Santa Maria Joint Union High School District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Oakland Unified School District (2024) PERB Decision No. 2906 * * * (PERB I053E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
SANTA MARIA 	JOINT 	UNION HIGH
SCHOOL 	DISTRICT, )
)
)
Charging 	Party,
v.
SANTA MARIA HIGH 	SCHOOL 	DISTRICT
FACULTY ASSOCIATION, 	CTA/NEA, 	AND
CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION,
Respondents.
) 	Case No. 	LA-CO-500
)
) 	PERB Order No. 	IR-53
)
) 	November 	2, 	1989
)
)
)
)
Appearances: 	Liebert, 	Cassidy & Frierson, 	by Jeffrey Sloan,
Attorney, 	for Santa Maria Joint Union High School District;
Rosalind D. 	Wolf, 	Attorney, 	for Santa Maria High School District
Faculty Association, 	CTA/NEA, 	and California Teachers
Association.
Before Hesse, 	Chairperson; 	Porter and Camilli, 	Members.
DECISION AND 	ORDER
CAMILLI, 	Member: 	This 	case is before the Public Employment
Relations 	Board 	(PERB or Board) 	on a Request 	for 	Injunctive
Relief 	filed by 	the 	Santa 	Maria 	Joint 	Union High 	School 	District
(District) 	after a 	one-day 	strike by the 	Santa Maria 	High 	School
District Faculty Association, 	CTA/NEA, 	and California Teachers
Association (Association).
STATEMENT OF 	FACTS
The District and the Association are parties 	to a 	collective
bargaining agreement which expired on June 	30, 	1989, 	and are
presently 	involved 	in negotiations 	for a 	successor agreement. 	On
* * * OVERRULED IN PART by Oakland Unified School District
(2024)PERB Decision No. 2906 * * *

July 	26, 	1989,1 PERB determined the 	existence of an impasse
between the parties 	(Cal. 	Code of Regs., 	tit. 	8, 	sec. 	32792) 	and
a 	mediator was 	appointed. 	The parties 	have 	engaged 	in mediation
sessions on July 26, 	September 8, 	September 14, 	October 17, 	and
as 	recently as October 	27. 	The negotiations 	are 	still 	in the
mediation stage 	as 	the mediator has 	not yet 	certified the dispute
to 	factfinding.
On October 	17, 	the Association filed an unfair practice
charge against the District, 	alleging violations 	of 	subdivisions
(a), 	(b) 	and 	(c), 	of section 3543.5 of the Educational Employment
Relations Act 	(EERA or Act)2 by making unilateral 	changes,
All 	dates 	occurred in 	1989.
2EERA 	is 	codified at Government Code 	section 	3540 	et 	seq.
Unless 	otherwise 	indicated, 	all 	statutory references 	herein are
to 	the Government Code.
Section 3543.5 	states:
It 	shall be unlawful 	for a public 	school
employer to:
(a) 	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.
(b) 	Deny to employee organizations 	rights
guaranteed 	to 	them by 	this 	chapter.
(c) 	Refuse or 	fail 	to meet and negotiate 	in
good 	faith with 	an 	exclusive 	representative.
(e) 	Refuse to participate 	in good faith 	in
the 	impasse procedure 	set 	forth 	in Article 	9
(commencing with Section 3548).
2

failing 	and refusing to bargain 	in good 	faith, 	and 	failing and
refusing to participate 	in good 	faith 	in the 	impasse procedures.3
On October 	18, 	with one hour notice given to the District, 	the
Association engaged in a one-day 	strike. 	On that day, 	4 	of 	98,
7 	of 	76, 	and 2 	of 	11 	teachers reported to work at the three
schools 	in the District, 	respectively. 	There were pickets 	at
each of 	the three 	schools. 	On October 23, 	the District 	filed an
unfair practice 	charge 	against 	the Association alleging
violations 	of 	subdivisions 	(b) 	and 	(d) 	of 	section 3543.6 	of 	the
EERA4 based upon the one-day 	strike activity. 	On October 25, 	the
District 	filed a request 	for 	injunctive relief, 	specifically
3 On October 	25, 	the Association 	filed an amended unfair
practice charge alleging violations of section 3543.5(a), 	(b),
(c) 	and 	(e). 	The amended unfair practice charge included
additional 	facts 	involving the October 	17 	mediation 	session.
4Section 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.
(d) 	Refuse to participate 	in good faith 	in
the 	impasse procedure 	set 	forth 	in Article 	9
(commencing with Section 3548).
3

noting that 	it desired nothing 	less 	than a 	full 	injunction
prohibiting 	further 	strike 	activity.
DISCUSSION
In Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board v. 	Modesto City 	Schools
District, 	et al. 	(1982) 	136 Cal.App.3d 881, 	896 	[186 Cal.Rptr.
634], 	the appellate court ruled that a 	superior court must grant
the 	Board's 	request 	for 	injunctive 	relief when two 	essential
requirements have been met: 	(1) 	the Board has 	"reasonable cause"
to 	believe 	that 	the 	charged party has 	committed 	an unfair
practice; 	and 	(2) 	injunctive relief 	is 	"just and proper."
In determining whether there 	is 	reasonable 	cause 	to believe
an unfair practice has 	been committed, 	PERB 	" . . . 	need not
establish 	an unfair 	labor practice has 	in 	fact been 	committed,"
but that PERB's theory is 	". 	. 	. 	neither insubstantial nor
frivolous." 	(Id. 	at pp. 	896-897, 	emphasis in original.) 	In the
present 	case, 	PERB 	statutory impasse procedures have not been
completed. 	The 	importance 	of 	the 	statutory 	impasse procedures
cannot be 	overemphasized. 	In San Diego Teachers Association v.
Superior Court 	(1979) 	24 Cal.3d 	1, 	8, 	the California Supreme
Court 	stated:
The 	impasse procedures 	almost 	certainly were
included 	in the EERA for the purpose 	of
heading off 	strikes. 	[Citation.] 	Since they
assume deferment of 	a 	strike 	at 	least until
their completion, 	strikes before then can
properly be 	found to be 	a 	refusal 	to
participate 	in the 	impasse procedures 	in good
faith 	and 	thus 	an unfair practice 	under
section 3543.6, 	subdivision (d). 	[Citation.]
4

