Palm Springs Unified School District (PERB 0249E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
PALM SPRINGS 	TEACHERS 	ASSOCIATION,
Charging 	Party,
v.
PALM 	SPRINGS 	UNIFIED SCHOOL 	DISTRICT,
Respondent.
Case No. 	LA-CE-1148
PERB Decision No. 	249
September 	30, 	1982
Appearances: 	Charles R. 	Gustafson, 	Attorney 	for 	the 	Palm
Springs Teachers Association; 	Charles R. 	Field, 	Attorney 	{Best,
Best 	& Krieger) 	for 	the 	Palm Springs 	Unified School District.
Before Gluck, 	Chairperson; 	Morgenstern and Jensen, Members.
DECISION
MORGENSTERN, 	Member: 	This 	case 	is 	before 	the Public
Employment Relations 	Board 	(PERB 	or 	Board) 	on exceptions
filed 	by 	the 	Palm Springs 	Unified 	School 	District 	(District)
to 	the 	attached 	hearing 	officer's 	proposed 	decision. 	The
District 	excepts 	to 	the 	hearing 	officer's 	conclusion 	that
the 	unilateral 	increase of 	girls' 	athletics 	coaches'
salaries 	was 	a violation of 	subsection 	3543.5(c) 	of 	the
Educational Employment 	Relations Act 	{EERA).1 They 	also
1EERA 	is 	codified 	at 	Government 	Code 	section 	3540
et 	seq. 	All 	statutory 	references 	are 	to 	the Government Code,
unless 	otherwise 	specified.
Subsections 3543.5(a), 	(b) 	and 	(c) 	provide as follows:

except 	to 	the 	finding 	that 	the 	unilateral 	change 	was 	a
concurrent 	violation 	of 	subsections 	3543.5(a) 	and 	(b) 	of
EERA.
The 	Board 	has 	considered 	the 	entire 	record 	in 	this
case 	in 	light of 	the 	exceptions. 	We 	affirm 	the 	findings
of 	fact 	and 	conclusions 	of 	law made 	by 	the 	hearing 	officer
to 	the 	extent 	that 	they 	are 	consistent with 	this 	opinion.
The 	Palm 	Springs 	Teachers 	Association 	(Association)
had 	charged 	that 	the 	unilateral 	change 	was 	a 	separate
violation 	of 	3543.5 (a), 	in 	that the 	District discriminated
against Association 	members. 	The 	parties 	did 	not 	present
arguments 	on 	this 	charge; 	the 	hearing officer made 	no
finding on 	the 	charge, 	and 	no 	exceptions 	were 	filed 	to 	the
hearing officer's 	failure 	to 	make 	a 	finding. 	We 	find 	no
evidence 	to 	support 	such 	a 	charge 	and 	hereby 	dismiss 	it.
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.
N
	2

REMEDY
The 	hearing officer 	ordered 	the 	District 	to post 	a
cease 	and desist order, 	and 	that 	the posting 	include 	all
of the 	language of 	subsection 	3543.5(a). 	The District
contends 	that 	the posting makes 	it 	appear 	that 	the
District 	is 	in violation of 	all 	proscriptions of 	the
subsection.
The Board has 	long 	held 	that 	conduct 	which 	constitutes
a 	unilateral 	change 	in violation of 	subsection 	354 3.5(c)
is 	concurrently a violation of 	subsection 	3543.5(a) 	because
it 	is 	a derogation of 	the 	duty 	to 	negotiate with 	the
exclusive 	representative 	and 	necessarily 	interferes 	with
the 	employees 	in 	the 	exercise 	of 	protected 	rights.
San Francisco 	Community College District 	(10/12/79) 	PERB
Decision No. 	105.
The 	facts of 	this 	case do not 	indicate 	any other
violation of 	subsection 	3543.5{a) 	beyond 	the 	interference
with the exercise of protected rights. 	We, 	therefore,
hold that 	the 	language 	of 	the 	proposed posting 	is 	overbroad
and 	is 	herein modified 	to 	reflect more 	specifically 	the
nature 	of 	the 	violation.
ORDER
Upon 	the 	foregoing 	finding of 	facts, 	conclusions of
law, 	and the 	entire record in this case, 	and pursuant to
Government Code subsection 3541.5 (c), 	it is hereby ORDERED
that 	Palm 	Springs 	Unified 	School 	District 	and 	its
representatives will:
3

A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
1. 	Failing and 	refusing 	to meet and 	negotiate 	in
good 	faith with 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	by 	taking
unilateral 	action on matters within 	the 	scope of
representation, 	as defined by section 	3543.2, 	with
particular 	reference 	to 	the 	modification of 	the 	salaries
of coaches of girls' 	athletics.
2. 	Denying 	the 	Palm Springs 	Teachers Association
its 	right 	to 	represent unit members 	by 	failing 	and refusing
to meet 	and negotiate 	about matters 	within 	the 	scope of
representation.
3. 	Interfering with employees 	because of 	their
exercise 	of 	their 	right 	to 	select 	an 	exclusive 	representative
to 	meet 	and 	negotiate with 	the 	employer 	on 	their 	behalf
by 	unilaterally 	changing matters 	within 	the 	scope 	of
representation without meeting 	and 	negotiating with 	the
exclusive 	representative.
B. 	TAKE 	THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION DESIGNED
TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES 	OF 	THE ACT:
Within 	thirty 	(30) 	calendar days 	after 	the 	date
of 	service of 	this 	decision, 	prepare 	and post 	copies of
the Notice to Employees, 	attached as 	an appendix hereto,
for thirty 	{30) 	workdays 	at 	its 	headquarters offices 	and
in 	conspicuous 	places 	at 	the 	locations where 	notices 	to
classified employees 	are 	customarily 	posted. 	It must not
44

be 	reduced 	in 	size, 	and reasonable 	steps 	should be 	taken
to 	see 	that 	it 	is 	not defaced, 	altered or covered by 	any
material.
Chairperson Gluck 	and Member 	Jensen 	concurred.
55

