Fallbrook Union High School District (PERB 0078E)

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
FALLBROOK 	UNION 	HIGH 	SCHOOL 	DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
CALIFORNIA 	SCHOOL 	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION, 	Chapter 353,
Employee 	Organization,
and
SERVICE 	EMPLOYEES 	INTERNATIONAL
UNION, Local 102, AFL-CIO,
Employee 	Organization.
Case Nos. 	LA-R-581
LA-R-585
PERB Decision No. 78
December 4, 	1978
Appearances: 	Robert P. 	Thomas, 	Acting 	Superintendent 	for
Fallbrook Union High School District; 	Michael 	L. 	Trestick,
Field Representative 	and 	Harry 	L. 	Hasler, 	Field Representative
for 	California School Employees Association, 	Chapter 	353;
James A. 	Hawes, 	Executive Secretary-Treasurer 	for 	Service
Employees International Union, 	Local 	102, AFL-CIO.
Before Gluck, 	Chairperson; 	Cossack Twohey and Gonzales, Members,
DECISION
Two 	employee 	organizations 	have 	filed petitions 	seeking
recognition 	as 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	for 	certain 	of 	the
classified 	employees 	of 	Fallbrook 	Union 	High 	School 	District
(hereafter 	District). 	California School 	Employees Association,
Chapter 	353 	(hereafter 	CSEA) 	proposes 	that 	the 	classified
employees 	be 	divided 	into 	two 	units1 and 	seeks 	recognition 	as
lrn 	its 	initial petition CSEA 	requested 	a 	single,
wall-to-wall 	unit 	to be 	composed 	of 	all 	classified 	employees

2
except noon duty supervisors, 	and management, 	confidential, 	or
supervisory employees. 	Prior 	to 	the 	hearing 	in 	this matter,
however, 	CSEA amended 	its 	initial 	request 	and 	it 	now urges 	the
appropriateness 	of 	two 	units with 	the 	following 	composition:
Unit 	A
Accountant, 	bookkeeper, 	program budget clerk, 	keypunch
operator, 	school secretary, 	library service technician, 	senior
clerk 	typist, 	stenographer 	clerk, 	intermediate 	clerk 	typist,
library assistant, 	clerk typist, 	receptionist/telephone
operator, 	instructional aide, 	and campus aide;
Unit 	B
Snack 	bar 	supervisor, 	cafeteria worker, 	senior maintenance
worker, 	storekeeper/utility, 	gardener crew leader, 	general
maintenance worker, 	custodian crew leader, 	gardener, 	and
custodian.
the 	exclusive 	representative 	of 	each. 	Service 	Employees
International Union, 	Local 102 	(hereafter 	SEIU), on the other
hand, 	takes 	the 	position 	that 	three 	units 	would 	be 	appropriate
and 	seeks 	recognition 	as 	the 	exclusive 	representative of 	one 	of
those 	units.2 The 	District 	contends 	that 	a wall-to-wall 	unit
would be 	appropriate. 	There 	is 	also 	disagreement 	among 	the
parties 	as 	to 	the 	supervisory status 	of one of 	the positions,
the gardener 	crew leader.
This 	matter 	comes 	before 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations
Board 	(hereafter 	PERB or 	Board) 	on exceptions 	filed 	by 	SEIU 	to
a 	proposed 	decision 	in which 	the 	hearing 	officer 	concluded 	that
the gardener 	crew leader 	was 	not 	a 	supervisor 	within 	the
proposed 	unit 	for 	which 	SEIU 	seeks 	recognition 	as
exclusive 	representative 	would 	be 	composed 	of 	gardener 	crew
leader, 	general maintenance, 	custodian crew leader, 	gardener,
and 	custodian 	classifications.

