Unit Determination - State of California, Requests for Reconsideration and for Judicial Review (PERB 0110SB)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
In 	the 	Matter 	of:
Requests 	for 	Reconsideration
and 	for 	Judicial 	Review
Unit 	Determination 	for 	the
State 	of 	California 	Pursuant
to 	Chapter 	1159 	of 	the 	Statutes
of 	1977 	(State 	Employer-Employee
Relations 	Act).
)
)
) 	Case 	No. 	S-R-1 	- 	56-S
PERB 	Decision 	No. 	ll0b-S
January 	11, 	1980
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
__________________ )
Appearances: 	Steve 	Nutter 	for 	Agricultural 	Labor 	Relations
Board 	Workers 	Union: 	Ken 	Brown 	for 	California 	Correctional
Officers 	Association; 	Dick 	Baker 	for 	Professional 	Engineers 	in
California 	Government; 	John 	L. 	Sullivan 	for 	State 	Trial
Attorneys 	Association; 	Russ 	Richeda, 	Attorney 	(Carroll, 	Burdick
& McDonough) 	for 	California 	Department 	of 	Forestry 	Employees
Association; 	Russ 	Richeda, 	Attorney 	(Carroll, 	Burdick 	&
McDonough) 	for 	California 	Department 	of 	Forestry 	Employees
Association; 	Russ 	Richeda, 	Attorney 	(Carroll, 	Burdick 	&
McDonough) 	for 	Association 	of 	Special 	Agents 	of 	the 	California
Department 	of 	Justice; 	Jeff 	Paule, 	Attorney 	(Geffner 	& Satzman)
for 	Administrative 	Law 	Judges 	Council; 	Hugh 	Myers 	for
Association 	of 	State 	Agriculture 	Marketing 	Specialists; 	Neil
Bodine 	for 	State 	Employees 	Printing 	Trades 	Alliance; 	Morris
Evenson 	for 	Painters 	Union 	Local 	#4, 	I.B.D.A.T., 	AFL/CIO; 	Dick
Baker 	for 	Association 	of 	California 	State 	Attorneys; 	Dick 	Baker
for 	California 	Medical 	Technical 	Assistants 	Association; 	Ted
Costa 	for 	Union 	of 	American 	Physicians 	and 	Dentists; 	John
Cohenour, 	Attorney 	for 	Fire 	Marshalls 	Local 	S-9; 	Christopher
Lee, 	Attorney 	for 	California 	Fish 	and 	Game 	Wardens 	Protective
Association; 	Robert 	J. 	Bezemek, 	Attorney 	(Van 	Bourg, 	Allen,
Weinberg 	& Roger) 	for 	International 	Union 	of 	Operating
Engineers, 	Stationary 	Engineers 	Division, 	State 	of 	California;
Dick 	Baker 	for 	California 	State 	Police 	Association; 	Tom 	Rankin
for 	Local 	22 	International 	Federation 	of 	Professional 	&
Technical 	Engineers, 	AFL/CIO; 	Tom 	Rankin 	for 	California 	League
of 	Engineering 	and 	Allied 	Technical 	Employees 	(CLEATE), 	Local
22; 	Herb 	Drosdat 	for 	California 	Association 	of 	Planners; 	Robert
Milling 	for 	California 	Association 	of 	Highway 	Patrolmen; 	Sam
Bottone 	for 	California 	Nurses 	Association; 	Beeson, 	Tayer 	&

