El Monte Union High School District (PERB 0220E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
EL MONTE 	UNION 	HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
EDUCATION ASSOCIATION/CTA/NEA,
Charging 	Party,
v.
EL MONTE 	UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
) 	Case No. 	LA-CE-1243
PERB 	Decision No. 	220
June 	30, 	1982
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances; 	Sandra H. 	Paisley, 	Attorney 	for El Monte Union
High 	School District Education Association/CTA/NEA; 	and 	David
G. 	Miller, 	Attorney for El Monte Union High School District.
Before Gluck, 	Chairperson; 	Morgenstern and Tovar, Members.
DECISION
This 	case 	is 	before 	the 	Public Employment 	Relations Board
(PERB or Board) 	on 	exceptions 	filed 	by 	the El Monte Union High
School District 	(District) 	to 	the 	attached 	hearing 	officer's
proposed 	decision. 	The Board 	affirms 	the 	hearing 	officer's
findings and 	conclusions, 	to 	the 	extent 	they 	are 	consistent
with 	the 	rationale 	expressed 	below.
FACTS
On October 	20, 	1980, 	the Board 	issued 	its decision 	in
El Monte 	Union High School District PERB Decision No. 	142. 	In
that 	decision, 	the Board 	ordered 	that 	the 	existing 	unit of
certificated 	employees 	be modified 	to 	include 	the 	District's
certificated 	summer 	school 	and 	hourly 	employees 	(the
-

Employees), 	and 	that 	the El Monte Union High School District
Education Association/CTA/NEA 	(Association) 	be 	certified 	as 	the
exclusive 	representative 	for 	the 	modified 	unit. 	At 	that 	time
the 	parties 	were 	operating 	under 	a 	negotiated 	agreement
covering 	the 	regular 	certificated 	unit 	which 	would 	expire 	in
the 	summer 	of 	1982.
On October 30, 	1980, Sandra H. 	Paisley, 	representative for
the Association, 	and David G. Miller, 	representative 	for 	the
District, 	attended 	a 	negotiation 	session 	regarding 	adult
education 	teachers, 	another 	unit.
At 	that 	session, 	Paisley asked Miller 	whether 	the 	employer
would 	talk 	about 	the 	summer 	school 	and 	hourly 	employees 	who 	had
been 	the 	subject 	of 	the PERB's decision 	which 	had 	just 	been
rendered.
Walter 	Wise, 	Association president 	and 	a witness 	for 	the
Association, 	testified 	that Miller's 	response 	to 	this question
was 	that 	the Association's 	request 	was 	not 	a proper 	subject 	for
bargaining 	because PERB 	did 	not 	have 	grounds 	to make 	the
decision 	it 	had made.
It was 	stipulated 	that, 	if 	sworn, 	Miller 	would 	testify
regarding 	this 	conversation 	as 	follows:
On or about October 30, 	1980, 	I was acting
as 	the 	chief 	spokesperson 	and 	negotiator 	for
the 	District 	at 	a meeting 	scheduled 	for
meeting 	and 	negotiating 	with 	the 	adult
education 	unit. 	It 	is my recollection 	that
following 	the 	adjournment 	of 	that meeting
Mrs. Paisley, Mr. Wise, and perhaps
N

Mr. 	Ridgio remained 	in 	the 	room and
Mrs. 	Paisley 	asked me whether 	or 	not 	we were
going 	to 	negotiate 	concerning 	the 	summer
school employees. 	I do not 	recall a
reference 	to 	the 	hourly employees. 	However,
my response was 	no, 	it 	is our 	intention 	to
test PERB certification. 	By 	so 	stating 	I
would 	think 	it 	a 	fair 	inference 	that 	my
response 	covered 	both 	summer 	school 	and
hourly employees. 	I do not 	recall a 	request
to 	schedule a meeting or 	meetings 	for 	such
purpose. 	I would 	further 	represent 	to 	the
hearing officer 	that 	in 	the past, 	in
discussions I have 	had 	with Mrs. 	Paisley,
obviously 	relating 	to different 	units, 	that
I 	have 	taken 	the 	position 	that 	for 	purposes
of 	reopeners 	under 	a continuing 	agreement
that 	it was not 	necessary 	to 	sunshine
reopener 	proposals 	pursuant 	to 	the 	public
notice provisions 	of 	the Rodda Act.
(TR. Miller, p. 39)
Following 	this 	exchange, 	the Association 	did not make 	any
other 	verbal 	or 	formal proposals 	on 	behalf of 	employees 	that
were 	brought 	within 	the 	modified 	unit 	for 	which 	they 	were
certified 	because 	they 	believed 	it 	was 	unnecessary 	for 	them 	to
do 	so after 	the Board's decision 	in El Monte, 	supra, 	and
because 	they 	characterized 	the 	negotiations 	over 	the 	employees
as 	reopeners 	and 	therefore 	felt 	that 	a 	formal proposal was
unnecessary. 	The Association 	filed 	the 	charges 	in 	question 	the
next day, October 31, 	1980.
DISCUSSION
The 	hearing 	officer 	relies 	on 	the Board's decision 	in
Redondo Beach 	City School District 	(10/14/80) 	PERB 	Decision
No. 	140, 	to 	support his conclusion 	that 	the Board's decision 	in
El Monte No. 	142 	is binding precedent 	and 	that 	relitigation 	is
W	
3

therefore 	unwarranted. 	In Redondo Beach, 	supra, 	the employer
made 	a 	tactical 	refusal 	to 	negotiate 	in order 	to 	test 	a PERB
uniting 	decision. 	The Board 	held 	that:
In 	the 	absence 	of 	the 	presentation 	of 	newly
discovered 	or 	previously 	unavailable
evidence 	or 	specific 	circumstances
relitigation 	of 	PERB's 	unit 	determination 	is
not warranted. 	PERB's unit determination 	is
therefore 	binding 	precedent.
The 	District's 	evidence 	in 	the 	instant 	case 	consists 	of a
memorandum 	of 	agreement 	between 	the 	parties 	entitled 	"Board
Resolution 	and Recognition Agreement" dated March 	14, 	1977. 	On
the 	second 	page 	it 	includes 	the 	following 	provisions:
The El Monte 	UHS District Education
Association/CTA/NEA agrees 	that 	the 	unit 	is
appropriate 	and 	that 	it will 	not 	seek 	a
clarification or 	amendment 	of 	the 	unit,
either 	as 	to 	the 	specific exclusions 	or 	the
enumerated 	inclusions.
Even 	though 	this document 	was 	available 	at 	the 	time of 	the
hearing 	in 	the original case on December 	1 and 	7, 	1977, 	as well
as 	when 	the 	District presented 	its 	post-hearing 	brief on
March 2, 	1978, 	the District did not bring 	it 	to 	the Board's
attention 	until 	the 	hearing 	on 	the 	unfair 	practice 	charge.
Notwithstanding 	this 	recognition 	agreement 	we 	do 	not 	find 	that
we 	erred 	in El Monte, 	No. 	142. 	The Association has not
violated 	the 	provisions 	of 	the 	Recognition Agreement 	between
the parties 	because, 	when 	the Association 	filed 	its petition
with 	the Board, 	it was a petition 	for 	recognition of 	the
Employees, 	not 	an attempt 	to alter 	the 	existing 	unit. 	It
44

