Regents of the University of California Printing Trades (PERB 0243HA)

STATE OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
UNIT 	DETERMINATION 	FOR PRINTING
TRADES 	EMPLOYEES 	OF 	THE
UNIVERSITY 	OF CALIFORNIA PURSUANT
TO 	CHAPTER 744 	OF 	THE 	STATUTES
OF 	1978 	(HIGHER EDUCATION
EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS ACT)
Case No. SF-RR-1002,
et 	al.
Requests for
Reconsideration
and Judicial Review
PERB Decision No. 	243-H
PERB 	Decision 	No. 	243a-H
February 	4, 	1983
Appearances: 	Judith 	Droz Keyes 	and Jerrold C. 	Schaefer,
Attorneys 	(Corbett, 	Kane, Berk & Barton) 	and James N. 	Odle,
Associate 	Counsel 	for 	the 	Regents 	of 	the 	University 	of
California; 	Marco 	Li Mandri 	for 	California Education 	Labor
Organization.
Before Gluck, 	Chairperson; 	Tovar, 	Jaeger, Morgenstern and Burt,
Members.
DECISION
Following 	the 	issuance 	of 	PERB Decision No. 	243-H on
September 	30, 	1982, 	the Public Employment Relations Board 	(PERB
or 	Board) 	received 	requests 	for 	reconsideration of 	that
decision 	from 	the 	University 	of California 	(University) 	and
from 	the California Education Labor 	Organization 	(CELO), 	and
petitions 	to 	join 	in 	request 	for 	judicial 	review 	from 	the
University.
PERB 	rule 	32410(a)1 pertains 	to 	reconsideration 	of 	Board
decisions 	and 	states:
1PERB 	rules 	are 	codified 	at 	California Administrative
Code, 	title 8, 	section 31001 et seq.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) (
e

(a) 	Any party 	to a decision of 	the Board
itself may, 	because 	of 	extraordinary
circumstances, 	file a request 	to reconsider
the 	decision within 	20 	days 	following 	the
date 	of 	service of 	the 	decision. 	An
original 	and 	5 	copies 	of 	the 	request 	for
reconsideration 	shall 	be 	filed 	with 	the
Board 	itself 	in 	the 	headquarters 	office 	and
shall 	state 	with 	specificity 	the 	grounds
claimed 	and, 	where 	applicable, 	shall specify
the page 	of 	the 	record 	relied 	on. 	Service
and 	proof 	of 	service 	of 	the 	request pursuant
to 	section 	32140 	are 	required. 	The 	grounds
for 	requesting 	reconsideration 	are 	limited
to 	claims 	that 	the 	decision of 	the Board
itself 	contains prejudicial 	errors 	of 	fact,
or 	newly discovered 	evidence 	or 	law which
was 	not 	previously 	available 	and 	could 	not
have 	been 	discovered 	with 	the 	exercise 	of
reasonable 	diligence.
Government Code 	subsection 	3564(a) 	pertains 	to judicial 	review
and 	states:
No employer 	or 	employee 	organization 	shall
have 	the 	right 	to 	judicial 	review of a 	unit
determination except: 	(1) 	when 	the 	board 	in
response 	to a petition 	from an 	employer 	or
employee 	organization, 	agrees 	that 	the case
is 	one 	of 	special 	importance 	and 	joins 	in
the request for 	such 	review; 	or 	(2) 	when 	the
issue 	is 	raised 	as a defense 	to an unfair
practice 	complaint. 	A board 	order 	directing
an election 	shall 	not 	be 	stayed 	pending
judicial 	review.
Upon 	receipt of 	a 	board 	order 	joining 	in 	the
request 	for 	judicial 	review, 	a party 	to 	the
case 	may 	petition 	for 	a writ 	of
extraordinary 	relief 	from 	the 	unit
determination decision or 	order.
The Board 	has 	considered 	the 	submitted 	requests 	for
reconsideration 	and 	petitions 	for 	judicial 	review. 	The
N
• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	•
2

