Rocklin Teachers Professional Association (Romero) (PERB 1112E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
THOMAS 	ARTHUR 	ROMERO,
Charging 	Party,
v.
ROCKLIN 	TEACHERS 	PROFESSIONAL
ASSOCIATION, 	CTA/NEA,
Respondent.
Case No. 	S-CO-342
PERB Decision No. 	1112
August 10, 	1995
Appearances: 	Thomas Arthur Romero, 	on his own behalf; 	California
Teachers Association by A. 	Eugene Huguenin, 	Jr., 	Attorney, 	for
Rocklin Teachers 	Professional Association, 	CTA/NEA.
Before Carlyle, 	Garcia and Caffrey, 	Members.
DECISION
CAFFREY, 	Member: 	This 	case 	is before the Public Employment
Relations 	Board 	(PERB 	or Board) 	on an appeal 	filed by Thomas
Arthur Romero 	(Romero) 	of 	a Board agent's 	dismissal 	of 	his unfair
practice charge 	(attached hereto). 	In his 	charge, 	Romero alleged
that 	the 	Rocklin Teachers 	Professional Association, 	CTA/NEA
(Association) 	violated section 3543.6(a) 	of 	the Educational
Employment 	Relations Act 	(EERA) 	by 	causing 	the 	Rocklin Unified
School District 	(District) 	to violate his 	rights under EERA
section 	3543.5(a).l
lEERA is 	codified at 	Government 	Code 	section 	3540 	et 	seq.
Unless 	otherwise 	indicated, 	all 	statutory 	references 	are 	to 	the
Government Code. 	Section 3543.6 	states, 	in pertinent part:
It 	shall 	be unlawful 	for an employee
organization to:
(a) 	Cause or attempt 	to cause a public
school 	employer 	to violate 	Section 3543.5.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
________ )

Section 3543.5 	states, 	in pertinent part:
It 	shall 	be unlawful 	for a public 	school
employer 	to do any of 	the 	following:
(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.
The 	Board has 	reviewed the 	entire 	record 	in 	this 	case,
including 	the warning and dismissal 	letters, 	Romero's 	original
and amended charge, 	his 	appeal 	and 	the Association's 	response
thereto. 	The 	Board 	finds 	the warning and dismissal 	letters 	to be
free 	of prejudicial 	error and adopts 	them as 	the 	decision of 	the
Board 	itself 	in accordance with 	the 	discussion below.
ROMERO'S 	APPEAL
On appeal, 	Romero asserts 	that 	he was a member of 	the
bargaining unit 	when 	the 	Association allegedly 	caused 	the
District 	to violate his 	rights. 	In support 	of 	this assertion
Romero points 	to the District's May 16, 	1994 	Contract Update
Notice 	in which 	the 	District 	notified him 	than he 	would be
retained as 	a permanent 	employee 	for 	the 	1994-95 	school 	year.
Romero also 	contends 	that 	the Association became 	aware 	of
his 	status 	as 	a 	certificated 	employee when Association president
Jewell McCoy 	(McCoy) 	signed the August 	15, 	1994 agreement.
Romero 	insists 	that 	McCoy's 	long union experience 	and 	training 	is
"sufficient 	to 	show that 	she knew 	[Romero] 	was 	a member of 	the
bargaining unit." 	Finally, 	Romero 	concludes 	that 	the Association
violated his 	rights 	when 	it 	sent 	a 	letter to employees 	about 	his
22

non-unit 	status 	which had 	the 	effect 	of 	"clouding 	the 	elections
issue" 	in the decertification campaign.
DISCUSSION
Romero's 	appeal 	focuses 	on his 	assertion that 	he was 	a
member of 	the bargaining unit, 	and 	that 	the Association was 	aware
of 	that 	fact, 	at 	the 	time of 	the alleged unlawful 	conduct.
Subsequent to the May 16, 	1994, 	Contract Update Notice,
Romero was 	assigned 	to work as 	an assistant 	principal 	during 	the
1994-95 	school 	year. 	Romero asserts 	that 	he did not 	perform any
duties 	as 	assistant 	principal 	during 	the 	school 	year 	that 	would
confer upon him supervisory or managerial 	status. 	Thus, 	Romero
contends 	that 	he was 	appropriately a member of 	the 	certificated
bargaining unit 	when 	the 	Association allegedly 	caused 	the
District 	to violate his 	rights.
However, 	the 	job description 	for an assistant principal
clearly states 	that 	an 	incumbent 	serves 	as 	a 	"member of 	the
management 	team." 	The assistant principal 	acts 	as 	a principal 	in
the 	principal's 	absence 	and assists 	in 	the 	"formulation and
implementation of 	district 	policies." 	The assistant 	principal
also assists 	in the 	"selection, 	placement, 	and performance
evaluation of personnel 	in the 	school, 	including employment
interviews." 	The 	hiring and assignment 	of 	employees 	are 	among
the 	functions 	of 	a 	supervisory 	employee 	as 	specifically
enumerated 	in 	EERA.2
2EERA section 3540.1(m).
3

