Tamalpais Union High School District (PERB 0001E)

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
-------------------
)
)
DECISION OF 	THE 	EDUCATIONAL
EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
TAMALPAIS UNION HIGH SCHOOL	TAMALPAIS 	UNION HIGH 	SCHOOL
DISTRICT, Employer	DISTRICT, 	Employer
and	an d
TAMALPAIS FEDERATION OF TEACHERS	TAMALPAIS 	FEDERATION OF 	TEACHERS
CFT/AFT/AFL/CIO; TAMALPAIS	CFT/AFT/AFL/CIO; 	TAMALPAIS
DISTRICT TEACHERS ASSOCIATION	DISTRICT 	TEACHERS 	ASSOCIATION
CTA/NEA,	CTA/NEA, Employee Organizations	Employee 	Organizations
Case Nos. SF-R-32 and	Case 	Nos. 	SF-R-32 	and
SF-R-352	SF-R-352
EERB Decision No	EERB 	Decision 	No.	. 1 	1
Appearances: 	Sharrel Wyatt, 	Attorney, 	for 	Tamalpais 	District
Teachers 	Association, 	CTA/NEA; 	Stewart Weinberg, 	Attorney,
for 	Tamalpais 	Federation 	of 	Teachers; 	Jane 	Slenkovich, 	Deputy
County 	Counsel, 	for 	Tamalpais 	Union 	High 	School 	District.
Before 	Alleyne, 	Chairman; 	Gonzales 	and 	Cossack, 	Members
OPINION
This 	case 	involves 	challenged 	representation-election 	ballots
and 	objections 	to 	conduct 	affecting 	the 	results 	of 	a 	repre-
sentation 	election 	conducted 	by 	the 	Educational 	Employment
. .Relations 	Board 	(EERB) 	The 	parties 	are 	the 	Tamalpais 	Union
High 	School 	District, 	the 	Tamalpais 	Federation 	of 	Teachers,
CFT/AFT/AFL/CIO 	and 	the 	Tamalpais 	District 	Teachers 	Associ-
ation, 	CTA/NEA.
Ba:ekground
On May 	20, 	1976, 	agents 	of 	the 	EERB 	conducted 	a 	representa-
tion 	election 	under 	the 	terms 	of 	a 	consent-election 	agree-
ment 	signed 	by 	all 	parties 	in 	this 	case 	and 	approved 	by 	the
Executive 	Director 	of 	the 	EERB. 	At 	the 	conclusion of 	the
election, 	a 	tally 	of 	ballots 	signed by 	authorized 	agents 	of
1. 	Representation 	elections 	under 	the 	Rodda 	Act 	and 	repre-
sentation 	matters 	preliminary 	to 	those 	elections 	are
governed 	by 	Article 	5 	of 	the 	Rodda 	Act, 	Government 	Code
Section 	3540, 	et 	seq., 	and 	Chapter 	3 	of 	the 	EERB's
Emergency 	Regulations, 	Part 	III, 	Title 	8, 	Cal. 	Admin. 	Code.
DECISION OF THE EDUCATIONAL
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Appearances: Sharrel Wyatt, Attorney, for Tamalpais District
Teachers Association, CTA/NEA; Stewart Weinberg, Attorney,
for Tamalpais Federation of Teachers; Jane Slenkovich, Deputy
County Counsel, for Tamalpais Union High School District.
Before Alleyne, Chairman; Gonzales and Cossack, Members
OPINION
This case involves challenged representation-election ballots
and objections to conduct affecting the results of a repre-
sentation election conducted by the Educational Employment
Relations Board (EERB) :1The parties are the Tamalpais Union
High School District, the Tamalpais Federation of Teachers,
CFT/AFT/AFL/CIO and the Tamalpais District Teachers Associ-
ation, CTA/NEA.
Background
On May 20, 1976, agents of the EERB conducted a representa-
tion election under the terms of a consent-election agree-
ment signed by all parties in this case and approved by the
Executive Director of the EERB. At the conclusion of the
election, a tally of ballots signed by authorized agents of
1 . 	Representation elections under the Rodda Act and repre-
sentation matters preliminary to those elections are
governed by Article 5 of the Rodda Act, Government Code
Section 3540, et seq., and Chapter 3 of the EERB's
Emergency Regulations, Part III, Title 8, Cal. Admin. Code.

the
	employer,
	the
	two 	employee
	organizations
	and
the	
RB,
showed the following results of the balloting:
the
balloting:	
showed
	the 	following
	results
	of
•••.•.•...••
.....................................
.
...
.••.•..•••......•
on..................
••..•••••.••••.••..•••••••••.
. . . . . . . . • . • • • • • • • . • . . . . . . . • . . . • .
.•...••
.
-2-
the employer, the two employee organizations and the EE
Approximate number of eligible voters . .. .	
Approximate
	number
	of
	eligible
	voters	
347	
347	
. . . . . . .
Void ballots . . .	
Void
	ballots	
33	..
Votes cast for Tamalpais Federation of Teachers . . .	
Votes
	cast
	for
	Tamalpais
	Federation 	of
	Teachers
	161	
1	16
Votes cast for Tamalpais District ..	
Votes
	cast
	for
	Tamalpais
	District	
55	
155
Teachers Association	
Teachers
	Association
. 1
Votes cast for no representation	
Votes
	cast
	for
	no
	representati
	4
Valid ballots counted . . . .	
Valid
	ballots
	counted	
320	
320
Challenged ballots .	
