University of California (Ridley) (PERB 0700H)

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD

NANCY A. RIDLEY,

Charging.Party, Case No. LA-CE-227-H

Vv. PERB Decision No. 700-H

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF

September 27, 1988
CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

ee ee ee ee ee ee ee te

Appearances: B. Benedict Waters, for Nancy A. Ridley; Claudia
Cate, Attorney for Regents of the University of California.

Before Hesse, Chairperson; Porter, Craib and Shank, Members.

DECISION AND ORDER

This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(Board) on appeal by Charging Party of a Board agent's
dismissal, attached hereto, of her charge that the Regents of
the University of California violated section 3571(a) of the
Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (codified at
Gov. Code sec. 3560 et seq.). We have reviewed the dismissal
and, finding it free from prejudicial error, we adopt it as the
Decision of the Board itself.

The unfair practice charge in Case No. LA-CE-227-H is

hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

By the Board

:
-
₱
1

ST
A
TE
Of
CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS 	BOARD
Los
Angeles
Regional
Office
3530 Wilshire &oulevord, Suite 650
Los
A~,
CA 	90010-2334
(213) 736-3127
March
	29
, 	198 8
B.
	Benedict
	Waters
P.O.
	Box 	191018
Los
	Angeles,
	california
	90019
_
GEO!lGE
OEUKMEJIAN,
Gowtrnor
Re: 	LA-CE-227-H, 	Nancy
	A.
	Ridley 	v.
	Regents
	of
	the
	University	
of
California,
	DISMISSAL
	OF
	UNFAIR 	PRACTICE
	CHARGE
Dear 	Mr •	
Waters
:
The
	above-referenced 	unfair
	practice
	charge,
	filed
	on 	December
9,
	1987,
	alleges 	that
	the 	Regents
	of
	the
	University
	of
California
	(University) 	refused
	to
	process
	a
	grievance.
	This
conduct
	ia
	alleged 	to
	violate
	Government 	Code
	section 	357l(a)
of 	the
	Higher
	Education
	Employer-Employee
	Relations
	Act
	(HEERA).
I
	indicated 	to
	you
	in
	my
	attached
	letter
	dated
	March
	22, 	1988
that
	the 	above-referenced 	charge 	did 	not
	state
	a
	prima
	facie
case.
	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
	March
	29, 	1988,
	it
	would 	be
	dismissed.
I
	have 	not 	received
	either
	a
	request 	for
	withdrawal 	or
	an
amended
	charge
	and
	am
	therefore
	dismissing 	the 	charge 	based
	on
the
	facts
	and
	reasons 	contained 	in	
my	
March
	22,
	1988
	letter.
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 	no
	later
	than 	the
	last
	da:te
	set 	for
filing.
	Code
	of 	Civil 	Procedure 	section
	1013
	shall
	apply.
(See
	section
	32135.) 	The
	Board's 	address
	is:
Public
	Employment
	Relations
	Board
1031 	18th 	StreetSacramento,
	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

March
	29,
	1988
Dismissal
	of
	UPC
LA-CE-227-H
Page 	2
in
	and
	five
	copies 	of
	a
	statement 	opposition
	within
	twenty
calendar
	days
	following 	the	
date	
of 	service	
of
	the
	appeal
(section
	32635(b)).
Service
be
All
	to 	also
documents
	authorized
	be
	filed
	herein
	aust
to
	the
	proceeding,	
and 	a	
•proof
	of
•served"
	upon
	all
	parties
servic_e"
	must 	accompany
	each
	copy
	of	
a	
document
	served
	upon 	a
section
	32140
	for
party 	or
	filed
	with
	the
	Board
	itself.
	(See
the
	required 	contents
	and 	a
	sample 	form.)
	The 	document
	will
	be
considered 	properly
	•served"
	when	
perso~ally	
delivered
	or
deposited
	in 	the
	first-class
	mail 	postage 	paid
	and
	properly
addressed.
Extension
	of
	Time
document
A	
extension
a
request
	for
	an
	of
	time
	in
	which
	to
	file
the
	Board
	itself
	~ust
	be
	in 	writing
	and
	filed
	with
	the
with
Board
	at
	the 	previously
	noted 	address.
	A
request 	for
	an
three
	calendar
	days
	before
	theextension
	must 	be
	filed 	at 	least
of
	the
	time
	required 	for
	filing
	the
	document. 	The
expiration the
request
	must
	indicate
	good
	cause 	for	
and,	
if
	known,
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
the	the
	If
	no
	appeal
	is 	filed
	within 	specified
	time
	limits,
dismissal 	will
	become
	final
	when
	the
	tiae 	limits
	have
	expired.
Sincerely,
JOHN
	SPITTLER
Acting 	General 	Counsel
B
Regiona
	·
	rney
y~
	'
Attachment
cc: 	Claudia 	Cate

