California State Employees Association (Roberts) (PERB 1009S)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS 	BOARD
LINDA ROBERTS,
Charging 	Party,
v.
CALIFORNIA STATE 	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION,
Respondent.
Case No. 	S-CO-154-S
PERB Decision No. 	1009-S
August 18, 	1993
Appearances; 	Linda Roberts, 	on her own behalf; 	Howard Schwartz,
Attorney, 	for California State Employees Association.
Before Blair, 	Chair; 	Caffrey and Carlyle, 	Members.
DECISION AND 	ORDER
CARLYLE, 	Member: 	This case is before the Public Employment
Relations Board 	(Board) 	on appeal by Linda Roberts 	(Roberts) 	of a
Board agent's 	dismissal 	(attached hereto) 	of her unfair practice
charge. 	In her charge, 	Roberts alleged that 	the California State
Employees Association 	(CSEA) 	violated section 3519.5(b) 	of 	the
Ralph C. 	Dills Act 	(Dills Act)1 by engaging in numerous acts 	in
violation of her employee 	rights.
1The Dills Act 	is 	codified at Government 	Code 	section 3512
et seq. 	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.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_______________ )

The 	Board has 	reviewed 	the warning and dismissal 	letters,
the original and amended charge, 	Roberts' 	appeal and CSEA's
response 	thereto. 	The Board 	finds 	the Board agent's 	dismissal 	to
be 	free 	of prejudicial 	error and adopts 	it 	as 	the decision of 	the
Board 	itself.
The unfair practice 	charge 	in Case No. 	S-CO-154-S 	is 	hereby
DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE 	TO AMEND.
Chair Blair and Member Caffrey 	joined 	in 	this Decision.
22

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	PETE WILSON. Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Sacramento Regional Office
1031 18th Street, Room 102
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
(916) 322-3198
AP
June 11, 	1993
Linda 	Roberts
Re: 	Linda Roberts v. 	California State Employees Association
Unfair Practice 	Charge No, 	S-C0-154-S
DISMISSAL 	LETTER
Dear Ms. Roberts:
On February 23, 	1993, 	you filed a charge 	in which you allege 	that
the California State Employees Association 	(CSEA), 	violated
section 3519.5(b) 	of 	the Government Code 	(the Dills Act) 	by
prohibiting you 	from running 	for bargaining 	representative 	at 	the
State 	Bargaining Advisory Committee 	(SBAC) 	meeting held on
February 27, 	1993, 	by holding the Bargaining Unit 4, 	SBAC in
Southern California 	in violation of 	CSEA internal 	rules, 	by
refusing 	to 	allow bargaining 	representatives 	to 	contact 	each
other directly and arranging 	to 	control 	the 	issuance 	of
candidates statements. 	On February 26, 	1993, 	you filed an
amended 	charge.
I 	indicated to you, 	in my attached letter dated March 9, 	1993,
that 	the 	above-referenced 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. 	You were 	further advised that, 	unless you amended the
charge 	to 	state a prima 	facie 	case 	or withdrew it prior 	to March
18, 	1993, 	the charge would be dismissed.
On March 18, 	1993, 	you requested an extension of 	time 	to file an
amended 	charge 	and we 	agreed 	to an extension until 	March 24,
1993, 	for you to filed an amended charge. 	On March 24, 	1993, 	you
filed an amended 	charge. 	The 	statement 	of 	facts 	contained in
your amended charge 	filed on March 24, 	1993, 	states 	in its
entirety:
In his 	written 	statement 	(received by me 	3-
17-93), 	in response to interogatories 	[sic]
filed 	in regards 	to his 	law against me,
e .
.

