Val Verde School District (PERB I009E)

STATE OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
VAL VERDE 	SCHOOL 	DISTRICT,
Charging 	Party,
v.
CALIFORNIA 	SCHOOL 	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION AND 	ITS VAL VERDE
CHAPTER 567,
Respondent.
Case No. 	LA-CO-80-78/79
VAL VERDE 	SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Charging 	Party,
v.
VAL 	VERDE 	DISTRICT 	TEACHERS
ASSOCIATION,
Respondent.
Case No. 	LA-CO-81-78/79
PERB Order No. 	IR-9
Administrative 	Appeal
July 18, 	1979
CALIFORNIA 	SCHOOL 	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION AND 	ITS VAL VERDE
CHAPTER 567,
Charging 	Party,
v.
VAL VERDE 	SCHOOL 	DISTRICT.
Employer.
Case No. 	LA-CE-468-78/79
LA-CE-471-78/79
VAL 	VERDE 	DISTRICT 	TEACHERS
ASSOCIATION,
Employee 	Organization
v.
VAL VERDE 	SCHOOL 	DISTRICT,
Employer
Case No. LA-CE-470-78/79
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances; 	Charles D. 	Field, Keith B. Bardellini, Attorneys
(Best, 	Best & Krieger) 	for Val Verde School District;

Mary Mocine, 	Attorney for 	California School Employees
Association 	and 	its Affiliated Chapter 	#567; 	Eugene Hugenin,
Attorney 	for 	Val Verde 	District 	Teachers 	Association.
Before Gluck, Chairperson, Gonzales and Moore, Members.
DECISION
On May 	3, 	1979, 	the Val Verde School District 	(hereafter
District) 	filed 	unfair 	practice 	charges 	against 	the California
School Employees Association 	and 	its Val Verde Chapter 	567
(hereafter CSEA) 	and 	the Val Verde District Teachers
Association 	(hereafter VVDTA) , 	alleging 	in each 	case 	that 	the
respondent, 	the 	exclusive 	representative of 	classified and
certificated 	employees 	respectively, 	was 	conducting 	a work
stoppage 	prior 	to 	the 	completion of 	impasse 	procedures
specified 	in 	sections 	3548 	through 	3548.3 	and 	in 	violation 	of
section 	3543.6(b) 	and 	(d) 	of 	the Educational Employment
Relations Act 	(hereafter 	EERA).1 	The 	charges 	were
accompanied 	by 	requests 	that 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations
Board 	(hereafter 	PERB or 	Board) 	seek 	injunctive 	relief 	against
the 	work 	stoppage.
The 	general 	counsel, 	pursuant 	to Board direction 	under 	rule
32450(b),2 conducted 	an 	investigative 	proceeding 	and
submitted 	his 	reported 	recommendations 	to 	the 	Board 	itself
1The 	Educational Employment 	Relations Act 	is 	codified 	at
Government Code 	section 	3540 	et 	seq.
2California Administrative Code, 	title 8, 	section
32450(b), states:
Requests 	from parties 	that 	the 	Board 	seek
injunctive 	relief 	shall be 	directed 	to 	the

