Los Rios College Federation of Teachers (Deglow) (PERB 1137E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
ANNETTE M. 	DEGLOW,
Charging 	Party,
v.
LOS 	RIOS 	COLLEGE 	FEDERATION OF
TEACHERS, 	CFT/AFT LOCAL 2279,
Respondent.
)
)
) 	Case No. 	S-CO-356
PERB Decision No. 	1137
February 	1, 	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, 	CFT/AFT Local 	2279.
Before Caffrey, 	Chairman; 	Garcia and Dyer, 	Members.
DECISION
DYER, 	Member: 	This 	case 	is before the Public Employment
Relations 	Board 	(PERB or Board) 	on appeal 	of a Board agent's
dismissal 	(attached) 	of 	an unfair practice 	charge 	filed by
Annette M. 	Deglow 	(Deglow). 	In her charge, 	Deglow alleged that
the Los Rios 	College 	Federation of Teachers, 	CFT-AFT Local 	2279
(Federation) 	breached its 	duty of 	fair representation guaranteed
by 	section 	3544.9 	of 	the 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations Act
(EERA),1 thereby violating EERA section 3543.6(b), 	when it
1EERA is 	codified at Government 	Code 	section 3540 	et 	seq.
Section 3544.9 	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.
EERA section 3543.6 	states, 	in pertinent part:

published 	several 	articles 	in 	the 	union newspaper which discussed
the unfair practice 	charges 	filed by Deglow.
The 	Board has 	reviewed 	the 	entire 	record 	in this 	case,
including 	the warning and dismissal 	letters, 	Deglow's unfair
practice 	charge and amended 	charges, 	Deglow's 	appeal 	and the
Federation's 	response 	thereto. 	The 	Board 	finds 	the warning and
dismissal 	letters 	to be 	free 	of prejudicial 	error and adopts 	them
as 	the decision of 	the Board 	itself.2
The unfair practice 	charge 	in Case No. 	S-CO-356 	is hereby
DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
Chairman 	Caffrey 	and Member Garcia 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
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.
2The 	Board notes 	that 	it 	recently 	cautioned Deglow 	that 	the
repeated pursuit 	of 	similar 	charges 	based on essentially 	the 	same
circumstances may constitute an abuse of process. 	(See 	Los Rios
College 	Federation of Teachers 	(Deglow) 	(1996) 	PERB Decision
No. 	1133.) 	The Board declines 	the Federation's 	request 	to
sanction Deglow in this 	case, 	but 	reaffirms 	its 	recent warning.
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
November 9, 	1995
Annette M. 	Deglow
Re: 	Annette M. 	Deglow v. 	Los Rios College Federation of
Teachers, 	CFT/AFT Local 2279
Unfair Practice Charge No. 	S-CO-356
DISMISSAL 	LETTER
Dear Ms. Deglow:
On August 2, 	1995, 	you filed the above-referenced charge alleging
that the Los Rios College Federation of Teachers 	(LRCFT) 	violated
its duty to 	fairly represent you. 	You amended the charge on
August 4, 	1995.
I 	indicated to you, 	in my attached letter dated October 5, 	1995,
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
October 12, 	1995, 	the charge would be dismissed.
I received your amended charge on October 30, 	1995. 	In your
amended charge you continue 	to allege that articles published in
the Los Rios College Federation of Teachers publication, 	The
Union News, 	have been "distorted, 	misleading, 	inflated,
argumentative and discriminatory" 	toward you. 	Those articles
address 	the Union's position and officer's opinions with regard
to unfair practice charges you and others 	filed against 	the Union
in recent years.
Since the filing of your original 	charge, 	the Union printed a
September 1995 	edition of The Union News which included two
articles which discussed unfair practice charges which you have
brought against the LRCFT, 	including this charge. 	You contend
that 	the Union is aware that you have had work related injuries
and are susceptible to stress 	from your peers. 	You state that
the May publication did in fact 	foster and generate peer pressure
which resulted in emotional 	stress which exacerbated stress
related ailments which you suffer.
You continue to contend that 	the Union's publications of articles
in which you are referenced violates the Union's duty of 	fair

S-CO-356
November 9, 	1995
Page 	2
representative 	and 	interferes 	with your 	right 	to participate 	in
protected 	activity 	including 	filing 	charges 	with 	PERB. 	However,
you have 	supplied no 	facts 	which would change 	the 	reasoning of 	my
letter of 	October 5, 	1995. 	In that 	letter 	I 	explained why there
were 	no 	facts 	which demonstrate 	a 	violation of 	the 	duty of 	fair
representation 	or 	that 	the 	Union 	had 	improperly 	interfered with
your right 	to 	engage 	in protected activities.1 Accordingly, 	this
charge will 	be 	dismissed 	for 	the 	reasons 	given 	in 	this 	letter and
my letter of October 5, 	1995.
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:
Attention: 	Appeals Assistant
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,
1You contend 	that 	the 	Union 	articles 	have 	a 	greater 	effect
on you because 	of your stress-related ailments. 	However, 	the
standard 	for 	interference 	is 	an objective 	rather 	than 	a
subjective 	one. 	The 	union actions must 	tend to 	interfere 	in the
exercise 	of 	guaranteed rights. 	California 	Faculty Association
(1988) 	PERB Dec. 	No. 	693-H. 	That 	standard has not been met.

