Glendale Community College District (PERB 0088E)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
GLENDALE 	COMMUNITY 	COLLEGE 	DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
GLENDALE 	COLLEGE GUILD, 	LOCAL 	2276,
CFT/AFT, 	AFL-CIO,
Employee 	Organization,
and
GLENDALE 	COLLEGE 	EDUCATION 	ASSOCIATION,
CTA/NEA,
Employee 	Organization.
Case 	No. 	LA-R-748
PERB 	Decision 	No. 	88
January 	30, 	1979
STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances: 	Louis 	C. 	Awalt, 	Labor 	Relations 	Consultant
(Donald 	D. 	Rea 	& Company) 	for 	Glendale 	Community 	College
District; 	Charles 	R. 	Gustafson, 	Attorney 	for 	Glendale 	College
Education 	Association, 	CTA/NEA; 	Anne 	Fragasso, 	Attorney 	for
Glendale 	College 	Guild, 	Local 	2276, 	CFT/AFT, 	AFL-CIO.
Before: 	Gluck, 	Chairperson; 	Cossack 	Twohey 	and 	Gonzales,
Members.
DECISION
This 	case 	is 	before 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board
(hereafter 	PERB 	or 	the 	Board) 	on 	exceptions 	to 	the 	attached
hearing 	officer's 	proposed 	decision. 	The 	Glendale 	Community
College 	District 	(hereafter 	District) 	takes 	exception 	to 	that
portion 	of 	the 	proposed 	decision 	finding 	that 	10 	division
chairpersons 	are 	not 	supervisors. 	The 	Glendale 	College
Education 	Association, 	CTA/NEA 	(hereafter 	Association) 	takes
exception 	to 	that 	portion 	of 	the 	proposed 	decision 	determining
GLENDALE COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
Case No. LA-R-748
GLENDALE COLLEGE GUILD, LOCAL 2276,
CFT/AFT, AFL-CIO, 	PERB Decision No. 88
Employee Organization, January 30, 1979
and
GLENDALE COLLEGE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION,
CTA/NEA,
Employee Organization.
Appearances: Louis C. Awalt, Labor Relations Consultant
(Donald D. Rea & Company) for Glendale Community College
District; Charles R. Gustafson, Attorney for Glendale College
Education Association, CTA/NEA; Anne Fragasso, Attorney for
Glendale College Guild, Local 2276, CFT/AFT, AFL-CIO.
Before: Gluck, Chairperson; Cossack Twohey and Gonzales,
Members.
DECISION
This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(hereafter PERB or the Board) on exceptions to the attached
hearing officer's proposed decision. The Glendale Community
College District (hereafter District) takes exception to that
portion of the proposed decision finding that 10 division
chairpersons are not supervisors. 	The Glendale College
Education Association, CTA/NEA (hereafter Association) takes
exception to that portion of the proposed decision determining

that
	adult
	education 	teachers
	are
	not
	appropriately
	included
	in
the
	unit.
	No
	exception
	was
	taken
	to
	the
	finding
	that
	the
division
	chairperson 	of 	Allied
	Health
	is
	a
	supervisor.
The
	Board
	has
	considered 	the
	entire
	record 	in
	this
	case 	in
light
	of 	the
	exceptions.
	We
	affirm
	the
	findings 	of
	fact
	and
conclusions 	of
	law
	made 	by
	the 	hearing
	officer
	to
	the
	extent
they
	are
	consistent
	with
	this
	decision.
We
	conclude
	that
	the
	10
	division
	chairpersons
	at
	issue 	are
not
	supervisors 	within
	the
	meaning
	of
	the
	Educational
Employment
	Relations
	Act
	(EERA)	1	
.1	
We
	further
	conclude
	that
adult
	education
	instructors
	are
	appropriately
	included 	in 	the
negotiating 	unit.
On 	May
	14, 	1976,
	the
	Glendale 	College 	Guild, 	Local
	2276,
CFT/AFT,
	AFL-CIO
	(hereafter
	Guild)
	petitioned
	to
	be
	recognized
as 	the 	exclusive 	representative
	for
	full-time
	certificated
teachers
	who
	teach
	college
	credit
	courses 	including
	division
chairpersons, 	part-time
	day
	or 	extension 	teachers
	who
	teach
classes
	for 	college
	credit,
	counselors
	full-
	and
	part-time,
nurses,
	librarians,
	and
	the 	enabler 	of
	the 	handicapped.
	The
Guild
	also 	petitioned
	to 	represent
	the 	coordinator 	of 	the
Learning 	Resource
	Center.
On
	June
	7,
	1976, 	the 	Association 	intervened 	seeking
representation 	of
	a
	unitll certifi
all 	certificated
	employees
excluding
	management,
	supervisory
	and
	confidential
	employees.
1The
	EERA
	is 	set 	out 	at
	Government 	Code
	section
	3540
	etseq. 	Hereafter
	all 	statutory 	references 	are 	to 	the 	Government
Code
	unless 	otherwise 	indicated.
2
that adult education teachers are not appropriately included in
the unit. No exception was taken to the finding that the
division chairperson of Allied Health is a supervisor.
The Board has considered the entire record in this case in
light of the exceptions. We affirm the findings of fact and
conclusions of law made by the hearing officer to the extent
they are consistent with this decision.
We conclude that the 10 division chairpersons at issue are
not supervisors within the meaning of the Educational
Employment Relations Act (EERA) . 	We further conclude that
adult education instructors are appropriately included in the
negotiating unit.
On May 14, 1976, the Glendale College Guild, Local 2276,
CFT/AFT, AFL-CIO (hereafter Guild) petitioned to be recognized
as the exclusive representative for full-time certificated
teachers who teach college credit courses including division
chairpersons, part-time day or extension teachers who teach
classes for college credit, counselors full- and part-time,
nurses, librarians, and the enabler of the handicapped. The
Guild also petitioned to represent the coordinator of the
Learning Resource Center.
