Los Angeles Unified School District (Mindel) (PERB 0785E)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
STANLEY MINDEL,
Charging Party, 	Case No. LA-CE-2720
V . 	PERB Decision No. 785
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ) 	December 29, 1989
Respondent.
Appearances : 	Stanley Mindel, on his own behalf; Belinda D.
Smith, Assistant Legal Adviser, for Los Angeles Unified School
District.
Before Hesse, Chairperson; Craib and Shank, Members.
DECISION
CRAIB, Member: This case is before the Public Employment
Relations Board (PERB or Board) on exceptions filed by the
charging party, Stanley Mindel, to a proposed decision by a PERB
administrative law judge (ALJ), attached hereto, dismissing the
complaint in its entirety. At issue is whether the commercial
photography course which Mindel taught was cancelled because of
low enrollment or because Mindel engaged in protected activity.
PERB Regulation 32300' requires the party filing exceptions
to a proposed decision to meet certain specific guidelines,
including : 	(1) a statement of the specific issues of procedure,
fact, law or rationale to which each exception is taken; (2)
identification of the page or part of the decision to which each
exception is taken; (3) designation of the portions of the record
PERB Regulations are codified at California Administrative
Code, title 8, section 31001 et seq.
STATE
	OF
	CALIFORNIA
DECISION
	OF
	THE
PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
STANLEY MINDEL,
Charging
	Party,
V.
LOS 	ANGELES 	UNIFIED
	SCHOOL
	DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
___________________
) 
Case
	No.
	LA-CE-2720
PERB
	Decision
	No. 	785
December 	29, 	1989
Appearances:	
Stanley
	Mindel,
	on
	his
	own
	behalf;
	Belinda
	D.
Smith,
	Assistant
	Legal
	Adviser,
	for
	Los
	Angeles
	Unified 	School
District.
Before
	Hesse,
	Chairperson; 	Craib
	and 	Shank,
	Members.
DECISION
CRAIB, 	Member:
	This 	case
	is
	before 	the 	Public
	Employment
Relations
	Board
	(PERB
	or
	Board) 	on
	exceptions
	filed
	by
	the
charging
	party,
	Stanley
	Mindel,
	to
	a
	proposed
	decision
	by
	a 	PERB
administrative
	law 	judge
	(ALJ),
	attached 	hereto, 	dismissing 	the
complaint
	in
	its
	entirety.
	At
	issue
	is
	whether
	the
	commercial
photography 	course
	which 	Mindel
	taught
	was
	cancelled 	because 	of
low
	enrollment 	or
	because
	Mindel 	engaged
	in protected
	activity.
PERB
	Regulation
	32300
1
requires 	the 	party
	filing
	exceptions
to
	a
	proposed
	decision 	to
	meet
	certain 	specific 	guidelines,
including:
	(1)
	a
	statement 	of 	the 	specific 	issues 	of 	procedure,
fact,
	law
	or 	rationale 	to
	which 	each 	exception
	is
	taken; 	(2)
identification
	of 	the
	page
	or 	part 	of 	the 	decision 	to
	which 	each
exception 	is
	taken; 	(3)
	designation 	of 	the 	portions 	of 	the 	record
1PERB
	Regulations 	are 	codified 	at 	California 	AdministrativeCode,
	title
	8, 	section
	31001
	et 	seq.

relied upon; and (4) the grounds for each exception. 	(Regulation
32300, subd. (a) (1) -(4). ) Additionally, the matters raised in
the exceptions may only come from the record. 	( Regulation 32300,
subd. (b) .) Mindel has failed to meet any of these requirements.
The respondent, Los Angeles Unified School District, urges
the Board to dismiss this appeal for failure to comply with
PERB's regulations. Compliance with the regulations is required
in order to afford the respondent and the Board an adequate
opportunity to address the issues raised. (Ibid., see also San
Diego Community College District (1983) PERB Decision No. 368. )
A failure to comply with Regulation 32300 can result in the
dismissal of an appeal. (See California State Employees
Association (O'Connell) (1989) PERB Decision No. 726-H at p. 3.)
In the case currently before us, Mindel has submitted a rambling
rendition of the facts, as he views them, with no reference to
the record. Additionally, he has made numerous statements of
fact which are completely unsupported by the evidence presented
to the ALJ. Furthermore, Mindel has pointed to no specific
errors of law or prejudicial errors of fact made by the ALJ.
We, therefore, affirm the ALJ's dismissal of the complaint.
ORDER
The charge and complaint in Case No. LA-CA-2720 are hereby
DISMISSED.
Chairperson Hesse and Member Shank joined in this Decision.
2
relied
	upon;
	and
	(4)
	the
	grounds
	for
	each
	exception. 	(Regulation
32300, 	subd.
	(a)(l)-(4).)
	Additionally,
	the 	matters
	raised 	in
the 	exceptions
	may
	only
	come
	from
	the
	record. 	(Regulation
	32300,
subd.
	(b).)
	Mindel
	has
	failed
	to
	meet
	any
	of
	these 	requirements.
The
	respondent,
	Los
	Angeles
	Unified
	School
	District,
	urges
the
	Board
	to
	dismiss
	this
	appeal
	for
	failure
	to
	comply
	with
PERB 1 s
	regulations.
	Compliance
	with
	the 	regulations
	is
	required
in 	order 	to 	afford 	the
	respondent
	and
	the
	Board
	an
	adequate
opportunity 	to
	address
	the 	issues 	raised.
	(Ibid.,
	see
	also
	San
Diego
	Community
	College
	District
	(1983)
	PERE
	Decision
	No.
	368.)
A
	failure
	to
	comply
	with 	Regulation
	32300
	can
	result
	in 	the
dismissal
	of
	an
	appeal.
	(See
	California 	State
	Employees
Association
	(O'Connell)
	(1989)
	PERE
	Decision
	No.
	726-H
	at
	p. 	3.)
In
	the
	case
	currently
	before 	us,
	Mindel
	has
	submitted
	a
	rambling
rendition
	of
	the 	facts,
	as
	he 	views 	them,
	with
	no
	reference 	to
the 	record. 	Additionally,
	he
	has
	made
	numerous
	statements
	of
fact
	which
	are
	completely 	unsupported
	by
	the 	evidence
	presented
to 	the
	ALJ.
	Furthermore,
	Mindel 	has
	pointed 	to
	no
	specific
errors
	of
	law
	or 	prejudicial 	errors 	of 	fact
	made
	by
	the
	ALJ.
We,
	therefore, 	affirm 	the
	ALJ 1 s
	dismissal 	of 	the 	complaint.
ORDER
The
	charge
	and
	complaint
	in
	Case
	No. 	LA-CA-2720
	are 	hereby
DISMISSED.
Chairperson 	Hesse 	and
	Member
	Shank
	joined 	in 	this
	Decision.
2

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
STANLEY MINDEL,
Charging Party, 	Unfair Practice
Case No. LA-CE-2720
V .
PROPOSED DECISION
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL 	(8/28/89)
DISTRICT,
Respondent.
Appearances : 	Stanley Mindel, Charging Party, on his own behalf;
Los Angeles Unified School District, Office of the Legal Adviser,
Belinda D. Stith, Attorney, for the Los Angeles Unified School
District.
Before Allen R. Link, Administrative Law Judge.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On February 22, 1988, Stanley Mindel (hereafter Charging
Party or Mindel) filed an unfair practice charge with the Public
Employment Relations Board (hereafter PERB) against the Los
Angeles Unified School District (hereafter Respondent or
District) alleging violations of unspecified subdivisions of
Government Code section 3543.5 of the Educational Employment
Relations Act (hereafter EERA or Act) .
A Notice of Partial Dismissal of Unfair Practice
Charge/Refusal to Issue Complaint was issued on October 20, 1988,
and on that same date the General Counsel of PERB, after an
investigation of the charge, issued a Complaint alleging
The EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et
seq. 	All section references, unless otherwise noted, are to the
Government Code.
This proposed decision has been appealed to the
Board itself and may not be cited as precedent
unless the decision and its rationale have been
adopted by the Board.
STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
STANLEY MINDEL,
Charging 	Party,
v.
LOS 	ANGELES 	UNIFIED 	SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Unfair 	Practice
Case 	No. 	LA-CE-2720
PROPOSED 	DECISION
(8/28/89)
Appearances: 	Stanley 	Mindel, 	Charging 	Party, 	on 	his 	own 	behalf;
Los 	Angeles 	Unified 	School 	District, 	Office 	of 	the 	Legal 	Adviser,
Belinda 	D. 	Stith, 	Attorney, 	for 	the 	Los 	Angeles 	Unified 	School
District.
____________________ )
Before 	Allen 	R. 	Link, 	Administrative 	Law 	Judge.
PROCEDURAL 	HISTORY
On 	February 	22, 	1988, 	Stanley 	Mindel 	(hereafter 	Charging
Party 	or 	Mindel) 	filed 	an 	unfair 	practice 	charge with 	the 	Public
Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(hereafter 	PERB) 	against 	the 	Los
Angeles 	Unified 	School 	District 	(hereafter 	Respondent 	or
District) 	alleging 	violations 	of 	unspecified 	subdivisions 	of
Government 	Code 	section 	3543.5 	of 	the 	Educational 	Employment
Relations 	Act 	(hereafter 	EERA 	or Act). 1
A Notice 	of 	Partial 	Dismissal 	of 	Unfair 	Practice
Charge/Refusal 	to 	Issue 	Complaint was 	issued 	on 	October 	20, 	1988,
and 	on 	that 	same 	date 	the 	General 	Counsel 	of 	PERB, 	after 	an
investigation 	of 	the 	charge, 	issued 	a 	Complaint 	alleging
1 The 	EERA 	is 	codified 	at 	Government 	Code 	section 	3540 	et
seq. 	All 	section 	references, 	unless 	otherwise 	noted, 	are 	to 	the
Government 	Code.
This proposed decision has been appealed to the
Board itself and may not be cited as precedent
unless the decision and its rationale have been
adopted by the Board.

