San Diego Unified School District (PERB 0170E)

DECISION
	OF 	THE
STATE
	OF
	CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC
	RMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
DECISION OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
CALIFORNIA
	SCHOOL MPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION, CHAPTER 600,
00,
Employee Organization.
n.
Case No. LA-R-167xX
PERB Decision No. 170170
June 25, 1981	1981
Appearances:	
Ralph
	D.
	Stern,
	Attorney 	for
	San
	Diego
	Unified
School
	District;
	Madalyn
	J.
	Frazzini,
	Attorney 	for
	California
School
	Employees
	Association,
	Chapter
	600.
Before
	Gluck,
	Chairperson; 	Jaeger
	and 	Moore, 	Members.
DECISION
The
	San 	Diego
	Unified
	School
	District
	(hereafter
	District)
excepts 	to
	a
	hearing
	officer's
	determination
	that
	a
	unit
consisting
	only 	of 	hourly
	bus
	drivers
	is
	appropriate
	for
collective
	bargaining.
	The 	Board
	finds 	the 	proposed
	unit 	to
	be
inappropriate
	and
	denies 	the
	petition 	filed
	by
	the
	California
School
	Employees
	Association,
	Chapter
	600
	(hereafter
	CSEA).
FACTS	
FACTS
In 	1977,
	the 	Educational
	Employment 	Re Boa
ions	rd 	Board
(hereafter	
1	
EERB)
	established
	a
	classified 	operations-support
1Prior to January 1, 1978, the Public Employment 	EmploymentRe lati
tions
	Board 	was
	called 	the 	Educational
	Employment 	Re
Board. 
to
	y
	1, 	1978, 	the
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
}
----·---------'~------>
SAN
	DIEGO
	UNIFIED
	SCHOOL
	DISTRICT,
Employer ,
and
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL E
EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION,
	CHAPTER
	6
Employee
	Organizatio
Case
	No. 	LA-R-167
PERB
	Decision
	No.
June
	25,
Appearances: Ralph D. Stern, Attorney for San Diego Unified
School District; Madalyn J. Frazzini, Attorney for California
School Employees Association, Chapter 600.
Before Gluck, Chairperson; Jaeger and Moore, Members.
DECISION
The San Diego Unified School District (hereafter District)
excepts to a hearing officer's determination that a unit
consisting only of hourly bus drivers is appropriate for
collective bargaining. The Board finds the proposed unit to be
inappropriate and denies the petition filed by the California
School Employees Association, Chapter 600 (hereafter CSEA) .
In 1977, the Educational Employment Relations
(hereafter EERB) I established a classified operations-support
Re 	ons Board was called the Educational Employment Relations
Board.

unit 	in 	the 	District 	which 	included, 	"maintenance, 	warehousing,
and 	transportation 	employees; 	food 	service 	employees; 	building
services 	employees." 	Part-time 	hourly 	bus 	drivers 	were
excluded 	from 	the 	unit.2
On 	January 	10, 	1980, 	CSEA 	filed 	a 	request 	for 	recognition
with 	the 	District, 	seeking 	to 	represent 	the 	"temporary, 	hourly
pupil 	transportation 	department 	drivers." 	The 	employer,
doubting 	the 	appropriateness 	of 	the 	unit, 	denied 	the 	request,
and 	the 	matter 	was 	adjudicated 	by 	an 	agent 	of 	the 	Public
Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(hereafter 	PERB 	or 	Board).
There 	are 	five 	separate 	classifications 	of 	bus 	drivers 	in
the 	District: 	the 	monthly 	type 	I 	and 	II, 	substitute 	hourly,
temporary 	hourly, 	and 	trainee. 	The 	latter 	three 	groups
comprise 	the 	unit 	that 	CSEA now 	seeks 	to 	represent. 	All 	of 	the
drivers 	work 	at 	the 	same 	location, 	receive 	the 	same 	training,
are 	under 	the 	same 	line 	of 	supervision, 	except 	the 	trainees,
and 	perform 	the 	same 	function, 	transporting 	pupils 	in 	buses 	and
vans. 	All 	drivers 	are 	paid 	at 	the 	same 	rate, 	with 	the 	hourly
drivers 	receiving 	a 	percentage 	of 	the 	full-time 	pay. 	About
one-half 	of 	the 	monthly 	drivers 	are 	promoted 	from 	the 	ranks 	of
2san 	Diego 	Unified 	School 	District 	(2/18/77) 	EERB
Decision 	No. 	8. 	This 	decision 	defined 	the 	unit 	as 	that
described 	in 	the 	petitions 	filed 	by 	the 	Classified 	Employees
Association and Service Employees International Union. Both	Association 	and 	Service 	Employees 	International 	Union. 	Both
petitions 	excluded 	the 	drivers 	covered 	by 	the 	instant 	petition.
2
unit in the District which included, "maintenance, warehousing,
and transportation employees; food service employees; building
services employees. " Part-time hourly bus drivers were
excluded from the unit. 2
On January 10, 1980, CSEA filed a request for recognition
with the District, seeking to represent the "temporary, hourly
pupil transportation department drivers. " The employer,
doubting the appropriateness of the unit, denied the request,
and the matter was adjudicated by an agent of the Public
Employment Relations Board (hereafter PERB or Board) .
There are five separate classifications of bus drivers in
the District: the monthly type I and II, substitute hourly,
temporary hourly, and trainee. The latter three groups
comprise the unit that CSEA now seeks to represent. All of the
drivers work at the same location, receive the same training,
are under the same line of supervision, except the trainees,
and perform the same function, transporting pupils in buses and
vans . 	All drivers are paid at the same rate, with the hourly
drivers receiving a percentage of the full-time pay. About
one-half of the monthly drivers are promoted from the ranks of
2San Diego Unified School District (2/18/77) EERB
Decision No. 8. This decision defined the unit as that
described in the petitions filed by the Classified Employees
petitions excluded the drivers covered by the instant petition.
2

