Regents of the University of California (Ridley) (PERB 0707H)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
NANCY A. 	RIDLEY,
Charging 	Party,
v.
REGENTS 	OF 	THE 	UNIVERSITY
OF 	CALIFORNIA,
Respondent.
Case No. 	LA-CE-231-H
PERB Decision No. 	707-H
December 21, 	1988
Appearances: 	B. 	Benedict Waters 	for Nancy A. 	Ridley; 	Claudia
Cate, 	Attorney, 	for University of California.
Before Hesse, 	Chairperson; 	Porter, 	Craib and Shank, 	Members.
DECISION AND 	ORDER
This 	case 	is 	before 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board
(Board) 	on appeal 	by Charging Party of 	the 	Board agent's
dismissal, 	attached hereto, 	of her charge that the Respondent
violated 	subdivision 	(a) 	of 	section 	3571 	of the 	Higher 	Education
Employer-Employee Relations Act 	(HERRA). 	We have reviewed the
dismissal 	and, 	finding it to be 	free of prejudicial 	error, 	adopt
it as 	the 	Decision of the 	Board itself.
The unfair practice 	charge in Case No. 	LA-CE-2 31-H is hereby
DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE 	TO AMEND.
By the 	BOARD1
1Member Camilli 	did not participate 	in this 	Decision.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
______________ )

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor,
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
Los Angeles Regional Office
3530 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 650
Los Angeles, CA 90010 2334
(213)736-3127
.
October 7, 	1988
B. 	Benedict Waters
RE: 	DISMISSAL OF CHARGE AND REFUSAL TO ISSUE COMPLAINT, 	Unfair
Practice Charge No. 	LA-CE-231-H, 	Nancy A. 	Ridley v. 	The
Regents 	of 	the 	University 	of 	California
Dear Mr. 	Waters:
My predecessor as 	Regional Attorney, 	Sandra Owens 	Dennison,
indicated to you 	in the 	attached 	"warning 	letter" 	dated
May 20, 	1988, 	that the above-referenced charge, 	alleging that UC
refused to process 	a grievance 	filed by Charging Party, did 	not
state 	a prima 	facie 	case. 	You were 	advised that 	if 	there were
any 	factual 	inaccuracies 	or 	additional 	facts 	that would 	correct
the 	deficiencies 	explained 	in 	that 	letter, 	you 	should 	amend 	the
charge 	accordingly.
You 	filed an amended charge 	on June 	3, 	1988. 	My 	investigation of
the 	amended 	charge 	revealed 	the 	following 	information.
The 	amended charge 	alleges, 	"Subject matter 	grievance 	was 	filed
prior 	to 	the 	agreement 	being 	signed 	[between AFSCME 	and 	UC] 	that
instituted 	[the] 	new 	[grievance] 	form." 	You 	later 	stated 	in
writing, 	however, 	"Grievant has no information or belief, 	at this
time, 	as to when the new form was agreed to" 	(emphasis yours).
AFSCME 	and 	UC 	both maintain 	that 	agreement 	on 	the 	new 	form was
reached on or before January 	4, 	1988, 	when they 	signed 	an 	amended
memorandum 	of 	understanding. 	The 	grievance was 	signed 	on
January 4, 	1988, 	and filed on January 7, 	1988.
You 	contend 	that 	the 	new 	form was 	unavailable 	when 	the 	grievance
was 	filed. 	When 	I 	asked you, 	however, 	whether you 	contend that
the new form was 	unavailable on January 	11, 	1988, 	when Sandra
Rich wrote 	that 	the 	form was 	available 	from AFSCME, 	you 	did 	not
answer 	yes 	or no 	but 	asserted 	that 	"the 	question misses 	the
point." 	On January 	19, 	1988, 	you delivered to Ms. 	Rich a 	letter
requesting 	a 	copy 	of 	the 	most 	current 	"agreed 	upon 	form." 	By 	a
letter dated January 	29, 	1988, 	Ms. 	Rich indicated again that the
form was 	available 	from AFSCME, 	and Charging 	Party did
subsequently 	obtain 	the 	new 	form 	from AFSCME. 	AFSCME 	had 	the 	new

B. 	Benedict Waters
LA-CE-231-H
October 	7, 	1988
Page 	2
form no later than January 	14, 	1988, 	when an AFSCME
representative 	signed 	an 	unrelated 	grievance 	on 	the 	new 	form.
