PERB Decision No. 0496H•California State Employees Association (Dees) (PERB 0496H)
California State Employees Association (Dees) (PERB 0496H)
PERB Decision No. 0496HCalperbMar 14, 1985
Full text
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DECISION OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD TOMMIE R. DEES, Charging Party, v. CALIFORNIA STATE EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION, Respondent. Case No. SF-C0-5-H PERE Decision No.496-H March 14, 1985 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) __________________ ) Appearance: Tommie R. Dees, on his own behalf. Before Hesse, Chairperson; Jaeger, Morgenstern and Burt, Members. DECISION This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board on appeal by charging party of the Board agent's dismissal, attached hereto, of his charge alleging that the California State Employees' Association violated section 3571.1 of the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (Gov. Code sec. 3560 et seq.). We have reviewed the dismissal and, finding it free from error, adopt it as the Decision of the Board itself. ORDER The unfair practice charge in case No. SF-C0-5-H is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. By the BOARD
I
J .
;:~.:
....
CJ,ll:OP.NIA
?'
GEORGE
C>l:UKMEJIAN,
Go.,.,,,o
;:1:at!C
Et
✓
\?tOYMENT
RELATIO,
..
:i
OOARD
H.:odquurters Office
103
1 18th Street
ISccromento, California 95814
{9 i
6)
322-3088
September
5,
1984
Tommie R.
Dees
21569
Princeton
Str~et
Hayward,
CA
94541
Marilyn Sardonis
Relations
Representative
California
State
Employees
Association
160
Franklin
Street,
Suite
302
Oakland,
CA
94607
Association
Re:
Tommie R.
Dees
v.
California State
Employees
Unfair
Practice
Charge
No.
SF-C0-5-H;
DISMISSAL OF UNFAIR
PRACTICE
CHARGE
AND
REFUSAL
TO
ISSUE COMPLAINT.
(PERB
Pursuant to
Public
Employment
Relations
Board
or
Board)
Regulation
section
32630,
.the above-entitled matter
is
hereby
dismissed
because
it
fails
to allege
facts sufficient to state
a
prima
facie violation
of the
Higher Employer-Employee
Relations
Act
(HEERA
or
Act) .l
The
reasoning
which
underlies
this
dismissal follows.
l
section
The
HEERA
is
codified
at
Government Code
3560,
et
seq.,
and
is
administered
by
PERB.
Unless otherwise
_
indicated,
all
statutory references in
this
dismissal are to
the
Government Code.
HEERA
section
3571.1
provides
that
it
shall
be
unlawful for
an employee
organization to:
(a) Cause
or attempt to
cause
the higher
education
employer
to violate Section
3571.
(b) Impose
or threaten to
impose
reprisa
on employees, to discriminate or threaten to
discriminate against
employees, or otherwise
to interfere with, restrain,
or co~rce
employees because of their exercise of
rights guaranteed by
this chapter.
ls
(c) Refuse or
fail to engage in meeting and..
Tommie R.
Dees
Mari.lyn
Sardonis
September
5,
1984
Page
2
Procedural
Background
filed
On
May
21,
1984,
Tommie R. Dees
(Charging
Party)
unfair practice
charge
against
the
California State
Employees
(Association or
CSEA)
alleging
violation of
BEERA
Association
section
3571.1.
Du.ring
the ·six
months
preceding
the
filing
of
this
charge,
Charging
Party alleges
several incidents
to
have
which
gave
rise
to
meritorious grievances, requests
by
occurred
him
directed to
CSEA
representatives that
the matters
be
grieved,
and
failure
and/or
refusal
by such
representatives
to
pursue the grievance
to arbitration
or
to
adequately
represent
Charging
Party during the
grievance procedure because
CSEA
and
Charging
Party's
employer,
California State University
at
Haywarc {CSU),
are in collusion against
him.
~-:..:
an
conferring with the hi
employer. gher education
(d) Refuse
to participate
in
good
faith
in
the
impasse
procedure
set
forth in
Article
9
(commencing
with Section
3590).
(e)
Fail
to represent
fairly
and
impartially
all
the
employees
in
the
unit
for
which
it
is
the exclusive
representative.
(f)
Require of
employees
covered by
a
memorandum
of understanding
to
which
it
is
a
party the
payment
of
a
fee, as
a
condition
precedent to
becoming
a member
of
such
organization, in
an amount
which
the
boar-d
finds excessive or discriminatory
under
all
the circumstances. In
making
such
a
finding, the board
shall
consider,
among
other relevant factors, the practices
and
customs
of
employee
organizations in higher
education,
and
the
wages
currently paid to
the
employees
affected.
(g) Cause,
or attempt to cause, an employer
to
pay
or deliver,
or agree to pay or
deliver,
any money
or other thing of value,
in the nature of
an
exaction, for services
which
are not performed or are not to be
performed.
:"'Tommie R. Dees Marilyn Sar:donis September 5, 1984 Page 3 On August?., 1984, the General Counsel's Office of PERB wrote a 1etter to Charging Party pointing out the deficiencies of the unfair practice charge filed against CSEA. More specifically~ I informed the Cnarging Party that if there were any factual inaccuracies or additional facts which would correct the def:i.cienci.es explained in that letter, Charging Party should amend the charge accordingly. (This letter is labelled Exhibit 1 and is attached hereto.) .. Thereafter, the Charging Party filed a First Amended Charge on August 21, 198~ which essentially incorporated the facts and allegations contained in the original unfair practice charge and included some new facts, allegations and conclusory assertions. Facts My investigation revealed the following facts: Charging Party is employed at the California State University, Hayward (CSU) as a groundsperson. Charging Party describes several incidents which, in his opinion, show that CSEA has not adequately represented him7or has refused to represent him in the grievance procedure. l. Charging Party alleges that the union negligently decided on June 3, 1983 to file a grievance on behalf of Charging Party on only two of his allegations.2 The two allegations were that (1) Charging Party was given a 20n June 3, 1983, CSEA did not file a grievance on the following allegations by Charging Party, although these issues were the subjects of later grievances according to the documents submitted by Charging Party. a. Physical threat by Charging Party's supervisor. CSEA determined that the verbal statement that supervisor "would like to drill you" means according to American Heritage Dictionary that he would like "to train by repetition." According to CSEA, this does not constitute physical threat to Charging Party: thus, no grievance was filed at this time. Subsequently, on ,June 10,
Tommie R. Dees Marilyn Sardonic September 5, 1984 Page 4 permanent shift change without the required 21-day notice and, (2) Charging Party was called back to work on an off-day and was only given one hour backpay instead of four hours backpay as required by the contract. CSEA won this grievance at Level I for the Charging Party on or about June 20, 1983. 1983, CSEA filed a grievance on behalf of Charging Party on this issue. b. Charging Party wanted to return to working weekends. According to CSEA, management had the right to assign work schedules. According to CSEA, Charging Party's personal preference was not a valid requirement for forcing management to change its shift. CSEA advised Charging Party to submit a shift change by writing a request to supervisor for his consideration. C. Charging Party requested that management give all orders to him in writing. According to CSEA, this was not a valid request; management may give verbal orders . d. Charging Party requested that management cease harassing him, but according to CSEA Charging Party could not show harassment other than normal supervisory functions. CSEA advised Charging Party that if he was able to prove harassment, then CSEA would be prepared to represent him. Charging Party claimed that his supervisors were harassing him because they gave him supervisory and instructional orders. Charging Party wanted to receive all orders and instructions from his leadperson rather than his supervisors. e. Charging Party demanded that management make full disclosure of their management Tommie R. Dees Marilyn Sardonis September 5, 1984 Page 4 permanent shift change without the required 21-day notice and, (2) Charging Party was called back to work on an off-day and was only given one hour backpay instead of four hours backpay as required by the contract. CSEA won this gr:i.evance at Level I for the Charging Party on or about · June 20, 1983. ' 1983, CSEA filed a grievance on behalf of Charging Party on this issue. b. Charging Party wanted to return to working weekends. According to CSEA, management had the right to assign work schedules. According to CSEA, Charging Party's personal preference was not a valid requirement for forcing management to change its shift. CSEA advised Charging Party to submit a shift change by writing a request to supervisor for his consideration. c. Charging Party requested that management give all orders to him in writing. According to CSEA, this was not a valid request; management may give verbal orders. d. Charging Party requested that management cease harassing him, but according to CSEA Charging Party could not show · harassment other than normal supervisory functions. CSEA advised Charging Party that if be was able to prove harassment, then CSEA would be prepared to represent him. Charging Party claimed that his supervisors were harassing him because they gave him supervisory and instructional orders. Charging Party wanted to receive all orders and instructions from his leadperson rather than his supervisors. e. Charging Party demanded that management make full disclosure of their management
Tommie R. Dees
Marilyn Sardonic
September 5, 1984
Page 5
2. CSEA filed a grievance on behalf of Charging Party on
June 10, 1983 on the following issues:
a . 4/27/83 - Mario Ruiz (supervisor ) threatened Charging
Party by stating: "I'd like to drill you."
