Sacramento City Unified School District (PERB 0952E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
SERVICE 	EMPLOYEES 	INTERNATIONAL
UNION, 	LOCAL 22,
Charging 	Party,
v.
SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
) 	Case No. 	S-CE-1491
PERB 	Decision No. 	952
September 	10, 	1992
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearance: 	Ruth Holbrook, 	Union Representative, 	for Service
Employees 	International Union, 	Local 22.
Before Hesse, 	Chairperson, 	Caffrey and Carlyle, 	Members.
DECISION AND 	ORDER
CARLYLE, 	Member: 	This case is before the Public Employment
Relations 	Board 	(PERB or Board) 	on appeal 	by the Service
Employees 	International Union, 	Local 22 	(SEIU) 	to a Board agent's
dismissal, 	attached hereto, 	of its charge that the Sacramento
City 	Unified School 	District 	(District) 	violated 	section
3543.5(b) 	of the Educational Employment Relations Act 	(EERA).1
Specifically, 	it 	is 	alleged that the District violated EERA by
1 EERA 	is 	codified at Government Code 	section 	3540 	et 	seq.
Unless 	otherwise 	indicated, 	all 	statutory 	references 	herein are
to the Government Code. 	Section 3543.5 	states, 	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.

intending to 	transfer bargaining unit work 	from 	Unit A, 	police
officers, 	to Unit B, 	aides, 	paraprofessionals. 	The Board has
reviewed 	the Board agent's warning 	and dismissal 	letters, 	and,
finding them to be 	free of prejudicial 	error, 	adopts 	them as 	the
decision of 	the Board 	itself.
On appeal, 	SEIU asserts that on June 30, 	1992 	the Board of
Education passed 	the 	1992-93 	budget which 	included 	retaining
three police 	officers 	and 	transferring the 	remainder 	of 	the
police department's 	budget 	to 	the 	other unit.
PERB Regulation 32635(b) 	provides 	that:
Unless good cause 	is 	shown, 	a charging party
may 	not present 	on appeal 	new charge
allegations 	or new 	supporting 	evidence.
As 	SEIU has 	failed 	to 	show good 	cause 	for presenting 	new
supporting 	evidence, 	the Board must reject the appeal.2
Therefore, 	the unfair practice charge 	in Case No. 	S-CE-1491 	is
hereby 	DISMISSED WITHOUT 	PREJUDICE.
Chairperson 	Hesse 	and Member Caffrey 	joined 	in this 	Decision.
2SEIU 	is 	not precluded 	from 	filing a 	new unfair practice
charge based on new 	facts 	which 	occurred 	subsequent 	to 	the 	Board
agent's 	dismissal of 	the unfair practice 	charge 	in this 	case.
22

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	PETE W I L S O N , Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Headquarters Office
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 	95814-4174
(916) 322-3088
June 	19, 	1992
Ruth 	Holbrook
Service 	Employees 	International 	Union
903 	30th 	Street
Sacramento, 	CA 	95816
Re: 	Service Employees 	International Union. 	Local 	22 v.
Sacramento 	City 	Unified 	School 	District
Unfair Practice Charge No. 	S-CE-1491
DISMISSAL 	LETTER
Dear Ms. 	Holbrook:
On May 22, 	1992, 	you filed the above-referenced charge against
Sacramento 	City 	Unified 	School 	District 	alleging 	a 	violation of
Government Code section 3543.5(b). 	Specifically, 	you alleged
that 	the 	District violated 	the 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations
Act 	"by 	showing 	the 	intention of 	transferring our bargaining unit
work from unit A, 	police officers, 	to unit B, 	aides,
paraprofessionals."
I 	indicated to you, 	in my attached letter dated June 	11, 	1992,
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 	letter, 	you 	should amend the
charge. 	You were 	further advised that, 	unless you amended the
charge to 	state a prima 	facie 	case or withdrew it prior to
June 	18, 	1992, 	the charge would be dismissed.
I 	have 	not 	received 	either 	an amended 	charge 	or a 	request 	for
withdrawal. 	Therefore, 	I 	am dismissing the charge based on the
facts 	and reasons 	contained in my June 	11, 	1992 	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. 	(Cal. 	Code of Regs., 	tit. 	8,
sec. 	32635(a).) 	To be timely 	filed, 	the original and five copies
of 	such 	appeal 	must 	be 	actually 	received 	by 	the 	Board 	itself
( 	I

