California State Employees Association (Hutchinson/Laosantos) (PERB 1304S)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
CESSALY D. 	HUTCHINSON AND
JEAN LAOSANTOS,
Charging 	Parties,
v.
CALIFORNIA 	STATE 	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION,
Respondent.
Case No. 	SF-CO-35-S
PERB Decision No. 	1304-S
December 11, 	1998
Appearance; 	Cessaly D. 	Hutchinson, 	on behalf of Cessaly D.
Hutchinson and Jean 	Laosantos.
Before Caffrey, 	Chairman; 	Johnson and Dyer, 	Members.
DECISION
CAFFREY, 	Chairman: 	This 	case is before the Public
Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(PERB 	or Board) 	on appeal 	by
Cessaly D. 	Hutchinson and Jean Laosantos 	(Charging Parties) 	of a
Board agent's 	dismissal 	(attached) 	of 	their unfair practice
charge. 	In the charge, 	Charging Parties alleged that 	the
California State 	Employees Association 	(Association) 	engaged 	in
conduct 	in violation of 	section 3519.5(a) 	and 	(b) 	of 	the Ralph C.
Dills Act 	(Dills Act).1
1The Dills Act 	is 	codified at 	Government 	Code 	section 3512
et 	seq. 	-Unless 	otherwise 	indicated, 	all 	statutory references
herein are 	to the Government 	Code. 	Section 3519.5 	states:
It 	shall 	be unlawful 	for an employee
organization to:
(a) 	Cause or attempt to cause the state to
violate 	Section 3519.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
-~------------)

The Board has 	reviewed the 	entire 	record 	in this 	case,
including 	the 	original 	and amended unfair practice 	charge, 	the
Board agent's 	warning and dismissal 	letters 	and Charging 	Parties'
appeal. 	The Board 	finds 	the warning and dismissal 	letters 	to be
free 	of 	prejudicial 	error and adopts 	them as 	the 	decision of 	the.
Board 	itself, 	consistent with the 	following discussion.
DISCUSSION
The 	specific 	actions 	by 	the Association which 	Charging
Parties 	allege are 	in violation of 	the Dills Act 	include:
spending Association 	resources 	on an 	organizing 	campaign which
failed to 	result 	in a collective bargaining agreement; 	allowing
the Association's 	Civil 	Service Division officers 	to use 	internal
processes 	fraudulently; 	allowing supporters 	of 	the Caucus 	for a
Democratic Union 	(CDU) 	to 	campaign to alter the Association's
internal 	structure 	so as 	to provide 	CDU with greater 	control;
abusing and coercing members who do not 	support 	CDU; 	and engaging
in other 	related acts.
Under the Dills Act, 	state employees 	have 	the 	right 	to
participate 	in the 	activities 	of 	employee 	organizations 	for 	the
purpose 	of 	representation on matters 	of 	employer-employee
relations 	(Dills Act sec. 	3515). 	However, 	the Board has not
interpreted 	the Dills Act 	as 	protecting all 	participation 	in
(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.
22