On June 7, 1976, the Association intervened seeking
representation of a unit of a 	cated employees
excluding management, supervisory and confidential employees.
l The EERA is set out at Government Code section 3540 et
seq. Hereafter all statutory references are to the Government
Code unless otherwise indicated.
2

The
	District
	indicated
	that
	it
	doubted
	the
	appropriateness
of
	both
	of
	the
	petitioned-for
	units
	on
	June 	11, 	1976.
	Prior
	to
the
	representation
	hearing 	the
	parties 	stipulated
	to 	the
appropriateness 	of
	a
	unit
	which
	includes
	full-
	and
	part-time
teachers
	who
	teach
	college
	credit
	courses.
FACTS	FACTS
Division 	Chairpe
Within 	the
	District
	there 	are
	11
	instructional 	divisions
each 	headed
	by
	a
	chairperson.
	The
	status
	of
	10
	of 	these
positions
	are
	presently
	at
	issue.
	The
	division
	chairpersons
report
	to
	the
	dean
	of
	instruction
	who
	in
	turn
	reports
	to 	the
college 	president.
Division 	chairpersons 	are
	selected
	by
	a
	vote
	of
	all
full-time
	permanent
	and
	probationary
	instructors
	in 	the
division.
	The 	names
	of
	all
	division 	full-time 	faculty
	are
	on
the
	ballot
	unless 	they
	wish
	them
	stricken. 	If
	the
	selection 	of
the
	division 	is 	rejected
	by
	the 	college 	president
	or 	the
	Board
of 	Education, 	the
	faculty
	votes 	again.
	There
	is
	no
	evidence
	in
the 	record
	that
	the 	president
	has 	ever
	rejected
	a
	division's
selection.
Terms
	are 	for 	five 	years. 	After
	two
	years 	the
	division
faculty 	votes
	on
	whether
	to 	retain
	the 	chairperson 	for 	the
remaining 	term 	or
	compel
	a 	new
	election.
	No
	method
	of 	removal
by
	the 	administration 	appears 	in 	the 	record.
A committee composed of the division chairperson, two	
erson,
	two
division members chosen by the chairperson, and the dean of
A
committee 	composed
	of 	the 	division 	chairp
division
	members 	chosen 	by
	the 	chairperson,
	and 	the 	dean 	of
3
The District indicated that it doubted the appropriateness
of both of the petitioned-for units on June 11, 1976. Prior to
the representation hearing the parties stipulated to the
appropriateness of a unit which includes full- and part-time
teachers who teach college credit courses.
Division Chairpersons
rsons
Within the District there are 11 instructional divisions
each headed by a chairperson. The status of 10 of these
positions are presently at issue. The division chairpersons
report to the dean of instruction who in turn reports to the
college president.
Division chairpersons are selected by a vote of all
full-time permanent and probationary instructors in the
division. The names of all division full-time faculty are on
the ballot unless they wish them stricken. If the selection of
the division is rejected by the college president or the Board
of Education, the faculty votes again. There is no evidence in
the record that the president has ever rejected a division's
selection.
Terms are for five years. After two years the division
faculty votes on whether to retain the chairperson for the
remaining term or compel a new election. No method of removal
by the administration appears in the record.
W

instruction
	interviews 	candidates 	for
	full-time
	instructional
positions.
	Two
	candidates 	are
	referred
	by
	the
	committee
	to
	the
college 	president.
	The
	president
	then
	interviews
	the
candidates
	and 	makes
	the
	final
	determination.
Candidates 	for
	part-time 	faculty 	positions
	are 	interviewed
by
	a
	panel
	composed
	of
	the
	division
	chairperson
	and 	an
administrative
	dean.
	A
	faculty
	member,
	chosen
	by
	the
	division
chair,
	with
	expertise
	in 	the
	subject
	area
	may
	be
	invited 	to
join
	the
	panel.
	The
	final 	selection
	is
	usually
	made
	by
"consensus"
	of
	the
	panel.
	However,
	evening
	instructors
	are
selected
	by
	the
	administration
	dean
	who
	"as
	a
	rule" 	accepts 	the
recommendation
	of
	the
	faculty
	member
	with
	expertise
	and
	the
division
	chairperson.
Division 	chairpersons
	recommend
	part-time
	classified
personnel, 	inclu1ing
	students,
	for
	hire,
	but
	no
	evidence
	was
presented
	on
	the
	effectiveness
	of 	the
	recommendations.
	Nor
does
	the 	record 	reveal 	the
	work
	performed
	by
	classified
personnel
	or 	whether
	division 	chairpersons 	supervise
	classified
employees 	in 	the 	performance
	of
	their
	work.
Once
	a
	year
	a
	committee
	composed
	of 	the
	division
chairperson,
	the 	dean
	of
	instruction,
	and
	a
	regular
	instructor
chosen
	by
	the 	person 	evaluated 	conducts
	an
	evaluation 	of
full-time 	probationary 	instructors.
	Only
	the 	committee 	as
	a
can
	fi
	an
	unfavorable 	report
	wi
	the 	dean
	of
instruction.
	Once
	every
	two
	years 	the 	division 	chairperson
	and
an
	instructor 	chosen 	by
	the 	person 	evaluated 	conduct 	an
evaluation 	of 	regular 	permanent 	instructors. 	There 	is
	no
4
instruction interviews candidates for full-time instructional
positions. 	Two candidates are referred by the committee to the
college president. The president then interviews the
candidates and makes the final determination.
Candidates for part-time faculty positions are interviewed
by a panel composed of the division chairperson and an
administrative dean. A faculty member, chosen by the division
chair, with expertise in the subject area may be invited to
join the panel. The final selection is usually made by
"consensus" of the panel. However, evening instructors are
selected by the administration dean who "as a rule" accepts the
recommendation of the faculty member with expertise and the
division chairperson.
