Fresno Unified School District (PERB 0208E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FRESNO 	UNIFIED SCHOOL 	DISTRICT,
Charging 	Party,
v.
FRESNO TEACHERS 	ASSOCIATION, 	CTA/NEA,
Respondent.
FRESNO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Case 	No. 	S-CO-33
PERB 	Decision 	No. 208
April 	30, 	1982
Case No. S-CO-33
FRESNO TEACHERS 	ASSOCIATION, 	CTA/NEA,
Charging 	Party,
v.
FRESNO 	UNIFIED SCHOOL 	DISTRICT,
Respondent.
FRESNO TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, CTA/NEA,
Case 	No. 	S-CE-257	Case No. S-CE-257
Appearances:	Appearances: L 	Lee 	T. 	Paterson, 	Attorney 	(Paterson 	& Taggart)
for 	the 	Fresno 	Unified 	School 	District; 	Ernest 	H. 	Tuttle 	III,
Attorney 	(Tuttle 	and 	Tuttle), 	and 	Ray 	Hansen 	and
Kirsten 	Zerger, 	Attorneys 	(California 	Teachers 	Association) 	for
the 	Fresno 	Teachers 	Association, 	CTA/NEA.
e
Before 	Gluck, 	Chairperson; 	Jaeger 	and 	Tovar, 	Members.	Before Gluck, Chairperson; Jaeger and Tovar, Members.
DECISION	DECISION
The 	Fresno 	Unified 	School 	District 	(District) 	excepts 	to
the 	hearing 	officer's 	proposed 	decision 	finding: 	(1) 	that 	the
Fresno 	Teachers 	Association, 	CTA/NEA's 	(FTA 	or 	Association)
strike 	was 	not 	a 	per 	se 	violation 	of 	EERA 	subsections
3543.6(b), 	(c) 	and 	(d); 	(2) 	that 	the 	FTA 1 s 	picket 	line 	conduct
The Fresno Unified School District (District) excepts to
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Charging Party,
v .
FRESNO TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, CTA/NEA,
Respondent.
PERB Decision No. 208
April 30, 1982
Charging Party,
v .
FRESNO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Respondent.
e T. Paterson, Attorney (Paterson & Taggart)
for the Fresno Unified School District; Ernest H. Tuttle III,
Attorney (Tuttle and Tuttle) , and Ray Hansen and
Kirsten Zerger, Attorneys (California Teachers Association) for
the Fresno Teachers Association, CTA/NEA.
the hearing officer's proposed decision finding: (1) that the
Fresno Teachers Association, CTA/NEA's (FTA or Association)
strike was not a per se violation of EERA subsections
3543.6 (b) , (c) and (d) ; (2) that the FTA's picket line conduct

did 	not 	violate 	subsection 	3543.6(b); 	(3) 	that 	the 	District's
cancellation 	of 	dues 	deductions 	violated 	subsections 	3543.S(b)
and 	(d); 	and 	the 	hearing 	officer's 	failure 	to 	provide 	a
make-whole 	remedy 	of 	monetary 	losses 	incurred 	by 	the 	District
during the strike. The
did not violate subsection 3543.6 (b) ; (3) that the District's
l 	The 	hearing 	officer 	dismissed 	FTA's
charge 	alleging 	that 	the 	District 	had 	violated 	subsections
3543.5 (c) and (d) 2	3543.S(c) 	and 	(d)
h
2 	by 	seeking 	to 	bargain 	over 	the 	amount 	of
agency 	fee. 	This 	is 	the 	only 	finding 	to 	which 	FTA 	excepts.	agency fee. This is the only finding to which FTA excepts.
The 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Act 	(EERA) 	is
codified 	at 	Government 	Code 	sections 	3540 	et 	seq. 	All
statutory 	references 	are 	to 	the 	Government 	Code 	unless
otherwise 	noted.
lThe Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA) is
Subsections 	3543.6(c) 	and 	(d) 	state:	Subsections 3543.6 (c) and (d) state:
It 	shall 	be 	unlawful 	for 	an 	employee
organization 	to:
It shall be unlawful for an employee
(d) 	Refuse 	to 	participate 	in 	good 	faith 	in
the 	impasse 	procedure 	set 	forth 	in 	Article 	9
(commencing 	with 	Section 	3548).
(d)
22subsections 	3543.S(c) 	and 	(d} 	state:	Subsections 3543.5 (c) and (d) state:
It 	shall 	be 	unlawful 	for 	an 	employee
organization 	to:
It shall be unlawful for an employee
(c) 	Refuse 	or 	fail 	to 	meet 	and 	negotiate 	in
good 	faith 	with 	an 	exclusive 	representative.
(c)
(d) 	Dominate 	or 	interfere 	with 	the
formation 	or 	administration 	of 	any 	employee
organization, 	or 	contribute 	financial 	or
other 	support 	to 	it, 	or 	in 	any 	way 	encourage
employees 	to 	join 	any 	organization 	in
preference 	to 	another.
(d)
2
(c)) Refuse or fail to meet and negotiate in	Refuse 	or 	fail 	to 	meet 	and 	negotiate 	in
good 	faith 	with 	a 	public 	school 	employer 	of
any 	of 	the 	employees 	of 	which 	it 	is 	the
exclusive 	representative.
good faith with a public school employer of
2
cancellation of dues deductions violated subsections 3543.5 (b)
and (d) ; and the hearing officer's failure to provide a
make-whole remedy of monetary losses incurred by the District
earing officer dismissed FTA's	during 	the 	strike.
charge alleging that the District had violated subsections
by seeking to bargain over the amount of
codified at Government Code sections 3540 et seq. All
statutory references are to the Government Code unless
otherwise noted.
organization to:
Refuse to participate in good faith in
the impasse procedure set forth in Article 9
(commencing with Section 3548) .
organization to:
Refuse or fail to meet and negotiate in
good faith with an exclusive representative.
Dominate or interfere with the
formation or administration of any employee
organization, or contribute financial or
other support to it, or in any way encourage
employees to join any organization in
preference to another.
any of the employees of which it is the
exclusive representative.

FACTS	FACTS 33
Events 	Leading 	to 	the 	Strike	Events Leading to the Strike
In 	April 	1978, 	the 	parties 	began 	negotiations 	for 	a
successor 	agreement 	to 	their 	first 	collective 	bargaining
contract 	which 	was 	to 	expire 	on 	June 	30, 	1978. 	The 	FTA 	sought
to 	modify, 	among 	other 	articles, 	the 	contract 	term 	clause 	and
the 	no-strike 	provision 	of 	the 	existing 	agreement.
In April 1978, the parties began negotiations for a
Bargaining 	sessions 	occurred 	regularly 	during 	the 	spring
and 	fall, 	with 	a 	moratorium 	for 	the 	summer 	after 	Proposition 	13
passed. 	By 	late 	September, 	the 	Association 	perceived 	that
negotiations 	were 	deadlocked 	on 	three 	major 	issues: 	class 	size,
contract 	term, 	and 	the 	no-strike 	clause. 	It 	declared 	impasse
and 	on 	September 	28 	requested 	that 	the 	Public 	Employment
Relations 	Board 	(PERB) 	appoint 	a 	mediator. 	After 	an
investigation, 	the 	PERB 	regional 	director 	twice 	rejected 	FTA's
request 	and 	instructed 	it 	to 	resume 	bargaining. In November ,	In 	November,
FTA 	then 	abandoned 	its 	attempts 	to 	engage 	the 	impasse
procedures. 	At 	the 	unfair 	practice 	hearing, 	the 	chief
negotiator 	for 	FTA 	admitted 	that 	one 	of 	the 	reasons 	he
initially 	sought 	a 	PERB 	declaration 	of 	impasse 	was 	to 	avoid 	a
potential 	damage 	claim 	under 	the 	collective 	bargaining
agreement 	in 	the 	event 	of 	a 	strike. 	He 	also 	stated 	that 	he
Bargaining sessions occurred regularly during the spring
3Contained here are only those facts bearing on issues	3contained 	here 	are 	only 	those 	facts 	bearing 	on 	issues
that 	have 	been 	raised 	by 	the 	parties' 	exceptions.	that have been raised by the parties' exceptions.
W3
successor agreement to their first collective bargaining
contract which was to expire on June 30, 1978. The FTA sought
to modify, among other articles, the contract term clause and
the no-strike provision of the existing agreement.
and fall, with a moratorium for the summer after Proposition 13
passed. By late September, the Association perceived that
negotiations were deadlocked on three major issues: class size,
contract term, and the no-strike clause. It declared impasse
and on September 28 requested that the Public Employment
Relations Board (PERB) appoint a mediator. After an
investigation, the PERB regional director twice rejected FTA's
request and instructed it to resume bargaining.
FTA then abandoned its attempts to engage the impasse
procedures. At the unfair practice hearing, the chief
negotiator for FTA admitted that one of the reasons he
initially sought a PERB declaration of impasse was to avoid a
potential damage claim under the collective bargaining
agreement in the event of a strike. He also stated that he

believed 	the 	presence 	of 	a 	mediator 	might 	"stimulate 	some
better 	activity 	on 	the 	part 	of 	the 	District." 	But, 	in 	the 	face
of 	PERB's 	action 	and 	the 	District's 	opposition 	to 	impasse, 	FTA
came 	to 	believe 	that 	the 	impasse 	procedures 	would 	be 	used 	by
the 	District 	to 	unnecessarily 	drag 	out 	the 	negotiating
process. 	As 	a 	result, 	FTA 	did 	not 	further 	attempt 	to 	engage
the 	impasse 	process 	and 	admitted 	that, 	if 	the 	District 	had
asked 	the 	Association 	to 	join 	it 	in 	declaring 	impasse 	on 	the
eve 	of 	the 	strike, 	it 	probably 	would 	not 	have 	done 	so.
believed the presence of a mediator might "stimulate some
The 	strike 	began 	on 	November 	20, 	the 	first 	day 	of
Thanksgiving 	week 	and 	lasted 	until 	December 	1. 	On 	November 	30,
the 	District, 	relying 	on 	the 	no-strike 	clause 	in 	the 	1976
agreement,
The strike began on November 20, the first day of
4 	suspended 	dues 	deductions 	amounting 	to
approximately 	$36,000.
Negotiations 	continued 	during 	the 	strike 	and, 	shortly 	after
its 	termination, 	a 	tentative 	agreement 	was 	reached
December 	3, 	1978.
Negotiations continued during the strike and, shortly after
During 	negotiations, 	FTA 	proposed 	an 	agency 	fee 	of 	$200,
the 	equivalent 	of 	dues 	and 	initiation 	fees 	paid 	by 	members.
The 	District 	countered 	with 	an 	offer 	of 	$50, 	which 	it 	later
During negotiations, FTA proposed an agency fee of $200,
4The clause provides, in pertinent part, that a	4The 	clause 	provides, 	in 	pertinent 	part, 	that 	a
violation, 	"will 	warrant 	the 	withdrawal 	of 	any 	rights,
privileges 	or 	services 	provided 	for 	in 	this 	agreement."
violation, "will warrant the withdrawal of any rights,
Agency 	Fee	Agency Fee
4
better activity on the part of the District. " But, in the face
of PERB's action and the District's opposition to impasse, FTA
came to believe that the impasse procedures would be used by
the District to unnecessarily drag out the negotiating
process. As a result, FTA did not further attempt to engage
the impasse process and admitted that, if the District had
asked the Association to join it in declaring impasse on the
eve of the strike, it probably would not have done so.
Thanksgiving week and lasted until December 1. On November 30,
the District, relying on the no-strike clause in the 1976
agreement , 4 suspended dues deductions amounting to
approximately $36,000.
its termination, a tentative agreement was reached
December 3, 1978.
the equivalent of dues and initiation fees paid by members.
The District countered with an offer of $50, which it later
privileges or services provided for in this agreement."

