Sacramento City Unified School District (PERB 0421E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
SERVICE 	EMPLOYEES 	INTERNATIONAL
UNION, 	LOCAL 	22, 	AFL-CIO,
Charging Party,
v.
SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED 	SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
) 	Case. 	No. 	S-CE-696
PERB Decision No. 	421
October 	19, 	1984
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearance: 	William Kelly 	for 	Service Employees 	International
Union, Local 22, AFL-CIO.
Before Hesse, 	Chairperson; 	Tovar and Burt, Members.
DECISION AND ORDER
HESSE, 	Chairperson: 	Charging Party appeals 	the Regional
Attorney's 	dismissal 	of 	its 	unfair 	practice 	charge 	filed 	on
November 	2, 	1983, 	against 	Sacramento City Unified School
District. 	As 	the 	letter of appeal advances 	no errors 	of 	law
or 	fact, 	nor 	does 	it present 	any newly discovered evidence,
the Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board hereby adopts 	the
attached 	dismissal 	by 	the Regional Attorney 	as 	the 	decision
of 	the Board itself. 	Accordingly, 	Charge No. 	S-CE-696 	is
DISMISSED 	in 	its 	entirety without 	leave 	to 	amend.
Members 	Tovar 	and 	Burt joined 	in 	this Decision.
(
e

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA 	GEORGE 	DEUKMEJIAN, 	Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Sacramento Regional Office
1031 	18th Street, Suite 102
Sacramento, 	California 95814
(916) 322-3193
'""•
; '""··.,:~ ,; I}_ • ~
:\l ·' '~ i
I~~ . -;_ ~-k
\~ ~1:.-:-
December 	14, 	1983
Ruth 	O'Hearn
Business 	Representative
Service Employees 	International 	Union, 	Local 	22
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-696
Dear Ms. 	O'Hearn:
The 	above-referenced 	charge 	alleges 	the 	Sacramento 	City Unified
School 	District 	(District) 	discriminated 	against 	Annie Howard
by 	issuing 	her 	a 	letter 	of 	concern 	and by having 	a 	District
supervisor 	call her 	at home on 	two occasions. 	This 	conduct 	is
alleged 	to violate 	section 	3543.5(a) 	of 	the Educational
Employment Relations Act 	(EERA).
I 	indicated 	to you 	in my letter 	dated November 	25, 	1983 	that
the 	above-referenced 	charge 	did 	not 	state 	a prima 	facie 	case
and 	that 	unless 	you 	amended 	the 	charge 	to 	state 	a prima 	facie
case 	or withdrew 	it 	prior 	to 	December 	2, 	1983. 	It 	would be
dismissed. 	More 	specifically, 	I 	informed you 	that 	if 	there
ware 	any 	factual 	inaccuracies 	in 	the 	letter 	or 	additional 	facts
which 	would 	correct 	the 	deficiencies 	explained 	in 	that 	letter,
you 	should 	amend 	the 	charge 	accordingly.
I have not 	received 	either 	a 	request 	for 	withdrawal 	or 	an
amended 	charge 	and 	am 	therefore 	dismissing 	this 	charge 	based 	on
the 	facts 	and reasons 	stated 	in my November 	25, 	1983 	letter
(Exhibit 	1 ) . 	Please note 	two 	factual 	corrections 	from 	that
letter. 	First, 	Annie Howard has been an employee of 	the
District 	since 	1977. 	Second, 	she worked 	under different
supervision prior 	to 	working 	for 	Betty 	Swanson.
Pursuant 	to 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	regulation
section 32.635 	(California Administrative Code, 	title 8,
part 	III), 	you may appeal 	the refusal 	to 	issue a 	complaint
(dismissal) 	to 	the 	Board 	itself.
i]
:1	
I'
(!	
Ii	
'!,,,	
ii
"
	I	,I
	II
I'I

Ms. O'Hearn
December 14, 	1983
Page 	2
Right to Appeal
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
(section 32635(a)). 	To be 	timely filed, 	the original and five
(5) 	copies of such appeal must be 	actually received by 	the
Board 	itself before 	the close of business 	(5:00 	p.m.) 	on
January 3, 	1984, 	or 	sent by telegraph or 	certified United
States mail postmarked not later 	than January 3, 	1984 	(section
32135). 	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 	(5) 	copies of a statement 	in opposition within twenty
(20) 	calendar days 	following 	the date of 	service of 	the 	appeal
(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 	the 	document 	filed with 	the Board
itself 	(see 	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 	(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 	(section 32132).

Ms. O'Hearn
December 14, 	1983
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.
Very 	truly 	yours,
DENNIS M. 	SULLIVAN
General Counsel
By 'Robert Thompson
Regional Attorney

