Riverside Unified School District (PERB 0510E)

1 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 OP CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD

TONY PETRICH, ; )

Charging Party, ) Case No. LA-CE-2112
Vv. ! PERB Decision No. 510
RIVERSIDE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ; June 21, 1985
Respondent.
)
Appearance; Tony Petrich, on his own behalf.

Before Hesse, Chairperson; Jaeger, Morgenstern, Burt and Porter,
Members.

DECISION

This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(Board) on appeal by the Charging Party of the Board agent's
partial dismissal, attached hereto, of his charge that the
Riverside Unified School District violated section 3543.5(a),
(b), (c) and (d) of the Educational Employment Relations Act
(Government Code section 3540 et seq.)

We have reviewed the Board agent's partial dismissal and,

finding it free from prejudicial error, adopt it as the

Decision of the Board itself.

‘On April 2, 1985, the Board's regional attorney issued a
complaint in the instant case, finding that certain allegations
of the charge established a prima facie violation of Government
Code section 3543.5(a) and (b).

ORDER
Charging Party's appeal of the partial dismissal is hereby

DENIED.

By the BOARD

$TATE Of CALIFORNIA 	GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS BOARD
SACRAMENTO REGIONAL OFFICE
1031 18TH STREET. SUITE 102
SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 	95814
(916) 322-3198
April 2. 	1985
Tony Petrich
Re: 	Tony Petrich v. 	Riverside Unified School District
Unfair Practice Charge No. 	LA-CE-2112
Dear Mr. 	Petrich:
The 	above-referenced 	charge 	alleges 	that 	the Riverside Unified
School District 	(District) 	has discriminated against
Mr. 	Petrich by the 	following act6:
1. 	placed a 	letter 	in his 	personnel 	file 	on December 7 which
denies 	a 	request 	for 	personal 	necessity 	leave 	and
disciplines 	him 	for 	being 	absent without 	approval:
2. 	placed a 	copy of 	a 	letter 	from the exclusive
representative. 	California School Employees Association.
Riverside Chapter No. 	506 	(Association), 	in his personnel
file on December 	10;
3. 	placed 	a 	letter 	from District Principal 	Sund 	in his
personnel 	file 	on December 	10 regarding work 	keys;
4. 	placed 	a 	letter 	from District Principal 	Sund 	in his
personnel 	file 	on December 	11 	regarding his 	absence 	from
work:
5. 	reassigned Mr. 	Petrich on December 	14 	to work at North High
School;
6. 	placed 	a 	letter 	from District Principal 	Sund 	in his
personnel 	file 	on December 	19 	regarding his 	obtaining keys
prior 	to working.

Mr. 	Petrich
April 	2. 	1985
This 	conduct 	is 	alleged 	to 	violate 	section 	3543.5(a) 	of 	the
Educational 	Employment 	Relations Act 	(EERA).
The 	above-referenced 	charge 	also 	alleges 	that 	the 	District
committed 	the 	following 	unilateral 	changes:
A. 	denied Mr. 	Petrich 	due 	process 	under 	the 	collective
bargaining 	agreement 	by 	docking 	his 	pay 	prior 	to 	providing
him with an 	opportunity 	to 	request 	a 	hearing;
B. 	changed 	the 	time Mr. 	Petrich was 	to 	report 	to work 	from
7:00 	a.m. 	to 	6:30 	a.m. 	on December 	14;
C. 	locked Mr. 	Petrich 	out 	of 	his 	job on December 	19.
This 	conduct 	is 	alleged 	to violate 	section 	3543.5(a). 	(b) 	and
(c) 	of 	the EERA.
I 	indicated 	to you 	in my 	letter 	dated March 21. 1985. 	that
certain 	allegations 	contained 	in 	the 	above-referenced 	charge
did 	not 	state 	a 	prima 	facie 	case, 	and 	that 	unless 	you 	amended
these 	allegations 	to 	state 	a 	prima 	facie 	case, 	or 	withdrew them
prior 	to April 	1. 	1985. 	they would 	be dismissed. 	More
specifically. 	I 	informed you 	that 	if 	there were 	any 	factual
inaccuracies 	or 	additional 	facts 	which would 	correct 	the
deficiencies 	explained 	in 	that 	letter, 	you 	should 	amend 	the
charge 	accordingly.
I 	have 	not 	received 	either 	a 	request 	for withdrawal 	or 	an
amended 	charge 	and 	am 	therefore 	dismissing 	those 	allegations
which 	fail 	to 	state 	a 	prima 	facie 	case 	based 	on 	the 	facts 	and
reasons 	contained 	in 	my March 	21 	letter 	which 	is 	attached 	as
Exhibit 	1.
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 	it6elf.
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 April
22, 	1985. 	or 	sent 	by 	telegraph 	or 	certified 	United 	States 	mail
Page 	2