violations of section 3543.5(a) and (b) .' On November 9, 1988,
an informal conference was held to explore voluntary settlement
possibilities. No settlement was reached. 	On November 10, 1988,
the District filed its Answer to the Complaint. 	The formal
hearing was held on January 17 and February 14, 1989. The
parties briefed their respective positions. 	The case was
submitted for decision on May 26, 1989.
INTRODUCTION
Charging Party alleges that his commercial photography class
at the West Valley Occupational Center was closed due to his
having filed grievances against the school's administrators in an
attempt to enforce provisions of the Collective Bargaining
Agreement (hereafter CBA) . The District insists that Mr.
Mindel's photography class was closed due to insufficient
enrollment and such closure had nothing to do with his having
filed grievances.
Sections 3543. (a) and (b) state:
3543. 5 UNLAWFUL PRACTICES: EMPLOYER
It shall be unlawful for a public school
employer to:
(a) 	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.
(b) Deny to employee organizations rights
guaranteed to them by this chapter.
violations 	of 	section 	3543.S(a) 	and 	(b) . 2 On November 	9, 	1988,
an 	informal 	conference 	was 	held 	to 	explore 	voluntary 	settlement
possibilities. 	No 	settlement 	was 	reached. 	On 	November 	10, 	1988,
the 	District 	filed 	its 	Answer 	to 	the 	Complaint. 	The 	formal
hearing was 	held 	on 	January 	17 	and 	February 	14, 	1989. 	The
parties 	briefed 	their 	respective 	positions. 	The 	case 	was
submitted 	for 	decision 	on 	May 	26, 	1989.
INTRODUCTION
Charging 	Party 	alleges 	that 	his 	commercial 	photography 	class
at 	the 	West 	Valley 	Occupational 	Center was 	closed 	due 	to 	his
having 	filed 	grievances 	against 	the 	school 1 s 	administrators 	in 	an
attempt 	to 	enforce 	provisions 	of 	the 	Collective 	Bargaining
Agreement 	(hereafter 	CBA). 	The 	District 	insists 	that 	Mr.
Mindel 1 s 	photography 	class 	was 	closed 	due 	to 	insufficient
enrollment 	and 	such 	closure 	had 	nothing 	to 	do with 	his 	having
filed 	grievances.
2 Se~tions 	3543. (a) 	and 	(b) 	state:
3543.5 	UNLAWFUL 	PRACTICES: 	EMPLOYER
It 	shall 	be 	unlawful 	for 	a 	public 	school
employer 	to:
(a) 	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.
(b) 	Deny 	to 	employee 	organizations 	rights
guaranteed 	to 	them 	by 	this 	chapter.
2

JURISDICTION
The parties stipulated, and it is therefore found, that the
Charging Party is a public school employee and the Respondent is
a public school employer, within the meaning of section 3540.1.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The West Valley Occupational Center (Center) , an entity
within the Los Angeles Unified School District, offers programs
designed to train, retrain or upgrade both high school and adult
students to enter the entry level work force. 	None of the
programs are designed to exceed one year in length. Job
placement is an important part of the function of the Center.
Each year it must make a report to the state Department of
Education showing the results of its efforts to place students.
The Center employs various categories of teachers: (1) part-
time; (2) contract without tenure; (3) hourly rate or tenure; and
(4) monthly-rated.
The contract teacher without tenure may be assigned up to 30
hours per week or 120 hours per pay period. These teachers are
hired to teach a specific class for a specific period of time.
Normally the employment contract is for a one-year period,
however, the validity of that contract is determined by how long
the class meets. If the class is closed, for any reason, the
contract is no longer in effect. Stanley Mindel was this type of
teacher.
3
JURISDICTION
The
	parties 	stipulated,
	and
	it
	is
	therefore
	found,
	that
	the
Charging
	Party
	is
	a
	public
	school
	employee 	and
	the
	Respondent
	is
a
	public
	school
	employer,
	within 	the
	meaning
	of
	section
	3540.1.
FINDINGS
	OF
	FACT
The 	West
	Valley 	Occupational 	Center
	(Center),
	an
	entity
within
	the
	Los
	Angeles
	Unified
	School
	District,
	offers
	programs
designed
	to
	train, 	retrain
	or
	upgrade
	both 	high 	school
	and
	adult
students 	to 	enter 	the 	entry
	level
	work
	force.
	None
	of
	the
programs
	are
	designed
	to
	exceed
	one
	year
	in
	length.
	Job
placement
	is
	an
	important
	part
	of
	the 	function
	of
	the 	Center.
Each
	year
	it
	must
	make 	a
	report 	to
	the
	state
	Department
	of
Education
	showing
	the
	results
	of
	its
	efforts
	to 	place
	students.
The
	Center
	employs
	various 	categories 	of 	teachers:
	(1)
	part-
time;
	(2)
	contract
	without 	tenure;
	(3)
	hourly
	rate
	or 	tenure;
	and
(4)
	monthly-rated.
The
	contract 	teacher 	without 	tenure
	may
	be
	assigned
	up
	to
	30
hours
	per
	week
	or
	120
	hours
	per
	pay
	period.
	These
	teachers 	are
hired 	to 	teach
	a
	specific 	class 	for
	a
	specific 	period 	of 	time.
Normally
	the
	employment
	contract
	is
	for
	a
	one-year 	period,
however,
	the
	validity
	of
	that 	contract
	is
	determined
	by
	how
	long
the 	class
	meets.
	If
	the 	class 	is
	closed, 	for
	any
	reason, 	the
contract 	is
	no
	longer 	in 	effect.
	Stanley
	Mindel 	was
	this
	type 	of
teacher.
3

Stanley Mindel - Background
Stanley Mindel has extensive experience in both photographic
and educational settings. He has worked at West Valley
Occupational Center since the start of the 1982-83 school year as
an instructor in various aspects of photography. He was
originally hired to teach 27 hours a week but had his hours
reduced to 15 on his first day of employment. At the time of the
cut, the principal, Mr. David Steinberg, told him that the
additional hours would be returned some time in the future. 	In
the spring of 1984, Steinberg wanted to give Mindel 30 hours in
the upcoming fall semester because the demand for his class had
grown . 	He therefore created two small classes from one large
one . 	In anticipation of this split class Mindel signed a
contract for 30 hours for the fall of 1984. During the summer
Steinberg was replaced by Principal James Wall who had served a
previous term as the principal of the Center. 	The two
photography classes did not separately generate sufficient
There were	enrollment to meet the District's minimum standards.
eight students in one class and seven in the other. 	Wall
cancelled both classes, refusing to consolidate them as requested
by Mindel.
District Regulations re: Contract Teachers Without Tenure
Mindel is a contract teacher without tenure. In this
This	status, each year he signs a one-year employment contract.
contract, by its own terms, may be terminated at any time prior
to its expiration date for any of four reasons. 	One of these
Stanley
	Mindel	
-	
Background
Stanley
	Mindel
	has
	extensive
	experience
	in
	both
	photographic
and
	educational
	settings.
	He
	has
	worked
	at
	West
	Valley
Occupational 	Center
	since 	the
	start
	of
	the
	1982-83
	school
	year
	as
an
	instructor
	in
	various 	aspects 	of
	photography.
	He
	was
originally
	hired
	to
	teach
	27
	hours
	a
	week
	but
	had
	his
	hours
reduced
	to
	15
	on
	his
	first
	day
	of
	employment.
	At
	the
	time
	of
	the
cut,
	the
	principal,
	Mr.
	David
	Steinberg,
	told
	him
	that
	the
additional
	hours
	would 	be
	returned
	some
	time
	in
	the
	future.
	In
the 	spring
	of
	1984,
	Steinberg
	wanted
	to
	give
	Mindel
	30
	hours
	in
the
	upcoming
	fall
	semester 	because
	the
	demand
	for 	his 	class
	had
grown.
	He
	therefore 	created
	two
	small
	classes
	from
	one
	large
one.
	In
	anticipation
	of
	this
	split
	class
	Mindel
	signed
	a
contract
	for
	30
	hours
	for 	the
	fall
	of
	1984. 	During
	the
	summer
Steinberg
	was
	replaced
	by
	Principal
	James 	Wall
	who
	had
	served
	a
previous
	term 	as
	the
	principal
	of 	the 	Center.
	The 	two
photography
	classes 	did 	not
	separately 	generate
	sufficient
enrollment 	to
	meet
	the
	District's
	minimum
	standards.
	There 	were
eight
	students 	in
	one
	class
	and 	seven
	in 	the 	other.
	Wall
cancelled
	both
	classes, 	refusing 	to 	consolidate
	them
	as 	requested
by
	Mindel.
District
	Regulations 	re: 	Contract 	Teachers 	Without 	Tenure
Mindel
	is
	a
	contract 	teacher without 	tenure. 	In
	this
status,
	each 	year 	he 	signs
	a
	one-year
	employment
	contract. 	This
contract,
	by
	its
	own
	terms,
	may
	be 	terminated
	at
	any 	time
	prior
to
	its
	expiration 	date 	for
	any 	of 	four 	reasons.
	One
	of 	these
4