was 	the Board 	that 	construed 	the 	petition 	as 	one 	for 	unit
modification 	because 	it 	believed 	the Educational Employment
Relations Act 	(EERA)1 would 	be 	better 	served 	by 	doing 	so.
Thus, 	Redondo Beach 	is 	inapplicable 	here 	because, 	even 	though
the 	document 	was 	available, 	the District could 	not 	be expected
to divine 	that 	the Board 	would 	construe 	the 	petition 	as 	one 	for
unit 	modification.
Further, 	the 	aforementioned 	waiver 	provision 	in 	the
Recognition Agreement 	does 	not preclude 	the Board 	from
-
exercising 	its 	discretion pursuant 	to 	the 	grant 	of 	statutory
authority 	the 	Legislature 	has 	bestowed 	on 	it, 	particularly 	its
authority 	to determine 	appropriate 	units. 	Arcadia Unified
School District 	(5/17/79) 	PERB Decision No. 	93.2
1Government 	Code 	section 	3540 	et 	seq. 	Unless 	otherwise
indicated, 	all citations 	are 	to 	the Government Code.
2section 	3541.3 	of 	the Act 	empowers 	the 	Board:
(a) 	to determine 	in disputed cases, 	or
otherwise approve, 	appropriate units.
(n) 	To 	take 	such 	other 	action 	as 	the 	board
deems 	necessary 	to discharge 	its powers 	and
duties 	and 	otherwise 	to 	effectuate 	the
purposes of 	this 	chapter.
In addition, PERB Regulation 33430 (a) (2), 	in effect at the
time 	the Association filed 	its petition, 	states:
(a) 	The Board 	itself may:
(2) 	Affirm, 	modify or 	reverse 	the
5
• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	•
• 	• 	• 	•
5

recommended decision, 	order 	the 	record
reopened 	for 	the 	taking 	of 	further 	evidence,
or 	take 	such 	other 	action 	as 	it 	considers
proper.
Under 	the NLRB, 	a 	waiver 	provision 	will 	not 	be 	upheld 	where
the 	waiver 	is 	in 	derogation 	of 	the 	bargaining 	representative's
rights 	under 	the Act, 	Bethlehem Steel Corp. 	(1950) 	89 NLRB 	341
[25 LRRM 1564], 	or where 	its enforcement might dilute
employees' 	rights under 	the Act. 	NLRB v. Magnavox Co. 	(1974)
415 U.S. 	323 	[85 LRRM 2475]. 	Indeed, 	the NLRB has held 	that 	it
is 	contrary 	to 	the 	basic 	philosophy of 	the 	national 	labor 	law
policy 	to permit 	a 	union 	or 	an 	individual 	employee 	to 	contract
away 	the 	jurisdiction 	of 	the 	board 	as 	established 	by Congress.
Local 743, 	IAM v. United Aircraft Corp. 	(D.C. 	Conn. 	1963) 	220
F.2d 19 	[53 LRRM 2904]; 	e n f d . 	(2nd Cir. 	1964) 	337 F.2d 5 	[57
LRRM 	2245].
In El Monte No. 	142, 	we concluded 	that 	it was PERB's
changing policies, 	not errors by the Association, 	which
precluded 	the Association 	from reaching 	its goal. 	The 	equities
of 	the 	case 	required 	that 	the 	petitions 	for 	recognition 	be
construed 	as 	a petition 	for 	unit modification 	as 	had 	been 	done
in Redwood City Elementary School District 	(10/23/79) 	PERB
Decision No. 	107. 	The Board 	reasoned 	that 	the Association 	had
sought 	to 	represent 	the 	petitioned-for 	employees 	since 	its
first 	attempt 	at 	recognition 	in April 	1976, 	and 	the original
petition 	requested 	recognition 	on 	behalf 	of 	all 	certificated
6

employees. 	The District 	in fact 	began negotiations 	to 	that
effect 	but 	refused 	to 	continue 	negotiating 	over 	summer 	school
teachers 	as 	a 	result 	of Belmont Elementary School District
(12/30/76) 	EERB Decision No. 	7. 	The Association 	felt 	that 	it
would 	have 	been 	futile 	to petition 	for 	unit 	modification 	in
light 	of Belmont 	and 	the 	best 	they 	could 	do 	to 	regain 	the 	right
to 	represent 	the 	affected 	employees was 	to 	file 	petitions 	for
separate 	units. 	Before 	the 	hearing 	officer 	issued 	a proposed
decision, 	we 	issued Redwood City, 	supra, 	and Peralta Community
College District 	(11/17/78) 	PERB Decision No. 	77 which
developed 	the 	presumption of 	a 	single 	unit of 	all 	teachers 	in 	a
district 	absent 	a 	finding 	that 	they 	lacked 	a 	community of
interest.
If we 	had 	dismissed 	the Association's petitions 	the
Association 	would 	have 	had 	to 	file 	for 	a 	unit 	modification
pursuant 	to Rule 	33260 	et 	seq., 	which 	requires 	the petitioner
- - -
to present 	a 	showing of majority 	support. 	This would 	have
meant 	that 	the Association 	would 	have 	had 	to gather 	signatures
of 	the 	unit members 	for 	the 	third 	time. 	The 	regulations 	in
effect 	at 	the 	time 	the Association 	filed 	its petition 	did 	not
require 	a 	showing 	of 	support 	to 	accompany a 	petition 	for 	change
in unit determination 	(see, Article 6, 	section 33260,
Representation Regulations, April 1977).
Even 	though 	the 	appropriateness 	of 	the 	unit 	of 	those
presently 	covered 	and 	the 	petitioned-for 	teachers 	was 	not
7

