California State Employees Association (Bradford) (PERB 1421S)

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

ARMOND DOVAL BRADFORD,
Charging Party, Case No. SA-CO-232-S
Vv. PERB Decision No. 1421-S
CALIFORNIA STATE EMPLOYEES February 26, 2001
ASSOCIATION,
Respondent.

Appearance: Armond Doval Bradford, on his own behalf.

Before Amador, Baker and Whitehead, Members.

DECISION
BAKER, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board (Board)
on appeal by Armond Doval Bradford (Bradford) from the Board agent's dismissal (attached)
of his unfair practice charge.
The charge alleged that the California State Employees Association breached its duty of

fair representation in violation of Section 3519.5 of the Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills Act).'

' The Dills Act is codified at Government Code section 3512 et seq. Dills Act section
3519.5 provides, in relevant part:

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

The Board has reviewed the entire record in this case, including the unfair practice
charge, the warning and dismissal letters and Bradford's appeal. The Board finds the warning
and dismissal letters to be free from prejudicial error and adopts them as the decision of the
Board itself.
ORDER
The unfair practice charge in Case No. SA-CO-232-S is hereby DISMISSED
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
Members Amador and Whitehead joined in this Decision.
otherwise to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees because
of their exercise of rights guaranteed by this chapter.
2

STATE OF
CALIFORNIA	
GRAY
DA
VIS, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Sacramento Regional Office
I 031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
Telephone (916) 327-8386
Fax: (916J 327-6377
September 29, 2000
Armond Bradford
PO Box 1156
Davis, California 95617-1156
Re: 	Armond Doval Bradford
v.
California State Employees Association
Unfair Practice Charge No. SA-CO-232-S
DISMISSAL LETTER
Dear Mr. Bradford:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on July 21, 2000. Your charge alleges that the California State
Employees Association (CSEA or Union) violated the Ralph
C.
Dills Act (Dills Act)1 by
failing to meet it duty
of
fair representation.
I indicated to you in my attached letter dated September 22, 2000, 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 29, 2000, 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 22, 2000
letter.
Right to Appeal
Pursuant to PERB Regulations2, 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. (Regulation 32635(a).) Any document filed with the Board must contain the case
1 The Dills Act is codified at Government Code section 3512 et seq. The text
of
the
Dills Act and the Board's Regulations may be found on the Internet at www.perb.ca.gov.
2 PERB's Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq. Copies of the Regulations may be purchased from PERB's Publications
Coordinator, 1031 18th Street, Sacramento, CA 95814-417 4, and the text is available at
ww,.v.perb.ca.gov.

SA-CO-232-S
September 29, 2000
Page 2
name and number, and the original and five (5) copies
of
all documents must be provided
to
the Board.
A document is considered "filed" when actually received before the close
of
business (5 p.m.)
on the last day set for filing or when mailed by certified or Express United States mail, as
shown on the postal receipt or postmark, or delivered to a common carrier promising overnight
delivery,
as
shown on the carrier's receipt, not later than the last day set for filing.
(Regulations 32135(a) and 32130.)
A document is also considered "filed" when received by facsimile transmission before the
close
of
business on the last day for filing together with a Facsimile Transmission Cover Sheet
which meets the requirements
of
Regulation 32135(d), provided the filing party also places the
original, together with the required number
of
copies and proof
of
service, in the U.S. mail.
(Regulations 32135(b), (c) and (d); see also Regulations 32090 and 32130.)
The Board's address is:
Public Employment Relations Board
Attention: Appeals Assistant
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
FAX: (916) 327-7960
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. 	(Regulation 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 Regulation 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. A document filed by
facsimile transmission may be concurrently served via facsimile transmission on all parties to
the proceeding. (Regulation 32135(c).)
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. 	(Regulation 32132.)

SA-CO-232-S
September 29, 2000
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 	~n/..~--4:WI.IL
',,;~
Bernard McMonigle
Regional Attorney
Attachment
cc: 	Gary Reynolds,
Chief
Counsel
BMC:cke

