Joint Hearing Order (7/16/80): (Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act-University of California) Unit Determination: Phase II Professional and Operations Hearings (PERB A101H)

PERB Order No. A101HCalperbSep 29, 1980

Open source

Full text

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-1004)
[ 5] 	(PC-1005)
AMERICAN 	FEDERATION OF 	STATE, 	COUNTY 	AND
MUNICIPAL 	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)
[40] 	(IP-16)
LOCAL 	660, 	SERVICE 	EMPLOYEES
INTERNATIONAL 	UNION, 	AFL-CIO, 	UNIVERSITY
DIVISION,
[ 14 ] 	(PC-10 16 )
(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)
[ 4 3 ] 	( IP- 2 0 )
[46] 	(IP-25)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) ,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case 	No. 	SF-RR-1002 	et 	al
PERB 	Order 	No. 	Ad-101-H
ADMINISTRATIVE 	APPEAL
{INTERLOCUTORY)
Re: 	JOINT 	HEARING
ORDER 	{7/16/80):
HEERA--UC 	UNIT
DETERMINATION:
PHASE 	II,
PROFESSIONAL
AND 	OPERATIONS
HEARINGS
September 	29, 	1980
AMERICAN
	FEDERATION
	OF
	STATE,
	COUNTY
	AND)MUNICIPAL
	EMPLOYEES,
	AFL-CIO
[24] 	(PC-1012)
[25] 	{PC-1018)
[26] 	(PC-1026)
[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 ] 	( I
P-
2 )
ENGLISH
	SECOND
	LANGUAGE
	TEACHERS,
	CFT-AFT
[ 3 6 ] 	(
IP-
4 )
CALIFORNIA
	STATE
	EMPLOYEES
	ASSOCIATION
SOCIE'ltY
	OF
	PROFESSIONAL
	SCIENTISTS
	AND
ENGINEERS,
[37] 	(PC-1023)
LOS 	ANGELES
	COUNTY
	EMPLOYEES
	UNION,
LOCAL
	434,
	SEIU, 	AFL-CIO,
[38]
	(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
[49]
	(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-CIO
LOCAL
	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
	on
	Appeal: 	Robert
	J.
	Bezemek,
	Attorney
	(Van
	Bourg, 	Allen,
Weinberg 	& Roger)
	for 	Appellants: 	Jerrold
	C.
	Schaefer, 	Attorney
(Corbett,
	Kane 	& Berk) 	and 	James 	N.
	Odle, 	Attorney 	(Associate 	General
Counsel: 	University 	of 	California) 	for 	the 	Regents
	of 	the 	University
of 	California:
	Hirsch 	Adell, 	Attorney 	(Reich, 	Adell, 	Crost
	& Perry}
	forAmerican
	Federation 	of
	State,
	county
	and
	Municipal 	Employees.
Before 	Gluck, 	Chairperson
	and 	Moore, 	Member.
3
DECISION
	AND
	ORDER
On
	August
	15,
	1980,
	the
	hearing
	officers
	in 	the
above-titled
	matters
	granted
	the
	request
	of
	certain
	petitioners
and
	interested 	parties
1	
to
	certify
	their
	appeal
	to
	the
	Public
Employment
	Relations
	Board
	(hereafter
	PERB
	or 	Board).
Appellants
	seek 	review
	of 	those
	portions 	of 	the
	Joint
	Hearing
Order 	(7/16/80)
	dealing
	with
	the
	amendment
	of
	petitions
	and
other
	means
	of
	setting
	forth
	alternative
	positions
	to
	the
proposed
	negotiating
	unit(s).
	Specifically,
	Appellants
	contest
the
	Orders
	of 	the 	hearing
	officers
	requiring
	that
	no
	party
	may
propose
	a
	unit 	larger
	than 	the
	one
	it
	originally 	petitioned
	for
except
	by 	means
	of
	formal
	amendment;
	that
	all
	amendments
	and
alternative
	positions
	be
	undertaken
	prior•to
	the 	close 	of 	the
hearing 	record;
	and
	that
	proposals 	or
	positions 	offered 	in
	a
manner
	contrary 	to 	these 	requirements
	shall
	not
	be
	considered
by
	the 	hearing
	officers.
	The
	appeal
	is
