Santa Paula School District (PERB 0505E)

2 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

RACHAEL LARA,
Charging Party, Case No. LA-CE-1574
Vv.
SANTA PAULA SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Respondent. PERB Decision No. 505

May 7, 1985
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION AND ITS SANTA

PAULA CHAPTER #497,

Charging Party, Case No. LA-CE-1581

V.
SANTA PAULA SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Respondent.

Ne ee ee ee ee ee ee

Appearances; Patricia L. Roy, Field Representative for
California School Employees Association and its Santa Paula
Chapter #497, and representative for Rachael Lara; The
Negotiation Center by Edward M. Jones and Anita Johnson for the
Santa Paula School District.

Before Hesse, Chairperson; Jaeger and Burt, Members.
DECISION
HESSE, Chairperson: This case is before the Public
Employment Relations Board (PERB or Board) on exceptions filed
by the California School Employees Association and its Santa
Paula Chapter #497 (CSEA) and by Rachael Lara to the proposed

decision, attached hereto, of a PERB administrative law judge

(ALJ). 	The ALJ 	found that 	the District had violated section
3543.5(a) 	and 	(b) 	of the Educational Employment Relations Act
•1
(EERA) 	by discriminating 	against 	Lara 	because 	of her
protected 	activities 	when 	it 	transferred her 	from her
assignment 	at 	Blanchard 	School 	to a 	new assignment 	at McKevett
School. 	In addition, 	the ALJ dismissed 	the allegation that 	the
District 	further 	violated 	the Act 	when 	it 	issued 	a 	letter 	of
reprimand 	to 	Lara.
The 	Santa Paula School District 	(District) 	requests 	that
the 	Board accept 	its 	late 	filing of 	its 	response 	to CSEA's
exceptions.
The 	Board has 	carefully 	reviewed 	the 	entire 	record 	in 	this
case. 	We conclude that 	the ALJ's 	findings 	of 	fact are 	free of
prejudicial 	error and adopt 	them as 	the 	findings 	of 	the 	Board
itself.2
1EERA 	is 	codified at 	Government 	Code 	section 	3540 	et
seq. 	All 	statutory references herein are 	to 	the 	Government
Code 	unless 	otherwise 	noted.
Section 3543.5 reads, 	in pertinent part, 	as 	follows:
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.
2The 	ALJ misstated 	the 	record 	when he 	found 	that 	the
22

DISCUSSION
As 	a preliminary matter, 	we address 	the District's 	request
that 	the 	Board 	excuse 	its 	late 	filingW	3 of 	a 	response 	to
CSEA's exceptions of August 15, 	1983.
On September 	26, 	1983, 	the District 	filed its 	request that,
pursuant 	to PERB Regulation 32136, 	the Board accept 	its 	late
filing. 	The basis 	for the request 	is, 	that because CSEA
served District 	Superintendent 	De 	La 	Rosa 	and not 	the
District's 	representatives, 	the 	representatives 	were not aware
of the exceptions until September 	21, 	1983. 	On October 	11,
1983, 	the District 	filed 	its 	response to the exceptions.
PERB 	Regulation 	32142 provides 	direction 	to 	the parties 	for
proper service. 	It states 	in part:
memorandum of 	another 	aide 	"was 	never 	distributed because 	it
was 	intercepted 	in advance by the principal where 	the 	aide
worked." 	Proposed Decision, 	p. 	51. 	In fact, 	the record
demonstrates 	that 	the 	other 	aide's 	memorandum was 	distributed
to the teachers 	while 	they were 	in the 	lounge, 	prior 	to the
principal's 	arrival. 	The 	record does 	reflect 	that discussion
of 	the 	memorandum and/or 	aide 	services 	was 	interrupted by the
principal. 	This error, 	however, 	does not affect the outcome of
the case, 	and thus 	is non-prejudicial.
3PERB Regulation 	32310 	requires 	that 	within 	20 days
following 	the date of 	service 	of 	the 	statement 	of 	exceptions,
any party may 	file 	with 	the 	Board 	itself 	its 	response.
PERB 	Regulations 	are 	codified 	at 	California 	Administrative
Code, 	Title 8, 	section 31001, 	et seq.
4PERB Regulation 	32136 	states:
A late 	filing may be 	excused 	in 	the
discretion of 	the 	Board 	only under
extraordinary circumstances. 	A late 	filing
33

Proper 	Recipient 	for 	Filing or 	Service.
Whenever a document 	is 	required 	to be
"filed" 	or 	"served" 	with any of 	the below
listed entities, 	the proper 	recipient 	shall
be:
(c) 	An employer 	-
(l) 	in the case of a public school
employer 	- 	the 	superintendent, 	deputy
superintendent, 	or a designated
representative of a school district; 	or
to the 	school board at 	a 	regular or
extraordinary meeting. 	. 	. 	. 	(Emphasis
added.)
As 	the 	regulations provide 	for 	service on the
superintendent, 	CSEA's service was not 	improper and, 	thus,
could not prejudice 	the 	District. 	Any delay 	in notification
lies 	with the 	District 	itself 	and not 	CSEA. 	The 	District's
excuse does 	not 	meet 	the 	extraordinary circumstance 	requirement
found in PERB Regulation 32136. 	The District's 	request 	is
therefore 	denied.
CSEA excepts 	to 	the 	findings 	that 	a 	letter 	that 	Lara wrote
to the 	teachers 	at her school was 	not protected activity, 	and
that 	the 	letter of 	reprimand 	to Lara was 	not 	retaliation 	for
her otherwise-protected activities. 	Insofar as 	the
Association's 	exceptions 	take 	issue 	with 	the ALJ's 	factual
conclusions, 	the Board defers 	to the 	credibility determinations
reached by the 	ALJ. 	(See 	Santa 	Clara 	Unified School 	District
(1979) 	PERB Decision No. 	104.)
which has 	been excused becomes 	a 	timely 	filing
under 	these 	regulations.
4
• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	•
4

CSEA's 	objections 	are 	to the ALJ's 	treatment 	of 	Lara's
letter 	to 	the 	teachers 	and 	the 	District's 	subsequent 	letter 	of
reprimand. 	The 	record amply supports 	the ALJ's 	finding.
Contrary to the 	arguments 	made by CSEA, 	the 	evidence 	showed
that 	the 	District 	told Lara and 	the 	other 	CSEA negotiators 	that
it would notify the 	teachers 	of 	the change 	in hours 	for aides.
There 	was 	no need 	for 	Lara 	to 	immediately 	inform 	them and
"insert herself 	into 	a position of 	authority." 	CSEA did 	not
ask 	Lara 	to 	issue her 	memorandum. 	CSEA Field 	Representative
Manuel Armas 	stated he would 	issue 	a 	statement 	to the 	employer,
which he 	did 	the 	following 	day.5 Since 	the 	aide's 	sixth
hour 	was 	used 	for planning lessons, 	a 	reduction to 	five hours
with an 	elimination of 	lesson planning would have 	no effect 	on
the 	five hours 	she worked with the students. 	Thus, 	there was
no need 	for 	Lara 	to 	issue her 	letter 	to 	the 	teachers 	at her
school. 	We 	agree 	with the ALJ 	that her 	actions 	were
unprotected.
The 	record 	supports 	the ALJ's 	finding 	that 	the 	District 	did
not 	impose 	a disproportionate penalty when 	it 	issued 	a 	written
reprimand 	for 	Lara's 	unprotected 	activity. 	This 	reprimand 	was
not 	so unusually harsh that 	an 	inference 	of discriminatory
treatment 	can be drawn.
5Such 	a position 	statement 	made by an 	employee
organization is, 	of course, 	protected activity.
55

ORDER
Upon the 	foregoing facts, 	conclusions 	of law, 	and the
entire record in this 	case, 	it 	is 	found that the Santa Paula
School 	District violated section 3543.5(a) 	and 	(b) 	of the
Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Act. 	Pursuant 	to Government
Code section 3541.5(c), 	it 	is hereby ORDERED that Santa Paula
School 	District 	and 	its 	representatives 	shall:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
1. 	Restraining, 	discriminating against, 	or otherwise
interfering with the 	rights 	of employees, 	and Rachael 	Lara 	in
particular, 	because of the 	exercise of 	their 	right 	to
participate 	in 	an 	activity protected 	by 	the 	EERA.
2. 	Denying California 	School 	Employees 	Association and
its 	Santa Paula 	Chapter 	#497 	rights 	guaranteed by 	the 	EERA.
B. 	TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION WHICH IS
NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES 	OF THE 	EDUCATIONAL
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS ACT:
1. 	Within thirty 	(30) 	days 	following 	the date when
this 	Order 	is posted, 	and upon her request, 	reinstate Rachael
Lara 	to her 	former position at -Blanchard 	Elementary School,
effective 	the 	next 	semester 	following 	a 	timely request.
2. 	Within thirty-five 	(35) 	days 	after the date this
Decision 	is 	no longer subject 	to reconsideration, 	post 	at 	all
work 	locations 	where 	notices 	to 	employees 	are customarily
posted, 	copies 	of 	the Notice attached as 	an appendix hereto
signed by an authorized agent 	of 	the 	employer. 	Such posting
shall 	be 	maintained 	for 	a period of 	thirty 	(30) 	consecutive
66

workdays. 	Reasonable 	steps 	shall be 	taken to ensure 	that 	this
Notice is not altered, 	reduced in size, 	defaced, 	or covered with
any other material.
3. 	Written notification of 	the actions 	taken 	to comply
with 	this 	Order 	shall 	be made 	to the 	Regional 	Director of 	the
Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	in accordance 	with his/her
instructions.
Members Jaeger 	and Burt 	joined 	in this 	Decision.
77

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 Cases No. 	LA-CE-1574,
Rachael 	Lara v. 	Santa Paula School District, 	and No.
LA-CE-1581, 	California School 	Employees 	Association and 	its
Santa Paula Chapter 	#497 v. 	Santa Paula 	School 	District 	in
which all parties had 	the right 	to participate, 	it has 	been
found by 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	that 	Santa
Paula School District violated sections 	3543.5(a) 	and 	(b) 	of
the 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Act.
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. 	Restraining, 	discriminating against, 	or otherwise
interfering with the 	rights 	of 	employees, 	and Rachael Lara 	in
particular, 	because of the exercise of 	their right 	to
participate 	in 	an 	activity protected by 	the 	Educational
Employment 	Relations 	Act.
2. 	Denying 	California 	School 	Employees 	Association
and 	its 	Santa Paula 	Chapter 	#497 	rights 	guaranteed by
Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Act.
B. 	TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION WHICH 	IS
NECESSARY TO 	EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES 	OF THE EDUCATIONAL
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS ACT:
1. 	Within thirty 	(30) 	days 	following the date when
this 	Order 	is posted, 	and upon her request, 	reinstate Rachael
Lara 	to her 	former position at 	Blanchard 	Elementary School,
effective 	the 	next 	semester 	following 	a 	timely request.
Dated: 	SANTA PAULA 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.

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
RACHAEL 	LARA,
Charging 	Party,
v.
SANTA 	PAULA SCHOOL 	DISTRICT,
Respondent.
CALIFORNIA 	SCHOOL 	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION, 	CHAPTER #497,
Charging 	Party,
v.
SANTA 	PAULA SCHOOL 	DISTRICT,
Respondent.
Unfair 	Practice
Case No. 	LA-CE-1574
Case No. 	LA-CE-1581
PROPOSED 	DECISION
(7/26/83)
Appearances; 	Waldo 	& 	Malley 	by Edward 	Lacey, 	Esq. 	for 	Charging
Party 	Rachael 	Lara; 	Patricia 	L. 	Roy, 	Field 	Representative 	for
Charging 	Party 	California 	School 	Employees 	Association 	and 	its
Chapter 	#497; 	Edward 	M. 	Jones 	and 	Anita 	Johnson 	for 	the 	Santa
Paula 	School 	District.
Before Stephen H. 	Naiman, 	Administrative Law Judge.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On 	May 10, 	1982, 	Charging 	Party, 	Rachael 	Lara, 	as 	an
individual, 	filed 	an 	Unfair 	Practice 	Charge 	against 	the 	Santa
Paula 	School 	District 	(hereafter 	District 	or 	Respondent). 	The
Charge 	was 	amended 	on 	May 27, 	1982, 	and 	on 	June 	16, 	1982, 	a
complaint 	issued. 	On 	June 	21, 	1982, 	the 	District 	filed 	its
Answer. 	On July 	26, 	1982, 	Lara 	filed 	a 	Motion 	to 	Particularize
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_______________ )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
________________ )

the 	Answer 	and 	on August 	3, 	1982, 	the 	District 	filed 	an 	amended
Motion 	to 	Particularize 	the 	Charge. 	The 	Motion 	to
Particularize 	the 	Answer 	was 	granted 	and 	the 	Motion 	to
Particularize 	the 	Charge 	was 	denied.
On 	May 	18, 	1982, 	Charging 	Party, 	California 	School
Employees 	Association 	and 	its 	chapter 	#497 	(hereafter 	CSEA,
Union, 	or 	Association), 	filed 	an Unfair 	Practice Charge against
the 	District. 	A 	Complaint 	issued 	on 	June 	16, 	1982. 	On
June 	21, 	1982, 	the 	District 	filed 	its 	Answer 	to 	the 	Complaint.
On 	August 	3, 	1982, 	the 	District 	filed 	an 	amended 	motion 	to
order 	CSEA 	to 	particularize 	its 	complaint. 	The 	motion 	was
granted 	and 	CSEA 	filed 	a 	particularized 	Charge/Complaint 	on
September 	20, 	1982. 	On 	October 	13, 	1982, 	the 	District 	filed
its Answer.
Charging 	Party, 	Lara, 	alleges 	that 	the 	District
discriminated 	against 	her 	by 	involuntarily 	transferring 	her 	and
placing 	a 	letter 	of 	reprimand 	in 	her 	personnel 	file 	because 	of
her 	activities 	in 	opposition 	to 	the 	District's 	reduction 	in
hours 	for 	migrant 	aides. 	Lara 	further 	alleges 	that 	the
District 	violated 	her 	rights 	by 	denying 	her 	a 	representative 	at
a 	grievance 	meeting 	to 	protest 	this 	alleged 	discriminatory
conduct. 	The 	allegations 	of 	Lara's 	Charge 	in 	case 	LA-CE-1574
are 	limited 	to violations 	of 	the Educational Employment
N

Relations 	Act 	(hereafter 	EERA 	or 	Act), 	section 	3543.5(a).1
CSEA 	restates 	most 	of 	the 	allegations 	set 	forth 	in 	Lara's,
Charge. 	In 	addition, 	however, 	CSEA 	alleges 	that 	the 	District
violated 	EERA 	section 	3543.5(b) 	and 	3543.5(c) 	by 	denying, 	as
untimely, 	Lara's 	grievance 	when 	presented 	to 	the 	Board 	of
Trustees 	and 	by 	transferring 	Lara 	in 	violation 	of 	the
provisions 	of 	the 	agreement 	between 	the parties.
The 	Charges 	in 	cases 	LA-CE-1574 	and 	LA-CE-1581 	were
consolidated 	for 	purposes 	of 	an 	informal 	conference 	which 	was
held 	on 	or 	about 	July 	20, 	1982. 	Thereafter, 	a 	notice 	of
consolidation 	and 	a 	notice 	of 	formal 	hearing 	were 	issued 	by 	the
Chief 	Administrative 	Law 	Judge 	on 	November 	29, 	1982. 	The
formal 	hearing 	in 	this 	matter 	was 	held 	on 	January 	17, 	18, 	and
19, 	1983, 	and concluded on February 8, 	1983.
Following 	conclusion 	of 	the 	formal 	hearing, 	the 	parties
were 	sent 	copies 	of 	the 	record. 	Due 	to 	a 	mixup 	in 	addressing
the 	transcript, 	the 	District 	did 	not 	receive 	the 	record 	until
approximately 	a 	month 	after 	it 	was 	received 	by 	the 	Charging
Party. 	As 	a 	result, 	the 	Respondent 	was 	given 	a 	short
additional 	period 	of 	time 	in 	which 	to 	file 	its 	brief. 	The
Charging 	Parties, 	Lara 	and 	CSEA, 	filed 	their 	closing 	brief 	on
May 	11, 	1983, 	and 	the District 	advised 	the 	undersigned
1 The 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Act 	is 	codified 	at
California 	Government 	Code 	section 	3540 	et 	seq. 	Unless
otherwise 	noted, 	all 	statutory 	references 	hereafter 	are 	to 	the
California Government 	Code.
W3

