J. FELIX DE LA TORRE, Bar No. 204282 General Counsel WENDI L. ROSS, Bar No. 141030 Deputy General Counsel MARY WEISS, Bar No. 227600 Senior Regional Attorney 2 9 BLAIRE BAILY, Bar No. 287608 Regional Attorney Shem? B. Carter. Executive Officer/Clerk PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD By Deputy 1031 18th Street Sacramento, CA 95811?4174 Telephone: {916) 322-3198 Facsmnile: 916) 327?6377 E-mail: PERB Litigation@perb.ca.gov Su erlor GoltTnEritDtitalifom? gounly of Los Angetes Annette Fa rdo Attorneys for State of California, PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS Case No.: I BC598881 BOARD, ORDER GRANTING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELINIINARY INJUNCTION Plaintiff, COLLEGE-READY PUBLIC . Hon. Judge Keosian CHARTER SCHOOLS et al. Department 61 Defendants. Ex Part6 He UNITED TEACHERS LOS ANGELES, Date: October 27? 2015 Time: 8:ge: Hon. Judge Chalfant Exempt from Fees (Gov. Code, 6103) Upon reading and considering the Ex Parte Application, supporting Declarations and Points and Authorities on ?le in this action, the evidence submitted at the hearing, the oral argument of the parties, and other pleadings and papers on ?le in this action, the Court ?nds that Plaintiff Public Employment Relations Board (PERB or the Board) has demonstrated that the applicable legal test (Pubiic Employment Relations Board v. Modesto City SchooIs District 1 ORDER GRANTING TEMPORARY RESTRAJNING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELMEVARY INJUNCTION Case No. BC598881 1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 881) has been met for purposes of a Temporary Restraining Order and an Order to Show Cause regarding a Preliminary Injunction against Defendants Alliance College? Ready Public Charter Schools, and all of {its/the} approximately 30 schools, including, but not limited to, Alliance Susan Eric Srnidt Technology High School, Alliance Collins Family College~Ready High School, Alliance Gertz-Ressler High School, Alliance Renee Meyer Luskin Academy High School, and Alliance Patti and Peter Neuwirth Leadership Academy (Defendants). TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The Defendants, their agents, employees, representatives, of?cers, and all corporations, unincorporated associations, and natural persons acting in concert and participation with any of them, until a hearing or trial on a preliminary injunction, are ordered as follows: a. Defendants must meet with UTLA at a time and date to be agreed upon by UTLA and Defendants; b. Defendants must not ask certi?cated employees about their beliefs, positions or intentions regarding unionization and/or collective bargaining in violation of rights afforded to employee organizations and employees under .- Defendants? administrators must stay 100 feet away from any UTLA organizer once the organizer is identi?ed by the administrator as such with the exception that an administrator may be closer than 100 feet if there is a Speci?c need concerning student safety; d. Defendants must not coerce or threaten to impose reprisals against - certi?cated employees because of their exercise of rights under EERA in violation of rights afforded to employee organizations and employees under 2 ORDER GRANTING TEMPORARY RESTRAJNING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Case No. BCS98381 e. Defendants must allow access to UTLA and its representatives to Defendants? work sites durin after?school hours in accordance with the 8 rights afforded to employee organizations and employees under EERA Irwin?lists Ufiine publib?d?al'gb', incindiugra?m who?? and f. Defendants must not deny or block UT LA electronic mail (e-mail) messages to certi?cated employees? work e?mail addresses in violation of rights afforded to employee organizations and employees under EERA. 2. Further, the Defendants, their agents, employees, representatives, of?cers, and all corporations, unincorporated associations, and natural persons acting in concert and participation with any of them, until a hearing or trial on a preliminary injunction, are ordered immediately to provide each of Defendants? certi?cated employees with notice of the actual terms of this Temporary Restraining Order through all of the following means of communication: (1) through an e-mail message to all certi?cated employees; and (2) through posted notices at all of Defendants? school sites. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: l. The Defendants, their agents, employees, representatives, of?cers, and all corporations, unincorporated associations, and natural persons acting in concert and participation with any of them, until a hearing or trial on a preliminary injunction, are ordered to show cause as to why a preliminary injunction should not issue speci?cally enjoining and restraining Defendants from: a. refusing to meet with UTLA upon request, to discuss matters of concern in violation of rights afforded to employee organizations and employees under I b. maintaining and sponsoring petitions on its website(s) or otherwise, that solicit employee signatures that af?rm opposition to unionization and/or 3 ORDER GRANTING RESTRAJNING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY IN JUN CTION Case No. collective bargaining in Violation of rights afforded to employee organizations and employees under polling certi?cated employees concerning their beliefs, positions or intentions regarding unionization and/or collective bargaining in violation of rights afforded to employee organizations and employees under Defendants? administrators must stay at least 100 feet away ??om any organizer once the organizer is identi?ed as such with the exception that an administrator may be closer than 100 feet if there is a speci?c need concerning student safety; interfering with, restraining, coercing, imposing or threatening to impose reprisals or discriminating against certi?cated employees because of their exercise of rights under EERA in violation of rights afforded to employee organizations and employees under denying access to and its representatives to Defendants? work sites during after-school hours in violation of rights afforded to employee organizations and employees under HERA and ineludin after-so artners}; denying or blocking UTLA electronic mail (e?mail) messages to certificated employees? work e?mail addresses in violation of rights afforded to employee organizations and employees under and discriminating and retalia teacher Albert Chu Chu) because he ex cised rights ,e er EERA in ace frights affor employender And requiring that Defendants provide each of Defendants? certi?cated employees with 4 ORDER GRANTING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE PRELIMINARY Case No. BC598882 mqmuhmumoem?aaxm?zg notice of the actual terms of the Order resulting from the Order to Show Cause through all of the following means of communication: (1) verbally at an employee assembly or assemblies; (2) through an e-mail message to all certi?cated employees; and (3) posted notices at all of Defendants? school sites, on each school?s web page and on the Alliance College?Ready Public Charter Schools home web pages, including but not limited to, wWwJaallianceorg and 2. That Defendants appear before this Court in the courtmom of County of Los Angeles, on November 17, 2015, at 1:30, pm, then and there to show cause why a Preliminary Injunction with a duration of at least ninety (90) days should not be issued. 3. The opposition papers must be ?led and electronically served on PERB and no later than November 9. A reply brief must be ?led and electronically served on the Defendants no later than November 12. 0% gill?1 - Jesus Quinonez for R?dl Party in Interest United Teachers Los' Angeles Dated: October 4, 2015 I, HONORABLE JUDGE CHALFANT 5 . ORDER GRANTING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE . PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Case No. 130598881 STATE OF CALIFORNIA EDMUND G. JR., Governor PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD Los Angeles Regional Office 700 N. Central Ave, Suite 200 Glendale, CA 91203-3219 Telephone: (818) 551-2809 Fax: (833) 551?2820 October 28, 2015 Hon. Judge James C. Chalfant Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 85 Ill North Hill Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Re: Public Employment Relations Board/United Teachers Angeles v. Alliance College? Ready Public Charter Schools Los Angeles Super. Ct. Case No. BC 598881 Unfair Practice Charge Nos. and Proposed Order Granting TRO and OSC regarding Preliminary Injunction Dear Hon. Judge Chal?fant: All three parties in this matter hereby submit for your review the attached Order. The parties have reached agreement on all of the language except for language shown in brackets. Unfortunately, despite the'diligent efforts of all three parties to resolve the language, these four items remain in dispute: TENIPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Page 2, line 3 {its/the} ?Plaintiff Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) and Real Party in Interest United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA) assert that ?its? should remain as it was shown in the proposed order presented