State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (PERB 0327S)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
CALIFORNIA 	STATE 	EMPLOYEES'
ASSOCIATION,
Employee 	Organization,
and
STATE 	OF CALIFORNIA 	(DEPARTMENT OF
PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION),
Employer.
--------------------
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
\
Case 	Nos. 	S-D-62-S
(S-SR-6)
PERB 	Decision 	No. 	327-S
July 	14, 	1983
Appearances: 	Jeffrey 	Fine, 	Attorney 	for 	California 	State
Employees'· Association.	)
· Before Gluck, 	Chairperson; 	Morgenstern 	and 	Burt, 	Members.
DECISION
MORGENSTERN, 	Member: 	California 	State 	Employees'
Association 	(CSEA) 	appeals 	the 	dismissal 	of 	its 	decertification
petition 	by 	the 	Sacramento 	regional 	director 	of 	the 	Public
Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(PERB 	or 	Board). 	The 	regional
director 	refused 	to 	accept 	proof 	of 	employee 	support 	for 	the
petition 	submitted 	by CSEA after 	the 	close 	of 	the 	"window
period" 	of 	a 	memorandum of 	understanding 	in 	effect 	between 	the
State 	of 	California 	(State) 	and 	the 	current 	exclusive
representative 	which 	CSEA 	seeks 	to 	decertify.
We 	find 	that 	the 	regional 	director 	acted 	properly 	in
refusing 	to 	accept 	CSEA's 	tendered 	proof 	of 	support.
Accordingly, 	we 	deny 	CSEA's 	appeal 	and 	dismiss 	its 	petition.

FACTS
In 	January 	1982, 	the 	California 	Correctional 	Peace 	Officers
Association 	(CCPOA) 	was 	certified 	as 	the 	exclusive
representative 	of 	a 	unit 	of 	Department 	of 	Corrections
correctional 	officers 	and 	California 	Youth 	Authority 	group
supervisors 	who 	work 	in 	prisons 	throughout 	the 	State 	(Unit 	6).
CCPOA 	and 	the 	State 	entered 	into 	a 	collective 	bargaining
agreement 	effective 	July 	1, 	1982 with 	an 	expiration 	date 	of
June 	30, 	1983.
On 	March 	30, 	1983, 	CSEA 	filed 	a 	decertification 	petition
which 	indicated 	that 	the 	"approximate .number 	of 	employees 	in
the 	unit" 	was 	6,500, 	and 	which 	was 	accompanied 	by 	approximately
2,100 	cards 	as 	proof 	of 	support 	for 	the 	petition. 	Pursuant 	to
PERB's 	request, 	the 	State 	employer 	subsequently 	filed 	a 	list 	of
employees 	in 	Unit 	6 	as 	of 	the 	end 	of 	the 	last 	payroll 	period
immediately 	preceding 	the 	filing 	of 	the 	petition. 	The 	list
shows 	a 	total 	of 	7,936 	employees 	in 	Unit 	6 as 	of 	February 	28,
1983.
On 	April 	13, 	1983, 	CSEA 	filed 	additional 	proof 	of 	support.
In 	its 	cover 	letter 	of 	the 	same 	date, 	CSEA contended 	that 	the
additional 	signatures 	should 	be 	accepted 	because 	it 	had
received 	conflicting 	information 	and 	had 	been 	unable 	to
ascertain 	the 	actual 	number 	of 	employees 	in 	the 	unit 	prior 	to
filing 	the 	petition.
2