3
meaning 	of 	the 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations Act 	(hereafter
EERA)3 and 	that 	a single unit composed of 	all 	classified
employees was 	an appropriate 	unit.
FACTS
District 	has 	an ADA 	(average 	daily 	attendance) 	of
approximately 	1800 	students. 	Although 	land 	has 	been purchased
for 	future 	expansion, 	at 	the present 	time 	the 	high 	school
facility 	and 	continuation 	school 	are 	located 	on 	a 	single
54-acre 	site. 	All of 	the approximately 	40 	employees 	in
question work 	at 	this 	same 	location.
The parties 	have 	stipulated 	as 	to 	the management,
supervisory, 	and confidential 	status of 	several positions4
and 	since 	those 	stipulations 	are 	supported 	by 	the 	record, 	we
accept 	them 	here 	without 	further 	inquiry. 	Of 	those 	employees
still 	in dispute 	there 	are 	approximately 12 	clerical,
accounting, 	and 	office 	services 	employees who work 	in offices
and 	do not perform physical 	labor; 	eight 	instructional 	or
campus 	aides 	who perform various 	clerical 	duties 	as 	well 	as
work 	directly with 	students; 	four 	food 	services 	employees 	who
3 The EERA is 	codified 	at Gov. 	Code 	sec. 	3540 	et 	seq. 	All
subsequent 	statutory 	references 	are 	to 	the 	Government 	Code
unless 	otherwise 	specified.
4 Those 	employees 	stipulated 	to 	be management 	are 	the
superintendent, assistant superintendent, principal, and
business manager. 	The 	director 	of 	operations 	was 	stipulated 	to
be 	a 	supervisory 	employee 	and 	the 	administrative 	secretary was
stipulated 	to be 	a confidential 	employee. 	It 	appears 	also 	that
the 	cafeteria manager 	was 	excluded 	from 	any potential
appropriate 	units.

4
work in the cafeteria; 	and 15 maintenance, 	custodial, 	and
gardening 	employees 	responsible 	for 	maintaining 	a 	proper
physical 	environment.
Certain common 	lines 	of 	supervision 	appear 	among 	some 	of
the 	classified 	employees. 	The 	12 	office employees 	are
supervised 	either 	directly 	or 	indirectly 	by 	the 	school
principal or 	the business manager. 	For 	example, 	while office
employees 	such 	as 	clerk 	typists 	may be 	assigned 	to 	a 	particular
person 	for 	direct 	supervision, 	that person 	to whom 	they 	are
assigned 	will 	invariably 	report 	either 	to 	the 	school 	principal
or 	to the business manager. 	The 	campus 	aides 	report 	to 	the
school 	principal 	while 	the 	instructional 	aides 	are 	supervised
by the 	teacher 	to whom the 	individual 	aide 	is assigned. 	All of
the maintenance, 	custodial, 	and gardening employees are
supervised 	by the 	director 	of operations, 	although 	for 	some of
these 	employees 	there 	is 	interposed 	an 	intermediate 	level 	of
supervision 	in 	the 	form of 	a crew leader. 	In the 	case 	of
cafeteria workers, 	although 	the 	record 	is 	sparse, 	it 	appears
that 	the cafeteria manager, 	who 	is 	responsible 	for 	the
operation of 	the 	cafeteria, 	is 	the 	supervisor 	for 	these food
services workers.
All 	of 	the 	District's 	classified 	employees 	are 	paid 	from
the 	same 	salary schedule 	and 	share 	the 	same 	fringe benefits.
The 	custodians work evenings, 	as 	do 	the 	cafeteria workers 	on
occasion; 	other 	classified 	employees 	work 	a 	day 	shift.
The 	gardener 	crew 	leader 	also 	holds 	the 	position of
assistant 	director 	of operations. 	He 	reports 	to 	the 	director

5
of 	operations 	and 	is 	responsible 	for 	keeping 	the 	landscaped
areas 	of 	the 	campus 	in good 	condition. 	In addition 	to giving
general direction to other 	gardeners, 	he 	is 	expected 	to perform
some 	of 	the 	functions 	of 	the 	director 	of 	operations when 	the
latter 	individual 	is 	absent or 	otherwise 	unavailable. 	In
connection with 	these 	latter 	duties, 	the 	individual 	who holds
these 	dual positions 	testified 	that 	he 	has 	at 	times 	relayed
information 	to 	the 	custodian crew leader 	or 	to 	individual
custodians 	concerning 	chores 	that 	needed 	to be 	done, 	although
this 	is 	not done on a 	regular 	basis. 	He 	sat 	in on one
interview 	for 	a 	new hire 	but made 	no 	comments 	concerning 	the
applicant, 	nor 	were 	any comments 	solicited 	from him. 	The
individual 	in 	these 	dual positions 	has 	completed 	no evaluations
on 	subordinate 	employees, 	does 	not 	regularly 	inspect 	the work
of 	the 	custodial 	crew, 	has 	never 	recommended 	the promotion 	or
demotion of 	any member 	of 	the 	custodial 	staff, 	and 	is 	not
present 	the majority of 	the 	time 	that 	the 	custodial 	crew 	is
employed. 	When 	asked 	how 	he would 	deal 	with 	an 	employee 	who
needed 	a 	reprimand of 	some 	sort, 	this witness 	testified 	that 	he
would 	take 	the 	employee 	to 	someone 	"[w]ith more 	authority 	than
me" 	for 	discipline.
DISCUSSION
The 	Board 	has 	previously 	determined 	that 	among 	classified
employees 	three 	units 	are presumptively 	appropriate: 	a
paraprofessional 	unit 	composed of 	instructional 	aides, 	an
office-technical 	and business 	services 	unit, 	and 	an