specifically 	litigated 	by 	the 	parties, 	the 	record 	contained
sufficient 	information 	to 	support 	a 	finding 	of 	a 	community of
interest 	among members of 	the 	two groups.
We 	rejected 	the District's 	argument 	that 	the 	petitions 	for
unit 	modification 	would 	have 	been 	untimely 	under 	PERB
regulation 	33261(a)(I)3 because 	that 	regulation was 	not 	in
effect 	in May or 	September 	1977 	when 	the Association 	filed 	its
petition 	for 	representation.
We 	also 	ruled 	that 	an 	election 	was 	unnecessary 	in 	that 	case
because 	the 	majority 	support 	of 	the 	petitioned-for 	employees
was not questioned 	by 	the District. 	Nor 	is 	an 	election 	a
requirement 	in a unit modification petition. 	In addition, 	the
Association's 	showing 	of 	support 	was 	not 	stale 	at 	the 	time 	it
filed 	its 	petition 	for 	recognition.
3PERB Regulation 33261(a)(l) 	states:
(a) 	A 	recognized 	or 	certified 	employee
organization 	may 	file 	with 	the 	regional
office 	a 	petition 	for 	unit 	modification
pursuant 	to Government 	Code 	section
3541.3(e):
(1) 	To add 	to 	the 	unit 	unrepresented
classifications 	or 	positions which
existed 	prior 	to 	the 	recognition 	or
certification 	of 	the 	current 	exclusive
representative of 	the 	unit, 	provided
such 	petition 	is 	filed 	at 	least
12 months after 	the 	date 	of 	said
recognition or 	certification, 	except 	as
provided 	in subsection 	(2) 	below;
8

We 	reaffirm 	our 	holding 	in El Monte, 142. 	The Board's
authority 	to define 	the 	appropriate 	bargaining 	unit 	is
sufficiently 	broad 	to 	enable 	it 	to 	include 	new 	employees 	in 	an
existing 	unit 	without 	holding 	an 	election 	when 	the 	requisite
community of 	interests 	is present, 	and 	the equities dictate
such 	a 	conclusion. 	See Aracadia Unified 	School District,
supra, 	and Redwood City, 	supra. 	The District contends an
election 	is 	necessary 	to 	insure 	the 	majority of 	the 	employees
favor 	the Association. 	An election 	is 	not 	necessary 	for 	the
following 	reasons. 	First, 	PERB 	regulations 	regarding 	unit
modification provisions 	do 	not 	require 	the 	holding 	of 	an
election 	before 	a modification 	in 	the 	unit can 	be
implemented.4 In 	addition, 	the purpose 	of 	the 	unit
modification 	provisions 	is 	to provide 	a mechanism whereby
positions or 	classifications may be, 	among other 	things, 	added
to 	the 	established 	unit 	when 	a 	community of 	interest 	exists.
By 	the 	modification process, 	the 	employees 	in question 	are 	thus
able 	to 	exercise 	their 	right 	to 	exclusive 	representation 	and
good 	faith 	negotiation 	without 	the 	need 	for 	separate 	units
which 	would 	derogate 	the 	legislative 	concern 	over 	potential
fragmentation 	of 	employee 	groups 	and 	proliferation 	of
•
4Respondents 	cite 	to Section 	33260 	of 	the 	regulations 	to
support 	their 	contention 	that 	the Board's 	action 	in El Monte,
No. 	142 was 	illegal. 	We 	reject 	this 	argument 	because 	this
section 	was 	not 	in 	effect 	when 	the Association 	filed 	the
petition 	with 	the 	Board.
99

bargaining 	units. 	To 	require 	an 	election 	every 	time a new
position 	or 	classification 	is 	at 	issue 	would 	have 	the
inevitable 	consequence 	of destabilizing existing
employer-employee 	relationships 	contrary 	to 	the Act's
fundamental purpose, 	as 	well 	as 	being 	financially prohibitive
and 	administratively 	cumbersome 	for 	the 	Board. 	It 	is 	within
the Board's 	discretion 	to decide 	under 	what 	circumstances 	it
might 	consider 	an 	election 	appropriate. 	The Act 	itself 	sets
forth 	no 	requirement 	that 	an 	election 	be 	conducted 	where
established 	units 	are 	to 	be modified.
Finally, 	in 	this case, 	the Association 	timely 	filed a
showing 	of 	support 	with 	its 	petition 	for 	recognition 	thereby
demonstrating 	that 	it 	has 	the 	support 	of 	a majority of
employees. 	See NLRB v. 	Pacific Southwest Airlines 	(9th Cir.
1977) 	550 F.2d 	1148 	[94 LRRM 2772]. 	In 	that case, 	5 years had
elapsed 	since 	the 	matter 	had 	been 	initiated. 	The 	question
arose 	as 	to 	whether 	this 	delay violated 	the 	utility 	of a
bargaining 	order 	in 	light 	of 	the 	possible 	turnover 	of 	the
personnel 	involved, 	changes 	in 	the 	desires of 	the 	employees 	to
be 	unionized, 	and 	other 	conditions. 	The 	court 	conceded 	that,
while 	a 	bargaining 	order 	based 	on 	authorization 	cards 	is 	less
desirable 	than 	an election, 	the 	law 	is clear 	that 	the passage
of 	time does 	not by 	itself 	compel a 	new election. 	See 	also,
NLRB v. 	Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 	of San Mateo 	472 F.2d 	140, 	82
LRRM 2088 	(9th Cir. 	1972); 	Franks Brass Co. 	v. 	Labor Board 	321
U.S. 	702, 	704-05, 	14 LRRM 591 	(1944).
10

