Paramount Unified School District (PERB 0033E)

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE EDUCATIONAL
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD

PARAMOUNT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Employer

Case No. LA~R-75
and
EERB Decision No. 33
TEACHERS ASSOCIATION OF PARAMOUNT,

Employee Organization October 7. 1977

Nee Ne Ne ee ee a a 8

Appearances: Joseph E. Herman and Barry R. Smith, Attorneys (Seyfarth, Shaw
Fairweather and Geraldson), for Paramount Unified School District; Paul Crost,
Attorney (Reich, Adell and Crost), for Teachers Association of Paramount.

Before Alleyne, Chairman; Gonzales and Cossack, Members.

“OPINION AND ORDER

Paramount Unified School District takes exception to the following aspects
of the attached hearing officer's decision: the hearing officer's proposed
decision that counselors are not management employees or supervisory employees
within the meaning of Government Code Sections 3540.1(g) and 3540.1(m),
respectively; that counselors should be included in a unit with other certificated
employees; that the coordinator of music is not a management or a supervisory
employee within the meaning of the Educational Employment Relations Act; and that
part-time children's center teachers should be included in a unit with other
certificated employees. Other issues were decided by the hearing officer, but
no party filed exceptions in respect to them. The Board has considered the

record and the attached proposed decision in light of the exceptions.

On the matters excepted to, 	the hearing officer's decision is 	substantially
in accord with p recedents of·the Board. 	Accordingly, 	the propo.sed orde r 	of 	the
hearing officer is adopted as 	th e order of 	the Educational Employment Rela ti ons
Board. 	See Oakland Unified School Dist rict, 1 ·on the issue of 	the management
and supervisory status of counselors and the inclusion of counselors 	in a unit
with o t h er certificated employees; 	Lompoc Unified School Distric t 2 on the
management and supervisory status of the coordinator of music; 	and Belmont
Elementary School District3 on the iss~e of t he inclusion of part -t ime 	teachers
in a unit with other certificated empl oyees.
Reginald Alleyne, 	Chairman 	r
Jerilou H. 	Cossack, 	Member, 	concurring:
I 	agree that here, 	as in Washington Unified School District, 	EERE Decision
No. 	27, 	September 14, 1977, 	c ounselors and psychologists should be inc lud ed in
the overall certificated unit not only because they possess a community of
inter est with other certificated employees but also b ecause there are so 	few of
them.
I 	note that during five years ~n that position, 	the coordinator of music
evaluated in some unspecified fashion one traveling elementary teacher . 	One
isolated 	instance during a 	five - year span of 	the exercise of one of the secondary
indicia of supervisory status 	is not su f ficient 	to establish that 	the coordinator
1EERB Decision No. 	15, March 28, 	1977.
2~ .... RB	J:.~ ... 	Decision No. 	13, March 17, 1977.
3EERB Decision No. 	7 ' 	December 30, 	1976.
-?-

of music in fact possesses the requisite authority to be excluded from 	the
negotiating unit as a supervisor.
Finally, 	I 	find no merit in the District's contention that part-time
children's center teachers should be excluded from a unit which, 	by agreement
of 	the parties, 	includes 	full -tim.e children I s center teachers. 	Cf. 	Oakland
Unified School District, 	EERB Decision No. 	15, March 28, 	1977.
~e/ ilou H. 	Cossack , Membe r
Raymond J. 	Gonzales, 	dissenting:
I 	respectfully dissent from the majority's decision to sustain the hearing
officer · in t his case on ' the question of whether 	the counselors should be incl uded
in a unit with other certificated employees, 	I would refer the reader 	to my
dissent in Grossmont Union High s ·chool District1 and although the facts 	of 	th is
cas~ are not 	totally identical, 	I 	feel 	the communi t y of interest standard 	that 	I
required in my Grossmont dissent would apply in 	this case. 	Therefore, 	I 	f eel
there is 	sufficient evidence in the present case 	to 	allow for "an 1' 	appropriate
bargaining unit of 	cou nselors.
I 	concur with the decision on al l 	other aspects of 	this case.
By: 	~ymond J . 	Gdnzale/
Dated: 	October 	7, 	1977
I
1EERB Decisio n No. 	11 , 	March 9, 	1977 .
-3-

