United Teachers Los Angeles (Bracey) (PERB 0616E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
GLADYS M. 	BRACEY,
Charging 	Party,
v.
UNITED 	TEACHERS 	LOS 	ANGELES,
Respondent.
Case No. 	LA-CO-365
PERB Decision No. 	616
March 27, 	1987
Appearance: 	Gladys M. 	Bracey, 	on her own behalf.
Before Hesse, 	Chairperson; 	Porter and Craib, 	Members.
DECISION AND 	ORDER
This 	case 	is before 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board
(Board) 	on 	appeal 	by charging party of 	the 	Board 	agent's
dismissal, 	attached hereto, 	of her 	charge 	alleging 	that 	the
United 	Teachers-Los 	Angeles 	violated 	the 	Educational 	Employment
Relations Act sections 3543.6(a), 	(b), 	(c), 	and (d). 	We have
reviewed 	the 	dismissal 	and 	adopt 	it 	as 	the 	Decision 	of 	the
Board 	itself.
The 	unfair practice 	charge 	in Case No. 	LA-CO-365 	is hereby
DISMISSED WITHOUT 	LEAVE 	TO AMEND.
By 	the 	BOARD.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

• STATE Of CALIFORNIA 	GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN.
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	R E L A T I O N S 	BOARD
SACRAMENTO REGIONAL OFFICE
1031 18TH STREET. SUITE 102
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 	95814
322-3198
September 30, 1986
Gladys M. Bracey
BE: 	Gladys M. Bracey v. United Teachers - Los Angeles,
Case No. LA-C0-365, First Amended Charge, Dismissal
Dear Ms. Bracey:
The above-referenced charge, as well as the First Amended Charge, alleges
that the United Teachers — Los Angeles (UTLA) failed to represent you in
several matters pertaining to your employment with the Los Angeles
Unified School District (District). 	This conduct is alleged to violate
Government Code sections 3543.6(a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Educational
Employment Relations Act (EERA).
In a letter dated July 17, 1986, Regional Attorney Barbara Stuart
indicated to you that the original charge did not state a prima facie
case. 	You were advised that if there were any factual inaccuracies or
additional facts which would correct the deficiencies explained in the
letter, you should amend the charge accordingly. 	You were further
advised that unless you amended the charge to state a prima facie case,
or withdrew it prior to July 24, 1986, it would be dismissed. 	On
July 25, 1986, not having heard from you, Ms. Stuart dismissed the
charge. 	However, that dismissal was set aside on July 28, 1986 upon your
request to Ms. Stuart, who gave you until August 6, 1986 to file an
amendment.
This office received a First Amended Charge on August 6, 1986,
reiterating these allegations which were also contained in the original
charge: 	(1) in January 1985, UTLA representative Roger Segure failed to
honor a request that he come to Widney High School where Charging Party
worked to provide assistance in a meeting involving teleclass teachers,
(2) in April 16, 1985 Segure filed a grievance on Charging Party's behalf
to compel the District to conform to the requirements of Education Code
Section 44942 but did not give Charging Party a copy of that statute
until June 20, 1985 after Charging Party made several requests, (3) on or
about mid-October 1985, Charging Party contacted Segure twice to inquire
why her pay check did not contain full pay and he refused to talk to her
and told her to talk to UTLA's attorney Lawrence B. Trygstad, and (4) on
or about April 2, 1986, Charging Party contacted another UTLA attorney,
Richard J. Schwab, regarding her pay and he "never called back . . 	. and

Gladys M. Bracey
September 30, 1986
Page 2
failed to let me know that I could file an appeal within six month
[sic]. 	No new information regarding these original four allegations
have been provided in the First Amendment.
The First Amended Charge adds that: 	(5) you were "assaulted again"
because you filed charges with the State Compensation Board and (6) your
medical records have been changed. 	No further information is provided
concerning these allegations.
