Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District (PERB A023E)

STATE
	OF
	CALIFORNIA
DECISION
	OF THE
	EDUCATIONAL
EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
CALIFORNIA
	SCHOOL
	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION
	and
	its
	SOLA.~O
	CHAPTER
AV-001,
Petitioners,
and
FAIRFIELD-SUISUN UNIFIED
	SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_________________ )
ORDER
Case 	No. 	SF-R-548
EERB
	Order
	No. 	Ad-23
December
	30,
	1977
The
	decision
	of 	the 	regional
	director,
	dismissing
	CSEA's
request 	for 	rec9gnition,
	is
	vacated
	and 	remanded 	on
	the
	ground
that
	the
	Board
	is
	without
	authority
	to 	dismiss
	requests
	for
recognition.
	The
	case
	shall
	proceed 	to
	a
	representation
hearing 	in
	a 	manner
	consistent
	with 	the 	Board's
	rules
	on
representation hearings, 	including
	an
	informal
	settlement
conference.
Educational
	Employment
	Relations
	Board
b~l~'1~~STEPHEN 	BARBER
Executive 	Assistant 	to 	the
	Board
Jerilou
	Cossack 	Twohey, 	Member,
	dissenting:
I
	dissent
	from
	the 	majority's 	decision 	to 	vacate 	the 	Regional
Director's 	decision
	and 	remand
	this 	case 	for 	further 	hearings.
Although 	I 	recognize 	some 	procedural 	problems 	with 	this 	case, 	in

fairness
	to
	the
	parties
	the
	Board
	should 	review
	the
	merits 	of
the
	Regional
	Director's
	decision
	rather
	than
	delay
	resolution
of
	the
	representation 	issue 	for 	additional
	months.
The
	facts
	of
	this
	case
	are 	straightforward.
	On
	February
	22,
1977,
	the
	California
	School
	Employees
	As·sociation,
	Solano
	Chapter
AV-001 	(CSEA)
	properly 	requested 	exclusive 	recognition
	from
	the
Fairfield-Suisun
	School
	District
	to
	represent
	approximately
	25
classified
	supervisors.
	On
	April
	14, 	1977,
	the
	District
	rejected
CSEA's
	request 	for 	recognition.
	On
	April
	25, 	1977,
	the
	District
notified
	the 	Educational
	Employment
	Relations
	Board
	(EERB)
	that
recognition
	was
	denied
	on
	the
	District's
	interpretation 	of
Government 	Code
	Section
	3545(b)(2)
. 1 The
	District
	asserted 	that
the
	proposed
	unit
	would
	be
	represented
	by
	the
	same
	employee
organization
	as
	the
	employees
	whom
	the 	supervisory
	employees
.
supervise.
2
In 	response 	to 	the
	District's
	denial 	of 	recognition,
the
	Regional
	Director 	requested 	information
	from
	CSEA
	regarding
the
	proposed
	supervisory
	unit.
	On May
	23, 	1977,
	CSEA
wrote
	a
detailed
	letter_
to 	the
	Reg~onal
	Director
	outlining
	its
	position
on
	the
	appropriateness
	of
	the 	supervisory
	unit.
	Enclosed with
the
	letter
	were
	seven
	"exhibits"
	to
	assist
	the
	Regional
	Director
in
	making
	his 	decision
	on
	whether
	CSEA
	could
	represent 	the 	pro-
posed
	unit.
	The
	Regional
	Director
	dismissed 	the 	request 	for
recognition
	on
	the 	basis 	of 	his 	investigation,
	the 	information
submitted
	by
	the
	parties
	and
	his
	interpretation
	of
	Government
1 Gov. 	Code
	Sec. 	3545(b)
	states:
In
	all
	cases:
(2) 	A
negotiating 	unit 	of 	supervisory
	employees
shall 	not
	be
	appropriate 	unless
	it
	includes
all
	supervisory
	employees 	employed by
	the
district
	and
	shall 	not
	be
	represented
	by
	the
same 	employee
	organization
	as 	employees 	whom
the 	supervisory
	employees
	supervise.
2
on May 	20, 	1977, 	the 	District 	granted 	voluntary 	recognition
to
	CSEA,
	Fairfield-Suisun 	Chapter 	#302 	to 	represent 	most
	of 	the
District's 	classified 	employees, 	excluding management, 	confidentialand 	supervisory 	employees.
-2-