GEORGE COURSETA GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD	LATIONS BOARD
Sacramento Regional 	Office
1031 18th Street, Suite 102
Sacramento, California 95314
(916) 	322-3198
November 25, 	1983
Ruth 	O'Hearn
Business 	Representative
Service 	Employees 	International 	Union, 	Local 	22
903 	30th 	Street
Sacramento, 	CA 	958l6
. .. .
RE: 	Service Employees 	International 	Union, 	Local 	22 	v
Sacramento City 	Unified 	School District?
Unfair 	Practice 	Charge 	No. 	S-CE-696
Dear Ms. 	O'Hearn:
The 	above-referenced 	charge 	alleges 	the 	Sacramento 	City
Unified 	School 	District 	(District) 	discriminated 	against
Annie 	Howard by 	issuing her 	a 	letter 	of 	concern and. by
having a 	District 	supervisor 	call 	her 	at 	home 	on 	two
occasions'. 	This 	conduct 	is 	alleged 	to 	violate 	section
3543.5(a) 	of 	the 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Act
(EERA).
My 	investigation 	revealed 	the 	following: 	Annie 	Howard has
been 	an employee 	of 	the 	District 	since 	September 	198.1,
She has 	worked 	under 	the 	supervision 	of 	Betty 	Swanson 	With
the 	exception 	of 	the 	1982-83 	school 	year 	when 	Swanson 	was
away 	for 	approximately seven months. 	During 	1982, 	Howard
was 	counseled 	on 	making bank 	deposits, 	maintaining 	the
parents' 	waiting list, 	and 	following 	the 	steps of 	the 	fee
collection process. 	In 	1983, 	Howard was 	given 	a letter 	of
reprimand 	regarding her 	repeated 	late 	arrival 	at 	work.
This 	letter 	was 	withdrawn 	from her 	personnel 	file 	because
of 	legal 	defects 	relating 	to Howard's 	appeal 	rights. 	On
September 14, 	1983, 	Howard, her supervisor, 	a Local 22
representative, 	and 	the 	director 	of 	the 	preschools and
children's 	centers 	had 	a 	meeting 	concerning 	Howard's
work. 	A second meeting was 	scheduled 	for 	September 	30,
but 	never 	took 	place 	because 	Howard 	was 	injured 	on 	the 	job
between 	the 	two meetings. 	On 	October 	4, 	Howard was 	sent 	a
Letter 	of 	concern 	by her 	supervisor 	regarding 	deposits 	of
funds, 	notification 	of 	families 	when 	their 	fees 	are
overdue, 	maintenance 	of 	the parents waiting 	list, 	posting
EXHIBIT I

Ruth 	O'Hearn
November 25, 1983
of 	the 	fees, 	and 	tardiness. 	In 	addition, 	the supervisor
telephoned 	Howard 	on 	approximately 	October 	21 	and 	during
the week of 	October 	24. 	The first phone 	call 	was made at
about 6:00 p.m., 	lasted approximately 1 	minute, 	and
concerned whether 	Howard would 	be 	returning 	to 	work 	the
following 	week. 	The 	second 	call 	involved 	the 	waiting 	list
which Howard had in her possession 	at home, 	and that her
work 	was backing 	up. 	Howard brought 	in 	the documents 	on
the next day.
Based on 	the 	facts 	stated 	above, 	this 	charge does 	not
state a prima 	facie 	case 	for 	the 	reasons 	that 	follow.
You have alleged 	that 	the 	respondent's 	conduct 	h
..i;/)
violated 	EERA 	section 	3543.5(a). 	Violation of 	that
section requires 	allegations 	that: 	(1) 	an 	employee has
exercised rights 	under 	the 	EERA; 	(2) 	the 	employer has
imposed or 	threatened 	to 	impose 	reprisals, 	discriminated
or 	threatened 	to discriminate, 	or 	otherwise 	interfered
with, 	restrained, 	or 	coerced 	the 	employee 	because 	of 	the
exercise "of 	rights 	guaranteed by 	the 	EERA. 	Carlsbad
Unified 	(1/30/79) 	PERB Decision No. 89;
Novato Unified 	School 	District 	(4/30/82) 	PERB 	Decision No.
210.
School 	District
In Howard's 	case 	there 	is 	evidence 	that 	she 	exercised
protected 	rights 	by having 	a 	union 	representative 	present
for 	a 	meeting 	with 	her 	supervisor. 	Charging 	Party stated
that 	Howard had 	not 	participated 	in 	any other 	forms 	of
protected 	conduct. 	Although 	the 	employer 	did 	take 	adverse
action 	in 	the 	form of 	a 	letter 	of 	concern, 	there 	is
insufficient 	evidence 	to 	demonstrate 	a 	nexus 	between 	this
adverse 	action 	and her 	participating 	with 	a 	union
representative 	in 	the meeting. 	This 	is 	especially 	true 	in
light cf her 	job performance, 	prior 	to 	the date of 	the
September 	1983 	meeting, 	which partially 	involved
counseling 	by 	a 	different 	supervisor 	than 	she 	works under
presently. 	There 	has 	been 	an 	insufficient 	showing 	that
the 	content 	of 	the 	telephone 	calls 	make 	them 	anything 	more
than 	an 	attempt 	by 	the 	supervisor 	to 	obtain 	information
necessary 	for 	her 	to 	perform 	her 	job. 	Such 	requests 	for
information, 	without 	more, 	do not 	rise 	to an unfair
practice 	under 	the 	EERA.
I
I l
' 
I
I ii I
I I
I I

Ruth O'Hearn
November 25, 1983 1983
For 	these reasons, 	charge 	number 	S-CE-696, 	as 	presently
written, 	does 	not 	state a 	prima 	facie 	cape. 	If you feel that
there 	are 	any 	factual 	inaccuracies 	in 	this 	letter 	or 	any
additional 	facts 	which 	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 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 	December 	2, 	1983,
I 	shall 	dismiss 	your 	charge. 	If 	you have 	any questions 	on how
to proceed, 	please 	call 	me 	at 	(916) 	322-3198.
Sincerely 	yours,
Robert 	Thompson
Regional 	Attorney