Mendocino Community College District (deBane Piche) (PERB 0369E)

2 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD

GERALD F, deBANE PICHE,
Petitioner and Appellant, Case No. SF-D-104
and PERB Decision No. 369

MENDOCINO COLLEGE INSTRUCTORS

December 22, 1983
ASSOCIATION, CTA/NEA,

Employee Organization.

ee ed

Appearances: Gerald F. deBane Piche, representing himself.

Before Tovar, Morgenstern and Burt, Members.
DECISION

MORGENSTERN, Member: This case is before tne Public
Employment Relations Board (Board) on an appeal filed by the
petitioner, Dr. Gerald F. deBane Piche, which disputes the
decision of the Board's Regional Director to dismiss the
petitioner's decertification petition.

We have reviewed the attached decision of the Regional
Director in light of the petitioner's appeal and the entire
record in this matter. Finding it to be free from prejudicial
error, we adopt it as the decision of the Board itself.

ORDER
The Board ORDERS that the petitioner's decertification

petition filed on March 23, 1983 be DISMISSED.

Members Tovar and Burt joined in this Decision.

PAIR OF CALIFORNIA GEORGE DEUXMEMAN, Garner
PU::--,\
1
:..::
E;\\?V)Y
:\\~NT
f!HATlONS
	80Ai1D
Sal\
	f r<if1c!s(o 	f<efriunal
	Office
~--.•7	
fu~t
	Srr~et,. 	9;h 	Floor
r~rc:nc.i,co,	
co:ifornia	
94108
1_,(~1)
55-/-1350
Apri
1
	19,
	1983
Dr.
	Gerald 	F.
	deBane
	Piche
Physics
	-
	Astronomy
	-
	Mathematics
	Instructor-
Mendocino
	Corrununity
	College
	District
P.O.
	Box 	3000
Ukiah,
	California
	95482
Dr. 	Lee
	Lowery
President/Superintendent
:Mendocino
	Cor.mmnity
	College
	District
P.O.
	Box 	3000
Ukiah, 	California
	95482
Mr.
	Seigi
	Sugawara
President
	- 	.MCIA/CTA/NEA
P.
	0.
	Box
	3000
Ukiah,
	California
	95482
Re:
	SF-D-104
	(R-615)
Mendocino
	Community
	College
	District
-
Dear
	Interested 	Parties:
A
decertification 	petition
	in
	the 	above-referenced 	case
pursuant
	to
	PERB
	Regulation
	327701 	was
	filed
	with
	this
	office
on 	March
	28,
	1983 	by	
Dr. 	deBane
	Piche
	on
	behalf
	of
	a
	group
	of
em2loye2s.
	The
	established 	unit 	consists
	of 	approximately
thirty-eight 	full-time 	instructorr; 	of 	the
	Mendocino
	Community
College
	District,
	currently
	represented	
by	
the
	Mendocino
College
	Instructors
	Association/CTA/NEA
	(MCIA/CTA/NE.l\)
.2
lpERB
	regulations 	are 	codified 	at 	California
Administrative
	Code,
	title
	8,
	part
	III,
	section
	31001
.et 	seq.
2The 	Mendocino
	College
	Instructors
	Association/CTA/NEA
was
	granted 	voluntary 	recognition
	on
	February 	21, 	1979
	for
	a
unit 	of
	all
	full-time 	certificated
	employe2s
	excluding 	the
Superintendent/President,
	all
	Vice-Presidents,
	all
	Deans,
	allAssistant
	De~ns,
	all
	Directors, 	a]l 	part-time 	ccrtific~tcaemployees,
	an:7
	all
	mc:rnagement,
	supervisory
	ancl
	confic1cntia.lcr;-:pJ.oyces.

