Los Rios College Federation of Teachers (Deglow) (PERB 1133E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
ANNETTE M. 	DEGLOW,
Charging 	Party,
v.
LOS RIOS 	COLLEGE 	FEDERATION OF
TEACHERS,
Respondent.
)
)
) 	Case No. 	S-CO-314
PERB Decision No. 	1133
January 	19, 	1996
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances; 	Annette M. 	Deglow, 	on her own behalf; 	Law Offices
of Robert J. 	Bezemek by Adam H. 	Birnhak, 	Attorney, 	for Los Rios
College 	Federation of 	Teachers.
Before Caffrey, 	Chairman; 	Johnson and Dyer, 	Members.
DECISION
CAFFREY, 	Chairman: 	This case is before the Public
Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(PERB 	or Board) 	on exceptions 	filed by
Annette M. 	Deglow 	(Deglow) 	to a PERB administrative 	law judge's
(ALJ) 	proposed decision 	(attached). 	The ALJ dismissed the
complaint 	and Deglow's 	unfair practice 	charge 	which alleged 	that
the Los Rios 	College Federation of Teachers 	(Federation) 	breached
its 	duty 	of 	fair 	representation guaranteed by section 	3544.9 	of
the Educational Employment Relations Act 	(EERA), 	thereby
violating EERA section 3543.6(b),1 when it 	took certain actions
1EERA is 	codified at 	Government 	Code 	section 	3540 	et 	seq.
Unless 	otherwise 	indicated, 	all 	statutory references 	herein are
to 	the Government 	Code.
Section 3544.9 	states:
The 	employee 	organization 	recognized 	or
certified as 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	for
the 	purpose 	of meeting and negotiating 	shall

related 	to 	grievances 	filed by Deglow. 	The 	alleged unlawful
actions 	are: 	making negative 	comments 	about Deglow to an
official 	of 	the 	Los Rios 	Community College District 	(District);
informing Deglow 	that 	the 	Federation would be 	interested 	in
pursuing her grievances 	against 	the District 	only 	if 	she became a
member of 	the 	Federation; 	refusing 	to meet with Deglow concerning
her grievances; 	and refusing 	to pursue Deglow's 	grievances 	to a
hearing by a District 	Board of 	Review.
The 	Board has 	reviewed the 	entire 	record 	in this 	case,
including the proposed decision, 	transcript, 	exhibits, 	Deglow's
exceptions 	and 	the 	Federation's 	response 	thereto.2 The 	Board
finds 	the ALJ's 	findings 	of 	fact 	and conclusions 	of 	law to be
free 	of prejudicial 	error and adopts 	them as 	the decision of 	the
Board 	itself.
fairly 	represent 	each and 	every 	employee 	in
the appropriate unit.
Section 3543.6 	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.
2Deglow's 	request 	for oral 	argument 	before 	the 	Board was
denied on January 5, 	1996.
22

DEGLOW'S 	APPEAL
On appeal, 	Deglow asserts 	that 	the ALJ:
. 	. 	. 	based his conclusions on intuition,
speculation and personal 	bias 	rather 	than 	the
facts 	within 	the 	record which outline 	an
unmistakable 	and distinct 	pattern 	of
discrimination, 	hostility and animosity by
the 	Los 	Rios 	Federation of 	Teachers
(hereafter 	"Federation") 	leaders 	toward
Annette 	Deglow 	. . . .
Deglow cites 	dozens 	of 	"omissions" 	by the ALJ 	in his proposed
decision, 	and restates her version of 	the 	circumstances
surrounding 	the 	case.
Deglow 	contends 	that 	her grievances 	against 	the District
concerning seniority, 	retirement credits, 	etc., 	are all well
founded. 	Deglow asserts 	that 	the 	Federation has 	the 	resources
necessary to pursue 	these grievances, 	but 	refuses 	to do so
because 	of 	her 	continued refusal 	to join the 	Federation, 	and
because 	of 	her 	continued 	filing 	of 	unfair 	labor practice 	charges
against 	the District 	and 	the 	Federation.
Deglow also 	cites 	numerous 	circumstances 	through which 	she
asserts 	that 	the 	Federation has 	been 	incompetent 	and/or
disingenuous 	in 	representing her. 	She also 	reiterates 	that
negative 	comments 	made about 	her 	in a 	conversation between
District 	and 	Federation officials 	are 	a 	clear 	indication 	of 	the
Federation's 	discriminatory motivation. 	And she 	objects 	to 	the
ALJ's 	determinations 	with 	regard 	to her allegation 	that 	a
Federation 	official 	conditioned action 	on Deglow's 	grievances 	on
her becoming a member of 	the 	Federation.
W
	3

FEDERATION'S 	RESPONSE
The 	Federation responds 	to Deglow's 	exceptions 	in 	large part
by 	supporting 	the 	analysis 	presented by 	the ALJ 	in 	dismissing
Deglow's 	charge.
The 	Federation also excepts 	to 	two of 	the ALJ's 	findings.
First, 	the 	Federation excepts 	to the ALJ's 	conclusion that
Deglow's 	testimony was 	forthright 	and 	credible 	concerning 	her
allegation 	that 	a 	Federation 	official 	conditioned action 	on her
grievances 	on her becoming a member of 	the 	Federation. 	Despite
the ALJ's 	finding 	that no 	such conditional 	statement was made,
the 	Federation asserts 	that 	the ALJ's 	conclusion 	concerning
Deglow's 	credibility 	is 	not 	supported by his analysis, 	and asks
the 	Board 	to 	overrule 	that 	determination.
Second, 	the 	Federation excepts 	to the ALJ's 	failure 	to award
litigation expenses 	to the 	Federation in this 	case. 	The
Federation asserts 	that Deglow's unfair practice 	charge 	largely
repeats 	allegations 	which have been dealt 	with previously by 	PERB
in other cases 	involving Deglow. 	Accordingly, 	the 	Federation
asserts 	that 	Deglow 	is 	abusing 	PERB's 	process 	and 	litigation
expenses 	should properly be 	awarded 	to 	the 	Federation.
DISCUSSION
EERA section 	3544.9 	requires 	that 	an exclusive
representative 	"shall 	fairly 	represent 	each and every 	employee 	in
the appropriate unit." 	Interpreting this 	section, 	PERB has held
that 	the 	duty 	of 	fair 	representation attaches 	during 	contract
negotiations 	(Los Angeles Unified School District 	(1986) 	PERB
4