employee 	organization activities, 	or as providing 	PERB with
unlimited authority 	to 	review 	the 	internal 	affairs 	of 	employee
organizations. 	In Service Employees 	International Union. 	Local
99 	(Kimmett) 	(1979) 	PERB Decision No. 	106 	(Kimmett). 	the Board
examined 	the 	identical 	right 	provided under 	the 	Educational
Employment Relations Act 	(EERA)2 to determine if 	employees have
any protected 	right 	"to 	have 	an 	employee 	organization 	structured
or operated 	in any particular way." 	The 	Board 	stated:
The 	EERA gives 	employees 	the 	right 	to 	'join
and participate 	in the activities 	of 	employee
organizations' 	(sec. 	3543) 	and employee
organizations 	are 	prevented 	from 	interfering
with employees because 	of 	the 	exercise 	of
their rights (sec. 3543 . 6 (b) ) .[3] Read
broadly, 	these 	sections 	could be 	construed as
prohibiting 	any 	employee 	organization 	conduct
which would prevent 	or 	limit 	employee's
participation in any of 	its 	activities. 	The
internal 	organization 	structure 	could be
scrutinized as 	could 	the 	conduct 	of 	elections
for union 	officers 	to 	ensure 	conformance with
an 	idealized participatory 	standard. 	However
laudable 	such a result might be, 	the Board
finds 	such 	intervention 	in union affairs 	to
be beyond 	the 	legislative 	intent 	in enacting
the EERA. 	There 	is 	nothing 	in the EERA
comparable 	to 	the 	Labor-Management Reporting
and Disclosure Act of 1959, 	[Fn. 	omitted]
which 	regulates 	certain 	internal 	conduct 	of
unions 	operating 	in the private 	sector. 	The
EERA does 	not 	describe 	the 	internal 	workings
or 	structure 	of 	employee 	organizations 	nor
does 	it 	define 	the 	internal 	rights of
organization members. 	We 	cannot believe 	that
by the use 	of 	the phrase 	'participate 	in 	the
activities of employee organizations 	. 	. 	.
for the purpose 	of 	representation on all
matters of 	employer employee relations' 	in
2EERA is 	codified at Government 	Code 	section 3540 	et 	seq.
3Dills Act 	section 3519.5(b) 	is 	identical 	to EERA
section 3543.6(b).
33

section 3543, 	the Legislature 	intended this
Board 	to 	create 	a 	regulatory 	set 	of 	standards
governing 	the 	solely 	internal 	relationship
between a union and 	its members.
(Id. at pp. 	15-16.)
Pursuant 	to 	Kimmett, 	the 	statutes 	administered by PERB provide
employees 	with no protected 	rights 	in 	the 	organization 	or
operation of 	their 	exclusive 	representative unless 	the 	internal
activities 	of 	the 	employee 	organization have a 	substantial 	impact
on the employees' 	relationship with their employer. 	(Kimmett at
p. 	17.)
In recent 	cases, 	the Board has 	reiterated that 	it will 	not
intervene 	in matters 	involving 	the 	solely 	internal 	activities 	or
relationships 	of 	an employee 	organization which do not 	impact
employer-employee 	relations. 	In California State 	Employees
Association 	(Hackett, 	et al.) 	(1993) 	PERB Decision No. 	979-S, 	the
Board dismissed a 	charge 	in which 	there was 	no 	showing 	that 	the
disputed 	internal 	activities 	of 	the 	employee 	organization
impacted 	the 	employment 	relationship. 	In rejecting the 	request
for 	reconsideration of 	that 	decision, 	the Board specifically
referred 	to a portion 	of 	the 	charge 	challenging 	internal
procedures 	of 	the 	employee 	organization as 	"an area 	into which
the 	Board will 	not 	intervene 	except 	where 	the 	internal 	activities
of 	the 	employee 	organization have 	a 	substantial 	impact 	upon
employees' 	relationships with their employer." 	(California State
Employees Association 	(Hackett, 	et al.) 	(1993) 	PERB Decision
No. 	979a-S at p. 	3, 	fn. 	3.) 	In California State Employees
Association 	(Hackett) 	(1993) 	PERB Decision No. 	1012-S, 	the Board
4

dismissed 	charges 	involving 	the union's 	internal 	contract
ratification process 	because 	it 	had not 	been demonstrated 	that
the 	internal 	activities 	substantially 	impacted 	the 	relationship
of employees to the, employer. 	Similarly, 	in California State
Employees Association 	(Garcia) 	(1993) 	PERB Decision No. 	1014-S,
the 	Board 	dismissed 	charges 	relating 	to 	alleged union 	election
irregularities 	and union discipline 	procedures 	because 	there 	was
no 	showing 	of 	a 	substantial 	impact 	on 	the 	charging party's
relationship with her employer.
As 	discussed below, 	the Board has 	intervened 	in the 	internal
affairs 	of 	a union when alleged 	retaliation against members 	for
their union participation went 	beyond 	solely 	internal 	union
activities 	or 	relations 	and 	impacted 	the 	employment 	relationship.
In other cases, 	the Board has 	reviewed internal union affairs 	to
consider 	the 	reasonableness 	of 	a union's membership 	restrictions
or dismissals.4
In California Union of Safety Employees 	(Coelho) 	(1994) 	PERB	-..
Decision No. 	1032-S, 	the Board found a violation in the union's
retaliatory 	filing with 	the 	employer of 	a 	citizen's 	complaint
against an employee, 	and in its 	subsequent 	refusal 	to represent
the 	employee 	in 	the 	resulting 	investigation 	conducted by 	the
4Dills Act 	section 	3515.5 	and EERA section 	3543.1(a) 	contain
the 	following 	identical 	language 	concerning 	employee 	organization
rights:
Employee 	organizations 	may 	establish
reasonable 	restrictions 	regarding who may
join and may make 	reasonable provisions 	for
the dismissal 	of 	individuals 	from membership.
55

