National Education Association (Clegg) (PERB 0653E)

STATE
	OF
	CALIFORNIA
DECISION
	OF 	THE
PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
PATRICIA
	L.
	CLEGG,
Charging
	Party,
v.
NATIONAL 	EDUCATION ASSOCIATION,
Respondent.
)
)
)	
Case
	No.
	SF-C0-314
PERE
	Decision
	No.
	653
December 	30,
	1987
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances:	
Patricia
	L.
	Clegg,
	on
	her
	own
	behalf;
	Diane
	Ross,
Attorney, 	for
	California
	Teachers
	Association/National
	Education
Association.
Before 	Hesse,
	Chairperson:
	Porter
	and
	Craib,
	Members.
DECISION
HESSE,
	Chairperson:
	Charging
	party
	appeals 	the
	dismissal
of 	her 	unfair 	practice
	charge
	against
	the 	National 	Education
Association
	(NEA)
	alleging 	that
	NEA
	is 	liable
	for
	alleged
deficiencies
	in 	the
	collection
	procedures
	and 	amount
	of
	agency
fees
	collected
	by
	the
	Cambrian
	District
	Teachers
	Association,
	a
local
	chapter 	of
	California
	Teachers 	Association/NEA,
	in
violation
	of 	the 	Educational
	Employment
	Relations
	Act
	(EERA),
Government
	Code
	section 	3543.6(b).
1
lEERA
	is 	codified 	at
	Government
	Code
	section
	3540
	etseq.
	Unless 	otherwise 	indicated;
	all 	statutory 	references
herein 	are 	to 	the
	Government 	Code.
Section 	3543.6(b) 	provides:
It
	shall
	be 	unlawful 	for 	an 	employee
organization 	to:

We 	concur 	with 	the 	regional 	attorney's 	analysis 	in 	the
attached 	letter 	dismissing 	the 	charge 	for 	failure 	to 	state 	a
prima 	facie 	case 	since 	NEA 	is 	not 	the 	exclusive 	representative
of 	charging 	party's 	bargaining 	unit.
(b) 	Impose 	or 	threaten 	to 	impose 	reprisals
on 	employees, 	to 	discriminate 	or 	threaten 	to
discriminate 	against 	employees, 	or 	otherwise
to 	interfere 	with, 	restrain, 	or 	coerce
employees 	because 	of 	their 	exercise 	of
rights 	guaranteed 	by 	this 	chapter.
ORDER
The 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	hereby 	ORDERS 	that
the 	charges 	in 	Case 	No. 	SF-CO-314 	are 	hereby 	DISMISSED 	without
leave 	to 	amend.
Members 	Porter 	and 	Craib 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
2

PUBUC EMfllOYMEHT RB.A,\. 	~ BOARD
San ~ R~ Office
1 77 Post StrNt. Suite 900
ian mm::isc:o. CaJaom:ia 9-44 oa
(415} 557-13SO
'U-.-"L.. 1 ':!.	C"Jl:.'.:l.J. ~ ...a,....,,. 	........,.,_,,	10a'7
Patricia L. Cle;g
Diana PDsa
califcr.c:d.a Teac:hl!ln Aam...
Re: 	REEUS\L TO ISSJE o:::M?I..A1:N!' AND ffis-ITSS1l.L CF UNFAIR PRACTICE CHAIGE
Patricia L. Clesg v. Natic:m.l F.d.ucaticn Asso::iatiCl'l., 	01arge No .. 	SF-CO-ll.4
Dear Parties:
Pursuant to Pul?].ic Ernpl.oymlmt Relaticns Eoard (PERB} P.egul.aticn section 32730,
a 	uJ.l:t?1;,,iMf:. will not "be issi_,ed in the aJ:ove-refe...~ case and the ;pei-rling
charge is hereby dismissed because it fails to alle;e facts suf ficien±: to
state a ~ima. facie violation of the Edu::aticral Emplq,mem: Relations Act.