Decision No. 	599), 	and during grievance handling and contract
administration. 	(Rocklin Teachers 	Professional 	Association
(Romero) 	(1980) 	PERB Decision No. 	124 	(Rocklin).) 	In order to
prove a violation of 	the duty of 	fair representation, 	the Board
has 	held 	that 	a 	charging party must 	show that 	the 	exclusive
representative's 	conduct was 	arbitrary, 	discriminatory or 	in bad
faith. 	(United Teachers of Los Angeles 	(Collins) 	(1982) 	PERB
Decision No. 	258.) 	To prove arbitrary conduct, 	a charging party
must 	show 	"how or 	in what manner 	the 	exclusive 	representative's
action or 	inaction was without 	a 	rational 	basis 	or devoid 	of
honest 	judgment." 	(Rocklin.)
On appeal, 	Deglow cites 	numerous 	factual 	"omissions" 	by the
ALJ. 	While 	the 	information offered by Deglow may 	result 	in a
more 	comprehensive 	description of 	the background of 	her
grievances and relationship to the 	Federation, 	Deglow fails 	to
demonstrate 	through 	this 	information 	that 	the 	Federation's
conduct 	toward her was arbitrary, 	discriminatory or 	in bad 	faith.
In 	fact, 	much of 	the 	information offered by Deglow on appeal
relates 	to actions 	of 	the District, 	which have no apparent
bearing 	on 	the 	conduct 	of 	the 	Federation.
In 	citing actions 	by 	the 	Federation which Deglow alleges
constitute a breach of 	its duty of 	fair representation, 	she 	is
repeating allegations made 	to 	and 	considered by the ALJ. 	As
noted by 	the ALJ, 	PERB has 	adopted 	the 	standard enunciated by 	the
United States Supreme Court in Vaca v. 	Sipes 	(1967) 	386 U.S. 	171,
190 	[64 	LRRM 2369] 	affording the exclusive 	representative with
55

considerable 	discretion 	in 	the 	representation 	of 	employees 	within
a grievance procedure. 	Moreover, 	the Board has 	found that 	this
discretion 	includes 	the 	exclusive 	representative's 	ability 	to
decide 	in good 	faith 	that 	even a meritorious 	employee 	grievance
should not be pursued. 	(United Teachers 	of 	Los Angeles 	(Clark)
(1990) 	PERB Decision No. 	796.) 	Despite Deglow's assertion that
her grievances 	against 	the District 	are well-founded, 	decisions
by 	the 	Federation not 	to pursue 	them are 	not 	in and 	of 	themselves
unlawful. 	Deglow must 	show that 	the 	Federation's actions
concerning 	those 	grievances 	were without 	a 	rational 	basis 	or
devoid of 	honest 	judgment. 	Deglow has 	failed 	to do 	so and,
therefore, 	her exceptions are rejected.
Both Deglow and 	the 	Federation 	express 	concerns 	with 	the
ALJ's 	consideration 	of 	the 	credibility of 	witnesses 	relating 	to
the 	Federation's 	alleged 	conditioning 	of 	pursuit 	of 	Deglow's
grievances 	on her Federation membership. 	It 	is a well-
established principle 	of 	PERB 	case 	law that 	the 	Board grants
great 	deference 	to 	the 	credibility determinations made by 	its
ALJs. 	This principle recognizes 	the fact 	that, 	by virtue of
having witnessed the 	live 	testimony, 	the ALJ is 	in a better
position 	to 	accurately make 	such determinations 	than 	the 	Board
itself, 	which only reviews 	the 	cold transcript 	of 	the hearing.
(Temple 	City Unified School 	District 	(1990) 	PERB Decision
No. 	841.) ' 	Where there is no evidence in the record which
supports 	overturning 	such credibility determinations, 	the Board
defers 	to 	the ALJ's 	findings. 	(Whisman Elementary School
66

District 	(1991) 	PERB Decision No. 	868.) 	The Board finds no
evidence 	in the 	record to support 	the parties' 	exceptions 	to the
ALJ's 	credibility determinations here. 	Therefore, 	those
exceptions 	are 	rejected.
The 	Federation also 	excepts 	to 	the ALJ's 	failure 	to award
litigation expenses, 	claiming 	that Deglow in this 	case 	is 	largely
repeating allegations 	already 	rejected by 	the 	Board. 	The 	Board
will 	award attorneys' 	fees 	and costs where a case 	is without
arguable merit, 	frivolous, vexatious, 	dilatory, 	pursued in bad
faith or 	is 	otherwise an abuse 	of process. 	(Chula Vista City
School District 	(1990) 	PERB Decision No. 	834; 	United Professors
of California 	(Watts) 	(1984) 	PERB Decision No. 	398-H.) 	Attorney
fees 	will 	be denied 	if 	the 	"issues 	are 	debatable 	and brought 	in
good 	faith." 	(Chula Vista City School 	District 	(1982) 	PERB
Decision No. 	256, 	p. 	8.)
In applying this 	standard, 	the Board is 	reluctant 	to order
the payment 	of 	litigation expenses 	by employees 	who 	are
representing themselves 	in PERB proceedings, 	because to do so
might 	tend 	to 	discourage 	the 	legitimate pursuit 	of 	unfair
practice charges. 	The charging party here, 	however, 	while
representing herself, 	has 	extensive 	experience 	in PERB's unfair
practice 	charge process. 	The 	repeated presentation of 	charges
based 	on 	circumstances 	which have 	been 	considered by 	the 	Board 	in
related 	cases 	previously 	suggests 	an abuse 	of 	that process.
On balance, 	the Board concludes 	that 	litigation expenses
should not be awarded to 	the 	Federation 	in this 	case. 	However,
77

the 	Board 	cautions 	Deglow that 	pursuit 	of 	similar 	charges 	based
on 	essentially 	the 	same 	circumstances 	presented by 	this 	case may
be 	considered an abuse of 	PERB's process 	in the 	future.
ORDER
The 	complaint 	and unfair practice 	charge 	in Case
No. 	S-CO-314 	are hereby DISMISSED.
Members 	Johnson and Dyer 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
8
8

