San Francisco Federation of Teachers (Hagopian) (PERB 0222E)

____________________
STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
DON 	HAGOPIAN ,
Charging 	Party,
V •
SAN 	FRANCISCO 	FEDERATION 	OF 	TEACHERS,
LOCAL 	61, 	CFT/AFL-CIO,
Respondent.
)
)
) 	Case 	No. 	SF-CO-70
PERB 	Decision No. 	222
June 	30, 	1982
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
Appearances: 	Kirsten 	L. 	Zerger, 	Attorney 	for 	Don 	Hagopian;
Stewart 	Weinberg, 	Attorney 	(Van 	Bourg, 	Allen, 	Weinberg 	and
Roger) 	for 	San Francisco Federation 	of 	Teachers, 	Local 	61,
CFT/CIO.
Before 	Gluck, 	Chairperson; 	Jaeger 	and 	Tovar, 	Members.
DECISION
This 	case 	is 	before 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board
(PERB 	or 	Board) 	on 	exceptions 	filed 	by 	the 	charging 	party 	to 	a
hearing 	officer's 	proposed 	decision 	dismissing 	the 	unfair
practice 	charge 	against 	the 	San 	Francisco Federation 	of
Teachers, 	Local 	61, 	CFT/AFL-CIO 	(Federation 	or 	Local 	61). 	The
charge 	alleged 	that 	the 	Federation 	illegally 	refused 	to
represent 	the 	charging 	party 	in 	an 	arbitration 	proceeding,
thereby 	denying 	him 	rights 	guaranteed 	under 	Government 	Code
sections 	3543 	and 	3544.9 	in 	violation 	of 	subsection 	3545.6(b)
of 	the 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Act 	(EERA or 	Act).l
lThe 	EERA 	is 	codified 	at 	Government 	Code 	section 	3540.
Subsection 	3543.6(b) 	states 	that 	it 	shall 	be 	unlawful

After 	a 	review 	of 	the 	record 	and 	the 	arguments 	on 	appeal,
the 	Board 	reverses 	the 	hearing 	officer's 	proposed 	decision.
PROCEDURAL 	HISTORY
On October 	6, 	1978, 	Mr. 	Hagopian 	(Charging 	Party) 	filed
this 	unfair 	practice 	charge 	against 	the 	Federation. 	The
Federation 	filed 	its 	answer 	on October 	19, 	1978.
On November 	6, 	1978, 	an 	informal 	conference 	was 	held 	and
the 	parties 	agreed 	to 	hold 	the 	charge 	in 	abeyance.
On March 	16, 	1979, 	Charging 	Party 	amended 	the 	charge. 	The
Federation 	answered 	the 	amended 	charge 	on April 	4, 	1979. 	A
formal 	hearing 	was 	held 	on 	June 	4, 	1979.
FACTS
At 	the 	formal 	hearing, 	the 	parties 	entered 	into 	a
stipulation 	of 	facts, 	which 	is 	summarized 	as 	follows:
The 	Federation 	is 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	for 	a 	unit
of 	certificated 	employees 	in 	the 	San 	Francisco 	Unified 	School
District 	(District). 	The 	Charging 	Party 	is 	a 	member 	of 	this
unit, 	but 	is 	not 	a 	member 	of 	the 	Federation. 	The 	collective
agreement 	negotiated 	by 	the 	Federation 	and 	the 	District
for 	an 	employee 	organization 	to:
(b) 	Impose 	or 	threaten 	to 	impose
reprisals 	on 	employees, 	to 	discriminate
or 	threaten 	to 	discriminate 	against
employees, 	or 	otherwise 	to 	interfere
with, 	restrain, 	or 	coerce 	employees
because 	of 	their 	exercise 	of 	rights
guaranteed 	by 	this 	chapter.
2

