West Contra Costa Unified School District (PERB 1426E)

3 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

DEBORAH SUSAN KERREOS,
Charging Party, Case No. SF-CE-2143-E
Vv. PERB Decision No. 1426
WEST CONTRA COSTA UNIFIED SCHOOL April 4, 2001
DISTRICT,
Respondent.

Appearance: Deborah Susan Kerreos, on her own behalf.
Before Amador, Baker and Whitehead, Members.
DECISION
AMADOR, Member: This case comes before the Public Employment Relations Board
(Board) on appeal by Deborah Susan Kerreos (Kerreos) to a dismissal (attached) by a Board
agent of the unfair practice charge. The charge alleged that the West Contra Costa Unified
School District violated section 3543.5 of the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA)!

in various ways, including the manner in which it handled grievances filed by Kerreos.

' EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. Section 3543.5 states:

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

After reviewing the entire record, the Board hereby adopts the dismissal letter as the
decision of the Board itself.2
ORDER
The unfair practice charge in Case No. SF-CE-2143-E is hereby DISMISSED
WITHOUT LEA VE TO AMEND.
Members Baker and Whitehead joined in this Decision.
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.
( e) Refuse to participate in good faith in the impasse procedure
set forth in Article 9 (commencing with Section 3548).
2The Board notes that Kerreos offered new supporting evidence and new charge
allegations for the first time on appeal. PERB Regulation 32635(b) provides that "Unless good
cause is shown, a charging party may not present on appeal new charge allegations ornew
supporting evidence." (PERB regs. are codified at Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, sec. 31001, et seq.)
Kerreos has not offered good cause that would permit us to review the new evidence or new
allegations, and accordingly we did not consider them.
2

STATE OF CALIFORNIA	
GRAY
DAVIS, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
,~ENT
/:I
l~
l
,,
Sacramento Regional Office
l 031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
Telephone: (916) 327-8384
Fax: (9 I 6) 327-63 77
November 13, 2000
Mr.
F.
Anthony Edwards
Seibel, Finta & Edwards L.L.P.
1850 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Suite 650
Walnut Creek, California 94596
Re: 	Deborah Susan Kerreos
v.
West Contra Costa Unified School District
Unfair Practice Charge No. SF-CE-2143-E
DISMISSAL LETTER
Dear Mr. Edwards,
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on June 14, 2000. The Charging Party, Deborah Susan Kerreos,
alleged that the West Contra Costa Unified School District violated the Educational
Employment Relations Act1 in an unspecified manner. 	My September 13, 2000 Warning
Letter indicated the original charge was unclear
as
to how the District violated EERA.
However, when I sent the Warning Letter I was unaware
of
the amended charge filed by Ms.
Kerreos on August 11, 2000.2 Therefore, the Second Warning Letter addressed the additional
information provided in Ms. Kerreos' amended charge in which she asserts that the District
violated EERA Section 3543.5 by failing to meet and negotiate in good faith with Charging
Party or her exclusive representative in order to address grievances and complaints, and
threatened reprisals against Charging Party for filing grievances.
I indicated to you in my attached letters dated September 13, 2000 and October 31, 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 Thursday, November
9, 2000, the charge would be dismissed.
1 EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. 	The text
of
the EERA and
the Board's Regulations may be found on the Internet at www.perb.ca.gov.
2 As per the October 6, 2000 notice of clerical error, the documents filed on August 11,
2000 in PERB's San Francisco Regional office were intended to amend this unfair practice
charge and should not have been assigned a new case number. 	The amended charge and the
response to that amended charge have now been merged with this unfair practice charge, SF-
CE-2143-E.

SF-CE-2143-E
November 13, 2000
Page 2
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 13, 2000 and
October 31, 2000 letters.
Right to Appeal
Pursuant to PERB Regulations3, you may obtain a review
of
this dismissal
of
the charge byfiling 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
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 par1y 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
3 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 95814-4174, and the text is available at
www.perb.ca.gov.

