Antioch Unified School District (PERB A134E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
ANTIOCH 	UNIFIED SCHOOL 	DISTRICT,
Employer,
APPELLANT,
and
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL 	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION 	AND 	ITS 	ANTIOCH
CHAPTER 	#8 5,
Employee 	Organization.
)
)
)
) 	Case 	No. 	SF-UM-234
PERB 	Order 	No. 	Ad-134
Administrative 	Appeal
March 	30, 	1983
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances: 	Michael 	Aidan 	for 	California 	School 	Employees
Association 	and 	its 	Antioch 	Chapter 	#85; 	Paul 	M. 	Loya, 	Attorney
(Atkinson, 	Andelson, 	Loya, 	Ruud 	& Romo) 	for 	Antioch 	Unified
School 	District.
Before 	Jaeger, 	Morgenstern 	and 	Burt, 	Members.
DECISION
BURT, 	Member: 	This 	case 	is 	before 	the· Public 	Employment
Relations 	Board 	(PERB 	or 	Board) 	pursuant 	to 	PERB 	regulation
32360,1 	as 	an 	administrative 	appeal 	of 	the 	regional
representative's 	April 	12, 	1982 	dismissal 	of 	a 	unit
modification 	petition 	filed 	February 11, 	1982 	by 	the 	Antioch
Unified 	School 	District 	(District).
The 	petition 	filed 	pursuant 	to 	PERB 	regulation 	section
33261 (b) (1) 2 	sought 	to 	delete 	eight 	positions 	as 	supervisors
lpERB 	regulations 	are 	codified 	at 	California
Administrative 	Code, 	title 	8, 	part 	III, 	section 	31001 	et 	seq.
2PERB 	regulation 	33 261 (b) ( 1) 	provided:

from
	the
	operations/support 	unit
	(Unit
	A)
	represented
	by
California
	School
	Employees
	Association
	and
	its
	Antioch
Chapter
	#85.
	The
	regional
	representative
	dismissed
	the
	unit
modification
	petition
	without
	prejudice
	based
	upon
	the
	fact
that
	the
	District
	did
	not
	allege
	any
	changes
	in 	circumstances
regarding
	the
	position 	in 	dispute.
(b) 	A
recognized 	or
	certified
	employee
organization,
	an
	employer, 	or 	both
jointly
	may
	file
	with 	the
	regional
office
	a
	petition
	for
	change
	in 	unitdetermination 	pursuant
	to
	GovernmentCode
	section 	3541.3(e):
(1) 	To
	delete 	classifications
	no
longer 	in 	existence
	or 	which 	by
virtue
	of 	changes
	in 	circumstances
are
	no
	longer 	appropriate 	to 	the
established 	unit;
	(Emphasis 	added.)
We
	find
	that
	the
	unit 	modification
	petition
	was
	properly
dismissed
	in
	accordance 	with 	the 	requirements
	set
	forth 	in
	PERB
regulation
	3326l(b)
(1). 	Pursuant. to
	that 	provision,
	which
	was
applicable 	at
	the
	time
	the
	District
	filed
	the
	instant
	petition,
deletions
	of
	classifications
	through
	unit 	modification 	requests
were
	permitted
	where
	the
	classifications
	were 	no
	longer
	in
existence
	or,	
by	
virtue
	of
	changes
	in 	circumstances,
	were 	no
longer 	appropriate
	to 	the
	established 	unit.
	The
	District's
failure
	to
	satisfy
	the 	requirement 	of
	that 	regulation
	mandated
that
	the
	petition
	be
	dismissed.
. . . . . . . 	. 	. 	. 	. . . . 	. 	. 	. . . 	.
2

We
	note,
	however,
	that 	that
	provision
	has
	since
	been
replaced
	by
	rule
	3278l(b)(5).3 	Effective
	February 	14, 	1983,
unit
	modification
	petitions
	which
	seek
	classification
	deletions
will
	be
	entertained
	if
	no
	lawful
	written
	agreement 	or
memorandum
	of 	understanding
	is
	in
	effect
	or
	if
	the
	petition 	is
filed
	during 	the
	"window
	period"
	as
	defined
	by
	our
	regulations.
3section
	3278l(b)
(5)
	provides:
(b) 	A	
recognized
	or
	certified
	employee
organization,
	an
	employer, 	or 	both
jointly
	may
	file
	with
	the
	regional
office
	a
	petition
	for
	change
	in 	unitdetermination:
(5)
	To
	delete
	classification(s)
	or
position(s)
	not
	subject
	to
	(1)above 	which
	are 	not
	appropriate
	tothe
	unit
	because
	said
classification(s)
	or
	position(s)
are
	management,
	supervisory
	or
confidential,
	provided
	that:
(A)	
The
	petition 	is 	filed 	jointly
by
	the
	employer
	and
	the
recognized 	or
	certified
employee
	organization,
	or
(B)
	There
	is
	not
	in
	effect
	a
lawful
	written
	agreement 	or
memorandum
	of 	understanding,or
(C)
	That 	the
	petition 	is 	filed
during 	the
	"window
	period" 	of
a
	lawful 	written
	agreement 	or
memorandum
	of 	understandingas 	defined 	in 	these
regulations 	in .Section
	33020
for
	EERA, 	40130
	for
	SEERA
	or51026
	for
	HEERA.
3

