Ventura County Community College District (PERB 1340E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS 	BOARD
e
VENTURA COUNTY 	FEDERATION OF
COLLEGE TEACHERS, 	AFT LOCAL 1828,
Charging 	Party,
v.
VENTURA COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
) 	Case No. 	LA-CE-3802
PERB Decision No. 	1340
August 	3, 	1999
)
))
)
)
)
)
Appearances; 	Lawrence Rosenzweig, 	Attorney, 	for Ventura County
Federation of College Teachers, 	AFT Local 	1828; 	Burke, 	Williams &
Sorensen by Jack P. 	Lipton, 	Attorney, 	for Ventura County
Community 	College 	District.
Before Caffrey, 	Chairman; 	Dyer and Amador, 	Members.
DECISION
AMADOR, 	Member: 	This 	case comes before the Public
Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(PERB 	or Board) 	on exceptions 	filed by
the Ventura County Community College District 	(District) 	to an
administrative law judge's 	(ALJ) 	proposed decision 	(attached).
The ALJ found that 	the District violated section 3543.5(a), 	(b)
and 	(c) 	of 	the Educational 	Employment Relations Act 	(EERA)1 when
1EERA is 	codified at Government 	Code 	section 3540 	et 	seq.
Unless 	otherwise 	indicated, 	all 	statutory references 	herein are
to the Government Code. 	Section 3543.5 	states, 	in pertinent
part:
It 	shall 	be unlawful 	for a public 	school
employer 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
(

it 	failed 	to provide 	necessary and 	relevant 	information.
guaranteed by this 	chapter. 	For purposes 	of
this subdivision, 	"employee" 	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.
After reviewing the entire 	record, 	including the ALJ's
proposed decision, 	the District's 	exceptions, 	the Ventura County
Federation of 	College Teachers, 	AFT Local 	1828's 	(Federation)
response 	and the hearing 	transcript, 	the Board hereby affirms 	the
proposed 	decision 	in part 	and 	reverses 	the 	proposed 	decision 	in
part, 	in accordance with the 	following discussion.
DISCUSSION
The Board finds 	the ALJ's 	findings 	of 	fact 	to be 	free 	of
prejudicial 	error and hereby adopts 	them as 	the 	findings 	of 	the
Board 	itself.
The 	instant 	case 	involves 	a dispute 	over 	three 	separate
information requests made by the Federation: 	(1) 	the list 	of
employees 	being 	interviewed as 	part 	of 	the 	review of 	the Ventura
College basketball program; 	(2) 	the 	interview selection criteria
and the 	scope of 	the 	interview; 	and 	(3) 	the anonymous 	letter sent
to 	the District 	concerning 	the basketball 	program. 	For the
reasons 	explained below, 	we 	find that 	the 	Federation 	is 	not
entitled to receive the 	first 	two types of 	information, 	but 	that
it was 	entitled 	to 	receive 	the anonymous 	letter 	in a timely
fashion.
22

EERA section 3543.5(c) 	imposes 	on the public 	school 	employer
the 	duty 	to meet 	and 	confer 	in good 	faith with an exclusive
representative. 	The 	employer's 	duty 	to 	furnish the 	exclusive
representative 	with 	information 	stems 	from this 	underlying
statutory duty to bargain. 	(Cowles Communications. 	Inc. 	(1968)
172 NLRB 	1909 	[69 	LRRM 1100]; 	Stockton Unified School District
(1980) 	PERB Decision No. 	143 	(Stockton).) 	The duty arises when
the 	exclusive 	representative makes 	a 	good 	faith 	request 	for
information 	relevant 	and necessary 	to 	its 	representational
duties. 	(Stockton: 	see also, 	State of California 	(Department of
Transportation) 	(1997) 	PERB Decision No. 	1227-S 	(Transportation);
Chula Vista City School 	District 	(1990) 	PERB Decision
No. 	834 	(Chula Vista); 	NLRB v. 	Boston Herald-Traveler Corp.
(1954) 	210 F.2d 134 	[33 LRRM 2435]; Westinghouse Elec. 	Supply Co.
V. 	NLRB 	(1952) 	196 	F.2d 1012 	[30 	LRRM 2169].)
Information pertaining 	immediately 	to mandatory 	subjects 	of
bargaining 	is 	so 	intrinsic 	to 	the 	core 	of 	the 	employer-employee
relationship 	that 	it 	is 	presumptively 	relevant.2 The 	employer
must 	provide 	presumptively 	relevant 	information 	or 	rebut 	the
presumption of relevance. 	If rebutted, 	the exclusive
representative must 	demonstrate 	the 	relevance 	of 	the 	requested
2PERB has 	found various 	types 	of 	information to be 	relevant
when 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	requests 	the 	information 	for
collective bargaining or contract administration purposes. 	(See,
e.g., 	Stockton 	[health insurance data]; 	Trustees of the
California State University 	(1987) 	PERB Decision No. 	613-H 	(CSU
Trustees) 	[wage survey data]; 	Newark Unified School District
(1991) 	PERB Decision No. 	864 	[staffing and enrollment
projections]; 	and Oakland Unified School District 	(1983) 	PERB
Decision No. 	367 	(Oakland USD) 	[seniority lists].)
33

information to 	its 	representational 	responsibilities. 	(Los
Angeles Unified School District 	(1994) 	PERB Decision No. 	1061
(Los Angeles USD) ; 	CSU Trustees.) 	For information concerning
subjects 	for which there 	is no presumption of 	relevance, 	the
exclusive 	representative bears 	the burden of 	establishing 	that
the 	information 	is 	relevant 	to 	its 	statutory representational
responsibilities. 	(Los Angeles USD; 	Reiss Viking 	(1993) 	312 NLRB
622 	[145 LRRM 1190]; 	Duquesne Light Co. 	(1992) 	306 NLRB 1042
[140 	LRRM 1079].)
The 	Board has 	recognized 	several 	employer defenses 	for
failing to provide 	relevant 	information. 	For example, 	an
employer need not 	comply with an 	information request 	if 	it 	shows
the 	request 	is 	unduly burdensome 	or 	the 	requested 	information
does not 	exist. 	(Stockton; 	Chula Vista.) 	No violation will be
found 	if 	the 	employer 	responds 	and 	the union never 	reasserts 	or
clarifies 	its 	request. 	(Oakland USD.) 	In addition, 	the employer
need 	only 	comply with portions 	of 	the 	request 	that 	clearly ask
for necessary and relevant 	information. 	(Azabu USA 	(Kona) 	Co.
(1990) 	298 NLRB 702 	[134 LRRM 1245] 	(Azabu).) 	Although an
employer 	cannot 	unreasonably delay providing 	relevant 	information
(Chula Vista at p. 	51), 	the employer need not furnish the
information 	in a more 	organized 	form than 	its own records. 	(NLRB
v. 	Tex-Tan. 	Inc. 	(1963) 	318 F.2d 472 	[53 LRRM 2298]; 	Los Rios
Community College District 	(1988) 	PERB Decision No. 	670.) 	Since
information 	request 	cases 	turn 	on 	the particular 	facts 	involved,
each 	request 	is analyzed separately. 	(Chula Vista.)
44

