Los Angeles Community College District (PERB 0617E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
ROBERT 	RAY BRADLEY,
Charging 	Party,
v.
LOS 	ANGELES 	COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT,
Respondent.
Case No. 	LA-CE-2386
PERB Decision No. 	617
March 27, 	1987
Appearances; 	Robert 	Ray Bradley, 	on his 	own behalf; 	Mary L.
Dowell, 	Attorney, 	for Los Angeles 	Community College 	District.
Before Hesse, 	Chairperson; 	Porter and Craib, 	Members.
DECISION
This 	case 	is 	before 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board
(Board) 	on 	appeal 	by charging party of 	the 	Board 	agent's
partial 	dismissal, 	attached hereto, 	of his 	charge 	alleging 	that
the 	respondent 	violated 	the 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations
Act 	(EERA) 	sections 3543.5(a) 	and 	(c).
We have 	reviewed 	the 	dismissal 	and, 	finding 	it 	free 	from
prejudicial 	error, 	adopt 	it 	as 	the 	Decision 	of 	the Board 	itself.l
1Member 	Porter 	would 	affirm 	also on 	the basis 	that 	an
individual 	does 	not 	have 	standing 	to 	file 	a 	charge alleging a
violation 	of EERA section 	3543.5(c). 	(See 	Riverside Unified
School 	District 	(1986) 	PERB 	Decision No. 	571 	dissenting
opinion.)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
______________ )

ORDER
The 	partial 	dismissal 	of 	the 	unfair practice 	charge 	in 	Case
No. 	LA-CE-2386 	is hereby AFFIRMED.
By 	the 	BOARD.
N	2

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
Headquarters Office
103) 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 	95814-4174
(916)322-3088
December 24, 	1986
Mr. 	Robert Ray Bradley
RE: 	Robert 	Bradley v. 	Los Angeles 	Community College District,
Case No. 	LA-CE-2386 Second Amended Charge
Dear Mr. 	Bradley:
You have 	filed 	a 	Second 	Amended 	Charge against 	Respondent 	Los
Angeles 	Community College 	District 	(LACCD) 	alleging 	that 	it has
violated 	the 	Educational Employment Relations Act 	(EERA) 	by:
(1) 	refusing 	to 	abide by 	the 	terms 	of a 	settlement 	reached on a
grievance which you 	filed; 	(2) 	releasing confidential
information which 	you had provided 	in 	connection with 	another
grievance which you had 	filed; 	and 	(3) 	withholding 	from you, 	as
agent of 	the 	exclusive 	representative, 	pertinent 	information
regarding 	the 	involuntary 	reassignment of an 	instructor 	and
refusing 	to 	follow contract procedures 	regarding 	involuntary
transfers.
In a letter dated December 	11, 	1986 	(copy attached), 	I advised
you 	that 	the 	allegations contained 	in 	the 	charge 	did 	not
constitute 	a prima 	facie case 	of a violation of 	the 	EERA. 	You
were advised 	that 	if 	there 	were 	any 	factual 	inaccuracies 	or
additional 	facts 	which would correct the deficiencies 	explained
in 	that 	letter, 	you 	should amend the 	charge accordingly. 	You
were 	further 	advised 	that 	unless you amended 	the 	charge 	to
state a prima 	facie case, 	or withdrew 	it prior 	to December 	19,
1986, 	it would be dismissed. 	On December 	19, 	this office
received 	an 	amendment 	to 	the 	charge presenting 	new 	information
and 	arguments 	regarding 	the three 	allegations. 	The 	Second
Amendment 	is 	considered below.
1. 	Refusal 	to Abide 	By Terms of Settlement.
The 	charge alleges 	that 	College 	President David Wolf agreed 	to
return 	the Business 	Data 	Processing 	I class, 	formerly 	taught by
the Business Administration Department, 	which you chair, 	to
that department, 	instead of the Computer Science Department, 	to
which 	the department 	the 	class was 	recently moved. 	My 	letter
of 	December 	11 	explains 	that 	the allegation does 	not 	state 	a
prima 	facie 	case because Wolf's 	memo 	to you of 	September 	9,
1985 did not 	constitute 	an 	"agreement".

