Riverside Unified School District (PERB 0562E)

STATE 	OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
TONY PETRICH,
Charging 	Party,
v.
RIVERSIDE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
) 	Case No. 	LA-CE-2188
PERB 	Decision No. 	562
January 24, 	1986
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearance: 	Tony Petrich, 	on his own behalf.
Before Jaeger, 	Burt and Porter, 	Members.
DECISION
JAEGER, 	Member: 	This 	case 	is before 	the Public 	Employment
Relations 	Board 	(Board) 	on appeal by Tony Petrich of 	the
partial dismissal 	of 	an 	unfair 	practice 	charge 	filed by
Mr. 	Petrich against 	the 	Riverside Unified 	School 	District.
Mr. 	Petrich's 	charge, 	which included four amendments, 	contained
numerous 	allegations 	of 	unlawful 	conduct 	on 	the part 	of 	the
District. 	As 	set 	forth 	in 	the attached 	letter of partial
dismissal 	and 	its 	attachments, 	the 	Board agent who reviewed 	the
charge pursuant 	to 	Regulation 	32620l 	identified 	and 	numbered
twenty-one 	independent 	allegations 	of 	unlawful 	conduct. 	Upon
her 	review of 	these 	allegations, 	the 	Board agent 	found 	eight
which 	stated prima 	facie 	cases 	and 	thus 	warranted 	issuance 	of 	a
complaint. 	The 	remaining 	allegations 	she dismissed.
PERB's 	Regulations 	are 	codified 	at 	California
Administrative Code, 	title 8, 	section 31001 et seq.
)

On appeal, 	Mr. 	Petrich argues 	that 	the Board agent 	failed
to 	review or 	treat 	in any way one of 	the 	allegations 	of
unlawful 	District 	conduct 	which he made 	in his 	charge. 	He
further 	argues 	that 	the 	Board agent 	erred 	in dismissing
allegation number 	21, 	which she did without providing
explanatory 	rationale.
While 	it 	is 	true 	that 	the Board agent's 	letter 	of partial
dismissal 	fails 	to acknowledge one of Mr. 	Petrich's 	allegations
and 	fails 	to offer 	a 	rationale 	for 	the dismissal 	of 	allegation
number 	21, 	we 	find 	that 	these matters 	are properly dismissed.
In his original 	charge, 	Mr. 	Petrich alleges 	that on
March 4, 	1985, 	at about 	12:40 p.m., 	he attempted to enter 	the
offices 	of 	the 	District's 	personnel 	department 	in order 	to call
on Assistant 	Superintendent 	Frank Tucker, 	whose office 	is
located within, 	but 	was 	unable 	to do so because he 	found 	the
doors 	of 	the personnel department 	locked. 	The 	charge 	further
alleges 	that 	Article 	IV of 	the 	collective bargaining agreement
covering Mr. 	Petrich's bargaining unit provides 	that 	the
District 	"will not 	lock out 	its 	employees." 	Mr. 	Petrich
alleges 	that by 	locking 	the 	doors 	of 	the personnel 	office
during the lunch hour of March 4, 	1985, 	the District violated
the 	terms 	of 	Article 	IV and 	thus 	committed an unlawful
unilateral 	change 	in working 	conditions.
From the 	contextual 	tenor 	of 	the charge as 	a whole, 	we 	take
it 	that Mr. 	Petrich does 	not make his allegation in jest. 	In
any event, 	we note that the 	term 	"lock out" has 	a very
well-established meaning 	in 	the 	labor 	relations 	field. 	We 	find
22

it 	clear, 	from the 	surrounding context of Article 	IV, 	that 	the
term was 	certainly 	used 	to denote 	an 	employer practice 	of
closing 	its 	operations 	during a 	labor 	dispute 	to prevent 	its
workforce 	from working. 	The 	incident 	described by Mr. 	Petrich
cannot 	reasonably be 	found 	to have 	amounted 	to a 	"lockout" 	as
above 	defined.
Allegation number 	21 	is 	accurately summarized 	in 	the 	Board
agent's 	warning 	letter. 	The 	gist 	of 	the allegation seems 	to be
that, 	by issuing a highly critical 	evaluation, 	the District was
engaging 	in an unlawful 	reprisal 	against Mr. 	Petrich and 	that,
by attaching 	to 	the 	evaluation 	a 	letter 	of 	complaint 	authored
by one of Mr. 	Petrich's 	fellow employees, 	the District engaged
in a 	unilateral 	change of working conditions. 	We 	find 	that
nothing 	in 	the 	charge 	reasonably suggests 	a 	causal 	link between
protected 	activity 	engaged 	in by Mr. 	Petrich 	and 	the 	issuance
of 	the 	critical 	evaluation. 	We 	further 	find 	that 	the 	charge
fails 	to allege 	facts 	which, 	if proved, 	would show that 	the
District 	unilaterally 	changed 	its 	policy on 	attachments 	to
classified 	employee 	evaluations.
ORDER
With the exception of allegations 1, 	8, 	9, 	10, 	12, 	16, 	17
and 	18 	as 	identified by the 	Board 	agent 	and as 	to which a
complaint has 	issued, 	the allegations 	set 	forth 	in Charge No.
LA-CE-2188 	are 	DISMISSED.
Members 	Burt 	and 	Porter 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
33