APPENDIX
NOTICE 	TO 	EMPLOYEES
POSTED 	BY 	ORDER 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
An Agency 	of 	the 	State 	of 	California
After a hearing in Unfair Practice Case No. 	LA-CE-1148,
Palm Springs 	Teachers Association 	v. 	Palm Springs 	Unified
School District, 	in which 	all parties had the 	right to
participate, 	it has 	been 	found 	that 	the District violated
Government Code subsections 3543.5{a), 	(b) 	and 	(c) 	by
unilaterally modifying 	the 	salaries 	of 	coaches 	of 	girls'
athletics.
As 	a 	result of this 	conduct, 	we 	have been ordered 	to
post 	this 	Notice 	and will 	abide by 	the 	following. 	We will:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
(1) 	Failing 	and refusing 	to meet and negotiate
in 	good 	faith 	with 	the 	exclusive 	representative
by 	taking 	unilateral 	action 	on matters 	within
the 	scope of representation, 	as defined by
section 3543.2.
(2} 	Denying 	the Palm Springs 	Teachers Association
its 	right to 	represent unit members 	by 	failing
and 	refusing 	to 	meet 	and 	negotiate 	about matters
within the 	scope of 	representation.
{3} 	Interfering with employees 	because of 	their
exercise 	of 	their 	right 	to 	select 	an 	exclusive
representative 	to 	meet 	and 	negotiate with 	the
employer 	on 	their 	behalf 	by 	unilaterally 	changing
matters 	within 	the 	scope 	of 	representation
without meeting 	and 	negotiating with 	the
exclusive 	representative.
Dated:
PALM 	SPRINGS 	UNIFIED 	SCHOOL 	DISTRICT
By
Authorized 	Agent
THIS 	IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE. 	IT MUST REMAIN 	POSTED 	FOR AT LEAST
THIRTY 	(30) 	WORKDAYS 	FROM THE DATE OF 	POSTING AND MUST NOT BE
REDUCED 	IN SIZE, 	DEFACED, 	ALTERED OR COVERED BY ANY MATERIAL.

STATE OF 	CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
PALM 	SPRINGS 	TEACHERS 	ASSOCIATION,
Charging 	Party,
v.
PALM SPRINGS 	UNIFIED 	SCHOOL 	DISTRICT,
Respondent.
UNFAIR 	PRACTICE
Case No. 	LA-CE-1148
PROPOSED 	DECISION
{1/26/81)
Appearances: 	Charles Gustafson, 	Esq., 	for 	the Palm Springs
Teachers Association; 	Charles Field, Esq., 	{Best, 	Best & Krieger)
for 	the Palm Springs 	Unified 	School 	District.
Before 	Terry Filliman, 	Hearing Officer
PROCEDURAL 	HISTORY
On May 6, 	1980, 	the Palm Springs Teachers Association
{hereinafter Association 	or 	Charging Party) 	filed 	an 	unfair
practice 	charge 	against 	the 	Palm Springs 	Unified 	School
District 	(hereinafter 	District) 	alleging 	a 	violation of
section 3543.5{a), 	(b) 	and 	(c)
1 of the Educational Employment
Relations Act.
The 	charge 	alleges 	that 	during 	the 	1979-1980 	school year
the 	District 	unilaterally 	increased 	the 	salary 	of 	certain 	unit
members 	serving 	as coaches 	of 	girls' 	sports while 	retaining 	the
1The 	EERA 	is 	codified 	at 	Government 	Code 	section 	3540
et 	seq. 	All 	future 	references 	are 	to 	the 	Government Code
unless 	otherwise 	indicated.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_________________ )

existing 	salary 	for 	other 	coaches 	as 	set 	forth 	in 	the 	existing
collective 	bargaining 	agreement. 	This 	salary 	increase 	awarded
to 	some 	nonmembers 	of 	the Association 	is 	alleged 	to have
discriminated 	against 	the 	organization 	and 	its 	membership.
The 	District 	filed 	an 	answer 	denying 	the 	charge 	on
June 	19, 	1980. 	The parties 	failed 	to resolve 	the matter 	at an
informal conference on June 	23, 	1980, 	and 	the case was 	set 	for
formal hearing on October 	10, 	1980.
In an effort 	to expedite 	a decision, 	the parties 	agreed 	to
waive 	a 	transcript 	and 	to consider 	immediate 	findings of 	fact
made 	by 	the 	hearing officer. 	The 	parties were 	afforded 	an
opportunity 	to object 	to 	tentative 	findings 	and 	file 	briefs
regarding 	legal 	conclusions.
FINDINGS 	OF 	FACT
A * 	History 	of 	Coaching 	Salaries
The 	Association 	is 	an 	employee 	organization 	and 	the
District 	is 	a 	public 	school 	employer 	within 	the 	meaning 	of
section 	3540.1 	of 	the 	EERA.
The 	parties 	executed 	a 	three-year 	collective 	bargaining
agreement 	effective 	from September 	1, 	1976 	through
August 	31, 	1979. 	The 	agreement 	fixed 	the wages 	for 	teachers
for 	the 	first 	two years 	and 	allowed 	a 	reopener 	for 	wages 	during
1978-79 	school year. 	The 	contract 	incorporated 	a 	certificated
employees' 	salary 	schedule 	and 	a 	separate 	schedule 	of 	lump 	sum
payments 	for 	various 	extended 	workday 	duties 	including 	coaching
22

(Association exhibits 	2 	and 	2-B), 	The 	supplementary 	schedule
listed 	each 	boys 	and 	girls 	coaching 	assignment 	separately 	by
sport. 	A 	separate 	lump 	sum salary 	was 	provided 	for 	coaching
each 	sport 	for 	a 	season 	based 	upon 	a weighted 	factoring
system. 	The 	salary 	determining 	factor 	assigned 	to 	each 	sport
was 	based 	upon 	the 	complexity of 	the 	sport, 	the 	number 	of
students participating, 	the number of contests, 	etc. 	For
example, 	the 	coach 	of girls' 	freshman basketball was paid
$325.00 	per 	season 	because 	the 	sport was 	given 	a 	factor 	of 	2.7
while 	the 	coach 	of 	boys' 	varsity 	basketball 	was 	paid 	$950.00
based 	on 	a 	6.7 	factor.
Of 	the 	sports 	offered 	by 	the 	District 	at 	the 	junior 	high
and 	high 	school 	levels, 	a 	few are offered 	for 	boys 	only
(wrestling, 	water polo, 	handball), 	and a few are offered 	for
girls only 	{volleyball, 	gymnastics, 	softball). 	In six sports
the District 	sponsors 	separate 	or 	co-ed 	teams 	for 	boys 	and
girls. 	The 	sports 	are cross-country, 	track, 	basketball,
tennis, 	badminton 	and 	swimming. 	When 	the contract was
negotiated 	in 	1976, 	unit members coaching 	girls' 	teams 	in each
of 	these 	sports 	received 	a 	lower 	salary 	than 	boys' 	coaches
based 	upon 	the 	factoring 	system. 	For 	those 	sports 	relevant 	to
this case, 	the difference 	in salary between the coaching
assignments 	were:
W3