the 	hourly
	drivers.
	The
	hourly
	drivers
	receive
	no
	fringe
benefits,
	sick 	leave,
	or
	vacation.
DISCUSSION
In
	contesting
	the
	appropriateness
	of
	a
	separate
	unit 	of
hourly
	bus
	drivers,
	the
	District
	argues
	that
	PERB
	must
	consider
the
	community
	of
	interest
	that
	the 	hourly
	drivers
	share 	with
the
	monthly
	drivers
	in 	the
	existing 	unit.
	CSEA, 	on
	the
	other
hand,
	argues
	that
	our 	Arcadia 	Unified
	School
	District
	decision
(5/17/79,
	PERB
	Decision
	No. 	93)
	restricts
	the
	inquiry 	to
whether
	the
	unit 	petitioned
	for
	is
	appropriate 	standing
	alone,
without 	regard 	to
	a
	possible
	community
	of
	interest
	employees
may
	have
	with 	those 	in
	a
	pre-existing 	unit.
	In
	Arcadia,~~~,
the
	Board
	declared
	that
	it
	would
	"not
	disturb
	an
	existing 	unit
when
	its
	composition
	is
	not
	at
	issue
.
. 	. 	. 	[w]hen
	the 	only 	issue 	before 	the
	Board
is
	whether 	one
	particular
	requested
	unit
	is
appropriate,
	the
	Board 	must
	decide
	whether
that
	proposed
	unit,
	standing
	on
	its
	own,
meets
	the
	statutory
	criteria
	for
	an
appropriate 	unit
	for
	bargaining."
(pp. 	12-13)
.
The
	facts 	in 	Arcadia, 	supra,
	differ
	from
	the 	case 	before
	us
now. 	At
	issue 	there
	was
	the 	placement sel	
counselors,
psychologists, 	nurses,
	and
	speech
	and
	reading
	specialists
	who
had 	been 	excluded
	from
	the
	certificated 	unit
	by 	a
	voluntary
recognition.
	Wh ilee
	precedent 	indicated
	a
	preference 	for
including 	pupil 	support 	service 	personnel 	in 	teachers'
3
the hourly drivers. The hourly drivers receive no fringe
benefits, sick leave, or vacation.
DISCUSSION
In contesting the appropriateness of a separate unit of
hourly bus drivers, the District argues that PERB must consider
the community of interest that the hourly drivers share with
the monthly drivers in the existing unit. CSEA, on the other
hand, argues that our Arcadia Unified School District decision
(5/17/79, PERB Decision No. 93) restricts the inquiry to
whether the unit petitioned for is appropriate standing alone,
without regard to a possible community of interest employees
may have with those in a pre-existing unit. In Arcadia, supra,
the Board declared that it would "not disturb an existing unit
when its composition is not at issue.
. [w]hen the only issue before the Board
is whether one particular requested unit is
appropriate, the Board must decide whether
that proposed unit, standing on its own,
meets the statutory criteria for an
appropriate unit for bargaining. "
(pp. 12-13) .
The facts in Arcadia, supra, differ from the case before us
now. 	At issue there was the placement of coun 	ors,
psychologists, nurses, and speech and reading specialists who
had been excluded from the certificated unit by a voluntary
recognition. 	Wh 	precedent indicated a preference for
including pupil support service personnel in teachers'
W

units,3 	under 	the 	unique 	circumstances 	presented 	by 	the 	case,
the 	Board 	found 	that 	those 	employees 	could 	comprise 	a 	separate
appropriate 	unit. 	Unlike 	the 	hourly 	bus 	drivers, 	the 	pupil
support 	personnel 	constituted 	an 	occupation 	distinct 	from
teachers 	and 	performed 	different 	functions 	in 	the 	employer
operations. 	In 	short, 	Arcadia 	does 	not 	require 	the 	Board 	to
determine 	a 	unit 	without 	regard 	to 	relevant 	information 	as 	to
the 	unit's 	appropriateness.
More 	recently 	in 	Pleasanton/Amador 	( 6-25-81) 	PERB 	Decision
No. 16169, we 	noted:
It 	is 	not 	suggested 	here 	that 	the 	Board 	can
or 	will 	accommodate 	the 	interests 	of 	every
nonrepresented 	group 	of 	school 	employees.
Where 	and 	under 	what 	conditions 	the 	Board
will 	or 	will 	not 	grant 	additional 	units,
small 	or 	otherwise, 	is 	best 	left 	to
case-by-case 	determination.4
The 	facts 	of 	this 	case 	justify 	denying 	the 	petition.
First 	and 	perhaps 	most 	importantly, 	the 	hourly 	bus 	drivers
perform 	the 	same 	work 	as 	the 	monthly 	drivers. 	Both 	have
virtually 	identical 	conditions 	of 	employment. IrrIrrespective 	of
3Los 	Angeles 	Unified 	School 	District 	(11/24/76) 	EERB
Decision 	No. 	5: 	Grossmont 	Union 	High 	School 	District 	(3/9/ 	)
EERB 	Decision 	No. 	11; 	Oakland 	Unified 	School 	District 	(3/28/77)
EERB 	Decision 	No. 	15.
4rn 	Pleasanton-Amador s supra, 	the 	Board 	ranted 	a 	unit 	of
psychologists 	who 	were 	or 	inally 	excluded 	rom 	the 	unit
pursuant 	to 	the 	Distr 	t 1 lly exclud
s 	assertion 	that 	ists 	psycho 	ists
were 	manageri ememployees. 	Unlike the drivers here,	Unlike 	ivers 	here,
psychologists 	constituted 	a 	distinct 	occupation, 	none 	of 	whom
were 	in 	the 	preexisting 	unit.
·
4
units, under the unique circumstances presented by the case,
the Board found that those employees could comprise a separate
appropriate unit. Unlike the hourly bus drivers, the pupil
support personnel constituted an occupation distinct from
teachers and performed different functions in the employer
operations. In short, Arcadia does not require the Board to
determine a unit without regard to relevant information as to
the unit's appropriateness.
More recently in Pleasanton/ Amador ( 6-25-81 ) PERB Decision
No. 	9, we noted:
It is not suggested here that the Board can
or will accommodate the interests of every
nonrepresented group of school employees.
Where and under what conditions the Board
will or will not grant additional units,
small or otherwise, is best left to
case-by-case determination. 4
The facts of this case justify denying the petition.
First and perhaps most importantly, the hourly bus drivers
perform the same work as the monthly drivers. Both have
virtually identical conditions of employment. 	espective of
3Los Angeles Unified School District (11/24/76) EERB
Decision No. 5; Grossmont Union High School District (3/9/77)
EERB Decision No. 11; Oakland Unified School District (3/28/77)
EERB Decision No. 15.
4In Pleasanton-Amador, 	upra, the Board granted a unit of
psychologists who were origina 	ed from the unit
pursuant to the District's assertion that the psycholog
were managerial 	ployees.
psychologists constituted a distinct occupation, none of whom
were in the preexisting unit.

