Anderson Union High School District (PERB 0584E)

STATE OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
CALIFORNIA 	SCHOOL 	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION 	and 	its 	ANDERSON
UNION HIGH 	SCHOOL CHAPTER 	382,
Charging 	Party,
v.
ANDERSON UNION HIGH 	SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
) 	Case No. 	S-CE-939
PERB 	Decision 	No. 	584
August 	29, 	1986
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances: 	Burton E. 	Gray for 	California 	School 	Employees
Association 	and 	its Anderson Union High 	School 	Chapter 	382;
William L. 	Odell 	for Anderson Union High 	School 	District.
-
Before Morgenstern, 	Porter and Craib, 	Members.
DECISION
CRAIB, 	Member: 	This 	case 	is 	before the Public Employment
Relations 	Board 	on 	appeal 	by the 	charging 	party of 	the 	Board
agent's dismissal, 	attached hereto, 	of 	its 	charge 	alleging 	that
the 	Anderson Union 	High 	School 	District 	violated 	section
3543.5(a) 	and 	(b) 	of 	the Educational Employment Relations Act
(Act) 	(Gov. 	Code section 3540 et seq.).
While 	the charge contained nine 	separate 	allegations, 	the
charging 	party 	appeals 	the 	dismissal 	of 	only 	four 	(those
labeled a, 	c, 	f, 	and i 	in the attached letter of dismissal).
We 	have 	reviewed 	the 	dismissal 	of 	these 	four 	allegations
and, 	finding 	it 	free from prejudicial error, 	adopt 	it 	as 	the
(
•

Decision of 	the Board 	itself, 	in that 	the 	allegations 	fail 	to
state prima 	facie violations 	of 	the Act.
ORDER
The unfair 	practice charge 	in Case No. 	S-CE-939 	is
DISMISSED WITHOUT 	LEAVE 	TO AMEND.
Members 	Morgenstern 	and 	Porter 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
2	2

STATE Of CALIFORNIA 	GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN. Governor,
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS BOARD
HEADQUARTERS OFFICE
1031 18TH STREET
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 	95814
(916) 3223088
February 28. 	1986
Mr. 	Brian Caldeira. Field Director
California 	School Employees Association
5301 Madison Ave.. Ste. 102
Sacramento, 	CA 	95841
He: 	CSEA #382 v. 	Anderson Union High School District
Case No. 	S-CE-939. 	Refusal to 	Issue Complaint
Dear Mr. 	Caldeira:
You 	have 	filed a 	charge against 	the Anderson Union High School
District 	(District) 	alleging that 	the Respondent has engaged 	in
"interference with CSEA's 	officers 	. . . " 	and 	has 	threatened
and 	imposed 	reprisals against 	them. 	The 	charge 	sets 	forth some
nine 	separate 	instances of 	conduct 	involving 	three CSEA
officers: 	Lorraine Long, 	the Chapter President. 	Judy Thissell.
Chapter Vice-President, 	and Eugene Vasquez. 	a member of CSEA's
bargaining 	team.1
In a letter dated February 20. 	1986, 	a copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit No. 	1. 	I advised you that, 	as
presented, 	the charge did not present a prima facie case of an
EERA violation and 	that unless 	you withdrew or 	amended 	the
charge, 	I would dismiss it. 	I have not received an amendment
or 	a withdrawal, 	and for the reasons 	set forth in my letter of
February 20. 	1986. 	I am therefore dismissing the charge.
Pursuant 	to Public Employment Relations Board 	regulation
section 32635 	(California Administrative Code, 	title 8.
part III), 	you may appeal the refusal to issue a complaint
(dismissal) 	to the Board itself.
1Mr. Vasquez 	is erroneously named as 	"Mr. 	Jose" 	in this
charge.

