San Francisco Unified School District (PERB 1086E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
SAN 	FRANCISCO 	UNIFIED 	SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
GLAZIERS, 	ARCHITECTURAL METAL AND
GLASS WORKERS, 	LOCAL 718,
Petitioner.
Case No. 	SF-R-799
PERB Decision No. 	1086
March 1, 	1995
SAN 	FRANCISCO UNIFIED 	SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
INTERNATIONAL 	BROTHERHOOD 	OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, 	LOCAL 6,
Petitioner.
Case No. 	SF-R-800
SAN 	FRANCISCO 	UNIFIED 	SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
SHEET METAL WORKERS 	INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, 	LOCAL 104,
Petitioner.
Case No. 	SF-R-803
Appearances: 	Sonnenschein, 	Nath & Rosenthal by Lee T. 	Paterson,
Attorney, 	for San Francisco Unified School District; 	Neyhart,
Anderson, 	Reilly & Freitas by William J. 	Flynn, 	Attorney, 	for
Glaziers, 	Architectural Metal and Glass Workers, 	Local 	718,
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 	Local 	6, 	and
Sheet Metal Workers 	International Association, 	Local 	104.
Before Blair, 	Chair; 	Carlyle and Garcia, 	Members.

DECISION
BLAIR, 	Chair: 	This 	case 	is before 	the Public Employment
Relations 	Board 	(PERB or Board) 	on exceptions 	filed by 	the
Glaziers, 	Architectural Metal and Glass Workers, 	Local 718, 	the
International Brotherhood of 	Electrical Workers, 	Local 	6, 	and the
Sheet Metal Workers 	International Association, 	Local 	104, 	to the
proposed 	decision 	of 	a 	PERB 	hearing 	officer 	(attached 	hereto)
denying bargaining units 	sought 	by 	them.
The 	three unions 	each had 	filed a petition 	to 	represent
specified 	skilled 	crafts 	employees 	at 	the 	San 	Francisco Unified
School District 	(District) 	in three 	separate units 	containing a
total 	of 	18 	employees. 	The hearing officer rejected the proposed
bargaining units 	as 	inappropriate 	and proposed 	instead 	the
creation of 	one bargaining unit 	to 	represent 	the 	employees.
The 	Board has 	reviewed 	the 	entire 	record 	in this 	case,
including the proposed decision, 	transcripts, 	the exceptions 	of
the 	three unions 	and 	the District's 	response 	thereto.1 The 	Board
finds 	the hearing 	officer's 	decision 	is 	consistent 	with the
recent 	Board decision 	in 	the matter of 	San 	Francisco 	Community
College District 	(1994) 	PERB Decision No. 	1068. 	The Board
therefore 	finds 	the 	hearing 	officer's 	findings 	of 	fact 	and
conclusions 	of 	law to be 	free 	of prejudicial 	error and adopts
them as 	the 	decision of 	the Board 	itself.
1The petitioners' 	request 	for consolidation of 	this 	case
with Case No. 	SF-R-713 	(San Francisco Community College District
(1994) 	PERB Decision No. 	1068) 	is denied by the Board.
Petitioners' 	request 	for oral 	argument was 	denied on February 15,
1995.
22

ORDER
Based on the 	findings 	of 	fact, 	conclusions 	of 	law, 	and the
entire record in this 	case, 	the petitions 	for separate bargaining
units 	of 	crafts 	employees 	filed by the Glaziers, 	Architectural
Metal and Glass Workers, 	Local 	718, 	the International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers, 	Local 6, 	and the Sheet Metal Workers
International Association, 	Local 	104, 	are hereby DENIED.
The 	Board 	finds 	the 	following unit 	is 	appropriate 	for
meeting 	and negotiating, 	provided an 	employee 	organization
becomes 	the 	exclusive 	representative:
Unit Title: 	Skilled Crafts Residual 	Unit
Shall 	Include: 	The 	classifications 	of glazier, 	glazier
supervisor I, 	electrician, 	electrician supervisor I,
sheet metal worker, 	sheet metal 	supervisor I, 	chief
stationary 	engineer, 	school 	heating 	and ventilation
supervisor, 	plumber supervisor I, 	maintenance planner,
stationary engineer, 	plumber, 	automotive mechanic,
general 	laborer and 	roofer.
Shall Exclude: 	All 	other employees, 	including
management, 	supervisory and confidential 	employees.2
Within ten 	(10) 	days 	following 	issuance of 	this decision,
the District 	shall 	post 	on all 	employee bulletin boards 	in each
facility of 	the 	employer 	in which members 	of 	the unit 	described
in the decision are 	employed, 	a 	copy of 	the Notice 	of Decision
attached hereto as 	an Appendix. 	The Notice 	of 	Decision shall
remain posted for a minimum of 	fifteen 	(15) 	workdays. 	Reasonable
2The District may contest 	the 	supervisory 	status 	of 	any
classification or employee pursuant 	to the parties' 	stipulation
described 	in 	the 	hearing 	officer's 	proposed decision 	(see
Proposed Decision, p. 22, fn. 34).
33

steps 	shall 	be 	taken to 	ensure 	that 	the Notice 	is 	not 	reduced 	in
size, 	altered, 	defaced or covered with any other material.
Pursuant 	to 	PERB Regulation 33470,3 the Glaziers,
Architectural Metal and Glass Workers, 	Local 	718, 	the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 	Local 	6, 	and the
Sheet Metal Workers 	International Association, 	Local 	104, 	shall
have 	fifteen 	(15) 	workdays 	from the date of 	issuance 	of 	this
decision 	to demonstrate 	to 	the 	satisfaction of 	the 	San 	Francisco
Regional 	Director at 	least 	3 0 percent 	support 	in the unit
described as 	appropriate.4 An 	election 	shall 	be 	conducted by
PERB 	unless 	only 	one 	employee 	organization demonstrates 	majority
support, 	no other employee 	organization submits at 	least 	30
percent, 	and the District 	grants voluntary recognition. 	(PERB
Regulations 	33470 	and 33480.)
If no employee 	organization submits at 	least 	3 0 percent
support, 	all 	three petitions 	shall 	be dismissed and no 	election
shall 	be 	conducted.
The 	Board hereby ORDERS 	that 	this 	case be 	REMANDED 	to 	the
San 	Francisco 	Regional 	Director 	for proceedings 	consistent 	with
this decision.
Members 	Carlyle 	and Garcia 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
3PERB 	regulations 	are 	codified at 	California 	Code 	of
Regulations, 	title 8, 	section 31001 et seq.
4Pursuant 	to PERB Regulation 32700(d), 	two or more employee
organizations may 	combine 	their proofs 	of 	support 	as 	a 	joint
petitioner.
4

APPENDIX
NOTICE 	TO 	EMPLOYEES
POSTED 	BY ORDER 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
An Agency of 	the 	State 	of 	California
CASE: 	San 	Francisco Unified School 	District
Case Nos. SF-R-799, SF-R-800, SF-R-803
PERB Decision No. 	1086
EMPLOYER: 	San 	Francisco Unified School 	District
135 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, 	CA 94102
(415) 	241-6068
EMPLOYEE 	ORGANIZATIONS
PARTY 	TO 	PROCEEDING:
Glaziers, 	Architectural Metal and Glass Workers,
Local 718,
2660 Newhall Street, 	Suite 100
San Francisco, 	CA 94124
(415) 	467-1585
International 	Brotherhood 	of 	Electrical 	Workers,
Local 	6,
55 	Fillmore Street
San Francisco, 	CA 94117
(415) 	861-5752
Sheet Metal 	Workers 	International 	Association,
Local 104,
1939 	Market 	Street
San Francisco, 	CA 94103
(415) 	621-2930
FINDINGS:
The 	Board 	finds 	the 	following unit 	is 	appropriate 	for
meeting and negotiating, 	provided an employee 	organization
becomes 	the 	exclusive 	representative:
Unit 	Title: 	Skilled Crafts 	Residual 	Unit
Shall 	Include: 	The classifications 	of glazier, 	glazier
supervisor I, 	electrician, 	electrician supervisor I,
sheet metal worker, 	sheet metal 	supervisor I, 	chief
stationary engineer, 	school 	heating and ventilation
supervisor, 	plumber supervisor I, 	maintenance planner,
stationary engineer, 	plumber, 	automotive mechanic,
general 	laborer and 	roofer.

