Decision 1606E – California School Employees Association-Chapter 244 (Guitierrez)

LA-CO-1152-E

Decision Date: February 26, 2004

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 28
Perc Index: 93

Decision Headnotes

800.00000 – UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION
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.

800.00000 – UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION
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.

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
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.

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
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.

1101.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE
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.

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
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).

1503.00000 – MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS
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.