STATE Or CALIFORNIA 	GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
LOS ANGELES REGIONAL OFFICE
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 	90010
(213) 736-3127
August 27, 1985
Tony Petrich
RE: 	LA-CE-2188, Tony Petrich v.
Riverside Unified 	School District
PARTIAL 	DISMISSAL 	OF 	UNFAIR PRACTICE CHARGE
Dear Mr. Petrich:
The 	above-referenced charge 	filed on May 22, 	1985 	and 	four
amended 	charges 	filed 	thereafter 	allege 	that 	the Riverside
Unified School District discriminated against Mr. 	Petrich 	and
acted 	unilaterally 	in violation of Government 	Code 	section
3543.5(a), 	(b), and 	(c) 	of the Educational Employment Relations
Act 	(EERA) 	as 	specified 	in 	the attached 	letter 	dated August 	16,
1985.
I 	indicated to you 	in 	the August 16, 	1985 	letter 	that certain
allegations contained 	in 	the charge did not 	state a prima 	facie
case. 	You were 	advised 	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. 	You were 	further 	advised 	that unless you
amended 	these 	allegations 	to state a prima facie case, 	or
withdrew them prior 	to August 26, 	1985, 	they would be dismissed,
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 based on the 	facts and
reasons contained 	in my August 16, 	1985 	letter.
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.

August 27, 	1985
LA-CE-2188
Page 	2
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 	16, 	1985,
or 	sent 	by 	telegraph 	or 	certified 	United 	States 	mail postmarked
not 	later 	than September 	16, 	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, 	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 	each 	copy 	of 	a document 	served 	upon a
party 	or 	filed 	with 	the Board 	itself. 	(See 	section 	32140 	for
the 	required 	contents 	and 	a 	sample 	form.) 	The 	documents 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 	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).

August 27, 	1985
LA-CE-2188
Page 	3
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 Sullivan
General Counsel
Barbara T. 	Stuart
Regional Attorney
cc: 	Charles Field, Esq.
Attachment
BTS:djm

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	GEORGE 	DEUKMEJIAN. Governor
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
LOS ANGELES REGIONAL OFFICE
3470 WILSHIRE BLVD.. SUITE 1301
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 	90010
(213) 734-3127
August 16, 1985
Tony 	Petrich
Re: 	LA-CE-2188, Tony Petrich v. Riverside Unified
School District
Dear Mr. Petrich:
The above-referenced charge 	filed on May 22, 	1985 	and 	four 	amended
charges 	filed 	thereafter 	allege 	that 	the Riverside 	Unified 	School
District discriminated 	against Mr. Petrich 	and acted 	unilaterally 	in
violation of Government Code section 3543.5(a), 	(b) , 	and 	(c) 	of the
Educational Employment Relations Act 	(EERA).
The charge 	filed on May 22, 	1985 alleges:
1. 	A March 4, 	1985 memorandum to Mr.
Petrich 	from District Superintendent 	Frank
C. 	Tucker memorialized an 	incident on 	the
same date whereby Mr. 	Petrich entered Mr.
Tucker's 	office when 	neither he nor his
secretary were present. 	The memorandum
directed Mr. 	Petrich not to enter
Mr. 	Tucker's office unless he was present.
See paragraphs 6 	through 9 	and exhibits 1
through 4 of the charge.
2. 	Mr. Tucker 	failed 	to hold a level II
conference 	for a February 7, 	1985 grievance
filed by Mr. 	Petrich 	in violation of 	the
District's obligation 	set 	forth 	in 	section
18.2.2 of 	the 	1982-85 	agreement between the
District and Mr. 	Petrich's exclusive
representative. 	See paragraphs 6, 	7 	and 10
and exhibits 1 and 5 of 	the charge.
3. 	On March 8, 	1985, 	Mr. Petrich filed a
grievance 	regarding Mr. 	Tucker's March 4,
1985 memorandum mentioned 	in paragraph 	1
above. 	In violation of 	subsection 	18.2.1 of

August 16, 	1985
LA-CE-2188
Page 	2
the 	negotiated contract, 	North High School
Plant Supervisor 	Hodnett advised Mr. 	Petrich
that 	he would not hold a 	level I
conference. 	Instead, 	the grievance was
submitted 	to North High 	School Principal
Douglas Wolf 	who 	in turn submitted 	it 	to
Mr. 	Tucker who held the level I conference
himself on March 21, 	1985. 	Mr. Tucker's
reply was drafted 	in the 	space on the 	form
reserved 	for 	the 	immediate 	supervisor's
response 	and Mr. 	Tucker changed 	the 	form 	to
read, 	"Grievance Form-Level II". 	See
paragraphs 11 through 14 and exhibits 	3, 	6
and 7 of 	the charge.
4. 	On March 15, 	1985, 	in a "derogatory
communication" 	from Mr. 	Tucker placed 	in Mr.
Petrich's personnel file, 	the District
denied Mr. 	Petrich personal necessity 	leave
for March 	7, 	1985 when he attended a 	PERB
informal 	conference 	concerning unfair
practice charge LA-CE-2097. 	For a prior
similar 	occasion 	the 	District had 	approved
personal 	necessity 	leave with pay. 	See
paragraphs 17, 	18 and 32 and exhibits 	8 and
9 of 	the charge.
5. 	When 	Mr. 	Petrich attended the March 7,
1985 	PERB 	informal conference described 	in
paragraph 	4 above, 	the District docked him
6-1/2 	hours pay without previous 	notice
which 	would 	have 	afforded him the 	right to
request a 	hearing 	as provided 	in section
19.1 	of 	the 	negotiated contract. 	See
paragraphs 17, 18, 31, 32, 33 and 34 and
exhibits 7, 	8 and 9 of the charge.
6. 	Beginning on or about March 21, 	1985,
Mr. 	Petrich's brief case, 	which was locked
and 	secured 	in the trunk of his car, 	was
opened 	on more 	than one occasion by
unauthorized persons. 	See paragraphs 	19,
23, 	26, 	29, 	32 and 33 of the charge.
7. 	On or about March 28, 1985, Mr. Hodnett,
absent prior 	notification or 	any
justification, 	removed 	the master 	key 	from
Mr. 	Petrich's district ring 	set and

