Santa Clarita Community College District (PERB 1178E)

STATE
	OF
	CALIFORNIA
DECISION
	OF
	THE
PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
COLLEGE
	OF
	THE
	CANYONS
	FACULTY
ASSOCIATION,
Charging
	Party,
v.
SANTA
	CLARITA
	COMMUNITY
	COLLEGE
DISTRICT,
Respondent.
Case
	No.
	LA-CE-3674
PERB
	Decision
	No. 	1178
December
	4,
	1996
Appearances:	
California
	Teachers
	Association
	by
	Charles
	R.
Gustafson, 	Attorney,
	for
	College 	of
	the
	Canyons
	Faculty
Association, 	Liebert,
	Cassidy	
&	
Frierson
	by
	Mary 	L.
	Dowell,
Attorney,
	for
	Santa
	Clarita
	Community
	College
	District.
Before
	Caffrey,
	Chairman;
	Johnson 	and 	Dyer,
	Members.
DECISION
DYER, 	Member~
	This 	case
	comes
	before 	the
	P11hl
-i
r 	Rmpl
nymi::>nt-
Relations
	Board
	(Board) 	on
	appeal
	from
	a
	Board
	agent's 	dismissal
(attached) 	of 	the
	College 	of 	the
	Canyons
	Faculty
	Association's
(Association)
	unfair 	practice
	charge.
	As
	amended,
	the 	charge
alleged 	that
	the 	Santa
	Clarita
	Co~munity
	College
	District
(District) 	violated 	section
	3543.
5
(a), 	(b),
	and
	(c)
	of 	the
Educat
	Employment
	Relations
	Act
	(EERA) 1
when
	it
1EERA
	is
	codified
	at
	Government 	Code
	section
	3540
	et
	seq.
Section
	3543.5
	provides, 	in 	relevant 	part:
It
	shall
	be 	unlawful 	for
	a
	public 	schoolemployer
	to
	do 	any 	of 	the 	following:
(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

discriminated 	against
	a
	unit
	member.
guaranteed
	by
	this
	chapter.
	For purposes 	of
this
	subdivision,
	nemployeen
	includes
	an
applicant 	for
	employment
	or
	reemployment.
(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.
The
	Board
	has 	reviewed
	the
	entire
	record
	in
	this
	case,
including 	the
	Association's
	original
	and
	amended
	unfair practice
charge,
	the
	warning
	and
	dismissal
	letters,
	the
	Association's
appeal
	and
	the
	District's
	response
	thereto.
2	
The
	Board
	finds 	the
warning
	and
	dismissal
	letters
	to
	be
	free
	from
	prejudicial
	error
and
	adopts
	them
	as
	the 	decision
	of 	the
	Board
	itself.
ORDER
The
	unfair 	practice
	charge
	Case
	No. 	LA-CE-3674
	is
	hereby
DISMISSED
	WITHOUT
	LEAVE
	TO
	AMEND.
Chairman
	Caffrey
	and
	Member
	Johnson
	joined
	in
	this
	Decision.
2
Attached 	as 	Exhibit
	A
to 	the 	Association's 	appeal
	is
	an
October 	5,
	1995 	document
	entitled
	Special 	Grant 	Request
	forFoundation 	Funds. 	This
	document 	was
	not
	part
	of 	the 	record
before 	the
	Board
	agent.
	Because
	the 	Associat 	has
	failed 	toprovide
	good 	cause
	that 	this
	evidence 	could not 	have 	been
presented 	during 	the 	Board
	agent's 	investigation, 	the 	Board 	has
not 	considered 	Exhibit
	A
	in 	rendering 	this 	decision.
	(PERE
	regs.
are 	codified 	at
	Cal.
	Code
	Regs.,
	tit.8,
	sec.
	31001
	et 	seq; 	see
PERB 	Reg.
	sec. 	32635(b) .) 
2