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
EDUCATIONAL EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
In the Matter of:
PARAMOUNT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Employer,
-and-
TEACHERS ASSOCIATION OF PARAMOUNT,
Employee Organization.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
___________________ )
Case No. 	LA-R-75
PROPOSED DECISION
(6-14-77)
Appearances: 	Joseph E. 	Herman and Barry R. 	Smith, Attorneys 	(Seyfarth,
Shaw, 	Fairweather and Geraldson) 	for Paramount Unified School District;
Paul Crost, 	Attorney 	(Reich, 	Adell, 	and Crost) 	for Teachers Association
of Paramount.
Before: 	Michael G. 	Coder, 	Hearing Officer
OPINION
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On April 1, 1976, 	the Teachers Association of Paramount,
CTA/NEA 	(hereinafter "TAP") 	filed a request for recognition as 	the
exclusive representative for 	a unit of certificated employees with
the Paramount Unified School District 	(hereinafter the "District")))
]) The proposed unit 	included all certificated employees
excluding the following positions: 	superintendent; 	assistant
·superintendent, business; 	assistant superintendent, 	instruction
senior director of personnel; 	senior director of special
projects; 	director of pupil services; 	principal, 	high school;
-1-

On May 4, 	1976, 	the District notified the Educational Employment
Relations Board that 	it doubted the appropriateness of the unit
described by TAP. 	A formal unit 	determination hearing was held
November 22 and December 15, 	1976.
ISSUES
1. 	Whether counselors are management 	employees.
2. 	Whether a separate unit for 	counselors 	is appropriate.
3. 	Whether the coordinator of music is a management
or supervisory employee.
4. 	Whether the Early Childhood Education team leaders
are management or supervisory employees.
5. 	Whether part-time employees should be included in
the unit.
DISCUSSION
THE DISTRICT
The Paramount Unified School District has an average
daily attendance of approximately 10,700 students. 	The District
employs approximately 462 certificated personnel.
principal, 	intermediate school; 	principal/director, 	adult
education; 	ESAA project coordinator; 	principal, 	elementary
school; 	assistant principal, 	high school; 	assistant principal,
intermediate school; 	coordinator 	(if paid on Admin. 	Sal.
Sched. 	during 1975-76); 	Title VII project 	leader; 	student
activity director 	(if paid on Admin. 	Sal. 	Sched. 	during
1975-76); 	and psychologist. 	It was stipulated that 	these
positions were either management or supervisory positions
and therefore not properly within the unit 	for which TAP had
petitioned.
-2-

COUNSELORS
There are twenty-one counselors, 	of whom half are funded 	from general
district 	funds and 	the other half of whom are categorically funded. 	The
counselors are permanently assigned to specific schools 	throughout 	the District.
The District contends that 	the counselors are management employees, 	or,
in the alternative, 	that· the counselors are not appropriately within the
unit 	for which TAP petitioned in that 	the counselors do not share a community
of 	interest.
Management Status
Government Code Section 3540.l(g) 	defines a management employee as 	"any
employee in a position having significant responsibilities 	for 	formulating
district policies or administering district programs."
In interpreting Section 3540.l(g), 	the Board has concluded that despite
its apparent disjunctive language, 	the appropriate interpretation of 	the
:Section requires 	that a person must possess both the "significant
responsibilities" in order to be excluded as a management employee)/
l':1anagement personnel in public sector employment governed by the Meyers-
Milias-Brown Actl/ are entitled to be represented by an exclusive representative.
This 	is not the case with management personnel employed in public schools
governed by the Educational Employment Relations Act 	(hereinafter "EERA"),!:±_/
For example, 	management personnel are exempted from those persons defined as
as 	"employees."
_;,/Los Rios 	Community College District, 	EERB Decision No. 	18, 	June 9, 	1977;
Lompoc Unified School District, 	EERB Decision No. 	13, March 17, 	1977.
1/Government Code Section 3500 et~; 	future 	references, 	unless otherwise
designated, 	shall be to 	the Government Code.
4/ Section 3540, ·et seq.	-
-3-

"Public 	school employee"-or 	"e:nployee 11 means 	any person
employed· b~ any public school employer 	except 	persons
elected by popular vote, 	persons 	appointed by 	the
Governor of 	this 	state, 	management 	employees, 	and con-
fidential 	employees. 	·	1/
The EERA further 	provides:
A public school employer or such representatives 	as 	it
may 	designate who may, 	but need not 	be, 	subject 	to 	either
certification Tequirements 	or requirements 	for 	classified
employees 	set 	forth 	in the Education Code, 	shall meet 	and
negotiate with and only with 	representatives 	of 	employee
organizations 	selected as 	exclusive 	representatives 	of
appropriate units 	upon request 	with,yegard 	to r:1atters
within 	the scope of 	representation.E-
The Board, 	in Lompoc, 	cited New York Univer~itv..Z/ with ·approval
as 	standing for 	the proposition that 	the· facts· of a particular case must
clearly establish 	that 	the employee is 	clearly allied with management. 	There
is 	an implied presumption against denying valuable negotiating rights 	to a
person· by designating 	that person."management."
It 	is wit'h the above rules 	in mind 	that 	the facts 	of 	the instant 	case
are presented.
In support of its position, 	the District 	primarily cites a
recommendation from the counselors 	for 	certain changes 	in 	their
activities 	and a 	redefinition of 	their goals 	and objectives. 	Partially
as 	a 	result 	of 	this 	study,· the number of days 	a---counselor was
required 	to serve was 	increased by twelve days, 	and 	counselors were
!}./ 	Section 3540.l(j).
ii Section 3543.3.
7/ 221 NLRB 	1148, 	91 LRR:1 1165 	(1975).
-4-