their
	differences
	in
	job
	titles,
	they
	are 	in
	the
	same
occupation.
	The
	hourly
	drivers'
	community
	of
	interest
	with
	the
monthly
	drivers
	in 	the
	overall
	operations
	unit
	is
	indisputable.
That
	the
	hourly
	drivers 	also
	have
	a 	community
	of
	interest
among
	themselves
	need
	not
	be
	disproved
	but
	that
	does
	not
	end
the 	inquiry 	into 	appropriateness 	of
	a
	unit.
	Every
classification
	possesses
	a 	community
	of
	interest
	among
	its
members.
	Janitors,
	undisputedly,
	have
	more
	in
	common
	with
other
	janitors
	than 	they
	do
	with
	gardeners,
	but
	we
	have
	yet 	to
find
	a
	separate 	unit 	of
	only
	janitors
	appropriate,
	absent
unusual
	circumstances.
	The
	Educational
	Employment
	Relations
Act5	
requires
	that 	this
	Board
	consider,
	inter
	alia,
	the
effect
	of
	its
	determination
	on
	the
	efficient
	operations 	of 	the
employer.
5Government 	Code
	section
	3540
	et
	seq.
Section
	3545(a)
	states:
In 	each
	case
	where
	the 	appropriateness 	ofthe
	unit 	is
	an
	issue,
	the 	board
	shall
	decide
the 	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
	suchemployees 	belong
	to 	the
	same 	employee
organization,
	and
	the
	effect
	of 	the
	size 	ofthe 	unit	
on	
the
	efficient
	operation 	of 	the
school
	distr 	t.
5
their differences in job titles, they are in the same
occupation. The hourly drivers' community of interest with the
monthly drivers in the overall operations unit is indisputable.
That the hourly drivers also have a community of interest
among themselves need not be disproved but that does not end
the inquiry into appropriateness of a unit. Every
classification possesses a community of interest among its
members. Janitors, undisputedly, have more in common with
other janitors than they do with gardeners, but we have yet to
find a separate unit of only janitors appropriate, absent
unusual circumstances. The Educational Employment Relations
Act requires that this Board consider, inter alia, the
effect of its determination on the efficient operations of the
employer .
5Government Code section 3540 et seq.
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

An
	overly
	fragmented
	work
	force
	would
	detrimentally
	affect
the 	employer's
	operations
	as
	we
	stated
	in
	Sweetwater
	Union 	High
School
	District
	(11/23/76)
	EERB
	Decision
	No.
	4,
	p.
	11:
It
	is
	a
	legitimate
	concern
	that
	excessivefragmentation 	of
	negotiating 	units
	may
burden
	an
	employer
	with
	multiple 	negotiatingprocesses
	and
	postures
	and
	with
	a
	variety
	of
negotiated
	agreements
	difficult
	toadminister
	because
	their
	provisions
	differ.
Interorganization
	competition
	may
	increase
demands 	made 	upon
	the
	employer
	by
	an
employee
	organization.
	The
	employer
	may
have
	to 	give 	the
	benefits
	of
	the
	"best"
settlement
	in
	each
	area 	of 	negotiations
	to
all
	employees
	to
	avoid
	employee
	unrest 	orthe
	administrative
	inconvenience 	caused
	by
multiple
	agreements.
To
	allow
	the 	hourly
	drivers
	a
	separate
	unit
	would
	split
what
	is
	essentially
	a
	single
	work
	classification
	into
	two
representation 	units.
	The
	employer
	would 	be
	placed 	in 	the
position
	of
	negotiating
	over 	employees 	doing
	the
	same
	work,
	not
only 	in
	two
	different 	units,
	but
	poss
	ly
	with
	two
	different
representatives.
	This
	presents
	a
	potential
	for
	"whipsawing"
the
	employer
	by
	competing
	organizations 	or 	for 	the
	filing
	of
unfair 	practice
	charges
	against
	an 	employer
	who
	seeks
	a
	single
set	
of	
employee 	s	
both
	g
	rs. 	In
addit
	,
	attempting 	to
	manage
	employees 	doi 	the
	same 	work
under
	different 	sets 	of 	personnel
	programs
	presents
	a
	burden
	on
management 	which
	is
	Board
	finds 	unacceptable.
6
An overly fragmented work force would detrimentally affect
the employer's operations as we stated in Sweetwater Union High
School District (11/23/76) EERB Decision No. 4, p. 11:
It is a legitimate concern that excessive
fragmentation of negotiating units may
burden an employer with multiple negotiating
processes and postures and with a variety of
negotiated agreements difficult to
administer because their provisions differ.
Interorganization competition may increase
demands made upon the employer by an
employee organization. The employer may
have to give the benefits of the "best"
settlement in each area of negotiations to
all employees to avoid employee unrest or
the administrative inconvenience caused by
multiple agreements.
To allow the hourly drivers a separate unit would split
what is essentially a single work classification into two
representation units. The employer would be placed in the
position of negotiating over employees doing the same work, not
only in two different units, but possibly with two different
representatives. This presents a potential for "whipsawing"
the employer by competing organizations or for the filing of
unfair practice charges against an employer who seeks a single
set of employee policies for both groups of drivers. In
addition, attempting to manage employees doing the same work
under different sets of personnel programs presents a burden on
management which this Board finds unacceptable.
6

Accordingly,
	the
	petition 	is
	DENIED.
By :	
Harry
	G
uck,
	Chairperson	
Jo~.
	Jaeger,
	Member
Barbara
	D.
	Moore,
	concurring:
I
	join
	in 	the
	majority's
	decision
	with
	one
	exception.
	I 	do
not 	agree 	with 	the
	view
	that
	Arcadia, 	supra,
	may
	be
distinguished
	on
	the
	basis
	that
	the
	instant
	case 	involves
splitting
	an
	occupational
	grouping.
	See
	my
	dissent
	in
Pleasanton-Amador,
	PERB
	Decision
	No.
	169, 	issued
	this
	date 	for
a
	discussion
	of
	my
	views
	on
	this
	issue.
Barbara
	D.
	Moore
7
Accordingly, the petition is DENIED.
Harry Gluck, Chairperson 	John W. Jaeger , Member
Barbara D. Moore, concurring:
I join in the majority's decision with one exception. I do
not agree with the view that Arcadia, supra, may be
distinguished on the basis that the instant case involves
splitting an occupational grouping. See my dissent in
Pleasanton-Amador , PERB Decision No. 169, issued this date for
a discussion of my views on this issue.
Barbara D. Moore
7

PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
OF 	THE
	STATE
	OF
	CALIFORNIA
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
___________________
)
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SAN
	DIEGO
	UNIFIED
	SCHOOL
	DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
CALIFORNIA
	SCHOOL
	EMPLOYEES,
ASSOCIATION,
	CHAPTER
	600,
Employee
	Organization.
Representation
Case
	No. 	LA-R-167X
PROPOSED
	DECISION
(11/ 4/80)
Appearances:	
Ralph
	D.
	Stern,
	Attorney 	for
	San
	Diego
	Unified
School
	District;
	Michael
	Heumann,
	for
	California
	School
Employees
	Association,
	Chapter 	600.
Before
	Irene
	Cordoba,
	Hearing
	Officer.
PROCEDURAL
	HISTORY
On
	January
	10,
	1980, 	the
	California
	School
	Employees
Association
	and
	its
	San 	Diego
	Unified 	Chapter
	600
	(hereafter
Association
	or
	CSEA)
	filed
	a
	request
	with
	the
	San 	Diego
	Unified
School
	District
	(hereafter
	District)
	for 	recognition
	as
	the
exclusive 	:representative	
of	
"temporary, 	hourly
	pupil
transportation
	department
	drivers".
	No
	other
	employee
organization 	intervened.
	On
	February
	25,
	1980
	the
	District
filed
	a
	Denial	
of	
Recognition 	with 	the 	Public	
Employment
Relations	
Board	
(hereafter
	PERB
	or 	Board), 	doubting 	the
appropriateness 	of 	the 	proposed	
unit.
An	
attempt 	to 	reach 	voluntary 	settlement
	was 	made	
at
	an
informal 	conference 	held	
on March
	31, 	1980.	
The	
attempt
	was
unsuccessful 	and 	a 	formal 	hearing
	was 	conducted 	on
-·
SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Representation
Employer , 	Case No. LA-R-167X
and
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ,
ASSOCIATION, CHAPTER 600,
PROPOSED DECISION
(11/4/80)
Employee Organization.
Appearances: Ralph D. Stern, Attorney for San Diego Unified
School District; Michael Heumann, for California School
Employees Association, Chapter 600.
Before Irene Cordoba, Hearing Officer.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On January 10, 1980, the California School Employees
Association and its San Diego Unified Chapter 600 (hereafter
Association or CSEA) filed a request with the San Diego Unified
School District (hereafter District) for recognition as the
exclusive representative of "temporary, hourly pupil
transportation department drivers". No other employee
organization intervened. On February 25, 1980 the District
filed a Denial of Recognition with the Public Employment
Relations Board (hereafter PERB or Board) , doubting the
appropriateness of the proposed unit.
An attempt to reach voluntary settlement was made at an
informal conference held on March 31, 1980. The attempt was
unsuccessful and a formal hearing was conducted on

May 	29, 	1980. 	The 	parties 	jointly 	requested 	an 	extension 	of
time 	in 	which 	to 	file 	briefs. 	Final 	briefs 	were 	filed 	on
October 	3, 	1980.
ISSUE
Whether 	a 	unit 	of 	temporary 	hourly 	pupil 	transportation
department 	bus 	drivers 	is 	an 	appropriate 	unit 	for 	meeting 	and
negotiating 	under 	the 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Actl.
FINDINGS 	OF FACT
In 	1979 	the 	District 	had 	a 	total 	K-12 	enrollment 	of 	112,309
students. 	There 	are 	194 	educational 	facilities 	including 	120
elementary, 	19 	junior 	high 	and 	13 	senior 	high 	schools. 	The
District 	is 	budgeted 	for 	3,515 	classified 	positions.
At 	the 	hearing 	the 	parties 	stipulated 	that 	CSEA 	is 	an
employee 	organization 	within 	the 	meaning 	of 	section 	3540.l(d)
and 	the 	District 	is 	an 	employer 	within 	the 	meaning 	of 	section
3540.l(k). 	They 	also 	stipulated 	that 	the 	District 	is 	not 	a
merit 	system 	employer, 	within 	the 	meaning 	established 	by
Article 	5, 	Chapter 	3 of 	Division 	10 	of 	the 	Education 	Code.
Official 	notice 	was 	taken 	of 	the 	Board's 	decision 	in
San 	Diego 	Unified 	School 	District2 	which 	established
appropriate 	bargaining 	units 	for 	certain 	classified 	employees
1Government 	Code 	section 	3540 	et 	seq. 	All 	future
references 	are 	to 	the 	Government 	Code 	unless 	otherwise
indicated.
2san 	Diego 	Unified 	School 	District 	(2/18/77) 	EERB
Decision 	No. 	8. 2
May 29, 1980. The parties jointly requested an extension of
time in which to file briefs. Final briefs were filed on
October 3, 1980.
ISSUE
Whether a unit of temporary hourly pupil transportation
department bus drivers is an appropriate unit for meeting and
negotiating under the Educational Employment Relations Actl.
FINDINGS OF FACT
In 1979 the District had a total K-12 enrollment of 112,309
students. There are 194 educational facilities including 120
elementary, 19 junior high and 13 senior high schools. The
District is budgeted for 3,515 classified positions.
At the hearing the parties stipulated that CSEA is an
employee organization within the meaning of section 3540.1(d)
and the District is an employer within the meaning of section
3540.1 (k) . They also stipulated that the District is not a
merit system employer, within the meaning established by
Article 5, Chapter 3 of Division 10 of the Education Code.
Official notice was taken of the Board's decision in
San Diego Unified School District? which established
appropriate bargaining units for certain classified employees
Government Code section 3540 et seq. All future
references are to the Government Code unless otherwise
indicated.
2san Diego Unified School District (2/18/77) EERB
Decision No. 8. 2

