Antioch Unified School District (PERB A135E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DEC IS ION 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
ANTIOCH 	UNIFIED SCHOOL 	DISTRICT,
Employer,
APPELLANT,
and
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION 	AND 	ITS 	ANTIOCH
CHAPTER 	41: 8 5,
Employee 	Organization.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
____________________ )
Case 	No. 	SF-UM-243
PERB 	Order 	No. 	Ad-135
Administrative 	Appeal
March 	30, 	1983
Appearances: 	Michael 	Aidan 	for 	California 	School Employees
Association 	and 	its 	Antioch 	Chapter 	41:85; 	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 	March 	19, 	1982 	by 	the 	Antioch
Unified 	School 	District 	(District).
The 	petition 	filed 	pursuant 	to 	PERB 	regulation 	section
3326l(b) (1)2 	sought 	to 	delete 	one 	position 	as 	confidential
lPERB 	regulations 	are 	codified 	at 	California
Administrative 	Code, 	title 	8, 	part 	III, 	section 	31001 	et 	seq.
2PERB 	regulation 	33261 (b) (1) 	provided:

from
	the
	classified
	unit
	(Unit
	B)
	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
	positions 	in
	dispute.
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.
(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 	ln 	existence
	or
	which 	by
virtue
	of 	changes
	in
	circumstances
are
	no
	longer 	appropriate 	to 	the
established 	unit;
	(Emphasis
	added.)
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
	unit
determination:
(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
	or
51026
	for
	HEERA.
3

ORDER
After
	a
	review
	of
	the
	entire
	record
	in
	this
	case,
	the
Public
	Employment
	Relations
	Board
	ORDERS
	that
	the
	unit
modification
	petition
	in
	Case
	No. 	SF-UM-243
	is
	hereby
	DISMISSED.
Members
	Jaeger
	and
	Morgenstern
	joined
	in
	this
	decision.
4

',;A-:-.:..::• Lll!K-~.-;1..i.	
EDM.\.iND
C.
i?.?.O'hri
JR .•
(',-;,,_,_
---
PUZUC ~,l..:\?t.OYMf.Hr
REU.TlCNS
S-OA~D
Son
F:-:mc:-;.co
R,egional OHicet
177
Pn:-r
St.,
9-:-h
floor
S0n
f;
~ndsc·:.i,
C::lifornia
	94108
1,
1
:3)
:357-13.50
April
12, 1982
Mr.
	Pa~l
Loya, Atto:cney
Atkinson,
Andelson, Loya,
	Ruud	
& Raro
1811
Santa
Rita
~oad,
Suite
102
Pleasanton,
California
	94566
Mr. Michael Aidan,
	Field
Representative
C:lli.Eornia School
Employees
Asscci.aticn
arrl
	its
Antioch Chapter
#85
P.
	O.
Box
2542
Martinez,
California
	94553
Re: 	-SF-U'1-243
	(R-146A)
Jl.nticch
Unified
School
District
Dear
Interested Parties:
On 'March
19,
1982
the
Anticch Unified
School
Di.strict
filed
	a
unit
mo:li.ficat:i.on
petition
pursu2
..
nt
	to
PERS
Regulation
3326l(b) {l)
	to
delete
one p::isition as oonfidcnti.al from
	the
classified
unit
	(Unit
B)
	represented
by
California
Schcol
Employees
Asscciaticn
and
	.its
Anti.cch
Chapter
	~85.
PERE
Regulation 3326l(b)
(1)
	states:
(b) 	A
reoognizro or
	certi.fi.ed
organization,
	an employer,
or
	both
jointly
may
file
wi.t.1-i
	the 	regional
office
a
petition
for
	change
in
u.°'1.it
determination
pu:rsu.3r1.t
	to
C··o<1ernment
Cede
seetion
3341.3
(e):
(1) 	'I'o
delete classifications
no
lonce.r 	i.n
existence
or
\•1hi.ch
	by
virtue of
changes
	in
ci.rcur;i..stas:·:::es
are
no
longer appro:iriate
	to
	the
established lmit;
	(.:...~asis added)
Based upon ·
1.
nf
ormat1on
	.	
ln	
.	
t'
ne
m1.1..
	.
,_
mc:a
	~'
f'
	....
.
	t'
Lcton
	· .
	'....	
lf	
:i.ca'--1cr1
pe	
1.1..se_
and di.scussi.ons
held
at
a meetir.g on .?'~pril
	6,
	1982
with both
par
tics,	
i.
t
	is
ap;?arent
	that
the Di.strict
	is
r:ot
alleging	
any
cha.'1ge.s	
.i.11
c i.rcu.115 tcmces regc:ird in:1 	t.he pos
i.
t
ten in
d.ispu.te.
Th2re£or1::,
	since
	it
a02s	
not
conform
	to the
	r-:=-quire.-nents
of
-,
	1 d
t'
1.on	
3-,2,-1(')(1'
	.:>	
th
	Pei.SB
~•-• 	••
	t'L'
	•
Re<Ju
	o 	o 	, , 	e
	un.1.'"	
'f-
rr:cx:1
u: 1.canon P2 l 1..ton 1.s
her-eby di.srni.sse:L

Apr-i.l
12,
	1982
Mr.
	Paul
Loya,
	Attorney
Mr~ l•i"i.chael
Aldan,
	Fi.eld Representati.ve
This
dismissal
does
not
preclude ei.thef
party
frCTit
	fi.li.ng 	a
unit
m:xli.fi..cation
:petition
at
any ti.me when l:ne
crlte.da
of
PERB
Reg-1lation 3326l(b)
(1)
	have been met .
.
An
	appeal
of
	this
deci.si.on
may
be
m.2.de
to
	t.1-ie
Board
	itself
within
10
calendar days
of
service
of
	thi.s
	letter
	by fi.l.ing a
statement
of
	the
facts
	upon which 	t}1e
appeal
	i.s
	based
w.i
th
	the
Executive
Assistant to the
Board
	at
1031 - 	18t.'-l
Street,
Sacramento,
California
	958140
	Copies
of
	ar1y
appeal must be
concurrently
served upon
all
parties
am	
the
San Frai.7eisco
Reg-tonal
Office.
	Proof
of
service
of
	the a,P?=al must be fi.le::l
with.
the
Executive
Assistant.
Should you have any questions regarding
this
matter,
	please
do
not hesitate
	to
cont2.ct me.
Very
truly
your~,
Jeri.jlyn
, 	I
Gelt
-
sJmor
Representative
JG:
i.r