PERB Decision No. 0450E•San Leandro Unified School District (PERB 0450E)
San Leandro Unified School District (PERB 0450E)
PERB Decision No. 0450ECalperb6 déc. 1984
Texte intégral
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
SAN LEANDRO SCHOOLS RETIREE ACTION
ASSOCIATION,
Charging Party,
v.
SAN LEANDRO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. SF-CE-943
PERB Decision No. 450
December 6, 1984
)
)
____________________)
Appearance: Robert J. Bezemek, Attorney for San Leandro
Schools Retiree Action Association.
Before Hesse, Chairperson; Jaeger and Morgenstern, Members.
DECISION
MORGENSTERN, Member: The San Leandro Schools Retiree
Action Association (Retiree Association) seeks review of the
Public Employment Relations Board's regional attorney's
dismissal of its unfair practice charge levied against the San
Leandro Unified School District (District).
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
The unfair practice charge filed by the Retiree Association
claimed that the District violated section 3543.S{c) of the
Educational Employment Relations Act {EERA) 1 when it
negotiated with the exclusive representatives of the
lEERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et
seq. All references herein are to the Government Code unless
otherwise indicated.certificated, classified, supervisory and managerial employees over contract provisions dealing with the health benefits of retired employees. Paragraph two of the charge alleged: Charging party contends that the District was not entitled by law to attempt to negotiate or negotiate said collective bargaining proposals dealing with the health benefits of ret~red employees because such retired employees are not members of the established collective bargaining ·units. Charging party further contends that the District insisted in negotiations with the above-mentioned organizations that language be included in the collective bargaining agreements which caused retirees to have to assume certain costs of health benefit coverage, which they previously were not required to pay. The charge indicates that the Retiree Association exists for the purposes of representing retired employees to the San Leandro Unified School District in their effort to reverse the •.• decision to change health benefit. costs .••. The charge also asserts as follows: The Association is an unincorporated Association, and it has never been recognized by the District as an employee organization within the meaning of the Act. Charging party herein represents only retired employees who retired prior to the effective date of the reoently approved collective bargaining agreements which have the changes in it which are the issue in this Unfair Practice Charge. Charging party does not represent any employees who have retired or will retire under the new collective bargaining agreement. Charging party contends that the District attempted to cause exclusive bargaining representatives to negotiate over an illegal subject of bargaining outside the scope of 2
representation solely because the exclusive bargaining representatives did not represent employees who had already retired under the previous collective bargaining agreements. It was a violation of the employers' responsibility to bargain in good faith to seek to compel such negotiations, and then to negotiate and requiring inclusion in the collective bargaining agreements of such causes at issue here. Based on the allegations contained in the charge, on September 2a; 1984, the San Francisco regional attorney refused to issue a complaint and dismissed the Retiree Association's charge. His dismissal was based on the fact that: (1) the Retiree Association is not an employee organization within the definition of EERA section 3540.l(d); (2) the Retiree Association does not represent employees; and (3) charging party has no standing to object to negotiations between the District and the exclusive representatives of established bargaining units. DISCUSSION Section 3541.S(a) provides that an unfair practice charge may be filed by "any employee, employee organization or employer." As determined by the regional attorney, a single retiree does not fit the definition of ''employee," which is defined by EERA to mean "any person employed by any public school employer" (3540.l(j)}. Similarly, the Retiree Association is not an "employee organization" as defined by EERA to be "any organization which includes employees of a public school employer and which has as one of its primary 3
purposes representing such employees in their relations with
that public school employer" {3540.l{d)). The Retiree
Association, therefore, lacks standing to file an unfair
practice charge.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, the regional attorney's dismissal
of the instant charge is AFFIRMED.
Chairperson Hesse and Member Jaeger joined in this Decision.
4Vous vous demandez comment ce texte s’applique à votre situation ?
Consultation gratuite, sans engagement
Décrivez votre situation. Notre équipe vous recontactera par e-mail pour votre consultation.
Poursuivez vos recherches dans ChatGPT ou Claude
Connectez Omnilex pour rechercher dans le corpus juridique depuis votre assistant IA.