Decision 1624E – Antelope Valley College Federation of Teachers (Stryker)
LA-CO-1135-E
Decision Date: April 28, 2004
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: Stryker alleged that the Federation retaliated against her and interfered with her rights by removing her from the negotiating team because of a personal conflict with the Federation’s chief negotiator. She alleged that her removal interfered with her ability to meet and confer with the employer. Much of her claim was focused upon race-based discrimination. Stryker further alleged that she was filing the charge not only as a Federation member but as a Federation employee since she had received payment for participating on the negotiating team.
Disposition: The Board explained that EERA does not protect against race-based discrimination and so the Board lacks authority to decide these issues. With regard to her claim of interference by her removal from the negotiating team, the Board held that 1551 is determinative, finding that removal from the bargaining team is an internal union matter. The Board is reluctant to interject its authority in such matters. Removal from the negotiation team is different from removal from membership. The Board finally held that Stryker lacked standing to assert the right to meet and confer with the employer as that right is reserved to employee organizations. There were no specific facts showing that the remainder of the team was unable to represent adjunct professors without her participation. The Board lacks authority to adjudicate claims against the employee organization in its role as employer since it is not a public school employer under EERA.
Perc Vol: 28
Perc Index: 146
Decision Headnotes
101.04000 – Statutues in Other Jurisdictions
The Board lacks jurisdiction to adjudication allegations of race-based discrimination.
102.02000 – Concurrent or Conflicting Jurisdiction with Other Agencies or Courts; Interpretation or Enforcement of Other Statutes
The Board lacks jurisdiction to adjudication allegations of race-based discrimination
104.01000 – Authority of Board In General; Validity and Application of Regulations (See also 102.01)
The Board lacks jurisdiction to adjudication allegations of race-based discrimination.
201.01000 – In General
The Board lacks jurisdiction over Stryker’s claim against the Federation on the basis that her charge was also filed as an employee of the Federation. The Federation is not a “public school employer” under EERA and so the Board does not have authority to adjudicate disputes against an employee organization in its role as employer.
607.01000 – In General
Stryker lacks standing to assert the right to meet and confer with the public school employer as that right is solely afforded to employee organizations
801.01000 – In General
Similar to the situation in California State Employees Association (Barker & Osuna) (2003) PERB Decision No. 1551-S, the Federation’s removal of Stryker from the negotiating team differs from suspension or dismissal from membership governed by EERA section 3543.1(a). Therefore, the Federation did not interfere with protected rights under EERA. The Federation did not discriminate against Stryker under EERA since removal from the negotiating team is an internal union matter and Stryker provided no facts showing a substantial impact on the employer-employee relationship.
801.03000 – Employee Right to Participate; Improper Discipline or Refusal to Admit to Membership
Similar to the situation in California State Employees Association (Barker & Osuna) (2003) PERB Decision No. 1551-S, the Federation’s removal of Stryker from the negotiating team differs from suspension or dismissal from membership governed by EERA section 3543.1(a). Therefore, the Federation did not interfere with protected rights under EERA. The Federation did not discriminate against Stryker under EERA since removal from the negotiating team is an internal union matter and Stryker provided no facts showing a substantial impact on the employer-employee relationship
801.04000 – Union Rules and Discipline in General; Union Dues and Fees; Fines, Assessments, Etc.
Similar to the situation in California State Employees Association (Barker & Osuna) (2003) PERB Decision No. 1551-S, the Federation’s removal of Stryker from the negotiating team differs from suspension or dismissal from membership governed by EERA section 3543.1(a). Therefore, the Federation did not interfere with protected rights under EERA.
801.08000 – Other
Similar to the situation in California State Employees Association (Barker & Osuna) (2003) PERB Decision No. 1551-S, the Federation’s removal of Stryker from the negotiating team differs from suspension or dismissal from membership governed by EERA section 3543.1(a). Therefore, the Federation did not interfere with protected rights under EERA.
806.02000 – Internal Union Procedures
Similar to the situation in California State Employees Association (Barker & Osuna) (2003) PERB Decision No. 1551-S, the Federation’s removal of Stryker from the negotiating team differs from suspension or dismissal from membership governed by EERA section 3543.1(a). Therefore, the Federation did not interfere with protected rights under EERA. The Federation did not discriminate against Stryker under EERA since removal from the negotiating team is an internal union matter and Stryker provided no facts showing a substantial impact on the employer-employee relationship.
1100.03000 – Standing
Similar to the situation in California State Employees Association (Barker & Osuna) (2003) PERB Decision No. 1551-S, the Federation’s removal of Stryker from the negotiating team differs from suspension or dismissal from membership governed by EERA section 3543.1(a). Therefore, the Federation did not interfere with protected rights under EERA. The Federation did not discriminate against Stryker under EERA since removal from the negotiating team is an internal union matter and Stryker provided no facts showing a substantial impact on the employer-employee relationship