Mr. 	Brian Caldeira, 	Field Director
February 28, 	1986
Page 2
Right to Appeal
You may obtain a 	review of 	this dismissal of 	the charge by
filing an appeal 	to 	the Board 	itself within twenty 	(20)
calendar 	days after 	service of 	this dismissal 	(section
32635(a)). 	To be timely filed, 	the original and five 	(5)
copies 	of 	such appeal must be actually received 	by the Board
itself 	before the close of 	business 	(5:00 p.m.) 	on March 20.
1986. 	or 	sent by telegraph or 	certified United States mail
postmarked not later than March 20. 	1986 	(section 32135). 	The
Board's address is:
Public Employment Relations Board
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, 	CA 95814
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 	(5) 	copies of a statement 	in opposition within twenty
(20) 	calendar days 	following the date of 	service of 	the appeal
(section 32635(b)).
Service
All 	documents 	authorized 	to 	be 	filed 	herein must 	also be
"served" upon all parties to the proceeding, 	and a 	"proof of
service" 	must accompany each copy of 	a document served upon a
party or 	filed with the Board 	itself 	(see section 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.
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 (section 32132).

Mr. 	Brian Caldeira. 	Field Director
February 28, 	1986
Page 3
Final Date
If 	no appeal 	is filed within the specified time limits, 	the
dismissal will 	become final when the 	time 	limits have expired,
Very truly yours.
JEFFREY 	SLOAN
Acting General 	Counsel
By Jorge Leon
Staff 	Attorney
4O4Od
..

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
HEADQUARTERS OFFICE
1031 18TH STREET
SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 	95814
(916) 322-3088
February 20, 	1986
Mr. Brian Caldeira, 	Field Director
California School 	Employees Association
5301 Madison Ave., Ste. 102
Sacramento, 	CA 	95841
Re: 	CSEA #382 v. 	Anderson Union High School District
Case No. 	S-CE-939
Dear Mr. Caldeira:
You have 	filed a charge against 	the Anderson Union High School
District 	(District) 	alleging that the Respondent has engaged in
"interference with CSEA's officers 	. . . " 	and has 	threatened
and 	imposed reprisals against 	them. 	The charge 	sets 	forth some
nine separate 	instances of conduct 	involving three CSEA
officers: 	Lorraine Long, 	the Chapter President, 	Judy Thissell,
Chapter Vice-President, 	and Eugene Vasquez, 	a member of CSEA's
bargaining 	team.1
Set forth below, 	following each verbatim allegation, 	is the
information revealed 	in the 	investigation of this matter.
a) 	On or about March 18, 	1985, 	during a school board
meeting CSEA Chapter 	President 	Lorraine 	Long was
intimidated, 	harassed and humiliated by the
Superintendent 	and Board 	regarding 	CSEA's 	initial
contract proposal. 	The Board and Superintendent
referred 	[sic] that Ms. 	Long had failed to add input
[sic] 	from unit members in the proposal and in general
coerced Ms. 	Long as a direct result of her 	submission
of the bargaining proposal.
Ms. 	Long is 	in her second year as President of the local
chapter of CSEA. 	At a school board meeting 	the evening of
March 18, 	two Board members commented after she had presented
CSEA's proposal for a 20 percent salary increase. 	Mr. 	Hamblin,
according to Charging Party, 	stated, 	"We don't want any more
Mickey Mouse proposals." 	Mr. 	Peterson asked whether CSEA had
conferred with its membership before making the proposal, 	and
suggested that Ms. 	Long 	"Go back and get a worthwhile
EXHIBIT 1
IMr 	1Mr. Vasquez is erroneously named as "Mr. Jose" in this
charge.

