PERB Decision No. 0198S

Full text

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_____________________ )
STATE
	OF
	CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
STATE
	OF
	CALIFORNIA,
Employer,
and
JUDICIAL
	AND
	LEGAL
	COALITION
(ADMINISTRATIVE
	LAW
	JUDGES'
COUNCIL,
	STATE
	TRIAL
	ATTORNEYS
ASSOCIATION
	AND
	CALIFORNIA
STATE 	EMPLOYEES'
	ASSOCIATION),
Employee
	Organization,
and
ACSA
	- 	ASSOCIATION
	OF
	CALIFORNIA
STATE
	ATTORNEYS
	AND
	HEARING
	OFFICERS
Employee
	Organization.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Case
	No.
	S-SR-2
PERB
	Decision
	No.
	198-S
March
	10,
	1982
Case No. S-SR-2
Appearances:	Appearances: Chri
Christine
	A.
	Bologna,
	Attorney 	for 	the
	Judicial
and
	Legal
	Coalition
	(Administrative
	Law
	Judges' 	Council,
	State
Trial
	Attorneys 	Association
	and
	California 	State
	Employees
Association);
	Dennis
	M.
	Eagan,
	Representative
	for 	the
Association 	of 	California 	State
	Attorneys
	and
	Hearing
	Officers.
stine A. Bologna, Attorney for the Judicial
Before 	Gluck,
	Chairperson; 	Jaeger,
	Moore 	and
	Tovar,
	Members.	Before Gluck, Chairperson; Jaeger, Moore and Tovar, Members.
DECISION	DECISION
The
	Judicial
	and
	Legal
	(Coalition	The Judicial and Legal Coalition (Coalition) 1 excepts to	
)l	
excepts 	to
the 	attached 	hearing
	officer's
	decision 	dismissing
	all
	of 	the
organization's 	objections 	to 	the 	conduct
	of 	the
	election 	of 	the
exclusive 	representative 	for
	state
	employee 	Unit
	No. 	2.
the attached hearing officer's decision dismissing all of the
1The Coalition constituent members are the Administrative1The
	Coalition 	constituent
	members
	are 	the 	Administrative
Law
	Judges' 	Council, 	State 	Trial Attorneys 	Association, 	and
California 	State
	Employees' 	Association.
Law Judges' Council, State Trial Attorneys Association, and
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Employer,
and
JUDICIAL AND LEGAL COALITION
(ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES'
COUNCIL, STATE TRIAL ATTORNEYS
ASSOCIATION AND CALIFORNIA
STATE EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION) ,
Employee Organization,
and
ACSA - ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA
STATE ATTORNEYS AND HEARING OFFICERS
Employee Organization.
PERB Decision No. 198-S
March 10, 1982
and Legal Coalition (Administrative Law Judges' Council, State
Trial Attorneys Association and California State Employees
Association) ; Dennis M. Eagan, Representative for the
Association of California State Attorneys and Hearing Officers.
Coalition
organization's objections to the conduct of the election of the
exclusive representative for state employee Unit No. 2.
California State Employees' Association.

2
The
	Coalition's
	objections
	are
	three-fold:
	(1)
	that
certain
	inaccuracies
	in 	the
	voter
	list
	used
	by
	the
	Public
Employment
	Relations
	Board
	(PERB)
	to
	mail
	ballots
	to
	employees
in
	Unit
	No.
	2
	and
	inaccuracies
	in 	the
	Excelsior
	list
	provided
by
	the
	state
	employer
	to
	employee
	organizations
	caused
	"scores"
of
	employees
	to
	be
	disenfranchised
	and
	rendered 	the
	election
The Coalition's objections are three-fold: (1) that
2
invalid;
	(2)
	that
	the 	employer's
	mail
	distribution
	policy,
which
	was
	adjudged
	by
	PERB
	to
	be 	an
	unfair
	practice 	shortly
after
	the
	election, 	substantially 	interfered
	with
	the
	ability
of
	unit
	employees
	to
	freely
	choose
	an
	exclusive
	representative;
and
	(3)
	that
	the
	employer
	caused
	a
	benefit 	to
	be
	granted
	to
	one
group
	of
	employees
	within
	the
	unit
	which,
	in
	turn,
	caused
	that
group
	to
	endorse 	the
	rival
	organization.
invalid; (2) that the employer's mail distribution policy,
The
	Board
	has
	considered 	the 	record
	as
	a
	whole
	in
	light
	of
the
	Coalition's
	exceptions
	and
	hereby 	adopts 	the 	hearing
The Board has considered the record as a whole in light of
3
officer's
	findings
	of
	fact
	and
	conclusions 	of
	law
	except 	as
modified
	hereafter.
officer's findings of fact and conclusions of law except as
2In State Trial Attorneys Association v. State of2
rn
	State 	Trial
	Attorneys 	Association
	v.
	State
	of
California, 	California
	Department 	of
	Transportation,
	and
Governor's 	Office 	of
	Employee
	Relations
	(7/7/81)
	PERB
	Decision
No.
	159b-S, 	the
	Board 	found
	that
	a 	memo
	promulgated
	by
	the
Governor's 	Office 	of
	Employee
	Relations
	on 	September
	5,
	1978
violated
	Government 	Code
	section
	3519(a) 	and 	(b) 	by
discriminatorily 	restricting 	delivery 	of
	employee
	organizationmail
	at
	employees'
	work
	sites.
California, California Department of Transportation, and
3
The
	hearing
	officer 	states 	at
	p.
	46
	of 	his 	decision 	that"the 	Coalition
	never
	tried 	to 	mail 	anything 	to 	the
	work
	site
addresses 	of 	Unit
	No. 	2
	voters."
	The
	record 	indicates 	that
some
	employees 	did 	receive 	Coalition 	mail
	at 	their
	work
	site.
(R.T.	
(R.T. 	v.
	IV
	p. 	61-2.) 	This 	oversight
	by
	the 	hearing 	officer 	isnot 	prejudicial.
The hearing officer states at p. 46 of his decision that
2
certain inaccuracies in the voter list used by the Public
Employment Relations Board (PERB) to mail ballots to employees
in Unit No. 2 and inaccuracies in the Excelsior list provided
by the state employer to employee organizations caused "scores"
of employees to be disenfranchised and rendered the election
which was adjudged by PERB to be an unfair practice shortly
after the election, substantially interfered with the ability
of unit employees to freely choose an exclusive representative;
and (3) that the employer caused a benefit to be granted to one
group of employees within the unit which, in turn, caused that
group to endorse the rival organization.
the Coalition's exceptions and hereby adopts the hearing
modified hereafter.
Governor 's Office of Employee Relations (7/7/81) PERB Decision
No. 159b-S, the Board found that a memo promulgated by the
Governor's Office of Employee Relations on September 5, 1978
violated Government Code section 3519 (a) and (b) by
discriminatorily restricting delivery of employee organization
mail at employees' work sites.
"the Coalition never tried to mail anything to the work site
addresses of Unit No. 2 voters. " The record indicates that
some employees did receive Coalition mail at their work site.
v. IV p. 61-2.) This oversight by the hearing officer is
not prejudicial.

3
DISCUSSION	DISCUSS ION
In 	dismissing 	the 	Coalition's 	second 	objection, 	the 	hearing
officer 	reasoned 	that 	because 	the 	Coalition 	never 	tried 	to 	mail
to 	work 	site 	addresses, 	although 	it 	had 	reasonable 	grounds 	to
believe 	it 	was 	being 	delivered, 	it 	cannot 	be 	heard 	to 	complain
of 	discriminatory 	treatment.
In dismissing the Coalition's second objection, the hearing
As 	noted 	in 	footnote 	2, 	the 	Coalition 	did 	mail 	to 	work 	site
addresses. 	It 	was 	one 	of 	its 	constituent 	organizations, 	the
State 	Trial Attorneys Association 	(STAA), 	which 	made 	no 	attempt
to 	utilize 	the 	internal 	mail 	system, 	pending 	the 	outcome 	of 	its
charge 	filed 	with 	PERB 	on 	that 	issue. 	Knowledge 	that 	the
larger 	organization 	was 	conducting 	mailings 	can 	be 	imputed 	to
STAA, 	who 	cannot 	now 	complain, 	through 	the 	Coalition, 	that 	the
employer's 	policy 	interfered 	with 	the 	election. 	Nor 	can 	STAA's
choice 	be 	made 	the 	basis 	for 	a 	claim 	that 	the 	Coalition 	was
harmed.
As noted in footnote 2, the Coalition did mail to work site
We 	also 	note, 	as 	did 	the 	hearing 	officer, 	that 	alternative
means 	of 	communication 	were 	available, 	such 	as 	home 	addresses
provided 	by 	the 	State 	Controller 	as 	early 	as 	mid-May 	1980,
bulletin 	boards, 	personal 	contact, 	and 	leafletting.
We also note, as did the hearing officer, that alternative
In 	sum, 	we 	affirm 	the 	hearing 	officer's 	conclusion 	that 	the
Coalition 	failed 	in 	its 	efforts 	to 	show 	that 	the 	mail 	policy
prevented 	the 	employees 	from 	freely 	choosing 	their
representative.
In sum, we affirm the hearing officer's conclusion that the
3
officer reasoned that because the Coalition never tried to mail
to work site addresses, although it had reasonable grounds to
believe it was being delivered, it cannot be heard to complain
of discriminatory treatment.
addresses. 	It was one of its constituent organizations, the
State Trial Attorneys Association (STAA) , which made no attempt
to utilize the internal mail system, pending the outcome of its
charge filed with PERB on that issue. Knowledge that the
larger organization was conducting mailings can be imputed to
STAA, who cannot now complain, through the Coalition, that the
employer's policy interfered with the election. Nor can STAA's
choice be made the basis for a claim that the Coalition was
harmed.
means of communication were available, such as home addresses
provided by the State Controller as early as mid-May 1980,
bulletin boards, personal contact, and leafletting.
Coalition failed in its efforts to show that the mail policy
prevented the employees from freely choosing their
representative.

4
ORDER	ORDER
Upon
	the 	foregoing
	findings
	of
	fact,
	conclusions 	of
	law,
and
	the
	entire
	record
	in
	this
	case,
	it
	is
	hereby
	ORDERED
	that
the
	objections
	to 	the
	election
	in
	state
	employee
	Unit
	No. 	2 	be
DISMISSEr
	consistent
	with
	the
	discussion 	herein.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
PER
	CURIAM	PER CURIAM
IA
and the entire record in this case, it is hereby ORDERED that
the objections to the election in state employee Unit No. 2 be
DISMISSED consistent with the discussion herein.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_____________________ )
STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In 	the 	Matter 	of:
STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA,
Employer,
-and-
JUDICIAL 	AND 	LEGAL 	COALITION
(ADMINISTRATIVE 	LAW JUDGES'
COUNCIL, 	STATE 	TRIAL 	ATTORNEYS
ASSOCIATION 	AND 	CALIFORNIA
STATE 	EMPLOYEES' 	ASSOCIATION),
Employee 	Organization,
-and-
ACSA 	- 	ASSOCIATION 	OF 	CALIFORNIA 	STATE
ATTORNEYS 	AND 	HEARING 	OFFICERS,
Employee 	Organization.
In the Matter of:
Representation
Case 	No. 	S-SR-2
PROPOSED 	DECISION
(9/29/81)
Representation
Appearances:	Appearances: ChChristine 	A. 	Bologna, 	Attorney 	for 	the 	Judicial
and 	Legal 	Coalition; 	Dennis 	M. 	Eagan, 	Attorney 	for 	the
Association 	of 	California 	State 	Attorneys 	and 	Hearing 	Officers;
Rebecca 	Taylor, 	Labor 	Relations 	Officer 	for 	the 	Department 	of
Personnel 	Administration, 	State 	of 	California.
ristine A. Bologna, Attorney for the Judicial
Before 	Ronald 	E. 	Blubaugh, 	Hearing 	Officer.	Before Ronald E. Blubaugh, Hearing Officer.
PROCEDURAL 	HISTORY	PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In 	this 	case 	one 	of 	the 	employee 	organizations 	competing 	to
become 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	of 	state 	attorneys 	and
hearing 	officers 	has 	challenged 	the 	conduct 	of 	an 	election 	in
state 	employee 	unit 	no. 	2. 	The 	organization 	also 	has
In this case one of the employee organizations competing to
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Employer ,
-and-
JUDICIAL AND LEGAL COALITION
(ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES'
COUNCIL, STATE TRIAL ATTORNEYS
ASSOCIATION AND CALIFORNIA
STATE EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION) ,
Employee Organization,
-and-
ACSA - ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA STATE
ATTORNEYS AND HEARING OFFICERS
Employee Organization.
Case No. S-SR-2
PROPOSED DECISION
(9/29/81)
and Legal Coalition; Dennis M. Eagan, Attorney for the
Association of California State Attorneys and Hearing Officers;
Rebecca Taylor, Labor Relations Officer for the Department of
Personnel Administration, State of California.
become the exclusive representative of state attorneys and
hearing officers has challenged the conduct of an election in
state employee unit no. 2. The organization also has

2
challenged 	the 	eligibility 	of 	some 	275 	voters 	who 	cast 	ballots
in 	the 	election. 	The 	election 	under 	attack 	was 	conducted 	by
mail 	ballot 	during 	the 	period 	from May 	11 	through 	June 	11, 	1981.
challenged the eligibility of some 275 voters who cast ballots
On 	June 	10, 	1981, 	prior 	to 	the 	completion 	of 	balloting, 	the
Judicial 	and 	Legal 	Coalition 	(hereafter 	Coalition) 	mailed 	to
the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	a 	list 	containing 	the
names 	of 	344 	persons 	whose 	ballots 	the 	Coalition 	had 	decided 	to
challenge. 	Prior 	to 	the 	vote 	count, 	agents 	of 	the 	Public
Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(hereafter 	PERB 	or 	Board) 	determined
that 	275 	of 	the 	344 	persons 	on 	the 	Coalition's 	list 	actually
had 	voted. 	Those 	275 	ballots 	were 	then 	segregated 	as
challenged 	and 	were 	not 	opened.
On June 10, 1981, prior to the completion of balloting, the
The 	ballot 	count 	for 	state 	employee 	unit 	no. 	2 was
conducted 	on 	June 	30, 	1981. 	Prior 	to 	the 	ballot 	count, 	PERB
agents 	for 	various 	reasons 	challenged 	36 	ballots. 	The 	tally 	of
ballots 	produced 	the 	following 	result: 	500 	votes 	cast 	for 	the
Coalition, 	525 	votes 	cast 	for 	ACSA-Association 	of 	California
State 	Attorneys 	and 	Hearing 	Officers 	(hereafter 	ACSA), 	21 	votes
cast 	for 	no 	representation 	and 	311 	challenged 	ballots. 	The
unopened 	challenged 	ballots 	were 	determinative.
The ballot count for state employee unit no. 2 was
On 	July 	8, 	1981, 	the 	Coalition 	filed 	timely 	objections 	to
the 	election. 	The 	statement 	of 	objections 	alleged 	10 	specific
grounds 	for 	overturning 	the 	election. 	Three 	of 	those
allegations 	actually 	concerned 	challenged 	ballots. 	The 	other
seven 	related 	to 	the 	objections. 	On 	July 	22, 	1981, 	the
On July 8, 1981, the Coalition filed timely objections to
2
the election. The statement of objections alleged 10 specific
grounds for overturning the election. Three of those
allegations actually concerned challenged ballots. The other
seven related to the objections. On July 22, 1981, the
conducted on June 30, 1981. Prior to the ballot count, PERB
agents for various reasons challenged 36 ballots. The tally of
ballots produced the following result: 500 votes cast for the
Coalition, 525 votes cast for ACSA-Association of California
State Attorneys and Hearing Officers (hereafter ACSA) , 21 votes
cast for no representation and 311 challenged ballots. The
unopened challenged ballots were determinative.
Judicial and Legal Coalition (hereafter Coalition) mailed to
the Public Employment Relations Board a list containing the
names of 344 persons whose ballots the Coalition had decided to
challenge. 	Prior to the vote count, agents of the Public
Employment Relations Board (hereafter PERB or Board) determined
that 275 of the 344 persons on the Coalition's list actually
had voted. Those 275 ballots were then segregated as
challenged and were not opened.
in the election. The election under attack was conducted by
mail ballot during the period from May 11 through June 11, 1981.

3
undersigned
	hearing
	officer,
	acting
	as
	an
	agent 	for 	the
Sacramento
	Regional
	Director,
	dismissed 	the 	following
	portions
of 	the
	objections
	for
	failure
	to
	state
	a
	prima
	facie
	case:
subparagraphs
	6 	C, 	D,
	E,
	F
	and
	G,
	paragraph
	7
	in
	its
	entirety,
paragraph
	8
	in
	its
	entirety,
	paragraph
	9
	in
	its
	entirety
	and
paragraph
	10
	in
	its
	entirety.
	On
	August
	3,
	the
	Coalition
timely
	filed
	an
	administrative
	appeal
	to
	the
	dismissal 	of
paragraph
	7
	of 	the
	objections.
	Also
	on
	August
	3, 	the
	Coalition
filed
	a
	motion
	for
	continuation
	of
	a
	hearing 	in
	this
	matter
which 	had
	been
	scheduled
	to
	begin
	on
	August
	10. 	In
	addition,
the
	Coalition
	filed
	with 	the 	hearing
	officer
	a
	motion
	to
	set
aside
	the
	election
	and
	with 	the
	PERB
	itself,
	a
	request 	for
	stay
in
	activity.
undersigned hearing officer, acting as an agent for the
On
	August 	4,
	the 	undersigned 	hearing
	officer
	denied
	the
request
	for 	continuance.
	On
	August
	7, 	the
	PERB
	issued
	Order
No. 	Ad-111-S
	in
	which
	the
	Board
	itself
	reversed 	the 	hearing
officer
	and
	reinstated
	Objection
	No.
	7.
	The
	Board
	denied
	the
request
	for
	a
	stay
	of
	activity.
	The
	hearing
	was 	commenced 	on
August 	10.
	At
	the
	start
	of 	the 	hearing, 	the 	undersigned
hearing
	officer
	denied 	the 	motion
	to
	set
	aside 	the
	election.
The
	hearing
	was
	conducted
	at
	PERB
	offices
	in 	Sacramento 	on
August 	10, 	11, 	12, 	13,
	14 	and 	20, 	1981.
	The
	briefs
	from
	the
parties
	were
	filed
	on 	September 	8, 	1981, 	and
	the 	case
	was
submitted 	for 	decision.
On August 4, the undersigned hearing officer denied the
3
Sacramento Regional Director, dismissed the following portions
of the objections for failure to state a prima facie case:
subparagraphs 6 C, D, E, F and G, paragraph 7 in its entirety,
paragraph 8 in its entirety, paragraph 9 in its entirety and
paragraph 10 in its entirety. On August 3, the Coalition
timely filed an administrative appeal to the dismissal of
paragraph 7 of the objections. Also on August 3, the Coalition
filed a motion for continuation of a hearing in this matter
which had been scheduled to begin on August 10. In addition,
the Coalition filed with the hearing officer a motion to set
aside the election and with the PERB itself, a request for stay
in activity.
request for continuance. On August 7, the PERB issued Order
No. Ad-Ill-S in which the Board itself reversed the hearing
officer and reinstated Objection No. 7. The Board denied the
request for a stay of activity. The hearing was commenced on
August 10. At the start of the hearing, the undersigned
hearing officer denied the motion to set aside the election.
The hearing was conducted at PERB offices in Sacramento on
August 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 20, 1981. The briefs from the
parties were filed on September 8, 1981, and the case was
submitted for decision.

4
FINDINGS
	OF
	FACT	FINDINGS OF FACT
Challenged
	Ballots	Challenged Ballots
The
	election
	in
	which
	the
	contested
	ballots
	were
	challenged
was
	held
	by
	the 	order 	of 	the
	PERB's
	Sacramento
	Regional
Director.
	It
	was
	the 	culmination 	of
	a
	process
	which
	began
shortly
	after
	July 	1,
	1978 	when
	the
	State
	Employer-Employee
Relations
	Act
	(hereafter
	SEERA)
	became
	effective
The election in which the contested ballots were challenged
.l	
various
employee
	organizations
	filed 	petitions
	with
	the
	Board
	seeking
to 	represent
	employees
	in
	negotiating 	units
	they 	considered
appropriate.
	Hearings
	on
	the
	unit
	question
	commenced
	in
December
	of
	1978 	and
	continued 	well
	into
	1979.
	On
	November
	7,
1979,
	the
	PERB
	issued
	a
	decision 	dividing
	the
	state's
	rank
	and
file 	civil
	service
	employees
	into
	20
	negotiating 	units.
employee organizations filed petitions with the Board seeking
2
Attorneys
	and
	hearing
	officers
	were
	placed 	in
	unit
	no. 	2.	Attorneys and hearing officers were placed in unit no. 2.
On
	December
	3, 	1979,
	ACSA
	filed
	a
	request
	for 	the
	PERB
	to
conduct
	an
	election
	in
	unit
	no.
	2.
On December 3, 1979, ACSA filed a request for the PERB to
3	
On
	February
	21, 	1980,
the 	Administrative
	Law
	Judges 	Council
	filed
	an
	intervention 	to
appear
	on
	the
	ballot
	in
	unit
	no. 	2. 	There followed similar	
There 	followed
	similar
the Administrative Law Judges Council filed an intervention to
The State Employer-Employee Relations Act may be found	
lThe
	State
	Employer-Employee
	Relations
	Act
	may 	be 	found
at
	Government 	Code
	section
	3512
	et
	seq. 	Hereafter,
	all
references 	are 	to 	the
	Government 	Code
	unless 	otherwise
indicated.
at Government Code section 3512 et seq. Hereafter, all
2In the Matter of: Unit Determination for the State of	
2rn 	the 	Matter 	o(:	
Unit 	Determination 	for 	the 	State 	of
California
	(11/7/81)
	PERB
	Oec1s1on 	No.
	110-s.	California (11/7/81) PERB Decision No. 110-S.
The procedure is outlined in the California	3The
	procedure 	is 	outlined 	in 	the 	CaliforniaAdministrative 	Code,
	title
	8, 	section
	41210.	Administrative Code, title 8, section 41210.
was held by the order of the PERB's Sacramento Regional
Director. It was the culmination of a process which began
shortly after July 1, 1978 when the State Employer-Employee
Relations Act (hereafter SEERA) became effective.1 Various
to represent employees in negotiating units they considered
appropriate. Hearings on the unit question commenced in
December of 1978 and continued well into 1979. On November 7,
1979, the PERB issued a decision dividing the state's rank and
file civil service employees into 20 negotiating units. 2
conduct an election in unit no. 2.3 On February 21, 1980,
appear on the ballot in unit no. 2.
references are to the Government Code unless otherwise
indicated.