Kovach, 	Attorneys 	for 	Board 	of 	Equalization 	Tax 	Auditors
Association 	and 	California 	Association 	of 	State 	Auditors; 	Duane
Lovass 	for 	Association 	of 	Criminalists, 	California 	Department
of 	Justice; 	Valerie 	Tibbett 	for 	California 	Welfare 	Hearing
Officers 	Association; 	Ray 	R. 	Tharp 	for 	American 	Federation 	of
State, 	County 	& Municipal 	Employees, 	AFL/CIO; 	Dorothy 	Cannon
for 	Hearing 	Reporters 	Council-CASHR; 	Mario 	Fracchia 	for
Association 	of 	California 	State 	Chemists; 	Coleman 	Blease 	for
State 	Employees 	Trades 	Council, 	Local 	1268, 	LIUNA; 	Neil 	Bodine
for 	Teamsters 	Local 	960; 	Pat 	Hallahan 	for 	State 	Employee 	Union,
Local 	411, 	SEIU, 	AFL/CIO; 	Bill 	Grimm 	for 	California 	Association
of 	Human 	Services 	Technologists; 	James 	P. 	Corn 	for 	California
Highway 	Patrol 	Radio 	Dispatcher; 	Dean 	Cofer 	for 	IBEW,
Local 	1245 	and 	Martin 	Morgenstern 	for 	Governor's 	Office 	of
Employee 	Relations.
Before 	Gluck, 	Chairperson; 	Gonzales 	and 	Moore, 	Members.
REQUESTS 	FOR 	RECONSIDERATION 	AND 	FOR JUDICIAL 	REVIEW
Following 	the 	issuance 	of 	PERB 	Decision 	No. 	110-S 	- 	Unit
Determination 	for 	the 	State 	of 	California, 	on 	November 	7, 	1979,
the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(hereafter 	PERB 	or 	Board)
received 	numerous 	requests 	relating 	to 	reconsideration 	and
judicial 	review 	of 	that 	decision.
These 	requests 	were 	filed 	pursuant 	to 	PERB rules 	32410 	and
32500 	and 	section 	3520 	of 	the 	State 	Employer-Employee 	Relations
Act.l
lpERB 	rules 	are 	codified 	at 	California 	Administrative
Code, 	Title 	8, 	sections 	31000 	et 	seq.
The 	State 	Employer-Employee 	Relations 	Act 	(SEERA) 	is
codified 	at 	Government 	Code 	sections 	3512 	et 	seq.
2

PERB 	rule 	32410 	states:
Request 	for 	Reconsideration. 	Any 	party 	to 	a
decision 	of 	the 	Board 	itself 	may, 	because 	of
extraordinary 	circumstances, 	file 	a 	request
to 	reconsider 	the 	decision 	with 	the 	Board
itself 	within 	seven 	calendar 	days 	following
the 	date 	of 	service 	of 	the 	decision. 	The
party 	shall 	state 	with 	specificity 	the
grounds 	claimed 	and 	where 	applicable 	shall
specify 	the 	page 	of 	the 	record 	relied 	upon.
A copy 	of 	the 	request 	must 	have 	been
actually 	served 	upon 	each 	party 	of 	record
prior 	to 	filing 	the 	request 	and 	a 	statement
of 	such 	service 	shall 	accompany 	the
request. 	Any 	party 	shall 	have 	five 	calendar
days 	from 	actual 	service 	to 	file 	a 	response
with 	the 	Board 	itself. 	"Actual 	service" 	as
used 	in 	this 	section 	means 	actual 	receipt 	by
the 	party 	or 	their 	agent. 	The 	filing 	of 	a
request 	for 	reconsideration 	shall 	not
operate 	to 	stay 	the 	effectiveness 	of 	a
decision 	of 	the 	Board 	itself 	unless
otherwise 	ordered 	by 	the 	Board 	itself.
PERB 	rule 	32500 	states:
Review 	of 	Unit 	Determinations. 	Any 	party 	to
a 	unit 	determination 	decision 	by 	the 	Board
itself 	may 	file 	a 	request 	to 	seek 	judicial
review 	within 	10 	days 	following 	the 	date 	of
service 	of 	the 	decision. 	The 	request 	shall
include 	statements 	setting 	forth 	those
factors 	upon 	which 	the 	party 	asserts 	that
the 	case 	is 	one 	of 	special 	importance. 	A
copy 	of 	the 	request 	must 	have 	been 	actually
served 	upon 	each 	party 	of 	record 	prior 	to
filing 	the 	request 	and 	a 	statement 	of 	such
service 	shall 	accompany 	the 	request. 	Any
party 	shall 	have 	five 	calendar 	days 	from
actual 	service 	to 	file 	a 	response 	with 	the
Board 	itself. 	"Actual 	service" 	as 	used 	in
this 	section 	means 	actual 	receipt 	by 	the
party 	or 	their 	agent.
Government 	Code 	3520(a) 	states 	in 	pertinent 	part:
Judicial 	review 	of 	a 	unit 	determination
shall 	only 	be 	allowed: 	(1) 	when 	the 	board,
3

