San Leandro Unified School District (PERB 0288E)

STATE 	OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
ROBERT HIDALGO 	and EDWARD COLLINS,
Charging 	Parties,
v.
SAN 	LEANDRO 	UNIFIED SCHOOL 	DISTRICT,
Respondent.
SAN 	LEANDRO 	TEACHERS 	ASSOCIATION,
CTA/NEA,
Real Party 	in 	interest.
Case No. 	SF-CE-477
PERB Decision No. 	288
February 24, 	1983
Appearances; 	Andrew Thomas Sinclair, 	Attorney 	(Sinclair 	&
Clancy) 	for 	Robert Hidalgo 	and Edward Collins;
Melanie M. 	Poturica, Attorney 	(Liebert, 	Cassidy 	& Frierson) 	for
San Leandro Unified School District; 	Diane Ross, 	Attorney for
the San Leandro Teachers Association, 	CTA/NEA.
Before Gluck, Chairperson; 	Tovar 	and Morgenstern, Members.
DECISION
TOVAR, Member: 	This case 	is 	before 	the Public Employment
Relations Board 	(PERB or 	Board) 	on exceptions 	filed 	by
the San Leandro Unified School District 	(District) 	to a
proposed 	decision 	holding 	that 	the District 	violated
subsection 	3543.5(a) 	of 	the Educational Employment Relations
Act 	(EERA or 	Act)1 by discriminatorily 	transferring
1EERA 	is 	codified 	at Government 	Code 	section 	3540
et 	seq. 	All 	statutory references 	are 	to 	the Government Code
unless 	otherwise 	specified.
Subsection 3543.5(a) 	provides 	as 	follows:

Edward 	Collins2 (Charging Party) 	in 	retaliation 	for
protesting 	the 	issue of extra duty assignments 	(EDA), 	an action
protected 	by EERA.
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.
The 	San Leandro Teachers Association, 	CTA/NEA 	(Association)
filed 	an 	application 	for 	joinder 	and 	was 	designated 	as 	a 	Real
Party in 	Interest. 	In 	that 	capacity, 	it 	filed 	a reply 	to 	the
District's 	exceptions.
The 	Board 	has 	considered 	the 	entire 	record 	in 	this 	case 	in
light of 	the 	exceptions. 	We 	affirm 	the 	hearing 	officer's
findings of 	fact 	as 	being 	free 	from prejudicial 	error 	and
incorporate 	them by 	reference 	herein. 	We 	also 	affirm his
conclusions 	of 	law 	to 	the 	extent 	they 	are 	consistent with 	this
opinion.
DISCUSSION
Where 	the 	allegation 	is of 	a 	reprisal 	against 	an 	employee
as 	in 	the 	instant 	case, 	the 	charging party must prove 	that 	the
2The 	hearing 	officer 	concluded 	that 	Mr. 	Robert 	Hidalgo's
transfer 	was 	sufficiently 	justified 	by 	the 	District 	on
operational necessity grounds, 	but 	that 	the District was 	not
able 	to prove 	the 	same 	for Mr. 	Collins' 	transfer. 	Mr. 	Hidalgo
did not 	except 	to 	this 	conclusion; 	thus 	the matter 	of his
transfer 	is 	not 	before 	the Board.
22

employee 	was 	engaged 	in protected 	activity 	and 	that 	the
employer's 	conduct was motivated 	by 	that 	participation. 	Thus,
unlawful motive 	is 	the 	specific nexus 	required 	in 	the
establishment 	of 	a 	prima 	facie 	case. 	Novato Unified 	School
District 	(4/30/82) 	PERB Decision No. 	210, 	at page 6; 	Radio
Officers Union v. 	NLRB 	(1954) 	347 U.S. 	17 at pp. 	43-44 	[33 LRRM
2414].
The 	threshold question 	in this case, 	then, 	is whether
Charging 	Party 	was 	engaged 	in 	protected 	activities 	under 	the
Act. 	Section 3543 	states 	that:
Public 	school 	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. 	Public 	school
employees 	shall also 	have 	the 	right 	to
refuse 	to 	join or 	participate 	in 	the
activities 	of 	employee 	organizations 	and
shall 	have 	the 	right 	to 	represent 	themselves
individually 	in 	their 	employment 	relations
with 	the 	public 	school employer, 	except 	that
once 	the 	employees 	in 	an 	appropriate 	unit
have 	selected 	an 	exclusive 	representative
and 	it 	has 	been 	recognized 	pursuant 	to
Section 	3544.1 	or 	certified 	pursuant 	to
Section 3544.7, 	no employee 	in 	that unit may
meet 	and 	negotiate 	with 	the 	public 	school
employer.
Any 	employee 	may 	at 	any 	time 	present
grievances 	to his 	employer, 	and 	have 	such
grievances adjusted, 	without 	the
intervention of 	the 	exclusive
representative, 	as 	long as 	the 	adjustment 	is
reached 	prior 	to 	arbitration 	pursuant 	to
Sections 3548.5, 	3548.6, 	3548.7, and 3548.8
and 	the 	adjustment 	is 	not 	inconsistent 	with
the 	terms 	of a written 	agreement 	then 	in
W
	3