May 	3, 	1979. 	On the basis of 	the 	results of his 	report and
recommendation, 	the Board 	concluded 	that 	neither 	of 	the
exclusive 	representatives 	had 	exhausted 	the 	statutory 	impasse
procedures 	at 	the 	time 	the 	work 	stoppages 	occurred 	and 	that
there 	was 	a 	likelihood 	that 	the District would 	prevail 	in 	its
unfair 	practice 	charge 	alleging 	a 	violation 	of 	section
3543.6(d).3
General 	Counsel who 	shall 	promptly 	evaluate 	the
request 	and 	advise 	the Board 	itself 	in 	regard
thereto. 	Under 	direction of 	the Board 	itself 	the
General Counsel 	shall 	take 	appropriate 	action 	in
regard 	thereto 	and 	advise 	the 	parties 	thereof.
The 	Board 	considers 	the 	enactment 	of 	the 	impasse 	provisions
of 	the 	EERA as 	evidence 	of 	a 	legislative 	intent 	to head 	off
work 	stoppages 	prior 	to 	the 	completion of 	those 	procedures.
This policy has 	been 	incorporated 	in Board 	rule 	38100, 	adopted
shortly 	after 	our 	action 	in 	this 	proceeding.4
(ftn. 	2 con't.)
3Government code 	section 3543.6(d) 	states:
It 	shall be 	unlawful 	for 	an employee
organization 	to:
• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	a
(d) 	Refuse 	to participate 	in good 	faith 	in
the 	impasse 	procedure 	set 	forth 	in Article 	9
(commencing with 	section 3548).
4California 	Administrative Code, 	title 8, 	section 38100,
states:
In 	recognition of 	the 	fact 	that 	in 	some
instances 	work 	stoppages 	by public 	school
employees 	and 	lockouts 	by public 	school
employers 	can be 	inimical 	to 	the public
interest 	and 	inconsistent with 	those
provisions 	of 	the 	Educational 	Employment
Relations Act 	(EERA) 	requiring 	the parties

to participate 	in 	good 	faith 	in 	the 	impasse
procedure, 	it 	is the purpose of 	this 	rule to
provide 	a process 	by which 	the Board 	can
respond 	quickly 	to 	injunctive 	relief
requests 	involving 	work 	stoppages 	or
lockouts.
The 	EERA 	imposes 	a duty on employers 	and
exclusive 	representatives 	to participate 	in
good 	faith 	in 	the 	impasse 	procedure and
treats 	that 	duty 	so 	seriously 	that 	it
specifically makes 	it 	unlawful 	for 	either 	an
employer 	or 	an exclusive 	representative 	to
refuse 	to do so. 	The Board considers 	those
provisions 	as 	strong 	evidence 	of 	legislative
intent 	to 	head 	off work 	stoppages 	and
lockouts 	until completion of 	the 	impasse
procedure 	and will, 	therefore, 	in each case
before 	it, 	determine whether 	injunctive
relief will 	further 	the 	purposes 	of 	the 	EERA
by 	fostering 	constructive 	employment
relations, 	by facilitating 	the collective
negotiations 	process 	and 	by protecting 	the
public 	interest 	in maintaining 	the
continuity 	and 	quality of 	educational
services.
The 	Board directed 	the 	general 	counsel 	to 	seek 	injunctive
relief against 	the 	work 	stoppages 	in 	a court of competent
jurisdiction.
Shortly 	thereafter, 	the District announced 	its plan 	to
discipline 	employees 	engaged 	in 	the work 	stoppage. 	The court,
during 	the 	hearing 	on the 	application 	for 	a Temporary
Restraining Order, 	indicated 	that 	the District's plan 	should be
rescinded 	pending 	completion 	of 	administrative 	proceedings 	and
conditioned 	its 	TRO 	against 	the 	employee 	organizations 	on 	that
requirement. 	At 	the 	time 	no 	unfair 	practice 	charge 	had 	been
filed 	against 	the 	District 	related 	to 	threatened 	disciplinary
actions 	and 	PERB concluded 	that 	it 	lacked 	jurisdiction 	to seek
(ftn. 	4 con't.)
4