Turning 	to the 	three 	categories 	of 	information requests 	at
issue 	in this 	case, 	none appears 	to relate to subjects which have
been 	found 	to be 	presumptively 	relevant 	to 	representational
duties. 	Accordingly, 	the 	issue before the Board is whether the
Federation has 	established 	the 	relevance 	of 	the 	requested
information 	items.
List 	of 	Faculty 	to be 	Interviewed
The 	Federation 	requested 	that 	the District 	provide 	it 	with
the 	list 	of 	all 	faculty who were 	to be 	interviewed by 	Paul
Chamberlain 	International 	as 	part 	of 	the 	review of 	the Ventura
College basketball 	program. 	The 	Federation asserts 	that 	it
needed 	the 	list 	to prepare 	for an 	individual 	employee's 	grievance
and to 	represent 	other faculty members 	if necessary.
Initially, 	the Board notes 	that 	it 	is not 	clear that, 	at 	the
time the request was made, 	a complete list existed, 	or, 	in the
alternative, 	that 	the District knew all 	the names 	that would
ultimately appear on such a 	list. 	As 	stated above, 	an employer
need 	not 	comply with an 	information 	request 	where 	the 	requested
information does not exist. 	(Stockton; 	Chula Vista.)
With regard to 	the 	relevance 	of 	the 	list 	to 	the 	Federation's
handling 	of 	an 	individual 	employee grievance, 	the Board has 	held
that 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	is 	entitled 	to 	information
which 	is 	relevant 	and useful 	to 	the union's 	determination of 	the
merits of a grievance. 	(Chula Vista at p. 	51, 	citing NLRB v.
-
Acme 	(1967) 	385 U.S. 	432, 	437-438 	[64 LRRM 2069].) 	In this case,
the 	individual 	employee 	grievance 	had been 	filed well 	before 	the
55

Federation's 	request 	for 	the 	list. 	The grievance 	challenged the
District's 	decision to non-reelect 	the 	employee based on the
District's 	tenure-review process. 	The 	Federation has 	not
established a need 	for the 	list 	in 	order 	to 	determine 	the merits
of 	that 	employee grievance.
The 	Federation also 	claims 	that 	it 	needed the 	list 	to assist
"potential 	grievants." 	This 	assertion is 	speculative and 	falls
far 	short 	of 	establishing 	the 	necessity and 	relevancy of 	the
requested 	information. 	As 	the Board held 	in Los Angeles 	USD:
[T]he 	showing by 	the union must 	be more 	than
a mere 	concoction of 	some 	general 	theory
which 	explains 	how 	the 	information would be
useful 	to 	the union 	in determining 	if 	the
employer has 	committed 	some 	unknown 	contract
violation. 	[Id. 	at p. 	10.]
-
The 	record 	establishes 	that 	individuals were 	notified 	in
advance 	that 	they had been 	selected 	to attend an 	interview, 	and
it 	also 	establishes 	that 	no 	employee was 	denied 	the 	opportunity
to 	request 	and 	obtain union 	representation during 	that 	interview.
The 	Federation has 	failed 	to 	show that 	the 	list 	was 	necessary and
relevant 	to 	its 	representational 	obligation 	to any person who was
interviewed 	or 	to any 	specific 	grievant.
Since 	the 	necessity and 	relevance 	of 	the 	requested 	list 	to
the 	Federation's 	representational 	duties 	has 	not 	been
established, 	the allegations 	that 	the District violated EERA
section 3543.5(a), 	(b) 	and 	(c) 	by failing to provide the list
must 	be 	dismissed.
Request 	for 	Interview Selection 	Criteria 	and Scope 	of 	Interview
The 	Federation 	offers various 	hypothetical 	purposes 	for
6

which this 	category of 	information might be used, 	but 	it has not
demonstrated 	how 	the 	information was 	necessary and 	relevant 	to
its 	representational 	duties. 	Again, 	the Federation's 	claim that
it 	needed this 	information to assist 	"potential 	grievants" 	is
speculative 	and 	falls 	far 	short 	of 	the 	necessary showing 	of
relevancy. 	Additionally, 	PERB has held that there 	is no
obligation 	for an 	employer 	to provide 	detail 	regarding 	the
thought process 	or rationale underlying 	its managerial 	decisions.
(See Transportation at p. 	14.)
Since 	the 	necessity and 	relevance 	of 	the 	requested
information has 	not been established, 	the allegation 	that 	the
District's 	failure 	to provide 	this 	information violated EERA
section 3543.5(a), 	(b) 	and 	(c) 	is dismissed.3
Anonymous 	Letter
The 	Board finds 	the ALJ's 	conclusions 	of 	law concerning 	the
Federation's 	request 	for the anonymous 	letter concerning 	the
Ventura 	College basketball 	program to be 	free 	of 	prejudicial
error and adopts 	them as 	the 	conclusions 	of 	the Board 	itself.
ORDER
Upon the 	findings 	of 	fact 	and conclusions 	of 	law and the
entire 	record 	in this 	case, 	the Board finds 	that 	the Ventura
County Community College 	District 	(District) 	violated 	the
3Even 	if 	the 	Federation had established 	the 	relevance 	of
this 	category of 	information, 	we 	conclude 	that 	the District
satisfied 	its 	obligations 	under EERA. 	An employer need only
comply with portions 	of 	the 	request 	that 	clearly ask 	for
necessary and 	relevant 	information. 	(Azabu.) 	The District's
response met 	this 	standard.
77

Educational 	Employment Relations Act 	(EERA), 	Government Code
section 3543.5(a), 	(b) 	and 	(c) 	by failing and refusing to meet
and 	confer 	in good 	faith with 	the Ventura 	County Federation 	of
College Teachers, 	AFT Local 	1828 	(Federation) 	and by refusing to
timely provide 	information 	relevant 	and necessary 	to 	the
representation of members 	of 	the bargaining unit 	regarding 	the
investigation of 	the Ventura 	College basketball 	program. 	This
action also 	interfered with bargaining unit members' 	right 	to be
represented by 	their 	chosen 	representative 	in violation 	of 	EERA
section 3543.5(a) 	and with the 	right 	of 	the 	Federation to
represent 	its members 	in violation of EERA section 3543.5(b).
Pursuant to EERA section 3541.5(c), 	it is hereby ORDERED
that 	the 	District 	and 	its 	governing board and 	its 	representatives
shall:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
1. 	Failing and refusing 	to meet 	and confer 	in good
faith with 	the 	Federation by 	refusing 	to 	timely provide
information 	relevant 	and necessary 	to 	the 	representation 	of
members 	of 	the bargaining unit 	regarding 	the 	investigation of 	the
Ventura College basketball 	program. 	This 	information consists 	of
the 	anonymous 	letter 	regarding 	the men's 	basketball 	program.
2. 	Denying 	the 	Federation 	its 	right 	to 	represent 	its
members.
3. 	Interfering with bargaining unit members' 	right 	to
be 	represented by 	their 	chosen 	representative.
8
8