August 16, 	1985
LA-CE-2188
Page 3
replaced 	it 	with 	a 	new 	"section" 	key which
denies 	his 	free access to and from one of
his assigned 	work areas. 	See paragraphs 	21,
32 and 	33 of 	the charge and paragraph 9 of
the 	first 	amended 	charge.
8. 	On March 28, 1985 Mr. 	Petrich received a
"derogatory communication" 	from Mr. 	Hodnett,
also placed in his personnel file, 	stating
that Mr. 	Petrich 	failed 	to obey directions
because 	he 	replaced a broken light cover 	in
the Attendance Office 	in direct
contradiction 	to 	instructions and 	failed 	to
clean the girls' 	restroom. 	See paragraphs
22, 	32 and 33 and exhibit 10 of the charge.
9. 	On April 	2f 	1985, Mr. 	Petrich received a
"derogatory memorandum" 	from Mr. 	Hodnett,
also placed 	in his personnel file, 	stating
that Mr. 	Petrich failed to properly clean
the girls' 	restroom and left 	it unlocked.
See paragraphs 25, 	32 and 	33 and exhibit 	11
of the charge.
10. On April 	26, 	1985 Mr. 	Petrich received a
"derogatory memorandum", 	also placed 	in his
personnel 	file, 	from North High School
Vice-Principal 	Richard 	Moshier 	concerning
Mr. 	Petrich's 	"insubordination" 	in refusing
to comply with parking 	regulations at 	the
high 	school. 	This document was allegedly
drafted 	and placed 	in 	the personnel file
because Mr. 	Petrich 	requested 	representation
at a meeting 	held 	on the same date to
discuss the 	issue. 	See paragraphs 26, 	28,
29, 	32 and 33 and exhibit 12 of the charge.
11. On April 30, 1985, Mr. Petrich noticed
that his April pay warrant 	reflected 	a dock
for 	1/2 	day without 	a hearing 	because his
physician's verification of 	illness 	for
March 25, 	19 85 was found unsatisfactory.
See paragraphs 30, 	31, 32, 33 and 34 and
exhibits 	13 and 14 of the charge.
.
12. 	When questioned 	regarding the April pay
dock described 	in paragraph 11 above, Mr.
Hodnett presented Mr. 	Petrich with a

August 16, 	1985
LA-CE-2188
Page 	4
"derogatory memorandum" 	dated April 	29,
1985, 	also placed 	in his personnel file,
containing a list of Mr. 	Petrich's sick
leaves and other 	absences 	since
his 	reassignment 	to North High School on
February 25, 	1985, 	noting the absence of
physician verifications, 	and referencing
occasions when the girls' 	restroom was not
clean. 	See paragraphs 30, 	31, 32, 33 and 34
and exhibits 	13 	and 	14 of 	the charge.
The 	first 	amended charge 	filed on June 10, 	1985 alleges:
13. 	With reference to paragraph 6 above, 	on
May 29 and 31, 	1985 Mr. 	Petrich found 	fresh
pry marks 	on 	the 	trunk 	rail of his car and
determined 	that 	someone 	had 	searched 	his
briefcase. 	See paragraphs 4 and 10 of 	the
first 	amended charge.
14. On May 31, 	1985, Mr. Petrich noted that
Mr. 	Hodnett 	had docked 	his May pay warrant
1-1/2 days' 	pay for April 22 and 23, 	1985
although Mr. 	Petrich had 	submitted a
physician's certificate of 	illness. 	See
paragraphs 5, 	10 	and 11 and exhibit 1 of 	the
first amended charge, 	and exhibit 14 of the
charge.
15. 	The District proposed a 30-workday
suspension against Mr. 	Petrich. 	See
paragraphs 	7 and 	8 of 	the charge.
16. On June 7, 	1985, Mr. 	Petrich received a
"derogatory communication" 	from Mr. 	Hodnett,
also placed 	in his personnel file, 	stating
that Mr. 	Petrich was late to work on various
occasions, 	failed to follow his assigned
work 	schedule 	and 	otherwise did 	not perform
his duties. 	See paragraphs 9 and 10 and
exhibit 	2 of 	the 	first 	amended charge.
The 	second 	amended charge 	filed on June 18, 	1985 	alleges:
17. On June 14, 	1985, Mr. 	Petrich received a
"derogatory communication" 	dated 	June 	12,
1985 from Principal Wolf, 	also placed 	in his
personnel file, 	alleging 	that on May 30,

