Sacramento City Unified School District (PERB 0259E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
JOSEPH JAMES 	CATALFANO,
Charging 	Party,
v.
SACRAMENTO 	CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL 	DISTRICT,
Respondent.
Case No. 	S-CE-367
PERB Decision No. 	259
November 18, 	1982
Appearances; 	Joseph James Catalfano, 	in propria persona;
Nancy B. 	Ozsogomonyan, Attorney 	(Brown and Conradi) 	for
Sacramento City Unified School District.
Before Jaeger, Morgenstern and Jensen, Members.
DECISION
JAEGER, 	Member: 	Joseph 	James 	Catalfano 	excepts 	to 	the
attached 	hearing 	o f f i c e r ' s 	proposed 	decision 	dismissing 	the
unfair 	p r a c t i c e 	charge 	f i l e d 	by 	him. 	After 	considering 	the
e n t i r e 	record 	in 	l i g h t 	of 	the 	e x c e p t i o n s , 	the 	Board 	affirms 	the
hearing 	o f f i c e r ' s 	findings 	of 	fact 	and 	conclusions 	of 	law 	and
dismissal 	of 	the 	charge.
ORDER
Upon 	the foregoing Decision 	and 	the 	entire 	record 	in 	this
case, 	the Public Employment Relations Board ORDERS 	that: 	the
charge 	filed 	by Joseph James Catalfano 	against 	the Sacramento
City Unified School District 	in Case No. 	S-CE-367 is 	DISMISSED
without leave 	to 	amend.
Members 	Morgenstern 	and Jensen 	concurred.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_______________ )

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
JOSEPH JAMES 	CATALFANO,
Charging 	P a r t y ,
v .
SACRAMENTO UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Respondent.
Unfair 	Practice
Case No. S-CE-367
PROPOSED DECISION
(5/29/81)
Appearances: 	Joseph 	James 	C a t a l f a n o , 	I n P r o P e r ;
Nancy 	Ozsogomonyan, 	A t t o r n e y 	(Brown 	and 	C o n r a d i ) , 	for
Sacramento 	Unified 	School 	D i s t r i c t .
Before 	S h a r r e l 	J . 	Wyatt, 	Hearing 	O f f i c e r .
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This 	case 	involves alleged discrimination against
Joseph James Catalfano because of his union activity. 	On
August 28, 	1980, Catalfano filed an unfair practice charge
against 	the Sacramento Unified School District
(herein District) 	alleging violation of Government Code
section 	3543.5(a)1 as well as several Education Code
sections. 	On September 1, 1980, that charge was dismissed with
leave to amend. 	On September 15, 1980, Catalfano amended.
Following an informal conference on October 7, 1980, the
District filed a Motion to Particularize on October 10, 	1980,
1A11 references are to the Government Code unless
otherwise 	indicated.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
____________ )

and 	particularization was 	ordered 	on October 	14, 	1980.
Catalfano 	filed 	a 	reply 	to 	the Order 	to Particularize 	on
October 	14, 	1980. 	A Complaint 	and Notice of Hearing was 	issued
October 	30, 	1980, 	for 	hearing on December 	4, 	1980. 	The
District 	filed 	an Answer 	on November 	14, 	198 0, which 	it 	amended
on November 	19, 	1980. 	Catalfano 	requested a continuance on
November 	26, 	198 0, 	in order 	to secure 	legal 	representation.
The 	hearing was 	rescheduled for December 	17, 	1980; 	however,
Catalfano 	was 	unable 	to 	secure 	legal 	representation 	in 	the
interim.
The 	issues 	raised 	by 	the 	unfair 	practice 	charge were 	not
resolved 	and 	the formal 	hearing 	was 	conducted 	in Sacramento,
California, 	on December 17 and 	18, 	1980. 	The parties filed
post-hearing 	briefs February 	20, 	1980, 	and this matter 	was
submitted.
FINDINGS 	OF 	FACT
The parties 	stipulated 	that 	the District 	is 	an 	employer 	and
that 	Catalfano 	was 	an 	employee 	within the meaning of 	the
Educational Employment Relations Act 	(hereafter EERA 	or A c t ) ,
that 	he was 	hired 	by 	the District on December 	14, 	1978 and 	his
last 	day worked 	was March 	3, 	1980.2 	He 	began his 	employment
with 	the District in 	a 	temporary custodial position, 	became 	a
probationary 	employee 	in 	the 	classification of custodian,
2Official notice 	is 	taken that March 3, 	1980, was a
Monday.
22

