California School Employees Association (Ciaffoni, et al.) (PERB 0427E)

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

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD

GARY CIAFFONI, EDYTH R. THOMPSON,
DAISEY E. BAILEY, NICKI L. HILL,

CLARA WILLIAMS, NEVILLE J. MAISH,
MERRYANNE L. ROBINSON, GLENDA J.
LOVEJOY, JOHNNY C. THIBODEAU,

JOHN V. THIBODEAU, KATHY L. THIBODEAU,
RICHARD C. LANG, DALE F. HEMSTREET,

Charging Parties, Case No. S-CO-100

Ve PERB Decision No. 427

CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION,

November 6, 1984

Respondent.

me Nee et a et et et et ee eet Set et Ne

Appearances: Allen Law Corporation by Lawrence J. Friedman,
for Gary Ciaffoni, et al.; Peter A. Janiak, Attorney for
California School Employees Association.

Before Hesse, Chairperson; Tovar and Burt, Members.

DECISION AND ORDER

HESSE, Chairperson: The charging parties appeal the
regional attorney's dismissal of their unfair practice charge
filed on June 28, 1983, against the California School Employees
Association. As the perfunctory letter of appeal advances no
errors of law or fact, nor presents any newly discovered
evidence, the Public Employment Relations Board has no
alternative but to summarily affirm the dismissal by the
regional attorney and adopt it as the Decision of the Board
itself. Accordingly, Charge No. S-CO-100 is DISMISSED in its

entirety without leave to amend.

Members Tovar and Burt joined in this Decision.

GEORGE BEUKMEIJAY. Goarmor	STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD	'PUBl.iC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS SOARD
Sc::rcmento Regional Office
I 031 	18th Street, Suite 102
Sncro.nen~o. 	California 958 i ,t
(9i6) 322-3198
August 	31, 	1983
Robin W. 	Allen~ 	Esq.
Allen 	Law Corporation
Powell 	Teichert Centec--
3620 	American 	River 	Drive, 	Sulte 	224
Sacramento, 	CA 	95825
Re: 	Ciaffoni 	et. 	al. 	v. 	California 	School 	Employees 	Association
Charge 	No. 	S-CO-100
Dear 	Mr. 	Allen:
I 	indicated 	to 	you 	in 	my 	letter 	dated 	August 	23, 	1983 	that 	the
above-referenced 	charge 	did 	not 	state 	a 	prima 	facie 	case, 	and
that 	unless 	you 	amended 	the 	charge 	to 	state 	a 	prirna 	facie 	case
or 	withdrew 	it 	prioi 	to 	August 	30, 	1983, 	it 	would 	be 	· 	·
dismissed. 	More 	specifically 	I 	informed 	you 	that 	if 	there 	~ere
any 	facts 	which 	would 	correct 	the 	deficiencies 	explained in
that 	letter, 	to 	please 	amend 	the 	charge 	accordingly.
I 	have 	not 	received 	either 	a 	request 	for 	withdrawal 	or an
amended charge 	from 	you 	and 	am 	therefore 	dismissing 	this charge
based 	on 	the· facts 	and 	reasons 	stated 	in 	my 	August 	23, 	1983,
letter 	and 	repeated 	below.
The 	above-referenced 	charge 	alleges 	that 	the California School
Employ~es 	Association 	(Association) 	entered 	into 	a 	settlement
with 	the 	Nevada 	Joint 	Union 	High School 	District 	{District} 	of
an 	unfair 	practice 	charge 	which 	failed 	to 	adequatel.y 	compensate
the 	charging 	parties.for 	their 	lost 	wages, 	fringe 	benefits, 	and
seniority. 	This 	cond~ct 	is 	alleged 	to 	violafe 	sections 	3544.9
and 	3543.6(b) 	of 	the 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations Act
(EERA).
My 	investigation 	revealed 	the 	following: 	On 	November 	9, 	1981.
the 	California 	School 	Employees 	Association 	and 	its 	Western
Nevada 	Chapter 	#435 	filed 	an 	unfair 	practice 	charge 	against 	the
District 	and 	five 	other 	school 	districts 	alleging 	L1nilateral
termination 	of 	all 	bargaining 	unit 	employees 	and 	contracting
out 	of 	unit 	work 	(charge 	No. 	S-CE-451). 	The 	bargaining 	unit
consisted 	primarily 	of 	transportation 	employees.
During 	1982 	the 	legal 	staff 	of 	the 	Association 	p~r~ued 	a
settlement 	of 	this 	unfair 	with 	the 	District 	and 	parti~ipated 	in