S-CO-356
November 9, 	1995
Page 3
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
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
Bernard 	McMonigle
Regional 	Attorney
Attachment
cc: 	Adam Birnhak

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
October 5, 	1995
Annette 	Deglow
Re: 	Annette 	Deglow v. 	Los 	Rios 	College 	Federation of 	Teachers
Unfair 	Practice 	Charge No. 	S-CO-356
WARNING 	LETTER
Dear Ms. 	Deglow:
On August 	2, 	1995, 	you filed the 	above-referenced charge 	alleging
that 	the 	Los 	Rios 	College 	Federation of 	Teachers 	(LRCFT) 	violated
its 	duty 	to 	fairly represent 	you. 	You 	amended the 	charge 	on
August 4, 	1995.
The 	above 	charge 	regards 	an 	article 	in 	the 	LRCFT publication 	"The
Union News." 	The 	charge 	alleges 	that 	in the May 	1995 	edition,
you were 	discredited when 	it 	was 	reported 	that 	a 	PERB
administrative 	law 	judge 	had 	dismissed 	charges 	and 	complaints 	in
a 	case you 	and other 	instructors 	had 	filed against 	the 	LRCFT. 	In
that 	article, 	the union president 	stated his position that 	he
viewed the 	charges 	as 	"frivolous 	and 	false." 	You 	contend 	that
the article was 	inaccurate, 	not written is good faith, 	and was 	to
serve 	as 	a 	sanction for exercising your right 	to 	file 	a 	charge
before 	this 	agency.
Government 	Code 	section 	3544.9 	requires 	that 	an 	exclusive
representative 	"for 	the 	purpose 	of 	meeting 	and negotiating 	shall
fairly represent 	each and 	every 	employee 	in 	the 	appropriate
unit." 	Accordingly, 	PERB has 	held that 	the 	duty of 	fair
representation attaches 	during 	contract 	negotiations 	(Los Angeles
Unified School District 	(1986) 	PERB Dec. 	No. 	599) 	and during
grievance 	handling and contract 	administration. 	(Rocklin
Teachers 	Professional Association 	(1980) 	PERB Dec. 	No. 	124.)
However, 	internal 	union affairs 	are 	largely immune 	from scrutiny
under the 	duty of 	fair representation analysis. 	In SEIU, 	Local
99 	(Kimmett) 	(1979) 	PERB Dec. 	No. 	106 the Board determined that
the 	fair 	representation 	duty 	found 	in 	Government 	Code 	section
3544.9 	"contains 	no 	language 	indicating 	that 	the 	legislature
intended 	that 	section 	to 	apply 	to 	internal 	union 	activities 	that
did not 	have 	a 	substantial 	impact 	on 	the 	relationships 	of 	unit
members 	to 	their employers." 	Because 	these 	statements 	do not
appear 	to 	have 	a 	substantial 	impact 	on your 	relationship 	to your

Warning 	Letter
S-CO-356
Page 	2
employer, 	these 	allegations 	do not 	state 	a prima 	facie 	violation
of 	EERA section 	3544.9.
The 	Board 	has 	investigated 	internal 	union 	activities 	which 	have
either 	interfered 	or 	discriminated 	against 	employees 	by
preventing participation 	in protected activities. 	(California
State Employees Association 	(O'Connell) 	(1989) 	PERB Dec. 	No.
753-H). 	However, 	speech activity by the Union 	"is 	accorded
generous protection" 	so 	long as 	it 	is 	related to matters 	of
legitimate 	concern. 	(California 	Faculty Association 	(Hale, 	et
al. ) 	(1988) 	PERB Dec. 	No. 	693-H.) 	Such free speech rights are
similar 	to 	those 	accorded an employer. 	(California 	Faculty
Association 	(Hale, 	supra.) 	The 	expression of views 	or opinion
does 	not 	evidence 	an unfair practice 	unless 	there 	is 	a 	threat 	of
reprisal 	or promise 	of benefit. 	(Rio Hondo Community College
District 	(1980) 	PERB Dec. 	No. 	128). 	Your allegations demonstrate
no 	such 	threat 	or promise 	by the 	LRCFT.
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 October 	12, 	1995, 	I
shall dismiss your charge. 	If you have any questions, 	please
call me at 	(916) 	322-3198, 	extension 355.
Sincerely,
Bernard 	McMonigle
Regional 	Attorney
BMC:mmh