Rio Hondo Community College District (Davis) (PERB 0226E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
BERT 	L. 	DAVIS, 	)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Charging 	Party,
v.
_____________________ )
(a)
It shall be unlawful for a public school
EERA is codified at Government Code sections 3540 et
This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
DECISION
Before: Jensen, Morgenstern and Jaeger, Members.
A. Eugene Huguenin, Jr., Attorney (California	Appearances:
Case No. LA-CE-486
RIO HONDO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT,
Respondent.
PERB Decision No. 226
July 19, 1982
Teachers Association) for Bert L. Davis; John J. Wagner,
Attorney (Wagner & Wagner ) for Rio Hondo Community College
District.
(hereafter PERB or Board) on exceptions filed by Rio Hondo
Community College District (hereafter District) to the proposed
decision of the hearing officer, which is incorporated by
reference herein. The hearing officer found that the District
violated 	subsection 	3543.S(a) 	of 	the 	Educational 	Employment
Relations Act (hereafter EERA or the Act) 1 by
seq. All statutory references are to the Government Code,
unless 	otherwise 	specified. 	Subsection 	3543.S(a) 	provides 	as
Follows:
employer to:
Impose or threaten to impose reprisals
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
BERT L. DAVIS,
Charging Party,
v .
RIO 	HONDO 	COMMUNITY 	COLLEGE 	DISTRICT,
Respondent.
Case 	No. 	LA-CE-486
PERB 	Decision No. 	226
July 	19, 	1982
Appearances: 	A. 	Eugene 	Huguenin, 	Jr., 	Attorney 	(California
Teachers 	Association) 	for 	Bert 	L. 	Davis; 	John 	J. 	Wagner,
Attorney 	(Wagner 	& Wagner) 	for 	Rio 	Hondo Community College
District.
Before: 	Jensen, 	Morgenstern 	and 	Jaeger, 	Members.
DECISION
This 	case 	is 	before 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board
(hereafter 	PERB 	or 	Board) 	on 	exceptions 	filed 	by 	Rio 	Hondo
Community College 	District 	(hereafter 	District) 	to 	the 	proposed
decision 	of 	the 	hearing 	officer, 	which 	is 	incorporated 	by
reference 	herein. 	The 	hearing 	officer 	found 	that 	the 	District
violated subsection 3543.5 (a) of the Educational Employment
enying	Relations 	Act 	(hereafter 	EERA or 	the 	Act)ld by 	denying
JlEERA 	is 	codified 	at 	Government 	Code 	sections 	3540 	et
seq. 	All 	statutory 	references 	are 	to 	the 	Government 	Code,
unless otherwise specified. Subsection 3543.5 (a) provides as
follows:
It 	shall 	be 	unlawful 	for 	a 	public 	school
employer 	to:
(a) 	Impose 	or 	threaten 	to 	impose 	reprisals

Bert L. Davis (hereafter Davis or Charging Party) a requested
unpaid personal leave of absence in retaliation for his
protected activities.
2
on employees, to discriminate or threaten to
We find the hearing officer's findings of fact to be
FACTS
On the basis of the record as a whole, we affirm the
The District excepts to the finding of a violation on the
To remedy the unfair practice, she ordered the District to
allow Davis an unpaid leave of absence at his option for any
one academic year or any two consecutive semesters during the
seven-year period following the final date of this decision.
grounds that the facts are insufficient to support the
inference that Davis would have been granted leave but for the
District's unlawful motive, to wit, retaliation against Davis
for his outspoken and active participation in protected
activities. 	The District further excepts to the recommended
remedy on the grounds that it is unreasonable and that the need
for or propriety of it is unsupported by any facts in the
record.
hearing officer's proposed decision in all respects, for the
reasons set forth infra.
accurate, concise, and amply supported by the record, and note
discriminate against employees, or otherwise
to interfere with, restrain, or coerce
employees because of their exercise of
rights guaranteed by this chapter.
