Redondo Beach City School District (PERB 0114E)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
REDONDO BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Employer ,
Case No. LA-R-430B (825)
and
EARLY CHILDHOOD FEDERATION, LOCAL 1475
AFT, 	PERB Decision No. 114
Employee Organization, January 17, 1980
and
REDONDO BEACH CITY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION,
Employee Organization.
vid G. Miller, Attorney (Paterson & Taggart)	Appearances: Da
for Redondo Beach City School District; Anne E. Fragasso,
Attorney, and Larry Bordan for Early Childhood Federation,
Local 1475 AFT; Charles Gustafson, Attorney, and Lauren Sanders
for Redondo Beach City Teachers Association.
Before Gluck, Chairperson; Gonzales and Moore, Members.
DECISION
In May 1976, the Redondo Beach City School District
(hereafter District) voluntarily recognized the Redondo Beach
City Teachers Association (hereafter Association) as the
exclusive representative of a unit of certificated employees,
including children's center teachers. On March 14, 1978, the
Early Childhood Federation, Local 1475, AFT (hereafter
Federation) filed a request for recognition in a certificated
unit consisting solely of children's center teachers.
STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
REDONDO 	BEACH CITY 	SCHOOL 	DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
EARLY 	CHILDHOOD 	FEDERATION, 	LOCAL 	1475
AFT,
Employee 	Organization,
and
REDONDO 	BEACH CITY 	TEACHERS 	ASSOCIATION,
CTA/NEA,
Employee 	Organization.
)
)
)
) 	Case 	No. 	LA-R-430B 	(825)
PERB 	Decision 	No. 	114
January 	17, 	1980
}
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CTA/NEA, 	)
)
)
)
Appearances: 	David 	G. 	Miller, 	Attorney 	(Paterson 	& Taggart)
for 	Redondo 	Beach 	City 	School 	District; 	Anne 	E. 	Fragasso,
Attorney, 	and 	Larry 	Berdan 	for 	Early Childhood 	Federation,
Local 	1475 	AFT; 	Charles 	Gustafson, 	Attorney, 	and 	Lauren 	Sanders
for 	Redondo 	Beach City 	Teachers 	Association.
Before 	Gluck, 	Chairperson; 	Gonzales 	and 	Moore, 	Members.
DECISION
In 	May 	1976, 	the 	Redondo 	Beach City 	School 	District
(hereafter 	District) 	voluntarily 	recognized 	the 	Redondo 	Beach
City 	Teachers 	Association 	(hereafter 	Association) 	as 	the
exclusive 	representative 	of 	a 	unit 	of 	certificated 	employees,
including 	children's 	center 	teachers. 	On March 	14, 	1978, 	the
Early 	Childhood 	Federation, 	Local 	1475, 	AFT 	(hereafter
Federation) 	filed 	a 	request 	for 	recognition 	in 	a 	certificated
unit 	consisting 	solely 	of 	children's 	center 	teachers.

Following a representation hearing, the hearing officer
rendered a proposed decision in which he found that a separate
unit of children's center teachers is appropriate and that
children's center teachers should vote to determine whether
they want to continue to be represented by the Association in a
unit of all certificated employees or by the Federation in a
separate unit of children's center teachers only. He also
found that children's center head teachers are supervisory
employees.
The District has filed exceptions to the hearing officer's
decision that a separate unit of children's center teachers is
appropriate and a self-determination election should be held.
For the reasons that follow, the Public Employment Relations
Board (hereafter PERB or Board) affirms the hearing officer's
decision that a separate unit of children's center teachers is
appropriate. It does not, however, order an election in which
the children's center teachers can choose to remain in the
overall certificated unit since it finds such a unit
inappropriate in this case. 	Rather, it directs an election in
the children's center unit only.
No exceptions were taken to the hearing officer's decision
that children's center head teachers are supervisory employees
and it is therefore not an issue before the Board.
-2-
Following 	a 	representation 	hearing, 	the 	hearing 	officer
rendered 	a 	proposed 	decision 	in 	which 	he 	found 	that 	a 	separate
unit 	of 	children's 	center 	teachers 	is 	appropriate 	and 	that
children's 	center 	teachers 	should 	vote 	to 	determine 	whether
they 	want 	to 	continue 	to 	be 	represented 	by 	the 	Association 	in 	a
unit 	of 	all 	certificated 	employees 	or 	by 	the 	Federation 	in 	a
separate 	unit 	of 	children's 	center 	teachers 	only. 	He 	also
found 	that 	children's 	center 	head 	teachers 	are 	supervisory
employees.
The 	District 	has 	filed 	exceptions 	to 	the 	hearing 	officer's
decision 	that 	a 	separate 	unit 	of 	children's 	center 	teachers 	is
appropriate 	and 	a 	self-determination 	election 	should 	be 	held.
For 	the 	reasons 	that 	follow, 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations
Board 	(hereafter 	PERB 	or 	Board) 	affirms 	the 	hearing 	officer's
decision 	that 	a 	separate 	unit 	of 	children's 	center 	teachers 	is
appropriate. 	It 	does 	not, 	however, 	order 	an 	election 	in 	which
the 	children's 	center 	teachers 	can 	choose 	to 	remain 	in 	the
overall 	certificated 	unit 	since 	it 	finds 	such 	a 	unit
inappropriate 	in 	this 	case. 	Rather, 	it 	directs 	an 	election 	in
the 	children's 	center 	unit 	only.
No 	exceptions 	were 	taken 	to 	the 	hearing 	officer's 	decision
that 	children's 	center 	head 	teachers 	are 	supervisory 	employees
and 	it 	is 	therefore 	not 	an 	issue 	before 	the 	Board.
-2-

FACTS
The hearing officer's procedural history and findings of
fact are substantially correct and are adopted as the findings
of the Board itself. 1
DISCUSSION
Section 3545 (a) of the Educational Employment Relations Act
(hereafter EERA) 2 sets forth general criteria for determining
appropriate units:
It is unclear whether the hearing officer's statement
that general fund monies may be used to support the children's
center is accurate. See Education Code section 8328, which
states:
The governing board of any school district
or community college district or the county
superintendent of schools shall establish in
the county treasury a fund to be known as
the "child development fund" into which
shall be paid all funds received by the
district or the county for, or from the
operation of, child development services
under this division. 	The costs incurred in
the maintenance and operation of child
development services shall be paid from the
fund, with accounting to reflect specific
funding sources.
No other funds of a district derived from
the receipt of district taxes or derived
from moneys apportioned to the district for
the support of schools thereof, except state
moneys appropriated for the support of child
development services, fees, and federal
funds, may be expended for, or in connection
with child development services. 	( Emphasis
added. )
2The EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et
seq. 	Unless otherwise noted, all statutory references are to
-3-
FACTS
The
	hearing
	officer's
	procedural
	history
	and
	findings 	of
fact
	are
	substantially 	correct
	and
	are
	adopted
	as 	the
	findings
of
	the
	Board
	itself.l
DISCUSSION
Section
	3545(a)
	of 	the 	Educational
	Employment
	Relations
	Act
(hereafter
	EERA)2	
sets
	forth
	general
	criteria
	for 	determining
appropriate
	units:
1
It
	is
	unclear
	whether
	the 	hearing
	officer's
	statement
that
	general
	fund 	monies
	may 	be
	used
	to 	support 	the
	children's
center
	is
	accurate.
	See
	Education
	Code
	section
	8328, 	which
states:
The
	governing
	board
	of
	any
	school
	district
or
	community
	college
	district
	or 	the 	county
superintendent 	of 	schools
	shall 	establish
	in
the 	county
	treasury
	a
	fund
	to
	be 	known
	as
the
	"child
	development
	fund"
	into
	which
shall
	be
	paid
	all
	funds
	received
	by
	the
district
	or 	the 	county
	for,
	or
	from
	the
operation 	of, 	child
	development
	services
under
	this
	division.
	The
	costs
	incurred 	inthe 	maintenance
	and
	operation 	of
	child
development
	services 	shall
	be
	paid
	from
	thefund, 	with 	accounting 	to
	reflect 	specific
funding
	sources.
No
	other
	funds
	of
	a
	district
	derived
	from
the
	receipt 	of
	district
	taxes 	or 	derived
from 	moneys
	apportioned 	to 	the
	district
	for
the 	support 	of 	schools
	thereof,
	except
	state
moneys
	appropriated 	for 	the 	support 	of
	child
development
	services, 	fees,
	and
	federalfunds,
	may 	be 	expended
	for,
	or 	in 	connection
with
	child
	development
	services.
	(Emphasis
added.)
2The
	EERA
	is 	codified 	at
	Government 	Code
	section
	3540
	etseq. 	Unless 	otherwise 	noted,
	all 	statutory 	references 	are 	to
-3-

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.
the Government Code. Other unit determination criteria are
listed in section 3545 (b) :
In all cases:
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.
Classified employees and certificated
employees shall not be included in the same
negotiating unit.
Section 3545 (b) (1) is the only section that is possibly
applicable in this case. However, it is unnecessary for us to
address the issue of whether or not children's center teachers
are classroom teachers under that section. Even if we assume
that children's center teachers are classroom teachers, our
finding that a combined unit of children's center and regular
teachers is inappropriate rebuts the presumption, articulated
in Peralta Com 	1/17/78) PERB Decision
No. 77, that all classroom teacher 	e in the same unit
unless that unit is inappropriate under the
-4-
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.
the 	Government 	Code. 	Other 	unit 	determination 	criteria 	are
listed 	in 	section 	3545(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.
(1)
(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.
(3)
Section 	3545(b) (1) 	is 	the 	only 	section 	that 	is 	possibly
applicable 	in 	this 	case. 	However, 	it 	is 	unnecessary 	for 	us 	to
address 	the 	issue 	of 	whether 	or 	not 	children's 	center 	teachers
are 	classroom 	teachers 	under 	that 	section. 	Even 	if 	we 	assume
that 	children's 	center 	teachers 	are 	classroom 	teachers, 	our
finding 	that 	a 	combined 	unit 	of 	children's 	center 	and 	regular
teachers 	is 	inappropriate 	rebuts 	the 	presumption, 	articulated
in 	Peralta Conuuunity	munity College District (1	College 	District 	(11/17/78) 	PERB 	Decision
No. 	77, 	that 	all 	classroom 	s should b	teachers 	should 	be 	in 	the 	same 	unit
unless 	that 	unit 	is 	inappropriate cunder	riteria inthe 	criteria 	in
section 3545 (a) .	section 	3545(a).
-4-

In Antioch Unified School District (11/7/77) EERB Decision
No. 37, the Board concluded that these criteria "require a
weighing and balancing in respect to each other . 	In
this case we find that the separate and distinct communities of
interest of children's center teachers and elementary teachers
outweigh the considerations advanced by the District with
respect to the efficiency of operations and established
practices criteria. These separate communities of interest
convince us that a unit including both children's center and
elementary teachers is inappropriate and a separate unit of
children's center teachers is appropriate.
Community of Interest
In determining whether a community of interest exists among
employees, PERB considers the following criteria: 	method of
compensation, wages, hours, employment benefits, supervision,
qualifications, training and skills, work functions, contact
with other employees, integration with work functions of other
employees, and interchange with other employees. 3 Other
factors, such as sources of funding and the purposes of various
programs, also have an impact on the interests and employment
3office of the Santa Clara County Sup
Schools (7/19/78) PERB Decision No. 59. These criteria were
used by the National Labor Relations Board (hereafter NLRB) in
Kalamazoo Paper Box Corp. (1962) 136 NLRB 134 [49 LRRM 1715].
In Antioch Unified School District (11/7/77) EERB Decision No.
37, PERB stated that it follows the NLRB's definition of
community of interest as set forth in Kalamazoo.
-5-
In
	Antioch
	Unified
	School
	District
	(11/7/77)
	EERB
	Decision
No.
	37,
	the
	Board
	concluded
	that
	these
	criteria
	"require
	a
weighing
	and
	balancing
	in 	respect 	to
	each
	other	
. . . 	. "	
In
this
	case
	we
	find
	that
	the
	separate
	and
	distinct
	communities
	of
interest
	of
	children's
	center 	teachers
	and
	elementary
	teachers
outweigh 	the
	considerations
	advanced
	by
	the
	District
	with
respect
	to 	the
	efficiency
	of 	operations
	and
	established
practices
	criteria.
	These
	separate
	communities
	of
	interest
convince
	us
	that
	a
	unit
	including
	both
	children's
	center
	and
elementary
	teachers
	is
	inappropriate
	and 	a
	separate
	unit
	of
children's
	center 	teachers
	is
	appropriate.
Community
	of
	Interest
In 	determining
	whether
	a 	community
	of
	interest 	exists
	among
employees,
	PERB
	considers 	the 	following
	criteria:
	method
	of
compensation,
	wages,
	hours,
	employment
	benefits, 	supervision,
qualifications, 	training
	and
	skills,
	work
	functions, 	contact
with 	other
	employees,
	integration
	with
	work
	functions 	of 	other
employees,
	and
	interchange 	with
	other
	employees.3 	Other
factors,
	such 	as 	sources 	of 	funding
	and
	the 	purposes 	of 	various
programs,
	also
	have 	an
	impact
	on
	the
	interests
	and 	employment
3Qffice 	of 	the 	Santa Clara
	Count erintendent of
Schools
	(7 	19 	78)
	PERB
	Dec1s1on 	No. 	5 	• 	T
ese 	cr1ter1a
	were
used 	by
	the 	National
	Labor
	Relations
	Board
	(hereafter
	NLRB)
	in
Kalamazoo 	Paper 	Box Corp. 	(1962) 	136
	NLRB
	134 	[49
In 	Antioch 	Unified 	School
	District
	(11/7/77)
	EERB
	Decision
	No.
37,
	PERB
	stated 	that
	it
	follows 	the
	NLRB's
	definition 	of
community
	of
	interest
	as 	set 	forth 	in
	Kalamazoo.
LR.."™	
1715].
-5-