employer. 	The union's 	conduct 	directly 	impacted 	the 	employee's
relationship 	with 	his 	employer and was 	beyond 	the 	solely 	internal
relationship of 	the 	employee and union. 	In California Union of
---------	Safety Employees 	(John) 	(1994) 	PERB Decision No. 	1064-S, 	the
Board 	found a violation 	in 	the 	union's 	retaliatory 	refusal 	to
provide 	representation to a member 	in his 	appeal 	to 	the 	State
Personnel 	Board of 	the 	employer's 	adverse 	action against 	him.
Again, 	actions beyond the 	solely 	internal 	relationship 	of 	the
employee 	and 	the union were 	involved. 	In California 	School
-Employee	- 	-------------------	s Association and 	its 	Shasta 	College 	Chapte	----	r #381
(Parisot) 	(1983) 	PERB Decision No. 	280 and California State
-Employee	- 	---------------	s Association 	(Hackett, 	et al.) 	(1995) 	PERB Decision
No. 	1126-s, 	the Board examined the propriety of 	the exclusive
representative's 	action 	restricting 	the membership 	of 	individual
employees.
These 	cases 	confirm that 	the Dills Act 	does 	not protect 	the
solely 	internal 	union participation and activities 	of 	employees
which do not 	impact 	employer-employee 	relations. 	However, 	the
Board 	retains 	the 	authority 	to 	review 	internal 	union activities
in 	order 	to 	examine 	allegations 	of 	retaliation against members
for 	their union participation when 	the 	alleged misconduct 	impacts
the 	employment 	relationship or employer-employee 	relations; 	or 	to
assess 	the 	reasonableness 	of 	a union's membership 	restrictions.
- . . . .. . .
As noted by the Board agent, 	Charging Parties' 	allegations
involve 	the 	solely 	internal 	operations 	of 	the Association and 	the
internal 	relationships between 	the Association and 	its members.
66

The allegations 	of 	abuse and coercion of members 	do not 	involve
conduct 	which 	impacts 	the 	employment 	relationship, 	and there 	are
no allegations 	relating to restrictions 	on employees' 	membership.
This 	solely 	internal 	union activity 	is 	not protected by 	the Dills
Act, 	and not 	subject 	to 	intervention or 	regulation by PERB.
ORDER
The unfair practice 	charge 	in Case No. 	SF-CO-35-S 	is
DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE 	TO AMEND.
Member Dyer 	joined 	in this 	Decision.
Member Johnson's 	concurrence begins 	on page 	8.
7
7

