Ventura Community College District * * * OVERRULED by South County Community College District (1990) PERB Order No. Ad-215 (PERB A130E)

STATE
	OF
	CALIFORNIA
DECISION
	OF
	THE
PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
CALIFORNIA
	LEAGUE 	OF
	CITY
EMPLOYEE
	ASSOCIATIONS,
Employer
	Organization,
APPELLANT,
and
SERVICE
	EMPLOYEES
	INTERNATIONALUNION
	LOCAL
	690,
	AFL-CIO,
Exclusive 	Representative,
and
VENTURA
	COMMUNITY
	COLLEGE
	DISTRICT,
Employer.
)
)
)
)
)	
Case
	No. 	LA-R-156
	A&B
LA-AC-16
PERB
	Order
	No. 	Ad- 130
Administrative
	Appeal
June
	30, 	1982
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)	
____________________
}
Appearances:	
Edward 	L.
	Faunce 	(LeMaire, 	Faunce
	&
Katznelson),Attorney 	for
	California
	League
	of 	City
	Employee
	Associations;
Jeffrey
	Paule 	(Geffner
	&
Satzman), 	Attorney 	for 	Service
Employees
	International
	Union,
	AFL-CIO.
Before 	Jensen,
	Morgenstern
	and
	Tovar,
	Members.
DECISION
This 	case
	is
	before 	the 	Public
	Employment
	Relations
	Board
(PERB
	or
	Board) 	on 	an
	administrative
	appeal
	filed
	by
	California
League
	of 	City
	Employee
	Associations
	(CLOCEA).
	CLOCEA
	appeals
a
	regional
	director's
	denial 	of
	its
	request 	to
	amend 	a
certification
	issued 	to 	Service
	Employees
	International
	Union
Local 	690, 	AFL-CIO
	(Local 	690).
	CLOCEA
	contends
	that 	the
effect
	of 	the 	requested 	change 	would 	be 	merely 	to
	reflect
	the

true
	name
	of 	the
	certified 	entity.
	The
	request
	and
	subsequent
appeal 	are
	opposed 	by	
Service
	Employees
	International
	Union,
AFL-CIO 	(SEIU) 	on
	the
	grounds
	that
	CLOCEA
	is,
	in
	fact,
	a
different 	entity
	than
	that
	certified
	by
	the
	Board,
	that
	the
difference 	is
	of
	such
	substantial
	nature
	as
	to
	raise
	a
	real
question
	concerning
	representation,
	and
	thus
	that
	the
	amendment
of
	certification
	procedure
	is
	not
	appropriate.
FACTS
On
	September
	8,
	1981,
	following
	a
	decertification 	election
conducted
	by 	PERB,
	Local
	690 	was
	certified
	as
	the
	exclusive
representative
	of
	two
	units
	of
	classified
	employees
	of 	the
Ventura
	Community
	College
	District 	(District).
	Shortly
thereafter,
	on
	October 	2, 	1981,
	the
	board
	of
	directors
	of
CLOCEA,
	a
	California 	corporation,
	voted
	to
	disaffiliate
	with
SEIU, 	and
	ordered
	its
	staff
	to 	cease 	using 	the
	name
	"Service
Employees
	International
	Union
	Local
	690
11
and
	to
	conduct
	all
business
	using 	the
	name
	CLOCEA. 	On
	December
	7, 	1981,
	CLOCEA
filed
	a
	request 	to
	amend
	the
	certification
	to
	reflect
	the
corporate
	name
	change 	from
	Local
	690
	to
	CLOCEA.
Upon
	learning 	of 	the 	purported
	disaffiliation
	by CLOCEA,
SEIU
	instituted
	proceedings 	to
	impose
	trusteeship
	upon
'its
former
	local,
	and
	informed
	entities
	with 	negotiating
relationships
	with 	Local
	690
	that
	the
	trusteeship
	was
	being
imposed 	and
	that
	they 	should 	continue 	to 	forward 	dues 	and
insurance
	premiums
	to
	SEIU.
	In 	response 	to 	this 	action,
	CLOCEA
2

