Shasta Union High School District (PERB 0034E)

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
l)
)
)
)
)
_______________ )
STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE 	EDUCATIONAL
EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
SHASTA UNION 	HIGH 	SCHOOL 	DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
CALIFORNIA 	SCHOOL 	EMPLOYEES 	ASSOCIATION,
CHAPTER 181,
Employee 	Organization,
and
CALIFORNIA TEAMSTERS, 	PUBLIC, 	PROFESSIONAL
AND MEDICAL EMPLOYEES UNION, 	LOCAL 911,
Employee 	Organization,
and
SERVICE 	EMPLOYEES 	INTERNATIONAL 	UNION,
LOCAL 22, AFL-CIO,
Employee 	Organization
Case No. 	S-R-296
EERB Decision No. 34
October 25, 	1977
Appearances: 	Jerome C. 	Byrne, 	Attorney 	(Gibson, 	Dunn and
Crutcher) 	For Shasta Union High School District; 	Neil L.
McAfee, 	for California School Employees Association, 	Chapter
181; 	Robert Jones, 	for California Teamsters, 	Public, 	Professional
and Medical Employees Union, 	Local 911; 	Wilma R.K. 	Rader, 	Attorney
(Van Bourg, 	Allen, 	Weinberg and Roger) 	for Service Employees
International Union, Local 22, AFL-CIO.
Before Alleyne, 	Chairman; 	Gonzales and Cossack, 	Members.
OPINION
The 	Board has 	considered 	the 	record 	and 	the 	attached
decision 	in 	light 	of 	the 	exceptions 	and briefs 	of 	the 	parties
and has 	decided 	to 	affirm 	the 	findings of 	the hearing

officer. 	Accordingly, · the 	decision as modified herein
and 	the 	recommended 	order 	are 	adopted.
We 	note 	that 	the number 	of 	employees 	(however 	small) 	is
not, · alone, 	a 	basis 	for 	concluding 	that 	a wall-to-wall 	unit
is 	appropriate. 	However, 	the number of 	employees 	in 	a 	district
may be 	so 	small 	that 	a 	district, 	as 	a 	consequence, 	may have
assigned 	to 	employees 	interchangeable 	functions 	and 	parallel
working 	conditions 	that 	are 	consistent 	with 	the 	community 	of
interest 	required 	to 	find 	appropriate 	a 	wall-to-wall 	unit
under 	the Act's 	unit 	criteria. 	Additionally, 	there may be 	a
situation where 	the number 	of 	employees 	is 	so 	small 	that 	to
find 	other 	than 	a 	wall-to-wall 	unit 	may 	adversely 	affect 	the
efficient 	operations 	of 	the 	school 	district. 	While 	future
cases 	reaching 	the 	Board may present 	facts 	of 	the 	kind noted
herein, 	this 	case 	does not .
;' ,, 	/ 	/ 	I
. , _____________ ,,. -
By: 	Raymond J . 	Gonzales, 	Member 	Reginald Alleyne, 	Chairman
Jerilou H. 	Cossack, 	Member, 	concurring :
We 	have 	established presumptively 	appropriate 	units 	in 	the
classified service 	by balancing 	the 	three 	criteria 	set 	forth 	in
Section 	3545 (a) . . 1 In 	this 	case, 	the hearing officer 	found 	two
1 Gov. 	Code 	Sec. 	3545(a) 	states:
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,
-2-

negotiating units 	appropriate, 	one 	described as 	a 	support 	services
unit 	and one which 	combines 	office 	clerical 	employees 	and 	instruc-
tional 	aides. 	The 	District 	contends 	that a wall-to-wall unit 	is
appropriate, 	essentially because 	of 	the 	small number 	of 	classified
employees.
As 	I 	stated in Greenfield Union 	School District,
2
I 	am
reluctant 	to 	find 	that 	an 	arbitrary number of 	employees 	mandates
a wall-to-wall unit. 	In the instant 	case, 	the District 	contends
that 	its 	proportionately 	smaller 	administrative 	staff, 	combined
with declining revenues 	and reserves, 	argues 	in 	favors 	of 	a
wall-to-wall unit. 	I agree 	that 	this 	is 	one factor which, 	when
considered 	cumulatively with others, 	might 	justify a wall-to-wall
unit. 	However, 	the District has not 	demonstrated that 	its 	ratio
of 	administrative 	staff has 	resulted 	in broader 	supervisory or
management 	responsibility, 	greater 	flexibility or 	simplified 	lines
of 	supervision. 3
Cont.
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.
2 EERB Decision No. 	35, 	October 25, 	1977.
3The District 	argues 	that 	it 	is 	highly 	decentralized 	and 	that
its 	principals 	have 	substantial 	responsibility 	for 	all 	aspects
of 	the operation of their individual 	schools. 	However, 	in both
Sweetwater, 	EERB Decision No. 	4, 	November 23, 	1976, 	and Fremont,
EERB Decision No. 	6, 	December 16, 	1976, 	school principals were
as 	involved in 	the 	selection, 	dismissal 	and evaluation of on-
site 	employees. 	The record in 	this 	case 	does not 	establish what,
if any, 	effect 	this 	decentralization has had on 	the District's
administration of 	its 	personnel 	policies.
-3-

