Long Beach Community College District (PERB 1378E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL 	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION AND 	ITS 	LONG BEACH
COMMUNITY COLLEGE 	CHAPTER #8,
Charging 	Party,
v.
LONG BEACH COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
) 	Case No. 	LA-CE-4096
PERB Decision No. 	1378
February 	28, 	2000
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances: 	California School 	Employees Association by
Madalyn J. 	Frazzini, 	Deputy Chief 	Counsel 	for California School
Employees 	Association and 	its 	Long 	Beach 	Community 	College
Chapter #8; 	Parker, 	Covert 	& Chidester by Spencer E. 	Covert,
Attorney 	for Long Beach Community College District.
Before Caffrey, 	Chairman; 	Dyer and Amador, 	Members.
DECISION
CAFFREY, 	Chairman: 	This case is before the Public
Employment Relations Board 	(PERB or Board) 	on appeal by the
California 	School 	Employees Association and 	its 	Long Beach
Community College Chapter #8 	(CSEA) 	of a Board agent's partial
dismissal 	of 	CSEA's 	unfair practice 	charge. 	The Board agent
dismissed those portions 	of 	the 	charge which alleged that 	the
Long Beach Community College District 	(District) 	violated 	section
3543.5(a), 	(b), 	(c) 	and 	(d) 	of the Educational Employment
Relations Act 	(EERA)1 by refusing to commence negotiations 	over a
1EERA is 	codified at Government 	Code 	section 3540 	et 	seq.
Unless 	otherwise 	indicated, 	all 	statutory references 	herein are
to the Government 	Code. 	Section 3543.5 	states, 	in pertinent
part:

successor 	collective 	bargaining 	agreement 	until 	CSEA 	ratified 	a
tentative 	agreement 	reached by 	the 	parties 	concerning 	a 	specific
contractual 	provision.2
It 	shall 	be 	unlawful 	for a public 	school
employer 	to 	do any of 	the 	following:
(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. 	For purposes 	of
this 	subdivision, 	"employee" 	includes an
applicant 	for 	employment 	or 	reemployment.
(b) 	Deny 	to employee 	organizations 	rights
guaranteed 	to 	them by 	this 	chapter.
(c) 	Refuse 	or 	fail 	to meet 	and negotiate 	in
good 	faith with 	an 	exclusive 	representative.
(d) 	Dominate 	or 	interfere with 	the 	formation
or 	administration 	of 	any 	employee
organization, 	or 	contribute 	financial 	or
other 	support 	to 	it, 	or 	in any way encourage
employees 	to 	join 	any 	organization 	in
preference 	to another.
The 	Board has 	reviewed 	the 	entire 	record 	in 	this 	case,
including 	the 	original 	and amended unfair practice 	charge, 	the
Board agent's 	partial 	warning and dismissal 	letters, 	CSEA's
appeal 	and 	the 	District's 	response 	thereto. 	Based 	on 	the
following 	discussion, 	the 	Board 	reverses 	the partial 	dismissal
and 	remands 	the 	case 	for 	issuance 	of 	a 	complaint.
20n October 27, 	1999, 	the 	PERB Office of 	the General 	Counsel
issued 	a 	complaint 	alleging 	that 	the 	District 	had violated 	EERA
section 	3543.5 	through 	other 	conduct 	described by 	CSEA 	in 	its
unfair practice 	charge.
22

BACKGROUND
In August 	1998, 	during reopener negotiations, 	the District
and CSEA reached agreement 	on modifications 	to Article 	12 	(Pay
and Allowances) 	of 	their collective bargaining agreement. 	The
agreement 	called 	for a 	salary adjustment 	effective 	retroactively
to July 	1, 	1997. 	The agreement provided that 	the 	retroactive
increase 	would be 	paid 	to bargaining unit 	members 	employed 	"on
the date 	of 	ratification of 	this provision," 	and to employees who
had retired 	from the District between July 	1, 	1997 	and 	"the 	date
of 	ratification of 	this Agreement." 	The August 	1998, 	agreement
also 	provided:
It 	is 	agreed and understood by 	the District
and 	CSEA 	that 	successor 	negotiations
regarding 	salary 	and 	other 	collective
bargaining 	agreement 	provisions 	will 	commence
upon 	completion of 	negotiations 	on
Article 	27. 	The District 	and CSEA will
utilize 	an 	interest-based 	bargaining 	process
facilitated by Mr. 	Ian Walke.
Note: 	This Tentative Agreement 	is NOT
-contingent 	upon 	reaching 	agreement 	on
Article 27. 	This Tentative Agreement 	shall
be 	processed 	for 	immediate 	ratification by
the parties 	in accordance with applicable
procedures.
The parties 	then 	ratified 	the August 	1998 	agreement 	and 	the
District 	proceeded 	to pay 	the 	retroactive 	salary 	increase 	to
eligible 	employees. 	The parties 	also began negotiations 	over
Article 	27 	and 	reached a 	tentative agreement 	on 	that 	article,
which was 	signed 	in January 	1999.
CSEA then 	requested 	that 	the 	District 	begin 	successor
negotiations. 	The District 	took the position that, 	under the
3

