Chico Unified School District (PERB 0039E)

)
)
)
)
_________________.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE EDUCATIONAL
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS 	BOARD
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,
AND 	ITS 	CHICO 	CHAPTER 	110,
Charging 	Party,
vs.
CHICO UNIFIED 	SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
) 	Case 	No. 	S-CE-41
) EERB Decision No. 39
November 	23, 	1977	)
Appearances: 	Robert L. 	Blake, 	Attorney, 	for California School Employees
Association and Chico Chapter 110; 	John W. 	Schooling, 	Attorney 	(Peters,
Fuller, 	Rush, 	Schooling & Luvaas), 	for Chico Unified School District.
Before Alleyne, Chairman; Gonzales* and Cossack, Members.
OPINION
The 	Board has 	considered 	the record 	and 	the 	attached hearing
officer's 	decision in 	light of 	the 	charging party's 	exceptions 	to 	the
entire 	decision of 	the hearing officer. 	We adopt 	the 	findings 	of 	fact
and order of 	the hearing officer, 	but not 	the hearing officer's 	rationale
in support of 	the order.
The District's 	insistence 	that only "Chico Chapter No. 	110,
California 	School Employees Association" 	sign 	the negotiated contract
had no 	injurious 	effect on 	the 	administration of 	that organization.
In no way does 	that preclude members 	of 	the 	statewide employee
organization 	from assisting or 	supporting 	the 	local 	organization, 	nor
does 	it bear on who might represent 	the 	local 	organization at 	the

negotiating·table. 	Neg o tiating 	parties 	are 	free 	to 	select who mever
they desire 	to 	represent 	them at 	the 	negotiating 	table. 	This 	is 	an
internal 	decision 	for 	both 	the 	employer 	and 	the 	empl o yee 	organizati o n.
For 	these 	reasons, 	the 	District's 	conduct 	did not 	constitute 	domination
or 	interference 	with 	the 	administration 	of 	an 	employee 	organization
within 	the meaning 	of 	Government 	Code 	Secti on 	3543.S {d ) , 	and 	did n o t
violate 	any other 	unfair 	practice 	provision 	in 	the 	EERA. 	In 	light
of 	this 	disposition 	of 	the 	case, 	we 	find 	it 	unnecessary 	to 	rely, 	as
did 	the 	hearing 	officer, 	on 	cases 	interpreting 	Section 	8{a) (2) 	of 	the
National 	Labor 	Relati o ns 	Act.
The 	recommended 	decision, 	as 	modified, 	and 	the 	recommended 	order
are 	adopted by 	the 	Board.
By: 	Reginald Alleyne, 	Chairman 	Raymond Gonzales, 	Member
Jerilou H. 	Cossack, 	Member, 	dissenting .
Both 	the 	hearing 	officer 	and 	the 	majority have 	improperly 	framed
the 	issue 	in 	this 	case . 	Having 	incorrectly 	fra med 	the 	issue, 	they have
incorrectly 	re s olved 	the merits . 	The 	charge 	alleged a 	violation of
Section 	3543.5 	without 	s pecifying 	any 	sub-section . 	While 	it 	is 	indeed
unfortunate 	that 	the 	charging 	party has 	done 	little 	to 	clarify or
specify 	the 	precise 	nature 	of 	its 	charge , 	I 	think 	the majority has
-2-

incorrectly ascribed the allegation only 	to 	sub-section 	(d) 	of Section
3543.5.1
The full 	text of the charge is 	as 	follows:
The Board of Education of 	the 	Chico 	Unified
School District, 	while engaged in negotiations
with 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	of 	classified
employees 	of 	the Chico Unified School District,
between August 1, 	1976 and September 23, 	1976,
did wilfully 	(sic) 	violate 	section 3543.5 	of
the Government Code, 	in that they did interfere
with 	the administration of an employee organiza-
tion through its 	agent Mr. 	John W. 	Schooling,
attorney.
Between approximately September 	20 	and September 	23,
the District through its 	representatives, 	including
John Schooling, 	flatly 	told CSEA that 	the agreement
incorporating employee raises 	for 	the 1976-77 	school
year would not be 	signed and 	that 	the raises 	delayed
so 	long as 	CSEA insisted on the 	language 	incorporated
in the original petition, 	that is 	"CSEA and its 	Chico
Chapter #110". 	(See Attachment #1)
The refusal 	of the Board of Education of 	the 	Chico
Unified School District 	to 	sign a contractual (sic)
agreement 	containing 	language 	consistent with 	that
contained 	in 	the voluntary 	recognition of 	the
California 	School 	Employees Association and 	its
Chico Chapter #110, 	made and filed with the EERB
on May 6, 	1976, 	is 	interference in the internal
affairs 	of the California School Employees Associa-
tion and its 	Chico 	Chapter #110.
1Gov. Code Sec. 3543.5(d) states:
3543.5. 	It shall be unlawful for a public school employer to:
****
(d) Dominate or interfere with the formation
or administration of any employee organization, or
contribute financial or other support to it, or in
any way encourage employees to join any organiza-
tion in preference to another.
-3-

