Tulare County Organization for Vocational Education, Regional Occupational Center and Program, Joint Powers Board of Directors, (PERB 0057E)

'
'
STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
JOINT POWERS 	BOARD OF DIRECTORS, 	TULARE
"COUNTY ORGANIZATION FOR" VOCATIONAL
EDUCATION, 	REGIONAL OCCUPATIONAL CENTER
AND PROGRAM,
Employer,
and
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES 	ASSOCIATION,
CHAPTER 	677,
Employee Organization.
)
)
)
)
)
) Case No. 	S-R-547
PERB Decision No. 57
June 26, 1978
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances: 	Larry A. 	Curtis, 	Attorney 	(Musick, 	Peeler, 	and Garrett)
for Joint Power Board of Directors, Tulare 	County Organization for
Vocational Education, 	Regional Occupational Center and Program; 	and
Madalyn Frazzini, 	Attorney for California School Employees Association.
Before Gluck, 	Chairperson; 	Cossack Twohey and Gonzales, 	Members.
OPINION
On August 	1, 	1977 Public Employment Relations 	Board 	(PERB) 	hearing
officer 	Jeff Paule 	issued 	a 	proposed 	decision finding 	that Joint
Power 	Board of Directors, 	Tulare 	County Organization 	for Vocational
Education, 	Regional 	Occupational 	Center and Program 	(TCOVE) 	was 	an
employer within 	the meaning 	of 	the 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations
Act 	(EERA).1' / 	TCOVE 	filed 	timely 	exceptions 	to 	the 	hearing 	officer's
finding 	that 	it 	is 	an 	employer within 	the meaning 	of 	the EERA.
On December 15, 	1976 California School Employees Association,
Chapter 	677 	(CSEA) 	requested recognition as 	the 	exclusive
1Gov. 	Code 	sec. 	3540 	et 	seq. 	All 	further 	statutory references
are 	to 	the Government 	Code unless 	otherwise 	indicated.

-2-
representative of 	a unit 	of 	the 	12 	classified 	employees 	of
TCOVE.2
2/ TCOVE questioned CSEA's 	showing of 	interest, 	the
appropriateness 	of 	the unit requested and 	its 	own 	status 	as 	an
employer under 	the EERA. 	Subsequently, 	the parties 	stipulated
that 	if TCOVE was 	found 	to be an 	employer under 	the EERA, 	the
requested 	unit would be 	appropriate.
FACTS
TCOVE was 	established 	through 	a joint 	powers 	agreement 3
between nine 	school 	districts 	in Tulare County 	to 	offer 	a
regional 	occupation 	center 	(ROC) 	and a regional 	occupation
I,
program 	(ROP).4/ 	The purpose 	of ROC's 	and ROP's 	is 	"...to
provide 	qualified 	students 	with 	the 	opportunity 	to 	attend 	a
technical 	school 	or 	enroll 	in a vocational 	or 	technical
training 	program, 	regardless 	of 	the 	geographical 	location of
their 	residence...."5/ 	ROC's 	and ROP's 	may be 	offered by
2The unit 	requested 	includes 	the 	accountant 	clerk/office
supervisor, 	secretary I, 	custodian, 	instructional aide, 	place-
ment 	aide 	and 	five bus 	driver/aides.
3 Gov. 	Code sec. 	6500 et seq., Ed. 	Code sec. 	52301.
4 Ed. 	Code sec. 	52300 et seq.
5 Ed. 	Code sec. 	52300.

individual school districts or, 	as 	in the instant case, 	by
several 	school 	districts 	together.6
A ROC 	is 	a physical 	facility 	in which vocational 	and 	technical
education courses 	are 	taught. 	A ROP 	is 	a vocational 	and technical
program meeting 	the 	standards 	and criteria of a ROC, 	but 	taught 	at
various 	sites within each of 	the member 	school 	districts. 7
TCOVE's governing board 	is 	composed of one member 	from each of
the nine contributing school 	districts. 	It has 	the authority to
contract 	for funds, 	lease or purchase property and hire personnel.
It 	is 	funded through a number of sources. 	Each member 	district
contributes 	a portion of 	its 	assessed valuation 	toward TCOVE 	admin-
istrative and maintenance 	costs." TCOVE 	also receives 	from each
6 Ed. 	Code sec. 	52301 provides in pertinent part:
The 	county 	superintendent 	of 	schools 	of 	each
county,...may 	establish 	and maintain,...at
least one regional occupational 	center, 	or
regional occupational program, 	in the
county.... 	The governing boards 	of any
school 	districts...may,...cooperate 	in 	the
establishment 	and maintenance 	of a regional
occupational 	center, 	or regional occupational
program, ....
...,|A] single school district.. .may. .. establish
a 	regional 	occupational 	center 	or program....
7During 	the 	1976-77 	school year, 	TCOVE offered 19 	classes
through the ROC 	and 93 	through 	the ROP. 	ROC 	classes 	are 	taught
at 	the center. 	ROP 	classes 	are 	taught at member district 	school
sites 	or other locations 	secured by 	the member 	districts. 	There
are 	five 	full-time TCOVE 	teachers who 	teach at 	the ROC and 48
ROP 	teachers, 	all 	of whom are employed by one of 	the member
districts.
-3-

