Grossmont Union High School District (PERB 0011E)

3 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD

GROSSMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL
DISTRICT, Employer

and

~~ reo rye vy WH

GROSSMONT STUDENT SERVICES )
ASSOCIATION, Employee Organization Case Nos. LA-R-185
LA-R-254

and
EERB Decision No. 11
GROSSMONT EDUCATION ASSOCIATION,
CTA/NEA, Employee Organization March 9, 1977
and

GREATER GROSSMONT FEDERATION OF
TEACHERS LOCAL 1903, CFT/AFT,
AFL-CIO, Employee Organization

~~ rye ve ye YH YH YH YH YH YH YH YS WH

Appearances: Paterson and Taggart by J. Michael Taggart,
Attorney, for Grossmont Union High School District; George E.
Dalton, Attorney, for Grossmont Student Services Association;
Knutson, Tobin, Meyer, and Shannon, by John Meyer, Attorney, and
Office of the General Counsel of the California Teachers'
Association, by Charles Gustafson, Attorney, for Grossmont
Education Association; and Van Bourg, Allen, Weinberg, and Roger,
by Robert Bezemek, Attorney, for Greater Grossmont Federation of
Teachers.

Before Alleyne, Chairman; Cosssack and Gonzales, Members.
OPINION
PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On April 1, 1976, the Grossmont Student Services Association
(GSSA) filed with the Grossmont Union High School District a
request for recognition as the exclusive representative of
counselors, psychologists, school nurses, social workers, and
psychometrists.’ Also on April 1, 1976, the Grossmont Education

Association, CTA/NEA (GEA) filed with the district a request for

* At the request for the district and without objection

from any party at the hearing, the psychometrist position was
deleted from GSSA's request for recognition since no such
position exists in the district.

recognition as the exclusive representative of all certificated
employees excluding, among others, hourly adult school teachers,
counselors, psychologists, social workers, and school nurses.2
The district posted a notice of GEA's request for recognition on
April 8, 1976. 	GEA amended its request for recognition on April
9, 1976 to also excluded day-to-day substitute teachers. 	The
district posted a second notice reflecting GEA's exclusion day-
to-day substitute teachers on April 19, 1976. 	On May 7, 1976,
the Greater Grossmont Federation of Teachers, Local 1930,
CFT/AFT, AFL-CIO (GFT) filed an intervention in a unit of all
probationary and permanent certificated employees, excluding
counselors psychologists, social workers, school nurses, hourly
adult school teachers and day-to-day substitute teachers.3 At
the hearing GFT amended its interventions to specifically include
temporary teachers on contract for one or more semesters. 	The
district concluded that none of the units sought were
appropriate, declined to recognize either GSSA, GEA or GFT as an
exclusive representative, and notified the Educational Employment
Relations Board of its decision on May 11, 1976. 	The district
contends that the appropriate unit is one which includes all non-
management certificated employees including counselors,
psychologists, social workers, and school nurses, and which
excludes hourly adult school teachers, day-to-day substitute
teachers, and temporary teachers who work less than 75 percent of
the school year.
A hearing was held on August 13, 1976, before a hearing
officer of the Educational Employment Relations Board.4
2 Also excluded were the following classifications:
Assistant Director Personnel; Assistant Director Special
Education; Assistant Superintendent, Business; Assistant
Superintendent, Personnel; Assistant Superintendent, Planning
Data & Instructional Support; Associate Superintendent; Chief,
Accounting; Chief, Building & Grounds; Chief, Classified; Chief,
Data Processing; Chief Driver Training; Chief, Food Services;
Chief, Purchasing; Chief, Transportation; Coordinator; Director I
Continuation; Director I Adult School; Director II Data Systems;
Director II Development & Evaluation Support; Director I Pupil
Personnel Services; Director II Regional Occupation Program;
Director I Special Education; Director II Special Projects;
Director II Vocational Education; Director II Vocational Nursing;
Plant Managers; Principals; Superintendent; and Vice Principals.
3 At the hearing GEA raised the contention that GFT's
intervention was not timely. 	We disagree. 	GEA substantially
amended its original request for recognition on April 9, 1976 and
the district posted the requisite notice of the amended request
for recognition on April 19, 1976. 	GFT intervened on May 7,
1976--the fifteenth working day following the posting of the
second notice. 	See Government Code Section 3544.1(b).
4 At the hearing GSSA moved to dismiss the district's
challenge to the appropriateness of the unit. 	GSSA argued that

