Mendocino Community College District (PERB 0144E)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
MENDOCINO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT,
Employer , 	Case No. SF-R-615X
and 	PERB Decision No. 144
MENDOCINO PART-TIME FACULTY
ASSOC 	November 4, 1980
Appearances: Ronald A. Glick, for Mendocino Community College
District; Peter Ferris for Mendocino Part-time Faculty
Association.
Before: Gluck, Chairperson; Moore, Member.
DECISION
The Mendocino Community College District (hereafter
District) has excepted to a Public Employment Relations Board
(hereafter PERB or Board) hearing officer's proposed decision
holding that a unit of part-time certificated faculty is
appropriate. For the reasons that follow, the Board itself
affirms the hearing officer's decision.
The unit found appropriate by the hearing officer is:
All part-time certificated faculty, excluding part-time
instructors or counselors classified "contract" or "regular" by
the District according to the Education Code, and all full-time
certificated employees.
STATE OF
	CALIFORNIA
DECISION
	OF 	THE
PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
MENDOCINO
	COMMUNITY
	COLLEGE
	DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
MENDOCINO
	PART-TIME
	FACULTY
ASSOCIATION	IATION
Employee Organization.	Employee
	Organization.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
____________________ )
Case
	No. 	SF-R-615X
PERB
	Decision
	No.
	144
November
	4,
	1980
Appearances:	
Ronald
	A.
	Glick,
	for
	Mendocino 	Community
	College
District;
	Peter
	Ferris
	for
	Mendocino
	Part-time 	Faculty
Association.
Before:
	Gluck,
	Chairperson;
	Moore, 	Member.
DECISION
The
	Mendocino 	Community
	College
	District
	{hereafter
District)
	has 	excepted
	to
	a
	Public
	Employment
	Relations
	Board
(hereafter
	PERB
	or
	Board}
	hearing
	officer's
	proposed
	decision
holding
	that
	a
	unit 	of 	part-time
	certificated
	facultyl 	is
appropriate.
	For
	the 	reasons
	that
	follow, 	the
	Board
	itself
affirms 	the 	hearing
	officer's
	decision.
lThe
	unit	
found	
appropriate	
by	
the 	hearing
	officer	
is:
All 	part-time 	certificated 	faculty,
	excluding 	part-time
instructors
	or 	counselors
	classified 	"contract" 	or 	"regular"
	by
the
	District
	according 	to 	the 	Education
	Code, 	and
	all
	full-time
certificated	
employees.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTS
The hearing officer's statement of the procedural history
and findings of fact in this case is free from prejudicial
error and is adopted by the Board itself. He did, in his
footnote 5, state: 	. for purposes of this decision, the
community of interest between and among full-time and part-time
employees is irrelevant. " We do not agree with this
observation but find in it no prejudicial error in light of all
the facts and conclusions of law that follow.
DISCUSS ION
The Association contends that a unit of part-time faculty
is appropriate. In response, the District argues that the
appropriate unit of certificated employees must contain both
part-time and full-time faculty. The hearing officer finds the
District, by arguing for a single unit, is seeking to modify
the already recognized and represented full-time faculty unit.
We disagree with the hearing officer's characterization of the
District's presentation of its single unit argument, and view
the District's position as merely doubting the appropriateness
of the unit sought. 2
2All references are to the Government Code unless
otherwise noted. Section 3544.1 states in pertinent part:
The public school employer shall grant a
request for recognition filed pursuant to
section 3544 unless :
(a) The public school employer desires that
2
PROCEDURAL
	HISTORY
	AND
	FACTS
The
	hearing
	officer's
	statement
	of
	the
	procedural
	history
and
	findings
	of
	fact
	in
	this
	case
	is
	free
	from
	prejudicial
error
	and
	is
	adopted
	by
	the
	Board
	itself.
	He
	did,
	in
	his
footnote 	5,
	state:
	"
•••
	for 	purposes
	of
	this
	decision, 	the
community
	of
	interest
	between
	and
	among
	full-time
	and
	part-time
employees
	is 	irrelevant."
	We
	do
	not 	agree 	with
	this
observation
	but 	find 	in
	it
	no
	prejudicial 	error
	in
	light
	of
	all
the
	facts
	and
	conclusions 	of
	law
	that
	follow.
DISCUSSION
The
	Association
	contends
	that
	a
	unit 	of 	part-time 	faculty
is 	appropriate.
	In
	response, 	the
	District
	argues
	that
	the
appropriate 	unit 	of
	certificated
	employees 	must
	contain
	both
part-time
	and
	full-time 	faculty.
	The
	hearing
	officer
	finds 	the
District,
	by
	arguing 	for
	a
	single 	unit, 	is
	seeking
	to
	modify
the
	already
	recognized
	and
	represented
	full-time 	faculty
	unit.
We
	disagree
	with 	the 	hearing
	officer's
	characterization of
	the
District's
	presentation 	of
	its
	single 	unit
	argument,
	and
	view
the
	District's
	position
	as 	merely 	doubting 	the 	appropriateness
of
	the 	unit 	sought.2
2All	
references 	are 	to 	the
	Government 	Code	
unless
otherwise 	noted. 	Section
	3544.1
	states
	in 	pertinent	
part:
The	
public 	school
	employer
	shall 	grant
	a
request 	for 	recognition
	filed 	pursuant 	to
section	
3544	
unless:
(a) 	The	
public 	school 	employer
	desires 	that
2

This case, like Arcadia Unified School District (5/17/79)
PERB Decision No. 93, presents the Board with the question of
unit appropriateness where an already established unit is
currently in place. However, unlike Arcadia, supra, both
the established unit of full-time faculty created by the
District's voluntary recognition of Mendocino College
Instructors Association, CTA/NEA (hereafter MCIA) and the
representation election be conducted or
doubts the appropriateness of a unit.
PERB rule 33190(d) states in pertinent part:
(d) The employer shall use "Format B" if it
has not granted voluntary recognition. 	A
request for a representation hearing to
resolve a unit dispute may be raised by
"Format B" or by the employer filing a
subsequent petition pursuant to
section 33220.
(3) 	Reasons for Denial of Recognition.
(A) Does the employer doubt the
appropriateness of the proposed unit? If
so, what classifications or positions remain
in dispute? State the employer's position
regarding the dispute.
3This fact, in part, distinguishes the instant matter
from the PERB decisions relied on by the District where
full-time and part-time faculty were included in the same unit,
e. g. , Los Rios Community College District (6/9/77) EERB
Decision No. 18; Rio Hondo Community College District (1/25/79)
PERB Decision No. 87; Hartnell Community College District
(1/2/79) PERB Decision No. 81.
This
	case,
	like
	Arcadia
	Unified
	School
	District
	(5/17/79)
PERB
	Decision
	No.
	93,
	presents
	the
	Board
	with
	the 	question
	of
unit
	appropriateness
	where 	an
	already
	established 	unit
	is
currently
	in
	place.3	
However,
	unlike 	Arcadia,
	supra,
	both
the
	established 	unit 	of
	full-time 	faculty 	created
	by
	the
District's
	voluntary 	recognition 	of
	Mendocino
	College
Instructors
	Association,
	CTA/NEA
	(hereafter
	MCIA)
	and
	the
representation 	election
	be
	conducted 	or
doubts 	the
	appropriateness
	of
	a
	unit.
. 	. 	. . 	. 	. . 	. 	. 	. . 	. 	. 	. 	. 	. 	. 	. 	. 	. 	. 	. 	.
PERB
	rule
	33190(d)
	states
	in
	pertinent 	part:
(d) 	The
	employer
	shall
	use 	"Format
	B"
	if
	it
has
	not 	granted 	voluntary 	recognition.
	A
request
	for
	a
	representation
	hearing
	toresolve
	a
	unit 	dispute
	may 	be
	raised
	by
"Format
	B"
	or
	by
	the
	employer
	filing
	a
subsequent
	petition
	pursuant 	to
section
	33220.
. . 	. 	. 	. 	. . . 	. . . 	. 	. . 	. 	. 	. 	. 	.
(3)
	Reasons
	for 	Denial
	of
	Recognition.
(A)
	Does
	the
	employer 	doubt
	the
appropriateness 	of
	the 	proposed
	unit?
	If
so,
	what
	classifications
	or
	positions
	remain
in dispute? 	State
	the 	employer's
	positionregarding 	the 	dispute.
. 	. 	.
	..
	.
3
This
	fact, 	in 	part, 	distinguishes 	the 	instant 	matter
from
	the
	PERB
	decisions
	relied
	on 	by	
the
	District
	where
full-time
	and
	part-time 	faculty
	were
	included 	in 	the
	same
	unit,
e.g.,
	Los 	Rios
	Community
	College
	District
	(6/9/77)
	EERB
Decision
	No.
	18; 	Rio
	Hondo 	Community
	College
	District
	(1/25/79)
PERB
	Decision
	No.
	87;
	Hartnell
	Community
	College
	District
(1/2/79)
	PERB
	Decision
	No. 	81.
3