Shall Exclude: 	All other employees, 	including
management, 	supervisory and confidential 	employees.
Pursuant 	to PERB Regulation section 33450, 	within ten 	(10)
days 	following 	issuance 	of 	this Notice of Decision, 	the 	San
Francisco Unified School 	District 	(District) 	shall 	post 	on all
employee 	bulletin boards 	in each 	facility of 	the 	employer 	in
which members 	of 	the unit 	described 	in 	the 	decision are 	employed,
a 	copy of 	this Notice of Decision. 	The Notice of Decision shall
remain posted for a minimum of 	fifteen 	(15) 	workdays. 	Reasonable
steps 	shall 	be 	taken to 	ensure 	that 	the Notice 	is 	not 	reduced 	in
size, 	altered, 	defaced or covered with any other material.
Pursuant 	to PERB Regulation 33470, 	the Glaziers,
Architectural Metal and Glass Workers, 	Local 	718, 	the
International Brotherhood of 	Electrical Workers, 	Local 	6, 	and the
Sheet Metal Workers 	International Association, 	Local 	104, 	shall
have 	fifteen 	(15) 	workdays 	from the date of 	service 	of 	this
decision 	to 	demonstrate 	to 	the 	satisfaction of 	the 	San Francisco
Regional 	Director at 	least 	3 0 percent 	support 	in the unit
described as 	appropriate. 	An election 	shall 	be 	conducted by 	PERB
unless 	only 	one 	employee 	organization 	demonstrates 	majority
support, 	no other employee organization submits at 	least 	3 0
percent, 	and the District 	grants voluntary recognition. 	(PERB
Regulations 	33470 	and 33480.)
If no employee 	organization submits at 	least 	3 0 percent
support, 	all 	three petitions 	shall 	be dismissed and no election
shall 	be 	conducted.
Dated: 	SAN 	FRANCISCO 	UNIFIED 	SCHOOL
DISTRICT
By:
Authorized 	Representative
THIS 	IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE. 	IT MUST REMAIN POSTED 	FOR FIFTEEN
(15) 	CONSECUTIVE WORKDAYS 	FROM THE DATE OF 	POSTING AND MUST NOT
BE REDUCED IN SIZE, 	DEFACED, 	ALTERED, 	OR COVERED WITH ANY OTHER
MATERIAL.
22

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
SAN 	FRANCISCO UNIFIED 	SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
GLAZIERS, 	ARCHITECTURAL METAL
AND GLASS WORKERS, 	LOCAL 718,
INTERNATIONAL 	BROTHERHOOD 	OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, 	LOCAL 	6,
and
SHEET METAL WORKERS 	INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, 	LOCAL 104,
Employee Organizations.
)
)
)
) 	Representation
Case Nos. 	SF-R-799,
SF-R-800 	& 	SF-R-803
PROPOSED DECISION
(8/18/94)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances; 	Sonnenschein, 	Nath & Rosenthal, 	by Lee T.
Patterson, 	Attorney, 	for San Francisco Unified School District;
Neyhart, 	Anderson, 	Reilly & Freitas, 	by John L. 	Anderson and
William J. 	Flynn, 	Attorneys, 	for Glaziers, 	Architectural Metal
and Glass Workers, 	Local 	718, 	International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, 	Local 	6 	and Sheet Metal Workers 	International
Association, 	Local 104.
Before Les 	Chisholm, 	Hearing Officer.
PROCEDURAL 	HISTORY
On February 1, 	1993, 	the Glaziers, 	Architectural Metal and
Glass Workers, 	Local 	718 	(Local 	718) 	filed a request 	for
recognition with 	the 	San 	Francisco 	Unified 	School 	District
(District 	or Employer) 	for a unit 	including 	the 	classifications
of glazier 	(class 	code 7326) 	and glazier foreman 	(7233).
The 	International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 	Local 	6
(Local 	6) 	filed a 	request 	for recognition with the District 	on
February 17, 	1993, 	seeking a unit of electricians or related
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.

classes, 	including employees 	in 41 	classifications. 	The Local 	6
petition 	further 	indicated that 	the unit 	sought 	is 	identical 	to
the unit 	it 	represents with the 	City and County of 	San Francisco
(City), 	and alleged that 	the District 	is a joint employer with
the City.
On March 4, 	1993, 	the Sheet Metal Workers 	International
Association, 	Local 	104 	(Local 	104)1 filed a request 	for
recognition with 	the District 	for a unit 	of 	sheet 	metal 	workers
and related classes, 	identifying 	four class 	codes, 	and also
indicated 	that 	the unit 	sought 	is 	identical 	to a unit 	of 	the
joint 	employer 	or 	City.
Each 	of 	the petitions 	was 	properly 	served on 	the 	San
Francisco Regional 	Office 	of 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations
Board 	(PERB or Board).2 In each case, 	PERB 	issued determinations
that 	the 	Petitioners 	had demonstrated majority support, 	and the
Employer 	filed 	an 	employer 	decision which 	denied voluntary
recognition and questioned 	the 	appropriateness 	of 	the unit
sought. 	The 	Petitioners 	each 	filed timely requests 	for Board
investigation pursuant 	to 	PERB Regulation 33230. 	Settlement
conferences were held with the parties 	on June 24 	(SF-R-799) 	and
July 8, 	1993 	(SF-R-800 and 803), 	but no agreement was reached.
1Local 718, 	Local 	6 and Local 	104 	shall be referred to
collectively herein as 	Petitioners.
2PERB's 	regulations, 	found at 	California Code of
Regulations, 	title 8, 	section 31001 et seq., 	describe the
procedures 	for 	recognition 	requests 	beginning 	at 	section 	33050.
The Local 	718 petition is 	identified as 	PERB Case No. 	SF-R-799;
Local 	6's 	as 	SF-R-800 	and Local 	104's 	as 	SF-R-803.
22

The 	three 	cases 	were 	consolidated 	for hearing before 	the
undersigned and 	the 	hearing was 	conducted on October 4 	and 	5,
1993, 	December 2, 	1993 and February 11, 	1994. 	Each party-
submitted a brief 	in 	timely 	fashion, 	and the matter was 	submitted
for decision on June 16, 	1994.
FACTS
The 	District 	operates 	more 	than 	100 	schools 	and programs
throughout 	the 	City, 	with a 	combined average daily attendance 	in
excess 	of 	66000.3 The 	District 	employs 	over 5,000 	certificated
staff 	and nearly 4,000 	classified 	employees.4 Currently, 	the
District 	has 	nine 	established bargaining units: 	certificated
personnel,5 certificated supervisors,6 paraprofessionals,7
clerical 	and technical 	services,8 maintenance and operations,9
3California Public 	School 	Directory. 	California Department
of Education, 	1994.
4Official 	notice 	is 	taken of 	PERB's 	own 	case 	file 	records
concerning 	the 	numbers 	of 	employees 	and bargaining units 	of 	the
Employer. 	(See, 	e.g., 	Sacramento City Unified School District
(1979) 	PERB Decision No. 	100, 	at fn. 	5.)
5Represented by United Educators 	of 	San Francisco 	(UESF).
6Represented by United Administrators 	of 	San 	Francisco.
Represented by UESF. 	This 	unit 	was 	voluntarily recognized
in December 1977.
8Voluntary recognition was 	granted 	to 	Service 	Employees
International Union, 	Local 	790 	(SEIU) 	in July 1980.
9Also 	represented by 	SEIU based 	on voluntary 	recognition 	in
July 19 80.
33

carpenters 	and locksmiths,10 accountants 	and engineers,11
painters12 and gardeners.13
In addition to 	the employees at 	issue here, 	the 	following
groups 	of 	classified 	employees 	are 	among 	those 	which are
unrepresented at 	the District: 	stationary engineers, 	plumbers,
truck drivers, 	automobile mechanics, 	piano tuner, 	laborers,
roofers, 	payroll 	clerks, 	and various 	computer programmer and
technician 	classifications.
District/City 	Relationship
The 	Education 	Code 	includes 	numerous 	provisions 	relating 	to
the employment 	of 	classified staff 	in public 	schools, 	but 	notes
the 	following 	exception at 	section 45100:
These provisions 	shall 	not 	apply 	to 	employees
of 	a 	school 	district 	lying wholly within a
10The 	District 	granted voluntary 	recognition 	to 	Bay 	Counties
District 	Council 	of 	Carpenters 	(also 	identified as 	United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, 	Local 	22) 	in March 1982
for a unit 	consisting 	solely of 	the 	carpenter 	classification.
The 	locksmith 	classification was 	added 	to 	the unit 	by mutual
agreement 	in December 1993.
11The unit 	represented by 	International 	Federation 	of
Professional and Technical Engineers, 	Local 21 	(IFPTE), 	includes
accountants, 	civil, 	electrical and mechanical engineers, 	building
inspector, 	school 	construction coordinator, 	industrial hygienist,
architect 	and architectural 	assistants. 	Voluntary recognition
was 	granted by the District 	in August 	1982.
12Voluntary 	recognition was 	granted 	to 	Painters 	Union Local 	4
in June 1987.
13Voluntary recognition was 	granted to Laborers'
International Union of North America, 	Local 	261 	(LIUNA) 	in May
1980. 	The District 	agreed in June 	1990 	to resolve a dispute over
placement 	of 	two 	asbestos 	abatement 	worker 	classifications via a
self-determination 	election. 	(The 	employees 	selected
representation by SEIU in 	the maintenance 	and 	operations 	unit,
and LIUNA's 	unit 	continues 	to 	include 	only gardeners.)
44

city and 	county which provides 	in 	its 	charter
for a merit 	system of 	employment 	for
employees 	employed 	in positions 	not 	requiring
certification qualifications. 	. 	. 	.
Education Code 	section 45318 	further 	specifies 	as 	follows:
In every 	school 	district 	coterminous 	with 	the
boundaries 	of a 	city and county, 	except 	for
those 	paraprofessionals 	excluded 	from 	the
charter provisions 	by a 	resolution adopted by
the 	governing board of 	that 	district 	pursuant
to section 45100, 	employees not employed in
positions 	requiring 	certification
qualifications 	shall be employed, 	if 	the 	city
and 	county has 	a 	charter providing 	for a
merit 	system of 	employment, 	pursuant 	to the
provisions 	of 	that 	charter providing 	for that
system and shall, 	in all 	respects, 	be subject
to, 	and have all 	rights granted by, 	those
provisions; provided, 	however, 	that the
governing board 	of 	the 	school 	district 	shall
have 	the 	right 	to 	fix the duties 	of all 	of
its 	noncertificated employees.
The District 	is 	the 	only school 	district 	to which these
provisions 	apply, 	but 	substantively 	identical 	provisions 	apply 	to
the San Francisco Community College District 	(SFCCD).14
The 	Court 	of Appeal, 	harmonizing 	the Education Code
provisions 	applicable 	to 	SFCCD with the 	City Charter15 and 	the
14Education Code 	sections 	88000 	and 	88137 	were 	enacted only
after 	the 	SFCCD was 	established as 	a district 	separate and apart
from the District. 	Section 5.100 	of 	the 	City Charter provides
that 	all 	"public 	schools 	of 	the 	city and 	county shall 	be under
the 	control 	and management 	of 	a board of 	education," 	and section
5.101 	describes 	the powers 	and duties 	of 	that board. 	Effective
August 	8, 	1972, 	the Charter provides at 	section 5.104 	for a
separate 	governing board 	for 	the 	community 	college 	district 	of
the 	city and 	county.
15The 	City 	Charter provides 	for a 	Civil 	Service 	Commission
(CSC) 	at Article III, 	Chapter 5, 	sections 3.660 and 3.661, 	and
sets 	forth Civil 	Service Provisions 	in Article VIII, 	Chapter 3,
sections 8.300 et seq.
5