sought 	and 	obtained 	a 	preemptory 	writ 	of 	mandate 	from 	the
Superior 	Court, 	Los 	Angeles 	County, 	providing, 	inter 	alia, 	that
pending 	ultimate 	resolution 	of 	the 	dispute, 	all 	monies
collected 	by 	the 	affected 	employers 	on 	behalf 	of 	entities 	known
as 	CLOCEA, 	CLOCEA/SEIU 	Local 	690, 	SEIU 	Local 	690, 	or 	variations
thereof 	should 	be 	forwarded 	to 	the 	Court 	which 	would 	then
forward 	appropriate 	amounts 	to 	CLOCEA 	for 	satisfaction 	of 	dues
and 	insurance 	obligations. 	The 	Superior 	Court 	further 	denied
SEIU's 	motion'for 	preliminary 	injunction 	and 	granted 	CLOCEA's
motion 	for 	preliminary 	injunction 	restraining 	SEIU 	from
imposing 	a 	trusteeship 	upon 	Local 	690 	and 	providing 	that 	CLOCEA
and 	Local 	690 	were 	the 	same 	entity 	and 	that, 	during 	the
pendency 	of 	the 	action, 	CLOCEA 	had 	the 	right 	to 	represent
employees 	in 	units 	in 	which 	Local 	690 	had 	been 	certified. 	The
Court 	decided 	the 	issues 	based 	upon 	corporations 	law 	principles
after 	reviewing 	the 	articles 	of 	incorporation 	and 	bylaws 	of
CLOCEA, 	which 	provide 	that 	Local 	690 	is 	merely 	the 	d/b/a 	of
CLOCEA.
There 	has 	been 	no 	change 	in 	the 	officers, 	staff, 	or 	shop
stewards 	of 	Local 	690 	since 	the 	certification. 	However, 	it 	is
apparent 	that 	the 	disaffiliation 	would 	result 	in 	severing 	ties
with 	SEIU 	and 	the 	AFL-CIO 	and 	loss 	of 	use 	of 	the 	name 	and
whatever 	assistance 	may 	have 	been 	forthcoming 	from 	those
entities.
3

The
	record
	reflects
	that
	the
	unit
	employees
	of 	the
	District
have
	neither
	been
	contacted
	nor
	allowed
	to 	express
	their
	views,
by
	secret
	ballot
	or
	any
	other
	method,
	respecting
	the 	proposed
disaffiliation
	and 	name
	change.
A
letter
	to
	PERB
	dated 	February 	17,
	1982 	and
	signed
	by 	175
unit
	employees
	(out
	of 	approximately
	400
	in
	the
	unit)
	indicated
to
	the
	regional
	director 	that
	the
	employees
	had
	not
	been
contacted.
	It
	was
	the 	understanding
	of
	at 	least
	the
	175
	unit
employees
	signatory
	to
	that
	letter
	that
	CLOCEA
	had 	"come
	into
existence"
	by
	virtue
	of
	a
	split
	within
	SEIU, 	and
	that
	they
	had
voted 	for
	representation	
by	
SEIU. 	The
	District,
	faced 	with
competing
	contentions 	of
	SEIU 	and
	CLOCEA,
	informed
	the
	regional
director 	that
	it
	had 	a 	good
	faith
	doubt 	as
	to 	the
	identity
	of
the 	negotating
	representative
	of 	the 	employees. 	There 	have
been
	no
	negotiations
	and
	the 	record
	reflects
	that
	the
	employees
are 	currently
	working
	without
	a
	contract.
There
	was 	no
	mention
	of 	the
	name
	CLOCEA
	in
	any
	of 	the
documents
	submitted 	to
	PERB
	pursuant 	to 	the
	decertification
election
	by 	means
	of
	which
	Local
	690 	was
	certified
	in
September 	1981. 
DISCUSSION
CLOCEA
	contends, 	in 	essence, 	that
	it
	was
	entitled
	by
	its
articles
	of 	incorporation
	and 	bylaws
	to 	cease 	using 	the
	name
Local 	690 	and
	to 	sever
	its
	corporate 	relationship
	with
	SEID
	by
a
	vote 	of
	its
	board 	of 	directors
	and
	that,
	when
	it
	did 	so,
	no
4