increased 	to 	$75. 	It 	questioned 	FTA 	about 	affiliates' 	budgets
and 	about 	how 	much 	of 	the 	$200 	was 	actually 	required 	for
representational 	services 	at 	the 	local 	level. 	FTA 	replied 	that
nearly 	all 	of 	it 	was 	required 	and 	pointed 	out 	that 	all 	of 	its
lobbying 	activities 	supported 	by 	Association 	funds 	were
directed 	to 	matters 	relating 	to 	teachers' 	working 	conditions.
The 	parties 	stayed 	with 	their 	respective 	amounts, 	and 	FTA
ultimately 	withdrew 	its 	proposal 	for 	an 	agency 	fee 	claiming
that 	it 	would 	rather 	have 	none 	than 	$75.
increased to $75. It questioned FTA about affiliates' budgets
Picket 	Line 	Conduct	Picket Line Conduct
At 	the 	beginning 	of 	the 	strike, 	picket 	lines 	were
established 	at 	the 	entrances 	to 	the 	parking 	lots 	of 	District
schools. 	FTA 	instructed 	pickets 	not 	to 	block 	the 	driveways,
but 	to 	walk 	slowly 	across 	them 	with 	five 	feet 	distance 	between
each 	picket. 	This 	practice 	resulted 	in 	some 	delay 	in 	getting
in 	and 	out 	of 	parking 	lots, 	but 	no 	one 	was 	prevented 	from 	going
to 	or 	from 	work. 	In 	general, 	the 	pickets 	followed 	these
instructions, 	although 	there 	were 	some 	confrontations.
Substitutes 	were 	called 	"scabs"; 	exhorted 	to 	"go 	home"; 	and
asked, 	"Don't 	you 	have 	any 	pride?" 	On 	one 	occasion, 	a 	fight
broke 	out 	between 	a 	striker 	and 	a 	substitute 	teacher. 	The
hearing 	officer 	determined 	that 	the 	substitute 	provoked 	this
incident. 	That 	finding 	has 	not 	been 	specifically 	excepted 	to.
At the beginning of the strike, picket lines were
At 	one 	school, 	where 	strikers 	had 	been 	bumped 	on 	a 	few
occasions 	by 	cars 	attempting 	to 	exit 	the 	parking 	lot, 	the
At one school, where strikers had been bumped on a few
55
and about how much of the $200 was actually required for
representational services at the local level. FTA replied that
nearly all of it was required and pointed out that all of its
lobbying activities supported by Association funds were
directed to matters relating to teachers' working conditions.
The parties stayed with their respective amounts, and FTA
ultimately withdrew its proposal for an agency fee claiming
that it would rather have none than $75.
established at the entrances to the parking lots of District
schools. FTA instructed pickets not to block the driveways,
but to walk slowly across them with five feet distance between
each picket. This practice resulted in some delay in getting
in and out of parking lots, but no one was prevented from going
to or from work. In general, the pickets followed these
instructions, although there were some confrontations.
Substitutes were called "scabs"; exhorted to "go home"; and
asked, "Don't you have any pride?" On one occasion, a fight
broke out between a striker and a substitute teacher. The
hearing officer determined that the substitute provoked this
incident. That finding has not been specifically excepted to.
occasions by cars attempting to exit the parking lot, the

At 	one 	of 	the 	middle 	schools, 	a 	regular 	teacher 	was 	delayed
briefly 	as 	she 	tried 	to 	cross 	the 	picket 	lines. 	When 	she
stopped, 	the 	pickets 	gathered 	along 	the 	side 	of 	her 	car 	and
tried 	to 	persuade 	her 	to 	join 	them, 	but 	even 	according 	to 	the
District's 	own 	witness 	to 	the 	conversation, 	nothing 	said 	or
done 	could 	be 	considered 	as 	threatening. 	At 	this 	same 	school,
the 	principal 	received 	anonymous, 	threatening 	phone 	calls. 	No
evidence 	of 	the 	callers' 	identities 	was 	presented 	at 	the
hearing.
At one of the middle schools, a regular teacher was delayed
One 	striker 	was 	observed 	standing 	in 	front 	of 	a
nonstriker's 	car 	for 	a 	few 	moments. 	The 	people 	involved 	were
friends, 	there 	was 	no 	exchange 	of 	words 	that 	could 	be
interpreted 	as 	threatening 	and 	the 	striker 	did 	move 	to 	let 	the
driver 	pass. 	Another 	striker 	shouted, 	"We'll 	get 	you," 	at 	a
substitute 	who 	had 	run 	for 	political 	office, 	but 	the 	hearing
officer's 	finding 	that, 	in 	context, 	the 	phrase 	was 	meant 	as 	a
political 	rather 	than 	a 	physical 	threat 	is 	a 	reasonable 	one 	in
light 	of 	the 	evidence.
One striker was observed standing in front of a
6
strikers 	took 	down 	license 	plate 	numbers 	of 	cars 	crossing 	the
picket 	line. 	At 	another 	school, 	a 	pretense 	was 	made 	of
photographing 	teachers 	who 	had 	gone 	to 	work, 	but 	there 	had 	been
no 	film 	in 	the 	camera 	and 	the 	pickets 	were 	laughing 	while 	this
was 	being 	done.
strikers took down license plate numbers of cars crossing the
6
picket line. At another school, a pretense was made of
photographing teachers who had gone to work, but there had been
no film in the camera and the pickets were laughing while this
was being done.
nonstriker's car for a few moments. The people involved were
friends, there was no exchange of words that could be
interpreted as threatening and the striker did move to let the
driver pass. Another striker shouted, "We'll get you," at a
substitute who had run for political office, but the hearing
officer's finding that, in context, the phrase was meant as a
political rather than a physical threat is a reasonable one in
light of the evidence.
briefly as she tried to cross the picket lines. When she
stopped, the pickets gathered along the side of her car and
tried to persuade her to join them, but even according to the
District's own witness to the conversation, nothing said or
done could be considered as threatening. At this same school,
the principal received anonymous, threatening phone calls. No
evidence of the callers' identities was presented at the
hearing.

The 	Charges	The Charges
On 	April 	30, 	1979, 	five 	months 	after 	the 	strike 	and 	related
events, 	the 	District 	filed 	an 	unfair 	practice 	charge 	against
the 	Association 	alleging 	that 	FTA 	violated 	subsections
3543.6(a), 	(b), 	(c), 	and 	(d) 	by 	conducting 	a 	strike 	prior 	to
the 	exhaustion 	of 	impasse 	procedures 	and 	by 	intimidating 	and
coercing 	employees 	who 	crossed 	the 	picket 	lines. 	FTA
cross-filed 	against 	the 	District 	on May 	24, 	1979, 	contending,
inter 	alia, 	that 	the 	District 	violated 	the 	Act 	by 	imposing
reprisals 	on 	employees 	because 	of 	their 	exercise 	of 	rights
under 	EERA, 	illegally 	suspending 	dues 	deductions 	during 	the
strike 	and 	engaging 	in 	surface 	bargaining 	by, 	among 	other
things, 	attempting 	to 	bargain 	over 	the 	amount 	of 	agency 	fees.
On April 30, 1979, five months after the strike and related
The 	District 	did 	not 	file 	an 	answer 	to 	this 	charge 	until
November 	7, 	1979, 	well 	after 	the 	20-day 	period 	prescribed 	by
PERB 	rule 	subsection 	32635(a).5 	In 	this 	written 	answer, 	it
moved 	to 	dismiss 	as 	barred 	by 	the 	statute 	of 	limitations, 	all
The District did not file an answer to this charge until
5PERB rules are codified at California Administrative	5PERB 	rules 	are 	codified 	at 	California 	Administrative
Code, 	title 	8, 	section 	31000 	et 	seq.	Code, title 8, section 31000 et seq.
Subsection 	32635(a) 	states:	Subsection 32635 (a) states:
(a) 	The 	respondent 	shall 	file 	with 	the
Board 	an 	answer 	to 	the 	unfair 	practice
charge 	within 	20 	days 	or 	at 	a 	time 	set 	by
the 	Board 	agent 	following 	the 	date 	of
service 	of 	the 	charge 	by 	the 	Board 	agent.
The 	answer 	shall 	be 	served 	on 	the 	charging
party. 	Proof 	of 	service 	shall 	be 	filed 	with
the 	Board.
(a)
J7
events, the District filed an unfair practice charge against
the Association alleging that FTA violated subsections
3543.6(a) , (b) , (c) , and (d) by conducting a strike prior to
the exhaustion of impasse procedures and by intimidating and
coercing employees who crossed the picket lines. FTA
cross-filed against the District on May 24, 1979, contending,
inter alia, that the District violated the Act by imposing
reprisals on employees because of their exercise of rights
under EERA, illegally suspending dues deductions during the
strike and engaging in surface bargaining by, among other
things, attempting to bargain over the amount of agency fees.
November 7, 1979, well after the 20-day period prescribed by
PERB rule subsection 32635 (a) .5 In this written answer, it
moved to dismiss as barred by the statute of limitations, all
The respondent shall file with the
Board an answer to the unfair practice
charge within 20 days or at a time set by
the Board agent following the date of
service of the charge by the Board agent.
The answer shall be served on the charging
party. Proof of service shall be filed with
the Board.

of 	the 	allegations 	of 	conduct 	occurring 	before
November 	24, 	1978.
of the allegations of conduct occurring before
6 	The 	hearing 	officer 	refused 	to 	consider
this 	defense, 	finding 	that 	the 	statute 	of 	limitations 	is 	a
procedural 	rather 	than 	jurisdictional matter 	and 	therefore 	must
be 	timely 	raised. 	Nevertheless, 	he 	dismissed 	on 	the 	merits 	all
the 	FTA's 	charges 	which 	were 	time-barred.
During 	the 	hearing 	on 	September 	20, 	the 	District 	orally
objected 	to 	certain 	evidence 	concerning 	unilateral 	changes?
in 	employment 	matters 	it 	had 	made 	because 	they 	had 	taken 	place
more 	than 	six 	months 	before 	the 	date 	FTA's 	charges 	were 	filed.
The 	hearing 	officer 	allowed 	the 	evidence 	only 	for 	the 	purpose
of 	considering 	FTA's 	defense 	to 	the 	strike 	charge, 	rejecting
its 	use 	to 	support 	FTA's 	charge 	against 	the 	District.
During the hearing on September 20, the District orally
6	6 These 	charges 	include 	allegations 	that 	the 	District 	(1)
violated 	subsection 	3543.S(a) 	by 	threatening 	to 	withdraw 	health
and 	welfare 	benefits 	on 	Novmeber 	20 	and 	by 	intimidating
pickets; 	and 	(2) 	interfered 	with 	the 	FTA's 	right 	to 	use 	impasse
procedures 	in 	September 	or 	October 	by 	making 	misrepresentations
to 	a 	PERB 	agent 	about 	possible 	movement 	the 	District 	was
willing 	to make 	at 	the 	table-and 	by 	refusing 	to 	join FTA 	in
declaring 	an 	impasse.
These charges include allegations that the District (1)
The 	statute 	of 	limitations 	is 	found 	in 	subsection 	3541.S(a):	The statute of limitations is found in subsection 3541.5 (a) :
(a) 	Any 	employee, 	employee 	organization, 	or
employer 	shall 	have 	the 	right 	to 	file 	an
unfair 	practice 	charge, 	except 	that 	the
board 	shall 	not 	do 	either 	of 	the 	following:
(a)
CO	8
November 24, 1978.6 The hearing officer refused to consider
this defense, finding that the statute of limitations is a
procedural rather than jurisdictional matter and therefore must
be timely raised. Nevertheless, he dismissed on the merits all
the FTA's charges which were time-barred.
objected to certain evidence concerning unilateral changes7
in employment matters it had made because they had taken place
more than six months before the date FTA's charges were filed.
The hearing officer allowed the evidence only for the purpose
of considering FTA's defense to the strike charge, rejecting
its use to support FTA's charge against the District.
violated subsection 3543.5 (a) by threatening to withdraw health
and welfare benefits on Novmeber 20 and by intimidating
pickets; and (2) interfered with the FTA's right to use impasse
procedures in September or October by making misrepresentations
to a PERB agent about possible movement the District was
willing to make at the table and by refusing to join FTA in
declaring an impasse.
Any employee, employee organization, or
employer shall have the right to file an
unfair practice charge, except that the
board shall not do either of the following:
(1) 	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 	...
(1) 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 .

