Shasta-Tehama-Trinity Joint Community College District (PERB 0031E)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE EDUCATIONAL
EMPLOYMENT RELAT I ONS BOARD
SHASTA-TEHAMA-TRINITY JOINT COMMUNITY.
COLLEGE DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
SHASTA COLLEGE FACULTY 	ASSOCIATION,
CTA/NEA.
Employee Organization.
Case No. 	S-R - 141
EERB 	Decision No. 	31	>
)
)
)
___________________)
Appearances: 	Patrick J . 	Tillman, 	Deputy County Counsel, 	Shasta County, 	for Shasta-
Tehama - Trinity Joint Community College District; 	Duane B. 	Beeson, 	Attorney 	(Brundage,
Beeson, 	Tayer & Kovach), 	for Shasta College Faculty Association, 	CTA/NEA .
•
Before Alleyne, 	Chairman; 	Gonzales and Cossack, 	Members.
OPINION AND ORDER
This case is before the Educational Employment Relations Board on exceptions
to 	the attached proposed decision of a 	hearing officer. 	Shasta-Tehama-Trinity Joint
Community College District 	excepts 	to 	the hearing officer's proposed decision that hourly
paid certificated employees 	and 	temporary certificated employees who 	are hourly paid and
have 	taught 	at 	least 	the equivalent of 	three semesters out of 	the last 	six semesters
inclusive are appropriately included in a unit with other certificated employees. 	The
Board has 	considered the record and 	the attached proposed decision in light 	of 	the
exceptions .
The hearing officer's 	decision is 	substantially in accord with Board precedent .
See Los Rios 	Community College District. 1 Accordingly, 	the hearing officer"s proposed
order is adopted as 	the order of 	the Educational Employment Relations Board . 2
By Reginald Alleyne
Raymond J . 	Gonzales, 	concurring in the Order:
My concurrence 	in this 	case 	simply acknowledges 	the correct 	applicability of
Board precedent by the hearing officer. 	I 	retain my views, 	however, regarding
1EERB Decision No. 	18, 	June 9, 	1977 .
2The District's 	request for oral argument 	in this matter 	is denied .

the unit placement of part-time community college 	instructors as 	reflected 	in
my partially dissenting opinion in Los Rios 	Community College District . 3
~ 	aymond J. 	Gonazles, 	Member
Jerilou H. 	Cossack, 	Member, 	concurring:
I 	agree with Chairman Alleyne 	that 	the hearing officer's 	decision 	in this
case 	should be affirmed and that 	it 	aptly applies 	the precedent 	established in
Los Rios Community College District. 1 However, 	the District argued at length in
its brief 	in support 	of 	its exceptions 	that part - time 	instructors were 	ineligible
for 	tenure and 	thereby lack a 	community of 	interest with full-time 	instructors .
The Board responded to this argument in Los Rios. 	In that principal opinion, 	I
wrote 	that 	tenure rights of part - time 	instructors would have 	to be determined
ultimate l y by the courts 	and that whatever the outcome 	there, 	"tenure is but one
factor 	for 	consideration in determining community of 	interest." 2 In his 	concurrence,
the Chairman wrote 	that California law recognizes a 	regular status 	for part-time
instructors, 	which represents but 	"a factor, 	among others, 	in favor of 	finding a
community of 	interest between part-time and 	full-time 	instructors 	II
3
It 	is clear from the Los Rios decision, 	and affirmed here, 	that 	tenure is only
one element 	of 	community of 	interest 	to be 	considered in determining appropriate
negotiating units.
J;rilou H. 	Cossack, 	Member
Dated: 	September 22, 	1977
3Supra note 1.
1 EERB Decision No. 	18, 	June 9, 	1977 ,
2 Id. 	at 11 .
3 Id. 	at 	28-29.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE EDUCATIONAL
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
SHASTA-TEHAMA-TRINITY JOINT COMMUNITY
COLLEGE DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
SHASTA COLLEGE FACULTY ASSOCIATION
CTA/NEA,
Employee Organization.
)
)
) 	Case No . 	S-R-141
EERB Decision No. 	31
September 26, 	1977
ORDER
)
)
)
)
)
\___________________,)
The Educational Employment Relations Board directs that:
The following unit 	is appropriate for the purpose of meeting and negotiating,
providing an employee organization becomes the exclusive representative of the unit :
Certificated Employee Unit consisting of all 	full-time and part-time regular
or contract certificated employees, 	employees who are replacements for certificated
employees on leave of absence or sabbatical 	leave and those hourly paid certificated
employees and temporary certificated employees who are hourly paid and have taught
at least the equivalent of three semesters out of the last six semesters 	inclusive, 1
and excluding all management, 	supervisory and confidential employees and substitutes.
Within ten 	(10) 	workdays after the employer posts the Notice of Decision, 	the
employee organization 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 the employee organization qualifies for the ballot and
the employer does not grant voluntary recognition.
Educational Employment Relations Board
by 	" 	"
STEPHEN BARBER
Executive Assistant to the Board
9/26/77
1
As used in this proposed decision the word "inclusive" means that an instructor
who is presently teaching for a third semester, 	under this formula, 	would also
be considered eligible.

