Paso Robles Union School District, et al./San Rafael City High School District, et al. (PERB 0085E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
PASO 	ROBLES 	UNION 	SCHOOL 	DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
PASO 	ROBLES 	JOINT UNION 	HIGH 	SCHOOL 	DISTRICT
Employer,
and
PASO ROBLES 	TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, 	CTA/NEA
Employee 	Organization,
and
PASO 	ROBLES 	FEDERATION OF 	TEACHERS
LOCAL 3553, AFL-CIO,
Employee 	Organization.
SAN RAFAEL CITY 	HIGH 	SCHOOL 	DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
SAN RAFAEL 	ELEMENTARY 	SCHOOL 	DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
SAN RAFAEL CITY 	SCHOOLS,
Employer,
and
SAN RAFAEL 	TEACHERS 	ASSOCIATION, 	CTA/NEA,
Employee 	Organization,
and
SAN 	RAFAEL 	FEDERATION OF 	TEACHERS,
LOCAL 1077, AFL-CIO,
Employee 	Organization.
Case Nos. 	LA-R-130
LA-R-703
PERB Decision No. 	85
January 9, 	1979
Case No. 	SF-R-355
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
__________________)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
__________________ )

Appearances; 	Daniel C. 	Cassidy, 	Attorney 	(Paterson & Taggart)
for 	Paso 	Robles 	Union 	School 	District 	and 	Paso Robles 	Joint
Union High 	School District; 	Charles 	R. 	Gustafson, 	Attorney for
Paso Robles Teachers Association, 	CTA/NEA; 	Anne Fragasso,
Attorney 	for 	Paso Robles 	Federation 	of 	Teachers,
Local 3553, AFL-CIO.
Richard Godino, 	Attorney 	(Breon, 	Galgani 	& Godino) 	for
San Rafael City High 	School District, 	San Rafael Elementary
School District, 	and 	San Rafael City Schools; 	Francis R.
Giambroni, 	Attorney 	(White, 	Giambroni 	& Walters) 	for San Rafael
Teachers Association, 	CTA/NEA; 	Stewart Weinberg, Attorney
(Van Bourg, 	Allen, Weinberg 	& Roger) 	for San Rafael Federation
of Teachers, Local 1077, AFL-CIO.
Before Gluck, 	Chairperson; 	Cossack Twohey and Gonzales, 	Members,
DECISION
These 	cases 	are 	before 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations
Board 	(formerly 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Board,
hereafter 	Board) 	on 	exceptions 	to hearing officers' proposed
decisions. 	Because 	identical 	issues 	are presented 	for
resolution, 	we 	have 	consolidated 	the 	cases 	on 	appeal.1 In
both 	instances, 	we 	are asked 	to determine whether 	the
respective 	school districts 	are 	one 	or 	two employers 	under 	the
Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Act 	(hereafter 	EERA).2 We
conclude 	in both 	cases 	that 	the 	two districts 	are 	separate
employers 	within 	the meaning of 	the 	EERA. 	For 	the 	reasons 	set
1Cal. Admin. Code, tit. 	8, sec. 	32320(a)(2) 	provides:
32320. 	Decision of 	the Board 	Itself.
(a) 	The Board 	itself may:
********
(2) 	Affirm, modify or 	reverse the
proposed 	decision, 	order 	the 	record
reopened 	for 	the 	taking 	of 	further
evidence, 	or 	take 	such other 	action 	as
it considers proper.
2Gov. 	Code 	sec. 	3540 	et 	seq. 	All 	references 	herein
unless 	otherwise 	noted 	are 	to 	the Government Code.
N	2

forth herein, 	the 	hearing 	officer's decision 	in San Rafael 	is
reversed 	and 	the 	hearing 	officer's decision 	in 	Paso 	Robles
is 	sustained.
FACTS
Paso 	Robles
On April 	1, 	1976, 	the Paso Robles Teachers Association
(hereafter Association) filed 	a 	petition 	for 	exclusive 	representation
of 	a 	single 	unit 	of certificated 	employees 	in the 	elementary 	and
high 	school districts. 	On May 	4, 	1976, 	the Paso Robles Federation
of 	Teachers 	(hereafter 	Federation) 	requested 	the 	representation 	of
two 	units: 	one 	unit 	comprised of 	high 	school personnel 	and 	one 	unit
comprised 	of elementary personnel. 	On May 18, 	1976, 	the District
requested 	a 	unit 	determination 	hearing. 	At 	the 	hearing 	on March 	10,
1977, 	the 	parties 	entered 	into a 	stipulation 	on 	the 	composition of
the 	unit. 	They 	agreed 	that 	whatever 	the 	determination made 	as 	to
whether 	the 	districts 	were 	a single 	employer 	or 	two employers, 	the
unit 	or 	units 	should 	consist of 	all 	certificated 	employees 	excluding
the superintendents, 	principals, 	vice principals, 	administrative
assistants/business managers, 	director 	of 	special projects 	(child
development 	unit 	director) 	and 	all 	substitutes. 	The 	unit 	or 	units
would 	therefore 	contain 	45 	high 	school 	employees 	and 	80 	elementary
employees.
On December 	1, 	1977, 	a PERB hearing officer 	concluded 	that 	the
High 	School 	District 	and 	the 	Elementary 	School 	District 	are 	two
employers 	for 	purposes 	of collective 	negotiations. 	The 	District 	and
the Association 	filed 	exceptions 	to 	this 	decision.
W	
3