5
requests 	on March 	3, 	1980 	from 	the 	State 	Trial 	Attorneys
Association 	and 	on March 	11, 	1980 	from 	the 	California 	State
Employees' 	Association. 	All 	of 	these 	requests 	were 	determined
to 	be 	valid 	by 	the 	Sacramento 	Regional 	Director.
requests on March 3, 1980 from the State Trial Attorneys
After 	further 	hearings, 	the 	PERB 	itself 	on 	December 	31,
1980 	issued 	a 	decision 	resolving 	numerous 	disputes 	about
whether 	certain 	employees 	should 	be 	excluded 	from 	the
negotiating 	units 	as 	being 	either 	managerial, 	supervisory 	or
confidential. 	This 	decision 	cleared 	the 	way 	for 	SEERA
elections 	to 	be 	conducted 	in 	1981.
After further hearings, the PERB itself on December 31,
On 	February 	2, 	1981, 	PERB 	was 	notified 	by 	the
Administrative 	Law Judges 	Council, 	the 	State 	Trial 	Attorneys
Association 	and 	the 	California State Employees 	Association 	that
the 	three 	organizations 	wished 	to 	appear 	jointly 	on 	the 	ballot
as 	the 	Judicial 	and 	Legal 	Coalition. 	This 	request 	was 	granted
by 	the 	Sacramento 	Regional 	Director 	on March 	2, 	1981. 	ACSA
appealed 	this 	decision 	but 	subsequently 	withdrew 	the 	appeal.
On February 2, 1981, PERB was notified by the
On 	March 	31, 	1981, 	the 	Sacramento 	Regional 	Director 	issued
a 	directed 	election 	order 	for 	unit 	no. 	2, 	attorneys 	and 	hearing
officers. 	The 	order 	listed 	various 	instructions 	concerning 	the
manner 	in 	which 	the 	election 	would 	be 	conducted 	and 	the 	method
by 	which 	the 	eligibility 	of 	voters 	would 	be 	determined.
Specifically, 	with 	respect 	to 	eligibility, 	the 	order 	reads 	as
follows :
On March 31, 1981, the Sacramento Regional Director issued
UT
Association and on March 11, 1980 from the California State
Employees' Association. All of these requests were determined
to be valid by the Sacramento Regional Director.
1980 issued a decision resolving numerous disputes about
whether certain employees should be excluded from the
negotiating units as being either managerial, supervisory or
confidential. This decision cleared the way for SEERA
elections to be conducted in 1981.
Administrative Law Judges Council, the State Trial Attorneys
Association and the California State Employees Association that
the three organizations wished to appear jointly on the ballot
as the Judicial and Legal Coalition. This request was granted
by the Sacramento Regional Director on March 2, 1981. ACSA
appealed this decision but subsequently withdrew the appeal.
a directed election order for unit no. 2, attorneys and hearing
officers. The order listed various instructions concerning the
manner in which the election would be conducted and the method
by which the eligibility of voters would be determined.
Specifically, with respect to eligibility, the order reads as
follows:

3. 	Voter
	Eligibility.
	The
	eligible
	voters
shall
	be
	those
	employees
	within
	the
	unit
described
	below
	who
	were 	employed 	on
	the
eligibility
	cutoff
	date
	indicated
	below,
	and
who
	are
	still
	employed
	on
	the 	date
	they
	cast
their 	ballots
	in 	the
	election.
	Employees
who
	are
	ill,
	on
	vacation,
	on
	leave 	of
absence 	or
	sabbatical,
	temporarily
	laid 	off,
and
	employees
	who
	are
	in 	the
	militaryservice
	of 	the
	United
	States 	shall
	be
eligible
	to 	vote.
. Voter Eligibility. The eligible voters
6
Under
	the
	terms
	of
	the
	election
	order,
	the
	cutoff
	date 	for
voter
	eligibility
	was 	December
	31, 	1980.
	The
	first
	day
	for 	the
casting
	of
	ballots
	was
	May
	11,
	1981.
	The
	last
	day
	for 	the
casting
	of
	ballots
	was
	June 	11,
	1981.
Under the terms of the election order, the cutoff date for
The 	275
	voters
	whose
	ballots
	were
	challenged
	by
	the
Coalition
	were 	on
	all
	relevant 	dates
	employed
	in
	one
	of
	these
job
	classifications:
	Deputy
	Attorney 	General
	IV, 	Deputy
Attorney General
	III,
	Deputy
	Attorney General
	II,
	Deputy
Attorney 	General
	I
	or
	Associate
	Deputy
	Attorney
	III
	in 	the
Department
	of 	Transportation.
	The
	directed 	election
	order
lists
	each
	of 	the 	five
	job
	classifications
	as 	being
	within 	unit
no. 	2.
	Twelve
	of 	the 	challenged 	voters
	were 	on
	leave 	of
absence 	during
	all
	or
	part
	of 	the 	period
	between
	December
	31,
1980 	and
	June 	11, 	1981.
	The
	remainder 	of 	the
	275
	voters
challenged
	by
	the 	Coalition
	were
	regularly
	employed
	throughout
the 	period
	from 	December
	31, 	1980
	through 	June 	11, 	1981.
The 275 voters whose ballots were challenged by the
The 	36
	voters
	whose
	ballots
	were
	challenged
	by 	PERB
election 	officials
	can 	be
	divided 	into 	these 	categories:
	27
individuals
	whose 	names 	do
	not 	appear 	on
	the
	official 	list
	of
The 36 voters whose ballots were challenged by PERB
6
shall be those employees within the unit
described below who were employed on the
eligibility cutoff date indicated below, and
who are still employed on the date they cast
their ballots in the election. Employees
who are ill, on vacation, on leave of
absence or sabbatical, temporarily laid off,
and employees who are in the military
service of the United States shall be
eligible to vote.
election officials can be divided into these categories: 2
individuals whose names do not appear on the official list of
Coalition were on all relevant dates employed in one of these
job classifications: Deputy Attorney General IV, Deputy
Attorney General III, Deputy Attorney General II, Deputy
Attorney General I or Associate Deputy Attorney III in the
Department of Transportation. The directed election order
lists each of the five job classifications as being within unit
no. 2. Twelve of the challenged voters were on leave of
absence during all or part of the period between December 31,
1980 and June 11, 1981. The remainder of the 275 voters
challenged by the Coalition were regularly employed throughout
the period from December 31, 1980 through June 11, 1981.
voter eligibility was December 31, 1980. The first day for the
casting of ballots was May 11, 1981. The last day for the
casting of ballots was June 11, 1981.

7
eligible voters but who stated to PERB election officials that
they believed they were eligible to vote; eight individuals who
were eligible to vote challenged ballots per the directed
election order for unit no. 2; and one individual who cast a
ballot without using official PERB materials.
eligible voters but who stated to PERB election officials that
At the hearing, the parties entered stipulations concerning
the eligibility of all 36 of the PERB challenged voters. They
stipulated that the ballots of 32 of the challenged voters
should be counted and that the ballots of four of the
challenged voters should not be counted.
At the hearing, the parties entered stipulations concerning
Objections to Election---Alleged Irregularities Objections to Election---Alleged Irregularities
It was stipulated by the parties that at all times relevant
the Association of California State Attorneys and Hearing
Officers and the Judicial and Legal Coalition were employee
organizations and that the Department of Personnel
Administration was the state employer.
It was stipulated by the parties that at all times relevant
4
The election to determine an exclusive representative in
state unit no. 2 was, as with all 20 state units, conducted by
mailed ballot. In a mailed ballot election the accuracy of the
voter address list is of crucial importance. In an early
effort to secure up-to-date addresses, the Sacramento Regional
Director prepared a notice to state employees which was
The election to determine an exclusive representative in
4The term "employee organization" is defined at section 4The term "employee organization" is defined at section
3513(a). The term "state employer" is defined at Section 3513 (a) .
3513 (i) . The term "state employer" is defined at Section
7
they believed they were eligible to vote; eight individuals who
were eligible to vote challenged ballots per the directed
election order for unit no. 2; and one individual who cast a
ballot without using official PERB materials.
the eligibility of all 36 of the PERB challenged voters. They
stipulated that the ballots of 32 of the challenged voters
should be counted and that the ballots of four of the
challenged voters should not be counted.
the Association of California State Attorneys and Hearing
Officers and the Judicial and Legal Coalition were employee
organizations and that the Department of Personnel
Administration was the state employer . 4
state unit no. 2 was, as with all 20 state units, conducted by
mailed ballot. In a mailed ballot election the accuracy of the
voter address list is of crucial importance. In an early
effort to secure up-to-date addresses, the Sacramento Regional
Director prepared a notice to state employees which was
3513(i).

8
distributed
	with
	their
	January
	paychecks.
	The
	notice 	advised
employees
	that 	ballots
	would 	be
	mailed
	to
	the 	address
	on
	record
with
	the
	state 	controller's
	office
	and
	urged
	them
	to
	check
	for
accuracy 	the 	address
	on
	their
	1980
	W-2
	Wage
	and 	Tax
	Statement
Form. 	The
	notice 	further
	advised
	employees
	of 	the
	steps
	they
should 	take
	to
	update
	their
	addresses
	if
	they
	were
	not
current.
	Some
	employees,
	the
	total
	number 	unknown,
	updated
their
	address 	records 	following
	receipt
	of
	this
	notice.
distributed with their January paychecks. The notice advised
On
	March
	31,
	1981,
	the
	Sacramento 	Regional
	Director 	issued
an
	election
	order 	for
	unit
	no
	2.
	The
	order
	set
	the
	election
period
	and
	detailed
	the
	manner
	in
	which
	the
	election
	would 	be
conducted. 	In
	all
	respects
1
	the
	election
	was
	conducted
	in
strict
	accord 	with 	the
	election 	order. 	Ballots
	were
	mailed
	on
May
	11, 	to
	be
	returned
	not
	later
	than
	5
	p.m.
	on
	June 	11, 	1981.
Voters
	who
	did 	not
	receive
	a
	ballot 	at 	their
	homes 	by
	May
	18,
1981 	were
	given
	a 	two-week
	period,
	May
	18
	through
	May
	29,
	to
contact
	the
	PERB
	election 	office
	and
	request
	a
	ballot.
	Upon
request, 	voters
	who
	did 	not 	receive
	ballots,
	even 	though
	their
names 	were 	on
	the
	eligibility
	list,
	were
	sent 	duplicate
ballots.
	Upon
	request, 	voters
	whose 	names 	were
	not
	on
	the
eligibility 	list
	were
	sent 	challenged
	ballots.
On March 31, 1981, the Sacramento Regional Director issued
The state employer was ordered to provide to the regional	The
	state
	employer 	was
	ordered 	to 	provide 	to 	the 	regional
director, not later than April 13, 1981, two kinds of voter	
director,
	not
	later
	than April 	13, 	1981,
	two
	kinds 	of 	voter
8
employees that ballots would be mailed to the address on record
with the state controller's office and urged them to check for
accuracy the address on their 1980 W-2 Wage and Tax Statement
Form. The notice further advised employees of the steps they
should take to update their addresses if they were not
current. Some employees, the total number unknown, updated
their address records following receipt of this notice.
an election order for unit no 2. The order set the election
period and detailed the manner in which the election would be
conducted. In all respects, the election was conducted in
strict accord with the election order. Ballots were mailed on
May 11, to be returned not later than 5 p.m. on June 11, 1981.
Voters who did not receive a ballot at their homes by May 18,
1981 were given a two-week period, May 18 through May 29, to
contact the PERB election office and request a ballot. Upon
request, voters who did not receive ballots, even though their
names were on the eligibility list, were sent duplicate
ballots. Upon request, voters whose names were not on the
eligibility list were sent challenged ballots.
The state employer was ordered to provide to the regional

9
lists. 	One 	list, 	popularly 	known 	as 	the 	Excelsior 	list,	lists. One list, popularly known as the Excelsior list, 5 was 	5 	was
for 	the 	use 	of 	the 	competing 	employee 	organizations. 	The
Excelsior 	list 	was 	to 	contain 	the 	name, 	classification 	title,
class 	schematic, 	class 	code, 	agency 	code, 	reporting 	unit 	and
county 	code 	for 	each 	employee 	and 	the 	home 	address 	of 	all
employees 	except 	those 	who 	had 	completed 	a 	written 	request 	that
his/her 	home 	address 	not 	be 	released.
for the use of the competing employee organizations. The
6
The 	other 	list 	the 	state 	employer 	was 	directed 	to 	provide
was 	a 	voter 	list 	containing 	the 	home 	addresses 	of 	all 	employees
in 	unit 	no. 	2. 	This 	second 	list 	was 	to 	be 	used 	by 	the 	regional
director 	to 	mail 	the 	ballots. 	This 	list 	was 	to 	be 	in 	zip 	code
The other list the state employer was directed to provide
5The term is derived from the National Labor Relations	5The 	term 	is 	derived 	from 	the 	National 	Labor 	Relations
Board 	decision 	Excelsior 	Underwear 	Inc. 	(1966) 	156 	NLRB 	1236.
In 	that 	case 	the 	NLRB 	announced 	a 	rule 	that 	henceforth 	it 	would
require 	an 	employer 	to 	provide 	for 	delivery 	to 	the 	union 	a 	list
of 	names 	and 	home 	addresses 	of 	employees 	eligible 	to 	vote 	in 	a
representation 	election.
Board decision Excelsior Underwear Inc. (1966) 156 NLRB 1236.
6specifically, the directed election order provided that
the 	Excelsior 	list 	should 	not 	contain 	the 	home 	address 	of 	any
employee 	who 	had 	"filed 	with 	the 	employer 	a 	written 	request
that 	his/her 	home 	address 	not 	be 	released 	pursuant 	to 	Civil
Code 	section 	1798.62."
6specifically,
Civil 	Code 	section 	1798.62, 	which 	is 	contained 	in 	the
California 	Information 	Practices Act, 	reads 	as 	follows:
Civil Code section 1798.62, which is contained in the
Upon 	written 	reauest 	of 	any 	individual,
any 	agency 	which 	maintains 	a 	mailing 	list
shall 	remove 	the 	individual's 	name 	and
address 	from 	such 	list, 	except 	that 	such
agency 	need 	not 	remove 	the 	individual's 	name
if 	such 	name 	is 	exclusively 	used 	by 	the
agency 	to 	directly 	contact 	the 	individual.
Upon written request of any individual,
Excelsior list was to contain the name, classification title,
class schematic, class code, agency code, reporting unit and
county code for each employee and the home address of all
employees except those who had completed a written request that
his/her home address not be released. 6
was a voter list containing the home addresses of all employees
in unit no. 2. This second list was to be used by the regional
director to mail the ballots. This list was to be in zip code
In that case the NLRB announced a rule that henceforth it would
require an employer to provide for delivery to the union a list
of names and home addresses of employees eligible to vote in a
representation election.
the 	directed 	election 	order 	provided 	that
the Excelsior list should not contain the home address of any
employee who had "filed with the employer a written request
that his/her home address not be released pursuant to Civil
Code section 1798.62."
California Information Practices Act, reads as follows:
any agency which maintains a mailing list
shall remove the individual's name and
address from such list, except that such
agency need not remove the individual's name
if such name is exclusively used by the
agency to directly contact the individual.

10
rather
	than
	alphabetical
	order
	and
	was
	to
	be
	in
	the
	form
	of
computer
	magnetic
	tape.
rather than alphabetical order and was to be in the form of
Finally,
	the
	directed 	election
	order 	provided 	for
	three
types 	of
	election
	notices:
	a
	posted
	notice,
	a
	paycheck
	notice
and
	a
	mailed
	notice.
	The
	posted
	notice
	was
	to
	be 	up
	at
	all
state
	employee
	work
	sites
	not
	later
	than
	April
	20, 	1981.
	The
paycheck
	notice
	was
	to
	be
	delivered
	with
	the
	April
	1981
	pay
warrants. 	The
	mailed
	notice
	was
	to
	be
	sent 	to
	employees
	at
their
	home
	addresses 	not
	later
	than
	April
	20, 	1981.
Finally, the directed election order provided for three
In 	accord 	with 	the
	election 	order, 	notices
	of 	the
	impending
election
	were
	distributed
	and
	posted 	throughout
	state 	offices.
The
	Department
	of 	Personnel 	Administration,
	at
	that
	time
	known
as 	the 	Governor's 	Office 	of
	Employee
	Relations,
	was
	given
25,000
	copies 	of
	an
	election 	notice
	for
	posting 	in
	state
agencies. 	The
	notice
	measured
	25
	inches
	by 	40
	inches
	and 	was
printed
	in
	two
	colors,
	black
	and
	blue,
	on 	a
	white 	background.
It
	described 	the
	election 	process,
	identified
	in
	broad
categories
	the 	types 	of
	eligible
	voters
	and
	depicted
	a
	sample
ballot
	for 	each 	of 	the
	20
	units.
	In
	letters
	more
	than
one-fourth 	inch 	in
	size,
	the 	notice 	described 	the 	process 	for
voters 	to 	follow
	if
	they
	failed 	to 	receive
	a
	ballot
	by May
	18.
In
	letters
	one-half
	inch 	in
	size,
	the 	notice
	listed
	the
election 	headquarters 	telephone
	number 	and
	stated 	that 	voters
could
	call
	the
	number
	collect.
In accord with the election order, notices of the impending
10
computer magnetic tape.
types of election notices: a posted notice, a paycheck notice
and a mailed notice. The posted notice was to be up at all
state employee work sites not later than April 20, 1981. The
paycheck notice was to be delivered with the April 1981 pay
warrants. 	The mailed notice was to be sent to employees at
their home addresses not later than April 20, 1981.
election were distributed and posted throughout state offices.
The Department of Personnel Administration, at that time known
as the Governor's Office of Employee Relations, was given
25,000 copies of an election notice for posting in state
agencies. 	The notice measured 25 inches by 40 inches and was
printed in two colors, black and blue, on a white background.
It described the election process, identified in broad
categories the types of eligible voters and depicted a sample
ballot for each of the 20 units. 	In letters more than
one-fourth inch in size, the notice described the process for
voters to follow if they failed to receive a ballot by May 18.
In letters one-half inch in size, the notice listed the
election headquarters telephone number and stated that voters
could call the number collect.

11
Copies
	of
	this
	notice
	were
	posted
	at
	employee
	work
locations
	throughout 	the
	state.
	Responsibility
	for
	insuring
that
	the
	notices 	actually
	were
	posted
	was
	delegated
	by
	the
Department
	of 	Personnel 	Administration 	to
	the 	labor
	relations
officers
	in
	each 	agency.
	To
	emphasize
	the
	importance
	of 	the
notice,
	labor
	relations 	officers
	were
	required 	to 	personally
pick
	up
	copies
	of
	it
	at
	the
	Department
	of 	Personnel
Administration.
	They 	were
	told
	to 	place 	copies 	of 	the
	notices
at
	all
	locations
	where
	employees
	customarily
	are
	notices 	to
posted.
	They
	also
	were
	told,
	"when
	in 	doubt, 	post"
	and
	advised
that
	they
	would 	be
	held 	"accountable" 	for
	insuring
	that
	the
notices 	actually
	were
	posted
	at 	state
	employee
	work
	sites. 	The	The
notices
	were
	widely
	posted,
	sometimes
	at
	numerous
	locations
	at
the
	same 	work
	site.
Copies of this notice were posted at employee work
Except 	for
	size
	and
	ink
	color,
	the
	paycheck
	notices
	were
essentially 	identical
	to 	the 	posted
	notices.
	The
	paycheck
notices
	measured
	19
	inches
	by 	25
	inches
	and 	were
	printed
entirely
	in 	black 	ink.
	As
	required
	by
	the
	election 	order, 	the
paycheck
	notices
	were
	distributed
	with 	the 	April
	1981
	state
employee 	pay
	warrants. 	This
	distribution
	was
	not 	limited 	to
persons
	whose 	names 	were
	contained
	on
	the 	voter
	list
	but
	also
included 	persons 	in
	specifically
	excluded 	job
	classes.
Except for size and ink color, the paycheck notices were
In 	accord 	with 	the 	election 	order, 	voter
	lists
	were
delivered 	to 	the 	regional 	director
	by
	the
	state
	employer 	on
April 	13. 	The
	Excelsior
	list
	for 	unit
	no. 	2 came
	in
	two
In accord with the election order, voter lists were
11
locations throughout the state. Responsibility for insuring
that the notices actually were posted was delegated by the
Department of Personnel Administration to the labor relations
officers in each agency. To emphasize the importance of the
notice, labor relations officers were required to personally
pick up copies of it at the Department of Personnel
Administration. They were told to place copies of the notices
at all locations where notices to employees customarily are
posted. They also were told, "when in doubt, post" and advised
that they would be held "accountable" for insuring that the
notices actually were posted at state employee work sites.
notices were widely posted, sometimes at numerous locations at
the same work site.
essentially identical to the posted notices. The paycheck
notices measured 19 inches by 25 inches and were printed
entirely in black ink. As required by the election order, the
paycheck notices were distributed with the April 1981 state
employee pay warrants. This distribution was not limited to
persons whose names were contained on the voter list but also
included persons in specifically excluded job classes.
delivered to the regional director by the state employer on
April 13. The Excelsior list for unit no. 2 came in two

12
parts.
	One
	part
	was 	a
	computer
	printout
	containing
	the
	names
of
	all
	eligible
	voters
	and
	the
	home
	addresses 	of
	all
	voters
except 	those
	who
	had
	completed
	a
	request
	for
	nondisclosure
	of
address.
	The
	second
	list
	contained 	the
	names
	and
	work
	site
addresses 	for
	most
	of 	the 	persons
	whose 	home
	addresses
	were
	not
disclosed. 	Collectively,
	the
	two
	lists
	provided
	the 	addresses
of
	all
	but
	56
	of 	the
	1,727
	persons
	on
	the
	unit
	no.
	2
	voter
list.
	Employees
	of 	the
	California 	State
	Employees'
	Association
(hereafter
	CSEA),
	one
	of 	the
	three
	constituent 	organizations
	of
the
	Coalition,
	were
	able 	to
	determine 	the
	work
	site
	addresses
of
	46
	of 	the 	missing
	56
	employees
	through
	the
	use
	of 	the
	state
employee
	telephone
	book.
	No
	addresses
	were
	determined 	for 	the
remaining
	10
	voters.
parts. One part was a computer printout containing the names
The
	voter
	list
	supplied 	to 	the
	PERB
	had 	home
	addresses 	for
all
	1,727
	unit
	no.
	2
	voters.
	On
	April
	20, 	1981,
	agents 	of 	the
Sacramento 	Regional
	Director
	mailed
	sample
	ballots
	to
	all
persons
	on
	the 	voter
	list
	for
	unit
	no. 	2.
	The
	sample
	ballot
was
	printed
	on 	a
	page 	which
	also
	contained
	a
	notice 	of 	the
the 	telephone
	number
	of 	the
	PERB
	election	election,
headquarters, 	instructions
	for
	what 	a
	voter 	should
	do
	if
	he 	or
she 	did 	not
	get
	a
	ballot
	and
	other 	election 	information.
	Of
the 	1,727 	sample
	ballots
	mailed,
	43 	were
	returned
	by
	the 	post
office
	as 	"undeliverable 	as 	addressed." 	Subsequently, 	the
regional 	director 	obtained 	corrected 	addresses 	for
	28
	of 	the
	43
employees 	whose 	sample
	ballots
	were
	returned.
	Working 	through
The voter list supplied to the PERB had home addresses for
12
of all eligible voters and the home addresses of all voters
except those who had completed a request for nondisclosure of
address. 	The second list contained the names and work site
addresses for most of the persons whose home addresses were not
disclosed. Collectively, the two lists provided the addresses
of all but 56 of the 1,727 persons on the unit no. 2 voter
list. Employees of the California State Employees' Association
(hereafter CSEA) , one of the three constituent organizations of
the Coalition, were able to determine the work site addresses
of 46 of the missing 56 employees through the use of the state
employee telephone book. No addresses were determined for the
remaining 10 voters.
all 1,727 unit no. 2 voters. On April 20, 1981, agents of the
Sacramento Regional Director mailed sample ballots to all
persons on the voter list for unit no. 2. The sample ballot
was printed on a page which also contained a notice of the
election, the telephone number of the PERB election
headquarters, instructions for what a voter should do if he or
she did not get a ballot and other election information. Of
the 1,727 sample ballots mailed, 43 were returned by the post
office as "undeliverable as addressed." Subsequently, the
regional director obtained corrected addresses for 28 of the 43
employees whose sample ballots were returned. Working through