reasons is "Insufficient enrollment or attendance as determined
by the District. " The CBA dictates 18 students as the minimum
number of students in occupational classes.
Student Petition
In November and December 1986, Daniel Stark, the new
industrial education coordinator, began to visit Mindel's
classroom with increasing frequency. Wall, the principal, also
increased the number of his visits. 	The students, as well as
Mindel, began to resent these visits. Mindel contacted his
exclusive representative, the United Teachers of Los Angeles
(hereafter UTLA) , for suggestions as to how to handle this
situation. Barbara Farrell, a UTLA representative, told him he
should get the parents of the students involved in any protest
over what Mindel believed to be the excessive monitoring of his
classes. Mindel collected parental letters as well as a protest
petition from eleven of his adult students and mailed them, on
December 19, 1986, to Mr. Cortina, a District assistant
superintendent with supervisory responsibilities over the Center.
The petition, in its entirety, is as follows:
We, the undersigned, are adult students of
Stanley Mindel in his Commercial Photography
class at the West Valley Occupational Center,
Woodland Hills. 	Until about one month ago,
this was a congenial class. But in the past
few weeks, at least once a day, Mr. Mindel
and the students have been harassed and
intimidated by Mr. Dan Stark, the Industrial
Co-ordinator and on occasions followed by Mr.
wall, the principal. At least once a day, a
visit by the security guard is made and
usually follows Mr. Stark. We know of no
irregularities going on in this class. 	But
the moral (sic) now is very low and several
reasons 	is 	"Insufficient 	enrollment 	or 	attendance 	as 	determined
by 	the 	District." 	The 	CBA dictates 	18 	students 	as 	the 	minimum
number 	of 	students 	in 	occupational 	classes.
Student 	Petition
In 	November 	and 	December 	1986, 	Daniel 	Stark, 	the 	new
industrial 	education 	coordinator, 	began 	to 	visit 	Mindel's
classroom with 	increasing 	frequency. 	Wall, 	the 	principal, 	also
increased 	the 	number 	of 	his 	visits. 	The 	students, 	as 	well 	as
Mindel, 	began 	to 	resent 	these 	visits. 	Mindel 	contacted 	his
exclusive 	representative, 	the 	United 	Teachers 	of 	Los 	Angeles
(hereafter 	UTLA), 	for 	suggestions 	as 	to 	how 	to 	handle 	this
situation. 	Barbara 	Farrell, 	a 	UTLA 	representative, 	told 	him 	he
should 	get 	the 	parents 	of 	the 	students 	involved 	in 	any 	protest
over 	what 	Mindel 	believed 	to 	be 	the 	excessive 	monitoring 	of 	his
classes. 	Mindel 	collected parental 	letters 	as 	well 	as 	a 	protest
petition 	from 	eleven 	of 	his 	adult 	students 	and 	mailed 	them, 	on
December 	19, 	1986, 	to 	Mr. 	Cortina, 	a 	District 	assistant
superintendent 	with 	supervisory 	responsibilities 	over 	the 	Center.
The 	petition, 	in 	its 	entirety, 	is 	as 	follows:
We, 	the 	undersigned, 	are 	adult 	students 	of
Stanley 	Mindel 	in 	his 	Commercial 	Photography
class 	at 	the 	West 	Valley 	Occupational 	Center,
Woodland 	Hills. 	Until 	about 	one 	month 	ago,
this 	was 	a 	congenial 	class. 	But 	in 	the 	past
few 	weeks, 	at 	least 	once 	a 	day, 	Mr. 	Mindel
and 	the 	students 	have 	been harassed 	and
intimidated 	by 	Mr. 	Dan 	Stark, 	the 	Industrial
Co-ordinator 	and 	on 	occasions 	followed 	by 	Mr.
Wall, 	the 	principal. 	At 	least 	once 	a 	day, 	a
visit 	by 	the 	security 	guard 	is 	made 	and
usually 	follows 	Mr. 	Stark. 	We 	know 	of 	no
irregularities 	going 	on 	in 	this 	class. 	But
the 	moral 	(sic) 	now 	is 	very 	low and 	several
5

students have left. This situation is not
conducive to good learning and teaching.
This petition was not suggested by Mr.
Mindel, it is our initiative and no way have
we been coerced. Several of us wish to
return to this class next semester.
Mindel insists that Wall told him that he "got hell from
downtown" about the petition and wanted to know why Mindel sent
it to the District's administration. Mindel told him that he did
it because Wall would not leave him alone. Wall denies making
any such statement and insists that he did not even learn of the
petition until he began to prepare the defense to this case.
Once the winter vacation was over the repetitive classroom
visits began to subside and things started to calm down. 	Mindel
received a call from a Mr. Mcintyre, an assistant to Cortina,
asking him if the situation had improved. Mindel said that the
situation was much improved.
Student Re-enrollment
Shortly after Mcintyre called, but before the second
semester was to have started, Wall told Mindel's students that
any student who had completed numerous semesters of the
commercial photography class could not enroll in the upcoming
spring semester. One of the handicapped adult students contacted
Cortina and a meeting was arranged between Wall and the students.
Mindel did not attend that meeting. The primary topic of that
meeting was how many hours of instruction were necessary for a
student to attain minimum entry level proficiency in the field of
commercial photography. Each semester constituted approximately
300 hours of instruction. It was Wall's contention that 500
students
	have
	left.
	This
	situation
	is
	not
conducive
	to
	good
	learning
	and
	teaching.
This
	petition
	was
	not 	suggested
	by
	Mr.
Mindel,
	it
	is
	our
	initiative
	and
	no
	way
	have
we
	been
	coerced.
	Several 	of
	us 	wish
	to
return
	to
	this
	class
	next 	semester.
Mindel
	insists 	that
	Wall
	told
	him
	that
	he
	"got
	hell
	from
downtown"
	about
	the
	petition
	and 	wanted
	to
	know why
	Mindel
	sent
it
	to
	the
	District's
	administration.
	Mindel
	told
	him
	that
	he
	did
it
	because
	Wall 	would
	not 	leave
	him
	alone.
	Wall
	denies
	making
any
	such
	statement
	and
	insists
	that
	he
	did
	not
	even
	learn 	of 	the
petition 	until
	he 	began
	to
	prepare 	the 	defense
	to
	this
	case.
Once
	the 	winter 	vacation
	was
	over
	the
	repetitive
	classroom
visits
	began
	to
	subside
	and
	things
	started
	to
	calm
	down.
	Mindel
received
	a
	call
	from
	a 	Mr.
	McIntyre,
	an
	assistant
	to 	Cortina,
asking
	him
	if
	the.situation
	had 	improved. 	Mindel
	said
	that
	the
situation
was
	much
	improved.
Student
	Re-enrollment
Shortly
	after
	McIntyre
	called,
	but 	before 	the
	second
semester
	was
	to
	have
	started,
	Wall
	told
	Mindel's 	students
	that
any
	student
	who
	had 	completed
	numerous
	semesters 	of 	the
commercial 	photography
	class
	could 	not
	enroll 	in 	the
	upcoming
spring
	semester.
	One
	of 	the
	handicapped
	adult 	students 	contacted
Cortina
	and
	a
	meeting
	was
	arranged
	between Wall 	and
	the 	students.
Mindel
	did 	not 	attend 	that
	meeting.
	The
	primary
	topic 	of
	that
meeting
	was 	how many
	hours 	of 	instruction
	were
	necessary
	for
	a
student 	to 	attain
	minimum
	entry 	level 	proficiency 	in 	the
	field
	of
commercial 	photography. 	Each
	semester 	constituted 	approximately
300
	hours 	of 	instruction. 	It
	was
	Wall's 	contention 	that
	500
6