6
operations-support 	unit. 	However, 	by establishing
presumptively 	appropriate 	units 	the 	Board 	has 	not 	precluded 	the
possibility 	that 	another 	unit 	configuration 	could 	also be
appropriate 	when 	supported 	by 	sufficient 	evidence 	to overcome
the presumption.
The 	hearing 	officer 	concluded 	that 	because 	of 	the
relatively 	small 	number 	of 	classified 	employees 	here 	involved
and 	because 	of 	their 	common work 	site 	that 	there 	was 	sufficient
interaction between 	the 	employees 	and 	sufficient 	threat 	of 	a
disruption 	in 	efficient 	operations 	to warrant 	a 	finding 	that
the presumption was 	overcome 	and 	that 	a wall-to-wall 	unit 	was
appropriate. 	We 	disagree 	since 	there 	was 	no evidence
introduced 	upon which 	to base 	this 	conclusion.
The maintenance, 	custodial, 	and gardening employees have
common 	supervision 	and 	perform physical 	labor 	rather 	than 	work
in offices. 	Although 	under 	separate 	direct 	supervision, 	the
cafeteria workers 	have much 	in 	common with 	the maintenance,
custodial, 	and 	gardening 	employees. 	They perform physical
labor 	and do not work 	in offices. 	The 	food 	services 	workers 	at
times 	find 	themselves 	working 	an 	evening 	shift 	in 	common with
custodians. 	All 	of 	these 	employees 	have 	a common purpose 	of
providing 	a proper 	physical 	environment 	and 	support 	services
for 	students.5 Moreover, 	there 	was 	testimony 	that 	there 	was
5 Sweetwater Union High 	School District 	(11/23/76) 	EERB-----------------------
Decision No. 	4; 	Sacramento City Unified 	School 	District
(9/20/77) 	EERB Decision No. 	30, 	at 8-10.

7
at 	least 	some 	interaction between 	these 	employees.
Accordingly, 	we 	find that the maintenance, 	custodial,
gardening, 	and 	food 	services 	employees 	constitute 	an
appropriate 	operations-support 	services 	unit.6
The clerical, 	accounting, 	and office services 	employees
have much 	in 	common. 	They 	are 	all 	supervised 	either 	directly
or 	indirectly 	by 	the 	school 	principal 	or 	the 	business manager.
They 	do 	not 	perform physical 	labor 	but 	rather 	utilize 	various
skills 	inside 	an office. 	None of 	these employees works 	an
evening 	shift. 	The 	employees 	thus 	identified 	form what 	would
otherwise 	constitute 	a 	single 	office-technical 	and 	business
services 	unit. 	The District 	also 	employs 	approximately 	eight
instructional 	and 	campus 	aides. 	Instructional 	aides 	constitute
a 	separate 	presumptively 	appropriate 	unit 	of 	paraprofessional
employees 	unless 	there 	is 	sufficient 	evidence 	to overcome 	that
presumption. 	In 	this 	case 	the 	instructional 	and 	campus 	aides
perform many 	clerical-type 	duties 	such 	as 	typing 	and 	filing.
One 	aide 	spent 	nearly 	100 	percent 	of 	her 	time on 	such 	tasks.
Moreover, 	in the 	case of 	the 	campus 	aides 	there 	are common
lines 	of 	supervision with 	the 	office 	employees. 	These 	factors,
coupled with 	the 	small 	number 	of 	aides 	involved, 	convinces 	us
that 	the 	presumption 	in 	favor 	of 	a 	separate 	paraprofessional
6The 	position 	of 	snack 	bar 	supervisor, 	which 	testimony
indicated was 	no longer 	in existence, 	is 	not 	considered 	in 	this
decision.

8
unit 	has 	been 	overcome 	and 	that 	the 	instructional 	and 	campus
aides 	together with 	the 	clerical, 	accounting, 	and office
services 	employees 	constitute 	an 	appropriate 	unit.
The 	remaining 	issue, 	that of 	the 	supervisory 	status 	of 	the
gardener 	crew 	leader/assistant 	operations 	foreman 	needs 	little
discussion. 	Section 3540.1(m) 	of 	the EERA provides 	that:
(m) 	"Supervisory employee" 	means 	any
employee, 	regardless 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 or 	clerical 	nature, 	but
requires 	the 	use 	of 	independent 	judgement.
The 	evidence 	here 	is overwhelming 	that 	the 	employee 	in
question 	possesses 	none 	of 	the 	described 	authority 	and 	the
hearing 	officer 	is 	affirmed 	on 	his 	holding 	of 	non-supervisory
status.
ORDER
Upon 	the 	foregoing 	decision 	and 	the 	entire 	record 	in 	this
case, 	the 	Public Employment Relations Board ORDERS 	that:

9
1. 	The 	following 	units 	are 	appropriate 	for 	the purposes
of meeting 	and 	negotiating, 	provided 	that 	an 	employee
organization 	becomes 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	thereof:
Operations-Support 	Services 	Unit 	consisting 	of 	employees 	in
the 	following 	job classifications: 	cafeteria worker;
custodian; 	custodian crew leader; 	gardener; 	gardener 	crew
leader/assistant 	operations 	foreman; 	general maintenance
worker; 	senior maintenance worker; 	and 	storekeeper/utility;
excluding 	all 	other 	employees 	and 	including 	those 	positions
agreed by the parties to be management, 	supervisory, 	or
confidential.
Office-Technical 	and 	Business 	Services Unit 	consisting 	of
employees 	in 	the 	following 	job 	classifications: 	accountant,
bookkeeper, 	program budget 	clerk, 	keypunch operator, 	school
secretary, 	library service 	technician, 	senior 	clerk 	typist,
stenographer 	clerk, 	intermediate 	clerk 	typist, 	library
assistant, 	clerk typist, 	receptionist/telephone operator,
instructional 	aide, 	and 	campus aide; 	excluding 	all other
employees 	and 	excluding 	those positions 	agreed 	by 	the parties
to be management, 	supervisory or confidential.
2. 	The 	gardener 	crew 	leader/assistant 	operations 	foreman
is 	not 	a supervisor.

3. 	Within 	10 	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
units. 	The 	regional 	director 	shall 	conduct 	an 	election 	at 	the
end 	of 	the 	posting period 	in 	each unit 	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 .
The 	date 	used 	to 	establish 	the 	number 	of 	employees 	in 	the
above 	units 	shall 	be 	the 	date 	of 	this 	Decision unless 	another
date 	is 	deemed 	appropriate 	by 	the 	regional 	director 	and 	notice
to 	the 	parties. 	In 	the 	event 	another 	date 	is 	selected, 	the
regional 	director 	may 	extend 	the 	time 	for 	employee
organizations 	to 	demonstrate 	at 	least 	30 	percent 	support 	in 	the
units.
By: 	Jerilou 	Cossack 	Twohey, 	Member 	Harry 	Gluck, 	Chairperson
I
Raymond 	J. 	Gonazles , 	Member	, ~ .
10

)
)
)
)
)
)
_______________ )
EDUCATIONAL 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
OF THE 	STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of:
FALLBROOK 	UNION HIGH 	SCHOOL 	DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
CALIFORNIA 	SCHOOL 	EMPLOYEES 	ASSOCIATION
CHAPTER 	353,
Employee Organization,
and
SERVICE EMPLOYEES 	INTERNATIONAL UNION,
LOCAL 102, AFL-CIO,
Employee Organization.
)
) 	Case No. 	LA-R-581
LA-R-585
PROPOSED DECISION
September 	13, 	1977
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances: 	Robert P. 	Thomas, 	for 	Fallbrook Union High School
District; 	Michael L. 	Trestick and Harry L. 	Hasler, 	for California
School Employees Association, Chapter 353; 	James A. 	Hawes, 	for Services
Employees International Union, 	Local 102, AFL-CIO.
Before David Schlossberg, 	Hearing Officer.
PROCEDURAL 	HISTORY
On April 12, 	1976, California School Employees Association, 	and 	its
Fallbrook 	Union High 	School Chapter 	(CSEA) 	#353 	filed with 	the
Fallbrook Union High School District 	(District) 	a 	request 	for
recognition 	as 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	of a unit 	consisting 	of
all 	the District's 	classified 	employees, 	excluding 	those employees who
could 	lawfully 	be 	declared management, 	supervisory 	and 	confidential
employees 	and 	noon duty supervisors, 	a 	unit 	stated 	to number
approximately 	40 	employees. 	The District posted 	the notice of 	this
request 	for 	recognition on April 	13, 	1976.
-1-