petitioned-for unit in the instant matter are comprised of
classroom teachers. The appropriateness of the petitioned-for
unit must, therefore, be considered in light of Peralta
Community College District (11/17/78) PERB Decision No. 77.
The Board found there that sections 3545 (a) and (b) (1) 4 give
rise to the presumption that all classroom teachers are to be
placed in a single unit. The presumption, however, is
rebuttable since section 3545 (a) requires the Board to decide
the question of a unit's appropriateness on the basis of three
criteria: (1) community of interest, (2) past practices,
including the extent to which the employees belong to the same
employee organization, and (3) the effect of the size of the
unit on the efficient operation of the District.
4section 3545 (a) and (b) (1) state:
(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 estabished 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.
petitioned-for 	unit
	in
	the
	instant
	matter
	are
	comprised
	of
classroom
	teachers.
	The
	appropriateness 	of 	the
	petitioned-for
unit
	must,
	therefore,
	be
	considered 	in
	light
	of
	Peralta
Community
	College
	District
	(11/17/78)
	PERB
	Decision
	No.
	77.
The
	Board 	found
	there
	that
	sections
	3545(a)
	and 	(b)
(1)4	
give
rise
	to
	the 	presumption
	that
	all
	classroom
	teachers 	are
	to
	be
placed 	in
	a
	single
	unit.
	The
	presumption,
	however,
	is
rebuttable 	since 	section
	3545(a)
	requires
	the
	Board
	to 	decide
the 	question 	of
	a
	unit's
	appropriateness
	on
	the
	basis 	of 	three
criteria:
	(1) 	community
	of
	interest,	
(2)	
past
	practices,
including 	the
	extent
	to
	which
	the
	employees
	belong
	to
	the
	same
employee
	organization,
	and 	(3)
	the
	effect
	of
	the
	size 	of
	the
unit
	on
	the
	efficient
	operation 	of 	the
	District.
4section
	3545 (a} 	and	
(b) (1)	
state:
(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
	estabished
	practicesincluding,
	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	
includesclassroom 	teachers 	shall
	not	
be	
appropriateunless	
it
	at	
least	
includes	
all
	of
	the
classroom 	teachers
	employed 	by
	the 	public
school 	employer, 	except	
management
employees, 	supervisory employees,
	and
confidential	
employees.
4

A community of interest between the part-time and full-time
faculty is presumed under Peralta, supra. However, the
record here is replete with facts tending to rebut the Peralta
presumption of appropriateness. Full-time and part-time
faculty members have historically maintained separate
organizations and have been unable or unwilling to cooperate
with each other in their dealings with the employer. The
Mendocino Part-time Faculty Association's (hereafter
Association or MPFA) predecessor, the Mendocino College Faculty
Association (hereafter MCFA) attempted in April 1978 to be
included with full voting rights in the Faculty Senate
Council. Their request was denied by a vote of the full-time
faculty. Shorty thereafter, MCFA changed its name to MPFA,
apparently because the full-time faculty were not interested in
working with the part-time faculty. During the 78-79 academic
year, MCIA began organizing actively for collective
negotiations. MPFA met with MCIA on several occasions and
asked to be included in the latter's unit. These attempts were
rebuffed. In February 1979, the District voluntarily
recognized a unit of full-time faculty represented by MCIA. In
the fall of 1979, MPFA sought, through discussions with the
MCIA, to modify the full-time unit to include part-time
faculty. MCIA was agreeable to including the part-time faculty
5it is in this respect that the hearing officer's
statement in his footnote 5 was incorrect.
5
A
community
	of
	interest
	between
	the
	part-time
	and
	full-time
faculty
	is
	presumed
	under
	Peralta,
	supra.5	
However,
	the
record 	here
	is
	replete
	with
	facts
	tending
	to 	rebut
	the
	Peralta
presumption
	of 	appropriateness. 	Full-time
	and
	part-time
faculty
	members
	have
	historically
	maintained
	separate
organizations
	and
	have 	been
	unable
	or
	unwilling
	to
	cooperate
with
	each
	other 	in
	their
	dealings
	with 	the
	employer.
	The
Mendocino
	Part-time
	Faculty
	Association's 	(hereafter
Association
	or
	MPFA)
	predecessor,
	the
	Mendocino
	College
	Faculty
Association 	(hereafter
	MCFA)
	attempted 	in
	April
	1978
	to
	be
included 	with
	full
	voting
	rights
	in
	the
	Faculty
	Senate
Council. 	Their
	request
	was
	denied
	by 	a
	vote
	of 	the
	full-time
faculty.
	Shorty
	thereafter,
	MCFA
	changed
	its
	name
	to
	MPFA,
apparently
	because
	the
	full-time 	faculty
	were
	not
	interested
	in
working
	with 	the
	part-time 	faculty.
	During
	the
	78-79
	academic
year,
	MCIA
	began
	organizing
	actively
	for
	collective
negotiations.
	MPFA
	met
	with
	MCIA
	on
	several
	occasions
	and
asked
	to
	be
	included 	in 	the
	latter's
	unit.
	These
	attempts
	were
rebuffed.
	In 	February 	1979,
	the
	District 	voluntarily
recognized
	a
	unit 	of 	full-time 	faculty 	represented
	by MCIA.
	In
the
	fall	
of 	1979,
	MPFA	
sought,
	through	
discussions 	with 	the
MCIA,
	to
	modify 	the	
full-time 	unit 	to
	include 	part-time
faculty.
	MCIA
	was
	agreeable 	to 	including 	the 	part-time 	faculty
5
1t 	is
	in
	this 	respect 	that 	the 	hearing
	officer's
statement 	in	
his 	footnote
	5 was
	incorrect.
5

but was unwilling to agree to equal representation on the
negotiating team. 	Thereafter, MPFA decided to seek a separate
unit and filed the petition in the instant matter. MCIA
continued to negotiate with the District for full-time faculty
and reached a collective agreement on July 1, 1980 which
remains in effect until June 30, 1983.6
An aspect of the second criterion of past practice is the
extent to which the employees belong to the same employee
organization. The record indicates that there have only
been one or two part-time faculty members who have held
membership in the full-time faculty association, MCIA. At the
time of the hearing in April 1980, there were no part-time
faculty who were members of MCIA. This almost complete
segregation of membership, coupled with the history of separate
representation and negotiation, clearly militates against the
6This fact does not appear in the record. However, an
administrative agency may take official notice of its records.
Antelope Valley Community College District (7/18/79) PERB
Decision No. 97, pp. 23-24. PERB rule 32120 requires in
pertinent part:
[elach employer entering into a written
agreement or memorandum of understanding
with an exclusive representative pursuant to
the EERA, . 	. shall file an executed copy
of the agreement and any amendments thereto
with the regional office within 60 days after
execution of the agreement, memorandum or
amendment .
7
6
but
	was
	unwilling
	to
	agree
	to
	equal
	representation
	on
	the
negotiating
	team.
	Thereafter,
	MPFA
	decided
	to
	seek
	a
	separate
unit
	and
	filed
	the
	petition
	in 	the
	instant
	matter.
	MCIA
continued
	to 	negotiate
	with
	the
	District
	for
	full-time 	faculty
and
	reached
	a
	collective
	agreement
	on
	July 	1,
	1980 	which
remains
	in
	effect 	until
	June
	30, 	1983.6
An
	aspect 	of
	the
	second
	criterion
	of 	past 	practice
	is
	the
extent
	to
	which
	the
	employees
	belong
	to 	the
	same
	employee
organization.?	
The
	record
	indicates
	that
	there
	have
	only
been 	one
	or
	two
	part-time 	faculty
	members 	who
	have
	held
membership
	in
	the
	full-time 	faculty
	association,
	MCIA.
	At
	the
time
	of
	the 	hearing 	in 	April
	1980,
	there
	were
	no
	part-time
faculty
	who
	were
	members
	of
	MCIA.
	This 	almost 	complete
segregation 	of
	membership,
	coupled 	with 	the
	history
	of 	separate
representation
	and
	negotiation, 	clearly 	militates
	against 	the
6
This
	fact
	does 	not
	appear
	in 	the 	record.
	However, 	an
administrative
	agency
	may
	take
	official
	notice	
of
	its	
records.
Antelope Valley
	Community
	College
	District
	(7/18/79)
	PERB
Decision
	No.
	97, 	pp.
	23-24.
	PERB
	rule
	32120
	requires 	in
pertinent
	part:
[e]ach
	employer
	entering 	into
	a
	written
agreement
	or
	memorandum
of
	understanding
with
	an
	exclusive 	representative 	pursuant 	to
the
	EERA,
	...
	shall
	file
	an
	executed
	copy
of 	the
	agreement 	and any 	amendments
	theretowith 	the 	regional 	office within
	60
	days
	after
execution 	of 	the
	agreement,
	memorandum
or
amendment.
7
section 	3543(a),	section 3543 (a) , supra.
6

