Inglewood Unified School District (PERB 0624E)

STATE 	OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
INGLEWOOD 	TEACHERS 	ASSOCIATION,
CTA/NEA,
Charging 	Party,
v.
INGLEWOOD UNIFIED 	SCHOOL 	DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
) 	Case 	No. 	LA-CE-1938,
LA-CE-2003
PERB Decision No. 	624
June 23, 	1987
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances; 	Howard M. 	Knee, 	Attorney 	for 	Inglewood Unified
School District; 	A. 	Eugene Huguenin, 	Jr., 	California Teachers
Association, 	Attorney 	for 	Inglewood 	Teachers 	Association.
Before Hesse, 	Chairperson; 	Porter and Craib, 	Members.
DECISION
HESSE, 	Chairperson: 	The 	Inglewood 	Unified 	School 	District
(District) 	appeals 	the proposed decision 	of 	a 	Public 	Employment
Relations 	Board 	(PERB 	or Board) 	administrative 	law 	judge
(ALJ). 	The ALJ 	found 	that 	the 	District 	violated 	sections
3543.5(a), 	(b), 	and 	(c) 	of the Educational Employment Relations
Act 	(EERA)1 when 	a 	District principal 	unilaterally 	implemented
JlEERA	EERA 	is 	codified 	at Government 	Code 	section 	3540 et
seq. 	Unless 	otherwise 	indicated, 	all 	statutory 	references
herein 	are 	to 	the 	Government 	Code.
Section 3543.5 provides, 	in pertinent part, 	as 	follows:
It 	shall 	be 	unlawful 	for a public 	school
employer 	to:
(a) 	Impose or 	threaten 	to 	impose 	reprisals
on 	employees, 	to discriminate 	or 	threaten 	to

a key check-in, 	check-out 	system at 	Inglewood High 	School, 	and
when 	he 	threatened 	employees 	at 	Inglewood 	High 	School 	with
adverse 	personnel 	action 	if 	they 	exercised 	their 	right 	to 	file
grievances.
FACTS
Lawrence 	Freeman 	was 	appointed 	principal 	of 	Inglewood
High 	School 	on 	January 4, 	1984.2 Freeman 	was hired 	by 	the
school 	board 	to 	institute 	changes 	at 	the 	school 	by 	imposing
student 	discipline 	and 	improving 	the 	education 	that 	the
students 	received. 	To 	implement his plans, 	Freeman held
several 	meetings 	with 	the 	school 	faculty. 	At his 	first 	few
meetings. 	Freeman 	discussed 	the 	topics 	that became 	subjects 	of
the 	instant 	unfair practice 	charges.
LA-CE-1938
A. 	Dress 	Code
At 	the 	first meeting 	of 	the 	entire 	faculty, 	Freeman made
reference 	to 	the 	"sloppy attire" 	of 	the male 	faculty. 	Freeman
stated 	that 	the 	male 	faculty would 	wear 	ties 	and 	shirts 	other
discriminate 	against employees, 	or otherwise
to 	interfere with, 	restrain, 	or 	coerce
employees 	because 	of 	their 	exercise 	of
rights 	guaranteed by 	this 	chapter.
(b) 	Deny to employee 	organizations 	rights
guaranteed 	to 	them by this 	chapter.
(c) 	Refuse or 	fail 	to meet 	and negotiate 	in
good 	faith 	with 	an 	exclusive 	representative.
2The 	ALJ 	incorrectly 	stated 	that 	Freeman 	became 	principal
in 1985.
N	
2