Sport 	Salary 	Factor
Varsity Basketball 	(B)2 $950.00 	(6.7)
Varsity 	Basketball 	(G) 	$740.00 	(5.3)
Varsity 	Tennis 	(B) 	$800.00 	(5.6)
Varsity 	Tennis 	(G) 	$710.00 	(5.0)
Junior 	Varsity Basketball 	(B) 	$710.00 	(5.2)
Junior 	Varsity Basketball 	(G) 	$500.00 	{3.6)
Frosh 	Basketball 	(B) 	$575.00 	(4.2)
Frosh 	Basketball 	(G) 	$325.00 	(2.9)
(Association exhibit no. 	2)
Between 	1976 	and 	1978 	several 	sports 	were 	added 	as 	student
interest 	increased. 	In addition, 	title 	9 3 was 	adopted 	by
Congress 	to 	enhance 	the 	participation of 	women 	in 	sports 	in public
educational 	institutions.
In February 	1978 	the 	parties 	commenced 	negotiations 	for 	the
basic 	and 	extended 	workday 	salary 	reopeners 	under 	the 	third 	year
of 	the 	1976 	contract. 	The 	parties 	failed 	to 	reach 	an early
agreement 	and 	the 	negotiations 	continued 	for 	15 months 	until
June 	26, 	1979. 	On 	that date 	they extended 	the 	1976 contract 	for
one 	year 	without 	significant 	change 	and 	the 	employees 	received 	a
salary 	increase 	for 	1979-80. 	No 	adjustments 	were 	made 	to 	the
extra-duty 	salary 	schedule. 	Thus, 	despite 	the 	addition of 	new
coaching 	assignments 	and 	the 	changes 	in 	coaching 	duties 	mandated
2(B) 	boy's 	team; 	(G) 	girls 	team.
3Title 	9 	is 	the 	popular 	name 	for 	a 	portion 	of 	Public 	Law
codified at 20 U.S.C. 	1681 	(Pub.L,No. 	92-318), adopted 	in June
1972 	and 	implemented 	by 	federal 	regulation 	45 C.F.R. 	86.1
et 	seq.
A	4

by 	title 	9, 	the 	same coaching 	salary 	schedule 	has 	remained 	in
place 	for 	the 	past 	four 	years.
The 	parties 	dispute 	whether 	side 	agreements 	were 	reached
concerning 	certain 	coaching 	duty 	changes 	and 	salary 	changes
during 	negotiations 	in 	1978 	and 	1979 	which were 	never 	reflected
in 	the 	extended 	workday 	salary 	schedule 	when 	readopted 	in June
1979. 	This 	dispute 	is 	resolved 	elsewhere 	herein.
B. 	Changes 	in Coaches 	Salaries 	1979-80
The Association 	alleges 	that 	of 	the 	six 	frosh 	and 	varsity
coaches who coach girls' 	teams 	similar 	to boys' teams, 	the
District 	unilaterally 	increased 	the 	salary 	of 	four 	coaches
during 	1979-80 	while 	refusing 	to 	increase 	the 	salary of 	two
others. 	Of 	the 	four 	who 	received 	increases, 	three were 	not
Association members. 	The 	two coaches 	not 	receiving 	increases
were 	Association members. 	The 	coaches 	receiving 	increases were
Larry Zino, 	Chris Monica, 	Dave Willson, 	and Barbara Jo Graves.
Randy 	Svoboda 	and Victoria Kilgore, 	who 	coached 	girls' 	frosh
basketball, 	received 	no 	increase.
1. 	Changes 	in Basketball 	Coaches 	Salary
While 	the 	facts 	surrounding 	the 	salary 	increase of
coaches 	Zino 	and Monica 	are 	different 	than 	those 	accounting
for 	the 	increase of coaches Willson 	and Graves, 	the 	timing
and 	impact 	of 	the 	federal 	title 	9 	requirements 	upon 	the
salaries of 	all coaches of girls' 	sports 	added 	to 	the
confusion 	of 	the 	case.
55

Without 	deciding 	its 	legal mandates, 	title 	9 generally
conditions 	federal 	funding 	for 	education 	upon 	a 	commitment
of 	substantial 	parity of 	effort 	and 	financial 	resources
between male 	and 	female 	participation 	in athletics. 	While
the 	law 	was 	adopted 	in 	1972 	its 	implementation 	through
federal 	rules 	and 	state 	and 	local 	task 	forces 	has 	proceeded
in phases. 	A plan 	to 	implement 	title 	9 was 	before 	the
District 	in 	1979-80 	at 	the 	same 	time 	the 	coaches' 	salaries
were 	changed.
Marge Johnson 	has 	taught 	physical 	education 	in 	the
District 	and 	has 	been a member 	of 	the Association 	for
years. 	During 	the 	1978-79 	and 	1979-80 	school year 	she 	was
temporarily 	appointed 	assistant 	principal 	at 	the 	high
school, 	a position designated management. 	Her 	duties 	in
that position 	included 	being 	athletic director. 	At 	the
same 	time 	she 	served 	as 	title 	9 	coordinator 	for 	the
District. 	During 	her 	temporary 	assignment Johnson
refrained 	from participation 	in 	the 	Association 	but
continued 	to pay 	dues.
As 	title 	9 	coordinator 	Johnson worked 	to 	assist 	the
coaches 	of 	girls' 	sports 	and 	personally 	believed 	that 	title
9 	mandated 	equal 	salaries 	between 	coaches 	of 	similar 	girls'
and 	boys' 	teams. 	Based 	upon this 	belief Johnson 	told
Larry 	Zino 	in September 	1979 	and Victoria 	Kilgore 	in
November 	1979, 	when they 	inquired, 	that 	their 	coaching
66

salaries 	would 	be 	increased 	for 	the 	1979-80 	school 	year 	to
be 	comparable 	to 	that 	of 	the boys' coaches 	in 	their 	sport.
As 	athletic director, 	Johnson was 	responsible 	for
turning 	in 	a 	payroll 	form 	to 	the District 	indicating 	the
name 	of 	the 	high 	school coach 	and 	the 	salary 	to 	be 	paid
from 	the 	extended 	workday 	salary 	schedule. 	The 	form was
necessary 	prior 	to 	each 	coach 	being 	paid 	a 	lump 	sum at 	the
end 	of 	the 	coaching 	season. 	Based 	upon 	her 	understanding
of 	a 	September 	1979 discussion with Jim Workman, 	director
of 	certificated 	employees, 	Johnson 	unilaterally 	increased
the 	salary 	turned 	in 	for 	Larry 	Zino, 	girls' 	varsity
basketball coach, 	and Chris Monica, 	girls' 	junior varsity
basketball coach 	to be equivalent 	to the boys' 	coach,
These 	two 	were 	the 	first 	girls' 	team coaching 	assignments
to 	be 	concluded 	during 	the 	school 	year 	at 	the 	high 	school.
Girls' 	basketball 	at 	the 	junior 	high 	level 	for 	the
1979-80 	season was 	coached 	by Randy Svoboda 	and
Victoria Kilgore. 	As Johnson was 	not 	responsible 	for
athletics 	at 	the 	junior 	high 	level, 	she 	did 	not 	turn 	in
forms 	for 	these 	two 	coaches. 	Apparently 	the 	person
responsible 	turned 	in 	the 	forms 	indicating 	the 	salary 	for
girls' 	frosh 	basketball and 	boys' 	frosh basketball 	based on
the 	extended 	day 	salary 	schedule 	for 	Svoboda 	and 	Kilgore.
The 	salary difference 	is 	$250 	between 	the 	boys 	and 	girls
assignment.
77