Attached to the 	amended 	complaint 	(as Attachment 	"D") 	was 	a
letter to Sandra 	Rich 	signed by you and dated January 	15, 	1988.
The 	letter 	states 	that 	"the 	subject matter 	addendum 	[to 	the
grievance], 	if it is filed, 	will not be 	filed prior to the Step 	1
response" 	and 	further 	states, 	"The relevant AFSCME 	contract does
not 	provide 	a 	specific 	remedy 	for 	sexual 	harassment." 	Unlike
your 	letter of January 	19, 	1988, 	and Charging Party's 	letter of
January 27, 	1988, 	this 	letter does not indicate that it was hand-
delivered. 	You 	say you mailed the 	letter; 	UC 	says 	it did not
receive 	the 	letter. 	The 	letter was 	not mentioned 	in 	subsequent
correspondence.
You 	alleged 	in 	the 	amended 	charge 	that 	the 	new grievance 	form
required 	the 	same 	information 	that 	Charging 	Party 	had 	supplied 	on
the old form. 	The old 	form asked, 	among other things, 	for the
"adjustment 	required," 	while 	the 	new 	form 	asked 	for 	the 	"remedy
requested." 	Charging Party never requested an 	"adjustment" 	or
"remedy" 	on either 	form.
You 	contend 	that 	the 	memorandum 	of 	understanding 	"does 	not
provide 	a remedy 	for 	sexual 	harassment" 	and in 	fact 	"immunizes
employees" 	who engage 	in 	such conduct. 	You contend that this
contravenes Government Code 	section 	12 940(i) 	of the 	Fair
Employment 	and 	Housing Act, 	which requires 	employers 	to 	"take 	all
reasonable 	steps 	to 	prevent harassment 	fromo 	occurring," 	and 	thus
violates 	Government 	Code 	section 	3598 	of 	the Higher 	Education
Employer-Employee 	Relations Act, 	which provides, 	"No memorandum
of understanding shall contravene any federal or 	state law 	. 	. 	.
prohibiting discrimination 	in employment." 	Article 	4 	of 	the
memorandum 	of 	understanding deals with 	"nondiscrimination 	in
employment," 	and 	Section D thereof 	states 	as 	follows:
No 	settlement, 	remedy or decision regarding
an 	alleged violation of 	this Article 	shall
require 	a punitive 	action, 	monetary or
otherwise, 	or the 	imposition of discipline
upon 	any 	employee 	of 	the 	University whether
or not 	such employe 	is 	a member of 	the
bargaining unit 	covered 	by 	this 	Agreement.
In 	response 	to 	another 	grievance 	filed 	by 	Charging 	Party,
alleging 	racial 	discrimination 	and 	requesting 	that 	action 	be
taken against a 	supervisor, 	UC cited Article 	4, 	Section D, 	in
stating, 	"Even 	assuming 	for 	argument's 	sake 	that 	there was 	any '

B. 	Benedict Waters
LA-CE-231-H
October 	7, 	1988
Page 	3
evidence 	of 	racial 	discrimination 	in this matter, 	your remedy 	is
not 	appropriate."
When 	I 	asked you whether 	it was 	your position 	that 	"(a) 	the
grievance 	sought no relief 	and 	(b) 	no relief was 	available
through the grievance process," 	you responded, 	"Yes; 	to 	(a) 	and
to 	(b)." 	I 	also asked you, 	"Do you contend that if 	[Charging
Party] 	Ms. 	Ridley had used the 	new form 	and had requested a
remedy, 	the 	University 	[UC] 	would 	still 	have 	refused 	to process
the 	grievance?" 	(Emphasis 	added.) 	You 	answered that had
Charging 	Party 	requested 	the 	"remedy 	desired 	by 	her 	[disciplinary
action], 	the only remedy realistic 	under the circumstances,
respondent 	[UC] 	would have denied 	the 	remedy immediately."
(Emphasis 	added.)
The 	charge 	as 	amended 	still 	does not 	state 	a prima 	facie 	case,
for 	the 	reasons 	that 	follow.
