STATE OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD UNFAIR PRACTICE CHARGE 1 DO NOT Will?TE IN SPACE: Case No: Date Filed: File the original and one copy of this charge form In the appropriate PERB regional of?ce (see PERB Regulation 32075), with proof of service attached to each copy. ProperI ling includes concurrent service and proof of service of the charge as required by PERB Regulation 32615(c). All forms are available from the regional of?ces or PERB's website at perb. ca. gov. If more space is needed for any item on this form, attach additional sheets and number items. I IS THIS AN AMENDED YES Ifso. Case No. NO I l. CHARGING PARTY: EMPLOYEE EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION EMPLOYER Full Los Angeles Uni?ed School District b. Mailing address: 333 South Beaudry Avenue I Los Angeles, CA 90017 c. Telephone number: 213.241.1000 d' Name and title of David Holmquist. General Counsel E-mail Mare?: david.holmquist@lausd.net person ?ling charge: Telephone number: 213.241.8444 213.241.4513 e. Bargaining unitts) I d: mm United Teachers Los Angeles 2. CHARGE FILED AGAINST: (mark one only) EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION EMPLOYER Full name: United Teachers Los Angeles Mailing address: 3303 Wilshirc Blvd. 10th loor, Los CA 90010 c. Telephone number: 213.487.5560 11- Name "I'd of Alex Capulo-Pcari, President E?mail Address: acapntopearlt?iutlanet agent to contact: Telephone number: 213. 368.6245 Fax No.: 213. 368. 6256 3. NAME OF EMPLOYER (Complete this section only il'the charge 15 ?led against an _employee organization. 3- Fll? Los Angeles Uni?ed School District II. Mailing address: 333 South Beaudry Avenue. Los Angelcs. CA 90017 4. A PPOINTING POWER: (Com piete this section only ifthe employer is the State of California. See Gov. Code,? 18524.) a. Full name: 11. Mailing address: c. Agent: section 3523. 3547, 3547.5. or 3595. or Public Utilities Code section 99569. (Till/2014) SEE REVERSE SIDE An affected member of the public may only ti lo a charge relating to an alleged public notice violation. pursuant to Government Code 5. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE Are the parties covered by an agreement containing a grievance procedure which ends in binding arbitration? Yes_._ No i 6. STATEMENT OF CHARGE a. The char ing party hereby alleges that the above-named respondent is under thejurisdiction of: (check one) a Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA) (Gov. Code, 3540 et seq.) i:iRalph C. Dills Act (Gov. Code, 3512 et seq.) Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA) (Gov. Code, 3560 et seq.) Act (MMBA) (Gov. Code, 3500 et seq.) Los Angeles County Metropolitan fransportation Authority Transit Employer-Employee Relations Act (TEERA) (Pub. Utilities Code. 99560 et seq.) Trial Court Employment Protection and Governance Act (Trial Court Act) (Article 3; Gov. Code. 71630 71639.5) i:iTrial Court Interpreter Employment and Labor Relations Act (Court Interpreter Act) (Gov. Code, 71800 et seq.) b- The specific Government or Public litilities Code section(s), or PERB regulation section(s) alleged to have been violated isfare: Gov. Code section 3543.6(c) and For MMBA, Trial Court Act and Court Interpreter Act cases, if applicable, the specific local ru e(s) alleged to have been violated is/are (a copy girlie applicable local raids) MUST be attached to the charge): 43- Provide a clear and concise statement of the conduct alleged to constitute an unfair practice including, where known, the time and place of each instance of respondent?s conduct, and the name and capacity ofeach person involved. This must be a statement of the facts that support your claim and not conclusions of law. A statement of the remedy sought must also be provided. (the and attach additiona! sheets of paper ifaecessary.) See "Attachment To Unfair Practice Charge." Pursuant to PERB Regulation 32147, Charging Party requests that a hearing in this matter be expedited. DECLARATION I declare under penalty of perjury that I have read the above charge and that the statements herein are true and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief and that this declaration was executed on August 28. 2018 (Date) Los Angeles, California (City and State) Robert A. Samples (Type or-Print Name) -. i i I (Signat?ef Title, i fany: Interim Director of Labor Relations 333 South Beaudry Avenue Los CA 90027 Mailing address: (mzrzom PROOF OF SERVICE I declare that I am a resident of or employed in the County of L05 Angeles State Of California . 1 am over the age of 18 years. The name and address of my residence or business is Littler Mendelson PC On August 27, 2018 1 served the Unfair Practice Charge and Notice Of {Date) (Description ofdocument(s)) Appearance Form (Description of document(s) continued) on the parties listed below (include name, address and, where applicable, fax number) by (check the applicable method or methods): placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope for collection and delivery by the United States Postal Service or private delivery service following ordinary business practices with postage or other costs prepaid; personal delivery; facsimile transmission in accordance with the requirements of PERB Regulations 32090 and (Include here the name, address and. where applicable, fax number of the Respondent and any other parties served.) Alex Caputo-Pearl, President United Teachers Los Angeles 3303 Wilshire Blvd., 10th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90010 Fax - 213.368.6256 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this August 28, 2018 at Los Angeles CA declaration was executed on (Date) (City) (State) Annette Ryan (Type or print name) @naturei' ATTACHMENT TO UNFAIR PRACTICE CHARGE I. INTRODUCTION Under the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA), speci?cally Government Code Section 3543.6, it is unlawful for an employee organization to refuse or fail to meet and negotiate in good faith with a public school employer, and it is unlaw?sl for an employee organization to refuse to participate in good faith in the impasse procedure set forth in the EERA. As set forth in more detail below, Respondent United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA) has refused or failed to meet and negotiate in good faith with Charging Party Los Angeles Uni?ed School District (LAUSD or District), and has refused to participate in good faith in