Division chairpersons recommend part-time classified
personnel, including students, for hire, but no evidence was
presented on the effectiveness of the recommendations. Nor
does the record reveal the work performed by classified
personnel or whether division chairpersons supervise classified
employees in the performance of their work.
Once a year a committee composed of the division
chairperson, the dean of instruction, and a regular instructor
chosen by the person evaluated conducts an evaluation of
full-time probationary instructors. Only the committee as a
whole can file an unfavorable report with the dean of
instruction. 	Once every two years the division chairperson and
an instructor chosen by the person evaluated conduct an
evaluation of regular permanent instructors. 	There is no

evidence
	these
	reviews
	have
	ever
	resulted
	in
	termination.
Adult
	education
	instructors
	are
	not
	evaluated
	by
	division
chairpersons.
The
	available
	evidence
	on
	discipline
	of 	faculty
	members
	is
sparse.
	One
	division
	chairperson
	testified
	that
	he
	has
	had
	to
administer
	discipline.
	However,
	the 	nature 	of
	the
	discipline,
the 	occasion 	for
	it,
	and
	whether
	this
	was
	a
	unique
	or
	common
instance
	were
	not
	revealed 	in 	the 	record.
	Another
	division
chairperson
	testified
	that
	he
	has 	never
	administered
	discipline
but
	has
	"discussed
	problems 	with
	the
	people 	in 	the
	division."
Class 	schedules 	are 	devised
	by
	division
	chairpersons
	from
faculty 	requests
	for 	classrooms, 	courses,
	and
	hours.
	Conflicts
between
	faculty 	desires
	are
	either
	worked
	out 	before 	the
requests 	are 	submitted 	to 	the
	division 	chairperson,
	or
	resolved
in 	consultation
	between
	the
	faculty
	involved
	and
	the
	division
chairperson. 	Consultation
	has 	uniformly
	resulted
	in
satisfaction
	of
	all
	parties;
	the 	record 	reveals
	no
	instance 	in
which
	division 	chairpersons
	have
	claimed 	or
	exercised 	authority
to
	make
	a
	work
	assignment
	unsatisfactory 	to 	the
	faculty
	member.
Course
	content
	is
	in 	the
	hands
	of
	the
	instructors,
	and
approval 	of
	texts
	by
	division 	chairpersons,
	while
	required,
	is
routinely 	granted.
The
	practice
	on
	absences 	of 	instructors 	varies;
	in
	at 	ast
one
	division
	the 	irperson 	arr
	s
	for
	a
	substitute
	or
cance 	the
	class.
	In
	at 	least
	one
	other 	division 	the 	dean
	of
instruction 	handles 	absences.
5
evidence these reviews have ever resulted in termination.
Adult education instructors are not evaluated by division
chairpersons.
The available evidence on discipline of faculty members is
sparse. 	One division chairperson testified that he has had to
administer discipline. However, the nature of the discipline,
the occasion for it, and whether this was a unique or common
instance were not revealed in the record. Another division
chairperson testified that he has never administered discipline
but has "discussed problems with the people in the division."
Class schedules are devised by division chairpersons from
faculty requests for classrooms, courses, and hours. Conflicts
between faculty desires are either worked out before the
requests are submitted to the division chairperson, or resolved
in consultation between the faculty involved and the division
chairperson. 	Consultation has uniformly resulted in
satisfaction of all parties; the record reveals no instance in
which division chairpersons have claimed or exercised authority
to make a work assignment unsatisfactory to the faculty member.
Course content is in the hands of the instructors, and
approval of texts by division chairpersons, while required, is
routinely granted.
The practice on absences of instructors varies; in at least
one division the chairperson arranges for a substitute or
cancels the class. 	In at least one other division the dean of
instruction handles absences.
5

The
	dean
	of
	instruction,
	not
	division 	chairpersons,
	is
shown
	as 	the
	first
	level
	of
	the
	grievance 	procedure 	in 	the
faculty
	manual; 	however,
	the
	dean's 	uncontradicted
	testimony
establishes 	that
	he
	routinely
	refers
	grievances 	to
	the
	division
chairpersons.
	The
	dean
	of
	instruction
	also
	testified
	that
division
	chairpersons
	have
	authority 	to 	resolve 	grievances.
Nonetheless,
	there
	is
	no
	evidence
	that 	division
	chairpersons
exercise 	authority
	to 	adjust
	grievances;
	one
	division
chairperson
	testified
	"I
	try
	to 	counsel 	the
	individuals
	so
	that
they
	can
	reach
	agreement
	among
	themselves."
	The
	only
	instance
in
	the 	record 	of
	a
	grievance
	not
	resolved
	by
	mutual 	agreement
of
	the
	parties
	was
	adjusted
	by
	the
	dean
	of
	instruction,
	not
	by
a
	division 	chairperson.
Each
	division
	has
	a
	budget
	for
	supplies
	and
	equipment.
Proposed
	division
	budgets
	are
	amalgamated
	by
	the
	chairpersons
from
	department 	budgets
	and
	submitted 	to 	the
	dean
	of
instruction
	for 	approval.
	The
	function 	of 	the
	division
chairperson
	was
	described 	as 	to 	receive 	department
	requests
	and
"prepare
	a
	list,"
	or
	"tabulation
	for 	the
	division,"
	or
	"I
	break
it
	down
	into 	respective 	areas
	and
	total
	it
	all
	up 	and
	request
rationales."
Division 	chairpersons 	are 	paid 	according 	to 	the
instructors' 	salary
	schedule 	plus
	a
	small 	stipend
	whi
increases 	th 	the
	number
	of 	instructors
	in
	e
	division. 	In
no
	case 	does 	the 	stipend 	exceed 	$16.05 	each 	month.
Administrators 	are 	paid
	on 	a
	separate 	schedule.
