Norwalk-La Mirada Unified School District (PERB 0029E)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE EDUCATIONAL
EMPLOYMENT BELA.TIONS BOARD
NORWAIK-IA MIRADA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
c:ALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,
CHAPTER 19,
Employee Organization,
and
SERVICE EMPLOYEES IN'IBRN.A.TIONAL UNION,
LOCAL 99,
Employee Organization.
)
)
)
) 	Case Nos. I.A-R-10
I.A-R-11
I.A-R-12
IA-R-538
EERB Decision No. 	29
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
-----------------------')
Ji'
Appearances: 	Shelby E. Wagner, 	for the Norwalk-La Mirada Unified School Distri~t;
Ken B. 	Metzger, 	for California School Employees Association, 	Chapter 19;
Howard M. 	Friedman, 	for Service Employees International Union, Local 99.
Before Alleyne, 	Chairman; 	Gonzales and Cossack, 	Members.
OPINION AND ORDER
'Ihis case is before the Educational Employment Relations Board on exceptions
to the attached proposed decision of a hearing officer. 	Norwalk-la Mirada Unified
School District excepts to the hearing officer's proposed decision that three
separate units of classified employees are appropriate for the purpose of
representation under the Educational Employment Relations Act: 	an instructional
aides 	(paraprofessional) unit, 	an office-technical and business services unit, 	and
an operations-support services unit. 	'Ihe Board has considered the record and the
proposed decision in light of the exceptions.

'Ihe hearing officer's decision is substantially in accord with precedents
of this Board. 	See Sweetwater Union High School District,J.
, Fremont Unified
School District, 2 and San Diego Unified Schoo l 	District. 3 Accordingly, 	the
hearing officer's proposed order is adopted as the order of the Educational
Employment Relations Board.
' 	~ 	- 	-y
B} ; ;,Reginald Alleyne, 	Chainnan 	Raytrond Gonzales, Member
, J en_ou	/ 	· 1 	H . Co ssack , M.errber
Dated: 	September 16, 	1977
•
1EERB Decision No. 	4 	November 23, 	1976.
'
2EERB Decision No. 	6, Decenber 16, 1976.
~ Decision No. 	8, 	February 18, 	1977.
-2-

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE 	EDUCATIONAL
EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
NORWALK-LA MIRADA 	UNIFIED 	SCHOOL 	DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
CALIFORNIA 	SCHOOL 	EMPLOYEES 	ASSOCIATION,
CHAPTER 	19,
Employee 	Organization,
and
SERVICE 	EMPLOYEES 	INTERNATIONAL 	UNION,
LOCAL 	99,
Employee 	Organization.
)
}
)
) 	Case 	No. 	LA-R-10
LA-R-11
LA-R-12
LA-R-538
EERB 	Decision 	No. 	29
ORDER
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_______________________)
The 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	directs 	that:
l. 	The 	following 	units 	are 	appropriate 	for 	the 	purpose 	of
meeting 	and 	negotiating, 	providing 	an 	employee 	organization 	becomes
the 	exclusive 	representative:
Instructional 	aides 	(paraprofessional)
Included: 	instructional 	aides 	employees
Excluded: 	all 	other 	employees 	including 	managerial,
supervisory 	and 	confidential 	employees.
Office-technical 	and 	business 	services 	employees
Included: 	accounting, 	purchasing 	and 	secretarial-clerical
employees.
Excluded: 	all 	other 	employees 	including 	managerial,
supervisory 	and 	confidential 	employees.
Operations-support 	services 	employees
Included: 	transportation, 	custodial, 	maintenance, 	grounds,
warehouse, 	food 	services, 	security 	employees.
Excluded: 	all 	other 	employees 	including 	managerial,
supervisory 	and 	confidential 	employees.