Linda 	Roberts
Dismissal 	Letter 	S-CO-154-S
June 11, 	1993
Page. 2
Jeffrey Young, 	CSEA staff, 	stated that he was
acting as 	CSEA's agent 	in this 	suit. 	Yolanda
Solari, 	president 	of 	CSEA elected from a
group 	including 	supervisors, 	confronted me 	in
the 	hall 	way 	on 	3-21-93 	during 	a 	CSEA-PAC
meeting. 	She said that 	I 	should be quiet
about my case. 	I 	told her that 	she had
harmed me 	& 	that my 	credit 	had been ruined.
She 	said 	that 	she 	hadn't 	and 	I 	responded 	that
her staff person, 	Jeff Young, 	had sued me.
She 	said 	that he didn't work 	for her. 	I
asked who he did work for 	then. 	She 	said 	for
Bob Zenz, 	the general manager, 	who only
worked under her direction. 	All 	staff 	is
hired and only accountable 	to Bob 	Zenz, 	who
is by the board of directors, 	[sic] 	which has
supervisors 	in it. 	Since I 	could not be a
candidate 	for bargaining council 	unit 	4, 	as
Jeff 	filed charges 	on me, 	then dominance
controls 	who bargains 	for unit 	4. 	Many of
these actions, 	like the refusals 	to deal with
any of 	the 	charges against 	Yolanda's 	clique,
happened after my original 	unfairs 	so 	this
new unfair is 	timely. 	See Attached examples
of 	staff 	and 	other bargaining unit
interferance 	[sic] 	in bargaining council 	and
ratification elections. 	Perry Kenny, 	unit 3
Division director, 	just 	informed 	the new unit
4 	bargaining 	council 	that 	they 	couldn't meet
with members. 	CSEA had a 	steward 	training
planning meeting 	3-20-93, 	and didn't 	let 	the
DLC presidents 	know about 	it 	and 	only 	let
some 	chiefs 	know about 	it 	over the phone and
at 	the last minute.
The 	above 	statement 	of 	facts 	contained 	in your amended 	charge 	do
not 	contain clear and concise 	statements 	of 	the 	facts 	and 	conduct
by 	CSEA alleged 	to 	constitute 	an unfair practice 	as 	required by
PERB Regulation 32615 	(California Code of Regs., 	tit. 	8, 	sec.
32615). 	In the absence of a clear statement of 	facts and conduct
constituting an unfair practice your 	charge 	fails 	to 	state 	a
prima 	facie violation of 	section 3519.5(b) 	of 	the Dills Act.
Accordingly, 	your charge will be dismissed. 	(See Apple Valley
Unified School District 	(1992) 	PERB Decision No. 	963.)
In 	the 	declaration attached 	to 	the 	amended 	charge 	you 	filed on
March 24, 	1993, 	you appear to allege 	that CSEA staff 	lied about
the personal 	leave program 	(cash out) 	in an attempt 	to get 	the

Linda 	Roberts
Dismissal 	Letter 	S-CO-154-S
June 11, 	1993
Page 3
contract 	ratified. 	Your original 	charge 	filed on February 23,
1993, 	stated in pertinent part:
During June 	of 	1992 	Bill 	Sweeney and 	other
CSEA staff 	and officers 	Stated 	[sic] 	in
writting 	[sic] 	and in person to hundreds 	of
members 	including at 	the 	SBAC meeting 	at 	the
Raddison 	[sic] 	April 	1992, 	that the personal
leave package that 	they aggreed 	[sic] 	to 6-
16-92 	as 	part 	of 	unit 	4's MOU would allow
special 	fund agencies 	to 	cash out 	every
month. 	My agency 	in July 1992 	stated 	that
finance 	agency had 	to 	approve 	such 	cash 	outs
so 	CSEA lied about 	our ability 	to 	cash out
with just department approval. 	. 	.
As 	I previously informed you in my letter of March 9, 	1993, 	in
order 	to 	state 	a prima 	facie 	case 	a Charging 	Party must 	allege
and ultimately 	establish 	that 	the 	conduct 	complained 	of 	either
occurred 	or was 	discovered within 	the 	six-month period
immediately preceding the 	filing of 	the 	charge. 	San Dieguito
Union High School District 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	194.
Government 	Code section 3514.5(a) 	states 	in relevant part:
Any employee, 	employee organization, 	or
employer shall 	have 	the 	right 	to 	file 	an
unfair practice 	charge, 	except 	that 	the board
shall not do either of the following: 	(1)
issue 	a 	complaint 	in respect 	of 	any charge
based upon 	an alleged unfair practice
occurring more 	than 	six months 	prior 	to 	the
filing of 	the charge, 	. . .
This 	charge was 	filed with PERB on February 23, 	1993, 	which means
that 	to be 	timely any alleged unfair practice by 	the 	Association
should 	have 	occurred during 	the 	six-month 	statutory period 	which
began on August 23, 	1992.
The 	six month 	limitation period 	runs 	from the 	date 	the 	charging
party 	knew 	or 	reasonably 	should have 	known 	of 	the 	alleged unfair
practice, 	if 	the knowledge was 	obtained after the 	conduct
occurred. 	Fairfield Suisun Unified School 	District 	(1985) 	PERB
Decision No. 	547. 	The 	statement 	contained in your original
charge 	indicates 	that 	you 	knew about 	CSEA's 	conduct 	as 	early as
July 1992. 	Therefore, 	this allegation must be dismissed.
Therefore, 	I 	am dismissing your 	charge based on 	the 	facts 	and