)
________________ )
1/
1/
EDUCATIONAL EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of
SHASTA-TEHAMA-TRINITY JOINT COMMUNITY
COLLEGE DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
SHASTA COLLEGE FACULTY ASSOCIATION,
CTA/NEA,
Employee Organization.
)
)
)
)
) 	Representation
Case No. S-R-141
PROPOSED DECISION
(7/8/77)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances: 	Patrick J. Tillman, Deputy County Counsel, Shasta County,
for Shasta-Tehama-Trinity Joint Community College District; Duane B. Beeson,
Attorney (Brundage, Beeson, Tayer & Kovach), for Shasta College Faculty
Association, CTA/NEA.
Before Ronald E. Blubaugh, Hearing Officer.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On April 2, 1976, the Shasta College Faculty Association, CTA/NEA
filed a request for recognition with the Board of Trustees of the Shasta-
Tehama-Trinity Joint Community College 	District.1 	The Association sought
recognition as the exclusive representative of a unit of certificated
employees described as follows:
All full-time and part-time certificated teaching
and non-teaching faculty that includes all class-
room teachers, librarians, counselors, psycholo-
gists; A.V., day and/or evening, program and work
experience coordinators; department heads, assist-
ant department chairpersons; and like titled
positions.
1 Hereafter 	the 	Shasta 	College 	Faculty 	Association, 	CTA/NEA will 	be
referred to as the "Association" and the Shasta-Tehama-Trinity Joint
Community College District as the "District."
- 1 -

The District posted a notice of this request on April 8, 1976,
and on May 7, 	1976 the District issued a decision doubting the appropri-
ateness of the unit requested by the Association. 	An Educational
Employment Relations Board hearing officer conducted a hearing about
the unit question on February 2, 1977, at the District campus in Redding.
At the hearing, 	the parties stipulated that the following
employees shall be included in the appropriate unit:
All full-time and part-time regular or contract
certificated daytime employees and employees who
are replacements for certificated employees on
leave of absence or sabbatical leave.
By stipulation, 	the parties also excluded from the unit all
management and confidential employees and substitutes. 	They further
agreed that the only issue between them is the status of evening
division hourly paid employees and temporary employees who are hourly
paid. 	The District takes the position that its hourly paid certificated
employees do not belong in the same unit as its regular and contract
employees	pl 	ees22
. 	Th	— 	TheeAssociatio	Association contend	n contend	s th	s th	e e two groups share a community
of interest and belong in the same unit.
ISSUE
Should hourly paid certificated employees arid temporary certifi-
cated employees who are hourly paid be placed in the same unit with the
contract and regular certificated employees?
1
— 	The Education Code creates a system whereby the certificated employees
of a community college district are divided into three categories:
contract, 	regular or temporary. 	Education Code Section 87476 (formerly
numbered as section 13334) and Section 87604 (13346). 	The statutory
scheme covering the achievement of tenure by certificated employees
envisions the progression of a satisfactory employee from the probationary
status of "contract" to the tenured status of "regular" after two years.
[Education Code Sections 87600 et seq. 	(13345)].
-2-