13
the 	weekend 	prior 	to 	the 	mailing 	of 	the 	actual 	ballots, 	agents
of 	the 	regional 	director 	corrected 	the 	28 	addresses 	by 	hand.
the weekend prior to the mailing of the actual ballots, agents
In 	the 	week 	prior 	to 	the 	mailing 	of 	ballots, 	the 	regional
director 	and 	the 	parties 	discovered 	that 	the 	directed 	election
order 	did 	not 	list 	the 	newly 	created 	classifications 	of 	Hearing
Officer 	I 	and 	II 	in 	the 	Department 	of 	Social 	Services. 	To
rectify 	this 	omission, 	the 	parties 	on May 	5, 	1981 	entered 	a
stipulation 	that 	the 	59 	affected 	social 	services 	hearing
officers 	were 	"employees" 	as 	defined 	in 	the 	State Employer
Employee 	Relations 	Act. 	The 	stipulation 	signed 	by 	the 	parties
contained 	an 	address 	for 	each 	of 	the 	59 	persons. 	Following
receipt 	of 	the 	stipulation, 	the 	regional 	director 	amended 	the
election 	order 	to 	add 	the 	Hearing 	Officer 	I 	and 	II 	job
classifications. 	Of 	the 	59 	names 	in 	the 	stipulation, 	two
already 	were 	contained 	in 	the 	unit 	no. 	2 	voter 	list 	and 	one 	was
for 	an 	employee 	who 	did 	not 	go 	to 	work 	for 	the 	state 	until
after 	the 	December 	31, 	1980 	voter 	cutoff 	date.
In the week prior to the mailing of ballots, the regional
On May 	11, 	PERB 	agents 	mailed 	1,783 	ballots 	to 	voters 	in
unit 	no. 	2, 	including 	the 	social 	services 	hearing 	officers. 	By	By
the 	5 	p.m. 	June 	11 	cutoff 	date, 	the 	PERB 	had 	received 	1,379
unit 	no. 	2 	ballots. 	Of 	these, 	1,357 	were 	determined 	to 	be
valid 	while 	22 	were 	determined 	to 	be 	void. 	Most 	of 	the 	22
ballots 	determined 	to 	be 	void 	were 	rejected 	because 	the 	persons
who 	cast 	those 	ballots 	either 	had 	failed 	to 	sign 	the 	outer
envelope 	or 	had 	failed 	to 	use 	the 	secret 	inner 	envelope 	as
On May 11, PERB agents mailed 1,783 ballots to voters in
13
of the regional director corrected the 28 addresses by hand.
director and the parties discovered that the directed election
order did not list the newly created classifications of Hearing
Officer I and II in the Department of Social Services.
rectify this omission, the parties on May 5, 1981 entered a
stipulation that the 59 affected social services hearing
officers were "employees" as defined in the State Employer
Employee Relations Act. The stipulation signed by the parties
contained an address for each of the 59 persons. Following
receipt of the stipulation, the regional director amended the
election order to add the Hearing Officer I and II job
classifications. Of the 59 names in the stipulation, two
already were contained in the unit no. 2 voter list and one was
for an employee who did not go to work for the state until
after the December 31, 1980 voter cutoff date.
unit no. 2, including the social services hearing officers.
the 5 p.m. June 11 cutoff date, the PERB had received 1,379
unit no. 2 ballots. Of these, 1,357 were determined to be
valid while 22 were determined to be void. Most of the 22
ballots determined to be void were rejected because the persons
who cast those ballots either had failed to sign the outer
envelope or had failed to use the secret inner envelope as

14
required
	by
	the
	election 	order. 	Thirty 	unit
	no.
	2
	ballots
	were
returned
	by
	the
	post
	office
	for
	being
	undeliverable
	as
addressed.
	Nine
	of 	the
	30
	voters
	whose
	ballots
	were
	returned
had
	requested
	and 	were
	sent 	duplicate
	ballots.
required by the election order. Thirty unit no. 2 ballots were
The
	Coalition
	produced
	evidence 	about
	three
	persons
	who
	had
difficulty
	receiving
	ballots,
	Kevin
	Toole, 	Charles 	Fergerson
and
	Richard
	Wehe.
The Coalition produced evidence about three persons who had
Mr.
	Toole
	is
	a
	Hearing
	Officer
	II
	for 	the
	Department
	of
Social 	Services.
	He
	became
	aware
	that
	he
	did 	not
	receive
	a
ballot
	in 	the
	election 	after
	hearing
	a
	discussion
	about
	the
election
	among
	persons 	in
	his
	office.
	He
	called
	a
	telephone
number 	someone
	gave
	him
	but
	he
	did 	not
	recall
	the
	identity
	of
the
	agency
	or
	organization
	which
	the 	telephone
	number
	reached.
He
	said
	the 	person
	on
	the
	other
	end
	of 	the 	telephone
	at
	first
told
	him
	that
	hearing
	officers
	were
	not
	eligible
	but 	then
	told
him
	that
	they
	were
	eligible
	and
	that
	a
	ballot
	had
	been
	sent 	to
him.
	He
	told
	the 	person
	that
	he 	had
	not 	received
	a
	ballot
	and
she 	responded
	that
	it
	was
	too
	late
	for 	her
	to 	help
	him. 	He
	did
not
	recall
	the 	date
	he
	placed 	the 	telephone
	call.
	On
	the
	basis
of
	this
	testimony
	it
	is
	concluded
	that
	Mr.
	Toole
	had
	called
	the
PERB
	election 	office
	but 	the
	call
	was
	placed
	after
	the
	May 	29
deadline 	for 	requesting
	a
	duplicate 	ballot.
Mr. Toole is a Hearing Officer II for the Department of
The
	address 	for
	Mr. 	Toole
	listed
	in 	the
	May 	5
	stipulation
between 	the 	parties
	was
	in 	Monterey 	Park.
	Mr. 	Toole 	had
	not
lived 	in Monterey 	Park 	since 	June 	or 	July 	of 	1980 	when 	he 	moved
The address for Mr. Toole listed in the May 5 stipulation
14
returned by the post office for being undeliverable as
addressed. 	Nine of the 30 voters whose ballots were returned
had requested and were sent duplicate ballots.
difficulty receiving ballots, Kevin Toole, Charles Fergerson
and Richard Wehe.
Social Services. He became aware that he did not receive a
ballot in the election after hearing a discussion about the
election among persons in his office. He called a telephone
number someone gave him but he did not recall the identity of
the agency or organization which the telephone number reached.
He said the person on the other end of the telephone at first
told him that hearing officers were not eligible but then told
him that they were eligible and that a ballot had been sent to
him. He told the person that he had not received a ballot and
she responded that it was too late for her to help him. He did
not recall the date he placed the telephone call. On the basis
of this testimony it is concluded that Mr. Toole had called the
PERB election office but the call was placed after the May 29
deadline for requesting a duplicate ballot.
The address for Mr. Toole listed in the May 5 stipulation
between the parties was in Monterey Park. Mr. Toole had not
lived in Monterey Park since June or July of 1980 when he moved

15
to
	Sacramento.
	After
	arriving
	in
	Sacramento,
	Mr.
	Toole
	lived
at
	one
	address
	for 	about
	six
	months 	and
	then
	moved
	to
	a
different
	address 	in
	about
	December
	of
	1980.
	He
	had
	informed
	a
clerk
	in
	his 	office
	of
	his
	address
	changes.
to Sacramento. After arriving in Sacramento, Mr. Toole lived
Mr.
	Fergerson
	is
	a
	Hearing
	Officer
	II
	for
	the
	Department
	of
Social 	Services.
	He
	did 	not
	receive
	his
	ballot
	for 	the
	unit
no.
	2
	election
	until
	about
	the
	middle
	of
	July,
	1981,
	some
	weeks
after
	the
	close
	of
	voting.
	The
	May
	5,
	1981
	stipulation
	between
the
	parties
	lists
	a
	Danville 	address
	or
	Mr.
	Fergerson.
However,
	since
	March
	8,
	1980 	he 	had
	lived
	in
	Pleasant
	Hill.
	He
had
	informed
	a
	clerk
	in
	his
	office
	about
	his
	address
	change.
Mr.
	Fergerson
	recalled
	seeing
	an
	election
	notice
	but 	did 	not
call
	the
	PERB
	election
	number 	when 	he
	failed
	to 	receive
	a
ballot
	because
	he
	thought
	he 	"would 	be
	receiving
	it
	eventually
and
	didn't
	pay
	much
	attention
	to
	it."
Mr. Fergerson is a Hearing Officer II for the Department of
Mr. 	Wehe
	is
	an
	attorney
	III
	for 	the
	Department
	of
Transportation,
	a
	job
	classification
	within
	state
	unit
	no. 	2.
He
	voted 	in 	the
	election
	but 	received
	a
	ballot
	only
	after
	an
acquaintance
	called
	the
	election
	headquarters
	and
	requested
that
	a
	ballot
	be
	sent 	to 	his
	most
	recent 	address.
	Mr. 	Wehe 	had
moved
	in April 	of
	1980 	and
	again 	in April 	of 	1981.
	A
ballot
was
	not 	delivered 	to 	either
	Mr. 	Wehe's
	current 	address 	or 	the
address
	he
	occupied
	just 	prior.
Mr. Wehe is an attorney III for the Department of
In
	its 	allegations, 	the 	Coalition 	contends 	that 	the
	PERB
failed 	to 	send
	ballots 	to 	George 	Coan 	and 	John 	Willd, 	both 	of
In its allegations, the Coalition contends that the PERB
15
at one address for about six months and then moved to a
different address in about December of 1980. He had informed a
clerk in his office of his address changes.
Social Services. He did not receive his ballot for the unit
no. 2 election until about the middle of July, 1981, some weeks
after the close of voting. 	The May 5, 1981 stipulation between
the parties lists a Danville address or Mr. Fergerson.
However, since March 8, 1980 he had lived in Pleasant Hill. He
had informed a clerk in his office about his address change.
Mr. Fergerson recalled seeing an election notice but did not
call the PERB election number when he failed to receive a
ballot because he thought he "would be receiving it eventually
and didn't pay much attention to it."
Transportation, a job classification within state unit no. 2.
He voted in the election but received a ballot only after an
acquaintance called the election headquarters and requested
that a ballot be sent to his most recent address. Mr. Wehe had
moved in April of 1980 and again in April of 1981. A ballot
was not delivered to either Mr. Wehe's current address or the
address he occupied just prior.
failed to send ballots to George Coan and John Willd, both of

16
whom are hearing officers at the Office of Administrative
Hearings. The parties stipulated that George Coan was an
eligible voter in state unit no. 2. However, there was no
evidence to establish that he did not receive a ballot and/or
that he was not mailed a ballot. There was no evidence at all
about Mr. Willd.
whom are hearing officers at the Office of Administrative
The valid ballots received in unit no. 2 represented 76.1
percent of the eligible voters. The voter turnout in all 20
state units had a collective average of 61 percent. The voter
turnout in unit no. 2 was the fifth highest among the 20 units.
The valid ballots received in unit no. 2 represented 76.1
Objections to Election---Mail Distribution Policy Objections to Election---Mail Distribution Policy
The development of a satisfactory mailing list was one of
the early tasks facing the employee organizations interested in
representing employees in unit no. 2. In an effort to solve
this problem, one of the Coalition's constituent groups, the
State Trial Attorneys Association, joined with ACSA in a 1978
effort to develop a mailing list. The Trial Attorneys obtained
a list of names of state-employed attorneys and hearing
officers from the controller's office and then determined the
work addresses for some of the persons on the list. After the
Trial Attorneys had identified as many it could,
it turned the list over to ACSA. Using the state employee
telephone book for reference, ACSA officers determined the work
site addresses of additional numbers of state attorneys and
hearing officers. When ultimately completed, the jointly
The development of a satisfactory mailing list was one of
16
Hearings. The parties stipulated that George Coan was an
eligible voter in state unit no. 2. However, there was no
evidence to establish that he did not receive a ballot and/or
that he was not mailed a ballot. There was no evidence at all
about Mr. Willd.
percent of the eligible voters. The voter turnout in all 20
state units had a collective average of 61 percent. The voter
turnout in unit no. 2 was the fifth highest among the 20 units.
the early tasks facing the employee organizations interested in
representing employees in unit no. 2. In an effort to solve
this problem, one of the Coalition's constituent groups, the
State Trial Attorneys Association, joined with ACSA in a 1978
effort to develop a mailing list. The Trial Attorneys obtained
a list of names of state-employed attorneys and hearing
officers from the controller's office and then determined the
work addresses for some of the persons on the list. After the
Trial Attorneys had identified as many addresses as it could,
it turned the list over to ACSA. Using the state employee
telephone book for reference, ACSA officers determined the work
site addresses of additional numbers of state attorneys and
hearing officers. When ultimately completed, the jointly

17
produced
	mailing
	list
	had
	the
	work
	site
	addresses 	of 	about
	95
percent
	of 	the
	employees
	on
	the
	list.
produced mailing list had the work site addresses of about 95
Following
	the
	development
	of
	the
	list,
	both
	organizations
commenced
	mailings 	to
	state-employed
	attorneys.
	During
	1978,
the
	Trial
	Attorneys
	completed
	four
	mailings 	to 	attorneys
	at
their
	work
	addresses.
Following the development of the list, both organizations
At
	about
	the
	same
	time
	as
	the
	Trial
	Attorneys 	Asociation
was
	mailing
	literature
	to
	state
	lawyers, 	the
	State
	Employees
Trades 	Council
	commenced 	mass
	mailings 	of
	literature
	to
Department
	of 	Transportation 	(hereafter
	CalTrans) 	maintenance
workers.
	The
	Trades 	Council
	mailings
	totaled
	some
	4,000
	to
5,000
	pieces
	of
	mail,
	most
	of
	which 	went
	to 	the
	83
	CalTrans
field 	offices
	throughout 	the
	state.
	Because
	the
	massive
	size
of
	the 	Trades 	Council 	mailings 	presented
	distribution
	problems
at
	the
	field 	offices,
	CalTrans
	Labor
	Relations
	Chief
Robert 	Negri
	decided
	that 	restrictions
	had
	to
	be
	placed
	on
	the
delivery
	of 	personal
	mail
	at
	the
	work
	site. 	On August 1, 1978,	
On
	August
	1,
	1978,
a
	memo
	drafted
	by Mr.
	Negri
	was
	distributed 	to
	all
	department
administrators
	over 	the
	signature
	of
	G.V. 	Hood,
	CalTrans
	chief
of 	administrative 	services.
	The 	memorandum
	stated 	that
	the
department's 	long-standing 	policy
	was
	not 	to 	permit 	the
distribution
	of 	personal 	mail. 	According 	to 	the
	memo,
	personal
mail
	when
	identified
	should
	be
	returned 	to 	the 	sender 	as
undeliverable.
	The 	memo
	continued:
At about the same time as the Trial Attorneys Asociation
In 	the 	past,
	when 	we
	have 	been 	aware 	of 	suchvolume 	personal 	mailings,
	we 	have 	returned
In the past, when we have been aware of such
17
percent of the employees on the list.
commenced mailings to state-employed attorneys. During 1978,
the Trial Attorneys completed four mailings to attorneys at
their work addresses.
was mailing literature to state lawyers, the State Employees
Trades Council commenced mass mailings of literature to
Department of Transportation (hereafter CalTrans) maintenance
workers. 	The Trades Council mailings totaled some 4,000 to
5,000 pieces of mail, most of which went to the 83 CalTrans
field offices throughout the state. Because the massive size
of the Trades Council mailings presented distribution problems
at the field offices, CalTrans Labor Relations Chief
Robert Negri decided that restrictions had to be placed on the
delivery of personal mail at the work site.
a memo drafted by Mr. Negri was distributed to all department
administrators over the signature of G. V. Hood, CalTrans chief
of administrative services. The memorandum stated that the
department's long-standing policy was not to permit the
distribution of personal mail. According to the memo, personal
mail when identified should be returned to the sender as
undeliverable. The memo continued:
volume personal mailings, we have returned

18
the
	mail
	to
	the 	sender 	as
	undeliverable.
	It
will
	be
	our
	practice
	to 	continue
	doing
	this
in 	the
	future.
the mail to the sender as undeliverable. It
The
	purpose 	of
	our
	policy,
	which
	appliesequally 	to
	private 	individuals,
	businesses
and
	employee
	organizations
	who
	have
	not
received an official State business	
received
	an
	official
	State
	business
sanction,
	is
	to
	minimize
	unnecessary
	expense
to
	the
	State
	in
	terms
	of
	distribution
	costs.
The purpose of our policy, which applies
The
	Trial
	Attorneys
	Association,
	whose 	members
	were
primarily
	CalTrans
	employees
	responded
	to
	the
	memorandum
	by
filing
	an
	unfair
	practice
	charge
	on
	August
	9,
	1978.
The Trial Attorneys Association, whose members were
7	
On
September
	5,
	1978,
	the 	Governor's
	Office 	of
	Employee
	Relations,
over
	the
	signature
	of
	Deputy
	Director 	Allen
	P.
	Goldstein,
distributed
	a
	supplemental
	policy
	on 	employee
	mail. 	This
policy,
	which
	applied 	to
	all
	state
	departments, 	permitted
departments
	to
	adopt
	different
	rules
	for 	the
	delivery 	of
employee
	organization
	mail
	from
	the
	rules
	for
	other 	personal
mail.
	Specifically,
	as
	to
	mass
	mailings
	by 	employee
organizations
	the
	policy
	provided:
September 5, 1978, the Governor's Office of Employee Relations,
If
	a
	department 	determines
	that
	the
	sorting,
distribution
	or 	handling 	of
	volume
	mailings,not
	related 	to
	state
	business,
	would
	create
an 	added 	expense 	or 	impact
	on
	the
	efficiency
of
	its
	internal
	mail
	delivery,
	such 	mail
should
	be
	placed 	in
	a
	central 	location 	at
the
	work
	site
	for 	pick
	up 	by 	employees
	or
their 	representatives
	during
	non-work
	time.
If a department determines that the sorting,
7This charge, case S-CE-2-S, ultimately was resolved in	
7This 	charge, 	case 	S-CE-2-S,
	ultimately
	was
	resolved 	in
State 	Trial 	Attorneys 	Association 	v. 	State 	of 	California
(7/7/81)
	PERB
	Decision
	No. 	159b-S.
State Trial Attorneys Association v. State of California
18
will be our practice to continue doing this
in the future.
equally to private individuals, businesses
and employee organizations who have not
sanction, is to minimize unnecessary expense
to the State in terms of distribution costs.
primarily CalTrans employees responded to the memorandum by
filing an unfair practice charge on August 9, 1978.7 on
over the signature of Deputy Director Allen P. Goldstein,
distributed a supplemental policy on employee mail. This
policy, which applied to all state departments, permitted
departments to adopt different rules for the delivery of
employee organization mail from the rules for other personal
mail. Specifically, as to mass mailings by employee
organizations the policy provided:
distribution or handling of volume mailings,
not related to state business, would create
an added expense or impact on the efficiency
of its internal mail delivery, such mail
should be placed in a central location at
the work site for pick up by employees or
their representatives during non-work time.
(7/7/81) PERB Decision No. 159b-S.

19
The 	Trial 	Attorneys 	Association 	responded 	to 	the 	directive 	from
the 	Office 	of 	Employee 	Relations 	by 	amending 	its 	charge 	on
October 	10, 	1978.
The Trial Attorneys Association responded to the directive from
Mr. 	Negri 	interpreted 	the 	September 	5 memorandum 	from 	the
Governor's 	office 	as 	a 	rescission 	of 	his 	policy 	of 	returning
personal 	mail 	to 	the 	post 	office. 	He 	believed 	that 	the 	bin
system 	discussed 	in 	the 	Governor's 	office 	memorandum 	was
optional, 	depending 	upon 	the 	circumstances. 	Therefore,
CalTrans 	established 	bins 	in 	its 	field 	offices 	but 	did 	not 	do
so 	at 	the 	department's 	headquarters 	office 	in 	Sacramento, 	the
work 	location 	of 	about 	40 	of 	the 	department's 	100 	attorneys.
Mr. Negri interpreted the September 5 memorandum from the
After 	the 	September 	5 memo 	from 	the 	Governor's 	office,
Mr. 	Negri 	instructed 	the 	mail 	room 	supervisors 	at 	the 	CalTrans
building 	that 	they 	should 	contact 	him 	in 	each 	individual 	case
where 	they 	were 	in 	doubt 	about 	whether 	or 	not 	to 	deliver
personal 	mail. 	It 	was 	his 	intention 	to 	make 	ad 	hoc 	decisions
based 	upon 	such 	circumstances 	as 	the 	volume 	of 	mail 	in
question. 	However, 	no 	one 	from 	the 	mail 	room 	ever 	inquired
about 	the 	bulk 	deliveries 	of 	organizational 	mail they 	might
have 	received.
After the September 5 memo from the Governor's office,
Following 	the 	filing 	of 	the 	unfair 	practice 	charges, 	the
Trial 	Attorneys 	Association 	never 	mailed 	organizational
literature 	to 	attorneys 	at 	their 	work 	locations. 	The last	The 	last
mailing 	by 	that 	organization 	occurred 	in 	the 	summer 	of 	1978.
The 	organization 	likewise 	did 	not 	attempt 	to 	mail 	literature 	to
Following the filing of the unfair practice charges, the
19
the Office of Employee Relations by amending its charge on
October 10, 1978.
Governor's office as a rescission of his policy of returning
personal mail to the post office. He believed that the bin
system discussed in the Governor's office memorandum was
optional, depending upon the circumstances. Therefore,
CalTrans established bins in its field offices but did not do
so at the department's headquarters office in Sacramento, the
work location of about 40 of the department's 100 attorneys.
Mr. Negri instructed the mail room supervisors at the CalTrans
building that they should contact him in each individual case
where they were in doubt about whether or not to deliver
personal mail. It was his intention to make ad hoc decisions
based upon such circumstances as the volume of mail in
question. 	However, no one from the mail room ever inquired
about the bulk deliveries of organizational mail they might
have received.
Trial Attorneys Association never mailed organizational
literature to attorneys at their work locations.
mailing by that organization occurred in the summer of 1978.
The organization likewise did not attempt to mail literature to

20
state
	a~torneys
	at 	their
	home
	addresses.
	John
	L.
	Sullivan,
	the
treasurer
	and
	principal
	moving
	force
	behind
	the
	Trial
	Attorneys
Association,
	explained
	th€
	decision
	not
	to
	mail
	to
	home
addresses
	with
	the
	observation
	that
	"if
	it
	was
	difficult
	to 	get
the
	work
	addresses,
	it
	was
	even
	more
	difficult
	to 	get
	the
	home
addresses."
state attorneys at their home addresses. John L. Sullivan, the
Mr.
	Sullivan,
	who
	is
	an
	attorney
	at
	CalTrans,
	testified
that
	even 	though
	he
	received
	some
	mail
	from
	other
	employee
organizations
	at 	this
	work
	address,
	the
	Trial
	Attorneys
	elected
not
	to
	attempt
	a
	mass
	mailing.
	He
	said
	he
	considered 	the
	cost
too 	high
	to 	attempt
	a
	mass
	mailing
	that
	might
	not
	be
distributed.
Mr. Sullivan, who is an attorney at CalTrans, testified
Throughout
	the
	pre-election
	period,
	the
	Department
	of
Justice,
	which 	employs
	more
	attorneys
	than
	any
	other
	state
agency,
	distributed
	all
	personal
	mail 	without
	restriction.
Throughout the pre-election period, the Department of
After
	a
	hearing, 	the
	PERB
	itself
	ultimately
	concluded
	that
no
	violation
	of
	SEERA
	rights
	had 	been
	established
	by
	the
	Trial
Attorneys 	as
	to 	the
	August
	1,
	1978
	CalTrans
	memorandum.
However,
	the
	PERB
	did 	find
	a
	violation
	in 	the
	September
	5,
	1978
memo
	from
	the 	Governor's
	office
	because 	the 	policy
	it
proclaimed was discriminatory on its face toward employee
organization 	mail.
After a hearing, the PERB itself ultimately concluded that
8
BPERB Decision No. 159b-S, supra.	8PERB
	Decision
	No.
	159b-S, 	supra.
20
treasurer and principal moving force behind the Trial Attorneys
Association, explained the decision not to mail to home
addresses with the observation that "if it was difficult to get
the work addresses, it was even more difficult to get the home
addresses. "
that even though he received some mail from other employee
organizations at this work address, the Trial Attorneys elected
not to attempt a mass mailing. He said he considered the cost
too high to attempt a mass mailing that might not be
distributed.
Justice, which employs more attorneys than any other state
agency, distributed all personal mail without restriction.
no violation of SEERA rights had been established by the Trial
Attorneys as to the August 1, 1978 CalTrans memorandum.
However, the PERB did find a violation in the September 5, 1978
memo from the Governor's office because the policy it
pr~~,~imeA	
w~q	
Aiq~rimin~rnry
	on
	its
	face
	toward 	employee
organization mail. 8