Mr. 	Brian Caldeira. 	Field Director
February 20. 	1986
Page 	2
proposal." 	Charging 	Party 	has 	not 	provided 	information
regarding what 	Superintendent 	Lietaker 	may 	have 	said 	on 	this
occasion.
b) 	Since 	that 	time. 	Ms. 	Long 	has 	been required 	to 	report
her 	whereabouts 	at 	all 	times. 	She 	is 	the 	only unit
member 	required 	to do 	so. 	Obviously, 	this 	is 	clear
interference 	as 	a 	direct 	result 	cf 	her 	status 	and
actions 	as 	a union officer.
.
Sometime 	in April or May 1985, 	according to Ms. 	Long, 	she heard
Verda 	Snyder. 	then the 	principal's 	secretary, 	and 	formerly
Superintendent Lietaker's 	secretary, 	ask 	"Why 	is 	she 	coming 	in
late?" 	concerning Ms. 	Long's 	late 	arrival at 	school 	one day
when returning from 	jury duty. 	According to Ms. 	Long, 	her
supervisor 	has 	not, 	at 	any time, 	actually communicated 	to her
that 	she 	is 	required 	to 	report 	her 	whereabouts.
c) 	Judy Thissell, 	Chapter Vice-president 	and 	a 	bargaining
unit member, 	is a bus driver. 	Ms. 	Thissell 	is not
permitted 	to use 	the Bus Drivers 	Lounge. 	She 	is 	the
only 	bus 	driver 	required 	to 	pump 	her 	own 	gas 	and 	her
supervisor 	has 	told 	other 	male 	employees 	not 	to 	be
seen alone 	with 	her.
Furthermore. 	Ms. 	Thissell was 	singled 	out at 	a 	bus
drivers 	orientation meeting when 	the 	supervisor 	looked
at 	her 	and 	said, 	"Some 	people wear 	tight 	jeans and 	low
cut 	blouses." 	All 	of 	those 	actions 	occurred 	after
Ms. 	Thissell 	became Chapter Vice-president 	and 	a
member 	of 	the 	negotiating 	committee.
Mr. 	Gregory Filek, 	Transportation Supervisor, 	is Ms. 	Thissell's
supervisor. 	The 	Respondent 	submitted 	a 	declaration under
penalty 	of 	perjury 	signed 	by Mr. 	Filek 	in which 	he 	indicates
that 	he was 	not aware 	that Ms. 	Thissell was 	an officer 	or a
negotiating 	team member 	for 	CSEA until 	September 	26, 	1986. 	when
he 	was 	so 	informed 	by 	the 	superintendent. 	This 	was 	two weeks
after 	the 	filing 	of 	the 	instant 	charge.
d) 	Sometime after March 	18. 	1985. 	President Lorraine Long
received 	a 	verbal 	threat 	from 	Superintendent
J. 	D. 	Lietaker. 	This 	threat was 	based 	upon President
Long 	having 	represented 	an 	employee 	who 	filed 	a
grievance. 	A 	threat 	such 	as 	this 	coming 	as 	a 	direct

Mr. 	Brian Caldeira. 	Field Director
February 20. 	1986
Page 	3
result 	of 	representing an 	employee 	in 	a 	grievance 	is
out 	right 	[sic] 	interference.
In March 	1983 	a 	cafeteria 	employee was 	laid 	off. 	Ms. 	Long
represented 	her 	in 	a 	grievance which 	followed 	the 	layoff. 	On
approximately April 25. 	1983, 	according to Ms. 	Long, 	she was
seated 	at 	a 	lounge 	drinking 	hot 	chocolate 	with 	another 	District
employee, 	when Mr. 	Lietaker 	came over 	to 	them and 	said 	to Long,
"Well, 	I'm 	going 	to 	teach Lorraine 	Long 	a 	lesson. 	You 	need 	to
be 	taught 	a 	lesson." 	No 	other 	information has 	been provided 	by
Charging 	Party 	regarding 	this 	incident.
e) 	As 	further 	harassment 	and 	coercion of Ms. 	Long,
Superintendent 	Lietaker 	continually 	tries 	to 	speak
with her, 	one on one, 	about union business when
Ms. 	Long 	has made 	it 	clear 	that 	she will 	speak 	to him
on union 	business 	only 	if 	another 	union 	person 	is
present. 	Superintendent 	Lietaker 	threatened
President 	Long 	as 	a 	direct 	result 	of 	her 	exercising
her 	rights 	as 	a 	union officer.
Between December 	1984 and February 1985, 	Ms. 	Long represented
Mary Martin, 	a District media 	technician, 	in a 	salary dispute
with 	the 	district. 	Sometime 	during 	that 	period 	of 	time.
Ms. 	Long and another CSEA representative. 	Ms. 	Pat Parker
attempted 	to 	speak 	to Mr. 	Lietaker 	about 	the matter.
Mr. 	Lietaker 	stated 	that 	he would 	speak with Long, 	but 	that he
did 	not want Parker 	in on the meeting. 	According 	to Long, 	this
is 	the 	only 	occasion when Mr. 	Lietaker 	has 	insisted 	on a
one-on-one 	conversation.
f) 	On 	or 	about August 	29, 	1985, 	President 	Long 	requested
the 	presence 	of 	CSEA Field 	Representative 	Joan Grace
at 	an 	employee 	orientation meeting 	at which 	the
Superintendent 	and 	other 	supervisors 	were 	going 	to
discuss 	various 	items 	including 	contract 	policy 	issues
affecting 	the working 	conditions 	of 	unit 	members.
Ms. 	Long also 	had 	a 	reasonable 	expectation based upon
past 	history 	that 	Superintendent 	Lietaker 	would 	again
single 	her 	out 	for 	harassment 	and 	threats.
When 	Superintendent 	Lietaker 	observed 	that 	Field
Representative Grace was 	to 	attend 	the 	meeting, 	he
threatened 	to 	have 	her 	physically 	removed 	from 	the