injunctive 	relief 	against 	the employer. 	However, 	on
May 	9, 	1979, 	upon 	the 	filing of unfair 	practice charges 	by CSEA
and VVDTA related 	to 	the 	threatened disciplinary 	steps, 	the
Board directed 	the 	general counsel 	to request 	the 	court 	to
enjoin 	any 	disciplinary 	action 	against 	those 	employees
participating 	in 	the 	work 	stoppages pending 	a 	resolution of 	the
underlying 	unfair 	practice 	charges. 	The 	court granted 	this
further 	request 	for 	injunctive 	relief 	and 	a 	temporary
restraining 	order 	was 	issued 	accordingly.
The 	following 	order 	reflects 	the Board's 	directions 	to 	its
general counsel.
ORDER
Based 	on 	the 	results of 	an 	investigative proceeding
conducted 	by 	the 	general counsel 	for 	the 	Public 	Employment
Relations Board pursuant 	to Board 	rule 	32450(b) 	in 	the matter
of 	the 	request 	made 	by 	the Val Verde 	School District 	that 	the
Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	seek 	injunctive 	relief
against 	work 	stoppages 	being 	conducted 	by California 	School
Employees 	Association and 	its Val Verde Chapter 	567 	and 	the 	Val
Verde 	District Teachers Association 	respectively, 	the Board
ORDERS 	that 	the 	general 	counsel 	seek 	injunctive 	relief 	against
any work 	stoppage 	engaged 	in, 	supported 	by or 	encouraged 	by
California 	School 	Employees 	Association 	and 	its 	Val 	Verde
Chapter 	567 	and 	the Val Verde District Teachers Association.
The 	Board 	further 	ORDERS 	that 	the 	general counsel 	seek
injunctive 	relief 	against 	any 	disciplinary 	action 	by 	the
District based 	on 	the 	employees' 	participation 	in 	such work

stoppage 	pending 	determination 	of 	the 	unfair 	practice 	charges
filed 	by 	CSEA 	and 	VVDTA 	against 	the 	employer.5
By: 	Harry Gluck, 	Chairperson 	Barbara Moore, 	Member
Raymond J. 	Gonzales, 	Member, 	concurring:
I 	concur 	in 	the majority's 	decision 	to 	seek 	an 	injunction
against 	the 	work 	stoppage 	by 	certificated 	and 	classified 	employees
in this 	case. 	I also concur 	in the Board's May 9, 	1979, 	decision
to 	seek 	an 	injunction 	against 	proposed 	disciplinary 	action by 	the
District. 	I based 	this 	decision on 	the 	general 	counsel's
representation 	that 	there was 	reasonable 	cause 	to believe 	that
the 	District's 	intended 	disciplinary 	actions 	could 	constitute 	an
unfair 	practice.
This 	decision comports with my belief, 	expressed in my
separate 	opinion 	in Las 	Virgenes 	Unified 	School 	District 	(6/12/79)
PERB Order No. 	IR-8, 	that 	the Board should not 	seek 	conditional
5This decision and order memorializes directions
previously 	issued 	by 	the 	Board 	to 	its 	general 	counsel.
Actually, 	all 	unfair practice 	charges 	in this 	case were
withdrawn 	prior 	to 	the release of 	this 	formal 	order.

injunctive 	relief. 	When 	injunctive 	relief 	against 	a work 	stoppage
is 	conditioned on the 	employer's 	conduct, 	the 	implication is 	that
strikes 	by 	public 	school 	employees 	may 	be 	legitimized by 	such
employer 	conduct. 	I 	firmly 	disagree. 	The 	appropriate remedy 	for
alleged unlawful 	employer actions 	in response 	to 	a 	strike 	is 	for
the 	employee 	organization 	to 	file 	an unfair practice 	charge 	and,
if necessary, 	request 	the Board 	to 	seek 	injunctive 	relief 	against
such actions.
In the present 	case, 	this procedure was 	followed; 	upon the
filing 	of unfair 	practice 	charges 	and requests 	for 	injunctive 	relief
by 	CSEA and VVDTA, PERB's 	staff 	investigated 	the 	allegations 	and 	the
Board made 	a 	decision based on 	the 	general 	counsel's 	recommendations.
Here, 	there was 	reasonable 	cause 	to believe 	that 	the District's
actions 	could 	constitute 	an 	unfair 	practice 	and would 	cause 	irreparable
harm to 	employee 	rights, 	thus 	permitting 	the Board 	to 	seek 	injunctive
relief against 	the District, 	and as 	a result of a 	separate request 	for
injunctive 	relief, 	against 	the 	employee 	organizations 	that 	had engaged
in a work 	stoppage.
Raymond J. Gonzales, Member
Although 	an 	injunction 	against 	the work 	stoppage 	conditioned
on 	the 	District's 	making no 	reprisals 	against 	the 	employees 	pending
determination of 	the unfair practice 	charges 	was 	issued 	in 	this 	case,
it was 	issued by 	the 	court 	on 	its 	own motion.