Code 	Section 	3545(b)(2). 	On July 	15 1 	1977 1 	CSEA appealed 	the
Regional 	Director's 	dismissal 	to 	the 	EERB.
The 	majority 	offers 	little 	rationale 	for 	its 	order. 	Pre-
sumably, 	the 	order 	is 	based 	on 	the 	majority view 	that 	CSEA never
filed 	the 	proper 	petition 	for 	an EERB 	investigation 	or 	hearing
pursuant 	to 	Government 	Code 	Section 	3544.5(b) . 3 CSEA 	probably
regarded 	a 	formal 	petition 	superfluous 	because 	the EERB 	Regional
Director, 	on 	his 	own 	initiative, 	began 	an 	investigation 	inrrnediately
after 	the 	District's 	denial 	of 	the 	request 	for 	recognition. 	However,
although 	not 	titled 	a 	"petition," 	CSEA's 	letter 	of May 	23, 	1977
to 	the 	Regional 	Director 	in 	substance 	constituted 	a 	proper
petition 	pursuant 	to 	Government 	Code 	Section 	35<'1-4.S(b), 	and
should be 	treated 	as 	such. 4 This 	would 	allow us 	to 	make 	a
decision 	of 	the 	merits 	of 	the 	issue 	today, 	instead 	of making 	the
parties 	wait 	nearly 	a 	year 	to 	learn 	that 	they 	should 	have 	filed
a 	different 	piece 	of 	paper.
The 	majority's 	order 	also 	indicates 	that 	this 	case 	cannot
be 	resolved wi~hout 	a 	representation hearing. 	I 	disagree. 	Neither
3Gov. 	Code 	Sec. 	3544.5(b) 	states:
3544.5. 	A petition may 	be 	filed with 	the
board, 	in 	accordance 	with 	its 	rules 	and 	regula-
tions, 	requesting 	it 	to 	investigate 	and 	decide
the 	question 	of whether 	employees 	have 	selected
or wish 	to 	select 	an 	exclusive 	representative 	or
to 	determine 	the 	appropriateness 	of 	a 	unit, 	by:
(b) 	An 	employee 	organization 	alleging 	that 	it
has 	filed 	a 	request 	for 	recognition 	as 	an 	exclusive
representative 	with 	a 	public 	school 	employer 	and
that 	the 	request 	has 	been 	denied 	or 	has 	not 	been
acted 	upon within 	30 	days 	after 	the 	filing 	of 	the
request; 	or.... 	****
4EERB 	Rule 	33230 	requires 	the 	District 	be 	served with 	an
employee 	organization petition 	for 	EERB 	investigation. 	CSEA
sent 	a 	copy 	of 	its 	May 	23, 	1977 	letter 	to 	the 	District, 	but
did 	not 	serve 	it. 	I 	would 	allow 	CSEA 	to 	serve 	the 	District
to 	conform 	the 	letter 	to 	the 	procedural 	requirements 	of 	a
petition.
-3-

the
	Educational
	Employment
	Relations
	Act
	nor
	our
	Rules 	and
Regulations
	require
	a
	representation
	hearing
	in
	all
	cases.
Government
	Code
	Section
	3544.7(a)
	states,
	in 	part:
Upon
	receipt
	of
	a
	petition 	filed
	pursuantto
	Section
	3544.3
	or
	3544.5,
	the 	board
shall
	conduct
	such
	inquiries
	and
	investi-
gations 	or
	hold
	such
	hearings
	as
	it
	shall
deem
necessary
	in
	order
	to 	decide 	the
questions
	raised
	by
	the
	petition.
Similarly
	EERB
	Rule 	33270(a)
	states:
Whenever 	a
	petition
	regarding
	a
	representation
matter
	is 	filed
	with 	the
	Board
	and
	a
	question
of
	representation
	is
	determined
	to
	exist,
	the
Board
	shall 	investigate
	and
	conduct
	a
	hearing,
where
	appropriate,
	according 	to 	the 	procedures
in
	this 	Article.
A
hearing 	in
	this
	case
	is
	neither
	necessary 	nor
	appropriate.
All
	that
	would
	be 	accomplished
	by 	a
	hearing
	is
	to
	have
	the
same 	documents
	now
	submitted
	to
	the
	Board
	introduced
	as
	exhibits
at
	the 	hearing. 	Additionally, 	the
	parties 	will
	incur 	additional
legal
	and
	adminjstrative
	expenses.
	The
	end
	result
	would
	be
	a
recommended
	decision.
	The
	parties
	could 	then 	appeal
	that
	decision.
We
	would
	then
make
	our 	decision
	based
	on
	the
	same
	record
	that
	we
presently
	have
	before 	us. 	After
	twelve
	months
	of waiting,
	the
parties
	deserve
	more
	than
	a
	bureaucratic 	shuffle
	and
	are
certainly 	entitled, 	at
	a
	bare
	minimum,
	to
	an
	explanation.
5
Cossack 	Twohey,
5Topanga 	Assn. 	v. 	County 	of
	Los 	Angeles, 	11 	Cal.3d 	506,
113 	Cal.Rptr. 	836 	Cl974).
-4-