As 	stated 	in 	the 	attached 	"warning 	letter," 	employer 	conduct 	in
connection with 	the 	processing 	of 	grievances 	is 	unlawful 	only 	"if
the 	impact of 	it 	is 	to deprive 	employees 	of 	their 	statutory
rights 	to 	effectively present their 	grievances." 	Regents 	of 	the
University of California 	(1983) 	PERB Decision No. 	308-H. 	The
refusal 	of 	UC 	to process 	the 	grievance 	as 	originally 	submitted
did 	not 	deprive 	Charging 	Party 	of 	her 	statutory 	rights,
especially 	since 	UC 	offered 	her 	the 	option 	of 	requesting 	an
extension of 	time 	in which to 	file 	an acceptable 	grievance.
There 	is 	no 	evidence 	that 	Charging 	Party 	could 	not 	have 	filed 	a
grievance 	that 	UC would have 	processed, 	had 	she 	chosen 	to do 	so,
and 	she 	had no 	statutory right 	to 	insist 	that 	UC process 	a
grievance 	submitted 	on 	an 	old 	form 	and without 	a 	request 	for
relief.
The 	more 	substantial 	question 	raised 	by 	the 	amended 	complaint 	is
whether Article 	4, 	Section D, 	"contravenes" 	Government Code
section 	12940(i) 	of 	the 	Fair 	Employment 	and Housing Act. 	It 	is
true 	that 	an 	employer's 	failure 	to 	take 	disciplinary 	action
against 	employees 	guilty 	of 	sexual 	or 	racial 	harassment 	may
violate 	this 	section. 	DFEH v. 	Madera County 	(1988) 	FEHC Decision
No. 	88-11, 	at p. 	27; 	DFEH v. 	Rockwell International Corporation
(1987) 	FEHC Decision No. 	87-34, 	at pp. 	13-14. 	A memorandum of
understanding 	that 	actually 	immunized 	employees 	from 	such
discipline might be 	said to 	"contravene" 	this 	section. 	That 	is
not, 	however, 	the import of Article 4, 	Section D. 	In its
context, 	Article 	4, 	section D, 	merely provides 	that 	"the
imposition 	of 	discipline" 	shall 	not 	be 	part 	of 	any 	"settlement,
remedy 	or decision" 	pursuant 	to 	a 	grievance 	regarding 	an 	alleged

B. 	Benedict Waters
LA-CE-231-H
October 	7, 	1988
Page 	4
violation of Article 	4. 	This 	does 	not 	"immunize" 	employees 	from
discipline; 	it merely provides 	that discipline 	shall 	not be
imposed 	as 	a 	contract remedy 	under 	the 	grievance 	procedure. 	It
does 	not prevent UC 	from 	otherwise 	imposing 	discipline, 	or 	lessen
its 	statutory duty to do 	so, 	and thus 	it does 	not 	"contravene"
(oppose, 	run counter to, 	contradict, 	nullify, 	thwart, 	defeat)
Government Code 	section 	12940(i).
I 	am 	therefore 	dismissing 	the 	charge 	as 	amended, 	based 	on 	the
reasons 	stated 	in 	this 	letter 	and 	in 	the 	"warning 	letter" 	of
May 20, 	1988.
Right 	to Appeal
Pursuant 	to 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board regulations, 	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 	(California Administrative 	Code, 	title
8, 	section 32635(a)). 	To be timely filed, 	the original 	and five
copies 	of 	such appeal must be 	actually 	received by 	the 	Board
itself before 	the 	close 	of business 	(5:00 p.m.) 	or 	sent by
telegraph, 	certified or 	Express 	United 	States 	mail 	postmarked no
later 	than 	the 	last date 	set 	for 	filing 	(California
Administrative Code, 	title 8, 	section 32135). 	Code of Civil
Procedure 	section 	1013 	shall 	apply. 	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
copies 	of 	a 	statement 	in 	opposition within 	twenty 	calendar 	days
following 	the 	date 	of 	service 	of 	the 	appeal 	(California
Administrative Code, 	title 8, 	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 	California Administrative 	Code,
title 	8, 	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.

B. 	Benedict Waters
LA-CE-231-H
October 7, 	1988
Page 	5
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 	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 	(California
Administrative Code, 	title 8, 	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.
Sincerely,
CHRISTINE A. 	BOLOGNA
General 	Counsel
By.
THOMAS 	J. ALLE	
< 	N
Regional 	A t t o r n e y
TJA:rdw
Attachment
cc: 	Claudia Cate

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, C,o.,.,,.tll")('-1	Goreeng.
