Decision 1624E – Antelope Valley College Federation of Teachers (Stryker)

LA-CO-1135-E

Decision Date: April 28, 2004

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 28
Perc Index: 146

Decision Headnotes

101.00000 – PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; APPLICABILITY OF AND CONFLICTS WITH OTHER STATUTES
101.04000 – Statutues in Other Jurisdictions

The Board lacks jurisdiction to adjudication allegations of race-based discrimination.

102.00000 – PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; SCOPE OF PERB JURISDICTION
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

104.00000 – PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF BOARD
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.

201.00000 – PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?
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.

607.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DUTY TO CONSULT
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

801.00000 – UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION
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.

801.00000 – UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION
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

801.00000 – UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION
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.

801.00000 – UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION
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.

806.00000 – UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DEFENSES
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.

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
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