Ventura Community College District (Service Employees International Union Local 535) (PERB 1073E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
SERVICE 	EMPLOYEES 	INTERNATIONAL
UNION, 	LOCAL 535,
Charging 	Party,
v.
VENTURA 	COMMUNITY 	COLLEGE
DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
) 	Case No. 	LA-CE-3323
PERB Decision No. 	1073
December 	7, 	1994
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances: 	Van Bourg, 	Weinberg, 	Roger & Rosenfeld by James G.
Varga, 	Attorney, 	for Service Employees 	International Union, 	Local
535; 	Parham & Associates by Mark R. 	Bresee, 	Attorney, 	for Ventura
Community 	College 	District.
Before Carlyle, 	Garcia, 	and Johnson, Members.
DECISION
GARCIA, 	Member: 	This 	case 	is 	on appeal by the Ventura
Community College District 	(District) 	to a 	Public 	Employment
Relations 	Board 	(PERB or Board) 	administrative 	law judge's 	(ALJ)
proposed decision 	(attached), 	where 	it was 	found that 	the
District violated section 3543.5(b) 	and 	(d) 	of 	the Educational
Employment Relations Act 	(EERA).1
1EERA is 	codified at Government 	Code 	section 3540 	et 	seq.
Unless 	otherwise 	indicated, 	all 	statutory references 	herein are
to the Government 	Code. 	EERA section 3543.5 	states, 	in pertinent
part:
It 	shall 	be unlawful 	for a public 	school
employer to do any of 	the 	following:
(b) 	Deny to employee organizations 	rights
guaranteed 	to 	them by 	this 	chapter.
(d) 	Dominate 	or interfere with the 	formation
or 	administration 	of 	any 	employee

After reviewing the 	entire 	record, 	including 	the proposed
decision, 	exceptions,2 responses and briefs, 	the Board hereby
affirms 	the ALJ's proposed decision 	in accordance with the
following 	discussion.
JURISDICTION
PERB has 	jurisdiction over 	this 	case 	for the 	following
reasons: 	The District 	is a public 	school 	employer under EERA;
the Service Employees International Union, 	Local 	535 	(SEIU) 	at
all 	times 	relevant 	has been the 	exclusive 	representative 	of 	two
units 	of 	the District's 	classified employees; 	the 	charge was
timely 	filed and 	the present 	dispute 	is 	not 	subject 	to a
contractual 	grievance agreement.
BACKGROUND
SEIU, 	the union which represents 	certain District 	classified
employees, 	filed an unfair practice 	charge alleging 	that 	the
District had violated EERA section 3543.5 (a), 	(b), 	(c) 	and 	(d) 	by
creating, 	dominating, 	supporting and bargaining with a rival
employee organization, 	the Classified Senates 	(CS).
organization, 	or contribute 	financial 	or
other support 	to 	it, 	or in any way encourage
employees 	to 	join any organization 	in
preference 	to another.
2The 	Board denied 	the District's 	request 	for 	oral 	argument
which was 	filed with 	the 	District's 	exceptions.
22

ALJ'S 	PROPOSED DECISION
As 	framed by the ALJ, 	the 	specific 	issues 	are:
1. 	Did 	the District 	contribute unlawful 	support 	to 	the 	CS
and thereby violate EERA section 3543.5(d), 	and
derivatively, 	(a) 	and 	(b)?
2. 	Did an agent of 	the District, 	on or about March 11,
1993, 	discuss with representatives of 	the CS
"negotiable 	options" 	not 	previously presented 	to 	SEIU
and thereby violate section 3543.5(c), 	and
derivatively, 	(a) 	and 	(b)?
Setting 	forth applicable 	legal 	principles, 	the ALJ discussed
Redwoods 	Community College District 	(1987) 	PERB Decision No. 	650
(Redwoods), 	which describes limitations on the relationship
school 	district 	employers 	may have with 	employee 	groups 	other
than exclusive 	representatives. 	In Redwoods, 	PERB 	found that 	the
District 	unlawfully 	interfered with, 	supported 	and dominated an
employee 	organization, 	the 	Classified Employees 	Council 	(CEC.3
We 	learned 	from Redwoods 	that 	an 	employer may 	consult 	with
employees 	individually or 	in groups 	on various matters, 	but 	it 	is
3In Redwoods. 	the ALJ 	found that 	CEC was 	an employee
organization 	for EERA purposes 	and 	that 	the 	district 	played an
important 	role 	in 	establishing 	CEC by providing 	facilities 	and
free 	time 	to participants 	and by absorbing 	costs. 	CEC
participated 	in an 	extensive 	program review with 	the 	district 	and
the California School Employees Association 	(CSEA), 	which
resulted 	in 	recommendations 	with an 	impact 	on hiring 	and working
conditions. 	Furthermore, 	CEC was 	allowed a place 	on Board of
Trustees meeting agendas, 	whereas 	CSEA was 	not. 	The ALJ found
that 	the 	pervasive 	involvement 	of 	the district 	in the 	formation,
support 	and participation of 	CEC equalled domination. 	As 	a
remedy, 	he 	ordered the disestablishment 	of 	CEC as 	a 	competing
organization 	to 	the 	exclusive 	representative.
33

the 	reserved domain of 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	to deal 	with
the 	employer on matters within the 	scope 	of 	representation.
The 	ALJ 	then addressed 	the 	District's 	argument 	that 	Assembly
Bill 	1725 	(AB 1725),4 enacted after Redwoods. 	renders the rules
in that 	case 	"largely inapplicable." 	The ALJ reviewed key
language 	in AB 	17255 but 	concluded that:
4Statutes 1988, 	chapter 973. 	AB 1725 	is codified at
sections 	70901 and 	70902 	of 	the Education Code.
5For 	example, 	the ALJ discussed Education Code 	section
70901(b)(1)(E), which reads, 	in pertinent part:
(b) 	Subject to, 	and in furtherance of,
subdivision 	(a), 	and in consultation with
community 	college 	districts 	and 	other
interested parties 	as 	specified 	in
subdivision 	(e), 	the board of governors 	[of
the 	community college] 	shall provide general
supervision 	over 	community 	college 	districts,
and shall, 	in furtherance thereof, 	perform
the 	following 	functions:
(1) 	Establish minimum standards as 	required
by law, 	including, 	but not limited to, 	the
following:
(E) 	Minimum standards 	governing procedures
established by governing boards 	of 	community
college districts 	to ensure 	faculty, 	staff,
and 	students 	the 	right 	to participate
effectively 	in district 	and 	college
governance. 	and 	the 	opportunity to express
their opinions 	at 	the 	campus 	level 	and to
ensure 	that 	these 	opinions 	are given every
reasonable 	consideration, 	and the 	right 	of
academic 	senates 	to assume primary
responsibility 	for making 	recommendations 	in
the 	areas 	of 	curriculum and academic
standards. 	[Emphasis added.]
44

. 	. 	. 	I do not find anything in the 1988
enactment or subsequent 	regulations [6
] 	of 	the
Board of Governors 	that 	affects 	the
principles 	set 	out 	in Redwoods. 	If anything,
the 	regulations make 	it 	clear 	that 	shared
governance 	is 	not 	to usurp 	the 	relationship
between 	community 	college 	districts 	and
exclusive 	representatives. 	The 	regulations
also make 	it 	clear 	that 	shared governance 	is
inapplicable 	to matters 	within the EERA scope
of representation. 	Accordingly, 	I conclude
that 	the 	1988 	enactment 	and 	subsequen
- - t
regulations 	are 	irrelevant 	to 	the 	disposition
of 	this matter. 	[Emphasis added.]
In addition 	to 	this 	ruling, 	the ALJ made 	the 	following 	other
findings: 	(1) 	that 	SEIU was 	not 	estopped from charging alleged
violations;7 (2) 	that 	the District 	did not 	observe 	"strict
neutrality" 	and provided unlawful 	support 	for the CS, 	both in the
form of 	financial 	assistance 	and 	"open deference" 	to CS positions
on negotiable 	topics; 	and 	(3) 	that 	the District had dealt with
the CS 	on negotiable topics, 	"effectively 	[granting] 	the 	senates
6Several 	provisions 	in AB 	1725 	authorize 	community 	college
districts 	to 	enact 	regulations 	to 	implement 	shared governance,
with 	the 	express 	limitation 	that 	such 	regulations 	be 	consistent
with other laws. 	For example, 	a community college board of
governors 	can adopt 	"necessary and proper" 	regulations 	to
implement 	the 	functions 	specified above 	(Education Code 	section
70901(c)); 	community college districts shall 	establish rules and
regulations 	not 	inconsistent 	with 	the 	regulations 	of 	the board of
governors of the community college 	(id.. 	sec. 	70902); 	governing
boards 	have 	the 	authority 	to 	adopt 	rules 	and regulations 	"not
inconsistent" with the laws of this state 	(id., 	sec. 	70902(c)).
The 	District's 	regulations 	implementing 	these 	statutes 	are
codified at Title 5, 	California Code of Regulations, 	section
51023.5.
7Our 	review of 	the 	estoppel 	doctrine 	confirms 	that 	the ALJ
correctly 	refused 	to 	employ 	the 	doctrine 	to bar SEIU's 	charge.
Since 	the District's 	exceptions 	also 	fail 	to convince us 	to apply
the 	estoppel 	doctrine here, 	we do not 	discuss 	it 	further 	in this
decision.
55