effect; 	provided 	that 	the 	public 	school
employer 	shall 	not 	agree 	to 	a 	resolution 	of
the 	grievance 	until 	the 	exclusive
representative 	has 	received 	a copy of 	the
grievance 	and 	the 	proposed 	resolution 	and
has 	been 	given 	the 	opportunity 	to 	file a
response.
The 	District 	contends 	that 	the 	activities 	of Collins 	and
the 	other 	employees 	were 	not protected, 	arguing 	that 	they were
attempting 	to 	bypass 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	in
negotiations 	with 	the District 	in 	direct 	contravention of
section 	3543. 	The 	Charging 	Party maintains 	that 	the 	employees
were, 	in fact, 	only protesting 	the District's 	implementation of
the 	negotiated 	EDA policy.
The 	collective 	bargaining 	agreement 	(CBA) 	between 	the
Association 	and 	the 	District 	provided 	that 	unit 	members 	shall
participate, 	attend 	or 	perform assigned 	duties, 	including
"supervision 	of 	student 	activities," 	but 	also provided 	that
EDA's were 	to be reasonable 	in terms of 	their 	type, 	the 	amount
of 	time 	they 	required, 	and 	their 	distribution 	among 	teachers.3
3Article VII, 	paragraph B 	states 	that:
Bargaining 	Unit Members 	shall 	participate,
attend 	and/or 	perform 	reasonable 	duties
assigned, 	included, 	but not limited 	to, 	the
following: 	faculty meetings, 	pupil guidance
meetings, 	curriculum 	and 	in-service
meetings, 	committee 	assignments 	consistent
with 	this 	agreement, 	open house,
back-to-school night, 	supervision of 	student
activities. 	Other 	meetings or 	functions
mutually 	agreed 	upon 	by 	the 	Bargaining 	Unit
4

Employees 	and 	the 	principal or 	the 	immediate
supervisor.
However, paragraph I 	states 	that:
The 	length 	of 	time 	that 	each 	Bargaining 	Unit
Member 	spends 	on 	required 	nonteaching 	duties
shall be 	reasonable, 	and 	fairly distributed
among 	the 	school 	staff.
The 	EDA policy 	had 	been 	a 	subject 	of 	controversy 	at
San Leandro High School 	for 	several years. 	The 	controversy
came 	to a 	head 	in 	the 	fall 	of 	1979 	because 	of 	the manner 	in
which Principal Walter Vassar 	posted 	the EDA 	sign-up 	sheet 	and
his 	attempt 	to 	change 	past 	policy 	and 	increase 	the 	number 	of
assignments 	per 	teacher 	from 	three 	to 	four, 	despite 	the 	fact
that 	there 	had 	been 	an 	increase 	in 	the 	number 	of 	faculty. 	As 	a
result, 	there 	was 	widespread 	teacher 	dissatisfaction 	with
Vassar.
Collins 	wrote 	a 	letter 	of protest 	to Vassar 	on
December 	5, 	1980, 	and circulated a 	petition 	signed 	by 	the
faculty protesting 	the 	unreasonableness 	and 	unfairness 	of 	the
District's 	EDA 	policy 	and 	sign-up 	sheet.4
4 The 	Petition 	read:
Dear Mr. Vassar:
In 	regard 	to 	the 	following 	announcement 	in
the Faculty Bulletin of November 	27, 	1979:
"If 	you 	did 	not 	sign 	up 	for
Activity 	Supervision 	yesterday,
please 	do so 	today. 	The 	sign-up
sheets 	will 	be 	posted 	on 	the
bulletin board 	in 	the Teachers'
Cafe. 	If you do 	not 	volunteer
55

