California State Employees Association (Dees) (PERB 0496H)

STATE
	OF
	CALIFORNIA
DECISION
	OF
	THE
PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
TOMMIE
	R. 	DEES,
Charging
	Party,
v.
CALIFORNIA
	STATE 	EMPLOYEES'
ASSOCIATION,
Respondent.
Case
	No. 	SF-C0-5-H
PERE
	Decision
	No.496-H
March 	14, 	1985
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
__________________
)
Appearance:	
Tommie	
R. 	Dees,
	on
	his
	own
	behalf.
Before 	Hesse,
	Chairperson;
	Jaeger,
	Morgenstern
	and
	Burt,
Members.
DECISION
This 	case
	is
	before 	the 	Public
	Employment
	Relations
	Board
on
	appeal
	by
	charging
	party 	of 	the
	Board
	agent's 	dismissal,
attached 	hereto,
	of
	his
	charge
	alleging 	that
	the
	California
State
	Employees'
	Association
	violated 	section 	3571.1 	of 	the
Higher 	Education
	Employer-Employee
	Relations
	Act
	(Gov. 	Code
sec.
	3560
	et 	seq.).
We
	have 	reviewed
	the 	dismissal
	and,
	finding
	it
	free
	from
error,
	adopt
	it
	as 	the 	Decision 	of 	the
	Board
	itself.
ORDER
The
	unfair 	practice
	charge 	in 	case
	No.
	SF-C0-5-H
	is
DISMISSED
	WITHOUT 	LEAVE
	TO 	AMEND.
By
	the
	BOARD

I
J .
;:~.:
....	
CJ,ll:OP.NIA	
?'
GEORGE
C>l:UKMEJIAN,
Go.,.,,,o
;:1:at!C
Et
✓
\?tOYMENT
RELATIO,
..
:i
OOARD
H.:odquurters Office
103
1 18th 	Street
ISccromento, 	California 95814
{9 i
6)
322-3088
September
	5,
	1984
Tommie 	R.
	Dees
21569
	Princeton
	Str~et
Hayward,
	CA
	94541
Marilyn 	Sardonis
Relations
	Representative
California
	State
	Employees
	Association
160
	Franklin
	Street,
	Suite
	302
Oakland,
	CA
	94607
Association
	Re:
	Tommie 	R.
	Dees
	v.
	California 	State
	Employees
Unfair
	Practice
	Charge
	No.
	SF-C0-5-H;
	DISMISSAL OF 	UNFAIR
PRACTICE
	CHARGE
	AND
	REFUSAL
	TO
	ISSUE 	COMPLAINT.
(PERB
	Pursuant 	to
	Public
	Employment
	Relations
	Board
	or
	Board)
Regulation
	section
	32630,
.the 	above-entitled 	matter
	is
	hereby
dismissed
	because
	it
	fails
	to 	allege
	facts 	sufficient 	to 	state
a
	prima
	facie 	violation
	of 	the
	Higher 	Employer-Employee
Relations
	Act
	(HEERA
	or
	Act) .l	
The
	reasoning
	which
	underlies
this
	dismissal 	follows.
l	
section
	The
	HEERA
	is
	codified
	at
	Government 	Code
	3560,
et
	seq.,
	and
	is
	administered
	by
	PERB.
	Unless 	otherwise
	_
indicated,
	all
	statutory 	references 	in
	this
	dismissal 	are 	to
the
	Government 	Code.
	HEERA
	section
	3571.1
	provides
	that	
it
shall
	be
	unlawful 	for
	an 	employee
	organization 	to:
(a) 	Cause
	or 	attempt 	to
	cause
	the 	higher
education
	employer
	to 	violate 	Section
	3571.
(b) 	Impose
	or 	threaten 	to
	impose
	reprisa
on 	employees, 	to 	discriminate 	or 	threaten 	to
discriminate 	against
	employees, 	or 	otherwise
to 	interfere 	with, 	restrain,
	or 	co~rce
employees 	because 	of 	their 	exercise 	of
rights 	guaranteed 	by	
this 	chapter.
ls
(c) 	Refuse 	or
	fail 	to 	engage 	in 	meeting 	and

..
Tommie 	R.
	Dees
Mari.lyn
	Sardonis
September
	5,
	1984
Page	
2
Procedural
	Background
filed
	On
	May
	21,
	1984,
	Tommie 	R. 	Dees
	(Charging
	Party)
unfair 	practice
	charge
	against
	the
	California 	State
	Employees
(Association 	or
	CSEA)
	alleging
	violation 	of
	BEERA
Association
section
	3571.1.
	Du.ring
	the ·six
months
	preceding
	the
	filing
	of
this
	charge,
	Charging
	Party alleges
	several 	incidents
	to
have
which
	gave
	rise
	to
	meritorious 	grievances, 	requests
	by
occurred
him
	directed 	to
	CSEA
	representatives 	that
	the 	matters
	be
grieved,
	and
	failure
	and/or
	refusal
	by 	such
	representatives
	to
pursue 	the 	grievance
	to 	arbitration
	or
	to
	adequately
	represent
Charging
	Party during 	the
	grievance 	procedure because
	CSEA
	and
Charging
	Party's
	employer,
	California 	State 	University
	at
Haywarc 	{CSU),
	are 	in 	collusion 	against
	him.
~-:..:
an
conferring 	with 	the 	hi
employer. gher 	education
(d) 	Refuse
	to 	participate
	in
	good
	faith
	in
the
	impasse
	procedure
	set
	forth 	in
	Article
	9
(commencing
	with 	Section
	3590).
(e)
	Fail
	to 	represent
	fairly
	and
impartially
	all
	the
	employees
	in
	the
	unit
for
	which
	it
	is
	the 	exclusive
	representative.
(f)
	Require 	of
	employees
	covered by
	a
memorandum
	of 	understanding
	to
	which
	it
	is
	a
party 	the
	payment
	of
	a
	fee, 	as
	a
	condition
precedent 	to
	becoming
	a 	member
	of
	such
organization, 	in
	an 	amount
	which
	the
	boar-d
finds 	excessive 	or 	discriminatory
	under
	all
the 	circumstances. 	In
	making
	such
	a
finding, 	the 	board
	shall
	consider,
	among
other 	relevant 	factors, 	the 	practices
	and
customs
	of
	employee
	organizations 	in higher
education,
	and
	the
	wages
	currently paid 	to
the
	employees
	affected.
(g) 	Cause,
	or 	attempt 	to 	cause, 	an 	employer
to
	pay
	or 	deliver,
	or 	agree 	to 	pay 	or
deliver,
	any 	money
	or 	other 	thing 	of 	value,
in 	the 	nature 	of
	an
	exaction, 	for 	services
which
	are 	not 	performed 	or 	are 	not 	to 	be
performed.
:"'

Tommie 	R. 	Dees
Marilyn
	Sar:donis
September
	5,
	1984
Page	
3
On
	August?.,
	1984,
	the
	General
	Counsel's 	Office 	of
	PERB
	wrote
	a
1etter
	to
	Charging
	Party
	pointing
	out
	the
	deficiencies
	of 	the
unfair
	practice
	charge
	filed
	against
	CSEA. 	More
	specifically~
I
	informed
	the
	Cnarging
	Party
	that
	if
	there
	were
	any
	factual
inaccuracies
	or
	additional 	facts
	which 	would
	correct
	the
def:i.cienci.es
	explained
	in 	that
	letter,
	Charging
	Party
	should
amend
	the
	charge
	accordingly.
	(This
	letter 	is
	labelled
Exhibit
	1
	and
	is
	attached
	hereto.)
..
Thereafter,
	the
	Charging
	Party
	filed
	a
	First
	Amended
	Charge
	on
August 	21,
	198~
	which
	essentially
	incorporated
	the 	facts
	and
allegations
	contained
	in
	the
	original 	unfair 	practice
	charge
and
	included
	some 	new
	facts,
	allegations
	and
	conclusory
assertions.
Facts
My
	investigation
	revealed 	the
	following
	facts:
	Charging
	Party
is
	employed
	at
	the
	California 	State
	University,
	Hayward 	(CSU)
as
	a
	groundsperson. 	Charging
	Party describes 	several 	incidents
which,
	in his
	opinion,
	show
	that
	CSEA
has 	not
	adequately
represented
	him7or
	has 	refused
	to 	represent
	him
	in 	the
grievance
	procedure.
l.	
Charging
	Party
	alleges 	that
	the
	union
	negligently
	decided
on
	June
	3, 	1983
	to
	file
	a
	grievance
	on
	behalf 	of
	Charging
Party
	on
	only
	two
	of
	his 	allegations.2	
The
	two
allegations
	were
	that
	(1) 	Charging
	Party
	was
	given
	a
20n
	June
	3, 	1983,
	CSEA
did 	not
	file
	a
	grievance
	on
	the
following 	allegations
	by Charging
	Party, 	although 	these 	issues
were 	the 	subjects 	of
	later
	grievances 	according
	to 	the
documents 	submitted 	by 	Charging
	Party.
a. 	Physical
	threat
	by 	Charging
	Party's
supervisor.
	CSEA
	determined
	that 	the
verbal 	statement 	that
	supervisor
	"would
like 	to
	drill
	you" 	means
	according 	to
American
	Heritage 	Dictionary 	that 	he
would
	like 	"to 	train
	by
	repetition."
According
	to
	CSEA,
	this
	does 	not
constitute 	physical 	threat 	to
	Charging
Party: 	thus,
	no 	grievance
	was
	filed 	at
this 	time. 	Subsequently, 	on ,June 	10,