B. 	TAKE 	THE 	FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS 	DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE 	THE 	POLICIES 	OF EERA:
1. 	Within ten days 	following the date 	this Decision is
no 	longer subject 	to appeal, 	post 	at all 	work locations where
notices 	to employees 	customarily are placed, 	copies 	of 	the Notice
attached as 	an Appendix hereto. 	The Notice must 	be 	signed by an
authorized agent 	of 	the District 	indicating 	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 	shall be 	taken to 	ensure 	that 	this Notice 	is 	not
reduced in size, 	altered, 	defaced or covered by any other
material.
2. 	Written notification of 	the actions 	taken 	to comply
with this 	Order shall be made 	to 	the 	San 	Francisco Regional
Director of 	the 	Public Employment 	Relations 	Board 	in accordance
with the 	director's 	instructions.
Chairman 	Caffrey and Member Dyer 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
99

APPENDIX
NOTICE 	TO 	EMPLOYEES
POSTED 	BY ORDER OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
An Agency of 	the 	State of 	California
After a hearing 	in Unfair Practice Case No. 	LA-CE-3802,
Ventura 	County 	Federation of 	College 	Teachers v. 	Ventura 	County
Community College District 	in which all 	parties 	had the 	right 	to
participate, 	it 	has been 	found that 	the Ventura County Community
College District 	(District) 	violated the 	Educational 	Employment
Relations Act 	(EERA), 	Government Code section 3543.5(a), 	(b) 	and
(c) 	by 	failing and 	refusing 	to meet 	and 	confer 	in good 	faith with
the Ventura County Federation of College Teachers, 	AFT Local 	1828
(Federation) 	and by 	refusing 	to 	timely provide 	information
relevant 	and necessary to 	the 	representation of members 	of 	the
bargaining unit 	regarding 	the 	investigation of 	the Ventura
College basketball program. 	This 	action also 	interfered with
bargaining unit members' 	right 	to be 	represented by their chosen
representative 	in violation of 	EERA section 3543.5(a) 	and with
the 	right 	of 	the 	Federation 	to 	represent 	its members 	in violation
of EERA section 3543.5(b).
As a result 	of 	this 	conduct, 	we have been ordered to post
this Notice and we will:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
1. 	Failing and refusing 	to meet 	and confer 	in good
faith with 	the Ventura County 	Federation of 	College 	Teachers
(Federation) 	by 	refusing 	to 	timely provide 	information 	relevant
and necessary to 	the 	representation of members 	of 	the bargaining
unit 	regarding 	the 	investigation of 	the Ventura 	College
basketball 	program. 	This 	information 	consists 	of 	the anonymous
letter 	regarding 	the men's basketball 	program.
2. 	Denying the 	Federation 	its 	right 	to 	represent 	its
members.
3. 	Interfering with bargaining unit members' 	right 	to
be 	represented by 	their 	chosen 	representative.
Dated: 	By:
VENTURA 	COUNTY 	COMMUNITY 	COLLEGE
DISTRICT
Authorized 	Agent
THIS 	IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE. 	IT MUST REMAIN POSTED 	FOR AT LEAST
THIRTY 	(3 0) 	CONSECUTIVE WORKDAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND
MUST NOT BE REDUCED 	IN SIZE, 	DEFACED, 	ALTERED, 	OR COVERED WITH
ANY 	OTHER MATERIAL.
e

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
e
VENTURA COUNTY 	FEDERATION OF
COLLEGE 	TEACHERS,
Charging 	Party,
v.
VENTURA COUNTY 	COMMUNITY 	COLLEGE
DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
) 	Unfair Practice
Case No. 	LA-CE-3802
PROPOSED DECISION
(9/1/98)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances: 	Lawrence Rosenzweig, 	Attorney, 	for Ventura County
Federation of 	College Teachers; 	Burke, 	Williams 	and Sorensen by
Jack P. 	Lipton and Daniel J. 	Hammond, 	Attorneys, 	for Ventura
County 	Community College 	District.
Before Gary M. 	Gallery, 	Administrative Law Judge.
PROCEDURAL 	HISTORY
The 	exclusive 	representative 	of 	college 	teachers 	contends
here 	that 	the 	District 	failed 	to provide 	necessary and 	relevant
information.
This case commenced on June 	9, 	1997, 	when the Ventura County
Federation of 	College 	Teachers 	(Federation) 	filed an unfair
practice 	charge 	against 	the Ventura 	County 	Community 	College
District 	(District). 	After investigation, 	and on
October 8, 	1997, 	the general counsel of the Public Employment
Relations 	Board 	(Board or 	PERB) 	issued a 	complaint 	against 	the
District.1 The 	complaint 	alleged that 	in May of 	1997 	the
District 	hired the 	Paul 	Chamberlain 	International 	(PCI) 	firm to
1There was 	also 	issued a 	refusal 	to defer order by the
general 	counsel.

investigate 	the District's Men's basketball program. 	On May 15,
1997, 	it was alleged, 	the District sent letters to faculty-
members 	directing 	them to be 	interviewed by a 	representative 	of
PCI. 	It was 	then alleged that 	the 	Federation requested the
following 	information 	relevant 	and necessary 	to 	discharge 	its
duty to 	represent 	employees:
1. 	A list 	of 	faculty members 	directed to be 	interviewed;
2. 	A copy of 	the 	employment 	contract 	between 	the 	District
and PCI;
3. 	The 	subject 	and scope of 	the 	interviews;
4. 	Reasons 	why particular 	faculty members 	were 	selected to
be 	interviewed;
5. 	The 	service 	to be provided by PCI;
6. 	The date when the District 	governing board approved the
contract; and
7. 	A copy of 	the 	anonymous 	letter alleged to 	have
initiated the 	need 	for the 	investigation.
It was alleged that on June 6, 	1997, 	the District responded
to the 	requests 	and refused to provide 	the 	information.
The 	District's 	conduct was 	said to be 	a 	failure 	and refusal
to meet 	and negotiate 	in good 	faith 	in violation of 	section
3543.5(c) 	of 	the Educational 	Employment Relations Act.2 It
2Unless 	otherwise 	indicated, 	all 	statutory references 	are 	to
the 	Government 	Code. 	EERA is 	codified at 	section 3540 	et 	seq.
In relevant part, 	section 3543.5 provides 	that 	it 	is unlawful 	for
the public 	school 	employer to:
(a) 	Impose or threaten to 	impose 	reprisals
on employees, 	to discriminate or threaten to
22