6
The dean of instruction, not division chairpersons, is
shown as the first level of the grievance procedure in the
Faculty manual; however, the dean's uncontradicted testimony
establishes that he routinely refers grievances to the division
chairpersons. 	The dean of instruction also testified that
division chairpersons have authority to resolve grievances.
Nonetheless, there is no evidence that division chairpersons
exercise authority to adjust grievances; one division
chairperson testified "I try to counsel the individuals so that
they can reach agreement among themselves. " The only instance
in the record of a grievance not resolved by mutual agreement
of the parties was adjusted by the dean of instruction, not by
a division chairperson.
Each division has a budget for supplies and equipment.
Proposed division budgets are amalgamated by the chairpersons
from department budgets and submitted to the dean of
instruction for approval. The function of the division
chairperson was described as to receive department requests and
"prepare a list, " or "tabulation for the division, " or "I break
it down into respective areas and total it all up and request
rationales. "
Division chairpersons are paid according to the
instructors' salary schedule plus a small stipend which
increases with the number of instructors in the division. In
no case does the stipend exceed $16.05 each month.
Administrators are paid on a separate schedule.
6

There
	is
	no
	special 	credential
	required
	for 	the
	position
	of
division
	chairperson; 	administrators
	are
	specially
credentialed.
	Chairpersons
	do
	not
	have
	secretaries;
administrators
	do.
Division 	chairpersons
	may
	and
	do
	serve
	on
	the
	Faculty
Senate.
	In
	the
	past
	four
	years
	at 	least
	two
	division
chairpersons
	have
	served
	on
	the 	Faculty 	Senate.
	One
	of 	these
served 	as 	senate
	president
	for
	a
	year.
One
	division
	chairperson
	has
	no
	released
	time
	for
chairperson
	duties,
	nine
	have
	between
	20
	and
	45
	percent
released
	time.
	Typically, 	released
	time
	is
	not
	sufficient
	for
completion
	of 	the 	chairperson 	functions.
One
	division
	chairperson
	testified
	that
	he
	considered
himself
	a
	faculty
	member,
	not
	an
	administrator.
	Another
division
	chairperson
	testified
	that
	he
	considered 	himself
	to
	be
both
	a
	supervisor
	and 	an
	elected 	representative
	of 	the
	faculty.
DISCUSSION
This
	Board
	determines 	supervisory
	status	
by 	an
	examination
of
	the
	facts 	of
	each
	case.
	Government
	Code
	section
	3540.l(m)
specifically
	abjures 	reliance
	on
	job
	titles
	and
	defines
	a
supervisory
	employee
	as:
"Supervisory
	employee" 	means 	any 	employee,
regardless 	of 	job
	description,
	having
authority 	in 	the
	interest 	of 	the 	employer
	to
hire, 	transfer,
	su 	nd,
	1
	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
7
There is no special credential required for the position of
division chairperson; administrators are specially
credentialed. 	Chairpersons do not have secretaries;
administrators do.
Division chairpersons may and do serve on the Faculty
Senate. In the past four years at least two division
chairpersons have served on the Faculty Senate. One of these
served as senate president for a year.
One division chairperson has no released time for
chairperson duties, nine have between 20 and 45 percent
released time. Typically, released time is not sufficient for
completion of the chairperson functions.
One division chairperson testified that he considered
himself a faculty member, not an administrator. 	Another
division chairperson testified that he considered himself to be
both a supervisor and an elected representative of the faculty.
DISCUSSION
This Board determines supervisory status by an examination
of the facts of each case. 	Government Code section 3540.1 (m)
specifically abjures reliance on job titles and defines a
supervisory employee as:
"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
7

exercise
	of
	such
	authority
	is
	not
	of
	a
merely
	routine
	or
	clerical
	nature,
	but
requires
	the
	use
	of
	independent
	judgment.
Accordingly, 	in
	prior
	cases
	the
	Board
	has
	found
	some
	personnel
with 	the
	title
	of
	division
	chairperson 	to
	be
	supervisory,2
and
	others
	not.3
In
	Los
	Rios
	the
	Board
	determined
	that 	division 	chairpersons
held
	an
	allegiance
	to
	the
	administration
	not
	required 	of
	other
faculty
	and
	exercised
	substantial
	independent
	control 	of
supervisory 	functions.
	In 	those 	circumstances
	we
	concluded
that 	division
	chairpersons
	were
	supervisory
	employees.
There
	are
	no
	indicia
	of
	this
	type
	of
	allegiance 	to 	the
administration 	present
	in
	this
	case.
	The
	evidence
	is
overwhelming
	that 	division
	chairpersons 	are 	democratically
selected
	by
	and
	responsible 	to 	the
	faculty,
	not 	the
administration.
	Democratic
	selection
	is
	fostered
	by
	the
selection
	procedure
	which
	is
	designed
	to 	guarantee
	that
	every
eligible
	faculty
	member
	will
	be
	considered 	for 	the 	post 	unless
he
	or 	she
	removes
	him
	or
	herself
	from
	the 	running. 	Unlike
	Los
Rios, 	the
	faculty
	here
	do
	not 	submit
	a
	list
	of 	acceptable
candidates 	to 	the
	administration. 	Rather,
	one 	nominee
	is
selected
	by
	his
	or 	her
	peers,
	and
	record
	does 	not
	indicate
that
	the
	selection
	has 	ever 	been
	rejected.
	Even 	more
convincing, 	the
	faculty 	alone
	is
	empowered
	to
	remove
	division
2
Los 	Rios
	Community
	College
	District
	(6/9/77)
	EERB
Decision
	No. 	18.
3Monterey 	Peninsula
	Community 	College 	District
	(10/16/76)PERB 	Dec
is ion
	NO
. 	7 6 .
8
exercise of such authority is not of a
merely routine or clerical nature, but
requires the use of independent judgment.