Educational 	Employment Relations Act 	(EERA),16 resolved a dispute
over 	the 	status 	of 	SFCCD as 	a public 	school 	employer under EERA
in United Public Employees. 	Local 790. 	SEIU. 	AFL-CIO v. 	Public
Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(September 	1989) 	213 	Cal.App.3d 	1119
[262 Cal.Rptr. 	158] 	(United Public Employees),17
The 	court 	found that 	SFCCD hires 	and 	fires 	its 	employees,
supervises 	them on the job, 	assigns duties, 	administers 	leaves
and other benefits 	provided under 	the 	City's 	civil 	service
system, 	grants other benefits, 	sets salaries, 	and determines what
holidays 	will 	be 	taken by employees. 	(United Public 	Employees.)
The City, 	through its civil 	service system, 	establishes
classifications, 	qualifications and lists 	of persons 	eligible 	for
appointment, 	awards 	certain fringe and leave benefits, 	and
administers 	retirement and a health service plan. 	(Ibid.) 	In
sum, 	in the 	court's view, 	SFCCD and the City had 	"successfully
harmonized 	and 	divided 	their 	responsibilities 	over 	the
employees." 	(Ibid.) 	The 	court 	thus 	concluded that 	SFCCD 	is 	a
public 	school 	employer and 	that 	SFCCD and 	the 	City are 	"joint
employers" 	of 	SFCCD's 	classified employees.18 (Ibid.)
16EERA is 	codified at Government 	Code 	section 	3540 	et 	seq.
17The 	court's 	decision 	in United Public 	Employees 	thus
reversed 	the 	Board's 	finding 	that 	SFCCD 	is 	not 	under 	PERB's
jurisdiction 	(San 	Francisco 	Community 	College 	District 	(1988)
PERB Decision No. 	688), 	finding more persuasive the Board's
reasoning 	in an 	earlier 	case 	(San 	Francisco 	Community 	College
District (Barnes) (19 86) PERB Order No. Ad-153).
18The court cites NLRB v. 	Browning-Ferris 	Industries. 	Etc.
(3d Cir. 	1982) 	691 F.2d 1117, 	1128 	[111 LRRM 2748] 	for the
proposition 	that 	"where 	two or more 	employers 	exert 	significant
control 	over the 	same employees 	- - 	where 	from the evidence 	it 	can
66

be 	shown 	that 	they 	share 	or 	co-determine 	those matters 	governing
essential 	terms and conditions of employment 	- - 	they constitute
'joint 	employers'. 	. . . "
As 	discussed more 	fully below, 	Petitioners 	contend that 	the
District 	is 	likewise a joint 	employer with the 	City, 	but 	the
District 	disputes 	their analysis.
The 	City's 	Bargaining Units
The 	City is 	subject 	to the provisions 	of 	the Meyers-Milias-
Brown Act 	(MMBA),19 which provides 	collective bargaining rights
for employees of 	cities, 	counties and special districts, 	and has
adopted an Employee Relations 	Ordinance 	(ERO)20 pursuant 	to the
MMBA. 	City bargaining units 	are 	established by the 	ERO. 	In all,
there 	are 	over 	200 	bargaining units 	which have been established
under 	the 	ERO, 	with 	representation by more 	than 30 	separate
employee 	organizations.21
Unit 	1 	- 	Crafts 	(Unit 1) 	is comprised of multiple bargaining
sub-units 	for each 	"building 	trade 	or other 	craft 	or group which
has 	historically 	established 	separate 	bargaining units 	in private
industry 	or 	the 	journeymen 	of 	which normally attain 	status
through 	the 	completion of 	a 	substantial 	period of
apprenticeship." 	(San Francisco Administrative Code, 	section
16.210.) 	There are more 	than 30 	such units 	which exist within
the Unit 	1 	framework.
19Government 	Code 	section 3500 	et 	seq.
20San Francisco Administrative 	Code, 	section 16.200 	et 	seq.
21SEIU, 	for example, 	represents several different bargaining
units 	under 	the 	City 	structure.
77

Local 	718 	represents Unit 	1-H which includes 	some 	13
employees 	in two classifications: 	glazier supervisor 	I 	(code
7233) 	and glazier 	(code 	7326). 	Local 	6 	represents Unit 	1-L,
comprised of 	over 	600 	employees 	in 42 	job classifications,
including electrician supervisor 	I 	(code 	7238) 	and electrician
(code 	7345) .22 Local 	104 	represents Unit 	1-V with about 	35
employees 	in 	three 	classifications: 	heat 	and ventilation
inspector 	(code 	6235), 	sheet metal worker 	(code 7376) 	and sheet
metal supervisor I 	(code 9345) .
The 	representation of 	existing District units 	of 	classified
employees 	generally parallels 	those 	in 	the 	City where 	the
classifications 	are 	utilized by both 	the 	City and District.23
There are exceptions 	to this 	general 	rule, 	however. 	For example,
a 	number 	of 	classifications 	represented with 	the 	City by 	IFPTE
are 	not 	included 	in 	the 	District's 	IFPTE unit 	even 	though 	the
classifications 	do exist 	at 	the District, 	and LIUNA represents
only gardeners 	at 	the District 	even 	though 	its 	City unit 	includes
laborers. 	Also, 	a limited number of 	classifications are
represented at 	the 	District 	by a different 	employee 	organization
than at 	the 	City.
22Local 	6 	also appears 	as 	the 	representative 	of Unit 	1-M,
which 	consists 	of 	only one 	classification 	(transportation
equipment 	shop supervisor) 	and which has 	no 	incumbents.
(Petitioner's Exhibit No. 	7.)
23There 	are 	numerous 	examples 	of 	classifications 	utilized by
the 	City which are 	not used by 	the 	District. 	Conversely 	certain
classifications, 	such as 	community relations specialist, 	SFUSD
(class 	code 	9976) 	and the 	instructional 	aide series 	are used
exclusively by 	the 	District.
8

Civil 	Service 	Provisions
The 	City's 	civil 	service 	system sets 	up a 	"merit 	and
fitness" 	system of 	employment, 	including provisions 	for testing
and examinations,24 appointments 	from a 	list 	of 	certified
eligibles based on the 	"rule of 	three 	scores," 	and disciplinary
suspensions 	and dismissals, 	which applies 	to most 	employees.
The 	civil 	service 	system also provides 	for the 	setting 	of
compensation 	for most 	covered 	employees 	based on 	the principle 	of
"like compensation 	. 	. 	. 	for like service." 	The Charter requires
for most 	employees 	that 	compensations 	be 	fixed 	"in accord with
the 	generally prevailing 	rates 	of 	wage 	for 	like 	service 	and
working 	conditions 	in private 	employment 	or 	in 	other 	comparable
governmental 	organizations" 	in California. 	Under the Charter's
provisions, 	the CSC conducts 	salary surveys using 	"benchmark"
comparisons 	based 	on 	classification 	and 	recommends 	a 	compensation
schedule 	or adjustments 	each year.
The 	CSC's 	compensation 	recommendations 	are 	normally
reflected 	in a 	Salary Standardization Ordinance 	(SSO) 	adopted by
the 	City's 	Board of 	Supervisors. 	The SSO sets 	forth salary
schedules, 	vacation and sick leave accruals, 	holidays, 	shift
differentials, 	night 	duty pay and other components 	of
compensation. 	The 	SSO 	includes 	frequent 	reference 	to 	specific
provisions 	which have been negotiated as 	a part 	of 	a memorandum
of understanding 	(MOU) 	between the 	City and an exclusive
24District employees 	have 	been 	involved 	in 	the 	administration
and grading of 	these 	examinations.
9