Challenged
	ballots	
33
Valid votes counted plus challenged ballots . ...... 323	
Valid 	votes
	counted
	plus 	challenged
	ballots	
323
One ballot was challenged by the Tamalpais District Teachers	One
	ballot
	was
	challenged
	by
	the
	Tamalpais
	District
	Teachers
Association and two were challenged by the Tamalpais Federa-	
Association
	and
	two
	were
	challenged
	by
	the
	Tamalpais
	Federa-
tion of Teachers. No party to the election received a	
tion 	of
	Teachers.
	No
	party
	to
	the
	election
	received
	a
majority of the total number of ballots counted and challenge	
majority
	of
	the
	total
	number
	of
	ballots
	counted
	and
	challeng-
ed. Therefore the three challenged ballots were sufficient	
ed. 	Therefore
	the 	three
	challenged
	ballots
	were
	sufficient
to affect the results of the election. Objections to conduct	
to
	affect
	the
	results
	of 	the
	election.
	Objections
	to
	conduct
affecting the results of the election were filed by the Tamal-	
affecting
	the
	results
	of 	the
	election
	were
	filed
	by
	the
	Tamal-
pais District Teachers Association. The employer has taken	
pais
	District
	Teachers
	Association.
	The
	employer 	has 	taken
no position on the objections and has taken a position only	
no
	position
	on
	the 	objections
	and
	has 	taken
	a
	position
	only
on the challenged ballot of Max Segar. We consider in order	
on
	the
	challenged
	ballot
	of
	Max
	Segar.
	We
	consider
	in
	order
the challenges and the objections.	
the 	challenges
	and
	the 	objections.
The Challenges	
The
	Challenges
The Association challenged the ballot of Max Segar on the	
The
	Association 	challenged 	the
	ballot
	of
	Max
	Segar
	on
	the
..
ground that he was not eligible to be included in the unit	
ground 	tha±-he
__
was
__
not.eligihle-to--be-included-
in.-the-unit.---
on the day of the election. The Federation challenged the	
on
	the
	day
	of 	the
	election.
	The
	Federation 	challenged 	the
ballots of Al Endriss and Deanne Wilson on the" ground that	
ballots
	of
	Al
	Endriss
	and
	Deanne
	Wilson on
	the·· ground
	that
they were managers or supervisors who were not eligible to	
they were 	managers
	or 	supervisors
	who
	were
	not
	eligible
	to
vote because the Rodda Act specifically excludes managers	
vote 	because 	the
	Rodda
	Act
	specifically
	excludes 	managers
and supervisors from a unit that includes classroom teachers.	
and
	supervisors
	from
	a
.unit 	thq,t 	includes 	classroom teachers~
We	
We first consider the challenged ballots of Endriss and Wilson.	
first
	consider 	the 	challenged 	ballots 	of 	Endriss 	and Wilson.
2 .	
2. 	See	
ee Government Code Sections 3543.4, 3545 (a) , (b) (1) and	Government 	Code
	Sections3543.4, 	3545(a),
	(b) 	(1) 	and
(2	(
2)
) .•
S
-2-

-3-
The parties' consent agreement describes the unit of eligible	The 	parties' 	consent 	agreement 	describes 	the 	unit 	of 	eligible
voters as follows:	voters 	as 	follows:
All certificated employees, excluding Superintendent,	All 	certificated employees, 	excluding 	Superintendent,
Assistant Superintendent, Directors of Business and	Assistant 	Superintendent, 	Directors 	of 	Business 	and
Personnel, Coordinator of Instruction, Administrative	Personnel, 	Coordinator 	of 	Instruction, 	Administrative
Assistants of Administration and Public Information,	Assistants 	of Administration 	and 	Public 	Information,
Principals, Associate Principals, Assistant Principals,	Principals, 	Associate 	Principals, 	Assistant 	Principals,
Deans, Directors of Student Activities, Adult Education	Deans, 	Directors 	of 	Student Activities, 	Adult 	Education
Teachers and Substitutes who are employed to serve in	Teachers 	and 	Substitutes 	who 	are 	employed 	to 	serve 	in
an on-call status to replace absent regular employees	an 	on-call 	status 	to 	replace 	absent 	regular 	employees
on day-to-day basis.	on 	day-to-day 	basis.
The consent-election agreement expressly excludes Deans from	The 	consent-election 	agreement 	expressly 	excludes 	Deans 	from
the unit. The Tamalpais Union High School District "Manage-	the 	unit. 	The 	Tamalpais 	Union High 	School 	District 	"Manage-
ment Team" list for the 1975-76 school year describes Endriss	ment 	Team" 	list 	for 	the 	1975-76 	school 	year 	describes 	Endriss
and Wilson as Level IV Deans at the Redwood High School. The	and Wilson 	as 	Level 	IV Deans 	at 	the 	Redwood 	High 	School. 	The
list was compiled in compliance with the Winton Act, which	list was 	compiled 	in 	compliance 	with 	the 	Winton 	Ac ,;	t 	which,
among other things, required school boards to identify by	among 	other 	things, 	required 	school 	boards 	to 	identify 	by
position the certificated members of a school district manage-	position 	the 	certificated members 	of 	a 	school 	district 	manage-
ment team for meet-and-confer purposes under the Winton Act.	ment 	team 	for 	meet-and-confer 	purposes 	under 	the 	Winton 	Act.