The 	school districts 	in 	this 	case 	are 	Paso 	Robles Union 	School
District 	(hereafter 	the Elementary 	School District) 	and
Paso 	Robles 	Joint 	Union High 	School 	District 	(hereafter 	the 	High
School District), 	located 	in San Luis Obispo County. 	Their 	combined
average 	daily attendance 	(ADA) 	is 	2,255. 	The High 	School District
operates 	one 	high 	school 	which 	has 	an ADA of 	881. 	The Elementary
District 	operates 	four 	elementary 	schools. 	The 	geographical
boundaries of 	the 	Elementary 	School 	District 	are 	contained 	within
those 	of 	the 	High 	School District.
Each district 	is 	governed 	by 	its 	own board 	of 	trustees.
Although 	these 	boards meet 	on 	the 	same 	day, 	each 	board meets 	and
functions 	independently of 	the 	other. 	Traditionally 	the 	same
individuals have 	served on both boards; 	however, 	a recent change 	in
the 	election 	law 	has 	altered 	the 	constituencies 	of 	the 	boards.
The 	districts 	maintain 	their 	own 	separate 	budgets 	as 	well 	as
payroll 	and 	accounting 	systems. 	The 	services of 	41 	employees 	are
shared 	by 	the 	districts.3 These 	employees 	are 	appointed
separately 	by 	each 	board 	and 	are 	paid 	pro 	rata 	for 	their 	services 	by
the 	appropriate 	district. 	The 	districts 	have 	bid 	together 	for
supplies 	and machinery, 	but 	each pays 	for 	its 	own expenses.
The 	districts 	have 	a 	"common 	administration." 	One
superintendent 	recommends 	hiring 	for 	both 	districts 	and 	negotiates
on 	behalf 	of 	each 	district 	with 	respect 	to 	employer-employee
3Included 	among 	these 	shared 	employees 	are: 	the
superintendent of 	schools, 	the 	superintendent of maintenance 	and
operations, 	the director 	of 	transportation, 	the 	administrative
assistant, psychologists, speech therapists, nurses, coaches, and
utility 	and 	maintenance 	staff.
4

relations. 	All principals 	and administrators in both districts
report 	directly 	to 	the 	superintendent. 	A combined 	total 	of 	125
certificated 	personnel 	are 	employed 	by 	the districts.
Certificated 	employees 	in 	both 	districts 	are 	paid 	according 	to
the 	same 	salary 	schedule 	and 	receive 	the 	same 	fringe 	benefits.
They 	are 	also 	governed 	by 	the 	same 	policies 	regarding 	leave 	of
absence 	and 	holidays. 	Transfers 	by 	teachers 	are 	permitted
between 	the 	districts, 	but 	tenure may be 	retained 	in only one
district.
On 	five different 	occasions, 	voters 	in 	the 	districts 	have
rejected 	proposals 	to 	unify 	the 	districts 	to 	form a 	common 	tax
base. 	Two 	separate 	tax bases 	have 	been maintained 	as 	a 	result.
San 	Rafael
On April 	1, 	1976, 	the San Rafael Teachers Association
(hereafter 	Association) 	requested 	exclusive 	representation of 	a
unit 	of 	all certificated 	employees. 	The 	San 	Rafael Federation
of Teachers 	(hereafter Federation) 	then 	filed 	a petition 	for
intervention 	to 	represent 	a 	unit 	of 	certificated 	high 	school
employees on April 21, 	1976, 	On April 30, 	1976, 	the
San 	Rafael 	City 	Schools 	requested 	a 	unit 	determination
hearing. 	On May 12, 	1977, 	a hearing officer concluded 	that 	the
High 	School 	District 	and 	the 	Elementary 	School 	District 	were
one 	employer. 	The Federation 	took exception 	to 	the 	hearing
officer's 	decision.4
4Both 	employee 	organizations 	requested 	that 	the 	Board
expedite 	this case. 	On May 16, 	1978, 	the Board denied 	the
request. 	PERB Order No. 	Ad-30.
55

The 	San 	Rafael City High 	School 	District 	(hereafter 	the
High 	School District) 	and 	the 	San Rafael Elementary School
District 	(hereafter 	the Elementary 	School District 	) 	are 	known
collectively 	as 	the 	San Rafael City Schools. 	The 	High 	School
District 	operates 	two 	high 	schools 	and 	one 	continuation 	school
with 	a combined ADA of 	3,861. 	The 	Elementary School 	District
operates 	nine 	schools 	at grade 	levels K-5 	and 	two schools 	at
grade 	levels 	6-8. 	ADA 	for 	the 	Elementary School 	District
is 3,840.
Article 	XI 	of 	the 	San 	Rafael 	City Charter 	provides 	that 	a
"school 	department" 	for 	the City of 	San Rafael 	shall 	be
comprised 	of 	all 	schools 	established 	and 	thereafter 	established
within the city, 	the district, 	and 	the 	territories 	annexed 	for
school purposes. 	It 	also 	vests 	governing 	authority 	in 	a 	single
five-member 	board 	of 	education 	which 	administers 	both 	the 	High
School 	District 	and 	the 	Elementary District.
The 	geographical 	boundaries 	of 	the 	High 	School District
encompass 	the 	Elementary 	School 	District 	and 	the 	Dixie
Elementary 	School District 	(hereafter 	the Dixie District). 	The
latter, 	like 	the Elementary School District, 	"feeds" 	students
into the High School District. 	The Dixie District, 	however, 	is
governed 	by 	its 	own 	board 	of 	education 	and 	is 	funded 	by 	its 	own
tax 	base. 	Voters 	in 	the Dixie District 	also participate
equally with 	voters 	in 	the 	San Rafael districts 	to elect
members 	to 	the 	San Rafael board 	of 	trustees. 	Consequently,
voters 	in 	the 	Dixie District can 	exercise 	a 	voice 	in 	the
administration of 	the 	separately 	funded 	Elementary 	School
District.
6
6

When 	the 	San Rafael board 	of education meets, 	it 	keeps 	no
separate 	agenda 	for 	the districts. 	Agenda 	items 	applicable 	to
one 	district 	or 	the 	other 	are 	discussed 	and 	acted 	upon 	at 	the
same meeting. 	Administration of 	both districts 	emanates 	from
one 	central office, 	where 	all personnel 	records 	are maintained.
The 	High 	School 	District 	and 	the 	Elementary 	School 	District
operate 	on 	totally 	separate 	budgets. 	They process 	a common
payroll 	but 	keep 	separate 	accounting 	records. 	Each district 	is
funded 	by 	its 	own 	tax 	base 	and 	bond 	elections. 	No 	commingling
of 	funds 	occurs. 	Voters 	in both districts 	have 	rejected
unification 	proposals 	on 	three 	separate 	occasions.
Certain employees 	work 	for 	both 	districts 	and 	are
compensated 	pro 	rata 	for 	the 	time 	spent 	in 	the 	particular
district.5 These 	employees 	receive 	a 	single 	check 	from 	the
San Rafael City 	Schools 	but 	the 	apportioned 	amount 	is 	deducted
from 	the 	funding 	of 	the 	appropriate 	district.
The 	High 	School 	District 	employs 	185 	certificated 	employees
while 	the 	Elementary 	School 	District employs 	180 	certificated
employees. 	All 	are 	covered 	by 	the 	same 	personnel policy,
salary schedule, 	fringe 	benefits, 	evaluation 	and 	grievance
procedures, 	and 	workday schedule. 	Certificated employees 	do
5The 	following 	employees 	are 	shared 	by 	both 	districts:
the 	superintendent, 	assistant 	superintendent of 	administrative
services, 	director 	of personnel, 	adult education coordinator,
and director 	of maintenance 	and operations, 	psychologist,
nurse, and an elementary 	teachers 	also 	serving 	as 	a 	high 	school
athletic 	coach.
77

not 	have 	an automatic 	right 	to 	interdistrict 	transfer. 	When an
employee 	does 	transfer, 	however, 	he 	retains all previous
seniority 	and 	tenure 	rights 	in 	the 	new district. 	An 	integrated
seniority 	list 	of 	all 	employees 	is maintained 	in addition 	to
the 	separate 	seniority 	lists 	for 	each 	district.
In 	previous 	litigation 	involving 	teacher 	lay-offs 	pursuant
to Education Code 	Section 	13443, 	hearing officers of 	the Office
of 	Administrative 	Hearings 	twice 	held 	that 	the 	districts 	were
two employers. 	On one occasion, 	it was determined 	that 	the
districts 	together 	constituted 	a 	single 	employer.
DISCUSSION
The 	central 	issue 	before 	the Board 	in both 	cases 	is whether
there 	is 	a 	single 	public 	school 	employer 	or 	two 	separate
employers.
We 	are 	mindful 	that National Labor 	Relations 	Board
(hereafter 	NLRB) 	case 	law would 	favor 	finding 	these 	districts
to 	be 	a 	single 	employer 	in both 	cases.6 However, 	we 	do 	not
view NLRB 	decisions 	as 	appropriate 	guidelines 	in 	this 	area.
Generally, 	the NLRB must 	address 	the 	issue 	of whether 	two
entities 	constitute 	a 	single 	employer 	in 	one of 	two contexts:
First, 	when 	there 	is 	a question as 	to whether 	the NLRB has
6See 	Sakrete of Northern California 	(1962) 	137 	NLRB 	1220
[50 LRRM 1343]; 	Graphic Arts 	International Union Local 262,
AFL-CIO 	(London Press, 	Inc.), 	(1973) 	208 NLRB 37 	[85 LRRM 1196] •
88

jurisdiction 	to 	decide 	the 	dispute,7 and 	second, 	when 	there
is 	a question as 	to whether 	an employee 	organization 	is 	seeking
to 	exert 	lawful 	economic 	pressure 	over 	an 	employer 	with 	which
it 	has 	a dispute 	or 	unlawful 	economic pressure over 	an 	innocent
second 	party.8 Neither 	circumstance 	exists 	in 	the 	instant
cases 	since 	neither 	this Board's 	jurisdiction9 nor 	the
lawfulness of 	economic pressure 	is 	at 	issue.
Nor 	do we 	find 	the 	litigation which 	arose 	under 	the
Winton 	Act10 prior 	to 	the 	passage 	of 	the 	EERA persuasive. 	In
the 	first place, 	the 	results of 	the 	litigation were
contradictory. 	In 	the 	second place, 	we have 	consistently held
that we 	will 	give 	little 	weight 	to 	the 	"established practices
of 	the 	employees" 	which 	antedate 	the 	passage 	of 	the 	EERA.11
In 	determining 	appropriate 	negotiating 	units 	we must 	always
bear 	in mind 	the 	stated 	purpose 	of 	the 	EERA to 	foster
77The NLRB has 	jurisdiction 	only 	over 	disputes 	affecting
interstate 	commerce. 	Thus, 	the NLRB has 	established certain
minimum dollar 	standards, 	the 	amounts 	of which are 	irrelevant
for 	this 	discussion, 	which an employer must meet before 	the
NLRB will 	assert 	jurisdiction.
8The 	EERA does 	not 	contain 	any 	parallel provisions.
9Cf. 	Joint 	Powers Board of Directors, 	Tulare County
Organization 	for Vocational Education, 	Regional Occupational
Center 	and Program 	(6/26/78) 	PERB Decision No. 	57.
10The 	Winton Act, 	former 	Education 	Code 	sections 	13080
et 	seq., 	was 	repealed effective July 1, 	1976 	by the EERA.
11Sweetwater 	Union High 	School 	District 	(11/23/76) 	EERB
Decision 	No. 4
99