0
district 	the 	state average daily attendance 	(ADA) 	allotments 	for
attendance 	at 	ROC/ROP 	classes 	for 	the number of 	students 	from that
district who 	attend. 	The 	allotments 	for attendance at ROP 	classes
are 	returned 	to 	each district 	in proportion 	to 	the number of
students 	attending proffered 	classes. 	The ADA allocations 	are
retained by TCOVE 	for attendance at ROC 	classes. 	Further, 	TCOVE
receives 	funds 	from 	the 	State 	Department 	of Vocational 	Education
for 	special projects.
Member 	districts, 	upon proper notice, 	may withdraw from TCOVE.
While TCOVE Board members 	are not 	directly elected, 	each duly
elected 	governing board 	selects 	its 	representative 	to 	TCOVE.
DISCUSSION
Section 	3540.1(k) 	of 	the EERA defines 	a public 	school 	employer
as 	"...the 	governing board of 	a 	school 	district, 	a 	school 	district,
a 	county board of 	education, 	or 	a 	county 	superintendent of 	schools."
TCOVE 	urges 	that we 	apply 	this 	section 	literally 	in 	determining
that 	it 	is not 	an employer within 	the meaning of 	the EERA. 	We 	are
not 	persuaded by TCOVE's 	argument.
The 	question raised by this 	case 	is 	one of 	the Board's 	juris-
diction, 	since 	if we were 	to 	conclude 	that TCOVE 	is not 	an employer
within 	the meaning of 	the EERA 	its 	employees would have none 	of
the 	rights 	set 	forth 	in 	the 	EERA8. 	Such a result 	is 	contrary 	to
8Cf. Turlock 	School 	Districts,(10/26/77) 	PERB 	Order No 	Ad-18
[1 PERC 521].
-4-

the 	legislative 	intent 	in 	enacting 	the EERA. 	Section 3540 	states
the basic 	purpose 	of 	the EERA 	is
...to 	promote 	the 	improvement 	of personnel
management 	and 	employer-employee 	relations
within 	the 	public 	school 	systems...by provid-
ing a uniform basis 	for recognizing 	the right
of public 	school 	employees 	to....(Emphasis
added.)
While 	it 	is 	generally 	true 	that 	items 	not 	enumerated 	in a
statute 	are 	excluded, 	this 	general 	rule 	is 	inapplicable where no
reason exists why persons 	or 	things 	other 	than 	those 	enumerated
should not 	be 	included 	and manifest 	injustice would result 	by
not 	including 	them9. 	Thus, 	it 	is 	a well-understood canon of
statutory 	construction 	that
...[E]very 	statute 	should be 	construed with
reference 	to 	the whole 	system of which 	it 	is
a part 	so 	that 	all may be 	harmonized 	and have
effect.... 	[S]uch purpose will not be 	sacri-
ficed 	to 	a 	literal 	construction 	of any part
of 	the Act. ... 10
In 	the 	instant 	case, 	TCOVE 	employees 	perform the 	same 	duties
for 	the 	same purpose 	as 	employees 	in 	traditional 	school 	districts.
Excluding 	TCOVE's 	employees 	from 	the 	coverage 	of 	the 	EERA would
guarantee 	that 	they would 	be 	treated 	differently 	than 	employees
of 	traditional 	school 	districts. 	Such 	disparate 	treatment 	of
essentially 	identical 	employees 	only undermines 	the 	stated 	leg-
islative 	purpose 	of 	affording 	a uniform system of managing 	employer-
employee relations 	in 	the public 	school 	system.
9 People v. 	Hacker Emporium, 	Inc. 	(1971) 	15 Cal.App.3d 474,
477.
10 Select 	Base Materials 	v. 	Board of Equalization 	(1959)
51 Cal.2d 640, 	645.
-5-