further 	constituted 	interference 	with 	the 	rights 	of 	bargaining
unit 	members 	to 	be 	represented 	by 	the 	Federation 	in 	violation 	of
section 	3543.5(a) 	and 	denied 	the 	Federation 	its 	rights 	to
represent 	bargaining 	unit 	members 	in 	violation 	of 	section
3543.5(b).
discriminate 	against 	employees, 	or otherwise
to 	interfere with, 	restrain, 	or coerce
employees 	because 	of 	their 	exercise 	of 	rights
guaranteed by 	this 	chapter. 	For purposes 	of
this 	subdivision, 	"employee" 	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 	District 	filed 	its 	answer on October 	28, 	1997, 	denying
any violation 	of 	the 	EERA.
A 	settlement 	conference 	did 	not 	resolve 	the 	dispute. 	Formal
hearing was 	held on May 27, 	1998, 	in Los Angeles, 	California.
Post-hearing briefs 	were 	filed 	on 	July 	24, 	1998, 	and 	the 	matter
was 	submitted 	for 	decision.
FINDINGS 	OF 	FACT
The 	Federation 	is 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	of 	college
teachers 	within 	the 	meaning of 	section 	3540.1(d). 	The 	District
is 	a 	public 	school 	employer 	with 	the 	meaning 	of 	section
3540.l(k).
At 	all 	times 	relevant 	to 	this 	case, 	Philip Westin 	(Westin)
was 	chancellor 	of 	the 	District; 	Richard 	Currier 	(Currier) 	was 	the
District's 	lead negotiator, 	Harry 	Korn 	(Korn) 	was 	grievance 	chair
W
	3

of 	the 	Federation and Ruth Hunt 	(Hunt) 	the 	executive director of
the Federation. 	Elton Hall 	(Hall) 	was 	the 	lead negotiator 	for
the 	Federation.
Virgil Watson 	(Watson) 	served as 	the men's basketball 	coach
during the 	1996-97 	school 	year at 	the 	District's Ventura 	College.
At 	some point 	in the 	spring of 	1997 	he was 	informed that 	he would
not be rehired for the 1997-98 	school year. 	In March 1997, 	a
grievance was 	filed on his 	behalf by the 	Federation. 	The
grievance 	was 	predicated upon various 	contract 	and 	Education 	Code
section violations 	in 	the 	non-renewal 	of Watson's 	contract.
According to Horn, 	the grievance 	focused upon the 	tenure-review
process, 	and did not 	touch upon Watson's 	conduct 	in the 	athletic
department. 	The 	grievance was 	appealed through each of 	the
steps. 	At 	each level, 	the 	Federation requested the grievance
advance directly to arbitration, 	the 	final 	step at 	each level.3
Meanwhile, 	in the springtime, 	the District employed PCI 	to
conduct 	an 	investigation of 	the Ventura 	College 	basketball
program. 	Tim Davis 	(Davis) 	testified that 	he was 	in charge of
the 	investigation and 	PCI 	interviewed 	around 	80 	faculty members.
The 	interviews 	started on April 	24, 	1997, 	and ended on June 	9,
1997. 	Apparently there were 	a 	few more 	interviews 	later in the
summer. 	There 	is 	no evidence 	to 	support 	a 	finding that 	all
faculty were 	represented by the 	union 	in 	the 	interviews.
3The reason for the 	request, 	said Korn, 	was 	that 	the Board
of 	Trustees 	had already terminated Watson, 	and the 	Federation
wanted a 	decision as 	quickly as possible.
44

The questions used by the 	interviewers were, 	in part, 	drawn
from the 	contents 	of 	the 	anonymous 	letter described below. 	The
interviewers had a packet 	of materials, 	including the 	anonymous
letter.
Sometime before May 15, 	1997, 	Korn was 	invited to be
interviewed by PCI. 	He was 	advised the 	interview was voluntary.
He then declined. 	Later, 	on May 15, 	1997, 	Westin provided Korn a
directive 	that 	he 	meet with 	and be 	interviewed by a
representative of PCI.4
On May 19, 	1997, 	Korn hand delivered a letter to Westin's
office 	requesting that 	the 	Federation 	"as 	representative 	of 	all
District 	faculty," 	be provided with the names 	of 	all 	faculty who
had been 	directed by Westin 	to 	be 	interviewed.5 The 	Federation
wanted a response by the next 	day. 	On May 21, 	Westin responded
by refusing 	to provide 	the 	information.
Westin wrote:
Let me 	clarify that 	I 	was 	directed by the
Board of 	Trustees 	to 	communicate with 	some
employees 	of the District. 	Communications
between 	employer 	and 	employee 	are
4Westin's 	letter, 	marked 	"PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL",
stated:
I 	have 	been 	directed by 	the 	Board of 	Trustees
of 	the 	Ventura 	County Community 	College
District 	to direct you to meet with, 	and be
interviewed by a representative of 	[CPI], 	a
firm retained by 	the 	District 	to perform 	an
investigation 	into 	issues 	surrounding 	the
Ventura 	College men's 	basketball 	program.
5Korn 	testified 	that 	his 	request 	was 	spurred by his
involvement 	in the Watson grievance 	and the union's 	concern 	if
other people 	should be 	involved 	in the 	grievance.
un
	5

confidential 	unless 	waived by the 	employee.
Therefore, 	it 	is my opinion that 	the
Federation 	is 	not 	entitled to 	the 	listing
which you 	requested.
If you care 	to provide me with a 	legal
opinion that differs 	from mine, 	I will pursue
the matter further; 	otherwise, 	I will
consider 	the matter 	closed.
Korn 	said the 	information has 	never been provided.
Also on May 19, 	Federation Executive Director Hunt, 	on
behalf 	of 	the 	Federation, 	requested 	from Westin 	information as 	to
the kind of 	service 	PCI was providing the District, 	the 	subject
and 	scope 	of 	the 	interviews, 	reasons why the 	faculty who had been
selected were 	selected, 	the 	service 	to be provided by PCI 	and the
date 	of 	the 	governing board meeting 	at 	which the 	contract 	with
PCI 	had been approved.
Hunt 	further 	requested 	that 	Westin 	inform 	the 	faculty 	that
they were 	entitled to 	representation at 	the 	interviews.
Also on that 	day, 	Hunt 	requested of 	Currier a 	copy of 	the
contract 	between the 	District 	and PCI.
On May 22, 	Korn requested 	from Westin a copy of 	the
anonymous 	letter 	regarding 	the 	basketball 	program that 	the
Federation believed 	started 	the 	investigation.6 He 	also
requested the 	date 	in which any District 	employee 	first 	received
the 	letter. 	Also, 	he requested copies of memos 	to various
6Korn 	said he 	learned of 	the 	letter when attending 	an
interview of 	another 	faculty member. 	The 	investigator 	alluded 	to
the 	letter and confirmed Korn's 	inquiry 	if 	that was 	the basis 	of
the 	investigation. 	In fact, 	the 	agent 	showed Korn a copy of 	the
letter and he 	read it. 	The 	agent would not 	give him a copy, 	he
said.
66

