Phase II Professional and Operations Hearings (Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act-University of California) (PERB A100H)

STATE
	OF
	CALIFORNIA
DECISION
	OF 	THE
PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
BROTHERHOOD
	OF
	TEAMSTERS
	AND
	AUTO
	TRUCK
DRIVERS,
	LOCAL
	NO.
	70,
[1) 	(RR-1002)
[2] 	(PC-1003)
[3] 	(RR-1011)
LABORER'S
	INTERNATIONAL
	UNION,
LOCAL
	1276,
	AFL-CIO
[ 4] 	(PC-10 0 4 )
[5] 	(PC-1005)
AMERICAN
	FEDERATION
	OF
	STATE,
	COUNTY
	ANDMUNICIPAL
	EMPLOYEES,
	AFL-CIO,
	LOCAL
	371,
[ 8] 	(RR-1006)
PRINTING
	TRADES
	ALLIANCE,
[9]
	(RR-1007}
ALAMEDA 	COUNTY
	BUILDING
	AND
	CONSTRUCTION
TRADES
	COUNCIL, 	AFL/CIO
[10] 	(PC-1007)
INTERNATIONAL
	UNION
	OF
	OPERATING
ENGINEERS,
	STATIONARY
	ENGINEERS,
	LOCAL
NO.
	39,
[ 11] 	(RR-1009}
[12] 	(RR-1010)
(JT.
	PET.)
	LOCALS
	660
	AND
	535,
SERVICE
	EMPLOYEES
	INTERNATIONAL 	UNION,
AFL-CIO
[13]
	(IP-22)
	(PC-1010)
[ 4 0 ] 	( I
P-16
)
LOCAL
	660,
	SERVICE
	EMPLOYEES
INTERNATIONAL UNION, 	AFL-CIO, 	UNIVERSITY
DIVISION,
[14] 	(PC-1016)
[15] 	(PC-1017)
CALIFORNIA
	STATE 	EMPLOYEES
	ASSOCIATION,
[16] 	(PC-1011)
[18]
	(IP-5)
	(PC-1035)
[19]
	(IP-6)
	(PC-1032)
[20]
	(IP-7)
	(PC-1033)
[21]
	(IP-8)
	(PC-1031)
[ 23] 	(
IP-11)
(PC-1036)
[43]
	(IP-20)[46]
	(IP-25)
AMERICAN 	FEDERATION
	OF
	STATE,
	COUNTY
	AN
MUNICIPAL 	EMPLOYEES, 	AFL-CIO
[24] 	(PC-1012)
[ 25] 	(PC-1018)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
))
}
)
)
}
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
D))
)
)
Case
	Nos.
	(IP-8)
	SF-PC-1031
(IP-7)
	SF-PC-1033
(IP-5)
	SF-PC-1035
{IP-14)
	SF-PC-1037
(IP-13)
	SF-PC-1038
Phase
	II
	Professional
and
	OperationsHearings
(HEERA-UC)
PERB
	Order
	No. 	Ad-100-H
ADMINISTRATIVE
	APPEAL
September 	29,
	1980

[ 26 ] 	(PC-10 2 6 )
[27]
	(IP-13)
[28]
	(IP-14)
INDEPENDENT
	TOOL
	AND
	DIE
	CRAFTSMEN,
[29]
	(PC-1013)
ALAMEDA 	COUNTY
	BUILDING
	AND
	CONSTRUCTION
TRADES
	COUNCIL, 	AFL-CIO
	AND
	INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION
	OF
	MACHINISTS
	AND
	AEROSPACE
WORKERS,
	BAY
	AREA
	DISTRICT
	LODGE
	NO.
	115,
AFL-CIO
[ 31] 	(
PC-1015 )
INTERNATONAL 	UNION
	OF
	OPERATING
ENGINEERS,
	LOCAL
	501,
[32]
	(IP-9)
	(RR-1012)
[33] 	(PC-1022)
CALIFORNIA
	NURSES
	ASSOCIATION
[ 3 5 ] 	(
IP-
2 )ENGLISH
	SECOND
	LANGUAGE
	TEACHERS,
	CFT-AFT
[ 3 6 ] 	(
IP-
4 )
CALIFORNIA
	STATE
	EMPLOYEES
	ASSOCIATION
SOCIETY
	OF
	PROFESSIONAL 	SCIENTISTS
	AND
ENGINEERS
,
[37]
	(PC-1023)
LOS 	ANGELES
	COUNTY
	EMPLOYEES
	UNION,
LOCAL
	434,
	SEIU, 	AFL-CIO,
[ 3 8 J 	(
IP-
3 )
[39]
	(IP-15)
[41]
	(IP-17)
[45]
	(IP-21)
SAN
	FRANCISCO 	BUILDING
	AND
	TRADES
	COUNCIL)
[42]
	(IP-18)
UNIVERSITY
	OF
	CALIFORNIA
	ACADEMIC
	COUNCIL)
(LIBRARIANS)
	AFT
[44]
	(IP-19)U.C.
	AFT, 	AFL-CIO,
	LOCAL
	1990
[47]
	(IP-24)U.C.
	AFT, 	AFL-CIO,
	LOCAL
	1966[48]
	(IP-26)U.C.
	AFT, 	AFL-CIO,
	LOCAL
	2199
[ 4 9 ]
	(IP-27)
PRINTING
	TRADES 	ALLIANCE
[50]
	(IP-28)[51]
	(IP-29)
LIMITED 	PARTIES
(LP-1) 	SERVICE
	EMPLOYEES
INTERNATIONAL 	UNION, 	AFL-CIO
LOCAL
	102
(LP-2) 	SERVICE
	EMPLOYEES
INTERNATIONAL 	UNION, 	AFL-CIOLOCAL 	250.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
))