representative, 	but 	in many 	cases wages 	are not 	addressed by the
MOU.25
The 	SSO 	states 	that 	its provisions 	apply to 	the District 	and
the SFCCD.26 In addition, 	the District's Board of Trustees 	has
by 	resolution adopted 	the provisions 	of 	the 	SSO 	each year as
applicable 	to 	its 	classified employees. 	When the City negotiated
"furlough days" 	agreements with 	its 	exclusive 	representatives
after 	the veto 	of 	the proposed 	1993-94 	SSO,27 the District 	sought
similar agreements 	for its 	classified employees, 	including 	those
in dispute 	in this matter, 	and all 	crafts 	groups which received
furlough 	days 	from the 	City also have 	furlough days 	with 	the
District.
District 	employees 	generally 	receive 	the 	benefits 	set 	forth
in the SSO. 	As noted in the 	SSO, 	SFCCD and District 	employees
25For example, 	the 	1991-95 MOU between the 	City and Local 	6
notes 	that many of 	its provisions 	are 	excerpted 	from the 	SSO 	and
states 	the 	intent 	of 	the parties 	to 	"in no way amend or alter 	the
meaning, 	interpretation or the administration" 	of 	such
provisions. 	The MOU includes 	articles 	on sewage premium pay,
lead electrician premium and 	standby pay, 	but 	does 	not 	include 	a
salary 	schedule.
26City 	Charter 	section 	5.101 	specifies 	that
Compensations 	of 	non-teaching 	and non-
technical 	employees 	shall 	be 	fixed 	in
accordance 	with 	the 	salary 	standardization
provisions of 	this 	charter.
27The 	1992-93 	SSO remained 	in effect 	for 1993-94 	due 	to a
veto of 	the proposed SSO by the mayor. 	Certain employee
organizations 	in 	the 	City, 	including 	the union representing
plumbers, 	chose 	to 	litigate 	the 	salary increase 	issues and did
not 	negotiate 	furlough days 	agreements. 	The 	furlough days
agreements 	which were negotiated 	for City 	employees 	also provided
for dental 	benefits 	plan 	coverage.
10

receive 	the 	same number of paid holidays 	as 	do City employees,
but 	the 	school 	districts 	may and do 	designate 	different 	holidays
than 	those 	observed by the 	City. 	SFCCD and District 	employees
are 	covered by a 	different 	dental 	benefits 	plan 	than employees 	of
the 	City and 	received dental 	benefits 	earlier 	than City
employees. 	District 	employees 	are 	covered by the 	same health and
retirement 	plans 	as 	are 	City employees.
To hire a glazier, 	electrician, 	sheet metal worker or other
classified employee, 	the District 	requests 	an eligible 	list 	from
CSC, 	utilizing 	the 	same 	list 	and examination process 	as 	used by
City departments. 	The actual 	hiring decision 	is made by 	the
District. 	The District's 	classified employees 	are under the 	City
civil 	service 	system; 	they can transfer 	into or 	from City or
SFCCD positions, 	carry vacation and 	sick leave 	credits with 	them
upon transfer, 	and have District 	experience 	count 	toward any
experience 	requirement 	for a promotional 	examination. 	Because
glazier, 	electrician and sheet metal 	worker are 	designated as
"citywide" 	classes 	for layoff purposes, 	a District 	employee 	in
one 	of 	these 	classes 	subject 	to 	layoff 	could 	"bump" 	a 	less 	senior
employee 	in a City department 	(or vice versa).
Organization 	and 	Supervision
The 	employees 	at 	issue here are 	employed 	in the District's
Building and Grounds Department 	(Department), 	whose director is
Anne Warren and which has 	as 	its 	central 	purpose 	the maintenance
11

and repair of 	school 	buildings.28 Most 	of 	the Department's
employees 	are assigned 	to a 	shop under 	the 	direction of 	one 	of
three maintenance managers. 	Bill 	O'Brien 	is 	responsible 	for
plumbing, 	heating, 	ventilation and air conditioning, 	and
equipment 	service. 	Pete Schwab has 	the paint, 	roofing,
carpenter, 	sheet metal, 	plaster, 	electrical and auto repair
shops. 	Darryl 	Poindexter heads the locksmith, 	glass, 	landscape,
piano, 	sewing equipment 	repair and 	typewriter 	repair shops.
Many of the shops, 	including glass, 	sheet metal and
electrical, 	have a 	supervisor or foreman who makes 	the 	day-to-day
work assignments 	and oversees 	the work performance 	of 	the
employees 	in that particular shop.
Most 	Department 	employees 	report 	to and work 	out 	of 	either
the 	834 	Toland Street 	facility or the 	801 	Toland Street 	facility.
An exception 	is 	gardeners who 	report 	directly to 	school 	sites.
The 	834 Toland location houses the electrical, 	plumbing, 	paint,
carpenter, 	glass, 	lock, 	typewriter and piano shops, 	plus
administrative 	offices. 	The 	801 	Toland location 	includes 	the
sheet metal 	shop, 	plus storage space for shop vehicles, 	equipment
and supplies, 	and 	the accounting and purchasing offices.
The 	Department 	has 	a Work Control 	Center which 	takes 	all
calls 	from sites 	requiring 	emergency repairs. 	The phone 	in 	the
Center 	is 	staffed during 	the 	day by a Department 	clerical
employee, 	but 	is also staffed as 	needed by the maintenance
28One school 	site, 	however, 	is serviced by the City
Department of Public Works 	(DPW).
12

managers 	and 	shop 	supervisors 	according 	to a 	schedule 	developed
by Darryl 	Poindexter.
Communication with 	shop 	employees 	is 	accomplished via a 	two-
way radio 	system and beepers. 	The 	same 	radio band and phone
numbers 	are used 	for all 	shops.
Working 	Conditions
Most 	employees 	in the Department 	normally work 	from 8 	a.m.
to 	4:30 	p.m. 	with a 	one-half 	hour 	lunch break and both morning
and afternoon breaks. 	Glaziers, 	sheet metal workers and
electricians 	work off 	of 	standard job 	order and timecard 	forms,
and sign 	in at 	school 	sites 	using a 	common logbook.
Department 	employees 	carry 	a 	standard photo 	identification
badge and drive District vehicles 	(automobiles and trucks), 	which
have 	the 	City seal 	on them. 	The District vehicles 	are a
different 	color 	than 	those used by City departments. 	Fuel 	for
the District vehicles 	is purchased at 	City 	service areas using a
computerized 	billing 	system.
Crafts 	employees 	commonly work 	in hazardous 	and/or
unpleasant 	environments, 	and share many safety concerns. 	Crafts
employees work with their hands, 	with a variety of hand and power
tools, 	and often work with machinery. 	Uniforms 	are not 	required
but 	employees 	wear 	coveralls 	or similar 	clothing; 	safety shoes
are 	required.
Up 	to 	50 	percent 	of 	the Department's work 	involves 	emergency
situations, 	often caused by vandalism. 	Broken glass 	and doors,
13

and electrical 	outages 	are 	examples 	of 	emergency 	calls. 	Some
emergency calls 	require more 	than one 	shop 	to 	respond.
Job 	Duties 	and 	Qualifications
The 	glazier 	classification 	requires 	a high 	school 	education,
completion 	of 	an apprenticeship 	and 	two years 	journey 	level
experience. 	Glaziers cut, 	grind and fit glass, 	plastic and
stainless steel, 	and install and repair windshields, 	windows,
doors, 	mirrors, 	desk tops and skylights. 	Glaziers operate a
variety of 	shop tools, 	machinery and equipment, 	including saws,
sanders 	and a 	tilt 	table.
The 	sheet 	metal 	worker 	classification also 	requires 	a high
school 	education, 	apprenticeship and two years 	journey level
experience. 	Sheet metal workers cut, 	form, 	fabricate, 	repair and
install 	a variety of 	items. 	They fabricate 	toilet partitions,
gutters, 	duct work, 	fences, 	basketball poles and metal playground
equipment. 	They do not work with glass, 	wood or plastic. 	Sheet
metal 	workers use 	a variety of 	hand and power tools, 	including
drills, 	punch machines, 	welding machines, 	shearers and cutters,
metal 	rollers and saws.
The 	electrician 	classification 	requires 	completion 	of 	high
school, 	completion of an apprenticeship and 	three years 	journey
level 	experience. 	Electricians work with and 	repair wiring,
conduits, 	switches, 	fixtures, 	exterior and interior lighting,
clock and bell 	systems, 	fire alarm and emergency light 	systems,
motors and controls, 	scoreboards, 	and sound systems. 	They use
14

hand tools, 	drills, 	die cutters, 	saws and a variety of other
power equipment.
The painter, 	plumber, 	stationary engineer, 	locksmith and
carpenter classifications have 	comparable education, 	training and
experience 	requirements. 	Gardeners, 	laborers and truck drivers
are 	not 	required to 	complete 	an apprenticeship program or
equivalent, 	though gardeners are 	subject 	to a 	requirement 	of
prior 	education 	or experience 	in 	landscape 	gardening.
Employee 	Interaction
Crafts 	employees 	have participated 	in 	common 	training
programs 	concerning asbestos, 	and 	information on safety 	issues 	is
sometimes 	issued to all 	shops 	by the Department. 	The 	shop
foremen discuss 	safety issues 	in their regular meetings, 	but most
safety training 	takes place 	in 	the 	individual 	shops.
Shop 	foremen also discuss 	coordination of work 	in their
meetings. 	Under a 	"team maintenance" 	program, 	all work projects
at 	a 	school 	site will be 	scheduled on the 	same day, 	which results
in 	employees 	from various 	shops 	working 	together under 	the
leadership of a maintenance manager. 	However, 	even if working
under the 	team maintenance program, 	the 	individual 	crafts 	tend 	to
work 	independent 	of 	one 	another.
Employees 	in 	the various 	crafts 	normally work alone 	or with
another employee 	from the same shop. 	There are tasks, 	however,
which require one craft 	to assist another. 	For example, 	an
electrician may 	need 	an 	item 	fabricated by 	the 	sheet 	metal 	shop
in order to hang a 	light 	fixture. 	This 	interaction 	is neither
15