the impasse procedure set forth in EERA. Instead, UTLA has engaged in course of conduct calculated to time a strike for a period where it can in?ict maximum punishment on children and parents so that UTLA may extract ?nancial concessions from the District. unlawful conduct includes engaging in surface bargaining, take-it-or-leave-it bargaining, ultimatums, and rushes to and through the impasse process. UTLA has also engaged in a per se unfair practice by scheduling and conducting a strike vote before the ?rst session of impasse process mediation. LAUSD submits that an employee organization commits a per se violation of the EERA when it holds a strike vote before the conclusion of fact?nding and, a fortiorr?, before the commencement of impasse process mediation. The District requests that a Complaint be issued, and that the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) issue the following remedial orders: 1. UTLA ordered to cease and desist from failing to negotiate with the District in good faith, including failure to engage in good faith with all applicable impasse procedures; 2. UTLA leadership ordered to attend a minimum 3-day training session regarding the duties and obligations of unions/associations to negotiate in good faith under the 3. UTLA ordered to make the District whole for any losses suffered by conduct; 4. UTLA ordered to post a notice in locations to be determined and to issue a notice to all UTLA bargaining unit members advising them of violations of the EERA, and of the content of the PERB order; and 5. Any and all ?rrther remedial action as PERB deems appropriate. II. FACTS A. The Parties LAUSD is the largest public school district in the State of California and the second largest public school district in the United States. LAUSD serves over 500,000 students, and employs approximately 60,000 employees. LAUSD is the second largest employer in Los Angeles County, after the county government, and the District?s budget is in excess of $7 billion. LAUSD and UTLA are parties to a collective bargaining agreement covering over 25,000 certi?cated employees of the District, including teachers as well as health and human services certi?cated employees. UTLA was at all relevant times, and is now, a recognized employee organization within the meaning of Government Code section 3540.10), and is the exclusive representative of the positions that fall within the UTLA unit. LAUSD is a public school employer within the meaning of Government Code section B. Unlawful And Bad Faith Course Of Dealings. With respect to negotiations on a successor agreement to the parties? current agreement, the parties held their ?rst negotiation session on or around April 20, 2017. Below is an overview of conduct which demonstrates that UTLA has engaged in bad faithfsurface bargaining throughout the course of the parties? negotiations. I. LA Repeatedly Failed 0r Refused 0 Make Movement Towards Compromise On The Numerous Items That Were he Subject 0f At-The-T able Negotiations. a. On or about June 1, 2017, UTLA made an initial pr0posal on Article IX, Hours, Duties and Work Year. Despite the District issuing a counter-proposal, in reply UTLA essentially resubmitted the same initial proposal six more times, as follows: on September 15, 2017, October 12, 2017, March 1, 2018, May 24, 2018, June 1, 2018, and July 24, 2018. b. On or about June 6, 2017, UTLA made an initial proposal on Article X, Educator Development, Support and Evaluation. Despite the District twice issuing counter-proposals, UTLA resubmitted the same initial proposal four more times, as follows: on October 4, 2017, March 15, 2018, June 1, 2018, and July 24, 2018. c. On or about July 7, 2017, UTLA made an initial pmposal on Article XI, Transfers. Despite the District issuing a counter-proposal, in reply UTLA either resubmitted essentially the same proposal or included new language that was regressive, contained predictably unacceptable language, and which was so in?exible that it could only have been designed to frustrate the parties? negotiations, as follows: on October 4, 2017, January 12, 2018, April 12, 2018, June 1, 2018, and July 24, 2018. d. On or about April 20, 2017, UTLA made an initial proposal on Article XII, Leaves of Absence. Despite the District issuing a counter-proposal, in reply UTLA either resubmitted essentially the same proposal or included new language that was regressive, contained predictably unacceptable language, and which was so in?exible that it could only have been designed to frustrate the parties? negotiations, as follows: on October 4, 2017, April 12, 2018, June 1, 2018, and July 24, 2018. c. On or about May 25, 2017, UTLA made an initial proposal on Article XIV, Salaries. Despite the District issuing several counter-proposals, and with the exception of one very minor reply counter, in reply UTLA either resubmitted essentially the same proposal or included new proposals that were regressive, contained predictably unacceptable language, and which was so in?exible that it could only have been designed to frustrate the parties? negotiations, as follows: on October 4, 2017, October 12, 2017, November 2, 2017, March 15, 2018, June 1, 2018, and July 24, 2018. In particular, after the District issued a counter of 2% one-time, UTLA took six months before moving off its initial proposal of 7% on-schedule retroactive to July 1, 2016, and even then only reduced the demand by to 6.5% (UTLA proposal made November 2017). The District made substantial movement, by adding a proposal for a 2% raise, effective July 1, 2017. At no time since the District?s concession (November 2017), has UTLA made any movement on salary, even though the District has openly stated that it could move further if there were movement from UTLA in bargaining. f. On or about May 25, 2017, UTLA made an initial proposal on Article Class Size. Despite the District issuing several counter-proposals, in reply UTLA either resubmitted essentially the same proposal or included new language that was regressive, contained predictably unacceptable language, and which was so in?exible that it could only have been designed to frustrate the parties? negotiations, as follows: on August 21, 2017, September 15,2017, October 4, 2017, March 15, 2018, April 26, 2018, June 1, 2018, and July 24, 2018. g. On or about June 20, 2017, UTLA made a proposal on Article XIX, Substitutes. Despite the District issuing several counter-proposals, in