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
ANNETTE M. 	DEGLOW,
Charging 	Party,
v.
LOS 	RIOS 	COLLEGE 	FEDERATION OF
TEACHERS,
Respondent.
Unfair 	Practice
Case No. 	S-CO-314
PROPOSED 	DECISION
(4/6/95)
Appearances: 	Annette M. 	Deglow, 	in propria persona; 	Law Offices
of Robert J. 	Bezemek by Adam H. 	Birnhak, 	Attorney, 	for Los Rios
College 	Federation of 	Teachers.
Before Allen R. 	Link, 	Administrative Law Judge.
INTRODUCTION
The 	complaint 	states 	that 	in January 1993, 	Annette M. 	Deglow
(Deglow), 	along with other part-time 	instructors who were
employed by 	the 	Los 	Rios 	Community 	College District 	(District)
prior to 	1967 	(pre-67 	instructors), 	filed collective bargaining
agreement 	(CBA) 	grievances. 	These grievances 	concern
(1) 	seniority, 	(2) 	longevity pay, 	(3) 	sick leave credits,
(4) 	retirement records, 	and 	(5) 	discrimination. 	The complaint
alleges 	that 	the 	Los 	Rios 	College 	Federation of 	Teachers
(Federation) 	took the 	following negative action(s) 	with regard to
these grievances: 	(1) 	made negative 	comments about Deglow to the
District's personnel 	director; 	(2) 	informed Deglow that 	it would
only be 	interested 	in her 	grievances 	if 	she 	and 	the 	other pre-67
instructors became 	Federation members; 	(3) 	refused to meet with
Deglow and her 	fellow grievants; 	and 	(4) 	refused to pursue 	the
subject 	grievances 	to a Board of 	Review hearing.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
______________ )

The 	Federation 	responds 	that 	it 	fairly 	represented Deglow
and 	that 	her grievances 	were 	either 	time-barred, 	collaterally
estopped, 	or were 	outside 	the 	ambit 	of matters under Federation
control.
PROCEDURAL 	HISTORY
On January 10, 	1994, 	Deglow filed an unfair practice 	charge
with 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(PERB 	or Board)
against 	the 	Federation alleging violations 	of various 	sections 	of
the 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Act 	(EERA or Act).1
On February 16, 	1994, 	a 	first amended charge was 	filed
alleging violations 	of 	the 	same 	sections 	of 	the EERA. 	On
February 28, 	1994, 	a second amended charge was 	filed, 	once again
alleging violations 	of 	the 	same 	sections 	of 	the 	EERA.
On March 8, 	1994, 	after an investigation of the charges,
PERB's 	Office 	of 	the General 	Counsel 	issued a 	complaint 	alleging
violations of 	subdivision 	(b) 	of section 3543.6.2
1EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. 	All
section references, 	unless 	otherwise noted, 	are 	to the Government
Code.
Subdivision 	(b) 	of 	section 3543.6 	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.
22

On March 20, 	1994, 	a third amended charge was 	filed alleging
violations of section 3543.6. 	On March 25, 	1994, 	the Federation
filed its answer to the complaint. 	On March 28, 	1994, 	an
informal 	conference 	was 	held 	in an attempt 	to 	reach voluntary-
settlement. 	No settlement was 	reached.
On June 28, 	1994, 	a motion to dismiss was 	filed by the
Federation, 	alleging 	the 	complaint's 	failure 	to 	state a 	cause of
action.
On July 11, 	1994, 	Deglow filed a motion to amend the
complaint 	to add other pre-67 	instructors 	as 	charging parties.
On July 21, 	1994, 	the Federation filed its 	response 	to this
motion. 	On that 	same date, 	Deglow filed her opposition to 	the
Federation's motion 	to dismiss.
On July 26, 	1994, 	the Federation filed a motion in limine,
attempting 	to 	exclude 	evidence 	regarding 	a 	discussion 	involving
Federation Executive Director Robert 	Perrone 	(Perrone), 	District
Personnel 	Director Mary Jones 	(Jones), 	and District 	instructor
Michael Lowman 	(Lowman) 	Ph.D.
On July 26, 	1994, 	a pre-hearing conference was held, 	during
which 	all 	previously 	filed motions 	were 	denied.
A formal 	hearing was 	held by the undersigned on August 	2, 	3,
25 	and 26, 	1994. 	Each side 	filed post-hearing briefs, 	with the
last brief 	having been filed on December 2, 	1994. 	The 	case was
submitted 	for a proposed decision at 	that 	time.
33

FINDINGS 	OF 	FACT
Jurisdiction
It 	is 	found that Deglow is 	a public 	school 	employee, 	and the
Federation 	is 	an 	employee 	organization and an 	exclusive
representative, 	within the meaning of 	section 3540.1.
Background
On July 1, 	19 65, 	as a result of a general population
election, 	the 	Los 	Rios Junior College District 	assumed the
operation 	of 	the American River 	College 	and 	Sacramento 	City
College. 	American River College was, 	at that time, 	an
independent 	operating 	junior 	college 	district. 	Sacramento
Junior/City College, 	however, 	had been a part 	of 	the 	Sacramento
City Unified School 	District 	since 	1916. 	Through 	this merger
Deglow became 	an 	employee 	of 	the 	new district which was 	renamed
Los 	Rios 	Community College District 	in 	1970.
During 	this 	merger process 	both Deglow and 	the 	other pre-67
instructors 	believed 	they were 	not 	given 	the 	full 	quantum of
rights 	they were 	entitled to by law. 	Most 	of 	the 	grievances 	that
are 	the 	subject 	of 	this 	case 	involve 	allegations 	that 	the
Federation breached 	its 	duty 	of 	fair 	representation when 	it
failed 	to 	properly 	represent 	Deglow and 	the 	other pre-67
instructors 	in their attempts 	to attain these 	rights. 	On
February 23, 	1994, 	the District rejected all of 	the subject
grievances 	at 	the District 	level.
The 	Federation and 	the District were parties 	to a 	CBA,
effective 	from July 1, 	1990 	to June 30, 	1993. 	On August 25,
44