During
	the
	initial
	year
	of
	dispute
	over
	the
	work
	site
mailing
	policy,
	employee
	organizations 	also
	had
	difficulty
	in
obtaining
	employee
	home
	addresses
	from
	the
	state 	controller.
Ultimately
	an
	organization
	named
	Professional
	Engineers
	in
California
	Government,
	which 	was
	seeking
	to 	represent
	employees
in
	State 	unit
	no.
	9,
	successfully
	sued
	the
	controller
	over
	the
home
	address
	issue.
	On
	April
	3,
	1980,
	a 	Los
	Angeles
	Superior
Court 	held
	that
	the
	employee
	organization
	had 	a
	right
	to 	the
names
	and
	addresses
	under
	California
	Public
	Records
	Act.
During the initial year of dispute over the work site
9	
On
May
	8, 	1980,
	the
	state
	controller
	released 	to
	the
	Professional
Engineers 	the
	names 	and
	addresses 	of
	all
	unit
	no.
	9
	employees,
except 	for 	those
	who
	had
	filed
	a
	nondisclosure 	request. 	After	
After
that 	date,
	the
	controller
	released 	disclosable
	employee 	home
addressses 	to
	all
	employee
	organizations
	which
	sought
	them.
May 8, 1980, the state controller released to the Professional
21
As
	early
	as
	mid-May
	of
	1980,
	a
	full
	year 	before 	the
elections
	were
	held,
	Trial
	Attorneys 	Treasurer 	Sullivan
	was
advised
	that
	the
	controller's 	office
	would 	make 	most 	home
addresses
	available 	to
	employee
	organizations.
	At 	no
	time,
however,
	did
	Mr.
	Sullivan 	request 	the
	home
	address
	list
	from
the
	controller's 	office.
As early as mid-May of 1980, a full year before the
During
	the 	second
	half
	of 	1980,
	ACSA
	continued 	to
	use
	the
work
	site
	address
	list 	it
	had
	developed
	jointly
	with 	the
	Trial
Attorneys 	Association.
	But
	it
	became
	increasingly 	apparent
During the second half of 1980, ACSA continued to use the
9Government Code section 6250 et seq.	9Government 	Code
	section
	6250
	et 	seq.
21
work site address list it had developed jointly with the Trial
Attorneys Association. But it became increasingly apparent
elections were held, Trial Attorneys Treasurer Sullivan was
advised that the controller's office would make most home
addresses available to employee organizations. At no time,
however, did Mr. Sullivan request the home address list from
the controller's office.
Engineers the names and addresses of all unit no. 9 employees,
except for those who had filed a nondisclosure request.
that date, the controller released discloseble employee home
addressses to all employee organizations which sought them.
mailing policy, employee organizations also had difficulty in
obtaining employee home addresses from the state controller.
Ultimately an organization named Professional Engineers in
California Government, which was seeking to represent employees
in State unit no. 9, successfully sued the controller over the
home address issue. On April 3, 1980, a Los Angeles Superior
Court held that the employee organization had a right to the
names and addresses under California Public Records Act.9 On

22
that
	the
	list
	was
	defective.
	Over
	the 	years
	mail
	addressed
	to
employees
	of
	both
	the
	Franchise
	Tax
	Board
	and
	the
	Unemployment
Insurance
	Appeals
	Board 	had
	been
	returned
	by
	the
	post
	office.
Because
	of
	his 	fears
	that
	work
	site
	address
	list
	was
	defective,
Richard 	Baker,
	a
	labor
	relations
	consultant 	retained
	by ACSA,
in
	February 	of
	1981
	obtained
	from
	the
	controller
	a
	unit
	no.
	2
home
	address
	list.
	The
	list
	had
	about 	1,400
	names
	with
	home
addresses
	and 	an
	additional
	400
	to
	500 	names
	without
	a 	home
address.
	ACSA
	relied
	on
	its
	1978 	work
	site
	address
	list
	to
fill
	in 	the
	blank
	addresses.
that the list was defective. Over the years mail addressed to
CSEA, 	a
	constituent
	organization
	in 	the
	Coalition,
	obtained
a
	unit
	no. 	2 home
	address
	list
	from
	the
	controller
	much
	earlier
than 	did
	ACSA.
	CSEA
	first
	obtained 	the
	home
	address
	list
	on
July 	1,
	1980 	and
	then 	got
	an
	updated
	version 	in
	December
	of
1980.
	CSEA
	already
	had 	home
	addresses 	of
	its
	own 	members 	and
because
	organization
	officers
	had
	confidence 	in
	their
	own
	list
they 	did 	not
	use
	controller-supplied
	addresses 	for
	any
	CSEA
members.
	After
	substituting
	member
	addresses
	on
	the
	controller
list,
	CSEA
	had
	the
	names 	and 	home
	address 	of 	1,230
	unit
	no.
	2
members.
	It
	had 	no
	addresses 	for
	395
	unit
	no.
	2
	employees.
	In
December,
	after
	CSEA
	and
	the 	other 	constituent 	organizations 	in
the 	Coalition
	had 	merged
	their
	various
	home
	address
	lists,
	the
Coalition
	had 	a 	home
	address
	list
	for
	all
	but 	about
	200
	unit
no. 	2 	employees.
	No
	effort
	was 	made
	to 	find 	addresses 	for
those 	missing 	200. 	The
	Coalition's 	third 	constituent
organization, 	the 	Administrative 	Law Judges 	Council, 	received
CSEA, a constituent organization in the Coalition, obtained
22
employees of both the Franchise Tax Board and the Unemployment
Insurance Appeals Board had been returned by the post office.
Because of his fears that work site address list was defective,
Richard Baker, a labor relations consultant retained by ACSA,
in February of 1981 obtained from the controller a unit no. 2
home address list. The list had about 1, 400 names with home
addresses and an additional 400 to 500 names without a home
address. ACSA relied on its 1978 work site address list to
fill in the blank addresses.
a unit no. 2 home address list from the controller much earlier
than did ACSA. CSEA first obtained the home address list on
July 1, 1980 and then got an updated version in December of
1980. CSEA already had home addresses of its own members and
because organization officers had confidence in their own list
they did not use controller-supplied addresses for any CSEA
members. After substituting member addresses on the controller
list, CSEA had the names and home address of 1; 230 unit no. 2
members. It had no addresses for 395 unit no. 2 employees.
December, after CSEA and the other constituent organizations in
the Coalition had merged their various home address lists, the
Coalition had a home address list for all but about 200 unit
no. 2 employees. No effort was made to find addresses for
those missing 200. The Coalition's third constituent
organization, the Administrative Law Judges Council, received

23
an
	address
	list
	from
	the
	controller's
	office
	on
	or 	about
February 	10,
	1981.
an address list from the controller's office on or about
The
	Coalition
	presented
	no
	evidence
	to
	indicate
	that
	it
	had
difficulty
	reaching
	unit
	no.
	2
	employees
	through 	such
alternative
	means
	as
	the
	use
	of
	employee
	bulletin
	boards
	or
personal
	solicitation.
The Coalition presented no evidence to indicate that it had
Objections 	to 	Election---CalTrans
	Staffing
	Ratio	Objections to Election---CalTrans Staffing Ratio
Staffing
	ratios
	for
	state
	attorneys
	have 	been
	a
	source
	of
controversy 	for 	years. 	In
	most
	state
	departments,
	attorney
positions
	are 	divided
	into 	three
	classifications, 	typically
denominated 	as
	staff
	attorney
	I,
	II
	and
	III.
	The
	Department
	of
Justice,
	the
	Department
	of 	Transportation,
	the
	State
	Public
Defender
	and
	the 	Office 	of 	the
	Legislative
	Counsel
	also
	have
	an
attorney
	IV
	classification.
	In 	the
	Department
	of
	Justice 	that
classification 	is
	known
	as
	Deputy
	Attorney 	General
	IV.
	At
CalTrans, 	the
	classification 	is
	known
	as
	Deputy 	Department
	of
Transportation Attorney
	IV.
Staffing ratios for state attorneys have been a source of
Staffing 	ratios
	fix
	a
	certain 	relationship
	between
	the
classifications.
	In
	a
	particular
	department, 	for 	example,
	the
ratio might provide that no more than two-thirds of the staff
can
	be 	employed
	in
	a
	position
	higher 	than
	staff
	attorney
	I.
Exactly
	such
	a
	rule 	existed 	within 	both 	the 	Department
	of
Justice
	and
	the 	Department
	of 	Transportation 	until
	1978.
Staffing ratios fix a certain relationship between the
On
	February 	21, 	1978, 	the 	State 	Personnel 	Board
	revised
	its
policies
	on
	attorney 	position 	control.
	Under 	the 	1978
On February 21, 1978, the State Personnel Board revised its
23
February 10, 1981.
difficulty reaching unit no. 2 employees through such
alternative means as the use of employee bulletin boards or
personal solicitation.
controversy for years. In most state departments, attorney
positions are divided into three classifications, typically
denominated as staff attorney I, II and III. The Department of
Justice, the Department of Transportation, the State Public
Defender and the Office of the Legislative Counsel also have an
attorney IV classification. In the Department of Justice that
classification is known as Deputy Attorney General IV. At
CalTrans, the classification is known as Deputy Department of
Transportation Attorney IV.
classifications. In a particular department, for example, the
~atio
	might 	provide
	that
	no 	more
	than 	two-thirds 	of 	the
	staff
can be employed in a position higher than staff attorney I.
Exactly such a rule existed within both the Department of
Justice and the Department of Transportation until 1978.
policies on attorney position control. Under the 1978

24
revision, 	the 	Department 	of 	Justice, 	the 	Department 	of
Transportation, 	the 	State 	Public 	Defender 	and 	the 	Office 	of
Legislative Counsel 	were 	authorized 	to 	promote 	their 	employees
to 	the 	attorney 	III 	level 	according 	to 	merit. 	All 	artificial
limitations 	were 	removed. 	However, 	the 	total 	number 	of
positions 	at 	the 	attorney 	IV 	level 	was 	restricted 	to 	a 	maximum
of 	20 	percent 	of 	the 	attorney 	work 	force. 	In 	other 	state
departments 	which 	do 	not 	have 	positions 	at 	the 	attorney 	IV
level, 	the 	number 	of 	attorney 	III 	positions 	was 	set 	at 	20
percent 	of 	the 	total 	attorney 	work 	force.
revision, the Department of Justice, the Department of
It 	was 	not 	long 	before 	the 	Department 	of 	Justice 	began 	to
seek 	modifications 	in 	the 	implementation 	of 	the 	policy.
Specifically, 	what 	the 	department 	sought 	was 	to 	exempt 	the
class 	of 	Senior 	Assistant 	Attorney 	General 	from 	the 	staffing
ratio. 	The 	position 	of 	Senior 	Assistant 	Attorney General 	is
paid 	the 	same 	as 	the 	position 	of 	Deputy 	Attorney 	General 	IV.
Because 	the 	two 	classifications 	are 	at 	the 	same 	pay 	level, 	the
number 	of 	Senior 	Assistant 	positions 	was 	added 	to 	the 	number 	of
Deputy 	IV 	positions 	for 	calculation 	of 	the 	20 	percent
limitation. 	If 	the 	Senior 	Assistant 	positions 	were 	not 	counted
in 	calculation 	of 	the 	20 	percent 	figure, 	the 	department 	would
be 	entitled 	to 	a 	larger 	number 	of 	deputy 	IV 	positions.
It was not long before the Department of Justice began to
Discussions 	about 	the 	question 	took 	place 	during 	the
1979-80 	fiscal 	year 	between 	the 	staffs 	of 	the 	State 	Personnel
Board 	and 	the 	Department 	of 	Justice. 	Initially, 	the 	department
Discussions about the question took place during the
24
Transportation, the State Public Defender and the Office of
Legislative Counsel were authorized to promote their employees
to the attorney III level according to merit. All artificial
limitations were removed. However, the total number of
positions at the attorney IV level was restricted to a maximum
of 20 percent of the attorney work force. In other state
departments which do not have positions at the attorney IV
level, the number of attorney III positions was set at 20
percent of the total attorney work force.
seek modifications in the implementation of the policy.
Specifically, what the department sought was to exempt the
class of Senior Assistant Attorney General from the staffing
ratio. The position of Senior Assistant Attorney General is
paid the same as the position of Deputy Attorney General IV.
Because the two classifications are at the same pay level, the
number of Senior Assistant positions was added to the number of
Deputy IV positions for calculation of the 20 percent
limitation. If the Senior Assistant positions were not counted
in calculation of the 20 percent figure, the department would
be entitled to a larger number of deputy IV positions.
1979-80 fiscal year between the staffs of the State Personnel
Board and the Department of Justice. Initially, the department

25
proposed
	that
	the
	16
	Senior
	Assistant 	positions
	be
	reclassified
as
	career
	executive
	appointments, 	thereby
	removing
	them
	from
the
	ratio.
	After 	consideration
	of
	this
	proposal,
	the
	staff
	of
the 	Personnel
	Board
	told
	the
	Department
	of
	Justice
	staff 	that
if
	they
	would
	withdraw
	the
	career 	executive 	proposal 	the
Personnel
	Board
	staff
	would
	re-examine
	the
	ratio
	question 	the
following
	year.
	The
	Department
	of
	Justice
	agreed.
proposed that the 16 Senior Assistant positions be reclassified
In
	December
	of
	1980
	the
	Department
	of
	Justice
	submitted
	to
the
	State
	Personnel
	Board
	a
	request
	that
	the 	Senior
	Assistant
Attorneys 	General
	be
	excluded
	from
	the
	20
	percent
	ratio
	because
they
	were
	supervisors.
	The
	request
	from
	the
	Department
	of
Justice
	received
	high
	priority 	at
	the 	Personnel
	Board
	because
the 	department
	had 	made
	the 	matter
	a
	priority
	item
	in
	its
annual 	performance
	contract
	with 	the 	Personnel
	Board.
	The
Personnel
	Board
	enters
	performance
	contracts
	each
	year 	with
various
	state
	agencies.
	Under
	these 	contracts
	the 	Personnel
Board
	agrees 	to
	perform
	certain
	work
	according 	to
	priorities
set
	by
	the
	individual
	departments.
	The
	Department
	of
	Justice
rapidly
	responded
	to 	requests 	for 	information
	made 	by
	the
Personnel 	Board,
	a
	factor
	which
	further
	sped
	a
	decision
	on
	the
Justice 	request.
In December of 1980 the Department of Justice submitted to
On
	April 	14, 	1981, 	the 	Personnel
	Board
	granted 	the
exemption 	of 	the 	Senior 	Assistant 	Attorney General
	class
	from
the
	20
	percent 	staffing 	ratio.
	The
	effect 	of 	this
	change 	was
to 	allow 	the 	Department 	of 	Justice 	to 	promote 	an
	additional
	12
On April 14, 1981, the Personnel Board granted the
25
as career executive appointments, thereby removing them from
the ratio. After consideration of this proposal, the staff of
the Personnel Board told the Department of Justice staff that
if they would withdraw the career executive proposal the
Personnel Board staff would re-examine the ratio question the
following year. The Department of Justice agreed.
the State Personnel Board a request that the Senior Assistant
Attorneys General be excluded from the 20 percent ratio because
they were supervisors. The request from the Department of
Justice received high priority at the Personnel Board because
the department had made the matter a priority item in its
annual performance contract with the Personnel Board. The
Personnel Board enters performance contracts each year with
various state agencies. Under these contracts the Personnel
Board agrees to perform certain work according to priorities
set by the individual departments. The Department of Justice
rapidly responded to requests for information made by the
Personnel Board, a factor which further sped a decision on the
Justice request.
On April 14, 1981, the Personnel Board granted the
exemption of the Senior Assistant Attorney General class from
the 20 percent staffing ratio. The effect of this change was
to allow the Department of Justice to promote an additional 12

26
attorneys 	to 	the 	position 	of 	Deputy Attorney General 	IV.
Although 	the 	department 	received 	authority 	on 	April 	14 	to 	make
the 	promotions, 	it 	had 	not 	filled 	the 	positions 	by
August 	20, 	1981, 	the 	last 	day 	of 	hearing 	in 	the 	present 	case.
attorneys to the position of Deputy Attorney General IV.
Like 	the 	Department 	of 	Justice, 	CalTrans 	was 	not 	happy 	with
the limitations the 1978 policy placed on the promotion of its
lawyers 	to 	the 	attorney 	IV 	classification. 	On August 	13, 	1980,
CalTrans 	Chief 	of 	Personnel 	Bill 	Bertken 	wrote 	to 	the 	State
Personnel 	Board 	complaining 	about 	attorney 	position 	control
standards 	in 	general 	and 	the 	20 	percent 	restriction 	at 	the
attorney 	IV 	level 	in 	particular. 	Mr. 	Bertken 	advised 	the
Personnel 	Board 	that 	CalTrans 	was 	losing 	a 	significant 	number
of 	lawyers 	at 	the 	attorney 	III 	level 	because 	of 	the 	limitation
on 	promotions 	to 	attorney 	IV. 	He 	asked 	the 	Personnel 	Board 	to
create 	a 	task 	force 	to 	study 	the 	staffing 	problem.
Like the Department of Justice, CalTrans was not happy with
On 	September 	5, 	1980, 	David 	Leighton 	of 	the 	Personnel 	Board
staff 	responded 	to 	the 	CalTrans 	letter, 	denying 	the 	request.
Mr. 	Leighton 	stated 	that 	before 	such 	a 	request 	could 	be
considered 	CalTrans 	would 	have 	to 	"provide 	more 	specific
information" 	on 	how 	circumstances 	had 	changed 	since 	the
original 	attorney 	staffing 	policy 	was 	enacted 	in 	1970.
Moreover, 	Mr. 	Leighton 	continued, 	if 	CalTrans 	wished 	to 	pursue
the 	matter 	further 	it 	should 	"identify 	the 	pertinent 	issues 	and
submit 	appropriate 	recommendations 	with 	supporting 	information"
for 	Personnel 	Board 	review. 	After 	receipt 	of 	such 	information,
On September 5, 1980, David Leighton of the Personnel Board
26
Although the department received authority on April 14 to make
the promotions, it had not filled the positions by
August 20, 1981, the last day of hearing in the present case.
the 	limitations 	the 	1978 	pol~cy 	placed 	on 	the 	promotion 	of 	its
lawyers to the attorney IV classification. On August 13, 1980,
CalTrans Chief of Personnel Bill Bertken wrote to the State
Personnel Board complaining about attorney position control
standards in general and the 20 percent restriction at the
attorney IV level in particular. Mr. Bertken advised the
Personnel Board that CalTrans was losing a significant number
of lawyers at the attorney III level because of the limitation
on promotions to attorney IV. He asked the Personnel Board to
create a task force to study the staffing problem.
staff responded to the CalTrans letter, denying the request.
Mr. Leighton stated that before such a request could be
considered CalTrans would have to "provide more specific
information" on how circumstances had changed since the
original attorney staffing policy was enacted in 1970.
Moreover, Mr. Leighton continued, if CalTrans wished to pursue
the matter further it should "identify the pertinent issues and
submit appropriate recommendations with supporting information"
for Personnel Board review. After receipt of such information,

27
the 	Personnel
	Board
	staff
	"would
	then 	determine
	if
	these
	were
sufficient
	reasons
	to 	invest
	the
	considerable 	resources
	that
would 	be
	required
	for
	a
	study 	of
	attorney
	ratios."
the Personnel Board staff "would then determine if these were
In
	October
	of
	1980,
	State
	Director
	of
	Transportation
Adriana 	Gianturco
	wrote
	to
	the 	Personnel
	Board,
	stating
	that
she
	felt
	the 	Personnel
	Board'__s
	response
	to 	the
	department
	was
inadequate
	and
	that
	the 	Personnel
	Board
	should 	reopen
	the
	issue
of 	attorney
	staffing 	ratios.
	On
	the
	basis
	of 	testimony
	at
	the
hearing,
	it
	is
	concluded
	that
	Ms.
	Gianturco's
	October
	letter
did 	not 	contain 	the
	"specific
	information" 	requested 	in 	the
Personnel 	Board's
	September
	5
	letter.
In October of 1980, State Director of Transportation
These
	events 	occurred 	simultaneously
	with
	the
	Department
	of
Justice
	attempt
	to 	get
	the 	Senior
	Assistant
	Attorney General
classification
	removed 	from
	calculation
	of 	the
	20
	percent
	ratio
for
	Deputy
	Attorney General
	IV.
	As
	the
	Department
	of
	Justice
and
	the 	Personnel
	Board 	began
	to
	evolve
	a
	conceptual
	solution
to 	the
	ratio
	problem,
	it
	became
	apparent
	that
	the 	developing
approach 	with 	the 	Attorney 	General 	might
	work
	also
	with
Cal
Trans.
These events occurred simultaneously with the Department of
Accordingly, 	the 	Personnel
	Board
	staff
	on
	January 	15,
	1981
wrote
	to 	Transportation Director 	Gianturco
	and
	advised 	her
	that
"issues 	in 	other 	departments
	have
	arisen
	which 	have 	a
	bearing
on
	attorney 	allocations"
	and 	might
	affect
	CalTrans.
Specifically, 	the 	January
	15
	letter 	states 	that 	the 	Personnel
Accordingly, the Personnel Board staff on January 15, 1981
27
sufficient reasons to invest the considerable resources that
would be required for a study of attorney ratios."
Adriana Gianturco wrote to the Personnel Board, stating that
she felt the Personnel Board's response to the department was
inadequate and that the Personnel Board should reopen the issue
of attorney staffing ratios. On the basis of testimony at the
hearing, it is concluded that Ms. Gianturco's October letter
did not contain the "specific information" requested in the
Personnel Board's September 5 letter.
Justice attempt to get the Senior Assistant Attorney General
classification removed from calculation of the 20 percent ratio
for Deputy Attorney General IV. As the Department of Justice
and the Personnel Board began to evolve a conceptual solution
to the ratio problem, it became apparent that the developing
approach with the Attorney General might work also with
CalTrans.
wrote to Transportation Director Gianturco and advised her that
"issues in other departments have arisen which have a bearing
on attorney allocations" and might affect CalTrans.
Specifically, the January 15 letter states that the Personnel