unusual 	nor a daily occurrence. 	Glaziers 	and 	carpenters 	have
projects 	which 	overlap more 	often 	than do 	the 	glaziers 	and
plumbers. 	Laborers 	are assigned to 	the 	carpenter 	shop but 	are
available 	to assist 	other shops as 	needed.
Employees 	will 	also use 	equipment 	in other shops where 	they
require 	the use 	of 	a 	specialized 	tool 	or machine 	that 	their 	shop
does 	not 	have. 	Such cross-use of 	equipment 	is again neither rare
nor an everyday event. 	The 	City's DPW and the District 	sheet
metal 	workers 	also use 	specialized equipment 	in each 	other's 	shop
on a 	routine basis, 	due 	to the 	close physical proximity of 	the
two shops 	(about 	six blocks) 	and the 	similarity of 	job 	tasks.
Both 	the 	801 	and 	834 	Toland Street 	locations 	have 	common
lunch rooms 	which may be utilized by employees, 	but 	employees
often eat 	lunch away 	from the 	Toland Street 	area 	or 	in 	their
individual 	shop. 	A meal 	truck parked outside 	the 	location 	is
frequented by many 	of 	the Department's 	employees.
An annual 	awards 	event 	and the 	occasional 	organization 	of
activities, 	such as a bowling league, 	involve employees 	from the
various 	crafts. 	At 	least 	some 	shops 	schedule periodic 	social
events 	for just 	that 	shop's 	employees.
Representation 	and Negotiations 	History
The District's 	chief negotiator is Bruce Julian, 	who has
served 	in that 	role 	since 	1986. 	The negotiating 	team also
includes 	James 	Casassa, 	a 	consultant 	for 	contract 	administration
and negotiations, 	and the manager of 	classified personnel.
Reductions 	in District 	funding 	over 	the past 	few years 	have
16

reduced 	the 	number 	of 	support 	staff 	positions 	in 	the 	Classified
Personnel 	Office.
Though recognized in 	1980, 	the 	first 	agreement 	negotiated
for the gardeners unit was 	effective April 	1, 	1991 	through March
31, 	1994. 	This agreement, 	like those with the carpenters,
painters 	and IFPTE, 	specifies an intent
to 	establish a mutually 	satisfactory-
arrangement between 	[the parties] 	regarding
only 	those 	certain 	conditions 	of 	employment
within the discretion of the District. 	. 	. 	.
Regarding wages, 	the agreement 	requires 	the District 	to pay
according 	to 	the 	schedule 	found 	in the 	SSO. 	A side 	letter
agreement was 	executed on December 15, 	1992, 	regarding the
granting 	of 	paid 	furlough days 	due 	to 	the 	salary 	freeze 	caused by
the mayor's veto of 	the 	1991-92 	SSO.
The Painter's Union, 	recognized in 19 87, 	negotiated an
agreement effective June 1, 	1988 through June 30, 	1991. 	No
negotiations 	have 	occurred over a 	successor agreement. 	That
agreement 	also provided 	for wages 	to be paid according 	to 	the
SSO, 	and also 	included provisions 	for taper premium, 	sandblasting
premium and 	lead person pay which were 	identical 	to 	those 	in 	the
SSO.
The Carpenter's Union, 	first 	recognized in 1982,29 has an
agreement with the District 	effective 	February 	1, 	1993 	through
January 31, 	1996. 	The agreement 	calls 	for payment 	of wages 	in
29The 	Carpenter's 	Union attempted to 	file 	a new
representation petition in 1990, 	but 	PERB declined to process 	the
petition based 	on 	the 	earlier 	recognition.
17

accordance with 	the 	SSO as 	adopted by 	the 	City Board 	of
Supervisors, 	"unless 	the results of Charter authorization for
collective bargaining supersede 	[SSO] 	authority." 	This 	latter
caveat 	reflects 	recent 	amendments 	to 	the 	Charter allowing 	City
unions 	to opt 	out 	of 	the prevailing wage 	salary survey system of
wage 	setting and to 	elect 	to bargain wages 	instead.30 To date,
the 	crafts 	unions 	have 	chosen 	to 	remain with 	the prevailing wage
system. 	The District has 	given notice 	it will 	not honor
classification or pay rate 	changes 	negotiated by the 	City, 	and
will 	pay 	such 	classifications 	at 	the 	SSO 	rate unless 	the District
negotiates 	otherwise 	itself.
Concerning negotiations 	with 	the 	crafts units 	now 	in place,
Julian testified that he has, 	since 19 86, 	had approximately a
dozen meetings 	with LIUNA, 	ten meetings with the 	Carpenter's
Union and six with the 	Painter's Union. 	The District's
experience with these negotiations 	is 	that 	they 	spend about 	two
hours 	in preparation and 	follow-up 	for every hour at 	the 	table,
not 	counting 	time 	spent 	on 	contract 	administration and 	record
keeping.
As 	noted above, 	Julian also met with other crafts 	unions
regarding the 	furlough days agreements, 	but 	otherwise has not
negotiated with 	the 	Petitioners.
30Charter 	sections 	8.409 	et 	seq.
18

POSITIONS 	OF THE 	PARTIES
Petitioners
Approval 	of 	the units 	sought 	is 	required 	in order 	to
harmonize 	EERA with Education Code 	section 45318 	and 	the 	City-
Charter, 	and with 	the 	court's 	finding 	in United Public 	Employees.
Government 	Code 	section 3540 	specifies 	in relevant part 	that 	EERA
shall 	not 	supersede 	other provisions 	of 	the
Education 	Code 	and 	the 	rules 	and 	regulations
of 	public 	school 	employers 	which 	establish
and 	regulate 	tenure 	or a merit 	or 	civil
service 	system or which provide 	for 	other
methods 	of 	administering 	employer-employee
relations, 	so long as 	the rules and
regulations 	or other methods 	of 	the public
school 	employer do 	not 	conflict 	with 	lawful
collective agreements.
The District's 	classified 	employees 	are 	a part 	of 	the 	City 	civil
service 	system pursuant 	to 	Education 	Code 	section 45318 	and 	PERB
may not 	order a 	result 	which 	supersedes 	this 	arrangement.
Denial 	of 	the units 	requested would also 	deny 	the 	right 	to
representation 	by 	an 	exclusive 	representative 	guaranteed 	by 	EERA,
as 	no 	other possible unit 	is 	appropriate 	and any other unit 	would
result 	in dual 	representation of employees. 	Glaziers, 	sheet
metal 	workers 	and 	electricians 	are 	already 	represented by 	the
Petitioners; 	any other unit 	structure would result 	in glaziers,
for example, 	being 	represented 	for 	certain purposes 	by Local 	718
and by a different organization, 	if any, 	at 	the District.31
31Even 	if 	Local 	718 	became 	the 	representative of 	the District
unit, 	this 	same defect would be 	true 	for sheet metal 	workers 	and
electricians.
19

These 	employees 	cannot 	be 	added 	to an 	existing unit 	without
the 	consent 	of 	the exclusive 	representative; 	Petitioners are not
interested 	in 	representing a unit 	of 	all 	unrepresented employees;
and a 	"catch-all" 	unit 	is 	not 	appropriate where 	separate units
have 	already been granted to 	carpenters, 	painters 	and gardeners.
PERB 	should not 	follow 	its 	traditional 	Sweetwater32 analysis
here due 	to 	the 	joint 	employer status 	of 	the 	City and District
and because 	the 	Sweetwater units 	are 	not 	available 	as 	an 	option.
Further, 	the 	EERA unit 	criteria 	favor approval 	of 	these units
under the 	facts 	of 	this 	case.
Glaziers, 	sheet metal workers and electricians 	share a
greater 	community 	of 	interest 	with 	like 	employees 	of 	the 	City
than they do with one another, 	or with other crafts 	employees 	of
the District. 	In the areas 	of 	salary setting, 	layoffs and
apprenticeship requirements, 	each craft has 	concerns unique 	to
the particular 	craft.
Approval 	of 	the units 	requested would avoid potential
inefficiencies 	for the District, 	the employees and employee
organizations. 	A situation where 	employees 	are 	represented by
the 	same 	organization at 	the 	City and 	the 	District 	will 	avoid the
potential 	confusion which would 	result 	from having 	two
representatives.
32In Sweetwater Union High School District 	(1976) 	EERB
Decision No. 	4 and its progeny, 	the Board approved as
presumptively appropriate 	a 	three-unit 	structure 	for 	classified
employees: 	instructional aides, 	office/technical and business
services, 	and operation and support 	services 	(including 	crafts
employees). 	(Prior to January l, 	1978, 	the Board was known as
the 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(EERB).)
20