Furthermore, 	the March 7, 	1995 memo in which the District
described Romero's 	assignment 	indicates 	that 	he 	"will 	resume 	his
function as 	a 	certificated 	staff member" 	and 	"no 	longer be 	acting
in the position of Assistant 	Principal." 	(Emphasis 	added.) 	The
clear 	implication of 	this 	language 	is 	that 	Romero was performing
the duties 	of 	assistant principal, 	and not 	of a 	certificated
bargaining unit member, 	prior to March 7, 	1995.
Romero also argues 	that 	the August 	15, 	1994 agreement
establishes 	that 	the 	District 	and 	the Association agreed 	that 	he
was 	in the 	certificated unit. 	However, 	that agreement provides
only 	that 	Romero's 	assignment 	as 	an assistant 	principal 	was
temporary and sets 	his 	salary. 	The 	language 	of 	the 	agreement
does 	not 	address 	the placement 	of 	Romero 	in the bargaining unit.
These 	facts 	lead to 	the 	conclusion that Romero was 	acting 	in
a managerial 	or 	supervisory 	capacity while 	serving 	as 	an
assistant 	principal. 	Romero has 	failed 	to present 	facts
sufficient 	to 	support 	his 	assertion 	that 	he was 	a member of 	the
bargaining unit 	at 	the 	time 	of 	the alleged unlawful 	conduct.
Management 	employees 	are 	specifically 	excluded 	from the
statutory definition 	of 	"employee" 	included 	in 	EERA section
3540.1(j). 	Accordingly, 	the Board has held that a management
employee 	lacks 	standing 	to 	file 	an unfair practice 	charge under
the EERA. 	(Hayward Unified School 	District 	(1981) 	PERB
Decision No. 	172.) 	Therefore, 	if Romero was serving as a
management 	employee when 	functioning 	as 	an assistant 	principal,
44

as 	the 	job description of 	the position suggests, 	he would have no
standing 	to 	file 	the 	instant 	charge.
Alternatively, 	Romero was 	functioning as 	a 	supervisory
employee when 	serving as 	assistant 	principal. 	Unlike management
employees, 	supervisory employees 	are 	not 	excluded 	from EERA's
statutory definition of employee. 	However, 	PERB has
held 	that 	a public 	school 	employer must maintain 	"strict
neutrality" 	in the 	face of 	organizational 	activity. 	(Santa
Monica Community College District 	(1979) 	PERB Decision No. 	103;
EERA section 	3543.5(d).) 	An 	employer may 	restrict 	the
participation 	of 	supervisory employees 	in 	the preelection
activities 	of 	nonsupervisory employees 	in order 	to maintain a
position of 	neutrality. 	(State 	of 	California 	(Department 	of
Forestry) 	(1981) 	PERB Decision No. 	174-S.) 	Therefore, 	if Romero
was 	functioning 	as 	a 	supervisory employee when 	serving as 	an
assistant principal, 	the District 	did not violate EERA
section 	3543.5 	when 	it 	directed him to 	cease his 	participation 	in
the activities 	of 	the certificated bargaining unit, 	regardless 	of
the Association's 	involvement.
Based on 	the 	foregoing, 	the Board 	concludes 	that 	Romero has
failed 	to 	state 	a prima 	facie 	case 	of 	an 	EERA violation.
ORDER
The unfair practice 	charge 	in Case No. 	S-CO-342 	is hereby
DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE 	TO AMEND.
Members 	Carlyle 	and Garcia 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
55