than knit 	shirts 	(i.e., 	dress 	shirts), 	and would no longer wear
blue 	jeans. 	A short 	while 	later, 	Freeman 	called 	a 	meeting 	of
only the 	male 	faculty. 	At 	this 	meeting, 	Freeman 	elaborated
upon 	his 	dress 	requirements. 	He 	repeated 	that 	the men 	would
wear 	shirts 	and 	ties, 	and would not 	wear blue 	jeans. 	He 	also
indicated 	that men 	would 	not 	wear 	jogging 	shoes 	or 	tennis 	shoes
and 	that 	leather-top 	shoes 	would be 	required. 	The 	only
exception 	was 	for 	the physical 	education 	instructors.
Although 	Freeman 	testified 	that 	his 	dress 	code 	was 	merely a
suggestion 	rather 	than 	a mandate, 	the 	evidence 	presented
indicates 	that 	Freeman 	was 	implementing a 	mandatory dress
code. 	Whenever Freeman 	saw 	teachers 	in 	tennis 	or 	jogging
shoes, 	he 	would criticize 	the 	instructor. 	He 	also 	sent memos
to 	the 	"offending" 	instructors. 	Thus, 	the ALJ concluded 	that
Freeman 	implemented a 	rule, 	not a 	suggestion, 	regarding 	teacher
dress.
B. 	Threats
At 	the 	first 	meeting 	Freeman 	called 	upon 	becoming 	principal
at 	Inglewood, 	he 	made 	various 	statements 	concerning 	attitudes
of 	the 	teachers 	and 	the 	representatives 	of 	the 	Inglewood
Teachers Association 	(Association 	or 	ITA). 	According 	to
Association 	witnesses, 	Freeman 	stated 	that 	the Association was
worthless, 	in part because 	it had achieved 	only a 	two-percent
raise 	for 	the 	faculty. 	Freeman 	denied 	stating 	that 	the
Association 	was 	"worthless." 	He 	claimed 	that 	what 	he 	was
trying 	to get 	across 	was 	the 	importance 	of 	using 	the parents 	to
33

influence 	the 	school 	board. 	Association 	witnesses 	testified
that 	they believed 	that 	Freeman 	was 	making 	a 	comment 	about 	the
Association 	itself, 	not 	about 	the 	relative 	power of parents 	as
lobbyists 	to 	the 	school 	board.3
At 	this 	meeting of the 	entire 	faculty, 	Freeman made 	a
statement 	that 	is 	the 	subject 	of this 	charge. 	Freeman
indicated 	that 	if 	employees 	filed a 	grievance and 	lost, 	they
would 	be 	forced 	or 	pressured 	into 	leaving 	Inglewood 	High
School. 	At the 	following, 	all-male, 	faculty meeting, 	teacher
Michael 	Nollan 	asked 	Freeman 	for 	clarification 	of his 	statement
that 	teachers 	who 	file 	losing 	grievances 	would be 	pressured 	to
leave. 	At 	this 	second meeting, 	Freeman 	stated 	that he 	did 	not
mean 	to 	say he 	would pressure 	teachers 	to 	leave, 	but 	that 	peer
pressure 	would 	make 	teachers 	who did 	not 	participate 	in 	the
"Freeman plan" 	want 	to 	leave. 	Despite 	Freeman's 	subsequent
clarification, 	Nollan 	testified 	that he 	still 	believed 	that 	if
a 	teacher 	filed a 	grievance 	and 	lost, 	Freeman 	personally 	would
pressure 	that 	teacher 	to 	leave 	the 	school. 	This 	subject
apparently was 	not 	discussed 	at 	subsequent 	faculty 	meetings.
LA-CE-2003
A. 	The 	Key 	System
Prior 	to Freeman's 	becoming 	the principal 	at 	Inglewood 	High
School, 	teachers 	were 	assigned 	room and 	gate 	keys 	for 	the 	entire
3This 	alleged 	statement 	is 	not part 	of 	the 	charge, 	but 	is
noted 	simply 	to place 	in 	context 	the 	atmosphere 	in 	which 	the
conduct 	at 	issue herein 	arose.
44

school 	year, 	giving 	them 	access 	to the 	campus 	and 	their
classrooms. 	Shortly after Freeman became principal, 	he
instituted 	a 	system 	whereby 	teachers 	were 	required 	to 	pick 	up
their 	room 	keys 	at 	the beginning 	of 	each 	school 	day and 	drop
them 	off 	at 	the 	close 	of 	the 	school 	day. 	At his 	first 	faculty
meeting, 	Freeman 	explained 	that 	the 	new key 	system was
necessary 	for 	security 	reasons. 	According 	to Freeman, 	one 	of
the 	vice-principals 	had 	lost his 	set 	of 	master 	keys 	and 	various
teachers 	were 	leaving 	rooms 	open 	or 	loaning 	their 	keys 	to
students. 	Freeman 	stated 	that 	on 	weekends 	he 	could 	find
students 	in 	the 	gymnasium or 	in 	various 	classrooms.
Additionally, 	several 	typewriters 	and other material 	had been
stolen 	from 	the 	school 	facilities.4 Freeman 	stated he had
previously 	instituted a 	similar 	system 	at 	another 	school, 	which
had been 	quite 	successful 	in 	improving 	campus 	security.
Freeman 	implemented 	this 	system 	at 	Inglewood 	without 	attempting
to utilize 	alternative methods 	of 	securing 	the 	campus.
The 	teachers 	and 	the 	Association 	were 	concerned 	that
Freeman's 	key 	system was 	a 	subterfuge 	for 	implementing 	a
procedure 	requiring 	teachers 	to 	sign 	in 	and 	out. 	The 	District
had 	instituted 	a 	sign 	in, 	sign 	out procedure 	at another high
4 The 	testimony of one 	teacher, 	Martha Morales,
established 	that 	the 	typewriters 	were 	stolen 	not 	from 	the
business 	education 	classrooms, 	but 	rather 	from 	the principal's
office. 	(TR 224.) 	Her testimony also 	establishes, 	however,
that prior 	to 	the key 	system 	implementation, 	and until 	the
locks 	were 	changed, 	many people did have key access 	to any one
classroom. 	(TR 221-224).
55