In addition 	to 	the 	above, 	respondent 	again contends 	that
Rule 	33261(f), 	requiring 	that 	a unit modification petition 	be
accompanied 	by 	proof 	of majority 	support 	of 	persons 	employed 	in
the classification(s) 	to be 	added 	applies. 	We also reject 	this
contention 	because 	this 	rule 	was 	not 	in 	effect 	at 	the 	time 	the
Association 	filed 	its 	petition.
The 	Refusal 	to Bargain 	Issue
We 	affirm 	the 	hearing 	officer's 	finding 	that 	the
Association 	requested 	the District 	to 	negotiate 	over 	the
Employees, 	and 	that 	the District 	refused 	to do 	so as 	a 	tactical
manoeuvre 	to challenge 	the 	validity 	of PERB's 	decision 	in
El Monte, 	No. 	142.5 Having 	reaffirmed 	our 	holding 	in
El Monte, 	we 	find 	that 	the District 	refused 	to 	bargain 	in 	good
faith 	in violation of subsection 3543.5(c). 	In addition, 	we
find 	that 	this 	same 	conduct 	concurrently violates
subsection 	3543.5(b) 	by denying 	the Association 	its 	statutory
right 	as 	an exclusive 	representative 	to 	represent 	unit members
in 	their 	employment 	relations with 	the 	District.
We 	further 	find 	that 	the District's 	failure 	to meet 	and
negotiate 	with 	the Association 	interfered 	with 	employees
because 	of 	their 	exercise 	of 	representational 	rights 	in
violation of 	subsection 3543.5 (a). 	San Francisco Community
College District 	(10/12/79) 	PERB Decision No. 	105.
5Pursuant 	to subsection 	3542(a), 	the District's refusal
to 	bargain 	is 	the only way 	it may obtain 	the 	right 	to 	judicial
review.
11

The 	District 	also 	contends 	that 	it 	was 	necessary 	for 	the
Association 	to 	sunshine 	its 	proposal 	in 	order 	to 	adhere 	to 	the
public 	notice 	provisions 	under 	EERA.6
6Section 	3547 	states:
(a) 	All 	initial proposals 	of 	exclusive
representatives 	and 	of 	public 	school
employers, 	which 	relate 	to matters 	within
the 	scope 	of 	representation, 	shall 	be
presented 	at 	a 	public 	meeting 	of 	the 	public
school 	employer 	and 	thereafter 	shall 	be
public 	records.
(b) 	Meeting 	and 	negotiating 	shall 	not 	take
place 	on 	any 	proposal 	until 	a 	reasonable
time 	has 	elapsed 	after 	the 	submission 	of 	the
proposal 	to 	enable 	the 	public 	to 	become
informed 	and 	the 	public 	has 	the 	opportunity
to 	express 	itself 	regarding 	the 	proposal 	at
a 	meeting 	of 	the 	public 	school 	employer.
(c) 	After 	the 	public 	has 	had 	the
opportunity 	to 	express 	itself, 	the 	public
school 	employer 	shall, 	at 	a 	meeting 	which 	is
open 	to 	the 	public, 	adopt 	its 	initial
proposal.
(d) 	New 	subjects 	of 	meeting 	and 	negotiating
arising 	after 	the 	presentation 	of 	initial
proposals 	shall 	be 	made 	public 	within 	24
hours. 	If 	a 	vote 	is 	taken 	on 	such 	subject
by 	the 	public 	school 	employer, 	the 	vote
thereon 	by 	each 	member 	voting 	shall 	also 	be
made 	public 	within 	24 	hours.
(e) 	The 	board 	may 	adopt 	regulations 	for 	the
purpose 	of 	implementing 	this 	section, 	which
are 	consistent 	with 	the 	intent 	of 	the
section; 	namely 	that 	the 	public 	be 	informed
of 	the 	issues 	that 	are 	being 	negotiated 	upon
and 	have 	full 	opportunity 	to 	express 	their
views 	on 	the 	issues 	to 	the 	public 	school
employer, 	and 	to 	know of 	the 	positions 	of
their 	elected 	representatives.
12

The 	public 	notice 	provisions 	do 	impose 	certain 	procedural
requirements 	which 	must 	be 	observed 	before 	actual 	negotiations
may begin. 	However, 	it 	is disingenuous of 	the District 	to make
this argument. 	The 	issue here 	is whether 	it would have 	been
futile 	for 	the Association 	to observe 	those 	requirements.
We 	find 	that 	it would have 	been 	futile 	for 	the Association
to 	go 	through 	the 	motions 	of 	observing 	the 	public 	notice
requirements 	in 	light of 	the District's 	express 	refusal 	to
bargain.' 	Also, 	the past practice between 	the parties of not
sunshining 	reopeners,8 while 	not 	in 	keeping 	with 	the 	public
7	7 . The parties 	should 	not 	interpret 	our 	futility 	finding 	to
absolve 	them of 	the 	responsibility of 	observing 	the 	sunshine
provisions 	of 	the Act 	when 	negotiations 	regarding 	the 	employees
commence.
8 In Los Angeles 	Community College District 	(3/3/81) 	PERB
Decision No. 	158, 	the Board 	stated:
It does 	not 	appear 	to be 	an 	unreasonable
burden 	to 	require 	a 	public 	school 	employer
and 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	to
"sunshine" 	their 	initial proposals on
possible 	amendments 	to 	their 	agreement.
Please 	note 	that 	in 	the 	instant 	case 	the Association
requested 	the 	District 	to 	start 	negotiations 	on 	the Employees 	-
neither party was at 	the 	stage where 	it 	had a proposal. 	It
also would 	have 	been 	futile 	to 	require 	the Association 	to
present 	a 	formal proposal given 	the District's 	clear 	refusal 	to
bargain over 	the Employees. 	The Act does 	not 	require 	such
futile 	acts. 	San Mateo Community College District 	(6/8/79)
PERB Decision No. 	94.
13
7 	.