August 16, 	1985
LA-CE-2188
Page 5
1985 Mr. 	Petrich had a student purchase a
package of cigarettes for 	him. 	Mr. 	Petrich
was directed 	not 	to 	send 	students off campus
on errands 	in the 	future. 	See paragraphs 	3
and 	4 	and 	exhibit 1 of 	the 	second amended
charge.
The third 	amended charge 	filed on June 	24, 	1985 alleges
18. On June 20, 1985, Mr. Petrich received a
"derogatory communication" 	dated June 	19,
1985 from Mr. Wolf, 	also placed in his
personnel file, 	stating that Mr. 	Petrich had
made 	various offensive statements to a
teacher 	in 	several 	conversations. 	The 	memo
asked Mr. 	Petrich 	to 	refrain from further
attentions in the future. 	See paragraphs 5
through 7 	and exhibit 	1 of 	the third amended
charge.
The 	fourth 	amended charge 	filed on July 5, 	1985 	alleges:
19. On June 19, 1985, Mr. Petrich received
written notification 	from Mr. 	Hodnett 	that
effective June 	21 through August 30, 	1985,
his 	work 	hours 	would 	be changed 	from 	7:00
a.m. 	- 	3:30 p.m. 	to 	6:00 a.m. 	- 	2:30 p.m.,
and 	his 	lunch 	hour would 	be 	1/2 hour 	instead
of one hour. 	See paragraphs 3, 	7 and 	8 and
exhibit 1 of 	the 	fourth amended charge.
20. 	The District changed the entire night
shift, 	with the exception of two
individuals, 	to a day shift and reduced
their 	lunch hour 	to 1/2 hour. 	See
paragraphs 3, 	7 and 8 and exhibit 1 of 	the
fourth 	amended 	charge.
21. On June 26, 1985, Mr. Petrich attended
an evaluation conference wherein he was
represented by his 	exclusive
representative. 	He was presented with an
evaluation 	form which 	specified 	many 	factors
which 	were 	"unsatisfactory" 	or 	"improvement
needed". 	Mr. 	Hodnett also 	indicated on 	the
form, 	"I 	believe if Tony is to avoid
termination he must come to 95% of the
.

August 16, 	1985
LA-CE-2183
Page 6
workdays, 	work diligently for a full shift
each day, 	accept direction cheerfully, 	and
do quality work." 	Attached 	to the
evaluation were 	all of 	the 	"derogatory
materials" given Mr. 	Petrich between March
28 and June 19, 	1985. 	Also attached was a
"derogatory written 	statement" 	drafted by
another 	employee which Mr. 	Petrich alleges
is 	improperly attached 	to 	the evaluation.
See paragraphs 6 through 9 and exhibit 2 of
the 	fourth amended charge.
My 	investigation 	revealed 	the 	following 	facts 	regarding 	the 	above
allegations. 	Mr. 	Petrich has been employed by the District for
approximately seventeen years. 	He has had a history of personnel
issues with the District since 1982. 	In 1982 Mr. 	Petrich filed 	five
grievances pursuant 	to 	the grievance procedure 	negotiated between
the District and 	his exclusive 	representative, 	the California School
Employees Association 	(CSEA).
In 	1984 Mr. 	Petrich filed two grievances regarding 	the placement of
alleged derogatory materials 	in his personnel 	file. 	He also filed
two unfair 	practice charges 	against 	the District. 	The 	first was
charge LA-CE-2097 	filed on November 	27, 	1984. 	The second was charge
LA-CE-2112 	filed on December 	26, 	1984. 	Both charges resulted in
partial dismissals 	and 	partial complaints 	issued 	respectively on
January 15 and April 	2, 	1985. 	No decision has yet 	issued after 	the
joint formal hearing was held 	in July 1985.
In 	1985 Mr. 	Petrich filed 	numerous grievances 	and unfair practice
charges 	as 	summarized 	here 	and 	in the attached 	"Summary of 	Petrich
Cases":
1. 	Charge LA-CE-2114 filed on January 2,
1985 	resulted 	in a dismissal affirmed by the
Board 	in 	Petrich v. 	Riverside Unified School
District 	(1985) 	PERB Decision No. 	511.
2. 	Charge LA-CE-2129 	filed on February 4,
1985 	resulted 	in a dismissal affirmed 	by the
Board 	in 	Petrich v. 	Riverside Unified School
District 	(1985) 	PERB Decision No. 	512.
3. 	Charge LA-CE-2130 	filed on February 	4,
1985 	resulted 	in a partial complaint 	and a
partial dismissal affirmed 	by the Board 	in
Petrich v. 	Riverside Unified School District
(1985) 	PERB Decision No. 	513.

August 16, 	1985
LA-CE-2183
Page 7
4. 	Charge 	LA-CE-2131 	filed on February 	4,
1985 	resulted 	in a dismissal presently on
appeal to the Board,
5. 	Charge LA-CE-2134 filed on February 11,
1985 	resulted 	in a partial complaint and a
partial dismissal presently on appeal to 	the
Board.
6. 	Charge 	LA-CE-2143 	filed on March 1, 	1985
resulted 	in a partial complaint and a
partial dismissal presently on appeal 	to 	the
Board.
Based 	on the 	following 	facts and 	reasons, 	certain of 	the paragraphs
alleged 	in the 	instant charge and 	four amended charges will be
dismissed 	absent amendments which would cure 	the defects. 	A
complaint will 	issue 	on the 	allegations 	referred to 	in paragraphs 1,
8, 9, 10, 12, 16, 17 and 18 above.
2. 	The charge 	alleges 	that 	the District failed to 	hold 	a 	level 	II
conference for 	a February 	7, 	1985 grievance filed 	by Mr. 	Petrich in
violation of 	the District's 	obligation set 	forth 	in 	section 18.2.2
of 	the collective 	bargaining agreement. 	In 	fact the conference was
held at the District office at 	3:00 p.m. 	on March 	7, 	1985, 	just
before 	the 	PERB 	informal conference 	held at 	3:30 p.m. 	on 	the same
date described 	in paragraph 4, 	infra. 	Present were Mr. 	Tucker
representing 	the District 	and 	CSEA representatives 	Corona 	and
Prince. 	Mr. 	Petrich did not appear.
No violation of 	the EERA exists here because 	the District conformed
to 	the 	negotiated contract. 	It may be that Mr. 	Petrich did not
receive notice 	of 	the 	level 	II conference although 	his CSEA
representatives did. 	If there was such a mistake, 	there has been no
showing 	of 	a policy change 	having 	a 	"generalized effect or
continuing 	impact 	upon 	the 	terms 	and conditions of 	employment" 	as
required by Grant 	Joint Union High School District 	(1982) 	PERB
Decision No. 	196. 	Therefore this allegation of the charge will be
dismissed.
3. 	It 	is undisputed 	that Mr. 	Petrich's March 8, 	1985 grievance
concerning 	the memorandum directing him not 	to enter Mr. 	Tucker's
closed 	office 	was not processed at 	level 	I 	of 	the 	grievance
procedure, 	but instead was forwarded directly to Mr. 	Tucker for
response. 	While 	the 	contract does 	not expressly allow this the
District has 	records 	indicating 	a past practice, 	in which CSEA has