harmonious 	employee-employer 	relations 	through 	collective
negotiations. 	Meaningful 	negotiation 	can 	only 	occur 	where 	the
employer 	has 	the 	authority 	and 	ability 	to 	reach 	agreement 	with
the 	duly 	selected 	representative 	of 	its 	employees 	about 	those
matters within 	the 	scope of 	representation. 	In 	the 	instant
cases, 	each 	district 	is confined 	to 	the 	framework of 	its 	own
tax base, 	budget 	and 	revenue 	limits. 	The 	budgets of 	each
district 	are 	kept 	strictly 	separate 	and 	there 	is 	no 	commingling . .. . . ..
of 	funds. 	In each case, 	where 	the districts share 	staff,
facilities or 	equipment, 	there 	is 	a strict apportionment of 	the
expense 	between 	them. 	Each governing board 	is 	a 	separate
policy-making 	body 	responsible 	to 	different 	constituencies.
Moreover, 	and while 	not dispositive, 	voters 	in both cases have
repeatedly 	rejected 	unification 	of 	the 	districts.
In 	the 	final 	analysis 	it 	is 	this 	separate 	economic 	status
of 	each 	district 	coupled 	with 	the 	exclusive 	policy-making
authority 	of 	each 	district 	which 	determines 	its 	ability 	to
negotiate 	about 	those 	matters 	within 	the 	scope 	of
negotiations. 	Accordingly, 	we conclude 	that 	the 	following 	are
separate 	employers 	within 	the 	meaning 	of 	the 	EERA: 	Paso Robles
Union 	School District, 	Paso Robles 	Joint Union High 	School
District, 	San Rafael City High 	School District 	and 	San Rafael
Elementary 	School 	District.
ORDER
Upon 	the 	foregoing 	decision 	and 	the 	entire 	record 	in 	this
case, 	the 	Public Employment 	Relations Board ORDERS 	that:
10

1. 	The 	Paso Robles 	Union 	School 	District 	and 	the 	Paso
Robles Joint 	Union High 	School District 	are 	two, 	separate 	and
distinct 	employers 	for 	the 	purpose 	of meeting 	and 	negotiating.
2. 	The 	San 	Rafael Elementary 	School 	District 	and 	the
San Rafael City High 	School 	District 	are 	two, 	separate 	and
distinct 	employers 	for 	the 	purpose 	of 	meeting 	and 	negotiating.
Within 	10 	workdays 	after 	the 	employers post 	the 	Notice 	of
Decision, 	the 	employee 	organizations 	shall 	demonstrate 	to 	the
regional 	director 	at 	least 	30 	percent 	support 	in 	the 	stipulated
units. 	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) 	if only one
employee 	organization 	qualifies 	for 	the 	ballot 	and 	the 	employer
does 	not 	grant 	voluntary 	recognition.
The 	date 	to be 	used 	to 	establish 	the 	number 	of 	employees 	in
the 	stipulated 	units 	shall 	be 	the 	date 	of 	this 	decision 	unless
another 	date 	is 	deemed 	appropriate 	by 	the 	regional 	director 	and
noticed 	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
stipulated 	units.
By: 	Jerilou 	Cossack 	Twohey, 	Member 	Harry 	Gluck 	Chairperson
Raymond J. 	Gonzales, 	Member, 	concurring:
I 	concur with 	this 	decision 	except 	to 	the 	extent 	that 	it 	appears
to 	confuse 	the 	issue of whether 	there 	are 	one or 	two 	employers with
11

the 	issue of "determining appropriate negotiating units," 	the latter
issue being one which I take to be within the purview of Government
Code section 3545.
Raymond J. 	Gonzales, 	Member
12

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
E D U C A T I O N A L E M P L O Y M E N T R E L A T I O N S BOARD
P A S O R O B L E S U N I O N SCHOOL D I S T R I C T a n d )
P A S O R O B L E S J O I N T U N I O N H I G H SCHOOL 	)
D I S T R I C T ,
E m p l o y e r ,
and
P A S O R O B L E S TEACHERS A S S O C I A T I O N ,
CTA/NEA,
E m p l o y e e Organization,
and 	>
P A S O R O B L E S FEDERATION OF T E A C H E R S ,
A F L / C I O ,
E m p l o y e e Organization.
)
)
) 	Case N o s . L A - R - 1 3 0
L A - R - 7 0 3
PROPOSED D E C I S I O N
December 	1, 	1977
)
)
)
)
)
)
) 	-
)
)
)
)
)
)
A p p e a r a n c e s : 	D a n i e l C. Cassidy, A t t o r n e y (Paterson & T a g g a r t ) , 	for P a s o
R o b l e s U n i o n School District a n d P a s o R o b l e s J o i n t U n i o n H i g h School D i s t r i c t ;
Charles R. 	Gustafson, A t t o r n e y , 	for P a s o R o b l e s Teachers A s s o c i a t i o n , 	CTA/NEA;
A n n e F r a g a s s o , Attorney, 	for P a s o Robles F e d e r a t i o n o f T e a c h e r s , A F L / C I O .
D e c i d e d b y : 	Carol A n n W e b s t e r , 	H e a r i n g Officer.
P R O C E D U R A L H I S T O R Y
O n A p r i l 1 , 	1 9 7 6 , 	the P a s o R o b l e s Teachers A s s o c i a t i o n , C T A / N E A
(hereinafter the A s s o c i a t i o n ) 	filed petitions 	for recognition w i t h the B o a r d
o f Trustees o f the P a s o Robles U n i o n School District 	(hereinafter the
E l e m e n t a r y D i s t r i c t ) 	and the P a s o R o b l e s J o i n t U n i o n H i g h School District
(hereinafter the H i g h School D i s t r i c t ) 	seeking recognition as exclusive
representative of a single u n i t consisting of a l l certificated employees of
b o t h D i s t r i c t s .
- 1 -
I