Employer
The 	question 	of 	whether 	the District 	and City are 	joint
employers 	is not at 	issue in this matter. 	However, 	the
Petitioners' 	contention that 	the District 	is 	"obligated to
conform to various 	City regulations 	is unconstitutional,"
pursuant 	to Article 	IX, 	Section 6 	of 	the California Constitution:
No 	school 	or 	college 	or any other part 	of 	the
Public School 	System shall be, 	directly or
indirectly, 	transferred 	from the 	Public
School 	System or placed under 	the
jurisdiction of 	any authority other 	than one
included within 	the 	Public 	School 	System.
The proposed units must 	be 	denied as 	inappropriate under
Sweetwater and Compton Unified School 	District 	(1979) 	PERB
Decision No. 	109 	(Compton). 	The subject employees 	share a
community 	of 	interest 	with 	each other and with 	the District's
other skilled crafts 	employees, 	and thus 	Petitioners have not met
their burden 	of 	demonstrating a 	"separate 	and distinct" 	community
of 	interest 	as 	required under Compton
- - .
The 	District's 	skilled 	crafts 	employees work on 	common
projects, 	and share in common supervision, 	transportation,
meetings, 	training, 	work location, 	and policies. 	These factors
demonstrate a 	"level 	of 	functional 	integration" 	which requires
rejection of 	the Petitioners' 	request under Foothill-DeAnza
Community College District 	(1977) 	EERB Decision No. 	10 	and other
cases.
In addition, 	approval 	of 	the proposed units would pose undue
hardships 	on 	the District. 	The District's 	declining 	resources
21

are already strained by the 	existing units, 	and 	further
fragmentation would 	significantly worsen 	the 	situation.
Separate 	representation of 	additional 	crafts 	groups 	would
"destroy 	the 	functional 	integration which 	is 	so 	critical 	to 	the
efficient 	operation of 	the District." 	It would be 	"impossible"
for 	the 	District 	to 	simply agree 	to 	accept 	terms 	and 	conditions
which 	the 	Petitioners 	negotiate with 	the 	City and 	thus 	the
bargaining 	obligations 	imposed 	on 	the 	District 	by 	these 	requested
units 	are 	so 	significant 	as 	to 	require disapproval.
The 	only appropriate unit 	is 	an all-inclusive 	skilled 	crafts
unit. 	The District 	is prepared to stipulate to the establishment
of 	such a unit33 and the Board should order same.
ISSUE
Are 	separate units 	of glaziers, 	sheet metal workers and
electricians 	at 	the District 	appropriate under EERA?34
33Julian 	testified 	that 	one 	employee 	organization 	(Teamsters)
has 	expressed 	interest 	in 	representing 	such a unit.
34Pursuant 	to a stipulation of 	the parties, 	this decision
will 	address 	only the unit 	appropriateness 	of 	the 	three proposed
units. 	Should one 	or more units be 	ordered by a 	final 	decision
of 	the Board, 	the Employer may within 60 	days 	of 	that decision
object 	to 	the 	inclusion of positions 	on the basis 	of 	supervisory
status. 	Further hearings 	will 	be held on any supervisory issues
unless 	the parties 	are able 	to resolve 	the dispute, 	with relevant
portions 	of 	the 	record of 	this 	proceeding 	incorporated 	therein.
This 	decision will 	also be 	limited 	to 	those 	classifications
which 	the 	record shows are 	currently 	in use at 	the District.
(See Marin Community College District 	(1978) 	PERB Decision No. 	55
and Mendocino 	Community College District 	(1981) 	PERB Decision No.
144a.)
22

DISCUSSION
Jurisdiction
Neither party disputed, 	and the 	record 	supports 	finding 	that
the District 	is 	a 	"public 	school 	employer" 	as 	defined by EERA
section 3540.l(k),35 its employees are 	"public school 	employees"
as defined by 3540.1(j), 	and the Petitioners are 	"employee
organizations" 	as defined by section 3540.1(d).
Rule 	of 	Law
In each unit determination case, 	the Board is 	required to
follow the 	criteria set 	forth in EERA section 3545(a):
In each 	case where 	the appropriateness 	of 	the
unit 	is 	an issue, 	the board shall 	decide 	the
question on the basis 	of 	the 	community of
interest 	between and among 	the 	employees 	and
their established practices 	including, 	among
other things, 	the extent 	to which such
employees 	belong 	to 	the 	same 	employee
organization, 	and the effect of 	the size of
the unit 	on the 	efficient 	operation of 	the
school 	district.
The Board ruled early in 	its 	history 	that 	it must 	determine 	in
each 	case 	the 	"appropriateness" 	of 	a unit 	without being limited
only to a choice between 	"an" 	or the 	"most" 	appropriate unit, 	and
35The dispute 	over the arguable 	joint 	employer status 	of 	the
District 	with 	the 	City 	involves 	the 	question of 	how PERB's
jurisdiction 	should be applied, 	not whether PERB has 	jurisdiction
under EERA. 	The District 	offers 	no authority for 	its
interpretation of 	the 	Constitution holding 	that 	Education 	Code
sections 	45100 	and 45318 	and 	the 	City Charter provisions 	for a
civil 	service 	system are not 	applicable 	to it. 	Further, 	PERB
lacks 	authority 	to determine 	the 	constitutionality 	of 	provisions
of 	the 	Education Code. 	(See 	San Ramon Valley Unified School
District 	(1989) 	PERB Decision No. 	751.) 	For purposes of this
decision, 	the logic of the court's 	ruling 	in United Public
Employee- -. s 	shall 	be 	extended to 	consider 	the 	City and District 	as
joint 	employers.
23

must 	in 	each 	case 	weigh and balance 	the 	statutory 	criteria 	in
order 	to achieve 	consistency of 	application and 	the 	general
objectives 	of 	EERA. 	(Antioch Unified School District 	(1977) 	EERB
Decision No. 	37; 	see also Marin Community College District.
supra. 	PERB Decision No. 	55.)
In Sweetwater, 	the 	Board announced 	its preference 	for three
units of 	classified employees: 	instructional aides; 	office-
technical 	and business 	services; 	and operations 	and support
services. 	The 	significance of 	the 	Sweetwater 	"preferred" 	units
was 	further explained 	in Compton where 	the 	Board held 	that
-
a variant unit 	will 	not 	be 	awarded unless 	it
is more 	appropriate 	than the Sweetwater unit
based 	on a 	separate 	and distinct 	community 	of
interest 	among 	employees 	in 	the variant 	unit
or other section 3545(a) 	criteria. 	(Emphasis
added; 	fn. 	omitted.)
In Compton, 	the 	Board rejected a 	separate unit 	for skilled 	crafts
employees, 	and 	included 	them with 	the 	operations 	and 	support
services 	unit 	despite a petitioner's 	demonstration of 	84 	percent
membership among 	the 	skilled crafts 	employees.
In later denying a unit 	of hourly bus 	drivers, 	where 	other
bus 	drivers 	were already 	included 	in 	the 	operations 	and support
services unit, 	the Board noted that:
Every 	classification possesses 	a 	community 	of
interest among its members. 	Janitors,
undisputably, 	have more 	in common with other
janitors 	than they do with gardeners, 	but we
have yet 	to 	find a 	separate unit 	of 	only
janitors appropriate, 	absent unusual
circumstances.
(San Diego Unified School 	District 	(1981)
PERB Decision No. 	170 	(San Diego).)
24

Significantly, 	however, 	the discussion in cases 	such as 	Compton
- -
and San Diego 	occurs 	in 	the 	context 	of 	weighing 	the 	potential
appropriateness 	of 	a proposed unit 	against 	a 	Sweetwater unit.
None 	of 	these 	cases 	directly answers 	the 	question of 	how the
Sweetwater presumption helps 	guide 	the 	analysis 	where 	Sweetwater
units 	are not available.
As 	noted 	in 	Pleasanton Joint 	School 	District/Amador Valley
Joint Union High School District 	(1981) 	PERB Decision No. 	169
(Pleasanton), 	citing Compton:
[A] 	presumptively appropriate unit
configuration does 	not 	establish 	the 	"only
appropriate" 	unit 	or even the 	"most
appropriate" unit.
In 	Pleasanton, 	the 	Board approved a 	separate unit 	of 	school
psychologists 	who would normally be 	included 	in a 	teachers 	unit,
attaching 	considerable 	significance 	to 	the 	fact 	that 	the 	District
had previously agreed to 	a 	teachers 	bargaining unit 	which
excluded the psychologists. 	See, 	also, 	Mendocino Community
College District 	(19 80) 	PERB Decision No. 	144 and Long Beach
Community College District 	(1989) 	PERB Decision No. 	765 	(part-
time 	faculty units 	approved where 	existing unit 	of 	full-time
faculty established by voluntary agreement). 	In all 	three 	of
these 	cases, 	the Peralta36 presumption favoring a single unit 	of
certificated personnel was 	overcome by 	the 	facts 	of 	the 	case.
Thus, 	in light 	of PERB precedent, 	the questions posed by the
instant 	case are: 	(1) 	Does 	the 	record support a 	finding that 	the
36Peralta 	Community College District 	(1978) 	PERB Decision No.
77.
25

glaziers, 	sheet metal workers 	and electricians have 	"separate and
distinct" 	communities 	of 	interest which warrant 	their 	inclusion
in separate units, 	and/or 	(2) 	does 	this 	case present 	"unusual
circumstances" 	warranting approval 	of 	the proposed units, 	and/or
(3) 	does 	the existing bargaining unit 	structure at 	the District
warrant approval 	of 	the three units 	sought here, 	and/or 	(4) 	may
the 	proposed units 	be 	approved despite 	the 	Employer's 	efficiency
of 	operations 	concerns?
Community 	of 	Interest
Like San Diego's hypothetical 	janitors, 	the District's
glaziers, 	sheet metal workers 	and electricians 	each have a
community 	of 	interest 	derived 	from common 	job 	functions,
supervision, 	hours of work, 	qualifications, 	frequency of contact,
and wages, 	benefits and working conditions. 	In each case,
however, 	these 	factors are 	only distinct 	to a degree and the
District 	credibly 	recites 	factors 	which 	these 	employees 	have 	in
common, 	as well as with other crafts employees 	of 	the District.
While 	Petitioners 	emphasize 	the 	connections 	between 	these
employees 	and 	their 	craft 	counterparts who work 	for 	the 	City, 	the
undersigned 	is 	not 	persuaded 	that 	those 	ties 	are more 	significant
than 	the 	shared 	community 	of 	interest 	among 	the District 	craft
employees.
In sum, 	the 	community of 	interest 	criteria do not 	compel
approval 	of 	the 	three 	separate 	craft units 	requested.
26