to 	supervise, 	it will 	be 	assumed you
have 	no 	preference 	and 	assignments 	will
be made 	as 	needed."
J.Vassar
We 	would 	like 	to 	inform 	you 	that 	your
assumption 	concerning 	extra 	duty 	sign-ups 	is
incorrect. 	We 	did 	not 	sign 	up 	for 	extra
duties 	as 	a protest 	to 	your 	announcement 	for
the 	following 	reasons: 	(emphasis 	supplied)
(1) 	Teachers 	are 	the 	only people 	involved
in 	these 	activities 	who 	are 	not
compensated.
(2) 	The 	number 	of 	duties 	were 	increased
despite 	an 	increase 	in 	faculty members
this 	year 	and 	continued 	declining
student 	enrollment.
(3) 	We 	are 	being 	forced 	to 	supervise
activities 	that 	didn't 	require
supervision 	in previous 	years.
(4) 	The 	administration 	has 	added 	activities
since 	the 	beginning 	of 	the 	school 	year
that 	violates 	the 	long 	established
policy 	of 	listing 	all 	activities 	for
the 	entire 	year 	on 	the 	initial 	sign 	up
list.
(5) 	We 	are 	now 	forced 	to 	supervise
community 	events, 	such 	as 	the Police
Charity, 	without compensation.
(6) 	The 	administration 	capriciously
increased 	the 	number 	of 	duty
assignments 	by 	disregarding 	the
recommendations 	of 	the Advisory
Committee 	(Article 7 1 ) .
On January 	29, 	1980, 	Collins 	held 	a meeting of 	the 	ad 	hoc
committee 	established 	to 	develop what 	they 	perceived 	to 	be 	a
fair 	and 	reasonable EDA policy 	(Proposal 	C ) . 	District
Superintendent 	Lewis 	Holden 	instructed 	Thomas 	Cruza, 	the
6

director 	of 	administrative 	services, 	to 	transfer Collins 	in
mid-February 1980. 	On February 26, 	1980, 	the majority of the
faculty 	voted 	in 	favor 	of 	Proposal 	C. 	The 	ad 	hoc 	group met
informally 	throughout 	the 	spring 	to 	finalize 	Proposal C, 	and 	on
June 	9, 	1980, 	set up a meeting with Vassar 	to discuss 	it.
The 	hearing 	officer 	found 	that 	it was 	unnecessary 	to decide
the specific 	question of 	whether 	the 	activities 	of 	the 	charging
party constituted 	a grievance 	because 	he 	found 	those 	activities
to 	be 	"subsumed 	in 	the 	broader 	category of 	'employment
relations' 	in 	section 	3543" 	and 	therefore within the 	scope of
representation. 	Instead, 	we 	find 	that 	the Charging 	Party was
engaged 	in 	protected 	activity 	by 	presenting 	a 	grievance 	against
perceived 	violations 	of 	the 	collective 	bargaining 	agreement 	and
organizing 	in 	support 	of 	that 	grievance 	within 	the 	meaning 	of
section 	3543.
The 	protest 	over 	the EDA's was 	the 	type of 	informal
presentation 	of 	grievances 	encouraged 	by 	the 	collective
bargaining 	agreement.5
5Article V, A.1, B.1 and 	2 provide 	in pertinent 	part:
1. 	A 	"grievance" 	is 	a 	formal written
allegation 	by 	a member 	of 	the
bargaining 	unit 	that 	he or 	she 	has
been 	adversely affected 	by 	a
violation or 	misinterpretation 	of 	a
provision of 	this 	agreement. 	Appeal
of any law, 	district policy, 	or
administrative 	decision 	not 	covered
by 	this 	agreement 	shall 	not 	be
77