Mr. 	Robert Ray Bradley
December 	24, 	1986
Page 	2
The 	Second 	Amendment 	argues 	that 	Wolf's 	memo 	does 	constitute 	an
agreement 	to 	bring 	the 	class 	back 	to 	Business 	Administration
Department. 	You 	assert 	as 	follows:
The wording of 	Dr. 	Wolf's 	letter 	is 	such
that 	a 	reasonable 	person 	would 	understand
that 	he 	was 	agreeing 	that 	Business 	Data
Processing 	1 	could 	be 	offered 	in 	the 	future
by 	the 	Business 	Administration 	department.
I 	followed 	the 	proper 	procedures 	to
reinstate 	the 	BDP-1 	class. 	After 	a 	very
careful 	analysis, 	the 	campus 	curriculum
committee 	determined 	that 	this 	course 	did
not 	conflict 	with 	any 	other 	course 	offered
on 	campus 	and 	the 	members 	of 	the 	committee
gave 	their 	unanimous 	approval 	for
reinstatement 	of 	the 	Business 	Data
Processing 	1 	course 	to 	be 	offered 	by 	the
Business 	Administration 	department.
I 	followed 	Dr. 	Wolf's 	directions 	for
reinstating 	BDP-1 	to 	be 	offered 	by 	the
Business 	Administration 	Department. 	It
constitutes 	an 	unfair 	labor 	practice 	for 	him
to 	give 	me 	directions 	concerning 	the
reinstatement 	of 	the 	class 	and 	then 	refuse
to 	abide 	by 	his 	agreement 	to 	let 	me 	teach
that 	class 	in 	the 	Business 	Administration
department. 	(italics 	in 	original.)
Wolf's 	memo 	is 	quoted 	in my 	letter 	of 	December 	11, 	1986. 	As
stated 	in 	that 	letter, 	Wolf's 	memo merely suggests 	that 	you
present 	your 	request 	to 	the 	curriculum 	committee. 	The 	memo
does 	not 	contain Wolf's 	agreement 	to 	actually 	approve 	the
transfer 	of 	the 	class 	back 	to 	your 	department, 	nor 	does 	it
contain 	his 	agreement 	to 	later 	give 	his 	approval 	to 	an
affirmative recommendation by 	the 	curriculum 	committee. 	The
amended 	charge 	contains 	no 	further 	evidence 	of 	Wolf's
"agreement." 	Even 	if 	the 	memo 	from Wolf 	could 	be 	construed 	to
be 	an 	agreement, 	PERB 	is 	without 	authority 	to 	enforce 	such
agreements 	between 	parties 	(Clovis 	Unified 	School 	District

(1986) 	PERB 	Decision 	No. 	597), 	and cannot issue a complaint
unless 	the 	conduct 	also amounts 	to 	a 	change 	in policy 	having 	a
generalized effect 	or 	continuing 	impact 	upon the 	terms 	and
conditions 	of 	employment 	of 	the bargaining 	unit 	members 	(Grant
Joint Union High 	School 	District 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No.
196). 	The charge does not present 	information supporting an
inference 	that 	the District's 	action constitutes 	a 	change 	in
policy. 	For 	the 	reasons stated above 	and 	in my 	letter 	of
December 	11, 	1986, 	this allegation does not present a prima
facie 	case 	of 	an 	EERA violation and 	it will 	be 	dismissed.
Mr. 	Robert Ray Bradley
December 24, 1986
Page 3
2. 	Release of Confidential 	Information.
The 	Second 	Amended 	Charge 	contains 	sufficient 	information
regarding 	this 	allegation 	to demonstrate 	a 	prima 	facie 	case 	of
an EERA violation, 	and a 	complaint will 	issue 	regarding 	this
allegation.
3. 	Withholding 	of 	Information and Refusal 	to 	Follow Procedures
Regarding 	Involuntary 	Transfers.
My letter 	of 	December 	11 	advised you 	that 	this 	allegation 	of
the 	the 	charge 	did not present a prima 	facie case 	of 	an EERA
violation 	because 	it 	did 	not 	contain 	evidence 	of 	the 	District's
failure 	to provide 	requested 	information. 	The 	Second Amendment
provides 	detailed 	assertions 	arguing 	that 	Professor 	Cohen's
involuntary 	transfer 	to your 	department 	constitutes 	violations
of 	three 	separate 	contract provisions:
Article 17.A.2 provides:
All 	faculty members 	shall 	be 	assigned 	to
departments 	except 	those 	assigned as
Instructors Special Assignment, 	Consulting
Instructors 	and College Nurse..
Article 	35.C.3 	provides:
An 	involuntary 	reassignment 	shall 	be 	made 	by
the 	College 	President or 	his/her 	designee
only 	after 	meeting 	and 	conferring 	with 	the
faculty member, 	the 	faculty member's 	current