Within 	ten workdays 	after 	the 	employer 	posts 	the 	Notice 	of 	Decision,
the 	employee 	organizations 	shall 	demonstrate 	to 	the 	Regional 	Director
at 	least 	30 	percent 	support 	in 	the 	above 	unit. 	The 	Regional 	Director
shall 	6onduct 	an 	election 	at 	the 	end 	of 	the 	posting 	period 	if~
(1) 	more 	than 	one 	employee 	organization 	qualifies 	for 	the 	ballot, 	or
(2) 	only 	one 	employee 	organization 	qualifies 	for 	the 	ballot 	and 	the
employer 	does 	not 	grant voluntary 	recognition.
Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Board
by
Charles 	L. 	Cole
Executive 	Director
9/16/77
-2-

EDUCATIONAL EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS 	BOARD
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORWALK-LA MIRADA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Employer
and
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,
CHAPTER 19,
Employee Organization
.and
SERVICE EMPLOYEES 	INTERNATIONAL UNION,
LOCAL 	99,
Employee Organization
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
PROPOSED DECISION
Case Nos. 	LA-R-10
LA-R-11
LA-R-12
LA-R-538
Appearances: 	Shelby E. 	Wagner, 	for 	the Norwalk-La Mirada Unified School
District; 	Ken 	B. 	Metzger, 	for 	California School Employees Association,
Chapter 19; Howard M. 	Frtedman, 	for Service Employees 	International Union,
.Local 	99.
Before James Romo, 	Hearing Officer.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On April 1, 	1976, 	Service Employees 	International Union, 	Local 	99
(hereinafter SEIU) ' filed 	requests 	for 	recognition as 	the exclusive 	renresent~rivR
.
in 	separate units 	composed of 	transportation,l maintenance,2 and 	operations3
employees with 	the Norwalk-La Mirada Unified School District.
1The following 	job classifications 	comprise 	the 	transportatio.n unit
petitioned for 	by SEIU: 	auto mechanic 	II; 	auto mechanic I; 	bus 	dispatcher;
bus 	driver; 	food van operator.
2The following 	job classifications 	comprise 	the maintenance 	unit petitioned
for 	by SEIU: 	painter-plasterer; 	painter; 	cabinet maker; 	carpenter; 	glazier;
audio-visual electrician; 	electrician; 	heating and ventilating mechanic; 	plumber;
office equipment repairman; 	locksmith; 	welder; 	maintenance man.
3The following 	job classifications 	comprise 	the operations 	unit 	petitioned
for 	by SEIU: 	security agent; 	stock clerk senior; 	stock clerk; 	gardener; 	grounds
leadman; 	auditorium attendant; 	custodian senior; 	pool attendant; 	custodian;
shower 	and 	locker room attendant; 	gym attendant; 	plant protection officer - 	high
school.

On April 9, 	1976, 	California School Employees Association, 	Chapter 19
(hereinafter CSEA), 	filed 	a request 	for recognition as 	the exclusive
representative of a unit 	composed of 	all 	classified employees 	in the
District. 4
On April 21, 	1976, 	CSEA filed 	a petition of 	intervention with 	the District
which constituted a 	competing claim of 	representation in 	the 	transportation
unit 	filed by SEIU.
On April 29, 	1976, 	CSEA filed 	petitions of intervention with 	the District
which constituted competing claims 	of representation in 	the maintenance and
operations units 	filed 	for by SEIU.
On May 3, 	1976, 	SEIU filed 	petitions of intervention with 	the District
which constituted competing claims of 	representation for 	the school 	secretaries
and 	the special education instructional aides, 	employees wi.thin 	the unit for which C~
sought 	exclusive representation.
In the Employer's Decision filed pursuant 	to Section 33190 of 	the
Educational Employment Relations 	Board 	(hereinafter EERB) 	Rules 	and Regulations,
the 	District doubted 	t~e appropriateness 	of the units petitioned for 	by SEIU.
A unit determination hearing was 	conducted by an EERB hearing. officer on
Ha·rch 14, 	1977.
At 	the hearing, 	the District argued 	that notwithstanding 	the 	Board's
decisions 	in Sweetwater Uhion High School District, 5 and Fremont Unified School
District, 6 a 	comprehensive unit composed of all classified personnel 	in the
Norwalk-La :Mirada Unified School District 	is 	appropriate. 	Conversely, 	the
employee organizations 	took the position 	that 	the 	three units 	found 	appropriate
in Sweetwater and Fremont are also 	appropriate 	in 	this District.
ISSUE
1. 	What unit or units are appropriate for 	the 	purpose of meeting and
negotiating?
4 Included in the unit petitioned for by CSEA are employees 	from 	the
following 	job 	series: 	food 	services; 	clerical; 	secretarial; 	instructional
aides; 	and 	all other support service positions.
5 EERB Decision No. 	4, 	November 	22, 	1976.
6EERB Decision No. 	6, 	December 16, 	1976.
-2-

