Compton Community College (PERB I007E)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
COMPTON COMMUNITY COLL EGE F
OF TEACHERS,
Charging Party, PETITIONER,
Vo
COMPTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE,
Respondent.
Case No.LA-CE-355
(78/79)
PERB Order No. IR-7
Administrative Appeal
)October 3,1978
Appearances: Darwin Thorpe, President for Compton Community
College Federation of Teachers; William D. Plosser
(William D. Plosser and Associates) Representative for
Compton Community College.
Befo re Gluck, Chairperson; Cossack Twohey and Gonzales, Members.
'DECISION
fgfiSMSl
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_ _____________________
T he Compton Community College Federation of Teachers
(hereafter CCCFT) by letter dated August 23, 1978, requests
the Public Employment Relations Board (hereafter PERB) to seek
injunctive relief against Compton Community College (hereafter
College) compelling the College to reinstate a laboratory
assistant terminated on August 18, 1978. PERB denies the request.
FACTS
The underlying unfair practice charge alleging that the
College violated sections 3543.5(a), (b), and (d); and 3543.1(a)1
1Gov. Code sec. 3543.5(a), (b) , (d) states:
3543,5. It shall be unlawful for a public
school employer to:
(a) Impose or threaten to impose reprisals
on employees, to discriminate or threaten to dis-
criminate against employees, or otherwise to
interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees
because of their exercise of rights guaranteed
by this chapter. (cent.)

of the Educational Employment Relations Act 2 (hereafter EERA)
by the College's threatened termination of a laboratory
assistant was filed on July 24, 1978. 3
(b) Deny to employee organizations rights
guaranteed to them by this chapter.
(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.
Gov. Code sec. 3543.1(a) states in pertinent part:
3543.1(a) Employee organizations shall
have the right to represent their members in their
employment relations with public school employers,
except that once an employee organization is
recognized or certified as the exclusive repre-
sentative of an appropriate unit pursuant to
Section 3544.1 or 3544.7, respectively, only
that employee organization may represent that
unit in their employment relations with the
public school employer.
Effective August 18, 1978 the College terminated the
employment of Ellen Lodan as a laboratory assistant in the life
sciences division. The termination was ostensibly due to
anticipated budget reductions which also prompted termination
of 19 other classified employees.
CCCFT contends that termination of the laboratory assistant
will irreparably harm the organizational rights of the certifi-
cated members of CCCFT and two CCCFT officers in the life sciences
department by increasing their workload and, thus, preventing
them from conducting organizational and representational
activities. Further, CCCFT contends that the reputations of
2The Educational Employment Relations Act is codified at
Gov. Code sec. 3540 et seq.
3 The unfair practice charge complained of other alleged
acts of the College which CCCFT did not subsequently seek to
be enjoined.
- 2 -

its certificated members and Compton Community College will
irreparably suffer from inadequately staffed classes. These
contentions of CCCFT are wholly unsupported by affidavits or
declarations.
The normal processes of PERB are inadequate, CCCFT contends,
because the case will be rendered moot if the discharge is
allowed to stand.
DISCUSSION
Under section 3541.3(j) of the EERA,	4 PERB has discretionary
authority to petition the court for appropriate injunctive
relief. On July 5, 1978, PERB adopted a policy for the guidance
of the parties in requesting that PERB exercise its discretion
and seek injunctive relief. 5
4Gov. Code sec. 3541.3(j) provides:
3541.3 The board shall have all of the follow-
ing duties:
(j) To bring an action in a court of com-
petent jurisdiction to enforce any of its orders
decisions or rulings or to enforce the refusal
to obey a subpoena. Upon issuance of a com-
plaint charging that any person has engaged in
or is engaging in an unfair practice, the board
may petition the court for appropriate temporary
relief or restraining order.
5 P r o c e d u r e for f iling Requests f
stating:
(a) A party who wishes the Board to seek
injunctive relief pursuant to section
3541.3(j) shall file an original and four
copies of such request for injunctive relief
with the Board itself at the headquarters
office. The request shall contain the
following:
(1) A copy of the underlying unfair
practice charge;
(2) The date the unfair practice charge was
filed;
(cont.)
- 3 -

(3) Affidavits and other appropriate
evidence setting forth the specific facts
upon which the request is based;
(4) A full description of the irreparable
injury which the requesting party alleges it
will suffer if the request is not granted;
(5) The basis for contending that the
Board's normal processes and remedies are
inadequate;
(6) The legal theory which supports the
requesting party's belief that it will
likely prevail on the merits of the
underlying unfair practice charge; and
(7) A statement of the relief sought.
(b) In order to be considered filed, a copy
of the request must have been actually
served upon the charged party or parties
prior to filing the request, and a statement
of such service shall accompany the
request. "Actual service" as used in this
section means actual receipt by the party or
its agent.
(c) The Executive Assistant to the Board
will notify the respondent of their right to
file with the Board itself such evidence,
including affidavits, as it may deem proper
to rebut the request and the final date for
said response to be actually received by the
Executive Assistant to the Board at the
Headquarters Office in Sacramento.
(d) The Board itself with the advice of its
General Counsel shall, immediately upon
expiration of the charged party's rebuttal
period, consider the request for injunctive
relief and shall determine whether or not to
issue a complaint and seek injunctive
relief. If the Board itself determines the
request should be denied, it will so notify
all parties in writing.
Two of the prerequisites for the issuance of an injunction
are the likelihood of irreparable harm and the inadequacy of
the normal legal remedy.6 CCCFT contends that irreparable
6San Ysidro School District (8/8/78) PERB Order No. IR-4;
Weingard v . Atlantic Savings & Loan Association (1970) 1 Cal.3d 806.
- 4 -

damage will be done to the reputations of the life science
instructors and to the District because the District-adopted
course content cannot be fully presented as expected by the
students. This is, however, an abstract argument unsupported
by competent evidence in the form of affidavits or declara-
tions and is purely speculative.
CCCFT also contends that in the absence of injunctive relief
the case will be rendered moot. The Board has difficulty
grasping CCCFT's argument in this regard. The source of this
confusion may stem from CCCFT’s use of the word "moot." Used
in its legal sense, a case becomes moot when changed circumstances
or subsequent events dissipate the underlying controversy.7
The gist of CCCFT's argument would therefore be that failure
to reinstate the terminated laboratory assistant would resolve
the dispute between CCCFT and the District regarding the effect
of this termination. But it is obvious that lack of reinstate-
ment will not effect a cure. Rather, any burden in fact imposed
by reduced staff time and energy for CCCFT organizing will be
perpetuated.
To the extent that CCCFT intends to use moot in its
g
colloquial8 sense to reiterate its view that relief obtained
through the normal processes of the Board may come too late,
the mere fact that the effect of the discharge continues does
not render the harm irreparable; nor does it preclude remedy
by the Board's normal processes.
We do not by this decision, pass on the merits of the
underlying unfair practice charge.
7 Though a case may originally present an existing contro-
versy, if, before a decision is reached, the acts of the parties
or other causes have dissipated the controversy and there is no
longer an actual dispute, the case is rendered moot and may not
be considered. See National Assn. of Wine Bottlers v. Paul (1969
268 Cal.App.2d 741, 746.
g
Webster's Third International Dictionary defines "moot" in
this sense as: "deprived of practical significance: made
abstract or purely academic."
- 5 -

ORDER
On the basis of the foregoing decision, the request for
injunctive relief, and the attached unfair practice charge
before it the Public Employment Relations Board denies the
request by the Compton Community College Federation of
Teachers for injunctive relief against Compton Community
College pending determination of said unfair practice charge.
Jerilou Cossack Twohey, Member Harry Gl
Raymond J. Gonzales, Member
- 6 -