ISSUES
There are two issues presented for determination in this
case: 	(1) whether counselors, psychologists, school nurses and
social workers should be included in a unit of certificated
employees or whether they constitute a separate appropriate unit;
and (2) whether temporary teachers who work on a contractual
basis for one semester or more should be included in a unit of
certificated employees.
DISCUSSION
In Grossmont Union High School District covers an area of 460
square miles. 	It has a total average daily attendance of
approximately 26,444 students. 	Of the number approximately
24,466 are students enrolled in the regular high school program,
grades 9 through 12, and approximately 1,978 are students
enrolled in the adult school program.5 There are 11 sites, on
which are distributed nine comprehensive high schools, two
continuation schools, the adult education program and a special
since the district failed to timely notify the Regional Office of
the EERB pursuant to then-existing EERB Rule 30022 that it
doubted the appropriateness of GSSA's requested unit, the
district is required to grant voluntary recognition under Section
3544.1 of the Act. 	The hearing officer denied the motion.
Former Rule 30022 established the time within which an
employer should notify the EERB of its response to a request for
recognition. 	Only if the employer fails to act upon the request
within 30 days, or denies it, is the employee organization free
to petition the EERB pursuant to Section 3544.5(b) of the Act.
The latter section contemplated that an employer may refuse
altogether to respond to a request for recognition. 	Had the
Legislature intended that an employer would be obligated to
recognize and negotiate with an employee organization merely by
failing to notify the EERB of its response to a request for
recognition, the Legislature would not have included Section
3544.5(b) in the Act.
Moreover, an employee organization cannot become an
exclusive representative unless it is "...recognized pursuant to
Section 3544.1 or certified pursuant to Section 3544.7..."
Government Code Section 3543. 	Section 3544.1 expressly provides
that an employer is not required to grant a request for
recognition where, as here, the employer "...doubts the
appropriateness of a unit." 	Government Code Section 3544.1(a).
Accordingly, the hearing officer properly denied the motion.
5 Annual Apportionments Report, California State Department
of Education, Form J-19 (July 1976).

education program. 	The district employs approximately 995
certificated employees.
With respect to the unit placement of the counselors,
psychologists, school nurses and social workers, GSSA and GFT
assert that these persons lack a community of interest with other
certificated employees. 	GSSA further contends that its prior
representation of these employees as well as their prior
inadequate representation by predominantly teacher organizations
support its position. 	GEA takes no position on their unit
placement. 	The district argues that these employees share a
community of interest with the overall certificated unit and
further that a separate unit would impair its efficiency of
operation.
With respect to the unit placement of temporary teachers who
work on a contractual basis one semester or more, GFT and GEA
would include them in the overall certificated unit while the
district would exclude those who work less than 75 percent of the
school year. 	GSSA takes no position on this issue.
Applying the criteria of Government Code Section 3545(a)6 to
the case at hand, we conclude that counselors, psychologists,
school nurses and social workers should be included in the
overall unit with other certificated employees. 	We further
conclude that temporary teachers who work on a contractual basis
for one semester or more should be included in the overall unit.
Counselors, Psychologists, School Nurses and Social Workers
I
Counselors, psychologists, school nurses and social workers
share a community of interest with other certificated employees.
There are approximately 85 persons in these job classifications:
62 counselors, 11 psychologists, 10 school nurses and two social
workers. 	They are described by Education Code Section 321(e) as
pupil services employees. 	Other pupil services employees
enumerated in the same Education Code section are inschool
librarians, assistant inschool librarians, audiovisual personnel,
guidance and welfare personnel, attendance personnel, and all
other certificated personnel performing pupil personnel services,
health or librarian services. 	There is no dispute concerning the
inclusion of all of these latter pupil services employees in the
overall certificated unit.
6 "3545 	(a) 	In each case where the appropriateness of the
unit is an issue, the board shall decide the question on the
basis of the community of interest between and among the
employees on their established practices including, among other
things, the extent to which such employees belong to the same
employee organization, and the effect of the size of the unit on
the efficient operation of the school district."

