United Teachers-Los Angeles (Williams) (PERB 1277E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
DORIS J. 	WILLIAMS,
Charging 	Party,
v.
UNITED TEACHERS 	LOS ANGELES,
Respondent.
Case No. 	LA-CO-669
PERB Decision No. 	1277
August 13, 	1998
Appearance: 	Doris J. 	Williams, 	on her own behalf.
Before Dyer, 	Amador and Jackson, 	Members.
DECISION
DYER, 	Member: 	This 	case 	comes before 	the 	Public Employment
Relations 	Board 	(Board) 	on appeal 	of 	a Board agent's 	dismissal
(attached) 	of Doris J. 	Williams' 	(Williams) 	unfair practice
charge. 	Williams' 	charge alleged that 	the United Teachers 	Los
Angeles 	breached 	the 	duty 	of 	fair 	representation mandated by
Section 3544.9 	of 	the Educational 	Employment 	Relations Act 	(EERA)
and thereby violated EERA section 3543.6(b)1 when it 	refused 	to
1EERA is 	codified at Government 	Code 	section 	3540 	et 	seq.
EERA section 3543.6 provides, 	in relevant part:
It 	shall 	be unlawful 	for an employee
organization to:
(b) 	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.
EERA section 	3544.9 	provides:
The 	employee 	organization 	recognized 	or

represent 	her 	in an employment 	dispute with the 	Los Angeles
Unified 	School 	District.
certified as 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	for
the purpose 	of 	meeting and negotiating 	shall
fairly 	represent 	each 	and 	every 	employee 	in
the appropriate unit.
The 	Board has 	reviewed the 	entire 	record 	in this 	case,
including 	the unfair practice 	charge, 	the warning and dismissal
letters 	and Williams' 	appeal. 	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 	in Case No. 	LA-CO-669 	is 	hereby
DISMISSED WITHOUT 	LEAVE 	TO AMEND.
Members 	Amador and Jackson 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
22

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	PETE WILSON, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Sacramento Regional Office
1031 18th Street, Room 102
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
(916) 322-3198
May 20, 	1998
Doris 	J. 	Williams
Re: 	Doris J. 	Williams v. 	United Teachers of Los Angeles
Unfair Practice 	Charge No. 	LA-CO-669
DISMISSAL 	LETTER
Dear Ms. Williams:
The 	above-referenced 	charge 	alleges 	that 	the United 	Teachers 	of
Los Angeles 	(UTLA or Association) 	failed to properly represent
you 	in your 	dispute with the 	Los 	Angeles 	Unified School 	District
(District). 	This conduct 	is alleged to violate 	section 3544.9 of
the Educational 	Employment Relations Act 	(EERA or Act).
I 	indicated to you, 	in my attached letter dated May 8, 	1998, 	that
the 	above-referenced charge 	did not 	state 	a prima 	facie 	case.
You were 	advised that, 	if 	there 	were 	any factual 	inaccuracies or
additional 	facts 	which would 	correct 	the 	deficiencies 	explained
in that 	letter, 	you 	should amend the 	charge. 	You were 	further
advised that, 	unless you amended the 	charge 	to 	state 	a prima
facie case or withdrew it prior to May 18, 	1998, 	the charge would
be 	dismissed.
I 	have 	not 	received 	either an 	amended charge 	or a 	request 	for
withdrawal. 	Therefore, 	I 	am dismissing the 	charge based on the
facts 	and reasons 	contained 	in my May 	8, 	1998 	letter.
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 	Board
1031 	18th Street
Sacramento, 	CA 95814

LA-CO-669
Dismissal 	Letter
Page 2
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"
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 	"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. 	(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
Attachment
cc: 	Roger Segure, 	UTLA
RGT:eke

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	PETE WILSON, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Sacramento Regional Office
1031 18th Street, Room 102
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
(916) 322-3198
May 8, 	1998
Doris J. 	Williams
Re: 	Doris 	J. 	Williams v. 	United Teachers of Los Angeles
Unfair Practice Charge No. 	LA-CO-669
WARNING 	LETTER
Dear Ms. Williams:
The 	above-referenced 	charge 	alleges 	that 	the United 	Teachers 	of
Los Angeles 	(UTLA or Association) 	failed to properly represent
you 	in your dispute 	with 	the 	Los Angeles 	Unified 	School 	District
(District). 	This 	conduct 	is 	alleged to violate 	section 3544.9 of
the Educational 	Employment Relations Act 	(EERA or Act).
My 	investigation 	revealed the 	following 	information. 	You were 	a
substitute 	teacher 	for the 	District 	at 	the 	Trinity Children's
Center. 	On August 	24, 	1995, 	you became involved in a verbal
altercation with a teacher's aide, 	Mrs. 	Debra Hudson Stovall,
which was 	interrupted and terminated by Mrs. 	Josemie 	Jackson 	from
the 	supervisor's office. 	On September 1, 	1995, 	you received a
certified 	letter 	from the 	District 	indicating 	that 	after 	careful
evaluation of 	the 	conduct 	described 	in 	the 	inadequate 	service
report, 	it 	was 	determined that 	you would be 	dismissed 	from your
substitute 	status 	effective 	the 	date 	of 	the 	letter 	(August 	31,
1995). 	You appealed this decision on September 11, 	1995 	and the
District 	denied your appeal 	on September 23, 	1995.
Rick Regberg, 	area representative, 	of 	the Association 	filed a
grievance on September 6, 	1995, 	concerning your inadequate
service 	report 	which you had received on August 	24, 	1995. 	You
informed Mr. 	Regberg that 	you had worked 	fewer 	than 	100 	days
during the previous 	school year. 	The District, 	citing Article 	1
section 	1.1 	of 	the 	collective 	bargaining 	agreement 	between 	the
Association and the 	District 	(effective 	July 1, 	1995 	through June
30, 	1998), 	refused to process the grievance. 	This section
requires 	that 	"all 	day to 	day 	substitutes 	who were 	paid 	for 	fewer
than 	100 	days 	during the preceding 	school 	year" 	are 	excluded 	from
the 	bargaining unit 	that 	is 	exclusively 	represented by UTLA.
Based on 	the 	information contained above, 	this 	charge 	does 	not
state 	a prima 	facie violation of 	the 	EERA for 	the 	reasons which
follow.
Charging 	Party 	has 	alleged 	that 	the 	exclusive 	representative
denied 	Charging 	Party 	the 	right 	to 	fair 	representation 	guaranteed