University addresses 	three 	issues: 	one, 	technical errors 	in
unit placement; 	two, 	the creation of a 	separate 	unit of
printing 	trades 	employees; 	and 	three, 	whether 	the Higher
Education Employer-Employee 	Relations 	Act 	(HEERA)2 requires 	a
30 	percent 	showing 	of 	support 	by 	at 	least 	one 	employee
organization 	before 	an 	election 	in 	an 	appropriate 	unit 	may 	be
held. 	CELO 	asks 	the Board 	to 	reconsider 	the 	creation of
systemwide 	units.
I. 	University of California: 	Request 	for 	Reconsideration 	and
Petitions 	to Join 	in Request 	for 	Judicial 	Review
A. 	Technical Errors
The 	University has 	brought 	to 	the 	attention 	of 	the Board
certain 	technical 	errors. 	These 	errors 	include 	the 	omission
from 	seven 	of 	the 	eight 	unit 	determination 	decisions 	of 	an
order 	concerning 	casual 	employees 	of 	the 	University.
Paragraph 	1 of 	the Order 	in PERB Decision No. 	243-H 	is 	hereby
amended 	to 	read:
A unit 	of 	printing 	and 	bindery 	employees 	in
the 	University 	printing 	department,
excluding managers, 	supervisors 	and
confidential employees, 	is 	appropriate 	for
the 	purpose 	of meeting 	and 	conferring 	in
good 	faith 	pursuant 	to Government 	Code
section 	3560 et 	seq. 	The 	inclusions 	in 	this
unit 	are 	set 	forth 	in 	the 	attached
Appendix. 	The 	status of 	casual employees
shall 	be 	determined 	during 	the 	exclusionary
phase 	of 	these 	proceedings.
2HEERA 	is 	codified 	at 	Government 	Code 	section 	3560
et 	seq. 	All 	statutory 	references 	are 	to 	the Government Code,
unless 	otherwise 	specified.
w	
3

In 	accordance 	with 	the 	Orders 	in 	the 	above-referenced
decisions, 	the 	remaining 	technical errors 	shall be corrected 	by
the 	director 	of 	representation.
B. 	Creation of 	Printing 	Trades 	Unit
The 	University 	seeks placement 	of 	printing 	trades 	employees
in 	a single, 	systemwide 	unit of skilled crafts 	employees. 	The
Board 	found 	a 	separate 	unit 	of 	printing 	trades 	employees
appropriate 	in 	light of 	its 	determination 	in PERB Decision
No. 	242-H 	that 	the 	reference 	to 	"skilled crafts 	employees" 	in
section 	3579 (d)3 refers 	to skilled 	building and construction
trades 	employees. 	We 	declined 	to 	reconsider 	that 	determination
or 	to join 	in 	the petition 	for 	judicial review 	in 	Unit
Determination 	for 	Skilled 	Crafts 	Employees 	of 	the 	University of
California 	(Reconsideration) 	(2/4/83) 	PERB Decision No. 	242a-H.
A 	separate 	unit 	of 	printing 	trades 	employees 	remains
appropriate. 	The 	University has 	raised 	no 	new 	issues 	of 	law or
3 Section 3579 (d) 	states:
(d) 	Notwithstanding 	the 	foregoing provisions
of 	this 	section, 	or 	any other 	provision of
law, 	an 	appropriate 	group of 	skilled crafts
employees 	shall have 	the 	right 	to be 	a
single, 	separate 	unit of 	representation.
Skilled crafts 	employees 	shall 	include, 	but
not necessarily 	be 	limited 	to, 	employment
categories such as carpenters, 	plumbers,
electricians, 	painters, 	and operating
engineers. 	The single unit of
representation 	shall 	include 	not 	less 	than
all 	skilled 	crafts 	employees 	at 	a campus or
at 	a 	Lawrence 	Laboratory.
44