By 	letter 	dated 	April 	25, 	1983, 	PERB's 	regional 	director
dismissed 	CSEA's 	petition, 	finding 	that 	the 	proof 	of 	support
filed 	with 	the 	petition on March 	30 	was 	inadequate 	under 	the
30 	percent 	showing 	requirement 	of 	PERB 	Regulation 	32770,1 	and
that 	the 	additional proof 	of 	support 	filed 	on April 	13, 	after
the 	close 	of 	the 	"window 	period," 	was 	untimely.2
lPERB 	regulations 	are 	codified 	at 	Cal. 	Admin. 	Code,
title 	8, 	section 	31001, 	et 	seq. 	Regulation 	32770 	provides 	in
pertinent part:
(a) 	A petition 	for 	an 	election 	to 	decertify
an 	existing 	exclusive 	representative 	in 	an
established 	unit 	may 	be 	filed 	by a 	group 	of
employees 	within 	the 	unit 	or 	an 	employee
organization. 	The 	petition 	shall 	be 	filed
with 	the 	regional 	office 	utilizing 	forms
provided 	by 	the 	Board.
(b) 	The 	petition 	shall 	be 	accompanied 	by
proof 	that 	at 	least 	30 	percent 	of 	the
employees 	in 	the 	established 	unit 	either:
(1) 	No 	longer 	desire 	to 	be 	represented
by 	the 	incumbent 	exclusive
representative; 	or
(2) 	Wish 	to 	be 	represented 	by 	another
employee 	organization.
2Regulation 	32776 	provides 	in 	pertinent part:
(c) 	Under 	SEERA, 	the 	[decertification]
petition 	shall 	be 	dismissed 	whenever
(l) .. there 	is 	currently 	in 	effect 	a
memorandum 	of 	understanding 	between 	the
employer 	and 	another 	employee 	organization
recognized 	or 	certified 	as 	the 	exclusive
representative 	of 	any 	employees 	covered 	by a
petition 	requiring 	an 	election, 	unless 	the
petition 	is 	filed 	less 	than 	120 	days 	but
more 	than 	90 	days 	prior 	to 	the 	expiration
date 	of 	such 	memorandum 	or 	the 	end 	of 	the
3

CSEA 	appealed, 	contending 	essentially 	that 	a 	period 	to
perfect 	a 	showing 	of 	employee 	support 	for 	a 	decertification
petition 	should 	be 	permitted 	generally 	under 	the 	State
Employer-Employee 	Relations 	Act 	(SEERA or 	Act)3 	and
specifically 	in 	this 	case 	because 	of 	certain 	alleged 	equitable
considerations 	present 	here.
DISCUSSION
In 	Pittsburg 	Unified 	School 	District 	(10/20'/78) 	PERB 	Order
No. 	Ad-49, 	a 	case 	arising 	under 	the 	Educational 	Employment
Relations 	Act 	(EERA),4 	the 	Board 	determined 	that 	no
third 	year 	of 	such 	memorandum, 	provided 	that
if 	such 	memorandum 	has 	been 	in 	effect 	for
three 	years 	or 	more, 	there 	shall 	be 	no
restriction 	as 	to 	time 	of 	filing 	the
petition: 	•••
. 	. 	. 	. . 	. 	. 	. . 	. 	. 	. 	. .
(e) 	The 	"window 	period" 	in 	the 	term 	of 	an
existing 	memorandum of 	understanding 	for
filing 	a 	decertification 	petition 	is 	defined
for 	SEERA 	in 	Section 	40130 ••••
Regulation 	40130 	provides, 	in 	pertinent 	part:
"Window period" 	means 	the 	29-day 	period
which 	is 	less 	than 	120 	days, 	but 	more 	than
90 	days 	prior 	to 	the 	expiration 	date 	of 	a
memorandum of 	understanding 	between 	the
employer 	and 	the 	exclusive 	representative.
The 	memorandum 	of 	understanding 	expiration
date 	means 	the 	last 	effective 	date 	of 	the
memorandum of 	understanding.
3sEERA 	is 	codified 	at 	Government 	Code 	section 	3512
et 	seq. 	All 	statutory 	references 	are 	to 	the 	Government 	Code
unless 	otherwise 	specified.
4EERA 	is 	codified 	at 	Government 	Code 	section 	3540 	et 	seq.
4