The District 	also 	argues 	that 	there 	is 	a 	substantial 	com-
bination of job 	functions 	of its 	employees. 	I 	agree 	that 	this
is 	a factor to be weighed. 	However, 	as more 	fully set out in
the hearing officer's 	proposed 	decision, 	the 	record discloses
that 	five of 	the 	27 bus 	drivers 	are 	regularly assigned 	for vary-
ing 	lengths 	of 	time during 	the work 	day 	to 	tasks 	unrelated 	to
transportation. 	In fact, 	these other 	tasks 	are job 	functions
regularly 	performed by 	support 	services 	employees 	and 	are
critically 	related 	to 	providing 	the 	proper physical 	environment
for 	students. 	Similarly, 	the 	custodian who regularly operates
the 	cafeteria 	cash register 	is 	performing 	two 	job 	functions
normally performed by 	support 	services 	employees. 	With 	the
exception of one 	instructional 	aide who 	performs 	some 	unspecified
"maintenance" work, 	it is 	clear 	that 	the 	instructional 	aides
perform work 	of both 	a 	clerical 	and paraprofessional 	nature.
They 	are 	thus 	appropriately 	included 	in 	the 	same 	unit with
clerical 	and office-technical 	employees.
I 	also 	agree with 	the 	District's 	contention 	that 	transfer
between job 	classifications 	is 	a factor 	to be 	considered. 	Again,
however, 	the record discloses 	only one 	instance 	in 	the past 	couple
of years 	of a 	transfer between 	the 	two units. 	All 	other 	transfers
were within 	the units.
We 	have 	specifically 	and 	repeatedly 	asserted 	our 	understanding
that 	the 	inclusion of 	the 	criteria of "the 	effect 	of 	the 	size 	of
the unit 	on 	the 	efficient 	operation of 	the 	school 	district"
manifested 	a Legislative 	concern 	about 	fragmentation 	of 	units
-4-

and 	the 	consequent 	burden 	on 	an 	e mployer 	of 	multiple 	negotiating
processes 	and 	postures 	with 	a 	variety 	of 	negotiated 	agree ments
difficult 	to 	administer because 	their provisions 	differ . 4 The
District 	in 	the 	instant 	case 	has 	not 	offered 	sufficient 	evidence
to 	distinguish 	it 	fro m other 	districts 	in which we 	have 	found
multiple units 	presumptively 	appropriate. 	Accordingly, 	I 	affirm
the 	order 	of 	the 	hearing 	officer .
,·- •..... 	·-----···--· ···--···-·-·-·-··-····--·---
,
-5-
Jerilou H. 	Cossack, 	Member
4 Sweetwater Union High School 	District, 	sup ra, 	EERB
Decision No . 	4, 	November 	23, 	1976.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
________________ )
EDUCATIONAL 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
OF THE 	STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter 	of
SHASTA UNION HIGH 	SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
CALIFORNIA 	SCHOOL 	EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,
CHAPTER 181,
Employee 	Organization,
and
CALIFORNIA TEAMSTERS, 	PUBLIC, 	PROFESSIONAL
AND MEDICAL EMPLOYEES UNION, 	LOCAL 911,
Employee 	Organization,
and
SERVICE EMPLOYEES 	INTERNATIONAL UNION,
LOCAL 22, AFL-CIO,
Employee Organization.
Case No. 	S-R-296
PROPOSED 	DECISION
(7/21/77)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances: 	Jerome C. 	Byrne, 	Attorney 	(Gibson, 	Dunn and
Crutcher), 	for Shasta Union High School District; 	Neil L. 	McAfee,
for California School Employees Association, 	Chapter 181;
Robert Jones, 	for California Teamsters, 	Public, 	Professional and
Medical Employees Union, 	Local 911; 	Wilma R.K. 	Rader, Attorney
(Van Bourg, 	Allen, 	Weinberg and Roger), 	for Service Employees
International Union, Local 22, AFL-CIO.
Before Ronald E. 	Blubaugh, 	Hearing Officer.
-1-

PROCEDURAL 	HISTORY
On April 	1, 	1976, 	the California School Employees
Association, 	Shasta High School Chapter No. 	181, 	filed a
petition with 	the 	governing board of 	the 	Shasta 	Union High
School 	District 	asking 	for recognition 	as 	the exclusive
1representative 	of a 	comprehensive unit 	of 	classified 	employees.
The unit 	described 	in 	the 	CSEA petition was 	for 	all 	the
District's 	classified 	employees 	to 	"include but not be 	limited
to" 	those 	in the following classifications:
Food services, 	clerical 	and secretarial,
operations 	and maintenance 	to 	include
custodial/maintenance/grounds, 	instruc-
tional 	aides 	(paraprofessional) 	and
transportation.
On April 5, 	1976, 	the California Teamsters Public,
Professional 	and Medical 	Employees 	Union2 filed 	an 	intervention
seeking recognition 	as 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	of 	employees
in 	a 	transportation unit 	comprised of bus 	drivers 	and maintenance
men.
On April 	19, 	1976, 	the Service Employees 	International
Union, 	Local 	22, 	AFL-CIO3 filed an intervention 	seeking recog-
nition as 	the exclusive representative of employees 	in 	a main-
tenance 	and operations 	unit 	comprised of 	the 	following 	classifi-
cations:
Assistant 	maintenance 	supervisor,
athletic field technician, 	custodian,
school 	laundry worker, 	head custodian,
grounds 	caretaker 	and 	swim pool 	tech-:
nician/maintenance.
1 Hereafter 	the California 	School 	Employees Association, 	Shasta
High School Chapter No. 181, 	will be referred to 	as 	the 	"CSEA"
and 	the 	Shasta Union High 	School 	District will be referred 	to
as 	the "District."
2Hereafter, the California Teamsters Public, 	Professional 	and
Medical Employees Union will be referred to 	as 	the 	"Teamsters."
-2-
Hereafter	Hereafter,	, th	theeServic	Servic	e Employee	e Employee	s Internationa	s 	Internationa	l 	l Union, 	Local 22,
AFL-CIO, 	will be referred to as 	the "SEIU."