A single position of Dean, Level IV, having been designated by	A single 	position 	of 	Dean, 	Level 	IV, 	having been 	designated by
the District School Board as a management-team position at	the 	District 	School 	Board 	as 	a 	management-team position 	at
Redwood High School, the Redwood High School Principal divid-	Redwood 	High 	School, 	the 	Redwood 	High 	School 	Principal 	divid-
ed	ed the one Level IV Dean position into two parts and assigned	the 	one 	Level 	IV Dean 	position 	into 	two 	parts 	and 	assigned
part of that allowance to Deanne Wilson, and part of it to Al	part 	of 	that 	allowance 	to 	Deanne Wilson, 	and 	part 	of 	it 	to 	Al
Endriss. To further designate and identify the work assigned	Endriss. 	To 	further 	designate 	and 	identify 	the 	work 	assigned
to Endriss and Wilson, the Redwood High School Principal also	to 	Endriss 	and Wilson, 	the 	Redwood 	High 	School 	Principal 	also
gave them the subtitles Director of Athletics and Director of	gave 	them 	the 	subtitles 	Director 	of 	Athletics 	and 	Director 	of
Student Activities, respectively.	Student 	Activities, 	respectively.
At the hearing, the parties stipulated that at the time of	At 	the 	hearing, 	the 	parties 	stipulated 	that 	at 	the 	time 	of
the election, Wilson and Endriss were compensated one-half as	the 	election, 	Wilson 	and 	Endriss 	were 	compensated 	one-half 	as
Deans and one-half as classroom teachers at the appropriate	Deans 	and 	one-half 	as 	classroom 	teachers 	at 	the 	appropriate
3 .	3. 	Education Code Section 13085.5. Section 1 of the Rodda	Education Code 	Section 	13085.5. 	Section 	1 	of 	the 	Rodda
Act repealed the Winton Act, effective July 1, 1976.	Act 	repealed 	the 	Winton 	Act, 	effective 	July 	1, 	1976.
-3-

8
-4-
level; that Endriss was employed as a classroom teacher three
level;
	that
	Endriss
	was
	employed
	as
	a
	classroom
	teacher
	three
out of five required teaching periods, and that Wilson was	
out
	of 	five
	required 	teaching
	periods,
	and
	that
	Wilson
	was
employed as a classroom teacher for two out of five required	
employed
	as
	a
	classroom
	teacher 	for
	two
	out
	of
	five 	required
teaching periods. They further stipulated that the rate of	
teaching 	periods.
	They
	further 	stipulated
	that
	the
	rate
	of
pay for Deans is higher than the rate of pay for classroom	
pay
	for
	Deans
	is
	higher
	than
	the
	rate
	of
	pay
	for
	classroom
teachers .	
teachers.
In the consent-election agreement, the inclusions in the unit	
In
	the 	consent-election
	agreement,
	the 	inclusions 	in
	the
	unit
are described in general terms as "all certificated employees";	
are 	described
	in 	general
	terms
	as
	"all 	certificated
	employees";
the excluded classes are described in specific terms. Thus,	
the
	excluded
	classes
	are 	described
	in
	specific
	terms.
	Thus,
our proper focus here is on the exclusions set out in the	
our 	proper
	focus
	here
	is
	on
	the 	exclusions
	set
	out
	in
	the
consent-election agreement.	
consent-election
	agreement.
In excluding Deans from the unit, the agreement makes no	
In 	excluding
	Deans
	from
	the
	unit,
	the
	agreement
	makes 	no
distinction between full-time and part-time Deans. We conclude	
distinction
	between
	full-time
	and
	part-time
	Deans.
	We
	conclude
that by excluding "Deans" from the unit, the parties intended	
that
	by
	excluding
	"Deans" 	from
	the
	unit,
	the
	parties
	intended
to exclude all the Deans named on the school district's manage-	
to
	exclude
	all
	the
	Deans
	named
	on
	the 	school
	district's
	manage-
ment-team list for the 1975-76 school year. We note that other	
ment-team
	list
	for 	the
	1975-76
	school
	year.
	We
	note
	that
	other
than Endriss and Wilson as Level IV Deans, all other job classi-	
than 	Endriss
	and Wilson
	as
	Level
	IV
	Deans,
	all
	other
	job
	classi-
fications on the district's management team list are not in dis-	
fications
	on
	the
	district's
	management
	team
	list
	are 	not
	in 	dis-
pute in this case and are expressly excluded from the unit	
pute
	in 	this
	case
	and
	are 	expressly
	excluded
	from
	the 	unit
described in the consent-election agreement. The consent-election	
described
	in 	the 	consent-election
	agreement.
	The
	consent-election
agreement also excludes "Directors of Student Activities."	
agreement
	also
	excludes 	"Directors 	of 	Student
	Activities.
11
Thus	
Thus
Wilson, in addition to her exclusion from the unit as a Dean, is	
Wilson,
	in 	addition 	to 	her 	exclusion
	from
	the
	unit
	as
	a
	Dean,
	is
also excluded from the unit as a Director of Student Activities.	
also
	excluded
	from
	the 	unit
	as
	a
	Director 	of 	Student
	Activities.
The parties to a validly approved consent-election agreement	
The
	parties 	to
	a
	validly
	approved
	consent-election
	agreement
are bound by its terms. In this case, the unit described as	
are
	bound 	by
	its
	terms. 	In
	this
	case, 	the
	unit
	described 	as
appropriate in the consent-election agreement is not inconsist	
appropriate 	in 	the 	consent-election
	agreement
	is
	not 	inconsis-
tent with a clear and specific mandate in the unit-criteria	
tent
with
	a
	clear
	and
	specific
	mandate
	in 	the
	unit-criteria
provisions in the Rodda Act. A	
provisions 	in 	the
	Rodda Act
ccordingly, we decide that the	
~
	Accordingly,
	we
	decide
	that 	the
consent-election agreement is controlling in this case, and	
consent-election 	agreement
	is 	controlling 	in 	this 	case;	
and
4.	