hours was sufficient instruction to reach an employable level of
proficiency . 	The students disagreed. Eventually Wall relented
and withdrew his objections to a repeat semester for the current
students. He stated that the handicapped students could take an
indefinite number of semesters.
Saturday Class Assignment
At this same meeting, Wall told the students there would be
a Saturday class offered the next semester, Spring, 1987. Upon
hearing this, Mindel sent a memo to Wall asking that he be
assigned to teach the Saturday class. He was not given the
assignment. Mr. Shela, a new employee, was hired to teach this
class.
Summer School Assignment and Grievance
In March of 1987, Mindel, along with all the other teachers
at the Center, was asked how many hours he wished to teach during
the summer session. 	Mindel had always worked during the summer
although his hours had been cut since Wall became the principal.
When Mindel failed to receive a summer session assignment, he
contacted Stark and was told that photography was not going to be
offered that summer. He went to his school's UTLA
representative, and was told that he should file a grievance but
there were no blank forms available. 	Once the forms arrived,
Mindel immediately filed his grievance but it was eventually
denied as being untimely. Mindel asked Wall why there would be
no photograph classes during the summer session. 	Wall said he
was going to use the money that would be saved by eliminating
hours 	was 	sufficient 	instruction 	to 	reach 	an 	employable 	level 	of
proficiency. 	The 	students 	disagreed. 	Eventually 	Wall 	relented
and 	withdrew his 	objections 	to 	a 	repeat 	semester 	for 	the 	current
students. 	He 	stated 	that 	the 	handicapped 	students 	could 	take 	an
indefinite 	number 	of 	semesters.
Saturday 	Class 	Assignment
At 	this 	same 	meeting, 	Wall 	told 	the 	students 	there would 	be
a 	Saturday 	class 	offered 	the 	next 	semester, 	Spring, 	1987. 	Upon
hearing 	this, 	Mindel 	sent 	a 	memo 	to 	Wall 	asking 	that 	he 	be
assigned 	to 	teach 	the 	Saturday 	class. 	He 	was 	not 	given 	the
assignment. 	Mr. 	Shela, 	a 	new 	employee, 	was 	hired 	to 	teach 	this
class.
Summer 	School 	Assignment 	and 	Grievance
In 	March 	of 	1987, 	Mindel, 	along with 	all 	the 	other 	teachers
at 	the 	Center, 	was 	asked 	how 	many 	hours 	he 	wished 	to 	teach 	during
the 	summer 	session. 	Mindel 	had 	always 	worked 	during 	the 	summer
although 	his 	hours 	had 	been 	cut 	since 	Wall 	became 	the 	principal.
When 	Mindel 	failed 	to 	receive 	a 	summer 	session 	assignment, 	he
contacted 	Stark 	and 	was 	told 	that 	photography was 	not 	going 	to 	be
offered 	that 	summer. 	He 	went 	to 	his 	school's 	UTLA
representative, 	and was 	told 	that 	he 	should 	file 	a 	grievance 	but
there 	were 	no 	blank 	forms 	available. 	Once 	the 	forms 	arrived,
Mindel 	immediately 	filed 	his 	grievance 	but 	it 	was 	eventually
denied 	as 	being 	untimely. 	Mindel 	asked 	Wall 	why 	there 	would 	be
no 	photograph 	classes 	during 	the 	summer 	session. 	Wall 	said 	he
was 	going 	to 	use 	the 	money 	that 	would 	be 	saved 	by 	eliminating
7

summer session to enhance the department with an extended
curriculum. 	Mindel insisted, without contradiction, that even
though he submitted various requests, no extra money was spent on
equipment for the photography department when he was there.
Classroom Monitoring
Both Wall and Stark were concerned, in the beginning of the
fall 1987 semester, that there were insufficient students
attending Mindel's class to enable the Center to keep the class
open. 	Both of these men, but especially Wall, began to
physically monitor the size of the class on a daily basis.
Nineteen students had paid entry fees for Mindel's class. 	The
average daily attendance, according to Mindel's records, for the
first three weeks was approximately 15 with its highest level of
attendance at 18 students, which was reached only twice. Wall
believed that even these numbers were not a correct reflection of
the actual students in attendance each day. He based his opinion
on discrepancies between Mindel's records, signatures on the
daily attendance sheets and on his daily classroom observations.
However, the visits Wall made did not necessarily include the
darkroom, a separate part of Mindel's classroom. 	Wall did not
discuss this discrepancy with Mindel.'
There were numerous charges and counter-charges regarding
alleged tardiness on Mindel's part, student vandalism,
insufficient student control, eating lunch in the classroom and
inadequate curriculum presentation referenced in the formal
hearing. These charges are not directly relevant to the charge
and complaint set forth herein and were not considered in the
final determination in this case.
8
summer
	session
	to
	enhance
	the
	department 	with
	an
	extended
curriculum.
	Mindel
	insisted,
	without
	contradiction,
	that
	even
though
	he
	submitted
	various
	requests,
	no
	extra
	money
	was
	spent
	on
equipment
	for
	the
	photography 	department
	when
	he
	was
	there.
Classroom 	Monitoring
Both
	Wall 	and
	Stark
were
	concerned,
	in
	the
	beginning
	of 	the
fall
	1987
	semester,
	that
	there
	were
	insufficient
	students
attending
	Mindel's
	class 	to
	enable
	the
	Center
	to
	keep
	the
	class
open.
	Both
	of
	these
	men,
	but
	especially
	Wall, 	began
	to
physically
	monitor
	the
	size
	of 	the
	class
	on
	a
	daily 	basis.
Nineteen
	students
	had
	paid 	entry
	fees
	for
	Mindel's
	class.
	The
average
	daily
	attendance,
	according
	to
	Mindel
1 s
	records,
	for
	the
first
	three
	weeks
	was
	approximately
	15
	with
	its
	highest
	level
	of
attendance
	at
	18
	students,
	which
	was
	reached 	only 	twice.
	Wall
believed
	that
	even
	these
	numbers 	were
	not
	a
	correct
	reflection
	of
the 	actual
	students 	in
	attendance
	each 	day.
	He
	based
	his
	opinion
on
	discrepancies
	between
	Mindel's 	records, 	signatures
	on
	the
daily
	attendance 	sheets
	and 	on
	his 	daily
	classroom
	observations.
However,
	the
	visits
	Wall
	made
	did 	not
	necessarily 	include
	the
darkroom,
	a
	separate 	part
	of 	Mindel's 	classroom.
	Wall
	did 	not
discuss 	this
	discrepancy with
	Mindel.
3
3
There 	were 	numerous
	charges 	and
	counter-charges 	regarding
alleged 	tardiness
	on
	Mindel's
	part, 	student 	vandalism,
insufficient 	student 	control, 	eating 	lunch
	in 	the 	classroom 	and
inadequate 	curriculum 	presentation 	referenced 	in 	the 	formal
hearing.
	These 	charges 	are 	not 	directly 	relevant 	to 	the 	charge
and 	complaint 	set 	forth 	herein
	and 	were 	not 	considered 	in 	the
final 	determination 	in 	this 	case.
8