DISCUSSION
Where a question regarding 	the appropriateness of a particular unit or
units, 	is raised, 	the 	Board is guided 	in its determination by the language
contained in Government Code Section 3545(a). 7
In applying 	the statutory unit determination criteria to 	the facts 	in
the Sweetwater and Fremont decisions, 	the 	Board found 	three units 	to be
appropriate for meeting and negotiating for 	classified employees.
8
In Foothill-DeAnza Community College District, 	the Board noted 	that
its decision in Sweetwater had established for classified employees, 	units
that are presumptively appropriate. 	The Board also noted 	that 	this pre
sumption was 	rebuttable and 	that a "party may show a unit 	that deviates 	from
a presumptively appropriate unit is also appropriate."
In light of 	the 	Board's language in Foothill-DeAnza, 	and 	the position
taken by SEIU and· CSEA at 	the hearing, 	the presumption that 	three units are
appropriate is raised. 	Consequently, 	the District would appear 	to have 	the
burden of showing that a unit or units different from the units 	found
appropriate in Sweetwater are appropriate.
Community of Interest
Turning first 	to 	the 	criterion of community of interest, 	the District
contends 	that a unit composed of all 	the classified employees in the District
is appropriate for 	the reason that 	they share a common community of 	interest.
In support of this contention, 	the District introduced evidence 	to 	show
that 	all classified employees under current District practice are: 	(1) 	subject
to 	the same rules 	and regulations 	regarding promotions, 	discipline, 	transfers
and hiring; 	(2) 	paid from the same salary schedule; 	(3) 	enjoy the same fringe
benefits if 	eligible; 	(4) 	subject 	to the same leave promotions; 	(5) 	extended
access 	to 	the same grievance procedures.
7section 3545(a) 	states:
In each case where 	the appropriateness of 	the unit 	is an
issue, 	the board shall decide 	the question on the basis of
the community of 	interest between and among 	the employees
and 	their established practices 	including, 	among other
things, 	the extent to which such employees belong 	to 	the
same employee organization, 	and 	the effect of 	the size of
the unit on the efficient operation of the school district.
8EERB Decision No. 	10, March 1, 	1977.
-3-

Without question, 	these 	terms 	of employment are 	the 	type of 	factors
that warrant 	consideration in determining whether 	employees 	share a 	community
of 	interest.
. 	' 	9 However, 	the fact 	that classified employees are equally subject
to 	the 	same 	terms of employment 	as 	those 	listed above, 	is not determinative
in the resolution of 	the issue concerning 	the appropriateness of units.
In Fremont, 	the 	Board was 	faced with a 	similar 	factual 	situation. 	The
district 	in Fremont had 	instituted pursuant 	to Section 13701 of 	the Education
Code, 	a merit 	system in which most employees were 	subject 	to 	the same 	terms
of employment. 	The 	B;)ard 	in Fremont, 	however, 	was not persuaded 	that 	this
factor 	alone was 	sufficient 	to preclude 	the creation of separate units. 10
9The 	Board 	in Sweetwater cited 	the NLRB case Kalamazoo Paper 	Box Corp.
136 NLRB 134, 	49 LRR1'1 1715 	(1962), 	as 	an instructive case on the issue of
community of interest. 	The NLRB in 	that case listed the following 	as 	factors
that warranted consideration in determining 	the 	existence of substantial
differences 	in interests and working conditions: 	(1) 	a difference 	in method
of wages or 	compensation; 	(2) 	different hours 	of work; 	(3) Mdifferent 	employment
benefits; 	(4) 	separate supervision; 	(5) 	the degree of dissimilar qualifications;
(6) 	training and skills; 	(7) 	differences 	in job 	functions 	and amount 	of working
time 	spent away from the employment 	or plant •lliitus under state and 	federal
regulation;. 	(8) 	the 	infrequency or lack of contact ·with other employees;
(9) .lack of 	integration with the work functions 	of c::ither· employees 	or 	inter
change with them; 	UO) 	an~ 	the history of bargaining.
10 See 	the 	Board's decision in Fremont, where it was 	stated:
With regard 	to 	the community of 	interest of 	the
comprehensive unit, 	the 	district noted 	that 	it
is a merit 	system district with a Personnel 	Com
mission established according to 	the scheme 	set
forth in Education Code Sections 13701 ~ seq.
The district argues 	that 	the merit 	system renders
unnecessary separate units because 	the Personnel
Commission promulgates 	rules which apply 	to 	all
classified employees while recognizing 	the special
interests and needs 	of 	certain employees.
We find 	that 	the existence of 	the merit 	system in
this 	district 	does not mandate 	the establishment of
a 	comprehensive 	classified employee unit. 	The merit
system was developed 	to 	assist districts 	in personnel
matters 	prior 	to 	the 	time when employees were able 	to
select or reject an exclusive representative. 	The
procedures under 	the merit 	system do not 	control
the development 	of 	the new meeting and negotiating
system implemented by Government Code Section 3540.
-4-

