State of California (Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board) (PERB 1480S)

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD

CARLOS A. VELTRUSKL

Charging Party, Case No. LA-CE-564-S
V. PERB Decision No. 1480-S
May 2, 2002

STATE OF CALIFORNIA (UNEMPLOYMENT
INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD),

Respondent.

Appearance: Carlos A. Veltruski, on his own behalf.
Before Baker, Whitehead and Nema, Members.

DECISION

NEIMA, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board (Board)

on appeal by Carlos A. Veltruski (Veltruski) from a Board agent's partial dismissal (attached)
of his unfair practice charge. The charge alleged that the State of California (Unemployment
Insurance Appeals Board) violated section 3519(a)! of the Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills Act) by
discriminating against him for engaging in protected activities and refusing to consider his

application for employment on its merits.

'The Dills Act is codified at Government Code section 3512 et seq. Section 3519(a)
provides, in part:

It shall be unlawful for the state 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 guaranteed by this chapter. For

The Board has reviewed the entire record in this case, including the original and
amended unfair practice charge and attachments, the partial warning and partial dismissal
letters, and Veltruski's appeal. Veltruski's appeal does not address at all the rationale utilized
by the Board agent in dismissing a portion of his charge or provide any basis to support a
prima facie case regarding the dismissed portion of his charge. The Board finds the Board
agent's partial dismissal letter to be free from prejudicial error and adopts it as the decision of
the Board.
ORDER
The partial dismissal of the unfair practice charge in Case No. LA-CE-564-S is hereby
AFFIRMED.
Members Baker and Whitehead joined in this Decision.
purposes of this subdivision, "employee" includes an applicant
for employment or reemployment.
2

STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
GRAV
DA VIS,
Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOY1\·'IENT RELATIONS BOARD
Sacramento Regional Office
I 031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA
95814--1 l
7-I
Telephone: (916)
327-7242Fax: (916) 327-6377
September 24, 2001
Carlos
A.
Veltruski
603 N. Ford Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90022
Re: 	Carlos
A.
Veltruski
v.
State
of
California (Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board)
Unfair Practice Charge No. LA-CE-564-S
PARTIAL DISMISSAL
Dear Mr. Veltruski:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on June
5,
2001. You allege that the State
of
California violated the
Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills Act) 1 by discriminating against you for engaging in protected
activities by refusing to consider your application for employment on its merits.
I indicated to you, in my attached letter dated September 10, 2001, that certain allegations
contained in the 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 allegation
to
state a prima facie case or withdrew them prior to September 21, 2001, the
allegations would be dismissed.
You state in your amended charge dated September 20, 2001, that you approached Ms. Labady
with concerns about the treatment you received from Judge Knipe
of
the UIAB. Her response
to you was that you would not be able to prove the charges against Judge Knipe, and that you
should just marry an American citizen
if
you wanted to become eligible to work in the United
States. 	Your amended charge also states that Ms. Woodruff and Mr. White were Ms. Labady's
supervisors, and were aware of her conduct toward you. However, your amended charge does
not contain a showing that Anny Labady, Lottie Woodruff, and Steve White exercised
decision-making authority over hiring decisions in the Department of Fair Employment and
Housing. Therefore, I am dismissing the allegation based on the facts and reasons contained in
my September 10, 2001 letter.
1 The Dills Act is codified at Government Code section 3512 et seq. The text
of
the
Dills Act and the Board's Regulations may be found on the Internet at www.perb.ca.gov.

LA-CE-564-S
September 24, 200 l
Page 2
Right to Appeal
Pursuant to PERB Regulations, 2 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. (Regulation 32635(a).) Any document filed with the Board must contain the case
name and number, and the original and five (5) copies
of
all documents must be
provided
to
the Board.
A document is considered "filed" when actually received before the close
of
business (5 p.m.)
on the last day set for filing or when mailed
by
certified or Express United States mail, as
shown on the postal receipt
or
postmark, or delivered to a common carrier promising overnight
delivery, as shown
on
the carrier's receipt, not later than the last day set for filing.
(Regulations 32135(a) and 32130.)
A document is also considered "filed" when received by facsimile transmission before
theclose
of
business
on
the last day for filing together with a Facsimile Transmission
Cover
Sheet
which meets the requirements
of
Regulation 32135(d), provided the filing party also
places
the
original, together with the required number
of
copies and
proof
of
service, in the U.S. mail.
(Regulation 32135(b), (c) and (d); see also Regulations 32090 and 32130.)
The Board's address is:
Public Employment Relations Board
Attention: Appeals Assistant
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
FAX: (916) 327-7960
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. (Regulation 32635(b).)
Service
All documents authorized to be filed herein must also be "served" upon all parties to
theproceeding, and a "proof
of
service" must accompany each copy
of
a document served upon a
party or filed with the Board itself. (See Regulation 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. A document filed by
facsimile transmission may be concurrently served via facsimile transmission on all parties to
the proceeding. (Regulation 32135(c).)
2 PERB's Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.