The four disputed pupil services classifications have many
things in common with teachers and other certificated persons
included in the overall unit. 	All are required to attend faculty
and staff meetings. 	All receive the same fringe benefits,
including sick leave, vacation and sabbatical leave holidays,
retirement benefits, including sick leave, vacation and
sabbatical leave, holidays, retirement benefits, life, medical
and dental insurance, vision care and accidental death and
disability insurance. 	All are entitled to tenure.
With the exception of one psychologist and the two social
workers, all employees in the disputed classifications are
assigned to an individual school. 	As such, they are supervised
by the school principal. 	The one psychologist and two social
workers who are centrally located are supervised by the Director
of Pupil Personnel Services, who also supervises others included
in the unit by stipulation of the parties.
School principals have either the determinative say or an
extremely strong voice in the selection for hire of teachers,
counselors, and ten of the 11 psychologists.
The certificated salary schedule provides the basic context
of the wages of all non-managerial, non-supervisory certificated
employees. 	The wages paid to all four classifications in dispute
are determined by a factor known as "ratio to placement." 	"Ratio
to placement" measures the relationship of the classification to
regular teachers in terms of time spent on the job and
responsibility. 	Each employee is thus first placed on the
regular salary schedule; the salary reflected by placement on the
certificated salary schedule is modified according to the "ratio
to placement" factor of that employee's classification. 	Thus,
the basic salary of employees in the disputed classifications is
determined in the same manner as all other employees in the unit.
Furthermore, there are several other pupil service
classifications included in the unit whose actual salary is
determined by application of the "ratio to placement" factor.
All certificated employees are evaluated pursuant to the
Stull Act.7 While there are some differences in the format and
criteria of evaluation between teachers and the four disputed
classifications, the same difference exist between the teachers
and other pupil services employees included in the unit.
Moreover, we view the similarities between the purposes and
format of the Stull Act evaluations of teachers and other
certificated employees are more significant than the differences.
Thus, the guidelines established in the Stull Act are equally
applicable to all teaching and non-teaching certificated
employees; all evaluations are required to be in writing; and the
7 Education Code Article 5.5, Sections 13485 through 13490
inclusive.

frequency of evaluation is the same for all certificated
personnel.
While the credential requirements for teachers are different
than those of other non-teacher certificated employees, we think
they possess more similar than dissimilar components.8
Generally, all certificated employees are required to have a
bachelor or higher degree plus specialized training. 	For
teachers, the specialized training includes a fifth year of study
and an approved program of professional preparation. 	For those
in the four disputed pupil services classifications as well as
the other nondisputed pupil services classifications, the
specialized training includes either a valid state-issued
license, certificate or registration and/or a bachelor or higher
degree and specialized professional preparation. 	Thus, any
credential differences between teachers and other certificated
personnel are no greater than those between teachers and other
certificated personnel are no greater than those between teachers
themselves or between the various pupil services classifications
themselves.
There is substantial interaction between teachers and persons
in the four disputed classifications. 	Psychologists have daily
contact with teachers at the high schools. 	Between 20 and 40
percent of this contact is in connection with their
responsibilities for educationally handicapped children. 	The
Educationally Handicapped Program includes determination of
student qualification for, placement in the removal from the
program through a committed composed of a psychologist, and E.H.
(educationally handicapped) teacher, a nurse, an administrator
and a counselor. 	The remaining 60 to 80 percent of their contact
with teachers is in connection with individual students who have
been referred to them for services and their consultation with
teachers about the progress of those students. 	Nurses regularly
have contact with teachers in a number of ways: 	processing and
validating excuses from physical education classes; collecting
student medical records and informing teachers of medical
disabilities; as a resource for teachers in the required health
course; serving on the educationally handicapped committee; and
by providing advice, in conjunction with a physical education
teacher, a doctor, an administrator and a counselor, about
student placement in adaptive physical education classes.
Further, at least one nurse provided 35 specialized medical
lectures on such topics as social living, health and biology.
Social workers have contact with teachers when relaying
information about the home environment of students with unusual
problems. 	Finally, counselors have daily interaction with
teachers in the course of performing their duties. 	Counselors
initially identify student needs in planning programs of studies.
Counselors interact with teachers in the classroom when they
participate in classroom conducted group projects. 	They also
8 See Education Code Sections 13130 and 13136.