FINDINGS OF FACT
The Shasta-Tehama-Trinity Joint Community College District
comprises a vast geographic area of some 10,000 square miles in Northern
California. 	All of Shasta, Tehama and Trinity Counties are located
within the District in addition to small portions of Modoc, Lassen and
Humboldt Counties.
In order to serve the residents of its expansive territory,
the District offers a number of courses at sites away from the Redding
campus. 	The total offerings include some 600 classes in more than 20
towns scattered throughout the 10,000 square miles. 	Many of these
classes are taught by persons who live in or near the towns where the
courses are offered. 	There also are circumstances, however, where
instructors from Redding are assigned to handle night courses in remote
areas.
In the fall of 1976, 	the District had an enrollment of 7,559
students of whom 4,439 were enrolled in day classes and the remainder
in evening classes. 	In the spring of 1977, the District offered 343
evening division classes on the Redding campus and 342 evening classes
at 23 off-campus locations. 	Some 76 percent of the off-campus evening
courses were concentrated at seven locations. 	In each of those seven
locations, at least 25 courses were offered.
The District has 161 regular and contract certificated employees,
Of those, 13 are part-time contract employees all of whom, both parties
agree, should be in the same unit as the full-time regular and contract
employees. 	All regular and contract instructors are paid an annual
salary. 	For the 13 part-time contract instructors, this salary is fixed
according to the percentage of a full-time load they carry.
In addition, to the part-time instructors on contract, the
District also employs 374 instructors on an hourly basis. 	Of the 374
hourly instructors, 	54 are regular full-time employees of the District
who are working for extra pay and 114 are the employees of other school
districts. 	There are 146 who work for an employer other than a school
district, 36 who are homemakers, 13 who are retired and 11 with no other
sources of income.
-3-

The District makes an effort to reemploy the same hourly
instructors from year to year, preferring to keep employees who have
completed satisfactory work. 	One part-time instructor has taught
continuously since 1962 except for 	one-semester break more than 10
years ago. 	There are numerous hourly paid instructors who have taught
five or more semesters for the District. 	Only 41 of the hourly
instructors last fall were not teaching in at least their third
semester.
During the 1976-77 school year, 	the evening division hourly
pay rate ranged from $11.82 an hour for instructors in their first
and second semesters to $12.69 per hour for instructors who have taught
more than six semesters. 	Unlike the salary schedule for regular and
contract instructors, 	the Shasta College evening instructor salary
schedule provides no additional pay according to educational level.
All evening and other hourly instructors receive pay increases according
to longevity with the District, up to the six semester maximum pay.
Contract and regular teachers advance on their salary schedule according
both to longevity with the District and educational level.
The essential duties of all instructors at Shasta College are
identical, be the instructors day or evening, hourly, 	contract or regular.
Those duties are to:
Instruct students in the various subject matter
fields in accordance with descriptions outlined in
the course of study and be responsible for acceptable
standards of student performance.
Impress upon the minds of the students the rights,
duties, and responsibilities of American citizenship
and for maintaining acceptable personal standards of
dress and grooming.
Accept the responsibility for seeing that good
social decorum is observed throughout the campus.
Emphasize to all classes the importance of prompt,
regular, and continuous class attendance.
Maintain accurate scholastic records of students,
enrolled in classes and submit reports according to
schedule to the Records Office.
-4-