Bert L. 	Davis 	(hereafter 	Davis 	or 	Charging 	Party) 	a 	requested
unpaid 	personal 	leave 	of 	absence 	in 	retaliation 	for 	his
protected 	activities.
To 	remedy 	the 	unfair 	practice, 	she 	ordered 	the 	District 	to
allow 	Davis 	an 	unpaid 	leave 	of 	absence 	at 	his 	option 	for 	any
one 	academic 	year 	or 	any 	two 	consecutive 	semesters 	during 	the
seven-year 	period 	following 	the 	final 	date 	of 	this 	decision.
The 	District 	excepts 	to 	the 	finding 	of 	a 	violation 	on 	the
grounds 	that 	the 	facts 	are 	insufficient 	to 	support 	the
inference 	that 	Davis 	would 	have 	been 	granted 	leave 	but 	for 	the
District's 	unlawful 	motive, 	to 	wit, 	retaliation 	against 	Davis
for 	his 	outspoken 	and 	active 	participation 	in 	protected
activities. 	The 	District 	further 	excepts 	to 	the 	recommended
remedy 	on 	the 	grounds 	that 	it 	is 	unreasonable 	and 	that 	the 	need
for 	or 	propriety 	of 	it 	is 	unsupported 	by 	any 	facts 	in 	the
record.
On 	the 	basis 	of 	the 	record 	as 	a 	whole, 	we 	affirm 	the
hearing 	officer's 	proposed 	decision 	in 	all 	respects, 	for 	the
reasons 	set 	forth 	infra.
FACTS
We 	find 	the 	hearing 	officer's 	findings 	of 	fact 	to 	be
accurate, 	concise, 	and 	amply 	supported 	by 	the 	record, 	and 	note
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.

3
Since issuance of the proposed decision in this case, the
Irrespective of the foregoing, a charge	5
The hearing officer applied the test enunciated by the
DISCUSSION
further that no exceptions were taken to any of her particular
Thus, we adopt her findings of fact as those of the
Board.
Board in Carlsbad Unified School District (1/30/79) PERB
Decision No. 89. She decided the case under the "but-for"
prong of the Carlsbad test, which provides:
.
will be sustained where it is shown that
the employer would not have engaged in
the complained-of conduct but for an
unlawful motivation, purpose or intent.
Board has clarified the test for alleged violations of
subsection 3543.5(a) which involve discriminatory conduct by
the employer. Simply stated, a violation will be found in
cases of that nature in which it is demonstrated that the
charging party was engaged in protected conduct and the
employer's conduct was motivated thereby. Novato Unified
School District (4/30/82) PERB Decision No. 210. We further
explained in that case that the charging party may demonstrate
circumstantially that the employer was motivated by his/her
protected conduct to take adverse personnel action, recognizing
that direct evidence of motivation is seldom available. (See
Republic Aviation Corp. v. NLRB (1945) 324 U.S. 793 [16 LRRM
620] .
further 	that 	no 	exceptions 	were 	taken 	to 	any 	of 	her 	particular
findings.	findings. 	Thus, 	we 	adopt 	her 	findings 	of 	fact 	as 	those 	of 	the
Board.
DISCUSSION
The 	hearing 	officer 	applied 	the 	test 	enunciated 	by 	the
Board 	in Carlsbad 	Unified 	School 	District 	(1/30/79) 	PERB
Decision No. 	89. 	She 	decided 	the 	case 	under 	the 	"but-for"
prong 	of 	the 	Carlsbad 	test, 	which 	provides:
5. 	Irrespective 	of 	the 	foregoing, 	a 	charge
will 	be 	sustained 	where 	it 	is 	shown 	that
the 	employer 	would 	not 	have 	engaged 	in
the 	complained-of 	conduct 	but 	for 	an
unlawful 	motivation, 	purpose 	or 	intent.
