Unit Determination - California State University and Colleges (Nonprofessional) (PERB 0176H)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
In the Matter of 	Case No. LA-PC-1001
LA-PC-1002
Unit Determination for Employees 	LA-PC-1003
of the California State University 	LA-RR-1004
and Colleges Pursuant to Chapter 744 	LA-RR-1005
of the Statutes of 1978 (Higher
Education Employer-Employee Relations 	PERB Decision No. 176-H
Act) .
November 17, 1981
Appearances: Patrick Hallahan, Paul Nawrocki and Carol Winston
for College and University Service Employees, SEIU, AFL-CIO;
Thomas E. Rankin, Attorney, and Fred Lowe for State Employees
Trades Council, Local 1268, LIUNA, AFL-CIO; John D. Mickus,
Robert W. Feinstein and Christine A. Bologna, Attorneys for
California State Employees Association; Henry R. Fenton and
Carol A. Robertson, Attorneys (Levy & Goldman) for
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 501; and
Jaffe D. Dickerson and Barbara E. Miller, Attorneys for
California State University and Colleges.
Before Gluck, Chairperson; Jaeger, Moore and Tovar, Members.
I.
INTRODUCTION
The Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act
(hereafter HEERA or Act) 1 became effective July 1, 1979 as a
result of legislation enacted by the California Legislature in
1978. The legislation granted jurisdiction over the HEERA to
the Public Employment Relations Board (hereafter PERB or
1The HEERA is codified at Government Code section 3560
et seq. All statutory references hereafter are to the
Government Code unless otherwise indicated.
STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
In 	the 	Matter 	of
Unit 	Determination 	for 	Employees
of 	the 	California 	State 	University
and 	Colleges 	Pursuant 	to 	Chapter 	744
of 	the 	Statutes 	of 	1978 	(Higher
Education 	Employer-Employee 	Relations
Act).
)
}
)
)
)
)
)
)
______________________ )
Case 	No. 	LA-PC-1001
LA-PC-1002
LA-PC-1003
LA-RR-1004
LA-RR-1005
PERB 	Decision 	No. 	176-H
November 	17, 	1981
~pearances: 	Patrick 	Hallahan, 	Paul 	Nawrocki 	and 	Carol Winston
for 	College 	and 	University 	Service 	Employees, 	SEIU, 	AFL-CIO;
Thomas 	E. 	Rankin, 	Attorney, 	and 	Fred 	Lowe 	for 	State 	Employees
Trades 	Council, 	Local 	1268, 	LIUNA, 	AFL-CIO; 	John 	D. 	Mickus,
Robert 	W. 	Feinstein 	and 	Christine A. 	Bologna, 	Attorneys 	for
California 	State 	Employees 	Association; 	Henry 	R. 	Fenton 	and
Carol A. 	Robertson, 	Attorneys 	(Levy 	& Goldman) 	for
International 	Union 	of 	Operating 	Engineers, 	Local 	501; 	and
Jaffe 	D. 	Dickerson 	and 	Barbara E. 	Miller, 	Attorneys 	for
California 	State 	University 	and 	Colleges.
Before 	Gluck, 	Chairperson; 	Jaeger, 	Moore 	and 	Tovar, 	Members.
I.
INTRODUCTION
The 	Higher 	Education 	Employer-Employee 	Relations 	Act
(hereafter 	HEERA or 	Act)l 	became 	effective 	July 	1, 	1979 	as 	a
result 	of 	legislation 	enacted 	by 	the 	California 	Legislature 	in
1978. 	The 	legislation 	granted 	jurisdiction 	over 	the 	HEERA 	to
the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(hereafter 	PERB 	or
lThe 	HEERA 	is 	codified 	at 	Government 	Code 	section 	3560
et 	seq. 	All 	statutory 	references 	hereafter 	are 	to 	the
Government 	Code 	unless 	otherwise 	indicated.

Board) . Its terms extend the opportunity for collective
negotiations to, among others, the California State University
and Colleges (hereafter CSUC) and CSUC's employees. 2 As an
initial step in the representational process, PERB has
authority to determine the appropriate representational units
for employees of CSUC. 3
Pursuant to rules and regulations adopted by the Board, 4
various employee organizations filed petitions with the Board
describing the units they believed to be appropriate. Parties
to the instant case then participated in a unit determination
hearing conducted by a PERB hearing officer who thereafter
transmitted the entire record along with her recommendations to
the Board itself for decision.
Based on the evidence and the briefs submitted by the
parties, as well as the hearing officer's recommendations, the
Board has determined that the following units are appropriate:
Unit 5 - Operations-Support Services
Unit 6 - Skilled Crafts
2In addition to providing for exclusive representation of
employees in appropriate units by employee organizations, HEERA
also makes it unlawful for the employer or the employee
organization to commit certain acts, requires the employer and
the exclusive representative to meet and confer in good faith
and endeavor to reach an agreement on matters within the scope
of representation.
3Subsection 3563 (a) .
4PERB rules and regulations regarding HEERA are codified at
California Administrative Code section 50000 et seq.
2
Board). 	Its 	terms 	extend 	the 	opportunity 	for 	collective
negotiations 	to, 	among 	others, 	the 	California 	State 	University
and 	Colleges 	(hereafter 	CSUC) 	and 	CSUC's 	employees.2 	As 	an
initial 	step 	in 	the 	representational 	process, 	PERB 	has
authority 	to 	determine 	the 	appropriate 	representational 	units
for 	employees 	of 	csuc.3
Pursuant 	to 	rules 	and 	regulations 	adopted 	by 	the 	Boara,4
various 	employee 	organizations 	filed 	petitions 	with 	the 	Board
describing 	the 	units 	they 	believed 	to 	be 	appropriate. 	Parties
to 	the 	instant 	case 	then 	participated 	in 	a 	unit 	determination
hearing 	conducted 	by 	a 	PERB 	hearing 	officer 	who 	thereafter
transmitted 	the 	entire 	record 	along 	with 	her 	recommendations 	to
the 	Board 	itself 	for 	decision.
Based 	on 	the 	evidence 	and 	the 	briefs 	submitted 	by 	the
parties, 	as 	well 	as 	the 	hearing 	officer's 	recommendations, 	the
Board 	has 	determined 	that 	the 	following 	units 	are 	appropriate:
Unit 	5 	- 	Operations-Support 	Services
Unit 	6 	- 	Skilled 	Crafts
2rn 	addition 	to 	providing 	for 	exclusive 	representation 	of
employees 	in 	appropriate 	units 	by 	employee 	organizations, 	HEERA
also 	makes 	it 	unlawful 	for 	the 	employer 	or 	the 	employee
organization 	to 	commit 	certain 	acts, 	requires 	the 	employer 	and
the 	exclusive 	representative 	to 	meet 	and 	confer 	in 	good 	faith
and 	endeavor 	to 	reach 	an 	agreement 	on 	matters 	within 	the 	scope
of 	representation.
3subsection 	3563(a).
4PERB 	rules 	and 	regulations 	regarding 	HEERA 	are 	codified 	at
California Administrative 	Code 	section 	50000 	et 	seq.
2