District 	personnel 	that 	were 	mentioned 	in press 	accounts 	and
cited by District 	spokespersons 	as 	another reason 	for 	the
investigation. 	Finally, 	he requested the 	"results of the
investigation as 	it pertains 	to 	any member of 	the 	unit which AFT
represents."
Westin responded to Hunt's May 19 	letter on June 	6, 	1997.
He 	stated:
The Athletic 	Code 	of 	the 	California 	Community
Colleges Commission on Athletics 	("COA")
states 	that 	it 	is 	the 	responsibility of 	the
District 	to 	administer 	its 	intercollegiate
athletic 	program 	in 	compliance 	with 	the
Athletic 	Code 	and Conference 	Policies 	and
Procedures. 	The 	Code 	confers on the District
and 	[sic] 	responsibility to ensure code
compliance 	and to 	report 	any violations 	to
the 	Commission.
The 	District 	has 	received 	information 	from a
variety of 	sources 	that 	several 	potentially
serious violations 	of 	COA rules 	have 	occurred
in the 	Ventura 	College Men's 	Basketball
Program. 	To meet 	the District's
responsibility under the 	Code, 	Paul
Chamberlain 	International 	was 	retained 	to
conduct 	a 	fact 	finding inquiry. 	Upon
completion of 	this 	inquiry, 	a report will be
made by the 	District 	to 	the 	COA.
It 	is my understanding that your husband,
Harry Korn, 	has participated in several 	of
these 	interviews already. 	Thus, 	he knows the
questions 	being asked. 	The 	individuals
chosen 	for 	interviews 	were 	selected on 	the
basis 	that 	they could have 	information
relevant 	to 	this 	inquiry.
It 	is 	also my understanding that 	no 	faculty
who 	has 	requested 	representation 	during 	his
or her 	interview has 	been denied 	such
representation.
Hunt 	responded on June 	10 	complaining that 	Westin had 	failed
to 	answer two 	and even to 	respond to 	a 	third of 	the 	four requests
7

for 	information. 	She 	again requested the 	scope 	of 	PCI's
investigation and the 	specifics 	of 	the 	subjects 	of 	the
investigations. 	She 	contended that 	his 	response 	on the 	selection
question was 	non-responsive 	and again 	asked why 	specific 	faculty-
were 	invited 	for 	interview. 	She 	again asked for the 	date 	the
trustees 	approved the 	PCI 	contract. 	Finally, 	Hunt 	complained
that 	the 	Federation 	still 	had no response 	for 	its 	request 	to
Currier 	for a copy of 	the 	contract with PCI. 	If no contract
existed, 	she 	asked for the 	circumstances 	that 	PCI 	came 	to
represent 	the 	District with no 	contract 	for 	services.
On June 	13, 	Westin responded noting that during
negotiations, 	requests 	for information are 	to go Currier and
directed her 	letter 	to Currier.
On July 29, 	1997, 	the District Board of Trustees approved a
purchase 	order to 	PCI 	for the 	investigation at Ventura 	College 	in
an amount 	just 	over 	$24,000.
On August 	9, 	1997, 	Currier wrote to Hall stating: 	"As 	I
assume the Federation is aware, 	there is no contract a 	[sic] 	this
time between Paul 	Chamberlain, 	International 	and the District."
On August 	18, 	Currier sent Hall 	a copy of 	the 	anonymous
letter. 	He 	expressed the understanding that 	the 	letter had
previously been made 	available 	to 	the 	Federation. 	Korn 	said the
letter had never been made 	available prior to this 	time.
The 	anonymous 	letter made 	charges 	against 	the 	head and
assistant 	coaches 	relating 	to 	registering 	out-of-state 	students
as California residents, 	paying rent 	for players, 	recruitment of
Co
8

players, 	purchase of travel 	tickets 	for player recruitment,
giving grades 	to players 	without 	proper 	attendance 	or 	assignment
completion, 	and among others, 	illegally transporting players 	and
providing extra benefits 	to players 	during 	the 	off-season.
The 	official 	report 	on the 	investigation was 	issued on
August 27, 	1997. 	It 	found numerous violations of the Commission
On Athletics 	(COA) 	rules prohibiting player treatment 	by the
head, 	assistant 	coaches and mentors.7
The 	parties 	have 	a 	collective 	bargaining 	agreement 	that
contains 	a grievance 	procedure 	that 	concludes with binding
arbitration. 	The 	agreement 	also 	contains 	the 	following
provision:
In addition to other 	information to be
provided under this Article, 	District
management 	shall 	make 	reasonable 	efforts 	to
provide 	authorized 	Federation 	representatives
with access 	to 	all 	documents 	of public 	record
that 	would assist 	the 	Federation 	in carrying
forth its 	duties 	of 	representation and
administration of 	this Agreement.181
ISSUES
Did 	the 	District 	fail 	to meet 	and 	confer 	in good 	faith with
the 	Federation by 	its 	response 	to 	the 	requests 	for 	information?
7The 	report blamed delay in its production, 	in part, 	on the
refusal 	by 	some 	faculty to voluntarily participate 	in 	the
investigation, 	specifically noting that 	two of 	the 	seventy
interviewed 	insisted on 	having both 	an 	attorney 	and union
representative 	present.
8Article 17, sec. 17.8.
99

CONCLUSIONS 	OF LAW
Deferral
The 	District 	urges 	that 	PERB 	has no 	jurisdiction 	in 	the
matter 	as 	the 	collective 	bargaining 	agreement 	arguably prohibits
the 	conduct 	at 	issue 	here, 	and the 	agreement 	culminates 	in
binding 	arbitration.
Under 	section 	3541.5, 	PERB 	is 	precluded from 	issuing 	a
complaint 	on:
. 	. 	. 	conduct also prohibited by the
provisions 	of 	the 	agreement 	between the
parties 	until 	the 	grievance machinery of 	the
agreement, 	if 	it 	exists and covers the matter
at 	issue, 	has been exhausted, 	either by
settlement or binding arbitration. 	. 	. 	.
In Lake Elsinore 	School 	District 	(1987) 	PERB Decision
No. 	646, 	the Board held that 	it 	has no jurisdiction over matters
involving 	conduct 	arguably prohibited by a provision 	of 	the
collective 	bargaining 	agreement.
The 	agreement 	requires 	the 	District 	to 	"make 	reasonable
efforts 	to provide 	authorized 	Federation 	representatives 	with
access 	to 	all 	documents 	of public 	record".
To 	the 	extent 	the 	Federation's 	requests 	did go 	to public
documents, 	such as the copy of the contract with PCI, 	later to be
found only a purchase order, 	deferral of that request, 	and the
District's 	response 	is required. 	However, 	the 	Federation already
has been given the 	document. 	Whether the 	response was 	timely, 	a
separate 	issue, 	should be deferred to the grievance procedure.
As 	the provision covers 	only public 	record documents, 	the
District 	would not 	be 	required 	to provide 	some 	of 	the 	information
10