Instead, 	the Board chose 	to 	review other 	factors 	and, 	in particular,
emphasized the work function performed by the various 	groups 	of employees. 11
In 	this 	connection, 	the Board in Sweetwater noted 	that 	the 	three units
found 	appropriate in that district performed distinctly different work
functions. 	For 	instance, 	it was observed 	that 	the employees 	included 	in 	the
"operations-support services" unit performed 	duties 	that involved various
forms 	of physical 	labor.
As 	for 	the office-technical and business 	services unit employees, 	the
Board noted 	that these employees 	generally performed 	in a 	clerical 	or record
·keeping functio~.
Finally, 	with respect 	to 	the instructional aides 	unit, 	the 	Board concluded
that 	the primary'duties of 	these employees 	involved assisting 	students 	in
their 	educational development.
Similarly, 	in this 	District, 	the classified employees 	can also be 	separated
by work function and placed in units 	like those found 	appropriate 	in Sweetwater
and Fremont.
A review of the job descriptions 	of 	classified employees 	in 	this 	District
reveals
. that 	there 	is 	a group of 	emplo1.ees whose primary work function involves
providing a 	prop5r physfcal environment and providing support servic~s 	for
students.
Like 	the employees 	in the Sweetwater operations-support services 	unit,
this 	group of 	employees 	drive and repair buses, 	prepare meals 	for 	students,
handle equipment and supplies, 	and 	perform janitorial, 	gardening and 	general
maintenance work. 	Also 	like the employees 	in the Sweetwater operations-support
services unit, 	the majority of operations-support service employees 	in this
District are not generally required 	to 	have the same educational qualifications
as 	the other classified employees at 	issue. 	Generally, 	these employees 	are
not 	required 	to 	have a high school education. 	Instead, 	the District 	emphasizes
the possession of 	practical work experience.
As 	an additional distinction, 	these 	employees 	are paid out 	of 	the
District's general 	fund 	as 	opposed 	to 	the categorical 	funding 	used 	to 	pay
most 	instructional aides 	and 	some clerical employees 	in 	the District.
Further, 	unlike 	the 	instructional aideJ2who 	are only part-time employees, 	the
operations and 	support 	services 	employees work full-time. 	Thes~ 	employees
11 Fremont, 	note 	6 supra. 	See also Sweetwater, 	note 5 suura.
12 Head 	Start 	Instructors who were 	included 	in 	the 	certificated
unit were not 	the 	subject 	of 	this 	hearing.