(EEP,A) ) ~ 	'Ihe reasoning which urrler1 :i ~ this decisim fol 1 a.rs~
0:1 Febroacy 25, 	1987 Patricia L. Cle;,g filed an unfair practice cbarge agaimt
the Califomia Teachers Assoc:i aticn (CTA} allegirq violation of Em.
secticn 3543.6(b). 	!-bre specifically, charging party alleged that the cm. is
jointly liable for alleged defects in the derrerrl-am-ret:orn scheme provided }¥'
the cambrian District Teacller.s Asscx:l aticn (Assa:iati CD), 	the lccal chapter ..
'Ihese allege:i defects are descriJ:.a::i as fol.lcws.
1. 	A p:xtian of Ms .. Cl.egg's ncut:hJ.y pay has reen seizm unlawfully from her
by the District. 	She is an objecting agency fee p3.yar an:1 therefore she-
should have to pay ID JrOre than a certain percentage of memb!rsbip dues.
A certain p:Jrticn of dues, 	by CIA' s admissicn, 	is dlargeable to poll tiau.
and ideolcgic:al activities am therefore obje:±icm.ble to Ms. Clegg. 	Yet
the District deducts 100 percent of the meni::P.rsh:i.p dues from Ms. 	Clegg's
pa.ycheck. 	Despite her objection, 	the District a::intinues to facilitate
the full de::lucticn of crA dues from her m:::nthly p:i.ycheck. 	The District
is forcing her to extend an ltinvoluntary loanlt to CTA.
2. 	'!he meth:rl by which CI'A detemdnes tra.t a certain _I:Ortion of the m::nthly
mo-tnbership dues is attributable to p::ilitical arrl ideolcgical expenses is
objectionable. 	The au:lit, 	while claiming to have been u.rrlertaken in
accordance 1,,,ith generally accepted accounting st:arrlards, does not
irrlicate that it com_plie::l. with the Htrlson decisicn. 	The item:izatic:n
contained in the au::l.it lacks the sr::iecificity required by Hu.1son ..

Diane
lbsa
Ma.reh
13, 	1987
Page
2
3.	
CTA
has
failed to
provide
a
	reaoonah1y
pruuJ.i:.-l
opportunity for
Ms.
CJ.egg
to
cha.ll.en;e
the
alI0UtXt
of
the
dedu::ticn.. 	Cl'A
did
not
initiate
a
proce::3.lJre
in
a pron-pt manner.	
Over
nine
m:rrths
transpired
bet.wef.!r1
the
effecti-ve
date
of
Hlrls:::,n a.rd
the
arbitrati.cn
h.ea.ri.a; ca,m1eucm
in
January
1987.	
'1he
Amer.Lean
Arbi
t:mt.icn
Assoc:::iat.iCll	
(AM)	
is
not
an
imp:trtial
dec:isial-ffli!lker.	
It
was
selected by
CTA
unilaterally.	
'Aqer.q
fee
drjectcrs
were
not
plrt
of
the
sel.ectial process.	
'1he
AAA
hearing
does
not
p:reee1t
a
	reascrlabl&
q;p::>rtunity
to
object
to
the
ageney,
fee
aroom:t. 	'll1e
hearing
was
~
at
the
headquarters
of
the
statewide
CTA
in
Burlia,;ame,
california.,	
during
sdJ:x)l.
b:Jur.s
aver
a
peria:l
of
six
days,
	an::i was
set
at
a time
am
date
that
a:uld
JXJt 'be c'lsat,,;c
by
an:y
of
the
objecto.ts.	
~
pu:ty
has
no
reliable
wa.y
to
verify
whether
the
arbitrator
selected by
AAA
is
<.'f'.)IJpebmt arxi
	in:q;:artial.	
CrA.
um.laterally
:selected
the
a.rl:rl.t::ra:tcr
from
a	
list
created
by
'AAA.
4.	
cm.
did
not
prov:i.de
em
for
a.moms reasonably
in dispute
during the
pericd
that	
the dedu:ticn
was
reing challenged.	