reply UTLA either resubmitted essentially the same proposal or included new language that was regressive, contained predictably unacceptable language, and which was so in?exible that it could only have been designed to frustrate the parties? negotiations, as follows: on October 30, 2017, February 1, 2018, June 1, 2018, and July 24, 2018. h. On or about June 20, 2017, UTLA made a proposal on Article Early Education Centers. Despite the District issuing several counter-proposals, in reply UTLA either resubmitted essentially the same proposal or included new language that was regressive, contained predictably unacceptable language, and which was so in?exible that it could only have been designed to frustrate the parties? negotiations, as follows: on September 15, 2017, February 1,2018, April 26, 2018,June 1,2018, and July 24, 2018. i. On or about July 7, 2017, UTLA made an initial proposal on Article XXIV, Student Discipline. Despite the District issuing several counter-proposals, in reply UTLA essentially resubmitted the same prOposal four more times, as follows: on January 12, 2018, March 15, 2018, June 1, 2018 and July 24, 2018. j. On or about August 21, 2017, UTLA made a proposal on Article XXV, Academic Freedom and Responsibility. Despite the District issuing several counter-proposals, in reply UTLA essentially resubmitted the same proposal six more times, as follows: on September 15, 2017, November 2, 2017, January 12, 2018, May 24, 2018, June 1,2018 and July 24, 2018. k. On or about April 20, 2017, UTLA made an initial proposal on Article XXVII, Shared Decision Making and School Based Management. Despite the District issuing several counter-proposals, in reply UTLA either resubmitted essentially the same proposal or included new language that was regressive, contained predictably unacceptable language, and which was so in?exible that it could only have been designed to frustrate the parties? negotiations, as follows: on September 15, 2017, November 2, 2017, January 12, 2018, March 1, 2018, June 1, 2018, and July 24, 2018. 1. On or about June 1, 2017, UTLA made an initial proposal on Article IX-A, Assignment. Despite the District issuing several counter-proposals, in reply UTLA either resubmitted essentially the same proposal or included new language that was regressive, contained predictably unacceptable language, and which was so in?exible that it could only have been designed to frustrate the parties? negotiations, as follows: on September 15, 2017, October 4, 2017, April 12, 2018, May 24, 2018, June 1, 2018, and July 24,2018. m. On or about July 19, 2017, UTLA made an initial proposal on Article XI-B, Master Plan Program. Despite the District issuing several counter-proposals, in reply UTLA either resubmitted essentially the same proposal or included new language that was regressive, contained predictably unacceptable language, and which was so in?exible that it could only have been designed to frustrate the parties? negotiations, as follows: on September 15, 2017, February 15,2018, June 1, 2018, and July 24, 2018. 2. UT LA Persisted In Demanding Bargaining 0n Non-Negotiable Items, Relenting Only On The Day TLA Unexpectedly And Prematurely Declared Impasse. On or about September 15, 2017, UTLA provided the District a packet of bargaining proposals entitled ?Supporting Our Students and Empowering Our Community Empowerment.? The District provided responses to these proposals on November 2, 2017, November 30, 2017, January 12, 2018, and February 15, 2018, explaining to UTLA that the bargaining demands related to public policy and were outside the scope of bargaining and prohibited from bargaining under the EERA. The District did, however, express its willingness to work collaboratively with UTLA on these issues outside of the bargaining process. UTLA ignored the District?s objections and continued to assert these proposals and provided them to the District again in another packet as a proposal on June 1, 2018. UTLA did not withdraw these proposals until July 2, 2018 the same day that UTLA unexpectedly and prematurely declared impasse for the ?rst time. 3. From 2016 Through To LA ?s Declarations 0f Impasse In Summer 2018, TLA Openly Announced Their Strike Strategy. From 2016 through to declarations of impasse in Summer 2018, UTLA openly announced their strike strategy. Examples include the following: a. ?With our contract expiring in June 2017, the next year and a half must be founded upon building our capacity to strike, and our capacity to create a state crisis, in early 2018. There simply may be no other way to protect our health bene?ts and to shock the system into investing in the civic institution of public education.? (Alex Caputo-Pearl, State of the Union 2016 Address, August 24, 2016) b. ?While 20 by 20 does not align on the calendar perfectly with our February 2018 compression point, using the next six months to push 20 by 20 onto the public stage, and organize support behind it, will force elected of?cials all over the city, county, state, and nation to consider how to intervene in a 2018 LA public school crisis or strike if the district forces us in that direction.? Alex Caputo-Pearl, State of the Union Speech, August 2, 2017) 4. TLA Hastily Declared Impasse, And Based The Declaration 0n Improper Extraneous Matters. With little to no advance warning, by letter dated July 2, 2018, UTLA advised LAUSD that UTLA intended to ?le a declaration of impasse with the PERB, even though UTLA had a pre- scheduled bargaining session on July 24, 2018. In July 2, 2018 letter, UTLA emphasized the District?s selection of a new Superintendent and recommendations made by a blue-ribbon panel as reasons for declaring impasse. These matters were not a proper basis to declare impasse. A copy of July 2, 2018 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 5. TLA Withdraws Its Impasse Declaration, Submits A ake?It-Or-Leave It Set Of Demands, Schedules A Strike Vote, And Redeclares Impasse. After the District opposed the impasse declaration and proffered extensive evidence and argument re?ecting the absence of a true impasse, UTLA reluctantly withdrew its impasse declaration before PERB issued its decision on whether there really was a proper impasse. UTLA then engaged in the following further bad?faith conduct: I Submitted a take-it-or-leave-it set of bargaining demands 0 Scheduled a strike vote 6. Upon Commencement Of The Impasse Process, TIA Issued Histrionieal Demands That The Mediation Process Wrap-up Quickly So That It Could Commence Its Strike In October. With nearly 20 open issues, and the school year just commencing, upon redeclaring impasse, UTLA sought to race through the impasse process so that it could commence a strike in October 2018. When the schedule was not swift enough, UTLA went around the assigned mediator, writing to the Chief mediator, and demanding that mediation be bypassed, and the matter certi?ed to fact?nding, so that UTLA could strike as soon as possible (?engage in When that request was denied, UTLA, in violation of PERB rules, wrote directly to the PERB General Counsel and the Board itself, demanding that the process be expedited. Copies of letters are attached hereto collectively as Exhibit 2. 