notice 	requirements, 	demonstrates 	that 	the District did 	not
require nor 	did 	it 	expect 	those proposals 	to 	be 	sunshined.
REMEDY
We 	affirm 	the 	hearing 	officer's 	proposed 	remedy 	ordering
the District 	to 	forthwith 	negotiate 	in 	good 	faith 	with 	the
exclusive 	representative of 	the Employees, 	as well as 	requiring
them 	to post 	a 	notice 	incorporating 	the 	terms 	of 	this 	order.
ORDER
Upon 	the 	foregoing 	findings of 	fact, 	conclusions of 	law,
the 	entire 	record 	in 	this case, 	IT 	IS HEREBY ORDERED that 	the
El Monte Union High School District:
a. 	Cease 	and 	Desist 	from 	failing 	and 	refusing 	to meet 	and
negotiate 	in 	good 	faith 	with 	the Association 	regarding
summer 	school and 	hourly employees;
b. 	Upon 	request, 	meet 	and 	negotiate 	in 	good 	faith 	with
the Association 	regarding 	summer 	school 	and 	hourly
employees.
c. 	Within 	five workdays of 	the 	date 	of 	service of 	this
decision, 	post copies of 	the notice 	attached 	as 	an
appendix hereto at 	its 	headquarters office, 	all 	school
sites, 	and 	in all other 	locations where notices 	to
certificated 	employees 	are 	customarily 	posted. 	Said
posting 	shall 	not 	be 	reduced 	in 	size 	and 	shall be
maintained 	for 	a period 	of 	thirty 	(30) 	workdays.
Reasonable 	steps 	shall be 	taken 	to 	ensure 	that 	said
notices 	are 	not 	altered, 	defaced 	or 	covered 	by other
material.
d. 	Within 	twenty 	(20) 	workdays 	from 	service 	of 	this
decision, 	notify 	the Los Angeles 	regional director 	of
the Public Employment Relations Board, 	in writing, 	of
the 	steps 	the 	employer 	has 	taken 	to comply with 	the
terms 	of 	this ORDER. 	Continue 	to 	report 	in writing 	to
the 	regional 	director 	periodically 	thereafter 	as
directed. 	All 	reports 	to 	the 	regional director 	shall
be 	served 	concurrently on 	the 	charging 	party 	herein.
14

This 	Order 	shall 	become 	effective 	immediately 	upon 	service
of 	a 	true 	copy 	thereof on 	the 	El Monte 	Union High 	School
District.
Irene 	Tovar, 	Member 	Harry 	Gluck, 	Chairperson
Marty Morgenstern, 	Member
15

APPENDIX
NOTICE 	TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY 	ORDER 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
An Agency 	of 	the State 	of California
After 	a hearing 	in unfair 	practice case No. 	LA-CE-1243, 	in
which 	all 	parties 	participated, 	it 	has 	been found 	that 	the
El Monte 	Union High 	School 	District 	violated 	the 	Educational
Employment Relations Act 	by failing 	and 	refusing 	to 	negotiate
in 	good 	faith with 	the 	El Monte Union High 	School District
Education Association. 	As 	a result, 	we 	have 	been ordered 	to
post 	this Notice, 	and we will 	abide 	by the 	following:
A. 	CEASE AND 	DESIST 	from 	failing 	and 	refusing 	to meet 	and
negotiate 	in 	good 	faith with 	the Association 	regarding 	summer
school 	and 	hourly 	employees;
B. 	Upon request, meet 	and negotiate 	in good 	faith with 	the
Association 	regarding 	summer 	school 	and 	hourly 	employees.
EL MONTE 	UNION 	HIGH 	SCHOOL 	DISTRICT	Dated:
BY.
THIS 	IS 	AN OFFICIAL NOTICE. 	IT MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR AT LEAST
THIRTY 	(3 0) 	WORKDAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE
REDUCED IN SIZE, 	DEFACED, 	ALTERED OR COVERED BY ANY MATERIAL.

STATE OF 	CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS BOARD
EL MONTE UNION HIGH 	SCHOOL DISTRICT
EDUCATION ASSOCIATION,
Charging 	Party,
v.
EL MONTE 	UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
) 	Unfair 	Practice
Case No. 	LA-CE-1243	)
)
)
)
) 	PROPOSED DECISION
(5/29/81)
)
Appearances; 	Sandie 	Paisley, 	Attorney 	for El Monte Union High
School District Education Association, 	and 	David G. 	Miller,
Attorney 	for 	El Monte Union High 	School 	District.
Before Stuart C. 	Wilson, 	Hearing Officer.
STATEMENT 	OF THE 	CASE
The El Monte 	Union High 	School 	District 	Education
Association 	(hereafter 	Association) 	has 	charged 	the El Monte
Union High School 	District 	(hereafter 	District) 	with 	having
refused 	and 	failed 	to meet 	and 	negotiate 	in 	good 	faith,
thereby violating 	section 	3543.5(c) 	of the Educational
Employment Relations Act 	(hereafter EERA), Government Code
section 3540, 	et seq.,1 and thus, derivatively, 	violating
sections 3543.5(a) 	and 	(b) 	also.
1All 	statutory 	references 	are 	to 	the Government Code
unless 	otherwise 	specified.
___ )

The charge was filed October 	31, 	1980, 	answered
November 	24, 	1980, 	and 	the formal hearing was held
February 17, 1981.
FINDINGS 	OF FACT
Within 	the meaning of 	the EERA, 	the parties 	stipulated and
it 	is 	found 	that 	at 	all 	relevant 	times 	the District 	has 	been
an employer, 	that 	the Association has 	been an employee
organization, 	and 	that 	the Association 	has 	been 	the exclusive
representative 	of 	the 	certificated 	negotiating 	unit 	at 	the
District.
At all 	relevant 	times, 	Sandie Paisley has 	been 	the
attorney 	and 	negotiations 	spokesperson 	for 	the Association
while David G. 	Miller 	has 	been 	the attorney and 	negotiations
spokesperson 	for 	the District. 	In a previous case 	involving
these parties, 	El Monte Union High School 	District 	(10/20/80)
Public Employment Relations Board 	(hereafter 	PERB) 	Decision
No. 	142, 	PERB ordered in part as follows:
(1) 	The petitions 	of 	the El Monte Union
High School 	District 	Education Association,
CTA/NEA, 	for 	recognition 	as 	the exclusive
representative of 	units 	of 	all 	summer 	school
teachers 	and 	all 	certificated 	hourly
employees 	including, 	but 	not limited 	to,
evening 	continuation 	high 	school 	teachers,
home teachers, driver training teachers, and
enrichment 	teachers, 	are 	construed 	as
petitions 	to modify 	the existing
certificated 	unit 	to 	include 	the
petitioned-for 	employees, 	and 	are
granted; . . .
The Board ordered 	that 	the Association 	be 	certified 	as 	the
N	
2