August 16, 	1985
LA-CE-2188
Page 	8
acquiesced, 	of 	bypassing 	the 	first 	step of 	the grievance procedure
when 	the 	lower-level 	supervisors would be 	unable 	to effectuate 	a
remedy. 	In 	the present case both Plant Supervisor 	Hodnett and
Principal Wolf 	had 	no 	knowledge of 	the office 	incident nor any
ability 	to 	remedy 	the 	grievance.
Unless Mr. 	Petrich can produce 	facts demonstrating 	a different past
practice and a deviation from that practice, 	this 	aspect of the
charge will be dismissed 	since no unilateral change has been
demonstrated.
4. 	The District denied Mr. 	Petrich 8 hours' 	personal necessity
leave 	for March 	7, 	1985 when he attended a PERB 	informal conference
concerning 	unfair 	practice 	charge 	LA-CE-2097. 	It 	docked 	him 	6-1/2
hours' 	pay. 	Mr. 	Petrich claims that the District 	had previously
allowed him personal 	necessity 	leave 	to attend 	an 	unfair 	practice
informal conference and 	that he 	received disparate 	treatment as
compared 	to his CSEA 	representatives who also attended the March 	7
informal conference.
On March 7, 	1985, 	the 	informal conference was held at 3:30 p.m. 	in
Riverside. 	Mr. 	Petrich took the entire day off 	from work without
permission. 	When 	he claimed personal necessity 	leave for 	the
occasion, 	the 	District 	allowed 	him one hour 	released time from 	2:30
to 	3:30 p.m. 	for clean-up and 	travel time, 	and 	from 3:30 p.m. 	to 	the
end of his 	shift 	at 4:00 p.m. 	for 	the informal conference. 	Mr.
Petrich was docked 	for 	the 	remainder of the time 	taken off.
Also present 	at 	the 	informal conference were CSEA 	representatives
Corona and 	Prince. 	The District 	records show that Mr. 	Corona 	left
work 	at 2:50 p.m. 	and Mr. 	Prince at 2:45 p.m. 	to 	attend a 	3:00 p.m.
level 	II grievance hearing concerning Mr. 	Petrich's February 7, 	1985
grievance 	referenced 	in paragraph 	2 on page 1 of 	this letter.
Thereafter, 	they attended the 	3:30 p.m. 	informal conference. 	Both
received 	released 	time 	from 	2:50 p.m. 	or 	2:45 p.m. 	until the end 	of
their 	work 	day.
The previous PERB 	informal conference to which Mr. 	Petrich refers 	in
case LA-CO-230 was held midday on June 15, 	1982 at the PERB regional
office 	in downtown Los Angeles, 	thereby necessitating an entire day
off 	from work. 	Under 	section 13.5.2(8) 	of the negotiated contract,
personal 	necessity 	leave 	is allowed at the 	"discretion of 	the
District" 	with certain caveats which do not apply 	to the 	instant
situation.
The 	foregoing 	facts do 	not 	show a change 	in 	the 	District's policy 	in
release time or disparate 	treatment of Mr. 	Petrich as compared 	to

August 16, 	1985
LA-CE-218S
Page 9
his CSEA representatives. 	In 	fact 	they 	show a consistent policy and
practice. 	Because there has been no unilateral change, 	this aspect
of 	the charge 	will 	be dismissed.
5. 	The charge 	alleges 	that 	the District docked Mr. 	Petrich 	6-1/2
hours' 	pay 	for 	the March 7, 	1985 	informal conference described above
without previous 	notice which would 	have 	afforded 	him the 	right 	to
request a 	hearing 	as provided 	in section 19.1 of 	the 	negotiated
contract. 	However, on July 12, 1984, Mr. Petrich stated in a
telephone 	conversation with the Regional Attorney 	that he did 	in
fact 	receive the 	notice, 	request a hearing, 	and 	attend a hearing
held on March 	22, 	1985. 	Therefore, 	this aspect of the charge will
be 	dismissed.
6 and 13. 	Mr. 	Petrich alleges that his brief case, 	which was locked
and secured 	in the 	trunk of his car, 	was opened on more than one
occasion by unauthorized persons. 	He assumes 	those persons were
representatives of 	the 	District. 	He has no evidence tending to 	show
that a 	representative 	of the District left pry marks on the trunk
rail of his car 	or 	searched his brief case other 	than the 	facts
recited 	in paragraphs 19, 	23, 	26 and 29 of the charge and paragraph
4 	of 	the 	first 	amended 	charge. 	Since these factual allegations are
insufficient to prove 	the matter, 	these paragraphs of 	the charge
will be dismissed.
7. 	The charge alleges that Mr. 	Hodnett, 	absent prior notification or
any justification, 	removed the master key from Mr. 	Petrich's ring
set and replaced 	it with a 	"section" 	key which denies his 	free
access to 	and 	from the 	room where he stores his tools.
The District states that only four of 15 custodian/gardeners carry a
master key. 	These are 	the Night Custodian, 	Saturday Custodian, 	Lead
Custodian, 	and 	the Custodian assigned to supply all rooms with paper
and 	other 	products. 	The Night Custodian and Saturday Custodian work
alone. 	The Lead 	and Supply Custodian may be 	located by the other
employees 	if 	they have 	need 	to enter 	rooms outside 	their 	assigned
section.
Mr. 	Petrich was 	originally given a master 	key because he was storing
his tools 	in an area where his section key did not work. 	However,
according 	to the District, 	he was using 	the master 	key to enter
areas he was not 	normally 	assigned 	to do work 	he 	selected 	and
preferred 	to do while 	he 	neglected his assigned duties. 	As a result
he 	was asked 	to 	return 	the master 	key and move 	his 	tools 	to an area
where 	the 	section 	key would work. 	He 	refused 	to do this.