completed his 	200 	days 	of probation and was 	a permanent
employee 	of 	the 	District 	in 	that 	classification on his
last 	day worked.
To 	corroborate 	his 	testimony, 	Catalfano 	attempted 	to place
a one 	page 	letter 	from D. 	S. 	Frick and Associates, 	Inc. 	in
evidence. 	That letter 	purported 	to 	reflect 	Catalfano's 	answers
to 	specific questions 	on 	a lie detector 	test. 	It was 	denied
admission in 	evidence. 	This 	bootstrapping of 	his 	own 	testimony
was 	not 	admitted 	because 	it was 	not corroboration, 	but 	a repeat
of Catalfano's own 	testimony and, 	further, 	it lacked 	due
process 	to the District, 	i.e., 	notice, 	an opportunity to attend
the application of 	the 	test with 	its 	own expert 	and a 	chance 	to
cross 	examine Catalfano 	during application of 	the 	test 	and
Frick 	to 	determine 	his expertise 	in 	giving 	the 	test 	and 	the
likelihood 	of 	the 	test's 	accuracy. 	Thus 	it was 	inherently
unreliable, 	lacked 	due process 	and was merely a 	repeat 	of 	the
same 	testimony 	in 	a different 	form.
A. 	Identity of 	the District Personnel.
The 	supervisory 	structure 	of 	the District 	in maintenance
and operations 	includes Albert Artero, 	supervisor 	of operation
services; 	Thomas McPoil, 	the coordinator of maintenance and
operations under Artero; 	Charlie Pugh, 	field supervisor for
operation services, 	a position in which 	he visits 	schools on a
regular 	basis; 	William Goode, 	a school 	plant operations
manager 	I 	and Catalfano's immediate 	supervisor. 	Artero 	is
w
3

Goode' s line supervisor. 	William Chase, principal at Marshall,
is Goode's immediate site supervisor. 	Goode evaluated
Catalfano.
B. 	Evidence of alleged reprisals, discrimination,
interference, 	restraint or 	coercion; 	Catalfano's union
activity.
When Artero 	interviewed 	Catalfano 	for 	employment 	with 	the
District, 	Catalfano 	testified 	that Artero 	asked 	him 	not 	to join
the 	union 	because 	the 	union was 	too weak and 	a waste 	of 	money.
Catalfano 	testified 	that because of Artero's statement, 	he 	did
not 	join 	the 	union 	because 	he was 	scared 	of 	any reprisals 	that
would 	be inflicted on 	him 	if 	he 	joined. 	Artero denies 	he made
any comment 	about 	joining 	a 	union.3 This 	is 	the only
evidence 	of 	alleged 	union 	animus 	by Artero that was 	presented.
A 	statement 	that 	the 	union 	is 	weak and 	a waste of 	money
contains 	no threat 	of 	reprisal. 	From 	this 	statement 	it 	cannot
be 	inferred 	that 	joining 	the 	union 	could 	have 	an 	adverse 	impact
on Catalfano's employment 	relationship with 	the District. 	As
noted 	hereafter, 	Catalfano 	did join the 	union while still 	a
probationary employee. 	Catalfano's 	testimony that 	he 	refrained
from joining 	because of 	fear 	of 	reprisal 	is 	found, 	therefore,
to be 	totally lacking 	in 	credibility. 	Based on 	demeanor 	and
3McPoil, who participated in 75 percent of 	the job
interviews in maintenance and operations, 	has never 	heard
Artero mention unions 	at an interview.
A	4