a 	role 	as 	absent 	parties 	in 	the 	negotiations between 	the 	District
and 	[SEIU]."8
The 	ALJ 	concluded 	that 	this 	conduct 	constituted a violation
of 	EERA section 3543.5(b) 	and 	(d), 	but he 	found no evidence of a
violation of 	3543.5(a). 	As a remedy, 	the ALJ ordered the
District 	to 	cease 	and desist 	from contributing 	financial 	or 	other
support 	to 	the 	CS 	or 	from dealing with 	them on negotiable 	topics
while 	there 	is 	an exclusive 	representative 	of 	classified
employees. 	The District 	was 	also 	ordered to not 	give preference
to 	one 	organization over another and to post a notice 	of 	the
violations.9
DISTRICT'S 	EXCEPTIONS
The 	District 	excepts 	to 	the proposed decision 	on 	the 	grounds
that: 	(1) 	the ALJ erroneously concluded that 	SEIU is 	not
estopped 	from accusing 	the 	District 	of 	unlawful 	domination 	and
support; 	(2) 	the ALJ erroneously concluded that AB 	1725 	has no
effect 	on the Board's analysis 	of unlawful 	support 	charges; 	and
(3) 	the ALJ erroneously concluded that 	the District 	unlawfully
supported 	the 	CS.
8The ALJ also 	found 	that 	there 	was 	no proof 	that 	the
District had bypassed SEIU by 	its action at 	a March 11,. 1993
meeting 	(one 	of 	the 	allegations 	in the 	charge) 	and he dismissed
that 	cause of action. 	Since we 	find that 	the record supports
this 	finding by 	the ALJ, 	there 	is 	no need 	for 	further discussion
of 	this 	secondary issue. 	The discussion section of 	this 	decision
will 	focus 	solely on 	the unlawful 	support 	allegations.
9Since 	the ALJ 	found 	that 	the District 	had not 	dominated 	the
CS, 	he declined to 	"disestablish" 	the CS as 	SEIU had requested.
66

SEIU'S 	RESPONSE TO THE DISTRICT'S 	EXCEPTIONS
SEIU filed a response 	to the District's exceptions, 	in which
it 	claims 	that: 	(1) 	the ALJ's 	findings 	of 	fact and conclusions
of 	law are 	supported by overwhelming 	evidence 	in the 	record; 	(2)
the passage 	of AB 	1725 	did not 	diminish SEIU's 	rights 	as 	the
exclusive 	employee 	representative, 	as 	the ALJ 	correctly 	found;
(3) 	SEIU 	is 	not 	estopped 	from asserting 	its 	representational
rights against 	the conduct of 	the District, 	since the 	record
contains 	"numerous 	letters" 	to the District as well 	as 	to 	the CS
in which the Union complains 	of 	the Senates' 	involvement 	in
matters 	within 	the purview of 	the 	collective bargaining
relationship between the District 	and the Union; 	and 	(4) 	the ALJ
appropriately applied Redwoods 	to 	the 	facts 	in 	this 	case.
DISCUSSION
Review of 	the 	record 	supports 	the ALJ's 	important 	findings
of 	fact10 and conclusions 	of 	law and we affirm all 	findings 	in
the 	proposed decision except 	one.
Since both parties 	directed our attention on appeal 	to 	the
relevance of AB 1725, 	some 	clarification is appropriate. 	We 	find
that AB 	1725 	is 	relevant 	and 	can be 	read 	in harmony with EERA.
As 	the ALJ noted, 	it 	is 	clear that 	in enacting AB 	1725 	the
Legislature 	intended 	community 	college 	staff and 	students 	to have
10The 	file 	shows 	the District 	was 	not 	overly 	involved 	in
formation, 	support or leadership of 	the CS, 	although lax policies
did permit CS benefits SEIU did not 	enjoy; 	for example, 	CS
members were 	allowed to participate 	on District 	time; 	de minimis
clerical 	and service 	support was provided to CS, 	and CS 	had a
place 	on board meeting agendas. 	However, 	it was 	clear from the
file 	that 	CS 	was 	to avoid any role 	in negotiable activities.
77

a 	recognized voice 	in college governance, 	at 	least 	with 	respect
to matters outside the scope of representation. 	However, 	EERA
and 	PERB's 	Redwoods 	decision 	require District management 	to 	take
precautions 	to 	avoid 	infringing upon 	the 	domain of 	the 	exclusive
representative. 	It 	is established that employers, 	including
community 	college districts, 	proceed at 	their own risk when
involving 	or allowing 	employee 	organizations 	other 	than 	the
exclusive 	representative 	to participate 	in matters 	within 	the
scope 	of 	representation.11
Here, 	the District 	crossed the 	line by providing 	financial
assistance 	to CS 	and by openly deferring 	to 	CS 	positions 	on
negotiable topics. 	However, 	the placement of CS on the District
board's 	agenda was 	consistent 	with 	the 	statutory 	intent 	to give
staff 	a meaningful voice 	in matters 	outside 	the 	scope 	of
representation.
In conclusion, 	the ALJ 	correctly found 	that 	the District
violated section 3543.5(b) 	and 	(d) 	of 	the EERA.
ORDER
Upon 	the 	foregoing 	findings 	of 	fact 	and 	conclusions 	of 	law
and the 	entire 	record in 	this 	case, 	the Board finds 	that 	the
Ventura 	Community College District 	(District) 	violated 	section
3543.5(d) 	of 	the Educational 	Employment Relations Act 	(EERA) 	by
unlawfully supporting a 	rival 	employee 	organization, 	the
Classified Senates 	(CS) 	and dealing with the 	CS 	on negotiable
11See, e.g., 	Oak Grove 	School District 	(1986) 	PERB Decision
No. 	582, 	at page 18.
8

topics. 	Because 	this action had the additional 	effect 	of
interfering with 	the 	right 	of 	the 	Service 	Employees 	International
Union, 	Local 	535 	to represent 	its members, 	the District's
unlawful 	support 	of 	the 	CS was 	a violation of 	EERA section
3543.5(b) and (d).
The 	allegation 	that 	the District's 	conduct violated 	section
3543.5(a) 	and all 	other allegations 	are 	hereby DISMISSED.
Pursuant 	to EERA section 3541.5 (c), 	it 	is hereby ORDERED
that 	the District, 	its 	governing board and 	its 	representatives
shall:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST 	FROM:
1. 	Contributing 	financial 	or other support 	to 	the 	CS.
2. 	Dealing with the 	CS 	on negotiable 	topics 	while
there 	is 	an exclusive 	representative 	of 	classified 	employees 	or
show a preference 	for the 	CS 	or 	interfere with 	the 	right 	of 	the
exclusive 	representative 	to 	represent 	its 	members 	and 	others 	in
the bargaining units.
B. 	TAKE 	THE 	FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS 	DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE THE 	POLICIES 	OF EERA:
1. 	Within thirty-five 	(35) 	days 	following the date
this Decision is no longer subject 	to reconsideration, 	post at
all 	work 	locations 	where 	notices 	to 	employees 	are 	customarily
placed, 	copies 	of 	the Notice attached as an Appendix hereto,
signed by an authorized agent 	of 	the 	employer. 	Such posting
shall 	be maintained 	for a period of 	thirty 	(30) 	consecutive
workdays. 	Reasonable 	steps 	shall be 	taken to insure 	that 	this
9
9

Notice 	is not 	reduced in size, 	defaced, 	altered or covered by any-
material .
2. 	Written notification of 	the actions 	taken to 	comply
with 	this 	Order 	shall be made 	to 	the 	San 	Francisco Regional
Director 	of 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	in accordance
with the 	director's 	instructions.
Members 	Carlyle 	and Johnson 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
10

APPENDIX
NOTICE 	TO 	EMPLOYEES
POSTED 	BY ORDER 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS 	BOARD
An agency of 	the 	State 	of 	California
After a hearing 	in Unfair Practice 	Case No. 	LA-CE-3323,
Service Employees 	International Union. 	Local 	535 v. 	Ventura
Community College District, 	in which all 	parties 	had the 	right 	to
participate, 	it 	has 	been 	found that 	the Ventura Community College
District 	(District) 	violated section 3543.5(b) 	and 	(d) 	of 	the
Educational Employment Relations Act 	(EERA) . 	The District
violated 	EERA by providing unlawful 	support 	to 	the 	Classified
Senates 	(CS). 	This unlawful 	activity has 	occurred both 	in the
form of 	financial 	assistance 	to 	the 	CS 	and by dealing with 	the 	CS
on negotiable 	subjects and openly deferring to CS positions. 	By
this 	conduct 	the District 	showed a preference 	for the 	CS 	over the
Service Employees International Union, 	Local 535, 	the exclusive
representative 	of 	the District's 	classified 	employees.
As 	a 	result 	of 	this 	conduct, 	we have been ordered to post
this 	notice and we will:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
1. 	Contributing 	financial 	or other support 	to 	the 	CS.
2. 	Dealing with the 	CS 	on negotiable 	topics while
there 	is 	an exclusive 	representative 	of 	classified 	employees 	or
show a preference 	for the 	CS 	and 	interfere with the 	right 	of 	the
exclusive 	representative 	to 	represent 	its members 	and others 	in
the bargaining units.
Dated: 	VENTURA COMMUNITY 	COLLEGE
DISTRICT
By: Authorized 	Agent
THIS 	IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE. 	IT MUST REMAIN POSTED 	FOR AT LEAST
THIRTY 	(3 0) 	CONSECUTIVE WORKDAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND
MUST NOT BE REDUCED 	IN SIZE, 	DEFACED, 	ALTERED OR COVERED BY ANY
MATERIAL.