presumption that one unit of certificated employees in this
District would be appropriate.
In light of the third criterion concerning the size of the
unit, we note the following: The full-time faculty unit
consisting of 31 employees has been established since February
1979. A negotiated agreement will remain in effect until June
1983. There are approximately 130 part-time teachers. T
require their inclusion in the existing unit is likely to
create severe disruption of the existing negotiating
relationship, particularly in view of the historically
uncooperative relationship between the two faculty groups.
Finally, we do not find that establishing a separate unit
of part-time faculty would have an adverse affect on the
efficiency of District's operations. The District argues that
a finding of two appropriate units would double the District's
work and therefore be inefficient, costly, and interfere with
the education of students. However, while the District may now
prefer to deal with a single, comprehensive faculty unit, it
was the District which voluntarily recognized the unit of 31
full-time faculty in February 1979. At that time, it raised no
objection to the division of its teaching staff for purposes of
dealing with personnel relations. 	Moreover, the District
offers no evidence to support its speculation that a
requirement to deal with petitioners in the collective
negotiations context will negatively impact on the District's
7
presumption 	that 	one 	unit 	of 	certificated 	employees 	in 	this
District 	would 	be 	appropriate.
In 	light 	of 	the 	third 	criterion 	concerning 	the 	size 	of 	the
unit, 	we 	note 	the 	following: 	The 	full-time 	faculty 	unit
consisting 	of 	31 	employees 	has 	been 	established 	since 	February
1979. 	A negotiated 	agreement 	will 	remain 	in 	effect 	until 	June
1983. 	There 	are 	approximately 	130 	part-time 	teachers. 	To
require 	their 	inclusion 	in 	the 	existing 	unit 	is 	likely 	to
create 	severe 	disruption 	of 	the 	existing 	negotiating
relationship, 	particularly 	in 	view of 	the 	historically
uncooperative 	relationship 	between 	the 	two 	faculty 	groups.
Finally, 	we 	do 	not 	find 	that 	establishing 	a 	separate 	unit
of 	part-time 	faculty 	would 	have 	an 	adverse 	affect 	on 	the
efficiency of 	District's 	operations. 	The 	District 	argues 	that
a 	finding 	of 	two 	appropriate 	units 	would 	double 	the 	District's
work 	and 	therefore 	be 	inefficient, 	costly, 	and 	interfere 	with
the 	education 	of 	students. 	However, 	while 	the 	District may 	now
prefer 	to 	deal 	with 	a 	single, 	comprehensive 	faculty 	unit, 	it
was 	the 	District 	which 	voluntarily 	recognized 	the 	unit 	of 	31
full-time 	faculty 	in 	February 	1979. 	At 	that 	time, 	it 	raised 	no
objection 	to 	the 	division 	of 	its 	teaching 	staff 	for 	purposes 	of
dealing 	with 	personnel 	relations. 	Moreover, 	the 	District
offers 	no 	evidence 	to 	support 	its 	speculation 	that 	a
requirement 	to 	deal 	with 	petitioners 	in 	the 	collective
negotiations 	context will 	negatively 	impact 	on 	the 	District's
7

operations. 	The Board does not find two faculty units to be
inherently damaging to school operations.
For the foregoing reasons, the Board finds that the
part-time faculty unit is appropriate under section 3545 (a) and
that the Peralta, supra, presumption has been rebutted in light
of the facts of this case.
However, the hearing officer excluded from the unit,
without explanation, "part-time instructors or counselors
classified 'contract' or 'regular' by the District according to
the Education Code." While the parties consented to this
exclusionary language at the hearing, the District took
exception to the assertion that the quoted terms are derived
from the Education Code. In light of this exception, we have
examined the record and find no evidence upon which this Board
can clearly ascertain the composition or size of the excluded
classes of part-time employees. Thus, the separate unit of
part-time faculty which has been approved here is incomplete
absent adequate evidence identifying these part-time faculty
members and justifying their omission from the unit.
The Board, therefore, retains jurisdiction over the matter
and remands to the hearing officer, for the purpose of taking
evidence and hearing argument, the question of whether any
part-time instructors should be excluded from the approved
unit. The hearing officer shall expedite this matter and
Co
operations.
	The
	Board
	does
	not
	find
	two
	faculty 	units 	to
	be
inherently
	damaging
	to
	school
	operations.
For
	the 	foregoing
	reasons, 	the
	Board
	finds
	that
	the
part-time 	faculty 	unit
	is
	appropriate
	under
	section
	3545(a)
	and
that
	the
	Peralta,
	supra,
	presumption 	has
	been
	rebutted
	in
	light
of 	the
	facts
	of
	this
	case.
However,
	the 	hearing
	officer
	excluded
	from
	the
	unit,
without
	explanation, 	"part-time
	instructors
	or
	counselors
classified	
1
contract
1	
or
	'regular'
	by
	the
	District
	according
	to
the
	Education
	Code." 	While
	the
	parties
	consented
	to
	this
exclusionary
	language
	at
	the 	hearing; 	the
	District
	took
exception 	to 	the
	assertion 	that
	the
	quoted 	terms
	are 	derived
from
	the
	Education
	Code.
	In
	light
	of
	this
	exception,
	we
	have
examined
	the 	record
	and
	find
	no
	evidence
	upon 	which
	this
	Board
can	
clearly 	ascertain
	the
	composition 	or
	size
	of 	the
	excluded
classes 	of 	part-time
	employees. 	Thus,
	the
	separate 	unit 	of
part-time 	faculty
	which
	has 	been 	approved
	here
	is
	incomplete
absent 	adequate 	evidence
	identifying 	these 	part-time 	faculty
members 	and	
justifying 	their
	omission
	from	
the	
unit.
The 	Board,
	therefore, 	retains 	jurisdiction
	over 	the 	matter
and 	remands
	to 	the 	hearing
	officer,
	for 	the 	purpose 	of 	taking
evidence
	and
	hearing 	argument, 	the 	qu~stion
	of
	whether 	any
part-time 	instructors	
should
	be	
excluded	
from
	the 	approved
unit.
	The
	hearing 	officer 	shall 	expedite 	this 	matter	
and
8

