Compton Education Association (Sanders) (PERB 0509E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
EARLEAN B. 	SANDERS,
Charging 	Party,
v.
COMPTON EDUCATION ASSOCIATION,
Respondent.
)
)
) 	Case No. 	LA-CO-305
PERB Decision No. 	509
June 	21, 	1985
)
))
)
)
)
Appearance; 	Earlean B. 	Sanders, 	on her own behalf.
Before Hesse, 	Chairperson; Jaeger, 	Morgenstern, 	Burt and Porter,
Members.
DECISION
This 	case 	is 	before 	the Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board
(Board) 	on appeal 	by the Charging Party of 	the 	Board agent's
dismissal, 	attached hereto, 	of her charge that 	the Compton
Education Association violated section 3543.6(b) 	of 	the
Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Act 	(Government 	Code 	section
3540 et seq.).
We have 	reviewed 	the Board agent's 	dismissal 	and, 	finding
it 	free 	from prejudicial error, 	adopt 	it as 	the Decision of 	the
Board 	itself.
ORDER
The unfair practice charge 	in Case No. 	LA-CO-305 	is hereby
DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
By 	the 	BOARD
)
\

STATE Of CALIFORNIA 	EDMUND 	G. 	BROWN
Governor
JR.
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Headquarters Office
1031 18th Street, Suite 200
Sacramento, California 	95814
(916) 	323-8015
January 31, 1985
Ms. Earlean Saunders 	Ronald A. Knell
Re: 	Sanders v. Compton Education Association, Case No. LA-CO-305
Dear Ms. Sanders:
The above referenced charge alleges that Respondent Compton Education
Association (CEA) violated Government Code section 3543.5(b) by
engaging in "unfair, arbitrary, discriminating and in bad faith"
practices.
In a letter dated December 19, 1984, I indicated to you that the
charge did not state a prima facie case and that unless you amended
the charge to state a prima facie case or withdraw it prior to
December 31, 1984, it would be dismissed. 	More specifically, I
informed you that if there were any factual inaccuracies in the letter
or additional facts which would correct the deficiencies explained in
that letter, you should amend the charge 	accordingly. 	You requested
and were granted three extensions of time in order to respond to my
December 19, 1984 letter, the last one setting a deadline of January 22,
1985. 	On that date, you filed a First Amended Unfair Practice Charge
alleging as follows:
1. 	This is a public Agency with a membership that should
abide by the Fair Democratic Processes ad [sic ] and CEA
has failed to operate in good faith with:
l. 	Inadequate notices and time 	allotment 	for teacher/
Certificated Members participation. 	See EXHIBIT #
in district-wide meetings where INPUT was not given for
proposal for 1984-85 because less than 12 persons showed.
2. 	Received No input from Certificated Members for
Negotiations '84-'85.
3. 	Disproportionately number of representatives and
members on CEA-Building Representatives Meetings. 	There
is No 	quorum. 	No input from staff.-sites.

4. 	Negotiations were done improperly for 1984-85 inclusive
of our Health Benefit Packet. 	A vote to confirm our
health benefit packet was improper, and unfairly.
Ms. Earlean Saunders
January 31, 1985
Page 2
In addition to the above charges, a five-page letter entitled
"Allegations against CEA" was attached to the charge 	form. 	That letter
discusses some 14 separate instances of conduct on the part of CEA which
is alleged to support the four general allegations contained on the
charge form itself, cited above. 	Some of these also appear to be
supportive of your allegation in the original charge that CEA had
"failed to seek proper votes of negotiation items from constituency
prior to negotiating for certificated contract for '84-*85 school year
as well as '83-'84 school year."
They include allegations that:
1. 	CEA failed to adequately receive member input in its contract
negotiations;
2. 	CEA failed to notify teachers that dues had increased;
3. 	Fewer council members are in attendance at meetings, and
CEA acts without a quorum being present;
4. 	Executive Director Georgia Maryland's "friends"
• on the
Executive Board of CEA support her actions;
5. 	Clerks employed by CEA receive "too high salaries."
6. 	A CEA Executive Board member, who functions as CEA's
auditor is married to CEA's financial secretary, creating a
conflict of interest;
7. 	Executive Director Marland did not keep her promise to
you that the membership would have a choice as to health plans;
8. 	You have been denied an opportunity to serve on CEA's
contract negotiating team;
9. 	CEA provided insufficient notice of a meeting which took
place in September 1984 to discuss "bargaining status;"
10. CEA required its members to vote on parts of the proposed
84-85 contract rather than on the whole;