JOHNSON, 	Member, 	concurring: 	I concur in the dismissal 	of
this 	charge because 	it 	contains 	no allegations 	of 	conduct by the
California State 	Employees Association 	(Association) 	which 	fall
under 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board's 	(PERB 	or Board)
jurisdiction.
Cessaly D. 	Hutchinson and Jean Laosantos 	(Charging 	Parties)
allege 	that 	the Association engaged 	in various 	acts 	which violate
the Ralph C. 	Dills Act 	(Dills Act) 	section 3519.5(b). 	However,
those acts 	involve purely internal 	union affairs. 	The 	Board has
traditionally 	refrained 	from using Dills 	Act 	sections 	3515 	or
3519.5(b) 	as a vehicle 	for reviewing the 	internal 	affairs 	of
unions. 	(See 	California State 	Employees Association 	(Hackett)
(1995) 	PERB Decision No. 	1126-S 	(Hackett, 	et al.). p. 	19,
proposed dec*, 	citing Service 	Employees 	International 	Union,
Local 99 	(Kimmett) 	(1979) 	PERB Decision No. 	106 	(Kimmett).)1
In 	the 	case at bar, 	the Board agent 	correctly determined
that 	Charging 	Parties' 	allegations 	involve 	conduct by the
Association which 	fall 	outside 	PERB's 	jurisdiction. 	Under
Kimmett. 	this 	charge 	should be dismissed.
I 	am writing 	separately because 	the 	majority 	opinion
contains 	dicta which suggests 	that 	Charging 	Parties' 	activities
are not protected by the Dills Act. 	I 	am concerned 	that 	this
1However, the 	Board has 	been willing 	to 	review 	internal
union activities 	for two other purposes: 	(1) 	to determine the
"reasonableness" 	of 	disciplinary action under Dills Act 	section
3515.5; 	and 	(2) 	to determine whether a union's action against an
employee 	constituted 	retaliation 	for 	engaging 	in protected
conduct. 	(Hackett, 	et al.. 	p. 	19, 	proposed d e c ; 	citations.)
88

dicta 	casts 	doubt 	on 	the viability 	of 	an 	important 	rule 	expressly
adopted by the Board in Hackett, 	et al.2 I 	continue 	to 	support
that 	standard.
2In 	that 	case, 	the Board 	affirmed 	the 	standard established
earlier 	in California 	School 	Employees Association and 	its 	Shasta
College Chapter #381 	(Parisot) 	(1983) 	PERB Decision No. 	280
(Parisot). 	(Hackett, 	et al. 	at p. 	7.) 	Under Parisot.
dissidents' 	conduct becomes unprotected when they engage 	in
conduct 	that 	threatens 	the very existence 	of 	the 	employee
organization. 	(See Hackett, 	et al.. 	pp. 	24-25, proposed dec.)
99

- - -
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	PETE WILSON, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
San Francisco Regional Office
177 Post Street, 9th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108-4737
(41 5) 439-6940
April 22, 	1998
Cessaly D. 	Hutchinson, 	President
District Labor Council 750, 	Civil Service Division
595 Market Street, 	Suite 1700
San Francisco, 	California 	94105
Re: 	DISMISSA
- L OF UNFAIR PRACTICE CHARGE/REFUSAL TO ISSUE
COMPLAINT
Cessal
---==--==---y Hutchinson and Jean Laosantos v. 	California State
Employees Association
Unfair Practice Charge No. 	SF-CO-35-S --
Dear Ms. Hutchinson:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge, 	filed on November
25, 	1997 and amended on January 15, 	1998 and April 8, 	1998,
alleges 	that 	the California State Employees Association
(Association) 	spent monies of the Association on an organizing
campaign that 	failed to result 	in a successor Memorandum of
Understanding 	(MOU), 	realigned the Association's District Labor
Councils 	(DLCs) 	without complying with internal governing
policies, 	allowed Civil Service Division officers to fraudulently
use the delegate process, 	allowed sympathizers of a faction known
as the Caucus for a Democratic Union 	(CDU) 	to continue a campaign
to alter the organizational 	structure of the Association so as to
gain greater control 	of the organization, 	and engaged in other
related acts. 	This 	conduct is alleged to violate Government Code
section 3519.5 of the Ralph C. Dills Act 	(Dills Act).
I indicated to you, 	in my attached letter dated March 30, 	1998,
that 	certain allegations 	contained in the charge did not 	state a
prima facie case. 	You were advised that if there were any
factual 	inaccuracies 	in my letter 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 these allegations 	to state a prima facie case or withdrew
them prior to April 7, 	1998, 	the allegations would be dismissed.
By your letter dated April 	7> 	1998, 	Charging Parties withdrew the
allegation that 	the Association violated the Dills Act by
realigning the DLCs. 	That allegation was the only allegation
contained in the charge that was not discussed in my letter.
On April 8, 	1998, 	Charging Parties filed a second amended charge.

