Motion-Secondary: Laureen Thompson vs California Schools Employees Association et al.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                oC PN DN HW RW NHN mw

eee
SI AA Bw HK A S

19

21

8

Laureen Thompson ot

PO Box 6366 oct COURT
Stockton, CA 95206 wee whet COUR
thompsonlaureen@ yahoo.com . suine
(209) 817-7820 M2 COT 21 FAO: 2b

STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR CC

COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN / sh
i

LAUREEN THOMPSON )Case No. STK-CV-L ith (2 WV

Plaintiff, ) tot Y

) DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF IN

: ’_) SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES —_) DEFENDANT DEMURRER TO
ASSOCIATION ) AMENDED COMPLAINT

Defendant )

) Hearing Date: 11/4/2021
) Dept: 10B Time: 9:00am

| Laureen Thompson, Plaintiff, am employed at Stockton Unified School
District (SUSD) and a good standing paying member of California School Em; ployees
Association Union (CSEA chapter 821). CSEA is the bargaining Union who
negotiates my contract of the State & Government laws with the employer on my ..
behalf and for my benefits of protection, fepresentation and support of my Labor
Rights and pfotection from the employer violating my rights.

|, Laureen Thotpson have endured multiple encounters of adverse actiois,
CSEA 821 contract violations, arbitrary bad faith misconduct, discrimination (Age
over 40), bias arbitrary behavior, degraded, intimidation, retaliation, hostile
environment, harassment, wrongdoing, bullying, embarrassment, defamation of mhy
character, harship and attack of my livelihood; by the employer due to CSEA agents
Roderick Gaulman, Senior Labor Representative and Casey Thompson, Labor

Representative refusing to enforce the negotiated contract.Out of 20 + years as a quality, integrity, inspirational worker tharoughout my

careers of employment in my hometown of Stockton, CA, | have never encountered
these types of behavior from an Union who is paid for duties are to represent,
support, protect the employee, the Plaintiff, from adverse actions from the employer.
This was my first time ever having to file internal complaints regarding an employer,
grievances of contract violations, Union allowing violations, PERB unfair practice
charge and now this Civil Complaint because | asked for retroactive/ back pay of my
quality work after being reclassified. | may not know where tostatr in which direction,
all the rules, codes or the appropriate terminology that PERB was looking for to help
resolve my case but that does not mean these things did not take place. If these
actions had not taken place there would be no need for any complaints starting fram

the bottom to the top or contracts made to follow.

PERB Case No SA-CO-638-E Laureen Thompson v California School Employees
Association dismissal states, “ PERB is without jurisdiction to enforce contracts
between CSEA and Stockton Unified School District (SUSD). PERB lacks
Jurisdiction over such violations of discrimination related to race and or gender. The
Charging Party does not have Standings to file under the violation codes presented.
(See exhibit O and P these codes are for the union to file an unfair practice

charge against the empioyer on behalf of the employee. CSEA failed to do 0.)

PERB Case No. SA-CE-2915-E Laureen Thompson v Stackton Unified School
District ALJ ruled in my favor SUSD violated my EERA Rights. SUSD Labor
Representative, Claudia Moreno stated in an email on March 18,2018; with CSEA
union included on the email, asked the Plaintiff, Laureen Thompson to postpone filing

any future grievances. PERB decision No. 2748 ordered SUSD to Cease and Desistfrom Interfering with any bargaining unit classified employees right to present

grievances. It is also mentioned in the case, although CSEA 821 union was included
in the email from SUSD Labor Representative Claudia Moreno who told Laureen
Thompson , Plaintiff, to stop filing grievances they did not respond to the email of the
EERA violation. (See exhibit S. It further states, ‘it is not in PERB jurisdiction to
award monetary damages to compensate for retroactive pay. CSEA 821 did not file a
grievance for the reclassification at the time the working out of class, which is when

the parties knew or should have known of such.

Itis the duty and responsibility of the Labor Representative to familiarize themselves
with ALL union chapters contracts they are hired to enforce and to do so; regardless
if they are being questioned and proven they are making mistakes by a member.
Thus, having to endure so much unnecessary stress, time away from my daily,
depression, anxiety, insomnia, migraines, brought upon me, | was forced to defend
and fight for my honor, self esteem and rights. | was intimidated therefore forced to
ask for outside help from a male friend for support to help me in meeting with and
addressing CSEA agent Roderick Gaulman, Senior Labor Representative: after
several attempts on my own. Now I'm having to see a Behavior Therapist bi-weekly
since June 2018 due to CSEA 821 Labor Representatives Roderick Gaulman and
Casey Thompson allowing CSEA 821 contract violations by the employer SUSD. As
a result of CSEA agents allowing the violations CSEA is responsibly for contract
violations, Fraudulent use and charge of union dues, negligence, bias bad faith,
adverse arbitrary discrimination actions and lack of full knowledge of CSEA 821
contract Article 8.13 Reclassification & 8.13.4.2.3 (retroactive pay): In support to help
and protect me, Laureen Thompson, a good standing paying member in need of

advise and help.Co Oo DN A WH PR BW N

ae
oo 2 A A FB WH = GB

21

CSEA agents Roderick Gaulman and Casey Thompson refused and failed to assist

the Plaintiff, Laureen Thompson of several CSEA contract Articles as provided in the
Plaintiff staternent of facts, Exhibit A -S as well as mentioned in Plaintiff Opposition to

the Defendant's Demurrer.