7. LA Scheduled And Is Conducting A Strike Vote From August 23 to 30, 2018, Before Even One Impasse Process Mediation Session Has Been Held. UTLA scheduled and is now conducting a strike on August 23 to 30, 2018. C. Standard For Evaluating Claims 0f Bad Faith Bargaining. Bad faith bargaining occurs when a party goes through the motions of negotiations but, in fact, engages in other conduct to delay, prevent agreement, frustrate, or avoid the negotiation process. Pajaro Valley Uni?ed School Dist. (1978) PERB Dec. No. 51. As PERB has stated: It is the essence of surface bargaining that a party goes through the motions of negotiations, but in fact is weaving otherwise objectionable conduct into an entangling fabric to delay or prevent agreement. Speci?c conduct of the charged party, which when viewed in isolation may be wholly proper, may when placed in the narrative history of the negotiations, support a conclusion that the charged party was not negotiating with the requisite subjective intent to reach agreement. Such behavior is the antithesis of negotiating in good faith. Muroc Unified School Dist. (1978) PERB Dec. No. 80. Under the totality of the circumstances test, PERB looks to the entire course of negotiations to determine the subjective intent of the party. Pajaro Valley Unified School Dist. (1978) PERB Decision No. 51; South Bay Union School Dist. (1990) PERB Decision No. 815. A party may engage in surface bargaining when it goes through the motions of negotiating but engages in other conduct meant to ?delay, prevent agreement, frustrate or avoid the negotiation process.? South Bay Union School Dist. (1990) PERB Decision No. 815 Factors considered include: (1) frequent turnover in negotiators, (2) negotiator?s lack of authority, (3) lack of preparation for bargaining sessions, (4) missing, delayed of cancelling bargaining sessions, (5) insistence on ground rules before negotiating substantive issues, (6) taking an in?exible position, (7) regressive bargaining proposals, (8) predictably unacceptable counterproposals, and (9) repudiation of a tentative agreement. Regents of the University of California (2010) PERB Dec. No. 2094-1-1 A party?s conditioning an agreement on economic matters upon agreement on non- economic matters may also demonstrate bad faith bargaining. Fremont Unified School Dist. (1990) PERB Decision No. 136. Furthermore, a predetermined plan to strike before completion of the impasse procedures also constitutes a failure to participate in the impasse procedures in good faith. South Bay Union School Dist. (1990) PERB Dec. No. 815. A single incident is suf?cient to state a claim for bad faith bargaining. City of San Jose (2013) PERB Decision No. 2341-M. Here, as demonstrated above, ULTA has done nothing more than go through the motions of bargaining with no true intent of reaching an agreement. The above detailed facts are all strong indicia that ULTA has not ful?lled its obligation to bargain with the District in good faith. To further carry out purpose, the Legislature established extensive post-impasse dispute resolution procedures, which apply when the parties cannot reach agreement through good faith negotiation. See Gov. Code section 3548 et seq. (PERB determines impasse upon either party's declaration of impasse and appoints a mediator; failing mediation, the dispute must be submitted to a neutral fact-?nder, who shall make advisory ?ndings if the parties are unable to reach a settlement). It is well established that a threatened strike, even if not illegal per se, may constitute an unfair practice under the EERA. San Diego Teachers Assn. v. San Diego Co. Superior Ct. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 1, 8-9. Here, as shown more fully above, during the parties? bargaining and even after rushing to impasse, ULTA has engaged in strike related conduct, including scheduling a strike vote, all of which conduct is a violation of EERA and further evidence of the fact that UTLA has not engaged in the bargaining process in good faith. See, e.g. Regents of the University of California (2010) PERB Dec. No. 2094-H at *32 strike prior to the exhaustion of statutory impasse procedures creates a rebuttable presumption that the employee organization is either refusing to negotiate in good faith (if the strike occurs before impasse is declared) or to participate in the impasse procedures in good faith?); accord Westminster School Dist. (1982) PERB Dec. No. 227, 7 PERC 1] 14034, Fresno School Dist. (1982) PERB Dec. No. 208, 6 PERC 1 13110, and Fremont Unified School Dist. (1990) PERB Order No. 14 PERC 1] 21107 (same). The District alleges that the holding of a strike authorization vote before exhaustion of the impasse process and, afortiori, pre-mediation is per se proof of bad faith bargaining. Prior to exhaustion of the impasse process, it is impossible for union leadership to properly inform its membership of the position of the parties because the bargaining process is ongoing. Any authorization would be obtained for the sole purpose of coercing concessions during a collaborative process, and would undermine the conciliatory environment designed to be fostered through the state-mandated impasse procedures. conduct individually and collectively establishes that it has violated Government Code section 3543.6(c) and and that a Complaint should be issued against UTLA. REMEDY REQUESTED By the above, ULTA has violated its duty to bargain in good faith under Government Code section and its duty to participate in good faith in the impasse process under section The District requests that a Complaint be issued, and that the PERB issue the following remedial orders: 