Aoril	
19,	
1983
D~-	
Gerald 	F.
	deBane
	Piche
Dr.
	Lee	
Lower'y
t!r.	
Seigi
	SugawaraPc:ge	
2
Section
	3544.S(d) 	of
	the
	Educational
	Employment
	Relations
	Act
(EER..j\)
3	
permits
	employees
	anc1
	employee
	organizations
	to
	seek
to
	expel
	an
	incumbent
	organization
	or 	replace
	an
	incumbent
	with
another
	organization	
by	
filing
	a
	petition
	with
	the
	Boarda
	The
decertification 	petition
	was
	allegedly
	accompanied	
by	
proof
that 	at 	least
	30%
	of 	the
	employees
	in 	the
	established 	unit
desired
	no
	reoresentation.4	
The
	sole
	issue 	to
	be
	determined
in
	this
	case
	is
	whether
	the 	proof 	of 	support 	submitted
	with
	the
petition 	is
	adequate
	within 	the 	confines 	of
	sections
	32770(b)
3The
	EERA
	is
	codified
	at
	Government
	Code
	section
	3540
et
	seq.
	All
	statutory
	references 	herein 	are
	to
	the
	Govern~ent
Code
	unless 	otherwise 	noted. 	Section
	3544.S(d)
	authorizes
	the
filing
	of
	a
	decertification 	petition, 	stating:
A
petition
	may
	be
	filed
	with 	the 	board,
	in
accordance 	with
	its
	rules
	and
	regulations,requesting
	it
	t6
	investigate
	and
	decide 	the
question
	of
	whether 	employees
	have
	selected
or
	wish
·to
	select
	an
	exclusive
representative
	or 	to
	determine 	the
appropriateness
	of
	a
	unit,
	by:
• 	• 	o 	• 	• 	• 	• 	0 	0 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	0
(d)
	An
	employee
	organization 	alleging
	that
the
	employees
	in
	an
	appfopriate 	unit
	no
longer
	desire
	a
	particular
	employee
organization
	as
	their 	exclusive
	.
representative,
	provided
	that
	such
	petition
is
	supported 	by	
current
	dues 	deduction
authorizations
	or 	other 	evidence 	such
	as
notarized
	membership
	lists,
	cards, 	or
petitions
	from 	30
	percent 	of 	the 	employees
in 	the 	ne90tiating 	unit 	indicating 	support
for 	another 	organization
	or 	lack 	of 	support
for 	the 	incumbent
	exclusive 	representative.
4see 	attached 	copy 	of
	Decertification 	Petition,
	item 	9.

Api::il	
lS,
	1983
Dr.	
Ge~ald	
F.
	deBane
	PicheDr.
	Lee
	Lowery
Mr.	
Seigi	
Sugawara
Page	
3
and 	32700
	of
	PERB's
	rules
	and
	regulations
	to
	sustain
	the
decertification 	petition.5
DISCUSSION
The
	proof
	of
	support
	which 	accompanied
	the
	petition
	consisted
of
	individually
	signed
	statements 	in 	the
	format
	described
	as
follows.
	At
	the 	top 	of
	each
	page, 	the 	following
	statement
appeared:
5section
	32770(b)
	provides:
(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.
Proof 	of 	support
	is
	defined 	in 	Division 	1, 	Section
32700
	of 	these 	regulations.
Section
	32700
	provides 	in
	part:
. 	. 	. 	. 	. . 	. 	. . . 	. 	. 	. 	. 	. 	. 	. 	. 	.
(b) 	The
	proof 	of 	support
	shall 	indicate
each 	employee's 	printed
	name,
	signature, 	job
title
	or
	classification
	ana
	the 	date
	on
which
	each
	individual's 	signature
	wos
obtained.	
A	
signature 	without 	evidence
	that
it
	was
	obtained 	within 	one
	calendar 	year
prior
	to 	the
	filing 	of 	the
	petition
requiring
	employee 	support 	shall
	be
	invalid
for 	the 	purpose 	of 	calculating 	prooE	
o[
support.
	Any
	signature 	meeting 	the
requircraent~ 	of 	this 	Section 	shall
	he
consid:::::rcd
	val
i.d 	evE'n 	thouCJh
	the 	signatorhas 	executed
	c1utho1:iz<1.tir:i;1s
	for
	1~,orc 	thc1n
one 	employ~e 	org~niz~tion.

Apr:il	
19,	
1983
Dr.	
Gerald
	F.
	deBane
	Piche
Dr.	
Lee	
Lowery
Mr.	
Seigi
	Sugawara
Puge	
4
PETITION
	TO 	PERB 	FOR A
	DECERTIFICATIONELECTION 	OF 	MCIA 	(MENDOCINO
COLLEGE 	INSTRUCTOR 	ASSOCIATION)
MARCH
	10,
	1983
'The	
body	
of
	each
	statement 	contained
	three 	options,
	one
	of
which
	was
	to
	be
	selected	
by	
the
	signatory
	employee:
I 	/ 	A.
I 	I	
B.
L_,_I	
C.
I
	wish
	to
	decertify
MCIA
	as 	the
exclusive 	representative
	agent
	under
the
	California
	Teachers
	Association.
I
	wish
	to
	decertify
	MCIA
	as 	the
exclusive 	representative
	agent
	under
CTA
	and 	form
	a
	new
	MCIA
	under
	local
control.
I
	wish
	to
	retain
	MCIA
	as 	the
	exclusive
representative
	agent
	under
	the
California
	Teachers' 	Association.
A
space 	for 	the 	employee's
	printed
	name
	and
	signature
	was
provided 	and,
	at
	the
	bottom
	of
	each 	page,
	the 	statement 	"Please
return 	to
	my
	ma:i.lbox
	by 	March
	18, 	1983."
	was
	printed~
Neither
	~he
	number
	of 	option
	A
	signed 	statements 	nor 	the
	number
of
	option
	B
	signed
	statements 	submitted 	with 	the
	petition
demonstrates
	at
	least
	30
	percent
	proof
	of 	support 	as 	required
by	
section
	32770(b)
	suora.6	
In
	addition,
	a
	number
	of
employees
	selected 	option	
c.7
6using
	the
	approximate
	figure 	of
	thirty-eight
	eQployees
in 	the 	unit 	as
	stated
	on 	the
	petition,
	30
	percent 	proof
	of
support
	would
	require 	at 	least
	twelve 	valid 	authorizations
	for
.s.._itber
	option	
A~~ 	B.
7This
	ontion 	is
	irrelevilnt 	to 	tho
	instant
	procecJinq
r;inse
	it	
seeks 	to 	retain
	tho 	incumbent
	an:1
	nullifi.t::-s
	th1~	
intent
of'
	cJcccrtifica.ti.01-!potition~~	
\•1bLch	
Lo
	either 	to	
ou~;1: 	the~
.i.ncui'1hent 	or
	ou~;t: 	2ncl 	repl_,,tcc
	it
	·di
th 	another
	E:i•.,i)i.o~:c,c•
Cl
C
(_:JC!
n l Z cl t i O
rt
.

;rnril	
19,
	1983
D~-	
Gerald 	F.	
deBane	
Piche
Dr.	
Lee	
Lower-y
Mr.	
Seigi
	Sugawara
Page
	5
the
When
	informed
	of
	I
	Dr.
	deBane
	Piche 	of 	the
	deficiency
	proof
of
	support
	on
	April
	4, 	1983,8	
he 	asked
	that
	I
	combine
	the
totals
	submitted 	for
	both
	options
	and
	render
	the 	support
sufficient
	to
	meet
	PERB
	regulation
	requirements
	since
	both
	at
least
	sought 	to
	decertify
	MCIA/CTA/NEA. 	As 	I
	explained
	to
nr=-aeBane
	Piche,
	I
	must
	adhere
	to
	a
	reauirement 	of
	strict
compliance 	with
	PERB
	regulations.
	Proof 	of
	support
	in
decertification
	cases
	must
	clearly
	and
	unequivocably
	state 	that
either
	the
	emplpyees
	no
	longer
	desire
	the
	incumbent
(32770(b}
(1))
	or
	wish
	to	
be	
represented	
by	
another
	employee
organization
	(32770(b)
(2)).
	The
	PERB
	has
	stated
	that~-
	••
	it
is
	the
	responsibility
	of
	the
	petitioner
	to
	present 	to
	PERB
evidence
	showing
	the 	necessary 	proof 	of 	support''
	and
	that
" 	•
	the
	burden 	placed
	on
	petitioners
	to 	assure
	the
	accuracy
of
	their
	supporting
	materials
	is
	not
	an
	unreasonable
	one."
Petaluma
	Citv
	Elementary 	ana
	Hiqh
	School
	Districts
	(6/30/82)
PERB
	Order
	No.
	Ad-131,
	at
	p.
	5.
The
	those
	clearly
	intent
	of 	individuals
	executing
	option
	Bis
different
	f rem
	the
	intent
	of
	those
	employees
	that
	selected
	::
option
	A.
	Option
	A
merely
	seeks
	decertification
	of 	the
incumbent
	exclusive 	representative
	and, 	assuming
	timely
	filing
an<l
	adequnte 	proof 	of 	support,
	would
	result
	in
	a
decPrtification 	election 	ballot
	which
	offered
	a
	selection
between
	}1CIA/C<fA/NEA 	and
	No
	Representation. 	Option	
B I	
on
	the
other
	hand, 	seeks
	to 	replace 	the 	exclusive
	representative
	with
".
	• 	• 	a 	new 	HCIA
	unaer
	lo::::.:i.l
	control.
11	
When
the 	formation 	of
read
	together
	with
	option
	A,
	the
	intent
	of
	the
	employees
expressing
	a
	desire
	for 	option
	Bis
	especially 	clear
	since,
	if
they 	simply
	desired 	to 	expel 	the 	incumbent,
	they
	would 	have
be
chosen 	option
	A.
	Their
	selection 	of 	option
	B
	must 	therefore
interpreted
	as
	a
	desire 	that
	another
	organization 	replace
Brn
	accordance 	with
	PERE
	policy
	to 	revie~
	aecertiEication
p2titions 	i~uediately
	upon
	receipt,
	I
	attempted 	to 	contact
Dr. 	deBane
	Piche
	on 	March 	28, 	1983
	to 	inform 	him
	of 	the
npparent 	shortcomings 	of 	the
	petition.
	I 	was
	told 	that
	he 	was
and 	unre2chc1ble
	until
	Sund~lf, 	April 	3, 	1983.
	I
out 	of
	town
insisted 	that
	a 	raessage 	for
	hir,1
	to
	call
	rne
	b2
	left 	at 	his
reccptio:-:ist,
	Debbi2 	Rosen,
	r<:.:turned
	r,,y
	call
	anc1
ho,:te. 	'l'he h(;c1r
	that	
my 	me:::jsag-2
	bo.::-1
	boen 	for
1.-;au1~r1. 	I
	did 	notconfirmed
from 	Dr.
	clcB~ne
	Piche
	pri.oi:
	to
	the· 	clc)~::::
	of
	the- 	~:i.nJo;,
	porio:1.

1~.,	
,·1·
l	
70	
1nq3	
'1 l;:)
i..	
w - ..J..
:;
I 	•
;;
'-
Dr.	
Gerald	
F.	
deBane	
Piche
Dr.	
Lee	
LO'dery
Mr.	
Seigi	
Sugawara
Page
	6
MCIA/CTA/NEA
	and
	appear
	as
	a
	third 	ballot
	choice
	along
	with
	the
incumbent 	and
	No
	Representation
	in
	any
	election
	held
	as
	a
result	
of
	the
	petition.
	Consequently,
	it
	cannot
	be
	inferred
that
	employees
	who
	selected
	option
	B
	would
	necessarily 	prefer
option
	A
	to 	option
	C,
	the
	status
	quo.
	Since
	options
	A
and
	B
would
	each
	result
	in
	a
	different
	set
	of
	ballot 	choices,
	it
would
	be
	a
	violation
	of
	the
	express 	provisions
	of
	PERB
regulation
	32770(b)
	to
	combine
	the
	option
	A
	and
	B
	proof 	of
support
	as 	suggested	
by	
Dr.
	DeBane
	Piche.
The
	proof
	of
	support
	submitted
	with
	the
	decertification
petition
	must
	be
	rejected
	for 	other
	reasons
	as
	well.
	PERB
Regulation
	32700(b)
	specifically
	requires
	that
	each 	signatory
employee's 	job
	title
	or
	classification
	be
	indicated,
	and
	that
"the 	date
	on 	which
	each
	individual's
	signature
	was
	obtained"
also
	be
	included.9	
Each
	signature
	submitted 	with
	the
petition
	was 	undated 	and
	did 	not 	include
	a
	job
	title.10
As
	stated
	above,
	no
	waiver
	of 	proof
	of 	support 	requirementscontained
	in
	PERB
	regulations
	can
	be 	made.
	Because
	the 	proofof 	support 	submitted 	in
	this
	case
	is
	defective
	in
	several
resp::c
ts
	as
	d
iscus.sE::d
	abo
0
1e,
	it
	is
	deterrni
r.iec1
	that
	the 	proof
submitted
	is
	insufficient
	to
	support 	the
	decertificationp~tition.
	For
	this
	reason, 	the
	petition 	is
	hereby
	dismissed.
Because
	the
	petition
	has
	failed
	due
	to
	insufficient
	proof 	of
support,
	no
	determination 	regarding 	the
	timeliness 	of
	the
petition 	is 	required.
An
	appeal 	of
	this
	decision 	pursuant 	to
	PEP~
	Regulations
	32350
through
	32380
	may
	be
	made
	within
	10
	calendar
	days 	following 	the
date 	of 	service 	of
	this
	decision	
by	
filing
	an
	original
	and
s	
c6pies 	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
9see 	Petaluma 	Citv
	Elcmentvcy
	and 	H~qb__School
	Districts
suora
	anc1
	A.
	\'lerrcian
	ar1.c1
	Sons,
	Inc.
	(1955),
LRP,~-1
114
	NLRB
	629 	[37l O
21]
. 	-
	-----
10Tl1e
	petition	
fori,1.::~ 	utiJi1.e:c1 	hc1d
	d-::t~-.e::;
	pr:into11 	on 	themp
:-:
i
or 	to
	c i r
cu
J.
at.:.
ion
. 	'l' h
is 	pr
i.l
c
t.
i c e	
c1
o ~:;
	not
	m
co
i:.	
th
r_,
rccruirer:1cnt
.....
	t11at 	cc:ch 	~;iqn,tt.t
1
-~~-
	rc
	b-::-	
------~--·"---·
---~·---·- 	c1o.tie:c1.

Aoril	
1 9 ,
	1983
D~
. 	Ge
ra ld	
F .	
deBane	
Pich
e
Dr
.	
Lee 	Lo
·..;
ery
Mr
.	
Seigi
	Suga wara
:
?ag
e	
·1
co
ncur
~
ently
	served
	upon
	all
	parties
	a nd
	the 	San
	Francis
c-:>
Regional
	Office
.
	Proof 	of
	se
rv
ice
	pursuant 	to 	Regulatio~
	3
2140
i s 	r
equired
.
P
lease
	contact
	me
	should
	you
	have 	any 	que
stio
ns
	concerning
	this
matt
er
.
Very
	truly
	yours
,
Anita
	I.
	Martin
e z
Reg i
onal
	Dir
ecto
r
AIM:
ir
Att
achment