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Los Angeles Regional Office
3530 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 650
Los Angeles, CA 90010 2334
(213)736-3127
May 	20, 	1988
B. 	Benedict 	Waters
Re: 	Nancy A. Ridley 	v. 	The 	Regents 	of 	the 	University of
California, 	Case Nos. 	LA-CE-231-H 	and 	LA-CE-2 32-H
Dear 	Mr. 	Waters:
The 	above 	referenced charges 	allege 	that 	the Regents 	of 	the
University of 	California 	(UC) 	refused 	to process 	two 	grievances
filed 	by 	Charging Party 	(Charge Number 	LA-CE-232-H pertains 	to
a grievance numbered GR 88-74CL under UC's system of numbering
grievances. 	Charge LA-CE-231-H pertains to grievance number GR
88-73CL.)
My 	investigation of 	the 	charges 	revealed the 	following
information.1 Charging 	Party 	is 	a Communications 	and Records
Assistant 	I 	at 	University of 	California, 	Los Angeles 	(UCLA).
She 	is 	in 	bargaining 	unit 	Number 	12, 	and 	is 	represented 	by
American Federation of 	State, 	County 	and Municipal 	Employees
(AFSCME). 	There 	is 	a memorandum of understanding 	(MOU) 	in
effect between AFSCME and UC for 	the Unit 12 employees 	That
MOU contains 	a grievance 	a r t i c l e , 	Article 6, 	which 	states:
Section A.2 	Only one 	(1) 	subject matter
shall be covered 	in 	any one 	(1) 	grievance.
A grievance 	shall contain a clear 	and
concise 	statement of 	the 	grievance 	by
indicating 	the 	issue 	involved, 	the 	relief
sought, 	the date 	the 	incident or 	violation
took place 	and 	the specific 	section or
1The undersigned wrote 	to Charging Party's 	representative
on March 23, 1988, describing the documents and information UC
had provided in response 	to the Charge and afforded him the
opportunity to submit additional evidence 	and/or 	legal argument
to support 	the charges. 	That letter 	allowed Charging Party
until March 31, 	1988 to submit the requested documents. 	(A copy
attached.) 	To date none has been submitted. 	The facts stated
herein, 	are therefore, 	based on 	the charges, 	and the documents
submitted by UC. 	Those documents are the grievance forms,
January 11, 	1988 letters 	from Sandra Rich to the Charging
Party, and Article 6 of the MOU.

May 	20, 	1988
LA-CE-231/232-H
Paqe 	2
sections 	of 	the 	Agreement 	involved. 	The
grievance 	shall 	be 	presented 	to 	the
desiqnated 	campus/Laboratory
grievance official 	on 	a 	form mutually
agreeable 	to 	the 	parties. 	The grievance
form 	shall 	be 	furnished 	to 	the 	employee 	by
the 	Union 	and 	the 	form 	must 	be 	signed 	and
dated 	by 	the 	employee(s) 	and/or 	Union
representative.
Section 	H.1.a. 	Within 	the 	time 	limits
indicated 	elsewhere 	in 	this 	Article 	the
employee 	or 	his/her 	representative, 	if 	any,
shall 	provide 	the 	written 	grievance 	on 	the
approved 	form 	to 	the 	designated
campus/Laboratory 	grievance 	official. 	The
time 	limits 	relative 	to 	the 	University's
response 	to 	the grievance 	at Step 	1 	of 	the
Grievance 	Procedure 	shall 	begin 	on 	the 	date
the 	Step 	1 	grievance 	official 	receives 	the
grievance. 	Receipt 	of 	the 	grievance 	from
the 	employee 	or 	his/her 	representative 	shall
be 	acknowledged 	in 	writing 	by 	the 	designated
Step 	1 campus/Laboratory grievance official.
Any 	grievance 	which 	is 	not 	received 	within
the 	time 	limits 	established 	by 	this 	Article
and/or 	which 	does 	not 	comply 	with 	the
procedures 	and 	requirements 	of 	this 	Article
shall 	be 	considered 	waived 	and 	withdrawn 	by
the 	employee 	and/or 	the 	Union.
UC 	states 	that 	sometime 	between 	November 	1987 	and 	on 	January 	4,
1988, 	AFSCME 	and 	UC 	agreed 	to 	a 	new grievance 	form. 	On
January 	4, 	1988, 	Charging 	Party 	filed 	grievance No. 	GR 	88-73CL,
alleging 	that:
Article 	4; 	John Sicard, 	as part 	of 	an
ongoing 	pattern 	of 	harassment 	anchored 	on 	my
continuing association 	with 	a 	Black 	man,
caused 	me 	to 	be 	orally 	reprimanded 	for 	a
non-existent 	infraction on December 	17, 	1987
at 	12:17 	PM by 	Paul Twonsend 	(sic) 	and
witnessed 	by 	Donald 	Smith, 	recent 	director
of 	C&PM.