change
	in 	basic
	identity
	was
	wrought
	upon
	the
	entity
	which
	was
designated
	by
	the
	employees.
	Rather,
	argues
	CLOCEA,
	a 	mere
name
	change
	was
	accomplished,
	no
	true
	question
	concerning
representation
	arose,
	and
	hence
	the
	amendment
	of
	certification
procedure
	is
	appropriate.
	SEIU
	argues,
	on
	the
	other
	hand,
	that
the
	disaffiliation
	herein
	amounts
	to
	a
	substantial
	change
	in
identity
	which
	gives
	rise
	to
	a
	question
	concerning
representation,
	and
	that
	an 	amendment
	of
	certification 	is
therefore 	inappropriate.
The
	petition
	herein
	arises
	under
	PERB
	rules
	32760
	through
32763.1
1
PERB
	rules
	are
	codified
	at 	California
	Administrative
Code,
	title
	8,
	section
	31000
	et
	seq. 	Sections
	32760
	through
32763
	provide, 	in
	pertinent 	part:
32760.
	Policy.
	It
	is
	the
	policy 	of 	the
Board
	that
	in 	the 	event 	of
	a
	merger,amalgamation,
	affiliation
	or
	transfer
	of
jurisdiction 	affecting
	an
	exclusive
representative
	recognized 	or
	certified
	under
EERA,
	SEEP-~
	or
	HEERA,
	the
	exclusive
representative 	shall 	file
	a
	request
	with 	theBoard,
	utilizing
	the 	procedures 	described 	in
this 	Article
	3.
32761.
	Request.
(a) 	A
recognized 	or
	certified
	employee
organization 	shall 	file
	with 	the 	regional
office
	a
	request 	to
	reflect
	a 	change
	in 	the
identity
	of 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	inthe 	event 	of
	a
	merger, 	amalgamation,
affiliation
	or
	transfer
	of
	jurisdictionaffecting 	said 	organization.
. 	. 	. 	. . 	. 	. . 	. 	. 	. 	. 	. . . 	. 	. . 	. . 	. 	. 	.
5

32762. 	Employer
	Response.
	The
	employer
	may
file
	a
	responding
	statement 	to
	the
	request
filed
	pursuant 	to 	Section
	32761. 	Such
statement
	must 	be
	filed
	with
	the
	regional
office
	within
	15
	days
	following 	the 	date
	of
service
	of 	the
	request.
	A copy
	of 	theresponse
	shall
	be
	concurrently
	served
	on
	the
exclusive
	representative.
	Proof 	of
	service
shall
	be
	filed
	with 	the
	regional
	office.
32763. 	Board
	Investigation.
(a) 	Upon
	receipt
	of
	a
	request
	filed
	pursuant
to
	Section
	32761,
	the
	Regional
	Director
shall
	conduct 	such
	inquiries
	and
investigations
	or 	hold 	such
	hearings 	as
deemed
	necessary 	in 	order
	to
	decide 	the
questions
	raised
	by
	the
	request.
(b) 	The
	Regional
	Director
	may
	dismiss 	the
request
	if
	the 	requester
	has 	no
	standing 	to
petition
	for 	the
	action
	requested 	or
	if
	the
request
	is
	improperly
	filed.
	The
	Regional
Director
	may
	deny 	a
	request
	based
	on
	the
investigation
	conducted
	pursuant 	to
subsection
	(a)
	above.
(c) 	Upon
	approval 	of
	a
	request, 	the
	Regional
Director
	shall
	issue
	a
	certificationreflecting
	the
	new
	identity
	of 	the 	exclusive
representative.
	Such
	certification 	shall
not
	be
	considered 	to
	be 	a
	new
	certification
for 	the 	purpose 	of
	computing 	time
	limits
pursuant 	to Section
	32754
	of
	these
regulations.
(d) 	Any
	determination
	made 	by
	the 	Regional
Director 	pursuant 	to 	this
	Section
	may 	be
appealed 	to 	the
	Board
	itself
	in 	accordance
with 	the 	provisons 	of 	Division 	1,
	Chapter 	4,
Article
	2
of 	these 	regulations.
These
	rules
	are
	the
	PERB
	equivalent
	of 	the
	amendment
	of
certification
	provisions
	of
	the
	National
	Labor
	Relations
	Act
6