conditions of public employees, and PERB has considered such
factors in examining the community of interest among
certificated employees. See, e.g. , Oakland Unified School
District (3/28/77) EERB Decision No. 15, Peralta Community
College District, supra, PERB Decision No. 77. As in Oakland,
in which PERB decided that children's center teachers were
appropriately placed in a separate unit, almost all of these
factors clearly indicate the separate community of interest of
children's center teachers.
Children's center teachers and elementary teachers are paid
from separate salary schedules, with children's center teachers
receiving significantly lower salaries. In Oakland, children's
center teachers with teaching credentials were paid according
to the regular public school teachers' salary schedule. In
contrast, in this case, even those children's center teachers
holding teaching credentials are paid significantly less than
credentialed elementary teachers.
Because children's centers are open approximately 11 hours
per day, children's center teachers work different hours than
regular teachers. 	The centers are open year-round and center
teachers work 254 days per year, with one day per month of
scheduled vacation. In contrast, elementary teachers work 180
days per year. In Oakland, credentialed children's center
teachers worked the same number of days per year as regular
district teachers, while other children's center teachers
-6-
conditions 	of 	public 	employees, 	and 	PERB 	has 	considered 	such
factors 	in 	examining 	the 	community 	of 	interest 	among
certificated 	employees. 	See, 	e.g., 	Oakland 	Unified 	School
District 	(3/28/77) 	EERB 	Decision 	No. 	15, 	Peralta Community
College 	District, 	supra, 	PERB 	Decision 	No. 	77. 	As 	in Oakland,
in 	which 	PERB 	decided 	that 	children's 	center 	teachers 	were
appropriately 	placed 	in 	a 	separate 	unit, 	almost 	all 	of 	these
factors 	clearly 	indicate 	the 	separate 	community 	of 	interest 	of
children's 	center 	teachers.
Children's 	center 	teachers 	and 	elementary 	teachers 	are 	paid
from 	separate 	salary 	schedules, 	with 	children's 	center 	teachers
receiving 	significantly 	lower 	salaries. 	In 	Oakland, 	children's
center 	teachers 	with 	teaching 	credentials 	were 	paid 	according
to 	the 	regular 	public 	school 	teachers' 	salary 	schedule. 	In
contrast, 	in 	this 	case, 	even 	those 	children's 	center 	teachers
holding 	teaching 	credentials 	are 	paid 	significantly 	less 	than
credentialed 	elementary 	teachers.
Because 	children's 	centers 	are 	open 	approximately 	11 	hours
per 	day, 	children's 	center 	teachers 	work 	different 	hours 	than
regular 	teachers. 	The 	centers 	are 	open 	year-round 	and 	center
teachers 	work 	254 	days 	per 	year, 	with 	one 	day 	per 	month 	of
scheduled 	vacation. 	In 	contrast, 	elementary 	teachers 	work 	180
days 	per 	year. 	In 	Oakland, 	credentialed 	children's 	center
teachers 	worked 	the 	same 	number 	of 	days 	per 	year 	as 	regular
district 	teachers, 	while 	other 	children's 	center 	teachers
-6-

worked all year. In this case, no distinction is made between
children's center teachers with credentials and those without;
they all work many more days per year than elementary teachers.
As in Oakland, children's center and regular teachers
receive the same fringe benefits and are evaluated under the
same procedures. Supervision of children's center employees is
separate from that of other certificated employees through at
least two levels. Hiring procedures are also separate through
several administrative levels, although all final decisions
must be approved by the Board of Education.
Licensing requirements for children's center teachers are
different from those of elementary teachers. Most children's
center teachers hold permits while regular teachers must be
fully credentialed. There is no distinction in working
conditions between children's center teachers with credentials
and those without, in contrast with Oakland where credentialed
children's center teachers were treated more like regular
district teachers.
The work functions of children's center teachers and
regular teachers differ. While both groups interact with
children, the focus of the children's center teachers is to
provide child care rather than the traditional,
subject-oriented education provided by regular teachers.
The record showed little contact between children's center
and elementary teachers, even on an informal basis. The two
-7-
worked 	all 	year. 	In 	this 	case, 	no 	distinction 	is 	made 	between
children's 	center 	teachers 	with 	credentials 	and 	those 	without;
they 	all 	work 	many 	more 	days 	per 	year 	than 	elementary 	teachers.
As 	in 	Oakland, 	children's 	center 	and 	regular 	teachers
receive 	the 	same 	fringe 	benefits 	and 	are 	evaluated 	under 	the
same 	procedures. 	Supervision of 	children's 	center 	employees 	is
separate 	from 	that 	of 	other 	certificated 	employees 	through 	at
least 	two 	levels. 	Hiring 	procedures 	are 	also 	separate 	through
several 	administrative 	levels, 	although 	all 	final 	decisions
must 	be 	approved 	by 	the 	Board 	of 	Education.
Licensing 	requirements 	for 	children's 	center 	teachers 	are
different 	from 	those 	of 	elementary 	teachers. 	Most 	children's
center 	teachers 	hold 	permits 	while 	regular 	teachers 	must 	be
fully 	credentialed. 	There 	is 	no 	distinction 	in 	working
conditions 	between 	children's 	center 	teachers 	with 	credentials
and 	those 	without, 	in 	contrast 	with 	Oakland 	where 	credentialed
children's 	center 	teachers 	were 	treated 	more 	like 	regular
district 	teachers.
The 	work 	functions 	of 	children's 	center 	teachers 	and
regular 	teachers 	differ. 	While 	both 	groups 	interact 	with
children, 	the 	focus 	of 	the 	children's 	center 	teachers 	is 	to
provide 	child 	care 	rather 	than 	the 	traditional,
subject-oriented 	education 	provided 	by 	regular 	teachers.
The 	record 	showed 	little 	contact 	between 	children's 	center
and 	elementary 	teachers, 	even 	on 	an 	informal 	basis. 	The 	two
-7-

groups do not have common faculty meetings or in-service
training sessions. Although each children's center is located
at an elementary school site, the facilities and playgrounds
have a separate identity. Many of the children's center
students also attend elementary school during the regular
school day, but apparently little or no effort is made to
coordinate the two programs.
Under State law, children's center teachers and elementary
teachers have separate lay-off provisions and seniority
lists. 4 I 	the Redondo Beach District, transfers between the
two programs are almost nonexistent.
The sources of funding and budgets for the two programs are
totally separate. No local funds are used to support the
children's centers, nor are children's center funds used to
support other District programs. The impact that this
separation may have on negotiations can be demonstrated by the
fiscal situation in the District. Monies available for regular
District programs have declined while the children's center
program has developed a surplus reserve and has engaged in
deficit spending to lessen that reserve. Negotiation
priorities are likely to be different for both parties when
revenues are declining than they are in a more stable financial
atmosphere. 	Thus, separate funding sources and budgets are
often indicative of separate communities of interest.
4Education Code section 8366.
-8-
groups
	do
	not
	have
	common
	faculty
	meetings 	or
	in-service
training
	sessions.
	Although 	each
	children's
	center
	is
	located
at
	an
	elementary 	school
	site,
	the
	facilities
	and
	playgrounds
have
	a
	separate
	identity.
	Many
	of 	the
	children's
	center
students 	also 	attend
	elementary 	school 	during 	the
	regular
school
	day, 	but
	apparently
	little
	or
	no
	effort 	is
	made
	to
coordinate
	the
	two
	programs.
Under
	State
	law,
	children's
	center 	teachers
	and
	elementary
teachers
	have
	separate
	lay-off
	provisions
	and
	seniority
lists.4n	
In 	the
	Redondo 	Beach
	District,
	transfers
	between
	the
two
	programs
	are
	almost
	nonexistent.
The
	sources 	of
	funding
	and
	budgets 	for 	the
	two
	programs
	are
totally
	separate.
	No
	local
	funds
	are
	used
	to 	support 	the
children's 	centers,
	nor
	are
	children's
	center
	funds 	used
	to
support 	other
	District
	programs.
	The
	impact
	that 	this
separation
	may
	have 	on
	negotiations
	can
	be
	demonstrated
	by
	the
fiscal 	situation
	in 	the
	District.
	Monies
	available
	for
	regular
District
	programs 	have
	declined 	while 	the
	children's 	center
program 	has 	developed
	a
	surplus 	reserve
	and
	has 	engaged
	in
deficit
	spending
	to 	lessen 	that 	reserve. 	Negotiation
priorities
	are
	likely
	to
	be
	different
	for 	both
	parties
	when
revenues 	are 	declining 	than 	they 	are 	in
	a 	more
	stable 	financial
atmosphere. 	Thus,
	separate
	funding 	sources
	and
	budgets
	are
often 	indicative 	of 	separate
	communities 	of
	interest.
4Education 	Code
	section 	8366.
-8-

In Peralta, the Board found a lack of community of interest
between Skills Center teachers and regular community college
teachers based on the distinctive means of funding the Skills
of continuity of employment, differing
instructional practices and working conditions, differences in
curriculum and educational purpose, and a different method of
compensation. As the discussion above indicates, similar
differences exist between children's center teachers and
regular teachers in the present case. There are distinctions
between this case and Peralta: children's center teachers have
a greater continuity of employment; Skills Center teachers must
have the same credentials as other community college teachers.
But on balance, we find that the decision in Peralta supports
our decision that children's center teachers do not share a
community of interest with regular teachers.
Established Practices
This is the first case before the Board itself involving a
request to sever a group of employees from an existing unit in
which negotiations have taken place. It therefore presents the
question of what significance should be accorded to negotiating
history as an established practice under the EERA. 5
T 	Board indicated that negotiations history is
encompassed in the term "established practices" in Antioch,
supra, EERB Decision No. 37, at p
-9-
In 	Peralta, 	the 	Board 	found 	a 	lack 	of 	community 	of 	interest
between 	Skills 	Center 	teachers 	and 	regular 	community 	college
teachers 	based 	on 	the 	distinctive 	means 	of 	funding 	the 	Skills
Center p	Center ositions, lack	positions, 	lack 	of 	continuity 	of 	employment, 	differing
instructional 	practices 	and 	working 	conditions, 	differences 	in
curriculum 	and 	educational 	purpose, 	and 	a 	different 	method 	of
compensation. 	As 	the 	discussion 	above 	indicates, 	similar
differences 	exist 	between 	children's 	center 	teachers 	and
regular 	teachers 	in 	the 	present 	case. 	There 	are 	distinctions
between 	this 	case 	and 	Peralta: 	children's 	center 	teachers 	have
a 	greater 	continuity 	of 	employment; 	Skills 	Center 	teachers 	must
have 	the 	same 	credentials 	as 	other 	community 	college 	teachers.
But 	on 	balance, 	we 	find 	that 	the 	decision 	in 	Peralta 	supports
our 	decision 	that 	children's 	center 	teachers 	do 	not 	share 	a
community 	of 	interest 	with 	regular 	teachers.
Established 	Practices
This 	is 	the 	first 	case 	before 	the 	Board 	itself 	involving 	a
request 	to 	sever 	a 	group of 	employees 	from 	an 	existing 	unit 	in
which 	negotiations 	have 	taken 	place. 	It 	therefore 	presents 	the
question 	of 	what 	significance 	should 	be 	accorded 	to 	negotiating
history 	as 	an 	established 	practice 	under 	the 	EERA.5
5hee 	Board 	indicated 	that 	negotiations 	history 	is
encompassed 	in 	the 	term 	"established 	practices" 	in 	Antioch,
supra, 	EERB 	Decision 	No. . 5.	37, 	at 	p. 	5.
Th
-9-

The District argues that in this case, the established
practices criterion should be weighted heavily. We disagree.
We have considered the negotiating history between the District
and the Association, and find little in it to counterbalance
the lack of community of interest between children's center and
elementary teachers.
The negotiating history is quite short; the Association had
represented the unit for less than two years when the
Federation filed its request for recognition as the
representative of the children's center teachers. 	The unit was
the result of a voluntary recognition and was never reviewed or
approved by the Board or its agents. The exclusive
representative did not originally seek to represent the
children's center teachers, but the District would not
voluntarily recognize the Association as the exclusive
representative unless children's center teachers were included
in the unit. After representing the children's center teachers
for less than two years, the Association formally requested to
delete them from the unit.
The children's center teachers have not been involved in
the negotiating activities of the exclusive representative.
Although the record contains no evidence of overt conflict
between children's center and elementary teachers, it is
apparent that the two groups have not learned to "pull
together." According to an Association negotiator, Association
-10-
The 	District 	argues 	that 	in 	this 	case, 	the 	established
practices 	criterion 	should 	be 	weighted 	heavily. 	We 	disagree.
We 	have 	considered 	the 	negotiating 	history 	between 	the 	District
and 	the 	Association, 	and 	find 	little 	in 	it 	to 	counterbalance
the 	lack 	of 	community 	of 	interest 	between 	children's 	center 	and
elementary 	teachers.
The 	negotiating 	history 	is 	quite 	short; 	the 	Association 	had
represented 	the 	unit 	for 	less 	than 	two 	years 	when 	the
Federation 	filed 	its 	request 	for 	recognition 	as 	the
representative 	of 	the 	children's 	center 	teachers. 	The 	unit 	was
the 	result 	of 	a 	voluntary 	recognition 	and 	was 	never 	reviewed 	or
approved 	by 	the 	Board 	or 	its 	agents. 	The 	exclusive
representative 	did 	not 	originally 	seek 	to 	represent 	the
children's 	center 	teachers, 	but 	the 	District 	would 	not
voluntarily 	recognize 	the 	Association 	as 	the 	exclusive
representative 	unless 	children's 	center 	teachers 	were 	included
in 	the 	unit. 	After 	representing 	the 	children's 	center 	teachers
for 	less 	than 	two 	years, 	the 	Association 	formally 	requested 	to
delete 	them 	from 	the 	unit.
The 	children's 	center 	teachers 	have 	not 	been 	involved 	in
the 	negotiating 	activities 	of 	the 	exclusive 	representative.
Although 	the 	record 	contains 	no 	evidence 	of 	overt 	conflict
between 	children's 	center 	and 	elementary 	teachers, 	it 	is
apparent 	that 	the 	two 	groups 	have 	not 	learned 	to 	"pull
together." 	According 	to 	an 	Association 	negotiator, 	Association
-10-

members do not understand the duties of children's center
teachers or even know the teachers. This is indicative of the
separation between the two groups.
It has been PERB's policy to encourage voluntary
recognitions and settlements among the parties subject to its
jurisdiction. The Board also has a strong interest in labor
relations stability. Therefore we are loathe to upset working
relationships and will not disrupt existing units by granting
severance petitions lightly. In this case, however, the
negotiations history does little to support a finding that
stability would be enhanced by maintaining the existing unit.
The employee organization never sought to represent children's
center teachers and a majority of the teachers do not wish to
be represented by the Association. Given these facts and in
view of the lack of community of interest between the
children's center and regular teachers, the Board finds that it
is appropriate to establish a separate unit of children's
center teachers.
Efficiency of Operations
In determining that a separate unit of children's center
teachers is appropriate and that the existing combined unit is
not, the Board has considered the evidence relating to
efficiency of operations and found that, in this case, that
criterion does not outweigh the community of interest factors
which demonstrate the inappropriateness of a combined unit.
-11-
members 	do 	not 	understand 	the 	duties 	of 	children's 	center
teachers 	or 	even 	know 	the 	teachers. 	This 	is 	indicative 	of 	the
separation 	between 	the 	two 	groups.
It 	has 	been 	PERB's 	policy 	to 	encourage 	voluntary
recognitions 	and 	settlements 	among 	the 	parties 	subject 	to 	its
jurisdiction. 	The 	Board 	also 	has 	a 	strong 	interest 	in 	labor
relations 	stability. 	Therefore 	we 	are 	loathe 	to 	upset 	working
relationships 	and 	will 	not 	disrupt 	existing 	units 	by 	granting
severance 	petitions 	lightly. 	In 	this 	case, 	however, 	the
negotiations 	history 	does 	little 	to 	support 	a 	finding 	that
stability 	would 	be 	enhanced 	by 	maintaining 	the 	existing 	unit.
The 	employee 	organization 	never 	sought 	to 	represent 	children's
center 	teachers 	and 	a 	majority 	of 	the 	teachers 	do 	not 	wish 	to
be 	represented 	by 	the 	Association. 	Given 	these 	facts 	and 	in
view 	of 	the 	lack 	of 	community 	of 	interest 	between 	the
children's 	center 	and 	regular 	teachers, 	the 	Board 	finds 	that 	it
is 	appropriate 	to 	establish 	a 	separate 	unit 	of 	children's
center 	teachers.
Efficiency 	of 	Operations
In 	determining 	that 	a 	separate 	unit 	of 	children's 	center
teachers 	is 	appropriate 	and 	that 	the 	existing 	combined 	unit 	is
not, 	the 	Board 	has 	considered 	the 	evidence 	relating 	to
efficiency 	of 	operations 	and 	found 	that, 	in 	this 	case, 	that
criterion 	does 	not 	outweigh 	the 	community 	of 	interest 	factors
which 	demonstrate 	the 	inappropriateness 	of 	a 	combined 	unit.
-11-