The first contract violation of 8.7 working out of class was questioned by the Plaintiff
in an email before the reclassification. (see exhibit B)

Plaintiff spoke with CSEA agent Roderick Gaulman on multiple occasions regarding
the retroactive pay for reclassification change due to working out of class; contract
Article 8.13.4.2.3. Gualman repeatedly replied No , there is no retroactive pay for
reclassification. Thereafter is when Laureen Thompson and an outside male friend
met with CSEA agent Roderick Gau!man in his office to point out in the contract
Article 8.13.4.2.3. Roderick was stunned to find out this does exist in our contract
and stated in front of me and my friend that he will file the grievance for this, hisself

right away. ( see exhibit A & B contract Article 8.13.4,3.2)

CSEA agent Senior Labor Representative, Roderick Gaulman was also given the
already sign timesheets for working out of class and reclassification, text message of
temployee Laureen Thompson and Stephanie Salcedo of the employer refusing a
Prior Authorization (PA) for payment of the signed timesheets and site principal
degrading behavior. Roderick Gaulman and Casey Thompson refused to use
valuable information given to help them address my case. (See exhibits A, E, F and

Plaintiff statement of facts)On March 22,2018 Plaintiff still unease of the Defendant's agents bisas

arbitrary behavior regarding the retro pay for reclassification, ] asked the same
male advocate friend to join me for the medication to help me with the union
labor Representative lack of knowledge of my contract and their arbitrary bias
behavior and bad faith. CSEA agents Roderick Gaulman and Casey Thompson
told my male advocate they do not allow outside people in with mediation.
During the mediation Senior Labor Representative Roderick Gaulman in
aggressive rude arbitrary bad faith attempted to persuade Plaintiff to accept
the employer's global settlement of dropping all my complaints including
PERB and DFEH for an unknown amount of money in favor of the employer. |
declined. Roderick Gaulman, Senior Labor Representative in bad faith
breached the statute of representation by stating, “Don't waste my time. He
immediately left the building without finishing & leading the meditation causing
hostility, misrepresentation. Thereafter, CSEA Senior Labor Representative
attempt in bad faith to refuse to continue the grievance process by filing CSEA
615.

Once I filed another Unfair Practice Charge CSEA regress back and filed to the

Arbitration. (See exhibit H)

CSEA agents’ Labor Representatives refused to address the Article 8.13.4.2.3 in'the
grievance and in the Arbitration as requested on several occasions by the Plaintiff,
Laureen Thompson, thus causing the loss of Plaintiff Arbitration of working out of

classification and reclassification. (See exhibits H emails)

During the Plaintiff, Arbitration hearing CSEA agent Seniro Labor Representative

Roderick Gaulman committed bad faith showing arbitrary actions/ behavior. At the

westart of recess infront of the Plaintiff, Laureen Thompson ando others Roderick

Gaulman walked up behind the employer (SUSD) Labor Representative Claudia
Moreno due to her looking frustrated after being questioned, touched both her
shoulders and proceeded massaging and whispering in her ear. Thus, Plaintiff fett
degraded at that moment, as if everyone seemed to think this was a joke to them.
CSEA could have proceeded forward in representing the Plaintiff to appeal the
Arbitration decision and inform the Plaintiff of the possibility to appeal and address the
reclassification portion as requested several times but CSEA agents did no such
thing.

Throughout the years of 2017 -2018 and 2018- 2019 CSEA 821 Labor
Representative Raderick Gaulman and Casey Thompson had knowledge of multiple
CSEA 821 contract Articles being violated bhy the employer on several occasions
against the Plaintiff Laureen Thmpson and refused to assist her. CSEA agents had
the authority to file PERB unfair practice charges against the employer (SUSD) on
behalf of the Plaintiff for contract violations that were being committed. (See exhibit A

- S, Plaintiff statement of facts, Plaintiff opposition to defendant's demurrer)

Recap of Contract violations the union and CSEA Labor Representatives were aware
of. 1. Hostile environment, 2. Locked out of the office break room, 3. Unauthorized
surveillance, 4. False letter of concern of insubordination, 5. Failing to respond to
EERA Rights violation in the email to postpone future grievances 6. False evaluation,

7. Forced Verbal Involuntary Transfer/Capricious Transfer
Again it is the responsibility of the Labor Representative to know all the

contract, enforce the contract and fully represent , protect and support the

rights of a paying member according to the CSEA Bylaws. (see exhibit Q)

weWA WwW Bw WN

27
28

The Plaintiff, Laureen Thompson, sent a notification letter to CSEA Headquarters
Attorney, Alex Leenson regarding notice of payment for damages to a dues paying
member due to CSEA agents Roderick Gaulaman and Casey Thompson
committing Fraud, breach of contract, professional negligence, unfair practice to
include PERB decision of Case No. SA-CO-638-E. CSEA Attorney Alex Leenson
and CSEA headquarters refused to respond and failed to acknowledge the notice
thus, CSEA continue contract violations, fraudulent charges of union dues, CBA
Bylaws, Civil Right laws, acts of bias , bad faith discrimination, arbitrary behaviors.
(PERB does not have jurisdiction to enforce the contract. See exhibit O, P, Q,

R)

This year on April 27,2021 it was mentioned on CSEA 821 email/social media group

that reclassification will be retroactive. See exhibit N.