1993, 	the parties signed a successor CBA, 	effective July 1, 	1993
to June 30, 	1996.
Seniority 	Grievance
In 1980-81, 	Deglow filed a grievance, 	similar to the one
filed 	in 	1993, 	over her seniority date 	on the 	certificated
register 	(a 	chronological 	employment 	register of 	all 	District
instructors). 	The 	Federation took the 	identical 	position on 	the
previous 	grievance 	that 	it 	took with regard to 	this 	one, 	that 	the
allegedly 	improper 	seniority 	date 	issue 	did not 	have 	an 	"adverse
affect," 	on Deglow's 	employment 	status 	and 	therefore 	did not 	fall
within the CBA definition of grievance.3 On June 	30, 	1981,
Deglow 	responded by 	filing 	an unfair practice 	charge 	over 	the
Federation's 	refusal 	to 	take 	her grievance 	to a Board of 	Review,
the 	last 	step 	in 	the 	CBA grievance procedure.
A PERB Administrative 	Law Judge 	(ALJ) 	held 	that 	Deglow was
"seeking 	the 	expenditure 	of 	Federation 	funds 	to 	challenge 	an
issue 	that might 	never arise." 	He went 	on to 	state 	that 	the
Federation had 	legitimate 	reasons 	for not 	pursuing 	the 	grievance
and that 	it 	informed Deglow of 	those 	reasons. 	(See 	Los 	Rios
College Federation of Teachers, 	Local 2279, 	CFT/AFT, 	AFL-CIO
(1982) 	PERB Decision No. HO-U-147, 	pp. 	39-40.)
3The 	CBA defines 	a grievance as 	a 	complaint 	by:
a. 	a 	unit 	member 	that 	she/he 	has 	been
adversely 	affected 	by 	a 	misrepresentation,
misapplication or violation 	of 	the provisions
of this Agreement, 	. 	. 	. 	[Emphasis added.]
55

Her 	1993 	grievance 	states 	that 	her 	"current 	seniority date
for 	the 	Certificated 	Employment 	Register does 	not 	reflect 	my
relative 	date 	of 	employment 	consistent 	with past 	policies 	and
procedures 	utilized 	for 	others 	in my 	'position'."
Longevity 	Pay
On December 5, 	1990, 	Deglow and other pre-67 	instructors
collectively 	filed 	an unfair practice 	charge 	alleging 	the
Federation violated 	EERA by 	agreeing 	to 	a 	CBA longevity
provision. 	This 	CBA provision granted a 	"4% 	longevity increase
after 20 	years at Los Rios." 	Shortly thereafter, 	the Federation
and 	the District 	modified 	this 	provision 	to 	read:
After 2 0 years of full-time, 	tenure-track
service with Los 	Rios, 	a longevity increment
will 	be awarded which 	is 	4% 	of 	the
appropriate 	range 	and 	step.
The 	Board dismissed 	this 	charge 	in Los 	Rios 	College
Federation of Teachers, 	CFT/AFT 	(Baker et al.) 	(1991) 	PERB
Decision No. 	877 	(Baker et al.) 	for two reasons. 	The first
stated that 	the pre-67 	instructors, 	Deglow included, 	did not 	file
their 	charge within 	six months 	after 	the 	subject 	Federation
action. 	EERA prohibits 	PERB 	from 	issuing a 	complaint 	under 	such
circumstances,4
4Section 3541.5 	states, 	in pertinent part:
(a) 	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; 	. 	. 	.
66

The 	second 	reason was 	that 	an 	exclusive 	representative 	is
not 	obligated 	to bargain a particular 	item benefitting 	certain
unit member(s). 	Therefore, 	PERB dismissed the charge because
conduct 	under 	the 	"arbitrary, 	discretionary or 	in bad 	faith"
standard 	requires 	a 	showing 	that 	the 	exclusive 	representative's
conduct was 	without 	a 	rational 	basis 	or was 	devoid of 	honest
judgment. 	The effect of 	the Board's decision in Baker et al. 	was
to hold 	that 	the 	Federation's 	decision not 	to 	take 	the 	grievance
to 	the Board of 	Review had a 	rational 	basis 	and was 	the 	result 	of
an honest 	judgment.
On January 11, 	1993, 	Deglow filed the grievance that 	is 	the
subject of the 	instant complaint, 	alleging, 	once again, 	that 	the
District 	was violating the 	CBA by not 	granting 	to her, 	and by
implication the other pre-67 	instructors, 	the CBA 4 	percent
longevity 	increase.
Retirement 	Credits 	Grievance
Deglow's January 11, 	1993, 	retirement 	credits grievance
states 	that her 	"STRS[5] records 	indicate that 	I have not been
provided 	service 	credit 	consistent 	with my probationary/regular
status 	in the early years 	of my employment" 	(emphasis added).
Deglow's 	probationary period was 	completed 	in 	1974. 	The
Federation was 	first 	elected 	exclusive 	representative 	of 	the
District's 	instructor bargaining unit 	in 	1977.
5STRS 	is an acronym for the State Teachers Retirement 	System.
7

Sick 	Leave 	Credits 	Grievance
Deglow's 	sick 	leave 	credits 	grievance 	states 	that 	"[m]y 	sick
leave 	records 	indicate 	that 	I 	have 	not 	been provided 	sick 	leave
credit 	consistent 	with my probationary 	status 	in 	the 	early years- -
of my employment" 	(emphasis added). 	Deglow's probationary period
- -
was 	completed 	in 	1974. 	As 	stated above, 	the 	Federation became
the 	exclusive 	representative 	in 1977.
Discrimination 	Grievance
Deglow's January 11, 	1993, 	grievance complained that 	the
District 	failed to assign her 	classes 	in 	excess 	of 	her 	tenure
level 	and 	conversely 	increased 	the 	load 	of 	other part-timers 	who
did not 	have 	a 	long history 	of 	litigation against 	the 	District 	or
an affiliation with the California Teachers Association 	(CTA).
There 	is 	no provision 	in 	the 	CBA which 	requires 	the District
to assign Deglow any 	classes 	over her 	tenure 	level. 	As 	a part 	of
its 	investigation 	the 	Federation asked Deglow 	to provide 	evidence
to 	support 	her 	contention 	that 	she 	was 	being denied 	increased
classes. 	No 	such evidence was 	ever provided by Deglow.
Federation's 	Alleged Actions
Negative 	Perrone 	Comments 	about 	Deglow 	to 	Personnel 	Manager
This 	allegation 	concerns 	a 	conversation between a 	Federation
employee, 	the District's personnel manager, 	and another District
instructor. 	Deglow also 	filed a 	charge, 	based on this 	same
conversation, 	against 	the District. 	PERB 	dismissed that 	charge,
incorporating 	a board agent's 	warning 	and dismissal 	letters.
88

