Teamsters Local 572 (Brynjolfsson) (PERB 1463E)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
HOLMGEIR
K.
BRYNJOLFSSON,
Charging Party,
V.
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 572,
Respondent.
Case No. LA-CO-873-E
PERB Decision No.
	146
3
0'ctob'er
	4,
	2001
Appearance: Holmgeir K. Brynjolfsson, on his own behalf.
Before Amador, Baker and Whitehead, Members.
DECISION
WHITEHEAD, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(Board) on appeal by Holmgeir
K.
Brynjolfsson (Brynjolfsson)
of
a Board agent's dismissal
(attached)
of
his unfair practice charge. The charge alleged that the Teamsters Local 572
violated the right to fair representation guaranteed by the Educational Employment Relations
Act (EERA) section 3544.9 and thereby violated section 3543.6(b). 1
1EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq.
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(b) provides, in part that:
It shall be unlawful for an employee organization to:

The Board has reviewed the entire record in this case, including the original and
amended unfair practice charges and attachments, the warning and dismissal letters, and
Brynjolfsson's appeal. The Board finds the Board agent's dismissal letter to be free from
prejudicial error and adopts it as the decision of the Board itself.
ORDER
The unfair practice charge in Case No. LA-CO-873-E is hereby DISMISSED
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
Members Amador and Baker joined in this Decision.
(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 ofrights guaranteed by this chapter.
2

STA
TE
OF
CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC
EMPLOYMENT
RELATIONS BOARD
San Francisco Regional
Office
1515
Clay Street, Suite
2201
Oakland, CA
9461
2
(510)
622-1016
May
	1,
	2001
Holmgeir
	Brynjolfsson
3435
	Waco
	Ave
Simi
	Valley
	CA
	93063
RE:
	Holmgeir
	Brvnjolfsson
	v. 	Teamsters 	Local
	572
Unfair
	Practice
	Charge
	No. 	LA-CO-873DISMISSAL
	AND
	REFUSAL
	TO
	ISSUE A COMPLAINT
Dear
	Mr.
	Brynjolfsson:
GRAY DAVIS,
Governor
In 	the 	above-referenced
	charge
	Holmgeir
	Brynjolfsson
	alleges
	the
Teamsters 	Local
	572
	violated
	the 	Educational
	Employment
	Relations
Act
	(EERA
	or
	Act)
	§
	3543.6
	by
	breaching
	its
	duty 	of
	fair
representation.
	On
	or
	about
	April
	3, 	2001,
	I
	spoke
	with
	you
regarding
	this
	charge.
I
	indicated 	to
	you,
	in
	my
	attached
	letter
	dated April
	13, 	2001,
that
	the 	above-referenced
	charge
	did
	not
	state
	a
	prima
	faciecase.
	You
	were
	advised
	that,
	if
	there
	were 	any
	factualinaccuracies 	or 	additional 	facts
	which 	would
	correct 	the
deficiencies
	explained
	in 	that
	letter,
	you
	should
	amend
	thecharge.
	You
	were
	further
	advised
	that,
	unless
	you 	amended
	the
charge
	to
	state
	a
	prima
	facie
	case
	or
	withdrew
	it
	prior 	toApril
	23, 	2001,
	the
	charge
	would 	be
	dismissed.
	I
	granted
	your
request
	and
	extended
	that
	deadline 	to 	April
	30, 	2001.
On
	April
	27, 	2001, 	you
	filed
	by
	certified
	mail
	a
	letter
	and
attachments 	addressing
	my
	warning
	letter.
1	
The
	documents
	did
	not
include
	a
	proof 	of 	service
	and
	thus
	it
	does 	not 	appear 	the
documents 	were
	served
	on
	the
	Respondent.
In 	his 	April
	27,
	2001
	letter,
	Brynjolfsson 	alleges 	the
	Districtviolated:
	(1)
	Article
	9,
	Section 	1.3 	of 	the
	CBA
	by
	requiring
	him
to 	report 	at
	2 	pm
	rather
	than
	2
:30
	pm; 	(2)
	Article
	10,
	Section1.0 	of 	the
	CBA
	by
	failing 	to 	provide
	him
	with
	training;
	and
	(c)
1
The
	Charging 	Party provided 	the 	following 	documents:
	(1) 	an
April
	27, 	2001
	letter
	to
	PERB; 	(2) 	a
	January 	13, 	2000 	memorandum
indicating 	the 	Charging 	Party had 	been 	promoted 	and
	his 	hourswere 	from 	2:30
	pm
	to 	11:00
	pm; 	(3) 	a
	blank, 	untitled
	form 	used 	by
evaluators 	to 	explain 	below 	standard 	ratings
	on 	performance
evaluations;
	(4)
	his 	February 	23, 	2000
	evaluation;
	(5)
	his
	March
21, 	2000 	evaluation; 	and 	(6)
	the 	1997-2001 	collective 	bargainingagreement 	between 	the 	Teamsters 	and 	the 	Los 	Angeles 	Unified
School 	District.