contains 	a 	provision 	covering 	involuntary 	transfers, 	provides
for 	binding 	arbitration 	of 	grievances, 	and 	gives 	the 	Federation
the 	exclusive 	right 	to 	appeal 	a 	grievance 	to 	arbitration. 	The
agreement 	does 	not 	include 	an 	agency 	fee 	provision. 	The
Federation 	filed 	a 	class 	action 	grievance 	challenging 	several
involuntary 	transfers 	and 	represented 	the 	entire 	class,
including 	the 	Charging 	Party, 	at 	the 	lower 	steps 	of 	the
grievance 	procedure. 	Julie 	Koppich, 	a 	Federation
representative, 	made 	arguments 	on 	behalf 	of 	individual members
of 	the 	class 	and 	specifically 	on 	behalf 	of 	Mr. 	Hagopian. 	At
~the 	arbitration 	stage 	of 	the 	grievance 	procedure 	the 	Federation
invoked 	the 	policy 	which 	gives 	rise 	to 	the 	instant 	proceeding.
In 	accordance 	with 	that 	policy, 	the 	Federation 	agreed 	to
represent 	its 	members 	in 	the 	arbitration, 	but 	refused 	to
represent 	the 	Charging 	Party 	unless 	he 	agreed 	to 	pay 	his
pro-rata 	share 	of 	arbitration 	costs 	or 	the 	equivalent 	of 	annual
Federation 	dues, 	whichever 	was 	less. 	The 	Charging 	Party
refused 	to 	comply 	with 	this 	policy. 	The 	basis 	of 	the
Federation's 	refusal 	to 	represent 	the 	Charging 	Party 	is 	not
that 	he 	is 	a 	nonmember. 	Rather, 	the 	Federation 	refused 	to
represent Mr. 	Hagopian 	at 	the 	arbitration 	because 	he 	would 	not
agree 	to 	this 	policy. 	If 	Charging 	Party 	had 	agreed 	to 	pay 	his
pro-rata 	share 	of 	arbitration 	costs 	or 	the 	equivalent 	of 	annual
Federation 	dues, 	whichever 	was 	less, 	the 	Federation 	would 	have
3

represented 	him 	at 	the 	arbitration. 	On 	February 	13, 	1979, 	the
Federation 	appealed 	the 	grievance 	involving 	the 	involuntary
transfers 	to 	arbitration. 	The 	appeal 	consisted 	of 	a 	class 	of
21 	teachers, 	including 	other 	nonmembers 	who 	complied 	with 	the
Federation's 	policy. 	Mr. 	Hagopian 	was 	not 	included 	in 	the
appeal 	and 	his 	individual 	grievance 	was 	not 	arbitrated. 	The
record 	does 	not 	reflect 	the 	outcome 	of 	the 	arbitration 	for 	the
other 	teachers 	nor 	what, 	if 	any, 	job 	related 	or 	monetary 	harm
Charging 	Party 	has 	suffered.
Mr. 	James 	Ballard, 	Federation 	president 	and 	executive
officer, 	testified 	that 	the 	Federation 	incurs 	costs 	in
processing 	grievances 	through 	steps 	one 	and 	two 	of 	the
grievance 	procedure, 	including 	costs 	stemming 	from 	staff 	time,
preparation 	and 	paperwork. 	Despite 	these 	costs, 	the 	Federation
represents 	all 	bargaining 	unit 	employees 	at 	the 	first 	two 	steps
of 	the 	grievance 	procedure. 	It 	is 	only 	at 	step 	three, 	the
arbitration 	stage, 	that 	the 	policy 	to 	which Charging 	Party
objects 	is 	applied.
Mr. 	Ballard 	further 	testified 	that 	the 	high 	costs
associated 	with 	arbitration 	prompted 	the 	Federation's 	executive
board 	to 	adopt 	the 	policy. 	Costs 	cited 	by Mr. 	Ballard 	include
staff 	time 	for 	preparation, 	attorney 	fees, 	Xeroxing 	fees,
arbitrator 	fees, 	court 	reporter 	and 	transcript 	fees, 	and
possibly 	room 	rental 	fees.
4