(LP-3)
	WITHDRAWN
(LP-4)
	WITHDRAWN
(LP-5)
	WITHDRAWN
(LP-6) 	U.C. 	AFT, 	AFL-CIO,
	LOCAL
	1990)
(LP-7)
	ORANGE COUNTY
	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION
(LP-8)
	AMERICAN
	FEDERATION
	OF
TEACHERS,
	AFL-CIO,
	LOCAL
	1990)(LP-9) 	AFT, 	AFL-CIO,
	LOCAL
	1474(LP-10) 	AFT, 	AFL-CIO,
	LOCAL
	2141
(LP-11) 	AFT, 	AFL-CIO,
	LOCAL
	1990(LP-12) 	AFT, 	AFL-CIO,
	LOCAL
	2023
(LP-13) 	AFT, 	AFL-CIO,
	LOCAL
	2026
(LP-14)
(LP-15) 	PRINTING
	TRADES
	ALLIANCE
(LP-16) 	PRINTING
	TRADES
	ALLIANCE
(LP-17)
	CSEA
(LP-18)
	CSEA
APPLICANTS
(IP-24)
	(RR-1014)
	AMERICAN
FEDERATION
	OF
	TEACHERS,
AFL-CIO,
	LOCAL
	1990 	and
LOCAL
	1494
Employee
	Organizations,
and
REGENTS
	OF 	THE
	UNIVERSITY
	OF
	CALIFORNIA,
Employer.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_____________________ )
Appearances: 	Robert
	J.
	Bezemek,
	Attorney
	{Van
	Bourg,
	Allen,
	Weinberg 	&
Roger)
	for 	Service
	Employees
	International
	Union,
	Locals 	434, 	535,
	and
660,
	and
	University 	Council,
	AFT:
	Douglas
	H.
	Barton, 	Attorney 	{Corbett,
Kane 	& Berk) 	and 	James 	N.
	Odle, 	Attorney
	(Deputy
	General 	Counsel,
University 	of 	California) 	for 	the
	Regents
	of 	the 	University 	of 	Californi
Before Gluck, 	Chairperson:
	Moore, 	Member.
DECISION
	AND 	ORDER
This 	case 	involves 	the
	sufficiency 	of 	the 	showings
	of
interest
	submitted
	by
	the
	American
	Federation 	of 	State, 	county
and 	Municipal 	Employees
	(hereafter
	AFSCME)
	and
	California 	State
3

Employees
	Association
	(hereafter
	CSEA)
	in
	support
	of
	certain
applications
	to
	participate
	as
	parties
	of
	interest
	in
	the
hearings
	currently
	being
	conducted
	by
	the 	Public
	Employment
Relations
	Board
	(hereafter
	PERB
	or
	Board)
	to
	determine
appropriate 	units
	among
	University 	of
	California 	(hereafter
University)
	employees.
Former
	PERB
	rule
	51220,1	
in
	effect 	at
	all
	relevant 	times,
required
	that
	applications	
to 	participate
	in 	the 	University
lPERB
	rules
	are
	codified
	at
	California
	Administrative
Code,
	title
	8,
	section
	31000
	et
	seq.
Former
	PERB
	rule
	51220
	provides:
Participation
	by
	Party 	of
	Interest.
	An
employee
	organization
	may 	be	
allowed
	to
participate 	fully
	in
	a
	representation
hearing 	provided:
(a)
	It
	has
	filed
	a
	written 	application
with 	the
	regional
	office
	not
	less
	than
ten
	days
	prior
	to
	the
	commencement
	of
	the
hearings;
	and
(b} 	The
	Hearing
Officer
	determines
	that
the 	organization 	will
	not 	unduly
	impede
the 	hearing:
	and
(c)
	the
	Hearing
	Officer 	determines
	thatthe 	organization
	has
	either:
(1) 	10
	percent 	support 	of
	any
	unitin 	dispute 	at
	the 	hearing, 	or
{2) 	10
	percent 	support 	of
	a
	proposed
unit
	which
	overlaps 	another
	unit
	in
dispute 	at
	the 	hearing.
This 	rule
	was
	replaced 	by	
PERB
	rule
	32166,
	effective
July 	18, 	1980.
4

unit
	determination 	hearings
	as
	parties
	of
	interest
	be
	supported
by 	a 	10
	percent
	showing
	of
	interest
	among
	employees
	in
	a
	unit
in 	dispute
	at
	the 	hearing 	or
	in
	a
	proposed
	unit
	which
overlapped
	a
	unit
	in
	dispute
	at
	the 	hearing.
	Pursuant
	to
	this
rule,
	the
	regional
	director
	requested 	the 	University 	to
	supply
lists
	of
	employees
	included
	in 	the
	units
	proposed
	by
	AFSCME
(IP-13
	and
	IP-14)
	and
	CSEA
	(IP-5, 	IP-6, 	IP-7,
	and
	IP-8) 	so
	that
PERB
	could
	check
	their
	showings
	of
	support.
	The
	University
indicated
	that
	it
	was
	unable
	to
	produce 	complete
	and
	accurate
lists
	of
	employees
	in 	those
	proposed
	units
	at
	that
	time.
Because
	this 	failure
	by
	the 	University 	to
	provide
	accurate
information
	made
	it
	impossible
	to
	check
	the
	showings
	of 	support
under
	PERB's
	normal
	procedures, 	the 	regional
	director
	checked
the
	showing
	based
	on 	two
	assumptions:
	(1)
	that
	the
	number
	of
employees
	estimated
	by
	the
	party of
	interest
	applicant
	as
comprising 	the
	claimed
	appropriate 	ne~otiating 	unit 	is
accurate;
	and 	(2)
	that
	those 	persons
	who
	have
	clearly
demonstrated
	their 	desire 	to
	be
	represented
	by
	the
	party 	of
interest
	applicant 	are
	among
	those
	employed
	in 	the 	proposed
unit.
	He
	determined
	that
	AFSCME
	demonstrated 	support
sufficient
	to
	meet
	the 	requirements 	of
	former
	PERE
rule
	51220(c) (2)
	in
	its
	proposed
	units
	IP-13
	and
	IP-14 	(as
amended) 	and
	that
	CSEA
	failed 	to 	demonstrate
	sufficient 	support
in 	proposed
	units 	IP-5, 	IP-6, 	IP-7,
	and
	IP-8.
	The
	regional
director's
	decision 	to
	check 	the 	showings 	of 	support 	in 	the
5

absence
	of
	an
	employee
	list,
	and
	the 	procedures
	he
	utilized
	to
do
	so,
	have 	been
	appealed
	to 	the
	Board
	by
	Service
	Employees
International
	Onion,
	Locals
	434,
	535 	and
	660,
	and
	University
Council,
	AFT.
This
	is
	the
	first
	case
	to
	come
	before 	the
	Board
	in
	which
	an
employer 	has
	failed
	to
	provide
	a
	list
	of
	employees
	to 	enable
the
	Board
	to
	check 	showings
	of 	support.
	We
	find
	that
	the
procedures
	used
	by
	the
	regional
	director,
	which
	comport
	with
the 	National
	Labor
	Relations 	Board's 	procedures
	in
	the
	same
situation,
2 were
	appropriate
	as
	applied
	in
	this
	case.
	The
decision
	of 	the
	regional
	director 	that
	AFSCME
	has
	met
	the
showing
	of
	interest
	requirements
	of	
PERB	
rule
	51220(c)
(2)
	in
proposed
	units
·IP-13
	and
	IP-14
	and
	that
	CSEA
	failed
	to
	do
	so
	in
proposed
	units
	IP-5, 	IP-6, 	IP-7,
	and
	IP-8
	is	
AFFIRMED.
PER
	CORIAM
2see 	the 	National
	Labor
	Relations
	Board
	CasehandlingManual,
	Part
	II,
	section
	11030.1,
	which
	covers 	checking
	the
showings	
of	
interest
	when
	the
	employer 	does 	not 	supply
	an
employee
	list:
If
	no
	payroll
	list
	has 	been
	submitted, 	the
estimate
	made 	by
	the 	affected
	union 	shouldbe 	used 	as 	the
	number
	involved
	and 	each
signer 	of 	authorization material 	should 	be
considered 	to
	be 	employed
	within 	the 	unitclaimede
6