(See 	Los 	Rios 	Community College District 	(1994) 	PERB Decision No.
1048.) 	These 	letters 	described the 	conversation as 	follows:
On July 20, 	1993, 	Michael Lowman, 	a part time
instructor for the Employer, 	Mary Jones, 	the
Employer's Director of 	Personnel, 	and Robert
Perrone, 	the Federation's Executive Director
met 	for a 	grievance 	hearing 	concerning 	a
separate matter 	involving Lowman.[6] According
to Lowman, 	the 	following exchange 	took place
between Jones 	and 	Perrone 	at 	that meeting:
Jones: 	"And also 	I had to deal 	with Deglow
today too, 	so 	I'm not 	in a very good mood."
Perrone: 	"Oh right, 	Deglow, 	I can understand
why you wouldn't 	be 	in a very good mood."
Jones: 	"Yeh, 	she's 	filing a grievance
because 	she 	says 	nobody 	likes 	her and you
know what? 	It's 	true, 	nobody does."
Jones and Perrone: 	Laughter.
Perrone: 	"Oh I've dealt with Deglow. 	I 	know
what 	you're 	faced with."
Jones and Perrone: 	Laughter.
Federation 	Conditioning Action 	on Membership
Deglow 	stated 	in her 	first 	amended 	charge 	that 	during 	a
telephone 	conversation in late November 	1993, 	Perrone 	told her
that 	"the Union membership was 	not 	interested 	in her 	issue 	and
pre-67 	issues 	in general; 	however, 	if Deglow and the other Pre-67
instructors 	were 	to 	join the Union the 	issues 	could be
considered." 	Perrone denies making this 	statement, 	or anything
like it.
6Lowman is not a pre-67 instructor nor a grievant in any of the
subject 	grievances.
99

As 	no 	one 	else was 	a party 	to 	this 	conversation and both
Perrone 	and Deglow testified 	in a 	credible manner, 	a 	resolution
of 	the 	conflict 	requires 	an examination of 	other 	factors.
First, 	in a letter dated December 11, 	1993, 	several of the
pre-67 	instructors 	wrote 	to 	Federation President 	Linda 	Cullings-
Hartin 	(Cullings-Hartin) 	complaining 	about 	the 	Federation's
inactivity 	on behalf 	of 	their 	longevity 	grievances 	and 	requesting
a meeting with her. 	No mention was made 	of 	Perrone's 	alleged
statement 	conditioning 	Federation 	consideration 	on membership.
Second, 	on January 10, 	1994, 	Deglow filed her initial
charge. 	No mention was made 	of 	the 	Perrone 	statement.
Certainly, 	this 	statement 	could have provided evidence 	to 	support
an 	inference 	of 	animus 	towards 	the pre-67 	instructors 	and would,
if 	proven, 	be a 	factor in any failure 	to meet 	a duty of 	fair
representation charge. 	However, 	it was not until 	February 16,
when 	she 	filed her 	first 	amended 	charge, 	that 	the 	allegation
regarding Perrone's 	statement was 	first made. 	Granted, 	the
initial 	charge was 	not as 	detailed as 	the amended one, 	but 	there
was 	sufficient 	detail 	in 	it 	to 	set 	forth other 	factual
allegations 	that 	she 	deemed persuasive. 	Deglow's 	initial
allegations 	included both 	the 	negative 	statement 	made 	by 	Perrone
to 	the District's personnel 	director, 	and a slight 	that 	she
perceived 	in a 	Perrone 	letter 	to 	one 	of 	the 	other pre-67
instructors. 	The 	"conditioning action on membership" 	allegation
would 	have 	outweighed 	either 	of 	these 	incidents 	in any 	"inference
of animus" scale.
10

Third, 	at 	the 	time 	Perrone allegedly made 	the 	subject
statement, 	several 	of 	the pre-67 	instructors were members 	of 	the
Federation. 	Perrone was aware of 	that 	fact at 	that 	time.
Lastly, 	Perrone 	is an experienced, 	journeyman labor
relations professional. 	Deglow has made no 	secret 	of her
membership 	in, 	and preference 	for, 	the CTA becoming 	the unit's
exclusive 	representative. 	She has been a 	leader 	in CTA's various
attempts 	to 	decertify 	the 	Federation as 	the unit's 	bargaining
representative. 	It 	would have been both 	stupid and 	foolhardy 	for
him to 	overtly make 	such an 	improper 	statement 	to Deglow.
Perrone 	is 	neither 	stupid nor 	foolhardy. 	He would have been very
aware 	that 	(1) 	this 	type 	of 	statement would not 	cause Deglow,
after years of battling the Federation, 	to join it, 	and
(2) 	Deglow would use 	the 	statement 	against 	him in subsequent
proceedings.
However, 	as 	stated above, 	Deglow's 	testimony was both
forthright 	and 	credible. 	The 	evidence 	supports 	a 	finding 	that
although 	Perrone did not make 	the 	alleged 	statement, 	Deglow
misinterpreted 	something 	he 	said 	to arrive 	at 	a 	conclusion 	that
the 	"conditioning action on membership" 	statement 	was made.
Federation's 	Refusal 	to Meet with Pre-67 	Instructors
On December 11, 	1993, 	Deglow and other pre-67 	instructors
requested a meeting 	with 	Cullings-Hartin 	to 	discuss 	their pending
grievances. 	She had last met with Deglow on September 14, 	1993,
regarding 	the pre-67 	instructor grievances. 	Cullings-Hartin
discussed 	the 	request with Perrone. 	They 	sought 	the 	advice 	of
11

their attorney, 	Katherine Thomson, 	on both the 	grievances 	and the
request 	for 	the meeting. 	A consensus 	developed 	that 	as 	there was
nothing new to 	report, 	there would be no purpose 	to 	the meeting,
and a 	status 	letter would be 	just 	as 	effective. 	In addition,
Cullings-Hartin would 	have 	difficulty making 	such a meeting 	as
she was 	leaving 	the 	state 	for the holidays.
On December 20, 	1993, 	such a letter was 	sent 	to Deglow and
all pre-67 	instructors, 	explaining, 	among other things 	that 	only
the 	seniority date 	and longevity grievances 	were 	still 	being
discussed with 	the District. 	The 	other 	issues 	were 	not 	being
pursued as 	they were 	outside 	the 	contractual 	time 	limits.
Federation's 	Refusal 	to Take Grievances 	to Board of 	Review
On February 23, 	1994, 	the 	Federation refused to take any of
the pre-67 	instructor grievances 	to 	the District's 	Board of
Review, 	the 	last 	step 	in the grievance procedure. 	Deglow
believes 	that 	this 	decision was 	based on animus 	towards 	her and
the 	other pre-67 	instructors. 	The 	Federation 	insists 	that 	this
decision was 	not 	based on animus 	but 	rather on 	two 	other 	factors.
The Federation's attorney stated, 	first, 	that the grievances
would probably not be 	successful 	at 	the grievance 	level, 	and
second, 	even 	if 	there was 	a 	favorable decision 	from the Board of
Review, 	it was 	likely the District's 	governing board would
overturn 	such decision. 	The 	CBA has 	no provision 	for binding
arbitration. 	The 	Federation has 	not 	taken a grievance 	to 	the
Board of 	Review 	in 	the past 	six years.
12

