California Teachers Association (Abbot) (PERB 0665E)

STATE 	OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
BARBARA C. 	ABBOT,
Charging 	Party,
v.
CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case 	No. 	SF-CO-305
PERB 	Decision No. 	665
May 20, 	1988	)
)
Appearances: 	David T. 	Bryant, 	National 	Right 	to Work Legal
Defense Foundation, 	Inc., 	for Barbara C. 	Abbot; 	Diane Ross,
Attorney, 	for 	California 	Teachers 	Association.
Before Porter, 	Craib and Shank, 	Members.
DECISION
SHANK, 	Member: 	This 	case 	is before 	the Public Employment
Relations 	Board 	(PERB or 	Board) 	on appeal by Barbara C. 	Abbot
(Charging Party), 	of 	the general counsel's dismissal of her
charge 	alleging 	that 	the 	California 	Teachers 	Association 	(CTA)
violated her 	First 	and Fourteenth Amendment 	rights, 	citing
Chicago Teachers' 	Union v. 	Hudson 	(1986) 	106 S.Ct. 	1066 	[121
LRRM 2793], 	by using unconstitutional procedures 	in the
deduction 	of 	agency 	fees 	from 	Charging 	Party's 	salary.
Charging 	Party's 	appeal 	of 	the 	dismissal 	is based 	upon 	the
assertion 	that 	the 	San Ramon Valley Educators' 	Association 	(the
exclusive 	representative) 	and 	the 	California 	Teachers
Association, 	collectively, 	constitute 	the 	"Union": 	CTA is 	the
entity which 	dictates 	the 	procedure 	pursuant 	to which 	fees 	are
e
(
(

taken 	and 	used; 	the 	San 	Ramon Valley Unified 	School 	District
transfers 	fees 	directly 	to CTA; 	and complete 	relief 	cannot be
obtained 	unless 	CTA 	is made 	a party to this 	proceeding. 	The
regional 	attorney 	in 	the 	attached 	Refusal 	to 	Issue 	Complaint
and 	Dismissal 	of 	Unfair 	Practice 	Charge 	dismissed 	the 	charge
because 	the exclusive 	representative, 	not 	the affiliate, 	is 	the
proper 	respondent1 and 	the 	charge 	as 	written 	fails 	to 	state 	a
prima 	facie 	violation 	of 	the 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations
Act 	(EERA).
We 	concur 	in 	the 	regional 	attorney's 	analysis. 	In 	King
City High School 	District Association, 	et al. 	(1982) 	PERB
Decision No. 	197, 	the Board ruled that 	the proper 	respondent
for 	an agency 	fee 	challenge 	is 	the 	exclusive 	representative.
The 	Board 	reiterated 	this 	principle 	in 	Police 	Officers 	Research
Association 	of 	California 	and 	California 	Association 	of 	Food
and 	Drug Officials 	(1987) 	PERB Decision No. 	644-S, 	dismissing
the 	charges 	against 	the 	affiliate 	organizations 	and holding
that 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	is 	the 	proper 	respondent 	in
an 	agency 	fee 	challenge. 	Affiliation with 	the 	exclusive
representative 	is 	insufficient 	to make 	the 	statewide
organization the exclusive 	representative and, 	"[h]ence, 	it was
not 	liable 	for 	a violation of 	EERA." 	Fresno Unified 	School
1On 	February 	23, 	1987 	the 	general 	counsel 	issued a
complaint 	on 	an 	unfair 	practice 	charge 	filed by 	Charging 	Party
against 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	containing 	charges
substantially 	similar 	to 	the 	charges 	against 	CTA. 	San 	Ramon
Valley Educators Association, 	SF-CO-304.
22

District 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	208; Washington Unified
School 	District 	(1985) 	PERB Decision No. 	549. 	Therefore, 	we
dismiss 	this 	case 	for 	failure 	to state 	a 	prima 	facie 	violation
of 	EERA.
ORDER
The 	unfair practice 	charge 	in 	Case 	No. 	SF-CO-305 	is hereby
DISMISSED.
Members 	Porter 	and Craib 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
33