Tommie R. Dees
Marilyn Sardonic
September 5, 1984
Page 4
permanent shift change without the required 21-day notice
and, (2) Charging Party was called back to work on an
off-day and was only given one hour backpay instead of four
hours backpay as required by the contract. CSEA won this
grievance at Level I for the Charging Party on or about
June 20, 1983.
1983, CSEA filed a grievance on behalf of
Charging Party on this issue.
b. 	Charging Party wanted to return to
working weekends. According to CSEA,
management had the right to assign work
schedules. According to CSEA, Charging
Party's personal preference was not a
valid requirement for forcing management
to change its shift. CSEA advised
Charging Party to submit a shift change
by writing a request to supervisor for
his consideration.
C. 	Charging Party requested that management
give all orders to him in writing.
According to CSEA, this was not a valid
request; management may give verbal
orders .
d. 	Charging Party requested that management
cease harassing him, but according to
CSEA Charging Party could not show
harassment other than normal supervisory
functions. CSEA advised Charging Party
that if he was able to prove harassment,
then CSEA would be prepared to represent
him. 	Charging Party claimed that his
supervisors were harassing him because
they gave him supervisory and
instructional orders. 	Charging Party
wanted to receive all orders and
instructions from his leadperson rather
than his supervisors.
e. 	Charging Party demanded that management
make full disclosure of their management
Tommie	
R.	
Dees
Marilyn 	Sardonis
September 	5,
	1984
Page	
4
permanent
	shift
	change
	without 	the 	required
	21-day
	notice
and,	
(2)	
Charging
	Party
	was
	called
	back
	to	
work	
on 	an
off-day
	and
	was
	only given
	one
	hour	
backpay	
instead
	of
	four
hours
	backpay as
	required
	by
	the
	contract.
	CSEA won
	this
gr:i.evance	
at
	Level
	I
	for 	the
	Charging
	Party
	on 	or
	about
	·
June
	20, 	1983.	
'
1983,
	CSEA
	filed
	a
	grievance
	on
	behalf 	of
Charging
	Party
on	
this
	issue.
b.
	Charging
	Party
	wanted
	to
	return 	to
working 	weekends. 	According
	to
	CSEA,
management
	had
	the
	right 	to
	assign
	work
schedules.
	According
	to
	CSEA,
	Charging
Party's
	personal 	preference
	was
	not
	a
valid
	requirement
	for 	forcing
	management
to
	change
	its 	shift.
	CSEA
	advised
Charging
	Party
	to
	submit
	a
	shift
	change
by
	writing
	a
	request 	to
	supervisor 	for
his
	consideration.
c.
	Charging
	Party 	requested
	that
	management
give
	all
	orders
	to
him
	in 	writing.
According
	to
	CSEA,
	this
	was
	not
	a
	valid
request;
	management
	may
	give 	verbal
orders.
d.
	Charging
	Party 	requested
	that
	management
cease
	harassing
him,
	but 	according
	to
CSEA
	Charging
	Party
	could 	not
	show 	·
harassment
	other 	than
	normal
	supervisory
functions.
	CSEA
advised
	Charging
	Party
that 	if	
be	
was
	able 	to
	prove harassment,
then
	CSEA
would
	be 	prepared 	to 	represent
him. 	Charging
	Party
	claimed
	that 	his
supervisors
	were
	harassing
	him
	because
they
	gave him	
supervisory
	and
instructional 	orders.
	Charging 	Party
wanted
	to 	receive
	all
	orders
	and
instructions
	from	
his	
leadperson 	rather
than
	his 	supervisors.
e. 	Charging 	Party
	demanded
	that
	management
make
	full 	disclosure 	of 	their
	management

Tommie R. Dees
Marilyn Sardonic
September 5, 1984
Page 5
2. 	CSEA filed a grievance on behalf of Charging Party on
June 10, 1983 on the following issues:
a . 	4/27/83 - Mario Ruiz (supervisor ) threatened Charging
Party by stating: 	"I'd like to drill you."
b . 	4/21/83 - Charging Party was forced to work under
unsafe conditions on Harder Road because he wanted an
entire lane closed. Charging Party received the
following award: CSU adopted new procedures to provide
an added measure of safety by providing "visibility
vests" to employees whenever they worked adjacent to a
roadway in addition to the placing of cones beside the
curb.
C. 	4/25/83 - Letter of Warning based on untrue allegations
violated Charging Party's contract rights, and it did
not follow proper disciplinary procedures.
a. "4/20/83 - A disciplinary meeting was held with CSU and
Charging Party without Charging Party's representative
present.
All of these grievances (except b., above ) were denied by CSU
on October 17, 1983 at Level III.
meetings to him. According to CSEA, this
was neither his right, nor the union's
right.
f . 	Charging Party demanded that management
give advance notice prior to checking on
his work performance. According to CSEA,
management had the right to check work
performance whenever deemed necessary
without prior notice.
g . 	Finally, CSEA indicated that it was still
investigating Charging Party's complaints
about insufficient break and lunch
periods.
Tommie	
R.
	Dees
Marilyn 	Sardonis
September	
5,	
1984
Page
	5
2.
	CSEA	
filed	
a	
grievance 	on
behalf 	of
	Charging
	Party
	on
June
	10,
	1983
	on
	the
	following
	issues:
a.
	4/27/83
	-
	Mario
	Ruiz
	{supervisor) 	threatened
	Charging
Party
	by
	stating:	
"I'd	
like
	to
	drill
	you."
b.
	4/21/83
	-
	Charging
	Party
	was
	forced
	to
	work
	under
unsafe
	conditions
	on Harder
	Road	
because	
Re	
wanted 	an
entire
	lane 	closed.
	Charging
	Party
	received
	the
following
	award:	
GSU	
adopted
	new
	procedures
	to
	provide
an	
added 	measure	
of	
safety
by
	providing	
..
visibility
vests" 	to
	employees 	whenever
	they
	worked
	adjacent
	to
	a
roadway
	in 	addition 	to 	the 	placing
	of
	cones
	beside 	the
curb.
c.
	4/25/83
	-
	Letter 	of
	Warning
	based 	on
	untrue
	allegations
violated
	Charging
	Party
1 s
	contract
	rights,
	and
	it
	did
not
	follow 	proper
	disciplinary
	procedures.
d.
	··
4/20/83
	- 	A
disciplinary
	meeting
	was
	held 	with
	CSU	
and
Charging
	Party
without
	Charging
	Party's 	representative
present.	
,
All
	of
	these
	grievances 	(except
	b.,
	above)
	were
	denied
	by
CSU
on October 	17,
	1983
	at	
Level	
III.
meetings
	to
him. 	According
	to
	CSEA,
	this
was	
neither	
his 	right,
	nor
	the 	union's
right.
f.
	Charging
	Party
	demanded
	that
	management
give
	advance
	notice 	prior 	to
	checking
	on
his
	work
	per
f orm.ance.	
According
	to
	CSEA,
management
	had
	the
	right 	to
	check
	work
performance 	whenever
	deemed
	necessary
without
	prior 	notice.
go	
Finally,
	CSEA
	indicated 	that
	it
	was
	still
investigating
	Charging
	Party's
	complaints
about
	insufficient 	break 	and 	lunch
periods.

Tommie 	R.
	Dees
Marilyn 	Sardonis
September
	5,
	1984
Page
	6
3.	
a
	On
	July
	28, 	1983,
	CSEA
	filed
	grievance
	on
	behalf
	of
Charging
	Party
	on
	the
	following
	issues:
a.
his
On
	24,
	had	June
	1983,
	Charging
	Party
	'first
	level
hearing
	on
	a
	grievance
	filed
	against
	Mr.
	Ruiz
(
supervisor·)
	for
	physically 	threatening
	Charging
first
Party.
	On
	his
	way
	back
	to 	his
	area
	after
	the
level
	hearing,
	Mr.
	Rodriguez
	(supervisor)•ordered
	the
teadperson 	"to
	write
	Charging
	Party
	up"
	for 	being 	out
of	
h~s
	area.
·
b.
was
	On
	June
	27, 	1983,
	Charging
	Party
	on
	his
	regularly
scheduled 	break
	at
	1:35
	p.m.
	Mr.
	Rodriguez
(supervisor)
	saw
	him 	and
	demanded
	to
	know 	why
	he
	was
out 	of
	his
	area.
	Fie
	then 	threatened
	to
	"write
	Charging
Party
	up"
	for
	insubordination
	and
	being 	out
	of 	his
	area.
c.
gave
On
	July
	16,
	1983,
	Mr.
	Ruiz
	(supervisor)
	Charging
Party
a
	work
	assignment
	which
	was
	in
	direct 	violationFurther,
	a
	memo
·of
his
	assignment
	from
	his
	Leadperson.
from 	Rodriguez
	to
	Ruiz
	on
	July
	13,
	1983,
	articulated
the 	policy
	by which 	Grounds
	Supervisors
	were
	to
communicate
	with 	Groundsworkers,
	only 	through
	the
Leadpersons.
	The
	assignment
	which
	was
	given
	to
Charging
	Party
	was
	impossible
	and
	unsafe;
	it
	consisted
of planting 	roses,
	weeding
	and
	raking 	leaves 	alongside
e
	parking
	lot
	located
	by 	the 	Administration 	Building.
·
th
failed
	Charging
	Party alleges
	that
	CSEA
	to
	in
allegation 	to
	the
	effect 	that
	on
	or 	about
	July
	27, 	1984
through
	Plant 	Operations
Mr. 	Rodriguez
	(supervisor)
	chased
	him
inside
	the
	office
	while 	Charging
	Party
	was
	signing 	out
	to
	go
see
	the 	doctor.
clude
	an
3
4.	
CSU
	On
	or
	about 	October 	17, 	1983, 	denied 	Charging
	Party's
grievance
	at
	Level
	III
	(described
	in
	2, 	above), 	and
	the
CSEA
	representative 	determined 	within
	14 days
not 	to
	take
3	
representative,
	on
	or 	about 	April 	16, 	1984,
	CSEA
grievance
	on
	this 	allegation 	as 	an
Marilyn 	Sardonis, 	filed
	a
act
	of 	reprisal
	by
	CSU
	against 	Charging 	Party.
	(See
	Exhibit
	2,
paragraph 	19, 	attached nereto.)