Administrative 	Law 	Judge 	on 	May 	20, 	1983, 	that 	it 	would 	not
file 	a 	reply 	brief. 	Thereafter, 	the 	matter 	was 	deemed
submitted.
FINDINGS 	OF 	FACT
The 	Santa 	Paula 	School 	District
The 	Santa 	Paula 	School 	District 	is 	located 	in 	Ventura
County, 	California, 	approximately 	15 	miles 	east 	of 	the 	city 	of
Ventura. 	Many 	of 	the 	students 	in 	the 	District 	have 	parents 	who
work 	in 	the 	citrus 	orchards 	in 	Ventura 	County. 	These 	students
and 	their 	families 	comprise 	a 	large 	transient 	population 	of 	the
District 	and 	are 	either 	limited 	English-speaking, 	bilingual 	or
largely 	Spanish-speaking 	children.2 At 	all 	relevant 	times
there 	were 	450 	to 	600 migrant 	students 	in 	the District.
Seven 	elementary 	schools, 	covering 	grades 	kindergarten
through 	6 	and 	one 	junior 	high 	school 	covering 	grades 	7 	through
8, 	comprise 	the 	educational 	facilities 	of 	the 	District. 	As 	of
the 	1982-83 	school 	year, 	there 	were 	approximately 	2,996
students 	in 	the 	District. 	Students 	from 	Santa 	Paula 	School
District 	matriculate 	upon 	graduation 	to 	the 	Santa 	Paula 	Union
High 	School District. 	(Ibid.)
The 	Migrant 	Education 	Program
The 	District 	maintains 	a 	Migrant 	Education 	Program 	which
targets 	money 	support 	to 	provide 	special 	instruction 	to
2By 	stipulation 	of 	the 	parties 	and 	jointly-filed
Exhibit 	I.
44

children 	of 	the 	"transient" 	residents 	working 	in 	the 	District.
The 	Migrant 	Education 	Program 	provides 	the 	additional 	resources
which 	must 	be 	brought 	to 	bear 	to 	compensate 	for 	lost
educational 	opportunities 	due 	to 	the 	high 	rate 	of 	transfer 	and
lost 	school 	time 	that 	many 	of 	these 	transient 	students
experience. 	Most 	of 	the 	funds 	in 	the Migrant 	Education 	Program
are 	expended 	to 	employ 	instructional 	aides. 	In 	view 	of 	the
fact 	that 	many 	of 	the 	students 	targeted 	for 	the 	program 	are
limited 	English-speaking, 	the 	aides 	selected 	for 	the 	program
generally 	possess 	bilingual 	Spanish/English 	speaking
abilities. 	(Ibid.)
Prior 	to 	the 	spring 	of 	1981, 	the 	Migrant 	Regional 	Office,
which 	is 	responsible 	for 	overseeing 	the 	Migrant 	Education
Program, 	required 	that 	all 	aides 	employed 	in 	the 	program 	work
six 	hours 	a 	day. 	Prior 	to November 	1981, 	the 	District 	employed
six 	migrant 	aides. 	After 	November 	1981 	to 	the 	present, 	the
migrant 	aides 	worked 	only 	five 	hours 	per 	day.3 Presently,
the 	District 	employs 	seven 	migrant 	aides, 	three 	teachers, 	one
Migrant 	Instructional 	Support 	Teacher 	(MIST) 	one
community/health 	aide, 	and 	one 	statistical aide. 	(Ibid.)
-
At 	all 	times 	relevant 	to 	these 	proceedings, 	the
superintendent 	of 	the 	District 	has 	been 	John 	De 	La 	Rosa.
Eugene 	Marzec 	is 	assistant 	superintendent 	business/projects 	and
3 At 	all 	times 	the 	student day has 	been 	five hours.
55

is 	the 	District's 	business 	manager 	and 	director 	of 	special
projects 	including 	the Migrant 	Education 	Program. 	(Ibid.)
The 	District's 	Migrant 	Instructional 	Support 	Teacher, 	Rick
Valencia, 	reports 	directly 	to 	Assistant 	Superintendent 	Marzec.
Marzec 	testified 	that 	he 	and 	Valencia 	speak 	"weekly" 	about 	the
activities 	in 	the 	program. 	Further, 	Marzec 	testified
concerning 	his 	relationship with Valencia 	as 	follows:
A. 	As 	MIST, 	he's 	required 	by 	first 	the
region 	to 	go 	to 	monthly 	meetings 	and 	bring
back 	information 	to 	me 	and 	to 	the 	aides.
His 	job 	is 	also 	by, 	as 	required 	by 	migrant,
to 	in-service 	aides. 	We 	require 	him 	to 	be
the 	teacher 	who 	goes 	from 	school 	to 	school
to 	see 	how 	the 	aides 	are 	functioning, 	to
help 	them 	if 	they're 	having 	any 	particular
problem 	with 	either 	the 	teacher 	they're
working 	with 	or 	assist 	the 	teacher 	if 	this
one 	specific 	pupil 	needs 	specific
information 	or 	training 	in 	material 	then 	we
can 	go 	ahead 	and 	see 	if 	he 	can 	find 	material
to 	service 	this 	one 	specific 	child 	with
their 	specific 	needs. 	He 	also 	helps 	me 	in
that 	he 	keeps 	me 	informed 	on 	what 	the
community, 	as 	a 	community 	liaison 	person
that 	we 	have 	and 	she's 	a 	health 	aide
combined, 	what's 	going 	on 	there 	and 	what's
happening 	and 	keeps 	me 	informed 	on 	any 	needs
of 	that 	area. 	He 	also 	is 	required 	to 	be
over 	the 	statistical 	aide 	and 	then 	also
keeps 	me 	informed 	of 	the 	number 	of 	children
as 	the 	year progresses.
The 	Bargaining 	History of 	the 	CSEA and 	the 	District
In 	early 	May 	1976, 	the 	District 	agreed 	to 	voluntarily
recognize 	CSEA 	as 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	of 	all
classified 	employees 	except 	for 	classified, 	management
66

personnel 	and 	confidential 	employees. 	This 	recognized 	unit
included 	the 	instructional 	aides 	working 	in 	the 	District.4
The 	parties 	entered 	into 	their 	initial 	collective 	bargaining
agreement 	on 	or 	about 	February 10, 	1978, 	covering 	the 	years
1977 	through 	1980, 	with 	reopeners 	for 	salary 	and 	fringe
benefits 	during 	the 	life 	of 	the 	agreement. 	A 	successor
agreement 	for 	the 	period 	of 	July 	1, 	1980, 	through
June 	30, 	1983, 	was 	concluded 	in 	February 	of 	1981. 	This
agreement 	contained 	reopeners 	for 	salary 	and 	fringe 	benefits
and 	one 	additional 	article 	during 	each 	year 	of 	the 	life 	of 	the
agreement. 	At 	the 	time 	of 	the 	formal 	hearing, 	the 	parties 	were
in 	the 	midst 	of 	negotiations 	on 	the 	issues 	of 	a 	grievance
procedure; 	layoff 	procedures 	and 	reduction 	in 	hours 	and 	an
additional, 	unspecified 	article 	proposed 	by 	CSEA.5
Lara's 	Employment 	History with 	the 	District
Rachael 	Lara 	was 	hired 	as 	a 	regular 	instructional 	aide 	and
began 	work 	with 	the 	District 	at 	Bedell 	Elementary 	School 	on 	or
about 	August 	27, 	1974. 	A 	few 	weeks 	later, 	she 	assumed 	the
duties 	of 	a 	migrant 	instructional 	aide 	and 	remained 	at 	Bedell
School 	for 	the 	entire 	year 	as 	part 	of 	the 	"Public 	Employment
Program 	Act." 	In 	1975, 	Lara 	was 	transferred 	to 	Isbell 	Junior
4By 	stipulation of 	the parties 	and 	Joint Exhibit 	II.
5The 	bargaining 	history 	is 	derived 	from 	a 	joint
Exhibit 	II 	and by 	stipulation of 	the parties.
77

High 	School 	where 	she 	worked 	as 	a 	migrant 	instructional 	aide
for 	three 	years 	through 	the 	spring 	semester 	of 	1978.
Thereafter, 	Lara 	was 	transferred, 	again, 	to 	Bedell/Blanchard
Elementary 	School 	where 	she 	worked 	as 	a 	migrant 	instructional
aide 	until 	November 	16, 	1981, 	when 	she 	was 	transferred 	to
McKevett 	Elementary 	School 	where 	she 	is 	presently 	employed 	as 	a
migrant 	instructional 	aide.
As 	a 	migrant 	instructional 	aide, 	it 	was 	Lara's
responsibility 	to 	work 	with 	"identified 	migrant 	students."
Thus, 	Lara 	was 	required 	". 	. 	. t o 	provide 	supplemental
instruction 	to 	these 	students, 	supposedly 	under 	teacher
direction, 	[and 	to] 	also 	make 	home 	calls." 	Generally 	Lara 	was
responsible 	for 	Spanish 	surnamed 	or 	Latino 	children 	whose
parents 	were 	engaged 	in 	the 	agricultural 	and 	fishing 	industry
in 	and 	around 	Santa 	Paula.
Lara's 	job description provides, 	in relevant part:
INSTRUCTIONAL 	AIDE 	(MIGRANT)
DEFINITION
Positions 	in 	this 	classification 	are
established 	to 	reduce 	the 	adult-pupil 	ratio
in 	a 	classroom 	and 	to 	relieve 	teachers 	of
duties 	related 	to 	class 	work 	or 	other 	school
activities.
They 	are, 	under 	supervision, 	to 	assist
teachers 	by 	performing 	a 	variety 	of
instructional 	and 	non-instructional 	duties:
~. '. . and assist teachers in" individualizing
instruction 	by 	working 	with 	individuals 	and
small 	groups 	of 	children 	under 	the 	teacher's
guidance.
88

EXAMPLES 	OF 	DUTIES
Assembles 	and 	prepares 	instructional
materials 	as 	directed 	by 	the 	teacher;
. 	. 	. 	under 	the 	supervision 	of 	the 	teacher
and 	using 	instructional 	activities, 	. . . .
May maintain progress 	reports 	on 	students.
Facilitates 	growth 	of 	the 	migrant 	student 	in
reading, 	math 	and 	oral 	language
development. 	Attends 	weekly 	in-service
training 	sessions 	developed 	by 	Migrant
Instructional 	Support 	Teacher. 	Works 	only
with 	migrant 	students 	validated 	by 	the
Migrant 	Statistical 	Aide. 	Participates 	in
parent 	involvement 	under 	the 	direction 	of
the 	MIST. 	Makes 	home 	visits 	to 	all 	assigned
children.
QUALIFICATIONS
Ability 	to;
Learn 	quickly 	the 	procedures, 	functions, 	and
limitations 	of 	assigned 	duties;
Understand 	the 	particular 	needs 	of 	and
relate 	positively 	to 	children;
Relate 	positively 	to 	parents 	and 	school
personnel;
Exercise 	sound 	judgment;
Communicate 	with 	students 	and 	parents 	in
Spanish 	and 	English 	when 	necessary;
Must 	have 	ability 	to 	understand 	and 	to
relate 	to 	migrant 	student's 	needs.
[Emphasis 	Supplied.]
• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	•
• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	•
9

At 	Blanchard 	School, 	Lara's 	duties 	varied 	from 	the 	usual
classroom 	aide. 	Specifically, 	Lara 	was 	responsible 	for
children 	in 	grades 	4, 	5, 	and 	6. 	Lara 	testified 	that 	these
children 	tended 	to 	have 	more 	learning 	problems 	in 	that 	they
were 	older 	and 	required 	more 	aide 	assistance. 	In 	performing
her 	functions, 	Lara 	acted 	independent 	of 	the 	teaching 	staff.
She 	was 	not 	assigned 	to 	any 	specific 	classroom, 	but 	rather 	had
her 	own 	room 	where 	she 	would 	meet 	with 	students 	from 	various
classes. 	The 	students 	with 	whom 	Lara 	worked 	were 	instructed 	by
at 	least 	13 	different 	teachers. 	Lara 	performed 	her 	duties 	by
requesting 	the 	teachers 	to 	release 	the 	students 	to 	her. 	Thus
colloquially, 	Lara 	was 	referred 	to 	as 	a 	"pull 	out" 	aide. 	The
District 	had 	to 	obtain 	a 	special 	waiver 	from 	the 	Area 	Director
of 	the 	Migrant 	Program 	in 	order 	for 	Lara 	to 	perform 	in 	this
fashion. 	The 	other 	aides 	were 	assigned 	to 	specific 	classrooms
under 	direct 	teacher 	supervision.
Prior 	to 	November 	1981, 	Lara 	planned 	and 	prepared 	her 	own
lessons 	and 	programs 	for 	the 	students. 	She 	also 	graded 	the
students 	and 	gave 	them 	diagnostic 	tests. 	Prior 	to 	September
1981, 	Lara 	worked 	approximately 	six 	hours 	a 	day 	as 	a 	migrant
instructional 	aide 	and, 	as 	previously 	noted, 	the 	students 	were
in 	attendance 	approximately 	five 	hours 	during 	that day.
10

The 	District 	Reduces 	the 	Hours 	During Which
Migrant 	Instructional Aides Work
On 	September 	28, 	1981, 	Lara 	received 	a 	letter 	from 	the
District's 	Classified 	Personnel 	Director, 	Ed 	Walden, 	dated
September 	25, 	1981. 	The 	letter 	stated:
In 	order 	to 	serve 	migrant 	students 	more
efficiently, 	all 	migrant 	aides 	will 	be
reduced 	to 	five 	(5) 	hours 	a 	day 	effective
October 25, 1981.
Please 	contact 	Mr. 	Valencia 	if 	you 	have
further 	questions.
The 	letter 	shows 	that 	carbon 	copies 	were 	sent 	to 	"R. 	Valencia,"
and "E. Marzec."
The 	reduction 	of 	hours 	would 	reduce 	Lara's 	salary 	by
approximately 	$100 	a 	month 	and 	would 	reduce 	her 	eligibility 	for
certain 	dental 	and 	health 	care 	fringe 	benefits 	previously
enjoyed 	as 	a 	six-hour 	aide. 	Similarly, 	all 	other 	migrant 	aides
would 	experience 	a 	reduction 	in wages 	and 	benefits.
Lara Contacts Her Fellow Aides, 	the Union, 	the County Office,
Parents, 	and Administrators
Upon 	receiving 	the 	letter 	announcing 	the 	reduction 	in 	hours
for 	migrant 	aides, 	Rachael 	Lara 	immediately 	went 	to 	speak 	with
her 	CSEA 	job 	representative, 	and 	long-time 	friend, 	Anita
Pulido. 	Pulido 	is 	the 	secretary of 	the 	Blanchard 	School 	and 	is
also 	the 	secretary 	of 	the 	school's 	Principal, 	Glenn 	Deines.
Pulido's 	desk 	is 	located 	approximately 	three 	to 	five 	feet 	from
Deines' 	office 	door. 	Lara 	informed 	Pulido 	of 	the 	District's
intended 	action 	and 	asked 	what 	she 	should 	do. 	Pulido 	said 	that
11

she 	would 	look 	into 	the 	matter. 	The 	record 	fails 	to 	show 	that
anyone 	else 	was 	present 	during 	this 	conversation.
Thereafter, 	Lara 	telephoned 	Rick 	Valencia 	from 	a 	telephone
located 	in 	the 	nurse's 	room 	in 	the 	Blanchard 	School 	office.
She 	reached 	Valencia 	at 	his 	office 	in 	the 	Barbara 	Webster
School. 	Lara 	asked 	Valencia 	why 	the 	aides 	were 	being 	cut 	one
hour 	and 	he 	stated 	that 	" . . . 	the 	District 	is 	going 	to 	hire
more aides."
Next, 	Lara 	called 	Mr. 	Manuel 	Martinez 	who 	is 	the 	president
of 	the 	Migrant 	Parent 	Advisory 	Council. 	This 	council 	is 	an
organization 	of 	parents 	who 	have 	children 	in 	the 	migrant
program 	and 	acts 	as 	an 	advisory 	body 	to 	the 	Migrant 	Educational
Program. 	The 	call 	to 	Mr. 	Martinez 	was 	made 	from 	Lara's 	home.
Lara 	asked 	Martinez 	if 	he 	knew 	that 	the 	District 	was 	going 	to
cut 	the 	hours 	of 	migrant 	aides; 	and 	he 	responded 	to 	her 	on 	the
telephone 	that 	he 	did 	not, 	but 	that 	he 	would 	contact
Mr. 	Valencia. 	There 	is 	no 	evidence 	whether 	Martinez 	ever
talked 	to 	Valencia 	following 	his 	conversation 	with 	Lara.6
Also 	on 	September 	28, 	1981, 	Lara 	contacted 	Minnie 	Garnica,
migrant 	instructional 	aide 	at 	Grace 	Thille 	School 	and 	Amelia
Rutherford, 	migrant 	instructional 	aide 	at 	Portal 	School. 	Lara,
6TO 	the 	extent 	that 	Lara 	testified 	as 	to 	out-of-court
statements 	of 	another 	person 	that 	might 	be 	hearsay, 	these 	are
not 	relied 	upon 	for 	the 	proof 	of 	the 	matter 	asserted. 	They 	may
be 	used 	to 	show 	state 	of mind.
12

then 	contacted 	the 	remaining 	migrant 	aides 	employed 	by 	the
District 	and 	discussed 	the 	reduction of 	hours with 	each 	of 	them.
Lara 	contacted 	Filiverto 	DeSantiago, 	Vice 	President 	of 	the
Migrant 	Parent 	Advisory 	Council, 	and 	she 	asked 	him 	whether 	he
knew 	that 	the 	hours 	of 	migrant 	aides 	were 	being 	cut.
DeSantiago 	replied 	that 	he 	did 	not 	and 	said 	that 	he 	would 	talk
to Valencia. 	There 	is 	no 	evidence 	whether 	DeSantiago 	talked 	to
Valencia.
On 	Wednesday, 	September 	30, 	1981, 	Lara 	contacted
Joe Mendoza, 	the 	area 	director 	of 	migrant 	education 	in 	Ventura
County 	which 	comprises 	half 	of 	Region 	I 	of 	the 	Migrant
Education 	Program. 	Mendoza 	is 	the 	liaison 	between 	the 	County
and 	the 	Migrant 	Education 	Program 	in 	San 	Jose. 	The 	area
director 	holds 	meetings 	with 	aides, 	provides 	inservice 	for
aides 	and 	parents, 	and 	also 	approves 	the 	District's 	Migrant
Education 	Program 	budget.
Lara 	testified 	she 	understood 	that 	Mendoza 	had 	been 	to
Santa 	Paula 	to 	discuss 	the 	budget 	for 	the 	Migrant 	Program 	a 	day
prior 	to 	her 	phone 	call. 	She 	asked 	Mr. 	Mendoza 	whether 	he 	knew
that 	the 	migrant 	aides 	were 	being 	cut 	and 	he 	responded 	that 	he
did 	not. 	She 	further 	testified 	that 	Mendoza 	said 	he 	told
Valencia 	to 	leave 	the 	budget 	alone 	and 	would 	check 	into 	the
matter 	further 	and 	call 	her 	back. 	Mendoza 	did 	not 	call 	her
back; 	and 	on Friday, 	October 	2, 	1981, 	Lara 	called 	Mendoza 	again
13

and 	asked 	him 	whether 	he 	had 	talked 	to 	Valencia. 	She 	testified
Mendoza's 	response 	was 	that 	she 	should 	talk 	with Valencia.
On 	October 	7, 	Lara, 	Amelia 	Rutherford, 	and 	another 	aide
went 	to 	the 	office 	of 	Assistant 	Superintendent 	Marzec 	to 	obtain
a 	copy 	of 	the 	budget 	for 	the 	Migrant 	Education 	Program. 	Marzec
told 	the 	aides 	they 	could 	ask 	him 	any 	questions 	they 	wanted;
however, 	they 	demurred 	and 	stated 	that 	they 	wanted 	the 	budget
which 	was 	public 	information. 	When 	Marzec 	could 	not 	obtain 	a
copy 	from 	his 	secretary 	he 	suggested 	that 	they 	talk 	with
Valencia 	and 	obtain 	a 	copy 	of 	the 	budget 	from 	him.7 Right
after 	their 	meeting 	with 	Marzec 	they 	went 	to 	Valencia's 	office
and 	obtained 	a copy of 	the Migrant 	Education 	budget.
On 	October 	8, 	1981, 	Lara 	spoke 	with 	her 	Principal 	Glenn
Deines 	in 	his 	office. 	She 	asked 	him 	if 	he 	knew 	that 	the 	aides'
hours 	were 	being 	reduced. 	He 	stated 	that 	he 	did. 	When 	she
asked 	him 	why, 	he 	stated 	it 	was 	because 	the 	District 	was 	going
to 	hire 	more 	aides. 	When 	she 	asked 	him 	if 	he 	could 	do 	anything
about the 	situation, 	he said 	"no."
During 	the 	same 	period 	of 	time, 	Lara 	also 	contacted 	Union
President, 	Craig 	Logsdon, 	a 	custodian 	at 	Bedell 	School, 	and
CSEA 	Field 	Representative, 	Manuel 	Armas. 	She 	asked 	these
people 	to 	assist 	her 	and 	they 	agreed 	to 	look 	into 	the 	matter.
7Marzec 	testified 	he 	could 	not 	remember 	whether 	the 	aides
came 	to his 	office. 	This 	questionable 	lapse 	of 	memory 	does 	not
refute 	the 	clear 	testimony 	of 	Lara 	on 	which 	this 	finding 	is
based.
14