and
	regulations
	promulgated
	thereunder.2
We
	are 	thus
	guided
	by
	precedent 	of 	the 	National
	Labor
Relations
	Board
	(NLRB)
	and
	federal 	courts
	regarding
appropriateness
	of
	amendment
	of
	certification.
3 	The
	general
rule
	established
	by
	cases
	decided
	in
	the
	private 	sector
	is
	that
amendment
	of
	certification 	is
	appropriate
	where
	there
	is
	no
change
	in 	the
	basic
	identity
	of 	the
	representative
	chosen
	by
the
	employees
	but,
	rather,
	where
	the
	change
	is
	one
	of
	form
	and
not
	of
	substance.
	rt
	is
	reasoned
	that
	such
	an 	amendment
	is
justified
	without 	the
	full
	range
	of
	representation
	procedures,
including
	a
	secret 	ballot 	election
	conducted
	by
	the 	labor
board,
	because
	the
	change
	involved
	does
	not
	alter
	the
	essential
identity
	of
	the
	negotiating 	representative.
	The 	amendment
	of
certification
	may 	be
	granted
	even
	during 	the
	pendency
	of
contract
	or
	election
	bars 	to
	conduct 	of
	representation
proceedings,
	because
	it
	involves
	a
	change 	which 	does
	not
	affect
the 	continuity
	of 	the
	negotiating 	relationship.
	To
	insure 	that
this 	is
	the
	case, 	the
	NLRB
	and
	courts
	have
	developed
	criteria
for 	determining
	when 	no
	question 	concerning
	representation 	is
raised
	and
	thus
	that
	amendment
	of
	certification 	is
	appropriate
2see 	Rules
	and
	Regulations
	and
	Statements 	of 	Procedure,
series
	8, 	as 	amended,
	of 	the 	National
	Labor
	Relations 	Board,
section
	101.17.
3rt 	is 	appropriate 	for 	the 	Board
	to
	be
	guided
	by
	federalprecedent
	when
	it
	is 	applicable 	to 	the 	public 	sector 	issueinvolved 	in
	a 	given 	case. 	Firefighters
	Union, 	Local 	1186
	v.
City 	of Vallejo
	(1974) 	12
Cal.3d
	608 	[116
	Cal.Rptr.
	507].
7

and, 	conversely, 	when 	the 	petition 	raises 	a 	question 	concerning
representation 	such 	as 	to 	render 	the 	amendment 	of 	certification
inappropriate. 	The 	general 	goal 	of 	the 	inquiry 	is 	to 	determine
whether 	the 	entity 	seeking 	an 	amendment 	of 	certification 	is
merely 	a 	continuation 	of 	the 	certified 	entity 	under 	a 	new 	name
or 	is 	a 	substantially 	different 	organization.
There 	are 	two 	separate 	but 	related 	aspects 	to 	this
inquiry. 	First, 	is 	the 	substitute 	entity 	substantially 	the
same, 	in 	the 	sense 	that 	it 	has 	the 	same 	structure, 	the 	same
officers, 	and 	the 	same 	stewards 	and 	other 	representatives 	for
dealing 	with 	the 	employer 	and 	employees? 	Second, 	was 	the
substitution 	or 	change 	procedurally 	valid, 	in 	that 	it 	conformed
to 	the 	organization's 	internal 	rules 	and 	involved 	a
democratically 	achieved 	ratification 	of 	the 	action 	by 	unit
employees? 	As 	the 	California 	Court 	of 	Appeal 	has 	held 	in
analyzing 	the 	requirements 	of 	the 	NLRB 	and 	federal 	courts 	for
amendment 	of 	certification,
... 	the 	people 	who 	conduct 	a 	substantial
part 	of 	the 	unit 	dealings 	with 	management
must 	be 	the 	same 	and 	the 	power 	of 	the 	unit's
members 	to 	control 	those 	agents 	must 	be 	the
same. 	It 	is 	not 	enough 	that 	only 	the
contract, 	local 	officers, 	and 	employees 	be
the 	same, 	the 	rights 	of 	the 	parties 	must 	be
the 	same.
In 	sum, 	the 	Court 	continued,
... 	for 	the 	amendment 	of 	the 	certificated
union 	to 	sustain 	this 	test, 	the 	following
three 	features 	must 	converge: 	( 1) 	there
must 	be 	acceptance 	by 	the 	original 	certified
union, 	(2) 	the 	bargaining 	unit 	must 	remain
substantially 	the 	same, 	i.e., 	there 	is
8