Mr. Petrich
April 2. 	1985
Page 3
postmarked not 	later than April 22. 	1985 	(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)).
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
fir6t-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
By
Robert 	Thompson 	,
Regional Attorney

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA 	GEORGE 	DEUKMEJIAN, 	Governor
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
SACRAMENTO REGIONAL OFFICE
1031 18TH STREET. SUITE 102
SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 	95814
(916) 322-3198
March 21. 	1985
Tony 	Petrich
Re: 	Tony Petrich v. 	Riverside Unified School District
Unfair 	Practice Charge No. 	LA-CE-2112
Dear Mr. 	Petrich:
The 	above-referenced 	charge 	alleges 	that 	the 	Riverside 	Unified
School District 	(District) 	has 	discriminated against
Mr. 	Petrich by the following acts:
1. 	placed 	a 	letter 	in his 	personnel 	file on December 	7 which
denies 	a 	request 	for 	personal 	necessity 	leave and
disciplines 	him for 	being 	absent 	without 	approval;
2. 	placed 	a 	copy of 	a 	letter 	from the 	exclusive
representative. 	California 	School Employees Association.
Riverside Chapter No. 	506 	(Association), 	in his personnel
file on December 	10;
3. 	placed a 	letter 	from District Principal 	Sund 	in his
personnel 	file 	on December 	10 	regarding work 	keys;
4. 	placed 	a 	letter 	from District Principal 	Sund 	in his
personnel 	file 	on December 	11 	regarding 	his 	absence 	from
work;
5. 	reassigned Mr. 	Petrich on December 	14 	to work at North High
School;
6. 	placed 	a 	letter 	from District 	Principal 	Sund 	in his
personnel 	file 	on December 	19 	regarding 	his 	obtaining 	keys
prior 	to working.
EXHIBIT I
e

MR. Petrich
March 21, 1985
Page 2
This 	conduct 	is alleged to violate 	section 3543.5(a) 	of 	the
Educational Employment Relations Act 	(EERA).
The 	above-referenced 	charge 	also 	alleges 	that 	the District
committed 	the 	following unilateral 	changes:
A. 	denied Mr. 	Petrich due process under 	the 	collective
bargaining 	agreement by docking 	his 	pay 	prior 	to 	providing
him with an opportunity 	to 	request 	a 	hearing;
B. 	changed the tine Mr. 	Petrich was 	to report to work from
7:00 a.m. 	to 	6:30 a.m. 	on December 	14;
C. 	locked Mr. 	Petrich out of 	his 	job on December 	19.
This conduct is alleged to violate section 3543.5(a). 	(b) 	and
(c) of the EERA.
My investigation revealed the following facts. 	Mr. 	Petrich has
had 	a 	long history of 	involvement 	in personnel 	issues with the
District. 	In 1982 	he filed five grievances 	pursuant 	to 	the
collective 	bargaining agreement 	between the District 	and 	the
Association. 	He 	received one 	reprimand 	in 1983 	and 	four 	more
in 1984. 	He 	filed grievances against 	the District 	on
September 	24 and November 13. 	1984 as well 	as an unfair
practice charge 	(LA-CE-2097) 	on November 	27.
The 	1982-85 	collective 	bargaining agreement 	between the
District 	and 	the Association reads 	in pertinent 	part:
4.3 	District Obligations:
During the term of 	this agreement 	or 	any
extension thereof, 	the District agrees 	that
it will 	not 	lock out 	its employees.
Section 13.5.2 	personal 	necessity shall
include any of 	the following:
(7) 	personal business 	of 	the employee which
is serious in nature, 	including
circumstances 	the 	employee 	cannot 	reasonably
disregard, 	and requires 	the attention of 	the
employee 	during assigned work hours. 	Except
for 	an emergency situation, 	a 	request for
such leave must, 	when feasible, 	be 	submitted
• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	•