Commercial Photography Class Closure
On October 2, 1987, Wall, with Stark accompanying him, went
into Mindel's class shortly after it was scheduled to begin.
Mindel asked Stark to accompany him to the darkroom to examine a
malfunctioning color developer. Wall went to Mindel's desk and
examined the sign-in sheet. There were only 12 students'
signatures on the sheet. Wall joined Mindel and Stark in the
darkroom and asked Mindel if he had warned his students that the
class was in danger of being closed due to low enrollment.
Mindel said that he had.
Mindel insists the Wall, while they were in the darkroom, in
the presence of students, shouted at him when he asked about
whether or not he had informed the students of the possibility of
the class closing due to low enrollment. Wall denies he shouted
at Mindel. 	Stark supports Wall. Dianne Ludeman, a student in
Mindel's class stated that, at the time in question, she heard
Wall speak to Mindel in "a rather stern manner" but did not hear
was he was saying. 	However, she did notice that "he did cause
Mr. Mindel to become visibly upset. " Mr. Niditz, another adult
student, was also in the darkroom at the time Wall was speaking
to Mindel. 	Mindel introduced a letter that was purported to be
from Niditz. 	In that letter Niditz said that:
[Wall] acted very unprofessional-like. His
demeanor towards Mr. Mindel was shameful.
acted in a very unbecoming manner.
He
S
Commercial
	Photography
	Class 	Closure
On
	October
	2,
	1987,
	Wall,
	with
	Stark
	accompanying
	him, 	went
into
	Mindel's
	class 	shortly
	after
	it
	was
	scheduled
	to
	begin.
Mindel 	asked
	Stark
	to
	accompany 	him
	to
	the
	darkroom
	to
	examine
	a
malfunctioning
	color
	developer.
	Wall
	went
	to
	Mindel's 	desk
	and
examined
	the
	sign-in
	sheet.
	There 	were
	only
	12
	students'
signatures
	on
	the 	sheet.
	Wall
	joined
	Mindel 	and
	Stark
	in 	the
darkroom
	and
	asked
	Mindel
	if
	he 	had 	warned
	his 	students
	that
	the
class
	was
	in
	danger
	of 	being 	closed
	due
	to
	low
	enrollment.
Mindel
	said
	that
	he 	had.
Mindel
	insists
	the
	Wall,
	while 	they
	were
	in
	the
	darkroom,
	in
the
	presence 	of
	students,
	shouted
	at
	him
	when
	he
	asked
	about
whether
	or
	not
	he 	had
	informed
	the 	students 	of 	the
	possibility
	of
the
	class
	closing
	due
	to
	low
	enrollment.
	Wall
	denies
	he
	shouted
at
	Mindel.
	Stark 	supports
	Wall. 	Dianne
	Ludeman,
	a
	student
	in
Mindel's
	class 	stated 	that, 	at
	the
	time
	in
	question,
	she
	heard
Wall
	speak
	to
	Mindel
	in
	"a
	rather 	stern
	manner"
	but 	did 	not 	hear
was
	he
	was
	saying.
	However,
	she
	did 	notice
	that
	"he
	did 	cause
Mr.
	Mindel
	to
	become
	visibly 	upset."
	Mr.
	Niditz, 	another
	adult
student,
	was
	also 	in 	the
	darkroom
	at
	the
	time
	Wall
	was
	speaking
to
	Mindel. 	Mindel
	introduced
	a
	letter 	that
	was
	purported
	to
	be
from
	Niditz. 	In
	that 	letter
	Niditz 	said 	that:
[Wall]
	acted 	very 	unprofessional-like.
	His
demeanor 	towards
	Mr.
	Mindel 	was
	shameful.
	He
acted 	in
	a
	very
	unbecoming 	manner.
9

Wall, along with Stark and Mindel, after their
discussion/confrontation, returned to the lecture portion of the
classroom area and Wall announced that the class was going to be
cancelled due to insufficient enrollment.
Mindel's Grievance re: Wall's Alleged Shouting
Mindel filed a grievance against Wall's behavior in the
darkroom. After a first-level meeting, Mindel received a letter
from UTLA Area Representative Barbara Ferrell stating that "a
letter of apology from Mr. James R. Wall" was attached and that
his (Mindel's) "remedy has been met by the District and this
grievance is hereby resolved. "
The "letter of apology" is set forth, in its entirety, as
follows :
November 6, 1987
Ms. Barbara Ferrell
West Valley Area Representative, UTLA
2511 West Third Street
Los Angeles, CA 90057
Dear Ms. Ferrell:
This letter constitutes the Step 1 response
following our conference on November 5, 1987.
May I thank you and Mr. Mindel for meeting
with Len Griswold from Staff Relations and me
to discuss this matter.
As I stated in our conference, there has
never been any intent on my part at any time
to embarrass Mr. Mindel, and I am sorry if he
has perceived my remarks to be such.
10
Wall, 	along 	with 	Stark 	and 	Mindel, 	after 	their
discussion/confrontation, 	returned 	to 	the 	lecture 	portion 	of 	the
classroom 	area 	and 	Wall 	announced 	that 	the 	class 	was 	going 	to 	be
cancelled 	due 	to 	insufficient 	enrollment.
Mindel 1 s 	Grievance 	re: 	Wall's 	Alleged 	Shouting
Mindel 	filed 	a 	grievance 	against 	Wall's 	behavior 	in 	the
darkroom. 	After 	a 	first-level 	meeting, 	Mindel 	received 	a 	letter
from 	UTLA Area 	Representative 	Barbara 	Ferrell 	stating 	that 	11 a
letter 	of 	apology 	from 	Mr. 	James 	R. 	Wall" 	was 	attached 	and 	that
his 	(Mindel's) 	"remedy 	has 	been 	met 	by 	the 	District 	and 	this
grievance 	is 	hereby 	resolved."
The 	"letter 	of 	apology" 	is 	set 	forth, 	in 	its 	entirety, 	as
follows:
November 	6, 	1987
Ms. 	Barbara 	Ferrell
West 	Valley Area 	Representative, 	UTLA
2511 	West 	Third 	Street
Los 	Angeles, 	CA 	90057
Dear 	Ms. 	Ferrell:
This 	letter 	constitutes 	the 	Step 	1 response
following 	our 	conference 	on 	November 	5, 	1987.
May 	I 	thank 	you 	and 	Mr. 	Mindel 	for 	meeting
with 	Len 	Griswold 	from 	Staff 	Relations 	and 	me
to 	discuss 	this 	matter.
As 	I 	stated 	in 	our 	conference, 	there 	has
never 	been 	any 	intent 	on my 	part 	at 	any 	time
to 	embarrass 	Mr. 	Mindel, 	and 	I 	am 	sorry 	if 	he
has 	perceived 	my 	remarks 	to 	be 	such.
10

It is the District's position that the remedy
sought has been met and that the grievance is
resolved.
Sincerely yours,
James R. Wall
Principal
Wall's Alleged Promise to Reopen Class
Mindel contends that Wall, at the time he cancelled the
commercial photography class on October 2, told the students that
"we would try again in the second semester. " John Parkhurst, a
student in Mindel's class on October 2, stated that Wall told the
students they would get priority registration when the class
started up again in the spring semester. Parkhurst, personally,
asked if the class was going to start up again in the spring and
was told by Wall that it would. Wall denies that he made these
statements . 	Parkhurst's signature, however, was not on the class
sign-in sheet for that day. 	His explanation for this omission
was that he was late and did not sign the sheet after Wall's
cancellation of the class.
Parkhurst's credibility was brought into question somewhat
when he admitted he had been discharged as the Center's
identification photographer by Education Coordinator Stark over a
violation of school rules. However, he insisted his resentment
was towards Stark and not Wall.
Wall did not reopen the commercial photography class in
February of 1988. 	Nor was there such a class in the summer of
1988 or in the fall of 1988. Wall explained these actions by
stating that the commercial photography class was not a high
11
It 	is 	the 	District's 	position 	that 	the 	remedy
sought 	has 	been 	met 	and 	that 	the 	grievance 	is
resolved.
Sincerely 	yours,
James 	R. 	Wall
Principal
Wall's 	Alleged 	Promise 	to 	Reopen 	Class
Mindel 	contends 	that 	Wall, 	at 	the 	time 	he 	cancelled 	the
commercial 	photography 	class 	on October 	2, 	told 	the 	students 	that
''we 	would 	try 	again 	in 	the 	second 	semester." 	John 	Parkhurst, 	a
student 	in 	Mindel's 	class 	on 	October 	2, 	stated 	that 	Wall 	told 	the
students 	they 	would 	get 	priority 	registration when 	the 	class
started 	up 	again 	in 	the 	spring 	semester. 	Parkhurst, 	personally,
asked 	if 	the 	class 	was 	going 	to 	start 	up 	again 	in 	the 	spring 	and
was 	told 	by 	Wall 	that 	it would. 	Wall 	denies 	that 	he 	made 	these
statements. 	Parkhurst's 	signature, 	however, 	was 	not 	on 	the 	class
sign-in 	sheet 	for 	that 	day. 	His 	explanation 	for 	this 	omission
was 	that 	he 	was 	late 	and 	did 	not 	sign 	the 	sheet 	after 	Wall's
cancellation 	of 	the 	class.
Parkhurst's 	credibility was 	brought 	into 	question 	somewhat
when 	he 	admitted 	he 	had 	been 	discharged 	as 	the 	Center's
identification photographer 	by 	Education 	Coordinator 	Stark 	over a
violation 	of 	school 	rules. 	However, 	he 	insisted 	his 	resentment
was 	towards 	Stark 	and 	not 	Wall.
Wall 	did 	not 	reopen 	the 	commercial 	photography 	class 	in
February 	of 	1988. 	Nor was 	there 	such 	a 	class 	in 	the 	summer 	of
1988 	or 	in 	the 	fall 	of 	1988. 	Wall 	explained 	these 	actions 	by
stating 	that 	the 	commercial 	photography 	class 	was 	not 	a 	high
11

priority class; the class did not generate high numbers of
students entering the work force.
Other Classes with Low Enrollment
Mindel contends there were a number of other classes at the
Center that were also suffering from low enrollment and these
classes were not closed. He arrived at this conclusion after
walking past these classes in the mornings before his own class
commenced . 	He did not have access to student attendance records
for these classes. He listed twelve such classes in an exhibit
entered into evidence at the hearing. Wall admitted that there
were some other classes with low enrollment but insisted he
closed two of them at about the same time Mindel's class was
closed. These classes were in electronic calculating and in
shorthand. 	He also had to reduce the number of hours of an auto
alignment brakes class taught by a Mr. Fields. Fields was a
tenured instructor who was guaranteed a minimum number of hours
per pay period. Wall reduced Fields' class from 120 hours to 80
hours per pay period, Fields' guaranteed minimum.
The only other classes in October of 1987, which had student
enrollment figures below the 18 student level, according to Wall,
were (1) an evening photo equipment repair class, (2) a special
option class in printing for high school students and (3) a sign
painting class. 	The first class was kept open because it was the
only one of its kind in the District. The second was a weekly
class and had not yet met three times and was kept open until the
12
priority
	class;
	the
	class
	did
	not 	generate
	high
	numbers
	of
students 	entering 	the
	work
	force.
Other 	Classes 	with
	Low
	Enrollment
Mindel
	contends
	there
	were
	a
	number
	of
	other 	classes
	at
	the
Center
	that
	were
	also 	suffering
	from 	low
	enrollment
	and
	these
classes
	were
	not 	closed.
	He
	arrived
	at 	this
	conclusion
	after
walking
	past
	these 	classes 	in
	the
	mornings
	before
	his
	own
	class
commenced.
	He
	did 	not
	have
	access
	to 	student 	attendance
	records
for 	these 	classes.
	He
	listed
	twelve
	such
	classes 	in
	an
	exhibit
entered 	into
	evidence
	at
	the 	hearing.
	Wall
	admitted
	that 	there
were
	some
	other 	classes
	with
	low
	enrollment 	but
	insisted
	he
closed
	two
	of
	them
	at
	about
	the
	same
	time
	Mindel
1 s
	class
	was
closed.
	These
	classes
	were
	in 	electronic 	calculating
	and
	in
shorthand.
	He
	also
	had
	to
	reduce
	the
	number
	of
	hours
	of
	an 	auto
alignment 	brakes
	class 	taught
	by
	a 	Mr.
	Fields. 	Fields
	was
	a
tenured
	instructor
	who
	was
	guaranteed
	a 	minimum
	number
	of 	hours
per
	pay
	period.
	Wall
	reduced
	Fields' 	class
	from
	120
	hours
	to
	80
hours
	per
	pay
	period, 	Fields'
	guaranteed
	minimum.
The
	only
	other 	classes 	in
	October
	of
	1987, 	which 	had
	student
enrollment 	figures
	below
	the
	18
	student
	level,
	according
	to
	Wall,
were 	(1) 	an 	evening 	photo 	equipment
	repair 	class,
	(2)
	a
	special
option 	class 	in 	printing 	for
	high 	school 	students
	and 	(3)
	a
	sign
painting 	class.
	The
	first
	class
	was
	kept
	open 	because
	it
	was
	the
only 	one 	of
	its
	kind
	in 	the 	District.
	The
	second
	was 	a
	weekly
class
	and 	had 	not 	yet
	met
	three 	times 	and was
	kept 	open
	until
	the
12

low enrollment was maintained over that period of time. 	Wall
gave no reason for not closing the sign painting class.
There were no photography classes at the Center during the
summer of 1988.
Mindel's Attempt to Reopen Spring 1988 Photography Class
In mid-December, 1987, Mindel sent a letter to Assistant
Principal Barbara Arney suggesting specified publicity for his
commercial photography class in the spring of 1988. He insists
that he received nothing in reply until January 7, 1988, when he
received a reply from Wall, dated December 16, 1987. Mindel
states that the letter was postmarked January 6, 1987. 	The
letter stated, in its entirety, as follows:
Dear Stan:
Thank you for your letter dated December 14,
1987 to Mrs. Arney. Please be advised
however, your contract of employment with
West Valley Occupational Center is null and
void in accordance with the provision of the
contract. I am including a copy of the
contract for your information.
Please contact me at your convenience if I
may be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
/s / Bob
James R. Wall'
" "Bob" was the name James Wall was usually referred to by
the teachers at the Center. It came from his middle name of
Robert.
13
low 	enrollment was 	maintained 	over 	that 	period 	of 	time. 	Wall
gave 	no 	reason 	for 	not 	closing 	the 	sign painting 	class.
There 	were 	no 	photography 	classes 	at 	the 	Center 	during 	the
summer 	of 	1988.
Mindel's 	Attempt 	to 	Reopen 	Spring 	1988 	Photography 	Class
In 	mid-December, 	1987, 	Mindel 	sent 	a 	letter 	to 	Assistant
Principal 	Barbara Arney 	suggesting 	specified 	publicity 	for 	his
commercial 	photography 	class 	in 	the 	spring 	of 	1988. 	He 	insists
that 	he 	received 	nothing 	in 	reply 	until 	January 	7, 	1988, 	when he
received 	a 	reply 	from 	Wall, 	dated 	December 	16, 	1987. 	Mindel
states 	that 	the 	letter 	was 	postmarked 	January 	6, 	1987. 	The
letter 	stated, 	in 	its 	entirety, 	as 	follows:
Dear 	Stan:
Thank 	you 	for 	your 	letter 	dated 	December 	14,
1987 	to 	Mrs. 	Arney. 	Please 	be 	advised
however, 	your 	contract 	of 	employment 	with
West 	Valley 	Occupational 	Center 	is 	null 	and
void 	in 	accordance 	with 	the 	provision 	of 	the
contract. 	I 	am 	including 	a 	copy 	of 	the
contract 	for 	your 	information.
Please 	contact 	me 	at 	your 	convenience 	if 	I
may 	be 	of 	further 	assistance.
Sincerely,
/s/ 	Bob
James 	R. 	Wall4
4 	"Bob" 	was 	the 	name 	James 	Wall 	was 	usually 	referred 	to 	by
the 	teachers 	at 	the 	Center. 	It 	came 	from 	his 	middle 	name 	of
Robert.
13

ISSUE
Was Stanley Mindel's commercial photography class cancelled
because of his protected activities, and therefore in violation
of section 3543 . 5(a)?
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
In Novato Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No.
210, the Board set forth the test for retaliation or
discrimination in light of the NLRB decision in Wright Line
(1980) 251 NLRB 1083 [105 LRRM 1169] enf. in part (ist Cir. 1981)
662 F. 2d 899 [108 LRRM 2513]. Under Novato, unlawful motivation
must be proven in order to find a violation.
In both cases, a nexus or connection must be demonstrated
between the employer's conduct and the exercise of a protected
right resulting in harm or potential harm to that right.
In order to establish a prima facie case, charging party
must first prove the subject employee engaged in protected
activity.' 	Then it must prove that the person (s) who made the
decision that resulted in the harm were aware of such activity.
Lastly, it must prove that the subject adverse action was taken,
in whole or in part, as a result of such protected activity.
Section 3543 states, in pertinent part, that public school
employees :
have the right to form, join and
participate in the activities of employee
organizations of their own choosing for the
purpose of representation on all matters of
employer-employee relations.
14
ISSUE
Was 	Stanley 	Mindel's 	commercial 	photography 	class 	cancelled
because 	of 	his 	protected 	activities, 	and 	therefore 	in 	violation
of 	section 	3543.5(a)?
CONCLUSIONS 	OF 	LAW
In 	Novato 	Unified 	School 	District 	(1982) 	PERB 	Decision 	No.
210, 	the 	Board 	set 	forth 	the 	test 	for 	retaliation 	or
discrimination 	in 	light 	of 	the 	NLRB 	decision 	in Wright 	Line
(1980) 	251 	NLRB 	1083 	[105 	LRRM 	1169] 	enf. 	in 	part 	(1st 	Cir. 	1981)
662 	F.2d 	899 	[108 	LRRM 	2513]. 	Under 	Novato, 	unlawful 	motivation
must 	be 	proven 	in 	order 	to 	find 	a 	violation.
In 	both 	cases, 	a 	nexus 	or 	connection must 	be 	demonstrated
between 	the 	employer's 	conduct 	and 	the 	exercise 	of 	a 	protected
right 	resulting 	in 	harm 	or 	potential 	harm 	to 	that 	right.
In 	order 	to 	establish 	a 	prima 	facie 	case, 	charging 	party
must 	first 	prove 	the 	subject 	employee 	engaged 	in protected
ac 	. 	. t	t 	y. 5	
ivi 	Then 	it 	must 	prove 	that 	the 	person(s) 	who 	made 	the
decision 	that 	resulted 	in 	the 	harm were 	aware 	of 	such 	activity.
Lastly, 	it 	must 	prove 	that 	the 	subject 	adverse 	action was 	taken,
in whole 	or 	in part, 	as 	a 	result 	of 	such 	protected 	activity.
5 Section 	3543 	states, 	in 	pertinent 	part, 	that 	public 	school
employees:
.. 	have 	the 	right 	to 	form, 	join 	and
participate 	in 	the 	activities 	of 	employee
organizations 	of 	their 	own 	choosing 	for 	the
purpose 	of 	representation 	on 	all 	matters 	of
employer-employee 	relations.
14

Proving the existence of unlawful motivation can be a
difficult burden. 	The Board acknowledged that when it stated the
following in Carlsbad, supra:
Proof of Unlawful Intent Where Offered or
Required
Unlawful motivation, purpose or intent is
essentially a state of mind, a subjective
condition generally known only to the charged
party. Direct and affirmative proof is not
always available or possible. However,
following generally accepted legal principals
the presence of such unlawful motivation,
purpose or intent may be established by
inference from the entire record.
In addition, the Board, in Novato, supra, set forth examples
of the types of circumstances to be examined in a determination
of whether union animus is present and a motivating factor in the
employer's action(s) . The type of circumstances to be examined
are (1) disparate treatment of the charging party, (2) proximity
of time between the participation in protected activity and the
adverse action, (3) inconsistent explanation of the employer's
action (s), (4) departure from established procedures or
standards, and (5) an inadequate investigation. 	See also Baldwin
Park Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 221.
There is no doubt that Mindel engaged in protected activity
when he filed a grievance regarding his failure to receive a
summer school assignment.
The second issue to be examined is whether the decision-
maker was aware of Mindel's protected activity. 	The evidence
shows that Wall made the decision to close Mindel's class in
October of 1987. The evidence also shows that Wall was aware of
15
Proving 	the 	existence 	of 	unlawful 	motivation 	can 	be 	a
difficult 	burden. 	The 	Board 	acknowledged 	that 	when 	it 	stated 	the
following 	in 	Carlsbad, 	supra:
Proof 	of 	Unlawful 	Intent 	Where 	Offered 	or
Reguired
Unlawful 	motivation, 	purpose 	or 	intent 	is
essentially 	a 	state 	of 	mind, 	a 	subjective
condition 	generally 	known 	only 	to 	the 	charged
party. 	Direct 	and 	affirmative 	proof 	is 	not
always 	available 	or possible. 	However,
following 	generally 	accepted 	legal 	principals
the 	presence 	of 	such 	unlawful 	motivation,
purpose 	or 	intent 	may 	be 	established 	by
inference 	from 	the 	entire 	record.
In 	addition, 	the 	Board, 	in 	Novato, 	supra, 	set 	forth 	examples
of 	the 	types 	of 	circumstances 	to 	be 	examined 	in 	a 	determination
of 	whether 	union 	animus 	is 	present 	and 	a 	motivating 	factor 	in 	the
employer's 	action(s). 	The 	type 	of 	circumstances 	to 	be 	examined
are 	(1) 	disparate 	treatment 	of 	the 	charging 	party, 	(2) 	proximity
of 	time 	between 	the 	participation 	in protected 	activity 	and 	the
adverse 	action, 	(3) 	inconsistent 	explanation 	of 	the 	employer's
action(s), 	(4) 	departure 	from 	established procedures 	or
standards, 	and 	(5) 	an 	inadequate 	investigation. 	See 	also 	Baldwin
Park 	Unified 	School 	District 	(1982) 	PERB 	Decision 	No. 	221.
There 	is 	no 	doubt 	that 	Mindel 	engaged 	in protected 	activity
when 	he 	filed 	a 	grievance 	regarding 	his 	failure 	to 	receive 	a
summer 	school 	assignment.
The 	second 	issue 	to 	be 	examined 	is 	whether 	the 	decision-
maker 	was 	aware 	of 	Mindel's 	protected 	activity. 	The 	evidence
shows 	that 	Wall 	made 	the 	decision 	to 	close 	Mindel's 	class 	in
October 	of 	1987. 	The 	evidence 	also 	shows 	that 	Wall 	was 	aware 	of
15

the grievance on the summer school employment denial as he
personally denied the grievance as being untimely. With regard
to the petition sent to Cortina, the record is not as clear.
Mindel insists that not only did Wall know of the petition, he
(Wall) told Mindel that he "caught hell from downtown" about it.
Wall, on the other hand, insists that he did not know of the
petition until he started to prepare a defense to this case.
Although there is no independent proof that Wall was made aware
of the petition, it is unlikely that a school administrator would
receive a petition signed by eleven adult students and not
discuss it with the principal of the involved school. However,
Wall's knowledge of the summer school denial grievance is
sufficient to support a determination that the Charging Party has
met his burden of demonstrating that Mindel had engaged in
protected activity which was known to the District administrator
taking the subject adverse action.
The Charging Party must, in order to prevail, provide
evidence proving that the cancellation of the commercial
photography class was motivated, at least in part, by such
protected activity.
In order to determine whether such cancellation was a result
of union animus, the five circumstances set forth by the Board in
Novato and Baldwin Park, supra, must be examined.
The first of these circumstances concerns the existence of
any disparate treatment of the charging party. 	There were
charges and counter-charges regarding enrollment levels of
16
the 	grievance 	on 	the 	summer 	school 	employment 	denial 	as 	he
personally 	denied 	the 	grievance 	as 	being 	untimely. 	With 	regard
to 	the 	petition 	sent 	to 	Cortina, 	the 	record 	is 	not 	as 	clear.
Mindel 	insists 	that 	not 	only 	did 	Wall 	know 	of 	the 	petition, 	he
(Wall) 	told 	Mindel 	that 	he 	"caught 	hell 	from 	downtown" 	about 	it.
Wall, 	on 	the 	other 	hand, 	insists 	that 	he 	did 	not 	know 	of 	the
petition 	until 	he 	started 	to 	prepare 	a 	defense 	to 	this 	case.
Although 	there 	is 	no 	independent 	proof 	that 	Wall 	was 	made 	aware
of 	the 	petition, 	it 	is 	unlikely 	that 	a 	school 	administrator 	would
receive 	a 	petition 	signed 	by 	eleven 	adult 	students 	and 	not
discuss 	it 	with 	the 	principal 	of 	the 	involved 	school. 	However,
Wall's 	knowledge 	of 	the 	summer 	school 	denial 	grievance 	is
sufficient 	to 	support 	a 	determination 	that 	the 	Charging 	Party 	has
met 	his 	burden 	of 	demonstrating 	that 	Mindel 	had 	engaged 	in
protected 	activity 	which was 	known 	to 	the 	District 	administrator
taking 	the 	subject 	adverse 	action.
The 	Charging 	Party 	must, 	in 	order 	to 	prevail, 	provide
evidence 	proving 	that 	the 	cancellation of 	the 	commercial
photography 	class 	was 	motivated, 	at 	least 	in 	part, 	by 	such
protected 	activity.
In order 	to 	determine whether 	such 	cancellation was 	a 	result
of 	union 	animus, 	the 	five 	circumstances 	set 	forth 	by 	the 	Board 	in
Novato 	and 	Baldwin 	Park, 	supra. 	must 	be 	examined.
The 	first 	of 	these 	circumstances 	concerns 	the 	existence 	of
any 	disparate 	treatment 	of 	the 	charging 	party. 	There were
charges 	and 	counter-charges 	regarding 	enrollment 	levels 	of
16

various classes at the Center during the fall semester, 1987.
Mindel listed twelve classes that he believed, based on
observation alone, were well below the minimum levels set forth
in the CBA. However, Wall credibly testified that he closed two
other classes with low enrollment and that there were compelling
reasons why he did not close two or three others, despite low
enrollment .
Mindel's casual personal observations, without additional
evidence, are insufficient to prove there were other classes with
low enrollment that were improperly allowed to continue. 	Absent
this proof there can be no determination that Mindel was treated
in a disparate manner.
The second of the subject circumstances concerns the
proximity of time between the participation in protected activity
and the adverse action. 	The summer school employment denial
grievance was filed in June of 1987. 	The class cancellation
occurred in early October of 1987. 	This proximity of time could
add support to an inference there was some level of causal inter-
relationship involved but timing alone is not sufficient to
create such an inference. Moreland Elementary School District
(1982 ) PERB Decision No. 227; Charter Oak Unified School District
(1984) PERB Decision No. 404.
The next circumstance to be examined is whether there is an
inconsistent explanation of the employer's action(s) . In this
case there seems to be no such inconsistency. Wall closely
monitored the class during the first few weeks and closed it in
17
various 	classes 	at 	the 	Center 	during 	the 	fall 	semester, 	1987.
Mindel 	listed 	twelve 	classes 	that 	he 	believed, 	based 	on
observation 	alone, 	were 	well 	below 	the 	minimum 	levels 	set 	forth
in 	the 	CBA. 	However, 	Wall 	credibly 	testified 	that 	he 	closed 	two
other 	classes 	with 	low 	enrollment 	and 	that 	there 	were 	compelling
reasons 	why 	he 	did 	not 	close 	two 	or 	three 	others, 	despite 	low
enrollment.
Mindel's 	casual 	personal 	observations, 	without 	additional
evidence, 	are 	insufficient 	to 	prove 	there 	were 	other 	classes 	with
low 	enrollment 	that 	were 	improperly 	allowed 	to 	continue. 	Absent
this 	proof 	there 	can 	be 	no 	determination 	that 	Mindel 	was 	treated
in 	a 	disparate 	manner.
The 	second 	of 	the 	subject 	circumstances 	concerns 	the
proximity 	of 	time 	between 	the 	participation 	in 	protected 	activity
and 	the 	adverse 	action. 	The 	summer 	school 	employment 	denial
grievance 	was 	filed 	in 	June 	of 	1987. 	The 	class 	cancellation
occurred 	in 	early 	October 	of 	1987. 	This 	proximity 	of 	time 	could
add 	support 	to 	an 	inference 	there 	was 	some 	level 	of 	causal 	inter-
relationship 	involved 	but 	timing 	alone 	is 	not 	sufficient 	to
create 	such 	an 	inference. 	Moreland 	Elementary 	School 	District
(1982) 	PERB 	Decision No. 	227; 	Charter 	Oak Unified 	School 	District
(1984) 	PERB 	Decision 	No. 	404.
The 	next 	circumstance 	to 	be 	examined 	is 	whether 	there 	is 	an
inconsistent 	explanation 	of 	the 	employer's 	action(s). 	In 	this
case 	there 	seems 	to 	be 	no 	such 	inconsistency. 	Wall 	closely
monitored 	the 	class 	during 	the 	first 	few weeks 	and 	closed 	it 	in
17