interact with teachers when a teacher believes that a student is
improperly placed in a class, when a particular curriculum path
of a student is discussed and in meetings with parents concerning
student problems.
Therefore, the record as a whole establishes that teachers
and the four disputed classifications share common purposes and
goals in their mutual interaction with each other and the
community they serve. 	We are mindful that there are some minor
differences between teachers and the four disputed
classifications, such as the length of their work day and work
year.9 However, we do not view these differences as sufficient
to establish a separate community of interest.
II
While we conclude that the four disputed classifications do
not possess a separate community of interest sufficient to
establish a separate appropriate unit, we must also consider
whether either the established practices of these employees or
the efficient operation of the district would warrant a contrary
conclusion.
We have previously held that where there wa no evidence that
representation occurred in a bilateral rather than a unilateral
context we would give little weight to the established practices
of employees which antedated the passage of this Act.10 In this
case, under the "meet and confer" process in the Winton Act,11
certificated employees were represented by a Certificated
Employees Council (CEC). 	Since at least 1973, GEA has held a
majority of the nine CEC seats; GSSA has historically held one
seat. 	Each of the three employee organizations in this
proceeding claim to have represented employees in the four
disputed classifications in their dealings with district.
Uncontradicted testimony at the hearing established that
employees in the four disputed pupil services classifications
have become disenchanted with their representation by GEA.
Approximately 64 of them have signed GSSA "signature cards" while
11 	signed GEA "signature cards." 	There is no evidence on the
9 Assignments for counselors, psychologists and nurses
begin 30 minutes before and end 30 minutes after the standard
teaching assignment; teachers have a 15 minute preparation period
both before and after the standard teaching assignment. 	Teachers
and nurses work 182 days; counselors work 188 days; and
psychologists work 212 days.
10 Sweetwater Union High School District, EERB Decision No.
4, November 23, 1976.
11 Education Code Sections 13080-13090, repealed July 1,
1976 by Section 1, Chapter 961 of the Government Code.

record about the designation contained on either the GSSA or GEA
"signature cards." 	GEA altered its "Proposed Contract" dated
March 8, 1976 to honor GSSA's request to separately negotiate
with the district by deleting from Article 1, "Recognition,"
reference to the four disputed classifications. 	Apparently,
however, the "ratio-to-placement" favor, previously explained,
contained in Appendix III of the "proposed contract" lists
counselors in Section 2. 	Thus, while GEA amended its bylaws
sometime around April, 1976, to specifically decline to represent
the four disputed classifications, it apparently continued to
seek to negotiate regarding the salary to be paid at least one of
these classifications.
The United States Supreme Court has stated:
"Naturally the wishes of employees are a factor in a
[National Labor Relations Board] conclusion upon a
unit. 	They are to be weighed with the similarity of
working duties and conditions, the character of the
various plants and the anticipated effectiveness of
the unit in maintaining industrial peach through
collective bargaining.12
In all of the circumstances here, we do not find either GEA's
recent change in its bylaws or the failure of either GEA or GFT
to seek to represent the employees in the four disputed
classifications as sufficient to outweigh the clear community of
interest these employees share with those of the overall
certificated unit. 	Further, the obligation of an exclusive
representative to fairly represent each and every employee in the
appropriate unit exists under this Act13 notwithstanding any
exclusionary language contained in the representative's bylaws.
14 All of the disputed classifications possess a functional
coherence and interdependence as an integral part of the larger
unit. 	Further, in the instant case it is clear that GSSA desires
to include some, but not all, of a group of employees performing
similar work and having similar interests, inasmuch as it has
requested a unit comprised of only part of the district's pupil
services employees.15
12 Pittsburg Plate Glass Co. v. NLRB, 313 U.S. 146, 8 LRRM
425 (1941).
13 Government Code Section 3544.9
14 Steele v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad, 323 U.S. 192,
15 LRRM 852 (1944).
15 In agreeing with the reasoning and conclusion in this
case, Chairman Alleyne does not rely at all upon the obligation
of an exclusive representative to fairly represent employees in
the unit. 	Instead, he relies primarily on the strong community
of interest between pupil services employees and other
certificated employees, particularly their direct and