LA-CO-873
Dismissal
	Letter
Page
	2
Article
	10,
	Section
	2.0
	and
	2.0.c
	by
	using the
	wrong
	form
	and
failing
	to
	hold
	progress
	meetings
	and
	set
	performance
	goals.
Brynjolfsson
	alleges
	the
	District's
	actions
	clearly violated
	the
CBA,
	and
	therefore
	the
	Teamster's
	failure
	to
	pursue
	his
	grievance
to
	binding
	arbitration
	violated 	his
	duty 	of
	fair
	representation.
The
	above-stated 	information
	fails
	to
	state
	a
	prima
	facie
violation
	for
	the 	reasons
	that
	follow.
As
	stated 	in
	the
	warning
	letter,
	the 	duty 	of
	fair
	representation
imposed 	on
	the
	exclusive 	representative
	extends
	to
	grievance
handling.
	(Fremont
	Teachers
	Association
	(King) 	(1980)
	PERB
Decision
	No.
	125;
	United
	Teachers
	of
	Los
	Angeles
	(Collins)
	(1982)
PERB
	Decision
	No.
	258.) 	In
	order
	to
	state
	a
	prima
	facie
violation
	of
	this
	section
	of
	EERA,
	Charging
	Party
	must
	show
	that
the 	Association's
	conduct
	was
	arbitrary,
	discriminatory 	or
	in
	bad
faith.
Taking
	the
	Charging
	Party's 	facts
	as
	true,
	as
	required
	by
	Mark
West 	Union
	School
	District
	(1993)
	PERB
	Decision
	No.
	1011,
	the
District
	violated 	several 	contract 	provisions
	during
	its
evaluation
	of 	Brynjolfsson.
	However,
	the 	exclusive
representative's
	duty 	of
	fair
	representation
	only
	requires
	that
it
	not
	act 	in
	an
	arbitrary,
	discriminatory 	or
	bad
	faith
	manner.
The
	Teamsters
	may
	exercise
	their 	discretion 	in
	determiningwhether
	to
	pursue
	a
	grievance 	to
	arbitration.
	(American
Federation 	of
	State,
	County 	and 	Municipal
	Employees 	(1999)
	PERB
Decision
	No.
	1321;
	United 	Teachers
	of
	Los
	Angeles
	(1998)
	PERB
Decision
	No.
	1289.)
Here,
	the 	Teamster's 	decided 	not 	pursue
	Brynjolfsson's 	grievance
to
	arbitration
	based
	on
	the 	advice 	of
	its
	legal
	counsel.
	The
collective
	bargaining
	agreement
	provides 	grievances 	challenging
performance
	evaluations 	shall
	be
	limited 	to
	claims 	regarding 	the
evaluation procedures.
	The
	warning
	letter
	indicated 	that 	the
Teamster's 	decision 	not 	to
	pursue
	Brynjolfsson's 	grievanceappeared
	to
	be
	based
	on
	a
	rational 	interpretation
	of 	the
collective 	bargaining
	agreement 	and
	the
	arbitrator's 	authority.
The
	warning
	letter
	also
	noted
	that 	the 	charge
	failed 	to 	provide
facts
	demonstrating 	the
	Teamsters
	acted 	in
	an
	arbitrary,discriminatory 	or
	bad
	faith
	manner. 	The
	documents
	provided
	by
the 	Charging 	Party
	on
	April
	27, 	2001 	do
	not 	correct 	those
deficiencies.
	Thus,
	the 	charge
	is
	dismissed.
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,