Lara 	testified 	that 	she 	had 	a 	number 	of 	conversations 	with
Union 	officials, 	with 	the 	affected 	aides, 	and 	daily
conversations 	with 	Anita 	Pulido. 	Most 	of 	the 	conversations
with 	Pulido 	took 	place 	in 	the 	school 	office 	near 	Principal
Deines' 	office. 	Lara 	and 	Pulido 	testified 	that 	on 	many
occasions, 	Deines 	was 	present 	in 	his 	office 	or 	nearby. 	During
late 	September 	and 	early 	October, 	Lara 	spoke 	with 	at 	least 	five
parents 	of 	migrant 	students, 	advising 	them 	of 	the 	cut 	in 	hours
for 	migrant 	aides 	and 	enlisting 	their 	support.
Possibly, 	two 	weeks 	after 	Lara 	received 	the 	letter
notifying 	her 	that 	the 	hours 	of 	aides 	would 	be 	cut, 	she 	spoke
with 	Pulido 	about 	whether 	the 	District 	was 	obligated 	to
negotiate 	the 	question 	of 	reduction 	in 	hours 	with 	the 	Union.
Pulido 	informed 	Lara 	that 	the 	CSEA 	office 	in 	San 	Jose 	had 	said
that 	the 	District 	should 	be 	negotiating 	with 	the 	Association.
Lara 	and 	Pulido 	decided 	a 	meeting 	between 	the 	aides 	and
management 	might 	be 	advantageous. 	Lara 	placed 	a 	call 	to
Valencia 	and 	Pulido 	then 	discussed 	the 	idea 	with 	him. 	Valencia
told 	them 	he 	would 	speak 	with 	Marzec 	and 	would 	have 	Marzec 	get
back 	to 	them. 	Valencia 	called 	back 	later 	and 	told 	Pulido 	to
call 	the 	District 	office. 	At 	about 	that 	same 	time,
Superintendent 	De 	La 	Rosa 	called 	Pulido 	and 	she 	asked 	him 	about
her 	idea 	for 	a 	meeting. 	He 	told 	her 	it 	had 	been 	taken 	care 	of
and 	"too many 	spoons 	spoiled 	the 	soup."
15

On 	or 	about 	October 	19, 	the 	migrant 	aides 	were 	informed 	by
a 	letter 	from District's 	Personnel 	Director 	which 	stated:
I 	have 	received 	direction 	from 	the 	Board
that 	the 	effective 	date 	for 	decreasing 	your
working 	hours 	form 	6 	to 	5 	hours 	per 	day 	has
been extended to November 	13, 	1981.
The 	change 	in 	insurance 	described 	in 	my
September 	25th 	letter 	will 	therefore 	not
take effect until December 	1, 	1981.
The 	Negotiations 	Concerning 	the 	Reduction 	in Migrant 	Aide 	Hours
In 	the 	last 	week 	of 	October, 	Union 	President 	Logsdon 	asked
Lara 	to 	represent 	the 	migrant 	aides 	on 	the 	CSEA 	negotiating
committee. 	On 	November 	2, 	1981, 	Logsdon 	sent 	a 	letter 	to 	the
superintendent 	of 	the 	District, 	requesting 	that 	Rachael 	Lara,
Anita 	Pulido, 	and 	a 	person 	named 	Steve 	Barker 	be 	given 	leave 	to
meet 	with 	the 	District 	concerning 	the 	migrant 	aide 	hour
reduction on November 	5, 	1981.
At 	9:00 	a.m. 	on 	November 	5, 	1981, 	the 	four 	persons
mentioned 	in 	Logsdon's 	letter, 	as 	well 	as 	Amelia 	Rutherford,
met 	with 	the 	District's 	negotiating 	team 	in 	the 	Union 	Bank 	in
Santa 	Paula. 	Representing 	the 	District 	were 	Mr. 	Ed 	Jones,
Mr. 	Ed 	Walden, 	Mr. 	Gene 	Marzec, 	Mr. 	Ed 	Kessler, 	and
Ms. 	Denise Buckley. 	The 	chief 	spokesperson 	for 	the 	Union 	was
CSEA 	Field 	Representative 	Manuel 	Armas; 	the 	spokesperson 	for
the 	District 	was 	Ed 	Jones. 	The 	meeting 	lasted 	approximately
until 	10:30 	or 	11:00 	a.m.
In 	response 	to 	the 	Union's 	question 	as 	to 	the 	District's
reason 	for 	reducing 	the 	hours, 	Lara 	testified 	that 	Jones 	said
16

that 	migrant 	aides 	" . . . 	were 	reduced 	in 	hours 	due 	to 	the 	fact
there 	were 	only 	so 	many 	hours, 	so 	many 	pupil-teacher 	contact
hours 	at 	each 	school 	and 	that 	[the 	aides] 	were 	doing 	lesson
planning 	and 	[they] 	weren't 	supposed 	to be doing 	that 	anyway."
The 	District 	remained 	firm 	that 	the 	aides' 	hours 	would 	be
reduced 	from 	six 	to 	five 	hours. 	Lara 	and 	Pulido 	testified 	the
District 	was 	asked 	who 	would 	tell 	the 	teachers 	that 	the 	aides
were 	to 	no 	longer 	do 	planning. 	Pulido 	credibly 	testified 	that
the 	District's 	response 	was 	"that 	will be 	taken care of."8
At 	the 	conclusion 	of 	the 	negotiating 	session, 	the 	Union
bargaining 	team 	stayed 	behind 	to 	discuss 	the 	substance 	of
negotiations 	among 	themselves. 	This 	discussion 	lasted
approximately 	one 	hour. 	Armas 	testified 	that 	the 	aides 	said,
if 	they 	did 	not 	do 	planning 	then 	the 	program 	would 	not 	be 	able
to 	function 	correctly. 	He 	testified 	Lara 	said 	"that 	it 	would
create 	havoc 	within 	that 	classification 	because 	of 	the 	lack 	of
planning 	by 	the 	classified, 	since 	a 	lot 	of 	teachers 	did 	not 	do
it." 	Armas 	suggested 	to 	the 	Union 	negotiators 	that 	a 	position
paper 	should 	be 	prepared 	telling 	employees 	that 	since 	the
District 	had 	refused 	to 	compromise 	on 	the 	reduction 	of 	hours,
the 	aides 	would 	work 	to 	rule, 	would 	not 	do 	volunteer 	work 	and
would 	not 	do 	any 	planning. 	Armas 	also 	suggested 	that 	the 	aides
8Although 	field 	representative 	Armas 	could 	not 	remember
or 	denied 	that 	the 	District 	responded 	to 	this 	question, 	I 	find
that 	the 	question 	was 	asked 	and 	find 	that 	Pulido's 	credible
testimony 	accurately 	reflects 	the 	District's 	responses.
17

should 	tell 	the 	teachers 	that 	they 	would 	no 	longer 	be 	doing
lesson 	planning. 	Lara 	asked 	whether 	it 	would 	be 	possible 	to
write 	a 	note 	to 	her 	teachers 	because 	there 	were 	13 	of 	them;
however, 	she 	testified 	she 	received 	no 	response 	from 	Armas.
She 	testified 	that 	she 	understood 	his 	silence 	to 	mean 	that 	she
should 	go 	ahead 	and 	inform 	the 	teachers 	in 	writing. 	After 	the
meeting, 	the 	Union 	negotiating 	team 	spent 	approximately
30 	minutes 	eating 	lunch. 	The 	normal 	lunch 	period 	for 	these
employees 	is 	20 minutes.
Lara's 	Letter
Upon 	her 	return 	to 	school, 	Lara 	composed 	a 	letter 	to
teachers. 	She 	showed 	a 	copy 	of 	the 	letter 	to 	Pulido 	who
responded 	that 	it 	"looked 	fine." 	The 	next 	morning 	at 	home,
Lara 	typed 	the 	letter 	and 	brought 	it 	to 	school 	with 	her. 	The
letter 	stated:
TEACHERS:
Due 	to 	the 	fact 	that 	migrant 	aides 	have 	been
cut 	back 	from 	6 	to 	5 	hours 	and 	due 	to 	the
aide 	job 	description, 	I 	will 	no 	longer 	be
planning 	instruction 	for 	migrant 	students.
Therefore, 	it 	is 	necessary 	that 	all 	teachers
provide 	me 	with 	lesson 	plans 	and 	materials
to work with migrant 	students.
District 	management 	states 	that 	no 	aide 	is
to plan 	instruction.
If 	there 	is 	any 	question 	on 	this 	matter,
please 	contact 	the 	principal 	or 	Mr. 	Rick
Valencia.
Thank 	you 	for 	your 	cooperation.
[Signed 	Rachael 	Lara]
18

At 	the 	bottom 	of 	the 	letter, 	Lara 	wrote 	the 	following 	note
to 	Principal 	Deines 	and 	then 	placed 	the 	letter 	containing 	this
handwritten 	note 	on his 	desk:
Mr. Deines,
This 	informs 	teachers 	of 	my 	job
description. 	It 	is 	important 	to 	note 	that 	I
will 	not 	be 	able 	to 	service 	a 	migrant
student 	without 	a 	prescription 	and 	materials
from 	the 	teacher.
Thanks 	for 	your 	cooperation 	regarding 	this
matter.
Lara 	testified 	that 	she 	left 	the 	letter 	with 	the
handwritten 	note 	on 	Deines1 desk 	as 	"a 	courtesy 	to 	him 	to
explain 	why 	[she] 	was 	doing 	this 	and 	because 	[sic] 	District 	had
told 	us 	we're 	not 	supposed 	to 	be 	doing 	lesson 	plans."
Immediately 	after 	placing 	the 	letter 	on 	Deines' 	desk, 	Lara
showed 	a 	copy 	of 	the 	letter 	to 	Terrence 	Hill, 	the 	teacher 	in
charge 	at 	Blanchard 	School. 	Hill 	read 	the 	letter 	and 	Lara
testified 	that 	he 	had 	no 	apparent 	reaction 	to 	it. 	Lara 	then
proceeded 	to 	place 	the 	letter 	in 	the 	teachers' 	boxes 	at
Blanchard 	school. 	On 	that 	same 	day, 	Lara 	received 	a 	lesson
plan 	from 	a 	teacher 	in 	her 	box; 	and 	she 	personally 	contacted
three 	teachers, 	Shrinkoski, 	Mackey 	and 	Ingle. 	Lara 	testified
that 	none 	of 	these 	individuals 	said 	anything 	to 	her 	which
indicated 	that 	they 	were 	"unhappy 	or 	incensed 	about 	the
letter."
19

When 	Deines 	discovered 	the 	letter 	to 	teachers 	which 	Lara
had 	left 	in 	his 	office, 	he 	immediately 	went 	to 	the 	teachers'
boxes 	to 	see 	if 	he 	could 	recover 	the 	letter. 	By 	the 	time 	he
reached 	the 	teachers' 	boxes, 	all 	but 	three 	letters 	had 	been
removed. 	Deines 	testified 	that 	he 	was 	concerned 	about 	how 	the
teachers 	might 	react 	and 	went 	to 	the 	teachers 	lunchroom.
Deines 	also 	testified 	that 	on 	the 	way 	he 	was 	approached 	by
three 	teachers, 	Doug 	Armstrong, 	Ms. 	Paillette, 	and
Ms. 	Weaverling. 	Deines 	testified 	that 	while 	he 	wasn't 	sure
whether 	Armstrong 	was 	a 	certificated 	site 	representative 	in 	the
year 	in 	which 	this 	incident 	occurred, 	he 	seemed 	to 	be 	speaking
for 	the 	teachers. 	Armstrong 	told 	Deines 	that 	the 	teachers 	were
agitated 	and 	concerned 	and 	that 	he 	had 	to 	calm 	them 	down.9
Deines 	also 	testified 	that 	Paillette 	and 	Weaverling 	expressed
concern 	about 	the 	letter 	from 	Lara. 	Deines 	testified 	that
Paillette 	said 	"There's 	no 	way 	somebody's 	going 	to 	tell 	me 	that
I 	have 	to 	do 	this, 	and 	you 	know, 	we 	have 	a 	contract 	too, 	you
know." 	Weaverling, 	according 	to 	Deines, 	asked 	whether 	"Doug
had 	spoken 	with 	him" 	and 	said 	"You're 	going 	to 	do 	something,
aren't 	you?" 	Deines 	immediately 	sent 	a 	letter 	to 	all 	teachers,
telling 	them 	to disregard 	Lara's 	letter.
9Armstrong's 	out-of-court 	statements 	that 	the 	teachers
were 	agitated 	and 	upset 	are 	hearsay 	as 	to 	those 	relevant 	facts
and 	are 	used 	here only to 	show Deines' 	state of mind.
20

At 	sometime 	on 	November 	6, 	Lara 	entered 	the 	school 	office
and 	saw 	Mr. 	Deines 	standing 	in 	the 	doorway 	to 	his 	office. 	He
said 	to 	her 	"you 	were 	late 	coming 	back 	from 	the 	meeting
yesterday." 	Lara 	responded 	"yes, 	a 	little 	bit." 	Deines 	then
said 	" . . . 	nothing 	is 	going 	to 	happen 	this 	time." 	Deines 	had
a 	copy 	of 	her 	letter 	in 	his 	hands 	and 	then 	stated 	to 	Lara
". 	. 	. 	Mrs. 	Pulido 	said 	the 	Union 	told 	you 	to 	do 	this." 	Lara
responded 	"Yes." 	And 	Deines 	showed 	her 	the 	letter 	and 	said
"No." 	Lara 	then walked 	out.
Also, 	on 	November 	6, 	CSEA 	issued 	its 	position 	letter
concerning 	the 	previous 	day's 	negotiations 	to 	all 	classified
employees. 	The 	letter 	stated:
TO: 	ALL CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEES
FROM: 	MANUEL ARMAS, 	FIELD REPRESENTATIVE,
CSEA
This 	letter 	is 	to 	inform 	you 	of 	the
district's 	attitude 	regarding 	the 	lay-off 	of
Migrant 	and 	Special 	Aides 	from 	six 	hours 	per
day 	to 	five 	hours per 	day.
THIS 	ALSO 	AFFECTS 	YOU!!!
The 	following 	is 	the 	position 	of 	the
Administration 	of 	the 	Santa 	Paula 	School
District:
1. 	They 	refuse 	to 	reinstate 	Aides
back 	to 	six 	hours 	due 	to 	"Lack 	of
Work". 	(Aides 	are 	doing 	the 	planning
for 	students 	instead 	of 	the 	teachers.)
21
• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	•

This 	cut-back 	smacks 	of
'Intimidation' 	because 	six 	(6) 	hours
per 	day 	cannot 	be 	sufficient 	money 	to
keep 	this 	district 	solvent!
Therefore, 	it 	is 	CSEA's 	position
that 	all 	classified 	employees 	should
work 	only 	their 	required 	hours 	and
perform 	only 	those 	duties 	as 	required.
If 	any 	employee 	is 	to 	do 	any work 	after
the 	end 	of 	his 	or 	her 	work 	day 	(house
calls, 	home 	visits, 	etc. 	they 	shall 	be
entitled 	to 	a 	"call-back 	minimum 	of 	two
(2) 	hours as per 	contract Article 	IV.
According 	to 	the 	district's
position 	NO 	AIDES 	SHOULD 	BE 	DOING 	ANY
PLANNING!
Therefore, 	the 	Association 	requests
that 	any 	Aides 	that 	are 	doing 	planning
for 	students 	cease 	doing 	so 	immediately
and 	refer 	this 	back 	to 	certificated
employees.
You 	CAN 	protect 	your 	rights 	and
strengthen 	your 	organization!
PLEASE 	COME 	TO A VERY 	SPECIAL MEETING
WHICH WILL BE HELD THURSDAY, 	NOVEMBER
12th 	AT 	6:30 	PM 	IN 	THE 	ISBELL CAFETERIA
THIS 	IS 	ONLY 	THE BEGINNING!!!
The 	letter 	shows 	that 	carbon 	copies 	were 	purportedly 	sent 	to
the 	Assistant 	Superintendent 	Marzec 	and 	to 	the 	principals 	of
various 	schools.
22
• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	•
• 	• 	• 	• 	•

The 	District's 	Reaction; 	The 	Letter 	of 	Reprimand 	and 	Transfer
of 	Lara 	to McKevett 	School
Deines 	contacted 	Superintendent 	De 	La 	Rosa 	about 	Lara's
letter. 	Deines 	indicated 	to 	the 	superintendent 	that 	he 	wanted
to 	write 	a 	letter 	of 	reprimand 	and; 	indeed, 	he 	drafted 	one 	and
showed 	the 	letter 	to 	the 	superintendent 	who 	reviewed 	it 	and
approved 	it. 	Deines 	had 	never 	written 	a 	letter 	of 	reprimand
before 	and 	wanted 	to 	have 	the 	approval 	of 	the 	superintendent
since 	he viewed 	the 	letter 	to be a 	serious matter.
November 	7 	and 	8, 	1981, 	fell 	on 	a 	Saturday 	and 	Sunday 	and
Lara 	was 	absent 	on Monday 	and 	Tuesday. 	Wednesday, 	November 	11,
was 	a 	holiday. 	Thus 	Lara's 	first 	day 	back 	following 	November 	6
was 	on 	November 	12, 	1981. 	When Lara 	returned 	to work, 	she 	went
to 	Deines' 	office 	to 	show 	him 	her 	new 	five-hour 	schedule 	and 	to
obtain 	his 	approval. 	At 	that 	time, 	he 	read 	her 	the 	letter 	of
reprimand 	and 	advised 	her 	that 	she 	would 	be 	required 	to 	sign
it. 	The 	letter 	stated:
The 	intent 	of 	this 	letter 	is 	to 	reprimand
you 	for 	placing 	yourself 	in 	a 	position 	of
authority 	above 	the 	teaching 	staff 	at
Blanchard 	School. 	This 	was 	done 	through
your 	memo 	to 	teachers 	directing 	them 	to
provide 	you 	with 	lesson plans 	and 	materials.
First, 	all 	memos 	to 	staff 	are 	to be 	approved
by 	the 	building 	principal 	before
distribution. 	Second, 	your 	job 	description
does 	not 	include 	informing 	teachers 	of 	their
duties 	and 	responsibilities.
23

