Los Rios College Federation of Teachers (Bernath) (PERB 1208E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
NOEL 	LANCE BERNATH,
Charging 	Party,
v.
LOS RIOS 	COLLEGE FEDERATION OF
TEACHERS, 	CFT/AFT, 	LOCAL 2279,
Respondent.
)
)
) 	Case No. 	SA-CO-3 84
PERB Decision No. 	1208
June 23, 	1997
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances: 	Noel 	Lance Bernath, 	on his 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; 	Johnson and Dyer, 	Members.
DECISION
DYER, 	Member: 	This 	case 	comes before 	the 	Public Employment
Relations 	Board 	(Board) 	on appeal 	from a Board agent's 	dismissal
(attached) 	of Noel 	Lance Bernath's 	(Bernath) 	unfair practice
charge. 	As amended, 	Bernath's 	charge alleges 	that 	the Los Rios
College Federation of Teachers, 	CFT/AFT, 	Local 2279 	(Federation)
breached 	its 	duty of 	fair 	representation 	in violation of 	sections
3544.9 	and 3543.6(a) 	of 	the Educational 	Employment Relations Act
(EERA)1 and discriminated against 	him in violation of 	EERA
1EERA is 	codified at Government 	Code 	section 3540 	et 	seq.
EERA section 3543.6 provides, 	in relevant part:
It 	shall 	be unlawful 	for an employee
organization to:
(a) 	Cause or attempt 	to cause a public
school 	employer to violate 	Section 3543.5.
_____ )

section 3543.6(b) 	when it 	failed to adequately represent 	him in
processing a 	grievance against 	the 	Los 	Rios 	Community College
District.
(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.
EERA section 	3544.9 	provides:
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.
The 	Board has 	reviewed the 	entire 	record 	in this 	case,
including 	Bernath's 	original 	and amended unfair practice 	charge,
the warning and dismissal 	letters, 	Bernath'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.
ORDER
The unfair practice charge 	in Case No. 	SA-CO-3 84 	is hereby
DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE 	TO AMEND.
Chairman 	Caffrey and Member Johnson 	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
April 22, 	1997
Noel Lance Bernath
Re: 	NOTICE OF DISMISSAL AND REFUSAL TO ISSUE COMPLAINT
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
Noel Lance Bernath v. 	Los Rios College Federation of
Teachers/CFT/AFT/Local 	2279
Unfair Practice Charge No. 	SA-CO-384
Dear Mr. Bernath:
The above-referenced unfair practice 	charge was 	filed with the
Public Employment Relations Board 	(PERB or Board) 	on February 27,
1997. 	Your charge alleges that the Los Rios College Federation
of Teachers/CFT/AFT/Local 	2279 	(Federation or Respondent)
breached its duty of fair representation 	(DFR) 	in violation of
Government Code sections 3544.9 and 3543.6(a) 	and discriminated
against you in violation of Government Code section 3543.6(a).
I indicated to you, 	in my attached letter dated March 28, 	1997,
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
April 7, 	1997, 	the charge would be dismissed.
Your subsequent request for additional time was granted, 	and a
First Amended Charge was filed on April 21, 	1997.
Discussion
As discussed more fully in my March 28, 	1997 letter, 	this charge
addresses a dispute of 	long-standing over the application of
contract language concerning eligibility for step increases and
how service credits are calculated for the period prior to the
1980-81 school year, 	and the refusal of the Los Rios College
Federation of Teachers/CFT/AFT/Local 2279 	(Federation) 	to carry
your recent grievance to arbitration.
The First Amended Charge and a letter which accompanies 	it
contain numerous 	factually specific allegations 	in support 	of the
merit of the grievance.. 	The question before PERB, however, 	is
whether the Federation's decision declining to advance your
grievance lacks a rational basis or evidences conduct which was
(i)
•