to serve an·"eight-hour day." 	TAP contends 	that 	the formulation
and administration of a counseling program by the counselors 	them-
selves 	is not 	a significant 	responsibility at 	the District 	level.
The District placed heavy reliance on the 	self-evaluation
and counseling proposals which 	culminated 	in the publication of
GUIDA...~CE HELPS. 	Through the assistance of the director of pupil
services, 	Dr. 	Ronald Lackey, 	a 	"needs assessment'' was 	completed
which formed 	the basis for 	the evaluation of the 	counseling program.
After numerous 	committee and subcommittee meetings 	and discussions
with management, 	the document GUIDANCE HELPS was 	prepared and
adopted as district 	policy by the Board of Education after some minor
modifications.
The scope and significance of modifications in the counseling
program as 	reflected by GUIDANCE HELPS.are interpreted differently
by the District and by TAP.
This voluminous document 	contained a comprehensive description
of the goals, objectives and methods of providing counseling services
to students, 	and it proposed an electronic data processing system
whereby the site administrators 	could maintain ongoing audit and
review of their activities. 	The goals, 	objectives and methods 	of
providing counseling services are mere refinements and elaborations
of the 	traditional counseling roles 	as previously promulgated by
the District's management 	and 	contained within past job descriptions
and school board regulations. 	The concept of recording and evaluation by
computer, 	which was adopted by the counselors, 	is 	found 	to have been
initiated by Dr. 	Ronald Lackey, 	the 	Director of Pupil 	Services, 	a
management 	position. 	Pursuant 	to 	the meetings of 	the counselors, 	a
-5-

majority approved of 	the concept of counselors working an "eight-
hour day." 	There was, 	however, 	a significant minority which 	took
exception to 	the concept of the "eight-hour day." 	This 	time was
felt 	necessary to enable 	the counselors 	to 	complete their objectives
as well as 	to provide a degree of identification by and with the
community which generally worked an "eight-hour day." 	Precisely
what was meant by an "eight-hour day" was apparently subject 	to
individual interpretation. 	The general interpretation is that 	the
concept of the "eight-hour day" 	required eight duty hours on the 	site.
For some counselors the concept was merely an affirmation of 	their
past and current practices; 	for others 	it required some additional
duty time to be spent on the site.
The counselors also felt 	it necessary to 	increase the
length of their school year by 	twelve additional days 	to accomplish
-the goals which they had set 	for 	themselves. 	As a 	result of the
additional duties and responsibilities which the counselors proposed
to assume, 	their compensation is now determined on a 	separate salary
schedule. 	Although the counselors originally expressed a desire 	to
remain on the teachers' 	salary schedule, 	the District's management
insisted a ·new salary schedule was 	reqtired. 	This salary schedule
was described as 	being akin to an administrative salary schedule.
Counselors were found 	to be generally included on the top four
steps of 	the 	teachers'salary sc!-edule. 	These four 	steps were used
as 	the basis 	for 	the new counselor salary schedule. 	The rate of
pay for 	teachers ~as multiplied by what can best be described as a
"responsibility factor" 	of 1. 015 	(indicating an increase of 1~%)
and further adjusted b_Y allowance 	for the 	twelve additional days 	of
-6-