OfO,GE
DE~JIAN,
Go,..mc,
~I.UC
	EM,LOYMEMT
	REL~
TIONS 	IOARD
Lo\
A.nphts
1..,al
Office
»)Owiww....__,S.-650
I.el
........
CA
	90010.2"41
(213)
7»-3127
@f 	'
.
Karch 	2
2,
	ltll
a.	
■
enedict	
hter1
P .o. 	aox 	191011
Lo•	
A:ngelea,	
california
	90019
of	
lie:	
LA-CE-227-
■
,·•ancy	
A.
	Ridley 	v.	
le9ents	
the
	University
	of
C.lifocnia
Dear	
llr. 	llater1:
abme-referenced
	file~
	The
	unfair
	practice
	charge,
	on Decellber
9,
	1917,	
all-..•
	that
	the
	•etenta of
	tbe
	University of
(Uni•er•ity)	
refu•d
	to	
proc.aa
	a
trie•ance.
	Thia
California
eollllw:t 	i1
	all-,.d
	to
..
Tiol.Aate
	Gorer-t	
COOi	
aeetion 	357l(a;
of
	tb•	
■
i9ber	
Nuc:ation
	-J.oyer--J.or•
	..
latioa•
Act	
<
■
•u>.
llf	
ilffestigation 	r.,ealed 	tbe
	follawi-, 	facts.
	Cbar9i119
Party
i•
	...
loyed
	••	
a	
Cc•
llnlcatiou
	_. ..
c«••
Aaalataat	
I
	at
	1:h•
11111..-r•lty
of
	C.lifcaia	
at	
Los
	....
lea.	
SIM Mt•••
la
OOIPWed
	bf
	tbe
-•randua
of
	Dadltr•~lllll 	(IDJ')	
•1«1ated
	the
Aller:
lean 	Federation
of
	State,
	County 	and	
llunicipal
	lllllployees
(APIICIIE) 	and
	the 	Univeraity
	for 	Unit
	12
	(Clerical
	and
	Allied
hrYioea).
9rie.-ance
On 	1101'elll>er 	a
or
	about	
1,,
	1•1,
	CbartintJ
	Party 	filed
..,.in•t
	the
	UniYeraity
	all
..
1119
	•••l	
and	
racial
	lwar••-nt
	by
hllr
	1-diate
	auperviaor,
	Paul
	Towneen4. 	The
	official
	APSCNI!
tr
iffance	
for
■	
requeata
	inforMtio-n, 	inclllt!iftl
	tbe
	eaployee'
a
na•, 	depart•nt, 	claasification,
	work
	location,
	1-diate
supervisor, 	job
	title,	
atateaent of 	the 	grievance, 	including
the
	applicable 	violation	
and	
adjustaent 	required,
	the 	date
	of
the 	grievance, 	the
	grievant's 	signature,
	and
	the
	grievant's
representative,
	if
	any.
violation
	Charging
	Party's
	state•nt
	of 	the 	applicable 	of 	the
MOU
	read 	as 	follows:
Article
	4 - 	Sexual haraasaent. 	Paul
Townsend,
	at
	the 	behest,
	and
	direction of
Peter 	BlackMn, 	has 	continuously 	harassed 	ae
since
	Novel\ber 	2, 	1987. 	This 	harassaent 	has
been 	baaed
	partly
	upon •Y
	race 	associations,
and 	on
	my
	being 	feu.le.
	An 	ad<hndum
	will 	be
filed.
.
'j
.