Under 	the 	heading 	of 	"adjustment 	required" 	on 	the 	grievance
• 	• 	• 	•

May 	20, 	1988
LA-CE-231/232-H
Page 3
form, 	Charging 	Party 	wrote: 	"An 	addendum will 	be 	filed."
Also on 	January 	4, 	1988, Charging Party 	filed 	another 	grievance,
GR 	88-74CL, 	alleging:
Article 	4; 	Paul 	Townsend 	issued 	a written
reprimand on 	December 	(sic) 	16, 	1987 without
justification, 	and was motivated 	to 	due 	so
by 	my 	gender, 	and 	upon my 	continued
association 	with 	a Black 	man.
The 	requested 	adjustment 	section 	of 	the 	grievance 	form 	stated:
"An 	addendum 	will 	be 	filed."
On 	January 	11, 	1988, 	Sandra Rich, 	Assistant 	Labor 	Relations
Manager 	for 	UCLA, 	wrote 	letters 	to Ms. 	Ridley 	regarding 	the 	two
grievances 	she 	had 	filed. 	Each 	letter 	acknowledged 	receipt 	of
the grievances, 	and 	stated 	that:
. 	. 	. 	prior 	to 	its being 	further processed,
the 	following 	steps 	must 	occur:
1. 	You 	must 	file 	the 	addendum 	as 	you
indicated 	on 	the grievance 	form.
2. 	You must 	state 	a 	specific 	remedy 	for
the 	alleged 	contractual 	violation.
3. 	You must 	file 	the grievance 	on 	the
agreed 	upon 	form 	between 	the 	University 	and
AFSCME. 	The 	appropriate 	form 	is 	available
from the 	Union.
If 	you 	are 	unable 	to complete 	the 	above
steps 	within 	the 	initial 	filing 	deadline,
you 	may 	request 	an 	extension 	from 	me 	by
contacting me 	at 	(213) 	206-8663.
Charging 	Party 	did 	not 	file 	an 	addendum 	to 	either 	grievance,
nor 	did 	she 	refile 	the 	grievance 	on 	the 	new 	grievance 	form, 	or
request 	an 	extension 	of 	time.
Charging 	Party 	alleges 	in each 	charge 	that 	she 	informed 	an
unnamed 	agent 	of 	Respondent 	that 	"she 	might 	not 	file 	an
addendum," 	and 	that 	the grievance, 	as 	filed, 	makes 	a complete
statement.

May 	20, 	1988
LA-CE-231/232-H
Page 4
Based 	on 	the 	facts 	as 	stated 	above, 	the 	charge 	fails 	to 	state 	a
prima 	facie 	violation 	of 	the 	HEERA 	for 	the 	reasons 	which 	follow.
Charging 	Party 	alleges 	that 	an 	unfair 	practice 	occurred 	because
the 	MOU 	mandates 	that 	UC 	process 	a 	grievance 	and 	the 	University
has 	interfered 	with 	this 	right 	by 	suspending 	the 	processing 	of
the 	grievances 	pending 	receipt 	of 	the 	addendum, 	and 	filing 	on
the 	agreed-upon 	form.
The 	facts 	alleged 	fail 	to demonstrate 	that 	UC 	has 	breached 	the
MOU. 	Article 	6, 	section H.1.a. provides 	that 	a grievance 	not
complying 	with 	the 	requirements 	prescribed 	by 	Article 	6,
including, 	a 	clear 	statement 	of 	the 	grievance 	and 	the 	relief
sought, 	may 	be considered waived 	or 	withdrawn. 	When 	the
Charging 	Party 	informed 	UC 	in 	the 	grievance 	forms 	that 	she
intended 	to 	file 	an 	addendum 	to 	amend 	both 	the 	violation
section 	and 	the 	remedy 	section, 	UC 	did 	not 	repudiate 	the 	MOU 	by
requesting 	the 	additional 	facts 	and 	remedial 	demands 	before
proceeding. 	Nor 	did 	the 	request 	to 	use 	the 	agreed-upon-form
breach 	the MOU. 	Article 	6. 	section A.2 	also 	requires 	the 	use
of 	the 	agreed-upon-form.
