State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Guild for Professional Pharmacists) (PERB 1025S)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
STATE OF CALIFORNIA (DEPARTMENT OF
PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION),
Employer,
and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE,
COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES,
LOCAL 2620,
Exclusive Representative,
and
GUILD FOR PROFESSIONAL PHARMACISTS,
Petitioner.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
___________________ )
Case No. S-S-129-S
PERB Decision No. 1025-S
November 16, 1993
Appearances: Warren C. Stracener, Labor Relations Counsel, for
State of California (Department of Personnel Administration);
Beeson, Tayer & Bodine by Joseph R. Colton, Attorney, for
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees,
Local 2620; Posner & Rosen by Michael Posner, Attorney, for Guild
for Professional Pharmacists.
Before Blair, Chair; Carlyle and Garcia, Members.
DECISION
CARLYLE, Member: This case is before the Public Employment
Relations Board (Board) on appeal by the Guild for Professional
Pharmacists (Guild) to the proposed decision (attached hereto) of
an administrative law judge's (ALJ) dismissal of the Guild's
severance petition. The Guild sought to sever 172 pharmacists
from State Bargaining Unit 19 (Professional, Health and Social
Services).
The Board has reviewed the entire record, including the
proposed decision, transcripts, the Guild's appeal, and responses

of 	the 	American 	Federation 	of 	State, 	County and Municipal
Employees, 	Local 	2620 	and 	the 	State 	of 	California 	(Department 	of
Personnel 	Administration). 	The 	Board 	finds 	the ALJ's 	findings 	of
fact 	and 	conclusions 	of 	law 	to 	be 	free 	of 	prejudicial 	error and
adopts 	them as 	the 	decision 	of 	the 	Board 	itself.
ORDER
Based 	upon 	the 	entire 	record 	in 	this 	case, 	the
administrative 	law 	judge's 	proposed decision 	in 	Case 	No.
S-S-129-S 	is 	affirmed 	and 	it 	is 	ORDERED 	that 	the 	severance
petition 	filed 	by 	the 	Guild be 	DISMISSED.
Chair Blair 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
Member Garcia's 	concurrence begins 	on 	page 	3.
2

-
Garcia, 	Member, 	concurring: 	I 	concur with 	the 	majority
decision 	to 	dismiss 	the 	severance 	petition and 	agree 	that 	the
administrative 	law 	judge's 	(ALJ) 	proposed decision 	is 	free 	of.
prejudicial 	error; 	however, 	I 	choose 	not 	to 	adopt 	the 	ALJ's
proposed 	decision as 	the 	decision 	of 	the 	Public 	Employment
Relations 	Board 	(PERB). itself.
Section 	3521 	of 	the 	Ralph 	C. 	Dills 	Act 	(Dills 	Act) 	provides
mandatory 	criteria 	for 	determining 	an 	appropriate 	unit1 and 	the
ALJ 	considered many 	statutory 	factors 	in 	reaching 	her 	decision.
However, 	the 	proposed 	pecision 	identifies 	one 	of 	the 	factors 	in a
manner 	which 	suggests 	that 	factor 	is 	to 	be 	given more 	weight 	than
the 	other 	statutory 	factors.
In describing 	the 	rationale 	for 	her 	conclusion, 	the 	ALJ
wrote 	in 	the 	proposed 	decision, 	at 	page 	33:
In 	reaching 	this 	conclusion, 	the 	overriding
consideration 	has 	been 	the 	practice 	... 	of 	AFSCME 	to
accommodate 	the 	interests 	of 	the 	pharmacy-related
classifications.
(Emphasis 	added.)
Although 	PERB 	has 	exercised 	great 	flexibility 	in 	past
decisions 	to 	weigh 	and•balance 	the 	various 	statutory 	criteria 	in
light 	of 	a 	particular 	set 	of 	facts, 	I 	would 	not 	want 	to 	give 	the
impression 	that 	the 	past 	bargaining 	history 	between a 	union and
the 	group 	seeking 	severance 	is 	the 	overriding 	consideration. 	In
many 	cases, 	it 	may be 	an 	important 	and 	even 	decisive 	factor;
however, 	in 	this 	case 	I 	believe 	that 	many 	of 	the 	other 	statutory
1See 	proposed 	decision, 	pp. 	24-25, 	citing 	the 	pertinent
portion 	of 	the 	statute.
3

criteria were 	equally 	important 	in deciding 	whether Unit 	19
remains 	an 	appropriate 	unit 	for 	the 	pharmacists, 	and 	the 	stated
rationale 	for 	the 	decision 	should 	reflect 	this.
Also, 	the 	proposed decision, 	at 	page 	32, 	refeis 	to 	a 	"public
policy, 	codified by 	statute, 	favoring.broad 	units." 	No 	statutory
citation was 	provided 	for 	this 	proposition. 	When a 	proposed
decision makes such 	a 	statement, 	it 	is 	helpful 	to 	provide 	a
citation 	to 	a 	statute, 	or 	to 	case 	law 	that 	supports 	such 	an
interpretation. 	It 	is 	likely 	that 	the 	ALJ meant 	to 	refer 	to
Dills 	Act 	section 	3521.(b) (5) , 2 but 	to 	characterize .that 	code
section as 	constituting 	a 	"codification" 	of 	"public policy"
"favoring board units" 	could 	set 	a 	precedent 	which 	I 	am 	reluctant
to 	do 	without 	more 	support 	and 	analysis.
2Section 	3521(b) (5) 	requires 	PERE.to 	consider:
[t]he 	impact 	on 	the 	meet 	and 	confer
relationship 	created by 	fragmentation 	of
employees 	or 	any proliferation of 	units 	among
the 	employees 	of 	the 	employer.
4

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT RELATION BOARD
STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA 	(DEPARTMENT OF
PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION),
Employer,
and
AMERICAN 	FEDERATION OF 	STATE, 	COUNTY
AND MUNICIPAL 	EMPLOYEES, 	LOCAL 	26'20,
Exclusive 	Representative,
and
GUILD 	FOR 	PROFESSIONAL 	PHARMACISTS,
Petitioner.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
,)
)
____________________ )
.Representation
Case 	No. 	S-S-129-S
PROPOSED DECISION
(4/16/93)
Appearances: 	Warren 	C. 	(Curt) 	Stracener, 	Labor 	Relations
Counsel, 	for 	State 	of 	California 	(Department 	of 	Personnel
Administration); 	Beeson, 	Tayer 	& Bodine 	by Joseph R. 	Colton,
Attorney, 	for 	the 	American 	Federation 	of 	State, 	County, 	and
Municipal 	Employees, 	Local 	2620 	(AFSCME); 	Posner 	& Rosen 	by
Michael 	Posner, 	Attorney, 	for 	the 	Guild 	for 	Professional
Pharmacists.
· Before 	Barbara 	E. 	Miller, 	Administrative 	Law Judge.
STATEMENT. OF THE 	CASE
The 'Guild 	for 	Professional 	Pharmacists 	(Guild 	or 	Petitioner)
requests 	that 	State 	employee 	bargaining 	unit 	1·9 	be 	separated 	into
two 	units. 	The 	Guild. contends 	that 	the 	unit, 	in 	its 	present
configuration, 	does 	not 	adequately 	satisfy 	the 	representational
rights 	of 	approximately 	172 	pharmacists.
The 	exclusive 	representative 	of 	the 	employees 	in unit 	19,
also 	identified 	as 	the 	Professional 	Health 	and 	Social 	Services
Unit, 	is 	the American 	Federation 	of 	State, 	County,· and Municipal
Employees 	(AFSCME 	or 	Local 	2620), 	which opposes 	the 	Petition.
This proposed decision has been appealed to the
Board itself and may not be cited as precedent
unless the decision and its rationale have been
adopted by the Board.

Similarly, 	the 	State 	of 	California 	(State), 	the 	employer 	of 	the
unit 	19 	work 	force, 	opposes 	division 	of 	the 	unit. 	Both AFSCME
and 	the 	State 	argue 	that 	the 	current 	unit 	of 	approximately 	3400
employees 	is 	appropriate 	as 	presently 	constituted and 	in 	fact 	is
more 	appropriate 	than 	two 	units, 	a 	separate 	unit 	of 	employees 	in
pharmacy-related 	classifications 	and a 	unit 	of 	the 	remaining
classifications.
AFSCME 	further 	maintains 	that 	it 	has 	effectively 	represented
the 	pharmacists 	and 	organized 	itself 	in 	such 	a 	way 	so 	as 	to
insure 	that 	classifications 	which have 	a 	small 	number 	of
incumbents 	are 	not 	underrepresented 	in 	terms 	of 	influence 	within
-the 	group 	as 	a 	whole.
PROCEDURAL 	HISTORY
On 	or 	about 	November 	7, 	1990, 	the 	Guild 	filed 	a 	severance
petition with 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(Board 	or
PERB). 	In 	response 	to 	the 	Petition and 	in 	a 	separate 	unfair
practice 	charge, 	identified as 	PERB 	Case 	No. 	S-CE-474-S, 	AFSCME
alleged 	that 	the 	State 	interfered with 	its 	rights 	by 	bypassing,
undermining 	and 	derogati~g 	the 	authority 	of 	the 	exclusive
representative 	and by 	providing managerial 	and/or 	supervisory
support 	to 	the 	Guild's 	severance 	efforts. 1
PERB's 	Division 	of 	Representation 	conducted an
investigation, 	an 	informal 	settlement 	conference, 	and 	commenced
the 	formal 	hearing 	on May 	2 	and 	3, 	1991, 	in San 	Francisco.
1The 	unfair practice 	complaint 	issued 	on March 	13, 	1991.
That 	action was 	placed 	in abeyance 	on December 12, 	1991, 	pending
the 	issuance 	of 	a 	proposed decision 	in 	the 	instant 	proceeding.
2