SF-CE-2143-E
November 13, 2000
Page 3
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.)
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-
✓_/
___
1_.,_,_·_~.
__
-_~._=~_-·~
Marie A. Nakamura
Board Agent
Attachment
cc: 	Marlene L. Sacks
MAN

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	GRAY DA VIS, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
~
,,,
~
,.,o~tf,ENT-1!!,~~1.
Sacramento Regional Office
l 03 l 18th Street
Sacramento,
CA
95814-4174
Telephone: ( 916) 327-8384
Pax: (916) 327-6377
October 31, 2000
Mr.
F.
Anthony Edwards
Seibel, Finta & Edwards L.L.P.
1850 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Suite 650
Walnut Creek, California 94596
Re: 	Deborah Susan Kerreos
v.
West Contra Costa Unified School District
Unfair Practice Charge No. SF-CE-2143-E
SECOND WARNING LETTER
Dear Mr. Edwards,
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on June 14, 2000. The Charging Party, Deborah Susan Kerreos,
alleges that the West Contra Costa Unified School District violated the Educational
Employment Relations Act1 in an unspecified manner. My September 13, 2000 Warning
Letter indicated the original charge was unclear as to how the District violated EERA.
However, when I sent the Warning Letter I was unaware
of
the amended charge filed by Ms.
Kerreos on August 11, 2000.2 This Second Warning Letter addresses the additional
information provided in Ms. Kerreos' amended charge in which she asserts that the District
violated EERA Section 3543.5 by failing to meet and negotiate in good faith with Charging
Party or her exclusive representative in order to address grievances and complaints, and
threatened reprisals against Charging Party for filing grievances.
Deborah S. Kerreos was a second grade teacher with the West Contra Costa Unified School
District at Marie A. Murphy Elementary School. She taught in the District from 1980 until her
resignation in August 1999.
1 EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. 	The text of the EERA and
the Board's Regulations may be found on the Internet at www.perb.ca.gov.
2 As per the October 6, 2000 notice of clerical error, the documents filed on August 11,
2000 in PERB's San Francisco Regional office were intended to amend this unfair practice
charge and should not have been assigned a new case number. 	The amended charge and the
response to that amended charge have now been merged with this unfair practice charge, SF-
CE-2143-E.

SF-CE-2143-E
October 31, 2000
Page 2
In April
of
1998, Ms. Kerreos filed a grievance that was never addressed by the District. Ms.
Kerreos asserts that in May
of
2000 she learned that the Districts inaction on her April 1998
grievance was an unfair practice.
On February 25, 1999, the District filed harassment charges against Ms. Kerreos based upon
statements
of
unnamed employees
of
the District. On May
7,
2000, the District's attorney,
Marlene Sacks, informed Ms. Kerreos that the harassment charges were withdrawn because the
unnamed complainants would not follow the procedures
of
Article
16
of
the collective
bargaining agreement. Ms. Kerreos asserts that in May
of
2000 she discovered that the
District's harassment charge was an unfair practice.
In May 2000, Ms. Kerreos participated in a judicial arbitration hearing for her civil case
against the District. 	During the hearing Terri Jackson, President
of
the United Teachers
of
Richmond (UTR), stated that she was encouraged by Mr. Henry Hopkins, Principal at Marie A.
Murphy Elementary School, to file racial discrimination and harassment charges against Ms.
Kerreos. Ms. Kerreos does not.state when Mr. Hopkins encouraged Ms. Jackson to file
discrimination and harassment charges. Ms. Kerreos asserts that it was in May
of
2000 that
she became aware
of
the District's involvement in this unfair practice. 	Also during the same
hearing Linda Lester, Assistant Superintendent
of
Personnel, stated that she administratively
transferred Ms. Kerreos in violation
of
Articles 9 and
18
of
the collective bargaining
agreement.
In May
of
1999 Ms. Kerreos filed four grievances as an individual against the District. 	During
the aforementioned hearing in May 2000, Ms. Lester stated that Ms. Sacks did not interview
any witnesses who would have proved the validity
of
those four grievances.
In response to Ms. Kerreos' request for arbitration
of
the four grievances
of
May 1999, Ms.
Sacks stated that the District wouid not proceed to arbitration without the involvement
of
the
UTR. Because the UTR determined in May
of
2000 that it would not proceed to arbitration,
the District also refused to proceed to arbitration.
Discussion
Ms. Kerreos asserts that the District violated EERA section 3543.5 by failing to meet and
negotiate in good faith with Charging Party or her exclusive representative in order to address
her grievances and complaints, and that the District threatened reprisals against Charging
Party. However, the amended charge fails to establish a prima facie violation
of
EERA.
Ms. Kerreos as the Charging Party bears the burden of demonstrating that this charge was filed
within the requisite statute of limitations. 	EERA section 3541.5(a)(l) prohibits PERB from
issuing a complaint with respect to "any charge based upon an alleged unfair practice occurring
more than six months prior to the filing of the charge." The limitations period begins to run
once the charging party knows, or should have known, of the conduct underlying the charge.
(Gavilan Joint Community College District (1996) PERB Decision No. 1177.) The charging