at the ex parte hearing beeause there was no discussion by your Honor or any party during the hearing that the description of Alliance College-Ready Public Charter Schools et a1. (Defendants) should change. Defendants assert ?its? should be changed to ?the? because the term ?its? inaccurately suggests that Defendant Alliance College~Ready Public Charter Schools owns the charter school defendants. Page 2, lines 19-20 {Defendants must not engage in monitoring of employee contact with UTLA organizers, and} and UTLA assert that this sentence should remain as it was shown in the proposed order presented at the ex parte hearing because your Honor expressed disapproval of surveillance as too broad or vague but did not state monitoring shoold be removed. Defendants assert the line should be removed because they believe your Honor only wanted a stay away order, not also an order that administrators not monitor union activities. Page 3, lines 4-6 {and in the same manner and pursuant to the same guidelines under which Defendants allow access to work sites during after-school hours to members of the public at large, including after?school partners} and UTLA assert that this LA-CE-6025-E October 28, 2015 Page 2 language was not part of the proposed order nor was such added language discussed by your Honor or the parties and there was no discussion that statutory right to access public school facilities is the same access afforded to the public at large. Defendants assert the added language is appropriate because it would help the Defendant charter schools deal with UTLA visits, purely from an administrative standpoint, if UTLA follows the same general procedures as other campus visitors: advance notice, sign?in, etc. Defendants believe that it will prevent potential and unnecessary disputes over Defendants? compliance-with the Temporary Restraining Order. Defendants further believe the addition is uncentroversial because it re?ects a correct statement of the law, as? interpreted in PERB decisions, at least with respect to elected bargaining representatives, and because U-TLA counsel agreed with sign-in procedures during yesterday?s hearing, quoting Mr. Quinonez, at lines 22?23, page 33, of the rough transcript, in support of their position. PERB and UTLA disagree with Defendants? legal assertion and proposed language because nothing in EERA section 3543.1(b) equates union access with the rights of access belonging to the public at large. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELINHNARY INJUNCTION Page 4, lines 6-7 {Defendants must not engage in monitoring of employee contact with UTLA organizers, and} SAME ISSUE AS- PAGE 2, LINES 19-20 OF TRO. Page 4, lines 18?21 {and in the same manner and pursuant to the same guidelines under which Defendants allow access to work sites during after-school hours to members of the public at large, including after-school partners} ISSUE AS PAGE 3, LINES 4~6 OF TRO. Page 4, lines 25-27 discriminating and retaliating against teacher Albert Chu (Chu) because he exercised rights under EERA in accordance with rights afforded to employees under and UTLA assert that this sentence should remain because while it is clear that your Honor does not agree that the alleged retaliation against Mr. Chu is appropriate for the TRO, the chilling effect of the alleged retaliation, separate and apart from Mr. Chu?s individual rights and remedies, remains in question and is appropriate for consideration in the OSC. Defendants quote your Honor, at lines 2?6 and 16-19, page 36, of the rough transcript, in support of their opposition to The Court: The Order to Show Cause I think will include everything that you have asked except I?m striking Paragraph 2 on Page 5. Under no circumstances would I order them as part of an injunction to restore Mr. Chu to his position. That is an issue not for injunctive relief, but for a lawsuit. Separate lawsuit. October 28, 2015 Page 3 There are remedies for Mr. Chu that are not really part of this lawsuit it seems to me. Okay, so I an; going to issue the TRO on the terms stated and Order to Show Cause exactly as you have asked for except Mr. Chu. The parties have reviewed this letter and all three agree that this letter fairly presents the parties? instant dispute over the Order. Therefore, We respectfully request that your Honor review the attached order and strike or keep language, particularly the disputed language shown in brackets, that re?ects the Order your Honor rendered yesterday. 'ee ss Senior'Regional Attorney cc: Ronald Valenzuela, Attorney, Proskauer Rose, LLP Jesus Quinonez, Attorney, Bush Gottlieb