On May 3, 	1976, 	the District Board of Trustees
issued 	its 	employer 	decision 	in which 	it 	concurred with 	the
unit requested by CSEA and objected 	to 	the units 	proposed by
Teamsters 	and SEIU. 	On May 25, 	1976, 	the 	SEIU requested the
Educational Employment Relations 	Board to 	conduct 	a hearing
and resolve 	the 	question 	about 	the 	appropriateness 	of 	the
unit. 	A hearing was 	conducted by an EERB hearing officer 	on
February 23-24, 	1977, 	at one of the District's high schools
in Redding.
During the 	course of 	the hearing, 	both the 	Teamsters
and the 	SEIU amended their petitions. 	The Teamsters 	amended
its 	petition 	to 	exclude 	all but 	those 	employees 	occupying 	the
positions 	of school bus 	driver, 	school bus 	driver/custodian,
school bus 	driver/building maintenance, 	school bus 	driver/
delivery/stores, 	school bus 	driver/driver training, 	school
bus 	driver/bus maintenance, 	head bus 	driver/bus maintenance,
and transportation clerk. 	The SEIU amended its petition 	to
add 	the positions 	of custodian-continuation high 	school 	and
laundry 	supervisor 	and 	to 	delete 	school bus 	driver/custodian.
By stipulation, 	the parties 	excluded 	the 	following
positions:
As management 	-- 	the business manager,
the 	transportation 	supervisor 	and 	the
food 	services 	supervisor;
As 	supervisory 	-- 	the 	chief maintenance
supervisors 	at 	each of 	the 	four major
schools 	and the 	four 	supervising 	secre-
taries 	at 	each of the 	four 	schools;
As 	confidential 	-- 	instructional 	services
secretary, 	business manager's 	secretary
and 	superintendent's 	secretary.
The hearing 	officer 	adopts 	the 	stipulation without
inquiry.
-3-

FINDINGS 	OF 	FACT
The 	Shasta Union High 	School 	District 	is 	located
in Shasta 	County. 	There 	are approximately 2,800 	square miles
within 	the 	District's boundaries, 	about 	three-fourths 	of the
county's 	geographical 	area.
The District has 	three regular high 	schools, 	a
school 	for ninth 	graders 	and a 	continuation high 	school.
Total 	enrollment 	at 	the 	end of 	the 	first month of 	the 	1976-77
school 	year was 	5,102 	students which 	converts 	to 	an 	average
daily 	attendance 	of about 	5,000.
There 	are 	158 	classified employees, 	of whom three
were 	excluded from the unit as management, 	eight 	as 	supervisory
and three as 	confidential. 	There are 	260 certificated employees.
As 	of February 1977, 	the District's 	classified work
force was 	distributed approximately as 	follows: 	18 	instructional
aides and guidance technicians; 	37 	secretaries, 	clerks and
related office employees; 	41 custodians, 	grounds caretakers,
and related maintenance and operations 	employees; 	34 	food
service 	employees 	and 27 	transportation employees, 	a number
of whom spend part 	of 	their 	time 	in various maintenance and
operations 	duties.
A 	common 	application 	form is 	used by 	applicants
for 	all 	classified jobs 	in the District. 	There 	are no particular
educational 	requirements 	for 	the 	various 	jobs 	although 	applicants
for 	certain jobs must have 	the requisite 	skills. 	Applicants
for 	bus 	driving 	positions 	must have 	the 	appropriate 	California
licenses. 	All 	successful 	candidates 	for 	classified jobs must
pass 	the 	same physical 	examination.
Medical, 	dental and life insurance benefits, 	vacation,
sick 	leave 	and personal 	leave 	rights 	are 	identical 	for 	all
District 	employees. 	The fringe benefits 	for 	classified 	employees
who work 	less 	than a 40 hour week are prorated.
-4-