August 16, 	1985
LA-CE-2188
Page 	10
The 	facts 	show no 	evidence of reprisal against Mr. 	Petrich because
he 	has 	not 	been 	treated 	differently 	than any 	other 	employee
similarly 	situated. 	The 	four 	employees who have master 	keys all
function 	in a 	special capacity. 	Additionally, 	assignment of master
keys 	is not a matter within 	the 	scope of 	bargaining 	and does not
affect Mr. 	Petrich's working conditions. 	The District retains the
managerial prerogative 	to assign Mr. 	Petrich work 	in the areas it
chooses 	and to give him access to those areas. 	The withdrawal of
the master 	key was not 	an action adverse to Mr. 	Petrich because it
did not 	affect 	his working conditions and was 	not a disciplinary
action. 	For 	these 	reasons, 	this aspect of the charge does not state
a prima 	facie 	case 	and will be dismissed.
11. 	The charge alleges that on April 30, 	1985 Mr. 	Petrich found that
his April 	pay 	warrant 	reflected 	a dock 	of 	1/2 	day 	because his
physician's verification of 	illness for March 	25, 	1985 was found
unsatisfactory. 	The District had notified Mr. 	Petrich in February
1985 that 	all 	future 	sick 	leave absences must be substantiated by 	a
physician's verification due to excessive use of 	sick 	leave in the
past. 	This procedure 	is authorized 	in the District's discretion by
section 13.3.4 	of 	the 	negotiated contract. 	The District states that
two other 	current 	employees 	are 	also 	required 	to provide
verification of 	sick 	leave 	and 	that other employees 	have been so
required 	in the past.
Mr. 	Petrich was absent on Friday, March 22 for 	1-1/2 hours for a
doctor's 	appointment 	and did 	not provide 	verification. 	On Monday,
March 	25 	he had 	a 	doctor's 	appointment 	and did 	not 	return to work
resulting 	in an absence of 	4-1/2 hours. 	On March 	26 he was present
at work 	and was 	requested 	to provide 	verification 	that he 	was unable
to return 	to work after the appointment on March 25. 	He was absent
all day on March 	27. 	On March 	28 he came to work 	and presented a
physician's verification that said he was 	sick on March 22 but could
return to 	work 	on March 	28. 	On March 	29 	he was 	absent for 	1-1/2
hours 	for 	a doctor's appointment. 	On Monday, 	April 1 he was absent
all day. 	On April 	2 he presented 	a verification which said he was
under 	a doctor's 	care 	from March 	25 to April 1 and could 	return to
work on April 	2. 	The District was confused because Mr. 	Petrich had
been back 	to work on several occasions during 	the 	time period
covered by the doctor's notes and Mr. 	Hodnett directed Mr. 	Petrich
to correct the 	inconsistencies. 	Mr. 	Petrich did not 	supply any
doctor's 	verification 	to correct 	the confusion nor did he bring 	in
the 	requested 	verification 	to cover 	the 	4-1/2 	hours on March 25.
The District 	docked 	him for 	this 	time.
The 	negotiated contract provides 	in section 	19.0 	of 	Article XIX on
Disciplinary 	Action 	and Dismissal Procedures 	that 	the District may

August. 16, 1985
LA-CE-2188
Page 	11
dock pay 	for 	an 	absence without authority. 	According 	to 	the 	same
section 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." 	Section 	19.1 provides 	that
a permanent 	employee has a 	right to 	request an 	the 	informal hearing
with 	the 	immediate 	supervisor prior 	to disciplinary action.
These 	sections on discipline do not 	apply to the 	instant situation
because Mr. 	Petrich's hours were not docked as a matter 	of
discipline. 	Rather, 	they were docked because he 	failed 	to provide 	a
physician's verification as allowed by the contract.
The 	foregoing 	facts do 	not 	indicate any 	irregularities 	in the
District's procedure in docking Mr. 	Petrich's pay for March 	25,
1985. 	For 	this 	reason this aspect of 	the charge will be dismissed.
14. 	On May 31, 	1985, Mr. 	Petrich noted that his May pay warrant was
docked 1-1/2 days' 	pay for April 22 and 23, 	1985 although he had
submitted 	a physician's certificate of illness. 	The District's,
files do not contain the April 	25, 	1985 verification which 	is
attached 	to the 	first amended charge 	as exhibit 	1. 	Absent this
verification the District docked Mr. 	Petrich's pay 	in accordance
with normal procedures.
Again, 	section 13.3.4 	of 	the negotiated contract allows the District
to 	require 	verification of 	sick 	leave 	absences 	and 	section 19.1
confers 	the 	right 	to 	request a hearing on a pay dock only when 	it 	is
the 	result 	of disciplinary action. 	Mr. 	Petrich could have filed a
grievance 	pursuant 	to Article 	XVIII of the negotiated contract
entitled Grievance Procedures, 	although he did not.
No 	violation of 	the EERA exists here because the District conformed
with 	the 	negotiated contract 	and established procedures. 	There may
have 	been 	a mistake 	in that Mr. 	Petrich submitted 	and the District
misfiled 	the verification, 	but 	in such case there 	is no 	showing of 	a
policy change 	having 	a 	"generalized 	effect or continuing 	impact 	upon
the 	terms 	and conditions of 	employment" 	as required by Grant Joint
Union High School 	District, 	supra. 	Therefore 	this allegation of 	the
first 	amended charge will 	be dismissed.
15. 	The 	allegation 	that 	the District proposed 	a 	30-workday
suspension against Mr. 	Petrich 	is the subject of case LA-CE-2143
previously 	filed 	and 	currently 	being processed. 	In 	order 	to 	avoid
redundant 	litigation of 	the 	same 	issue 	this allegation must 	be
dismissed.