The District applies the same standards of course quality
and content for both day and evening classes. 	Students may obtain a
degree by attending the day program, 	the evening program, or a combination
of both. 	The District's handbook for evening instructors asserts that
the "grading and evaluation standards" of evening students must be
equivalent to those in the day. 	Evening instructors are encouraged to
discuss grading standards with the division chairman and/or the day
instructor of the same course. 	One instructor who has taught both day
and evening students said he uses the same textbook, gives the same
exams, and demands the same work of students in the two divisions.
Another instructor, who teaches primarily in the evening, said he made
an effort to stay in contact with the day faculty members who teach the
same courses. 	In order to insure comparability, the District recently
has created the position of day/evening coordinator. 	Coordinators
attempt to keep consistency between the day and evening programs by
talking to instructors about course content, evaluating instructors
and, 	in one department, requiring evening instructors to visit the day
sections of the classes they teach.
Contract and regular instructors are required to be on campus
for a minimum of 30 hours per week. 	They are required to post and hold
office hours for student consultation, 	including a minimum of five hours
per week for student conferences. 	There is no similar requirement for
instructors paid on an hourly basis and their pay does not include
compensation for office hours outside of class. 	However, 	even though
the District does not require it, one evening instructor testified that
he makes himself freely available to students outside of class even to
the extent of providing them with his home telephone number.
There is a similarity in the hiring process for day and evening
instructors. 	All certificated personnel are appointed by the District
Board of Trustees upon the recommendation of the president and superin-
tendent. 	It is the policy of the college to hire the best qualified
instructors available, both day and evening. 	There was no evidence to
indicate that the District requires a higher level of academic background
-5-

-6-
or experience for day instructors from what it requires for evening
instructors. 	However, 	the evening instructors are sometimes hired
because they are the best qualified applicants living in the
particular geographic locations where courses are to be
offered.
Both day and evening instructors are expected to attend some
faculty meetings. 	The contract and regular faculty members who teach
the day program attend meetings of the entire faculty where they discuss
problems germane to the operation of the District including curriculum
development, facilities planning and so forth. 	In addition, the regular
and contract faculty members are expected to attend all scheduled
division meetings. 	According to the District handbook for evening
teachers, division faculty meetings are to be scheduled for all day and
evening instructors prior to each semester. 	The purpose of those meetings,
according to the handbook, 	is to provide instructors with the "opportunity
to become acquainted, exchange ideas, teaching materials, propose curriculum
development and change, and become familiar with current College and
division policies and procedures." 	The meetings are to be held in the
evening hours and the handbook describes it as "essential that all instructors,
new and old, attend evening faculty meetings." 	There was testimony, however,
that not all evening faculty members actually attend the meetings and those
who have not attended were not terminated.
Evening faculty members are not permitted to become members of
faculty committees. 	However, 	the committee meetings are open and evening
faculty members are entitled to attend and speak if they desire.
Evening instructors develop proposals for new courses. 	The
evening instructors handbook describes in detail the steps to be followed
in obtaining approval for a new course. 	Approval is required by the
division chairman, 	the evening education office, the college curriculum
committee, the district board of trustees and finally, the Office of the
Chancellor of the California Community Colleges. 	Other than the involvement
of the evening education office, 	this process is no different from what
would be followed by a new course proposed by a day instructor. 	The
curriculum committee, however, 	is comprised solely of regular and contract
instructors.

The regular and contract instructors at Shasta College are
required to develop a professional growth plan. 	Under this requirement,
the regular and contract instructors must submit a professional growth
plan every four years for how they will maintain expertise in their
subject matters. 	Instructors who fail to meet this requirement may not
advance on the salary schedule. 	No such demand is placed on hourly
instructors and they receive no additional pay for furthering their
academic background.
There are differences in the benefits received by the two
groups of employees. 	District employees working one-half time or more
are entitled to participate in the group health insurance plan, 	the
group dental insurance plan and the group vision insurance plan. 	In
order to qualify for a sabbatical leave, an instructor must be either
a regular or contract employee. 	Hourly instructors receive equal treat-
ment with full-time instructors for jury duty.
The District policy calls for a minimum enrollment of 20
students in a class. 	If there 	is 	an insufficient number of students,
the class may be cancelled. 	This policy applies to all classes, day
or evening. 	However, its effect falls more heavily on evening instructors
because of their hourly status. 	Contract and regular instructors must
be paid even though a class is cancelled. 	Therefore, 	the District does
not cancel small classes taught by regular or contract instructors unless
there is an alternative course those instructors could teach. 	Hourly
instructors are not paid unless they teach and so the minimum enrollment
standard is applied more stringently in the evening.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The issue presented in this case is essentially identical to
that considered by the EERB in Los Rios Community College District.3/
In Los Rios, 	the EERB held that "part-time instructors who have taught
at least the equivalent of three semesters of the last six semesters
inclusive" should be in the same unit with the full-time instructors.
—
3/ 	EERB Decision No. 18, June 9, 1977.
-7-