4.	
See Government Code Section 3545.	
See 	Government 	Code
	Section 	3545.5 .	
5.	
See NLRB v. J. J. Collins' Sons, Inc. , 332 F. 2d 523, 56	
See
	NLRB
	v.
	J.J. 	Collins' 	Sons,
	Inc.,
	332 	F. 	2d 	523,
	56
LRRM 2375 (C. A. 7, 1964) ; Tidewater Oil Co. v. NLRB, 358	LRRM 	2375 	(C.A. 	7, 	1964); 	Tidewater 	Oil 	Co. 	v.
	NLRB, 	35
F.	
F. 2d 363, 61 LRRM 2693 (C.A. 2, 1966).	
2d 	363, 	61 	LRRM 2693 	(C.A. 	2, 	1966).

-5-
that Wilson and Endriss were not eligible to vote under its	
that
	Wilson.and
	Endriss
	were
	not
	eligible
	to
	vote
	under
	its
terms. We therefore need not decide whether Endriss and	
terms.
	We
	therefore
	need
	not
	decide
	whether
	Endriss
	and
Wilson were ineligible to vote because they were managers or	
Wilson were
	ineligible
	to
	vote
	because
	they
	were 	managers
	or
supervisors within the meaning of the Rodda Act.	
supervisors within 	the
	meaning
	of
	the
	Rodda
	Act.
The challenges to the ballots of Deanne Wilson and Al Endriss	
The
	challenges 	to 	the
	ballots
	of
	Deanne
	Wilson 	and
	Al
	Endriss
are sustained.	
are 	sustained.
On this disposition of the Endriss and Wilson challenged	
On
	this
	disposition
	of 	the
	Endriss
	and
Wilson
	challenged
ballots, the number of valid ballots cast in the election	
ballots,
	the
	number
	of 	valid
	ballots 	cast 	in
	the
	election
becomes 321; a majority of the valid ballots counted and	
becomes 	321;
	a
	majority 	of
	the
	valid
	ballots
	counted
	and
challenged becomes 161, which is the number of votes received	
challenged
	becomes
	161, 	which
	is
	the
	number
	of 	votes 	received
by the Federation. Therefore the remaining challenged ballot	
by
	the 	Federation.
	Therefore
	the
	remaining 	challenged
	ballot
of Max Segar is not sufficient to affect the results of the	
of
	Max
	Segar
	is
	not
	sufficient
	to
	affect
	the
	results
	of
	the
election and we need not decide whether Segar was an employee	
election
	and
we
	need
	not 	decide
	whether 	Segar
	was
	an
	employee
in the agreed-upon unit on the date of the election.	
in 	the
	agreed-upon
	unit
	on
	the 	date 	of 	the
	election.
The Objections	
The
	Objections
The Association filed objections to conduct affecting the	
The
	Association
	filed
	objections 	to
	conduct
	affecting
	the
results of the election, later amended at the hearing as	
results
	of 	the
	election,
	later
	amended
	at
	the 	hearing 	as
follows :	
follows:
I.
I.	
That, contrary to the directions given to the parties	
That,
	contrary 	to 	the
	directions
	given
	to
	the
	parties
at the pre-election conference conducted by agents of	
at
	the
	pre-election
	conference 	conducted
	by
	agents 	of
Educational Employment Relations Board that represen-	
Educational
	Employment
	Relations
	Board
	that
	represen-
tatives of the parties should not monitor the voting	
tatives
	of 	the
	parties
	should
	not
	monitor
	the 	voting
within	
within the vicinity of the polling places, represen-	
the
	vicinity
	of 	the 	polling 	places, 	represen-
tatives of the Tamalpais Federation of Teachers did	
tatives
	of 	the
	Tamalpais
	Federation 	of
	Teachers
	did
so monitor the polling places in the following schools:	
so
	monitor
	the 	polling 	places 	in 	the 	following 	schools:
A.	A. 	Redwood High School - That, upon the opening of	Redwood
	High
	School
	-
	That,
	upon
	the
	opening
	of
the polling place at Redwood High School, located	
the 	polling place
	at
	Redwood
	High
	School,
	located
in	
in the principal's conference room (room 112) ,	
the
	principal's
	conference
	room 	(room
	112),
representatives of the Tamalpais Federation of	
representatives 	of 	the
	Tamalpais
	Federation 	of
Teachers were observed sitting in chairs adjacent	
Teachers 	were 	observed
	sitting 	in 	chairs 	adjacent
to	
to the doorway of the polling place marking cards	
the
	doorway
	of 	the 	polling 	place
	marking
	cards
and papers. That, further, these representatives	
and
	papers. 	That,
	further, 	these 	representatives
were cautioned by James Tamm, the election modera-	
were
	cautioned
	by 	James
	Tamm,
	the 	election
	modera-
tor,	
tor, that their presence in the vicinity of the	
that 	their
	presence 	in 	the 	vicinity 	of 	the
polling place jeopardized the conduct of the	
polling 	place 	jeopardized the 	conduct 	of 	the
-5-

***
-6-
election and that subsequent to such warning they	
election
	and
	that
	subsequent
	to
	such warning
	they
did not immediately move. That further, during	
did 	not
	immediately.
move.