Mr. Petrich
March 21. 	1985
Page 3
three 	(3) workdays 	in advance of 	the
requested 	leave 	date 	and 	shall 	be 	limited 	to
no more than two 	(2) 	of 	the 	total 	leave days
available 	for 	personal 	necessity. 	Except
when only one 	(1) 	employee makes such a
request, 	no more than five 	(5) 	percent of
the 	employees 	at a worksite may use 	personal
necessity 	leave 	in this manner 	on 	the same
day. 	Such leave may not be used 	the 	first
or 	last five 	(5) days of each semester, 	or
before or after 	a scheduled 	holiday, 	unless
approved 	by the Personnel 	Office.
14.5 	nothing 	in this 	section shall 	prohibit
the Personnel 	Office 	from making 	reasonable
temporary 	reassignments 	when 	the 	employee's
salary and 	benefits 	are 	not 	affected.
Section 	19.0
The District may 	impose 	discipline 	or
dismissal 	on permanent 	employees 	when the
work performance 	or 	behavior 	of 	the 	employee
is 	such that 	prior 	verbal 	and/or written
warnings 	by the 	immediate 	supervisor 	have
failed 	to 	result 	in a 	remediation of 	the
unsatisfactory performance 	or 	behavior. 	The
District may suspend with 	pay. 	suspend
without pay. 	reduce employee's hours, 	dock
pay for 	absence without authority, 	or
discipline 	employees 	in other 	appropriate
manners 	to correct or 	remediate 	any
employee's 	unsatisfactory 	performance 	or
behavior.
Section 19.1
Right 	to Request Hearing:
A permanent 	employee 	has 	the 	right 	to
request 	an 	informal 	hearing with 	the
immediate 	supervisor 	prior 	to 	disciplinary
action and/or dismissal. 	If 	requested, 	such
a 	hearing will 	be 	held.
Based on the facts described above. 	Allegations 1. 	2. 	5. 	A. 	B.
and 	C contained 	in this 	charge 	as 	described 	above 	do 	not 	state
a 	prima 	facie violation of 	the EERA for 	the 	reasons which
follow.

Mr. 	Petrich
March 21. 	1985
Page 4
To establish a violation of 	section 3543.5(a). 	a charging party
Bust 	show that 	(1) 	an employee 	has 	exercised 	rights under 	the
EERA. 	(2) 	the employer 	had 	knowledge 	of 	the exercise of 	those
rights, 	and 	(3) 	the employer 	imposed 	or 	threatened to 	impose
reprisals, 	discriminated or 	threatened to discriminate, 	or
otherwise 	interfered with, 	restrained 	or 	coerced 	the 	employee
because of the exercise of 	those rights. 	Novato Unified School
District 	(4/30/82) 	PERB Decision No. 	210; 	Carlsbad Unified
School District 	(1/30/79) PERB Decision No. 	89.
Allegation number 	1 of 	this 	charge 	does 	not 	allege any 	facts
indicating 	that 	the District 	acted 	against you 	because 	of your
filing of grievances, 	unfair practice charges, 	or other
exercise 	of 	employee 	rights. 	To 	demonstrate 	the 	employer's
unlawful motive, 	charging party must 	show more 	than an exercise
of 	EERA protected 	rights. 	The 	timing 	of 	the 	employer's 	conduct
in relation to the protected 	activity 	is 	an 	important 	factor,
but 	is not. 	without more, 	sufficient 	to demonstrate a violation
of 	the EERA. 	Moreland Elementary 	School 	District 	(7/27/82)
PERB Decision No. 	227. 	Facts establishing one or more of the
following additional 	factors 	must 	also 	be present: 	(1) 	the
employer's disparate treatment of 	other employees. 	(2) 	the
employer's 	departure 	from 	established 	procedures 	and 	standards
when dealing with the alleged discriminatee. 	(3) 	the employer's
inconsistent or 	contradictory 	justifications 	for 	it6 	actions.
(4) 	the 	employer'6 cursory 	investigation of 	the alleged
discriminatees misconduct. 	(5) 	the employer's failure to offer
the alleged discriminatee 	justification at 	the 	time 	it 	took
action or 	the offering of 	exaggerated, 	vague, 	or ambiguous
reasons, 	or 	(6) any other 	facts which might demonstrate the
employer's 	lawful motive. 	Novato Unified 	School 	District.
supra: 	North Sacramento School District 	(12/20/82) 	PERB
Decision No. 264.
Although the December 	7th denial 	of 	personal 	necessity 	leave
resulted from Mr. 	Petrich taking a 	day off 	to file an unfair
practice charge, 	charging party has 	failed 	to establish a 	nexus
between protected 	activity 	and 	the 	employer's 	action. 	There 	is
a 	protected 	right 	to 	file 	an unfair 	practice 	charge, 	however,
this 	does 	not mean that an employee 	has 	the 	right 	to
unilaterally decide 	to miss work 	in order 	to 	file 	such a
charge. 	In addition, 	charging 	party has 	not 	offered 	any facts
which 	show that 	the District 	denied 	the 	personal 	necessity
leave 	because of any previous 	exercise 	of 	protected 	rights.
Absent 	factual 	allegations 	which 	demonstrate 	that 	the 	District
took 	its action because of Mr. 	Petrich's 	protected 	conduct,
allegation one will 	be dismissed.