Finally, there is no suggestion in the record that the unit
as we have determined it in this case would in any way impair the
efficiency of the district's operation, since we have found an
overall unit to be appropriate.
Temporary Teachers On
Contract for One Semester or More
In this district temporary teachers are those who hired on a
contract for one semester or more. 	During the 1975/76 school
year the district employed approximately 30 temporary teachers.
We conclude here, as we did in Belmont Elementary School
District,16 that temporary teachers on a contract for one
semester or more share a sufficient community of interest with
other certificated employees to be included in the certificated
unit. 	They are paid on the basis of the same salary schedule as
regular teachers, receive the same fringe benefits and are
supervised in the same fashion and by the same persons. 	They are
expected to report to work every day just as are all other
certificated personnel. 	They are subject to all the district's
policies and procedures. 	There is no difference in salary,
applicable personnel policies or application of fringe benefits
between temporary teachers who work one semester and those who
work 75 	percent of the school year. 	Temporary teachers who work
75 percent of the school year or who work one semester because of
a decline in enrollment are entitled to reemployment if a vacancy
exists. 	The district, although not required to do so, evaluates
all temporary teachers eligible for reemployment.
There was no evidence offered concerning the past practices
of these employees or the effect of their unit placement on the
efficient operation of the district. 	Accordingly, we give these
criteria no weight in determining the appropriate negotiating
unit.
ORDER
The Educational Employment Relations Board directs that:
1. 	The following unit is appropriate for the purpose of meeting
and negotiating, provided an employee organization becomes the
exclusive representative:
Included: 	All certificated employees, including counselors,
psychologists, school nurses, social workers and
temporary teachers who work on a contract basis one
semester or more.
interdependent interest in the welfare of students.
16 EERB Decision No. 	7, December 30, 1976.

Excluded: 	All other employees, including day-to-day substitute
teachers, hourly adult school teachers, managerial
employees, supervisory employees, and confidential
employees.
2. 	With ten days after the employer posts the notice of this
decision, the employee organizations shall inform the Regional
Director whether or not they wish to proceed to an election in
the unit found appropriate. 	If an employee organization wishes
to proceed to an election, it shall demonstrate to the Regional
Director at least 30 percent support in the above unit. 	The
Regional Director shall conduct an election at the end of the
posting period if (1) more than one employee organization
qualifies for the ballot, or (2) if only one employee
organization qualifies for the ballot and the employer does not
grant voluntary recognition.
By: 	Jerilou H. Cossack, Member 	Reginald Alleyne, Chairman
Dated: 	March 9, 1977
Raymond J. Gonzales, Member, dissenting in part:
I respectively dissent, in part, form the majority opinion in
this case concerning its disposition of pupil personnel services
employees (PPS). 	As I indicated in my concurring opinion in Los
Angeles Unified School District,17 I was not inclined to view
that case as having precedential value because of the procedural
manner in which it reached the Board. 	In this case, the facts
are not only distinguishable from Los Angeles Unified on a
procedural basis but also differ in the application of the
community of interest and established practices criteria set
forth in Government Code Section 3545(a). 	Thus, I am persuaded
that a separate unit of counselors, psychologists, school nurses
and social workers warranted.
I note, preliminarily, the majority opinion's conclusion that
it is indisputable that other employees remain in the larger unit
with teachers. 	I think a more accurate statement is that the
record is inconclusive as to which, if any, PPS employees remain
in the larger proposed unit being sought by the Grossmont
17 See EERB Decision No. 	5, November 24, 1976, where
counselors were the only category of employees being sought as a
separate unit. 	In the present case, while three other categories
of employees are being separately sought in a proposed unit,
counselors constitute approximately 75 percent of the employees
in that group.