b . 4/21/83 - Charging Party was forced to work under
unsafe conditions on Harder Road because he wanted an
entire lane closed. Charging Party received the
following award: CSU adopted new procedures to provide
an added measure of safety by providing "visibility
vests" to employees whenever they worked adjacent to a
roadway in addition to the placing of cones beside the
curb.
C. 4/25/83 - Letter of Warning based on untrue allegations
violated Charging Party's contract rights, and it did
not follow proper disciplinary procedures.
a. "4/20/83 - A disciplinary meeting was held with CSU and
Charging Party without Charging Party's representative
present.
All of these grievances (except b., above ) were denied by CSU
on October 17, 1983 at Level III.
meetings to him. According to CSEA, this
was neither his right, nor the union's
right.
f . Charging Party demanded that management
give advance notice prior to checking on
his work performance. According to CSEA,
management had the right to check work
performance whenever deemed necessary
without prior notice.
g . Finally, CSEA indicated that it was still
investigating Charging Party's complaints
about insufficient break and lunch
periods.
Tommie
R.
Dees
Marilyn Sardonis
September
5,
1984
Page
5
2.
CSEA
filed
a
grievance on
behalf of
Charging
Party
on
June
10,
1983
on
the
following
issues:
a.
4/27/83
-
Mario
Ruiz
{supervisor) threatened
Charging
Party
by
stating:
"I'd
like
to
drill
you."
b.
4/21/83
-
Charging
Party
was
forced
to
work
under
unsafe
conditions
on Harder
Road
because
Re
wanted an
entire
lane closed.
Charging
Party
received
the
following
award:
GSU
adopted
new
procedures
to
provide
an
added measure
of
safety
by
providing
..
visibility
vests" to
employees whenever
they
worked
adjacent
to
a
roadway
in addition to the placing
of
cones
beside the
curb.
c.
4/25/83
-
Letter of
Warning
based on
untrue
allegations
violated
Charging
Party
1 s
contract
rights,
and
it
did
not
follow proper
disciplinary
procedures.
d.
··
4/20/83
- A
disciplinary
meeting
was
held with
CSU
and
Charging
Party
without
Charging
Party's representative
present.
,
All
of
these
grievances (except
b.,
above)
were
denied
by
CSU
on October 17,
1983
at
Level
III.
meetings
to
him. According
to
CSEA,
this
was
neither
his right,
nor
the union's
right.
f.
Charging
Party
demanded
that
management
give
advance
notice prior to
checking
on
his
work
per
f orm.ance.
According
to
CSEA,
management
had
the
right to
check
work
performance whenever
deemed
necessary
without
prior notice.
go
Finally,
CSEA
indicated that
it
was
still
investigating
Charging
Party's
complaints
about
insufficient break and lunch
periods.Tommie R. Dees Marilyn Sardonis September 5, 1984 Page 6 3. a On July 28, 1983, CSEA filed grievance on behalf of Charging Party on the following issues: a. his On 24, had June 1983, Charging Party 'first level hearing on a grievance filed against Mr. Ruiz ( supervisor·) for physically threatening Charging first Party. On his way back to his area after the level hearing, Mr. Rodriguez (supervisor)•ordered the teadperson "to write Charging Party up" for being out of h~s area. · b. was On June 27, 1983, Charging Party on his regularly scheduled break at 1:35 p.m. Mr. Rodriguez (supervisor) saw him and demanded to know why he was out of his area. Fie then threatened to "write Charging Party up" for insubordination and being out of his area. c. gave On July 16, 1983, Mr. Ruiz (supervisor) Charging Party a work assignment which was in direct violationFurther, a memo ·of his assignment from his Leadperson. from Rodriguez to Ruiz on July 13, 1983, articulated the policy by which Grounds Supervisors were to communicate with Groundsworkers, only through the Leadpersons. The assignment which was given to Charging Party was impossible and unsafe; it consisted of planting roses, weeding and raking leaves alongside e parking lot located by the Administration Building. · th failed Charging Party alleges that CSEA to in allegation to the effect that on or about July 27, 1984 through Plant Operations Mr. Rodriguez (supervisor) chased him inside the office while Charging Party was signing out to go see the doctor. clude an 3 4. CSU On or about October 17, 1983, denied Charging Party's grievance at Level III (described in 2, above), and the CSEA representative determined within 14 days not to take 3 representative, on or about April 16, 1984, CSEA grievance on this allegation as an Marilyn Sardonis, filed a act of reprisal by CSU against Charging Party. (See Exhibit 2, paragraph 19, attached nereto.)
Tommie
R. Dees
Marjlyn
Sardonis
September
5, 1984
Page
7
it
to
arbitration.4
Nevertheless,
Charging
Party
and
his
union
representative
(Gale Pemberton)
were
allowed
to
present
Charging
Party's
case
to
the
CSEA
Arbi.tration
Panel
on
or
about
November
12,
1983
wherein
they
argued
tbat
the case
should
go
to
arbitration.
The
panel
decided
not
to
go
to
arbitration
on
the grievances
mentioned
in
item
2
above,
because the
allegations
were
not meritorious,
but
Charging
Party
received assurances
that
CSEA
would
file
some
of
bis
other
allegations
on
the
basis of
reprisal
on
by
CSU.
Charging
Party
contends
that
they should
have
gone
to
an
arbitration
hear1ng
and
that
CSEA
failed to
comply
with the 14-day time
limitation.
5.
On
November
3,
1983,
Marilyn
Sardonis
(CSEA
representative)
filed
a
grievance
on
behalf of
Charging
Party seeking
to
have
44
hours of leave without
pay
converted
to sick
leave
in addition
to restoration
of
all
benefits.
Charging
Party
· won
this
grievance
on
or
about
January 11,
1984
at
Level
II.
6.
On
December
7,
1981,
Marilyn Sardonis
(CSEA
representative)
a
Level
I
grievance
on
behalf of
Charging
Party
filed
alleging
that
Charging
Party's transfer
to the
Science
Building
was
a
reprisal
for
his
exercise
of
protected
dangerous
activity.
She
also alleged
that
the
transfer
was
to
Charging
Party's health.
This Level
I
grievance
was
denied
by
Mr.
Farley, Plant Operation
Director for
CSU,
on
or
about
February
21, 1984.
7.
On
February 28, 1984, Marilyn Sardonis
(CSEA
representative) elevated
the grievance
in
item
6
above,
to
Level
II.
This
Level
II
grievance
was
denied by
Mr.
Robert Kennelly, Administrative Vice-President f9r
CSU,
on March
28, 1984.
8.
,.
,,
On
February 29, 1984, Marilyn Sardonis
{CSEA
representative)
wrote
a
letter
to
Mr.