service required 	of 	them which was not 	required of 	teachers.
This 	different 	salary schedule is not 	found 	to 	significantly
affect 	the status 	of 	the counselors 	as 	pertains 	to 	the 	contention
that 	they are management 	employees. 	Despite 	the 	alteration of 	the
teachers' 	salary schedule, 	the counselors' 	remuneration was 	determined
by the salary paid 	to 	the 	teachers. 	Steps 	on the 	teachers' 	salary
schedule which did not 	generally relate 	to 	those 	persons employed as
counselors •..;ere eliminated and 	the cou.-i.selor salary schedule was
compacted. 	The salaries of 	the counselors were increased by a
sum equal 	to one and one-half percent above 	the 	top 	teacher's 	salary.
Since 	the 	t'eachers and counselors had 	previously worked a 180-day year )
additional prorated compensation was 	added 	for 	the 	twelve additional
days 	of ;iervice now requ_ired of 	the 	counselors •
•
It 	cannot be found 	that 	the counselors have significant responsibility for
adopting District policies based upon 	the publication of their program guidelines,
GUIDANCE REI.PS. 	The alterations which were made 	in the counselors'
program, 	chiefly 	the accounting procedures 	and 	increase in work hours, are
found 	to have been made under the direction and control of Dr. 	Ronald Lackey
and 	others of 	the Districtts management 	team.
Even if it were 	found 	that 	the counselors 	as 	a 	group had a
significant effect on altering 	their collective counseling program,
the 	conclusion 	that 	these persons are not management 	employees would not
be altered. 	As 	counsel for TAP correctly points 	out 	in argument, 	the
EERA states 	that one 	of 	the purposes 	of 	the law is 	''to afford 	certificated
employees a 	voice 	in 	the 	formulation 	of educational policy.rr!/
§j Section 3540.
-7-

Recommendations as 	to improvement of 	the program in which a 	teacher or
counselor is 	involved are within the 	traditional professional responsibilities
of 	the certificated staff. 2._/
It 	is found 	that 	the only significant change which resulted
from the counselors' 	self-evaluation was 	the previously mentioned
"eight-hour day" and the increase in the counselorsr 	school year by
twelve days. 	These changes were 	the result of a secret ballot
carried by a majority vote, 	over the opposition of a very vocal and
significant minority. 	Are 	these counselors who voted against 	such
a 	change, 	and who question 	its 	legality, 	to be considered as 	having
significant independent"' authority 	to propose and implement district
policy? 	If 	this one factor 	could be considered as an indicia of
man~ganentresponsiblity, 	it cannot now be determined which counselors
are 	to be considered management 	for having voted favorably on the
proposal. 	The 	counselors, 	as a 	result of their self-evaluation,
formulation and implementation of GUIDANCE HELPS, 	cannot 	fairly be
said 	to 	regularly exercise any of 	the duties 	and responsibilities
ascribed to management 	employees. 	The grouprs evaluation of the
district 	program, 	and 	improvement of 	the counseling program at 	each
site 	is not sufficiently different 	from the professional, 	certificated
staff members.
?
-8-
-~_/See California Federation of Teachers vs. 	Oxnard Elementary School District,
272 Cal. 	App. 	2d 514 	(1969) 	and San Juan Teachers Association vs. 	San Juan
Unified School District, 44- Cal: 	App. 	'.;d 232 	(1974).

The yearly individual objectives that 	the counselors write
must be submitted to 	the principal for his 	approval. 	Similarly, 	the
responsibility for monitoring the guidance program rests with
the principal. 	Finally, 	to leave the school site a counselor 	is
required to clear his actions with the principal.
For each and all of the above cit~d reasons, 	it 	is
concluded that 	the counselors are not management employees.
Appropriate Unit
The District urges 	that 	if 	the counselors are not found
to be management, 	they are 	to be excluded from the proposed unit because
their inclusion renders 	that 	unit 	inappropriate. 	The standard
for appropr.iate b~rgaining units 	is 	the cormnunity 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 tee	h 	ff.icient	. 	operation	· 	o f 	t h e sc h oo 1 d 1str1ct	· 	· 	lO/ 	Urged
as distinguishing characteristics are: 	an "eight-hour work day; 11
longer work year; 	different salary schedule; 	a 	private office;
regular use of a 	secretary; 	the fact 	that half of the counselors 	are
not permanent certificated employees; 	and 	that 	they have not
necessarily served as classroom teachers. 	As 	a 	result 	of 	these alleged
.~
1.Q/ 	Section 3534(a).
-9-