subject 	to 	the 	grievance 	procedure.
B. 	Informal Procedure
1. 	Before 	filing 	a 	formal written
grievance, 	the 	grievant will 	attempt
to 	resolve 	the 	problem 	by 	at 	least
one 	private 	conference 	with 	his
immediate 	supervisor. 	All
discussions 	and 	problem 	resolution
reached 	through 	this 	process 	shall 	be
deemed 	to 	have 	preceded 	the 	formal
grievance 	procedure 	and 	shall 	not 	be
subject 	to 	intervention 	or 	response
of 	the Association.
2. 	If 	the problem 	is 	not 	resolved 	at 	the
informal level, 	then 	the grievant may
declare 	that 	a grievance 	exists 	and
invoke 	the 	following 	formal
procedures:
A copy of 	the Association 	newsletter, 	SLATE, 	was 	introduced
into evidence. 	It 	states 	that faculty members 	should 	grieve
whatever 	problems 	they may have, 	but encourages 	them 	to 	first
try 	to 	solve 	those 	problems 	at 	the 	informal level.
Relying 	primarily on Emporium Capwell 	v. 	Western Addition
Community Organization6 (1975) 	420 U.S. 	50 	[93 S.Ct. 	974],
the District 	argues 	that 	the 	Charging 	Party was 	attempting,
notwithstanding 	the 	existence 	of 	an 	exclusive 	representative
for 	his 	negotiating 	unit, 	to 	bypass 	the 	exclusive
6 In Emporium Capwell, 	minority employees 	attempted 	to
negotiate 	directly 	with 	the 	employer 	and 	conducted 	a 	picket
line 	and 	consumer 	boycott 	of 	the 	employer. 	The 	court 	held
that, 	if employees 	bypass 	their 	exclusive representative,
conduct 	which 	otherwise 	would 	have 	been 	protected 	by 	the
National 	Labor 	Relations Act 	may 	lose 	its 	protected 	status.
See 	San 	Ramon Valley Unified 	School District 	(8/9/82) 	PERB
Decision No. 	230.
• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	•
8

representative 	and 	meet 	and 	negotiate 	directly 	with 	the 	public
school employer. 	Since 	the 	decision 	to 	transfer 	Collins 	was
based 	on 	his 	protected 	activity 	which 	took 	place 	in
December 	1979 	and January 1980, 	and 	not on 	subsequent 	events,
it 	is 	therefore 	unnecessary for 	us 	to 	determine 	whether 	the
meeting 	set 	for June 	9, 	1980, 	with Vassar 	was 	an attempt 	by 	the
grieving 	employees 	to negotiate a 	new policy. 	Therefore, 	this
case 	is 	distinguishable 	from Emporium Capwell 	primarily 	because
here 	the Charging 	Party 	was 	engaged 	in 	presenting 	a 	grievance,
a protected 	activity under 	the Act. 	Further, 	the Association
did 	not 	oppose 	the 	activities of 	the 	ad 	hoc 	committee 	and, 	in
fact, 	the work of 	the 	committee 	was 	supported 	by 	the
Association's 	building 	representative. 	Also, 	the 	activities of
the 	Charging Party did 	not 	undermine 	the 	union's 	status 	as
bargaining 	representative. 	Consequently, 	the 	statutory
principle of 	exclusivity 	is 	not 	abridged 	in 	the 	instant 	case.
Having 	established 	that 	Collins 	was 	engaged 	in 	protected
activity, 	the Charging Party must 	demonstrate 	that 	it was 	a
motivating 	factor 	in 	the District's 	decision 	to 	transfer 	him.
Unlawful motive 	may 	be 	established 	by 	circumstantial 	evidence
and 	inferred 	from the record as a whole. 	Novato, 	supra, 	at
page 6; 	Republic Aviation Corp. v. 	NLRB 	(1945) 	324 U.S. 	793
[16 LRRM 620].
As part of 	the 	prima 	facie case, 	it must be demonstrated
that 	the 	employer 	had 	actual or 	imputed 	knowledge 	of 	the
99