that 	was 	requested here. 	The 	District 	took the position that 	the
list 	of 	names 	of 	faculty who were 	directed to 	attend the
investigative 	interview was 	confidential.9 This 	would not 	be
covered by the provision 	just 	cited. 	Information 	regarding 	the
scope 	of 	the 	interview, 	and the 	criteria used by the 	District 	to
select 	faculty members for interview, 	if 	in writing, 	were
apparently regarded as 	confidential. 	Since 	the provision does
not 	cover non-public 	documents, 	it 	would afford the 	Federation no
recourse. 	Thus, 	as to these matters, 	the District's conduct 	is
not 	arguably prohibited by 	the 	contract 	and deferral 	is 	not
appropriate.
The 	Request 	for 	Information
Section 3543.5 (c) 	obligates the District 	to meet and
negotiate 	in good 	faith with the 	exclusive 	representative.
Within 	that 	statutory obligation 	is 	the 	duty to provide
information to the 	employee organization. 	(Trustees 	of 	the
California State University 	(1987) 	PERB Decision No. 	613-H
(Trustees).) 	An exclusive 	representative 	is 	entitled to 	all
information that 	is 	"necessary and relevant" 	to 	the 	discharge 	of
its 	duty of 	representation. 	(Stockton Unified School 	District
(1980) 	PERB Decision No. 	143.) 	The employer's refusal 	to provide
such information is 	a refusal 	to negotiate 	in good faith, 	unless
the 	employer 	can provide 	adequate 	reasons why it 	cannot provide
the 	information. 	(Ibid.) 	A more 	liberal 	standard, 	like those
9Indeed, 	Westin's 	order to Korn was 	labeled 	"PERSONAL AND
CONFIDENTIAL".
11

used in discovery, 	is 	applied to determine 	relevance. 	Failure 	to
provide 	requested 	information meeting 	the 	standard 	is 	itself 	an
unfair practice. 	(Trustees.)
The 	Faculty List
The 	Federation argues 	the 	list 	was 	necessary because 	it
wanted to know who was being 	interviewed. 	It 	argues 	its
grievance 	regarding Watson's 	termination 	and 	the 	investigation 	of
the 	basketball 	program were 	related to Watson. 	Learning of
potential 	witnesses 	and 	the 	gathering of 	evidence 	were 	necessary
to 	the grievance preparation.
Secondly, 	argues the Federation, 	it 	represented other
faculty members 	in 	conjunction with the 	investigation 	and 	it
needed the 	list 	to be 	able 	to 	offer 	representation 	to 	faculty
being 	interviewed.
As 	the 	final 	report 	reflected, 	Watson was 	involved 	in
violation of 	rules. 	In addition, 	the report concludes other
coaches, 	faculty and mentors violated the rules. 	The 	Federation
represents 	these persons 	also.
The 	District 	argues 	that 	the 	Federation 	failed 	to 	show that
the 	faculty 	list 	was 	necessary and relevant 	to 	its 	representation
responsibilities. 	It 	discounts 	Korn's 	testimony that 	the
information was 	relevant 	to Watson's grievance. 	It 	further
argues 	that 	since 	the grievance was 	focused upon the 	tenure-
review process, 	the 	faculty list 	of 	employees directed to attend
the 	investigative 	interviews was 	not 	related to 	the 	grievance.
12

The 	District 	further argues 	that 	its 	withholding the 	list
was 	based upon 	confidentiality 	and 	that 	the 	Federation 	failed 	to
carry a burden of 	showing why the 	privacy 	interests 	did not
protect 	the 	information.
Finally, 	the District 	argues 	that 	the 	Federation already
possessed the 	identity of 	faculty who were 	interviewed. 	It
predicates 	this 	argument 	on a 	conclusion that 	since 	there was 	no
evidence 	that 	any 	instructor was 	interviewed without
representation, 	it must be 	concluded that 	the union represented
all 	faculty 	interviewed.
I 	conclude 	the 	faculty 	list 	was 	necessary and relevant 	to
the 	Federation's 	representational 	responsibility. 	While 	it 	is
true 	that 	the 	focus 	of Watson's 	grievance was 	on tenure-review,
it 	is 	also 	readily apparent 	that 	his 	non-rehire might 	have been
occasioned because 	of 	allegations 	of 	misconduct 	in his 	coaching
position. 	Knowing of others 	involved, 	from the 	faculty list, 	the
Federation could have 	possibly broadened 	the 	scope 	of 	the
grievance, 	or at 	least garnered additional 	evidence with which to
assist Watson.
Moreover, 	the 	Federation 	represented other 	faculty members
who 	appear to be within the 	scope 	of 	the 	investigation. 	The
anonymous 	letter charged assistant 	coaches, 	as well 	as Watson,
with COA violations 	as well 	as Watson. 	The District 	asserted 	in
Westin's 	June 	9 	letter that 	all 	faculty who 	"could" 	have
information 	relating 	to 	the 	investigation were 	being 	interviewed.
Under 	the 	liberal 	discovery 	standard employed 	in 	requests 	for
13

information cases, 	knowing who the District 	considered 	"could"
have 	information on the 	charges was 	highly relevant 	to 	the
Federation's 	representation of 	all 	faculty.
Finally, 	as the Federation argues, 	it had a representational
responsibility to 	all 	faculty brought 	into 	the 	fray. 	It 	was
entitled 	to 	know who was 	being 	interviewed.
The 	District's 	refusal, 	based only upon the District's
assertion that 	communications 	to employees was 	confidential, 	is
not 	justification 	for refusing to provide 	a 	list 	of 	names 	of
faculty being 	interviewed. 	The 	list 	does 	not 	contain any
communication to the 	employees, 	but 	rather who was 	to be
interviewed.
Nor 	is 	the 	refusal 	justified by the 	Federation's 	failure 	to
prove 	the 	list was 	non-confidential. 	This 	shift 	of 	the burden by
the 	District 	is 	not 	supported by the 	Federation's 	statutory right
to 	information 	concept 	enumerated above.
Finally, 	the District's 	argument 	that 	the 	Federation
represented 	all 	faculty 	interviewed 	and 	therefore 	a 	finding 	can
be 	made 	that 	the 	Federation knew all 	faculty that 	were
interviewed is not 	supported by the 	evidence. 	It 	is 	sheer
speculation 	to 	conclude 	that 	all 	faculty 	interviewed had union
representation.
The 	District's 	refusal 	to provide 	the 	faculty list was 	a
violation of 	its 	obligation to meet 	and negotiate 	in good 	faith,
required by section 3543.5(c). 	This 	same 	conduct violates 	the
Federation's 	rights 	to represent 	its members, 	in violation of
14