Adverse effect:
1. 	Coercion relative 	to 	signing 	the 	contract
due to 	the 	language issue.
2. 	Probable restrictions 	in the ability of
Chico 	Chapter #110 	to obtain all rights
and benefits 	it may be 	entitled to 	as 	an
affiliated 	chapter of 	the 	California
School Employees Association.
The hearing officer concluded 	that 	the 	charge alleged a vio-
lation of sub-section 	(d) 	of Section 3543.5 of the EERA, 	and not
any other 	sub-section. 	The hearing officer 	specifically found
of 	sub-section 	(c) 	of 	Section 	3543.52. 	The majority has 	likewise
concluded 	that 	the 	charge 	is 	solely concerned with an alleged
violation of Section 3543.5(d). 	I disagree.
The District admits 	that 	it 	granted voluntary recognition 	to
"California 	School 	Employees Association and 	its 	Chico 	Chapter #110"
as 	the 	exclusive representative of its 	classified employees. 	The
District 	further admits 	that 	it refused to 	sign an otherwise agreed-
upon contract with Charging Party 	so 	long 	as 	Charging Party 	insisted
that 	it was 	identified in the recognition clause of the contract by
the 	same name 	as 	it had sought and obtained voluntary recognition.
2Gov. Code Sec. 3543.5(c) states:
3543.5. 	It shall be unlawful for a public school employer to:
****
(c) Refuse or fail to meet and negotiate in
good faith with an exclusive representative.
-4-

It 	is 	completely unclear why 	the District 	insisted on changing
the exclusive representative's 	designation, 	just as 	it is unclear
why 	the 	exclusive representative resisted the 	change. 	Speculating
that 	it was 	an effort 	to preclude 	the 	state-wide Association from
rendering assistance 	to 	its 	local 	chapter in negotiations 	and
contract enforcement, 	I agree with the apparent position of the
majority 	that 	the 	change in designation in no way modifies 	the
contractual relationship between the Association, 	the chapter and
the chapter members.
The 	relationship 	between 	the 	state-wide Association and 	its
subordinate 	chapters 	is 	determined by the constitution, 	charter and
by-laws. 	It 	is 	essentially 	a contract between the state-wide Associa-
tion, 	local 	chapters 	and the members 	of the 	local 	chapter3. 	This
relationship exists 	independent of any control by 	the District. 	The
District 	is not privileged to 	interfere with the internal 	affairs 	of
the 	exclusive representative.
Under the EERA, 	the District is obligated to negotiate collectively
with 	the representative 	selected by a majority of 	its 	employees 	in an
appropriate unit. 	The District 	cannot 	lawfully 	dictate whom the
employee organization's 	representative 	at 	the negotiating 	table will
be.4 Nor is 	it 	free 	to refuse to negotiate with the Association
because it prefers 	to 	deal 	solely with the local chapter.5
3 See Mandracio v. 	Bartenders Union 41, 	41 Cal.2d 81 	(1953);
DeMille v. 	American Federation of Radio Artists, 	31 Cal.2d 139 	(1947);
Miller v. 	International Union of Operating Engineers, 	118 Cal.App.2d
66 	(1953); 	DeGonia v. 	Building Material and Dump Truck Drivers Local
Union 420, 	155 Cal.App.2d 573 	(1957); 	and Sevey v. 	American Federa-
tion of State, 	County and Municipal Employees, 	AFL-CIO, 	Local 829,
et al, 	48 	Cal.App.3d 64 	(1975).
4AMF Incorporated, 	219 NLRB 903, 	90 LRRM 1271 	(1975).
5Louisville Refining Co., 	4 NLRB 844 	(1938).
-5-

