Los Angeles County Building and Construction Trades Council (Jones) (PERB 0439E)

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD

SHERMAN JONES,
Charging Party, Case No. LA-CO-294
Vv. PERB Decision No. 439

LOS ANGELES COUNTY BUILDING AND
CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL,

November 27, 1984

Respondent.

Appearance: Sherman Jones, on his own behalf.

Before Hesse, Chairperson; Jaeger and Morgenstern, Members. *
DECISION

This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
on an appeal by Sherman Jones of the Board agent's dismissal,
attached hereto, of his charge alleging that the Los Angeles
County Building and Construction Trades Council violated
sections 3543.5 and 3543.6 of the Educational Employment
Relations Act (Government Code section 3540 et seq.).

We have reviewed the dismissal and, finding it free from
prejudicial error, adopt it as the Decision of the Board itself.

ORDER
The unfair practice charge in Case No. LA-CO-294 is

DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

By the Board

*Members Tovar and Burt did not participate in this Decision.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
LOS ANGELES REGIONAL OFFICE
3470 WILSH'RE BLVD., SUITE 1001
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90010
(213) 736-3127
May 29, 1984
Ray Van der Nat
Sherman Jones
RE: 	LA-CO-294, Jones v. Los Angeles County
Building and Constuction Trades Council,
DISMISSAL OF UNFAIR PRACTICE CHARGE
Dear Parties:
The above charge, filed on March 29, 1984, alleges that the
Union violated the Act by: a) Failing and refusing to
represent Sherman Jones at a formal conference with a College
Dean relating to his suspension between September 16 and
October 20, 1982; b) Failing and refusing on about March, 1983,
to obtain a copy of Jones' personnel folder and a copy of a
transcript made during an informal conference relating to an
Affirmative Action complaint filed by Jones. 	The charge fails
to establish a prima facie violation of the EERA and is hereby
dismissed for the reasons stated below.
Sherman Jones is a painter for the Los Angeles Community
College District. He claims that, since about 1980, he has had
several problems with the District. Specifically, prior to
September, 1982, he had some three meetings with the District
based upon Jones' complaints of discrimination and his request
for a transfer 1On about September 16, 1982, when Jones
reported for work, he was told by his supervisors that they had
orders not to assign him any work. There were no formal
documents given to Jones, nor did anyone tell him that he was
suspended or discharged.
Believing that he'd been suspended, Jones called Trades Council
official Bud Mathis, but was not able to reach him. He called
the next day for Mathis and was referred to Ben Cocks,
representative for the painters. 2
1	Jones did not seek the Union's help prior to
September, 1982.
2see discussion below regarding structure of the Union.

May 29, 1984
LA-CO-294
Page 2
On September 29, 1982, Jones spoke to Cocks by telephone,
explained what had been happening to him at work, and asked if
Cocks would represent him on the suspension. Jones admits that
there was no pending meeting or conference scheduled to discuss
his "suspension" at the time he spoke to Cocks.
In response to Jones' statements and questions, Cocks told him
to draft a complaint/grievance, to send it to him, and, after
reading it, he would let Jones know whether he would appear for
him in a grievance and represent him. Jones asked Cocks to
come out to the campus and represent him first so that they
could reschedule another meeting with the President of the
College, the Dean of Administrative Services, and the Building
and Grounds Supervisor. Cocks replied in the negative and
repeated that he should put his complaints in writing first,
and afterward, he would decide whether to represent him. 	Jones
threatened that, if Cocks didn't come out to visit him
personally, he would attempt to get an alternative
representative. 	Cocks told him to do whatever he liked.
Jones decided not to draft a complaint and send it to Cocks
because he "knew" Cocks was not going to visit him personally.
Jones claims that he did not intend to send Cocks anything
because it was not "going to do him any good". Jones adds that
Cocks was very explicit on September 29 that he was not going
to come out and represent him.
Indeed, Jones filed an EEOC complaint against the District on
October 7, 1982. He did not then send a copy of this complaint
to Cocks, nor of any grievance. 3
Instead, according to Jones, he made no attempt to contact
Cocks between their last telephone conversation in 1982 and
March, 1983. On that latter date, Jones claims that he ran into
Cocks at one of the campuses of the District. 	Jones asked him
if Cocks was there to "represent" him. Cocks said he was there
on another matter. Jones claims that he asked Cocks to
represent him at least by helping [him] get a transcript of
4
3Jones returned to work on October 19, 1982.
4
*Jones' EEOC complaints had been denied and he was
pursuing the possibility of appeals.