in 	response 	to 	a 	petition 	from 	the 	state 	or
an 	employee 	organization, 	agrees 	that 	the
case 	is 	one 	of 	special 	importance 	and 	joins
in 	the 	request 	for 	such 	review; 	or 	(2) 	when
the 	issue 	is 	raised 	as 	a 	defense 	to 	an
unfair 	practice 	complaint.
Adherence 	to 	the 	short 	time 	period 	provided 	for 	actual
service 	would 	be 	inequitable 	in 	this 	case 	because 	of 	logistical
difficulties 	involved 	in 	the 	large 	number 	of 	parties 	to 	be
served, 	and 	the 	fact 	that 	they 	are 	dispersed 	throughout 	the
state, 	and 	because 	of 	the 	length 	of 	the 	SEERA 	decision 	itself.
Because 	of 	the 	desire 	of 	the 	Board 	to 	entertain 	all 	requests
and 	to 	expedite 	the 	establishment 	of 	appropriate 	negotiating
units 	under 	the 	SEERA 	and 	the 	special 	difficulties 	of
accomplishing 	actual 	service 	in 	this 	case, 	the 	Board 	has
determined 	to 	waive 	all 	filing 	deadlines 	contained 	in 	PERB
rules 	32410 	and 	32500 	pursuant 	to 	the 	authority 	provided 	in
PERB 	rule 	32145. 2 	All 	requests 	and 	responses 	thereto 	which
have 	been 	filed 	and 	served 	on 	the 	parties 	prior 	to 	the 	date 	of
this 	supplemental 	decision 	have 	been 	accepted.
2PERB 	rule 	32145 	states:
Waiver 	of 	Time 	Periods. 	The 	Board 	itself
may 	waive 	or 	all 	parties 	to 	a 	proceeding,
subject 	to 	the 	approval 	of 	the 	Board, 	may
jointly 	waive 	any 	time 	period 	allowed 	for
action 	by 	a 	party 	or 	the 	Board 	in 	order 	to
expedite 	any 	pending 	matter.
4

In 	addition 	to 	submissions 	by 	parties 	regaraing
reconsideration 	and 	judicial 	review, 	PERE 	has 	received
correspondence 	from 	individual 	state 	employees, 	department
heads 	and 	other 	persons 	without 	standing 	in 	this 	case. 	All
such 	correspondence 	was 	acknowledged 	but 	was 	not 	a 	part 	of 	the
Board 1 s 	deliberation.
RECONSIDERATION
PERE 	has 	considered 	all 	requests 	for 	reconsideration 	and
has 	determined 	that 	extraordinary 	circumstances 	exist 	which
warrant 	reconsideration 	of 	PERB 	Decision 	No. 	110-S. 	These
circumstances 	include 	the 	complexity 	of 	and 	volume 	of 	the
evidence 	presented, 	the 	number 	of 	parties 	represented, 	the
number 	of 	closing 	briefs 	and 	reply 	briefs 	filed, 	and 	the 	sheer
magnitude 	of 	the 	task 	of 	placing 	approximately 	145,000 	state
employees 	in 	over 	4,000 	classifications 	into 	20 	bargaining
units. 	Recognizing 	a 	potential 	for 	some 	technical 	error, 	or
oversight, 	the 	Board 	believes 	that 	the 	procedures 	outlined 	in
PERB 	rule 	32410 	is 	the 	most 	efficient 	and 	expeditious 	method
for 	the 	parties 	to 	alert 	the 	Board 	to 	these 	alleged 	errors.
Many 	of 	the 	parties 	seeking 	reconsideration 	merely 	re-argued
the 	material 	contained 	in 	their 	closing 	briefs 	without 	raising
any 	new 	legal 	or 	factual 	issues. 	Because 	the 	Board 	had
thoroughly 	considered 	those 	arguments 	before 	issuing 	Decision
No. 	110-S, 	we 	are 	not 	now 	persuaded 	that 	there 	should 	be 	any
substantive 	changes 	in 	the 	basic 	composition 	of 	the 	20 	units
5