LA-CE-227-H
March
	22,
	1988
Paqe
	2
requir~
	Cbarqinq
	Party'•	
■
tateaent	
of
	the	
adju
■
t.Mnt	
read••
follows:
	•An 	a6rlendwn	
will
	be
	filed.• 
J.
	The
	Uftinraity,
	actinq
	thrOU9h 	Sandra	
aich,
	Aaaiatant
	Labor
aelation•	
Nana41er, 	acknowlec14Jed	
receipt 	of
	the
	9rievance
	in	
a
letter	
dated 	lloftllber	
23~
	1917. 	TIie	
letter
	r•ad
	••
	follows:
I•	
in
	rec.ipt
	of 	tM 	attaclle4 trie•anee
for
■	
which
	indicate•
	that
	•an
	addendua
	will
be	
filed.•	
PleaN	
be	
adviNd	
that
	antil
auch 	eddendwa
	1•
	filed,
	no
	action 	will
	be
taken
	by
	our
	office.
Char•i1119
	Per~y
	M'ffr
	filed
	1111
	..
••••-
	to 	the
	trievance.
•..,_nduai
alleges
	that
	ahe
	•t•
	aot 	obli9ated 	to
	file
	an
Charqinq
	Party
at".
any
	particular	
ti•	
in	
tM	
9rievanee 	process,
	but
retains,
	at
	all
	tiaes,
	the
	discretion
	not
	to
	file
	an 	addendum
-- 	at
	all.•
	Cbarginq
	Party
	cent
....
	U..t
	.,.
	refuai119
	to
with
preo••d
	vita
	U. 	9rie¥.w,
	U-
	Dlli'9el'sity
.._
	interfered
tlM
	oentract
..
1
	.....
fit
	to
	preNltt:
	• 	•ri••-·.
part:	Article
	6,
	uction
	A.2.
	atatea 	in
	..
rtinent
and
	•••
	A	
•ri••····
-.11 	···••ln a Claar
cwiN	
•~at1
■
11~	
ef	
~	
9r&.,a_,..,,
indicatinq
	the
	iaaue 	1..-.1
...
,
	the 	relief
•o~ht,
	the 	date 	the
	inci
...
t
	or
	violation
took
	place
	aad
	the 	apecific 	a.ction
	or
eectiw
	of 	t.M
	..
r•••••t
	,
...
1
....
rtinent	Article
	6,
	-.ction
	a.1.a.
	provi
..
•
	in
..
	part:
•••
	Any 	4Jrievanee	
which
	i•
	not 	r.eeiftd
within 	the 	tiae
	liait•
	establiahed	
by
	this
Article
	and/or
	which	
does 	aot	
COIIPlY
	with
the 	procedures
	and
	requir
...
nt• 	of
	this
Article 	shall
	be
	considered	
waived 	and
withdrawn	
by 	the 	eaployee 	and/or
	Union.
charge
	Based 	on
	the 	facts
	as
	stated
	above,
	the 	fails 	to 	atate
	a
priJM
	facie 	violation 	of 	the
	IIDll 	for 	the	
reaaons 	which
	follow.
becauseCharging 	Party 	alleges 	that
	an
	unfair 	practice
	occurred
that 	the 	University 	proce•s	
a	
grievance
	and
the
	MOU
	mandates
the 	University 	has
	interfered 	with 	this 	right
	by 	suspending 	the
of 	the 	grievance 	pending
	r.ceipt 	of 	the 	addendum.
processingCharging 	Party 	cites 	the 	fact 	that 	the
	MOU
	contains
	no
provision 	allowing 	the 	University 	to 	suspend 	the 	qrievance
under 	these 	circumstances.