Mr. 	Brian Caldeira, Field Director
February 20, 	1986
Page 4
school 	site. 	He also refused 	to allow her 	attendance
at 	the 	employee 	orientation meeting. 	Such action
constitutes 	interference 	and coercions 	as 	a direct
result of 	the exercise of 	rights guaranteed under the
act.
On August 29. 	1985, 	Joan Grace, 	a CSEA staff member, was asked
by Ms. 	Long to attend an employee orientation meeting.
According to Charging Party the 	request was based on Ms. 	Long's
fear 	that Mr. 	Lietaker was going to 	"yell at her again." 	Ms.
Long does 	not 	recall whether 	CSEA Staff 	have ever 	before 	been
permitted to attend employee orientation meetings. 	When Mr.
Lietaker saw Ms. 	Grace, 	he went over to her and asked her to
leave. 	According to Ms. 	Long, 	the employees did not observe
any exchange between Lietaker and Grace. 	Ms. 	Long herself did
not know of 	the refusal 	to permit Grace to attend until after
the meeting.
g) 	President Long consistently gets notes 	sent 	to her
during her work 	time 	to 	immediately go 	to 	the
Superintendent's office on a CSEA matter. 	This has a
very unnerving affect 	[sic] 	on President Long and
Mr. 	Lietaker knows 	it. 	This action constitutes
harassment on coercion [sic].
According to Ms. Long, 	her supervisor, Mr. Charles Bonani sent
her 	notes 	in September and October 	of 	1984, 	when she had first
become president of 	the CSEA local 	chapter. 	No other
information has 	been provided 	regarding this 	allegation.
h) 	Superintendent Lietaker 	has 	taken all 	of 	those actions
subsequent to Ms. 	Long;'s refusal to agree to not
utilize the services of 	CSEA staff. 	Such correlation
to her use of union staff 	over the objections of the
Superintendent 	and his 	campaigns of 	intimidation,
humiliation and harassment 	has a 	chilling 	effect on
the future exercise of 	rights by President Long. 	In
fact, Ms. 	Long is considering not running for CSEA
office next year 	only because she does 	not want to be
harassed 	by Superintendent Lietaker.
The 	facts 	presented 	by Charging Party regarding 	allegations
"a" 	- 	"g" 	cumulatively relate to this allegation. 	No separate
information has 	been provided 	bearing on this 	allegation.