perfection 	period 	should 	be 	allowed 	for 	a 	decertification
petition. 	The 	Board's 	decision 	was 	based 	primarily on policy
grounds, 	balancing 	"the 	right 	of 	employees 	to 	be 	represented 	by
an 	organization 	of 	their 	choosing 	and 	the 	maintenance 	of
stability 	in 	employer-employee 	relations."
Balancing 	these 	competing 	interests, 	the 	Board 	concluded,
at 	pp. 	5-6:
Stable 	employer-employee 	relations 	are
undermined 	if 	employees 	or 	competing
organizations 	are 	free 	at 	any 	time 	to 	seek
to 	displace 	an 	incumbent 	exclusive
representative. 	This 	is 	particularly 	true
during 	the 	last 	days 	of 	an 	old 	agreement 	and
during 	the 	time 	when 	an 	incumbent
organization 	is 	striving 	to 	negotiate 	a 	new
agreement. 	Negotiations 	for 	a 	new 	agreement
seldom, 	if 	ever, 	afford 	full 	satisfaction 	to
all 	members 	of 	the 	negotiating 	unit.
Rival 	employee 	organizations 	must 	be 	given
an 	opportunity 	to 	challenge 	an 	exclusive
representative. 	If, 	however, 	the
challenging 	organization does 	not 	have 	the
requisite 	support 	among 	unit 	members 	at 	the
time 	it 	makes 	the 	challenge, 	the 	incumbent
·organization should 	be 	afforded 	the
opportunity 	to 	negotiate 	a 	new 	agreement
free 	from 	the 	continuing 	threat, 	and
concomitant 	uncertainty, 	of 	challenge 	by a
rival 	organization.
Contrary 	to 	CSEA's 	contentions, 	the 	policy 	expressed 	in
Pittsburg 	favoring 	the 	stability of 	employer-employee 	relations
applies 	with 	equal 	force 	to 	SEERA.5 	The 	fact 	that 	in 	SEERA,
5see 	State 	of 	California 	(SETC) 	(5/20/83) 	PERB 	Order
No. 	Ad-138-S 	articulating 	a 	similar 	policy 	of 	repose 	under
SEERA 	in 	a 	case 	concerning 	a 	petition 	for 	unit 	modification
filed 	less 	than 	12 	months 	after 	certification of 	an 	election.
5

the 	Legislature 	did 	not 	spell 	out 	in 	detail 	the 	procedures 	to
be 	followed 	in 	matters 	of 	representation, 	but 	rather 	authorized
the 	Board 	to 	establish 	such 	procedures 	by 	regulation, 	does 	not
argue 	for 	a 	different 	rule.6 	Rather, 	the 	Legislature's
deferral 	to 	PERB's 	rule-making 	authority, 	after 	the 	Board 	had
already 	promulgated 	regulations 	governing 	representation
matters 	under 	EERA, 	which 	the 	Legislature 	is 	presumed 	to 	have
known, 	must 	be 	construed 	as 	legislative 	approval 	of 	those
regulations. 	Further, 	the 	regulations 	established 	under 	SEERA
follow 	EERA's 	statutory 	language.? 	Neither 	Act 	nor 	the
regulations 	governing 	procedure 	pursuant 	to 	them provide 	a
period 	for 	perfection of 	the 	showing 	of 	interest 	in 	support 	of
a 	decertification 	petition. 	(See 	Regulation 	32774.)
Therefore, 	we 	find 	that 	under 	SEERA, 	as 	under 	EERA, 	the
acceptance 	of 	proof 	of 	support 	for 	a 	decertification 	petition
after 	the 	close 	of 	the 	window 	period 	would 	tend 	to 	undermine
6compare 	EERA Article 	5, 	consisting 	of 	five 	sections
detailing 	procedures 	for 	representation, 	recognition,
certification 	and 	decertification, 	with 	SEERA 	subsection
3520.S(c) 	which 	provides:
(c) 	The 	board 	shall 	also 	establish
procedures 	whereby 	recognition of 	employee
organizations 	formally 	recognized 	as
exclusive 	representatives 	pursuant 	to 	a 	vote
of 	the 	employees 	may 	be 	revoked 	by 	a
majority 	vote 	of 	the 	employees 	only 	after 	a
period 	of 	not 	less 	than 	12 months 	following
the 	date 	of 	such 	recognition.
?compare 	EERA 	subsection 	3544.?(b) (1) 	and 	Regulation
32776(c), 	supra, 	fn. 	2.
6