As a mother working hard to help support her family, enduring these actions as
mentioned adobe affected my livelihood and my health. Thus, causing Plaintiff to see
a Behavioral Therapist bi-weekly. Every employee deserves to be paid what was
intended. CSEA 821 and CSEA Headquarters caused monetary !oss and
unnecessary stress.

Plaintiff, Laureen Thompson and Defendant Attorney Amy Dunnings met and
conferred again. Plaintiff and Defendant discussed the above information. | informed
the Defendant Attorney, Amy Dunnings my Civil Complaint is for Fraud as stated on
the Complaint. Nota unfair Practice charge. | also informed Attomey Amy Dunnings

that | will be filing the Case Management Statement documents on Oct. 1, 2021. as

wrstated on the Case Management Statement which included a witness statement of

CSEA Senior Labor Representative encounters.

In given this Declaration of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff respectfully asks this Court to
dismiss the Defendant's Demurrer to dismiss all Cause of Actions and continue with

the process.

! declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California this

Declaration is true and correct.

Date: Oct. 17, 2021

iano

Laureen ThompsonINDEX OF STATUTES

EDUCATIONAL EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS ACT

CHAPTER 10.7

ARTICLE 1
3540.
3540.1,
3540.2.

ARTICLE 2
3541.
3541.3.

3341.35.

3541.4.
~ SSALS,

ARTICLE 3
3542.

ARTICLE 4

pa 3543,
7 4B.
3543.2,
3543.3.
3543.4,
- 353.5.
» 3543.6.
1 3543.7.
1 3543.8.
ARTICLE 5

3544,

Negotiations ..

. (EERA)
AS OF JANUARY 1, 2018
MEETING AND NEGOTIATING IN PUBLIC EDUCATIONAL

EMPLOYMENT .........-eecseneneeoveresnesontessesenensnse
GENERAL PROVISIONS. oon snoaversone

Qualified or negative certifications; Proposed agreements;
review Process; financial impact; review and comment by

Superintendent ‘of Public Instruction.
ADMINISTRATION
Public employment relations board..
Powers and Duties of the Board...

Appeal of administrative law judge decision regarding
recognition or certification of employee organization; final
order of board...

Interference with board in performance of duties;
misdemeanor

Unfair practice: jurisdiction; procedures for investigation,
hearing and decision

JUDICIAL REVIEW ..

Right to judicial review: petition for writ of extraordinary
relief; notice; jurisdiction; record; findings; enforcement of
final decision or order...

RIGHTS, OBLIGATIONS, PROHIBITIONS AND UNFAIR
PRACTICES...

Rights of public school employees ....

Rights of employee organizations...

Scope of representation .....

Management positions; confidential positions: representation ..
Interference with employees’ rights prohibited ....
Unlawful acts of employee organization...

Duty to meet and negotiate in good faith; time ...

Actions and proceedings; standing; application of section...

EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATIONS: REPRESENTATION,
RECOGNITION, CERTIFICATION, AND DECERTIFICATION14

Request for recognition; proof of majority support...

mN

143541.4. Interference with board in performance of duties; misdemeanor

Any person who shall willfully resist, prevent; impede or interfere with any member of the board, or any of its
agents, in the performance of duties pursuant to this chapter, shalt be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon
conviction thercof, shall be sentenced to pay a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000).

3541.5. Unfair practice; jurisdiction; procedures for investigation, hearing and decision

The initial determination as to whether the charges of unfair practices.are justified, and, if'so, what remedy is
necessary to effectuate the purposes of this chapter, shall be a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of-the
board. Procedures for investigating, hearing, and deciding these cases shall be devised and Promulgated by the
board and shall include all of the following:

(a) Any employee, employee organization, or employer shall have the right to file an unfair practice charge,
except that the board shall not do either of the following:

(1) Issue a complaint in respect of any charge based upon an alleged unfair practice occurring more than six
months prior to the filing of the charge.

(2) Issue a complaint against conduct also prohibited by the provisions of the agreement between the parties until
the grievance machinery of the agrecment, if it exists and covers the matter at issue, has been exhausted, either by
settlement or binding arbitration. However, when the charging party demonstrates that resort to contract
grievance procedure would be futile, exhaustion shall not be necessary. The board shall have discretionary
jurisdiction to review the settlement or arbitration award reached pursuant to the grievance machinery solely for
the purpose of determining whether it is repugnant to the Purposes of this chapter. If the board finds that the
settlement or arbitration award is repugnant to the purposes of this chapter, it shall issue a complaint on the basis
of a timely filed charge, and hear and decide the case on the merits. Otherwise, it shall dismiss the charge. The
board shall, in determining whether the charge was timely filed, consider the six-month limitation set forth in this
subdivision to have been tolled during the time it took the charging party to exhaust the grievance machinery.