DISCUSSION	DISCUSSION
The 	Strike 	and 	Picket 	Line 	Conduct	The Strike and Picket Line Conduct
The 	District 	claims 	that 	the 	hearing 	officer 	erred 	in
refusing 	to 	find 	that 	a 	strike 	before 	impasse 	is 	a 	per 	se
unfair 	practice. 	It 	argues 	that 	public 	employee 	strikes 	are
inherently 	illegal, 	that 	a 	strike 	violates 	the 	section 	3543
rights 	of 	nonstrikers 	not 	to 	participate 	in 	organizational
activities 	and 	that 	a 	strike 	is 	a 	per 	se 	refusal 	to 	bargain 	and
to 	participate 	in 	impasse 	procedures 	in 	good 	faith.
The District claims that the hearing officer erred in
The 	California 	Supreme 	Court 	in 	San 	Diego 	Teachers
Association 	v. 	Superior 	Court 	(1979) 	24 	Cal.3d 	1, 	specifically
rejected 	the 	argument 	that 	section 	3549 	of 	EERA makes 	strikes
illegal.
The California Supreme Court in San Diego Teachers
a
As 	pointed 	out 	above, 	however, 	section 	3549
does 	not 	prohibit 	strikes 	but 	simply
excludes 	the 	applicability 	of 	Labor 	Code's
section 	923 	protection 	of 	concerted
activities. 	Id, p. 13)
As pointed out above, however, section 3549
Further, 	the 	Court 	declined 	to 	resolve 	the 	question 	of 	the
legality 	of 	public 	employee 	strikes 	under 	the 	common 	law.
Further, the Court declined to resolve the question of the
Similarly 	it 	is 	unnecessary 	here 	to 	resolve
the 	question 	of 	the 	legality 	of 	public
Similarly it is unnecessary here to resolve
7These alleged unilateral changes concerned lunch duty,	7These 	alleged 	unilateral 	changes 	concerned 	lunch 	duty,
instructional 	hours, 	and 	group 	advising 	requirements.	instructional hours, and group advising requirements.
8	8 section 	3549 	states:	section 3549 states:
The 	enactment 	of 	this 	chapter 	shall 	not 	be
construed 	as 	making 	the 	provisions 	of
Section 	923 	of 	the 	Labor 	Code 	applicable 	to
public 	school 	employees 	....
The enactment of this chapter shall not be
99
refusing to find that a strike before impasse is a per se
unfair practice. It argues that public employee strikes are
inherently illegal, that a strike violates the section 3543
rights of nonstrikers not to participate in organizational
activities and that a strike is a per se refusal to bargain and
to participate in impasse procedures in good faith.
Association v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal. 3d 1, specifically
rejected the argument that section 3549 of EERA makes strikes
illegal. 8
does not prohibit strikes but simply
excludes the applicability of Labor Code's
section 923 protection of concerted
activities. 	IQ, 	p. 	13)
legality of public employee strikes under the common law.
the question of the legality of public
construed as making the provisions of
Section 923 of the Labor Code applicable to
public school employees .

employee 	strikes 	if 	the 	injunctive 	remedies
were 	improper 	because 	of 	the 	district's
failure 	to 	exhaust 	its 	administrative
remedies 	under 	the 	EERA. 	Id, 	p. 	7.
employee strikes if the injunction remedies
The 	Court 	considered 	the 	effect 	of 	strikes 	on 	the 	duty 	to
negotiate 	in 	good 	faith 	and 	to 	utilize 	the 	statutory 	impasse
procedures.
The Court considered the effect of strikes on the duty to
[B]y 	engaging 	in 	a 	strike, 	the 	[Association]
may 	have 	committed 	at 	least 	two 	of 	the
unfair 	practices 	... 	1) 	failure 	to
negotiate 	in 	good 	faith 	... 	and 	2) 	refusal
to 	participate 	in 	the 	impasse
procedures 	..•
[Bly engaging in a strike, the [Association]
The 	question 	of 	negotiation 	in 	good 	faith 	is
resolved 	by 	determining 	whether 	there 	was 	a
genuine 	desire 	to 	reach 	agreement. 	Under
the 	NLRA, 	a 	strike 	does 	not, 	itself, 	violate
the 	duty 	to 	confer 	in 	good 	faith 	••••
Thus, 	if 	the 	[Association's] 	strike 	were
held 	to 	be 	legal, 	it 	would 	not 	constitute 	a
failure 	to 	negotiate 	in 	good 	faith 	as 	an
illegal 	pressure 	tactic; 	however, 	its
happening 	could 	support 	a 	finding 	that 	good
faith 	was 	lacking. 	(Emphasis 	added.)
The question of negotiation in good faith is
In 	keeping 	with 	the 	holdings 	of 	the 	Court, 	PERB 	adopted,
after 	extensive 	public 	testimony, 	its 	rule 	38100 	which 	states,
in 	pertinent 	part:
In keeping with the holdings of the Court, PERB adopted,
In 	recognition 	of 	the 	fact 	that 	in 	some
instances 	work 	stoppages 	by 	public 	school
In recognition of the fact that in some
10
..•. 	the 	impasse 	procedures 	almost
certainly 	were 	included 	in 	the 	EERA 	for 	the
purpose 	of 	heading 	off 	strikes 	•.. since	since
they 	assume 	deferment 	of 	a 	strike 	at 	least
until 	their 	completion, 	strikes 	before 	then
can 	properly 	be 	found 	to 	be 	a 	refusal 	to
participate 	in 	the 	impasse 	procedures 	in
good 	faith 	and, 	thus, 	an 	unfair 	practice
under 	section 	3543.6(d). 	Id. 	p. 	9.
. . the impasse procedures almost
10
were improper because of the district's
failure to exhaust its administrative
remedies under the EERA. 	Id, P. 7.
negotiate in good faith and to utilize the statutory impasse
procedures.
may have committed at least two of the
unfair practices 	. 1) failure to
negotiate in good faith . 	. and 2) refusal
to participate in the impasse
procedures
resolved by determining whether there was a
genuine desire to reach agreement. Under
the NLRA, a strike does not, itself, violate
the duty to confer in good faith .
Thus, if the [Association's] strike were
held to be legal, it would not constitute a
failure to negotiate in good faith as an
illegal pressure tactic; however, its
happening could support a finding that good
faith was lacking. 	(Emphasis added. )
after extensive public testimony, its rule 38100 which states,
in pertinent part:
instances work stoppages by public school
certainly were included in the EERA for the
purpose of heading off strikes
they assume deferment of a strike at least
until their completion, strikes before then
can properly be found to be a refusal to
participate in the impasse procedures in
good faith and, thus, an unfair practice
under section 3543.6 (d) . Id. p. 9.

employees 	and 	lockouts 	by 	public 	school
employers 	can 	be 	inimical 	to 	the 	public
interest 	and 	inconsistent 	with 	those
provisions 	of 	the 	EERA 	requiring 	the 	parties
to 	participate 	in 	good 	faith 	in 	the 	impasse
procedure, 	it 	is 	the 	purpose 	of 	this
regulation 	to 	provide 	a 	process 	by 	which 	the
Board 	can 	respond 	quickly 	to 	injunctive
relief 	requests 	involving 	work 	stoppages 	or
lockouts.
employees and lockouts by public school
The 	EERA 	imposes 	a 	duty 	on 	employers 	and
exclusive 	representatives 	to 	participate 	in
good 	faith 	in 	the 	impasse 	procedure 	and
treats 	that 	duty 	so 	seriously 	that 	it
specifically makes 	it 	unlawful 	for 	either 	an
employer 	or 	an 	exclusive 	representative 	to
refuse 	to 	do 	so. 	The 	Board 	considers 	these
provisions 	[impasse 	procedures] 	as 	strong
evidence 	of 	legislative 	intent 	to 	head 	off
work 	stoppages 	and 	lockouts 	until 	completion
of 	the 	impasse 	procedure 	•..
The EERA imposes a duty on employers and
Thus, 	the 	effect 	of 	the 	rule, 	and 	the 	San 	Diego 	decision 	is
to 	create 	something 	similar 	to 	a 	rebuttable 	presumption 	that 	a
strike 	during 	negotiations 	or 	prior 	to 	exhaustion 	of 	impasse
proceedings 	constitutes 	an 	illegal 	pressure 	tactic.
Thus, the effect of the rule, and the San Diego decision is
In 	the 	absence 	of 	any 	sustainable 	allegation 	of 	provocation
by 	the 	employer, 	and 	in 	light 	of 	FTA's 	admissions 	that 	it 	was
seeking 	to 	utilize 	the 	impasse 	procedure 	in 	part 	to 	avoid
damage 	liability, 	we 	find 	evidence 	of 	an 	"illegal 	pressure
tactic" 	constituting 	a 	refusal 	to 	negotiate 	in 	good 	faith 	in
violation 	of 	subsection 	3543.6(c).
In the absence of any sustainable allegation of provocation
11
However, 	that 	portion 	of 	the 	District's 	charge 	alleging
that 	FTA 	violated 	subsection 	3543.S(d) 	is 	dismissed. 	As 	the
Supreme 	Court 	indicated, 	a 	strike 	may 	constitute 	an 	unfair
practice 	in 	two 	ways: 	(1) 	a 	failure 	to 	negotiate 	in 	good 	faith
However, that portion of the District's charge alleging
11
employers can be inimical to the public
interest and inconsistent with those
provisions of the EERA requiring the parties
to participate in good faith in the impasse
procedure, it is the purpose of this
regulation to provide a process by which the
Board can respond quickly to injuncti
relief requests involving work stoppages or
lockouts.
exclusive representatives to participate in
good faith in the impasse procedure and
treats that duty so seriously that it
specifically makes it unlawful for either an
employer or an exclusive representative to
refuse to do so. The Board considers these
provisions [impasse procedures] as strong
evidence of legislative intent to head off
work stoppages and lockouts until completion
of the impasse procedure
to create something similar to a rebuttable presumption that a
strike during negotiations or prior to exhaustion of impasse
proceedings constitutes an illegal pressure tactic.
by the employer, and in light of FTA's admissions that it was
seeking to utilize the impasse procedure in part to avoid
damage liability, we find evidence of an "illegal pressure
tactic" constituting a refusal to negotiate in good faith in
violation of subsection 3543.6 (c) .
that FTA violated subsection 3543.5(d) is dismissed. As the
Supreme Court indicated, a strike may constitute an unfair
practice in two ways: (1) a failure to negotiate in good faith

and 	(2) 	a 	refusal 	to 	participate 	in 	the 	impasse 	procedures.
FTA 	did 	not 	refuse 	to 	participate 	in 	impasse 	procedures. 	To	To
the 	contrary, 	its 	request 	for 	an 	appointment 	of 	a 	mediator 	was
twice 	rejected 	by 	PERB 	before 	the 	strike 	occurred.
and (2) a refusal to participate in the impasse procedures.
Picket 	Line 	Conduct	Picket Line Conduct
The 	District 	charges 	that 	FTA's 	strike 	violated 	subsection
3543.6(b) 	because 	(1) 	public 	employee 	strikes 	are 	illegal 	and
automatically 	violate 	the 	rights 	of 	nonstrikers; 	and 	(2) 	the
alleged 	picket 	line 	misconduct 	coerced 	and 	threatened 	employees
who 	exercised 	their 	right 	to 	refrain 	from 	participating 	in 	the
activities 	of 	the 	Association 	are 	also 	dismissed. 	We 	have
already 	stated 	our 	reasons 	for 	finding 	no~ 	se 	violations 	in
FTA's 	actions. 	As 	to 	picket 	line 	activity, 	the 	District
specifically 	complains 	of 	the 	pickets' 	alleged 	blocking 	of
driveways, 	verbally 	threatening 	nonstrikers, 	and 	photographing
and 	recording 	the 	license 	plate 	numbers 	of 	certain 	nonstrikers.
The District charges that FTA's strike violated subsection
The 	standard 	consistently 	applied 	by 	the 	NLRB 	and 	courts 	in
determining 	whether 	misconduct 	during 	a 	strike 	constitutes
coercion 	and 	intimidation 	is 	an 	objective 	one, 	i.e., 	whether
the 	misconduct 	may 	reasonably 	tend 	to 	coerce 	or 	intimidate
employees 	in 	the 	exercise 	of 	their 	rights, 	Operating 	Engineers,
Local 	542 	v. 	NLRB 	(1964) 	[55 	LRRM 	2669]; 	NL~~ 	v. 	McQuaide
(1977) 	[94 	LRRM 	2950]. 	The 	fact 	that 	an 	individual 	may 	have
felt 	threatened 	by 	conduct 	which 	cannot 	reasonably 	be
considered 	as 	threatening 	does 	not 	result 	in 	a 	violation.
The standard consistently applied by the NLRB and courts in
12	12
FTA did not refuse to participate in impasse procedures.
the contrary, its request for an appointment of a mediator was
twice rejected by PERB before the strike occurred.
3543.6 (b) because (1) public employee strikes are illegal and
automatically violate the rights of nonstrikers; and (2) the
alleged picket line misconduct coerced and threatened employees
who exercised their right to refrain from participating in the
activities of the Association are also dismissed. We have
already stated our reasons for finding no per se violations in
FTA's actions. As to picket line activity, the District
specifically complains of the pickets' alleged blocking of
driveways, verbally threatening nonstrikers, and photographing
and recording the license plate numbers of certain nonstrikers.
determining whether misconduct during a strike constitutes
coercion and intimidation is an objective one, i.e. , whether
the misconduct may reasonably tend to coerce or intimidate
employees in the exercise of their rights, Operating Engineers,
Local 542 v. NLRB (1964) [55 LRRM 2669]; NLRB v. Mcquaide
(1977) [94 LRRM 2950]. The fact that an individual may have
felt threatened by conduct which cannot reasonably be
considered as threatening does not result in a violation.