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
April 27, 	1995
Thomas A. 	Romero
Re: 	NOTICE 	OF DISMISSAL AND REFUSAL TO 	ISSUE 	COMPLAINT
Thomas Arthur Romero v. 	Rocklin Teachers 	Professional
Association. 	CTA/NEA
Unfair 	Practice 	Charge No. 	S-CO-342
Dear Mr. 	Romero:
I 	indicated to you, 	in my attached letter dated April 	18, 	1995,
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
April 28, 	1995, 	the charge would be dismissed.
On April 	24, 	1995, 	you 	filed a First Amended Charge 	in this
matter by 	certified mail. 	The 	amended 	charge primarily attaches
some 	documents 	which had previously been 	supplied 	to me 	in 	the
course 	of my 	investigation, 	and 	reargues 	how the 	facts 	should be
interpreted 	in 	this matter, 	though some additional 	facts 	are
alleged.
Both 	the 	original 	charge 	and 	the 	amended 	charge 	allege 	that 	the
Rocklin Teachers 	Professional 	Association, 	CTA/NEA 	(Association)
complained to your employer, 	the Rocklin Unified School 	District
(District), 	about your efforts 	in support of decertification of
the Association while 	holding 	an 	assistant 	principal 	position,
and thus 	unlawfully 	caused 	(or 	"incited") 	the District 	to violate
your rights under Government 	Code 	section 3543.5(a). 	This
conduct was unlawful, 	you 	contend, 	because you were not 	in 	fact
performing 	any managerial 	or 	supervisory 	duties 	while 	serving 	as
an assistant 	principal 	and because 	the Association was 	aware 	that
you were 	not 	functioning 	as 	a manager 	or 	supervisor.
This 	latter 	conclusory allegation, 	however, 	lacks 	any supporting
evidence 	in your 	charge. 	You 	rely particularly on 	the August 	15,
1994 	agreement which was 	signed by you, 	the District 	and an
Association representative. 	The August 	15 agreement, 	though,
does 	not 	anywhere 	specify 	that 	your position would be 	included 	in
the bargaining unit 	represented by 	the Association, 	and does
specify 	that 	you would be 	"assigned 	temporarily 	to 	the 	duties 	of
. 	'
'
----~--

(
Dismissal 	Letter
S-CO-342
April 27, 	1995
Page 2
an Assistant 	Principal." 	The August 	15 	agreement 	provides 	no
facial 	evidence 	in support 	of 	your allegation.
You also rely on the March 7, 	1995 	notice 	from the District,
again 	signed by you 	and 	the Association 	representative,
concerning your 	appointment 	as 	a 	certificated 	staff 	member 	as
evidence 	of 	the Association's 	knowledge 	that you were 	not
previously performing 	the 	duties 	of 	a manager 	or 	supervisor. 	The
March 7 document, 	however, 	also does not 	contain any express
language 	in support of 	this assertion, 	and 	instead states 	that
you would 	"no 	longer be 	acting 	in 	the position 	of 	Assistant
Principal." 	[Emphasis 	added.]
These documents, 	on their face, 	do not 	support 	the 	conclusion
which you allege, 	namely 	that 	the Association was 	knowingly
making a 	"spurious" 	accusation when 	it 	complained of 	your 	conduct
as 	an assistant 	principal.
Therefore, 	I 	am dismissing the 	charge based on 	the 	facts 	and
reasons 	discussed above as 	well 	as 	those 	contained 	in my
April 18, 	1995 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
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).)
(