	That
	further,
	during
the course of the day, a representative of the	
the
	course
	of
	the
	day,·
	a
	representative
	of 	the
Tamalpais Federation of Teachers was seen within	
Tamalpais
	Federation
	of
	Teachers
	was 	seen:
within
sight of the polling place.	
sight
	of 	the
	polling 	place.
B.	B. 	Drake High School - That representatives of the	
Drake 	High
	School
	-
	That
	representatives 	of
	the
Tamalpais Federation of Teachers were seen in the	
Tamalpais
	Federation 	of
	Teachers
	were
	seen
	in
	the
vicinity of the polling place at Drake High School	
vicinity
	of
	the
	polling
	place
	at
	Drake
Nigh 	School
marking papers during the polling hours.	
marking
	papers 	during
	the 	polling
	hours.
* * *
III.	
III.	
That, on Monday preceding the election, May 18, 1976,	
That,
	on
	Monday
	preceding
	the
	election,
	May
	18,
	.19
76,
the Tamalpais Federation of Teachers caused to be	
the
	Tamalpais
	Federation of
	Teachers 	caused
	to
	be
placed on the bulletin boards and distributed in faculty	
placed
	on
	the
	bulletin
	boards
	and
	distributed 	in
	faculty
lounges, a mechanical duplication of the official ballot	
lounges,
	a
	mechanical
	duplication 	of 	the
	official 	ballot
contained in the notice of election and had such offi-	
contained
	in
	the 	notice 	of
	election
	and 	had
	such
offi-
cial ballot marked with an "X" in the space designated	
cial 	ballot
	marked
	with
	an
	"X"
	in
	the
	space
	designated
Tamalpais Federation of Teachers CFT/AFT/AFL/CIO.	
Tamalpais
	Federation 	of
	Teachers
	CFT/AFT/AFL/CIO.
IV.	IV. 	That, in the pre-election conference cited herein,	
That,
	in
	the
	pre-election
	conference
	cited
	herein,
representatives of the Tamalpais District Teachers	
representatives 	of 	the
	Tamalpais
	District
	Teachers
Association objected to the potential intrusion of	
Association 	objected 	to 	the
	potential 	intrusion of
media and television cameras into the polling places;	
media 	and
	television
	cameras
	into 	the 	polling places;
that the election moderator refused to sustain the	
that
	the
	election
	moderator
	refused
	to 	sustain·the
objection of the Association and that upon information	
objection of
	the 	Association
	and
	that
	upon
	information
and belief, the Association contends that the presence	
and
	belief,
	the
	~ssociation
	contends
	that
	the presence
of media and television cameras chilled the free exer-	
of
	media 	and
	television
	cameras
	chilled
	the 	free 	exer-
cise of the balloting process.	
cise 	of 	the
	balloting
	process.
In respect to the three incidents alleged in the objections,	
In
	respect 	to 	the 	three 	incidents 	alleged 	in 	the 	objections,
poll monitoring, television coverage and the reproduced EERB	
poll
	monitoring,
	television
	coverage
	and
	the
	reproduced
	EERB
ballot, the essential facts are not in dispute and may be	
ballot,
	the
	essential 	facts 	are 	not 	in 	dispute
	and
	may
	be
summarized as follows:	
summarized
	as 	follows:
Poll Monitoring -- Poll	
Poll
	Monitoring
	--
monitoring, as alleged in the amended	
Poll
	monitoring, 	as 	alleged 	in 	the
	amended
objections and as supported by the evidence, consisted of two	
objections
	and
	as 	supported
	by
	the 	evidence, 	consisted 	of
	two
Redwood High School teachers, both members of the Federation,	Redwood 	High
	School
	teachers, 	both
	members
	of 	the 	Federation,
checking off the names of voters. They did this at the request	
checking
off 	the
	names
	of 	voters.
	They
	did
	this 	at
	the 	request
of an agent of the Federation for the purpose of determining	
of
	an agent 	of 	the 	Federation 	for 	the 	purpose 	of 	determining
which supporters had not voted and to remind nonvoters to vote.	
which
	supporters 	had not 	voted 	and
	to
	remind nonvoters
	to 	vote.
-6-

-7-
From a distance of about four to six feet from the door lead-	
Erom
	a
	distance 	of
	about
	four
	to
	six 	feet
	from
	the
	door
	lead-
ing to the place of balloting at Redwood High School, the two	
ing
	to 	the
	place
	of
	balloting
	at
	Redwood
	High
	School,
	the
	two
teachers monitored the voting for ten minutes. They could	
teachers
	monitored
	the 	voting
	for 	ten
	minutes.
	They
	could
not see voters casting their ballots inside the conference	
not
	see
	voters
	casting
	their
	ballots
	inside
	the
	conference
room, nor could voters inside the conference room see the	
room,
	nor 	could
	voters 	inside
	the
	conference
	room
	see
	the
monitors. On being told by an agent of the EERB that "someone	
monitors.
	On
	being
	told
	by
	an
	agent
	of
	the
	EERB
	that
	11
someone
might question your being here. ...", they left and continued	
might
	question
	your
	being here
....
",
	they
	left
	and
	continued
their	
their	
monitoring at a greater distance from the door and	
monitoring
	at
	a
	greater
	distance
	from
	the
	door
	and
at other places outside the area where voters approached	
at
	other 	places 	outside 	the 	area
	where
	voters
	approached
the polls. At Drake High School, two members of the Federa-	
the
	polls.
	At 	Drake 	High
	School,
	two 	members
	of 	the
	Federa-
tion who were stationed about 60 feet from the polling site	
tion
	who
	were
	stationed
	about
	60
	feet
	from
	the
	polling
	site
checked off the names of voters on a list of names held on	
checked
	off
	the
	names
	of 	voters
	on
	a
	list
	of
	names
	held
	on
a clipboard.	a
	clipboard.