Slade Lindeman,
Personnel Officer for
CSU,
requesting that
Charging
Party's
State
Compensation Insurance
Fund
material be
removed from
4 which
csEA
claims that there is
a
side
letter
with
CSU
allows
CSEA 30
days in
which
to seek a:rbitration after
receiving the Level
III
response.Tommie R.
Dees
Marilyn Sardonis
September
5,
1984
Page
8
separate
Charging
Party's
personnel
file
and
be
placed
in
a
file
to
ensure
confidentiality.
CSU
refused
to
set
up
a
separate
file.
9.
On
April
16, 1984, Marilyn
Sardonis
{CSEA
representative)'
a
Level
I'II grievance
on
be11alf
of
Charging
Party
filed
alleging
38
incidents
by
CSU
which
are
a
form
of
reprisal,
harassment
and
intimidation against
Charging
Party.5
III
CSEA
has not
proceeded
any
further
on
this
Level
grievance because
Charging
Party has
asked
them
to
stop.
Nevertheless,
Charging
Party
alleges that
he
has received
no
decision
regarding
this
Level
III
grievance.
(This
Level
III
grievapce
is
labelled Exhibit
2, and
it
is
attached
hereto.)
Discussion
Charging
Party has alleged that
3578
CSEA
violated his
section
6
rtght
to
fair
representation
and
thereby
violated
SCharging
Party
contends
that
CSEA
failed to
comply
with
Article
7,
section
7.15
of the
contract,
which
requires that
all
appeals
to
Level
III
be
filed
no
later
than
14
days
after
the
Level -II
response.
Charging
Party also
contends
that
CSEA
as
failed to
include
all
necessary evidence
at
Level
II
required
by
the
contract.
CSEA.counters
that
the appeal
is
timely
filed
because
it
received
an
oral
extension of
time by
Laverne Diggs,
and
that
it
included
all
evidence
at
the third
level
which
is
consistent
with
the contract
and
past
practices.
Moreover,
the
contract provides in Article
74
section
7.22
that all
issues
and
evidence
must be
presented at
Level
III
in order for the
arbitrate~ to properly consider
them.
Further,
CSU
has indicated to
PERB
that
it
is
willing to
process the
Level
III
grievance, but
that
CSEA
has not
moved
it
along.
CSEA
correctly asserts that
it
has not pushed
the
Level
III
grievance because Charging
Party has asked them
to
stop processing
it.
6section
3578
states:
The employee
organization recognized or
certified
as the exclusive representative
shall represent all
employees
in the unit,Tommie
R.
Dees
Marilyn Sardonis
September
5,
1984
Page
9
on
section 3571.l(b).
The
fair
representation
duty
imposed
the
exclusive representative
extends
to contract negotiations
(Redlands Teachers
~ssociation
(Faeth) (9/25/78)
PERB
Decision
No.
72; SEID,
Local
99
(Kimmett} (1/19/79}
.PERB
Decision
No.
106;
Rocklin Teachers
Professional Association
(Romero)
(3/26/80)
PERB
Decision
No.
I24;
El
Centro Elementary
Teachers
Association (Willis)
{8/11/82)
PERB
Decision
No. 232);
contract
administ~ation
(Castro Valley
Teachers
Association
(McElwain)
(12/17/80)
PERB
Decision
No. 149;
SEIU
Local
99
(~ottorff)
(3/30/82)
PERB
Decision
No. 203) and
grievance handling
(Fremont
Teachers
Association
(King)
(4/21/80)
PERB
Decision
No.
125;
United Teachers
of
Los
Angeles
(Collins}
(ll/17/82)
PERB
Dec-ision
No.
258}.
.
of
PERB
has ruled
that
a
prima
facie
statement
such
a
violation
requires allegations
that:
(1)
the
acts
complained
of
were
undertaken
by
the organization in
its
capacity
as
the
exclusive
representative of
all
unit
employees; and
(2)
the
representational
conduct
was
arbitrary,
discriminatory,
or
in
bad
faith.
,,·,
7
·
proceed
With
regard to the
allegation that
CSEA
failed to
to
arbitration,
PERB
has
held that
an
employee does
not have
an
absolute right to
have
a
grievance taken
to
arbitration.
An
exclusive representative's
reasonable
refusal
to
proceed with
arbitration is
essential to
the operation of
a
grievance
and
arbitration
system. (Castro Valley Unified
School
District
(12/17/80)
PERB
Decision
No. 149; Los
Angeles
Unified
School
District
(5/20/83)
PERB
Decision
No.
311.)
fairly
and
impartially.
A
breach of
this
duty
shall
be
deemed
to
have
occurred
if
the
employee
organization's
conduct
in representation is arbitrary,
discriminatory, or in
bad
faith.
7PERB
explicitly
has followed decisions of the federal
courts
and
the National
Labor
Relations
Board
interpreting the
National
Labor
Relations
Act
duty of
fair representation (Fire
Fighters
Union
v.
Ci.
ty of Vallejo
(
197 4) 12
Cal.
3d 608
[ 11
r-
ca1. Rptr.
507]~
ana see
Kimmett,
supra,
PERB
Decision
No. 106
at
fn. 7).
·Tommie R. Dees
Marilyn Sardonic
September 5, 1984
Page 10
First, allegations 1, 2, 3 and 4 will be dismissed because they
occurred more than six months prior to the filing of this
charge before the PERB. Government Code section 3563. 2(a)
states that PERB cannot issue a complaint in respect of any
charge based upon an alleged unfair occurring more than six
months prior to the filing of the charge.
Secondly, the facts in this case (set forth in allegations 5-9,
above) do not state a prima facie violation of HEERA section
3571.1(b) or a case of collusion between CSEA and CSU against
Charging Party. CSEA did consider whether to submit Charging
Party's first grievance to arbitration and determined that it
was not meritorious. There is no evidence that the
Association's conduct was arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad
faith. The other grievances (Exhibit 2) have not been advanced
to arbitration because Charging Party has requested that they
not proceed with those grievances. Finally, the evidence
indicates that the Association filed a grievance on every one
of Charging Party's disputes with CSU.
Pursuant to Public Employment Relations Board regulation
section 32635 (California Administrative Code, title 8,
part III), you may appeal the refusal to issue a complaint
(dismissal) to the Board itself.
Right to Appeal
You may obtain a review of this dismissal of the charge by
filing an appeal to the Board itself within twenty (20)
calendar days after service of this dismissal (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 25, 1984, or sent by telegraph or certified United
States mail postmarked not later than September 25, 1984
(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 the date of service of the appeal
( section 32635 (b) ).
Tommie R.
Dees
Marilyn Sardonis
September 5,
1984
Page
10
First,
allegations
J.,
2,
3
and
4
will
be
dismissed because they
occurred
more
than
six
months
prior
to the
filing
of
this
charge before the
PERB.
Government Code
section
3563.2(a)
states that
PERB
cannot issue
a
complaint
in respect of
any
charge
based
upon
an
alleged unfair
occurring
more
than
six
months
prior
to
the·
filing
of the charge.
Secondly,
the facts in
this
case {set
forth in
allegations
5-9,
above)
do
not
state
a
prima
facie violation
of
HEERA
section
3571.l(b) or
a
case
of collusion
between
CSEA
and
CSU
against
Charging
Party.
CSEA
did consider
whether
to
submit Charging
Party's
first
grievance
to arbitration
and
determined
that
it
was
not
meritorious.
There
is
no
evidence
that
the
Association's
conduct
was
arbitrary,
discriminatory or in
bad
faith.
The
other grievances (Exhibit 2)
have
not been
advanced
to
arbitration
because
Charging
Party has requested
that
they
not
proceed with those grievances.
Finally,
the
evidence
indicates that the Association
filed
a
grievance
on
every
one
of
Char~ing
Party's
disputes
with
CSU.
Pursuant
to
Public
Employment
Relations
Board
regulation
section
32635
(California
Administrative
Code,
title
8,
part
III),
you
may
appeal
the refusal to
issue
a
complaint
(dismissal) to the
Board
itself.