The 	ROC 	and ROP programs 	offered by TCOVE 	are 	educational
programs 	of 	the 	public 	school 	system . 	These 	programs 	may be 	offered
by 	a 	single 	large 	district 	or 	jointly by 	several 	smaller 	districts .
The 	fact 	that 	s maller districts 	such 	as 	those 	in 	the 	instant 	case
are 	able 	to 	effectively 	i mplement 	the 	legislatively prescribed
ROC/ROP 	programs 	only by 	combining 	their 	resources 	in no 	way
removes 	the 	programs 	from 	the 	para meters 	of 	the 	public 	school
system. 	In 	fact, 	TCOVE's 	revenue 	is 	inextricably 	intertwined with
that 	of 	each of 	the member 	districts . 	Each member 	district 	is
itself 	an 	employer within 	the 	meaning 	of 	the 	EERA . 	TCOVE 	exists
solely at 	the 	pleasure 	of 	its 	member 	districts. 	It 	possesses 	no
independent 	authority, only 	that 	which has 	been 	delegated 	to 	it
by 	the member 	district . 	Accordingly, 	we 	conclude 	that 	TCOVE 	is
an 	e mployer within 	the 	meaning 	of 	the 	EERA .
ORDER
The 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board directs 	that:
(1) 	TCOVE 	is 	an employer within 	the meaning 	of 	the 	Educational
Employment 	Relations 	Act.
(2) 	The 	regional 	director 	shall 	process 	the 	request 	for 	recog -
nition 	filed 	by California 	School 	Employees 	Association, 	Chapter 	677 .
-,YI Jerilou 	Cossack 	Twohey, 	Member 	Harry 	Gluck 	Chairperson
Raymond J . 	Gonzales, 	dissenting :
f
I 	dissent 	fro m the 	conclusion 	of 	the 	majority 	that 	TCOVE 	is 	an
e mployer within 	the meaning 	of 	section 	3540.l(k.) 	which provides :
-6-

As 	used 	in 	this 	chapter:
(k) 	"Public 	school employer" or "employer" means 	the
governing board of a 	school 	district, 	a 	school 	district,
a 	county board of 	education, 	or 	a 	county 	superintendent
of schools.
The 	substance of 	the majority's 	reasoning 	in reaching 	this 	con-
clusion is 	as 	follows. 	The purpose of the EERA is 	to provide a
uniform basis 	for public 	school 	employees 	to 	exercise 	collective
negotiations 	rights. 	Since 	the 	employees 	of TCOVE perform the 	same
duties 	as 	employees 	in traditional 	school 	districts, 	they should
have 	collective negotiations 	rights. 	Therefore TCOVE must be 	an
employer within 	the meaning 	of 	the EERA.
The majority 	focuses 	on 	the 	assumption 	that 	employees 	performing
similar 	duties 	should be 	covered by 	the EERA, 	One 	could 	say 	the 	same
about 	employees working 	in private 	schools 	or 	in union 	apprenticeship
programs 	and the 	like. 	Are we 	to 	assume 	that 	the Legislature 	in 	its
very 	clear 	definition of 	"public 	school 	employer" was motivated by
similarities 	in employees' 	duties 	rather 	than 	similarities 	among
employers? 	I would 	focus 	on 	the nature 	of 	the public 	employer 	in
this 	case rather 	than 	the nature 	of 	the work done by 	employees.
The majority admits 	that 	TCOVE 	is not 	a 	traditional 	school
district. 	In its 	last paragraph, 	it also notes 	that TCOVE 	"possesses
no 	independent 	authority, 	only 	that which has 	been delegated 	to 	it
by the member 	districts." 	Then 	it concludes, 	"Accordingly, 	we con-
clude 	that 	the TCOVE 	is 	an 	employer within 	the meaning of 	the EERA."
There 	seems 	to be 	a great 	leap 	in logic or 	illogic 	to 	reach 	this
conclusion. 	The majority 	says 	TCOVE 	"possesses 	no 	independent
authority" 	and 	then 	in 	the next 	sentence 	says 	"TCOVE 	is 	an 	employer
within 	the meaning of 	the EERA." 	I 	find 	it 	inconceivable 	that 	the
-7-