Dismissal 	Letter
SF-CO-35-S
April 22, 	1998
Page 2
This amended charge raises new allegations based on the 	filing of
a petition by members 	of 	the Civil 	Service Division who support
CDU. 	Charging Parties allege that 	these individuals are
attempting a 	"hostile takeover" 	of 	the Association by petitioning
for an investigation of the Board of Directors who voted on March
29, 	1998 to rescind the Civil Service Division's action
realigning the DLCs 	(i.e., 	the subject referred to in the
preceding paragraph). 	The amended charge asserts that CDU is not
a reform group but a competing organization to the Association.
The amended charge also alleges 	that CDU has 	taken office by
abuse and coercion of 	its membership. 	This allegation repeats
allegations identified in the March 30, 	1998 	letter as failing to
state a prima facie violation because they are 	conclusory and
likely time-barred. 	(Gov. 	Code, 	sec. 	3514.5(a).)
The foregoing allegations 	fail 	to state a prima facie violation.
For the reasons explained in the attached letter dated March 30,
1998, 	Charging Parties are raising conclusory allegations which
fail to allege specific facts stating a prima facie violation.
Moreover, 	the new allegations are premised on the claim that the
entity or entities 	that were alleged to have 	committed unfair
practices against Charging Parties 	in the original 	charge are in
fact not representatives of the Association, 	but are an illegal
competing employee organization. 	Since the named respondent 	in
this case is the Association, 	the new allegations are not lodged
against the named respondent 	in this case but against a competing
organization or against 	individuals acting outside the scope of
their authority as agents of the Association. 	The new
allegations are thus subject to dismissal because they do not on
their face allege unlawful 	conduct by the Respondent 	in this
matter.
Since there are no allegations 	remaining from the original 	charge
and first amended charge that 	state a prima facie violation and
the new allegations also fail 	to state a prima facie violation, 	I
am dismissing the 	charge based on the facts and reasons stated
above as well as those contained in my March 30, 	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

Dismissal 	Letter
SF-CO-35-S
April 22, 1998
Page 3
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
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 	Letter
SF-CO-35-S
April 22, 	1998
Page 4
dismissal will become final when the time limits have expired.
Sincerely,
ROBERT THOMPSON
Deputy General 	Counsel
By DONN GINOZA
Regional Attorney
Attachment
cc: 	Mark DeBoer

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	,"" 	PETE WILSON. Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
San Francisco Regional Office
177 Post Street, 9th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108-4737
(415) 439-6940
March 30, 	1998
Cessaly D. 	Hutchinson, 	President
District 	Labor Council 	750, 	Civil 	Service Division
595 Market Street, 	Suite 1700
San Francisco, 	California 	94105
Re: 	PARTIAL WARNING LETTER
Cessaly Hutchinson and Jean Laosantos v. 	California 	State
Employees 	Association
Unfair Practice 	Charge No. 	SF-CO-35-S
Dear Ms. 	Hutchinson:
The 	above-referenced unfair practice 	charge, 	filed on November
25, 	1997 and amended on January 15, 	1998, 	alleges that the
California State 	Employees Association 	(Association) 	spent monies
of 	the Association on an organizing 	campaign that 	failed 	to
result 	in a 	successor Memorandum of Understanding 	(MOU),
realigned 	the Association's 	District 	Labor Councils 	(DLCs)
without 	complying with internal 	governing policies, 	allowed Civil
Service Division 	officers 	to 	fraudulently use 	the 	delegate
process, 	allowed sympathizers 	of a 	faction known as 	the Caucus
for a Democratic Union 	(CDU) 	to 	continue a 	campaign to alter the
organizational 	structure 	of 	the Association so as 	to gain greater
control 	of 	the 	organization, 	and engaged 	in other related acts.
This 	conduct 	is 	alleged 	to violate Government 	Code 	section 3519.5
of the Ralph C. 	Dills Act 	(Dills Act).
Investigation of 	the 	charge 	revealed the 	following. 	The
Association 	is 	a 	large 	employee 	organization that 	exclusively
represents 	numerous 	bargaining units 	within 	the 	State.
Organizationally, 	the Association is 	divided into 	four divisions.
The Civil 	Service Division, 	comprising the 	rank and file
employees 	in state bargaining units, 	consists of 42,000 members.
The Retirees Division has 	30,000 members. 	The Supervisors
Division has 	7,000 members. 	And the State University Division
has 	3,000 members. 	Thus, 	a 	significant number of members 	of 	the
Association who 	are 	not 	presently employed 	in a 	state bargaining
unit 	nevertheless have voting power within 	the -organization.
The Civil 	Service Division 	is 	divided into 56 DLCs. 	A DLC 	is
similar 	to a local 	union chapter. 	It 	elects 	a president 	and
other officers. 	Each DLC president 	serves 	on the Association's
Civil 	Service Division Council 	(Council). 	The Council governs
the Division, 	although the Association Board of Directors 	has
ultimate 	authority over 	the Division. 	There are 	68 Association
members 	on 	the 	Council 	and each has 	a vote. 	A Board of Directors
(approximately 26 members) 	governs all 	of 	these divisions.
-- ---===---===---- 	--