,,
7/
After noting the Educational Employment Relations Act's
mandates for resolving unit 	questions,4 	the EERB next analyzed New
York 	University,5 	the leading National Labor Relations Board case
dealing with unit placement in private universities. 	The EERB thus
met 	its 	obligation to consider NLRB precedent.6
In New York University, 	the NLRB set forth four areas in
which it found "no real mutuality of interest" between the part-time
and full-time faculty members: 	1) compensation, 2) participation in
university government, 3) eligibility for tenure, 4) working conditions.
The NLRB reversed its prior position—
7/ and excluded part-time instructors
who were not employed in "tenure track" positions.
4/
The NLRB noted that most of the part-time instructors received
their primary income elsewhere and that their primary work interest was
elsewhere. 	They received no fringe benefits and were excluded from the
4/
Government Code Section 3545 reads as follows:	—
(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
and 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.
(b) 	In all cases:
(1) 	A negotiating unit that includes classroom teachers shall
not be appropriate unless it at least includes all of the
classroom teachers employed by the public school employer,
except management employees, supervisory employees, and
confidential employees.
(2) 	A negotiating unit of supervisory employees shall not be
appropriate unless it includes all supervisory employees
employed by the district and shall not be represented by the
same employee organization as employees whom the supervisory
employees supervise.
(3) 	Classified employees and certificated employees shall not
be included in the same negotiating unit.
5 205 	NLRB 	4 	(1973), 	83 	LRRM 1549.
6 Fire Fighters Union, 	Local 1186 v. 	City of Vallejo, 	12 	Cal.3d 606 	(1974)
7 In Long Island University, 	C.W. 	Post 	Center, 	189 NLRB 904 	(1971),
77 LRRM 1001, and in University of New Haven, 190 NLRB 478 (1971),
77 LRRM 1273, the NLRB developed a formula for including certain part-
time instructors in the same unit as full-time instructors.
-8-

10/
,n/
faculty senate. 	They did not participate in department decisions on
appointments, promotions or tenure. 	They were not consulted on curriculum
development, degree requirements or department chair selection. 	They
had no voice in developing institutional policies, nor were they obligated
to engage in research, writing or other creative endeavors, counsel
students or participate in department and university affairs. 	Finally,
they could not achieve tenure under any circumstances.
In Los Rios, the EERB found this analysis inapplicable to the
California community colleges. 	The EERB noted that the NLRB cases—
8/ deal
with four-year universities which place an emphasis on research and
writing by faculty members. 	The EERB noted that the California community
colleges are primarily teaching institutions which offer instruction
through the second year of college.—
9/ The University of California is
designated by law as "the primary state-supported academic agency for
research	esearch "."	10 — 	There is no authorization for research in the community
colleges.
Another major distinction the EERB considered between the
California community colleges and the private four-year institutions is
the whole question of tenure. 	It is clear from the NLRB decisions that
faculty members who can acquire tenure are not excluded from the unit.
This occurs because the institutions considered by the NLRB link tenure
directly with the instructor's status as a full-time employee. 	Full-time
instructors are on the tenure track. 	Part-time instructors are not.
In California, there is not such a fixed linkage between tenure
and the instructor's status as either part-time or full-time. 	It is clear
8/
For NLRB decisions applying the New York University rule see University
of San Francisco, 207 NLRB 12 (1973), 84 LRRM 1403; Point Park College,
209 NLRB 1064 (1974), 85 LRRM 1542; University of Miami, 213 NLRB No. 64
(1974), 87 LRRM 1634; Goddard College, 216 NLRB No. 81 (1975), 88 LRRM
1228; Rensselear Polytechnic Institute, ,218 NLRB No. 220 (1975), 89 LRRM
1844; Yeshiva University, 221 NLRB No. 169 (1975), 91 LRRM 1017;
University of Vermont, 223 NLRB No. 46 (1976), 91 LRRM 1570.
—
9/
-
10
Education Code Section 66701 	(22651).
Education 	Code 	Section 	66500 	(22550).
-9-