Mr. 	Brian Caldeira, Field Director
February 20, 	1986
Page 5
i) 	On or about August 26, 	1985, Mr. Jose, 	a member of
CSEA's 	negotiating committee was 	ordered 	to 	a 	meeting
in the District Superintendent's 	office. 	He was
ordered 	to 	produce verification of 	one 	sick 	leave
day. 	Never 	before has 	the District 	taken such an
action against an employee. 	This 	action constitutes
interference and taking reprisals 	against Mr. 	Jose as
a 	result of 	his 	being a member of 	the bargaining
committee.
"Mr. Jose" 	is actually Eugene Vasquez. a 12-year employee of
the District, 	according to Charging Party. 	Mr. Vasquez was one
of 	five CSEA Bargaining Committee members. 	Their 	last meeting
with the District prior 	to 	this 	incident occurred 	on June 26,
1985. 	No other 	information concerning the 	incident, 	has been
provided by the Charging Party. 	However, 	the District has
indicated that Mr. 	Vasquez 	failed to report his 	absence on
August 9 	in advance, 	as 	required by section 11.3.6 of 	the
parties' 	contract.2 Because of his failure to do so. 	the
District 	requested 	verification.
Analysis
To establish a prima facie case of a reprisal, 	the charging
party must demonstrate that 	(1) 	the employee participated in
protected conduct; 	(2) 	the employer had knowledge of 	such
participation; 	(3) 	the employer took action adverse to the
employee's interests; 	(4) 	there exists some "nexus" 	showing
2 The parties' collective bargaining agreement provides as
follows, 	in pertinent part:
11.3.5 	The District may require a doctor's
verification following any absence due 	to
illness or 	injury as a condition of
payment of 	sick leave. 	The employee shall
provide 	such verification upon the 	request
of 	the District 	following any absence
exceeding ten (10) work days.
11.3.6 	Except 	in the event 	of 	an emergency,
employees 	shall 	notify their 	immediate
supervisor 	or 	designate as far 	in advance
as 	possible 	of 	taking any sick leave.

Mr. 	Brian Caldeira, 	Field Director
February 20. 	1986
Page 	6
that 	the 	employer 	would 	not 	have 	so 	acted 	"but 	for" 	the
protected 	conduct. 	The 	final 	element 	can be 	shown 	by. 	among
other 	things, 	some 	evidence of 	disparate 	treatment; 	departure
by 	the 	employer 	from 	established 	procedures 	and 	standards;
cursory 	investigation 	of 	alleged 	misconduct 	prior 	to 	the
imposition of 	discipline; 	or 	inconsistent 	or 	contradictory
justifications. 	Novato Unified 	School District 	(1982) 	PERB
Decision No. 	210; 	North Sacramento Unified 	School 	District
(1982) PERB Decision No. 	264.
To 	establish a 	prima 	facie 	case 	of 	interference, 	the 	charging
Party must 	demonstrate 	that 	the 	employer 	has 	engaged 	in 	conduct
which 	tends 	to 	or 	does 	result 	in 	some 	harm to 	employee 	rights.
Where 	harm 	to 	employee 	rights 	is 	slight 	and 	the 	employer 	offers
justification 	based 	on 	operational 	necessity, 	the 	competing
interests 	are 	balanced. 	Carlsbad 	Union 	School 	District 	(1979)
PERB Decision No. 	89.
The 	above 	requirements 	are 	applied 	to 	each 	allegation 	stated 	in
the 	charge 	below 	in 	the 	same 	order 	in which the 	facts 	were set
forth above. 	Charging Party does 	not 	specify which 	incident 	is
to 	be 	considered 	as 	reprisal 	and which 	is 	to 	be 	considered
interference. 	Where 	appropriate, 	both theories 	are 	applied to
each 	incident.
a) 	Comments 	made 	at March 18. 	1985 	school 	board 	meeting
This 	allegation does 	not 	appear 	to 	be a 	reprisal. 	Analyzed as
an 	interference, 	the 	comments 	made 	by Hamblin and 	Peterson do
not 	appear 	to 	constitute 	conduct 	which would 	tend 	to 	harm
employee 	rights. 	Ms. 	Long 	stated 	her 	proposal 	on 	salaries to
the 	board, 	and 	the 	comments 	from 	the 	board would 	not 	seem to
have 	any effect 	on her 	exercise 	of 	rights. 	The 	comments 	may
more 	appropriately 	be characterized as 	a 	typical 	union-management
exchange 	in 	the 	context 	of 	discussion of 	bargaining 	proposals.
As 	such, 	they carry no 	element of 	threat 	or 	coercion. 	Rio Hondo
Community College District 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	272. 	For
this 	reason, 	allegation 	"a" 	does 	not present a 	prima 	facie case
of 	an EERA violation.
b) 	Requirement 	that Ms. 	Long 	report 	her 	whereabouts
This 	allegation 	is 	not 	supported 	by 	the 	information 	provided 	by
Ms. 	Long. 	Charging Party has 	not 	demonstrated 	that 	she 	is