SF-CE-2143-E
October 31, 2000
Page 3
party bears the burden
of
demonstrating that the charge is timely filed. 	(Tehachapi Unified
School District ( 1993) PERB Decision No. 1024; State
of
California (Department
of
Insurance) (1997) PERB Decision No. 1197-S.) Also, the Board has held that the six month
period runs from the time the conduct
is
discovered, and not from the date
of
the discovery
of
the legal significance
of
that conduct. (Val Verde Teachers Association, CT A/NEA (Twyman)
(1998) PERB Decision No. 1257.)
Ms. Kerreos fails to meet the burden
of
demonstrating that all
of
the allegations in this charge
were filed within the requisite six-month statute
of
limitations. The actions
of
the District that
Ms. Kerreos asserts violated EERA occurred from April
of
1998 through May
of
2000.
Although Ms. Kerreos states that in May
of
2000 she discovered that the District's past actions
constitute unfair labor practices, the six-month statute
of
limitations period started when she
discovers the conduct
of
the District and not when Ms. Kerreos learned
of
the legal
significance
of
the conduct. Therefore as to the April 1998 grievances not addressed by the
District, Ms. Kerreos fails to demonstrate that the conduct
of
the District, here the inaction on
the grievances, was discovered in May 2000. 	As for the February 1999 harassment charges
filed by the District against Charging Party, because Ms. Kerreos knew
of
the underlying
conduct, the filing
of
the charges; in February
of
1999, she fails to demonstrate that the
conduct
of
the District was discovered in May 2000.
As for the remaining three assertions
of
unfair practices by the District, Ms. Kerreos states that
she was unaware
of
the conduct underlying the unfair practices until May
of
2000. Therefore,
Mr. Hopkins encouragement
of
the UTR to file racial discrimination and harassment charges,
the administrative transfer
of
Ms. Kerreos and the Districts refusal to take the May 1999
grievances to arbitration fall within the requisite six month statute
of
limitations.
Even where PERB has jurisdiction over Ms. Kerreos' unfair practice charge, she is without
standing to pursue alleged a violations
of
EERA section 3543.S(c), the school districts duty to
meet and negotiate in good faith with an exclusive representative. 	Only the exclusive
representative has standing to pursue such an unfair practice charge. 	(Oxnard School District
(Gorcey/Tripp) (1988) PERB Decision No. 667.) Therefore as an individual Ms. Kerreos is
precluded from bringing such a charge.
In addition Ms. Kerreos asserts that the District threatened reprisals against her for filing
grievances. The information provided in the amended charge does not establish any instances
where the District threatened reprisals against Ms. Kerreos. 	First, as stated above the failure ofthe District to pursue Ms. Kerreos grievances
of
April 1998, are outside PERB's six-month
statute
of
limitations. 	However, even
if
the actions were within the requisite statute
oflimitations, there is no reported reprisal by the district for the grievances. 	Second, as for the
harassment charges filed by the District based upon the statements of unnamed employees,
even if that action by the District falls within PERB's statute oflimitations there is no
indication that the District filed 'harassment charges in retaliation for grievances filed by Ms.
Keneos. Third, regarding Mr. Hopkins encouragement of the UTR to file racial discrimination
and harassment charges against Ms. Kerresos, there is no indication that Mr. Hopkin's action
was a reprisal against Ms. Kerreos for filing grievances. Fourth, regarding Ms. Lester's