that part-time community college instructors can obtain tenure in this
state. 	Ferner v. Harris (19 75), 45 C A . 3d 363 at 368, Vittal v. Long
Beach Unified Sch. Dist. 	(1970), 8 C A . 3 d 112. 	There has been a great
deal of litigation about whether certain "temporary" instructors can
obtain tenure in the community colleges and the results are conflicting.
Balen v. Peralta Junior College Dist. 	(1974), 11 CA.3d 821; Coffey v.
Governing Bd. of S.F. Community College Dist. 	(1977), 66 C A . 3 d 279;
Peralta Federation of Teachers v. 	Peralta Community College District
(1977), 69 CA.3d 281. 	But however the California Supreme Court
ultimately unscrambles these cases, 	the mere possibility of tenure for
any part-time instructor marks a significant distinction from the NLRB
precedent.
Consistent with what the EERB found in Lbs Rios, there are
these and other distinctions between Shasta College and New York University.
It is true that hourly certificated employees at Shasta College do not
have the same role on college committees as do the regular or contract
instructors. 	They may present proposals to committees and be heard, although
they cannot participate as members. 	But it seems doubtful that even full-
time faculty members at Shasta College have anything like the role in
governance possessed by the New York University faculty. 	At New York
University, 	the full-time faculty has a significant role in establishment
of both admission standards for students and degree requirements. 	At
New York University, 	the full-time faculty has a voice in the hiring,
promotion and tenure status with their colleagues. 	In accord with the
practice of shared governance at major universities,— 	the New York
University faculty has a key voice in the operation of that school.
In the California community colleges, many of these matters
are not subjects for faculty participation. 	By law, admission in the
community colleges is open to any person with a high school diploma or
its equivalent.
12 /
— 	By law, 	the district governing board of a community
11 See 	generally Kahn, 	"The 	NLRB 	and Higher Education: 	The 	Failure
of Policy-making through Adjudication," 21 UCLA L. R. 63.
12/
Education Code 	Section 	76000 	(25503).	—
-10-

college sets the academic standards for probation, dismissal, readmission
and graduation.
13 By law, 	the district governing board is to establish
14/	policies for and approve the total educational program for the District.—
/
14No evidence submitted in the Shasta College hearing indicates the faculty
participates in these matters.
—
There is some parallel between the salary structure for the
Shasta College contract and regular instructors and that for the hourly
certificated employees. 	Both provide pay increases for longevity with
the District, doubtlessly an inducement for faculty members to remain with
the District.
Most of the factors considered by the NLRB in its decision to
separate part-timers are thus distinguishable in part or in full from
the situation in the Shasta-Tehama-Trinity Joint Community College District.
When that rationale is set aside, as the EERB found in Los Rios, the case becomes
compelling for the inclusion of at least some hourly instructors in the unit with
full-time instructors. 	The most fundamental consideration is that they do
the same work. 	They teach. 	The courses are the same. 	The grading is the
same. 	The responsibility for impressing upon young people the importance
of certain standards of conduct is the same. 	Students may complete their
entire program in either day or evening or a combination of both. 	A
student in a typical class may never know whether the instructor is part-
time or full-time, paid by the hour or by annual contract. 	The District
has gone to a considerable length to insure this 	result. 	There is no
element in community of interest considerations more basic than the nature
of the work. 	In some cases, 	there may be reasons to place employees with
essentially identical work into separate negotiating units. 	The NLRB
has chosen this path for the private universities under its jurisdiction.
The EERB has decided to the contrary in the California community colleges.
13 Education Code Section 72285 (1010.6).
— 	Education Code Section 72283 	(1010.4).
-11-