exclusive 	representative 	for 	a modified 	certificated 	unit 	that
included 	the 	foregoing employees. 	At 	the time of 	this
decision, 	the 	parties 	were operating 	under 	a 	negotiated
agreement 	covering 	the 	regular 	certificated 	unit 	which 	would
expire 	in the 	summer of 1982.
On October 	30, 	1980, 	approximately 10 days after the
rendition of 	this decision, 	Paisley and Miller 	attended a
negotiation 	session 	regarding 	adult 	education 	teachers,
another 	unit. 	At 	that 	session, 	Paisley 	asked Miller 	whether
the 	employer 	would 	talk 	about 	the 	summer 	school 	and 	hourly
employees 	(hereafter The Employees) 	who had 	been 	the 	subject
of 	PERB's order 	in 	the 	decision which 	had 	just 	been 	rendered.
Walter Wise, 	Association president, 	testified 	that
Miller's 	response 	to this 	question was 	that Paisley's request
" . . . 	was 	not 	a 	proper 	subject 	for 	bargaining 	because 	the
PERB Board 	[sic] 	did not have 	grounds 	to make 	the decision 	it
had made."
It was 	stipulated 	that, 	if sworn, Miller would 	testify
regarding 	this 	conversation 	as 	follows:
On or 	about October 30, 	1980, 	I was acting
as 	the chief 	spokesperson 	and 	negotiator 	for
the District 	at 	a meeting 	scheduled 	for
meeting 	and 	negotiating 	with 	the 	adult
education unit. 	It 	is my recollection 	that
following 	the 	adjournment 	of 	that 	meeting
that Mrs. Paisley, Mr. Wise, and perhaps
Mr. 	Ridgio 	remained 	in 	the 	room and
Mrs. 	Paisley asked me whether or 	not we were
w	3

going 	to 	negotiate 	concerning 	the 	summer
school employees. 	I do not recall a
reference 	to the hourly employees. 	However,
my response was 	no, 	it 	is 	our 	intention to
test 	the 	PERB certification. 	By so stating,
I 	would 	think 	it 	is 	a 	fair 	inference 	that my
response 	covered 	both 	the 	summer 	school 	and
hourly employees. 	I 	do not recall 	a request
to 	schedule 	a meeting or 	meetings 	for 	such
purpose. 	I would further 	represent 	to 	the
hearing officer 	that 	in the past, 	in
discussions 	I 	have had with Mrs. 	Paisley,
obviously 	relating 	to different 	units, 	that
I 	had 	taken 	the position 	that 	for 	purposes
of 	reopeners 	under 	a 	continuing 	agreement,
that 	it was 	not 	necessary to sunshine
reopener 	proposals 	pursuant 	to 	the public
notice provisions 	of 	the Rodda Act.
Following 	this exchange, 	the Association did not make any
verbal 	or 	formal 	proposals 	on behalf 	of 	employees 	brought
within 	the modified 	unit 	for 	which 	they were 	certified. 	Because
the 	Association did not make 	a formal 	proposal, 	the public
notice 	process 	was 	not 	triggered.
To put 	this conversation 	into perspective, 	it 	is 	necessary
to look 	at 	the 	history of 	the Association's 	attempts 	to
represent The Employees.
On April 	7, 	1976, 	the Association sought recognition of a
unit 	of 	all 	certificated 	employees. 	The District 	responded
that 	it doubted 	the 	appropriateness 	of 	the 	unit 	but 	did 	not
contest 	the 	sufficiency 	of 	majority support. 	The Association
petitioned 	for 	a 	hearing 	to determine whether 	or 	not 	its
requested 	unit was 	appropriate. 	However, 	following Belmont
Elementary School District 	(12/30/76) 	EERB Decision No. 	7,
4

which 	held 	that 	summer 	school 	teachers 	should 	not 	be 	included
in the 	regular 	certificated 	unit, 	the Association withdrew 	its
petition 	and 	the District 	voluntarily 	recognized 	a 	unit 	which
excluded 	The Employees.
The Association 	then 	filed 	for 	a 	separate 	unit 	of 	summer
school 	teachers 	and 	a 	separate 	unit 	of 	certificated 	hourly
employees. 	The District 	did 	not doubt 	the sufficiency of
support 	for 	either 	petition 	but 	denied 	the 	request 	on 	the
ground 	that 	summer 	school 	and 	hourly 	teachers 	were 	not
employees 	under 	the EERA.
The 	unit 	hearings 	on 	these 	petitions 	were 	consolidated 	and
the 	cases 	were 	held 	in 	abeyance 	by agreement of 	the parties.
During 	the time these 	cases were 	in abeyance, 	even 	though
the Association did not 	represent The Employees, 	it
nevertheless 	attempted 	to 	help 	them 	by 	requesting 	the District
to give 	to 	them 	the 	same 	benefits 	the Association 	had 	obtained
for 	the 	regular 	certificated 	unit. 	The District 	complied with
this 	request.
Also during the time these 	cases 	were 	in abeyance, 	PERB
issued 	two 	decisions 	which 	addressed 	the 	subject 	of 	proper
uniting 	of 	certificated 	employees. 	In Peralta Community
College District 	(11/17/78) 	PERB Decision No. 	77, 	it was held
that 	absent 	a finding of 	lack 	of 	community of 	interest, 	all
instructional 	personnel 	should 	be 	included 	in a single 	unit.
5

In Redwood City Elementary School District 	(10/23/79) 	PERB
Decision No. 	107, 	PERB held that summer school 	teachers were
employees 	under 	the EERA.
Thereafter, 	a proposed 	decision was 	rendered 	in 	the cases
which 	had 	been held 	in 	abeyance. 	That 	proposed decision was
that The Employees 	be 	included 	in 	the 	regular 	certificated
unit. 	The District 	appealed 	that proposed decision 	and 	it was
affirmed 	in 	the previously-cited El Monte 	case.
At 	the 	hearing 	of 	the 	instant case, 	the entire 	file of 	the
previous El Monte case was 	received 	in evidence, 	but 	nothing
was 	offered 	regarding 	any 	newly 	discovered or 	previously
unavailable 	evidence or 	special 	circumstances which bore 	on 	the
issue 	of 	including The Employees 	within 	the 	certificated
unit.
Because of 	the 	time 	proximity to PERB's El Monte 	decision
and 	the 	fact 	that 	the Association 	had 	been 	trying 	to 	represent
The Employees 	in one way or 	another 	for over 	five years, 	it 	is
found 	that Paisley's October 	30, 	1980 	question 	to Miller 	was
intended 	and 	reasonably 	understood 	by Miller 	to 	indicate 	that
the Association 	wished 	to 	discuss The Employees 	with 	the
District. 	Because of 	the same factors, 	it 	is 	found 	that
Miller's 	response 	was 	intended 	and 	reasonably 	understood 	by
Paisley 	to 	be 	a 	refusal 	to discuss The Employees 	and 	a
statement 	that 	further 	requests 	therefore 	also would 	be
rejected.
6

