Decision 1606E – California School Employees Association-Chapter 244 (Guitierrez)
LA-CO-1152-E
Decision Date: February 26, 2004
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: Gutierrez alleged that CSEA breached the duty of fair representation with regard to alleged sexual advances, change of work schedule, decreased pay and longevity pay, and slander by the District’s Director.
Disposition: The Board found that all items other than the pay issues were untimely. For the pay issues, CSEA investigated the pay issues and found that the District had properly paid Gutierrez. Disagreement with CSEA on this issue does not state a prima facie case. The appeal lacked the specificity required by PERB regulations.
Perc Vol: 28
Perc Index: 93
Decision Headnotes
800.01000 – In General; Prima Facie Case
The slander allegation, which was timely filed, lacked any specificity regarding dates of occurrence, circumstances, the nature of the alleged slander, or the context of CSEA’s refusal to grieve the issue, did not meet the requirements of PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5) and does not state a prima facie case.
800.02000 – Grievance Handling/Contract Administration
The slander allegation, which was timely filed, lacked any specificity regarding dates of occurrence, circumstances, the nature of the alleged slander, or the context of CSEA’s refusal to grieve the issue, did not meet the requirements of PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5) and does not state a prima facie case. Gutierrez failed to demonstrate that CSEA’s failure to process her complaints about pay and longevity pay issues was without rational basis or devoid of honest judgment. CSEA’s investigation concluded that Gutierrez was paid correctly.
1100.01000 – In General/Prima Facie Case
In determining whether the charging party has stated a prima facie case, the Board must credit the charging party’s allegations of facts over those of other parties. When the charging party offers conflicting versions of the facts, the one most favorable will be credited.
1100.02000 – Investigation of Charge
In determining whether the charging party has stated a prima facie case, the Board must credit the charging party’s allegations of facts over those of other parties. When the charging party offers conflicting versions of the facts, the one most favorable will be credited.
1101.01000 – In General
Once CSEA raised timeliness as an affirmative defense, Gutierrez had the burden of showing the charge to be timely. Gutierrez’ claims that CSEA did not represent her in claims about her work schedule were untimely.
1100.08000 – Pleading Requirements
The slander allegation, which was timely filed, lacked any specificity regarding dates of occurrence, circumstances, the nature of the alleged slander, or the context of CSEA’s refusal to grieve the issue and so did not meet the requirements of PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5).
1503.02000 – Regulations Considered (By Number)
The slander allegation, which was timely filed, lacked any specificity regarding dates of occurrence, circumstances, the nature of the alleged slander, or the context of CSEA’s refusal to grieve the issue did not meet the requirements of PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5) and does not state a prima facie case.