28
board 	has 	"decided 	to 	review 	the 	appropriateness 	of 	continuing
to 	include 	supervisory 	positions 	when 	applying 	the 	established
ratio 	of 	the 	allocation 	of 	positions." 	The 	letter 	notes 	that
the 	removal 	of 	the 	supervisory 	positions 	would 	increase 	the
number 	of 	positions 	to 	be 	allocated 	to 	the 	attorney 	IV 	level.
The 	letter 	states 	that 	the 	Pe--rsonnel 	Board 	intended 	to 	address
the 	issue 	on 	a 	department-by-department 	basis 	and 	that 	if
CalTrans 	wished 	to 	have 	such 	a 	review 	it 	would 	have 	to 	make
adjustments 	in 	its 	performance 	contract 	with 	the 	Personnel
Board. 	The 	letter 	thus 	returned 	the 	initiative 	for 	going
forward 	on 	the 	request 	to CalTrans.
board has "decided to review the appropriateness of continuing
It 	was 	not 	until 	February 	17, 	1981 	that 	CalTrans 	Director
Gianturco 	responded 	to 	the 	January 	letter 	from 	the 	Personnel
Board 	staff. 	In 	her 	February 	letter, 	Ms. 	Gianturco 	agreed 	with
the 	conceptual 	approach 	of 	exempting 	supervisors 	from
calculation 	in 	the 	ratio 	and 	to 	an 	adjustment 	of 	priorities 	in
the 	department's 	performance 	contract 	with 	the 	Personnel 	Board.
It was not until February 17, 1981 that CalTrans Director
The 	CalTrans 	supervisory 	position 	equivalent 	to 	Deputy
Department 	of 	Transportation Attorney 	IV 	is 	the 	Assistant
Chief, 	Legal 	Division. 	On 	June 	3, 	1981, 	the 	Personnel 	Board
notified 	the 	Department 	of 	Transportation 	that 	effective
immediately 	the 	Assistant 	Chief 	positions 	no 	longer 	would 	be
used 	in 	the 	calculation 	of 	the 	20 	percent 	limitation. 	This
change 	had 	the 	effect 	of 	permitting 	the 	department 	to
The CalTrans supervisory position equivalent to Deputy
28
to include supervisory positions when applying the established
ratio of the allocation of positions." The letter notes that
the removal of the supervisory positions would increase the
number of positions to be allocated to the attorney IV level.
The letter states that the Personnel Board intended to address
the issue on a department-by-department basis and that if
CalTrans wished to have such a review it would have to make
adjustments in its performance contract with the Personnel
Board. The letter thus returned the initiative for going
forward on the request to CalTrans.
Gianturco responded to the January letter from the Personnel
Board staff. In her February letter, MS. Gianturco agreed with
the conceptual approach of exempting supervisors from
calculation in the ratio and to an adjustment of priorities in
the department's performance contract with the Personnel Board.
Department of Transportation Attorney IV is the Assistant
Chief, Legal Division. On June 3, 1981, the Personnel Board
notified the Department of Transportation that effective
immediately the Assistant Chief positions no longer would be
used in the calculation of the 20 percent limitation. This
change had the effect of permitting the department to

29
promote
	three
	additional
	attorneys 	to
	the
	attorney
	IV
classification.
	These
	promotions
	were 	made
	in 	June,
	prior 	to
the
	close 	of
	balloting
	in
	unit
	no. 	2.
promote three additional attorneys to the attorney IV
On
	the
	basis
	of 	the
	evidence
	it
	is
	concluded
	that
	as
between
	the 	Attorney
	General
	and
	CalTrans, 	the 	Attorney General
proposal
	to
	exempt
	supervisor.s
	from
	the
	staffing 	ratio
	was
	the
earlier
	proposal.
	Although 	CalTrans
	had
	complained
	to 	the
Personnel
	Board
	about
	the
	staffing
	ratio
	in
	a
	letter
	as
	early
as
	August
	13,
	1980,
	it
	was
	the
	Department
	of
	Justice
	which
	made
the
	earliest
	specific
	request
	for
	a
	supervisory
	exemption
	from
the
	ratio.
	This
	approach
	was
	developed
	in 	conversations
between
	the
	staffs
	of 	the 	Personnel
	Board 	and
	the
	Department
	of
Justice.
	Only
	then
	was
	the 	CalTrans
	proposal
	made. 	The	The
August
	13,
	1980
	letter
	from
	CalTrans
	must 	be
	seen 	as 	but
	one
	in
a
	series
	of
	written
	and
	oral 	contacts
	both 	departments
	had
	made
with 	the 	Personnel
	Board
	about 	the
	staffing
	problem over
	a
number
	of 	years.
On the basis of the evidence it is concluded that as
This 	sequence
	of 	events
	must 	be
	considered 	in 	order
	to
evaluate 	the
	Coalition's
	contentions
	about
	a
	May
	8,
	1981
meeting 	between
	Coalition 	officers
	and 	Rebecca
	Taylor,
	a
	labor
relations 	officer
	with 	the 	Department
	of 	Personnel
Administration.
This sequence of events must be considered in order to
Rebecca 	Taylor
	was
	assigned 	responsibility 	in 	early
	1981 	as
the 	Governor's 	representative 	for 	matters 	involving
	state 	unit
no. 	2. 	In 	order 	to 	inform 	herself 	about 	issues 	that 	might
Rebecca Taylor was assigned responsibility in early 1981 as
29
classification. These promotions were made in June, prior to
the close of balloting in unit no. 2.
between the Attorney General and CalTrans, the Attorney General
proposal to exempt supervisors from the staffing ratio was the
earlier proposal. Although CalTrans had complained to the
Personnel Board about the staffing ratio in a letter as early
as August 13, 1980, it was the Department of Justice which made
the earliest specific request for a supervisory exemption from
the ratio. This approach was developed in conversations
between the staffs of the Personnel Board and the Department of
Justice. Only then was the CalTrans proposal made.
August 13, 1980 letter from CalTrans must be seen as but one in
a series of written and oral contacts both departments had made
with the Personnel Board about the staffing problem over a
number of years.
evaluate the Coalition's contentions about a May 8, 1981
meeting between Coalition officers and Rebecca Taylor, a labor
relations officer with the Department of Personnel
Administration.
the Governor's representative for matters involving state unit
no. 2. In order to inform herself about issues that might

30
arise
	in
	unit
	no.
	2
	negotiations,
	Ms.
	Taylor
	met
	with
James
	Pearce,
	a
	Personnel
	Board
	staff
	member
	knowledgeable
about
	matters
	pertaining
	to
	state-employed
	attorneys. 	During	
During
this
	meeting,
	which
	took
	place 	in 	April 	of
	1981,
	Mr.
	Pearce
mentioned
	the
	impending 	change
	in 	the
	calculation
	of 	the
	20
percent
	ratio
	for
	Deputy
	Attorney
	General
	IV.
arise in unit no. 2 negotiations, Ms. Taylor met with
Following
	the
	meeting
	with
	Mr.
	Pearce,
	Ms.
	Taylor
	contacted
Jim
	Mosman,
	personnel
	manager
	for 	the
	Department
	of
	Justice,
and
	asked
	him why
	the 	department
	was
	pushing 	for
	such
	a
	change
at 	that
	time.
	She
	reminded
	him
	that
	because
	of 	the
	impending
elections
	for
	exclusive
	representatives
	the 	Governor's
	office
had 	a
	policy 	against
	changes
	in
	employee
	benefits.
	She
	told
him
	that
	she
	considered 	the
	proposed
	staffing 	ratio
	change
contrary 	to
	the
	policy
	of 	the 	Governor's
	office
	and
	asked
	him
to 	discuss
	the 	matter 	with 	Department
	of
	Justice
administrators.
	Mr. 	Mosman
	replied 	that
	the 	department
	had
been
	pursuing 	the
	change
	for
	several 	years, 	that
	it
	was 	on
record 	with
	its
	employees
	in 	favor 	of 	the
	change 	and
	that
	it
did 	not 	believe
	it
	was
	appropriate 	to 	switch
	its
	position 	in
the 	face 	of 	the 	proposal's
	impending
	approval.
Following the meeting with Mr. Pearce, Ms. Taylor contacted
Ms.
	Taylor 	next
	called
	George
	Lloyd, 	the 	Personnel 	Board
program manager 	under 	whose
	supervision 	the
	staff
	work 	on
	the
attorney 	proposal
	was 	being 	completed. 	She
	told
	Mr. 	Lloyd
	that
she 	considered 	the 	subject 	of 	adjustment 	of 	attorney 	staffing
ratios 	to
	be 	a 	matter 	more
	appropriate 	for 	the 	bargaining
Ms. Taylor next called George Lloyd, the Personnel Board
30
James Pearce, a Personnel Board staff member knowledgeable
about matters pertaining to state-employed attorneys.
this meeting, which took place in April of 1981, Mr. Pearce
mentioned the impending change in the calculation of the 20
percent ratio for Deputy Attorney General IV.
Jim Mosman, personnel manager for the Department of Justice,
and asked him why the department was pushing for such a change
at that time. She reminded him that because of the impending
elections for exclusive representatives the Governor's office
had a policy against changes in employee benefits. She told
him that she considered the proposed staffing ratio change
contrary to the policy of the Governor's office and asked him
to discuss the matter with Department of Justice
administrators. Mr. Mosman replied that the department had
been pursuing the change for several years, that it was on
record with its employees in favor of the change and that it
did not believe it was appropriate to switch its position in
the face of the proposal's impending approval.
Ms. Taylor next called George Lloyd, the Personnel Board
program manager under whose supervision the staff work on the
attorney proposal was being completed. She told Mr. Lloyd that
she considered the subject of adjustment of attorney staffing
ratios to be a matter more appropriate for the bargaining

31
process.
	Mr.
	Lloyd
	responded
	that
	the 	Personnel
	Board
considered 	the 	matter
	to
	be 	a
	classification
	issue,
	an
	area
within
	the 	Personnel 	Board's
	jurisdiction.
	He
	said
	that
	the
Personnel
	Board
	had 	made
	commitments
	to
	the 	departments
	to
perform
	this
	work,
	that
	the
	work 	was
	underway,
	that
	he
appreciated
	her 	concern
	butt-hat
	the 	Personnel
	Board
	was
	going
to
	proceed 	with
	the 	matter
	as 	planned.
	Mr.
	Lloyd
	told
Ms.
	Taylor
	that
	the 	only
	way
	the 	Personnel
	Board
	would
	drop 	the
question
	would 	be
	at
	the
	request
	of 	the
	Department
	of
	Justice.
Because
	the
	Department
	of
	Justice
	refused 	to
	withdraw
	its
request,
	the 	Personel
	Board 	went
	forward
	with
	its
	study
	and
	the
manner
	of
	calculating
	the
	staffing 	ratio
	was
	changed
	for
deputies 	Attorney General.
process. Mr. Lloyd responded that the Personnel Board
On May
	8,
	1981,
	Ms.
	Taylor
	and
	several 	other
representatives
	of 	the
	state
	employer
	including
	Mr. 	Mosman 	met
with 	John
	Sullivan
	and
	other 	representatives 	of 	the
	Coalition.
The
	meeting 	followed 	an
	invitation
	by
	the 	Department
	of
Personnel Administration 	to
	meet
	with
	employee
	organizations
about
	pay 	and
	benefits
	for
	state
	employees
	in 	the
	1981-82
fiscal
	year.
	The
	Coalition
	accepted 	the
	invitation
	and
	the
Personnel 	Administration.
	meeting
	was
	held
	at
	the 	Department
	of
On May 8, 1981, MS. Taylor and several other
During 	the 	course 	of 	the 	meeting
	Mr.
	Sullivan 	inquired
about 	whether 	the 	Personnel
	Board 	had
	acted
	on
	the
	staffing
ratio
	for 	the 	class 	of
	Deputy 	Attorney 	General 	IV. 	The
question
	was
	directed 	at
	Mr. 	Mosman 	and 	he 	responded
	that 	the
During the course of the meeting Mr. Sullivan inquired
31
considered the matter to be a classification issue, an area
within the Personnel Board's jurisdiction. He said that the
Personnel Board had made commitments to the departments to
perform this work, that the work was underway, that he
appreciated her concern but that the Personnel Board was going
to proceed with the matter as planned. Mr. Lloyd told
Ms. Taylor that the only way the Personnel Board would drop the
question would be at the request of the Department of Justice.
Because the Department of Justice refused to withdraw its
request, the Personel Board went forward with its study and the
manner of calculating the staffing ratio was changed for
deputies Attorney General.
representatives of the state employer including Mr. Mosman met
with John Sullivan and other representatives of the Coalition.
The meeting followed an invitation by the Department of
Personnel Administration to meet with employee organizations
about pay and benefits for state employees in the 1981-82
fiscal year. The Coalition accepted the invitation and the
meeting was held at the Department of Personnel Administration.
about whether the Personnel Board had acted on the staffing
ratio for the class of Deputy Attorney General IV. The
question was directed at Mr. Mosman and he responded that the

32
Personnel
	Board 	had
	approved
	the
	Department
	of
	Justice
request.
	At
	that
	point
	Ms.
	Taylor
	stated 	that
	she
	had
	"hit
	the
ceiling"
	when
	she
	learned
	about
	the
	Department
	of
	Justice
request.
	She
	stated 	that
	she
	considered 	the
	request 	to
	be 	a
violation
	of 	the 	Governor's
	prohibition 	against
	changes
	in
bargainable 	matters.
	She 	als-o
	disclosed
	that
	she
	had
	contacted
the 	Personnel
	Board
	staff
	about
	the
	action
	but
	that
	the
	change
was 	a
	fait
	accompli
	by
	the
	time
	she
	learned
	about
	it.
Personnel Board had approved the Department of Justice
There
	is
	a
	conflict
	in 	the 	testimony 	about
	what
	Ms.
	Taylor
said 	next.
	According
	to
	Mr.
	Sullivan,
	Ms.
	Taylor
	said
	she
	also
had
	contacted 	the 	Personnel
	Board
	and 	had
	stopped 	the
	further
processing 	of 	the
	CalTrans
	request
	for
	a
	similar 	relaxation
	in
the
	application
	of 	the
	staffing 	ratio.
	Ms.
	Taylor 	denied
making
	such
	a
	statement.
	She
	testified
	that 	at
	the
	time
	of
	the
May
	8
	meeting 	she 	did 	not
	even
	know
	that
	CalTrans
	had
	such
	a
request
	pending
	before 	the 	Personnel
	Board.
	She
	testified
	that
she 	did 	not
	at
	any
	time
	contact
	the 	Personnel
	Board 	and
	ask
	it
to 	disapprove 	the 	CalTrans
	request.
	Mr. 	Mosman
	testified
	that
he
	could
	recall
	no
	statement
	by Ms.
	Taylor
	at
	the
	May
	8
	meeting
about 	the 	CalTrans
	request.
	The
	testimony 	of
	Ms.
	Taylor
	was
	in
part 	corroborated
	by Mr. 	Lloyd
	of 	the 	Personnel
	Board 	who
testified 	that
	Ms.
	Taylor 	did 	not
	specifically 	raise
	the 	issue
of 	the 	CalTrans 	request 	in
	any
	conversation 	with
	him.
There is a conflict in the testimony about what MS. Taylor
It
	is
	concluded
	that
	Ms. 	Taylor 	did 	not 	contact
	anyone
	at
the 	Personnel 	Board 	about 	the 	CalTrans 	request
	and 	she 	did 	not
It is concluded that Ms. Taylor did not contact anyone at
32
request. 	At that point Ms. Taylor stated that she had "hit the
ceiling" when she learned about the Department of Justice
request. 	She stated that she considered the request to be a
violation of the Governor's prohibition against changes in
bargainable matters. She also disclosed that she had contacted
the Personnel Board staff about the action but that the change
was a fait accompli by the time she learned about it.
said next. According to Mr. Sullivan, Ms. Taylor said she also
had contacted the Personnel Board and had stopped the further
processing of the CalTrans request for a similar relaxation in
the application of the staffing ratio. Ms. Taylor denied
making such a statement. 	She testified that at the time of the
May 8 meeting she did not even know that CalTrans had such a
request pending before the Personnel Board. She testified that
she did not at any time contact the Personnel Board and ask it
to disapprove the CalTrans request. Mr. Mosman testified that
he could recall no statement by MS. Taylor at the May 8 meeting
about the CalTrans request. The testimony of Ms. Taylor was in
part corroborated by Mr. Lloyd of the Personnel Board who
testified that Ms. Taylor did not specifically raise the issue
of the CalTrans request in any conversation with him.
the Personnel Board about the CalTrans request and she did not

33
state 	that 	she 	had 	done 	so 	at 	the 	May 	8 meeting. 	Several
factors 	support 	this 	conclusion. 	Ms. 	Taylor 	was 	a 	forthright
witness. 	She 	freely 	acknowledged 	her 	attempt 	to 	frustrate 	the
Department 	of 	Justice 	efforts 	to 	get 	a 	change 	in 	the
application 	of 	the 	staffing 	ratio. 	Having 	freely 	acknowledged
that 	she 	attempted 	to 	kill 	the 	Department 	of 	Justice 	request,
Ms. 	Taylor 	would 	have 	no 	reason 	to 	deny 	having 	made 	a 	similar
attempt 	to 	kill 	the 	CalTrans 	request 	had 	she 	done 	so.
Moreover, 	it 	was 	obvious 	from 	the 	testimony 	of 	both 	Mr. 	Mosman
and 	Mr. 	Lloyd 	that 	the 	Department 	of 	Justice 	and 	the 	State
Personnel 	Board 	were 	unabashedly 	unimpressed 	with 	what
Ms. 	Taylor 	had 	to 	say 	on 	the 	issue. 	Mr. 	Lloyd, 	a 	precise
witness 	with 	years 	of 	service 	in 	the 	state 	bureauracy, 	plainly
considered 	Ms. 	Taylor's 	efforts 	to 	derail 	the 	Justice 	request
to 	be 	something 	of 	an 	attack 	on 	the 	jurisdiction of 	the 	State
Personnel 	Board. 	Having 	encountered 	a 	stone 	wall 	in 	her 	attempt
to 	kill 	the 	Justice 	request, 	Ms. 	Taylor 	would 	have 	had 	little
reason 	to 	pursue 	her 	position 	on 	the 	later 	CalTrans 	request.
state that she had done so at the May 8 meeting. Several
The 	effect 	on 	the 	election 	of 	the 	staffing 	ratio 	change 	was
marginal 	at 	most. 	There 	is 	no 	evidence 	that ACSA 	played 	any
substantial 	role 	in 	pushing 	the 	Department 	of 	Justice 	request.
The 	evidence 	establishes 	that 	the 	request 	was 	that 	of 	the
department 	and 	thus 	any 	credit 	or 	blame 	for 	the 	ultimate 	result
would 	have 	to 	go 	to 	the 	Department 	of Justice. 	When 	the
The effect on the election of the staffing ratio change was
33
factors support this conclusion. Ms. Taylor was a forthright
witness. She freely acknowledged her attempt to frustrate the
Department of Justice efforts to get a change in the
application of the staffing ratio. Having freely acknowledged
that she attempted to kill the Department of Justice request,
Ms. Taylor would have no reason to deny having made a similar
attempt to kill the CalTrans request had she done so.
Moreover, it was obvious from the testimony of both Mr. Mosman
and Mr. Lloyd that the Department of Justice and the State
Personnel Board were unabashedly unimpressed with what
Ms. Taylor had to say on the issue. Mr. Lloyd, a precise
witness with years of service in the state bureauracy, plainly
considered Ms. Taylor's efforts to derail the Justice request
to be something of an attack on the jurisdiction of the State
Personnel Board. Having encountered a stone wall in her attempt
to kill the Justice request, Ms. Taylor would have had little
reason to pursue her position on the later CalTrans request.
marginal at most. There is no evidence that ACSA played any
substantial role in pushing the Department of Justice request.
The evidence establishes that the request was that of the
department and thus any credit or blame for the ultimate result
would have to go to the Department of Justice. When the

34
Personnel
	Board
	approved
	the
	proposal,
	ACSA
	did 	not
	attempt
	to
claim 	the
	glory.
Personnel Board approved the proposal, ACSA did not attempt to
It
	is
	true
	that
	employee
	groups
	within 	the
	Department
	of
Justice
	endorsed
	ACSA
	at
	about
	the
	same
	time 	as
	the
	staffing
ratio
	revision
	was
	approved.
	However,
	the 	reasons 	for
	these
endorsements
	had 	more
	to
	do
	with 	the
	manner
	in
	which
	Department
of
	Justice
	attorneys
	perceived 	the
	Coalition
	than 	anything
else.
	Department
	of
	Justice
	lawyers 	for
	some
	time
	had
	been
annoyed
	with
	the
	position
	CSEA
	had
	taken 	with 	regard 	to
	state
employee 	pay
	raises.
	In 	the
	view
	of 	those
	attorneys,
	CSEA
	had
supported
	flat
	dollar
	pay
	increases 	rather
	than
	percentage
	pay
hikes.
	Because
	they
	are
	more
	highly 	paid, 	attorneys
	would
receive
	larger
	pay
	increases
	under
	a
	percentage
	approach
	than
under
	flat
	dollar
	pay
	plans.
	Attorneys
	employed 	by
	the
Department
	of
	Justice
	also
	believed
	that
	they
	would
	not
	have 	as
large
	a
	voice 	in 	the
	operation 	of 	the
	Coalition
	should
	it
become
	exclusive 	representative
	as 	they
	would 	have
	with
	ACSA.
In
	recent 	years, 	five
	Department
	of
	Justice
	lawyers
	have
	held
seats
	on
	the
	15-member
	ACSA
	Board
	of 	Directors.
	By
	comparison,
Department
	of
	Justice
	lawyers 	have 	had
	virtually
	no
	voice 	in
the 	control 	of 	the 	Coalition
	or
	its
	constituent 	organizations.
It is true that employee groups within the Department of
For
	these 	reasons,
	it
	is
	concluded
	that
	the 	change
	in 	the
method
	of 	calculating 	the
	staffing 	ratio 	at
	the 	Department 	of
Justice
	had
	esssentially
	no
	effect
	on
	the 	election 	for
exclusive 	representative 	in 	State 	unit
	no. 	2.
For these reasons, it is concluded that the change in the
34
claim the glory.
Justice endorsed ACSA at about the same time as the staffing
ratio revision was approved. However, the reasons for these
endorsements had more to do with the manner in which Department
of Justice attorneys perceived the Coalition than anything
else. 	Department of Justice lawyers for some time had been
annoyed with the position CSEA had taken with regard to state
employee pay raises. In the view of those attorneys, CSEA had
supported flat dollar pay increases rather than percentage pay
hikes. 	Because they are more highly paid, attorneys would
receive larger pay increases under a percentage approach than
under flat dollar pay plans. Attorneys employed by the
Department of Justice also believed that they would not have as
large a voice in the operation of the Coalition should it
become exclusive representative as they would have with ACSA.
In recent years, five Department of Justice lawyers have held
seats on the 15-member ACSA Board of Directors. By comparison,
Department of Justice lawyers have had virtually no voice in
the control of the Coalition or its constituent organizations.
method of calculating the staffing ratio at the Department of
Justice had esssentially no effect on the election for
exclusive representative in State unit no. 2.