The size of the unit alone is not determinative as it was
in Gilroy Unified School District (7/20/79) PERB Decision
No. 98. In that case, because the unit would have consisted of
6 out of 314 certificated employees, PERB declined to create a
separate unit of six children's center teachers, finding that
such a unit would "unduly fragment the bargaining unit and
impair the efficiency of the District's operations. " (Supra,
at p. 12.) There the Board placed overriding significance on
the efficiency of operations criterion. In the present case,
the proposed children's center unit consists of approximately
30 out of 225 certificated employees. Therefore, the
efficiency of operations criterion is outweighed by the
separate community of interest.
In conclusion, we find the disparities in community of
interest between the children's center teachers and regular
teachers in this case so great as to render the existing unit
inappropriate, despite countervailing factors related to
established practices and efficiency of operations. A separate
children's center unit is found to be appropriate.
Election
The hearing officer ordered a self-determination election
in which the children's center teachers could vote to be
represented by the Federation in a separate unit or by the
Association in the existing unit. We disagree with this
order. A self-determination election may be appropriate when
-12-
The
	size
	of
	the
	unit
	alone
	is
	not
	determinative
	as
	it
	was
in
	Gilroy 	Unified
	School
	District
	(7/20/79)
	PERB
	Decision
No.
	98.
	In
	that
	case,
	because
	the
	unit
	would
	have
	consisted
	of
6
	out 	of
	314
	certificated
	employees,
	PERB
	declined 	to
	create
	a
separate
	unit
	of
	six
	children's
	center 	teachers,
	finding
	that
such
	a
	unit
	would
	"unduly 	fragment
	the 	bargaining
	unit
	and
impair 	the
	efficiency
	of 	the
	District's
	operations."
	(Supra,
at
	p.
	12.)
	There
	the
	Board
	placed
	overriding
	significance
	on
the
	efficiency
	of
	operations
	criterion.
	In 	the
	present 	case,
the
	proposed
	children's
	center
	unit 	consists
	of 	approximately
30
	out
	of
	225
	certificated
	employees.
	Therefore, 	the
efficiency
	of 	operations
	criterion 	is
	outweighed
	by
	the
separate
	community
	of
	interest.
In
	conclusion,
	we
	find 	the
	disparities.in
	community
	of
interest
	between
	the
	children's
	center 	teachers
	and
	regular
teachers 	in
	this
	case 	so
	great
	as
	to
	render 	the
	existing 	unit
inappropriate, 	despite 	countervailing 	factors 	related 	to
established 	practices
	and
	efficiency
	of 	operations.
	A
separate
children's
	center 	unit 	is
	found
	to
	be
	appropriate.
Election
The
	hearing
	officer
	ordered
	a
	self-determination 	election
in
	which
	the
	children's 	center 	teachers 	could 	vote 	to
	be
represented
	by
	the 	Federation 	in
	a
	separate 	unit
	or
	by
	the
Association 	in 	the 	existing 	unit.
	We
	disagree 	with
	this
order.
	A
self-determination 	election
	may 	be
	appropriate
	when
-12-

both units on the ballot are appropriate. In this case,
however, we have found that the existing unit, which includes
both children's center and elementary teachers, is
inappropriate under the criteria in section 3545 (a) . It would,
therefore, be improper to allow children's center teachers the
choice of remaining in an inappropriate unit.
ORDER
Upon the foregoing Decision and the entire record in this
case, the Public Employment Relations Board ORDERS that:
1. 	A unit of all children's center teachers excluding all
other employees including management, confidential and
supervisory employees, is appropriate for the purpose of
meeting and negotiating, provided that an employee organization
becomes the exclusive representative thereof.
2 . 	Within 15 workdays after the employer posts the Notice
of Decision, the employee organizations 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 in such unit if: (1) more than one
employee organization qualifies for the ballot, or (2) only one
employee organization qualifies for the ballot and the employer
does not grant voluntary recognition.
The date used to establish the number of employees in the
above unit shall be the date of this Decision unless another
date is deemed appropriate by the regional director and noticed
-13-
both 	units 	on 	the 	ballot 	are 	appropriate. 	In 	this 	case,
however, 	we 	have 	found 	that 	the 	existing 	unit, 	which 	includes
both 	children's 	center 	and 	elementary 	teachers, 	is
inappropriate 	under 	the 	criteria 	in 	section 	3545{a). 	It 	would,
therefore, 	be 	improper 	to 	allow 	children's 	center 	teachers 	the
choice 	of 	remaining 	in 	an 	inappropriate 	unit.
ORDER
Upon 	the 	foregoing 	Decision 	and 	the 	entire 	record 	in 	this
case, 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board ORDERS 	that:
1. 	A unit 	of 	all 	children's 	center 	teachers 	excluding 	all
other 	employees 	including 	management, 	confidential 	and
supervisory 	employees, 	is 	appropriate 	for 	the 	purpose 	of
meeting 	and 	negotiating, 	provided 	that 	an 	employee 	organization
becomes 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	thereof.
2. 	Within 	15 workdays 	after 	the 	employer 	posts 	the 	Notice
of 	Decision, 	the 	employee 	organizations 	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 	in 	such 	unit 	if: 	(1) 	more 	than 	one
employee 	organization 	qualifies 	for 	the 	ballot, 	or 	(2) 	only 	one
employee 	organization 	qualifies 	for 	the 	ballot 	and 	the 	employer
does 	not 	grant 	voluntary 	recognition.
The 	date 	used 	to 	establish 	the 	number 	of 	employees 	in 	the
above 	unit 	shall 	be 	the 	date 	of 	this 	Decision 	unless 	another
date 	is 	deemed 	appropriate 	by 	the 	regional 	director 	and 	noticed
-13-

to the parties.
By : Faymond J/ Gonzales ,) Member 	Harry Gluck, Chairperson
Barbara D. Moore, Member
-14-
to 	the 	parties.
/y: 	/aymond 	J/ G¥7iales,) Member 	;y Gluck, 	Chal~erson
Barbara 	D. 	Moore, 	Member
-14-

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
REDONDO BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Representation
Employer, 	Case No. LA-R-430B (825)
-and- 	PROPOSED DECISION
EARLY CHILDHOOD FEDERATION, LOCAL 1475 AFT, 	(5/18/79)
Employee Organization,
- and-
REDONDO BEACH CITY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION,
CTA/NEA,
Employee Organization.
Appearances: David G. Miller, Attorney (Paterson & Taggart)
for Redondo Beach City School District; Larry Bordan for Early
Childhood Federation, Local 1475 AFT; Charles Gustafson,
Attorney, and Lauren Sanders for Redondo Beach City Teachers
Association.
Before Terry Filliman, Hearing Officer.
I ISSUES
This case involves the filing of a request for recognition
seeking to sever children's center teachers from an existing
certificated employee negotiating unit at a time when no
contract or recognition bar is in effect. Assuming the request
is procedurally appropriate, the specific issues are:
1 . Is a separate unit of children's center teachers
appropriate in this district based upon community of
interest and efficiency of operations factors;
2. If so what weight should be accorded to "established
practices" or bargaining history of the existing unit in
determining the appropriateness of the requested unit;
STATE
	OF
	CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
REDONDO
	BEACH
	CITY
	SCHOOL
	DISTRICT,
Employer,
-and-
EARLY
	CHILDHOOD
	FEDERATION,
	LOCAL
	1475 	AFT,
Employee
	Organization,
-and-
REDONDO
	BEACH
	CITY
	TEACHERS
	ASSOCIATION,
CTA/NEA,
Employee
	Organization.
)
)	
Representation
Case
	No. 	LA-R-430B 	(825)
PROPOSED
	DECISION
(5/18/79)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_______________________ )
Appearances:	
David
	G.
	Miller,
	Attorney 	(Paterson	
&	
Taggart)
for
	Redondo 	Beach
	City
	School
	District;
	Larry
	Berdan
	for 	Early
Childhood
	Federation,
	Local
	1475 	AFT;
	Charles 	Gustafson,
Attorney,
	and
	Lauren
	Sanders
	for
	Redondo 	Beach
	City
	Teachers
Association.
Before 	Terry
	Filliman,
	Hearing
	Officer.
I 	ISSUES
This 	case 	involves 	the
	filing
	of
	a
	request 	for 	recognition
seeking 	to 	sever
	children's
	center 	teachers
	from 	an
	existing
certificated
	employee
	negotiating 	unit 	at
	a
	time
	when 	no
contract
	or 	recognition 	bar
	is
	in
	effect.
	Assuming
	the 	request
is
	procedurally 	appropriate, 	the
	specific 	issues 	are:
1. 	Is
	a
	separate 	unit 	of
	children's 	center 	teachers
appropriate 	in 	this 	district
	based
	upon 	community
	of
interest
	and
	efficiency 	of 	operations 	factors;
2.
	If
	so 	what 	weight 	should 	be 	accorded 	to 	"established
practices"
	or 	bargaining 	history 	of 	the 	existing 	unit 	indetermining 	the 	appropriateness 	of 	the 	requested 	unit;

3. Are children's center head teachers supervisory
employees.
II PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On May 20, 1976, the Redondo Beach City School District
(hereafter District) notified the Public Employment Relations
Board 	hereafter PERB or Board) that it had granted
voluntary recognition to the Redondo Beach City Teachers
Association (hereafter RBCTA) for a unit of certificated
employees. The unit also included children's center teachers
and children's center head teachers. On February 10, 1977, the
District and RBCTA executed a negotiated agreement for a term
ending June 30, 1978.
On March 14, 1978, the Early Childhood Federation, Local
1475, AFT (hereafter Federation) filed a request for
recognition to represent a certificated unit consisting solely
of children's center teachers. Head teachers were included in
the unit by an amended request filed on June 28, 1978. 	The
RBCTA did not intervene. On April 10, 1978, the Los Angeles
Regional Director of PERB administratively determined that the
Federation request was timely 	procedurally appropriate3,
and contained a sufficient showing of support.
Chapter 1159, statutes of 1977, effective
January 1, 1978, the Educational Employment Relations Board was
renamed the Public Employment Relations Board.
he contract bar nor the recognition bar
established by Government Code section 3544.1 were in effect
to invalidate the request. Specifically the request for
recognition was filed within the period between 90-120 days
prior to the expiration of a previous contract.
the regional director's determination that
the petition was appropriate for hearing is the finding that a
request for recognition to sever a portion of a previously
recognized unit is appropriate pursuant to Government Code
section 3544 et seq.
3.
	Are
	children's
	center
	head
	teachers 	supervisory
employees.
II
	PROCEDURAL
	HISTORY
On
	May
	20, 	1976,
	the
	Redondo 	Beach
	City
	School
	District
(hereafter
	District) 	notified
	the 	Public
	Employment
	Relations
Boardl	! (	
(hereafter
	PERB
	or
	Board)
	that
	it
	had
	granted
voluntary 	recognition 	to 	the
	Redondo 	Beach
	City
	Teachers
Association 	(hereafter
	RBCTA)
	for
	a
	unit
	of
	certificated
employees.
	The
	unit 	also
	included
	children's
	center 	teachers
and
	children's
	center
	head
	teachers.
	On
	February
	10, 	1977,
	the
District
	and
	RBCTA
	executed
	a
	negotiated
	agreement
	for
	a
	term
ending 	June 	30,
	1978.
On
	March
	14, 	1978,
	the 	Early
	Childhood
	Federation,
	Local
1475,
	AFT
	(hereafter
	Federation)
	filed
	a
	request 	for
recognition 	to 	represent
	a
	certificated
	unit 	consisting
	solely
of
	children's
	center 	teachers.
	Head
	teachers
	were
	included
	in
the
	unit
	by 	an 	amended
	request
	filed
	on
	June 	28, 	1978.
	The
RBCTA
	did 	not
	intervene.
	On
	April
	10, 	1978,
	the
	Los
	Angeles
Regional
	Director 	of
	PERB
	administratively
	determined
	that
	the
Federation 	request
	was
	timely2,	2,
procedurally 	appropriate3,
and
	contained
	a
	sufficient
	showing
	of 	support.
By	l
Neither	2
Implicit	3
2
1By	
Chapter 	1159,
	statutes
	of
	1977,
	effective
January 	1,
	1978,
	the 	Educational
	Employment
	Relations
	Board 	was
renamed
	the 	Public
	Employment
	Relations
	Board.
2Neither t	
the 	contract
	bar 	nor
	the 	recognition 	bar
established
	by 	Government 	Code
	section
	3544.1 	were
	in
	effectto 	invalidate 	the 	request. 	Specifically 	the 	request 	for
recognition
	was
	filed 	within 	the 	period
	between 	90-120 	days
prior 	to 	the 	expiration 	of
	a
	previous 	contract.
3 Implicit in 	in 	the 	regional 	director's 	determination 	thatthe 	petition
	was
	appropriate 	for 	hearing 	is 	the 	finding 	that
	a
request 	for 	recognition 	to 	sever 	a
	portion 	of 	a 	previously
recognized 	unit 	is 	appropriate 	pursuant 	to Government 	Code
section 	3544 	et 	seq.

