California School Employees Association (Petrich) (PERB 0577E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
TONY PETRICH,
Charging 	Party,
v.
CALIFORNIA 	SCHOOL 	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION,
Respondent.
Case No. 	LA-CO-347
PERB Decision No. 	577
June 25, 	1986
Appearance: 	Tony Petrich, 	on his own behalf.
Before Hesse, 	Chairperson; Morgenstern, 	Burt, 	Porter and Craib,
Members.
DECISION
This 	case 	is before 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board
(Board) 	on appeal 	by Charging 	Party of 	the 	Board 	agent's
dismissal, 	attached hereto, 	of his 	charge 	alleging that 	the
California 	School 	Employees 	Association 	violated 	sections
3543.6(a) 	and 	(b) 	of 	the 	Educational 	Employment Relations Act
(Gov. Code sec. 	3540 et seq).
We have 	reviewed 	the dismissal 	and, 	finding 	it 	free 	from
prejudicial 	error, 	adopt 	it as 	the decision of 	the Board
itself, 	in that, 	as 	indicated 	in the Board agent's letter, 	the
charge 	failed 	to 	state 	a prima 	facie 	case.
ORDER
The unfair practice charge 	in Case No. 	LA-CO-347 	is
DISMISSED WITHOUT 	LEAVE 	TO AMEND.
By 	the 	BOARD.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_____________ )

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
HEADQUARTERS OFFICE
1031 18TH STREET
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 	95814
(916) 322-3088
March 28. 	1986
Mr. 	Tony Petrich
Re: 	Petrich v. 	California 	School 	Employees 	Association.
Case No. 	LA-CO-347
Dear Mr. 	Petrich:
You 	have 	filed 	a 	charge 	against 	the 	California 	School 	Employees
Association 	(CSEA) 	alleging 	that 	the 	Respondent 	has 	violated
the Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Act 	(EERA) 	by 	causing your
employer, 	the Riverside Unified 	School 	District, 	to 	distribute
to 	the 	employees 	a 	leaflet 	from CSEA 	endorsing 	a 	candidate 	for
the 	State 	Public 	Employees 	Retirement 	System.
In a 	letter 	dated March 19. 	1986. 	a 	copy of which 	is 	attached
hereto as Exhibit No. 	1. 	I 	advised you 	that, 	as 	presented, 	the
charge 	did 	not 	present 	a 	prima 	facie 	case 	of 	an EERA violation
and 	that 	unless 	you withdrew or 	amended 	the 	charge. 	I 	would
dismiss 	it. 	I 	have 	not 	received 	an amendment 	or 	a withdrawal,
and 	for 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	in my 	letter 	of March 	19. 	1986. 	I
am 	therefore 	dismissing 	the 	charge.
Pursuant 	to 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	regulation
section 	32635 	(California 	Administrative 	Code, 	title 	8.
part 	III), 	you may appeal 	the 	refusal 	to 	issue 	a 	complaint
(dismissal) 	to 	the Board 	itself.
Right 	to 	Appeal
You may 	obtain a 	review of 	this 	dismissal 	of 	the 	charge 	by
filing 	an 	appeal 	to 	the 	Board 	itself 	within 	twenty 	(20)
calendar 	days 	after 	service 	of 	this 	dismissal 	(section
32635(a)). 	To 	be 	timely filed, 	the 	original 	and 	five 	(5)
copies 	of 	such 	appeal 	must 	be 	actually 	received 	by 	the 	Board
itself 	before 	the 	close 	of 	business 	(5:00 	p.m.) 	on April 	17.
1986. 	or 	sent 	by 	telegraph 	or 	certified 	United 	States 	mail
postmarked 	not 	later 	than April 	17. 	1986 	(section 	32135). 	The
Board's 	address 	is:
Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board
1031 	18th 	Street
Sacramento. 	CA 95814