Tommie
	R. 	Dees
Marjlyn
	Sardonis
September
	5, 	1984
Page
	7
it
	to
	arbitration.4	
Nevertheless,
	Charging
	Party
	and
his
union
	representative
	(Gale 	Pemberton)
	were
	allowed
	to
present
	Charging
	Party's
	case
	to
	the
	CSEA
	Arbi.tration
Panel
	on
	or
	about
	November
	12,
	1983
	wherein
	they
	argued
tbat
	the 	case
	should
	go
	to
	arbitration.
	The
	panel
	decided
not
	to
	go
	to
	arbitration
	on
	the 	grievances
	mentioned
	in
item
	2
	above,
	because 	the
	allegations
	were
	not 	meritorious,
but
	Charging
	Party
	received 	assurances
	that
	CSEA
would
	file
some
	of
	bis
	other
	allegations
	on
	the
	basis 	of
	reprisal
	on
by
	CSU.
	Charging
	Party
	contends
	that
	they should
	have
	gone
to
	an
	arbitration
hear1ng
	and
	that
	CSEA
	failed 	to
	comply
with 	the 	14-day 	time
	limitation.
5.	
On
	November
	3,
	1983,
	Marilyn
	Sardonis
	(CSEA
	representative)
filed
	a
	grievance
	on
	behalf 	of
	Charging
	Party 	seeking
	to
have
	44
hours 	of 	leave 	without
	pay
	converted
	to 	sick
	leave
in 	addition
	to 	restoration
	of
	all
	benefits.
	Charging
	Party
· won
	this
	grievance
	on
	or
	about
	January 	11,
	1984
	at
	Level
	II.
6.	
On
	December
	7,
	1981,
	Marilyn 	Sardonis
	(CSEA
	representative)
a
	Level
	I
	grievance
	on
	behalf 	of
	Charging
	Party
	filed
alleging
	that
	Charging
	Party's 	transfer
	to 	the
	Science
Building
	was
	a
	reprisal
	for
	his
	exercise
	of
	protected
dangerous
	activity.
	She
	also 	alleged
	that
	the
	transfer
	was
to
	Charging
	Party's health.
	This 	Level
	I
	grievance
	was
denied
	by
Mr.
	Farley, 	Plant 	Operation
	Director 	for
	CSU,
	on
or
	about
	February
	21, 	1984.
7.	
On
	February 	28, 	1984, 	Marilyn 	Sardonis
	(CSEA
representative) 	elevated
	the 	grievance
	in
	item
	6
	above,
	to
Level
	II.
	This
	Level
	II
	grievance
	was
	denied 	by
Mr.
	Robert 	Kennelly, 	Administrative Vice-President 	f9r
	CSU,
on March
	28, 	1984.
8.
,.
,,
On
	February 	29, 	1984, 	Marilyn 	Sardonis
	{CSEA
representative)
	wrote
	a
	letter
	to
	Mr.
	Slade 	Lindeman,
Personnel 	Officer 	for
	CSU,
	requesting 	that
	Charging
	Party's
State
	Compensation 	Insurance
	Fund
	material be
	removed 	from
4 	which
	csEA
	claims 	that 	there 	is
	a
	side
	letter
	with
	CSU
allows
	CSEA 	30
	days 	in
	which
	to 	seek 	a:rbitration 	after
receiving 	the 	Level
	III
	response.

Tommie 	R.
	Dees
Marilyn 	Sardonis
September
	5,
	1984
Page	
8
separate
	Charging
	Party's
	personnel
	file
	and
	be
	placed
	in
	a
file
	to
	ensure
	confidentiality.
	CSU
	refused
	to
	set
	up
	a
separate
	file.
9.	
On
	April
	16, 	1984, 	Marilyn
	Sardonis
	{CSEA
	representative)'
a
	Level
	I'II 	grievance
	on
	be11alf
	of
	Charging
	Party
	filed
alleging
	38
	incidents
	by
	CSU
	which
	are
	a
	form
	of
	reprisal,
harassment
	and
	intimidation 	against
	Charging
	Party.5
III
	CSEA
has 	not
	proceeded
	any
	further
	on
	this
	Level
grievance 	because
	Charging
	Party has
	asked
	them
	to
	stop.
Nevertheless,
	Charging
	Party
	alleges 	that
	he
	has 	received
no
	decision
	regarding
	this
	Level
	III
	grievance.
	(This
Level
	III
	grievapce
	is
	labelled 	Exhibit
	2, 	and
	it
	is
attached
	hereto.)
Discussion
Charging
	Party has 	alleged 	that
3578
CSEA
	violated his
	section
6	
rtght
	to
	fair
	representation
	and
	thereby
	violated
SCharging
	Party
	contends
	that
	CSEA
	failed 	to
	comply
	with
Article
	7,
	section
	7.15
	of 	the
	contract,
	which
	requires 	that
all
	appeals
	to
	Level
	III
	be
	filed
	no
	later
	than
	14
	days
	after
the
	Level -II
	response.
	Charging
	Party 	also
	contends
	that
	CSEA
as
	failed 	to
	include
	all
	necessary 	evidence
	at
	Level
	II
required
	by
	the
	contract.
	CSEA.counters
	that
	the 	appeal
	is
timely
	filed
	because
	it
	received
	an
	oral
	extension 	of
	time 	by
Laverne 	Diggs,
	and
	that
	it
	included
	all
	evidence
	at
	the 	third
level
	which
	is
	consistent
	with
	the 	contract
	and
	past
practices.
	Moreover,
	the
	contract 	provides 	in 	Article
	74
section
	7.22
	that 	all
	issues
	and
	evidence
	must 	be
	presented 	at
Level
	III
	in 	order 	for 	the
	arbitrate~ 	to 	properly 	consider
them.
	Further,
	CSU
has 	indicated 	to
	PERB
	that
	it
	is
	willing 	to
process 	the
	Level
	III
	grievance, 	but
	that
	CSEA
has 	not
	moved
	it
along.
	CSEA
	correctly 	asserts 	that
	it
	has 	not 	pushed
	the
Level
	III
	grievance 	because 	Charging
	Party has 	asked 	them
	to
stop 	processing
	it.
6section
	3578
	states:
The 	employee
	organization 	recognized 	or
certified
	as 	the 	exclusive 	representative
shall 	represent 	all
	employees
	in 	the 	unit,

Tommie
	R.
	Dees
Marilyn 	Sardonis
September
	5,
	1984
Page	
9
on
section 	3571.l(b).
	The
	fair
	representation
	duty
	imposed
	the
exclusive 	representative
	extends
	to 	contract 	negotiations
(Redlands 	Teachers
	~ssociation
	(Faeth) 	(9/25/78)
	PERB
	Decision
No.
	72; 	SEID,
	Local
	99
	(Kimmett} 	(1/19/79}
.PERB
	Decision
No.
	106;
	Rocklin 	Teachers
	Professional 	Association
	(Romero)
(3/26/80)
	PERB
	Decision
	No.
	I24;
	El
	Centro 	Elementary
	Teachers
Association 	(Willis)
	{8/11/82)
	PERB
	Decision
	No. 	232);
	contract
administ~ation
	(Castro Valley
	Teachers
	Association
	(McElwain)
(12/17/80)
	PERB
	Decision
	No. 	149;
	SEIU
	Local
	99
	(~ottorff)
(3/30/82)
	PERB
	Decision
	No. 	203) 	and
	grievance 	handling
(Fremont
	Teachers
	Association
	(King)
	(4/21/80)
	PERB
	Decision
No.
	125;
	United 	Teachers
	of
	Los
	Angeles
	(Collins}
	(ll/17/82)
PERB
	Dec-ision
	No.
	258}.
.
of
	PERB
	has 	ruled
	that
	a
	prima
	facie
	statement
	such
	a
	violation
requires 	allegations
	that:	
(1)	
the
	acts
	complained
	of
	were
undertaken
	by
	the 	organization 	in
	its
	capacity
	as
	the
	exclusive
representative 	of
	all
	unit
	employees; 	and	
(2)	
the
representational
	conduct
	was
	arbitrary,
	discriminatory,
	or
	in
bad
	faith.
,,·,
7	
·
proceed
	With
	regard 	to 	the
	allegation 	that
	CSEA
	failed 	to
	to
arbitration,
	PERB
has
	held 	that
	an
	employee 	does
	not 	have
	an
absolute 	right 	to
have
	a
	grievance 	taken
	to
	arbitration.
	An
exclusive 	representative's
	reasonable
	refusal
	to
	proceed 	with
arbitration 	is
	essential 	to
	the 	operation 	of
	a
	grievance
	and
arbitration
	system. 	(Castro 	Valley Unified
	School
	District
(12/17/80)
	PERB
	Decision
	No. 	149; 	Los
	Angeles
	Unified
	School
District
	(5/20/83)
	PERB
	Decision
	No.
	311.)
fairly
	and
	impartially.
	A
breach 	of
this
	duty
	shall
	be
	deemed
	to
	have
occurred
	if
	the
	employee
	organization's
conduct
	in 	representation 	is 	arbitrary,
discriminatory, 	or 	in
	bad
	faith.
7PERB
	explicitly
has 	followed 	decisions 	of 	the 	federal
courts
	and
	the 	National
	Labor
	Relations
	Board
	interpreting 	the
National
	Labor
	Relations
	Act
	duty 	of
	fair 	representation 	(Fire
Fighters
	Union
	v.
	Ci.
ty 	of 	Vallejo
	(
197 4) 	12
	Cal.
3d 	608
	[ 11
r-
ca1. Rptr.
	507]~
	ana 	see
	Kimmett,
	supra,
	PERB
	Decision
	No. 	106
at
	fn. 	7).
·

