Redlands Unified School District (PERB 0774E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS 	BOARD
REDLANDS 	CLASSIFIED 	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION,
Exclusive Representative,
and
REDLANDS 	UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Employer.
)
)
)
) 	Case No. 	LA-UM-433
(R-105)
PERB Decision No. 	774
September 29, 	1989
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances: 	William B. 	Bianchi, 	Executive Director, 	for
Redlands Classified Employees Association; 	Lozano, 	Smith, 	Smith &
Woliver by Sandra Woliver, 	Attorney, 	for Redlands 	Unified School
District.
Before Hesse, 	Chairperson, 	Porter and Shank, 	Members.
DECISION
SHANK, 	Member: 	This 	case is before the Public 	Employment
Relations 	Board 	(PERB or Board) 	on exceptions 	filed by the
Redlands 	Unified School District 	(District) 	to the proposed
decision in Case No. 	LA-UM-433. 	In the proposed decision,
attached hereto, 	a PERB hearing officer 	found that the Typist
Clerk III, 	personnel 	services was 	a 	"confidential" 	position
within the meaning of 	3540.l(c) 	of 	the Educational 	Employment
Relations Act 	(EERA)1 and that the Typist Clerk II, 	personnel
1EERA is 	codified at 	section 3 540 	et 	seq. 	of the Government
Code. 	All 	statutory references 	are to the Government Code 	unless
otherwise 	specified.
Section 3540.l(c) 	defines 	confidential employee as:
"Confidential 	employee" 	means 	any employee
who, 	in the regular course of his 	or her
duties, 	has access to or possesses
information relating to, 	his 	or her
(
-
e

services; 	Employee Benefits Clerk, 	accounting; 	and two Payroll
Technicians, 	accounting 	(classified and certificated) 	positions
were 	not 	confidential.
employer's 	employer-employee 	relations.
We have 	reviewed the 	entire record, 	including the proposed
decision and the exceptions, 	thereto, 	and we affirm the proposed
decision of 	the hearing officer.
FACTUAL AND 	PROCEDURAL 	SUMMARY
On November 	10, 	1987, 	Redlands Classified Employees
Association 	(Association), 	the exclusive representative of
classified employees, 	filed a 	unit modification petition with
PERB pursuant to regulation 	32781(a)(1).2 The Association 	sought
to 	add 	nine 	classifications 	to 	the 	bargaining unit which 	the
District 	had 	historically designated 	as 	being 	confidential
2PERB's 	regulations 	are 	codified 	at 	California
Administrative Code, 	title 	8 beginning at 	section 31001.
Regulation 32781(a)(1) 	states that:
Parties who wish to 	obtain Board approval 	of
a 	unit modification may 	file 	a petition 	in
accordance with the provisions 	of 	this
section.
(a) 	A recognized or certified 	employee
organization may 	file with the 	regional
office 	a petition for unit modification:
(1) 	To add to the unit
unrepresented 	classifications 	or
positions 	which 	existed prior to
the 	recognition or 	certification of
the 	current 	exclusive
representative of the unit; 	. 	. 	.
Although 	the 	above-stated 	regulation was 	amended 	on 	January
12, 	1989, 	the amended language does not affect the disposition of
this case.
22

positions: 	Payroll Technician, 	accounting; 	Accountant, 	special
projects; 	Employee Benefits Clerk, 	accounting; 	Duplicating
Technician, 	personnel services; 	Typing Clerk III, 	personnel
services; 	Typing Clerk II, 	personnel services; 	Administrative
Secretary, 	business 	services; 	Administrative Secretary,
educational-administrative 	services; 	and Secretary III, 	business
services.
An 	informal 	settlement 	conference was 	held on January 	12,
1988, 	at which the parties agreed that 	(1) 	the Administrative
Secretary, 	business 	services; 	Administrative Secretary,
educational-administrative services; 	and Secretary III, 	business
services would remain confidential; 	and 	(2) 	the two duplicating
technician positions 	and the Accountant, 	special projects would
be 	added 	to the unit.
The 	District 	excepted to 	the 	hearing officer's 	findings 	that
the 	employee benefits 	clerk and 	the payroll 	technicians 	are 	not
confidential 	employees. 	Therefore, 	the only issue before the
Board 	is 	classification of 	the 	above-described positions.
Employee Benefits Clerk. 	Accounting
Employee 	Benefits 	Clerk Margaret 	Hickok works 	in the
accounting department under Ron Palmer, 	Fiscal 	Services 	Manager.
Palmer reports 	to the business 	manager who 	in turn reports 	to the
superintendent. 	Palmer testified that he 	is 	responsible 	for 	the
District's 	budget and 	is 	the prime 	source of 	information 	for all
fiscal matters 	in relation to negotiations 	and 	factfinding.
Specifically, 	the 	District 	negotiating team may 	request 	Palmer 	to
3
- 	- 	------------
3

research or compile 	certain data, 	and Palmer is 	on-call 	to attend
negotiating 	sessions 	for 	clarification purposes.
Working under Palmer's 	direction, 	the employee benefits
clerk has 	costed 	out possible 	changes 	in benefit 	coverage 	for
represented 	employees 	and has 	performed back-up 	research. 	Hickok
testified that, 	in some 	instances, 	she knew the information was
related to negotiations, 	but 	she did not know the 	specific
purpose 	of 	the 	requested 	information. 	Hickok also 	testified 	that
she 	acted as 	Palmer's 	secretary.
Payroll Technicians. 	Accounting
Payroll 	technicians 	Shirley Jones 	and Pat 	Barker 	also work
in the accounting department under Palmer. 	Jones 	compiles 	and
prepares 	payroll 	for 	certificated 	employees 	while 	Barker 	compiles
and prepares payroll 	for the 	classified 	employees. 	The payroll
technicians 	have worked with 	Palmer 	in 	costing out proposals
concerning percentage 	salary 	increases 	for 	the 	certificated 	and
classified bargaining units, 	and performed 	research 	regarding the
salary 	schedule.
The personnel 	technicians 	and 	employee 	benefits 	clerk have
been cross-trained to back each other up, 	when necessary.
DISCUSSION
The 	hearing officer 	found 	that 	the 	employee benefits 	clerk
and 	two payroll 	technician positions were 	not 	confidential 	based
primarily upon his 	finding 	that 	Ron Palmer was 	not 	involved 	in
the 	development 	of 	District bargaining proposals 	or 	the 	grievance
process.
4

The 	District 	filed 	exceptions 	to 	the 	hearing 	officer's
finding 	that 	the 	employee 	benefits 	clerk 	and two payroll
technicians 	were not 	confidential.3 The District 	asserts 	that
the 	testimony 	showed 	that 	Palmer 	is 	involved 	in the 	collective
bargaining 	process 	in developing proposals 	and 	counterproposals
and 	that 	he 	regularly uses 	the 	employee 	benefits 	clerk and
payroll 	technicians 	to 	assist him 	in the bargaining process.
A review of 	Palmer's 	testimony 	shows 	that 	he 	is 	the prime
source 	of 	fiscal 	information 	relating 	to 	negotiations 	and 	serves
as 	"back-up" 	to the District's bargaining team. 	However, 	Palmer
is 	not a member of 	the bargaining team. 	Palmer, 	along with the
assistance 	of 	the 	employee 	benefits 	clerk 	and payroll
technicians, 	compiles 	existing data 	for the District 	negotiation
team. 	Palmer was 	not involved 	in the 	actual development 	of
proposals 	for negotiations.
The 	Board has 	held 	that 	regular 	contact with personnel
information relating to 	salaries, 	fringe benefits 	and budget
information does 	not 	necessarily 	relate 	to 	the 	employer's
employer-employee 	relations. 	(San Diego Community College
District 	(1977) 	EERB Decision No. 	28.)4 Furthermore, 	the Board
has 	found that 	the 	compilation of 	existing data 	(salary
schedules, 	fringe benefits, 	payroll records) 	is a mechanical cost
3No 	exceptions 	were 	filed 	regarding 	the 	hearing 	officer's
finding that the Typist 	III, 	personnel 	services 	is 	a confidential
position and the Typist 	II, 	personnel 	services 	is 	not a
confidential 	position.
4Pri6r to January 	1, 	1978, 	the Public 	Employment Relations
Board was 	known as 	the Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Board.
5s

calculation which does 	not provide 	confidential 	knowledge
pertaining to 	the 	employer's 	bargaining position. 	(Franklin-
McKinley School District 	(1979) 	PERB Decision No. 	108, 	citing,
Sierra 	Sands 	Unified School District 	(1976) 	EERB Decision No. 	2.)
For the above-stated reasons, 	we agree with the hearing
officer's 	finding that 	Palmer was 	not 	involved 	in the 	development
of 	District bargaining proposals, 	and 	find that the regular
duties 	performed by 	the 	employee benefits 	clerk and payroll
technicians 	do 	not relate 	to 	the employer's 	employer-employee
relations. 	Accordingly, 	we affirm the hearing officer's 	finding
that 	the 	employee benefits 	clerk, 	accounting and 	two payroll
technicians, 	accounting, 	were not confidential positions and,
therefore, 	were properly added to the bargaining unit.
ORDER
Having 	found that the Typist Clerk III, 	personnel 	services
is 	confidential, 	that position is hereby DISMISSED 	from the
Association's 	unit 	modification petition 	and remains
confidential. 	The Association's 	unit modification petition to
add the Typist Clerk II, 	personnel 	services, 	Employee Benefits
Clerk, 	accounting and the two Payroll Technicians, 	accounting
(classified and certificated) 	is hereby GRANTED.
Chairperson Hesse 	joined 	in this 	Decision.
Member Porter's 	dissent begins 	on page 	7.
6

Porter, 	Member, 	dissenting: 	The issue presented is whether
three, 	heretofore 	"confidential," 	employees of the Redlands
Unified 	School 	District 	(District) 	should be designated 	as
nonconfidential 	and placed 	in 	the 	classified bargaining 	unit.
The 	evidentiary record 	in this 	case 	gives 	us 	the 	following
uncontroverted 	facts.
Ron Palmer 	(Palmer) 	is 	the District's 	fiscal 	services
manager 	and 	is 	the 	supervisor of 	the 	District's 	accounting
department. 	Palmer has 	the 	responsibility of preparing the
District's 	budget 	and 	is 	the 	chief 	support or 	source person
for 	the 	District's 	bargaining team 	on 	fiscal 	matters 	pertaining
to negotiations. 	Palmer is 	involved with the development of
the 	District's 	initial 	financial proposals 	and meets with the
District negotiators 	and the 	District 	superintendent. 	Palmer
is 	in the 	"stream of 	communication" 	with other District managers
in 	connection with 	the development 	of 	the 	District's 	initial
bargaining 	position.
Part 	of what 	Palmer 	is 	regularly 	called upon by 	the
District's 	bargaining team to do 	is 	to 	"cost out" 	possible
management proposals 	and/or 	counterproposals prior to 	any
one or more, 	if any r 	of 	such proposals 	or counterproposals—or
variations 	thereof—being 	selected 	by 	the 	District 	and presented
at 	the bargaining table.
To provide the 	"cost out" 	information to the District's
bargaining 	team on possible 	management proposals 	or possible
counterproposals, 	Palmer uses 	the three 	"confidential" 	employees
7

in his 	accounting department: 	an employee benefits 	clerk-
accounting 	(Hickok), 	a payroll technician who deals with
certificated employee 	salaries 	(Jones), 	and a payroll technician
who deals with classified employee 	salaries 	(Barker). 	Such 	cost
outs 	may 	involve 	a 	singular percentage 	factor and/or a 	specific
group of 	employees, 	or may 	involve 	several 	specific percentage
factors 	designated by the 	District's 	bargaining 	team.
Hickok testified that, 	in connection with the 	District
formulating its 	bargaining position, 	she regularly costs 	out
District proposals 	prior 	to 	them being presented 	at 	the
bargaining table. 	Hickok can tell when a 	requested cost 	out
represents 	a proposal 	or 	counterproposal 	that the 	District 	is
considering making. 	Hickok discusses 	with 	Palmer 	the 	District's
possible 	salary 	schedule 	changes 	before 	any 	such 	changes 	are
presented 	at 	the 	bargaining 	table.
Jones 	testified 	that 	she works 	regularly with 	Palmer 	in
costing out matters 	for the 	District bargaining team, 	and that
she would discuss 	salary 	schedule 	cost 	outs 	with Palmer 	to 	reach
or 	formulate a proposal 	that would meet 	the dollar amount 	or
percentage 	amount 	the 	District 	bargaining 	team was 	considering
prior to going to the bargaining table. 	Jones has 	discussed
District proposals with Palmer, 	and has 	even suggested possible
management proposals 	which 	could 	achieve 	certain results 	for 	the
District.
Barker testified that 	she 	costs 	out various possible
District 	counterproposals 	before 	they go 	to 	the bargaining
8

table, 	and that 	she would 	know from the 	cost out 	request 	that 	the
District was 	considering 	a 	counterproposal 	and what 	the possible
counters might be.
Hickok, 	Jones 	and Barker countercheck each other's 	cost-out
calculations 	before 	giving 	them 	to 	the 	District's 	bargaining
team. 	They also know ahead of 	time 	(prior to 	the District making
a proposal or counterproposal at the bargaining table) 	which, 	if
any particular 	proposal 	of 	a 	group 	of 	proposals 	the 	District 	has
decided upon, 	in that the particular cost out 	for the proposal
would be 	returned 	to 	them 	for 	a 	final 	recheck of 	the proposal's
cost, 	before the proposal was presented at the bargaining table.
From the foregoing, 	it is evident that, 	in connection
with 	the 	costing out 	of possible 	District proposals 	and/or
counterproposals which are 	still 	in the 	formative, 	unexecuted
stage 	and which have 	not 	yet been adopted by the 	District 	and
presented at the bargaining table, 	the three employees 	(Hickok,
Jones 	and Barker) 	obtain confidential 	knowledge of what type 	of
proposals 	or 	counterproposals 	the 	District bargaining 	team 	is
considering proposing, 	including the possible range or 	scope of
such proposals. 	For example, 	the three employees become aware
not 	only of 	the nature or 	subject matter of possible 	District
proposals or counterproposals, 	but also of the set percentage, 	or
of 	minimum 	and 	maximum percentages 	involved 	and being 	considered
by 	the 	District's 	bargaining team.
This 	knowledge 	of what possible proposals 	and/or
counterproposals 	the District 	is 	considering, 	prior to actually
9

making any 	such proposals 	at the bargaining table, 	is 	to be
distinguished 	from 	that 	gained 	through 	the 	mechanical 	costing 	out
of 	already known proposals 	or 	counterproposals 	after they have
been presented 	at 	the bargaining table 	by 	the 	District 	and/or 	in
connection with fact-finding, 	etc.
Citing San Diego Community College District 	(1977) 	EERB1
Decision No. 	28 	and Franklin-McKinley School District 	(1979) 	PERB
Decision No. 	108 	for the propositions 	that regular contact with
personnel 	information relating to 	salaries, 	fringe benefits 	and
budget 	information does 	not 	necessarily relate 	to 	the 	employer's
employer-employee relations, 	and that 	"the 	compilation of
existing data 	(salary schedules, 	fringe benefits, 	payroll
records) 	is 	a mechanical 	cost calculation which does 	not provide
confidential 	knowledge pertaining 	to 	the 	employer's 	bargaining
position," 	the 	hearing officer 	and the majority 	conclude 	that 	the
three employees 	(Hickok, 	Jones 	and Barker) 	should not be deemed
confidential 	employees 	and 	should be 	added 	to 	the 	classified
bargaining 	unit.
I 	would agree with 	the 	aforesaid general propositions
insofar as 	the 	facts 	of a 	case meet the narrow factual 	situations
posited by said propositions 	and decisions. 	However, 	I
respectfully disagree 	that 	said propositions 	and 	decisions 	are
applicable 	or controlling as 	to 	the 	factual 	situation before 	us
in this 	case.
prior 	to January 	1, 	1978, 	PERB was known as the Educational
Employment 	Relations 	Board.
10

San Diego Community College District, 	supra. 	EERB Decision
- -
No. 	2 8 	involved an election and a challenge to certain ballots
based on whether various 	employees were 	eligible to vote 	if. they
were 	supervisory or 	confidential 	employees. 	The dispute was
between rival 	employee 	organizations, 	and the 	District 	employer
took no position. 	In holding that various 	accounting employees
were not 	confidential, 	the decision sets 	forth:
In the broad 	sense 	all 	accountants 	do have
access 	to 	information regarding wages, 	fringe
benefits, 	cost of District programs 	and other
financial 	data which 	could 	be 	described 	as
information relating 	to 	employer-employee
relations. 	It is clear, 	however, 	that the
accountants do not make projections 	as 	to
future 	costs which relate to 	employer or
employee negotiations proposals. 	Such work
is 	performed by budget analysts who 	are
designated confidential 	employees	- - 	. 	It
has 	also not been 	shown that accountants
as 	a regular part of 	their duties provide
information other 	than documentation of
current 	computations 	all 	of which would
be public 	records 	under the 	State 	Public
Records Act.
(San Diego Community College District, 	supra.
EERB Decision No. 	28, pp. 	17-18; 	emphasis
added.)
Likewise, 	the 	Franklin-McKinley School 	District 	case did not
involve 	a 	factual 	situation 	such as 	in the 	instant 	case where the
employees 	regularly 	costed out, 	and knew they were 	costing 	out,
possible proposals 	or 	counterproposals 	that were 	being 	considered
by 	the 	District prior to 	the proposals 	being 	selected 	and/or
-
adopted by the 	District 	and presented 	at 	the bargaining 	table.
As 	expressed 	by 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	in
its 	very 	first 	decision dealing with 	confidential 	employees:
11

The 	assumption 	is 	that 	the 	employer 	should
be 	allowed a 	small 	nucleus 	of 	individuals
who would 	assist 	the 	employer 	in the
development of 	the 	employer's 	positions 	for
the purposes 	of 	employer-employee 	relations.
It 	is 	further assumed that this 	nucleus 	of
individuals would be 	required 	to 	keep
confidential 	those matters 	that 	if made
public 	prematurely 	might 	jeopardized 	the
employer's 	ability to 	negotiate with
employees 	from an equal 	posture.
(Sierra 	Sands 	Unified 	School 	District 	(1976)
EERB Decision No. 	2, 	p. 	2.)
In the instant case before us, 	I 	submit that it would
jeopardize 	the 	District's 	ability 	to 	negotiate 	from an 	equal
posture if 	the 	employee bargaining 	team obtains 	access 	not 	only
to what possible proposals 	and/or 	counterproposals 	the 	District
is 	considering prior to 	their 	adoption and presentment 	at 	the
bargaining table by 	the District's 	bargaining team, 	but 	also
obtains 	knowledge of 	the 	minimum-maximum ranges 	or dollar amounts
of proposals 	under 	consideration by 	the 	District's 	bargaining
team. 	(Sierra Sands Unified School District, 	supra. 	EERB
Decision No. 	2, 	p. 	2.) 	Accordingly, 	I conclude that the three
positions 	in question 	should remain 	confidential.
I 	would 	deny 	the 	Redlands 	Classified 	Employees
Association's 	petition 	insofar as 	it 	seeks 	to 	add the 	employee
benefits 	clerk-accounting 	and the 	two payroll 	technicians,
accounting 	(classified and 	certificated) 	to 	the 	classified
bargaining unit. 	(Gov. 	Code, 	sec. 	3540.1, 	subds. 	(c) 	and 	(j).)
12

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
REDLANDS 	CLASSIFIED 	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION,
Exclusive Representative,
and
REDLANDS 	UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Employer.
)
)
) 	Representation
Case No. 	LA-UM-433
(R-105)
PROPOSED 	DECISION
(9/21/88)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
I
Appearances: 	William B. 	Bianchi, 	Executive Director, 	for
Redlands Classified Employees Association; 	Lozano, 	Smith, 	Smith
and Woliver, 	by Sandra Woliver, 	for Redlands 	Unified School
District.
Before Robert R. 	Bergeson, 	Hearing Officer.
This 	case 	presents 	the 	issue 	of whether 	certain 	classified
employees 	in 	the 	Redlands 	Unified 	School 	District 	(RUSD 	or
District) 	are 	"confidential" 	within the meaning of 	that term
under the Educational 	Employment Relations Act 	(EERA or Act).1
PROCEDURAL 	HISTORY
Redlands 	Classified 	Employees 	Association 	(RCEA 	or
Association) 	was 	certified by the 	Public 	Employment Relations
JEERA 	is 	codified at 	section 	3540 et 	seq. 	of the Government
Code. 	All 	statutory references are to the Government Code unless
otherwise 	specified.
Section 	3540.l(c) 	defines 	confidential 	employee 	as:
"Confidential employee" 	means any employee
who, 	in the regular course of his or her
duties, 	has access to or possesses
information relating to, 	his 	or her
employer's 	employer-employee 	relations.
This proposed decision has been appealed to the
Board i t s e l f and may not be cited as precedent
unless the decision and i t s rationale have been
adopted by the Board.

Board 	(PERB or Board) 	as 	the 	exclusive representative 	of 	the
District's 	classified employees on October 	28, 	1982.2
On November 10, 	1987, 	RCEA filed a unit modification
petition with PERB pursuant to regulation 	32781(a)(l)3 seeking to
add 	to 	the 	unit 	employees 	in the 	following nine 	classifications
which 	the 	District 	had historically designated 	as 	being
confidential, 	apparently without dispute 	from CSEA: 	payroll
technician, 	accounting; 	accountant, 	special projects; 	employee
benefits clerk, 	accounting; 	duplicating technician, 	personnel
services; 	typist clerk III, 	personnel 	services; 	typist clerk II,
The 	unit had been represented 	since 	May 	4, 	1976 	by a 	local
chapter of the California School 	Employees Association 	(CSEA) 	[I
take official notice of PERB case 	file LA-R-105].
PERB'	'PERB' 3PERB's regulations are codified at California
Administrative Code, 	title 	8 beginning at 	section 	31001.
Regulation 32781(1) 	states that:
32781. 	Petition.
Parties who wish to obtain Board approval 	of
a 	unit modification may 	file 	a 	petition 	in
accordance with the 	provisions 	of 	this
section.
(a) 	A recognized or 	certified employee
organization may 	file with 	the 	regional
office 	a petition 	for unit modification:
(1) 	To add to the unit
unrepresented 	classifications 	or
positions 	which 	existed prior 	to
the 	recognition 	or 	certification 	of
the 	current 	exclusive representa-
tive 	of the unit; 	. . . .
N2

personnel 	services; 	administrative 	secretary, 	business 	services;
administrative 	secretary, 	educational-administrative 	services;
and secretary III, 	business 	services.
Subsequent 	to 	RUSD's 	expressed 	opposition 	to 	the 	inclusion
of any of the positions 	in the unit, 	an informal 	settlement
conference was conducted on January 12, 	1988, 	by a Board agent.
At 	that 	conference 	the 	parties 	agreed 	that 	the 	administrative
secretary, 	business 	services; 	administrative 	secretary,
educational-administrative 	services 	and 	the 	secretary 	III,
business 	services would remain 	confidential 	and 	that 	the
duplicating technicians4 and the accountant, 	special 	projects
would be 	added to the 	unit.
The 	confidential 	status 	of 	the 	remaining 	five 	positions was
left to be 	litigated through the 	instant process, 	which 	commenced
with the 	conduct of a hearing on March 10 	and 11, 	1988. 	After
the 	granting of 	a request 	for 	extension of 	time 	in which 	to 	file
post-hearing briefs, 	the case was 	submitted June 	6, 	1988.
FINDINGS 	OF 	FACT
The 	District 	is 	a 	public 	school 	employer 	and 	RCEA an
employee 	organization as 	those 	terms 	are 	defined 	in 	sections
3540.l(k) and 3540.l(d), respectively.
Exclusive of hourly personnel, 	at the beginning of 	the 	1987-
88 	school year, 	the District had 1,157 employees, 	510 of whom
filled positions 	in RCEA's 	negotiating unit. 	It 	is 	stipulated
''The 	District has 	two positions 	classified as 	duplicating
technician. 	There 	are 	also two payroll 	technicians.
w
	3

that 	eight 	of 	the 	1,157 	positions 	are 	properly designated
confidential.
Typist Clerk III, 	Personnel 	Services
As the typist clerk III, 	personnel 	services 	(TC III), 	Cheryl
Martin reports 	to 	Personnel 	Director Monroe 	Pederson.5
Pederson, 	who has been RUSD personnel 	director 	for about 	two
years, 	participates 	in negotiations 	on behalf of the District
with both RCEA and Redlands Teachers Association 	(RTA), 	the
exclusive 	representative 	of 	the 	District's 	certificated
employees. 	He 	also prepares 	responses 	to grievances 	at 	level 	two
of 	the 	grievance 	procedure 	contained 	in 	District 	contracts 	with
RCEA and RTA. 	The 	TC 	III 	has 	primary responsibility 	for
answering 	the 	telephone 	and 	for 	taking messages 	and 	opening 	and
distributing 	all 	office mail, 	including that which transmits
confidential 	negotiating 	and 	grievance-processing 	information 	on
to 	Pederson 	from other managers 	on 	the 	negotiating 	team 	and 	from
RUSD's 	legal 	counsel. 	Martin obtains 	as much information as
necessary 	from messages 	and 	correspondence 	in 	order 	to 	direct 	it
to Dr. 	Pederson or other intended recipients. 	On one occasion,
5Pederson's 	secretary, 	Administrative 	Secretary 	Connie
Krogman, 	answered affirmatively 	to 	a question on direct
examination 	that 	she 	is 	"like 	the 	first 	line 	supervisor 	of 	. . .
the typist clerks." 	Joint exhibit no. 	5, 	an organization chart
of the personnel office, 	revised March 8, 	1988, 	appears to
indicate 	that 	the 	typist 	clerk 	II 	and typist 	clerk 	III 	report
directly to 	Pederson. 	Resolution of 	this 	apparent discrepancy 	is
unnecessary for a decision in this matter. 	In any event, 	it does
appear that much of the 	typist clerks' 	work is 	given them by
Pederson 	through 	Krogman.
4

for example, 	Martin became very uneasy when, 	in Pederson's
absence, 	a 	District 	supervisor 	insisted upon 	communicating 	to 	her
the merits, 	or lack thereof, 	of a pending grievance.
Another 	of 	Martin's 	principal 	duties 	concerns 	the 	selection
process 	to 	fill 	vacant positions. 	In this 	regard 	she prepares
and distributes 	flyers 	for 	in-house 	vacancy posting, 	schedules
interviews, 	types 	interview questions 	(from a book prepared by a
testing service or from notes given her) 	and has, 	at times, 	sat
on 	interview panels 	for classified positions, 	including
participating 	in 	rank-ordering 	applicants.
In the 	course 	of performing the 	above 	functions, 	Martin has
periodically been 	privy 	to 	information which 	the 	District would
prefer 	she not 	share with employee 	organizations. 	For 	example,
she 	estimates 	that 	she 	is 	involved 	in 	some manner with assisting
Dr. 	Pederson with processing grievances 	about once 	every 	10 	days
(or in the 	course of each grievance 	filed in the 	District),
including typing and duplicating responses.6 Also, 	Martin's
involvement 	in the 	testing procedure 	for 	job applicants 	has 	given
her access 	to 	test 	scores 	and 	interview panel 	comments 	and 	she
has 	spoken with 	Pederson 	concerning pending grievances 	in 	this
area.
6Martin testified that during her 	six months 	as 	TC 	III 	she
had been 	involved with 	"more 	than one" 	of 	the 	six 	to 	eight
grievances 	processed by 	Pederson's 	office 	during 	the 	past 	year.
Martin had been TC 	III 	for half of 	the year and TC 	II 	in
Pederson's 	office 	the prior 	six months. 	Neither 	she nor Pederson
could 	specify how many 	of 	the 	six 	to 	eight 	grievances 	were
processed during her 	six-month 	tenure 	as 	TC 	III.
5

Typist Clerk II, 	Personnel 	Services
Anita 	Massaro has 	held the 	position of 	typist 	clerk 	II,
personnel 	services 	(TC II) 	under Dr. 	Pederson since
September 23, 1987.
The 	TC 	II 	keeps a tally of 	the 	absences 	of 	certificated
employees, 	including the reason given for the absence. 	Massaro
has, 	consequently, 	been asked to prepare 	information for Dr.
Pederson 	through Administrative 	Secretary 	Connie 	Krogman
concerning 	the 	use 	of 	contractual 	released 	time 	by 	the 	president
of RTA. 	Similarly, 	she has 	duplicated and collated material 	for
factfinding 	regarding 	released 	time 	for 	all 	RTA negotiating 	team
members. 	The TC 	II 	is 	also responsible 	for obtaining a
substitute to fill 	in for absent teachers. 	In addition, 	Massaro
acts 	as 	a backup to the 	TC 	III 	in the 	TC 	III's 	absence 	in
performing 	office 	telephone 	answering 	and mail 	distribution 	and
assists 	the 	administrative 	secretary, 	personnel 	services with
duplication and distribution of grievance materials, 	as 	necessary
- 	principally during time 	crunches 	caused by negotiations.
Massaro 	estimated that 	in 	the 	nearly 	six months 	during which 	she
had 	functioned as 	TC II, 	she had duplicated and collated
grievance 	or negotiations 	documents 	for 	a 	cumulative 	total 	of
approximately eight hours. 	She 	could not 	specifically remember
what type 	of documents 	she 	so handled, 	nor the particulars 	of 	any
of 	the 	approximately 	three 	grievance 	or 	bargaining-related
messages 	she may have 	taken.
Employee Benefits Clerk, 	Accounting
66

Employee 	Benefits 	Clerk Margaret 	Hickok works 	in 	the
accounting 	department under 	Fiscal 	Services 	Manager 	Ron 	Palmer.
Responsibilities 	of 	the 	accounting department during 	contract
negotiations 	with 	exclusive 	representatives 	include 	costing 	out
topics 	under 	consideration by the 	District 	to 	possibly be
proposed 	and union proposals 	which are 	on the 	table.7 In 	that
regard, 	although not a member of RUSD's 	negotiating committee,
Palmer has 	been brought 	to the 	bargaining table 	on 	occasion 	in
order 	to explain the 	specifics 	of 	the 	District's 	revenues 	coming
from the 	state.
The 	employee 	benefits 	clerk has 	costed out possible 	changes
in benefit 	coverage 	for represented employees. 	She 	calculated
the 	amount 	it would have 	cost 	the 	District 	to 	add orthodontia 	to
its dental plan pursuant to a union proposal, 	for example.
According to 	Palmer 	these 	figures 	were 	considered by 	the
District's 	negotiating 	team before 	a 	proposal 	was 	made 	but
employee 	organizations 	could 	also 	have 	obtained 	such 	information
from RUSD's 	insurance 	carriers. 	Hickok knew these 	figures 	were
related 	to 	negotiations 	but did not know the 	specific 	purpose 	of
such information.8 She provided her calculations 	to Palmer, 	or
7Palmer's 	primary area of 	authority 	is 	development 	of 	the
District's 	budget. 	Palmer reports 	to the 	RUSD business 	manager,
&The 	following 	transcript 	references 	exemplify 	her 	limited
knowledge:
Q: 	Do you know whether, 	in some cases
where 	you provided 	information 	to
the 	District bargaining team, 	no
proposal 	was made?
7

his 	predecessor, 	who turned them over to Pederson's 	office.
Hickok 	also 	ostensibly acts 	as 	Palmer's 	secretary 	in 	answering
his 	telephone 	and doing most 	of 	the 	typing.
A: 	I provide the 	information, 	whether
it gets 	to the negotiation table,
that, 	I don't know. 	[Transcript,
Volume 	II, 	page 	4.]
Q: 	Now, 	did you know when you did
this, 	when you put together this
material 	to give 	to 	[former
Business Manager Masters], 	did you
know that 	there was 	a 	connection
between the 	reduced 	cost 	of 	Delta
Dental 	and the 	District's 	ability
to 	buy orthodontia?
A: 	I 	don't know that 	there was 	a
relationship between 	those 	two.
[Transcript, 	volume II, 	page 19.]
Q: 	Do you know whether any
negotiations 	at 	all 	took place 	on
insurance 	this 	year?
A: 	No sir. 	[Transcript, 	volume II,
page 	21.]
Payroll Technician, 	Accounting
The two payroll technicians 	(PT's) 	in the 	accounting
department 	are 	Shirley Jones 	and Pat Barker. 	Jones 	handles
payroll 	for certificated employees, 	Barker 	for 	classified. 	The
PTs 	have 	costed out union proposals 	concerning 	the 	amount 	of
money 	associated with 	percentage 	salary 	increases 	for 	the
certificated 	and 	classified bargaining units, 	respectively. 	They
have 	made 	such 	computations with respect 	to 	the 	pertinent 	salary
schedule 	and pension 	fund. 	As with 	the 	employee 	benefits 	clerk,
88

computations 	performed by 	the 	PT's 	are 	provided 	to 	the 	personnel
department through their 	supervisor, 	the 	fiscal 	services manager,
and his 	superior, 	the business manager.
The 	PT's 	and employee 	benefits 	clerk have 	been 	cross 	trained
to back each other up, 	as necessary.
DISCUSSION
Public 	school 	employers 	are 	allowed a 	"small nucleus" 	of
employees whose 	function it 	is 	to 	assist the 	employer 	in
developing 	its 	employer-employee 	relations 	positions. 	Sierra
Sands 	Unified School District 	(1976) 	EERB Decision No. 	2 	(Sierra
Sands).9 In accordance with the Act, 	such functions must be
performed as part of the 	"regular 	course of their duties."
Fremont Unified School 	District 	(1976) 	EERB Decision No. 	6
(Fremont). 	"Employer-employee relations" 	includes, 	at the least,
collective 	negotiations 	and 	grievance-processing. 	Ibid. 	The
exclusion 	of 	confidential 	employees 	from 	statutory 	coverage
dictates 	that 	section 	3540.l(c) 	be given narrow construction. 	Los
Rios Community College District 	(1977) 	EERB Decision No. 	18 	(Los
Rios). 	Accordingly, 	an employee must perform confidential duties
more than a 	"fraction" 	of the time. 	Ibid.
In 	San Diego Community College 	District 	(1977) 	EERB 	Decision
No. 	28 	(San Diego), 	the Board itself affirmed its hearing
officer's 	decision 	that 	systems 	analyst 	programmers 	working 	for
Prior	9Frior 	to January 1, 	1979, 	PERB was known as the Educational
Employment 	Relations 	Board.
9

that employer were not confidential 	employees. 	Specifically, 	it
was 	found as 	a matter of 	law that, 	inter alia:
(1) 	Access to personnel matters 	is not
necessarily 	related 	to 	"employer-employee
relations" 	(footnote omitted);
(2) 	The making of 	computer runs 	of prerequisite
statistical 	information without 	additional
evidence 	appears 	closer 	to 	compiling data
than evaluating data. 	(Id, 	attached 	Proposed
Decision 	at 	p.15.)
Also 	see 	Franklin-McKinley 	School 	District 	(1979) 	PERB 	Decision
No. 	108 	(Franklin-McKinley) 	where a business 	office 	supervisor
was 	found not 	to 	be 	confidential 	despite 	having 	costed 	out
negotiations 	proposals 	and 	scattergrams 	showing 	the 	number 	of
employees 	on 	each range 	and 	step 	of 	the 	salary 	schedule.
However, 	the administrative 	secretary to the 	assistant
superintendent 	for 	business 	services 	was 	found 	to 	be 	confidential
in San Rafael 	City Schools 	(1977) 	EERB Decision No. 	32 	(San
Rafael) 	where 	she was 	responsible 	for typing 	financial 	proposals
used during negotiations, 	even 	though 	such work 	constituted 	"only
a 	small 	portion of 	her 	time." 	Id, 	at p.3 	(contrast 	Los 	Rios,
supra). 	The administrative 	secretary to the director of
instruction 	in 	San 	Rafael 	was 	similarly 	found 	to be 	confidential,
even 	though her 	typing was 	confined 	to 	certificated 	(as 	opposed
to classified) 	employee proposals. 	Further, 	secretaries who
assisted with 	"confidential" 	communications 	between 	their 	bosses
(members 	of 	the 	employer's 	negotiating 	team) 	and other managers
were 	found 	to 	be 	confidential 	in Marin 	Community College 	District
(1978) 	PERB Decision No. 	55 	(Marin). 	However, 	the Board later
10

said in Centinela Valley Union High 	School 	District 	(1978) 	PERB
Decision No. 	62 that:
[T]he 	small 	nucleus 	concept 	contemplates 	that
only a 	small 	number of 	employees 	necessary to
the 	employer 	to do 	the 	staff work needed to
develop 	its 	positions 	shall 	be 	given access
to 	confidential 	information. 	Employers
cannot 	unnecessarily 	distribute 	confidential
information to 	large numbers 	of 	employees 	and
then claim them as 	confidential. 	Therefore,
in each case 	in which there 	is 	a dispute 	as
to whether positions 	are 	confidential, 	the
Board will 	examine 	the 	facts 	to determine
whether 	the 	employees 	in question must
necessarily have 	access 	to 	confidential
information 	in the 	regular 	course 	of 	their
normal duties. 	In this case, 	the record
shows 	that principals 	are 	on the management
negotiating 	team which develops 	proposals,
and 	on the 	administrative 	cabinet which
discusses negotiations 	policies. 	The record
shows 	that principals 	receive 	various
documents, 	such as draft negotiations
proposals, 	through the mail, 	to which their
secretaries 	currently have 	access. 	However,
the mere 	receipt by the 	secretary's 	superior
of 	confidential 	material 	cannot make 	the
secretary a confidential 	employee. 	Persons
who open mail 	are 	not 	involved 	in the
development 	of 	confidential 	material 	and have
no essential 	need to deal with it. 	To
classify 	them 	as 	confidential 	would 	allow
easy abuse of 	the 	"small 	nucleus" 	concept
articulated in Sierra 	Sands, 	since 	employers
could exclude 	all 	secretaries 	from a 	unit by
unnecessarily 	allowing 	them 	access 	to
confidential 	information.
Therefore, 	the Board needs additional
information on 	the 	principal's 	role 	in
negotiations 	and 	grievance 	processing,
particularly 	as 	to 	the 	types 	of written
responses 	they 	are 	regularly 	expected 	to
make. 	Most of 	the principals 	testified that
if 	they responded in writing, 	their
secretaries would type their response. 	But
it was 	unclear whether written responses 	are
a normal 	or necessary part 	of 	the 	District's
negotiating structure. 	Similarly, 	the
content 	of 	such responses was 	not defined.
11

The 	amount of writing that principals 	are
required to do 	in 	connection with
negotiations 	is 	highly 	significant 	in
determining whether 	their 	secretaries 	are
sufficiently 	involved 	in 	developing
confidential material. 	Other important
factors 	are whether 	secretaries 	are 	expected
to 	take minutes 	of meetings 	in which
negotiations 	are 	discussed 	or 	to 	actively
organize 	and maintain negotiations 	files.
(Id, 	at pp. 	7-9.)
To 	summarize, 	where there 	is 	evidence that 	secretaries 	type
or 	otherwise 	prepare 	actual 	negotiation 	or 	grievance 	documents 	or
themselves 	maintain 	files 	of 	such documents 	for 	their 	supervisor,
they will 	be 	found to be 	confidential 	(assuming 	such duties 	are
regularly performed). 	Mere access to draft proposals or
memoranda 	between managers 	not 	directly 	involved 	in 	negotiations
or 	grievance 	adjustment 	does 	not 	constitute 	sufficient 	evidence
for a 	finding of 	confidential 	status. 	Cf., 	Campbell 	Union High
School District 	(1978) 	PERB Decision No. 	66 	(Campbell).10 See
-
10The Board 	said in Campbell:
The individual must, 	in other words, 	have
access 	to 	or possess 	sufficient 	information
to warrant the 	conclusion that the 	employer's
ability to negotiate with 	employees 	from 	an
equal 	posture might be 	jeopardized, 	and the
balance 	in employer-employee 	relations 	sought
to be 	achieved by the EERA thus 	distorted, 	if
the 	information was 	prematurely made 	public.
(Id, 	at p. 	4, 	citing Sierra Sands).
In this 	regard, 	PERB's policy is 	consistent with that of 	the
National 	Labor 	Relations 	Board. 	Contrast 	United 	States 	Postal
Service 	(1978) 	232 NLRB 556, 	558 	[96 LRRM 	1271] 	citing San Diego
Transit Corporation 	(1970) 	182 	NLRB 428 	[74 LRRM 1145] 	(typing
of, 	or access to, 	"confidential" 	personnel memoranda between
managers not dispositive of confidential 	status), 	with Reymond
Baking Company 	(1980) 	249 NLRB 1100 	[104 	LRRM 	1253] 	(typing of
bargaining 	proposals 	and 	other 	documents 	containing 	employer's
official 	labor relations 	positions 	and 	labor-related
12

also, 	Dinuba Public Schools 	(1979) 	PERB Decision No. 	91 	(Dinuba)
[access 	to personnel 	records which do not directly relate 	to
collective negotiations 	or grievance processing does 	not, 	in
itself, 	dictate a finding of confidential 	status].
correspondence compels 	confidential 	finding). 	[It is assumed
that 	the 	"confidential" 	information available 	to 	the 	secretaries
managers 	in Marin 	involved 	actual 	negotiating positions 	to 	be
taken by 	the 	employer.]
Typist Clerk III, 	Personnel 	Services
The Association contends 	that 	the 	TC 	III 	should not be 	found
confidential 	since 	the 	position's 	primary duties 	concern
involvement with the 	filling of 	positions 	and 	such duties 	are 	not
confidential. 	While the Association may be correct, 	to be 	found
confidential, 	an employee 	need only perform confidential
functions 	"in the regular course 	of their duties" 	(Fremont,
supra) 	even if 	such duties 	occupy 	"only a 	small 	portion of her
time." 	(San Rafael, 	supra).
During negotiations 	and grievance processing, 	the 	TC 	III
regularly takes messages 	for Dr. 	Pederson 	from other managers 	and
RUSD's 	attorney regarding 	topics 	at 	issue, 	including concerning
their merits. 	Moreover, 	she has typed and/or duplicated a
negotiations 	counter-proposal 	and 	grievance-related 	documents 	for
Pederson. 	Regular access 	to 	RUSD's position on the merits 	of 	a
grievance 	is 	information potentially prejudicial 	to 	the 	District
should it become known to RCEA, 	prematurely. 	Campbell, 	supra.
Hence, 	the TC III 	is found to be confidential.
Typist Clerk II, 	Personnel 	Services
13

The 	District would have 	PERB 	find the 	TC 	II 	to be
confidential. 	The 	District's 	position is 	based on the physical
proximity of 	the 	incumbent's 	desk to 	that of 	the 	TC 	III 	and 	two
personnel 	technicians 	stipulated to be 	confidential, 	including
that the TC II, 	Anita Massaro, 	at times may have access 	to
personnel 	or 	grievance 	files 	located 	in 	separate rooms 	within 	the
personnel 	office. 	The 	District also contends 	that Massaro's
position 	should 	be 	found 	confidential 	since 	Massaro maintains 	a
log of 	certificated employee 	absences, 	including those 	for
purposes 	of 	contract negotiations 	and 	contractual 	released 	time
used by the 	RTA president. 	Massaro provided these 	figures 	to 	Dr.
Pederson 	through 	Connie 	Krogman to 	be 	used during 	the 	factfinding
process with RTA. 	RUSD also cites 	Massaro's 	functioning as 	a
backup 	to the 	TC 	III 	in answering the main telephone 	line 	and
distributing mail 	in the 	TC 	Ill's 	absence.
The TC II 	is not a confidential 	employee. 	Since
certificated 	union members 	who 	use 	statutory 	released 	time 	for
meeting 	and 	negotiating 	(see 	Government 	Code 	section 	3543.l(c))
and 	are 	released 	for 	contractually-authorized 	RTA business, 	this
is 	patently 	information 	already known 	to 	RTA 	such 	that 	Massaro's
divulging of 	it to 	RCEA could 	in no way 	jeopardize 	RUSD's 	ability
to deal with the union on an equal 	basis.11 As 	to Massaro's
11Further/ 	Massaro's 	perfunctory 	contribution 	to 	the
District's 	proposal 	on 	this 	can be 	seen 	in Krogman's 	response 	to
a 	question 	from RUSD's legal 	counsel:
Q: 	[D]id you work with Anita 	in developing a
District 	counterproposal 	regarding 	release[d]
time 	or 	a 	District position?
14

backing up the 	TC 	III with respect 	to 	answering 	the 	telephone 	and
opening and distributing the mail, 	contrary to Cheryl 	Martin
there 	is 	no evidence 	that Massaro has 	ever 	come 	in 	contact with
confidential 	information while 	performing 	these 	duties 	in
Martin's 	absence. 	The District's 	contention that 	she would is
mere 	speculation. 	Moreover, 	since 	she only backs 	up Martin,
Massaro does 	not perform these duties 	in the 	regular 	course 	of
her work. 	Fremont, 	supra.
A: 	Well, 	she input the 	information and then it
was 	given to 	the 	chief 	negotiator to do the
proposal. 	[Transcript, Vol. 	I, 	at p. 	40.]
The 	fact 	that Massaro's 	desk may be 	physically 	near
personnel 	files 	housed 	in an adjoining room 	is 	by no means 	itself
evidence of confidential 	status 	(Dinuba, 	supra), 	nor is Massaro's
proximity 	to 	grievance 	files 	maintained 	by Administrative
Secretary Connie 	Krogman 	in Krogman's 	separate 	office. 	Again,
there 	is 	no 	evidence 	that Massaro has 	ever accessed these 	files
for 	any 	confidential 	purpose 	delineated 	in 	the 	above-cited
precedent.
Employee Benefits Clerk, 	Accounting
Even 	if 	Employee Benefits 	Clerk Margaret 	Hickok does 	act 	as
Palmer's 	secretary 	as 	asserted by 	the 	District 	and disputed 	by
RCEA and, 	consequently, 	would do all his typing, 	such status 	is
irrelevant 	to a 	confidential 	finding 	since 	Palmer 	is 	not 	involved
in the development of District proposals, 	nor is 	there any
15

evidence 	that he 	has 	in 	any manner been 	involved 	in 	the
adjustment of 	grievances.
Hickok may make 	cost 	projections 	concerning 	alternatives
under consideration at the bargaining table. 	However, 	this 	is
not 	confidential work 	(San 	Diego, 	supra 	and Franklin-McKinley,
supra), 	particularly here where Palmer does not develop
negotiating proposals. 	Hickok is not a 	confidential 	employee.
Payroll 	Technician, 	Accounting
As with the 	employee benefits 	clerk, 	the payroll 	technicians
do 	not 	perform 	confidential 	duties 	simply by 	costing 	out
financial 	information 	for negotiations. 	They are not
confidential.
CONCLUSION
Of the 	five positions 	in question, 	the typist clerk III,
personnel 	services 	is 	confidential 	and will 	not be 	added to 	the
unit. 	The 	following positions 	are not confidential: 	typist clerk
II, 	personnel services; 	employee benefits clerk, 	accounting; 	and
two payroll 	technicians, 	accounting 	(classified 	and 	certificated)
and will 	be 	added to the unit.
PROPOSED 	ORDER
It having been 	found that the 	typist clerk III, 	personnel
services 	is 	confidential, 	that position is hereby DISMISSED from
RCEA's 	unit modification petition and remains 	confidential. 	As
to the 	other four positions 	at 	issue, 	RCEA's petition is hereby
GRANTED and the positions 	of typist 	clerk 	II, 	personnel 	services,
employee benefits 	clerk, 	accounting, 	and the two payroll
16

technicians, 	accounting 	(classified and certificated) 	are hereby-
added 	to 	RCEA's 	unit effective 	the 	date 	this 	proposed decision
becomes final.
RIGHT TO APPEAL
Pursuant to California Administrative Code, 	title 	8,
part III, 	section 	32305, 	this 	Proposed Decision and Order 	shall
become 	final 	unless 	a party 	files 	a 	statement of 	exceptions with
the 	Board 	itself 	at 	the 	headquarters 	office 	in 	Sacramento within
20 	days 	of 	service 	of 	this 	Decision. 	In accordance with PERB
Regulations, 	the 	statement of exceptions 	should identify by page
citation or exhibit number the portions 	of the record, 	if 	any,
relied upon 	for 	such exceptions. 	See 	California Administrative
Code, 	title 8, 	part III, 	section 32300. 	A document is considered
"filed" 	when actually received before 	the 	close 	of 	business
(5:00 p.m.) 	on the last day set for filing, 	". 	. 	. o r when sent
by 	telegraph or 	certified or 	Express 	United States 	mail,
postmarked 	not 	later 	than 	the 	last 	day 	set 	for 	filing 	. . . " 	See
California Administrative Code, 	title 8, 	part III, 	section 32135.
Code 	of 	Civil 	Procedure 	section 	1013 	shall 	apply. 	Any 	statement
of 	exceptions 	and 	supporting 	brief 	must 	be 	served 	concurrently
with 	its 	filing upon each party to 	this 	proceeding. 	Proof 	of
service 	shall 	accompany 	each 	copy 	served 	on a party 	or 	filed with
the 	Board itself. 	See California Administrative Code, 	title 	8,
part III, 	sections 32300, 	32305 and 32140.
Dated: 	September 21, 	1988
ROBERT 	R.
Hearing 	Officer
17