Accordingly, in prior cases the Board has found some personnel
with the title of division chairperson to be supervisory, 2
and others not. 3
In Los Rios the Board determined that division chairpersons
held an allegiance to the administration not required of other
faculty and exercised substantial independent control of
supervisory functions. In those circumstances we concluded
that division chairpersons were supervisory employees.
There are no indicia of this type of allegiance to the
administration present in this case. The evidence is
overwhelming that division chairpersons are democratically
selected by and responsible to the faculty, not the
administration. Democratic selection is fostered by the
selection procedure which is designed to guarantee that every
eligible faculty member will be considered for the post unless
he or she removes him or herself from the running. Unlike Los
Rios, the faculty here do not submit a list of acceptable
candidates to the administration. Rather, one nominee is
selected by his or her peers, and the record does not indicate
that the selection has ever been rejected. Even more
convincing, the faculty alone is empowered to remove division
2Los Rios Community College District (6/9/77) EERB
Decision No. 18.
3Monterey Peninsula Community College District (10/16/76)
PERB Decision NO. 76.
8

chairpersons
	prior
	to
	expiration
	of
	their
	five-year
	terms.
These
	circumstances 	are 	strong
	evidence
	that 	division
chairpersons
	owe
	their
	allegiance
	to
	their
	faculty
	members.
Nor
	is
	there 	persuasive
	evidence
	that 	division
	chairpersons
enjoy
	special
	status
	and
	prerogatives.
	They
	are
	paid
	on
	the
regular 	faculty
	schedulei 	the
	additional
	stipend
	they
	receive
is 	relatively
	minor.4 	Unlike
	administrators,
	they 	are 	not
specially 	credentialed.
Again
	unlike
	Los
	Rios,
	division
	chairpersons 	are 	permitted
to
	and
	do
	serve 	alongside 	other
	faculty
	members
	on
	the
	Faculty
Senate.
	Indeed,
	one
	chairperson 	simultaneously
	was
	president
of 	the
	senate
	and
	chairperson.
	Given
	the 	circumstances 	of
their 	selection, 	duties,
	and
	associations
	it
	is
	not
	surprising
that 	division
	chairpersons
	testified
	that
	they
	view
	themselves
as
	representatives 	of
	the
	faculty.
Effective
	independent
	exercise 	of
	any 	one
	of 	the
	functions
set
	out
	in
	EERB
	section
	3540.l(m)
	suffices
	to
	establish
supervisory
	status.5t	
But
	it
	has 	long 	been
	the
	practice 	to
disperse 	authority
	among
	faculty
	members
	pursuant 	to 	the
academic
	principle 	of
	collegiality.
	Accordingly, 	the
	Board
examines
	community
	college 	cases 	in 	the
	light
	of 	the
	tradition
of 	collegially
	shared
	authority.6
4compare 	with
	Los
	Rios, 	supra,
	EERB
	Decision
	No. 	,
	at
p.
	13 	(Annual
	stipend
	between 	$1,957 	and
	$2,260.)
5Sweetwater Union High School District (11/23/76) EERB 	EERB
Decision No. 4.o. 	4.
5sweetwater 	Union 	High 	School
	District
	(11/23/76)
Decision
	N
6Los 	Rios 	Community 	College 	District 	(6/9/77)
	EERB
Decision No. 18.	
Decision 	No. 	18.
9
chairpersons prior to expiration of their five-year terms.
These circumstances are strong evidence that division
chairpersons owe their allegiance to their faculty members.
Nor is there persuasive evidence that division chairpersons
enjoy special status and prerogatives. They are paid on the
regular faculty schedule; the additional stipend they receive
is relatively minor. 4 Unlike administrators, they are not
specially credentialed.
Again unlike Los Rios, division chairpersons are permitted
to and do serve alongside other faculty members on the Faculty
Senate. Indeed, one chairperson simultaneously was president
of the senate and chairperson. Given the circumstances of
their selection, duties, and associations it is not surprising
that division chairpersons testified that they view themselves
as representatives of the faculty.
Effective independent exercise of any one of the functions
set out in EERB section 3540.1(m) suffices to establish
supervisory status.5 Bu it has long been the practice to
disperse authority among faculty members pursuant to the
academic principle of collegiality. Accordingly, the Board
examines community college cases in the light of the tradition
of collegially shared authority. 6
4Compare with Los Rios, supra, EERB Decision No. 18, at
p. 13 (Annual stipend between $1,957 and $2, 260.)
6Los Rios Community College District (6/9/77) EERB

At
	Glendale
	Community
	College, 	the
	participation
	of
division
	chairpersons
	in
	hiring
	and
	evaluation
	of
	faculty
	is
largely
	confined 	to
	service
	on
	committees
	which
	include
	at
least
	one
	and
	frequently
	two
	other
	faculty
	members.
Traditional 	practices
	of
	collegially
	shared
	authority, 	thus,
have
	significantly
	dispersed
	hiring
	and
	evaluating
	authority.
In 	those
	instances 	in
	which
	division
	chairpersons
	individually
recommend
	candidates
	for
	part-time 	positions,
	there
	is
	no
evidence
	that 	their
	recommendations
	are
	accorded
	any 	more
weight 	than
	regular 	faculty.
10
At Glendale Community College, the participation of
division chairpersons in hiring and evaluation of faculty is
largely confined to service on committees which include at
least one and frequently two other faculty members.
Traditional practices of collegially shared authority, thus,
have significantly dispersed hiring and evaluating authority.
In those instances in which division chairpersons individually
recommend candidates for part-time positions, there is no
evidence that their recommendations are accorded any more
weight than regular faculty.
The
	involvement
	of 	division 	chairpersons
	in
	hiring 	of
classified
	personnel
	does
	not 	demonstrate
	that
	they
	are
supervisors.
	Their
	recommendations 	were
	not
	shown
	to
	be
effective.
	Moreover,
	classified
	personnel, 	including
	students,
are
	not 	included 	in 	the
	certificated
	negotiating 	unit.