Mr. Petrich
March 21. 	1985
Page 5
The allegations 	in paragraph 	two 	and 	five will 	be 	dismissed
because 	charging 	party has 	failed 	to 	6how that 	the 	allegations
reflect 	adverse 	actions. 	The 	placing of 	an Association 	letter
to the District concerning Mr. 	Petrich in Mr. 	Petrich's 	file
does 	not 	adversely 	affect 	his 	employment 	with 	the 	District.
The 	letter 	stated 	the Association's 	concern 	over 	recent
District actions against Mr. 	Petrich. 	These actions had been
previously documented 	in District 	letters 	dated 	November 	7 	and
14 	to Mr. 	Petrich, 	copies of which had 	already been placed 	in
his personnel 	file. 	The placement of 	this 	letter 	in the file
has the 	same 	effect 	on Mr. 	Petrich as does 	the placement of his
rebuttal 	letters 	in the 	same 	file.
With respect 	to 	the 	job reassignment, 	charging 	party has 	not
demonstrated 	how this was 	adverse to his 	employment. 	The work
hours, 	customary duties 	and 	commuting distance 	for 	the 	new 	job
are essentially 	identical 	to the 	old. 	Thus 	this 	allegation of
reprisal must 	be 	dismissed.
In determining whether 	a 	party has 	violated 	section 	3543.5(c)
of EERA, 	the PERB utilizes 	either the 	"per 	se" 	or 	the 	"totality
of 	the conduct" 	test, 	depending on the specific 	conduct
involved and 	the 	effect 	of 	such conduct 	on the 	negotiating
process. 	Stockton Unified 	School District 	(11/2/80) 	PERB
Decision No. 	143. 	Unilateral 	changes are considered 	"per se"
violations 	if 	certain criteria 	are met. 	Those 	criteria 	are:
(1) 	the employer 	has 	implemented 	a 	change 	in policy 	concerning
a matter within the scope of 	representation. 	(2) 	the 	change is
implemented 	prior 	to 	the 	employer 	notifying 	the 	exclusive
representative 	and 	giving 	it 	an 	opportunity 	to 	request
negotiations. 	Walnut Valley Unified School 	District 	(3/30/81)
PERB Decision No. 	160. 	Grant Joint Union High School District
(2/26/82) PERB Decision No. 	196.
With respect 	to 	allegation A. 	that 	the District 	unilaterally
denied Mr. 	Petrich due 	process under 	the 	collective 	bargaining
agreement, 	the 	facts 	indicate that Mr. 	Petrich was 	given an
opportunity 	to 	request 	a 	hearing prior 	to 	the 	docking. 	More
specifically, 	the December 	7. 	1984 	letter 	from Assistant
Superintendent 	Tucker 	to Mr. 	Petrich 	(attached 	as 	an 	exhibit 	to
the unfair practice charge) 	states:
Given the 	evidence you have provided. 	I 	must
conclude 	that 	you 	were 	absent without 	leave
for 	the 	second 	time 	in the month of
November. 	Your 	pay for December will 	be
reduced 	by one 	day's 	salary, 	unless you 	can