surrounding facts 	and 	circumstances, 	Catalfano's 	testimony 	that
Artero made 	such 	a statement 	is 	not found 	to 	be 	credible.
In late December 	or 	early January, 	Catalfano 	testified 	that
he and Goode, 	his 	immediate 	supervisor, 	had an argument
regarding 	strikes, 	that Catalfano favored 	strikes 	because 	it
would 	have 	a 	stronger 	influence 	on 	union 	negotiations 	and 	Goode
opposed 	strikes 	because 	he 	would 	have 	to 	clean 	the 	entire
school 	by himself 	if 	all 	the other 	custodians 	were 	on strike
and 	that 	it would 	be 	an 	act 	of 	disloyalty 	to the District
because 	it 	would 	interfere 	with 	the District. 	Goode 	denies
this 	latter 	statement.4 Whether 	or 	not Goode made 	the
statements, 	the 	statements 	themselves contain 	no threat of
reprisal. 	They merely express 	Goode's 	opinion on strikes.
However, 	Catalfano testified 	that 	thereafter, Goode
increased 	his 	workload. 	He 	had 	11 	classrooms 	and 	three 	sets 	of
bathrooms. 	Every Friday he 	had 	to 	clean the 	chalk 	rails 	and
boards. 	After 	the 	argument, Goode told him 	to 	start buffing
the 	cafeteria 	floor 	and 	some 	classrooms 	every day 	and 	clean the
chalk 	rails 	every day 	and 	water 	the 	kindergarten 	area daily,
but 	none 	of 	his 	other 	assignments was 	eliminated,, 	Goode denied
4Principal 	Chase 	was 	in 	the 	cafeteria daily and 	heard 	no
such discussion. 	Wilma Tully 	works 	in 	the 	cafeteria 	and 	heard
no 	such 	discussion. 	The same 	is 	true of Joyce Blaney and
Diane Ellis, 	the 	cafeteria cashiers 	and Margaret Ellis, 	school
secretary. 	None of 	these 	employees 	ever 	heard Goode mention
unions or 	strikes.
un
	5

Catalfano's workload was increased. 	He testified Catalfano was
asked to 	buff 	the cafeteria on a couple of occasions and was
given relief from classrooms 	to do so. 	Goode had discussed
workload with Catalfano who indicated his was not too great and
he had plenty of 	time to finish his work. 	Ellis corroborated
that 	floors were 	not buffed 	every day.
Based on testimony and exhibits, 	it 	is found that
Catalfano's work was not increased and that he was not required
to 	buff 	floors 	daily.
Catalfano did the art work on a union recruiting poster
from October 1979 through January 1980. 	No use was ever made
of 	it by the union. 	He told Goode he was doing it in late
December or early January. 	Goode had no verbal response, but
Catalfano said he could tell by his 	facial expressions that he
was pretty much displeased. 	Goode's 	attitude became so
grinding, according to Catalfano, 	that he had to ask for 	a
change in hours. 	On February 26, 1980, Pugh came to the school
at Catalfano's request. 	Catalfano told Pugh that he and Goode
were not getting along. 	He stated the problem was racial and
did not mention union activity to Pugh; 	he claims he did not
want his union activity to get back 	to Artero for fear of
reprisals. 	Catalfano denied he had concern for 	reprisals over
racial problems because that's more numerous than union
problems.
66

Pugh said he recommended the change because it was 	not
proper 	to have two custodians on day shift and to help resolve
the conflict between Catalfano and Goode. 	Pugh said Catalfano
had never called him but that he 	(Pugh) 	visits the school on a
regular basis. 	Catalfano and Goode had strifes because Goode
had made a comment about low-riders. 	Pugh, who is Portuguese,
told Catalfano he would really have problems if he got upset
every time anyone said anything. 	Goode did not deny he made a
comment about low-riders, but he only made one such comment.
The low-rider remark occurred 	in September or October 1979,
shortly after Catalfano 	had 	transferred 	to Marshall. 	Catalfano
said he could make his car into a low-rider. 	Goode could not
recall his 	response but was sure 	it was 	not derogatory. 	In any
event, 	Catalfano was 	offended.
While s t i l l 	a probationary 	employee,5 Catalfano joined
the union at the request of Paul Caisse, 	a fellow custodian on
September 13, 	1979. 	Caisse gave some forms to Catalfano and
asked him 	to help recruit members. 	Catalfano did solicit other
members during October 1979.6 	Catalfano believed Goode knew
5The 	fact 	that Catalfano 	joined 	the 	union while 	still 	a
probationary employee substantiates 	the 	finding 	that 	the
alleged 	statement of Artero 	at 	the 	employment 	interview, 	was
not 	seen as 	a threat 	by Catalfano.
6Joyce 	Blaney and Wilma Tully, 	who work 	in the 	cafeteria,
were 	approached 	by Catalfano 	and 	asked 	if 	they 	belonged 	to 	the
union.
77