LA-CO-873
Dismissal
	Letter
Page
	3
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 	beforethe 	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.)
A
document
	is
	also
	considered
	"filed"
	when
	received
	by
	facsimiletransmission 	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
	fivecopies 	of
	a
	statement 	in 	opposition within
	twenty
	(20)
	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
	II
served
11
	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
	allparties 	to 	the 	proceeding. 	(Cal. 	Code
	Regs.,
	tit.
	8, 	sec.32135 (c) . )

LA-CO-873
Dismissal
	Letter
Page
	4
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.)
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
ByT~
Regional
	Attorney
Attachment
cc:
	Jeffrey
	L.
	Cutler

STA
TE
OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
San Francisco Regional
Office
1
51
5 Clay Street, Suite 2201
Oakland, CA
94612
(510)
622-1016
April
	13,
	2001
Holmgeir
	Brynjolfsson
3435
	Waco Ave
Simi
	Valley
	CA
	93063
RE:
	Holmgeir
	Brynjolfsson
	v. 	Teamsters 	Local
	572
Unfair
	Practice
	Charge
	No. 	LA-CO-873
WARNING
	LETTER
Dear
	Mr.
	Brynjolfsson:
GRAY DA\tiS,
Governor
In 	the 	above-referenced
	charge
	Holmgeir
	Brynjolfsson
	alleges
	the
Teamsters 	Local
	572
	violated
	the 	Educational
	Employment
	Relations
Act
	(EERA
	or
	Act)
	§
	3543.6
	by
	breaching
	its
	duty 	of
	fair
representation.
	On
	or
	about
	April
	3, 	2001,
	I
	spoke
	with
	you
regarding
	this
	charge.
	My
	investigation
	revealed 	the 	following
information.
On
	January
	17, 	2000,
	Brynjolfsson
	became
	an
	Assistant
	Garage
Supervisor
	at
	the
	Los
	Angeles
	Unified
	School
	District.
	That
position
	is
	within 	the 	bargaining
	unit 	exclusively 	represented
	by
the
	Teamsters.
	Brynjolfsson
	began
	a
	six-month
	probationary
period 	in
	January
	2000
	and
	was
	supervised
	by
	Jack 	Rice.
Rice 	wrote
	Brynjolfsson 	tardy
	slips
	on
	three
	occasions.
Brynjolfsson
	protested 	Rice's 	authority 	to 	issue 	the 	tardy
	slips.
Brynjolfsson
	alleges
	Rice
	was
	angered
	by
	his 	protest
	and 	began
	a
campaign
	of
	threats,
	and
	intimidation 	against
	him.
On
	March
	1,
	2000
	Rice
	issued 	Brynjolfsson
	a
	preliminary
performance
	evaluation
	which
	rated
	him
	below
	standard. 	In 	an
attachment 	Rice
	listed
	specific
	reasons
	for 	the 	evaluation.Brynjolfsson 	wrote 	and
	attached
	a
	rebuttal
	statement.
	On
March 	24, 	2000, 	Rice
	issued
	a
	Final
	Performance
	Evaluation
	rating
Brynjolfsson's
	work
	as
	below
	standard. 	Brynjolfsson 	disagreedwith 	the 	evaluation
	and 	spoke
	with 	Business
	Agent 	Margaret
Villegas. 	Villegas 	agreed 	to
	file
	a
	grievance 	regarding 	the
District's 	failure 	to 	follow 	the 	proper 	procedures.
The
	parties'
	1997-2000
	collective 	bargaining 	agreement 	has 	been
extended 	on
	a
	day-to-day 	basis. 	Article
	X,
	Section 	3.1 	of 	the
CBA
	states:
No
	grievance 	arising 	under
	this 	Article 	shallchallenge 	the 	substantive 	objectives,
standards, 	or 	criteria 	determined 	by 	the
evaluator 	or 	the 	District, 	nor 	shall 	itcontest 	the 	judgement 	of 	the 	evaluator.