The work year varies 	for 	classified employees.
Instructional 	aides work nine months 	to 	coincide with 	the
school 	year. 	Guidance 	technicians work a 	12-month year.
All 	of 	the 	clerical 	and office personnel 	except 	the health
clerk work a 	12-month year. 	The health 	clerk works nine
months. 	The maintenance and operations 	employees work a
year but 	some 	of 	them have 	different 	duties 	in 	the
summer 	from what 	they have 	during 	the 	regular 	school 	year.
All 	food 	service 	personnel work 	a nine-month year 	except 	for
a 	small 	number 	of 	employees 	who 	also work 	during 	a 	six-week
summer 	program. 	Transportation 	department 	employees 	have
work years 	of varying 	lengths, 	according 	to whether 	they have
summer assignments.
There 	is 	a considerable 	amount 	of 	interchange 	in
work assignments 	for 	District 	employees 	in 	the maintenance
and operations 	and transportation departments. 	This 	is
reflected both 	in 	their work 	during 	the 	school 	year 	and 	in
the 	summer months. 	There 	are 	two bus 	drivers who 	spend at
least 	two hours 	a day during 	the 	regular 	year performing
maintenance at District 	schools. 	In the 	summer, 	one of these
drivers 	spends 	eight 	hours 	a 	day performing 	school maintenance
and 	the 	other 	spends 	five 	hours 	performing 	school maintenance
and three hours 	driving a bus. 	There 	is 	one bus 	driver who
splits 	his workday 	evenly between 	driving 	and performing
custodial 	work 	at 	a high 	school 	cafeteria 	during 	the regular
school 	year. 	Another 	driver 	spends 	three hours 	a day during
the regular 	school 	year maintaining 	driver 	education vehicles.
Another 	driver 	spends 	three hours 	a 	day 	during 	the 	school 	year
delivering mail 	and working 	as 	a warehouseman. 	During 	the
summer, 	that 	driver spends 	five hours 	a day as 	a warehouseman
and only three hours 	driving a bus. 	The bus 	drivers who perform
maintenance 	carry out 	such duties 	as welding, 	carpentry and
painting. 	Another 	driver, 	who 	spends 	seven hours 	daily driving
.
-5-

during the 	school year, 	drives 	only three hours 	a day during
the 	summer 	and occupies 	the other 	five hours 	as 	a grounds
caretaker.
The District has 	at 	least 	one 	custodian who performs
maintenance work during 	the 	summer. 	That 	custodian has 	done
such work as 	classroom renovation and plumbing during 	the
summer months.
Similarly, 	the District's 	instructional 	aides
perform a wide variety of assignments. 	At Enterprise High
School, 	there are two 	instructional aides. 	One of them works
in the 	school reading 	laboratory. 	She 	spends 	about 	80 percent
of her 	time with young people 	and 	the remainder 	in 	clerical
duties. 	The other operates 	the audio-visual room, 	catalogs
and distributes 	films 	and performs minor maintenance 	and
cleanup in the room. 	At Nova School, 	there are 10 	full-time
aides. 	Eight of them work in classrooms, 	assisting children
under 	the direction of a 	teacher. 	Another aide performs 	only
clerical tasks 	for 	teachers, 	operates 	a duplicating machine
and has very little contact with 	students. 	Still 	another 	aide
maintains and operates 	audio-visual 	equipment, 	coordinates 	the
ordering of 	film and projectors 	for 	teachers. 	At 	Shasta High
School, 	there is 	only one 	instructional 	aide whose work
primarily is 	to handle audio-visual material. 	At Central
Valley High School, 	there are two instructional aides. 	One
works with students 	in 	the reading program and the 	other 	operates
audio-visual 	equipment.
There was evidence that 	classified employees, 	other
than instructional aides, 	have 	direct 	contact of an instructional
nature with students. 	Twenty students 	in a manpower 	training
program work with and 	are 	supervised by 	such 	various 	classified
employees as custodians, 	grounds keepers, 	maintenance employees,
secretaries, 	transportation employees 	and cafeteria employees.
Those 	supervising employees 	grade 	the 	students' 	work.
There has not been a great deal of movement 	of
classified employees 	from one job 	category to another. 	In
recent years 	one 	employee has moved from the 	cafeteria 	to 	a
-6-

clerical assignment, 	another 	from the cafeteria 	to 	instructional
aide and back to the cafeteria, 	another from instructional 	aide
to health 	clerk, 	another 	from instructional 	aide 	to 	library
clerk and a 	fifth employee 	from health 	clerk 	to junior 	clerk.
Classified employees work a variety of hours 	in 	the
District. 	Their hours vary both in 	total number and in 	starting
and ending 	times. 	There seems 	to be no 	districtwide pattern,
even for 	employees 	in 	the 	same job 	categories. 	Individual
schools 	set 	their own hours which may or may not be 	the 	same
as 	the hours worked in the District office.
The District has a 	small 	administrative 	staff,
averaging 	two 	administrators per 	100 	teachers 	compared to 	a
statewide 	average of 3.41 	in 	districts 	of a 	similar 	size. 	As
a result, 	most 	classified employees have a common 	line 	of
supervision 	from either 	the business manager or 	the principals
of their 	individual schools, 	or both. 	Applications 	for all
classified jobs 	are filed with the business manager. 	However,
the authority 	to make 	effective 	recommendations 	about hiring
is 	at a lower 	level for most jobs. 	The transportation super-
visor hires 	the bus 	drivers 	and the other 	employees 	in 	that
department. 	The 	food service 	supervisor hires 	the 	employees
in that program.
School principals have a significant role 	in the
evaluation of all 	classified employees 	in 	their 	schools. 	The
principal of one 	school 	testified that he reviews 	the 	evalua-
tions of custodial, 	maintenance and cafeteria employees. 	If
he 	disagrees with the evaluation he has 	a 	conference with 	the
evaluator. 	He 	testified that 	all 	changes he has 	requested on
evaluations have been carried out. 	Bus 	drivers 	are evaluated
by 	the 	transportation 	supervisor.
Prior 	to 	the passage of 	the Educational Employment
Relations Act 4 employee 	organizations 	had engaged 	in meeting
and 	conferring with 	the District 	under 	the Winton Act. 5
— 7 —
4 Government 	Code Section 	3540 	et 	seq.
5 Former Education Code 	Section 	13080 	et seq.