differences, 	the District 	contends 	that bargaining conflicts 	will
inevitably arise, 	thereby interfering with the 	efficient operation
of the 	District. 	TAP 	cites 	the 	following 	as 	evidence of 	the 	counselors'
community of 	interest with teachers: 	both work primarily with
students; 	inte]'.";3.ction with. _t_1le _te~~11:ing IJ_~rsonnel; 	utilization
of counselors 	as emergency substitute teachers; 	previously two
counselors were assigned minor teaching duties 	for 	one and 	three
years 	respectively; 	the direct 	relationship between the 	two 	salary
schedules; 	past participation in the Certificated Employees 	Council
as part 	of TAP; 	many counselors 	are 	tenured 	teachers 	in 	the district;
and 	similar fringe benefits and working conditions.
In Los Angeles Unified School District11:.1and Grossmont Union High
School District;l/the Board 	found 	that counselors 	as wellas other
pupil services 	employees did not have a· suf·ficiently different
cormnunity of interest 	to be excluded from the certificated employee 	unit.
The facts 	in 	this 	case do 	not 	compel 	a contrary result.
In both decisions, 	the Board recognized 	that certain differences
in working conditions between counselors and teachers 	exist:
"We are mindful 	that there are some minor 	differences between
teachers 	and 	the 	•.• 	disputed classifications 	(counselors),
such as 	the length of 	their work day and work year. 	However,
we do not view these differences as 	sufficient 	to 	establish a
separate community of 	interest." 	13/
ll/ EERB Decision No. 	5, 	November 	24, 	1976. •
ll/ EERB Decision No. 	11, March 9, 	1977,
111 ~ at page 	7.
-10-

In Grossmont, 	the counselors worked one hour longer than the normal teaching
assignment and served six more days 	per year. 	In Los Angeles, 	counselors shared
office facilities and a secretary while teachers prepared assignments 	in the
classroom or at home.
It is found here as 	in the above mentioned decisions 	that both groups
of employees are "credentialed" requiring advanced educational training
although the emphasis may differ slightly: 	both receive 	the same fringe
benefits including sick leave, 	vacation, holidays, 	retirement and insurance.
The counselors are required to participate in certificated faculty and staff
meetings. 	All certificated employees are evaluated according to Stull Act
requirements 	in the Education Code.
Most counselors are assigned to a school site and fall within the
general supervision of the site administrator as do 	teachers. 	Approval of
a counselor's yearly objectives and monitoring of the guidance program is a
responsibility of the principal, who also evaluates 	teachers' 	lesson plans.
Finally counselors have daily interaction with teachers 	in the course of
performing their guidance and counseling functions 	for students.
The District argues 	that 	the establishment of a separate salary
schedule for 	counselors has created a distinction between their employment
interests and those of 	teachers. 	It is 	true that in both Los Angeles and
Grossmont, 	while counselors received a pay differential above that of
classroom teachers, 	the base salary of all certificated employees was 	determined
from a single salary schedule. 	Here the separate schedule was unilaterally
established by the District. 	It was 	the counselors' 	original desire to
remain on the teachers' 	salary schedule. 	The management refused, 	insisting
on a new schedule if counselors were to receive extra remuneration for
-11-

their extra duties and hours. 	While the salary base difference has been
considered in determining community of 	interest, 	taken alone it 	is not
sufficient 	to justify a separate unit in light of the background facts.
Moreover, 	the top four 	steps of both schedules are identical prior 	to 	the
addition of the counselor's differential. 	In light of its obligation to
fairly represent all members of the unit an exclusive representative might
well negotiate a single schedule again.
Finally, 	the District cites 	the fact 	that many counselors were categorically
funded or were permanent employees as a 	distinguishing factor 	favoring 	their
inclusion within a separate bargaining unit. 	Again, 	it 	is recognized 	that,
in 	the prior cases, 	counselors were tenured, 	certificated employees, 	most
of whom had seniority in classroom service with a right 	to return to 	teaching.
The District's position here, 	however, 	was not contrasted with facts 	as
to whether or not other certificated personnel were permanent employeeso
It 	is possible, 	if not 	likely, 	that some classroom teachers within the
undisputed unit are not permanent employees also. 	The isolated 	fact 	that
many counselors are not permanent employees does not weigh either for 	or
against a community of 	interest in the absence of a showing of what 	is proved
by such evidenceo
The factors 	raised by the District to show dissimilar interests between
counselors and teachers have been weighed against 	the numerous similarities
as 	found 	in earlier Board decisions and are not sufficiently strong as 	to
distinguish this case. 	Accordingly, 	counselors 	shall be included within
the overall certificated employee unit.
-12-

COORDINATOR OF HUSIC
There is one person who 	serves as 	the C.oordinator of
Music, 	Mr. 	James DeBolske. 	The District 	contends 	that 	the coordinator
of music is a management or 	supervisory employee, 	both c£ 	which
designations are opposed by T.AP.
He 	is a regular 	teacher for 	three periods, 	and serves
as 	coordinator for 	two 	periods. 	For the extra duties 	involved
in coordination, 	he 	receives 	$341.10 	additional yearly compensation
.over his 	regular 	teacher's 	salary. 	All other benefits 	are 	the same
as 	regular 	teachers. 	He 	is the general curriculum leader 	for 	the
music department, 	as well as 	consultant 	and 	resource person in this
area. 	Although more time was 	spent at 	these activities 	t~an 	is
true of most department 	chairmen, 	the difference
.,. appears 	to be
merely of .duration and not of degree. 	As 	part of· his 	coordinating
duties, 	DeBolske schedures musical 	performances 	for 	corrrmunity groups.
This 	duty 	is 	found 	to be clerical in nature, 	and does not 	involve
the use of 	independent 	judgment.
DeBolske 	administers 	an $8,000 budget. 	Although free
to 	spend within 	this 	budget; 	the 	exigencies of routine 	repair of
equipment and purchase 	of musical supplies 	leave 	little money
over which he 	can exercise 	independent judgment. 	This 	factor
is a 	slight 	indication of management status.
-13-