contjn11itv
	of
	bargaining
	representatives,
and 	(3)
	the
	employees
	are
	shown
	to
	be
	able
to
	fully
	and
	democratically 	consider
	and
vote
	on
	affiliation,
	i.e.,
	in 	accordance
with
	due
	process.
North
	San
	Diego 	County
	Transit
	Development
Board
	v.
	Donald
	Vial
	(1981) 	117
	Cal.App.3d
27,
	[
__
	Cal.Rptr.
	__
],
	at
	pp. 	33-34.
We
	believe
	this
	to
	be
	an
	appropriate 	general 	rule 	for
evaluation 	of
	the
	appropriateness 	of
	amendments
	of
certification.
	Among
	the
	factors
	to
	be
	investigated
	and
considered 	are
	the
	extent 	of 	congruity 	of
	the 	persons
	who
conduct 	the
	unit
	business
	with
	management,
	whether
	the
requirement
	set
	forth
	in 	the
	certificated
	entity's
	governing
documents
	for
	affiliation, 	disaffiliation,
	or
	other
modification 	of 	organizational
	form 	have 	been 	met,
	and
	whether
and
	in
	what 	manner
	the
	employees 	have
	expressed
	their
	approval
of
	the
	change
	in
	form.
4
Applying
	these
	factors 	to
	the 	case
	at
	hand,
	it
	appears
	that
there
	may
	indeed
	be
	substantial 	continuity
	of
	identity 	of
	those
persons
	who
	deal
	with
	management 	on
	behalf 	of
	the
	unit,
5 	and
4This
	is
	not 	intended 	to
	be 	an
	exhaustive
	list,
	but
rather
	a
	general 	statement 	of 	factors
	which
	should
	be
investigated
	and
	will
	be
	considered
	by
	the
	Board
	in 	evaluating
the 	propriety 	of
	an 	amendment
	of
	certification.
SThere
	are 	insufficient 	facts
	to 	enable 	the 	Board
	todetermine 	to
	what
	extent,
	if
	any, 	agents 	of
	SEIU 	and
	the
AFL-CIO 	may 	have 	been
	available 	to 	represent 	unit
	members
	prior
to 	disaffiliation.
	For 	reasons
	set 	forth, 	infra,
	we
	need 	not
make 	such 	a
	determination
	based 	on 	the 	limited 	evidence 	here.
9

even 	that 	the 	certificated 	organization's 	internal 	rules
purport 	to 	enable 	it 	to 	disaffiliate 	without 	consultation 	with
the 	unit 	employees 	or 	members. 	However, 	as 	noted 	above, 	it 	is
clear 	that 	the 	unit 	employees 	had 	neither 	notice 	of 	nor 	an
opportunity 	to 	vote 	upon 	disaffiliation.
We 	cannot 	conclude, 	as 	the 	petitioner 	urges, 	that
disaffiliation 	with 	a 	national 	union 	can 	be 	viewed 	as 	a 	mere
name 	change 	in 	the 	circumstances 	here 	presented. 	We 	are
compelled 	to 	deny 	the 	petition 	herein 	on 	the 	grounds 	that 	the
employees 	have 	not 	been 	given 	the 	opportunity 	to 	d~mocratically
express 	their 	views 	on 	the 	reorganization 	and 	name 	change
encompassed 	by 	the 	disaffiliation 	herein.6
The 	NLRB 	has 	long 	held 	that 	it 	will 	not 	grant 	amendment 	of
certification
... 	where 	the 	possibility 	of 	a 	question
concerning 	representation 	remains 	open
because 	the 	change 	of 	affiliation 	took 	place
under 	circumstances 	that 	do 	not 	indicate
that 	the 	change 	reflected 	a 	majority 	view.
North 	Electric 	Company 	(1967) 	165 	NLRB 	942,
at 	942 	[65 	LRRM 	1379].
Here, 	there 	was 	no 	election 	or 	expression 	of 	employee 	views 	of
any 	kind 	prior 	to 	disaffiliation. 	Employees 	received 	no 	notice
of 	the 	planned 	disaffiliation. 	Because 	in 	these 	circumstances
6whereas 	the 	disaffiliation 	may 	well 	have 	been 	proper 	as
a 	matter 	of 	corporate 	law, 	it 	did 	not 	conform 	to 	the 	more
stringent 	due 	process 	requirements 	to 	which 	employees 	are
entitled 	in 	the 	labor 	relations 	context.
10

we
	cannot 	conclude
	that
	the
	disaffiliation
	"reflected
	a
majority
	view",
	it
	would 	be
	inappropriate
	for 	the
	Board
	to
grant
	the
	amendment
	of
	certification.
ORDER
Upon
	the 	foregoing
	decision
	and
	the
	entire
	record
	in 	this
matter,
	the 	Public
	Employment
	Relations
	Board
	ORDERS
	that:
The
	regional
	director's
	dismissal
	of 	the 	proposed
	amendment
of
	certification 	is
	hereby	
AFFIRME~'	
no
_,4endm
issue.
~
J
Virg
i'1	
(ftiS(;Y'
Member
/\
Iren~Tovar;
Membe'.r
11