determined 	to 	be 	appropriate 	in 	our 	original 	decision, 	except
for 	the 	realignment 	of 	all 	Assistant 	and 	Associate
Transportation 	Engineers, 	CALTRANS 	into 	Unit 	9, 	Professional
Engineers, 	for 	the 	reasons 	explained 	in 	Appendix 	B of 	this
decision.
However, 	several 	Requests 	for 	Reconsideration 	brought 	to
the 	attention 	of 	the 	Board 	certain 	technical 	errors 	and
inconsistencies, 	i.e., 	those 	errors 	which 	resulted 	in 	the
initial 	placement 	of 	a 	classification 	in 	a 	unit 	which 	was
contrary 	to 	the 	standards 	for 	unit 	placement 	as 	set 	forth 	in
the 	original 	decision. 	These 	changes 	appear 	in 	Appendix 	A.
JUDICIAL 	REVIEW
All 	requests 	for 	judicial 	review 	filed 	pursuant 	to 	PERB
rule 	32500, 	are 	denied. 	PERB 	declines 	to 	join 	in 	any 	of 	the
requests 	for 	Judicial 	Review 	of 	a 	unit 	determination, 	as
provided 	in 	Government 	Code 	section 	3520.
Every 	issue 	raised 	by 	the 	parties 	in 	their 	requests 	for
judicial 	review 	was 	previously 	considered 	carefully 	by 	the
Board 	in 	its 	deliberations 	prior 	to 	the 	issuance 	of 	the
original 	decision. 	No 	party 	has 	advanced 	an 	argument 	that
persuades 	us 	that 	its 	case 	is 	one 	of 	special 	importance. 	While
the 	SEERA 	unit 	determination 	case 	is 	nbviously 	significant 	for
all 	parties 	involved 	and 	for 	collective 	negotiations 	in 	state
service, 	we 	do 	not 	find 	that 	any 	of 	the 	requests 	for 	judicial
6

review 	raised 	any 	legal 	issues 	of 	special 	importance. 	PERB 	has
made 	numerous 	determinations 	of 	appropriate 	negotiating 	units
under 	the 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Act,3 	in 	which 	we
applied 	concepts 	of 	community 	of 	interest, 	efficiency 	of
operations, 	representation 	history 	and 	presumptions. 	While 	the
SEERA 	unit 	determination 	criteria 	are 	not 	identical, 	many 	are
quite 	similar. 	In 	view 	of 	PERB's 	experience 	in 	applying
statutory 	criteria 	to 	determine 	appropriate 	negotiating 	units,
the 	legal 	issues 	involved 	here 	have 	no 	special 	importance 	owing
to 	their 	originality 	or 	the 	Board's 	inexperience.
EXCLUSIONS 	FROM 	SEERA COVERAGE
The 	question 	of 	exclusion 	of 	persons 	from 	coverage 	of 	the
SEERA 	is 	the 	subject 	of 	SEERA 	Phase 	III 	proceedings. 	PERE 	will
issue 	a 	supplemental 	decision 	on 	exclusions 	at 	the 	conclusion
of 	Phase 	III.
ORDER
Upon 	the 	foregoing 	Decision 	and 	the 	entire 	record 	in 	this
case, 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	ORDERS 	that 	all
requests 	for 	reconsideration 	of 	PERE 	Decision 	No. 	110-S 	are
granted 	and 	that 	all 	requests 	for 	PERB 	to 	join 	in 	seeking
3The 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Act 	(EERA) 	is
codified 	at 	Government 	Code 	sections 	3540, 	et 	seq.
7

judicial 	review 	of 	any 	or 	all 	parts 	of 	PERB 	Decision 	No. 	110-S
are 	denied.
Upon 	reconsideration, 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board
ORDERS 	that 	there 	be 	no 	basic 	changes 	in 	the 	units 	determined
in 	PERB 	Decision 	No. 	110-S 	to 	be 	appropriate 	for 	the 	purpose 	of
meeting 	and 	conferring 	in 	good 	faith 	pursuant 	to 	Government
Code 	section 	3512.et 	seq., 	except 	that 	al 	employees 	in 	the
classifications 	of 	Assistant 	Transportation 	Engineer, 	CALTRANS
and 	Associate 	Transportation 	Engineer, 	CALTRANS 	are
appropriately 	included 	in 	Unit 	9, 	Professional 	Engineers, 	and
none 	are 	included 	in 	Unit 	11, 	Engineering 	and 	Scientific
Technicians 	Unit. 	The 	revised 	unit 	descriptions 	are 	in
Appendix. 	B.
Other 	changes 	in 	unit 	placement 	of 	certain 	classifications
are 	listed 	in 	Appendix 	A.
The 	cut 	off 	date 	for 	voter 	eligibility 	shall 	be
December 	31, 	1979, 	unless 	otherwise 	determined 	by 	the 	Regional
Director.
PER CURIAM
Concurring opinion of Board Menber B3.rt:ara D. Moore begins on page 18.
8