Grievances 	concerning 	evaluations 	filed 	under
Article 	V 	(Grievance 	Procedure) 	shall 	be
limited 	to 	a 	claim 	that 	the 	procedures 	in
Section 	2.0 	above, 	have 	not 	been 	followed.
On 	April 	6, 	2000 	Villegas 	filed 	a 	grievance. 	Villegas 	told
Brynjolfsson 	that 	he 	had 	a 	good 	case 	because 	the 	District 	had
failed 	to 	follow 	the 	proper 	procedures. 	More 	specifically, 	the
grievance 	indicated 	the 	District 	violated 	CBA 	sections 	regarding
the 	use 	of 	conference 	memos, 	and 	the 	prescribed 	forms 	for
evaluation 	purposes. 	Villegas 	and 	Brynjolfsson met 	with 	the
District 	for 	a 	Step 	1 	meeting. 	Following 	the 	meeting 	Villegas
told 	Brynjolfsson 	that 	the 	union 	would 	take 	the 	grievance 	to
arbitration 	after 	the 	three-step 	process 	had 	been 	completed. 	The
District 	denied 	the 	grievance 	at 	Step 	1.
Villegas 	and 	Brynjolfsson 	also 	attended 	a 	Step 	2 	meeting.
Following 	the 	meeting 	Villegas 	indicated 	that 	her 	boss 	felt
confident 	that 	they 	could 	win 	in 	arbitration. 	Villegas 	also
indicated 	that 	the 	union 	had 	not 	lost 	a 	case 	against 	the
District.
On April 	26, 	2000, 	Rice 	issued 	a 	Second 	Final 	Evaluation 	rating
Brynjolfsson's 	work 	below 	standard. 	Rice 	also 	indicated 	a 	Notice
of 	Unsatisfactory 	Service 	would 	be 	issued. 	On May 	15, 	2000
Villegas 	filed 	a 	second 	grievance. 	Both 	grievances 	were
consolidated 	for 	a 	December 	8, 	2000 	Step 	3 	meeting.
On 	December 	7, 	2000, 	Villegas 	called 	Brynjolfsson 	and 	indicated
that 	the 	union 	would 	not 	take 	the 	case 	to 	arbitration 	on 	the
advice 	of 	their 	attorney. 	Villegas 	indicated 	that 	she 	had
explained 	that 	there 	were 	clear violations 	of 	the 	contract, 	but
that 	the 	attorney 	recommended 	the 	case 	not 	be 	brought 	to
arbitration. 	The 	attorney 	advised 	Villegas 	that 	an 	arbitrator
would 	not 	have 	the 	authority 	to 	extend 	the 	probationary 	period 	or
overturn 	the 	evaluation. 	Villegas 	indicated 	she 	would 	attend 	the
Step 	3 	meeting 	if 	Brynjolfsson wanted 	her 	to 	be 	there.
The 	District 	denied 	the 	grievances 	at 	the 	Step 	3 	meeting.
Villegas 	also 	met 	with 	District 	Manager Alan 	Tomiyama 	to 	discuss
Brynjolfsson's 	situation, 	but 	he 	refused 	to 	take 	action.
On May 	10, 	2000, 	the 	District 	issued 	a 	Notice 	of 	Unsatisfactory
Service 	to 	Brynjolfsson 	and 	he 	was 	demoted 	to 	an Automotive
Mechanic 	position. 	Brynjolfsson 	appealed 	this 	decision 	and 	the
Personnel 	Commission 	ordered 	that 	Brynjolfsson 	be 	returned 	to 	the
eligibility 	list 	for 	a 	supervisory position.
The 	above-stated 	information 	fails 	to 	state 	a 	prima 	facie
violation 	for 	the 	rea~ons 	that 	follow.
Charging 	Party 	has 	alleged 	that 	the 	exclusive 	representative
denied 	Charging 	Party 	the 	right 	to 	fair 	representation 	guaranteed
by 	EERA 	section 	3544.9 	and 	thereby 	violated 	section 	3543.6(b).