August 16, 	1985
LA-CE-2188
Page 	12
19. 	The charge 	alleges that the District unilaterally changed Mr.
Petrich's work hours effective June 	21 through August 30, 	1985 from
7:00 	a.m. 	- 4:00 p.m. 	to 	6:00 a.m. 	to 2:30 p.m. 	with a lunch hour 	of
one-half 	hour 	instead 	of one hour. 	The District has 	records showing
that 	the past practice 	for 	at least 	20 years 	has been to change the
summer 	hours of 	employees 	in this manner to accommodate the cooler
morning 	hours 	and 	an earlier watering 	schedule. 	Section 10.6 of 	the
negotiated contract provides that 	the 	length of the lunch period
"shall be 	for a period no longer 	than one 	(1) 	hour nor less than
one-half 	(1/2) 	hour". 	The District's action was consistent with
this provision. 	Mr. 	Petrich has not supplied 	any facts showing 	that
the past practice 	is otherwise. 	This allegation will be dismissed.
20. 	The charge alleges that the District changed the entire night
shift of custodians, with the exception of two individuals, 	to the
day 	shift 	and 	reduced 	their 	lunch hour 	from one hour 	to one-half
hour. 	Again, 	the District's 	records 	indicate a consistent past
practice of 	20 years' 	duration of switching 	the night shift to the
day 	shift 	during 	the 	summer 	holiday and 	shortening 	the 	lunch hour
from one 	hour 	to one-half 	hour. 	Absent facts 	indicating a different
past practice 	this allegation of 	the charge must be dismissed.
Opportunity 	to Amend
For 	the 	reasons 	stated above, 	the charge as presently written does
not 	state 	a prima 	facie violation of the EERA. 	If you feel that
there 	are 	facts or 	legal 	arguments which would 	require different
conclusion, 	an amended charge 	should be prepared on a standard PERB
unfair 	practice charge 	form clearly 	labeled 	First Amended Charge,
should contain all the 	allegations you wish to make and be 	signed
under 	penalty of perjury. 	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
by August 	26, 	1985, 	I shall dismiss your charge. 	If you have any
questions 	regarding how to proceed, please call me at 	(213) 	736-3127.
Sincerely,
Barbara T. 	Stuart
Regional 	Attorney
Attachment
BTS:djm

SUMMARY OF 	PETRICH 	CASES
LA-CE-2097 	NOT APPEALED
Complaint: 	1/15/85
1. 	Docked pay as 	reprisal. 	(a)
2. 	Unilateral change 	of policy embodied 	in contract by
docking 	pay without 	prior 	opportunity 	to 	request 	hearing.
(a) 	and 	(c)
3. 	Unilateral change of policy embodied 	in contract by
denying 	two hours 	released 	time to 	respond 	to derogatory
material placed in personnel file. 	(a) 	and 	(c)
4. 	Unilateral creation of 	restriction regarding 	location
where 	employee must prepare a response to derogatory
material placed in personnel file. 	(a) 	and 	(c)
Dismissal: 	1/15/85
1. 	Disallowed 	the 	accrual of 	time 	to 	respond 	to derogatory
material placed 	in personnel file. 	Rationale: 	Contract
ambiguous or 	silent. 	No past practice established, 	thus no
change shown.
LA-CE-2112 	AFFIRMED 	#510
Complaint: 	4/2/85
1. 	Principal 	Sund placed disciplinary 	letters 	in personnel
file 	re December 	10 keys 	incident, December 	11 absence from
work, 	and December 19 keys incident. 	(a) 	derivative 	(b)
Dismissal: 	4/2/85
1. 	December 	7, 	1984 denial of personal necessity leave to
file 	unfair practice charge. 	Rationale: 	No nexus shown
between protected 	activity and employer's 	action. 	Employee
does not have 	the 	right to unilaterally decide 	to miss work
in order 	to file a charge.
2. 	District placed a 	letter 	from the Association
concerning 	Petrich 	in his personnel file. 	Rationale: 	No
showing of 	adverse impact.