With respect to the first four allegations, the First Amended Charge does
not provide any further information to correct the deficiencies explained
in Ms. Stuart's letter to you of July 17, 1986. 	Therefore, that portion
of the charge must be dismissed.
Moreover, the First Amendment fails to provide sufficient further
information to present a prima facie case of an EERA violation in the two
new allegations. 	Section 32615(a)(5) of PERB's regulations provides that
a charge must contain:
A clear and concise statement of the facts and conduct
alleged to constitute an unfair practice.
The First Amendment fails to provide fundamental information concerning
who is allegedly responsible for the assault and the change in your
medical records and when these events allegedly occurred. 	From the total
context of the original charge, the supporting exhibits and the First
Amendment, it appears that both the alleged assault conduct and the
change of medical records are attributable to the District or its
agents—and not to UTLA.
For these reasons and for the reasons explained in Ms. Stuart's July 17
letter, 	First Amended Charge No. LA-CO-363 is dismissed.
Right to Appeal
Pursuant to Public Employment Relations Board regulations, you may obtain
a review of this partial dismissal of the charge by filing an appeal to
the Board itself within twenty (20) calendar days after service of this
dismissal (California Administrative Code, title 8, section 32635(a)).
To be timely filed, the original and five copies of such appeal must be
actually received by the Board itself before the close of business
(5:00 p.m.) or sent by telegraph, certified or Express United States mail
postmarked not later than the last day set for filing (section 32135).
Code of Civil Procedure section 1013 shall apply. 	The Board's address is:
Public Employment Relations Board
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814

Gladys M. Bracey
September 30, 1986
Page 3
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 copies of a
statement in opposition within twenty 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 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.
Sincerely,
JEFFREY SLOAN
General Counsel
By:.
Jorge 	Jorge Leon
Regional 	Attorney
Attachment
cc: 	Helena Sunny Wise, Esq.
Jo/le n
y

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN. Governor
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
LOS ANGELES REGIONAL OFFICE
3470 WILSHIRE BLVD.. SUITE 1001
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90010
(213) 726-3127
July 25, 	1986
Gladys M. 	Bracey
3840 Virginia 	Road
Los Angeles, 	CA 	90008
Re: 	LA-CO-365, Gladys M. Bracey v.
United Teachers - 	Los 	Angeles
DISMISSAL 	OF UNFAIR PRACTICE CHARGE
Dear Ms. Bracey:
The above-referenced charge alleges that the United Teachers -
Los Angeles 	(UTLA) 	failed to fairly represent you 	in several
matters pertaining to your employment with the Los Angeles
Unified School District 	(District). 	This conduct 	is alleged to
violate Government Code sections 3543.6 (a) , 	(b) , 	(c) 	and 	(d) 	of
the Educational Employment Relations Act 	(EERA).
I indicated to you in my attached letter dated July 17, 	1986
that 	the above-referenced charge did not state a prima 	facie
case. 	You were advised that if there were any factual
inaccuracies or additional 	facts which would correct the
deficiencies explained in that l e t t e r , 	you should amend the
charge accordingly. 	You were further advised that unless you
amended the charge to state a prima facie case, 	or withdrew it
prior to July 24, 	1986, 	it would be dismissed.
I have not received either 	a request for withdrawal or an
amended charge and am therefore dismissing the charge based on
the facts and reasons contained in my July 17, 	1986 	letter.
Right to Appeal
Pursuant to Public Employment Relations Board regulations, 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 	(California Administrative
Code, 	t i t l e 8, 	section 32635(a)). 	To be timely filed, 	the
original and five copies of such appeal must be actually
received by the Board 	itself before 	the close of business
(5:00 p.m.) 	on August 14, 	1986, 	or sent by telegraph, certified
or Express United States mail postmarked not later 	than
August 14, 1986 (section 32135). 	The Board's address is:
Public Employment Relations Board
1031 	18th 	Street
Sacramento, 	CA 95814

July 25, 	1986
DISMISSAL OF 	UPC
LA-CO-355
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 copies 	of 	a 	statement 	in opposition within 	twenty
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 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.