The
	duty 	of
	fair
	representation
	imposed 	on
	the 	exclusive
representative
	extends
	to
	grievance 	handling.
	(Fremont
	Teachers
Association
	(King) 	(1980)
	PERB
	Decision
	No.
	125;
	United 	Teachers
of
	Los
	Angeles
	(Collins)
	(1982)
	PERB
	Decision
	No.
	258.)
	In 	order
to
	state
	a
	prima
	facie 	violation
	of
	this
	section
	of
	EERA,
Charging
	Party
	must
	show
	that
	the
	Association's
	conduct
	was
arbitrary,
	discriminatory 	or
	in
	bad
	faith.
	In
	United 	Teachers 	of
Los
	Angeles
	(Collins),
	the 	Public
	Employment
	Relations
	Board
stated:
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 	orprocess
	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:
11
	•
	must
	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 	honestjudgment. 	(Emphasis
	aaaea.J
'1
	[Reed
	District
Teachers
	Association,
	CTA/NEA
	(Reyes) 	(1983)
PERB
	Decision
	No.
	332,
	p.
	9,
	citing
	Rocklin
Teachers
	Professional 	Association
	(Romero)
(1980)
	PERB
	Decision
	No.
	124.]
In 	the 	instant
	charge 	Villegas
	filed
	two
	grievances
	on
Brynjolfsson's 	behalf
	and
	represented
	him
	in 	several 	grievancemeetings. 	Villegas 	also
	met
	with
	a
	District 	representative
outside 	of 	the 	grievance 	process 	in
	an
	effort
	to 	help
Brynjolfsson.
Villegas 	told 	the 	Charging 	Party 	that
	he 	had
	a
	meritorious
grievance,
	and
	that 	the 	union 	would
	pursue 	the 	grievance 	to
arbitration.
	However,
	after
	meeting 	with 	legal 	counsel, 	Villegasinformed 	the 	Charging 	Party 	that 	the 	union 	would 	not 	pursue 	the
grievance 	to 	arbitration.
	The
	parties'
	CBA
	indicates 	that 	only
procedural 	irregularities,
	not 	the 	substantive 	allegations, 	canbe 	the 	subject 	of
	a
	grievance.
	The
	Teamsters' 	decision 	not 	topursue 	the 	grievance 	to 	arbitration 	appears 	to 	be 	based 	on
	that
contract 	language. 	The 	Teamsters 	may
	exercise 	their 	discretion

in 	determining 	whether 	to 	pursue 	a 	grievance 	to 	arbitration.
(American 	Federation 	of 	State, 	County 	and 	Municipal 	Employees
(1999) 	PERB 	Decision No. 	1321; 	United 	Teachers 	of 	Los 	Angeles
(1998) 	PERB 	Decision 	No. 	1289.) 	Here, 	the 	Teamsters 	decided 	not
to 	pursue 	a 	grievance 	to 	arbitration 	based 	on 	its 	determination
that 	despite 	procedural 	deficiencies 	the 	arbitrator 	would 	not
have 	the 	authority 	to 	extend 	the 	probationary period 	or 	overturn
the 	demotion. 	Thus, 	the 	charge 	fails 	to 	demonstrate 	the
Respondent 	acted 	in 	an 	arbitrary, 	discriminatory 	or 	bad 	faith
manner.
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 	April 	23, 	2001, 	I
shall 	dismiss 	your 	charge. 	If 	you 	have 	any 	questions, 	please
call 	me 	at 	(510) 	622-1023.
Sincerely,
T~
Regional 	Attorney