ORDER
After
	a
	review
	of
	the
	entire
	record
	in
	t~is
	case,
	the
Public
	Employment
	Relations
	Board
	ORDERS
	that
	the
	unit
modification
	petition
	in
	Case
	No. 	SF~UM-234
	is
	hereby
	DISMISSED.
Members
	Jaeger
	and
	Morgenstern
	joined 	in
	this
	decision.
4

\
S,:
1;
()F
CAll:::oRNIA 	EDMUND
G.
B.llOWN
JR
••
Go-.-
-==\:::··===========--===============--=============
PUollC. E.MPLOY;"nENT RELATIONS BOA~D
Son Francisco Regional
Office
1n
Post St.I 9th
FlOQr
5on Francisco, Colifomia 	94108
(415) 557-1350
April
12,
	1982
Mr.	
Paul
Loya,
Attorney
Atkinson,
	Arrlelson,
Loya,
Ruud &
Rare
1811
Santa
Rita
Road,
	Suite
102
Pleasanton,
California
	94566
Mr.
M.ichael
Aidan,
Field
Representative
California
School
Employees
Asscciation
arrl
	i.
ts
Antioch Chapter
#85
P.
	0.
Box
2542
Martinez,
	California	
94553
·
Re:
	SF-UM-234 	(R-146B)
Ant:i.cch
Unified
School
District
Dear
Interested Parties:
On
February
11,
1982
the
Anticch
Unified
School
Di.strict
filed
a
	unit
mcrlification
peti
ti.on p.1rsua.-it
to
PERB
Regulation3326l(b)
(1)
	to
delete eight
:positions
as supervisors
from
theoperattons/suH?Ort
services
unit
	(Unit
A)
	represented
by
	_
California
School
Employees
Asscciation
and
	its
Antiochiss.
Chapter
PERB
Regulation
3326l(b} (1)
	states:
(b) 	A recognize:::!
or
certified
o.rganizatton, an employer,
or
	both
	jointly
may
file
with
	the
	regional
office
a
petitionfor
	change
in
uni.t
determination p.u:suant
to
Goverrnnent Cede
section
	3541.3(e):
(1) 	To
delete classifications
no
longer
	in
existence
O!'."
whi.c.'1
by
virtue of
changes
	in
clrcumsta.'1ces
are
no
longer
appropriate to the established unit;
	(Emphasis added)
Based upon
information in the unit
r::a:li.fication
petition
	i.tselfand
discussions held
at
a meeting
	cx1
Apri.l
	6,
	1982 wi.th
ooth
parties,
	it
	is
apparent
	that the Di.strict
is
not
alleging
any
cha.'1ges
	in
circumstances regarding
	t.r"Je
positions in dispute.Therefore, 	since
	it
does not
conform to the requirements
stated
i.n
PERB
Regulation
33261
(b}
{l),
	the unit
rocxli.ficati.on :pet.iti.on
is
	herebJ
d i.smissed.

Apri.l
12,
	1982
Hr.
	Paul
Il:)ya,
Attorney
Mr. Michael Ai.dan, Fi.eld Representative
Page 2
This
dismissal
does not preclude
either party
from fili.ng a
u.,it
ma:ii.fication peti.ti.on
at
	any time when
the
cr.i.teri.a
of
PEPB
Regulation
3326l(b)(l)
	have been mete
An ag;:,eal
of
	thi.s.deciscin rnay·be
made
to
the
Board
itself
within
10 calendar days
of service
of
	this
	letter
by
filing
	a
statenent of the facts
	upon
which
	the
appeal
	is
based
with
the
Executive
Assistant
to
the Board
at
1031 - 	18th
Streett
Sacramento,
·,California
	95814. 	Copies
of
	any
appeal
must be
concurrently
served upon
all
parties
and
	the San Francisoo
Regional
Office.
	Proof
of
	service of
the
appeal
must be
filed
with the
Executive
Assistant.
Should you have any
questions
regarding
this
matter, please
do
not
hesitate to
contact
me.
Very
trulv
vours,
J~lyn
Gelt
Senior
Repre_sentati ve
JG~ir