majority could conclude that an entity which does not possess independent
authority is a public school employer. 	The definition of public school
employer set forth in section 3540.l(k) includes, 	"... 	the governing board
of a school district, a school district, a county board of education, or
a county superintendent of schools." 	None of these is a governmental entity
that does not possess independent authority of its own. 	In fact, all are
composed of duly elected officials or elected governing bodies authorized to
act independently and to exercise independent authority. 	It is difficult to
conclude that the Legislature intended another type of governmental entity
that does not exercise independent authority to make such significant
decisions as those involved in the signing of binding contracts in the
collective negotiations process.
I would refer the reader to my comments in Turlock School District 	in
which the Board was asked to determine whether two districts with common
administrations and separate governing boards should be considered a single
employer for the purpose of negotiations. 	The majority of the Board found
that the districts could not be considered a single employer. 	In my separate
concurrence in that decision, 	I indicated that the election of separate
governing boards raises some serious questions. 	I stated:
1
This situation raises serious questions of the
"one man - one vote" concept. 	Without amplifying
on questions of constitutionality, suffice it to
say that there may indeed exist some very
serious problems in this regard were the EERB to
rule in favor of the single employer concept.
1(10/26/77) EERB Decision No, Ad-18.
-8-

Member Cossack, 	in a separate concurrence in that Turlock decision,
indicated:
With regard to the one man-one vote concept
discussed by Member Gonzales, I think the voters'
decision to retain separate school districts
reinforces our finding of separate employers.
The EERB, especially in cases such as this one, should
take care to avoid depriving governing boards of
their vested authority or diluting their responsibility
to their constituents.
Member Cossack and the Chairperson, who form the majority in the present
case, are doing exactly that - "depriving governing boards of their vested
authority or diluting their responsibility to their constituents." 	It is
my contention that sending a single representative of each school board to
participate as one vote in a nine member joint powers entity that supposedly
would be the employer in the present case is a serious dilution of power and
flies in the face of our long established democratic process of electing
school boards for the governance of public education in this state.
Although the majority states, 	"TCOVE exits solely at the pleasure of
its member districts," there is nothing in the record to indicate that
any action taken by TCOVE must be taken back to the nine school boards for
concurrence in the action. 	Consequently, 	to say TCOVE exists solely
at the pleasure of its member districts stretches the truth. 	In fact,
a negotiated agreement will not be ratified by the nine governing boards
of the nine districts which are the source of the funds which support TCOVE.
Should each governing board instruct its representative member of TCOVE
regarding whether a tentative negotiated agreement should be ratified, 	that
individual vote may be lost among the other eight votes of TCOVE's board.
-9-

Thus the intent of sections 3540.l(h) 2 and 3549,3 that the governing board
which funds the negotiated agreement must ratify it, is frustrated.
The majority admits that "regional occupation center" is not expressly
included within the definition of public school employer in section 3540. l(k)
It correctly states the general rule of statutory construction that:
... where a statute enumerates things on which it
is to operate, it is to be construed as excluding
from its effect all those not expressly mentioned.
Capistrano Union High School District v.
Capistrano Beach Acreage Co." 	(1961) 188 Cal.App. 2d
612, 617.
2Section 3540.1 provides:
As used in this chapter:
(h) 	"Meeting and negotiating" means meeting,
conferring, negotiating, and discussing by
the exclusive representative and the public
school employer in good faith effort to reach
agreement on matters within the scope of
representation and the execution, 	if requested
by either party, of a written document incorporating
any agreements reached, which document shall, when
accepted by the exclusive representative and the
public school employer, become binding upon both
parties and, notwithstanding Section 3543.7,
shall not be subject to subdivision 2 of Section
1667 of the Civil Code. 	The agreement may be for a
period of not to exceed three years.
3Section 3549 provides:
The enactment of this chapter shall not be
construed as making the provisions of Section
923 of the Labor Code applicable to public
school employees and shall not be construed as
prohibiting a public school employer from
making the final decision with regard to all
matters specified in Section 3543.2....
-10-