S-CE-1491
Page 2
before the close of business 	(5 p.m.) 	or 	sent by telegraph,
certified 	or 	Express 	United 	States 	mail 	postmarked 	no 	later
than the last date set for filing. 	(Cal. 	Code of Regs., 	tit. 	8,
sec. 	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 	(20) 	calendar
days 	following the date of 	service of the appeal. 	(Cal. 	Code of
Regs., tit. 8, sec. 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 Cal. 	Code of Regs., 	tit. 	8,
sec. 	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.
(Cal. 	Code of Regs., tit. 	8, 	sec. 	32132.)
' 	'

f
S-CE-1491
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
Bernard 	McMonigle
Regional 	Attorney
Attachment
cc: 	Ann Freers
Attorney
770 L Street, 	Suite 	1200
Sacramento, 	CA 	95814-3363
I 	r
By - ,

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	PETE WILSON, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Sacramento Regional Office
1031 18th Street, Room 102
Sacramento, CA 	95814-4174
(916) 322-3198
June 11, 	1992
Ruth 	Holbrook
Service 	Employees 	International 	Union
903 	30th Street
Sacramento, 	CA 	95816
Re: 	Service Employees 	International Union. 	Local 22 v.
Sacramento 	City Unified 	School 	District
Unfair 	Practice 	Charge No. 	S-CE-1491
WARNING 	LETTER
Dear Ms. 	Holbrook:
On May 22, 	1992, 	you filed the above-referenced charge against
Sacramento 	City Unified School 	District 	alleging 	a violation of
Government Code section 3543.5(b). 	Specifically, 	you alleged
that 	the District violated 	the 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations
Act 	"by 	showing 	the 	intention of 	transferring 	our bargaining unit
work from unit A, 	police officers, 	to unit B, 	aides,
paraprofessionals." 	We discussed this 	charge by telephone 	on
June 4 	and 10.
In February 	1992, 	the superintendent made 	certain budget
proposals 	to 	the District's 	Board of 	Education. 	Among 	those
proposals 	was 	the 	elimination of police 	officer positions with
the School District. 	On May 6, 	1992, 	the superintendent
submitted a modified proposal 	which eliminated the 	12 	member
police department. 	However, 	50 percent of 	the funds which would
have 	funded 	the police 	department 	would be 	retained 	to 	fund
additional 	hall monitor positions 	or other 	safety positions. 	No
proposals 	have yet been accepted by the Board. 	There 	is no 	firm
budget.
You 	have 	indicated 	that 	there 	has 	traditionally been 	overlap of
work done by 	campus 	police and hall monitors 	in that both groups
have 	taken weapons 	from students, 	stopped fights, 	and removed
nonstudents 	and disruptive 	students 	from campuses. 	You have
further 	indicated that 	the hall 	monitors 	will 	now be 	asked 	to do
some 	of 	the 	work which had 	traditionally been done 	by police
officers. 	One 	example was 	searching students 	for drugs 	at a
District high school. 	You also 	stated 	in our telephone

June 11, 	1992
Page 	2
conversation of June 4 	that, 	after the District made 	the budget
cuts 	on May 6, 	you requested that 	the District bargain regarding
the effects of 	the layoff of 	the police officers. 	However, 	you
indicated 	that 	you had not 	requested 	that 	the District 	bargain
the 	decision or 	the 	effects 	regarding 	the 	transfer of bargaining
unit work from the police officers' 	bargaining unit 	to the
bargaining unit 	in which the 	hall 	monitors 	are 	represented. 	In
our conversation of June 	10, 	you 	indicated that you have mailed
such a 	request 	to 	the District.
To demonstrate 	a violation of 	the 	obligation to bargain by making
a unilateral 	change, 	the 	charging party must 	show that 	(1) 	the
employer breached 	the written agreement 	or 	its 	own established
past practice, 	(2) 	the employer acted without giving the
exclusive 	representative 	notice 	or an 	opportunity 	to bargain,
(3) 	the 	change 	in policy concerns 	a matter within the scope 	of
representation and 	(4) 	the breach amounts 	to a 	change 	in policy.
Grant Joint Union School District 	(1983) 	PERB Decision No. 	196.
You have 	not 	demonstrated that 	the 	employer has 	refused 	to
bargain 	over 	the 	decision 	to 	transfer bargaining unit 	work nor
have you demonstrated that 	the 	recent 	request will 	be 	futile
because 	the 	employer has 	already made 	a 	firm decision.
Accordingly, 	you have not 	demonstrated 	the 	elements 	necessary 	to
establish an 	illegal unilateral 	change.
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
June 18, 	1992, 	I shall dismiss your charge. 	If you have any
questions, 	please call me at 	(916) 	322-3198.
Sincerely,
Bernard 	McMonigle
Regional 	Attorney