1. UTLA ordered to cease and desist from failing to negotiate with the District in good faith, including failure to engage in good faith with all applicable impasse procedures; 2. UTLA leadership ordered to attend a minimum 3-day training session regarding the duties and obligations of unions/associations to negotiate in good faith under the 3. UTLA ordered to make the District whole for any losses suffered by conduct; 4. UTLA ordered to post a notice in locations to be determined and to issue a notice to all UTLA bargaining unit members advising them of violations of the EERA, and of the content of the PERB order; and 5. Any and all ?thher remedial action as PERB deems appropriate. Finnwidc.156538459 I3 050758.]031 EXHIBIT 1 UTLA reassess OFFICERS ALEX President :55ch mast-can: UTWNEA Vice President more President JUAN RAMIREZ Vice President Local 1021 President GLORIA MARTINEZ Elementary Vice President DANIEL MRNIIART Secondary Vice President ALEX onozco treasurer AltiEtiE INOUYE Secretory JEFF 6000 Executive Director . July2,2018 Najeeb Khoury, LAU SD, Of?ce of Labor Relations 333 S. Beaudry Avenue Los Angeies, CA 90017 Hello Najeeb, The members of United Teachers Los Angeles believe that neighborhood public schools should serve as the essential anchors of our communities. As educators we see first-hand what students need in our classrooms, our schools, our clinics, and our neighborhoods, and we deal with the issues that too o?en prevent those needs from being met. UTLA believes that educators, parents, and community partners must work together to take on the issues of economic, social, and racial justice?all of which impact student learning and our ability to meet their holistic needs. We also believe that collective bargaining is a process through which this can happen. Unfortunately, the current LAUSD Board of Education majority. paid for by corporate interests from around the country, has no respect for the civic institution of public education. Furthermore, the same Board majority?s recent selection of a wealthy businessman with no experience in education as the new superintendent, in the most undemocratic fashion imaginable. is evidence of a master plan to convince the public that our schools are failing, demonize career educators, enact policies that facilitate the growth of charter schools, and to ultimately downsize and dismantle the district. The UTLA Bargaining Team began negotiating a successor collective bargaining agreement benveen UTLA and LAUSD on April 20, 2017 and has bargained in good faith with the district over 18 sessions, with the goal of using this process to achieve transformative change for our school communities. Our proposals would increase educator salaries, reduce class sizes, provide more health human services stall} signi?cantly reduce testing, increase parent and educator power oVer school site spending, require investment in community schools, expand the Master Plan for language learning, ensure access to ethnic studies for all students, improve school safety and student discipline practices, provide reasonable oversight at co-Iocatcd schools and basic accountability for charter schools within the district, and improve our programs for cariy education and adult education. We have made proposals that would fundamentally improve the learning conditions of students and the working conditions of educators. Additionally, we?ve challenged LAUSD to think boldly and broadly about how to use bargaining to address the myriad challenges in our school communities that impact student success. We?ve made proposals for more green space on campuses, an end to the random weapon searches that alienate our students. district investments to support students and their families in response to the horri?c immigration policies of the Trump administration, and institutional support from the district for greater school funding, sustainable housing policies in a city overwhelmed by homelessness, and an end to discrimination against students of color in our public transit systems. Unfortunately, the district has approached collective bargaining in a very different way. From our perspective, you, as the district?s chief negotiator, have been inappropriately denied the authority to bargain in good faith by the Board majority, and thus prevented from working collaboratively at the table toward an agreement. LAUSD has responded to our bargaining package with very few new proposals, limited counterproposals, an unwillingness to bargain on permissive subjects that will help students succeed, and an overall disdain for the process. Despite the continued loss of students untied teachers to; Annie: . .1303 Wiishire Blvd. Floor. to: Angelou, CA some - (2133 ?7-5360 . Serving to: Angela: teachers with the Colitomlo teachers Education Association and the California Federation oi TeochorstAmorieon Federation oi Teachers. UTLA assess-sass OFFICERS Alex carmo-rmt President meat-can: UMNEA Vice President urwuat President JUAN RAMIREZ Vice President Local 1021 President GLORIA Elementary Vice Presldent DANIEL WNW Secondary Vice President ALEX OROZCO treasurer ARLENE Secretary JEFF 6000 Executive Director to charter expansion and city-wide gentri?cation, the Board majority has taken actions to accelerate the loss of students, paid lip service to addressing the lack of necessary state funding, and defended their maintenance of the largest unrestricted reserves in the state. UTLA has attempted to engage the district in a thought?il and progressive bargaining relationship that paves the way toward a better future for LAUSD, but it?s become increasingly clear that the current Board majority. along with their handpicked superintendent, has a different goal. Prior to his of?cial appointment (he clearly had the job for months), Austin Beutner put together a ?District Advisory Task Force" which contracted with an outside company called ERS to create a report that analyzes the allocation of resources in LAUSD. Predictably, the report uses dishonest research and ludicrous comparisons, while laying down a cynical roadmap of destruction for the district. It?s essentially a report created to support predetermined conclusions and justify a type of private equity ?wind down" of LAUSD. Creating the task force and pushing their slanted report is a tactic consistent with the general animus shown by the Board majority for the district they run and the employees who work for them. It?s a tactic consistent with Beutner?s resume, which includes years of buying up corporations and then tearing them apart. Finally, it?s a tactic consistent with the Board majority's approach to bargaining and their unwillingness to bargain in good faith on proposals that will help students, help the district, and help our school communities. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that the parties have reached a bargaining deadlock. Accordingly, UTLA is withdrawing its proposals on all permissive subjects of bargaining, including proposals resubmitted at our last bargaining session on June 1, 2018 under the topics of A?ordoble Housing Student Homelessness, Green Space on Campuses, Student Rights Support, Support for Immigrant Families, and Certificated Support for ?aming and. To be clear, educators understand that the lives of our students outside of the classroom are fundamentally relevant to what happens inside the classroom. So while the district abdicates responsibility for addressing these issues despite their impact on student success, UTLA will continue organizing with parents, students, and the community to press the Board majority for solutions. Furthermore, in accordance with Article IX, Section 3548 of the Educational Employment Relations Act, UTLA hereby declares that an impasse has been reached in bargaining with LAUSD over matters within the mandatory scope of bargaining and will submit the appropriate paperwork to the California Public Employment Relations Board on Tuesday, July 3, 2018. It is our hope that a state appointed mediator can assist the parties in achieving a bargaining agreement on terms which are mutually acceptable. Sincerely, Jeff on UTLA ec ive Director cc: Alex Caputo-Pearl, UTLA President Arlene Inouye, UTLA Bargaining Chair Austin Beutner, LAUSD Superintendent Rob Samples, Of?ce of Labor Relations Untied Teachers los Annalee - 3303 llvd. torn Floor. to: Angetec. CA 90010 [21314074560 Serving toe Angelo: teachers wltl'l the California Teachers Neoclallaamutlonal Education Annotation and the Californlo Federallon at Teochenmnertcan Federation ot Teachers. wo- EXHIBIT 2 jushua Adams Megan L. Peter S. Dickinson?t Ir: 1.. Gottlicb? BUSH GOTTLIEB A Law Corporation julte Guunan Dickinson David E. Ahdoot Kiel B. Ireland Robert A- Bush 801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 950 Joseph A. l-lcctor Dc 1 Into Glendale California 91203 Dana S. Martinez Kirk Prestegard Lisa C. Demidovich# Telephone (813) 973-3200 Dexter Erica Dcu?ch Facsimile (818) 973-3201 HOPCJ- Sins? mvwbushgottliebcom Traverso 1 1250-28020 Also admitted in New York +Also ullrtilml in Nevada August 1 O, 201 8 ?Also admitted in DC Direct Dial: (818) 973-3219 Of Counsel: igottlicb@bushgottlicb com David VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL Loretta van der Pol Chief State Mediation and Conciliation Service 1031 18th Street Sacramento, CA 95811 Re: UTLA and LAUSD Dear Ms. van der Pol: This of?ce represents United Teachers-Les Angelcs or ?Union") in connection with the above-referenced labor dispute, currently in mediation albeit only nominally so, for reasons that prompt this letter, explained below. In response to UTLA's declaration of impasse on July 24th, and over the July 26th objections of the Los Angeles Uni?ed School District or ?District?) (letter attached), your agency agreed that the parties had reached impasse, and on August 2nd appointed Mediator Gerald Adams, in accordance with California Government Code ?3548. In light of the foot-dragging that has followed, it is worthy of note that in the District?s July 26th letter denying impasse, its Director of Labor Relations Najeeb Khoury declared - without irony, as far as we?re aware that the District was ?committed to continue working toward a fair contract, which supports students, teachers, and all Los Angeles Uni?ed stakeholders.? In furtherance of that stated objective, Mr. Khoury pronounced the District ?prepared to continue bargaining?, proposing a session for August 7th. In keeping with the brisk pace for this impasse process mandated by the legislature (see Gov?t. Code on the very day of his appointment Mr. Adams offered the parties the following 3548.1. Fact ?nding panel; request; selection of panel; chairperson If the mediator is unable to effect settlement of the controversy within 15 days after his appointment and the mediator declares that factfinding is appropriate to the resolution of the impasse, either party may, by written notification to the other, request that their dt?erences be submitted to a fac?indt?ng panel. Within ?ve days after receipt of the written request, each party 629957.] OPEIU Local 537 VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL Loretta van der Pol August 10, 2018 Page 2 mediation dates: Monday, August 215?, Tuesday, August Thursday, Sept Monday, Sept and Wednesday, Sept On Saturday, August the Union noti?ed Mr. Adams that it was available on all of those proposed dates. Suddenly, however, the District?s pre-impasse enthusiasm for bargaining vanished, replaced by resistance and evasion. It found none of the proposed dates acceptable, and with much prodding, offered Up September 27th. Interim Labor Relations Director Robert Samples con?rmed the District?s bad faith about-face when he told UTLA Executive Director Jeff Good that the reason for the District?s abrupt desire for a hiatus was the need for ?a smooth beginning to the school year." That is patent nonsense. The District is aware that at least absent bad faith, the parties cannot engage in self-help until impasse procedures are completed, and that completion could not be accomplished, even if the District fully cooperated with statutorily-required alacrity, until after the school year which starts this coming Monday, August 13th -- was well underway. If Mr. Samples? stated desire for early serenity was intended to re?ect a concern about possible exercise of its lawful expressive rights distinct from self-help, that potential is not in any way tied to or dictated by the stage of collective bargaining the parties ?nd themselves in. Nor is the District?s inordinate delay a permissible device to use to attempt to regulate the Union?s organizing activities. Indeed, the District?s attempt to apply the brakes at precisely the moment when the law requires an increasingly robust focus on the process is a provocation that makes such action by the Union more attractive. As noted above, the statute authorizes the mediator to declare that mediation is ineffective and fact?nding appropriate as quickly as 15 days after his appointment. While UTLA is fully cognizant of the parties? other obligations and the need for careful preparation and coordination, there is no excuse for a 5 6-day chasm between appointment and the ?rst day of mediation, as requested by LAUSD. The District?s stated rationale for the delay, having nothing to do with participants? availability or preparation, but instead an invalid yearning for a ?ctive peace that in any event has no connection to the delay it seeks, smacks of bad faith. Government Code ?3543.5(e) speci?cally enumerates employer bad faith to include a ?