of 	the 	District. 	Specifically, 	the 	Board 	established 	an
office-technical 	and 	business 	services 	unit, 	currently
represented 	by 	the 	Classified 	Employees 	Association 	and 	an
operations-support 	unit, 	currently 	represented 	by 	the 	Service
Employees 	International 	Union, 	Local 	102, 	{hereafter 	SEIU).
The 	operations 	support 	unit 	includes 	all 	permanent 	monthly
paid 	bus 	drivers 	in 	the 	District. 	SEIU was 	noticed 	of 	all
proceedings 	in 	this 	case 	but 	did 	not 	appear.
The 	District 	employs 	a 	total 	of 	375 	bus 	drivers. 	Of 	these
34 	are 	classified 	monthly 	drivers 	and 	341 	are 	hourly 	paid
drivers. 	Eighty-five 	percent 	of 	all 	drivers 	are 	employed 	in
two 	district 	programs; 	the 	voluntary 	integration program 	and
the 	state 	master 	plan 	for 	special 	education. 	Both 	monthly 	and
hourly 	drivers 	are 	used 	without 	distinction 	in 	these 	programs.
The 	state 	mandated 	licensing 	requirements 	as 	well 	as 	the
training 	requirements 	are 	the 	same 	for 	all 	bus 	drivers. 	All
but 	five 	of 	the 	bus 	drivers 	work 	out 	of 	the 	bus 	yard 	in 	the
transportation 	department. 	The 	remaining 	five 	are 	assigned 	to
school 	sites.
Promotion 	from 	hourly 	to monthly 	driver 	is 	not 	automatic.
When 	monthly 	positions 	open, 	hourly 	drivers 	must 	compete
against 	any 	other 	qualified 	candidates. 	Approximately 	half
the 	monthly 	bus 	drivers 	now 	employed 	by 	the 	District 	were
formerly 	hourly 	drivers.
3
of the District. Specifically, the Board established an
office-technical and business services unit, currently
represented by the Classified Employees Association and an
operations-support unit, currently represented by the Service
Employees International Union, Local 102, (hereafter SEIU) .
The operations support unit includes all permanent monthly
paid bus drivers in the District. SEIU was noticed of all
proceedings in this case but did not appear.
The District employs a total of 375 bus drivers. Of these
34 are classified monthly drivers and 341 are hourly paid
drivers. Eighty-five percent of all drivers are employed in
two district programs; the voluntary integration program and
the state master plan for special education. Both monthly and
hourly drivers are used without distinction in these programs.
The state mandated licensing requirements as well as the
training requirements are the same for all bus drivers. All
but five of the bus drivers work out of the bus yard in the
transportation department. The remaining five are assigned to
school sites.
Promotion from hourly to monthly driver is not automatic.
When monthly positions open, hourly drivers must compete
against any other qualified candidates. Approximately half
the monthly bus drivers now employed by the District were
formerly hourly drivers.
W

During 	the 	course 	of 	their 	work, 	all 	bus 	drivers 	have
contact 	with 	students, 	teachers 	and 	parents. 	In 	addition,
drivers 	interact 	with 	each 	other 	and 	with 	other 	employees 	in
the 	transportation 	department. 	Several 	transportation
employees 	are 	included 	in 	the 	operations-support 	unit; 	others
are 	in 	the 	office-technical 	and 	business 	services 	unit.
Classified 	monthly 	drivers 	are 	divided 	into 	two
classifications, 	type 	1 	and 	type 	2 drivers. 	Type 	l 	drivers
handle 	large 	buses, 	holding 	24-79 	passengers, 	and 	usually
transport 	pupils, 	teachers 	and 	staff 	on 	field 	trips 	or 	on
other 	assigned 	routes. 	Type 	2 drivers 	normally 	use 	smaller
vehicles 	to 	transport 	physically 	and 	mentally 	retarded
children 	to 	and 	from 	school.
To 	qualify 	for 	their 	position, 	in 	addition 	to 	the
necessary 	license, 	all 	monthly 	drivers 	must 	have 	one 	year
prior 	commercial 	driving 	experience. 	Most 	monthly 	drivers 	work
a 	standard 	8 	or 	6 	hour 	day. 	They 	are 	all 	on 	the 	same 	salary
schedule 	and 	receive 	health 	and 	welfare 	benefits 	as 	outlined
in 	the 	negotiated 	agreement 	between 	SEIU 	and 	the 	District.
Monthly 	drivers 	have 	three 	levels 	of 	supervision 	within 	the
transportation 	department. 	There 	are 	five 	bus 	operations
supervisors, 	each 	in 	charge 	of 	a 	number 	of 	monthly 	and 	hourly
drivers. 	The 	bus 	operations 	supervisors 	report 	to 	the 	pupil
transportation 	supervisor 	who 	in 	turn 	reports 	to 	the
transportation 	services 	director. 	Promotions 	for 	monthly
drivers 	are 	governed 	by 	the 	District's 	merit 	system 	rules 	for
classified 	employees.
4
During the course of their work, all bus drivers have
contact with students, teachers and parents. In addition,
drivers interact with each other and with other employees in
the transportation department. Several transportation
employees are included in the operations-support unit; others
are in the office-technical and business services unit.
Classified monthly drivers are divided into two
classifications, type 1 and type 2 drivers. Type 1 drivers
handle large buses, holding 24-79 passengers, and usually
transport pupils, teachers and staff on field trips or on
other assigned routes. Type 2 drivers normally use smaller
vehicles to transport physically and mentally retarded
children to and from school.
To qualify for their position, in addition to the
necessary license, all monthly drivers must have one year
prior commercial driving experience. Most monthly drivers work
a standard 8 or 6 hour day. They are all on the same salary
schedule and receive health and welfare benefits as outlined
in the negotiated agreement between SEIU and the District.
Monthly drivers have three levels of supervision within the
transportation department. There are five bus operations
supervisors, each in charge of a number of monthly and hourly
drivers. The bus operations supervisors report to the pupil
transportation supervisor who in turn reports to the
transportation services director. Promotions for monthly
drivers are governed by the District's merit system rules for
classified employees.

There 	are 	three 	hourly 	bus 	driver 	classifications;
substitute 	hourly, 	temporary 	hourly 	and 	trainee 	hourly. 	The
District 	employs 	21 	substitute 	hourly 	drivers. 	These 	drivers
may 	be 	used 	to 	replace 	monthly 	or 	other 	hourly 	drivers, 	in 	any
of 	the 	district 	programs. 	Substitute 	drivers 	must 	meet 	the
same 	training 	and 	experience 	requirements 	as 	monthly 	bus
drivers. 	Substitutes 	are 	typically 	given 	a 	five 	to 	seven 	hour
shift 	assignment. 	Their 	salary 	is 	an 	hourly 	rate 	based 	on 	the
"A" 	step 	rate 	for 	monthly 	drivers. 	They 	have 	the 	same 	line 	of
supervision 	as 	monthly 	drivers. 	Substitutes 	do 	not 	receive
health 	or 	welfare 	benefits 	and 	are 	not 	covered 	by 	the
District's 	merit 	system 	rules 	for 	purposes 	of 	retention 	and
promotion.
The 	District 	employs 	288 	temporary 	hourly 	drivers. 	These	These
drivers 	operate 	type 	I 	or 	type 	II 	school 	buses. 	Their 	primary
function 	is 	to 	transport 	pupils 	to 	and 	from 	school 	under 	the
District's 	voluntary 	integration 	program. 	Applicants 	for
these 	positions 	must 	be 	currently 	enrolled 	college 	students
carrying 	six 	or 	more 	units 	of 	college 	courses. 	Temporary
drivers 	must 	meet 	the 	same 	training 	and 	certificate
requirements 	as 	monthly 	and 	substitute 	drivers, 	but 	do 	not
need 	any 	prior 	on-the-road 	experience. 	Temporary 	drivers
typically 	have 	a 	2 	to 	6 	hour 	shift 	assignment. 	They 	are 	paid
80 	percent 	of 	the 	substitute 	driver 	rate 	and 	have 	the 	same
line 	of 	supervision 	as 	monthly 	and 	substitute 	drivers.
Temporary 	drivers 	do 	not 	receive 	health 	or 	welfare 	benefits
5
There are three hourly bus driver classifications;
substitute hourly, temporary hourly and trainee hourly. The
District employs 21 substitute hourly drivers. These drivers
may be used to replace monthly or other hourly drivers, in any
of the district programs. Substitute drivers must meet the
same training and experience requirements as monthly bus
drivers. 	Substitutes are typically given a five to seven hour
shift assignment. Their salary is an hourly rate based on the
"A" step rate for monthly drivers. They have the same line of
supervision as monthly drivers. Substitutes do not receive
health or welfare benefits and are not covered by the
District's merit system rules for purposes of retention and
promotion.
The District employs 288 temporary hourly drivers.
drivers operate type I or type II school buses. Their primary
function is to transport pupils to and from school under the
District's voluntary integration program. Applicants for
these positions must be currently enrolled college students
carrying six or more units of college courses. Temporary
drivers must meet the same training and certificate
requirements as monthly and substitute drivers, but do not
need any prior on-the-road experience. Temporary drivers
typically have a 2 to 6 hour shift assignment. They are paid
80 percent of the substitute driver rate and have the same
line of supervision as monthly and substitute drivers.
Temporary drivers do not receive health or welfare benefits
5

and
	are
	not 	covered
	by
	the
	District's
	merit
	system
	rules
	for
purposes
	of
	retention
	and
	promotion.
The
	District
	employs
	34
	trainee
	hourly
	drivers.
	These
drivers
	are
	pursuing
	a
	course
	of 	study 	in 	order 	to
	qualify 	for
a
	California
	School
	Bus
	Driver
	Certificate.
	After 	gaining
	the
certificate
	they
	may
	be 	employed
	as
	either
	monthly
	or 	hourly
bus
	drivers.
	The
	training
	course
	entails
	62
	hours
	total,
	20
hours
	on
	the
	road
	and 	42
	hours
	in 	the 	classroom.
	Training
schedules 	are
	often
	set
	up
	at
	the
	convenience
	of
	the
	trainee.
Typically,
	trainees
	are
	on
	the
	road
	for
	about
	4
	hours
	during
the 	day,
	and
	have
	class
	in 	the 	evenings. 	Trainees 	earn 	about
50
	percent 	of 	the 	hourly
	rate
	paid
	substitute
	bus
	drivers,
	and
have
	a
	line
	of 	supervision
	different
	from
	other
	drivers.
	They
report
	first
	to
	one
	of 	four
	driver
	instructors,	
all	
of
	whom
report 	to 	the
	transportation 	safety
	and
	training
	supervisor
who
	in 	turn 	reports 	to 	the
	transportation 	services
	director.
Trainees
	do
	not
	receive 	health
	or 	welfare
	benefits
	and
	are 	not
covered
	by
	the
	District's
	merit
	system
	rules.
Testimony
	regarding 	other 	hourly
	compensated 	employees
revealed
	no	
similarity	
among 	them	
or
	between
	them and
	hourly
bus
	drivers.
CONCLUSIONS OF
	LAW
The	
Association 	contends
	a
	unit 	of	
all
	hourly 	bus	
drivers
is 	appropriate.
The
	District
	argues 	the 	requested 	unit 	is 	inappropriate
because 	(1)
	the 	Board 	has
	historically
	included
	all
	bus
	drivers
6
and are not covered by the District's merit system rules for
purposes of retention and promotion.
The District employs 34 trainee hourly drivers. These
drivers are pursuing a course of study in order to qualify for
a California School Bus Driver Certificate. After gaining the
certificate they may be employed as either monthly or hourly
bus drivers. The training course entails 62 hours total, 20
hours on the road and 42 hours in the classroom. Training
schedules are often set up at the convenience of the trainee.
Typically, trainees are on the road for about 4 hours during
the day, and have class in the evenings. Trainees earn about
50 percent of the hourly rate paid substitute bus drivers, and
have a line of supervision different from other drivers. They
report first to one of four driver instructors, all of whom
report to the transportation safety and training supervisor
who in turn reports to the transportation services director.
Trainees do not receive health or welfare benefits and are not
covered by the District's merit system rules.
Testimony regarding other hourly compensated employees
revealed no similarity among them or between them and hourly
bus drivers.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Association contends a unit of all hourly bus drivers
is appropriate.
The District argues the requested unit is inappropriate
because (1) the Board has historically included all bus drivers