The 	discussion 	between 	Johnson 	and Workman 	to
authorize 	the 	increased 	payment 	to 	Zino 	and Monica 	is
disputed. 	Johnson 	testified 	that while Workman did 	not 	say
precisely 	that 	the 	girls' 	coaches 	would 	receive 	a 	salary
increase 	in 	1979-80 	due 	to 	title 	9, 	she 	understood 	his
comments 	to mean 	that. 	Workman 	testified 	that 	he 	confirmed
the 	District's 	intent 	to 	comply with 	title 	9, 	but 	that 	he
meant 	no 	final decision 	on 	the 	exact 	salaries 	at 	that
time. 	Workman's 	version 	is 	accepted 	because 	he had 	been 	a
participant 	in 	negotiations 	in 	the 	spring 	of 	1979 	to change
the coaches' 	salaries 	in part 	in 	response 	to 	title 	9. 	The
plan 	negotiated 	provided 	comparable 	salaries 	between 	boys
and 	girls 	coaches 	based 	upon 	recognized 	differences 	in
responsibilities. 	Even 	though 	the 	negotiated 	change 	was
not 	finalized, 	it 	shows 	that Workman 	knew 	that 	the 	subject
had 	to be negotiated. 	Thus, 	it 	is 	likely 	that Johnson
confused 	his 	expression 	that 	title 	9 would 	be 	implemented
by 	the District.
Workman 	also 	testified 	that 	when 	he 	received 	the
payroll 	forms 	from Johnson 	for 	Zino 	and Monica 	he
inadvertently 	signed 	them 	without 	noting 	that 	the 	salary
proposed 	was 	higher 	than 	the 	girls' 	coaching 	salary on 	the
extended 	day 	schedule.
Following 	the 	end 	of 	the 	basketball 	season 	in March,
Zino 	received 	a 	check 	for 	$950.00, 	the 	same 	salary
8

authorized 	to be 	paid 	the boys' 	varsity basketball 	coach.
The 	contract 	provided 	that 	he 	should 	have 	been 	paid
$740.00. 	Monica 	received $710.00, the 	salary 	for 	the 	boys'
junior 	varsity 	basketball 	coach. 	He 	was 	contracted 	to
receive 	$500.00. 	Svoboda 	and 	Kilgore 	received 	$325.00 	for
coaching 	frosh girls' 	basketball while 	the 	boys' 	frosh
coaches 	received 	$575.00.
On March 	25, 	1980, 	Svoboda and 	Kilgore 	filed
grievances 	with 	the 	District 	claiming 	the 	inequity 	was 	a
violation 	of 	the 	contract 	and 	title 	9 	(Association 	exhibit
no. 	1 ) . 	On April 24, 	1980, Workman notified Monica and
Zino 	that 	they 	had 	been 	overpaid 	in error, 	His 	letter
inferred 	that 	the 	District 	had 	not 	known of 	the 	increased
payment 	to 	Zino 	and Monica 	prior 	to 	the 	filing of 	the
grievance 	(Association exhibit no. 	3 ) . 	On that date 	the
District 	demanded 	repayment 	of 	the 	excess 	amount. 	The 	two
employees 	testified 	that 	because 	of 	legal 	advice 	and 	the
filing 	of 	the 	unfair 	practice 	charge 	they 	have 	not 	yet
repaid 	the 	amount.
Although 	designated 	management 	by 	the 	District,
nothing 	in 	the 	record 	supports 	a 	finding 	that Marge 	Johnson
I,
was 	a management 	employee4 as 	defined 	by 	the 	EERA while
4Section 	3540.l(g). 	See 	also Lompoc Unified 	School
District 	(3/17/77) 	EERB 	Decision 	No. 13.
99

serving 	as 	athletic 	director. 	Johnson may or 	may 	not 	have
been 	acting 	as 	a 	supervisor. 	Such 	a determination 	is
not 	necessary 	because 	her 	actions 	in 	filling 	out 	the
coaching 	salary 	request 	forms 	and 	talking 	to 	Zino 	and
Monica 	about 	their 	salary 	are 	found 	to 	be ministerial 	acts
rather 	than 	actions 	requiring 	independent 	judgment.
Johnson 	indicated 	she 	filed 	for 	the 	higher 	salaries 	for
Zino 	and 	Monica 	based 	upon 	her 	understanding 	that 	the
change 	was 	authorized 	by Workman. 	Although 	the 	change 	in
Zino's 	and 	Monica's 	salaries 	were 	based 	upon 	a 	confusing
but 	honest 	set of 	circumstances 	rather 	than 	upon 	animus
against 	the 	Association, 	their 	salaries 	were 	nevertheless
unilaterally 	increased 	by 	the 	District. 	Workman 	is 	a
management 	employee 	and 	must 	be 	held 	to 	his 	action 	in 	fact
of 	approving 	the 	increases 	despite 	his 	claim of
unintentional 	error. 	Any 	attempted 	recission 	of 	the 	salary
increase must 	be 	considered 	as 	a 	legal defense.
2. 	Changes 	in 	Track 	and 	Tennis 	Coach 	Salaries
While 	the 	increase 	in 	salaries of 	the 	girls' 	track and
tennis 	coach 	in 	1979-80 	appeared 	to 	be 	interrelated 	to 	the
increase 	in 	salaries 	of 	the 	basketball 	coaches described
above, 	it 	is 	found 	that 	the 	incidents 	in 	fact were 	not
closely 	related. 	Dave Willson 	has 	been 	the 	boys1 track
5Section 	3540.1(m).
10

