Associated Administrators of Los Angeles (Daniels) (PERB 1233E)

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

CAROLINE A. DANIELS,
Charging Party, Case No. LA-CO-748
Vv. PERB Decision No. 1233

ASSOCIATED ADMINISTRATORS OF

November 20, 1997
LOS ANGELES, : ,

Respondent.

Appearance: Frank Sanes, Jr., Attorney, for Caroline A. Daniels.
Before Caffrey, Chairman; Johnson and Dyer, Members.
DECISION

CAFFREY, Chairman: This case is before the Public
Employment Relations Board (Board) on appeal by Caroline A.
Daniels (Daniels) of a Board agent's dismissal (attached) of her
unfair practice charge. In her charge, Daniels alleged that the
Associated Administrators of Los Angeles breached the duty of
fair representation guaranteed by section 3544.9 of the
Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA), and thereby violated

EERA section 3543.6(b).*

'RERA 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.

Section 3543.6 states, in pertinent part:

The 	Board has 	reviewed 	the 	entire 	record 	in 	this 	case,
including Daniels' 	unfair practice charge, 	the Board agent's
warning and dismissal letters, 	and Daniels' 	appeal 	thereto. 	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-748 	is 	hereby
DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE 	TO AMEND.
Members 	Johnson and Dyer 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
San Francisco Regional Office
177 Post Street, 9th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108-4737
(415) 439-6940
September 22, 	1997
Frank Sanes, Jr.
5777 W. 	Century Blvd., 	Suite 1060
Los Angeles, 	CA 	90045
Re: 	DISMISSAL OF CHARGE/REFUSAL TO ISSUE COMPLAINT
Caroline A. 	Daniels v. 	Associated Administrators of Los
Angeles
Unfair Practice Charge No. 	LA-CO-748
Dear Mr. Sanes:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge, 	filed August 26,
1997, 	alleges the Associated Administrators of Los Angeles 	(AALA)
failed to 	fairly represent bargaining unit member Caroline A.
Daniels. 	This conduct is alleged to violate Government Code
section 3543.6 of the Educational Employment Relations Act 	(EERA
or Act).
I indicated to you, 	in my attached letter dated September 10,
1997, 	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
September 17, 	1997, 	the charge would be dismissed.
I have not received either an amended charge or a request 	for
withdrawal. 	Therefore, 	I am dismissing the charge based on the
facts and reasons contained in my September 10, 	1997, 	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
-----~ 	_ 	_____{(....-----
•

r
Dismissal 	Letter
LA-CO-748
September 22, 	1997
Page 2
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:
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.)

Dismissal Letter
LA-CO-748
September 22, 	1997
Page 3
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
By Kristin L. 	Rosi
Regional Attorney
Attachment
cc: 	Roger Johnson

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	PETE WILSON, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
San Francisco Regional Office
177 Post Street, 9th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108-4737
(415) 439-6940
September 10, 	1997
Frank Sanes, Jr.
5777 W. 	Century Blvd., 	Suite 1060
Los Angeles, 	CA 	90045
Re: 	WARNING LETTER
Caroline A. 	Daniels v. Associated Administrators of Los
Angeles
Unfair Practice Charge No. 	LA-CO-748
Dear Mr. Sanes:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge, 	filed August 26,
1997, 	alleges the Associated Administrators of Los Angeles 	(AALA)
failed to 	fairly represent bargaining unit member Caroline A.
Daniels. 	This conduct is alleged to violate Government Code
section 3543.6 of the Educational Employment Relations Act 	(EERA
or Act).
Investigation of the charge revealed the following. 	Ms. 	Daniels
is employed by the Los Angeles Unified School District
(District), 	and is exclusively represented by the AALA.
On June 24, 	1997, Ms. Daniels received a notice from the District
informing her of a June 26, 	1997, 	meeting between herself and
District officials. 	Upon receiving this notice, Ms. Daniels
telephoned the AALA office in an attempt to speak with AALA
Executive Assistant Roger Johnson who was 	familiar with Ms.
Daniels problems with the District. 	Ms. 	Daniels was informed by
Office Manager Lorraine Bush that Mr. 	Johnson was unavailable at
the time. 	Ms. 	Bush reported the following information to
District police officers. 	In a sworn declaration to the court,
Ms. 	Bush stated that upon learning Mr. 	Johnson was unavailable
Ms. 	Daniels stated in an angry voice, 	"I think they 	(the
District) 	are trying to push me over the edge. 	If Lupe Reyes
gives me an unsatisfactory 	(evaluation) 	you'll 	read about me in
the paper on Friday, 	because I will kill her." 	Ms. Bush ended
the conversation by promising Ms. 	Daniels that Mr. 	Johnson would
return her call.
After ending the conversation with Ms. Daniels, Ms. 	Bush informed
Mr. Johnson of Ms. Daniels alleged threat. 	Mr. Johnson
telephoned District Superintendent James 	Figueroa to inform him
of the threat, 	and District police officers were notified soon