It 	is 	assumed 	that 	this 	letter 	and
conference 	will 	prevent 	this 	type 	of
incident 	from 	reoccuring 	[sic]. 	In 	the
future 	if 	you 	have 	any 	questions 	regarding
this 	or 	any 	other 	matter 	please 	feel 	free 	to
contact me.
I 	understand 	that 	my 	signature 	does 	not
signify 	agreement 	or 	disagreement; 	only 	that
I 	have 	discussed 	the 	above 	in 	a 	conference
held on 11/6/81.
Rachel Lara, 	Migrant Aide
Glenn E. 	Deines. 	Principal
This 	letter 	will 	be 	placed 	in 	your 	personnel
file on 	11/19/81. 	You have 	5 days 	from this
date 	to 	respond 	in 	writing 	and 	to 	have 	your
response 	attached 	to 	this 	letter.
Sincerely,
Glenn E. 	Deines
Principal, 	Blanchard School
Witness:
Lara 	refused 	to 	sign 	the 	letter 	of 	reprimand 	and 	suggested
that 	perhaps, 	Deines 	should 	have 	a 	witness 	to 	the 	matter.
Deines 	agreed 	and 	teacher 	Terrence 	Hill 	was 	summoned 	into 	the
room 	to 	sign 	the 	letter 	of 	reprimand. 	Deines 	stated 	that 	he
needed 	Hill's 	signature 	because 	the 	letter 	was 	going 	into
Lara's 	personnel 	file. 	Hill 	signed 	the 	letter.
At 	that 	same 	time, 	Deines 	also 	informed 	Lara 	that 	she 	would
be 	transferred 	to 	McKevett 	School 	on 	November 	16, 	1981. 	Lara
testified 	that 	she 	was 	in 	a 	state 	of 	shock 	and 	that 	Deines 	went
on 	to 	say 	that 	she 	was 	going 	to 	be 	transferred 	on 	November 	16
to 	McKevett 	School 	because 	she 	was 	a 	"qualified 	and 	experienced
aide." 	This 	was 	the 	first 	time 	that 	Lara 	had 	been 	informed 	of
24

even 	a 	possibility 	of 	a 	transfer. 	Lara 	had 	spoken 	with
Valencia 	on 	October 	27, 	1981, 	and 	had 	asked 	him 	whether 	there
were 	any 	migrant 	openings. 	Valencia 	said 	that 	there 	was 	one 	at
Isbell 	School, 	one 	at 	Barbara 	Webster 	School, 	one 	at 	Portal
School, 	and 	one 	at 	Grace 	Thille 	School. 	Lara 	testified 	that
Valencia 	did 	not 	mention 	an 	opening 	at 	McKevett 	School.
Sometime 	in 	the 	afternoon 	on 	November 	12, 	1981, 	Lara 	received
the 	following 	letter 	in 	her 	school 	mailbox 	dated
November 9, 	1981:
This 	letter 	is 	to 	notify 	you 	that 	as 	of
Monday, 	November 	16, 	1981, 	you 	will 	be
transferred 	to 	McKevett 	School. 	The
criteria 	for 	this 	transfer 	is 	the 	need 	at
McKevett 	School 	for 	a 	qualified, 	experienced
Migrant 	Aide. 	We 	feel 	that 	you 	will 	make 	a
needed 	contribution 	at 	this 	new 	location.
Sincerely.
(S/John De La Rosa, 	Superintendent)
(S/Glenn E. 	Deines, 	Principal)
(S/Larry Ytuarte, 	Principal)
On 	approximately 	November 	12, 	1981, 	Gene 	Marzec 	telephoned
the 	District 	personnel 	commission 	and 	instructed 	the 	transfer
of 	Rachael 	Lara 	effective 	November 	16, 	1981.10 	He 	informed
10The 	record 	shows 	pursuant 	to 	Marzec's 	instructions, 	the
first 	transfer 	document 	was 	generated 	on 	November 	12, 	1981
which 	characterized 	the 	transfer 	as 	"change 	of 	school
location." 	The 	record 	contains 	a 	second 	transfer 	document
dated 	November 	16, 	1981, 	which 	characterized 	the 	transfer 	as
"administrative."
25

Principal 	Deines 	as 	well 	as 	the 	Principal 	of 	the 	recipient
school 	Mr. 	Larry Ytuarte 	of 	the 	decision 	to 	transfer 	Lara. 	The
principal 	at 	McKevett 	School 	testified 	that 	he 	did 	not 	take
part 	in 	the 	decision 	to 	transfer 	Lara. 	Rather 	he 	was 	informed
by 	telephone 	of 	the 	decision. 	It 	appears 	as 	well 	that 	the
principal 	at 	Blanchard 	School 	was 	only 	marginally 	involved 	in
the 	discussions 	and 	that 	the 	actual 	decision 	to 	transfer 	Lara
was 	made 	by 	someone 	above 	his 	level. 	The 	principal 	at McKevett
School 	testified 	that 	the 	numbers 	of 	students 	had 	not
substantially 	changed. 	Marzec 	testified 	that 	they 	had. 	Marzec
testified 	that 	he 	determined 	to 	transfer 	Lara 	because 	she 	was
an 	experienced 	aide. 	The 	principal 	at 	McKevett 	School
testified 	that 	he 	had 	a 	full-time 	migrant 	teacher 	running 	the
educational 	program 	at 	his 	school. 	When 	Lara 	was 	sent 	to 	him,
he 	met 	with 	the 	migrant 	teacher 	to 	determine 	in 	which 	classes
Lara 	would 	be 	utilized. 	There 	appears 	to 	have 	been 	no 	specific
classroom 	function 	which 	demanded 	a 	person 	of 	Lara's
experience. 	In 	fact, 	it 	appears 	that 	she 	was 	assigned 	to 	three
kindergarten classrooms 	at 	McKevett 	School 	solely 	because 	the
three 	locations 	were 	adjacent 	to one 	another.
Deines 	and 	Ytuarte 	testified 	that 	they 	were 	informed 	that
there 	had 	been 	a 	decision 	to 	make 	the 	transfer 	sometime 	in
October. 	Marzec 	similarly 	testified. 	However, 	later 	in 	his
testimony 	Marzec 	stated 	that 	the 	decision 	to 	transfer 	Lara 	to
26

McKevett 	School 	was 	made 	once 	they 	knew 	that 	there 	were 	going
to 	be 	additional 	monies 	to 	hire 	an 	aide 	sometime 	after
November 5, 	1981.
The 	only 	decision 	which 	Marzec 	made 	concerning 	the 	transfer
of 	a 	specific 	person 	related 	to 	Rachael 	Lara. 	Thereafter, 	he
left 	the 	decision 	of 	who 	would 	be 	hired 	to 	the 	personnel
commission. 	The 	personnel 	commission 	had 	a 	seniority 	list 	from
which 	it 	determined 	who 	should 	be 	offered 	employment 	or
transfer. 	On 	November 	17, 	1981, 	an 	order 	was 	prepared 	for 	an
aide 	to 	be 	assigned 	to 	Lara's 	position 	at 	Blanchard 	School.
According 	to 	the 	seniority 	list, 	employee 	Jennie 	Herrera, 	a
migrant 	aide, 	working 	less 	than 	five 	hours, 	qualified 	for 	the
five-hour 	position. 	Herrera 	was 	offered 	and 	accepted 	a
transfer 	to 	Blanchard 	School. 	The 	record 	shows 	that 	Herrera
had 	been 	employed 	by 	the 	District 	since 	1977 	as 	a 	migrant
instructional 	aide.
Lara 	Grieves
On 	November 	17, 	1981, 	Lara 	sent 	a 	written 	memorandum 	to
Principal 	Deines. 	The 	memorandum 	was 	referenced 	"Request 	for
Informal 	Meeting 	as 	per 	Article 	XII, 	section 	12.6.1 	of 	the
Grievance 	Procedure 	of 	the 	Collective 	Bargaining 	Agreement."
Lara wrote:
I 	would 	like 	to 	respond 	verbally 	in 	an
informal 	meeting 	prior 	to 	submitting 	my
response 	in 	writing 	in 	regard 	to 	the
Reprimand 	dated November 	6, 	1981.
27

I 	hereby 	request 	that 	a 	meeting 	be 	held 	to
discuss 	the 	Letter 	of 	Reprimand 	dated
November 6, 	1981.
Your 	immediate 	response 	to 	this 	request 	will
be 	greatly 	appreciated. 	You 	may 	contact 	me
at 	McKevett 	School 	. . .. 	If 	you 	are
unable 	to 	contact 	me, 	please 	contact
Mr. 	Manuel 	Armas, 	CSEA 	Field
Representative 	. . . .
The 	section 	of 	the 	contractual 	grievance 	procedure
specifically 	invoked 	by 	Lara's 	memorandum 	to 	Deines 	reads 	as
follows:
12.6 	Grievance 	Resolution 	- 	Any 	member 	of
the 	bargaining 	unit 	who 	5¥lieves 	he/she 	has
a 	grievance 	may 	present 	the 	grievance 	orally
to 	the 	site 	manage	- 	r 	within 	ten 	(10) 	working
days 	after 	the 	grievant 	knew, 	or 	with
reasonable 	diligence 	would 	have 	known, 	of
the 	circumstances 	which 	formed 	the 	basis 	for
the 	grievance. 	The 	manager 	may 	hold 	a
conference 	and 	attempt 	to 	resolve 	the 	matter
within 	five 	(5) 	working 	days 	after 	the
presentation 	of 	the 	grievance. 	If 	the
bargaining 	unit 	member 	or 	the 	site 	manager
prefers 	not 	to 	hold 	a 	personal 	conference,
the 	grievant 	must 	go 	to 	Step 	1 	of 	the 	formal
level 	of 	the 	grievance 	procedure. 	It 	is 	the
intent 	of 	this 	Section 	12.6.1 	that 	an
opportunity 	be 	provided 	for 	at 	least 	one
personal 	conference 	between 	the 	aggrieved
member 	of 	the 	bargaining 	unit 	and 	the 	site
manager. 	Although 	this 	personal 	conference
is 	permissive 	and 	may 	be 	bypassed 	at 	the
request 	of 	either 	the 	bargaining 	unit 	member
or 	the 	site 	manager, 	it 	is 	highly
recommended 	by 	the 	District 	and 	the
Association 	that 	an 	attempt 	be 	made 	to
resolve 	the matter 	at 	this 	Informal 	level.
[Emphasis 	supplied.]
28

On 	Monday, 	November 	23 	Deines 	called 	McKevett 	School 	and
left 	a 	message 	for 	Lara 	that 	he 	would 	meet 	with 	her 	at
2:00 p.m. 	that 	day. 	Lara 	wanted 	to 	have 	Manuel 	Armas 	with 	her
and 	asked 	him 	to 	come 	to 	the 	meeting. 	However, 	Armas 	was 	not
available 	at 	the 	time 	suggested 	by 	Deines. 	Lara 	called 	Deines
back 	and 	informed 	him 	that 	Armas 	was 	not 	available 	and 	asked 	if
he 	could 	meet 	at 	another 	time 	when 	Armas 	could 	be 	present.
Deines 	said 	he 	did 	not 	understand 	why Armas 	had 	to 	be 	there 	and
suggested 	that 	Lara 	read 	her 	contract.
On 	November 	24, 	1981, 	Lara 	called 	Deines 	about 	8:15 	a.m.
and 	suggested 	that 	"we" 	could 	meet 	with 	him 	that 	day. 	Deines
said 	he 	could 	not 	meet 	that 	day 	because 	he 	had 	a 	teachers'
meeting. 	Lara 	testified 	that 	in 	her 	experience 	at 	Blanchard
School, 	teachers' 	meetings 	were 	held 	at 	3:45 	p.m. 	Deines 	asked
Lara 	"who 	is 	'we?'" 	Lara 	responded: 	"Manuel 	[Armas] 	and
myself." 	Deines 	responded 	"uh, 	uh," 	which 	Lara 	inferred 	to
mean 	"no." 	She 	then 	said 	" . . . 	are 	you, 	indeed, 	refusing 	me
the 	right 	to 	have 	a 	party 	of 	my 	choice 	come 	in 	with 	me?"
Deines 	stated 	"uh-huh." 	Lara 	said 	she 	inferred 	that 	this 	meant
"yes." 	That 	ended 	the 	conversation. 	Lara 	testified 	that 	she
wanted 	Armas 	to 	act 	as 	her 	witness 	in 	the 	informal 	grievance
meeting.
Deines 	testified 	that 	he 	understood 	that 	a 	request 	to 	have
the 	CSEA 	Field 	Representative 	present 	was 	not 	a 	request 	to 	have
merely 	a 	witness, 	but 	to 	bring 	the 	Union 	activity 	into 	the
29

grievance 	procedure 	at 	Step 	12.6.1. 	Deines 	testified 	that 	he
interpreted 	the 	contract 	to 	provide 	for 	an 	informal 	level 	of
discussion 	between 	an 	employee 	and 	her 	site 	representative
without 	the 	involvement 	of 	the 	Union 	in 	a 	representative
capacity. 	It 	was 	his 	interpretation 	that 	the 	Union 	would 	not
be 	involved 	with 	the 	grievance 	procedure 	until 	the 	formal
grievance 	was 	filed. 	Deines 	testified 	he, 	therefore, 	exercised
his 	prerogative 	to 	not 	hold 	the 	permissive 	personal 	conference
which 	included 	the 	Union. 	Deines 	credibly 	testified 	that 	he
believed 	if 	Lara 	brought 	the 	Union, 	he 	would 	have 	to 	have 	the
District's 	representative 	at 	the 	informal 	meeting, 	thus
detracting 	from 	the 	informality 	and 	duplicating 	the 	formal
Step 	I of 	the grievance procedure.
Armas, 	who 	was 	present 	during 	negotiations, 	confirmed
Deines1 interpretation 	of 	section 	12.6.1. 	He 	testified 	that
the 	section 	"does 	not 	allow 	representation 	at 	the 	informal
level 	. 	. 	. 	. 	" 	The 	section 	merely 	permits 	a 	witness 	to 	be
present 	but 	this 	person 	would 	not 	be 	speaking 	or 	taking 	part 	in
the 	"actual confrontation 	in any way, 	shape or 	form."
On 	November 	25, 	1981, 	Rachael 	Lara 	filed 	a 	Formal 	Level 	I
grievance. 	In 	relevant 	part, 	the 	formal 	grievance 	procedure
provides as 	follows:
12.6.2 	Formal 	Level
12.6.2.1 	Step 	I 	- 	If: 	the 	grievance 	is
not 	settled 	during 	the 	informa	- 	l 	conference
or 	an 	informal 	conference 	was 	not 	held 	and
the 	grievant 	wishes 	to 	press 	the 	matter, 	the
30

grievant 	shall 	present 	the 	grievance, 	in
writing, 	to 	the 	site 	manager 	within 	five 	(5)
working 	days 	after 	the 	oral 	decision 	by 	the
manager, 	if 	an 	informal 	conference 	was 	held,
or 	within 	fifteen 	(15) 	working 	days 	after
the 	grievant 	knew, 	or 	with 	reasonable
diligence 	would 	have 	known, 	of 	the
circumstances 	which 	formed 	the 	basis 	for 	the
grievance, 	if 	an 	informal 	conference 	was 	not
held. . . .
The 	site 	manager 	shall 	communicate 	a
decision 	to 	the 	grievant 	in 	writing 	within
ten 	(10) 	working 	days 	after 	receiving 	the
grievance, 	with 	a 	copy 	to 	the 	Association.
Within 	the 	above-mentioned 	time 	limits
either 	party 	may 	request 	a 	personal
conference 	with 	the 	other 	party. 	If 	the
site 	manager 	does 	not 	respond 	within 	the
time 	limits, 	the 	grievance 	shall 	be 	deemed
to 	have 	been 	resolved 	and 	the 	next 	step 	of
this 	procedure 	shall 	be 	initiated.
[Emphasis 	supplied.]
Lara 	alleged 	that 	she 	was 	arbitrarily 	transferred 	in
violation 	of 	the 	involuntary 	transfer 	provisions 	of 	the
contract, 	section 	7.4.1 	and 	that 	the 	transfer 	was 	an 	attempt 	to
coerce 	and 	intimidate 	her 	because 	of 	her 	CSEA 	activity. 	Lara
further 	alleged 	that 	the 	letter 	of 	reprimand, 	placed 	in 	her
personnel 	file 	and 	dated 	November 	6, 	1981, 	was 	a 	direct 	attempt
to 	intimidate, 	coerce 	and 	discriminate 	against 	her 	because 	of
the 	exercise 	of 	her 	right 	to 	engage 	in 	CSEA 	activity 	and
because 	she 	was 	following 	the 	advice 	of 	the 	Association 	to 	make
teachers 	aware 	that 	she 	would 	not 	do 	planning. 	Finally, 	Lara
alleged 	that 	Deines 	violated 	Article 	XII 	of 	the 	grievance
31
• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	•

procedure 	by 	denying 	her 	a 	"representative 	of 	[her] 	choice
. . . 	at 	the 	informal 	level."
On 	December 	7, 	1981, 	Deines 	issued 	a 	written 	denial 	of
Lara's 	grievance, 	stating 	that 	her 	transfer 	was 	based 	upon 	the
educational 	needs 	of 	the 	District, 	that 	the 	letter 	of 	reprimand
was 	reasonable 	and 	not 	based 	upon 	her 	Union 	activity, 	but
rather 	was 	a 	response 	to 	her 	attempt 	to 	give 	a 	management
directive 	to 	employees 	in 	another 	bargaining 	unit.
On 	December 	14, 	1981, 	Lara 	appealed 	Deines1 denial 	pursuant
to 	Article 	XII, 	section 	12.6.2 	of 	the 	grievance 	procedure.
That 	section provides 	in 	relevant part:
12.6.2.2 	Step 	II 	- 	If 	the 	grievance 	is 	not
resolved 	at 	the 	building 	level, 	the 	grievant
may 	appeal 	[sic] 	by 	forwarding 	the 	grievance
in 	writing 	to 	the 	Superintendent 	within 	five
(5) 	working 	days 	after 	he/she 	has 	received
the 	site 	manager's 	decision 	or, 	if 	the
manager 	has 	not 	responded 	at 	Step 	I, 	within
five 	(5) 	working 	days 	after 	the 	deadline 	for
response 	in 	Step 	I 	The 	written
statement 	shall 	include 	a 	copy 	of 	the
original 	grievance 	including 	the 	decision
rendered, 	and 	a 	clear, 	concise 	statement 	of
the 	reasons 	for 	the 	appeal. 	The
Superintendent 	or 	his/her 	designee 	shall
meet 	with 	the 	grievant 	within 	ten 	(10)
working 	days 	and 	shall 	attempt 	to 	arrive 	at
a 	satisfactory 	solution. 	The 	Superintendent
or 	designee 	shall 	communicate 	his/her
decision 	in 	writing 	to 	the 	grievant 	with 	a
copy 	to 	the 	Association 	within 	ten 	(10)
working 	days 	after 	the 	meeting. 	[Emphasis
Supplied.]
32