(b) The board shall not have the authority to enforce agreements between the Parties, and shall not issue a
complaint on any charge based on alleged violation of any agreement that would not also constitute an unfair
practice under this chapter.

3 “(c) The board shall have the power to issue a decision and order directing an offending party to cease and desist
“” from the unfair practice and to take such affirmative action, including but not limited to the reinstatement of
employees with or without back pay, as will effectuate the policies of this chapter.

ARTICLE 3
JUDICIAL REVIEW

3542. Right to judicial review; petition for writ of extraordinary relief; notices jurisdiction;
record; findings; enforcement of final decision or order

(a) No employer or employee organization shall have the right to judicial review of a unit determination except:
(1) when the board in response to a petition from an employer or employce organization, agrees that the case is
one of special importance and joins in the request for such Teview; or (2) when the issue is raised as a defense to
an unfair practice complaint. A board order directing an election shall not be stayed pending judicial review.

Upon receipt of a board order joining in the request for judicial Teview, a party to the case may petition for a writ
of extraordinary relief from the unit determination decision or order.

(®) Any charging party, respondent, or intervenor aggrieved by a final decision or order of the board in an unfair
practice case, except a decision of the board not to issue a complaint in such a case, may petition for a writ of
- extraordinary relief from such decision or order. .“ CSE) afiorne, Arey Lee:
— — oflubit 2 ahem, Bae Leeson
Acinn, f echoed b

STATE OF CALIFORNIA. . GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD.

Sacramento Regional Office
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA, 95811-4124
Telephone: (916) 327-7242
Fax: (918) 327-6377

March 10, 2020 . of

Laureen Thompson |
P.O. Box 6366
Stockton, CA 95206

Re: Laureen Thompson
Unfair Practice Charge'N
DISMISSAL LETTER

Dear Parties:

The above-teferenced charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on April 2, 2019. The charge was amended on July 5, 2019.
Laureen Thompson (Charging Party) alleges that the Califomia State Employees
Association-Chapter 821 (CSEA or Respondent) violated sections 3544.9 and 3544.1,

. Subdivision (d) of the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA or Act)! by
breaching its duty of fair representation. On July 5, 2019, Charging Party filed a First
Amended Charge. .-

Charging Party was informed in the attached Warning Letter dated January 24, 2020,
' that the above-referenced charge did not state a prima facie case. Charging Party
was advised that, if there were any factual inaccuracies or additional facts that would
correct the deficiencies explained in that letter, Charging Party should amend the
charge | to state a prima facie case or withdréw it on or before February 7, 2020, the ”
charge would be dismissed.

On February 7, 2020, Charging Party filed a timely Second Amended Charge.

‘ EERA is codified at Goverment Code section 3540 et seq. PERB's
Regulations are codified at Califomia Code of Regulations, title 8, section 31001 et
seq. The text of the EERA and PERB Regulations may be found at Www.perb.ca.gov.Unfair Practice Charge No. SA-CO-638-E
March 10, 2020
Page 2

FACTS AS ALLEGED

Original’ Charges’

arbitration on April 1, 2019],] it was made aware by CSEA representativeUnfair Practice Charge No. SA-CO-638-E
March 10, 2020
Page 4

mandatory to take those dates off. Therefore[,] | was paid at a lower rate
instead of a higher rate which | should have been paid. So why would
CSEA representative NOT request what is actually due to me. This is
merely violation of representation, retaliation, bad faith and
bias/discrimination to a woman requesting and fighting for justice.”

Second Amended Charge

The Second Amended Charge stat

"This charge 2070 tenes
REPRESENTATION OF PREPARATION FOR ARBITRATION SET FOR
APRIL 2, 2019. The negligence of Roderick Gaulman‘and Casey
Thompson breaches the duty of CSEA ByLaws and fair representation
which put my arbitration at stake for retro pay.for working out of class
and retro pay for reclassification. CSEA 821 are paid millions of dollars
to represent the CSEA members to the fullest. | pay union dues yearly to
CSEA 821 for representation. 19 Articles of the CSEA 821 contract were
violated. THEY STOLE MONEY FROM ME. I PAID UNION DUES AS
A MEMBER FOR YEARS. THEY DEPRIVED ME OF MONEY DUE TO
ME FOR THE REGLASSIFICATION RETRO PAY. | was only allowed
30 minutes during my lunch on March 28, 2019 to discuss the arbitration
set for April 2, 2019. Rod Gaulman and: Casey Thompson (labor rep’s)
were not timely in the preparation for the arbitration, they were not fully
prepared, they refused and did not include the employees legal rights
to retro pay for reclassification Article 8. 13.4.2. 3 of- the CSEA