'!he
esert::»f
account,
	if
it
exists,
	is
saleJ.y
ccnt?:Olled
by
crA
an:l
the.t:efcre
n:)t
	in
eoip1iaoce
with
Htrlson..	
Charging
party•
s	
requests
for
	informaticn about
the
escrow
account
have
cane
to
nought.
	He
bas
not
been
told the
names,
	lcx:ation
oriden:ti
ty
of
t.h::,se resμ:r...,si
hle
far	
the account.
en
M:u:'ch
2,
	1987
the regicnal attorney
wrote
a
	letter
to
chargin:J
party
expl.ainir.g
that
the
allegatiaJS
in
the
original
unfair
practice
cha.r..-ge
insu£ficient
to
support
a	
prina facie violaticn of
EE.FA
secticns
3543
..
6(b)
arrl
3544.9.. 	'!he
letter,
	attached
arrl i.u
..
!OI.p:n:at:.ed
by reference,	
warned
that
t.m.l.ess
the
alle;aticns
were
wi t:h:b:awn
or
a.znenied,	
they would
be dismissed onMarch
13,,
	1987.	
en
March
13,
	1987
the· regiaml.
attarney
sp:)ke
with
clarg:ing
party
o::ncer:ning
the
wa:rn:i.n;
letter..	
She
ccnceas!
that
she bad
read
ved
the
letter
an:i
resolved
net
to
wit.b:u:.aw a?:'
~
the
charge.
	~ly,	
far
the
reaSCIOS
set
	forth in
the
wam:i.u.;
letter
referred to
al:ove:,
	as
well
as
this
letter,	
the
allegatiCD.S
are
hereby
dismissed.
	No COI!:![lJalat
will
issue
t:herem..
Pursuant
to
Public
Enploymmn:t
Relatials
Boatd
regulatiai
secticn
32635
(
califon:rl.a
h1mi
m
strati
ve Ceil~
	t.i
tie
8, part III)
,
	you
may
aJ.'."f)e&l
the
refusal
to
issue
a 	C'O!!pJaint
	(dismissal)
to
tbe
Saam
itself
..
Right
to~
You may
obtain
a
	review
of this
dismissal
of
the charge
by
filing
an appeal
to
the
Board
itself
within
twenty
	(20}
	calerrlar
days
after
service of this
Notice
(sectia:1 32635(a}}.
	To
be timely
filed,	
the
original
an::1
five
	(SJ
	cqtles of
suc:h appe,al
must be
actually
received by the
Paa.rd
itself
before the
close of
rosiness
	(5:00
p
..
m.)
	or sent by telegraph or certified or
Express United
States mail
p::>stmarke::i
not
later
than the
last
date
set
for
	filing.
	Ca:1e
of
Civil
Proce::lure
section
1013
shall apply.	
'Ihe Board's address
is:

Patricia L.
Clegg
Diane
lbsS
M3.rc::h
13,
	1987
Page 3
Public
I
Enploy:mmt
Rel.atiCJ:lS Board
103118th
Street
Sac:tane•to,
CA
95814
If
yo.i
file
a t.:ilmly appeal.
of
t:be
refusal. to issue
a
	corpJaint.,	
iillf:/'
other
party
may
file
with the
Eca:rd
an
original
	a..r.d
five
	(5)
	ccpies
of
a
	statemeut
in
q.;:xRitic.n
within
twenty
(20)
caJerdar days
fol.1.cltfing
the
date
of
service
of
the
~l
	(sectia:t
32635(b)).
Sel:Vice
All
da:::tJments
aut:b::rri.zsd
to
be	
filed
he.rein
must
also
be
	..
servedn
up::n
all
parties to
the
pro::::eerli
r:g,	
am.
a
	"proof
of
serviceu
must accampimy
each
cq,y
of
a dc:ctJmem:
served
up:n
a	
party
er filed
with the
B:ard
itself	
(see
secticn
32140
	£err
the
required
a:ntents
and
a sa.n:ple
form).	
The
do:t@ent	
will
be
c:::ns.{dered
pr:operly
11
served"
when ,P"=rsonally
delivered
or
deposited
in
the
first-class
mail
p:,stage
:paid
ar.d
prcperly addressed.
Extension
of
Ti.me
A
request for an extension
of
time
in
which
to
file
a
dccument
with
the	
Eoam.
itself
JI!!..lst
be
in
writing
an:!
filed
with the
B:iard
at
the previously noted
address.
	A
request
far
an extension
:rwst
'be
filed at
least
three
	(3}
	ca.letrlar
days
before the expiration
of
the
time
required for
filing
the
dc:x:rn1e.1t.	
'11:e
request
must in.:licate goo:i cal.lSe
far
a.rd,
	if
kn:Jwn,	
the ,r:csiticn
of
each
oth:r
party
regard.in; the extension,
ani shall
be
accarrp-utled
by
prmf
of service
of
the request
u,pcr1 each
party (secticn 32132).
Final
ra.te
If
no
app::al
is
filed
within the specific
time
limits, 	the
dismissal
	will
become
:Ei.na1.
when
the time
limits
have expired.
Very
truly
yorrs,
JEE'E'REY
SI..Cis.N
Gerieral Counsel
I
By	
~ETER HABERFELrl
Regional Attorney
cc: General Counsel
I!

•
..,
...,
- 	-	
_..rL."IJ
I
IV1
~
..
1 n
~"'
San
mt"tei:9c:o
Fht9";i,mn
Officm- 	'
177
Pas.t Stl"fllt. Suitw
900
Fan
Francisc::a.
Calltarnia
9,,4408,
,
..
15)
557-1 lSO
Marc::h
2,
	1987
Patricia
L..
Cl
egg
Re:
	Patri.ci.a
L-
gegg·
v.
Na.tiaal
Ednca.ti r:c
Ass::x:::i
aticn,
	~e
~
SF~
Dear
Ms.
	Cl.eg:g:-
01
Febrmry
25,.
	1!387
~
L.. Cl
egg filed.
an
,mfajr practice
d12f.ZY1t
against
the
Nat;jcrn,J
	Edcx:atic:c
Asea::iaticn	
(m.)
alleging
vioJat;on
of
EEPA
sect::ioc. 3543
.6,(b}..	
l-bre sped
fi
c,J ly,
	chargu:g
party
al
1 eged
tbat
the
m. is
jointly
, i
abJ
a
	£o:i:
all~-
de£acts
in
the
aen:era-e.o::i-retrm
scheme pcovi.da:l qr
the
Cami::::'ian .Di.strict:. Tea=iic:hers Ass:x::i
ati en
(Asso:::i.a:tial} ,
	the
local..
~~
'nlesa- aJ l e;an
dafe:a
are
de-c::riberl
as
fol.lcus,.
1.	
A p:::n:ti.ca
of
l-'..s. CJ.egg• s
rmthly
pay bas
been
seized
unlawfully
fi:m
ba-
by
the
District-
	She
is
an
object:iri;
agency
fee
μ:i.yar
and
thetefo:::e
~
.
should
have
to
pay no xore
thm
a
certain
:rerc:entage.
of
~
dues.
A
certain
p:rrtian
of
dues,
	by
CTA'
s a&.nission..,	
is
chargeable
to p:,li
tical.
arrl ideolo;ical.
act.:i
vi
ties
am
t:herefare
objecticnabJ
e
	to
Ms.
CI.egg.
	Yet
the
Dist.rict
daiu::ts 100
percent
of
the
menibe::ship
dues frOiit
Ps..
Clegfs
paycheck..
	~it.a
her
objecti~
	the
District
o:ntinues
to
faci}j
tat.e
.
the
full
dedu::tjO"l
of
CTA
dues
f:ro'l'l%
her· monthly
paycheck.	
The
Di..strict
is
faccir:g·
her to
exte!c'.d.
an
•~
laann	
to
CI'A..
2.	