Partial 	Warning 	Letter
SF-CO-35-S
March 30, 	1998
Page 2
The 	CDU began 	in 	the 	early 	1990s 	as 	a 	reform movement 	and has
grown 	from a group 	of 	dissidents 	to 	the 	leadership 	group within
the 	Civil 	Service Division. 	Its 	campaign has 	focused primarily
on a more 	aggressive 	stance 	in bargaining and a desire 	to 	change
the 	organizational 	structure 	so 	that Association policy 	is 	not
dictated by 	the Board of Directors, 	where 	the 	Civil 	Service
Division voice 	is 	diluted.
Charging 	Parties 	allege 	that 	the 	current 	bargaining 	strategy has
left 	the units 	without a 	contract 	and agency fees, 	has 	cost 	the
Association over 	$600,000, 	and brought 	it near to bankruptcy.
They allege 	that 	the 	current 	Civic 	Service Division 	officers 	took
office 	"by a 	systematic pattern of 	abuse, 	coercion and
misrepresentation 	to 	current 	and prospective members 	in 	obtaining
their participation 	in the 	delegate process."
Charging 	Parties 	allege 	that 	the Association, 	through 	its 	Civil
Service Division, 	has 	realigned 	the DLC voting members
geographically 	so 	as 	to 	deprive 	Charging 	Party Laosantos 	of
voting 	support 	that 	will 	likely 	result 	in her losing her
presidency. 	Charging 	Party Hutchinson is 	a president 	of 	her DLC,
but 	realignment 	has 	not 	affected her.
They allege 	that 	CDU supporters 	operate 	an 	illegal 	voting 	trust
within the Association, 	that 	these 	officers 	have 	"systematically
emotionally abused any dissidents 	within 	the 	organization," 	and
they are moving 	toward 	incorporation of 	the 	Civil 	Service
Division as 	an 	entity 	independent 	from the 	rest 	of 	the
Association.
A CDU supporter, 	Executive Vice-President 	Paul Gonzales-Coke, 	is
alleged 	to 	have 	physically assaulted a 	staff member during 	a 	June
27, 	1997 	rally at 	the State Capitol, 	while manning a CDU table.
Charging 	Parties 	further allege 	that 	CDU officers 	have
"systematically attacked 	the 	President 	and the Association" 	by,
for 	example writing 	slanderous 	articles 	in a 	CDU publication
called 	the 	"Union Spark," 	and 	therefore 	"sullied 	the 	reputation"
of these entities.
Charging 	Parties 	allege various 	financial 	improprieties 	as 	a
result 	of 	the 	Civil 	Service Division voting money 	to 	fund
campaigns 	backed by 	CDU.
Charging 	Parties 	allege 	that 	the 	CDU supporters 	have violated the
Association membership code 	of 	ethics by 	failing 	to 	respect 	non-
CDU supporters, 	especially retirees, 	and by engaging 	in