Sincerely,
JEFFREY 	SLOAN
General 	Counsel
Barbara T. 	Stuart
Regional Attorney
BTS:eb
Attachment
cc: 	Helena Sunny Wise, 	Esq.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
LOS ANGELES REGIONAL OFFICE
3450 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1001
Los Angeles, CALIFORNIA 	90010
(213)736-3127
July 17, 	1986
Gladys M. 	Bracey
Re: 	LA-CO-355, Gladys M. 	Bracey v. 	United Teachers -
Los Angeles
Dear Ms. Bracey:
The above-referenced charge alleges that the United Teachers -
Los Angeles 	(UTLA) 	failed to fairly represent you 	in several
matters pertaining to your employment with the Los Angeles
Unified School District 	(District). 	This conduct 	is alleged to
violate Government Code sections 3543.6 (a), 	(b), 	(c) 	and 	(d) 	of
the Educational Employment Relations Act 	(EERA).
As background, 	it 	is noted that a complaint and partial
dismissal of an unfair practice charge issued on May 1, 	1986 	i n
a related case against the District. 	Gladys M. Bracey v.
Los Angeles Unified School District, LA-CE-2307. 	The partial
dismissal was appealed to the Board. 	The complaint alleged
that the District placed Charging Party on unpaid mandatory
sick leave for a two year period pursuant to Education Code
section 44942 	because 	of her 	alleged protected activities.1
1Education 	Code section 449 42 provides in pertinent part:
Suspension or transfer of certificated employees on ground of
mental illness: 	Psychiatric examination: 	Mandatory sick
leave. 	(a) Any certificated employee may be suspended or
transferred to other duties by the governing board 	if 	the board
has reasonable cause to believe that the employee is suffering
from mental illness of such a degree as to render him
incompetent to perform his duties.
(b) 	The governing board shall forthwith, 	upon any suspension or
transfer hereunder, 	give to the employee a written statement of
the 	facts giving rise 	to the board's belief, 	and an opportunity
to appear before the board within 10 days to explain or 	refute
the charges.
(c) 	If, 	after 	the employee's appearance before the board, 	the
board decides to continue 	the suspension or 	transfer, 	or 	if the
employee chooses not 	to appear before the board, 	the employee
shall 	then be offered, 	in writing, 	the opportunity of being
examined by a panel of three psychiatrists selected by him from

a 	list 	of 	psychiatrists 	to 	be 	provided 	by 	the 	board. 	To 	assist
the 	panel 	in 	making 	their 	determination, 	the 	governing 	board
shall 	supply 	to 	the 	panel, 	prior 	to 	the date 	scheduled 	for 	the
psychiatric 	examination, 	a 	list 	of 	the 	duties 	of 	the 	position
from 	which 	the 	employee 	was 	suspended 	or 	transferred. 	The
employee 	shall 	continue 	to 	receive 	his 	regular 	salary 	and 	all
other 	benefits 	of 	employment 	during 	the 	period 	dating 	from his
suspension 	to 	the 	filing 	of 	the 	report 	of 	the 	panel 	with 	the
governing 	board.
(d) 	The 	psychiatric 	examination 	shall 	be 	conducted 	at 	school
district 	expense 	within 	15 	days 	of 	any 	suspension 	or 	transfer
ordered 	hereunder. 	The 	employee 	shall 	submit 	to 	the
examination, 	but 	shall 	be 	entitled 	to 	be 	represented 	by 	a
psychiatrist 	or 	physician 	of 	his 	own choice, 	and 	any 	report 	of
the 	psychiatrist 	or 	physician 	selected 	by 	him 	shall 	be 	filed
with 	the 	panel 	at 	the 	request 	of 	the 	employee.