STA
TE
OF
CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Los Angeles Regional
Office
3530
Wilshire Blvd.,
Suite
650
Los Angeles,
CA
90010-2334
(213)
736-3127
September 	13,
	1996
Charles
	R.
	Gustafson,
	Esq.
College 	of
	the
	Canyons
	FA/
California
	Teachers
	Association
Post
	Office
	Box 	2153
Santa
	Fe
	Springs,
	California
	90670
Re:
	Unfair
	Practice
	Charge
	No. 	LA-CE-3674
College
	of 	the
	Canyons
	Faculty Association v. 	Santa
	Clarita
Community
	College
	District
DISMISSAL
	AND
	REFUSAL
	TO
	ISSUE 	COMPLAINT
PETE WILSON, Governor
Dear
	Mr.
	Gustafson:
In 	the 	above-referenced
	charge
	the
	College 	of
	the
	Canyons
	FacultyAssociation 	(Association)
	alleges
	the
	Santa
	Clarita
	Community
College
	District
	(District) 	violated
	the 	Educational
	Employment
Relations
	Act
	(EERA
	or
	Act)
	sections
	3543.5(a), 	(b),
	and
	(c)
	by
discriminating 	against
	Jack
	D.
	Compton.
In
	sum
	the 	charge
	alleges
	Compton
	engaged
	in
	a
	protected
	activity
on December
	13, 	1995,
	when 	Compton
	initiated
	the 	grievance
process.
	The
	charge
	alleges 	the
	District
	committed
	the 	following
adverse
	actions:
	(a)
	between
	October
	8, 	and
	October 	20, 	1995,
	the
District
	rescinded 	approval
	for
	Compton's
	trip,
	and
	refused 	to
pay 	Compton's
	salary
	and
	travel
	expenses;
	and
	(b)
	on
	February
	7,
1996,
	the
	District
	placed
	a
	letter
	regarding
	Compton's
	failure
	tofollow 	procedures
	in
	Compton's
	personnel
	file.
I
	indicated 	to
	you,
	in
	my
	attached
	letter
	dated
	July
	29, 	1996,
that
	the 	above-referenced 	charge 	did 	not
	state
	a
	prima
	faciecase.
	You
	were
	advised
	that,
	if
	there
	were 	any
	factualinaccuracies 	or 	additional 	facts
	which 	would
	correct 	the
deficiencies 	explained 	in 	that
	letter,
	you
	should
	amend
	thecharge.
	On
	August 	19, 	1996, 	you
	filed
	your
	first
	amended
	charge.
In 	the
	first
	amended
	charge 	you 	added 	the 	following
	allegations,as
	summarized 	below:
	(a) 	Compton
	had
	commenced
	the
	first
	steps 	of
the 	contractual 	grievance 	procedure;
	(b)
	the
	District 	placed 	the
negative
	letter
	in
	Compton's
	file
	without 	any 	attempt 	to 	contact
Compton
	or 	to 	investigate 	the 	allegations
	made
	in 	that 	letter;
and 	(c)
	the 	District
	engaged
	in 	disparate 	treatment 	of
	Compton.
The
	above-stated 	information 	fails 	to 	establish
	a
	prima 	facie
violation. 	Therefore,
	I 	am
	dismissing 	the 	charge 	based 	on 	the
facts 	and 	reasons 	stated below and 	those 	contained 	in
	my
	July 	29,
1996, 	letter.

LA-CE-3674
September 	13,
	1996
Page
	2
As
	previously
	stated
	in
	the
	July
	29, 	1996, 	Warning
	Letter,
	the
District's
	conduct
	in
	October
	predates
	the
	alleged 	protected
activity
	by
	Compton,
	and
	those
	allegations
	are
	dismissed
accordingly.
	The
	District's
	conduct
	in
	February,
	following
Compton's
	alleged 	protected
	activity
	in
	December,
	is
	discussed
below.
In 	the
	Warning
	Letter
	I
	explained
	that
	the
	charge
	did
	not
factually
	support 	the
	allegation 	that
	Compton
	had
	engaged
	in
	any
protected
	activity
	because
	it
	did.
not 	appear
	that
	Compton
	had
actually
	filed
	a
	grievance.
	Accordingly,
	the
	original
	charge
failed
	to
	establish
	a
	requisite
	element 	of
	finding
	a
	prima
	faciediscrimination
	violation
	under
	EERA.
	In 	the
	first
	amended
	charge
you
	admit
	Compton
	did
	not 	formally
	file
	a
	written
	grievance, 	but
allege
	Compton 	"commenced
	the
	first
	steps
	of 	the
	contractual
grievance 	procedure"
	by
	having
	a
	Level
	I
	meeting
	with 	the
Assistant
	Superintendent
	on December
	13, 	1995.
	Although
	that
	act
is
	a
	protected
	activity
	and
	fulfills
	the
	first
	element
	of
	Novato,
the
	charge
	still
	does
	not
	state
	a
	prima
	facie
	case 	because
	the
charge
	does
	not
	factually
	support
	a
	finding
	of 	nexus.
To
	support
	a
	finding 	of
	nexus 	you
	allege
	the
	District,
	"had
	not
made
	any
	attempt
	to 	contact
	Mr. 	Compton
	or 	to 	investigate 	the
allegations
	made
	in
	the
	letter,
...
	prior
	to
	its
	issuance."
	You
further 	allege
	the
	District
	denied
	Compton
	his 	travel 	rights
	for
reasons
	which 	have
	not 	prevented
	other 	unit
	members
	from
traveling.
The
	above-stated
	allegations,
	however,
	are 	inconsistent
	with 	the
facts 	in
	the 	charge.
	Doran
	investigated
	whether 	Compton's
absence
	was
	authorized.
	Doran
	sent
	a 	memorandum
	to
	Compton
	onDecember 	13, 	1995,
	regarding
	his 	investigation
	and
	requested 	that
Compton make
	an 	appointment
	to
	speak with
	him.
	The
	charge
	alsoindicates 	that
	any
	further 	investigation
	may
	have
	been
unnecessary because
	Compton
	never 	challenged 	the
	District's
conduct 	by
	filing
	a
	grievance, 	despite 	the 	fact 	that 	the
District's
	Board
	of 	Trustees 	granted
	him
	an
	extension
	after
	he
had missed
	the
	filing
	deadline.
1
With
	regard 	to
	your
	allegation 	that
	the
	District
	denied
	Compton's
travel 	rights 	but 	allowed 	other 	unit
	members
	to 	travel,
	thecharge
	fails 	to 	provide 	factual 	support.
	The
	charge 	did 	not
provide 	any
	facts 	pertaining 	to
	any
	other
	employee
	or
	any
	other
1
The
	deadline 	for
	Compton
	to 	file
	a
	written 	grievance
	was 	on
January 	22, 	1996.
	On
	February 	7, 	1996, 	the 	District
	Board 	of
Trustees 	waived
	their 	timeliness 	defense 	and 	granted
	Compton
until 	February 	13, 	1996, 	to 	file
	a
	written 	grievance. 	Compton
did 	not 	file
	a
	grievance.