STATE OF CALIFORNIA	
GRAY
DA VIS,
Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Sacramento Regional Office
I
031
I 8th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
T
dephone:
(916) 327-8386
Fax: (916) 327-6377
September 22, 2000
Armond
D.
Bradford
PO Box 1156
Davis, California 95617-1156
Re: 	Armond Doval Bradford
v.
California State Employees Association
Unfair Practice Charge No. SA-CO-232-S
WARNING LETTER
Dear Mr. Bradford:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on July 21, 2000. 	Your charge alleges that the California State
Employees Association (CSEA or Union) violated the Ralph
C.
Dills Act (Dills Act)1 by
failing to meet it duty
of
fair representation.
Your charge reveals the following.
In December 1999, you submitted a complaint to the State Personnel Board (SPB) because the
Department
of
General Services (DGS) had denied you reasonable accommodations. 	You
received no support for this complaint from CSEA. On January 28, 2000, you received a letter
in which DGS tried to use a rejection from probation to stop you from pursuing your
complaints. 	CSEA did not make a counter proposal or object to this tactic. 	On February 3,
2000, you forwarded to CSEA a list
of
reasons why the DGS settlement proposal was
unacceptable. In February, you also forwarded a witness list to CSEA and filed an unfair
practice charge with PERB against DGS. 	You requested help with this charge from CSEA, but
did not receive any support.
In February 2000, you had requested financial assistance from the Civil Division
of
CSEA, but
you were denied such assistance to help in the complaints you had with DGS.
In a letter of February 29, 2000, you asked DPA attorney Wendi Ross for a waiver
of
a time
limit for filing a grievance. 	You received no help or support with this request. 	On April 24,
2000, at your request, Lois Kugelmass withdrew on CSEA behalf as your representative in
your rejection from probation appeal before the SPB. Also in April 2000, you received a letter
from the SPB which addressed both your denial of a reasonable accommodation and your
appeal of a rejection while on probation. CSEA did not support or help you with the denial of
reasonable accommodation appeal
1 The Dills Act is codified at Government Code section 3512 et seq. The text of the
Dills Act and the Board's Regulations may be found on the Internet at wwv,r.perb.ca.gov.

SA-CO-232-S
September 22, 2000
Page 2
In a letter dated April 25, 2000, you requested that Ms. Kugelmass provide you with a copy
of
documents related to your case. 	She responded to your request. 	On June 7, 2000, you
requested other information from Frank Guilelmino, general manager
of
CSEA. He stated in a
letter
of
June 12, 2000 that CSEA does not keep the type
of
information that you requested. In
a letter dated June 26, 2000, you requested additional information. At the time
of
filing the
charge, you had received no response.
The duty
of
fair representation does not extend to aspects
of
the employer-employee
relationship beyond the collective bargaining areas in which the union has an exclusive right to
act. 	Thus, the duty is limited to representation
of
employees in the collective bargaining
setting and in a grievance procedure contained in a collective bargaining agreement.
(San Francisco Classroom Teachers Association, CTA/NEA (Chestangue) (1985) PERB
Decision No. 544; Los Rios College Federation
of
Teachers, Local 2279, CFT/AFT, AFL-CIO
(Deglow) (1993) PERB Decision No. 992.) With respect to the SPB actions and the filing
of
an unfair practice charge, you have indicated that you are dissatisfied with CSEA's actions.
However, in thises matters CSEA owes no duty
of
fair representation and accordingly, these
allegations must be dismissed.
You indicated that the Union did not assist you with your request
of
a waiver for filing a
grievance in February. A breach
of
the duty
of
fair representation occurs when the union's
conduct toward a member
of
the bargaining unit is "arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith."
(Rocklin Teachers Professional Association (Romero) (1980) PERB Decision No. 124.) An
employee must demonstrate sufficient facts showing how or in what manner the union's actions
were without a rational basis or devoid
of
honest judgment. (Reed District Teachers
Association, CTA/NEA (Reyes) PERB Decision No. 332.) You have not demonstrated
sufficient facts that would demonstrate that the Union's actions with respect to requesting the
grievance waiver was "without a rational basis or devoid
of
honest judgment."
Your charge also discusses several information requests you have made from the Union. 	One
of
your requests was responded to by Ms. Kugelmass. 	After requesting additional information,
you were informed that the information did not exist. 	Your letter
of
June
26t\
sent shortly
before filing the charge on July 21, 2000, requested that CSEA provide you with information
similar in nature to that which you requested on June ih. The information you requested
relates to expenses paid by CSEA associated with various types
of
litigation that it may have
taken between 1996 and the present against DOS. As discussed, CSEA's duty
of
fair
representation extends to contract negotiations and grievance representation. I am aware
of
no
other duty under the Dills Act which would require that CSEA supply the information
requested. 	Accordingly, the denial of this information does not appear to violate the Union's
duty
of
fair representation and this allegation must also be dismissed.
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

SA-CO-232-S
September 22, 2000
Page 3
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 have the case number written
on
the
top right hand corner
of
the charge form. 	The amended charge must be served on the
respondent's representative 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 29, 2000, I shall
dismiss your charge.	
If
you have any questions, please call me at the above telephone number.
Sincerely,
Bernard McMonigle
Regional Attorney
BMC:cke