DISCUSSION
In 	this 	case 	we 	are 	faced 	with 	the 	issue 	of 	whether 	an
exclusive 	representative 	may 	charge 	nonmembers 	for
representation 	in 	arbitration 	proceedings. 	The 	Charging 	Party
excepts 	to 	the 	hearing 	officer's 	conclusion 	that 	such 	a 	charge
does 	not 	violate 	either 	the 	duty 	of 	fair 	representation 	or
discriminates 	against 	an 	employee 	for 	the 	exercise 	of 	the 	right
to 	refuse 	to 	participate 	in 	the 	activities 	of 	an 	employee
organization.
We 	conclude, 	for 	the 	reasons 	stated 	below, 	that 	the
Federation's 	policy 	breached 	the 	duty 	of 	fair 	representation
and 	the 	charging 	party's 	rights 	under 	section 	35432 	in
2section 	3543 	states 	that:
Public 	school 	employees 	shall 	have 	the 	right
to 	form, 	join, 	and 	participate 	in 	the
activities 	of 	employee 	organizations 	of
their 	own 	choosing 	for 	the 	purpose 	of
representation 	on 	all 	matters 	of
employer-employee 	relations. 	Public 	school
employees 	shall 	also 	have 	the 	right 	to
refuse 	to 	join 	or 	participate 	in 	the
activities 	of 	employee 	organizations 	and
shall 	have 	the 	right 	to 	represent 	themselves
individually 	in 	their 	employment 	relations
with 	the 	public 	school 	employer, 	except 	that
once 	the 	employees 	in 	an 	appropriate 	unit
have 	selected 	an 	exclusive 	representative
and 	it 	has 	been 	recognized 	pursuant 	to
Section 	3544.1 	or 	certified 	pursuant 	to
Section 	3544.7, 	no 	employee 	in 	that 	unit 	may
meet 	and 	negotiate 	with 	the 	public 	school
employer.
Any 	employee 	may 	at 	any 	time 	present
grievances 	to 	his 	employer, 	and 	have 	such
5

violation of 	the 	unfair 	practice 	subsection 	3543.G(b). 	(See,
King 	v. 	Fremont 	Unified 	District Teachers 	Association, 	CTA/NEA,
(4/21/80) 	PERB 	Decision No. 	125.)
By 	authorizing 	the 	negotiation 	of 	service 	fee
arrangements3, 	the 	Legislature 	has 	recognized 	the 	financial
burden 	of 	the 	duty 	of 	fair 	representation 	placed 	upon 	exclusive
representatives. 	By 	requiring 	the 	employer's 	agreement 	to 	such
arrangements 	and, 	under 	given 	circumstances, 	the 	approval 	of
unit 	employees 	expressed 	through 	the 	authorization 	election,
the 	Legislature 	has 	also 	indicated 	its 	refusal 	to 	impose 	an
absolute 	obligation 	on 	nonmembers. 	By 	its 	action 	here, 	the
union 	goes 	beyond 	the 	Legislature's 	concession 	to 	its
'free-rider' 	concerns.
grievances 	adjusted, 	without 	the
intervention of 	the 	exclusive
representative, 	as 	long 	as 	the 	adjustment 	is
reached 	prior 	to 	arbitration 	pursuant 	to
Sections 	3548.5, 	3548.6, 	3548.7, 	and 	3548.8
and 	the 	adjustment 	is 	not 	inconsistent 	with
the 	terms 	of 	a 	written 	agreement 	then 	in
effect; 	provided 	that 	the 	public 	school
employer 	shall 	not 	agree 	to 	a 	resolution 	of
the 	grievance 	until 	the 	exclusive
representative 	has 	received 	a 	copy 	of 	the
grievance 	and 	the 	proposed 	resolution 	and
has 	been 	given 	the 	opportunity 	to 	file 	a
response.
3subsection 	3546(a) 	states 	that:
(a) 	An 	organizational 	security 	arrangement,
in 	order 	to 	be 	effective, 	must 	be 	agreed
upon 	by 	both 	parties 	to 	the 	agreement. 	At
the 	time 	the 	issue 	is 	being 	negotiated, 	the
6

The 	Federation's 	policy, 	in 	effect, 	creates 	a 	distinction
between 	members 	and 	nonmembers 	which 	impinges 	on 	the 	Charging
Party's 	right 	not 	to 	join 	or 	participate 	in 	the 	activities 	of
the 	Federation. 	The 	Federation 	requires 	the 	charging 	party 	to
first 	agree 	to 	pay 	a 	specified 	sum of 	money 	in 	order 	to 	take
his 	grievance 	to 	arbitration. 	Members 	of 	the 	local 	are 	not
required 	to make 	such 	a 	payment.
Section 	3543 	guarantees 	employees 	the 	right 	to 	refuse 	to
join 	or 	participate 	in 	the 	activities 	of 	an 	employee
organization.4 	Conditioning 	representation 	of 	nonmembers
upon 	payment 	of 	costs 	unlawfully 	discriminates, 	interferes
with, 	restrains 	and 	coerces 	such 	members 	in 	the 	exercise 	of
rights 	guaranteed 	by 	section 	3543. 	Article 	18 	of 	the 	agreement
between 	the 	Federation 	and 	the 	District 	details 	the 	grievance
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
be 	deemed 	to 	either 	ratify 	or 	defeat 	the
remaining 	provisions 	of 	the 	proposed
agreement.
4of 	course, 	the 	right 	not 	to 	participate 	is 	not
absolute. 	The 	service 	fee 	provision 	in 	the 	Act 	constitutes 	an
exception 	to 	such 	a 	right.
7