school 	in 	1982, 	but 	the Association 	filed a 	grievance and 	the
procedure 	was 	rescinded. 	Furthermore, 	during 	the 	negotiations
immediately preceding the 	events 	that 	led 	to this 	charge, 	the
District 	had proposed 	a 	contract 	provision 	requiring 	teachers
to 	sign 	in 	and 	sign 	out. 	The 	proposal 	was 	steadfastly 	resisted
by 	the Association, 	and 	eventually was 	dropped by 	the 	District
at 	the bargaining 	table.
Teachers 	were 	required 	by 	the 	collective bargaining
agreement 	to 	report 	for 	duty 30 	minutes 	prior 	to the 	first
class 	and 	to 	remain 	10 minutes 	after 	the 	last class. 	This
contract 	provision 	meant 	the 	teachers 	at 	Inglewood 	High 	School
were 	required 	to 	report 	by 	8:00 a.m. 	and 	to 	stay 	until 	2:55
p.m. 	Before 	implementation of 	the 	key 	system, 	teachers 	went
directly 	to 	and 	from 	their 	classrooms 	from 	nearby 	school
parking 	spaces. 	The 	thirty minutes 	before 	classes 	started 	were
used 	by 	the 	teachers 	for 	various 	duties 	and activities 	such 	as
returning parent phone 	calls, 	picking 	up mail 	and attendance
sheets 	from 	their mailboxes 	in 	the office, 	etc. 	Some of the
teachers 	used 	the 	time between 	8:00 	and 	8:30 	a.m. 	as
preparation 	time. 	From 	2:45 p.m. 	to 	2:55 p.m., 	teachers 	met
with 	students, 	prepared 	for the 	next 	day, 	and 	cleaned their
rooms. 	The 	teachers 	would 	then 	lock 	their 	rooms 	and go
directly 	to their 	cars. 	When 	teachers 	took 	work home, 	this
direct 	access 	to 	the 	classrooms 	allowed 	them 	to 	transport 	this
work 	home 	more 	easily.
After 	the 	key 	system 	was 	implemented, 	the 	teachers were
66

required 	to 	report 	to 	the 	principal's 	office 	to pick 	up 	their
keys 	by 	8:00 	a.m., 	their 	normal 	reporting 	time, 	rather 	than 	go
directly to their 	classrooms. 	Classrooms 	were 	not 	required 	to
be 	open 	until 	8:10 	a.m. 	Because 	of 	the 	large 	size 	of 	the
campus, 	and the 	awkwardness 	of 	carrying 	teaching materials 	from
their 	cars 	to 	the office 	and then 	to the 	classrooms, 	teachers
used part 	of 	the 	time 	prior 	to 	their 	first 	class 	to 	retrieve
materials 	from 	their 	cars 	after 	they had been 	issued 	their
keys. 	If, 	instead, 	they wished to use 	the 	time prior 	to class
solely 	for 	lesson 	planning, 	they would 	often have 	to 	arrive
prior 	to 	8:00 	a.m. 	to 	get 	their keys 	in 	order 	to be 	in 	their
classrooms 	by 	8:00 	a.m.
Implementation 	of 	the 	key 	system 	also 	resulted 	in 	teachers
leaving 	for 	the 	office 	when 	the 	last 	class 	ended 	instead 	of
staying 	in 	their 	classrooms 	for 	five 	or 	ten 	minutes.• This
took 	several 	minutes 	away 	from 	the 	teachers' 	time 	to 	clean 	the
classrooms, 	and cut 	into 	the 	time 	available 	to help 	students.
5
In 	the 	decision below, 	the ALJ 	ruled 	that 	the dress 	code
was 	not 	a 	mandatory 	subject 	of bargaining 	and, 	therefore,
Freeman 	was 	free 	to 	institute 	a 	code 	without bargaining. 	That
part 	of 	the 	unfair 	charge 	was 	dismissed 	and no 	exceptions 	were
filed 	by 	the 	Association.
The ALJ did 	rule, 	however, 	that 	the 	threats 	made by Freeman
55 The	The 	contract 	did 	not 	require 	teachers 	to be 	in 	their
classrooms, 	but 	merely 	required 	that 	they be 	"on 	campus" 	until
2:55 	p.m.
77