Tommie R. Dees
Marilyn Sardonic
September 5, 1984
Page 10
First, allegations 1, 2, 3 and 4 will be dismissed because they
occurred more than six months prior to the filing of this
charge before the PERB. Government Code section 3563. 2(a)
states that PERB cannot issue a complaint in respect of any
charge based upon an alleged unfair occurring more than six
months prior to the filing of the charge.
Secondly, the facts in this case (set forth in allegations 5-9,
above) do not state a prima facie violation of HEERA section
3571.1(b) or a case of collusion between CSEA and CSU against
Charging Party. CSEA did consider whether to submit Charging
Party's first grievance to arbitration and determined that it
was not meritorious. There is no evidence that the
Association's conduct was arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad
faith. The other grievances (Exhibit 2) have not been advanced
to arbitration because Charging Party has requested that they
not proceed with those grievances. Finally, the evidence
indicates that the Association filed a grievance on every one
of Charging Party's disputes with CSU.
Pursuant to Public Employment Relations Board regulation
section 32635 (California Administrative Code, title 8,
part III), you may appeal the refusal to issue a complaint
(dismissal) to the Board itself.
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
September 25, 1984, or sent by telegraph or certified United
States mail postmarked not later than September 25, 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) ).
Tommie 	R.
	Dees
Marilyn 	Sardonis
September 	5,
	1984
Page
	10
First,
	allegations
	J.,
	2,
	3
	and
	4
	will
	be
	dismissed 	because 	they
occurred	
more	
than	
six	
months
	prior
	to 	the
	filing
	of
	this
charge 	before 	the
	PERB.
	Government 	Code
	section
	3563.2(a)
states 	that	
PERB
	cannot 	issue
	a
	complaint
	in 	respect 	of
	any
charge
	based
	upon
	an
	alleged 	unfair
	occurring
	more
	than	
six
months
	prior
	to	
the·
filing
	of 	the 	charge.
Secondly,
	the 	facts 	in
	this
	case 	{set
	forth 	in
	allegations
	5-9,
above)
	do
	not
	state
	a
	prima
	facie 	violation
	of	
HEERA	
section
3571.l(b) 	or
	a
	case
	of 	collusion
	between
	CSEA
	and
	CSU
	against
Charging
	Party.
	CSEA
	did 	consider	
whether	
to	
submit 	Charging
Party's
	first
	grievance
	to 	arbitration
	and
	determined
	that
	it
was
	not
	meritorious.
	There
	is
	no
	evidence
	that
	the
Association's
	conduct
	was
	arbitrary,
	discriminatory 	or 	in
	bad
faith.	
The	
other 	grievances 	(Exhibit 	2)	
have	
not 	been
	advanced
to
	arbitration
	because
	Charging
	Party has 	requested
	that
	they
not
	proceed 	with 	those 	grievances.
	Finally,
	the
	evidence
indicates 	that 	the 	Association
	filed
	a
	grievance
	on
	every
	one
of	
Char~ing	
Party's
	disputes
	with
	CSU.
Pursuant
	to
	Public
	Employment
	Relations
	Board
	regulation
section
	32635
	(California
	Administrative
	Code,
	title
	8,
part
	III),
	you	
may	
appeal
	the 	refusal 	to
	issue
	a
	complaint
(dismissal) 	to 	the
	Board
	itself.
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	
,....
September 	25, 	1984,
	or 	sent
	by
	telegraph 	or
	certified
	United
States
	mail 	postmarked 	not
	later
	than
	September 	25, 	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 	3?.635(b)).
.
..	
'

Tommie R. Dees
Marilyn Sardonic
September 5, 1984
Page 11
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).
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
zenbseA . a/ATTUG,	By
Staff Attorney
Tommie
	R.
	Dees
Marilyn 	Sardonis
September
	S,
	1984
Page
	J.l
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.
Extensioti	
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
positio~	
of
	each
	other 	party
	regarding 	the 	extension,
	and
	shall
be
	accompanied
	by
	proof
	of 	service 	of 	the 	request
	upon
	each
party 	(section
	32132).
Final
	Date
If
	no
	appeal
	is 	filed
	within 	the
	specified
	time
	limits,
	the
dism:i.ssal
	will
	become
	final
	when
	the	
time	
limits
	have
	expired.
Very
	truly
	yours,
DENNIS
	M. 	SULLIVAN
General 	Counsel
By~~	
~-~rl	
'Emi,rE.
	vasqu
Staff	
Attorney

GEORGE DEUXMEJIAN. GOV
-FATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS _OARD
Headquarters Office
$031 13th Street
\cramenio, California 95814
16) 322-3038
August 2, 1984
Tommie R. Dees
21569 Princeton St.
Hayward, CA 	94541
Re : 	Tommie R. Dees v. California State Employees Association,
Unfair Labor Practice Charge No. SF-CO-5-H
Dear Mr. Dees:
On May 21, 1984, Tommie R. Dees (Charging Party) filed an
unfair practice charge against the California State Employees
Association (CSEA) alleging violation of HEERA section 3571.1.
More specifically, Charging Party alleges the following.
Charging Party is employed at the California State University,
Hayward (CSU) as a groundsperson. During the six months
preceding the filing of this charge, Charging Party alleges
several incidents to have occurred which gave rise to
meritorious grievances, requests by him directed to CSEA -
representatives that the matters be grieved, and failure and/or
refusal by such representatives to pursue the grievance to
arbitration or to adequately represent Charging Party during
the grievance procedure.
Charging Party describes several events which, in his opinion,
showed that CSEA has not adequately represented him in the
grievance procedure. Charging Party alleges that CSEA failed
to notify the Chancellor's office at CSU, Hayward in writing
within 14 days from the date the union received the level III
denial of grievance and has refused to go forward with
arbitration. Charging Party additionally argues that CSEA is
not vigorously prosecuting his grievances concerning his
transfer and reprisals beyond the level III grievance step to
arbitration.
My investigation reveals that the Association has filed a
grievance on behalf of the Charging Party concerning every
dispute with CSU. Additionally, the Association did consider
whether to submit Charging Party's first grievance to
arbitration and determined that it was not meritorious. 	The
other grievances have not been advanced to arbitration because
Charging Party has requested that they not proceed with those
grievances.
Exhibit 1
'/.,	
.
•
••
~rF.
Or
('.AltFOl:tN:A
···---·=-====-==
====
PUBLiC
EM?LOYMENT
RELATTONS ..,OARD
l·lecdquorter$
Office
.......
031 	13th Street
.,"\crornen~o, 	California 95814
_I!
6) 322-3088
August	
2,
	1984
Tornmie	
R.
	Dees
21569
	Princeton
	St.
Haywara,	
CA
	94541
GEOIIGC: DEUKIAEJl.l.l~.
c.c,
..
~,,
---·==-:-:.-~:-::.=--=----=-D..:::=
..
Re:
	Tommie
	R.
	Dees
·v
...
California
	State	
EmployE!eS	
Association,
Unfair
	Labor
	Practice
	Charge	
No. 	SP-C0-5-H
Dear	
Mr.	
dees:
On	
May	
21, 	1984,
	Tommie	
R. 	Dees
	(Charging	
Party)	
filed	
an
unfair 	practice
	charge
	against 	the 	California
	State
	Employees
Association
	(CSEA)
	alleging
	violation
	of	
HEERA	
section 	3571.1.
More	
specifically,
	Charging
	Party 	alleges
	the
	following.
Charging
,.Party	
is
	employed
	at 	the 	California 	State
	University,
Hayward	
(CSU)	
as	
a	
groundsperson.
	During
	the
	six
	months
preceding 	the
	filing
	of
	this
	charge,
	Charging
	Party	
alleges
several
	incidents
	to
	have
	occurred
	which
	gave
	rise
	to
meritorious
	grievances,
	requests	
by	
him	
directed	
to	
CSEA :-
representatives
	that
	the	
matters	
be	
grieved,	
and	
:Cailure and/or
refusal	
by	
such
	representatives
	to
	pursue
	the grievance 	to
arbitration
	or 	to 	adequately
	represent
	Charging
	Party
	during
the
	grievance
	procedure.
Charging
	Party 	describe&
several
	events	
which,	
in
	his 	opinion,
showed
	that
	CSEA
	has 	not 	adequately
	represented 	him
	in
	the
grievance 	procedure. 	Charging 	Party 	alleges
	that	
CSEA
.failed
to	
notify 	the 	Chancellor's 	office 	at
	CSU,
	Hayward
	in	
wriEing
within
	14 	days 	from
	the 	date	
the 	union
	received 	the
	level
	III
denial
	of 	grievance
	and
	has 	refused 	to
	go
	forward
	with
arbitration.
	Charging
	Party 	additionally
	argues 	that	
CSEA	
is
not	
vigoLously	
prosecuting 	his 	grievances	
concerning 	his
transfer
	and
	reprisals
	beyona
	the
	level
	III
	grievance 	step 	to
arbitration.
My
	investigation 	reveals 	that 	the 	Association 	has 	filed
	a
gri~vance	
on
	behalf 	of 	the	
Ch;.:rging	
Party	
con:;ernin~1 	e'1ery
dispute 	with
	CSU.
	Additionally, 	the 	Association 	did 	consider
wbetl:.•:.!.C	
to	
submit 	Charging	
Party's 	fir.st 	grievance 	to
arbitr&tion	
and 	determined 	that
	it
	was
	not 	meritorious.	
The
other 	grievances 	have 	not 	been 	advanced 	to 	arbitration
	because
Charging 	Party 	has 	requested 	that 	they 	not 	proceed 	with 	those
grievances.
Exhibit 	1

Tommie 	R.
	Dees
August
	2,
	198'1
Pag~
	2
Charging
	Party
has
	alleged
	that
	CSEA
	violated
	his 	section
	3578
right
	to
	fair
	representation
	and
	thereby
	violated
section
	3571.l(b)
.1	
.
The
	fair
	representation
	duty
	imposed
	on
the 	exclusive 	representative
	extends
	to 	contract 	negotiations
(Redlands 	Teachers
	Association
	{Faeth)
	9/25/78)
	PERB
	Decision
No.
	72;
	SEIU,
	Local
	99
	(Kimmett)
	{l/19/79)
	PERB
	Decision
No.
	106; 	Rocklin 	Teachers 	Professional
	Association
	(Romero)
3/26/80)
	PERB
	Decision
	No. 	124;
	El 	Centro 	Elementary 	Teachers
Association
	(Willis)
	(
8/11/82)
	PERB
	Decision
	No.	
23--2";,-
contract
administration
	Castro Valley
	Teachers 	Association
	(McElwain)
(12/17/80)
	PERB
	Decision
	No.
	l49;
	SEIU
	Local
	99
	{Pottorff}
(3/30/82)
	PERB
	Decision
	No.
	2q3)
	and
	grievance 	handling
(Fremont 	Teachers
	Association
	(King)
	(4/21/80)
	PERB
	Decision
No.
	125~
	United
	Teachers
	of
	Los
	Angeles
	(Collins)
	(11/17/82)
PERB
	Decision	
No.	
258}.	
•··
~
PERB
	has 	ruled
	that
	a
	prima
	facie
	statement 	of
	such
	u
	violation
requies 	allegations 	that:
	(1)
	the
	acts
	complained
	of
	were
undertaken	
by	
the
	organization 	in
	its
	capacity
	as
	the
	exclusive
representative
	of
	all
	unit
	employees;
	and
	(2)
	the
	.
representational
	conduct
	was
	arbitrary,
	discriminatory,
	or 	in
bad
	faith.
2
lsection
	3578
	states:
The 	employee
	organization
	recognized 	or
certified
	as 	the 	exclusive 	representative
shall
	represent
	all
	employees
	in 	the
	unit,
fairly
	and
	impartially..
	A
breach 	of
	this
duty
	shall
	be
	deemed
	to
	have
	occurred
	if
	the
employee
	organization's
	conduct
	in
	·
representation
	is 	arbitrary,
	discriminatory,
or 	in
bad
	faith.
Section 	3571.l(b)
	states 	that
	it
	shall
	be 	unlawful
	for
	an
employee
	organization 	to:
Impose
	or
	threaten·to
	impose
	reprisals
	on
cmploy2es,
	to 	discrirnlnRte 	or 	threaten 	to
dlscriminate 	against
	employe~s,
	or 	otherwi~e
to 	interfere 	with, 	restrain, 	or 	coerce
employees 	because	
of 	their 	exercise 	of
rights 	guaranteeu 	by
	this 	chapter.
2pEnB
	explicitly has 	followed 	decisions 	of 	the 	fed0.ral
courts 	and 	the 	National 	Labor 	Relations 	Board 	interpreting 	the
National 	Labor 	Relations 	Act 	duty 	of 	fair 	representation 	iFire