Linda 	Roberts
Dismissal 	Letter 	S-C0-154-S
June 11, 	1993
Page 4
reasons 	contained 	in this 	letter and my March 9, 	1993 	letter.
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. 	(Cal. 	Code of Regs., 	tit. 	8,
sec. 	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 p.m.) 	or sent by telegraph,
certified 	or 	Express 	United 	States 	mail 	postmarked 	no 	later
than the last date set for filing. 	(Cal. 	Code of Regs., 	tit. 	8,
sec. 	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 	(20) 	calendar
days 	following the date of service of 	the appeal. 	(Cal. 	Code of
Regs., tit. 8, sec. 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 Cal. 	Code of Regs., 	tit. 	8,
sec. 	32140 	for the 	required contents and a sample 	form.) 	The
document 	will 	be 	considered properly 	"served" 	when personally
delivered or deposited 	in 	the 	first-class mail, 	postage paid and
properly 	addressed.
Extension 	of 	Time
A request 	for an extension of 	time, 	in which 	to 	file a document
with 	the Board 	itself, 	must 	be 	in writing and 	filed with 	the
Board at 	the previously noted address. 	A request 	for an
extension must 	be 	filed at 	least 	three 	(3) 	calendar days 	before
the 	expiration of 	the 	time 	required 	for 	filing 	the 	document.
The request must 	indicate good cause 	for and, 	if known, 	the
position of 	each other party regarding 	the 	extension, 	and shall
be 	accompanied by proof 	of 	service 	of 	the 	request 	upon 	each

Linda 	Roberts
Dismissal 	Letter 	S-CO-154-S
June 11, 	1993
Page 5
party. 	(Cal. Code of Regs., 	tit. 	8, 	sec. 	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,
ROBERT THOMPSON
Deputy General 	Counsel
By
Michael E. 	Gash
Regional 	Attorney
Attachment
cc: 	Bob Zenz, 	General Manager
'

: STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	PETE WILSON, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Sacramento Regional Office
1031 18th Street, Room 102
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
(916) 322-3198
March 9, 	1993
Linda 	Roberts
Re: 	Linda Roberts v. 	California State Employees Association
Unfair 	Practice 	Charge 	Case No. 	S-C0-154-S
WARNING 	LETTER
Dear Ms. 	Roberts:
On February 23, 	1993, 	you filed a charge 	in which you allege that
the California State Employees Association 	(CSEA), 	violated
section 3519.5(b) 	of 	the Government Code 	(the Dills Act) 	by
prohibiting you 	from running 	for bargaining 	representative 	at 	the
State Bargaining Advisory Committee 	(SBAC) 	meeting held on
February 27, 	1993, 	by holding the Bargaining Unit 4, 	SBAC in
Southern California 	in violation of 	CSEA internal 	rules by
refusing 	to 	allow bargaining 	representatives 	to 	contact 	each
other directly and arranging 	to 	control 	the 	issuance 	of
candidates 	statements. 	On February 26, 	1993, 	you filed an
amended charge. 	My 	investigation 	revealed 	the 	following 	facts.
CSEA is a 	recognized employee 	organization that 	is 	the 	exclusive
representative 	for an appropriate unit 	of 	employees 	in Bargaining
Unit 	4. 	Charging Party, 	Linda Roberts was 	the 	former President
of District Labor Council 	(DLC) 	789.1
On or about June 27, 	1992, 	Roberts was decertified as a job
steward for a period of 	one year commencing April 	1992. 	On or
about October 15, 	1992, 	Charging Party was 	elected to the
position 	of 	bargaining 	representative 	for Bargaining Unit 	4 	for
DLC 	789. 	When 	this 	was 	discovered by CSEA Civil 	Service Division
Director 	Perry Kenny, 	a 	letter was 	directed 	to DLC 	789 	President
1On June 	18, 	1992, 	Charging Party filed a charge, 	Linda
Roberts v. 	California State Employees Association, 	Unfair
Practice Charge No. 	S-C0-146-S, 	alleging 	that CSEA violated its
duty 	of 	fair 	representation by 	removing 	Charging 	Party 	from
office as 	President 	of DLC 	789 	and decertifying her as 	a 	steward.
That 	charge was dismissed on October 21, 	1992. 	Roberts has
appealed 	the 	dismissal 	to 	the 	Board and 	it 	is 	currently under
consideration.
i ®