Then, the majority cites People v. Hacker Emporium, Inc. 	(1971) 15
Cal.App.3d 474, 477 which states that the general rule:
...gives way where it would operate contrary
to the legislative intent to which it is
subordinate, or where its application would
nullify the essence of the statute....Likewise
the rule is inapplicable where no reason exists
why persons or things other than those enumerated
should not be included, and manifest injustice
would follow by not including them.... the rule....
also fails if such interpretation leads to absurd
and undesirable consequences.
The "manifest injustice" and "absurd and undesirable consequences"
which would occur if the majority did not add "regional occupation center"
to the enumeration in section 3540.l(k), in the majority's words, is
"disparate treatment of essentially identical employees."
Yet, TCOVE is an employer with different characteristics in its
formation, 	funding and authority, which the Board can only suppose the
Legislature reasonably determined should not be defined as a "public school
employer" within the meaning of section 3540.l(k) . 	Words may not be inserted
into a statute under the guise of statutory interpretation. 	Kirkwood v. Bank
of America (1954) 43 Cal.2d 333, 341. 	It is the function of the Board to
construe and apply the EERA as enacted, and not to add thereto or detract
therefrom. 	People v. Moore (1964) 229 Cal.App.2d 221, 228. 	The Board
should not sit as a super-legislature to determine the wisdom, 	desirability
or propriety of statutes enacted by the Legislature. 	Horman Estate (1971)
5 Cal.3d 62, 	77. 	I do not think the Board can say that failure to find
TCOVE an employer will "nullify the essence of the statute."
This case simply demonstrates the majority's underlying assumption
that every person who collects a check from a school district or anything
that resembles a school district should be guaranteed rights under the EERA.
Thus far, 	there appears to be not the slightest hint in any Board decision
-11-

that the majority will ever exclude any employee connected with a school
from coverage under the EERA. 	See Pittsburg Unified School District4,
wherein the majority included noon-duty supervisors in a unit of all classified
employees excluding various paraprofessional aides. 	Noon-duty supervisors
are individuals who spend an hour-and-a-half at most on the school grounds
doing school-yard and restroom patrol and who are generally hired from the
student body of neighboring colleges or neighborhood parents. 	Pittsburg
demonstrates the majority's penchant for blindly assuming that everybody
who sets foot on a school ground is somehow covered by the EERA. 	In
the present case, 	the majority again extends the coverage of the EERA in
an unwarranted fashion by finding TCOVE to be an employer because it wants
to give TCOVE employees the rights that other public school employees have.
Perhaps the majority may be right in wanting the employees of TCOVE
to exercise rights similar to those of employees of the duly established
school districts under the definition provided in the EERA. 	Perhaps it
would be advisable for the Legislature to review of the exclusion of ROC and
ROP programs and include them in the definition of employer under the EERA.
But all of these elements are speculative. 	We are given here a law that is
written in clear and precise language. 	Section 3540.l(k) simply does not
include regional occupational centers composed of any number of school
districts. 	For this Board to take the simple language of that definition and
expand upon it to meet its own obvious preference of including all employees
under the EERA, is an extreme abuse of discretion. 	I, too, would have the
world of education fulfill my own desires, but I am given a statute that on
its face is clear in this regard and I cannot, by the furthest stretches of
4(10/14/76) EERB Decision No. 3.
-12-

the imagination, 	expand upon the very simple and clear definition of public
school employer given to this Board by the California Legislature .
-13-

EDUCATIONAL EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the matter of:
JOINT POWERS BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
TULARE COUNTY ORGANIZATION FOR
VOCATIONAL EDUCATION, REGIONAL
OCCUPATIONAL CENTER AND PROGRAM,
Employer,
and
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION, CHAPTER 677
Employee Organization.
)
)
) 	Case No. S-R-547
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances: 	Larry A. Curtis, Attorney (Musick, Peeler & Garrett) for Joint
Powers Board of Directors, Tulare County Organization for Vocational Education,
Regional Occupational Center and Program; Madalyn Frazzini, Attorney, for
California School Employees Association.
Jeff Paule, Hearing Officer.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On May 11, 1976, California School Employees Association, Chapter
No. 677 (hereafter CSEA) requested recognition as the exclusive representative of
a unit of classified employeesl of the Joint Powers Board of Directors,
Tulare County Organization for Vocational Education, Regional Occupational
Center and Program (hereafter TCOVE).
On June 14, 1976, the director of TCOVE issued an employer's decision
pursuant to Section 30022 of the Rules and Regulations of the Educational
Employment Relations Board (hereafter EERB). 	In this decision, TCOVE doubted the
l The requested unit included the following job groups: 	clerical and secretarial,
transportation (bus drivers), and consultants' aides. 	The requested unit excluded
noon duty supervisors and management, confidential, and supervisory positions.
-1-