were 	in 	violation of 	section 	3543.5(a), 	and were 	not 	"cured" 	by
his 	subsequent 	comments 	to 	the male 	faculty. 	As 	to 	the
implementation 	of 	the key 	system, 	the ALJ 	ruled 	that 	the 	system
had an 	effect 	on hours worked, 	and 	its 	implementation was 	a
substitute 	for a check-in 	system, 	a 	negotiable 	subject. 	Thus,
implementation 	of 	the key 	system, 	which 	resulted 	in 	a 	change 	in
hours, 	violated section 3543.5(c), 	and, 	derivatively, 	sections
3543.5(a) and (b).
The 	District 	filed 	exceptions 	to 	the 	above 	adverse 	findings.
ISSUES
On 	appeal, 	this Board 	is 	faced with 	three 	issues:
1. 	Was 	the 	implementation 	of 	the 	key 	system a 	unilateral
change 	within 	the 	scope 	of 	bargaining 	that 	should have been
negotiated?
2. 	If 	the decision was 	non-negotiable, 	were 	the effects 	of
the 	decision 	negotiable?
3. 	Did 	Freeman 	unlawfully 	threaten 	reprisals 	against
teachers 	who 	used 	the 	grievance 	procedure?
DISCUSSION
The 	Key 	System
A unilateral 	change 	will 	only violate 	section 	3543.5(c) 	if
the 	subject 	is 	within the 	scope of 	representation. 	Since 	a key
system 	is 	not 	a 	specifically enumerated 	topic, 	whether 	the
implementation 	of 	the 	key 	system 	violated 	section 	3543.5(c)
must be decided by 	an 	application 	of 	the 	test 	in 	Anaheim 	Union
High School 	District 	(1981) 	PERB Decision No. 	177. 	In that
8

case, 	the Board 	ruled 	that a 	topic 	is 	within 	the 	scope of
bargaining 	if: 	(1) 	it 	is 	logically and 	reasonably related 	to
hours, 	wages, 	or an 	enumerated 	term and 	condition of
employment; 	(2) 	it 	is 	a 	subject of such concern to management
and 	employees 	that 	conflict 	is 	likely 	to 	occur 	and 	the
mediatory 	influence 	of 	collective 	bargaining 	is 	appropriate 	for
resolution of 	such 	conflict; 	and 	(3) 	the 	employer's 	obligation
to 	negotiate 	would 	not 	significantly 	abridge 	its 	freedom 	to
exercise 	managerial 	prerogative.
Here, 	we 	find the key system, 	in and of 	itself, 	is 	not
logically and 	reasonably 	related 	to wages, 	hours, 	or other
enumerated 	terms 	and 	conditions 	of 	employment. 	An 	employer has
the 	right 	to 	secure 	school 	property, 	especially when 	there 	is 	a
history 	of 	theft 	and 	vandalism. 	The 	record 	reflects 	that
Freeman was motivated, 	at 	least 	in part, 	by such a 	concern 	for
the 	campus. 	If, 	however, 	a key system does 	result 	in a change
in the 	teachers' 	hours, 	the change would be 	due 	to the manner
in 	which 	a particular 	system 	was 	implemented.
Here, 	the ALJ noted 	that 	the key 	system was
"indistinguishable" 	from 	a check-in, 	check-out 	system. 	We
disagree. 	The principal 	testified 	that his 	motive 	was
security, 	and 	it 	was 	uncontradicted 	that 	security was 	a problem
on the 	campus. 	Moreover, 	even 	if he 	also was motivated by a
desire 	to 	ascertain 	the 	time 	the 	teachers 	arrived 	and 	left,
this 	does 	not 	make 	the 	system 	itself 	negotiable. 	The 	PERB 	case
relied 	upon by 	the ALJ emphasizes 	that 	a 	check-in, 	check-out
9