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
SERVICE 	EMPLOYEES 	INTERNATIONAL
UNION, 	LOCAL 535,
Charging 	Party,
v.
VENTURA 	COUNTY 	COMMUNITY 	COLLEGE
DISTRICT,
Respondent.
Unfair 	Practice
Case No. 	LA-CE-3323
PROPOSED 	DECISION
(7/1/94)
Appearances: 	Van Bourg, 	Weinberg, 	Roger & Rosenfeld by James G.
Varga, 	Esq., 	for the Service Employees 	International Union,
Local 	535; 	Parham & Associates by Jackson Parham, 	Esq., 	for the
Ventura 	County 	Community 	College 	District.
Before Ronald E. 	Blubaugh, 	Administrative Law Judge.
PROCEDURAL 	HISTORY
A union 	representing 	classified 	employees 	here 	contends 	that
a 	community 	college 	district 	has 	created 	rival 	employee
organizations 	which 	it 	then 	favored and bargained with. 	The
district 	replies 	that 	it did not 	create 	the organizations, 	has
not 	bargained with 	them and 	that 	their 	existence 	is 	mandated by
law.
The Service Employees 	International 	Union, 	Local 	535 	(SEIU
or Union), 	commenced this action on July 2, 	1993, 	by filing an
unfair practice 	charge 	against 	the Ventura 	County Community
College District 	(District). 	The Office of 	the General 	Counsel
of 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(PERB 	or Board) 	followed
on September 22, 	1993, 	with a complaint against the District.
The 	complaint 	alleges 	that 	the District 	has 	contributed and
continues 	to 	contribute 	financial 	and other 	support 	to 	certain
This proposed decision has been appealed to the
Board itself and may not be cited as precedent
unless the decision and its rationale have been
adopted by the Board.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
______________ )

employee 	organizations known as 	the 	classified senates. 	The
complaint alleges 	further that on or about March 11, 	1993, 	the
chief 	negotiator 	for 	the 	District 	discussed negotiable 	topics
with representatives 	of 	the 	classified senates. 	These 	actions
are 	alleged 	to be 	in violation of 	Educational 	Employment
Relations Act 	(EERA) 	section 3.543.5 (a), 	(b), 	(c) 	and 	(d.1
The District answered the 	complaint 	on October 5, 	1993,
denying 	that 	it 	had unlawfully 	supported 	or negotiated with 	the
classified senates. 	As affirmative defenses, 	the District also
asserted 	that 	all 	actions 	it 	took regarding 	the 	senates 	were 	in
1Unless otherwise 	indicated, 	all 	statutory references 	are 	to
the Government 	Code. 	The 	EERA is 	codified at Government 	Code
section 3540 	et 	seq. 	In relevant part, 	section 3543.5 provides
as 	follows:
It 	shall 	be unlawful 	for a public 	school
employer to:
(a) 	Impose or threaten to 	impose reprisals
on employees, 	to discriminate or threaten to
discriminate against 	employees, 	or otherwise
to interfere with, 	restrain, 	or coerce
employees because 	of 	their exercise 	of 	rights
guaranteed by this 	chapter. 	For purposes 	of
this subdivision, 	"employee" 	includes an
applicant 	for 	employment 	or 	reemployment.
(b) 	Deny to employee 	organizations 	rights
guaranteed 	to 	them by 	this 	chapter.
(c) 	Refuse 	or 	fail 	to meet 	and negotiate 	in
good 	faith with an 	exclusive 	representative.
(d) 	Dominate or 	interfere with the 	formation
or 	administration 	of 	any 	employee
organization, 	or contribute 	financial 	or
other support 	to 	it, 	or in any way encourage
employees 	to 	join any organization 	in
preference 	to another.
22

accord with State 	of 	California 	regulations 	pertaining 	to
classified employees 	at 	community 	colleges.
A hearing was 	conducted 	in Ventura 	on 	February 23 	through
25, 	1994. 	With the filing of briefs, 	the matter was submitted
for decision on June 	6, 	1994.
FINDINGS 	OF 	FACT
The District 	is 	a public 	school 	employer under the EERA. 	It
operates 	three community colleges, 	Ventura College, 	Moorpark
College 	and Oxnard College. 	SEIU at 	all 	times 	relevant 	has 	been
the 	exclusive 	representative 	of 	two units 	of 	the District's
classified employees. 	These are a unit 	of office, 	technical 	and
business 	services 	employees 	and a unit 	of 	operations 	and 	support
employees. 	Members 	of 	the 	two units work at all 	three 	college
campuses 	and at 	the District 	office.
The 	Union was 	certified as 	exclusive 	representative 	of 	the
two units 	on September 8, 	1981. 	At 	the time of 	the hearing there
was no agreement 	in place between the parties. 	The previous
agreement expired on June 30, 	1993, 	and the parties had not
reached an understanding 	on a 	successor. 	They were 	in
negotiations 	but were not 	at 	impasse.
Throughout 	some 	of 	the period since 	the Union's
certification, 	there have been at 	the District 	other
organizations 	of 	classified employees. 	In the 	earlier years 	of
certification, 	these 	organizations had such purposes 	as 	the
recognition of 	employee birthdays 	and the 	operation of 	small 	fund
33

raising activities. 	These 	organizations 	gradually gave way 	to
the 	classified 	senates.
There are 	four classified employee 	senates, 	one at 	each
campus 	and one at 	the District 	headquarters building. 	Witnesses
were unable 	to provide exact 	dates 	for when each of 	the 	senates
was 	formed. 	However, 	there 	is evidence 	that the classified
senate was 	in place at Moorpark College by 1987. 	The Oxnard
College 	classified senate was 	formed 	in about 	1985. 	The Ventura
College 	classified senate was 	formed in 	1989. 	Finally, 	the
classified 	senate 	at 	the District 	headquarters 	was 	formed 	in 	the
fall 	of 	1991 	or spring of 	1992.
There 	is 	no 	evidence 	the District 	controlled or otherwise
participated 	in 	the 	formation 	of 	the various 	classified 	senates.
Landra Adams, 	the 	founding president 	of 	the Ventura College
classified senate, 	was 	the 	only witness 	who directly participated
in 	the 	formation of 	a 	classified senate. 	She 	testified that 	her
first 	contact 	with administrators 	about 	the 	senate 	at 	Ventura
took place 	after 	she 	and 	others 	already had 	formed 	it. 	She
testified 	that 	she 	and 	the 	other organizers 	used a 	copy 	of 	the
constitution and bylaws 	of 	the 	college 	academic 	senate 	as 	a model
when 	they prepared 	similar 	rules 	for 	the 	classified 	senate.
The 	only other 	testimony about 	the 	formation 	of 	a 	classified
senate was provided by SEIU witness 	Kathleen Roussin. 	She 	said
that 	District 	office 	employees 	did not 	form a 	classified 	senate
as 	early as 	employees at 	the 	three 	campuses. 	After Thomas 	Lakin
became District 	chancellor, 	she 	testified, 	he 	stated during a
4

staff meeting 	that 	he would 	like 	to 	see 	a 	classified 	senate
formed at 	the District 	office. 	She 	testified that 	a 	senate was
organized after he made 	the 	comment 	but 	she 	had no knowledge
about 	the 	circumstances 	of 	its 	formation.
The 	constitutions 	and bylaws 	of 	the 	three 	campus 	classified
senates 	all 	disavow any role 	in negotiable activities.2 Although
not 	identical, 	they are 	closely parallel 	on this matter. 	The
constitution 	of 	the Ventura 	College 	classified 	senate 	is
representative. 	It 	sets 	out 	the 	following purpose:
The purpose 	of 	this 	organization shall 	be 	to
address 	the non-union 	concerns 	of 	the
classified 	staff 	and 	interface 	with 	College
management 	in 	the 	implementation of 	solutions
and 	the 	development 	and 	implementation 	of
College 	goals 	and objectives.
The phrases 	"non-union concerns" 	and/or 	"non-union 	issues"
are written at various places 	in each of 	the 	senate bylaws 	and
constitutions. 	Neither phrase is defined, 	however, 	and as 	the
record makes 	clear, 	the participants 	in this dispute are not 	in
agreement 	about 	what 	constitutes 	a 	"non-union 	concern."
All regular, 	permanent, 	classified employees, 	including
supervisors, 	are by virtue of 	employment members 	of 	the
classified senates. 	They need 	take 	no action 	in order to 	join.
Officers 	of 	the 	senates 	are elected by senate members, 	including
supervisors. 	Collectively, 	the officers 	of 	the various 	senates
comprise 	leadership bodies 	which are 	known as 	the 	classified
council 	at Moorpark and Ventura 	Colleges 	and as 	the 	classified
2At 	the 	time of 	the hearing, 	the District 	office 	classified
senate 	had not 	yet 	written 	its 	constitution and bylaws.
55

senate board at 	Oxnard. 	Meetings 	of 	these bodies are open to all
senate members 	and generally are known as 	"senate meetings" 	among
classified 	employees.
It 	is 	clear that 	rank-and-file unit members 	control 	the
senates. 	The 	evidence establishes very light participation by
supervisory and 	confidential 	employees.3 There 	is 	no 	evidence
that 	any 	supervisory employee 	serves 	as 	a 	leader of 	a 	senate.
Nor 	is 	there 	evidence 	of managerial 	control 	or 	interference 	in
the 	operation of 	the 	classified senates. 	Confidential 	employees
have held senate 	leadership positions as, 	occasionally, 	have SEIU
activists.
There 	is 	some 	evidence 	that 	senate 	leaders 	have been allowed
to use District 	copy machines 	for senate business. 	SEIU officers
have been required 	to 	reimburse 	the District 	for use 	of 	copy
machines 	by the Union. 	There also 	is 	evidence 	that 	the District
paid 	the 	expenses 	for a 	senate 	representative 	to attend an
out-of-town meeting 	for 	officers 	from 	classified 	senates 	from
throughout 	California.
3There was 	testimony that 	hone 	of 	the 	29 	persons 	attending a
December 	16, 	1993, 	meeting of 	the Oxnard classified senate was a
supervisory employee. 	One was a confidential 	employee. 	(See
charging party exhibit no. 	30.) 	Of 	12 persons attending a
January 15, 	1992, 	meeting of the District office senate, 	one was
a 	supervisor and two were 	confidential 	employees. 	(See 	charging
party exhibit no. 	38.) 	Of 	13 persons attending a January 13,
1993, 	meeting of the District office senate, 	two were
supervisors. 	(See charging party exhibit no. 	39.) 	Of eight
persons attending a July 28, 	1993, 	meeting of 	the District 	office
senate, 	one was 	confidential. 	(See charging party exhibit
no. 	43.) 	Of approximately 10 persons attending the December 1993
meeting of 	the Moorpark classified senate, 	all were members 	of
the two bargaining units. 	(See Reporter's Transcript, 	Vol. 	I,
pp. 	29-30.)
66