A 	written 	report 	of 	the 	panel 	on 	the 	examination 	of 	the
suspended 	or 	transferred 	employee 	shall 	be 	submitted 	to 	the
governing 	board 	within 	10 	days 	after 	completion 	of 	the
examination. 	A copy 	shall 	be 	supplied 	to 	the 	employee 	upon
request. 	The 	report 	shall 	contain 	a 	finding 	on 	whether 	the
employee 	is 	suffering 	from 	mental 	illness 	of 	such 	a 	degree 	as
to 	render 	him 	incompetent 	to 	perform 	his 	duties.
(e) 	If 	a 	majority 	of 	the 	panel conclude 	that 	the 	employee
should 	be 	permitted 	to 	return 	to 	his 	duties, 	no 	written 	record
of 	the 	suspension 	or 	of 	the 	determination 	of 	the 	panel 	shall 	be
retained, 	and 	in 	all 	respects 	any 	written 	record 	concerning 	the
employee 	shall 	appear 	as 	it 	did 	before 	the 	suspension 	was 	made.
(f) 	If 	a 	majority 	of 	the 	panel 	find 	in 	their 	report 	that 	the
employee 	is 	suffering 	from mental 	illness 	of 	such 	a 	degree 	as
to 	render 	him 	incompetent 	to 	perform his 	duties, 	the 	governing
board 	may, 	upon 	receipt 	of 	the 	report, 	place 	the 	employee 	on
mandatory 	sick 	leave 	of 	absence. 	Any mandatory 	sick 	leave 	of
absence 	imposed 	under 	this 	section 	shall 	not 	exceed 	two 	years,
during 	which 	period 	the 	employee 	shall 	be 	entitled 	to 	sick
leave, 	hospital 	and 	medical 	benefits 	which 	he 	accrued 	during
his 	employment 	by 	the 	governing 	board 	but 	only 	to 	the 	extent 	of
such accrual. 	. 	. 	.
July 	17, 	1986
LA-CO-365
Page 	2
The 	partial 	dismissal 	explained 	that 	the 	Public 	Employment
Relations 	Board 	(PERB) 	does 	not 	have 	jurisdiction 	to 	remedy
alleged 	noncompliance 	with 	Education 	Code 	provisions.
The 	current 	charge 	alleges 	that 	(1) 	in 	January 	1985, 	UTLA
representative 	Roger 	Segure 	failed 	to 	come 	to 	Widney 	High
School 	where 	Charging 	Party 	worked 	to provide 	assistance 	in 	a
..

meetinq 	involving 	teleclsss teachers, 	(2) 	in April 	16, 	1985
Segure 	filed 	a 	grievance 	on 	Charging 	Party's 	behalf 	to 	compel
the 	District 	to 	conform 	to 	the 	requirements 	of 	section 	44942
but 	did 	not 	give 	Charging 	Party 	a 	copy of 	that 	statute 	until
June 	20, 	1935 	after 	Charging 	Party made several 	requests, 	(3)
on 	or 	about 	mid-October 	1985, 	Charging 	Party contacted 	Segure
twice 	to 	inquire 	why 	her 	pay 	check 	did 	not contain 	full pay 	and
he 	refused 	to 	talk 	to 	her 	and 	told 	her 	to 	talk 	to UTLA's
attorney Lawrence B. 	Trygstad, 	and 	(4) 	on or about April 2,
1986, 	Charging 	Party contacted 	another UTLA attorney, 	Richard
J. 	Schwab, 	regarding 	her pay and he 	"never called back 	. 	. 	.
and 	failed 	to 	let 	me 	know that 	I 	could 	file 	an appeal within
six 	month 	[sic]."
July 17, 	1935
LA-CO-36 5
Page 	3
Statute 	of 	Limitations
Government Code 	section 	3541.5(a) 	provides 	that 	PERB 	"shall not
. 	. 	. 	issue a complaint 	in respect of any charge 	based upon an
alleged 	unfair 	practice 	occurring 	more 	than 	six 	months prior 	to
the 	filing 	of 	the 	charge." 	See 	also San Dieguito Union High
School District 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	184. 	The charge 	in
this case was 	filed on April 	30, 	1986. 	The 	six-month
limitations period began on October 	30, 	1985. 	Therefore, 	the
first 	three matters 	mentioned 	above 	cannot be 	the 	basis 	of 	a
complaint and 	will 	be dismissed.
