San Juan Unified School District (PERB 0679E)

STATE 	OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
CALIFORNIA 	SCHOOL 	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION AND 	ITS 	SAN JUAN
CHAPTER 127,
Charging 	Party,
v.
SAN JUAN UNIFIED 	SCHOOL 	DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
) 	Case No. 	S-CE-1179
PERB 	Decision No. 	679
June 10, 1988
)
)
)
Appearances; 	Marcia Rice, 	Field Representative, 	for 	California
School 	Employees Association and 	its 	San Juan Chapter 	127;
Diana D. 	Halpenny, 	General 	Counsel, 	for 	San Juan Unified School
District.
Before Hesse, 	Chairperson; 	Craib and Shank, 	Members.
DECISION
HESSE, 	Chairperson: 	This case 	is before 	the 	Public
Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(Board) 	on appeal 	of 	a dismissal by
a 	Board 	agent 	of 	an unfair 	practice 	charge. 	Charging party,
California 	School 	Employees 	Association 	and 	its 	San Juan
Chapter 	127, 	alleges 	that 	respondent, 	San Juan Unified 	School
District, 	violated section 3543.5(a), 	(b), and (c)1 of the
Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Act 	(EERA) 	by discriminating
against 	certain bus 	drivers 	with 	respect 	to assignment 	of work
1EERA 	is 	codified 	at 	Government 	Code 	section 	3540 	et
seq. 	Section 3543.5 provides, 	in pertinent part, 	as 	follows:
It 	shall be 	unlawful 	for 	a public 	school
employer 	to:
)
)
)
)
_____________ )

on 	a 	new project.
(a) 	impose 	or 	threaten 	to 	impose 	reprisals
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.
(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.
On June 	7, 	1988, 	the 	general 	counsel's 	office 	of 	this
agency 	requested 	that 	this 	case 	be 	remanded 	for 	further
investigation. 	The 	Board 	has 	adopted 	a 	procedure 	whereby 	the
general 	counsel's 	office 	conducts 	a 	routine 	review 	of 	cases
dismissed by 	Board 	agents. 	As 	the 	Board 	noted 	in 	response 	to 	a
similar 	request 	in 	California 	State 	Employees' 	Association
(Morrow) 	(1986) 	PERB Decision No. 	568-S, 	the purpose of 	the
review 	procedure 	is 	to minimize, 	and hopefully 	reduce,
appellate 	litigation 	prompted 	by 	inadequacies 	in 	the 	processing
of 	unfair 	practice 	charges. 	A 	request 	for 	remand 	reflects 	the
general 	counsel's 	reasoned 	conclusion 	that 	further
investigation 	would 	serve 	that 	purpose. 	We 	conclude 	that 	the
request 	for 	remand 	should 	be 	granted.
Therefore, 	upon 	review of 	the 	entire 	record, 	we 	find 	that
the 	case 	is 	appropriately 	REMANDED 	to 	the 	general 	counsel 	for
further 	investigatory proceedings. 	It 	is 	so 	ORDERED.
Members 	Craib 	and 	Shank 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
N	
2