35
LEGAL
	ISSUES	LEGAL ISSUES
1 .	
Should
	all
	or
	any
	of 	the 	challenges 	to 	the
	311
	unit
no.
	2
	ballots
	be
	sustained?
1.
2. 	Should
	the
	unit
	no.
	2
	election
	be
	set
	aside
	because
	of:	2.
A)
	Gross
	irregularities
	in 	the
	conduct
	of 	the
election?
A)
B)
	The
	unfair
	practice
	in 	the
	state's
	mail
distribution
	policy
	which 	was
	found
	by
	the
	PERB?
B)
C)
	The
	actions
	of
	a
	representative
	of 	the
	Department
of 	Personnel 	Administration 	in
	opposing
	a
	change
	in
	attorney
staffing 	ratios
	while
	that
	matter
	was
	before 	the
	State
Personnel
	Board?
) The actions of a representative of the Department
CONCLUSIONS
	OF
	LAW	CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Challenged
	Ballots	Challenged Ballots
At
	the 	conclusion 	of 	the
	presentation
	of 	evidence 	about 	the
275
	ballots
	challenged
	by
	the
	Coalition,
	counsel 	for
	ACSA
	made
a
	motion
	that
	a
	ruling
	be
	issued
	on
	the 	record 	about 	the
challenges.
	The
	basis 	for 	the
	motion
	was
	that
	the 	evidence
"clearly 	indicates 	that
	all
	of 	the
	275 	.
	people
	were	. people were
eligible
	to 	vote
	at 	all
	material 	times."
	At
	the 	time
	the
motion
	was 	made,
	counsel 	for 	the 	Coalition
	had
	stated 	that
	she
had 	no
	further
	evidence 	to 	present
	on
	the 	question.
	The
undersigned 	hearing
	officer
	then 	ruled
	on
	the 	record
	that 	the
275
	ballots
	were
	cast
	by
	eligible 	voters
	and
	"that 	the 	ballots
should 	be 	opened 	and 	counted."
At the conclusion of the presentation of evidence about the
35
Should all or any of the challenges to the 311 unit
no. 2 ballots be sustained?
Should the unit no. 2 election be set aside because of:
Gross irregularities in the conduct of the
election?
The unfair practice in the state's mail
distribution policy which was found by the PERB?
of Personnel Administration in opposing a change in attorney
staffing ratios while that matter was before the State
Personnel Board?
275 ballots challenged by the Coalition, counsel for ACSA made
a motion that a ruling be issued on the record about the
challenges. The basis for the motion was that the evidence
"clearly indicates that all of the 275
eligible to vote at all material times." At the time the
motion was made, counsel for the Coalition had stated that she
had no further evidence to present on the question. The
undersigned hearing officer then ruled on the record that the
275 ballots were cast by eligible voters and "that the ballots
should be opened and counted."

36
Even 	though 	a 	ruling 	already 	has 	been 	made 	on 	the 	275
challenged 	ballots, 	it 	is 	appropriate 	to 	state 	the 	rationale
for 	that 	ruling. 	The 	terms 	of 	the 	directed 	election 	order 	set
forth 	the 	specific 	requirements 	for 	voter 	eligibility. 	InIn
order 	to 	be 	eligible 	to 	vote 	in 	unit 	no. 	2, 	a 	rank-and-file
state 	employee 	had 	to 	have 	been 	employed 	in 	a 	job 	class 	within
unit 	no. 	2 on 	December 	31, 	1980 	and 	on 	the 	date 	the 	employee
cast 	a 	ballot. 	Persons 	on 	leave 	of 	absence 	were 	eligible 	to
vote 	under 	the 	terms 	of 	the 	directed 	election 	order. 	The	The
evidence 	unequivocably 	establishes 	that 	all 	of 	the 	275 	voters
whose 	ballots 	were 	challenged 	by 	the 	Coalition 	met 	all 	of 	the
requirements. 	The 	five 	job 	classifications 	to 	which 	the 	275
persons 	belonged 	are 	all 	within 	unit 	no. 	2. 	Each 	individual
was 	employed 	by 	the 	eligibility 	cutoff 	date 	and 	was 	either 	on
active 	duty 	or 	a 	leave 	of 	absence 	during 	the 	balloting 	period.
Having 	met 	all 	of 	the 	requirements, 	the 	275 	voters 	are
therefore 	entitled 	to 	have 	their 	ballots 	counted.
Even though a ruling already has been made on the 275
By 	stipulation 	the 	parties 	resolved 	all 	36 	of 	the
challenges 	made 	by 	PERB 	election 	officials. 	Under 	the 	terms 	of
the 	stipulation, 	all 	of 	the 	PERE-challenged 	ballots 	should 	be
counted 	except 	for 	those 	cast 	by: 	Michael 	C. 	Cohn,
Martin 	F. 	Dingman, 	Ronald 	R. 	Small 	and 	Nathaniel 	Sterling.
By stipulation the parties resolved all 36 of the
It 	therefore 	is 	concluded 	that 	all 	challenged 	ballots
should 	be 	counted 	except 	for 	those 	cast 	by 	the 	above-named 	four
individuals.
It therefore is concluded that all challenged ballots
36
challenged ballots, it is appropriate to state the rationale
for that ruling. The terms of the directed election order set
forth the specific requirements for voter eligibility.
order to be eligible to vote in unit no. 2, a rank-and-file
state employee had to have been employed in a job class within
unit no. 2 on December 31, 1980 and on the date the employee
cast a ballot. Persons on leave of absence were eligible to
vote under the terms of the directed election order.
evidence unequivocably establishes that all of the 275 voters
whose ballots were challenged by the Coalition met all of the
requirements . 	The five job classifications to which the 275
persons belonged are all within unit no. 2. Each individual
was employed by the eligibility cutoff date and was either on
active duty or a leave of absence during the balloting period.
Having met all of the requirements, the 275 voters are
therefore entitled to have their ballots counted.
challenges made by PERB election officials. Under the terms of
the stipulation, all of the PERB-challenged ballots should be
counted except for those cast by: Michael C. Cohn,
Martin F. Dingman, Ronald R. Small and Nathaniel Sterling.
should be counted except for those cast by the above-named four
individuals.

37
Objections
	to 	Election---Alleged
	Irregularities	Objections to Election---Alleged Irregularities
PERB
	rules
	provide
	two
	grounds
	for
	objections 	to
	the
conduct
	of
	an
	election:
	1)
	the
	conduct
	complained
	of
	is
"tantamount
	to
	an
	unfair
	practice"
	and 	2)
	"serious
	irregularity
in 	the 	conduct 	of 	the
	election."
	The
	Coalition
	raises
	both
grounds
	in 	the
	present 	case.
	The
	allegation 	that
	there
	was
"serious
	irregularity
	in 	the
	conduct
	of 	the
	election"
	will
	be
considered
	first.
PERB rules provide two grounds for objections to the
Essentially,
	the
	Coalition
	argues
	that
	the
	Excelsior
	list
given
	to
	the
	employee
	organizations
	before 	the 	voting
	and
	the
election
	address
	list
	used
	by
	the
	PERB
	in 	mailing 	the
	ballots
were
	both
	"incorrect,
	outdated
	[and]
	invalid." 	The	The
deficiencies
	in 	the
	two
	lists
	were
	so
	serious,
	the
	Coalition
contends,
	that
	the
	election 	result
	could
	not
	possibly
	be
	valid.
Essentially, the Coalition argues that the Excelsior list
With
	respect 	to 	the
	Excelsior
	list,
	the
	Coalition 	observes,
there
	were 	420
	unit
	no.
	2
	employees
	who 	had
	completed
nondisclosure 	requests.
	Business 	addresses
	were
	supplied 	for
364
	of 	these
	employees
	but, 	the 	Coalition 	continues,
	no
	address
at
	all
	was
	supplied 	for 	the 	remaining
	56
	unit
	members.
	Thus,
the
	Coalition 	argues, 	the
	employee
	organizations
	were
	given
home
	addresses
	which 	were
	unreliable,
	work
	site
	addresses
	which
may 	have 	been
	useless 	because 	of 	the 	employer's
	policies
against 	delivery 	of 	employee
	organization 	mail
	and 	no
	addresses
at 	all
	for
	56
	eligible 	voters.
	These 	problems 	made 	a
With respect to the Excelsior list, the Coalition observes,
37
given to the employee organizations before the voting and the
election address list used by the PERB in mailing the ballots
were both "incorrect, outdated [and] invalid."
deficiencies in the two lists were so serious, the Coalition
contends, that the election result could not possibly be valid.
there were 420 unit no. 2 employees who had completed
nondisclosure requests. Business addresses were supplied for
364 of these employees but, the Coalition continues, no address
at all was supplied for the remaining 56 unit members. Thus,
the Coalition argues, the employee organizations were given
home addresses which were unreliable, work site addresses which
may have been useless because of the employer's policies
against delivery of employee organization mail and no addresses
at all for 56 eligible voters. These problems made a
conduct of an election: 1) the conduct complained of is
"tantamount to an unfair practice" and 2) "serious irregularity
in the conduct of the election." The Coalition raises both
grounds in the present case. The allegation that there was
"serious irregularity in the conduct of the election" will be
considered first.

38
substantial
	portion
	of 	the
	electorate
	unreachable, 	according
	to
the
	Coalition.
substantial portion of the electorate unreachable, according to
With
	respect
	to
	the 	voter
	list
	used
	by
	the
	PERB,
	the
Coalition
	asserts,
	the 	addresses
	were
	so
	inaccurate
	that
	30
ballots
	were
	returned
	as
	undeliverable.
	In
	its
	statement
	of
objections, the Coalition contended that eligible employees
were
	not
	sent
	ballots,
	including 	the 	hearing
	officers
	I
	and
	II
at
	the
	Department
	of
	Social 	Services
	and 	George
	Coan 	and
John 	Willd
	at
	the
	Office 	of 	Administrative 	Hearings. 	In
	its
brief,
	the
	Coalition
	cites
	Kevin
	Toole
	and
	Charles 	Fergerson 	as
examples
	of
	Department
	of
	Social 	Services 	hearing
	officers
	who
did 	not
	receive
	ballots.
	The
	Coalition 	also 	points 	to
	CalTrans
attorney
	Richard
	Wehe
	as
	an
	eligible
	voter
	who
	did 	not
	receive
a
	ballot 	at 	his 	current
	address
	and 	would
	not
	have
	gotten
	a
ballot 	at
	all
	but 	for 	the
	assistance
	of
	a
	co-worker.
With respect to the voter list used by the PERB, the
ACSA
	dismisses 	the
	Coalition's
	complaints 	as
	allegations
"utterly"
	unsupported
	by
	the 	evidence.	
ACSA	
argues
	that
	the
PERB
	made
	efforts
	to 	ensure
	that
	both 	the 	Excelsior
	list
	and
the 	voter
	list
	had
	the
	most
	accurate 	possible 	addresses. 	In
In
January 	of 	1981,
	ACSA
	points 	out,
	every
	state
	employee
	received
a
	notice
	from
	the
	PERB
	stressing
	the 	importance 	of 	having
	a
current 	address
	on
	file
	with 	the
	controller.
	In April 	of 	1981,
ACSA
	continues, 	three 	election 	notices
	were
	distributed,
	each
one 	of
	which
	described 	procedures
	by 	which
	eligible 	voters
ACSA dismisses the Coalition's complaints as allegations
38
the Coalition.
Coalition asserts, the addresses were so inaccurate that 30
ballots were returned as undeliverable. In its statement of
objections,
	the
	Coalition
	con~ended
	that 	eligible
	employees
were not sent ballots, including the hearing officers I and II
at the Department of Social Services and George Coan and
John Willd at the Office of Administrative Hearings. In its
brief, the Coalition cites Kevin Toole and Charles Fergerson as
examples of Department of Social Services hearing officers who
did not receive ballots. The Coalition also points to CalTrans
attorney Richard Wehe as an eligible voter who did not receive
a ballot at his current address and would not have gotten a
ballot at all but for the assistance of a co-worker.
"utterly" unsupported by the evidence. ACSA argues that the
PERB made efforts to ensure that both the Excelsior list and
the voter list had the most accurate possible addresses.
January of 1981, ACSA points out, every state employee received
a notice from the PERB stressing the importance of having a
current address on file with the controller. In April of 1981,
ACSA continues, three election notices were distributed, each
one of which described procedures by which eligible voters

39
could 	obtain 	a 	ballot 	if 	they 	failed 	to 	receive 	one 	in 	the
mail.	mail. 	Thus 	persons 	who 	did 	not 	receive 	a 	ballot 	had 	a 	way 	to
get 	a 	ballot 	if 	they 	wanted 	one.
could obtain a ballot if they failed to receive one in the
When 	some 	sample 	ballots 	were 	returned 	because 	of 	faulty
addresses, 	ACSA 	notes, 	PERB 	election 	officials 	immediately
sought 	better 	addresses 	and 	ultimately 	updated 	28 	addresses.
As 	a 	result, 	ACSA 	continues, 	"only 	30 	ballots 	out 	of 	1,787"
were 	returned 	as 	undeliverable. 	ACSA 	argues 	that 	no 	evidence
whatsoever 	was 	presented 	in 	support 	of 	the 	Coalition's
contention 	that 	the 	PERB 	failed 	to 	mail 	ballots 	to 	the 	hearing
officers 	in 	the 	Department 	of 	Social 	Services. 	The 	evidence
shows 	that 	the 	ballots 	were 	mailed. 	As 	for 	faulty 	addresses 	in
the 	mailing 	to 	the 	Social 	Services 	hearing 	officers, 	ACSA
continues, 	the 	Coalition 	was 	a 	party 	to 	a 	stipulation 	which
contained 	some 	of 	the 	out-of-date 	addresses 	used 	by 	the 	PERB.
When some sample ballots were returned because of faulty
PERB 	regulations 	requiring 	the 	preparation 	of 	a 	voter 	list
prior 	to 	an 	election 	are 	consistent 	with 	the 	practice 	of 	the
National 	Labor 	Relations 	Board 	(hereafter 	NLRB). 	The 	NLRB 	has
held 	since 	1966 	that 	an 	election 	may 	be 	set 	aside 	if 	the
employer 	fails 	to 	file 	a 	timely 	pre-election 	list 	of 	the 	names
and 	addresses 	of 	eligible 	voters. 	Excelsior 	Underwear, 	Inc.
(1966) 	156 	NLRB 	1236 	[61 	LRRM 	1217].
PERB regulations requiring the preparation of a voter list
In 	enforcing 	this 	rule, 	the 	NLRB 	requires 	substantial 	but
not 	perfect 	compliance. 	The 	NLRB 	has 	found 	substantial
compliance 	where 	there 	was 	an 	error 	rate 	of 	7 percent 	in 	the
In enforcing this rule, the NLRB requires substantial but
39
Thus persons who did not receive a ballot had a way to
get a ballot if they wanted one.
addresses, ACSA notes, PERB election officials immediately
sought better addresses and ultimately updated 28 addresses.
As a result, ACSA continues, "only 30 ballots out of 1, 787"
were returned as undeliverable. ACSA argues that no evidence
whatsoever was presented in support of the Coalition's
contention that the PERB failed to mail ballots to the hearing
officers in the Department of Social Services. The evidence
shows that the ballots were mailed. As for faulty addresses in
the mailing to the Social Services hearing officers, ACSA
continues, the Coalition was a party to a stipulation which
contained some of the out-of-date addresses used by the PERB.
prior to an election are consistent with the practice of the
National Labor Relations Board (hereafter NLRB) . The NLRB has
held since 1966 that an election may be set aside if the
employer fails to file a timely pre-election list of the names
and addresses of eligible voters. Excelsior Underwear, Inc.
(1966) 156 NLRB 1236 [61 LRRM 1217].
not perfect compliance. The NLRB has found substantial
compliance where there was an error rate of 7 percent in the

40
names 	and
	addresses, 	Kentfield
	Medical
	Hosp. 	(1975) 	219
	NLRB
174 	[89
	LRRM
	1697],
	where
	there
	was 	an
	er~or
	rate
	of
	13
	percent
in 	addresses 	but 	not
	names,
	Days
	Inns 	of
	Arner
ica,
	Inc.
	(19 7 5)
216
	NRLB
	384 	[88
	LRRM
	1224],
	and 	where
	the
	list
	was
	not
received
	by
	the
	union
	until
	eight
	days
	before 	the
	election,
Peerless
	Eagle
	Coal
	Co. 	(1975) 	220
	NLRB
	357 	[90
	LRRM
	1229].
names and addresses, Kentfield Medical Hosp. (1975) 219 NLRB
Here, 	the
	Excelsior
	list
	contained
	1,727
	names
	but
	was
missing 	the
	home
	addresses 	of
	420
	unit
	no.
	2
	voters
	who
	had
completed
	nondisclosure
	requests. Business addresses were	
Business 	addresses
	were
supplied 	for
	364
	of 	the
	420
	but
	no
	addresses 	of
	any
	kind 	were
supplied
	for 	the 	remaining
	56. 	In
	addition,
	the
	home
	addresses
of
	at 	least
	43
	voters
	were
	incorrect
	because
	that
	many
	sample
ballots
	were
	returned 	to
	the
	PERB
	by
	the 	post
	office.
Here, the Excelsior list contained 1,727 names but was
In 	omitting
	from
	the 	Excelsior
	list
	the
	home
	addresses 	of
those
	unit
	no.
	2
	voters
	who
	had
	completed
	nondisclosure
requests
	the
	state
	employer
	was
	following 	the
	terms
	of 	the
directed 	election 	order.
	The
	order
	plainly
	excluded
	disclosure
of
	home
	addresses 	for
	employees
	who 	had
	completed
	a
nondisclosure 	request 	pursuant 	to 	Civil
	Code
	section
1798.62.
In omitting from the Excelsior list the home addresses of
10	
The
	absence 	of 	those
	420 	home
	addresses 	therefore
cannot	
be	
considered 	evidence 	of
	any
	irregularity
	in 	thecannot be considered evidence of any irregularity in the
10see footnote no. 6, supra.	
l0see 	footnote
	no.
	6, 	supra.
	For 	a
	discussion 	of
	how
Civil
	Code
	section
	1798.62
	relates 	to 	the 	Excelsior
	list
requirement 	in
	PERB
	representation 	rules, 	see
	63 	Ops.
	Atty.
Gen. 	120 	(1980).
For a discussion of how
40
174 [89 LRRM 1697], where there was an error rate of 13 percent
in addresses but not names, Days Inns of America, Inc. (1975)
216 NRLB 384 [88 LRRM 1224], and where the list was not
received by the union until eight days before the election,
Peerless Eagle Coal Co. (1975) 220 NLRB 357 [90 LRRM 1229] .
missing the home addresses of 420 unit no. 2 voters who had
completed nondisclosure requests.
supplied for 364 of the 420 but no addresses of any kind were
supplied for the remaining 56. In addition, the home addresses
of at least 43 voters were incorrect because that many sample
ballots were returned to the PERB by the post office.
those unit no. 2 voters who had completed nondisclosure
requests the state employer was following the terms of the
directed election order. The order plainly excluded disclosure
of home addresses for employees who had completed a
nondisclosure request pursuant to Civil Code section
1798.62.10 The absence of those 420 home addresses therefore
Civil Code section 1798.62 relates to the Excelsior list
requirement in PERB representation rules, see 63 Ops. Atty.
Gen. 120 (1980) .

41
election 	process. 	The 	state 	employer 	was 	directed, 	however, 	to
supply 	the 	work 	addresses 	for 	the 	420 	and 	in 	fact 	supplied 	only
364 	work 	addresses. 	The 	lists 	were 	defective, 	therefore, 	by 	at
least 	56 	addresses.
election process. The state employer was directed, however, to
An 	additional 	defect 	in 	addresses 	on 	the 	list 	can 	be
inferred 	from 	the 	return 	by 	the 	post 	office 	of 	43 	sample
ballots. 	Assuming 	for 	discussion 	that 	none 	of 	the 	43 	voters
whose 	sample 	ballots 	were 	returned 	were 	among 	the 	56 	whose 	work
addresses 	were 	not 	provided, 	the 	Excelsior 	list 	would 	have 	been
in 	error 	by 	at 	least 	99 	addresses 	out 	of 	1,727 	voters, 	an 	error
rate 	of 	.057 	percent.
An additional defect in addresses on the list can be
For 	the 	purpose 	of 	calculating 	the 	error 	rate 	in 	the
Excelsior 	list, 	the 	Department 	of 	Social 	Services 	hearing
officers 	cannot 	be 	considered. 	Those 	positions 	were 	created
after 	the 	issuance 	of 	the 	PERB 	unit 	decision 	for 	state
employees. 	The 	Department 	of 	Social 	Services 	hearing 	officers
were 	not 	added 	to 	the 	unit 	until 	after 	the 	May 	5, 	1981
stipulation 	between 	the 	parties 	and 	the 	May 	7, 	1981 	amendment
by 	the 	regional 	director 	to 	the 	election 	order.
For the purpose of calculating the error rate in the
The 	Coalition's 	contention 	that 	unit 	no. 	2 employee
organization 	mail 	was 	not 	delivered 	to 	employees 	at 	those 	work
site 	addresses 	on 	the 	Excelsior 	list 	fails 	totally 	for 	lack 	of
proof. 	There 	was 	evidence 	about 	the 	nondelivery 	of 	certain
ACSA 	mail 	to 	the 	worksite 	addresses 	of 	Unemployment 	Insurance
The Coalition's contention that unit no. 2 employee
41
supply the work addresses for the 420 and in fact supplied only
364 work addresses. The lists were defective, therefore, by at
least 56 addresses.
inferred from the return by the post office of 43 sample
ballots. 	Assuming for discussion that none of the 43 voters
whose sample ballots were returned were among the 56 whose work
addresses were not provided, the Excelsior list would have been
in error by at least 99 addresses out of 1, 727 voters, an error
rate of . 057 percent.
Excelsior list, the Department of Social Services hearing
officers cannot be considered. Those positions were created
after the issuance of the PERB unit decision for state
employees. 	The Department of Social Services hearing officers
were not added to the unit until after the May 5, 1981
stipulation between the parties and the May 7, 1981 amendment
by the regional director to the election order.
organization mail was not delivered to employees at those work
site addresses on the Excelsior list fails totally for lack of
proof. There was evidence about the nondelivery of certain
ACSA mail to the worksite addresses of Unemployment Insurance

42
Appeals
	Board
	hearing
	officers
	and
	Franchise
	Tax
	Board
lawyers.
	But
	those
	nondeliveries
	occurred
	prior
	to
	the
issuance 	of
	the
	Excelsior
	list. 	There was no evidence about	
There
	was 	no
	evidence
	about
the 	nondelivery 	of
	Coalition
	mail
	to
	work
	site
	addresses
	at
	any
time.
Appeals Board hearing officers and Franchise Tax Board
The
	error 	rate
	on
	the
	actual
	ballot
	mailing
	was 	somewhat
lower
	that
	the
	error 	rate
	on
	the
	Excelsior
	list.
	Only
	30
ballots
	were
	returned
	by
	the
	post
	office
	out 	of
	1,783
	which
were
	mailed,
	an
	error 	rate
	of
	.0168
	percent.
	Nine
	of 	the
	30
voters
	whose
	ballots
	were
	returned
	had
	contacted 	the
	PERB
election 	office
	and
	obtained
	duplicate
	ballots,
	a
	factor
	which
minimizes
	the
	effect
	of 	the 	mistaken
	addresses
	still
	further.
The error rate on the actual ballot mailing was somewhat
That
	the
	state
	employer
	would
	supply
	a
	perfect 	set
	of
	home
addresses 	for 	the 	Excelsior
	and
	ballot
	mailing
	lists
	was
	never
contemplated.
	It
	was 	known 	from
	the 	beginning
	that
	there
	would
be
	errors.
	For
	that
	reason, 	the 	regional
	director
	prepared
	a
memorandum
	encouraging
	employees
	to
	update
	their
	home
	addresses
and 	had
	it
	distributed
	with
	employee 	paychecks
	nearly
	four
months
	before 	the
	election.
	Three 	kinds 	of
	election 	notices
were
	issued,
	each 	one
	of
	which
	contained
	a
	toll
	free 	telephone
number
	for 	voters 	to
	call 	if
	they 	did 	not 	obtain 	their 	ballots
in
	a
	timely 	fashion. 	In
	a
	still
	further 	effort
	to 	ensure
	that
all 	eligible 	voters 	got
	a
	ballot,
	the 	regional 	director
	updated
addresses
	when
	the 	return 	of
	some 	sample
	ballots
	showed 	which
employee 	addresses 	were
	incorrect.
That the state employer would supply a perfect set of home
42
lawyers. 	But those nondeliveries occurred prior to the
issuance of the Excelsior list.
the nondelivery of Coalition mail to work site addresses at any
time.
lower that the error rate on the Excelsior list. Only 30
ballots were returned by the post office out of 1, 783 which
were mailed, an error rate of . 0168 percent. Nine of the 30
voters whose ballots were returned had contacted the PERB
election office and obtained duplicate ballots, a factor which
minimizes the effect of the mistaken addresses still further.
addresses for the Excelsior and ballot mailing lists was never
contemplated. It was known from the beginning that there would
be errors. For that reason, the regional director prepared a
memorandum encouraging employees to update their home addresses
and had it distributed with employee paychecks nearly four
months before the election. 	Three kinds of election notices
were issued, each one of which contained a toll free telephone
number for voters to call if they did not obtain their ballots
in a timely fashion. In a still further effort to ensure that
all eligible voters got a ballot, the regional director updated
addresses when the return of some sample ballots showed which
employee addresses were incorrect.