Under 	the District's 	then existing policy, 	an employee organiza-
tion would be recognized by the Board of Trustees 	if it 	filed
an annual 	request 	and provided certain 	information. 	The
required 	information 	included 	the name 	and address 	of 	the
organization, 	name and address of the officers, 	a copy of the
organization's 	articles 	of incorporation, 	by-laws 	and other
written rules 	and regulations, 	and the number of District
employees who belong to 	the organization. 	The rules 	provided
a process 	for an 	independent 	verification by 	a 	third party 	of
the 	membership 	total. 	The superintendent 	testified that 	the
District never 	denied recognition 	to 	any 	organization which
sought 	it 	and never 	encouraged employees 	to belong 	to any
organization in preference 	to any other.
The District has 	recognized a 	chapter of 	the CSEA
since 	1957 	and a 	chapter 	of 	the 	SEIU 	(or its 	predecessor
organization) 	since 1966. 	During the years under the Winton
Act, 	the CSEA has 	traditionally represented all 	classified
employees. 	In certain years, 	it has obtained special differ-
entials 	for bus 	drivers, 	instructional aides and cooks. 	SEIU
has 	traditionally represented custodians. 	Both CSEA and SEIU
have represented 	their members 	in grievances 	over 	the years.
There 	is no history of 	separate representation 	for bus 	drivers
and 	the 	Teamsters was not 	a recognized organization under 	the
Winton Act.
There was 	conflicting evidence 	about whether 	it
would be 	inefficient 	for 	the 	District 	to 	contain more 	than one
unit 	for 	classified employees.. 	The 	District 	and the Teamsters
both 	called witnesses 	who have 	a background 	in 	labor-management
relations. 	The District's witness was 	the 	director of personnel
and employee relations 	in the 	San Mateo 	Union High 	School District.
Her 	experience was 	under 	the Winton Act 	in dealing with 	three
employee 	organizations which 	she 	said 	"tended 	to 	represent"
distinctively identifiable groups. 	Based on her 	experience,
-8-

she 	said it would require the District 	to 	spend one-and-a-
half as much time dealing with two units 	as 	it would with one.
The 	superintendent 	testified that 	the 	District 	probably would
have 	to hire another administrator 	at 	a cost of $35,000 	to
$40,000 a year 	if there are multiple units 	for 	classified
employees. 	The witness 	for 	the Teamsters was 	the business
representative 	of 	the 	International 	Brotherhood of 	Electrical
Workers, 	Local Union 1245, 	which has contracts with about a
dozen public 	agencies 	under 	the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act. 6
He 	said that 	local governments 	typically have 	about 	four 	units
and the 	added burden from multiple units 	is 	insignificant.
CONCLUSIONS 	OF LAW
Even 	though EERB precedent on 	the 	composition of
classified units 	is by now 	well 	established, 	all parties 	to
this 	case have 	chosen to request 	something contrary. 	The
District 	and CSEA seek a 	comprehensive unit, 	even though the
EERB has not 	found such a unit 	appropriate 	in 	any 	disputed
case. 	The Teamsters 	seek a 	separate transportation unit
even 	though the 	EERB has not 	approved 	such a unit 	in any of
its 	decisions. 	The 	SEIU's 	requested maintenance and operations
unit 	comes 	the closest 	to meeting 	the requirements 	of EERB
precedent but as will be 	seen, 	that unit also 	is not 	appropriate
in this case.
Initially, 	it 	is 	concluded that the comprehensive
unit 	requested by the 	District 	and CSEA 	is not 	appropriate.
Essentially, 	the District offers 	three alternative
theories 	for why a comprehensive 	unit 	should be 	found appropriate.
It 	first 	contends 	that 	all District 	employees 	share 	a community
of interest. 	Secondly, 	it contends 	that in the past the parties
have 	established a 	single unit 	for meeting and 	conferring purposes,
Finally, 	the District reasons 	that because of its 	small 	size
the 	creation of multiple negotiating units would be 	inefficient.
-9-
6 Government 	Code 	Section 	3500 et seq.