Mr. 	Tony Petrich
March 28. 	1986
Page 	2
If 	you 	file 	a 	timely appeal 	of 	the 	refusal 	to 	issue 	a
complaint, 	any 	other 	party may 	file 	with 	the 	Board 	an 	original
and 	five 	(5) 	copies 	of 	a 	statement 	in 	opposition within 	twenty
(20) 	calendar 	days 	following 	the 	date 	of 	service 	of 	the 	appeal
(section 32635(b)).
Service
All 	documents 	authorized 	to 	be 	filed 	herein must 	also 	be
"served" 	upon all 	parties 	to 	the 	proceeding, 	and 	a 	"proof 	of
service" 	must 	accompany 	each 	copy 	of 	a 	document 	served 	upon 	a
party or 	filed with 	the 	Board 	itself 	(see 	section 	32140 	for 	the
required 	contents 	and 	a 	sample 	form). 	The 	document will 	be
considered 	properly 	"served" 	when 	personally 	delivered 	or
deposited 	in 	the 	first-class 	mail 	postage 	paid 	and 	properly
addressed.
Extension 	of 	Time
A 	request 	for 	an 	extension 	of 	time 	in which 	to 	file 	a 	document
with 	the 	Board 	itself 	must 	be 	in writing 	and 	filed 	with 	the
Board 	at 	the 	previously 	noted 	address. 	A 	request 	for 	an
extension must 	be 	filed 	at 	least 	three 	(3) 	calendar 	days 	before
the 	expiration 	of 	the 	time 	required 	for 	filing 	the 	document.
The 	request 	must 	indicate 	good 	cause 	for 	and, 	if 	known, 	the
position 	of 	each 	other 	party 	regarding 	the 	extension, 	and 	shall
be 	accompanied 	by 	proof 	of 	service 	of 	the 	request 	upon 	each
party 	(section 32132).
Final 	Date
If 	no 	appeal 	is 	filed within the 	specified 	time 	limits, 	the
dismissal 	will 	become 	final 	when 	the 	time 	limits 	have 	expired.
Very 	truly 	yours.
JEFFREY 	SLOAN
Acting 	General 	Counsel
By Jorge Ledn
Staff 	Attorney
4289d

STATE Of CALIFORNIA 	GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN. Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
HEADQUARTERS OFFICE
1031 18TH STREET
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 	95814
(916) 322-3088
March 19, 1986
Mr. 	Tony Petrich
Re: 	Petrich v. 	California School Employees Association.
Case No. LA-CO-347
Dear Mr. Petrich:
You have 	filed a charge against 	the California School Employees
Association 	(CSEA) 	alleging that 	the Respondent has violated
the Educational Employment Relations Act 	(EERA) 	by causing your
employer, 	the Riverside Unified School District, 	to distribute
to 	the employees 	a 	leaflet from CSEA endorsing a 	candidate for
the 	State Public Employees Retirement System.
The charge alleges that on November 	6. 	1985.
Mr. 	Phillip Hodnett. 	plant supervisor at North High School,
handed you an official 	ballot for 	the December election of 	a
member-at-large representative 	for 	the Public Employees
Retirement System and at 	the 	same 	time handed you a memorandum
dated November 	5 	from Evelyn Johnson endorsing candidate
William Ellis for reelection. 	Ms. 	Johnson is described as an
"agent of 	the California School Employees Association." 	She
was 	CSEA's 	representative 	to 	the District Safety Committee
during that 	time. 	The ballot came with an envelope 	into which
the employee could 	insert 	the voted ballot and was 	to be mailed
directly to PERS for tallying.
Mr. 	Hodnett. 	your supervisor did not say anything to you at
that time concerning the ballot, 	the memorandum, 	or the
election. 	While you do not possess 	information to 	the effect
that the District staff 	distributed Johnson's memo to other
employees, 	you assume that such is the case. 	You allege that
CSEA's conduct 	(1) 	coerces the employees 	in their exercise of
rights and 	(2) 	caused the District to violate 3543.5.
Analysis
Government Code section 3543.6 provides 	in relevant part:
It 	shall 	be unlawful for an employee
organization to:
EXHIBIT 1

