Decision 3053E – California School Employees Association and its Chapter 827 (Blake)
SA-CO-699-E
Decision Date: August 26, 2026
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: Charging Party Shannon Blake alleged that Respondent California School Employees Association-Chapter 827 (CSEA) violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA; Gov. Code, § 3540 et seq.) by breaching its duty of fair representation, or by discriminating or interfering with her protected rights, when it withheld union representation at a pre disciplinary meeting because she was not a union member. PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC) issued Blake a warning letter explaining that the facts Blake alleged, if proven, would not establish that CSEA had retaliated or discriminated against her, breached its duty of fair representation, or otherwise violated EERA. Blake did not amend her charge, and OGC dismissed the case.
Disposition: The Board affirmed OGC’s dismissal of Blake’s charge without leave to amend, finding that Blake’s charge failed to state a prima facie case that CSEA’s conduct was discriminatory or constituted interference. The Board further held that Blake also failed to state a prima facie case that CSEA violated its duty of fair representation.
Decision Headnotes
800.01000 – In General; Prima Facie Case
An exclusive representative does not owe a duty of fair representation to a bargaining unit member unless the representative possesses the exclusive means by which such member can vindicate an individual right. Here, the union did not have exclusive control over the disciplinary process because Charging Party’s right to a pre-deprivation hearing, and to pre-disciplinary due process, exist separate and apart from the CBA or CSEA’s obligations as the exclusive representative. Neither union representatives nor the CBA itself waived or diminished Blake’s right to participate in pre-disciplinary processes. (pp. 8-9.)
800.02000 – Grievance Handling/Contract Administration
An exclusive representative does not owe a duty of fair representation to a bargaining unit member unless the representative possesses the exclusive means by which such member can vindicate an individual right. Here, the union did not have exclusive control over the disciplinary process because Charging Party’s right to a pre-deprivation hearing, and to pre-disciplinary due process, exist separate and apart from the CBA or CSEA’s obligations as the exclusive representative. Neither union representatives nor the CBA itself waived or diminished Blake’s right to participate in pre-disciplinary processes. (pp. 8-9.)
800.04000 – Scope of Duty; Internal Union Affairs
An exclusive representative does not owe a duty of fair representation to a bargaining unit member unless the representative possesses the exclusive means by which such member can vindicate an individual right. Here, the union did not have exclusive control over the disciplinary process because Charging Party’s right to a pre-deprivation hearing, and to pre-disciplinary due process, exist separate and apart from the CBA or CSEA’s obligations as the exclusive representative. Neither union representatives nor the CBA itself waived or diminished Blake’s right to participate in pre-disciplinary processes. (pp. 8-9.)
800.02000 – Grievance Handling/Contract Administration
As contemplated in San Francisco Classroom Teachers Association, CTA/NEA (Chestangue) (1985) PERB Decision No. 544, and (Berkeley Federation of Teachers, Local 1078, AFL-CIO (Moore) (1988) PERB Decision No. 658, adopting warning letter, p. 3, the union lawfully determined that representation at Skelly hearings would be provided by the organization as a benefit of membership, consistent with PERB precedent allowing unions to provide membership-only benefits when they do not possess exclusive control over the process. (pp. 8-9.) In so doing, CSEA did not deprive Blake of access to a Skelly hearing nor any other due process protections that the employer, Amador County Office of Education (Amador COE), was obliged to provide. Indeed, Amador COE remained responsible for providing due process regardless of the union’s role. (pp. 8-9.)
800.04000 – Scope of Duty; Internal Union Affairs
As contemplated in San Francisco Classroom Teachers Association, CTA/NEA (Chestangue) (1985) PERB Decision No. 544, and (Berkeley Federation of Teachers, Local 1078, AFL-CIO (Moore) (1988) PERB Decision No. 658, adopting warning letter, p. 3, the union lawfully determined that representation at Skelly hearings would be provided by the organization as a benefit of membership, consistent with PERB precedent allowing unions to provide membership-only benefits when they do not possess exclusive control over the process. (pp. 8-9.) In so doing, CSEA did not deprive Blake of access to a Skelly hearing nor any other due process protections that the employer, Amador County Office of Education (Amador COE), was obliged to provide. Indeed, Amador COE remained responsible for providing due process regardless of the union’s role. (pp. 8-9.)