In the five years he has 	served as music coordinator,
DeBolske has evaluated only one other music teacher. 	He himself 	is
evaluated by the high school principal. 	He was 	part of an inter-
viewing panel with two other music 	teachers. 	As 	a result 	the
top 	three interviewees were rated and 	the recommendation forwarded
to 	the Personnel Office. 	Whether any person so reconrrnended was hired
is not disclosed by the 	record. 	This factor 	is 	insufficient 	to
establish 	that DeBolske has 	independent authority to effectively
recormnend 	the hiring of personnel. 	The evaluation of·the one other
teacher cannot be said 	to be a regular activity so as 	to give rise
to 	supervisory status.
The position for which DeBolske and his 	colleagues
interviewed applicants was 	created on a suggestion by DeBolske.
This 	recommendation of another music tea~her position had been made
by him for 	several years. 	That 	the budget was able to support
the added position for 	the 	first 	time this 	last school year does
not alter the fact 	that DeBolske's 	reconnnendations were not effective
ones, 	better characterized as mere 	suggestions.
The duties 	and 	responsibilities of the coordinator
of music are indistinguishable from those assigned to high school
department heads 	in New Haven Unified School District. 141
.1::/ 	EERB Decision No. 	14, March 22, 	1977.
-14-

In that case, 	upon finding the department heads to be neither supervisory
nor management, 	the Board stated:
••• "Department heads are selected on the basis of expertise and
experience in departmental subject matter. 	lf.aking informal classroom
observations, 	chairing meetings, 	participating in the hiring
process and assisting teachers with teaching problems are all duties •••
which result from the utilization of 	their special skills in subject
matter." 	(p. 	7.)
In response 	to a claim that a department head administered a department
budget similar to DeBolske's authority over the music_budget, 	the Board found:
The administrative activities 	of department heads regarding the
balancing of the budget, 	inventory of supplies and equipment,
•.• are not 	supervisory activities, 	and moreover are merely routine
in nature and 	require little, 	if any, 	exercise of independent
j ud gmen t • 	( p • 	7 • )
As in New Haven, 	Mr. 	DeBolske is efficient and proficient in his
discipline, 	makes no formal evaluation of other music 	teachers, 	administers
a 	small budget within prior practices of 	the District, 	is involved to a
limited degree with hiring personnel within his department, 	and acts as a
communication liaison among department members.
The above facts 	indicate routine duties and responsibilities which
require a minimal exercise of independent jud[';1'1.ent. 	Therefore, 	it is
found that 	the coordinator of music 	is neither a management nor a
supervisory employee.
EGE TEAM LEADERS
The District contends that the team leaders of the Early Childhood
Education Program 	(EGE Program) 	are either management or supervisory employees.
Either designation is disputed by TAP.
Based upon the facts 	stated below, 	the Early Childhood Education
team leaders 	are found 	to be supervisory employees within the meaning of
Section 3540.l(m). 	Following the procedure established by the Board,
having so concluded, 	it need not be further 	determined whether the team
-15-

-	leaders would also be management 	employees. 15/
The District participates 	in the state-funded ECE Program, 	which
is 	designed to 	improve the delivery of elementary education. 	In order
to become eligible for 	funds, 	the school must submit a 	comprehensive
plan, 	incluμing goals and methods of education in mandated major areas
of 	learning. 	Schools 	participating in 	the program must also 	submit 	to
the 	state a review of 	their progress 	under 	the plan at 	the end of 	each
year, 	and a new and updated plan must be submitted for 	the school each
year 	to 	continue to 	receive state funds.
At each participating school a full-time 	staff member 	called 	the
ECE 	team leader is 	employed to manage and monitor this vital program. 	The
responsibilities 	of the team leader include not only the yearly drafting
J'
of a 	plan of go_als 	and methods and 	the required monitor and review
. 	.
activity, 	but also· require 	that 	the "leader" 	givG assistance to 	the 	teaching
staff on appropriate methods 	and materials and constantly evaluate 	teacher
performance in working 	toward 	the established goals.
Tom Bonynge, 	ECE 	team leader at Roosevelt 	School, 	is 	described as
having a 	team relationship with his 	principal 	in 	the preparation and
enforcement of the plan. 	In addition to his 	responsibilities 	for drafting
the school plan and coordinating 	the review activity, 	the bulk of his 	time
during the school year 	is 	invested in work directly related to administration
of 	the school program.
Much of 	this work is 	in the capacity of a curriculum leader. 	He
assists 	the staff with changes 	in curriculum and 	instructs 	them in 	the use
of new methods 	and materials 	designed 	to 	conform to 	the school plan. 	He
l~/see Los Rios 	supra at 	p. 	25; 	Lompoc supra at p. 	24.
-16-