Right to
Appeal
You may
obtain
a
review of
this
dismissal of the charge
by
filing
an
appeal
to the
Board
itself
within
twenty
{20)
calendar
days
after
service
of
this
dismissal (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 25, 1984,
or sent
by
telegraph or
certified
United
States
mail postmarked not
later
than
September 25, 1984
(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 the date of service of the appeal
(section 3?.635(b)).
.
..
'Tommie R. Dees
Marilyn Sardonic
September 5, 1984
Page 11
Service
All documents authorized to be filed herein must also be
"served" upon all parties to the proceeding, and a "proof of
service" must accompany the document filed with the Board
itself (see section 32140 for the required contents and a
sample form) . The document will be considered properly
"served" when personally delivered or deposited in the
first-class mail postage paid and properly addressed.
Extension of Time
A request for an extension of time in which to file a document
with the Board itself must be in writing and filed with the
Board at the previously noted address. A request for an
extension must be filed at least three (3) calendar days before
the expiration of the time required for filing the document.
The request must indicate good cause for and, if known, the
position of each other party regarding the extension, and shall
be accompanied by proof of service of the request upon each
party (section 32132).
Final Date
If no appeal is filed within the specified time limits, the
dismissal will become final when the time limits have expired.
Very truly yours,
DENNIS M. SULLIVAN
General Counsel
zenbseA . a/ATTUG, By
Staff Attorney
Tommie
R.
Dees
Marilyn Sardonis
September
S,
1984
Page
J.l
Service
All
documents
authorized
to
be
filed
herein
must
also
be
"served"
upon
all
parties
to
the proceeding,
and
a
"proof
of
service"
must
accompany
the
document
filed
with
the
Board
itself
{see
section
32140
for the required contents
and
a
sample
form).
The document
will
be
considered
properly
"served"
when
personally delivered
or deposited
in the
first-class
mail postage
paid
and
properly
addressed.
Extensioti
of
Time·
A
request
for
an
extension of
time
in
which
to
file
a
document
with the
Board
itself
must
be
in writing
and
filed
with the
Board
at
the
previously
noted
address.
A
request for an
extension
must
be
filed
at least
three (3)
calendar
days
before
the
expiration of
the
time
required for
filing
the
document.
The
request
must
indicate
good
cause
for
and,
if
known,
the
positio~
of
each
other party
regarding the extension,
and
shall
be
accompanied
by
proof
of service of the request
upon
each
party (section
32132).
Final
Date
If
no
appeal
is filed
within the
specified
time
limits,
the
dism:i.ssal
will
become
final
when
the
time
limits
have
expired.
Very
truly
yours,
DENNIS
M. SULLIVAN
General Counsel
By~~
~-~rl
'Emi,rE.
vasqu
Staff
AttorneyGEORGE DEUXMEJIAN. GOV
-FATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS _OARD
Headquarters Office
$031 13th Street
\cramenio, California 95814
16) 322-3038
August 2, 1984
Tommie R. Dees
21569 Princeton St.
Hayward, CA 94541
Re : Tommie R. Dees v. California State Employees Association,
Unfair Labor Practice Charge No. SF-CO-5-H
Dear Mr. Dees:
On May 21, 1984, Tommie R. Dees (Charging Party) filed an
unfair practice charge against the California State Employees
Association (CSEA) alleging violation of HEERA section 3571.1.
More specifically, Charging Party alleges the following.
Charging Party is employed at the California State University,
Hayward (CSU) as a groundsperson. During the six months
preceding the filing of this charge, Charging Party alleges
several incidents to have occurred which gave rise to
meritorious grievances, requests by him directed to CSEA -
representatives that the matters be grieved, and failure and/or
refusal by such representatives to pursue the grievance to
arbitration or to adequately represent Charging Party during
the grievance procedure.
Charging Party describes several events which, in his opinion,
showed that CSEA has not adequately represented him in the
grievance procedure. Charging Party alleges that CSEA failed
to notify the Chancellor's office at CSU, Hayward in writing
within 14 days from the date the union received the level III
denial of grievance and has refused to go forward with
arbitration. Charging Party additionally argues that CSEA is
not vigorously prosecuting his grievances concerning his
transfer and reprisals beyond the level III grievance step to
arbitration.
My investigation reveals that the Association has filed a
grievance on behalf of the Charging Party concerning every
dispute with CSU. Additionally, the Association did consider
whether to submit Charging Party's first grievance to
arbitration and determined that it was not meritorious. The
other grievances have not been advanced to arbitration because
Charging Party has requested that they not proceed with those
grievances.
Exhibit 1
'/.,
.
•
••
~rF.
Or
('.AltFOl:tN:A
···---·=-====-==
====
PUBLiC
EM?LOYMENT
RELATTONS ..,OARD
l·lecdquorter$
Office
.......
031 13th Street
.,"\crornen~o, California 95814
_I!
6) 322-3088
August
2,
1984
Tornmie
R.
Dees
21569
Princeton
St.
Haywara,
CA
94541
GEOIIGC: DEUKIAEJl.l.l~.
c.c,
..
~,,
---·==-:-:.-~:-::.=--=----=-D..:::=
..
Re:
Tommie
R.
Dees
·v
...
California
State
EmployE!eS
Association,
Unfair
Labor
Practice
Charge
No. SP-C0-5-H
Dear
Mr.
dees:
On
May
21, 1984,
Tommie
R. Dees
(Charging
Party)
filed
an
unfair practice
charge
against the California
State
Employees
Association
(CSEA)
alleging
violation
of
HEERA
section 3571.1.
More
specifically,
Charging
Party alleges
the
following.
Charging
,.Party
is
employed
at the California State
University,
Hayward
(CSU)
as
a
groundsperson.
During
the
six
months
preceding the
filing
of
this
charge,
Charging
Party
alleges
several
incidents
to
have
occurred
which
gave
rise
to
meritorious
grievances,
requests
by
him
directed
to
CSEA :-
representatives
that
the
matters
be
grieved,
and
:Cailure and/or
refusal
by
such
representatives
to
pursue
the grievance to
arbitration
or to adequately
represent
Charging
Party
during
the
grievance
procedure.
Charging
Party describe&
several
events
which,
in
his opinion,
showed
that
CSEA
has not adequately
represented him
in
the
grievance procedure. Charging Party alleges
that
CSEA
.failed
to
notify the Chancellor's office at
CSU,
Hayward
in
wriEing
within
14 days from
the date
the union
received the
level
III
denial
of grievance
and
has refused to
go
forward
with
arbitration.
Charging
Party additionally
argues that
CSEA
is
not
vigoLously
prosecuting his grievances
concerning his
transfer
and
reprisals
beyona
the
level
III
grievance step to
arbitration.
My
investigation reveals that the Association has filed
a
gri~vance
on
behalf of the
Ch;.:rging
Party
con:;ernin~1 e'1ery
dispute with
CSU.
Additionally, the Association did consider
wbetl:.•:.!.C
to
submit Charging
Party's fir.st grievance to
arbitr&tion
and determined that
it
was
not meritorious.
The
other grievances have not been advanced to arbitration
because
Charging Party has requested that they not proceed with those
grievances.
Exhibit 1Tommie R.
Dees
August
2,
198'1
Pag~
2
Charging
Party
has
alleged
that
CSEA
violated
his section
3578
right
to
fair
representation
and
thereby
violated
section
3571.l(b)
.1
.
The
fair
representation
duty
imposed
on
the exclusive representative
extends
to contract negotiations
(Redlands Teachers
Association
{Faeth)
9/25/78)
PERB
Decision
No.
72;
SEIU,
Local
99
(Kimmett)
{l/19/79)
PERB
Decision
No.
106; Rocklin Teachers Professional
Association
(Romero)
3/26/80)
PERB
Decision
No. 124;
El Centro Elementary Teachers
Association
(Willis)
(
8/11/82)
PERB
Decision
No.