S t a t e o f C a l i f o r n i a J ul 2 4 1l 25
Public Employment Relations Board
UNFAIR PRACTICE CHARGE
INSTRUCTIONS: File an original
and three (3) copies of this charge
in the appropriate regional office
of the Public Employment Relations
Board, If additional space is
needed for any item, attach addi-
tional sheets and number items
accordingly.
DO NOT W R I T E IN THIS SPACE
Case name:
COMPTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE FEDERATION OF TEACHER
v. COMPTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE
Case no:
LA-CE-355-78 /7 9
Date filed:
J u l y 2 4 , 1 9 7 8
1. CHARGING PARTY: EMPLOYEE (X) EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION ( ) EMPLOYEE
a. Full name: Compton Community Collage Federation of Teachers
b. Mailing address: 1111 E. Arteeia Blvd. Compton, Calif. 90221
c . Telephone number: ( 213 ) 635-8081
area code
d. Name, title and telephone number Darwin Thorpe, President
of agent filing charge, if any: 635-8081, ext
2. CHARGE FILED AGAINST: ( ) EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION (X) EMPLOYER
a. Full name: Compton Community College
b. Mailing address: 1111 E. Arteeia Blvd., Compton, cal
c. Telephone number: (213) area code 635-8081
d. Name, tit_e and telephone number Dr. Abel B . Sykes, Jr., Pres/Superintendent
of agent to contact, if any: 635-8081
3. NAME OF EMPLOYER ( C o m p l e t e t h i s s e c t i o n
again3t an employee organization)
a. Full name:
b. Mailing address:
4. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
a. Has any grievance procedure been invoked in relation
to the subject matter of this charge?
b. If "yes," when? 1st Charge— Apology demand— April 26, 1978.
2nd Charge-Document demand -june 19, 1978 3rd Charge— Oral protest
to Board of Trustees on June 20, 1978.
*Because of the administrative/Board to faculty relationship at
Compton College, there is no formal grievance procedure in
effect through which fruitful resolution of problems can occur.
S e e R E V E R E S E S I D E

5. STATEMENT OF CHARGE
The charging party hereby alleges that the above-named respondent has engaged
in or is engaging in an unfair practice within the meaning of section 3543.5
or 3543.6. The specific section(s) (and subsection where appropriate), alleged
to have been violated is/are: Gov. Code Sections 3543.5 (a), (b), and _____
(d ), 3543.1 (a) and 6250 et. seq.
of t he California Government Code, in that: (
o f the conduct a l leged to c o n s titu te an unfair p r a c tic e , in cluding, where known, the time and
pla ce o f each instance o f respondent
in v o lv e d .)
Charge
On April 11, 1978, Mr. Henry D, Dawkins, Trustee of the respondent,
characterised the union's questioning of Districts management practices,
including District denial of documents requested pursuant to Gov. Code
Sec. 6250 et. seq., as "...unprofessional...” Again, on Kay 11, 1978, Mr.
Dawkins characterized the union's more in-depth allegations of District
mismanagement and faculty vote of no confidence for the District
Superintendent as a, "scurrilous attack..." on the District. Attempts to
obtain written or verbal rebuttal to our documentation, or explanations
of our "unprofessional" or "scurrilous conduct", and a letter demanding an
apology for what we perceive to be reprehensible and possible slanderous
behavior on the part of the Vice president of the Compton College Board of
Trustees, have gone unheeded.
We consider this Trustee's actions to be demaning of union leadership,
and an interference with the formation and administration of our
organization pursuant to Gov. Coda Sec.
Charge 2:
On July 10, the union made its final request for what we feel are extremely
important District documents— pursuant to Gov. Code Sec.
request was partly granted by a letter which we are sure was incorrectly
dated July 7, hut received by our attorney on July 12, 19781 Identical
requests for the same documents were made by the United Faculty of Compton
Community College on Kay 10, May 23, and June 19, all were denied.
Because of the foregoing delays in provision of documents— and denial of
some documents— we are unable to represent our members in their employment
relations— particularly as this pertains to salary and working conditions
negotiations— pursuant to Gov. Code Sec. 3543.1 and 3543.5 (b ).
(see appended page for Charge 3)
DECLARATION
I declare under penalty of perjury that I have read the above charge and that
the statements- herein are true and complete to the best of my knowledge and
belief.
S I G N E D Date: July 21, 1978
Title, if any: President, CCCFT, Local 3486
Mailing address: 1111 E . Artesia Blvd., Compton, Calif. 90221
Telephone number: 635—8081
(213) 423-3336
ext. 370 (office)
(home)
PERB-61 (1/78:

UNFAIR PRACTICE CHARGE July 21, 1978
page three, item # 5.
C h a rg e 3 :
On June 20, and without consultation with any of the instructors
involved, and on the basis of an "eleventh hour” oral amendment to
the Board of Trustee’s regular agenda by the Superintendent on
june 20, laboratory assistants in the life science area were layed
off, effective J u l y 21, 1973. On July
instructors were told "through the grapevine"— there is no faculty-
level, departmental or Division persons responsible for general
administrative functions presently in existence at Compton College—
that the layoff for the full time position had been moved up to
July 17, because accumulated vacation and compensatory time credits
had to be used before the effective date of termination on July 21.
Following written documentation in defense of the full-time position#
the Dean of Instruction, Dr. Eugene S i m s , granted an extension of
this position through August 18, 1973, and the employee’s status was
changed to that of a Limited Term employee. Because of accrued
time off credits mentioned above,
terminate on or about Aug. 1l, 1978.
The above layoffs, ostensibly based on economic grounds, were made
even thought
1) a documented protest was lodged the evening of June 20
before the Board of Trustees, and on July 3 and July 12 based
upon their Impact on the total laboratory program of the life
science area, and
2) the full-time laboratory assistant in a different job
classification in the physical science area— an area with
lower courses and less enrollment and where three of the
five full-time instructors have been layed off— was allowed
to stand, and
3) no enrollment redaction, financial or laboratory assistant
senority consideration peculiar to the life science area exists.
Because all members of the life science area are union members— two of
them— the Secretary and President of the union— leaders In the campus-
wide effort to achieve exclusive representation for the union and to
ellicit Board and Administrative performance of their
ethically-constituted responsibilities, we consider the assistant
layoffs as not only seriously undermining our ability to teach in our
accredited programs, but as part of a continuing pattern of discrimination
against our union through reprisals against some of our members and
officers. Our loss of time which might be more profitably spent on
educational matters represents a cynically-motivated attempt to discredit
us professionally in clear violation of Gov. Cods Sec. 3543.5 (a).

)
)
)
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONB OARD
COMPTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE FEDERATION OF )
TEACHERS,
Charging Party,
COMPTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT,
Respondent.
Case No. LA-CE-355-78/79
>. .
>
) ;
)
AMENDED NOTICE OF INFORMAL CONFERENCE*
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on the 18th day of ____ August______________ , 19 78
at Public Employment Relations Board, 3550 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1708,______
Los Ange_les	________________ , California, beginning at 1:30 P .M .	_____ , an
info rmal conference will be held pursuant to Cal. Admin. Code, title 8,
section 32670 on an unfair practice charge filed by the above-named charging
party against the above named respondent(s) before a representative of the
Public Employment Relations Board, at which time the parties should appear in
person, by counsel, or other representative.
A t said conference, the parties should be prepared to discuss the issues
and where possible, reach agreement thereon and/or reduce the number thereof.
At said conference the date for the formal hearing if not yet set, may be set.
The parties should be prepared for a formal hearing on the charge to be
scheduled within 20 days of the date of the informal conference, unless by the
mutual agreement of the parties, with the approval of the Board agent, or for
other good cause, it is set for a later date.
DATED: August 8 , 1978 WILLIAM P. SMITH
General Counsel
*
This notice supersedes notice
dated July 25, 1978. Charging
Party has requested that only
the time be changed from 10:00 A.M.
to 1:30 P.M. on August 18, 1978.
B
Bruce Barsook
Hearing Officer
PE