Representation 	on 	Section 	44942 	Matter
Regarding 	the 	fourth 	matter 	mentioned 	above, 	my 	investigation
revealed 	the 	following 	background 	history 	and 	facts. 	In
approximately 	early April 	1985 	the 	District 	attempted 	to
dismiss 	Charging 	Party 	from employment as 	a 	teacher 	without
following 	Education Code 	section 	44942. 	Charging 	Party went 	to
UTLA 	for 	representation 	and 	UTLA 	representative 	Roger 	Segure
filed 	a grievance 	on 	her 	behalf 	to compel 	the District 	to
follow correct 	procedures 	under 	section 	44942.
On or 	about May 	27, 	1985, 	the police delivered to Charging
Party's 	husband 	at her 	home a 	letter dated May 	20, 	1985 which
read:
Dear Ms. 	Bracey:
As 	set 	forth 	in 	the 	letter 	to you dated
May 	13, 	1985, 	the Board 	of 	Education 	has
voted 	to 	suspend 	you 	from 	service 	until
completion 	of 	the procedure 	set 	forth 	in
Education Code 	section 	44942.
•.

July 17, 	1986
LA-CO-365
Page 4
This 	is 	to 	confirm that 	the 	aforementioned
letter 	advised 	you 	of 	an 	examination 	that
has 	been 	scheduled 	for 	you 	at 	1:00 p.m. 	on
Tuesday, 	May 28, 	1985 at the medical offices
located 	at 	610 S. 	Euclid Avenue, 	Pasadena,
California 	91106.
As 	you 	were 	informed 	in 	the 	letter 	of
May 13, the Education Code provides 	that 	the
examination 	is 	to be conducted by 	three 	(3)
psychiatrists 	selected 	by you 	from the
following 	list:
1. 	R. 	Sloan, M.D.
2. 	R. 	Burgoyne, M.D.
3. 	Barry Kramer, 	M.D.
4. 	Tim Bottelo, M.D.
5. 	Javad Razani, M.D.
It 	is 	important 	that you contact me 	by May
23, 	1985 to 	indicate the doctors you have
selected. 	My 	telephone 	number 	is 	(213)
625-6245, 	and my mailing 	address 	is
450 North Grand Avenue, 	Los Angeles,
California 90012.
Very 	truly 	yours,
Robert Witter, 	Director
Employee 	Services 	Section
Personnel 	Division
Charging 	Party did 	not 	contact Witter 	or 	otherwise 	respond 	to
the 	letter. 	Subsequently 	she 	received 	from 	the District 	three
paychecks which 	she describes 	as 	"half pay."
The District 	states 	that 	the checks were payment 	for 	690 	hours
of 	accrued 	sick 	leave. 	The 	District placed 	Charging 	Party on
unpaid mandatory 	sick 	leave effective 	June 	4, 	1985 	for 	a two.
year period ending 	June 	3, 	1987. 	This was done when 	she 	failed
to 	submit 	to 	the 	psychiatric 	evaluation pursuant 	to Education
Code 	section 	44942.
On June 	12, 	1985, 	Segure 	sent a 	letter to Witter 	advising him
to 	send 	all communication 	regarding 	Charging 	Party's 	case 	to
UTLA 	attorney 	Lawrence B. 	Trygstad 	"who 	will 	represent 	Ms.
Bracey 	in all matters pertaining 	to Education Code 	44942."
Charging 	Party 	received 	a copy 	of 	this 	letter.

July 17, 19 86
LA-CO-365
Page 	5
On July 	3, 	1985, 	attorney Richard J. 	Schwab of Trygstad's
office 	sent 	a 	letter 	to Witter 	asking 	him to provide 	"an update
concerning 	the 	status 	of 	this 	matter." 	Charging 	Party 	received
a copy of 	this 	letter.