travel
	claims.
	Accordingly,
	the
	charge
	did
	not
	establish 	that
the
	District
	engaged
	in
	any
	disparate
	treatment
	of
	Compton.
LA-CE-3674
September 	13,
	1996
Page
	3
Moreover,
	Compton
	admits
	he
	failed
	to
	follow
	the 	proper
procedures
	in
	a
	memorandum
	to
	Dr. 	Dianne
	G.
	Van
	Hook.
2	
Compton's
statements 	suggest 	the
	District's
	actions
	were
	not
	motivated
	by
Compton's
	involvement
	in
	any
	protected
	activity,
	but 	because
Compton
	failed
	to
	follow 	the 	proper 	procedures.
For
	the
	above-stated
	reasons
	and
'those 	reasons
	explained
	in
	the
July
	29, 	1996, 	Warning
	Letter
	I 	am
	dismissing
	this
	charge.
Right
	to
	Appeal
Pursuant
	to 	Public
	Employment
	Relations
	Board
	regulations,
	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.
	(Cal.
	Code
	of 	Regs.,
	tit.
	8,
sec.
	32635(a)
.)
	To
	be
	timely
	filed,
	the
	original
	and
	five
	copies
of
	such
	appeal
	must 	be
	actually
	received
	by
	the
	Board
	itself
before 	the
	close 	of 	business
	(5
	p.m.)
	or 	sent
	by
	telegraph,
certified
	or
	Express 	United
	States
	mail
	postmarked
	no
	later
than 	the
	last
	date
	set
	for
	filing.
	(Cal.
	Code
	of 	Regs.,
	tit.
	8,
sec.
	32135.)
	Code
	of
	Civil
	Procedure
	section
	1013
	shall
	apply.
The
	Board's 	address
	is:
Public
	Employment
	Relations
	Board1031
	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
copies 	of
	a
	statement
	in 	opposition within
	twenty
	(20)
	calendar
days
	following 	the 	date 	of
	service 	of 	the 	appeal. 	(Cal.
	Code
	of
Regs.,
	tit.
	8,
	sec.
	32635(b).)
Service
All
	documents
	authorized 	to
	be
	filed
	herein
	must
	also
	be 	"served
11
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
	Cal.
	Code
	of 	Regs.,
	tit.
	8,
sec.
	32140
	for 	the 	required 	contents
	and
	a
	sample 	form.) 	The
document
	will
	be 	considered 	properly
	11
served
11
	when
	personally
delivered 	or 	deposited 	in 	the
	first-class
	mail, 	postage 	paid
	and
properly 	addressed.
2
That 	memorandum
	is 	dated 	"2-2-96,
11
	but 	is 	titled,
	"Response
to
	memo 	hand 	to
	me
	at 	our meeting 	on March 	7, 	1996.