	In
Washington
	Unified
	School
	District
	(6/27/78)
	PERB
	Decision
	No.
56,
	we
	declined 	to
	exclude
	certain 	classified
	personnel
	from
	a
classified
	negotiating 	unit
	on
	the
	basis 	of
	their
	sporadic
exercise 	of 	supervisory 	authority, 	hiring
	and
	firing,
	over
non-unit 	personnel.
	We
	held
	that
	the 	sporadic 	exercise 	of
supervisory 	authority
	over 	non-unit 	personnel
	had
	not 	so
	allied
the 	employees 	with
	management
	that
	a
	generalized
	conflict 	of
interest
	was
	crea 	Similarly,
	in
	this 	case, 	the 	authority
of 	division 	chairpersons 	over 	non-unit 	classified
	s
	is
not 	sufficient 	to 	exclude
	them 	from 	a
	certificated 	negotiating
unit.
The involvement of division chairpersons in hiring of
classified personnel does not demonstrate that they are
supervisors. 	Their recommendations were not shown to be
effective. Moreover, classified personnel, including students,
are not included in the certificated negotiating unit. I
Washington Unified School District (6/27/78) PERB Decision No.
56, we declined to exclude certain classified personnel from a
classified negotiating unit on the basis of their sporadic
exercise of supervisory authority, hiring and firing, over
non-unit personnel. We held that the sporadic exercise of
supervisory authority over non-unit personnel had not so allied
the employees with management that a generalized conflict of
interest was created. 	Similarly, in this case, the authority
of division chairpersons over non-unit classified employees is
not sufficient to exclude them from a certificated negotiating
unit.
10

The
	involvement
	of
	division
	chairpersons
	in
	preparation 	of
class
	schedules,
	budget
	preparation
	and
	administration,
	course
content,
	and
	selection
	of
	texts 	is
	routine
	at
	best.
	Only
	one
chairperson
	testified
	that
	he 	became
	involved 	in
	faculty
absences
	and
	that
	was
	only
	to
	obtain
	substitutes;
	the
	record
revealed
	no
	discipline
	imposed
	by
	chairpersons
	for 	absences.
The
	role
	of 	chairpersons
	both
	in 	handling
	grievances
	and
handling
	problems 	with
	faculty
	performance
	is
	confined
	to
counseling
	and
	mediating;
	they
	have
	not
	adjusted 	grievances,
nor
	have
	they
	imposed
	discipline.
In
	sum,
	as
	division
	chairpersons 	possess
	no
	effective
authority
	in
	any
	of 	the
	statutorily
	described 	supervisory
functions,
	they 	cannot
	be
	excluded
	from
	the
	unit
	on
	the 	ground
that
	they
	are 	supervisors.
FACTS	FACTS
Adult 	Education
There
	are
	120
	adult 	education 	teachers
	in 	the
	District
teaching
	275
	classes 	at
	50
	locations
	not
	on
	the
	main
	District
campus. 	Both
	the 	adult 	education
	and
	evening 	programs
	are
heavily 	taught
	at
	the
	same
	high 	schools.
	Of
	the
	adult
education 	teachers,
	about
	40
	percent
	have
	taught 	over 	four
years.
	The
	adult 	education
	program
	is
	funded
	by
	ADA
	funds, 	as
are 	other 	programs.
Preparing 	course 	outlines, 	conducting
	classes,
	and
	giving
and 	grading
	exams
	are
	all 	duties 	of 	adult 	education 	teachers 	as
well 	as 	of 	regular
	and 	evening 	instructors.
11
The involvement of division chairpersons in preparation of
class schedules, budget preparation and administration, course
content, and selection of texts is routine at best. Only one
chairperson testified that he became involved in faculty
absences and that was only to obtain substitutes; the record
revealed no discipline imposed by chairpersons for absences.
The role of chairpersons both in handling grievances and
handling problems with faculty performance is confined to
counseling and mediating; they have not adjusted grievances,
nor have they imposed discipline.
In sum, as division chairpersons possess no effective
authority in any of the statutorily described supervisory
functions, they cannot be excluded from the unit on the ground
that they are supervisors.
Adult Education
There are 120 adult education teachers in the District
teaching 275 classes at 50 locations not on the main District
campus. 	Both the adult education and evening programs are
heavily taught at the same high schools. Of the adult
education teachers, about 40 percent have taught over four
years. 	The adult education program is funded by ADA funds, as
are other programs.
Preparing course outlines, conducting classes, and giving
and grading exams are all duties of adult education teachers as
well as of regular and evening instructors.
11

As
	reflected
	in 	the
	1977-1982
	Five-Year 	Plan
	of
	the
California
	Community
	Colleges
	Board
	of
	Governors, 	the
	mission
of
	community
	colleges
	has
	become
	to 	provide
	life
	long
education,
	not 	only
	college
	credit.
	Only
	20
	of 	the
	120
	adult
education
	instructors
	teach
	courses
	which
	give
	credit
	toward
high
	school
	and
	college
	degrees.
	The
	same
	age
	group
	attends
all
	District
	courses; 	pupils
	range
	in
	age
	from
	18
	to
	65
	plus
years
	in
	both
	credit
	and
	non-credit 	adult
	education
	courses.
The 	same
	class
	may
	have
	students
	taking
	it
	for
	credit
	and
	not
for
	credit.
Adult
	education
	teachers
	hold
	the
	same
	credentials
	as
instructors
	in
	other
	programs,
	have
	the
	same
	contract
	as
	other
part-time
	employees,
	work
	during 	the
	same
	hours
	and
	in 	the
	same
facilities
	as
	other
	instructors
	included 	in 	the
	unit,
	and,
	like
evening
	instructors,
	may
	have
	their 	classes
	cancelled
	if
enrollment
	falls
	below
	a
	predetermined
	level.