_ bargain:a :

providing evidence regarding the principal refusing to sign ihe (prior
authorization): but was not included in the opening statement nor the
brief filed by Casey Thompson. This was requested by the MEMBER
(LAUREEN THOMPSON) on several occasions. If allowed appropriate .
time to prepare for the arbitration these articles would not have been
missed., In reviewing the recordings from the arbitration; the District
(Stockton Unified School District) witnesses LIED on the stand with a few
“key points regarding PA (Prior Authorization to change the position) and
this was the first for someone to request the retro for reclassification.
These facts should've been used in Casey Thompson brief to fight the ~
Case, as requested by the member (Laureen Thompson)a

Unfair Practice Charge No. SA-CO-638-E
March 10, 2020
Page 6

regarding retro pay for working out of class and retro pay for
reclassification. They should be penalized/charged for their actions.

Again the member, Laureen Thompson, requested retro pay for.
reclassification to be included into the arbitration for working out of class.
on several occasions to the Labor Représentatives. These requests
prior to arbitration and.in the final brief prior to submission verbally as
well as emails.”

A. The Charging Party's Burden and Siatute of Limitations

As discussed in the Warning Letter, a charging party should allege with specificity the
particular facts giving rise to a violation. (National Union of Healthcare Workers
(2012) PERB Decision No. 2249a-M.) Also, Charging Party was advised that mere
legal conclusions are not sufficient to state a prima facie case. (Ibid.; Charter Oak
Unified School District (1991) PERB: Decision No. 873. )

The Warning Letter also explained to Charging Party that it was her burden to include
facts showing that the unfair practice charge was timely filed; i.e., that the alleged
unfair practice occurred no more than six months prior to the filing of the charge. (Los
Angeles Unified School District (2007) PERB Decision No. 1929; City of Santa
Barbara (2004) PERB Decision No. 1628-M.) Charging Party filed the original charge
on April 2, 2019. Thus, the allegations surrounding the March 22, 2018 mediation and
the July 2018 written statement are untimely and barred by the statute of limitations
because they occurred before October 2, 2018.

B. Breach of Contract

As discussed in the Warning Letter dated January 24,.2020, PERB is without
jurisdiction to enforce contracts between CSEA and the Stockton Unified School
District (District). (County of Sonoma (2012) PERB Decision No. 2242-M:) Charging
Party was advised that she lacked standing to assert that CSEA breached the contract
with the District by unilaterally changing terms and conditions of employment.
Charging Party alleges in the Second Amended Charged that.CSEA breached the
following contract provisions: Preamble, Article | Recognition, Article 1] Dues &
Service Fees 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.3.6 amount of the service fees, Article VI definitions, 6.3
Classification, 6.11 Paid Status, Vill Pay & Allowance, 8.1 Rate of Pay, 8.1.1, 8.7
Compensation for working out of class, 8.13 Reclassification, 8.13.2, 8.13.4.2.3,Unfair Practice Charge No. SA-CO-638-E
March 10, 2020
Page 8

are no allegations to show that Thompson, Gaulman, or CSEA acted in bad faith, or in
an arbitrary or discriminatory manner. The Second Amended Charge does not include
any additional facts to support Charging Party's allegations that CSEA's preparation
for and handling of her arbitration was without a rational basis or devoid of honest
judgment. Accordingly, the allegations regarding a breach of the duty of fair
representation is dismissed.

D..PERB's Limited Jurisdiction

As advised in the. Waring Letter;: tging Party's allegations: regarding
discrimination related to race andh gender must be dismissed because jacks
jurisdiction over such violations. (Alum Rock Union Elementary School District (2005)
PERB Decision No, 1748.) Accordingly, these allegations are dismissed.

- E. Section 3544.1(d)

As advised in the Warning Letter, Charging Party does not have standing to allege aa
violation of section 3544.1, subdivision (d) of EERA. (State of California (Department
of Corrections) (1993) PERB Decision No. 972-S.) Because Charging Party does not
have standing to bring a charge alleging a violation of section 3544.1, subdivision (d),
this allegation dismissed.:

Right to Appeal

Pursuant to PERB Regulations, Charging Party 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 Regs., tit. 8, § 32635, subd. (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 during a regular PERB
business day. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 32135, subd. (a) and 32130; see also Gov.
Code, § 11020, subd. (a).) A document is also considered “filed” when received by
facsimile transmission before the close of business together with a Facsimile
Transmission Cover Sheet which meets the requirements of PERB 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. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §
32135, subds. (b), (c) and (d); see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 32090 and 32130.)

The Board's address is:Exvidst Q/ CONSTITUTION OF
Delta Valley Chapter No. 821, CSEA
Adopted February 17, 2004
Latest Revision May 18, 2004

This Constitution is the local operating document for this chapter as formulated
under Article Ill, Section 8 of the Association Constitution.

Where used throughout this document, "Association" means the California
Schoot Employees Association, the statewide governing body for this
organization; “organization” and "chapter" are interchangeable and mean Delta
Valley Chapter No. 821, CSEA.