Ms. Roberts
Warning 	Letter 	S-CO-154-S
March 9, 	1993
Page 2
Walter Rice 	clarifying Roberts' 	status 	and ineligibility to hold
local 	office.2 On or about October 30, 	1992, 	Roberts was
notified 	of 	her 	ineligibility 	to hold office.
On February 27, 	1993, 	in Manhattan Beach, 	California, 	the
Bargaining Unit 	4, 	SBAC met 	to elect 	its bargaining
representatives 	for the next 	two 	(2) 	years. 	Charging Party
planned 	to 	run 	for 	the 	office 	of bargaining 	representative 	and
Chair. 	Charging 	Party has 	served on 	the SBAC twice before.
PERB Regulation 32615 	(California Code of Regs., 	tit. 	8,
sec. 	32615) 	requires 	that your charge 	contain a 	clear and concise
statement 	of 	the 	facts 	and conduct 	alleged to 	constitute an
unfair practice. 	Your amended charge 	includes 	the 	following
paragraphs 	which contain vague allegations, 	states 	insufficient
facts 	and 	conclusions:
Perry 	is 	the division director 	for CSEA and
is 	in bargaining unit 	3. 	Charges were 	filed
on 	Perry Kenny 2-4-92 	and an 	index was
included to details, 	and the policy file
sections matched those details. 	The 	charges
used 	to 	remove me 	from office were not
indexed and did not match the detail 	at 	all.
This way 	[sic] 	pointed out 	to CSEA several
times 	starting 	3-10-92. 	At my appeal
6-30-92, 	Perry refused 	to answer 	the D L C s
presidents, 	voting on my appeal, 	as to what
the 	charges 	against me were. 	He 	repeatedly
refused 	to 	tell 	me who 	the 	review panel 	on my
case was 	the last refusal was June 1992; 	when
he 	again 	refused 	to 	specify the 	charges
against me. 	He also refused to state 	the
charges 	5-1-92. 	I had hearing officers 	on my
panel 	who had connections 	to 	the 	charging
parties 	(Georgie 	Trammel 	to Maury Hicks 	and
to Michael Miller). 	I also had staff, 	Jeff
Young file, 	chaRGESs 	[sic] 	on me which
Yolanda Solari, 	president on 	[sic] 	CSEA, 	said
was 	against 	the 	rules 	6-10-92. 	Perry Kenny
2CSEA Civil 	Service 	Policy File 	section 	3CSD2.02(6) 	states,
All 	district 	labor 	council 	officers 	and
district 	labor 	council 	bargaining unit
representatives must be members 	of 	the
Association 	in the Division, 	and be certified
stewards. 	(CSD 	12/87)