Tommie
	R.
	Dees
.•
	August
	2,
	1934
Page
	3
state
The
	presently
	not
charge,
	as
	set
	forth,
	does	
<'l	
pri1na
facie 	violation
	of
	HEERA
	section 	3571.l{b).
	First,
	there
	is
	no
allegation 	that
	the 	Association's
	conduct
	was
	arbitrary,
faith.
	Second,
	the
	charge
	indicates
discriminatory 	or
	in
	bad
that
	the 	Association
	filed
	a
	grievance
	on
	every
	one
	of
Mr.
	Dee's
	disputes
	wi,th
	CSU - 	{
See
	PERB
	Rule
	32615.
3)
correct
lf
	there
	would
you
	feel
	that
	are
	facts
	which
	the
deficiencies
	explained
	above,
	please
	amend
	the
	charge
accordingly.
	The 	amended
	charge 	should 	be 	prepared
	on
	a
unfair
	practice- charge
	form 	cle2'.rly
	labeled
	First
standard
	PERB
Amended
	Charge,
	contain
all
	the
	facts
	and
	allegations
	you
	wish
under
	penalty 	of 	perjury
by	
the
	Charging
to	
ma1>.e,
	ana	
be 	signed
number.
	The
Party.
	Please
	be
	sure 	to 	indicate 	the
	PERB
	charge
.
amended
	charge
	must
	served
	on
	the
	Respondent
	and
	the
	be
original
	proof 	of 	service
	must
	be
	filed
	with
	PERB.
	If"I
	do
	not
you
	before
receive
	an
	amended
	charge 	or 	withdrawal
	from
August 	10,
	1~84,
	I
	shall
	dismiss
	your
	charge.
	If
	you
	have
	any
•.
questions:on
how
	to
	please
	call
	me
	at
	(916}
	323-8015
	proceed,
'
Sinc~rely 	yours,
~"1	
{It~
Emily~squ
Staff
	Attorney
~
Cal.3dFighters
	Union
	v. 	City of Vallejo
	{1974)
	12
	608
	[116
Cal.Rptr.
	507];
	and
	see
	Kimmett,
	supra,
	PERE
	Decision
	No.~
106
at 	fn. 	7).
3
part:
PF.RB
	Rule
	32615
	states 	in pertinent 
an
{a)
	may
	that
	A
charge 	be
	filed 	alleging
unfair 	practice 	or
	practices
	have 	been
committed.
	The
	charge
	shall
	be
	in 	writing,
party
signed 	under 	penalty 	of 	perjury
	by
	the
or
	its
	agent 	with 	the 	declnration 	that 	tha
cl1arge
	is 	true
	and 	complete
	to 	the 	beat 	of
t11e
	charging 	party's
	knowledge 	and
	belie·f,
and 	contain 	the 	following 	information:
.
	..
	. . . 	. 	. . . . . 	. 	. 	.
	..
	. 	. 	. 	. 	. 	. 	. .

CALIFORNIA STATE EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION
160 FRANKLIN ST., SUITE 302 	OAKLAND, CA. 94607 	PHONE (415) 835-1900
April 16, 1984
PEPRESENTING
the people who serve the people
Laverne Diggs.
Labor Relations Specialist
Employee Relations Division
Office of the Chancellor
California State University & Colleges-
400 .Golden Shore
Long Beach, California 90802
Dear Ms. Diggs:
The enclosed grievance, on behalf of Tommie Dees
is being elevated to your third level of review.
As with the other Tommie Dees grievance, this
case is ongoing and all of the grievance was not
returned to CSEA by the second level so CSEA is
enclosing all the evidence regarding this case
to you. CSEA wishes to discuss all the ramifi-
cations that this case has on Mr. Dees' employ-
ment with the university.
Sincerely,
~)-~~
Marilyn Sardonic
Labor Relations Representative
cc: Tommie Dees
Roger Merideth
Exhibit 2
CALIFG~NIA	
STATE	
Elv\PLO"rt:ES'	
ASSOCIATION
160 FRAN
KUN
ST., SUITE 302 	O/>.l(LAND, CA.
fJliC07	
PHONE
(415) 835•1900
April	
16,	
1984
•
PEPRl!SIENT!NG
:JI•
P•opll,
wlto
/HIN//:
th,:
peopl•
Laverne
	Diggs.
Labor
	Relations
	Specialist
Employee
	Relations 	Division
Office	
of	
the
	Chancellor
California 	State 	University	
&	
Colleges
..
400.Golden 	Shore	
·
Long
	Beach,	
California	
90802
Dear	
Hs. 	Diggs:
The
	enclosed 	grievance,
	on	
behalf 	of
	Tommie 	Dees
is
	being
	elevated 	to
	your
	third 	level	
of	
review.
As
	with 	the 	other
	Tommie 	Dees	
grievance,	
this
case
	is
	ongoing 	and
	all
	of 	the 	grievance	
was	
not
returned
	to	
CSEA	
by
	the
	second
	level
	so
	CSEA
	is
,..	
enclosing
	all
	the 	evidence 	regarding	
this	
case	
·
·
to	
you.
	CSEA
wishes
	to 	discuss
	all
	the 	ramifi-
·
cations
	that 	this
	case
	has
	on Hr..	
Dees'
	employ-·
ment 	with 	the
	university.	
.
::
..
.
........
.
-
..
..
Sincerely,
Marilvn 	Sardonis
Labor-Relations 	Representative
cc:	
t/!'ommie 	Dees
Roger
	Merideth
lk
Exhibit 	2
0

THE
	CALlFORH'IA ST/,TE UNIVERSITY
GRl'EVANCE
	FORM
UfilT 5
-:.U:HI!	
7	,
-------~---------~evel
	I
	Appropriate Administrator	
D
:..evel
II
	-	
President	
D
Employee
Relations
	DivisiOffice
cf
	the
Chancellor
n,~
April
	16, 	1984
DATE
CA}il'US
_H_a_yr,_v_a_r_d
__________
_
DE
PAR.THE
NT
_G_r_o_u_n_d_s_D_e_pa_r_tm_e_n_t
_ _
_
o
-·
.
5
BARG.A.INING
um·r
.
------------
APPROPRIATE
ADMINISTRATOR
_L_a_v_e_r_n_e_~_i_g_·g_s
___
_
·~---
....
-
,~
·it
■
Y1:aail~t1JIR:!!ai•-il1"1Jiblt.i:S'IWllik!B
.219:1
mm	
PIP'TT15t'!
•-W"IMiiiilll~
·•·e
-
	--~
§DIG	
~IC:"'¥1!'!..'~?9.:!t:er.f.t.~~
-·-·
CLASSIFICATION 	!:AHPUS TELEPHOm
	NUHBE
Tommie
	Dees 	Groundsworker
•rn
of
	agreement
	alleged violated 	(contract 	provision
numbe r)
?.-14,
	and
	any
	other 	section
	that
	may
	apply
-~ailed	
de~cription
	of
	the
	ground~
	of 	the
	gr~evance
	(include dates)
Please 	see
	attached
	pages~
f -=ore
	s~ace
	is
	needed
	additional
	sheets
	may
	be
	attach~d.)
2
·oposed
re-:nedy:
1~
	Cease
	and
	desist
	all
	reprisali~
·.. ••··
2. 	Mr. 	Dees
	be 	reins.tated
	in
	a
	safe 	area 	with
	back pay	
and
benefits,
i.e.
·
to
	make 	whole
	again.
D
:
·:_.:-
l
::a;;i
·,·-
Name
	of 	repr.esentativ~·-
CSEA'.:
	'Marilvn
	f
iel~ 	Re~esenta
ti-..i	
...
~
..
.... . "·
Na:ne
	and
	address of
	union 	California 	State
	Em-olovees'
	Association
160
	Franklin 	Street, 	Suite
	302; 	Oakland,
	Califo~nia
	94607 	,
:.
.
D LEVEL 	I 	D LEVEL
	II	
D 	LEVEL 111 	D
Si5::nat:ur-e 	Tit: le 	Date·
----------------- 	----------- 	----