Mr. 	Brian 	Caldeira, 	Field 	Director
February 	20, 	1986
Page 	7
being 	required 	by 	the District 	to 	report 	her 	whereabouts. 	For
this 	reason, 	allegation 	"b" 	does 	not 	present 	a 	prima 	facie case
of 	an EERA violation.
c) 	Mr. 	Filek's 	comments 	concerning Ms. 	Thissell
The 	investigation 	revealed 	that Mr. 	Filek 	did 	not 	know 	that
Ms. 	Thissell was 	an officer 	in CSEA or 	a 	member 	of 	its
negotiating 	team until 	after 	the 	charge was 	filed. 	Because of
this, 	the 	charges 	that 	(1) 	she 	is 	not 	permitted 	to use 	the
drivers 	lounge. 	(2) 	that 	she 	is 	the 	only driver 	required 	to
pump her 	own gas, 	(3) 	Filek's 	comments 	on 	(presumably) 	her
tight 	jeans 	and 	low cut 	blouses 	do 	not 	constitute 	a 	prima 	facie
case 	of 	a 	reprisal. 	There 	is 	no 	evidence 	of 	employer 	knowledge
of 	protected 	activity or 	of 	a 	nexus. 	As 	to 	the 	allegation that
Filek 	told 	other 	male 	employees 	not 	to 	be 	seen 	alone 	with her,
Charging 	Party 	has 	not 	explained 	when 	this 	statement 	occurred;
who 	heard 	it: 	or 	the 	context 	of 	the 	statement. 	Furthermore,
the 	fact 	that 	these 	events 	occurred 	after Ms. 	Thissell 	became
an 	officer 	in CSEA 	is 	not 	determinative. 	The 	PERB 	has 	held
that 	evidence 	of 	timing 	alone 	is 	insufficient 	to 	establish a
prima 	facie 	case 	of 	reprisal. 	Moreland 	Elementary 	School
District 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	227. 	For 	these 	reasons,
allegation 	"c" 	does 	not 	state a 	prima 	facie 	case 	of 	an EERA
violation either 	as 	a 	reprisal 	or 	interference.
d) 	Lietaker's 	threat 	to 	Long
This 	event 	occurred 	in 	April 	1983 	— 	more 	than 	two 	years 	prior
to 	the 	filing 	of 	the 	charge. 	EERA section 	3541.5(a) 	prohibits
the 	issuance 	of 	a 	complaint 	based 	on an 	incident 	which 	precedes
the 	filing 	of 	the 	charge 	by more 	than 	six months. 	For 	that
reason, 	allegation 	"d" 	does 	not 	constitute 	a 	prima 	facie 	case
of 	an EERA violation.
e) 	Lietaker's 	insistence 	on meeting 	alone 	with 	Long
The 	Charging 	Party 	has 	presented 	information 	only 	about 	a
single 	instance when Mr. 	Lietaker 	indicated 	to Ms. 	Long 	that 	he
would meet 	only with her, 	to 	the 	exclusion 	of 	Pat 	Parker. 	This
single 	instance 	does 	not 	constitute 	"continual" 	conduct 	as
Charging Party alleges. 	Furthermore, 	the 	single 	instance
occurred, 	according to Ms. 	Long, 	sometime between December 1984
and February 	1985. 	The 	instant 	charge was 	filed 	on