Although 	there 	is 	conflicting 	testimony, 	the preponderance
of 	the 	evidence 	supports 	a 	finding 	that 	some 	released time 	is
provided 	for attendance at 	senate meetings. 	Most 	of 	the
classified senates meet 	once a month, 	typically beginning at
12 	noon. 	Senate meetings are of varying length, 	lasting until
1 p.m., 	1:30 p.m., 	or 2 	p.m. 	There was 	evidence 	that most 	of 	the
time 	they are 	completed by 	1:30 	p.m. 	which means 	that 	employees
in attendance have gone 	30 minutes past 	the 	lunch hour. 	Several
witnesses 	testified 	that 	they have 	never been 	required 	to make 	up
time 	spent 	attending meetings 	of 	classified 	senates 	and 	they do
not know of 	anyone 	else being 	required to make up 	time.
Two witnesses, 	Sandy Hajas and Nadene Ronan, 	testified that
they are 	required 	to make up 	time 	spent 	on activities 	of 	the
classified 	senates. 	Both 	said 	they had understandings 	with 	their
supervisors 	that 	they must make up 	the 	time. 	Neither 	is
required, 	however, 	to keep a log of 	time 	owed and time made up or
to advise 	their supervisors 	that 	they have made up lost 	time. 	I
find 	this 	complete 	absence 	of 	a 	requirement 	for documentation
tantamount 	to a District 	grant 	of 	released time.
SEIU witnesses 	testified 	that 	they are 	given 	released 	time
while meeting 	and negotiating with 	the 	District 	and processing
grievances. 	SEIU members 	are not 	given 	released time 	to attend
Union meetings 	or 	for other Union activities. 	One 	SEIU activist,
treasurer Kathleen Roussin, 	testified that 	she 	is 	required by her
supervisor 	to keep a 	log 	identifying all 	time 	lost 	for Union
activities 	and 	showing when 	the 	time was made up.
7
7

Although SEIU has 	complained about 	the 	senates, 	the 	record
makes 	clear 	that 	until 	about 	a year before 	the 	hearing 	SEIU
worked 	cooperatively with 	them.4 SEIU 	President 	Leanne 	Colvin
joined with 	the Moorpark 	College 	classified 	senate 	president 	to
form a group 	called 	the 	"Classified Leadership 	Council." 	The
purpose of this group, 	Ms. 	Colvin testified, 	was to ensure that
classified 	employees 	presented a united 	front 	to 	the District.
"I 	felt 	it was 	important 	that we 	stay 	together and stick together
on 	issues, 	and not 	allow ourselves 	to be 	divided by management,"
she testified, 	"which 	[is] 	why we don't meet anymore, 	because
that's 	basically what 	happened."
SEIU also 	cooperated with 	the 	senates 	for a 	time 	in 	the
joint 	filling 	of 	vacancies 	on District 	committees 	in accord with
section 4.11 	of 	the 	agreement between the parties. 	That
provision, 	which was written into the 	contract 	in 1990, 	reads
as 	follows:
The 	Chancellor/President 	will 	determine 	the
need 	to 	appoint 	a 	classified 	representative
to 	committees 	whose actions 	affect bargaining
unit 	employees. 	The Representative will be
agreed upon 	jointly by 	the 	Chancellor/
President, 	the Classified Senate, 	and the
Union.
Under section 4.11, 	it was 	the practice 	of 	SEIU and the senates
to 	send 	out 	a 	joint 	notice 	to all 	classified employees 	about
openings 	on 	committees. 	They then would review the 	applicants
4This 	changed when Union 	leaders 	became 	aware 	of 	Redwoods
Community College District 	(1987) 	PERB Decision No. 	650
(Redwoods) 	and began to 	cite 	it with 	regularity 	in 	communications
with the 	District 	and 	the 	classified 	senates.
8

and recommend a 	candidate 	to 	the 	appropriate administrator. 	The
power 	to appoint 	was 	retained by management.
Union 	President 	Colvin 	testified 	that 	the 	Union had proposed
that 	it be 	given 	the 	authority 	to 	choose 	the 	classified employee
representatives 	to District 	committees. 	She 	said that 	the
District 	negotiator 	responded 	that 	the 	Union only 	represented
Union members 	and 	that 	the 	classified 	senates 	represented all
classified employees. 	She 	said that 	the 	only way the Union 	could
get 	any 	role 	in 	the 	appointment 	process 	was 	by 	including 	the
classified 	senates. 	The Union 	therefore 	agreed to participation
by the senates. 	Ms. 	Colvin's 	testimony on this point was
uncontradicted.
During the 	1993-94 	negotiations, 	the Union once again
proposed 	that 	it be 	given exclusive 	control 	over the 	appointment
of 	classified employees 	to 	committees. 	The District proposed,
instead, 	that 	section 4.11 be 	deleted 	in 	its 	entirety. 	District
negotiator Jerry 	Pauley, 	the associate vice 	chancellor 	for human
resources, 	told Union negotiators 	that 	the 	senates 	had expressed
"unhappiness" 	with the 	section. 	Since SEIU also was 	unhappy with
the 	section, 	he proposed that 	an appointment procedure be
developed by a 	shared 	governance 	committee 	comprised 	of 	senate
and Union 	representatives.
Landra Adams, 	who was 	the 	chair of 	the 	shared governance
committee, 	testified that 	her disagreement with the 	contractual
provision was 	its uncertainty. 	She 	said 	it 	did not 	state how the
Union, 	the 	senate and the administration were 	to arrive at a
9

joint decision. 	Moreover, 	she testified, 	each campus had chosen
a different 	way 	to 	implement 	the 	contract 	provision.
The 	Union disliked 	the 	shared governance 	approach, 	believing
it 	gave 	too much 	influence to the 	classified senates. 	As 	of 	the
date 	of 	the 	hearing, 	the Union had withdrawn 	from participation
on 	the 	shared governance 	committee 	and 	the 	dispute 	over
section 	4.11 	remained 	unresolved.
In addition 	to 	the dispute about 	the 	role 	of 	the 	senates 	in
appointments, 	the Union also 	is 	concerned about what 	it views as
a growing 	intrusion 	of 	the 	senates 	into 	other negotiable 	areas.
The 	Union presented 	evidence 	of 	classified 	senate 	activity 	in
these additional 	areas: 	possible employee layoffs, 	early
retirement, 	a study of employee classifications, 	health benefits,
hours 	of 	work and agency 	fees. 	Senate 	involvement 	in these areas
ranged 	from 	simply providing 	a 	forum at 	which 	information 	could
be 	distributed 	to active 	opposition 	to positions 	taken by SEIU.
The possibility of 	layoffs became a 	topic 	of 	concern among
classified 	employees 	in 	1993 	when 	the District 	found 	itself 	in
difficult 	financial 	straits. 	In March, 	the Oxnard classified
senate invited the college president, 	Elise Schneider, 	and the
District director of human resources, 	Patricia Marchioni, 	to
attend a 	senate meeting and discuss 	the 	financial picture. 	The
two administrators 	did attend the 	senate's March 11 meeting. 	At
that 	session Dr. 	Schneider described the District's 	financial
condition and 	the possibility of 	layoffs. 	She 	also voiced a
commitment 	to protect 	the 	jobs 	of 	classified employees.
10

Ms. 	Marchioni 	explained the 	layoff 	and bumping procedure and
answered 	questions.5
One vehicle 	the District 	chose 	for 	easing 	the 	financial
shortfall 	was 	an early retirement plan. 	The 	senates were quickly
involved 	in 	it by the District. 	The 	former District vice
chancellor for instruction, 	John Talman, 	contacted the 	senates
and asked 	them to 	arrange 	a meeting 	so he 	could 	talk 	to 	employees
about 	a golden handshake 	retirement plan. 	He 	sent 	to 	the 	senates
a 	list 	of 	employees 	who might 	be 	interested 	in 	early 	retirement.
At 	least 	one of the senates, 	that at Ventura College, 	monitored
the progress 	of 	employee acceptance 	of 	the 	early retirement
offer. 	Minutes of the June 3, 	1993, 	meeting show that 	the senate
president made 	a 	report 	to members 	about 	the number of 	employees
who 	accepted 	early 	retirement.
At 	least one senate, 	that at 	the District 	office, 	voted to
ask 	the District 	to 	conduct a 	classification study. 	Such a 	study
would 	involve 	an 	examination 	of 	the 	work performed by 	classified
employees 	to 	determine 	if 	any employees 	should be 	given an
upgrade. 	Minutes of the May 28, 	1993, 	District office senate
projected a 	cost 	of 	$40,000 	to 	conduct 	the 	study and 	$200,000 	to
5The 	layoff procedure also was 	discussed at 	the May 28,
1993, 	meeting of 	the District 	office 	classified senate. 	At 	that
meeting, 	however, 	it was placed on the agenda by SEIU treasurer
Roussin who made 	a presentation on the 	subject. 	She 	explained
the applicable provisions 	of 	the 	Education Code. 	She 	testified
that 	she 	discussed 	the 	subject 	at 	a 	classified 	senate meeting
because 	she wanted the Union to 	inform employees 	"where 	they
could 	find the answers, 	who they could talk to and what 	the
procedure was 	to get 	the proper 	information."
11