'l1le metht:::d
by
which.
crA
determiDM
that
a
	certain po:rtic:n
of~
m:n!:hl_f' .
~p
dues
is
a.tt:rlbu:ta:bl.
ta poli
t:i
ca
I and
idenlcgi.cal
E:JP?f± liiis
is
object-i
u.,:,;,-.,,
e,..
	·'lr..e au::ti.t:,
wbile
c1a:im:h:lg'
to
have
l::een
urrlert:a):en
in
accar&nce
with ge,eraJ
ly
ac:cept::e:i acci.::,,mtiog star:rlalrls,..
does
n::::it
irrlicate
that
it
carnpU eel
with the
Hu::!.son
decision. 	'fue
i
tem:i
zati
m
cmtai.ned
in
the
aulit
la.c:ks.
the
~
ticity
reqo:ired
by
Rrls::n..
3.. 	CTA
ms
fai
J ea
to
provide
a rea.s:::cably p1.o:rrpt
Cf1fOC
turri t:y-
far
M!J.
CI.e;g
to
d:laJl
eo.;a.
the
amount
of
the dedJ:cti
on~ 	CTA
did not
initiate
a
prccedure
in
a
	ptoupl ira.nn.er.
	Over
nine
:months
transpired
bet:ween
the
effective date
of
ELrlson and
the arbitration
hea.rir.g
~ed.
in
January 1987.	
'!he
American Arbitration Association
	(AAA)
	is
nct:
an
irrpartial
decision-maker.
	It
was
selected by
CTA
unilaterally_	
:fl_r;o_nr;:y
fee objectors
were f"..ot pa.rt
of the selection
pra::ess_ 	The
An..."/\.
beari~
does not present
a
	rea
saoabJ
e opp:u:::tuni
ty to
object
to
the
ageo::y
fee
ao::::iunt.
	The
hearing
was corrlucted
at
the headquarters
of th
0 	stat.ewic!.:?CI:A..
in
Burlingame,
	california, during
schc:x::ll
r:0urs over
a 	_pericd.
of
sh:
days,	
and was
set at
a 	tir.!e
arrl
date that could not be changed
by any of
the objectors,. 	Oiarging party
'has no
re.licble
-way
to verify
whe-tb:=:r Ue-
arbitrator selected by
AJ.A
is
~tent
and i:rrpartial.
	CTA
unilaterallyselected. the arbitrator	
frO!ll a
	list
-created by
ADA
..

Patricia.
L...
Clegg
l--arch
2., 	l.987
Page2
4..	
CIA
did
IXJt
provide
escl:;t:k
fr:Jr
amr:u::rl':s
reasi:,,
111b.l;y
in
perlcd
tha:t:.'
the
de.ii,
ct
i m 	was
mi
di
splt:o
~
the
a,;
cm
J1
ecged.	
'lhe
es
:cc:l'lf
an,,.
•#It
.,
	it	it
exi~
	is
sole.ly
ccat:oJ
J
ad
by
en\.
am Lll.c:re£a:e
not
in
carp}
i an::a
with
Hirls:::n. 	o-.argiJ:a;
piu:ty's
reqaests
fur
inft
ii
maticn
ai::x:,nt
accr:,,,m
tbs
esu.Cif''have-
a:ca
to
r:n,;ht:.
	He
bas
mt
l::>ee'l!'t
told
the
mrnes,, Jo:a:ti:on
a:.--
.	
identity of
t:h:::lSla
resrcns:i hJ a fc:rr
the
ao::.otmt:
..
Inveetigat.im
or
the
da.z:ga
reveal.ad
the
fol..l.Gn.n;. 	'.the·
agre,
.u	
rt:
col.lec:t:iva--hn:gai,rftJJ
~
the
caz::il:t'd
an
El
en•r.t
a:cy Schxll..