SF-CE-2143-E
October 31, 2000
Page 4
statement that she transferred Ms. Kerreos in violation
of
the collective bargaining agreement,
there is no indication that Ms. Lester's action was a reprisal against Ms. Kerreos for filing
grievances. 	Finally, as for the District's refusal to take Ms. Kerreos' May 1999 grievances to
arbitration, there is no indication that the District's decision was a reprisal against Ms. Kerreos
for filing the grievances. 	The District stated that it would not take Ms. Kerreos' grievances to
arbitration without the UTR.
If
by "threatening reprisals," Ms. Kerreos is asserting that the District interfered with her
protected rights, she also fails to demonstrate such a prima facie violation. 	The test for
whether a respondent has interfered with the rights
of
employees under the EERA does not
require that unlawful motive be established, only that at least slight harm to employee rights
results from the conduct. The Board described the standard as follows:
[I]n order to establish a prima facie case
of
unlawful interference,
the charging party must establish that the respondent's conduct
tends to or does result in some harm to employee rights granted
under EERA. 	(State
of
California (Department
of
Developmental
Services) (1983) PERB Decision No. 344-S, citing Carlsbad
Unified School District (1979) PERB Decision No. 89; Service
Employees International Union, Local 99 (Kimmett) (1979)
PERB Decision No. 106.)
Here Ms. Kerreos fails to demonstrate any connection between the Districts conduct and any
harm to her employee rights under EERA section 35433• In her amended charge Ms. Kerreos
concludes that the District committed unfair practices, but she does not state how the actions
of
the District tends to or does result in some harm to employee rights granted under EERA.
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 have the case number written on the
top right hand corner
of
the charge form. 	The amended charge must be served on the
3 Public school employees shall 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. 	Public school employees shall also have the right
to refuse to join or participate in the activities
of
employee organizations and shall have the
right to represent themselves individually in their employment relations with the public school
employer, except that once the employees in an appropriate unit have selected an exclusive
representative and it has been recognized pursuant to Section 3544. l or certified pursuant to
Section 3544. 7, no employee in that unit may meet and negotiate with the public school
employer.

SF-CE-2143-E
October 31, 2000
Page 5
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 Thursday, November 9, 2000,
I shall dismiss this charge.
If
you have any questions, please call me at the above telephone
number.
Sincerely,
Marie A. Nakamura
Board Agent
MAN