STATE Of 	CALIFORNIA 	GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
San Francisco Regional Office
177 Post Street, Suite 900
San Francisco, California 94108
(415)557-1350
March 19, 	1987
Barbara C. Abbot
Diane Ross
California Teachers Assn.
1705 Murchison Drive
P. O. Box 921
Burlingame, CA 94011-0921
Be: 	REFUSAL TO ISSUE COMPLAINT AND DISMISSAL OF UNFAIR PRACTICE CHARGE
Barbara C. Abbot v. California Teachers Association, Charge No. SF-CO-305
Dear Parties:
Pursuant to Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) Regulation section 32730,
a complaint will not be issued in the above-referenced case and the pending
charge is hereby dismissed because it fails to allege facts sufficient to state
a prima facie violation of the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA)
The reasoning which underlies this decision follows.
On January 19, 1987 Barbara C. Abbot filed an unfair practice charge against
the California Teachers Association (CTA) alleging facts which purport to set
forth a violation of EERA section 3543.5(a). 	More specifically, charging party
alleges the following:
1. 	A portion of Ms. Abbot's monthly pay has been seized unlawfully from her
by the District. 	She is an objecting agency fee payer and therefore she
should have to pay no more than 85 percent of membership dues. 	15 percent
are, by CTA's admission, chargeable to political and ideological activi-
ties and therefore objectionable to Ms. Abbot; 	Yet the District deducts
100 percent of the membership dues from Ms. Abbot's paycheck. 	Despite her
objection, the District continues to facilitate the full deduction of CIA
dues from her monthly paycheck. 	The District is forcing her to extend an
"involuntary loan" to CTA.
2. 	The method by which CTA determines that 15 percent of the monthly member-
ship dues is attributable to political and ideological expenses is
objectionable. 	The audit (dated December 12, 1986), while claiming to
1References 	to the EERA are to Government Code sections 3540 et seq.
PERB Regulations are codified at California Administrative Code, Title 8.
~

have been undertaken in accordance with generally accepted accounting
standards, does not indicate that it complied with the Hudson decision.
The itemization contained in the audit lacks the specificity required by
Hudson.
3. 	CTA has failed to provide a reasonably prompt opportunity for Ms. Abbot to
challenge the amount of the deduction. CTA did not initiate a procedure
in a prompt manner. Over nine months transpired between the effective
date of Hudson and the arbitration hearing commenced in January 1987. 	the
American Arbitration Association (AAA) is not an impartial decision-maker.
It was selected by CTA unilaterally. 	Agency fee objectors were not part
of the selection process. 	Numerous labor leaders sit on the National
Board of the AAA. 	The AAA hearing does not present a reasonable oppor-
tunity to object to the agency fee amount. 	The hearing is conducted at
the headquarters of the statewide CTA in Burlingame, California, during
school hours over a period of six days, and was set at a time and date
that could not be changed by any of the objectors. 	Charging party has no
reliable way to verify whether the arbitrator selected by AAA is competent
and impartial. 	CTA unilaterally selected the arbitrator from a list
created by AAA,.
4. 	CTA 	did not provide escrow for amounts reasonably in dispute during the
period that the deduction was being challenged. 	The escrow account, if
it exists, is solely controlled by CTA and therefore not in compliance
with Hudson. 	Charging party's requests for information about the escrow
account have come to naught. 	She has not been told the names, location
or identity of those responsible for the account.
Barbara C. Abbot
Diane Boss
March 19, 1987
Page 2
On February 23, 1987 the regional attorney wrote to charging party informing
her of the defects contained in the original unfair practice charge and
warning her that unless withdrawn or amended, the allegations would be
dismissed on March 2, 1987. 	Subsequently charging party requested and was
granted an extension until March 10, 1987. 	On March 10, 1987 charging party
filed a first amended unfair practice charge with PERB in this matter.
Charging party takes issue in the first amended unfair practice charge with a
statement contained in the February 23, 1987 warning letter. 	She disputes the
assertion that,
SRVEA pays CTA a portion of its dues in return for
services.
Charging party does not dispute that there is an exchange between SRVEA and
CTA in which CTA is paid for services rendered to the local entity. 	Father,
charging party claims that the entire paycheck goes directly to CTA, and then