Mr. 	Tony Petrich
March 19, 1986
Page 2
(a) 	Cause or attempt to cause a public
school employer 	to violate Section 3543.5.
(b) 	Impose or 	threaten to 	impose reprisals
on employees, 	to discriminate or 	threaten to
discriminate against employees, 	or otherwise
to interfere with, 	restrain, 	or coerce
employees 	because of 	their exercise of
rights 	guaranteed 	by this 	chapter.
The coercive effect of 	the CSEA's conduct 	is not apparent.
Mr. Hodnett, 	an agent of the District in his capacity as
supervisor, 	handed you a ballot and a 	leaflet apparently
authored 	by a 	representative of 	the 	local 	CSEA chapter. 	Many
school employers, 	as part of 	their obligation to afford
"access" 	by the labor organization to the employees, 	routinely
distribute leaflets, memoranda, mail etc., 	directed by the
organization to the employees.
The ballot, 	once filled out by the employee was 	to be returned
directly 	to 	the 	Public Employees 	Retirement 	System 	— 	not 	to
the employer. 	You do not allege that Mr. 	Hodnett said anything
to you about your voting preference or 	about 	the 	leaflet from
Johnson. 	The leaflet, while endorsing Williams, 	did not
request 	any direct 	response 	from the voting employee. 	You do
not allege 	that 	there was 	any mechanism by which either 	the
District 	or 	the CSEA could 	learn what an employee's vote would
have been.
Under these circumstances, 	the employee would be free to accept
the ballot and read 	it or 	ignore 	it. 	The employee was free to
accommodate Johnson's endorsement or 	to reject 	it. 	The
employee 	could 	exercise his/her voting privilege or 	forego 	it.
In short, 	the Johnson memo did not 	in any way appear 	to
reasonably affect 	the employees' 	exercise of free choice in the
election. 	For 	these reasons, 	the charge does not demonstrate a
prima facie case of 	coerce conduct on the part of 	CSEA.
Regarding the allegation that CSEA's 	conduct caused 	or was an
attempt 	to cause the employer 	to violate the EERA, 	there does
not appear 	to be a 	prima facie case of 	such a violation
stated. 	The election for 	member-at-large of 	the Public
Employees Retirement System does 	not 	relate 	to 	any 	issue
present 	in the 	typical 	employer-employee 	relationship. 	The
conduct 	of 	the District 	in handing you 	(and perhaps 	other

Mr. 	Tony Petrich
March 19, 1986
Page 3
employees) 	a copy of 	the Johnson memo does not appear 	to
constitute 	coercion or 	interference against you by the
District. 	As 	stated earlier 	the balloting process 	in this
election is 	such that the employees' 	preferences for 	the
candidates were not to be disclosed to the employer. 	And. 	you
do 	not 	allege 	that when he handed you 	the 	ballot and 	the memo,
Mr. 	Hodnett said anything to you about the matter. 	Thus, 	there
does not appear to be any coercion, 	restraint, 	or 	interference
on the part of 	the employer against you or 	any other employee.
For these reasons, 	charge number LA-CO-347. 	as presently
written, 	does not state a prima facie case. 	If you feel that
there are any factual 	inaccuracies 	in this 	letter 	or any
additional 	facts which would 	correct 	the 	deficiencies 	explained
above, 	please amend the charge accordingly. 	The amended charge
should 	be 	prepared 	on a 	standard PERB unfair 	practice 	charge
form clearly 	labeled First Amended Charge, 	contain all 	the
facts and allegations you wish to make, 	and be signed under
penalty of 	perjury by the 	charging party. 	The amende
-d 	charge
must be served on the respondent and the original 	proof 	of
service must be filed with PERB. 	If 	I do not receive an
amended charge or withdrawal from you before March 27, 	1986, 	I
shall dismiss your charge. 	If you have any questions on how to
proceed, 	please call me at 	(916) 	323-8015.
Sincerely yours.
Jorge 	Leon
Staff Attorney
4223d