On May 4, 1976, the Paso Robles Federation of Teachers, AFT
Local 3553 (hereinafter AFT) filed petitions with both Districts seeking
recognition as exclusive representative of two separate units of
certificated employees, one in the High School District and one in the
Elementary District.
On May 18, 1976, the superintendent, on behalf of both Districts,
notified the Educational Employment Relations Board (hereinafter EERB)
that the Districts doubted the appropriateness of both units and requested
a unit determination hearing.
On March 10, 1977, a hearing was held before a hearing officer of
the EERB. 	During the hearing the parties stipulated as follows:
Whatever the determination of the EERB as to whether the Districts
are a single employer or two employers, the unit or units would include all
certificated employees except the superintendent, principals, vice principals,
administrative assistants/business managers, director of special projects
(child development unit director) and all substitutes.
ISSUE
Whether the Paso Robles Union School District and the Paso Robles
Joint Union High School District axe one or two employers within the meaning
of Section 3540.l(k)
EERA) .
1H	
1 of the Educational Employment Relations Act (hereinafter
EERA) •
-2-
1 Government Code Section 3540.l(k) states:
"Public school employer" or "employer" means the governing board
of a school district, a school district, a county board of
education, or a county superintendent of schools.

FINDINGS OF FACT
For over thirty years the Elementary District and the High School
District have shared a common administration, each contributing to the cost.
The two Districts share the cost of 41 employees, including nurses, the
superintendent of maintenance and grounds, coaches, utility and maintenance
personnel and a painter.
The Districts have separate budgets and separate accounting records,
although there does seem to be some transfer of funds between the Districts.
Employees who work for both Districts must be appointed by the Boards
of Trustees of both Districts. 	The evaluation forms are different between
the Districts only in order to confirm the requirements of the Stull Act22
which sets out guidelines for teacher evaluations. 	Certificated employees seeking
to transfer between Districts are accommodated to the greatest extent possible
and are permitted to retain their tenure until the transfer is complete. 	Upon
completion of the move, the teacher must elect in which of the two Districts
he or she wishes to have tenure, but may not choose to have tenure in both.
Traditionally, salary schedules have been identical in both Districts.
Yet, the evidence shows that both Boards are required to pass on the salary
package, and each District pays the salaries of its own employees and a pro rata
share of the salaries of those who work for both Districts.
The Elementary District pays the High School District for use of
busses belonging to the High School District.
2See Education Code Sections 44660-44665 (former Sections 13485-13490)
-3-

The two Districts have also participated in a joint venture with
the City of Paso Robles in order to construct a swimming pool to be used
for elementary, high school and city purposes. 	The arrangement was that
the city would provide the capital for construction, and the pool would
be built on school property.
Although the same individuals historically have served on both
District Boards, a recent election changed the composition of the Boards.
On April 1, 1977, four of the members of the combined Boards changed. 	It
also appears that the constituencies of the two Boards are slightly
different.
On five separate occasions the city leaders have placed a measure
on the ballot seeking voter approval of a plan to unify the two Districts.
On each of the five occasions the voters rejected the measure. 	Although
there was some evidence introduced to explain the reason for this
rejection of the proposal, 	the results stand for themselves.
The two Districts regularly meet jointly but maintain their separate
agendas and retain separate authority to approve or reject any single item
on the agenda.
Considerable evidence shows that due to the administrative
makeup of the Districts, it would be more economical to negotiate with
one unit comprised of all certificated personnel or classified personnel
-4-

than to negotiate with separate units in each of the two Districts. 	The
additional cost would potentially occur primarily in the area of
negotiations as the Districts stated that it would be necessary to hire
additional members for the negotiating team. 	Some evidence refuted the
claim of increased costs, but that evidence was insufficient to dispel 	the
likelihood of new staff requirements.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The facts in Paso Robles Districts closely resemble those in
Turlock School Districts, EERB Order No. Ad-18, October 26, 1977.
In Turlock, 	the interrelations of operations was extensive. 	This
relationship included a single telephone number and letterhead, one bus
transportation system, common employees, centralized 	control of labor
relations, one salary scale, very similar benefit structures, and one
administration. 	The districts shared a negotiator, a superintendent and
chief deputies.
In Turlock, the EERB found that the districts were two employers
within the meaning of the Educational Employment Relations Act,, Analyzing
criteria for determining who is an employer under the National Labor
Relations Act, the EERB concluded that in the public sector the issue of
control was determinative. 	In spite of the many joint activities between
the districts, the individual boards retained final authority.
Although there are some factual differences in the case of the Paso
Robles Districts, these differences are not sufficient to require a
different result.
-5-