Barbara C. Abbot
Diane Boss
March 19, 1967
Page 3
local dues are sent back to SRVEA. this, in her view, establishes that SRVEA.
has "no independent financial existence." 	Charging party's theory is that,
CTA directs all actions of the local and controls it
completely.
Consequently, in her view, CTA is liable as a "principal."
For the reasons set forth in the warning letter of February 23, 1987, attached
and incorporated by reference, the allegations of the original unfair practice
charge and the first amended unfair practice charge fail to set forth a prima
facie violation of EERA, sections 3543.6 (b) and 3544.9. The allegations and
argument contained in the first amended unfair practice charge do not cure the
defects of the original charge. 	Accordingly, the allegations are dismissed
a n d n o c o m p l a i n t w i l l i s s u e t h e r e o n .
Pursuant to Public Employment Relations Board regulation section 32635
(California Administrative Code, title 8, part III), you nay 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 Notice
(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.) or sent by telegraph or certified or Express United
States nail postmarked not later than the last date set for filing. 	Code cf
Civil Procedure section 1013 shall apply. 	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 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.
Barbara C. Abbot
Diane Boss
March 19, 	1987
Page 4
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 far 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 specific time limits, the dismissal will
become final when the time limits have expired.
Very truly yours,
JEFFREY SLOAN
General Counsel
B y PETER HABEEFELD
Regional Attorney
c c : 	General Counsel

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	GEORGE DRIXME JAM QUOTE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
San Francisco Regional Office
177 Post Street, Suite 900
San Francisco, California 94109
(415) 557-1350
February 23, 	1987
Barbara C. Abbot
DurrilJa. ra 	C. 	Abbot 	v. 	California 	Teachers 	Association 	Charge No SF-CO-305
ct.
Barba	Re;	Darwille,
Dear 	Ms. 	Abbot:
ON January 19, 	1987 Barbara C Abbot filed an unfair practice charge against
the California Teachers Association (CTA) alleging facts which purport to set
forth a violation of EERA section 3543.5(a). More specifically, 	charging
party alleges the following:
1.l.
A 	portion 	of Ms. Abbot's monthly pay has been seized unlawfully from her
by t h e D i s t r i c t . 	She is an objecting agency fee payer and therefore she
should have to pay no more than 85 percent of membership dues. 	15 p e r
are, by CTA's admission, chargeable 	to p o l i t i c a l 	and 	ideological 	activi-
t i e s and therefore objectionable to Ms. Abbot. 	Yet t h e D i s t r i c t deducts
100 percent of 	membership 	dues from Ms. Abbot's paychecks. Despite
objection, 	the D i s t r i c t continues to 	f a c i l i t a t e the f u l l deduction, of
dues from her monthly paycheck. The District is forcing her to exten
"involuntary loan" to CIA. de ber
2. 	The method by which CTA determines that 1 	2. The method by which CTA determines tha
ship dues 	is attributable to political and ideological expense 	is
objectionable. The audit (dated December 12, 1986), w h i l e claim
have been undertaken in accordance with generally accepted accounting
standards, does not indicate that it complied with the Hudson decision.
The itemization contained in the audit lacks the s p e c i f i c i t y required by Hudson.
5 percent of the
ing to
3. CTA 	failed to provide a reasonably prompt opportunity for Ms. Abbott
to challenge the amount of. the deduction. 	CTA did not initiate a proce-
dure in a prompt manner. 	Over nine months transpired between the
effective date of Hudson and the arbitration hearing commenced in
January 1987. 	The American Arbitration Association (AAA) is not an
impartial decision-maker. 	It 	was selected by CTA unilaterally. 	Agency
fee objectors were not part of the selection process. 	Numerous labor
leaders s i t on the National Board of the AAA. 	The AAA hearing does not
present a reasonable opportunity to object to the agency fee amount. The
hearing is conducted at the headquarters of the statewide CTA in
Burlingame, California, during school hours over a period of six days,
and was set at a time and date that could not be changed by any of the
objectors. 	Charging party has no reliable way to verify whether the
arbitrator selected by AAA is competent and impartial. 	CTA unilaterally
selected the arbitrator from a l i s t created by AAA.
has	son.
sfATE Of fAU'9fflM
~.
Ct..
GEQffli".Meftt 1160
ebs:
Clll
..