However, 	assuming 	arguendo 	that 	a 	breach 	of MOU's 	provisions
for 	the 	grievance procedure 	occurred, 	a 	breach 	alone 	is 	not
sufficient. 	PERB 	"shall 	not 	have 	authority 	to 	enforce
agreements 	between 	the parties, 	and 	shall 	not 	issue a complaint
on 	any 	charge 	based 	on 	alleged 	violation 	of 	such 	an 	agreement
that 	would 	not 	also 	constitute 	an 	unfair 	practice 	under 	this
chapter." 	Government 	Code 	section 	3563.2(b).
Therefore, 	the 	question 	is 	whether 	UC's conduct 	independently
violated 	the 	HEERA. 	In 	order 	to 	state 	a prima 	facie 	violation
alleging 	interference 	with 	rights 	guaranteed 	by 	the 	HEERA, 	the
Charging 	Party 	must 	allege 	at 	least 	slight 	harm 	results 	from
the 	employer's 	conduct. 	Carlsbad 	Unified 	School 	District
(1979) 	PER Decision No. 	89; 	Regents 	of 	the University of
California 	(1983) 	PERB 	Decision No. 	308-H. 	In Regents, 	PERB
held 	that 	employer 	conduct 	in connection 	with 	the 	processing 	of
grievances 	is 	unlawful 	"if 	the 	impact 	of 	it 	is 	to deprive
employees 	of 	their 	statutory 	rights 	to 	effectively 	present
their 	grievances." 	That 	case 	found 	that 	denying 	a grievant
multiple 	representatives 	did 	not 	establish 	harm 	to 	guaranteed
employee 	rights.
The 	facts 	in 	this 	case 	reveal 	that 	Charging 	Party 	filed 	the
grievances 	and 	that 	UC 	returned 	them, 	indicating 	that 	it 	would
not 	proceed 	until 	the 	"addendum" 	was 	filed 	and 	the 	agreed-upon

May 	20, 	1988
LA-CE-231/232-H
Paqe 	5
form 	was 	used. 	These 	facts 	alone 	fail 	to 	raise 	a 	reasonable
inference 	that 	UC 	would 	have 	refused 	to process 	the 	grievances
if 	Charging 	Party 	had 	provided 	the 	addendum 	and 	the 	proper
form. 	UC's 	representative, 	Rich, 	extended 	to Charging 	Party
the 	option 	of 	requesting 	an 	extension 	of 	time 	if 	that 	was
necessary. 	Charging 	Party 	took 	no 	other 	action 	upon 	receiving
letters, 	either 	in 	terms of providing 	an addendum or 	requesting
that 	the 	matters 	proceed 	on 	the 	basis 	that 	there 	was 	no 	new
information 	to 	add 	at 	that 	time 	or 	requesting 	an extension 	of
time 	to 	accomplish 	one 	of 	the 	above. 	As 	noted 	above,
requesting 	the 	addendum 	and 	the 	agreed-upon 	form was 	not
unreasonable 	in 	view of 	the 	language of 	the 	MOU. 	Therefore 	the
facts 	alleged 	fail 	to demonstrate 	that 	UC 	effectively
interfered 	with 	Charging 	Party's 	right 	to 	present 	grievances.
For 	these 	reasons, 	the 	above-referenced 	charges 	as presently
written 	do 	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 charges 	accordingly. 	The 	amended
-
charges 	should 	be 	prepared 	on 	a 	standard 	PERB 	unfair 	practice
charge 	form, 	each 	clearly 	labeled 	First 	Amended 	Charge, 	contain
all 	the 	facts 	and 	allegations you 	wish 	to make, 	and 	be 	signed
under 	penalty 	of 	perjury 	by 	the 	charging 	party. 	The 	amended
charge(s) 	must 	be 	served 	on 	the 	respondent 	and 	the 	original
proof 	of 	service 	must 	be 	filed 	with 	PERB. 	If 	I 	do 	not 	receive
amended 	charge(s) 	or 	withdrawal(s) 	from you 	before
May 27, 	1988, 	I 	shall dismiss your charges. 	If you have any
questions on 	how to proceed, 	please call me at 	(213) 	736-3127.
Sincerely,
Sandra 	Owens 	Dennison
Regional 	Attorney
Attachment