stable 	employer-employee 	relations 	and 	would 	not 	effectuate 	the
purposes 	of 	the 	Act.
Further, 	we 	find, 	on 	the 	facts 	presented 	here, 	no
compelling 	reason 	to 	grant 	an 	exception 	to 	that 	rule. 	Citing
figures 	which 	it 	obtained 	f~om 	the 	State 	Controller, 	CSEA
points 	to 	changes 	in 	the 	size 	of 	the 	bargaining 	unit 	during 	the
twenty 	months 	preceding 	the 	filing 	of 	its 	petition.a 	CSEA
urges 	that 	we 	follow 	the 	"principle" 	articulated 	by 	the
National 	Labor 	Relations 	Board 	i'n 	General 	Extrusibn 	Co., 	Inc.
(1958) 	121 	NLRB 	1165 	[42 	LRRM 	1508] 	that 	a 	contract 	does 	not
bar 	an 	election 	if 	executed 	"prior 	to 	a 	substantial 	increase 	in
personnel."
However, 	CSEA admits 	that 	the 	change 	in 	personnel 	here
fails 	to 	satisfy 	the 	definition 	of 	a 	"substantial 	increase"
stated 	in 	General 	Extrusion, 	supra~9 	In 	fact, 	CSEA does 	not
8csEA provides 	the 	following 	figures:
No. 	Employees 	- 	Unit 	6
June 	1981 	6,622
December 	1981 	6,996
December 	1982 	5,740
January 	1983 	7,745
February 	28, 	1983 	7,936
9In 	General 	Extrusion, 	supra, 	at 	1167, 	the 	NLRB 	stated:
When 	the 	question 	of 	a 	substantial 	increase
in 	personnel 	is 	in 	issue, 	a 	contract 	will
bar 	an 	election 	only 	if 	at 	least 	30 	percent
of 	the 	complement 	employed 	at 	the 	time 	of
the 	hearing 	had 	been 	employed 	at 	the 	time
the 	contract 	was 	executed, 	and 	50 	percent 	of
7

indicate 	the 	number 	of 	employees 	in 	the 	unit 	on 	the 	date 	of
execution 	of 	the 	contract, 	which 	is, 	according 	to 	General
Extrusion, 	the 	relevant 	date 	for 	determining 	whether 	a
substantial 	increase 	has 	occurred. 	Moreover, 	in 	urging 	us 	to
follow 	the 	principle 	but 	not 	the 	standard 	stated 	in 	General
Extrusion, 	CSEA would 	have 	us 	disregard 	a 	substantial 	body 	of
case 	law 	strictly 	applying 	that 	standard.10 	We 	decline 	to 	do
so.
we, 	therefore, 	find 	that 	the 	change 	in 	the 	size 	of 	Unit 	6
was 	not 	so 	substantial 	as 	to 	remove 	the 	contract 	bar.
CSEA next 	urges 	us 	to 	adopt 	a 	rule 	requiring 	employers 	to
inform 	the 	union 	of 	the 	size 	of 	the 	unit:
[w]here 	the 	employer 	is 	statewide, 	where
there 	is 	restricted 	access 	to 	employees,
where 	many 	employees 	due 	to 	security
concerns 	do 	not 	disclose 	their 	home
addresses, 	and 	where 	there 	is 	a 	large
increase 	in 	the 	numbers 	of 	the 	unit.
However, 	as 	discussed 	above, 	CSEA admits 	that 	the 	State
Controller 	did, 	in 	fact, 	inform 	CSEA of 	the 	size 	of 	the 	unit 	on
several 	dates. 	In 	these 	circumstances, 	we 	fail 	to 	see 	the 	need
to 	consider 	the 	rule 	CSEA proposes.11
the 	job 	classifications 	in 	existence 	at 	the
time 	of 	the 	hearing 	were 	in 	existence 	at 	the
time 	the 	contract 	was 	executed.
l0see, 	e.g., 	American 	Beef 	Packers, 	Inc. 	(1970) 	180 	NLRB
634, 	639-6411 	United 	Service 	Co. 	(1977) 	227 	NLRB 	1469.
llsee 	Marin 	County 	Office 	of 	Education 	(7/10/80) 	PERB
Order 	No. 	Ad-95 	holding 	that, 	under 	EERA, 	an 	employer 	has 	no
8

Finally, 	CSEA 	contends 	that 	various 	actions 	of 	the 	State
employer 	and 	CCPOA 	interfered 	with 	its 	efforts 	to 	obtain 	a
sufficient 	showing 	of 	interest. 	It 	provides 	declarations 	and
unsworn 	statements 	which 	allege 	that 	the 	State 	failed 	to 	timely
deliver 	CSEA mail 	to 	employees, 	removed 	material 	from 	a 	locked
CSEA 	bulletin 	board, 	and 	prevented 	CSEA members 	from
distributing 	literature, 	and 	that 	CCPOA officers 	threatened 	to
fine 	CCPOA members 	$500 	if 	they 	participated 	in 	the
decertification 	campaign, 	verbally 	harassed 	employees 	signing
the 	petition 	and 	otherwise 	attempted 	to 	prevent 	the 	gathering
of 	signatures.
While 	this 	alleged 	conduct might 	arguably 	constitute
unlawful 	interference, 	such 	charges 	are 	properly 	raised 	and
remedied 	in 	an 	unfair 	practice 	proceeding.12 	For 	purposes 	of
this 	appeal, 	CSEA's 	bare 	allegations, 	without 	benefit 	of
investigation 	or 	hearing, 	are 	insufficient 	to 	warrant
acceptance 	of 	proof 	of 	support 	after 	the 	window period.
Having 	rejected 	each 	of 	CSEA's 	proffered 	exceptions, 	we
find 	that 	the 	regional 	director 	properly 	refused 	to 	accept
proof 	of 	support 	after 	the 	close 	of 	the 	window 	period.
obligation 	to 	provide 	information 	about 	the 	unit 	size
referenced 	by a 	decertification 	petition.
1 2we 	take 	judicial 	notice 	of 	the 	fact 	that 	on June 	27,
1983 CSEA 	filed 	charges 	against 	CCPOA 	and 	the 	State 	regarding
this 	alleged 	conduct.
9

Accordingly, 	CSEA's 	appeal 	is 	DENIED 	and 	its 	petition 	is
DISMISSED.
It 	is 	so 	ORDERED.
Chairperson 	Gluck 	and 	Member 	Burt 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
10

5 TA TE OF CAUFORNiA 	GEORGE OEUKMEJJAN, Go-,
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Sacramento Regional Office
1031 	18th Street, Suite 102
Sacramento, California 95814
(916) 322-3198
April 25, 	1983
Mr. Michael Frost, 	Director
Dept. 	of Personnel Administration
1115 - 	11th Street
Sacramento, CA 	95814
·-, Mr. 	Jeff Thompson, 	Executive Director
California Correctional Peace Officers Assn.
510 Bercut Drive, 	Suite U
Sacramento, CA 	95814
Mrs. Sherry L. Hunt, 	Field Services Administrator
California State Employees Assn.
1108 "0" Street
Sacramento, CA 	95814
Re: 	S-SR-6; 	S-'-D-62-S
State 0£ California, 	DPA
Dear Interested Parties:
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A decertification petition in the above-re.ferenced case pursuant to PERB
Regulation 327701 was filed with this office on March 30, 	1983 by the
lPERB regulations are codified at California Administrative Code,
title 8, 	part III, 	section 31001 et seq. 	Section 32770 provides:
(a) 	A petition for an election to decertify an
existing exclusive representative in an established
unit may be filed by a group of employees within the
unit or an employee organization. 	The petition shall
be filed with the regional office utilizing forms
provided by the Board.
(b) 	The petition shall be accompanied by proof that
at least 30 percent of the employees in the
established unit either:

State o.f California, DPA
April 25, 	1983
Page 2
California State Employees Association 	(CSEA).2 	The state employer was
n Unit 	6 as of the end
of the last 	payroll period immediately preceding the filing of the
petition. 	The list provided by the employer shows there were 7936
employees 	in Unit 6 as 	of February 28, 	1983.
requested 	to 	file with PERB a 	list of employees i
3
PERB Regulation 32770(b}(2) 	requires that an employee organization
decertification petition be accompanied by proof that at 	least 30 percent
of the empoyees in the established unit wish to be represented by the
organization filing the petition. 	The petition in the instant case was
not accompanied by adequate proof of support.
·,
Cs.EA filed additional proof of support on April 	13, 	1983. 	CSEA contends
that because it 	received 	conflicting figures from various sources as to
the unit size, CSEA's ability to file an appropriate number of signatures
with their initial petition was prejudiced. 	Therefore, 	CSEA asks that
its filing of additional proof of support on April 	13, 	1983 be allowed by
PERE.
(1) 	No longer desire 	to 	be represented by the
incumbent exclusive representative; 	or
(2) 	Wish to 	be represented by another employee
organization.
Proof of support is defined in Division 1, 	Section
32700 of these regulations.
(c) 	Service of the petition, 	excluding the proof of
at least 30 percent support, 	and proof of service
pursuant 	to Section 32140 are 	required.
2The established unit covered by the decertification petition is
entitled Unit #6 - 	Corrections, 	and 	consists of corrections employees of
the State of California. 	The California Correctional Peace Officers
Association 	(CCPOA) 	was certified as 	the exclusive representative of the
employees 	ln Unit 6 on January 27, 	1982. 	The employees 	in Unit 6 are
covered by a memorandum of understanding negotiated between the state
employer and CCPOA which expires on June 	30, 	1983.
3No allegation has 	been made by CSEA that either the list 	provided
by the employer or the 	total number of names on the list is inaccurate.

(
State of California, DPA
April 25, 	1983
Page 	3
DIS.CUSSION
PERB's decertification regulations4 permit employees and employee
organizations to seek to expel an incumbent organization or replace an
incumbent with another employee organization by filing a petition with
PERB during the "window period" of a memorandum of understanding defined
in section 40130.5
In Pittsbur6 Unified School District 	(10/20/78) 	PERB Order No. 	Ad-49, the
Board 	concluded that while the Board's rules allow employee organizations
initially seeking to represent employees 	to perfect a deficient showing
of support, 	they do not afford a similar opportunity to an employee
organization seeking to replace an incumbent. 	The Board also concluded
that if an organization does not have the necessary support among unit
members when it challenges the incumbent, 	the incumbent exclusive
representative should have the opportunity to negotiate a new contract
without a continuing threat, 	and accompanying uncertainty, of a challenge
by another organization.
,_
In Marin County Office of Education 	(7/10/80) 	PERB Order No. 	Ad-95, 	the
Board found that 	the employer has no obligation under statute or PERB
4sections 32770 through 32776.
5section 40130 provides:
"Window period" 	means 	the 29-day period which is less
than 	120 days, 	but more than 90 days prior to the
expiration date of a memorandum of understanding
between the employer and the exclusive
representative. 	The memorandum of understanding
expiration date means the last effective date of the
memorandum of understanding. 	Notwithstanding the
provisions of Section 32130, 	the date on which the
memorandum of understanding expires shall not be
counted for 	the purpose of computing the window
period. 	Whenever the last day of the window period
falls on a Saturday, 	Sunday, 	or holiday as defined in
Government Code section 6700 and 6701, 	and state
offices are closed, 	any petition required to be filed
during a window period must 	be filed 	on or before the
last PERB business day during the window period.
·

State of California, DPA
April 	25, 	·1983
Page 	4
regulations 	to provide information about 	the unit size referenced 	by a
decertification petition. 	The Board also noted in this decision that
there was no evidence of "intentional misconduct, 	such as 	providing
deliberately misleading information" 	to the petitioning organization as
to the unit size.
The window period for 	filing a decertification petition in the instant
case was March 3, 	1983 through March 31, 	1983. 	Therefore, 	CSEA's filing
of additional support on April 	13, 	1983 occurred well after the close of
the window period. 	Both Board regulations and precedent are very clear
and unequivocal in this area • 	PERB decertification regulations
purposefully do not provide for an extension of time to file additional
proof of support 	(Pittsburg, 	supra; Petaluma City Elementary and Higp.
School Districts (6/30/82) 	PERB Order No. 	Ad-131).
CSEA's only argument 	that 	its late-filed support be declared valid
relates 	to receipt of conflicting unit size information. 	Board precedent
on this point. 	is also clear. 	No allegation nor evidence is offered by
CSEA that the employer in this case deliberately misled CSEA as to the size
of Unit 6. 	Further, 	there is no requirement in the State Employer
Employee Re.1-ations Act 	(SEEM.)6 or in applicable PERB regulations 	that
the employer provide information as 	to the size or the 	unit 	to the
decertifying petitioner 	(Marin, 	supra).
COOCLUSION
CSEA's decertification petition, while timely filed within the window
period, 	was not accompanied by at least 30 percent proof of support of
the employees in Unit 6. 	For the reasons 	stated above, 	proof of support
filed after the close of the window period cannot be accepted. 	The
petition 	is therefore dismissed.
An appeal of this decision pursuant 	to PERB Regulations 32350 through
32380 may be made within 10 calendar days following the date of service
of this decision by filing an original and 	5 copies of a statement of the
facts 	upon which the appeal is based with the Board itself at 	1031 	18th
Street, 	Suite 200, 	Sacramento, 	California 95814. 	Copies of any appeal
must be 	concurrently served upon all parties and the Sacramento Region
Office. 	Proof of service pursuant 	to Regulation 32140 is required.
al
6sEERA is codified at Government Code section 3512 et. seq.

State of California, 	DPA
April 	25, 	1983
Page 5
Please contact me should you have any questions concerning this matter.
Very truly yours,
Janet E. 	Caraway
gional Directo~
~fo</4f~Joseph C. 	Basso
Public Employment Relations Representative III
cc: 	Gerrit Jan Buddingh', 	CCPOA
Robert Bark, 	DPA