"Unusual 	Circumstances" 	Standard
The unusual 	circumstance 	in this 	case 	derives 	from the 	joint
employer 	relationship between 	the 	City and District. 	Certain
conditions 	of 	employment 	of 	the glaziers, 	sheet metal workers 	and
electricians, 	including wages, 	certain benefits and transfer
rights, 	are 	determined 	through City processes 	in which these
classifications 	are 	represented by 	Petitioners;37 other
conditions 	of 	their 	employment 	are 	determined 	solely by 	the
District. 	Petitioners 	submit 	that 	this 	unusual 	circumstance
requires 	approval 	of 	the proposed units, 	as 	the 	only alternative
is 	a 	scheme where District 	employees 	have dual 	representation.
Petitioners 	argue 	that 	dual 	representation would violate 	the
statutory 	right 	of 	employees 	to a 	single 	exclusive
representative, 	quoting 	the 	following 	language 	from EERA section
3540:
It 	is 	the purpose 	of 	this 	chapter to promote
the 	improvement 	of 	personnel management 	and
employer-employee 	relations 	within 	the 	public
school 	systems 	in the 	State 	of 	California by
providing 	a uniform basis 	for 	recognizing 	the
right 	of public 	school 	employees 	to 	join
organizations 	of 	their own choice, 	to be
represented by 	the 	organizations 	in 	their
professional 	and 	employment 	relationships
with public school 	employers, 	to select 	one
employee 	organization as 	the 	exclusive
representative 	of 	the 	employees 	in an
appropriate unit. 	. 	. 	. 	[Emphasis added.]
37The District's 	established practices 	show the 	relevance 	of
City Charter provisions 	relating to salary setting, 	etc., 	even if
the District 	protests 	any 	suggestion 	they are 	required 	to adhere
to 	the SSO schedules.
27

Petitioners 	also 	contend 	that 	such dual 	representation would
result 	in confusion among employees, 	employee organizations 	and
employers as 	to 	the proper forum for dispute resolution, 	and
impair 	the 	efficiency of 	operation of 	the 	joint 	employers.
Petitioners' 	reliance on the 	"single 	exclusive
representative" 	language 	in EERA is 	unpersuasive.38 Petitioners
attempt 	to 	stretch 	the meaning 	of 	provisions 	which apply only 	to
public 	school 	employer-employee 	relationships. 	Education Code
section 45318 	only 	requires 	that 	the District's 	employees 	be
covered by the 	City's 	civil 	service 	system, 	not 	that 	the District
be 	subject 	to 	the bargaining unit 	structure 	of 	the 	City ERO.
Contrary to Petitioners' 	arguments, 	EERA does not preclude
in 	every 	case 	an 	employee's 	placement 	in more 	than 	one bargaining
unit. 	An employee holding 	two positions 	with the 	same 	employer,
e.g., 	part-time 	instructional 	aide and part-time bus 	driver,
might 	well 	be 	included 	in 	two 	separate bargaining units
represented by 	two 	different 	exclusive 	representatives. 	Such a
situation might 	result 	in the 	employee paying dues 	to 	two unions,
and might 	even result 	in some 	confusion, 	but the 	result 	is not
38Petitioners 	also 	rely on 	the Board's 	discussion of 	the
practical 	advantages 	which 	accrue 	from having 	a 	common
representative with both 	entities 	of 	the 	joint 	employer 	in 	San
Francisco Community College District 	(Barnes). 	supra. 	PERB Order
No. 	Ad-153. 	That discussion did not 	occur in the context of a
unit determination case; 	instead, 	the 	issue was 	jurisdictional
and 	is 	not 	instructive 	in this 	context.
28

contrary 	to 	EERA's 	general 	provision of 	the 	right 	of 	employees 	to
have a 	single 	exclusive 	representative.39
The 	issue here, 	of 	course, 	does not 	involve placement of
employees 	in two units 	of 	the 	same employer. 	If 	the Employer's
position were adopted, 	the District's 	employees would still 	be
placed 	in 	only 	one bargaining unit 	of 	the public 	school 	employer.
-
Petitioners' 	expressed 	concerns 	about 	confusion and
inefficiency which 	would 	accompany 	dual 	representation 	are 	not
supported by the 	record. 	The 	record reflects 	that 	at 	least 	a
limited number 	of 	classifications 	have 	different 	exclusive
representatives 	with 	the District 	and the 	City. 	There 	is 	no
evidence 	that 	this 	situation has 	caused any difficulty 	or
confusion for the employees, 	employers 	or employee organizations.
The 	Employer and any 	employee 	organization 	representing 	its
classified 	employees 	will 	have 	to 	reconcile 	the means 	and 	forum
for resolution of 	certain 	issues 	given the 	interrelationships
among 	the 	civil 	service 	system, 	City negotiations 	and the
District's 	own 	collective 	bargaining 	obligations 	under 	EERA. 	The
Board, 	however, 	must 	consider only the 	criteria set 	forth in EERA
in determining 	the appropriateness 	of 	a unit.
39See Unit Determination 	for Employees 	of 	the State 	of
California 	(1981) 	PERB Decision No. 	ll0d-S, 	Oakland Unified
School District 	(1983) 	PERB Decision No. 	320, 	and Berea
Publishing Co. 	(1963) 	140 NLRB 516 	[52 LRRM 1051]. 	The instant
case 	is 	admittedly distinguishable 	in that 	the 	employees 	are 	not
"dual 	function" 	employees 	of a single employer, 	but 	the analysis
is analogous.
29

Effect 	of 	Established District 	Bargaining 	Units
Petitioners argue, 	in part, 	that 	the Sweetwater presumption
is 	inapplicable 	to 	the 	instant 	case because 	Sweetwater units
cannot 	be 	established as 	a 	consequence 	of 	the 	Employer's 	earlier
agreement 	to 	a variety 	of 	both 	Sweetwater and non-Sweetwater
units. 	In addition to paraprofessional, 	clerical and technical,
and maintenance 	operations 	units, 	the District previously agreed
to 	separate units 	for three 	crafts 	groups 	and a unit which
includes accountants, 	architects and engineers.
The 	Employer's 	offer 	to 	stipulate 	to 	a 	single 	skilled 	crafts
unit40 does 	not 	resolve 	the question posed by Petitioners 	as 	to
the 	relevance 	of 	Sweetwater here. 	In Redondo Beach City School
District 	(19 80) 	PERB Decision No. 	114, 	the Board held that:
It 	has been PERB's policy to encourage
voluntary 	recognitions 	and 	settlements 	among
the parties 	subject 	to 	its 	jurisdiction. 	The
Board also has 	a 	strong 	interest 	in 	labor
relations 	stability. 	Therefore we are 	loathe
to upset 	working 	relationships 	and will 	not
disrupt existing units 	. 	. 	. 	lightly.
The policy 	interests 	thus 	expressed mean that, 	in a 	case 	such as
the 	instant matter, 	the determination of an appropriate unit must
be made 	with 	consideration only of 	those 	classifications 	not
already placed 	in a unit. 	These 	circumstances 	narrow the
available 	choices 	to 	either a 	residual 	unit 	or 	separate 	crafts
units.
40No weight 	is 	given 	the 	hearsay 	testimony 	concerning 	the
Teamsters' 	interest 	in representing such a unit. 	Neither that
organization 	or any other has 	filed 	such a petition.
30

Efficiency 	of 	Operations
As 	noted by the Employer, 	approval 	of 	the 	three units here
would double 	the 	number of 	skilled 	crafts 	units 	at 	the District
(though not 	double 	the number of 	classified units) 	and would
leave 	the door open to still more 	such units.41
The 	Employer's 	concerns 	over the potential 	impact 	of 	the
further proliferation of 	small 	units 	of building 	trades 	employees
cannot 	be 	lightly dismissed as 	"speculative." 	A finding 	in 	the
instant 	case 	that 	the glaziers, 	sheet metal workers and
electricians 	each have a 	separate 	and distinct 	community of
interest, 	sufficient 	to warrant a separate unit, 	would make 	it
extremely difficult 	to deny similar 	(i.e., 	separate) 	units 	to the
remaining building 	trades 	groups 	who 	clearly share 	the 	"unusual
circumstances" 	of 	these groups. 	The 	fact 	that petitions 	for such
units 	are not 	now pending does 	not 	negate 	the 	Employer's 	concern
over proliferation.
The 	evidence presented by 	the 	Employer on 	efficiency of
operations 	would not 	warrant 	denial 	of 	the proposed units 	on 	this
basis 	alone.42 Particular significance 	is 	given 	in 	this 	respect
to 	the 	testimony 	concerning 	the bargaining history with 	the 	three
existing crafts units, 	the 	facial 	limitation on scope 	in those
agreements, 	and the absence 	of 	any evidence 	of difficulties
caused by 	the 	administration of 	those 	agreements.
41Admittedly, 	the District 	helped open the proverbial barn
door 	in this 	instance.
42See, 	for example, 	Antelope Valley Community College
District 	(1981) 	PERB Decision No. 	168 	and Pleasanton.
31