employee's 	protected 	activity. 	Novato, 	supra.
At 	the 	hearing, 	Superintendent Holden was 	questioned 	as 	to
why 	no 	action 	was 	taken 	against 	other 	teachers 	in 	view of 	the
widespread 	dissatisfaction 	over 	the 	change 	in 	the EDA policy.
In 	response, 	Holden admitted 	that Mr. 	Collins was 	"more of 	a
leader 	in 	the 	dissention 	[sic]." 	This 	statement 	indicates 	that
Holden 	was 	precisely 	aware 	of Collins' protected 	activities.
Holden was 	also 	aware 	of 	the 	newspaper 	articles 	about 	the EDA
controversy 	in 	which 	Collins 	was 	specifically 	quoted 	protesting
the EDA policy at 	the 	school. 	In 	the 	second 	of 	those 	newspaper
articles, 	Holden 	is 	quoted 	as 	saying 	that 	"the 	administration
is 	aware of 	the 	problem and 	is working 	on 	it." 	In addition,
Holden 	visited 	the 	school 	regularly 	and 	spoke 	with 	Collins 	at
the 	school cafeteria 	in January and 	suggested 	that, 	if 	he was
not 	happy, 	he 	could 	arrange 	a 	transfer 	for 	him. 	Collins 	also
met 	with Holden 	to 	complain 	about 	a 	particular 	EDA 	assignment
which 	he 	felt Vassar 	assigned 	as 	retribution 	for 	his 	protest.
We 	thus 	conclude 	that 	the 	District was 	aware 	of Charging
Party's 	protected 	activity.
However, 	Holden denies 	that Collins' 	protected 	activity was
a 	motivating 	factor 	in 	the 	decision 	to 	transfer 	him. 	This
denial 	is 	not 	persuasive. 	Holden's 	statement 	that 	Collins 	was
more 	of 	a 	leader 	in 	the 	dissension 	not only 	corroborates
Holden's knowledge 	of 	the 	protected 	activity, 	but 	is 	also an
admission 	against 	interest 	demonstrating 	Holden's 	unlawful
10

motivation. 	See Moreland Elementary 	School District 	(7/27/82)
PERB Decision No. 	227.
The 	timing 	of 	the 	employer's conduct 	in relation 	to 	the
employee's 	performance 	of 	protected 	activity 	is 	a 	factor 	which
may 	support 	the 	inference 	of unlawful motive. 	Novato, 	supra,
p. 	7. 	Here, 	friction 	between Vassar 	and Collins 	had allegedly
existed 	for 	ten years. 	Yet Holden 	did 	not 	take 	action 	against
Collins 	until 	he 	began his 	vocal protest 	over 	the EDA 	issue.
The 	employer's 	disparate 	treatment 	of 	employees 	engaged 	in
such 	activity 	is 	also a 	factor 	which may 	support 	the 	inference
of unlawful motive. 	Novato, 	supra, 	p. 	7. 	In support of his
decision to transfer Mr. 	Collins, 	Holden 	indicated: 	"I 	felt
that 	he 	(Collins) 	was 	unhappy. 	I 	felt 	that he was making other
people 	very much 	aware 	of 	anything 	that might 	be 	a 	cause 	for
unhappiness 	in their 	situation at 	the 	school. 	I 	felt 	this was
an 	attitude 	that 	was 	contagious." 	This 	statement 	reflects 	the
District's 	concern 	over 	the 	influence 	that 	Collins 	was 	having
as 	a leader 	of 	the 	protest. 	In 	addition, 	Holden's 	focus 	on
Collins' 	unhappiness 	with Vassar 	does 	not 	take 	into 	account 	the
widespread 	dissatisfaction 	of 	the 	faculty 	with Vassar 	over 	the
EDA 	issue. 	There 	was disparate 	treatment 	of Collins 	because 	he
was 	an 	effective 	leader 	of 	the 	protest 	over 	the EDA 	issue 	in
contrast 	to 	the 	other 	dissatisfied 	teachers. 	Holden 	admitted
that 	"Collins 	in 	his 	unhappiness 	was 	more 	of 	an enfluence 	[sic]
than Mr. 	Kobal 	[sic] 	was at 	the 	school" over other 	teachers.
11