Since 	issuance 	of 	the 	proposed 	decision 	in 	this 	case, 	the
Board 	has 	clarified 	the 	test 	for 	alleged 	violations 	of
subsection 	3543.5(a) 	which 	involve 	discriminatory 	conduct 	by
the 	employer. 	Simply 	stated, 	a 	violation 	will 	be 	found 	in
cases 	of 	that 	nature 	in which 	it 	is 	demonstrated 	that 	the
charging 	party 	was 	engaged 	in 	protected 	conduct 	and 	the
employer's 	conduct 	was 	motivated 	thereby. 	Novato 	Unified
School 	District 	(4/30/82) 	PERB 	Decision No. 	210. 	We 	further
explained 	in 	that 	case 	that 	the 	charging 	party may 	demonstrate
circumstantially 	that 	the 	employer 	was 	motivated 	by 	his/her
protected 	conduct 	to 	take 	adverse 	personnel 	action, 	recognizing
that 	direct 	evidence 	of 	motivation 	is 	seldom 	available. 	(See
Republic 	Aviation 	Corp. 	v. 	NLRB 	(1945) 	324 	U.S. 	793 	[16 	LRRM
620].
W

Applying the Novato test to the facts of this case, Davis
As noted in Novato (in conformity with the decision of the
National Labor Relations Board in Wright Line, A Division of
Wright Line, Inc. (1980) 251 NLRB 1083 [105 LRRM 1169] ) , once
the charging party raises the inference that protected activity
was a motivating factor in the decision to take adverse
personnel action, the burden shifts to the employer to prove
that its action would have been the same notwithstanding
charging party's protected activity.
has amply demonstrated facts from which the Board can fairly
infer that his protected conduct was a motivating factor in the
District's decision to deny his request for an unpaid year's
leave of absence. We note that Davis served as president of
the Rio Hondo College Faculty Association, CTA/NEA,
(Association) from July 1, 1975 to July 1, 1977, and
participated openly and actively in Association activities at
all times from 1974 through the events at issue herein. In his
role as Association president, he attended numerous meetings of
the District's Board of Trustees, the body which denied his
leave request, and consistently and vigorously challenged that
board regarding employment-related matters of concern to
faculty members. It is clear that the District had knowledge
of his extensive protected activities, summarized here and
detailed more fully in the proposed decision. Regarding his
request for an unpaid one-year leave of absence, it is clear
As 	noted 	in 	Novato 	(in 	conformity 	with 	the 	decision 	of 	the
National 	Labor 	Relations 	Board 	in Wright 	Line, 	A Division 	of
Wright 	Line, 	Inc. 	(1980) 	251 	NLRB 	1083 	[105 	LRRM 	1169]), 	once
the 	charging 	party 	raises 	the 	inference 	that 	protected 	activity
was 	a 	motivating 	factor 	in 	the 	decision 	to 	take 	adverse
personnel 	action, 	the 	burden 	shifts 	to 	the 	employer 	to 	prove
that 	its 	action 	would 	have 	been 	the 	same 	notwithstanding
charging 	party's 	protected 	activity.
4
Applying 	the 	Novato 	test 	to 	the 	facts 	of 	this 	case, 	Davis
has 	amply 	demonstrated 	facts 	from 	which 	the 	Board 	can 	fairly
infer 	that 	his 	protected 	conduct 	was 	a 	motivating 	factor 	in 	the
District's 	decision 	to 	deny 	his 	request 	for 	an 	unpaid 	year's
leave 	of 	absence. 	We 	note 	that 	Davis 	served 	as 	president 	of
the 	Rio Hondo 	College 	Faculty Association, 	CTA/NEA,
(Association) 	from 	July 	1, 	1975 	to July 	1, 	1977, 	and
participated 	openly 	and 	actively 	in Association 	activities 	at
all 	times 	from 	1974 	through 	the 	events 	at 	issue 	herein. 	In 	his
role 	as 	Association 	president, 	he 	attended 	numerous 	meetings 	of
the 	District's 	Board 	of 	Trustees, 	the 	body 	which 	denied 	his
leave 	request, 	and 	consistently 	and 	vigorously 	challenged 	that
board 	regarding 	employment-related matters 	of 	concern 	to
faculty 	members. 	It 	is 	clear 	that 	the 	District 	had 	knowledge
of 	his 	extensive 	protected 	activities, 	summarized 	here 	and
detailed 	more 	fully 	in 	the 	proposed 	decision. 	Regarding 	his
request 	for 	an 	unpaid 	one-year 	leave 	of 	absence, 	it 	is 	clear

5
from the record that every request for unpaid leave by
certificated personnel made between July 6, 1977 and
January 24, 1979, was granted by the District. In fact, no
evidence was introduced to demonstrate that the District has
ever denied an unpaid leave of absence request other than that
made by Davis. At the time of his request, college
administration had urged faculty to take unpaid leaves, due to
declining enrollment in the District and concurrent reduced
funds and staffing needs. 	College administration recommended
to the board of trustees that Davis' request be approved.