May 29, 1984
LA-CO-294
Page 3
what happened at a previous meeting regarding his EEOC
complaints. According to Jones, Cocks asked him to send him a
copy of the EEOC complaint, and he "would try to get a copy of
the transcript".
Jones admits that this was the only request he made of Cocks
during this meeting. Cocks has denied that he even appeared at
the Campus on that day, or even spoke to Jones in 1983. 	In any
event, Jones does not know whether Cocks attempted to obtain a
copy of the transcript, but claims that he finally sent the
copy of the EEOC charge to Cocks in March, 1983.
Jones states that he never received the transcript, nor did he
call Cocks thereafter to see if he had tried to obtain the
transcript, explaining that it wouldn't have done any good, and
that EEOC had refused to provide him (Jones) with a transcript
anyway. Jones did not hear from Cocks or anyone else from the
Union again.
The Charged Party alleges that no prima facie case exists
because: 	a) The six-month statute of limitations has run;
b) The Council is not a proper party and not responsible for
the action alleged; c) There was no breach of any duty of fair
representation since the Charging Party was responsible for any
Union inaction.
There are at least four units of classified employees in the
District, each with its exclusive representative, and each with
its own collective bargaining agreement.. The
Technical-Clerical Unit is represented by CSEA, Chapter $507.
SEIU, Local 99 represents the Maintenance and Operations Unit.
The College Safety and Police Services Unit is also represented
by CSEA.
Unlike the others, the Council is recognized as the exclusive
representative for a "Crafts" unit, made up of the following
crafts and classes: Crafts Classes - carpenters, electricians,
heating & air conditioning technicians, locksmiths, machinists,
metal workers, painters, plasterers, plumbers, steamfitters,
and toolsharpeners; Electronics Classes - electronic instrument
technician; Stage Classes - costume makers, stage assistants
and stage attendants; Studio Classes - broadcast maintenance
engineers, projectionists and sound engineers.
Many, if not all, of LACCD employees in this unit are
represented also by their own trade/craft union, as is Jones

May 29, 1984
LA-CO-294
Page 4
(painters) . The painters, carpenters and electricians each
have their own local.
The Council is an umbrella organization, with no members, but
only affiliated local unions. The council's involvement in the
public sector came about by reason of the various public
entities and their mutual concern over collective bargaining
with fragmentary groups representing small crafts units. 	For
instance, some units which would constitute their own
classification have but one or two employees therein. 	It was
felt by the public entitites that having to conduct separate
negotiations with each such unit would be unduly burdensome and
costly.
Consequently, the Council, by request of the Public Entity
Employers and its affiliated local unions, was asked to become
the coordinator or umbrella organization. It was felt that by
the council acting as such, this would save substantial time
and resources by the Employers in that one negotiating session
could be coordinated by the council as opposed to sixteen
different sessions (one with each affiliated craft union local) .
The council has only been the representative of the crafts unit
for three years. Up until about a year ago, the steward system
for handling grievances was not formalized. Presently, Ben
Cocks is the representative for the painters local, works for
that local, and handles grievances for the painters. There is
no dispute by Jones that, indeed, Cocks is a representative of
the painters local and is not directly an agent of the Trades
Council. However, claims Jones, since the Council is
bargaining agent, it is equally responsible for Cocks' actions.
The issues of agency need not be resolved, however, since the
charge and the facts adduced from Jones himself show that a
prima facie violation is lacking.
Government Code section 3541.5 states that PERB cannot issue a
complaint in respect of any charge based upon an alleged unfair
practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of
the charge. 	The allegations of Union misconduct occurred in
September, 1982 and March, 1983. This charge was not filed
until March 29, 1984. Alleged Union misconduct occurring prior
to September 29, 1983, are thus time-barred. There is no
evidence to show that the statutory period should be tolled,
especially in light of the fact that, between the Union's

May 29, 1984
LA-CO-294
Page 5
alleged promised to try to get the transcript in March, 1983
and September 29, 1983, the Charging Party did nothing to
follow up his request to the Uniuon, or to file a charge with
PERB. 5
Secondly, with respect to Jones' requests for representation in
September, 1982, not only is a refusal-to-represent
time-barred, but there was no refusal established. The Union
representative reasonably asked Jones to put his complaints in
writing before he could commit himself to represent him. Jones
not only failed to do so, but also told Cocks that he would
seek alternate representation. Not having received the written
grievance draft, it was reasonable to assume that Jones chose
not to pursue that avenue and that he had indeed sought
alternate representation. The employee thus failed to perfect
his request for representation. Therefore, none of the conduct
attributed to the Charged Party is discriminatory, arbitrary,
or in bad faith. See United Teachers of Los Angeles (Collins)
(1/17/83) PERB Decision No. 258; Dyer v. CSEA (9/12/83) PERB
Decision No. 342.
Pursuant . to Public Employment Relations Board regulation 32635
(California Administrative Code, title 8, part III) , you may
appeal the refusal to issue a complaint (dismissal) to the
Board itself.
Right to Appeal
You may obtain a review of this dismissal of the charge by
filing an appeal to the Board itself within twenty (20)
calendar days after service of this Notice (section 32635 (a).
To be timely filed, the original and five (5) copies of such
appeal must be actually received by the Board itself before the
close of business (5:00 p.m.) on June 18, 1984, or sent by
telegraph or certified United States mail postmarked not later
than June 18, 1984 (section 32135) . 	The Board's address is:
5Charging Party was advised by letter dated April 17,
1984 that his charge may be dismissed for failure to meet the
statutory filing period. That letter is incorporated herein
and attached.

May 29, 1984
LA-CO-294
Page 6
Public Employment Relations Board
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
If you file a timely appeal of the refusal, any other party may
file with the executive assistant to the Board an original and
five (5) copies of a statement in opposition within twenty (20)
calendar days following the date of service of the appeal
(section 32635 (b) )-
Service
All documents authorized to be filed herein except for
amendments to the charge must also be "served" upon all parties
to the proceeding, and a "proof of service" must accompany the
document filed with the Regional Office or the Board itself
(see section 32140 for the required contents and a sample
form) . The documents will be considered properly "served" when
personally delivered or deposited in the first-class mail
postage paid and properly addressed.
Extension of Time
A request for an extension of time in which to file a document
with the Board itself must be in writing and filed with the
executive assistant to the Board at the previously noted
address. 	A request for an extension in which to file a
document with the Regional Office should be addressed to the
Regional Attorney. A request for an extension must be filed at
least three (3) calendar days before the expiration of the time
required for filing the subject document. The request must
indicate good cause for the position of each other party
regarding the extension and shall be accompanied by proof of
service of the request upon each party. (section 32132) .
Final Date
If no appeal is filed within the specified time limits, the
dismissal will become final when the time limits have expired.
Very truly yours,
Dennis Sullivan
General Counsel
Manuel M. Melgoza
Regional Attorney

GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
LOS ANGELES REGIONAL OFFICE
3470 WILSHIRE BLVD., SUITE 1001
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90010
(213) 736-3127
April 17, 1984
Sherman Jones
RE : 	LA-CO-294, Jones v. Los Angeles County
Building and Construction Trades Council
Dear Mr. Jones:
The above charge you filed with our office on March 29, 1984
alleges that the Union violated EERA sections 3543.5 and 3543.6
by certain acts and conduct, all occurring during 1982 and the
early part (March) of 1983. For example, you allege that you
first called the Union for assistance on a job-related problem
on September 16, 1982, but the representative never returned
your call. Further, you allege that Ben Cocks, Union
Representative, refused to represent you at a formal meeting
called by the College Dean of Administrative Services scheduled
during a period of September 16 to October 20, 1982. The most
recent allegation in your charge is that your formal complaint
addressed to V.C. "Bud" Mathis of the Council was totally
ignored in March, 1983. 	The remaining paragraphs do not
contain dates.
Prior to your filing this charge, I spoke to you on the
telephone on March 9, 1984, explaining to you that your claims
were probably time-barred because they occurred more than six
months before. You explained to me that your were suspended
from your job in late 1982 or early, 1983. After some
unsuccessful attempts in acquiring Union representation, you
finally sent in a written grievance to the Union in March,
1983. This was the last time you attempted to call the Union.
You received no word from them of its status, and found out in
April, 1983 that it was not going to do anything on your behalf.
Section 3541.5 (a) of the Government Code prohibits the PERB
from issuing a complaint in respect of any charge based upon
any alleged unfair practice occurring more than six months
prior to the filing of the charge. See Lincoln v. Machinists
District 9, 115 LRRM 2281. In your case, conduct committed by
the Union prior to September 29, 1983, is barred by the above
Code section. Therefore, the allegeations in your charge do
not establish a prima facie violation of the EERA.

LA-CO-294
April 17, 1984
Page 2
Unless you submit a letter requesting that this charge be
withdrawn, I shall be forced to dismiss your charge. It is
possible that, through inadvertente, you neglected to allege
conduct that might constitute a violation within the six month
statutory period. If this is so, please amend your charge
accordingly. If this charge is not amended to state a prima
facie violation, or is not withdrawn by April 26, 1984, it will
be dismissed. I encourage you to correct any representations
made above prior to said date.
Sincerely,
Manuel M. Melgoza
Regional Attorney
MMM : djm