Perris Union High School District (PERB 0861E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
PERRIS 	SECONDARY 	EDUCATORS
ASSOCIATION,
Charging 	Party,
v.
PERRIS UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
) 	Case No. 	LA-CE-2954
PERB 	Decision No. 	861
December 20, 	1990
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances: 	Rodney Hoopai, 	Negotiations Chairperson, 	for Perris
Secondary Educators Association; 	Best, 	Best, 	& Krieger by
Bradley E. 	Neufeld, 	Attorney, 	for Perris Union High School
District.
Before Hesse, 	Chairperson; 	Shank and Camilli, 	Members.
DECISION AND 	ORDER
CAMILLI, 	Member: 	This 	case is before the Public Employment
Relations 	Board 	(PERB or Board) 	on appeal by the 	Perris 	Secondary
Educators Association 	(PSEA or Association) 	of 	a Board agent's
dismissal 	(attached hereto) 	of 	its 	charge that the Perris 	Union
High School 	District 	(District) 	violated section 3543.5(b) 	and
(c) 	of the Educational Employment Relations Act 	(EERA).1 The
1EERA is 	codified at Government Code 	section 	3 540 	et 	seq.
Unless 	otherwise 	indicated, 	all 	statutory references 	herein are
to the Government Code. 	Section 3543.5 provides, 	in pertinent
part:
It 	shall be unlawful 	for a public 	school
employer to do any of 	the 	following:
(b) 	Deny to employee organizations 	rights
guaranteed to 	them by 	this 	chapter.
(c) 	Refuse or 	fail 	to meet and negotiate 	in
good 	faith with 	an 	exclusive 	representative.
_____ )

Association 	contends 	the 	District 	violated 	its 	duty 	to 	bargain 	in
good 	faith when 	it 	refused 	to 	implement 	the 	recommendations 	of 	an
insurance 	study 	committee. 	The 	Board agent dismissed the 	charge
on the grounds 	that the agreement encompassing the parties' 	duty
to 	form 	the 	committee and 	arrive 	at 	a 	recommendation did 	not
require 	the 	District to 	adopt or 	implement 	the 	recommendation.2
On appeal, 	the Association requests that the Board:
. 	. 	. 	persuant 	[sic] 	to EERA 3541.5 exercise
its 	discretionary 	jurisdiction to review 	[the
mediator's 	settlement proposal 	and 	letter 	of
agreement] 	and to determine if this
settlement 	is 	"repugnant to the purposes 	of
this chapter."
The Association further alleges 	that 	its 	appeal 	is:
. 	. 	. a n amendment of the first charge and
contains 	new 	supporting 	evidence 	as well 	as
new charge allegations. 	PSEA simply 	states
that 	good cause 	exists 	for 	the 	submission of
new 	supporting 	evidence 	and 	new charges 	in
that we hope 	to 	successfully 	state 	a prima
facie case.
We 	have reviewed the 	regional 	attorney's 	dismissal 	and,
finding 	it to be 	free of prejudicial 	error, 	adopt 	it as 	the
Decision of 	the Board itself. 	With respect to the Association's
request 	for 	review of 	the mediator's 	settlement 	and 	side 	letter
of agreement, 	we note that EERA 	section 3541.5 provides 	no
authority 	for the 	Board to 	review those 	agreements. 	The
Association 	apparently 	misconstrues 	section 	3541.5(a)(2)
2 However, 	even if the 	District was 	required to 	implement the
recommendation, 	the Association's allegations, 	in this case,
constitute, 	at most, 	a pure contract violation. 	Accordingly,
under EERA section 3541.5(b), 	the Board does 	"not have authority
to 	enforce 	agreements between the parties." 	(Grant 	Joint 	Union
High School 	District 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	196.)
2
2
2

