Holtville Unified School District (PERB 0250E)

STATE 	OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
HOLTVILLE 	TEACHERS 	ASSOCIATION,
Charging 	Party,
v.
HOLTVILLE UNIFIED 	SCHOOL 	DISTRICT,
Respondent.
Case No. 	LA-CE-1144
PERB Decision No. 	250
September 30, 	1982
Appearances; 	John J. Maloof, Attorney 	(Horton, Knox, Carter &
Foote) 	for 	Holtville Unified 	School District; 	Kenneth H. 	Parker
for 	California 	Teachers Association.
Before Gluck, 	Chairperson; 	Jaeger 	and Morgenstern, Members.
DECISION
GLUCK, 	Chairperson: 	The Holtville Unified School District
(District) 	excepts 	to a proposed 	finding 	that 	it violated
subsections 3543.5(a), 	(b), and 	(c) 	of the Educational
Employment 	Relations 	Act1 by 	unilaterally 	adopting 	a
mandatory 	retirement 	policy 	for 	certificated 	employees 	for 	the
1EERA 	is 	codified 	at Government Code 	sections 	3540
et 	seq. 	All 	statutory 	references 	are 	to 	the Government Code
unless 	otherwise 	specified.
Subsections 3543.5(a), 	(b) 	and 	(c) 	provide as follows:
It 	shall be 	unlawful 	for 	a public 	school
employer 	to:
(a) 	Impose or 	threaten 	to 	impose 	reprisals
on employees, 	to discriminate or 	threaten 	to
discriminate 	against 	employees, 	or 	otherwise
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_______________ )

school year 	1980-81 	and 	by 	refusing 	to 	negotiate 	with 	the
Holtville Teachers Association 	(HTA), 	the exclusive
representative of 	certificated 	employees, 	concerning 	such 	a
policy.
(b) 	Deny 	to employee 	organizations 	rights
guaranteed 	to 	them by 	this 	chapter.
(c) 	Refuse 	or 	fail 	to meet 	and 	negotiate 	in
good 	faith 	with 	an 	exclusive 	representative.
FACTS
The 	case 	was 	submitted 	by 	the 	parties 	on 	the 	following
stipulated 	facts:
1. 	The HTA 	is 	the 	exclusive 	representative of 	the
District's 	certificated 	employees.
2. 	A collective 	bargaining 	agreement was 	in effect during
the 	time 	in which 	these 	events 	occurred.
3. 	On February 21, 	1980, 	the District 	tabled 	until 	its
February 	26 meeting 	a motion 	to 	adopt 	the 	following 	policy:
. 	. 	. effective February 21, 1980, it is the
policy of 	the Holtville 	Unified 	School
District Board 	of Trustees 	that 	all
certificated 	employees 	be 	mandatorily
terminated 	with 	no 	notice 	required 	at 	the
end of 	the 	school year 	in 	which 	they attain
the age of 	seventy 	(70) 	or more 	years.
Three 	educators 	will 	be 	appointed 	to
consider 	the 	competency 	of 	teachers 	seventy
(70) 	years of 	age who wish 	to continue.
to 	interfere with, 	restrain, 	or coerce
employees 	because of 	their 	exercise of
rights 	guaranteed 	by 	this 	chapter.
22

Continuance of 	any 	type of 	employment 	with
the District 	after 	the 	school year 	in which
certificated 	employees 	attain 	seventy 	(70)
or 	more 	years 	of 	age would 	be 	subject 	to 	the
pleasure of 	the 	board 	and 	would 	be
terminated on 	thirty 	(30) 	days notice.
4. 	On February 	21, 	1980, 	HTA requested 	in writing 	that
the motion 	be 	tabled 	and 	that HTA 	be 	provided with 	a copy of
the 	motion 	for 	study purposes 	and 	that 	"the board will 	agree 	to
meet 	and 	negotiate 	the 	provisions 	of 	the 	resolution 	under 	the
evaluation 	section of 	the 	contract." 	The 	letter 	further 	stated:
My 	advice 	from CTA 	staff 	attorneys 	in Los
Angeles 	was 	to request 	that both of us, 	the
District 	and Association, 	take 	the 	time 	to
spell 	out 	the 	criteria 	for 	evaluating
teachers 	beyond 	age 	70 	and 	to 	include 	the
specifics 	in 	the 	contract 	to 	avoid possible
unfair 	labor 	charges 	in the 	future. 	Since
teachers beyond 	70 may 	remain employed
unless 	declared 	"incompetent," 	I
respectfully 	request 	that 	we 	negotiate 	the
terms 	of 	determining 	competence.2
The 	letter 	was 	signed by Ms. 	Singh, 	HTA's President.
5. 	On February 26, 	1980, 	the District adopted 	the
following 	motion 	instructing:
Dr. W. F. Pittman, District Superintendent,
that for 	the 	coming school year, 	1980-81,
those 	employees 	being more 	than 	seventy 	(70)
years 	of 	age 	will 	not be offered 	employment
and 	said 	employees 	shall 	be 	notified of 	said
Board 	action.
6. 	On February 26, 	1980, Ms. 	Singh presented a letter 	to
the District's 	board 	which 	stated 	inter 	alia:
2The 	quoted 	language 	appears 	in 	the 	exhibits.
33

The 	Association 	respectfully 	submits 	that
the 	Board 	table 	any 	further 	action on 	this
matter 	[mandatory 	retirement] 	until all 	the
necessary 	legal 	information 	is 	obtained.
7. 	On February 28, 	1980, 	two certificated employees,
Anna T. 	Fonger 	and Velma I. 	Rose, 	aged 	72 	and 	75 	respectively,
were 	notified 	in 	writing 	of 	the District's 	intent 	not 	to
reemploy 	them with 	termination 	to be effective 	on June 	5, 	1980,
8. 	On March 5, 	1980, 	Ms. 	Singh wrote Pittman that 	the
Association demanded 	to bargain, 	pursuant 	to 	section 	3543.2 of
EERA, 	the 	rules 	and 	regulations 	specified 	under 	Education Code
section 23922.
9. 	On March 25, 	1980, Ms. 	Singh presented the District's
board 	with 	a written 	demand 	to bargain:
You 	are 	hereby 	notified 	that 	the Holtville
Teachers Association 	demands 	to bargain
pursuant 	to government code 	3543.2, 	the
impact 	of 	the 	Holtville 	Unified 	School
District's 	unilateral 	position 	to 	terminate
because of 	age. 	HTA maintains 	the effects
of 	the 	board's 	unilateral 	action
constitutes 	a violation of 	3543.5.
Termination 	is 	not 	isolated, 	but carries
with it rippling effects. 	. 	. 	. HTA
maintains 	competency 	standards 	and
evaluation of 	teachers 	age 	70 	and beyond
are 	negotiable 	and 	are 	an 	integral part 	of
transfer 	and 	reassignment policies. 	HTA
has 	on 	the 	table 	an 	article concerning
reduction 	in staff 	. . . 	.3
10. 	On April 8, 	1980, Ms. 	Singh presented another 	letter
to 	the 	board 	identical 	to 	the 	foregoing.
3See 	footnote 	2, 	supra.
4

11. 	On March 	25, 	1980, 	HTA filed a grievance concerning
Fonger's 	and 	Rose's 	dismissals. 	The 	District denied 	the
grievance 	and HTA did 	not 	pursue 	it 	to 	advisory 	arbitration.
In addition 	to 	the 	above-stipulated 	facts, 	the 	record
reveals 	that HTA's 	charge 	was 	filed 	on April 	28, 	1980 	and
reads, in part:
1. 	The Association 	president 	[at 	the 	2/21
Board of Trustees' 	meeting] 	requested
negotiations 	on 	a provision of 	the
collective 	bargaining 	contract, 	Article
XVII, 	Evaluations. 	A special meeting of 	the
school 	board 	was 	held 	on 	2/26 	to 	consider
the mandatory 	retirement policy. 	The
Association presented 	a 	letter 	at 	that
meeting 	calling 	for 	maintenance 	of 	benefits
provided 	in 	the 	contract. 	On 2/28, 	two
teachers 	received 	notices 	of
non-reemployment 	for 	1980-81 	because of
age. 	On March 	5, March 	25, 	and 	again on
April 	[illegible], 	the Association presented
the 	school 	district with 	a demand 	to bargain
because 	the 	unilateral 	action of 	the Board
of Trustees 	had 	impact on 	two 	teachers 	and
the 	bargaining 	unit 	by means 	of 	salary,
reduction of 	staff, 	and 	other 	terms 	and
conditions of employment.
2. 	. . . 	the Board 	of 	Trustees 	has chosen
to 	ignore 	the Association's 	written 	request
to 	bargain with 	its 	unilateral action 	and
has 	chosen 	to 	ignore 	the Association's
[illegible] 	requests.
HTA's post-hearing brief 	states 	the 	issues 	as: 	(1) 	whether
the 	District 	failed 	to 	negotiate 	criteria 	for 	teachers 	70 	years
of 	age 	and over, 	and 	(2) 	the 	impact of 	the 	termination of
employees 	Fonger 	and 	Rose.
5

The District's 	Position;
The 	District 	excepts 	specifically 	to 	the 	proposed 	finding
that mandatory 	retirement 	is 	within 	the 	scope of 	required
negotiations. 	It 	argues 	that Education Code 	section 	449064
mandates 	retirement 	at 	age 	seventy 	and eliminates 	the
requirement 	that 	"cause" 	other 	than 	age 	be 	found 	for
termination. 	Further, 	according 	to the District, 	the
"discretion" 	vested 	in school employers 	by 	section 	44906 	is 	not
limited 	by a 	duty 	to 	negotiate 	since 	EERA demonstrates 	no 	such
legislative 	intent.
HTA's 	Position:
The Association 	contends 	that 	the 	subject of mandatory
retirement 	is 	negotiable 	as 	a matter 	relating 	to wages,
benefits, 	and 	evaluations, 	and 	that 	an employer's discretionary
authority 	is 	subject 	to 	its 	duty 	to 	negotiate 	since 	only
matters 	which 	are 	conclusively mandated 	by 	the 	Education Code
are 	not 	superseded 	by EERA's provisions.
DISCUSSION
The 	record 	before 	the Board, 	including 	the 	charge 	and 	the
stipulated 	facts, 	makes 	it clear 	that HTA sought negotiations
4Education Code section 44906 	reads, 	in pertinent part:
. 	. 	. When a permanent or probationary
employee 	reaches 	the 	age 	of 	seventy 	(70)
years, 	his or 	her permanent or probationary
classification 	shall 	cease 	and 	thereafter
employment 	shall 	be 	from year-to-year 	at 	the
discretion 	of 	the 	governing 	board.
66

on 	the 	standards 	to be used 	in deciding 	whether 	to 	terminate 	or
retain employees 	who 	have 	reached 	seventy years 	of 	age 	as 	well
as 	the effects of 	any decision 	to 	terminate 	such employees. 	We
find 	both 	subjects 	to 	be 	within 	the 	scope of mandatory
negotiation.
In Anaheim Union High 	School District 	(10/28/81) 	PERB
Decision No. 	177, 	the Board 	developed 	a 	test for 	determining
whether 	a subject 	not 	specifically 	stated 	in 	section 	3543.2 	is
within scope. 	Applying 	that 	test 	now, 	we 	find 	that 	the subject
of mandatory 	retirement 	clearly 	is 	of 	concern 	to both
management 	and 	employees 	and 	likely 	to 	create 	conflict 	because
of 	its 	profound 	effect 	on 	a most 	fundamental 	aspect 	of
employer-employee 	relations 	— 	termination 	of 	employment.
Further, 	the process 	of collective 	negotiations 	is 	a viable
means of 	resolving 	such disputes 	since 	it 	furthers 	the
statutory 	objective 	of 	bringing 	a matter 	of mutual 	vital
concern within 	the 	framework of peaceful, 	private 	resolution
and 	provides 	employees 	with 	the 	opportunity 	to 	dissuade 	the
employer 	or 	offer 	alternatives 	to 	the 	employer's 	chosen course
of 	action.
Anaheim 	requires 	that 	the 	Board 	exclude 	from 	scope 	those
matters 	which 	so 	lie 	at 	the 	core of 	entrepreneurial 	control 	or
which 	are 	of 	such 	fundamental policy 	that 	the 	duty 	to bargain
about 	them 	would 	significantly 	abridge 	the 	employer's 	freedom
to manage 	the 	enterprise 	or 	achieve 	the District's mission.
7

Here, 	the District 	has offered 	no 	evidence 	that 	teachers of
seventy years of age or 	over, 	as a class, 	are 	incompetent or
otherwise 	unfit 	for 	continued employment. 	Indeed, 	the District
originally 	acknowledged 	that 	reemployment 	of 	aged 	teachers 	was
to be 	based 	on 	"competence," 	a position 	it abandoned 	in 	favor
of 	an 	arbitrary, 	categorical termination policy 	for 	which 	it
advanced 	no 	business 	reasons 	during 	the 	course 	of 	the 	hearing.
The 	remaining 	prong 	of 	the Anaheim test 	is 	to 	determine 	to
which subjects 	enumerated 	in section 	3543.2, 	if 	any, 	the
subject 	of 	mandatory 	retirement 	is 	reasonably 	and 	logically
related.
Probably 	the 	most 	fundamental 	aspect 	of 	the 	employment
relationship 	is 	its 	continuity 	under 	lawful 	terms 	and
conditions. 	Where 	termination policies 	are 	not 	the 	result of
preemptive 	statutory 	requirement,
the 	employee 	loses 	his 	job at 	the 	command 	of
the employer; 	. 	. 	. 	the effect upon the
"conditions" 	of 	the person's 	employment 	is
that 	the employment 	is 	terminated; 	and, 	we
think 	. 	. 	. 	the affected employee is
entitled 	under 	the Act 	to 	bargain
collectively 	through 	his 	duly 	selected
representatives 	concerning 	such
termination. 	Inland Steel Co. 	1948
77 NLRB 1 	[21 LRRM 1316], 	enforced 	(7th Cir.
1948) 	170 F.2nd 	247 	[22 LRRM 2505], 	cert.
denied 	(1949) 	356 U.S. 	960 	[24 LRRM 2019].
In Newman-Crows 	Landing 	Unified 	School 	District 	(6/30/82)
PERB Decision No. 	223, 	the Board 	stated 	that 	layoffs 	affect 	the
wages, 	hours, 	and possible 	fringe benefits of those employees
88

laid off. 	Nevertheless, 	the Board 	found 	that 	the 	decision 	to
lay off 	is 	a 	nonnegotiable managerial prerogative 	because 	the
grounds 	for 	such 	action 	are 	specified 	in 	the 	Education Code 	as
lack of 	funds 	or 	lack of 	work 	and 	the 	process 	of 	negotiating
the 	decision 	to 	lay off, 	possibly to 	the 	completion 	of 	the
statutory 	impasse proceedings, 	could 	seriously 	abridge
management's 	freedom 	to meet 	its 	financial obligations.
We 	find 	the 	matter 	of 	mandatory 	retirement
distinguishable. 	As we 	have 	already 	stated, 	no comparable
imperative 	has 	been 	demonstrated 	by 	the District. 	Nor 	is 	one
to be 	found 	in Education Code 	section 	44906, 	which 	clearly
authorizes 	school districts 	to 	employ 	teachers 	who 	have 	reached
age 70.
Because 	of 	the 	pervasive 	impact 	of 	compelled 	retirement 	on
the 	subjects 	enumerated 	in 	section 	3543.2, 	we 	cannot 	limit
negotiation of 	such 	a policy 	to 	the 	procedures 	to 	be 	employed
in 	determining 	whether 	aged 	employees 	are 	to 	be 	retained 	or
terminated. 	To so 	limit 	bargaining 	is 	to 	give 	management
virtually 	unlimited 	and 	total 	control 	over 	this 	fundamental
employment 	relationship which 	the 	Legislature 	intended 	to 	be
subject 	to 	the 	collective 	negotiation 	scheme. 	Without 	the
opportunity 	to 	negotiate 	the 	standards 	for 	compelled
retirement, 	the 	employee 	would 	be 	limited 	to 	little more 	than
deciding 	through 	which 	door 	he 	or 	she 	must 	exit.
The 	District's 	claim 	that 	the Education Code 	mandates 	total
separation 	of 	employees 	who 	have 	attained 	the 	age 	of 	seventy
9

ignores 	the 	plain 	language 	of 	section 	44906 	and 	is 	contradicted
by 	its 	own 	argument 	that 	retention of 	aged 	teachers 	is within
its discretion.
Similarly, 	its 	argument 	that 	its 	discretion as 	vested 	by
the Education Code 	is 	not 	dependent 	on 	the 	meet 	and 	confer
obligation 	is 	contrary 	to EERA's 	requirement 	that
section 	3543.2 matters 	be 	subject 	to 	the 	process 	of 	bilateral
determination. 	For 	example, 	Education Code 	section 45022 vests
school 	districts 	with 	the 	authority 	to 	set 	the 	salaries 	for 	its
employees, 	yet 	it 	is beyond dispute 	that 	section 3543.2 makes
wages 	of 	school 	employees subject 	to negotiation. 	It 	is 	the
essence 	of 	section 	3543.2 	that 	covered 	matters 	which 	previously
had 	been within management's 	discretion 	to 	implement, 	would 	now
be 	subject 	to 	the 	negotiation process.
The 	Board 	has 	considered 	apparent 	conflicts 	between
Government Code 	sections 	3543.2 	and 	35405:
5Government 	Code 	section 	3540 	reads:
. 	. 	. 	Nothing contained herein shall be
deemed 	to 	supersede 	other 	provisions 	of 	the
Education Code 	and 	the 	rules 	and 	regulations
of 	public 	school 	employers 	which 	establish
and 	regulate 	tenure or 	a merit or 	civil
service 	system or 	which provide 	for 	other
methods 	of 	administering 	employer-employee
relations, 	so long as 	the rules 	and
regulations or 	other methods 	of 	the 	public
school 	employer 	do 	not 	conflict 	with 	lawful
collective 	agreements.
10

The distinction 	lies 	between 	a 	statutory
provision 	which 	mandates 	a 	specific 	and 	an
unalterable 	policy 	and 	one 	which 	authorizes
certain policy 	but 	falls 	short of 	being
absolutely obligatory. 	As 	we 	read
section 3540, 	those proposals which
otherwise 	meet 	our 	test 	of 	negotiability 	are
within scope, 	unless 	a conflicting Education
Code 	provision precludes 	variance 	from 	its
terms.6
Thus, 	negotiations would 	be precluded only where 	the
statutory 	language 	clearly 	demonstrates 	a 	legislative 	intent 	to
establish 	a 	specific 	and 	unalterable 	provision 	and 	where 	the
contract proposals 	would 	tend 	to 	replace, 	modify or 	annul 	such
provisions 	of 	the Code. 	We 	reaffirm this 	conclusion 	now.
Finally, 	the Board 	finds 	that 	by 	its 	unlawful 	unilateral
act, 	the 	District 	concurrently 	violated 	subsections 	3543.5(a)
and 	(b) 	of 	the 	EERA. 	San Francisco Community College District
(10/12/79) 	PERB Decision No. 	105.
THE REMEDY
The 	hearing 	officer 	was 	without 	authority 	to 	order 	the
District 	to 	reinstate 	employees Fonger 	and 	Rose 	since
section 	44906 	of 	the Education Code 	requires 	that 	their
permanent 	status 	and 	classification be 	terminated. 	Since 	the
Code 	does 	not mandate 	total dismissal and 	since 	they were,
nevertheless, 	dismissed 	in 	contravention of 	the District's 	duty
6Jefferson 	School District 	(6/19/80) 	PERB Decision
No. 133, pages 7-10.
11

to negotiate 	and 	in 	the 	absence of 	any showing of cause, 	it 	is
appropriate 	to provide 	the means 	by which 	they may 	be 	made
whole while 	at 	the 	same 	time 	protecting 	the District 	from 	the
obligation 	to continue 	the 	service 	of 	employees 	who might 	have
been 	terminated 	had 	the 	District 	initially 	taken 	lawful 	action.
Therefore, 	the Board 	finds 	it 	appropriate 	to order 	that
Fonger 	and Rose 	be 	paid 	at 	the 	rate 	they 	would 	have 	received
had 	they 	been 	reemployed 	as 	year-to-year 	teachers 	from 	the 	date
they 	would 	have 	been 	so 	reemployed 	less 	any 	retirement 	benefits
they 	received 	until 	one 	of 	the 	following 	conditions 	is met:
1. 	The District, 	using 	the procedures 	and policies 	that
were 	in effect prior 	to 	the 	adoption of 	its unlawful policy,
determines 	whether 	employees 	Rose 	and Fonger 	shall 	hereafter 	be
terminated or 	reemployed on a year-to-year 	basis; 	or
2. 	The 	status of 	the 	employees 	is determined pursuant 	to
a 	negotiated 	mandatory 	retirement 	policy 	which 	conforms 	to
Education Code 	section 	44906 	or 	pursuant 	to a policy
unilaterally 	adopted 	after 	final 	exhaustion 	of 	statutory
impasse procedures 	has 	been 	reached; 	or
3. 	The 	status 	of 	the 	two 	employees 	is determined pursuant
to 	a settlement 	agreement 	reached 	by 	the 	parties.
The Board 	will 	also order 	the District 	to 	cease 	and 	desist
from 	further 	implementation 	of 	its 	unlawful 	unilateral policy
and 	direct 	the 	parties 	to negotiate 	a 	retirement 	policy 	upon
request 	of 	either 	party.
12

ORDER
Based on 	the 	entire 	record 	in 	this 	case, 	the 	Public
Employment 	Relations Board 	finds 	that 	the 	Holtville 	Unified
School District violated subsections 3543.5(a), 	(b), 	and 	(c) 	by
unilaterally 	adopting 	a 	mandatory 	retirement 	policy 	and 	by
refusing 	to 	negotiate 	on 	such 	policy 	with 	the 	Holtville
Teachers Association 	and 	by 	terminating 	employees 	Fonger 	and
Rose pursuant 	to 	such 	unlawful 	unilateral 	policy. 	The Board
further 	ORDERS 	that:
The Holtville 	Unified 	School 	District 	shall:
A. 	CEASE AND 	DESIST 	from:
(1) 	Implementing 	its 	unilateral mandatory 	retirement
policy 	adopted 	in February 	1980; 	and
(2) 	Refusing 	to 	negotiate 	with 	the Holtville 	Teachers
Association 	on 	a 	mandatory 	retirement 	policy 	for 	certificated
employees 	of 	the 	District.
(3) 	Denying 	the 	Holtville Teachers Association 	the
right 	to 	represent 	unit 	members by 	refusing 	to 	negotiate 	over 	a
mandatory 	retirement 	policy 	for 	certificated 	employees 	of 	the
District.
(4) 	Interfering 	with 	employees 	because 	of 	their
exercise 	of 	the 	right 	to 	select 	an 	exclusive 	representative 	to
meet 	and 	negotiate 	with 	the 	employer 	on 	their 	behalf 	by
refusing 	to 	negotiate 	over 	a mandatory 	retirement 	policy 	for
certificated 	employees 	of 	the 	District.
13

In 	addition, 	the 	Public Employment 	Relations 	Board ORDERS
that 	the 	Holtville 	Unified 	School 	District 	take 	the 	following
AFFIRMATIVE 	ACTION:
(1) 	Pay 	to said 	employees, 	Anna T. 	Fonger 	and
Velma 	I. 	Rose, 	the 	salaries 	each would 	have 	received 	had 	they
been 	reemployed 	as 	year-to-year 	teachers 	commencing 	with 	the
beginning 	of 	the 	school 	year 	1980-81, 	reduced 	by 	the 	amount 	of
retirement pay, 	if 	any, 	they received, 	until 	either 	the
District 	determines 	by 	utilizing 	the 	procedures 	and 	standards
in 	effect 	prior 	to 	the 	adoption 	of 	its 	unlawful 	policy 	that
said 	employees 	hereafter 	be 	terminated 	or 	reemployed 	as
year-to-year 	teachers, 	or 	the 	District 	determines 	by 	utilizing
procedures 	and 	standards 	to 	be 	negotiated 	by 	the 	parties
pursuant 	to 	this 	order 	that 	said 	employees 	shall 	be 	terminated
or 	reemployed 	as 	year-to-year 	teachers, 	or 	the District
determines, 	following 	exhaustion 	of 	statutory 	impasse
procedures 	in 	such 	negotiations 	and 	utilizing 	lawful 	procedures
and 	standards, 	that 	said 	employees 	shall 	be 	terminated 	or
reemployed 	as 	year-to-year 	teachers 	or 	the 	parties 	settle 	the
dispute 	concerning 	the 	employees 	by 	agreement.
(2) 	The District 	shall 	post 	a 	copy 	of 	the Notice
attached 	hereto 	as 	Appendix A 	for 	a period 	of 	twenty 	(20) 	days
commencing 	ten 	(10) 	days 	after 	service 	of 	this 	Decision 	and
Order 	upon 	the 	District.
14

(3) 	The District 	shall 	notify 	the 	regional director,
Los Angeles Regional Office, 	within 	twenty 	(20) 	calendar 	days
thereafter 	of 	the 	steps 	it has 	taken 	in compliance 	with 	this
Order.
Members 	Jaeger 	and 	Morgenstern 	concurred.
15

APPENDIX
NOTICE 	TO 	EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
AN AGENCY OF 	THE 	STATE 	OF CALIFORNIA
After 	a hearing 	in 	the Unfair Practice Case No. 	LA-CE-1144,
Holtville 	Teachers 	Association v. 	Holtville Unified 	School
District, 	in which both parties did participate, 	it has been
found 	that 	the Holtville 	Unified 	School 	District 	violated
subsections 3543.5(a), 	(b), and 	(c) 	of the Educational
Employment 	Relations Act 	by 	unilaterally 	adopting 	a 	mandatory
retirement 	policy 	and 	by 	terminating 	two 	certificated 	employees
pursuant to 	that policy. 	As a result of 	these actions, 	we 	have
been ordered to post 	this 	notice 	and 	abide 	by 	the 	following:
1. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
Unilaterally 	adopting 	a 	mandatory 	retirement 	policy 	and
from refusing 	to 	negotiate 	upon 	request 	of 	the Holtville
Teachers Association on proposals 	for 	such 	a policy 	for
certificated 	employees 	of 	the District, 	and 	from further
implementing 	the 	mandatory 	retirement 	policy 	adopted 	by 	the
District.
2. 	TAKE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION TO:
Compensate 	and or 	reemploy 	employees Anna T. 	Fonger 	and
Velma 	I. 	Rose 	in accordance 	with 	the 	negotiated 	settlement
with 	the Holtville 	Teachers Association or 	in 	accordance
with 	the Order 	of 	the Public Employment Relations 	Board.
HOLTVILLE 	UNIFIED 	SCHOOL 	DISTRICT
By
Authorized Agent 	of 	District
Dated:
THIS 	IS 	AN OFFICIAL NOTICE. 	IT MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR TWENTY
(20) 	CONSECUTIVE WORK DAYS 	FROM THE 	DATE 	OF POSTING AND MUST NOT
BE 	REDUCED IN SIZE, 	DEFACED, 	ALTERED OR COVERED BY ANY MATERIAL.