$500,000 	to 	implement 	its 	results.6 SEIU was 	at 	that 	time
proposing a 	classification 	study as 	part 	of 	its 	negotiations 	with
the District.
Peripheral 	senate 	involvement 	with health benefits 	was
proposed by a District 	administrator but 	dropped by 	the 	District
when SEIU raised objections. 	At 	issue was 	senate participation
in a Wellness 	Committee which was 	to meet 	as a 	subcommittee 	of
the Employee Benefit 	Insurance 	Committee. 	The 	Employee Benefit
Insurance 	Committee 	is a 	joint 	committee 	of 	teaching and
classified employee unions 	and management. 	Its purpose 	is 	to
reach 	consensus 	on health benefit 	plans 	for all 	District
employees. 	On November 30, 	1992, 	Jeff Marsee, 	District vice
chancellor 	for administrative 	services, 	sent 	a memo 	inviting all
presidents 	of 	the classified senates, 	the academic senates, 	SEIU
and 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	of 	instructors 	to 	appoint
members 	to a Wellness 	Committee. 	After SEIU objected 	to
participation by the 	classified senates, 	Mr. 	Marsee 	suspended the
request 	for appointments.
A District 	administrator 	similarly 	invited 	the 	classified
senate 	at Moorpark College 	into a discussion about 	changing 	the
summertime hours 	of work 	for 	classified employees. 	In a
6The minutes 	reflect 	a single negative vote. 	It was 	cast by
SEIU treasurer Roussin who 	said 	she 	did not 	believe 	the 	senate
should have been discussing what 	she 	considered 	to be 	a
negotiable subject. 	By contrast, 	the 	issue of a classification
study also was 	discussed by 	the 	classified 	senate 	at Ventura
College. 	There, 	it was raised by Cheryl Herrmann, 	the campus
vice president 	for SEIU, 	who 	sought 	senate 	support 	for conducting
the 	study 	immediately.
12

February 7, 	1994, 	memo, 	Moorpark College President Jim Walker
invited both 	the 	SEIU chapter president 	and 	the president 	of 	the
college 	classified senate 	to meet with him about 	hours. 	He
proposed 	closing 	the 	college 	on 	Fridays 	during 	approximately
eight weeks 	of 	summer. 	In the memo, 	he outlined alternatives 	for
how employees 	might 	satisfy 	the 	required work week 	of 	40 	hours
with a 	four-day per week work 	schedule. 	He 	also 	outlined what 	he
perceived as 	advantages 	and disadvantages 	of 	the 	change.
It 	is 	clear from the 	context 	of 	the memo that Mr. 	Walker
planned 	to 	seek agreement 	from 	the 	SEIU and 	senate presidents 	to
make 	the 	change 	in hours. 	It 	is 	clear also 	that he anticipated
some 	form of 	give-and-take at 	the meeting he 	had 	scheduled with
the 	two 	classified 	representatives. 	The meeting had not 	been
held as 	of 	the date 	of 	the hearing due 	to 	the unavailability of
the president 	of 	the Moorpark 	classified 	senate.
It 	was 	the 	classified senate 	from Oxnard 	College 	that
inserted 	itself 	into 	negotiations 	between 	SEIU and 	the 	District
over agency 	fees. 	The Union-proposed during 	the 	1993
negotiations 	that 	the 	contractual 	Union 	security 	clause be
modified 	to 	include agency fees. 	The District position was 	to
eliminate 	the 	existing 	clause which provided 	for maintenance 	of
membership.
On April 	28, 	1993, 	the Oxnard College 	classified senate sent
a memo to Mr. 	Pauley. 	Attached to the memo was a petition signed
by numerous 	employees urging Mr. 	Pauley not 	to agree 	to an agency
13

shop provision with SEIU.7 The memo described 	the purpose 	of 	the
petition as 	a 	statement 	"that we are 	against Article 	#3 	(agency-
shop) , 	which is being presented by our Union in the 	initial
proposal 	for 	our upcoming 	contract 	negotiations." 	Although 	the
petition 	contains many signatures, 	the 	identity of 	the author of
the 	covering memo 	is not 	revealed. 	Copies 	of 	the memo and
petition were 	sent 	to SEIU officers. 	There 	is no evidence 	that
the 	Oxnard 	senate 	ever repudiated 	the memo and 	I 	find 	that 	it 	was
sent 	to 	the District 	as 	an act 	of 	the 	senate and not 	of
individual 	senate members.
At a negotiating session on May 17, 	1993, 	District
negotiator Marchioni 	cited 	the petition as 	a 	reason 	for not
agreeing 	to 	the Union's 	agency 	fee proposal. 	Union President
Colvin quoted her as 	saying 	that 	the District 	had been 	informed
by 	the Oxnard 	classified senate 	that 	some 	of 	the 	employees 	did
not 	want 	agency 	fees 	because 	they 	felt 	that 	the Union 	represented
Union members, 	only.8 As 	of 	the date of 	the hearing, 	the parties
had not 	discussed Union 	security again and 	the 	issue 	remained
unresolved.
7See 	charging party exhibit nos. 	12 	and 26.
8In 	its brief, 	the District broadly asserts 	that 	"much of
the presentation of 	SEIU's 	case 	in 	chief 	was presented 	through
hearsay 	evidence 	that 	was 	not 	corroborated with non-hearsay
evidence." 	The District made 	no hearsay 	objection 	to 	this
testimony by Ms. 	Colvin at 	the time 	it was 	taken 	(see Vol. 	I,
p. 	52 of the reporter's transcript). 	I want it to be clear,
nevertheless, 	that 	I do not consider Ms. 	Colvin's testimony on
this point 	to have been hearsay. 	The 	statement made by
Ms. 	Marchioni was 	a verbal 	act by the District. 	An in-court
recitation of 	a verbal 	act 	is 	not 	hearsay testimony.
14

In addition to 	involving the 	senates 	in negotiable 	subjects,
the District 	by various manifestations 	has 	accorded a prominence
to 	the 	senates 	that 	equals 	or exceeds 	that 	granted 	to 	the Union.
The 	classified senates, 	for example, 	are provided a regular time
to 	speak at meetings 	of 	the District board of 	trustees. 	SEIU
representatives 	must 	complete 	a 	card 	requesting 	to 	speak 	during
the 	comments 	by 	the public portion of 	the meeting. 	The desk at
which 	senate 	representatives 	sit 	during board of 	trustee meetings
has a microphone, 	whereas 	the Union desk does not. 	The District
often addresses 	communications 	to all 	four of 	the 	classified
senate presidents 	and the SEIU president, 	thus 	according 	each of
the 	four 	senates 	a 	status 	equivalent 	to 	the Union.
The prominence accorded to 	the 	senates 	at meetings 	of 	the
District 	board of 	trustees 	is 	due at 	least 	in part 	to a 	request
made by 	the 	Classified Leadership 	Council. 	Council 	President
Pattie McPhun on February 28, 	1992, 	wrote to the District
chancellor and asked 	that 	the 	senates 	be 	given a 	regular place 	on
the agenda, 	like the academic senate. 	The reason for this
request was 	to permit 	the 	classified senates 	"to give a 	report 	or
make 	comments 	without 	the 	need 	for 	filling 	out 	a 	form such as 	the
public must 	do." 	She 	also asked that 	the 	classified 	senates 	be
given a 	table behind the 	table 	of 	the 	academic 	senate. 	A copy of
the 	February 28 	memo was 	sent 	to SEIU President 	Colvin but 	she
testified 	that 	she 	had no 	recollection participating 	in 	the
meeting that 	led to 	its writing. 	There 	is no evidence 	that 	she
did.
15

The 	status 	of 	the 	senates 	has 	not 	been 	lost 	on 	individual
employees. 	In February of 	1993, 	at 	the time the District was
facing budget 	cuts, 	one 	employee wrote 	to a 	classified senate 	to
oppose 	any plan 	to 	reduce 	the 	classified employee 	work year 	to 	11
months. 	The 	employee 	stated that 	she was 	a 	single mother and
could not 	afford 	the pay 	reduction. 	She 	urged 	that 	the 	senate
"[p]lease 	consider 	this 	seriously, 	as 	I'm sure 	I'm not 	the 	only
one 	in 	this position." 	The 	employee's 	letter was 	discussed at 	a
classified 	senate 	meeting.
LEGAL 	ISSUES
1) 	Did the District 	contribute unlawful 	support 	to 	the
classified senates and thereby violate 	section 3543.5(d), 	and
derivatively, 	(a) 	and 	(b)?
2) 	Did an agent of 	the District, 	on or about March 11,
1993, 	discuss with representatives 	of 	the 	classified senates
"negotiable 	options" 	not 	previously presented 	to SEIU and 	thereby
violate section 3543.5(c), 	and derivatively, 	(a) 	and 	(b)?
CONCLUSIONS 	OF 	LAW
Public 	school 	employers 	are 	prohibited by 	the 	EERA from
dominating 	or 	interfering with 	the 	formation 	of 	any 	employee
organization. 	They also 	are prohibited 	from contributing
financial 	or 	other 	support 	to an employee 	organization or 	"in any
way" 	encouraging 	employees 	to 	join one 	organization 	in preference
to another. 	(Sec. 	3543.5(d).)
Where 	there 	is 	an allegation of 	employer domination or
unlawful 	support, 	the 	first 	inquiry is whether the 	employer's
16