section 3543.5(b), 	and also interferes with bargaining unit
members 	rights 	to be 	represented by the 	Federation, 	in violation
of section 3543.5(a).
The 	Request 	for 	Interview Selection 	Criteria and 	Scope 	of
Interview
The 	Federation argues 	that 	its 	requests 	for 	information
regarding why certain 	faculty were 	interviewed 	and 	the 	scope 	of
the 	interview was not 	answered by the District. 	Westin's 	June 	10
response 	that 	they were 	selected because 	they 	"could" 	have
information relevant 	to the 	inquiry was no response 	at 	all. 	In
addition, 	argues the union, 	Davis provided information on the
selection criterion 	(because 	they were mentors) 	and were
questioned about 	potential 	violation of 	athletic 	rules.
What 	criteria 	the 	District 	employed 	for 	selecting 	certain
faculty and 	the 	scope 	of 	the 	interview was 	certainly germane 	to
the 	Federation's 	representational 	status 	for all 	the 	faculty.
With that 	information, 	it 	could well have curtailed, the 	large
number of 	faculty that were 	interviewed, 	or may have 	changed the
manner 	in which 	they were 	selected. 	This 	information 	impacted
the 	Federation's 	ability to represent 	the 	faculty members, 	and
would 	have 	been 	information used 	to 	strategize 	that
representation.
The 	District 	responded 	that 	faculty who 	"could" 	have
information would be 	interviewed. 	This 	conveyed no 	criteria 	at
all. 	Even in the 	face of Hunt's 	second request 	for
clarification, 	the 	District provided no additional 	information.
15

The 	scope 	of 	the 	interview was 	shaped by the packet 	of
material 	used 	in the 	interview by the 	interviewer. 	That 	material
should have 	been provided 	to 	the 	Federation.
I 	conclude 	that 	the 	District 	withheld 	information 	regarding
the 	criteria 	for 	selecting 	the 	faculty to be 	interviewed and 	the
scope 	of 	the 	interview. 	Davis 	testified that being a mentor was
a 	criteria 	that 	was 	used 	and this 	information 	could have 	been
conveyed 	to 	the 	Federation upon 	their 	request.
The Anonymous 	Letter
The 	Federation 	contends 	the 	District's 	delay 	in providing 	a
copy of 	the 	anonymous 	letter 	is 	a violation of 	the Act. 	The
letter was 	requested On May 22 	and not provided until August 	18,
1997.
The 	District 	argues 	that 	the 	Federation did not 	establish
the 	necessity and relevance 	of 	the 	letter at 	the 	formal 	hearing.
It 	further argues 	that 	the 	Federation did not 	adequately 	identify
the 	document.10 It 	further excuses 	the 	delay because 	the
District 	was 	under the 	impression the 	Federation had 	the 	letter,
and 	the 	contention 	that 	the 	Federation 	"improperly 	routed 	the
letter," 	by going to 	the 	chancellor when the 	correct 	route was 	to
the District's 	chief 	negotiator.
These arguments 	are without merit. 	The 	Federation was 	on
record as 	representing the 	interest 	of 	faculty who were 	to be
interviewed. 	At 	the 	time of 	the 	request 	for the 	anonymous
"Apparently on 	the 	notion 	that 	the 	request 	tied 	the 	letter
to the causation of 	the 	investigation. 	Yet 	the District 	argues
the 	letter did not 	cause 	the 	investigation.
16

letter, 	the District 	interviewers were 	already conducting
interviews 	using 	a package 	which 	included 	the 	anonymous 	letter.
The 	letter was part 	of 	the 	investigation. 	Questions used in
the 	interview were predicated, 	in part, 	on assertions made 	in the
letter. 	Clearly, 	a part 	of 	its 	assistance 	to those 	interviewed,
the 	Federation was 	entitled to have 	the 	document 	for review.
In addition, 	the delay in providing the anonymous 	letter
deprived the 	Federation the 	use 	of 	the 	letter 	in the 	interviews.
The 	interviews were 	concluded in June, 	and the 	letter was 	not
provided until August. 	As 	the 	Federation argues, 	the 	letter
contended players 	were given grades 	without 	proper attendance 	and
without 	completing assignments. 	Possession of 	the 	letter would
have 	aided 	in 	the 	representation of 	faculty who were 	interviewed.
It may have 	shaped the outcome 	of 	the 	report which 	found members
of 	the 	faculty out 	of 	compliance with the 	COA.
The 	relevance 	and necessity of 	information 	requested 	is 	not
dependent upon evidence at 	an unfair practice hearing. 	It 	is 	the
liberal 	standard 	applied under 	the 	above 	standard.
The 	Federation asked 	for 	the 	"anonymous 	letter." 	There was
no 	evidence 	at 	the 	hearing that 	the 	District 	did not 	know what
document 	the 	Federation was 	referring to 	in 	its 	request 	for 	the
anonymous 	letter. 	There was no other document 	in the
investigation 	that 	constituted an 	anonymous 	letter 	that 	might
have confused the District. 	The District did not, 	at 	the 	time,
profess 	confusion about 	the 	Federation's 	request, 	nor did it 	seek
17

clarification. 	The District 	knew what 	the Federation wanted. 	It
just 	didn't 	want 	to provide 	the 	union with a copy.
If 	the 	District 	thought 	the 	Federation already had a 	copy of
the 	letter, 	it 	did so 	in the 	face 	of 	the multiple 	requests
therefore. 	It 	should have 	taken the 	Federation's word on the
issue 	and provided the 	copy upon request.
That 	the 	Federation 	requested 	the 	letter 	from Westin 	is 	no
excuse 	for the 	District 	not 	to provide 	the 	letter. 	Westin took a
active 	role 	in the 	scenario, 	by directing 	faculty to 	attend the
interviews. 	He 	took an active 	role 	in responding to the
information requests 	Korn made 	on May 	19 	by his 	response 	of
May 	21 	wherein he 	asserted the 	communications 	were
confidential.11 He 	responded to Hunt's May 19 	request 	on June 	6
with an 	expansive 	description of 	the 	District's 	responsibility
under 	the 	COA.
It 	was 	only after this 	exchange 	that Westin changed his
role. 	Based on the assertion that, 	"during negotiations,"
requests were 	to go to Currier. 	The 	requests 	for 	information had
nothing 	to do with negotiations between the parties.12
I 	conclude 	the 	District 	again violated 	its 	obligation 	to
provide 	the 	requested 	information. 	It 	failed to give 	the
Federation a 	list 	of 	faculty who were 	interviewed; 	it 	failed to
1:LIn 	that 	same 	letter he 	invited Korn 	to provide 	him with a
showing of 	non-confidentially. 	This 	is 	hardly consistent 	with a
policy that 	all 	communications were 	to be with Currier.
12The 	District 	presented no 	evidence 	of 	any relationship
between the 	Federation's 	requests 	for 	information and any
bargaining 	issues.
18