its 15th meeting. 	It had attained its highest level of
attendance, 18, only twice during these 15 sessions. 	There is
nothing in these facts that would support an inference of
unlawful motivation.
The fourth circumstance to be examined is whether there were
any departures from established procedures or standards. 	With
the exception of Mindel's charge that the Center failed to close
other low enrollment classes, there were no such departures
alleged.
The last circumstance is an examination of the existence of
any inadequate investigation. The evidence set forth in this
case reveals nothing with regard to any investigation, inadequate
or otherwise.
The analysis set forth above shows that there is
insufficient evidence to support a conclusion that the
cancellation of Mindel's commercial photography class was the
result of union animus or otherwise improperly motivated.
Much of Mindel's charge flowed from his insistence that Wall
told him that he (Wall) had been chastised for the December 1986
petition. 	However, Wall denied making this statement. Absent
some proof that the statement was made and/or some other
corroborating evidence that Wall was negatively disposed towards
Mindel's employment status because of this petition or some other
protected activity, the Charging Party has failed to meet its
burden of proof.
18
its
	15th
	meeting.
	It
	had
	attained
	its
	highest
	level
	of
attendance,
	18,
	only
	twice 	during
	these
	15
	sessions.
	There
	is
nothing
	in
	these
	facts
	that
	would
	support
	an
	inference 	of
unlawful 	motivation.
The
	fourth
	circumstance
	to
	be
	examined
	is
	whether
	there
	were
any
	departures
	from
	established
	procedures
	or
	standards.
	With
the 	exception 	of
	Mindel
1 s
	charge
	that
	the
	Center
	failed
	to
	close
other
	low
	enrollment
	classes, 	there
	were
	no
	such
	departures
alleged.
The
	last
	circumstance
	is
	an
	examination
	of 	the 	existence
	of
any
	inadequate
	investigation.
	The
	evidence
	set
	forth 	in
	this
case
	reveals
	nothing 	with 	regard
	to
	any
	investigation,
	inadequate
or 	otherwise.
The
	analysis
	set
	forth
	above
	shows
	that
	there
	is
insufficient
	evidence
	to
	support
	a
	conclusion
	that
	the
cancellation
	of 	Mindel's
	commercial 	photography
	class
	was
	the
result
	of
	union
	animus
	or 	otherwise 	improperly 	motivated.
Much
	of 	Mindel's 	charge
	flowed
	from
	his 	insistence
	that
	Wall
told
	him
	that
	he 	(Wall) 	had 	been
	chastised 	for 	the
	December 	1986
petition.
	However, 	Wall
	denied
	making
	this
	statement. 	Absent
some
	proof
	that
	the 	statement
	was 	made
	and/or
	some
	other
corroborating
	evidence
	that
	Wall 	was
	negatively 	disposed 	towards
Mindel's
	employment
	status
	because 	of
	this 	petition 	or
	some
	other
protected 	activity, 	the
	Charging 	Party has
	failed 	to
	meet
	its
burden 	of 	proof.
18

Based on the above analysis, it is determined that the
District did not cancel Mindel's commercial photography class
because of his protected activities and, therefore, did not
violate section 3543.5(a).
SUMMARY
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law, and a thorough examination of the entire record, it is
determined that there is insufficient evidence upon which to
conclude that the District has violated sections 3543.5(a) , (b)
or any other section of the Act. 	Therefore, the Charge and its
accompanying Complaint must be dismissed.
PROPOSED ORDER
Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and
the entire record of this case, it is hereby ordered that the
entire Complaint and the underlying Unfair Practice Charge are
DISMISSED.
Pursuant to California Administrative Code, title 8,
section 32305, this Proposed Decision and Order shall become
final unless a party files a statement of exceptions with the
Board itself at the headquarters office in Sacramento within 20
days of service of this Decision. In accordance with PERB
Regulations, the statement of exceptions should identify by page
citation or exhibit number the portions of the record, if any,
relied upon for such exceptions. See California Administrative
Code, title 8, section 32300. A document is considered "filed"
when actually received before the close of business (5:00 p.m.)
19
Based 	on
	the
	above
	analysis,
	it
	is
	determined
	that
	the
District
	did
	not 	cancel 	Mindel's
	commercial
	photography
	class
because 	of
	his 	protected
	activities
	and,
	therefore,
	did 	not
violate
	section
	3543.S(a).
SUMMARY
Based 	on
	the
	foregoing 	Findings 	of 	Fact
	and
	Conclusions
	of
Law,
	and
	a
	thorough 	examination
	of
	the
	entire
	record,
	it
	is
determined
	that
	there
	is
	insufficient
	evidence
	upon
	which
	to
conclude
	that
	the
	District
	has
	violated 	sections 	3543.S(a),
	(b)
or
	any
	other 	section
	of 	the
	Act.
	Therefore,
	the
	Charge 	and
	its
accompanying 	Complaint
	must 	be
	dismissed.
PROPOSED
	ORDER
Upon
	the 	foregoing 	Findings 	of 	Fact,
	Conclusions
	of
	Law
	and
the
	entire
	record 	of
	this
	case,
	it
	is
	hereby
	ordered
	that
	the
entire
	Complaint
	and
	the 	underlying 	Unfair
	Practice
	Charge
	are
DISMISSED.
Pursuant
	to 	California 	Administrative
	Code,
	title
	8,
section
	32305,
	this
	Proposed 	Decision
	and Order
	shall
	become
final
	unless
	a
	party
	files
	a
	statement 	of 	exceptions 	with
	the
Board
	itself
	at
	the 	headquarters
	office 	in
	Sacramento
	within
	20
days 	of 	service 	of
	this
	Decision. 	In
	accordance with
	PERB
Regulations, 	the 	statement 	of 	exceptions 	should
	identify
	by 	page
citation
	or 	exhibit
	number
	the 	portions 	of 	the 	record,
	if
	any,
relied
	upon
	for
	such 	exceptions.
	See
	California Administrative
Code,
	title
	8, 	section
	32300.
	A
document
	is
	considered 	"filed"
when
	actually 	received 	before 	the 	close 	of 	business 	(5:00 	p.m.)
19

on the last day set for filing ". 	. or when sent by telegraph
or certified or Express United States mail, postmarked not later
than the last day set for filing 	See California
Administrative Code, title 8, section 32135. Code of Civil
Procedure section 1013 shall apply. Any statement of exceptions
and supporting brief must be served concurrently with its filing
upon each party to this proceeding. 	Proof of service shall
accompany each copy served on a party or filed with the Board
itself. See California Administrative Code, title 8, sections
32300, 32305 and 32140.
Dated : 	August 28, 1989 	allent BankALLEN R. LINK
Administrative Law Judge
20
on
	the
	last
	day
	set
	for
	filing"
	or
	when
	sent
	by
	telegraph
or
	certified
	or
	Express 	United
	States
	mail,
	postmarked
	not
	later
than
	the
	last
	day
	set
	for
	filing
	. 	"
	See
	California
Administrative
	Code,
	title
	8,
	section
	32135.
	Code
	of
	Civil
Procedure
	section
	1013
	shall
	apply.
	Any
	statement 	of
	exceptions
and
	supporting
	brief
	must
	be 	served
	concurrently with
	its
	filing
upon
	each
	party 	to
	this
	proceeding. 	Proof
	of
	service
	shall
accompany
	each
	copy
	served
	on
	a
	party 	or
	filed
	with
	the
	Board
itself.
	See
	California
	Administrative
	Code,
	title
	8,
	sections
32300,
	32305 	and
	32140.
Dated:
	August 	28,
	1989
~	
ALiiN
	R. 	LINK
Administrative
	Law
	Judge
20