Distrl.ct:
District
a.rd t:h:e- Ciel
•tian
P..sso:::iata:I Teas:U.ea {Ass.a:i,a-1!'.ial) cmta.i:c:s
an
cu:gaoj zat-.iooal..
mxri~
provisia:i
which
requires·
that
ll'!e!Mm:s
are
to
have
their
dues
dedu:t:ad
District	
by
the
for
the
du:ratia:1.
of
the
agi.wt.	
any
merrn
u:em:_..
Further,	
er
of
the
	who
is	
mtl.t
	net
a	
of
the
As5CX:iatjcc
must
autbor.ize
payroll
dedu:t:ia.t
er
	r.a.ke
~
to
the
Ac::so:::iatirxi
of
a	
service fee equivaJent
to
tmif:ied
ship
dues,
	iniHat:io:o.
F!"m~·
fees
am
general
assa.ss.um?ts.	
If
aut:b::lriz.a
su::h
irrlividtal
does	
o::,t	
p;iyrOll
dedn::tio:.i
of the service fee
or
:make
fayr:Ient
~...J..y	
the Asso::i.ati~	
to
the
D:i.s'""...rict,
	up:n
written
re.q.Je& £rem
the
A.c:;so::iatic:m,,
begin	
shall.
	payroll deductiai
of
the
sai:v.ice
f~.
PERB
:tec:ords
~
that
the
NE.A
is
a
	naticrnal.
organizatic.n
w.i.th
which
Ass:ic:iatim	
the
is
affiliated,	
an:1
only
the
Jl.ssociatian
is
the
exclusive
rep:i:e-
	sent:a:tjve
of District certificated
errployees.	
the
Asscc:iaticn
pays
m.
a
	_porticn
of
its
dtles
in return
for services.
In
Link
et al.
	V.
Antio:::h
Unified
Sch::ol
Dis'""...rict,
	et
al...
	{1985)
	PERR
Ot:'de:r'
.No. IR-47,,	
the
B::erd examined
the
exclusive
representati.ve'"s
demam~nm
~	
ani
determi.ne:i
that
the
pro:::edura.l.
protections
made
avaDable
to
	object:in;
fee-paj:"01'."S
were
sufficient to
~
EEPA
stama:m.s,,
even
did
~
t:h-=y	
not require
that
the
entire
arnu:at
of the
agency
fee
re
e~
the
	p:rn:!-f
ng
	e:xcltJ.Si
ve repre5!r?:t:ative'
s determ:imtion arrl
r
attril:lltable
to poll
tic:aJ./
ideolcgical.
~.
l
e~
of
the
ar:.oount
SUbsequent
to
PERS' s
	declsim in
Link,	
the
U.S
..
SUpreme:
Court
issued
its
cied.sicn
in
Chi~	
Teachers
Unicn
v
..
Htrlson (1986)
106
s.ct.
1066
[121
I.mi
2793].. 	hi.rls:::ln
held
	that
the
exdus:lve
rep::-ese:nts.tive
is
ccnstitut:ianaJ
1,¥
required
to
provid.e~
an
lThere
1
	as here,	
the exclusive representative
was
af£iliate:i with
statewide California
Teachers Assa::iaticn
	(CTA}	
and
National
:Educ:aticn
Association
	(:NI'A).
	?·2J1Y
aspects of the
de:rran::'i-arrl-retu:m
system were provida:l
	by statewide
CTA
to
the local
chapter arrl
to
CTA
chapters
throL-gbout
the	
state.
	'Ihe
esc.raw' acroLI:1t,
	for
	example, was
administered
at the
state level	arrl contained
a 	SUI'.!
interrled.
to protect
all
objectors in the state.

Patricia L.
Clegg
Z.'.e.rd:1
2,
	1987
Fage
3
adequa.t.e
erp]amtia,
of
the
basis
for
the
fee,
	a
	:rea30nahly
pra:::pt
upp:xtt
to
ch!J1
en:r»·
1
xli:tF
th!J aa:ut:tt:
of
the
fee
before
an
:inpartial
decisicn---fl!~.,
aI:Ji
	e:scrCI#
	a.	
fr%	
the
amr:uc:bs
l:Pl'IW1tably
ill
disp,,rt:a whiJ..a
such
cbaJJegea
aa,
.