ISSUES
Did 	the 	Federation 	fail 	to meet 	its 	duty of 	fair
representation with 	regard 	to Deglow's 	grievances, 	thereby
violating subdivision 	(b) 	of 	section 3543.6?
CONCLUSIONS 	OF 	LAW
Standard 	for Duty 	of 	Fair Representation
In order 	to prove a violation of 	the 	duty of 	fair
representation7, 	the 	charging party must 	show that 	the 	employee
organization's 	conduct was 	arbitrary, 	discriminatory or 	in bad
faith. 	(Rocklin Teachers 	Professional Association 	(1980) 	PERB
Decision No. 	124 	(Rocklin), 	citing precedent set by the National
Labor Relations 	Board and affirmed by 	the U. 	S. 	Supreme 	Court 	in
Vaca v. 	Sipes 	(1967) 	386 U.S. 	171 	[64 LRRM 2369].)
- -
The 	Board 	in Rocklin, 	affirmed this 	concept as 	set 	forth 	in
Griffin v. 	United Auto Workers 	(4th Cir. 	1972) 	469 	F.2d 181 	[81
LRRM 2485], 	as 	follows:
A union must 	conform 	its 	behavior 	to 	each 	of
these standards. 	First, 	it must treat all
factions 	and segments 	of 	its membership
without 	hostility or discrimination. 	Next,
the broad discretion of 	the union 	in
asserting 	the 	rights 	of 	its members must 	be
exercised 	in 	complete 	good 	faith and 	honesty.
Finally, 	the union must 	avoid arbitrary
conduct. 	Each of 	these 	requirements
represents 	a distinct 	and 	separate
7The 	duty 	of 	fair 	representation 	is 	set 	forth 	in 	section
3544.9. 	It states:
The 	employee 	organization 	recognized 	or
certified as 	the 	exclusive 	representative
for 	the 	purpose 	of 	meeting and negotiating
shall 	fairly 	represent 	each and 	every
employee 	in the 	appropriate unit.
13

obligation, 	the breach of which may-
constitute 	the basis 	of 	civil 	action.
The 	repeated references 	in Vaca 	to
"arbitrary" 	union 	conduct 	reflected a
calculated broadening 	of 	the 	fair
representation 	standard. 	[Citations]
Without 	any hostile motive 	of 	discrimination
and 	in complete good faith, 	a union may
nevertheless pursue 	a 	course 	of 	action or
inaction 	that 	is 	so unreasonable 	and
arbitrary as 	to 	constitute 	a violation of 	the
duty 	of 	fair representation.
Charging 	Party's 	Allegations
The 	complaint 	cites 	four 	factual 	examples 	of 	the 	Federation
allegedly 	failing 	to meet 	its 	duty of 	fair 	representation. 	The
first 	three will 	be 	discussed 	to determine 	if 	any of 	them
constitute 	an 	independent 	or per 	se violation of 	the Act 	and/or
-
support 	an 	inference 	of 	unlawful motivation on 	the part 	of 	the
Federation towards Deglow. 	With regard to 	the 	fourth, 	the
Federation's 	failure 	to 	take 	the 	above-described 	five 	grievances
to 	the Board of 	Review, 	the merits 	of 	the grievances 	themselves
will 	be 	evaluated 	to 	determine 	whether 	the 	Federation's 	action
was 	arbitrary, 	discriminatory or in bad 	faith.
Negative 	Perrone 	Comments 	about 	Deglow to 	Personnel 	Manager
This 	conversation was 	discussed at 	length 	in 	the Board's
decision 	in Deglow's 	charge against 	the District. 	(Los 	Rios
Community College District, 	supra. 	PERB Decision No. 	1048.) 	The
Board states, 	in pertinent part:
The 	test 	which must be 	satisfied 	is 	not
whether 	the 	employee 	found 	the 	employer's
action to be adverse, 	but whether a
reasonable 	person under 	the 	same
14

circumstances 	would 	consider 	the 	action 	to
have 	an adverse 	impact 	on 	the 	employee's
employment. 	(Emphasis added; 	footnote
omitted.)
The 	instant 	allegation does 	not meet 	the 	standard
established under Novato, 	and 	Palo Verde Unified
School District, 	supra, 	and Newark.[8] The charge
does 	not 	allege 	facts 	to 	establish how 	(using 	an
objective 	test) 	the action of 	the Employer in
making 	disparaging 	remarks 	about 	Deglow 	in 	the
presence 	of 	another 	employee 	caused harm or had
"impact 	on 	the 	employee's 	employment." 	However
understandable 	Deglow's 	subjective 	reaction 	to
this 	incident, 	the 	facts 	alleged here do not
bring 	the 	conduct 	within the ambit 	of 	a violation
of 	EERA and 	the 	allegation must 	be 	dismissed.
Statements made 	by an 	employer are 	to be
viewed in their overall 	context 	(i.e., 	in
light 	of 	surrounding 	circumstances) 	to
determine 	if 	they have 	a 	coercive meaning.
(Los Angeles Unified School 	District 	(1988)
PERB Decision No. 	659; 	emphasis added;
footnotes 	and 	citations 	omitted.)
The 	allegations 	here are 	free 	of 	any
statements or conduct which has, 	on its 	face,
"coercive meaning."
Although 	the 	Board's 	decision 	concerned employer action, 	it
was 	examining 	the 	same dialogue 	to which Deglow 	is 	objecting 	in
this case.
An examination of 	the 	subject 	statements, 	viewed 	in there
overall 	context, 	dictates 	a 	conclusion that 	they neither 	caused
harm to, 	nor had an adverse 	impact on, 	the employee's 	employment.
Nor did 	they have a 	"coercive meaning" 	within the 	context 	of 	Los
Angeles Unified School District 	(1988) 	PERB Decision No. 	659.
8Novato Unified School District 	(19 82) 	PERB Decision No. 	210;
Palo Verde Unified 	School 	District 	(1988) 	PERB 	Decision No. 	689;
and Newark Unified School District 	(1991) 	PERB Decision No. 	864.
15