,
These 	contentions 	parallel 	the requirements 	of 	the 	Educational
Employment Relations Act. 7
In support 	of its 	argument 	that all 	classified
employees 	share a community of interest, 	the District points
to an identity of wages and fringe benefits, 	terms 	and condi-
tions 	of employment, 	a 	similarity of work functions 	"respecting
relationships with students," 	departmental 	interchange of
employees, 	the simultaneous employment of some employees 	in
two 	departments, 	and identical 	supervision and evaluation
procedures.
The EERB has 	considered 	similar 	arguments 	in a 	series
of cases 	and found them unpersuasive. 	The Board determined
the presumptively appropriate 	classified units 	in 	Sweetwater
Union High 	School 	District 8 and Fremont 	Unified 	School 	District.
------------
Those units 	are 1) 	an instructional aides 	(paraprofessional)
7 Government 	Code 	Section 	3545 	provides 	the 	following 	criteria
for EERB 	decisions about 	the appropriateness 	of a unit:
(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.
(b) 	In all cases:
(1) 	A negotiating unit 	that 	includes 	classroom teachers
shall not be 	appropriate unless 	it 	at 	least 	includes
all 	of 	the 	classroom teachers 	employed by the public
school employer, 	except management employees, 	supervisory
employees, 	and confidential employees.
(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.
(3) 	Classified employees 	and certificated employees
shall not be 	included 	in the 	same negotiating unit.
8 EERB Decision No. 	4, 	November 23, 	1976.
9
EERB Decision No. 	6, 	December 16, 	19 76.
-10-

unit, 	2) 	an office-technical and business services unit, 	and
3) 	an operations-support services unit.
Instructional aides were placed 	in a separate unit
by 	the 	EERB because 	their primary 	duties 	involve 	directly
assisting 	in the 	educational 	development 	of students. 	The
key 	factor was 	that 	the aides have an instructional relation-
ship with 	students which is 	unlike 	the relationship 	other
classified employees 	have with 	students..
Office-technical 	employees were placed in a 	separate
unit by the 	EERB because 	their 	job 	duties 	are unlike 	those
of 	other 	employees. 	Office-technical 	employees 	generally
perform 	clerical 	and record-keeping work rather 	than physical
labor. 	They are required to type, 	operate business machines,
maintain files 	and keep records.
The operations-support 	services 	employees 	share 	a
community of interest, 	the EERB 	concluded, 	because their job
is 	to provide a proper physical 	environment and support 	services
for students. 	They clean and repair, 	provide 	food and trans-
portation.
When the record in the present 	case is 	examined, 	it
is 	clear 	that employees 	in 	the 	Shasta Union High School 	District
perform the 	same essential 	job 	functions 	described 	in 	the 	EERB
decisions 	cited above. 	Although the District has 	demonstrated
that 	its 	employees have 	common pay and benefits 	regardless 	of
assignment, 	it remains 	clear that 	their work duties 	differ
vastly. 	With several exceptions, 	instructional 	aides work with
students, 	clerical 	employees work with records 	and office
equipment 	and operations-support 	employees 	perform manual 	labor,
cook and drive buses. 	The District has 	shown a considerable
interchange between 	the bus 	drivers 	and various 	other 	support
employees. 	But 	it has not 	shown interchange between bus
drivers 	and instructional 	aides 	or between the maintenance
workers 	and the 	clerical 	staff. 	Although 	the District 	requires
-11-

no 	special 	educational requirements which 	differ 	for various
employees, 	it does require successful job 	applicants 	to have
the 	skills 	of the positions 	they seek. 	Clerical 	employees
must have 	the ability to operate office machines. 	Bus 	drivers
must have 	the proper 	state 	licenses 	and abilities 	to 	drive
buses. 	Thus 	the District's 	classified employees bring differing
skills when they are hired and 	do 	differing work when 	they
are 	employed.
Similarly, 	the District has 	placed a mistaken reliance
upon past practices. 	The EERB has 	said it will 	give 	little
weight 	to past practices under 	the Winton Act where 	it 	does
not know
... 	whether 	the rules 	and regulations
adopted by the 	employer 	required an
employee organization 	to represent 	all
classified 	employees 	as 	a precondition
to becoming a 	designated representative.
Because 	of 	the 	unspecified 	and possibly
unilateral nature of 	the unit 	designation
procedure which 	existed 	in 	this 	district
under 	the Winton Act, 	in determining
appropriate negotiating units 	in 	this
case we 	give 	little weight 	to 	"established
practices" as 	they relate to the composi-
tion of the unit represented under 	the
authority 	of 	that 	Act.10
In this 	case, 	the employer did not require an
organization to represent 	all 	classified employees 	as 	a 	condition
of 	its 	gaining recognition under 	the Winton Act. 	It 	thus would
seem that 	the problem which concerned 	the 	EERB 	in 	Sweetwater pre-
sents no obstacle 	to 	examination of 	the past history 	in the 	Shasta
Union High School District. 	Even so, 	past history provides no
assistance to the District's position. 	While it 	is 	clear that
CSEA did represent 	employees 	in all job 	categories, 	it 	is 	also
clear 	that 	for more 	than 	10 years 	there has been a history of
independent representation for custodians. 	There 	is no 	clear
-12-
10 Sweetwater, 	supra footnote No. 	8. 	See also: 	Fremont, 	supra
footnote No. 	9; 	Grossmont Union High School District, 	EERB
Decision No. 	11, 	March 9, 	1977; 	and Los Rios Community College
District, 	EERB Decision No. 	18, June 9, 	1977.