return the record to the Board itself. Post hearing arguments
shall be oral and included in the submitted record.
ORDER
Upon the foregoing Decision and the entire record in this
case, the Public Employment Relations Board ORDERS that:
1. A unit consisting of all part-time certificated
faculty, excluding those who are managerial, supervisory or
confidential employees, is appropriate for negotiating in the
Mendocino Community College District provided that an employee
organization becomes the exclusive representative.
2. This case is remanded to the hearing officer to take
evidence on an expedited basis as to the identity of teachers
classified as "regular" and "contract" part-time employees of
the District and as to whether such teachers should be excluded
from the unit established by this order. Oral argument on the
matter, if any, shall be made on the record which shall be
returned directly to the Board itself for disposition.
3. Jurisdiction over this case is retained by the Board
itself for the purposes set forth above.
By: Harry Gluck, Chairperson 	Barbara D. Moore, Member
9
return
	the
	record 	to
	the
	Board
	itself.
	Post 	hearing
	arguments
shall
	be
	oral
	and
	included 	in
	the
	submitted
	record.
ORDER
Upon
	the 	foregoing 	Decision
	and
	the
	entire
	record
	in
	this
case,
	the 	Public
	Employment
	Relations
	Board
	ORDERS
	that:
1.
	A
unit
	consisting 	of
	all
	part-time
	certificated
faculty,
	excluding 	those
	who
	are 	managerial, 	supervisory
	or
confidential
	employees,
is
	appropriate
	for
	negotiating
	in
	the
Mendocino 	Community
	College
	District
	provided
	that
	an
	employee
organization
	becomes
	the 	exclusive
	representative.
2. 	This
	case
	is
	remanded
	to 	the 	hearing
	officer
	to 	take
evidence
	on
	an
	expedited
	basis
	as
	to 	the
	identity
	of
	teachers
classified
	as
	"regular"
	and
	"contract" 	part-time
	employees
	of
the
	District
	and
	as 	to
	whether 	such
	teachers
	should
	be
	excluded
from
	the
	unit 	established
	by
	this
	order.
	Oral
	argument 	on
	the
matter,
	if
	any,
	shall
	be 	made 	on
	the 	record
	which
	shall
	be
returned-directly
	to 	the
	Board
	itself
	for
	disposition.
3.
	Jurisdiction
	over
	this
	case
	is
	retained	
by	
the
	Board
itself
	for 	the 	purposes
	set 	forth
	above.
I
	/)
By:	
iaIT:y
%tuck, 	Chairperson 	Barbara
	D. 	Moore, 	Member
9

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
MENDOCINO COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT, 	Representation
Case No. SF-R-615X
Employer ,
PROPOSED DECISION
and
(7/21/80)MENDOCINO PART-TIME FACULTY
ASSOCIATION,
Employee Organization.
Appearances: Ronald A. Glick, for Mendocino Community College
District; Peter Ferris for Mendocino Part-time Faculty
Association.
Before: Fred D'Orazio, Hearing Officer.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On January 16, 1980, the Mendocino Part-time Faculty
Association (hereafter Association or MPFA) petitioned the
Mendocino Community College District (hereafter District) for
recognition as the exclusive representative for a unit of
part-time certificated employees. No other employee
organization intervened, but on February 25, 1980, the District
1The unit initially petitioned for is as follows:
All part-time instructors and counselors
employed by Mendocino Community College
District as of January 16, 1980; excluding
those part-time instructors or counselors
classified "contract" or "regular" by the
PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
STATE
	OF
	CALIFORNIA
MENDOCINO
	COMMUNITY
	COLLEGE
DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
MENDOCINO
	PART-TIME
	FACULTY
ASSOCIATION,
Employee
	Organization.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
___________________ )
Representation
Case
	No. 	SF-R-615X
PROPOSED
	DECISION
(7/21/80)
Appearances:	
Ronald
	A.
	Glick, 	for
	Mendocino
	Community
	College
D1str1ct; 	Peter
	Ferris
	for
	Mendocino
	Part-time 	Faculty
Association.
Before:
	Fred
	D'Orazio,
	Hearing
	Officer.
PROCEDURAL
	HISTORY
On
	January 	16,
	1980,
	the
	Mendocino
	Part-time 	Faculty
Association 	{hereafter 	Association 	or
	MPFA)
	petitioned 	the
Mendocino
	Community
	College
	District
	(hereafter
	District)
	for
recognition
	as
	the 	exclusive 	representative
	for
	a
	unit 	of
part-time
	certificated
	employees.
1 	No
	other
	employee
organization 	intervened,
	but 	on February 	25, 	1980,
	the
	District
lThe
	unit	
initially
	petitioned
	for	
is
	as	
follows:
All 	part-time 	instructors
	and
	counselors
employed 	by Mendocino 	Community
	College
District
	as	
of 	January 	16,
	1980;	
excluding
those 	part-time 	instructors
	or 	counselors
classified 	"contract" 	or 	"regular"
	by
	the

denied the request, challenging the appropriateness of the
petitioned-for unit, and asserting that only a unit of both
full-time and part-time certificated employees, excluding
management, supervisory and confidential employees, is
appropriate. 2
A formal hearing was held on April 3, 1980. Briefs were
submitted on June 11, 1980.
ISSUE
Whether a unit of part-time certificated employees in the
District is appropriate?
FINDINGS OF FACT
MPFA is an employee organization within the meaning of
section 3540.1(d) of the EERA. 	The District is a public school
employer within the meaning of section 3540.1 (k) of the EERA.
In an attempt to promote better overall working conditions for
part-time faculty, and to gain recognition, MPFA went before
the District board of trustees in September 1977. At that
meeting, MPFA introduced itself as an employee organization,
gave a brief report about part-time teaching in the District
and handed out copies of its bylaws. In addition, MPFA
announced that it had changed its name from MPFA to the
district according to the California
Education Code, and all full-time employees
in certificated positions with the district.
2There is no dispute as to management, supervisory or
confidential employees.
2
denied 	the
	request,
	challenging
	the
	appropriateness
	of 	the
petitioned-for 	unit,
	and
	asserting 	that
	only
	a
	unit
	of 	both
full-time
	and
	part-time
	certificated
	employees,
	excluding
management,
	supervisory
	and
	confidential
	employees,
	is
appropriate.
2
A
formal
	hearing
	was
	held
	on
	April
	3,
	1980.
	Briefs
	were
submitted
	on
	June
	11,
	1980.
ISSUE
Whether
	a
	unit
	of
	part-time
	certificated
	employees
	in 	the
District 	is
	appropriate?
FINDINGS
	OF
	FACT
MPFA
	is
	an
	employee
	organization 	within 	the
	meaning
	of
section
	3540.l(d) 	of 	the
	EERA. 	The
	District 	is
	a
	public
	school
employer
	within 	the
	meaning
	of
	section
	3540.l(k) 	of 	the
	EERA.
In
	an
	attempt
	to
	promote
	better 	overall
	working
	conditions
	for
part-time 	faculty,
	and
	to 	gain
	recognition,
	MPFA
	went
	before
the
	District
	board	
of 	trustees
	in
	September
	1977.
	At
	that
meeting,
	MPFA
	introduced
	itself	
as 	an 	employee
	organization,
gave
	a
	brief 	report
	about
	part-time 	teaching 	in 	the
	District
and 	handed
	out 	copies 	of
	its	
bylaws. 	In
	addition,
	MPFA
announced
	that
	it
	had 	changed	
its
	name 	from
	MPFA	
to 	the
district	
according 	to 	the	
California
Education Code, 	and
	all
	full-time
	employees
in
	certificated 	positions
	with 	the	
district.
2There	
is
	no
	dispute 	as 	to	
management,	
supervisory 	or
confidential
	employees.
2