Ms. Roberts
Warning 	Letter 	S-CO-154-S
March 9, 	1993
Page 3
never had a hearing at all, 	Yolanda, 	who is
elected by a group 	that 	includes 	supervisors,
canceled his hearing. 	His 	hearing and 	review
panel 	included members 	of 	his 	clique 	and
dropped his 	charges 	claiming 	that 	I 	had not
responded 	to 	their 	request 	for more 	detail
which I had. 	5-12-92 	+ 	5-21-92, 	6-10-92
(8-17-92) (8-28-92) 	I was not 	informed when
the hearing 	report was 	issued. 	Perry was
aware of who was 	on his 	review panel.
Barbara Glass, 	assistant division director,
had 	charges 	filed against 	her by me 	5-18-92,
got 	to know who was 	on her 	review panel 	was.
I was not 	informed as 	to her 	report 	from the
hearing panel. 	At her hearing 	10-8-92 	she
stated that 	she had not 	ordered me 	to pay
certain expence 	[sic] 	claims 	and had no
intention 	of 	causing me 	to be 	removed 	from
office. 	I asked then, 	why I was 	removed from
office? 	They didn't have 	an answer 	for me.
Her hearing report, 	12-11-92, 	was very late
and therefore missed its 	required date, 	and
it did not 	include much of what went 	on at
the hearing and 	inaccurately quoted me 	as 	to
what was 	said. 	Yolanda refused 	to have a
hearing on Barbara 5-21-92. 	I 	requested
charges 	from Yolanda 	4-9-92 	on Georgie
Trammel, 	Al Metzler, 	and Jack Woodard, 	who
are my hearing panel, 	and she 	refused to have
a hearing. 	Charges were brought 	against
Michael 	Miller and Anna 	Kamerrer 	and 	no
hearing was 	held.
. 	. 	.The by-laws state that we have to be
willing 	to 	take 	steward 	training with 	2
months 	in order 	to be a DUR. 	I 	AM Eligible
even per 	Perry and Yo 	to be 	a 	steward 	4-6-93.
This 	is 	less 	than 2 months 	from now. 	Perry
had no 	legal basis 	for his 	letter 	to me
10-30-93 	[sic] 	and CSEA's 	letter to me
11-16-92 	to 	say that 	I 	couldn't 	be a DBUR.3
I 	had already been 	funded by 	CSEA 	for 	the
Dbur meeting and was 	already 	there. 	I 	have
never been notified 	that 	they put 	MaE
Randolph 	in my place 	but 	Rudy Bustillos 	and
3DBUR 	is 	the 	acronym for District 	Bargaining Unit
Representative.

Ms. Roberts
Warning 	Letter 	S-CO-154-S
March 9, 	1993
Page 	4
Virginia Gaudiana 	(staff 	hired by 	the 	BOD)
tried 	to get her 	to 	say that 	she 	was 	the DBUR
over the phone, 	they put her name on the list
that 	I 	saw last 	week even 	though 	they were
told by her that 	I was 	the DBUR and not 	her.
The Board of Directors 	includes 	supervisors.
In 	the absence 	of 	a 	clear statement 	of 	facts 	and 	conduct
constituting an unfair practice, 	these allegations 	fail 	to state
a prima 	facie violation of 	section 3519.5 	of 	the Dills Act and
will 	be 	dismissed. 	(See Apple Valley Unified School 	District
(9192) 	PERB Decision No. 	963.
The 	remaining 	allegations 	contained 	in 	Charging 	Party's 	amended
charge state,
Walter Rice was 	declared president 	of 	DLC
789, 	Mae Randolph, 	DBUR. 	I was elected
president again of DLC 789, 	5-7-92, 	was
elected bargaining 	rep. 	for unit 	4 	employees
of DLC 789 	10-15-92.
Perry Kenny 	refused 	to 	reinstate 	me 	to be
eligible 	for my original 	Position 	of
President of 789, 	5-7-92, 	after violating the
policy file sections 	6CSD3.01 a, 	b, 	c, 	and d,
and 	6CSD9.02 	by 	removing me 	from office
4-6-92. 	A totally different 	procedure 	was
used to handle 	the 	charges 	filed against me
than used to handle 	charges 	against 	people 	in
Perry's 	clique. 	. . .
. 	. 	.On 5-13-92 	Yolanda refused in writting
[sic] 	to make Perry Kenny abide by the 	rules.
Jeff 	Young has 	stated 	that 	CSEA 	is 	supporting
him in his 	law suit against me, 	(5-4-92
letter of 	Doug 	Foster 	stating 	that 	Jeff
Young, 	"of CSEA" 	is going to sue m e ) . 	I
appealed 	this 	to Yolanda and 	she 	took 	no
action 5-8-92. 	Bill 	Cook's 	letter 	regarding
my charges 	of Jeff harrassing 	[sic] 	one 	of my
co-workers, 	show that he knew about 	the 	law
suit 	and 	supported Jeff. 	6-29-92.
The differences 	in how the discipline
prodedures 	[sic] 	were applied to me and how
that 	they were 	applied 	to 	the 	Perry Clique
shows that CSEA does not uses 	[sic].

