Azusa Unified School District (PERB 0038E)

)
)
)
)
____________ )
STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE 	EDUCATIONAL
EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
AZUSA FEDERATION 	OF 	TEACHERS,
AFT LOCAL 	3298,
Charging 	Party,
vs.
AZUSA UNIFIED 	SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
) 	Case No. 	LA-CE-32
EERB 	Decision No. 	38
November 23, 	1977
ORDER
)
)
)
The 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	directs 	that:
Upon the 	findings of fact, 	conclusions 	of 	law, 	and the
entire 	record of this 	case, 	and pursuant 	to 	Government 	Code
Section 	3541.5(c) 	of the Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Act,
it 	is 	hereby ordered 	that 	the Azusa Unified 	School 	District,
Board of Education, 	superintendent, 	and representatives 	shall:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
1. 	Contributing 	financial 	or 	other 	support 	to 	the
Azusa 	Educators 	Association 	and 	encouraging
employees 	to 	join 	the Azusa 	Educators 	Association
in preference 	to 	the Azusa 	Federation 	of Teachers
by rental 	of 	a 	District-owned building 	at 	Fourth
and Angelo Streets, 	Azusa, 	California, 	at less
than 	its 	fair rental value;

2 . 	In 	like manner 	interfering with employees 	be-
cause 	of 	their 	exercise 	of 	rights 	guaranteed
by 	the Act;
3. 	In 	like manner 	denying 	to 	the Azusa 	Federation .
of 	Teachers 	rights 	guaranteed by 	the Act.
B . 	TAKE 	THE 	FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE 	ACTIONS 	DESIGNED 	TO
EFFECTUATE 	THE 	POLICIES 	OF 	THE ACT:
1. 	If 	the Azusa Educators 	Association remains 	a
tenant · of 	the 	District-owned building 	at 	Fourth
and Angelo 	Streets, 	satisfy the 	Los 	Angeles
Regional 	Director 	of 	the 	EERB, 	no 	later 	than
60 	days 	from 	the 	date 	upon which 	this 	order
becomes 	final, 	that 	a 	rental 	fee 	in 	accordance
with 	the 	fair 	rental 	value 	of 	said building 	is
being 	charged 	to 	the Azusa 	Educators 	Association .
In making her 	determination 	of 	fair 	rental 	value,
the 	Regional 	Director 	shall 	consult 	an 	appropriate
expert 	in 	the 	field 	of 	real 	estate 	appraisal.
2. 	Prepare 	and post 	at 	its 	headquarters 	office 	and
in 	each 	school 	for 	twenty 	(20) 	working 	days 	in
a 	conspicuous 	place 	at 	the 	location where 	notices
to 	certificated 	employees 	are 	customarily posted,
a 	copy 	of 	this 	order;
3. 	At 	the 	end of 	the 	posting 	period, 	notify 	the 	Los
Angeles 	Regional 	Director 	of 	the 	action 	it 	has
taken 	to 	comply with 	this 	order .
Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Board
by •
~
STEPHEN 	BARBER
Executive Assistant 	to 	the 	Board

)
\
____________ )
STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE 	EDUCATIONAL
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS 	BOARD
AZUSA 	FEDERATION OF 	TEACHERS,
AFT LOCAL 	3298,
Charging 	Party,
and
AZUSA UNIFIED 	SCHOOL 	DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
Case No. 	LA-CE-32
EERB 	Decision 	No. 	38
November 23, 	1977
)
)
Appearances; 	Anne Fragasso, 	for Azusa Federation of Teachers, 	AFT
Local 3298; 	Robert A. 	Siegel, 	Attorney (O'Melveny & Myers), 	for Azusa
Unified 	School 	District.
Before Alleyne, 	Chairman;'Gonzales and Cossack, Members.
OPINION,
This 	case 	is before 	the Educational Employment Relations 	Board on
Azusa Federation of Teachers' 	exception 	to 	the hearing officer's
attached 	recommended 	decision 	concluding 	that 	the 	Azusa 	Unified 	School
District has violated Sections 	3543.5(a), 	(b) 	and 	(d) 	of the Educational
Employment Relations Act 	(EERA) 	by renting 	a 	school building 	to 	the
Azusa Educators 	Association 	(AEA) 	for one 	dollar per year. 	The
Federation's 	exception does 	not 	challenge 	the hearing officer's 	finding
of a violation of 	the EERA, 	but rather his 	recommended remedy 	that 	if
the District wishes 	to maintain AEA as 	a 	tenant 	that 	it 	charge AEA a
fair rental 	fee. 	The Federation argues 	that 	the hearing officer's
proposed 	remedy 	should have 	provided 	for 	the 	eviction 	of AEA 	from 	the
building 	in question.