	GRANTED.
The
	scope
	of
	a
	hearing
	on
	questions 	of 	representation
	is
determined 	not 	only
	by
	the
	issues 	presented 	in 	the
	original
lThe
	appeal
	was
	filed
	on
	behalf 	of 	Printing
	Trades
Alliance;
	Alameda
	Building
	and
	Construction
	Trades 	Council;
International
	Union
	of 	Operating 	Engineers; 	StationaryEngineers, 	Local
	No. 	391 	San
	Francisco 	Building
	and
Construction 	Trades 	Council;
	American
	Federation 	of 	Teachers,Locals
	1990 	and 	1494;
	University 	Council
	AFT;
	United 	HealthCare 	Employees 	SEIU,
	Local 	535,
	SEIU,
	Local 	660, 	English 	as	
a
Second 	Language
	Teachers,
	CFT/AFT; 	Los 	Angeles 	County
Employees, 	Local 	334,
	SEIUr 	who
	are 	petitioners
	and
	interested
parties
	in 	case
	Nos. 	SF-PC-1004, 	1007, 	1010, 	1015, 	1016, 	1017,
1027,
	1028, 	1029, 	1030, 	1039, 	1042; 	SF-RR-1007, 	1009, 	1010,
1013, 	1014; 	and,
	Interested 	Parties
	Number 	4 	and 	22.
4
5
Request
	for
	Recognition 	or
	Petition
	for
	Certification,
	but
	also
by
	those
	issues 	raised
	by
	the
	employer
	and
	Interested
	Parties
in
	response
	to
	the
	original
	Request
	or
	Petition.
	Any
	party
	may
alter 	its
	original 	position
	or
	propose
	alternatives 	at
	any
	time
without
	formal
	amendment
	as 	long
	as
	its
	new
	position
	or
proposed
	alternative(s)
	does
	not
	expand
	the
	existing
	scope
	of
the 	hearing.
	If,
	however,
	during 	the 	course
	of 	the
	hearing,
	a
party
	changes
	its
	position
	or
	proposes
	an
	alternative 	that
contains 	matters
	beyond
	the
	existing
	scope
	of
	the
	hearing,
	it
may 	do
	so
	only
	by 	way
	of
	formal
	amendment
	with
	additional
showing
	of 	support
	as
	necessary.
	In
	its
	post-hearing
	brief,
	a
party
	may
	urge
	any
	position
	or
	alternative
	it
	cares 	to
	on
	the
basis
	of 	the 	record
	as
	a
	whole. 	Responsive
	briefing 	will
afford
	other
	parties
	the 	opportunity 	to
	respond
	to
	any
	novel
proposals.
Because
	of 	the 	nature
	and
	scope
	of 	the
	requests,
	petitions,
and
	applications 	filed
	by
	the
	parties,
	the
	HEERA-UC
	Unit
Determination 	Hearings, 	Phase
	II,
	have
	become
	comprehensive,
involving nearly
	all
	job
	classifications
	and
	all
	locations
within
	the 	University
	system.
	The
	hearing
	officers
	in
preparing
	their
	recommendations
	to 	the
	Board,
	and
	the
	Board
itself
	in
	making
	its
	determinations, 	will
	not
	be
	confined
	to
accepting 	or 	dismissing 	the
	descriptions 	of 	units 	set 	forth
formally 	in 	the
	parties' 	requests, 	petitions, 	applications, 	or
formal 	responses 	thereto.
	Upon
	the 	close 	of 	these 	proceedings,
5
the
	Board
	will
	determine
	appropriate
	units
	on
	the
	basis
	of
	the
entire
	record, 	including 	the
	arguments
	of
	all
	parties.
	To
facilitate
	the
	Board's
	analysis 	of
	the
	parties'
	positions
	and
the
	record,
	briefs
	should
	contain
	a
	list
	of 	the
	classifications
intended 	to
	be
	included
	in
	proposed
	units
	and
	appropriate
citations
	to
	the
	transcript.
The
	Board
	ORDERS
	that
	these 	hearings 	continue 	in
	a
	manner
consistent
	with
	this
	decision.
PER
CURIAM
6

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.