Ms. Roberts
Warning 	Letter 	S-CO-154-S
March 9, 	1993
Page 5
reasonable 	rules 	to allow members'
participation. 	Rules 	were violated 	(see
above) 	to kick me out 	of 	office and keep 	them
in. 	Rules 	that 	are applied unequally 	cannot
be reasonable. 	During June of 	1992 	Bill
Sweeney and 	other 	CSEA 	staff 	and 	officers
Stated 	[sic] 	in writting 	[sic] 	and in person
to hundreds 	of members 	including at 	the 	SBAC
meeting at the Raddison 	[sic] 	April 	1992,
that 	the personal 	leave package 	that 	they
aggreed 	[sic] 	to 	6-16-92 	as 	part 	of unit 	4's
MOU would allow 	special 	fund agencies 	to 	cash
out 	every month. 	My agency 	in July 	1992
stated 	that 	finance 	agency had 	to 	approve
such cash outs 	so 	CSEA lied about 	our ability
to cash out with just 	department 	approval.
They dropped a greivance 	[sic] 	on this
recently 	(they have not 	told us when).
Bill 	Sweeney has 	stated 	in 	the 	proposed
agenda for the uncomming 	[sic] 	unit 	four
bargaining meeting 	that 	the 	addresses 	for
bargaining 	representatives 	are 	private 	and
that we have to submitt 	[sic] 	our candidates
statements through CSEA 	(him).
This 	is not 	in the 	rules 	and has 	never
hAPPENDED 	[sic] 	before during these
elections.
The unit 	4 by laws 	state 	that meetings 	have
to move around the state. 	The 	last SBAC 	for
unit 	4 	was 	in Long Beach this upcoming one 	is
in Manhattan Beach 	(10-30-92, 	2-27-93) 	The
rules 	state and it was voted at 	the 	last 	SBAC
meeting 	that 	this 	meeting would be 	in
Northern California where 	the vast 	majority
of unit 	4 works 	and lives. 	She may not
substitute 	closed meetings 	for 	the 	Nothern
[sic] Ca. meeting. 	. 	. 	.
In order to state a prima 	facie 	case a 	Charging 	Party must 	allege
and ultimately 	establish 	that 	the 	conduct 	complained 	of 	either
occurred 	or was 	discovered within 	the 	six-month 	period
immediately preceding the 	filing of 	the 	charge. 	San Dieguito
Union High School District 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	194.
Government Code section 3514.5 (a) 	states 	in relevant part:
Any employee, 	employee organization, 	or

Ms. Roberts
Warning 	Letter 	S-CO-154-S
March 9, 	1993
Page 6
employer shall 	have 	the 	right 	to 	file an
unfair practice 	charge, 	except 	that 	the board
shall 	not do either of 	the 	following: 	(1)
issue a 	complaint 	in respect 	of 	any charge
based upon an 	alleged unfair practice
occurring more 	than six months 	prior 	to 	the
filing 	of 	the 	charge, 	. . .
This 	charge was 	filed with PERB on February 23, 	1993, 	which means
that 	to be 	timely any alleged unfair practice by 	CSEA should have
occurred 	during 	the 	six-month 	statutory period which began 	on
August 23, 	1992.
The 	six-month limitation period 	runs 	from the 	date 	the 	charging
party knew or 	reasonably 	should have 	known 	of 	the 	alleged unfair
practice, 	if 	the knowledge was 	obtained after the 	conduct
occurred. 	Fairfield Suisun Unified School 	District 	(1985) 	PERB
Decision No. 	547.
The 	following allegations, 	contained 	in Charging Party's 	amended
charge, 	indicate 	that Charging Party had knowledge 	that 	CSEA may
have engaged in unfair labor practices prior to August 	23, 	1992:
Perry Kenny refused 	to 	reinstate 	me 	to be
eligible 	for my original 	Position of
President of 789, 	5-7-92, 	after violating the
policy file sections 	6CSD3.01 a, 	b, 	c, 	and d,
and 	6CSD9.02 	by 	removing me 	from 	office
4-6-92.
On 	5-13-92 	Yolanda 	refused 	in writting 	[sic]
to make 	Perry Kenny abide by 	the 	rules.
Jeff 	Young has 	stated 	that 	CSEA 	is 	supporting
him in his 	law suit against me, 	(5-4-92
letter 	of 	Doug 	Foster 	stating 	that 	Jeff
Young, 	"of CSEA" 	is going to sue m e ) . 	I
appealed 	this 	to Yolanda 	and 	she 	took no
action 	5-8-92. 	Bill 	Cook's 	letter 	regarding
my charges 	of 	Jeff 	harrassing 	one 	of my co-
workers, 	show that he knew about 	the law suit
and supported Jeff. 	6-29-92.
During June 	of 	1992 	Bill 	Sweeney and 	other
CSEA staff 	and officers 	Stated 	[sic] 	in
writting 	[sic] 	and in person to hundreds 	of
members 	including at 	the 	SBAC meeting at 	the
Raddison April 	1992, 	that 	the personal 	leave
package 	that 	they aggreed 	[sic] 	to 	6-16-92 	as