There was another photography instructor who could have taught
the courses previously taught by Davis. The Board of Trustees
offered Davis no reason for denial of his leave request, either
at the time of denial or at any time thereafter.
the factors summarized above, we infer that the District's
denial of Davis' request was connected to his exercise of
protected activity. The burden thus shifted to the District to
demonstrate that it would have denied his request for reasons
unconnected to his protected activity. Novato, Wright Line,
supra. However, the District introduced no evidence at all.
Rather, it chose to move for summary judgment at the conclusion
of Charging Party's case. Having introduced no evidence
whatsoever, the District has clearly failed to meet its burden
of demonstrating that it would have denied Davis' request
notwithstanding his protected activity.
from 	the 	record 	that 	every 	request 	for 	unpaid 	leave 	by
certificated 	personnel 	made 	between July 	6, 	1977 	and
January 	24, 	1979, 	was 	granted 	by 	the 	District. 	In 	fact, 	no
evidence 	was 	introduced 	to 	demonstrate 	that 	the 	District 	has
ever 	denied 	an 	unpaid 	leave 	of 	absence 	request 	other 	than 	that
made 	by Davis. 	At 	the 	time 	of 	his 	request, 	college
administration 	had 	urged 	faculty 	to 	take 	unpaid 	leaves, 	due 	to
declining 	enrollment 	in 	the 	District 	and 	concurrent 	reduced
funds 	and 	staffing 	needs. 	College 	administration 	recommended
to 	the 	board 	of 	trustees 	that 	Davis' 	request 	be 	approved.
There 	was 	another 	photography 	instructor 	who 	could 	have 	taught
the 	courses 	previously 	taught 	by 	Davis. 	The 	Board 	of 	Trustees
offered 	Davis 	no 	reason 	for 	denial 	of 	his 	leave 	request, 	either
at 	the 	time 	of 	denial 	or 	at 	any 	time 	thereafter. 	In light of	In 	light 	of
the 	factors 	summarized 	above, 	we 	infer 	that 	the 	District's
denial 	of 	Davis' 	request 	was 	connected 	to 	his 	exercise 	of
protected 	activity. 	The 	burden 	thus 	shifted 	to 	the 	District 	to
demonstrate 	that 	it 	would 	have 	denied 	his 	request 	for 	reasons
unconnected 	to 	his 	protected 	activity. 	Novato, 	Wright 	Line,
supra. 	However, 	the 	District 	introduced 	no 	evidence 	at 	all.
Rather, 	it 	chose 	to 	move 	for 	summary 	judgment 	at 	the 	conclusion
of 	Charging 	Party's 	case. 	Having 	introduced 	no 	evidence
whatsoever, 	the 	District 	has 	clearly 	failed 	to meet 	its 	burden
of 	demonstrating 	that 	it 	would 	have 	denied 	Davis' 	request
notwithstanding 	his 	protected 	activity.

. 	. 	. . . 	. 	. 	. 	. 	. 	. 	. . . 	. 	. . 	. 	. 	. 	. 	. 	.