governing 	the 	Board's 	jurisdiction over matters 	subject 	to 	the
grievance/arbitration machinery 	of 	the 	collective 	bargaining
agreement. 	That 	section 	states 	in pertinent part:
The 	board 	shall 	have 	discretionary
jurisdiction to 	review the 	settlement 	or
arbitration award reached pursuant 	to 	the
grievance machinery 	solely 	for 	the purpose 	of
determining whether it 	is 	repugnant 	to 	the
purposes of this 	chapter.
Thus, 	PERB's 	jurisdiction to review 	"settlements" 	is 	clearly
limited 	to 	those 	arrived at 	through 	the 	grievance 	machinery 	of 	a
collective bargaining agreement, 	and not 	through 	the mediation
process, 	and then only to determine 	if the 	settlement 	is
repugnant to the purposes 	of EERA.
With respect 	to the Association's 	request that 	the 	Board
consider the 	"new supporting 	evidence 	as well 	as 	new charge
allegations," 	we note that PERB Regulation 32635(b)3 states:
Unless good cause is 	shown, 	a charging party
may 	not present 	on appeal 	new charge
allegations 	or 	new 	supporting 	evidence.
The Association has 	failed 	to 	identify why 	good 	cause 	exists
to 	consider 	any of 	the 	information not previously presented 	to
the 	Board agent. 	Accordingly, 	the alleged new evidence and
charge 	allegations 	may not be 	considered 	in determining 	if 	a
prima 	facie 	case of 	an unfair practice 	charge 	is 	stated 	in this
case.
3PERB 	Regulations 	are 	codified 	at California 	Code 	of
Regulations, 	title 8, 	section 31001 	et seq.
33

The unfair practice charge 	in Case No. 	LA-CE-2954 	is hereby
DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE 	TO AMEND.
Chairperson Hesse 	and Member Shank 	joined 	in this 	Decision.
4

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN. Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Lot Angeles Regional Office
3530 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 650
Los Angeles, CA 90010-2334
(213)736-3127
September 21, 	1990
Lloyd 	Roberts
Chapter 	Services 	Consultant
California 	Teachers 	Association
1906 So. 	Commercenter East, 	Suite 	103
San Bernardino, 	California 	92408
Re: 	Perris 	Secondary Educators Association v. 	Perris 	Union
High School 	District. 	Unfair Practice Charge No. 	LA-CE-2954
DISMISSAL OF 	CHARGE 	AND 	REFUSAL 	TO 	ISSUE 	COMPLAINT
Dear Mr. 	Roberts:
The 	above-referenced 	charge alleges 	that the 	Perris 	Union High
School 	District 	(District) 	engaged 	in bad 	faith bargaining 	by 	not
implementing 	the 	recommendations 	of 	an insurance 	committee. 	This
conduct 	is alleged to violate 	section 3543.5(c) 	and 	(b) 	of 	the
Educational Employment Relations Act 	(EERA).
I 	indicated to you 	in my attached 	letter dated September 	7. 	1990
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 	that would 	correct 	the
deficiencies 	explained 	in that 	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 September 	14, 	1990, 	the charge would be dismissed.
On September 	17, 	1990, 	your secretary, 	Marge, 	called me regarding
your request 	for an extension. 	I 	granted an extension to 	Friday,
September 	21, 	1990 	for my receipt of an amended charge. 	On
September 21, 	1990, 	I 	called your office and your secretary,
Stella, 	indicated 	in part that you will not be amending.
-
I 	have 	not 	received 	either a 	request 	for withdrawal 	or an amended
charge. 	I 	am therefore dismissing the 	charge 	based 	on the 	facts
and reasons 	contained 	in my September 	7. 	1990 	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
•

Dismissal 	of 	Charge
LA-CE-2954
September 21, 	1990
Page 	2
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 	no
later than the 	last date 	set 	for 	filing 	(California
Administrative Code, 	title 8, 	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
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 	(California
Administrative Code, title 8, 	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 California Administrative Code,
title 	8, 	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 	(California
Administrative Code, 	title 8, 	section 32132).

Dismissal 	of Charge
LA-CE-2954
September 21, 	1990
Page 3
Final 	Date
If no appeal 	Is 	filed within the 	specified time 	limits, 	the
dismissal will 	become 	final when the time 	limits have 	expired.
Sincerely,
JOHN W. 	SPITTLER
General 	Counsel
By Marc 	S. 	Hurwitz
Regional 	Attorney
Attachment
cc: 	Bradley E. 	Neufeld