Education Association (GEA) and the Greater Grossmont Federation
of Teachers (GFT). 	First, aside from librarians, to whom there
is but one passing reference in the record, there is no evidence
on other PPS employees remaining in the larger unit who meet the
definition set forth in Education Code Section 321(e).18 Second,
regarding librarians themselves we have little significant
testimony such as a job description, salary, and other factors to
help us evaluate their status in terms of the community of
interest test. 	Finally, other certificated personnel who are not
titled counselors per se (i.e., CETA Counseling and Placement
Specialist, Guidance Specialist-VEA Pard D, and ROP Program
Specialist nevertheless perform direct career counseling services
for the students and are arguably being sought by GSSA since its
petition for recognition included support staff for special
programs.
In any case, my colleagues' reliance on the probability that
other pupil personnel services employees remain in an overall
unit and that therefore a definite community of interest exists
between and among al certificated employees is misplaced. 	In
Foothill-DeAnza Community College District,19 we allowed a
separate unit of "skilled trades and maintenance" employees which
did not include food services people, noting that they were not
sought by the intervenor in that case. 	In previous cases, we
included food services personnel with an "operations-support
services" unit on the basis of community of interest factors.20
Here, the facts are analogous. 	The Grossmont Student Services
Association (GSSA) only seeks to represent counselors, nurses,
social workers, and psychologists. 	Thus, the majority's fleeting
references to alleged common interest between alleged PPS
employees in a larger unit and those employees sought by GSSA is
irrelevant to a discussion of whether those employees sought by
GSSA should be included in an overall unit.
In considering the community of interest criterion set forth
in Government Code Section 3545(a), we have in preceding
18 This Education Code section provides that a pupil
services employee is not only one who holds a standard designated
services credential, but who also "performs direct services to
pupils." 	The district's job descriptions include the positions
of catalogue librarian, assistant catalog librarian, and district
media specialist. 	All of these, according to their descriptions,
do not provide direct services to the pupils, nor do they work at
the local schools.
19 EERB Decision No. 	10, March 1, 1977.
20 Sweetwater Union High School District, EERB Decision No.
4, November 23, 1976; Fremont Unified School District, EERB
Decision No. 	6, December 16. 1976; and San Diego Unified School
District, EERB Decision No. 	8, February 18, 1977.

decisions cited the landmark decision, Kalamazoo Paperbox
Corporation.21 In that case, the National Labor Relations Board
(NLRB) set forth the following considerations for determining
whether or not a substantial difference in interests in the
working conditions of employees exists:
...a difference in method of wages or compensation;
different hours of work; different employment benefits;
separate supervision, the degree of dissimilar
qualifications, training, and skills; differences in job
functions...; the infrequency or lack of contact with
other employees; lack of integration with the work
functions of other employees or interchange with
them...22
With the exception of the variable regarding integration of work
functions, which necessarily results in teacher-PPS employee
contact, the facts point to major differences in the remaining
factors listed in Kalamazoo.
As noted by my colleagues, differences exist regarding
qualifications for the instructional and noninstructional
positions in terms of credentialing requirements. 	However, the
majority fails to point out that, as is commonly known, persons
in the categories GSSA seeks to represent generally require two
or more graduate years of education, rather than the one graduate
year required for achieving a teaching credential.23 Further,
21 36 NLRB 134, 49 LRRM 1715 (1962).
22 Id. at 137, 49 LRRM at 1716.
23 Education Code Section 13101 et seq. (Ryan Act), 5
California Administrative Code Section 5900 et seq., and
guidelines prepared by the Commission for Teacher Preparation and
Licensing, State of California, do not completely specify the
number of semester or quarter academic units beyond an
undergraduate degree required towards obtaining either a teaching
or pupil personnel services credential. 	Each educational
institution varies slightly in unit requirements although,
pursuant to Education Code Section 13130, only one academic year
is required for a teaching credential. 	For a pupil personnel
services credential, the variance in unit requirements results in
one-and-a-half to two academic years for counselors (e.g., U.C.
Berkeley, 60 quarter units, Professional Preparation Program
Plan, Pupil Personnel Services Credential, University of
California, [1975]; UCLA, 36 to 40 quarter units, UCLA Graduate
School of Education Announcement Issue, Graduate School of
Education [1976]; University of Southern California, 40 semester
units, Bulletin of the University of Southern California, School
of Education [1976]; two years for school social workers (e.g.,
U.C. Berkeley, 60 Berkeley, 60 quarter units including Masters in
Social Work, Professional Preparation Program Plan, Pupil
Personnel Services Credential, University of California, School