Adult
	education
	instructors
	average
	six
	hours 	teaching
	a
week. 	They
	are 	not
	eligible
	for 	the 	Faculty 	Senate 	and,
typically,
	do
	not 	hold
	tenure.
The
	record 	reveals
	only
	one
	adult 	education
	instructor
	who
has
	an
	office.
	That
	instructor 	is,
	however,
	not
	typical 	of
adult 	education
	instructors
	in
	that
	she
	serves 	as
	a
	coordinator
the
	District's
	CETA
	program. 	There
	ls
	no
	evidence
	on
ether 	other
	full-
	or 	part-time 	instructors 	offices.
Adult 	education 	teachers
	do
	not 	report 	to 	the 	division
chairpersons; 	they 	are 	responsible 	to 	the 	director 	of 	adult
education 	and/or 	the 	coordinator 	of 	parent 	education
	who
	are 	in
12
As reflected in the 1977-1982 Five-Year Plan of the
California Community Colleges Board of Governors, the mission
of community colleges has become to provide life long
education, not only college credit. Only 20 of the 120 adult
education instructors teach courses which give credit toward
high school and college degrees. The same age group attends
all District courses; pupils range in age from 18 to 65 plus
years in both credit and non-credit adult education courses.
The same class may have students taking it for credit and not
for credit.
Adult education teachers hold the same credentials as
instructors in other programs, have the same contract as other
part-time employees, work during the same hours and in the same
facilities as other instructors included in the unit, and, like
evening instructors, may have their classes cancelled if
enrollment falls below a predetermined level.
Adult education instructors average six hours teaching a
week. They are not eligible for the Faculty Senate and,
typically, do not hold tenure.
The record reveals only one adult education instructor who
has an office. That instructor is, however, not typical of
adult education instructors in that she serves as a coordinator
of the District's CETA program. 	There is no evidence on
whether other full- or part-time instructors have offices.
Adult education teachers do not report to the division
chairpersons; they are responsible to the director of adult
education and/or the coordinator of parent education who are in
12

turn 	responsible
	to 	the
	dean
	of
	continuing 	education.
	The
director
	of 	adult
	education
	is
	"involved" 	in 	the
	selection
	and
evaluation
	of
	staff.
	At
	most
	their
	evaluation
	procedure
	is
informal
	and
	consists
	of
	discussions
	with
	their
	coordinator.
Adult
	education
	instructors
	are 	paid
	on
	the
	same
	salary
schedule 	as
	other 	part-time
	instructors;
	the 	schedule
	provides
for
	pay
	according 	to
	three
	classes
	of 	educational 	attainment
and
	three 	steps 	of 	longevity.
	However,
	adult
	education
instructors
	teaching
	non-credit 	courses 	are
	limited
	to
	pay
	for
the 	lowest
	class
	of 	educational 	attainment.
	And,
	unlike
	all
other
	instructors,
	adult
	education 	teachers 	receive
	no
	fringe
benefits.
DISCUSSION	DISCUSSION
As
	no
	evidence 	has 	been
	presented 	concerning
	established
practices
	of
	employees
	or 	the
	effect
	of 	the
	size
	of
	the
	unit
	on
the
	efficient
	operation 	of
	the
	District,
	we
	determine 	the
appropriateness 	of
	the
	unit 	solely
	by
	resolving 	the 	question 	of
community
	of
	interest.
	We
	find
	that 	adult 	education
instructors
	share
	a
	sufficient
	community
	of
	interest
	with
	other
ful an
and
	part-time
	members
	of 	the
	unit 	to 	require 	their
inclusion
	in 	the
	negotiating 	unit.7
7
This
	result 	is 	consistent
	with 	the 	presumption
	recently
articu
	ted
	by 	Board
	that
	all
	classroom 	teachers 	shall
	be
included 	in
	a
	single 	negotiating 	unit 	unless 	inclusion 	of
	some
class 	of 	teachers 	is
	shown
	to
	be
	inappropriate 	because 	of
	a
lack 	of
	community
	of 	interest, 	established
	employee
	practice,or 	the 	effect 	of 	the 	size 	of 	the 	unit
	on 	the
	efficientoperation 	of 	the
	district.
	See
	Peralta
	Community 	College
District 	(11/7/78)
	PERB
	Decision
	No.
	77, 	Hartnell
	Community
College 	District 	(1/2/79)
	PERB
	Decision 	No. 	81.
7
13
turn responsible to the dean of continuing education. The
director of adult education is "involved" in the selection and
evaluation of staff. At most their evaluation procedure is
informal and consists of discussions with their coordinator.
Adult education instructors are paid on the same salary
schedule as other part-time instructors; the schedule provides
for pay according to three classes of educational attainment
and three steps of longevity. However, adult education
instructors teaching non-credit courses are limited to pay for
the lowest class of educational attainment. And, unlike all
other instructors, adult education teachers receive no fringe
benefits.
As no evidence has been presented concerning established
practices of employees or the effect of the size of the unit on
the efficient operation of the District, we determine the
appropriateness of the unit solely by resolving the question of
community of interest. We find that adult education
instructors share a sufficient community of interest with other
full- 	d part-time members of the unit to require their
inclusion in the negotiating unit. 7
This result is consistent with the presumption recently
articulated by the Board that all classroom teachers shall be
included in a single negotiating unit unless inclusion of some
class of teachers is shown to be inappropriate because of a
lack of community of interest, established employee practice,
or the effect of the size of the unit on the efficient
operation of the district. See Peralta Community College
District (11/7/78) PERB Decision No. 77, Hartnell Community
College District (1/2/79) PERB Decision No. 81.
13

In
	a
	trio
	of
	early
	cases
	the
	Board
	excluded
	adult-education
teachers
	from
	units
	of
	certificated
	employees
	in 	elementary
	and
high
	school
	districts.8e	
Those
	cases
	uniformly
	found
	that
adult
	education
	instructors
	did 	not 	share
	a
	community
	of
interest
	with
	instructors
	in 	the
	regular 	educational
	program
	of
their
	districts.
