California State Employees Association (Hackett, et al.) (PERB 0979SA)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
CATHY R. 	HACKETT, 	ET AL.,
Charging Parties,
v.
CALIFORNIA 	STATE 	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION,
Respondent.
) 	Case No. 	S-C0-147-S
Request 	for Reconsideration
PERB Decision No. 	979-S
PERB Decision No. 	979a-S
May 25, 	1993
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances: 	Cathy R. 	Hackett, 	on her own behalf; 	Howard
Schwartz, 	Attorney, 	for California State Employees Association.
Before Blair, 	Chair; 	Hesse and Caffrey, 	Members.
DECISION
HESSE, 	Member: 	This 	case is before 	the Public Employment
Relations 	Board 	(PERB 	or Board) 	on a 	request 	for reconsideration
filed by Cathy R. 	Hackett 	(Hackett) 	of 	the Board's decision in
California State Employees Association. 	(Hackett et al.) 	(1993)
PERB Decision No. 	979-S. 	In that 	decision the Board denied
Hackett's 	appeal 	of 	a Board agent's 	dismissal 	of 	her unfair
practice 	charge 	on the grounds 	that 	she 	failed to 	state a prima
facie case of a violation of sections 3512, 	3515.5, 	3519.5(b) 	and
3515.6 	of 	the Ralph C. 	Dills Act 	(Dills Act).1 Hackett alleges
1The Dills Act 	is 	codified at 	Government 	Code 	section 	3512
et 	seq. 	Unless 	otherwise 	indicated, 	all 	statutory references
herein are 	to the Government 	Code. 	Sections 	3512 	and 3515.6 	of
the Dills Act 	set 	forth the purposes 	of 	the Dills Act 	and the
right 	of 	employee 	organizations 	to have membership dues,
initiation 	fees, 	membership benefit programs 	and general
assessments deducted. 	Section 3515.5 	states:
Employee 	organizations 	shall 	have 	the 	right
to 	represent 	their members 	in their
)
)

that 	the 	California State 	Employees Association 	(CSEA) 	violated
the 	Dills 	Act 	by discriminating 	and 	imposing 	reprisals 	against
members of 	the Unit 	1 Bargaining Unit Committee. 	It 	is also
alleged 	that 	CSEA violated 	its 	duty of 	fair 	representation. 	In
the 	request 	for reconsideration, 	Hackett asserts 	that 	the Board
did not 	comprehensively 	consider her appeal 	of 	the 	dismissal 	of
her unfair practice 	charge.
employment 	relations with the 	state, 	except
that 	once 	an employee 	organization 	is
recognized as 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	of
an appropriate unit, 	the 	recognized employee
organization 	is 	the 	only organization 	that
may 	represent 	that 	unit 	in 	employment
relations 	with the 	state. 	Employee
organizations 	may 	establish 	reasonable
restrictions 	regarding who may 	join and may
make 	reasonable 	provisions 	for 	the 	dismissal
of 	individuals 	from membership. 	Nothing 	in
this 	section shall 	prohibit 	any employee 	from
appearing 	in his 	own behalf 	in his 	employment
relations 	with the 	state.
Section 3519.5 	states, 	in pertinent part:
It 	shall 	be unlawful 	for an employee
organization to:
(b) 	Impose or threaten to impose 	reprisals
on employees, 	to discriminate or threaten to
discriminate against 	employees, 	or otherwise
to interfere with, 	restrain, 	or coerce
employees because 	of 	their exercise of 	rights
guaranteed by 	this 	chapter.
DISCUSSION
PERB Regulation 32410(a)2 states, 	in pertinent part:
2PERB 	regulations 	are 	codified at 	California 	Code 	of
Regulations, 	title 8, 	section 31001 et seq.
22

The 	grounds 	for 	requesting 	reconsideration
are 	limited to 	claims 	that 	the 	decision of
the 	Board 	itself 	contains 	prejudicial 	errors
of 	fact, 	or newly discovered evidence 	or law
which was 	not 	previously 	available 	and 	could
not 	have been discovered with 	the 	exercise 	of
reasonable 	diligence.
Hackett's 	assertions 	that 	the 	Board 	failed 	to 	carefully
consider her appeal 	are without merit. 	The Board thoroughly
considered the allegations 	in her 	charge 	and the appeal 	of 	the
dismissal. 	Despite 	Hackett's voluminous 	submission of 	filings
(in excess of 3 80 pages), 	the charge and appeal 	fails to state a
prima 	facie 	case of a Dills Act violation. 	In the 	request before
the Board, 	Hackett 	has 	failed to 	cite 	any newly discovered
evidence 	or 	law 	that 	would 	support 	reconsideration by 	the 	Board.
Instead, 	Hackett 	reargues 	the 	claims made 	in the underlying
charge and restates 	allegations made 	for 	the 	first 	time 	on
appeal.3
3This portion of 	the 	charge 	challenges 	CSEA's 	internal
discipline procedures, 	an area 	into which the Board will 	not
intervene 	except where 	the 	internal 	activities 	of 	the 	employee
organization have 	a 	substantial 	impact 	upon 	employees
relationships with their employer. 	Hackett, 	for the 	first 	time
on appeal 	of 	the 	dismissal 	and 	in support 	of 	her 	challenge 	to
CSEA's 	internal 	procedures, 	alleged that 	CSEA violated sections
3518.7 and 3519(d) 	of 	the Dills Act because 	its Board of
Directors 	and General 	Council 	are 	dominated by 	supervisors,
retirees 	and 	California 	State 	University 	employees.
PERB Regulation 32635(b) 	provides 	in part 	that:
Unless good cause 	is 	shown, 	a charging party
may not 	present 	on appeal 	new charge
allegations 	or new supporting 	evidence.
As 	Hackett 	failed 	to 	show good 	cause 	for presenting 	new evidence,
the 	Board 	rejected 	that portion of 	the appeal. 	Assuming no
jurisdiction bar exists 	and there 	is 	standing to 	file a 	charge,
Hackett 	is 	not 	precluded 	from 	filing an 	independent 	unfair
w3

practice 	charge based 	on new 	facts 	which 	occurred 	subsequent 	to
the Board agent's 	dismissal. 	(See Sacramento City Unified School
District 	(1992) 	PERB Decision No. 	952.)
ORDER
The 	request 	for reconsideration 	in PERB Decision No. 	979-S
is 	hereby DENIED.
Chair Blair and Member Caffrey 	joined 	in 	this Decision.
4