Threats 	of 	physical 	violence 	and 	bodily 	injury 	are
generally 	always 	found 	to 	be 	coercive.
Threats of physical violence and bodily injury are
9 	Mere 	namecalling,
and 	even 	abusive 	or 	vulgar 	language 	or 	epithets 	are 	not 	enough
to 	constitute 	a 	violation. 	See 	NLRB 	v. 	McQuaide, 	supra, 	where
yelling 	"scab" 	and 	"we'll 	get 	you" 	did 	not 	amount 	to 	a
violation. 	In 	this 	case, 	none 	of 	the 	words 	uttered 	to 	the
employees 	who 	crossed 	the 	picket 	lines 	rose 	to 	a 	level 	which
can 	reasonably 	be 	considered 	as 	threatening.
and even abusive or vulgar language or epithets are not enough
The 	blocking 	of 	egress 	and 	ingress 	has 	been 	found 	to 	coerce
and 	intimidate 	nonstriking 	employees 	who 	have 	been 	prevented
from 	going 	to 	or 	from 	work 	when 	the 	blocking 	occurs 	in
conjunction 	with 	an 	atmosphere 	of 	intimidation 	and 	violence,
~aywood 	Plant 	of 	Grede 	Plastics 	(1978) 	235 	NLRB 	313 	[97 	LRRM
1510]; 	District 	11, 	United Mineworkers 	(1978) 	235 	NLRB 	757 	[98
LRRM 	1297]; 	Teamsters 	Local 	115, 	supra. 	A brief 	delay 	at 	the
gate, 	however, 	has 	been 	held 	to 	be 	an 	insufficient 	ground 	for
finding 	a 	violation. 	General 	Iron Corp. 	(1976) 	224 	NLRB 	1180
[93 LRRM 1260] .
The blocking of egress and ingress has been found to coerce
13
9FFor	or example, "I'm going to rape your wife and break your	example, 	"I'm going 	to 	rape 	your 	wife 	and 	break 	your
legs, " coupled with the statement, "We're going to get you and	legs," 	coupled 	with 	the 	statement, 	"We're 	going 	to 	get 	you 	and
your truck" made while riding on the running board of the	your 	truck" 	made 	while 	riding 	on 	the 	running 	board 	of 	the
truck, were found to be threats violative of section 8 (b) (1) (a)	truck, 	were 	found 	to 	be 	threats 	violative 	of 	section 	8 (b) (1) (a)
of 	the 	NLRA 	in 	Shieien's 	Local 	#455, 	Iron Workers 	(1979) 	243
NLRB 	340 	[102 	LRRM 	109] • 	SimilarTy, 	"You'd 	better 	watch 	your
house," 	and 	"Do 	you 	want 	your 	car 	knocked 	over?" 	were 	condemned
in 	Teamsters 	Local 	298 	(1978) 	236 	NLRB 	428 	[98 	LRRM 	1486] 	and
Teamsters 	Local 	115 	(1966) 	157 	NLRB 	1637 	[61 	LRRM 	1568],
respectively.
of the NLRA in Shipmen's Local #455, Iron Workers (1979) 243
13
generally always found to be coercive.9 Mere namecalling,
to constitute a violation. See NLRB v. McQuaide, supra, where
yelling "scab" and "we'll get you" did not amount to a
violation. In this case, none of the words uttered to the
employees who crossed the picket lines rose to a level which
can reasonably be considered as threatening.
and intimidate nonstriking employees who have been prevented
from going to or from work when the blocking occurs in
conjunction with an atmosphere of intimidation and violence,
Maywood Plant of Grede Plastics (1978) 235 NLRB 313 [97 LRRM
1510]; District 11, United Mineworkers (1978) 235 NLRB 757 [98
LRRM 1297]; Teamsters Local 115, supra. A brief delay at the
gate, however, has been held to be an insufficient ground for
finding a violation. General Iron Corp. (1976) 224 NLRB 1180
(93 	LRRM 	1260].
NLRB 340 [102 LRRM 1109]. Similarly, "You'd better watch your
house , " and "Do you want your car knocked over?" were condemned
in Teamsters Local 298 (1978) 236 NLRB 428 [98 LRRM 1486] and
Teamsters Local 115 (1966) 157 NLRB 1637 [61 LRRM 1568],
respectively.

Here, 	no 	one 	was 	prevented 	from 	going 	to 	work 	or 	leaving
the 	parking 	lots 	in 	Fresno. 	Although 	there 	was 	some 	delay 	in
getting 	in 	and 	out 	of 	the 	gates 	because 	of 	the 	picket 	lines,
there 	was 	no 	credible 	evidence 	that 	these 	delays 	were 	prolonged
or 	accompanied 	by 	menacing 	gestures 	or 	threats 	or 	acts 	of
violence.
Here, no one was prevented from going to work or leaving
As 	for 	the 	photographing 	and 	the 	taking 	of 	license 	numbers,
all 	of 	the 	cases 	cited 	by 	the 	District 	which 	condemn 	such
activity 	similarly 	involve 	accompanying 	acts 	of 	violence 	or
threats of violence. 10 T
As for the photographing and the taking of license numbers,
0 	The 	incidents 	here 	were 	isolated, 	did
not 	involve 	violence, 	and 	did 	not 	occur 	in 	a 	menacing 	or
coercive 	atmosphere. 	See 	General 	Iron 	Corp., 	supra.
incidents here were isolated, did
Suspension 	of 	Dues 	Deductions	Suspension of Dues Deductions
In 	excepting 	to 	the 	hearing 	officer's 	ruling 	that 	it
violated 	subsections 	3543.S(b) 	and 	(d) 	when 	it 	suspended 	the
deduction 	of 	dues 	from 	employees' 	paychecks, 	the 	District
contends 	that 	the 	FTA 	was 	not 	entitled 	to 	dues 	deductions
because 	it 	was 	engaged 	in 	an 	illegal 	strike 	and 	that 	the
ed the suspension.	parties' 	agreemen
In excepting to the hearing officer's ruling that it
tll	itt 	permitted 	the 	suspension. 	The	The
District's 	arguments 	fail 	for 	two 	reasons.	District's arguments fail for two reasons.
10See Dover Corp. (1974) 211 NLRB 955 [86 LRRM 1607]	lOsee 	Dover 	Corp. 	(1974) 	211 	NLRB 	955 	[86 	LRRM 	1607]
where 	there 	were 	threats 	of 	bodily 	injury, 	nails 	were 	thrown 	in
the 	employer's 	driveway, 	and 	the 	photographing 	and 	license
plate 	incidents 	were 	directed 	at 	an 	employee 	who 	had 	been
threatened 	the 	previous 	day.
where there were threats of bodily injury, nails were thrown in
ll	1lssee 	footnote 	4, 	supra. 	The 	District 	relies 	on 	the
following 	contract 	language 	in 	claiming 	that 	the 	agreement 	was
in 	effect 	at 	the 	time 	of 	the 	strike.
ee footnote 4, supra.
14	14
the parking lots in Fresno. Although there was some delay in
getting in and out of the gates because of the picket lines,
there was no credible evidence that these delays were prolonged
or accompanied by menacing gestures or threats or acts of
violence.
all of the cases cited by the District which condemn such
activity similarly involve accompanying acts of violence or
he	threats 	of 	violence.1
not involve violence, and did not occur in a menacing or
coercive atmosphere. See General Iron Corp. , supra.
violated subsections 3543.5(b) and (d) when it suspended the
deduction of dues from employees' paychecks, the District
contends that the FTA was not entitled to dues deductions
because it was engaged in an illegal strike and that the
parties' agreement! perm
the employer's driveway, and the photographing and license
plate incidents were directed at an employee who had been
threatened the previous day.
The District relies on the
following contract language in claiming that the agreement was
in effect at the time of the strike.

EERA 	provides 	an 	absolute 	guarantee 	of 	dues 	deductions,12
unlike 	the 	NLRA, 	which 	leaves 	the 	issue 	to 	the 	collective
bargaining 	arena. 	The 	District's 	argument 	that 	subsection
3543.l(d) 	is 	defeasible 	by 	an 	organization's 	strike 	is 	without
merit 	because 	the 	statute 	bestows 	the 	right 	to 	the 	dues
deductions, 	regardless 	of 	an 	exclusive 	representative's 	actions.
EERA provides an absolute guarantee of dues deductions, 12
The 	question, 	then, 	is 	whether 	FTA 	waived 	its 	rights 	or
attempted 	to 	waive 	its 	members' 	rights 	to 	such 	deductions,
The question, then, is whether FTA waived its rights or
1. 	This 	agreement 	shall 	remain 	in 	full
force 	and 	effect 	from 	September 	1, 	1976
until 	June 	30, 	1978.
1.
2. 	In 	the 	event 	a 	successor 	agreement 	is
not 	adopted 	prior 	to 	the 	termination
date, 	this 	agreement 	shall 	remain 	in
full 	force 	and 	effect 	until 	such 	time 	a
successor 	agreement 	is 	adopted 	or 	the
impasse 	procedures 	•.. 	are 	exhausted.
2
12	12subsection 	3543.l(d) 	states:	subsection 3543.1(d) states:
All 	employee 	organizations 	shall 	have 	the
right 	to 	have 	membership dues 	deducted
pursuant 	to 	Sections 	13532 	and 	13604.2 	of
the 	Education 	Code, 	until 	such 	time 	as 	an
employee 	organization 	is 	recognized 	as 	the
exclusive 	representative 	for 	any 	of 	the
employees 	in 	an 	appropriate 	unit, 	and 	then
such 	deduction 	as 	to 	any 	employee 	in 	the
negotiating 	unit 	shall 	not 	be 	permissible
except 	to 	the 	exclusive 	representative.
All employee organizations shall have the
15	15
unlike the NLRA, which leaves the issue to the collective
bargaining arena. The District's argument that subsection
3543.1(d) is defeasible by an organization's strike is without
merit because the statute bestows the right to the dues
deductions, regardless of an exclusive representative's actions.
attempted to waive its members' rights to such deductions,
This agreement shall remain in full
force and effect from September 1, 1976
until June 30, 1978.
. 	In the event a successor agreement is
not adopted prior to the termination
date, this agreement shall remain in
full force and effect until such time a
successor agreement is adopted or the
impasse procedures . 	are exhausted.
right to have membership dues deducted
pursuant to Sections 13532 and 13604.2 of
the Education Code, until such time as an
employee organization is recognized as the
exclusive representative for any of the
employees in an appropriate unit, and then
such deduction as to any employee in the
negotiating unit shall not be permissible
except to the exclusive representative.

guaranteed 	by 	the 	Education 	Code,13 	by 	the 	contract
language.	language. 	A waiver 	will 	not 	be 	lightly 	inferred 	and 	thus 	must
be 	"clear 	and 	unmistakable 	." 	Amador 	Valley 	Joint 	Union 	High
School 	District 	(10/2/78) 	PERB 	Decision 	No. 	74. 	This 	is
especially 	true 	where 	a 	waiver 	of 	a 	statutory 	right 	is
alleged.	alleged. 	Timken 	Roller 	Bearing 	v. 	NLRB 	(6 	Cir. 	1963) 	325 	F.2d
746 	[54 	LRRM 	2785].
guaranteed by the Education Code, 13 by the contract
Article 	VII 	of 	the 	collective 	bargaining 	agreement,
"Professional 	Dues 	and 	Payroll 	Deductions," 	provides 	for 	the
right 	of 	employees 	who 	are 	members 	of 	the 	FTA 	to 	authorize 	the
Article VII of the collective bargaining agreement,
13	13The 	relevant 	Education 	Code 	section 	45060 	provides, 	in
pertinent 	part:
The relevant Education Code section 45060 provides, in
The 	governing 	board 	of 	each 	school 	district
when 	drawing 	an 	order 	for 	the 	salary 	payment
due 	to 	a 	certificated 	employee 	of 	the
district, 	shall 	with 	or 	without 	charge
reduce 	the 	order 	by 	the 	amount 	which 	it 	has
been 	requested 	in 	a 	revocable 	written
authorization 	by 	the 	employee 	to 	deduct 	for
the 	purpose 	of 	paying 	the 	dues 	of 	the
employee 	for 	membership 	in 	any 	local
professional 	organization 	or 	in 	any
statewide 	professional 	organization, 	or 	in
any 	other 	professional 	organization
affiliated 	or 	otherwise 	connected 	with 	a
statewide 	professional 	organization 	which
authorizes 	such 	statewide 	organization 	to
receive 	membership 	dues 	on 	its 	behalf 	and
for 	the 	purpose 	of 	paying 	his 	pro 	rata 	share
of 	the 	costs 	incured 	by 	the 	district 	in
making 	the 	deduction. 	(Emphasis 	added.)
The governing board of each school district
16	16
A waiver will not be lightly inferred and thus must
be "clear and unmistakable ." Amador Valley Joint Union High
School District (10/2/78) PERB Decision No. 74. This is
especially true where a waiver of a statutory right is
Timken Roller Bearing v. NLRB (6 Cir. 1963) 325 F. 2d
746 [54 LRRM 2785] .
"Professional Dues and Payroll Deductions, " provides for the
right of employees who are members of the FTA to authorize the
pertinent part:
when drawing an order for the salary payment
due to a certificated employee of the
district, shall with or without charge
reduce the order by the amount which it has
been requested in a revocable written
authorization by the employee to deduct for
the purpose of paying the dues of the
employee for membership in any local
professional organization or in any
statewide professional organization, or in
any other professional organization
affiliated or otherwise connected with a
statewide professional organization which
authorizes such statewide organization to
receive membership dues on its behalf and
for the purpose of paying his pro rata share
of the costs incured by the district in
making the deduction. 	(Emphasis added. )