On April 	19, 	1976, 	Service Employees 	International Union, 	Local
102, 	AFL-CIO 	(SEIU), 	filed with the District a request 	for 	recognition
as 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	of a 	unit 	consisting 	of 	employees 	in
these 	job 	classifications: 	gardener 	crew 	leader; 	general maintenance;
custodian crew leader; 	gardener; 	and custodian; 	and 	excluding
management, 	supervisory 	and confidential employees, 	a 	unit 	stated 	to
number 	approximately 	13 	employees. 	The 	District posted 	the 	notice 	of
this request 	for 	recognition on April 	20, 	1976.
In 	a 	letter 	dated July 	7, 	1976, 	SEIU 	requested 	that 	the Educational
Employment Relations 	Board 	(EERB) 	conduct 	a unit 	determination
hearing.
On 	or 	before May 9, 	1977, 	CSEA filed with 	the District 	an 	amended
request 	for 	recognition, 	seeking 	two 	units 	instead of 	one 	comprehensive
unit. 	The 	first 	unit was 	stated 	to number 	approximately 	21 	employees
and 	to 	include 	but 	not be 	limited 	to 	the 	employees 	in 	the 	following
major 	groupings 	of 	jobs: 	clerical 	and 	secretarial 	and 	instructional
aides 	(paraprofessional). 	The 	second 	unit was 	stated 	to number
approximately 	19 	employees 	and 	to 	include 	employees 	in 	the 	food 	service
classification 	and 	the 	operations 	and 	maintenance 	classification. 	Both
proposed 	units 	were 	stated 	to 	exclude 	those 	positions 	which 	could
lawfully 	be declared management, 	supervisory or 	confidential.
A unit determination hearing was 	held on May 	23, 	1977, 	in
FALLBROOK, California. 	At 	the 	hearing 	the 	parties 	clarified 	their
positions 	as 	to 	the 	requested 	units, 	as 	detailed 	below.
-2-

-3-
Current Positions 	of 	the Parties
At 	the 	hearing 	CSEA sought 	two 	units. 	Unit A consists 	of 	these 	job
classifications: 	accountant; 	bookkeeper; 	program budget clerk; 	key
punch operator; 	school 	secretary; 	library service 	technician; 	senior
clerk 	typist; 	steno-clerk; 	intermediate clerk 	typist; 	library
assistant; 	clerk 	typist; 	receptionist/telephone operator; 	instructional
aide; 	and 	campus aide; 	and excluding noon duty supervisors,
substitutes, 	management, 	supervisory and confidential employees,
administrative 	secretary 	and 	those positions 	described 	in 	Unit B. 	Unit
B consists of 	these 	job classifications: 	cafeteria worker; 	senior
maintenance worker; 	storekeeper/utility; 	gardener 	crew leader; 	general
maintenance worker; 	custodian crew leader; 	gardener; 	and custodian; 	and
excluding noon duty supervisors, 	substitutes, 	management, 	supervisory
and 	confidential 	employees, 	director 	of operations 	and 	those positions
described 	in Unit A. 	CSEA maintains 	that 	a 	separate 	unit of 	aides 	is
not 	appropriate 	in 	this 	case 	because of 	their 	small number 	(there 	are a
total of eight 	instructional and campus aides) .
SEIU's position 	is 	that 	three units are appropriate: 	(1) 	an
office-technical 	unit 	consisting 	of 	those 	job 	classifications 	included
in CSEA's 	proposed 	Unit A, 	but 	excluding 	instructional 	and 	campus
aides; 	(2) an operations-support 	services 	unit 	consisting of those job
classifications 	included 	in CSEA's 	proposed Unit 	B, 	but 	excluding
cafeteria 	worker 	and 	gardener 	crew 	leader/assistant 	director 	of
operations;l and 	(3) 	a unit consisting of 	these 	job classifications:
l Effective October 	1, 	1976, 	the position of gardener 	crew leader
was 	reclassified 	to 	that 	of 	gardener 	crew 	leader/assistant 	director
of operations.

•
instructional 	aide, 	campus 	aide 	and 	cafeteria 	worker. 	SEIU contends
that 	the 	cafeteria 	workers 	should 	be 	included 	in 	the 	same 	unit 	as 	aides
because 	they 	correct 	students 	who 	are 	enrolled 	in 	the 	vocational 	food
training 	courses 	on 	a work 	experience 	basis, 	and 	such 	correction 	is 	in
effect 	the 	kind 	of 	instruction 	and 	supervision 	which 	instructional 	and
campus 	aides 	provide 	to 	students.
The 	District's 	position 	is 	that 	a wall-to-wall 	unit 	is 	appropriate.
There 	is 	one 	supervisory 	issue. 	SEIU contends 	that 	the 	gardener
crew 	leader/assistant 	director 	of 	operations 	is 	a 	supervisor 	within 	the
meaning 	of 	Section 	3540.1(m) 	of 	the 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations
Act 	(EERA) 2 in 	his 	capacity 	as 	assistant 	director 	of 	operations. 	The
District 	and 	CSEA 	dispute 	that 	status. 	Otherwise, 	the 	parties
agree 	about 	the 	designation 	of 	management, 	supervisory 	and 	confidential
employees, 	and 	the 	hearing 	officer 	accepts 	this 	stipulation 	without
inquiry. 3
ISSUES
The 	issues 	are:
(1) 	What 	is 	(are) 	the 	appropriate 	unit(s) 	for 	purposes of meeting
and 	negotiating?
(2) 	Is 	the 	gardener 	crew 	leader/assistant 	director 	of 	operations 	a
supervisor 	within 	the 	meaning 	of 	the 	EERA?
2Gov. Code 	S e c 	3540 	et 	seq.
3 Management 	employees 	are 	the 	superintendent, 	assistant
superintendent, 	principal 	(these 	three positions 	are currently occupied
by the 	same person) 	and the business manager. 	The director 	of
operations 	is 	a 	supervisory employee. 	The 	administrative 	secretary 	is
a 	confidential 	employee.
-4-