APPROVED

California School Employees Association

Date: July 24, 2004

By: Denise K. Deusen, Executive ManagerCOYDAHAWND

Chap. No. 824 Constitution, Page 2
As Revised May 18, 2004
Association Approval July 24, 2004

Table of Contents

Article |— Name and Objects

Article I] — Membership

Article Ill — Dues and Assessments

Article IV — Officers & Executive Board/Election Procedures

Article X — Site Representatives

Article X!— Recall or Removal from Office
Article Xi — Delegates to Conference
Article XIII — Contract Ratification

Article XIV — Concerted Activities

Article XV — Amendments to Constitution
Article XVI — Disbandment of Chapter
Article XVII ~ Parliamentary Authority
Article XVIII — Fiscal YearCOIAMHAWNH

Chap. No. 821 Constitution, Page 3
As Revised May 18, 2004
Association Approval July 24, 2004

ARTICLE |
NAME AND OBJECTS

Section1. Name: The name of this organization shall be Delta Valley Chapter
No. 821 of the Califomia School Employees Association.

Section 2. Objects: The objects of this organization shall be to promote the
good and welfare of the members of this organization under the available !abor relations
system, and to secure for them reasonable hours, fair wages and improved working
conditions; to establish a spirit of cooperation, good faith and fair dealings with the
employer, to safeguard, advance and promote the principle of free collective bargaining
in a democratic society; to promote such legislation as may be in the best interésts of
the members of this organization; to promote the efficiency and raise the standards of
service of its members and other public service workers; to instill confidence, good will
and understanding among the members and their employers; to promote the economic
and social welfare of the members of the Association through unity of action and mutual
cooperation.

ARTICLE It
MEMBERSHIP

Section 1. Membership in this chapter shall be as follows:

(a) _ Active: "Active" membership, which carries with it the privilege of full
Participation in chapter activities, including the right to vote and to hold elected or
appointed offices, shall be extended to any person employed in a bargaining unit
represented by this chapter, without regard to race, creed, color, national origin, sex,
age; sexual orientation or political belief. Active membership status shall cease at such
time as the member becomes eligible for any other category of membership definedPy ribit  “R
1. pagesfk
Sis. .1 - Definition

as a‘prievant.

18.3.1 Level

183.11

183.15

18.3.2 Level Ti

183 Grievance Procedure

183.12

. 183.13.

183.14,

ARTICLE XVI: GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE

A grievant is either a bargaining unit member directly affected by the’dispute or the Association on behalf of
a bargaining unit member or group of reasonably ic identifiable bargaining unit members who otherwise qualify

a

3182 . Preliminary Step - Solution of Potential Grievance

: Prior to the utilization of the g grievance procedure, the bargaining unit member must discuss ar any problem i in

. . an informal conference with his/her immediate supervisor and/or-responsible administrator. This shall be

so arranged by the supervisor and/or the responsible administrator at a mutually convenient time: Other persons
may.be present at the request of the bargaining unit member. ‘ : .

In the event the matier i is aot resolved at the informal conference, the bargaining unit member may
Present a grievance in writing to the administrator with immediate administrative responsibility for
the position to which the bargaining. unit Member is assigned.

If presented it in writing, the grievance shall beo on the form provided by the District. All
* pertinent information should be supplied.

The written grievance shall be presented within forty-five (45) calendar days after the
bargaining unit member knows or should reasonably have known of the occurrence
* which ¢ Eives ise to the dispute. .

Either party may request a personal conference within five © working days of the
teceipt of the grievance by the supervisor.

oe

If a conference is requested, sucii conference shall be held within ten (10) work:ag :

days of such request, to be arranged by the supervisor at, a mutually convenient time.
The supervisor shall present an answer in writing to the grievant within ten (10)
working sayso of the conference or fifteen dis) working days after receipt, Whichever
is later.

Tf no answer is received within the time limit established, the grievant may appeal to
Level T

‘If satisfactory settlement cannot be obtained at Level I, the grievant may appeal the decision on the
form provided by the District to the Superintendent's office or designee within ten (10) working .
days after receiving the Level I answer. -

Sl18.3.2.1

18.3.2.3

x 18.3.3 Level Ill: Mediation

18.3.3.1

1833.2

18333

A conference may be requested by either party and shall be held with the grievant
within ten (10) working days of the receipt of the Level | appeal. This conference

. shall be arranged at a mutually convenient time. The Level I administrator may also
be present at the conference.

The Superintendent of Schools or the authorized designee may present an answer to
the grievant ‘in writing within fifteen (15) working days after the. date ofethe
conference.

If no answer is received at Level II within.the time limit established, the grievant may
request that the Association pursue the matter to Level III. .

If the aggrieved person is not satisfied with the Level II decision, or if no decision
is rendered within the specified time limits, (s)he may request the Association to
seek conciliation pursuant to this section. Such request must be made within twenty
(20) work days, or the Level Two decision will be final. By mutual agreement, the
conciliation step may be waived and the Association shall have twenty (20) work
days to request arbitration. .