(r)efus(al) to participate in good faith in the impasse procedure set forth in Article See, Fresno Uni?ed School Dist. v. National Education Assn, (1981) 125 Cal. App. 3d 259, 265, 177 Cal. Rptr. 888. shall select a person to serve as its member of the fact?nding panel. The board shall, within ?ve days after such selection, select a chairperson of the fact?nding panel. The chairperson designated by the board shall not, without the consent of both parties, be the same person who served as mediator pursuant to Section 3548. 2 To be sure, August 21? and 22??1 are a Tuesday and a Wednesday. We suspect that the dates intended to be offered were Monday and Tuesday, August 20 and 21. 6299511 OPEIU Local 53? VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL Loretta van der Pol August 10, 2018 Page 3 The Union therefore respectfully requests that unless the District reconsiders its proposed delay in scheduling the ?rst session of mediation, and accepts a mediation date in Augusta, the SMCS declare mediation futile and order the parties to fact?nding in accordance with EERA 3548.1. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation. Very truly yours, Bush Gottlieb A Law Corporation lra L. Gottlieb cc: Alex Caputo-Pearl Arlene Inouye Jeff Good Josh Adams Vem Gates Gerry Adams Robert Samples 2 In that regard, insofar as another available mediator may have other dates in August that the District will agree to, the Union would urge that the SMCS appoint that mediator to assist the parties. 62995?. Local 5.3? BUSH GOTTLIEB A Law Corporation :nshJa -\dnms julic Gutman Dickinson David 1" .\hdonr Kiel B. Ireland Ruhr? Bush 801. North Brand Boulevard, Suite 950 JIM-cribA Katha-??1?? Lilli: ifii?gzza Glendale: Califmia 9120-? Ella?? 1.15:: C. l)cmidnvich# (818) 9736200 Dexter I'llrica l-Dcursch Facsimile (818) 973-3201 Hope J: Singer- Katherine M. [raver-so 11250-23020 I . August 16, 2013 it -\Im In Washington DC . Direct Dial: (818) Til-3219 of Lo: mscl: igottlich@busl1gottlicb.corn David VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL Felix De La Torre General Counsel Public Employment Relations Board 103] 18th Street Sacramento, CA 95811 t?delaton'efcjiperbcagov Re: LAUSD Mediation Stalling and SMCS Toleration; Case No. LA-IM-4001-E Dear Mr De La Torre: This of?ce represents United Teachers-Los Angeles or ?Union?) in connection with the above-referenced labor dispute, currently in mediation, subject to slow-walking by the employer, Los Angeles Uni?ed School District or ?District?), contrary to the governing law. I write to complain of the District?s stalling tactics, and the SMCS's failure to adequately respond thereto, in fact seeming to cooperate with the District?s unprecedented de?ance of what is intended to be an expeditious and focused process. Seguence of Events in response to declaration of impasse on July 24?'1 and over the July 26?? and 315' objections of the Los Angeles Uni?ed School District or ?District?) (letter attached), on August 1, your agency agreed that the parties had reached impasse, and on August 2nd appointed Mediator Gerald Adams, in accordance with California Govemment Code ?3548. In light of the District foot-dragging that followed, it is worthy of note that in the District's July 26?" letter denying impasse, its then-Director of Labor Relations Najeeb Khoury declared that the District was ?committed to continue working toward a fair contract, which supports students, teachers, and all Los Angeles Uni?ed stakeholders." In furtherance of that stated objective, Mr. Khoury pronounced the District ?prepared to continue bargaining,? proposing a session for August 7th. All dates noted are in 2018 unless otherwise stated. 3115.1 I Bil-28004 VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL Felix De La Torre August 16, 2018 Page 2 In keeping with the brisk pace for this impasse process mandated by the legislature (see Gov?t. Code 3548.12), on the very day of his August 2 appointment Mr. Adams offered the parties the following mediation dates: Monday, August 21?, Tuesday, August 22?" 3, Thursday, Sept Monday, Sept and Wednesday, Sept On Saturday, August the Union noti?ed Mr. Adams that it was available to mediate on all of those proposed dates. Suddenly, however, the District?s pre-impasse enthusiasm for bargaining vanished, replaced by resistance and evasion. It found none of the proposed dates acceptable, and with much prodding, offered up September 27th. Interim Labor Relations Director Robert Samples con?rmed the District?s bad faith about- face when he told UTLA Executive Director Jeff Good that the reason for the District?s abrupt desire for a hiatus was the need for ?a smooth beginning to the school year.? On August 10, I wrote to Chief Mediator Loretta van der Pol to protest the District?s delay tactics, demanding that in light of the District?s admission that it was unwilling to devote any of its vast resources to mediation in or near the time frame contemplated by statute, it exercise its authority to bypass mediation and progress to fact?nding. On August 12, attorney Barrett Green, representing LAUSD wrote to Ms. van der P01 in response to my letter. Mr. Green deliberately misinterpreted my August 10 letter in several respects, notably in incorrectly attributing the Union?s intent related to ?self-help? as a desire to rush to complete the impasse process to enable the Union?s exercise of that right. While I will not rehearse for Mr. Green?s edi?cation in this letter the entirety, quali?cations on, availability or sequence of those rights, in fact the District?s bad faith conduct in connection with the pending process may well accelerate the Union?s ability to exercise them. As for the District's stated