APPENDIX 	A
UNIT CHANGES 	- 	RECONSIDERATION
Add 	to
Unit
No.
Delete
From
Unit 	No.
Schematic
Code
Class
Code
Job
Description
10 	9 	HW 	20 	3800 	Petroleum Geologist
10 	9 	HU 	50 	3767 	Chief 	Geologist, 	State 	Lands 	Division
10 	1 	LE 	25 	5837 	Energy 	Analyst
11 	9 	HA 	90 	3452 	Construction 	Office 	Manager, 	Water
Resources
12 	11 	HQ 	55 	3661 	Control 	System 	Technician 	III
12 	11 	HQ 	60 	3662 	Control 	System 	Technician 	II
12 	11 	HQ 	80 	3663 	Electrical-Mechanical 	Testing
Technician 	III
12 	11 	HQ 	85 	3664 	Electrical-Mechanical 	Testing
Technician 	II
12 	11 	HQ 	90 	3665 	System 	and 	Testing 	Technician 	I
12 	11 	GA 	54 	3010 	Telecommunications 	Assistant
13 	12 	QC 	80 	6710 	Maintenance 	Worker, 	Tunnels 	and 	Tubes
17 	19 	TI 	65 	8160 	Health 	Services 	Specialist
19 	17 	TN 	34 	8147 	Medi-Cal 	Nursing 	Consultant 	I
19 	17 	TN 	35 	8148 	Medi-Cal 	Nursing 	Consultant 	II
20 	6 	wz 	20 	8216 	Medical 	Technical 	Essistant
9 	11 	GJ 	80 	3167 	Associate 	Transportation 	Engineer
CALTRANS 	(Technical 	employees
only)
9 	11 	GJ 	90 	3170 	Assistant 	Transportation 	Engineer
CALTRANS 	(Technical 	employees
only)
APPENDIX A continued
9
APPENDIX
9
A continued

APPENDIX 	A
UNIT 	CHANGES 	- 	RECONSIDERATION
(Continued)
(Because 	of 	a 	clerical 	error 	in 	the 	original 	Appendix
of 	Decision 	No. 	110-S, 	technical 	employees 	in 	the
classifications 	HF 	70 	and 	HF 	60-Assistant 	and
Associate 	Transportation 	Engineer-instead 	of
classifications 	GJ 	80 	and 	GJ 	90-Assistant 	and
Associate 	Transportation 	Engineer, 	CALTRANS, 	had 	been
listed 	in 	Unit 	11. 	As 	noted, 	however, 	this
supplemental 	decision 	removes 	from 	Unit 	11 	the
technical 	employees 	in 	the 	Assistant 	and 	Associate
Transportation 	Engineer, 	CALTRANS, 	placing 	them 	in
Unit 	9. 	The 	description 	"Professional 	employees 	only"
should 	be 	deleted 	from 	the 	description 	of 	these
classifications 	in 	Unit 	9.
All 	employees 	in 	the 	Assistant 	Transportation 	Engineer
and 	Associate 	Transportation 	Engineer 	classifications,
HF 	70 	and 	HF 	60, 	are 	in 	Unit 	9, 	Professional
Engineers.)
10

APPENDIX 	B
REVISED 	TEXT 	OF 	UNIT 	9 	AND 	UNIT 	11
UNIT 	9. 	PROFESSIONAL 	ENGINEER 	UNIT
The 	approximately 	6,100 	employees 	in 	this 	unit 	of
approximately 	329 	classifications 	are 	professional 	employees
within 	the 	meaning 	of 	section 	3521.5. 	All 	Assistant 	and
Associate 	Transportation 	Engineers, 	CALTRANS 	are 	in 	this 	unit.
Although 	some 	employees 	in 	these 	classifications 	are 	not
considered 	"professional" 	employees 	within 	the 	meaning 	of
section 	3521.5, 	the 	line 	between 	professional 	and 	other
engineers 	in 	these 	classes 	is 	a 	very 	fine 	one. 	Further, 	there
is 	a 	strong 	similarity 	in 	the 	job 	duties 	and 	required
engineering 	skills. 	These 	conditions 	are 	sufficiently
compelling 	to 	overcome 	the 	statutory 	presumption 	against 	mixing
professional 	employees 	and 	nonprofessionals 	in 	the 	same 	unit.
In 	arriving 	at 	this 	(revised) 	unit 	placement, 	we 	are 	mindful 	of
the 	mandate 	of 	section 	352l(b) (2) 	to 	take 	into 	account: 	among
other 	factors, 	"the 	effect 	on 	the 	existing 	classification
structure 	... 	of 	dividing 	a 	single 	class 	among 	two 	or
more 	units." 	Upon 	reconsideration, 	we 	find 	that Aividing 	both
of 	these 	classes 	would 	have 	a 	negative 	effect 	on 	the 	structure
of 	the 	transportation 	engineer 	classifications 	as 	established
by 	the 	State 	Personnel 	Board.
11