5TATC Of CAllfORNIA
========="'···=-=-·=====================
==========
EDUCATlONAl 	EMPI..O"fMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
San Francisco Regional Office
177 Post Street, Ninth f-loor
San Franci sec, Califori,io 	94108
(,ns1 557-1350
California School 	Employees Association
and 	its 	Solano Chapter AV-001
791 Laguna Court
Fairfield, 	California 	94533
July 7, 	1977
Mr. 	E. 	Tom Giugni, 	Superintendent
Fairfield-Suisun Unified 	School
District
1025 Delaware 	Street
Fairfield, 	California 	94533
California School 	Employees Association
and 	its Solano Chapter AV-001
2350 P~rag0n Drive, 	P. 	0. 	Box 640
San Jose, 	California 	95106
Attention: 	Charles L. 	Morrone
Gentlemen:
RE·: 	SF-R-548
After a review of 	the February 22, 	1977 request 	for 	recognition by
the California School Employees Association and its 	Solano Chapter, 	AV-001
for 	a unit of supervisory employees 	in the Fairfield-Suisun Unified 	School
Dis trice 	I 	find 	that 	it must be dismissed.
On H.:.iy 20, 	1976 	the Governing Board of the Fairfield-Suisun Unified
School District granted voluntary recognition 	to 	the California School
Employees Association and 	its 	Fairfield-Suisun Chapter #302 	to represent
the classified employees of 	the Fairfield-Suisun Unified School 	District.
The l!nit excluded 	those positions designated as management, 	confi-
dential and/or supervisory and also excluded day-to-day substitutes, 	su::::ncr
work crews, 	temporary augmented crews and school bus drivers. 	Voluntary
recogn.iti·::m was 	granted 	to 	the Hutual Organization of School llus 	Drivers
on May 27, 	1976 	to 	represent 	the school bus drivers 	excluded 	from 	the 	unit
represi..:ntt.:•J by 	the 	C,,l iforn ia School Employees Association and 	its 	Fair field-
Suisun Ch;ipter 1130'2.

Fairfield-Suisun
Page
T,.,,o
On 	FL:brunry
	""'..:..'
	1977
	the
	Fairfield-Suisun
	Unified
	Sd1ool
	Distr-f.ct
received
	from
	the
	California
School
	Employees
	Associntion
	and
	its
	Solanu
Chapter
AV-001 a
	request 	for 	recognition as 	exclusive
	rcpresenrative
	of
	a1
unit
	consisting of
all
	classified
	supervisory
	employees
	employed by
	the
District.	
The
Governing
Board
	of
	the
	Fairfield-Suisun
	Unified
	School
	District,
at
	its
	April
	14,
	1977
meeting,
	declined 	to
	grant voluntary
	recognition
	to
	the
California
School
	Employees
	Association
	and
	its
	Solano
Chnpter,
	AV-001.
,.,.,
Section
	3545
	(b)(2) 	of 	the Educational
	Employment
	Relations
	Act
	states
that
	supervisory
employees	
11
•••
shall
not
be
	r~presented
by
	the
	same
	employee
organization
as
	employees
whom
	the supervisory
	employees
	supervise."
	The
issue
	in
	this
	instance therefore
	is
	whether 	the· Solano
Chapter,
	AV-001
	and
the
	Fairfield-Suisun
Chapter
	U302
	are
	the
	same
	employee
organization.
	From
the
	material
	provided 	to
	this 	office
by
	the
	local 	chapters
	and
	the
	state
	organi-
zation
	I
	find·
the 	following:
(1)	
It 	is
	not 	contested
	that
members
	of 	the
	Solano
	Chapter,
	AV-001
directly
	supervise
employees
	in
	the
	classified unit 	represented
as
	the exclusive
	representative
	by
	the
	California
	School
	Employees
Association
and
	its
	Fairfield-Suisun
	Cha~ter
	#302.
(2)	
The
	California
School
	Employees
	Association
	is 	currently
	a
	party
to
	the
	recognition 	in
	the
	classified
	unit
	,::m<l
	seeks 	to
	be
	a
	party
to any
	recognition or
	certificntion
	in
	tht! :;;upcrvisury
	unit.
(J)	
The
	vast 	majority 	of
	dues
	po.id by
	each
	member
	of
	both
	the 	Fairfiel<l-
Suisun Chapter
	0302 	nnd
	the 	Solano Chapter.
AV-001 	goes
	to 	the
C.::iliforni.a School 	Employct:!s
	Association
.nnd
	is
	not 	retained
	at
the 	loc.::il 	l~vc:l.

