Marysville Joint Unified School District (PERB I006E)

PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
MARYSVILLE UNIFIED TEACHERS ASSOCIATION,
Charging 	Party, 	Petitioner,
v.
MARYSVILLE 	JOINT 	UNIFIED 	SCHOOL 	DISTRICT,)
Respondent.
)
) 	Case No. 	S-CE-133
PERB Order No. IR-6
Administrative Appeal
September 	29, 	1978
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances: 	James F. 	Dawson, 	Attorney for Marysville Unified
Teachers Association; 	W. 	Craig Biddle, 	Attorney 	(Biddle,
Walters 	& Bukey) 	for 	Marysville 	Joint 	Unified 	School 	District.
Before Gluck, 	Chairperson; 	Gonzales 	and Cossack Twohey, 	Members.
DECISION
The 	Marysville 	Unified 	Teachers 	Association 	(hereafter
MUTA) 	has 	requested 	the 	Public 	Employment Relations Board
(hereafter 	PERB or 	Board) 	to 	seek 	an order 	restraining 	the
Marysville 	Joint 	Unified 	School 	District 	(hereafter 	District)
from 	deducting 	any 	sum 	from 	the 	salaries 	of 	certificated
employees of 	the District, 	pursuant 	to 	increases 	in premiums
for 	health 	care 	coverage 	for 	employees 	and 	their 	dependents.
FACTS
It 	is 	alleged 	by MUTA 	that 	the 	District 	intends 	to pass 	on
to 	the 	employees 	increases 	in premium costs 	for 	health 	coverage
upon 	expiration 	of 	a 	collectively 	negotiated 	agreement 	on
June 30, 	1978. 	That agreement, 	in pertinent part, 	stated:
Section 	12.2. 	...The 	District 	shall 	assume
full 	payment 	for 	employee 	coverage 	only
(unless 	new monies 	are 	applied 	pursuant 	to

Article 14.3 of 	this Agreement), 	when this
Agreement 	becomes 	effective 	and 	shall
continue 	until 	the 	expiration 	of 	this
Agreement.
Section 	14.3 	referred 	to, 	gives 	the Association 	an option 	in
determining 	how 	to 	allocate 	certain 	new monies 	derived 	from
specific 	legislation. 	It 	states:
...After 	the 	allocation 	to 	fund 	the 	increase
on 	the 	salary 	schedule 	from 	5.9% 	to 	6.5%,
any 	additional 	funds 	shall 	be 	used 	to 	fund
the 	Blue 	Cross/CDS 	family 	plan. 	MUTA 	shall
make 	the 	determination 	as 	to 	the preferred
plan 	to 	be 	funded.
The 	Board 	has 	been 	presented 	with 	no 	evidence 	that 	any
money was, 	in 	fact, 	applied 	to dependent coverage. 	While 	the
District 	indicates 	that 	such 	application 	did 	occur, 	it 	argues
in 	its 	response 	to the 	request 	for 	injunctive 	relief, 	that 	such
coverage 	was 	to 	continue 	only 	for 	the 	term of 	the 	contract.
MUTA 	and 	the 	District 	commenced 	negotiations 	on 	or 	about
April 	1, 	1978, 	for 	a successor 	agreement. 	Proposals 	included
provisions 	for 	health 	insurance 	policies 	and 	premiums 	and
coverage 	for 	employees 	and 	dependents.
On June 7, 	1978, 	the District circulated a memorandum
stating 	that 	it 	would 	continue 	to 	pay 	the 	full 	premium,
including 	a 	$5 	increase 	imposed 	by 	the 	carrier, 	for
employee-only 	coverage 	for 	the 	summer 	months, 	but 	that 	the
employees 	would 	be 	required 	to pay 	for 	dependent 	coverage.
The 	District 	in 	its 	response 	does 	not 	deny 	the
negotiability 	of 	health 	insurance 	coverage 	and 	respective
premium contributions. 	The 	District's 	contention 	is 	that 	an
increase 	in premiums 	above 	its 	contractual 	obligations 	may 	be

passed on 	to 	its 	employees 	without 	disturbing 	the 	status 	quo,
and it 	further 	indicates 	its willingness 	to 	continue negotia-
tions 	on 	the 	subject.
DISCUSSION
Under 	section 	3541.3(j) 	of 	the Educational 	Employment
Relations Act 	(hereafter EERA) 	PERB has 	discretionary authority
to 	petition 	the court 	for appropriate 	injunctive relief. 	On
July 5, 	1978, 	PERB adopted a policy for 	the guidance of the
parties 	in requesting 	that 	PERB 	exercise 	its 	discretion 	and
seek 	injunctive 	relief.9
The 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations Act 	is 	codified at
Government 	Code 	section 	3540 	et 	seq.
Gov. 	Code sec. 	3541.3(j) provides:
3541.3. 	The board shall 	have 	all 	of 	the
following duties:
(j) 	To bring an action 	in a 	court of com-
petent jurisdiction 	to 	enforce 	any of 	its 	orders
decisions 	or rulings 	or 	to 	enforce 	the refusal
to obey a 	subpoena. 	Upon issuance of a 	com-
plaint 	charging 	that 	any person has 	engaged 	in
or 	is 	engaging 	in an unfair practice, 	the board
may petition 	the 	court 	for 	appropriate 	temporary
relief or restraining 	order.
2Procedure 	for 	Filing 	Requests 	for 	Injunctive 	Relief,
stating:
(a) 	A party who wishes 	the 	Board 	to 	seek
injunctive 	relief 	pursuant 	to 	section
3541.3 (j) 	shall 	file an original and 	four
copies 	of 	such 	request 	for 	injunctive 	relief
with 	the 	Board 	itself 	at 	the 	headquarters
office. 	The 	request 	shall 	contain 	the
following:
(1) 	A copy 	of 	the 	underlying 	unfair
practice 	charge;
(2) 	The 	date 	the 	unfair 	practice charge was
f i l e d ; (cont.)