Regarding 	engineering 	technicians, 	however, 	it 	is 	found
that 	the 	section 	352l(c) 	presumption 	has 	not 	been 	rebutted 	by 	a
preponderence 	of 	the 	evidence, 	and 	they 	consequently 	must 	not
be 	mixed 	with 	employees 	in 	this 	unit. 	Additionally, 	it 	is
found 	that 	the 	engineers 	in 	this 	unit 	possess 	a 	separate 	and
distinct 	community 	of 	interest 	from 	other 	professional 	state
employees.
The 	evidence 	presented 	indicates 	that, 	in 	general,
employees 	in 	this 	unit 	regularly 	exercise 	discretion 	in 	their
work, 	which 	is 	predominately 	intellectual 	in 	character 	and 	does
not 	lend 	itself 	to 	standardized 	measurement 	by 	time. 	In
particular, 	advanced 	knowledge 	in 	engineering, 	usually 	acquired
through 	specialized 	study 	and/or 	training, 	is 	required 	for
these 	employees. 	This 	unit 	includes 	employees 	who 	have
completed 	some 	professional 	requirements 	and 	who 	are 	working
toward 	full 	professional 	qualifications 	by 	performing
engineering 	work 	under 	professional 	supervision.
Included 	in 	this 	unit 	are 	a 	variety 	of 	employees 	who
perform 	at 	differing 	levels 	of 	responsibility 	for 	engineering
programming. 	Registered 	engineers 	are 	of 	the 	"practice 11 	and
"title" 	type. 	Such 	registration, 	issued 	by 	the 	Board 	of
Registration 	for 	Professional 	Engineers, 	involves 	successful
completion 	of 	two 	examinations; 	first 	on 	fundamental
engineering 	principles 	and 	subsequently, 	with 	an 	eligibility
requirement 	of 	several 	years 	experience, 	a 	specialized 	exam.
12

Engineers 	in 	training 	are 	professionals 	who 	have 	completed 	the
first 	exam 	but 	not 	the 	second. 	Other 	professional 	engineers
must 	possess 	a 	specialized 	Bachelor's 	degree 	in 	engineering 	or
related 	appropriate 	specialization, 	sometimes 	supplemented 	by
additional 	job 	training, 	or 	the 	equivalent 	thereof. 	In 	this
connection, 	we 	note 	that 	there 	are 	several 	alternative 	entry
requirements 	to 	the 	classes 	of 	Assistant 	Transportation
Engineer, 	CALTRANS 	and 	Associate 	Transportation 	Engineer,
CALTRANS. 	These 	include 	engineering 	experience 	as 	well 	as
formal 	educational 	training.
Obviously, 	in 	a 	unit 	such 	as 	this 	involving 	numerous
classifications, 	where 	a 	variety 	of 	employees 	exercise 	a 	range
of 	significant 	discretion 	and 	have 	varied 	responsibility, 	and
where 	job 	qualifications 	differ, 	defining 	professional 	status
is 	not 	as 	clear 	as 	in 	other 	units. 	Attorney, 	and 	physician 	and
dentist 	positions, 	for 	example, 	clearly 	require 	a 	professional
license, 	for 	which 	there 	are 	virtually 	unique 	education
requirements. 	Therefore, 	the 	proper 	focus 	in 	this 	unit 	cannot
be 	on 	the 	individual 	qualifications 	of 	each 	engineer 	but 	rather
on 	the 	nature 	of 	the 	work 	performed 	as 	a 	group.
If 	most 	of 	the 	engineering 	positions 	require 	a 	specialized
degree 	and/or 	registration, 	it 	may 	be 	presumed 	that 	advanced
knowledge 	is 	required 	for 	engineering 	work 	generally. 	Reliance
on 	a 	rigid 	criterion 	of 	professional 	status 	would 	appear 	to 	be
unwarranted 	in 	this 	case. 	Some 	acknowledged 	professional
13