District 	to 	make 	payroll 	deductions 	for 	Association 	dues.	District to make payroll deductions for Association dues. 14 	14
While 	the 	Article 	further 	provides 	that 	the 	District 	will 	remit
promptly 	such 	monies 	to 	the 	Association, 	the 	thrust 	of
Article 	VII 	is 	to 	implement 	the 	rights 	of 	employees 	to 	have
their 	dues 	deducted 	from 	their 	pay 	warrants 	and 	have 	those
remitted 	to 	the 	Association.
While the Article further provides that the District will remit
This 	section 	gives 	employees 	a 	right 	which 	is 	not
defeasible 	by 	the 	employer, 	though 	may 	be 	waived 	by 	the
employees. 	Without 	reaching 	the 	question 	of 	whether 	the
exclusive 	representative 	may 	waive 	its 	members' 	rights 	(See
NLRB 	v. 	Magnavox 	{1974) 	415 	U.S. 	322 	[85 	LRRM 	1475], 	we 	find
nothing 	in 	Article 	XLV which 	permits 	the 	employer 	to 	discipline
This section gives employees a right which is not
14	14 	ARTICLE VII 	- 	PROFESSIONAL 	DUES AND 	PAYROLL
DEDUCTIONS
ARTICLE VII - PROFESSIONAL DUES AND PAYROLL
1. 	Any 	teacher 	who 	is 	a 	member 	of 	the
Association, 	or 	who 	has 	applied 	for
membership, 	may 	sign 	and 	deliver 	to 	the
Board 	an 	assignment 	authorizing 	deduction 	of
unified 	membership dues 	in 	the 	Association.
Such 	authorization 	shall 	continue 	in 	effect
from 	year 	to 	year 	unless 	revoked 	in 	writing
before 	October 	1 	of 	any 	year. 	Pursuant to	Pursuant 	to
such 	authorization, 	the 	Board 	of 	Education
shall 	deduct 	one-tenth 	of 	such 	dues 	from 	the
check 	of 	the
ten 	months. 	Deductions
teachers 	who 	sign 	such 	authorization 	after
November 	10 	shall 	be 	appropriate 	pror
to 	complete 	payments 	by 	the 	end 	the
school 	year.
1.
17	17
promptly such monies to the Association, the thrust of
Article VII is to implement the rights of employees to have
their dues deducted from their pay warrants and have those
remitted to the Association.
defeasible by the employer, though may be waived by the
employees. Without reaching the question of whether the
exclusive representative may waive its members' rights (See
NLRB v. Magnavox (1974) 415 U.S. 322 [85 LRRM 1475], we find
nothing in Article XIV which permits the employer to discipline
DEDUCTIONS
Any teacher who is a member of the
Association, or who has applied for
membership, may sign and deliver to the
Board an assignment authorizing deduction of
unified membership dues in the Association.
Such authorization shall continue in effect
from year to year unless revoked in writing
before October 1 of any year.
such authorization, the Board of Education
shall deduct one-tenth of such dues from the
regular salary check of the teacher each
month for ten months. Deductions for
teachers who sign such authorization after
November 10 shall be appropriately prorated
to complete payments by the end of the
school year .

FTA 	by 	revoking 	the 	employees' 	dues 	authorizations, 	especially
where 	employees 	are 	not 	subject 	to 	any 	charge 	by 	the 	employer.
FTA by revoking the employees' dues authorizations, especially
Since 	the 	statute 	creates 	both 	the 	employees' 	and 	FTA's
rights, 	the 	contract 	cannot 	be 	said 	to 	"provide" 	them. 	The	The
penalty 	clause 	of 	the 	no-strike 	provision more 	reasonably
relates 	to 	matters 	obtained 	only 	through 	negotiations. 	For
this 	reason 	we 	cannot 	find 	the 	clear 	and 	unmistakable 	waiver
the 	District 	claims.
Since the statute creates both the employees' and FTA's
The 	Negotiability 	of 	the 	Amount 	of 	Agency 	Fees	The Negotiability of the Amount of Agency Fees15 	l5
(1) 	An 	arrangement 	pursuant 	to 	which 	a
public 	school 	employee 	may 	decide
whether 	or 	not 	to 	join 	an 	employee
organization, 	but 	which 	requires 	him,
as 	a 	condition 	of 	continued 	employment,
if 	he 	does 	join, 	to 	maintain 	his
(1)
15	15The 	District 	apparently 	claims 	that 	this 	charge 	is
barred 	by 	the 	six-month 	statute 	of 	limitations. 	We 	find
otherwise.
The District apparently claims that this charge is
Although 	negotiations 	on 	this 	matter 	began 	beyond 	the
six-month 	period, 	they 	did 	not 	terminate 	until 	December 	3 when
the 	FTA 	tentatively 	agreed 	to 	a 	contract 	with 	no 	union 	security
clause. 	This 	was 	a 	reaction 	to 	the 	District's 	illegal
insistence 	on 	the 	$75 	fee. 	December 	3 	fell 	within 	the
six-month 	period.
Although negotiations on this matter began beyond the
18
Section 	3543.2, 	which 	defines 	the 	scope 	of 	representation,
provides 	that 	"organizational 	security 	pursuant 	to
section 	3546" 	shall 	be 	negotiable. 	Section 	3546 	states 	in
part: ".	part: 	organizational 	security, 	as 	defined, shall 	be
within 	the 	scope 	of 	representation." 	Subsection 	3540.l(i)
defines 	"organizational 	security" 	to 	mean 	either:
Section 3543.2, which defines the scope of representation,
18
where employees are not subject to any charge by the employer.
rights, the contract cannot be said to "provide" them.
penalty clause of the no-strike provision more reasonably
relates to matters obtained only through negotiations. For
this reason we cannot find the clear and unmistakable waiver
the District claims.
An arrangement pursuant to which a
public school employee may decide
whether or not to join an employee
organization, but which requires him,
as a condition of continued employment,
if he does join, to maintain his
barred by the six-month statute of limitations. We find
otherwise.
six-month period, they did not terminate until December 3 when
the FTA tentatively agreed to a contract with no union security
clause. This was a reaction to the District's illegal
insistence on the $75 fee. December 3 fell within the
six-month period.
provides that "organizational security pursuant to
section 3546" shall be negotiable. Section 3546 states in
organizational security, as defined, shall be
within the scope of representation." Subsection 3540.1(i)
defines "organizational security" to mean either:

membership 	in 	good 	standing 	for 	the 	duration 	of
the 	written 	agreement. 	However, 	no 	such
arrangement 	shall 	deprive 	the 	employee 	of 	the
right 	to 	terminate 	his 	obligation 	to 	the 	employee
organization 	within 	a 	period 	of 	30 	days 	following
the 	expiration 	of 	a 	written 	agreement; 	or
membership in good standing for the duration of
(2) 	An 	arrangement 	that 	requires 	an 	employee, 	as
a 	condition 	of 	continued 	employment, 	either 	to
join 	the 	recognized 	or 	certified 	employee
organization, 	or 	to 	pay 	the 	organization 	a
service 	fee 	in 	an 	amount 	not 	to 	exceed 	the
standard 	initiation 	fee, 	periodic 	dues, 	and
general 	assessments 	of 	such 	organization 	for 	the
duration 	of 	the 	agreement, 	or 	a 	period 	of 	three
years 	from 	the 	effective 	date 	of 	such 	agreement,
whichever 	comes 	first.
(2)
It 	is 	section 	3546 	that 	sets 	the 	parameters 	of
negotiability.
It is section 3546 that sets the parameters of
16 	Nowhere 	in 	this 	section 	or 	in 	section
16	16section 	3546 	states:	section 3546 states:
Subject 	to 	the 	limitations 	set 	forth 	in 	this
section, 	organizational 	security, 	as
defined, 	shall 	be 	within 	the 	scope 	of
representation.
Subject to the limitations set forth in this
(a) 	An 	organizational 	security 	arrangement,
in 	order 	to 	be 	effective, 	must 	be 	agreed
upon 	by 	both 	parties 	to 	the 	agreement. 	AtAt
the 	time 	the 	issue 	is 	being 	negotiated, 	the
public 	school 	employer 	may 	require 	that 	the
organizational 	security 	provision 	be 	severed
from 	the 	remainder 	of 	the 	proposed 	agreement
and 	cause 	the 	organizational 	security
provision 	to 	be 	voted 	upon 	separately 	by 	all
members 	in 	the 	appropriate 	negotiating 	unit,
in 	accordance 	with 	rules 	and 	regulations
promulgated 	by 	the 	board. 	Upon 	such 	a 	vote,
the 	organizational 	security 	provision 	will
become 	effective 	only 	if 	a 	majority 	of 	those
members 	of 	the 	negotiating 	unit 	voting
approve 	the 	agreement. 	Such 	vote 	shall 	not
(a)
19	19
the written agreement. However , no such
arrangement shall deprive the employee of the
right to terminate his obligation to the employee
organization within a period of 30 days following
the expiration of a written agreement; or
An arrangement that requires an employee, as
a condition of continued employment, either to
join the recognized or certified employee
organization, or to pay the organization a
service fee in an amount not to exceed the
standard initiation fee, periodic dues, and
general assessments of such organization for the
duration of the agreement, or a period of three
years from the effective date of such agreement,
whichever comes first.
negotiability. 16 Nowhere in this section or in section
section, organizational security, as
defined, shall be within the scope of
representation.
An organizational security arrangement,
in order to be effective, must be agreed
upon by both parties to the agreement.
the time the issue is being negotiated, the
public school employer may require that the
organizational security provision be severed
from the remainder of the proposed agreement
and cause the organizational security
provision to be voted upon separately by all
members in the appropriate negotiating unit,
in accordance with rules and regulations
promulgated by the board. Upon such a vote,
the organizational security provision will
become effective only if a majority of those
members of the negotiating unit voting
approve the agreement. Such vote shall not