43
The
	Coalition
	contends
	that
	the
	regional
	director 	failed
	to
"send
	ballots
	to
	employees
	who
	should
	have
	received
	ballots."
As
	stated
	by
	ACSA
	in
	its
	brief,
	proof
	of
	that
	contention
	is
"utterly"
	lacking 	in 	the 	record.
	The
	record
	establishes
	that
ballots
	were
	mailed
	to
	all
	persons
	on
	the
	voter
	list
	as
	well
	as
to
	all
	persons
	who
	timely 	requested
	duplicate
	or
	challenged
ballots. 	Specifically,
	the
	Coalition 	alleges 	that
	no
	ballots
were
	mailed
	to
	the
	Department
	of
	Social 	Services 	hearing
officers.
	The
	record
	unequivocably
	establishes 	that
	the
ballots
	were
	mailed.
The Coalition contends that the regional director failed to
Inconsistent
	with
	its
	allegation 	that
	no
	ballots
	were
mailed
	to
	Department
	of 	Social 	Services 	hearing
	officers,
	the
Coalition
	at
	the 	hearing
	actually
	proved
	that 	ballots
	were
	sent
to
	Kevin
	Toole
	and
	Charles 	Fergerson 	but
	were
	mailed
	to
incorrect
	and
	outdated 	addresses. 	Nevertheless,
	as
	ACSA
observes 	in
	its
	brief,
	the 	addresses
	used
	for 	those
	two
	hearing
officers
	were
	the 	addresses 	attached 	to 	the
	stipulation
	entered
into
	by
	the
	Coalition.
	Having 	been
	a
	party 	to 	the
	development
of 	the 	mistaken
	addresses, 	the
	Coalition
	should 	not
	now
	be
heard
	to
	complain
	that
	the 	addresses
	were
	incorrect.
Inconsistent with its allegation that no ballots were
The
	Coalition 	alleged 	that
	hearing
	officers
	George 	Coan 	and
John 	Willd
	were
	not 	sent 	ballots
	by
	the 	regional 	director.
This 	allegation 	is 	totally
	devoid 	of 	support 	in 	the 	record.
Finally, 	the 	Coalition 	points 	to 	the 	mailing 	of
	a
	ballot 	to
CalTrans 	attorney 	Richard 	Wehe
	at
	an 	outdated 	address.
The Coalition alleged that hearing officers George Coan and
43
"send ballots to employees who should have received ballots."
As stated by ACSA in its brief, proof of that contention is
"utterly" lacking in the record. The record establishes that
ballots were mailed to all persons on the voter list as well as
to all persons who timely requested duplicate or challenged
ballots. 	Specifically, the Coalition alleges that no ballots
were mailed to the Department of Social Services hearing
officers. 	The record unequivocably establishes that the
ballots were mailed.
mailed to Department of Social Services hearing officers, the
Coalition at the hearing actually proved that ballots were sent
to Kevin Toole and Charles Fergerson but were mailed to
incorrect and outdated addresses. Nevertheless, as ACSA
observes in its brief, the addresses used for those two hearing
officers were the addresses attached to the stipulation entered
into by the Coalition. Having been a party to the development
of the mistaken addresses, the Coalition should not now be
heard to complain that the addresses were incorrect.
John Willd were not sent ballots by the regional director.
This allegation is totally devoid of support in the record.
Finally, the Coalition points to the mailing of a ballot to
CalTrans attorney Richard Wehe at an outdated address.

44
Mr. Wehe,
however,
received
a
duplicate
ballot
and
voted
in
the
election.
It
is
of
no
consequence,
therefore, that
the
original
address
on
the mailing
list
was
out of
date. That he
That
he
voted
at
all
is
proof
that
the
system
had
a
successful
method
for
correcting
errors.
Mr. Wehe, however, received a duplicate ballot and voted in the
In
summary,
it
appears
that
the
Excelsior
list
had
omissions
and
errors
in the addresses of
about
.057
percent of
the
eligible
voters.
It
appears
further that
the
ballot
mailing
list
had
errors
in the addresses of
about
.0168
percent
of the
eligible
voters.
Both
of these
deficiencies
are
so
small
that
they reasonably
can
be
described
as
insignificant.
Rather than proving
"gross
irregularities"
in the conduct
of
the
election,
the
Coalition
has
established
the existence of
In
its
some
inconsequential
and
probably unavoidable
errors.
preparation of the Excelsior
and
voter
lists
the
state
employer
obviously
satisfied
the
"substantial
compliance"
requirement
found
in National
Labor
Relations
Board
decisions.
In summary, it appears that the Excelsior list had
The
errors
proven
by
the
Coalition
were de
minimis. The errors proven by the Coalition were de minimis.
Objections to Election---Mail Distribution Policy Objections to Election---Mail Distribution Policy
The
Coalition
argues
that
the
state
policy concerning the
distribution
of
employee
organization
mail
at
the
work
site
was
a
denial of rights sufficiently
grievous to
justify
a new
election.
Comparing
the policy to
a
no-solicitation rule, the
Coalition argues that the rule
was
not only unlawful on
its
face but
it
was
applied in
a
discriminatory manner. Mail sent
The Coalition argues that the state policy concerning the
44
election. It is of no consequence, therefore, that the
original address on the mailing list was out of date.
voted at all is proof that the system had a successful method
for correcting errors.
omissions and errors in the addresses of about .057 percent of
the eligible voters. It appears further that the ballot
mailing list had errors in the addresses of about . 0168 percent
of the eligible voters. Both of these deficiencies are so
small that they reasonably can be described as insignificant.
Rather than proving "gross irregularities" in the conduct of
the election, the Coalition has established the existence of
some inconsequential and probably unavoidable errors. In its
preparation of the Excelsior and voter lists the state employer
obviously satisfied the "substantial compliance" requirement
found in National Labor Relations Board decisions.
distribution of employee organization mail at the work site was
a denial of rights sufficiently grievous to justify a new
election. Comparing the policy to a no-solicitation rule, the
Coalition argues that the rule was not only unlawful on its
face but it was applied in a discriminatory manner. Mail sent

45
by 	other 	organizations, 	including 	the 	rival 	ACSA, 	continued 	to
be 	delivered 	after 	the 	policy 	was 	in 	force. 	This, 	in 	effect,
constituted 	differential 	treatment, 	according 	to 	the 	Coalition.
by other organizations, including the rival ACSA, continued to
ACSA 	argues 	that 	the 	Coalition 	misread 	the 	policy 	and 	then,
acting 	in 	reliance 	upon 	its 	own 	mistake, 	self-censored 	its 	own
mailings. 	"It's 	true 	that ACSA 	mail 	was 	delivered 	and 	STAA
[State 	Trial 	Attorney's 	Association] 	mail 	was 	not; 	but 	not
because 	of 	any 	discrimination," 	ACSA 	argues. 	"There was no	"There 	was 	no
STAA 	mail." 	Thus, 	ACSA 	contends, 	the 	Coalition 	engaged 	in 	a
self-fulfilling 	prophesy. 	It 	asserted 	that 	it 	could 	not 	get
its 	mail 	delivered 	because 	of 	the 	state 	policy 	and 	then 	it
declined 	to 	send 	any 	mail, 	insuring 	nondelivery. 	Moreover,
ACSA 	continues, 	even 	had 	there 	been 	a 	ban 	on 	delivery 	of 	mail
to 	the 	work 	site, 	alternative 	means---a 	home 	address 	list 	from
the 	state 	controller---were 	available.
ACSA argues that the Coalition misread the policy and then,
That 	the 	state 	policy 	under 	attack 	was 	an 	unfair 	practice
already 	has 	been 	determined 	by 	the 	PERB 	itself.
That the state policy under attack was an unfair practice
11 	However,
merely 	proving 	that 	an 	unfair 	practice 	existed 	in 	an 	election
context 	does 	not 	justify 	a 	new 	election. 	It 	takes 	more 	than
that. 	Determining 	the 	existence 	of 	an 	unfair 	practice 	or
conduct 	tantamount 	to 	an 	unfair 	practice 	is 	a 	threshold
inquiry. 	The 	decision 	about 	whether 	to 	grant 	a 	new 	election
merely proving that an unfair practice existed in an election
1lpERB Decision No. 159b-s, supra.	llPERB 	Decision No. 159b-s, 	supra.
45
be delivered after the policy was in force. This, in effect,
constituted differential treatment, according to the Coalition.
acting in reliance upon its own mistake, self-censored its own
mailings. 	"It's true that ACSA mail was delivered and STAA
[State Trial Attorney's Association] mail was not; but not
because of any discrimination, " ACSA argues.
STAA mail." Thus, ACSA contends, the Coalition engaged in a
self-fulfilling prophesy. It asserted that it could not get
its mail delivered because of the state policy and then it
declined to send any mail, insuring nondelivery. Moreover,
ACSA continues, even had there been a ban on delivery of mail
to the work site, alternative means---a home address list from
the state controller---were available.
already has been determined by the PERB itself. ll However,
context does not justify a new election. It takes more than
that. Determining the existence of an unfair practice or
conduct tantamount to an unfair practice is a threshold
inquiry. The decision about whether to grant a new election

46
"depends
	upon
	the
	totality
	of
	circumstances
	raised
	in
	each
	case
and,
	when
	appropriate,
	the 	cumulative
	effect
	of 	the
	conduct
which 	forms
	the
	basis
	for
	the
	relief
	granted. 	(Citations
omitted) 	In
	general,
	this
	will
	require
	that
	the
	objecting
party
	satisfy
	its
	burden
	of
	establishing
	a
	prima
	facie
	case
that 	specific
	activities
	interfered
	with
	the
	election
process."
	San
	Ramon
	Valley 	Unified
	School
	District
	(11/20/79)
PERB
	Decision
	No.
	111.
"depends upon the totality of circumstances raised in each case
Here,
	the
	Coalition
	has
	totally
	failed
	in
	its
	effort
	to
show
	that
	the 	mail
	policy
	interfered
	in
	any 	way
	with 	the
election.
	The
	Coalition
	never
	tried
	to
	mail 	anything
	to 	the	election.
work
	site
	addresses 	of
	unit
	no.
	2
	voters.
	It
	is
	apparent
	on
the 	face 	of 	the
	September
	5,
	1978
	memo
	from
	the 	Governor's
office 	that
	the 	mail
	policy
	was
	intended
	to
	be
	applied 	in
	a
flexible
	manner. 	Only when an individual department determined	
Only
	when 	an
	individual
	department 	determined
that
	the
	"sorting, 	distribution
	or 	handling 	of
	volume
	mailings"
would
	create
	an 	undue
	burden 	could 	the 	department
	refuse 	to
deliver
	the 	mail.
Here, the Coalition has totally failed in its effort to
It
	also
	should
	have 	been
	apparent 	to
	Mr.
	Sullivan
	and
	other
officers
	of 	the
	Coalition 	that
	the 	policy
	was
	flexible
	as
enforced.
	When
	mail
	from
	other
	employee
	organizations
	was
delivered 	at
	the
	work
	site
	Mr.
	Sullivan
	had
	reasonable 	grounds
to 	believe 	that
	mail
	he 	might 	send
	also
	would
	get 	through. 	Yet
he 	never 	even
	tried
	a
	mailing. 	In 	these 	circumstances,
Mr.
	Sullivan 	can 	hardly 	complain 	of 	discriminatory 	treatment.
It also should have been apparent to Mr. Sullivan and other
46
and, when appropriate, the cumulative effect of the conduct
which forms the basis for the relief granted. (Citations
omitted) In general, this will require that the objecting
party satisfy its burden of establishing a prima facie case
that specific activities interfered with the election
process." San Ramon Valley Unified School District (11/20/79)
PERB Decision No. 111.
show that the mail policy interfered in any way with the
The Coalition never tried to mail anything to the
work site addresses of unit no. 2 voters. It is apparent on
the face of the September 5, 1978 memo from the Governor's
office that the mail policy was intended to be applied in a
flexible manner .
that the "sorting, distribution or handling of volume mailings"
would create an undue burden could the department refuse to
deliver the mail.
It also should have been apparent to Mr. Sullivan and other
officers of the Coalition that the policy was flexible as
enforced. When mail from other employee organizations was
delivered at the work site Mr. Sullivan had reasonable grounds
to believe that mail he might send also would get through. Yet
he never even tried a mailing. In these circumstances,
Mr. Sullivan can hardly complain of discriminatory treatment.

47
Had 	Mr. 	Sullivan 	conducted 	a 	mailing 	and 	had 	that 	mailing 	not
been 	delivered 	when ACSA 	mailings 	were 	delivered, 	there 	would
have 	been 	discrimination. 	That 	did 	not 	occur 	and 	the 	Coalition
cannot 	complain 	of 	discrimination 	on 	the 	basis 	of 	a
self-imposed 	censorship.
Had Mr. Sullivan conducted a mailing and had that mailing not
Moreover, 	as 	ACSA 	argues, 	even 	had 	there 	been 	a 	ban 	against
the 	delivery 	of 	all 	mail 	at 	the 	work 	site, 	alternative 	methods
of 	communcation 	were 	available. 	As 	early 	as 	mid-May 	of 	1980, 	a
full 	year 	before 	the 	elections, 	the 	state 	controller's 	office
was 	releasing 	to 	employee 	organizations 	the 	home 	addresses 	of
all 	state 	employees 	except 	those 	who 	had 	completed 	written
nondisclosure 	requests. 	Although Mr. 	Sullivan 	and 	the 	State
Trial 	Attorneys 	Association 	did 	not 	seek 	such 	a 	list, 	the 	other
constituent 	organizations 	in 	the 	Coalition 	obtained 	and 	used
home 	addresses. 	It 	cannot 	be 	denied 	that 	the 	home 	address
lists 	were 	imperfect, 	but 	there 	is 	no 	evidence 	to 	suggest 	that
work 	site 	addresses 	were 	much 	better.
Moreover, as ACSA argues, even had there been a ban against
Finally, 	even 	had 	all 	access 	by 	mail 	been 	cut 	off 	there 	is
no 	evidence 	to 	suggest 	that 	other 	means 	of 	communication 	with
state 	employees 	could 	not 	have 	been 	used. 	There 	is 	no
indication 	that 	the 	state 	in 	any 	way 	interfered 	with 	personal
contact 	such 	as 	organizing 	in 	non-work 	areas 	during 	break
periods. 	There 	is 	no 	indication 	that 	the 	state 	in 	any 	way
restricted 	the 	use 	of 	bulletin 	boards 	at 	work 	or 	hampered 	the
personal 	distribution 	of 	literature 	at 	the 	work 	site.
Finally, even had all access by mail been cut off there is
47
been delivered when ACSA mailings were delivered, there would
have been discrimination. 	That did not occur and the Coalition
cannot complain of discrimination on the basis of a
self-imposed censorship.
the delivery of all mail at the work site, alternative methods
of communcation were available. As early as mid-May of 1980, a
full year before the elections, the state controller's office
was releasing to employee organizations the home addresses of
all state employees except those who had completed written
nondisclosure requests. Although Mr. Sullivan and the State
Trial Attorneys Association did not seek such a list, the other
constituent organizations in the Coalition obtained and used
home addresses. 	It cannot be denied that the home address
lists were imperfect, but there is no evidence to suggest that
work site addresses were much better.
no evidence to suggest that other means of communication with
state employees could not have been used. There is no
indication that the state in any way interfered with personal
contact such as organizing in non-work areas during break
periods. There is no indication that the state in any way
restricted the use of bulletin boards at work or hampered the
personal distribution of literature at the work site.

48
In summary, the Coalition has failed to show that the state
mail distribution policy in any way "interfered with the
election process." Neither in its wording nor in its
application was the policy as prohibitive as the Coalition
would suggest. In addition, during the last year prior to the
election the Coalition could have obtained the home addresses
of most unit members and communicated with them by mail or in
person at their residences. Alternative means of communication
were available.
In summary, the Coalition has failed to show that the state
Objections to Election---CalTrans Staffing Ratio Objections to Election---CalTrans Staffing Ratio
The Coalition argues that the staffing ratio modification
for CalTrans attorneys was delayed in the crucial pre-election
period because of the actions of Rebecca Taylor of the
Department of Personnel Administration. This interference, the This interference, the
Coalition continues, constituted disparate treatment by the
state employer between two employee organizations. In effect,
the Coalition argues, benefits sought by one employee
organization were granted while those sought by another
organization were delayed.
The Coalition argues that the staffing ratio modification
ACSA argues that the evidence simply does not support the
claims of the Coalition. The CalTrans proposal was made after
the Department of Justice proposal and it was approved after
the Department of Justice proposal, ACSA asserts. Moreover , Moreover,
ACSA continues, at no time did Ms. Taylor attempt to interfere
with the processing of the CalTrans request. Finally, ACSA
ACSA argues that the evidence simply does not support the
48
mail distribution policy in any way "interfered with the
election process." Neither in its wording nor in its
application was the policy as prohibitive as the Coalition
would suggest. In addition, during the last year prior to the
election the Coalition could have obtained the home addresses
of most unit members and communicated with them by mail or in
person at their residences. Alternative means of communication
were available.
for CalTrans attorneys was delayed in the crucial pre-election
period because of the actions of Rebecca Taylor of the
Department of Personnel Administration.
Coalition continues, constituted disparate treatment by the
state employer between two employee organizations. In effect,
the Coalition argues, benefits sought by one employee
organization were granted while those sought by another
organization were delayed.
claims of the Coalition. The CalTrans proposal was made after
the Department of Justice proposal and it was approved after
the Department of Justice proposal, ACSA asserts.
ACSA continues, at no time did Ms. Taylor attempt to interfere
with the processing of the CalTrans request. Finally, ACSA

49
concludes,
	there
	is
	no
	evidence
	to
	establish 	that
	the
	delay
	in
the 	approval 	of 	the
	CalTrans
	request
	had 	any
	effect
	whatsoever
on
	the
	election.
concludes, there is no evidence to establish that the delay in
There
	is
	ample
	precedent 	for 	the
	Coalition's 	assertion
	that
a
	discriminatory 	increase 	in
	benefits 	prior
	to
	an
	election
	will
be
	found 	an
	unfair
	practice.
	See,
	e.g.,
	Santa
	Monica 	Community
College
	District
	(9/21/79)
	PERB
	Decision
	No.
	103.
	However,
	the
Coalition
	has
	failed
	to
	prove
	the 	occurrence 	of
	a
discriminatory 	increase 	in
	benefits.
There is ample precedent for the Coalition's assertion that
The
	evidence
	establishes,
	as 	argued
	by
	ACSA,
	that
	the
Department
	of
	Justice
	request
	for
	a
	change
	in 	the
	staffing
ratio
	was
	prior
	in
	time
	to
	the 	CalTrans
	request. 	The specific	The
	specific
approach
	ultimately
	adopted
	by
	the 	Personnel
	Board 	was
developed
	in 	discussions
	between
	the
	staff
	of 	the
	Department
	of
Justice
	and
	that
	of 	the 	Personnel
	Board.
	The
	Department
	of
Justice
	was
	the
	first
	department
	to
	complete 	the 	documentation
requested
	by
	the 	Personnel
	Board 	and
	it
	was
	the
	first
department 	to
	change
	its
	performance
	contract
	with 	the
Personnel 	Board. 	In 	the
	normal
	course 	of 	events, 	the
department
	which 	makes
	the
	earliest
	request
	should
	have
	the
earliest
	consideration 	of 	that 	request. 	Exactly
	that
	sequence
occurred.
The evidence establishes, as argued by ACSA, that the
The
	Coalition 	also
	has
	failed 	to
	prove
	that
	Ms.
	Taylor
acted 	in
	any 	way
	to
	hamper
	the 	CalTrans 	request. 	Clearly, 	she
attempted 	to 	derail 	the 	Department 	of 	Justice 	request. 	But 	her
The Coalition also has failed to prove that Ms. Taylor
49
the approval of the CalTrans request had any effect whatsoever
on the election.
a discriminatory increase in benefits prior to an election will
be found an unfair practice. See, e.g. , Santa Monica Community
College District (9/21/79) PERB Decision No. 103. However, the
Coalition has failed to prove the occurrence of a
discriminatory increase in benefits.
Department of Justice request for a change in the staffing
ratio was prior in time to the CalTrans request.
approach ultimately adopted by the Personnel Board was
developed in discussions between the staff of the Department of
Justice and that of the Personnel Board. The Department of
Justice was the first department to complete the documentation
requested by the Personnel Board and it was the first
department to change its performance contract with the
Personnel Board. In the normal course of events, the
department which makes the earliest request should have the
earliest consideration of that request. Exactly that sequence
occurred.
acted in any way to hamper the CalTrans request. Clearly, she
attempted to derail the Department of Justice request. But her

50
efforts
	were
	totally
	unsuccessful.
	She
	didn't
	even
	try 	to
delay 	the 	CalTrans
	request.
efforts were totally unsuccessful. She didn't even try to
Moreover, 	even
	had
	the
	Coalition
	demonstrated
	a
	difference
in 	the
	way
	the 	Personnel
	Board
	treated
	the
	two
	departments,
there
	is
	no
	evidence
	of
	discrimination
	in 	the 	treatment
	of
	the
competing
	employee
	organizations.
	While
	the
	Coalition
	might
have 	been
	involved 	in
	furthering
	the
	CalTrans
	request, 	there
	is
no
	evidence
	that
	ACSA
	was
	in
	any
	way
	involved
	in
	promoting
	the
Justice
	request.
	There
	also
	is
	a
	paucity 	of
	evidence
	that
	the
sequencing
	of 	the 	Personnel 	Board's
	action
	on
	the
	two
	requests
had 	any
	effect
	whatsoever
	on
	the
	election.
Moreover, even had the Coalition demonstrated a difference
In
	summary,
	this 	allegation 	like
	the
	others,
	must
	fail
	for
a
	lack 	of 	evidence.
	Considered
	collectively,
	the 	evidence 	of
irregularities
	in 	the
	election
	and
	of
	conduct 	tantamount
	to
	an
unfair 	practice
	simply
	is
	too
	scarce 	to
	show
	sufficient
interference
	with 	the
	election
	process 	to
	justify
	the
	setting
aside 	of 	the
	election 	result.
In summary, this allegation like the others, must fail for
PROPOSED 	ORDER	PROPOSED ORDER
Based 	upon
	the 	foregoing 	findings 	of
	fact,
	conclusions 	of
law 	and
	the
	entire
	record 	of
	this 	matter,
	it
	is
	the 	Proposed
Order
	that:
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of
1) 	The
	challenges 	to 	the
	ballots
	of 	the 	following
	named
individuals 	are 	hereby 	overruled:
1)
William S. 	Abbey,
	Calvin
	J.
	Abe, 	Steven V.
	Adler,
Paul
	C. 	Ament, 	Andrew 	D. 	Amerson,
	Christopher
	Ames,
Roosevelt 	R. 	Arnold, 	Shunji 	Asari, 	Merlin G. 	Askren,
William S. Abbey, Calvin J. Abe, Steven V. Adler,
50
delay the CalTrans request.
in the way the Personnel Board treated the two departments,
there is no evidence of discrimination in the treatment of the
competing employee organizations. While the Coalition might
have been involved in furthering the CalTrans request, there is
no evidence that ACSA was in any way involved in promoting the
Justice request. 	There also is a paucity of evidence that the
sequencing of the Personnel Board's action on the two requests
had any effect whatsoever on the election.
a lack of evidence. Considered collectively, the evidence of
irregularities in the election and of conduct tantamount to an
unfair practice simply is too scarce to show sufficient
interference with the election process to justify the setting
aside of the election result.
law and the entire record of this matter, it is the Proposed
Order that:
The challenges to the ballots of the following named
individuals are hereby overruled:
Paul C. Ament, Andrew D. Amerson, Christopher Ames,
Roosevelt R. Arnold, Shunji Asari, Merlin G. Askren,