arbitrary, 	capricious or discriminatory, 	or, 	in other words,
"without a rational basis or devoid of honest judgment." 	(Reed
District Teachers Association, 	CTA/NEA (Reyes) 	(1983) 	PERB
Decision No. 	332, 	citing Rocklin Teachers Professional
Association 	(Romero) 	(1980) 	PERB Decision No. 	124. 	See also Los
Rios College Federation of Teachers 	(Baker et. 	al.) 	(1991) 	PERB
Decision No. 	877, 	Los Rios College Federation of Teachers
(Violett) 	(1991) 	PERB Decision No. 	889, 	and San Diego Teachers
Association 	(1991) 	PERB Decision No. 	902.) 	Where a grievance on
its face lacks arguable merit, 	the 	"rational basis" question must
necessarily be resolved in favor of 	the exclusive representative.
(Los Angeles Unified School District/United Teachers-Los Angeles
(Glass) 	(1985) 	PERB Decision No. 	526; Los Rios College Federation
of Teachers 	(Lowman) 	PERB Decision No. 	1142.) 	On the other hand,
the 	"considerable discretion" 	accorded an exclusive
representative 	"includes the exclusive representative's ability
to decide in good faith that even a meritorious employee
grievance should not be pursued." 	(Los Rios College Federation
of Teachers 	(Deglow) 	(1996) 	PERB Decision No. 	1133, 	citing
United Teachers of Los Angeles 	(Clark) 	(1990) 	PERB Decision No.
796.) 	Even assuming that the underlying grievance here was
meritorious, 	the instant charge fails to allege prima facie
evidence of a violation.
Dismissal Letter
SA-CO-384
April 22, 1997
Page 2
The amended charge alleges in conclusory fashion that the
Federation's conduct breached the duty of 	fair representation;
was arbitrary, 	capricious and discriminatory; 	and was motivated
by an animus because of your history of protected activity. 	You
also allege that the Federation 	"has a history of collaborating
with 	[your employer] 	to circumvent 	. 	. 	. 	and to diminish,
dominate or interfere with" your rights. 	However, 	none of these
legal 	conclusions are 	supported by specific 	factual allegations
which establish a prima facie case of a breach of the duty of
fair representation or discrimination under the applicable
standards described in my March 28, 	1997 letter. 	Legal
conclusions are insufficient to state a prima facie case. 	(State
of California 	(Department of Food and Agriculture) 	(1994) 	PERB
Decision No. 	1071-S.)
Finally, 	the amended charge both responds to the Federation's
request that PERB order sanctions in this case and contends that
the request for sanctions is itself evidence of unlawful
retaliation because 	of your protected activity in filing the
charge. 	Though the Board has infrequently granted motions
seeking attorneys' 	fees or other sanctions, 	I am unaware of any
cases which hold that 	a request 	for sanctions by a party is
itself an unlawful act.

Dismissal 	Letter
SA-CO-384
April 22, 	1997
Page 3
Therefore, 	I 	am dismissing the 	charge based on the 	facts 	and
reasons 	set 	forth above 	as 	well 	as 	those 	contained in my
March 28, 	1997 letter.
Request 	for 	Sanctions
As 	noted above, 	the 	Federation argues 	that 	sanctions 	against 	the
Charging Party are 	appropriate 	in this 	case, 	citing Los 	Rios
College Federation of Teachers 	(Deglow) 	(1996) 	PERB Decision No.
1133 	(Deglow). 	The 	Federation bases 	its 	request on Charging
Party's unsuccessful 	filing of 	three 	previous 	unfair practice
charges 	(Los Rios 	Community College District 	(1991) 	PERB Decision
No. 	875; 	Los Rios College Federation of Teachers. 	CFT/AFT 	(Baker
et al.) 	(1991) 	PERB Decision No. 	877; 	Los Rios College Federation
of Teachers 	(Sander et al.) 	(1995) 	PERB Decision No. 	1111) 	and
the 	contention 	that 	the 	instant 	charge 	is 	"without 	arguable
merit."
The 	Board described 	the 	standard 	for 	sanctions 	in Los 	Angeles
Unified 	School 	District/California 	School 	Employees 	Association
(Watts) 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	181a 	(LAUSD) 	as follows:
The Board notes 	that Mr. 	Watts has 	repeatedly
filed 	complaints 	which are 	virtually
identical 	in content 	to 	this 	despite 	the
Board's patient 	and adverse 	rulings.
[Citations 	omitted.]
Mr. 	Watts' 	repeated raising of such
nonmeritorious 	complaints 	abuse 	Board
processes 	and wastes 	State 	resources.
Further, 	respondents must necessarily incur
expenses 	in time, 	effort 	and money in
continually defending 	against 	the 	same
charges. 	Accordingly, 	the Board sees 	fit to
order that Mr. 	Watts 	cease 	and desist 	from
filing 	complaints 	which merely raise 	facts
and questions 	of 	law which 	the 	Board has
already fully considered. 	Further, 	if such
complaints 	are 	filed in the 	future, 	the Board
will 	consider 	the 	possibility of 	assessing
Mr. 	Watts 	any litigation expenses 	incurred by
a 	respondent 	while 	trying 	to 	defend against
such actions.
In Deglow, 	the Board emphasized that 	it 	is 	the 	"repeated
presentation 	of 	charges 	based on 	circumstances 	which have 	been
considered by 	the 	Board 	in 	related 	cases 	previously 	[which
(