23--2";,-
contract
administration
Castro Valley
Teachers Association
(McElwain)
(12/17/80)
PERB
Decision
No.
l49;
SEIU
Local
99
{Pottorff}
(3/30/82)
PERB
Decision
No.
2q3)
and
grievance handling
(Fremont Teachers
Association
(King)
(4/21/80)
PERB
Decision
No.
125~
United
Teachers
of
Los
Angeles
(Collins)
(11/17/82)
PERB
Decision
No.
258}.
•··
~
PERB
has ruled
that
a
prima
facie
statement of
such
u
violation
requies allegations that:
(1)
the
acts
complained
of
were
undertaken
by
the
organization in
its
capacity
as
the
exclusive
representative
of
all
unit
employees;
and
(2)
the
.
representational
conduct
was
arbitrary,
discriminatory,
or in
bad
faith.
2
lsection
3578
states:
The employee
organization
recognized or
certified
as the exclusive representative
shall
represent
all
employees
in the
unit,
fairly
and
impartially..
A
breach of
this
duty
shall
be
deemed
to
have
occurred
if
the
employee
organization's
conduct
in
·
representation
is arbitrary,
discriminatory,
or in
bad
faith.
Section 3571.l(b)
states that
it
shall
be unlawful
for
an
employee
organization to:
Impose
or
threaten·to
impose
reprisals
on
cmploy2es,
to discrirnlnRte or threaten to
dlscriminate against
employe~s,
or otherwi~e
to interfere with, restrain, or coerce
employees because
of their exercise of
rights guaranteeu by
this chapter.
2pEnB
explicitly has followed decisions of the fed0.ral
courts and the National Labor Relations Board interpreting the
National Labor Relations Act duty of fair representation iFireTommie
R.
Dees
.•
August
2,
1934
Page
3
state
The
presently
not
charge,
as
set
forth,
does
<'l
pri1na
facie violation
of
HEERA
section 3571.l{b).
First,
there
is
no
allegation that
the Association's
conduct
was
arbitrary,
faith.
Second,
the
charge
indicates
discriminatory or
in
bad
that
the Association
filed
a
grievance
on
every
one
of
Mr.
Dee's
disputes
wi,th
CSU - {
See
PERB
Rule
32615.
3)
correct
lf
there
would
you
feel
that
are
facts
which
the
deficiencies
explained
above,
please
amend
the
charge
accordingly.
The amended
charge should be prepared
on
a
unfair
practice- charge
form cle2'.rly
labeled
First
standard
PERB
Amended
Charge,
contain
all
the
facts
and
allegations
you
wish
under
penalty of perjury
by
the
Charging
to
ma1>.e,
ana
be signed
number.
The
Party.
Please
be
sure to indicate the
PERB
charge
.
amended
charge
must
served
on
the
Respondent
and
the
be
original
proof of service
must
be
filed
with
PERB.
If"I
do
not
you
before
receive
an
amended
charge or withdrawal
from
August 10,
1~84,
I
shall
dismiss
your
charge.
If
you
have
any
•.
questions:on
how
to
please
call
me
at
(916}
323-8015
proceed,
'
Sinc~rely yours,
~"1
{It~
Emily~squ
Staff
Attorney
~
Cal.3dFighters
Union
v. City of Vallejo
{1974)
12
608
[116
Cal.Rptr.
507];
and
see
Kimmett,
supra,
PERE
Decision
No.~
106
at fn. 7).
3
part:
PF.RB
Rule
32615
states in pertinent
an
{a)
may
that
A
charge be
filed alleging
unfair practice or
practices
have been
committed.
The
charge
shall
be
in writing,
party
signed under penalty of perjury
by
the
or
its
agent with the declnration that tha
cl1arge
is true
and complete
to the beat of
t11e
charging party's
knowledge and
belie·f,
and contain the following information:
.
..
. . . . . . . . . . . .
..
. . . . . . . .CALIFORNIA STATE EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION 160 FRANKLIN ST., SUITE 302 OAKLAND, CA. 94607 PHONE (415) 835-1900 April 16, 1984 PEPRESENTING the people who serve the people Laverne Diggs. Labor Relations Specialist Employee Relations Division Office of the Chancellor California State University & Colleges- 400 .Golden Shore Long Beach, California 90802 Dear Ms. Diggs: The enclosed grievance, on behalf of Tommie Dees is being elevated to your third level of review. As with the other Tommie Dees grievance, this case is ongoing and all of the grievance was not returned to CSEA by the second level so CSEA is enclosing all the evidence regarding this case to you. CSEA wishes to discuss all the ramifi- cations that this case has on Mr. Dees' employ- ment with the university. Sincerely, ~)-~~ Marilyn Sardonic Labor Relations Representative cc: Tommie Dees Roger Merideth Exhibit 2 CALIFG~NIA STATE Elv\PLO"rt:ES' ASSOCIATION 160 FRAN KUN ST., SUITE 302 O/>.l(LAND, CA. fJliC07 PHONE (415) 835•1900 April 16, 1984 • PEPRl!SIENT!NG :JI• P•opll, wlto /HIN//: th,: peopl• Laverne Diggs. Labor Relations Specialist Employee Relations Division Office of the Chancellor California State University & Colleges .. 400.Golden Shore · Long Beach, California 90802 Dear Hs. Diggs: The enclosed grievance, on behalf of Tommie Dees is being elevated to your third level of review. As with the other Tommie Dees grievance, this case is ongoing and all of the grievance was not returned to CSEA by the second level so CSEA is ,.. enclosing all the evidence regarding this case · · to you. CSEA wishes to discuss all the ramifi- · cations that this case has on Hr.. Dees' employ-· ment with the university. . :: .. . ........ . - .. .. Sincerely, Marilvn Sardonis Labor-Relations Representative cc: t/!'ommie Dees Roger Merideth lk Exhibit 2 0
THE CALlFORH'IA ST/,TE UNIVERSITY GRl'EVANCE FORM UfilT 5 -:.U:HI! 7 , -------~---------~evel I Appropriate Administrator D :..evel II - President D Employee Relations DivisiOffice cf the Chancellor n,~ April 16, 1984 DATE CA}il'US _H_a_yr,_v_a_r_d __________ _ DE PAR.THE NT _G_r_o_u_n_d_s_D_e_pa_r_tm_e_n_t _ _ _ o -· . 5 BARG.A.INING um·r . ------------ APPROPRIATE ADMINISTRATOR _L_a_v_e_r_n_e_~_i_g_·g_s ___ _ ·~--- .... - ,~ ·it ■ Y1:aail~t1JIR:!!ai•-il1"1Jiblt.i:S'IWllik!B .219:1 mm PIP'TT15t'! •-W"IMiiiilll~ ·•·e - --~ §DIG ~IC:"'¥1!'!..'~?9.:!t:er.f.t.~~ -·-· CLASSIFICATION !:AHPUS TELEPHOm NUHBE Tommie Dees Groundsworker •rn of agreement alleged violated (contract provision numbe r) ?.-14, and any other section that may apply -~ailed de~cription of the ground~ of the gr~evance (include dates) Please see attached pages~ f -=ore s~ace is needed additional sheets may be attach~d.) 2 ·oposed re-:nedy: 1~ Cease and desist all reprisali~ ·.. ••·· 2. Mr. Dees be reins.tated in a safe area with back pay and benefits, i.e. · to make whole again. D : ·:_.:- l ::a;;i ·,·- Name of repr.esentativ~·- CSEA'.: 'Marilvn f iel~ Re~esenta ti-..i ... ~ .. .... . "· Na:ne and address of union California State Em-olovees' Association 160 Franklin Street, Suite 302; Oakland, Califo~nia 94607 , :. . D LEVEL I D LEVEL II D LEVEL 111 D Si5::nat:ur-e Tit: le Date· ----------------- ----------- ----