procedure 	covering 	the 	employees 	in 	the 	bargaining 	unit 	and
states 	that 	the 	union 	has 	the 	exclusive 	right 	to 	appeal 	to
arbitration 	the 	decision 	of 	the 	superintendent 	or 	designee.
Thus, 	under 	the 	agreement, 	the 	union 	is 	the 	only 	one 	to 	decide
when 	to 	appeal 	to 	arbitration. 	The 	charging 	party 	can't 	appeal
on 	his 	own. 	He 	is 	faced 	with 	either 	paying 	the 	fee 	or 	not
being 	able 	to 	have 	his 	grievance 	processed 	through
arbitration. 	The 	right 	to 	have 	a 	meritorious 	grievance
processed 	is 	a 	fundamental 	right. 	Machinist, 	Local 	697, 	(1976)
91 	LRRM 	1529, 	1531. 	Once 	an 	agreement 	provides 	for 	a 	grievance
procedure 	as 	in 	the 	instant 	case, 	it 	must 	apply 	equally 	and
fully 	to 	all 	the 	employees 	in 	the 	unit, 	whether 	members 	or
non-members.
The 	Federation's 	Policy Violates 	the 	Duty 	of 	Fair 	Representation
EERA, 	unlike 	the 	National 	Labor 	Relations 	Act 	(NLRA), 	has 	a
statutory 	duty 	of 	fair 	representation.
Government 	Code 	section 	3544.9 	states:
The 	employee 	organization 	recognized 	or
certified 	as 	the 	exclusive 	representative
for 	the 	purpose 	of 	meeting 	and 	negotiating
shall 	fairly 	represent 	each 	and 	every
employee 	in 	the 	appropriate 	unit. 	(Emphasis
added.)
In 	the 	Wallace 	Corporation 	v. 	NLRB, 	323 	U.S. 	248, 	255-256,
15 	LRRM 	697 	(1944) 	the 	Supreme 	Court 	stated:
"The 	duties 	of 	a 	bargaining 	agent 	selected
under 	the 	terms 	of 	the 	Act 	extend 	beyond 	the
mere 	representation 	of 	the 	interests 	of 	its
own 	group members. 	By 	its 	selection 	as
8

bargaining 	representative 	it 	has 	become 	the
agent 	of 	all 	the 	employees, 	charged 	with 	the
responsibility 	of 	representing 	their
interests 	fairly 	and 	impartially."
Similarly, 	the 	National 	Labor 	Relations 	Board 	(NLRB) 	has 	long
held 	that 	an 	exclusive 	bargaining 	agent 	has 	taken 	on 	the
responsibility 	to 	act 	as 	a 	genuine 	representative 	of 	all 	the
employees 	in 	the 	bargaining 	unit, 	"irrespective 	of 	union
membership 	•• 	" 	Peerless 	Tool 	and 	Engineering 	Co., 	111
NLRB 	853, 	858, 	35 	LRRM 	1598 	(1955) 	enfd. 	sub 	nom. 	NLRB 	v. 	Die
and 	Tool 	Makers 	Lodge No. 	113, 	International 	Association 	of
Machinists, 	AFL, 	231 	F2d 	298 	37 	LRRM 	2673 	(CA 	7, 	1956) 	cert.
denied 	352 	U.S. 	833 	38 	LRRM 	2717.
In Machinist, 	Local 	697, 	supra, 	the 	NLRB 	explained 	that
what 	is 	involved 	is 	a 	quid 	pro 	quo 	-- 	in 	exchange 	for 	the
protection 	of 	the 	Act, 	the 	bargaining 	representative 	must
represent 	all 	unit 	employees.5
Under 	EERA 	the 	duty 	of 	fair 	representation 	is 	breached 	when
the 	exclusive 	representative's 	conduct 	towards 	a 	members 	of 	the
bargaining 	unit 	is 	arbitrary, 	discriminatory 	or 	in 	bad 	faith.
5Although 	Machinists 	Local 	697 	expressly 	stated 	that
resolution of 	its 	proceeding 	did 	not 	turn 	upon 	the 	duty 	of 	fair
representation 	under 	the 	NLRA, 	but 	focused 	on 	whether
respondent's 	discrimination 	against 	nonmembers 	is 	such 	that 	it
restrains 	and 	coerces 	them 	in 	the 	exercise 	of 	Section 	7 	rights;
we 	nonetheless 	find 	the 	rationale 	expressed 	in 	the 	above 	cases
to 	be 	persuasive 	to 	support 	not 	only 	a 	finding 	that 	the
Federation's 	policy 	interfered 	and 	coerced 	the 	Charging 	Party
in 	his 	exercise 	of 	section 	3543 	rights, 	but 	also 	to 	support 	a
finding 	that 	the 	Federation 	breached 	the 	duty 	of 	fair
representation 	it 	owes 	to 	the 	Charging 	Party.
9