The 	internal 	relationship 	between 	the 	state-wide Association 	and
its 	local 	chapter 	is 	outside 	of 	the 	ambit 	of 	subjects 	about 	which 	the
exclusive 	representative 	is 	obligated 	to 	negotiate. 	The 	District ' s
insistence, 	to 	the 	point 	of 	refusing 	to 	sign 	the 	agreed-upon 	contract,
on altering 	the 	designation 	of 	the 	duly 	selected 	exclusive 	representa-
tive 	of 	its 	employees 	constitutes 	an unlawful 	refusal 	to 	negotiate 	in
good 	faith .
Jerilou H. 	Cossack, 	Member
-6-

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE 	EDUCATIONAL
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS 	BOARD
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,
and 	its 	Chico 	Chapter 	110,
Charging 	Party,
vs .
CHICO 	UNIFIED 	SCHOOL 	DISTRICT,
Respondent
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
-------------------- )
Case No. 	S-CE~4_1,
EERB Decision No . 	39
November 23, 	1977
O	RDER
The 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Board directs 	that :.
The 	unfair 	practice 	charge 	filed by 	California 	School
Employees 	Association 	and Chico 	Chapter 	110 	is 	hereby DISMISSED .
Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Board
by
STEPHEN 	BARBER
Executive 	Assistant 	to 	the 	Board

)
)
EDUCATIONAL EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,
and its Chico Chapter 110,
Charging Party,
vs.
CHICO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Respondent
)
)
) 	Case No. S-CE-41
RECOMMENDED DECISION
June 7, 	1977
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances: Robert L. Blake, Attorney, for California School Employees
Association and Chico Chapter 110; John W. Schooling, Attorney (Peters,
Fuller, Rush, Schooling, & Luvaas) for Chico Unified School District.
Before Sharrel J. Wyatt, Hearing Officer.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On February 7, 1977, the California School Employees Association and
its Chico Chapter 110 (hereinafter referred to as Charging Parties) filed an
unfair practice charge against the Chico Unified School District (hereinafter
referred to as Respondent) with the Educational Employment Relations Board
alleging violation of Government Code Section 3543.5. 	The charge did not
specify which subsection had allegedly been violated.
On March 2, 1977, the Respondent filed a Response to Unfair Practice
Charge. 	On March 18, 1977, a formal hearing was held.
The allegations in the charge state that the Respondent interfered
with and attempted to dominate an enployee organization by granting recognition
to the California School Employees Association and its Chico Chapter 110 and
subsequently refusing to sign a 	tentative agreement which included
-1-

California School Employees Association as a party. 	When the parties had
reached tentative agreement, the Respondent was willing to sign an agreement
with Chico Chapter 110 only. 	Charging Parties assert that Respondent, having
recognized California School Employees Association and its Chico Chapter 110,
are estopped from raising any issue concerning the recognition.
ISSUE
Whether the Respondent violated Government Code Section 3543.5(d) by
granting recognition to a state-wide employee organization and its
affiliated local chapter and subsequently taking the position that it would
sign an agreement with the local chapter only.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Respondents granted recognition to California School Employees
Association and its Chico Chapter 110. The parties met and negotiated
and reached tentative agreement. 	The final agreement presented by the Respondent
for signature stated:
"The CHICO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, a public school employer,
(hereinafter referred to as "District") acknowledges Chico
Chapter #110, California School Employees Association (hereinafter
referred to as "CSEA") as the exclusive bargaining representative
of the District's classified employees in accordance with
Chapter 10.7 of the Government Code."
The representatives in negotiations for the Charging Parties, after
attempting to have the Respondent change the recognition language in the
agreement, signed the agreement with the language "Chico Chapter #110,
California School Employees Association" still intact and filed an unfair practice
charge alleging domination and interference with an enployee organization.1
1There is no allegation of failure to meet and negotiate in good faith under
Gov. Code Section 3543.5 (c) and this decision does not address itself to
that issue.
- 2 -