DISCUSSION
The 	Appropriate 	Unit(s)
Section 	3545(a) 	of 	the EERA requires 	the 	determination of 	the
appropriateness 	of 	a 	negotiating 	unit 	to 	be 	based 	on 	three 	factors:
(1) 	the 	community of 	interest 	between 	and 	among 	the 	employees; 	(2) 	the
established practices of 	the 	employees, 	including 	the 	extent 	to which
they belong 	to 	the 	same 	employee organization; 	and 	(3) 	the 	effect of
the 	size of 	the 	unit 	on 	the 	efficient operations 	of 	the 	school 	district.
In 	a 	series 	of 	cases 	involving 	classified 	employees,4 the 	EERB,
relying 	on 	the 	community 	of 	interest 	criterion, 	has 	held 	that 	three
units 	are presumptively appropriate: 	(1) 	a unit of 	aides, 	except 	for
clerical 	aides; 	(2) 	an office-technical and business 	services unit; 	and
(3) 	an operations-support services 	unit. 	Yet, 	the Board has 	clearly
indicated 	that 	the 	presumption 	that 	three 	units 	are appropriate 	is
rebuttable.5 The 	circumstances 	in 	this 	case 	are 	such 	that 	the
presumption 	is 	rebutted 	in 	favor 	of 	a 	comprehensive 	unit 	of 	all
classified 	employees.
The District 	is 	comprised of one 	school 	site6 for 	its 	high
school 	and 	continuation 	school 	and has 	an 	average 	daily 	attendance 	of
4See Sweetwater Union High School District, EERB Decision No. 4, November 23,
1976; Fremont Unified School District, EERB Decision No. 6, December 16, 1976;
San Diego Unified School District, EERB Decision No. 8, February 18, 1977; and
Foothill-DeAnza Community College District, EERB Decision No. 10, March 1, 1977.
5 See Foothill-DeAnza, at p. 2, 	supra.
6Additional land is available for a second site, as the present one is filled
to capacity in terms of student enrollment. 	However, for purposes of this decision,
the hearing officer is concerned only with the facts as they existed at the time of
the hearing.
- 5 -

about 	1800 	students. 	There 	are 	approximately 20 	employees 	in 	CSEA's
proposed Unit A, 	eight 	of whom are 	either 	instructional 	or 	campus
aides, 	and approximately 20 	employees 	in proposed Unit 	B. 	These
figures 	are 	compared to 	those 	in 	Sweetwater, 	where 	there were 	11
sites, 	29,227 	students 	and 672 	classified employees; 	in Fremont,
where 	there were 	48 	sites, 	32,759 	students 	and approximately 	346
classified employees; 	in San Diego, 	where 	there were 	164 sites,
4,220 	classified employees 	and 	an 	average 	daily 	attendance 	of 	125,815;
and in Foothill-DeAnza, 	where 	there were 	576 	classified employees.
The 	combination 	of only 	40 	employees 	and only 	one work 	site 	in
Fallbrook 	presents 	a 	situation 	substantially 	different 	from that 	in
the 	Board's precedential 	cases, 	as 	these 	factors 	themselves 	suggest
a much 	stronger 	community 	of 	interest 	among 	the 	employees 	than 	that
which existed in 	the other cases. 	For example, 	there 	is 	evidence
that 	the 	lines 	of 	supervision 	are 	less 	structured 	than might 	other-
wise be 	expected 	in 	a 	larger 	school 	district. 	The 	custodian 	crew
leader 	testified 	that 	if he were 	given 	an 	order by 	the 	director 	of
operations 	with which both he 	and 	the 	assistant 	director 	of 	operations
disagreed, 	he himself would 	try 	to 	see 	both 	the business manager 	and
the 	director 	of operations 	in 	order 	to work out 	the best policy which
should be 	followed. 	Thus, 	there is 	some 	compression of supervision,
as 	the business manager 	is 	the 	direct 	supervisor of many of 	the 	office
employees 	as well as 	the director of operations' 	supervisor. 	Further-
more, 	because there is only one work site, 	there is 	substantially
more 	interaction 	among 	all 	the 	classified 	employees 	than 	that which
would exist 	in 	larger 	school 	districts. 	It 	is 	also noted that 	the
-6-