appropriateness of the requested unit, questioned the CSEA's showing of support,
and questioned TCOVE's status as a "public school employer" within the meaning
of Government Code Section 3540.1(k).
On December 15, 1976, CSEA notified TCOVE that it was withdrawing its
request for recognition, and was simultaneously filing a new request for recog-
nition as the exclusive representative of a unit of approximately 12 classified
employees with the same inclusions and exclusions as set forth in its earlier
request for recognition (see footnote 1).
On December 23, 1976, and again on January 17, 1977, the director of TCOVE
notified the EERB that TCOVE's doubts regarding the second request for recog-
nition were the same as set forth in the June 14, 1976 letter.
On January 25, 1977, the Sacramento Regional Director informed the parties
that TCOVE's standing as a public school employer was under consideration. 	The
Regional Director also apprised the parties that the question of the showing of
support would be resolved at a later date if TCOVE was determined to be a public
school employer.
A formal hearing was held on April 6, 1977 in Visalia, California, before
a hearing officer of the EERB. 	The issue before the hearing officer is whether
TCOVE is a public school employer under the Educational Employment Relations
Act 	(hereafter EERA). 	The parties offered a stipulation as to the appropriate
negotiating unit, which was received at the hearing, should TCOVE be found to be
a public school employer.2
- 2 -
2
The appropriate unit was stipulated to be a single unit of all classified em-
ployees, but with the following exclusions: 	director; career guidance consultant,
and teachers (all certificated positions); secretary to the director 	(confidential);
building maintenance and groundsman supervisor 	(supervisor); transportation
supervisor 	(supervisor); maintenance assistant 	(high school student employed
part-time under a Work Experience Program) ; all casual, temporary, substitute,
and student employees; and all employees defined as management, supervisory, or
confidential within the meaning of the EERA.

BACKGROUND
Section 52300 et seq. of the reorganized Education Code provides for the
establishment of regional occupational programs 	(hereafter R.O.P.) and centers
(hereafter R.O.C.) 	in California. 	Education Code Section 52303 	defines a
regional occupational program as:
...a vocational or technical training program which meets the
criteria and standards of instructional programs in regional
occupational centers and which is conducted in a variety of
physical facilities which are not necessarily situated in
one single plant or site.
Education Code Section 52300 states that the purpose of R.O.P.'s and R.O.C.'s
is to provide "vocational and technical education to prepare students for an
increasingly technological society" and to ensure their preparedness for "gainful
employment in the area for which training was provided." 	In order to achieve
the necessary flexibility, 	programs may be conducted in various physical
facilities including business and commercial locations.
Education Code Section 52301 details procedures for establishing R.O.P.'s
and R.O.C.'s. 	Basically, there are three methods to establish a R.O.P.; either
by a county superintendent of schools, by an individual school district, or by
multiple school districts.
A county superintendent of schools may establish and maintain at least
one R.O.P. or R.O.C. alone or with one or more counties. 	The consent of the
State Board of Education is required in either case. 	Even if a school district
establishes a R.O.P. or R.O.C. in a particular county, the county superintendent
of schools may establish a separate R.O.C. or R.O.P.
Three types of individual school districts may establish an R.O.P. or
R.O.C. 	These types are: 	(1) a single school district with an average daily
attendance of at least 100,000 students in a county with an average daily
attendance of between 140,000 and 750,000 students; 	(2) a single school district
-3-

'•
with an average daily attendance of at least 50,000 students in a county with
an average daily attendance of more than 750,000 students; and 	(3) a single
school district with more than 500 schools. 	The third type of school district
requires no consent from the county superintendent of schools or the State
Board of Education to establish a R.O.P. or R.O.C. 	The first two types of
districts may apply to the State 	Board of Education through the county super-
intendent of schools for permission to establish a R.O.P. or R.O.C. 	The State
Board of Education then prescribes procedures for the district's establishment
of a R.O.P. or R.O.C. in compliance with the provisions of the State Plan for
Vocational Education.
Multiple school districts in the same county may cooperate in establishing
and maintaining a R.O.P. 	or R.O.C. 	This method of establishing a R.O.P., multiple
school districts, is the procedure used in the instant case. 	Joint establishment
of R.O.P.'s and R.O.C.'s may be undertaken pursuant to Government Code Section
6500 et seq., which provides for establishing joint powers agencies.
Government Code Section 6508 gives the public agency created by the joint
powers agreement the power:
...to make and enter contracts, or to employ agents and employees,
or to acquire, construct, manage, maintain or operate any
building, works or improvements, or to acquire, hold or dis-
pose of property or to incur debts, liabilities or obligations,
said agency shall have the power to sue and be sued in its
own name.
The joint powers agreement may have a termination date or remain operative until
rescinded or terminated.
ISSUE
The sole issue is whether TCOVE 	(a joint powers agency established by
nine school districts and administering a R.O.P. and R.O.C.) 	is a public school
-4-