Mt. 	Diablo Unified 	District, 	(8/21/78) 	PERB 	Decision No. 	68;
and 	Redlands 	Teachers 	Association, 	(9/25/78) 	PERB 	Decision No.
72. 	See 	also 	Rocklin Teachers 	Professional 	Association
(3/26/80) 	PERB Decision No. 	124. 	We 	do 	find 	that 	the
Federation's 	policy 	is 	discriminatory. 	Since 	the 	Federation
does 	not 	condition 	the 	processing 	of 	arbitration 	by 	dues-paying
members 	on 	their 	paying 	a 	specific 	fee 	for 	arbitration, 	the
Federation 	has 	drawn 	a 	distinction 	between 	members 	and
nonmembers, 	and 	to 	this 	extent 	discriminated 	against 	the
Charging 	Party.6
REMEDY
Under 	the 	NLRB 	the 	traditional 	remedy 	for 	this 	kind 	of
violation 	is 	to 	order 	the 	labor 	organization 	to 	fairly 	process
the 	grievance. 	See, 	Local 	12, 	United 	Rubber 	Workers 	(1964) 	150
NLRB 	312, 	at 	322. 	However, 	taking 	official 	notice 	of 	our
6This 	case 	is 	distinguishable 	from 	one 	of 	the 	leading
private 	sector 	cases 	Vaca 	v. 	Sipes 	386 	U.S. 	171, 	64 	LRRM 	2369
(1967) 	because 	in 	that 	case 	the 	labor 	organization 	based 	its
decision 	of 	whether 	or 	not 	to 	take 	the 	case 	to 	arbitration 	on
its 	good 	faith 	assessment 	on 	the 	merits 	of 	the 	case 	given 	the
conflicting 	medical 	opinions 	it 	had 	received 	regarding 	the
grievant's 	capacity 	to 	work. 	The 	labor 	organization 	exercised
its 	discretion 	based 	on 	legitimate 	criteria. 	In 	the 	instant
case, 	the 	refusal 	to 	take 	the 	Charging 	Party's 	case 	to
arbitration 	was 	based 	on 	his 	refusal 	to 	tender 	payment 	for 	the
cost 	of 	arbitration. 	This 	is 	not 	a 	legitimate 	criteria 	because
it 	results 	in 	a 	failure 	to 	fairly 	represent 	every member 	of
that 	unit 	without 	regard 	to 	membership.
Our 	holding 	should 	not 	be 	read 	to 	imply 	we 	are 	intruding
into 	the 	area 	of 	union 	discretion 	in 	the 	processing 	of 	employee
grievances, 	as 	long 	as 	that 	discretion 	is 	not 	exercised 	in 	an
arbitrary, 	discriminatory 	or 	bad 	faith 	manner.
10

certification 	records 	we 	note 	that 	the 	Federation 	is 	no 	longer
the 	exclusive 	representative 	of 	the 	certificated 	employees.
Absent 	evidence 	that 	the 	grievance 	is 	still 	subject 	to
arbitration 	our 	remedial 	order 	is 	limited 	to 	directing 	the
Federation 	to mail 	a 	copy 	of 	the 	enclosed 	Appendix 	to 	each 	and
every 	Federation 	member 	in 	the 	certificated 	unit 	of 	the
San 	Francisco Unified 	School 	District 	as 	well 	as 	mail 	a 	copy 	to
the 	nonmember 	grievants 	who 	complied 	with 	the 	policy.
We 	also 	direct 	the 	Federation 	to 	post 	the 	Appendix 	at 	a
centrally 	located 	place 	at 	their 	offices. 	(See, 	Carpenters
Local 	1400 	(1956) 	(Clarence A. 	Dowdall), 	115 	NLRB 	126, 	132, 	37
LRRM 	1255.)
ORDER
Upon 	the 	foregoing 	facts, 	conclusions 	of 	law 	and 	the 	entire
record 	in 	this 	case, 	it 	is 	found 	that 	the 	San 	Francisco
Federation 	of 	Teachers, 	Local 	61, 	CFT/AFL-CIO 	has 	violated
subsection 	3545.6(b) 	of 	the 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations
Act. 	It 	is 	hereby 	ORDERED 	that 	the 	Federation 	and 	its
representatives 	shall:
1. 	TAKE 	THE 	FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE 	ACTIONS 	DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE 	THE 	POLICIES 	OF 	THE 	EERA:
(a) 	Within 	five 	(5) 	working 	days 	of 	service 	of 	this
Decision 	issues, 	mail 	a 	copy 	of 	the 	enclosed Appendix 	to 	each
and 	every Federation 	member 	in 	the 	certificated 	unit 	of 	the
11