Ms. Roberts
Warning 	Letter 	S-CO-154-S
March 9, 	1993
Page 	7
part 	of 	unit 	4's 	MOU would allow special 	fund
agencies 	to 	cash out 	every month. 	My agency
in July 	1992 	stated that 	finance 	agency had
to 	approve 	such 	cash 	outs 	so 	CSEA lied about
our ability to 	cash out 	with just 	department
a p p r o v a l . . . .
Since 	the 	conduct 	Charging 	Party complained of 	in 	these
allegations 	and 	the 	receipt 	of 	knowledge 	of 	that 	conduct 	by
Charging 	Party 	occurred 	outside 	the 	six-month 	limitation period,
these 	allegations 	are 	untimely 	and must 	be 	dismissed.
The present 	charge also 	challenges 	CSEA's 	internal procedures 	for
declaring 	Charging 	Party 	ineligible 	to hold 	office 	as 	the 	DLC
bargaining representative on October 30, 	1992, 	and thus
ineligible 	to 	run at 	the 	February 27th meeting 	for a position on
the SBAC.
Generally, 	the 	Public Employment Relations 	Board 	(PERB or Board)
has 	not 	read 	the Dills Act as authorizing PERB to 	intervene 	in
internal 	union affairs. 	In Service Employees 	International
Union. 	Local 99 	(Kimmett) 	(1979) 	PERB Decision No. 	106, 	at pp,
15-17, 	the Board explained as follows:
The EERA gives 	employees 	the 	right 	to 	"join
and participate 	in activities 	of 	employee
organizations" 	(sec. 	3543) 	and employee
organizations 	are prevented 	from 	interfering
with employees because of 	the 	exercise 	of
their rights 	(sec. 	3543.6(b)). 	Read broadly,
these 	sections 	could be 	construed as
prohibiting 	any 	employee 	organization 	conduct
which would prevent 	or 	limit 	employee's
participation in any of 	its activities. 	The
internal 	organization 	structure 	could be
scrutinized as 	could 	the 	conduct 	of 	elections
for union officers 	to 	ensure 	conformance with
an 	idealized participatory 	standard. 	However
laudable 	such a result might be, 	the Board
finds 	such 	intervention 	in union affairs 	to
be 	beyond 	the 	legislative 	intent 	in enacting
the EERA. 	There 	is nothing in the EERA
comparable 	to 	the 	Labor-Management 	Reporting
and Disclosure Act 	of 	1959, 	which regulates
certain 	internal 	conduct 	of 	unions 	operating
in 	the private 	sector. 	The 	EERA does not
describe 	the 	internal 	working 	or 	structure 	of
employee 	organization nor does 	it 	define 	the
internal 	rights 	of 	organization members. 	We