maintains various 	charts and records which monitor the 	teachers' 	progress
toward 	the goals 	set by 	the plan. 	He further 	reviews 	the 	teachers' 	actual
classroom work to 	ensure that 	they are performing according to 	the ECE Pro-
gram1s curriculum demands. 	Bonynge has 	some authority 	to 	take action 	to
ensure that a 	teacher conforms 	to his demands 	to modify 	teaching methods.
The 	ultimate authority to 	insist on compliance remains with the principal.
Infrequently he has had 	to refer problems ,.Jith 	the staff 	to 	the principal
because a 	teacher had refused 	to comply with his 	requests ..
The responsibilities 	of ECE team leader at Hollydale School, 	Marge
Lorenze, 	are nearly identical 	to Bonynge's. 	She, 	too, 	has 	the ultimate
responsibility for compiling and monitoring 	the ECE Program at her 	school.
She also developed and coordinates a unique physical education curriculum
which is 	part of the school plan. 	Throughout 	the year, 	her time 	is 	devoted
to overseeing· teachers' 	progress and performance in the classroom and 	to
suggesting corrections 	to 	staff members who are not conforming 	to 	the
requirements 	of 	the school plan.
The issue of whether the ECE 	team leaders are supervisors
is 	resolved by reference to 	Government 	Code Section 3540.l(m)
which defines a 	supervisory employee as 	follows:
"Supervisory employee" means any employee, 	re-
gardless of job description, 	having authority in
the 	interest of 	the employer to hire, 	transfer, 	suspend,
lay off, 	recall, 	promote, 	discharge, 	assign, 	reward,
or discipline other employees, 	or the responsibility
to 	assign work to and direct them, 	or 	to adjust
their grievances, 	or effectively recommend such action,
if, 	in connection with the 	foregoing 	functions, 	the
exercise 	of 	such authority is not of a merely routine
of 	clerical nature, 	but 	requires 	the use of 	independent
judgment.
-17-

This 	section is written in 	the disjunctive; 	therefore, 	possession of
any one function or duty is sufficient 	to 	indicate an employee is 	a
supervisor. li/
Many of 	the functions 	of 	team leaders described in the hearing
relating 	to planning and monitoring the program would be more appropriately
addressed 	to a 	"management" 	question which, 	as discussed earlier, 	is not
necessary 	for 	resolution if they are found 	to be supervisors and excluded
from the certificated unit on that basis.
The duties 	and responsibilities of 	the ECE team leaders 	are 	generally
similar 	to 	those of 	the 	subject 	coordinators and in Lompoc and 	the
department heads 	in New Haven, 	both of whom were determined not 	to be
supervisors. 	In each case, 	while 	the employee worked with other 	certificated
employees 	giving guidance and assistance about 	their performance 	in a 	specific
subject ar,ea' 	he did no.t eff ectivE!ly •recommend hiring' 	promotions'
discipline, 	assignments, 	or'evaluation of other 	teachers, 	nor did 	they direct
the work of other teachers. 	The same findine·is made with regard 	to 	the
ECE 	team leaders here.
On the other hand, 	like the migrant program coordinator in Lompoc,
who was 	determined 	to be 	supervisory, 	the 	team leaders have 	the authority
to 	effectively recommend 	the hiring and 	evaluation of certain classified
and other non-unit 	employees. 	The migrant 	coordinators hired aides 	and
summer school teachers who assisted with the program. 	In determining 	their
supervisory status, 	the Board ignored 	the 	fact 	that 	the 	employees 	supervised
would not have been in the same unit as 	the supervisor. 	In Los Rios 	, 	the Board
1-.§/ 	See Sweetwater Union High School District, 	EERB Decision
No. 	4, 	November 23, 	1976.
-18-