On May 10, 1978, the District denied recognition of the
Federation. A unit determination hearing was held on
August 28, and September 21 and 22, 1978 .4 The matter was
submitted on November 3, 1978.
III A CHILDREN'S CENTER TEACHER UNIT
A. Findings of Fact - Community of Interest
1. Unit Size
The District has an enrollment of approximately 5,260
pupils in grades K-8. It operates 14 elementary schools. The
existing certificated unit includes approximately 225
employees. At three school sites - Lincoln, Franklin, and
Toleda - the District operates children's centers offering
programs for preschool, kindergarten and elementary-aged
pupils. The children's centers employ approximately 30
certificated employees. 5
e hearing, the hearing officer inquired into the
appropriateness of the inclusion of certain substitutes in the
recognized certificated unit on the basis that the Federation
petition had raised a "question" concerning representation in a
unit not previously approved by PERB. Subsequently, in Peralta
Commuity College District (11/17/78) PERB Decision No. 77, and
Palo Alto Unified School District (1/9/79) PERB Decision No. 84
the Board decided that appropriate unit standards would only be
applied to future proposed units. Therefore, evidence
unrelated to the issues proposed by the parties is not utilized
nor is any decision rendered regarding uncontested positions in
the existing unit.
All parties stipulate that the children's center
teachers in issue are certificated rather than classified
employees.
W
On May 	10, 	1978, 	the 	District 	denied 	recognition 	of 	the
Federation. 	A unit 	determination 	hearing 	was 	held 	on
August 	28, 	and 	September 	21 	and 	22, 	1978.4 	The 	matter 	was
submitted 	on 	November 	3, 	1978.
III 	A CHILDREN'S 	CENTER TEACHER UNIT
A. 	Findings 	of 	Fact 	- 	Community 	of 	Interest
1. 	Unit 	Size
The 	District 	has 	an 	enrollment 	of 	approximately 	5,260
pupils 	in 	grades 	K-8. 	It 	operates 	14 	elementary 	schools. 	The
existing 	certificated 	unit 	includes 	approximately 	225
employees. 	At 	three 	school 	sites 	- 	Lincoln, 	Franklin, 	and
Toleda 	- 	the 	District 	operates 	children's 	centers 	offering
programs 	for 	preschool, 	kindergarten 	and 	elementary-aged
pupils. 	The 	children's 	centers 	employ 	approximately 	30
certificated 	employees.5
4At	At th the 	hearing, 	the 	hearing 	officer 	inquired 	into 	the
appropriateness 	of 	the 	inclusion 	of 	certain 	substitutes 	in 	the
recognized 	certificated 	unit 	on 	the 	basis 	that 	the 	Federation
petition 	had 	raised 	a 	"question" 	concerning 	representation 	in 	a
unit 	not 	previously 	approved 	by 	PERB. 	Subsequently, 	in 	Peralta
Commuity 	College 	District 	(11/17/78) 	PERB 	Decision No. 	77, 	and
Palo 	Alto Unified 	School 	District 	(1/9/79) 	PERB 	Decision No. 	84
the 	Board 	decided 	that 	appropriate 	unit 	standards 	would 	only 	be
applied 	to 	future 	proposed 	units. 	Therefore, 	evidence
unrelated 	to 	the 	issues 	proposed 	by 	the 	parties 	is 	not 	utilized
nor 	is 	any 	decision 	rendered 	regarding 	uncontested 	positions 	in
the 	existing 	unit.
5SAll 	parties 	stipulate 	that 	the 	children's 	center
teachers 	in 	issue 	are 	certificated 	rather 	than 	classified
employees.
3

Of the 270 children enrolled in the centers, 90 are preschool-
aged, 44 are also enrolled in kindergarten and approximately
136 are also enrolled in elementary school.
2. 	Hours
The centers are open weekdays approximately 1l hours per
day on a year-round basis. Children's center teachers work 254
days per year and receive 1 day per month scheduled vacation.
Elementary teachers work 180 days per year from 8:30 a.m. to
3:45 p.m. and receive no scheduled vacation.
3. Qualifications
Children's center teachers are required to hold a permit
issued by the Commission on Teacher Preparation and Licensing.
The permit requires four years of college with specified
courses in early childhood education. Elementary teachers are
required to hold a credential which requires four years of
college plus a fifth year specializing in education courses and
student teaching. A credential may be substituted for a
children's center permit, but a permit holder may not teach
elementary school without a credential. Approximately 11
children's center teachers hold a credential.
4. 	Program Funding Source
The children's center program is funded by federal funds,
state funds and parent fees. No local funds are used to
support the center. While an increasing percentage of general
school district funds are derived from the state under recent
school finance legislation, such funds are maintained separate
from state funding for children centers. No children's center
Of
	the
	270
	children 	enrolled
	in 	the
	centers,
	90
	are 	preschool-
aged,
	44
	are
	also 	enrolled 	in 	kindergarten
	and
	approximately
136
	are
	also 	enrolled 	in
	elementary
	school.
2.
	Hours
The
	centers
	are
	open 	weekdays
	approximately
	11
	hours
	per
day 	on 	a
	year-round
	basis.
	Children's 	center 	teachers
	work 	254
days
	per 	year
	and
	receive
	1
	day
	per
	month
	scheduled
	vacation.
Elementary
	teachers
	work 	180
	days
	per 	year
	from
	8:30
	a.m.
	to
3:45 	p.m.
	and
	receive
	no
	scheduled
	vacation.
3.
	Qualifications
Children's 	center 	teachers 	are 	required 	to
	hold
	a
	permit
issued
	by
	the
	Commission 	on
	Teacher
	Preparation
	and
	Licensing.
The
	permit
	requires
	four
	years 	of 	college
	with
	specified
courses 	in
	early
	childhood
	education.
	Elementary
	teachers 	are
required 	to
	hold
	a
	credential
	which
	requires
	four 	years 	of
college 	plus
	a
	fifth
	year
	specializing
	in 	education 	courses
	and
student 	teaching.
	A
credential
	may 	be
	substituted
	for
	a
children's
	center 	permit; 	but
	a
	permit 	holder
	may
	not 	teach
elementary 	school 	without
	a
	credential.
	Approximately
	11
children's
	center 	teachers
	hold
	a
	credential.
4.
	Program Funding 	Source
The
	children's 	center
	program
	is
	funded 	by
	federal 	funds,
state
	funds
	and
	parent 	fees.
	No
	local
	funds
	are
	used
	to
support 	the 	center.
	While 	an
	increasing 	percentage 	of 	general
school
	district
	funds 	are 	derived
	from
	the
	state
	under
	recent
school 	finance 	legislation,
	such 	funds 	are 	maintained 	separate
from
	state
	funding 	for 	children 	centers.
	No
	children's 	center
4

funds may be used to support other school district programs or
salaries. Although general fund monies may be used to support
the children's center, uncontradicted testimony indicated that
the school board has declined to use general funds to pay for
children's center program deficits or children's center teacher
salaries .
Since 1969, the District has suffered a drastic reduction
in general fund revenues due to a 50 percent decline in student
enrollment. More recently, general revenues were cut 10
percent between 1978 and 1979 as a result of Proposition 13.
Between 1977-78 and 1978-79 school years, pupil enrollment also
dropped approximately 10 percent. As an indicator of the
general decline in District revenues, 80 certificated employees
were laid off in the spring of 1978. 	In contrast both the
separate budget for the children's center and the number of
students enrolled remained constant between 1978 and 1979.
During the period of 1975-79 the District expended more money
from the children's center budget than it derived in income in
order to reduce surplus reserve funds which had accumulated in
previous years.
5. Salaries
State law requires that a specified minimum percentage of
the school district budget be used to pay certificated
employees salaries. No similar requirement exists that a
certain percentage of the children's center budget be used to
pay employees salaries. Children's center teachers and
elementary teachers are paid from separate salary schedules.
U1
funds
	may
	be
	used
	to
	support
	other
	school
	district
	programs
	or
salaries.
	Although
	general
	fund 	monies
	may
	be
	used
	to
	support
the
	children's
	center,
	uncontradicted
	testimony
	indicated
	that
the
	school
	board
	has
	declined 	to
	use
	general
	funds
	to
	pay
	for
children's
	center
	program
	deficits
	or
	children's
	center 	teacher
salaries.
Since
	1969,
	the
	District
	has
	suffered
	a
	drastic
	reduction
in 	general
	fund
	revenues
	due
	to
	a 	50
	percent 	decline 	in 	student
enrollment.
	More
	recently,
	general
	revenues
	were
	cut
	10
percent
	between
	1978 	and 	1979
	as
	a
	result
	of 	Proposition
	13.
Between 	1977-78 	and 	1978-79
	school
	years, 	pupil
	enrollment
	also
dropped
	approximately
	10
	percent.
	As
	an
	indicator
	of 	the
general 	decline 	in
	District
	revenues,
	80
	certificated
	employees
were
	laid
	off
	in 	the 	spring 	of
	1978. 	In
	contrast
	both
	the
separate
	budget
	for 	the
	children's
	center
	and
	the
	number
	of
students 	enrolled
	remained
	constant
	between
	1978 	and
	1979.
During
	the 	period 	of
	1975-79
	the
	District
	expended
	more 	money
from
	the
	children's
	center
	budget 	than
	it
	derived
	in
	income
	in
order 	to
	reduce
	surplus 	reserve
	funds
	which 	had
	accumulated
	in
previous 	years.
5.
	Salaries
State
	law
	requires 	that
	a
	specified
	minimum
	percentage 	of
the 	school
	district
	budget
	be 	used
	to
	pay
	certificated
employees
	salaries.
	No
	similar 	requirement
	exists 	that
	a
certain 	percentage 	of 	the 	children's 	center 	budget 	be 	used
	to
pay 	employees
	salaries. 	Children's 	center 	teachers
	and
elementary 	teachers 	are 	paid 	from
	separate 	salary 	schedules.
5

While each schedule includes pay ranges based on educational
service and steps based upon experience, the criteria for
advancement is significantly different. Children's center
teachers are paid a monthly salary for the 12 month period
ranging from $629 to $957. Elementary teachers are paid an
annual salary for the school year ranging from $10, 282 to
$19, 754. A children's center teacher holding a regular
elementary teaching credential is paid a significantly lower
salary from the children's center salary schedule than if
placed on the regular certificated salary schedule at the same
range and step. Generally all teachers receive the same fringe
benefits, retirement benefits and leave eligibility except for
vacation pay. Under the most recent negotiated contract
children's center teachers received a 5 percent salary increase
while regular teachers received a 3 percent salary increase.
6. Seniority and Layoff
Children's center teachers and elementary teachers have
separate seniority lists and separate lay-off provisions under
state law. 	The March 15 deadline for notification of lay-offs
of regular teachers is not applicable to children's center
teachers. No children's center teachers have been affected by
the lay-off of approximately 80 regular teachers during
1978-79.
7 . 	Transfers
Evidence regarding transfers between the children's center
program and the regular classroom is inconclusive. While
transfers of credentialed teachers in either program are
6
While 	each 	schedule 	includes 	pay 	ranges 	based 	on 	educational
service 	and 	steps 	based 	upon 	experience, 	the 	criteria 	for
advancement 	is 	significantly 	different. 	Children's 	center
teachers 	are 	paid 	a 	monthly 	salary 	for 	the 	12 	month 	period
ranging 	from 	$629 	to 	$957. 	Elementary 	teachers 	are 	paid 	an
annual 	salary 	for 	the 	school 	year 	ranging 	from 	$10,282 	to
$19,754. 	A children's 	center 	teacher 	holding 	a 	regular
elementary 	teaching 	credential 	is 	paid 	a 	significantly 	lower
salary 	from 	the 	children's 	center 	salary 	schedule 	than 	if
placed 	on 	the 	regular 	certificated 	salary 	schedule 	at 	the 	same
range 	and 	step. 	Generally 	all 	teachers 	receive 	the 	same 	fringe
benefits, 	retirement 	benefits 	and 	leave 	eligibility 	except 	for
vacation 	pay. 	Under 	the 	most 	recent 	negotiated 	contract
children's 	center 	teachers 	received 	a 	5 percent 	salary 	increase
while 	regular 	teachers 	received 	a 	3 percent 	salary 	increase.
6. 	Seniority 	and 	Layoff
Children's 	center 	teachers 	and 	elementary 	teachers 	have
separate 	seniority 	lists 	and 	separate 	lay-off 	provisions 	under
state 	law. 	The 	March 	15 	deadline 	for 	notification 	of 	lay-offs
of 	regular 	teachers 	is 	not 	applicable 	to 	children's 	center
teachers. 	No 	children's 	center 	teachers 	have 	been 	affected 	by
the 	lay-off 	of 	approximately 	80 	regular 	teachers 	during
1978-79.
7. 	Transfers
Evidence 	regarding 	transfers 	between 	the 	children's 	center
program 	and 	the 	regular 	classroom 	is 	inconclusive. 	While
transfers 	of 	credentialed 	teachers 	in 	either 	program 	are
6

hypothetically possible, in fact transfers are extremely rare
because of the difference in compensation between the programs,
the drastic decline in employment in the regular program, and
the lack of bumping rights by elementary teachers over
children's center teachers.
8. 	Interchange
The isolated examples of interchange or lack thereof
between children's center teachers and elementary teachers were
contradictory and are resolved herein. Each children's center
is located on an elementary school site, yet the operation of a
center is kept separate from each adjoining elementary school.
At each location the facilities and playgrounds have a separate
identity. Many elementary school-aged children attend the
children's center at each school site both before and after
their regular school day. On an informal basis some children's
center teachers attempt to discuss common pupil problems with
the elementary teachers. No evidence established the
regularity of such educational interchange among more than one
or two teachers. The playground areas are not used by the
children at the same time. 	Instructional materials are not
commmonly shared. Children's center head teachers have
periodically been invited to elementary school faculty meetings
but children's center teachers have not. Children's center
teachers and elementary teachers are separately scheduled to
attend annual in-service training programs. 	Children's center
teachers operate under a separate policy manual.
7
hypothetically 	possible, 	in 	fact 	transfers 	are 	extremely 	rare
because 	of 	the 	difference 	in 	compensation 	between 	the 	programs,
the 	drastic 	decline 	in 	employment 	in 	the 	regular 	program, 	and
the 	lack 	of 	bumping 	rights 	by 	elementary 	teachers 	over
children's 	center 	teachers.
8. 	Interchange
The 	isolated 	examples 	of 	interchange 	or 	lack 	thereof
between 	children's 	center 	teachers 	and 	elementary 	teachers 	were
contradictory 	and 	are 	resolved 	herein. 	Each 	children's 	center
is 	located 	on 	an 	elementary 	school 	site, 	yet 	the 	operation 	of 	a
center 	is 	kept 	separate 	from 	each 	adjoining 	elementary 	school.
At 	each 	location 	the 	facilities 	and 	playgrounds 	have 	a 	separate
identity. 	Many 	elementary 	school-aged 	children 	attend 	the
children's 	center 	at 	each 	school 	site 	both 	before 	and 	after
their 	regular 	school 	day. 	On 	an 	informal 	basis 	some 	children's
center 	teachers 	attempt 	to 	discuss 	common 	pupil 	problems 	with
the 	elementary 	teachers. 	No 	evidence 	established 	the
regularity 	of 	such 	educational 	interchange 	among 	more 	than 	one
or 	two 	teachers. 	The 	playground 	areas 	are 	not 	used 	by 	the
children 	at 	the 	same 	time. 	Instructional 	materials 	are 	not
commmonly 	shared. 	Children's 	center 	head 	teachers 	have
periodically 	been 	invited 	to 	elementary 	school 	faculty 	meetings
but 	children's 	center 	teachers 	have 	not. 	Children's 	center
teachers 	and 	elementary 	teachers 	are 	separately 	scheduled 	to
attend 	annual 	in-service 	training 	programs. 	Children's 	center
teachers 	operate 	under 	a 	separate 	policy manual.
7