Ms. Roberts
Warning 	Letter 	S-CO-154-S
March 9, 	1993
Page 8
cannot believe 	that by the use of 	the phrase
"participate 	in the 	activities 	of 	employee
organizations 	.. 	. 	for the purpose of
representation on all matters 	of 	employer-
employee relations" 	in section 3543, 	the
Legislature 	intended this 	Board 	to 	create 	a
regulatory set 	of 	standards 	governing 	the
solely 	internal 	relationship between 	a 	union
and its members. 	Rather, 	we believe that the
Legislature 	intended 	in 	the 	EERA to grant 	and
protect employees' 	rights 	to be represented
in 	their 	employment 	relations 	by 	freely
chosen employee 	organizations. 	[Footnotes
omitted.]
PERB 	has 	also 	recognized an exception to 	the general 	principle 	of
non-intervention. 	In questions of membership, 	PERB will 	examine
the reasonableness 	of restrictions 	or dismissals. 	See Union of
American Physicians and Dentists 	(Stewart) 	(1985) 	PERB Decision
No. 	539-S 	and California Correctional 	Peace Officers Association
(Colman) 	(1989) 	PERB Decision No. 	755-S.
CSEA previously declared 	Charging 	Party 	ineligible 	to 	hold 	office
as 	President 	in the DLC as 	a 	result 	of 	her being decertified as 	a
job steward. 	In October 1992, 	Charging Party was 	elected to the
position of bargaining representative for DLC 789. 	When this was
discovered, 	CSEA notified DLC 	789 	President Rice 	of Roberts'
status and ineligibility to hold local 	office. 	On or about
October 30, 	1992, 	Roberts was notified of her ineligibility to
hold local 	office, 	making her ineligible 	to run 	for the
SBAC on February 27, 	1993. 	Although Charging Party's amended
charge states:
The 	differences 	in how the 	discipline
prodedures 	[sic] 	were applied to me and how
that 	they were applied to 	the 	Perry Clique
shows 	that 	CSEA does 	not uses 	[sic]
reasonable 	rules 	to allow members'
participation. 	Rules 	were violated 	(see
above) 	to kick me out 	of 	office and keep them
in. 	Rules 	that 	are applied unequally 	cannot
be 	reasonable.
4EERA Section 3543.6(b) 	is 	identical 	to section 3519.5(b) 	of
the Dills Act.
•

Ms. Roberts
Warning 	Letter 	S-CO-154-S
March 9, 	1993
Page 9
Charging 	Party's 	amended charge 	fails 	to 	state 	sufficient 	facts
to demonstrate 	that 	CSEA's 	enforcement 	of 	its 	rule 	that 	a member
must be 	certified to run for the SBAC 	is unreasonable. 	Thus,
Charging 	Party has 	failed to establish a prima 	facie 	case 	that
CSEA has 	violated 	the Dills Act 	by declaring 	her 	ineligible 	to
run for the SBAC.
Charging 	Party's 	amended 	charge also alleges 	that 	CSEA 	is
discriminating against 	her by 	failing 	to 	allow her 	to 	run 	for
bargaining 	representative 	of 	the 	SBAC at 	the meeting 	scheduled
for February 27, 	1993. 	Charging Party's amended charge states:
A totally different 	procedure 	was 	used 	to
handle 	the 	charges 	filed against me 	than used
to handle 	charges 	against people 	in Perry's
clique. . . .
When allegations 	of 	reprisal 	for protected activity are present,
if 	the allegations 	state 	facts 	supporting 	retaliation by an
employee 	organization, 	internal union activities may be 	reviewed.
Such an,inquiry must 	go 	forth under 	Carlsbad Unified 	School
District 	(1979) 	PERB Decision No. 	89 	and/or Novato Unified School
District 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	210, 	as to whether the employee
organization's 	actions were motivated by a 	charging party's
exercise of protected rights. 	California State Employees'
Association 	(O'Connell) 	(1989) 	PERB Decision No. 	753-H.
In this 	case, 	Charging Party has 	not demonstrated that 	CSEA, 	by
prohibiting her 	from running 	for bargaining 	representative 	of 	the
SBAC, 	has 	treated her differently than other bargain unit
members, 	or that 	CSEA engaged in this 	conduct 	in 	retaliation 	for
her having 	engaged 	in protected 	rights.
For these reasons 	the charge, 	as presently written, 	does not
state a prima 	facie 	case. 	If 	there are any 	factual 	inaccuracies
in 	this 	letter or additional 	facts 	which would 	correct 	the
deficiencies 	explained above, 	please amend the 	charge. 	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 	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 March 18, 	1993, 	I

Ms. Roberts
Warning 	Letter 	S-CO-154-S
March 9, 	1993
Page 	10
shall dismiss your charge. 	If you have any questions, 	please
call me at 	(916) 	322-3198.
Sincerely,
Regional 	Attorney
Michael E. 	Gash