employees 	can 	achieve 	registration 	without 	specialized 	formal
education, 	while 	others 	must 	have 	specialized 	education 	but
need 	not 	be 	registered. 	Furthermore, 	experience 	may 	often 	be
substituted 	as 	an 	equivalent 	for 	formal 	education.l
Employees 	in 	this 	unit 	have 	a 	separate 	and 	distinct
community 	of 	interest. 	They 	perform 	the 	same 	type 	of 	work,
involving 	the 	conceptualization, 	design, 	preparation 	of
engineering 	reports 	with 	related 	calculations, 	analyze
information 	and 	perform 	research 	related 	to 	structures 	such 	as
highways, 	bridges, 	water 	treatment 	plants 	and 	a 	variety 	of
other 	engineering 	projects. 	This 	work 	requires 	similar
qualifications, 	training, 	and 	skills. 	Engineers' 	working
conditions 	differ 	from 	most 	other 	professional 	employees; 	much
of 	their 	work 	is 	in 	the 	field 	at 	construction 	sites. 	In
addition, 	many 	professional 	engineers 	have 	been 	represented
separately 	from 	other 	state 	employees 	for 	many 	years.
For 	all 	the 	above 	reasons, 	these 	engineers 	constitute 	a
separate 	appropriate 	unit 	pursuant 	to 	section 	3521.
lsee 	Ryan 	Aeronautical 	Co. 	(1961) 	132 	NLRB 	1160 	[48 	LRRM
1502], 	Western 	Electric 	Co. 	(1960) 	126 	NLRB 	1346 	[45 	LRRB 	1415].
14

UNIT 	11. 	ENGINEERING 	AND 	SCIENTIFIC 	TECHNICIANS 	UNIT
The 	Board 	finds 	a 	unit 	of 	engineering 	and 	scientific
technicians, 	encompassing 	203 	classifications 	and 	approximately
3,100 	employees, 	to 	be 	appropriate. 	The 	nature 	of 	the 	work
performed 	and 	the 	skills 	and 	qualifications 	required
demonstrates 	that 	these 	employees 	share 	a 	community 	of 	interest
distinct 	from 	other 	employees.
The 	specific 	job 	duties 	of 	the 	various 	classifications
differ, 	but 	there 	are 	certain 	commonalities. 	Most 	utilize
scientific 	instruments 	and 	technology, 	most 	involve 	gathering
or 	recording 	data. 	These 	lead 	to 	certain 	common 	skills
requirements: 	the 	ability 	to 	use 	technical 	equipment, 	to
observe, 	measure, 	and 	record 	data 	accurately, 	and 	to 	apply
technical 	knowledge 	to 	specific 	problems. 	Many 	positions
require 	a 	familiarity 	with 	scientific 	methods 	of 	gaining
information.
None 	of 	the 	classifications 	in 	this 	unit 	requires 	the
advanced 	specialized 	knowledge 	necessary 	to 	be 	considered 	a
professional 	position, 	but 	almost 	all 	require 	a 	certain 	amount
of 	education 	and 	training 	in 	engineering 	or 	scientific 	fields.
Training 	requirements 	vary; 	some 	positions 	can 	be 	entered 	with
minimal 	training 	while 	others 	require 	the 	completion 	of 	a
certain 	number 	of 	units 	of 	college-level 	engineering, 	science,
15