6
(c)
subsection	2
Respondent excepts to the hearing officer's proposed remedy
For the reasons set forth above, and in reliance upon the
test set forth in Novato, we find that the District violated
subsection 3543.5 (a) by its refusal to grant Davis' request for
unpaid leave.
requiring the District to allow Davis leave without pay during
any academic year or any two consecutive semesters at his
option any time within the seven-year period following the
final date of the decision. We note that Davis based his
initial request for leave on unspecified "compelling personal
reasons . " 	We are unable to re-create the time period during
which Davis had a compelling personal need for leave, and thus
are unable fully to make him whole. It thus seems reasonable
to at least provide him with an "option period, " a span of
seven years during which an opportunity for leave which is
similarly advantageous to Davis may arise. The remedy proposed
by the hearing officer is appropriate, and is well within the
Board's power to fashion orders which effectuate the policies
of the Act, pursuant to subsection 3541.5 (c) . 2
3541.S(c) 	provides 	as 	follows:
The board shall have the power to issue
a decision and order directing an offending
party to cease and desist from the unfair
practice and to take such affirmative
action, including but not limited to the
For 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	above, 	and 	in 	reliance 	upon 	the
test 	set 	forth 	in Novato, 	we 	find 	that 	the 	District 	violated
subsection 	3543.5(a) 	by 	its 	refusal 	to 	grant 	Davis' 	request 	for
unpaid 	leave.
Respondent 	excepts 	to 	the 	hearing 	officer's 	proposed 	remedy
requiring 	the 	District 	to 	allow 	Davis 	leave 	without 	pay 	during
any 	academic 	year 	or 	any 	two 	consecutive 	semesters 	at 	his
option 	any 	time 	within 	the 	seven-year 	period 	following 	the
final 	date 	of 	the 	decision. 	We 	note 	that 	Davis 	based 	his
initial 	request 	for 	leave 	on 	unspecified 	"compelling 	personal
reasons." 	We 	are 	unable 	to 	re-create 	the 	time 	period 	during
which 	Davis 	had 	a 	compelling 	personal 	need 	for 	leave, 	and 	thus
are 	unable 	fully 	to 	make 	him 	whole. 	It 	thus 	seems 	reasonable
to 	at 	least 	provide 	him 	with 	an 	"option 	period," 	a 	span 	of
seven 	years 	during 	which 	an 	opportunity 	for 	leave 	which 	is
similarly 	advantageous 	to 	Davis 	may 	arise. 	The 	remedy 	proposed
by 	the 	hearing 	officer 	is 	appropriate, 	and 	is 	well 	within 	the
Board's 	power 	to 	fashion 	orders 	which 	effectuate 	the 	policies
of 	the 	Act, 	pursuant 	to 	subsection 	3541.5(c).2
2Subsection 3541.5 (c) provides as follows:
(c) 	The 	board 	shall 	have 	the 	power 	to 	issue
a 	decision 	and 	order 	directing 	an 	offending
party 	to 	cease 	and 	desist 	from 	the 	unfair
practice 	and 	to 	take 	such 	affirmative
action, 	including 	but 	not 	limited 	to 	the

the 	date 	this 	decisio~ 	is 	final, 	or 	grant 	him 	any 	two
reinstatement of employees with or without
Upon the request of Bert L. Davis, grant him a	a
TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS DESIGNED TO	2
CEASE AND DESIST FROM discriminating against	1.
Upon the foregoing facts, conclusions of law and the entire
ORDER
record in this case, it is found that the Rio Hondo Community
College 	District 	has 	violated 	subsection 	3543.S(a} 	of 	the
Educational Employment Relations Act. It is hereby ORDERED
that the District, its governing board, and representatives
shall :
Bert L. Davis and interfering with the rights of Davis by
denying Davis a one-year, unpaid leave of absence because
of his participation in an employee organization of his own
choosing .
.
EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE EDUCATIONAL EMPLOYMENT
RELATIONS ACT:
.
one-year, unpaid leave of absence for any reason in
any academic year up to and including seven years from
consecutive or nonconsecutive semesters of unpaid
leave of absence for any reason in any academic years
up to and including seven years from the date this
decision becomes final;
back pay, as will effectuate the policies of
this chapter .