(
(
Rob 1. :·? ~\ • 	Al l -~:: ·. : 	l:~ ~, ·.1 ~
A U g t: S C 	3 1 , 	.t. ~, 0 "3
P;..:ige 	2
,i1scussion:3 	or! 	-c.:--:::: 	S(~tt.ternc·r1c. 	~,..,·J.c~-. 	\=n;~ 	£··::A.:rat·-· 	_1 '..:~:1:~~::·.. :)1-·ti1ti0n
depart.n~ent 	e1n·2.i.,,,,)J7f~t~.S of 	tl·1c 	Ui;]t.(.·~•.:r.: 	2.nt:.Lu('i"i.:tJ 	:~1·l~.: 	.:._-~;~,~tJi!'lS;
partier, 	in 	the 	instc..u1t 	case. 	Cm 	Ji .. ,ly 	22, 	J'.it~, 	:~ 	m,::..-2:.inJ 	tD,_:,~~
place 	between 	tnese 	pre·,;io·1.s erq_~·.:,:z'ee:-,.; ot 	t.:-1c 	i.'..c::.r1c:c.
(including 	the 	c'.12:r,:1ing 	parcies 	n0re) 	ac.t.l 	Sic;:.,; 	,-:•.. .-1dsor 	and"
Peter 	Janiak 	of 	tne 	Asscciation 1 s 	le02l 	staft 	:~ 	enable 	CS~A 	to
explain 	the 	propcsed 	sc ttl.emcnt 	o ( 	C:.se 	t'•-io. 	::.· - ._:,::; - :+:5 L. 	'I'be
former 	emp.Loyees 	prr~sent 	voted 	s,~ven 	to 	[iv::: 	r'.::- 	ciCC{:•f>t 	tbe
proposed 	settlement 	of 	$2'.2,CG0 	i11 	c;.1sh, 	to 	b,:: 	di,:ided 	i.nt.o
equal 	shares.
There 	is 	a 	factual 	dispute 	over 	Windsor's 	explan~tion 	of 	who
would 	be 	eligible 	to 	collect 	a 	socir:e 	of 	t:ne 	s,,::~::~en,2nt:.
Windsor 	claims 	ttatwit 	was 	made 	clecr 	to 	the 	~~c~le 	~t 	the
meeting 	that 	a 11 	form,2r 	employees 	ot 	the 	D j_s-t.1., '-~'- 	v•hu 	had
applied 	for 	employment. 	witn 	the 	co,·;tri1Ctt..:I, 	i<,>-,,•}11
Transportation, 	and 	b0E:n 	rejected 	v:,)~:Ld 	,1..J...:.::~ 	:• 	:.:: 1·1:n--2 ,:,f 	tt;e
settlernent 	1noney. 	A forn~er 	emplo~/ee 	-~'t'E:::·~•r.::nt: 	.. ~~:~ ::t~2 	r~i'=~~tir1g,
however, .said 	that 	only 	those 	present 	at 	thE 	rn~~ting 	would
receive 	a 	share 	of 	tne 	s~ttlement 	~rcceeds.
Within 	a 	n:attt2r 	oE 	weeks 	tne 	controversy· 	ov0:: 	who 	would 	share
in 	the 	settlement 	caused 	a 	series 	of 	letters 	anJ 	phone 	calls 	to
be 	exch.::rnged 	between 	Clara 	~villiams, 	former 	chupb--3r 	fresioent
of 	the 	Associacion 1 s 	local 	chapter, _and 	Windaor. 	In 	addition,
the 	iormer 	employees 	c:onduc t0d 	anotr1,~r 	meetiny 	r..;l thout 	a
representative 	of 	CSEA 	where 	anotner 	vote 	was 	taken 	which
rej~cted 	the.settlement 	offer. 	Windsor 	signed 	the 	settlement
agreement 	on 	behalf 	oE 	~he 	Association 	and 	its 	local 	chapter 	on
September 	30, 	1982.
On 	February 	7, 	1983 	the 	chnrg in:J 	part Les 	filed 	a 	complaint 	for ,
damages, 	bredch 	of 	collective 	oarg<Jining 	agre+'=meot, 	at1d 	breach
of 	duty 	of 	fair 	representation 	ia 	i:-Jevada 	County 	Superior
Court. 	On 	June 	3, 	19B2, 	Judge 	Francis 	of 	the 	Supe~ior 	Co3rt
sustained 	the 	demurrers 	of 	Defendants 	District 	and 	Association
bee au se 	the 	"c1 is put~ 	as 	si:-~t 	tor tn 	Ln 	the 	P .L::ti n ti r: f • s 	C:onpla 1 n t
is, 	at 	the 	minimum, 	an 	arguable 	unfair 	labor 	practice 	with
exclusive 	jurisciict.ion 	1ri 	th2 	Putd.1c 	E.rr:ploy~e:::,' 	Relations 	Boa.td
tsic}." 	'I'he 	ir,sL:in.t 	char•~lt' 	w..1s 	r.LLc,-:_i 	on 	JLu:e 	22., 	l~dJ.
Based 	on 	the 	fact.::; 	stat~d 	.J:Jove, 	ti,is 	ct1arge 	do'-'·"' 	not 	~~tate 	.:.!
prima 	f~c.i.c 	vic.Lation 	oi.: 	sc,c~ti.::,n 	3.J•H.'.J 	or 	::iS43.6{t} 	of 	t:ERA
tor 	the 	reasor,'":; 	e;,:p.Lain::·d 	oelow.