u
,
classified 	employees 	in Fallbrook 	are 	all 	on 	the 	same 	salary 	schedule
and 	share 	the 	same 	fringe benefits. 7
Although 	evidence 	of 	established 	representation 	practices
predating 	the 	EERA are 	given 	little weight 	because 	of 	the 	possible
unilateral 	nature 	of 	the 	unit 	designation 	procedure which 	existed 	in
the 	District 	prior 	to 	the 	EERA,8 the 	evidence which was 	presented
does not 	contradict 	a 	finding 	that 	a single unit 	is 	appropriate. 	In
June, 	1976, 	the 	Salary Committee 	of 	the Classified Employees 	Group
"negotiated" 	a 	salary 	increase with 	the District 	for 	the 	1976-1977
school 	year. 	Apparently, 	the 	Classified Employees 	Group 	represented
all 	the 	classified employees whose 	unit placement 	is 	in 	dispute.
There was 	no 	evidence 	regarding 	the 	efficiency 	of 	operations
criterion 	other 	than 	the 	acting 	superintendent's 	testimony 	that 	two
or 	three 	units 	might 	jeopardize 	the harmony which 	exists 	among 	the
employees. 	Nevertheless, 	it 	is 	recognized that 	the 	creation of more
than one unit 	in a district 	as 	small 	as 	Fallbrook will 	result 	in a
greater 	administrative burden than 	it would 	in 	a 	larger 	district.
The 	Board has 	recognized 	the 	importance 	of 	striking 	the 	proper
balance between 	excessive 	fragmentation 	of units 	and 	the 	employees'
right 	to 	effective 	representation 	in 	appropriate 	units.9 In view of
the 	stronger 	community 	of interest which 	exists 	among 	the 	employees
in Fallbrook 	compared 	to 	those 	in 	the precedential 	cases 	and 	the
small 	size of the District, 	it 	is 	concluded that 	the proper balance
in 	this 	case 	is 	one 	unit 	consisting of all 	classified employees.
In the EERB's precedential decision placing aides in a separate unit
from other classified employees, there was a separate salary schedule for aides.
See Pittsburg Unified School District, EERB Decision No. 3 at p. 5, October 14, 1976.
8Sweetwater, at p. 4.
9See San Diego, at p. 8.
-7.

ll
ll
Noon 	duty 	supervisors 	and 	substitutes 	are 	excluded 	from the
unit 	because 	both 	CSEA and 	SEIU 	excluded 	them from their proposed
units 	and the District 	did not 	specifically indicate 	that 	it 	desired
to 	include them in the unit.
Supervisory 	Issue
SEIU contends 	that 	the gardener 	crew 	leader/assistant director 	of
operations 	is 	a supervisor 	in his capacity as 	the assistant director 	of
operations.10
Section 	3540.1(m) 	of 	the EERA defines 	a supervisory employee as
follows:
"Supervisory employee" 	means 	any employee,
regardless 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 or 	clerical nature, 	but
requires 	the 	use of 	independent 	judgment.
This 	section of the EERA is written 	in the disjunctive; 	therefore,
an employee 	need 	not possess 	all of 	the 	enumerated 	functions or 	duties
to be a supervisor. 	The performance of any one of 	the enumerated
actions or 	the effective power 	to recommend 	such 	action 	is 	sufficient
to make a person a supervisor within the meaning of the EERA.11
10
SEIU does 	not 	contend 	that 	the 	gardener 	crew 	leader/assistant
director 	of operations 	is 	a supervisor 	because of 	his position as
gardener 	crew 	leader. 	Indeed, 	SEIU's 	initial petition for 	recognition
included 	the gardener 	crew leader 	in 	the proposed unit. 	Therefore, 	the
determination of 	the 	supervisory 	status of 	the 	gardener 	crew
leader/assistant 	director 	of operations 	is 	based 	solely on 	his 	job
functions 	as 	the 	assistant director 	of operations.
11Sweetwater, at p. 12.
-8-