Mr. Petrich
March 21. 	1985
Page 6
-
provide 	evidence that 	the 	reason for 	your
absence 	and your 	late 	request 	for 	leave 	on
November 	27. 	1984 were within the provisions
of 	13.5.2 	(7) 	of the RUSD-CSEA Agreement.
(enpha6i6 	added.)
By 	this 	letter Mr. 	Tucker provided Mr. 	Petrich with an
opportunity 	to 	provide 	evidence 	and/or 	request 	a 	hearing 	prior
to 	the actual docking of pay. 	ThU6. 	no unilateral modification
of 	section 	19.1 	of 	the 	collective 	bargaining agreement 	has 	been
demonstrated.
With respect 	to 	allegation B. 	the December 	14 	reassignment,
charging party has 	failed 	to 	show any change 	took place.
Mr. 	Petrich was reassigned 	to a 	new school 	in compliance with
the 	requirements 	of 	section 14.5 	of 	the 	collective bargaining
agreement. 	Although not specified 	in Mr. 	Tucker's
correspondence, 	charging party argues 	that 	the District 	ordered
his workday to 	begin at 	6:30 as 	opposed 	to his normal 	starting
time of 	7:00 a.m. 	However, 	the 	6:30 a.m. 	starting time was
rescinded 	on the 	first 	day of 	his 	reassignment 	and wa6 	never
reinstituted. 	These facts are. 	without more, inadequate to
support 	a 	finding 	that 	the District made 	a 	policy 	change.
Thus, 	this allegation must be dismissed.
Finally, 	the charge alleges 	in allegation C that 	the District
attempted to 	lock out Mr. 	Petrich. 	This allegation 	is 	based 	on
a 	December 	19 	incident 	in which Charging Party alleges 	that
Mr. 	Petrich was 	not 	given his work 	keys 	for 	approximately 	one
hour at 	the beginning of the day. 	There are no 	facts 	presented
by 	the 	charging 	party which 	indicate 	that 	this 	incident 	was
anything more 	than a misunderstanding 	between Mr. 	Petrich and
his 	immediate 	supervisor. 	There 	are 	no 	facts which 	indicate
that Mr. 	Petrich was 	not paid 	for 	this 	hour 	or 	the District was
attempting to make 	a 	policy change 	or 	modify 	its 	contractual
obligations under 	section 14.4.3. 	Therefore, 	this allegation
must 	be 	dismissed.
For 	these 	reasons, 	the 	allegations 	that 	described 	above 	as 	1.
2. 	5. 	A. 	B. 	and C contained in charge number LA-CE-2112. 	as
presently written, 	does not state a prima 	facie case. 	If you
feel 	that 	there 	are 	any factual 	inaccuracies 	in 	this 	letter 	or
any additional 	facts which would 	correct 	the 	deficiencies
explained 	above, 	please amend 	the 	charge accordingly. 	The
amended 	charge 	should 	be 	prepared 	on a 	standard 	PERB unfair
practice 	charge 	form 	clearly 	labeled 	First 	Amended 	Charge,
contain all 	the 	facts 	and 	allegations you wish to make, 	and 	be

Mr. 	Petrich
March 21. 	1985
Page 7
signed under 	penalty 	of 	perjury 	by 	the 	charging party. 	The
amended 	charge must 	be 	served 	on 	the 	respondent 	and 	the
original 	proof of 	service must 	be 	filed with PERB. 	If 	I 	do not
receive 	an amended 	charge 	or 	withdrawal 	from you 	before
April 	1. 	1985. 	I 	shall 	dismiss 	the above-described allegation
from your 	charge. 	If you 	have any questions 	on how to 	proceed,
please call me at 	(916) 	322-3198.
Sincerely your6.
Robert 	Thompson
Regional Attorney