Holden 	reluctantly 	testified 	that 	Koval, 	building
representative 	for 	the Association, 	was not 	taken 	seriously by
the 	staff 	and 	was 	laughed 	at 	behind 	his 	back. 	We 	find 	that
these 	facts 	support 	the 	finding 	that 	unlawful 	intent 	was 	a
motivating 	factor 	in Collins1 transfer.
Once 	the 	Charging Party has made 	a prima 	facie 	showing
sufficient 	to 	support 	the 	inference 	that 	the 	exercise 	of
employee 	rights 	granted 	by EERA was 	a motivating 	factor, 	the
burden 	shifts 	to 	the District 	to prove 	that 	its 	action(s) 	would
have 	been 	the 	same despite 	the 	protected 	activity. 	Novato,
supra, 	p. 	14; Wright Line, A Division of Wright Line, 	Inc.
(8/27/80) 	251 NLRB No. 	150 	[105 LRRM 1169]. 	The District
indicated 	they were 	transferring Collins 	in 	the 	best 	interest
of 	the 	school primarily 	for 	the 	following 	reasons: 	Collins'
unhappiness 	and 	the 	effect Collins 	was 	having 	on other
teachers; 	Collins' 	lack of support 	for Vassar, 	a relatively new
principal; 	and, 	finally, 	a feeling 	that Collins could be a more
effective 	teacher 	elsewhere.
As 	previously discussed, 	Holden's 	rationale 	in 	transferring
Collins 	was 	more 	indicative 	of 	unlawful 	motivation 	than
legitimate 	justification. 	Holden 	frequently 	referred 	to
Collins' unhappiness, 	yet Holden admitted 	that Collins
repeatedly 	told 	him 	that 	he 	was 	happy 	at 	the 	high 	school.
Holden also 	testified 	that Collins 	had 	a 	good 	teaching 	record
and 	was 	a very popular 	teacher 	with 	the 	students. 	Holden
12

testified 	that 	he 	could 	recall 	the 	name 	of 	only 	one 	teacher 	for
sure 	who 	suggested 	to 	him 	that 	the 	way 	to 	improve 	the 	school
would 	be 	to 	"move Ed Collins 	because 	he 	spent 	a 	great 	deal 	of
time 	complaining."
Although 	Education 	Code 	section 	350357 and 	the 	CBA
provide 	for 	involuntary 	transfers 	"when 	it 	is 	in 	the 	best
interest of 	the District," 	the 	basis 	for 	deciding what 	is 	in
the 	best 	interest 	of 	the 	district 	cannot 	be 	an 	employee's
involvement 	in protected 	activity 	under 	EERA. 	Other 	legitimate
criteria must 	be 	advanced 	for 	the 	district 	to 	exercise 	that
discretion. 	Cf. Novato, 	supra.
Since 	the 	District 	did 	not 	proffer 	additional 	justification
for 	its 	action 	beyond 	the aforementioned, we 	find 	it 	has 	failed
to 	demonstrate 	that 	they 	would 	have 	taken 	the 	same 	action 	in
the 	absence 	of protected 	activity. 	We 	conclude, 	therefore,
7Education 	Code 	subsection 	35035 (c) 	provides 	in pertinent
part:
Subject 	to 	the 	approval of 	the 	governing
board, 	assign all 	employees of 	the district
employed 	in positions 	requiring
certification qualifications, 	to 	the
positions 	in which 	they are 	to 	serve. 	Such
power 	to 	assign 	includes 	the 	power 	to
transfer 	a 	teacher 	from one 	school 	to
another 	school 	at 	which 	the 	teacher 	is
certificated 	to 	serve 	within 	the 	district
when 	the 	superintendent 	concludes 	that 	such
a 	transfer 	is 	in 	the 	best 	interest of 	the
district.
13

