Sierra Joint Community College District (PERB 0345E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
mm
SIERRA 	COLLEGE 	FACULTY ASSOCIATION,
CTA/NEA,
Charging 	Party,
v.
SIERRA JOINT 	COMMUNITY 	COLLEGE
DISTRICT,
Respondent.
Case No. 	S-CE-488
PERB Decision No. 	345
September 22, 	1983
Appearances: 	Diane Ross, 	Attorney for Sierra College Faculty
Association, CTA/NEA; 	and Douglas A. 	Lewis, 	Attorney for Sierra
Joint 	Community College District.
Before Gluck, Chairperson; 	Jaeger 	and Burt, Members.
DECISION
GLUCK, Chairperson: 	The Sierra Joint Community College
District 	(District) 	excepts to an administrative law judge's
(ALJ) 	finding 	that 	it violated 	subsections 	3543.5(a) 	and 	(b) 	of
the Educational Employment 	Relations Act 	(EERA)1 by
(1) 	refusing 	to place 	certain 	items 	which were submitted 	by
the 	Sierra College Faculty Association, 	CTA/NEA 	(CTA or
Association) 	for 	its board of trustees' 	agenda; 	(2) 	barring the
Association 	representative 	from 	speaking 	to 	the 	board 	of
1
EERA 	is 	codified 	at 	Government 	Code 	section 	3540
et 	seq. 	Unless 	otherwise 	noted, 	all 	references 	are 	to the
Government 	Code.
I
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
•

trustees 	on a matter 	placed on 	the 	agenda; 	and 	(3) 	adopting a
bylaw 	which 	discriminated 	against 	employee 	organizations 	with
respect 	to 	the 	right 	to place matters 	on 	its 	monthly agenda.
The Association excepts 	to 	the ALJ's 	failure 	to order
rescission of 	the 	bylaw.
FACTS
On January 	26, 	1982, 	the Association, 	through its
president, 	Harry Allen, 	submitted 	to the District 	three 	items
for 	inclusion on 	the 	trustees' 	February 1982 	agenda. 	Allen was
neither 	a member 	of 	CTA's 	bargaining 	committee 	nor 	involved 	in
negotiations.
CTA's 	first 	item proposed 	that 	the 	board 	not 	extend 	the
employment 	contracts 	of 	the District's 	president/superintendent
and 	two 	assistant 	superintendents 	of 	instruction 	and 	student
services. 	In 	recent years, 	the District 	had followed a
practice 	of 	annually extending 	the 	multi-year 	agreements 	of
these 	employees 	by 	adding a year 	to 	the 	contract. 	The
Association 	considered 	this 	to 	be 	a 	poor 	management/fiscal
policy 	in that, 	if 	one of 	the 	administrators 	were discharged,
the 	District 	would 	have 	a large 	contract 	liability.
The 	second 	item 	requested 	that 	the Association 	and District
jointly 	retain 	a management 	consultant 	to determine 	whether 	the
District 	was 	being 	properly 	administered 	in 	light 	of 	its
financial problems. 	Among 	the 	specific CTA concerns 	expressed
in 	the 	proposal 	was 	the District's 	1981-82 	budget 	which 	"added
N	
2

new 	and 	expanded 	programs 	but 	did 	not 	include 	any funds 	for
cost-of-living 	adjustments."
The 	third 	item 	requested 	that 	CTA be 	permitted 	to present,
discuss, 	and 	compare 	the 	results of 	its 	1980 	and 1981 	staff
satisfaction 	surveys 	which 	sought 	teachers' 	opinions 	on 	such
matters 	as 	the District's 	procedures 	for 	evaluating 	employees,
sabbatical 	and other 	leave 	policies, 	supervision, 	and general
working 	conditions. 	Because CTA believed 	all 	three 	requests
could 	involve 	references 	to District 	personnel, 	it 	suggested
that 	the 	board might prefer 	that 	discussions 	take 	place 	in
closed 	session.
According to Allen, on January 28, 	Gerald Angove, 	the
District's 	superintendent 	and 	president, 	informed 	him 	that 	the
first 	two proposals 	would not 	be 	placed 	on 	the 	agenda 	because
Angove 	and 	the District's 	counsel 	and 	negotiator, 	John Bukey,
did not 	think 	they 	concerned 	negotiable matters. 	Allen
testified 	that Angove 	had 	given 	no 	additional 	explanation 	for
his decision and 	that 	he, 	Allen, 	had 	responded 	by agreeing 	that
none 	of 	the 	proposals 	concerned 	negotiable 	or 	"consultable"
items 	and 	that 	the Association did 	not 	present 	them 	to 	the
board 	for 	such 	purposes.
By 	letters 	dated 	the 	same day, 	Angove 	confirmed 	that 	he 	was
denying 	the 	requests 	because 	the 	subjects 	did 	not 	appear 	to 	be
within 	the 	scope 	of 	representation 	as 	defined 	in EERA
W	
3

subsection 	3543.2(a).2 He 	suggested 	that 	if 	the Association
questioned 	the 	negotiability or 	consultability of 	the
proposals, 	it 	should contact John Bukey. 	He also suggested
that 	the Association 	could 	raise 	the 	question of 	negotiability
by 	bringing 	the 	matter 	up 	through 	the 	normal 	negotiating
process.
2Subsection 3543.2(a) 	states:
(a) 	The scope of 	representation shall 	be
limited 	to matters 	relating 	to wages, 	hours
of 	employment, 	and other 	terms 	and
conditions 	of 	employment. 	"Terms 	and
conditions of 	employment" 	mean 	health 	and
welfare 	benefits 	as 	defined 	by 	Section
53200, leave, 	transfer 	and reassignment
policies, 	safety conditions 	of 	employment,
class 	size, 	procedures 	to be 	used for 	the
evaluation of 	employees, 	organizational
security 	pursuant 	to Section 	3546,
procedures 	for 	processing 	grievances
pursuant to Sections 3548.5, 	3548.6, 	3548.7,
and 	3548.8, 	and 	the 	layoff of 	probationary
certificated 	school 	district 	employees,
pursuant 	to Section 	44959.5 of 	the Education
Code. 	In addition, 	the exclusive
representative 	of 	certificated 	personnel 	has
the 	right 	to 	consult 	on 	the 	definition of
educational objectives, 	the 	determination of
the 	content of 	courses 	and curriculum, 	and
the 	selection of 	textbooks 	to 	the 	extent
such matters 	are 	within 	the 	discretion of
the 	public school 	employer 	under 	the 	law.
All matters 	not 	specifically 	enumerated 	are
reserved 	to 	the 	public school 	employer 	and
may 	not 	be 	a subject 	of meeting 	and
negotiating, 	provided 	that 	nothing 	herein
may 	be 	construed 	to 	limit 	the 	right 	of 	the
public school 	employer 	to consult with 	any
employees 	or 	employee 	organization on 	any
matter 	outside 	the 	scope 	of 	representation.
4

Angove 	testified 	that 	to 	assure 	efficient 	trustees'
meetings, 	he 	normally reviews 	agenda proposals 	to determine
whether 	they 	require further 	refinement 	and 	often 	rewrites 	the
proposals 	himself
if 	they are 	related 	to 	the 	business 	of 	the
District 	and 	provide 	the 	[b]oard 	with 	the
appropriate 	information 	to 	take 	action as 	it
relates 	to District 	policy 	and 	practice.
He 	said 	that 	he 	had 	rejected 	both 	proposals 	after 	speaking 	with
Bukey 	and 	concluding 	that 	the 	topics 	were 	not 	appropriate 	for
the 	board 	to 	consider 	directly and 	should 	be 	referred 	to 	the
District 	negotiator 	to 	be 	handled 	through 	the 	consulting
process. 	He 	claimed 	that 	the 	District 	had 	never 	refused 	to
discuss 	any 	issue 	at 	the 	negotiating 	table.3
Angove 	said 	that 	he 	had 	found 	the management 	consultant
proposal 	to 	be 	unclear 	and 	referred 	it 	to Bukey 	because 	he 	did
"not 	want 	to place 	the District 	in a position where we might 	be
moving 	into 	an 	area 	that 	could have 	been 	negotiable." 	He 	said
that 	his letter 	conveyed 	that, 	while 	he 	did 	not 	think 	that 	this
proposal was 	negotiable, 	he wanted 	the matter 	to be 	reviewed.
He 	said 	that 	he 	did 	not 	personally 	seek 	clarification of 	the
proposal, 	even though he 	thought 	it 	to be 	unclear, 	because he
wanted CTA 	to meet 	with 	the District 	representative 	in 	the meet
and 	consult process. 	He acknowledged 	that 	if 	some other
3Angove 	apparently 	referred 	to 	the 	District's 	willingness
to 	consider 	"consultable" 	items 	at 	the 	bargaining 	table.
5

organization 	had 	submitted 	the proposal, 	he would 	have met with
it 	to try 	to understand 	its concerns 	and 	that, 	if 	the
organization 	insisted, 	he probably would 	have placed 	the matter
on 	the 	agenda 	with 	the 	recommendation 	that 	the 	board 	take
"evasive 	action." 	He 	further 	testified 	that he has 	often
directed 	proposals 	such 	as 	the Association's 	to other 	forums
for 	resolution, 	but he could 	recall only one 	instance when he
had 	done 	so.
At 	the 	trustees' 	February 9 meeting, 	Allen was prepared 	to
make 	a presentation 	related 	to 	the 	1981 	staff 	satisfaction
survey which had 	been placed 	on 	the 	agenda. 	However, 	when 	the
matter 	arose, 	the 	board 	received 	the 	document 	but 	refused 	to
allow him 	to discuss 	the matter 	in 	either 	open or 	closed
session, 	although 	the District claimed 	at 	the hearing 	that 	it
would 	have 	permitted Allen 	to 	speak 	during 	a 	separate 	"public
comment" 	period 	following 	the 	consideration of 	agenda 	items.
The 	trustees 	acted 	pursuant 	to 	their Bylaw B-9.32 	which
reads, in part:
The 	order 	of 	business 	of 	any official
meeting 	will 	include 	an opportunity 	for 	the
public 	to address 	the 	board 	on any 	item of
business which 	is 	included 	in 	the 	agenda.
The 	board 	reserves 	the 	rights 	to 	fix 	such
time 	limits on presentations 	as 	it deems
appropriate 	to 	the 	occasion 	and may 	limit
the 	number 	of 	spokesmen who appear 	before 	it
in opposition to or 	in 	support of a given
issue 	being 	considered 	by 	the 	board. 	The
agenda 	of 	regular 	meetings 	shall provide 	an
opportunity 	for 	citizens 	to address 	the
board.
6

Persons wishing 	to comment on 	the 	nature of
a position 	to be 	filled may do 	so 	in open
meeting, 	but 	comments on 	the qualifications
or 	fitness 	of 	any 	employee 	or 	prospective
employee 	shall be made only 	in writing 	and
be 	signed 	by 	the 	person 	submitting 	them;
additional verbal 	comments 	shall be made 	to
the 	board 	only 	in closed 	sessions on
personnel matters, 	at the will of 	the board
. . . . 	(Emphasis 	added.)
Allen 	testified 	that 	he 	believes 	that 	he did 	not protest
the 	board's 	denial 	of 	his 	request 	because he was 	both 	surprised
by 	it 	and 	unfamiliar with 	the bylaw. 	Rather, 	during 	the public
comment 	portion 	of 	the meeting 	which 	followed 	consideration of
items 	placed 	on 	the 	agenda, 	he 	read a prepared 	statement
protesting Angove's 	refusal 	to place 	the 	contract 	extension 	and
management 	consultant 	proposals 	on 	the 	agenda 	and 	suggested
that 	the 	board 	may 	have 	violated 	section 	72121.5 	of 	the
Education 	Code.4
According 	to Allen's 	uncontroverted 	testimony, 	Placer
County County Counsel 	Doug 	Lewis 	then 	advised 	the 	trustees 	that
the 	right of an exclusive 	representative to place matters, 	such
as 	those proposed by the Association, 	on 	the agenda 	is
distinguishable 	from 	that 	of 	other 	organizations 	and
individuals 	because EERA does 	not grant 	such 	a 	right 	to an
exclusive 	representative.
4This 	section 	sets 	forth 	State 	requirements 	particularly
applicable 	to 	the 	right of 	the public 	to address 	the governing
bodies 	in 	the public 	school 	system.
7

In late February, 	the Association 	resubmitted 	the 	contract
extension 	and 	management 	consultant 	proposals 	for 	inclusion 	on
the 	board 	agenda of March 	9. 	By letter 	of March 	4, 	Angove
again denied 	the 	requests, 	again suggesting that, 	if 	the
Association 	believed 	that 	they 	were 	either 	negotiable 	or
"consultable," 	it 	should submit 	the 	requests 	to 	the 	District's
representative 	for 	consideration. 	He 	advised 	the Association
that 	it 	could 	address 	the 	board 	during 	the 	public comments
section of 	the 	agenda, 	and would 	be 	able 	to speak 	to 	the matter
of 	the 	superintendents' 	contracts 	at 	such 	time as 	their 	renewal
was 	placed on 	the 	agenda.
At 	the March 	9 meeting, 	the 	board 	considered 	a 	revision of
its 	Bylaw B-9.3 	which 	established 	the 	procedure 	for 	placing
items 	on 	the 	board's monthly agenda. 	The 	revision 	stated 	in
part:
The 	Board 	of 	Trustees 	welcomes 	participation
of 	interested 	organizations 	and 	individual
members 	of 	the 	public. 	Any 	individual
member 	of 	the 	public may 	place 	a matter
directly 	related 	to 	community 	college
district 	business 	on 	the 	agenda of 	the
community college 	district 	Board 	of 	Trustees
meeting.
Allen 	testified 	that 	a 	representative 	of 	the 	League 	of
Taxpayers objected 	to 	the 	proposal 	because 	it 	would 	exclude
organizations 	from 	placing 	matters 	on 	the 	board's 	agenda 	and
that, 	when Bukey 	acknowledged 	that 	this 	would 	be 	the 	effect 	of
the 	revision, 	the 	board made 	it 	clear 	that 	it did not 	intend 	to
8

preclude 	all 	organizations 	from 	access 	to 	the 	agenda 	but 	only
bargaining 	agents. 	Though 	the 	trustees 	also considered other
objections 	to 	the 	revision, 	Allen's 	testimony was 	not
discredited. 	Subsequently, 	a 	redrafted 	revision was 	adopted 	on
April 13, 1982. 	It reads, in part:
An organization or 	individual member 	of 	the
public may 	place 	a matter 	directly 	related
to 	community college 	district 	business 	on
the 	agenda of 	the 	community 	college 	district
Board of Trustees 	meetings, 	subject 	to the
following 	conditions:
4. 	An organization which 	is 	an employee
organization, 	within the meaning of
Government Code 	section 	3540.1(d) 	shall
submit 	negotiable and/or 	consult 	items, 	as
those 	terms 	are 	defined 	by Government Code
section 3543.2, 	to the Board's
representatives 	for 	consideration 	under 	the
provisions 	of 	the Educational Employment
Relations Act. 	The Board 	reserves 	the 	right
to 	consider 	such 	items 	through 	the
collective 	bargaining 	process 	or 	in 	its
discretion may place 	such 	items 	on 	the
Board's 	regular 	agenda 	for 	consideration.
(Emphasis 	added.)
During 	the 	discussion 	which 	preceded 	adoption of 	the
revision, 	Allen 	unsuccessfully objected 	that 	the 	proposal
discriminated 	against 	employee 	organizations 	by 	requiring 	them
to 	go 	through special procedures.
On March 	10, 	1982, 	the Association 	filed an unfair practice
charge 	that Angove's 	and 	the 	board's 	conduct 	prior 	to 	and 	at
the 	February 	board 	meeting 	violated 	EERA 	subsections 	3543.5(a)
• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	•
9

and 	(b)5 by 	discriminating 	against 	employees 	because 	of 	their
exercise 	of 	protected 	rights 	and 	by 	interfering 	with 	the
Association's 	right 	to 	represent 	its 	members 	in their
employment 	relations. 	The 	charge 	was 	amended 	on March 	15 	and
then 	again on April 	29, 	to 	include 	the District's conduct 	prior
to 	and 	at 	the March 	and April 	board meetings.
In 	its 	21 	exceptions, 	the District 	contests 	virtually all
of 	the ALJ's 	conclusions 	of 	law 	and 	certain of 	his 	findings 	of
fact. 	We find 	it 	appropriate 	to consider 	the 	issues 	on 	the
basis of 	the 	entire 	record of 	the 	proceedings 	below. 	The
foregoing 	statement 	of 	facts 	is 	based 	on our 	independent 	review
of 	that 	record.
DISCUSSION
In San Ramon Valley Unified School District 	(8/9/82) 	PERB
Decision No. 	230, 	this Board concluded 	that 	under 	section
5Subsections 	3543.5(a) 	and 	(b) 	state:
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
to interfere with, 	restrain, or 	coerce
employees 	because of 	their 	exercise of
rights 	guaranteed 	by 	this 	chapter.
(b) 	Deny 	to employee 	organizations 	rights
guaranteed 	to 	them 	by 	this 	chapter.
10

3543.16 	of EERA 	employee 	organizations 	have 	the 	right 	to
address 	school 	board meetings, 	but 	recognized 	that 	the 	right 	is
limited 	because 	of 	their 	concurrent 	obligations 	under 	the Act
to meet 	and 	negotiate 	with 	the 	public school 	employer. 	Relying
upon City of 	Madison v. 	Wisconsin Employment 	Relations
Commission 	(1976) 	429 U.S. 	167 	[93 LRRM 2970] 	and Henrico
Professional Firefighters Association, 	Local 	1568 v. 	Board of
Supervisors of Henrico County 	(4th Cir 	1981) 	649 	F.2d 	237 	[107
LRRM 2432], 	the 	Board 	found 	that 	the 	negotiating scheme
established 	by 	EERA 	forbids 	the 	parties 	from 	dictating 	who 	the
other 	side's 	negotiators 	shall 	be, 	and 	that 	the 	bargaining
process 	would 	be 	subverted 	if 	the 	exclusive 	representative
could 	bypass 	the 	employer's 	negotiators 	and 	bargain 	directly
with 	the school 	board. 	Accordingly, 	we 	distinguished 	between
an 	employee 	organization's 	right 	to advocate or 	present 	its
6Subsection 3543.1(a) 	states:
(a) 	Employee organizations shall 	have 	the
right 	to 	represent 	their 	members 	in 	their
employment 	relations 	with 	public 	school
employers, 	except that once 	an employee
organization 	is 	recognized 	or 	certified 	as
the 	exclusive 	representative 	of 	an
appropriate 	unit 	pursuant 	to Section 	3544.1
or 	3544.7, 	respectively, only that employee
organization may 	represent 	that 	unit 	in
their 	employment 	relations 	with 	the 	public
school 	employer. 	Employee 	organizations may
establish 	reasonable 	restrictions 	regarding
who may 	join 	and may make 	reasonable
provisions 	for 	the 	dismissal of 	individuals
from membership.
11

position 	on 	a matter 	and 	its 	right 	to 	negotiate 	or 	litigate
grievances 	at a 	public meeting of 	the 	school 	board. 	Although
we 	found 	a violation 	in 	that 	case 	because 	the 	district 	had
prohibited 	all 	discussion 	without 	knowledge 	of 	what 	the
organization 	intended 	to 	say, 	we 	indicated 	that 	a public 	school
employer 	could 	lawfully 	prohibit 	a 	public 	presentation 	by 	an
employee 	organization 	when 	the 	latter 	attempts 	to either
negotiate 	or 	litigate 	grievances.
Because, 	in San Ramon, supra, the 	association attempted 	to
speak 	to 	the matter 	of 	an 	advisory 	arbitration 	award 	issued 	in
the 	course 	of 	processing 	an employee 	grievance, 	a matter 	on
which 	an organization 	has 	the 	right 	to 	represent 	unit
employees,7 the 	Board 	did 	not 	consider 	whether 	there 	were
other 	limits 	to 	the 	protection 	afforded 	by 	EERA when employee
organizations 	seek 	to 	discuss 	matters 	before 	the 	school 	board.
Consequently, 	we must 	address 	the 	following 	questions:
1. 	Did CTA 	seek 	to 	address 	the 	board 	in public
session on matters 	which 	fall 	within 	its 	statutory
right 	to 	represent 	unit 	employees 	"in 	their 	employment
relations 	with 	the 	public school 	employer?"
2. 	If 	so, 	did CTA wish 	to negotiate directly with
the 	board?
3. 	Did 	the District 	violate CTA's 	right 	to place
matters 	on 	the 	board's 	agenda or 	speak 	to such matters
at 	a public meeting of 	the 	board?
7See 	Mt. 	Diablo/Santa Ana/Capistrano 	Unified 	School
Districts 	(12/30/77) 	EERB 	Decision 	No.44. 	Prior 	to 	January 	1,
1978, 	PERB was 	known as 	the Educational Employment Relations
Board.
12

In 	King City Joint 	Union High 	School District 	(3/3/82) 	PERB
Decision No. 	197, 	which 	concerned 	the permissible uses of
nonmember 	service 	fees 	by 	the 	exclusive 	representative, 	we
concluded 	that 	the 	range 	of 	representational 	activities
protected 	by 	subsection 	3543.1 	goes 	well 	beyond 	the 	subjects
listed 	in 	subsection 	3543.2 	as 	negotiable or 	subject 	to
consultation 	and 	includes 	a 	broad 	spectrum of 	concerns 	which
arise 	out 	of 	the 	employment 	relationship 	and 	employee 	rights
granted 	by EERA. 	While 	the Board 	did 	not 	list 	every 	activity
which 	lies 	within 	the 	boundaries of 	"employment 	relations," 	it
did 	intend 	to 	fashion 	a working 	definition of 	the 	phrase. 	Our
application of 	that 	definition here 	to 	indicate 	those 	kinds of
matters 	which 	could be 	addressed 	by CTA at 	the 	trustees'
meeting 	as 	a matter 	of EERA 	right 	is 	consistent with 	the
courts' 	holdings 	in City of Madison and Henrico, 	and with our
jurisdiction 	over 	charges 	alleging 	violations 	of EERA.
The 	superintendents' 	contracts; 	The choice of 	its
managerial 	staff 	and 	the 	terms 	and 	conditions of 	their
employment 	are matters 	reserved 	to 	the 	discretion of 	the
employer.8 In 	such matters, 	the 	employer 	is 	not obligated 	to
seek 	the 	approval 	of 	the 	exclusive 	representative or 	to
negotiate 	or 	consult with 	the 	organization prior 	to 	taking
action. 	While 	virtually 	every 	action 	by 	a 	school 	employer 	is
8See 	KONO-TV-Mission Telecasting Corp. 	(1967) 	163 NLRB
1005 	[65 	LRRM 	1082].
13

likely 	to 	have 	some 	impact 	on 	its 	relations 	with 	its 	employees,
the 	employer's 	need 	to 	select 	its 	own management 	cadre 	is 	too
fundamental 	to 	be 	burdened 	by 	the 	requirement 	that 	it 	submit
its 	decisions 	to 	the 	scrutiny and 	comment 	of 	its 	employees 	or
their 	organizations. 	For 	that 	reason, 	and 	because we 	also 	find
the 	connection 	between 	the 	Association's 	proposal 	and 	employee
concerns 	too 	attenuated 	to fall 	within 	the 	compass 	of 	protected
employer-employee 	relations, 	we 	conclude 	that 	CTA has 	no
protected 	right 	under 	EERA 	to 	address 	the matter 	in 	public
session.9 The 	charge 	with 	respect 	to 	the 	superintendents'
contracts must 	be 	dismissed.
The 	consultant 	proposal presents 	a close 	issue 	of 	fact.
The 	proposal 	refers 	to 	the failure of 	the District 	to 	budget
funds 	for 	cost-of-living wage 	adjustments. 	This 	reference 	was
sufficient 	to 	alert 	the District 	that 	some 	areas 	of 	"employment
relations" 	falling 	within CTA's 	protected 	representational
range 	would 	be 	addressed 	by 	its 	speaker.
While we 	do 	not 	know 	precisely what Allen would 	have 	said,
we 	are 	satisfied 	that 	the 	proposal 	included matters 	on which
CTA 	is 	entitled 	to 	represent 	its 	unit 	constituency.
Particularly 	in 	view of 	his 	assurance 	that 	he 	did 	not 	intend 	to
negotiate 	with 	the 	trustees, 	we find 	no justification for 	the
9 In so 	holding 	we 	do 	not 	imply 	that 	CTA 	is 	without
recourse 	in 	another 	form.
14
--·-----

District's 	arbitrary 	rejection 	of 	Allen's 	request.10
Consequently, 	we 	find that 	as 	to this matter, 	the District
violated subsection 3543.5(b), 	and concurrently, 	subsection
3543.5(a).
The 	satisfaction surveys; 	It 	is 	beyond dispute 	that
employee 	evaluation 	procedures 	and 	sabbatical 	and 	other 	leaves
of 	absence 	are 	matters 	of 	employment 	relations 	within 	the 	range
of CTA's 	right of 	representation. 	Indeed, 	they 	are
specifically listed 	as 	negotiable matters 	in subsection
3543.2. 	"Working 	conditions" 	is 	a broad 	term which may or may
not 	include 	negotiable elements 	but, 	in all, 	is certainly an
aspect of 	employment 	relations. 	We 	do not dispute 	the
District's 	right 	to 	require 	that 	negotiations 	on 	these matters
be limited to the bargaining table. 	But 	it cannot, 	by
asserting 	that 	right 	or 	by 	the 	mere 	public receipt of 	the
Association's 	document, 	deny 	the 	employee 	organization 	its
right 	to 	address 	the 	trustees 	in public session 	even on 	such
subjects, 	provided 	that 	the 	organization does 	not 	intentionally
or 	inadvertently attempt 	to 	negotiate.
l 0 At 	the 	hearing, 	the 	District 	conceded 	that 	CTA's
proposal 	was 	unclear 	and 	that Angove 	had 	not 	sought
clarification 	before 	refusing CTA's 	request. 	Yet, 	it 	formed
the opinion 	that 	the 	subject 	was 	neither 	negotiable 	nor 	subject
to consultation. 	Presumably, 	this 	attempted 	limitation was
predicated 	on 	the District's 	narrow 	interpretation 	of 	the 	right
of 	representation.
15

Since CTA was 	denied 	the 	right 	to 	talk 	to 	this 	subject, 	we
cannot 	determine 	whether 	it 	would 	have 	exceeded 	EERA's
permissible 	limits of 	speech. 	We 	can 	and 	do 	accept 	the
assurances 	it 	conveyed 	to 	the 	District 	that 	it 	did not 	wish 	to
negotiate 	and 	did 	not 	consider 	its 	proposal 	to 	be 	negotiable.
Absent 	any 	information 	to 	the 	contrary, 	the District 	was
obligated 	to 	do 	the 	same. 	As 	in 	the matter 	of 	the 	consultant
proposal, 	we 	find 	the 	District 	violated 	subsections 	3543.5(a)
and (b) .
District Bylaw B-9.3; 	We find 	no violation 	in 	the
District's 	effort 	to protect 	itself 	from 	the 	requirement 	that
it 	negotiate 	in public session 	by 	establishing 	a 	screening
procedure 	applicable 	to employee 	organizations. 	While 	the
procedure 	involved 	may 	be 	unique 	or 	different 	from 	that
required of 	other 	organizations 	and 	individuals, 	it 	is 	not
unreasonable 	in 	light 	of 	the 	circumstances 	created 	by 	EERA
which 	certainly 	provides 	to labor 	organizations 	unique 	and
exclusive 	procedures 	for 	doing 	business 	with 	the 	school
employer.
However, 	in 	reserving 	the 	blanket 	right 	to 	consider
organizational 	submissions 	either 	through 	the 	collective
bargaining 	process 	or 	through 	its 	regular 	public meeting
agenda, 	the 	bylaw exceeds 	the District's 	authority 	to 	regulate
presentations. 	The Association 	is 	entitled 	by 	law 	to negotiate
on 	negotiable matters 	just 	as 	it 	is 	otherwise 	entitled 	to 	a
16

public 	hearing 	short 	of 	negotiations 	on matters 	within 	its
range 	of 	representation.
Furthermore, 	in 	reserving discretion 	to refuse 	agenda
position 	to 	"consultable" 	matters 	and 	to 	assign 	them 	to 	the
bargaining 	table, 	the 	bylaw precludes 	an employee 	organization
from public 	presentation 	of 	matters 	which 	the District 	itself
acknowledges 	to be 	nonnegotiable.
In summary, 	we 	find 	that 	section 4 	of District Bylaw B-9.3,
with 	the 	exception 	of 	the 	"screening" 	procedure 	contained
therein, 	violates 	subsection 3543.5(b) 	by 	interfering with
CTA's 	right 	to 	represent 	unit 	employees 	in 	their 	employment
relations 	with 	their 	public 	school 	employer 	and, 	concurrently,
violates 	subsection 	3543.5(a) 	by 	interfering with 	the 	right of
the 	employees 	to participate 	in 	the 	activities of 	their
representative 	organization.
ORDER
Based 	on 	the 	record 	and 	the 	arguments 	of 	the 	parties 	on
appeal, 	the Public Employment Relations Board ORDERS 	that:
1. 	The 	Sierra Joint Community College District 	cease 	and
desist 	from 	denying 	to 	the 	Sierra 	College Faculty Association,
CTA/NEA, 	the 	right 	to place matters 	concerning 	the 	employment
relations 	of 	the District's 	employees 	in 	the 	certificated 	unit
on 	an 	agenda of 	the District board of 	trustees, 	including
proposals 	for 	appointment 	of 	a management consultant 	to
consider 	District 	policy 	and 	practice 	affecting 	such 	employee
17

relations, 	and 	consideration of 	employee 	satisfaction 	surveys
conducted 	by 	the Association.
2. 	The 	District 	rescind 	those 	portions 	of 	its Bylaw B-9.3
which 	reserves 	to 	the 	trustees 	the 	discretion 	to 	consider
organizational 	presentations 	either 	through 	collective
bargaining or 	at public meetings 	of 	the 	trustees.
3. 	The District 	shall prepare 	and 	post 	the Notice 	to
Employees 	attached 	hereto 	as Appendix A 	at 	all 	locations 	where
the District's 	notices 	to 	certificated 	employees 	are
customarily placed 	and maintain 	such 	posting 	for 	a 	period 	of
not 	less 	than 	thirty 	(30) 	consecutive workdays 	commencing 	30
days 	after 	service 	of 	this Decision 	and Order 	on 	the District.
4. 	The District 	shall 	notify 	the Sacramento 	regional
director 	of 	its 	compliance 	with 	this 	Order 	within 	forty
(40) 	days of 	service of 	this Decision and Order.
Members Jaeger 	and Burt 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
18

APPENDIX A
NOTICE 	TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY 	ORDER OF 	THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
An Agency of 	the State 	of 	California
Pursuant 	to a hearing 	in unfair 	practice 	case No. 	SF-CE-488,
the 	Sierra Joint Community College District 	was 	found 	to 	have
unlawfully 	interfered 	with 	the 	right 	of 	the 	Sierra College
Faculty Association, 	CTA/NEA 	to 	represent 	employees 	in 	the
certificated 	representation 	unit 	by denying 	it 	the 	opportunity
to 	address 	the District 	board 	of 	trustees 	in 	public 	session on
the 	employment 	of 	a management 	consultant 	to 	be 	jointly selected
by 	the District 	and 	the Association, 	and on 	certain employee
satisfaction 	surveys 	conducted 	by 	the Association.
The District's 	board of 	trustees Bylaw B-9.3 was 	also 	found
to 	unlawfully 	interfere 	with 	the Association's 	right 	to
represent 	unit 	employees 	through 	negotiations 	by 	reserving 	to
the 	trustees 	the 	discretion 	to 	consider 	organizational
submissions 	either 	through 	the 	bargaining 	process 	or 	at 	public
meetings of 	the 	trustees.
As 	a consequence of 	these 	findings, 	the District 	has 	been
ordered 	to post 	this NOTICE 	and 	will:
1. 	CEASE 	AND DESIST 	from denying 	the Association 	the 	right
to present proposals 	for 	the 	employment of 	a management
consultant 	and/or 	employee 	satisfaction 	surveys 	which 	it 	has
conducted, 	at a 	public meeting of 	the District 	board of
trustees, and
2. 	Rescind 	those 	portions 	of 	the 	District's Bylaw B-9.3
which 	reserves 	to 	the 	trustees 	the 	discretion 	to 	consider
organizational 	presentations 	either 	through 	collective
bargaining or 	at 	public meetings of 	the 	trustees.
SIERRA 	JOINT 	COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT
Dated: 	By:
Authorized 	Agent
THIS 	IS AN 	OFFICIAL NOTICE. 	IT MUST 	REMAIN POSTED FOR NOT 	LESS
THAN THIRTY 	(30) 	CONSECUTIVE WORKDAYS 	FROM THE 	DATE 	OF POSTING
AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED, 	ALTERED, 	REDUCED 	IN SIZE OR COVERED BY
ANY OTHER MATERIAL.