in 	an 	operations-support 	services 	unit,3 	and 	(2) 	the 	Board
has 	already 	established 	an 	operations-support 	services 	unit,
including 	classified 	monthly 	bus 	drivers 	in 	the 	District. 	See
San 	Diego, 	supra.
The 	District's 	position 	fails 	to 	recognize 	the 	difference
in 	circumstances 	which 	distinguish 	this 	case 	from 	those 	cited
by 	the 	District. 	Classified 	units 	were 	not 	in 	place 	in 	early
decisions 	where 	the 	Board 	included 	bus 	drivers 	in
operations-support 	units. 	In 	the 	case 	at 	issue, 	classified
units 	have 	been 	in 	existence 	since 	1977. 	In 	dealing 	with
situations 	where 	established 	units 	could 	arguably 	include
subsequently 	requested 	classifications, 	the 	Board 	has 	stated
that 	it 	will 	not, 	on 	its 	own 	motion, 	disturb 	a 	unit 	in 	place.
Arcadia 	Unified 	School 	District 	(5/17/79) 	PERB 	Decision 	No. 	93
p.	p. 	12. 	Therefore, 	in 	the 	absence 	of 	a 	request 	for 	unit
modification,4 	the 	question 	of 	including 	hourly 	bus 	drivers
in 	the 	operations-support 	services 	unit 	cannot 	be 	considered
here.
The 	Board 	has 	also 	made 	it 	clear 	that 	a 	unit 	need 	not 	be
the 	most 	appropriate 	unit 	in 	order 	to 	be 	an 	appropriate 	unit
3see: 	Sweetwater 	Union 	High 	School 	District 	(11/23/76)
EERB 	Decision 	No. 	4 and 	Fremont 	Unified 	School 	District
(12/16/76) 	EERB 	Decision 	No. 	6.
4under 	PERB 	Regulations, 	California 	Administrative 	Code,
title 	8, 	section 	33261, 	only 	a 	recognized 	or 	certified 	emp!oyee
organization may 	file 	a 	petition 	to 	add 	classes 	to 	an
established 	unit. 	(Emphasis 	added.)
7
in an operations-support services unit, and (2) the Board
has already established an operations-support services unit,
including classified monthly bus drivers in the District. See
San Diego, supra.
The District's position fails to recognize the difference
in circumstances which distinguish this case from those cited
by the District. Classified units were not in place in early
decisions where the Board included bus drivers in
operations-support units. In the case at issue, classified
units have been in existence since 1977. In dealing with
situations where established units could arguably include
subsequently requested classifications, the Board has stated
that it will not, on its own motion, disturb a unit in place.
Arcadia Unified School District (5/17/79) PERB Decision No. 93
12. Therefore, in the absence of a request for unit
modification, 4 the question of including hourly bus drivers
in the operations-support services unit cannot be considered
here.
The Board has also made it clear that a unit need not be
the most appropriate unit in order to be an appropriate unit
3See: Sweetwater Union High School District (11/23/76)
EERB Decision No. 4 and Fremont Unified School District
(12/16/76) EERB Decision No. 6
4Under PERB Regulations, California Administrative Code,
title 8, section 33261, only a recognized or certified employee
organization may file a petition to add classes to an
established unit. 	(Emphasis added . )
7

for
	meeting
	and
	negotiating.5	
In 	Palo Alto 	Unified
School/Jefferson
	Union 	High
	School
	District
	(1/9/79)
	PERB
Decision
	No.
	84,
	a
	separate 	unit
	of
	substitute
	teachers
	was
found
	to
	be
	appropriate
	where
	the
	Board
	had
	previously
indicated
	substitutes
	should
	be
	included 	in
	a
	unit
	with
	regular
full-time
	teachers.6	
The
	Board
	chose
	not
	to
	apply
	a
	previous
precedent
	where
	such
	application"
..•
	would
	clearly
	carry
	with
it
	potential
	for
	disruption."
	See
	Palo
	Alto/Jefferson, 	supra,
p. 	8.
In 	Arcadia,
	supra,
	a
	separate 	unit
	of 	pupil
	support
services
	personnel
	was
	found
	to
	be
	appropriate 	in 	the 	face
	of
	a
long
	standing
	Board
	policy 	including
	such 	employees
	in
	an
overall 	unit
	of 	classroom
	teachers?.
	In
	so 	doing
	the
	Board
said
	11
•••
	the
	fact 	that
	the
	majority 	has, 	in 	previous
decisions,
	found 	an
	overall
	certificated
	unit 	appropriate
	does
not 	preclude 	the
	Board 	from
	finding
	a
	separate 	unit
	of
non-instructional
	certificated
	employees
	appropriate
	under
	the
circumstances 	of
	this
	case."
5see 	Antioch 	Unified
	School
	District
	{11/7/77)
EERB
	Decision
	No.
	37.
6see
	Peralta
	Community
	College
	District
78)
	PERB
	Decision
	No. 	77.(11/17/78) P
7see
	Los
	Angeles 	Unified 	School
	District
	(11/24/76)
	EERB
Decision
	No. 	5; 	Grossmont 	union
	High 	School
	District
	(3/9/77)
EERB
	Decis
	No. 	11~ 	OaKland
	Unified 	School 	D1str1ct 	(3/
	77)
EERB
	Decision
	No.
	15; 	Pleasanton 	Joint
	Elementary 	School
Dist
strict
	{9/1 	77)
	EERB
	Decision
	No. 	24;
	Placer
	Union 	High
School District	
District
	(9/12/77)
	EERB
	Decision
	No. 	25; 	Washington
Unified 	School
	District
	(9/14/77)
	EERB
	Decision
	No. 	27;
Paramount 	Unified 	School
	District
	(10/7/77)
	EERB
	DecisionNo. 	3 	•
8
for meeting and negotiating. In Palo Alto Unified
School/Jefferson Union High School District (1/9/79) PERB
Decision No. 84, a separate unit of substitute teachers was
found to be appropriate where the Board had previously
indicated substitutes should be included in a unit with regular
full-time teachers. The Board chose not to apply a previous
precedent where such application ". .. would clearly carry with
it potential for disruption." See Palo Alto/Jefferson, supra,
P. 8.
In Arcadia, supra, a separate unit of pupil support
services personnel was found to be appropriate in the face of a
long standing Board policy including such employees in an
overall unit of classroom teachers . In so doing the Board
said ". . 	. the fact that the majority has, in previous
decisions, found an overall certificated unit appropriate does
not preclude the Board from finding a separate unit of
non-instructional certificated employees appropriate under the
circumstances of this case."
See Antioch Unified School District (11/7/77)
EERB Decision No. 37.
6See Peralta Community College District
ERB Decision No. 77.
7See Los Angeles Unified School District (11/24/76) EERB
Decision No. 5; Grossmont Union High School District (3/9/77)
EERB Decision No. I1; Oakland Unified School District (3/28/77)
EERB Decision No. 15; Pleasanton Joint Elementary School
rict (9/12/77) EERB Decision No. 24; Placer Union High
(9/12/77) EERB Decision No. 25; Washington
Unified School District (9/14/77) EERB Decision No. 27;
Paramount Unified School District (10/7/77) EERB Decision
No. 33.
CO