this district does not require PBS employees, particularly
counselors, to achieve tenure as teachers prior to moving into
the counselor ranks as in the Los Angeles Unified School
District.24 Such differences are significant because they affect
the wages and job security (termination, reassignment, and
reinstatement rights) of these employees as compared to the
teachers, which may be subject to the negotiations process.
I also find it curious that the majority opinion completely
ignores the fact that, unlike in Los Angeles Unified, there is a
complete separation of job functions between teachers and PPS
employees; this omission is important especially because
distinctions in job function have been considered important in
previous decisions of this Board. 	For example, in Pittsburg
Unified School District, we allowed a separate unit for
instructional aides 'since their primary functions involve
dealing directly with students either at the instructional or
disciplinary level, whereas other classified employees are
primarily charged with providing a physical environment for
students."25 Pupil personnel services employees are totally non-
instructional staff. 	There is no part-time teaching requirement
of these employees as was the case in Los Angeles Unified. 	In
each instance, counselors, social workers, psychologists and
nurses perform basic guidance functions. 	They are responsible
for the psychological, emotional and physical needs of students
as they proceed to graduation; they advise in the selection of
proper classes and placement, and they administer to the medical
needs of specific pupils. 	The majority's reference to one
of Education, [1975]; UCLA, 74 quarter units, UCLA Graduate
School of Social Welfare [1977]; University of Southern
California, 48 to 52 semester units, Bulletin of University of
So. Calif. School of Social Work, [1975], Calif. State University
of Sacramento, 60 semester units, McClure, J., The School of
Social Work Graduate Program, [1976]); and two to four years for
school psychologists (e.g., U.C. Berkeley, Ph.D. program,
Professional Preparation Program Plan, School Psychologists
Credential, University of California, School of Education,
[1976]; Calif. State University at Long Beach, 60 to 66 semester
units, Form 7, [1976]; University of So. California, School of
Education, [1976]; UCLA, 36 to 40 quarter units for Master of
Arts degree plus 58 quarter units, UCLA School of Education
Announcement Issue, Graduate School of Education [1976].
24 Supra, note 1, at 4.
25 EERB Decision No. 	3, October 14, 1976, at 5. 	See also
Sweetwater Union High School District and Fremont Unified School
District, supra, note 4, where we have also noted as significant
the difference between employees whose main responsibility is to
provide a proper physical environment for the schools and
employees whose primary function is to perform clerical and
recordkeeping functions.

nurse's lecturing is atypical. 	Testimony showed that only this
PPS employee performed such a function.
The distinction in job function between PPS employees and
teachers is all the more important, as it is reflected in various
aspects of their employment relationship with the district. 	For
example, it is reflected in their work schedule. 	All PPS
employees work a longer academic year than all teachers. 	Pupil
personnel services employees work between six and 36 more days
during the school year. 	On a daily basis, PPS staff work an hour
longer. 	And as a matter of district policy in recognition of
"the uniqueness of their individual assignments," they do not
have preparation periods.
Similarly, the distinction in job function is reflected in
the compensation the PPS staff receives. 	The regular school year
salary of counselors, psychologists, and social workers is higher
than that of teachers even though derived from the teachers'
basic salary schedule; during the summer school session
counselors are given a higher salary than teachers. 	And
regarding nurses, they are on a separate schedule altogether.
Lastly, there is no evidence that other PPS staff are paid on the
basis of a ratio to placement factor, contrary to the majority's
statement that there is.26
Differences in primary job responsibilities also become
obvious when considering the student workload of the two groups.
PPS employees have a higher caseload. 	Counselors are
responsible for 400 to 600 students. 	Psychologists and nurses
have no set figures on actual caseload, but are responsible for
schools with student populations of 1800 to 2600. 	Teachers, on
the other hand, have a responsibility limited to approximately
150 students at the most. 	Further, because of their different
job functions both groups of employees have a different work
location and working environment. 	The PPS employees perform
their services in office facilities separate from the classroom
in which the teachers instruct.
An especially important distinction in job functions arises
when counselors act as advocates on behalf of the students in
consultation with their teachers. 	The record indicated that on
occasions conflict has arisen between the two types of employees
over the best educational or guidance course to pursue regarding
a particular student.
26 Documentary evidence submitted by the District applied
the ratio to placement factor to the following positions:
Teacher Specialist I, Teacher Specialist II, Catalog Librarian,
Assistant Catalog Librarian, Media Specialist, Agriculture
Teacher, Psychologist and Social Worker, Vocational Nurse (11
month and 10 month), Counselor, ASB Advisory, Behind-the-Wheel
Driving Instructor. 	See also supra note 2.