by EERA 	section 	3544.9 	and 	thereby violated 	section 	3543.6(b).
The 	duty of 	fair 	representation 	imposed on 	the 	exclusive
representative 	extends 	to grievance 	handling. 	(Fremont 	Teachers
Association 	(King) 	(1980) 	PERB Decision No. 	125; 	United Teachers
of Los Angeles 	(Collins) 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	258.) 	In
order 	to 	state 	a prima 	facie 	violation of 	this 	section of 	EERA,
Charging 	Party must 	show that 	the Association's 	conduct 	was
arbitrary, 	discriminatory or 	in bad 	faith. 	In United Teachers
of Los Angeles 	(Collins). 	the Public Employment Relations Board
stated:
LA-CO-669
Warning 	Letter
Page 2
Absent bad faith, 	discrimination, 	or
arbitrary conduct, 	mere 	negligence or poor
judgment 	in handling a grievance 	does 	not
constitute 	a breach of 	the 	union's 	duty.
[Citations.]
A union 	may 	exercise 	its 	discretion 	to
determine 	how 	far 	to pursue 	a 	grievance 	in
the 	employee's behalf 	as 	long as 	it 	does 	not
arbitrarily 	ignore 	a 	meritorious 	grievance 	or
process 	a 	grievance 	in a perfunctory 	fashion.
A union 	is 	also 	not 	required 	to process 	an
employee's 	grievance 	if 	the 	chances 	for
success 	are minimal.
In order 	to 	state 	a prima 	facie 	case 	of 	arbitrary conduct
violating 	the 	duty of 	fair representation, 	a Charging 	Party:
" . . . 	must 	at 	a minimum 	include 	an assertion
of 	sufficient 	facts 	from which 	it 	becomes
apparent 	how or 	in what 	manner 	the 	exclusive
representative's 	action 	or 	inaction was
without 	a 	rational 	basis 	or devoid of 	honest
judgment. 	(Emphasis added.)" 	[Reed District
Teachers Association, 	CTA/NEA 	(Reyes) 	(1983)
PERB Decision No. 	332, 	p. 	9, 	citing Rocklin
Teachers 	Professional 	Association 	(Romero)
(1980) 	PERB Decision No. 	124.]
First, 	this 	charge 	does not 	state 	a prima 	facie 	case because you
did not 	work 	a 	sufficient 	number of 	days 	to be 	considered a
member 	of 	the 	bargaining unit 	exclusively represented 	the
Association. 	Accordingly, 	the Association does not 	owe 	a duty of
fair representation 	to you 	in your position as 	a 	day to 	day
substitute.
Second, 	even 	if 	your position was 	in the 	bargaining unit
represented by UTLA, 	the 	charge 	fails 	to 	show that 	the
Association 	has 	acted 	in bad 	faith, 	discriminatorily or

arbitrarily. 	Accordingly, 	no prima 	facie violation of 	the 	duty
of 	fair 	representation has 	been presented.
LA-CO-669
Warning 	Letter
Page 3
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 	unfair
practice 	charge 	form, 	clearly labeled First 	Amended 	Charge,
contain all 	the 	facts and allegations you wish to make, 	and
be 	signed under penalty of 	perjury by the 	charging party. 	The
amended 	charge 	must 	have 	the 	case 	number written 	on 	the 	top 	right
hand corner 	of 	the 	charge 	form. 	The 	amended charge 	must 	be
served on 	the 	respondent's 	representative 	and 	the 	original 	proof
of 	service must 	be 	filed with PERB. 	If 	I 	do not 	receive 	an
amended charge or withdrawal 	from you before May 18, 	1998, 	I
shall 	dismiss your charge. 	If you have any questions, 	please
call me at 	(916) 	322-3198, 	extension 361.
Sincerely,
ROBERT 	THOMPSON
Deputy General 	Counsel
RGT:eke