Granted, 	disparaging 	remarks 	about 	an employee 	to an
employer by 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	does 	lend 	support 	to 	an
inference 	of unlawful motivation, 	but 	the 	statements 	themselves
are 	not 	an 	independent violation of 	the Act.
Federation 	Conditioning Action 	on Membership
It was 	found, 	supra, 	that 	Perrone did not make the
statements 	Deglow attributed to him. 	As 	there was 	insufficient
evidence 	to describe 	the 	actual 	statement 	that Deglow
misinterpreted, 	there 	can be no 	conclusion drawn that 	(1) 	there
was an independent violation of 	the Act, 	or 	(2) 	that 	this
incident 	supported 	an 	inference 	of 	improper 	Federation
motivation.
-
Federation's 	Refusal 	to Meet 	with Pre-67 	Instructors
The 	Federation's 	decision not 	to meet 	with Deglow and 	the
pre-67 	instructors 	was 	a 	result 	of 	both the 	receipt 	of 	legal
advice and a discussion of 	the matter between the 	Federation's
elected 	leadership 	and the 	professional 	staff. 	These 	factors
plus 	the 	difficulty 	of 	Cullings-Hartin 	in attending 	the meeting
justifies 	the 	Federation's 	decision.
Every 	employee 	organization has 	limited 	time 	and 	financial
resources. 	Perrone 	is 	the 	only full-time paid staff member of
the 	Federation. 	He 	is primarily 	responsible 	for 	the 	employment
relations 	of 	1,300 	to 	1,400 	unit members 	on numerous 	campuses
throughout 	the 	Sacramento and surrounding areas. 	Absent 	some
compelling reason, 	a union 	is 	free 	to allocate 	its 	resources 	as
it sees 	fit.
16

There 	was 	insufficient 	evidence presented at 	the 	hearing 	to
show that 	the 	Federation did anything 	improper when 	it 	declined
to meet 	with Deglow and 	the 	other pre-67 	instructors.
Accordingly, 	it 	is 	concluded that 	the 	Federation did not violate
the Act 	when 	it 	declined 	to meet 	with Deglow and 	the 	pre-67
instructors, 	nor is 	there any 	inference 	of unlawful motivation
drawn 	from such decision.
Charging 	Party's 	Grievances
A union 	is 	not 	required to process 	a grievance 	if 	the
chances 	of 	success 	are minimal. 	(United Teachers 	of 	Los Angeles
(Collins) 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	258.)
Seniority 	Grievance
In 	1982, 	an ALJ held that Deglow's position on the
certificated 	register was 	a hypothetical 	issue 	and 	that 	the
Federation had legitimate 	reasons 	not 	to 	take 	it 	to 	the 	Board of
Review. 	(Los Rios 	College Federation of Teachers, 	Local 2279.
CFT/AFT. 	AFL-CIO, 	supra. 	PERB Decision No. HO-U-147, 	pp. 	39-40.)
Although this 	decision is not precedential, 	it 	is binding on the
parties. 	In this 	case we have 	the 	same parties 	that 	litigated
the 	issue in 1982.
Deglow insists 	that 	this 	grievance 	is 	different 	than the
19 82 	matter as 	she 	is presently complaining about her position on
the 	certificated 	register, 	whereas 	before 	she was 	complaining
about 	not being placed on the 	register at 	all. 	This 	argument
sets 	forth a distinction without 	a difference. 	The 	existence 	of
her name 	on the 	certificated register, 	or her place on it, 	will
-
17

affect 	her 	employment 	status 	only 	in 	the 	unlikely 	event 	a
reduction 	in 	force 	were 	to 	jeopardize 	her 	continued 	employment
status. 	Absent 	such a threat, 	which is 	rather remote 	considering
the years 	of 	seniority she has with the District, 	the 	issue 	is
only hypothetical.
Collateral 	estoppel 	traditionally has 	barred 	relitigation 	of
an 	issue 	if 	"(1) 	the 	issue necessarily decided at 	the previous
[proceeding] 	is 	identical 	to the one which is 	sought 	to be
relitigated; 	(2) 	the previous 	[proceeding] 	resulted in a final
judgment 	on the merits; 	and 	(3) 	the party against whom collateral
estoppel 	is 	asserted was 	a party or 	in privity with a party at
the prior 	[proceeding]. 	[Citation.]" 	(People v. 	Simms, 	32
Cal.3d 468, 	484 	[186 Cal.Rptr. 	77].)
In this 	case, 	the three part 	collateral 	estoppel 	test has
been met: 	(1) 	Deglow has raised the identical 	issue; 	(2) 	the
previous 	proceeding 	resulted 	in a 	final 	judgment 	on 	the merits;
and 	(3) 	Deglow was a party to the prior proceeding. 	Thus, 	the
doctrine 	of 	collateral 	estoppel 	prohibits 	Deglow 	from complaining
about 	the 	Federation breaching 	its 	duty 	of 	fair 	representation
when 	it 	failed 	to 	take 	this 	grievance before 	the 	Board of 	Review.
The 	evidence 	supports 	a 	conclusion 	that 	the 	Federation's
decision not 	to 	take 	this 	grievance 	to 	the Board of 	Review was
neither without a rational 	basis, 	nor was 	it devoid of 	honest
judgment.
- -
18

Longevity 	Pay 	Grievance
The 	Federation 	is 	not 	obligated 	to bargain 	a particular 	item
benefitting 	certain unit members. 	(Baker et al.) 	Deglow's
allegation 	that 	the 	Federation's 	failure 	to 	rescind 	or
renegotiate 	the 	2 0-year bonus 	provision breaches 	its 	duty of 	fair
representation is without any legal 	support. 	Therefore, 	she did
not 	show 	that 	the 	Federation's 	actions 	were 	without 	a 	rational
basis 	or were 	devoid of 	honest 	judgment.
In addition, 	the 	collateral 	estoppel 	discussion above 	is
applicable 	to 	this 	grievance 	and 	effectively bars 	Deglow 	from
using 	this 	grievance 	to 	support 	her allegations 	the 	Federation
breached 	its 	duty 	of 	fair 	representation.
As 	a 	third and last 	reason this 	allegation must 	fail, 	Deglow
is 	also barred by the provisions 	of 	section 3541.5(a)(1) 	(fn. 	4,
p. 	6) 	which prohibits 	the 	issuance of a complaint based on acts
occurring more 	than 	six months 	prior 	to 	the 	filing 	of 	the 	charge.
Deglow 	is 	complaining 	about 	a 	Federation action 	that 	took place
in the late 	1980s. 	PERB determined in Baker et al. 	that 	the
previous 	charge, 	filed on December 5, 	1990, 	was time barred.
There 	has 	been no 	credible 	evidence 	presented 	to 	show 	that
anything has 	occurred 	since 	that 	time 	to negate 	that 	decision.
Retirement 	and 	Sick 	Leave 	Credits 	Grievances
Deglow's 	retirement 	and 	sick 	leave 	credit 	grievances
complain 	of 	a District action 	that 	took place at 	the 	time 	of 	the
creation of 	the District, 	long before 	the 	Federation became 	the
exclusive 	representative 	and 	the 	first 	CBA was 	executed.
19