or 	mathematics 	classes 	or 	of 	a 	technical 	program 	at 	a 	community
college.
The 	basic 	distinction 	between 	professionals 	and
nonprofessionals 	in 	engineering 	and 	scientific 	fields 	is 	the
different 	levels 	of 	education 	and 	experience 	required. 	This
leads 	to 	similarly 	different 	levels 	of 	responsibility 	and
discretion. 	The 	work 	itself 	may 	often 	appear 	similar, 	but 	on
closer 	examination, 	professional 	engineers 	and 	scientists
handle 	the 	more 	complex 	issues, 	which 	require 	greater
independent 	judgment. 	In 	the 	same 	manner, 	attorneys 	and
paralegals 	do 	the 	same 	type 	of 	work 	but 	have 	different 	levels
of 	responsibility.
Thus, 	while 	many 	of 	the 	employees 	in 	this 	unit 	work 	closely
with 	professional 	employees, 	often 	performing 	similar 	duties,
the 	work 	is 	usually 	at 	a 	lower 	technical 	level 	with 	less
responsibility 	and 	independence. 	They 	may 	assist 	engineers 	or
scientists 	by 	performing 	tests 	and 	gathering 	data 	which 	are
later 	interpreted 	or 	acted 	upon 	by 	the 	engineers 	or
scientists. 	For 	example, 	air 	resources 	technicians 	conduct
tests, 	the 	results 	of 	which 	are 	analyzed 	by 	professional 	air
resources 	engineers 	and 	air 	pollution 	specialists. 	Engineering
and 	scientific 	technicians 	are 	often 	responsible 	for 	more
routine 	technical 	tasks 	while 	professional 	employees 	do 	those
of 	greater 	complexity. 	As 	an 	example, 	both 	petroleum 	technical
assistants 	and 	energy 	and 	mineral 	resource 	engineers 	perform
16

tests 	in 	oil 	fields, 	but 	a 	distinction 	is 	mad~ 	between 	the
types 	of 	tests 	performed, 	with 	those 	requiring 	an 	immediate
analysis 	of 	complex 	results 	being 	made 	by 	an 	energy 	and 	mineral
resource 	engineer.
The 	Board 	finds 	that 	the 	technical 	training, 	skills, 	ana
dutLes 	required 	of 	employees 	in 	this 	unit 	unifies 	them 	while
differentiating 	them 	from 	other 	nonprofessional 	employees. 	In
addition, 	their 	working 	conditions 	further 	distinguish 	them.
Few 	work 	in 	a 	traditional 	office 	or 	hospital 	environment; 	the
vast 	majority 	work 	outside 	in 	the 	field 	or 	in 	laboratories.
17

Barbara 	D. 	Moore, 	Member, 	concurring:
With 	the 	following 	exceptions, 	I 	join 	in 	my 	colleagues'
decision. 	I 	adhere 	to 	the 	positions 	expressed 	in 	my 	dissent 	in
PERB 	Decision No. 	110-S. 	Our 	different 	views 	were 	fully
articulated 	there, 	and 	I 	do 	not 	believe 	they 	need 	to 	be
reiterated 	since 	the 	issues 	have 	been 	resolved 	by 	a 	majority 	of
the 	Board.
Some 	requests 	for 	reconsideration 	proposed 	moving 	certain
classifications 	within 	the 	engineering, 	scientific 	and
technicians 	units. 	Because 	I 	believe 	that 	all 	of 	those
classifications 	belong 	in 	one 	unit, 	I 	did 	not 	participate 	in
that 	portion 	of 	this 	decision 	which 	involved 	considering
whether 	employees 	in 	any 	one 	of 	those 	units 	should 	be 	moved 	to
another 	of 	such 	units.
The 	decision 	of 	my 	colleagues 	to 	move 	all 	of 	the 	Associate
and 	Assistant 	Transportation 	Engineers, 	including 	those 	who
perform 	technical 	work, 	from 	the 	technicians 	unit 	to 	the
Professional 	Engineers 	Unit 	supports 	the 	validity 	of 	my
position 	that 	the 	community 	of 	interest 	common 	to 	the 	entire
engineering 	and 	scientific 	community, 	as 	well 	as 	the
satisfaction 	of 	the 	other 	unit 	determination 	criteria 	contained
in 	Government 	Code 	Section 	352l(b), 	rebut 	the 	section 	352l(c)
presumption 	against 	including 	nonprofessional 	and 	professional
employees 	in 	one 	representational 	unit.
18

19
As 	my 	colleagues 	recognize 	in 	their 	newly 	revised 	unit
description 	of 	the 	unit 	they 	still 	call 	a 	Professional 	Engineer
Unit, 	"the 	line 	between 	professional 	and 	other 	engineers 	in
these 	classes 	is 	a 	very 	fine 	one." 	I 	submit 	that 	that 	fine
line 	exists 	not 	only 	with 	respect 	to 	distinctions 	between
professional 	and 	nonprofessional 	Assistant 	and 	Associate
Transportation 	Engineers 	but 	also 	with 	respect 	to 	the 	other
"professional" 	and 	nonprofessional" 	employees 	in 	these 	three
units.
Barbara 	D. 	Moore, 	Member
19