Ms. Earlean Saunders
January 31, 1985
Page 3
11. 	CEA's agreement to the District Paid plan over the
Cafeteria plan caused you to lose a Tax Shelter Annuity
benefit;
12. 	CEA has failed to provide you with a copy of its
contract proposals to the district;
13. 	CEA requested the change from the old Cafeteria Plan
to the new District-paid plan;
14. 	CEA failed to perform an adequate survey of its
members regarding their preference for a health plan when
you requested such on behalf of 21 employees who work at
your school site.
As stated at page 3 of my December 19, 1984 letter to you, a labor
organization's duty of fair representation extends only to union
"activities that have a substantial impact on the relationships of
unit members to their employers..." and does not apply to those
"...activities which do not directly involve the employer or which are
strictly internal union matters." 	Service Employees International
Union, Local 99 (10/19/79) PERB Decision No. 106, at p. 8. 	Each of
the 14 instances of CEA conduct which have been submitted in support
of the charge would appear to lack a "substantial impact on the
relationships of unit members to their employers." 	The additional
information provided along with the First Amended Charge fails to
disclose any evidence that any of the conduct attributed to CEA involved
other than internal union 	activities. 	The First Amended Charge, there-
fore, fails to cure the deficiencies in the original charge cited in
my letter of December 19, 1984, and a prima facie case of a violation
of Government Code section 3543.5(b) has not been demonstrated. 	I
must therefore dismiss your charge.
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 February 20,
1985, or sent by telegraph or certified United States mail postmarked

Ms. Earlean Saunders
January 31, 1985
Page 4
not later than February 20, 1985, (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).
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_
Jorge/ A. Leon
Staff Attorney
Attachment: 	Letter December 19, 1984
V

.A7E OF CALIFORNIA 	. G E O R G E 	DEUKMEJIAN, Governor
PU3LIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
HEADQUARTERS OFFICE
1031 18TH STREET
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814
(916} 322-3088
December 	19. 	1984
Ms. 	Earlean Sanders
Re: 	Sanders v. 	Compton Education Association. 	LA-CO-305
Dear Ms. 	Sanders:
You have 	filed 	a 	charge against 	the Compton Education
Association 	(CEA) 	alleging 	that 	the Respondent 	"failed 	to seek
proper votes 	of 	negotiation 	items 	from constituency prior 	to
negotiating for 	certificated 	contract 	for 	'84-'85 	school year
as well 	as 	'83-'84 	school year."
My 	investigation uncovered 	the 	following 	facts. 	You 	are a
4th grade 	teacher, 	employed 	by 	the Compton Unified School
District. 	You have 	been, 	during the period 	of 	time relevant
herein, 	a 	building representative for CEA.
Collective 	bargaining agreements 	in effect 	between the 	parties
prior 	to 	the 	end 	of 	the 	1983-84 	school 	year 	provided 	that 	the
members would 	be 	covered 	by a 	health plan known 	as 	the
Cafeteria 	Plan. 	During negotiations 	for 	the 	current 	contract
the CEA proposed, 	and the District agreed, 	to switch to a new
health plan known as 	the District-paid 	plan. 	You were one of
an uncertain number 	of 	employees 	in 	the 	1,253 	member 	unit who
preferred 	the 	existing Cafeteria 	Plan.
In May 1984, 	you 	presented 	a 	petition to 	the CEA Executive
Board 	signed 	by 21 	Ralph Bunche Elementary 	School 	staff
requesting 	that 	CEA conduct 	a 	survey 	to 	determine 	the 	fringe
benefit 	packet for 	the 1984-85 	school 	year. 	The petition
stated, 	"Presently, 	19 of 	21 certificated CEA members at our
site 	are 	interested 	in maintaining 	their 	Existing Health
Plan 	— t h e 	Cafeteria 	Plan."
On May 17, 	1984. 	you addressed a meeting of 	the District Board
of Education to 	express: 	(1) your 	preference for 	the existing
health plan; 	(2) 	your 	concern that CEA does 	not 	know what 	its
members want; 	and 	(3) 	the failure of 	CEA to survey its members'
desires 	on contract proposals. 	At 	that meeting, 	Floyd Worsham,