also work the entire year as opposed 	to 	instructional aides 	and 	fifty 	to
seventy percent of 	the clerical employees who work only during 	the 	school
year.
Relying upon factors 	similar 	to 	these, 	the 	Board 	in both Sweetwater and
Fremont concluded 	that 	the operations-support services employees shared a
community of 	interest 	that was distinct 	from other employees which 	thereby
justified their 	separation. 	A similar conclusion in the 	instant case is
warranted.
In its decision in Fremont, 	the Board in reference 	to 	the 	creation of
an instructional aides 	unit remarked:
In the present case, 	the duties 	of the instructional
aide 	employees 	involve assisting 	the 	certificated
staff with the supervision and 	training of 	students.
The primary duties of other 	classified employees do
not 	involve direct 	interaction with students and 	their
educational development. 	Additionally, 	instructional
aides are required 	to have an education equivalent 	to
the completion of 	the 	tenth grade plus 	some applicable
education, 	experience or training 	in the care and
supervision of children. 	Instructional aide 	employees
are compensated by non-district 	state and 	federal
categorical funds. 	Their retention as 	an 	employee
depends upon the contlnuation of 	categorical fμnding.
Aides have little contact with other 	classified employees.
Customarily, 	aides are assigned 	for a 	full 	school year
to 	the classroom of a 	particular 	teacher or teaching 	team.
They have a 	line of 	supervision distinct 	from other
classified employees 	in that 	they are directly super
vised by a 	classroom teacher or 	teachers, 	and ultimately
by the principal and 	the business manager, 	superintendent
and 	Board of Trustees.
,
The distinguishing characteristics of 	the 	instructional
aide employees relating 	to work function, 	education and
experience requirements, 	compensation, 	lack of interaction
with other 	classified employees, 	work location, 	and
supervision combine to 	establish that 	a 	separate 	instruc
tional aides unit, 	consisting of 	the job classifications
listed 	in footnote 	7, 	supra, 	is 	appropriate.
Many of 	the 	factors 	that were instrumental in the 	Board's decision in
Fremont and Sweetwater 	to 	find 	a 	separate unit 	of 	instructional aides 	also
exist 	in this District.
In the instant 	case, 	the primary duty of the instructional aides
involves 	the direct assistance 	in the educational development of 	students.
-6-

This 	is 	contrasted with the primary duties 	performed by 	the other 	classified
employees 	that do not involve direct interaction with students and 	their
educational development.
Generally, 	instructional aides 	are required 	to have at least 	the
equivalent of a high school education. 	In fact, 	in some 	instances, 	the
aide 	is 	required 	to 	possess additional education, 	experience or 	training
in the particular area in which 	he assists. 	These educational requirements
exceed 	the educational requirements 	imposed on 	the other 	classified employees.
The majority of aide positions 	in the District are funded by
categoric~l 	grants. 	In 	this 	connection, 	their 	retention as 	an employee
depends upon 	the continuation of 	the categorical funding.
As noted earlier, 	these aides 	are part-time employees, 	working only
during 	the school year. 	Finally, 	with the work of 	an aide being largely
performed in the classroom, 	there 	is 	little contact with employees 	in the
operations-support services unit.
In sum, 	the similarity between these community of i~terest factors 	and
those 	the 	Foard discussed 	in Fremont also 	justify 	the creation of 	a 	separate
unit 	composed of 	instructional aides 	on the basis 	that 	they have a 	separate
community of interest 	distinct 	from the other classified employees.
The remaining employees perform clerical and record-keeping work.
The 	job descriptions of 	these employees 	indicate 	that 	they 	type, 	operate
business machines, 	maintain files 	and keep 	records. 	These employees are
generally required 	to 	have 	the 	equivalent of a 	twelfth grade education.
Fifty to 	seventy percent of 	the 	clerical employees work only 	during
the 	school year. 	A small percentage of 	the 	clericals work part-time. 	Like 	the
operations-support 	services 	employees, 	they are generally compensated 	from the
general fund as 	opposed 	to 	being 	categorically funded.
Finally and most 	importantly, 	unlike 	the operations-support services
employees, 	they do not assist 	in providing a proper physical environment
for 	students. 	Nor 	do 	they directly assist 	in the educational development
of 	students as 	do 	the 	instructional aides.
Faced with substantially similar 	facts, 	the 	Eoard 	in Fremont 	and
Sweetwater found 	that a 	unit of office-technical and business 	services
employees was 	appropriate in each of 	the above-named districts. 	In 	the
-7-

