California Teachers Association (Zalemini) (PERB 1170E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
JAN 	ZALEMINI, 	'
Charging 	Party,
v.
CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION,
Respondent.
)
)
) 	Case No. 	LA-CO-700
PERB Decision No. 	1170
September 	23, 	1996
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances: 	Jan Zalemini, 	on her own behalf; 	Rosalind D. 	Wolf,
Attorney, 	for California Teachers Association.
Before Caffrey, 	Chairman; 	Garcia and Johnson, 	Members.
DECISION AND 	ORDER
GARCIA, 	Member: 	This 	case 	is before the Public Employment
Relations Board 	(Board) 	on appeal 	by Jan Zalemini 	(Zalemini) 	to a
Board agent's dismissal 	(attached) 	of her unfair practice 	charge.
Zalemini 	filed an unfair practice 	charge 	alleging 	that 	the
California Teachers Association 	(CTA) 	breached 	the 	duty of 	fair
representation mandated by 	section 	3544.9 	of 	the 	Educational
Employment 	Relations Act 	(EERA), 	thereby violating EERA section
3543.6(b),1 apparently by handling her grievances 	improperly.
1EERA is 	codified at Government 	Code 	section 	3540 	et 	seq.
Section 3544.9 	states:
The 	employee 	organization 	recognized 	or
certified as 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	for
the purpose 	of meeting and negotiating 	shall
fairly 	represent 	each 	and 	every 	employee 	in
the appropriate unit.
EERA section 3543.6 	states, 	in pertinent part:
_____ )

After 	investigation, 	the 	Board agent 	dismissed the 	charge 	for
lack of 	jurisdiction, 	since 	the 	charge was untimely 	filed. 	The
Board agent 	also 	noted that 	the 	charge 	failed 	to 	establish a
prima 	facie 	case 	of 	a violation of 	EERA.
The 	Board has 	reviewed the 	entire 	record 	in this 	case,
including 	the unfair practice 	charge, 	the warning and dismissal
letters, 	Zalemini's appeal, 	and CTA's 	response. 	The Board finds
the warning and dismissal 	letters 	to be 	free 	of prejudicial 	error
and adopts 	them as 	the decision of 	the Board itself.
The unfair practice 	charge 	in Case No. 	LA-CO-700 	is 	hereby
DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE 	TO AMEND.
Chairman 	Caffrey and Member Johnson 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
It 	shall 	be unlawful 	for an employee
organization to:
(b) 	Impose 	or threaten to 	impose 	reprisals
on employees, 	to discriminate or threaten to
discriminate against 	employees, 	or otherwise
to interfere with, 	restrain, 	or coerce
employees because 	of 	their exercise 	of 	rights
guaranteed by 	this 	chapter.
22

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	PETE WILSON, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Los Angeles Regional Office
3530 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 650
Los Angeles, CA 90010-2334
(213)736-3127
July 1, 	1996
Jan Zalimeni
Re: 	Unfair Practice Charge No. 	LA-CO-700, 	Jan Zalimeni v.
California Teachers Association
DISMISSAL AND REFUSAL TO 	ISSUE A COMPLAINT
Dear Ms. Zalimeni:
On April 24, 	1996, 	you filed the above-referenced unfair practice
charge alleging the California Teachers Association 	(CTA)
violated the Educational Employment Relations Act 	(EERA or Act).
On June 12, 	1996, 	I called you, 	and left a message asking you to
contact me regarding this charge. 	You did not return that call.
On June 13, 	1996, 	I left a second message indicating that I was
going to begin the process to dismiss your charge unless you
contacted me by June 14, 	with further information regarding the
charge. 	You did not return any of my calls, 	and I issued a
warning letter on June 17, 	1996.
I indicated to you, 	in my attached letter dated June 17, 	1996,
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. 	You were further advised that, 	unless you amended the
charge to state a prima facie case or withdrew it prior to June
27, 	1996, 	the charge would be dismissed.
On June 24, 	1996, 	I received a handwritten note from you
indicating that you had not 	received any of 	the phone messages 	I
had left for you. 	That note provided in its entirety,
That is not my phone. 	That is not my voice.
The person may or may here/there + I use a
P.O. 	Box not give me messages! 	Phone is not
answered 	--if person does answer it 	it isn't
until 9:30 p.m. 	Phone is locked up. 	She is a
dingbat older person. 	The SRS are kicking me
out due to my age! 	I may be on the streets
seriously. 	This will get dismissed vs. 	CTA -
over my dead body. 	(emphasis 	in original.)