Therefore, 	the 	Federation owes 	no duty of 	fair representation to
Deglow with 	respect 	to 	these matters. 	(San 	Francisco 	Classroom
Teachers Association, 	CTA/NEA 	(1985) 	PERB Decision No. 	544.)
Any 	claim she may have 	to 	sick 	leave 	and/or 	retirement
credits 	for pre-collective 	bargaining 	service 	arises 	from
District 	policy and/or Education Code provisions. 	"The 	duty of
fair 	representation does 	not 	extend 	to a 	forum that 	has 	no
connection with 	collective 	bargaining, 	. . . " 	(Los 	Rios 	College
Federation of Teachers. 	Local 2279, 	CFT/AFT. 	AFL-CIO 	(1993) 	PERB
Decision No. 	992.) 	"There 	is no duty of 	fair representation owed
to 	a unit 	member unless 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	possesses
the 	exclusive means 	by which 	such 	employee 	can 	obtain a
particular 	remedy. 	. . . " 	(California 	State 	Employees'
Association 	(Darzins) 	(1985) 	PERB Decision No. 	546-S.)
In addition, 	the 	retirement 	credit 	grievance does 	not
adequately allege 	a violation of 	CBA provisions. 	Deglow's
retirement 	credits 	grievance 	cites Article 	3 	and 	17 as 	CBA
provisions 	that were 	alleged 	to have been violated. 	Article 	3
does 	not mention STRS 	contributions 	except 	in the 	retiree health
benefit 	and pre-retirement workload areas. 	Article 	17 	is 	a one
paragraph 	statement 	that 	the 	parties 	agree 	not 	to 	discriminate
against any faculty member on the basis 	of 	race, 	color, 	creed,
national origin, 	religion, 	sex, 	age, 	sexual preference, 	political
beliefs, 	political activities, 	political affiliation, 	or marital
status.
20

Allegations 	of 	a violation of 	these very general 	CBA
provisions, 	given the 	specific nature of 	the 	complaint about
inadequate 	retirement 	credits, 	is 	insufficient 	to meet 	the CBA
definition of a grievance 	(fn. 	3, 	p. 	5) 	and are, 	therefore, 	not
grievable.
The 	evidence 	supports 	a 	conclusion 	that 	the 	Federation's
decisions 	not 	to 	take Deglow's 	retirement 	and 	sick 	leave 	credits
grievances 	to 	the 	Board 	of 	Review were 	neither without 	a 	rational
basis 	nor were 	they devoid of 	honest 	judgment.
Discrimination 	Grievance
The 	Federation determined 	that 	the 	grievance, 	as propounded
by Deglow, 	failed 	to 	show which CBA provisions 	the District
violated when 	it 	refused 	to 	increase 	her 	teaching 	load 	over her
tenure 	level. 	It 	asked Deglow 	for 	further 	information and 	failed
to 	receive 	anything new 	from her. 	It 	then declined 	to move
forward with 	the 	grievance 	due 	to 	insufficient 	information and
Deglow's 	failure 	to 	reply 	to a 	legitimate 	inquiry.
The 	evidence 	supports 	a 	conclusion 	that 	the 	Federation's
decision not 	to 	take 	this 	grievance 	to 	the Board of 	Review was
neither without 	a 	rational 	basis 	nor was 	it 	devoid of 	honest
judgment.
Summary
It 	is 	determined that 	the 	Federation did not violate 	its
duty 	of 	fair 	representation with 	regard 	to 	allegations 	about
(1) 	negative comments by Perrone about Deglow, 	(2) 	conditioning
grievance action on membership, 	(3) 	refusal 	to meet with Deglow
21

and other pre-67 	instructors, 	and 	(4) 	failure to take specified
grievances 	to 	the 	CBA Board of 	Review.
PROPOSED 	ORDER
Based on the 	foregoing 	findings 	of 	fact, 	conclusions 	of 	law
and the 	entire 	record in this 	case, 	it 	is 	found that 	the Los 	Rios
College 	Federation of Teachers 	did not violate 	subdivision 	(b) 	of
section 3543.6 	of 	the 	Educational 	Employment Relations Act. 	It
is 	ORDERED 	that 	all 	aspects 	of 	the 	charge and 	complaint 	in 	this
case 	are 	hereby DISMISSED.
Pursuant 	to California Code of Regulations, 	title 	8, 	section
323 05, 	this 	Proposed Decision and Order shall become 	final unless
a party 	filed a 	statement 	of 	exceptions 	with 	the 	Board 	itself 	at
the 	headquarters 	office 	in Sacramento within twenty days 	of
service 	of 	this Decision. 	In accordance with PERB Regulations,
the 	statement 	of 	exceptions 	should 	identify by page 	citation 	or
exhibit number the portions 	of 	the 	record, 	if any, 	relied upon
for such exceptions. 	(See Cal. 	Code of Regs., 	tit. 	8, 	sec.
323 00.) 	A document 	is 	considered 	"filed" 	when actually received
before 	the 	close 	of business 	(5:00 	p.m.) 	on the 	last 	day set 	for
filing. 	. 	.or when sent by telegraph or certified or Express
United States mail, 	postmarked no 	later than the 	last 	day set 	for
filing. 	. 	." 	(See Cal. 	Code of Regs., 	tit. 	8, 	sec. 	32315; 	Code
Civ. 	P r o c , 	sec. 	1013.) 	Any statement of exceptions and
supporting brief 	must 	be 	served 	concurrently with 	the 	filing 	upon
each party to 	this 	proceeding. 	Proof 	of 	service 	shall 	accompany
22

each copy served on a party or 	filed by 	the 	Board 	itself. 	(See
Cal. Code of Regs., 	tit. 	8, 	secs. 	32300, 	32305 and 32410.)
ALLEN R. 	LINK
Administrative 	Law 	Judge
23