coach 	for 	several 	years. 	He 	has 	also 	been 	a member 	of 	the
Association. 	In 	1978-79 	new girls' 	track and 	cross-country
teams were 	formed 	clue 	to 	student demand. 	Willson
volunteered 	for 	the 	extra 	coaching 	jobs 	without 	salary.
During 	November 	1978 	Willson 	approached 	Frank 	Castner,
Association 	negotiator, 	to request 	the District 	to
negotiate a 	salary 	for 	coaching girls' 	track.
Castner 	and 	the 	District 	agree 	that 	an 	agreement 	was
made 	to 	temporarily 	increase Willson's 	salary 	by 	$160 	for
coaching 	both 	the 	boys 	and 	girls 	varsity 	track 	teams 	for
the 	1978-79 	school year. 	They 	presented 	extremely
conflicting 	testimony 	as 	to 	whether 	the 	agreement 	was 	a
verbal 	side 	agreement 	to 	the 	contract 	not 	required 	to 	be
ratified 	by 	the 	Association 	or 	whether 	it was 	a 	tentative
agreement 	reached 	during 	negotiations 	for 	salary 	reopeners
in February 	1979. 	The 	conflicting 	evidence 	is 	not 	restated
here 	because: 	(1) 	The parties' 	testimony and 	exhibits
(Association 	exhibit no. 	5) 	indicated 	that 	the 	increase was
a 	temporary 	one 	for 	the 	1978-79 	season 	and 	(2) 	Willson
testified 	he 	did 	not 	receive 	the 	salary 	increase 	during 	the
spring 	of 	1979 	for 	the 	1978-79 	duties. 	The District's
version 	of 	the 	tentative 	agreement 	also 	indicated 	that
following 	the 	1978-79 	year 	a 	separate 	girls 	varsity 	track
coaching 	assignment 	would 	be 	paid 	$800. 	(Association
exhibit 	no. 	5.) 	Willson 	testified 	that 	he 	did 	receive 	an
11

extra 	$160 	in 	the 	spring 	of 	1980 	for 	coaching 	both 	track
teams 	during 	the 	1979-80 	season. 	The 	$160 	does 	not 	relate
directly 	to 	the 	coaches' 	salary 	schedule 	In 	that no 	category
is 	listed 	for 	girls 	varsity 	track.
Whether 	or 	not 	as 	under 	Caster's 	view, 	the 	parties
reached 	a 	binding 	verbal 	agreement 	or 	under 	the 	District's
view 	they 	reached 	a 	written 	tentative 	agreement 	during
negotiations, 	it 	is 	apparent 	that 	the 	5160 	increase 	in
salary 	for 	the 	track 	coach 	was 	to 	be 	in 	effect only 	for 	the
1978-79 	school 	year. 	The 	tentative 	agreement 	was 	not
ratified 	by 	the Association membership 	as 	was 	required 	by
the ground 	rules 	for 	negotiation. 	Even 	if 	ratified, 	it
would 	not 	have 	authorized 	the 	District 	to wait 	over 	one
year 	until 	the 	spring 	of 	1980 	to 	implement 	the 	$160
increase. 	Such 	action would 	also 	have modified 	the
tentative 	agreement 	which 	required 	a 	new 	varsity 	girls
track 	assignment 	to 	be 	placed 	on 	the 	salary 	schedule 	as 	a
separate 	position 	and 	paid 	at 	a 	rate 	of 	$800. 	Under 	any
interpretation 	the District's 	action 	in paying Willson 	an
additional 	$160 	during 	the 	spring 	of 	1980 	was 	a 	unilateral
act 	not 	authorized 	by 	any 	agreement 	between 	the parties.
Barbara 	Jo Graves was 	the 	girls1 varsity 	tennis
coach. 	In 	1979 	the 	District 	started 	a co-educational
badminton 	team and 	Graves 	agreed 	to coach 	it. 	The 	salary
schedule 	did 	not 	provide 	for 	the 	new 	team. 	According 	to
12

the 	salary 	schedule, 	Graves 	should 	have 	received 	$710.00 	to
coach 	girls' 	tennis. 	In December 	1979 	she 	received 	a check
for 	$800.00 	for 	coaching 	the 	sport. 	This 	was 	an 	amount
equal 	to 	the 	salary 	the 	boys' 	tennis coach 	received.
Graves 	is 	not a member 	of 	the Association. 	While Graves
testified 	that 	she 	thought 	she 	received 	the 	increase
because 	of 	the mandates 	of 	title 	9, 	no District 	employee
told 	her 	why 	it 	was 	granted. 	Mo one 	testified 	as 	to 	the
reason 	for 	the 	increase.
The 	parties 	also differ 	on whether 	a 	tentative
agreement 	was 	reached 	to 	increase 	the 	salary of 	the 	girls'
tennis 	coach 	during 	the 	January-February 	1979 	negotiation
sessions. 	Castner 	testified 	that 	the 	parties 	reached 	a
tentative 	agreement 	on 	a 	restructuring 	of 	the 	extra-duty
pay 	schedule 	to 	equalize 	salaries 	for 	coaches 	of women's
sports. 	He 	stated 	that 	while 	the 	exact 	salary 	increase 	for
all 	coaches 	was 	not 	discussed 	because 	of 	the 	freeze 	imposed
by 	the 	Legislature 	on 	salary 	increases, 	the 	parties 	agreed
in principal 	on 	the 	restructuring 	and 	realignment. 	He 	also
stated 	that 	the 	discussion 	of 	a 	salary 	increase 	for 	the
girls' 	tennis coach was only 	an example of 	increases 	to be
granted 	to 	all 	coaches 	of 	women's 	sports 	and was 	never
agreed 	upon 	separately. 	Charles 	Field, 	attorney 	for 	the
District, 	and Jim Workman 	testified 	that 	a 	separate
agreement was 	reached 	to 	increase 	the 	girls' 	tennis coach's
13

salary. 	Neither 	recalled why 	the 	increase was 	agreed 	upon
for 	the 	tennis 	coach 	alone 	bat 	both 	indicated 	that 	the
Association 	had 	raised 	the 	matter.
In a February 8, 	1979, 	letter 	to 	the District
superintendent, 	Field 	summarized 	the 	tentative 	agreements
reached 	between 	the 	parties 	as 	to 	the 	track coach 	and 	the
tennis 	coach 	along 	with 	four 	other 	tentative 	agreements
providing 	office 	space 	and 	release 	time 	to 	the Association
among 	other 	benefits. 	The 	letter 	stated 	"Upon 	ratification
by a PSTA, 	duly 	transmitted 	in writing 	to 	the District, 	I
recommend 	that 	the 	Board 	ratify 	the 	below
provisions 	. 	. 	. 	." 	Workman also testified 	that he
understood 	that 	all 	tentative 	agreements 	including 	changes
in 	the 	track 	and 	tennis 	coach 	salaries 	were 	required 	to 	be
ratified 	by 	the Association membership.
The 	months 	immediately 	following 	the 	reaching 	of 	the
several 	tentative 	agreements 	in February 	1979 	reveal 	a
frustrating 	and 	confusing 	pattern 	of 	communication 	between
the parties. 	Shortly 	after 	the 	agreements 	were 	reached,
the 	California Supreme 	Court 	overturned 	the 	statutory
freeze 	upon 	public 	employee 	salary 	increases 	and 	the
parties 	commenced 	negotiating 	a 	salary 	increase. 	The
District 	operated 	under 	three 	superintendents 	during 	the
negotiations. 	The 	parties 	proceeded 	through 	impasse 	and
factfinding. 	In June 	1979, 	following 	15 months 	of
14

