Marin Community College District (PERB 0161E)

STATE
	OF
	CALIFORNIA
DECISION
	OF
	THE
PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
UNITED 	ROFESSOR	
OF
	MARIN,
	AFT
LOCAL
	1610, 	FL-CIO,
Charging Party,
v .
MARIN COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT,
Respondent.
Case
	No.
	SF-CE-124
PERB
	Decision
	No. 	161
April
	3, 	11981
Appearances: 	obert J. Bezemek, Attorney (Van Bourg, Allen,	
Robert
	J.
	Bezemek,
	Attorney
	(Van
	Bourg,
	Allen,
Weinberg & Roger ) for United Professors of Marin, AFT	
Weinberg
	&
Roger)
	for 	United
	Professors
	.
	of
	Marin
I	
AFT
Local 1610, AFL-CIO; Richard V. Godino, Attorney (Breon,	
Local 	1610,
	AFL-CIO;
	Richard
	V.
	Godino,
	Attorney
	(Breon,
Galgani & Godino) for Marin Community College District.	
Galgani
	&
Godino)
	for
	Marin
	Community
	College
	District.
Before Gluck, Chairperson; Jaeger, Moore and Tovar, Members.
DECISION AND ORDER
Gluck,
This 	case
	is
	before 	the
	Board	
on	
appeal
	from 	a
	dismissal
	by
the 	hearing
	officer
	of
	charges
	alleging 	that
	the
	employer
failed 	to
	meet 	and
	consult
	with 	the 	charging
	party,
	United
Professors 	of
	Marin,
	AFT
	Local 	1610,
	AFL-CIO
	(hereafter
	UPM).
At
	the 	time
	the 	charge
	was
	filed
	and
	dismissed, 	the 	charging
party
	was
	not 	yet
	an
	exclusive 	representative,
	nor
	had 	a
	unit
been
	determined
The
	record 	indicates 	that
	now
	the 	charging 	party 	is
certified
	as 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	of 	the 	employees 	on
whose
	behalf	ehalf i	
it
	sought 	to
	meet 	and
	consult.
	As 	a
	result 	of 	this
development, 	the 	employer 	now
	clearly
	has 	a
	duty 	to
	meet 	and
negotiate 	with 	charging 	party.
	The 	Board
	therefore 	finds 	that
no
	useful 	purpose 	would 	be 	served 	by 	reviewing 	the 	issue
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
UNITED P 	S OF MARIN, AFT
LOCAL 1610, A
Case No. SF-CE-124
PERB Decision No. 161
April 3, 198
Appearances: R
This case is before the Board on appeal from a dismissal by
the hearing officer of charges alleging that the employer
failed to meet and consult with the charging party, United
Professors of Marin, AFT Local 1610, AFL-CIO (hereafter UPM) .
At the time the charge was filed and dismissed, the charging
party was not yet an exclusive representative, nor had a unit
been determined.
The record indicates that now the charging party is
certified as the exclusive representative of the employees on
whose b 	t sought to meet and consult. As a result of this
development, the employer now clearly has a duty to meet and
negotiate with charging party. The Board therefore finds that
no useful purpose would be served by reviewing the issue
PROFESSORS
AFL-CIO,
Charging
	Party,
v.
MARIN
	COMMUNITY
	COLLEGE
	DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
____________________
)
Before
	Chairperson;
	Jaeger,
	Moore
	and
	Tovar,
	Members.
DECISION
	AND
	ORDER
.

of whether, on June 29, 19	of 	June 	29, 	1977, 	the 	employer 	should 	have 	met 	and
consulted 	with 	UPM prior 	to 	the 	complained 	of 	actions. 	The
Board 	therefore SUSTAINS 	the 	hearing 	o 	icer's 	dismissal 	of 	the
charge.
77, the employer should have met and
consulted with UPM prior to the complained of actions. The
Board therefore SUSTAINS the hearing officer's dismissal of the
charge .
PER C
2
whether, 	on
PER CURIAM	URIAM
2

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
EDUCATIONAL EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
33
CA 	I
4 	UNITED PROFESSORS OF MARIN, AFT,
LOCAL 1610, AFL-CIO,
5 	Charging Party,
6
VS . 	CASE No. SF-CE-124-77/78
7
MARIN COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT,
8
REVISED
NOTICE OF DISMISSAL	10
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND
11
12 	Notice is hereby given that the above charge is dismissed without
13 	leave to amend. The dismissal is based on the following grounds:
14 	The charge alleges in substance that the District has violated
15 	Sections 3543.5(a) and (b) of the Government Code in that they
16 	unilaterally reduced the size of faculty, thereby burdening the
17 	remaining faculty with larger classes, without notice to the
18 	charging party and without providing an opportunity to meet and
19 	consult. Charging party alleges that this also violated their
20 	Section 3543.1(a) right to represent their members regarding a
21 	matter within the Section 3543.2 definition of scope of repre-
22 	sentation.
23 	The responding party indicates in their answer to the charge
24 	that a unit of certificated employees has not yet been determined
25 	within the Marin Community College District, the charging party
26 	has not been certified as the exclusive representative, nor has
27 	any agreement been reached between the District and the charging
COURT PAPER
TATE OF CALIFORNIA
.TD. 113 ( REV 8. 72)
Q5P
,\
---	
-,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
:OURT PAPER
um•""""""" 	I	,TO 113 (REV 8-721
OSP
STATE
OF
CALIFORNIA
~tjCATIONAL
	EMPLOYMENT
RELATIONS
	BOARD
In	n the matter of:	
the
matter
UNITED PROFESSORS
	OF
MARIN,
	AFT,
LOCAL
1610, 	AFL-CIO,
Charging
Party,
VS.
MARIN
COMMUNITY
COLLEGE
DISTRICT,
Respondent.	
Respondent.
oi: 	)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
__________________
).
CASE
No. 	SF-CE-124-77/78
REVISED
NOTICE
OF
DISMISSAL
WITHOUT LEAVE
TO AMEND
that
	dismissed without
Notice
	is
	hereby given
	the
	above
	charge
	is
amend. 	The
dismissal
	is
	based
	on
	the
	following 	grounds:
leave to
the
	violated
	charge
	alleges 	in
substance
	that
	District
has
	The
Sections
	3543.S(a)
	and 	(b)
	of 	the
	Government
Code
	in that
	they
thereby burdening 	the
unilaterally
	reduced
	the
	size of faculty, 
the
remaining
	faculty
	with
	larger 	classes,without notice
	to
providing
an
opportunity 	to
	meet and
charging
party
and
without
consult.
	Charging
	party alleges 	that 	this
	also
	violated 	their
a
Section 3543.l(a)
	right
	to represent
	their
members
	regarding
the Section
	3543.2
	definition
of scope of 	repre-
matter within
sentation.
their
	answer
	The
	responding party indicates 	in 	to 	the 	charge
yet been determined
that
	a
	unit of
	certificated
	employees has not
within the Marin
Community
	College
	District,
	the 	charging party
nor hashas not been
certified
as 	the exclusive representative,
and 	the 	charging
any agreement been reached between the District
- 	l 	-

for 1977-78. EERB Representation Case File No. SF-R-140 con-
2 	firms this. Notice is hereby taken of these facts.
On September 2, 1977, the Board issued its decision in San
Dieguito Faculty Association v. San Diegueto Union High School
District, EERB Decision No. 22. In this decision, at page 13,
the Board held that the right to represent employees under
Secion 3543.1(a) of the Government Code does not include a right
to consult prior to the selection of an exclusive representative
The
as to items within the list enumerated in Section 3543.2.
10 	list enumerated in Section 3543.2 includes class size as an item
11 	for negotiation. Accordingly, under EERB precedent the respons
12 	dent Marin Community College District is under no obligation to
13 	consult with the charging party as to this matter prior to their
14 	selection as exclusive representative.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
-2-COURT PAPER
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
STO. 113 (REV. 8.72)
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
COURT PAPER
STAT11: OP' CALIFORNIA
sro. 1 t3 <REV. s-72)
for 	Representation
	con-1977-78.
	EERB
	Case
	File
	No.
	SF-R-140
firms
	this.
	Notice
	is
	hereby
	taken of 	these
	facts.
On
	September
2,
	1977,
	the
	Board
	issued
	its
	decision
	in
	San
Dieguito 	Faculty Association
v.
	San
Dieguito
	Union
	High
	School
District,
	EERB
	Decision
No.
	22.
	In
	this
	decision,
	at
	page
	13,
the
Board
held
	that
	the
	right
	to
	represent
	employees
	under
the
	Government Code
	does
	not include
	a
	right
Secion
	3543.l(a) 	of
to consult
	prior
	to 	the
	selection
of
	an
	exclusive
	representative
as 	to 	items
within
	the
	list
enumerated
in
	Section
	3543.2.
	The
as
	an
	item
list
	enumerated
	in
	Section
	3543.2
	includes
	class
	size
for
	negotiation.
	Accordingly,
	under
	EERB
	precedent 	the 	respon-
Marin
Community
College
	District 	is
	under
no
	obligation
	to
dent
consult with 	the charging
party
	as
	to
	this
matter
	prior
	to
	their
selection
	as
	exclusive
	representative.
dismissal,
	party 	obtain
	it
must
If
	the charging
	chooses
	to
	a
	review
	of 	the 
days
	after
file
	an
appeal with 	the
Board
itself
within 	ten
	(10)
	calendar
service of 	this
	Notice
of
Dismissal.
	Such
	appeal
must
be
	in writing,
	signec
upon whichby
	the party or
its
	agent,
	and
	contain the
	facts
	and
	arguments
the appeal
	is
	based.
	EERB
	Regulation 35007(b).
	The
appeal
must be accompanie
See Olson
v.
	Manteca
Unified
	Sebo
with
a
	proof of service
on
	the other party.
District,
	EERB
	Decision
No.
	21, 	August
	5,
	1977 and
	EERB
	Regulation
	35002(b) 	an
If the charging party chooses to obtain a review of the dismissal, it must
file an appeal with the Board itself within ten (10) calendar days after
service of this Notice of Dismissal. Such appeal must be in writing, signed
by the party or its agent, and contain the facts and arguments upon which
the appeal is based. 	EERB Regulation 35007 (b) . The appeal must be accompanie
with a proof of service on the other party. See Olson v. Manteca Unified Scho
District, EERB Decision No. 21, August 5, 1977 and EERB Regulation 35002 (b) a
35007 (b) .	
35007(b).
WILLIAM P. SMITH	
WILLIAJ.'.1
P.
	SMITH
General Counsel	
General Cour:sel
By	By
MICHAEL J. TONS ING	MIC HAE L:
J.
	TOI{S
Ii'
/ 	.
Hearing Officer	
Hearing Officer
Dated:_September 30. 1977	Dated: 	September 30, 	1977
-2-
--:---------,--,---------	
iG	I	
','