STATE Of CALIFORNIA 	GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN. Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Lot Angeles Regional Office
3330 Wilshire Boulevard. Suite 650
tot Angeles, CA 	90010-2334
(213)736-3127
September 1, 	1990
Lloyd 	Roberts
Chapter 	Services 	Consultant
California 	Teachers 	Association
1906 So. 	Commercenter East, 	Suite 	103
San Bernardino, 	California 	92408
Re: 	Perris 	Secondary 	Educators Association v. 	Perris 	Union
High 	School 	District. 	Unfair Practice Charge No. 	LA-CE-2954
WARNING 	LETTER
Dear Mr. 	Roberts:
The 	above-referenced 	charge 	alleges 	that 	the 	Perris 	Union 	High
School 	District 	(District) 	engaged 	in bad 	faith 	bargaining 	by 	not
implementing 	the 	recommendations 	of 	an 	insurance 	committee. 	This
conduct 	is 	alleged to violate 	section 	3543.5(c) 	and 	(b) 	of 	the
Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Act 	(EERA).
My 	investigation 	and 	the 	charge 	revealed 	the 	following
information.
On May 	4, 	1989, 	the Perris 	Secondary Educators Association
(Association) 	and 	the 	District 	reached a 	Tentative Agreement 	for
the 	1988-89 	reopeners 	of 	the 	1986-1989 	agreement 	(Agreement).
The 	settlement 	was 	encompassed 	in 	a 	Mediator's 	Settlement
Proposal 	Regarding 	1988-89 	reopeners 	of 	the 	1986-89 Agreement.
The 	Health 	and 	Welfare 	portion 	of 	the 	Mediator's 	Settlement
Proposal 	stated:
Unless 	the parties have, 	prior to August 	1,
1989, 	reached 	an agreement on 	some 	different
program, 	the 	health 	and welfare 	program will
be 	switched to the 	'triple option' 	plan
offered 	under 	the 	Joint 	Powers 	Agreement
(JPA) 	between the 	Riverside and San
Bernardino County 	Superintendents 	of 	Schools
Offices. 	This plan will 	be put 	into 	effect
as of October 	1, 	1989. 	Said program, 	as of
October 	1, 	1989, 	shall 	consist of 	'triple
option' 	health plan, 	as well as a
continuation 	of 	the 	current 	dental 	and 	vision
plans.

Warning 	Letter
LA-CE-2954
September 7, 	1990
Page 2
From the date of 	ratification by both parties
of this proposal, 	to August 1, 	1989, 	the
parties 	shall 	continue to 	seek a better
employee benefit program. 	The District 	shall
provide 	all 	reasonable health benefit
information necessary 	to 	assist 	in 	obtaining
competitive bids 	from prospective 	carriers.
Included 	in this Tentative Agreement 	is 	a 	separate Letter of
Agreement between the parties which was 	executed on May 	4, 	1989.
The 	Letter of Agreement provides:
The District and PSEA agree that, 	in order
to 	study Health and Welfare benefit options
between now and August 	1, 	1989, 	if the May 4,
1989 proposal 	is 	ratified, 	there 	shall be
established an 	insurance 	committee, 	and that
CSEA 	shall 	be 	invited 	to participate also
along with the 	District 	and 	PSEA. 	The
Committee will 	be 	outside 	of 	negotiations,
and 	shall 	consist 	of 	two 	District
representatives, 	two PSEA representatives,
and 	CSEA 	shall 	be 	invited 	to have 	two
representatives.
The Association alleges 	that 	"The 	establishment 	and 	function of
this 	Committee was 	crucial 	to the 	acceptance of 	the 	^Mediators
Settlement Proposal. 	. 	. 	.'" 	The Tentative Agreement was
ratified 	by 	the Association on May 	8, 	1989 	and by 	the 	District 	on
May 	10, 	1989 	and its provisions 	implemented.
By memorandum dated May 30, 	1989, 	Bill Hulstrom, 	Association
President, 	requested that Steve C. 	Teele, 	Ph.D., Assistant
Superintendent, 	Educational Services and Personnel, 	convene the
insurance 	committee 	so 	that medical 	health plans 	could be 	studied
and bids 	could be requested. 	On June 	8, 	1989, 	the committee
convened 	to discuss 	the 	current 	medical 	insurance plan and 	to
consider another medical plan 	(PERS). 	An agenda was 	set to
consider other medical plans and bids. 	On June 29, 	1989, 	the
insurance 	committee met 	and 	three 	other medical plans 	and bids
were 	studied and discussed. 	On July 	14, 	1989, 	the committee
convened 	to 	review all 	the medical 	health plans 	studied 	and bids
received, 	and to 	formulate a 	recommendation for medical 	health
plans 	for 	the 	District 	and 	its 	bargaining unit 	representatives,
the Association and CSEA. 	On July 	14, 	1989, 	the 	insurance
committee 	recommendation was 	in part 	that 	certificated 	bargaining
unit 	members 	would 	consider 	the 	Multiple 	Choice Medical 	Program