In Sacramento City Unified 	School 	District v. 	Sacramento
City Teachers Association. 	CTA/NEA 	(1987) 	PERB Order No. 	IR-49,
at p. 	3, 	the Board ruled that a 	strike which occurs prior to the
exhaustion of 	impasse procedures 	creates 	a 	"rebuttable
presumption" 	that the 	employee organization is 	either refusing 	to
negotiate 	in good 	faith and/or refusing 	to participate 	in 	impasse
procedures.
In an attempt 	to rebut the presumption that 	its 	preimpasse,
one-day 	strike was 	an unfair practice, 	the Association here
asserts 	that 	it was provoked to 	strike by the 	District's 	alleged
unfair practices. 	In determining the 	issue of 	sufficient
provocation, 	" . . . 	this Board will examine 	. 	. 	. 	whether the
work 	stoppage was 	provoked by 	the 	District's 	own unlawful 	conduct
and was 	undertaken as a 	last resort." 	(Id. 	at p. 	6, 	emphasis 	in
original.) 	In this 	case, 	the Association has 	failed to 	show that
the 	strike was 	either provoked by the 	District's 	alleged unlawful
conduct or taken as a 	"last resort." 	On October 	17, 	the
Association 	filed 	an unfair practice 	charge 	alleging 	the
District's previous 	conduct violating EERA. 	After one 	additional
alleged unfair practice, 	the Association's 	only response was 	to
call 	a 	strike the 	following morning. 	We therefore 	find there 	is
reasonable 	cause 	to believe 	that 	an unfair practice 	has 	occurred,
and 	that 	a 	complaint 	should 	issue 	against 	the Association.
The 	second prong of 	the test 	set out 	in Modesto 	is 	that
injunctive 	relief must be 	just 	and proper. 	The question is
whether the purposes 	of 	the Act will 	be 	frustrated unless
5

injunctive relief 	is 	granted. 	(Modesto City Schools 	District.
supra, 	136 Cal.App.3d 902.) 	In this 	case, 	the District has
alleged 	that various 	acts 	of 	violence 	and disruption 	occurred
during the one-day strike of October 	18. 	However, 	the
Association has 	stated 	in a telegram to the Board, 	dated
October 27, 	that it 	". 	. 	. 	will not be on strike on Monday
October 	30, 	Tuesday October 31, 	or Wednesday November 	1." 	In
addition, 	the Association stated, 	in its Opposition to Request
for Injunctive Relief, that, 	" . . . 	(a)t this time, 	. 	. 	. 	there
is 	neither a 	strike nor a threat of 	strike." 	Finally, 	the
October 2 5 declaration of Joe Nunez, 	president of the
Association, 	sworn under penalty of perjury and 	submitted 	as 	part
of the Association's opposition, 	stated: 	"As of this date, 	the
Association has no plan, 	intention, 	or desire to strike again."
Under these circumstances, 	we 	find there 	is 	no 	indication
that 	the Association will 	strike 	in the 	future. 	Mediation-
assisted bargaining is in progress, 	and, 	at this point, 	it
appears 	that the 	Board's 	regular unfair practice procedures 	and
remedial 	powers 	can 	effectively 	resolve 	the 	violations 	alleged by
the parties 	in this 	case. 	As 	stated 	in San Diego Teachers
Association v. 	Superior Court, 	supra, 	24 Cal.3d 1, 	13:
-
. 	. 	. 	the EERA gives PERB discretion to
withhold as well as pursue, 	the various
remedies 	at its disposal. 	Its mission to
foster 	constructive 	employment 	relations
(sec. 	3540) 	surely includes the longrange
minimization of work 	stoppages. 	PERB may
conclude 	in a particular case that a
restraining 	order 	or 	injunction would 	not
hasten the 	end of a 	strike 	(as perhaps
neither did here) 	and, 	on the contrary, 	would
6

impair the 	success 	of 	the 	statutorily
mandated 	negotiations 	between union 	and
employer. 	. 	. 	. 	[Fn. omitted.]
However, 	if, 	at any time in the future, 	either party believes
that 	additional 	unfair practices 	have been committed, 	it may 	file
an unfair practice 	charge with the 	Board 	and/or request 	that 	the
Board 	seek 	injunctive 	relief.
ORDER
Based on all of the 	foregoing, 	the District's 	Request 	for
Injunctive Relief 	is hereby DENIED. 	It 	is 	hereby ORDERED that
the General 	Counsel 	shall 	issue a 	complaint 	in the 	District's
unfair practice Case No. 	LA-CO-500. 	It is 	further ORDERED that
the 	General 	Counsel 	expedite 	the processing of 	the Association's
unfair practice charge in Case No. 	LA-CE-2907.
Chairperson Hesse 	and Member 	Porter 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
7