desire to conduct a ?smooth? beginning to the school year this week that allegedly precludes engaging in mediation because of the need to include more unspeci?ed ?higher-level administration and resources? than does more bilateral bargaining, that is patent nonsense demonstrative of bad faith. As I noted to Ms. van der Pol, the District is aware that at least absent bad faith or other unfair practices, the parties cannot engage in self-help (that might disrupt the District?s even-keeled opening days objective) until impasse procedures are 2 3548.1. Fact ?nding panel; request; selection of panel; chairperson If the mediator is unable to e?'ect settlement of the controversy within )5 days a?er his appointment and the mediator declares that factfindt'ng is appropriate to the resolution of the impasse, either party may, by written noti?cation to the other, request that their differences be submitted to afactfinding panel. Within ?ve days after receipt of the written request, each party shall select a person to serve as its member of the fact?nding panel. The board shall, within ?ve days after such selection, select a chairperson of the fact?nding panel. The chairperson designated by the board shall not, without the consent of both parties, be the same person who served as mediator pursuant to Section 3548. 3 To be sure, August and 22"" are a Tuesday and a Wednesday. We suspect that the dates intended to be offered were Monday and Tuesday, August 20 and 21. 63022? ?130-28004 VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL Felix De La Torre August 16, 2018 Page 3 completed. That completion could not be accomplished, even if the District fully cooperated with statutorily-required alacrity, until after the school year (which began this week) was well underway. If Mr. Samples? stated desire for early serenity was intended to re?ect a concern about possible exercise of its lawful expressive rights distinct from self-help, that potential is not in any way limited, tied to or dictated by the stage of collective bargaining the parties ?nd themselves in. Nor is the District?s inordinate delay a permissible device to use to attempt to regulate the Union?s organizing activities. Indeed, the District?s attempt to apply the brakes at precisely the moment when the law requires an increasingly robust focus on the process is a provocation that makes such action by the Union more attractive. On August 13, Ms. van der Pol wrote the parties, declining to move to fact?nding, demurring as to the notion that the parties were under any obligation to move forward with urgency. Instead, she noted that SMCS ?will not make any commitment related to a release to fact ?nding based on a ?xed number of mediation sessions?, but instead ?will proceed as usual, making such a determination only when, in the judgment of the mediator, it becomes necessary.? She added that have faith in the mediation process, and are always hopeful of a settlement, as we are certain the parties are, as well." Finally, she noted that in addition to Mr. Adams, Thomas Ruiz was assigned to this matter. Unacceptable de?ance of Statutog; Urgency Respectfully, it is dif?cult to have faith in a mediation process that should have begun, in accordance with the statute (footnote 2) no later than this week, but because of one party '5 intransigence and arrogance, may not begin until the end of next month. And it is hard to maintain con?dence in the presiding agency when it allows one party to thwart the statute, when it has the power and authority to exact consequences for that unequivocal display of disre5pect for the process and the other participants. Neither UTLA nor this of?ce are aware of any precedent for a two-month delay in commencement of statutory mediation, absent agreement by all the parties. This unnecessary extraordinary delay in beginning mediation some eight weeks after mediator appointment may well create a new normal for whatever party wants to stall the process, labor organization or employer. It therefore erodes all parties? con?dence in the process, and its prospects for success. Again, as I stated to Ms. van der Pol, the statute authorizes the mediator to declare that mediation is ineffective and fact?nding appropriate as quickly as 15 days after his appointment. While UTLA is fully cognizant of the parties? other obligations and the need for careful preparation and coordination, there is no excuse for a 56?day chasm between appointment and the ?rst day of mediation, as requested by LAUSD. The District?s stated rationale for the delay, having nothing to do with participants' availability or preparation, but instead an invalid yearning for a ?ctive peace that in any event has no connection to the delay it seeks, smacks of bad faith. Government Code ?3543.5(e) speci?cally enumerates employer bad faith to include a to 63022? 11130-23004 VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL Felix De La Torre August 16. 2018 Page 4 participate in good faith in the impasse procedure set Forth in Article See, Fresno Unified Schna! Dist. v. National Education Assn, (1981) 125 Cal. App. 3d 259, 265, 177 Cal. Rptr. 888. The Union urges you to inquire into why the agency has thus far tolerated this inexcusable unilaterally imposed delay in a process that is supposed to be conducted expeditiously. Mr. Green asserted in his August )2 letter that ?the District remains available to coordinate dates for mediation sessions, and is open to the use of alternative mediators." Perhaps with any unfounded fears of not having a tranquil opening to the school year in the past, the District can be prevailed upon to abide by its statutory duty to fully and participate in the mediation process, beginning on dates this month. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation. Very truly yours, Bush Gottlieb A Law Corporation Ira 1.. Gottlieb Encs. Correspondence: August 13 van der Pol to parties August 13 Gottlieb to van der Pol responding to Green August 12 Green to van der Pol responding to Gottlieb August 10 Gottlieb to van der Pol August 1 from PERB declaring impasse July 26 Khoury to Good cu: Eric Banks Priscilla Winslow Erich Shincrs Arthur A. Krantz Alex Caputo-Pearl Arlene Inouye Jeff Good Vern Gates Loretta van der Pol VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL Felix De La Torre August 16, 2018 Page 5 Gerry Adams Tom Ruiz Barrett Green Robert Samples Josh Adams, Esq. ISCI DELI I I 130-28004