fact 	to 	warrant 	reconsideration 	or 	judicial 	review of 	the
creation of 	a printing 	trades 	unit. 	Its 	request 	for
reconsideration 	and 	petition 	for 	judicial 	review 	of 	PERB
Decision 243-H are, 	therefore, denied.
C. 	Proof 	of 	Support
The 	University also 	requests 	the Board 	to 	reconsider 	or
join 	in 	requesting 	judicial 	review 	regarding 	whether 	HEERA
requires 	a 	30 	percent 	showing 	of 	support 	by 	at 	least 	one
employee 	organization 	before 	an 	election 	in an 	appropriate 	unit
may 	be 	held. 	The 	request 	for 	reconsideration 	is 	granted. 	The
Board 	finds 	that 	a 	30 percent 	showing 	of 	support 	is 	required 	by
HEERA before 	a directed 	election may 	be held. 	See 	the
discussion 	in Unit Determination 	for 	Skilled Crafts 	Employees
of 	the University of California 	(Reconsideration), 	id.
Accordingly, 	the Order 	in PERB Decision No. 	243-H 	is hereby
amended 	to 	read:
The Board 	hereby 	ORDERS 	a 	representation
election 	in 	this unit, 	provided 	that 	an
employee 	organization 	has 	demonstrated 	or
demonstrates 	at 	least 	30 	percent 	showing 	of
support 	not 	later 	than March 	15, 	1983. 	The
director 	of 	representation may 	seek 	an
extension of 	this 	deadline 	from 	the Board
for 	sufficient cause.
II. 	California Education Labor 	Organization; 	Request 	for
Reconsideration
CELO 	requests 	the 	Board 	to 	reconsider 	the 	creation of
systemwide 	units. 	However, 	CELO 	is 	not 	a party 	to 	this unit
determination process. 	PERB rule 	32410 	states 	that 	requests
55

for 	reconsideration may 	be 	raised 	by 	"Any party 	to 	a 	decision
. 	. 	. 	." 	(Emphasis added.) 	Failure to conform to 	this
limitation 	would 	lead 	to 	inefficiency 	and 	potential 	misuse 	of
the Board's 	administrative 	processes. 	For 	these 	reasons 	CELO's
request 	for 	reconsideration 	is 	denied.
ORDER
In 	accordance 	with 	the 	foregoing 	discussion 	and 	in
consideration of 	the entire 	record 	in 	this 	case, 	the Public
Employment 	Relations 	Board 	hereby 	ORDERS 	that:
1. 	Paragraph 	1 of 	the Order 	in PERB Decision 	243-H 	is
amended 	to 	read:
A unit 	of 	printing 	and 	bindery employees 	in
the 	University 	printing 	department,
excluding managers, 	supervisors and
confidential employees, 	is appropriate 	for
the 	purpose 	of meeting 	and 	conferring 	in
good 	faith 	pursuant 	to Government 	Code
section 3560, 	et seq. 	The 	inclusions 	in
this 	unit 	are 	set 	forth 	in 	the 	attached
Appendix. 	The 	status of casual employees
shall 	be 	determined 	during 	the 	exclusionary
phase 	of 	these 	proceedings.
2. 	The 	remaining 	technical 	errors 	brought 	to 	the 	Board's
attention 	shall 	be 	corrected 	by 	the 	director 	of 	representation,
in 	accordance with 	the Order 	in PERB Decision No. 	243-H.
3. 	The 	request 	for 	reconsideration 	and 	petition 	to 	join
in 	judicial 	review 	filed 	by 	the 	University 	of 	California
concerning 	the 	unit placement 	of 	printing 	trades 	employees 	in
PERB Decision 	No. 	243-H are DENIED 	for 	failure 	to 	show
"extraordinary circumstances" 	or 	"special 	importance" within
6

the meaning 	of 	PERB 	rule 	32410 	and 	subsection 	3564(a),
respectively.
4. 	Paragraph 	3 of 	the Order 	in PERB Decision No. 	243-H 	is
amended 	to 	read:
The Board 	hereby 	ORDERS a 	representation
election 	in 	this unit, 	provided 	that 	an
employee 	organization has 	demonstrated 	or
demonstrates at least 	30 percent 	showing 	of
support not later 	than March 	15, 	1983. 	The
director 	of 	representation may 	seek 	an
extension of 	this 	deadline 	from 	the Board
for 	sufficient cause.
5. 	The request 	for 	reconsideration 	filed 	by 	the
California Education 	Labor 	Organization 	is 	DENIED because 	the
organization 	is 	not 	a party 	to 	this proceeding.
By 	the BOARD
7
7