Department Chair, 	and 	the 	faculty member's
proposed 	new Department 	Chair. 	Prior 	to
this meeting, 	the College President or
his/her 	designee shall 	provide 	to 	the
parties 	the reasons 	for 	the 	reassignment 	and
the 	reasons 	for 	the selection of 	the new
assignment.
Mr. 	Robert Ray Bradley
December 24, 1986
Page 4
Article 35.C.3 provides:
In all 	instances except 1.c. above 	in which
a reassignment 	is 	required, 	reassignment
shall 	be 	in 	reverse discipline seniority.
The Article 17.A.2 violation.
The 	charge 	asserts 	that 	Cohen's 	transfer 	violated Article
17.A.2 	in that 	it was 	done 	"in such a manner 	that Ms. 	Cohen was
not 	assigned 	to 	any department." 	To be 	considered 	"assigned"
to a 	department, 	an 	instructor must be assigned to teach 	three
or more classes within a discipline. 	Ms. 	Cohen was assigned to
teach 	only two, 	and therefore, 	she 	is not 	technically 	"assigned
to your 	department. 	In addition 	to her 	work with 	the 	Business
Administration Department, 	she also teaches courses 	in 	the
Psychology Department. 	During 	the 	investigation 	of 	the 	Second
Amendment, 	you stated that the harm or 	effect upon you, 	as
chair 	of 	the Business Administration Department 	is 	that 	Sylvia
Cohen 	is 	a known 	"problem," 	and 	for 	that reason, 	you 	did not
wish to have her 	in the 	department. 	Also, 	you pointed out 	that
because she is not 	"assigned" 	to your 	department, 	you are
unable 	to 	evaluate her performance 	under 	applicable 	provisions
of 	the contract. 	Ms. 	Cohen did not file a grievance regarding
the transfer.
As 	stated 	in my 	letter of December 	11, 	this 	allegation may be
analyzed as a unilateral change case. 	However, 	in order 	to
present 	a prima 	facie 	case, 	the 	charging party must 	demonstrate
that 	the 	departure 	from procedures 	amounts 	to a 	change 	in
policy having 	a 	generalized effect 	or 	continuing 	impact 	upon
the 	terms 	and 	conditions 	of employment 	of bargaining 	unit
members. 	Grant, 	supra. 	The charge does not 	indicate that the
action 	in failing to 	"assign" 	Cohen amounts 	to a 	change 	in
policy.