that 	the 	District 	has 	violated 	subsection 	3543.5 (a)8 of 	EERA
by 	transferring 	Collins 	because 	of 	his 	exercise 	of 	rights
granted 	by 	the Act.
REMEDY
We 	have 	found 	that 	the 	District 	violated 	Government 	Code
section 	3543.5 (a) 	by 	involuntarily 	transferring 	Edward Collins
because of 	his exercise of rights 	under EERA. 	Consequently, 	it
is 	appropriate 	to order 	the District 	to 	cease 	and 	desist 	from
interfering 	with 	employee 	rights, 	specifically 	from
transferring 	employees 	because 	of 	their 	protected 	activity.
Because 	the 	District has 	violated 	subsection 	3543.5 (a) 	in
discriminatorily 	transferring Collins, 	it 	is 	appropriate 	to
require 	the 	District 	to 	reinstate 	him 	to 	his 	former 	position 	or
its equivalent 	at San Leandro High School, 	at his 	request,
without prejudice 	to his 	seniority or 	other 	rights 	and
privileges. 	Novato, 	supra. 	However, 	since 	the 	1982-83 school
year 	is 	already 	in progress, 	and 	the Board wishes 	to avoid a
disruption 	of 	the 	educational 	program which might 	ensue 	a
mid-year 	switch 	in assignments, 	the 	transfer 	need 	not 	occur
until 	the 	beginning 	of 	the 	1983-84 	school year.
It 	is 	also 	appropriate 	that 	the District 	be 	required 	to
post a 	notice 	incorporating 	the 	terms 	of 	the Order.
8The 	hearing 	officer 	correctly 	dismissed 	the 	charges 	that
the District violated 	subsections 	3543.5(b) 	and 	(d) 	since 	no
evidence 	was 	presented 	on 	these 	alleged 	violations.
14

ORDER
Upon 	the 	foregoing 	findings 	of 	fact 	and 	conclusions 	of 	law,
and 	the 	entire 	record 	in 	this 	case, 	and 	pursuant 	to
section 3541.5(c), 	it 	is 	hereby ORDERED 	that 	the San Leandro
Unified 	School 	District, 	its 	governing 	board 	and 	its
representatives 	shall:
1. 	CEASE AND 	DESIST 	FROM:
(a) 	Taking 	reprisals 	against 	unit 	employees, 	and
Edward 	Collins 	in 	particular, 	because 	they 	have 	grieved 	the
District's 	application 	of 	contractual 	policy 	and 	procedures.
2. 	TAKE 	THE 	FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE 	ACTIONS 	DESIGNED 	TO
EFFECTUATE 	THE 	POLICIES 	OF 	THE ACT.
(a) 	Upon his 	request, 	restore Edward 	Collins 	to 	his
former 	position, 	or 	its 	equivalent, 	at 	San Leandro High School
effective 	the 	beginning 	of 	the 	1983-84 	school year, 	without
prejudice 	to 	his 	seniority 	and 	other 	rights 	and 	privileges.
(b) 	Within 	five 	(5) 	workdays 	after 	service 	of 	this
decision, 	prepare 	and 	post 	copies 	of 	the 	Notice 	to Employees,
attached 	as 	an 	appendix 	hereto, 	for 	at 	least 	thirty 	(30)
consecutive workdays 	at 	its 	headquarters 	office 	and 	in
conspicuous 	places 	at 	the 	locations 	where 	notices 	to
certificated 	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.
15

(c) 	Within 20 workdays 	from 	service of 	this 	decision,
give 	written 	notification 	to 	the 	San 	Francisco 	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.
The 	remaining 	allegations 	respecting 	Robert 	Hidalgo 	and
violations of 	section 3543.5(b) 	and 	(d) 	are DISMISSED.
Chairperson 	Gluck 	and 	Member 	Morgenstern 	joined 	in 	this
Decision.
16

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. 	SF-CE-477,
Robert 	Hidalgo 	and 	Edward 	Collins 	v. 	San 	Leandro 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).
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) 	Taking reprisals 	against 	unit employees, 	and
Edward Collins 	in particular, 	because 	they 	have
grieved 	the 	District's 	application of 	contractual
policy 	and 	procedures.
2. 	TAKE 	THE 	FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES 	OF THE ACT.
(a) 	Upon his request, 	restore Edward Collins 	to his
former position, or 	its equivalent, 	at
San Leandro High 	School 	effective 	the 	beginning
of 	the 	1983-84 	school year, 	without prejudice 	to
his 	seniority or 	other 	rights 	and 	privileges.
Dated: 	SAN 	LEANDRO 	UNIFIED 	SCHOOL DISTRICT
By Authorized 	Agent
THIS 	IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE. 	IT MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR AT 	LEAST
THIRTY 	(30) 	CONSECUTIVE WORKDAYS 	FROM THE 	DATE 	OF POSTING AND
MUST NOT BE 	REDUCED IN SIZE, 	DEFACED, 	ALTERED OR COVERED BY ANY
MATERIAL.