CSU Grievance
Tommie Dees
April 16, 198
Page Two
Since Mr. Tommie Dees has filed a grievance on June 3, 1983,
he has been the target of systematic and unremitting reprisals
by the University for his exercising his rights guaranteed by
the Agreement between the University and CSEA. The forms of
these reprisals have been numerous and would be of no purpose
to list each and every example at this time although CSEA is
prepared to do so. CSEA cites the following as examples of
these reprisals. They follow the grievance filed on June 3,
1983 (and was won) which caused Mr. Rodriguez much consterna-
tion.
1 . 	On June 7, 1983, Tony Rodriguez was seen keeping Mr.
Dees under personal observation, rather than allowing
his leadworker or supervisor to do their normal work
duties. 	This type of reprisal continued on a regular
basis until Mr. Dees was forced to take sick leave.
2. 	On June 24, 1983, Mr. Dees had a grievance meeting
regarding a physical threat made by Mr. Ruiz against Mr.
Dees, and was written up by Mr. Rodriguez for being out
of his area.
3 : 	On June 27, 1983, Mr. Dees was on his regularly sche-
duled break at 1:35 p.m. Mr. Rodriguez saw him and demand-
ed to know why he was out of his area. He chased Mr. Dees
and threatened to write him up for insubordination and
being out of his area.
4. 	Mr. Dees was given confusing and contradictory instruc-
tions from Mr. Rodriguez after being given work instructions
from his leadperson. 	These instructions were also unsafe
at times thus placing Mr. Dees in physical danger.
5. 	Mr. Rodriguez ignores not only Mr. Dees' safety cont.
cerns, but he also ignores the problems with clean drink-
ing water and bathroom facilities for Mr. Dees.
6. 	Mr. Dees was transferred, as a reprisal, into an area
which he considers unsafe and that he is in danger. His
doctor concurs with this statement.
7. 	Mr. Dees received "A" time instead of sick leave as.
a reprisal even though Mr. Dees called in sick in October,
1933.
CSU 	Gi:
ievar-
r,
Tommie	
Dees
April	
16,198
Page	
Two
Since	
Mr.	
Tommie
	Dees	
has	
filed
	a	
grievance	
on	
June	
3 t	
1983,
he	
has	
been	
the	
target	
of
	systematic
	and	
unremitting	
reprisals
by
	the
	University 	for
	his
	exercising
	his 	rights	
guaranteed
	by
the	
Agreement	
between 	the
	University
	and
	CSEA.
	The	
forus	
of
these
	reprisals
	have
	been numerous
	and	
would 	be	
of
	no
	purpose
to
	list
	each
	and
	every
	example
	at
	this	
time	
although
	CSEA	
is
prepared 	to
	do
	so.	
CSE..A..	
cites
	the
	following 	as	
examples	
of
these
	reprisals.	
Tney	
follow 	the 	grievance
	filed
	on
June 3,
1983
	(and	
was	
won)
	which
	caused
	Mr.
	Rodriguez	
much	
consterna-
tion.	
· 	· 
◄
1.
	On
	June
	7, 	1983,
	Tony
	Rodriguez	
was	
seen 	keeping
l-1r
•
.
Dees
	under
	personal 	observation,	
rather	
than	
allowing:
his
	leadworker
	or
	supervisor 	to
	do
	their
	normal	
work
duties.
	This 	type
	of
	reprisal
	continued
	on
	a
	regular
basis	
until	
11r.	
Dees	
was	
forced 	to 	take
	sick 	leave.
2.
	On
	June
	24
>	
1'983,	
Hr..	
Dees
	had
	a	
gr:tevance
meeting
regarding
	a
	physical
	threat
	made	
by	
Mr.	
Ruiz
	against
Mr.
Dees,	
and	
was	
written	
up	
by Hr. 	Rodriguez
	for
	being	
ou.t
of	
his	
area
.
..
3~	
On
	June	
27, 	1983,	
Ur.	
Dees	
was 	on
	his 	regularly	
sche-
duled 	break
	at
	1:35
	p.m.
	Mr.
	Rodriguez	
saw 	him 	and	
dei:iand-
ed
	to	
know why	
he	
was	
out 	of
	his 	area.
	He
	chased
Mr.
	Dees
and
	threatened
	to	
write	
him•up	
for
	insubordination
	and
being
	out
	of·
his 	area.
	·
4.	
l-'.ir.	
Dees	
was	
given 	confusing
	and
	contradictory· instruc-
tions
	from 	Mr.	
Rodriguez
	after
	being 	given
	work
	instructions
from
	his
	leadperson.
	These
	instructions
	were
	also	
un:;af
e
at
	times 	thus 	placing 	lir
..	
Dees
	in
	physical
	danger
..	
·
5.	
?-ir.	
Rodriguez 	ignores
	not.
	only
	Mr. 	Dees
I
safety	
con~-
cerns, 	but
	he
	also 	ignores 	the 	problems
	with 	clean 	drink-
ing 	water	
and 	bathroom
	facilities
	for
	Mr.
	Dees.
6. 	!-ir. 	Dees 	was	
transferred, 	as
	a	
r2p-;:-i!jal,	
into	
an	
area
which 	he
	considers
	unsafe 	and
	that
	he
	is 	in
	danger. 	llis
doctor 	concurs 	with 	this
	statement.
7.	
Mr.	
Dees
	received
	"A"	
time	
instead
	of
	sick
	leave as•
a	
reprisal	
even	
thougl:t Mr. 	Dees	
called	
i71	
sicl~	
:i_n	
October,
-
1933.

Lou Grievance
Tominie De
April 16,
Page Three
8. 	As part of the reprisal, management demands more
and more medical information from Mr. Decs' physician
even though the physician states that Mr. Dees is capa-
ble and able and ready to work.
9. : Letter from management on November 16, 1983, was
delivered to Mr. Dees informing him that he could not
return to work and would be on required medical leave.
This letter was delivered to Mr. Dees' home by his good
friend and leadworker without their knowledge and con-
sent. 	They were ordered to leave the University to de-
liver the letter. 	The normal methods of sending commun-
ications to employees were not used for Mr. Does.
10. 	On July 28, 1983, Mario Ruiz broke University policy
of July 13, 1983, to go through leadperson; instead he gave
direct instructions to Mr. Dees which contradicted instruct-
ions from his leadperson, which was the reason for the poli-:
cy; to provide consistent instructions.
11. 	After Mr. Dees won a grievance filed by CSEA on fail-
ure to give 21 days notice of shift change, he was returned
to ;his old shift for exactly 21 days, then transferred a-
gain. 	This was to subvert the intent of the notice for
change of the June 3, 1983 grievance.
12. 	Mr. Dees was given 1 hour call back pay. 	Grievance
filed by CSEA on June 3, 1983 and won which gave Mr. Dees
four and one-half hours call back pay.
13. .Tony Rodriguez told Margaret Dufrense he was going
to circulate a petition banning Mr. Dees from all other
grounds meetings because he was a disturbance.
14. 	Mario Ruiz told Harry Hara that "they" (management)
were planning to ban Mr. Dees from all future grounds
meetings.
15. 	On June, 1983, Joe Camacho witnessed an incident
where Mario Ruiz yelled at Mr. Dees from a truck rudely
and childishly "cat got your tongue" Mr. Camacho.
16. 	On June 7, 1983, Tony Rodriguez inspected Mr. Dees'
area and said that the area had to be corrected by June 10,
1933. 	Since Mr. Dees was scheduled to go on vacation and
there was not enough time to complete the assignment and
he was given another job by his leadworker. 	Mr. Dees was
on vacation on June 10, 1983, and on June 13, 1983, his
area was reinspected while Tommie was on vacation and with-
out his leadworker being present who could explain that M
Dees did not have enough time to complete the assignment
!
1...::->u	
i.,r::i.€;vancc
Torr.;.~1ic 	De
April	
16,	
4
Page	
Three
8.	
As
	part
	of
	the
	reprisal,	
management	
demands	
i:oz:·e
and 	more
	medical 	information
	from 	Mr.	
Dees'	
physician
even 	though
	the
	physician	
states 	that	
H:i.:.	
nccp	
is
c.a.pa-
ble 	and 	able
	and
	ready 	to
	work.
· 9
.-
:	
-Letter	
from	
manage:me.nt	
on	
Novembc1:	
16, 	1983,	
i::as
delivered
	to	
Mr. 	Dees
	informing
	him	
thHi..:	
he	
could
not
return
	to
	work
	c3:nd
	would
	be
	on
	require<l 	medical 	leave.
This
	letter	
was	
delivered 	to
	Mr..	
Dees'	
home	
by	
his
good
friend
	and.leadworker
	without
	their
	knowledge 	and
con-
sent.
	They
	were	
ordered	
to
	leave 	the 	University	
to	
de..;,
liver
	the
	let:ter.
	The
	normal 	methods	
0£	
s~nding	
commun-
ications
	to	
employ~es	
were
	not 	used 	for	
Hr.	
Dees.
10.
	On
	July
	28,	
·19f3, 	Mario
	Ruiz 	broke	
University 	policy
of 	~uly	
13,
	1983,
	to
	go 	through	
leadperson;	
instead.
he
	gave
direct
	instructions
	to	
Mr.	
Dees
	which 	contradicted.
instruct-
ions
	from
	his
	leadperson,
	which
	was	
the 	reason 	for
	the	
pol~-:
cy;	
to
	provide
	consistent
	instructions.	
-·
11.
	After	
Ur'
..	
Dees
	won 	a
	grievance	
fj_lccl	
by	
CSEA.
on
	fail-
ure 	to 	give·
21 ·
days
	notice
	of
	shift	
change, 	he	
was
returned
to
~:hi_s	
old
	shift
	for 	exactly	
21
	days,	
then 	transferred 	a-
gain.
	This
	was
·to
subvert
	the
	intent
	of 	the	
notic:e	
for
change
	of
	the 	June	
3, 	1983
	grievance.
12. 	Hr.	
Dees	
was	
given
	l
	hour
	call	
back	
pay..	
Grie.vance
filed
	by 	CSEA	
on June 	3, 	1983 	and
	won
·which
gave
Hr=.	
Dees
f9ur 	and 	one-half 	hours
	call
	back
	pay.
13.
	·
Tony Rodriguez
	told	
Margaret 	Dufrense 	he	
was
going
to
	circulate
	a.
petition	
banning
	Mr
..	
Dee5	
from	
all
other
grounds
	meetings 	because 	he
	was
	a
	disturbance.	
·
14.
	Mario	
Ruiz	
told
	Harry
	Hara
	that	
t'theyn	
(man_a.gement)
were	
planning_to
	ban
Mr. 	Dees 	from
	all	
future	
grounds
meetings.
15.. 	On June/·,.
1983,	
Joe	
Camacho	
witne;:,sed 	an 	incident.
where 	Mario 	Ruiz
	yelled
	at	
Mr. 	Dees 	from	
a	
truck mdely
·
and	
qhildishly 	"cat got
	your 	tongue"	
Mr. 	CamaGho.
16.
	On
	June 	7, 	1983, 	Tony
	Rodriguez 	inspected	
1fr~	
Dees•
area 	and	
said 	that 	the 	ar~a 	had 	to 	be 	~orrected	
by
June 	10,
19.33.	
Si:ice 	Mr. 	Dees	
·wa.s	
scheduled 	to	
,so	
0:1 	·,'":tcation and
there	
·was 	not: 	enough 	time 	to 	complete 	the 	assignw~t	
and
he 	was
	given 	another 	job 	by
	his 	leadworker. 	Mr. 	Dees 	was
on 	vacation 	on June 	10, 	1983, 	and 	on 	June 	13,	
1983~	
his
area	
"h,.as	
reinspected 	while
	Tommie 	was 	on 	vacation and 	with-
out 	his 	leadworker 	being 	present
	who 	could 	explain that
H
Dees 	did 	not 	nave 	enough 	time 	to 	complete 	the 	as$ignment