Partial 	Warning 	Letter
SF-C0-35-S
March 30, 	1998
Page 3
prohibited activities 	such 	as 	using Association 	resources 	for
"private 	gain or advantage."
Finally, 	Charging 	Parties 	allege 	that 	CDU supporters 	are
organizing 	a 	strike 	based 	on 	a 	survey 	that 	violates 	procedural
requirements 	of 	the 	Civil 	Service Division governing policies.
Based on 	the 	facts 	stated above, 	all 	of 	the allegations 	described
above, 	with the exception of 	the realignment of 	Laosantos's DLC,
fail 	to 	state a prima 	facie violation of 	the Dills Act 	for 	the
reasons 	that 	follow.
The 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(PERB) 	has 	traditionally
refrained from reviewing the 	internal affairs 	of unions; 	that 	is,
addressing alleged violations 	of 	one member's 	"rights" 	vis 	a vis
another member or group of members. 	(Service Employees
International Union. 	Local 99 	(Kimmett) 	(1979) 	PERB Decision No.
106.) 	In that 	case, 	PERB warned that 	the 	statutory guarantee to
"join and participate 	in 	the 	activities 	of 	employee
organizations" 	under section 3543 	of 	the 	Educational 	Employment
Relations Act 	(analogue 	to Dills Act 	section 3515) 	should not be
construed 	to prohibit 	"any 	employee 	organization 	conduct 	which
would prevent 	or 	limit 	employee's participation 	in any of 	its
activities."
Rejecting 	the 	notion 	that 	the 	Legislature 	had 	intended 	to 	grant
PERB 	jurisdiction 	to 	regulate 	the 	internal 	relationship between a
union and 	its members, 	PERB held that 	the 	right 	to participate 	in
union activities 	should be 	no 	greater 	than 	the 	guarantee 	of
protection granted by 	the duty 	of 	fair representation, 	which the
Legislature 	had 	expressly embraced. 	(Ibid.)
In California State Employees Association 	(O'Connell) 	(1989) 	PERB
Decision No. 	753-H, 	PERB departed from this position to the
extent 	that 	it 	found Legislative 	intent under 	section 3571.1(b)
of 	the Higher Education Employer-Employee 	Relations Act 	(analogue
to Dills Act 	section 3519.5(b)) 	to confer statutory authority to
protect 	union members 	from retaliation 	for protected activities.
In California State Employees Association 	(Hackett) 	(1995) 	PERB
Decision No. 	1126-S, 	PERB extended the O'Connell 	rationale 	to
"find that 	dissident 	union activity 	is 	protected under 	the Dills
Act.
With 	the 	exception of 	the allegation 	that 	the Association
realigned 	the DLCs 	so as 	to deprive 	Laosantos 	of 	a 	significant
block 	of 	voting 	support 	in 	retaliation 	for her 	opposition 	to 	CDU

Partial 	Warning 	Letter
SF-CO-35-S
March 30, 	1998
Page 4
policies 	of 	the Association,1 the 	remaining allegations 	fall
under 	the 	category of 	internal 	union affairs 	outside 	the
jurisdiction of 	PERB.
In addition, 	many of the allegations describe, 	in only the most
conclusory 	fashion, 	that 	CDU supporters 	have attacked non-CDU
supporters, 	and abused them verbally and/or physically. 	These
allegations 	do not 	specify when 	the alleged 	conduct 	occurred and
therefore 	fail 	to 	establish 	that 	the 	allegations 	are 	timely
filed. 	(Gov. 	Code, 	sec. 	3514.5(a).)
For these 	reasons 	the allegations 	in the 	charge, 	with the
exception 	of 	the 	allegation 	that 	the Association 	realigned 	the
DLCs 	so as 	to deprive Laosantos 	of 	a 	significant block of voting
support 	in 	retaliation 	for her 	opposition 	to CDU policies 	of 	the
Association, 	as presently written, 	do 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 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 April 7, 	1998. 	I shall dismiss 	the above-
described allegations 	from your 	charge. 	If you have any
questions, 	please call me at 	(415) 	439-6940.
Sincerely,
DONN GINOZA
Regional 	Attorney
1Charging Party Hutchinson, 	a president of a DLC, 	admitted
to 	the undersigned 	that 	the 	realignment 	had no adverse 	affect 	on
her ability to retain her office. 	Therefore, 	to the extent 	the
charge alleges 	that 	the 	realignment was 	a 	retaliatory act 	as 	to
her, 	that 	allegation fails 	to state a prima facie violation.
(Palo Verde Unified School District 	(1988) 	PERB Decision No. 	689)