J
employer within the meaning of Section 3540.l(k) 	of the EERA.
FINDINGS 	OF FACT
The Tulare County Organization for Vocational Education is a joint powers
regional occupational program established pursuant 	to Education Code Section
52301 and Government Code Section 6500 et 	seq. 	TCOVE operates a regional occu-
pational center at a location between the cities of Tulare and Visalia. 	Approx-
imately 1400 students enrolled in TCOVE classes during the 1976-77 school year.
Nine high school districts in Tulare County entered into a joint powers
agreement for the establishment and maintenance of TCOVE. 	According to the
joint powers agreement, 	the TCOVE is under the direction of a board of directors.
This board consists of one designated school district board member from each
participating school district. 	The TCOVE board is empowered to enact and adopt
rules or by-laws consistent with the joint powers agreement for the orderly
transaction of TCOVE business. 	The TCOVE board also has the power to contract
for funds, to lease or purchase property, and to hire personnel.
As of April 4, 1977, the TCOVE staff consisted of 28 persons, 11 of whom
occupied the certificated positions of director, 	career guidance consultant,
and teacher. 	The rest of the employees occupy the classified positions of
secretary to the director, account clerk/office supervisor, secretary/receptionist,
secretary I, building maintenance and groundsman supervisor, custodian, trans-
portation supervisor, bus driver/aide, placement counselor, placement aide, and
maintenance assistant.
Government Code Section 3540.l(k) defines public school employer as:
...the governing board of a school district, a school district, a
county board of education, or a county superintendent of schools.
-5-

• CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
R.O.P. 	Employees under the Winton Act
The Winton Act 4 defined a public school employer in Education Code Section
13081(b) as:
...the governing board of a school district, a school district,
a county board of education, 	a county superintendent of
schools, or a personnel commission of a school district
which has a merit system as provided in Chapter 3 of this
division.
Former Education Code Section 13081(c) defined a public school employee as:
...any person employed by any public school employer excepting
those persons elected by popular vote or appointed by the
Governor of this state.
Former Education Code Section 13580 applied a chapter of that code relating
generally to the rights and obligations of all classified employees 	(commencing
with Section 12901) 	to the classified employees of joint powers R.O.P.'s and
R.O.C.'s.5 	The last article of that chapter is the Winton Act. 	Because the
classified employees were guaranteed Winton Act rights, 	joint powers R.O.P.'s
and R.O.C.'s were treated as public school employers under that Act for purposes
4
Education Code Section 13080 et seq., repealed July 1, 1976, covered employer-
employee relations in California public schools until superseded by the EERA
on July 1, 1976.
5Former Education Code Section 13580 provided:
Articles 1 through 4, inclusive, of this chapter, and the
applicable provisions of Chapter 1 	(commencing with Section
12901) 	of this division shall apply to all classified em-
ployees of a school district . 	. 	. These provisions shall
also apply to all persons who are part of the classified
service who are employed by the county superintendent of
schools, or any division thereof, and whose salaries are
paid out of the county school service fund regardless of
the origin of such fund moneys, and to all persons employed
by any entity, 	including a regional occupational center or
program, 	created or established by any two or more school
districts pursuant to statute, including Chapter 14 	(com-
mencing with Section 7450) 	of Division 6, exercising any
joint power pursuant to Article 1 	(commencing with Section
6500) 	of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government
Code, or as otherwise conferred by law upon such districts.
(Emphasis added.)
- 6 -