Lara 	addressed 	her 	letter 	to 	Superintendent 	De 	La 	Rosa.
She 	indicated 	that 	the 	letter 	was 	in 	reference 	to 	her 	grievance
dated 	November 	25, 	1981, 	and 	wrote 	that 	" . . . 	I 	do 	not 	agree
with 	Mr. 	Deines' 	decision, 	therefore, 	I 	am 	appealing 	as 	per
Step 	II 	of 	the 	Grievance 	Procedure, 	Formal 	Level." 	The 	record
indicates 	that 	on 	December 	28, 	1981, 	District 	representative,
Ed 	Jones, 	instructed 	the 	principal 	to 	obtain 	more 	information
from 	Lara 	pursuant 	to 	the 	provisions 	of 	the 	contract 	which
require 	that 	a 	grievance 	must 	include 	a 	copy 	of 	the 	original
grievance 	including 	the 	decision 	rendered 	and 	a 	clear, 	concise
statement 	of 	the 	reasons 	for 	the 	appeal. 	Lara 	was 	apprised 	of
the 	Jones' 	request 	and 	complied 	by 	furnishing 	the 	requested
information 	to 	the 	District. 	The 	District 	extended 	the 	time
deadlines 	of 	the 	grievance 	procedure 	in 	order 	that 	Lara 	could
comply with 	the 	request 	to provide 	the 	required 	information.
On 	January 	27, 	Superintendent 	De 	La 	Rosa 	issued 	a 	written
denial 	of 	Lara's 	Level 	II 	appeal, 	stating 	that 	because 	she 	had
an 	opportunity 	to 	respond 	to 	the 	letter 	of 	reprimand 	and
because 	her 	transfer 	was 	for 	legitimate 	reasons, 	the 	grievance
should 	be 	denied.
On 	February 1, 	1982, 	Lara 	requested 	that 	the 	Union 	submit
the 	grievance 	to 	the 	Board 	of 	Trustees 	pursuant 	to 	Article 	XII,
section 	12.6.2.3 	of 	the 	agreement. 	That 	section 	provides 	in
relevant part:
33

12.6.2.3 	Step 	II
1I 	- 	If 	the 	grievance 	is
not 	resolve3 	in 	Step 	I 	or 	Step 	II, 	within
ten 	(10) 	working 	days 	after 	the 	decision 	is
rendered 	at 	Step 	II, 	the 	grievant 	may
request 	that 	the 	Association 	submit 	the
grievance 	to 	the 	Board 	of 	Trustees. 	It
shall 	be 	the" 	function 	of" 	the 	Board 	of
Trustees 	to 	make 	a 	final 	determination 	to
resolve 	the 	grievance. 	The 	ruling 	by 	the
Board 	of 	Trustees 	shall 	be 	final. 	[Emphasis
Supplied.]
On 	February 	26, 	1982, 	the 	Union wrote 	a 	letter 	to 	the Board
of 	Trustees, 	requesting 	that 	Lara's 	grievance 	be 	heard,
attaching 	certain 	written 	arguments 	in 	support 	of 	the
Association's 	position. 	This 	is 	the 	first 	time 	that 	the 	Union
had 	requested 	a 	level 	III 	grievance 	pursuant 	to 	the 	provisions
of 	the 	contract 	and 	the 	record 	does 	not 	indicate 	that 	prior 	to
this 	time 	an 	employee 	had 	ever 	asked 	the 	Union 	to 	take 	a
grievance 	to 	this 	level.
On 	March 	19, 	1982, 	the 	superintendent 	responded 	on 	behalf
of 	the 	Board 	of 	Education. 	The 	written 	response 	notes 	that 	the
letter 	denying 	the 	Level 	II 	grievance 	was 	dated
January 	27, 	1982, 	and 	the 	grievance 	was 	not 	filed 	until
February 	26, 	1982. 	The 	Board's 	decision 	stated 	that 	the 	level
III 	grievance 	did 	not 	comply 	with 	contractual 	"time
constraints." 	In 	addition, 	the 	Board's 	decision 	noted 	a
previous 	extension 	of 	time 	had 	been 	granted 	to 	permit 	Lara 	to
supply 	the 	information 	necessary 	to 	comply 	with 	Level 	II 	of 	the
grievance 	procedure. 	The 	Board, 	through 	the 	superintendent,
34

then 	went 	on 	to 	state 	that 	the 	"burden 	of 	proof" 	of 	the
grievance 	was 	on 	Lara 	and 	that 	there 	had 	been 	no 	"concrete
proof 	. . . 	to 	substantiate 	[the] 	allegation 	of 	discrimination
in 	either 	the 	transfer 	or 	letter 	of 	reprimand." 	The 	Board,
further 	observed 	that 	Deines 	was 	not 	in 	violation 	of 	the
contract 	when 	he 	would 	not 	meet 	informally 	with 	Lara 	and 	her
representative 	and 	quoted 	from the 	agreement 	as 	follows:
If 	a 	bargaining 	unit 	member 	or 	the 	site
manager 	prefers 	not 	to 	hold 	a 	personal
conference, 	the 	grievant 	must 	go 	to 	Step 	I
of 	the 	formal 	level 	of 	the 	grievance
procedure.
Finally, 	the Board 	stated 	that 	it was:
• 	• 	impelled 	to 	deny 	[Lara's] 	grievance
based 	on 	its 	finding 	that 	acceptable
procedures 	were 	adhered 	to 	in 	regards 	to 	the
transfer 	and 	the 	Letter 	of 	Reprimand. 	The
Board 	wishes 	to 	emphasize 	that 	it 	could 	find
no 	concrete 	proof 	to 	substantiate 	[her]
allegation 	of 	discrimination 	in 	either 	the
transfer 	or 	the 	Letter 	of 	Reprimand.
Based 	upon 	these 	facts, 	CSEA 	and 	Lara 	contend 	the 	District
violated 	EERA.
ISSUES
1. 	Did 	the 	District 	violate 	EERA 	when 	it 	involuntarily
transferred 	Rachael 	Lara?
2. 	Did 	the 	District 	violate 	EERA 	when 	it 	issued 	the
letter 	of 	reprimand 	to Rachael 	Lara?
3. 	Did 	the 	District 	violate 	EERA 	when 	Principal 	Deines
indicated 	a 	reluctance 	to 	hold 	an 	informal 	grievance 	session
with 	Lara 	and 	the 	CSEA 	field 	representative?
35

4. 	Did 	the 	District 	violate 	EERA 	in 	the 	processing 	of
Lara's 	formal 	grievance?
CONCLUSIONS 	OF 	LAW
A. 	The 	Alleged 	Discrimination 	and 	Interference 	by 	Transferring
Lara 	and 	Issuing 	a Letter 	of 	Reprimand
The 	charging 	parties 	allege 	that 	the 	District 	discriminated
against 	Rachael 	Lara 	because 	of 	her 	exercise 	of 	protected
rights 	under 	EERA. 	Lara 	urges 	that 	this 	discrimination 	took
the 	form 	of 	a 	transfer 	from 	one 	school 	site 	to 	another 	and
issuance 	of 	a 	letter 	of 	reprimand. 	Additionally, 	Charging
Party 	CSEA 	alleges 	that, 	by 	discriminating 	against 	Lara, 	the
District 	also 	interfered 	with 	the 	exercise 	of 	rights 	by 	CSEA
and 	its 	members 	and 	repudiated 	the 	agreement 	which 	prohibits
arbitrary 	transfers, 	thus violating 	section 3543.5(c).
Section 	3543.5 (a) 	of 	EERA 	makes 	it 	unlawful 	for 	a 	public
school 	employer 	to 	"[i]mpose 	or 	threaten 	to 	impose 	reprisals 	on
employees, 	to 	discriminate 	or 	threaten 	to 	discriminate 	against
employees, 	. 	. 	. 	because of 	their 	exercise 	of 	rights 	guaranteed
by 	[the 	Act]. 	The 	express 	rights 	guaranteed 	to 	employees 	by
EERA include 	the 	right to 	". 	. 	. 	form, 	join, 	and 	participate 	in
activities 	of 	employee 	organizations 	of 	their 	own 	choosing 	for
the 	purposes 	of 	representation 	on 	all 	matters 	of
employer-employee 	relations." 	(Cal. 	Gov. 	Code 	sec. 	3543.)
Correlatively, 	public 	school 	employees 	shall 	have 	the 	right 	to
"refuse 	to 	join 	or 	participate 	in 	the 	activities 	of 	employee
36

organizations 	and 	shall 	have 	the 	right 	represent 	themselves
individually 	in 	their 	employment 	relations 	with 	the 	public
school 	employer, 	. . . " 	(Ibid.)
In 	Novato 	Unified 	School 	District 	(4/30/82) 	PERB 	Decision
No. 	210, 	PERB 	set 	forth 	the 	test 	and 	general 	standards 	to 	be
applied 	in 	cases 	where 	employers 	are 	alleged 	to 	have
discriminated 	against 	employees 	because 	of 	an 	exercise 	of
rights 	protected 	by 	EERA. 	Under 	the 	Novato 	rule, 	the 	Charging
Party 	alleging 	discrimination 	within 	the 	meaning 	of 	section
3543.5(a) 	has 	the 	burden 	of 	showing 	that 	the 	protected 	conduct
was 	a 	motivating 	factor 	in 	the 	employer's 	decision 	to 	take
adverse 	personnel 	action. 	(See 	also 	California 	State
Employees' 	Association, 	Chapter 	41 	and 	Regents 	of 	the
University 	of 	California 	(6/10/83) 	PERB 	Decision 	No. 	319-H 	at
15.) 	Quite 	often, 	evidence 	of 	such 	motivation 	must 	be
circumstantial 	since 	direct 	proof 	is 	often 	unavailable. 	(See
Republic 	Aviation 	Corp. 	v. 	NLRB 	(1945) 	324 	U.S. 	793 	[16 	LRRM
620] . 	If 	the 	Charging 	Party 	can 	establish 	a 	nexus 	between 	the
proved, 	protected 	activity 	and 	the 	adverse 	personnel 	action,
the 	employer 	can 	still 	avoid 	a 	finding 	of 	wrongdoing 	by
demonstrating 	that 	it 	would 	have 	taken 	the 	action 	regardless 	of
the 	employees' 	participation 	in 	protected 	activity. 	(Novato,
supra; 	see also, 	NLRB v. 	Transportation Management Corp. 	(1983)
37

U.S. 	[ 	LRRM 	] 	Supreme Court No. 	82-168; 	Wright Line,
a 	Division 	of 	Wright 	Line, 	Inc. 	(1980) 	251 	NLRB 	1083 	[105 	LRRM
1169].)10
In 	order 	to 	establish 	a 	prima 	facie 	case, 	Charging 	Party
must 	first 	prove 	it 	was 	engaged 	in 	protected 	activity. 	Next 	it
must 	establish 	foundational 	evidence 	that 	the 	employer 	had
knowledge 	of 	the 	protected 	activity. 	This 	is 	a 	fundamental
fact 	which 	must 	be 	shown 	in 	order 	to 	establish 	motivation 	by
circumstantial 	evidence. 	(Novato 	Unified 	School 	District,
supra; 	Moreland 	Elementary 	School 	District 	(7/27/82) 	PERB
Decision 	No. 	227.) 	Thereafter, 	further 	circumstantial 	evidence
of 	unlawful 	motivation 	may 	be 	shown 	by, 	inter 	alia, 	an
examination 	of 	the 	timing 	of 	the 	alleged 	discriminatory 	conduct
in 	relation 	to 	the 	exercise 	of 	protected 	rights; 	inconsistent
treatment 	of 	the 	alleged 	discriminatee 	as 	compared 	with 	other,
similarly 	situated 	employees; 	a 	pretextual 	justification 	for
the 	employer's 	action 	which 	is 	either 	inconsistent 	or
contradicted 	by 	the 	employer's 	action 	or 	other 	objective
evidence 	in 	the 	record 	when 	viewed 	in 	its 	totality; 	a 	departure
10In 	Transportation 	Management 	Corporation, 	supra, 	the
Court 	stressed 	that 	a 	Charging 	Party 	has 	the 	burden 	of 	proving
anti-union 	animus 	and 	this 	burden 	does 	not 	shift. 	Moreover,
once 	the 	Charging 	Party 	proves 	unlawful 	motive 	by 	a
preponderance 	of 	evidence, 	the 	Respondent 	still 	may 	avoid
liability 	by 	proving, 	as 	an 	affirmative 	defense, 	that 	the
action 	would 	have 	been 	taken 	in 	any 	event 	and 	for 	valid
reasons. 	Thus, 	the 	Respondent 	only 	has 	the 	burden 	of 	proving
its affirmative defense, 	if any.
38

from 	established 	procedures 	and 	standards 	when 	dealing 	with 	the
alleged 	discriminatee; 	and 	a 	perfunctory 	investigation 	of 	the
contentions 	of 	the 	alleged 	discriminatee.
1. 	Lara's 	Protected Activity
The 	record 	amply 	demonstrates 	that 	Rachael 	Lara 	engaged 	in
the 	exercise 	of 	rights 	protected 	by 	EERA. 	Immediately 	upon
learning 	that 	she 	and 	the 	five 	other 	migrant 	aides 	would 	be
reduced 	in 	hours, 	Lara 	contacted 	her 	Union 	representative,
Anita 	Pulido. 	Lara 	and 	Pulido 	actively 	discussed 	the 	reduction
in 	hours 	and 	worked 	together 	to 	demand 	negotiations 	concerning
the 	District's 	intended 	action, 	a 	matter 	which 	is 	clearly
within 	the 	scope 	of 	representation. 	See 	Pittsburg 	Unified
School 	District 	(6/10/83) 	PERB 	Decision 	No. 	318; 	North
Sacramento School District 	(12/31/81) 	PERB Decision No. 	193.
In 	addition 	to 	contacting 	her 	Union 	representative, 	Lara
proceeded 	to 	call 	the 	Migrant 	Instructional 	Support 	Teacher 	who
supervised 	the 	program 	and 	worked 	directly 	with 	the 	assistant
superintendent 	for 	business 	affairs 	of 	the 	District. 	On 	the
very 	day 	Lara 	learned 	of 	the 	intended 	reduction 	in 	hours, 	she
contacted 	all 	other 	migrant 	aides 	to 	discuss 	how 	they 	would
respond 	to 	the 	District's 	action. 	Lara 	also 	called 	the
president 	and 	vice-president 	of 	Migrant 	Parents' 	Council; 	she
called 	the 	Area 	Director 	of 	the 	Migrant 	Program 	for 	Ventura
County 	who 	approves 	the 	District's 	budget 	for 	the 	program; 	and
she 	contacted 	parents 	and 	teachers 	to 	enlist 	support 	and 	to
39

determine 	what 	course 	of 	action 	would 	be 	taken 	in 	response 	to
the 	District's 	intended 	reduction 	of 	migrant 	aide 	hours. 	Lara
contacted 	the 	assistant 	superintendent 	in 	charge 	of 	business
matters 	for 	the 	District 	to 	obtain 	a 	copy 	of 	the 	District's
budget 	and 	to 	question 	the 	cost 	justifications 	for 	the
reduction 	in 	hours. 	Finally, 	Lara 	served 	on 	the 	Union
negotiating 	committee 	to 	discuss 	the 	reduction 	of 	hours. 	In
this 	capacity 	she 	acted 	as 	a 	representative 	of 	the 	affected
employees. 	Lara 	participated 	in 	negotiations 	and 	was 	visible
throughout. 	The 	above 	conduct 	unquestionably 	constitutes
protected 	activity.
Lara 	and 	CSEA 	also 	contend 	that 	Lara's 	letter 	telling
teachers 	to 	supply 	her 	with 	lesson 	plans 	was 	also 	protected.
The 	letter 	was 	an 	outgrowth 	of 	the 	Union 	discussions 	following
negotiations 	with 	the 	District 	on 	November 	5, 	1981. 	During
these 	discussions, 	Lara 	and 	the 	others 	agreed 	that 	they 	would
work 	to 	rule.
Moreover, 	because 	of 	comments 	made 	during 	negotiations,
Lara, 	CSEA 	and 	other 	employees 	specifically 	took 	the 	position
they 	would 	no 	longer 	do 	lesson 	plans. 	It 	was 	the 	understanding
of 	the 	Union 	negotiators 	that 	one 	of 	the 	reasons 	for 	the
reduction 	in 	hours 	was 	that 	the 	aides 	were 	not 	supposed 	to 	do
lesson 	plans 	and 	that 	this 	was 	a 	teacher 	function. 	Thus, 	Lara
undertook 	to 	tell 	each 	teacher 	that 	as 	of 	November 	6, 	she 	would
"no 	longer 	be 	planning 	instruction 	for 	migrant 	students." 	Lara
40

went on 	to 	tell 	the 	teachers 	that, 	as 	of 	that 	time, 	it would 	be
necessary 	that 	they 	"provide 	[her] 	with 	lesson 	plans 	and
materials 	to 	work 	with 	migrant 	students." 	The 	obvious
inference 	to 	be 	drawn 	from 	this 	communication 	was 	that
circumstances 	would 	be 	changed 	and 	the 	teachers 	would 	be
required 	to 	amend 	whatever 	practice 	had 	developed 	in 	their
relationship 	with 	Lara.
I 	find 	that 	Lara's 	letter 	to 	teachers 	on 	November 	6, 	1981,
was 	not 	protected. 	While 	it 	is 	clear 	that 	employees 	may
communicate 	with 	the 	public 	and 	with 	employees 	in 	other 	units
to 	publish 	the 	nature 	of 	a 	work 	dispute 	with 	an 	employer 	as
well 	as 	to 	publicize 	conditions 	in 	a 	working 	environment, 	this
right 	of 	communication 	is 	not 	without 	its 	limitations. 	(See
Mount 	San 	Antonio 	Community 	College 	District 	(6/30/82) 	PERB
Decision 	No. 	224; 	Allied 	Aviation 	Service 	Co. 	of 	New 	Jersey,
Inc. 	(1980) 	248 	NLRB 	229 	[103 	LRRM 	1454] 	e n f d 	(3rd 	Cir. 	1980)
636 	F.2d 	1216; 	Robbins 	v. 	Pruneyard 	Shopping 	Center 	(1980) 	23
Cal.3d 	899, 	909 	[153 	Cal.Rptr. 	854]; 	In 	Re 	Lane 	(1969) 	71
Cal.2d 	872 	[79 	Cal.Rptr. 	729]; 	Schwartz-Torrance 	Investment
Corp. 	v. 	The 	Bakery 	and 	Confectionary 	Union 	(1964) 	61 	Cal.2d
766 	[40 Cal.Rptr. 	233].)
In 	the 	instant 	matter, 	Lara 	did 	not 	write 	the 	letter 	to
publicize 	her 	dispute. 	The 	obvious 	import 	of 	the 	letter 	was 	to
tell 	teachers 	that 	she 	would 	no 	longer 	do 	work. 	The 	record
reflects 	that 	Lara 	operated 	substantially 	independent 	of 	the
41