call Criev
Tommie De
April 16,
Page Four
and that he was given another job to do. The leadworker's
opinion that the area was not that bad nor was it unsatis-
factory. If the area was that bad, other employees should
have been brought in to help clean it:
On June 21, 1983, another memo stating that the area
still was unsatisfactory even though Mr. Dees had just re-
turned from vacation. From original memo of June 7, 1983,
Mr. Dees only worked 4 days and he was threatened with
disciplinary action while part of that time was spent at
the badminton court.
On June 29, 1983, Mr. Sarmiento and Mr. Dees went
through Mr. Dees' area and proved that area was satisfact
tory
17. 	On June 24, 1983, Mr. Dees receives a write-up for
being out of area during a grievance hearing. Mr. Dees
was coming back from previously scheduled grievance hear-
ing. The meeting ended at 12:00 p.m. and was at Plant .
Operation and he had to get back to his area in order to
take lunch. He didn't get back to area until 12:30 be-
cause he was in meeting with Steward. Gale Pemberton after
grievance meeting.
18. 	On or about June 6, 1983, Mr. Dees submitted a cam-
pus police report of the threats by his immediate super-
visor, Mario Ruiz, causing much anger on the part of manage-
ment and exacerbated the continuing harrassment.
19. 	On July 27, 1983, Tony Rodriguez chased Mr. Dees
through Plant Operations inside the office while Mr. Dees
was signing out to go see the doctor. 	Both Edith and
Juanita Barnes witnessed the incident. 	`Juanita got the
log from Mr. Rodriguez's office for Tommie to sign. 	Mr ..
Sarmiento knew of Mr. Deas' doctor's appointment.
20. 	On July 16, 1983, Mr. Rodriguez gave Mr. Dees a
work assignment from Mr. Ruiz, which was inconsistent
with the instructions from Mr. Sarmiento and a violation
of the July 13, 1983, memo from Mr. Ruiz stating that
instructions should come from leadworker. 	The instructions
should come from leadperson.
21. 	Leadworker Tante Sarmiento documents that favoritism
was within the grounds department and that Tommie, Loren
and Sam were singled out because they were not liked.
CSU	
Cr
i~\·
Tommie	
De
April
	16,
Page	
Four
_)
I 	(
(.?
I
and	
that
	he
	was
	given 	another
	job
	to	
c::)·	
The 	l~ad-worke1: 1
·s
opinion
	that	
the 	area
	was
	not	
that	
bau 	no~	
wnB	
it	
uns3tis-factory.	
If
	the
	area	
was	
that
	bad,	
other	
e.
.mployees	
should
have
	been 	brought
	in
	to	
help	
clean	
it:
On
	June
	21, 	1983,
	another	
me.mo	
stating	
that	
the 	area
still
	was
	unsatisfactory
	even 	though Hr. 	Dees	
hc1d	
just
	re-
turned
	from
	vacation.
	From
	original	
memo	
of
	June
	7,
	1.983,
Mr.
	Dees
	only
:worked 	4
	days
	and
	he
	was
	threatened with
disciplina:t;"y	
action
	while
	part
	of
	that	
time	
was	
spent
	at
the
	badminton
	court.
On
	June
	29, 	1983,
	Mr.	
Sarmiento	
n.nd	
Mr.	
Dees
	went
.through
Mr.	
Dees'	
area	
and 	proved
	that	
area	
was	
satisfac-
tory.
,,
17.
	On
	June
	24,
	1983,	
Mr. 	Dees	
receives	
a	
write-up	
for
	.
being
	out 	of
	area 	during	
a	
grievance
	hearing.
	Mr. 	Deeswas 	coming
	back
	from
	previously
	scheduled
	grievance
	hear-
ing·. 	The
meeting 	ended
	at
	12:00
	p.m.
	and
	was
	at
	Plant..
Operation
~nd	
he
	had
	to
	get
	back
	to
	his
	area
	in
	order 	to
take 	lunch.
	He
	didn't
	get
	back
	to
	area
	until
	12:30
be-
cause·
he	
was	
in
meeting
	with
	Ste.ward.
Gale 	Pemberton	
after
grievance meeting.
18.
	On
	or 	about 	June
	6,
	1983,	
Mr. 	Dees	
submitted	
a 	cam-
pus	
police 	report 	of
	the	
threats	
by	
h~s	
immediate	
super-
visor,
	Mario	
Ruiz, 	causing
	much
	anger
	on
	the	
part	
of
manage-
ment 	and
	exacerbated 	the	
continuing 	harrassment.
19.
	On
	July
	27, 	1983, 	Tony 	Rodriguez 	chased
}lr.	
Dees
through
	Plant
	Operations-inside 	the
	office	
while	
Mr. 	Dees
was	
signing 	out 	to
	go
	see 	the 	doctor.
	Both
	Edith
and
Juanita
	Barnes
	witnessed 	the 	incident.	
·
Juanita 	gqt 	thelog
	from 	Mr.	
Rodriguez's
	office 	for
	Tommie
	to 	sign.	
M.r •.
-
Sarmiento	
knew	
of 	Hr. 	Dees'
	doctor's
	appointment.
~-
'
20.
	On	
July-~16,	
1983,	
Mr.	
Rodriguez	
gave}::::-.	
Dees	
a
work 	assigtllllent 	from 	Mr.
	Ruiz, 	which was	
inconsistentwith 	the 	instructions	
froo	
Mr. 	Sarmiento 	and 	a
	violationof 	the 	July	
13> 	1983,
	meI:?o	
from Mr. 	Ruiz	
stating 	that
instructions
	should
	come 	from 	leadworker.
	The	
instructionsshould 	co~e 	from	
leadperson.
21. 	Lead-worker 	'i'ante 	San:uient:o 	documents	
that 	favoritisw
was
	within 	the 	grounds 	department 	and
	that	
Tomm.ie,	
Lorenand 	Sam were 	singled 	out 	because 	they were 	not 	liked
.
..

Tommie Deer
April 16,
Page Five
22. 	On October 11, 1983, Laverne Diggs from the Chan-
cellors Office Labor Relations walked out of Level 3
grievance meeting while Mr. Dees was still giving evi-
dence over the objection of Steward Gale Pemberton and
over Mr. Dees' objection.
23. 	In October of 1983, Tony Rodriguez chased and in-
timidated Mr. Dees while he was on break and was wit-
nessed by 2 students (statements attached). 	The osten-
sible reason for Mr. Rodriguez being in the area was that
Mr. Rodriguez was looking for Sam Walton to give him a
message from home, but when Mr. Walton called home, no
one knew of any message.
.24. On October 11, 1983, Tommie Dees had a reprisal
transfer from a safe area to an unsafe area as management
well knew. 	Transfer was effective October 18, 1983.
25 . 	On October 18, 1983, Tommie Dees was placed on
medical leave by his doctor due to stress of new work
site from October 11, 1983 transfer. Medical leave
was involuntary on Mr. Dees' part and was treated as
a medical problem. Employer knew that Mr. Dees was on
medical leave, yet Mr. Dees was placed on "A" time which
was subsequently changed to sick leave after a grievance
filed by CSEA. The reason for the leave was medical ex-
haustion.
Mr. Rodriguez acknowledged at. the October 27, 1983,
staff meeting that he had forgotten that he was told of
Mr. Dees' absence; yet management went through second
level before granting grievance.
26. 	On October 26, 1983, Mr. Dees was officially placed
on "A" 	time which was a direct reprisal.
27 . 	The minutes of the ground workers' meeting on Octo-
ber 17, 1983, with Tony Rodriguez, contained numerous con-
tractual violations and were subsequently withdrawn due
to union intervention, were given to Mr. Dees by grounds
secretary and signed. After meeting with union, Mr. Rod-
riguez was accused of stealing 2 copies. 	Tommie had one
of the only copies of a policy that Mr. Rodriguez tried
unsuccessfully to unilaterally implement and was forced
to withdraw. 	The fact that Townie still has a copy made
Mr. Rodriguez angry.
28. 	On October 29, 1983, Jim Buckley told Tommie Dees
in front of 2 of Mr. Buckley's co-workers to "go to hell"
because Mr. Dees allegedly called Mr. Buckley a "liar" in
front of a newspaper reporter. 	This is typical of manage-
ment's attitude toward Mr. Dees for quite some time and
Tom:nie 	De,:.,"
April 	16, 	~4
Page 	Five
22. 	On 	October 	11, 	1983, 	Laverne 	Diggs 	from 	the Chan-
cellors 	Office 	Labor 	Relations 	walked 	out 	of 	Level 	3
grievance meeting 	while Mr. 	Dees 	was 	still 	giying 	evi-
dence 	over 	the 	objection 	of 	Steward 	Gale 	Pemberton and
over 	Mr. 	Dees' 	objection.
23. 	In 	October 	of 	1983, 	Tony Rodriguez 	chased 	and 	in-
timidated 	Hr .. 	Dees 	while 	he 	was 	on 	break 	and 	was 	wit-
nessed 	by 	2 	students 	(statements 	attached). 	The 	osten-
sible 	reason 	for 	Mr. 	Rodriguez 	being 	in 	the 	area 	was 	that
Mr. 	Rodriguez ·was 	looking 	for 	Sam Wal ton 	to 	give 	him 	a
message 	from 	home, 	but when Mr. 	Wal ton 	called 	home, 	no
one 	knew 	of 	any message. 	•
·24. 	On 	October 	11, 	1983: 	Tommie Dees 	had 	a 	reprisal
transfer 	from·a 	safe 	area 	to 	an 	unsafe 	area 	as 	management
welt knew. 	Transfer 	-was 	effective 	October 	18, 	1983.
25. 	On 	October· 18, 	1983, 	Torm:iie 	Dees 	was 	placed 	on
medical 	leave 	by 	his 	doctor 	due 	to 	stress 	of 	new work
site 	from 	October 	11, 	1983 	transfer. 	Medical 	le~ve
was· involuntary 	on Mr. 	Dees' 	part 	and 	was 	treated as.
a 	medical 	problem.. 	E!!lployer 	knew 	that Mr. 	Dees 	was 	on
medical 	leave, 	yet Mr. 	Dees 	"W'as 	placed 	on 1 'A" 	ti.me which
was 	subsequently 	changed 	to 	sick 	leave 	after 	a 	grievance
filed 	by 	CSE.A. 	·The reason 	for 	the 	leave 	was 	medical 	ex- 	'
haustion.
Mr. 	Rodriguez 	acknowledged 	at. the 	October 	27, 	1983,
staff meeting 	that 	he 	had 	forgotten 	that 	he was 	told 	of
Mr. 	Dees' 	absence; 	yet management 	went 	through 	second
level 	before 	granting 	gr~evance.
26. 	On 	October 	26, 	1983, 	Mr. 	Dees 	was 	officially placed
on 	"A" 	ti.me 	which was 	a 	direct 	reprisal. ,
.- 	.
27. 	The minutes 	of 	the 	ground 	workers' 	meeting 	on 	Octo-
ber 	17, 	1983, 	with Tony Rodriguez> 	contained 	numerous 	con-
tractual 	violations 	and 	were 	subsequently 	withdra-r...--n 	due
to 	union 	intervention, 	were 	given 	to 	Mr. 	Dees 	by 	grounds
secretary 	and 	signed. 	After 	meeting 	with union, 	Hr. 	Rod-
riguez 	was 	accused 	of 	stealing 	2 	copies. 	Tomi::ie 	had 	one
of 	the 	only 	copies 	of 	a .policy 	that 	Mr. 	Rodriguez 	tried_,
.r:. 	.... 	., 	,, 	• 	l 	- 	d 	,. 	du:i succes SJ.. u.1..J.y 	to 	un:u.a. ter.'.l_.1.y 	ll!lp 	2.!!l.en •- 	an 	,;a:; 	!:Orce
to 	,;.rit:h<l::-aw. 	Th2 	fact 	_that; 	Toi::n:o.ie 	still 	has 	.:i. 	copy L1ad2
Hr. 	Rodriguez 	angry.
28. 	On 	October 	29, 	1983, 	Jim 	Buckley 	told 	Tom!!lie Dees
in 	front 	of 	2 	of 	Mr. 	Buckley I s 	co-workers 	to 	"go 	to 	hell".
because 	Mr. 	Dees 	allegedly 	called Hr. 	Buckley 	a 11 liar 11 in
front 	of 	a 	newspaper 	reporter. 	This 	is 	typical .-of manage-
ment's 	attitude 	toward 	Mr. 	Dees 	for 	quite 	some 	tim~ 	and