Dismissal Letter
SA-CO-384
April 22, 1997
Page 4
suggest] 	an abuse of that process." 	Likewise, 	in Los Angeles
Unified School District 	(Watts) 	(1993) 	PERB Decision No. 	1013 the
Board reversed a Board agent's award of attorney's fees, 	ruling
that the issues in the case were 	"properly before the Board" 	and
had "not been the subject of Board decisions in the past." 	(See
also Los Angeles Community College District 	(Watts) 	(1984) 	PERB
Decision No. 	411 and United Teachers of Los Angeles 	(Watts)
(1993) 	PERB Decision No. 	1018.)
Here, 	Charging Party previously filed two charges alleging the
Federation breached the duty of 	fair representation regarding
longevity pay 	(PERB Decision No. 	877) 	and seniority, 	longevity
pay, 	sick leave credits and retirement credits 	(PERB Decision No.
1111) 	and one charge against his employer concerning longevity
pay 	(PERB Decision No. 	875). 	Charging Party notes that the issue
of his proper step placement was not addressed by these earlier
charges.
The request for sanctions in this case is denied. 	While there
are certainly similarities and overlap involved in the instant
charge and the earlier charges filed by Charging Party, 	the facts
do not warrant a finding that Charging Party has engaged in the
kind of 	"repeated presentation of charges" 	(Deglow) 	which are
- -"virtually identical 	in content" 	to issues previously considered
by the Board. 	(LAUSD.) 	Thus, 	the record does not support a
finding that Charging Party has engaged in conduct which is
"without arguable merit, frivolous, vexatious, dilatory, pursued
in bad faith or otherwise an abuse of process." 	(State of
California 	(Office of the Lieutenant Governor) 	(1992) 	PERB
Decision No. 	920-S. 	See also Chula Vista City School District
(1990) 	PERB Decision No. 	834.)
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
(

Dismissal Letter
SA-CO-384
April 22, 1997
Page 5
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
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 Les Chisholm
Regional Director
Attachment
cc: 	Adam H. 	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
March 28, 	1997
Noel 	Lance 	Bernath
Re: 	WARNING LETTER
Noel 	Lance Bernath v. 	Los 	Rios 	College 	Federation of
Teachers/CFT/AFT/Local 	2279
Unfair Practice 	Charge No. 	SA-CO-384
Dear Mr. 	Bernath:
The 	above-referenced unfair practice 	charge 	was 	filed with 	the
Public Employment Relations 	Board 	(PERB or Board) 	on February 27,
1997. 	Your charge alleges 	that 	the Los Rios 	College Federation
of 	Teachers/CFT/AFT/Local 	2279 	(Federation 	or Respondent)
breached 	its 	duty of 	fair representation 	(DFR) 	in violation of
Government 	Code 	sections 	3544.9 	and 3543.6(a) 	and discriminated
against you 	in violation of Government 	Code 	section 3543.6(a).
Investigation 	of 	this 	charge 	revealed 	the 	following pertinent
information. 	You are 	employed by the 	Los 	Rios 	Community College
District 	(District) 	as a tenured, 	"less than 100%" 	instructor,1
and your position 	is 	included 	in 	the 	bargaining unit 	exclusively
represented by the 	Federation. 	You have 	been employed by the
District 	since 	September 	1966.
At 	the 	heart 	of 	the 	current 	charge 	is 	a dispute 	of 	long-standing
over the 	application of 	contract 	language 	in 	the 	District 	and
Federation's 	written 	agreement 	concerning 	eligibility 	for 	step
increases 	and how service 	credits 	are 	calculated 	for 	the period
prior to 	the 	1980-81 	school 	year. 	You contend that various 	court
decisions 	entitle you 	to year-for-year credit 	for 	service 	prior
to 1980-81.
PERB 	considered 	an 	earlier 	DFR 	charge 	filed by you 	and 	other
District 	employees 	concerning 	salary 	step 	and 	service 	credits
issues 	in Los Rios 	College 	Federation of Teachers. 	CFT/AFT 	(Baker
et al.) 	(1991) 	PERB Decision No. 	877, 	and dismissed the charge as
untimely 	and because 	the 	Federation's 	conduct 	"had a 	rational
basis." 	Similar 	issues 	were 	addressed and dismissed 	in Los 	Rios
College Federation of Teachers 	(Sander et al.) 	(1995) 	PERB
Decision No. 	1111. 	In December 1994, 	a publication of the
Federation 	included 	an 	article 	which 	referenced 	the 	earlier
1The 	Federation's 	response 	to 	the 	charge 	indicates 	you 	are
currently 	employed 	at
33158.	33¼%.