Since Miller 	gave 	evidence 	that 	he 	believed 	that 	it was
unnecessary 	to sunshine 	reopeners 	under 	a 	continuing
agreement, 	it 	is 	found 	that his 	refusal was 	unrelated 	to
whether 	or 	not public notice procedures 	had 	been 	complied
with.
ISSUES
1. 	Did 	the Association 	request 	to negotiate 	regarding
The 	Employees?
2. 	Did 	the District 	refuse 	the Association's 	request 	to
negotiate 	regarding The 	Employees?
3. 	May 	the District 	defend 	its 	refusal 	to negotiate on
the 	basis 	that The Employees 	are 	not 	appropriately 	included
within 	the 	unit?
CONCLUSIONS 	OF LAW
Did 	the 	Association 	request 	to negotiate 	regarding The
Employees?
In 	the Findings of 	Fact 	herein 	it was 	found 	that Paisley's
question was 	intended 	and 	reasonably 	understood 	by Miller 	to
indicate 	that 	the Association 	wished 	to 	discuss 	The Employees
with 	the District. 	When 	this 	finding 	is 	viewed 	in 	the 	context
that 	the Association 	had 	been 	seeking 	to 	represent The
Employees 	for 	over 	five 	years; 	that 	it 	had 	attempted 	to help
them even 	before 	it represented 	them; 	and 	that PERB, 	only 10
days 	before, 	had 	included 	them in 	the certificated 	unit
represented 	by the Association; 	it 	is 	concluded 	that 	Paisley's
7

question 	constituted 	a 	request 	by 	the Association 	to 	negotiate
with 	the District 	regarding The Employees.
The 	fact 	that 	the Association did not make a 	formal
proposal 	which 	triggered 	public 	notice procedures 	does 	not
detract 	from 	its 	request 	to negotiate. 	Although 	a 	request 	to
negotiate 	could 	take 	the 	form of 	placing an 	initial 	proposal
before 	the District 	for public notice, 	the EERA does not
mandate 	any particular 	form of request. 	This 	conforms 	to 	the 	private
sector 	rule 	that 	any form of 	request 	to 	bargain 	is 	sufficient,
which makes 	clear 	that 	the 	employer 	is 	being 	requested 	to
bargain. 	NLRB v. 	Columbian Enamelling and 	Stamping Company,
Inc. 	(1939) 	306 U.S. 	292 	[4 LRRM 524]; Joy Silk Mills v. NLRB
(1950) 	185 F.2d 	732 	[27 LRRM 2012]. 	Public notice
requirements merely 	impose 	certain 	procedural 	requirements
which must 	be 	met before 	actual 	negotiations may begin, 	but do
not 	constitute 	the 	only way 	in 	which an 	employee organization
may 	request 	negotiation.
It would 	have 	been 	futile 	for 	the Association 	to 	have 	made
an 	initial 	proposal 	after Miller's 	statement 	that 	the District
would not 	negotiate 	regarding The Employees. 	The EERA 	does
not 	require 	such futile 	acts. 	San Mateo Community College
District 	(6/8/79) 	PERB Decision No. 	94.
Therefore, 	it 	is concluded 	that 	the Association did
request 	the District 	to negotiate 	regarding The Employees.
88

Did 	the District 	refuse 	the Association's 	request 	to negotiate
regarding 	The 	Employees?
In the Findings of 	Fact 	herein 	it was 	found 	that Miller
reasonably 	understood 	Paisley's 	question 	to 	be 	a 	request 	to
discuss The Employees 	with 	the District 	and 	that Miller's
response was 	a refusal. 	When 	these 	findings 	are viewed 	in 	the
same 	context mentioned 	above, 	it 	is concluded 	that Miller's
response 	constituted 	a 	refusal 	by 	the District 	to negotiate
with 	the Association regarding The Employees.
This 	conclusion 	is 	consistent 	with Miller's 	answer 	that
the matter 	was 	not a proper 	subject of 	negotiations 	because
the PERB did 	not 	have 	grounds 	to make 	the decision 	it made.
It 	is 	also consistent with Miller's 	statement 	that 	the
District 	intended 	to test 	PERB's 	uniting decision.
Since 	it was 	found 	that 	the District's 	refusal 	to
negotiate 	was 	unrelated 	to whether 	or 	not 	public 	notice
procedures 	had 	been complied with, 	it 	is 	also concluded 	that
the District's 	refusal 	to negotiate was 	not merely 	a 	refusal
to 	negotiate 	until 	public notice procedures 	had 	been 	complied
with, 	but was a flat 	refusal 	to negotiate 	under 	any
circumstances.
May 	the District 	defend 	its 	refusal 	to 	negotiate 	on the 	basis
that The Employees 	are 	not 	appropriately 	included 	within 	the
unit?
In Redondo Beach City School 	District 	(10/14/80) 	PERB
Decision No. 	140, 	another case 	in which 	the employer made a
9

tactical 	refusal 	to negotiate 	in order 	to test 	a PERB 	uniting
decision, 	PERB 	affirmed 	the 	hearing officer's 	conclusion of
law that:
In 	the 	absence of 	the presentation of 	newly
discovered or 	previously 	unavailable
evidence or 	special 	circumstances
relitigation 	of 	PERB's 	unit 	determination 	is
not warranted. 	PERB's 	unit determination 	is
therefore 	binding 	precedent.
Since, 	in the 	instant case, 	the District presented no
newly 	discovered or 	previously 	unavailable 	evidence or 	special
circumstances, 	Redondo Beach makes PERB's decision 	in El Monte
binding 	precedent 	regarding 	the 	appropriateness 	of 	the 	unit
established 	therein, 	and 	relitigation 	is 	unwarranted.
Thus 	it must 	necessarily 	be 	concluded 	that 	the District
has 	failed 	in 	its attempt 	to 	defend 	its 	refusal 	to negotiate
on 	the 	basis 	that The Employees 	are 	not 	appropriately 	included
within 	the 	unit 	and 	that 	therefore 	the District 	violated
section 	3543.5(c) 	by its 	failure and 	refusal 	to meet 	and
negotiate 	in 	good 	faith with 	the Association 	upon 	its 	request
therefor 	regarding The Employees.
Pursuant 	to San Francisco Community College 	District
(10/12/79) 	PERB Decision No. 	105, 	it 	is concluded 	that the
District's 	3543.5 (c) 	violation also constitutes derivative
violations of sections 3543.5 (a) 	and 	(b).
10