The 	Employer's 	concern over fragmentation does, 	however,
favor a 	residual 	crafts 	unit 	over 	the 	alternative 	of 	several 	more
single-craft 	units. 	The 	Employer has 	not proposed 	including 	the
computer 	classifications, 	public 	information officer or payroll
clerks 	in such a residual unit. 	It 	is unclear whether they would
include 	the piano 	tuner43 and truck drivers.44
Conclusion
Given the unavailability of 	a Sweetwater unit, 	or even a
comprehensive 	skilled crafts unit, 	the 	only available 	options
are: 	(1) 	approval of the three units requested, 	(2) 	simply
denying 	the units 	and leaving 	the 	employees 	unassigned 	to an
appropriate unit, 	or 	(3) 	forming a residual unit which includes
glaziers, 	sheet metal workers, 	electricians, 	roofers, 	stationary
engineers, 	plumbers, 	laborers and auto mechanics.45
The 	community 	of 	interest 	found 	to 	exist 	among 	the 	crafts
employees 	of 	the 	Building and Grounds 	Department 	defeats 	the
attempt 	to 	form single 	craft units. 	As 	the 	Board ruled 	in
43The piano tuner, 	sewing machine 	repairer, 	typewriter
repairer 	(Unit 	2-B) 	and 	senior 	typewriter 	repairer 	(Unit 	3-B)
classifications 	are 	included 	in 	City units 	represented by 	SEIU.
While 	all 	four 	classifications 	are 	utilized by 	the 	Building and
Grounds Department, 	only 	the 	sewing machine 	repairer and
typewriter 	repairer 	are 	represented 	in 	the District 	by SEIU.
44Truck drivers 	are 	included 	in City Unit 	1-F, 	represented by
Teamsters 	Local 	216. 	Based on the 	record here, 	truck drivers are
apparently not 	included 	in 	the 	District's 	Building 	and Grounds
Department.
45Petitioners 	correctly note 	that 	the 	employee positions 	at
issue 	here 	cannot be accreted 	to any existing unit, 	absent 	a
petition by 	the 	incumbent 	exclusive 	representative.
32

Sacramento City Unified School 	District 	(1977) 	EERB Decision No.
30, 	in denying a separate skilled crafts unit:
A separate unit 	is 	not 	warranted merely
because a group 	of 	employees 	share a
community of 	interest among themselves, 	when
that 	homogeneous 	group 	forms 	only a part 	of 	a
larger 	essentially 	homogeneous 	group 	sharing
similar 	conditions 	of 	employment 	and 	job
functions. 	[Fn. 	omitted.]
The glaziers, 	again like 	the hypothetical 	janitors 	in San Diego.
certainly share a 	community of 	interest. 	But 	that 	community of
interest 	is 	not 	distinct 	and 	separate 	from that 	shared with 	other
crafts 	employees 	with whom they are 	functionally 	integrated 	and
share supervision, 	working conditions, 	work locations, 	training
and use 	of 	tools. 	The District's 	earlier decisions 	to recognize
units 	of 	carpenters 	and painters 	does 	not 	require a 	contrary
result, 	for it 	is ultimately the Board which determines 	the
appropriateness 	of 	a proposed unit 	in a 	disputed 	case.
In denying the units 	sought, 	it 	is also worthy of note 	that
the 	Legislature 	did not 	provide 	in EERA for 	the 	right 	of
individual 	crafts units 	to 	form a 	separate bargaining unit,
though 	it 	has 	done 	so 	in other 	collective bargaining
legislation.46
46The Ralph C. 	Dills Act, 	formerly known as 	the State
Employer-Employee Relations Act, 	provides as 	follows at
Government Code section 3521(b)(6):
(6) 	Notwithstanding the 	foregoing
provisions of 	this 	section, 	or any other
provision of 	law, 	an appropriate group of
skilled 	crafts 	employees 	shall 	have 	the 	right
to be 	a 	separate unit 	of 	representation based
upon occupation. 	Skilled crafts 	employees
shall 	include, 	but 	not necessarily be 	limited
33

to, 	employment categories such as 	carpenters,
plumbers, electricians, painters, and
operating 	engineers.
The Higher Education 	Employer-Employee 	Relations Act 	contains 	a
comparable provision at section 3579(d).
The 	question 	remaining 	is 	whether any unit 	should be 	ordered
at 	this 	time. 	Simply denying 	the units 	sought 	and 	leaving 	it 	to
employees 	and 	their 	employee 	organizations 	to 	guess 	what 	course
they 	should 	next 	pursue 	toward 	representation would 	form a 	result
incompatible with 	the purposes 	of 	EERA.
As 	noted by 	the 	Board 	in State 	of 	California 	(Department 	of
Personnel Administration) 	(1989) 	PERB Decision No. 	773-S,
In unit determination proceedings, 	PERB
clearly has 	the power 	to 	determine an
appropriate unit, 	and the unit ultimately
decided upon may be 	different 	from the 	unit
proposed by the parties.
As 	discussed above, 	employees 	in the 	crafts 	classifications
share 	similar and often related job 	functions, 	work under 	common
supervision and working 	conditions, 	and have 	in common similar
training 	and 	their work with 	tools 	and equipment. 	These
employees 	also have 	in common similar unit 	treatment 	of 	their
classifications under the 	City ERO, 	coverage under the 	City civil
service 	system and are 	treated 	similarly 	for purposes 	of 	salary
setting under recommendations 	of 	the 	CSC.
Establishment 	of 	a unit 	including all 	of 	the 	currently
unrepresented 	crafts 	employees 	in 	the 	Building 	and Grounds
Department 	would also 	comport 	with 	the 	efficiency 	of 	operations
concerns 	of 	the 	Employer. 	A residual 	unit 	is 	also 	consistent
34

with relevant 	PERB precedent, 	including Compton, 	San Diego and
Pleasanton.
Based 	on 	the 	totality of 	the 	factors 	discussed above,
including 	such community of 	interest 	factors 	as 	job 	functions,
supervision, 	benefits and working conditions, 	it 	is determined
that 	a 	residual 	unit 	comprised 	of 	currently unrepresented 	crafts
classifications 	at 	the District 	is 	an appropriate unit 	for
representation purposes 	under 	the 	EERA.
ORDER
For 	the 	reasons discussed above, 	and in consideration of 	the
entire record of 	the proceeding in PERB Case Nos. 	SF-R-799, 	SF-R-
800 and SF-R-803, 	it 	is hereby ORDERED that a unit 	comprised of
the 	crafts 	classifications 	now unrepresented at 	the 	San 	Francisco
Unified School District, 	including glaziers, 	sheet metal workers
and electricians, 	is an appropriate unit 	for purposes 	of meeting
and 	conferring under EERA, 	provided an employee 	organization
becomes 	the 	exclusive 	representative. 	The unit 	shall 	include 	the
following 	classifications:
Glazier 	(class 	code 7326), 	glazier supervisor I 	(class 	code
7233), 	electrician 	(class code 7345), 	electrician supervisor
I 	(class code 7238), 	sheet metal worker 	(class code 7376),
sheet metal 	supervisor I 	(class code 9345), 	chief stationary
engineer 	(class 	code 	7205), 	school heating and ventilation
supervisor 	(class code 7209), 	plumber supervisor I 	(class
code 7213), 	maintenance planner 	(class code 7262),
stationary engineer 	(class 	code 	7334), 	plumber 	(class 	code
7347), 	automotive mechanic 	(class code 7381), 	general
laborer 	(class 	code 7514) 	and roofer 	(class 	code 9343).
35

The unit 	shall 	exclude all 	other employees,47 including
management, 	supervisory and confidential 	employees. 	The Employer
may contest 	the 	supervisory 	status 	of 	any 	classification 	or
employee 	as 	previously 	described.
Pursuant to PERB Regulation 33470, 	Local 	718, 	Local 	6 and
Local 	104 	shall 	have 	15 	workdays 	from the date of 	issuance 	of a
final 	decision 	in 	this matter 	to demonstrate 	to 	the 	satisfaction
of 	the 	regional 	director at 	least 	30 	percent 	support 	in the unit
described 	as 	appropriate.48 An 	election 	shall 	be 	conducted by
PERB unless 	only 	one 	employee 	organization demonstrates 	majority
support, 	no other employee organization submits at 	least 	30
percent, 	and the Employer grants voluntary recognition. 	(PERB
Regulations 	33470 	and 33480.)
If no employee organization submits at 	least 	3 0 percent
support, 	all 	three petitions 	shall 	be dismissed and no 	election
will 	be 	conducted.
A Board agent 	will 	contact 	the parties 	upon 	issuance 	of 	a
final 	decision 	in 	this matter to discuss 	the 	further processing
of 	these cases.
47The 	classifications 	of piano tuner, 	senior typewriter
repairer 	and 	truck driver 	are 	being 	omitted 	from the 	unit 	found
to be 	appropriate 	based 	on 	the 	limited 	record 	concerning 	them.
See discussion, 	ante, 	at footnotes 43 and 44.
48Pursuant 	to PERB Regulation 32700 (d), 	two or more employee
organizations may combine 	their proofs 	of 	support 	as 	a 	joint
petitioner.
36

Right 	of Appeal
Pursuant 	to California Code of Regulations, 	title 	8,
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 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 Civ. 	P r o c , 	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.)
Les 	Chisholm
Hearing 	Officer
37