grievances 	and unfair practice 	charges 	filed by you 	and other
employees.
Warning 	Letter
SA-CO-384
March 28, 	1997
Page 2
On October 	9, 	1996, 	you submitted a 	letter and completed
grievance 	form to 	the 	Federation, 	and requested that 	the
Federation file 	the grievance 	and represent you. 	The 	grievance
was 	assigned 	number 	2F96 	and 	filed by 	the 	Federation 	on October
16, 1996.
Grievance 	2F96, 	as drafted by you, 	cites various provisions of
the 	collective 	bargaining agreement 	and court 	decisions, 	and asks
that you be placed at 	the maximum step 	(step 	14) 	of 	the 	salary
schedule, 	with appropriate 	retroactive 	adjustment 	of 	salary and
benefits.
On November 21, 	1996, 	a meeting was held on the grievance at 	the
District 	level. 	The meeting was 	attended by yourself, 	District
employee Bill Monroe, 	and the 	Federation's Executive Director,
Robert 	Perrone.
The District's 	response to the grievance, 	dated December 10,
1996, 	indicated the grievance was being denied as you had agreed
your 	salary placement 	was 	appropriate pursuant 	to 	a 	1981
arbitration 	ruling.
On December 11, 	1996, 	the Federation's executive board voted not
to pursue your grievance 	to 	the 	next 	level 	(a board of 	review
hearing).
By letter dated December 	15, 	1996, 	you informed the Federation
that 	the 	District's 	response misstated the 	facts 	of 	the meeting,
and 	renewed your 	request 	that 	the 	Federation pursue 	your
grievance.
By letter dated December 16, 	1996, 	Perrone wrote notifying you of
the 	decision not 	to pursue your grievance 	to 	a board of 	review
hearing. 	Perrone's 	letter explained the 	rationale 	for the
decision, 	including a 	review of 	the 	history of 	relevant 	contract
language 	and 	the 	fact 	that 	court 	decisions 	cannot 	be 	enforced
through the grievance procedure, 	and advised you of your appeal
rights 	with 	the 	Federation's 	executive board.
Duty of 	Fair 	Representation
In order 	to 	state a prima 	facie 	case 	involving a breach of 	the
duty of 	fair 	representation, 	facts must 	be 	alleged 	in the 	charge
indicating how and 	in what 	manner 	the 	Federation 	refused 	to
process 	a meritorious 	grievance 	or otherwise 	fulfill 	its 	duty for
arbitrary, 	discriminatory or bad 	faith reasons. 	In United
(

Warning Letter
SA-CO-384
March 28, 	1997
Page 3
Teachers of Los Angeles 	(Collins) 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	258,
the Board stated:
Absent bad faith, 	discrimination, 	or
arbitrary conduct, 	mere negligence or poor
judgment 	in handling a grievance does not
constitute a breach of the union's duty.
In order to state a prima facie case of arbitrary conduct
violative of the duty of fair representation, 	a charging party:
. 	. 	. must, at a minimum, include an
assertion of sufficient 	facts 	from which it
becomes apparent how or in what manner the
exclusive 	representative's 	action or inaction
was without a rational basis or devoid of
honest judgment.
(Reed District Teachers Association, 	CTA/NEA
(Reyes) 	(1983) PERB Decision No. 332, citing
Rocklin Teachers 	Professional Association
(Romero) 	(1980) 	PERB Decision No. 	124. 	See
also Los Rios College Federation of Teachers
(Baker et. al.) 	(1991) PERB Decision No. 877,
Los Rios College Federation of Teachers
(Violett) 	(1991) 	PERB Decision No. 889, and
San Diego Teachers Association 	(1991) 	PERB
Decision No. 	902.)
It is, 	further, 	the charging party's burden to show how an
exclusive representative has abused its discretion. 	(United
Teachers of Los Angeles 	(Vigil) 	(1992) 	PERB Decision No. 	934.)
The 	"considerable discretion" 	accorded an exclusive
representative 	"includes the exclusive representative's ability
to decide in good faith that even a meritorious employee
grievance should not be pursued." 	(Los Rios College Federation
of Teachers 	(Deglow) 	(1996) 	PERB Decision No. 	1133, 	citing
United Teachers of Los Angeles 	(Clark) 	(1990) 	PERB Decision No.
796.)
The only factual allegation made which appears to address any
discriminatory motive on the part of the Federation concerns the
Federation's publication, 	in 1994, 	of an article which reviews
the history of earlier grievances and unfair practice charges
filed by you and other employees. 	The article references an
unfair practice charge 	filed against 	the Federation due to its
refusal to process a grievance similar to 2F96 to a board of
review hearing. 	This allegation is not 	sufficient to establish
that the more recent decision of the Federation, 	again declining
I