9. Administrative Hierarchy
Each children's center is supervised by a head teacher.
Head teachers report to a coordinating head teacher who in turn
reports to the director of children's centers. Up to the level
of director of the children's center, the supervisory hierarchy
is distinct. The director of children's center also serves as
assistant superintendent of educational services with
responsibilities over specialist teachers in several other State
funded programs. Three management personnel - the assistant
superintendent for education, assistant superintendent of
administrative services, and director of fiscal services
are paid approximately 10 percent of their salary from the
children's center program due to the administrative or fiscal
services they provide.
10. Hiring - Evaluation
The hiring and evaluation of employees is initiated by the
head teacher in the children's center in a similar manner to
the duties of the principal at each elementary school. Final
decisions affecting both types of teachers are made in an
identical manner by district management.
11. Class Size
The adult-child ratio in the children's centers is set by
state law and is substantially greater than the number of
certificated employees required by law to be present with
regular elementary grade pupils.
8
9.
	Administrative
	Hierarchy
Each
	children's
	center
	is
	supervised
	by 	a
	head
	teacher.
Head
	teachers 	report
	to
	a
	coordinating
	head
	teacher
	who
	in
	turn
reports 	to
	the
	director
	of
	children's
	centers.
	Up
	to
	the
	level
of
	director
	of 	the
	children's
	center,
	the 	supervisory
	hierarchy
is 	distinct.
	The
	director
	of
	children's
	center 	also
	serves 	as
assistant
	superintendent
	of
	educational
	services
	with
responsibilities
	over
	specialist
	teachers 	in 	several 	other
	State
funded
	programs. 	Three
	management
	personnel
	-
	the
	assistant
superintendent
	for 	education,
	assistant
	superintendent
	of
administrative 	services,
	and
	director
	of
	fiscal
	services
are 	paid
	approximately
	10
	percent
	of
	their 	salary
	from
	the
children's
	center
	program 	due
	to 	the
	administrative 	or
	fiscal
services
	they
	provide.
10.
	Hiring
	-
	Evaluation
The
	hiring
	and
	evaluation 	of
	employees
	is 	initiated
	by
	the
head
	teacher 	in 	the
	children's
	center 	in
	a
	similar
	manner
	to
the
	duties
	of 	the
	principal 	at
	each 	elementary 	school.
	Final
decisions 	affecting
	both 	types 	of 	teachers 	are
	made
	in
	an
identical
	manner 	by
	district
	management.
11. 	Class 	Size
The
	adult-child 	ratio
	in 	the
	children's 	centers
	is 	set
	by
state
	law 	and
	is 	substantially greater
	than 	the
	number
	of
certificated
	employees
	required
	by 	law
	to
	be
	present 	with
regular 	elementary 	grade 	pupils.
8

12. Purpose of Program
The District circulates a flier to parents of prospective
children's center pupils summarizing the purpose of the program
as follows:
The children's center is a child development
program which provides learning experiences,
health and nutrition services for the child, and
social services for the entire family.
It is apparent that numerous similarities and differences exist
between the purposes of the Distict's children's center program
and its regular elementary education program.
All elementary school-aged pupils are required by state law
to attend school regardless of the income level of their
parents. Children are eligible to attend a children's center
conditioned upon the income of their parents, payment of fees,
and availability of funded slots. 	Children's center teachers
have direct daily contact with parents who deliver and pick-up
their children from the program. They eat lunch with the
pupils, give them naps, assist them in restroom training,
toothbrushing and other basic living skills. Undoubtedly both
types of teachers overlap in providing educational learning
experiences to pupils. The use of lesson plans and student
evaluations by children's center teachers indicates that
education is a component of the program but is not sufficient
to prove that children's centers are established for the same
purpose as elementary education.
12. 	Purpose 	of 	Program
The 	District 	circulates 	a 	flier 	to 	parents 	of 	prospective
children's 	center 	pupils 	summarizing 	the 	purpose 	of 	the 	program
as 	follows:
The 	children's 	center 	is 	a 	child 	development
program 	which 	provides 	learning 	experiences,
health 	and 	nutrition 	services 	for 	the 	child, 	and
social 	services 	for 	the 	entire 	family.
It 	is 	apparent 	that 	numerous 	similarities 	and 	differences 	exist
between 	the 	purposes 	of 	the 	Distict's 	children's 	center 	program
and 	its 	regular 	elementary 	education 	program.
All 	elementary 	school-aged pupils 	are 	required 	by 	state 	law
to 	attend 	school 	regardless 	of 	the 	income 	level 	of 	their
parents. 	Children 	are 	eligible 	to 	attend 	a 	children's 	center
conditioned 	upon 	the 	income 	of 	their 	parents, 	payment 	of 	fees,
and 	availability 	of 	funded 	slots. 	Children's 	center 	teachers
have 	direct 	daily 	contact 	with 	parents 	who 	deliver 	and 	pick-up
their 	children 	from 	the 	program. 	They 	eat 	lunch 	with 	the
pupils, 	give 	them 	naps, 	assist 	them 	in 	restroom 	training,
toothbrushing 	and 	other 	basic 	living 	skills. 	Undoubtedly 	both
types 	of 	teachers 	overlap 	in 	providing 	educational 	learning
experiences 	to 	pupils. 	The 	use 	of 	lesson 	plans 	and 	student
evaluations 	by 	children's 	center 	teachers 	indicates 	that
education 	is 	a 	component 	of 	the 	program 	but 	is 	not 	sufficient
to 	prove 	that 	children's 	centers 	are 	established 	for 	the 	same
purpose 	as 	elementary 	education.
9

B. 	Facts-Negotiating History and Efficiency of Operations
RBCTA had been the exclusive representative of the
children's center teachers for approximately two and
one-quarter years at the time of hearing. An initial contract
covering the employees was executed in February 1977 and
expired June 30, 1978. The contract was amended in September
1977 to reflect adjustments in compensation negotiated pursuant
to a reopener provision. A second contract was agreed upon by
the parties in September 1978. 	The initial contract was
extended by oral agreement of the parties until September 1,
1978.
In its initial request for recognition in 1976 the RBCTA
excluded children's center teachers from its proposed unit.
Based upon the position of the District the teachers were
ultimately included in the recognized unit. During the
reopener under the initial contract, RBCTA in March 1978
formally requested to delete children's center teachers from
the unit. As represented by testimony of the RBCTA negotiator,
these two actions were taken for the following reasons:
1. Children's center teachers have historically never
participated in the activities of RBCTA;
2. No children's center teacher ever joined RBCTA; and
3. Association members did not know children's center
teachers or understand what their duties were.
The initial contract granted increased benefits and
salaries for children's center teachers and elementary teachers
alike. No concerted activities or strikes occurred during
10
B. 	Facts-Negotiating 	History 	and 	Efficiency 	of 	Operations
RBCTA 	had 	been 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	of 	the
children's 	center 	teachers 	for 	approximately 	two 	and
one-quarter 	years 	at 	the 	time 	of 	hearing. 	An 	initial 	contract
covering 	the 	employees 	was 	executed 	in February 	1977 	and
expired 	June 	30, 	1978. 	The 	contract 	was 	amended 	in 	September
1977 	to 	reflect 	adjustments 	in 	compensation 	negotiated 	pursuant
to 	a 	reopener 	provision. 	A second 	contract 	was 	agreed 	upon 	by
the 	parties 	in 	September 	1978. 	The 	initial 	contract 	was
extended 	by 	oral 	agreement 	of 	the 	parties 	until 	September 	1,
1978.
In 	its 	initial 	request 	for 	recognition 	in 	1976 	the 	RBCTA
excluded 	children's 	center 	teachers 	from 	its 	proposed 	unit.
Based 	upon 	the 	position 	of 	the 	District 	the 	teachers 	were
ultimately 	included 	in 	the 	recognized 	unit. 	During 	the
reopener 	under 	the 	initial 	contract, 	RBCTA 	in 	March 	1978
formally 	requested 	to 	delete 	children's 	center 	teachers 	from
the 	unit. 	As 	represented 	by 	testimony 	of 	the 	RBCTA 	negotiator,
these 	two 	actions 	were 	taken 	for 	the 	following 	reasons:
1. 	Children's 	center 	teachers 	have 	historically 	never
participated 	in 	the 	activities 	of 	RBCTA;
2. 	No 	children's 	center 	teacher 	ever 	joined 	RBCTA; 	and
3. 	Association members 	did 	not 	know 	children's 	center
teachers 	or 	understand 	what 	their 	duties 	were.
The 	initial 	contract 	granted 	increased 	benefits 	and
salaries 	for 	children's 	center 	teachers 	and 	elementary 	teachers
alike. 	No 	concerted 	activities 	or 	strikes 	occurred 	during
10

negotiations for the contract. Negotiations for the initial
contract took approximately 12 to 16 meetings each lasting 4 to
8 hours. 	The initial RBCTA proposal in 1976 was 105 pages.
The RBCTA proposal for the second contract was 12 pages. Due
to a consistent decline in enrollment as described above and
Proposition 13, the District's budget for the current year was
reduced by approximately $1 million. The district's chief
negotiator is also responsible for all business and personnel
functions of the district. A portion of these combined
functions was previously performed by additional assistant
superintendents. The district negotiator estimated that
negotiations with a separate children's center unit would take
approximately an additional 15 sessions of 6 hours each.
C. Contentions of Parties
The Federation claims that a separate children's center
unit is appropriate based on community of interest factors
specified in the PERB decision in Oakland Unified School
District. It further claims that a history of misunderstanding
between the exclusive representative and children's center
teachers supports the separation. RBCTA defends its
representation of the entire unit, but would not object to
severance of the children's center staff.
The district contends that the petition should be denied
for the following reasons:
(1) 	children's center teachers are "classroom teachers"
under Government Code section 3545 (b) (1) and must be kept in
the unit with all other classroom teachers; (2) the small
11
negotiations 	for 	the 	contract. 	Negotiations 	for 	the 	initial
contract 	took 	approximately 	12 	to 	16 	meetings 	each 	lasting 	4 	to
8 	hours. 	The 	initial 	RBCTA proposal 	in 	1976 	was 	105 pages.
The 	RBCTA proposal 	for 	the 	second 	contract 	was 	12 pages. 	Due
to 	a 	consistent 	decline 	in 	enrollment 	as 	described 	above 	and
Proposition 	13, 	the 	District's 	budget 	for 	the 	current 	year 	was
reduced 	by 	approximately 	$1 	million. 	The 	district's 	chief
negotiator 	is 	also 	responsible 	for 	all 	business 	and 	personnel
functions 	of 	the 	district. 	A portion 	of 	these 	combined
functions 	was 	previously 	performed by 	additional 	assistant
superintendents. 	The 	district 	negotiator 	estimated 	that
negotiations 	with 	a 	separate 	children's 	center 	unit 	would 	take
approximately 	an 	additional 	15 	sessions 	of 	6 	hours 	each.
C. 	Contentions 	of 	Parties
The 	Federation 	claims 	that 	a 	separate 	children's 	center
unit 	is 	appropriate 	based 	on 	community 	of 	interest 	factors
specified 	in 	the 	PERB 	decision 	in Oakland 	Unified 	School
District. 	It 	further 	claims 	that 	a 	history 	of 	misunderstanding
between 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	and 	children's 	center
teachers 	supports 	the 	separation. 	RBCTA 	defends 	its
representation 	of 	the 	entire 	unit, 	but 	would 	not 	object 	to
severance 	of 	the 	children's 	center 	staff.
The 	district 	contends 	that 	the 	petition 	should 	be 	denied
for 	the 	following 	reasons:
(1) 	children's 	center 	teachers 	are 	"classroom 	teachers"
under 	Government 	Code 	section 	3545{b) (1) 	and must 	be 	kept 	in
the 	unit 	with 	all 	other 	classroom 	teachers; 	(2) 	the 	small
11

size of the proposed unit and several other factors are
distinguishable from Board precedent which established a
separate children's center unit based upon community of
interest; (3) the "efficient operation of the school
district" would be impaired by a third negotiating unit given
its financial situation; and (4) even assuming a distinct
community of interest the stable bargaining history since 1976
militates against breaking up the comprehensive certificated
unit.
D. Conclusions of Law - Community of Interest.
Government Code section 3545 subdivision (a) establishes
the appropriate criteria for determining negotiating units.
They are generally:
community of interest;
2. established practices; and
3. efficiency of school district operations.
Further Government Code section 3545 (b) (1) provides:
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. . . [emphasis
added] .
In Oakland Unified School District (3/28/77) EERB Decision
No. 15 the Board defined "classroom teachers" as only those who
teach full time in the regular school program. 	Thus ,
children's center teachers were not "classroom teachers. " In
Oakland the Board further found the children's center teachers
12
size 	of 	the 	proposed 	unit 	and 	several 	other 	factors 	are
distinguishable 	from 	Board 	precedent 	which 	established 	a
separate 	children's 	center 	unit 	based 	upon 	community 	of
interest; 	(3) 	the 	"efficient 	operation 	of 	the 	school
district" 	would 	be 	impaired 	by 	a 	third 	negotiating 	unit 	given
its 	financial 	situation; 	and 	(4) 	even 	assuming 	a 	distinct
community 	of 	interest 	the 	stable 	bargaining 	history 	since 	1976
militates 	against 	breaking 	up 	the 	comprehensive 	certificated
unit.
D. 	Conclusions 	of 	Law 	- 	Community 	of 	Interest.
Government 	Code 	section 	3545 	subdivision 	(a) 	establishes
the 	appropriate 	criteria 	for 	determining 	negotiating 	units.
They 	are 	generally:
1. 	coITu.uunity 	of 	interest;	1.
2. 	established 	practices; 	and
3. 	efficiency 	of 	school 	district 	operations.
Further 	Government 	Code 	section 	3545(b) (1) 	provides:
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 ... 	[emphasis
added].
In 	Oakland 	Unified 	School 	District 	(3/28/77) 	EERB 	Decision
No. 	15 	the 	Board 	defined 	"classroom 	teachers" 	as 	only 	those 	who
teach 	full 	time 	in 	the 	regular 	school 	program. 	Thus,
children's 	center 	teachers 	were 	not 	"classroom 	teachers." 	In
Oakland 	the 	Board 	further 	found 	the 	children's 	center 	teachers
12

lack of community of interest with other regular teachers and
should be placed in a separate negotiating unit. In finding
the separate community of interest the Board relied heavily
upon the following factors:
(1) Difference in purpose between the programs;
(2) 	Separate budget, administration, location of sites
between programs;
(3) Difference in working conditions between employees;
(4) 	Difference in licensing requirements for teachers; .
(5) 	Limited eligibility for enrollment in children's
center program;
(6) Separate hiring and layoff procedures;
Limited interaction and limited transfer ability
between employees;
(8) Different adult/child ratio.
In Peralta Community College District (11/17/78)
(at pp 25-26) PERB Decision No. 77 the Board revised its
definition of "classroom teacher" and its approach to the
apparent conflict between applying the criteria of Government
Code section 3545 (a) and (b) (1) to the same case. While noting
that the term "classroom teacher" is not defined in the
Educational Employment Relations Act, the Board indicated that
it is "applicable to all persons who teach in a classroom for
any period of time" (at p. 7) . While it need not be decided
here it is still unclear whether children's center teachers
13
lack
	of
	community
	of
	interest
	with
	other 	regular 	teachers
	and
should
	be
	placed
	in
	a
	separate 	negotiating
	unit.
	In
	finding
the
	separate
	community
	of
	interest
	the
	Board
	relied
	heavily
upon
	the
	following
	factors:
(1)	
Difference
	in
	purpose
	between.the
	programs;
(2)	
Separate 	budget,
	administration, 	location
	of
	sites
between
	programs;
(3)	
Difference
	in
	working
	conditions
	between 	employees;
(4)	
Difference
	in 	licensing
	requirements
	for 	teachers;
(5)	
Limited
	eligibility
	for 	enrollment
	in
	children's
center
	program;
(6)	
Separate 	hiring
	and
	layoff
	procedures;
(7) 	Limited
	interaction
	and
	limited
	transfer
	ability
between 	employees;
(8) 	Different 	adult/child
	ratio.
In
	Peralta
	Community
	College
	District
	(11/17/78)
(at
	pp
	25-26)
	PERB
	Decision
	No. 	77
	the
	Board
	revised
	its
definition
	of 	"classroom 	teacher"
	and
	its
	approach
	to
	the
apparent
	conflict
	between
	applying 	the
	criteria
	of
	Government
Code
	section
	3545(a) 	and 	(b) (1)
	to
	the
	same
	case.
	While
	noting
that
	the
	term 	"classroom 	teacher"
	is
	not 	defined 	in 	the
Educational
	Employment
	Relations 	Act, 	the
	Board
	indicated
	that
it
	is
	"applicable 	to
	all
	persons
	who
	teach 	in
	a
	classroom
	for
any
	period 	of
	time"
	(at 	p. 	7).
	While
	it
	need
	not
	be
	decided
here
	it
	is
	still
	unclear 	whether
	children's 	center 	teachers
13

meet this definition. 6
Assuming for this decision that childen's center teachers
are classroom teachers, PERB established a "rebuttable
presumption that all classroom teachers . 	. shall be included
in a single negotiating unit unless a single negotiating unit
is rendered inappropriate because of a lack of community of
interest between and among employees, the past practices of the
employees, or the effect of the size of the unit on the
efficient operation of the district. "7
Under its new test the Board prefers a single unit of all
teachers and would exclude only those employees who demonstrate
a lack of community of interest under section 3545 subdivision
(a) . In Peralta, supra, the Board found skill center teachers
to lack community of interest based upon: distinct funding
sources; lack of continuity of employment; differing
instructional practices and working conditions; differences in
educational purpose; and a difference in compensation scheme.
(At p. 15.)
In the present case the community of interest between
children's center teachers and regular teachers is sufficiently
distinct so as to rebut the presumption established by the
"classroom teacher" criteria. Clearly the proposed unit of 30
employees is significantly smaller than the unit of 200
resolved whether such employees teach or provide
child care. It is also noted that article 6.7 of the
negotiated contract describes children's center teachers as
"unit members who are not classroom teachers".
Community College District, (1/2/79) PERB
Decision No. 81, citing Peralta, supra, at page 5.
14
meet
	this
	definition.6
Assuming
	for
	this
	decision
	that 	childen's
	center 	teachers
are
	classroom
	teachers,
	PERB
	established
	a
	"rebuttable
presumption
	that
	all
	classroom
	teachers
	...
	shall
	be
	included
in
	a
	single
	negotiating 	unit
	unless
	a
	single 	negotiating
	unit
is
	rendered
	inappropriate
	because
	of
	a
	lack
	of
	community
	of
interest
	between
	and 	among
	employees,
	the
	past 	practices
	of
	the
employees,
	or 	the
	effect
	of 	the
	size
	of 	the
	unit
	on
	the
efficient
	operation 	of 	the
	district.
11
7
Under
	its
	new
	test
	the
	Board
	prefers
	a
	single 	unit
	of
	all
teachers
	and 	would
	exclude 	only 	those
	employees
	who
	demonstrate
a
	lack 	of
	community
	of
	interest
	under
	section
	3545
	subdivision
(a).
	In
	Peralta,
	supra, 	the
	Board 	found
	skill
	center 	teachers
to
	lack
	community
	of
	interest
	based
	upon:
	distinct
	funding
sources; 	lack 	of
	continuity
	of
	employment;
	differing
instructional 	practices
	and 	working
	conditions; 	differences 	in
educational
	purpose;
	and 	a
	difference 	in
	compensation 	scheme.
(At
	p. 	15.)
In 	the 	present 	case 	the
	community
	of
	interest
	between
children's
	center 	teachers
	and
	regular 	teachers
	is 	sufficiently
distinct
	so 	as
	to 	rebut 	the 	presumption
	established
	by
	the
"classroom 	teacher"
	criteria.
	Clearly 	the 	proposed
	unit
	of
	30
employees
	is 	significantly
	smaller 	than 	the 	unit
	of
	200
It	6	6It is un	
unresolved 	whether 	such 	employees 	teach 	or 	provide
child 	care.
	It 	is 	also 	noted
	that 	article
	6.7 	of 	the
negotiated 	contract 	describes 	children's 	center 	teachers 	as
"unit
	members 	who
	are 	not 	classroom 	teachers".
7 Hartnell 	Community 	College 	District, 	(1/2/79)
	PERB
Decision 	No. 	81, 	citing 	Peralta, 	supra, 	at 	page 	5.
is
7Hartnell
14

children's center employees found appropriate in Oakland. This
factor will be considered separately under efficiency of
operation.
As found in Oakland, supra, the "basic purpose" of the
children's center program is to provide child care for parents
who are working or being trained for work rather than to
provide education for the children. (At p. 25.) Despite the
attempt by the District to strengthen the educational component
of the program, the basic purpose is set forth in and is
regulated by federal and state statutes. The admirable
requirement by the District in utilizing lesson plans and
student evaluations cannot change the basic structure of the
program.
Children's centers are open long hours on a 12 month basis
requiring teachers to be at the centers 40 hours per week 12
months per year with scheduled vacations. The entire program
is optional and could be eliminated by the school district.
Such is not the case with the regular elementary program.
Educational requirements for the teachers are different. 	A
majority of children's center teachers hold permits while
regular teachers are fully credentialed. Children's center
teachers perform under a separate district policy handbook.
The hiring process is distinct except at the top management
level. While transfers among credentialed teachers are
theoretically possible, in reality elementary teachers never
transfer to the children's center program because of the lower
salary structure. Children's center teachers have not had the
15
children's
	center
	employees 	found
	appropriate 	in
	Oakland.
	This
factor
	will
	be
	considered
	separately
	under
	efficiency
	of
operation.
As
	found
	in
	Oakland,
	supra, 	the 	"basic
	purpose"
	of 	the
children's
	center
	program
	is
	to
	provide
	child
	care 	for
	parents
who
	are
	working
	or
	being
	trained
	for
	work
	rather
	than
	to
provide 	education 	for 	the
	children.
	(At
	p.
	2
5.)
	Despite
	the
attempt
	by
	the
	District
	to
	strengthen
	the 	educational
	component
of
	the
	program,
	the
	basic
	purpose
	is 	set
	forth
	in
	and
	is
regulated
	by
	federal
	and
	state 	statutes.
	The
	admirable
requirement
	by
	the
	District
	in
	utilizing
	lesson 	plans
	and
student 	evaluations
	cannot
	change
	the 	basic
	structure
	of 	the
program.
Children's 	centers 	are
	open
	long 	hours
	on 	a 	12 month
	basis
requiring 	teachers 	to
	be
	at
	the 	centers
	40
	hours
	per
	week 	12
months
	per 	year 	with 	scheduled
	vacations.
	The
	entire
	program
is 	optional
	and
	could
	be
	eliminated
	by
	the 	school
	district.
Such
	is
	not 	the 	case 	with 	the 	regular
	elementary program.
Educational 	requirements 	for 	the 	teachers 	are
	different.
	A
majority 	of
	children's
	center 	teachers
	hold
	permits 	while
regular 	teachers 	are
	fully 	credentialed. 	Children's 	center
teachers
	perform 	under 	a
	separate
	district
	policy
	handbook.
The
	hiring 	process
	is 	distinct
	except
	at 	the 	top
	management
level.
	While
	transfers
	among
	credentialed 	teachers 	are
theoretically 	possible, 	in 	reality
	elementary 	teachers 	never
transfer 	to 	the 	children's 	center
	program 	because 	of 	the 	lower
salary 	structure. 	Children's 	center 	teachers 	have 	not 	had
	the
15

opportunity to enter the regular program because of differences
in licensing requirements and layoffs among regular teachers.
The seniority and layoff systems are separate based upon state
law. 	The fact that approximately 80 regular teachers were laid
off in 1978 while no children's center teachers were let go
highlights the separation of interests and rights between
the employees. Each group is paid from separate salary
schedules. The children's center schedule offers a lower pay
for a longer work year.
The creation of separate budgets, as interpreted by
District practices, creates a major distinction between the
employees. A fixed percentage of the general fund budget must
be paid to support salaries of regular teachers while no such
formula exists for children's center teachers. By law no
children's center funds may be paid to support the regular
program. By District practice no regular funds may be spent to
increase salaries of children's center teachers. This
separation is dramatized by the recent history of a $1 million
reduction in general fund monies while the children's centers
have exercised deficit spending in order to reduce surplus
reserves. 	For example, regular teachers received a 3 percent
salary increase recently while children's center teachers
received a 5 percent increase.
The teachers do not attend common faculty meetings. The
evidence was conflicting as to the degree of interaction
between teachers but it is apparent that the contact is not
substantial.
16
opportunity 	to
	enter
	the 	regular
	program
	because
	of
	differences
in 	licensing
	requirements
	and
	layoffs
	among
	regular 	teachers.
The
	seniority
	and
	layoff
	systems
	are
	separate
	based
	upon
	state
law.
	The
	fact 	that
	approximately
	80
	regular 	teachers
	were
	laid
off 	in
	1978
	while
	no
	children's
	center 	teachers	
were	
let
	go
highlights
	the
	separation
	of
	interests
	and
	rights
	between
the
	employees.
	Each
	group
	is
	paid
	from
	separate
	salary
schedules.
	The
	children's
	center
	schedule
	offers
	a
	lower 	pay
for
	a
	longer
	work
	year.
The
	creation
	of
	separate
	budgets, 	as
	interpreted
	by
District 	practices,
	creates
	a
	major
	distinction
	between
	the
employees.
	A
fixed 	percentage 	of 	the 	general
	fund 	budget 	must
be
	paid 	to 	support
	salaries
	of
	regular 	teachers
	while
	no
	such
formula
	exists
	for
	children's
	center 	teachers.
	By
	law
	no
children's
	center
	funds
	may 	be
	paid
	to
	support 	the 	regular
program.
	By
	District
	practice
	no
	regular
	funds
	may 	be
	spent
	to
increase
	salaries
	of
	children's
	center 	teachers.
	This
separation
	is
	dramatized
	by
	the 	recent 	history
	of
	a 	$1
	million
reduction 	in 	general
	fund 	monies
	while 	the
	children's 	centers
have
	exercised
	deficit
	spending
	in 	order
	to
	reduce
	surplus
reserves.
	For 	example,
	regular 	teachers 	received
	a 	3
	percent
salary 	increase 	recently
	while
	children's 	center 	teachers
received
	a 	5
	percent 	increase.
The
	teachers
	do
	not 	attend
	common
	faculty meetings.
	The
evidence
	was
	conflicting 	as 	to 	the 	degree 	of 	interaction
between 	teachers 	but
	it
	is
	apparent 	that 	the 	contact 	is
	not
substantial.
16

The fact that both groups of employees receive common
fringe benefits other than vacations and that each of the
children's centers is located on a public school site does not
outweigh the above evidence of lack of community of interest.
E. Conclusions of Law - Efficiency of Operation
The finding of a lack of community of interest is not
rebutted by a showing that the District's operations will be
impaired. The District asserts that the small size of the
unit, the impact on it's financial situation, and the length of
previous negotiations as factors to support the inefficiency of
establishing an additional unit. The proposed unit includes 30
employees. Its size alone is not sufficient to show
inefficiency . 8
In addition the District states that substantial cutbacks
in enrollment have resulted in an equivalent decrease in
administrative personnel necessary to conduct negotiations.
The chief negotiator is also responsible for all District
business and personnel functions. Several of the school
principals who represent the management team are responsible
for more than one elementary school. The chief negotiator was
8 In Fallbrook Union High School District, (12/4/78) (PERB
Decision No. 78. PERB held that a unit size of 40 classified
employees could not defeat dividing the employees into smaller
otherwise appropriate units. On the other hand the Board found
that the unit of 8 instructional aides was too small where some
community of interest with other employees existed. See Shasta
Union High School District, (10/25/77) EERB Decision No. 34;
Greenfield Union School District, (10/25/77) EERB Decision
No. 35.
17
The 	fact 	that 	both 	groups 	of 	employees 	receive 	common
fringe 	benefits 	other 	than 	vacations 	and 	that 	each 	of 	the
children's 	centers 	is 	located 	on 	a 	public 	school 	site 	does 	not
outweigh 	the 	above 	evidence 	of 	lack 	of 	community 	of 	interest.
E. 	Conclusions 	of 	Law 	- 	Efficiency 	of 	Operation
The 	finding 	of 	a 	lack 	of 	community 	of 	interest 	is 	not
rebutted 	by 	a 	showing 	that 	the 	District's 	operations 	will 	be
impaired. 	The 	District 	asserts 	that 	the 	small 	size 	of 	the
unit, 	the 	impact 	on 	it's 	financial 	situation, 	and 	the 	length 	of
previous 	negotiations 	as 	factors 	to 	support 	the 	inefficiency 	of
establishing 	an 	additional 	unit. 	The 	proposed 	unit 	includes 	30
employees. 	Its 	size 	alone 	is 	not 	sufficient 	to 	show
inefficiency.a
In 	addition 	the 	District 	states 	that 	substantial 	cutbacks
in 	enrollment 	have 	resulted 	in 	an 	equivalent 	decrease 	in
administrative 	personnel 	necessary 	to 	conduct 	negotiations.
The 	chief 	negotiator 	is 	also 	responsible 	for 	all 	District
business 	and 	personnel 	functions. 	Several 	of 	the 	school
principals 	who 	represent 	the 	management 	team 	are 	responsible
for 	more 	than 	one 	elementary 	school. 	The 	chief 	negotiator 	was
8 In 	Fallbrook 	Union 	Hiah 	School 	District, 	(12/4/78) 	(PERB
Decision 	No. 	78. 	PERB 	hel 	that 	a 	unit 	size 	of 	40 	classified
employees 	could 	not 	defeat 	dividing 	the 	employees 	into 	smaller
otherwise 	appropriate 	units. 	On 	the 	other 	hand 	the 	Board 	found
that 	the 	unit 	of 	8 	instructional 	aides 	was 	too 	small 	where 	some
community 	of 	interest 	with 	other 	employees 	existed. 	See 	Shasta
Union 	High 	School 	District, 	(10/25/77) 	EERB 	Decision No. 	34;
Greenfield 	Union 	School 	District, 	(10/25/77) 	EERB 	Decision
No. 	35.
17

required to spend approximately 40 hours costing out the
initial certificated proposal during early contract
negotiations. The parties spent 12 to 16 meetings reaching an
initial agreement.
It is apparent that the creation of a third negotiating
unit would impinge to some unknown degree upon the District's
flexibility in deploying its top administrators to various
assignments . 	Yet the efficiency of operations criterion is not
an absolute. 	It must be balanced against the statutory purpose
providing a bargaining process to each appropriate unit of
employees. The evidence presented by the District tends to
show that the substantial inconvenience of an additional
negotiating unit occurs in negotiating the first contract. 	The
RBCTA proposal in 1976 was 105 pages. By the time negotiations
commenced for a second contract the Association's proposal
consisted of only 12 pages. If the district's assumption that
a new unit will require an equal amount of negotiation time and
effort is true, such expenditure of time will occur again only on a
first time basis. In conclusion, the evidence does not warrant
a finding that the establishment of a second certificated unit
in this District is precluded by the efficiency of operations
criterion.
Conclusions of Law - Established Practices
(Negotiations History)
In Antioch Unified School District, (11/7/77) EERB Decision
No. 37, the Board explained its decision to consistently give
little weight to "established practices" in initial unit
18
required 	to 	spend 	approximately 	40 	hours 	costing 	out 	the
initial 	certificated 	proposal 	during 	early 	contract
negotiations. 	The 	parties 	spent 	12 	to 	16 	meetings 	reaching 	an
initial 	agreement.
It 	is 	apparent 	that 	the 	creation 	of 	a 	third 	negotiating
unit 	would 	impinge 	to 	some 	unknown 	degree 	upon 	the 	District's
flexibility 	in 	deploying 	its 	top 	administrators 	to 	various
assignments. 	Yet 	the 	efficiency 	of 	operations 	criterion 	is 	not
an 	absolute. 	It must 	be 	balanced 	against 	the 	statutory purpose
providing 	a 	bargaining 	process 	to 	each 	appropriate 	unit 	of
employees. 	The 	evidence 	presented 	by 	the 	District 	tends 	to
show 	that 	the 	substantial 	inconvenience 	of 	an 	additional
negotiating 	unit 	occurs 	in 	negotiating 	the 	first 	contract. 	The
RBCTA proposal 	in 	1976 	was 	105 	pages. 	By 	the 	time 	negotiations
commenced 	for 	a 	second 	contract 	the 	Association's 	proposal
consisted 	of 	only 	12 	pages. 	If 	the 	district's 	assumption 	that
a 	new 	unit 	will 	require 	an 	equal 	amount 	of 	negotiation 	time 	and
effort 	is 	true, 	such 	expenditure 	of 	time 	will 	occur 	again 	only 	on 	a
first 	time 	basis. 	In 	conclusion, 	the 	evidence 	does 	not warrant
a 	finding 	that 	the 	establishment 	of 	a 	second 	certificated 	unit
in 	this 	District 	is 	precluded 	by 	the 	efficiency 	of 	operations
criterion.
F. 	Conclusions 	of 	Law 	- 	Established 	Practices
(Negotiations 	History}
In 	Antioch 	Unified 	School 	District, 	(11/7/77) 	EERB 	Decision
No. 	37, 	the 	Board 	explained 	its 	decision 	to 	consistently give
little 	weight 	to 	"established 	practices" 	in 	initial 	unit
18

determination cases. That decision was based upon a finding of
unreliability in determining appropriate units of employees
prior to the establishment of the EERA. Looking to the future,
the Board stated
Another year from now, the criterion of
established practices might well give more
weight than the (PERB) now gives community of
interest, for once units are established
under the EERA and negotiating commences
with an exclusive representative, followed
by a negotiated agreement covering employees
in that unit, a new representation petition
seeking a different unit might well be
decided with a greater reliance on
negotiating history under the Educational
Employment Relations Act. (Antioch, supra,
at p. 5.)
To date the Board has not been presented with an
opportunity to clarify its interpretation or emphasis upon
negotiations history established under the EERA. 	Therefore
experience under the National Labor Relations Board is relevant
in order to develop an appropriate standard. As a general rule
the NLRB will hesitate to change units which have been formed
by employees and which have carried on negotiations for
substantial period of time (Kheel, Labor Law, section 14. 02 [2]
at pps. 14-28) . Typically this issue has arisen in the private
sector where craft unions have attempted to sever craft units
from older plant-wide industrial units or in the serverance of
departments from retail store-wide units.
Yet the policy of favoring historical units is not
absolute. The history may be discounted or entirely
disregarded when:
(1) negotiating history is brief or incompatible;
19
determination 	cases. 	That 	decision 	was 	based 	upon 	a 	finding 	of
unreliability 	in 	determining 	appropriate 	units 	of 	employees
prior 	to 	the 	establishment 	of 	the 	EERA. 	Looking 	to 	the 	future,
the 	Board 	stated
Another 	year 	from 	now, 	the 	criterion 	of
established 	practices 	might 	well 	give more
weight 	than 	the 	(PERB) 	now 	gives 	community 	of
interest, 	for 	once 	units 	are 	established
under 	the 	EERA 	and 	negotiating 	commences
with 	an 	exclusive 	representative, 	followed
by 	a 	negotiated 	agreement 	covering 	employees
in 	that 	unit, 	a 	new 	representation 	petition
seeking 	a 	different 	unit 	might 	well 	be
decided 	with 	a 	greater 	reliance 	on
negotiating 	history 	under 	the 	Educational
Employment 	Relations 	Act. 	(Antioch, 	supra,
at 	p. 	5.)
To 	date 	the 	Board 	has 	not 	been 	presented 	with 	an
opportunity 	to 	clarify 	its 	interpretation 	or 	emphasis 	upon
negotiations 	history 	established 	under 	the 	EERA. 	Therefore
experience 	under 	the 	National 	Labor 	Relations 	Board 	is 	relevant
in 	order 	to 	develop 	an 	appropriate 	standard. 	As 	a 	general 	rule
the 	NLRB 	will 	hesitate 	to 	change 	units 	which 	have 	been 	formed
by 	employees 	and 	which 	have 	carried 	on 	negotiations 	for
substantial 	period 	of 	time 	(Kheel, 	Labor 	Law, 	section 14.02[2]
at 	pps. 	14-28). 	Typically 	this 	issue 	has 	arisen 	in 	the 	private
sector 	where 	craft 	unions 	have 	attempted 	to 	sever 	craft 	units
from 	older 	plant-wide 	industrial 	units 	or 	in 	the 	serverance 	of
departments 	from 	retail 	store-wide 	units.
Yet 	the 	policy 	of 	favoring 	historical 	units 	is 	not
absolute. 	The 	history may 	be 	discounted 	or 	entirely
disregarded 	when:
(1) 	negotiating 	history 	is 	brief 	or 	incompatible;
19

(2) the established unit was not originally determined
or certified by the NLRB and is found to be repugnant to Board
policies (NLRB v. Porter County Farm Bureau Cooperative
Association, Inc. (7th Cir. 1963) 314F. 2d 133, 136 [52 LRRM
2485] ;
(3) 	the unit conflicts with established Board policy;
circumstances have changed since the original unit
was established; and
(5) a history of consistent opposition to inclusion in
the larger unit has been demonstrated by the petitioned for
employees. 	See Rainbow Lithographing Company (1946) 69 NLRB
1383 [18 LRRM 1317] .
The present case presents a situation where the proposed
unit is not sufficiently factually distinct from the children's
center unit found appropriate by PERB in Oakland, supra. The
established certificated unit was voluntarily recognized and
has not been reviewed by PERB as to its appropriateness.
During its two and one-quarter years as exclusive
representative of the existing unit, RBCTA has negotiated two
contracts and a reopener without concerted activity. However,
the children's center teachers have remained a separate ad hoc
entity with little communication or no formal representation on
the negotiating team of the exclusive representative. In fact,
RBCTA formally requested to delete the children's center
teachers from the unit during negotiations. Such a negotiating
history does not present compelling reasons to dispell the
appropriateness of the unit based upon community of interest
20
(2) 	the 	established 	unit 	was 	not 	originally 	determined
or 	certified 	by 	the 	NLRB 	and 	is 	found 	to 	be 	repugnant 	to 	Board
policies 	(NLRB 	v. 	Porter 	County 	Farm Bureau Cooperative
Association, 	Inc. (7th 	Cir. 	1963) 	314F.2d 	133, 	136 	[52 	LRRM
2485];
(3) 	the 	unit 	conflicts 	with 	established 	Board 	policy;
(4) 	circumstances 	have 	changed 	since 	the 	original 	unit
was 	established; 	and
(5) 	a 	history 	of 	consistent 	opposition 	to 	inclusion 	in
the 	larger 	unit 	has 	been 	demonstrated 	by 	the 	petitioned 	for
employees. 	See 	Rainbow Lithographing 	Company 	(1946) 	69 	NLRB
1383 	[18 	LRRM 1317].
The 	present 	case 	presents 	a 	situation 	where 	the 	proposed
unit 	is 	not 	sufficiently 	factually 	distinct 	from 	the 	children's
center 	unit 	found 	appropriate 	by 	PERB 	in 	Oakland, 	supra. 	The
established 	certificated 	unit 	was 	voluntarily 	recognized 	and
has 	not 	been 	reviewed 	by 	PERB 	as 	to 	its 	appropriateness.
During 	its 	two 	and 	one-quarter 	years 	as 	exclusive
representative 	of 	the 	existing 	unit, 	RBCTA 	has 	negotiated 	two
contracts 	and 	a 	reopener without 	concerted 	activity. 	However,
the 	children's 	center 	teachers 	have 	remained 	a 	separate 	ad 	hoc
entity 	with 	little 	communication 	or 	no 	formal 	representation 	on
the 	negotiating 	team 	of 	the 	exclusive 	representative. 	In 	fact,
RBCTA 	formally 	requested 	to 	delete 	the 	children's 	center
teachers 	from 	the 	unit 	during 	negotiations. 	Such 	a 	negotiating
history 	does 	not 	present 	compelling 	reasons 	to 	dispell 	the
appropriateness 	of 	the 	unit 	based 	upon 	community of 	interest
20

factors.
6. 	Self Determination Election
The negotiating history in the recognized unit is given
weight to the extent that an election shall be held among the
children's center employees to express their desire as to
whether they wish to be represented in a separate unit or
whether they desire to continue to be represented in the
established certificated unit. In effect, the recognized unit
is granted a place on the election ballot based upon the extent
of negotiation history accomplished without further review of
its appropriateness by PERB.
Although RBCTA did not file an intervention to the
Federation's request for recognition for children's center
unit, it is a proper party to any election based upon its
current representation of the comprehensive certificated unit
for the reason stated above. In directing an election among
children's center employees, it is presumed that RBCTA's
majority support in the comprehensive certificated unit remains
in existence. 	This fact excuses RBCTA from redemonstrating the
30 percent support in the comprehensive unit. At an election
scheduled by the regional director the children's center
employees found to comprise an appropriate unit may make a
self-determination choice. If the majority of the employees
choose the Federation to represent them, such choice will
indicate their desire to be represented in a children's center
unit. If the majority of the children's center employees vote
for RBCTA they will remain a part of the existing comprehensive
21
factors.
6.
	Self
	Determination
	Election
The
	negotiating
	history 	in
	the
	recognized
	unit
	is
	given
weight
	to
	the
	extent
	that
	an
	election 	shall
	be
	held
	among
	the
children's
	center
	employees
	to
	express
	their
	desire
	as
	to
whether
	they
	wish
	to
	be
	represented
	in
	a
	separate 	unit
	or
whether
	they
	desire 	to
	continue
	to
	be
	represented
	in 	the
established
	certificated
	unit.
	In
	effect,
	the
	recognized
	unit
is
	granted
	a
	place
	on
	the
	election 	ballot
	based
	upon
	the
	extent
of
	negotiation 	history
	accomplished
	without
	further
	review
	of
its
	appropriateness
	by PERB.
Although
	RBCTA
	did
	not
	file
	an
	intervention 	to
	the
Federation's 	request 	for 	recognition 	for
	children's
	center
unit,
	it
	is
	a
	proper
	party 	to
	any
	election
	based
	upon
	its
current 	representation
	of
	the
	comprehensive
	certificated 	unit
for 	the 	reason
	stated
	above.
	In
	directing
	an
	election
	among
children's
	center
	employees,
	it
	is
	presumed
	that
	RBCTA's
majority 	support
	in
	the
	comprehensive
	certificated
	unit
	remains
in 	existence.
	This
	fact
	excuses
	RBCTA
	from
	redemonstrating
	the
30
	percent 	support 	in 	the
	comprehensive
	unit.
	At 	an
	election
scheduled
	by
	the 	regional 	director
	the
	children's 	center
employees 	found
	to
	comprise
	an
	appropriate 	unit
	may make 	a
self-determination 	choice.
	If
	the majority 	of 	the
	employees
choose 	the 	Federation 	to 	represent
	them, 	such 	choice
	will
indicate 	their 	desire 	to
	be
	represented 	in
	a
	children's 	center
unit. 	If
	the 	majority of 	the 	children's 	center 	employees 	vote
for
	RBCTA
	they 	will 	remain 	a
	part 	of 	the 	existing 	comprehensive
21

certificated unit. The ballot shall also include the choice
"no representation".
IV. CHILDREN'S CENTER HEAD TEACHERS
Children's center head teachers are currently in the
comprehensive certificated unit. Head teachers are included in
the new petitioned-for unit. The District has not waived its
right to challenge these employees as supervisory at this time.
Government Code section 3540.1 (m) defines a supervisory
employee as:
.any employee, regardless of job
description, having authority in the
interest of the employer to hire, transfer,
suspend, lay off, recall, promote,
discharge, assign, reward, or discipline
other employees, or the responsibility to
assign work to and direct them, or to adjust
their grievances, or effectively recommend
such action, if, in connection with the
foregoing functions, the exercise of such
authority is not of a merely routine or
clerical nature, but requires the use of
independent judgment.
PERB has decided that the satisfaction of any one of the above
criteria is sufficient to make an individual a supervisor under
the EERA. 	Sweetwater Union School District (11/23/76) EERB
Decision No. 4; San Diego Unified School District (2/18/77)
EERB Decision No. 8.
Head teachers are supervisory employees in that they have
effective authority to evaluate, assign work, grant extra hours
in addition to the normal contracted work, reprimand and
effectively recommend hiring with regard to children's center
employees.
Head teachers are paid 25 percent more than children's
22
certificated
	unit.
	The
	ballot 	shall
	also
	include 	the 	choice
"no
	representation".
IV. 	CHILDREN'S
	CENTER
HEAD
	TEACHERS
Children's
	center
	head
	teachers 	are
	currently
	in 	the
comprehensive
	certificated
	unit.
	Head
	teachers 	are 	included
	in
the
	new
	petitioned-for 	unit.
	The
	District
	has
	not
	waived
	its
right
	to
	challenge 	these
	employees
	as
	supervisory
	at 	this
	time.
Government
	Code
	section
	3540.l(m)
	defines
	a
	supervisory
employee
	as:
...
any
	employee,
	regardless
	of 	job
description,
	having
	authority 	in
	the
interest
	of 	the
	employer
	to 	hire, 	transfer,
suspend,
	lay
	off, 	recall,
	promote,
discharge, 	assign,
	reward,
	or
	discipline
other
	employees,
	or
	the
	responsibility
	toassign
	work
	to
	and
	direct
	them,
	or
	to 	adjust
their
	grievances,
	or
	effectively
	recommend
such
	action,
	if,
	in
	connection 	with 	the
foregoing
	functions,
	the
	exercise
	of 	such
authority
	is
	not 	of
	a
	merely
	routine
	or
clerical
	nature,
	but
	requires 	the
	use
	ofindependent 	judgment.
PERB
	has 	decided
	that
	the
	satisfaction
	of
	any 	one
	of 	the
	above
criteria
	is 	sufficient
	to
	make 	an
	individual
	a
	supervisor
	under
the
	EERA.
	Sweetwater
	Union
	School
	District
	(11/23/76)
	EERB
Decision
	No.
	4;
	San 	Diego
	Unified
	School
	District
	(2/18/77)
EERB
	Decision
	No.
	8.
Head
	teachers 	are 	supervisory
	employees
	in 	that
	they 	have
effective 	authority 	to 	evaluate, 	assign
	work,
	grant 	extra
	hours
in 	addition 	to 	the
	normal
	contracted
	work, 	reprimand 	and
effectively
	recommend
	hiring 	with 	regard 	to 	children's 	center
employees.
Head
	teachers 	are 	paid
	25
	percent
	more 	than 	children's
22

center teachers. They do not teach, but spend their entire
work day overseeing the operation of their center. They
effectively allocate the funds budgeted for their center. 	The
children's center head teachers and the coordinating head
teacher jointly interview potential contract employees and make
a joint recommendation which is almost routinely followed by
the assistant superintendent. As a team the head teachers and
coordinating head teacher effectively recommend the hiring of
assistant head teachers for each children's center. Although
testimony indicated that in the past hiring was controlled more
centrally by the director of children's centers, it is found
that head teachers have consistently been involved in making
hiring recommendations under a revised policy in effect for at
least the last one and a-half years. Head teachers evaluate
both certificated and classified employees working in their
center . 	They informally adjust minor grievances among staff.
Head teachers make written evaluations which are placed in each
employee's personnel file. They have reprimanded employees
regarding tardiness and improper handling of children. Based
upon a positive evaluation a head teacher has recommended more
work hours be assigned to an employee. Head teachers approve
vacations and assign substitutes to replace employees absent
from work. They also approve sick leave requests.
Head teachers independently assign children's center
teachers to extra work hours beyond their contracted load when
the demand arises. At Franklin Center substantial amounts of
extra time or "overtime" are assigned. Head teachers call
23
center 	teachers.
	They 	do
	not
	teach,
	but
	spend
	their 	entire
work
	day
	overseeing 	the
	operation
	of
	their
	center.
	They
effectively 	allocate
	the
	funds 	budgeted
	for
	their
	center.
	The
children's
	center
	head
	teachers
	and
	the 	coordinating
	head
teacher
	jointly
	interview
	potential
	contract
	employees
	and 	make
a
	joint
	recommendation
	which
	is
	almost
	routinely
	followed
	by
the
	assistant
	superintendent.
	As
	a 	team
	the
	head
	teachers
	and
coordinating
	head
	teacher
	effectively
	recommend
	the
	hiring 	of
assistant
	head
	teachers 	for
	each
	children's
	center.
	Although
testimony
	indicated
	that
	in
	the
	past
	hiring
	was
	controlled
	more
centrally
	by
	the
	director
	of
	children's 	centers,
	it
	is
	found
that
	head
	teachers
	have
	consistently
	been
	involved
	in
	making
hiring
	recommendations 	under
	a
	revised 	policy 	in
	effect
	for
	at
least
	the
	last
	one 	and
	a-half
	years.
	Head
	teachers 	evaluate
both
	certificated
	and
	classified
	employees 	working
	in
	their
center.
	They
	informally
	adjust
	minor
	grievances
	among
	staff.
Head
	teachers
	make
	written 	evaluations
	which
	are 	placed 	in
	each
employee's 	personnel
	file.
	They
	have 	reprimanded 	employees
regarding
	tardiness
	and
	improper
	handling 	of
	children.
	Based
upon 	a
	positive 	evaluation
	a
	head
	teacher
	has
	recommended more
work
	hours
	be
	assigned 	to
	an
	employee.
	Head
	teachers
	approve
vacations
	and
	assign
	substitutes 	to 	replace
	employees
	absent
from 	work. 	They
	also
	approve
	sick 	leave 	requests.
Head
	teachers 	independently 	assign 	children's 	center
teachers 	to 	extra
	work 	hours 	beyond
	their 	contracted 	load
	when
the
	demand
	arises.
	At
	Franklin Center 	substantial
	amounts
	of
extra 	time 	or 	"overtime" 	are 	assigned.
	Head
	teachers 	call
23

meetings of staff and assign teachers to work assignments such
as working with preschool children versus elementary aged
children.
The Board has not issued a decision regarding the
The	supervisory status of children's center head teachers.
decision in Oakland Unified School District, (4/19/77) , EERA
Decision No. 15, that assistant head teachers are not
supervisory is clearly not relevant here. In that case the
assistants were clearly subordinate to the children's center
supervisor which was a stipulated supervisory position. 	The
authority of head teachers with respect to their staff appears
more analogous to the authority of a principal of a school.
Principals were found to be supervisors in San Francisco
Unified School District (9/8/77) EERB Decision No. 23.
PROPOSED ORDER
IT IS THE PROPOSED ORDER THAT:
1. An election among eligible children's center teachers
may be conducted at a time set by the Regional Director.
2. A unit consisting of all children's center teachers
excluding all other employees including management,
confidential and supervisory employees is appropriate for
purposes of meeting and negotiating, provided that a majority
of the children's center teachers voting in the election select
the Early Childhood Federation, Local 1475, AFT to represent them.
3. A comprehensive certificated unit including children's
center teachers excluding management, confidential and supervisory
employees may continue meeting and negotiating, providing that
a majority of children's center teachers voting in the election
select Redondo Beach City Teachers Association, CTA/NEA to
continue to represent them.
meetings 	of
	staff
	and
	assign 	teachers 	to
	work
	assignments 	such
as
	working
	with
	preschool
	children
	versus 	elementary
	aged
children.
The
	Board
	has
	not
	issued
	a
	decision
	regarding 	the
supervisory
	status
	of
	children's
	center
	head
	teachers.
	The
decision 	in
	Oakland
	Unified
	School
	District,
	(4/19/77),
	EERA
Decision
	No.
	15,
	that 	assistant
	head
	teachers 	are 	not
supervisory
	is
	clearly
	not 	relevant
	here.
	In
	that
	case 	the
assistants
	were
	clearly
	subordinate
	to
	the
	children's
	center
supervisor
	which
	was 	a
	stipulated
	supervisory
	position.
	The
authority
	of
	head
	teachers
	with
	respect 	to
	their
	staff
	appears
more
	analogous
	to
	the
	authority
	of
	a
	principal
	of
	a
	school.
Principals
	were 	found
	to
	be
	supervisors 	in
	San
	Francisco
Unified
	School
	District
	(9/8/77)
	EERB
	Decision
	No.
	23.
PROPOSED
	ORDER
IT 	IS
	THE
	PROPOSED
	ORDER
	THAT:
1.
	An
	election
	among
	eligible 	children's
	center 	teachers
may
	be 	conducted
	at
	a
	time
	set
	by
	the
	Regional
	Director.
2. 	A
unit 	consisting 	of
	all
	children's 	center 	teachers
excluding
	all
	other
	employees
	including
	management,
confidential
	and
	supervisory
	employees
	is
	appropriate 	for
purposes 	of meeting 	and
	negotiating,
	provided
	that
	a
	majority
of 	the 	children's 	center 	teachers 	voting 	in 	the 	election 	select
the 	Early 	Childhood 	Federation, 	Local 	1475,
	AFT
	to 	represent
	them.
3. 	A comprehensive
	certificated unit 	including 	children's
center 	teachers 	excluding management,
	confidential
	and
	supervisory
employees 	may 	continue meeting 	and 	negotiating, 	providing 	that
a 	majority 	of 	children's 	center 	teachers 	voting 	in 	the 	election
select 	Redondo 	Beach 	City 	Teachers 	Association, 	CTA/NEA 	to
continue 	to 	represent 	them.

4. Children's center head teachers are supervisory
employees and are excluded from either unit.
Within 10 work days after the employer posts the notice of
decision, Early Childhood Federation, Local 1475 AFT shall
demonstrate to the regional director at least 30 percent support
in the children's center unit. The Redondo Beach City Teachers
Association, CTA/NEA will be presumed to hold a majority support
in the comprehensive certificated unit.
The regional director shall conduct an election among the
eligible children's center teachers at the end of the posting
period if the Federation qualifies to be on the ballot. If no
election is conducted, the RBCTA will continue as exclusive
representative in the comprehensive certificated unit.
The date used to establish the number of employees in the
children's center certificated unit shall be the date of this
decision unless another date is deemed appropriate by the
regional director and noticed to the parties. In the event another
date is selected, the regional director may extend the time for an
employee organization to demonstrate at least 30 percent support
in the unit.
1111
25
4.
	Children's 	center
	head
	teachers 	are
	supervisory
employees 	and
	are
	excluded
	from
	either 	unit.
Within
	10
	work
	days
	after
	the
	employer
	posts 	the
	notice 	of
decision,
	Early
	Childhood
	Federation,
	Local
	1475
	AFT
	shall
demonstrate 	to 	the 	regional
	director 	at 	least
	30
	percent 	support
in 	the
	children's
	center
	unit.
	The 	Redondo
	Beach
	City
	Teachers
Association,
	CTA/NEA
will
	be 	presumed
	to 	hold
	a
	majority 	support
in
	the
	comprehensive
	certificated
	unit.
The
	regional
	director 	shall
	conduct
	an
	election
	among
	the
eligible 	children's
	center 	teachers
	at
	the
	end
	of
	the
	posting
period
	if
	the 	Federation
	qualifies
	to
	be
	on
	the
	ballot.
	If
	no
election 	is
	conducted,
	the
	RBCTA
will
	continue
	as
	exclusive
representative 	in 	the
	comprehensive
	certificated
	unit
.
•
The
	date
	used
	to
	establish
	the
	number
	of
	employees
	in 	the
children's
	center
	certificated
	unit 	shall
	be
	the 	date 	of
	this
decision 	unless 	another 	date
	is
	deemed
	appropriate
	by
	the
regional 	director
	and
	noticed 	to 	the
	parties.
	In 	the 	event 	another
date
	is
	selected, 	the 	regional 	director
	may
	extend 	the
	time
	for
	an
employee
	organization 	to 	demonstrate
	at 	least
	30
	percent 	support
in 	the
	unit.
/Ill
25

Pursuant to California Administrative Code, title 8,
part III, section 32305, this Proposed Decision and Order shall
become final on June 7, 1979 unless a party files a timely
statement of exceptions within twenty (20) calendar days
following the date of service of the decision. Such statement
of exceptions and supporting brief must be actually received by
the executive assistant to the Board at the headquarters office
in Sacramento before the close of business (5:00 p.m. ) on
June 7, 1979 in order to be timely filed. (See California
Administrative Code, title 8, part III, section 32135.) Any
statement of exceptions and supporting brief must be served
concurrently with its filing upon the other party to this
proceeding. Proof of service shall be filed with the Board
itself. (See California Administrative Code, title 8, part III,
sections 32300 and 32305, as amended.)
Dated May 18, 1979
Terry Filliman
Hearing Officer
26
Pursuant
	to
	California
	Administrative
	Code,
	title
	8,
part
	III,
	section
	32305,
	this
	Proposed
	Decision
	and
	Order
	shall
become
	final
	on
	June 	7,
	1979
	unless
	a
	party
	files
	a
	timely
statement
	of
	exceptions
	within
	twenty
	(20)
	calendar
	days
following 	the 	date
	of 	service 	of
	the
	decision.
	Such
	statement
of
	exceptions
	and
	supporting
	brief
	must
	be
	actually
	received
	by
the 	executive
	assistant
	to 	the
	Board
	at
	the 	headquarters
	office
in
	Sacramento
	before
	the
	close
	of
	business
	(5:00 	p.m.)
	on
June 	7,
	1979
	in 	order 	to
	be
	timely
	filed.
	(See
	California
Administrative
	Code,
	title
	8,
	part
	III,
	section
	32135.)
	Any
statement 	of
	exceptions
	and
	supporting
	brief
must
	be
	served
concurrently with
	its
	filing
	upon
	the 	other 	party 	to
	this
proceeding. 	Proof
	of 	service
	shall
	be
	filed
	with 	the
	Board
itself.
	(See
	California
	Administrative
	Code,
	title
	8,
	part
	III,
sections
	32300
	and 	32305,
	as
	amended.)
Dated
	May
	18,
	1979
26
A
Terry 	FillimanHearing
	Officer