On or 	about 	July 	24, 	1985 Charging 	Party 	received 	the 	following
letter 	from 	Trygstad:
Dear Ms. 	Bracey:
As you are aware Mr. 	Roger Segure, 	Director,
Grievance 	Processing 	at 	UTLA has 	referred
your grievance 	to this office. 	In turn,
Richard J. 	Schwab, 	an attorney who also 	has
expertise 	in education matters, 	has been
assigned 	and 	is 	familiar 	with your case.
Additionally Mr. 	Schwab has 	litigating
experience 	and 	has 	handled 	many 	cases
similar 	to 	your 	present one.
Accordingly please contact Mr. 	Schwab at
your 	earliest convenience 	in order 	that 	he
may 	immediately 	proceed 	with 	your
representation. 	Mr. 	Roger Segure 	is aware
and confers 	[sic] 	that. Mr. Schwab is the
appropriate 	attorney 	to 	assist you
throughout 	this matter.
Very 	truly yours,
LAWRENCE B. 	TRYGSTAD
Attorney 	at 	Law
Charging 	Party 	did 	not 	contact 	Schwab because 	she 	wished 	to 	be
represented 	by 	Trygstad 	because 	of prior 	experiences with UTLA.
On August 	8, 	1985, 	Schwab mailed Charging 	Party 	the 	following
letter 	which 	she 	does not 	recall 	receiving:
Dear Ms. Bracey:
In 	that 	I 	have 	been unable 	to contact 	you by
telephone, 	please call my office 	in order
that 	we can prepare 	for 	your case.
I 	look 	forward 	to 	hearing 	from you 	in 	the
near 	future.
Very 	truly 	yours,
RICHARD J. 	SCHWAB

July 17, 	1986
LA-CO-365
Page 	6
On or 	about September 	23, 	1985, 	Schwab mailed Charging 	Party
the 	following 	letter 	which 	she 	also 	does 	not 	recall 	receiving
..
Dear Ms. 	Bracey:
This 	is 	a 	follow-up to our 	letter of 	.
August 	8, 	1985. 	Since we have been unable
to contact you by telephone, 	please call our
office 	in order 	that we can prepare 	for 	your
case.
As you 	are 	aware, 	UTLA has 	authorized 	this
firm 	to 	assist 	and oversee 	that 	the District
takes 	the 	appropriate 	steps 	to 	comply with
Education 	Code 	Section 	44942 	regarding 	your
leave.
Unless 	we 	otherwise hear 	from you, 	it will
be 	our 	assumption 	that you do 	not desire 	the
assistance 	of 	our 	office 	concerning 	the
above matter.
I 	look 	forward 	to 	hearing 	from you 	in 	the
very 	near 	future.
Very 	truly yours,
RICHARD J. 	SCHWAB
Attorney 	at 	Law
In 	September 	1985 	Charging 	Party 	called UTLA's 	legal 	office 	and
requested 	that 	Trygstad 	represent 	her, 	but was 	advised 	that 	she
must 	work 	with Schwab. 	She declined 	to 	do 	so.
All of 	the 	foregoing 	events occurred prior 	to 	the 	six-month
statutory 	limitations period. 	From October 	30, 	1985 until
April 1986, Charging 	Party 	states 	that 	she 	did 	not 	call 	Schwab
because 	she 	did 	not 	want his 	representation 	and 	Schwab did 	not
call her.
Then, 	on or 	about April 	2, 	1986, 	Charging 	Party did call Schwab
because 	the 	District 	advised her 	that 	it 	would 	no 	longer 	pay
for 	her 	health 	benefits. 	Schwab 	then wrote 	a 	letter 	on April
3, 	1986 	to Witter 	asking 	for 	an update concerning 	the 	status 	of
Charging 	Party's 	case. 	She 	received 	a copy 	of 	this 	letter. 	On
April 	21, 	1986 Witter 	advised 	that Charging 	Party 	remained on
mandatory 	sick 	leave pursuant to 	section 	44942 	because 	the
District had 	not 	received a response 	to 	its May 	20, 	1985 	letter
quoted 	above.