Given the strong policy enunciated in Turlock by the EERB to weigh
heavily the aspect of control, the Paso Robles School Districts must be
seen as two rather than one school employer within the meaning of the EERA.
In the Paso Robles School Districts there has been significant coordination
of the two Districts, but at all times each individual Board has retained the
power to approve or veto any action by the administration relating to matters
within its jurisdiction. 	It is immaterial that prior to April 1, 1977 all of
the members of the Boards were identical. 	Since this determination will effect
labor relations between the Districts and their employees in the future, we
must consider future as well as past relationships.
As in Turlock, there is no showing that the High School District shares
or can share in the decision of the Elementary District to hire or fire an
individual in that district or vice versa. 	Nor has there been any showing that
the Elementary District has the right to direct both the work to be done and the
manner in which the work shall be done in the High School District or vice versa.
All employee wage and fringe benefit costs are paid separately by each district.
Further, the superintendent and other top level personnel are the employees of
both governing boards and accountable to each district separately for performance
of services regarding each. 	They do not make the ultimate decisions regarding
personnel matters; the governing boards do. 	The voters' 	decision to retain
separate school districts reinforces the finding of separate employers. 	Care
must be taken to avoid depriving governing boards of their vested authority or
diluting their responsibility to their constituents.
Furthermore, because the constituencies are different, there is always
the possibility that an individual member would find it necessary to vote
one way on a proposal for joint action in his or her position as a member of
-6-

one Board, and the opposite way as a member of the other Board. 	Therefore,
in accordance with Turlock, because each board retains authority to render
ultimate decisions only for its respective district, it cannot be said that
they are one district within the meaning of the Act. 	This holding is not,
however, to be construed in any way so as to preclude the voluntary
establishment of multi-employer negotiating units.
PROPOSED ORDER
It is the Proposed Decision that the Paso Robles Union School
District and the Paso Robles Joint Union High School District are two
employers for the purpose of meeting and negotiating. 	The following
certificated employee units are appropriate for meeting and negotiating,
provided an employee organization becomes the exclusive representative:
1. 	In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, a unit in
the Paso Robles Union School District including all certificated employees,
excluding the superintendent, principals, vice principals, administrative
assistants/business managers, 	director of special projects (child develop-
ment unit director) and all substitutes.
2. 	In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, a unit in
the Paso Robles Joint Union High School District including all certificated
employees, excluding the superintendent, principals, vice principals,
administrative assistants/business managers, director of special projects
(child development unit director) and all substitutes.
The parties have seven (7) calendar days from receipt of this Proposed
Decision in which to file exceptions in accordance with California
Administrative Code, Tit. 8, Section 33380. 	If no party files timely
exceptions, this Proposed Decision will become final on December 13, 1977,
and a Notice of Decision will issue from the EERB.
-7-

- .. .
Within ten (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 in each unit at the end of
the posting period if (1) more than one employee organization qualifies
for the ballot, or (2) only one employee organization qualifies for the
ballot and the employer does not grant voluntary recognition.
The date used to establish the number of employees in the above units
shall be the date of this Proposed Decision unless another date is deemed
appropriate by the Regional Director and noticed 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.
Dated: 	December 1, 1977.
Carol Ann Webster
Hearing Officer
-8-
*Voluntary recognition requires majority proof of support in all cases.
See Gov. Code Sec. 3544 and 3544.1.

)
)
)
EDUCATIONAL EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of:
SAN RAFAEL CITY HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
SAN RAFAEL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
SAN RAFAEL CITY SCHOOLS,
Employer,
and
Employee Organization,	SAN RAFAEL FEDERATION OF TEACHERS,
CHAPTER 1077,
and
SAN RAFAEL TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, CTA,
Employee Organization.
. .
)
)
)
)
) 	Case No. SF-R-355
PROPOSED DECISION
(11/25/77)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances: 	Richard Godino, Attorney (Breon, Galgani and Godino) for
San Rafael City High School District, San Rafael Elementary School District,
and San Rafael City Schools; Stewart Weinberg, Attorney (Van Bourg, Allen,
Weinberg and Rogers) for San Rafael Federation of Teachers, Chapter 1077;
Francis R. Giambroni, Attorney (White, Giambroni and Walters) for San Rafael
Teachers Association, CTA.
Before Michael G. Coder, Ad Hoc Hearing Officer.
-1-

INTRODUCTION
This case arises out of a dispute as to whether the Joint Governing
Board of the San Rafael City High School District and the San Rafael
Elementary School District, collectively known as the San Rafael City
Schools, are one employer or two employers within the meaning of
Government Code Section 3540.1(k).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On April 1, 1976, the San Rafael Teachers Association/CTA/NEA
(hereinafter referred to as the Association) petitioned the Board of
Education of the San Rafael City Schools, by which name the San Rafael
City High School District and the San Rafael Elementary School District
are collectively known, for recognition as the exclusive representative
of all certificated employees within the combined Districts. 	On
April 21, 1976, the San Rafael Federation of Teachers (hereinafter
referred to as the Federation) intervened in the aforementioned petition
of the Association, claiming thirty percent support in a unit comprised
of non-management certificated employees of the San Rafael City High
School District.
On April 30, 1976, the San Rafael City Schools issued its decision
challenging the appropriateness of the Association's request for
recognition as well as the intervention of the Federation. 	It was not
until January 6, 1977, that the San Rafael City Schools brought to the
attention of the Educational Employment Relations Board the dispute
as to whether there should be a combined unit for the San Rafael
City High School District and the San Rafael Elementary School District
or whether there should be a single unit administered by the Board of
-2-

Education for the San Rafael City Schools. 	On that same date the Board
of Education notified EERB that they did not doubt the showing of
majority support submitted by the Association in the combined Districts
nor did they doubt the showing of majority support of the Federation in
San Rafael City High School District, but did question whether there
was a showing of interest presented by the Federation as to an overall
unit for the two Districts.
On May 12, 1977, a hearing was held in the above-entitled matter.
Due to confusion as to the status of the employer, notice which purportedly
pertained only to the San Rafael City High School District (hereinafter
High School District) was sent. 	The parties to this matter stipulated
at the hearing to waive any procedural defects which may have existed in
order to hear this matter as it related to the San Rafael Elementary
School District (hereinafter Elementary School District) as well.
The parties also stipulated to the composition of the appropriate
certificated unit or units irrespective of the ultimate decision in this
proceeding.1
The above stipulations are accepted without further inquiry.
11A unit consisting of all certificated employees of the/each public school
employer excluding as management: superintendent; assistant superintendent
administrative services; director of instructional services; director of
personnel services; high school principals; middle school principals;
elementary principals/district coordinators; adult education principals/
district coordinators; coordinator of music; assistant principals/district
coordinators; assistant principals; administrative assistants; director
of maintenance and operations; supervisor of maintenance and operations;
director of transportation; and the accountant. 	Also excluded are home
instructors, adult instructors, substitutes and summer school teachers.
-
-3-
•