Mr. 	Robert Ray Bradley
December 24, 	1986
Page 5
Even if the Grant 	test were met, 	however, 	the PERB has held 	in
a 	case 	involving 	a 	charge 	filed by 	an 	employee 	and 	not 	by 	the
exclusive 	representative 	itself, 	that 	if 	the employee 	is
entirely 	unaffected 	by complained-of 	employer 	conduct, 	that
employee 	does not 	have standing to bring a 	charge 	challenging
the 	conduct. 	Petrich v. 	Riverside Unified School 	District
(1986) 	PERB Decision No. 	562a. 	The Second Amended Charge does
not 	demonstrate any harm or 	effect upon you. 	While you assert
that you 	consider 	Cohen to be a 	"problem," 	you have not
presented 	specific 	information 	about 	how her 	assignment 	to
teach classes 	in your department affects your wages, 	hours, 	or
conditions 	of 	employment. 	Nor 	does 	the 	charge 	explain how your
inability to evaluate her affects your wages, 	hours, 	or
conditions 	of 	employment. 	South 	San 	Francisco Unified 	School
District 	(1980) 	PERB Decision No. 	112.
The 	Article 	35.C.4 	violation.
The 	charge 	alleges 	that 	the 	District 	violated 	this 	provision by
transferring 	Cohen 	in other 	than 	reverse 	discipline 	seniority
order. 	According to the charge, 	there were other 	instructors
in her 	department with less seniority. 	Again, 	the Second
Amended Charge 	does not present 	facts which 	show 	that 	this
action amounts to a change in policy. 	Grant, 	supra. 	Moreover,
there 	are no 	facts 	in the 	Second Amended Charge, 	and none 	have
been 	raised 	during 	the 	investigation, 	which 	demonstrate 	how
Cohen's transfer out of order affects your wages, 	hours, 	or
conditions of employment. 	Thus, 	you do not appear to have
standing 	to 	file 	the 	charge asserting 	a 	violation 	of 	this
provision 	through 	the District's 	transfer 	of 	Cohen 	to your
department. 	Riverside, supra.
The Article 	35.C.3 	violation.
The 	Second Amended 	Charge 	alleges 	that 	the 	District 	violated
this 	provision when 	it asserted to you, 	following 	Cohen's
reassignment, 	that 	she was being given Business Administration
classes 	to teach partly because her 	former 	department, 	Office
Administration was 	overstaffed. 	You 	assert 	that quite 	the
opposite 	was 	true 	at 	the 	time—that Office Administration was
actually understaffed, 	and for 	that 	reason, 	Cohen 	should have
been kept 	in that department. 	Once again, 	the 	Second Amended

Charge 	does 	not 	demonstrate 	a 	change in policy by 	the
District's action. 	Grant, 	supra. 	And, 	it fails to set forth
any impact upon your wages, 	hours, 	or working conditions.
Therefore, 	you do not have standing to bring the charge.
Riverside, supra.
Mr. 	Robert Ray Bradley
December 24, 1986
Page 6
The 	allegation that 	the District's 	assignment 	of 	Cohen 	to 	your
department may also be analyzed as 	a discrimination 	action
based 	on your 	past 	filing of grievances with the District. 	To
demonstrate 	a violation of EERA section 	3543.5(a) 	the 	charging
party must 	show that: 	(1) 	the 	employee exercised 	rights 	under
the EERA, 	(2) 	the employer had knowledge of the exercise of
those 	rights, 	and 	(3) 	the employer 	imposed or 	threatened 	to
impose 	reprisals, 	discriminated or 	threatened 	to 	discriminate,
or 	otherwise 	interfered with, 	restrained or 	coerced 	the
employees because of 	the exercise of those rights. 	Novato
Unified School District 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	210; 	Carlsbad
Unified School District 	(1979) 	PERB Decision No. 	89; 	Department
of Developmental Services 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	228-S;
California State University 	(Sacramento) 	(1982) 	PERB Decision
No. 211-H.
Although 	timing 	of 	the employer's 	adverse action 	in 	close
temporal 	proximity 	to 	the 	employee's protected 	conduct 	is 	an
important factor, 	it is not, without more, 	sufficient to
demonstrate 	a violation of 	the EERA. 	Moreland Elementary
School District 	(1982) PERB Decision No. 	227. 	Facts
establishing 	one 	or 	more 	of 	the 	following additional 	factors
must 	also be present: 	(1) 	the employer's disparate treatment
of the employee, 	(2) 	the employer's departure from established
procedures 	and standards 	when 	dealing with 	the 	employee,
(3) 	the 	employer's 	inconsistent or 	contradictory 	justifications
for 	its actions, 	(4) 	the employer's cursory investigation of
the employee's misconduct, 	(5) 	the employer's 	failure 	to offer
the employee 	justification at 	the time 	it 	took 	action or 	the
offering of exaggerated, 	vague, or ambiguous reasons, or
(6) 	any other 	facts 	which might 	demonstrate the 	employer's
unlawful motive. 	Novato Unified School District, 	supra; 	North
Sacramento School District 	(1982) PERB Decision No. 	2 64.
The 	Second 	Amended 	Charge 	sets 	forth 	information 	regarding 	the
filing of grievances 	and 	the 	employer's 	knowledge 	of 	your