3543.2 is the amount of fees listed as negotiable. The	3543.2 	is 	the 	amount 	of 	fees 	listed 	as 	negotiable. 	The
prohibition in subsection 3541.1(i) against fees exceeding	prohibition 	in 	subsection 	3541.l(i) 	against 	fees 	exceeding
membership dues is not meant to make the amount actually	membership 	dues 	is 	not 	meant 	to 	make 	the 	amount 	actually
charged negotiable. Its purpose is to preclude discriminatory	charged 	negotiable. 	Its 	purpose 	is 	to 	preclude 	discriminatory
financial treatment of employees who choose to exercise their	financial 	treatment 	of 	employees 	who 	choose 	to 	exercise 	their
right not to join the labor organization.	right 	not 	to 	join 	the 	labor 	organization.
Further, we find no relationship of agency fees to an	Further, 	we 	find 	no 	relationship 	of 	agency 	fees 	to 	an
enumerated subject of negotiation contained in section 3543.2	enumerated 	subject 	of 	negotiation 	contained 	in 	section 	3543.2
sufficient to meet the test of negotiability expressed in	sufficient 	to 	meet 	the 	test 	of 	negotiability 	expressed 	in
Anaheim Unified High School District (10/28/81) PERB Decision	Anaheim Unified 	High 	School 	District 	(10/28/81) 	PERB 	Decision
No. 177.1 	There, we said that such a relationship depends,	No. 	177.17	7 	There, 	we 	said 	that 	such 	a 	relationship 	depends,
be deemed to either ratify or defeat the	be 	deemed 	to 	either 	ratify 	or 	defeat 	the
remaining provisions of the proposed	remaining 	provisions 	of 	the 	proposed
agreement.	agreement.
17	17PERB Decision No. 177 states, in part:	PERB 	Decision No. 	177 	states, 	in 	part:
20
(b) 	An 	organizational 	security 	arrangement
which 	is 	in 	effect 	may 	be 	rescinded 	by
majority 	vote 	of 	the 	employees 	in 	the
negotiating 	unit 	covered 	by 	such 	arrangement
in 	accordance 	with 	rules 	and 	regulations
promulgated 	by 	the 	board.
(b) An organizational security arrangement
••. a subject is negotiable even though	a 	subject 	is 	negotiable 	even 	though
not 	specifically 	enumerated 	if 	(1) 	it 	is
logically 	and 	reasonably 	related 	to 	hours,
wages 	or 	an 	enumerated 	term 	and 	condition 	of
employment, 	(2) 	the 	subject 	is 	of 	such
concern 	to 	both 	management 	and 	employees
that 	conflict 	is 	likely 	to 	occur 	and 	the
mediatory 	influence 	of 	collective
negotiations 	is 	the 	appropriate 	means 	of
resolving 	the 	conflict, 	and 	(3) 	the
employer's 	obligation 	to 	negotiate 	would 	not
significantly 	abridge 	his 	freedom 	to
exercise 	those 	managerial 	prerogatives
not specifically enumerated if (1) it is
20
which is in effect may be rescinded by
majority vote of the employees in the
negotiating unit covered by such arrangement
in accordance with rules and regulations
promulgated by the board.
logically and reasonably related to hours,
wages or an enumerated term and condition of
employment, (2) the subject is of such
concern to both management and employees
that conflict is likely to occur and the
mediatory influence of collective
negotiations is the appropriate means of
resolving the conflict, and (3) the
employer's obligation to negotiate would not
significantly abridge his freedom to
exercise those managerial prerogatives

in 	part, 	on 	the 	subject 	being 	of 	concern 	to 	management 	and 	the
union 	alike. 	Agency 	fees, 	like 	membership 	dues, 	are 	a 	matter
of 	internal 	organizational 	policy 	and 	concern. 	The 	employer's
interest 	in 	the 	subject 	generally 	is 	limited 	to 	its 	willingness
to 	impose 	on 	its 	non-union 	employees 	an 	agency 	fee 	requirement
and, 	if 	so, 	whether 	an 	authorization 	election 	is 	desirable. 	It
is 	through 	the 	exercise 	of 	these 	two 	"powers" 	that 	the
employer's 	concerns 	can 	be 	satisfied.
in part, on the subject being of concern to management and the
However, 	we 	find 	a 	third 	and 	implied 	employer 	concern 	which
derives 	from 	Abood 	v. 	Detroit 	Board 	of 	Education 	(1977) 	431
U.S.	U.S. 	209 	[95 	LRRM 	2411] 	and 	King 	City 	Unified 	School 	District
(3/3/82) 	PERB 	Decision 	No. 	197. 	We 	consider 	the 	employer 	to
have 	a 	legitimate 	interest 	in 	protecting 	itself 	from 	potential
liability 	resulting 	from 	its 	agreement 	to 	withhold 	agency 	fees
in 	excess 	of 	those 	permitted 	by 	law. 	But 	this 	concern 	limits
the 	employer's 	interest 	in 	negotiations 	to 	seeking 	some
provision 	which 	provides 	it 	with 	protection 	against 	such 	a
potential 	liability. 	Here, 	for 	example, 	the 	District 	finally
did 	propose 	a 	"hold-harmless" 	clause, 	a 	proposal 	which 	we 	find
lawful 	under 	the 	Anaheim 	test. 	However, 	the 	District's 	adamant
However, we find a third and implied employer concern which
(includi 	matters 	off 	poli
essential 	to 	the 	achievement 	the
District's mission .	District's 	ssion 	. 	.. . (pp. 	4-5).
(including matters of fundamental policy)
21	21
union alike. Agency fees, like membership dues, are a matter
of internal organizational policy and concern. The employer's
interest in the subject generally is limited to its willingness
to impose on its non-union employees an agency fee requirement
and, if so, whether an authorization election is desirable. It
is through the exercise of these two "powers" that the
employer's concerns can be satisfied.
derives from Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977) 431
209 [95 LRRM 2411] and King City Unified School District
(3/3/82) PERB Decision No. 197. We consider the employer to
have a legitimate interest in protecting itself from potential
liability resulting from its agreement to withhold agency fees
in excess of those permitted by law. But this concern limits
the employer's interest in negotiations to seeking some
provision which provides it with protection against such a
potential liability. Here, for example, the District finally
did propose a "hold-harmless" clause, a proposal which we find
lawful under the Anaheim test. However, the District's adamant
essential to the achievement of the
. (pp . 4-5) .

insistence 	on 	the 	$75 	cap 	on 	agency 	fees 	bears 	no 	relationship
to 	its 	legitimate 	concerns 	and 	constituted 	an 	unlawful
bargaining 	proposal. 	By 	maintaining 	this 	position, 	the
District 	violated 	its 	duty 	under 	subsections 	3543.S(c) 	and 	(d).
insistence on the $75 cap on agency fees bears no relationship
The 	Statute 	of 	Limitations 	Defense	The Statute of Limitations Defense
The 	District 	argues 	that 	the 	hearing 	officer 	improperly
rejected 	its 	statute 	of 	limitations 	defense 	because 	it 	was
untimely 	raised. 	While 	the 	established 	rules 	of 	pleading
require 	affirmative 	defenses 	to 	be 	raised 	in 	a 	timely 	answer,
it 	is 	also 	true 	that 	a 	statute 	of 	limitations 	defense 	can 	be
raised 	in 	a 	demurrer 	if 	the 	defect 	appears 	on 	the 	face 	of 	the
pleadings. 	3 Wikin 	Cal. 	Procedure 	(2d 	ed.) 	Pleading, 	Sec.,
939.	939. 	Here, 	the 	defect 	did 	appear 	on 	the 	face 	of 	FTA's 	amended
complaint 	which 	alleged 	certain 	acts 	occurring 	in 	September 	and
October	October of 1978.	of 	1978. 	The 	charge 	was 	originally 	filed 	on
May 	24, 	1979, 	more 	than 	six months 	later. 	Although 	PERB 	rules
do 	not 	provide 	a 	procedure 	for 	filing 	demurrers, 	we 	think 	the
hearing 	officer's 	refusal 	to 	consider 	the 	defense 	raised 	in 	the
answer, 	under 	the 	circumstances 	of 	this 	case, 	was 	unnecessarily
harsh.	harsh. 	However, 	because 	he 	dimissed 	on 	the 	merits 	those
charges 	which 	were 	time-barred, 	his 	error 	is 	nonprejudicial.
The District argues that the hearing officer improperly
18
18The only charge that the hearing officer did not	18The 	only 	charge 	that 	the 	hearing 	officer 	did 	not
dismiss 	was 	that 	concerning 	the 	suspension 	of 	dues 	deductions,
an 	act 	which 	occurred 	on 	November 	30, 	1978, 	and 	therefore
within 	the 	six-month 	period 	preceding 	the May 	24, 	1979 	charge.
dismiss was that concerning the suspension of dues deductions,
22	22
to its legitimate concerns and constituted an unlawful
bargaining proposal. By maintaining this position, the
District violated its duty under subsections 3543.5 (c) and (d) .
rejected its statute of limitations defense because it was
untimely raised. While the established rules of pleading
require affirmative defenses to be raised in a timely answer,
it is also true that a statute of limitations defense can be
raised in a demurrer if the defect appears on the face of the
pleadings. 3 Wikin Cal. Procedure (2d ed. ) Pleading, Sec. ,
Here, the defect did appear on the face of FTA's amended
complaint which alleged certain acts occurring in September and
The charge was originally filed on
May 24, 1979, more than six months later. Although PERB rules
do not provide a procedure for filing demurrers, we think the
hearing officer's refusal to consider the defense raised in the
answer, under the circumstances of this case, was unnecessarily
However, because he dimissed on the merits those
charges which were time-barred, his error is nonprejudicial. 18
an act which occurred on November 30, 1978, and therefore
within the six-month period preceding the May 24, 1979 charge.

FTA's 	Alleged 	By-Pass 	of 	the 	Negotiating 	Process	FTA's Alleged By-Pass of the Negotiating Process
The 	District 	excepts 	to 	the 	hearing 	officer's 	failure 	to
rule 	on 	the 	fact 	that 	the 	FTA 	negotiators 	met 	individually 	with
members 	of 	the 	school 	board 	while 	negotiations 	were 	occurring.
We 	affirm 	the 	hearing 	officer's 	action 	on 	this 	matter 	because
this 	alleged 	by-pass 	was 	not 	specifically 	alleged 	in 	the
District's 	charge 	which 	reads 	simply 	in 	relevant 	part:
The District excepts to the hearing officer's failure to
Respondent's 	action 	of 	encouraging 	and
causing 	the 	instant 	work 	stoppage 	and/or
strike 	without 	first 	completing 	the
negotiating 	process, 	including 	the
exhaustion 	of 	impasse 	procedures,
constituted 	a 	refusal 	to 	meet 	and 	negotiate
in 	good 	faith 	and 	a 	failure 	to 	participate
in 	good 	faith 	in 	the 	impasse 	procedure 	in
violation 	of 	section 	3543.6(c) 	and 	(d).
Respondent's action of encouraging and
Evidence 	of 	the 	so-called 	by-pass 	was 	initially 	raised 	by
the 	FTA, 	and 	the 	District 	never 	argued 	in 	its 	brief 	to 	the
hearing 	officer 	that 	the 	meetings 	with 	the 	board 	members
constituted 	an 	EERA 	violation.
Evidence of the so-called by-pass was initially raised by
The 	Liability 	of 	California 	Teachers 	Association 	(CTA)	The Liability of California Teachers Association (CTA)
The 	hearing 	officer 	held 	CTA 	liable 	for 	a 	violation 	of
subsections 	3543.6(c) 	and 	(d) 	because 	of 	its 	general 	support
and 	ratification 	of 	the 	FTA 	strike. 	Although 	this 	is 	not
excepted 	to, 	the 	Board 	finds 	this 	a 	serious 	enough 	mistake 	of
law 	to 	warrant 	its 	correction 	of 	it. 	PERB 	records 	show 	that
CTA 	is 	an 	organization 	with 	which 	FTA 	is 	affiliated, 	and 	only
FTA 	is 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	of 	District 	certificated
employees. 	Therefore 	CTA 	had 	no 	obligation 	to 	negotiate 	with
the 	District. 	It 	could 	not 	request 	or 	be 	required 	to
The hearing officer held CTA liable for a violation of
23	23
rule on the fact that the FTA negotiators met individually with
members of the school board while negotiations were occurring.
We affirm the hearing officer's action on this matter because
this alleged by-pass was not specifically alleged in the
District's charge which reads simply in relevant part:
causing the instant work stoppage and/or
strike without first completing the
negotiating process, including the
exhaustion of impasse procedures,
constituted a refusal to meet and negotiate
in good faith and a failure to participate
in good faith in the impasse procedure in
violation of section 3543.6 (c) and (d) .
the FTA, and the District never argued in its brief to the
hearing officer that the meetings with the board members
constituted an EERA violation.
subsections 3543.6 (c) and (d) because of its general support
and ratification of the FTA strike. Although this is not
excepted to, the Board finds this a serious enough mistake of
law to warrant its correction of it. PERB records show that
CTA is an organization with which FTA is affiliated, and only
FTA is the exclusive representative of District certificated
employees. Therefore CTA had no obligation to negotiate with
the District. It could not request or be required to

participate 	in 	the 	statutory 	impasse 	procedures. 	Therefore, 	it
cannot 	be 	held 	liable 	for 	a 	violation 	of 	subsections 	3543.S(c)
or 	(d), 	which 	obligate 	only 	the 	exclusive 	representative.
participate in the statutory impasse procedures. Therefore, it
Expenses 	and 	Legal 	Costs	Expenses and Legal Costs
The 	District 	asserts 	that 	the 	hearing 	officer 	erred 	in
failing 	to 	award 	it 	reimbursement 	of 	costs 	incurred 	during 	the
strike, 	arguing 	that 	it 	should 	be 	made 	whole. 	It 	offered 	proof
of 	such 	expenses 	as 	lost 	ADA, 	federal 	Title 	I 	monies, 	cost 	of
•hiring 	security 	guards, 	substitutes, 	and 	the 	cost 	of
reproduction 	of 	materials, 	etc.
The District asserts that the hearing officer erred in
We 	decline 	to 	award 	the 	requested 	remedy 	in 	this 	case
because 	at 	no 	time 	did 	the 	District 	seek 	to 	mitigate 	its 	losses
or 	bring 	about 	the 	termination 	of 	the 	strike 	by 	requesting 	that
PERB seek an injunction against it. 19 Th
We decline to award the requested remedy in this case
9	e District failed to	PERB 	seek 	an 	injunction 	against 	it.1 	The 	District 	failed 	to
file 	this 	unfair 	practice 	charge 	until 	five 	months 	after 	the
strike 	had 	occurred.
19An unfair practice charge is the required	19An 	unfair 	practice 	charge 	is 	the 	required
jurisdictional 	basis 	for 	PERB's 	seeking 	injunctive 	relief. 	See
San 	Diego 	Teachers 	Association, 	supra, 	where 	the 	Supreme 	Court
reversed 	a 	contempt 	order 	and 	fines 	imposed 	on 	a 	striking 	union
because 	the 	employer 	had 	similarly 	failed 	to 	approach 	PERB.
Also 	see 	Union 	de 	Tronquistas, 	Local 	901 	(Lock 	Joint 	Pipe 	& 	Co)
(1973) 	202 	NLRB 	399 	[82 	LRRM 	1525] 	and 	Union 	Nacional 	de
Trabajadores 	(Catalytic 	Industrial 	Maintenance) 	(1975) 	219 	NLRB
414 	[89 	LRRM 	1741], 	where 	the 	NLRB 	justified 	its 	refusal 	to
award 	damages 	to 	victims 	of 	picket 	line 	misconduct 	in 	part
because 	of 	the 	availability 	of 	injunctive 	relief 	which 	the
complainants 	failed 	to 	pursue. 	The 	NLRB 	also 	noted 	that 	courts
were 	far 	more 	expert 	in 	assessing 	damages 	than 	administrative
tribunals 	whose 	functions 	it 	is 	to 	regulate 	labor 	relations.
jurisdictional basis for PERB's seeking injunction relief. See
24	24
cannot be held liable for a violation of subsections 3543.5 (c)
or (d) , which obligate only the exclusive representative.
failing to award it reimbursement of costs incurred during the
strike, arguing that it should be made whole. It offered proof
of such expenses as lost ADA, federal Title I monies, cost of
hiring security guards, substitutes, and the cost of
reproduction of materials, etc.
because at no time did the District seek to mitigate its losses
or bring about the termination of the strike by requesting that
file this unfair practice charge until five months after the
strike had occurred.
San Diego Teachers Association, supra, where the Supreme Court
reversed a contempt order and fines imposed on a striking union
because the employer had similarly failed to approach PERB.
Also see Union de Tronquistas, Local 901 (Lock Joint Pipe & Co)
(1973) 202 NLRB 399 [82 LRRM 1525] and Union Nacional de
Trabajadores (Catalytic Industrial Maintenance) (1975) 219 NLRB
414 [89 LRRM 1741], where the NLRB justified its refusal to
award damages to victims of picket line misconduct in part
because of the availability of injunctionelief which the
complainants failed to pursue. The NLRB also noted that courts
were far more expert in assessing damages than administrative
tribunals whose functions it is to regulate labor relations.

Legal 	costs 	requested 	by 	the 	District 	are 	denied. 	The
Association 	had 	not 	engaged 	in 	repeated 	and 	flagrant 	violations
of 	the 	law, 	nor 	was 	its 	defense 	against 	the 	charges 	frivolous
and 	unwarranted, 	King 	City, 	supra. 	See 	also 	Heck's 	Inc. 	(1974)
215 	NLRB 	765 	[88 	LRRM 	1049] 	and 	Tidee 	Products 	(1972) 	194 	NLRB
1234 	[79 	LRRM 	1175].
Legal costs requested by the District are denied. The
The 	Subsection 	3543.6(a) 	Violation	The Subsection 3543.6 (a) Violation
Although 	the 	3543.6(a) 	charge 	appears 	on 	the 	form, 	the
District 	neither 	presented 	evidence 	to 	support 	such 	a 	finding,
nor 	attempted 	to 	argue 	a 	3543.6(a) 	violation 	at 	any 	stage 	in
the 	proceedings. 	The 	charge 	itself 	did 	not 	contain 	an
explanation 	of 	how 	any 	alleged 	acts 	would 	have 	violated
subsection 	3543.6(a). 	The 	hearing 	officer 	did 	not 	address 	this
charge.	charge. 	Because 	the 	District 	failed 	to 	litigate 	this, 	we 	order
it 	dismissed.
Although the 3543.6(a) charge appears on the form, the
REMEDY	REMEDY
Pursuant 	to 	the 	authority 	vested 	by 	subsection 	3541.S(c),
the 	Board 	finds 	it 	appropriate 	in 	this 	case 	to 	order 	the
Association 	to 	cease 	and 	desist 	from 	refusing 	to 	bargain 	in
good 	faith 	by 	engaging 	in 	a 	concurrent 	strike. 	It 	is 	necessary
that 	all 	unit 	employees 	be 	fully 	informed 	of 	this 	decision 	and
thereby 	understand 	that 	the 	strike 	which 	occurred 	here 	violated
EERA. 	FTA 	will 	be 	required 	to 	post 	the 	attached 	Notices 	at 	all
places 	throughout 	the 	District 	where 	FTA 	notices 	are
customarily 	placed 	and, 	additionally, 	to 	distribute 	the 	Noticescustomarily placed and, additionally, to distribute the Notices
Pursuant to the authority vested by subsection 3541.5(c) ,
25	25
Association had not engaged in repeated and flagrant violations
of the law, nor was its defense against the charges frivolous
and unwarranted, King City, supra. See also Heck's Inc. (1974)
215 NLRB 765 [88 LRRM 1049] and Tidee Products (1972) 194 NLRB
1234 [79 LRRM 1175] .
District neither presented evidence to support such a finding,
nor attempted to argue a 3543.6 (a) violation at any stage in
the proceedings. The charge itself did not contain an
explanation of how any alleged acts would have violated
subsection 3543.6(a) . The hearing officer did not address this
Because the District failed to litigate this, we order
it dismissed.
the Board finds it appropriate in this case to order the
Association to cease and desist from refusing to bargain in
good faith by engaging in a concurrent strike. It is necessary
that all unit employees be fully informed of this decision and
thereby understand that the strike which occurred here violated
EERA. FTA will be required to post the attached Notices at all
places throughout the District where FTA notices are

to 	all 	employees 	in 	the 	unit 	through 	the 	District's 	internal
distribution 	system 	if 	that 	is 	the 	customary method 	of
distributing 	FTA 	literature. 	Otherwise, 	FTA 	shall 	mail 	a 	copy
of 	the 	Notices 	to 	the 	home 	of 	each 	member 	and 	each 	other
employee 	in 	the 	unit, 	provided 	the 	employer 	gives 	nonmember
addresses 	to 	FTA.
to all employees in the unit through the District's internal
Because 	the 	employer's 	failure 	to 	deduct 	dues 	was 	a
consequence 	of 	an 	unlawful 	strike 	and 	its 	own 	belief 	that 	its
action 	was 	permitted 	by 	the 	negotiated 	agreement, 	it 	would 	be
inappropriate 	to 	require 	reimbursement 	out 	of 	its 	own
treasury. 	However, 	FTA 	is 	entitled 	to 	recover 	lost 	dues 	which
it did not collect directly from its members. 20 We t
Because the employer's failure to deduct dues was a
erefore	it 	did 	not 	collect 	directly 	from 	its 	members.2h0 	We 	therefore
order 	the 	employer 	to 	make 	a 	one-time 	double 	deduction 	from 	the
paychecks 	of 	those 	employees 	employed 	by 	the 	District 	at 	the
time 	of 	the 	strike 	who 	fail 	to 	notify 	the 	District 	within 	30
days 	of 	the 	posting 	of 	this 	Order 	and 	attached 	Notices 	that
they 	do 	not 	wish 	such 	double 	deduction. 	Thereafter, 	dues
deductions 	shall 	continue 	as 	normal.
order the employer to make a one-time double deduction from the
In 	addition, 	the 	District 	will 	be 	ordered 	to 	bargain 	over
an 	organizational 	security 	provision, 	since 	its 	illegal
In addition, the District will be ordered to bargain over
20	20pacific 	Grinding 	Wheel 	(1975) 	220 	NLRB 	1389 	[90 	LRRM
1557]; 	Albert Van 	Luit 	& Co. 	(1977) 	229 	NLRB 	811 	[95 	LRRM
1192]. 	See 	also 	NLRB 	v. 	Crimptex 	(1975) 	517 	F.2d 	501 	[89 	LRRM
2465], 	where 	the 	court 	upheld 	the 	NLRB 	order 	that 	the 	employer
execute 	a 	collective 	bargaining 	agreement 	it 	had 	repudiated
even 	though 	it 	had 	done 	so 	in 	response 	to 	an 	arguably
unprotected 	strike.
pacific Grinding Wheel (1975) 220 NLRB 1389 [90 LRRM
26	26
distribution system if that is the customary method of
distributing FTA literature. Otherwise, FTA shall mail a copy
of the Notices to the home of each member and each other
employee in the unit, provided the employer gives nonmember
addresses to FTA.
consequence of an unlawful strike and its own belief that its
action was permitted by the negotiated agreement, it would be
inappropriate to require reimbursement out of its own
treasury. However, FTA is entitled to recover lost dues which
paychecks of those employees employed by the District at the
time of the strike who fail to notify the District within 30
days of the posting of this Order and attached Notices that
they do not wish such double deduction. Thereafter, dues
deductions shall continue as normal.
an organizational security provision, since its illegal
1557] ; Albert Van Luit & Co. (1977) 229 NLB 811 [95 LRRM
1192]. See also NLRB v. Crimptex (1975) 517 F. 2d 501 [89 LRRM
2465], where the court upheld the NLRB order that the employer
execute a collective bargaining agreement it had repudiated
even though it had done so in response to an arguably
unprotected strike.

proposal 	on 	the 	amount 	of 	agency 	fees 	caused 	the 	Association 	to
acquiesce 	to 	an 	agreement 	with 	no 	security 	clause.
proposal on the amount of agency fees caused the Association to
I. 	ORDER 	S-C0-33	I. ORDER S-CO-33
Upon 	the 	foregoing 	findings 	of 	fact 	and 	conclusions 	of 	law,
and 	the 	entire 	record 	in 	this 	case, 	the 	Public 	Employment
Relations 	Board, 	pursuant 	to 	subsection 	3541.S(c) 	of 	the
Government 	Code, 	hereby 	ORDERS 	that 	the 	Fresno 	Teachers
Association 	shall:
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law,
CEASE AND 	DESIST 	from 	violating 	subsection 	3543.6(c)
by 	refusing 	to 	negotiate 	in 	good 	faith 	by 	engaging 	in 	an
unprotected 	strike 	during 	the 	course 	of 	negotiations.
CEASE AND DESIST from violating subsection 3543.6 (c)
The 	Board 	further 	ORDERS 	that 	the 	Fresno 	Teachers
Association 	shall 	take 	the 	following 	AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS
designed 	to 	effectuate 	the 	policies 	of 	the 	Act:
The Board further ORDERS that the Fresno Teachers
(1) 	Within 	seven 	(7) 	workdays 	of 	service 	of 	this
decision, 	post 	at 	all 	school 	sites 	and 	all 	other 	work
locations, 	upon 	those 	bulletin 	boards 	where 	the 	Fresno 	Teachers
Association's 	notices 	are 	customarily 	placed, 	copies 	of 	the
attached 	Appendix 	A. 	Such 	posting 	shall 	be 	maintained 	for 	a
period 	of 	twenty 	(20) 	working 	days.
(1)
In 	addition, 	the 	Association 	shall 	distribute 	the 	Notices
to 	all 	unit 	employees 	through 	the 	District's 	internal
distribution 	system 	if 	that 	is 	the 	customary mode 	of
distribution 	of 	Association 	literature. 	Otherwise, the	Otherwise, 	the
Association 	shall 	mail 	a 	copy 	of 	the 	attached 	Notice
In addition, the Association shall distribute the Notices
27	27
acquiesce to an agreement with no security clause.
and the entire record in this case, the Public Employment
Relations Board, pursuant to subsection 3541.5 (c) of the
Government Code, hereby ORDERS that the Fresno Teachers
Association shall:
by refusing to negotiate in good faith by engaging in an
unprotected strike during the course of negotiations.
Association shall take the following AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act:
Within seven (7) workdays of service of this
decision, post at all school sites and all other work
locations, upon those bulletin boards where the Fresno Teachers
Association's notices are customarily placed, copies of the
attached Appendix A. Such posting shall be maintained for a
period of twenty (20) working days.
to all unit employees through the District's internal
distribution system if that is the customary mode of
distribution of Association literature.
Association shall mail a copy of the attached Notice