The 	Board has 	considered 	the 	record 	and 	the 	decision 	in 	light
of 	the 	exception and briefs . 	We 	affirm 	the 	findings 	and 	conclusions
of 	the 	hearing 	officer 	and adopt 	his 	recommended order, 	except 	that
the 	first 	paragraph 	in part 	"B" 	of 	the 	order 	is modified 	to 	read 	as
follows:
If 	the Azusa 	Educators Association 	remains
a 	tenant 	of 	the 	District-owned building 	at
Fourth and Angelo 	Streets, 	satisfy 	the Los
Angeles 	Regional 	Director 	of 	the 	EERB, 	no
later 	than 	60 	days 	from 	the 	date 	upon which
this 	order becomes 	final, 	that 	a 	rental 	fee
in 	accordance with 	the 	fair 	rental 	value 	of
said building 	is 	being 	charged 	to 	the Azusa
Educators 	Association. 	In making her deter-
mination of 	fair 	rental 	value, 	the 	Regional
Director 	shall 	consult 	an appropriate 	expert
in 	the 	fi~ld 	of 	real 	estate 	appraisal.
By : 	Reginald Alleyne, 	Chairman ,, 	' 	7 	7 	J
Raymon1 Gonzales, 	Member
Jerilou 	H. 	Cossack, 	Member
-2-

)
"
EDUCATIONAL EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of:
AZUSA FEDERATION OF TEACHERS,
AFT LOCAL 3298,
Charging Party,
vs 	RECOMMENDED
AZUSA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
) 	Unfair Practice
Case No. LA-CE-32
DECISION
June 22, 	1977
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances: 	Anne Fragasso, for Azusa Federation of Teachers, AFT Local 3298.
Robert A. Siegel, Attorney (O'Melveny & Myers)., for Azusa Unified School District.
Before Franklin Silver, Hearing Officer.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On October 12, 1976, the Azusa Federation of Teachers filed an unfair
practice charge against the Azusa Unified School District alleging violation of
Government Code Sections 3543.5(a), 	(b), and (d),1 based on the District's
practice of renting one of its buildings to the Azusa Educators Association for
a rental fee of one dollar per year. 	The District's answer denied that an unfair
practice had been committed and raised the affirmative defense that the charge
related to events occurring outside the six-month statute of limitations.
(Section 3541.5(a)).
1/
— 	Hereafter, all statutory citations are to the Government Code unless
otherwise noted.
—1 —

At the time the charge was filed, a question of representation existed
in the District based upon the filing of a request for recognition by the
Association and an intervention by the 	Federation.2 	On December 6, 	1976, 	the
Federation filed a request that the Regional Director proceed with the
representation matter notwithstanding the filing of the unfair practice charge.
This document was signed by the president of the Federation and contained the
statement, 	"It is understood that the Board will not entertain objections to any
election in this matter based upon the conduct alleged in the above-referred to
Unfair Charge (LA-CE-32)." 	On January 4 and 5, 1977, the parties to the
representation matter signed a consent agreement for an election to be held on
February 9. 	The election was held as scheduled, and the Association was
determined to be the winner. 	On February 22 the Regional Director certified
the Association as the exclusive representative.
The hearing on the unfair practice charge was held on January 14, 1977,
after the consent agreement had been signed but before the election was held.
At the hearing the charging party took the position that the appropriate remedy
would be that the Association be evicted from the District building it occupied
and that a letter of apology be mailed by the District to each teacher in the
District. 	The Federation took the position further that the same remedy would
be appropriate even if an exclusive representative were certified as a result
of the pending election.
FINDINGS OF FACT
In 1966 a District-owned building at Fourth and Angeleno Streets on the
Slauson School campus was determined to be structurally unsafe for students
according to the provisions of the Field Act. 	Since that time the District has
2The 	hearing officer hereby takes notice of the official documents on file in
the representation matter, EERB Case No. LA-R-166.
- 2 -