of employer-employee relations. 	Therefore, a joint powers public agency admin-
istering a R.O.P. or R.O.C. 	(TCOVE herein) had the duty under the Winton Act to
meet and confer with its classified employees pursuant to former Education Code
Section 13085.
R.O.P. Employees under the EERA
Government Code Section 3540.1(k) defines a public school employer as:
...the governing board of a school district, a school district,
a county board of education, or a county superintendent of
schools.
Because the EERB and the courts have not previously interpreted this section of
the EERA, there is presently no case law upon which to rely. 	It is therefore
necessary to interpret the language of this section to resolve the disputed
issue in this case.
The paramount goal in interpreting statutes is to ascertain the Legis-
lature's intent. 	The initial step in determining that intent is to examine the
words themselves according to the usual, ordinary import of the language. 	People
ex. rel. Younger v. Superior Court, 16 Cal. 3d 30 (1976); Moyer v. Workmen's
Comp. Appeals Bd., 10 Cal. 3d 222 	(1973). 	While "[a] statute enumerating things
on which it is to operate is to be construed as excluding from its effect all
those not expressly mentioned," 	(Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius), 	(People
v. Mancha, 39 Cal. App. 3d 703 [1974]; Capistrano Union High School District v.
Capistrano Beach Acreage Co., 188 Cal. App. 2d 612 [1961]), the rule is inap-
plicable where contrary to the legislative intent to which it is subordinate.
People v. Barksdale, 8 Cal 3d 320 (1972); People v. Hacker Emporium, Inc., 15
Cal. App. 3d 474 	(1971). 	The Court in Hacker went on to say that, "likewise
the rule is inapplicable where no reason exists why persons or things other than
those enumerated should not be included, and manifest injustice would follow by
not including them." 	15 Cal. App. 3d at 477.
-7-

•
Joint powers R.O.P.'s are not listed in the specific definition of a
public school employer under Government Code Section 3540.1(k). 	Further,
reorganized Education Code Section 45100 	(former Education Code Section 13580)
makes no reference to Government Code Section 3540 et seq, as the previous
Education Code Section 13580 did in applying the Winton Act to the classified
employees of joint powers R.O.P.'s and R.O.C.'s.
Regardless, 	it seems clear that the Legislature intended that the EERA
cover employer-employee relations between joint powers R.O.P.'s and R.O.C.'s
and their classified employees. 	The definitions of public school employer under
the two acts 	(the Winton Act and the EERA) 	are essentially identical. 	The
6
definition of public school employee under the EERA 	simply takes the Winton
Act's definition and adds two exceptions that are irrelevant to the facts of
this case. 	Because of these congruencies, 	the legislature obviously intended
to extend the rights and obligations of the EERA to the same parties covered
by the Winton Act. 	Employees previously enjoying the representation rights of
the Winton Act may now exercise EERA rights. 	Therefore, 	in the identical manner
that joint powers R.O.P.'s and R.O.C.'s were treated as public school employers
under the Winton Act, they are to be treated as public school employers under
the EERA.
7
To exclude a group of employees covered by the guarantees of the Winton
Act from the magnified rights of the EERA would be patently unjust without an
explicit legislative intent to alter that previous protection. 	Nowhere is such
6The only difference is that the Winton Act included "personnel commissions"
in the definition of public school employer. 	This difference is irrelevant
under the facts in this case.
7Government Code Section 3540.l(j) provides:
"Public school employee" or "employee" means any person employed by
any public school employer except persons elected by popular vote,
persons appointed by the Governor of this state, management employees,
and confidential employees.
- 8 -

an intent manifested. 	Therefore, classified employees covered by the Winton
Act and not specifically excluded from coverage by the EERA are within the
jurisdiction of the EERB.
The parties' joint stipulation of the appropriate unit in this case is
accepted by the hearing officer without inquiry.
PROPOSED DECISION
It is the proposed decision that:
1. 	TCOVE is a public school employer within the meaning of
Section 3540.l(k) of the EERA.
2. 	The unit of classified employees stipulated to be the appropriate
unit is accepted without inquiry. 	That unit is: 	All classified employees,
but with the following exclusions: 	secretary to the director (confidential);
building maintenance and groundsman supervisor (supervisor); 	transportation
supervisor (supervisor); maintenance assistant (high school student employed
part-time under a Work Experience Program); all casual, temporary, substitute,
and student employees; and all employees defined as management, supervisory,
or confidential within the meaning of the EERA.
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 August 12, 1977, and a Notice
of Decision will issue from the Board.
If the Regional Director determines that the showing of support as
required by 8 Cal. Admin. Code Section 33030 is sufficient, then within
ten (10) workdays following such determination, the Regional Director shall
—9—

conduct an election at 	the end o f 	the posting period i f 	the emp l oyee
organization qualifies 	for the ballot and the empl oyer does not grant
vo l untary recognition .
Dated: 	August 1, 	1977
- 1 0-
Jeff 	Paule
Hearing Officer