Government Code section 3512 et seq. The text of the
Dills Act and the Board's Regulations may be found on the Internet at www.perb.ca.gov.

SA-CE-1276-S
September 22, 2000
Page 2
PERB has held that it is an obligation
of
the employer to provide exclusive representatives
with requested information necessary and relevant
to
perform their representational duties; a
failure to do so constitutes a refusal to bargain in good faith. 	(Stockton Unified School District
(1980) PERB Decision No. 143.) However, the duty to bargain in good faith is not owed to
employees and an individual employee therefore lacks standing to bring a charge regarding a
failure to bargain. 	(Oxnard Educators Association (Gorcey and Tripp) (1988) PERB Decision
No. 664.)
As demonstrated, there is no obligation under the Dills Act that the employer provide you with
the information requested by the union.
However, you have also alleged that the employer's directions to CSEA not to release the
information to you was an illegal reprisal. Article 5.5
of
the MOU between CSEA and the
State employer reads as follows:
The State and the Union shall be prohibited from imposing or
threatening to impose reprisals by discriminating or threatening to
discriminate against employees, or otherwise interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees because
of
the exercise
of
their rights under the Ralph C. Dills Act or any right given by this
Contract. The principles
of
agency shall be liberally construed.
Section 3514.5(a)
of
the Dills Act states, in pertinent part, that PERB shall not:
Issue a complaint against conduct also prohibited by the
provisions
of
the [collective bargaining] agreement between the
parties until the grievance machinery
of
the agreement,
if
it exists
and covers the matter at issue, has been exhausted, either by
settlement or binding arbitration.
In Lake Elsinore School District (1987) PERB Decision No. 646, PERB held that
section 3541.5(a)
of
the Educational Employment Relations Act, which contains language
identical to section 3514.5(a)
of
the Dills 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)2 (Regulation 32620(b )(5)) also requires the investigating Board
agent to dismiss a charge where the allegations are properly deferred to binding arbitration.
2 PERB's Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq. Copies of the Regulations may be purchased from PERB's Publications
Coordinator, 1031 18th Street, Sacramento, CA 95814-4174, and the text is available at
www.perb.ca.gov.

SA-CE-1276-S
September 22, 2000
Page 3
These standards are met with respect
to
this case. 	First, the grievance machinery
of
the MOU
covers the dispute raised by the unfair practice charge and culminates in binding arbitration.
Second, the conduct complained
of
in this charge that DGS has taken a reprisal against you
is
arguably prohibited by Article 5.5
of
the MOU. That Article provides that the State employer
is prohibited from taking reprisals against employees because
of
the exercise
of
their rights
under the Dills Act.
Accordingly, this charge must be deferred to arbitration and will be dismissed. 	Such dismissalis without prejudice to the Charging Party's right, after arbitration, to seek a repugnancy review
by PERB
of
the arbitrator's decision under the Dry Creek criteria. (See Regulation 32661;
Los Angeles Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 218; Dry Creek Joint
Elementary School District (1980) PERB Order No. Ad-81a.)
If
there are any factual inaccuracies in this letter or any additional facts which would require a
different conclusion than the one 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 proof
of
service filed with PERB.
If
I do not receive an amended
charge or withdrawal from you before September 29, 2000, I shall dismiss your charge without
leave to amend.	
If
you have any questions, please call me at the above-referenced telephone
number.
Sincerely,
Bernard McMonigle
Regional Attorney
BMC:cke