ORDER
Upon 	the 	foregoing 	facts, 	conclusions 	of 	law 	and 	the 	entire
record 	in 	this 	case, 	it 	is 	found 	that 	the 	Rio Hondo Community
College District has violated subsection 3543.5 (a) of the
Educational Employment 	Relations 	Act. 	It 	is 	hereby ORDERED
that 	the 	District, 	its 	governing 	board, 	and 	representatives
shall:
1. 	CEASE 	AND 	DESIST 	FROM discriminating 	against
Bert 	L. 	Davis 	and 	interfering 	with 	the 	rights 	of 	Davis 	by
denying 	Davis 	a 	one-year, 	unpaid 	leave 	of 	absence 	because
of 	his 	participation 	in 	an 	employee 	organization of 	his 	own
choosing.
7
2. 	TAKE 	THE 	FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE 	ACTIONS 	DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE 	THE 	POLICIES 	OF THE EDUCATIONAL EMPLOYMENT
RELATIONS 	ACT:
a. 	Upon 	the 	request 	of 	Bert 	L. 	Davis, 	grant 	him 	a
one-year, 	unpaid 	leave 	of 	absence 	for 	any 	reason 	in
any 	academic 	year 	up 	to 	and 	including 	seven 	years 	from
the date this decision is final, or grant him any two
consecutive 	or 	nonconsecutive 	semesters 	of 	unpaid
leave 	of 	absence 	for 	any 	reason 	in 	any 	academic 	years
up 	to 	and 	including 	seven 	years 	from 	the 	date 	this
decision 	becomes 	final;
reinstatement 	of 	employees 	with 	or 	without
back 	pay, 	as 	will 	effectuate 	the 	policies 	of
this 	chapter.

8
Within ten (10) workdays following the date of	b .
service of this decision, post at all work locations
where notices to employees customarily are placed
copies of the Notice attached as an appendix hereto
signed by an authorized agent of the employer. Such
posting shall be maintained for a period of ten (10)
consecutive workdays. Reasonable steps shall be taken
to insure that such Notices are not altered, defaced
or covered by any other material or reduced in size.
Within ten (10) workdays following service of this
decision, notify the Los Angeles regional director of
the Public Employment Relations Board in writing of
what steps the employer has taken to comply with the
terms of this decision. Continue to report in writing
to the regional director periodically thereafter as
directed. All reports to the regional director shall
be served concurrently on Charging Party herein.
b. 	Within 	ten 	(10) 	workdays 	following 	the 	date 	of
service 	of 	this 	decision, 	post 	at 	all 	work 	locations
where 	notices 	to 	employees 	customarily 	are 	placed
copies 	of 	the 	Notice 	attached 	as 	an 	appendix 	hereto
signed 	by 	an 	authorized 	agent 	of 	the 	employer. 	Such
posting 	shall 	be 	maintained 	for 	a 	period 	of 	ten 	(10)
consecutive 	workdays. 	Reasonable 	steps 	shall 	be 	taken
to 	insure 	that 	such 	Notices 	are 	not 	altered, 	defaced
or 	covered 	by 	any 	other 	material 	or 	reduced 	in 	size.
Within 	ten 	(10) 	workdays 	following 	service 	of 	this
decision, 	notify 	the 	Los 	Angeles 	regional 	director 	of
the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	in 	writing 	of
what 	steps 	the 	employer 	has 	taken 	to 	comply 	with 	the
terms 	of 	this 	decision. 	Continue 	to 	report 	in 	writing
to 	the 	regional 	director 	periodically 	thereafter 	as
directed. 	All 	reports 	to 	the 	regional 	director 	shall
be 	served 	concurrently 	on Charging 	Party 	herein.