REMEDY
Section 	3541(i) 	authorizes PERB 	to take 	such action
regarding 	unfair 	practices 	as 	it deems 	necessary 	to 	effectuate
the policies 	of 	the EERA. 	Here 	it 	is appropriate 	that 	the
District 	be ordered 	to 	cease 	and 	desist 	from 	failing and
refusing 	to 	negotiate 	in 	good 	faith 	with 	the Association
regarding The Employees 	and 	further 	that 	it be ordered 	to
forthwith 	negotiate 	in 	good 	faith 	with 	the Association
regarding The Employees.
It 	is 	also appropriate 	that 	the District 	be 	required 	to
post a notice 	incorporating 	the 	terms of 	the order. 	The
notice 	should 	be 	subscribed 	by an 	authorized 	agent 	of 	the
District 	indicating 	that 	it will 	comply with 	the 	terms
thereof. 	The notice should not be 	reduced 	in 	size. 	Posting
of 	such 	a 	notice will 	provide 	employees 	with 	notice 	that 	the
District 	has 	acted 	in 	an unlawful manner 	and 	is 	being 	required
to cease 	and desist 	from 	this 	activity. 	It effectuates 	the
purposes 	of 	the EERA 	that 	employees 	be 	informed of 	the
resolution 	of 	the 	controversy 	and 	will 	announce 	the District's
readiness 	to 	comply with 	the ordered 	remedy. 	See Placerville
Union School District 	(9/18/78) 	PERB Decision No. 	69. 	In
Pandol and Sons v. 	ALRB and UFW 	(1979) 	98 Cal.App.3d 580, 	587,
the California District Court 	of Appeal 	approved 	a 	posting
requirement. 	The U. 	S. 	Supreme Court approved 	a similar
posting 	requirement 	in NLRB v. 	Express Publishing Co. 	(1941)
312 U.S. 	426 	[8 LRRM 415].
11

received 	by 	the 	Executive Assistant 	to the Board 	at 	the
headquarters 	office 	in Sacramento 	before 	the 	close of 	business
(5:00 p.m.) 	on 	June 22, 	1981 	in order to be timely
filed. 	(See California Administrative Code, 	title 	8,
part III, 	section 32135.) 	Any statement of exceptions and
supporting 	brief 	must 	be 	served 	concurrently with 	its 	filing
upon each 	party 	to 	this 	proceeding. 	Proof 	of 	service 	shall 	be
filed with 	the Board 	itself. 	(See California Administrative
Code, 	title 8, 	part III, 	sections 32300 and 32305, 	as amended.)
Dated: 	May 29, 	1981
STUART C. 	WILSON
Hearing 	Officer
13

PROPOSED ORDER
Upon 	the 	foregoing findings 	of 	fact, 	conclusions 	of law f
the entire 	record 	in this case, 	IT 	IS HEREBY ORDERED that 	the
El Monte Union High School 	District:
a. 	Cease 	and 	Desist 	from 	failing 	and 	refusing 	to 	meet
and 	negotiate 	in 	good 	faith 	with 	the Association
regarding 	summer 	school 	and 	hourly 	employees;
b. 	Upon request, 	meet and negotiate 	in good 	faith
with 	the 	Association 	regarding 	summer 	school
and hourly 	employees;
c. 	Within 	five workdays 	of 	the date 	of 	service of 	notice
that 	this 	proposed decision has 	become 	final, 	post
copies 	of 	the appendix attached 	hereto 	at 	its
headquarters office, 	all school sites, 	and 	in all
other 	locations 	where 	notices 	to 	certificated
employees 	are 	customarily posted. 	Said 	posting 	shall
not be 	reduced 	in 	size 	and 	shall 	be 	maintained 	for 	a
period of 	thirty 	(30) 	workdays. 	Reasonable 	steps
shall 	be 	taken 	to 	ensure 	that 	said notices 	are 	not
altered, 	defaced or 	covered 	by other 	material.
d. 	Within 	twenty 	(20) 	workdays 	from 	service of 	the 	final
decision herein, 	notify 	the Los Angeles Regional
Director 	of 	the Public Employment Relations Board, 	in
writing, 	of 	the 	steps 	the 	employer has 	taken 	to
comply with 	the 	terms 	of 	this ORDER. 	Continue 	to
report 	in writing 	to 	the 	regional director
periodically 	therafter 	as directed. 	All 	reports 	to
the 	regional 	director 	shall 	be 	served 	concurrently 	on
the 	charging 	party herein.
Pursuant 	to California Administrative Code, 	title 	8,
part 	III, 	section 	32305, 	this Proposed Decision and Order
shall become 	final on 	June 22, 	1981 unless a party files
a 	timely statement 	of 	exceptions 	within 	twenty 	(20) 	calendar
days 	following 	the date of 	service of 	the decision. 	The
statement 	of 	exceptions 	and 	supporting 	brief 	must 	be 	actually
12

APPENDIX
NOTICE 	TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF 	THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
An Agency of 	the State 	of 	California
After 	a hearing in unfair 	practice case No. 	LA-CE-1243, 	in
which all 	parties 	participated, 	it has 	been 	found 	that 	the
El Monte 	Union High School 	District 	violated 	the Educational
Employment Relations Act 	by failing 	and 	refusing 	to 	negotiate
in good 	faith with 	the El Monte 	Union High School 	District
Education Association. 	As 	a 	result, 	we have been ordered 	to
post 	this 	notice, 	and we will 	abide by the following:
A. 	Cease 	and Desist 	from failing 	and 	refusing 	to meet 	and
negotiate 	in 	good 	faith with 	the Association 	regarding 	summer
school 	and 	hourly 	employees;
B. 	Upon request meet 	and negotiate 	in 	good 	faith with 	the
Association regarding 	summer 	school 	and hourly 	employees.
Dated: 	EL 	MONTE 	UNION HIGH 	SCHOOL 	DISTRICT
By
THIS 	IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE. 	IT MUST 	REMAIN POSTED FOR AT LEAST
THIRTY 	(30) 	WORKDAYS FROM THE 	DATE 	OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE
REDUCED IN SIZE, 	DEFACED, 	ALTERED OR COVERED BY ANY MATERIAL.
14