negotiations, 	the Association 	changed 	its 	entire
negotiating 	team and 	officers. 	When 	a 	salary 	increase 	was
agreed 	upon 	in June 	1979 	and 	the 	prior 	contract 	extended
for 	an 	additional year, 	the 	parties 	apparently made 	no
mention 	of 	the 	tentative 	agreements 	reached 	the 	prior
February. 	The 	current 	officers 	of 	the 	Association 	claim no
knowledge of 	either 	Castner's 	authority 	to 	reach 	a 	side
agreement 	over 	certain 	coaches' 	salaries 	or 	any 	tentative
agreements 	reached 	on 	issues 	other 	than 	salary. 	Such
events 	do 	not 	immunize 	the 	Association 	from 	being 	bound 	by
any 	agreements 	reached 	by 	the 	predecessor 	negotiators 	if
such 	agreements 	were 	ever 	ratified. 	Ratification was
understood 	to be 	a ground 	rule 	by both parties. 	In 	fact,
the 	tentative 	agreements 	were 	never 	presented 	to 	the
Association membership 	for 	ratification.
Based 	upon 	the 	above 	facts, 	it 	is 	unnecessary 	to
determine 	whether 	a 	tentative 	agreement 	was 	reached 	over
the girls' 	tennis 	coach 	alone or 	regarding 	a 	readjustment
of 	all coaches of 	girls' 	sports 	in February 	1979. 	Workman
testified 	that 	the 	District 	had 	in 	fact 	implemented 	the
salary 	increases 	for 	the 	track 	and 	tennis 	coaches 	and 	each
of 	the 	other 	tentative 	agreements 	reached 	by 	the 	parties.
No matter 	what 	the 	scope 	of 	the 	tentative 	agreement
regarding 	the 	coaches 	of 	girls 	sports, 	such 	agreement 	was
neither 	ratified 	by 	the Association 	nor 	incorporated 	in 	the
15

successor 	contract. 	The 	action of 	the District 	in paying
Barbara Joe 	Graves 	an 	increased 	salary 	in December 	1979 	was
a 	unilateral change, 	as was 	the 	extra payment 	to Dave
Willson 	during 	the 	1979-80 	school year.
ISSUES
Did 	the 	District 	unilaterally 	change 	the 	extra-duty 	pay 	of
Coaches 	Zino, 	Monica, 	Willson 	and Graves 	in violation of
Government Code section 3543.5(a), 	(b) 	and 	(c).
CONCLUSIONS 	OF 	LAW
An employer's 	unilateral change of 	a matter 	within 	the
scope 	of 	representation, 	without 	affording 	the 	exclusive
representative 	notice 	of 	an 	opportunity 	to 	bargain 	on 	the
matter 	is 	failure 	or 	refusal 	to bargain 	in good 	faith.66 San
Francisco Community College District 	(10/12/79) 	PERB Decision
No. 	105; 	San Mateo Community College District 	(6/8/79) 	PERB
Decision No. 	94; 	Pajaro Valley Unified School District
(5/22/78) 	PERB Decision No. 	51; 	NLRB v. 	Katz 	(1962) 	369 U.S.
736 	[50 	LRRM 2177J.
The 	District 	raises 	the 	defense 	that 	any 	unilateral 	action
it 	took was 	a 	"de minimis" 	violation and 	should 	be 	dismissed.
6Section 	3543.5 (c) 	states:
It 	shall be 	unlawful 	for 	a public school
employer 	to:
(c) 	Refuse of 	fail 	to meet 	and 	negotiate 	in
good 	faith 	with 	an exclusive 	representative.
16

The 	Public Employment 	Relations Board 	{hereafter 	PERB) 	has
recognized 	that 	under 	certain 	circumstances 	a 	technical 	refusal
to 	bargain may 	nave 	such 	minimal 	impact 	that 	no violation may
be 	found. 	In Muroc Unified 	School 	District 	(12/15/78) 	PERB
Decision No. 	80 	the Board 	held 	that a 	"de minimis" 	or 	technical
violation 	with 	no 	discernible 	impact, 	and 	which 	is 	immediately
retracted 	is 	scant 	evidence of 	a 	refusal 	to negotiate. 	In
Muroc 	an 	employer's 	brief 	conduct 	at 	a 	single 	negotiating
session which 	was 	soon 	retracted 	was 	not 	found 	sufficient 	to
constitute 	"surface 	bargaining."
The Muroc 	precedent 	applies 	where 	"good 	faith" 	of 	a 	party
in 	its 	overall bargaining 	conduct 	is 	being 	decided. 	In
contrast 	PERB, 	following 	the National 	Labor 	Relations Board,
has 	adopted 	a 	"per 	se" 	view of 	a 	unilateral 	action 	rather 	than
reviewing 	the 	subjective 	intent 	of 	the 	wrongdoer.
Furthermore, 	the 	later 	reversal or 	recission of 	a
unilateral 	action 	or 	subsequent 	negotiation on 	the 	subject 	of 	a
unilateral 	action 	does 	not 	excuse 	a violation. 	Amador Valley
Joint Union High School District 	(10/2/78) 	PERB Decision No. 	74,
The 	District 	cites 	a 	hearing 	officer 	decision, 	Moreno
Valley Unified 	School 	District 77(3/13/80) 	LA-CE-398 	[4 	PERC
11022] 	apparently 	to 	show 	that 	the 	agency 	has 	applied 	the
"de minimis 	test" 	to 	unilateral 	actions. 	In Moreno a
7The 	decision 	is 	on 	appeal 	and 	provides 	no 	precedent.
17

