Decision 1214E – Bellflower Unified School District
LA-CE-3746
Decision Date: June 30, 1997
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: Union appealed dismissal of its charge that District unlawfully changed working conditions.
Disposition: Dismissed. Union’s charge must be deferred to binding arbitration.
Perc Vol: 21
Perc Index: 28126
Decision Headnotes
1100.08000 – Pleading Requirements
Unilateral change in staffing patterns is dismissed because District's rights clause gives control over this subject to the District.
1000.02164 – Other
Scheduling of staff meeting days not negotiable; p. 5, dismissal letter.
1102.01000 – Pre-Arbitration
PERB lacks jurisdiction over retaliation claims because the grievance machinery of the agreement covers the dispute raised by the unfair practice charge and culminates in binding arbitration; p. 4, dismissal letter.
602.01000 – In General
Charge does not state a prima facie case of a unilateral change, because it lacks sufficient facts to determine whether any policies were changed; p. 5, warning letter.
602.06000 – Change in Past Practice
Charge does not state a prima facie case of a unilateral change, because it lacks sufficient facts to determine whether any policies were changed; p. 5, warning letter. A legal conclusion that work time or workload was increased is insufficient to state a prima facie case. No assertions of employees working longer hours or cutting corners to get job done (despite increase in number of students and paperwork).
608.07000 – Waiver by Union; Contract Waivers; Bargaining History Estoppel; Disclaimer; Supersession
Unilateral change in staffing patterns is dismissed because District's rights clause gives control over this subject to the District.
1000.02168 – Staff Development
Scheduling of staff meeting days not negotiable; p. 5, dismissal letter.
1101.03000 – Computation of Six-Month Period
Charge allegation that District bypassed BEA when it met with psychologists "a few days before the end of the year on June 20, 1996," was untimely, since BEA failed to establish that the June meeting with psychologists occurred within six months of dated charge filed (December 10, 1996); p. 6, dismissal letter. Since the charge does not say when District officials took action, it is not possible to determine whether the charge was timely filed; p. 5, warning letter.
1402.03000 – By Contract/Zipper Clauses/Management Rights Clauses
Unilateral change in staffing patterns is dismissed because District's rights clause gives control over this subject to the District. A legal conclusion that increase in work time or workload is insufficient to state a prima facie case. No assertions of employees working longer hours or cutting corners to get job done (despite increase in number of students and paperwork).