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Headquarters Office
1031 18th Street, 	Suite 101
Sacramento, California 95814
(916) 	323-2531
April 2, 	1985
Re: TONY PETRICH v. 	RIVERSIDE USD, 	LA-CE-2112
Dear Parties:
The Office of 	the General 	Counsel has 	issued a 	complaint 	in 	the
above-entitled matter. 	The 	case 	is 	now 	assigned 	to 	the
Division 	of 	Administrative 	Law.
The 	Respondent 	is 	now 	required 	to 	file 	an ANSWER 	(original 	and
two 	copies pursuant 	to California 	Administrative Code,
part III, 	title 8, 	section 32605) 	within 20 calendar days 	from
date of 	service of 	this 	letter. 	The 	required 	contents 	of 	the
ANSWER are described 	in 	section 	32644. 	If 	you have not 	filed 	a
notice of 	appearance 	form, 	one 	should be 	completed 	and 	returned
with your ANSWER. 	Service 	on all 	parties 	to 	the 	proceeding 	is
required, 	pursuant 	to section 32140.
An informal conference will be 	scheduled. 	If no 	settlement 	is reached
at 	the 	informal 	conference, 	a 	formal hearing 	will 	be 	scheduled
by 	the 	PERB. 	Parties 	should be prepared 	at 	the 	conference 	to
submit at 	least 	three 	sets 	of proposed 	dates 	for 	formal
hearing. 	The dates 	must 	fall 	within the 	60-day period
immediately 	following 	the 	informal 	conference.
Any 	communication 	to 	the 	Board 	concerning 	this 	matter 	shall 	be
directed 	to 	the 	attention 	of 	the 	undersigned 	administrative 	law
judge at 	the 	letterhead address. 	Please 	refer 	to 	the case
number 	noted 	above.
Sincerely yours.
BARBARA MILLER
Administrative 	Law 	Judge
Attachments
5465b 	PERB 	65 	(12/83)
,•1-•IL -• ..............-
:;_,3--:::-r.".-.-'.<=
mm mi:r:mt -

.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS 	BOARD
Tony 	Petrich
Charging 	Party,
v.
Riverside 	Unified School District
Respondent.
Case No. 	LA-CE-2112
COMPLAINT 	(Unfair 	- EERA)
)
)
)
)
)
)
It having 	been charged by Tony 	Petrich 	that Riverside
Unified School District has engaged 	in certain unfair 	practices
in violation of California Government Code 	section 3543.5, 	the
General Counsel of 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(PERB)
on behalf of 	the 	PERB, 	pursuant to California Government Code
sections 3541.3(h) 	and 	(i) 	and California Administrative Code,
title 8, part III, 	sections 32620(b)(6) 	and 32640, 	issues this
COMPLAINT and alleges:
1. 	The Respondent 	is a 	Public School Employer 	within the
meaning of Government Code section 3540.l(k).
2. 	The Charging 	Party 	is an employee 	organization within
the meaning of Government Code section 3540.l(d).
3. 	Tony 	Petrich 	is an employee within the meaning 	of
Government Code section 3540.l(j).
4. 	Tony 	Petrich 	exercised 	rights guaranteed 	by 	the
Educational Employment Relations Act 	(EERA) 	by 	filing
grievances against 	the Respondent on or 	about September 	24 and
November 	13, 	1984 and filing an unfair practice charge against
the Respondent on November 27, 	1984.
)
)
)
.,·@·; 	.·•
." ..

5. 	On or about December 	10, 	11 and 19, i 	4, 	Respondent,
acting 	through 	its agent Principal 	Mary Ann Sund, 	took 	adverse
action 	against Mr. 	Petrich by placing disciplinary 	letters in
Mr. Petrich's personnel file.
6. 	Respondent 	took 	the actions 	described 	in paragraph 5
above because 	of 	the employee's activities 	described 	in
#
paragraph 	4 	above, 	and thus violated Government Code
section 3543.5(a).
7. 	This 	conduct also constitutes 	a derivative violation
of Government Code section 3543.5(b).
Any 	amendment 	to 	the 	charge 	shall 	be processed pursuant 	to
California Administrative Code, 	title 8, part III, 	sections
32647 and 32648.
DATED: April 2, 	1985 DENNIS M. 	SULLIVAN
General Counsel
By
Robert Thompson
Regional 	Attorney
(4/83)