/
In their statement of the issue in this case, the parties
spoke in terms of "hourly paid certificated employees" and "temporary
certificated employees who are hourly paid." 	This wording creates the
impression of two separate groups 	part-time employees and temporary
employees. 	However, such a reading is an illusion. 	The parties have
stipulated that contract and regular part-time instructors and instructors
hired to replace persons on leave shall be in the basic unit. 	Essentially,
that means that the only group of "temporary" instructors in dispute are
those hourly instructors hired under Education Code Section 87482 	(13337.5)
to teach evening classes. 	There is therefore no reason for a separate
discussion about the placement of "temporary certificated employees who
are hourly paid."
Finally, 	it is appropriate to note that many of the hourly
instructors work in off campus locations spread throughout the District's
10,000 square mile service area. 	Conceivably, an argument could have been
made that even if the hourly instructors on the Redding campus should be
in the unit those in the outlying areas should not. 	That argument would
split the hourly instructors by geography. 	Such an argument is not pressed
by the District and so the hearing officer will make no attempt to analyze
it)2/
In Los Rios, the EERB decided that the length of a part-time
instructor's relationship with the district should form the dividing line
between those who are in the unit and those who are out. 	The hearing
—
15 The NLRB has wrestled with the geography question 	in several cases
involving educational institutions. 	See generally, Manning, Timothy,
Roman Catholic Archbishop, Archdiocese of Los Angeles, 223 NLRB No. 198
(1976), 92 LRRM 1114; Columbia University, City of New York Trustees,
222 NLRB No. 41 (1976), 91 LRRM 1276; Cornell University, 183 NLRB 329
(1970), 74 LRRM 1269.
-12-

officer will follow the same approach in this 	case.16 	On the basis of the
evidence recited above and the whole record, 	the hearing officer finds
that the hourly paid certificated employees and temporary certificated
employees who are hourly paid shall be in the unit with regular and
contract instructors if those hourly employees have taught at least
the equivalent of three semesters out of the last six semesters
inclusive.
PROPOSED DECISION
It is the proposed decision that:
The following unit is appropriate for the purpose of meeting
and negotiating, 	providing an employee organization becomes the exclusive
representative of the unit:
Certificated Employee Unit consisting of all full-time and
part-time regular or contract certificated employees, 	employees who are
replacements for certificated employees on leave of absence or sabbatical
leave and those hourly paid certificated employees and temporary certifi-
cated employees who are hourly paid and have taught at least the equivalent
16Government 	Code Section 3545 commands that a negotiating unit with
classroom teachers shall contain all classroom teachers. 	In Los Rios,
the EERB considered whether that section requires all part-time
instructors to be placed in the unit. 	Relying on its earlier reasoning
in Belmont Unified School District, EERB Decision No. 7, December 30,
1976, 	the EERB concluded all part-time instructors need not be included
in the unit.
In addition to community of interest considerations, Government Code
Section 3545 also commands that attention be paid to established
practices and efficiency of operation. 	The EERB has decided it will
give little weight to past representation practices under the Winton
Act. 	Sweetwater Union High School District, EERB Decision No. 4,
November 23, 1976, and Grossmont Union High School District, EERB
Decision No. 11, March 9, 1977. 	For whatever weight it does have,
however, 	there was evidence that the formerly existing certificated
employees council at Shasta College negotiated at least once recently
on behalf of the salaries paid to evening instructors. 	Finally, 	there
was no evidence suggesting it would be inefficient for the hourly
instructors to be placed in the same unit as the regular and contract
instructors.
-13-

17/
of three 	semesters out of 	the 	last 	six semesters 	inclusive,	..,.., 17 	and
excluding all management, 	supervisory and confidential employees and
substitutes.
The parties have seven 	(7) 	calendar days from receipt of 	this
proposed decision in which to 	file exceptions 	in accordance with
Section 33380 of 	the Board's rules and regulations. 	If no party files
timely exceptions, 	this proposed decision will become a · final 	order on
July 20, 	1977, 	and a Notice of Decision will 	issue from the Board.
Within ten 	(10) 	workdays after the employer posts the Notice of
Decision, 	the employee organization 	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
the employee organization qualifies 	for 	the ballot and the employer
does not grant voluntary recognition.
Dated: 	July 8, 	1977
Ronald E. 	Blubaugh
Hearing Officer
. 1..., /
17 As 	used 	in 	this 	proposed 	decision 	the word 	"inclusive" 	means 	that
an instructor who is presently teaching for · a 	third semester, 	under
this 	formula, 	would also be considered eligible.
- 14 -