Barbara C. Abbott
February 23, 1987
Page 2
4.	4. 	CTA did not provide escrow for amounts reasonably in dispute during the
period that the deduction was being challenged. 	The escrow account, if
it exists, is solely controller by CTA and therefore not in compliance
with Hudson Charging party's requests for information about the
account have come to naught. She has not been told the names, location
or identity of those responsible for the account.
accola
Inve	Investigation of the charge revealed the following. 	The collective bargaining
pl	agree 	agreement between the District and the San Ramon Valley Education Association
in Article 10, Organizational Security, provided for an election to be held in
a,	accordanc	$ i ii c1auc e with rules and regulations of the Public Employment Relations Board	Relations Board
(PERB) to determine the issue of agency 	shop. 	Such an election was held and
the members of the negotiating unit approved agency shop. As a result, member
of the negotiating unit who are members of SRVEA/CTA/NEA are required to have
dues deducted for the duration of time agreement. Any member of the ,-:,tiatill!J
unit who is not a member of the Association must authorize payroll
or make a payment to the Association of a service fee equivalent to unified
membership dues, 	initiation 	fees, and general assessments. If such individual
does not authorize payroll deduction of the service fee or sake payment
directly to the Association, the District, upon written request from the
Association, shall begin payroll deduction of the service fee. 	Such a written
request from the Association must include verification from the Association
that it has, in writing, informed the Association non-member of his/her
options regarding the religious objection and the method of payment of the
service fee.
pegoti ating
deduction
PERB records show that the CTA is an organization with which the San
Valley Educators Association (SRVEA) is affiliated, and only SRVEA is the
exclusive representative of District certificated employees. SRVEA pays CTA a
portion of i t s dues in return for services.
In Link v. Antioch Unified School District, et al. 	(1985) PERB Order
No. IR-47, the Board examined the exclusive representative's demand and return
system and determined that the procedural protections made available to
objecting fee-payors were sufficient to meet EERA standards, even though they
did not require that the entire amount of the agency fee be escrowed pending
the exclusive representative's determination and reimbursement of the amount
attributable to political/ideolcgical expenses.1 Subsequent to PERB's
1There, 	as here, 	the exclusive representative was affiliated with
statewide CTA. Many aspects of the demand-and-return system were provided by
statewide CTA to the local chapter and to CTA chapters throughout the state.
The escrow account, 	for example, was administered at the state level and
contained a sum intended to protect a l l objectors in the state.
acaJIJI
..a.,.
Relatic:os -
•
~ 	.""'9:rtJ (Ill

decision in Link, the U.S. Supreme Court issued i t s decision in Chicago
Teachers Union v Hudson (1986) 106 S. Ct 1066 [121 LRRM 2793]. Hudson held
that the exclusive 	representatives 	constitutionally 	required to provides an
adequate explanation of the basis for the fee, a reasonably prompt opportunit	or tumity	ortmil:7.	y
to challenge the amount of the fe	fe 	i	before an impartia	i l decision-maker, and an
escrow for the amounts reasonably in dispute while such challengesare pending
_pnti,..
Barbara C. Abbot
February 23, 1987
Page 3-
In Fresno Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 208, 	Washington	11111',;'.ap:a	n
Unified School District (1985) PERB Decision No. 549, EERB held that mere
affiliation	ifB Il iii\iai affiliation by the exclusive representative with the statewide organization
(such as CTA) is insufficient to make the statewide organization the exclusive
representative and "hence, it was not liable for a violation of EERA." 	Also
see Link v. California Teachers Association and National Education Association
(1981) PERB Order No. Ad-123.
The charge, as written, fails to state a prima facie violation of EERA. Only
the exclusive representative is required to provide the procedural protections
discussed 	above. 	CTA is not the exclusive representative, and therefore is
not obliged to provide the Hudson-type procedural requirements. Having no
such obligation under EERA, CTA is not an appropriate a party to this action.
If you feel that there are any factual inaccuracies in t h i s letter or any
additional facts which would correct the deficiencies explained above* please
amend the charge accordingly. (1) The amended charge should be prepared on standard PERB
Charge, 	(2) contain a l l the facts and allegations you wish to make,
(3) indicate the case number where indicated on the form (even though you are
not to write in the box when originally filing a charge), 	(4) and be signed
under penalty of perjury by the charging party (forms enclosed), The amended
charge must be served on the respondent, and proof of service must be attache
to the original as well as to a l l copies of the amended charge (forms
enclosed).
If I do not receive an amended charge or withdrawal from, you on or before
March 2, 1987, I shall dismiss your charge. 	If you have any questions on how
to proceed, please call me at (415) 557-1350.
Washingto
(such as CTA) is insufficient
Sincerely vours,
Peter Haberfeld
Regional Attorney
Enclosures