I'ffrlm;•rn
Fresni::,
Unified
Sc::r:coi
District
(1982.}
	PERB
Det::isim No.	
208,
am 't2ftl:rlp:;tn'!
Unified
Sc:h:::ol. District	
(1985)
	Pm
Da:::is:ion No. 549,· PERE
held
that
	affi]
	me:;e	
j
a±i
CC
by'
the
exclus:ive
.tep.t.	
L91
I
d:etiV'e
wi.
th
the
statewide:
o:r:g:em
zrt:i
(su:::h
as
Ct%.
--,.
cm}	
is
fr2ssrt:fjc:fant
to
ma1aa
tbs
st:atewida
arg,,nizatia:2
the
excl
rep:
,:
• 	I et i
ve
am
ll?'f-ten:::e.-
ma,..
it
was
cot
lial:ii.e
fer
a
vi
aJ
atloosee
o:f
L.i.tlk
~
• 	JU.so
v.. ca
1i
form.a
T~rs.
Asax:i
aticn
and
Natiaal &liratirn
(1981.)
	Ass:x:iatim
PER!3
O?:der
No.
M-rn.
	SinrlJarly, the exclusive
r:ep::~ta:tive's
a.ffi
Ji
at;
ca with
the.
m	
did
I'J0t
rarler
m
	the
excl.usiYe-
repc:1
.Ni'.'ftat:::be.
..
The
cl:a.rgar
as
wrl
tt:e:l,.
	-fai J s
	to
state
a
priJia
facie viola:tim
of	
the
eYC:J:,
,s;;
ve
EE!U¼...	
Qiq
rc;:pt,·
w,t:e:t:i~
is
requi.rad
to
provide
the
pro:::ed:t.:r;r ·protectia:%S
discussed
al:::ov'e.	
NEA.
is
not
the exct.usi~
represeatative-,.
mt
an:l
tberef:cre
is.	
chliga:i
to
provide
th~~
pro:::edU?:al
require.aents.
	Ea.vi.cg
no
	such
obJ
j
gaticn
m:der
EEPA.,	
NEA.
is
not
an
apprq.ir.iat:e
a
	party
to
this
act.ioa...
If
ya..i
feel that
there
are
any
factual
inaccuracies
in this
letter er
aaai	
an:y-
tia,al
facts
whidl
would
o:xte:::t
the
deficiencies
explained
al:ove,,	amerx:i
	please	
the
charge
aco::u:di.ngly.. 	{
1)
The au1errle:l
charge
sh:>Uld.:
be
_prepared ·
a..,	
standard
	a
PERS
unfair practice
charge
forn
clearly
laJ:eled
First
A~
Oia.rge, 	(2)
	c::ntain
all
the facts
and
allegatia:ls
Yo:!
wish
to
ma.ke,
(3)
	irrlicate the
ca.serii::m::er
~
imicated. en
the
fur:m
	(even thoo;h
yo.i
a.re
	not
to
write
in
the
b::lx: when
orig:h:2Jly filio:;
a
~e),
	(4)
an::l
be signed
un::ler
~
of
~
by
the
clJa..rgi.ng
party
(
forms
errlosed)
• 	1Ibe
charge
must
be
amernm
served
cc tbe
~.
ar:d
proof of
service
must
be	
to
the	
a.ttcdm
origi.."'la.l..
as
We-ll.
as
to
all
o::pies
of
the
aroerrled
charge
( faz:m:s
enciosedj
..
If
I	
do not
receive-
an
amS:?Ced clia.cge
or
withira::wal.
March
13,
1987., I	
shall
w from.
ym
an
or refcre
sm:i
ss
yo.:rr
c'harge.
	If
you
have
any
ques<-da:a
to
pro::eed, on
b:1#
please-
call.
me
at
	(415) 557-1350.
Sincerely yours,
Peter
Ha..Derie.wy
Regi
anal
At.t0-""!ley
Enclosures