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Respondent, in its response, indicates that the reason it
altered the recognition language in the final agreement was because
it had a good faith belief that the language of Government Code Section
3544 "an enployee organization may become the exclusive representative..."
was in the singular and recognition of two employee organizations would,
therefore, be unlawful. 	Further, Respondents urge that Government Code Section
3544.l(b) would require an election if more than one employee organization
claimed representation of a unit of employees.
It is not necessary to reach the issue of whether two or more
employee organizations can seek joint certification or recognition
under the Act because the only issue raised by Charging Parties in the charge or
by way of brief is whether or not the change in recognition language constitutes
domination or interference with the formation or administration of any employee
organization under Government Code Section 3543.5(d)2
2 T h e issue of whether joint recognition or certification is permissible under
the Act could have been raised by the Charging Parties by refusing
to sign to proffered agreement and filing a charge under Government
Code Section 3543.5(c) for refusal or failure to meet and negotiate, or
by the respondent had it filed a charge under Government Code
Section 3543.6(a) alleging that the Charging Parties had violated
Government Code Section 3543.5. The parties have not elected to bring the
issue before the Board in this case.
-3-

-
Government Code Section 3543.5(d) provides:
"(d) Dominate or interfere with the formation or administration
of any enployee organization, or contribute financial or other
support to it, or in any way encourage employees to join any
organization in preference to another."
The relevant language of the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA) 	is
identical to that contained in the Labor Management Relations Act, as amended.4
Therefore, cognizance of interpretations of that Act is taken5in determining
violation of the EERA.
The concept of domination or interference in the formation or
administration of an employee organization has_ a long, well-developed
history dating to the passage of the Wagner Act of 1935. 	The wording of
Section 8 (a) (2) of the Wagner Act has not been amended in some 42
years.
This section has been held to prohibit the participation of an
employer, financial or otherwise, in the formation of an employee
representative organization,6 participation by employer representatives
in the internal activities of an employee organization,7 and recognition
3 Gov. Code. Sec. 3540 et seq.
4 29 USC 156 (a)(2).
5 Fire Fighters Union v. City of Vallejo, 12 Cal. 3rd 608 (1974).
6 NLRB v. Jack Smith Beverages Inc. 	(6th Cir. 1953) 31 LRRM 2366;
Weirton Ice and Coal Supply Co.,(1953), 107 NLRB No. 76, 31 LRRM 1582;
Sears Roebuck and Co., 	(1954)7 110 NLRB No. 30, 34 LRRM 1630; NLRB v. Haspel
(2nd Cir.1955) 37 LRRM 2218; NLRB v,Summers Fertilizer Co. 	(1st Cir. 1958)
41 LRRM 2347.
7Battfield-Refractories Co. 	(1960)127 NLRB No. 28, 45 LRRM 1522;NLRB v.
Employing Bricklayers' Association (3rd Cir. 1961) 48 LRRM 2460; Local 636
Plumbers v. NLRB (DC Cir, 1961) 47 LRRM 2457; Employing Bricklayers
Association (1961) 134 NLRB No. 145, 49 LRRM 1377.
-4-

by an employer of an employee organization that does not represent a majority
of the employees8 •
8
Charging Parties have not called attention to a single NLRB decision
that is analogous to the charge herein. 	With identical wording andwell
developed case law over a long period of time, 	"domination or interference
with the formation or administration of an employee organization" 	is a
firmly established concept. 	The facts 	in this case do not support extending
the established interpretation of domination or interference under the
Educational Employment Relations Act to mean something more than it has been
held to mean under the Labor Management Relations Act, 	as amended.
The doctrine of estoppel raised by the Charging Parties may be related to 3
charge of failure to meet and negotiate, 	but it 	is not an element of a
charge of domination or interference.
ORDER
The unfair practice charge filed by California School Employees
Association and Chico Chapter 110 is hereby DISMISSED.
Pursuant to Title 8, 	Cal Adm. 	Code Section 35029, 	this recommended
decision and order shall become the final decision and order of the Board
. itself on June 24, 	1977, 	unless a party files a timely statement of exceptions.
See Title 8, 	Cal Adm. 	Code Section 35030.
Dated: June 7, 	1977
~harrel J. 	Wyat d
Hearing Officer /
-5-
8Garment Workers ' Union v. NLRB 	(U.S.S.C. 	1961), 	366 U.S. 	731, 	48 LRRM 2251.