The specific composition of these units is discussed infra in
Part III of this decision.
Exclusionary issues were raised by the parties with respect
to alleged supervisory and/or managerial status of several
classifications.5 We have considered the contentions raised
by the parties in this regard and, except for the
classifications specifically addressed and excluded by us,
infra, have determined, upon review of the record and the
hearing officer's discussion, that the disputed classifications
were properly included in one or the other of the respective
units.
II.
UNIT CRITERIA
The Legislature mandated that the Board consider various
criteria in determining an appropriate unit of employees for
purposes of meeting and conferring under provisions of the
HEERA. Those criteria are set forth in section 3579 of the Act
which, in pertinent part, provides:
In each case where the appropriateness
of a unit is an issue, in determining an
appropriate unit, the board shall take into
consideration all of the following criteria:
The classifications to which the employer attributes
supervisory and/or managerial status are the following:
supervising groundsworker I, supervising carpenter, supervising
painter, supervising electrician, supervising plumber,
supervising materials fabrication specialist, supervising
refrigeration mechanic, chief engineer I and chief engineer II.
w
The 	specific 	composition 	of 	these 	units 	is 	discussed 	infra 	in
Part 	III 	of 	this 	decision.
Exclusionary 	issues 	were 	raised 	by 	the 	parties 	with 	respect
to 	alleged 	supervisory 	and/or 	managerial 	status 	of 	several
classifications.5 	We 	have 	considered 	the 	contentions 	raised
by 	the 	parties 	in 	this 	regard 	and, 	except 	for 	the
classifications 	specifically 	addressed 	and 	excluded 	by 	us,
infra, 	have 	determined, 	upon 	review 	of 	the 	record 	and 	the
hearing 	officer's 	discussion, 	that 	the 	disputed 	classifications
were 	properly 	included 	in 	one 	or 	the 	other 	of 	the 	respective
units.
II.
UNIT 	CRITERIA
The 	Legislature 	mandated 	that 	the 	Board 	consider 	various
criteria 	in 	determining 	an 	appropriate 	unit 	of 	employees 	for
purposes 	of 	meeting 	and 	conferring 	under 	provisions 	of 	the
HEERA. 	Those 	criteria 	are 	set 	forth 	in 	section 	3579 	of 	the 	Act
which, 	in 	pertinent 	part, 	provides:
(a) 	In 	each 	case 	where 	the 	appropriateness
of 	a 	unit 	is 	an 	issue, 	in 	determining 	an
appropriate 	unit, 	the 	board 	shall 	take 	into
consideration 	all 	of 	the 	following 	criteria:
5The 	classifications 	to 	which 	the 	employer 	attributes
supervisory 	and/or 	managerial 	status 	are 	the 	following:
supervising 	groundsworker 	I, 	supervising 	carpenter, 	supervising
painter, 	supervising 	electrician, 	supervising 	plumber,
supervising 	materials 	fabrication 	specialist, 	supervising
refrigeration 	mechanic, 	chief 	engineer 	I 	and 	chief 	engineer 	II.
3

(1) The internal and occupational
community of interest among the
employees, including, but not limited
to, the extent to which they perform
functionally related services or work
toward established common goals, the
history of employee representation with
the employer, the extent to which such
employees belong to the same employee
organization, the extent to which the
employees have common skills, working
conditions, job duties, or similar
educational or training requirements,
and the extent to which the employees
have common supervision.
(2) The effect that the projected unit
will have on the meet and confer
relationships, emphasizing the
availability and authority of employer
representatives to deal effectively
with employee organizations
representing the unit, and taking into
account such factors as work location,
the numerical size of the unit, the
relationship of the unit to
organizational patterns of the higher
education employer, and the effect on
the existing classification structure
or existing classification schematic of
dividing a single class or single
classification schematic among two or
more units.
(3) The effect of the proposed unit on
efficient operations of the employer
and the compatibility of the unit with
the responsibility of the higher
education employer and its employees to
serve students and the public.
(4) The number of employees and
classifications in a proposed unit, and
its effect on the operations of the
employer, on the objectives of
providing the employees the right to
effective representation, and on the
meet and confer relationship.
(5) The impact on the meet and confer
relationship created by fragmentation
(1) 	The 	internal 	and 	occupational
community 	of 	interest 	among 	the
employees, 	including, 	but 	not 	limited
to, 	the 	extent 	to 	which 	they 	perform
functionally 	related 	services 	or 	work
toward 	established 	common 	goals, 	the
history 	of 	employee 	representation 	with
the 	employer, 	the 	extent 	to 	which 	such
employees 	belong 	to 	the 	same 	employee
organization, 	the 	extent 	to 	which 	the
employees 	have 	common 	skills, 	working
conditions, 	job duties, 	or 	similar
educational 	or 	training 	requirements,
and 	the 	extent 	to 	which 	the 	employees
have 	common 	supervision.
(2) 	The 	effect 	that 	the 	projected 	unit
will 	have 	on 	the 	meet 	and 	confer
relationships, 	emphasizing 	the
availability 	and 	authority 	of 	employer
representatives 	to 	deal 	effectively
with 	employee 	organizations
representing 	the 	unit, 	and 	taking 	into
account 	such 	factors 	as 	work 	location,
the 	numerical 	size 	of 	the 	unit, 	the
relationship 	of 	the 	unit 	to
organizational patterns 	of 	the 	higher
education 	employer, 	and 	the 	effect 	on
the 	existing 	classification 	structure
or 	existing 	classification 	schematic 	of
dividing 	a 	single 	class 	or 	single
classification 	schematic 	among 	two 	or
more 	units.
(3) 	The 	effect 	of 	the 	proposed 	unit 	on
efficient 	operations 	of 	the 	employer
and 	the 	compatibility of 	the 	unit 	with
the 	responsibility 	of 	the 	higher
education 	employer 	and 	its 	employees 	to
serve 	students 	and 	the 	public.
(4) 	The 	number 	of 	employees 	and
classifications 	in 	a 	proposed 	unit, 	and
its 	effect 	on 	the 	operations 	of 	the
employer, 	on 	the 	objectives 	of
providing 	the 	employees 	the 	right 	to
effective 	representation, 	and 	on 	the
meet 	and 	confer 	relationship.
(5) 	The 	impact 	on 	the 	meet 	and 	confer
relationship 	created 	by 	fragmentation
4

of employee groups or any proliferation of
units among the employees of the employer.
(b) There shall be a presumption that
professional employees and nonprofessional
employees shall not be included in the same
representation unit. However, the
presumption shall be rebuttable, depending
upon what the evidence pertinent to the
criteria set forth in subdivision (a)
establishes.
(c) There shall be a presumption that all
employees within an occupational group or
groups shall be included within a single
representation unit. However, the
presumption shall be rebutted if there is a
preponderance of evidence that a single
representation unit is inconsistent with the
criteria set forth in subdivision (a) or the
purposes of this chapter.
) Notwithstanding the foregoing
provisions of this section, or any other
provision of law, an appropriate group of
skilled crafts employees shall have the
right to be a single, separate unit of
representation. Skilled crafts employees
shall include, but not necessarily be
limited to, employment categories such as
carpenters, plumbers, electricians,
painters, and operating engineers. 	The
single unit of representation shall include
not less than all skilled crafts employees
at a campus or at a Lawrence Laboratory.
In structuring units of CSUC employees, we have examined
this statutory directive and have sought to place employees
with an internal and occupational community of interest in an
appropriate unit. We have considered the effect various unit
configurations would have on the meet and confer relationships
in terms of both the employer's interest in efficient operation
of the educational system and in terms of the employees'
5
of 	employee 	groups 	or 	any 	proliferation 	of
units 	among 	the 	employees 	of 	the 	employer.
(b) 	There 	shall 	be 	a 	presumption 	that
professional 	employees 	and 	nonprofessional
employees 	shall 	not 	be 	included 	in 	the 	same
representation 	unit. 	However, 	the
presumption 	shall 	be 	rebuttable, 	depending
upon 	what 	the 	evidence 	pertinent 	to 	the
criteria 	set 	forth 	in 	subdivision 	(a)
establishes.
(c) 	There 	shall 	be 	a 	presumption 	that 	all
employees 	within 	an 	occupational 	group 	or
groups 	shall 	be 	included 	within 	a 	single
representation 	unit. 	However, 	the
presumption 	shall 	be 	rebutted 	if 	there 	is 	a
preponderance 	of 	evidence 	that 	a 	single
representation 	unit 	is 	inconsistent 	with 	the
criteria 	set 	forth 	in 	subdivision 	(a) 	or 	the
purposes 	of 	this 	chapter.
(d) 	Notwithstanding 	the 	foregoing
provisions 	of 	this 	section, 	or 	any 	other
provision 	of 	law, 	an 	appropriate 	group 	of
skilled 	crafts 	employees 	shall 	have 	the
right 	to 	be 	a 	single, 	separate 	unit 	of
representation. 	Skilled 	crafts 	employees
shall 	include, 	but 	not 	necessarily 	be
limited 	to, 	employment 	categories 	such 	as
carpenters, 	plumbers, 	electricians,
painters, 	and 	operating 	engineers. 	The
single 	unit 	of 	representation 	shall 	include
not 	less 	than 	all 	skilled 	crafts 	employees
at 	a 	campus 	or 	at 	a 	Lawrence 	Laboratory.
In 	structuring 	units 	of 	CSUC 	employees, 	we 	have 	examined
this 	statutory 	directive 	and 	have 	sought 	to 	place 	employees
with 	an 	internal 	and 	occupational 	community 	of 	interest 	in 	an
appropriate 	unit. 	We 	have 	considered 	the 	effect 	various 	unit
configurations 	would 	have 	on 	the 	meet 	and 	confer 	relationships
in 	terms 	of 	both 	the 	employer's 	interest 	in 	efficient 	operation
of 	the 	educational 	system 	and 	in 	terms 	of 	the 	employees'
5