Mendocino College Faculty Association (hereafter MCFA) , a
change that reflected a desire to foster unity between
part-time and full-time faculty. Membership in MCFA was
available to all faculty.
In March 1978, MCFA appeared before the President's
Advisory Council and was granted informal recognition 3 along
with a mailbox on campus and access to faculty mailing lists.
In April 1978, MCFA appeared before the Faculty Senate
Council, presented their concerns and asked to be included with
full voting rights in that body. By a vote of full-time
faculty, that request was denied. Shortly thereafter, MCFA
changed its name back to MPFA.
During the next academic year, the Mendocino College
Instructor's Association, CTA/NEA, (hereafter MCIA) organized a
unit of 31 full-time faculty members and was voluntarily
granted recognition by the District on February 21, 1979.4
The record is unclear as to what rights attached to
informal recognition.
AMCIA did not appear at the hearing, nor did it
participate in this proceeding in any way.
According to the official files of the PERB in the San
Francisco Regional Office, as of June 1980, negotiations
between the District and MCIA for a new contract were in the
factfinding stage pursuant to section 3548 et seq. (Mendocino
Community College District, SF-M-460, SF-F-40, SF-R-615.)
Official notice is taken of this point. Antelope Valley
Community College District (7/18/79) PERB Decision No. 97,
pp. 23-24.
3
Mendocino
	College
	Faculty 	Association
	(hereafter
	MCFA), 	a
change
	that 	reflected
	a
	desire 	to 	foster
	unity
	between
part-time
	and
	full-time 	faculty.
	Membership
	in
	MCFA
	was
available 	to
	all
	faculty.
In
	March
	1978,
	MCFA
	appeared
	before 	the
	President's
Advisory Council
	and 	was
	granted
	informal
	recognition	
3	
along
with
	a
	mailbox
	on
	campus
	and
	access
	to 	faculty
	mailing
	lists.
In 	April
	1978,
	MCFA
	appeared
	before 	the 	Faculty
	Senate
Council, 	presented
	their
	concerns
	and
	asked
	to
	be
	included 	with
full
	voting
	rights
	in
	that
	body.
	By
	a
	vote 	of
	full-time
faculty, 	that
	request
	was
	denied.
	Shortly
	thereafter,
	MCFA
changed
	its
	name
	back
	to
	MPFA.
During
	the 	next
	academic
	year,
	the
	Mendocino
	College
Instructor's
	Association,
	CTA/NEA,
	(hereafter
	MCIA)
	organized
	a
unit
	of
	31
	full-time 	faculty
	members
	and
	was
	voluntarily
granted 	recognition
	by
	the
	District
	on
	February 	21,
	1979.
4
3The
	record
	is
	unclear	
as	
to
	what
	rights
	attached
	to
informal
	recognition.
4MCIA
	did 	not 	appear
	at
	the 	hearing,
	nor
	did
	it
participate
	in
	this
	proceeding 	in
	any 	way.
According
	to	
the	
official 	files	
of
	the	
PERB
	in 	the 	San
Francisco 	Regional
	Office,
	as	
of	
June
	1980, 	negotiations
between 	the
	District
	and
	MCIA
	for
	a 	new
	contract
	were
	in	
the
factfinding 	stage 	pursuant 	to 	section	
3548	
et
	seq.
	(MendocinoCommunity
	College
	District,
	SF-M-460,	
SF-F-40, 	SF-R-615.)
Official 	notice
	1s 	taken 	of 	this 	point. 	Antelope 	Valley
Community
	College
	District 	(7/18/79)	
PERB
	Decision No.
	97,pp. 	23-24.
3

In the fall of 1979, representatives of MPFA and MCIA
discussed the possibility of MCIA modifying the full-time unit
to include part-time faculty. These discussions proved
fruitless and MPFA then filed the request for recognition at
issue in this case. 	Because the District challenged the
appropriateness of a part-time unit, the request for
recognition was denied.
There are between 129 and 135 part-time faculty in the
District. The parties stipulated at the hearing that a
community of interest exists between and among all part-time
faculty in the District.
This community of interest may be summarized as follows:
Part-time faculty members are paid on an hourly basis, and they
are on the same salary schedule. They must meet the same
credentialing requirement, their fringe benefits are the same,
and they are subject to the same evaluation and hiring
procedures. The lines of supervision are the same for all
part-timers. Part-timers also earn the same seniority and
their job classification is the same. The procedure for
requesting textbooks is the same for part-timers. They have no
offices and their office hour requirement is the same. They do
not attend department meetings. However, they do attend one
orientation meeting per term; other discussions about course
materials, instruction, etc. are conducted on an informal basis
thereafter . 	There is no in-service training for part-timers.
In
	the
	fall
	of
	1979,
	representatives
	of
	MPFA
	and
	MCIA
discussed
	the
	possibility
	of
	MCIA
	modifying
	the
	full-time 	unit
to
	include
	part-time 	faculty.
	These
	discussions
	proved
fruitless
	and
	MPFA
	then
	filed
	the
	request
	for
	recognition
	at
issue
	in
	this
	case.
	Because
	the
	District
	challenged 	the
appropriateness
	of
	a
	part-time
	unit,
	the 	request
	for
recognition
	was
	denied.
There
	are
	between
	129
	and
	135
	part-time 	faculty 	in 	the
District.
	The
	parties 	stipulated 	at
	the 	hearing
	that
	a
community
	of
	interest 	exists
	between
	and 	among
	all
	part-time
faculty 	in 	the
	District.
This
	community
	of
	interest
	may 	be 	summarized
	as
	follows:
Part-time 	faculty
	members
	are 	paid
	on 	an
	hourly
	basis,	
and	
they
are	
on	
the
	same
	salary
	schedule.
	They must 	meet
	the
	same
credentialing
	requirement,
	their
	fringe 	benefits
	are 	the
	same,
and
	they 	are 	subject 	to
	the
	same
	evaluation
	and
	hiring
procedures.
	The
	lines
	of 	supervision 	are 	the
	same
	for
	all
part-timers. 	Part-timers 	also 	earn 	the
	same
	seniority
	and
their
	job
	classification 	is
	the
	same.
	The
	procedure
	for
requesting 	textbooks
	is
	the
	same
	for
	part-timers.
	They
	have
	no
offices	
and
	their 	office	
hour	
requirement
	is
	the
	same. 	They 	do
not 	attend
	department 	meetings.
	However,
	they
	do
	attend
	one
orientation
	meeting 	per 	term;
	other 	discussions
	about 	course
materials, 	instruction, 	etc. 	are	
conducted 	on 	an	
informal 	basis
thereafter.	
There	
is
	no
	in-service 	training 	for	
part-timers.
4

They are required to fill out monthly timesheets. off-campus
instruction is done almost exclusively by part-time faculty.
They have no membership in the faculty senate or on District
committees, such as budget or curriculum. 5
There are currently no part-time employees who are members
of MCIA. In the past, there have been only one or two
part-time employees who have been members of MCIA.
CONCLUSIONS
The Association contends that, based on the criteria set
forth in section 3545 (a) , a unit of part-time faculty is
appropriate. 6
The District argues that, in accordance with the decisions
of the Public Employment Relations Board (hereafter PERB or
At the hearing the District pointed out that full-time
employees also share a community of interest with part-time
employees on many of these terms and conditions of employment.
However, for purposes of this decision, the community of
interest between and among full-time and part-time employees is
irrelevant.
All references are to Government Code unless otherwise
noted. 	Section 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,
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.
5
They
	are 	required
	to
	fill
	out
	monthly
	timesheets.
	Off-campus
instruction
	is
	done
	almost
	exclusively
	by
	part-time 	faculty.
They
	have
	no
	membership
	in 	the
	faculty
	senate
	or
	on
	District
committees,
	such 	as 	budget
	or
	curriculum.5
There
	are
	currently
	no
	part-time
	employees
	who
	are
	members
of
	MCIA.
	In 	the
	past,
	there
	have 	been
	only
	one
	or
	two
part-time
	employees
	who
	have
	been
	members
	of
	MCIA.
CONCLUSIONS
The
	Association
	contends
	that,
	based
	on
	the
	criteria
	set
forth
	in
	section
	3545(a),
	a
	unit
	of
	part-time 	faculty
	is
appropriate.6
The
	District
	argues
	that,
	in
	accordance 	with 	the
	decisions
of 	the 	Public
	Employment
	Relations
	Board
	{hereafter
	PERB
	or
5At
	the 	hearing 	the
	District
	pointed 	out
	that 	full-time
employees
	also
	share
	a 	community
	of
	interest
	with
	part-time
employees
	on 	many
	of 	these
	terms
	and
	conditions
	of
	employment.However,
	for
	purposes 	of
	this
	decision,
	the
	community
	of
interest
	between
	and 	among
	full-time
	and
	part-time
	employees
	isirrelevant.
6All
	references 	are 	to
	Government 	Code
	unless 	otherwisenoted. 	Section
	3545(a)
	states:
In 	each
	case
	where
	the 	appropriateness 	of
the
	unit 	is
	an
	issue,
	the
	board
	shall	
decidethe 	question
	on
	the
	basis 	of
	the	
community
of	
interest
	between	
and 	among	
the 	employeesand	
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 	ofthe 	unit
	on	
the	
efficient
	operation 	of
	the
school	
district.
5