CSU Grievance Tommie Dees April 16, 198 Page Two Since Mr. Tommie Dees has filed a grievance on June 3, 1983, he has been the target of systematic and unremitting reprisals by the University for his exercising his rights guaranteed by the Agreement between the University and CSEA. The forms of these reprisals have been numerous and would be of no purpose to list each and every example at this time although CSEA is prepared to do so. CSEA cites the following as examples of these reprisals. They follow the grievance filed on June 3, 1983 (and was won) which caused Mr. Rodriguez much consterna- tion. 1 . On June 7, 1983, Tony Rodriguez was seen keeping Mr. Dees under personal observation, rather than allowing his leadworker or supervisor to do their normal work duties. This type of reprisal continued on a regular basis until Mr. Dees was forced to take sick leave. 2. On June 24, 1983, Mr. Dees had a grievance meeting regarding a physical threat made by Mr. Ruiz against Mr. Dees, and was written up by Mr. Rodriguez for being out of his area. 3 : On June 27, 1983, Mr. Dees was on his regularly sche- duled break at 1:35 p.m. Mr. Rodriguez saw him and demand- ed to know why he was out of his area. He chased Mr. Dees and threatened to write him up for insubordination and being out of his area. 4. Mr. Dees was given confusing and contradictory instruc- tions from Mr. Rodriguez after being given work instructions from his leadperson. These instructions were also unsafe at times thus placing Mr. Dees in physical danger. 5. Mr. Rodriguez ignores not only Mr. Dees' safety cont. cerns, but he also ignores the problems with clean drink- ing water and bathroom facilities for Mr. Dees. 6. Mr. Dees was transferred, as a reprisal, into an area which he considers unsafe and that he is in danger. His doctor concurs with this statement. 7. Mr. Dees received "A" time instead of sick leave as. a reprisal even though Mr. Dees called in sick in October, 1933. CSU Gi: ievar- r, Tommie Dees April 16,198 Page Two Since Mr. Tommie Dees has filed a grievance on June 3 t 1983, he has been the target of systematic and unremitting reprisals by the University for his exercising his rights guaranteed by the Agreement between the University and CSEA. The forus of these reprisals have been numerous and would be of no purpose to list each and every example at this time although CSEA is prepared to do so. CSE..A.. cites the following as examples of these reprisals. Tney follow the grievance filed on June 3, 1983 (and was won) which caused Mr. Rodriguez much consterna- tion. · · ◄ 1. On June 7, 1983, Tony Rodriguez was seen keeping l-1r • . Dees under personal observation, rather than allowing: his leadworker or supervisor to do their normal work duties. This type of reprisal continued on a regular basis until 11r. Dees was forced to take sick leave. 2. On June 24 > 1'983, Hr.. Dees had a gr:tevance meeting regarding a physical threat made by Mr. Ruiz against Mr. Dees, and was written up by Hr. Rodriguez for being ou.t of his area . .. 3~ On June 27, 1983, Ur. Dees was on his regularly sche- duled break at 1:35 p.m. Mr. Rodriguez saw him and dei:iand- ed to know why he was out of his area. He chased Mr. Dees and threatened to write him•up for insubordination and being out of· his area. · 4. l-'.ir. Dees was given confusing and contradictory· instruc- tions from Mr. Rodriguez after being given work instructions from his leadperson. These instructions were also un:;af e at times thus placing lir .. Dees in physical danger .. · 5. ?-ir. Rodriguez ignores not. only Mr. Dees I safety con~- cerns, but he also ignores the problems with clean drink- ing water and bathroom facilities for Mr. Dees. 6. !-ir. Dees was transferred, as a r2p-;:-i!jal, into an area which he considers unsafe and that he is in danger. llis doctor concurs with this statement. 7. Mr. Dees received "A" time instead of sick leave as• a reprisal even thougl:t Mr. Dees called i71 sicl~ :i_n October, - 1933.
Lou Grievance Tominie De April 16, Page Three 8. As part of the reprisal, management demands more and more medical information from Mr. Decs' physician even though the physician states that Mr. Dees is capa- ble and able and ready to work. 9. : Letter from management on November 16, 1983, was delivered to Mr. Dees informing him that he could not return to work and would be on required medical leave. This letter was delivered to Mr. Dees' home by his good friend and leadworker without their knowledge and con- sent. They were ordered to leave the University to de- liver the letter. The normal methods of sending commun- ications to employees were not used for Mr. Does. 10. On July 28, 1983, Mario Ruiz broke University policy of July 13, 1983, to go through leadperson; instead he gave direct instructions to Mr. Dees which contradicted instruct- ions from his leadperson, which was the reason for the poli-: cy; to provide consistent instructions. 11. After Mr. Dees won a grievance filed by CSEA on fail- ure to give 21 days notice of shift change, he was returned to ;his old shift for exactly 21 days, then transferred a- gain. This was to subvert the intent of the notice for change of the June 3, 1983 grievance. 12. Mr. Dees was given 1 hour call back pay. Grievance filed by CSEA on June 3, 1983 and won which gave Mr. Dees four and one-half hours call back pay. 13. .Tony Rodriguez told Margaret Dufrense he was going to circulate a petition banning Mr. Dees from all other grounds meetings because he was a disturbance. 14. Mario Ruiz told Harry Hara that "they" (management) were planning to ban Mr. Dees from all future grounds meetings. 15. On June, 1983, Joe Camacho witnessed an incident where Mario Ruiz yelled at Mr. Dees from a truck rudely and childishly "cat got your tongue" Mr. Camacho. 16. On June 7, 1983, Tony Rodriguez inspected Mr. Dees' area and said that the area had to be corrected by June 10, 1933. Since Mr. Dees was scheduled to go on vacation and there was not enough time to complete the assignment and he was given another job by his leadworker. Mr. Dees was on vacation on June 10, 1983, and on June 13, 1983, his area was reinspected while Tommie was on vacation and with- out his leadworker being present who could explain that M Dees did not have enough time to complete the assignment ! 1...::->u i.,r::i.€;vancc Torr.;.~1ic De April 16, 4 Page Three 8. As part of the reprisal, management demands i:oz:·e and more medical information from Mr. Dees' physician even though the physician states that H:i.:. nccp is c.a.pa- ble and able and ready to work. · 9 .- : -Letter from manage:me.nt on Novembc1: 16, 1983, i::as delivered to Mr. Dees informing him thHi..: he could not return to work c3:nd would be on require<l medical leave. This letter was delivered to Mr.. Dees' home by his good friend and.leadworker without their knowledge and con- sent. They were ordered to leave the University to de..;, liver the let:ter. The normal methods 0£ s~nding commun- ications to employ~es were not used for Hr. Dees. 10. On July 28, ·19f3, Mario Ruiz broke University policy of ~uly 13, 1983, to go through leadperson; instead. he gave direct instructions to Mr. Dees which contradicted. instruct- ions from his leadperson, which was the reason for the pol~-: cy; to provide consistent instructions. -· 11. After Ur' .. Dees won a grievance fj_lccl by CSEA. on fail- ure to give· 21 · days notice of shift change, he was returned to ~:hi_s old shift for exactly 21 days, then transferred a- gain. This was ·to subvert the intent of the notic:e for change of the June 3, 1983 grievance. 12. Hr. Dees was given l hour call back pay.. Grie.vance filed by CSEA on June 3, 1983 and won ·which gave Hr=. Dees f9ur and one-half hours call back pay. 13. · Tony Rodriguez told Margaret Dufrense he was going to circulate a. petition banning Mr .. Dee5 from all other grounds meetings because he was a disturbance. · 14. Mario Ruiz told Harry Hara that t'theyn (man_a.gement) were planning_to ban Mr. Dees from all future grounds meetings. 15.. On June/·,. 1983, Joe Camacho witne;:,sed an incident. where Mario Ruiz yelled at Mr. Dees from a truck mdely · and qhildishly "cat got your tongue" Mr. CamaGho. 16. On June 7, 1983, Tony Rodriguez inspected 1fr~ Dees• area and said that the ar~a had to be ~orrected by June 10, 19.33. Si:ice Mr. Dees ·wa.s scheduled to ,so 0:1 ·,'":tcation and there ·was not: enough time to complete the assignw~t and he was given another job by his leadworker. Mr. Dees was on vacation on June 10, 1983, and on June 13, 1983~ his area "h,.as reinspected while Tommie was on vacation and with- out his leadworker being present who could explain that H Dees did not nave enough time to complete the as$ignment