The 	typical 	tasks 	of 	the 	gardener 	crew 	leader/assistant director 	of
operations 	are 	set out 	as 	follows 	in 	the District's 	"Classified Job
Descriptions":
1. 	Supervise 	the work 	of other 	gardeners.
2. 	Operate 	all 	heavy 	equipment 	used 	in groundskeeping
such as skip loaders, 	back hoes, gang mowers, 	etc.
3. 	Does welding 	in maintenance of equipment.
4. 	Performs 	all duties 	as 	a gardener.
5. 	Performs 	as assistant 	director 	of operations.
This 	job description 	is 	not 	very 	helpful 	in 	determining 	whether 	the
assistant director 	of operations 	is 	a supervisor, 	although 	the
non-specific 	nature 	of 	the 	description 	is 	an 	indication 	that 	the
assistant 	director 	of 	operations performs 	duties 	as 	directed 	by 	the
director 	of 	operations 	rather 	than on 	his 	own 	initiative.
The 	testimony 	at 	the 	hearing 	does 	not 	establish 	that 	the 	assistant
director 	of 	operations 	performs 	any 	supervisory 	functions. 	He 	does 	not
complete performance evaluations 	in this capacity, 	nor 	has 	he been
involved 	in 	the promoting 	or 	demoting of 	an 	employee. 	He 	has 	no direct
involvement with 	the 	hiring of 	new employees. 	Although 	he 	inspects 	the
buildings each morning, 	he does 	so to see 	if 	anything 	is 	torn 	up or
broken 	into 	rather 	than 	to 	see 	if 	the 	custodians 	have 	cleaned 	the
building. 	He 	has 	not 	discussed 	the 	performance 	of 	custodial 	employees
with 	the 	custodian 	crew 	leader. 12 Any 	assignments 	of work 	he 	has
12
It 	is 	noted 	that 	the 	assistant 	director 	of operations 	had 	been
the 	acting 	director 	of 	operations 	for 	a 	little more 	than 	a month prior
to the hearing, 	due to the 	illness of 	the director of operations, 	and
he 	has performed 	some of 	these 	functions during 	this 	time 	as 	the 	acting
director. 	However, 	his responsibilities as acting director 	do not
affect 	the 	supervisory 	status 	of 	the position of 	assistant 	director 	of
operations.
-9-

made have 	been 	in 	the nature 	of passing 	information 	to 	the 	custodian
crew leader or 	custodians 	from the 	director of operations, 	the
business 	manager or 	individual 	teachers. 	He 	does not 	regularly
assign work 	on his 	own 	initiative 	using 	independent 	judgment 	to
determine 	the work which needs 	to be 	done. 	Finally, 	the 	assistant
director 	of 	operations 	stated 	that when 	the 	director 	of 	operations
returns, 	he himself would "go back outside 	as 	a 	gardener 	crew leader
and, 	if he 	[the 	director of operations] 	left 	the 	campus 	for anything,
they would expect me 	to 	take 	over 	as 	the 	assistant 	director 	of
operations."
Based on 	the 	foregoing, 	it 	is 	found that 	the 	assistant 	director
of operations 	is 	not 	a 	supervisor within 	the meaning of Section 	3540.l(m)
of 	the EERA.
PROPOSED 	ORDER
It 	is 	the Proposed Decision that:
1. 	The 	following unit 	is 	appropriate 	for 	the purpose 	of meeting
and negotiating, 	provided 	that 	an 	employee 	organization becomes 	the
exclusive 	representative 	of 	the unit:
A 	single 	unit 	consisting 	of 	all 	classified
employees, 	excluding noon duty supervisors,
substitutes 	and management, 	supervisory 	and
confidential 	employees.
2. 	The 	gardener 	crew 	leader/assistant 	director 	of 	operations
is not a supervisor.
-10-

The 	parties 	have 	seven 	(7) 	calendar 	days 	fro m receipt 	of 	this
Proposed Decision 	in which 	to 	file 	exceptions 	in 	accordance 	with
Section 	33380 	of 	the 	EERB ' s 	Rules 	and Regulations. 	If no 	party
files 	ti mely 	exceptions, 	this 	Proposed Decision will 	beco me 	final
on September 	26, 	1977, 	and a 	Notice 	of Decision will 	issue 	fro m
the EERB.
Within 	ten 	(10) 	workdays 	after 	the 	e mployer 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 	conduct 	an 	election 	at 	the 	end of 	the 	posting period
if 	(1) 	more 	than 	one 	employee 	organization qualifies 	for 	the 	ballot,
or 	(2) 	only one 	e mployee 	organization qualifies 	for 	the 	ballot 	and
the 	e mployer 	does 	not 	grant 	voluntary 	recognition.
Dated September 	13, 	1977 .
-11-
David 	Schlossberg
Hearing 	Officer
t::::/···