Board), a unit of both part-time and full-time faculty is
efore a part-time unit can be considered
appropriate, there must be a determination that a separate
community of interest exists which would distinguish the
part-time faculty from the full-time faculty. In addition, the
Distict contends that the creation of separate units would be
"inefficient and deter District operations."
The Board has determined in several cases that a unit of
both part-time and full-time faculty is appropriate. 	See e.g.
Los Rios Community College District, supra; Rio Hondo Community
College District, supra; Hartnell Community College District,
supra. However, the fact that the Board has, in previous
decisions, found an overall certificated unit apppropriate does
not preclude it from finding a separate unit of certificated
employees appropriate under favorable circumstances. Arcadia
Unified School District (5/17/79) PERB Decision No. 93,
pp. 13-14.
The Board's prior decisions dealing with
full-time/part-time faculty issues arose out of circumstances
which are distinguishable from those presented here.
7The District points to several PERB decisions where
full-time and part-time faculty were included in the same
unit. e.g. Los Rios Community College District (6/9/77) PERB
Decision No. 18; Rio Hondo Community College District (1/25/79)
PERB Decision No. 87; Hartnell Community College District
(1/2/79) PERB Decision No. 81.
6
Board),
	a
	unit
	of
	both
	part-time
	and
	full-time 	faculty
	is
appropriate. B	
appropriate.
7	
Before
	a
	part-time
	unit
	can
	be
	considered
appropriate, 	there
	must
	be 	a
	determination
	that
	a
	separate
community
	of
	interest 	exists
	which 	would
	distinguish
	the
part-time 	faculty
	from
	the
	full-time 	faculty.
	In
	addition,
	the
Distict
	contends
	that
	the
	creation
	of
	separate
	units
	would 	be
"inefficient
	and
	deter
	District
	operations."
The
	Board 	has
	determined
	in
	several
	cases
	that
	a
	unit
	of
both
	part-time
	and
	full-time 	faculty
	is
	appropriate.
	See
	e.g.
Los
	Rios
	Community
	College
	District,
	supra:
	Rio
	Hondo Community
College
	District,
	supra;
	Hartnell
	Community
	College
	District,
supra.
	However,
	the
	fact 	that
	the
	Board
	has,
	in 	previous
decisions,
	found 	an
	overall
	certificated
	unit
	apppropriate
	does
not 	preclude
	it
	from
	finding
	a
	separate 	unit
	of
	certificated
employees
	appropriate
	under
	favorable 	circumstances. 	Arcadia
Unified
	School
	District
	(5/17/79)
	PERB
	Decision
	No.
	93,
pp. 	13-14.
The
	Board's
	prior 	decisions 	dealing 	with
full-time/part-time 	faculty 	issues 	arose 	out 	of 	circumstances
which
	are
	distinguishable
	from
	those 	presented 	here.
7The
	District
	points 	to 	several
	PERB
	declsions
	where
full-time
	and
	part-time 	faculty
	were
	included 	in 	the
	same
unit. 	e.g.
	Los 	Rios 	Community
	College
	District
	(6/9/77)
	PERB
Decision
	No.
	18; 	Rio 	Hondo Community
	College
	District
	(1/25/79)
PERB
	Decision
	No. 	87;
	Hartnell
	Community
	College
	District
(1/2/79)
	PERB
	Decision
	No. 	81.
6

Specifically, a recognized unit of full-time faculty already
exists in the District. By its argument that full-time and
part-time faculty should be placed in the same unit, the
District seeks to modify the full-time unit already represented
on an exclusive basis by MCIA. This it cannot do.
California Administrative Code, title 8, section 33260
contains the exclusive procedure for unit modification.
Section 33260 states in relevant part:
33260. Policy. It is the policy of
the Board to provide a single mechanism
which shall be utilized for the modification
of all established units. This system is
designed to ensure that all parties to a
modification are afforded notice and
opportunity to express their views with
regard to any proposed modification, and to
provide assistance in the resolution of
questions raised by the parties to a dispute
regarding the modification of a unit.
The Board will not allow a unit
modification which is based principally on
employee dissatisfaction with the results of
negotiations or the exclusive
representative; nor will the Board permit a
unit modification which impinges on the
integrity of another established unit in
which there is a different recognized or
certified organization or which compromises
the exclusivity of such certification.
No unit modification may be made by any
procedure other than that contained in this
Article. (Emphasis added. )
Section 33261 sets forth who may file a petition, and under
what circumstances a petition may be filed.
Specifically,
	a
	recognized
	unit
	of
	full-time 	faculty
	already
exists
	in
	the
	District.
	By
	its
	argument
	that 	full-time
	and
part-time 	faculty
	should
	be
	placed
	in 	the
	same
	unit,
	the
District
	seeks
	to
	modify
	the
	full-time 	unit
	already 	represented
on
	an
	exclusive 	basis
	by
	MCIA.
	This
	it
	cannot
	do.
California
	Administrative
	Code,
	title
	8,
	section
	33260
contains 	the 	exclusive
	procedure 	for
	unit
	modification.
Section
	33260
	states
	in
	relevant
	part:
33260.
	Policy.
	It
	is
	the
	policy 	ofthe
	Board
	to
	provide
	a
	single
	mechanism
which
	shall
	be
	utilized
	for 	the 	modification
of
	all
	established 	units.
	This
	system
	is
designed
	to 	ensure
	that
	all
	parties
	to
	a
modification 	are 	afforded 	notice
	and
opportunity 	to 	express
	their
	views
	with
regard 	to
	any
	proposed
	modification,
	and
	to
provide
	assistance
	in 	the
	resolution
	of
questions 	raised
	by
	the
	parties
	to
	a
	disputeregarding 	the 	modification 	of
	a
	unit.
The 	Board
	will
	not 	allow
	a
	unitmodification
	which
	is
	based
	principally
	on
employee
	dissatisfaction
	with 	the
	results
	of
negotiations
	or 	the 	exclusive
representative;
	nor
	will
	the
	Board
	permit
	a
unit 	modification
	which 	imoinaes
	on
	the
integrity
	of 	another
	estabiished 	unit
	in
which
	there
	is
	a
	different
	recognized 	or
certified
	organization 	or
	which 	compromises
the
	exclusivity
	of 	such
	certification.
No
	unit 	modification
	may 	be 	made 	by 	any
procedure 	other 	than
	that
	contained 	in
	thisArticle.
	(Emphasis
	added.)
Section
	33261
	sets 	forth
	who 	may
	file
	a
	petition,
	and
	under
what
	circumstances
	a
	petition
	may 	be
	filed.
7

