San Juan Unified School District (PERB 1082E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
SAN JUAN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
CALIFORNIA 	SCHOOL 	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION, 	CHAPTER 127,
Exclusive Representative,
and
TEAMSTERS 	LOCAL 	150, 	AFL-CIO,
Petitioner.
)
) Case No. 	S-S-137
(S-R-232A)
PERB Decision No. 	1082
January 18, 	1995
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances; 	Diana D. 	Halpenny, 	Attorney, 	for San Juan Unified
School District; 	Arnie R. 	Braafladt, 	Attorney, 	for California
School Employees Association, 	Chapter 127; 	Van Bourg, 	Weinberg,
Roger 	& Rosenfeld by Stewart Weinberg, 	Attorney, 	for Teamsters
Local 150, AFL-CIO.
Before Blair, 	Chair; 	Carlyle and Garcia, 	Members.
DECISION
GARCIA, 	Member: 	This 	case 	is before the Public Employment
Relations 	Board 	(PERB 	or Board) 	on exceptions 	filed by the
California School 	Employees Association, 	Chapter 127 	(CSEA) 	and
the 	San Juan Unified School 	District 	(District) 	to a 	PERB hearing
officer's 	proposed decision 	(attached) 	to grant 	a 	severance
petition which was 	filed by Teamsters 	Local 	150, 	AFL-CIO
(Teamsters). 	After review of 	the entire 	record the Board hereby
adopts 	the proposed decision 	in accordance with 	the 	following
discussion.

BACKGROUND
On August 	31, 	1993, 	Teamsters 	filed a severance petition
with 	the 	Board pursuant 	to 	PERB 	Regulation 	33700.1 After a
hearing, 	the 	case was 	submitted to 	the hearing officer 	for
decision. 	The 	hearing 	officer 	found 	the proposed bargaining
unit 	to be appropriate.
POSITIONS 	OF THE 	PARTIES 	ON APPEAL
CSEA's 	Exceptions
CSEA excepted 	to 	the 	proposed 	decision 	for many 	reasons,
some 	of 	which are 	nonsubstantive 	or do not 	affect 	the validity of
1PERB 	regulations 	are 	codified at 	California 	Code 	of
Regulations, 	title 	8, 	section 31001 et seq. 	Regulation 33700
states:
(a) 	An employee 	organization may 	file 	a
request 	to become 	the 	exclusive
representative 	of 	an appropriate 	unit
consisting 	of 	a group of 	employees who are
already members 	of 	a 	larger 	established unit
represented by 	an 	incumbent 	exclusive
representative 	by 	filing 	a 	request 	for
recognition 	in accordance 	with 	the provisions
of Article 2 	(commencing with section 33050).
All provisions 	of Article 2 	and Article 	4 	of
this 	Chapter shall 	be 	applicable 	to a
severance 	request 	except 	as 	provided 	in 	this
Article 	7.
(b) 	Whenever the 	conditions 	of Government
Code section 3544.1 (c) 	exist, 	a severance
request 	for 	recognition 	or 	intervention must
be 	filed 	in accordance 	with 	section 	32135
with 	the 	employer during 	the 	"window period"
as 	defined by section 33020.
(c) 	Any amendment 	to a request 	for
recognition or 	intervention 	to 	add
classifications 	or positions 	which are
included 	in an 	established unit must 	be 	filed
in the manner 	set 	out 	in section 	32135 	during
the 	"window period" 	defined by 	section 33020.
22

the 	hearing 	officer's 	legal 	analysis.2 The 	relevant 	and material
exceptions 	we 	considered are:
The 	claim 	that 	the 	hearing 	officer minimized 	the 	disruption
to 	the 	stable 	bargaining 	relationship 	that 	would occur 	in 	case 	of
severance.3
CSEA's 	challenge of 	the Teamsters' 	qualifications 	to
represent 	the general 	unit, 	citing State of 	California
(Department of 	Personnel Administration) 	(1993) 	PERB Decision No.
1025-S.
The 	assertion 	that 	the 	hearing 	officer misinterpreted
Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District 	(19 81) 	PERB
Decision No. 	165 	(Livermore) 	as 	requiring minimal deference 	to
negotiating history, 	by 	failing 	to heed Livermore's 	admonition
that 	". 	. 	.a 	stable negotiating 	relationship will 	not be 	lightly
disturbed."
CSEA's 	challenge 	to 	the 	hearing 	officer's 	conclusion
regarding 	the 	effect 	of 	labor-management 	boards. 	CSEA argues
that 	the 	establishment 	of 	a board such as 	the 	Food Service 	Board
2For example, 	several 	of 	the exceptions 	identify alleged
errors of 	fact or omissions 	that, 	even if accurate, 	are
irrelevant 	to 	the 	result. 	One 	such exception challenges 	the
hearing officer's 	statement 	regarding 	the precise number of
agreements 	the 	District 	and CSEA have 	negotiated; 	another urges
the Board to note 	that 	8 	of 	the 	12 members 	on the 	Food Services
Board are appointed by CSEA; 	another seeks 	an acknowledgment 	of
the 	satisfactory 	relationship 	CSEA has 	enjoyed with 	the 	affected
workers; 	another 	claims 	that 	the proposed decision fails 	to
acknowledge 	efforts 	to 	improve 	communications with and
representation 	of 	classified employees 	in 	the general 	unit.
3The 	exception states 	that, 	contrary to language 	in the
proposed decision, 	the 	Food Service 	Board will 	expire when CSEA
is 	no 	longer the 	exclusive 	representative.
w
3

weighs against, 	rather than for, 	severance, 	since it underscores
the 	stability and 	strength 	of 	the 	negotiating 	relationship.
CSEA's 	assertion 	that 	the 	hearing 	officer's 	appropriate 	unit
conclusion was 	in error because 	the 	longstanding, 	productive 	and
stable 	negotiating 	relationship between 	the 	District 	and 	CSEA
outweighs 	the 	preference 	for a 	Sweetwater Union High School
District 	(19 76) 	EERB Decision No. 	4 	(Sweetwater)4 configuration.
District's 	Exceptions
The 	District 	filed 	ten exceptions 	to 	the proposed decision,
several 	of which are 	irrelevant5 or repeat 	CSEA's 	exceptions.
Those 	we 	considered are:
The 	hearing 	officer's 	failure 	to 	accord adequate
consideration 	to 	the 	fundamental 	purpose 	of 	the 	Educational
Employment Relations Act 	(EERA)6 ". 	. 	. t o promote the
improvement 	of 	personnel 	management 	and 	employer-employee
relations within the public 	school 	systems 	in the 	State 	of
California" 	(EERA sec. 	3540).
4Prior to January 1, 	1978, 	PERB was known as 	the Educational
Employment Relations Board 	(EERB).
5For example, 	the District 	refers 	to omission of various
facts, 	such as: 	Teamsters 	do not 	currently represent any school
employees; 	facts 	relating to 	the 	circumstances under which the
Teamsters 	circulated authorization cards; 	an allegation that 	the
Food Services 	Board deals 	with non-negotiable 	issues 	and 	that 	it
is 	composed of both employees 	subject 	to 	the petition as 	well 	as
employees not 	subject 	to the petition; 	the 	impact 	on the District
of 	creating 	a 	fifth bargaining unit 	is 	insufficiently described.
6EERA is 	codified at 	Government 	Code 	section 3540 	et 	seq.
Unless 	otherwise 	indicated, 	all 	statutory references 	herein are
to 	the Government 	Code.
44

The 	hearing 	officer's 	conclusion that 	the proof 	of 	support
collected and 	submitted by 	the 	Teamsters 	was 	adequate.
The 	petitioned-for unit 	does 	not 	have a distinct 	community
of 	interest 	from the 	remainder of 	the general 	unit because,
regarding negotiable 	topics, 	their 	interests are very similar.
Also, 	much of 	the remainder of 	the unit 	(like 	the proposed
severed unit) 	reports 	through a 	chain of 	command that 	ends 	with
the Associate 	Superintendent 	for Business 	Services.
The 	hearing 	officer's 	failure 	to give adequate weight 	to 	the
detrimental 	effect 	on District 	operations 	that 	would 	occur with
the 	creation 	of 	another bargaining unit.
Teamsters' 	Response to Exceptions
Although 	the 	Teamsters 	responded 	to 	all 	exceptions 	filed by
both CSEA and the District, 	the 	following 	summarizes 	only
Teamster 	responses 	that 	bear 	on 	the 	key 	exceptions 	listed above.
In 	response 	to 	the 	claim that 	they are unqualified 	to
represent 	school 	employees, 	the Teamsters 	state 	that 	they are
experienced in representing school 	employees. 	Even if not,
however, 	the employees 	should decide whether that 	is 	a concern.
Secondly, 	Livermore's 	focus 	on prior bargaining history 	is
appropriate when there is 	evidence of dissatisfaction, 	as 	there
is here.
Finally, 	the Teamsters 	respond that 	the hearing officer's
conclusion 	that 	the District 	and CSEA had 	failed 	to 	overcome 	the
preference 	for a 	Sweetwater 	configuration 	is 	amply 	supported by
the 	record.
55

DISCUSSION
The 	hearing officer addressed 	three 	issues. 	As 	a 	threshold
decision, 	the hearing officer ruled that 	the 	38-month 	collective
bargaining 	agreement 	between 	the District 	and 	CSEA did 	not 	bar
the Teamsters' 	severance petition. 	We agree with the hearing
officer that under EERA a written agreement 	that 	exceeds 	3 6
months 	does 	not 	provide 	a 	contract 	bar against 	representation
petitions.
The 	hearing 	officer also addressed 	the 	issue 	of 	whether 	the
Teamsters 	had 	satisfied 	the proof 	of 	support 	requirement 	under
PERB Regulation 32700 (e). 	The Board agrees with the hearing
officer that 	the Teamsters 	complied with 	this 	requirement by-
demonstrating 	that 	the 	employees 	properly 	completed 	cards
authorizing 	the Teamsters 	to 	represent 	them in employment
relations with the District, 	and that 	there are no 	further
requirements 	regarding 	employee 	intent 	or 	state 	of mind.
The 	central 	issue 	in 	this 	case grew out 	of 	a decertification
effort; 	it 	subsequently led to a severance petition 	challenging
the 	appropriateness 	of 	the 	existing bargaining unit 	configuration
in the District. 	The petition asserts 	that a 	specific group 	of
employees 	should be 	carved 	out 	of 	a 	comprehensive 	unit 	for
purposes 	of 	holding a 	representation election.7 After 	five 	days
7Even 	though 	the 	signatures 	were 	gathered as 	part 	of 	a
decertification effort 	and 	severance may not 	have 	been 	the 	focus
of 	the employees at 	that 	time, 	that 	issue will be brought 	to
their attention during a 	contested 	election.
66

of 	hearings, 	the hearing officer concluded that 	the petitioned-
for unit 	was 	appropriate.
To make his 	decision, 	the hearing officer 	looked at 	the 	EERA
"community 	of 	interest" 	standard 	for determining appropriate
units8 and the 	Sweetwater case, 	in which the Board adopted its
policy on appropriate bargaining units. 	Under that policy, 	when
a petition 	specifies 	a unit 	of 	employees 	identical 	to a
Sweetwater unit, 	the unit 	is presumptively appropriate 	and the
burden 	is 	upon 	the 	parties 	challenging 	the petition 	to 	establish
that 	a different unit 	is more 	appropriate. 	The hearing 	officer
recognized 	the 	long 	and 	successful 	negotiating 	history between
CSEA and 	the District, 	but 	concluded that 	the 	community of
interest 	existed 	to 	create 	the 	smaller unit 	and 	found 	that 	there
would be 	no undue hardship 	to 	the District. 	He also noted that
affected 	employees 	were 	dissatisfied with 	CSEA and wanted 	an
election.
CONCLUSION
A review of 	the 	file and 	the precedents 	established 	in 	the
Sweetwater, 	Compton Unified School District 	(1979) 	PERB Decision
No. 	109, 	Livermore. 	and South Bay Union Elementary School
District 	(1990) 	PERB Decision No. 	816 	decisions 	support 	the
decision of 	the hearing officer. 	On balance, 	the 	long,
relatively 	stable 	negotiating 	relationship 	that 	exists 	between
CSEA and 	the District 	and the 	added burden 	to 	the District 	of
dealing with an additional 	bargaining unit 	is 	not 	sufficient 	to
8See EERA section 3545(a).
7

overcome 	the 	Sweetwater policy in light 	of 	the employees' 	right
to 	select 	an 	exclusive 	representative 	for an appropriate unit.
Therefore, 	under the specific 	facts 	of 	this 	case, 	the Board finds
that 	a new unit 	comprised of 	the 	specified 	classifications 	is 	an
appropriate 	unit 	for 	representation purposes 	under EERA.
ORDER
Based on the adopted findings 	of 	fact, 	conclusions 	of 	law,
the discussion herein and the 	entire 	record in this 	case, 	the
Teamsters' 	petition for severance 	of a unit 	consisting of
employees 	working 	in 	food 	services 	and maintenance 	and 	operations
is 	hereby GRANTED.
The Board 	finds 	the 	following unit 	is 	appropriate 	for
meeting and negotiating, 	provided an 	employee 	organization
becomes 	the 	exclusive 	representative:
Unit Title: 	Operations Support
Shall 	Include: 	The 	classifications 	of:
702 	Nutritionist
712 	Cook Manager II
714 	Cook Manager I
720 	Cook
605 	Facilities/Environ. Safe.Spec.
606 	Construction Inspector
681 	Electronic Asst.
663 	Lead Sprinkler Maint. Spec.
667 	Stadium Maint. Worker
665 	Lead Gardener
664 	Sprinkler Maint. Spec.
666 	Lead Pool Maint. Mech.
649 	Maintenance Custodian
512 	Senior Warehouse Worker
691 	Bldg. Maint. Worker
693 	Grounds Maint. Worker
696 	Junior Mechanic 	(M&O)
644 	Intermediate Head Cust.
654 	Lead Security Officer
615 	Cafeteria Equip. Tech I
660 	Tree Trimmer/Gardener
668 	Grounds Equip. Oper.
634 	Pool Maint. Mech.
715 	Satellite Cafeteria Worker
724 	Cafeteria Worker
722 	Baker
729 	Cafeteria Cashier Helper
624 	Custodial Equip. Repairer
579 	Telecommunications Sys. Tech.
609 	Lead Heating & Air Cond. Tech.
689 	Lead Bldg. Maint. Worker
611 	Lead Asbestos 	Inspector/Worker
604 	Heating & Air Cond. Tech. II
607 	Asbestos 	Inspector/Worker
672 	Lead Carpenter
616 	Lead Electrician
586 	Lead Electronic Tech.
610 	Lead Plumber
657 	Lead Planner
674 	Lead Painter
675 	Lead Glazier
676 	Lead Welder
677 	Lead Roofer
690 	Carpenter
618 	Electrician
580 	Electronic Technician
88

646 	Elementary Head C u s t .
656 	Security Officer
669 	Groundskeeper
518 	Warehouse/Delivery Worker
684 	Painter
695 	Equipment Mechanic 	(M&O)
623 	Lead Office Machine Tech.
682 	G l a z i e r
688 	W e l d e r
681 	Roofer
651 	Maintenance Helper A s s t .
662 	Heavy Equipment Operator
612 	Plumber
686 	Locksmith
661 	Ld. 	Groundworker/Heavy Equip.
O p r .
582 	M a i l Processing Spec.
636 	Lead Custodian
516 	D e l i v e r y Worker
64 8 	Custodian
694 	Maintenance Helper
608 	Heating & A i r Cond. 	Tech. 	I
614 	Cafeteria Equip. T e c h . 	II
679 	Lead Equipment M e c h . 	(M&O)
Shall Exclude: 	All 	other employees, 	including management,
supervisory and 	confidential 	employees.
Within 10 	days 	following 	issuance of 	this 	decision, 	the
San Juan Unified School 	District 	(District) 	shall 	post 	on all
employee 	bulletin boards 	in 	each 	facility of 	the 	employer 	in
which members 	of 	the unit 	described in the 	decision are 	employed,
a 	copy of 	the Notice 	of 	Decision attached hereto 	as 	an Appendix.
The Notice 	of Decision shall 	remain posted 	for a minimum of 	15
workdays. 	Reasonable steps 	shall be 	taken to ensure 	that 	the
Notice 	is not 	reduced in size, 	altered, 	defaced or covered with
any 	other material.
The 	employee 	organizations 	whose names 	shall 	appear on 	the
ballot are California School 	Employees Association, 	Chapter 	127,
and Teamsters Local 	150, 	AFL-CIO, 	unless one of these
organizations 	informs 	the 	regional 	director in writing, 	within 15
days 	after the employer posts 	the Notice of Decision, 	that 	it
does not 	desire 	to participate 	in the election. 	The 	regional
director 	shall 	conduct an election at 	the 	end of 	the posting
period in such unit 	if: 	(1) 	both of 	the above-named employee
organizations desire 	to participate 	in the election, 	or 	(2) 	only
99

one 	organization desires 	to participate 	and 	the 	employer does 	not
grant 	voluntary 	recognition.
The 	Board hereby ORDERS 	that 	this 	case be 	REMANDED 	to 	the
Sacramento 	Regional 	Director 	for proceedings 	consistent 	with 	this
decision.
Chair Blair and Member Carlyle 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
10

APPENDIX NOTICE 	TO 	EMPLOYEES
POSTED 	BY ORDER OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
An Agency of 	the 	State 	of 	California
CASE: 	SAN JUAN UNIFIED 	SCHOOL DISTRICT
Case No. 	S-R-137 	(S-R-232A)
PERB Decision No.
EMPLOYER: 	San Juan Unified School 	District
373 8 Walnut Avenue
Carmichael, 	California 	95608
(916) 	971-7110
EMPLOYEE 	ORGANIZATION
PARTIES 	TO 	PROCEEDING:
California 	School 	Employees Association,
Chapter 	127
8217 Auburn Boulevard
Citrus Heights, 	California 	95610
(916) 	725-1188
Teamsters Local 	150, 	AFL-CIO
7120 	East 	Parkway
Sacramento, 	California 	95823
(916) 	392-7070
FINDINGS:
The Board finds the following unit is appropriate for
meeting and negotiating, provided an employee organization
becomes the exclusive representative:
Unit Title: 	Operations Support
Shall Include: 	The classifications of:
702 	Nutritionist
712 	Cook Manager II
714 	Cook Manager I
720 	Cook
605 	Facilities/Environ. 	Safe.Spec.
606 	Construction Inspector
681 	Electronic Asst.
663 	Lead Sprinkler Maint. 	Spec.
667 	Stadium Maint. 	Worker
665 	Lead Gardener
715 	S a t e l l i t e Cafeteria Worker
724 	Cafeteria Worker
722 	Baker
729 	Cafeteria Cashier Helper
624 	Custodial Equip. 	Repairer
579 	Telecommunications Sys. 	Tech.
609 	Lead Heating & Air Cond. Tech.
689 	Lead Bldg. Maint. 	Worker
611 	Lead Asbestos Inspector/Worker
604 	Heating & Air Cond. 	Tech. 	II

664 	Sprinkler Maint. Spec.
666 	Lead Pool Maint. Mech.
649 	Maintenance Custodian
512 	Senior Warehouse Worker
691 	Bldg. Maint. Worker
693 	Grounds Maint. Worker
696 	Junior Mechanic 	(M&O)
644 	Intermediate Head Cust.
654 	Lead Security Officer
615 	Cafeteria Equip. Tech I
660 	Tree Trimmer/Gardener
668 	Grounds Equip. Oper.
634 	Pool Maint. Mech.
646 	Elementary Head Cust.
656 	Security Officer
669 	Groundskeeper
518 	Warehouse/Delivery Worker
684 	Painter
695 	Equipment Mechanic 	(M&O)
623 	Lead Office Machine Tech.
682 	Glazier
688 	Welder
681 	Roofer
651 	Maintenance Helper Asst.
662 	Heavy Equipment Operator
607 	Asbestos 	Inspector/Worker
672 	Lead Carpenter
616 	Lead Electrician
586 	Lead Electronic Tech.
610 	Lead Plumber
657 	Lead Planner
674 	Lead Painter
675 	Lead Glazier
676 	Lead Welder
677 	Lead Roofer
690 	Carpenter
618 	Electrician
580 	Electronic Technician
612 	Plumber
686 	Locksmith
661 	Ld. Groundworker/Heavy Equip.
Opr.
582 	Mail Processing Spec.
636 	Lead Custodian
516 	Delivery Worker
648 	Custodian
694 	Maintenance Helper
608 	Heating & Air Cond. Tech. I
614 	Cafeteria Equip. Tech. II
679 	Lead Equipment Mech. 	(M&O)
Shall 	Exclude: 	All other employees, 	including management,
supervisory and 	confidential 	employees.
Pursuant 	to PERB Regulation section 33450, 	within 10 	days
following 	issuance 	of 	this Notice of Decision, 	the 	San Juan
Unified School 	District 	(District) 	shall 	post 	on all 	employee
bulletin boards 	in 	each 	facility of 	the 	employer 	in which members
of 	the unit 	described in the decision are 	employed, 	a 	copy of
this Notice 	of Decision. 	The Notice of Decision shall 	remain
posted for a minimum of 	15 workdays. 	Reasonable 	steps 	shall be
taken to 	ensure 	that 	this Notice 	is not 	reduced in size, 	altered,
defaced 	or 	covered with 	any 	other material.
The 	employee 	organization whose 	names 	shall 	appear 	on 	the
ballot are California School 	Employees Association, 	Chapter 12 7,
and Teamsters Local 	150, 	AFL-CIO, 	unless one of these
organizations 	informs 	the 	regional 	director 	in writing, 	within 15
days 	after the 	employer posts 	the Notice of Decision, 	that 	it
does 	not 	desire 	to participate 	in the 	election. 	The 	regional
director 	shall 	conduct 	an election at 	the 	end 	of 	the posting
22

period in such unit 	if: 	(1) 	both of 	the above-named employee
organizations desire to participate in; the election, 	or 	(2) 	only-
one 	organization desires 	to participate 	and 	the 	employer does 	not
grant 	voluntary 	recognition.
Dated: 	SAN JUAN UNIFIED
SCHOOL 	DISTRICT
By Authorized 	Agent
THIS 	IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE. 	IT MUST REMAIN POSTED 	FOR A MINIMUM
OF 	FIFTEEN 	(15) 	WORKDAYS. 	REASONABLE STEPS 	SHALL BE TAKEN TO
ENSURE THAT THIS NOTICE 	IS NOT REDUCED IN SIZE, 	ALTERED, 	DEFACED
OR 	COVERED 	BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL.
W3

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
SAN JUAN UNIFIED 	SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
CALIFORNIA 	SCHOOL 	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION, 	CHAPTER 127,
Exclusive 	Representative,
and
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 150, 	AFL-CIO,
Petitioner.
:
Representation
Case No. 	S-S-137
(S-R-232A)
PROPOSED 	DECISION
(7/26/94)
)
)
)
)
Appearances: 	Diana D. 	Halpenny, 	Attorney, 	for San Juan Unified
School District; 	Arnie R. 	Braafladt, 	Attorney, 	for California
School Employees Association, 	Chapter 127; 	Van Bourg, 	Weinberg,
Roger & Rosenfeld by Stewart Weinberg, 	Attorney, 	for Teamsters
Local 150, AFL-CIO.
Before Bernard McMonigle, 	Hearing Officer.
PROCEDURAL 	HISTORY
On August 31, 	1993, 	Teamsters Local No. 	150, 	AFL-CIO
(Teamsters) 	filed a 	severance petition with the 	Public 	Employment
Relations 	Board 	(PERB 	or 	Board).1 That 	petition 	seeks 	to 	sever a
group 	of 	employees 	working 	in 	food 	services 	and maintenance 	and
operations 	out 	of 	an existing general 	classified unit 	in the 	San
Juan Unified School 	District 	(District) 	which 	is 	currently
represented by 	the 	California 	School 	Employees 	Association,
1 See 	PERB Regulations 	33700 and 33710. 	PERB regulations
are codified at California Code of Regulations, 	title 	8, 	section
31001 	et 	seq.
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.

Chapter 127 	(CSEA). 	The petition was 	found to be 	timely filed
and have 	sufficient 	proof 	of 	support by 	PERB's 	Sacramento
Regional 	Director. 	Both 	the District 	and CSEA opposed 	the
petition. 	A settlement 	conference was held on October 25, 	1993,
and was unsuccessful.
Between January 4 and 11, 	1994, 	five days of hearing were
conducted. 	A transcript 	was 	prepared.2 The 	last 	brief 	was
received and 	the 	case was 	submitted 	for decision 	on March 	3,
1994.
FINDINGS 	OF 	FACT
The District 	has approximately 47,000 	students 	in 	75 	schools
and 	employs 	1,900 	to 	2,000 	non-supervisory 	classified 	employees.
These 	employees 	are 	represented by CSEA in 	two bargaining units:
the 	general 	unit 	and a 	transportation unit.
As 	of December 31, 	1993, 	there were 	1,798 	employees 	in the
general 	unit, 	including 572 	employees 	in the job classifications
which are 	subject 	to 	the 	severance petition.3
2 Motions 	to 	correct 	the 	transcript, 	received 	from the
District 	on February 23, 	1994 	and from CSEA on February 17, 	1994,
amended February 24, 	1994, 	are hereby granted.
3 The 	classifications 	are:
702 	Nutritionist
712 	Cook Manager II
714 	Cook Manager I
72 0 	Cook
605 	Facilities/Environ. 	Safe.Spec.
606 	Construction Inspector
681 	Electronic A s s t .
663 	Lead Sprink. Maint. 	Spec.
667 	Stadium Maint. 	Worker
665 	Lead Gardener
664 	Sprinkler Maint. 	Spec.
666 	Lead Pool Maint. Mech.
649 	Maintenance Custodian
512 	Senior Warehouse Worker
715 	Satellite Cafeteria Workers
724 	Cafeteria Worker
722 	Baker
729 	Cafeteria Cashier Helper
624 	Custodial Equip. 	Repairer
579 	Telecommunications Sys.Tech.
609 	Lead Heating & A i r Cond. 	Tech.
689 	Lead Bldg. Maint. 	Worker
611 	Lead Asbestos 	Inspector/Work.
604 	Heating & A i r Cond. Tech. 	II
607 	Asbestos Inspector/Worker
672 	Lead Carpenter
616 	Lead Electrician
586 	Lead Electronic Tech.
•
22

691 	Bldg. Maint. Worker
693 	Grounds Maint. Worker
696 	Junior Mechanic 	(M&O)
644 	Intermediate Head Cust.
654 	Lead Security Officer
615 	Cafeteria Equip. Tech I
660 	Tree Trimmer/Gardener
668 	Grounds Equip. Oper.
634 	Pool Maint. Mech.
646 	Elementary Head Cust.
656 	Security Officer
669 	Groundskeeper
518 	Warehouse/Delivery Worker
684 	Painter
695 	Equipment Mechanic 	(M&O)
623 	Lead Office Machine Tech.
682 	Glazier
688 	Welder
681 	Roofer
651 	Maintenance Helper Asst.
662 	Heavy Equipment Operator
610 	Lead Plumber
657 	Lead Planner
674 	Lead Painter
675 	Lead Glazier
676 	Lead Welder
677 	Lead Roofer
690 	Carpenter
618 	Electrician
580 	Electronic Technician
612 	Plumber
686 	Locksmith
661 	Ld. Groundworker/Heavy Equip.
Opr.
582 	Mail Processing Spec.
636 	Lead Custodian
516 	Delivery Worker
648 	Custodian
694 	Maintenance Helper
608 	Heating & Air Cond. Tech.I
614 	Cafeteria Equip. Tech.II
679 	Lead Equipment Mech
(M&O)
This 	list 	resulted 	from stipulations 	made 	by 	the parties
during 	the 	hearing.
The District 	is 	organized along departmental 	lines. 	The 	job
classifications 	sought 	to be 	severed are 	found within 	the 	food
services 	department, 	the maintenance and operations 	department
and the 	general 	business 	services 	department. 	The 	director of
the maintenance 	and operations 	department 	reports 	to 	the 	director
of 	facilities 	and planning who 	reports 	to 	the 	associate
superintendent 	of business 	services. 	The directors 	of 	the 	food
services 	department 	and 	the 	general 	business 	services 	department
both 	report 	to 	the 	senior director 	of 	business 	operations 	who
also 	reports 	to 	the associate 	superintendent 	of business
services.
Collective 	bargaining 	agreements 	reflect 	a practice 	by 	CSEA
and 	the 	District 	of 	listing 	the 	general 	unit 	job 	classifications
in five occupational 	groupings: 	food services, 	computer
services, 	maintenance and operations, 	office/technical, 	and
W3

instructional 	assistants/educational 	auxiliary. 	By 	its 	severance
petition, 	the Teamsters 	seek to represent 	a unit 	consisting of
employees 	in 	the 	food services 	and maintenance 	and operations
occupational 	groupings as 	listed 	in the 	agreements.
District 	departments 	typically 	include 	employees 	from more
than one 	contractual 	occupational 	grouping. 	For example, 	the
food 	services 	department 	employs 	classifications 	in 	the 	food
services, 	maintenance and operations, 	and office/technical
occupational 	groupings 	of 	the 	collective bargaining agreement.
Similarly 	the maintenance 	and 	operations 	department 	not 	only has
employees 	from 	the maintenance 	and 	operations 	occupational
grouping, 	but also 	from office/technical.
Community 	of 	Interest 	Factors
Wages, 	methods of compensation, 	fringe benefits, 	and
transfers 	and promotions 	are 	included 	in 	the 	collective
bargaining agreement 	for the 	general 	unit. 	Wages 	are 	established
by assignment 	to a pay range 	and are paid monthly. 	All 	unit
members are 	entitled to 	the 	same levels 	of 	fringe benefits. 	All
classified employees 	in 	the District 	serve 	a 	one-year
probationary 	period.
Food 	Services
The 	food services department 	currently employs 	9 	cooks, 	60
satellite workers, 	53 	cafeteria workers and 73 	cafeteria cashier
helpers 	covered by the petition and working at 	school 	sites. 	Also
in 	the 	petition 	are 	two 	cafeteria 	equipment 	technicians 	Us 	and
four delivery workers. 	The 	technicians 	install 	and 	repair 	the
44

equipment used 	in the kitchens 	and 	cafeterias. 	The 	delivery-
workers 	distribute 	food 	from the 	central 	warehouse 	to 	the 	nine
high school 	kitchens. 	Four of 	the high schools 	act 	as
distribution points 	to elementary and middle 	schools. 	Cooks
prepare hot 	foods 	served at 	the 	nine high schools 	and assist 	at
the 	four distribution centers. 	Satellite workers 	are 	responsible
for the 	elementary and middle 	schools. 	They determine 	food
needs, 	perform paperwork, 	and deal with the 	cash collected.
Cashier helpers 	not 	only perform the 	role 	of 	cashier, 	but 	also
assist 	in the kitchen. 	Cafeteria workers assist 	the 	satellite
workers 	in 	the preparation and 	serving of 	the 	food. 	At 	some 	of
the 	schools, 	food services workers 	are assisted by custodians 	in
serving 	food, 	maintaining discipline 	in 	the 	cafeteria and
cleaning up.
The 	food 	services 	employees 	generally work 	from early
September until 	June. 	While 	some 	cooks may work an eight 	hour
day, 	most 	food services 	employees 	work between 	three and seven
hours. 	Food services 	employees 	wear no District-provided
uniforms, 	however, 	there is a general dress 	code which applies 	to
all 	individuals within the 	food services 	department.
The 	school 	site 	operations 	are 	supervised by 	four 	field
supervisors 	who work out 	of 	the District 	office 	and have
responsibility 	for between 	14 	and 21 	schools. 	They are assisted
by 	five 	supervisor 	Is 	and 	four 	supervisor 	IIs.
5
5

Food 	services 	jobs 	currently 	in use by 	the District 	require
experience 	in a 	large 	scale 	food 	services 	operation and knowledge
of 	general 	food preparation methods 	and 	sanitation.
Maintenance 	and 	Operations
The 	remaining 	classifications 	which are 	contained 	in 	the
severance petition 	fall 	under 	the 	contractual 	grouping
maintenance 	and operations. 	These 	employees work 	in the
maintenance 	and 	operations 	department 	and 	the 	general 	business
services 	department. 	The maintenance and operations 	(M & 0)
department has 	three sections: 	housekeeping, 	electronics and
maintenance.
Housekeeping
The 	housekeeping section 	is 	directed by a 	senior 	supervisor.
Approximately 221 	custodians 	are 	included 	in the maintenance 	and
operations budget. 	One hundred ninety-one 	custodians 	report 	to
elementary schools, 	high schools and one middle school 	and are
supervised by 	the 	site 	administrators 	with advice 	on 	technical
and disciplinary matters 	from three 	custodial 	supervisors. 	The
remaining 	30 	custodians work at 	the 	remaining middle 	schools 	and
other District 	facilities 	and 	are 	supervised by 	the 	custodial
supervisors.
Custodians keep 	school 	buildings 	clean and orderly, 	perform
minor maintenance 	and report 	the need 	for repairs. 	All
custodians work 	8 	hours 	and are 	12-month employees. 	Custodians
and 	lead 	custodians 	must 	have 	sufficient 	education 	or 	experience
66

to perform requisite 	tasks. 	Head custodians must 	also be able 	to
coordinate 	those 	tasks.
Electronics
The 	electronics 	section has 	19 	electronic 	technicians 	and
two 	lead 	electronic 	technicians 	which are 	included 	in 	the
severance petition. 	They repair all 	types 	of 	electronic
equipment 	including intercoms, 	computers and copiers. 	They
report 	to 	the 	electronics 	supervisor and are 	12 	month-employees.
The 	electronics 	shop 	adjoins 	La 	Entrada 	Continuation High School.
Electronic 	technicians must 	have 	completed electronics 	school, 	an
apprenticeship 	or 	formal 	course work.
Maintenance
The maintenance 	section 	is 	also 	headed by a 	senior
supervisor. 	Reporting to him are 	the 	supervisors 	of 	five
maintenance groups: 	gardening, 	grounds, 	mechanical, 	structural
and 	equipment maintenance. 	The 	gardening group 	includes 	tree
trimmers, 	groundskeepers 	(formerly called gardeners), 	asbestos
inspectors 	and a pool maintenance worker. 	Groundskeepers 	plant
and maintain lawns, 	shrubs, 	trees and flowers. 	Tree trimmers do
the 	same but 	also prune 	and trim trees. 	Asbestos 	inspectors
perform asbestos 	inspections 	and repairs. 	The 	lone pool
maintenance mechanic 	performs 	cleaning 	and 	repairs.
The 	grounds 	group includes 	grounds maintenance workers,
heavy equipment 	operators, 	sprinkler maintenance 	specialists 	and
grounds 	equipment 	operators. 	Grounds maintenance workers 	install
and repair concrete, 	fences, 	etc. 	Heavy equipment operators
77

operate 	motorized 	grounds 	maintenance 	and 	construction 	equipment
such as 	loaders 	and backhoes. 	Grounds 	equipment 	operators
operate 	equipment 	used 	for moving 	dirt 	and 	transporting
materials. 	Sprinkler maintenance 	specialists 	install 	and
maintain 	sprinkler 	systems.
The 	mechanical 	group 	includes 	heating 	and air 	conditioning
technicians, 	electricians and plumbers. 	Heating and air
conditioning 	technicians 	perform 	the 	installation 	and maintenance
of 	heating, 	air conditioning and refrigeration equipment.
Electricians 	perform electrical 	installation and 	repair.
Plumbers 	install 	and maintain plumbing 	systems 	and 	related
fixtures.
The 	structural 	group also 	consists 	of 	building 	trade 	crafts
including roofers, 	carpenters, 	glaziers, 	locksmiths, 	painters and
building maintenance workers. 	Roofers 	replace and repair roofing
surfaces. 	Carpenters 	construct 	and repair wood structures 	and
articles. 	Glaziers 	remove and replace glass and plastic
surfaces. 	Locksmiths 	repair and install 	locks and make keys.
Painters 	perform skilled painting duties. 	Building maintenance
workers 	perform a variety 	of 	semi-skilled 	tasks 	in general
maintenance 	and 	repair of 	facilities 	and equipment.
The 	equipment 	maintenance 	group 	consists 	of 	welders 	who
perform 	skilled welding 	and mechanics 	who 	repair 	automotive 	and
other 	equipment belonging 	to 	the M & 0 department.
Working 	directly 	for 	the 	director 	of maintenance and
operations 	is 	one 	facilities/environmental 	safety 	specialist 	who
8

inspects 	facilities 	and determines 	need 	for repairs. 	There 	are
also 	several 	clerical workers 	in the 	department who are not
subject 	to the petition.
Most 	of 	the maintenance 	and operations 	employees 	are
headquartered at 	the main maintenance yard 	on Sutter Avenue 	in
Carmichael. 	From the main yard 	they are 	sent 	out 	to 	locations
where 	repairs 	are 	required. 	The 	roofers, 	building maintenance
workers 	and painters 	have 	their 	shops 	at 	San Juan High School.
Most 	of 	the M & 0 job 	classifications 	require 	a 	certain
level 	of 	experience, 	completion of an apprenticeship or trade
school 	courses 	rather than a 	specific 	educational 	level.
Employees must be 	skilled 	in 	the use 	of 	the materials 	and tools
of 	their 	trades. 	Possession of 	a drivers 	license 	is 	generally
required. 	The promotional 	track within M & 0 	is 	initially to a
lead position 	and 	then 	to 	a 	supervisory position within 	the
craft.
General 	Business 	Services
The 	general 	business 	services 	department 	is 	organized 	into
five areas: 	printing, 	purchasing, 	security, 	warehouse and the
director's 	office. 	Employees 	subject 	to 	the 	severance petition
are 	found in security, 	warehouse and the director's 	office.
Reporting 	directly 	to 	the 	director 	are 	two 	telecommunications
system technicians 	responsible 	for 	the District's 	telephone
system and 	two maintenance 	helpers 	who move 	equipment 	and assist
the 	telecommunication system technicians. 	The 	technicians must
have 	extensive 	experience 	in 	installation and 	repair 	of varied
9

telecommunications 	systems. 	Maintenance helpers 	are not 	required
to have a 	specific 	level 	of 	training or education.
Six security officers, 	two lead security officers 	and 	four
clerks 	report 	to 	the 	security supervisor. 	All but 	the 	clerks are
covered by 	the petition. 	Security officers 	patrol 	the 	school
campuses 	to protect 	property 	of 	the District 	and work 	closely
with 	the 	sheriff's 	department. 	Security officers must 	have 	a
valid 	security guard 	card, 	a Red 	Cross 	certificate 	and
experience.
One 	senior warehouse worker, 	six warehouse delivery workers,
one mail 	processing 	specialist 	and 	two delivery workers 	report 	to
the warehouse 	supervisor. 	The warehouse workers 	operate
forklifts, 	load trucks and make deliveries. 	No specific 	level 	of
training 	or education is 	required. 	The mail processing
specialist 	and delivery workers 	operate 	the 	District's 	mail
system. 	The 	specialist 	should have 	experience with postal
regulations 	and/or 	light 	delivery work. 	Delivery workers 	should
have previous 	experience 	in 	similar work.
Bargaining 	History
In 	1976 	the 	District voluntarily 	recognized 	CSEA as 	the
exclusive 	representative 	for a unit 	of all 	non-management, 	non-
supervisory 	classified 	employees 	with 	the 	exception 	of 	those
employed 	in transportation. 	In 1977, 	CSEA won an election and
was 	certified as 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	of 	the
transportation unit. 	From 1977 	through 19 83 	the District and
CSEA 	each 	had 	one 	bargaining 	team which 	negotiated 	separate
10

contracts 	for both units 	simultaneously. 	In 19 83 	negotiations
were 	separated 	and have 	remained 	so.
Since July of 	1983 	there have been 	three 	complete 	agreements
signed 	for the 	general unit. 	The most 	recent 	was 	a 	38-month
contract effective October 1, 	1990 	to November 30, 	1993.
On August 	30, 	1993, 	District and CSEA negotiators agreed to
a 	contract with a term of December 	1, 	1993 	through November 	15,
1996. 	The 	agreement 	was 	adopted by 	the 	District 	and 	ratified by
CSEA despite 	the 	fact 	that 	approximately 	one-third 	of 	the
articles 	subject 	to negotiation 	remained open. 	The agreement
provided 	that 	the parties 	would 	reopen negotiations 	in November
1993 on salary, 	hours, 	leaves, 	transfers, 	safety, 	lay-offs and
professional 	growth.
In bargaining 	during 	1986 	and 	1987 	CSEA negotiated 	range
increases 	for a number of 	the 	classifications 	subject 	to 	the
petition, 	as well as many of 	the other classifications 	in the
general unit. 	These 	range 	increases were 	to be effective by
March of 	1990. 	All 	employees 	in the general unit 	received their
last pay increase 	in 1990, 	a 6 percent general 	increase. 	Since
that 	time, 	CSEA has 	negotiated health benefits 	payment 	increases
for 	its benchmark health 	care plan.
In 19 89 	the general unit was 	the subject 	of a
decertification 	effort 	by an affiliate 	of 	the 	California 	Teachers
Association. 	CSEA won the 	election.
In 	1990 	CSEA and the District participated 	in a 	PERB-
sponsored 	training program 	in 	interest-based bargaining. 	After
11

that 	training, 	CSEA and 	the District 	created the 	Classified Labor
Management Advisory Counsel 	(CLMAC). 	The CLMAC 	is a 	forum for
discussion of 	issues 	of mutual 	concern, 	including topics not
generally subject 	to negotiations. 	CSEA members 	of 	the 	CLMAC
currently number 	six and 	include 	two 	employees 	from
transportation, 	one 	from food services, 	one 	from maintenance and
operations, 	one 	instructional 	assistant 	and one
clerical/technical 	employee. 	District members 	of 	the CLMAC
include 	the 	superintendent 	and other high 	level 	administrators.
Chapter 	127 	of 	CSEA receives 	support 	from the 	state
organization 	through 	the 	assignment 	of 	two 	field 	representatives
to service the 	chapter. 	Chris Neihaus spends approximately 80 	to
90 	percent 	of his 	time on issues 	related to 	the District. 	Jim
Knox has 	devoted approximately 50 	to 	75 	percent 	of 	his 	time 	to
Chapter 127 	over the past 	five years.
It was 	through the 	efforts 	of 	Knox that 	the District 	and
CSEA 	established 	a 	joint 	management-supervisor-employee 	Food
Services Board in 19 88, 	a time when the District was 	considering
contracting 	food 	services 	with 	outside vendors. 	As 	recently as
1989, 	the 	food services program was 	operating at a deficit 	of
about 	$824,000. 	Food services 	projects 	a net profit 	for the
1993-94 	school year of approximately $300,000. 	Since 	its
inception, 	Knox has 	devoted much of his 	time to working with the
Food Services 	Board 	on which he 	serves 	as 	an ex-officio member.
Numerous 	changes 	have been made 	in 	the 	food services program,
including 	closing 	the 	bakery/commissary 	operations 	and
12

implementing 	changes 	in the preparation of 	foods 	and menus.4
Most 	of 	the 	changes 	were 	initiated by 	the 	Food Services 	Board.
Recently, 	the board asked the 	CSEA and District 	negotiating 	teams
to 	consider 	range 	increases 	for 	food 	services 	employees. 	CSEA
and 	the 	District 	have been discussing 	the possibility of 	a
similar board 	for M 	& 0 	and/or 	transportation.
The 	special 	interests 	of 	the maintenance 	employees 	have also
been brought 	to the employer's attention. 	In recent years, 	CSEA
has 	represented M 	& 0 	employees 	in negotiations 	with 	the District
over what 	is 	termed 	"self-help" 	and the use of volunteers 	to
perform bargaining unit 	work. 	CSEA has 	processed grievances 	and
filed unfair practice charges with PERB over the 	issues. 	In
January of 	1992, 	the parties 	reached a settlement 	on grievances
and an unfair practice 	charge 	regarding 	self-help projects 	which
resulted 	in 	cash payments 	to maintenance 	and operations
employees. 	Also in 1992, 	the parties agreed to the 	restoration
of 	nine 	full-time 	gardening positions 	in 	exchange 	for allowing
the District 	the use of 	sheriff's work release personnel. 	CSEA
also worked to 	restore painter and media 	tech positions. 	The
problems 	of 	self-help and the use 	of volunteers 	are 	the 	subject
of 	ongoing discussions between CSEA and the District.
CSEA has 	used various 	forums 	in 	representing 	the
classifications 	included 	in the 	severance petition. 	Of 	the 	74
grievances 	filed 	in 	the 	general 	unit 	from the 	1991-92 	school 	year
4When 	the 	Food Services 	Board 	recommended 	closure 	of 	the
bakery and 	commissary, 	CSEA requested 	to negotiate 	the 	effects
thereof. 	One 	outcome was 	an early 	retirement 	option.
13

through the 	1992-93 	school 	year, 	50 	involved employees 	in the
maintenance 	and operations 	contractual 	job grouping. 	In the
summer 	of 	1991 	when 	custodians 	and 	other workers 	were 	exposed 	to
asbestos, 	CSEA requested that 	the 	California Occupational 	and
Health Administration 	investigate 	the matter 	to 	determine 	whether
there had been 	criminal 	negligence. 	CSEA was 	successful 	in 	its
efforts 	to have 	the District's 	Board of 	Trustees 	rescind a
planned 	ten 	day 	furlough 	for 	classified 	employees.
Union 	Participation
Of 	the 	572 	employees 	subject 	to the 	severance petition, 	244
are members 	of CSEA, 	33 	are agency fee payers, 	and 295 are non-
members who do not pay fees.5 This 	compares 	to 304 members, 	219
agency 	fee payers 	and 703 	non-members 	who do not pay 	fees 	in the
remainder of 	the general unit.
CSEA bylaws 	require 	that 	the negotiating 	committee 	for 	the
general 	unit 	consist 	of 	an elected 	chief 	job steward and one
other 	elected 	representative 	and alternates 	from the
clerical/technical, 	food services, 	instructional aides,
maintenance 	and operations, 	and 	custodial 	work classifications.
Six of 	the 	ten members 	of 	the 	negotiating 	committee 	then become
members 	of 	the unit 	negotiating 	team. 	That 	team must 	include at
least 	one member 	from each group. 	Accordingly, 	at 	least 	six of
the 	ten members 	of 	the general unit 	negotiating 	committee 	and
three 	of 	the members 	of 	the bargaining team are 	from the
5 Effective July 1, 	1992 	agency 	fees were required of 	new
employees who did not 	join CSEA. 	Individuals 	employed as 	of 	that
date are 	not 	required to pay agency 	fees.
14

occupational 	groupings which are 	subject 	to 	the 	severance
petition. 	The 	current bargaining 	team includes 	the 	CSEA chapter
president 	who 	is 	a 	custodian.
Other employees 	from the 	job groups 	subject 	to 	this 	petition
are 	also 	represented among 	CSEA elected officers. 	The 	first
vice-president 	is 	from maintenance and operations. 	The 	second
vice-president 	is 	also a 	custodian. 	The 	immediate past president
is 	from food 	services.
CSEA also 	has 	groups 	of 	work site 	representatives 	who
distribute 	information and 	job 	stewards 	who 	assist 	employees 	in
resolving 	problems 	and processing 	grievances.
District 	Negotiations
The 	District 	employs 	a director of 	employer-employee
relations 	who 	represents 	the District 	in negotiations 	over the
four 	existing bargaining units: 	general 	and transportation
classified units, 	a 	supervisory unit 	and a 	certificated unit.
The 	current 	bargaining 	team 	for 	general 	unit 	negotiations
includes 	the director of 	employer-employee 	relations, 	the
director of 	classified personnel, 	the director of 	food services,
the director of business 	services, 	a high school vice-principal,
an 	elementary 	school 	principal 	and 	the 	director of maintenance
and 	operations. 	Management 	representatives 	participating 	on 	the
negotiating team, 	with the 	exception of 	the director of 	employer-
employee 	relations 	and the 	director of 	classified personnel, 	are
paid a 	stipend which depends 	on 	the 	number 	of 	hours 	required.
15

For 	the 	1992-93 	school 	year 	three 	individuals 	received 	$580.00
and two 	received 	$296.00.
POSITIONS 	OF THE 	PARTIES
Teamsters
The 	Teamsters 	cite 	the 	Board's 	decision 	in 	Sweetwater Union
High School District 	(1976) 	EERB Decision No. 	4 	(Sweetwater),6 in
which 	the 	Board 	found 	three 	appropriate units 	of 	classified
employees. 	One 	of 	those groups was 	an operations 	support unit
which included transportation, 	custodial, 	gardening, 	maintenance,
cafeteria employees, 	warehousemen and delivery employees. 	With
the 	exception of 	transportation employees 	the 	subject unit 	is
analogous 	to 	the 	operation 	support 	unit 	found appropriate 	in
Sweetwater. 	As 	a 	result 	of 	Compton Unified School District
(1979) 	PERB Decision No. 	109 	(Compton), 	such units are
presumptively appropriate. 	Additionally, 	the 	severance petition
for operations 	and 	food services 	employees, 	and 	the 	factors
considered, 	are nearly identical 	to 	the 	case 	in Livermore Valley
Joint Unified School District 	(1981) 	PERB Decision No. 	165
(Livermore), 	wherein the severance petition was granted.
Referring to 	PERB's publication 	"Units 	in Place" 	the
Teamsters 	give 	examples 	of 	school 	districts which have bargaining
units 	similar 	to 	that 	requested.
The 	Teamsters 	also 	contend that 	the 	limited extent 	of 	union
membership 	favors 	severance, 	that 	the 	existence 	of 	the 	Food
6Prior to January 1, 	1978, 	PERB was known as 	the Educational
Employment Relations Board 	(EERB).
16

Services 	Board demonstrates 	the 	inadequacy of a general unit, 	and
that 	the 	number 	of 	grievances 	filed by maintenance personnel
demonstrates 	dissatisfaction. 	In addition, 	the District 	failed
to 	demonstrate 	that 	an 	additional 	bargaining unit 	would adversely
affect 	its 	efficiency of 	operations.
CSEA
According 	to 	CSEA, 	granting 	the 	severance petition would
unduly disrupt 	the 	stable 	and productive 	bargaining 	relationship
that 	currently exists between CSEA and the District. 	PERB
sponsored 	training 	led to 	the 	establishment 	of 	the 	CLMAC and a
much 	fuller discussion of 	issues. 	CSEA believes 	that 	the 	Food
Services 	Board has 	become a 	"mainstay" 	of 	the 	San Juan
negotiating 	relationship 	and would be 	jeopardized by 	the
severance 	of 	food workers 	from the 	general 	unit.
CSEA also 	contends 	that 	it 	has 	represented 	the 	special
interests 	of 	food 	services 	and maintenance 	and operations
workers. 	It 	has 	committed significant 	time and resources
advancing 	the 	interests 	of 	those 	groups 	at 	the bargaining 	table
and 	in other 	forums.
In the area of grievance handling, 	much of 	CSEA's 	efforts 	in
recent 	years 	have been to address 	complaints 	from the maintenance
and operations unit 	regarding 	self-help violations. 	Further,
CSEA advances 	the grievances 	of non-members 	as well 	as members.
CSEA also 	notes 	that 	food 	services 	and maintenance 	and
operations 	employees 	have 	a 	long history 	of 	actively
participating as 	officers 	and members 	of 	the negotiating 	team and
17
-

other committees 	of 	CSEA. 	Other union practices 	including 	site
representatives, 	surveys, 	a newsletter and site visits 	from CSEA
representatives 	give bargaining unit members 	an opportunity 	to be
heard.
CSEA also 	contends 	that 	maintenance 	and operations 	workers
including 	custodians 	and 	food 	services 	workers 	do not 	share 	a
community of 	interest 	distinct 	from instructional 	assistants 	and
the 	clerical/technical 	employees 	which 	constitute 	the 	remainder
of 	the general 	classified unit.
According 	to 	CSEA, 	there 	has been no demonstration that
Teamster's 	Local 	150 	could effectively represent M & 0 and 	food
services 	employees. 	Local 	150 	currently does not 	represent 	any
school 	employees. 	Teamster 	representation of 	school 	employees
statewide is minimal.
CSEA argues 	that 	for severance 	to be appropriate, 	PERB
precedent 	requires 	that 	a proposed unit must 	be more 	appropriate
than the 	existing unit. 	According to CSEA, 	the unit 	included in
the 	severance 	petition 	is 	not 	presumptively appropriate 	under
Sweetwater, 	because 	the petition does 	not 	include 	transportation
workers.
District
Initially 	the 	District 	contends 	the 	severance petition
should be denied because 	it 	was 	not 	timely 	filed. 	The petition
was 	filed on August 	31, 	1993 	during 	the pendency of a contract
between the District 	and CSEA which was 	effective 	October 	1, 	1990
through November 30, 	1993, 	a 38-month agreement.
18

EERA section 	3544.77 which relates 	to 	representation
proceedings, 	states in pertinent part:
(b) 	No 	election shall 	be held and the
petition 	shall 	be 	dismissed whenever 	either
of 	the 	following exist:
(1) 	There 	is 	currently in effect a
lawful 	written 	agreement 	negotiated by 	the
public 	school 	employer and another 	employee
organization 	covering 	any 	employees 	included
in 	the unit 	described 	in the 	request 	for
recognition, 	or unless the request 	for
recognition is 	filed less 	than 120 days, 	but
more than 9 0 days, 	prior to the expiration
date of 	the agreement.
Section 3540.1(h) 	states 	in relevant part 	that a 	collective
bargaining agreement 	"may be 	for a period not 	to 	exceed 	three
years." 	The District argues 	that because 	section 3540.1(h) 	only
permits 	collective bargaining agreements 	of 	three years 	or less,
the 	period 	for 	filing 	this 	petition 	should have 	been measured
from September 30 	rather than November 30, 	1993, 	thus 	creating a
window period 	in June 	rather 	than August.8 The District 	would
have 	PERB 	adopt 	a 	rule 	that 	the window period 	for a 	contract
exceeding 	three years 	is measured 	from the 	last 	day of 	the 	third
year, 	rather than the actual 	contract 	expiration date. 	Under
such a 	rule, 	the 	subject petition would be deemed untimely.
The 	District 	also 	contends 	that 	the petition 	should be
dismissed because 	it 	lacks adequate proof 	of 	support. 	According
7EERA is 	codified at 	Government 	Code 	section 3540 	et 	seq.
Unless 	otherwise noted, 	all 	statutory references 	are 	to the
Government 	Code.
8The 	thirty day period 	for 	filing a petition 	is 	generally
referred 	to 	as 	the 	"window period."
19

to 	the District, 	the Teamsters 	initially attempted a
decertification 	effort 	rather 	than a 	severance 	of 	only part 	of
the general 	unit. 	Campaign literature and authorization cards
signed by 	employees 	did not mention 	severance. 	Employees 	were
thus mislead 	into 	signing authorization 	cards.
As 	does 	CSEA, 	the District argues 	that under PERB precedent
there 	exists 	a 	rebuttable presumption 	in 	favor 	of 	existing units
and that, 	because 	transportation workers 	are not 	included 	in 	the
petition, 	severance 	would not 	be presumptively appropriate under
Sweetwater. 	Alternatively, 	the District argues 	that any
presumptive 	appropriateness under Sweetwater must 	"give way 	to 	a
fresh examination of 	appropriateness 	in the 	context 	of 	an 	18 	year
bargaining history within a wall 	to wall 	unit."
According to 	the District, 	it 	has not been demonstrated that
there 	is 	a 	separate 	community of 	interest 	existing within 	the
group subject 	to the petition. 	Wages, 	methods 	of 	compensation,
fringe benefits, 	transfers, 	and promotions are all 	included
within the 	contract 	for the general unit. 	Further, 	the 	interests
of 	the 	subject 	employees 	have been aggressively pursued by CSEA
which has 	an organizational 	structure 	which assures 	the
opportunity 	to participate by all 	employees.
The 	District 	also 	contends 	that 	creation of 	another
bargaining unit 	would have 	a 	detrimental 	effect 	on 	its 	efficiency
of 	operations. 	District negotiators would have a new set 	of
negotiations 	and managers 	would have 	to 	administer an additional
labor agreement.
20

ISSUES
1. 	Was 	the 	severance petition timely filed?
2. 	Was 	adequate proof 	of 	support provided with 	the
petition?
3. 	Should 	the 	proposed unit be 	severed 	from the 	existing
general 	unit?
DISCUSSION
Timeliness 	of 	the 	Severance 	Petition
Both EERA and 	PERB 	regulations 	permit 	severance petitions 	to
be 	filed during a window period which 	is 	less 	than 	120 	days 	and
more 	than 90 	days 	prior to 	the 	expiration of a 	"lawful 	written
agreement." 	(Sec. 	3544.7, 	PERB Regulation 33020.) 	At the time
this petition was 	filed, 	no party challenged its 	timeliness under
the window period requirement. 	It was 	not 	disputed that 	the
petition was 	filed more 	than 90 	and less 	than 	120 	days prior 	to
the 	expiration of 	the 	CSEA/District 	agreement. 	The petition was
determined 	to be 	timely 	filed. 	The District 	now argues 	that
because 	the agreement 	it 	entered into with CSEA was 	for 3 8
months, 	two months longer than permitted by section 3540.1(h), 	it
was 	not 	a 	lawful 	written agreement 	for contract bar purposes.
The District 	contends 	that 	the window period for a 	contract
exceeding 	three years 	in duration 	should be measured 	from the
last day of 	the 	third year, 	rather than the actual 	contract
expiration date.
The 	contract bar doctrine 	is an attempt 	to 	strike a balance
between 	the 	twin 	objectives 	of 	a 	stable 	labor 	relations
21

environment 	and 	freedom of 	choice 	for 	employees 	to 	select 	a 	new
bargaining 	representative. 	(Centralia School 	District 	(1985)
PERB Decision No. 	519.) 	In Government Code 	section 3544.l(c) 	the
Legislature 	determined 	that 	where 	there 	is 	a 	"lawful 	written
agreement" 	negotiated between a public 	school 	employer and an
employee 	organization, 	those 	two parties 	are entitled to a period
of 	stability. 	Accordingly, 	a valid contract will 	normally
prevent 	the 	filing 	of 	a petition 	for decertification or 	severance
unless 	the petition 	is 	submitted 	to 	PERB 	during 	the 	specified
window period. 	However, 	such labor stability 	is 	only granted to
an employer 	and a union 	if 	they are parties 	to 	the 	requisite
"lawful 	written agreement." 	In 	this 	case 	CSEA and the District
were 	not 	parties 	to a lawful 	agreement pursuant 	to Government
Code 	section 	3540.1(h) 	which 	limits 	collective bargaining
agreements 	to 	three years. 	As 	the Board determined 	in San Benito
Joint Union High School District 	(1984) 	PERB Decision No. 	406, 	a
contract more 	than three years 	in duration 	is 	an 	illegal
agreement.9 Accordingly, 	in this 	case 	the District 	and CSEA did
not 	enjoy 	the 	stability of 	a 	contract 	bar at 	any 	time 	during 	the
38 months of 	the agreement.10
9 In 	San Benito 	the 	Board 	recognized 	the National 	Labor
Relations Board's 	(NLRB) 	policy of 	limiting a contract bar to
three years. 	However, 	the Board noted that under EERA, 	unlike
the National 	Labor Relations Act, 	the duration of 	the 	contract
bar 	is 	statutorily 	imposed.
10The 	only 	issue 	determined here 	is 	that 	a 	contract 	over
three years 	duration is not a 	"lawful 	written agreement" 	for
contract bar purposes. 	There 	is no 	intent 	to 	rule on the
validity 	of 	the agreement 	for any other purpose.
22

A rule 	that 	a 	contract must 	be 	of 	legal 	duration 	is
consistent 	with 	prior Board determinations 	establishing minimum
requirements 	for a 	contract 	to act 	as 	a bar to an election
petition. 	A contract must 	be 	evidenced by a writing, 	signed and
contain 	substantial 	terms 	and 	conditions. 	(State 	of 	California
(Department of 	Personnel Administration) 	(1989) 	PERB Order No.
Ad-191-S.) 	Such a 	rule 	is 	also 	consistent with the NLRB policy
of 	rendering a 	contract 	with an unlawful 	provision 	incapable 	of
barring an election petition. 	(See, 	e.g. 	Paragon Products Corp.
(1962) 	134 NLRB 662 	[49 LRRM 1160], 	unlawful union-security
provision; 	Gary Steel Supply Co. 	(1963) 	144 NLRB 470 	[54 LRRM
1211], 	unlawful dues checkoff provision.)
Finally, 	the application of a 	rule 	that a contract 	of
illegal 	duration may 	not 	bar an 	election petition prevents
certain 	inequities. 	A petitioning union will 	not 	have 	to wait
three years 	to 	file 	a petition because 	it 	relied to 	its 	detriment
on 	the 	expiration date 	of 	a 	38-month agreement. 	An 	incumbent
union and 	employer will 	not be 	granted a 	contract 	bar and
dismissal 	of 	a petition as 	a benefit 	derived from a violation of
EERA.
The 	petition was 	timely 	filed.
Adequacy 	of 	Proof 	of 	Support
The District 	also 	contends 	that 	the 	severance 	petition was
not 	accompanied by adequate proof 	of 	support. 	According 	to 	the
District, 	there 	is 	evidence that 	the Teamsters 	initially
attempted a 	decertification effort 	of 	the 	entire 	general 	unit 	and
23

that 	campaign literature 	reflected that 	effort. 	Thus, 	employees
were 	mislead 	into 	signing 	authorization 	cards.
PERB 	Regulation 	32700(a) 	requires 	that 	adequate proof 	of
support 	be 	submitted along with a 	severance petition. 	In
pertinent 	part, 	PERB 	Regulation 	32700 	sets 	forth 	the 	requirements
for proof 	of 	support 	as 	follows:
32700. 	Proof 	of 	Support.
(a) 	Except 	as 	required 	in 	section
32770(b)(1) 	and section 34020(c), 	proof of
employee 	support 	for all 	petitions 	requiring
such 	support 	shall 	clearly 	demonstrate 	that
the 	employee 	desires 	to 	be 	represented by 	the
employee 	organization 	for 	the 	purpose 	of
meeting 	and 	negotiating 	or meeting 	and
conferring 	on wages, 	hours 	and 	other 	terms
and 	conditions 	of 	employment.
(b) 	The proof 	of 	support 	shall 	indicate
each employee's printed name, 	signature, 	job
title 	or 	classification 	and 	the 	date 	on which
each 	individual's 	signature 	was 	obtained. 	An
undated 	signature 	or 	a 	signature 	dated more
than 	one 	calendar year prior 	to 	the 	filing 	of
the 	petition 	requiring 	employee 	support 	shall
be 	invalid 	for 	the 	purpose 	of 	calculating
proof 	of 	support. 	Any 	signature meeting 	the
requirements 	of 	this 	section 	shall 	be
considered valid 	even 	though 	the 	signator 	has
executed 	authorizations 	for more 	than 	one
employee organization. 	. 	.
(e) 	Subject to subsections 	(a), 	(b), 	(c)
and 	(d) 	of 	this 	section, 	proof 	of 	support may
consist 	of 	any one 	of 	the 	following 	original
documents 	or a 	combination 	thereof:
(1) 	Current dues 	deduction authorization 	forms;
(2) 	Membership applications;
(3) 	Authorization 	cards 	or petitions 	signed by
employees. 	The purpose 	of 	the 	petition shall 	be 	clearly
stated on each page thereof; 	. 	. 	.
The 	District 	contends 	that 	under 	the 	second 	sentence 	of
24

subsection 	(e)(3), 	the proof 	of support must demonstrate employee
knowledge 	that 	the 	Teamsters were attempting to 	sever part 	of 	the
unit.
The District's 	challenge 	to 	the proof 	of 	support 	is 	without
merit. 	The 	authorization 	card 	submitted by 	the District 	which
was used 	in 	the 	organizing 	campaign was 	in 	compliance with
subsections 	(a) 	and 	(b).11 That 	card 	states 	that 	an employee
filling 	out 	the 	card authorizes 	the 	Teamsters 	to 	represent 	him or
her in employment 	relations 	with the District. 	The 	card 	requires
the employee's printed name, 	signature, 	job title and the date on
which 	the 	signature was 	obtained. 	Because 	the 	cards 	were
properly 	completed 	(administrative 	determination 	of 	September 22,
1993), 	the proof of 	support meets all of the requirements of PERB
Regulation 32700. 	There are no 	further requirements 	regarding
employee 	intent 	or state of mind. 	Accordingly, 	the proof 	of
support 	is valid.
Applicability 	of 	Sweetwater
The 	EERA requires 	that 	employees 	be 	grouped 	into an
appropriate unit 	for purposes 	of 	collective bargaining. 	(Sec.
3540). 	The 	standards 	for determining an appropriate unit 	are 	set
forth 	in EERA at 	section 3545(a).
In each 	case where 	the appropriateness 	of 	the
unit 	is an issue, 	the board shall 	decide the
question on 	the basis 	of 	the 	community of
interest 	between and among 	the 	employees 	and
11The District 	did not 	submit 	a 	copy of 	a petition, 	to which
the second sentence of 	(e)(3) 	clearly refers. 	In any case, 	the
language 	relied 	on by 	the District merely 	requires 	that
subsection 	(a) 	be met 	on every page of a petition.
25

their established practices 	including, 	among
other things, 	the extent 	to which such
employees 	belong 	to 	the 	same 	employee
organization, 	and the effect of 	the size of
the unit 	on the 	efficient 	operation of 	the
school 	district.
In Sweetwater, 	the 	Board 	found three 	appropriate 	classified
units. 	The three units were 	instructional aides, 	office
technical/business 	services 	and 	an 	operations-support 	services
unit. 	The 	Sweetwater units were 	later determined to be
presumptively 	appropriate. 	(Foothill-DeAnza 	Community 	College
District 	(1977) 	EERB Decision No. 	10 	(Foothill-DeAnza); 	Compton.)
In Compton, 	the Board stated:
By 	creating 	three 	"presumptively 	appropriate
units" 	for the 	classified service, 	the Board
determined 	that 	a 	strong 	community 	of
interest 	generally 	exists 	among 	employees 	in
each of 	these groups. 	The Board further
determined 	that 	those units 	"reflect 	a proper
balance between 	the 	harmful 	effects 	on an
employer 	of 	excessive unit 	fragmentation and
the 	harmful 	effects 	on employees 	and the
organizations 	attempting 	to 	represent 	them of
an 	insufficiently 	divided 	negotiating 	unit 	or
units." 	(Antioch Unified School 	District,
supra, 	EERB Decision No. 	3 7 at p. 	7.)
- -.
More 	recently 	in South Bay Union Elementary School 	District
(1990) 	PERB Decision No. 	816 	(South Bay) 	the Board reiterated its
preference 	for 	Sweetwater 	units 	and 	reversed an 	administrative
law judge 	who 	had deemed a 	single 	comprehensive 	or 	"wall 	to wall
unit" 	appropriate 	for a 	school 	district with only 37 	classified
employees. 	In South Bay, 	as 	it had in Sweetwater, 	the Board
relied heavily on 	the 	different 	types 	of 	functions 	performed by
the 	three presumptively appropriate groups 	of 	employees.
26

Thus, 	if 	the petition reflects a unit of 	classified
employees determined to be one of 	the 	three Sweetwater units, 	it
is 	presumptively appropriate 	and the 	burden 	is 	upon CSEA and 	the
District 	to 	establish that 	the 	general 	unit 	presently 	in
existence 	is more appropriate.12
One 	of 	the units 	found appropriate 	by 	the 	Board 	in
Sweetwater is 	the operations/support 	services unit. 	That unit
typically includes custodial, 	food services, 	grounds, 	maintenance
and 	transportation employees. 	In 	this 	case both the District 	and
CSEA argue 	that 	the unit 	sought 	does 	not meet 	the 	Sweetwater
presumption because 	it does not 	include 	transportation workers.
However, 	the 	fact 	that 	the 	transportation workers 	are not
available due 	to 	the 	actions 	of 	CSEA and the District 	does 	not
make 	Sweetwater 	inapplicable.13 With 	the 	exception 	of
transportation workers, 	the 	other work groups which make up an
12 Citing State 	of 	California 	(Department 	of 	Personnel
Administration) 	(1993) 	PERB Decision No. 	1025-S and State of
California 	(Department of 	Personnel Administration) 	(1990) 	PERB
Decision No. 	794-S, 	cases which arose under the Ralph C. 	Dills
Act, 	CSEA and the District 	unpersuasively argue 	that 	there 	is 	a
rebuttable presumption 	in 	favor of 	an existing unit. 	Unlike 	the
existing unit 	in this matter, 	the bargaining units 	for state
employees 	were 	determined by 	PERB 	after 	extensive 	hearings 	on 	the
matter. 	Additionally, 	nothing 	in those 	cases 	reflects 	a reversal
of 	Sweetwater and 	its progeny. 	The District also 	contends 	that
in Los Angeles Unified School District 	(1993) 	PERB Order No. 	Ad-
250 	the Board 	ruled 	that 	severance 	requires 	a determination that
the proposed unit 	is more appropriate 	than the 	existing unit.
However, 	in 	that 	case 	the Board merely determined that 	a unit 	of
bus 	drivers 	did not meet 	the 	Sweetwater 	criteria.
13The 	contract 	between CSEA and 	the 	District 	for 	the
transportation unit 	is effective July 1, 	1992 	through June 30,
1995. 	Accordingly, 	a contract bar existed at 	the 	time 	the
Teamsters 	filed their severance petition in August 	of 	1993.
27

operations/support 	services 	unit 	are 	included 	in 	the 	severance
petition. 	Such groups usually have 	a 	strong 	community of
interest 	which 	continues 	to exist 	despite 	the 	fact 	that 	one
segment may not 	be 	available 	to be 	included 	in 	the petition.
That 	a 	separate bargaining unit 	will 	generally 	reflect 	the proper
balance 	between 	excessive 	fragmentation 	and 	the 	harmful 	effects
of 	a wall 	to wall 	unit 	continues 	to be 	true.
Not 	all 	units 	approved under Sweetwater are 	the 	same. 	For
example, 	the Board followed Sweetwater in Foothill-DeAnza. 	but
created an 	operations/support 	unit 	that 	did not 	include 	food
services 	workers. 	As 	the Board stated in Compton:
- -
the 	Sweetwater 	decision did not 	establish 	the
"only appropriate units," 	nor even the 	"most
appropriate units."
However, 	Sweetwater did establish a guideline which 	is 	to be
followed 	to 	the 	extent possible.14
Accordingly, 	the Sweetwater presumption is 	applicable 	in
this case. 	However, 	the Sweetwater presumption is rebuttable.
(Compton at p. 	7 ) . 	To rebut that presumption in this case, 	it
must be 	demonstrated 	that 	the 	general 	unit 	is more appropriate
than a Sweetwater unit configuration. 	(South Bay at p. 	7 ) . 	To
determine 	whether 	the burden has 	been met 	requires 	weighing 	the
community of 	interest 	among employees, 	the 	efficiency of 	employer
operations and established practices. 	Additionally, 	a request
14A rule 	requiring a more 	rigid application 	of 	Sweetwater
would permit 	an 	employer and 	an 	incumbent 	union 	to 	avoid 	the
application 	of 	Sweetwater merely by 	creating a 	separate unit 	for
a 	small 	segment 	of 	a presumptively appropriate 	unit.
28

for severance, 	unlike a determination of 	an initial 	unit,
requires 	consideration of 	the negotiating history. 	(Livermore 	at
p. 5) .
Community 	of 	Interest
The petition seeks 	a 	separate unit 	for those who paint,
weld, 	repair, 	prepare meals and generally provide a proper
physical 	environment 	and support 	services. 	They do not perform
clerical 	or 	record keeping duties. 	They do not perform
paraprofessional 	instructional 	activities 	nor do 	they provide
computer 	services. 	These 	functional 	distinctions 	are highly
similar 	to 	those 	noted and 	relied upon by 	the 	Board 	in 	Sweetwater
and 	in South Bay. 	In South Bay the 	Board 	stated,
The 	remaining 	employees 	in the 	operations-
support 	services 	group 	(custodial,
maintenance, 	transportation and 	food services
employees) 	are 	responsible 	for providing a
proper physical 	environment 	and 	support
services 	for students. 	These duties 	include
cleaning 	and 	repairing District 	facilities 	as
well 	as providing food, 	preparing meals and
providing 	transportation.
A finding 	of 	similarity 	in 	job duties 	is 	consistent 	with 	the
treatment 	of 	these 	job classifications 	in the 	collective
bargaining agreement. 	All 	of 	the 	job 	classifications 	in 	the
petition are 	drawn 	from the 	contractual 	job 	groupings 	of 	"food
services" 	and 	"maintenance 	and operations." 	None 	of 	them are
included in 	"office/technical", 	"computer services" 	or
"instructional 	assistants 	and 	educational 	personnel."
The vast majority of maintenance 	employees 	are 	supervised on
a 	common 	scheme by 	the 	senior 	supervisors 	for maintenance,
29

housekeeping 	and 	the 	electronics 	section all 	of 	whom report 	to
the director of maintenance and operations. 	The director of
maintenance and operations 	reports 	to 	the 	director of 	facilities
and planning who 	in 	turn 	reports 	to 	the 	associate 	superintendent
for business 	services.15 The 	director of 	food 	services 	and the
director 	of 	business 	services 	report 	to 	the 	senior director 	of
business 	operations who also 	reports 	to 	the associate
superintendent 	for business 	services. 	The 	food services
employees 	are 	supervised by 	the 	director of 	food 	services
assisted by 	food 	services 	supervisors. 	Operations 	workers 	under
the 	director 	for general 	business 	services 	include warehouse
workers, 	who report 	initially to the warehouse supervisor, 	and
security workers 	who 	report 	to 	the 	security 	supervisor who 	then
in turn report 	to the director of business 	services.
There 	exists 	a basic 	functional 	community of 	interest 	within
the 	group 	of 	job 	classifications 	subject 	to 	the 	severance
petition which 	is 	not 	erased by 	the 	fact 	that 	there may be 	some
functional 	and 	supervisorial 	overlap with 	other 	classified
employees. 	That 	community of 	interest 	is 	consistent 	with Board
precedent 	and with 	criteria 	stated 	in section 	3545(a) 	of 	the
EERA.
15It 	is 	true 	that a majority of 	the 	custodians 	are
supervised by 	school 	principals 	advised by 	a 	supervisory
custodian. 	However, 	this 	is 	similar to the arrangement 	in
Sweetwater wherein 	the Board 	found 	"the 	custodians 	and 	gardeners
are 	supervised by 	the 	school 	principal 	as 	well 	as 	the 	supervisor
of maintenance."
30

Efficiency 	of 	Operations
Absent 	concrete 	evidence 	that 	a 	school 	district's
operational 	efficiency will 	be 	unduly 	impaired by an additional
series 	of negotiations, 	operational 	efficiency will 	not be
considered a 	factor which militates 	against 	the 	establishment 	of
another unit. 	(Livermore at p. 	8) 	In this 	case, 	insufficient
evidence 	was 	presented to 	conclude 	that 	the 	establishment 	of
another bargaining unit 	would have 	a 	detrimental 	effect 	on 	the
District.
Of 	course, 	the District will 	have another set 	of
negotiations 	and another 	contract 	to administer 	if 	an operations-
support 	services unit 	is 	created. 	However, 	it has not been
demonstrated 	that 	an undue burden would 	result. 	That 	principals
and managers 	are 	capable 	of 	administering 	two 	or 	three 	classified
collective 	bargaining 	agreements 	is 	well 	established by 	current
practices 	in school 	districts 	throughout 	the state. 	Similar
arguments, 	that 	another bargaining unit would burden a 	school
district, 	have been previously considered.
. 	. 	. 	While we are not unsympathetic to the
District's 	concern 	that 	negotiating 	in more
than one unit may burden 	its 	staff, 	the
assertion of such a concern, 	without more, 	is
not 	sufficient 	to 	establish an undue
impediment 	to District 	efficiency. 	The 	fact
that 	negotiating may 	impose 	a burden 	on 	the
employer was 	undoubtedly 	considered by 	the
Legislature but 	found not 	to 	outweigh 	the
benefits 	of 	an overall 	scheme 	of 	collective
negotiations. 	. 	. 	[Fn. omitted.]
(Livermore at p. 	8.)
The 	District 	is 	also 	concerned 	that 	granting 	severance 	"will
have 	an unknown but 	potentially destructive 	impact 	on 	the 	Food
31

Services Board." 	CSEA has 	similar concerns. 	However, 	it 	cannot
be 	assumed 	that 	any 	entity which provides 	the benefits 	claimed by
both 	the District 	and CSEA will 	cease 	to 	exist 	if 	a 	separate unit
is 	created. 	Rather, 	if 	the board benefits both employees and
employer as 	described, 	it may well 	continue 	regardless 	of 	the
outcome 	of 	an election.
Established 	Practices 	and 	Negotiations
In Livermore 	the Board 	recognized 	that 	a 	request 	for
severance 	is 	factually different 	from an 	initial 	unit
determination because 	negotiating 	history must 	be 	considered 	as
an 	important 	factor 	in determining 	the 	appropriateness 	of 	the
severed unit. 	However, 	it 	is also clear from Livermore that
where 	a wall 	to wall 	unit 	is 	created by voluntary recognition,
the 	negotiating 	history will 	not 	be 	granted 	the 	deference 	to
which it might otherwise be entitled. 	In this 	case, 	the general
unit was 	the 	result 	of a voluntary 	recognition which was 	never
reviewed 	or approved by 	the 	Board. 	The 	Board generally 	finds
such 	single 	comprehensive units 	of 	classified 	employees 	to be
inappropriate. 	(South Bay).
There 	exists 	an 	eighteen year negotiating 	history between
CSEA and 	the 	District 	during which 	they have 	successfully
negotiated 	collective 	bargaining 	agreements 	covering 	the 	general
unit. 	During that 	time, 	the 	interests of 	the employees 	subject
to 	the petition have not 	been 	ignored. 	Those 	employees 	have
actively participated 	in negotiations 	and have 	held 	other
positions 	of 	influence 	in the union. 	The majority of 	the
32

grievances 	pursued by CSEA in 	recent 	years 	have been over 	issues
concerning employees 	in maintenance and operations. 	As
described, 	CSEA has 	used 	its 	resources 	to 	communicate with and
represent all 	employees 	in the general unit.
The 	negotiating 	relationship between 	CSEA and 	the 	District
has been an 	innovative 	one. 	In 	1990 	they underwent 	training 	to
improve bargaining 	techniques 	and communications. 	Afterwards,
they created the 	CLMAC which, 	composed of 	the 	top 	representatives
of management 	and the union, 	discusses a variety of 	topics 	on an
ongoing basis. 	The 	Food Services 	Board has 	given employees 	a
direct voice 	in 	running 	food 	services 	and has 	been a major 	factor
in 	increasing profitability, 	a development 	that 	should help
protect 	jobs. 	The District 	and 	CSEA are 	currently 	considering
creating 	a 	similar board 	for maintenance 	and 	operations.
However, 	the 	creation of 	separate 	labor-management boards
indicates 	that 	the proper balance between 'excessive 	fragmentation
and effective 	representation may not 	exist 	with a 	general 	unit.
Rather, 	such action supports 	a 	finding that 	these groups have
separate 	interests 	which may not 	be 	effectively addressed as 	part
of a general unit.
The 	importance 	of 	the 	extent 	of membership 	in CSEA among 	the
approximately 572 maintenance, 	custodial, 	food services and
security personnel 	subject 	to 	the petition 	is 	difficult 	to
assess. 	There are 244 members, 	33 	service fee payers, 	and 295
non-members. 	While the percentage of members 	is higher than in
the rest 	of 	the general unit, 	it 	is not 	50 percent and cannot be
33

considered a 	factor 	in 	favor 	of 	overturning 	the 	Sweetwater
presumption. 	Also, 	the fact that at least 3 0 percent of the
employees 	in 	the 	entire 	unit 	signed authorization 	cards 	to
replace 	CSEA in 	1989 	and that 	at 	least 	a majority of 	employees
subject 	to 	this 	severance petition have 	now requested an election
cannot 	be 	overlooked.
In sum, 	the District and CSEA have not 	overcome 	the
Sweetwater presumption as 	they argue 	to maintain a wall 	to wall
unit 	of 	the variety which 	this 	Board has 	repeatedly 	rejected.
Given 	the 	current 	state 	of 	the 	law and weighing 	the 	facts
presented, 	I 	conclude 	that 	the petition should be granted.
PROPOSED 	ORDER
Accordingly, 	the 	following unit 	is 	found 	to be appropriate
for meeting 	and 	negotiating 	provided 	an 	employee 	organization
becomes 	the 	exclusive 	representative:
Nutritionist, 	Satellite Cafeteria Worker,
Cook Manager II, 	Cafeteria Worker,
Cook Manager I, 	Baker, 	Cook, 	Cafeteria
Cashier Helper, 	Facilities/Environmental
Safety S p e c , 	Custodial 	Equipment 	Repairer,
Construction Inspector, 	Telecommunications
System Tech., 	Electronic Assistant, 	Lead
Heating & Air Cond. 	Tech., 	Lead Sprinkler
Maintenance 	S p e c , 	Lead 	Building Maintenance
Worker, 	Stadium Maintenance Worker, 	Lead
Asbestos 	Inspector/Worker, 	Lead Gardener,
Heating & Air Cond. 	Technician II, 	Sprinkler
Maintenance Specialist, 	Asbestos
Inspector/Worker, 	Lead Pool Maintenance
Mechanic, 	Lead Carpenter, 	Maintenance
Custodian, 	Lead Electrician, 	Senior
Warehouse Worker, 	Lead Electronic Technician,
Building Maintenance Worker, 	Lead Plumber,
Grounds Maintenance Worker, 	Lead Planner,
Junior Mechanic 	(M&O), 	Lead Painter,
34

Intermediate Head Custodian, 	Lead Glazier,
Lead Security Officer, 	Lead Welder, 	Cafeteria
Equipment Technician I, 	Lead Roofer, 	Tree
Trimmer/Gardener, 	Carpenter, 	Grounds
Equipment Operator, 	Electrician, 	Pool
Maintenance Mechanic, 	Electronic Technician,
Elementary Head Custodian, 	Plumber, 	Security
Officer, 	Locksmith, Groundskeeper, 	Lead
Groundworker/Heavy Equip. 	Opr.,
Warehouse/Delivery Worker, 	Painter, 	Mail
Processing Specialist, 	Equipment Mechanic
(M&O), 	Lead Custodian, 	Lead Office Machine
Technician, 	Delivery Worker, 	Glazier,
Custodian, 	Welder, 	Maintenance Helper,
Roofer, 	Heating & Air Cond. 	Technician I,
Maintenance Helper Assistant, 	Cafeteria
Equipment Technician II, 	Heavy Equipment
Operator, 	Lead Equipment Mechanic 	(M&O).
The 	employee 	organizations whose names 	shall 	appear on 	the
ballot are California School 	Employees Association, 	Chapter 	127,
and Teamsters Local 	150, 	AFL-CIO, 	unless one of said
organizations 	informs 	the 	regional 	director in writing, 	within 15
workdays 	after the 	employer posts 	the Notice of Decision, 	that 	it
does 	not 	desire 	to participate 	in the 	election. 	The 	regional
director 	shall 	conduct 	an 	election at 	the 	end of 	the posting
period in such unit 	if: 	(1) 	both of 	the above-named employee
organizations desire 	to participate 	in the election, 	or 	(2) 	only
one 	organization desires 	to participate 	and 	the 	employer does 	not
grant 	voluntary 	recognition.
Right 	of Appeal
Pursuant 	to California Code of Regulations, 	title 	8,
section 	32305, 	this 	Proposed Decision and Order 	shall 	become
final 	unless 	a party 	files 	a 	statement 	of 	exceptions with the
Board 	itself 	at 	the 	headquarters 	office 	in Sacramento within
35

citation or exhibit number the portions 	of 	the 	record, 	if any,
relied upon for such exceptions. 	(See Cal. 	Code of Regs.,
tit. 	8, 	sec. 	32300.) 	A document is considered 	"filed" 	when
actually received before 	the 	close 	of business 	(5:00 	p.m.) 	on 	the
last day set 	for filing 	". 	. 	. o r 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. 	P r o c , 	sec. 	1013 shall apply.) 	Any
statement 	of 	exceptions, and supporting brief must be 	served
concurrently with 	its 	filing upon each party to 	this proceeding.
Proof 	of 	service 	shall 	accompany each 	copy 	served 	on a party 	or
filed with the Board itself. 	(See Cal. 	Code of Regs., 	tit. 	8,
secs. 	32300, 	32305 and 32140.)
Bernard 	McMonigle
Hearing 	Officer
36