LA-CE-3674
September 	13,
	1996
Page
	4
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
	beforethe
	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.
	(Cal.
	Code
	of
	Regs.,
	tit.
	8,
	sec.
	32132.)
Final
	Date
If
	no
	appeal
	is
	filed
	within 	the
	specified
	time
	limits,
	the
dismissal
	will
	become
	final
	when
	the
	time
	limits
	have
	expired.
Sincerely,
ROBERT
	THOMPSON
Deputy
	General 	Counsel
By
Tammy
	L.
Jfamsel
Regional
	Attorney
Attachment:

STATE
OF
CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Los
Angeles
Regional
Office
3530
Wilshire Blvd.,
Suite
650
Los
Angeles,
CA
90010-2334
(213)
736-3127
July
	29,
	1996
Charles
	R.
	Gustafson,
	Esq.
California
	Teachers
	Association
College 	of
	the
	Canyons
	Faculty Association
Post
	Office
	Box
	2153
Santa
	Fe
	Springs,
	California
	90670
Re:
	Unfair
	Practice
	Charge
	No. 	LA-CE-3674
College
	of 	the
	Canyons
	Faculty Association v. 	Santa
	Clarita
Community
	College
	District
WARNING
	LETTER
PETE WILSON,
Governor
Dear	
Mr.	
Gustafson:
In 	the 	above-referenced
	charge
	the
	College 	of 	the
	Canyons
	Faculty
Association 	(Association)
	alleges
	the
	Santa
	Clarita
	Community
College
	District
	(District) 	violated
	the 	Educational
	Employment
Relations
	Act
	(EERA
	or
	Act)
	sections
	3543.S(a), 	(b),
	and
	(c)
	by
discriminating 	against
	Jack
	D.
	Compton.
	My
	investigation
revealed 	the 	following
	;nrnrm~~inn
On
	September 	22, 	1995,
	Compton
	filed
	paperwork
	with 	the
	District
to 	receive 	approval
	for
	a
	trip
	to
	France.
	The
	District
	alleged
Compton
	failed 	to
	submit
	all
	of 	the 	required
	documents,
	but
Compton
	allegedly 	received 	approval
	for 	the
	trip
	from
	an
	unnamed
administrator.
The
	Dist
	ct
	later
	reneged
	its
	approval
	for
	Compton's
	trip,
	and
refused 	to
	pay 	Compton's
	salary
	and
	travel
	expenses.
	You
	allege
Compton
	filed
	a
	grievance 	over 	the
	District's
	refusal 	to
	pay
	his
salary
	and
	travel
	expenses.
	You
	further 	allege 	the
	District
denied
	this
	grievance.
On
	February 	7, 	1996,
	the
	District
	placed
	a
	document
	in
	Compton's
personnel
	file
	which
	discussed
	Compton's
	"failure 	to
	comply
	with
Dist 	procedures."
The
	above-stated 	facts 	fail 	to 	establish
	a
	prima
	facie 	violation
of 	the
	EERA
	for 	the 	reason 	that 	follow.
	To
	demonstrate
	a
violation 	of
	EERA
	section 	3543.S(a), 	the 	charging 	party
	must 	show
that:
	(1)
	the 	employee 	exercised 	rights 	under
	EERA; 	(2)
	the
employer 	had 	knowledge 	of 	the 	exercise 	of 	those 	rights; 	and

(
3)
	the
	employer
	imposed
	or
	threat.ened
	to
	impose
	reprisals,
discriminated
	or
	threatened 	to 	discriminate,or
	otherwise
	interfered
	with,
	restrained
	or
	coerced
	the
	employees
because 	of
	the
	exercise
	of 	those
	rights.
	(Novato
	Unified
	School
District
	(1982)
	PERB
	Decision
	No.
	210;
	Carlsbad
	Unified
	School
District
	(1979)
	PERB
	Decision
	No.
	89;
	Department
	of
	Developmental
Services
	(1982)
	PERB
	Decision
	No.
	228-S;
	California
	State
University
	(Sacramento)
	(1982)
	PERB
	Decision
	No.
	211-H.)
LA-CE-3674
July
	29,
	1996
Page
	2
Although
	the 	timing 	of 	the 	employer's 	adverse
	action
	in
	close
temporal
	proximity
	to
	the
	employee's
	protected
	conduct
	is
	an
important
	factor,
	it
	does
	not, 	without
	more,
	demonstrate
	the
necessary 	connection
	or
	"nexus"
	between
	the
	adverse
	action
	and
the 	protected
	conduct.
	(Moreland
	Elementary
	School
	District
(1982)
	PERB
	Decision
	No.
	227.)
	Facts
	establishing
	one
	or
	more
of 	the 	following
	additional 	factors
	must
	also
	be
	present:
(1)
	the 	employer's
	disparate 	treatment
	of 	the
	employee;
	(2)
	theemployer's
	departure
	from
	established
	procedures
	and
	standards
when
	dealing 	with 	the
	employee;
	(3)
	the
	employer's
	inconsistentor 	contradictory
	justifications
	for
	its
	actions;
	(4)
	the
employer's
	cursory
	investigation
	of
	the
	employee's 	misconduct;
(5)
	the 	employer's
	failure
	to
	offer
	the
	employee
	justification
at
the
	time
	it
	took
	action 	or 	the
	offering
	of 	exaggerated, 	vague,
	or
ambiguous
	reasons;
	or
	(6)
	any
	other 	facts
	which
	might 	demonstrate
the
	employer's 	unlawful 	motive.
	(Novato
	Unified
	School
	District,
supra;
	North 	Sacramento 	School
	District
	(1982)
	PERB
	Decision
No.
	264.)
	As
	presently written,
	this
	charge
	fails
	to
	demonstrateany
	of 	these
	factors
	and
	therefore
	does 	not
	state
	a
	prima
	facie
violation
	of
	EERA
	section
	3543.S(a).
The
	charge's 	only
	allegation
	of 	protected
	activity
	was
	Compton's
alleged
	filing
	of
	a
	grievance.
	The
	charge
	fails
	to 	allege
Compton
	engaged
	in
	any
	protected
	activities 	prior 	to 	the
District's
	action 	to 	rescind 	approval
	for
	Compton's
	trip
	or
	the
District's
	refusal 	to
	pay 	Compton's
	salary
	and
	travel
	expenses.Accordingly, 	the 	timing 	of 	the
	District's
	acts 	prior 	to 	the
Compton's
	alleged 	filing
	of
	a
	grievance
	do
	not 	support
	a
	findingof 	nexus.
	(See 	Kern 	County
	Office 	of 	Education
	(1987)
	PERB
Decision
	No.
	630.)
Although 	the
	District's
	act 	of 	placing
	a
	letter 	in
	Compton's
personnel
	file
	followed 	Compton's
	alleged 	filing
	of
	a
	grievance,
that 	allegation 	also 	fails 	to 	establish
	a
	prima
	facie 	violation.
The
	charge 	does 	not 	allege
	when 	Compton
	filed 	the 	grievance, 	nor
does 	the 	charge 	include 	any documents 	supporting 	the 	allegation
that
	Compton
	filed
	a
	grievance. 	In 	fact, 	your 	Exhibit
	A
	to 	the
charge 	indicates
	Compton
	failed 	to 	file
	a
	timely 	grievance.
	Itfurther 	indicates 	the 	Board 	of 	Trustees 	extended 	Compton's
deadline 	to 	file
	a
	grievance, 	but 	Compton
	still 	did 	not 	file
	a

LA-CE-3674
July
	29,
	1996
Page
	3
grievance. 	Therefore 	the
	charge
	fails
	to
	establish
	the
	first
element
	of
	a 	EERA
	section
	3543.S(a)
	violation.
Even
	assuming
	Compton
	did
	file
	a
	grievance,
	it
	is
	your 	burden
	to
establish
	the
	requisite
	nexus
	between
	that
	act
	and
	the
	District's
alleged
	adverse
	action.
	Without
	the 	date
	of 	the
	grievance
	filing
it
	is
	impossible
	to
	determine 	whether
	timing
	is
	a
	factor 	in 	this
charge.
	The
	charge
	fails
	to
	factually
	support
	any
	of
	the
	factors
indicative
	of 	nexus.
For
	these 	reasons
	the
	charge,
	as
	presently 	written,
	does
	not
state
	a
	prima
	facie
	case.
	If
	there 	are
	any
	factual 	inaccuracies
in 	this
	letter
	or 	additional 	facts
	which
	would
	correct 	the
deficiencies
	explained
	above,
	please
	amend
	the 	charge.
	The
amended
	charge
	should
	be
	prepared
	on
	a
	standard
	PERB
	unfairpractice
	charge
	form,
	clearly
	labeled
	First
	Amended
	Charge,
contain
	all
	the
	facts
	and
	alleqations
	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
	August 	8,
	1996,
	I
shall
	dismiss 	your 	charge.
	If
	you
	have 	any
	questions,
	please
call
	me
	at
	(213)
	736-7508.
Sincerely,
~~
Tammy 	L.
	Samsel
Regional 	Attorney