July 17, 	1986
LA-CC-3S5
Page 	7
On 	or 	about 	April 	22, 	1986 	Charging 	Party 	received 	from Schwab
a 	letter 	advising 	her 	of 	various 	legal options 	available 	to her
including 	an 	appeal 	under 	section 	44942, 	a one-time 	request for
illness 	benefits 	under 	the collective 	bargaining 	agreement
between 	the 	District 	and UTLA, 	and 	service 	retirement with
insurance benefits. 	She did not 	respond 	to 	this 	letter 	and on
May 	15, 	1986, 	Schwab sent her 	another 	letter 	requesting 	that
she call 	his office 	to discuss 	the 	options. 	She did contact
Schwab at 	this 	time 	and 	requested 	him 	to 	seek 	the 	one-time
contractual 	illness 	benefits. 	He did 	so 	by a 	letter dated May
19, 	1936 	to Witter on her behalf.
Charging 	Party's 	now remains on mandatory 	sick 	leave. 	She
states 	that 	she will continue 	to 	refuse 	to 	submit to 	the
psychiatric examination mandated 	by 	section 	44942 	because 	it 	is
an 	invasion of her 	right to privacy. 	She 	requests
reinstatement 	to her 	teaching position as 	a 	remedy 	in this
matter.
Government Code 	section 	3544.9 provides:
The 	employee 	organization 	recognized 	or
certified 	as 	the 	exclusive 	representative
for 	the purpose 	of meeting 	and negotiating
shall 	fairly 	represent each 	and 	every
employee 	in 	the appropriate 	unit.
The 	duty 	of 	fair 	representation extends 	to contract negotiations
and 	contract 	administration, 	including 	grievance 	handling.
SEIU, 	Local 99 	(Kimmett) 	(1979) 	PERB Decision No. 	106; 	El
Centro Elementary Teachers Association 	(Willis) 	(1982) 	PERB
Decision No. 	232; 	United Teachers of Los Angeles 	(Collins)
(1983) 	PERB Decision No. 	258. 	As to matters which do not
involve 	the 	employer 	or which 	are 	strictly 	internal 	union
matters, 	only 	those 	activities that have a substantial 	impact
on 	the 	relationship of 	unit members 	to 	their 	employer 	are
subject 	to the duty of 	fair 	representation. 	SEIU, 	Local 	99
(Kimmett), 	supra; 	El Centro Elementary Teachers Association
(Willis) , 	supra; Fontana Teachers Association (1984) 	PERB
Decision No. 	416. 	A charging party must demonstrate 	that the
employee 	organization acted arbitrarily, 	discriminatorily or 	in
bad 	faith. 	Fremont Unified School District 	Teachers 	•.
Association 	(King) 	(1980) 	PERB Decision No. 	125. 	To show
arbitrary 	conduct 	violative 	of 	the 	duty 	of 	fair 	representation
the charging party 	"must, 	at a minimum, 	include 	an assertion of
sufficient 	facts 	from which 	it becomes 	apparent 	how or 	in what
manner 	the 	exclusive 	representative's 	action or 	inaction was
without 	a 	rational 	basis or 	devoid 	of 	honest 	judgment." 	Reed
District Teachers Association, 	CTA/NEA 	(Reyes) 	(1983) 	PERB
Decision No. 	332. 	Mere negligence or poor 	judgment 	in the

handling 	of 	a matter 	does 	not constitute 	a 	breach 	of 	the duty
of 	fair 	representation. 	United Teachers 	of 	Los Angeles
(Collins), 	supra.