teachers. 	Rather 	than 	being 	informational, 	the 	letter 	created
confusion 	and 	concern 	among 	the 	teachers 	who 	were 	left 	to
question 	both 	Lara's 	authority 	and 	the 	extent 	to 	which 	they
were 	obligated 	to 	comply 	with 	the 	letter's 	request. 	The
practice 	at 	Lara's 	school 	had 	been 	to 	have 	the 	migrant 	aide 	do
lesson 	plans. 	Lara's 	letter 	asserted 	a 	change 	in 	that practice
in 	an 	ostensible 	reliance 	upon 	management 	statements. 	The
letter 	created 	a 	dilemma 	for 	the 	teachers: 	should 	they 	alter 	a
practice 	and 	take 	away 	what 	had 	been 	unit 	work 	previously 	done
by 	the 	classified 	migrant 	aides 	or 	should 	they 	not 	provide
lesson 	plans 	to 	the 	migrant 	aides 	and 	risk 	leaving 	students
without 	appropriate 	training. 	Thus, 	the 	letter 	was 	not
designed 	to 	clarify 	a 	position 	at 	all, 	but 	rather 	was 	a 	method
of 	communicating 	a 	dispute 	which 	also 	constituted 	a 	disruption
of 	the 	work 	in 	the 	program. 	See 	NLRB 	v. 	General 	Indicator
Corporation, 	Redco Division 	(7th Cir. 	1983) 	F.2d
[ 	LRRM 	] .
The 	letter 	which 	Lara 	wrote 	was 	one 	which 	appropriately
should 	originate 	from 	management. 	Lara 	had 	no 	reason 	to
communicate 	a 	change 	in 	operating 	procedures 	regardless 	of
whether 	she 	had 	been 	reduced 	in 	hours. 	Management 	said 	at 	the
table 	they 	would 	notify 	other 	employees. 	Nowhere 	in 	the 	record
has 	any 	reason 	been 	given 	why 	Lara 	was 	compelled 	to 	send 	this
directive 	to 	the 	teachers 	except 	to 	thumb 	her 	nose 	at
management's 	decision 	to 	reduce 	the 	aides 	by one 	hour 	a day.
42

On 	balance 	I 	find 	that 	the 	letter 	issued 	to 	the 	teachers 	on
November 	6, 	1981, 	was 	disruptive 	and 	constituted 	unprotected
conduct.
2. 	The 	District's 	Knowledge
Throughout 	these 	proceedings, 	the 	District 	contends 	that 	it
had 	no 	knowledge 	of 	Lara's 	protected 	activities. 	The 	evidence
is 	to 	the 	contrary. 	The 	record 	establishes 	that 	not 	only 	was
Lara 	concerned 	about 	the 	District's 	action 	in 	reducing 	hours,
she 	was 	an 	aggressive, 	vocal, 	and 	forceful 	advocate 	for 	that
position. 	She 	began 	her 	activities 	by 	frequently 	discussing
these 	matters 	with 	the 	principal's 	secretary 	in 	the 	school
office. 	Though 	the 	principal 	denies 	overhearing 	these
conversations 	or 	paying 	any particular 	attention 	to 	them, 	it 	is
evident 	that 	the 	constant 	dialogue 	between 	Lara 	and 	his
secretary 	creates 	an 	inference 	that 	some, 	if 	not 	much, 	of 	this
dialogue 	was 	overheard. 	Moreover, 	Lara 	discussed 	the 	reduction
in hours with Principal Deines, 	himself, 	in early October.
There 	is 	direct 	evidence 	that 	Lara 	spoke 	with 	Assistant
Superintendent Marzec 	and 	asked 	for 	a 	copy 	of 	the 	budget.
Marzec 	was 	the 	one 	who 	signed 	the 	orders 	for 	Lara's 	transfer
and 	arranged 	for 	her 	position 	to 	be 	filled 	by 	a 	migrant 	aide
from 	another 	school. 	As 	soon 	as 	Lara 	learned 	of 	the 	impending
reduction 	in 	hours, 	she 	contacted 	Valencia, 	the 	migrant
instructional 	support 	teacher 	who 	oversees 	and 	who 	supervises
all 	migrant 	instructional 	aides. 	Valencia 	worked 	directly
43

under 	Marzec 	and 	was 	an 	admitted 	conduit 	between 	migrant 	aides
and 	administration 	as 	well 	as 	the 	public 	and 	the 	District.
Valencia 	was 	questioned 	by 	Lara 	as 	to 	the 	District's 	reasons
for 	the 	reduction 	in hours.
In 	addition, 	Lara 	contacted 	the 	head 	of 	the 	Migrant 	Parents
group 	as 	well 	as 	the 	Ventura 	County's 	Area 	Director 	for 	Migrant
Programs. 	The 	record 	reflects 	that 	there 	was 	a 	great 	deal 	of
communication 	between 	Lara 	and 	those 	persons 	in 	charge 	of 	and
affected 	by 	the 	Migrant 	Education 	Program.
Lara 	was 	designated 	the 	representative 	of 	the 	migrant 	aides
at 	the 	negotiating 	table. 	It 	must 	have 	been 	clear 	to 	Marzec
and 	other 	District 	representatives 	sitting 	across 	from 	her 	that
she 	was 	engaged 	in 	protected 	activities 	while 	bargaining 	for
herself 	and 	the 	other 	similarly 	affected 	aides.
Last, 	though 	Lara's 	letter 	to 	teachers 	was 	not 	itself
protected, 	it 	served 	notice 	to 	the 	District 	of 	her 	involvement
in 	the 	negotiations 	and 	her 	support 	for 	the 	Association's
position 	which 	was 	outlined 	in 	its 	position 	letter 	issued
immediately 	following 	negotiations. 	Both 	the 	principal 	and 	the
superintendent 	knew 	that 	Lara 	had 	written 	this 	letter 	to
teachers 	reflecting, 	in 	part, 	her 	understanding 	of 	the 	outcome
of 	negotiations. 	I 	find 	that 	because 	of 	Lara's 	conduct
described 	above, 	the 	District's 	administrators 	knew 	of 	Lara's
Union 	activities.
44

3. 	Circumstantial 	Evidence 	of 	Discriminatory Transfer
(a) 	Timing
Negotiations 	concerning 	the 	reduction 	in 	hours 	for 	migrant
aides 	occurred 	on 	Thursday, 	November 	5, 	1981. 	On 	Friday,
November 	6, 	1981, 	Lara 	distributed 	her 	letter 	to 	teachers.
Thereafter, 	following 	the 	weekend 	Lara 	was 	off 	work 	two 	days
for 	unspecified 	reasons 	and 	on 	Wednesday 	for 	a 	holiday. 	When
Lara 	returned 	to 	work 	on 	November 	12, 	1981, 	she 	was 	notified
that 	she 	would 	be 	transferred. 	The 	record 	shows 	that 	the
transfer 	letter 	was 	prepared 	on 	or 	about 	November 	9, 	1981,
following 	negotiations 	and 	the 	events 	leading 	up 	to 	them. 	The
actual 	notification 	of 	transfer 	was 	on 	November 	12, 	almost 	a
week 	to 	the 	day 	following 	the 	conclusion 	of 	negotiations. 	The
administrative 	paper 	work 	for 	the 	transfer 	was 	not 	begun 	until
November 	12, 	and 	was 	concluded 	on 	November 	16, 	1981. 	The
timing 	of 	the 	notification 	of 	transfer 	as 	well 	as 	the
supporting 	documentation 	is 	suspiciously 	proximate 	to 	Lara's
protected 	activities. 	The 	District 	argues 	that 	the 	timing 	was
merely 	coincidental; 	however, 	this 	contention, 	when examined 	in
light 	of 	the 	justification 	for 	the 	transfer, 	pales 	under
scrutiny.
(b) 	Pretextual Justification 	for 	Lara's Transfer
The 	District 	contends 	that 	it 	was 	necessary 	to 	transfer
Lara 	to 	accommodate 	an 	increase 	in 	migrant 	students 	at 	the
receiving 	school. 	The 	record 	shows 	that 	McKevett 	always 	had 	a
45

full-time 	migrant 	teacher 	working 	with 	migrant 	children. 	The
record 	shows 	that 	while 	the 	number 	of 	migrant 	students 	at
McKevett 	increased 	in 	the 	year 	that 	Lara 	was 	transferred, 	there
was 	not 	a 	substantially 	greater 	number 	of 	migrant 	students 	at
McKevett 	than 	in previous 	years when 	there was 	no migrant aide.
In 	the 	three 	years 	that 	Lara 	was 	assigned 	to 	Blanchard
School 	she 	worked 	primarily 	with 	students 	in 	grades 	4
through 	6. 	These 	individuals 	were 	more 	difficult 	to 	work 	with
than 	younger 	children 	because 	of 	their 	age, 	longer 	exposure 	to
Spanish 	as 	an 	exclusive 	language, 	gaps 	in 	learning 	skills, 	and
behavior 	problems. 	Thus, 	work 	with 	these 	children 	required
greater 	skill 	of 	the 	migrant 	aide. 	At 	Blanchard, 	Lara 	acted
primarily 	on 	her 	own. 	She 	worked 	with 	students 	removed 	from
their 	classrooms 	and 	from 	the 	supervision 	of 	their 	teachers.
Lara 	would 	plan 	and 	prepare 	lessons 	and 	"diagnose 	" 	student
needs 	independent 	of 	teacher 	supervision. 	By 	special 	waiver
from 	the 	Area 	Director, 	Lara 	was 	the 	only 	District 	aide 	who
removed 	children 	from 	the 	classroom 	and 	worked 	with 	them 	in 	her
own 	teaching 	area.
At 	McKevett 	School 	Lara 	worked 	primarily 	with 	kindergarten
children 	whom 	she 	testified 	were 	easier 	to 	work 	with.
Additionally, 	Lara's 	work 	with 	the 	children 	was 	in 	a 	classroom,
supervised 	by 	a 	teacher, 	as 	opposed 	to 	the 	more 	independent
type 	of 	work 	she 	performed 	at 	Blanchard.
46

One 	day 	after 	Lara 	was 	transferred 	to 	McKevett 	School 	her
position 	at 	Blanchard 	School 	was 	filled 	by 	another 	aide. 	The
paperwork 	for 	the 	assignment 	of 	the 	new 	aide 	to 	Blanchard 	was
completed 	on 	November 	17 	pursuant 	to 	instruction 	from
Gene Marzec, 	the 	person 	transferring 	Lara 	to 	McKevett 	School.
The 	record 	contains 	no 	satisfactory 	explanation 	why 	the
District 	transferred 	Lara 	in 	mid-semester 	only 	to 	fill 	her
position 	with 	another 	employee. 	Most 	assuredly, 	Lara 	could
have 	remained 	at 	Blanchard 	and 	the 	recalled 	teacher 	could 	have
been 	assigned 	to 	McKevett 	School. 	Both 	individuals 	had
substantial 	tenure 	in 	a 	position 	of 	migrant 	aide 	in 	the
District. 	While 	a 	reduction 	in 	hours 	permitted 	the 	District 	to
hire 	additional 	aides, 	there 	is 	no 	reason 	to believe 	that 	these
additional 	funds 	also 	necessitated 	a 	transfer 	of 	employees.
The 	record 	shows 	that 	Lara 	was 	the 	only 	specific 	aide 	upon
which 	the 	District 	focused 	in 	the 	transfer 	process. 	All 	other
decisions 	for 	transfer 	and 	filling 	aide 	positions 	was 	left 	to
the 	independent 	personnel 	commission 	and 	its 	seniority 	list.
The 	District 	argues 	that 	it 	had 	forewarned 	Deines 	and 	the
principal 	at 	McKevett 	School 	that 	Blanchard 	might 	lose 	its 	aide
and 	McKevett 	might 	obtain 	an 	aide. 	While 	the 	record 	reflects
some 	nebulous 	discussions 	to 	this 	effect, 	the 	record 	equally
shows 	that 	Deines 	was 	not 	informed 	that 	he 	would 	lose 	his
migrant 	aide 	for 	the 	1981-82 	school 	year 	until 	the 	decision 	was
made 	to 	transfer 	Lara. 	Similarly, 	the 	principal 	at 	the
47

receiving 	school 	was 	not 	informed 	of 	the 	transfer 	until 	shortly
before 	it 	occurred. 	This 	lack 	of 	involvement 	of 	the 	school
principals, 	themselves, 	indicates 	that 	there 	was 	some 	reason
for 	the 	transfer 	other 	than 	the 	justification 	given 	by 	the
District. 	The 	testimony, 	that 	the 	decision 	was 	not 	made 	until
the 	statistics 	were 	reviewed, 	defies 	credulity 	in 	that 	the
statistics 	had 	not 	remarkably 	changed 	from 	the 	prior 	year.
Finally, 	the 	District 	argues 	that 	it 	transferred 	Lara
because 	she 	was 	a 	qualified 	aide 	and 	was 	needed 	in 	the 	position
to 	which 	she 	was 	transferred 	at 	McKevett 	School. 	This
contention 	is 	hollow 	in 	view 	of 	the 	facts 	discussed 	above.
Further, 	it 	must 	be 	recalled 	that 	the 	principal 	at 	McKevett
School 	did 	not 	know 	until 	the 	time 	Lara 	was 	about 	to 	transfer
he 	would 	receive 	an 	aide. 	He 	further 	arbitrarily 	assigned 	Lara
to 	the 	kindergarten 	classrooms 	without 	any 	specific 	use 	for 	her
abilities 	at 	that 	level. 	Her 	assignment 	was 	based 	upon
geographic 	proximity 	of 	the 	classrooms 	to 	one 	another. 	There
is 	no 	evidence 	that 	Lara's 	skills 	were 	ever 	relied 	upon 	or
applied 	to 	her 	work 	at 	the 	receiving 	school. 	Nor 	is 	there
anything 	in 	the 	record 	to 	show 	that 	her 	work 	could 	not 	have
been 	performed 	as 	well 	by 	any 	other 	aide 	available 	for 	transfer
or 	recall.
Upon 	reflection, 	I 	conclude 	that 	the 	District's
justification 	for 	the 	transfer 	of 	Lara 	is 	wholly 	pretexual.
48

The 	transfer 	was 	discriminatorily 	motivated 	to 	punish 	Lara 	for
her 	outspoken 	activities 	on 	behalf 	of 	the 	Association 	and 	her
fellow 	workers. 	Further 	the 	transfer 	would 	place 	her 	under
close 	teacher 	supervision. 	The 	Charging 	Party 	has 	established
a 	nexus 	between 	the 	protected 	activity 	and 	the 	discrimination.
Because 	the 	District's 	justifications 	are 	at 	best 	pretextual,
it 	has 	not 	met 	its 	burden 	of 	establishing 	the 	affirmative
defense 	that 	it 	would 	have 	transferred 	Lara 	but 	for 	her
protected 	activities. 	The 	District 	thus 	violated 	section
3543.5(a) 	of EERA when 	it 	transferred 	Lara.
4. 	The 	Letter 	of 	Reprimand
While 	it 	has 	been 	concluded 	that 	Lara's 	letter 	to 	teachers
was 	not 	protected 	despite 	the 	fact 	it 	came 	on 	the 	heels 	of
otherwise 	protected 	activity, 	it 	is 	necessary 	to 	analyze 	the
District's 	response 	to 	her 	letter. 	Although 	Lara's 	conduct 	may
not 	have 	been 	protected, 	the 	District's 	response 	to 	it 	may 	be
so 	disproportionate 	as 	to 	be 	evidence 	of 	an 	intent 	to
discriminate 	against 	her 	because 	of 	her 	protected 	activities.
(San 	Joaquin 	Delta 	Community 	College 	District 	(11/30/82) 	PERB
Decision 	No. 	261.) 	Thus, 	Charging 	Parties 	contend 	that 	the
District 	over 	reacted 	when 	it 	issued 	a 	letter 	of 	reprimand 	to
Lara 	for 	merely 	communicating 	with 	the 	teachers 	for 	whom 	she
worked.
In 	analyzing 	the 	District's 	motivation 	here, 	the 	factors
previously 	discussed 	are 	all 	relevant. 	The 	timing 	of 	the
49

letter 	of 	reprimand, 	which 	closely 	followed 	Lara's 	protected
activity, 	also 	was 	coincidental 	to 	the 	unprotected 	conduct 	of
the 	letter 	to 	teachers.
The 	justification 	given 	by 	Principal 	Deines 	for 	the 	letter
of 	reprimand 	was 	that 	Lara 	had 	attempted 	to 	insert 	herself 	into
a 	position 	of 	authority 	above 	the 	teaching 	staff. 	This 	concern
of 	the 	principal 	is 	consistent 	with 	the 	language 	of 	Lara's
letter 	and 	its 	distribution 	to 	all 	staff 	prior 	to 	any 	notice
from 	management 	of 	a 	purported 	change 	in 	practice. 	In 	this
regard, 	it 	is 	recalled 	that 	there 	was 	no 	compelling 	reason 	for
Lara 	to 	send 	her 	letter. 	Change 	in 	procedures, 	if 	any, 	should
ordinarily 	be 	mandated 	by 	management; 	and 	it 	had 	agreed 	to 	do
so. 	The 	fact 	that 	Lara 	may 	have 	been 	doing 	planning 	after 	the
student 	day 	did 	not 	detract 	from 	the 	fact 	that 	she 	still 	had
students 	only 	five 	hours 	a 	day 	and 	was 	only 	required 	to 	do
whatever 	training 	she 	could 	in 	that 	period 	of 	time. 	Her 	letter
to 	teachers 	would 	not 	have 	altered 	her 	obligations 	during 	the
five hours 	when 	she met with 	the 	students.
As 	discussed 	above, 	Lara's 	letter 	to 	the 	teachers 	could 	be
legitimately 	viewed 	as 	disruptive, 	confusing 	and 	a 	cause 	of
difficulties 	for 	the 	principal 	at 	Blanchard 	School. 	The
evidence 	establishes 	that 	at 	least 	three 	teachers 	immediately
complained 	to 	Deines 	about 	Lara's 	letter. 	Their 	reported
complaints 	were 	consistent 	with 	Deines' 	concern 	about 	a
classified 	employee 	giving 	direction 	to 	certificated
50

employees. 	Moreover, 	the 	record 	shows 	that 	Deines 	reacted
immediately 	and 	attempted 	to 	remove 	the 	letter 	from 	the
teachers' 	boxes. 	When 	he 	was 	unable 	to 	do 	so, 	he 	responded 	by
sending 	a 	memorandum 	to 	teachers 	telling 	them 	to 	disregard
Lara's 	letter. 	Thus, 	Deines' 	conduct 	showed 	that 	he 	was 	really
concerned 	about 	the 	impact 	of 	the 	letter 	upon 	his 	teaching
staff. 	His 	reaction 	to 	the 	letter 	was 	not 	so 	extreme 	as 	to 	the
evidence 	of 	discrimination. 	The 	written 	reprimand 	to 	Lara 	was
not 	inappropriate 	in 	view 	of 	the 	impact 	which 	her 	letter 	to
teachers 	had 	or 	could 	have 	had 	upon 	the 	working 	environment 	at
Blanchard 	School.
Charging 	Party 	contends 	that 	certain 	inequities 	surrounding
the 	issuance 	of 	the 	letter 	of 	reprimand 	justify 	the 	finding 	of
discrimination. 	The 	record 	shows 	that 	the 	letter 	of 	reprimand
was 	the 	first 	issued 	by 	Deines 	to 	a 	classified 	employee.
However, 	there 	is 	no 	evidence 	that 	there 	had 	been 	similar
conduct 	by 	employees 	at 	his 	school 	which 	was 	otherwise
overlooked. 	While 	there 	was 	no 	letter 	of 	reprimand 	issued 	to
another 	aide 	who 	took 	Lara's 	memo 	and 	attempted 	to 	distribute
it 	to 	the 	teachers 	with 	whom 	she 	worked, 	the 	record 	shows 	that
the 	memorandum 	was 	never 	distributed 	because 	it 	was 	intercepted
in 	advance 	by 	the 	principal 	where 	the 	aide 	worked. 	This 	fact
distinguishes 	the 	treatment 	of 	this 	employee 	and 	does 	not 	show
disparate 	treatment.
51

