Teachers Association of Long Beach (Aragon, et al.) (PERB 1311E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
RICHARD ARAGON, 	ET AL.,
Charging Parties,
v.
TEACHERS ASSOCIATION OF LONG BEACH,
Respondent.
)
)
) 	Case No. 	LA-CO-519
PERB Decision No. 	1311
January 27, 	1999
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances: 	National Right 	to Work Legal Defense 	Foundation,
Inc. 	by John C. 	Scully for Richard Aragon, 	et al.; 	California
Teachers Association by A. 	Eugene Huguenin, 	Jr., 	Attorney, 	for
Teachers Association of 	Long Beach.
Before Caffrey, 	Chairman; 	Dyer and Amador, 	Members.
DECISION
DYER, 	Member: 	This 	case 	comes before the Public Employment
Relations 	Board 	(Board) 	on appeal 	from a Board agent's 	dismissal
(attached) 	of Richard Aragon, 	et al.'s 	(Charging Parties) 	unfair
practice 	charge. 	The 	charge alleged that 	the Teachers
Association of 	Long Beach 	(Association) 	breached the 	duty of 	fair
representation 	set 	forth 	in section 	3544.9 	of 	the 	Educational
Employment 	Relations Act 	(EERA) 	and 	thereby violated EERA section
3543.6(b) 	when 	it used a portion of 	the agency 	fee paid by non-
members 	to 	support 	activities 	not 	related 	to 	collective
bargaining 	or 	contract 	administration.1
IBERA 	is 	codified at Government 	Code 	section 3540 	et 	seq.
EERA section 3543.6 provides, 	in relevant part:
It 	shall 	be unlawful 	for an employee
organization to:

(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.
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 	Board has 	reviewed the 	entire 	record 	in this 	case,
including 	the unfair practice 	charge, 	the warning and dismissal
letters, 	Charging Parties' 	appeal and the Association's 	response
thereto. 	The Board 	finds 	the warning and dismissal 	letters 	to be
free 	from prejudicial 	error and adopts 	them as 	the 	decision of
the 	Board 	itself.
ORDER
The unfair practice 	charge 	in Case No. 	LA-CO-519 	is 	hereby
DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE 	TO AMEND.
Chairman 	Caffrey and Member Amador 	joined 	in this 	Decision.
22

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
October 5, 	1998
John C. 	Scully, 	Staff Attorney
National 	Right 	to Work
Legal Defense Foundation, 	Inc.
8001 	Braddock Road
Springfield, 	Virginia 	22160
Re: 	T.A.U.S. 	- 	Teachers Against Unfair Share, 	Richard Aracron et
al. 	v. 	Teachers Association of Long Beach
Unfair Practice 	Charge No. 	LA-CO-519
DISMISSAL 	LETTER
Dear Mr. 	Scully:
The 	above-referenced 	charge 	alleges 	that 	the 	Teachers 	Association
of 	Long Beach 	(Association) 	collected 	from the 	individually named
Charging 	Parties 	an 	agency 	fee 	for 	the 	1989-90 	school 	year 	in
violation of 	the Educational 	Employment 	Relations Act 	(EERA).
More 	specifically, 	the alleged violation 	is 	that 	the 	fee was
collected 	and 	used 	to 	reimburse 	the 	Association 	for 	costs 	other
than 	collective 	bargaining and 	contract 	administration. 	This
conduct 	is 	alleged to violate 	sections 	3543.6(b) 	and 	3544.9 	of
the EERA.
I 	indicated to you, 	in my attached letter dated September 	16,
1998, 	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
September 28, 	1998, 	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 September 16, 	1998 	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).)
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
Attachment
cc: 	A. 	Eugene Huguenin, 	Jr.

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
September 16, 	1998
John C. 	Scully, 	Staff Attorney-
National 	Right 	to Work
Legal Defense Foundation, 	Inc.
8001 	Braddock Road
Springfield, 	Virginia 	22160
Re: 	T.A.U.S. 	- 	Teachers Against Unfair Share, 	Richard Aracron et
al. 	v. 	Teachers Association of Long Beach
Unfair Practice 	Charge No. 	LA-CO-519
WARNING 	LETTER
Dear Mr. 	Scully:
The 	above-referenced 	charge 	alleges 	that 	the 	Teachers 	Association
of 	Long Beach 	(Association) 	collected 	from the 	individually named
Charging 	Parties 	an 	agency 	fee 	for 	the 	1989-90 	school 	year 	in
violation of 	the 	Educational 	Employment Relations Act 	(EERA).
More 	specifically, 	the alleged violation 	is 	that 	the 	fee was
collected 	and used 	to 	reimburse 	the 	Association 	for 	costs 	other
than collective 	bargaining and 	contract 	administration. 	This
conduct 	is alleged to violate 	sections 	3543.6(b) 	and 	3544.9 	of
the EERA.
My 	investigation 	revealed 	the 	following 	information. 	The 	twenty
one 	individual 	Charging 	Parties 	were 	members 	of 	the 	bargaining
unit 	exclusively 	represented by 	the 	Association 	during 	the 	1989-
90 	school year. 	During this period, 	the Association and the Long
Beach Unified High School 	District 	(District) 	had 	a 	collective
bargaining agreement 	which became 	effective 	on September 	1, 	1989.
The 	organizational 	security clause 	of 	the 	agreement 	provided 	that
a unit member who 	is 	not 	a member of 	the Association 	shall 	pay an
agency fee to the Association. 	On October 1, 	1989, 	the District
deducted an agency 	fee 	from each of 	the 	individual 	Charging
Party's pay warrants.
On October 13, 	1989, 	the Association provided all 	agency fee
payers 	with a 	notification 	regarding 	the 	collection 	of 	agency
fee. 	The notice provided that 	the 	chargeable 	fee 	for 	the 	1989-90
school 	year 	for 	the 	California 	Teachers Association was 	75.3
percent 	of union dues 	and the 	chargeable 	fee 	for 	the 	National
Education Association 	for the 	same year was 	75.66 	percent. 	The
notice 	also provided 	for 	an agency 	fee 	payer 	to 	challenge 	the
calculations 	and 	that 	arbitration would be 	provided 	for 	a 	review
of that 	challenge. 	More 	specifically, 	the notice 	states:
In addition, 	if you wish to challenge the
calculation for CTA's, 	NEA's or your local

chapter's 	chargeable 	expenditures 	in an
arbitration hearing, 	you must 	also make 	this
request 	in writing 	to 	Mary Trevithick,
postmarked on or before November 	15, 	1989.
Please 	indicate your name, 	home address,
social 	security number, 	the name 	of your
school 	district 	and 	the 	name 	of 	your 	local
chapter 	in 	any request 	for 	agency 	fee
reduction 	and/or 	arbitration.
If 	you 	do 	request 	an 	arbitration hearing 	to
challenge 	the 	calculations 	of 	the 	chargeable
amount, 	we will promptly inform you of 	the
arbitration hearing procedure. 	Note 	that 	the
estimate 	of 	chargeable 	expenditures 	for 	CTA,
NEA and 	locals 	contained 	in 	this 	notice 	is
based 	on percentages 	derived 	from 	audited
financial 	statements 	for the 	1987-88 	fiscal
year, 	the most 	recent 	fiscal year for which
final 	figures 	are available. 	Final 	figures
for 	actual 	expenditures 	for 	the 	1988-89 	year
will 	not 	be 	available 	until 	approximately
December 	15. 	Since 	these 	figures will be
available 	in 	time 	for 	the 	arbitration
hearing, 	the 	evidence presented at 	that
hearing will 	be 	based 	on percentages 	derived
from actual 	expenditures 	for 	the 	1988-89
year.
Following 	the 	arbitration decision, 	CTA will
immediately 	send 	arbitration 	requestors 	a
check 	representing 	the 	non-chargeable 	amount
for CTA, 	NEA and the 	local 	chapter as
determined by 	the 	arbitrator 	for 	the 	1989-90
year, 	together with interest 	on that portion
of 	the 	amount 	collected to date. 	(If your
local 	chapter 	is 	not 	adopting the
presumption, 	they will 	send the 	check
representing 	the 	local 	non-chargeable
expenses.) 	Note 	that 	the 	arbitrator will
have 	the 	authority to 	order 	a 	larger or
smaller rebate 	as 	he 	or 	she 	deems 	appropriate
under prevailing 	case 	precedent.
Based on the 	information contained above, 	the 	allegation that 	the
Association 	collected agency 	fees 	and 	spent 	those 	fees 	for
activities 	not 	related 	to 	collective 	bargaining 	and 	contract
administration must 	be 	dismissed 	for 	the 	following 	reasons.
2
(
2

There are no 	facts 	alleged that 	Charging Party, 	T.A.U.S. 	-
Teachers Against 	Unfair Share,(T.A.U.S.) 	is 	an employee
organization within 	the meaning of 	EERA section 	3540.1(d).
Unless T.A.U.S. 	is 	an employee 	organization 	it 	does 	not 	have
standing 	to 	file 	an unfair practice 	charge. 	EERA section
3541.5(a); 	see 	also Sierra Sands Unified School 	District 	(1993)
PERB Decision No. 	977. 	Therefore, 	T.A.U.S. 	will be dismissed as
a 	Charging 	Party.
PERB Regulation 	32994(a)1 requires 	that 	an agency fee payer who
wishes 	to 	challenge 	the 	amount 	of 	the 	fee 	by 	filing 	an unfair
practice 	charge 	with 	PERB must 	first 	exhaust 	the 	agency 	fee
appeal 	procedure 	unless 	the procedure 	is 	insufficient 	on 	its
face. 	In this 	case, 	there 	is no evidence 	any of 	the 	Charging
Parties 	requested arbitration. 	Nor 	is 	there 	any evidence 	that
the 	appeal procedure 	is 	insufficient 	on 	its 	face. 	Accordingly,
the 	allegation 	that 	the 	Association 	improperly 	collected 	and
spent 	agency 	fee 	monies 	must 	be 	dismissed.
Charging 	Parties 	assert 	that 	exhaustion of 	the 	appeal 	process 	is
irrelevant 	or unconstitutional 	as 	contrary to Air Line 	Pilots
Ass'n. 	v. 	Miller 118 S.Ct. 	1761 	(1998). 	That case found that
plaintiffs 	challenging the 	amount 	of 	an 	agency 	fee 	collected
pursuant 	to 	a 	collective 	bargaining 	agreement 	under 	the 	Railway
Labor Act 	(44 	Stat. 	577 	(1926), 	45 USC sections 151-63 	(1988))
may not be 	required to exhaust 	an arbitration procedure, 	unless
they agree 	to 	the process, 	before bringing their claims 	to
federal 	court. 	The 	case 	does 	not 	hold that 	challengers 	can avoid
1Public 	Employment Relations 	Board 	(PERB) 	Regulations 	are
codified at 	California Code of Regulations, 	title 	8, 	section
31001 et 	seq. 	PERB Regulation 32994(a) 	reads:
(a) 	If 	an agency fee payer disagrees with
the 	exclusive 	representative's 	determination
of 	the 	agency fee amount, 	that 	employee
(hereinafter known as 	an 	"agency 	fee
objector") 	may file 	an agency fee 	objection.
Such 	agency 	fee 	objection 	shall 	be 	filed with
the 	exclusive 	representative. 	An agency fee
objector may 	file 	an unfair practice 	charge
that 	challenges 	the 	amount 	of 	the 	agency 	fee;
however, 	no complaint 	shall 	issue until 	the
agency 	fee 	objector has 	first 	exhausted 	the
exclusive 	representative's 	Agency 	Fee 	Appeal
Procedure. 	No objector 	shall 	be 	required 	to
exhaust 	the Agency Fee Appeal 	Procedure 	where
it 	is 	insufficient 	on 	its 	face.
33

arbitration 	before 	filing 	with 	a 	state 	administrative 	agency 	such
as PERB.
The Supreme 	Court 	supports 	its 	finding in Air Line 	Pilots, 	in
part, 	by minimizing 	the value 	of 	an 	arbitration prior 	to 	a
federal 	court 	case. 	The 	Court 	notes 	that 	in federal 	court,
agency 	fee 	challengers, 	like 	other 	civil 	litigants 	would not 	be
allowed to 	"file 	a generally phrased complaint, 	then 	sit 	back 	and
require 	the union to prove 	the 	'germaneness' 	of 	its 	expenditures
without 	a clue 	as 	to 	'which of 	its 	thousands 	of 	expenditures' 	the
objectors oppose." 	Air Line 	Pilots Ass'n. 	v. 	Miller 	118 	S.Ct.
1761, 	1768. 	The 	Court 	states 	that 	such challengers would be
required to make 	their objections 	known with a 	degree 	of
specificity and be 	subject 	to pretrial 	attack 	through 	a motion 	to
dismiss, 	motion for summary judgement, 	etc.
Air Line 	Pilots 	is 	distinguishable 	from the 	instant 	case 	because
PERB 	is not 	a 	federal 	court. 	In the 	PERB 	forum, 	Charging Parties
are 	alleging 	a violation of 	State 	law before 	a 	State
administrative 	agency. 	In addition, 	at 	PERB the burden of
persuasion is 	on the union. 	Cumero v. 	Public Employment
Relations Bd. 	(1989) 	49 Cal. 	3d 575, 	605; 	8 Cal. 	Code Regulation
section 	32994(b)(6). 	And there 	is 	no prehearing discovery in
unfair practice 	charges. 	King 	City High School 	District 	(1982)
PERB Decision No. 	197. 	These 	factors 	strongly support 	the need
for an arbitration, 	prior to a PERB hearing, 	to define 	the 	scope
of the challengers' 	concerns.
At 	the 	time 	PERB 	Regulation 	32994 	was 	being considered, 	the
National 	Right 	to Work Legal 	Defense 	Fund, 	Inc. 	opposed the
provision 	requiring 	exhaustion 	of 	the 	agency 	fee 	arbitration
procedure. 	The 	Board rejected 	the 	argument 	based on 	three
reasons. 	First, 	exhaustion was not 	specifically rejected by the
majority in Chicago Teachers Union v. 	Hudson 475 U.S. 	292 	(1986).
Second, 	the Board has 	long adhered to 	a policy favoring 	the
resolution 	of 	disputes 	through 	the 	grievance/arbitration 	forum
prior to 	charges being filed with PERB. 	Lake 	Elsinore 	School
District 	(1987) 	PERB Decision No. 	646, 	Government Code sections
3514.5(a), 	3541.5(a), 	PERB Regulation 32620. 	Third, 	a similar
procedure was 	being used by the 	National 	Labor Relations 	Board.
Based on 	the 	differences 	between 	federal 	court 	and 	PERB 	as 	well
as 	the 	reasons 	posited 	for 	the 	adoption of 	PERB 	Regulation
section 32994, 	I 	find the 	reasoning of Air Line 	Pilots 	to be not
controlling.
For 	these 	reasons 	the 	allegation 	that 	the Association 	collected
and 	spent 	agency 	fee 	monies 	for 	subjects 	not 	related 	to
collective bargaining or 	contract 	administration, 	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
!'
4
(
-------
4

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 	have 	the 	case 	number written 	on 	the 	top
right 	hand corner of 	the 	charge 	form. 	The 	amended charge 	must 	be
served on 	the 	respondent's 	representative 	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 28, 	1998,
I 	shall 	dismiss 	the 	above-described charge. 	If you have 	any
questions, 	please call me at 	(916) 	322-3198, 	extension 361.
Sincerely,
ROBERT 	THOMPSON
Deputy General 	Counsel