STATE OF CALIFORNIA	
GRAY
DA VIS, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Sacramento Regional Office
103
I I 8th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
Telephone (916) 327-8384
Fax: (9 I 6) 327-63 77
September 13, 2000
F.
Anthony Edwards
Seibel, Finta & Edwards, L.L.P.
1850 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Suite 650
Walnut Creek, California 94596
Re: 	Deborah Susan Kerreos
v.
West Contra Costa Unified School District
Unfair Practice Charge No. SF-CE-2143-E
WARNING LETTER
Dear Mr. Edwards,
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on June 14, 2000. The Deborah Susan Kerreos alleges that the West
Contra Costa Unified School District (District) violated the Educational Employment Relations
Act (EERA) 1. However, due to a lack
of
specificity in the charge it is unclear how the District
violated EERA.
Facts
The charge states that the District, and Henry Hopkins, principal at Murphy Elementary,
conspired with the United Teachers
of
Richmond (UTR) in order to ignore Ms. Kerreos'
contractual rights regarding four grievances brought to the attention
of
the UTR in July
of
1999. Also, the charge states that Marlene Sacks, attorney for the District, conducted an
investigation regarding Ms. Kerreos employment with the District and only interviewed staff
members known to be hostile toward Ms. Kerreos. In addition the charge asserts that the
District intentionally ignored and or denied complaints filed by Ms. Kerreos. 	Also, the charge
mentions that the Charging Party is involved in a lawsuit against the District.
Due to the insufficient specificity
of
the charge, on August 23, 2000, I sent to you a letter
requesting an amended charge. The letter chronicled my telephone conversations with you and
Ms. Kerreos in July
of
2000 explaining the need to amend this charge. 	In the letter I stated that
the original charge did not "include the requisite precise and detailed statement of the conduct
that she asserts constitutes an ut1fair practice." In that letter I explained that in order to proceed
with my investigation I need to receive the original amended charge, and the original proof of
1 EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. 	The text of the EERA and
the Board's Regulations may be found on the Internet at www.perb.ca.gov.

SF-CE-2143-E
September 13, 2000
Page 2
service showing that a copy
of
the amended charge was served on the Respondent by
September
1,
2000. 	In response to the letter you left me a voice mail on August 25, 2000
explaining that you were in New York and unable
to
meet the September
1,
deadline.
Therefore on August
2th
I spoke with your Assistant, Nedda Bass, and extended the deadline
until September 11, 2000.
On September 11, 2000, I received a fax from your office. The fax however lacks the factual
specificity required for me to proceed with my investigation. It combines Ms. Kerreos' charge
with that
of
Mary Hughes-Tutass, a Charging Party, in two related charges and refers to both
parties as "Claimants" without making any factual distinctions among the charges or between
the parties. In addition the fax refers
t-0
"Respondents" without differentiating between the
District and the UTR. 	Although the fax does assert that "Respondents" violate Government
Code section 3543.3, 3543.5 and 3543.6, it lacks the specificity required to determine how the
actions
of
the "Respondents" violated these sections
of
the Government Code.
Discussion
Ms. Kerreos' charge against the District did not state the section
of
the Govern1nent Code
alleged to be violated nor did it contain a clear and concise statement
of
the facts and conduct
alleged to constitute an unfair practice as required by the Regulations
of
the Public
Employment Relations Board section 32615 and thus fails to state a prima facie violation
within PERB's jurisdiction. The fax received from your office on September 11, 2000 did not
cure these defects. 	Failure to provide a clear and concise statement
of
the facts as required by
32615(a) (5), limits my ability to find a prima facie violation within the jurisdiction
of
PERB.
PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5) requires, inter alia, that an unfair practice charge include a
"clear and concise statement
of
the facts and conduct alleged to constitute an unfair practice."
Thus, the charging party's burden includes alleging the "who, what, when, where and how"
of
an unfair practice. 	(State
of
California (Department
of
Food and Agriculture) (1994) PERB
Decision No. 1071-S, citing United Teachers-Los Angeles (Ragsdale) (1992) PERB Decision
No. 944.) Mere legal conclusions are not sufficient to state a prima facie case. 	(Ibid.; Charter
Oak Unified School District (1991) PERB Decision No. 873.)
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
ofperjury by the charging party. 	The amended charge must have the case number written on the
top right hand comer
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 22, 2000, I shall
dismiss your charge.	
If
you have any questions, please call me at the above telephone number.

SF-CE-2143-E
September 13, 2000
Page 3

Sincerely,

LD excel —

Marie A. Nakamura
Board Agent

MAN