Ramona Unified School District (PERB 0472E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELA.TIONS 	BOARD
RAMONA 	TEACHERS ASSOCIATION,
Charging 	Party,
v.
RAMONA 	UNIFIED 	SCHOOL 	DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
}
)
}
)
)
)
)
)
____________________ }
Case No. 	LA.-CE-1896
PERB 	Decision 	No. 	472
December 	31, 	1984
Appearance: 	Charles 	R. 	Gustafson, 	Attorney 	for 	Ramona 	Teachers
Association.
Before 	Hesse, 	Chairperson; 	Tovar 	and 	Burt, 	Members.
DECISION AND 	ORDER
BURT, 	Member: 	The 	Ramona 	Teachers Association
(Association) 	appeals 	the 	decision 	of 	the 	Public 	Employment
Relations 	Board's 	region~l 	attorney 	who 	refused 	to 	issue 	a
complaint 	in 	the 	above-captioned 	case. 	The 	regional 	attorney
dismissed 	charges 	that 	the Ramona 	Unified 	School 	District
(District) 	violated 	section 	3543.S{a), 	(b) 	and 	(c) 	of 	the
Educational 	Employment 	Relations Act 	(EERA) , 	and 	deferred
the 	resolution 	of 	those 	charges 	to 	the 	parties 	negotiated
grievance 	procedure, 	pursuant 	to 	section 	3541.S(a) (2) .
1
2
1EERA 	is 	codified 	at 	Government 	Code 	section 	3540 	et 	seq.
2section 	3541. 5 ( a) ( 2) 	provides 	in 	part:
Any 	employee, 	employee 	organization, 	or
employer 	shall 	have 	the 	right 	to 	file 	an

In 	deciding 	to 	defer, 	the 	regional 	attorney 	reviewed 	the
contract 	and 	the 	substance 	of 	the 	charges 	and 	considered 	the
District's 	letter 	expressing 	its 	willingness 	to 	proceed 	to
arbitration 	on 	the 	issues 	it 	believed 	to 	be 	raised 	by_ the
charges. 	The 	regional 	attorney 	apparently 	did not 	contact 	the
attorney 	for 	the Association 	for 	his 	position 	on 	deferral, 	nor
was 	the 	attorney 	for 	the Association 	aware 	of 	the 	contents 	of
the 	District's 	letter 	concerning 	deferral.
On 	appeal, 	the Association 	argues 	that 	there 	is 	some
conflict 	about 	the 	issues 	raised 	by 	the 	charges 	and 	the 	scope
of 	the 	arbitration 	if 	the 	charges 	are 	deferred. 	While 	the
result 	may 	ultimately 	be 	the 	same, 	we 	think 	it .appropriate 	to
remand 	to 	the 	general 	counsel 	for 	further 	investigation 	and
consideration 	of 	the 	position 	of 	all 	parties 	in 	making 	a
determination 	whether 	or 	not 	to 	defer. 	It 	is 	so 	ORDERED.
Member 	Tovar 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
Chairperson 	Hesse's 	dissent 	begins 	on 	page 	3.
unfair 	practice 	charge, 	except 	that 	the
board 	shall 	not 	do 	either 	of 	the 	following:
(2) 	issue 	a 	complaint 	against 	conduct 	also
prohibited 	by 	the 	provisions 	of 	the
agreement 	between 	the 	parties 	until 	the
grievance 	machinery 	of 	the 	agreement, 	if 	it
exists 	and 	covers 	the 	matter 	at 	issue, 	has
been 	exhausted, 	either 	by 	settlement 	or
binding 	arbitration ••..
2