another 	teacher 	and a CEA member, 	advised 	the Board 	that CEA
had, 	in fact, 	held two open hearings 	for 	teachers 	to express
their views on contract proposals and that, 	in his opinion, 	CEA
members 	"do 	have an opportunity 	to 	give 	input 	on 	things 	that
are negotiated." 	While you do 	not 	share Mr. 	Worsham's views on
CEA's openness to member 	input, 	you did not dispute his
comments 	at 	the Board meeting.
Ms. 	Earlean Sand 	s
December 19, 1984
Page 	2
On August 20, 	1984, 	CEA conducted a survey of 	its members
regarding 	the health plan. 	Of 	the 	approximately 700 employees
responding, 	some 400 chose 	the District-paid over 	the old
plan. 	A few weeks later, 	on September 	13, 	1984, 	a CEA meeting
was 	announced 	to 	take place 	that 	same day regarding contract
items. 	You 	telephoned Georgia Maryland, 	the CEA Executive
Director, 	to protest the short notice, 	to ask whether the
meeting was merely for 	show, 	and 	to express your 	opinion about
the survey. 	One week later, 	on September 20, 	1984, 	at an
Executive Board meeting of 	CEA, 	you addressed 	that 	body to
express several concerns, 	including: 	(1) 	the fact that you
weren't 	being allowed 	to vote 	on 	ratification of 	health plan
agreement 	in the manner which you understood would occur from a
conversation with Ms. Maryland; 	(2) 	the August survey should
have been done before 	the end of 	the 1983-84 	school year;
(3) 	the short notice of 	the September 	13 meeting did 	not allow
many members to attend; 	(4) 	you had still not seen a copy of
CEA's 	initial proposals.
On November 	2, 	1984. 	you wrote a 	letter 	to the Executive Board
which principally 	concerned 	your 	opinion 	that 	the 	Executive
Director 	should 	be 	terminated 	because 	she 	has 	been 	" . . .
negligent 	. 	. 	. 	incompetent yet political 	. . . " 	The letter
also noted your 	opinion that 	"we" wanted 	the existing health
plan over 	the District-paid 	plan.
The 	collective 	bargaining agreement 	in existence 	between the
parties 	does 	not 	call 	for 	any specific procedure for 	CEA to
obtain membership 	input. 	Nor 	do the CEA's by-laws call for any
specified 	procedures.
ANALYSIS
The charge you 	have filed 	does 	not allege a violation of any
specific Government Code section. 	However, 	the 	conduct alleged
can be 	analyzed 	most 	closely as 	an allegation of 	a 	Government
Code section 3543.5(b) 	violation. 	Such a violation occurs 	if
there has 	been a 	breach of 	the 	duty of 	fair 	representation.
•

Ms. 	Earlean Sanders
December 	19. 	1984
Page 3
which is 	provided 	in section 	3544.9. 	The PERB 	has 	held that
with regard 	to 	contract 	negotiations 	the
Duty of 	Fair 	Representation 	implies 	some
consideration of 	the views of 	various 	groups
of 	employees 	and 	some 	access 	for
communication for 	those views, 	but there 	is
no 	requirement 	that 	formal 	procedures 	be
established. 	(Emphasis 	added.)
El 	Centro Elementary Teachers Association 	(8/11/82) 	PERB
Decision No. 232. 	at p. 	15-16.
The charge 	alleges 	that CEA 	"failed to 	seek proper votes," 	and
your written communications 	with the 	school 	board 	and with the
CEA Executive Board 	indicate 	that you 	sought a 	formal vote on
the 	health plan and on other 	contract matters 	as well 	before
CEA entered negotiations with the District. 	However, 	inasmuch
as 	neither 	the contract 	nor 	the 	by-laws 	provide 	any specified
procedure, 	it appears from the facts 	that CEA has met its duty
to 	receive member 	input. 	You communicated your 	views 	to the
Executive 	Board 	and 	to 	the Executive Director 	on more 	than one
occasion both verbally and in writing. 	The CEA, 	did, 	in fact,
conduct a survey of 	its members 	in August. 	1984.
Meetings were held by CEA on September 	13, 	1984 	and on prior
occasions 	at which members were 	permitted to voice their views,
and 	there 	is 	no 	allegation 	that 	CEA at 	any 	time 	refused to
consider your comments. 	For 	these reasons, 	the 	charge fails to
show a 	breach of 	the 	duty of 	fair 	representation by CEA for
failure 	to provide 	its members 	access 	to communicate their
views.
Alternatively, 	a 	labor 	organization can breach its duty of 	fair
representation by engaging 	in conduct 	toward a 	member 	that 	is
arbitrary, 	discriminatory or 	in bad faith. 	Redlands Teachers
Assn. 	(9/25/78) PERB Decision No. 72. 	However, 	the duty of
fair 	representation extends 	only 	to union 	"activities 	that have
a 	substantial 	impact 	on the 	relationships 	of unit members 	to
their 	employers 	. . . " 	and 	does 	not 	apply 	to 	those 	" . . .
activities which do 	not 	directly 	involve 	the 	employer 	or which
are 	strictly 	internal 	union matters." 	Service 	Employees
International Union. 	Local 	99 	(10/19/79) 	PERB Decision No. 	106,
at p. 	8.

Ms. Earlean Sanders
December 	19. 	1984
Page 	4
CEA's 	failure 	to 	"seek proper 	votes" 	concerning 	the 	health plan
is a matter of 	internal union affairs. 	Its methods 	in
obtaining membership 	input 	on 	the health plan are 	not 	a matter
that concerns your 	relationship, 	as an employee, 	to Compton
Unified School District, 	and are 	therefore, 	beyond 	this Board's
reach.
For 	these 	reasons, 	the charge you have 	filed does not state a
prima 	facie case. 	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 31, 	1984, 	I shall dismiss your charge. 	If you have
any questions 	on how to proceed, 	please call me at 	(916)
323-8015.
Sincerely yours,.
Jorge Leon
Staff 	Attorney