interests in effective representation. While each statutory
criterion was considered in light of the evidence before the
Board, we stress, as we did in the unit determination decision
rendered for state employees under the State Employer-Employee
Relations act (hereafter SEERA) , 6
. that such unit determination criteria
cannot be reviewed in isolation from one
another ; indeed, there is substantial
interplay among the various criteria.
Therefore, all of the factors involved in a
given situation must be balanced against one
another. The result of any such balancing
process is that in a particular factual
setting some criteria are emphasized over
others while in a different setting the
weight given the same criteria may be
altered.
Subsection 3579 (c) sets forth a rebuttable presumption that
all employees within an "occupational group or groups" are to
be included within a single representation unit. Since
"occupational group" is nowhere defined in the Act, we
attribute to those words their common meaning. In giving
effect to subsection 3579 (c) , therefore, our judgments result
from a review of the entire evidentiary record. We note in
this regard that the employer organizes its personnel according
to a system whereby each employment classification is assigned
6In Re: Unit Determination for the State of California
(11/7/79) PERB Decision No. I10-S.
interests
	in
	effective
	representation.
	While
	each
	statutory
criterion
	was
	considered 	in
	light
	of
	the
	evidence
	before 	the
Board,
	we
	stress,
	as
	we
	did
	in
	the
	unit
	determination
	decision
rendered 	for
	state
	employees 	under
	the
	State
	Employer-Employee
Relations
	act 	(hereafter
	SEERA)
,6
..•
	that
	such
	unit
	determination
	criteria
cannot
	be
	reviewed
	in
	isolation
	from 	one
another;
	indeed,
	there
	is 	substantialinterplay
	among
	the
	various
	criteria.
Therefore,
	all
	of 	the
	factors
	involved
	in
	a
given
	situation
	must
	be
	balanced
	against
	one
another.
	The
	result
	of
	any
	such
	balancing
process
	is
	that
	in
	a
	particular 	factual
setting
	some
	criteria
	are
	emphasized 	over
others
	while 	in
	a
	different 	setting
	the
weight 	given 	the
	same
	criteria
	may 	be
altered.
Subsection
	3579(c)
	sets 	forth
	a
	rebuttable
	presumption
	that
all
	employees
	within
	an
	"occupational
	group
	or 	groups"
	are 	to
be
	included 	within
	a
	single 	representation 	unit.
	Since
"occupational
	group"
	is
	nowhere
	defined 	in 	the 	Act,
	we
attribute
	to
	those
	words
	their
	common
	meaning.
	In 	giving
effect
	to	
subsection 	3579(c),
	therefore,
	our 	judgments
	result
from 	a
	review
	of 	the
	entire 	evidentiary 	record.
	We
	note 	in
this
	regard
	that
	the
	employer
	organizes
	its
	personnel 	according
to
	a
	system
	whereby 	each 	employment
	classification 	is
	assigned
6rn
	Re:
	Unit 	Determination 	for 	the 	State 	of 	California(11/7/79)
	PERB
	Dec1s1on 	No.
	IlO-S.
6

an "Occupational Index Reference" number and placed in an
occupational grouping. The Act, however, contains no reference
to this system; nor is there any other indication that the
Legislature intended a reference to the employer's Occupational
Index schematic in employing the "occupational group" language
which appears in subsection 3579 (c) . Thus, while we found this
system to be a useful tool for the purpose of our own
discussions, we do not view it as definitive of the
"occupational group" language of subsection 3579 (c) .
The Board has also considered and addressed herein various
exclusionary issues based on the alleged managerial or
supervisory status of certain classifications. 7
Managerial employee is defined in subsection 3562 (1) , which
reads :
"Managerial employee" means any employee
having significant responsibilities for
formulating or administering policies and
programs. No employee or group of employees
shall be deemed to be managerial employees
solely because the employee or group of
employees participate in decisions with
respect to courses, curriculum, personnel
and other matters of educational policy.
department chair or head of a similar
academic unit or program who performs the
foregoing duties primarily on behalf of the
members of the academic unit or program
shall not be deemed a managerial employee
solely because of such duties.
7Managerial employees are excluded from coverage under
the Act in subsection 3562 (f) . Supervisory employees have
limited rights as set forth in section 3580 et seq.
an
	"Occupational
	Index
	Reference"
	number 	and
	placed
	in
	an
occupational
	grouping.
	The
	Act,
	however,
	contains
	no
	reference
to
	this
	system;
	nor
	is
	there
	any
	other 	indication
	that
	the
Legislature
	intended
	a
	reference 	to
	the 	employer's 	Occupational
Index
	schematic
	in
	employing
	the
	"occupational
	group" 	language
which
	appears 	in
	subsection
	3579(c).
	Thus,
	while
	we
	found
	this
system
	to
	be 	a
	useful 	tool
	for
	the 	purpose
	of
	our
	own
discussions,
	we
	do
	not
	view
	it
	as
	definitive
	of 	the
"occupational
	group" 	language 	of
	subsection
	3579(c).
The
	Board 	has
	also
	considered
	and
	addressed
	herein 	various
exclusionary 	issues
	based
	on
	the
	alleged
	managerial
	or
supervisory
	status
	of
	certain 	classifications.7
Managerial
	employee
	is
	defined 	in 	subsection
	3562(1),
	which
reads:
11
Managerial
	employee
11
	means 	any 	employee
having
	significant 	responsibilities
	for
formulating 	or 	administering
	policies
	and
programs.
	No
	employee
	or
	group
	of
	employees
shall
	be 	deemed
	to
	be
	managerial
	employees
solely
	because 	the
	employee
	or
	group 	ofemployees
	participate
	in 	decisions
	with
respect
	to 	courses, 	curriculum, 	personnel
and
	other 	matters 	of 	educational policy.
	A
department
	chair
	or 	head
	of
	a
	similar
academic
	unit
	or
	program
	who
	performs 	theforegoing
	duties 	primarily
	on
	behalf 	of 	the
members
	of 	the
	academic
	unit
	or 	program
shall
	not
	be 	deemed 	a
	managerial
	employee
solely
	because 	of
	such
	duties.
7Managerial employees
	are 	excluded
	from
	coverage 	under
the 	Act
	in 	subsection 	3562(£). 	Supervisory 	employees 	have
limited 	rights
	as
	set 	forth 	in 	section
	3580
	et
	seq.
7