history of meeting 	and 	conferring between 	the 	District 	and 	a 	single
group 	of 	classified employees. 	The District 	even has 	established
two 	separate 	systems of processing grievances, 	one for the
CSEA and one 	for 	the 	SEIU.
Finally, 	the District's 	reliance on efficiency of
operation as 	prohibiting multiple 	units 	is 	also unpersuasive.
The District's 	expert witness was 	a person who has 	never been
involved 	in negotiations where 	there was more 	than one unit.
The 	expert's 	experience 	involved meeting 	and 	conferring where
there was more 	than one employee 	organization. 	The 	superin-
tendent, 	who 	also warned that multiple units would be 	ineffi-
cient, 	likewise had no 	experience 	other 	than under 	the 	Winton
Act. 	By contrast, 	the witness 	for 	the Teamsters had considerable
collective 	bargaining 	experience 	under 	the Meyers-Milias-Brown
Act 	dealing with 	local 	governments 	having 	distinctly 	separate
units. 	The witness 	for the Teamsters 	testified that after 	the
parties 	agree on a first 	contract, 	multiple units 	do not 	sub-
sequently provide 	a 	significantly 	greater hardship 	on 	the
employer 	than 	single, 	comprehensive units.
It 	seems 	obvious 	that multiple units would lead to 	a
multiple 	series 	of negotiations 	and 	could 	lead 	to 	separate 	and
differing 	contracts. 	This 	could provide 	some 	additional problems
in 	contract 	administration. 	As 	the 	EERB 	observed in 	Sweetwater,
however,
... 	while a 	single unit 	is 	theoretically
the most 	conducive 	to the efficient 	opera-
tion of the school district, 	it is only
one 	of 	three 	criteria 	for unit 	determina-
tion set forth in Section 3545(a).
The 	District 	relies 	on 	its 	relatively 	small 	size 	of
5,102 	students 	as 	further 	justification 	for 	creation of a 	single
unit. 	It 	thus 	distinguishes 	all 	existing EERB precedent. 	It
should be noted, 	however, 	that 	average 	daily attendance 	in 	the
Pittsburg Unified School 	District was 	6,200 	students. 	In
considering 	that 	district, 	the EERB 	created two units.11 While
11 EERB Decision No. 	3, 	October 14, 	1976, 	Pittsburg Unified
School District.
-13-

it 	is 	possible 	that 	the EERB will 	find that a single unit 	is
appropriate 	in 	some very small 	districts, 	the enrollment 	at
Shasta 	is 	sufficiently 	close 	to 	that 	in Pittsburg 	that 	it 	seems
most 	unlikely 	that 	the 	Board would 	find a 	single unit 	appropriate
at 	Shasta, 	solely on the basis 	of size.
At 	its best reading, 	the 	evidence 	in the present 	case
is 	conflicting about 	the 	impact 	of multiple units. 	If the
testimony of 	the 	District's witnesses 	is weighed in 	light 	of
their relative 	inexperience with EERA-type units, 	the 	stronger
testimony refutes 	the 	concept 	that more 	than 	one unit would
provide 	a 	significant hardship 	for 	the 	District.
For 	these reasons, 	the hearing officer 	concludes 	that
the 	single, 	comprehensive unit 	sought by the District 	and 	the
CSEA is not 	appropriate 	in this 	case.
It 	also 	is 	concluded that 	the 	separate 	transportation
unit 	sought by 	the Teamsters 	is 	not 	appropriate.
The EERB has 	considered requests 	for 	separate 	trans-
portation units 	in Sweetwater 	and 	in Fremont 	and refused 	to
create 	such units 	in both 	cases.
In the present 	case, 	the bus 	drivers 	clearly have
no 	distinct 	identity 	from 	the 	other maintenance 	and 	operations
employees. 	A number 	of 	drivers work part of 	their 	day performing
maintenance at 	schools, 	delivering mail, 	working in the ware-
house or working as 	a custodian. 	During the 	summer, 	some 	drivers
become welders, 	carpenters, 	painters or grounds keepers. 	There
is 	no 	history of 	any 	organization 	separately 	representing bus
drivers 	or 	transportation workers.
Because 	of 	the 	interchange between bus 	drivers 	and
other employees 	and the overlapping duties, 	it 	is 	apparent 	that
the bus 	drivers 	do not belong 	in a 	separate unit.
It 	seems 	clear 	from board precedent 	and 	the 	facts 	in
this 	case that 	the custodial, 	maintenance, 	transportation and
grounds 	employees 	have 	a 	community of 	interest 	and belong 	in a
unit 	together.
-14-

Likewise 	it 	seems 	clear under EERB precedent 	that
clerical 	employees 	do not 	share 	a 	community of interest with
maintenance 	and operations 	employees 	and belong 	in 	a 	separate
unit.
That 	leaves 	only 	two 	groups 	of employees 	unaccounted
for: 	the 	instructional aides 	and the 	food service 	employees.
There was no 	request by any party 	to 	represent
instructional aides 	in a separate unit. 	The petitions 	of the
District 	and 	the 	CSEA would place 	all 	classified employees 	in
the same unit. 	The petitions of 	the SEIU and Teamsters 	do not
seek to represent 	instructional aides. 	The hearing officer,
therefore, 	will not attempt to 	separate 	the instructional 	aides
into a 	distinct 	unit but will 	leave 	them with the 	clerical 	and
office employees, 	in a residual unit after 	the creation of
the maintenance 	and operations 	unit.
The 	final 	question is 	the placement 	of the food
service employees.
In Sweetwater and Fremont, 	the EERB placed the food
services 	employees 	in the operations-support 	services 	unit, 	following
the rationale 	that 	their work 	contributed to providing a proper
physical 	environment 	for 	students. 	In Foothill-DeAnza 12 the
EERB 	found 	that 	the 	skilled crafts 	and maintenance unit 	requested
by SEIU was 	an appropriate unit. 	The 	SEIU had not requested
food services 	employees 	in that unit 	and the 	EERB 	did not 	order
their placement in the unit. 	Rather, 	the EERB 	left the 	food
services 	employees 	in 	the 	residual unit with 	the clerical
employees.
Foothill 	can be 	distinguished 	from the present 	case.
In 	the present 	case, 	the unit requested by the 	SEIU has been
found 	inappropriate because 	the bus 	drivers 	and other 	transpor-
tation employees were not 	included within it. 	The Foothill
rationale 	is rooted in the concept 	that 	the EERB will 	allow a
unit 	differing 	from the 	Sweetwater units 	if a party can 	show
12 EERB Decision No. 	10, 	March 1, 	1977.
-15-