LA-CO-700
July 1, 	1996
Page 2
My voice mail I had to get is 	(619) 	687-8960.
Go see 	"Trading Places" movie + you'll see
how I have to deal with things! 	Then
multiply that by 100! 	Then check you med.
dict, on results of 	"abuse." 	I had to be
abused as a result of what was done to me.
(This is San Diego. 	I am not military or
military wife.)
Your original charge, 	filed April 24, 	1996, 	listed your telephone
number as 	(619) 	487-0342. 	That is the number I called on
June 12, 	1996, 	and June 13, 	1996. 	After receiving the above-
quoted note listing your new number as 	(619) 	687-8960, 	I called
you several times at that number. 	On June 24, 	1996, 	I called you
in the morning, 	leaving a message reminding you of the June 27,
1996, 	deadline for amending the charge, 	and providing you with my
phone number if you had any questions. 	Later that day I called
and left a second message with my phone number and indicated the
charge would be dismissed unless you amended the charge.
On June 25, 	1996, 	I left a third message reiterating my statement
in the June 17, 	1996 Warning Letter that any letters not served
on the Respondent would not be considered, 	and that 	it would be
necessary for you to file an amended charge before June 27,
1996.1 You did not 	return any of my calls, 	nor have I 	received
an amended charge or a request for withdrawal. 	Therefore, 	I am
dismissing the charge based on the facts and reasons 	contained in
my June 17, 	1996 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. 	(Cal. Code of Regs., 	tit. 	8,
sec. 	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 p.m.) 	or sent by telegraph,
certified or Express United States mail postmarked no later
than the last date set for filing. 	(Cal. 	Code of Regs., 	tit. 	8,
sec. 	32135.) 	Code of Civil Procedure section 1013 shall apply.
The Board's address is:
1In addition to the June 20, 	1996 letter quoted above, 	I
also received letters on June 24th, 	25th, 	27th, 	and July 1st.
None of the letters provided facts demonstrating a prima facie
violation of the EERA. 	It did not appear that any of the letters
had been served on the Respondent.

LA-CO-700
July 1, 	1996
Page 3
Public Employment Relations Board
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, 	CA 95814
If you file a timely appeal of the refusal to issue a complaint,
any other party may file with the Board an original 	and five
copies of a statement in opposition within twenty 	(20) 	calendar
days following the date of service of the appeal. 	(Cal. 	Code of
Regs., tit. 8, sec. 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 Cal. 	Code of Regs., 	tit. 	8,
sec. 	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.
Extension of Time
A request for an extension of time, 	in which to file a document
with the Board itself, 	must be in writing and filed with the
Board at 	the previously noted address. 	A request 	for an
extension must be filed at least three 	(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. 	(Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 8, sec. 32132.)
Final Date
If no appeal is filed within the specified time limits, 	the
dismissal will become final when the time limits have expired.
Sincerely,
ROBERT THOMPSON
Deputy General 	Counsel
Tammy L. Samsel
Regional Attorney
Attachment

S T A T E OF CALIFORNIA 	PETE WILSON, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Los Angeles Regional Office
3530 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 650
Los Angeles, CA 90010-2334
(213)736-3127
June 17, 	1996
Jan 	Zalimeni
Re: 	Unfair Practice Charge No. 	LA-CO-700,
Jan 	Zalimeni v. 	California Teachers Association
WARNING 	LETTER
Dear Ms. 	Zalimeni:
On April 	24, 	1996, 	you filed the above-referenced unfair practice
charge 	alleging 	the 	California 	Teachers 	Association 	(CTA)
violated 	the 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations Act 	(EERA or A c t ) .
On June 	12, 	1996 	I 	called you, 	and left 	a message asking you 	to
contact me 	regarding 	this 	charge. 	You did not 	return that 	call.
On June 	13, 	1996, 	I left a second message 	indicating that 	I was
going 	to begin 	the process 	to 	dismiss 	your 	charge unless 	you
contacted me by June 	14, 	with 	further 	information 	regarding 	the
charge. 	To date you have 	not 	returned my 	calls.
Your charge, 	as 	initially filed1, 	consists 	of 	four handwritten
pages which provide, 	in part:
My 	contract 	rights 	. . . 	to 	constitutional
rights were violated. 	I had no due
process 	. . . 	no 	free 	speech 	. . . 	my property 	was
damaged. 	I was and am as a non-person legally. 	A
political prisoner. 	There 	is no 	time problem.
And 	they were 	informed all 	along. 	I 	had no
representation. 	No violation. 	Indentured 	. 	. 	.
and 	effects 	of 	. . . 	no 	time problem re 	indenture,
(ellipsis 	in original.)
You also 	contend, 	"grievance 	rep did zero 	for me," 	and that you
were 	replaced with a 	first 	year 	teacher.
1Since the 	filing of 	the 	initial 	charge, 	you have also 	sent
several 	handwritten 	letters 	regarding 	this 	charge. 	It 	does 	not
appear that 	these 	letters 	have been served on the Respondent, 	and
will 	therefore 	not 	be 	considered as 	part 	of 	the 	charge.