Subsection 3580.3 of the Act defines supervisory employees
as follows :
'Supervisory employee" means any individual,
regardless of the job description or title,
having authority, in the interest of the
employer to hire, transfer, suspend, lay
off, recall, promote, discharge, assign,
reward, or discipline other employees, or
responsibility to direct them, or to adjust
their grievances, or effectively to
recommend such action, if, in connection
with the foregoing, the exercise of such
authority is not of a merely routine or
clerical nature, but requires the use of
independent judgment. With respect to
faculty or academic employees, any
department chair, head of a similar academic
unit or program, or other employee who
performs the foregoing duties primarily in
the interest of and on behalf of the members
of the academic department, unit or program,
shall not be deemed a supervisory employee
solely because of such duties; provided,
that with respect to the University of
California and Hastings College of the Law,
there shall be a rebuttable presumption that
such an individual appointed by the employer
to an indefinite term shall be deemed to be
a supervisor . 	Employees whose duties are
substantially similar to those of their
subordinates shall not be considered to be
supervisory employees.
The above-quoted statutory language essentially parallels
the definitions of managerial and supervisory employees found
in SEERA. We find no reason to depart from the Board's
conclusions regarding exclusionary issues as set forth in In
Re: Unit Determination for the State of California (12/31/80)
PERB Decision No. 110c-S. Thus, we conclude that, with respect
to the exclusionary issues raised by the parties to the instant
Co
Subsection
	3580.3
	of 	the
	Act
	defines
	supervisory
	employees
as
	follows:
"Supervisory
	employee"
	means 	any
	individual,regardless
	of 	the 	job
	description
	or
	title,
having
	authority,
	in 	the
	interest
	of
	the
employer
	to
	hire, 	transfer,
	suspend,
	lay
off, 	recall,
	promote,
	discharge, 	assign,
reward, 	or
	discipline
	other
	employees,
	or
responsibility
	to
	direct
	them,
	or
	to
	adjust
their
	grievances,
	or
	effectively
	to
recommend
	such
	action,
	if,
	in
	connectionwith 	the
	foregoing, 	the
	exercise
	of
	such
authority
	is
	not
	of
	a
	merely
	routine
	or
clerical
	nature,
	but
	requires
	the
	use
	ofindependent
	judgment.
	With
	respect 	to
faculty
	or
	academic 	employees,
	any
department
	chair,
	head
	of
	a
	similar
	academic
unit
	or
	program,
	or
	other
	employee
	who
performs
	the
	foregoing
	duties 	primarily
	inthe
	interest
	of
	and
	on
	behalf 	of 	the
	members
of 	the
	academic
	department,
	unit
	or
	program,
shall
	not
	be
	deemed 	a
	supervisory
	employee
solely
	because
	of
	such
	duties;
	provided,
that
	with
	respect 	to
	the
	University 	of
California
	and
	Hastings 	College 	of 	the
	Law,
there
	shall
	be 	a
	rebuttable
	presumption
	that
such
	an
	individual
	appointed
	by
	the
	employer
to
	an
	indefinite
	term
	shall
	be
	deemed
	to
	be
a
	supervisor.
	Employees 	whose
	duties
	are
substantially 	similar 	to
	those 	of
	their
subordinates	
shall
	not
	be
	considered
	to	
be
supervisory
	employees.
The
	above-quoted
	statutory
	language
	essentially 	parallels
the
	definitions
	of 	managerial
	and
	supervisory
	employees 	found
in
	SEERA.
	We
	find
	no
	reason 	to 	depart
	from
	the 	Board's
conclusions 	regarding 	exclusionary 	issues 	as
	set 	forth 	in 	In
Re:
	Unit 	Determination 	for 	the
	State 	of 	California
	(12/31/80)
PERB
	Decision
	No.
	llOc-S.
	Thus,
	we
	conclude
	that,
	with 	respect
to 	the 	exclusionary 	issues 	raised
	by
	the
	parties 	to 	the
	instant
8

case, the burden of proof rests with the party asserting the
claim that certain employees should be excluded from coverage.
We have also applied the disjunctive interpretation of the
statutory language requiring demonstration that an employee
meet only one of the specified criteria for exclusion. We
similarly reaffirm our interpretation of the language
"substantially similar" duties and the "use of independent
judgment" and, to the extent applicable to the higher education
sphere, our interpretation of the enumerated exclusionary
criteria.
Finally, the regional director has been instructed to
examine new classifications and reclassifications made by CSUC
subsequent to the close of the record in this case and to place
such classes in the appropriate units only in accordance with
this decision.
III .
UNITS
UNIT 5: OPERATIONS-SUPPORT SERVICES
The Board finds that a systemwide unit consisting of
non-craft maintenance, custodial and grounds employees of the
California State University and Colleges is appropriate. 	This
unit consists of approximately 2200 employees.
Based on the record, the Board finds that the job
classifications placed within this unit share a strong
community of interest. Specifically, the Board finds a
9
case,
	the
	burden
	of
	proof
	rests
	with 	the
	party 	asserting
	the
claim
	that 	certain
	employees
	should
	be
	excluded
	from
	coverage.
We
	have
	also
	applied
	the
	disjunctive
	interpretation
	of 	the
statutory
	language
	requiring
	demonstration
	that
	an
	employee
meet
	only
2ne
	of 	the
	specified
	criteria
	for
	exclusion.
	We
similarly
	reaffirm
	our
	interpretation
	of 	the
	language
"substantially 	similar" 	duties
	and
	the
	"use
	of
	independent
judgment
II
	and,
	to 	the
	extent 	applicable 	to
	the 	higher
	education
sphere,
	our
	interpretation
	of 	the
	enumerated
	exclusionary
criteria.
Finally,
	the
	regional
	director
	has 	been
	instructed 	to
examine
	new
	classifications
	and
	reclassifications
	made	
by	
CSUC
subsequent
	to
	the
	close 	of 	the 	record 	in
	this
	case
	and
	to 	place
such
	classes
	in 	the
	appropriate
	units
	only 	in
	accordance
	with
this
	decision.
III.
UNITS
UNIT
	5:
	OPERA'rIONS-SUPPOR"r 	SERVICES
The Board
	finds
	that
	a
	systemwide
	unit 	consisting 	of
non--craft 	maintenance,
	custodial
	and
	grounds 	employees
	of 	the
California 	State 	University
	and
	Colleges
	is 	appropriate. 	This
unit 	consists 	of 	approximately 	2200 	employees.
Based 	on
	the 	record, 	the
	Board
	finds 	that
	the 	job
classifications
	placed 	within 	this 	unit 	share
	a
	strong
community
	of 	interest. 	Specifically, 	the 	Board
	finds
	a
9

community of interest with regard to the following areas:
1. Grounds and custodial personnel consists of both
semi-skilled and unskilled workers whose tasks are
Functionally related in the accomplishment of a common
goal--the maintenance of the campus physical environment.
2. 	With one exception, each of the occupational
classifications in this unit has a common reporting line
to, and in, campus plant operations departments.
3. 	There is transferability of skills among these job
classifications as evidenced by movement and promotion of
employees.
4. 	The career paths for the custodial and grounds employees
lie primarily within plant operations departments.
In the Board's view, such commonality far outweighs
differences such as: the type, complexity and experience
required for different tools used within each classification;
the state licensing requirement for the pest control and spray
specialist (0739); or the additional skills required by the
irrigation specialist (0735) .
On the basis of the above, we conclude that an
Operations-Support Services Unit, as recommended by the hearing
officer, is appropriate. 8
The Board also notes that there is very little dispute
among the petitioners as to the appropriateness of this unit,
though we stress such harmony is not dispositive.
10
community
	of
	interest
	with 	regard
	to
	the 	following
	areas:
1.	
Grounds
	and
	custodial
	personnel
	consists
	of
	both
semi-skilled
	and
	unskilled
	workers
	whose
	tasks
	are
functionally
	related
	in 	the
	accomplishment
	of
	a 	common
goal--the
	maintenance
	of
	the
	campus
	physical
	environment.
2.	
With 	one
	exception,
	each
	of 	the 	occupational
classifications
	in
	this
	unit
	has
	a 	common
	reporting
	line
to,
	and
	in,
	campus
	plant
	operations
	departments.
3.	
There
	is 	transferability
	of
	skills
	among
	these 	job
classifications
	as 	evidenced	
by	
movement 	and
	promotion
	of
employees.
4.	
The
	career 	paths 	for 	the
	custodial
	and
	grounds 	employees
lie
	primarily 	within
	plant
	operations
	departments.
In
	the	
Board's	
view, 	such 	commonality
	far
	outweighs
differences
	such
	as:
	the 	type, 	complexity
	and
	experience
required
	for
	different
	tools
	used
	within
	each
	classification;
the
	state
	licensing
	requirement 	for 	the
	pest 	control
	and
	spray
specialist
	(0739); 	or
	the
	additional
	skills
	required
	by
	the
irrigation 	specialist
	(0735).
On
	the 	basis 	of 	the 	above,
	we
	conclude
	that
	an
Operations-Support 	Services 	Unit, 	as
	recommended 	by
	the 	hearing
officer, 	is 	appropriate.8
8The Board
	also 	notes 	that 	there 	is
	very
	little
	dispute
among
	the
	petitioners
	as 	to 	the 	appropriateness 	of
	this 	unit,
though
	we
	stress
	such 	harmony
	is
	not
	dispositive.
10

Inclusion - Unit 5
Warehouse Worker (1508)
The Board has concluded that the classification of
warehouse worker (1508) appropriately belongs in the
Operations-Support Services Unit.
There are approximately 47 incumbents within this
classification throughout the CSUC system. Of these,
approximately 24 work in plant operations departments while the
remainder work in a centralized shipping and receiving area.
Unlike the other classifications included in the
Operations-Support Services Unit, the warehouse worker normally
does not report directly to the director of plant operations.
Instead, those working in a warehouse located in the
corporation yard of plant operations departments usually report
directly to a shipping and receiving assistant in the central
receiving area.
The Board finds that neither the bifurcation of work
location nor the reporting line of the warehouse worker is a
serious impediment to the inclusion of this classification
within this unit.
As with other job classifications in the Operations-Support
Services Unit, the warehouse worker is, essentially, an
unskilled category and because of this there is opportunity for
transfer into other unskilled job classifications in this
11
Inclusion
	-
	Unit
	5
Warehouse
	Worker
	(1508)
The
	Board 	has
	concluded
	that
	the
	classification
	of
warehouse 	worker 	(1508)
	appropriately
	belongs
	in
	the
Operations-Support
	Services
	Unit.
There
	are
	approximately
	47
	incumbents
	within
	this
classification
	throughout
	the
	CSUC
	system.
	Of
	these,
approximately
	24
	work
	in
	plant
	operations
	departments 	while
	the
remainder
	work
	in
	a
	centralized
	shipping
	and
	receiving
	area.
Unlike 	the
	other
	classifications
	included 	in 	the
Operations-Support 	Services 	Unit, 	the
	warehouse 	worker
	normally
does
	not
	report
	directly
	to 	the
	director
	of
	plant 	operations.
Instead,
	those
	working
	in
	a
	warehouse
	located
	in
	the
corporation
	yard	
of	
plant
	operations
	departments
	usually
	report
directly
	to
	a
	shipping	
and	
receiving
	assistant
	in 	the
	central
receiving 	area.
The	
Board
	finds 	that
	neither 	the
	bifurcation	
of	
work
location
	nor 	the	
reporting
	line	
of	
the
	warehouse 	worker
	is
	a
serious
	impediment
	to 	the 	inclusion 	of
	this 	classification
within	
this 	unit.
As
	with 	other 	job
	classifications
	in 	the 	Operations-Support
Services 	Unit, 	the
	warehouse 	worker
	is, 	essentially,
	an
unskilled 	category
	and 	because 	of
	this 	there 	is
	opportunity 	for
transfer 	into 	other 	unskilled 	job
	classifications
	in 	this
11

unit. Employees in this class primarily perform manual labor,
involving the operation of powered and nonpowered equipment;
stock clerk functions, such as checking invoices, are only
incidental to these tasks.
Additionally, while the reporting line of the warehouse
worker is not to the director of plant operations, as it is
with the other included classifications, the warehouse worker
does perform an integral function in receiving, checking,
storing and delivering items ordered by and for the plant
operations departments. Approximately half of the incumbents
of this classification perform a vital job function for the
plant operations departments and, as such, share a significant
community of interest with those other job classifications in
the unit.
Exclusion - Unit 5
Supervising Groundsworker I (0711)
The Board has concluded that the supervising
groundsworker I (0711) is a supervisory classification and, as
such, is excluded from any unit pursuant to section 3580 of
HEERA.
There are approximately four incumbents in this
classification throughout the CSUC system. Their primary
function is to oversee the work of several crews of
groundsworkers, each of which is headed by a lead groundsworker.
12
unit.
	Employees
	in
	this
	class
	primarily
	perform
	manual
	labor,
involving 	the
	operation
	of
	powered
	and 	nonpowered
	equipment;
stock
	clerk
	functions,
	such
	as
	checking
	invoices, 	are
	only
incidental 	to
	these
	tasks.
Additionally,
	while
	the
	reporting
	line
	of 	the
	warehouse
worker
	is
	not
	to
	the
	director
	of
	plant
	operations,
	as
	it
	is
with
	the 	other 	included
	classifications,
	the
	warehouse 	worker
does 	perform
	an
	integral
	function 	in 	receiving,
	checking,
storing
	and
	delivering
	items
	ordered	
by	
and
	for 	the
	plant
operations
	departments.
	Approximately
	half
	of 	the
	incumbents
of
	this 	classification
	perform
	a
	vital
	job 	function
	for 	the
plant
	operations
	departments
	and,
	as 	such, 	share
	a
	significant
community
	of
	interest
	with
	those 	other 	job
	classifications	
in
the
	unit.
Exclusion
	-
	Unit
	5
Supervising
	Groundsworker
	I 	(0711)
The
	Board 	has 	concluded
	that
	the 	supervising
groundsworker
	I 	(0711)
	is
	a
	supervisory
	classification	
and,	
as
such,
	is
	excluded
	from 	any
	unit
	pursuant 	to 	section
	3580
	of
HEERA.
There
	are 	approximately 	four 	incumbents 	in	
this
classification
	throughout 	the
	CSUC	
system. 	Their 	primary
function
	is
	to 	oversee 	the	
work
	of 	several
	crews
	of
groundsworkers, 	each 	of
	which
	is
	headed 	by 	a
	lead 	groundsworker.
12

The Board finds that the supervising groundsworker I
exercises significant supervisory authority that is not simply
clerical or ministerial in nature. S/he completes the
performance evaluation of the four lead groundsworkers, and
reviews the evaluations they complete for the 19 employees
under them. The record reflects that s/he has the authority to
evaluate probationary employees, and that her/his
recommendations on retention or rejection are effective. S/he
can recommend that disciplinary action be taken against an
employee under her/his direction, routinely documents incidents
involving misconduct by employees in the form of a report and
recommendation submitted to personnel management and, on
occasion, calls mandatory meetings of the ground employees to
discuss complaints regarding their conduct.
Such evidence indicates to the Board a sufficient use of
independent judgment in performing supervisory functions. It
is the exercise of such independent judgment which is
indicative of supervisory status.
UNIT 6: SKILLED CRAFTS
The Board finds that a unit consisting of all skilled
craftsworkers employed by the California State University and
Colleges is appropriate. The unit consists of approximately
790 employees.
13
The
	Board
	finds
	that
	the
	supervising
	groundsworker
	I
exercises
	significant
	supervisory
	authority 	that
	is
	not 	simply
clerical
	or
	ministerial
	in
	nature.
	S/he 	completes 	the
performance
	evaluation
	of 	the
	four
	lead
	groundsworkers,
	and
reviews
	the
	evaluations
	they 	complete 	for 	the
	19
	employees
under
	them. 	The
	record
	reflects
	thats/he
	has
	the
	authority
	to
evaluate 	probationary
	employees,
	and
	that 	her/his
recommendations 	on
	retention
	or
	rejection
	are
	effective.
	S/he
can
	recommend
	that 	disciplinary
	action
	be
	taken
	against
	an
employee 	under
	her/his 	direction,
	routinely
	documents
	incidents
involving
	misconduct
	by
	employees
	in
	the
	form
	of
	a
	report
	and
recommendation
	submitted
	to
	personnel
	management
	and,
	on
occasion,
	calls
	mandatory 	meetings
	of 	the
	ground 	employees
	to
discuss
	complaints 	regarding
	their
	conduct.
Such
	evidence
	indicates 	to 	the
	Board
	a
	sufficient
	use
	of
independent
	judgment
	in
	performing
	supervisory 	functions.
	It
is
	the
	exercise
	of 	such
	independent
	judgment 	which
	is
indicative
	of 	supervisory
	status.
UNIT
	6:
	SKILLED 	CRAFTS
The Board
	finds
	that
	a
	unit 	consisting 	of
	all
	skilled
craftsworkers
	employed 	by
	the
	California 	State 	University
	and
Colleges
	is 	appropriate.
	The
	unit 	consists 	of 	approximately
790
	employees.
13