As 	in Palo 	Alto/Jefferson 	and 	Arcadia, 	the 	only 	real 	issue
in 	this 	case 	is 	whether 	the 	proposed 	unit, 	standing 	by 	itself,
meets 	the 	statutory 	criteria 	for 	an 	appropriate 	unit.
Government 	Code 	section 	3545(a) 	provides:
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.
In 	its 	brief 	the 	District 	contends 	that 	finding 	a 	unit 	of
hourly 	bus 	drivers 	appropriate 	would 	lead 	to 	a 	proliferation 	of
small 	fragmented 	units 	having 	an 	adverse 	affect 	on 	the
efficiency 	of 	operations. 	The 	District's 	argument 	is
unsubstantiated 	by 	the 	record8 	and 	therefore 	does 	not 	bar
finding 	a 	unit 	of 	hourly 	bus 	drivers 	to 	be 	appropriate. 	All
other 	evidence 	presented 	by 	the 	parties 	was 	directed 	toward 	the
community 	of 	interest 	criteria.
The 	Board 	in 	several 	early 	decisions9 	has 	defined 	the
factors 	used 	to 	determine 	community 	of 	interest, 	these
include: 	qualifications, 	training 	and 	skills, 	job 	functions,
8 	In 	addition 	to 	the 	two 	classified 	units 	established 	in
San 	Diego, 	supra, 	the 	District 	has 	a 	unit 	of 	security
officers. 	There are no other petitions for District employees	There 	are 	no 	other 	petitions 	for 	District 	employees
pending 	at 	this 	time 	and 	any 	future 	request 	would 	be 	considered
on 	its 	own 	merit.
9see 	Sweetwater, 	supra 	at 	footnote 	3, 	Los 	Angeles 	Unified
School 	District 	(11/24/76) 	EERB 	Decision 	No. 	5, 	Santa 	Clara
County 	Superintendent 	of 	Schools 	(7/19/78) 	PERB 	Decision No. 	59.
officers.
9
As in Palo Alto/Jefferson and Arcadia, the only real issue
in this case is whether the proposed unit, standing by itself,
meets the statutory criteria for an appropriate unit.
Government Code section 3545 (a) provides:
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.
In its brief the District contends that finding a unit of
hourly bus drivers appropriate would lead to a proliferation of
small fragmented units having an adverse affect on the
efficiency of operations. The District's argument is
unsubstantiated by the record and therefore does not bar
finding a unit of hourly bus drivers to be appropriate. All
other evidence presented by the parties was directed toward the
community of interest criteria.
The Board in several early decisions" has defined the
factors used to determine community of interest, these
include: qualifications, training and skills, job functions,
8 In addition to the two classified units established in
San Diego, supra, the District has a unit of security
pending at this time and any future request would be considered
on its own merit.
9See Sweetwater, supra at footnote 3, Los Angeles Unified
School District (11/24/76) EERB Decision No. 5, Santa Clara
County Superintendent of Schools (7/19/78) PERB Decision No. 59.

compensation, 	hours 	of 	work, 	fringe 	benefits, 	supervision, 	and
frequency 	of 	contact 	with 	other 	employees.
Applying 	these 	factors 	to 	the 	facts 	in 	this 	case 	it 	is
evident 	that 	hourly 	bus 	drivers 	display 	a 	community 	of
interest. 	Employees 	in 	all 	three 	hourly 	classifications 	have
the 	same 	skills 	and 	must 	meet 	the 	same 	licensing 	and 	training
requirements. 	They 	perform 	the 	same 	basic 	function, 	that 	of
providing 	transportation 	for 	school 	children. 	They 	work 	out 	of
the 	same 	location 	and 	have 	contact 	with 	the 	same 	employees.
Due 	to 	the 	nature 	of 	their 	work, 	their 	hours 	vary~ 	however,
their 	rates 	of 	compensation 	are 	all 	related. 	They 	receive 	no
fringe 	benefits 	and, 	with 	the 	exception 	of 	the 	trainees, 	their
line 	of 	supervision 	is 	the 	same.
Based 	on 	all 	of 	the 	above 	and 	considering 	the 	record 	as 	a
whole, 	it 	is 	clear 	that 	hourly 	bus 	drivers 	possess 	a 	community
of 	interest.
PROPOSED ORDER
It 	is 	the 	proposed 	order 	that 	the 	following 	unit 	is
appropriate 	for 	the 	purpose 	of 	meeting 	and 	negotiating,
provided 	an 	employee 	organization 	becomes 	the 	exclusive
representative:
All 	temporary, 	hourly 	pupil 	transportation
department 	bus 	drivers 	including: 	Bus
Driver 	(Hourly), 	Bus 	Driver 	(Substitute
Hourly) 	and 	Bus 	Driver 	Trainee.
Pursuant 	to 	California 	Administrative 	Code, 	title 	8, 	part
III, 	section 	32305, 	this 	Proposed 	Decision 	and 	Order 	shall
become 	final 	on 	November 	24, 	1980 	unless a party files a	unless 	a 	party 	files 	a
10
compensation, hours of work, fringe benefits, supervision, and
frequency of contact with other employees.
Applying these factors to the facts in this case it is
evident that hourly bus drivers display a community of
interest. Employees in all three hourly classifications have
the same skills and must meet the same licensing and training
requirements. They perform the same basic function, that of
providing transportation for school children. They work out of
the same location and have contact with the same employees.
Due to the nature of their work, their hours vary; however,
their rates of compensation are all related. They receive no
fringe benefits and, with the exception of the trainees, their
line of supervision is the same.
Based on all of the above and considering the record as a
whole, it is clear that hourly bus drivers possess a community
of interest.
PROPOSED ORDER
It is the proposed order that the following unit is
appropriate for the purpose of meeting and negotiating,
provided an employee organization becomes the exclusive
representative:
All temporary, hourly pupil transportation
department bus drivers including: Bus
Driver (Hourly) , Bus Driver (Substitute
Hourly) and Bus Driver Trainee.
Pursuant to California Administrative Code, title 8, part
III, section 32305, this Proposed Decision and Order shall
become final on November 24, 1980
10

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 	November
	24,
	1980
	in 	order
	to
be
	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
in
	a
	unit 	of
	hourly
	bus
	drivers
	as
	herein 	described 	unless 	the
employer
	grants 	voluntary 	recognition.
	Voluntary
	recognition
requires
	proof 	of 	majority 	support 	in
	all
	cases.
	See
Government 	Code
	sections
	3444
	and
	3544.1.
DATED: November 4, 1980
Irene
	H.
	Cordoba
Hearing
	Officer
11
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 November 24, 1980 	in order to
be 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
in a unit of hourly bus drivers as herein described unless the
employer grants voluntary recognition. Voluntary recognition
requires proof of majority support in all cases. See
Government Code sections 3444 and 3544.1.
DATED:
Irene H. Cordoba
Hearing Officer
11
November
	4,
	1980