LA-CE-227-H
Ma r
ch
	2 2 , 	19 8 8
Paq@ 	3
that
The
	facts
	alleged
	fail
	to 	deaonstrate
	the
	Univeraity
	has
breactw.d
	the
	MOU.
	Article
	6,
	aection	
B.l.a.	
provide•
	that	
a
prescribed
grievance 	not 	coaplyinq 	with
	the
	requir
...
nta
	by
Article
	6,
	including,•
••Y
clear	
■
tateaent	
of
	the
	grievance
	and
be	
conaichred	
wai-..d	
or
	withdrawn.
	•hen
the
	relief
	aouqht,
9rievancethe
	Charqing
	info-ra.ed
	tbe
	Univeraity
	in
	the	Party
fora
	that
	ahe
	intended
	to
	file
	an	
acklendma	
to~
	both
	the
did
•iolation
	MCtion
	and
	the 	reaedy
	action,
	the	
Dni.-er
■
ity
not
	rapudiate
	the
	IIIOU	
by	
reque
■
tinq	
the
	edditional 	facts
	and
reaedi-al	
deaands	
before 	proceeding.
a
	of
llow
..
r,	
a ■■
lHliDCJ	
arquendo
	that
	bre.ach	
IIOU'•	
provisions
for	
tile	
9rie•anoe
	procedure
	occurred,•
	~r..ch 	aloee
	i•
	not
aufficient.
	,._
	--•hall 	not
	have
	authority 	to
	eaforce
agrH-nts
	betwieen
	the	
partie
■,	
and
	shall
	not	
iaaue
	a	
complaint
alleqed
	violation
	of
	such 	an 	agreementon
	any
	cbar9e
	baMd
	on
constitute
	an
	unfair 	practice
	~nder
	this
that
	would
	not
	alao
chapter.•
	Go.-ernaent 	Code	
NJCtion
	3563.
2
(b).
·
raity••
Therefore, 	the
	....
tion 	ia 	-..t.lMr
	tlM
	..
,
..
	otmduct
independently
	•iolated
	the
	-A.
	In
	.,.._r
	~o	
Kate•	
priaa
with
	ri9ht.a 	9uaranteed
	by
facie 	violation
	alle.ging
	interference
t.M	
ill..	
tne
	cdler4ing
	perty
	wt
	ali..,e
	at
	ltNillt
	ali9ht	
bar
■
renlu
	froa	
tM
	41111Pleyer'• eaadt.1Ct.	
1111,•~
k-l
Diatrlet
	(1979)	
1111B	
BeclaiN
	Ito.	
9tr~	
--iftry
of
	cililornia
	(ltll)
	PEJt9
	O.Cisior\.
!to.-
	. a 	nta,held 	£bit
	etiployer 	conduct
	in 	connection 	with 	the 	processing 	of
of
	is
	to ._.,rive
grievat1ees
	is
	unlawful	
•tf	
the
	i~ct
	it
their 	atatutory
	riqb.ts
	to
	d:feet!ftly
IK'•
..
nt
.apl.,,._a	
of
their	
•rievanc••••	
That
	c
...
	found
	tlMlt
	deftyint
	•
	trievant
multiple 	repreHntative•
	did 	not 	eatabliah 	hara	
to
•uaranteed
employee
	rights.
that
	The	
facts 	in	
thi
■
	ca
■
e	
reveal
	Char9i119
	Party
	filed
	the
grievance
	and
	that
	the 	University 	returned
	it,
	indicating
	that
was
	filed.
	These
it
	would
	not 	proceed
	until
	the
	•addendu••
facts
	alone
	fail
	to 	raise
	a
	reasonable 	inference
	that
	the
University
	would 	have
	refused
	to 	proceas 	the 	grievance
	if
Charging
	Party
	had
	provided 	the 	addendua. 	Charging
	Party 	took
other 	action
	upon
	receiving 	the
	letter,
	either
	in	
ter
■
s	
of
no
requesting 	the
	aatter
	proceed
	on
	the
providing
	an
	addend\111\
	or
basis 	that 	there	
was 	no 	new
	inforaation 	to	
add
	at 	that 	tiae.
unreasonable 	in
As
	noted 	above, 	requesting 	the
	addendum 	was
	not
view
	of 	the 	language 	of 	the
	MOU.
	Therefore 	the 	facts 	alleged
fail 	to
	demonstrate 	that 	the 	University 	effectively 	interfered
with 	Charging
	Party's 	right 	to 	present	
a	
grievance.
presently
	For 	these 	reasons, 	the 	charge 	as 	written 	does 	not
case. 	If
	you
	feel 	that 	there 	are 	any
state	
a 	prima 	facie
factual 	inaccuracies 	in 	this 	letter 	or 	any 	additional 	facts
which 	would 	correct 	the 	deficiencies 	explained 	above, 	please

LA-CE-227-H
March
	22,
	1918
Page 	4
should
aaend
	the
	charcte
	accordinqly.
	'!be
	-nded
	cbartJe 	be
pr4tPared
	on•
	atandard
	PSM
	unfair
	practice
	cbar9e
	for•
	clearly
Firat
	,.,nfhd
	Char
..
,
	contain
.I!!. t.lM
	facts
	and
labeled
allegation•
	you 	wish
	to	
aake,	
and
	be
	•lined 	under
	penalty 	of
perjury
	by
	tlle
	cl\arqincJ
	party.
	Th•	
-Med	
charCJ•
	1111st	
be
proof
	of
	Nrvice 	auat
Nrftd
	on	
tlle	
r•epondeftt"-:.aad
	the
	ori9iaal
be	
filed
	with
	.....
	If
	I	
do	
not	
rec.in	
an	
-nded	
chart•
	or
withdrawal	
fr•
	you	
INfore
	llarch 	21,
	l.U,	
I
	eMll
di-i••	
your
charqe.
	If
	you 	have 	any
	question•
	on 	how	
to
	proc.ad,
	pl••••
call
	ae
	at
	(213) 	736-3127.
Sincerely,
~·e;~
	..
DONN	
GINOZA
a.tfional
	Attorney