instant 	case, 	the District has 	failed 	to 	rebut 	the presumption 	that 	the
office-technical and business 	services 	employees 	share a 	distinct
community of 	interest. 	Therefore, 	based 	on the 	fact 	that office-technical
and 	business 	services 	employees 	share a distinct 	community of 	interest, 	a
separate unit 	composed of 	office-technical 	and business 	services 	employees
is 	appropriate.
Efficiency of 	Operation and Established Practices
Turning next 	to 	the 	criterion of 	efficiency of 	operation, 	the 	District
at 	the hearing and in its 	post-hearing brief 	argued 	that 	the 	creation of
more 	than one unit would have an adverse affect upon 	the efficient 	operation
of 	the District. 	Specifically, 	the District 	argued 	that 	creation 	of 	separate
units 	would have 	a demoralizing effect on employees because 	separation of
units would mean a 	reduced possibility of promotions 	and mobility between
job 	classifications. 	Further, 	the 	District contended 	that 	the creation of
different units 	could 	result 	in increased costs 	to 	the District 	caused by
having 	to maintain separate fringe 	benefit programs 	for 	the 	different 	units.
Concerns 	similar 	to 	t~ese were 	raised by witnesses 	called 	to 	testify
in 	the Fremont, hearing. 	The Eoard 	in 	that 	case noted 	that
none 	of 	the witnesses who 	testified on 	the 	subject of 	efficiency of operation
had 	any 	experience negotiating with multiple units. 	The 	B::lard 	also 	noted
that 	absent 	from 	the 	record were 	concrete 	facts 	relating 	to 	projected 	time
requirements 	for 	district 	personnel dealing with negotiation matters. 	Nor
was 	there 	evidence regarding 	the projected number 	of 	employees 	that would
be required 	to be released 	during working 	hours 	for 	negotiations with 	single
as 	opposed 	to multiple 	units.
Similarly, 	in 	the 	instant 	case 	the witness 	called by 	the District 	to
testify on 	the 	subject of 	efficiency of 	operation 	indicated 	that he 	lacked
specific 	experience in 	either 	the 	private 	or public 	sector negotiating with
multiple 	units. 	Furthermore, 	as 	in Fremont, 	the 	record 	is 	bare 	of 	"concrete
facts" 	supporting 	the District 1 s 	claim that 	multiple 	units would 	affect 	the
efficient operation of 	the District. 	Accordingly, 	the 	testimony 	of 	the
witness 	called by 	the District must be viewed 	as 	speculative in nature and
given little weight.
r,	
-o-

Assuming arguendo 	that 	the creation of multiple units may have
such an effect, 	the statutory criteria involved in determining 	the
question of appropriateness of 	units 	still 	require 	consideration of
the other 	factors, 	i.e., 	community of 	interest 	and 	established practices.
In 	this 	regard 	the 	Board 	in Sweetwater stated:
•.• It 	is 	a legitimate concern 	that excessive
fragmentation of negotiating units may burden
an employer with multiple negotiating processes
and postures and with a variety of negotiated
agreements 	difficult 	to 	administer because 	their
provisions 	differ. 	Interorganization competition
may increase demands made 	upon the employer by an
employee organization. 	The 	employer may have 	to
give the benefits of 	the 	'best' 	settlement in
each area of negotiations 	to 	all empioyees 	to
avoid employee unrest or 	the administrative 	incon
venience caused by multiple agreements.
,,,
On the other hand, 	while a 	s.ingle unit 	is
theoretically the most 	conducive to 	the efficient
op~ration o~ the school district, 'tt 	is 	only one
of 	three 	criteria for 	unit determination set 	forth
in Section 3545(a). 	Further, 	the purpose of 	the
Act 	is 	stated in Government Code Section 	3540 as
follows:
It 	is 	the purpose 	of 	this 	chapter
to 	promote 	the improvement of personnel
management 	and employer-employee relations
within the public 	school systems 	in 	the
State of California by providing a
uniform basis 	for 	recognizing 	the 	right
of 	public school employees 	to 	join
organizations of their own choice, 	to
be represented by such organizations 	in
their professional and employment rela
tionships with public school 	employers,
to select one 	employee organization as
the 	exclusive representative of 	employees
in an appropriate unit ...
This 	section recognizes 	the 	rights of public school employees
to 	join and be represented by 	the employee organization of
their 	choice. 	Implicit 	in 	this 	statement of 	legislative
-9-