actions 	involve an 	"employee 	organization" 	under the 	statute.
An 	"employee 	organization" 	must 	include 	public 	school 	employees
among 	its members 	and must 	have as 	"one 	of 	its 	primary
purposes" 	representing those 	employees 	in their relations
with the public 	school 	employer.9 Thus 	two 	elements 	are
necessary: 	participation by employees 	of 	the public 	school
employer 	and a 	representational 	purpose.
SEIU argues 	that 	the 	classified 	senates 	fit 	the 	statutory
measurements 	for an employee 	organization. 	Plainly, 	the vast
majority of 	their members 	are public 	school 	employees.10
Moreover, 	SEIU contends, 	"there can be no dispute about 	the
representative 	nature 	of 	the 	[s]enates." 	The 	representational
purpose, 	SEIU continues, 	can be 	found both in the governing
papers 	and the 	regular actions 	of 	the 	senates.
It 	is 	not 	difficult 	for a group of 	employees 	to qualify as
an 	employee 	organization. 	The 	Board 	long ago 	determined 	that 	an
9Section 	3540.1 	sets 	out 	the 	following definition:
(d) 	"Employee organization" means any
organization which 	includes 	employees 	of 	a
public 	school 	employer and which has 	as 	one
of 	its 	primary purposes 	representing 	those
employees 	in their 	relations 	with 	that 	public
school 	employer. 	"Employee 	organization"
shall 	also 	include 	any person 	such an
organization authorizes 	to act 	on 	its behalf.
10
'Section 	3540.1 	sets 	out 	the 	following definition:
(j) 	"Public school 	employee" 	or 	"employee"
means 	any person 	employed by any public
school 	employer 	except 	persons 	elected by
popular vote, 	persons 	appointed by the
Governor of this state, 	management employees,
and 	confidential 	employees.
17

organization need not 	have a 	formal 	structure, 	seek exclusivity
or be 	concerned with all 	aspects 	of 	the 	employment 	relationship
in order 	to 	constitute a 	labor organization. 	The Board's 	inquiry
is 	whether the group has 	as 	a 	central 	focus 	the 	representation of
employees 	on employment-related matters. 	(State of 	California
(Department of Developmental 	Services) 	(1982) 	PERB Decision
No. 	228-S.) 	Accordingly, 	a 	faculty forum established 	"to 	improve
communications 	and 	solve problems" 	and where 	negotiable 	subjects
were 	discussed qualified as 	an employee 	organization. 	(Oak Grove
School District 	(1986) 	PERB Decision No. 	582 	(Oak Grove).) 	It
was 	irrelevant 	that 	negotiations 	never 	took place between 	the
school 	district 	and 	the 	forum.
The Board, 	nevertheless, 	has made 	clear its view that
employee 	groups 	may 	exist 	apart 	from exclusive 	representatives
and may 	lawfully 	communicate with 	the 	employer. 	The 	critical
requirement 	is 	that 	such groups 	remain outside 	the
representational 	environment. 	This point 	first was made 	in Oak
Grove 	and 	then 	reemphasized 	in Redwoods.11 Quoting 	with 	approval
11In Redwoods 	Community 	College 	District 	the 	Board 	found
it 	"prudent to repeat 	[the 	following] 	passage" 	from its decision
in Oak Grove 	School 	District:
This 	is 	not 	to 	say that 	all 	faculty councils
or groups are per se unlawful, 	or that
individual 	employees 	cannot 	speak 	to 	their
employers about working conditions, 	including
those within the 	scope 	of 	representation.
But 	when 	the District 	sets 	up 	an organized
group 	of 	teachers 	[or other represented
employees] 	to meet at 	regular intervals 	on
school 	time 	to discuss 	topics 	of mutual
interest, 	it permits discussion of negotiable
18

various National 	Labor Relations Board 	(NLRB) 	decisions, 	the
Board 	set 	out 	two 	circumstances 	in which employee 	groups 	could
conduct 	lawful 	relationships with employers. 	These 	circumstances
occur where 	the 	employee 	groups 	"engage 	in a mere 	discussion with
management, 	rather than making recommendations 	to management" 	or
where 	"management 	has 	delegated actual 	decision-making 	authority"
to 	the groups. 	(Redwoods) 	The 	classified employees 	council 	in
Redwoods 	did not meet 	either test 	because 	its 	activities 	"went
beyond discussions, 	but 	fell 	short 	of 	constituting delegated
managerial 	decision-making authority." 	(Ibid.)
The 	PERB 	has 	not 	revisited the 	question of 	employer
relationships with employee 	groups 	since Redwoods. 	The NLRB did
review the question last year in E.I, 	du Pont de Nemours 	& Co.
(1993) 	311 NLRB No. 	88 	[143 LRRM 1121]. 	There, 	the NLRB found
certain 	employer-dominated 	employee 	committees 	to be 	unlawful 	but
found to be 	lawful 	the activities 	of 	one 	committee. 	In a
discussion about 	the 	types 	of 	organizational 	activities 	which
would be 	lawful, 	the NLRB described several 	examples. 	A
"brainstorming group" 	would be permissible because 	its 	purpose
would be 	solely to gather a host 	of 	ideas. 	Also permissible
would be 	a 	committee 	"for the purpose 	of 	sharing 	information" 	if
that 	committee makes 	no proposals 	to 	the 	employer and 	the
employer, 	after gathering the 	information, 	does with it as 	it
wishes. 	Also permitted would be a decision-making 	committee
where management 	representatives 	were 	in the minority and 	the
subjects 	at 	its 	own risk.
19

committee 	had 	the power 	to decide 	rather 	than just make
proposals.12
It 	is apparent, 	as SEIU asserts, 	that the faculty senates
have a 	representational 	purpose. 	The 	senate 	constitutions 	and
bylaws 	set 	out 	their purpose 	as 	being 	"to address 	the non-union
concerns 	of 	the 	classified 	staff 	and 	interface 	with 	College
management 	in 	the 	implementation of 	solutions." 	Notwithstanding
the academic 	jargon, 	any organization that 	addresses 	employee
concerns 	by 	"interfacing" 	with management 	"in 	the 	implementation
of 	solutions" 	is 	representing employees.
Not 	only 	is 	a 	representational 	purpose 	disclosed 	in 	the
constitutions and bylaws of the senates, 	it 	is evident 	in their
actions. 	The senates, 	for example, 	have tussled with the Union
over 	control 	of 	the process 	for nominating 	classified employees
to District 	committees. 	In the District's 	shared governance
method of 	decision making, 	committee appointments 	can be
significant. 	The Wellness 	Committee, 	one of the groups 	over
which the Union and the 	senates were 	in dispute, 	makes
recommendations 	to 	the Health Benefits 	Committee 	which
effectively determines 	employee 	health benefits.
The 	senates 	also 	evidenced a 	representational 	purpose 	in the
discussions 	about 	the District's budget problems 	in the 	spring 	of
1993. 	The 	Oxnard classified senate 	invited the 	college president
and 	the 	District 	director 	of 	human 	resources 	to 	a 	senate meeting
to discuss 	the 	financial 	situation. 	The 	two administrators
12These 	examples 	are 	discussed at 	143 	LRRM 1124.
20

attended the meeting, 	described the 	financial 	situation, 	the
possibility 	of 	layoffs 	and 	explained 	the bumping procedure.
Although 	the primary purpose of 	the meeting was 	informational, 	I
conclude 	that 	the 	senate 	also was 	attempting 	to 	"interface with
College management 	in the 	implementation of 	solutions." 	The
persons 	invited by 	the 	senate were 	from the 	highest 	levels 	of
management. 	What 	the 	senate 	sought 	and secured was 	a 	commitment
that 	efforts 	would be made 	to protect 	the 	jobs 	of 	classified
employees.
That 	the District 	also 	saw the 	senates 	as 	having a 	role 	in
easing 	the 	financial 	problem is 	apparent 	in the 	actions 	of 	former
Vice 	Chancellor Talman. 	He 	solicited the assistance 	of 	the
senates 	in 	finding 	candidates 	for an early 	retirement 	program.
He 	asked 	the 	senates 	to arrange 	a meeting 	so he 	could 	talk 	to
potential 	early retirees 	and he 	sent 	the 	senates 	a 	list 	of
employees 	who might 	be 	interested. 	Layoff 	and 	early 	retirement
are 	directly 	related 	to wages 	and 	clearly are 	subjects 	within 	the
scope 	of 	representation.13
13The 	scope 	of 	representation is 	set 	out 	in EERA section
3543.2. 	This sections provides, 	in relevant part, 	as follows
(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 532 00, 	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,
21

Still 	another 	representational 	role 	into which 	the 	District
invited the 	senates 	occurred at Moorpark College. 	There, 	the
college president 	in 	February of 	1994 	invited 	the 	classified
senate president 	to 	join him and the 	SEIU president 	for a
discussion about 	his 	plan to 	change work hours 	for the 	summer.
Hours 	of 	work are 	a negotiable 	subject 	and a matter within 	the
purview of 	the 	exclusive 	representative. 	Yet 	the 	college
president 	invited the 	senate as 	an equal 	partner of 	the Union 	in
what 	obviously was 	to be a give-and-take 	about 	a 	change 	in hours.
Finally, 	there 	is an obvious 	representational 	purpose 	in the
request 	of 	the 	Oxnard 	classified 	senate 	that 	the District 	reject
the Union's 	request 	in negotiations 	for an agency shop 	clause.
In 	its memo 	to 	the District, 	the 	senate purported to 	speak on
behalf 	of 	classified employees. 	The 	senate 	took a position
exactly opposite 	to 	that 	of 	the Union on a negotiable 	subject.
The District 	then used the 	senate 	opposition as 	its 	rationale 	for
rejection of 	the Union's 	request 	for an agency 	fee 	clause.
The 	classified senates 	thus 	evidence a higher level 	of
organization and 	representational 	purpose 	than 	the 	Board has
required in previous 	cases. 	They are 	formal 	organizations with
and 3548.8, 	the layoff of probationary
certificated school 	district 	employees,
pursuant 	to Section 44959.5 	of 	the 	Education
Code, 	and alternative 	compensation or
benefits 	for 	employees 	adversely affected by
pension 	limitations 	pursuant 	to 	Section 22515
of 	the Education Code, 	to the extent deemed
reasonable 	and without 	violating 	the 	intent
and purposes 	of 	Section 415 	of 	the 	Internal
Revenue Code. 	. 	. 	.
22