The News Media -- O	
The
	News
	Media
	--
n three separate occasions during the	On
	three 	separate
	occasions 	during 	the
election, and for durations of not more than twenty minutes	
election,
	and
	for 	durations
	of
	not
	more
	than
	twenty 	minutes
at two different schools, there was television coverage of	
at
	two
	different
	schools, 	there
	was
	television
	coverage
the election by three television stations. At Redwood High	
the
	election
	by
	three 	television 	stations.
	At
	Redwood
	High
School, one television station took moving pictures with	
School,
	one
	television 	station
	took
	moving
	pictures
	with
floodlights for about ten minutes; at Tamalpais High School,	
floodlights 	for
	about
	ten
	minutes;
	at
	Tamalpais
	High
	School,
another station took pictures with floodlights for twenty	
another
	station
	took
	pictures
	with
	floodlights 	for
	twenty
minutes, at most, and another station took motion pictures	
minutes,
	at
	most, 	and
	another
	station
	took 	motion
	pictures
at Tamalpais High School for not more than twenty minutes	
at
	Tamalpais
	High
	School
	for 	not
	more
	than 	twenty 	minutes
and without the use of floodlights.	
and
	without 	the
	use
	of 	floodlights.
The Ballot Duplication -- Two d	The
	Ballot 	Duplication
	--
ays before the election, agents	
Two
	days
	before 	the 	election,
	agents
of the Federation placed in prominent places at two district	
of 	the 	Federation 	placed 	in
	prominent
	places
	at
	two
	district
high schools a duplication of the EERB's official sample	
high 	schools
	a
	duplication of 	the
	EERB's
	official
	sample
ballot. The reproduced ballot was marked with an "X" in the	
ballot.
	The
	reproduced
	ballot
	was 	marked
	with
	an
	11
x"
	in 	the
space for a Federation vote. The words "vote TFT" and a	
space 	for
	a
	Federation 	vote.
	The
	words
	"vote
	TFT"
	and
	a
large "X" were printed on the bottom of the reproduced ballot	
large
	"X"
	were
	printed
	on
	the
	bottom
of 	the 	reproduced
	ballot
and the date "May 20" was printed at the top in large bold-	
and
	the 	date
	"May
	20" 	was
	printed 	at 	the 	top 	in 	large 	bold-
face letters; no date appeared on the official sample ballot.	
face
	letters;
	no
	date 	appeared 	on
	the
	official
	sample
	ballot.
The reproduced ballot was printed on yellow paper; the	The
	reproduced
	ballot
	was
	printed
	on yellow 	paper; 	the
official	
official sample ballot was printed on blue paper.	
sample
	ballot
was
	printed
	on
	blue 	paper.	
The word	The 	word
-7-

-8-
"sample" was printed in block letters across the face of	"sample" 	was 	printed 	in 	block 	letters 	across 	the 	face 	of
the reproduced ballot while it was handwritten across the	the 	reproduced 	ballot while 	it was 	handwritten 	across 	the
face of the official sample ballot.	face 	of 	the 	official 	sample 	ballot.
This is the Board's first decision on representation-election	This 	is 	the 	Board's 	first 	decision 	on 	representation-election
objections. The Board's published Emergency Regulations,	objections. 	The 	Board's 	published Emergency 	Regulations,
effective since April 1, 1976, contain governing criteria.	effective 	since 	April 	1, 	1976, 	contain 	governing 	criteria.
Section 30076 of the regulations provide:	Section 	30076 	of 	the 	regulations 	provide:
Grounds for Objections. Objections will be entertained	Grounds 	for 	Objections. 	Objections 	will 	be 	entertained
by the Board only on the following grounds:	by 	the 	Board 	only 	on 	the 	following 	grounds:
(a)	(a) The conduct complained of is tantamount to an unfair	The 	conduct 	complained of 	is 	tantamount 	to 	an 	unfair
practice as defined in Article 4 of the Act; or	practice 	as 	defined 	in 	Article 	4 	of 	the 	Act; 	or
(b)	(b) Serious irregularity in the conduct of the election.	Serious 	irregularity 	in 	the 	conduct 	of 	the 	election.
In adopting Rule 30076, it was the intent of the EERB to	In 	adopting 	Rule 	30076, 	it was 	the 	intent 	of 	the 	EERB 	to
overturn representation-election results only when conduct	overturn 	representation-election 	results 	only 	when 	conduct
affecting the results of the election amounts to an unlawful	affecting 	the 	results 	of 	the 	election 	amounts 	to 	an 	unlawful
practice under Article 4 of the Rodda Act or constit	practice 	under Article 	4 	of 	the 	Rodda Act 6
utes	or 	constitutes
"serious irregularity in the conduct of the election."	"serious 	irregularity 	in 	the 	conduct 	of 	the 	election."