July 17, 	1936
LA-CO-365
Page 	8
Under 	these 	standards, 	it 	is 	found 	that Charging 	Party 	has
failed 	to 	allege 	a prima 	facie 	case 	that 	UTLA 	breached 	its duty
of 	fair 	representation. 	Based 	on 	the 	facts 	recited 	above,
there 	is 	no evidence 	of 	arbitrary, 	discriminatory or 	bad 	faith
conduct on 	the 	part 	of 	UTLA and 	its 	attorney 	within 	the
statutory 	six-month period. 	In his September 	23, 	1985 	letter,
Schwab 	informed 	Charging 	Party 	that 	she 	must 	contact 	him or 	he
would 	assume 	that 	she 	did 	not wish 	representation 	on 	the
section 	44942 	matter. 	Having 	written 	that 	letter 	following 	the
July 	24 and August 	8, 	1985 letters, 	Schwab reasonably assumed
she did not wish 	to 	pursue 	the matter.
Charging 	Party 	states 	that 	she did 	not wish 	representation from
Schwab 	and 	for 	that 	reason did 	not contact 	him herself 	until
April 	1986. 	Charging 	Party 	is thus essentially alleging 	that
UTLA violated 	its 	duty of 	fair 	representation 	toward 	her 	by
failing 	to 	provide 	her 	with the 	attorney 	of 	her 	choice.
However, 	this 	is 	an 	internal union matter. 	Further> 	an
employee 	organization's denial of 	a member's 	request for 	a
particular 	attorney, 	without more, 	does not establish
arbitrary, 	discriminatory or 	bad 	faith conduct on the part of
the 	employee 	organization.
The 	undisputed 	facts 	indicate 	that 	when Charging 	Party 	finally
did 	contact 	Schwab 	in April 	1986 he 	immediately 	reopened 	her
case, 	advised 	the 	District, 	and 	notified 	her 	of 	the 	available
3.egal 	options 	including 	an appeal under 	section 	44942.
Charging 	Party 	continues 	to 	seek 	reinstatement 	to 	her 	teaching
position 	without 	submitting 	to 	the 	examination procedures 	set
forth 	in 	section 	44942. 	However, 	the District has the 	right to
require 	this 	examination. 	Charging 	Party 	has 	not 	established 	a
prima 	facie 	case 	that UTLA failed to 	fairly 	represent her 	in
this matter.
Alleged Violations of Sections 3543.5(a), 	(c) 	and 	(d)
Failure 	of 	the 	duty of 	fair 	representation would 	involve 	a
violation of 	section 	3543.5(b). 	Charging 	Party has
additionally alleged violations of sections 3543.5(a), 	(c) 	and
(d) . 	These sections provide:
It 	shall 	be 	unlawful 	for 	an employee 	organization
to:
(a) 	Cause 	or 	attempt 	to cause 	a public 	school
employer 	to 	violate 	Section 	3543.5.
• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	•

July 17, 	1986
LA-CO-365
Page 	9
(c) 	Refuse 	or 	fail 	to meet 	and 	negotiate 	in good
faith 	with 	a 	public 	school 	employer 	of 	any 	of 	the
employees 	of 	which 	it 	is 	the 	exclusive
representative.
(d) 	Refuse 	to participate 	in good 	faith 	in 	the
impasse 	procedure 	set 	forth 	in Article 	9
(commencing 	with Section 3548) .
None 	of 	the 	facts 	alleged 	in 	the charge 	or 	learned 	during 	the
investigation 	of 	the 	charge 	are 	relevant 	to 	violations 	of 	these
sections. 	Therefore, 	the 	allegations 	that UTLA violated
sections 	3543.5(a), 	(c) 	and 	(d) 	will be dismissed.
Opportunity 	to 	Amend
For 	these 	reasons, 	the 	charge 	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 	signe	- 	d 	under penalty 	of
perjury 	by 	the 	charging 	party. 	The 	amended 	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 July 	24, 	1986, 	I 	shall dismiss your
charge. 	If 	you 	have 	any questions 	on how to proceed, 	please
call me at 	(213) 	736-3127."
Sincerely,
Barbara 	T. 	Stuart
Regional 	Attorney
. .