call Criev Tommie De April 16, Page Four and that he was given another job to do. The leadworker's opinion that the area was not that bad nor was it unsatis- factory. If the area was that bad, other employees should have been brought in to help clean it: On June 21, 1983, another memo stating that the area still was unsatisfactory even though Mr. Dees had just re- turned from vacation. From original memo of June 7, 1983, Mr. Dees only worked 4 days and he was threatened with disciplinary action while part of that time was spent at the badminton court. On June 29, 1983, Mr. Sarmiento and Mr. Dees went through Mr. Dees' area and proved that area was satisfact tory 17. On June 24, 1983, Mr. Dees receives a write-up for being out of area during a grievance hearing. Mr. Dees was coming back from previously scheduled grievance hear- ing. The meeting ended at 12:00 p.m. and was at Plant . Operation and he had to get back to his area in order to take lunch. He didn't get back to area until 12:30 be- cause he was in meeting with Steward. Gale Pemberton after grievance meeting. 18. On or about June 6, 1983, Mr. Dees submitted a cam- pus police report of the threats by his immediate super- visor, Mario Ruiz, causing much anger on the part of manage- ment and exacerbated the continuing harrassment. 19. On July 27, 1983, Tony Rodriguez chased Mr. Dees through Plant Operations inside the office while Mr. Dees was signing out to go see the doctor. Both Edith and Juanita Barnes witnessed the incident. `Juanita got the log from Mr. Rodriguez's office for Tommie to sign. Mr .. Sarmiento knew of Mr. Deas' doctor's appointment. 20. On July 16, 1983, Mr. Rodriguez gave Mr. Dees a work assignment from Mr. Ruiz, which was inconsistent with the instructions from Mr. Sarmiento and a violation of the July 13, 1983, memo from Mr. Ruiz stating that instructions should come from leadworker. The instructions should come from leadperson. 21. Leadworker Tante Sarmiento documents that favoritism was within the grounds department and that Tommie, Loren and Sam were singled out because they were not liked. CSU Cr i~\· Tommie De April 16, Page Four _) I ( (.? I and that he was given another job to c::)· The l~ad-worke1: 1 ·s opinion that the area was not that bau no~ wnB it uns3tis-factory. If the area was that bad, other e. .mployees should have been brought in to help clean it: On June 21, 1983, another me.mo stating that the area still was unsatisfactory even though Hr. Dees hc1d just re- turned from vacation. From original memo of June 7, 1.983, Mr. Dees only :worked 4 days and he was threatened with disciplina:t;"y action while part of that time was spent at the badminton court. On June 29, 1983, Mr. Sarmiento n.nd Mr. Dees went .through Mr. Dees' area and proved that area was satisfac- tory. ,, 17. On June 24, 1983, Mr. Dees receives a write-up for . being out of area during a grievance hearing. Mr. Deeswas coming back from previously scheduled grievance hear- ing·. The meeting ended at 12:00 p.m. and was at Plant.. Operation ~nd he had to get back to his area in order to take lunch. He didn't get back to area until 12:30 be- cause· he was in meeting with Ste.ward. Gale Pemberton after grievance meeting. 18. On or about June 6, 1983, Mr. Dees submitted a cam- pus police report of the threats by h~s immediate super- visor, Mario Ruiz, causing much anger on the part of manage- ment and exacerbated the continuing harrassment. 19. On July 27, 1983, Tony Rodriguez chased }lr. Dees through Plant Operations-inside the office while Mr. Dees was signing out to go see the doctor. Both Edith and Juanita Barnes witnessed the incident. · Juanita gqt thelog from Mr. Rodriguez's office for Tommie to sign. M.r •. - Sarmiento knew of Hr. Dees' doctor's appointment. ~- ' 20. On July-~16, 1983, Mr. Rodriguez gave}::::-. Dees a work assigtllllent from Mr. Ruiz, which was inconsistentwith the instructions froo Mr. Sarmiento and a violationof the July 13> 1983, meI:?o from Mr. Ruiz stating that instructions should come from leadworker. The instructionsshould co~e from leadperson. 21. Lead-worker 'i'ante San:uient:o documents that favoritisw was within the grounds department and that Tomm.ie, Lorenand Sam were singled out because they were not liked . ..
Tommie Deer April 16, Page Five 22. On October 11, 1983, Laverne Diggs from the Chan- cellors Office Labor Relations walked out of Level 3 grievance meeting while Mr. Dees was still giving evi- dence over the objection of Steward Gale Pemberton and over Mr. Dees' objection. 23. In October of 1983, Tony Rodriguez chased and in- timidated Mr. Dees while he was on break and was wit- nessed by 2 students (statements attached). The osten- sible reason for Mr. Rodriguez being in the area was that Mr. Rodriguez was looking for Sam Walton to give him a message from home, but when Mr. Walton called home, no one knew of any message. .24. On October 11, 1983, Tommie Dees had a reprisal transfer from a safe area to an unsafe area as management well knew. Transfer was effective October 18, 1983. 25 . On October 18, 1983, Tommie Dees was placed on medical leave by his doctor due to stress of new work site from October 11, 1983 transfer. Medical leave was involuntary on Mr. Dees' part and was treated as a medical problem. Employer knew that Mr. Dees was on medical leave, yet Mr. Dees was placed on "A" time which was subsequently changed to sick leave after a grievance filed by CSEA. The reason for the leave was medical ex- haustion. Mr. Rodriguez acknowledged at. the October 27, 1983, staff meeting that he had forgotten that he was told of Mr. Dees' absence; yet management went through second level before granting grievance. 26. On October 26, 1983, Mr. Dees was officially placed on "A" time which was a direct reprisal. 27 . The minutes of the ground workers' meeting on Octo- ber 17, 1983, with Tony Rodriguez, contained numerous con- tractual violations and were subsequently withdrawn due to union intervention, were given to Mr. Dees by grounds secretary and signed. After meeting with union, Mr. Rod- riguez was accused of stealing 2 copies. Tommie had one of the only copies of a policy that Mr. Rodriguez tried unsuccessfully to unilaterally implement and was forced to withdraw. The fact that Townie still has a copy made Mr. Rodriguez angry. 28. On October 29, 1983, Jim Buckley told Tommie Dees in front of 2 of Mr. Buckley's co-workers to "go to hell" because Mr. Dees allegedly called Mr. Buckley a "liar" in front of a newspaper reporter. This is typical of manage- ment's attitude toward Mr. Dees for quite some time and Tom:nie De,:.," April 16, ~4 Page Five 22. On October 11, 1983, Laverne Diggs from the Chan- cellors Office Labor Relations walked out of Level 3 grievance meeting while Mr. Dees was still giying evi- dence over the objection of Steward Gale Pemberton and over Mr. Dees' objection. 23. In October of 1983, Tony Rodriguez chased and in- timidated Hr .. Dees while he was on break and was wit- nessed by 2 students (statements attached). The osten- sible reason for Mr. Rodriguez being in the area was that Mr. Rodriguez ·was looking for Sam Wal ton to give him a message from home, but when Mr. Wal ton called home, no one knew of any message. • ·24. On October 11, 1983: Tommie Dees had a reprisal transfer from·a safe area to an unsafe area as management welt knew. Transfer -was effective October 18, 1983. 