We first note the Association's admission at the hearing that	We 	first 	note 	the 	Association's 	admission 	at 	the 	hearing 	that
no evidence was introduced in support of a finding that any	no 	evidence 	was 	introduced 	in 	support of 	a 	finding 	that 	any
voter was discouraged from voting or misled because of the	voter 	was 	discouraged 	from 	voting 	or misled 	because 	of 	the
conduct alleged in the amended objections. While acknowledg-	conduct 	alleged 	in 	the 	amended 	objections. 	While 	acknowledg-
ing the absence of such evidence, the Association's position	ing 	the 	absence 	of 	such 	evidence, 	the 	Association's 	position
is that discouragement from voting should be inferred from	is 	that 	discouragement 	from 	voting 	should be 	inferred 	from
the undisputed fact that poll watching and television coverage	the 	undisputed 	fact 	that 	poll 	watching and 	television 	coverage
took place; and that from the admitted reproduction and mark-	took 	place; 	and 	that 	from 	the 	admitted 	reproduction 	and mark-
ing of the EERB sample ballot, we should infer that some voters	ing 	of 	the 	EERB 	sample 	ballot, 	we 	should 	infer 	that 	some 	voters
were led to believe that the EERB supported the Federation in	were 	led 	to 	believe 	that 	the 	EERB 	supported 	the 	Federation 	in
the representation election. Neither party contends, and we	the 	representation 	election. 	Neither 	party 	contends, 	and we
6.	6. 	Unlawful practices by employee organizations are defined	Unlawful 	practices 	by 	employee 	organizations 	are 	defined
in	in Government Code Section 3543.6. The single subsection	Government 	Code 	Section 	3543.6. 	The 	single 	subsection
arguably applicable in this case is Government Code Section	arguably applicable 	in 	this 	case 	is 	Government 	Code 	Section
3543.6 (b) , which provides: "It shall be unlawful for an	3543.6(b), 	which 	provides: 	"It 	shall 	be 	unlawful 	for 	an
employee organization to *** Impose or threaten to impose	employee 	organization 	to*** 	Impose 	or 	threaten 	to 	impose
reprisals on employees, to discriminate or threaten to	reprisals 	on 	employees, 	to 	discriminate 	or 	threaten 	to
discriminate against employees, or otherwise to interfere	discriminate 	against 	employees, 	or 	otherwise 	to 	interfere
with,	with, restrain, or coerce employees because of their exer-	restrain, 	or 	coerce 	employees 	because 	of 	their 	exer-
cise of rights guaranteed by this chapter."	cise 	of 	rights 	guaranteed 	by 	this 	chapter."
-8-

-9-
do not find, that any of the conduct objected to was	do 	not 	find, 	that 	any 	of 	the 	conduct 	objected 	to was
tantamount to an unlawful practice as defined in Article 4 of	tantamount 	to 	an 	unlawful 	practice 	as 	defined 	in Article 	4 	of
the Rodda Act.	the 	Rodda 	Act. 	Thus the only question before us concerns	Thus 	the 	only 	question 	before 	us 	concerns
the application of the "serious-irregularity" portion of	the 	application 	of 	the 	"serious-irregularity" 	portion of
Rule 30076.	Rule 	30076.
In the absence of evidence that voters were discouraged from	In 	the 	absence 	of 	evidence 	that voters 	were 	discouraged 	from
voting, we would sustain the Association's poll-monitoring	voting, 	we 	would 	sustain 	the 	Association's 	poll-monitoring
and television-coverage objections only on finding that	and 	television-coverage 	objections 	only 	on 	finding 	that
those events had the natural and probable effect of dis-	those 	events 	had 	the 	natural 	and 	probable 	effect of 	dis-
couraging voter participation in the representation election.	couraging 	voter 	participation 	in 	the 	representation 	election.
We find instead that they did not have that effect. We are	We 	find 	instead 	that 	they 	did 	not 	have 	that 	effect. 	We 	are
unable to conclude that a voter in this election would be	unable 	to 	conclude 	that 	a 	voter 	in 	this 	election would 	be
dissuaded from casting a ballot because a fellow employee	dissuaded 	from 	casting a 	ballot 	because 	a 	fellow 	employee
unobtrusively checked off names of voters as they entered	unobtrusively 	checked 	off 	names 	of 	voters 	as 	they 	entered
the balloting room, or because of the presence of television	the 	balloting 	room, 	or 	because 	of 	the 	presence 	of 	television
cameras for brief periods during the all-day balloting.	cameras 	for 	brief 	periods 	during 	the 	all-day 	balloting. 	The	The
Association's brief concedes that the "presence of the media,	Association's 	brief 	concedes 	that 	the 	"presence 	of 	the 	media,
taken alone and without proof of chilling effect, may not be	taken 	alone 	and 	without 	proof 	of 	chilling 	effect, 	may 	not 	be
enough to justify setting this election aside. . .." Absent	enough 	to 	justify 	setting 	this 	election 	aside .... " 	Absent
evidence of discouragement, or facts from which discourage-	evidence 	of 	discouragement, 	or 	facts 	from which 	discourage-
ment might be inferred, we decide that the poll monitoring	ment 	might 	be 	inferred, 	we 	decide 	that 	the 	poll 	monitoring
and television coverage, either alone or in combination, did	and 	television 	coverage, 	either 	alone 	or 	in 	combination, 	did
not constitute "serious irregularity in the conduct of the	not 	constitute 	"serious 	irregularity 	in 	the 	conduct 	of 	the
election" within the meaning of EERB Rule 30076!	election" 	within 	the 	meaning of 	EERB 	Rule 	30076?
The record does not support the Association's position that	The 	record 	does 	not 	support 	the 	Association's 	position 	that
eligible voters could have been misled to believe that the	eligible 	voters 	could have 	been 	misled 	to 	believe 	that 	the
EERB was a supporter of the Federation rather than a neutral	EERB was 	a 	supporter 	of 	the 	Federation 	rather 	than 	a 	neutral
7. 	The NLRB overturns representation elections on finding	The 	NLRB 	overturns 	representation 	elections 	on 	finding
that a list of the names of persons voting was kept by	that 	a 	list 	of 	the 	names 	of 	persons 	voting was 	kept 	by
someone other than those maintaining the official eligi-	someone 	other 	than 	those 	maintaining 	the 	official 	eligi-
bility list. The NLRB infers coercion from the list-keep-	bility 	list. 	The 	NLRB 	infers 	coercion 	from 	the 	list-keep-
ing itself and does not rely on actual evidence of coercion.	ing 	itself 	and 	does 	not 	rely 	on 	actual 	evidence 	of 	coercion.