3. 	December 	14, 	1934 	Petrich 	reassigned from Woodcrest
Elementary School 	to North High School. 	Rationale: 	No
showing of 	adverse 	impact. 	Work hours, 	customary duties
and 	commuting 	distance 	for 	the 	new job are essentially
identical 	to the 	old.
4. 	Pay docked 	without prior 	hearing claimed 	to 	be a
unilaterial change. 	Rationale: 	Facts 	show Petrich was
given 	an 	opportunity 	to 	request 	a hearing prior 	to 	the
docking.
5. 	December 	14, 	1984 work hours unilaterally changed from
7:00 	a.m. 	to 	6:30 	a.m. 	upon 	reassignment to North High
School. 	Rationale: 	Changed starting time rescinded 	the
first 	day 	and 	never 	reinstituted.
6. 	December 	19, 	1984 unilateral change by locking Petrich
out of 	his 	job. 	Rationale: 	Incident appears a
misunderstanding between Petrich 	and his 	supervisor; 	Petrich
paid for 	the one hour; 	no facts 	re District policy change
or 	modification of 	contractual obligations.
LA-CE-2114 	AFFIRMED 	#511
Dismissal: 	3/14/85
1. 	November 	20, 	1984 	failure to provide grievance forms in
a 	timely manner 	and 	Petrich opinion that form 	is
inadequate. 	Rationale: 	No protected 	right to obtain
grievance 	forms 	on demand 	or 	have 	them redesigned. 	No
showing 	Petrich prevented 	from 	filing grievances or 	the
forms 	so 	inadequate they 	interfere with his right 	to 	file
grievances. 	No 	facts 	show form unilaterally changed. 	No
(d) violation.
LA-CE-2130 	AFFIRMED 	#513
Complaint: 	4/10/85
1. 	January 8, 	1985 correction memo from 	Principal Sund
placed 	in personnel file 	re 	refusal to remove 	leaves. 	(a)
2. 	January 17, 	1985 Sund dismissal recommendation. 	(a)
3. 	January 30, 	1985 	letter 	from Assistant Superintendent
Tucker 	re 	pay dock 	for 	illnesses absent physician
verification. 	(a)

Dismissal: 	1/10/85
1. 	August 21, 	1984 Sund placement of derogatory material
in personnel file. 	Rationale: 	Already alleged in
LA-CE-2134.
2. 	January 8, 	1985 hubcap letter from Tucker 	re
inappropriate gift. 	Rationale: 	The letter does not
concern Petrich working conditions, 	or contain a threat,
thus no harm to employee 	rights.
3. 	January 14, 	1985 pre-disciplinary meeting Sund said she
didn't want 	to postpone 	it and wanted 	Petrich to have a
different 	representative. 	Rationale: 	The meeting was
delayed and Petrich had 	the 	representative of his choice.
No 	interference with his 	rights. 	Employer 	has free speech
absent a threat or 	interference.
4. 	January 17, 	1985 Sund memorandum describing the
pre-disciplinary meeting 	noted 	Petrich pointed 	out 	the date
on a memo was 	incorrect and he might have to file a
grievance. 	Rationale: 	Memo only summarized what was 	said
at 	the meeting. 	No threat.
5. 	January 30, 	1985 Tucker letter re future pay docks for
unauthorized absences. 	Rationale: 	No policy change since
pay not yet docked without opportunity to 	request a hearing.
6. 	February 12, 	1985 Tucker 	inflexibly insisted a
grievance conference be 	scheduled at a certain date 	and
time. 	Rationale: 	Petrich able to attend 	so no harm shown
to his employee 	rights.
LA-CE-2123 	AFFIRMED 	#512
Dismissal: 	3/25/85
1. 	Alleged 	supervisors unlawfully 	included 	in his
bargaining 	unit. 	Rationale: 	No standing. 	Only employers
and 	employee organizations 	can 	file 	unit modification
petitions. 	Statute of 	limitations ran and not a continuing
violation. 	No facts given re supervisory duties.
1
LA-CE-2134
Complaint: 	5/8/85
1. 	August 	23, 	1984 meeting 	re proposed work hour change at
which 	Sund 	and 	another 	supervisor 	threatened 	to cut 	hours
or 	find 	someone 	else 	for 	the 	job. 	(a)

Dismissal: 	5/8/85
1. 	September 	1984 proposed change of 	work hours.
Rationale: 	Hours changed only 	after 	agreement with
exclusive 	representative 	that 	Petrich 	would 	receive 	an
extra 	vacation day each year. 	Hours change of 	one employee
may 	not 	be policy 	change 	or 	negotiable.
LA-CE-2131
Dismissal: 	5/7/85
1. 	1976 	to present District unilaterally shaved salary
increases due classified employees. 	Rationale: 	No
continuing 	violation and 	union 	and Petrich had 	constructive
notice 	through access to 	the salary schedules. 	They cannot
claim 	they did 	not 	understand 	the 	significance 	of 	the
numbers.
LA.-CE-2143
Complaint: 	5/31/85
1. 	February 	1985, 	Assistant Superintendent 	Tucker
recommended 	the dismissal of 	Petrich, 	which was reduced 	to
a 	recommended 	30-day 	suspension.
Dismissal: 	5/31/85
1. 	Derogatory material placed 	in personnel 	file more 	than
five days after a copy given to Petrich. 	Rationale:
Contract language ambiguous, 	but past practice is five or
more days.
2. 	January 17, 	1985 failure to receive corrected
memorandum placed 	in personnel file. 	Rationale: 	No
unilateral change 	with generalized 	effect or 	continuing
impact.
3. 	February 25, 	1985 reassignment to North High School
changed classification, 	duties and hours. 	Rationale: 	No
change of classification or duties demonstrated. 	Past
practice to effectuate 	involuntary transfers when in the
best 	interests of 	the District after 	agreement with
exclusive 	representative. 	Past practice to change hours if
the new shift hours at the 	new school are different. 	No
showing 	of generalized effect or 	continuing 	impact.
4. 	February 25, 	1985 reassignment a reprisal. 	Rationale:
No 	adverse 	impact with essentially 	the 	same work hours,
duties 	and commuting 	distance.