74
Page Six
Tommie De
April 16,
CSU Grievance
still exists. 	Mr. Dees asked Mr. Buckley not to be
transferred to a new area.
29. 	On October 31, 1983, Jim Buckley denied Mr. Dees
request to return to previous assignment.
30. 	On October 21, 1983, November 1, 1983, and Novem-
ber 11, 1983, Mr. Dees was forced to provide medical
information repeatedly, which all explains the same
things, that Tommie Dees can work. His only limitation
is that it be a reasonably secure area.
31. 	Laverne Diggs denied grievance after walking out
of grievance hearing.
32. " Mr. Dees was off on medical leave from November 1,
1983, to November 8, 1983, because of stress and the emp-
Loyer had knowledge of Mr. Dees' stressful condition and
on November 10, 1983, Tony Rodriguez and Mario Ruiz pro-
voked and exacerbated this stressful situation by sneak-
ing up behind Tommie and forcing more stress on him. 	They
subsequently laughed at Mr. Dees when he reacted to their
knowing attempt to upset him.
33. 	On November 11, 1983, Tony Rodriguez wrote a memo
stating that he and Mario Ruiz couldn't work with Tommie
Dees. 	Mr. Rodriguez's statement that Tommie Dees refuses
to accept any form of communication from either Mr. Rod-
riguez or Mr. Ruiz is not a true statement. Mr. Rodri-
guez also requested that Mr. Dees be placed on leave.
34. 	On November 10, 1983, Mr. Dees was again placed on
medical leave by his treating physician following the
provocation described above.
35. 	On November 16, 1983, the attached letter was de-
livered to Tommie Dees taking advantage of his friend-
ship with co-workers which caused even more stress for
Mr . Dees. 	Statements regarding incident are attached.
36. 	Reprisal exists because Mr. Dees was placed on un-
necessary leave for administrative convenience and the
University is aware of the financial hardship that Mr.
Deas is suffering. 	Mr. Deas should be placed on paid
administrative leave, not medical leave for this period
of time, since it is solely for administrative conven-
ience.
37. 	On December 13, 1983, two letters from the Univer-
sith were sent to Mr. Dees at the wrong address, one post-
marked November 30, 1983, and the other postmarked Decem-
ber 12, 1983. Each letter states that a meeting is to be
CSU	
Gr:i.ev2T"\r(~
Tot.TJnie 	De 	,
Ap:::il
	16,
	_ 	14
Page
	Six
still
	exists.	
Hr.	
Dees	
asked	
Mr.	
Buckley	
not
	to
	be
transferred
	to
	a 	new	
area.
29.
	On
	October	
3lt	
1983,	
Jim	
Buckley	
denied	
rJr.	
Dees
1
request
	to
	return
	to 	previous	
assign:nent.
30.
	On
	October
	21, 	1983, 	November
	1,	
1983, 	and 	Novem-
ber 	11, 	1983,
	Mr.
	Dees
	was
	forced
	to 	provide
medical
information 	repeatedly,
	which
	all	
er.plains	
the	
same
things, 	th~t	
Tommie
	Dees
	can
work.	
His 	only	
limitation
is 	that
	it
	be
	a
	reasonably 	secure
	area.
31.
	Laverne
·Diggs
	denied
	grievance	
a.f
tc~r:	
walking
	out
.
of 	grie,rance 	hearing.
- 	·
f 	l 	u I
32.
"	
Mr.
	Dees	
was	
off
	on
medical
	leave
	from
	November	
1,
1983,
	to	
November 	8, 	1983, 	because
	of	
stress	
and
	the	
emp-.
loyer
	had
	knowledge
	of
	Mr.
	Dees'
	stressful
	condition
	and	
·
on	
November 	lOt	
1983,	
Tony	
Rodrieuez	
and	
Hario 	Ruiz
	pro-
voked 	and
	exacerbated
	this 	stressful 	situation	
by	
sneak-
ing 	up 	behind	
Tommie	
and
	forcing
	more	
stress	
on 	him. 	They
subsequently
	laughed
	at
	Mr.
	Dees 	when	
he
	reacted
	to	
th~ir
kno-wing	
at.tempt
	to 	upset	
him.
33.
· 	On 	November
	11,
	1983,
	Tony
	Rodriguez	
-wrote 	a
memo
stating 	that
	he
	and Mario 	Ruiz
	couldn't
	work
	with	
Tommie
Dees.	
Mr.
	Rodriguez's
·state!!lent	
that
	Tommie 	Dees	
refuses
to 	accept·
any
	form
	of	
communication	
from	
either	
Hr.	
Rod-
riguez
	or	
Hr.	
Ruiz
	is
	not
	a
	true 	statement.
	Mr.
	Rodri-
guez
	also 	requested
	that	
Mr. 	Dees
	be 	placed
	on
	leave.
·34_	
On	
Hovembe:t	
10, 	1983,	
Mr.	
Dees	
was	
again 	placed
	on
medical 	leave
	by
	his 	treatinB	
phys~cian 	following 	the
provocation 	described
	above.
35.
	On 	November
	16, 	1983,
	the 	attached
	letter
	was
	de-
livered
	to
	Tommie 	Dees
	taking 	advantage 	of
	his
	friend-
ship 	with	
co-workers 	which	
ca-u.sed	
even more	
stress	
£orMr.
	Dees. 	Statements 	regarding 	incident 	are 	attached.
36.	
Reprisal 	exists	
because Hr. 	Dees 	was	
placed	
on
	un-
necessary 	leave 	for 	administrative 	convenience 	and 	the
Unive1:sity	
;s	
~ware	
of 	the 	fin:1ncial	
ha::::-~ship	
th2.t	
t.fr.
De:.-">-	
., <·	
su&.-erino	
i.f,--	
Do.:," 	,.....,0117
~	
be>	
""'l
"C;~.J	
()''" 	Da" .J	-r...::> 	•w	
•~	
1.
0 •	
l-.-
.....
_ ..
.:::i,	
.:,._. 	_._.,	
-P--""	
-t...•	
.,,	
.	
-Cl
aC1'.linistrative 	leave, 	not 	medical 	leave 	for 	this	
period
of 	time, 	since
	it
	is 	solely 	for 	administrative	
conven-
ience.
.-
37. 	On 	December 	13, 	1983, 	two	
letters
	from 	the 	Univer- ·
sith 	were 	sent 	to 	Mr. 	Dees	
af 	the 	wrone 	address,	
s:me	
post-
marked 	November 	30, 	1983, 	and 	the 	other 	postmarked 	Decem~
·ber 	12, 	1983. 	Each 	letter 	states 	that 	a 	meeting 	is 	to 	be

CSU Grievance
Tommie De
April 16, 	34
Page Seven
held at different times, thus confusing the matter even
more. When Mr. Dees got the letters, attorney Roger
Meredith called Mr. Farley to get exact date and time
of meetings.
38. 	On December 22, 1983, University management refused
to meet with Tommie Dees and his union representative
Marilyn Sardonic regarding the grievances as they stipu-
lated to in the letter. At that time, Mr. Lindemon agreed
to respond in writing the reason for his refusal to meet
with the union regarding these grievances and to respond
to Mr. Dees' letter of December 8, 1983, asking for a
waiver of time limits. Mr. Lindemon has failed to respond
to date.
CSU
"
Griev,,.,...ce
Torra:nie	
De.	
,.)
4	
April
	16,
	.
Page	
Seven
held	
ut	
different
	times, 	thus 	confusing	
the 	matter	
even
more.	
When	
Hr.	
Dees
	got 	the	
letters,	
,'.tttorncy	
Rog~r
Meredith
	called	
Mr.	
Farley
	to
	get	
exact	
date
	and 	time
of
	meetings.	
··
38.
	On	
December	
22,
	1983,	
University	
management
refused
to
	meet
	with	
Tommie	
Dees 	and	
his	
union	
representative
Marilyn
	Sardonis
	regarding 	the 	grievances
	as 	they
	stipu-
lated
	to
	in
	the
1etter.
	At
	that	
time,	
Hr.	
Lindemon	
agreedto 	respond
	in
•writing	
the
	reason
	for 	his	
refusal
	to 	meet
with 	the	
union	
regarding
	these	
grievan~es	
~nd	
to
	respond
to
	Mr.
	Dees'
	letter
	of
	December 	8,
	1983,
	asking 	for
	a
waiver
	of
	time
	limits.	
Hr.	
Lindemon	
ha!.:	
failed
	t:o
	respond
to
	date
.
.,