Robin W. Allen, Isa.
August 31, 1953
Page 3
Jl.C) ..) .i r1 	V-i. 	!\ l ~-- .:~. ·1 !
j-\ t.l g :~ ~~ t 	3 l , 	l 1:J j 3
P2-1.ge 	3
(
' ..	.'. I ,. -~ -.
(
(
Gcl\lern1nerlt 	L~r)(~f~ 	s.?r::t.i,~r- 	J·jt~::; .9 	~:-::.-=,~:-~~; 	.,~.... -,.:: 	c::~~::·'-:-::·/r•.'
Ot' g 311 i ~ a ti Ol t 	r f.~CO~-jl) 1 :;: e,·l 	t1 C 	C;_• r ti.. r.· i E~, ~ ..:~ ~; 	t-. ,·;t_~• 	~:: :.{,.:- J ~-1 s ·:. \-'1::
re 1) re sen ta.ti Vt~ 	t 0r 	·tr1 (.~ 	i: t..1 r: f.)OSt? 	01: 	ht~.?;:~~: .i. r~·-) 	.:1 ri1_i 	1 i_i.::;~ sc~ ~- i. ,:.t ti n•J 	st!2 )_ i.
tairly 	repr·c~s\.~:-1t 	eact1 	&\-l·j 	c~,/cr.:1- 	:~;nF':_:J\"{.!+-~ 	it1 	t:~:..:... 	lo.tf}:·;:::~_,r1ria.t1:.!
_1.,1n1:c,,,•. 	II ··o1· 	I- 	. 	. 	' 	. 	' 	. . 	' .-· 	. h . 	' 	.
maKe 	Oi.!~. 	a 	fJrU11d 	tc°CJ.F.: 	VlOJdC'LOrl 	01. 	":\,1._;:_; 	SE,:t.1c!1·,
ti1e 	diargi:.9 	party 	mu.st 	s2t 	fortD 	2. 	c.L~ar 	iH~d 	~:-cnc1.B•.::: 	statern•::h 1:
of 	acts 	de::ionst.rating 	th,Jt 	tr12 	ei~ipl,:iy ..~e 	assoc ~'.it::.,.:::, 	:::cted
arbitrar)ly, 	disccu1inc,L~rd.y 	or 	1n 	b,Jd 	tait,i. 	~jr-.9_ 	v. 	f'r~m~.Jn~
Unified 	Scho,~,l 	D1str ict 	'i'ea.:::eiers 	Association, 	C'l'A/Nr;A 	(4/21/tiuj
PC:Rti 	Decision 	t-.:o. 	Li5; 	Board 	Rule 	326.b(a) (')j.
The 	charge 	alleg~s 	thac 	the 	Association 	failed 	to 	compensate
the 	charging 	pdrties 	adequa~ely, 	ther~oy 	violat1~0 	ics 	ciu~y 	of
f Cl~L·.-•4 	reO.., ...L ec,pnt-a·f-·,.,,~	.._._. 	... 	'-4-Vt\.. 	•P'r·-=•	-- lC.: 	in,•c-5i-1'0--t--r-.-,	-• ,\_-.. ..,_ JC-.J. ..J1- • 	.J...'-	;,-1,-•1•,:,_-,l-r-•r'·•	_I 	._.- ........... "-..</ 	't"·,,.,;c,v•er	,..,ii¥•- 	-,
that 	the 	charging 	~urties 	argue 	that 	the 	Associa~iun 	violated
its 	duty 	of 	fa.ir 	reprsse:!.tatior-. 	for 	t-,.;') 	re=::tson~: 	(a) 	ov
failing 	to 	indicate- clearly 	ti',at 	tn-2 	~';,ettlei,:~i,t 	:;·roce2J~ ;.,;ou:Ld
be 	distributed 	to 	all. 	ctL~_egec! 	Cl:L;cri:-.·tin~t.e:.:-::: 	r2.c;,er 	than onlv
those 	who 	attende..i--t-he 	m-2:ec.ir._g, 	dn.6/eac 	{bi 	uy 	S;;;;t:turq 	th€: 	c~-ise
for 	too 	little 	rr,'-1ney.
(a) 	There 	t1ave 	been 	n-J 	fdct,':c 	pri:.se:nb::d 	r.cr 	ciscovered
during 	the 	in,1estigziti..on 	tl:ai: 	demonstrate 	that 	the,
Association's 	alleqed 	failure 	to 	acc~ratelv 	outl1~e 	how 	the
proceeds 	would 	be 	~1vid0d 	violated 	~ts 	dut~ 	of 	tair
representation. 	Even 	3ssuming 	that 	the 	allegations 	of 	the
charge 	concerning 	tnis 	incident 	are 	true, 	tne 	Association's
conduct 	does 	'not 	j_nvolve 	more 	than 	ne9ligence 	0::1 	the 	par. t 	of
the 	CSEA 	legdl 	staff 	foe 	failure 	to 	clearly 	outline 	h.-:,w 	the
settlerr-.ent 	would 	ce 	disc.r:ibuted. 	PEKB 	h~\s 	held 	that 	mere
negligence 	is 	1nsuffici.e:1t 	to 	state 	a 	prir,1a 	fa.cie 	violaticn 	of
sect ion 	35 44. ~ 	of 	the 	EEW\. 	Collins 	v. 	Un :i. ted 	T,c.'2.c:her s 	cf. Los
Anqeles 	(ll/.i.7/82) 	PBRti 	Decision 	N8. 	258--,:-
(b) 	The 	allegation 	that 	CSEA 	settled 	the 	case 	for 	too
little 	money 	similarly 	does 	r~t 	state 	a 	prima 	tacie 	case. 	The
Association's 	acc~ptance 	cl: 	a 	$22,000 	settlement,
wichout 	more, 	cannot 	oe 	construed 	~s 	a 	violation 	of 	the 	duty,
fo[ 	ic:. 	is 	not 	en8L.:gh 	t:) 	establisn 	t::><'ld 	faith, 	arbitr:tty 	or
discriminatory 	conduct:. 	Ct,oe!rsin:,i 	parties 	were 	J:i:',::..:iy 	to 	d.::Cc'pt
the 	$22,000 	settiement ~nd 	then 	chcnyed 	tteir 	minJs 	wh~~ 	it
became 	clear 	tnat 	UH::/ 	.:r.iglit 	have 	to 	·._es~:;f:n 	the le 	"c1:t '' 	Dy
includin9 	ot,iers 	in 	tr1e 	sE·ttlemc·:it. 	'.:.'be 	compl..::1inc;_;--ot 	conduct
demonstrated 	hece 	6oes 	noL 	r1s~ 	to 	a 	oledch 	of 	che 	duty 	of 	f~1r
re pre sen tat i:.:>n.