August 	1998 	agreement, 	ratification of 	the Article 27 	tentative
agreement was 	required prior to 	the 	commencement 	of 	successor
negotiations. 	From January through March 	1999, 	CSEA continued to
demand that 	successor negotiations begin, 	and the District
continued 	to maintain that 	ratification of 	the 	tentative
agreement 	on Article 	27 was 	required prior to 	the 	commencement 	of
bargaining. 	In late April, 	the District agreed to schedule
successor negotiations, 	the 	first 	session of which occurred on
June 	1, 	1999. 	The Article 27 	tentative agreement was not
ratified prior 	to 	the 	commencement 	of 	successor negotiations.
On July 12, 	1999, 	CSEA filed the instant unfair practice
charge. 	The charge as amended, 	alleges among other things, 	that
the District's 	conduct 	constituted a refusal 	to bargain, 	a
unilateral 	change 	in the terms 	of 	the parties' 	August 	1998
agreement, 	and interference with CSEA, 	in violation of 	EERA
section 3543.5(a), 	(b), 	(c) and (d).
DISCUSSION
This 	case 	involves 	a dispute 	over the meaning of 	the phrase
"completion of negotiations" 	contained in the parties' 	August
1998 agreement.
In 	interpreting contractual provisions, 	it 	is unnecessary to
look beyond the plain language 	of 	the 	contract when that 	language
is 	clear and unambiguous. 	(Marysville Joint Unified School
District 	(1983) 	PERB Decision No. 	314, 	at p. 	9.) 	However, 	when
contract 	language 	is 	found to be unclear or ambiguous, 	the Board
looks 	to bargaining history and 	the past practice 	of 	the parties
44

to ascertain the meaning of 	the 	language. 	(Barstow Unified
School District 	(1996) 	PERB Decision No. 	1138, 	at p. 	13.)
This 	case 	involves 	a dispute 	over whether the meaning 	of 	the
phrase 	"completion of negotiations," 	as used in the parties'
August 	1998 	agreement, 	is 	clear or not. 	Although the agreement
is 	silent 	as 	to a 	ratification requirement 	relative 	to
Article 	27, 	the District asserts 	that 	the parties 	intended to
include 	such a 	requirement. 	CSEA argues 	the opposite position.
In 	cases 	in which there 	is 	a 	legitimate dispute 	over 	the
meaning 	of 	an agreement, 	the Board has 	held that parties 	should
be 	given 	the 	opportunity 	to 	offer evidence 	to 	support 	their
differing 	interpretations. 	(Los Angeles Unified School 	District
(1984) 	PERB Decision No. 	407; 	Saddleback Community College
District 	(1984) 	PERB Decision No. 	433.) 	Furthermore, 	the Board
has 	held 	that 	factual 	allegations 	offered by a 	charging party are
to be 	considered 	true 	for purposes 	of 	determining whether 	there
has been a prima 	facie 	showing of 	a violation. 	(San Juan Unified
School District 	(1977) 	EERB3 Decision No. 	12.)
Here, 	the parties disagree over the meaning of 	contract
language. 	Taking CSEA's 	allegations as 	truthful 	at 	this 	stage 	of
PERB's process, 	the Board concludes 	that 	CSEA has 	demonstrated a
prima 	facie 	case 	that 	the District's 	conduct violated EERA
section 3543.5. 	Consequently, 	a complaint 	should be 	issued to
Prior to January 1978, 	PERB was known as 	the Educational
Employment Relations Board or EERB.
55

provide 	the parties 	the 	opportunity 	to 	offer evidence 	to 	support
their 	differing 	interpretations.
ORDER
The 	Board REVERSES 	the Board agent's 	partial 	dismissal 	in
Case No. 	LA-CE-4096 	and REMANDS 	the 	case 	to the Office of 	the
General 	Counsel 	for 	issuance 	of 	a 	complaint 	consistent with 	this
Decision.
Members 	Dyer and Amador joined 	in 	this Decision.
66