that it 	is 	an appropriate unit. 	Foothill 	does not apply,
however, 	once it is 	shown that the requested unit 	is not
appropriate.
In this 	case, 	the SEIU unit has been found inappro-
priate. 	Therefore, 	the hearing officer will return to the
presumptively 	appropriate 	operations-support 	services 	unit 	or
Sweetwater 	and accordingly will 	place 	the 	food 	services
employees 	in 	the operations-support 	services 	unit.
ORDER
It 	is 	the proposed decision that:
The 	following 	units 	are appropriate 	for 	the purpose
of meeting 	and negotiating, 	providing an employee organization
becomes 	the 	exclusive representative of either or both units:
Operations-Support 	Services 	Unit 	consisting 	of all
employees 	occupying the positions of custodian, 	grounds 	care-
taker, 	custodian-continuation high school, 	athletic 	field
technician, 	head custodian, 	laundry technician, 	laundry super-
visor, 	swim pool 	technician/maintenance, 	assistant maintenance
supervisor, 	cafeteria assistant, 	cafeteria cook and baker,
cafeteria manager, 	transportation clerk, 	school bus 	driver,
school bus 	driver/custodian, 	school bus 	driver/building main-
tenance, 	school bus driver/delivery/stores, 	school bus driver/
driver training, 	school bus 	driver/bus maintenance, 	head school
bus 	driver/bus maintenance;
Instructional Aides, 	Office-Technical 	and Business
Services 	Unit 	consisting of all persons 	occupying 	the 	positions
of instructional aide, 	guidance technician, 	offset machine
operator, 	junior clerk, 	health clerk, 	junior payroll clerk,
intermediate clerk, 	accounts payable clerk, 	junior 	secretary,
library clerk, 	senior 	secretary, 	continuation 	school 	secretary,
senior account clerk, 	chief account 	clerk, 	chief payroll
clerk, 	and all remaining job 	classifications;
-16-

And 	excluding 	from both units 	as 	management 	employees,
the 	business 	manager, 	the 	transportation 	supervisor 	and 	the
food 	services 	supervisor;
And excluding 	from both units 	as 	supervisory, 	the
chief maintenance 	supervisors 	at 	each of 	the 	four 	schools 	and
the 	four 	supervising 	secretaries 	at 	each of 	the 	four 	schools;
And excluding 	fro m both units 	as 	confidential, 	the
instructional 	services 	secretary, 	the 	business 	manager's
secretary 	and 	the 	superintendent's 	secretary.
The 	parties 	have 	seven 	(7) 	calendar 	days 	from receipt
of 	this 	proposed 	decision 	in which 	to 	file 	exceptions 	in
accordance 	with Section 	33380 	of 	the 	Board ' s 	Rules 	and Regula-
tions . 	If no 	party 	files 	timely exceptions, 	this 	proposed
decision will beco me 	a 	final 	order 	on August 	2, 	1977, 	and a
Notice 	of 	Decision will 	issue 	from 	the .Board .
Within 	ten 	(10) 	workdays 	after 	the 	employer posts
the 	Notice 	of 	Decision, 	the 	e mployee 	organizations 	shall 	demon-
strate 	to 	the 	Regional 	Director 	at 	least 	30 	percent 	support 	in
the 	above 	units . 	The 	Regional 	Director 	shall 	conduct 	an
election at 	the 	end of 	the 	posting period 	if : 	(1) 	more 	than
one 	employee 	organization 	qualifies 	for 	the 	ballot 	in 	either
or both units, 	or 	(2) 	only one 	employee 	organization qualifies
for 	the 	ballot 	in 	either 	or both units 	and 	the 	employer 	does
not 	grant 	voluntary recognition 	to 	that 	employee 	organization .
The 	date 	used 	to 	establish 	the number 	of 	e mployees 	in
the 	above 	units 	shall 	be 	the 	date 	of 	this 	decision unless
another 	date 	is 	deemed 	appropriate 	by 	the 	Regional 	Director 	and
noticed 	to 	the 	parties . 	In 	the 	event 	another 	date 	is 	selected,
the 	Regional 	Director may 	extend 	the 	time 	for 	employee 	organizations
to 	de monstrate 	at 	least 	30 	percent 	support 	in 	the 	units .
Dated: 	July 21, 	1977
-17-
Ronald E . 	Blubaugh
Hearing 	Officer