Robin W. Allen, Esq.
August 31, 1983
Page 4
.. (
RoLln W. 	Allen, 	£sq.
August 	31, 	1983
?~ge 	4
(
( 	'
Charging 	par.t.i_,,,3 	have 	also 	alleged 	,;i 	v.io.Laticrn 	,;f 	·5s-B.6{t.} 	of
the 	EE~A.. 	In 	Kimn1 ett 	v. 	Servict:'! 	Erni,l<~1~s.' _J,,_t.f::_r.nal_.i.on.::\l Uni.on
(10/19/79) 	PERB 	Decision 	No. 	106, 	the 	Bo~rd 	held 	th~t 	violation
of 	section 	35~4.9 	is 	an 	~nfair 	pcactice 	under 	section
3543.6(b), 	and 	that 	conduct 	proscribed 	by 	secti.on 	35:12.6(br
encompasses 	rrore 	than 	just 	the 	bread, 	of 	duty 	or 	fair
representation. 	To 	demonstrate 	such 	a 	violation 	of 	J543.6(b) r
the 	conduct 	alleged 	to 	canst i tute 	an 	unfair 	p.r.act i,c12 r:1ust 	tend:
to 	or 	actually 	result 	in 	some 	harm 	to 	employees 	rights
guaranteed 	under 	the 	EERA. 	Kimmett 	v. 	Service 	Empl.o:;ees'
International 	Union, 	supra. 	No 	evidence 	has 	been 	presented
here 	which 	shows 	that 	the 	charging 	parties 	rights 	under 	the
EERA were 	abused 	by 	the 	AssocL1tion' s 	actions. 	Accordingly, 	no
pr ima 	facie 	violat;;ion 	of 	s~ct ion 	3543 o 6 (b) 	has 	been 	ri1ade 	out.
Pursuant 	to 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	BoaiJ 	regulation
section 	32635 	(Califor~ia 	Administrative 	Code, 	title 	8,
part 	III), 	you 	may 	appeal 	the 	refusal 	tc 	issun 	a 	co1~plaint
(dismissal) 	to 	the 	Board 	its€lf.
Right 	to 	Appe_:?_!_
You 	may 	obtain 	a 	revie1,,1 	of 	this 	dismissal 	of 	the 	chacge 	by
filing 	an 	appeal 	to 	the 	Board 	itsel± 	within 	twenty 	{20}
calendar 	days 	after 	service 	of 	this-dismissal 	(section
32635{a)).- 	To 	be 	timely 	filed, 	the 	original and 	five 	(5)
copies 	of 	such 	appeal 	must 	be 	actually 	received 	by 	the 	Board
itself 	before 	the 	close 	of 	business 	(5:00 	p.m.) 	on
September 	20, 	1983, 	or 	sent 	by 	telegraph 	or 	certified 	United
States 	mail 	postmarked 	not 	later 	than 	September 	20~ 	1983
(section 	32135), 	The 	Board's 	address 	is:
Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board
1031 	18th 	Street
, Sacramento, 	CA 	95814
If 	you 	file 	a 	timely 	appeal 	of 	the 	refusal 	to 	issue 	a
complaint, 	any -Other 	party 	may 	file 	with 	the 	Board 	an 	original
and 	five 	(5) 	copies 	of 	a 	statement 	in 	opposition 	within 	twenty
(20) 	calendar 	days 	following 	tbe 	date 	of 	service 	of 	the 	appeal
(section 	32635 (b)).
Ser~: ice
All 	documents 	authorized 	to 	b0 	filPd 	herein 	must 	also 	be
"served" 	upon 	al.l 	partie~:.; 	ti) 	i.:Lc 	proceedi.119, 	and 	a 	"proof 	of