Ultimately, 	the 	case 	was 	reassigned 	to 	PERB's 	Division 	of
Administrative 	Law and 	the 	formal 	hearing 	was. reconvened 	in 	Los
Angeles 	on 	February 	3, 	1992, 	April 	13-15, 	1992, 	and April 	27-29,
1992, 	and 	in 	Sacramento 	on April 	30 	and May 	1, 	1992, 	and May 	26,
1992.
Each 	party 	to 	the 	proceeding 	requested 	substantial·
extensions 	of 	time 	for 	filing 	either 	opening 	or 	reply 	briefs.
Good 	cause 	having been 	shown 	for 	each 	such 	request, 	they 	were
granted. 	Accordingly, 	the 	case 	was 	not 	submitted 	for 	proposed
decision until 	December 	10, 	1992.
FINDINGS 	OF 	FACT
The 	Existing 	Unit 	and The 	Pharmacists
Unit 	19 	was 	constituted after a 	lengthy 	hearing 	by 	PERB 	to
determine 	the 	appropriate 	units 	for 	bargaining under 	the 	Ralph 	c.
Dills 	Act 	(Dills 	Act) . 2 	Classifications 	within unit 19 	and 	the
approximate 	number. of 	positions 	allocated 	to 	each 	classification
are 	set 	forth 	below:
Adoption 	Case Workers 	68
Chaplains 	· 	63
Child Nutrition 	Consultants 	19
Physical 	and 	Occupational 	Therapists 	60
Licensing 	Program Analysts 	361
Vocational 	Rehabilitation 	Counselors 	750
Audiologists 	10
Dieticians 	50
Social 	Workers 	800
Psychologists 	500
2At 	the 	time 	the 	unit 	was 	created, 	the 	collective 	bargaining
statute 	applicable 	to 	State 	employees 	was 	commonly 	referred 	to 	as
the 	State 	Employer-Employee 	Relations 	Act 	or SEERA. 	It 	is 	now
properly 	referred 	to 	as 	the 	Dills 	Act, 	and 	is 	codified beginning
at 	Government 	Code 	section 	3512 	et 	seq. 	Unless 	otherwise
indicated, 	all 	statutory 	references 	are 	to 	the 	Government 	Code.
3'

Rehabilitation 	Therapists 	500
Pharmacists 	172
Pharmacy-related 	classifications 	include 	Pharmacists,
Pharmaceutical 	Consultants 	I 	and 	II, 	and 	Board 	of 	Pharmacy
Inspectors.
Although 	the 	evidentiary hearing 	of 	this 	matter 	produced
little 	evidence 	of 	a 	dramatic 	change 	in 	circumstances 	since 	the
_determination 	of 	that 	unit, 	no 	group 	sought 	to 	represent 	the
pharmacists 	alone 	at 	that 	time. 	Accordingly, 	the ·Petition herein
has 	resulted 	in 	the 	development 	of 	evidence 	not 	hitherto
presented 	to 	either 	Board agents 	or 	the 	Board 	itself.
At 	the 	present 	time, 	there 	are 	six 	separate 	departments 	in
which 	pharmacists 	are 	employed. 	The 	Department 	of 	Developmental
Services 	(DDS) 	provides 	services 	to 	clients 	with 	developmental
disabilities. 	Facilities 	vary and may 	include 	long-term
residential, 	intermediate 	and 	acute 	care 	programs. 	There 	are
seven developmental 	facilities 	around 	the 	state, 	Agnews,
Camarillo, 	Fairview, 	Lanterman, 	Porterville, 	Sonoma, 	and 	Stockton
which 	employ 	59 	pharmacists 	who 	execute 	clinical, 	dispensing, 	and
manufacturing 	responsibilities.
Thirty-three 	pharmacists 	in unit 	19 	work 	for 	the 	Department
of 	Mental 	Health 	(DMH), 	which maintains 	five 	State 	hospitals
providing 	care .for patients 	with 	a 	variety 	of 	mental 	disorders
and 	illnesses 	who 	have 	been 	diagnosed 	as 	having 	acute, 	or
.chronic, 	severe 	behavioral 	problems. 	The 	hospitals 	are
Atascadero, 	Metropolitan 	(in 	Los 	Angeles 	County), 	Napa, 	Patton
Jand Vacaville. 	Camarillo 	State 	Developmental 	Center 	is
4

considered a 	"split" 	facility 	which 	is 	used both by DDS 	and DMH.
Like 	their 	counterparts 	employed by DDS, 	DMH pharmacists 	perform
clinical 	and 	dispensing 	functions.
Approximately 	33 	Pharmacists 	are 	employed at 	the 	Department
of 	Corrections 	(CDC) 	at 	20 	correctional 	facilities 	throughout 	the
state. 	Pharmacists 	working 	for 	CDC perform primarily 	dispensing
functions, 	although 	they may perform the 	clinical 	function 	of
conducting 	hospital 	rounds.
There 	are 	21 	Pharmaceutical 	Consultant 	I's 	and 	five
Pharmaceutical 	Consultant 	II's 	employed by 	the 	Department 	of
Health Services 	(DHS), 	which, 	as 	part 	of 	its 	responsibilities,
audits 	and 	investigates 	compliance 	with Medi-Cal 	program
requirements. 	The 	pharmaceutical 	consultants, 	on 	the 	lookout 	for
fraud 	and 	other violations 	of 	law 	or 	regulations, 	also 	approve
requests 	for 	drugs 	not 	on 	the 	State 	formulary. 	In 	addition, 	they
inspect 	hospitals 	to 	look 	for 	compliance 	with 	Title 	22
requirements.
Within 	the 	Department 	of 	Consumer Affairs, 	there 	are 	13
Board 	of 	Pharmacy 	Inspectors 	whose 	primary 	responsibilities 	are
to·monitor 	and 	investigate 	private 	and public 	pharmacies
throughout 	the 	state 	to 	ensure 	compliance with 	pharmacy and
related 	statutes.
The 	Department 	of 	Veterans 	Affairs 	(DVA) 	employs
approximately 	eight 	Pharmacists 	who 	work 	at 	DVA's 	single, 	long-
term 	care 	facility. 	They are 	primarily 	involved 	in 	the
dispensing 	pharmacy 	function.
5

All 	pharmacists, 	regardless 	of 	work 	location, 	have 	similar
education and 	training. 	They have 	ordinarily participated 	in
five~year 	education programs 	which 	include 	an 	internship
component. 	Like 	other 	employees 	in 	the 	unit, 	pharmacists 	possess
advanced 	degrees. 	Pharmacists 	must 	have 	their 	license 	renewed
every 	two 	years 	and 	a 	current 	distinction between pharmacists 	and
other members 	of 	the 	unit 	is 	that 	pharmacy 	license 	renewal .is
contingent 	upon 	completion 	of 	a 	minimum 30 	units 	of 	continuing
education.
In 	terms 	of 	on-the-job 	responsibilities, 	the 	interaction 	of
pharmacists 	with 	others 	in unit 	19 	ranges 	from modest 	to
virtually 	nonexistent. 	More 	than 	one-half 	the 	pharmacists 	in
unit 	19 	work 	for 	DDS 	or DMH where 	they work as 	either 	clinical 	or
dispensing 	pharmacists. 	Whether 	performing 	a 	clinical 	or a
dispensing 	function, 	pharmacists 	do 	not 	have 	the 	same 	chain 	of
command 	as 	other members 	of 	unit 	19. 	Most 	other 	unit 	19 	members
report 	to 	program directors; 	pharmacists 	do .not.
The 	description 	of 	the 	duties 	of 	a 	dispensing 	pharmacist 	are
set 	forth 	in 	the 	State's 	opening 	brief:
Dispensing 	duties 	generally 	involve 	the
preparation, 	manufacture, 	and 	distribution of
medication according 	to 	a 	specified medical
plan 	or prescription, 	as 	well 	as 	the
inspection 	and verification 	of 	inventory.
In 	hospitals 	or 	developmental 	centers
utilizing 	the 	"unit 	dose" 	system, 	Pharmacists
will 	fill 	cassettes 	designed 	to maintain a
24 	to 	48 	hour supply 	of 	medication 	for 	a
patient. 	The 	cassettes 	are.then 	delivered
to 	the 	appropriate 	patient 	care 	units 	or
residences ....
· 	.
6.

Pharmacists 	assigned 	to 	hospitals 	and
developmental 	centers 	utilizing 	the 	"ward
stock" 	system are 	responsible 	for 	maintaining·
a 	general 	supply 	of 	medications 	for 	patients
on a 	particular ward 	or 	unit. 	The 	medication
is 	stored at 	the 	nursing 	station on 	the 	ward
and medical 	staff 	are 	responsible 	for
dispensing 	the 	medication 	to 	individual
patients.
Whether 	using 	a 	unit 	dose 	system or 	a 	ward 	stock method,
dispensing 	pharmacists 	have 	little 	contact 	with 	other members 	of
bargaining 	unit 	19. 	Questions 	about 	medication appropriateness
are 	addressed 	to 	or 	proffered by doctors, 	nurses, 	or 	psychiatric
technicians, 	all 	of 	whom are 	in 	separate 	units. 	These
pharmacists 	have 	no 	direct 	client 	contact.
T_he 	physical 	space 	occupied by 	the 	pharmacy 	is 	distinct 	from
the 	residential 	units 	in 	the 	facility 	and 	is 	locked. 	Dispensing
pharmacists 	do 	not 	eat 	in 	common areas 	with 	other 	employees 	in
the 	unit 	and have 	no 	measurable 	on-the-job 	contact. 	Unlike 	many,
but 	not 	all, 	occupational 	groups 	in 	unit 	19, 	at 	least 	one
dispensing 	pharmacist 	is 	on duty 	all 	the .time 	and more 	than 	one
pharmacist 	may 	remain 	on 	call.
Clinical 	pharmacists 	have 	more 	contact 	with members 	of 	the
bargaining 	unit, 	even 	though a 	great 	deal 	of 	it 	may be 	indirect
contact, 	which 	results 	from 	reviewing 	patient 	notes, 	or working
in 	the 	same 	general 	area. 	Unlike 	most 	other 	unit 	19 	employees
who 	work 	in 	the 	clinical 	environment, 	pharmacists 	have 	little, 	or
no, 	direct 	client 	contact. 	The 	interpersonal 	skills 	required 	of
other unit 	members 	for 	effective 	client 	contact 	are 	not 	required
of 	pharmacists.
7