system that 	intrudes 	upon 	duty-free 	time, 	or that 	lengthens 	the
total 	hours 	worked, 	would be 	negotiable. 	(San Bernardino City
Unified 	School 	District 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	255.) 	Here,
the 	evidence 	falls 	short 	of demonstrating 	any 	impact 	on hours.
The 	testimony of 	the Association's 	witnesses 	support 	the
finding 	that 	the 	key 	system had 	no 	impact 	on 	their 	required
hours 	of 	attendance. 	The 	system 	itself 	did 	not 	require 	the
teachers 	to be 	on 	campus 	any earlier 	than provided 	for 	in 	the
contract, 	i.e., 	8:00 	a.m. 	The 	teachers 	merely had 	to be at 	a
designated place 	by 	8:00 	a.m. 	(the 	office) 	rather 	than 	on
campus 	generally, 	as 	required 	by 	the 	contract.6 Witnesses
Robert Dillen, 	Nollan, Michael Tomac, 	Vernon McKnight, 	and
Morales 	(all 	teachers) 	testified 	that 	even prior 	to 	the
system's 	implementation, 	they 	arrived 	well 	before 	8:00 	a.m.
Nor 	did 	any 	of 	them 	testify 	that 	they 	were 	prevented 	from
leaving at 	2:55 	p.m. 	The 	major 	complaint 	of 	the 	witnesses 	was
that 	some 	five 	to 	fifteen 	minutes 	of 	time 	prior 	to 	their 	first
classes 	now was 	spent 	walking 	to and 	from 	the 	principal's
office. 	The testimony, 	however, 	failed 	to demonstrate 	that
working hours 	were 	actually 	increased. 	Absent 	such 	a 	showing,
the 	District 	had 	the 	authority 	to 	assign 	any number 	of 	tasks
(e.g., 	supervision) 	or 	no 	tasks 	during 	the 	time between 	8:00 	a.m.
6Indeed, 	we 	note 	that 	if 	the 	key 	system 	did 	require 	the
teachers 	to be 	on 	campus 	prior 	to 	8:00 	a.m. 	or 	after 	2:55 	p.m.,
the 	increase 	in hours 	could have properly been 	addressed 	as 	a
grievance 	under 	the 	contract. 	The 	record does 	not 	reflect
whether 	such 	a 	grievance 	was 	filed.
10

and the 	first 	class. 	Thus, 	Freeman's 	choice of a 	system that
caused 	some 	(but by no means 	all) 	of 	the 	teachers 	to walk
between buildings 	falls 	within management's 	right 	to direct 	the
work 	of 	its 	employees. 	(See 	El 	Dorado Union 	High 	School
District 	(1985 and 1986) 	PERB Decision Nos. 	537, 	537a, 	537b.)
Therefore, 	because 	the 	key 	system 	did 	not 	require 	teachers
to 	alter 	their hours 	of 	employment, 	and because 	the 	witnesses
who 	testified 	could 	show 	no 	impact 	on 	their hours 	of
employment, 	the 	implementation of 	the key 	system 	is 	not
negotiable 	and we 	reverse 	the ALJ 	on 	that point.
Freeman's 	Threat
The ALJ 	found 	that 	Freeman 	told 	the 	teachers 	that 	if 	they
filed 	a 	grievance 	and 	lost, 	the 	grievant 	would be pressured 	to
leave 	Inglewood High 	School. 	She 	concluded 	that 	this 	statement
contained a 	threat 	of 	reprisal 	or 	force, 	thus 	violating 	EERA
section 	3543.5(a). 	She also 	found that Freeman's
"clarification" 	was 	not 	adequate 	as 	a 	retraction 	or 	repudiation
of 	the 	unlawful 	statement.
We 	agree with 	the ALJ 	that, 	in 	the 	context of other
comments 	made 	at 	the 	faculty meeting, 	Freeman's 	statement
constituted 	a 	threat 	of 	reprisal 	that 	interfered 	with 	the
rights 	of 	employees 	to 	file 	grievances. 	Freeman had made
disparaging 	remarks 	about 	the Association. 	He 	further 	said
that he 	was 	going 	to make 	changes 	and 	that 	no one 	was 	going 	to
stop him. 	With this 	backdrop, 	it 	is 	difficult 	to see how his
statement 	would 	not 	be 	considered 	as 	a 	threat 	by 	those 	in
attendance.
11

Although 	we 	agree 	with 	the 	District 	that 	an 	"honestly 	given
retraction 	can 	erase 	the 	effects 	of 	a 	prior 	coercive
statement," 	we 	do not 	find 	such a 	retraction here. 	Freeman
made 	his 	initial 	statement before 	the 	entire 	faculty. 	His
clarification, 	however, 	even if curative 	in nature, 	was made
only before 	the 	male 	faculty. 	The ALJ 	correctly concluded 	that
any 	curative 	effect 	of 	the 	subsequent 	discussion 	fails 	to
remove 	the 	unlawful 	taint. 	Thus, 	the 	District 	violated 	section
3543.5(a) 	as a 	result of 	Freeman's 	threat.
CONCLUSION
The 	District 	violated 	EERA 	section 	3543.5(a) 	when 	the
principal 	threatened 	his 	faculty 	over 	their protected 	right 	to
file grievances.
ORDER
-
Upon 	the 	foregoing 	findings 	of 	fact 	and 	conclusions 	of 	law,
and on 	the 	entire 	record 	in 	this 	case, 	it 	is hereby found that
the 	Inglewood 	Unified 	School 	District 	violated 	EERA 	section
3543.5(a). 	Pursuant to EERA section 3541.5(c), 	it is hereby
ORDERED that 	the 	District, 	its 	governing board, 	and 	its
representatives 	shall:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST 	FROM:
Interfering 	with 	employees 	at 	Inglewood 	High 	School 	by
threatening 	them 	with 	adverse 	personnel 	action 	if 	they 	exercise
their 	right 	to 	file 	grievances, 	a 	right 	protected by the EERA.
B. 	TAKE 	THE 	FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS 	DESIGNED 	TO
EFFECTUATE 	THE 	POLICIES 	OF 	THE 	EDUCATIONAL 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS
ACT:
1. 	Within 	thirty-five 	(35) 	workdays 	following 	the 	date
12

this 	Decision 	is 	no 	longer 	subject 	to 	reconsideration, 	post 	at
Inglewood 	High 	School 	copies 	of 	the 	Notice 	attached hereto 	as
an 	Appendix. 	This 	Notice 	must be 	signed by an 	authorized 	agent
of 	the 	District, 	indicating 	that 	the 	District will 	comply with
the 	terms 	of 	this 	Order. 	Such posting 	shall 	be 	maintained 	for
a period 	of 	thirty 	(30) 	consecutive 	workdays. 	Reasonable 	steps
should be 	taken 	to 	insure 	that 	this 	Notice 	is 	not 	reduced 	in
size, 	defaced, 	altered, 	or covered by any material.
2. 	Upon 	issuance of 	this 	Decision, 	written 	notification of
the 	actions 	taken 	to 	comply with 	this 	Order 	shall 	be made 	to
the 	Los 	Angeles 	Regional 	Director 	of 	the 	Public 	Employment
Relations 	Board 	in 	accordance 	with his 	instructions.
Members 	Porter 	and 	Craib 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
13

APPENDIX
NOTICE 	TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED 	BY ORDER 	OP 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
An 	Agency 	of 	the 	State 	of 	California
(I
After a hearing 	in Unfair Practice 	Case 	Nos. 	LA-CE-1938
and LA-CE-2003, 	Inglewood Teachers Association, 	CTA/NEA v.
Inglewood 	Unified 	School 	District, 	in 	which 	all 	parties 	had
the 	right 	to participate, 	it has been 	found 	that 	the 	District
violated 	Government 	Code 	section 	3543.5(a) 	by 	threatening
teachers 	with 	adverse 	personnel 	actions 	if 	they exercised
rights 	guaranteed 	under 	the 	the 	Educational 	Employment
Relations 	Act.
As 	a 	result 	of 	this 	conduct, 	we have been 	ordered 	to post
this 	Notice and we will:
A. 	CEASE 	AND DESIST 	FROM:
Interfering 	with 	employees 	at 	Inglewood 	High 	School 	by
threatening 	them 	with 	adverse 	personnel 	actions 	if 	they
exercise 	their 	right 	to 	file 	grievances, 	a 	right protected by
the 	EERA.
Dated: 	INGLEWOOD 	UNIFIED 	SCHOOL 	DISTRICT
By: Authorized 	Representative
THIS 	IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE. 	IT MUST 	REMAIN 	POSTED 	FOR AT
LEAST 	THIRTY 	(30) 	CONSECUTIVE WORKDAYS 	FROM 	THE DATE OF
POSTING AND MUST NOT BE 	REDUCED 	IN SIZE, 	DEFACED, 	ALTERED OR
COVERED 	BY ANY MATERIAL.