made the building available to any organization willing to pay the expenses for
maintaining the building. 	The Association has occupied the building since 1966,
and it currently pays the District one dollar a year for the use of the building.
Maintenance and janitorial expenses paid by the Association for 1976 amounted to
approximately $530. 	It is not clear whether the Association reimbursed the
District for those services or arranged on its own for the services to be
provided. 	The local chapter of the California School Employees' Association also
uses the building and pays to the Association $150 per year as its share of the
expenses.
The above arrangement for the use of the building has a business purpose.
The District itself has no other use for the building and would either have to
pay maintenance costs or tear the building down if it were vacant. 	There is no
building of a similar nature which could have been provided to the charging
party on the same basis.
The building itself was built around 1900. 	There is one room that is
about 27 feet by 15 feet, or about half the size of a classroom, and another room
27 feet by eight or ten feet. 	There are two other small rooms, one of which is
approximately ten feet by ten feet, and a restroom. 	The rooms are divided by thin
partitions. 	A sign on the front door reads "AEA Building" and the building is
referred to in the District by that name.
On February 2, 1975, Shirley Spink, then president of the Federation
wrote to Dr. Lewis Beall, District superintendent, protesting the "discriminatory"
practice of providing office space for the Association and CSEA but not for the
Federation or AFSCME. 	A few days later a meeting was held in Dr. 	Beall's office
with Ms. 	Spink and a representative of the Association at which arrangements to
share the building were discussed. 	The possibilities that were considered
included dividing up the office space or using the building on alternate days.
The necessity for locks on files and telephones was also discussed. 	Dr. Beall
- 3 -

made it clear that the Federation was welcome to use the building if
arrangements for sharing with the Association could be worked out.
A sharing arrangement was never implemented, and a year and a half
later, on September 19, 1976, Jack Norick, the new president of the Federation,
wrote to Dr. Beall declining the previous offer to share the building-
Mr. Norick stated that use of the building by rival organizations in a
representation campaign was "out of the question", that granting use of the
building to the Association created the impression of quasi-official preference
for the Association, and that the rental fee of one dollar a year for office
space created an unfair financial advantage for the Association. 	Norick
requested that the Association be notified that they must vacate the premises.
Beall responded on September 24, 	stating that all organizations had been
treated equally and that the offer to the Federation to share the building
with the Association remained open.
Mr. Norick testified at the hearing that no sharing arrangement for
the building would be practical during an organizational campaign because
of the physical characteristics of the building; i.e., the partitions between
the rooms were thin and it would be difficult or impossible to have confidential
conversations or meetings while representatives of the other organization were
in the building, there was a single door to the building so that anybody with
a key would have access to the entire building, 	there would be a constant
problem with security of files and documents, and in general the building was
too small for use by competing organizations. 	It was felt that the same
security problems would be present if the building were used by the two
organizations on alternating days since the Association would have access to
Federation materials when representatives of the Federation were not present.
-4-

In addition, an alternating day arrangement would cause inconvenience because
the Federation was conducting business on a daily basis during the campaign.
Although the District contends that the building could have been
shared, and that the various security problems could have been ameliorated
through the use of locked files and telephones and an alternating day arrange-
ment, 	it is found that the Federation was reasonable in rejecting the District's
offer to share the building with the Association since the practical problems
and inconveniences of sharing the building during an organizational campaign
would have outweighed the building's usefulness as office space.
As stated above, 	the election was held subsequent to the hearing, no
objections were filed, and the Association was certified as the exclusive
representative.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A. 	The Statute of Limitations
Although the practice which gave rise to this dispute originated in
1966, 	long before EERA came into effect and outside the six-month statute of
limitations stated in Section 3541.5(a), the rental arrangement alleged to
constitute unlawful support continued throughout the limitations period.
In addition, Dr. Beall's unwillingness in September of 1976 to respond to
the changed conditions in the District, i.e., 	the organizational campaign
then being conducted under the provisions of the EERA, constitutes an
independent basis for the charge. 	Thus, while evidence of earlier events
are properly in evidence to shed light on events within the limitations period,
it is not necessary to rely solely on the earlier events to determine if an
unfair practice has been committed. 	For this reason, this action is not
-5-

