Nevada Joint Union High School District (PERB 0557EA)

2 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD

CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES

ASSOCIATION AND ITS NEVADA UNION
CHAPTER NO. 165, Case No. S-CE-5S66
Charging Party, Request for Reconsideration
PERB Decision No. 557

Vv.
PERB Decision No. 557a
NEVADA JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL

me Na el eet eel Net Neel eet See Semel Senet Met Neel

DISTRICT, April 10, 1986
Respondent.
Appearances: Christopher E. Niehaus, Fi Representative, for

eld Re
California School Employees Association and its Nevada Union
Chapter No. 165; Finkle & Stroup by Mary Beth de Goede for
Nevada Joint Union High School District.
Before Morgenstern, Burt and Porter, Members.
DECISION

BURT, Member: The Public Employment Relations Board (PERB
or Board), having duly considered the request for
reconsideration of PERB Decision No. 557 submitted by Charging
Party California School Employees Association and its Nevada
Union Chapter No. 165 (CSEA or Association), hereby denies that
request.

In its Decision No. 557, the Board upheld the
administrative law judge's decision finding that the Nevada

Joint Union High School District (District) violated section

3543.5(a), (b) and (c) of the Educational Employment Relations

Act (EERA) by its unilateral change in the method of
calculating monthly payments to certain classified employees.
In so finding, the Board rejected the District's argument that
the change in calculating monthly payments had been fully
negotiated with CSEA, together with an agreement to change the
method of calculating vacation pay. The Board ordered the
parties to negotiate about the issue, but declined to order a
return to the status quo, since it found that a true status quo
ante remedy would require that both changes be reversed, thus
leaving these classified employees with a net reduction in pay.
Pursuant to PERB Regulation 32410." the Association
requests reconsideration of the remedy awarded by the Board,
claiming, as it has throughout, that the Board should roll back
the monthly pay calculation without reference to the vacation
pay agreement.
JEERA is codified at Government Code section 3540
et seq. All statutory references herein are to the Government
Code unless otherwise noted.
2PERB Regulations are codified at California
Administrative Code, title 8, section 31001 et seq.
Regulation 32410 states, in pertinent part:
) Any party to a decision of the Board
itself may, because of extraordinary
circumstances, file a request to reconsider
the decision within 20 days following the
date of service of the decision . 	The
grounds for requesting reconsideration are
limited to claims that the decision of the
Board itself contains prejudicial errors of
fact, or newly discovered evidence or law
2
lEERA
2PERB

Contrary to the Association's argument, we found in the
underlying decision that the vacation payment was included in
the prior monthly salary calculation and was integrally tied to
the underlying dispute. Accordingly, the vacation pay element
was germane rather than peripheral to the parties' dispute and
the Board appropriately determined that, to effectuate the
purposes of EERA, " it was preferable to roll back neither the
monthly pay calculation nor the vacation pay agreement than to
roll back both.
ORDER
The request for reconsideration of PERB Decision No. 557
(Case No. S-CE-566) is hereby DENIED.
Members Morgenstern and Porter joined in this Decision.
which was not previously available, and
could not have been discovered with the
exercise of reasonable diligence.
3EERA section 3541.5(c) provides as follows:	3EERA
(c) The board shall have the power to issue
a decision and order directing an offending
party to cease and desist from the unfair
practice and to take such affirmative
action, including but not limited to the
reinstatement of employees with or without
back pay, as will effectuate the policies of	pay,
this chapter.
3

.
.

PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL
C.C.P. 1013a
Sacramento
I declare that I am employed in the County of 	. California.
I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within entitled cause: my business address is
1031 18th Street, Suite 200 Sacramento, California 	95814
On April 10, 1986 	, I served the enclosed
(Date)
PERB Decision No. 557a
Nevada Jt. Union High School District
Case No. S-CE-566 (PERB Decision No. 557)
(Describe Document)
on the parties to this case by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with
Sacramento
postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States Mail, (City or Town)
California, addressed as follows:
Nevada Jt. Union High School District
Attn: Michael D. Barkhurst, Supt.
Ridge Road
Grass Valley, CA 95945
Nevada Union Chapter 165
CSEA
5301 Madison Ave., Suite 102
Sacramento, CA 95841
Mary Beth de Goede, Attorney
Robert Stroup, Attorney
Finkle & Stroup
2344 Tulare Street, Suite 400
P.O. Box 1752
Fresno, CA 93717-1752
Christopher E. Niehaus, Rep.
California School Employees Assoc.
5301 Madison Ave. , Suite 102
Sacramento, CA 95841
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this
declaration was executed on
April 10
(Date)
86
19 	at Sacramento
City or Town)	(City . California.
Teresa Stewart
(Type or print name)	print 	(Signature)
declare
overthe	
party
Auril
(Date)
(Describe
that 	and
(Signature)