districtwide 	change 	in 	work 	schedule 	was 	rescinded 	before 	it
was 	implemented. 	Inadvertently 	the 	schedule 	was 	implemented 	at
one 	school 	for 	one 	hour 	before 	the 	error 	was 	caught 	and
corrected.
The 	circumstances 	surrounding 	the 	District's 	two 	unilateral
actions 	in 	the present case 	are 	not de minimis. 	The 	attempt 	by
Mr. 	Workman 	to 	rescind 	the 	increase 	to Coaches 	Zino 	and Monica
occurred 	only 	after 	other 	coaches 	filed 	a 	grievance 	over 	the
matter. 	The 	first 	attempt 	to 	rescind 	the 	action occurred 	one
month after 	its 	effect was 	known. 	In fact, 	no recission
occurred 	and 	the 	increases 	have 	not 	been 	repaid.
The 	District's 	modification 	and/or 	unilateral
implementation 	of 	the 	tentative 	agreements 	reached 	about 	salary
increases 	to Coaches Willson 	and Graves 	are 	not 	validated 	by
subsequent 	negotiations 	between 	the 	parties.
The 	fact 	that 	no direct 	negotiations 	occurred 	with 	the
affected 	individuals or 	that 	no direct 	harm 	resulted 	does 	not
remove 	the 	unlawful 	nature 	of 	the 	District's 	acts.
As 	stated 	in 	San 	Mateo 	Community 	College 	District 	(6/8/79)
PERB Decision No. 	94, 	unilateral 	actions 	are 	disfavored:
(a) 	because 	of 	their 	destabilizing 	and 	disorienting 	impact 	on
employer-employee affairs; 	(b) 	such 	actions derogate 	the
representative's 	negotiating 	power 	and 	ability 	to 	perform 	as 	an
effective 	representative 	in 	the 	eyes 	of 	employees 	and 	undermine
exclusivity; 	(c) 	such 	action denigrates negotiations consistent
18

with 	statutory design 	under 	EERA; 	and 	finally, 	(d) 	such 	action
unfairly 	shifts 	community 	and 	political 	pressure 	to 	employees
and 	their 	organizations, 	and 	at 	the 	same 	time 	reduces 	the
employer's 	accountability to the public. 	Thus, 	a violation of
section 	3543.5(c) 	is 	found.
A unilateral 	change 	in wages 	in 	violation of
section 	3543.5(c) 	necessarily 	interferes 	with 	the
employee's rights to 	representation under 	section 	3543.5(a) 	and
denies 	the 	employee 	organization 	its 	rights of 	exclusive
representation 	through 	section 	3543.5(fo). 	San Francisco
Community College District 	(10/12/79) 	PERB Decision No. 	105. 	A
violation of 	section 	3543.5 (a) 	and 	(b) 	is 	therefore 	found.
REMEDY
Under Government Code section 3541.5 (c), 	the Public
Employment 	Relations Board 	is 	given:
. 	. 	.the power 	to 	issue a decision and
order 	directing 	an 	offending 	party 	to 	cease
and 	desist 	from 	the 	unfair 	practice 	and 	to
take 	such 	affirmative 	action, 	. . . 	as will
effectuate 	the 	policies 	of 	this 	chapter.
In 	the 	present case, 	it 	has 	been 	found 	that 	the District
has 	violated 	the 	EERA 	by 	unilaterally 	implementing 	an 	increase
in 	the 	stipend 	of 	four 	coaches without 	meeting 	and 	negotiating,
by 	denying 	the Association 	rights 	guaranteed 	by 	the EERA, 	and
by 	interfering 	with 	and 	discriminating 	against 	members 	of 	the
19

unit 	because 	of 	the 	exercise of 	rights 	guaranteed 	by 	the EERA.
Pursuant 	to 	the 	remedial powers 	of 	the PERB, 	it 	is 	appropriate
to order 	the District 	to 	cease 	and 	desist 	from 	taking 	any
unilateral 	action 	about 	extra-duty 	pay.
It 	is 	also 	an 	appropriate 	remedy 	to 	restore 	the 	parties 	to
the 	status quo prior 	to 	the violation. 	Implementation of 	a
remedy 	is difficult where 	the 	result 	of 	the 	violation was 	to
award 	a 	well-deserved 	benefit 	to 	certain 	employees 	while
depriving 	other 	employees 	of 	the 	benefit.8 While 	the 	parties
were 	specifically 	requested 	to 	propose 	an 	appropriate 	remedy,
the 	Association 	proposed 	none.
PERB 	has 	no 	authority 	to 	require 	a 	payment 	to 	those 	coaches
not 	originally 	receiving 	the 	unilateral 	increase.9 On 	the
other 	hand, 	the 	status 	quo 	between 	the 	parties 	cannot
reasonably 	be 	achieved 	by 	requiring 	the 	District 	to 	demand
repayment 	from Coaches Zino, 	Monica, 	Willson and Graves, 	The
effect 	of 	such 	a 	remedy 	is 	that 	while 	the 	District 	committed
the wrong, 	the 	repayment 	requirement would 	only 	serve 	to
8Specifically, 	of 	the 	six coaches of girls' 	teams where
boys' 	teams 	existed 	for 	the 	sport, 	four 	received 	temporary
increases 	and 	two 	did 	not. 	It 	is 	unclear 	whether 	a coach 	of
girls' 	swimming 	existed 	in 	1978-79.
9The U.S. 	Supreme Court has held 	that 	it 	is 	improper 	for
the government 	to determine 	a 	substantive 	contract 	term
(H.K. 	Porter Co. 	v. 	NLRB 	(USSC 1970) 	397 US 	99 	[73 LRRM 2561])
because 	the 	statutory 	structure 	favors 	private 	determination 	of
contract 	terms 	and 	does 	not 	require 	the 	making 	of 	concessions.
1
20

undermine 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	further 	in 	the 	eyes of
the employees.
The 	increases 	in 	coaching 	stipends 	were 	paid 	on 	a one-time
basis. 	The parties 	also 	have 	recognized 	the 	need 	to 	negotiate
over 	future 	restructuring 	of 	stipends 	to 	implement 	changes 	in
coaching 	duties 	and 	title 	9, 	federal 	law. 	The 	only 	remaining
alternatives 	would 	be 	to 	authorize 	the Association 	to 	bargain
on 	behalf 	of 	the 	remaining 	affected 	coaches 	for 	1978-79 	or
allow 	the 	Association 	to 	elect 	repayment 	by coaches 	who
received 	the 	increased 	stipend. 	Because 	the 	Association
proposed 	no 	remedy, 	no 	retroactive 	bargaining 	or 	repayment 	will
be 	ordered.
It 	is 	appropriate 	that 	the 	District 	be 	required 	to post 	a
notice 	incorporating 	the 	terms 	of 	the 	order. 	The 	notice 	should
be 	subscribed 	by 	an 	authorized 	agent 	of 	the 	District 	indicating
that 	it 	will 	comply 	with 	the 	terms 	thereof. 	The 	notice 	shall
not 	be 	reduced 	in 	size. 	Posting 	such 	a 	notice 	will provide
employees 	with 	notice 	that 	the 	District 	has 	acted 	in 	an
unlawful 	manner 	and 	is 	being 	required 	to cease 	and 	desist 	from
this 	activity 	and 	to 	restore 	the 	status quo. 	It 	effectuates
the purposes 	of 	the 	EERA 	that 	employees 	be 	informed 	of 	the
resolution 	of 	the 	controversy 	and 	will 	announce 	the 	District's
readiness 	to 	comply with 	the 	ordered 	remedy. 	See 	Placerville
Onion School District 	(9/18/78) 	PERB Decision No. 	69. 	In
Pandol and Sons v. 	ALRB and UFW 	(1979) 	98 Cal.App.3d 	580, 	587,
21