,. I
barred by Section 3541.5(a). 	See, Local Lodge No. 1424, I.A.M., v. NLRB,
362 U.S.411, 45 LRRM 3212 (1960); Coppus Engineering Corp. v. NLRB,
240 F.2d 564, 39 LRRM 2315 (C.A.I, 1957).
B. 	The Section 3543.5(d) Charge
The main thrust of the charge filed by the Federation is that the
District, by its rental of the Fourth and Angelo Street building to the
Association, has assisted the Association's organizational effort and
discriminated against the Federation in violation of Section 3543.5(d)3.
That section prohibits the contribution of "financial or other support"
to an employee organization and also makes it unlawful for an employer to
"in any way encourage employees to join any organization in preference to
4/
another."— 	Under this language, 	it may be an unfair practice to render
assistance to an employee organization even if there is no other organization
3/ Section 3543.5(d) makes it unlawful for an employer to "dominate or
interfere with the formation of administration of any employee organization,
or contribute financial or other support to it, or in any way encourage
employees to join any organization in preference to another." 	The first
clause of this section is not involved in this case because there is no
allegation that the District was actively involved in the original formation
of the Association or at any time has influenced or attempted to influence
the manner in which the Association has been managed. 	Therefore, 	this
decision concentrates on the second and third clauses of Section 3543.5(d).
4The 	prohibition against contributing support to an employee organization
is based upon Section 8(a)(2) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended (29 U.S.C, sec. 158(a)(2)), while the language dealing with
encouragement of one organization over another is apparently derived from
NLRA Section 8(a)(3). 	(29 U.S.C, sec. 158(a)(3)). 	The relevant portions
of NLRA Section 8 are as follow:
(a) 	It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer —
* * *
(2) 	to dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of
any labor organization or contribute financial or other support to it....
(3) by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any
term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership
in any labor organization....
-6-

in competition with it, but it is clearly unlawful to render assistance in
such a way as to discriminate against another employee organization which
is competing for membership.
The federal courts and the National Labor Relations Board, 	in cases
not involving employer 	favoritism of one organization over another, have
established that use of company time and property for organizational activity
is not per se unlawful. 	Rather, if an employer extends benefits to a labor
organization in a spirit of cooperation which does not constitute in some
degree employer control or influence over the organization, no unfair labor
practice will be found. 	Chicago Rawhide Mfg. Co. v. NLRB, 221 F.2d 165,
35 LRRM 2665 ( C A . 7 , 1955); Duquesne University of the Holy Ghost, 198 NLRB
891, 81 LRRM 1091 (1972); Coamo Knitting Mills, Inc., 150 NLRB 579, 58 LRRM
1116 (1964). 	On the other hand, when there is more than one labor organization
competing for membership, 	the employer must be strictly neutral in extending
organizational opportunities. 	NLRB v. Waterman S.S. Co., 309 U.S. 206,
5 LRRM 682 (1940); NLRB v. Corning Glass Works, 204 F.2d 422, 32 LRRM 2136,
at 2140 (C.A.I, 1953); Wyco Metal Products, 183 NLRB 901, 74 LRRM 1411 (1970).
In the present case, 	there is no evidence that in renting office
space to the Association on favorable terms, 	the District in any way influenced
or attempted to control the manner in which the Association represented its
members. 	Thus, if the District unlawfully supported the Association, it must
be because of discrimination against the Federation rather than the simple fact
that the District extended a financially beneficial arrangement to the
Association.
The District of course contends that it did not discriminate because
it consistently took the position that the Federation was welcome to use the
-7-

building if it could work out arrangements for sharing with the Association.
The District, however, 	fails to recognize that this attitude placed the
Federation in an untenable position. 	The building was not physically capable
of housing two competing organizations during an election campaign. 	Therefore,
the Federation was faced with the choice of moving into the building along
with the Association -- 	sabotaging the building's usefulness for either
organization 	— 	or declining the District's offer altogether. 	Under these
circumstances, 	the District's offer to allow the Federation to share office
space with the Association was unrealistic, 	and the fact that office space
was provided on a financially beneficial basis to the Association during the
organizational campaign constituted a discriminatory contribution of support
to the Association. 	By assisting the Association in its organizational
efforts, 	this support had the natural and probable effect of encouraging
membership in the Association in preference to the Federation. 	Where the
natural consequence of an employer's conduct is encouragement or discourage-
ment of membership in a labor organization, 	it will be presumed that the
employer intended this result. 	Radio Officers' Union v. NLRB, 347 U.S. 17,
33 LRRM 2417, at 2428 (1954).
It must also be noted, however, that there is no evidence that the
District was motivated by a hostile attitude towards the Federation. 	In
cases of discriminatory conduct having the effect of encouraging or discour-
aging membership in a labor organization (NLRA Section 8(a)(3), see n. 4
supra), proof that the employer was motivated by an antiunion purpose is
not always necessary.
-8-

