Regents of the University of California (California State Employees Association) (PERB 0189H)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
CALIFORNIA 	STATE 	EMPLOYEES'
ASSOCIATION, 	UNIVERSITY 	DIVISION,
Charging 	Party,
v.
REGENTS 	OF 	THE 	UNIVERSITY 	OF
CALIFORNIA,
Respondent.
)
)
)
) 	Case 	No. 	SF-CE-70-H
PERB 	Decision No.189-H
December 	22 , 	1981
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
____________________ )
Ap 	earances:
1 Gerald B. 	Radeleff, 	Division 	Manager, 	for
Ca 	ifornia 	State 	Employees' 	Association; 	James N. 	Odle,
Attorney 	for 	Regents 	of 	the 	University of 	California.
Before 	Gluck, 	Chairperson; 	Jaeger 	and 	Moore, 	Members.
DECISION
The 	California 	State 	Employees' 	Association, 	University
Division 	(hereafter 	CSEA), 	appeals 	the 	dismissal 	with 	leave 	to
amend 	of 	its 	unfair 	practice 	charge 	against 	the 	Regents 	of 	the
University of 	California 	(hereafter 	University). 	In 	its
appeal, 	CSEA 	disputes 	the 	hearing 	officer's 	determination 	that
the 	University 	did 	not 	violate 	sections 	3565, 	3569, 	or
subsections 	3971(a), 	(b) 	or 	(d) 	of 	the 	Higher 	Education
Employer-Employee 	Relations 	Act 	(hereafter 	HEERA)l 	by 	denying
CSEA 	employee 	representatives 	released 	time 	to 	attend 	informal
lHEERA 	is 	codified 	at 	Government 	Code 	section 	3560 	et

settlement
	conferences. 	Regulations 	of 	the
	Public
	Employment
Relations
	Board
	(hereafter
	PERB)
	provide 	for 	the
	use
	of
seq.
	Unless
	otherwise
	indicated,
	all
	statutory
	references 	are
to 	the
	Government 	Code.
The
	sections 	alleged
	to
	have 	been
	violated
	provide 	as
follows:
3565.
	Higher
	education
	employees
	shall
	have
the
	right
	to
	form,
	join
	and
	participate
	in
the
	activities
	of
	employee
	organizations 	of
their
	own
	choosing
	for 	the 	purpose
	of
representation
	on
	all
	matters
	of
employer-employee
	relations
	and
	for 	the
purpose
	of
	meeting
	and
	conferring.
	Higher
education
	employees
	shall
	also
	have
	the
right
	to 	refuse 	to
	join
	employee
organizations
	or
	to
	participate
	in 	the
activities
	of 	these
	organizations 	subject 	to
the
	organizational 	security provisionpermissible
	under
	this
	chapter.
3569.
	A
	reasonable
	number
	of
representatives
	of
	an
	exclusive
representative
	shall
	have
	the
	right
	toreceive 	reasonable 	periods 	of 	released
	or
reassigned
	time
	without
	loss
	of
	compensation
when
	engaged
	in
	meeting
	and
	conferring
	and
for 	the 	processing 	of 	grievances
	prior 	to
the 	adoption 	of 	the
	initial
	memorandum
	of
understanding.
	When 	a 	memorandum
	ofunderstanding
	is
	in
	effect,
	released
	or
reassigned
	time
	shall
	be
	in
	accordance 	with
the
	memorandum.
3571.
	It	
shall
	be
	unlawful 	for 	the 	higher
education 	employer
	to:
'a\
	I=pose 	or 	~hre~~~-
	\...	
~~	
{-~~~~ 	~~~~~~~,~	
\ 	J	
u.
on
	employees, 	to 	discriminate
	or
	threaten 	to
discriminate 	against
	employees, 	or 	otherwise
to 	interfere
	with,
	restrain,
	or 	coerceemployees 	because 	of 	their 	exercise 	of
rights 	guaranteed
	by
	this 	chapter.
'L.V 	LC:J:,1.L.LOQ..J..i::>	
AU
	0,11,..,~:
	.Ll.UJ:-'VOC
2