LA-CE-564-S
September 24, 200 l
Page 3
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. (Regulation 32132.)
Final Date
If
no appeal is filed within the specified time limits, the dismissal will become final
when
the
time limits have expired.
Sincerely,
ROBERT THOMPSON
Deputy General Counsel
By AidPitv
~~
Alicia A. Clemen
Board Agent
t
Attachment
cc: Linda Nelson, Labor Relations Counsel
AAC:ckp

STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DA VIS, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Sacramento Regional Office
l OJ! ! 8th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
Telephone: (916) 327-7242
Fax: (916) 327-6377
September 10, 200 l
Carlos A. Veltruski
603 N. Ford Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90022
Re: Carlos A. Veltruski v. State of California
Unfair Practice Charge No. LA-CE-564-S
PARTIAL WARNING LETTER
Dear Mr. Veltruski:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on June 5, 2001. You allege that the State of California violated the
Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills Act)1 by discriminating against you for engaging in protected
activities by refusing to consider your application for employment on its merits.
On February 28, 2001, you requested employment from Annie Labady, Lottie Woodruff, and
Steve White at the Department of Fair Employment and Housing. You repeated this request in
March, April, and May of 2001. You allege that in a conversation with Ms. Labady, she
refused to consider hiring you because of the charges you had filed against previous employers
and because of her stated fear that if she hired you, you would only file charges against her as
well. This statement demonstrates knowledge on the part of Ms. Labady of your protected
conduct, and an animus toward you on the basis of that protected conduct. Ms. Labady does
not make decisions about personnel or hiring. She is a Counselor for the Department of Fair
Employment and Housing. Ms. Woodruff and Mr. White are similarly without hiring
responsibilities, though they each have a title of District Administrator.
To demonstrate a violation of Dills Act section 3519(a), the charging party must show that:
(1) the employee exercised rights under the Dills Act; (2) the employer had knowledge of the
exercise of those rights; and (3) the employer imposed or threatened to impose reprisals,
discriminated or threatened to discriminate, or otherwise interfered with, restrained or coerced
the employees because of the exercise of those rights. (Novato Unified School District (1982)
PERB Decision No. 210 (Novato); Carlsbad Unified School District (1979) PERB Decision
No. 89.)
Although the timing of the employer's adverse action in close temporal proximity to the
employee's protected conduct is an important factor (North Sacramento School District ( 1982)
PERB Decision No. 264), it does not, without more, demonstrate the necessary connection or
1 The Dills Act is codified at Government Code section 3512 et seq. The text o f the
Dills Act and the Board's Regulations may be found on the Internet at www.perb.ca.gov.

LA-CE-564-S
September l
0,
200 l
Page 2
"nexus" between the adverse action and the protected conduct. (Moreland Elementary School
District ( 1982) PERB Decision No. 227.) Facts establishing one or more
of
the following
additional factors must also be present: (
1)
the employer's disparate treatment
of
the employee
(State
of
California (Department
of
Transportation) (1984) PERB Decision No. 459-S); (2) the
employer's departure from established procedures and standards when dealing with the
employee (Santa Clara Unified School District (1979) PERB Decision No. 104.); (3) the
employer's inconsistent or contradictory justifications for its actions (State
of
California
(Department
of
Parks and Recreation) (1983) PERB Decision No. 328-S; (4) the employer's
cursory investigation
of
the employee's misconduct; (
5)
the employer's failure to offer the
employee justification at the time it took action or the offering
of
exaggerated, vague,
or
ambiguous reasons; (6) employer animosity towards union activists (Cupertino Union
Elementary School District) (1986) PERB Decision No. 572.); or (7) any other facts which
might demonstrate the employer's unlawful motive. (Novato; North Sacramento School
District, supra, PERB Decision No. 264.)
Evidence
of
adverse action is also required to support a claim
of
discrimination or reprisal
under the Novato standard. (Palo Verde Unified School District (1988) PERB Decision No.
689.) In determining whether such evidence is established, the Board uses an objective test
and will not rely upon the subjective reactions
of
the employee. (Ibid.) In a later decision, the
Board further explained that:
Your charge contains allegations that you engaged in protected activities by asserting your
rights and the rights
of
similarly situated employees by attempting to organize other
interpreters who contracted their services to the Department
of
Motor Vehicles. Your charge
also contains allegations that because
of
that protected activity, you were injured when you
were not considered for employment at the Department of Fair Employment and Housing on
the merits
of
your application. What your charge fails to allege is the nexus between
statements made by Anny Labady, Lottie Woodruff, or Steve White and the Department's
decision not to consider your application. Because Ms. Labady, Ms. Woodruff, and Mr. White
do not make hiring decisions, any bias they may have shown against your protected activities
cannot be imputed to the employer. You must produce facts which tend to show that the bias
of
these employees influenced the employer's decision not to consider your application, in
order to sustain a charge
of
discrimination.
For these reasons the allegation that the Department
of
Fair Employment and Housing
discriminated against you, as presently written, does not state a prima facie case. 	Ifthere are
any factual inaccuracies in this letter or additional facts that 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
comer 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 September 1
7, 2001, I shall dismiss the above-

LA-CE-564-S
September 10, 2001
Page 3
(
described allegation from your charge.
	If
you have any questions, please call me at the
telephone number listed above.
Sincerely,
/VWVl
cavr;,
~
Alicia Worcester Clement
Board Agent