First, 	if it can reasonably be concluded that the
employer's 	conduct was 	"inherently destructive"
of important employee rights, no proof of an anti-
union motivation is needed and the Board can find
an unfair labor practice even if the employer
introduces evidence that the conduct was motivated
by business considerations. 	Second, 	if the adverse
effect of the discriminatory conduct on employee
rights is "comparatively slight," an antiunion
motivation must be proved to sustain the charge if
the employer has come forward with evidence of
legitimate and substantial business justifications
for the conduct. 	Thus, in either situation, once
it has been proved that the employer engaged in
discriminatory conduct which could have adversely
affected employee rights to some extent, the burden
is upon the employer to establish that it was
motivated by legitimate objectives since proof of
motivation is most accessible to him. 	NLRB v.
Great Dane Trailers, Inc., 388 U.S. 26, 65 LRRM
2465, at 2469 (1967). 	(Emphasis in the original.)
See also, Republic Aviation Corp. v. NLRB, 324 U.S. 793, 16 LRRM 620, at 625,
626 	(1945).
Applying the analysis of Great Dane Trailers, it would appear that
in the present circumstances the effect of the discriminatory conduct on
employee rights is "comparatively slight." 	Although the Association was
given an advantage in organizing employees, 	there was no direct discrimination
against Federation members themselves and there is no evidence that employees
were substantially inhibited from supporting the Federation due to the
District's conduct. 	Therefore, 	it must be determined if the District has
come forward with evidence of legitimate and substantial business justifications
for its conduct. 	The District did have a legitimate business reason for
wanting to have its building occupied by one or more employee organizations:
employee organizations appeared to the District to be the logical tenants for
the building, 	and if the building 	was 	not occupied the District would either
have to provide maintenance or tear the building down. 	Because the Association
-9-

paid for maintenance, the District was relieved of this cost. 	The District,
however, 	does not suggest why it charged only one dollar per year rather
than a fee based on the actual rental value of the building. 	In other
words, 	the business purpose advanced by the District could have been satisfied
by charging a fair rent to the Association, and in this way the discriminatory
effect of renting the building to the Association could have been neutralized.
The District did not prove a business purpose for renting the building at less
than its fair rental value, and therefore it must be concluded that it
violated Section 3543.5(d).
C. 	The Section 3543.5(a) and (b) Charges
The Federation in addition has alleged violations of Sections 3543.5(a)
and (b).—
5/ These subsections deal generally with discrimination against or
interference with employees and employee organizations, 	and it follows that
violation of the more specific provisions of subsection (d) 	constitutes
violations of subsections (a) and (b). 	Unlawful support of the Association
during an organizational campaign has the effect of interfering with employees
exercising their Section 3543—
6/ rights to form, join, and participate in
employee organizations of their own choosing, and of discriminating against
those employees who support the Federation. 	Therefore, it must be concluded
5 Section 	3543.5 	states:
It shall be unlawful for a public school employer to:
(a) 	Impose or threaten to impose reprisals on employees,
to discriminate or threaten to discriminate against
employees, or otherwise to interfere with, restrain, or
coerce employees because of their exercise of rights
guaranteed by this chapter. 	(b) Deny to employee organ-
izations rights guaranteed to them by this chapter....
—
6/ Section 3543 states in part:
Public school employees shall have the right to form, join,
and participate in the activities of employee organizations
of their own choosing for the purpose of representation on
all matters of employer-employee relations....
-10-

that a violation of subsection (a) is stated. 	Support of the Association
also denies the Federation its right to represent its members as stated
in Section 3543.1 ( a ) —
7/ in violation of subsection (b).
The Federation argues that a subsection (b) violation is stated
because it was denied equal access to District facilities required by
Section 	3543.5(b)2 	That section does not require, however, 	that employee
organizations be provided with access to office space, 	and so it does not
apply on its face to a situation where an employer chooses to make office
space available. 	It is sufficient in this case that there has been a
denial of the Federation's organizational rights without reliance on
Section 3543.5(b).
D. 	The Remedy
The Federation proposes as a remedy that the Association be evicted
from the Fourth and Angelo Street building and that the District mail a
letter of apology to each teacher in the District. 	This proposed remedy,
however, 	is not suited to the facts of this case. 	The District has a
legitimate business purpose in retaining the Association as a tenant, and
7
7/
Section 3543.l(a) 	states 	in 	part:
Employee organizations shall have the right to represent
their members in their employment relations with public
school employers, 	except that once an employee organization
is recognized or certified as the exclusive representative
of an appropriate unit pursuant to Section 3544.1 or 3544.7,
respectively, only that employee organization may represent
that unit in their employment relations with the public
school employer.
8Section 	3543.5(b) states:
Employee organizations shall have the right of access at
reasonable times to areas in which employees work, the
right to use institutional bulletin boards, mailboxes,
and other means of communication, 	subject to reasonable
regulation, and the right to use institutional facilities
at reasonable times for the purpose of meetings concerned
with the exercise of the rights guaranteed by this chapter.
-11-