I 	conclude 	that 	the 	District 	did 	not 	impose 	a
discriminatorily 	disproportionate 	penalty 	on 	Lara 	when 	it
issued 	its 	letter 	of 	reprimand 	to 	her 	for 	her 	letter 	to
teachers. 	The 	allegations 	that 	the 	District 	discriminated
against 	Lara 	in 	violation 	of 	3543.5 (a) 	by 	the 	letter 	of
reprimand 	are 	dismissed.
5. 	Interference
The 	Association 	argues 	that 	by 	discriminating 	against 	Lara
and 	transferring 	her 	from 	one 	school 	to 	another 	because 	of 	her
protected 	activities, 	the 	District 	also 	interfered 	with 	her
protected 	rights, 	the 	rights 	of 	other 	employees, 	and 	the 	right
of 	the 	Union 	to 	represent 	those 	employees. 	(See 	Carlsbad
Unified 	School 	District 	(1/30/79) 	PERB 	Decision 	No. 	89.) 	Often
the 	distinction 	between 	discrimination 	and 	interference 	with
guaranteed 	rights 	is 	not 	easily 	discerned. 	(See 	Coast
Community 	College 	District 	(10/15/82) 	PERB 	Decision 	No. 	25, 	at
19-20.) 	PERB 	holds 	that 	there 	must 	be 	a 	"nexus 	between 	the
employer's 	conduct 	and 	the 	exercise 	of 	a 	right 	protected 	by
EERA 	with 	resulting 	harm 	or 	potential 	harm 	to 	that 	right."
(Novato 	Unified 	School 	District, 	supra, 	at 	5.) 	In 	examining 	the
Board's 	decision 	in 	Carlsbad 	Unified 	School 	District, 	the
fourth 	in 	its 	set 	of 	the 	five 	guidelines 	is 	relevant 	to 	this
case:
Where 	the 	harm 	is 	inherently 	destructive 	of
employee 	rights, 	the 	employer's 	conduct 	will
be 	excused 	only 	on 	proof 	that 	it 	was
52

occasioned 	by 	circumstances 	beyond 	the
employer's 	control 	and 	that 	no 	alternative
course 	of 	action 	was 	available. 	[Id. 	at
10-11.]
By 	transferring 	Lara, 	the 	actions 	of 	the 	District 	had 	a
chilling 	effect 	on 	her 	activities 	as 	an 	advocate 	of 	migrant
aides 	and 	further 	demonstrated 	to 	all 	other 	employees 	that 	such
conduct 	would 	be 	met 	by 	the 	District 	with 	discrimination 	and
reprisals. 	Thus, 	the 	transfer 	of 	Lara 	caused 	substantial 	harm
to 	her 	rights 	and 	the 	rights 	of 	her 	fellow 	employees.
(Carlsbad 	Unified 	School 	District, 	supra, 	at 	12-13.) 	Further,
the 	District's 	discrimination 	against 	this 	activist 	impacts
upon 	the 	Union's 	ability 	to 	represent 	other 	employees
effectively. 	Throughout 	the 	negotiations, 	the 	Union 	worked
closely 	with 	Lara 	to 	attempt 	to 	reverse 	the 	District's 	decision
to 	reduce 	the 	hours 	of 	aides. 	When 	Lara 	was 	transferred
following 	an 	unsuccessful 	negotiating 	meeting 	with 	the
District, 	the 	message 	to 	the 	employees 	was 	that 	the 	Union's
involvement 	in 	this 	matter 	was 	equally 	inept 	and 	ineffective.
The 	transfer 	of 	a 	highly 	visible 	Union 	negotiator 	at 	the
conclusion 	of 	negotiations 	negatively 	impacts 	upon 	the
Association's 	ability 	to 	marshall 	support 	and 	represent
employees 	in the 	future.
As 	shown 	above, 	the 	District's 	justification 	for 	the
transfer 	was 	a 	pretext; 	and 	thus, 	I 	find 	that 	by 	transferring
Lara, 	the 	District 	also 	interfered 	with 	her 	rights, 	the 	rights
53

of 	her 	fellow 	employees, 	and 	the 	rights 	of 	the 	Association 	in
violation of 	section 3543.5(a) 	and 	(b).
Having 	found 	above 	that 	Lara's 	letter 	to 	teachers 	was 	not
protected 	and 	that 	the 	District's 	issuance 	of 	a 	letter 	of
reprimand 	was 	not 	discriminatorially 	disproportionate, 	there
was 	no 	interference 	by 	virtue 	of 	this 	conduct 	on 	the 	part 	of
the 	District. 	It 	is 	found 	to 	be 	a 	reasonable 	personnel 	action
under 	the 	circumstances. 	(See 	Office 	of 	the 	Los 	Angeles 	County
Superintendent 	of 	Schools 	(12/16/81) 	PERB 	Decision 	No. 	263 	at
8-9; 	Cf. 	San 	Joaquin Delta 	Community 	College 	District, 	supra.)
This 	aspect 	of 	the 	interference 	allegation 	is dismissed.
6. 	Lara's 	Transfer 	as 	Constituting 	a 	Repudiation of 	the
Agreement 	between 	the 	Parties
CSEA 	contends 	that 	the 	District 	repudiated 	the 	agreement
between 	the 	parties 	when 	it 	transferred 	Lara. 	Grant 	Joint
Union 	High 	School 	District 	(2/26/82) 	PERB 	Decision 	No. 	196;
Victor 	Valley 	Joint 	Union 	High 	School 	District 	(12/31/81) 	PERB
Decision 	No. 	92. 	See 	also 	the 	discussion 	at 	pages 	61-62
below. 	Paragraph 	7.4.1 provides:
A 	member 	of 	the 	bargaining 	unit 	may 	be
transferred 	for 	the 	good 	of 	the 	classified
service 	from 	one 	position 	to 	another 	in 	the
same 	classification; 	however, 	such 	transfer
shall 	not 	be 	for 	arbitrary 	reasons.
The 	above 	language 	clearly 	prohibits 	the 	District 	from
making 	arbitrary 	involuntary 	transfers. 	Having 	found 	that 	the
District's 	reasons 	for 	transferring 	Lara 	were 	based 	upon 	an
54

intent 	to 	discriminate 	against 	her 	for 	protected 	activities;
concomitantly, 	the 	transfer 	was 	for 	arbitrary 	reasons 	and
constituted 	a 	violation 	of 	the 	express 	terms 	of 	the 	agreement
between 	the 	parties. 	However, 	PERB 	has 	found 	that 	a 	mere
isolated 	act 	for 	retaliation 	against 	an 	individual 	employee
will 	not 	constitute 	an 	unlawful 	unilateral 	change 	in 	an
established 	policy 	or 	repudiation 	of 	contractual 	obligations.
North 	Sacramento 	School 	District 	(12/20/82) 	PERB 	Decision
No. 	264 	at 	13. 	The 	evidence 	in 	the 	record 	only 	supports 	a
finding 	of 	an 	isolated 	transfer 	against 	a 	single 	individual.
This 	evidence 	is 	insufficient 	to 	support 	a 	finding 	of
repudiation 	and 	therefore 	the 	allegations 	that 	the 	District
violated 	section 	3543.5(c) 	of EERA are 	dismissed.
B. 	The 	Alleged 	Unlawful 	Conduct of 	the District 	in
Processing 	of 	Lara's 	Grievance
The 	Charging 	Parties, 	Lara 	and 	CSEA, 	argue 	that 	the
District 	violated 	EERA 	in 	the 	processing 	of 	her 	grievance.
Ostensibly 	these 	allegations 	involve 	alleged 	violations 	of
3543.5(a) 	by 	interfering 	with 	Lara's 	rights 	to 	pursue 	her
grievance, 	3543.5(b) 	by 	interfering 	with 	CSEA's 	rights 	to
represent 	Lara 	in 	her 	grievance 	and 	3543.5(c) 	by 	repudiating
the 	provisions 	of 	the 	agreement 	which 	cover 	the 	grievance
process.
55

1. 	Denial 	of 	Informal Personal 	Conference 	with 	a 	CSEA
Field 	Representative 	Present
Lara 	and 	CSEA 	contend 	that 	the 	District 	violated 	the 	Act 	by
refusing 	to 	meet 	with 	Lara 	and 	her 	CSEA 	representative 	at 	the
informal 	level 	of 	the 	contractual 	grievance 	procedure.
Charging 	Parties 	rely 	upon 	the 	private 	sector 	law 	emanating
from 	the 	leading 	case 	of 	the 	NLRB v. 	Weingarten 	(1975) 	420 	U.S.
251 	[58 	LRRM 	2689] 	in 	which 	the 	Supreme 	Court 	held 	that 	an
employee 	may 	have 	a 	representative 	present 	at 	an 	investigatory
interview 	called 	by 	the 	employer 	which 	the 	employee 	reasonably
believes 	is 	likely 	to 	lead 	to 	discipline.11
While 	the 	Charging 	Parties 	do 	not 	specifically 	make 	the
argument, 	PERB 	has 	found 	that 	the 	rules 	set 	forth 	in Weingarten
and 	its 	progeny 	do 	not 	exhaust 	the 	representational 	rights
enjoyed 	by 	the 	employees 	and 	Unions 	pursuant 	to EERA. 	Thus, 	in
instances 	where 	private 	sector 	employees 	would 	not 	be 	given
representational 	rights, 	PERB 	has 	found 	that 	the 	express
language 	of 	the 	Act 	requires 	that 	public 	sector 	employees 	be
given 	such 	rights. 	(See 	Rio 	Hondo 	Community 	College 	District
(12/28/82) 	PERB 	Decision No. 	272 	[right 	to 	Union 	representation
at 	informal grievance procedure where 	next 	step 	is 	appeal 	to
11See 	Riverside 	Unified 	School 	District 	(4/19/82) 	PERB
Decision 	No. 	HO-U-127 	for 	an 	exhaustive 	analysis 	of 	the 	private
sector 	law 	surrounding 	NLRB 	v. 	Weingarten, 	supra, 	and 	its
application 	to 	the 	public 	sector.
56 I

Academic 	Senate] ; 	Redwoods 	Community 	College 	District 	(3/15/83)
PERB 	Decision 	No. 	293 	[right 	to 	have 	a 	Union 	representative 	at
"appellate" 	meeting 	involving 	disputed 	evaluation 	to 	act 	as 	a
buffer 	to 	confrontation, 	acrimony 	and 	misunderstanding];
Fremont 	Union 	High 	School 	District 	(4/6/83) 	PERB 	Decision
No. 	301.) 	Thus, 	in 	addition 	to 	the 	specific 	arguments 	which
Charging 	Parties 	have 	made 	relying 	upon 	the 	Weingarten 	Rule,
the 	facts 	of 	this 	case 	will 	be 	analyzed 	in 	light 	of 	the 	newly
developed principals 	set 	forth 	by PERB 	in 	its 	recent 	decisions.
As 	found 	above, 	the 	contract 	provides 	for 	an 	informal
personal 	conference 	between 	the 	grievant 	and 	site 	manager. 	At
that 	level, 	a 	grievant 	may meet 	with 	the 	site 	representative 	to
discuss 	informally 	and 	orally 	any 	grievance 	which 	might 	be
filed. 	The 	express 	language 	of 	the 	contract 	provides 	that 	if
either 	the 	bargaining 	unit 	member 	or 	site 	manager 	"prefer 	not
to 	hold 	a 	personal 	conference, 	the 	grievant 	must 	go 	to 	Step 	I
of 	the 	formal 	level 	of 	the 	grievance 	procedure." 	Further, 	the
contract 	states 	that 	the 	personal 	conference 	is 	"permissive 	and
may be bypassed at the request of either 	[party] 	. 	. 	. 	. 	"
At 	the 	outset 	the 	record 	fails 	to 	clearly 	establish 	that
Respondent 	refused 	to 	meet 	with 	Lara 	and 	a 	Union
representative. 	The 	record 	shows 	that 	pursuant 	to 	Lara's
request 	for 	a 	meeting, 	Principal 	Deines 	called 	her 	and 	offered
to 	meet 	with 	her 	at 	2:00 	p.m. 	November 	23, 	1981. 	Lara demurred
on 	the 	basis 	that 	Manuel 	Armas, 	the 	specific 	person 	she 	wanted
57

to 	be 	with 	her 	was 	unavailable 	at 	that 	time. 	Deines 	questioned
why 	that 	representative 	had 	to 	be 	present. 	The 	following 	day
Lara 	called 	to 	set 	up 	a 	meeting 	at 	her 	and 	Armas' 	convenience
and 	Deines 	said 	he 	could 	not 	meet 	that 	day 	because 	of 	a
teachers' 	meeting. 	Lara 	testified 	she 	suspected 	that 	Deines1
excuse 	was 	untrue 	since 	she 	knew 	teachers' 	meetings occurred
late 	in 	the 	afternoon. 	Lara 	then 	asked 	Deines 	whether 	he 	was
refusing 	to 	allow 	her 	to 	bring 	a 	"party" 	of 	her 	choice 	and 	she
testified 	that 	he 	said 	"uh-huh".
Without 	more, 	Charging 	Party 	argues 	that 	the 	record
justified 	the 	finding 	of 	wrongdoing 	on 	the 	part 	of 	the
employer. 	There 	is 	no 	evidence 	on 	the 	record 	that 	Lara 	made 	an
attempt 	to 	bring 	her 	Union 	representative 	with 	her 	to 	a 	meeting
which 	had 	been 	scheduled. 	There 	is 	no 	evidence 	that 	Lara
attempted 	to 	schedule 	any 	further 	meetings 	with 	the 	principal
or 	attempted 	to 	come 	to 	the 	meeting 	which 	he 	was 	trying 	to
schedule. 	Thus, 	the 	Charging 	Party 	has 	failed 	to 	show 	any
effort 	on 	the 	part 	of 	Lara 	and 	CSEA 	to 	attend 	the 	informal
meeting 	where 	a 	clear 	demonstration 	of 	rejection 	or 	denial 	of
representation 	by 	the 	District 	could 	be 	shown. 	Something 	more
than 	mere 	speculation 	on 	the 	part 	of 	the 	Charging 	Party must 	be
shown 	in 	order 	to 	hold 	a 	Respondent 	to 	have 	acted 	unlawfully.
(Contrast Fremont Union High School District, 	supra, 	at 	10.)
However, 	on 	the 	record 	Deines 	admitted 	he 	did 	not 	believe
he 	was 	obligated 	to 	meet 	with 	Lara 	and 	a 	union 	representative
58

who 	would 	actively 	prosecute 	her 	case 	at 	the 	informal 	personal
conference. 	He 	testified 	that 	such 	a 	confrontation 	would
require 	him 	to 	have 	a 	representative 	there 	and 	take 	away 	from
the 	informality 	of 	the 	conference. 	For 	reasons 	set 	forth
below, 	Deines' 	conduct 	would 	not 	be 	found 	to 	be 	unlawful 	on 	the
facts of 	this case.
In 	various 	circumstances, 	PERB 	has 	found 	that 	an 	employee
has 	a 	right 	to 	have 	a 	union 	representative 	present 	at 	the 	early
stages 	of 	the 	contractual 	grievance 	procedure. 	(See 	Rio 	Hondo
Community 	College 	District, 	supra; 	Fremont 	Union 	High 	School
District, 	supra.) 	PERB 	has 	not 	determined 	whether 	employees 	are
entitled 	to 	have 	a 	specific 	representative 	present12 nor 	has
it 	confronted 	the 	issue 	of 	whether 	this 	right 	may 	be 	waived 	by
contract. 	I 	find 	that 	Lara 	did 	not 	have 	a 	right 	to demand 	that
a 	specific 	person 	be 	her 	representative 	at 	the 	informal 	meeting
with 	the 	District. 	Further, 	Lara's 	cancellation 	of 	that
meeting 	in 	order 	to 	have 	that 	specific 	representative 	there 	is
not 	protected 	by 	law.
12	l2 The	The 	private 	sector 	cases 	provide 	that 	an 	employee 	may
have a. 	representative 	but 	not 	a particular 	representative. 	The
employer 	is 	not 	required 	to 	postpone 	a 	meeting 	or 	interview
because a 	specific 	representative 	is 	unavailable. 	(See
Roadway Express 	(1979) 	246 NLRB No. 	180 	[103 LRRM 1050];
Crown 	Zellerbach 	(1978) 	239 NLRB No. 	158 	(Representative
"as 	witness 	only") ; 	Coca 	Cola 	Bottling 	Co. 	of 	Los 	Angeles
(1977) 	227 NLRB No 173.)
59