informal 	conference 	procedures 	to 	facilitate 	the 	voluntary
resolution 	of 	cases.2
(b) 	Deny 	to 	employee 	organizations 	rights
guaranteed 	to 	them 	by 	this 	chapter.
o 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	e 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	•
(d) 	Dominate 	or 	interfere 	with 	the
formation 	or 	administration 	of 	any 	employee
organization, 	or 	contribute 	financial 	or
other 	support 	to 	it, 	or 	in 	any 	way 	encourage
employees 	to 	join 	any 	organization 	in
preference 	to 	another; 	provided, 	however,
that 	subject 	to 	rules 	and 	regulations
adopted 	by 	the 	board 	pursuant 	to
Section 	3563, 	an 	employer 	shall 	not 	be
prohibited 	from 	permitting 	employees 	to
engage 	in meeting 	and 	conferring 	or
consulting 	during 	working 	hours 	without 	loss
of 	pay 	or 	benefits.
For 	the 	reasons 	expressed 	below, 	we 	conclude 	that 	HEERA
does 	not 	compel 	the 	University 	to 	grant 	released 	time 	to
University 	employees 	who 	attend 	informal 	settlement 	conferences
on CSEA's 	behalf.
?n,:;,nn 	-·• 1 ~,... 	_..,.,:;i 	.-~- .. ,--1-~,..,.,,.,,... 	~.-~ 	~'"',:;i~-i=~,.,.,::iU 	a-1-Lo Cal1'forn1·a
Administrative 	Code, 	title .L
8, 	section 	31000 	et 	seq.
-r.1.:1n.o 	.L U.Lt:::i::> 	Q.t.lU 	Ley U...LO. t.....LV1At':> 	Q.t.. 'C' 	\.,VU ..L.L .l.l;::;:
PERB 	Rule 	32670(a) 	provides:
A Board 	agent 	may 	conduct 	an 	informal
conference 	or 	conferences 	for 	the 	purposes
of 	clarifying 	the 	issues 	and 	exploring 	the
possibility 	of 	voluntary 	resolution 	and
settlement 	of 	the 	case. 	No 	record 	shall 	be
made 	at 	such 	a 	conference.
See 	also 	PERB 	Rule 	32620(b) (7).
3

DISCUSSION
Section
	3569
	of
	HEERA
	provides
	a
	reasonable
	number
	of
representatives
	of
	an
	exclusive
	representative
	the
	right
	to
reasonable
	periods 	of 	released
	time
	without
	loss
	of
compensation
	when
	engaged
	in
	meeting
	and
	conferring
	and
	for
	the
processing 	of 	grievances
	prior
	to
	the 	adoption 	of
	an
	initial
memorandum
	of
	understanding.
	CSEA,
	which
	is
	not
	the
	exclusive
representative
	of
	any
	employees
	of
	the
	University,
	is
	not
entitled
	to
	released
	time 	under
	this
	provision.3
Similarly,
	we
	do
	not
	find
	that
	CSEA
	is 	entitled
	to 	the
released
	time
	sought
	by
	virtue
	of
	section
	3565
	of 	the 	Act.
That
	provision 	grants
	employees
	the
	right
	to
	"form,
	join
	and
participate
	in 	the
	activities
	of
	employee
	organizations."
	The
employees'
	right
	to
	participate
	in 	the 	informal 	conference
resulting
	from 	CSEA's
	unfair 	practice
	charge
	is
	not 	in 	question
here.
	The
	issue
	is
	simply 	whether 	they
	have
	the
	right
	to
	paid
released
	time.
	In
	light
	of 	the
	specific
	released
	time
provision
	found
	in 	section
	3569,
	we
	do
	not 	conclude
	that
	the
right
	to
	participate
	in 	informal 	conference 	proceedings
	also
encompasses
	a
	statutory 	right
	to
	participate
	without
	loss 	of
compensation.
3Whether 	employees 	appearing
	at
	informal 	~roceedings 	on
behalf 	of
	an
	exclusive 	representative 	are	
entitled	
to 	releasedtime
	is
	not 	before 	us 	and	
the 	hearing
	officer's
	determination
in 	this
	regard
	is
	disavowed.
4

ORDER
Based
	upon
	the 	foregoing
	discussion,
	the 	appeal
	of 	the
California State
	Employees'
	Association
	is
	hereby
	DISMISSED.
PER
	CURIAM
5