especially now that the Association has been certified as the exclusive bar-
gaining representative no purpose could be served by disrupting a cooperative
arrangement for rental of the District 	building9. 	As indicated previously,
the District's business purpose can be satisfied without the taint of
unlawful support simply by charging the Association a rental fee reflecting
the fair rental value of the building. 	No doubt the rent will still be
reasonable, 	since an old building on school property is probably not in great
demand. 	Nevertheless, 	in view of the expense of renting comparable
commercial property, 	the Association will undoubtedly be willing to pay
a higher rent than one dollar per year. 	For this reason it is recommended
that the District be ordered to satisfy the Los Angeles Regional Director
that it has entered into a new rental agreement with the Association
reflecting the fair rental value of the Fourth and Angelo Street building.
This requirement will be satisfied by presenting the Regional Director
9Arguably, 	the certification of the Association renders the necessity
for any remedy moot since the unlawful support occurred solely in the
context of the pre-election campaign, and, having waived the filing
of objections to the election, 	the Federation cannot now claim to have
a right to equal treatment. 	Four federal courts of appeal have con-
sidered the question of whether an NLRB remedy of pre-election unfair
labor practices is rendered moot by certification of an exclusive
representative. 	Three of these courts have held that the purpose of
the Remedy is in part to prevent a repetition of the unlawful conduct
in the future if the defeated organization attempts to become the
bargaining agent, and that on this basis enforcement of the remedy is
proper. 	NLRB v. Metelab Equipment Co., 367 F.2d 471, 63 LRRM 2321
( C A . 4 , 1966); NLRB v. Marsh Supermarkets, Inc., 327 F.2d 109, 55 LRRM
2017 ( C A . 7 , 	1963); NLRB v. Clark Bros. Co., 163 F.2d 373, 20 LRRM
2436 ( C A . 2 , 1947). 	But see General Engineering, Inc. v. NLRB,
311 F.2d 570, 52 LRRM 2277 (C.A.9, 1962).
-12-

with figures reflecting the rent charged for commercial property of
comparable age, condition, and floor area in the general neighborhood
of the building, and by discounting these figures by a reasonable amount,
to be approved by the Regional Director, to reflect the fact that the
building is located on school district property and is unsuitable for most
commercial uses. 	The Regional Director may also wish to consider other
appropriate evidence of the fair rental value.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the
entire record of this case, and pursuant to Government Code Section 3541.5(c)
of the Educational Employment Relations Act, it is hereby ordered that the
Azusa Unified School District, Board of Education, superintendent, and
representatives shall:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
1. 	Contributing financial or other support to the Azusa
Educators Association and encouraging employees to join
the Azusa Educators Association in preference to the
Azusa Federation of Teachers by rental of a District-
owned building at Fourth and Angelo Streets, Azusa,
California, at less than its fair rental value;
2. 	In like manner interfering with employees because of
their exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act;
3. 	In like manner denying to the Azusa Federation of Teachers
rights guaranteed by the Act.
-13-

B. 	TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE ACT:
1. 	Satisfy the Los Angeles Regional Director of the EERB, no
later than 60 days from the date upon which this order
becomes final if the Azusa Educators Association remains
a tenant of the District-owned building at Fourth and
Angelo Streets, that a rental fee in accordance with the
fair rental value of said building is being charged to
the Azusa Educators Association;
2. 	Prepare and post at its headquarters office and in each
school for twenty (20) working days in a conspicuous place
at the location where notices to certificated employees
are customarily posted, a copy of this order;
3. 	At the end of the posting period, notify the Los Angeles
Regional Director of the action it has taken to comply
with this order.
Pursuant to Title 8, California Administrative Code Section 35029,
this recommended decision and order shall become final on July 5, 	1977,
unless a party files a timely statement of exceptions. 	See Title 8,
California Administrative Code Section 35030.
Dated: 	June 22, 1977
Franklin Silver
Hearing Officer
-14-