In 	this 	case, 	the 	contractual 	grievance 	procedure
negotiated 	by 	the 	Union 	clearly 	envisions 	a 	permissive 	informal
level 	to 	that 	process. 	That 	permissive 	level 	permitted 	either
party 	to 	cancel 	the 	informal 	step 	and 	go 	directly 	to 	the 	formal
level 	of 	the 	grievance 	procedure 	without 	any 	justification. 	In
cancelling 	the 	informal 	personal 	conference, 	no 	prejudice
obtains 	to 	any 	party. 	The 	first 	step 	of 	the 	formal 	grievance
procedure 	permits 	a 	grievant, 	along 	with 	a 	union
representative, 	to 	present 	the 	complaint 	to 	the 	same 	site
manager 	who 	would 	have 	been 	involved 	in 	the 	informal 	personal
conference.
In 	this 	case, 	unlike 	those 	previously 	reviewed 	by 	PERB, 	a
grievant 	is 	not 	subjected 	to 	a 	meeting 	with 	an 	employer 	where
prejudicial 	information 	can 	be 	elicited 	from 	them 	without 	the
assistance 	of 	a 	union 	representative. 	Moreover, 	the 	employees
are 	not 	required 	to 	attend 	a 	meeting 	to 	present 	any 	part 	of
their 	grievance 	without 	the 	assistance 	of 	a 	union
representative 	to 	balance 	what 	otherwise 	may 	be 	an 	inequitable
employer-employee 	confrontation. 	Rather 	the 	cancellation 	of
the 	informal 	step 	of 	the 	grievance 	procedure 	obviates 	any
prejudice 	to 	the 	grievant 	and 	ensures 	that 	the 	presentation 	of
the 	grievance 	at 	the 	formal 	level 	I 	is 	accomplished 	through 	a
union 	representative 	if 	desired.
Thus 	it 	is 	clear 	that 	the 	Union, 	by 	entering 	into 	the
contract 	which 	specifically 	provided 	for 	a 	non-mandatory 	and
60

waivable 	informal 	level 	of 	the 	grievance 	procedure, 	agreed 	to
waive 	representation 	at 	that 	level 	should 	the 	employer 	desire
to 	not 	hold 	the 	informal 	conference. 	Conversely, 	the 	employee
is 	not 	obligated 	to 	participate 	in 	the 	informal 	conference
without 	a 	union 	representative 	present. 	This 	conclusion 	is
reinforced 	by 	Union 	representative 	Armas' 	testimony 	in 	which 	he
admitted 	that 	section 	12.6.1 	of 	the 	contract 	permitted 	an
employee 	to 	have 	only 	a 	witness 	present 	and 	not 	a 	Union
representative 	acting 	as 	an 	advocate.
The 	allegations 	that 	the 	District 	violated 	EERA 	in 	any
fashion 	by 	failing 	to 	hold 	a 	informal 	meeting 	with 	Lara 	and 	the
CSEA 	representative 	are 	not 	supported 	by 	the 	facts 	or 	law.
These 	allegations 	are 	dismissed.
2. 	The Allegations 	that 	the District Repudiated 	the
Agreement 	by 	Denying 	Lara's 	Grievance 	on 	the Basis of
an 	Untimely 	Filing.
CSEA 	argues 	that 	the 	District 	repudiated 	the 	provisions 	of
the 	agreement 	between 	the 	parties 	because 	the 	Board 	of 	Trustees
denied 	Lara's 	grievance 	as 	untimely. 	Presumably, 	the 	Union
relies 	upon 	the 	line 	of 	cases 	which 	analyze 	an 	employer's
unilateral 	alteration 	or 	repudiation 	of 	an 	unambiguous 	contract
provision 	or 	a 	policy 	of 	generalized 	effect. 	(Grant 	Joint
Union 	High 	School 	District, 	supra; 	Victor 	Valley 	Joint 	Union
High 	School 	District, 	supra; 	see 	also, 	C 	& 	C 	Plywood 	Corp.
(1967) 	385 	U.S. 	421 	[64 	LRRM 	1065]; 	Davis 	Unified 	School
61

District 	et 	al. 	(2/22/80) 	PERB 	Decision 	No. 	116 	and 	NLRB 	v.
Katz 	(1962) 	369 	U.S. 	736 	[50 	LRRM 	2177].) 	In 	cases 	involving
contract 	repudiation 	it 	is 	necessary 	to 	be 	aware 	of 	the 	fine
line 	between 	PERB's 	lack 	of 	authority 	to 	enforce 	an 	employment
contract 	between 	the 	parties, 	and 	the 	need 	to 	determine 	its
content 	or 	terms 	in 	order 	to 	establish 	whether 	a 	violation 	of
EERA 	has 	occurred. 	(Victor 	Valley 	Joint 	Union 	High 	School
District, 	supra; 	C & C Plywood Corp., 	supra.)
In 	Grant 	Joint 	Union 	High 	School 	District, 	PERB 	held 	that
in 	order 	to 	establish 	a 	prima 	facie 	violation 	of 	section
3543.5 (c) 	when 	a 	unilateral 	change 	in 	or 	repudiation 	of 	a
contract 	or 	past 	practice 	is 	alleged, 	a 	Charging 	Party 	must
show: 	(1) 	that 	the 	Respondent 	has 	breached 	or 	otherwise
altered 	the 	parties' 	written 	agreement 	or 	its 	own 	established
past 	practice; 	(2) 	that 	the 	breach 	or 	alteration 	amounts 	to 	a
change 	of 	policy 	(i.e., 	that 	it 	had 	a 	generalized 	effect 	or
continuing 	impact 	upon 	the 	terms 	and 	conditions 	of 	employment
of 	bargaining 	unit 	members) ; 	and 	(3) 	that 	the 	change 	in 	policy
concerns 	matters 	within 	the 	scope 	of 	representation. 	(Placer
Hills 	Union 	School 	District 	(11/30/82) 	PERB 	Decision 	No. 	262 	at
3.) 	A 	mere 	isolated 	act 	against 	a 	single 	employee 	is
insufficient 	to 	establish 	a 	unilateral 	change 	in 	or 	repudiation
of 	an 	established 	policy 	or 	an 	existing 	contractual 	term.
(North 	Sacramento School 	District, 	supra, 	PERB 	Decision 	No. 	264
at 	13.)
62

Here 	the 	Union 	contends 	that 	the 	District 	denied 	Lara's
grievance 	as 	untimely. 	Level 	III 	of 	the 	contractual 	grievance
procedure 	provides: 	"within 	ten 	(10) 	working 	days 	after 	the
decision 	is 	rendered 	at 	Step 	II, 	the 	grievant 	may 	request 	that
the 	Association 	submit 	the 	grievance 	to 	the 	Board 	of
Trustees." 	The 	record 	shows 	that 	Lara 	requested 	that 	the 	Union
file 	a 	Level 	III 	grievance 	within 	three 	days 	after 	the
resolution 	at 	Level 	II 	of 	the 	grievance 	procedure. 	However,
the 	Union 	did 	not 	submit 	the 	grievance 	to 	the 	Board 	of 	Trustees
until 	almost 	a 	month 	after 	the 	resolution 	of 	the 	Level 	II
grievance. 	This 	was 	the 	first 	time 	that 	a 	Level 	III 	grievance
had 	been 	submitted 	pursuant 	to 	the 	terms 	of 	the 	agreement.
A 	hearing 	was 	held 	before 	the 	Board. 	The 	superintendent,
on 	behalf 	of 	the 	Board, 	issued 	a 	decision 	denying 	Lara's
grievance. 	The 	Board's 	decision 	noted 	that 	Lara's 	grievance
had 	been 	filed 	considerably 	after 	the 	10-day 	time 	limit 	in 	the
contract. 	However, 	the 	decision makes 	it 	clear 	that 	the 	denial
of 	the 	grievance 	was 	not 	based 	upon 	an 	untimely 	filing. 	Rather
the 	denial 	of 	the 	grievance 	was 	based 	upon 	Lara's 	failure 	to
prove 	the 	allegations 	in 	support of her 	grievance.
It 	is 	unnecessary 	to 	reach 	an 	interpretation 	of 	the
agreement 	to 	see 	whether 	the 	District's 	action 	was 	a
repudiation 	of 	the 	express 	language 	of 	the 	agreement 	or 	whether
it 	was 	consistent 	with 	the 	intent 	of 	the 	parties 	to 	give 	the
Board 	of 	Trustees 	reasonable 	notice 	of 	an 	intent 	to 	pursue 	a
63
'

grievance 	after 	its 	denial 	at 	the 	lower 	level. 	I 	conclude 	that
the 	District 	did 	not 	deny 	the 	grievance 	based 	upon 	an 	untimely
filing, 	and 	there 	is 	no 	evidence 	that 	in 	the 	processing 	of 	the
grievance 	the 	District 	repudiated 	the 	agreement 	between 	the
parties 	or 	an 	existing 	practice 	of 	generalized 	effect. 	Thus
the 	allegations 	of 	the 	complaint 	based 	upon 	these 	facts 	are
dismissed.
CONCLUSION
I 	thus 	find 	that 	the 	District 	discriminated 	against 	Lara
because 	of 	her 	protected 	activities 	when 	it 	transferred 	her
from 	her 	assignment 	at 	Blanchard 	School 	to 	a 	new 	assignment 	at
McKevett 	School. 	By 	this 	conduct, 	the 	District 	not 	only
violated 	the 	rights 	of 	employee 	Lara 	pursuant 	to 	section
3543.5 (a) 	of 	the 	EERA, 	but 	also 	interfered 	with 	the 	rights 	of
other 	employees 	pursuant 	to 	that 	section 	and 	denied 	and
interfered 	with 	the 	rights 	of 	CSEA 	pursuant 	to 	section
3543.5(b). 	Except 	as 	found 	above, 	all other 	allegations 	of 	the
complaint 	have 	not 	been proved 	and 	are 	dismissed.
REMEDY
The 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Act 	section 	3541.5(c)
provides 	that 	PERB 	shall 	have 	the power:
64
• 	• 	• 	to 	issue 	a 	decision 	and 	order
directing 	an 	offending 	party 	to 	cease 	and
desist 	from 	the 	unfair 	practice 	and 	take
such 	affirmative 	action, 	including 	but 	not
limited 	to 	the 	reinstatement 	of 	employees
with 	or 	without 	back 	pay 	as 	will 	effectuate
the policies 	of 	this chapter.

In 	cases 	involving 	unlawful 	discrimination, 	PERB 	has
repeatedly 	issued 	a 	cease 	and 	desist 	order 	against 	the 	unlawful
conduct 	and 	has 	ordered 	that 	the 	respondent 	take 	action 	to make
whole 	those 	injured 	by 	the 	discrimination 	by 	restoring 	any
benefits 	lost 	because 	of 	the 	unlawful 	conduct. 	In 	this 	regard,
restoration 	to 	positions 	from 	which 	employees 	had 	been
transferred 	or 	moved 	is 	an 	appropriate 	part 	of 	the 	remedy.
(See 	San 	Leandro 	Unified 	School 	District 	(2/24/83) 	PERB
Decision 	No. 	288 	at 	14-16; 	Marin 	Community 	College 	District
(11/19/80) 	PERB Decision No. 	145 at 19-20.)
In 	this 	instance 	the 	cease 	and 	desist 	order 	is 	necessary 	to
ensure 	that 	employees 	and 	employee 	organizations 	will 	be
guaranteed 	their 	statutory 	rights 	to 	take 	part 	in 	protected
activities 	and 	to 	otherwise 	engage 	in 	the 	representation 	of
employees 	provided 	by 	EERA. 	Such 	an 	order 	will 	demonstrate
that 	discriminatory 	conduct 	as 	evidenced 	in 	this 	case 	will 	not
be 	tolerated; 	will 	assure 	employees 	they 	need 	not 	fear
participation 	in 	protected 	activities; 	and 	will 	assist 	in
restoring 	the 	credibility of 	the 	employee 	organization.
In 	this 	case 	there 	is 	no 	evidence 	that 	Lara 	suffered 	any
detriment 	by 	virtue 	of 	the 	District's 	discriminatory 	transfer
nor 	is 	it 	clear 	that 	she 	wishes 	to 	return 	to 	the 	position 	from
which 	she 	was 	transferred. 	However, 	should 	she 	desire 	to
return 	to 	her 	prior 	position 	at 	Blanchard 	School, 	she 	should 	be
given 	the 	opportunity 	to 	do 	so. 	On 	the 	other 	hand, 	because
65

other 	employees 	are 	involved 	and 	the 	District 	must 	be 	given
some 	latitude 	in 	managing 	its 	business, 	the 	offer 	of
reinstatement 	should 	not 	remain 	open 	indefinitely. 	Thus, 	it 	is
appropriate 	that 	Lara 	make 	any 	request 	for 	reinstatement 	to 	her
prior 	position 	as 	aide 	at 	Blanchard 	School 	within 	thirty 	(30)
days 	after 	this 	order 	becomes 	final. 	If 	no 	such 	request 	is
made, 	then 	the 	District 	shall 	not 	be 	obligated 	to 	reinstate 	her
thereafter. 	Moreover, 	because 	this 	order 	may 	not 	become 	final
at 	the 	beginning 	of 	the 	school 	year 	and 	disruption may occur 	if
the 	District 	were 	required 	to 	reinstate 	Lara 	in 	the 	middle 	of
the 	school 	year, 	it 	is 	further 	appropriate 	that 	the
reinstatement 	should 	also 	coincide 	with 	the 	beginning 	of 	an
academic 	semester 	unless 	all 	parties 	agree 	to 	another 	time
period.
It 	is 	also 	appropriate 	that 	the 	District 	be 	required 	to
post 	a 	notice 	incorporating 	the 	terms 	of 	this 	order. 	The
notice 	should 	be 	subscribed 	by 	an 	authorized 	agent 	of 	the
District 	indicating 	that 	the 	Respondent 	will 	comply 	with 	'the
terms 	of 	the 	order. 	The 	notice 	shall 	not 	be 	reduced 	in 	size.
Posting 	such 	a 	notice 	will 	inform 	employees 	that 	the 	District
has 	acted 	in 	an 	unlawful 	manner 	and 	is 	being 	required 	to 	cease
and 	desist 	from 	this 	activity. 	The 	notice 	effectuates 	the
purpose 	of 	EERA 	that 	employees 	be 	informed 	of 	the 	resolution 	of
the 	controversy 	and 	that 	the 	Respondent 	announce 	its 	readiness
66

to 	comply 	with 	an 	ordered 	remedy. 	(See 	Placerville 	Union 	School
District 	(9/18/78) 	PERB 	Decision No. 	69.) 	In 	Pandol 	and 	Sons 	v.
ALRB 	and 	UFW 	(1979) 	98 	Cal.App.3d 	580, 	587, 	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 4 1 5 ] .
PROPOSED 	ORDER
Upon 	the 	foregoing 	findings 	of 	fact, 	conclusions 	of 	law, 	and
the 	entire 	record 	in 	this 	case, 	and 	pursuant 	to 	Government 	Code
section 	3541.5(c), 	it 	is 	hereby 	ordered 	that 	Santa 	Paula 	School
District 	and 	its 	representatives 	shall:
1. 	CEASE 	AND DESIST FROM:
(a) 	Restraining, 	discriminating 	against, 	or 	otherwise
interfering 	with 	the 	rights 	of 	employees 	and 	Rachael 	Lara
because 	of 	the 	exercise 	of 	their 	right 	to 	participate 	in 	an
activity 	protected 	by 	the 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Act.
(b) 	Denying 	California 	School 	Employees 	Association
and 	its 	Chapter 	Number 	497 	rights 	guaranteed 	by 	EERA.
2. 	TAKE 	THE 	FOLLOWING 	AFFIRMATIVE 	ACTIONS 	DESIGNED 	TO
EFFECTUATE 	THE 	POLICIES 	OF 	THE 	EERA:
(a) 	Upon 	request, 	but 	not 	later 	than 	30 	days
following 	the 	date 	when 	this 	order 	becomes 	final, 	reinstate
Rachael 	Lara 	to 	her 	former 	position 	at 	Blanchard 	Elementary
School 	effective 	the 	next 	semester 	following 	a 	timely 	request.
67

(b) 	Within 	five 	(5) 	workdays 	after 	this 	decision
becomes 	final, 	prepare 	and 	post 	copies 	of 	the 	NOTICE 	TO
EMPLOYEES 	attached 	as 	an 	appendix 	hereto, 	for 	at 	least 	thirty
(30) 	consecutive 	workdays 	at 	its 	headquarters 	offices 	and 	in
conspicuous 	places 	at 	the 	location 	where 	notices 	to 	classified
employees 	are 	customarily 	posted. 	The 	Notice 	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.
(c) 	Within 	twenty 	(20) 	workdays 	from 	service 	of 	the
final 	decision 	in 	this 	matter, 	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.
IT 	IS 	FURTHER 	ORDERED 	that 	all 	other 	aspects 	of 	the 	charge
and 	complaint 	are 	DISMISSED.
68

Pursuant 	to 	California 	Administrative 	Code, 	title 	8,
part 	III, 	section 	32305, 	this 	Proposed 	Decision 	and 	Order 	shall
become 	final 	on 	August 	15, 	1983, 	unless 	a 	party 	files 	a 	timely
statement 	of 	exceptions. 	In 	accordance 	with 	the 	rules, 	the
statement 	of 	exceptions 	should 	identify 	by 	page 	citation 	or
exhibit 	number 	the 	portions 	of 	the 	record 	relied 	upon 	for 	such
exceptions. 	See 	California 	Administrative 	Code, 	title 	8,
part 	III, 	section 	32300. 	Such 	statement 	of 	exceptions 	and
supporting 	brief 	must 	be 	actually 	received 	by 	the 	Public
Employment 	Relations 	Board 	itself 	at 	the 	headquarters 	office 	in
Sacramento 	before 	the 	close 	of 	business 	(5:00 	p.m.) 	on
August 	15, 	1983, 	or 	sent 	by 	telegraph 	or 	certified 	United
States 	mail, 	postmarked 	not 	later 	than 	the 	last 	day 	for 	filing
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 	concurrently
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, 	section 32300 and 32305.
Dated: 	July 26, 	1983
STEPHEN H. NAIMAN	
STEPH1!1'1
H.
	NAIMAN
Administrative 	Law 	Judge
69