grievances 	is clear. 	However, 	there are no facts which 	link
your 	exercise 	of protected 	rights 	to 	the 	District's 	transfer 	of
Cohen to your 	department.
Mr. 	Robert Ray Bradley
December 24, 1986
Page 7
For 	the 	reasons 	stated herein and 	in my 	letter 	of December 	11,
1986, 	the allegations concerning the District's actions 	in
refusing to abide by the 	terms of 	a 	"settlement" 	and 	in
withholding 	information and 	refusing 	to 	follow procedures, 	do
not 	state 	a prima 	facie 	case 	of an 	EERA violation and 	are
hereby 	dismissed.
Right to Appeal
Pursuant 	to Public Employment Relations 	Board regulations, 	you
may obtain 	a 	review of 	this 	dismissal 	of 	the 	charge 	by filing
an appeal 	to 	the Board 	itself within 	twenty 	(20) 	calendar 	days
after 	service 	of 	this 	dismissal 	(California 	Administrative
Code, 	title 8, 	section 32635(a)). 	To be timely filed, 	the
original 	and 	five 	copies 	of 	such appeal 	must 	be 	actually
received by 	the 	Board 	itself 	before 	the 	close 	of 	business
(5:00 p.m.) 	or sent by telegraph, 	certified or Express United
States mail postmarked not later than the last date set for
filing. 	Code of 	Civil Procedure section 	1013 	shall 	apply.
(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 	copies 	of a 	statement 	in opposition within 	twenty
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 each 	copy of 	a 	document 	served 	upon 	a
party or 	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.

Mr. 	Robert Ray Bradley
December 24, 1986
Page 8
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 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.
Sincerely,
JEFFREY 	SLOAN
General 	Counsel
By
Jorge 	Jorge A. Leon
f 	Attorney
Attachment
7214d

STATE Of CALIFORNIA 	GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Headquarters 	Office
1031 	18th Street
Sacramento, 	California-95814
(916) 322-3088
December 11, 1986
Mr. 	Robert Ray Bradley
RE: 	Robert 	Bradley v. 	Los Angeles Community College District,
Case No, LA-CE-2386
Dear Mr. 	Bradley:
You 	have 	filed 	a 	charge 	against 	Respondent 	Los 	Angeles
Community 	College District 	(LACCD) 	alleging 	that 	it has
violated 	the 	Educational 	Employment Relations Act 	(EERA) 	by:
(1) 	refusing 	to abide by the 	terms 	of 	a 	settlement 	reached on 	a
grievance which you 	filed; 	(2) 	releasing 	confidential
information 	which you had provided 	in 	connection 	with 	another
grievance which you had filed; 	and 	(3) 	withholding from you, 	as
agent 	of 	the 	bargaining agent, 	pertinent 	information 	regarding
the 	involuntary 	reassignment 	of 	an 	instructor 	and 	refusing 	to
follow 	contract 	procedures 	regarding 	involuntary 	transfers.
My 	investigation has 	disclosed 	the 	following 	information. 	You
are 	employed 	at 	Pierce College within 	the 	District 	and 	are
currently Chairman of 	the 	Business 	Administration Department.
You 	are 	a member 	of 	the bargaining unit which 	is 	represented by
the American Federation of Teachers 	College Guild, 	Local 	1521
(AFT).
(1) 	Refusal to Abide By Terms of Settlement.
In May, 	1985 	you filed a grievance over 	the District's 	decision
to 	transfer 	Business 	Data Processing 	I 	classes 	formerly 	taught
in your 	department 	to the 	Computer 	Science Department. 	On
September 	9, 	1985 College President 	David Wolf 	sent you 	a 	memo
which states, 	in part:
Since, at this date, 	it is not possible to
even consider 	the remedy sought 	in your
grievance, 	I am suggesting that an
appropriate 	solution 	involve 	the 	pursuit 	of
a 	different 	remedy. 	You 	indicated an
interest 	in 	seeking a 	situation whereby
Business Data Processing I 	could be, 	once
again, 	taught in the Business Administration
Department.