The Association; if concurring with the grievant's request to seek conciliation,
will request the California Mediation and Conciliation Service to provide a
conciliator to assist the Association and the District to resolve the grievance.
Copies of the written requést to the Conciliation Service will be sent to the
Superintendent and the grievant when the request is made.

The California Mediation and Conciliation Service will appoint a mediator (who
shall be mutually acceptable to the District and Association) within ten (10) work
days of réceipt of letter, who shall attempt to resolve the grievance. If for any reason
the California Mediation and Conciliation Service fails to or refuses to act as
provided herein, the Parties shall meet and seek alternative conciliation methods.

The mediator shall not make writin or y -‘blic recommendations relative to
the grievance.

If satisfactory settlement cannot be obtained at Level II, the decision may be
referred to an arbitrator within ten (10) working days or by agreement of the
parties.

18.3.4 Level IV - Arbitration ~

18341

The arbitrator shall be selected from a list to be provided by the California State
Mediation and Conciliation Service. The manner of selection shall be by alternate
strike by the District and The Association until only one name is left. The order of
the striking shall be determined by the flip ofa coin.STATE OF CALIFORNIA

_aybedal 5
i

* GAYIN NEWSOM, Govermor,

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD

Division of Administrative Law
1031 18th Street

Secramento, CA, 95811-4124
‘Telephone: (916) 324-0143
Fax: (916) 327-6377

April 30, 2020

Re;  Laurcen Thompson v. Stockton Unified School District
Case No. SA-CE-2915-E

Dear Parties

Attached is the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB or Board) agent’s Proposed
Decision in the above-entitled matter.

Any party to the proceeding may file with the Board itself a statement.of exceptions to the
Proposed Decision. The statement of exceptions shall be filed with the Board itself at the
following address:

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Attention: Appeals Assistant
1031 18th Street, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95811-4124
(916) 322-8231
| Fax: (916) 327-9425
E-File: PERBe-file.Appeals@perb.ca.gov

Pursuant to California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 32300, an original and five copies
of the statement of exceptions must be filed with the Board itself within 20 days of service of
this decision. A document is considered “filed” when actually received during a regular PERB
business day. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 32135, subd. (a); see also, Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8,

§ 32130.)

A document is also considered “filed” when received by facsimile transmission before the
close of business together with a Facsimile Transmission Cover Sheet or received by electronic
mail before the close of business, which meets the requirements of California Code of
Regulations, title 8, section 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, (Cal. Code
Regs., tit. 8, §§ 32135, subds. ), (c) and (d); see also, Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 32090, -
32091, and 32130.)

The statement of exceptions shall be in writing, signed by the party or its agent and shail: (1)
state the specific issues of procedure, fact, law or rationale to which each exception is taken;
(2) identify the page or part of the decision to which each exception is taken; (3) designate by
page citation or exhibit number the portions of the record, if any, relied upon for each
exception; and (4) state the grounds for each exception. Reference shall be made in the

statement of exceptions only to matters contained in the record of the case. An exception not‘Until final disposition of a grievance takes
place, the grievant is required to conform to
the original direction of his/her supervisor
nléss theré exists a clear and present danger,
to the employee at which time the employee /
has the right to appeal directly to the /
_ Superintendent or designee.’ “

“We are more than happy to have a discussion about your
concers[,] but being that you are not availing yourself for a
meeting until April makes it difficult to help you. In fact, |
am having to resort to sending you this email as a way to
communicate with you and ask that additional

rievances be postponed until such time when we can
meet.

“Please feel free to email me to let me know if you can
meet on the new proposed time 2 [p.m.] on March 16,
2018. .

“Thank you in advance for your time and cooperation.”

(Underlining added for emphasis, bolding included in the original.)

Moreno explained that she believed in promoting a cooperative spirit between
labor and management and sent the March 13, 2018 e-mail because she observed
that a number of Thompson's grievances were merely compliance complaints with a
grievance form placed on them as a cover sheet. She also noticed overlapping
information on the various grievances. At that time, Moreno envisioned setting a full-
day pre-grievance conference to discuss all of Thompson’s grievances. Moreno was

hoping CSEA would get involved and provide guidance to Thompson. CSEA never

contacted Moreno about her e-mail to express.concem over her request to Thompson

to postpone filing additional grievances.

22PERB has long held that the presentation of grievances is a protected right
. under the Act. (California State University Hayward (1987) PERB Decision No. 607-H,

pp. 16-17 (CSU Hayward); see also Walnut Valley Unified School District (2016)
PERB Decision No. 2495, 14-20.) The filing and pursuit of a grievance is protected by
EERA. (Ventura County Community College District (1999) PERB Decision No. 1323;
North Sacramento Schoo! District (1982) PERB Decision No. 264.) Under the right of
self-representation, individual employees have a right to be heard in whatever
grievance or other administrative appeal and internal complaint procedures exist.
(Relyea v. Ventura County Fire Protection Dist. (1992) 2 Cal_App.4th 875, 883.)

An employer's outright refusal to consider a grievance may therefore interfere
with protected rights. For example, in CSU Hayward, supra, PERB Decision
No. 607-H, an employee alleged that his supervisor walked out of a grievance meeting
before he had finished presenting the issue. (/d. at pp. 3, 16.) The Board held these
allegations to be sufficient to state a prima facie case of interference with employee
rights. (/d. at pp. 16-17.)