intention is 	the notion 	that 	the 	employees will have 	the
ability to 	choose an organization which is an effective
representative. 	An effective representative will generally
· be one largely determined by 	the 	community of 	interest and
established practices of 	the employees 	rather 	than 	the
efficient operation of 	the school district.
In Fremont, 	the 	Board concluded 	that 	the 	evidence presented by 	the
District regarding efficiency of 	operation was 	insufficient 	to 	preclude
the creation of 	three units.
Here, 	too, 	the evidence with respect 	to 	efficiency of 	operation is not
sufficient 	to preclude the creation of 	three units.
Finally, 	with respect 	to established practices, 	the District argues
that 	the prior history of 	the District 	supports 	the notion of 	the 	appro
priateness of a 	single unit.
Evidence introduced by 	the District at 	the hearing shows 	that 	for 	the
five previous years, 	representatives from both SEIU and CSEA met and conferred
with the District on matters pertaining 	to salaries, 	fringe 	benefits, 	and
other 	terms of employment. 	The District also 	emphasized 	the fact 	that when a
proposal was 	initiated by an employee organization and 	subsequently adopted,
the proposal would .have a district-wide effect. 	In other words, 	the adoption
. 	.
of 	a wage increase would affect all 	classified employees 	in·the District and
would not be limited 	to members 	of 	the initiating employee organization. 	The
fact 	that meeting and conferring sessions did, 	in some 	instances, 	result in
the adoption of policies 	affecting 	all 	classified employees,. the District
contends, 	reinforces 	its 	contention 	that 	the 	established practices of 	the
District have been 	to 	"bargain" with a 	single unit of employees 	in mind.
Because of 	the many differences 	in 	the process 	leading up 	to 	and
surrounding negotiating under 	this Act and 	the meet 	and 	confer 	sessions 	that
predated 	the Act, 	the 	Board has determined 	that prior practices 	under 	the
Winton Act are not 	conclusive evidence. 	In light of 	the Board's 	treat
ment of 	the criteria of 	established practices, 	the evidence 	introduced by
the District in 	the 	instant 	case and consequently 	is not sufficient 	to
preclude 	the creation of 	three units 	for meeting and negotiating.
-10-

\
PROPOSED DECISION
It is the proposed decision 	that:
1. 	The f ollo wing uni t s are appropriate for 	the purpose of mee ting
and negotiating, 	providing an employee organization becomes 	t he exclusive
represen t ative :
Instructional aides 	(parap r ofe ss ional)
Included : 	inst r uctional aides 	employees
Excluded: 	all other employees includ!ng managerial, 	supervisory
and con fiden tial employees .
Office - t echn ical and business services employees
/
Included : 	accounting, 	purchasing and secretarial-clerical employees.
Exclud ed: 	al l 	ot he r 	employees including managerial, 	supervisory and
confidential emp loyees .
Operations-suppor t 	services 	employees
Included: 	trans po rtation , .custodi a l, 	maintenanc e, 	gr ou nds, warehouse,
food 	servi ces, 	security employees . 	•
Excluded: 	all other emplo yee s 	including manager ial, 	supervisory and
confidential employee s .
The parties have seven calendar days from receipt of 	this proposed
decision in which to file exceptions in accordan ce wi t h Sect i on 33380 of 	the
Rules and Regulations. 	If no party files 	timel y exceptions , 	this 	proposed
decision wi ll become a 	final 	order 	on July 8, 	1977, 	and a No t ice of Decision
will 	issue from 	the Board .
Within ten workdays after 	the employer posts 	the Notice of Decis i on,
the employee organiza t ions 	shal l 	demonstrate 	to 	the Regional Director at
least 30 percent support in t he above unit . 	The Reg iona l 	Di r ect or shall
conduct: an election a t 	the end of the posting period if: 	(1) 	more 	than
one employee orga ni zati on qua lifi es for 	the bal lo t, 	or 	(2) 	only one emplo ye e
o rganization qual ifies for 	t he ballo t 	and t he employer does not gran t
voluntary rec ogni tion.
Date: 	June 23, 	1977
James Romo, Hearing Off i cer
- 11 -