Rio Hondo Community College District (PERB A033E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
RIO 	HONDO 	COMMUNITY 	COLLEGE 	DISTRICT,
Employer, 	APPELLANT,
and
RIO 	HONDO 	FACULTY 	ASSOCIATION, 	CTA/NEA,
Employee 	Organization,
APPELLANT.
Case 	No. 	LA-R-111
PERB 	Order 	No. 	Ad-33
Administrative 	AppeaJ
May 	23, 	1978
Appearances: 	John 	J. 	Wagner, 	Attorney 	(Wagner 	and 	Wagner) 	for
the 	Rio 	Hondo 	Community 	College 	District; 	Robert 	M. 	Dohrmann,
Attorney 	for 	the 	Rio 	Hondo 	Co]lege 	Faculty 	Association, 	CTA/NEA.
Before 	Gluck, 	Chairperson; 	Gonzales 	and 	Cossack 	Twohey, 	Members.
OPINION
This 	is 	a 	motion 	by 	the 	Rio 	Hondo 	College 	Faculty
Assocjatjon, 	CTA/NEA 	(Association) 	and 	the 	Rio 	Hondo 	Community
College 	District 	(District) 	to 	expedite 	the 	determination 	of
the 	District's 	exceptions 	to 	a 	hearing 	officer's 	proposed 	order
including 	part-time 	certificated 	employees 	in 	a 	negotiating
unit 	of 	certjficated 	employees.
FACTS
EssentialJy, 	the 	Association 	seeks 	a 	summary 	affirrnance 	of
the 	hearing 	officer's 	proposed 	order 	by 	having 	the 	Board
itself, 	through 	the 	mechanism 	of 	the 	motion 	to 	expedite, 	adopt
the 	proposed 	order 	as 	jts 	own. 1
lThe 	motion 	submitted 	by 	the 	Association 	reads, 	in
pertinent 	part: 	(cont.)

The
	Association
	advanced
	other
	arguments:
	the
	considerabJe
time
	that
	has
	elapsed 	since
	the
	filing
	of
	the
	demand
	for
recognition;
	the
	District
	has
	joined 	in 	the
	motion
	to
	expeditei
the
	Board
	would
	suffer
	no 	undue
	hardship
	if
	it
	granted 	the
motion.
DISCUSSION
The
	issue 	before 	the
	Board
	raised
	in 	the 	exceptions 	to
	the
hearing
	officer's
	proposed
	order
	is
	whether
	the
	facts
	in
	this
case 	are
	sufficiently
	distinguishable
	from
	those 	in	
Los
	Rios
2
Community
	College
	District
	to
	justify
	the
	establishment 	of
	a
certificated
	employee
	unit
	which
	excludes
	part-time
	faculty.
The
	Association's 	statement,
	in
	its
	motion
	to 	expedite,
	that
the 	factual
	record 	supports
	the 	hearing
	officer's
	proposed
order,
	whethe~accurate
	or
	not,
	cannot
	be
	controlling.
	The
resolution 	of
	this
	issue
	clearly
	depends
	on 	a
	review
	of 	the
(cont.)
5.
	The
	exceptions
	filed
	by
	the
	Districtraise
	no 	new
	issues
	whatsoever.
	The
	hearing
officer
	has 	adhered
	to
	this
	Board's 	decisionin 	the
	Los
	Rios
	case
	based
	on 	a
	factualrecord,
	which, 	as
	is
	pointed 	out 	in 	our
response 	to 	the 	exceptions
	and
	in 	our
earlier 	brief
	to 	the 	Hearing
	Officer, 	fullysupports
	an
	affirmance 	of 	the 	Hearing
Officer.
	It
	is 	therefore
	our
	beJief 	that
the 	case 	can 	be
	expeditiously 	affirmed
	by
the
	Board 	in 	the
	manner
	demonstrated
	by
	theBoard
	in 	Shasta-Tehama-Trinity
	Joint
Community
	College
	District,
	EERB
	Decision
No.
	31, 	in
	which
	the
	Board
	held
	that,
	the
Hearing
	Officer's 	decision 	being
substantially
	in 	accord 	with 	Board
	precedent
(Los
	Rios), 	the 	proposed 	order
	was 	adopted
as 	the 	order 	of 	the 	Board
	itself.
2
(6/9/77)
	EERB
	Decision 	No. 	18.
2

record 	and 	an 	anaJysis 	of 	the 	District's 	exceptions. 	That 	was
precisely 	the 	procedure 	followed 	by 	the 	Board 	itself 	in
Shasta-Tehama-Trinity 	Joint 	Community College 	District 	cited 	by
the 	Association. 	What 	is 	apparently 	overlooked 	by 	the
Association 	is 	that 	Shasta 	reached 	the 	Board 	in 	its 	docketed
order 	and 	not 	as 	a 	result 	of 	a 	motion 	to 	expedite. 	Nor 	should
the 	expeditious 	manner 	in 	which 	the 	Board 	decision 	was
published 	be ·interpreted as 	an 	indication 	that 	the 	Board 	did
not 	provide 	full 	appellate 	review.
The 	Association 	further 	urges 	expedition 	through 	summary
affirmance 	to 	relieve 	the 	Board 	of 	the 	"undue 	hardship" 	of
treating 	the 	case 	in 	full, 	particularly 	in 	view 	of 	its 	case
backlog. 	The 	time 	delays 	resulting 	from 	the 	flood 	of 	petitions
and 	charges 	that 	inundated 	the 	Board 	when 	the 	EERA 	became
effective 	is 	as 	regrettable 	as 	it 	is 	beyond 	the 	ability 	of 	the
Board 	to 	control. 	It 	is 	for 	this 	reason 	that 	the 	Board 	is 	not
concerned 	with 	"undue 	hardship" 	it 	may 	experience. 	But 	it 	is
precisely 	for 	this 	reason 	that 	the 	Board 	is 	concerned 	with 	the
"undue 	hardship" 	that 	would 	be 	placed 	on 	other 	parties,
including 	some 	who 	are 	raising 	similar 	exceptions, 	who 	would
"lose 	their 	place 	in 	the 	Jjne" 	if 	expedited 	proceedings 	were
granted 	without 	a 	clear 	showing 	of 	absolute 	necessity.
3

ORDER
The 	motion 	for 	expedjtion 	of 	appeal 	of 	exceptions 	to 	the
hearing 	officer's 	proposed 	order 	fiJed 	jointJy 	by 	the 	Rio 	Hondo
College 	Faculty Association, 	CTA/NEA 	and 	the 	Rio 	Hondo
Community 	ColJege 	District 	is 	denied.
Chairperson 	ilou 	Cossack 	Twohey,
4