LA-CO-700
June 17, 	1996
Page 	2
It 	appears 	from the 	charge 	that 	you 	are 	contending 	CTA 	failed 	to
help you because 	of 	your 	"incurable 	genetic 	condition." 	The
charge 	indicates:
Besides, 	I have an incurable genetic
condition 	. . . 	it 	was 	inherited 	. . . 	it 	was
very high intelligence + skills 	. 	. 	. 	and
raised 	to use 	brain 	for public 	interest 	in an
honest elected family 	. 	. 	. 	also good faith +
fair dealing 	for all. 	Those 	conditions
should have 	been accommodated 	just 	as 	any
other. 	In the 	system it was 	a disability 	+ 	I
couldn't 	do anything about 	it. 	(Maybe 	now 	I
could.) 	(ellipsis 	in original)
EERA 	§ 	3541.5(a)(1) 	provides 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations
Board 	shall 	not, 	"issue 	a 	complaint 	in respect 	of 	any 	charge
based 	upon 	an 	alleged unfair practice 	occurring more 	than 	six
months prior to the 	filing of 	the 	charge." 	It 	is your burden, 	as
the 	charging party 	to 	demonstrate 	the 	charge 	has 	been 	timely
filed. 	(See Tehachapi Unified School District 	(1993) 	PERB -
Decision No. 	1024.) 	It 	is unclear from the 	charge when any of
the 	alleged unfair practices 	occurred because 	the 	charge 	fails 	to
assert any references 	to dates whatsoever. 	Accordingly, 	your
charge 	fails 	to 	state 	a prima 	facie violation within 	the
jurisdiction of 	PERB.
Although not 	specifically asserted, 	you may be 	alleging 	the
exclusive 	representative 	denied you 	the 	right 	to 	fair
representation 	guaranteed 	by 	EERA 	section 	3544.9 	and 	thereby
violated section 3543.6(b). 	PERB regulation 32615(a)(5) 	states a
charge 	shall 	contain a 	"clear and 	concise 	statement 	of 	the 	facts
and 	conduct 	alleged 	to 	constitute 	an unfair practice." 	A
charging party should allege the 	"who, 	what, 	when, 	where, 	and
how" 	of 	an unfair practice. 	(United Teachers-Los 	Angeles
(Ragsdale) 	(1992) 	PERB Decision No. 	944.) 	Mere legal 	conclusions
are 	insufficient. 	(See 	State 	of 	California 	(Department 	of 	Food
and Agriculture 	(1994) 	PERB Decision No. 	1071-S.) 	It 	is unclear
from 	the 	charge 	what 	conduct 	by 	CTA allegedly violated 	the 	EERA.
For example, 	although you state 	the 	"grievance 	rep did 	zero" 	for
you, 	the 	charge 	does 	not 	indicate whether you ever 	filed a
grievance, 	or any 	facts 	regarding any 	representation by CTA
during a grievance. 	Accordingly, 	your charge 	fails 	to state a
prima 	facie violation within 	the 	jurisdiction 	of 	PERB.
In order to state a prima 	facie violation of EERA § 	3543.6(b),
you must 	show that 	CTA's 	conduct was 	arbitrary, 	discriminatory or
in bad 	faith. 	In order 	to 	state a prima 	facie 	case 	of 	arbitrary
conduct violating 	the 	duty of 	fair representation, 	you:

LA-CO-700
June 17, 	1996
Page 3
". 	. 	. must at a. minimum include an assertion
of sufficient 	facts 	from which it becomes
apparent how or in what manner the exclusive
representative's action or inaction was
without a rational basis or devoid of honest
judgment. 	(Emphasis added.)" 	[Reed 	District
Teachers Association. 	CTA/NEA 	(Reyes) 	(1983)
PERB Decision No. 332, p. 9, 	citing Rocklin
Teachers 	Professional Association 	(Romero)
(1980) 	PERB Decision No. 	124.]
Here the 	charge fails 	to present 	facts 	indicating what 	conduct by
CTA is at issue. 	The charge alleges CTA "did zero" 	for you, 	but
does not 	include any more specific 	information regarding the
basis of 	that allegation. 	Nor does the charge present facts
indicating CTA acted without a rational basis 	or devoid of honest
judgment. 	For this reason your charge fails to state a prima
facie violation within the jurisdiction of 	PERB.
For these reasons the charge, 	as presently written, 	does not
state a prima facie case. 	If there are any factual 	inaccuracies
in this 	letter or additional 	facts which would correct 	the
deficiencies explained above, 	please amend the charge. 	The
amended charge 	should be prepared on a standard PERB unfair
practice 	charge form, 	clearly labeled First Amended Charge,
contain all 	the facts and allegations you wish to make, 	and
be signed under penalty of perjury by the charging party. 	The
amended charge must be served on the 	respondent and the original
proof of service must be filed with PERB. 	If I do not receive an
amended charge or withdrawal from you before June 27. 	1996. 	I
shall dismiss your charge. 	If you have any questions, 	please
call me at 	(213) 	736-7508.
Sincerely,
Tammy L. 	Samsel
Regional Attorney
cc: