Grenada Elementary School District (PERB 0387E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
GRENADA ELEMENTARY 	SCHOOL 	DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
GRENADA 	TEACHERS 	ASSOCIATION,
CTA/NEA,
Employee 	Organization,
and
ELIZABETH YOUNG DEALEY, 	et al.,
Petitioners/Appellants.
Case No. 	S-D-67
(S-R-222)
PERB Decision No. 	387
June 29, 	1984
Appearances: 	Elizabeth Young Dealey, 	et al., 	Petitioners/
Appellants, 	in pro per; M. Mari Merchat, Attorney
(Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard) 	for Grenada
Elementary School District; 	Kirsten L. 	Zerger, 	Attorney
for 	Grenada Teachers Association, 	CTA/NEA.
Before Tovar, 	Morgenstern and Burt, 	Members.
DECISION
BURT, 	Member: 	Appellants 	are 	seven 	teachers 	in 	the Grenada
Elementary School District 	(District), 	six of whom signed 	a
decertification 	petition 	seeking 	to 	decertify 	the 	Grenada
Teachers Association, 	CTA/NEA 	(GTA or Association) 	as 	the
exclusive 	representative 	of 	the 	certificated 	unit 	in 	the
District. 	They 	appeal 	a Public Employment 	Relations Board
(PERB 	or Board) 	regional office order 	blocking 	the 	election
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_______________ )

pending 	the 	resolution of 	unfair 	practice 	charges 	filed 	by GTA
against 	the District.
FACTS
The 	Grenada Elementary School 	District 	is 	located 	in
Siskiyou County. 	The 	District 	employs 	nine 	teachers 	who 	are
represented 	by 	the Association. 	The Association was
voluntarily 	recognized 	by 	the District 	in 	1976.
The Association 	and 	the District 	have 	entered 	into 	two
collective 	bargaining 	agreements. 	The 	first 	agreement 	was
executed on March 	11, 	1980. 	A 	second 	agreement 	began on
July 1, 	1981 	and expired on June 30, 	1982. 	The District and
the Association 	have 	not 	negotiated 	a 	successor 	agreement.
On November 	17, 	1983, 	a group of 	teachers 	filed a
decertification 	petition 	against 	the Association. 	The 	regional
office 	issued 	an 	administrative 	determination 	on December 	20,
1983 	establishing 	that 	the 	petition 	was 	timely 	filed 	and
accompanied 	by 	adequate 	proof 	of 	support 	pursuant 	to PERB
regulation 	32770.1
The Association 	filed 	an 	unfair 	practice 	charge 	(Case
No. 	S-CE-712)2 	against 	the District on December 	23, 	1983 	and
amended 	the 	charge on February 14, 	1984. 	As 	a part of 	its
1PERB 	regulations 	are 	codified 	at 	California
Administrative Code, 	title 8, 	section 31001, 	et seq.
2We 	hereby 	take 	administrative 	notice 	of 	the PERB 	case
files 	in Case Nos. 	S-CE-712 	and S-CE-524.
N	
2

unfair 	practice 	charge, 	the Association 	requested 	a 	stay of
election 	in accordance 	with 	regulation 	32752, 	which provides
that PERB may 	stay 	an 	election 	where 	the 	conduct 	alleged 	would
affect 	the 	election process 	and 	interfere 	with 	employee 	free
choice.
The Association's charge, 	as amended, 	contains a lengthy
recitation of 	alleged 	violations, 	many 	dating 	back 	over 	two
years.
Many of 	these 	charges, 	and 	a 	few others, 	were 	included 	by
the Association 	in 	its previous 	charges 	in Case No. 	S-CE-524,
filed on July 	19, 	1982. 	A general complaint 	issued 	in 	that
case on September 	21, 	1982. 	The 	file 	in that case 	reflects
that 	those 	charges 	were 	withdrawn with 	prejudice 	pursuant 	to 	a
settlement 	agreement 	signed 	by GTA 	and 	the District 	on
February 22, 	1983. 	In return for withdrawal of charges, 	the
District 	agreed 	to 	abide 	by 	the 	law. 	The Board 	was 	not
involved 	in 	the 	settlement.
In 	the 	instant 	case 	the 	regional 	office 	dismissed 	some 	of
the 	charges 	and 	issued a complaint on March 13, 	1984, 	charging
the District with violating subsections 3543.5(a), 	(b) 	and 	(c)
of 	the 	Educational Employment 	Relations Act 	(EERA)3 by
3The 	EERA 	is 	codified 	at 	Government 	Code 	section 	3540
et 	seq. 	Unless 	otherwise 	noted, 	all 	references 	are 	to the
Government 	Code.
33

refusing 	to 	negotiate 	in 	good 	faith. 	The material 	allegations
of 	the 	complaint 	are 	that 	the District:
1. 	Reneged on a 	tentative 	agreement on October 	11, 	1983,
2. 	Failed 	to provide 	a 	final 	typed 	version of 	a 	tentative
agreement 	reached October 	31, 	1983,
3. 	Refused 	to bargain with 	the Association 	since 	on or
about November 14, 	1983, 	and
4. 	On or 	about November 	22, 	1983, 	took unilateral 	action
on 	a 	required 	subject 	of 	bargaining 	by 	resolving 	to give 	a
one-time 	pay 	increase 	to 	unit 	members 	without 	negotiating 	with
the Association 	and 	subsequently 	distributing 	the 	money.
In 	support 	of 	these 	allegations, 	the Association has
charged 	that 	the 	parties, 	after 	negotiating 	since March 	1982,
reached 	agreement 	on a 	successor 	contract on August 25, 	1983,
subject 	only 	to 	putting 	the 	agreement 	in 	writing 	and 	securing
the 	ratification of 	the 	parties. 	The 	agreement was 	to be 	typed
and mailed 	by September 	2, 	but 	the Association did 	not 	receive
it 	until September 	23. 	The Association 	further 	alleges 	that
the 	typed 	version 	contained 	many 	omissions 	and 	oversights 	about
which 	the 	Association's 	negotiator 	unsuccessfully 	attempted 	to
contact 	the District's 	negotiator 	by phone. 	The Association
negotiator 	wrote 	to 	the 	District 	outlining 	the 	problems 	on
October 	7. 	The District 	negotiator 	responded 	by 	phone 	on
October 	11, 	indicating 	that 	the 	school 	board 	refused 	to accept
the 	document 	as 	a 	tentative 	agreement, 	wished 	to change 	its
4

mind 	about 	salary, 	no 	longer 	wanted 	a 	three-year 	agreement, 	and
had 	problems 	with 	the 	agreement 	generally. 	The 	parties met
again on October 	31, 	and 	once 	again 	reached 	tentative
agreement. 	The 	agreement was 	to be 	typed 	by 	the 	District and
sent 	to 	the Association 	by November 	9, 	with 	ratification 	by 	the
teachers 	set 	for November 	14. 	The District 	failed 	to perform
these 	tasks, 	and 	refused 	to negotiate with GTA after 	the
decertification 	petition 	was 	filed.
With 	regard 	to 	the 	alleged 	unilateral 	change 	in wages, 	the
Association 	contends 	in 	its 	charge 	that 	salary has 	been 	a major
item 	in negotiations, 	with 	the District offering 	no 	increase
for 	1982-83. 	The Association 	questioned 	whether 	the 	District
was 	in compliance with Education Code 	section 41372, 	which
mandates 	that 	no 	less 	than 	60 	percent of 	an elementary 	school
district's 	costs 	shall be 	for 	instructional 	salaries.
Specifically, 	the Association's 	bargaining 	chair 	raised 	this
issue 	at 	a 	school board meeting 	in October 	1982.
GTA further 	contends that on December 	14, 	1983, 	after 	the
filing of 	the 	decertification petition, 	the District 	notified
all 	teachers 	that 	they would 	receive 	an 	immediate 	increase 	in
salary 	in order 	to bring 	the District 	into compliance 	with 	this
section of the Education Code. 	On January 18, 	1984, 	the
District distributed 	the 	money. 	The Association 	was 	never
given 	an opportunity 	to 	negotiate 	about 	this 	change.
5

The 	Sacramento 	regional 	office 	notified 	all 	interested
parties 	in a letter 	dated March 15, 	1984, 	that an 	investigation
was 	being 	conducted 	to 	determine 	whether 	or 	not 	the 	election
should 	be 	stayed 	pending 	resolution 	of 	the 	unfair 	practice
complaint. 	The 	parties 	were 	afforded 	an opportunity 	to 	submit
facts 	or 	legal 	argument 	and 	responding 	argument 	to 	the 	issue 	of
the 	stay. 	The District, 	the Association 	and 	the Petitioners
all 	responded.
On April 	18, 	1984, 	the 	regional office 	issued 	its
administrative 	determination 	finding 	that 	the 	conduct 	alleged
in the complaints, 	if 	found 	to be true, 	would preclude 	the
holding of 	a 	fair 	election. 	Citing National Labor 	Relations
Board 	(NLRB) 	and PERB 	precedent, 	the Board 	agent 	set out 	the
reasons 	for 	the 	blocking 	charge 	rule 	and 	the 	rationale 	for
finding 	that 	bad 	faith 	bargaining 	allegations 	block 	elections.
He 	then 	analyzed 	each 	charge 	against 	the 	District: 	surface
bargaining 	"has 	the 	effect of 	frustrating 	the 	ability 	to 	reach
a negotiated 	settlement"; 	an outright 	refusal 	to bargain 	is
"tantamount 	to 	ignoring 	the 	existence 	of 	the Association 	and
might well have 	contributed 	to 	the 	teachers' 	view 	that 	the
Association 	is 	impotent 	and 	unnecessary"; 	unilateral 	action
necessarily 	undermines 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	in 	the 	eyes
of employees.
The Board 	agent 	noted 	that 	the 	District 	defended 	its
refusal 	to 	negotiate 	and 	its 	unilateral 	change 	by 	arguing 	that
6

these 	actions 	were 	justified 	by 	a good 	faith 	doubt 	as 	to
majority 	status of 	the Association. 	He 	cited NLRB 	v. 	Carilli
(CA 9 	1981) 	648 P.2d 1206 	[107 LRRM 2961], 	however, 	to conclude
that 	the 	claim of good 	faith 	doubt of majority 	status 	is 	not
available 	to 	an employer 	as 	a defense 	to a 	refusal 	to bargain
when 	the 	employer 	itself 	has 	undermined 	the 	organization's
support.
Finding 	that 	the 	conduct 	alleged 	would 	preclude 	the 	holding
of 	a 	fair 	election, 	the 	regional office 	therefore 	stayed 	the
decertification 	election 	pending 	the 	resolution 	of 	the 	unfair
practice complaint. 	The Petitioners 	appeal 	this
determination. 	The 	District 	filed 	"Exceptions 	in Support of
Appeal" 	of Petitioners, 	and 	the Association responded 	to both.
DISCUSSION
The Board 	applied 	a 	blocking 	charge 	rule 	in Jefferson
School District 	(6/29/79) 	PERB Decision No. 	Ad-66, 	noting 	that
a 	decision 	to 	stay an election will 	not be 	exercised 	by 	rote,
but will 	be made 	on 	the 	facts 	of each 	case. 	It 	there 	found 	it
proper 	to 	block 	an 	election 	where
. 	. 	. 	the employees' 	dissatisfaction with
their 	representative 	is 	in all 	likelihood
attributable 	to 	the 	employer's 	unfair
practices 	rather 	than 	to 	the 	exclusive
representative's 	failure 	to 	respond 	to and
serve 	the 	needs of 	the employees 	it
represents.
The Board 	there 	directed 	the 	regional 	director 	to
. 	. 	. 	conduct an investigation to determine
whether 	a danger 	remains 	that 	the 	District's
V7

alleged 	unlawful conduct 	will 	so 	affect 	the
election 	process 	as 	to prevent 	the 	employees
from 	freely 	selecting 	their 	exclusive
representative.
Subsequently, 	it codified 	that 	rule 	in regulation 32752,
following 	the 	practice of 	the NLRB 	in 	the private 	sector:
The Board 	may 	stay 	an 	election 	pending 	the
resolution of 	an 	unfair 	practice 	charge
relating 	to 	the 	voting 	unit 	upon 	an
investigation 	and 	a 	finding 	that 	alleged
unlawful 	conduct would 	so 	affect 	the
election process 	as 	to prevent 	the 	employees
from 	exercising 	free 	choice.
The NLRB's 	blocking 	charge 	rule 	was 	upheld 	by 	the 	court 	in
Bishop v. 	NLRB 	(5th Cir. 	1974) 	502 F.2d 	1024 	[87 LRRM 2524]
noting 	that:
In 	the 	absence 	of 	the 	"blocking 	charge"
rule, 	many of 	the NLRB's 	sanctions 	against
employers 	who 	are 	guilty of misconduct would
lose 	all 	meaning. 	Nothing would 	be 	more
pitiful 	than 	a bargaining 	order 	where 	there
is 	no 	longer 	a 	union with which 	to bargain.
This 	principle 	has 	been 	applied 	in 	bad 	faith 	bargaining
cases, 	such as NLRB v. Big Three Industries, 	Inc. 	(5th Cir.
1974) 	497 F.2d 	[86 	LRRM 3031] 	where 	the 	court 	held:
It would 	be 	particularly 	anomalous 	and
disruptive 	of 	industrial peace 	to 	allow 	the
employer's wrongful 	refusal 	to bargain 	in
good 	faith 	to 	dissipate 	the 	union's
strength, 	and 	then 	to require 	a new election
which 	'would 	not 	be 	likely 	to demonstrate
the 	employee's 	true 	undistorted 	desires.'
• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	•
The 	reasoning 	underlying 	this 	limitation 	on
temporary 	employee 	sentiment 	flows 	from 	the
88

Supreme Court's 	decision 	in Frank Bros. 	(321
U.S. 	702, 	14 LRRM 591). 	As the Court there
stated, 	'Out of 	its wide experience, 	the
Board 	many 	times 	has 	expressed 	the 	view 	that
the 	unlawful 	refusal of 	an employer 	to
bargain 	collectively 	with 	its 	employees'
chosen 	representative 	disrupts 	the
employees' morale, 	deters their
organizational 	activities, 	and discourages
their membership 	in unions. 1
• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	•
(Blocking 	a decertification petition) 	works
no 	injustice 	to 	the employees. 	In 	the 	first
place, 	courts 	have 	long 	recognized 	that
employee 	free 	choice 	is 	not 	necessarily
reflected 	in 	an 	election where 	the 	employer,
by 	committing 	substantial 	unfair 	labor
practices, 	has poisoned 	the electoral well.
(Citations omitted.) 	Indeed, 	a
decertification 	petition 	tendered 	on 	the
heels 	of 	employer 	unfair 	labor 	practices may
'merely 	indicate 	that 	the 	unfair 	labor
practices 	. 	. 	. 	continue to affect employee
sentiment 	and 	make 	a 	fair 	election
impossible.' 	NLRB 	v. 	Kaiser Agricultural
Chemical 	(5th 	Cir. 	1973) 	473 F.2d 374.
Taken 	together, 	these 	cases 	establish 	that 	an election may
properly 	be 	blocked 	where 	there 	has 	been 	a 	failure 	to 	bargain
in good 	faith, 	since 	that conduct 	by 	its 	very nature 	undercuts
support 	for 	an 	individual union or 	unions 	in general, 	and
renders 	a 	fair election 	impossible.
Petitioners 	here 	assert 	that 	their 	decertification 	petition
was 	in 	no way 	related 	to 	any alleged 	unfair 	practices 	by 	the
employer. 	They 	allege 	that 	the 	effectiveness 	of GTA 	is 	not 	at
issue; 	simply 	that 	the 	teachers 	at Grenada do not wish 	to be
represented. 	They 	conclude 	that GTA has 	lost 	no 	support 	among
9

these 	teachers 	at Grenada 	since 	it 	never 	had 	that 	support 	so
the 	District's 	actions 	could 	have 	had 	no causal 	connection 	with
the move 	to decertify.
The 	District cites 	several 	facts 	which 	it 	says 	are 	relevant
to 	the 	decision whether 	to 	stay 	the election, 	and which 	were
allegedly 	ignored 	by 	the Board 	agent. 	The 	District 	notes 	that
six 	of 	the 	nine members 	of 	the 	unit 	signed 	the 	decertification
petition, 	and 	notes 	as well 	two 	letters dated March 	19 	and
March 	29, 	1984 	filed 	by Petitioners 	and 	signed 	by 	seven unit
members 	urging PERB 	to proceed with 	the 	election. 	It 	further
asserts 	that only one 	of 	the 	petitioning 	teachers 	had 	ever 	been
a member 	of GTA, 	and only briefly, 	and 	it 	is 	therefore untrue
that GTA has 	lost 	support. 	It claims 	that 	the Association has
had 	plenty of 	time 	to prove 	itself 	to 	the 	employees. 	The
District 	also 	asserts 	that 	the Board 	agent 	ignored 	the 	wishes
of 	those 	in 	the 	unit, 	and 	their 	assurances 	that 	a 	fair 	election
could proceed. 	The 	District 	concludes 	that, 	while 	blocking
charge 	cases 	frequently 	deal 	in 	speculation 	(whether 	misconduct
has 	a 	likelihood of affecting 	the 	employees), 	the Board may
here deal 	in certainties, 	based on 	the 	assurances of 	the 	unit
members.
In Regents 	of 	the University of California 	(SUPA) 	(4/17/84)
PERB Decision No. 	381-H, 	the Board 	addressed 	the primary
argument 	raised 	by Petitioners, 	i.e., 	the 	claim that 	the 	filing
of 	the 	decertification 	petition 	was 	not 	motivated 	by 	any 	action
10

of 	the District, 	but 	rather 	by a wish 	to eliminate 	the
exclusive 	representative. 	The Board 	found 	that 	the 	motivation
of 	the 	individual petitioners 	in 	seeking 	a 	decertification
election 	is 	not 	determinative. 	Following 	the Board's
regulations, 	the 	regional director 	is directed 	to 	investigate
not 	the 	reasons 	the 	petition was 	filed, 	but whether 	the 	alleged
unlawful 	conduct would 	so 	affect 	the 	election process 	as 	to
prevent 	the 	employees 	from exercising 	free 	choice.
Certainly this case differs 	from SUPA, 	supra, 	since here
the 	District 	actually 	has 	the 	assurance 	of 	seven of 	the 	nine
members 	of 	the 	unit 	concerning 	the 	reasons 	for 	filing 	the
petition 	and 	the 	possibility of 	a 	fair 	election. 	Nevertheless,
as 	demonstrated 	by 	the NLRB 	cases 	above, 	the proper 	focus of
the Board 	agent's 	inquiry 	is 	an objective 	evaluation of 	the
probable 	effect of 	the 	conduct 	alleged 	and 	the 	possibility of 	a
free 	election.
Both 	the Petitioners 	and 	the 	District 	argue 	here 	that 	the
Association's 	strength was 	not dissipated, 	since 	over 	time 	the
unit 	simply 	lost 	the 	members 	who 	supported 	the Association 	and
gained 	others 	who did 	not. 	That 	argument 	ignores 	the 	fact
that, 	if 	the Association's 	bad 	faith 	bargaining 	charges 	are
true, 	the 	new employees 	in 	the District 	were 	not 	faced with 	the
presence 	of 	an 	effective 	representative, 	but 	rather 	a
representative 	which 	was 	impotent 	and 	ineffective 	because 	of
the District's 	illegal 	actions.
11

The 	District objects 	to 	the Board 	agent's 	reliance 	on Big
Three, 	supra, 	since, 	in that case, 	the Association was newly
certified 	and 	had 	not 	had 	an opportunity 	to prove 	itself 	to 	its
members. 	The District contends 	that 	is 	not 	the 	case here,
since 	GTA has 	been 	certified 	since 	1976 	and 	has 	had 	ample 	time
to prove 	itself 	to employees. 	However, 	the Board 	agent did not
rely exclusively on Big Three, 	supra, 	in 	finding 	it 	appropriate
to 	block 	an 	election 	in 	the 	face 	of 	an 	alleged 	refusal 	to
bargain in good 	faith. 	Bishop, 	supra, 	which 	involved a number
of 	unfair 	labor 	practices 	including 	a 	refusal 	to 	bargain 	in
good 	faith 	upheld 	the NLRB's 	blocking 	charge 	rule 	in 	a
situation 	in which 	the 	collective 	bargaining 	relationship 	had
existed 	for 	some 	time.
The 	District 	also challenges 	the 	legal conclusions of 	the
Board 	agent 	and his 	reliance on Big Three, 	supra, 	with 	regard
to 	the 	District's 	duty 	to 	negotiate 	and 	to 	refrain 	from
unilateral 	changes 	after 	the 	filing 	of 	a 	decertification
petition. 	(In his 	letter, 	the Board 	agent noted 	that 	the NLRB
has 	determined 	that 	an 	employer 	may 	not 	raise 	good 	faith 	doubt
of majority 	status 	as 	a defense 	for 	refusing 	to bargain where
the 	employer 	has 	undermined 	the 	employee organization's
support. 	NLRB v. 	Carilli, 	supra. 	The District points 	to
recent NLRB 	cases 	concluding 	that 	the 	employer 	has 	no duty 	to
negotiate 	with 	a 	representative 	when 	it 	has 	a 	reasonable 	good
faith 	doubt of majority 	status. 	Dressier 	Industries 	Inc.
12

(1982) 	264 NLRB 	145 	[111 LRRM 1436]; 	RCA Del Caribe 	(1982) 	262
NLRB 	116 	[110 	LRRM 	1369]. 	See 	also Pittsburg Unified School
District 	(6/10/83) 	PERB Decision No. 	318.
The 	District's 	argument 	essentially 	states 	its 	defense 	to
the merits of 	the 	charge. 	As 	we 	stated 	in Pleasant Valley,
p. 7:
This 	is 	a matter 	to be addressed 	in 	the
unfair practice hearing. 	It 	is 	neither 	the
Board 	agent's 	obligation 	nor 	function 	to
resolve disputed 	facts 	or 	venture 	into 	a
pre-judgment 	of 	the 	merits 	of 	the 	unfair
practice 	complaint.
We 	find, 	then, 	that 	the District's obligation 	to negotiate
under 	these 	circumstances 	is 	properly 	resolved 	through 	the
hearing 	process, 	and 	is 	not 	properly considered 	by 	the Board 	at
this 	stage of 	the 	proceedings.
In 	urging 	that 	the Board 	proceed 	with 	the 	election 	in order
to effectuate 	the wishes of 	the members of 	the 	unit, 	the
District 	relies 	on Templeton v. 	Dixie 	Color Printing 	Company
(5th Cir. 	1972) 	463 F.2d 378 	[80 LRRM 2804], 	and Surratt v.
NLRB 	(5th Cir. 	1972) 	463 F.2d 378 	[80 LRRM 2804] 	where 	the
court ordered 	the NLRB 	to 	lift 	its 	blocking 	order 	and 	process
decertification petitions. 	In Templeton, 	the petition had 	been
dismissed 	without 	investigation 	based 	on 	unfair 	practice
charges which were 	ten years old. 	In Surratt, 	the petition was
dismissed 	based 	on 	charges 	which 	were 	not 	sustained 	at 	hearing
and 	were 	on 	appeal 	to 	the 	board, 	resulting 	in 	litigation which
13

had 	been ongoing 	for 	three 	years. 	Here 	the 	charges 	are
current, 	there 	has 	been 	no hearing 	officer's 	decision
dismissing 	the 	charges 	and 	the 	case 	is 	receiving 	expedited
treatment.4 Further, 	the 	5th 	Circuit 	decided 	the Bishop case
after Templeton 	and 	Surratt, 	characterizing 	those 	decisions 	as
limited 	to 	situations 	where 	the Board 	has 	followed 	a per 	se
rule, 	without 	any effort 	to make 	a determination on a
case-by-case 	basis. 	Here 	the 	decision 	to stay 	the 	election was
made 	after 	a 	thorough 	review of 	the 	specific 	charges 	filed 	and
the 	probable 	effect of 	the 	conduct 	alleged 	in 	the 	complaint 	on
a 	decertification 	election.
The 	District 	also 	complains 	that 	the Board 	agent 	improperly
presumed 	that 	the 	allegations 	in 	the 	complaint 	are 	true 	for
purposes of his analysis. 	However, 	it 	is clear 	that 	the Board
has 	directed 	its 	agents 	to 	do 	so 	for 	purposes of 	evaluating
whether 	or 	not 	an 	election 	should 	be 	blocked. 	Pleasant Valley
Elementary School District 	(2/28/84) 	PERB Decision No. 	380.
Petitioners 	and 	the 	District 	also 	claim 	that 	the 	regional
office 	ignored 	evidence 	developed 	in 	its 	investigation,
particularly with 	regard 	to 	the 	unilateral change, 	since 	the
change 	occurred 	after 	the 	decertification 	petition 	was 	filed
and 	could 	have 	had 	no 	effect on 	the 	decision 	to 	seek
4The 	complaint 	was 	heard 	in 	an 	expedited 	hearing 	on
May 29, 	30 	and 31, 	1984. 	The 	administrative 	law judge has not
yet 	rendered 	a 	decision.
14

decertification. 	We 	find 	the 	fact 	that 	some of 	the 	District's
alleged 	actions 	occurred 	after 	the 	filing 	of 	the 	petition
rather 	than before 	is 	immaterial 	in determining 	whether 	or 	not
a 	fair 	election 	is possible. 	Again, 	the 	focus 	remains not on
the 	reasons 	for 	filing 	a decertification petition, 	but on 	the
ability of 	the 	members 	of 	the 	unit 	to exercise 	free 	choice 	in
an election 	untainted 	by 	the 	employer's 	unfair 	practices.
The Association 	argues 	that PERB may 	rely on 	conduct
occurring 	outside 	the 	six-month 	statutory 	limitation 	in
determining 	whether 	a 	decertification 	election 	should 	be
blocked. 	The Association 	acknowledges 	that 	this 	conduct may
not 	sustain 	an 	independent 	violation of EERA, 	but 	it
nevertheless 	contends 	that, 	just 	as 	evidence of 	such 	conduct
may 	be 	used 	to 	shed 	light on 	events 	occurring 	within 	the 	time
limits, 	it may be 	considered 	in evaluating whether 	or 	not a
fair 	election 	is possible.
We 	reject 	the 	Association's 	claim 	that 	the 	regional 	office
should 	consider 	conduct 	occurring 	outside 	the 	six-months
limitation 	period 	covered 	by 	the 	complaint 	in deciding 	to 	stay
an election. 	The Board's 	investigation 	and 	decision 	to block
occurs 	only pursuant 	to 	the 	filing 	of 	timely 	charges 	alleging
conduct 	which would 	interfere with 	a 	free 	election. 	Since
PERB's 	investigation 	is 	a 	limited 	one 	which 	involves 	primarily
an 	investigation 	and analysis of 	the charges 	filed, 	it 	is
improper 	for 	the 	regional 	office 	to 	reach 	beyond 	the 	subject
15

matter 	of 	the 	complaint 	in making 	its 	decision 	whether 	or 	not
to block.
The Board 	will 	defer 	to 	the Board 	agent's 	determination
that 	an election 	should 	be 	blocked 	pursuant 	to PERB 	rule 	32752
when 	that 	order 	is 	the 	result 	of 	a 	sufficient 	investigation 	and
analysis of 	the 	allegations 	of 	the 	complaint 	and 	the 	potential
impact on 	the 	employees 	in 	the 	unit, 	and 	the 	agent's
conclusions 	are 	amply 	supported 	by 	the 	record. 	Pleasant
Valley, 	supra; 	Regents 	(SUPA), 	supra. 	We find that those
conditions 	have 	been met here, 	and 	we 	therefore 	affirm 	the
regional office's 	stay 	of 	the 	decertification 	election 	in 	this
case.
ORDER
Based on 	the 	foregoing, 	and on 	the 	record 	as 	a whole, 	the
Public Employment 	Relations Board 	hereby DENIES 	the 	appeal 	of
the 	regional 	office's 	order 	staying 	the 	election 	in Case
No. 	S-D-67 	and AFFIRMS 	that order.
Members 	Tovar 	and 	Morgenstern 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
16