the 	California 	District 	Court 	of 	Appeal 	approved 	a 	posting
requirement. 	The 	U.S. 	Supreme Court 	approved 	a 	similar 	posting
requirement 	in NLRB v. 	Express Publishing Co. 	(1941) 	312 U.S.
426 	[8 LRRM 415].
PROPOSED 	ORDER
Upon 	the 	foregoing 	findings 	of 	fact 	and 	conclusions 	of 	law,
and 	the 	entire 	record 	in 	the 	case, 	and 	pursuant 	to
section 	3541.5(c), 	it 	is hereby 	ordered 	that 	the 	Palm Springs
Unified 	School 	District, 	its 	governing 	board 	and 	its
representatives 	shall:
1. 	CEASE 	AND 	DESIST 	FROM:
(a) 	Threatening 	to 	or 	imposing 	reprisals 	on
employees, 	threatening 	to discriminate 	against 	employees 	or
otherwise 	interfering 	with, 	restraining 	or 	coercing 	employees
because 	of 	the 	exercise 	of 	rights 	guaranteed 	by 	the 	EERA.
(b) 	Denying 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	its 	rights
guaranteed 	by 	EERA 	by 	unilaterally 	increasing 	the 	extra-duty
pay 	of 	certain 	coaches.
(c) 	Failing 	and/or 	refusing 	to meet 	and 	negotiate 	in
good 	faith 	with 	the 	Association 	on matters 	within 	the 	scope 	of
representation.
2. 	TAKE 	THE 	FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE 	ACTIONS 	DESIGNED 	TO
EFFECTUATE 	THE 	POLICIES 	OF 	THE 	ACT.
(a) 	Within 	five 	(5) 	calendar 	days 	after 	this 	decision
becomes 	final, 	prepare 	and 	post 	copies 	of 	the NOTICE 	TO
22

EMPLOYEES 	attached 	as 	an 	appendix 	hereto, 	for 	at 	least 	thirty
(30) 	workdays 	at 	its 	headquarters offices 	and 	in conspicuous
places 	at 	the 	location where 	notices 	to 	classified 	employees
are 	customarily posted. 	It must 	not 	be 	reduced 	in 	size 	and
reasonable 	steps 	should 	be 	taken 	to 	see 	that 	it 	is 	not defaced,
altered 	or 	covered 	by 	any material.
(b) 	Within 	40 workdays 	from service of 	the 	final
decision 	herein, 	give 	written 	notification 	to 	the 	Los 	Angeles
Regional 	Director 	of 	the 	Public Employment Relations Board, 	of
the 	actions 	taken 	to 	comply with 	this 	Order. 	Continue 	to
report 	in writing 	to 	the 	Regional 	Director 	thereafter 	as
directed. 	All 	reports 	to 	the Regional 	Director 	shall be
concurrently 	served 	on 	the 	charging 	party 	herein.
Pursuant 	to California Administrative Code, 	title 	8,
part 	III, 	section 	32305, 	this Proposed Decision and Order 	shall
become 	final on 	February 17 , 	1981, 	unless a party files a 	timely
statement of 	exceptions. 	See California Administrative 	Code,
title 	8, 	part 	III, 	section 	32300. 	Such 	statement 	of 	exceptions
and 	supporting 	brief.10 must 	be 	actually 	received 	by 	the
executive 	assistant 	to 	the Board 	at 	the 	headquarters 	office of
the Public Employment 	Relations Board 	in Sacramento before 	the
10Because 	the 	parties 	waived 	transcript 	to 	expedite 	this
matter, 	they may 	request 	to defer 	filing 	briefs 	and 	instead
request 	a 	transcript 	at 	the 	time 	the 	statement 	of 	exceptions 	is
filed, 	if any.
23

close of 	business {5:00 p.m.) 	on February 17 , 	1981, 	in order 	to
be 	timely 	filed. 	See California Administrative Code, 	title 	8,
part 	III, 	section 	32135. 	Any 	statement of 	exceptions 	and
supporting 	brief 	must 	be 	served 	concurrent 	with 	its 	filing 	upon
each party 	to 	this proceeding. 	Proof 	of 	service 	shall be 	filed
with 	the 	Board 	itself. 	See 	California Administrative Code,
title 8, part 	III, 	sections 32300 and 	32305 	as 	amended.
Dated: 	January 	26, 	1981
W. Terry 	Filliman
Hearing 	Officer
24

. . '	-
APPENDIX
NOTICE 	TO 	EMPLOYEES
POSTED 	BY 	ORDER 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
An Agency 	of 	the 	State 	of 	California
After 	a hearing 	in Unfair Practice Case No. 	LA-CE-1148, 	Palm
Springs 	Teachers Association 	v. 	Palm 	Springs 	Unified 	School
District, 	in which "all parties had 	the 	right 	to participate, 	it
has 	been 	found 	that 	the 	District 	violated 	Government Code
section 3543.5(a), 	(b) and 	(c) .
As 	a 	result 	of 	this 	conduct 	we 	have 	been 	ordered 	to 	post 	this
Notice, 	and 	will 	abide 	by 	the 	following. 	We 	will:
1. 	CEASE 	AND 	DESIST 	FROM:
{a) 	Threatening 	to or 	imposing 	reprisals 	on 	employees,
threatening 	to 	discriminate 	against 	employees 	or 	otherwise
interfering 	with, 	restraining 	or 	coercing 	employees 	because 	of 	the
exercise 	of 	rights 	guaranteed 	by 	the 	EERA.
(b) 	Denying 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	its 	rights
guaranteed 	by 	the 	EERA 	by 	unilaterally 	changing 	the 	extra-duty 	pay
of 	certain coaches 	of 	girls' 	teams.
(c) 	Failing 	and/or 	refusing 	to meet 	and 	negotiate 	in
good 	faith 	with 	the 	Association 	on 	matters 	within 	the 	scope 	of
representation, 	specifically 	with 	respect 	to 	extra-duty 	pay 	for
coaches.
Dated:
PALM SPRINGS 	UNIFIED 	SCHOOL 	DISTRICT
By Authorized 	Agent
THIS 	IS 	AN 	OFFICIAL 	NOTICE. 	IT MUST 	REMAIN 	POSTED 	FOR AT 	LEAST
THIRTY 	(30) 	WORKDAYS 	FROM THE 	DATE 	OF 	POSTING AND MUST 	NOT 	BE
REDUCED 	IN SIZE, 	DEFACED, 	ALTERED OR COVERED BY ANY MATERIAL.