Ann McIntyre 	(McIntyre), 	a 	Pharmacist 	at 	the 	Sonoma
Developmental 	Center, 	testified 	that 	she might 	be 	assigned 	tasks
as 	either a 	dispensing 	or 	a 	clinical 	pharmacist. 	As 	a 	clinical
pharmacist, 	she 	has 	never attended 	interdisciplinary 	team
meetings, 	commonly 	identified 	in 	State 	service 	as 	IDT's, 	although
she 	did 	attend Drug 	Regimen 	Reviews, 	required by 	state 	and
federal 	regulations, 	which 	she 	described as 	psychotropic 	drug
review meetings. 3 	Such meetings 	are 	held 	once 	a 	month 	at 	her
facility, 	but 	primarily with doctors, 	nurses, 	and psychiatric
technicians, 	all 	individuals 	outside 	bargaining 	unit 	19. 	The
testimony 	of 	William Weisband 	(Weisband), 	also 	a 	pharmacist 	at
Sonoma, 	supports 	McIntyre. 	His 	testimony 	that 	his 	contact 	with
other unit 	members 	ranged 	from 	8-10 	hours 	per 	176 	hour month,
when 	he 	performed 	a 	clinical 	function, 	is 	credited.
The 	institutions 	vary 	but 	at 	all 	in-patient 	facilities,
IDT's 	are 	convened, 	with varying 	regularity. 	The 	teams 	discuss 	a
wide 	range 	of 	subjects, 	including 	patient 	diagnoses 	and 	treatment
plans, 	patient 	behavioral 	problems, 	and, 	where 	appropriate,
disposition 	plans 	for 	patients 	leaving 	the 	institution. 	Team
members 	ordinarily 	include 	a 	psychologist, 	a 	psychiatrist, 	and 	a
registered 	nurse 	or psychiatric 	technician. 	Dentists,
podiatrists, 	dieticians, 	other 	unit 	19 	members, 	and pharmacists
may 	be 	included depending 	on 	the 	needs 	of 	the 	patients, 	the
3Stephen Donoviel 	is 	the 	clinical 	director 	at 	Sonoma
Developmental 	Center. 	He 	testified 	that 	there 	were 	monthly
meetings 	of 	Drug 	Intervention 	Review Teams 	to 	discuss 	patients 	on
psychotropic 	drugs.
8

workload 	of 	the 	individual, 	or 	the 	approach 	of 	the 	concerned
management 	personnel. 	All 	IDT's 	formally 	meet 	at 	least 	once 	a
year 	for 	annual 	reviews. 	Some meet 	monthly 	or 	quarterly
depending 	on 	the 	needs 	of 	the 	institutions 	or patients, 	or
requirements 	of 	state 	and 	federal 	law. 	The· general 	trend, 	based
on 	the 	evidence 	presented, 	is 	that 	pharmacists 	are 	increasingly·
unlikely 	to 	participate 	in 	the 	IDT meetings.
More 	than 	22% 	of 	the 	members 	in 	the 	bargaining unit 	do 	not
perform either 	clinical 	or dispensing 	duties. 	Those 	individuals
work 	for 	the 	Department 	of 	Consumer Affairs 	or 	the 	Department 	of
Health 	Services. 	Unlike 	the 	pharmacists 	described above, 	they
have 	no 	relationship 	to 	institutionalized 	clients 	and 	no
functionally 	related work with 	other unit 	19 	members. 	Training,
education, 	pharmacy associations, 	and 	transfer 	and/or promotional
opportunities 	give 	them a 	bond with 	other pharmacists 	in unit 	19.
Although 	most 	of 	the 	evidence 	produced at 	the 	hearing
addressed 	the 	uniqueness 	of 	pharmacists, 	there 	was 	substantial
evidence 	on 	the 	ways 	in which 	pharmacists 	share 	common 	concerns
with 	other 	classifications 	in 	unit 	19. 	Travel 	reimbursement 	is
an 	issue 	of 	importance 	to 	both 	Pharmaceutical 	Consultants 	and
Board 	of 	Pharmacy 	Inspectors 	and 	it 	is 	also 	a 	concern 	for
Rehabilitation 	Counselors 	and 	Licensed 	Program Analysts.
Similarly, 	overtime, 	an 	issue 	to 	pharmacists 	who 	were 	required 	to
work nights 	and 	weekends 	was 	of 	concern 	to 	psychiatric 	social
workers 	and psychologists. 	Like 	other 	groups, 	pb,ey.rmacists 	also
.l:... 	.
had 	a 	deep 	concern 	regarding 	the 	employment 	of 	less 	skilled and
9

lower-paid 	technicians 	or 	interns, 	an 	issue 	referred 	to 	sometimes
as 	de-professionalization~
There 	are 	other 	groups 	in 	unit 	19 	which 	have 	sought
representational 	autonomy 	or which are 	fairly 	autonomous 	in 	terms
of 	their 	daily 	duties 	and 	responsibilities. 	The 	State
Psychologists 	in 	Public 	Service 	filed 	a 	severance 	petition with
PERB 	in November 	of 	199.0. 	The 	Petition was 	denied 	in 	State 	of
California 	(Department 	of 	Personnel 	Administration) 	(1993) 	PERB
Decision No. 	988-S.
At 	the 	hearing 	herein, 	Leonard 	Potash 	(Potash), 	an AFSCME
Council 	57 	staff 	representative 	responsible 	for 	unit 	19,
testified 	that 	Licensing 	Program Analysts, 	of 	which 	there 	are 	325
in 	the 	unit, 	are 	completely 	separate 	in 	terms 	of 	job 	functions
and 	on-the-job 	contacts 	from 	other.members 	of 	unit 	19. 	Licensing
Program Analysts 	work 	exclusively 	for 	the 	Department 	of 	Social
Services. 	Their 	job 	is 	to 	monitor 	community 	care 	facilities
which 	take 	care 	of 	the 	aged, 	the 	disabled 	and 	children. 	The
incumbents 	in 	that 	classification are 	employed 	in 	15 	different
district 	offices 	around 	the 	state.
AFSCME's 	Structure
AFSCME 	Local 	2620 	is 	part 	of 	AFSCME 	Council 	57, 	comprised 	of
more 	than 	30 	locals 	which, 	pursuant 	to AFSCME 	national 	policy,
band 	together 	in 	order 	to 	pool 	resources. 	AFSCME 	Local 	2620's
jurisdiction 	is 	limited 	to 	bargaining 	unit 	19, 	and Council 	57 	has
assigned 	two 	full-time 	representatives, 	Nancy 	Clifford 	(Clifford)
and 	Potash, 	and 	two 	part-time 	representatives, 	Kathing 	Widing 	and
10

Gene 	Stamm, 	to 	work 	with 	that 	local. 	Each 	of 	the 	aforementioned
field 	staff 	work 	out 	of 	different 	field 	offices at 	which 	they
have 	support 	staff 	also 	serving 	Local 	2620.
The 	Local 	2620 	Constitution provides 	that 	the 	Executive
Board 	is 	the 	highest 	body, 	except 	when 	the 	membership 	convenes 	a
convention. 	The 	Executive 	Board 	is 	comprised 	of 	an 	executive
committee 	with a 	president, 	southern and 	northern 	California
vice-presidents 	and 	secretary and 	treasurer. 	Chief 	stewards 	are
also members 	of 	the 	Executive 	Board. 	There 	is 	provision 	for 	a
chief 	steward 	from 	each 	of 	the 	11 	state 	hospitals 	and
developmental 	centers. 	There 	are 	also 	seven 	chief 	stewards 	from
geographic 	areas. 	In addition, 	there 	are 	seven 	standing
occupational 	committees 	which 	have 	representation 	on 	the
Executive 	Board. 	The 	seven 	groups 	are 	Rehabilitation 	Counselors,
Social 	Workers, 	Rehabilitation 	Therapists, 	State 	Psychologists,
Licensing 	Program Analysts, 	Pharmacists 	and 	Chaplains. 	The
AFSCME 	Local 	2620 	Constitution makes 	provision 	for 	occupational
committees. 	Article 	IX, 	Section 	1 provides:
An Occupational 	Committee 	shall 	function 	to
develop, 	coordinate, 	articulate 	and 	implement
the 	unique 	inte+ests 	and 	activities 	common 	to
work-related 	classifications. 	Membership 	on
such 	committees· shall 	be 	open 	to 	all 	members
in 	good 	standing 	in 	each 	related work
classification. 	The 	organizational 	structure
and 	program of 	each 	committee 	shall 	be
.determined by 	the 	committee 	itself. 	Each
committee 	shall 	submit 	a 	proposed 	budget 	to
the 	Executive 	Board and 	shall 	operate 	within
the 	fiscal 	constraints 	imposed by 	the
approved 	budget. 	The 	committees 	shall 	be
11

encouraged 	to meet 	locally, 	regionally 	and
statewide. 4
Section. 3 provides:
Each Occupational 	Committee 	shall 	have 	a
chairperson who 	will 	represent 	the 	committee
as 	a 	voting member 	of 	the 	executive 	board.
The 	chairperson 	shall 	be 	elected by all 	union
members 	in 	the 	work-related 	classification(s)
defined 	as 	the 	constituency 	of 	each
Occupational 	Committee. · 	·
Elections 	for 	any 	position 	on 	the 	Executive 	Board 	are 	held
every year, 	candidates 	can nominate 	themselves 	or be 	nominated 	by
others 	and 	eligible 	voters 	include 	Local 	2620 	members 	within 	the
constituent 	group. 5 	For 	example, 	Local 	2620 	members 	at
Metropolitan State 	Hospital 	could nominate 	and vote 	for 	the 	chief
steward 	from Metropolitan but 	they·would 	not 	also vote 	for 	the
chief 	steward 	from 	Los 	Angeles 	County. 	Pharmacists 	can 	also 	vote
for 	statewide 	offices 	and 	either 	the 	southern 	or 	northern vice-
president. 	They also vote 	for 	the 	chair 	of 	the 	Pharmacists
Occupational 	Committee 	(PHOC).
Historically, 	pharmacists 	have 	had 	representation 	on 	the
Executive 	Board beyond 	that 	of 	occupational 	committee 	chair.
Chuck Hoagland, 	a 	pharmacist, 	was 	northern vice-president 	in 	1990
and, 	although 	the 	record 	is 	not 	entirely 	clear, 	he 	was 	chief
4As 	stated 	in 	the 	Constitution, 	the 	structure 	and membership
of 	the 	pharmacy 	occupational 	committee 	itself 	is 	determined 	by
the 	pharmacists. 	When 	the 	committee 	was 	first 	formed 	in 	1987,
Beth Spiegel 	(Spiegel) 	its 	first 	chair, 	made. a 	specific 	proposal
for 	its 	organization and 	the 	way 	its 	meetings 	would 	be 	conducted.
Subsequent 	chairs 	changed 	the 	structure 	to 	meet 	changing 	needs.
For 	the 	most 	part, 	however, 	the 	changes were 	dictated 	by 	the
pharmacists 	themselves, 	not,by AFSCME. 	·
5Fair-share 	payers 	do 	not 	have 	voting 	rights.
12

steward 	from Napa 	State 	Hospital 	for 	one 	or 	two 	years 	before
that. 	Alden 	Shearer, 	a 	pharmacist 	from 	Porterville, 	also 	served
in 	the 	capacity 	of 	chief 	steward 	from 	his 	area.
In 	addition 	to 	the 	system 	for 	chief 	stewards, 	there 	are 	aiso
stewards 	for 	work 	sites, 	the 	numbers 	depending 	on 	the 	size 	or
organizational 	complexity 	of 	the 	site. 	Whether 	those 	stewards
are 	responsible 	for 	physical 	areas 	or 	occupational 	groupings 	is
decided 	by 	employees 	at 	the 	site 	itself. 	Stewards 	handle 	day-to-
day 	contract 	administration 	issues 	and 	act 	as 	conduits 	for
information 	from AFSCME 	to 	members 	of 	the 	unit 	and vice-versa.
Stewards, 	chief 	stewards 	and 	occupational 	committee
representatives 	are 	given 	training, 	most 	recently a 	two-day
program, 	on 	grievance 	handling 	and 	negotiations. 	Stewards 	also
receive 	training 	or get 	an 	ongoing 	education at 	the· monthly
stewards' 	council 	meetings. 	The 	Council 	57 	staff 	representatives
provide 	back-up 	to 	the 	stewards 	and, 	for 	more 	complex matters,
get 	directly 	involved 	themselves.
Local 	2620 	also 	has 	two 	appeal 	and 	arbitration 	committees,
one 	for 	northern and 	one 	for 	southern 	California. 	These
committees 	decide 	whether 	to 	process 	certain grievances 	or
appeals. 	In addition, 	if 	anyone 	in unit 	19 	believes 	he/she 	is
not 	getting 	adequate 	representation 	or 	is 	denied 	representation,
the 	committee 	has 	jurisdiction 	to 	review 	the 	matter and 	take
remedial 	action. 	At 	the 	time 	of 	the 	hearing, 	one 	of 	the 	five
members 	of 	the 	northern appeal 	and 	arbitration 	committee 	was
Martin 	Levine, 	a 	Board 	of 	Pharmacy 	Inspector. 	There 	was 	no
13

evidence 	regarding 	whether 	or not 	employees 	in pharmacy 	related
classifications 	had 	filed 	appeals 	with 	the 	above-described
committee. 6
Since 	1987, 	the 	chair 	of 	PHOC 	has 	been a 	member 	of 	the
negotiating 	team. 7 	In 	1982, 	a 	pharmacist 	was 	an 	alternate 	on 	the
team. 	In 	1984, 	a 	pharmacist 	was 	a 	liaison, 	and 	in 	1985, 	there
was 	a 	pharmacist 	on 	the 	team as 	an 	expert 	witness 	and 	one 	who
served 	as 	a 	liaison. 	The 	team 	ordinarily had 	10 	to 	11 	members,
with 	the 	president, 	northern 	and 	southern vice-presidents 	and 	the
staff 	representative 	taking 	four 	of 	the 	slots.
In 	addition 	to 	the 	structure 	described above, 	AFSCME 	has
instituted a 	program 	for 	getting 	information 	from 	individual
members 	of 	the 	unit, 	who 	are AFSCME members, 	about 	issues 	of
importance. 	One 	vehicle 	is 	a 	membership 	survey which 	is 	sent 	out
prior 	to 	collective 	bargaining 	negotiations. 	It 	covers 	every
item 	in 	the 	contract 	and 	has 	space 	for 	the 	member 	to 	give
individual 	or 	class 	feedback. 	During 	contract 	negotiations,
AFSCME 	regularly publishes 	and 	distributes 	information 	to 	its
membership. 	For 	example, 	in 	1988, 	from April 	18 	through
6There 	was 	evidence 	that 	AFSCME 	had 	represented 	one
pharmacist 	who 	filed 	numerous 	grievances 	but 	no 	evidence 	it 	had
failed 	to 	pursue 	contract 	grievances 	concerning 	pharmacists.
7In 	1991, 	before 	the 	completion 	of ·negotiations, 	Nancy Avery
(Avery), 	for 	reasons 	which 	were 	never made 	clear, 	resigned 	from
her 	position as 	chair 	of 	PHOC 	and 	from 	the 	negotiating 	team. 	She
was 	not 	replaced. 	Although 	the 	Guild points 	to 	this 	as 	evidence
of 	ways 	in which 	their 	rights 	were 	not 	adequately protected, 	the
undersigned 	has 	concluded 	that 	the 	failure 	or 	inability 	to 	find 	a
committed 	replacement 	for 	Avery 	had more 	to 	do with 	the 	attitudes
of 	the 	potential 	candidates 	due 	to 	the 	pendency 	of 	this 	proceed-
ing 	than 	to AFSCME's 	willingness 	to 	provide 	representation.
14

September 	6, 	10 	bulletins 	were 	sent 	out 	on 	the 	progress 	at 	the
table.
The 	PH.OC 	also 	conducted 	surveys 	in 	preparation 	for
negotiations. 	For 	example, 	in 	1990, 	in 	preparation 	for 	1991
negotiations, 	AFSCME 	sent 	out 	a 	multi-page 	questionnaire 	to 	all
pharmacists. 	It 	requested 	information about 	the 	physical 	plant,
the 	age 	of 	the 	personnel, 	recruitment 	and 	retention problems,
hours, 	and 	other working.conditions. 	Although 	the 	PHOC 	developed
the 	survey, 	it 	was 	edited and put 	in 	final 	form by 	Clifford, 	who
facilitated 	distribution. 	Similarly, 	a 	PHOC 	salary survey was
distributed 	under AFSCME's 	auspices.
Bargaining 	History and AFSCME 	Representation
AFSCME 	is 	the 	only 	organization 	to 	represent 	unit 	19 	since
its 	creation. 	The 	State 	and AFSCME 	have 	entered 	into 	five
collective 	bargaining 	agreements. 	AFSCME 	maintains 	that 	a 	number
of 	those 	agreements 	contained provisions 	which 	were 	of 	benefit 	to
pharmacy-related 	classifications.
Potash 	identified 	the 	following 	gains 	of 	particular 	concern
to 	pharmacists: 	the 	1982-84 	contract 	provided .for a 	minimum 	four
hours 	of 	callback pay 	and 	employees 	were 	granted 	one 	hour 	of 	pay
for 	each 	eight 	hours 	of 	standby 	time; 	effective April .1, 	1984,
agreement 	was 	reached 	for 	a 	5% 	realignment 	for 	Pharmacist 	I 	and 	a
10% 	realignment 	for 	Board 	of 	Pharmacy 	Inspectors; 	the 	1984-85
contract 	provided 	for 	two 	hours 	of 	pay·for 	eight 	hours 	of 	standby
time, 	license 	renewal 	fees 	were 	reimbursed, 	and 	some 	provision
was 	made 	for 	continuing 	education and 	training; 	the 	1985-87
15

contract 	provided 	a 	5% 	special 	adjustment 	for 	Pharmaceutical
Consultant 	I's, 	Pharmacist 	I 	and 	Board 	of 	Pharmacy 	Inspectors.
The 	same 	contract 	provided 	that 	a 	study would be 	done 	to 	consider
adding 	Pharmacist 	I's 	and 	Board 	of 	Pharmacy 	Inspectors 	to 	the
State's 	Safety Retirement 	System; 	the 	1987-88 	contract 	provided
for 	one 	hour 	of 	pay 	for ·four hours 	of 	standby 	ti~e; 	and, 	the
1988-91 	contract 	expressly provided 	for 	the 	right 	of 	pharmacists
to volunteer 	for 	vacancies 	on particular 	shifts. 	The 	matters 	set
forth 	above 	were 	in addition 	to 	general 	provisions 	for 	across-
the-board 	salary 	increases 	or matters 	of 	general 	benefit 	to 	all
members 	of 	the 	unit.
The 	testimony 	elicited 	from 	the 	pharmacist 	witnesses 	during
the 	course 	of 	this 	protr.acted proceeding make 	clear 	that 	they
believed 	their 	interests 	were 	not 	adequately 	represented by
AFSCME. 	The 	Guild 	argues.that, 	notwithstanding AFSCME's
organizational 	scheme, 	intended 	to 	offset 	the 	limitaticins caused
by 	the 	relatively 	small 	number 	of 	pharmacists, 	in 	reality, 	their
rights 	were 	trampled by 	the 	majority. 	There 	is 	no 	question 	that
pharmacists 	did 	not 	always 	get 	the 	result 	they 	wanted 	with
respect 	to 	contract 	negotiations 	or with 	respec~ 	to 	problems 	or
questions 	which 	arose 	during 	the 	term of 	the 	contracts.
There 	is 	also 	no 	doubt 	that, 	from 	time 	to 	time, 	there 	were
communications 	breakdowns, 	when messages 	were 	either 	not
delivered 	or not 	understood. 	Those 	facts, 	however, 	do 	not
necessarily 	lead 	to 	the 	conclusion 	that AFSCME 	was 	derelict 	in
16

its 	duty 	to 	represent. 	A review 	of 	a 	number 	of 	"incidents"
focused 	on 	during 	the 	course 	o{_the 	hearing 	is 	appropriate.
1. 	Salary 	Inequities 	and 	1988 	Contract 	Negotiations
During 	the 	course 	of 	AFSCME 	negotiations 	with 	the 	State, 	it
was 	fairly 	commonplace 	for 	occupational 	committees 	to make 	salary
realignment 	proposals. 	The 	phrase 	"salary 	realignment", 	as 	used
herein, 	means 	an 	adjustment 	to 	salary 	rates, 	other 	than 	through
an 	across-the-board 	increase, 	which 	brings 	the 	occupational 	group
either 	in 	closer,alignment 	with 	similarly 	situated professionals
in 	the 	private 	sector 	or 	other public 	service, 	which makes
adjustments 	within 	State 	service 	because 	of 	changes 	in 	duties 	and
responsibilities, 	or which 	otherwise 	adjusts 	the 	salary rates 	so.
that 	the 	classification 	in question 	is 	more 	equitably 	aligned
with 	other 	classifications.
Historically, 	salary 	realignment 	proposals 	for 	employees
within 	a 	particular occupational 	group 	have 	been made 	by 	that
occupational 	group 	and 	thereafter 	carried 	or pursued by 	the
AFSCME 	negotiating 	team. 	In 	1988, 	although 	the 	PHOC 	and 	its
chairperson, 	Beth 	Spiegel 	(Spiegel)', 	believed a 	salary
realignment 	was 	necessary 	and 	appropriate 	for 	the 	pharmacy
classifications, 	they made 	a 	tactical 	decision 	not 	to 	make 	a
proposal. 	Spiegel 	and members 	of 	the 	committee 	apparently
concluded 	that 	the 	environment 	for 	negotiations 	would be 	improved
in 	1989, 	when 	they 	anticipated a 	change 	in 	the 	executive 	branch
17

of 	State 	government. 8 	Had 	a 	realignment 	proposal 	been made,
there 	is 	no 	dispute 	that 	it 	would 	have 	been advanced 	by 	the
AFSCME 	negotiating 	committee.
Sometime 	late 	in 	the 	negotiations 	process, 	the 	State
proposed 	a 	three-year agreement. 	The 	multi-year package 	included
across-the-board 	salary 	increases 	beyond 	the 	first 	year. 	After
due 	cons_ideration, 	a 	majority 	of 	the AFSCME 	team wanted 	to 	accept.
it. 	According 	to 	Potash, 	"the 	negotiating 	team made 	the 	decision
that 	it 	was 	to 	the 	Unit's 	advantage 	to 	get 	everything 	they 	could
in 	a 	multi-year agreement."
Although 	the 	testimony 	from no 	source 	was 	entirely 	clear, 	it
is 	apparent 	that 	the 	pharmacists 	wanted 	to 	submit 	a 	counter-
proposal 	on 	the 	issue 	of 	pharmacists' 	salary 	realignment. 	Other
occupational 	groups 	had 	also, 	for 	their 	own 	reasons, 	not
submitted a 	proposal 	for 	the 	one-year 	contract~ 	Other 	issues 	the
entire 	team 	considered 	important 	had 	not 	been 	advanced 	as 	a
result 	of 	tactical 	or 	other 	considerations. 	Outside 	the 	formal
negotiations 	arena, 	AFSCME 	negotiators 	did 	ask State
representatives 	how 	the 	pharmacists' 	proposal 	would be 	viewed.
They were 	told 	it 	would 	not 	be 	productive 	and 	thereafter made 	a
decision, 	as 	a 	group, 	not 	to 	advance 	the 	pharmacists' 	demands.
~piegel 	testified 	that 	her 	strategic 	decision was 	based
upon 	the 	assumption 	that 	the 	parties 	would 	continue what 	she
thought 	was 	a 	well-established 	practice 	of 	only 	entering 	into
one-year 	agreements. 	Although 	a 	one-year 	agreement 	is 	what 	was
originally on 	the 	table 	in 	1988, 	the 	parties 	had 	in 	fact 	entered
into 	prior multi-year agreements; 	one 	year 	contracts 	were 	not 	the
norm.
18

2. 	Recruitment 	and 	Retention Differentials
Pharmacists 	also 	expressed 	concern 	about 	AFSCME's 	alleged
failure 	to 	act 	as 	a 	strong 	advocate 	with 	respect 	to 	their
perceived 	need 	for 	recruitment 	and 	retention 	incentives 	at 	some
of 	the 	facilities 	which 	employ pharmacists. 	Recruitment 	and
retention 	differentials 	are, 	theoretically, 	advantageous 	to 	the
State when 	its 	normal 	recruitment 	techniques 	do 	not 	produce 	an
adequate 	applicant 	pool. 	If 	implemented, 	it 	makes 	additional
money 	available 	for 	salary 	in 	locations 	where 	State 	salaries 	are
simply 	not 	competitive.
According 	to AFSCME 	witnesses, 	the 	State 	has 	promoted 	the
use 	of 	such 	incentives. 	AFSCME 	has 	not 	been enthusiastic 	about
including 	such 	incentives 	in 	collective 	bargaining 	contracts 	as 	a
trade-off 	for 	something 	else, 	because 	the 	incentive 	has 	in 	fact
been 	paid 	just 	once. 	Moreover, 	AFSCME 	took 	the 	position 	that 	the
incentives 	should be 	available 	for 	the 	entire 	classification at
all 	locati6ns.
In 	any 	event, 	a 	controversy 	did 	arise 	because 	some
pharmacists 	believed 	that 	AFSCME 	was 	not 	advancing 	their 	cause.
AFSCME 	representatives 	knew 	that 	employees 	at 	Metropolitan State
Hospital 	wanted 	recruitment 	and 	retention and, 	along 	with
management, 	had 	directly 	petitioned 	the 	Department 	of 	Personnel
Administration 	(DPA). 	DPA had 	contacted AFSCME 	because 	it 	had 	an
interest 	in permitting 	the 	incentives 	at 	Patton State 	Hospital.
AFSCME, 	believing 	the 	problem with pharmacists' 	recruitment 	was
not 	site 	specific, 	wanted 	to 	reopen 	the 	contract 	and add 	the
19

entire 	classification. 	Management 	was 	not 	interested 	in 	that
proposal.
Certain management 	representatives 	allegedly 	encouraged 	the
belief 	that 	AFSCME 	was 	not 	willing 	to 	go 	to 	bat 	for 	its 	pharmacy
members, 	a 	view adopted by 	the 	Guild as 	further 	evidence 	of
AFSCME's 	failure 	to 	properly 	represent 	pharmacists. 	This 	issue
is 	a 	red-herring. 	Like 	others 	raised 	in 	the 	proceeding, 	it
evidences 	not 	difficulty 	with 	the 	actual 	representation, 	but 	the
perception 	of 	such 	representation.
The 	1991-1992 	Collective 	Bargaining Agreement 	contains 	the
recruitment 	and 	retention 	differential 	sought 	by 	the 	pharmacists.
AFSCME 	adequately 	explained 	its 	failure 	to 	get 	it 	earlier. 	What
AFSCME 	did 	fail 	to 	do 	is 	communicate 	with 	the 	pharmacists, 	in a
way 	they 	could 	understand, 	the 	problems 	with pursuing 	the 	issue
in 	the 	way 	the 	pharmacy advocates 	may 	have 	preferred.
3 • 	Continuing·Education and 	Other 	Issues
In 	her 	testimony, 	Spiegel 	identified a 	number 	of 	issues
which 	the 	pharmacists 	believe 	did 	not 	get 	appropriate 	attention
because 	of 	their 	relative 	numerical 	importance 	within 	the 	unit.
At 	one 	point, 	AFSCME, 	with 	Spiegel's 	support, 	put 	forward 	a
proposal 	for 	education 	and 	training. 	When 	the 	State 	rejected 	the
proposal, ·AFSCME 	backed down 	and 	settled 	for 	something 	Spiegel
viewed 	as 	less 	advantageous 	to 	pharmacists.
In 	1988, 	the 	year 	of 	the 	previously 	discussed multi-year
agreement, 	the 	State 	was 	willing 	to 	give 	a 	special 	increase 	to
occupational 	therapists 	and 	dance 	and 	art 	therapists. 	The
20

chair 	of 	the 	Rehabilitation 	Therapists 	Occupational 	Committee,
which 	included 	all 	three 	classifications 	being 	offered
realignment, 	suggested 	that 	the 	money 	for 	the 	occupational
therapists 	be 	spread 	over 	the 	unit 	membership 	as 	a 	whole. 	Over
SpiegeP s 	objection, 	the 	money was 	not 	given 	to 	the 	specialized
group. 	Thus, 	her 	position was 	not 	adopted and 	she.was 	given what
she 	took 	as 	evidence 	of 	the 	treatment 	accorded 	to 	smaller
populations 	within 	the 	unit. 	In 	reality, 	the 	representative 	of
the 	therapists 	thought 	it 	was 	in 	the 	long-term 	interest 	of 	all 	to
evenly. distribute 	the 	money, 	particularly 	since,, the 	physical
therapists 	already 	received 	compensation 	5-10% 	higher 	than 	others
in 	their 	occupational 	category.
Several 	years 	after 	Spiegel's 	tenure 	as 	PHOC 	chairperson,
conflict 	exist~d between AFSCME 	and 	some 	of 	the 	pharmacists 	over
the 	resignation 	of 	Nancy Avery 	as 	chairperson 	in August 	1991.
The 	evidence 	suggests 	that 	the 	tension between pharmacists
seeking 	severance 	and 	others 	in 	the 	unit 	may 	have 	contributed 	to
Avery's 	resignation. 	Avery 	told 	Clifford 	she 	felt 	betrayed by
the 	pharmacists; 	there 	were 	people 	she 	had 	r,elied 	upon 	as
rresources 	and 	they 	had gone 	and 	signed 	the 	severance 	petition.
Avery 	also 	confided 	in 	Clifford 	that 	there 	were 	matters 	going 	on
in 	her 	personal 	life 	which might 	conflict 	with 	her 	duties 	as 	PHOC
chair. 	In 	any 	event, 	in 	early August, 	Avery announced 	to 	the
bargaining 	team 	that 	she 	was 	resigning. 	She 	stated 	she 	was 	being
pulled 	in 	too 	many 	directions 	in 	her personal 	life 	and 	that 	the
group WqS 	too 	inefficient.
21

According 	to 	Clifford, 	pharmacists 	were 	contacted 	throughout
the 	state 	and 	no 	one 	expressed an 	interest 	in 	replacing Avery.
The 	matter 	was 	not 	vigorously pursued 	at 	the 	time 	because
negotiations were 	about 	to 	conclude. 	Not 	long 	thereafter, 	there
were 	elections 	for AFSCME 	officers 	and 	no 	one 	stepped 	forward 	to
fill 	the 	position 	of 	PHOC 	chair. 	Clifford 	testified 	that
attempts 	were 	made 	to 	continue 	to 	communicate via 	newsletter,
organizational 	networking, 	and 	telephone 	with 	the 	pharmacists.
There 	is 	no 	reason 	or.evidence 	to 	dispute 	Clifford's 	assertions,
al though 	there 	is 	evidenc.e 	that 	various 	pharmacists 	did 	not·
consider 	the 	communications 	sufficiently 	effective 	to 	keep 	them
informed.
Another 	issue 	involves 	the 	contracting 	out 	of 	pharmacy work.
Dr. 	Bob 	Blair. (B],air), 	a 	Pharmacist 	I 	employed by 	the 	Department
of 	Corrections 	at 	the 	San 	Luis 	Obispo Men's 	Colony 	Facility,
s·poke 	to 	and 	sent 	a 	letter 	to 	Clifford 	concerning 	the 	improper
contracting 	out 	of 	pharmacy 	services, 	a 	practice 	which was 	being
threatened at 	his 	work 	site 	and was 	apparently already 	taking
place 	elsewhere 	in 	State 	service. 	Blair 	testified 	that 	Clifford
did 	not 	properly 	communicate 	with 	him 	regarding 	what 	actions, 	if
any, 	she 	had 	taken, 	and 	he 	suggested 	that 	AFSCME 	had 	failed 	to
take 	any 	action.
Clifford 	testified 	that 	she 	followed 	through, 	with 	~elephone
calls 	and 	eventually with 	a 	letter 	to 	Warren Schwegel 	at 	the
State 	Personnel 	Board. 	In 	the 	letter, 	Clifford protested 	the
contracting 	out 	of 	services 	at 	institutions 	which 	were 	listed 	in
22

an 	attachment, 	she 	demanded an 	investigation, 	claimed 	the
contracts 	were 	not 	in 	compliance 	with 	State 	regulations, 	and
requested 	the 	termination 	of 	all 	contracts 	which were 	not 	in
compliance. 	Almost 	simultaneously, 	Kathy Widing, 	Clifford's 	co-
worker wrote 	a 	letter 	to 	Dorothy Allen, 	the 	Labor 	Relations
Analyst 	with 	the 	Department 	of Mental 	Health, 	protesting 	the
contracting 	out 	of 	services 	and demanding 	meet 	and 	confer·
·sessions 	regarding 	the 	impact 	of 	any 	such 	contracting 	out.
Based upon 	the 	documentary 	evidence, 	it 	is 	clear 	that 	Clifford
did 	follow 	through 	as 	she 	told 	Blair 	she 	would.
Proliferation 	of 	Units
Throughout 	the 	hearing, 	there 	was 	much 	talk, 	and 	little
concrete 	evidence 	regarding 	the 	consequences 	of 	creating 	a
separate 	unit 	of 	pharmacists. 	State 	witnesses 	testified
regarding 	the 	burdens 	such 	a 	unit 	would 	impose 	upon 	State
resources.
The 	evidence 	that 	the 	granting 	of 	this 	severance 	petition
would 	be 	unduly 	burdensome 	was 	not 	persuasive. 	Calculations
about 	the 	amount 	of 	extra work, 	training 	and 	expense 	which would
go 	into 	the 	negotiation and 	administration 	of 	an 	additional
collective 	bargaining 	agreement 	was 	speculative, 	at·best.
The real 	concern 	is 	what 	would 	happen 	to 	the 	State's 	labor
relations 	program 	if, 	based upon 	standards 	established 	for
severance 	in 	this 	proceeding, 	other 	occupational 	groups 	were
successful 	in 	their 	bids 	to 	become 	separate 	bargaining 	units.
23

That. theoretical 	question, 	as 	well 	as 	the 	appropriate 	standards
to 	be 	applied, 	are 	properly 	left 	for 	the 	discussion below.
The 	Guild 	for 	Professional 	Pharmacists
The 	Guild 	for 	Professional 	Pharmacists 	is 	an 	established
organization 	representing 	pharmacists 	and 	radiopharmacists 	in 	the
public 	and 	private 	sector. 	Ralph Vogel, 	its 	executive 	director
and president, 	is 	the 	only 	full-time 	employee 	of 	the 	Guild 	but
three 	pharmacists 	work 	for 	the 	Guild 	on a 	part-time 	basis. 	The
Guild 	is 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	of 	units 	of 	pharmacists 	for
Los 	Angeles 	County, 	Fedco 	Professional 	Pharmacies, 	Kaiser
Permanente 	in Southern 	California, 	Kaiser 	Permanente 	in 	Northwest
Region, 	Saven Drugs 	in 	the 	Southern 	California 	area, 	and 	Farmer
Jack 	Pharmacies 	in Detroit, 	Michigan.
No 	other 	information was 	provided about 	the 	manner 	in which
the 	Guild 	carries 	out 	its 	representational 	function., 	the 	nature
of 	the 	organization, 	or 	the 	complexity 	of 	the 	companies 	with
which 	the 	Guild 	has 	collective 	bargaining 	contracts 	or
relationships.
ISSUE
Should 	the 	proposed 	unit 	of 	Pharmacists, 	Board 	of 	Pharmacy
Inspectors, 	and 	Pharmaceutical 	Consultants 	be 	severed 	from
existing 	unit 	19?
DISCUSSION
Section 	3521 	of 	the 	Dills 	Act 	sets 	forth 	the 	following
criteria 	to 	be 	considered 	in determining 	an 	appropriate 	unit:
(b) (1) 	The 	internal 	and 	occupational
community 	of 	interest 	among 	the 	employees,
24

including, 	but 	not 	limited 	to, 	the 	extent 	to
which 	they perform 	functionally 	related
services 	or work 	toward 	established 	common
goals; 	the 	history 	of 	employee 	representation
in 	state 	government 	and 	in 	similar
employment; 	the 	extent 	to 	which 	the 	employees
have 	common 	skills, 	working 	conditions, 	job
duties, 	or 	similar 	educational 	or 	training
requirements; 	and 	the 	extent 	to 	which 	the
employees 	have ·common 	supervision.
(2) 	The 	effect 	that 	the 	projected unit 	will
have 	on 	the 	meet 	and 	confer 	relationships,
emphasizing 	the 	availability 	and 	authority 	of
employer 	representatives 	to 	deal 	effectively
with 	employee 	organizations 	representing 	the
unit, 	and 	taking 	into 	account 	such 	factors 	as
work 	location, 	the 	numerical 	size 	of 	the
unit, 	the 	rela~ionship 	of 	the 	unit 	to
organizational 	patterns 	of 	the 	state
government, 	and 	the 	effect 	on 	the 	existing
classification 	structure 	or 	existing
classification 	schematic 	of 	dividing 	a 	single·
class 	or 	single 	classification 	schematic
among 	two 	or more 	units.
(3) 	The 	effect 	of 	the 	proposed 	unit 	on
efficient 	operations 	of 	the 	employer and 	the
comp'atibility of 	the 	unit 	with 	the
responsibility 	of 	state 	government 	and 	its
employees 	to 	serve 	the 	public.
(4) 	The 	number 	of 	employees 	and
classifications 	in 	a 	proposed unit 	and 	its
effect 	on 	the 	operations 	of 	the 	employer, 	on
the 	objectives 	of 	providing 	the 	employees 	the
right 	to 	effective 	representation, 	and 	on 	the
meet 	and 	confer 	relationship.
(5) 	The 	impact 	on 	the 	meet 	and 	confer
relationship 	created by 	fragmentation 	of
employees 	or 	any proliferation 	of 	units 	among
the 	employees 	of 	the 	employer.
When 	unit 	19 	was 	created, 	the 	Board made 	the 	following
findings:
The 	Board 	finds 	that 	a 	professional 	health
and 	social 	services 	unit 	is 	appropriate. 	The
unit 	contains 	approximately 	3,700 	employees
in 	160 	classifications. 	It 	is 	found 	that
25
L

employees 	in 	this 	unit 	have 	a 	strong
community 	of 	interest, 	common goals 	and
skills 	and 	interrelated 	functions.
These· employees 	also 	possess 	advanced
educational 	qualifications 	and 	skills 	and
typically 	require 	licensure, 	certification 	or
credentialing. 	Most 	employees 	perform
similar 	functions 	focusing 	on 	evaluation and
assessment 	of 	client 	needs, 	client 	counseling
and 	consultation, 	or 	client 	follow-up
services 	of 	a 	health, 	social 	or 	employment
nature. 	Some 	employees 	plan, 	organize 	and
coordinate 	programs 	while 	others, 	such ·as 	the
pharmacists 	or 	the 	hearing 	and vision 	.
specialists, 	concentrate 	on 	a 	single 	area 	of
expertise. 	Yet 	these 	varied 	occupations 	work
toward 	the 	common 	established goals 	of
assisting 	the 	whole 	person 	to 	achieve 	a
satisfying and 	self-sufficient 	life.
The 	Board 	has 	not 	divided 	the 	schematic
classifications 	of 	employees, 	such as 	social
workers, 	who 	work 	in various 	settings, 	such
as 	hospitals, 	offices 	and 	in 	the 	community.
Instead 	the 	Board 	focuses 	on 	the 	large 	extent
to 	which 	employees 	in 	all 	locations 	render
functionally 	related 	services, 	coordinate 	the
delivery 	of 	services, 	have 	frequent 	contact
and 	share 	common 	skills, 	working 	conditions
and 	duties. 	It 	would 	not 	be 	unusual 	for 	a
client 	in 	the 	course 	of 	her/his 	treatment 	to
have 	contact 	with 	a 	wide 	variety 	of 	employees
in 	this 	unit. 	To 	disregard 	this 	inherent
community 	of 	interest 	would ·result 	in a
proliferation 	of 	units 	and 	fragment
employees, 	and 	would 	thereby 	have 	a
detrimental 	impact 	on 	the·employer-employee
meet 	and 	confer 	relationship.
There 	is 	no 	doubt 	that 	in 	its 	decision, 	the 	Board 	recognized 	that
pharmacy-related 	classifications 	were 	not 	exactly 	like 	other
classifications 	in 	the 	unit. 	The 	difficulty presented herein 	is
that 	the 	Board's 	discussion 	appears 	to 	embrace 	those 	pharmacists
whose 	work 	is 	carried 	out 	in hospitals 	and 	institutions 	as
distinguished 	from 	those 	pharmacists 	filling 	positions 	in 	the
26

classifications 	of 	Pharmaceutical 	Consultant 	I 	and 	II 	and 	Board
of 	Pharmacy 	Inspectors.
It 	is 	noteworthy 	that 	approximately 	22% 	of 	the 	employees 	in
pharmacy-related 	classifications 	have 	no 	functional 	working
relationships 	with 	the 	balance 	of 	the 	unit. 	Their 	job 	duties,
their 	reporting 	relationships, 	their working 	conditions, 	and
their 	geographic 	locations 	are 	qualitatively 	different 	from 	those
of 	all 	unit 	members, 	including 	pharmacists, 	who 	work 	with
institutionalized patients, 	veterans, 	or prison 	inmates. 	As
noted 	above, 	these 	classifications 	do·have 	common 	education,
training; 	skills, 	and 	transfer 	and promotional 	qpportunities
which 	tie 	them 	to 	other pharmacists, 	but 	not 	other members 	of
unit 	19. 	In 	terms 	of 	some 	of 	the 	unit 	determination 	criteria, 	it
is 	concluded 	that 	it 	would 	be more· appropriate 	to 	include 	these
pharmacists 	in a 	unit 	of 	pharmacy-related 	classifications_ rather
than 	in 	the 	broad unit 	of 	Professional 	Health and 	Social
Services. 	Analysis 	of 	this 	22%, 	however, 	does 	not 	end 	the
inquiry.
Since 	the 	initial 	establishment 	of 	the 	20 	state 	units, 	the
Board 	has 	considered 	relatively few 	requests 	to 	alter 	those
units. 	In 	State 	of 	California 	(Department 	of 	Personnel
Administration) 	(1990) 	PERB Decision No. 	794-S, 	the 	Board held
th~t 	for 	severance 	to 	be 	appropriate, 	the 	proposed unit 	must 	be,
after 	consideration 	of 	all 	the 	factors, 	more 	appropriate 	than 	the
existing 	unit. 	That 	standard was 	affirmed with 	respect 	to 	the
psychologists 	in unit 	19 	in 	State 	of 	California 	(Department 	of
27

Personnel 	Administration). 	supra, 	PERB 	Decision No. 	988-S. 	In an
earlier 	case, 	State 	of 	California 	(Department 	of 	Personnel
Administration) 	(19 89) 	PERB 	Decision No. 	773-S, 	the. Board
dismissed a _petition 	to 	sever 	a 	group 	of 	employees 	from
bargaining 	unit 	7. 	The 	Board 	accepted 	the 	findings 	of 	the
administrative 	law 	judge 	(ALJ) 	to 	the 	effect 	that 	the 	law
enforcement 	personnel 	for 	whom severance 	was 	sought.shared a
certain 	community 	of 	interest 	with personnel 	excluded 	from 	the
proposed unit. 	The 	Board held:
The 	ALJ 	found 	that, 	although 	the 	employees
within 	the 	proposed 	severance 	unit 	may 	share
a 	community 	of 	interest 	among 	themselves,
their 	commonality 	of 	skills, 	working
conditions, 	duties, 	and 	training 	are 	also
shared, 	to varying 	degrees 	with 	other Unit 	7
employees. 	The ALJ 	also 	made 	factual
findings 	regarding 	the 	interrelationships
between 	classes, 	job 	function, 	equ+pment 	and.
perhaps 	most 	importantly 	bargaining 	history.
(Id. 	at 	pp. 	17-18.) 	(Emphasis 	added.)
Bargaining 	history and 	the 	relationship 	between 	the 	group
seeking 	severance 	and 	the 	majority are 	relevant 	and 	key 	factors
to 	be 	considered when 	considering 	the 	question 	of 	whether 	one
unit 	is 	more 	or 	less 	appropriate 	than 	another. 	AFSCME.suggests
that 	the 	appropriate 	standard when reviewing 	that 	history 	is
"whether 	the 	interests 	of 	one 	group 	of 	employees 	have 	been
trampled upon 	or. ignored 	to 	the 	point 	that 	their 	representational
rights 	have 	been 	abrogated." 	That 	is 	a 	standard 	articulated by
then 	Chairperson Deborah Hesse 	in 	her 	dissent 	to 	the 	Board's
decision 	State 	of 	California 	(Department 	of 	Personnel
Administration), 	supra, 	PERB Decision No. 	794-S. 	That 	is 	not 	the
28
I
• I

standard 	set 	forth 	in 	the 	main and 	concurring 	opinions 	and 	not
the 	one 	controlling 	herein. 	Internal 	union 	strife 	is 	merely 	one
factor, 	and, 	obviously, 	its 	intensity 	impacts 	upon 	any 	decision
regarding 	unit 	appropriateness.
In 	the 	instant 	case, 	as 	noted 	above, 	there 	is 	substantial
evidence 	that 	employees 	in pharmacy-relatedTclassifications 	do·
not 	feel 	that 	AFSCME 	adequately 	represents 	their 	interests.
Feelings 	are 	not 	facts, 	however. 	The 	evidence 	presented
indicates 	that 	AFSCME's 	structure 	and 	its 	practices 	give
pharmacists 	an 	opportunity 	to 	be 	heard and an 	opportunity 	to 	have
an 	impact 	upon 	the 	results 	that 	are 	within AFSCME's 	control. 	In
other words, 	even. if 	AFSCME 	had 	pursued 	without 	qualification 	all
issues 	raised.by 	the 	pharmacists, 	there 	was 	no 	guarantee 	that 	the
State 	would 	have 	accepted AFSCME 	proposals.
The 	differences 	of 	opinion 	or 	differences 	in approach
between AFSCME 	and 	the 	Guild 	which were 	disclosed during 	the
cou+se 	of 	the 	evidentiary hearing 	are 	perhaps 	persuasive 	evidence
of 	a 	breakdown 	in 	communications, 	they 	are 	not 	evidence 	of 	a
breakdown 	in AFSCME's 	ability 	or 	willingness 	to 	effectively
represent 	the 	pharmacists. 	Indeed, 	there 	is 	some 	basis 	for
concluding 	that 	some 	of 	the 	problems 	disclosed were 	a 	functiori 	of
pharmacists' 	refusal 	to 	participate 	in 	or 	support 	the 	AFSCME
program 	in 	order 	to 	help 	color 	the 	record 	herein.
Whatever 	the 	reason 	for 	the 	current 	level 	of 	dissension, 	it
cannot 	be 	disregarded. 	The 	strong 	desire 	of 	a 	relatively
homogeneous 	group 	of 	employees 	for 	self-determination 	should not
29

be 	ignored. 	That 	is 	particularly 	true 	where, 	as 	here, 	the 	level
of 	integration with 	other groups 	of 	employees 	is 	not 	significant.
There 	are 	factors 	present 	herein which make 	it 	tempting 	to
consider use 	of 	the 	National 	Labor 	Relations 	Board 	(NLRB) 	Globe
doctrine, 	which would 	give 	pharmacy 	related 	classifications 	the
opportunity 	to 	vote. on 	inclusion 	in 	the 	larger unit 	or a
pharmacists' 	unit. 	In Globe Machine 	and 	Stamping 	Co. 	(1937)
3 NLRB 	294. [1-A LRRM 122], 	the 'NLRB 	found 	that 	the 	considerations
of 	the 	appropriate 	unit 	were 	so 	evenly balanced, 	"the 	determining
factor 	is 	the 	desire 	of 	the 	men 	themselves." 	(Id. 	at 	p. 	300.)
In 	Pittsburgh 	Plate 	Glass 	Company v. 	National 	Labor 	Relations
Board 	(1941) 	313 	U.S. 	146 	[8 	LRRM 425], 	however, 	the 	Supreme
Court 	underscored 	the 	fact 	that 	workers' 	desires 	do 	not 	override
other 	considerations. 	The 	Court 	noted:
Naturally 	the 	wishes 	of 	employees 	are 	a
factor 	in a 	Board 	conclusion upon 	a 	unit.
They are 	to 	be 	weighed 	with 	the 	similarity of
working 	duties 	and 	conditions, 	the 	character
o~ 	the 	various 	plants 	and 	the 	anticipated
effectiveness 	of 	the 	unit 	in maintaining
industrial 	peace 	through 	collective
bargaining. 	( 8 	LRRM at 	p. 	429.)
Applying 	the 	concepts 	in 	the 	private 	sector 	cases 	cited above, 	it
is 	concluded 	that 	the 	wishes 	of 	the 	employees 	are 	just 	one 	factor
to 	be 	considered. 	That 	factor 	alone 	does 	not 	make 	the 	proposed
unit 	more 	appropriate. 	Moreover, 	this 	is 	not 	an 	initial 	unit
determination 	proceeding 	and 	PERB 	standards 	appear 	to 	require
more.than 	a 	mere 	showing 	that 	both units 	would be 	appropriate .
. Another 	factor 	of 	relevance 	herein 	is 	the 	State's 	and 	PERB's
concern 	regarding 	the 	proliferation 	of 	units 	and 	the 	impact 	on
30

the 	system as 	a 	whole. 	In Mallinckrodt 	Chemical 	Works 	(1966)
162 	NLRB 	387 	[64 	LRRM 1011], 	the 	NLRB 	discussed 	the 	dilemma 	it
faced 	in 	severance 	cases. 	The 	case 	is 	of 	value 	in 	the 	analysis
here 	on 	a 	number 	of 	points. 	On 	its 	role, 	the 	NLRB 	noted:
At 	the 	outset, 	it 	is 	appropriate 	to 	set 	forth
the 	nature 	of 	the 	issue 	confronting 	the 	Board
in making 	unit 	determinations 	in 	severance
cases. 	Underlying 	such determinations 	is 	the
need 	to 	balance 	the 	interest 	of 	the 	employer
and 	the 	total 	employee 	complement 	in
maintaining 	the 	industrial 	stability and
resulting 	benefits 	of 	an historical 	plantwide
bargaining 	unit 	as 	against 	the 	interest 	of 	a
portion 	of 	such 	complement 	in 	having 	an
opportunity 	to 	break away 	from 	the 	historical
~nit 	by a 	vote 	for 	separate 	representation.
The 	Board does 	not 	exercise 	its 	judgment
lightly 	in 	these 	difficult 	areas. 	Each 	such
case 	involves 	a 	resolution 	of 	"what 	would
best 	serve 	the 	working man 	in 	his 	effort 	to
bargain 	collectively with 	his 	employer, 	and
what 	would 	best 	serve 	the 	interest 	of 	the
country 	as 	a 	whole." 	(Id. 	at 	p. 	392)
(Citations 	omitted.)
In 	considering 	its 	obligations, 	the 	NLRB 	developed 	"areas 	of
inquiry" 	it 	considered 	illustrative 	of 	what 	should be 	considered
in a 	"craft" 	severance 	case:
1. 	Whether 	or 	not 	the 	proposed unit
consists 	of 	a 	distinct 	and 	homogeneous 	group
of 	skilled 	journeymen 	craftsmen performing
the 	functions 	of 	their 	craft 	on 	a
nonrepetitive 	basis, 	or 	of 	employees
constituting 	a 	functionally 	distinct
department, 	working 	in 	trades 	or 	occupations
for 	which 	a 	tradition 	of 	separate
representation 	exists.
2. 	The 	history 	of 	collective 	bargaining
of 	the 	employees 	sought 	and 	at 	the 	plant
involved, 	and 	at 	other plants 	of 	the
employer, 	with 	emphasis 	on whether 	the
existing 	patterns 	of 	bargaining 	are
productive 	of 	stability 	in 	labor 	relations,
and 	whether 	such 	stability will 	be 	unduly
31

disrupted by 	the 	destruction 	of 	the 	existing
patterns 	of 	representation.
3. 	The 	extent 	to 	which 	the 	employees 	in
the 	proposed 	unit 	have 	established and
maintained 	their 	separate 	identity during 	the
period 	of 	inclusion 	in a 	broader unit, 	and
the 	extent 	of 	their participation 	or 	lack 	of
participation 	in 	the 	establishment 	and
maintenance 	of 	the 	exi~ting 	pattern 	of
representation 	and 	the 	prior 	opportunities,
if 	any, 	afforded 	them 	to 	obtain 	separate
representation.
4. 	The 	history 	and pattern 	of 	collective
bargaining 	in 	the 	industry 	involved.
5. 	The 	degree 	of 	integration 	of 	the
employer's 	production processes, 	including
the 	extent 	to 	which 	the 	continued 	normal
operation 	of 	the 	production processes 	is
dependent 	upon 	the 	performance 	of 	the
assigned 	functions 	of 	the 	employees 	in 	the
proposed 	uriit.
6. 	The 	qualifications 	of 	the 	union
seeking 	to 	"carve 	out" 	a 	separate 	unit,
including 	that 	union's 	experience 	in
representing· employees 	like 	those 	involved 	in
the 	severance 	action. 	(Footnotes 	omitted.)
Unlike 	the 	case 	presented 	to 	the 	NLRB 	in Mallinckrodt,
wherein a 	well 	established practice 	of 	craft-severance 	was 	under
consideration, 	no 	evidence 	was 	presented 	in 	this 	proceeding
regarding 	a 	generally 	accepted practice 	of 	pharmacists
functioning 	in 	their 	own 	collective 	bargaining units. 	Indeed,
notwithstanding 	the 	earnestness 	of 	the 	witnesses 	herein, 	there 	is
a 	significant 	question 	about 	the 	viability 	of 	a 	unit 	of 	172
employees 	at 	approximately 	40 	separate 	geographic 	locations.
The 	concerns 	about 	the 	effectiveness 	of 	the 	Guild, 	given 	the
composition 	of 	the 	proposed unit, 	must 	be 	looked 	at 	in 	the
context 	of 	the 	public 	policy, 	codified by 	statute, 	favoring 	broad
32

units. 9 	Although 	the 	evidence 	about 	the 	burdens 	on 	the State
should 	the 	Petition be 	granted was 	not 	particularly persuasive,
the 	negotiation 	and 	administration 	of 	an 	additional· agreement
would 	have 	a 	negative 	impact 	upon 	the 	State's 	personnel
resources. 	There 	is 	no 	reason 	to 	conclude 	that 	a 	ruling 	for 	the
Guild would 	result 	in a 	flood 	of 	severance 	actions 	and 	the
proliferation 	of·an untenable 	number 	of 	units, 	but 	the 	additional
burden 	on 	the 	State 	is~ 	factor 	to 	be 	considered.w
Weighing 	all 	the 	factors 	presented, 	and 	given 	the 	current
state 	of 	the 	law, 	it 	is 	concluded 	that 	the 	Petition should be
dismissed. 	The 	Guild 	has 	not 	rebutted 	the 	presumption 	that 	the
existing 	unit 	is 	more 	appropriate 	than 	the 	proposed unit. 	In
reaching 	this· conclusion, 	the 	overriding 	consideration has 	been
the 	practice, 	in 	terms 	of 	organizational 	structure 	and 	otherwise,
of 	AFSCME 	to 	accommodate 	the 	interests 	of 	the 	pharmacy-related
classifications. 	The 	record does 	not 	support 	or 	justify
disrupting 	the 	existing 	pattern 	of 	representation.
9Nothing 	said herein 	is 	intended 	to 	suggest 	that 	the 	Guild
could not 	or would 	not 	effectively 	represent 	a 	separate 	unit 	of
employees 	in pharmacy-related 	classifications. 	It 	is 	noted,
however, 	that 	the 	record does 	not 	present 	sufficient 	evidence
upon which'to make 	any 	judgment 	in 	that 	regard.
10The 	argument 	made 	by AFSCME 	that 	a 	ruling 	for 	the 	Guild
would 	open 	the 	floodgates 	to 	any 	discreet 	occupational 	group 	is
rejected. 	The 	instant 	case 	presents 	not 	only 	a 	discreet
occupational 	group, 	but 	a 	group 	that 	is 	not 	particularly
functionally 	integrated with 	other 	employees 	in 	the 	same 	unit.
In 	other words, 	there 	is 	a 	coalescence 	of 	factors 	here 	that 	you
would 	not 	find 	with 	social 	workers, 	occupational 	therapists, 	or
psychologists.
33

PROPOSED ORDER
Based upon the 	foregoing 	and 	entire 	record 	in 	this 	case, 	IT
IS 	ORDERED 	that 	the 	severance 	petition 	filed 	in 	this 	case 	is
DISMISSED.
Pursuant 	to 	Cal ifornia Code 	of 	Regulations, · title 	8,
sect i on 	32305, 	this 	Proposed Decision and Order shall 	become
final 	unless 	a 	party 	files 	a 	statement 	of 	except~ons 	with 	the
Board itself at 	the 	headquarters 	office 	in 	Sacramento within
20 	days 	of 	service 	of 	this 	Decision. 	In accordance with 	PERB
Regulations, 	the 	statement 	of 	exceptions 	should 	identify by page
citation or 	exhibit 	number 	the 	portions 	of 	the 	record, 	if 	any,
~elie d 	upon 	for 	such 	excevtions. 	(See 	Cal. 	Code 	of 	Regs.,
tit. 	8, 	sec._ 32300.) 	A document 	is 	considered 	"filed II 	wh~n
actually 	received before 	the 	close 	of business 	(5:00 	p.m~) 	on 	the
last 	day 	set 	for 	filing"· 	.. 	or when 	sent 	by 	telegraph or
certified 	or Express 	United States mail, 	postmarked not 	later
than 	the 	last 	day set 	for 	filing. 	;" 	(See 	Cal. 	Code 	of 	Regs.,
tit. 	8, 	sec. 	32135; 	Code _Civ. 	Proc.,·sec. 	1013 	shall 	apply.) 	Any
stateme nt 	of 	exceptions 	and . supporting brief 	must be 	served
concurrently with 	its 	fil i ng upon each party 	t o 	t _h.is · proceeding.
Proof 	of 	service 	sha l l 	accompany each copy 	served on a 	party 	or
filed 	with 	the 	Board 	itse l f. 	(See 	Cal . 	Code of Regs., 	tit. 	8,
secs. 	32300, · 32305 and 32140.)
. 34
Barbara 	E. 	Miller
Administrative 	Law 	Judge