San 	Francisco Unified 	School 	District 	as 	well 	as 	the 	nonmember
grievants 	who 	complied 	with 	the 	policy.
(b) 	Within 	five 	(5) 	working 	days 	of 	date 	of 	service
of 	this 	Decision, 	post 	copies 	of 	the 	Appendix 	attached 	hereto
for 	thirty 	(30) 	working 	days 	at 	its 	headquarters 	office.
(c) 	At 	the 	end 	of 	the 	posting 	period, 	notify 	in
writing 	the 	San Francisco 	regional 	director 	of 	the 	Public
Employment 	Relations 	Board 	of 	the 	actions 	the 	Federation 	has
taken 	to 	comply 	with 	this 	Order.
By:~
Irene 	Tovar, 	Member
12

APPENDIX NOTICE 	TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY 	ORDER OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
An Agency 	of 	the 	State of 	California
After 	a 	hearing 	in Unfair 	Practice 	Case No. 	SF-CO-70
Don 	Hagopian 	v. 	San Francisco 	Federation 	of 	Teachers, 	Local 	61,
CFT/AFL-CIO, 	in 	which 	all 	parties 	had 	the 	right 	to 	participate,
it 	has 	been 	found 	that 	the 	San 	Francisco 	Federation 	of
Teachers, 	Local 	61, 	CFT/AFL-CIO, 	has 	violated 	subsection
3545.6(b) 	of 	the 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Act 	(EERA) 	by
its 	breach 	of 	its 	duty 	of 	fair 	representation 	to 	Mr. 	Hagopian
and 	for 	its 	interference 	with 	his 	rights 	under 	section 	3543 	of
EERA.
As 	a 	result 	of 	this 	conduct, 	we 	have 	been 	ordered 	to 	post
this 	Notice, 	and 	we 	will 	abide 	by 	the 	following:
1. 	TAKE 	THE 	FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE 	ACTIONS 	DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE 	THE 	POLICIES 	OF 	THE 	EERA:
(a) 	We 	will 	mail 	a 	copy 	of 	this 	Appendix 	to 	each 	and
every 	Federation member 	in 	the 	certificated 	unit 	of 	the
San 	Francisco 	Unified 	School 	District 	as 	well 	as 	the 	nonmember
grievants 	who 	complied 	with 	the 	Federation's 	policy 	of 	charging
a 	fee 	to 	take 	a 	grievance 	to 	arbitration.
(b) 	Within 	five 	(5) 	working 	days 	of 	date 	of 	service 	of
this 	Decision, 	post 	copies 	of 	the 	Appendix 	attached 	hereto 	for
thirty 	(30) 	working 	days 	at 	its 	headquarters 	office.
(c) 	At 	the 	end 	of 	the 	posting 	period, 	notify 	in
writing 	the 	San Francisco 	Regional 	Director 	of 	the 	Public
Employment 	Relations 	Board 	of 	the 	actions 	the 	District 	has
taken 	to 	comply 	with 	this 	Order.
Dated: 	SAN 	FRANCISCO 	FEDERATION 	OF
TEACHERS, 	LOCAL 	61, 	CFT/AFL-CIO
BY -----,-~-------=----	Authorized 	Representative
THIS 	IS 	AN 	OFFICIAL 	NOTICE. 	IT MUST 	REMAIN 	POSTED FOR THIRTY
(30) 	CONSECUTIVE WORK 	DAYS 	FROM THE 	DATE 	OF 	POSTING AND MUST
NOT 	BE 	REDUCED 	IN 	SIZE, 	DEFACED, 	ALTERED 	OR COVERED BY ANY
MATERIAL.
1