FINDINGS OF FACT
The City Charter of the City of San Rafael provides for a school
"department" consisting of elementary and secondary schools as then
established or thereafter established.
Two separate districts were formed, 	the San Rafael City High
School District and the San Rafael Elementary School District. 	The
Elementary School District lies entirely within the boundaries of the
city and within the boundaries of the High School District. 	The
boundaries of the Dixie Elementary School District 	(not a party to
this hearing) and the San Rafael Elementary School District are
coterminous with the geographical boundaries of the San Rafael City High
School District. 	Voters in the Dixie Elementary School District elect
their own separate Board of Education. 	The voters in the Dixie Elementary
School District also cast votes for the Board of Education of the San Rafael
City Schools to serve as the Board of Education for both the San Rafael
Elementary School District and the San Rafael City High School District. 	The
voters of the Dixie Elementary School District could conceivably elect
the entire governing board for the neighboring San Rafael Elementary
School District.
The average daily attendance for the San Rafael Elementary School
District is approximately 3,840. 	The Elementary School District has nine
kindergarten through fifth grade schools and two sixth through eighth
grade schools. 	There are approximately 180 certificated employees. 	The
average daily attendance for the San Rafael City High School District is
approximately 3,861. 	There are two high schools and one continuation
high school within the District. 	There are approximately 185 certificated
employees within the High School District.
-4-

As a matter of long-standing history, 	the governing board of the
San Rafael City High School and the San Rafael Elementary School District
have been the same. 	This governing board provided for a common
administration for the two Districts and in fact the two Districts
have shared administrative personnel and facilities. 	The superintendent,
assistant superintendent for administrative services, 	director of
instructional services, director of personnel, adult education coordinator
and director of maintenance and operations are employees common to the
two districts. 	The salaries of the common employees are allocated to the
two District budgets in accordance with the estimated amount of time
that the employees spend working on matters either in the High School
District or the Elementary School District. 	These common employees
receive a single check from what is known as the San Rafael City Schools,
but it is very strictly apportioned to the particular School District's
budget from whence the money is actually derived.
Other certificated employees also work for both Districts and receive
a joint check. 	These include the psychologist, nurse, and in various
years has included an elementary school teacher who also served as an athletic
coach for the High School District.
Although the question of the District unification has been presented
to the voters pursuant to a valid ballot measure at least two and perhaps
three times within recent history, each has failed. 	As a result, there
are legally two separate school districts in the city of San Rafael, each
with its own separate tax base. 	Total assessed valuation of the two
School Districts vary as does the percentage levy which is placed on that
valuation. 	Accordingly, the governing board known as the San Rafael
City Schools adopts a separate budget each year for the San Rafael
-5-

Elementary School District and another budget for the San Rafael City
High School District. 	Each District has a separate revenue limit which
differs from the revenue limit of the other District. 	There have also been
various revenue bond elections in the two Districts in different years.
In some elections, the electors have passed the elementary school bond
issue and not passed the high school issue. 	In other years the high
school bond issue has passed but not the elementary school bond issue.
As a consequence, both school Districts have entirely separate resources
and economic existences, a factor which is of critical importance to
employees of the two Districts. 	The budgets of the two Districts are kept
strictly separate and there is no commingling of assets.
The two Districts voluntarily grant special consideration to employees
of the "sister district" in determining whether or not they should allow
a "transfer." 	It has been the informal policy of the School District to
permit this transfer, although there is no law, rule or regulation which
either expressly approves or disapproves of the practice. 	There is no
transfer as a matter of right, and the employee from the sister School
District can be rejected in favor of an employee from "outside" the
School District who is more qualified.
Personnel records of the two School Districts are also kept in one
central location and are integrated as to seniority. 	This seniority
roster is of crucial importance when circumstances require the termination
of various employees. 	On at least two occasions in the past it has become
necessary to terminate various employees pursuant to former Section 13443
of the California Education Code. 	In a decision rendered April 30, 1975
by an administrative law judge of the Office of Administrative Hearings,
-6-

it was determined that there were 	two separate School Districts. 	In May
of 1976 another administrative law judge of the Office of Administrative
Hearings determined that the San Rafael City Schools was in fact a single
School District. 	Each of the aforementioned proposed decisions of the
administrative law judge had the practical effect of reducing the number
of employees who were subject to termination pursuant to former Education
Code Section 13447.
The decision of May 1976 noted above, was based in part on an earlier
action brought on October 6, 1975 by the Marin County Federation of
Teachers, Local 1077 (the predecessor in interest to the Federation). 	The
Federation sought a writ of mandate compelling the Board of Education of the
San Rafael City Schools to establish two Certificated Employee Councils
pursuant to the since repealed Winton Act.2 It was the determination of
Superior Court Judge David Menary that the San Rafael Board of Education
is one public school employer within the meaning of the prior Education
Code Section 13081(b). 	Although not essential to the determination in that
matter, the judge also found that the School Districts identified in the
petition for writ of mandate as the San Rafael High School District and
the San Rafael Elementary School District did not exist.
CONTENTIONS
The Association and the Board of Trustees argue that the Board of
Trustees is the employer. 	The Federation concedes the status of the
Board of Education as an employer, but argues that the Educational
Employment Relations Act provides that the Districts are also employers.
Former Education Code Sections 13080 et seq.
-7-