(Appendix 	A) 	to 	each 	unit 	employee's 	home, 	provided 	the
District 	provides 	the 	Association 	with 	such 	addresses 	of 	unit
employees 	who 	are 	not 	members 	of 	the 	Association.
(Appendix A) to each unit employee's home, provided the
(2) 	Notify 	the 	Sacramento 	regional 	director 	of
the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board, 	in 	writing, 	at 	the 	end
of 	the 	posting 	period, 	of 	the 	steps 	taken 	by 	the 	Fresno
Teachers 	Association 	to 	comply 	with 	this 	Order.
(2)
The 	Board 	further 	ORDERS 	that 	the 	subsections 	3543.6(b) 	and
(d)	(d) 	charges 	filed 	against 	the 	Fresno 	Teachers 	Association 	and
the 	California 	Teachers 	Association 	are 	DISMISSED.
The Board further ORDERS that the subsections 3543.6 (b) and
Upon 	the 	foregoing 	findings 	of 	fact 	and 	conclusions 	of 	law,
and 	the 	entire 	record 	in 	this 	case, 	the 	Public 	Employment
Relations 	Board, 	pursuant 	to 	subsection 	3541.S(c), 	hereby
ORDERS 	that 	the 	Fresno Unified 	School 	District 	shall:
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law,
A. 	CEASE 	AND 	DESIST 	FROM:	A.
(1) 	Violating 	subsections 	3543.S(b) 	and 	(d) 	by
denying 	to 	the 	Fresno 	Teachers 	Association 	rights 	guaranteed 	to
it 	by 	EERA 	and 	interfering 	with 	the 	administration 	of 	the
Fresno 	Teachers 	Association 	by 	refusing 	to 	deduct 	membership
dues 	from 	the 	pay 	of 	those 	Association 	members 	who 	have
authorized 	such 	deduction;
(1)
(2) 	Refusing 	and 	failing 	to 	negotiate 	in 	good
faith 	with 	the 	Fresno 	Teachers 	Association 	by 	insisting 	on
bargaining 	over 	the 	amount 	of 	agency 	fees.
(2)
28
II. 	ORDER S-CE-257	ORDER
28
II. 	S-CE-257
District provides the Association with such addresses of unit
employees who are not members of the Association.
Notify the Sacramento regional director of
the Public Employment Relations Board, in writing, at the end
of the posting period, of the steps taken by the Fresno
Teachers Association to comply with this Order.
charges filed against the Fresno Teachers Association and
the California Teachers Association are DISMISSED.
and the entire record in this case, the Public Employment
Relations Board, pursuant to subsection 3541.5 (c) , hereby
ORDERS that the Fresno Unified School District shall:
CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
Violating subsections 3543.5 (b) and (d) by
denying to the Fresno Teachers Association rights guaranteed to
it by EERA and interfering with the administration of the
Fresno Teachers Association by refusing to deduct membership
dues from the pay of those Association members who have
authorized such deduction;
Refusing and failing to negotiate in good
faith with the Fresno Teachers Association by insisting on
bargaining over the amount of agency fees.

The 	Board 	further 	ORDERS 	that 	the 	Fresno 	Unified 	School
District 	take 	the 	following 	AFFIRMATIVE 	ACTIONS:
The Board further ORDERS that the Fresno Unified School
(1) 	Make 	a 	one-time 	double 	deduction 	from 	the
paychecks 	of 	those 	employees 	who 	have 	not 	otherwise 	notified
the 	District 	within 	thirty 	(30) 	days 	of 	the 	initial 	posting 	of
the 	Order 	and 	attached 	Notices 	and 	remit 	same 	sum 	to 	the 	Fresno
Teachers 	Association.
(1)
(2) 	Upon 	request, 	negotiate 	with 	the 	Fresno
Teachers 	Association 	over 	organizational 	security.
(2)
(3) 	Within 	seven 	(7) 	workdays 	of 	service 	of 	this
decision, 	post 	at 	all 	school 	sites 	and 	other 	work 	locations
upon 	those 	bulletin 	boards 	on 	which 	notices 	to 	certificated
employees 	are 	customarily 	placed 	copies 	of 	the 	attached 	Notice,
Appendix 	B, 	for 	a 	period 	of 	twenty 	(20) 	working 	days.
(3)
The 	Board 	further 	ORDERS 	that 	the 	subsections 	3543.S(a},
(b)	(b) 	and 	(e) 	charges 	filed 	against 	the 	District 	by 	the 	Fresno
Teachers 	Association 	are 	hereby 	DISMISSED.
The Board further ORDERS that the subsections 3543.5(a) ,
By: 	'faarrylG[uck, 	Chairperson	By: Harry Gluck, Chairperson ;N;firi W. 	Jaeger, 	M~ber	John W. Jaeger , Member
Irene 	Tovar, 	Member	Irene Tovar, Member
29
I-
29
District take the following AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS:
Make a one-time double deduction from the
paychecks of those employees who have not otherwise notified
the District within thirty (30) days of the initial posting of
the Order and attached Notices and remit same sum to the Fresno
Teachers Association.
Upon request, negotiate with the Fresno
Teachers Association over organizational security.
Within seven (7) workdays of service of this
decision, post at all school sites and other work locations
upon those bulletin boards on which notices to certificated
employees are customarily placed copies of the attached Notice,
Appendix B, for a period of twenty (20) working days.
and (e) charges filed against the District by the Fresno
Teachers Association are hereby DISMISSED.
)

APPENDIX 	A	APPENDIX A
NOTICE 	TO 	EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
An 	Agency 	of 	the 	State 	of 	California
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
After 	a 	hearing 	in 	Unfair 	Practice 	Case 	Nos. 	S-CE-257 	and
S-CO-33, 	Fresno 	Unified 	School 	District 	v. 	Fresno 	Teachers
Association, 	CTA/NEA, 	in 	which 	all 	parties 	had 	a 	right 	to
participate, 	it 	has 	been 	found 	that 	the 	Fresno 	Teachers
Association 	violated 	the 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Act,
subsection 	3543.6(c) 	by 	engaging 	in 	a 	strike 	during
negotiations. 	As 	a 	result 	of 	this 	conduct 	we 	have 	been 	ordered
to 	post 	this 	Notice 	and 	abide 	by 	the 	following:
After a hearing in Unfair Practice Case Nos. S-CE-257 and
We 	will:	We will:
CEASE 	AND 	DESIST 	FROM:	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
Refusing 	to 	bargain 	in 	good 	faith 	by 	engaging 	in 	a 	strike
during 	negotiations.
Refusing to bargain in good faith by engaging in a strike
TAKE AFFIRMATIVE 	ACTION 	TO:	TAKE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION TO:
Post 	and 	distribute 	copies 	of 	this 	notice 	to 	all 	unit
employees.
Post and distribute copies of this notice to all unit
FRESNO TEACHERS 	ASSOCIATION, 	CTA/NEA	FRESNO TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, CTA/NEA
Dated:	Dated :
THIS 	IS 	AN OFFICIAL 	NOTICE. 	IT MUST 	REMAIN 	POSTED FOR TWENTY
(20)	(20) 	CONSECUTIVE WORKDAYS 	FROM THE 	DATE 	OF 	POSTING AND MUST 	NOT
BE 	REDUCED 	IN 	SIZE, 	DEFACED, 	ALTERED OR COVERED 	BY ANY MATERIAL.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE. IT MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR TWENTY
By Authorized 	Agent 	of "the
Fresno 	Teachers 	Association, 	CTA/NEA
By
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the State of California
S-CO-33, Fresno Unified School District v. Fresno Teachers
Association, CTA/NEA, in which all parties had a right to
participate, it has been found that the Fresno Teachers
Association violated the Educational Employment Relations Act,
subsection 3543.6 (c) by engaging in a strike during
negotiations. As a result of this conduct we have been ordered
to post this Notice and abide by the following:
during negotiations.
employees.
CONSECUTIVE WORKDAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT
BE REDUCED IN SIZE, DEFACED, ALTERED OR COVERED BY ANY MATERIAL.
Authorized Agent of the
Fresno Teachers Association, CTA/NEA

APPENDIX 	B	APPENDIX B
NOTICE 	TO 	EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
An 	Agency 	of 	the 	State 	of 	California
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
After 	a 	hearing 	in 	Case 	No. 	S-CE-257, 	Fresno 	Teachers
Association, 	CTA/NEA 	v. 	Fresno 	Unified 	School 	District, 	in
which 	all 	partiesnad 	a 	right 	to 	participate, 	it 	has 	been 	found
that 	the 	Fresno 	Unified 	School 	District 	violated 	subsection
3543.S(c) 	by 	attempting 	to 	negotiate 	over 	the 	amount 	of 	agency
fee, 	and 	subsections 	3543.S(b) 	and 	(d) 	by 	suspending 	the 	dues
deductions 	on 	November 	30, 	1978. 	As 	a 	result 	of 	this 	conduct,
we 	have 	been 	ordered 	to 	post 	this 	notice 	and 	abide 	by 	the
following:
After a hearing in Case No. S-CE-257, Fresno Teachers
We 	will:	We will:
CEASE AND 	DESIST 	FROM:	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
Refusing 	and 	failing 	to 	bargain 	in 	good 	faith 	by 	insisting
on 	negotiating 	over 	the 	amount 	of 	agency 	fee.
Refusing and failing to bargain in good faith by insisting
Refusing 	to 	deduct 	and 	remit 	dues 	to 	the 	Fresno 	Teachers
Association, 	CTA/NEA 	on 	November 	30, 	1978.
Refusing to deduct and remit dues to the Fresno Teachers
TAKE 	THE 	FOLLOWING 	AFFIRMATIVE ACTION 	TO:	TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION TO:
Take 	a 	one-time 	double 	deduction 	from 	the 	pay 	warrants 	of
Fresno 	Teachers 	Association, 	CTA/NEA members 	employed 	by 	the
Fresno 	Unified 	School 	District 	at 	the 	time 	of 	the 	strike 	unless
the 	employee 	notifies 	the 	Fresno 	Unified 	School 	District 	within
thirty 	(30) 	days 	of 	service 	of 	this 	Order 	of 	his/her 	objection
to 	such 	deduction. 	The 	Fresno 	Unified 	School 	District shall
remit 	that 	sum 	to 	the 	Fresno 	Teachers 	Association, 	CTA/NEA.
Take a one-time double deduction from the pay warrants of
Bargain 	upon 	request 	with 	the 	Fresno 	Teachers 	Association,
CTA/NEA 	over 	organizational 	security.
Bargain upon request with the Fresno Teachers Association,
FRESNO 	UNIFIED 	SCHOOL 	DISTRICT	FRESNO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Dated:	Dated: 	By
Authorized 	Agent 	of 	the
District
By
THIS 	IS 	AN 	OFFICIAL 	NOTICE. 	IT MUST 	REMAIN 	POSTED 	FOR TWENTY
(20)	(20) 	CONSECUTIVE WORKDAYS 	FROM THE 	DATE 	OF 	POSTING AND MUST 	NOT
BE 	REDUCED 	IN 	SIZE, 	DEFACED, 	ALTERED OR COVERED BY ANY MATERIAL.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE.
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the State of California
Association, CTA/NEA v. Fresno Unified School District, in
which all parties had a right to participate, it has been found
that the Fresno Unified School District violated subsection
3543.5 (c) by attempting to negotiate over the amount of agency
fee, and subsections 3543.5 (b) and (d) by suspending the dues
deductions on November 30, 1978. As a result of this conduct,
we have been ordered to post this notice and abide by the
following :
on negotiating over the amount of agency fee.
Association, CTA/NEA on November 30, 1978.
Fresno Teachers Association, CTA/NEA members employed by the
Fresno Unified School District at the time of the strike unless
the employee notifies the Fresno Unified School District within
thirty (30) days of service of this Order of his/her objection
to such deduction. The Fresno Unified School District shall
remit that sum to the Fresno Teachers Association, CTA/NEA.
CTA/NEA over organizational security.
Authorized Agent of the
District
IT MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR TWENTY
CONSECUTIVE WORKDAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT
BE REDUCED IN SIZE, DEFACED, ALTERED OR COVERED BY ANY MATERIAL.