Dismissal 	Letter
S-CO-342
April 27, 	1995
Page 3
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.)
Final 	Date
If 	no appeal 	is 	filed within 	the 	specified time 	limits, 	the
dismissal 	will 	become 	final 	when 	the 	time 	limits 	have 	expired.
Sincerely,
ROBERT 	THOMPSON
Deputy General 	Counsel
By *
Les 	Chisholm
Regional 	Director
Attachment
cc: 	A. 	Eugene Huguenin, 	Jr.
(
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
April 18, 	1995
Thomas A. 	Romero
Re: 	WARNING LETTER
Thomas Arthur Romero v. 	Rocklin Teachers 	Professional
Association
Unfair 	Practice 	Charge No. 	S-CO-342
Dear Mr. 	Romero:
You 	filed the above-referenced charge 	on March 1, 	1995. 	Your
charge 	alleges 	that 	the 	Rocklin Teachers 	Professional 	Association
(Association) 	violated Government Code section 3543.6(a) 	by-
causing 	the 	Rocklin Unified School District 	(District) 	to violate
your rights under section 3543.5 (a).
Investigation 	of 	this 	charge 	revealed 	the 	following 	relevant
information. 	The Association, 	an affiliate of 	the California
Teachers Association 	(CTA), 	is 	the exclusive representative of
all 	certificated employees 	of 	the District, 	excluding
"management, 	confidential, 	supervisory, 	and substitute
employees." 	The 	exclusions 	are 	not 	otherwise 	specified by 	job
title, 	but 	the District maintains 	a 	salary 	schedule 	for assistant
principals 	which 	is 	separate 	and apart 	from the 	salary 	schedule
included 	in 	the written agreement 	between 	the District 	and 	the
Association. 	The agreement 	further defines 	the 	term 	"teacher" 	to
refer to any employee 	included 	in the 	recognized unit.
Romero 	is a 	long-term 	(over 25 	years) 	certificated employee 	of
the District. 	During the 	1993-94 	school year, 	he held a
temporary assignment as assistant principal. 	On May 15, 	1994, 	he
requested notification 	from 	the District 	as 	to his 	teaching
assignment 	for the 	1994-95 year. 	On May 16, 	1994, 	he received a
written 	notice 	(titled 	"Contract 	Update 	Notice 	for 	1994-95")
informing him of 	his 	election 	to 	serve 	as 	a permanent 	employee 	at
100% 	for the period July 1, 	1994 	- 	June 30, 	1995. 	This notice
also advised as 	to his 	placement 	on 	the 	salary 	schedule,
referencing 	the 	schedule 	included 	in 	the 	agreement 	between 	the
District 	and Association. 	The 	notice 	did not 	specify his
teaching 	assignment.
By memorandum dated July 	7, 	1994, 	Romero was 	notified of 	a
contract 	amendment 	for 	1994-95 	to 	reflect 	a 	temporary assignment
as Assistant 	Principal, 	K-6, 	and his placement on the Assistant
Principal 	salary 	schedule 	(with additional 	days 	and an 	increase
in salary exceeding $6,000).
(

C
Warning 	Letter
S-CO-342
April 18, 	1995
Page 2
Romero 	responded to 	the 	contract amendment 	on July 10, 	1994,
referencing his 	earlier 	communications 	(verbal 	and written) 	with
the 	District 	expressing 	his 	desire 	to 	revert 	to 	certificated
status, 	and requesting a meeting to 	resolve 	the matter.
By letter dated August 	11, 	1994, 	Romero sent a 	follow-up 	letter
which 	acknowledged 	the 	District 	had 	no 	open position 	available
and 	the 	dislocation 	that 	would 	ensue 	if 	he were 	appointed 	to 	a
teaching position, 	and 	confirmed his 	suggestion 	that 	he be 	placed
on 	the 	certificated 	salary 	schedule 	and 	"function 	in 	the 	capacity
of Assistant 	Principal." 	His written communications 	did not
include 	it, 	but 	Romero verbally advised 	the District 	that 	he
intended 	to 	continue 	serving as 	the 	local 	president 	of 	the
American Federation of Teachers 	(AFT).1
On August 	15, 	1994, 	an agreement signed by the District, 	Romero
and Jewell McCoy, 	the Association president, 	was 	submitted 	to 	the
District 	Board of 	Trustees. 	The agreement 	described 	the
situation as 	"unique" 	and 	its 	resolution as 	"not 	precedent
setting;" 	confirmed 	the 	temporary assignment 	of 	Romero 	to 	the
"duties 	of 	an Assistant 	Principal;" 	confirmed his 	placement 	on
the 	certificated 	salary 	schedule 	(at 	the 	original 	rate
communicated 	to 	him and 	thus 	at 	a 	reduced 	rate 	from the 	assistant
principal 	schedule); 	and stated that 	Romero would be placed 	in
the 	first 	available 	teaching position 	for which 	he 	is 	qualified.
Romero 	received a 	contract amendment 	dated August 	23, 	1994,
consistent 	with 	the 	agreement.
The 	job description 	of 	assistant 	principal 	indicates 	that 	an
incumbent 	"serves 	as a member of 	the management 	staff" 	and
performs 	duties 	which 	include 	assisting 	in 	the 	"selection,
placement 	and performance 	evaluation of 	personnel 	in 	the 	school,
including 	employment 	interviews." 	Romero 	denies 	having performed
any duties 	during 	the 	1994-95 	school 	year which 	would bring 	him
under 	the 	definition of 	either a 	supervisory 	or management
employee, 	as 	those 	terms 	are defined 	in the Educational
Employment Relations Act 	(EERA).2
Romero 	continued to 	serve as 	the AFT local president, 	and
subsequently became 	involved 	in AFT's 	campaign 	to 	decertify 	the
Association. 	On February 15, 	1995, 	the District 	superintendent
approached Romero 	and 	informed him that 	he 	could 	not 	be 	involved
in the 	decertification 	campaign. 	The 	superintendent 	stated 	that
lRomero was 	elected 	to a 	two-year 	term as 	president 	in 	the
Spring 1994.
2EERA is 	codified at 	Government 	Code 	section 	3540 	et 	seq.
(

Warning 	Letter
S-CO-342
April 18, 	1995
Page 3
McCoy 	and 	a 	CTA representative 	had 	threatened 	to 	file 	an unfair
practice 	charge 	against 	the 	District 	unless 	Romero 	ceased his
activities. 	The 	superintendent 	telephoned Romero 	later 	the 	same
day 	to 	instruct 	him to 	cease 	his 	activities 	in support 	of 	the
decertification.
On February 16, 	1995, 	the Association distributed a letter to all
District 	certificated 	employees 	that 	stated Romero 	was 	violating
the 	EERA 	"by actively participating 	in 	the 	leadership 	of 	a
teachers' 	union while he 	is 	serving as 	an administrator." 	The
letter 	also 	stated 	that 	the Association 	had 	called 	this matter 	to
the 	attention 	of 	the District 	and had been assured 	that 	the
superintendent 	would 	request 	that 	Romero 	"cease 	and desist 	this
activity at 	once."
Discussion
At 	issue 	here 	is 	not 	whether 	the District 	arguably 	interfered
with Romero's 	exercise 	of 	rights guaranteed under EERA, 	but
rather whether 	the Association's 	conduct 	was 	such 	that 	it
independently violated 	EERA by 	causing 	the 	District 	to 	commit
such a violation.
Even 	crediting 	Romero's 	assertions 	that 	he 	at 	no 	time 	performed
duties 	during 	the 	1994-95 	school 	year which would 	confer upon 	him
supervisory or managerial 	status, 	it 	is 	significant 	that 	the
August 	15, 	1994 agreement which Romero, 	the District and the
Association's 	representative 	signed 	stated 	that 	Romero 	would be
"assigned 	temporarily 	to 	the 	duties 	of 	an Assistant 	Principal."
Romero 	does 	not 	contend 	that 	assistant 	principals 	are 	included 	as
rank-and-file members 	of 	the 	certificated bargaining unit, 	nor
dispute 	that 	assistant 	principals 	are 	generally 	and appropriately
excluded 	from the 	unit.
There 	is 	also no evidence, 	from the documents provided by Romero,
that 	he 	ever 	communicated 	in writing, 	to 	either 	the Association
or the District, 	his 	intent 	to simultaneously serve as 	an
Assistant 	Principal 	and as 	an active member of 	his AFT local.
Nor 	is 	there 	any documentary 	evidence 	that 	would 	establish 	the
Association's 	awareness 	of 	such 	intent on his 	part. 	Romero
acknowledges 	that 	he 	has 	no direct 	knowledge 	of 	what 	information
the District 	shared with 	the Association prior 	to 	the 	signing 	of
the August 	15, 	1994 agreement.
Thus, 	the question posed by the 	charge 	is whether the
Association's actions, 	by communicating 	its 	concerns 	to the
District 	over 	the 	involvement 	of 	a 	temporary assistant 	principal
in AFT's 	efforts 	at 	decertification and/or by publishing 	a 	letter
saying 	that 	they had done 	so, 	violate 	the 	EERA.
(

Warning 	Letter
S-CO-342
April 18, 	1995
Page 	4
The 	Board has 	long 	recognized 	freedom of 	speech 	rights 	of 	both
employers 	and employee 	organizations. 	Generally, 	speech will 	be
considered protected, 	even if 	defamatory and even 	if 	erroneous,
unless 	it 	can be 	shown 	that 	such speech was made with malice and
with knowledge it was 	false. 	(See, 	for example, 	State of
California 	(Department 	of Transportation) 	(1983) 	PERB Decision
No. 	304-S 	and cases 	cited therein.)
The 	charge here 	fails 	to meet 	the 	standard because 	the 	facts 	as
alleged 	do 	not 	establish 	on 	their 	face 	that 	the Association acted
with knowledge 	that 	their 	concerns 	were misplaced 	or 	their
allegations 	false. 	The 	charge 	thus 	fails 	to state a prima 	facie
violation 	of 	the 	EERA by 	the Association.
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 additional 	facts 	which would 	correct 	the
deficiencies 	explained above, 	please amend the 	charge. 	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
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 April 	28, 	1995, 	I
shall 	dismiss your charge. 	If you have any questions, 	please
call me at 	(916) 	322-3198, 	ext. 	359.
Sincerely,
Les 	Chisholm
Regional 	Director
(