he was doing so because it was a small school. 	There is no
concrete 	evidence on which 	it 	could be found that Goode in fact
had knowledge.
Catalfano's charge alleges he was a shop steward. 	He
testified he believed he was. 	Nothing in the record indicated
he was, however.
Betty Osborn 	is 	active 	in SEIU and has 	attended 	all
meetings. 	There 	is 	no official shop steward on the 	l i s t for
Marshall, 	but 	she acts 	unofficially by putting 	information for
SEIU in boxes, passing messages. 	She has never seen Catalfano
at 	any union meeting.
Jeff 	Ellis, 	whose 	shift overlaps 	with Catalfano's, 	belongs
to the same union as Catalfano and was 	not aware that Catalfano
belonged or was active, although they spoke every night.
Chase, 	the principal, 	was 	not aware of Catalfano's union
activity.
Thus, 	other 	than Catalfano's few inquiries 	about whether
fellow employees 	belonged 	to the 	union in October 	1979, 	it 	is
clear 	that most 	employees 	at Marshall were 	unaware 	that
Catalfano had joined the 	union. 	Artero supervises over 	300
maintenance and operations employees and has no knowledge of
who does or does not belong to a union. 	He was unaware of any
union 	activity on Catalfano's part.
At his hearing before the Employment Development Department
(herein EDD) 	to obtain unemployment compensation, Catalfano
8

never 	mentioned 	union 	discrimination 	as 	a 	reason 	for 	leaving
his 	employment. 	At 	that 	hearing 	his 	sole 	reason for 	leaving
his 	job was 	because 	he 	thought 	he was 	fired.
Catalfano 	never mentioned 	he 	was 	being 	discriminated
against 	for 	union 	activity to Paul 	Caisse, 	who had 	induced 	him
to 	join 	the 	union 	and observed 	his 	work 	on 	the 	union poster.
Nor 	did he 	seek help from 	the 	union 	until 	long after 	his
employment 	terminated. 	His 	reason for 	failing 	to go 	the 	union
was 	that 	he 	did not 	know 	anything 	about 	the 	grievance
procedure. 	He 	had only 	read 	the part 	of 	the 	contract 	dealing
with wages, holidays, etc.
C. 	Catalfano's Problems 	with Job Performance.
Goode 	testified 	there 	was 	friction 	between 	him 	and
Catalfano because 	of Catalfano's job performance: 	failure 	to
secure 	rooms, 	attitude 	toward Goode 	and 	toward 	his 	work,
inconsistent quality, 	tardiness, 	excessive absences 	and that
there 	were 	counseling 	sessions 	2-3 	times 	per 	week. 	Goode 	even
offered 	to pick Catalfano 	up and 	give 	him 	a 	ride 	to work 	to get
him 	there 	on time. 	Goode 	indicated 	he was 	not 	aware 	of
Catalfano's 	union 	activity.
Catalfano 	also 	lied on 	his 	job application, 	omitting a 	job
from which 	he 	had 	been 	fired 	and 	denying 	he 	had 	ever 	been
discharged 	from 	employment. 	He 	also 	stated 	he was 	a high
school 	graduate when he was 	not. 	The apparent purpose of 	this
evidence 	is 	to show that 	he 	is 	unlikely to 	be an honest
9
9

witness. 	Because employees 	eager for 	employment may well 	be
less 	than 	honest, 	the 	fact 	that 	he was 	not 	totally honest 	on
his 	application was 	not 	a 	consideration in 	resolving
credibility. 	This 	evidence 	of 	dishonesty did not 	carry over
into other 	areas 	of 	his 	employment.
On December 	1, 	1979, 	Catalfano was 	evaluated. 	The
evaluation 	indicated 	that 	"performance 	fully meets 	standard
requirements." 	It 	indicated 	he was making genuine 	effort 	to
correct 	tardiness 	and 	carry out 	requests 	of 	his 	supervisors.
In November 	he 	had 	received 	a 	letter 	indicating he 	had 	failed
to lock 	two doors. 	Goode was 	aware 	that 	one of 	the doors 	had 	a
defective 	latch and did not 	always 	lock. 	Securing 	doors was
Catalfano's 	responsibility 	on 	the 	date 	in 	question because
Jeff Ellis, 	a co-worker was 	absent.
Thereafter 	absences 	and 	tardiness 	continued 	to 	be 	a
problem. 	On February 16, 	Catalfano said he would 	be 	absent but
reported 	for 	work. 	Both 	he 	and 	the 	substitute 	were 	paid. 	On
February 	22, 	it happened 	again. 	Goode 	requested that
Catalfano's pay 	be 	docked. 	When Catalfano 	left 	the District,
he 	had 	already used four 	and 	a 	half 	more 	days 	of 	sick leave
than 	he 	had 	earned.
In February, Goode reprimanded Catalfano 	verbally for
leaving windows open. 	Catalfano 	testified 	that 	it was 	not 	his
responsibility to 	lock 	up 	the school. 	When 	a teacher 	spoke 	to
Catalfano about windows, 	he 	stated 	that he 	closed 	all 	his
10
I

windows 	and 	someone must 	have 	been 	coming 	after 	him 	and 	opening
them 	up. 	He 	was 	warned 	about leaving 	windows open more 	than
once. 	When Goode spoke 	to 	him about open windows, 	he said he
had 	checked 	that particular 	one 	and 	it 	had 	been 	closed 	and
locked. 	When 	the 	issue 	came up 	again, 	he 	felt 	these 	instances
were "concocted, made 	up."
Catalfano was 	of 	the opinion that Jeff 	Ellis, 	a 	fellow
custodian whose mother, Margaret Ellis, 	was school 	secretary,
was 	placed 	on 	the 	job to 	watch 	him 	and 	report 	to 	the 	principal.
The way in which Catalfano performed 	his 	work, 	his 	absences
and 	tardiness, 	whether 	he secured 	doors 	and windows 	are 	related
to job performance 	and a basis for 	the employer 	to set
standards 	of 	behavior 	for 	employees. 	Factually, 	there 	is 	no
basis for 	finding 	a 	connection 	between 	this 	and 	alleged 	union
animus. 	Whether Catalfano 	failed 	to 	secure windows 	or 	whether
someone 	came 	behind 	him 	and made 	changes 	in work 	he 	had
performed, 	did create 	problems 	in his 	employment 	relationship.
There 	is 	no 	connection between those 	problems 	and 	his
participation in the 	union, 	however.
D. Incidents 	Surrounding 	Catalfano's 	Last 	Day Worked.
On Friday, 	February 29, 	1980 	Catalfano was 	notified his
request for 	change in hours 	was 	approved. 	That 	day he injured
his 	wrist 	at work and 	asked 	to 	leave 	early because 	it was
hurting. 	He left 	at 	around 	3:00 p.m. 	Between 4:00 	and
6:00 	p.m. 	Catalfano 	testified 	that 	he 	received 	a 	call 	from
11

Artero saying "Joe, 	if you don't quit, 	I ' l l 	fire you." 	He
could not state 	that 	the caller 	identified himself 	but said he
recognized the voice as that of Artero. 	He had spoken to
Artero on the phone three times: 	once a year and a half
earlier 	regarding 	transfer, 	once when a night custodian quit
(before Ellis came) 	and once when Goode was absent and he
called for 	a substitute.
Artero denied he called Catalfano on February 29, 	1980.
Based on this 	record, 	it 	is found that Artero did not call
Catalfano 	and make this 	threat. 	While Catalfano may have
received such a call from some unidentified caller, based on
Artero's demeanor 	and 	testimony and the lack of motivation for
Artero to make such a c a l l , 	it 	is concluded Artero was 	not the
caller.
The following Monday, March 3, 	198 0, Catalfano returned to
work on his 	regular shift, from 11:30 a.m. 	to 8:00 p.m. 	Goode
asked him how his 	wrist was, 	he said it was a l i t t l e sore, and
Goode phoned Artero who was not available. 	He spoke to
Thomas McPoil who asked Catalfano why he did not go to a
doctor. 	Catalfano told McPoil his wrist was 	not hurting and
requested that he be permitted to finish his 	shift since he was
already at work and see a doctor the following day. 	McPoil
agreed 	and Catalfano 	finished 	his 	shift.
Chase, 	the principal, 	had met with Catalfano regarding
tardiness, 	absences, 	failure 	to secure windows and 	job
12

performance and had discussed these problems with Goode. 	On
March 3, 	he and Goode met with Catalfano regarding absences and
tardiness and to give him a pep talk in an effort 	to increase
the quality and consistency of his 	work. 	Catalfano was told of
three options available to him: 	he could improve, they could
document the problems 	and dismiss him, or 	he could quit.
Later that day, Chase met with Catalfano and asked him if
he had made a decision and Catalfano said yes, he was going to
resign. 	Chase said that was 	not the only alternative but
Catalfano said his mind was made up.
Catalfano could not recall speaking with Chase on March 3
after he met with Chase and Goode earlier in the day.
Nonetheless, Chase's 	testimony is found to be credible.
On March 3, 	Ellis 	testified that Catalfano said it was his
last night, he was 	quitting.7 At the end of his shift,
Catalfano called the school 	security police and turned in 	his
keys to Officer Bender because he would not be working the
following day, 	according 	to Catalfano. 	Jeff Ellis 	was present
when he turned his 	keys in. 	Catalfano told Officer Bender he
quit and wanted 	to turn his 	keys in. 	Officer Bender 	asked
Catalfano why he didn't call Artero, 	and Catalfano said he did
not want 	to disturb his beauty 	rest. 	Security Officers
7Catalfano claims 	he did not see Ellis on March 3 at
8:01 p.m.. 	Based on demeanor and the fact that Ellis began his
shift 	at 	7:00 p.m., 	this 	conflict 	is 	resolved 	in favor 	of Ellis,
13

Daryl Bender 	and Harold Jones had both arrived at Marshall 	in
response to Catalfano's call. 	When Jones 	asked Catalfano 	if he
was going on to bigger and better things and Catalfano
responded, 	"something like that." 	Catalfano did not say he was
going to be absent the next day. 	Ellis was present and
corroborated 	the conversation with the security guards.
Catalfano denies he ever made a verbal resignation and says
he turned 	in his 	keys to Officer Bender8 	so Goode would have
an extra set. 	Catalfano claims his only intent on March 3 was
to see a doctor on March 4 as McPoil requested so he could get
back to work.
Catalfano's 	testimony is 	not found 	to be credible because
it 	is in direct conflict with that of Chase, 	Bender 	and Ellis
and 	because the accompanying action of 	turning his 	keys 	in is
not consistent with intent 	to return to the job at Marshall.
Catalfano's school, James Marshall, 	had a substitute set of
keys. 	Catalfano knew this because he had used the extra keys
when he forgot his own. 	He had never before turned in his 	keys
at Marshall or in this fashion. 	It has 	not been the practice
to 	turn 	in keys for 	absences. 	Catalfano 	is 	the first 	employee
who ever turned in keys 	to security personnel. 	Thus, 	his
8 Officer Bender who 	had never met Catalfano 	before, was
a police officer with the City of Sacramento for over 	20 years,
accustomed to making accurate written reports. 	His 	report
corroborated his 	testimony.
14

explanation that he left the keys because he intended to go to
the doctor 	the following day is 	neither feasible nor 	credible.
On Tuesday, March 4, 1980, Catalfano called Artero to find
out why Artero had made the telephone statement to him on
February 29. 	He claimed this was his first opportunity to
call. 	According to Catalfano, 	instead of 	answering Catalfano's
inquiry, Artero told him 	to submit a formal resignation to the
personnel office or 	he would do it for 	him. 	According to
Artero, when Catalfano called Artero, he said "how do you like
the way I 	resigned?" 	Artero said it was unconventional and
told Catalfano to resign in good standing by putting a formal
resignation so he would be eligible for 	future employment, or
Artero would document termination.
This 	conflict 	in testimony is 	resolved 	in favor of Artero
based on demeanor and based on the fact that Artero's version
is 	consistent with the precipitous method with which Catalfano
left his employment on the previous day.
Later that day, Catalfano 	again called Artero and requested
an emergency 	leave9 of absence. 	Artero responded that
District policy required three years 	or more to qualify for
such a leave and even if Catalfano had the prerequisite, he
would not grant him the leave. 	Artero said he would not
9Catalfano 	testified he wanted emergency leave for
illness or injury. 	Artero's 	response was applicable to another
leave 	policy.
15

recommend a leave of absence for any employee because i t ' s a
hardship on other employees and 	in Catalfano's case, 	because he
walked off 	the 	job.
Catalfano did not go to a doctor on March 4 because he lost
all interest in it after speaking 	to Artero and the pain had
left him. 	On March 5, Catalfano turned in his work shirts.
Two months later, he was notified by the District that they
accepted his verbal 	resignation. 	When Catalfano was notified
his verbal resignation was accepted, he wrote a lengthy
statement to Dr. Giugni, superintendent. 	That statement does
not mention union activity.
Under the District's 	rules, 	after five days' 	absence without
leave, 	a notice to terminate is sent to personnel by Artero.
Some time after the board of education took action on
March 	24, 	1980, 	the District 	notified Catalfano that they
accepted his 	resignation. 	It was as the result of 	this 	notice
that Catalfano sought help from the 	union.
At a subsequent EDD hearing to obtain unemployment
compensation, Catalfano said he quit because he was going to be
fired. 	Artero testified at the PERB hearing that the District
was not about to dismiss Catalfano. 	However, Goode and Artero
had discussed problems with Catalfano for 	several weeks 	and 	if
Catalfano had not quit, he had recommended that Goode begin to
evaluate and start taking steps 	to terminate.
1
'
6

ISSUE
Whether 	the 	District 	imposed 	or 	threatened 	to 	impose
reprisals 	discriminated against, 	interfered with, 	restrained
or 	coerced Joseph James 	Catalfano 	because 	of 	the 	exercise of
rights 	guaranteed by 	the Act.
CONCLUSIONS 	OF LAW
It 	is 	concluded 	that 	this 	unfair 	practice 	charge 	should 	be
dismissed 	because 	the 	charging 	party has failed 	to 	establish a
prima facie case 	by a preponderance 	of 	the evidence 	as 	required
by California Administrative Code, 	title 	8, 	section 	32178.
Catalfano's union activity was minimal. 	He joined, 	asked 	some
fellow employees if 	they belonged, 	and prepared a poster, 	a
passive, 	non-visible activity. 	He did not 	attend meetings, was
not 	known by fellow 	employees 	as 	being 	active 	in the 	union
(indeed, most 	fellow employees 	were 	unaware of 	his membership)
and was 	not involved 	in grievances. 	Most 	noteworthy, 	nothing
was 	said or 	done during 	the 	critical 	period 	just 	before 	his
employment 	terminated 	that 	would 	either 	support 	a 	finding 	that
Catalfano was 	pressured 	to 	quit 	or 	was 	fired 	for 	union 	activity.
Instead, 	it 	is 	clear 	that Catalfano harbored 	resentment
toward Goode for 	a comment 	on low-riders, 	that Catalfano was
counseled 	by Goode, 	Chase and 	Pugh 	regarding employment
problems, 	especially failure 	to secure 	doors 	and windows,
absences 	and 	tardiness 	and 	the 	inconsistent 	quality of 	his
work. 	On the critical 	day, March 3, 	1980, 	he was called 	in and
17
\

counseled 	by Chase 	and Goode 	and 	l a t e r 	t o l d Chase, 	E l l i s 	and
the 	s e c u r i t y guards 	he was 	q u i t t i n g . 	He 	t o l d 	the 	two 	s e c u r i t y
o f f i c e r s 	he 	was 	going 	on 	to 	bigger 	and 	b e t t e r 	t h i n g s . 	Whether
Catalfano 	believed 	he was 	f i r e d , 	intended 	to 	q u i t , 	or 	intended
to 	go 	to 	the 	doctor 	when 	he 	l e f t 	his 	employment 	on March 	3, 	the
f a c t s 	simply 	do 	not 	support 	a 	finding 	t h a t 	he 	was 	forced 	to
q u i t 	or 	was 	terminated 	because 	of 	a c t i v i t y protected 	by 	the Act,
PROPOSED ORDER
Based 	on 	t h e 	findings 	of 	f a c t , 	conclusions 	of 	law 	and 	t h e
entire 	record 	in this matter, 	the 	unfair 	practice 	charge 	filed
by Joseph James Catalfano 	against 	the Sacramento City Unified
School District 	is hereby DISMISSED.
Pursuant 	to California Administrative Code, 	t i t l e 8,
part 	I I I , 	section 32305, 	this Proposed Decision and Order shall
become final on June ,22 	, 	1981, unless a party files a timely
statement of exceptions. 	See California Administrative Code,
t i t l e 8, 	part I I I , 	section 32 300. 	Such statement of exceptions
and supporting briefs must be actually received by the
Executive Assistant to the Board 	at 	the 	headquarters 	office 	in
Sacramento before the close of business 	(5:00 p.m.) 	on
June 	22 	, 	198I 	in order to be timely filed. 	See California
Administrative Code, 	t i t l e 8, part I I I , 	section 32135. 	Any
statement of 	exceptions 	and 	supporting brief must be served
18

concurrently with 	i t s 	filing 	upon each party 	to 	this
proceeding. 	Proof 	of 	service shall 	be 	filed with the Board
itself. 	See California Administrative Code, 	t i t l e 	8,
sections 32300 amd 32305, as amended.
DATED: 	May 	29 	, 1981.
Sharrel J. 	Wyatt
Hearing 	Officer
19