51
Richard
	W.
	Bakke,
	William
	v. 	Ballough,Joseph
	J.
	Barkett,
	Elizabeth
	A.
	Baron,
Gelacio
	L.
	Bayani, 	Joanna
	M.
	Beam,
	Garrett
	Beaumont,
Patricia
	D.
	Benke, 	Thedora 	P.
	Berger,
	Gary A.
	Binkerd,
Paul
	v.
	Bishop,
	Jay
	M.
	Bloom,
	Randall
	P.
	Borcherding,
Jean
	M.
	Bordon,
	Roger
	w.
	Boren, 	Michael
	R.
	Botwin,
Matthew
	P. 	Boyle,
	Lauren
	R.
	Brainard,
Elisabeth
	C.
	Brandt,
	Bruce
	J.
	Braverman,
Robert
	D.
	Breton,
	Janice
	R. 	Brown,
	John
	R.
	Burton,
Charles
	M.
	Buzzell,
Richard W. Bakke, William v. Ballough,
Paul
	C.
	Cahill, 	Joel
	E.
	Carey, 	William
	L.
	Carter,
James
	Ching,
	Nancy
	K.
	Chiu, 	Randall
	B.
	Christison,
Joseph 	P.
	Collins,
	William
E.
	Collins,
Joanne
	M.
	Condas,
	James	
M.	
Cordi,
	Rudolf 	Corona,
Michael
	L. 	Crow,
	Richard
	B.
	Cullather,
Patricia
	A.
	Cutler,
Paul C. Cahill, Joel E. Carey, William L. Carter,
Maureen
	A.
	Daly, 	John 	Davidson,
	Anthony
	s.
	Davigo,
J.
	R.
	Davis,
	Janelle
	B.
	Davis,
	Ramon
	M.
	Delaguardia,
Bernard	
A.	
Delaney,
	Paul
	H. 	Dobson,
	Darryl
	L. 	Doke,
Thomas
	P.
	Dove, 	Edwin
	J.
	Dubiel,
	John
	R.
	Duree,
Maureen A. Daly, John Davidson, Anthony S. Davigo,
Harold
	L.
	Eisenberg,
	David
	Eissler,	Harold L. Eisenberg, David Eissler,
Michael
	H.
	Fabian, 	Beverly
	K.
	Falk,
	Richard 	F.
	Finn,
Jane
	K.
	Fischer,
	Norman 	N.
	Flette,
	Bruce
	s.
	Flushman,
Edward
	T.
	Fogel,
	Robert
	M.
	Foster,
	Robert
	H.
	Francis,
Richard
	M.
	Frank,
	Carols.
	Frederick,
Susan
	L.
	Frierson, 	Jeffrey
	J.
	Fuller,
Michael H. Fabian, Beverly K. Falk, Richard F. Finn,
David
	M.
	Galie,
	Richard
	G.
	Garske,
	G.
	M.
	Gates,
Charles
	w.
	Getz,
	Dane 	R.
	Gillette,
	Kathleen
	E. 	Gnekow,
Neal
	J.
	Gobar, 	John
	A.
	Gordnier, 	John
	R.
	Gorey,
Frederick
	C.
	Grab, 	Robert
	R.
	Granucci,
David M. Galie, Richard G. Garske, G. M. Gates,
Mark 	A.
	Hart,
	Robert
	G.
	Hatton, 	Stanley
	M.
	Helfman,
John
	L.
	Henderson, 	Richard
	D.
	Hendlin,Susan E. 	Henrichsen,
	Edward
	P.
	Hill,
	N. 	E.
	Hill,
Blair
	w.
	Hoffman,
	Charlton
	G.
	Holland, 	Elizabeth
	Hong,
Sharlene
	A. 	Honnaka,
	Carol 	Hunter,
Mark A. Hart, Robert G. Hatton, Stanley M. Helfman,
Ronald
	N.
	Ito,	Ronald N. Ito,
Richard
	C.
	Jacobs, 	Charles
	J.
	James, 	Gary
	M.
	James,
M.
	Anne
	Jennings,
	Ann 	K.
	Jensen,
	J.
	R.
	Jibson,M.
Linda 	C. 	Johnson, 	Ralph
	M.
	Johnson, 	Marian
	M.
	Johnston,
Willard 	F. 	Jones, 	Curtis
	K.
	Jorstad,
	David 	B. 	Judson,
Raymond 	B.
	Jue, 	Charles 	P.
	Just,
Richard C. Jacobs, Charles J. James, Gary M. James,
51
Joseph J. Barkett, Elizabeth A. Baron,
Gelacio L. Bayani, Joanna M. Beam, Garrett Beaumont,
Patricia D. Benke, Thedora P. Berger, Gary A. Binkerd,
Paul V. Bishop, Jay M. Bloom, Randall P. Borcherding,
Jean M. Bordon, Roger W. Boren, Michael R. Botwin,
Matthew P. Boyle, Lauren R. Brainard,
Elisabeth C. Brandt, Bruce J. Braverman,
Robert D. Breton, Janice R. Brown, John R. Burton,
Charles M. Buzzell,
James Ching, Nancy K. Chiu, Randall B. Christison,
Joseph P. Collins, William E. Collins,
Joanne M. Condas, James M. Cordi, Rudolf Corona,
Michael L. Crow, Richard B. Cullather,
Patricia A. Cutler,
J. R. Davis, Janelle B. Davis, Ramon M. Delaguardia,
Bernard A. Delaney, Paul H. Dobson, Darryl L. Doke,
Thomas P. Dove, Edwin J. Dubiel, John R. Duree,
Jane K. Fischer, Norman N. Flette, Bruce S. Flushman,
Edward T. Fogel, Robert M. Foster, Robert H. Francis,
Richard M. Frank, Carol S. Frederick,
Susan L. Frierson, Jeffrey J. Fuller,
Charles W. Getz, Dane R. Gillette, Kathleen E. Gnekow,
Neal J. Gobar, John A. Gordnier, John R. Gorey,
Frederick C. Grab, Robert R. Granucci,
John L. Henderson, Richard D. Hendlin,
Susan E. Henrichsen, Edward P. Hill, N. E. Hill,
Blair W. Hoffman, Charlton G. Holland, Elizabeth Hong,
Sharlene A. Honnaka, Carol Hunter,
Anne Jennings, Ann K. Jensen, J. R. Jibson,
Linda C. Johnson, Ralph M. Johnson, Marian M. Johnston,
Willard F. Jones, Curtis K. Jorstad, David B. Judson,
Raymond B. Jue, Charles P. Just,

52
Charles
	M.
	Kagay,
	Steven
	M.
	Kahn, 	Eugene
	w.
	Kaster,
Robert 	F. 	Katz,
	Peter
	H. 	Kaufman,
	Stephen
	M.
	Kaufman,
Steven
	H.
	Kaufmann,
	Martin S.
	Kaye, 	Lawrence
	K.
	Keethe,
Ellen
	B.
	Kehr, 	Nelson 	P.
	Kempsky,
	Jack
	T.
	Kerry,
Alexander
	W.
	Kirkpatrick,
	Patti
	S.
	Kitching,
John
	J.
	Klee,
	Elizabeth
	A. 	Koen,
	Carole
	Ritts
	Kornblum,
Sandy
	R.
	Kriegler,
	Lawrence
	C. 	Kuperman,
	Owen
	L.
	Kwong,
Charles M. Kagay, Steven M. Kahn, Eugene W. Kaster,
Barry
	D.
	Ladendorf,
	James
	R.
	Lahana,
Michael
	E.
	Lasater,
	Morris
	Lenk,
	Dora
	Levin,
Herbert
	A.
	Levin,
	Ellyn
	s.
	Levinson, 	Robert 	P. 	Lewis,
Wayne	
M.	
Liao,
	Roys.
	Liebman,
	Richard
	N.
	Light,
Rodney 	O.
	Lilyquist,
	Linda
	M.
	Ludlow,
Alan
	A.
	Mangels, 	Susan
	D.
	Martynec,
Linus 	S. 	Masouredis,
	Karls.
	Mayer,
	Marilyn
	K.
	Mayer,
Harley
	D.
	Mayfield,
	Thomas 	D.
	Mccrackin,
Edmund 	D. 	McMurray,
	Alan
	s.
	Meth, 	Nathan
	D.
	Mihara,
Kathleen
	W.
	Mikkelson, 	Robert
	D.
	Milam,
Martin
	H.
	Milas, 	Frederick
	R.
	Millar,
	Stephen
	A.
	Mills,
Stephen
	H.
	Mills,
	Craig
	E.
	Modlin,
	Dixie
	Moe,
Deborah
	R.
	Monheit, 	John
	M.
	Morrison,
Joel
	S. 	Moskowitz,
	Keith
	I.
	Motley, 	Barbara
	M.
	Motz,
John
	B. 	Moy,
	Robert
	E. 	Murphy,
Pamela
	M.
	Nelson,
	Shirley
	A.
	Nelson,
Richard
	E.
	Nielson, 	Eleanor 	Nisperos,
	Ronald 	E.
	Niver,
Barbara
	A.
	Noble, 	Douglas
	B.
	Noble,
	Gail
	Y.
	Norton,
Robert
	H.
	O'Brien,
	Susan
	J.
	Orton,
	Gordon 	R.
	Overton,
Timothy 	R.
	Patterson,
	A.
	W.
	Petersen,
Patricia 	s.
	Peterson,
	Donna
	M.
	Petre, 	Earl
	R. 	Plowman,
Tyler
	B.
	Pon, 	William
	R.
	Pounders,
	Ronald
	s.
	Prager,
William
	G.
	Prahl,
	Roy 	C.
	Preminger,
	Anne
	S. 	Pressman,
Joel
	s.
	Primes,
Lillian
	L. 	Quon,
Richard
	M.
	Radosh, 	Ronald 	A.
	Reiter,
Donald A.
	Robinson, 	David
	w.
	Robison, 	Jesus 	Rodriquez,Donald 	F. 	Roeschke, 	Richard
	M.
	Ross, 	George
	J.
	Roth,
Wanda 	H. 	Rouzan, 	Asher 	Rubin, 	John
	W.
	Runde,
Joseph
	C.
	Rusconi, 	Ronald 	F. 	Russo, 	James 	E. 	Ryan,
Tiffany
	J.
	Rystrom,
52
Robert F. Katz, Peter H. Kaufman, Stephen M. Kaufman,
Steven H. Kaufmann, Martin S. Kaye, Lawrence K. Keethe,
Ellen B. Kehr, Nelson P. Kempsky, Jack T. Kerry,
Alexander W. Kirkpatrick, Patti S. Kitching,
John J. Klee, Elizabeth A. Koen, Carole Ritts Kornblum,
Sandy R. Kriegler, Lawrence C. Kuperman, Owen L. Kwong,
Barry D. Ladendorf, James R. Lahana,
Michael E. Lasater, Morris Lenk, Dora Levin,
Herbert A. Levin, Ellyn S. Levinson, Robert P. Lewis,
Wayne M. Liao, Roy S. Liebman, Richard N. Light,
Rodney O. Lilyquist, Linda M. Ludlow,
Alan A. Mangels, Susan D. Martynec,
Linus S. Masouredis, Karl S. Mayer, Marilyn K. Mayer,
Harley D. Mayfield, Thomas D. Mccrackin,
Edmund D. McMurray, Alan S. Meth, Nathan D. Mihara,
Kathleen W. Mikkelson, Robert D. Milam,
Martin H. Milas, Frederick R. Millar, Stephen A. Mills,
Stephen H. Mills, Craig E. Modlin, Dixie Moe,
Deborah R. Monheit, John M. Morrison,
Joel S. Moskowitz, Keith I. Motley, Barbara M. Motz,
John B. Moy, Robert E. Murphy ,
Pamela M. Nelson, Shirley A. Nelson,
Richard E. Nielson, Eleanor Nisperos, Ronald E. Niver,
Barbara A. Noble, Douglas B. Noble, Gail Y. Norton,
Robert H. O'Brien, Susan J. Orton, Gordon R. Overton,
Timothy R. Patterson, A. W. Petersen,
Patricia S. Peterson, Donna M. Petre, Earl R. Plowman,
Tyler B. Pon, William R. Pounders, Ronald S. Prager,
William G. Prahl, Roy C. Preminger, Anne S. Pressman,
Joel S. Primes,
Lillian L. Quon,
Richard M. Radosh, Ronald A. Reiter,
Donald A. Robinson, David W. Robison, Jesus Rodriquez,
Donald F. Roeschke, Richard M. Ross, George J. Roth,
Wanda H. Rouzan, Asher Rubin, John W. Runde,
Joseph C. Rusconi, Ronald F. Russo, James E. Ryan,
Tiffany J. Rystrom,

53
Nancy A.
	Saggese,
	David
	D.
	Salmon,
	John
	H.
	Sanders,
John
	A.
	Saureman,
	Thomas
	M.
	Scheerer,
Lawrence 	P.
	Scherb,
	James
	M.
	Schiavenza,
Gary
	W.
	Schons,
	Howard
	J.
	Schwab,
	James
	R.
	Schwartz,
Arthur
	G.
	Scotland,
	Melven 	R.
	Segal,
	Daniel 	P. 	Selmi,
Peter
	K.
	Shack,
	Albert
	N.
	Shelden,
	Janet
	G.
	Sherwood,
Iver
	E.
	Skjeie,
	Denis
	D.
	Smaage,
	Winifred
	Younge
	Smith,William F.
	Soo 	Hoo,
	Diane
	M.
	Spencer,
Michael
	I.
	Spiegel,
	John
	w.
	Spittler,
Juliano.
	Standen,
	William
	D.
	Stein,
	Jans.
	Stevens,
Michael
	J.
	Strumwasser, 	Laurence
	K.
	Sullivan,
Anthony
	M.
	Summers,
	Juliet
	H. 	Swoboda,
Clayton 	S. 	Tanaka,
	Lawrence
	R.
	Tapper,Linda
	L.
	Tedeschi, 	Alfredo
	Terrazas,
	Craig
	c. 	Thompson,
W.
	s.
	Thorpe,
	Calvin
	W.
	Torrance,
	Richard
	G.
	Tullis,
Jana
	L.
	Tuton, 	Robert 	F.
	Tyler,
Peter
	W.
	Van 	Der
	Naillen,
	Roger 	E.
	Venturi,
Louis
	Verdugo,
Nancy
	S. 	Wainwright,
	Stephanie
	H. 	Wald,
Roderick
	E.
	Walston, 	Michael
	H. 	Wayne,
Christopher
	J.
	Wei,
	Michael
	J.
	Weinberger,
Mark 	A.
	Weinstein,
	William
	R. 	Weisman,
Michael
	D.
	Wellington,
	James
	H.
	Wernicke,
Michael
	D.
	Whelan, 	Edmund 	E.
	White,
Gregory
	K.
	Wilkinson, 	Herbert
	F. 	Wilkinson,
Kenneth 	R.
	Williams,
	Diana
	C. 	Woodward,
Walter
	E.
	Wunderlich, 	Susanne
	C.
	Wylie,
Richard 	P.
	Yang, 	Thomas 	R.
	Yanger,
Pat
	L.
	Zaharopoulos,
	Gordon 	Zane.
2)
	In 	accord 	with 	the
	stipulations
	made 	by
	the
	parties,
the 	challenges 	to 	the
	ballots
	of 	the 	following
	named
individuals 	are
	hereby 	overruled:
Ronald 	A.
	Bass,
	Samuel 	A.
	Brewer,
	III,
Richard
	w.
	Clark, 	Alexander
	M.
	Correa,Robert
	W.
	Daneri, 	Susan 	L. 	Durbin, 	Dennis 	P. 	Eckhart,Dennis 	E.
	Ferris,
	Sharon 	R.
	Hindley,
	James
	W.
	Lewis,
Joanne 	P. 	Lyons,
	Elise
	B. 	Manders, 	John 	E. 	Marquez,
Paula
	R. 	Mazuski, 	John T. 	McArdle, 	David 	R. 	Meeker,
Bobbie 	L. 	Reyes, 	Victor 	Rojas, 	Earl
	N.
	Selby,
Robert 	B. 	Shaw,
	Allen E. 	Sommer,
	Shirley
	M.
	Thayer,
John 	A. 	Willd, 	Allene 	c. 	zanger,
Nancy A. Saggese, David D. Salmon, John H. Sanders,
53
John A. Saureman, Thomas M. Scheerer,
Lawrence P. Scherb, James M. Schiavenza,
Gary W. Schons, Howard J. Schwab, James R. Schwartz,
Arthur G. Scotland, Melven R. Segal, Daniel P. Selmi,
Peter K. Shack, Albert N. Shelden, Janet G. Sherwood,
Iver E. Skjeie, Denis D. Smaage, Winifred Younge Smith,
William F. Soo Hoo, Diane M. Spencer,
Michael I. Spiegel, John W. Spittler,
Julian O. Standen, William D. Stein, Jan S. Stevens,
Michael J. Strumwasser, Laurence K. Sullivan,
Anthony M. Summers, Juliet H. Swoboda,
Clayton S. Tanaka, Lawrence R. Tapper,
Linda L. Tedeschi, Alfredo Terrazas, Craig C. Thompson,
W. S. Thorpe, Calvin W. Torrance, Richard G. Tullis,
Jana L. Tuton, Robert F. Tyler,
Peter W. Van Der Naillen, Roger E. Venturi,
Louis Verdugo,
Nancy S. Wainwright, Stephanie H. Wald,
Roderick E. Walston, Michael H. Wayne,
Christopher J. Wei, Michael J. Weinberger,
Mark A. Weinstein, William R. Weisman,
Michael D. Wellington, James H. Wernicke,
Michael D. Whelan, Edmund E. White,
Gregory K. Wilkinson, Herbert F. Wilkinson,
Kenneth R. Williams, Diana C. Woodward,
Walter E. Wunderlich, Susanne C. Wylie,
Richard P. Yang, Thomas R. Yanger,
Pat L. Zaharopoulos, Gordon Zane.
2) In accord with the stipulations made by the parties,
the challenges to the ballots of the following named
individuals are hereby overruled:
Ronald A. Bass, Samuel A. Brewer, III,
Richard W. Clark, Alexander M. Correa,
Robert W. Daneri, Susan L. Durbin, Dennis P. Eckhart,
Dennis E. Ferris, Sharon R. Hindley, James W. Lewis,
Joanne P. Lyons, Elise B. Manders, John E. Marquez,
Paula R. Mazuski, John T. Mcardle, David R. Meeker,
Bobbie L. Reyes, Victor Rojas, Earl N. Selby,
Robert B. Shaw, Allen E. Sommer, Shirley M. Thayer,
John A. Willd, Allene C. Zanger,

54
Robert
	A. 	Brown,
	Oliver
	Cox,
	Dennis
	O.
	Higgins,
Jean
	Hume,
	Keith
	Levy,
	Steve
	Martini,
	Kenneth
	A.
	Reed,
Leonard
	L.
	Scott.
3)
	In 	accord 	with
	the
	stipulations
	made 	by
	the
	parties,
the
	challenges 	to
	the
	ballots
	of 	the 	following
	named
individuals
	are
	hereby
	sustained:
Michael
	c. 	Cohn,
	Martin
	F.
	Dingman,
	Ronald
	R.
	Small,
Nathaniel
	Sterling.
4) 	The
	objections 	to
	the
	election
	in
	state
	unit
	no.
	2
filed
	by
	the
	Judicial
	and
	Legal
	Coalition
	are
	hereby
	dismissed.
5)
	Immediately
	upon
	this
	Proposed 	Order
	becoming
	final
	the
regional
	director 	shall
	open 	and
	count 	the
	ballots
	determined
to
	be
	valid,
	void 	the
	ballots
	determined
	to
	be
	invalid
	and
issue
	a
	revised
	tally
	of
	ballots 	consistent
	with
	this 	decision.
Pursuant
	to California
	Administrative
	Code,
	title
	8,
	part
III,
	section
	32305,
	this
	Proposed 	Decision
	and
	order
	shall
become
	final
	on
	October 	19,
	1981
	unless
	a
	party
	files
	a
	timely
statement 	of 	exceptions.
	See
	California Administrative
	Code,
title
	8,
	part
	III,
	section
	32300. 	Such
	statement 	of 	exceptions
and
	supporting
	brief
	must 	be
	actually
	received
	by
	the 	executive
assistant
	to 	the
	Board
	itself
	at
	the 	headquarters
	office 	in
Sacramento 	before 	the 	close 	of 	business
	(5:00 	p.m.)
	on
October 	19,
	1981
	in 	order 	to
	be
	timely
	filed.
	See
	California
section
	32135.
	Administrative
	Code,
	title
	8,
	part
	III,
	Any
54
Robert A. Brown, Oliver Cox, Dennis O. Higgins,
Jean Hume, Keith Levy, Steve Martini, Kenneth A. Reed,
Leonard L. Scott.
3) In accord with the stipulations made by the parties,
the challenges to the ballots of the following named
individuals are hereby sustained:
Michael C. Cohn, Martin F. Dingman, Ronald R. Small,
Nathaniel Sterling.
4) 	The objections to the election in state unit no. 2
filed by the Judicial and Legal Coalition are hereby dismissed.
5) Immediately upon this Proposed Order becoming final the
regional director shall open and count the ballots determined
to be valid, void the ballots determined to be invalid and
issue a revised tally of ballots consistent with this decision.
Pursuant to California Administrative Code, title 8, part
III, section 32305, this Proposed Decision and order shall
become final on October 19, 1981 unless a party files a timely
statement of exceptions. See California Administrative Code,
title 8, part III, section 32300. Such statement of exceptions
and supporting brief must be actually received by the executive
assistant to the Board itself at the headquarters office in
Sacramento before the close of business (5:00 p.m. ) on
October 19, 1981 in order to be timely filed. See California
Administrative Code, title 8, part III, section 32135. Any

I
55
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	
PERB
itself.
	See
	California
	Administrative
	Code,
	title	
8,	
part
	III,
section
	32300
	and
	32305, 	as
	amended.
DATED:
	September 	29,
	1981
FOR
	THE
	EXECUTIVE 	DIRECTOR
By-Ronald E. 	Blubaugh
Hearing
	Officer
55
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 PERB
itself. See California Administrative Code, title 8, part III,
section 32300 and 32305, as amended.
DATED : 	September 29, 1981
FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
By Ronald E. Blubaugh
Hearing Officer

State of California and Judicial and Legal Coalition and Association of California State Attorneys and Hearing Officers (PERB 0198S)

Full text

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude