Temple City Unified School District (PERB A009E)

STATE
	OF
	CALIFORNIA
EDUCATIONAL
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
In
	the
Matter of the Administrative
Appeal
TEMPLE
CITY
UNIFIED
SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Employer,
	APPELLANT
and
TEMPLE
CITY
EDUCATION
ASSOCIATION,
Employee
Organization
and
TEMPLE
CITY
AMERICAN
FEDERATION
OF
TEACHERS,
Employee
Organization
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 	LA-R-97
EERB
Order
No. 	Ad-9
ORDER
______________________
)
It is
	the determination of the Educational
Employment
Relations
	Board
	that
oral
	argument
not be
taken
in
the
above-captioned
matter.
The
	decision of the
Los
Angeles Regional
Director
in
	the above-captioned
matter,
denying 	the
district
I s
	request
	that
	the designation
"No
	Exclusive
Representation"
	appear
	on
the
ballot,
	is
	sustained by
	the
Board
	itself.
	The
Board
	finds
	that
	the Regional
Director
has
	correctly interpreted Section
3544.7(a) 	of the
Act.
The Board
itself
	further
	denies 	the
appellant's
	request 	to
	stay
	the pending
election. 
Educational
	Employment
Relations
	Board
by
	,:_:';
~~:\;)-
XJ-4--..-
(6
Cw-c/C_,_"'-------
STEPHEN BARBER
Executive Assistant to 	the
Board
5/5/77
Jerilou
H.
	Cossack, Member,
	dissenting:
On March 10, 	1977, 	the superintendent of the Temple City Unified School
District 	(District) 	requested of 	the Los Angeles Regional Director that

the ballot to be used in the forthcoming representation election among the
District's certificated employees contain the phrase "no exclusive representa-
tion" 	instead of the phrase "no representation." 	The Regional Director denied
the 	request, 	relying on a literal reading of the language of Government Code
The denial was upheld by the Executive Director. 	The District	Section 3544.7.
then filed an administrative appeal with the Board itself. 	The majority has
sustained the Regional Director. 	I 	dissent.
Unlike many other statutes of a similar nature, 	the EERA permits employees to
join and be represented by employee organizations, 	even where the employees
have not chosen to have an exclusive representative. 	Section 3543.l(a) 	of the
Act gives employee organizations the "right to represent" 	their members 	in the
absence of an exclusive representative. 	Section 3543.l(d) 	permits employee
organizations to have dues deductions absent an exclusive representative. 	The
EERA thus 	recognizes 	the right of organizations 	to exist and participate in
employer-employee relations where 	there is no exclusive representative. 	The
majority's narrow, 	],.iteral interpretation of the "no representation" language
of Section 3544.7, 	in my opinion, 	frustrates 	this intent.
Rules of construction require looking to 	legislative intent and purpose,
spirit, 	objectives and scheme of legislation when interpreting statutory
language. 	The purpose of the act cannot be sacrificed through a literal
1interpretation of its language.1 select Base Materials, 	Inc. 	v. 	Board of
1/
One incongruous result from a strict reading of Section 3544.7 would
occur in an election in which two employee organizations appeared on the ballot
and no 	choice gained a majority vote in the initial balloting, 	thus necessitat-
ing a 	run-off election. 	Section 3544.7 states, 	"There shall be printed on each
ballot 	the statement: 	'no representation."' 	Where two employee organizations
finished 	first and second on the initial balloting and "no representation" finished
third, 	a literal reading of Section 3544.7 would require that "no representation"
also appear on the run-off ballot, 	thus rendering the run-off balloting a 	repeat
of 	the 	initial balloting. 	I doubt if that was intended.
-2-

Equalization, 	51 Cal.2d 640 	(1959); Moyer v. 	Workmen's Comp. 	Appeals Board,
110 Cal.Rptr. 	144, 	10 Cal.3d 222 	(1973); 	Cossack v. 	Los Angeles, 	114 Cal.Rptr.
460, 	11 Cal.3d 726 	(1974).
The Legislature wanted to be sure that employees had 	the right and opportunity
to oppose exclusive representation in general or exclusive representation by
the named employee organizations appearing on the ballot. 	The substitution
offered by the District is reasonable and, 	in fact, 	more accurate than the
literal wording supported by the majority.
By: 	Jerilou H. 	Cossack, 	Member
Dated: 	May 5, 	1977
-3-

~
..
~_..........,_-~---~--..;;...---
...............
----._,_----~-------
.......
_,__..,.;;..;...;.......,..;.;......:-......,.~...;;..---._._----
..............
------....;..--
\
I •
~ATE	
=	
=:>FQ1J=·
=-==-=·-=---
-==--~~~~~~::::=·~~:=~=-=-==·
=--=··=-·=====E=O:M=U--N-D:=G-.:B=A:0:W-=N:J=A-~:G_-o=•="=nor
EDUCATION1\LE:MPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Los
Angeles Re	
Office
3550 Wilshire
Boulevard, Suite
1708
Los
Angeles,
California
90010
{213) 736-312_7 ·
g~il
March 15, 	1977
Dr.
	Allen
E.
	Rice
Superintendent
Temple
City
Unified School
District
	·
9516
East
Longden
Avenue
·Temple
City,
	CA
	91780
Re: 	LA-R-97
Dear Dr. 	Rice:
Responding.to your
letter
of
March 10, 	1977
concerning
the
District's
criteria
necessary for
	a
directed election,
	I have
	several
comments
	to
make.
-
We
have a
	large
n~-nber
of
elections to
	conduct
before the
	end
of
	this
school year
and
we
	are
	scheduli..rig those i.n which
there
	is
no
unit dispute
for 	early
May.
	The employee
organizations
have
	indicated
that
	any Tuesday,
Wednesday
or
Thursday
in
:May
would be
acceptable.
	If
you wish
to
	ind'ic:ate
a
date that
would be
preferable in line
with
this
	and can
let
me
mow no
later
	than March 21, 	I
will
consider
	it ..
'
Concerning your Item 2:
	We
do
not
"make
	the 	sole detennination as
	to
who·
shall
be
	eligible to vote".
	The
District is
	responsible for provi-
ding 	the
	lisc
of eligible
voters
	as
set forth in
EERB
Rule 33530.
	If
employees
	cast
a challenged
ballot
because
their
names 	are not on
	the
eligible
voter
	list,
	we
will
	attempt to resolve those challenges
	at
	the
time
	of the ballot
count and any unresolved challenges will
be handled
through a hearing process only
if
such challenges are detenninative.
Concerning your Item
S:
	EERB
Rule 33580 provides 	for seven calendar
days 	from
receipt of the
	tally of ballots for 	objections to
be
	filed
and Rule 33590
	sets forth the grounds for 	filing
	such objections.
Concerning your Item 6: 	Section 3544.7(a) 	of the
EERA
specifies 	that
the wording on the ballot shall be "no representation" so that your

·-
March 1
S,
	1977
Educational
Employment
Relations
Board
Dr.
	Allen
E.
	Rice
Page 2
request
	for
	"No
Exclusive
Representation"
	is
not possible.
I
will
be
	issuillg the order for
	an
election
on
or
	about March· 22, 	1977 .
.Any	
input
you
may
wish
to
provide about a
desirable polling
site,
	hours,
etc. 	will
be welcome.
Very
	truly
yours,
~d-~-	
-
Frances
A.
	K;
Regional
Director
;~
-FAK:an