MUTA has 	requested 	that 	PERB 	seek 	a 	court 	order 	restraining
the District 	from making 	payroll 	deductions 	for 	two 	purposes.
The 	first 	purpose 	is 	for 	payment 	of 	increased premiums 	for
(3) 	Affidavits 	and 	other 	appropriate
evidence 	setting 	forth 	the 	specific 	facts
upon 	which 	the 	request 	is 	based;
(4) 	A 	full 	description of 	the 	irreparable
injury 	which 	the 	requesting 	party 	alleges 	it
will 	suffer 	if 	the 	request 	is 	not 	granted;
(5) 	The 	basis 	for 	contending 	that 	the
Board's 	normal 	processes 	and 	remedies 	are
inadequate;
(6) 	The 	legal 	theory which 	supports 	the
requesting 	party's 	belief 	that 	it 	will
likely 	prevail 	on 	the 	merits 	of 	the
underlying 	unfair 	practice 	charge; 	and
(7) 	A statement 	of 	the 	relief 	sought.
(b) 	In order 	to be 	considered 	filed, 	a 	copy
of 	the 	request 	must 	have 	been 	actually
served 	upon 	the 	charged 	party 	or 	parties
prior 	to 	filing 	the 	request, 	and 	a 	statement
of 	such 	service 	shall 	accompany 	the
request. 	"Actual 	service" 	as 	used 	in 	this
section means 	actual 	receipt 	by 	the 	party 	or
its 	agent.
(c) 	The 	Executive 	Assistant 	to 	the 	Board
will 	notify 	the 	respondent of 	their 	right 	to
file 	with 	the 	Board 	itself 	such 	evidence,
including 	affidavits, 	as 	it may 	deem proper
to 	rebut 	the 	request 	and 	the 	final 	date 	for
said 	response 	to 	be 	actually 	received 	by 	the
Executive Assistant 	to 	the 	Board 	at 	the
Headquarters 	Office 	in 	Sacramento.
(d) 	The 	Board 	itself 	with 	the 	advice 	of 	its
General 	Counsel 	shall, 	immediately 	upon
expiration 	of 	the 	charged 	party's 	rebuttal
period, 	consider 	the 	request 	for 	the
injunctive 	relief 	and 	shall 	determine
whether 	or 	not 	to 	issue 	a 	complaint 	and 	seek
injunctive 	relief. 	If 	the 	Board 	itself
determines 	the 	request 	should 	be 	denied, 	it
will 	so 	notify 	all 	parties 	in writing.

employee health benefits 	after 	the 	summer. 	The 	second purpose
is payment of premiums 	for dependents' 	health benefits.
Two 	of 	the prerequisites 	for 	the 	issuance of an 	injunction
are 	the 	likelihood 	of 	irreparable 	harm and 	the 	inadequacy 	of
the normal 	legal 	remedy. 3 The Association has 	satisfied neither.
As 	to 	the 	increased premium for 	employee health benefits,
no 	evidence has 	been presented 	PERB 	that 	there 	are 	District
employees who 	cannot 	afford 	the 	$5 	increase and will 	be 	forced
to 	terminate 	their coverage. 	Without passing on 	the merits 	of
the underlying charge, 	PERB can, 	if 	the charge 	is 	sustained,
fashion 	an 	order 	sufficient 	to 	remedy 	the 	financial 	loss
suffered 	by 	the 	affected 	employees.
As 	to 	the 	prospective 	deductions 	for 	dependent 	coverage,
the 	Association 	provided 	no 	evidence 	concerning 	whether
dependent 	coverage 	had 	begun, 	what 	the 	deductions 	would
constitute, 	or 	whether 	District employees would 	be 	able 	to
afford 	the 	deductions.
MUTA has 	thus 	failed 	to 	demonstrate 	to 	the 	Board 	the
probability 	that 	the 	employees 	will 	suffer 	irreparable 	harm or
that 	PERB's 	normal processes 	and 	remedies 	would 	prove 	to 	be
inadequate.
ORDER
On 	the basis of 	the 	foregoing Decision, 	the 	request 	for
injunctive 	relief, 	supporting 	affidavits 	and 	the 	attached
unfair 	practice 	charge 	before 	it, 	the 	Public Employment
3San Ysidro 	School District 	(.8/8/78) 	PERB Order No. 	IR-4;
Weingard v. 	Atlantic 	Savings 	& Loan Association 	(1970) 	1 	Cal.3d 806,

Relations Board denies 	the 	request by 	the Marysville Unified
Teachers Association 	for 	injunctive 	relief 	against 	the
Marysville Joint 	Unified 	School District.
By: 	Harry 	Gluck, 	Chairperson 	Jerilou 	Cossack 	Twohey, 	Member