Robin W. Allen, Co..
August 31, 183:
Page :	:-'2.ge 	5
service" 	must 	2cc,:imp.:,,, ... 	the 	~-.)c.:--e,-:t 	filec 	w1·L~ 	c'>::: 	:.":'·1z-ir:d
itselt 	(see 	sect.ion 	J2.:..4l) 	tor 	t·> 	c:,~qL,ircd 	G<,,:.r:.er,ts 	2.::a 	a
sarnp~.e 	form). 	·l'ne 	document. 	w.i 1_·, 	.:c: 	cons ~-.t,.:P.:,~ 	pro92._·-:..y
"served" 	when 	personally 	d2live:~ci 	or 	dey0sit~d 	ic 	tne
first-class 	ma.i.l 	postage 	paid 	:_;:i.i 	proi:)erly 	2.(k1r.ess2,.:::.
Extension 	of 	Time
A 	request 	for 	dn 	extension 	of 	_.. 	in 	which 	to 	fife 	a 	<locument
with 	the 	Board 	itself: 	must 	b,~ 	.: 	...·r iting 	and 	filed 	wttn 	tne
Board 	at 	the 	previouslJ 	~oted 	aw~~ess. 	A request 	for 	an
extension must 	be 	filed 	at 	lease 	~hree 	(3} 	calendar 	days 	befoce
tne 	e.<pira t ion 	of 	the 	cime 	.requ, ,- 0 d 	for 	L. li ns 	tr!':: 	,:,0c;__iment.
Tne 	request 	must 	indicate 	900,;:; 	._:·. _.se 	for 	2.n~, 	if 	..~now.t,, 	tbe:
position 	of 	each 	othec 	party 	1:-2:s · ::.:ting 	tb~ 	extension, 	and 	snail
be 	accompani 2d 	bJ' 	proo r 	of 	:~f:: r.' ~ ._ ._· ot 	tt1e: 	c~q L,e st 	c;pon 	each
parcy 	(section 	31132}.
· 	Final 	Date
If 	no 	appeal 	is 	r~i. led ·,·,dti1\:1 1.:.1;, 	3?e-::ifi2J 	time 	l 	rr,its, 	the
d ismis.sal 	wi ::..l 	.oecome 	£ina1 	w1: ;:, : 	1:;1e- 	tirr:e 	l1mits 	1c1'J,? expired.
Very 	truly 	~ours,
DENNIS M. 	sctLIVAN
General Counsel
By
i: obei:-t 	'l'nompson
Regional 	Attorney