California Public Employment Relations Board Decision: Summer v. LAUSD, Summaries of Business

Download California Public Employment Relations Board Decision: Summer v. LAUSD and more Summaries Business in PDF only on Docsity! STATE OF CALIFORNIA DECISION OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD JENA ANNE SUMMER, Charging Party, v. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Respondent. Case No. LA-CE-3708 PERB Decision No. 1192 April 9, 1997 Appearances: Jena Anne Summer, on her own behalf; Rochelle J. Montgomery, Attorney, for Los Angeles Unified School District. Before Caffrey, Chairman; Johnson and Dyer, Members. DECISION AND ORDER CAFFREY, Chairman: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board (Board) on appeal by Jena Anne Summer (Summer) of a Board agent's dismissal (attached) of her unfair practice charge. In the charge, Summer alleged that the Los Angeles Unified School District (District) violated section 3543.5(a) and (b) of the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA)1 by retaliating against her because of her exercise of 1EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. 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 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. protected rights. The Board has reviewed the entire record in this case, including the original and amended unfair practice charge, the Board agent's warning and dismissal letters, Summer's appeal and the District's response thereto. The Board finds the warning and dismissal letters to be free of prejudicial error and hereby adopts them as the decision of the Board itself. The unfair practice charge in Case No. LA-CE-3708 is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. Members Johnson and Dyer joined in this Decision. 2 LA-CE-3708 Dismissal Letter December 11, 1996 Page 3 an appeal to the Board itself within twenty (20) calendar days after service of this dismissal. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, sec. 32635(a).) Any document filed with the Board must contain the case name and number. To be timely filed, the original and five copies of such appeal must be actually received by the Board itself before the close of business (5 p.m.) or sent by telegraph, certified or Express United States mail postmarked no later than the last date set for filing. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, sec. 32135.) Code of Civil Procedure section 1013 shall apply. The Board's address is: Attention: Appeals Assistant Public Employment Relations Board 1031 18th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 If you file a timely appeal of the refusal to issue a complaint, any other party may file with the Board an original and five copies of a statement in opposition within twenty (20) calendar days following the date of service of the appeal. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, sec. 32635(b).) Service All documents authorized to be filed herein must also be "served" upon all parties to the proceeding, and a "proof of service" must accompany each copy of a document served upon a party or filed with the Board itself. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, sec. 32140 for the required contents and a sample form.) The document will be considered properly "served" when personally delivered or deposited in the first-class mail, postage paid and properly addressed. Extension of Time A request for an extension of time, in which to file a document with the Board itself, must be in writing and filed with the Board at the previously noted address. A request for an extension must be filed at least three (3) calendar days before the expiration of the time required for filing the document. The request must indicate good cause for and, if known, the position of each other party regarding the extension, and shall be accompanied by proof of service of the request upon each party. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, sec. 32132.) ( LA-CE-3708 Dismissal Letter December 11, 1996 Page 4 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 Tammy L. Samsel Regional Director Attachment cc: Rochelle J. Montgomery STATE OF CALIFORNIA PETE WILSON, Governor PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD Los Angeles Regional Office 3530 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 650 Los Angeles, CA 90010-2334 (213) 736-3127 October 7, 1996 Jean Anne Summer Re: Jean Anne Summer v. Los Angeles Unified School District Unfair Practice Charge No. LA-CE-3708 WARNING LETTER Dear Ms. Summer: In the above-referenced unfair practice charge, filed August 9, 1996, you allege the Los Angeles Unified School District (District) violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA or Act) section 3543.5(a) and (b) . My investigation revealed the following information. You allege the District violated the EERA by the following actions: (1) on March 20, 1995, the District refused to allow you a union representative during a disciplinary meeting, (2) on March 23, 1995, the District suspended you, (3) on April 26, 1995, the District issued a Below Standards evaluation, (4) on June 13, 1995, the District notified you of your non-reelection, and (5). on March 20, 1996, the District failed to reinstate you to your job. The above-stated facts fail to state a prima facie violation of the EERA for the reasons that follow. EERA § 3541.5(a) provides the Board shall not: 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. In the instant charge, the appropriate six month period is between February 9, 1996 and August 9, 1996. Thus the District's actions on March 20, 1995, March 23, 1995, April 26, 1995, and June 13, 1995, do not fall within the jurisdiction of PERB. The only event arguably falling within the six months immediately preceding this charge is the District's failure to make job reinstatement part of the settlement of your grievance on March 20, 1996. (