advise 	the 	Federation as 	to 	the 	criteria 	for 	faculty to be
interviewed and the 	scope 	of 	the 	interview; 	and 	it 	failed to
give, 	in a timely manner, 	a copy of the anonymous letter.
REMEDY
PERB 	is 	empowered to:
To 	investigate 	unfair practice 	charges 	or
alleged violations 	of 	this 	chapter, 	and take
such action 	and make 	such determinations 	in
respect 	of 	these 	charges 	or alleged
violations 	as 	the board deems 	necessary to
effectuate 	the policies 	of 	this 	chapter.1131
It 	has been 	found that 	the 	District 	violated 	its 	obligation
to 	the 	Federation 	to meet 	and confer 	in good 	faith by 	its 	refusal
to respond, 	and making belated responses 	to 	requests 	for
information. 	Specifically, 	it 	failed to give the 	Federation a
list 	of 	faculty who were 	interviewed; 	it 	failed to provide
criteria 	for 	interview of 	faculty and the 	scope 	of 	the 	interview;
and it 	failed to provide, 	in a timely manner, 	a copy of the
anonymous letter. 	This conduct violates section 3543.5(c). 	The
same 	conduct 	denied the union the 	right 	to 	represent 	its
bargaining unit members 	in violation of 	section 3543.5(b). 	At
the 	same 	time, 	it 	denied bargaining unit members 	their right 	to
be 	represented by the union of 	their choice, 	in violation of
section 3543.5(a). 	The District 	should be ordered to cease 	and
desist 	in this 	conduct. 	It 	should also be ordered to provide
the 	union with a 	copy of 	the 	list 	of 	faculty who were
interviewed, 	and any documentation outlining the 	scope 	of
"Section 3541.3 (i) .
19

investigation undertaken by PCI. 	The 	Federation got 	a 	copy of
the 	anonymous 	letter on August 	18. 	While 	no order 	regarding 	that
document 	will 	be made, 	the 	aforementioned cease 	and desist 	order
will 	address 	untimely delays 	in responding to requests 	for
information.
It 	is 	also 	appropriate 	that 	the District be 	required to post
a notice 	incorporating the 	terms 	of 	the 	order at 	places where
notices 	are 	traditionally posted. 	The 	notice 	should be
subscribed by an authorized agent 	of 	the 	District, 	indicating
that 	it will 	comply with the 	terms 	thereof. 	The notice 	shall 	not
be 	reduced 	in 	size. 	Posting 	such a notice will 	provide 	employees
with notice 	that 	the 	District 	has 	acted 	in an unlawful 	manner 	and
is 	being 	required to 	cease 	and desist 	from this 	activity and will
comply with the 	order. 	It 	effectuates 	the purpose 	of 	EERA that
employees 	be 	informed of 	the 	resolution of 	the 	controversy and
will 	announce 	the 	District's 	readiness 	to 	comply with the 	ordered
remedy. 	(Davis Unified School District et al. 	(1980) 	PERB
Decision No. 	116; 	Placerville Union School District 	(1978) 	PERB
Decision No. 	69.)
PROPOSED 	ORDER
Upon the 	foregoing 	findings 	of 	fact 	and conclusions 	of 	law
and the entire record in this 	case, 	and pursuant 	to the
Educational Employment Relations Act 	(EERA), 	Government Code
section 3543.1, 	it 	is hereby ordered that 	the Ventura County
Community College 	District 	shall:
20

A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
1. 	Failing and refusing to meet 	and confer 	in good
faith with 	the Ventura County Federation of 	College 	Teachers
(Federation) 	by refusing 	to provide 	information relevant 	and
necessary to 	the 	representation of members 	of 	the 	bargaining unit
regarding 	the 	investigation of 	the Ventura 	College 	basketball
program. 	This 	information consisted of 	a 	list 	of 	faculty
interviewed about 	the program, 	criteria 	for selection of 	faculty
to be 	interviewed and the 	scope 	of 	the 	interview.
2. 	Failing and refusing to meet 	and negotiate 	in good
faith with the 	Federation by 	failing 	to 	timely provide 	a 	copy of
the 	anonymous 	letter that 	brought 	about 	the 	investigation of 	the
basketball 	program.
3. 	Denying the 	Federation its 	right 	to represent 	its
members.
4. 	Interfering with bargaining members 	right 	to be
represented 	by 	their 	chosen 	representative.
B. 	TAKE 	THE 	FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS 	DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE 	THE 	POLICES OF EERA:
1. 	Provide 	the 	Federation with a copy of 	the 	list 	of
faculty that 	were 	interviewed during 	the 	investigation of 	the
Ventura 	College basketball 	program, 	and the 	criteria used for
their 	selection as well 	as 	the 	scope of 	the 	interview.
2. 	Within ten days of 	service of 	this proposed
decision, 	post 	at 	all work locations where notices 	to employees
customarily are placed, 	copies 	of 	the notice 	attached as 	an
appendix hereto. 	Such posting 	shall 	be maintained 	for a period
21

of thirty 	(3 0) 	consecutive workdays. 	Reasonable steps shall be
taken to 	ensure 	that 	said notices 	are not 	reduced 	in size,
altered, 	defaced or 	covered by any other material.
3. 	Upon issuance of 	a final 	decision, 	make written
notification of 	the 	actions 	to 	comply with the 	Order to 	the
San 	Francisco 	Regional 	Director of 	the 	Public 	Employment
Relations 	Board 	in 	accord with 	the 	director's 	instruction.
Pursuant 	to California Code of Regulations, 	title 	8,
section 323 05, 	this 	Proposed Decision and Order shall become
final 	unless 	a party files 	a 	statement 	of 	exceptions with the
Board 	itself 	at 	the 	headquarters 	office 	in Sacramento within
20 	days 	of 	service of 	this Decision. 	In accordance with PERB
regulations, 	the 	statement 	of 	exceptions 	should 	identify by page
citation or exhibit 	number the portions of 	the 	record, 	if 	any,
relied upon for such exceptions. 	(See Cal. 	Code Regs., 	tit. 	8,
sec. 	32300.) 	A document 	is 	considered 	"filed" 	when actually
received before the 	close of business 	(5 p.m.) 	on the 	last day
set 	for 	filing 	". 	. 	. o r when sent by telegraph or certified or
Express United States mail, 	postmarked not 	later than the 	last
day set for filing . 	. 	. 	." 	(See Cal. 	Code Regs., 	tit. 	8,
sec. 	32135; 	Code Civ. 	Proc., 	sec. 	1013 shall apply.) 	Any
statement 	of 	exceptions 	and 	supporting brief 	must 	be 	served
concurrently with 	its 	filing upon each party to 	this 	proceeding.
Proof 	of 	service 	shall 	accompany each copy 	served on 	a party or
22

filed with the Board itself. 	(See Cal. 	Code Regs., 	tit. 	8, 	secs
32300, 	32305 and 32140.)
Gary 	M. 	Gallery
Administrative 	Law 	Judge
23
I