E.g., Piggly-Wiggly Eagle Food Centers, Inc. , 168 NLRB 792,	E.g., 	Piggly-Wiggly 	Eagle 	Food 	Centers, 	Inc., 	168 	NLRB 	792,
66 LRRM 1360 (1967) ; International Stamping, Inc. , 97 NLRB	66 	LRRM 1360 	(1967); 	International 	Stamping, 	Inc., 	97 	NLRB
921, 29 LRRM 1158 (1951) . These decisions are not consistent	921, 	29 	LRRM 	1158 	(1951). 	These 	decisions 	are 	not 	consistent
with our Rule 30076 and we decline to follow them.	with our 	Rule 	30076 	and we 	decline 	to 	follow 	them.
-9-

-10-
government agency responsible for conducting the representation	
government 	agency
	responsible 	for
	conducting
	the 	representation
election. Instead, the inference to be drawn from the undisput	
election.
	Instead, 	the 	inference
	to
	be
	drawn
	from
	the 	undisput-
ed facts is that the reproduced ballot could only have been	
ed
	facts
	is
	that
	the
	reproduced
	ballot
	could 	only
	have
	been
regarded as an election-campaign tactic conceived and implement-	
regarded
	as
	an
	election-campaign
	tactic
	conceived
	and
	implement-
ed by the Federation. W	
ed
	by
	the
	Federation~
e accordingly conclude that the	
We
	accordingly
	conclude
	that
	the
Federation's reproduction and marking of the ballot was neither	
Federation's
	reproduction
	and
	marking
	of
	the
	ballot
was
	neither
tantamount to an unlawful practice under Article 4 of The Rodda	
tantamount
	to
	an
	unlawful
	practice
	under
	Article
	4
	of
	The 	Rodda
Act nor a "serious irregularity in the conduct of the election"	
Act
	nor
	a
	"serious
	irregularity
	in 	the
	conduct
	of
	the
	election"
within the meaning of EERB Rule 30076.	
within 	the
	meaning
	of
	EERB
	Rule 	30076.
The amended objections are overruled.	The 	amended
	objections 	are 	overruled.
ORDER	
ORDER
Two challenged ballots having been sustained and the objections	
Two
	challenged
	ballots
	having
	been
	sustained
	and
	the
	objections
having been overruled, the Educational Employment Relations	
having 	been
	overruled, 	the
	Educational
	Employment
	Relations
Board's Executive Director will issue a revised tally of	
Board's 	Executive
	Director
will
	issue
	a
	revised
	tally
	of
ballots consistent with this decision and certify the	
ballots
	consistent
with
	this
	decision
	and
	certify
	the
Tamalpais Federation of Teachers CFT/AFT/AFL/CIO as exclusive	
Tamalpais
	Federation
	of
	Teachers
	CFT/AFT/AFL/CIO
	as
	exclusive
representative of the employees in the unit described in the	
representative 	of
	the
	employees
	in 	the
	unit
	described
	in 	the
parties' consent-election agreement.	
parties'
	consent-election
	agreement.
Reginald Alleyne, Chairman	
Reginald
7
Alleyne,
	Chairman
Raymond Gonzales / Member
~eri.4.ou	Jerilou Cossack, Member	
CossAck, 	Member
Dated: July 20, 1976	
Dated:
	July
	20, 	1976
8.	
8. 	Allied Electric Products, Inc., 109 NLRB 1270, 34 LLRM	
Allied 	Electric
	Products,
	Inc.,
	109
	NLRB
	1270,
	34
	LLRM
1538 (1954); Custom Molders of P. R. , 121 NLRB 1007, 42	1538 	(1954);
	Custom 	Molders
	of 	P.R.,
	121
	NLRB
	1007,
	42
LRRM	
LRRM 1505 (1958), and Superior Knitting Corp. , 112 NLRB	1505 	(1958), 	and
	Superior 	Knitting 	Corp.,
	112
	NLRB
984,	
984, 36 LRRM 1133 (1955), cited in the Association's brief,	36
	LRRM
	1133 	(1955),
	cited 	in 	the 	Association's 	brief,are	
are National Labor Relations Board decisions holding that a	
National 	Labor 	Relations 	Board
	decisions 	holding 	that
	a
nearly exact reproduction and marking of an NLRB sample	
nearly 	exact 	reproduction 	and marking 	of
	an
	NLRB
	sample
ballot is a ground for setting aside an election, even in	
ballot 	is
	a 	ground 	for 	setting 	aside
	an
	election,
	even
	in
the absence of evidence that voters were misled to believe	
the 	absence 	of 	evidence 	that voters 	were 	misled 	to 	believe
that the NLRB supported the union that reproduced the ballot.	
that 	the
	NLRB
	supported 	the 	union 	that 	reproduced 	the 	ballot.Our	Our rule 30076 requires that we not follow the strict per-se	
rule
	30076 	requires 	that
	we 	not 	follow 	the 	strict 	per-se
rule	
rule of Allied Electric Products, Inc.	
of Allied Electric 	Products, 	Inc.
-10-