By: / vipgir Jensen, Member 	John Jaeger , Member
Marly Morgenstern , Member

Dated:
Upon request from Bert L. Davis, grant him a one-year
TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION DESIGNED TO
CEASE AND DESIST FROM discriminating against Bert L. Davis
After a hearing in Unfair Practice Case No. LA-CE-486, in
An Agency of the State of California
NOTICE TO CERTIFICATED EMPLOYEES
APPENDIX A
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
which all parties participated, it has been found that the
Rio Hondo Community College District violated subsection
3543.S(a) 	of 	the 	Educational Employment 	Relations 	Act 	(EERA) 	by
interfering with the rights of Bert L. Davis to participate in
the activities of an employee organization of his own choosing
by denying Bert L. Davis a one-year leave of absence without
pay because of his exercise of rights guaranteed under the
EERA. As a result of this conduct, we have been ordered to
post this Notice, and we will abide by the following:
and interfering with the rights of Davis to participate in the
activities of an employee organization of his own choosing by
denying Davis a one-year leave of absence without pay because
of his exercise of rights guaranteed under the EERA.
EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE EERA:
unpaid leave of absence for any reason in any academic year up
to and including seven years from the date of this decision or
grant him any two consecutive or nonconsecutive semesters of
unpaid leave of absence for any reason in any academic year up
to and including seven years from the date of this decision.
APPENDIX A
By---------~-------
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE. IT MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR TEN (10)
Authorized Agent
RIO HONDO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
CONSECUTIVE WORKDAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE
REDUCED IN SIZE, DEFACED, ALTERED OR COVERED BY ANY MATERIAL.
NOTICE 	TO 	CERTIFICATED EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY 	ORDER OF 	THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
An Agency 	of 	the 	State 	of 	California
After 	a 	hearing 	in Unfair 	Practice Case No. 	LA-CE-486, 	in
which 	all 	parties 	participated, 	it 	has 	been 	found 	that 	the
Rio 	Hondo Community College 	District 	violated 	subsection
3543.5 (a) of the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA) by
interfering 	with 	the 	rights 	of 	Bert 	L. 	Davis 	to 	participate 	in
the 	activities 	of 	an 	employee 	organization of 	his 	own 	choosing
by 	denying 	Bert L. 	Davis 	a 	one-year 	leave 	of 	absence 	without
pay 	because 	of 	his 	exercise 	of 	rights 	guaranteed 	under 	the
EERA. 	As 	a 	result 	of 	this 	conduct, 	we 	have 	been 	ordered 	to
post 	this 	Notice, 	and 	we 	will 	abide 	by 	the 	following:
CEASE 	AND 	DESIST 	FROM discriminating 	against 	Bert 	L. 	Davis
and 	interfering 	with 	the 	rights 	of 	Davis 	to 	participate 	in 	the
activities 	of 	an 	employee 	organization 	of 	his 	own 	choosing 	by
denying 	Davis 	a 	one-year 	leave 	of 	absence 	without 	pay 	because
of 	his 	exercise 	of 	rights 	guaranteed 	under 	the 	EERA.
TAKE 	THE 	FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION 	DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE 	THE 	POLICIES 	OF 	THE 	EERA:
Upon 	request 	from 	Bert 	L. 	Davis, 	grant 	him 	a 	one-year
unpaid 	leave 	of 	absence 	for 	any 	reason 	in 	any 	academic 	year 	up
to 	and 	including 	seven 	years 	from 	the 	date 	of 	this 	decision 	or
grant 	him 	any 	two 	consecutive 	or 	nonconsecutive 	semesters 	of
unpaid 	leave 	of 	absence 	for 	any 	reason 	in 	any 	academic 	year 	up
to 	and 	including 	seven 	years 	from 	the 	date 	of 	this 	decision.
Dated:
RIO 	HONDO 	COMMUNITY 	COLLEGE 	DISTRICT
By Authorized Agent
THIS 	IS 	AN OFFICIAL NOTICE. 	IT MUST 	REMAIN POSTED 	FOR TEN 	(10)
CONSECUTIVE WORKDAYS 	FROM THE 	DATE 	OF 	POSTING AND MUST NOT 	BE
REDUCED 	IN 	SIZE, 	DEFACED, 	ALTERED 	OR COVERED 	BY ANY MATERIAL.