33261. Petition.
(a) A recognized or certified employee
organization may file with the Regional
Office a petition for unit modification
pursuant to section 3541.3 (e) or (m) of the
Act:
(1) 	To add to the unit unrepresented
classifications or positions which existed
prior to the recognition or certification of
the current exclusive representative of the
unit, provided such petition is filed at
least 12 months after the date of said
recognition or certification, except as
provided in subsection (2) below;
(2) To add to the unit unrepresented
classifications or positions which were
included in an original request for
recognition or intervention, but disputed as
to management, supervisory or confidential
status, provided a written agreement of all
parties to submit the disputed
classifications or positions pursuant to
this Regulation 33261 (a) (2) was filed with
the Regional Office prior to recognition or
certification of an exclusive representative
in the unit in question.
(3) To add to the unit new
unrepresented classifications or positions
created since recognition or certification
of the current exclusive representative.
(4) To reflect changes in the identity
of the exclusive representative other than a
new or different representative.
(5) To divide an existing unit into
two or more appropriate units.
(b) A recognized or certified employee
organization, an employer, or both jointly
may file with the Regional Office a petition
for change in unit determination pursuant to
section 3541.3 (e) of the Act:
33261.
	Petition.
{a) 	A	
recognized 	or
	certified
	employee
organization
may
	file
	with
	the
	Regional
Office
	a
	petition
	for
	unit
	modificationpursuant
	to 	section
	3541.3(e) 	or
	(m)
	of 	the
Act: 
(1)
	To
	add
	to
	the
	unit
	unrepresented
classifications
	or
	positions
	which
	existed
prior
	to
	the
	recognition
	or
	certification
	of
the
	current 	exclusive
	representative
	of 	the
unit,
	provided
	such
	petition
	is
	filed 	at
least
	12 months
	after
	the
	date
	of
	saidrecognition
	or
	certification,
	except
	as
provided
	in 	subsection
	(2)
	below;
(2)
	To 	add
	to
	the
	unit
	unrepresented
classifications
	or
	positions
	which 	were
included
	in
	an
	original
	request 	for
recognition 	or
	intervention,
	but
	disputed
	as
to
	management,
	supervisory 	or
	confidential
status,
	provided
	a
	written
	agreement
	of
	all
parties
	to
	submit
	the 	disputed
classifications
	or
	positions
	pursuant
	to
this
	Regulation 	3326l(a)
	(2)
	was
	filed
	with
the
	Regional
	Office
	prior 	to 	recognition
	or
certification
	of
	an
	exclusive 	representativein
	the
	unit 	in 	question.
(3) 	To 	add
	to
	the
	unit
	new
unrepresented
	classifications
	or
	positionscreated 	since 	recognition 	or
	certification
of 	the
	current 	exclusive 	representative.
(4) 	To
	reflect
	changes
	in 	the
	identity
of 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	other 	than
	a
new
	or
	different 	representative.
(5) 	To
	divide
	an
	existing 	unit 	into
two
	or
	more 	i
	units.
( 	A
recognized 	or
	certifi
	employee
organization,
	an
	employer, 	or 	both
	jointly
may
	file
	with 	the 	Regional 	Office
	a
	petitionunit 	determination 	suant 	toon
	3541.3(e)
	t
	Act:
8

(1) To delete classifications no
longer in existence or which by virtue of
changes in circumstances are no longer
appropriate to the established unit;
(2) To update classification titles
where the duties are not changed
sufficiently to cause deletion from the
established unit;
(3) To make technical changes to
clarify the unit description.
(c) An employer and all affected recognized
or certified employee organizations may
jointly file with the Regional Office a
petition pursuant to section 3541. 3 (e) of
the Act to transfer classification (s) from
one represented established unit to another,
provided neither of the conditions of
section 3544.7 (b) of the Act exist in any of
the units affected by the petition to
transfer. Any employee (s) affected by the
transfer of classification (s) or position (s)
from one represented established unit to
another can request, within the posting
period provided by section 33262(c) , that
the Regional Director investigate the
proposed transfer and after such
investigation determine whether such
transfer effectuates the purposes of the Act
and Article 6.
The District has not filed a unit modification petition in
this case. 	However, even assuming this proceeding is construed
as a section 33260 matter, the District's position is without
foundation. This procedure provides only limited circumstances
under which an employer may seek to modify an existing unit,
and under no reading of this regulation can these circumstances
be found to be present here.
9
(1) 	To
	delete
	classifications
	no
longer 	in
	existence
	or
	which
	by
	virtue
	of
changes
	in 	circumstances 	are
	no
	longer
appropriate 	to
	the
	established 	unit;
(2) 	To
	update
	classification
	titles
where
	the
	duties
	are
	not
	changed
sufficiently
	to
	cause
	deletion
	from
	the
established 	unit:
(3) 	To make
	technical
	changes
	to
clarify
	the
	unit 	description.
(c)
	An
	employer
	and
	all
	affected
	recognized
or
	certified
	employee
	organizations
	may
jointly
	file
	with 	the
	Regional
	Office
	a
petition
	pursuant
	to 	section
	3541.3(e)
	ofthe
	Act
	to
	transfer 	classification(s)
	from
one
	represented
	established 	unit 	to 	another,
provided
	neither
	of 	the
	conditions 	of
section
	3544.7(b)
	of 	the
	Act
	exist
	in
	any
	ofthe
	units 	affected
	by
	the
	petition
	to
transfer.
	Any
	employee(s)
	affected
	by
	the
transfer
	of
	classification{s)
	or
	position(s)
from 	one
	represented
	established 	unit	
to
another
	can
	request, 	within 	the 	postingperiod 	provided
	by
	section
	33262(c),
	that
the
	Regional
	Director
	investigate
	the
proposed
	transfer
	and
	after
	such
investigation
	determine 	whether 	such
transfer 	effectuates
	the 	purposes	
of 	the
	Act
and	
Article
	6.
The
	District
	has 	not
	filed
	a
	unit
	modification
	petition
	in
this
	case.
	However, 	even 	assuming
	this
	proceeding
	is
	construed
as
	a	
section
	33260
	matter, 	the
	District's
	position
	is
	without
foundation. 	This 	procedure 	provides 	only 	limited 	circumstances
under 	which 	an 	employer
	may
	seek
	to
	modify 	an
	existing 	unit,
and 	under 	no	
reading 	of 	this 	regulation
	can 	these 	circumstances
be 	found
	to
	be	
present 	here.
9

Further, as noted, MCIA has not participated in this
proceeding, and the full-time faculty unit is not in issue.
The Board will not disturb an existing unit when its
composition is not at issue. See Arcadia Unified School
District, supra, p. 12, citing Palo Alto Unified School
District (1/9/79) PERB Decision No. 84. Thus, there is no
basis upon which the existing unit of full-time faculty, now
represented on an exclusive basis by MICA, can or should be
modified to include part-time faculty.
As an alternative to modification of the full-time unit,
the part-time unit must be recognized as appropriate if the
employees therein are to have the benefits and rights intended
by the Legislature when it passed the Educational Employment
Relations Act (hereafter EERA) . However, the criteria set
forth in section 3545 (a) must be met if the part-time unit is
to be recognized as appropriate in its own right. Thus, the
only issue before the hearing officer is whether the unit of
part-time faculty, standing on its own, meets the statutory
criteria set forth in section 3545 (a) .
The parties stipulated that a community of interest exists
between and among part-time faculty in the District as
indicated (supra p. 4). The facts support that stipulation.
There is no evidence of established practices which militate
against finding the part-time unit appropriate. In fact,
membership of part-time faculty in MCIA is non-existent.
10
Further,
	as
	noted,
	MCIA
	has
	not
	participated
	in
	this
proceeding,
	and
	the
	full-time 	faculty 	unit
	is
	not
	in
	issue.
The
	Board
	will
	not
	disturb
	an
	existing
	unit
	when
	its
composition
	is
	not
	at 	issue.
	See
	Arcadia
	Unified
	School
District,
	supra, 	p.
	12,
	citing
	Palo Alto 	Unified
	School
District
	(1/9/79)
	PERB
	Decision
	No.
	84. 	Thus,
	there
	is
	no
basis
	upon
	which
	the
	existing 	unit
	of
	full-time 	faculty,
	now
represented
	on 	an
	exclusive 	basis	
by	
MICA,
	can
	or 	should
	be
modified
	to
	include
	part-time 	faculty.
As 	an
	alternative
	to
	modification 	of 	the
	full-time
	unit,
the
	part-time 	unit
	must
	be
	recognized
	as
	appropriate
	if
	the
employees
	therein
	are
	to
	have
	the
	benefits
	and
	rights
	intended
by
	the 	Legislature
	when
	it
	passed
	the 	Educational
	Employment
Relations
	Act
	(hereafter
	EERA). 	However,
	the
	criteria 	set
forth
	in
	section
	3545(a) 	must
	be 	met
	if
	the
	part-time
	unit
	is
to
	be
	recognized 	as
	appropriate 	in
	its
	own
	right.
	Thus,
	the
only 	issue 	before 	the 	hearing
	officer 	is
	whether
	the
	unit
	of
part-time 	faculty,
	standing
	on
	its
	own,
	meets 	the
	statutory
criteria 	set 	forth 	in 	section
	3545(a).
The
	parties 	stipulated 	that
	a 	community
	of
	interest 	exists
between
	and 	among	
part-time 	faculty 	in 	the
	District
	as
indicated 	(supra 	p.
	4).
	The
	facts 	support
	that 	stipulation.
There
	is
	no
	evidence 	of
	established 	practices
	which
	militate
against 	finding 	the 	part-time 	unit 	appropriate. 	In
	fact,
membership 	of 	part-time 	faculty 	in
	MCIA
	is 	non-existent.
10