Mr. 	Robert Ray Bradley
December 	XX, 	1986
Page 2
A process 	exists at 	the 	college 	for 	securing
reinstatement of a course. 	It would appear
appropriate 	that 	this process 	be 	exercised
so 	that 	this 	course might 	be 	offered 	at 	some
point 	in 	the 	future. 	The appropriate
resolution of 	this 	grievance 	at 	this 	time
would 	appear 	to be 	found 	in 	the 	initiation
of this process.
If 	this 	course of action 	is 	agreeable 	to
you, 	then 	I suspect we have achieved an
amiable 	solution 	to 	the 	grievance 	filed 	on
May 24, 1985.
On November 	22, 	1985, Wolf sent Jean Louks, Vice President of
Academic Affairs a memo on the subject which states, 	in part:
I 	have 	reviewed 	the 	subject 	request 	and 	have
some 	specific questions 	as 	to why we would
want 	to 	teach 	the 	identical 	courses 	in 	two
different 	instructional 	departments. 	Until
I 	understand why 	this 	would 	be 	a 	desirable
action to take, 	I cannot approve this
request.
(2) 	Release of Confidential Information.
On September 	25, 	1985, you sent a letter 	addressed to Eloise
Crippens, 	campus AFT Representative, 	to President Wolf
regarding 	the 	reassignment 	of 	Sylvia 	Cohen 	to your 	department.
That 	letter 	contained 	information 	about 	the 	Office
Administration Department's practices 	in 	using 	student 	workers
and 	teaching 	aides. 	You 	apparently wished 	for 	the 	information
to be 	kept 	confidential, 	but did not mark 	the 	letter 	as such.
The 	President 	asked 	Vice 	President 	Louks 	to 	look 	into 	the
issues 	raised 	in your 	letter, 	and gave her 	a copy. 	Louks
apparently 	raised 	the 	issues with members 	of 	the 	Office
Administration Department, 	and on February 25, 	1986, 	six
members 	of 	that 	department 	sent a 	letter 	to President Wolf,
responding 	to 	"Continual 	harassment 	of 	Office 	Administration
Department 	by Bob 	Bradley." 	That 	letter 	contained 	several
quotes 	taken 	from your 	letter 	of 	September 	to 	Crippens.

Mr. 	Robert Ray Bradley
December 14, 	1986
Page 3
The 	collective 	bargaining 	agreement 	in 	effect 	between 	the
parties 	contains 	detailed provisions 	regarding 	grievances 	at
Article 	28. 	Subpart B of 	the article 	lists 	nine 	separate
"Rights 	and Responsibilities," 	none 	of which 	concern whether 	or
not 	information 	received 	in 	connection with 	a 	grievance 	would
be kept confidential.
In a memo dated April 4, 	1986 to Wolf, 	you request that, 	"[a]ny
correspondence 	relating 	to personal 	grievances 	filed 	by me
should 	remain 	confidential."
3. 	Withholding of 	Information 	and Refusal 	to 	Follow Procedures
Regarding 	Involuntary Transfers.
Sylvia 	Cohen 	was 	transferred 	involuntarily 	in 	the 	Spring 	of
1985 	from 	the 	Office 	Administration 	Department 	to your
department. 	You 	opposed 	this 	action 	and 	filed 	a 	grievance 	in
May, 1985. 	That 	grievance was 	processed 	through 	but 	not
including 	binding 	arbitration because AFT 	determined 	not 	to
seek 	arbitration 	of 	the grievance. 	The 	District's 	response 	to
the 	grievance was 	that 	Cohen had been 	transferred 	to 	your
department because 	there was 	room there and Office
Administration was 	"overstaffed." 	In January, 	1986, 	you filed
a 	second 	grievance 	relating 	to 	her 	transfer 	asserting 	that
Office 	Administration was not overstaffed, 	that 	your 	department
was not understaffed, 	as asserted by the District, 	and that 	the
District 	had 	violated 	the 	collective 	bargaining 	agreement 	in
two ways: 	it 	failed to reassign 	in 	"reverse disciplinary
seniority," 	as provided 	in Article 	35.C.4 	of 	the 	agreement 	and
it 	failed 	to notify AFT, 	in response to the 	first 	grievance,
that Cohen, 	at 	the time of her transfer to your 	department, 	was
not being 	assigned 	to a 	specific department. 	You 	assert 	that
the 	District 	failed 	to 	disclose 	the 	information which 	led 	to
your 	filing 	of 	the 	second grievance.
ANALYSIS
(1) 	Refusal 	to Abide by Terms of Settlement
A violation 	of 	EERA 	section 	3543.5(c) 	may exist where 	the
Charging 	Party 	has 	presented 	an 	allegation 	that 	the 	employer