Subsection 3579 (d) , set forth in full above, provides that
an appropriate group of skilled crafts employees shall
have the right to be a single, separate unit of
representation, " and that this right exists "In] otwithstanding
the foregoing provisions of [section 3579], or any other
provision of law. . 	Two parties to the instant case filed
petitions with this Board, each of which purported to describe
such a unit of skilled crafts employees. One petition
requested a unit composed of all skilled craftsworkers employed
by CSUC throughout the 19-campus system; 9 the other advocated
the appropriateness of a unit composed of all skilled
craftsworkers employed at CSUC's Bakersfield campus. 10
Subsection 3579 (d) sets forth only one restriction in
connection with the right of skilled crafts employees to a
separate representation unit, to wit, that such a unit must
include ". 	. not less than all skilled crafts employees at a
campus. 	Inasmuch as both petitioned-for units satisfy
the section's requirements, they are both appropriate.
Nevertheless, they are mutually inconsistent; they cannot
coexist. Faced with the necessity of making a choice,
9This was petition LA-PC-1003, filed by State Employees
Trades Council, Local 1268, LIUNA, AFL-CIO.
10This was petition LA-RR-1005, filed by International
Union of Operating Engineers, Local 501, AFL-CIO.
14
Subsection 	3579(d),
	set
	forth
	in
	full
	above,
	provides
	that
ii
	•
	an
	appropriate
	group
	of
	skilled 	crafts
	employees
	shall
have
	the
	right
	to
	be
	a
	single,
	separate
	unit
	of
representation,"
	and
	that 	this 	right 	exists
	"[n]otwithstanding
the 	foregoing
	provisions 	of
.[section
	3579], 	or
	any
	other
provision
	of
	law
..
	II
	Two
	parties
	to
	the
	instant
	case
	filed
petitions
	with
	this
	Board, 	each
	of
	which
	purported 	to
	describe
such
	a
	unit
	of
	skilled 	crafts
	employees.
	One
	petition
requested
	a
	unit
	composed
	of
	all
	skilled
	craftsworkers
	employed
by
	CSUC
	throughout
	the
	19-campus
	system;9 	the
	other
	advocated
the
	appropriateness 	of
	a
	unit
	composed
	of
	all
	skilled
craftsworkers
	employed
	at
	CSUC 1 s
	Bakersfield
	campus.10
Subsection 	3579(d)
	sets
	forth
	only
	one
	restriction
	in
connection
	with
	the
	right
	of
	skilled 	crafts
	employees
	to
	a
separate 	representation
	unit,
	to
	wit,	
that	
such
	a
	unit
	must
include
	11
•••
	not
	less	
than
	all	
skilled 	crafts
	employees
	at
	a
campus.
II
	Inasmuch
	as
	both
	petitioned-for 	units
	satisfy
the	
section's
	requirements, 	they
	are
	both
	appropriate.
Nevertheless,
	they
	are
	mutually
	inconsistent;
	they 	cannot
coexist.
	Faced
	with 	the 	necessity 	of
	making 	a
	choice,
9This
	was
	petition
	LA-PC-1003,
	filed
	by
	State
	Employees
Trades 	Council, 	Local 	1268,
	LIUNA, 	AFL-CIO.
10This
	was
	petition
	LA·-RR-1005,
	filed
	by
	International
Union
	of 	Operating 	Engineers, 	Local 	501,
	AFL-CIO.
14

therefore, it is our determination that in this instance a
single, systemwide unit of CSUC's skilled crafts employees is
more appropriate than a single campus unit.
The question in the instant case is whether the 11 skilled
crafts employees at CSUC's Bakersfield campus should be
separated for purposes of collective negotiating from the body
of 790 skilled craftsworkers employed by CSUC, or whether that
body should negotiate with the employer as a single unit. In
making this determination, we are not tied to a mechanical
application of the statutory criteria which precede subsection
3579 (d), since that subsection expressly provides that the
right of skilled crafts employees to form a separate unit is
not to be limited by those criteria. Nevertheless, it remains
our responsibility to give expression to the Legislature's
intent in enacting HEERA. In this regard we note first that
the Legislature has manifestly evidenced a concern for the
effects that a multiplicity of units might have on the meet and
confer relationships: we are expressly directed by subsection
3579 (a) (2) , and again by subsection 3579 (a) (4), to consider the
numerical size of a proposed unit; subsection 3579 (a) (5)
cautions us to consider the impact of any proliferation of
units; and the presumption expressed in subsection 3579 (c)
against the splitting of occupational groups also speaks to the
Legislature's concern that a multiplicity of units should be
avoided.
15
therefore,
	it
	is
	our
	determination
	that
	in
	this
	instance
	a
single,
	systemwide
	unit
	of
	CSUC's
	skilled 	crafts
	employees
	is
more
	appropriate
	than
	a
	single
	campus
	unit.
The
	question
	in 	the
	instant
	case
	is
	whether
	the
	11
	skilled
crafts
	employees
	at
	CSUC's
	Bakersfield
	campus
	should
	be
separated
	for 	purposes
	of
	collective
	negotiating
	from
	the
	body
of
	790
	skilled
	craftsworkers
	employed 	by
	CSUC,
	or
	whether
	that
body
	should
	negotiate
	with
	the
	employer
	as
	a
	single 	unit.
	In
making
	this
	determination,
	we
	are
	not
	tied
	to
	a
	mechanical
application
	of 	the
	statutory
	criteria
	which
	precede
	subsection
3579(d),
	since 	that
	subsection 	expressly 	provides
	that
	the
right
	of
	skilled 	crafts
	employees
	to
	form 	a
	separate 	unit
	is
not
	to
	be
	limited
	by
	those
	criteria.
	Nevertheless,
	it
	remains
our
	responsibility
	to 	give 	expression 	to 	the
	Legislature's
intent
	in 	enacting
	HEERA.
	In
	this
	regard
	we
	note
	first
	that
the 	Legislature
	has
	manifestly
	evidenced
	a
	concern	
for	
the
effects 	that
	a
	multiplicity
	of
	units
	might 	have 	on
	the
	meet 	and
confer
	relationships:
	we
	are 	expressly 	directed	
by	
subsection
3579 (a)
(2),
	and
	again
	by
	subsection
	3579 (a)
	(4), 	to 	consider 	the
numerical
	size
	of
	a
	proposed
	unit; 	subsection
	3579 (a) (5)
cautions
	us
	to 	consider 	the 	impact
	of
	any
	proliferation 	of
units;
	and
	the 	presumption 	expressed 	in 	subsection
	3579(c)
against 	the
	splitting
	of 	occupational 	groups
	also
	speaks 	to 	the
Legislature's
	concern
	that
	a
	multiplicity 	of 	units 	should 	be
avoided.
15

So, too, section 3579 amply reflects a legislative concern
as to the effects that a multiplicity of units might have on
the operations of the employer: subsection 3579 (a) (3)
expresses a general concern about the effects of a proposed
unit on the employer; and subsection 3579 (a) (4) specifically
directs our attention to the relationship between the numercial
size of units and the ability of the employer to operate. The
right of CSUC's employees to effective representation is also
an express concern of the Legislature (see subsection
3579 (a) (4) ) .
Based on the evidence contained in the record, in our
judgment, a single unit composed of the 790 skilled
craftworkers employed by CSUC would result in a more
appropriate meet and confer relationship than would the instant
alternative. So, too, evidence of the employer's extensively
centralized system of administration indicates that a
systemwide unit of crafts employees would further the efficient
operations of the employer. The alternative in this instance
could adversely affect the decision-making processes of this
higher education employer in connection with its mission to
serve students and the public. We have an additional concern
that a unit of 11 employees, in a system where the authority to
make decisions affecting wages, benefits, and other terms and
condition of employment of these employees is centralized in a
systemwide administration in Long Beach, would adversely affect
16
So,
	too,
	section
	3579 	amply
	reflects
	a
	legislative
	concern
as
	to
	the
	effects 	that
	a
	multiplicity
	of
	units
	might
	have 	on
the
	operations
	of 	the
	employer:
	subsection
	3579 (a) (3)
expresses
	a
	general
	concern 	about
	the
	effects
	of
	a
	proposed
unit
	on
	the
	employer;
	and
	subsection
	3579 (a) (4)
	specifically
directs
	our
	attention
	to 	the
	relationship
	between
	the 	numercial
size
	of
	units
	and
	the
	ability
	of 	the
	employer
	to 	operate.
	The
right
	of
	CSUC's
	employees
	to
	effective
	representation
	is
	also
an	
express 	concern
	of 	the
	Legislature
	(see
	subsection
3579(a)
(4)).
Based 	on
	the
	evidence 	contained 	in 	the 	record,
	in
	our
judgment,
	a
	single 	unit
	composed
	of 	the
	790
	skilled
craftworkers
	employed
	by
	csuc 	would
	result
	in
	a 	more
appropriate
	meet 	and
	confer
	relationship
	than
	would
	the
	instant
alternative.
	So,
	too, 	evidence 	of 	the 	employer's
	extensively
centralized
	system
	of 	administration 	indicates 	that
	a
systemwide
	unit 	of
	crafts
	employees
	would
	further 	the
	efficient
operations 	of 	the 	employer.
	The
	alternative
	in
	this
	instance
could 	adversely
	affect
	the 	decision-making 	processes 	of
	this
higher 	education
	employer
	in 	connection 	with
	its
	mission
	to
serve 	students
	and
	the 	public.
	We
	have 	an
	additional
	concern
that
	a
	unit 	of
	11
	employees,
	in
	a
	system 	where
	the
	authority 	to
make
	decisions 	affecting
	wages,
	benefits,
	and
	other
	terms 	and
condition 	of
	employment
	of 	these 	employees
	is 	centralized 	in
	a
systemwide
	administration 	in
	Long 	Beach, 	would
	adversely
	affect
16

the right of these employees to effective representation. Were
there a significant history of campus-level representation for
the Bakersfield crafts employees, the foregoing factors might
be less persuasive. However, the record contains no evidence
of such a history.
Exclusions - Unit 6
Chief Engineer II (6695), Chief Engineer I (6698)
The Board finds that the job classifications of chief
engineer II (6695) and chief engineer I (6698) are supervisory
and as such are excluded from the Skilled Crafts Unit.
The chief engineer II and the chief engineer I are
essentially similar positions with regard to duties and
responsibilities, the only difference being that the chief
engineer II is found on the larger CSUC campuses whereas
her/his counterpart, the chief engineer I, is located on the
smaller CSUC campuses.
Incumbents of these positions have the overall
responsibility for the operation of the engineering section of
a campus plant operations department. They independently
prepare policies and procedures in furtherance of their duties
based upon broad administrative policies established through
the director of plant operations. In implementing these
policies, they have the authority to hire, assign and direct
work, approve overtime and leave, transfer, discipline and
informally adjust grievances of subordinate employees.
17
the 	right 	of 	these 	employees 	to 	effective 	representation. 	Were
there 	a 	significant 	history 	of 	campus-level 	representation 	for
the 	Bakersfield 	crafts 	employees, 	the 	foregoing 	factors 	might
be 	less 	persuasive. 	However, 	the 	record 	contains 	no 	evidence
of 	such 	a 	history.
Exclusions 	- 	Unit 	6
Chief 	Engineer 	II 	(6695), 	Chief 	Engineer 	I 	(6698)
The 	Board 	finds 	that 	the 	job 	classifications 	of 	chief
engineer 	II 	(6695) 	and 	chief 	engineer 	I 	(6698) 	are 	supervisory
and 	as 	such 	are 	excluded 	from 	the 	Skilled 	Crafts 	Unit.
The 	chief 	engineer 	II 	and 	the 	chief 	engineer 	I 	are
essentially 	similar 	positions 	with 	regard 	to 	duties 	and
responsibilities, 	the 	only 	difference 	being 	that 	the 	chief
engineer 	II 	is 	found 	on 	the 	larger 	CSUC campuses 	whereas
her/his 	counterpart, 	the 	chief 	engineer 	I, 	is 	located 	on 	the
smaller 	CSUC campuses.
Incumbents 	of 	these 	positions 	have 	the 	overall
responsibility 	for 	the 	operation 	of 	the 	engineering 	section 	of
a 	campus 	plant 	operations 	department. 	They 	independently
prepare 	policies 	and 	procedures 	in 	furtherance 	of 	their 	duties
based 	upon 	broad 	administrative 	policies 	established 	through
the 	director 	of 	plant 	operations. 	In 	implementing 	these
policies, 	they 	have 	the 	authority 	to 	hire, 	assign 	and 	direct
work, 	approve 	overtime 	and 	leave, 	transfer, 	discipline 	and
informally 	adjust 	grievances 	of 	subordinate 	employees.
17

Possession of such prescribed authority is an indicator of
supervisory duties. In Re: Unit Determination for the State
of California, supra. On this basis, the Board finds that
these two classifications are supervisory and, as such, are to
be excluded from the unit. This decision is based upon the
Board's review of the evidentiary record and the reasoning
contained in the hearing officer's recommendation.
IV.
CLASSIFICATIONS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR UNITING
The Board, in agreement with the hearing officer, finds
that the classifications not recommended for uniting lack a
significant community of interest with classifications in
either of the two units we have herein approved. We find
further that they do not share a sufficient community of
interest with any of the units for which we directed an
election in our decision on professional employees (Unit
Determination for Employees of the California State University
and Colleges (9/22/81) , PERB Decision No. 173-H) to warrant
placing them in those units. We also find that the evidence
was insufficient to demonstrate that these classifications
constitute an appropriate residual unit.
V.
REQUEST TO AMEND PETITION LA-RR-1004
The Board has considered the entire record in connection
with the request by the California State Employees Association
18
Possession 	of
	such
	prescribed
	authority
	is
	an
	indicator
	of
supervisory
	duties.
	In
	Re:
	Unit 	Determination 	for 	the
	State
of 	California,
	supra.
	On
	this
	basis,
	the
	Board
	finds
	that
these
	two
	classifications
	are 	supervisory
	and,
	as 	such,
	are
	to
be
	excluded
	from
	the
	unit.
	This
	decision
	is
	based
	upon
	the
Board's
	review
	of 	the
	evidentiary
	record
	and
	the 	reasoning
contained 	in 	the 	hearing
	officer's
	recommendation.
IV.
CLASSIFICATIONS
	NOT 	RECOMMENDED
	FOR
	UNITING
The
	Board,
	in
	agreement
	with 	the 	hearing
	officer,
	finds
that
	the
	classifications
	not
	recommended
	for
	uniting
	lack
	a
significant
	community
	of
	interest
	with
	classifications
	in
either
	of
	the
	two
	units
	we
	have
	herein
	approved.
	We
	find
further 	that
	they
	do
	not 	share
	a
	sufficient
	community
	of
interest
	with
	any	
of	
the
	units
	for
	which
	we
	directed
	an
election
	in
	our
	decision
	on
	professional
	employees 	(Unit
Determination 	for
	Employees
	of 	the
	California 	State 	University
and
	Colleges
	(9/22/81),
	PERB
	Decision
	No.
	173-H)
	to
	warrant
placing
	them
	in 	those
	units.
	We
	also 	find
	that
	the 	evidence
was
	insufficient
	to
	demonstrate
	that
	these
	classifications
constitute
	an
	appropriate 	residual 	unit.
V.
REQUEST
	TO AMEND	
PETITION 	LA-RR-1004
The 	Board 	has 	considered 	the
	entire
	record 	in 	connection
with 	the 	request
	by
	the 	California 	State
	Employees
	Association
18

to amend their petition LA-RR-1004 by deleting 11
classifications therefrom.ll Finding no reason why these 11
classifications should remain a part of that petition, the
Board approves the request.
ORDER
Upon the foregoing Decision and the entire record in this
case, the Public Employment Relations Board ORDERS that:
(1) The following units are appropriate for the purpose of
meeting and conferring in good faith pursuant to Government
Code section 3560 et seq.
Unit 5: Operations-Support Services Unit
Unit 6: Skilled Crafts Unit
The inclusions in the above-described units, by job
classification, and the exclusions therefrom are set forth in
Appendix A, attached hereto;
(2) The regional director shall examine new
classifications and re-classifications established subsequent
to the close of the record in this case and place them in
appropriate units in accordance with the Board's decision.
(3) Any technical errors in this ORDER shall be presented
to the regional director who shall take appropriate action
thereon in accordance with this decision.
1lThese 11 classifications are set forth in Appendix B,
attached hereto.
19
to 	amend 	their 	petition LA-RR-1004 	by 	deleting 	11
classifications 	therefrom.11 	Finding 	no 	reason 	why 	these 	11
classifications 	should 	remain 	a 	part 	of 	that 	petition, 	the
Board 	approves 	the 	request.
ORDER
Upon 	the 	foregoing 	Decision 	and 	the 	entire 	record 	in 	this
case, 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	ORDERS 	that:
(1) 	The 	following 	units 	are 	appropriate 	for 	the 	purpose 	of
meeting 	and 	conferring 	in 	good 	faith 	pursuant 	to 	Government
Code 	section 	3560 	et 	seq.
Unit 	5: 	Operations-Support 	Services 	Unit
Unit 	6: 	Skilled 	Crafts 	Unit
The 	inclusions 	in 	the 	above-described 	units, 	by 	job
classification, 	and 	the 	exclusions 	therefrom 	are 	set 	forth 	in
Appendix 	A, 	attached 	hereto;
(2) 	The 	regional 	director 	shall 	examine 	new
classifications 	and 	re-classifications 	established 	subsequent
to 	the 	close 	of 	the 	record 	in 	this 	case 	and 	place 	them 	in
appropriate 	units 	in 	accordance 	with 	the 	Board's 	decision.
(3) 	Any 	technical 	errors 	in 	this 	ORDER 	shall 	be 	presented
to 	the 	regional 	director 	who 	shall 	take 	appropriate 	action
thereon 	in 	accordance 	with 	this 	decision.
llThese 	11 	classifications 	are 	set 	forth 	in 	Appendix 	B,
attached 	hereto.
19

The Board further ORDERS that:
The request by the California State Employees Association
to amend petition LA-RR-1004 is approved. The 11
classifications which are the subject of that request are set
forth in Appendix B, attached hereto.
The executive director is hereby directed to proceed under
California Administrative Code, title 8, part 3, division 4.
PER CURIAM
Harry Gluck, Chairperson, concurring:
I note, with respect to the establishment of the University-
wide skilled crafts unit, that the record contains considerable
factual material intended to supplement the statutory
presumption of appropriateness (subsection 3579 (d), supra) .
While not all of this material is convincing, it is
sufficient in sum to tip the balance where the competing
petition for a campus unit relies solely on the presumption.
Harry Gluck, Chairperson
20
The 	Board 	further 	ORDERS 	that:
The 	request 	by 	the 	California 	State 	Employees 	Association
to 	amend 	petition LA-RR-1004 	is 	approved. 	The 	11
classifications 	which 	are 	the 	subject 	of 	that 	request 	are 	set
forth 	in 	Appendix 	B, 	attached 	hereto.
The 	executive 	director 	is 	hereby 	directed 	to 	proceed 	under
California 	Administrative 	Code, 	title 	8, 	part 	3, 	division 	4.
PER CURIAM
Harry 	Gluck, 	Chairperson, 	concurring:
I 	note, 	with 	respect 	to 	the 	establishment 	of 	the 	University-
wide 	skilled 	crafts 	unit, 	that 	the 	record 	contains 	considerable
factual 	material 	intended 	to 	supplement 	the 	statutory
presumption 	of 	appropriateness 	(subsection 	3579(d), 	supra).
While 	not 	all 	of 	this 	material 	is 	convincing, 	it 	is
sufficient 	in 	sum 	to 	tip 	the 	balance 	where 	the 	competing
petition 	for 	a 	campus 	unit 	relies 	solely 	on 	the 	presumption.
H/	rcf ry 	Gluck,	' 	t. 	Chairperson
20

APPENDIX A
Unit 5 - Operations-Support Services
Shall INCLUDE:
Class
Code 	Class Title
0726 	Lead Groundsworker
0731 	Groundsworker
0735 	Irrigation Specialist
0739 	Pest Control and Spray Specialist
0743 	Gardener
0745 	Gardening Specialist
0746 	Tree Trimmer I
0748 	Tree Trimmer II
1508 	Warehouse Worker
2010 	Custodian
2013 	Window Cleaner
2015 	Lead Custodian
6223 	Laborer
6381 	Truck Driver
6385 	Farm Equipment Operator
6390 	Tractor Operator-Laborer
6393 	Automotive Equipment Operator I
Shall EXCLUDE:
All employees found to be managerial, supervisory or confidential within
the meaning of Government Code section 3560 et seq., including:
Class
Code 	Class Title
0711 	Supervising Groundsworker I
A-1
APPENDIX A
Unit 5 - 	Operations-Support Services
Shall INCLUDE:
Class
Code 	Class Title
0726 	Lead Groundsworker
0731 	Groundsworker
0735 	Irrigation Specialist
0739 	Pest Control and Spray Specialist
0743 	Gardener
0745 	Gardening Specialist
0746 	Tree Trimmer I
0748 	Tree Trimmer II
1508 	Warehouse Worker
2010 	Custodian
2013 	Window Cleaner
2015 	Lead Custodian
6223 	Laborer
6381 	Truck Driver
6385 	Farm Equipment Operator
6390 	Tractor Operator-Laborer
6393 	Automotive Equipment Operator I
Shall EXCLUDE:
All employees found 	to be managerial, 	supervisory or confidential within
the meaning 	of Government Code section 3560 et seq., 	including:
Class
Code 	Class Title
0711 	Supervising Groundsworker I
A-1

Unit 6 - Skilled Crafts
Shall INCLUDE:
Class
Code 	Class Title
6212 	Skilled Laborer
6215 	Building Maintenance Worker
6474 	Supervising Carpenter
6475 	Carpenter II
6476 	Carpenter I
6524 	Supervising Painter
Painter II	6525
6526 	Painter I
6532 	Electrician II
6533 	Electrician I
6534 	Supervising Electrician
6547 	Supervising Plumber
6548 	Plumber II
6549 	Plumber I
6575 	Blacksmith
6583 	Materials Fabrication Specialist
6584 	Sheet Metal Worker
6587 	Supervising Materials Fabrication Specialist
6596 	Fusion Welder
6616 	Mason
6642 	Locksmith I
6643 	Locksmith II
6699 	Refrigeration Mechanic
6700 	Supervising Building Service Engineer
6702 	Building Service Engineer (formerly Stationary
Engineer (6701))
6703 	Operating Engineer
6805 	Machinist
6834 	Heavy Equipment Mechanic
6837 	Mechanics Helper
6851 	Automobile Mechanic
6852 	Lead Automotive and Equipment Mechanic
6940 	Maintenance Mechanic
Shall EXCLUDE:
All employees found to be managerial, supervisory or confidential within
the meaning of Government Code section 3560 et seq. , including:
Class
Code 	Class Title
6695 	Chief Engineer II
6698 	Chief Engineer I
A-2
Unit 6 -
	Skilled Crafts
Shall
	INCLUDE:
Class
Code	
Class
Title
6212	
Skilled
Laborer
6215	
Building
Maintenance Worker
6474	
Supervising Carpenter6475	
Carpenter
	II
6476	
Carpenter
	I
6524	
Supervising
	Painter
6525	
Painter
II
6526	
Painter
	I
6532	
Electrician
II
6533	
Electrician
I
6534	
Supervising
Electrician
6547	
Supervising
Plumber
6548 	Plumber
	II
6549 	Plumber I
6575 	Blacksmith
6583	
Materials Fabrication
Specialist
6584	
Sheet
Metal Worker
6587	
Supervising Materials Fabrication
Specialist
6596 	Fusion Welder
6616	
Mason
6642 	Locksmith I
6643 	Locksmith
II
6699	
Refrigeration
Mechanic
6700	
Supervising Building Service
Engineer
6702	
Building Service
Engineer
	(formerly
Stationary
Engineer 	(6701))
6703 	Operating Engineer
6805 	Machinist
6834 	Heavy Equipment Mechanic
6837 	Mechanics Helper
6851 	Automobile Mechanic
6852 	Lead Automotive and Equipment Mechanic
6940 	Maintenance Mechanic
Shall
EXCLUDE:
All employees found
	to
be managerial, 	supervisory or confidential within
the meaning	
of
Government Code
	section
3560	
et seq., 	including:
ClassCode 	Class
Title
6695 	Chief Engineer
	II
6698 	Chief Engineer I
A-2

APPENDIX B
The 11 classifications which are the subject of CSEA's request to
amend petition LA-RR-1004 are:
Class
Code 	Class Title
1450 	Duplicating Machine Operator I
1464 	Duplicating Machine Supervisor I
1466 	Duplicating Machine Operator II, Offset
1467 	Duplicating Machine Operator II, Direct Impression
1471 	Reproduction Processes Supervisor
1472 	Reproduction Processes Assistant
2899 	Book Repairer
3022 	Drafting Aid
3023 	Drafting Technician I
3024 	Drafting Technician II
3025 	Delineator
APPENDIX
B
The
11
classifications
which
are
	the
subject of
CSEA's
request
	to
amend
	petition
LA-RR-1004
are:
Class
Code	
Class
Title
1450	
Duplicating
Machine
Operator
	I
1464	
Duplicating
Machine
Supervisor
	I
1466	
Duplicating
Machine Operator
	II,
	Offset
1467	
Duplicating
Machine Operator
	II,
	Direct
Impression1471 	Reproduction
Processes Supervisor
1472 	Reproduction
Processes
	Assistant
2899	
Book
	Repairer
3022	
Drafting
Aid
3023	
Drafting
Technician
	I
3024	
Drafting
Technician
II
3025	
Delineator