Additionally, MPFA has apparently made some efforts to unite
part-time faculty and full-time faculty for the purpose of
representation and collective bargaining. These efforts have
not been fruitful and MCIA has proceeded to represent and
negotiate for full-time faculty while MPFA has represented
part-time faculty. Injecting approximately 125-130 part-time
faculty into a unit of 31 full-time faculty at this point may
serve to severely disrupt the pattern of negotiations and
representation which has existed between MCIA and the District,
thus creating a destabilizing effect on labor relations.
Lastly, the District argues that separate units would be
inefficient and result in the costly duplication of efforts by
management employees during the bargaining process, thereby
undermining the mission of educating students. Even if it were
established that some duplication of effort will occur as a
result of finding separate units appropriate, it does not
necessarily follow that it would undermine the process of
education. Moreover, when weighed against the rights of
employees under the EERA to participate in activities of
employee organizations for purposes of representation and
collective bargaining, the balance must be struck in favor of a
separate unit for part-time faculty, there being no way to
include them in the full-time unit at this juncture.
Based on the foregoing, it is concluded that a unit of
part-time faculty is appropriate. A unit of both part-time and
11
Additionally,
	MPFA
	has
	apparently
	made 	some
	efforts
	to 	unite
part-time 	faculty
	and
	full-time 	faculty
	for
	the
	purpose
	of
representation
	and
	collective
	bargaining.
	These
	efforts
	have
not
	been
	fruitful
	and
	MCIA
	has 	proceeded
	to 	represent
	and
negotiate
	for
	full-time 	faculty
	while
	MPFA
	has
	represented
part-time 	faculty. 	Injecting
	approximately
	125-130
	part-time
faculty 	into
	a
	unit
	of
	31
	full-time 	faculty 	at
	this
	point
	may
serve 	to 	severely
	disrupt
	the
	pattern
	of
	negotiations
	and
representation
	which
	has
	existed
	between
	MCIA
	and
	the
	District,
thus
	creating
	a
	destabilizing
	effect
	on
	labor
	relations.
Lastly,
	the
	District
	argues
	that
	separate 	units
	would 	be
inefficient
	and
	result
	in 	the
	costly 	duplication
	of
	efforts
	by
management
	employees
	during 	the 	bargaining 	process, 	thereby
undermining
	the 	mission 	of 	educating
	students.
	Even
	if
	it
	were
established 	that
	some
	duplication
	of
	effort
	will
	occur 	as
	a
result
	of
	finding 	separate 	units 	appropriate,
	it
	does
	not
necessarily
	follow
	that
	it
	would
	undermine	
the 	process
	of
education.
	Moreover,
	when
	weighed
	against 	the
	rights
	of
employees 	under
	the
	EERA
	to
	participate
	in
	activities
	of
employee
	organizations 	for 	purposes	
of 	representation	
and
collective
	bargaining, 	the 	balance
	must 	be	
struck 	in 	favor 	of	
a
separate 	unit	
for	
part-time 	faculty, 	there
	being
	no 	way
	to
include
	them
	in 	the
	full-time 	unit 	at 	this 	juncture.
Based 	on
	the 	foregoing,	
it
	is	
concluded 	that	
a
	unit 	of
part-time 	faculty 	is
	appropriate.	
A
unit 	of
	both 	part-time
	and
11

full-time faculty may, under Board decisions, be a more
appropriate unit. Nevertheless, as the Board noted in Antioch
Unified School District (11/7/77) PERB Decision No. 37, a unit
that is appropriate for meeting and negotiating need not be the
most appropriate unit.
PROPOSED ORDER
It is the proposed order that the following unit is
appropriate for the purpose of meeting and negotiating,
providing an employee organization becomes the exclusive
representative of the unit:
All part-time certificated faculty;
excluding part-time instructors or
counselors classified "contract" or
"regular" by the District according to the
Education Code, and all full-time
certificated employees.
Pursuant to California Administrative Code, title 8, part
III, section 32305, this Proposed Decision and Order shall
become final on August 11, 1980 	unless a party files a
timely statement of exceptions and supporting brief within
twenty (20) calendar days following the date of service of this
decision. Such statement of exceptions and supporting brief
must be actually received by the Executive Assistant to the
Board at the headquarters office in Sacramento before the close
of business (5:00 p.m.) on August 11, 1980 in order to be
12
full-time 	faculty
	may,
	under 	Board
	decisions,
	be 	a 	more
appropriate
	unit.
	Nevertheless,
	as 	the
	Board
	noted
	in
	Antioch
Unified
	School
	District
	(11/7/77)
	PERB
	Decision
	No.
	37,
	a
	unit
that
	is
	appropriate
	for
	meeting
	and
	negotiating
	need
	not
	be
	the
most
	appropriate
	unit.
PROPOSED
	ORDER
It
	is
	the
	proposed
	order
	that
	the 	following
	unit
	is
appropriate
	for 	the
	purpose
	of
	meeting
	and
	negotiating,
providing
	an
	employee
	organization
	becomes
	the
	exclusive
representative
	of
	the
	unit:
All
	part-time
	certificated
	faculty;
excluding
	part-time 	instructors
	or
counselors
	classified
	"contract"
	or
"regular"
	by
	the
	District
	according
	to
	theEducation
	Code, 	and
	all
	full-time
certificated
	employees.
Pursuant
	to 	California
	Administrative
	Code,
	title
	8, 	part
III,
	section
	32305,
	this
	Proposed
	Decision
	and
	Order
	shall
become
	final
	on
	August
	11,
	1980
	unless
	a
	party
	files
	a
timely 	statement 	of 	exceptions
	and
	supporting
	brief
	within
twenty
	(20}
	calendar
	days
	following
	the 	date 	of 	service 	of
	this
decision.
	Such	
statement 	of 	exceptions
	and	
supporting
	brief
must 	be
	actually 	received 	by 	the 	Executive
	Assistant 	to 	the
Board
	at 	the 	headquarters	
office 	in
	Sacramento 	before 	the
	close
of 	business 	(5:00 	p.m.) 	on
	August 	11, 	1980
	in 	order 	to
	be
12

timely filed. See California Administrative Code, title 8,
part III, section 32135. Any statement of exceptions and
supporting brief must be served concurrently with its filing
upon each party to this proceeding. Proof of service shall be
filed with the Board itself. See California Administrative
Code, title 8, section 32305 (as amended) .
Upon notice that this Proposed Decision and Order has
become final, the regional director shall conduct an election
for a unit of part-time certificated faculty employees as
herein described unless the employer grants voluntary
recognition. Voluntary recognition requires proof of majority
support in all cases. See Government Code sections 3544 and
3544.1.
DATED : 	July 21, 1980
FRED D'ORAZIO
Hearing Officer
13
timely
	filed.
	See
	California
	Administrative
	Code,
	title
	8,
part
	III,
	section
	32135.
	Any
	statement 	of 	exceptions
	and
supporting
	brief
	must
	be
	served
	concurrently
	with
	its
	filing
upon
	each
	party 	to
	this
	proceeding.
	Proof
	of
	service
	shall
	be
filed
	with
	the
	Board
	itself.
	See
	California
	Administrative
Code,
	title
	8, 	section
	32305
	(as
	amended).
Upon
	notice
	that 	this
	Proposed
	Decision
	and
	Order 	has
become
	final,
	the 	regional
	director 	shall
	conduct
	an
	election
for
	a
	unit
	of
	part-time
	certificated
	faculty
	employees
	as
herein 	described 	unless 	the
	employer
	grants
	voluntary
recognition.
	Voluntary
	recognition 	requires
	proof 	of
	majority
support 	in
	all
	cases.
	See 	Government 	Code
	sections
	3544 	and
3544.1.
DATED:
	July
	21,
	1980
13
- 	V
FRED
	D'ORAZIO
Hearing
	Officer