Warning 	Letter
LA-CE-2954
September 7, 	1990
Page 	3
provided by Blue Cross 	and California Care with 	several
restrictions.
On July 	18, 	1989, 	the Association requested a meeting with Dr.
Teele 	in order 	for the 	insurance 	committee's 	recommendation
regarding the Association to be 	agreed to 	and 	implemented. 	On
July 21, 	1989, 	the Association met with the District 	in order to
request 	that the District 	implement 	the Association's 	request 	to
implement 	the 	Blue Cross 	medical 	health plan which was 	stated 	in
the 	committee's 	recommendations. 	The District did not 	respond,
but 	stated that 	it had 	to discuss 	the matter with the 	Board 	of
Education. 	On July 28, 	1989, 	the District's attorney stated that
the 	District would not be 	implementing 	the 	recommendations 	of 	the
insurance 	committee 	regarding 	the Association.
On August 28, 	1989, 	the Association sent a memorandum to Dr.
Teele, 	Superintendent, 	indicating 	in part that the District was
not 	bargaining 	in good 	faith 	by not 	implementing the
recommendations 	of 	the 	insurance 	committee 	relating 	to 	the
Association. 	The Association 	favored the 	Blue Cross 	Major
Medical 	Insurance Plan rather than the JPA 	"triple option" 	plan.
In a memorandum dated September 5, 	1989, 	Dr. 	Teele indicated the
reasons 	for the actions 	taken by the District previously. 	He
indicated that on August 	9, 	1989, 	the Board of Trustees 	following
the negotiations between the parties, 	acted to approve 	the JPA
Major Medical 	Insurance 	Plan on behalf 	of 	the 	certificated
bargaining unit members.
On October 	1, 	1989, 	the District 	in fact implemented the JPA
"triple option" 	plan for the Association members.
The Association alleges 	that 	the 	District has 	engaged 	in bad
faith 	bargaining due 	to 	all 	of 	the 	above 	including the 	fact 	that
the Administration had 	no 	negative 	response 	to 	the 	insurance
committee's 	report, 	and the Administration 	stated that 	any plan
would not cause any additional 	financial 	impact on the 	District
because 	any medical 	insurance 	premium 	increases 	would 	be 	a 	first
lien on 	1989-1990 	cost 	of 	living 	revenue 	subvention 	from 	the
State. 	The Association further alleges 	the agreement was 	based
on 	the 	concept 	that 	the Association would have 	some 	control 	over
keeping medical costs 	from rising, 	including changing 	the
benefits 	structure 	or changing medical 	insurance 	companies. 	The
Association argues 	that being 	coerced 	to 	join the 	JPA 	"triple
option" 	plan, 	completely negates 	the 	aforementioned concept.
This 	will 	confirm 	that 	during 	our 	telephone 	conversation 	on 	or
about August 21, 	1990, 	you 	indicated to me that you did not have

Warning 	Letter
LA-CE-2954
September 7, 	1990
Page 	4
any 	additional 	information or more 	to 	add 	to 	the 	charge 	as
currently written.
Based on the 	facts described above, 	this 	charge does 	not 	state 	a
prima 	facie 	violation of 	the 	EERA 	for 	the 	reasons which 	follow.
It 	is 	not alleged, 	nor has 	it been shown that the recommendations
of the 	insurance 	committee and/or of 	the Association must be
accepted or 	implemented by the District. 	The Mediators'
Settlement 	Proposal 	merely 	allowed 	for 	an 	insurance 	committee 	and
negotiations 	to take place prior to August 	1, 	1989. 	Failing
agreement by August 	1, 	1989, 	the health and welfare program was
to be 	switched to the 	"triple option" 	plan offered under 	the 	JPA.
Said plan was to be put into effect on October 	1, 	1989.
Thus, 	the 	charge as presently written 	fails 	to 	show evidence of
bad 	faith bargaining. 	Neither does 	it 	contain the 	elements 	for 	a
unilateral 	change violation.
For these reasons, 	the charge as presently written does 	not 	state
a prima 	facie 	case. 	If there are any 	factual 	inaccuracies 	in
this 	letter or any additional 	facts 	that 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 	must 	be 	signed 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
September 	14. 	1990. 	I shall dismiss your charge. 	If you have any
questions, please call me at 	(213) 	736-3127.
Sincerely,
JOHN 	SPITTLER
General 	Counsel
by Marc 	S. 	Hurwitz
Regional 	Attorney
MSH:eb