Warning Letter
LA-CO-748
September 10, 	1997
Page 2
after. 	After speaking with Mr. 	Figueroa, 	Mr. Johnson telephoned
Ms. 	Daniels and promised to represent her at the June 26, 	1997,
meeting. 	During this time period, 	District police officers
secured an arrest warrant for Ms. 	Daniels and Ms. 	Daniels was
subsequently 	incarcerated for three days before posting bond.
Based on the above stated facts, 	the charge as presently written,
fails to state a prima facie case 	for the reasons stated below.
Ms. 	Daniels asserts the AALA breached its duty of fair
representation by: 	(1) 	concealing that Ms. 	Bush intended to call
District police regarding the threat; 	(2) 	concealing that Ms.
Bush had informed Mr. 	Johnson of the threat and that Mr. 	Johnson
had cancelled the June 26, 	1997, meeting; 	(3) 	assisting District
police with their investigation; 	(4) 	allowing Ms. 	Bush to testify
at Ms. Daniels preliminary hearing; 	(5) 	allowing the District to
send Ms. 	Daniels the notice of unsatisfactory performance in the
mail; 	(6) 	allowing the District to send a notice which forbids
Daniels 	from discussing her personal problems with co-workers
during work hours, 	and; 	(7) 	waiving the time limits for grievance
filing until after Ms. 	Daniels preliminary hearing.
Charging Party has alleged that 	the exclusive representative
denied Charging Party the 	right 	to 	fair representation guaranteed
by EERA section 3544.9 and thereby violated section 3543.6(b).
In order to state a prima facie violation of this section of
EERA, 	Charging Party must show that the Association'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, 	a Charging Party:
" . . . 	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.]
Ms. 	Daniels' 	allegations fail to demonstrate the AALA acted
arbitrarily, 	discriminatorily or in bad faith. 	Acting on an
apparent threat of violence, 	AALA officials 	informed the proper
authorities and cooperated with police as 	statutorily mandated.
The fact that AALA represent Ms. 	Daniels with regard to
contractual 	issues does not relieve AALA of 	its responsibility to
r

Warning Letter
LA-CO-748
September 10, 	1997
Page 3
report threats of violence on public employees, 	nor does it
insulate Ms. Daniels if she makes such threats. 	Moreover, 	the
fact that Mr. 	Johnson and Ms. 	Bush may have concealed their
police report does not demonstrate arbitrary, 	discriminatory or
bad faith behavior on AALA's part. 	Indeed, 	it is likely Mr.
Johnson concealed his report to the District so as to not agitate
Ms. 	Daniels further. 	Such action is not without a rational basis
or devoid of honest judgment, 	and therefore fails to demonstrate
a prima facie case.
Ms. 	Daniels allegations regarding AALA's waiver of contractual
notice provisions and time limitations also fails to state a
prima facie violation of the EERA. 	Facts presented fail 	to
demonstrate AALA's waiver of these contractual provisions 	in this
case were arbitrary, 	or in bad faith. 	As Ms. Reyes was unable
and likely unwilling to meet with Ms. 	Daniels face to face, 	and
as Ms. 	Daniels was temporarily incarcerated after the alleged
threat, 	AALA's waiver of the meeting provision for unsatisfactory
evaluations was neither devoid of honest judgment, 	nor harmful to
Ms. Daniels. 	Moreover, AALA's waiver of grievance time lines
while Ms. 	Daniels fought felony charges seems to preserve Ms.
Daniels contractual 	rights and thus 	is hardly a breach of AALA's
duty owed to Ms. Daniels. 	As such, 	the charge fails to state a
prima facie violation of the duty of 	fair representation.
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 September 17. 	1997.
I shall dismiss your charge. 	If you have any questions, 	please
call me at 	(415) 	439-6940.
Sincerely,
Kristin L. Rosi
Regional Attorney
r