Mr. 	Brian Caldeira. 	Field Director
February 20. 	1986
Page 8
September 	16. 	1985. 	Conduct occurring prior to March 16. 	1985
is 	time-barred. 	Saddleback Unified School District 	(1985) PERB
Decision No. 	558. 	For these reasons, 	allegation "e" does not
constitute a 	prima 	facie 	case of an EERA violation.
f) 	Exclusion of 	CSEA staff 	member Joan Grace 	from meeting
EERA section 3543.5(b) 	prohibits 	employer 	conduct which denies
employee organizations 	rights 	guaranteed 	to them. 	Charging
Party has not explained Ms. 	Grace's right to participate in or
to attend the August meeting. 	Typically, 	employee orientation
meetings 	are an opportunity for management 	to 	address 	the
staff, 	and are not generally opportunities for 	the employees'
exclusive representative 	to engage 	in discourse with management.
Charging Party has 	not demonstrated 	that 	the 	employer's 	conduct
in this 	instance has deprived 	it of an opportunity to 	later
discuss any 	issues which it desired to 	raise with management.
Nor does 	it demonstrate any other 	right of 	the CSEA upon which
the exclusion from the meeting 	infringes. 	For 	these 	reasons,
allegation "f" 	does not constitute a prima facie case of an
EERA violation.
q) Lietaker's 	harassment 	of 	Long 	by 	sending 	notes
The only instance of 	conduct which seems 	to support this
allegation 	occurred 	in September 	and 	October 	1984 	— 	more 	than
six months 	before the filing of 	the instant charge. 	For 	this
reason, 	allegation "g" 	does not constitute a prima facie case
of 	an EERA violation.
h) 	Lietaker's 	insistence 	that Long not use CSEA staff
services; harassment
Each instance of harassment, 	intimidation, threats, 	etc.
alleged 	by Charging Party has 	been analyzed 	separately herein.
Those instances do not support a general 	allegation that
Lietaker 	has 	engaged 	in conduct 	intended 	to discourage Long
from either 	participating 	in CSEA activities, 	or using CSEA
staff services.
i) 	Interference/reprisal 	of 	Eugene Vasquez	---------- . ..
Charging Party has 	failed 	to 	demonstrate a 	nexus 	between
Mr. 	Vasquez' 	participation on the negotiating committee and the
requirement 	that 	he verify the one-day sick leave. 	According

Mr. 	Brian Caldeira, Field 	Director
February 	20, 	1986
Page 	9
to 	the District. 	Mr. 	Vasquez 	failed 	to 	call 	his 	supervisor the
morning 	of 	his 	absence 	as 	required 	in 	section 	11.3.6 	of 	the
contract. 	Section 	11.3.5 	authorizes 	the 	District 	to 	require
verification of 	illness. 	In 	light 	of Mr. 	Vasquez's 	failure to
abide 	by 	the 	notification procedures, 	the District's 	action
does 	not 	appear 	to 	be disparate 	conduct. 	For 	these 	reasons,
allegation 	"i" 	does 	not 	constitute 	a 	prima 	facie 	case of 	an
EERA 	violation.
For 	the 	reasons 	explained 	herein, 	charge 	number 	S-CE-939.. as
presently written, 	does 	not 	state a 	prima 	facie case. 	If you
feel 	that 	there 	are 	any factual 	inaccuracies 	in 	this 	letter 	or
any additional 	facts 	which would 	correct 	the 	deficiencies
explained 	above, 	please 	amend 	the 	charge 	accordingly. 	The
amended 	charge 	should 	be 	prepared 	on 	a 	standard 	PERB 	unfair
practice 	charge 	form 	clearly 	labeled 	First 	Amended 	Charge,
contain al
- l 	the 	facts 	and 	allegations 	you wish 	to make, 	and be
signed under 	penalty 	of 	perjury 	by 	the 	charging 	party. 	The
amended 	charge 	must 	be 	served 	on 	the 	respondent 	and 	the
original 	proof 	of 	service must 	be 	filed with PERB. 	If 	I 	do not
receive 	an amended 	charge 	or 	withdrawal 	from you 	before
February 27. 	1986, 	I 	shall 	dismiss your 	charge. 	If 	you have
any questions 	on how to 	proceed, 	please 	call me 	at 	(916)
323-8015.
Sincerely yours.
Jorge 	Leon
Staff 	Attorney
3971d