The Federation further seeks to have the EERB determine in a unit hearing
that a "most appropriate" unit of certificated employees compels the
result of two separate units. 	The Federation maintains a unit of non-
management certificated employees of the High School District is a more
appropriate unit than a combined unit of certificated employees of the
two Districts.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Government Code Section 3540.l(k) provides;
"Public school employer" or "employer" means the governing
board of a school district, a school district, a county
board of education, or a county superintendent of schools.
The statute is capable of two constructions as urged by the
respective parties. 	The position advanced by the Board of Education
and by the Association is to the effect that the ultimate employer
or decision maker is the employer. 	The Federation contends that
from the statute one can find that both the Board of Education and the
Districts can be considered employers for the purposes of the Act.
When the language of a statute is susceptible to more than one
meaning, it is the duty of the tribunal to ascertain the intent of the
Legislature.3 The initial place to look for legislative meaning and intent
is to the words of the statute itself.44 It is the general rule that the
conjunction "or" indicates disjunctive or 	alternative.5 The acceptance
3Stillwell v. State Bar, 29 Cal. 2d. 119.
4Moyer v. Workman's Compensation Board, 10 Cal. 3d. 222.
5Hough v. Ford, 44 Cal. 2d. 706.
-8-

of the general rule of statutory construction noted above is made more
compelling by another tenant of statutory construction; 	that cognizance
should be taken of determinations of similar statutes which are
"legislative models." 	Use of National Labor Relations Board precedence
was expressly sanctioned by the California Supreme Court in Firefighters
Union v. City of	. . . . 	6	6
The NLRB has long resolved the question of
whether to assert jurisdiction by treating separate concerns which are
closely related as being a single employer. 	The principal factors
weighed by the NLRB is deciding whether sufficient integration exists are:
1. Interrelation of operations;
2. Centralized control of labor relations;
3. Common management; 	V
4. Common ownership or financial control.7
All of the above criteria favor the recognition of the Board of Education
as the single employer.
The interrelation of operations is extensive. 	The District utilizes a
single central telephone number, letterhead, common top-level administrative
employees, and common facilities. 	In short, the District operates as a single
integrated unit. 	There is a centralized control of labor relations, with a
history of consultations with a common Certificated Employee Council
which was upheld by the Marin County Superior Court. 	The common ownership or
financial control rests in the Board of Education, the same five individuals
for the San Rafael City High School District and the San Rafael Elementary
School District.
6 12 Cal. 3d 608, Sweetwater Union High School District, EERB Decision No. 4,
November 23, 1976.
7See Radio and T.V. Local 1264 v. Broadcast Service, 380 US 255, 256 (1965) •
-9-
7

The District does not exist as an employer, but rather as a
geographical and grade-level division of the Board of Education. 	The
Districts cannot function without the motivating factor of the Board of
Education which shall ultimately determine those matters within the scope
of representation as defined by Government Code Section 3543.2.
For these reasons, it is decided that the Board of Education,
commonly known as the San Rafael City Schools, is the "public school
employer" within the meaning of Government Code Section 3540.l(k).
Turlock School District (Order No. AD-18, October 26, 1977) is
factually distinguishable from the present case. 	In Turlock, the EERB
found that two distinct school districts with (1) separate governing
boards containing no common membership, (2) generally separate employees,
and (3) 	separately adopted although identical personnel policies are
"separate employers" under the Act notwithstanding their daily operation
under a common administrative staff.
In part, the Board utilized the "sufficient integration" test applied
herein to reach its decision. 	Paramount among the many factual differences
between the two cases is the governance in San Rafael by a single Board of
Education with common membership and a history of common authority in labor
relations.
PROPOSED ORDER
It is the Proposed Order that:
1. The Board of Education of the San Rafael City High School District
and the San Rafael Elementary School District is the public school employer
within the meaning of Section 3540.l(k).
-10-
•

2. The San Rafael City High School District is not a public school
employer within the meaning of Section 3540.l(k).
3. The San Rafael Elementary School District is not a public school
employer within the meaning of Section 3540.l(k).
4. The certificated unit stipulated as appropriate for meeting and
negotiating, providing an employee organization becomes the exclusive
representative is a unit of all certificated employees of the San Rafael
City High School District and the San Rafael Elementary School District
excluding all management and supervisory employees, including but not
limited to superintendent; assistant superintendent - administrative
services; director of instructional services; director of personnel
services; high school principals; middle school principals; elementary
principals/district coordinators; adult education principals/district
coordinator; coordinator of music; assistant principals/district coordinators;
assistant principals; administrative assistants; director of maintenance
and operations; supervisor of maintenance and operations; director of
transportation; and the accountant. 	Also excluded are home instructors,
adult instructors, substitutes and summer school teachers.
Within ten (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 stipulated unit. 	The Regional
Director shall conduct an election at the end of the posting period if the
employer does not grant voluntary recognition.
Pursuant to EERB Regulation 33390, California Administrative Code,
Title 8, Section 33390, this decision of the Regional Director shall
*Voluntary recognition requires majority proof of support in all cases,
See Gov. Code Sections 3544 and 3544.1.
-11-

become final on December 7, 1977, unless a party files a timely statement
of exceptions. 	See California Administrative Code, Title 8, Section 33380.
The date used to establish the number of employees in the
above units shall be the date of the Proposed Decision unless another date is
deemed appropriate by the Regional Director and noticed 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.
Dated: November 25, 1977
Michael 	G. 	Coder
Ad 	Hoc 	Hearing 	Officer
-12-