has 	unilaterally 	changed 	a 	policy 	concerning 	a 	matter 	within
scope 	without 	providing 	Charging 	Party 	an 	opportunity 	to
negotiate 	the 	change. 	Walnut Valley Unified 	School 	District
(1981) 	PERB Decision No. 	160. 	You 	assert 	that 	the 	District 	has
refused 	to 	abide 	by 	its 	agreement 	reached 	on 	September 	9,
1986. 	The 	"agreement" 	is 	assertedly contained 	in Wolf's memo
of 	that 	date. 	However, 	that memo merely suggests 	that 	you
refer 	to 	the 	curriculum committee, 	your 	request 	that 	Business
Data Processing 	I 	be 	taught 	in your 	department. 	Nowhere 	in 	the
memo 	does 	Wolf make 	any 	committment 	to 	approve 	a 	request 	to
bring 	the 	class 	back 	to 	the 	Business 	Administration
department. 	Absent evidence 	of an 	agreement, 	the 	charge 	does
not 	present 	a 	prima 	facie 	case of 	a 	failure 	by 	the 	District 	to
abide 	by 	an 	agreement.
Mr. 	Robert Ray Bradley
December 	11, 	1986
Page 	4
(2) 	Release of 	Confidential 	Information
You 	assert 	that 	Wolf's 	release 	to 	the 	Office 	Administration
staff 	of 	a 	copy 	of 	your 	letter 	of 	September 	25, 	1985,
constituted 	a 	release 	of 	confidential 	information. 	The 	charge
does 	not 	specify which provision 	of 	the 	EERA this 	would
violate. 	Nonetheless, 	the 	allegation may be 	cognizable 	as 	an
interference with 	your 	right 	to 	file grievances. 	However, 	the
basis 	for 	your 	expectation 	of 	confidentiality 	has 	not 	been 	set
forth 	in 	the 	charge 	nor 	in 	the 	investigation. 	The 	collective
bargaining 	agreement 	provides 	no 	such 	expectation. 	The
document 	itself 	does 	not 	indicate 	that 	it 	should 	have 	been 	kept
confidential. 	Finally, 	the memo 	in which you 	advised 	Wolf
that 	information 	relating 	to 	personal 	grievances 	should 	be 	kept
confidential 	is 	dated April, 	1986—after 	the 	release 	of 	your
September 	letter. 	For 	these 	reasons, 	the allegation 	the
release 	of 	the 	letter 	violates 	the 	EERA 	does 	not 	state 	a 	prima
facie 	case.
(3) 	Withholding 	of 	Information 	and Refusal 	to 	Follow Procedures
Regarding 	Involuntary 	Transfers.
The 	charge 	alleges 	that 	the District's 	failure 	to 	provide
"vital" 	information 	and 	to 	follow procedures 	constitutes 	a
violation of the EERA, 	section 3543.5(c). 	An employer 	is 	under
an 	obligation 	to 	provide 	necessary 	and 	relevant 	information 	in

connection 	with 	the processing 	of 	grievances. 	Stockton Unified
School District 	(1980) 	PERB Decision No. 	143. 	However, 	an
advance 	request must 	be made 	for 	such 	information, 	and no 	such
request was made 	in this case. 	Under 	these circumstances, 	the
allegation 	that 	the 	employer 	violated 	the 	EERA by 	not
disclosing 	information 	does 	not present 	a prima 	facie 	case.
Mr. 	Robert Ray Bradley
December 	11, 	1986
Page 5
If you 	feel 	that 	there are any 	factual 	inaccuracies 	in 	this
letter 	or 	any additional 	facts which would 	require 	a 	different
conclusion 	than 	the one explained above, 	please 	amend 	the
charge 	accordingly. 	This 	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 unde	-- 	r 	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 	19, 	1986, 	I 	shall 	dismiss your 	charge
without 	leave 	to 	amend. 	If you have 	any questions 	on 	how to
proceed, please call me at 	(916) 	323-8015.
Sincerely,
Jorge 	A. 	Leon
Staff 	Attorney
7028d
,,