clarified that supervision "of other employees" is not so 	limited.11./
Here, 	the team leaders recollllilend evaluations and hiring of aides and
assign them. 	They also direct other non-unit employees.
In hiring aides, 	Lorenze has established the policy of 	involving the
teacher to whom the aide will be assigned and, 	if possible, 	a parent
coordinator. 	If two persons were found 	to be equally qualified for 	the
position, 	the final selection would be made by the teacher to whom the aide
would be assigned. 	The decision of Lorenze to partially delegate the
selection in some cases does not obviate the fact 	that the hiring is her
independent responsibility.
Despite conflicting testimony, 	it 	is found 	that collllilencing with the
1976-77 school year, 	Bonynge has 	effectively reconrrnended the hiring of aides.
Last year, 	both Bonynge and Lorenze played a major role in the
evaluation of aides.
Moreover, 	Lorenze explained that she regularly has 	explained the proper
use of the aide evaluation form to 	the 	teachers 	so that a uniform system of
evaluation would be used within the school. 	She also has actually made
specific recommendations to classroom teachers as 	to how a particular aide
should be evaluated.
Bonynge has 	the responsibility to supervise the library clerk at Roosevelt
School; Lorenze directly supervises a parent coordinator employed to administer
the parent participation portion of her school plan.
17- / Supra, 	p. 	26, 	fn 4. 	As supervisors, 	the team leaders must be excluded from
the certificated unit.
-19-

PART-TIME EMPLOYEES
Two persons 	are currently employed in the Children's Center as 	part-time
employees. 	They hold a Child Care Center Credential as opposed to a 	regular
teaching credential. 	These two employees are probationary teachers, 	eligible
for 	tenure 	the same as 	full-time 	Children's Center teacherso 	These employees
work three and a half hours per day, 	whereas 	full-time Children 1 s Center
teachers work an eight-hour day. 	Their pay is prorated by the hours
worked. 	These teachers receive vacation pay and sick leave, but do not 	receive
any 	insurance benefits provided to full-time employees by the District.
The full-time Children's Center teachers are conceded to be appropriately
within the unit for which TAP petitioned.
Although the part-time teachers work less 	than half-time, 	and receive no
insurance benefits, 	their community of interest with other employees, 	notably
Children's Center teachers, 	is substantially similar to 	the community of
interest found 	in Belmont Elementary School District. 1~/
As 	in Belmont, 	the part-time teachers are 	to be included within the
unit.
PROPOSED DECISION
It 	is 	the proposed decision that:
1. The counselors are not management employees pursuant to Section
3540.l(g), 	Nor are they supervisory employees pursuant 	to Section 3540.l(m),
The 	counselors shall be appropriately included with the certificated employee
unit,
18/ EERB Decision No. 	7, 	December 30, 	1976.
-20-

2. 	The ECE team leaders 	are 	supervisory employees 	pursuant to
Section 3540.l(m) 	and shall be excluded from the 	certificated employee
unit.
3. 	The music coordinator is not a management 	employee or a supervisory
employee and shall be 	included with 	the certificated employee unit.
4. 	The 	part-time Children's Center 	teachers 	share a community of
interest with other certificated employees and shall be included within
that 	unit.
The following unit 	is appropriate for 	the purpose of meeting and
negotiating, 	provided an employee organization becomes 	the exclusive
representative of 	the unit:
Certificated Employee Unit: 	Consisting of all regular full-time
teachers, 	all 	full-time and part-time Children·' s .Center teachers,
all counselors, 	and 	the music coordinator, 	but 	excluding all manage-
ment, 	supervisory, 	and confidential emplo7ees. 	The ECE te~m leaders
are excluded as 	supervisory employees. 19
The parties have seven calendar days 	from receipt of 	this 	proposed
decision in which to 	file 	exceptions 	in accordance with Section 33380 of 	the
Board's Rules 	and Regulations. 	If no 	party files 	timely exceptions, 	this
proposed decision will be a 	final 	order on June 27, 	1977, 	and a Notice of
Decision will 	issue from the Board.
Within 	ten workdays after the employer posts 	the Notice of Decision, 	the
employee organization shall demonstrate to 	the Regional Director at 	least
30 	percent support in the above unit. 	The Regional Director shall conduct
an election at 	the end of 	the posting period if 	the employee organization
19The parties, 	by mutual agreement, 	refrained 	from hearing any issues 	as 	to
the inclusion or exclusion of 	regular part-time 	teachers.
-21-

qu al ifi es 	for 	th e ballot an d the employ er does 	no t 	g rant vo lu n ta ry re cogni ti on .
Dated : 	June !4. 19 77
Mi cnae 1 	G . 	Coder -
Hearing Officer
- 22 -