constitutions 	and bylaws. 	They have 	elected officers who 	conduct
regular meetings 	and keep minutes. 	They project 	a
representational 	purpose 	in both word and deed. 	They are 	not
discussion groups 	or brainstorming groups 	or 	committees 	with 	the
full 	power to make 	final 	decisions. 	They are 	representational
bodies 	composed of 	employees and are 	clear rivals 	to the Union.
I conclude, 	therefore, 	that 	the academic senates are employee
organizations 	as 	defined 	in the 	statute.
Nevertheless, 	the District 	argues 	that 	the 	rules 	set 	out by
the 	PERB 	in Redwoods 	are 	largely 	inapplicable because 	of 	a 	1988
change 	in the law. 	That enactment14 required, 	among other
changes, 	that 	the Board of Governors 	of 	the 	California Community
Colleges 	(Board of Governors) 	establish minimum standards 	to
ensure:
. 	. 	. 	faculty, 	staff and students the right
to participate 	effectively 	in district 	and
college governance, 	and the 	opportunity to
express 	their opinions 	at 	the 	campus 	level
and to ensure 	that 	these 	opinions 	are given
every reasonable consideration. 	. 	. 	(Ed.
Code, sec. 70901(b) (1) (E).)
The 	statute 	required 	further 	that 	the board of 	trustees 	of 	each
individual 	community 	college 	district 	establish procedures 	not
inconsistent 	with 	the minimum statewide 	standards 	to 	ensure:
. 	. 	. 	faculty, 	staff, 	and students the
opportunity to 	express 	their opinions 	at 	the
campus 	level 	and to ensure 	that 	these
opinions 	are 	given 	every 	reasonable
consideration, 	and the 	right 	to participate
effectively 	in district 	and 	college
14Chapter 973, 	statutes of 1988.
23

governance . 	. 	. 	. 	(Ed. Code, sec.
70902(b)(7).)
In accord with these 	requirements, 	the Board of Governors
adopted 	rules 	requiring 	the 	local 	districts 	to provide 	an
opportunity 	for employees 	to 	"participate 	in 	the 	formulation and
development 	of 	district 	and 	college policies 	and procedures."
(Cal. Code of Reg., 	tit. 	5, 	sec. 	51023.5(a) (4) .) 	The rules also
require 	local 	districts 	to allow the 	local 	employee groups 	to
select 	"staff 	representatives 	to 	serve 	on 	college 	and district
task forces, 	committees, 	or other governance groups. 	. . . " 	(Cal.
Code of Reg., 	tit. 5, 	sec. 	51023.5(a) (7).)
In adopting these regulations, 	however, 	the Board of
Governors 	displayed a 	clear understanding 	of 	the 	status 	of
exclusive 	representatives. 	The 	regulations virtually 	incorporate
section 	3540(d) 	and 	specifically prohibit 	unlawful 	support 	and
the 	intrusion by 	staff 	committees 	into negotiable 	subjects.15
15California Code of Regulations, 	title 5, 	section 51023.5 (b)
reads as 	follows:
In developing and 	carrying 	out policies 	and
procedures pursuant to subsection 	(a), 	the
district 	governing board 	shall 	ensure 	that 	its
actions 	do not 	dominate 	or 	interfere with 	the
formation 	or administration 	of 	any employee
organization, 	or contribute 	financial 	or other
support 	to 	it, 	or in any way encourage 	employees
to 	join any organization in preference 	to another.
In addition, 	in order to 	comply with Government
Code sections 	3540, 	et seq., 	such procedures 	for
staff 	participation 	shall 	not 	intrude 	on matters
within 	the 	scope 	of 	representation under 	section
3543.2 	of 	the Government Code. 	In addition,
governing boards 	shall 	not 	interfere with 	the
exercise of employee rights to form, 	join, 	and
participate 	in 	the activities 	of 	employee
organizations 	of 	their 	own 	choosing 	for 	the
24

The 	regulations 	prohibit 	any 	interference 	in the 	right 	of
employees 	to 	engage 	in protected 	conduct 	and 	interference with
negotiated agreements. 	They show sensitivity to 	the 	rights 	of
exclusive 	representatives 	and make 	clear an 	intent 	that 	shared
governance 	should not 	intrude 	upon 	collective 	bargaining
relationships.
Unlike 	the District, 	I do not 	find anything 	in the 	1988
enactment 	or 	subsequent 	regulations 	of 	the 	Board 	of 	Governors
that affects 	the principles 	set out 	in Redwoods. 	If anything,
the 	regulations make 	it 	clear that 	shared governance 	is 	not 	to
usurp 	the 	relationship between 	community 	college 	districts 	and
exclusive 	representatives. 	The 	regulations also make 	it 	clear
that 	shared governance 	is 	inapplicable 	to matters 	within 	the 	EERA
scope of 	representation. 	Accordingly, 	I 	conclude 	that 	the 	1988
enactment 	and 	subsequent 	regulations 	are 	irrelevant 	to 	the
disposition of 	this matter.
The District 	next asserts 	that 	SEIU is 	estopped by 	its 	own
involvement 	with 	the 	classified 	senates 	from claiming unlawful
domination and support by the District. 	The District 	argues 	that
purpose 	of 	representation on all matters 	of
employer-employee 	relations. 	Nothing in this
section shall 	be 	construed 	to 	impinge 	upon 	or
detract 	from any 	negotiations 	or 	negotiated
agreements 	between 	exclusive 	representatives 	and
district governing boards. 	It 	is the intent of the
Board 	of 	Governors 	to 	respect 	lawful 	agreements
between staff 	and exclusive 	representatives 	as 	to
how they will 	consult, 	collaborate, 	share or
delegate 	among 	themselves 	the 	responsibilities
that 	are 	or may be 	delegated 	to 	staff 	pursuant 	to
these 	regulations.
25
'

SEIU 	through 	its 	agreement 	to 	contract 	section 	4.11 	and 	the
participation 	of 	SEIU officers 	in 	senate 	activities 	in 	effect
has 	consented 	to 	the District's 	involvement with the 	senates.
For this 	reason, 	the District 	concludes, 	the Union cannot now
complain.
The District 	reads 	far too much 	into 	the Union's 	prior
relationship with the 	senates. 	While Union members 	and officers
have participated 	in activities 	of 	the 	senates, 	there 	is 	no
evidence 	the Union ever 	controlled 	the 	senates 	or, 	alternatively,
ceded its 	statutory rights 	to them. 	It 	is 	clear that 	the Union
for a 	time 	cooperated with 	the 	senates 	in an attempt 	to achieve
its own goals. 	But 	from the Union's point 	of view this was 	a
marriage of necessity, 	not one of desire. 	At that 	time, 	Union
leaders viewed 	the 	senates 	as 	bodies 	they were powerless 	to
challenge. 	Union 	leaders 	sought 	to work out an accommodation
with the senates so, 	in the words of Ms. 	Colvin, 	classified
employees 	could 	"stick 	together 	on 	issues 	and not 	allow 	ourselves
to be 	divided by management." 	By pursuing 	this 	course, 	the Union
did not 	estop 	itself 	from challenging unlawful 	support 	of 	the
senates 	by the District.
The 	evidence 	thus 	establishes 	that 	the 	senates 	are 	employee
organizations 	and 	that 	neither 	regulatory 	change 	nor 	estoppel
bars 	examination of 	the District's 	relationship with them. 	The
inquiry now turns 	to whether 	the District 	provided 	financial 	or
other assistance 	to 	the 	senates.
26

Under section 3543.5(d) 	it 	is an unfair practice 	for a
public 	school 	employer to 	"contribute 	financial 	or other 	support"
to 	an employee 	organization or 	to 	"in any way encourage 	employees
to 	join any organization 	in preference 	to another." 	The 	PERB has
interpreted 	this 	language 	as 	imposing 	"an unqualified 	requirement
of 	strict 	neutrality." 	(Clovis 	Unified School 	District 	(1984)
PERB Decision No. 	389.) 	There 	is no requirement 	that 	the
aggrieved 	employee 	organization 	show 	that 	the 	employer 	intended
its actions 	to 	impact 	on employee 	free 	choice. 	"The 	simple
threshold 	test 	. . . 	is 	whether 	the 	employer's 	conduct 	tends 	to
influence 	that 	choice 	or provide 	stimulus 	in one 	direction or the
other." 	(Santa Monica Community College District 	(1979) 	PERB
Decision No. 	103.) 	It 	is unnecessary that 	the organization for
which 	the 	employer 	expressed preference 	be 	a 	formally 	constituted
organization. 	(Clovis Unified School District: 	Sacramento City
Unified School District 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	214.)
Measured against 	these standards, 	it 	is 	clear that 	the
District 	has provided unlawful 	support 	for 	the 	senates. 	This
unlawful 	support 	has 	occurred both 	in 	the 	form of 	financial
assistance 	and open deference 	to 	senate positions 	on negotiable
topics. 	In both regards, 	the District acted improperly.
The District 	has 	allowed the 	senates 	to use District 	copy
machines 	while 	requiring 	the Union to pay 	for such use. 	It 	has
provided 	release 	time 	for senate 	officers 	and members 	to attend
meetings 	while 	requiring Union members 	to make up 	all 	time 	except
27

for activities 	defined in the 	statute.16 It has 	given the
senates 	favored seating and 	speaking privileges 	at meetings 	of
the District board of 	trustees. 	Although the District 	argues
that 	the Union was 	complicit 	in 	its 	decision to provide 	the
senates with these benefits, 	I 	find its evidence unpersuasive.
More critically, 	however, 	the District has dealt with the
senates 	on negotiable topics. 	The District has 	sought 	to give
the 	senates 	the 	exclusive 	role 	of 	recommending 	classified
employees 	for appointment 	to 	committees 	that make 	recommendations
and/or decisions 	on negotiable matters. 	The District 	also has
dealt with the senates 	regarding layoffs, 	early retirement, 	a
change 	in hours and agency shop, 	all matters within the scope of
representation. 	Further, 	the District has 	justified negotiating
positions 	regarding appointments 	to 	committees 	and agency 	shop 	on
the views of 	the 	senates. 	Effectively, 	the District has granted
the 	senates 	a 	role as 	absent 	parties 	in 	the negotiations 	between
the District 	and 	the Union.
Upon the 	certification of 	an exclusive 	representative, 	the
employer 	is 	obligated 	to 	refrain 	from negotiating 	directly with
employees 	in the bargaining unit 	or other organizations. 	(Walnut
16Public 	school 	employers 	are 	required 	to grant 	released 	time
for certain 	representational 	activities. 	Section 3543.1 	provides
in 	relevant part 	that:
(c) 	A reasonable number of 	representatives
of 	an exclusive 	representative 	shall 	have 	the
right 	to receive 	reasonable periods 	of
released time without 	loss 	of 	compensation
when meeting 	and negotiating 	and 	for 	the
processing of 	grievances.
28

Valley Unified School District 	(1981) 	PERB Decision No. 	160;
Hanford Joint Union High School District 	(1978) 	PERB Decision No.
58.) 	Once an exclusive 	representative has been chosen, 	"only
that 	employee 	organization may represent 	that 	unit 	in 	their
employment 	relations with the public 	school 	employer." 	(Sec.
3543.1(a).) 	Yet 	the District 	here 	not 	only granted 	the 	senates
a 	representative 	role, 	but also openly 	favored 	senate positions.
Accordingly, 	I 	find 	that 	the District violated section
3543.5(d) 	by providing unlawful 	assistance 	to 	the 	classified
senates. 	This 	action had the 	concurrent 	effect 	of 	denying 	the
Union 	the 	right 	to 	represent 	its members 	in violation of 	section
3543.5(b). 	Since there is no evidence that the unlawful
assistance 	to 	the 	classified 	senates 	also 	denied 	to 	individual
employees 	rights protected by the 	EERA, 	the allegation that 	the
District violated section 3543.5(a) 	must be dismissed. 	(See
Tahoe-Truckee Unified School 	District 	(1988) 	PERB Decision
No. 	668.)
The 	Union also argues 	that 	the District 	has 	dominated 	the
senates 	in their 	formation and operation. 	Because 	of 	this
domination, 	it asks 	that 	the senates be disestablished. 	On this
contention, 	the Union has 	failed to prove 	its allegation. 	The
record 	is 	devoid 	of 	evidence 	that 	the District 	had any 	role 	in
the 	establishment 	of 	the 	senates at 	the 	three colleges. 	The 	only
evidence 	on 	the 	point 	is 	from Landra Adams 	who 	credibly 	testified
that 	she 	had no 	contract 	with administrators 	at 	Ventura 	College
until 	after she and others 	already had formed the 	senate. 	There
29

is 	evidence 	that 	the 	District 	chancellor 	encouraged 	the 	formation
of a 	classified senate at 	the District 	office. 	There 	is 	no
evidence, 	however, 	that he or any other administrator took a
subsequent 	role 	in its 	formation. 	It 	is 	clear from the minutes
of 	senate meetings 	that 	no managers 	and very few supervisors
attend senate meetings. 	Senate 	officers 	are 	elected by
classified employees 	and 	there 	is 	no 	evidence 	of 	District
influence in the outcome. 	In short, 	the evidence of 	employer
domination 	is 	completely 	lacking.
Finally, 	the 	complaint alleges 	that 	the District at a
March 11, 	1993, 	meeting, 	of the Oxnard classified senate
discussed 	"negotiable 	options" 	not 	previously presented 	to 	SEIU.
Evidence 	that 	an 	employer has 	negotiated with a 	rival 	group 	of
employees may 	show both a bypassing 	of 	the 	exclusive
representative 	and unlawful 	preference between organizations.
When an 	employer bypasses 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	and
negotiates 	directly with employees, 	an employer fails 	to
negotiate 	in good faith in violation of 	section 3543.5(c).
However, 	the 	contention that 	the District bypassed the Union
by its action at the March 11, 	1993, 	meeting is devoid of proof.
There 	is 	no 	evidence 	that 	the District acted in a manner 	that was
inconsistent 	with 	the 	agreement 	between SEIU and 	the 	District.
Nor 	is 	there 	evidence 	that 	anything 	stated by District 	agents
represented a 	change 	in positions 	the District 	had 	taken with 	the
Union.
30

Accordingly, 	I 	conclude 	that 	the District did not bypass 	the
Union by its 	conduct at 	the meeting of March 11, 	1993. 	The
alleged violation of EERA section 3543.5(c) 	and 	(a) 	and 	(b) 	for
the 	second 	cause 	of 	action must 	therefore be 	dismissed.
REMEDY
The PERB in section 3541.5 (c) 	is given:
. 	. 	. 	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 	this 	chapter.
Here, 	the District 	has 	unlawfully supported the 	classified
senates 	by allowing 	the 	senates 	to use District 	copy machines 	and
allowing 	senate 	officers 	and members 	to attend meetings 	on
released time.. 	The District also has given the 	senates 	favored
seating 	and 	speaking privileges 	at meetings 	of 	the District 	board
of 	trustees 	and shown a 	favoritism toward the 	senates. 	The
District 	has 	dealt with 	the 	senates 	on negotiable 	topics. 	The
District 	has 	justified positions 	it 	took 	in negotiations 	with
SEIU by 	stating 	that 	the 	senates 	were 	opposed 	to 	SEIU proposals.
The 	ordinary 	remedy 	in a 	case 	involving unlawful 	support 	is
an 	order 	that 	the 	employer 	cease 	and desist 	its 	unlawful 	support
of 	the 	rival 	organization. 	The Union seeks 	the 	further remedy of
an 	order 	that 	the 	classified 	senates 	be 	disestablished. 	A cease
and desist 	order 	is 	appropriate 	in cases 	of 	unlawful 	support.
Where 	there 	is 	employer domination, 	disestablishment 	of 	the
dominated organization is 	the appropriate 	remedy. 	(Redwoods.)
31

Since employer domination of 	the senates was not proven here, 	the
remedy will 	be 	limited to a 	cease 	and desist 	order.
It 	is 	further appropriate 	that 	the District be 	directed to
post a notice 	incorporating the 	terms 	of 	the order. 	Posting of
such a notice, 	signed by an authorized agent 	of 	the District,
will 	provide 	employees with notice 	that 	the District 	has 	acted 	in
an unlawful manner, 	is being 	required 	to 	cease and desist 	from
this activity, 	and will 	comply with the order. 	It 	effectuates
the purposes 	of 	the 	EERA that 	employees 	be 	informed of 	the
resolution 	of 	this 	controversy and 	the District's 	readiness 	to
comply with 	the 	ordered 	remedy. 	(Placerville 	Union School
District 	(1978) 	PERB Decision No. 	69.)
PROPOSED 	ORDER
Upon the 	foregoing 	findings 	of 	fact 	and conclusions 	of 	law
and the 	entire 	record in the 	case, 	it 	is 	found that 	the Ventura
County Community 	College District 	(District) 	violated 	section
3543.5(d) 	of the Educational Employment Relations Act 	(Act). 	The
District 	violated 	the Act 	by unlawfully 	supporting 	the 	classified
senates 	and dealing with 	the 	senates 	on negotiable 	topics.
Because 	this 	action had 	the 	additional 	effect 	of 	interfering with
the right of 	the Service Employees 	International Union, 	Local
535, 	to represent 	its members, 	the District's unlawful support of
the classified senates was a violation of 	section 3543.5(b). 	The
allegation 	that 	the 	District's 	conduct 	violated 	section 	3543.5(a)
and all 	other allegations 	are 	hereby DISMISSED.
32

Pursuant 	to section 3541.5(c) 	of the Government Code, 	it
hereby is 	ORDERED 	that 	the District, 	its 	governing board and 	its
representatives 	shall:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
1. 	Contributing 	financial 	or other support 	to 	the
classified 	senates 	or 	in any other way 	showing a preference 	for
the 	senates 	over 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	or any 	other
employee 	organization.
2. 	Dealing with 	the 	classified 	senates 	on negotiable
topics 	while 	there 	is 	an exclusive 	representative 	of 	classified
employees 	and 	thereby 	showing a preference 	for 	the 	senates 	and
interfering with 	the 	right 	of 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	to
represent 	its members 	and others 	in 	the bargaining units.
B. 	TAKE 	THE 	FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS 	DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE 	THE 	POLICIES 	OF THE ACT:
1. 	Within ten 	(10) 	workdays of 	the service of a final
decision 	in this matter, 	post at all work locations where notices
to 	classified employees 	customarily are posted, 	copies 	of 	the
Notice attached hereto as 	an Appendix. 	The Notice must be 	signed
by an authorized agent 	of 	the District, 	indicating 	that 	the
District 	will 	comply with 	the 	terms 	of 	this 	Order. 	Such posting
shall 	be maintained 	for a period of 	thirty 	(30) 	consecutive
workdays. 	Reasonable steps 	shall be 	taken to ensure 	that 	the
Notice 	is not 	reduced in size, 	altered, 	defaced or covered with
any 	other material.
2. 	Upon issuance of a 	final 	decision, 	make written
notification of 	the actions 	taken to 	comply with the 	Order 	to the
33

San 	Francisco 	Regional 	Director of 	the 	Public 	Employment
Relations 	Board 	in accord with 	the 	director's 	instructions.
Pursuant 	to California Code of Regulations, 	title 	8,
section 323 05, 	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 Cal. 	Code of Regs.,
tit. 	8, 	sec. 	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 Cal. 	Code of
Regs., 	tit. 	8, 	sec. 	32135; Code of Civ. 	Pro. sec. 	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 Cal. 	Code 	of Regs.,
tit. 	8, 	secs. 	32300, 	32305 and 32140.)
Ronald E. 	Blubaugh
Administrative 	Law 	Judge
34