While Moreno did not explicitly prohibit Moreno’s filing of additional grievances,
she discouraged Thompson from filing additional grievance untit she had attended the

pre-grievance meeting—a period of 24 days. For the employer to request_an

employee to postpone file additional grievances, even for purposes of scheduling a

pre-grievance meeting, potentially communicates to an employee that the employee

will not receive a fair adjudication of their current grievances if the request is not

complied with or the additional grievai be filed will not receive fair adjudication.

This is particularly problematic where, the CBA contains specific time limits for filing

33grievances. Regardless, the grieving employee is placed in a conflict regarding the
grievance process itself because of their simple unavailability. That conflict affects

their statutory right to file future grievances, in this case for a 24-day period.

Ultimately, Moreno’s request, while possibly made with good intentions, implies that
rs

the District controls the grievance process. Clearly, such a communic

a cite ent meni

potential c chilling of: an employee's LEERA rights 5 and the conduct results in at least
‘slight harm to protected rights. (County of Santa Clara, supra, PERB Decision
No. 2613-M, p. 8.)

The District claims that its business justification or operational necessity for its
request was to attempt to get Thompson to attend a pre-grievance meeting in a timely
fashion so that Thompson could better understand the grievance and compliance
complaint processes and reduce overlapping information in the grievances. While
such a justification may be beneficial to both labor, management and the unit
employee for the orderly presentation of grievances (as wells as compliance
complaints) and to reduce duplicative grievances, to connote that Thompson should
not file any additional grievances until a pre-grievance meeting take place is to
suggest to a grievant that she cannot file a grievance when she may need to
immediately file additional grievances to immediately bring issues to management's
attention. Again, such a suggestion tips the control of the grievance process towards
one of the parties. As such, the District's business justification does not outweigh the

potential harm caused to Thompson's right to present grievances under EERA section

3543 (b). As a result, the District interfered with Thompson’s rights under EERA.

34REMEDY 7 os,
PERB has broad remedial powers to effectuate the purposes of EERA. EERA \

section 3541.5, subdivision (c), states: /
4
f “The board shall have the power to issue a decision and ~

i order directing an offending party to cease and desist from
| the unfair practice and to take such affirmative action, ~ |
including but not limited to the reinstatement of employees /

\ with or without back pay, as will effectuate the policies of /
‘ this chapter.”

The District violated EERA section 3543.5, subdivision (a), by interfering with
Thompson's right to present grievances. \t is appropriate under the statute to order
the District to cease and desist from violating the EERA section 3543, subdivision (b).
Therefore, the District will be ordered to cease and desist from interfering with
bargaining unit employees’ right to present grievances.

Additionally, a “properly designed remedial! order seeks a restoration of the
situation as nearly as possible to that which would have [been] obtained but for the
unfair labor practice.” (City of Palo Alto (2019) PERB Decision No. 2664-M, p. 3, citing
Modesto City Schools (1983) PERB Decision No. 291, pp. 67-68.) :In this case, a
restoration of the status quo would sometimes require the rescission of the offending
request. However, as the offending request expired on April 6, 201 8, there is no need
to order such a rescission.

Thompson requested that she be allowed to file a reclassification grievance as
she would have filed such a grievance had Moreno not issued the March 13, 2018

request to her which lasted 24 days. Such affirmati lief will not be ordered as the

alleged 1 reclassification issue arose se during the se same time ¢ as! the he out-of-class grievance

which was fi filed o1 on August a1, 2017. In other words, Thompson did not file such a

35 ‘reclassification grievance for almost seven months from the date of occurrence and
never filed it after April 6, 2018, when the offending request expired. Thompson’s
requested affirmative relief would be to grant a remedy outside of ambit of restoring the
status quo caused by the unfair practice and reward Thompson for not pursuing her
grievance within the timeframes set forth under the CBA.2*

Itis also appropriate to order the District to post a notice incorporating the
terms of this order at all locations where notices to Classified unit employees are
usually posted. Posting of such a notice, signed by an authorized representative of
the District, provides employees with notice that the District acted in an unlawful
manner, must cease and desist from its illegal action, and will comply with the order.
In addition to physical posting of paper notices, the notice shail be posted by
electronic message, intranet, internet site, and other electronic means customarily
used by the District to communicate with employees in the classified bargaining unit.
(City of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2351-M, pp. 43-45.) It effectuates the
purposes of PERB-enforced statutes to inform employees of the resolution of this
controversy. (Omnitrans (2010) PERB Decision No. 2143-M, adopting proposed
decision at p. 19.)

PROPOSED ORDER

Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the entire

record in the case, it is found that on March 13, 2018, the Stockton Unified School

District (District) violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA),

24 Thompson also asked that she be awarded monetary damages as a result of -
such a reclassification grievance. Such a request also goes beyond restoring the
status quo which would flow from the violation and PERB does not have authority to
adjust such a grievance under the CBA.

36