25. On October· 18, 1983, Torm:iie Dees was placed on medical leave by his doctor due to stress of new work site from October 11, 1983 transfer. Medical le~ve was· involuntary on Mr. Dees' part and was treated as. a medical problem.. E!!lployer knew that Mr. Dees was on medical leave, yet Mr. Dees "W'as placed on 1 'A" ti.me which was subsequently changed to sick leave after a grievance filed by CSE.A. ·The reason for the leave was medical ex- ' haustion. Mr. Rodriguez acknowledged at. the October 27, 1983, staff meeting that he had forgotten that he was told of Mr. Dees' absence; yet management went through second level before granting gr~evance. 26. On October 26, 1983, Mr. Dees was officially placed on "A" ti.me which was a direct reprisal. , .- . 27. The minutes of the ground workers' meeting on Octo- ber 17, 1983, with Tony Rodriguez> contained numerous con- tractual violations and were subsequently withdra-r...--n due to union intervention, were given to Mr. Dees by grounds secretary and signed. After meeting with union, Hr. Rod- riguez was accused of stealing 2 copies. Tomi::ie had one of the only copies of a .policy that Mr. Rodriguez tried_, .r:. .... ., ,, • l - d ,. du:i succes SJ.. u.1..J.y to un:u.a. ter.'.l_.1.y ll!lp 2.!!l.en •- an ,;a:; !:Orce to ,;.rit:h<l::-aw. Th2 fact _that; Toi::n:o.ie still has .:i. copy L1ad2 Hr. Rodriguez angry. 28. On October 29, 1983, Jim Buckley told Tom!!lie Dees in front of 2 of Mr. Buckley I s co-workers to "go to hell". because Mr. Dees allegedly called Hr. Buckley a 11 liar 11 in front of a newspaper reporter. This is typical .-of manage- ment's attitude toward Mr. Dees for quite some tim~ and
74 Page Six Tommie De April 16, CSU Grievance still exists. Mr. Dees asked Mr. Buckley not to be transferred to a new area. 29. On October 31, 1983, Jim Buckley denied Mr. Dees request to return to previous assignment. 30. On October 21, 1983, November 1, 1983, and Novem- ber 11, 1983, Mr. Dees was forced to provide medical information repeatedly, which all explains the same things, that Tommie Dees can work. His only limitation is that it be a reasonably secure area. 31. Laverne Diggs denied grievance after walking out of grievance hearing. 32. " Mr. Dees was off on medical leave from November 1, 1983, to November 8, 1983, because of stress and the emp- Loyer had knowledge of Mr. Dees' stressful condition and on November 10, 1983, Tony Rodriguez and Mario Ruiz pro- voked and exacerbated this stressful situation by sneak- ing up behind Tommie and forcing more stress on him. They subsequently laughed at Mr. Dees when he reacted to their knowing attempt to upset him. 33. On November 11, 1983, Tony Rodriguez wrote a memo stating that he and Mario Ruiz couldn't work with Tommie Dees. Mr. Rodriguez's statement that Tommie Dees refuses to accept any form of communication from either Mr. Rod- riguez or Mr. Ruiz is not a true statement. Mr. Rodri- guez also requested that Mr. Dees be placed on leave. 34. On November 10, 1983, Mr. Dees was again placed on medical leave by his treating physician following the provocation described above. 35. On November 16, 1983, the attached letter was de- livered to Tommie Dees taking advantage of his friend- ship with co-workers which caused even more stress for Mr . Dees. Statements regarding incident are attached. 36. Reprisal exists because Mr. Dees was placed on un- necessary leave for administrative convenience and the University is aware of the financial hardship that Mr. Deas is suffering. Mr. Deas should be placed on paid administrative leave, not medical leave for this period of time, since it is solely for administrative conven- ience. 37. On December 13, 1983, two letters from the Univer- sith were sent to Mr. Dees at the wrong address, one post- marked November 30, 1983, and the other postmarked Decem- ber 12, 1983. Each letter states that a meeting is to be CSU Gr:i.ev2T"\r(~ Tot.TJnie De , Ap:::il 16, _ 14 Page Six still exists. Hr. Dees asked Mr. Buckley not to be transferred to a new area. 29. On October 3lt 1983, Jim Buckley denied rJr. Dees 1 request to return to previous assign:nent. 30. On October 21, 1983, November 1, 1983, and Novem- ber 11, 1983, Mr. Dees was forced to provide medical information repeatedly, which all er.plains the same things, th~t Tommie Dees can work. His only limitation is that it be a reasonably secure area. 31. Laverne ·Diggs denied grievance a.f tc~r: walking out . of grie,rance hearing. - · f l u I 32. " Mr. Dees was off on medical leave from November 1, 1983, to November 8, 1983, because of stress and the emp-. loyer had knowledge of Mr. Dees' stressful condition and · on November lOt 1983, Tony Rodrieuez and Hario Ruiz pro- voked and exacerbated this stressful situation by sneak- ing up behind Tommie and forcing more stress on him. They subsequently laughed at Mr. Dees when he reacted to th~ir kno-wing at.tempt to upset him. 33. · On November 11, 1983, Tony Rodriguez -wrote a memo stating that he and Mario Ruiz couldn't work with Tommie Dees. Mr. Rodriguez's ·state!!lent that Tommie Dees refuses to accept· any form of communication from either Hr. Rod- riguez or Hr. Ruiz is not a true statement. Mr. Rodri- guez also requested that Mr. Dees be placed on leave. ·34_ On Hovembe:t 10, 1983, Mr. Dees was again placed on medical leave by his treatinB phys~cian following the provocation described above. 35. On November 16, 1983, the attached letter was de- livered to Tommie Dees taking advantage of his friend- ship with co-workers which ca-u.sed even more stress £orMr. Dees. Statements regarding incident are attached. 36. Reprisal exists because Hr. Dees was placed on un- necessary leave for administrative convenience and the Unive1:sity ;s ~ware of the fin:1ncial ha::::-~ship th2.t t.fr. De:.-">- ., <· su&.-erino i.f,-- Do.:," ,.....,0117 ~ be> ""'l "C;~.J ()''" Da" .J -r...::> •w •~ 1. 0 • l-.- ..... _ .. .:::i, .:,._. _._., -P--"" -t...• .,, . -Cl aC1'.linistrative leave, not medical leave for this period of time, since it is solely for administrative conven- ience. .- 37. On December 13, 1983, two letters from the Univer- · sith were sent to Mr. Dees af the wrone address, s:me post- marked November 30, 1983, and the other postmarked Decem~ ·ber 12, 1983. Each letter states that a meeting is to be
CSU Grievance Tommie De April 16, 34 Page Seven held at different times, thus confusing the matter even more. When Mr. Dees got the letters, attorney Roger Meredith called Mr. Farley to get exact date and time of meetings. 38. On December 22, 1983, University management refused to meet with Tommie Dees and his union representative Marilyn Sardonic regarding the grievances as they stipu- lated to in the letter. At that time, Mr. Lindemon agreed to respond in writing the reason for his refusal to meet with the union regarding these grievances and to respond to Mr. Dees' letter of December 8, 1983, asking for a waiver of time limits. Mr. Lindemon has failed to respond to date. CSU " Griev,,.,...ce Torra:nie De. ,.) 4 April 16, . Page Seven held ut different times, thus confusing the matter even more. When Hr. Dees got the letters, ,'.tttorncy Rog~r Meredith called Mr. Farley to get exact date and time of meetings. ·· 38. On December 22, 1983, University management refused to meet with Tommie Dees and his union representative Marilyn Sardonis regarding the grievances as they stipu- lated to in the 1etter. At that time, Hr. Lindemon agreedto respond in •writing the reason for his refusal to meet with the union regarding these grievan~es ~nd to respond to Mr. Dees' letter of December 8, 1983, asking for a waiver of time limits. Hr. Lindemon ha!.: failed t:o respond to date . .,
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.