Warning Letter
SA-CO-384
March 28, 	1997
Page 4
to advance a grievance over salary placement and service credits,
was unlawfully motivated.
You also cite the Federation's earlier filing of a grievance on
your behalf as evidence that their recent conduct 	is without a
rational basis. 	This argument is unpersuasive. 	The Federation
agreed to file your recent grievance, 	just as they determined to
file a similar grievance in 1989. 	But the Federation also
declined to carry your most 	recent grievance to a board of
review, 	just as they did with earlier, 	like grievances.
Your charge 	fails to allege sufficient facts to establish that
the Union abused its discretion or otherwise breached the duty of
fair representation under the standards described above. 	The
analysis 	required here is not whether your grievance has merit.
The issue raised by your charge is whether the Federation's
decision declining to advance your grievance lacks a rational
basis. 	(See Reed District Teachers Association, 	CTA/NEA 	(Reyes).
supra, 	and like cases cited above.) 	The facts summarized above
do not establish prima facie evidence that the Federation's
conduct was arbitrary, 	capricious or discriminatory, 	or, 	in other
words, 	"without a rational basis or devoid of honest judgment."
(Ibid.)
Discrimination
The second question posed by the 	instant 	charge 	is whether the
facts alleged support a finding that the Federation has
discriminated or taken reprisals against you in violation of
section 3543.6(b).
To demonstrate a violation, 	you must show that you engaged in
protected activity, 	that the Federation had knowledge of such
activity, 	and the Federation imposed or threatened to impose
reprisals, 	discriminated or threatened to discriminate, 	or
otherwise interfered with, 	restrained or coerced you because of
the exercise of those rights. 	(Novato Unified School District
(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	210 	(Novato); Carlsbad Unified School
District 	(1979) 	PERB Decision No. 	89 	(Carlsbad); Service
Employees International Union, 	Local 99 	(Kimmett) 	(1979) 	PERB
Decision No. 	106 	(Kimmett).)	----------------
The instant charge does establish that you have engaged in
protected activity and that 	the 	Federation had knowledge of 	such
activity. 	For the reasons set 	forth in the above analysis of
whether the 	Federation acted out of a discriminatory motive,
however, 	the charge fails to allege prima facie evidence that the
Federation's 	conduct was unlawfully motivated.
(

Warning Letter
SA-CO-384
March 28, 1997
Page 5
For these reasons the charge, 	as presently written, 	does not
state a prima facie case.2 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
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 April 	7.
1997, 	I shall dismiss your charge. 	If you have any questions,
please call me at (916) 322-3198, 	extension 	359.
Request for Sanctions
In its response to the instant charge, 	dated March 17, 	1997, 	the
Federation requests that 	sanctions be imposed against you in this
case. 	Your response to this motion must also be filed not later
than April 7, 	1997.
Sincerely,
Les Chisholm
Regional Director
2The 	instant 	charge would also be 	subject to dismissal under
the doctrine of collateral estoppel, 	as it appears to raise the
same issue involving the same parties as Los Rios College
Federation of Teachers. 	CFT/AFT 	(Baker et al.) 	(1991) 	PERB
Decision No. 	877, 	and Los Rios College Federation of Teachers
(Sander et al.) 	(1995) 	PERB Decision No. 	1111. 	. 	(See Los Rios
College Federation of Teachers 	(Deglow) 	(1996) 	PERB Decision No.
1133.)