FairficlJ-Suisun
Page
111re('
-----
---~----
(4)	
\-.'llile	
tLL!	
Solano
	Clwptl•r,
	AV-001
	nnd
	the
	Fairfield-Suisun
Cli:ipter
	i/302
	hnve d
ifforcnt
	fie
1 d
	rcprescnt.1tives,
	both
	field
representatives
	are
	employees
	of
	and
	are
	paid
	by
	the
	California
School
	Employ..,cs
	As,;ociation.
	Therefore,
	much
	of
	the
	representn-
tion of
	employees
	in
both
	units	
is	
controlled	
by	
the
	California
School
	Employees
	Association.
(5)	
Employees
	in
both
	chapters
	contribute
	to
	a
	special 	building
	fund
for
	the
	eonstruction,
	furnishing,
	maintenance,
	repnir,
	and
	other
costs
	of 	the
	California
School
Empl9yees
	Association's headquarters
complex.
(6)	
Employees
	of
both
	chapters
	appear 	to
~e
	eligible
	for 	the
	same
internal benefit
	package
	(insurance,
	economic
	discounts,
	and
	lia-
bility2enefits)
	provided
by
	the
	state
organization
	to
	its
	members.
(7)	
Members 	from
both
	chapters are
eligible
	to
	attend
	any
	annual
	or
special
	confer~nce
of
	the
	California
School
	Employees
	Association,
and have
	equal voting
eligibility.
(8)	
In
choosing
area
	directors
	each chapter
has
	one
vote determined	
by
a
	plurality of
	the
	qualified
	membership.
(9)	
Article
	VII
	of
	the
	California
	School Employees
	Assncintion
	by-laws
page 	30
	provides 	the 	following:
"Concert1..:J Act i
viti
•.·s:
Wile Liiv r
	the
	b,1 rg.:1
in
i
ng 	rcprt.:scnta
tive
	in
	any
	b;irgnining
	is
	tht.!
,\ssociati,1n,
	;i
	chapter,
	or
	tl1c
Association	
.:ind ;1
	chapter
	jointly,
	no
Clll1Ccrt~J
	,iction sh.ill	
b~~	
im,tituted
	by,
	or at
	the 	instance
	of 	the
bdrg;1in
i11g
	represcntn
ti
vu
	unless.
(c) 	approval 	shall
	have bet>n
	granted by 	tile 	Uonrd
	of 	Directors
uf California School Employees Association.
11

Fnirfield-Suisun
Page 	Four
The
	buar'tl
	o[
d.Lreclors
	of
	thv
	California
	School
	Employees
	Associ.:Jtion
therl!fOrl!
	has
	ultimnte
control
	over
	any
	conccrtl!d
	activities
	of
v.
t.th<.:r
	chapter.
	Furthermore,
	the
	board
	of
	directors
	is
	composed
of
the
	elecL1.:<l
	officers
	of
	CSEA
and any
CSEA
member
	can
	run 	for	
elected
office.
	Thus,
	supervisory
members
	ns
	well
	ns
	the
	employees
	they
supervise
mny
become members
of
	the board
	of
	directors. 
separate
	Because
of
	the
	above,
	I
	therefore
	find
	that
both
	chapters
	are
	not
employee
organizations
	under
section
	3545
	(b)(2) 	of 	the
	net,
	but
	are
	in 	fact
only
sub-divisions
	of
	a
	single
employee
organ~zation, 	the
	California
	School
E=ployees
	Association.
	Your
	petition
	is
	therefore
hereby
	dismissed.
An	
appeal 	to
	this
	decision
	may
	be
made
within ten calendar
	days
	of 	receipt
of
	this 	letter,
	stating
	the
	facts
	upon
which
	the appeal
	is
based 	and
	filed
	with
the
	Executive
	Director,
	Mr.
	Charles Cole,
	at
923
12th
Street,
	Suite
	200,
	Sacra-
mento,
	Califo·rnin 95814.
	Copies
	of
	any
	appeal
must
	be served
	upon
	all
	other
parties
	to
	this action
with
	an
	additional
	copy
	to
	the
	San
	Francisco
	Regional
Office.
Your
	very
	truly,
James
	\,;. 	T.:imm
Regional Dlr~ctor
J\..'T
:r:,.:1