	Those
	results
	were
	not
	surprising.
	In 	each
of
	those
	cases 	the
	adult-education
	program
	was
	completely
separate
	from 	and
	ancillary
	to 	the
	regular 	educational
program. 	Elementary
	and
	high 	school
	districts
	are
	preoccupied
with 	the 	comprehensive
	education 	of
	young
	students
	in 	the
	K-12
program
	attending
	on
	a
	full-time 	basis.
	Put 	simply,
	teachers
in
	such
	regular
	programs
	deal
	with
	children
	and
	adolescents 	in
pursuit 	of
	diplomas, 	while
	adult
	education 	teachers
	instruct
adults
	seeking 	to
	expand
	their
	knowledge 	and
	skills
	in
particular
	areas.
	The
	burdens, 	concerns,
	and
	interests
	of
teachers
	instructing 	children
	and
	adolescents 	are
	likely
	to
	be
far
	removed 	from
	those
	of 	teachers
	instructing 	adults.
	In
	the
community
	college
	setting,
	as
	reflected
	in
	this
	case,
	the
discontinuity
	between
	the
	regular 	educational
	program 	and
	the
adult 	education
	program
	is
	not 	so
	abrupt.
	As
	affirmed
	by
	the
Five-Year-Plan 	of 	the
	California
	Community
	Col 	s, 	the
mission 	of 	the
	community
	colleges 	increasingly 	is
	to 	foster
life-long 	learning,
	not 	to 	provide 	degrees.
8
petaluma 	City 	Elementary 	and 	High 	School
	Districts(2/22/77)
	EERB
	Decision
	No.
	9,
	Lompoc
	Unified 	School
	District(3/12/77)
	EERB
	Decision
	No.
	13,
	New 	Haven
	Unified 	School
District 	(3/22/77)
	EERB
	Decision
	No.
	14.
8
14
In a trio of early cases the Board excluded adult-education
teachers from units of certificated employees in elementary and
high school districts. 8 Thos 	cases uniformly found that
adult education instructors did not share a community of
interest with instructors in the regular educational program of
their districts. Those results were not surprising. In each
of those cases the adult-education program was completely
separate from and ancillary to the regular educational
program. 	Elementary and high school districts are preoccupied
with the comprehensive education of young students in the K-12
program attending on a full-time basis. Put simply, teachers
in such regular programs deal with children and adolescents in
pursuit of diplomas, while adult education teachers instruct
adults seeking to expand their knowledge and skills in
particular areas. 	The burdens, concerns, and interests of
teachers instructing children and adolescents are likely to be
far removed from those of teachers instructing adults. 	In the
community college setting, as reflected in this case, the
discontinuity between the regular educational program and the
adult education program is not so abrupt. As affirmed by the
Five-Year-Plan of the California Community Colleges, the
mission of the community colleges increasingly is to foster
life-long learning, not to provide degrees.
Petaluma City Elementary and High School Districts
2/22/77) EERB Decision No. 9, Lompoc Unified School District
(3/12/77) EERB Decision No. 13, New Haven Unified School
District (3/22/77) EERB Decision No. 14.
14

The
	record
	reveals
	no
	distinction
	between
	the
	conditions
	in
credit
	and
	non-credit
	classes
	let
	alone
	a
	distinction
	which
would
	negate
	a
	community
	of
	interest
	among
	classroom
	teachers.
Credit
	and
	non-credit
	classes
	were
	neither 	distinguished
	by
their
	content
	nor
	by
	the 	age,
	educational 	attainment,
	or
special
	needs
	or
	capacities
	of
	their
	students.
	Examinations
and
	grades 	are 	given 	in
	all
	classes,
	credit
	or
	non-credit.
Credit
	and
	non-credit
	classes
	are
	given
	in 	the
	same
	facilities
and
	during 	the
	same
	hours
	of
	the 	day. 	Indeed, 	the
	same
	class
may
	have
	students 	taking
	it
	for
	credit
	and
	not 	for
	credit;
about
	17
	percent 	of
	all
	adult
	education
	instructors
	teach
classes
	for
	credit.
While
	adult
	education 	teachers 	are
	limited 	to 	the 	lowest
class
	of 	educational 	attainment
	on
	the
	part-time
	pay
	scale,
	the
difference
	in 	hourly
	pay
	for 	Class
	I
	and
	Class
	III 	is 	at
	most
$1.11.
	While
	fringe
	benefits
	are 	not
	available 	to 	adult
education
	instructors,
	the
	extent
	and
	nature 	of 	fringe
	benefits
available
	to 	other
	instructors
	was
	not 	revealed 	in 	the
	record.
These
	scant 	differences 	are
	particularly 	negligible
	as 	they
arose
	prior
	to 	implementation 	of 	the
	right
	to
	meet 	and
negotiate,
	and
	the 	matters 	in 	question 	are
	now,
	presumably,
negotiable.9
9,Gov. 	Code
	sec. 	3543.2 	provides, 	in 	pertinent 	part:
The
	scope 	of 	representation 	shall
	be
	limited
to 	matters 	relating 	to 	wages, 	hours 	ofemployment, 	and
	other 	terms 	and
	conditions
of 	employment.
15
The record reveals no distinction between the conditions in
credit and non-credit classes let alone a distinction which
would negate a community of interest among classroom teachers.
Credit and non-credit classes were neither distinguished by
their content nor by the age, educational attainment, or
special needs or capacities of their students. Examinations
and grades are given in all classes, credit or non-credit.
Credit and non-credit classes are given in the same facilities
and during the same hours of the day. 	Indeed, the same class
may have students taking it for credit and not for credit;
about 17 percent of all adult education instructors teach
classes for credit.
While adult education teachers are limited to the lowest
class of educational attainment on the part-time pay scale, the
difference in hourly pay for Class I and Class III is at most
$1. 11. While fringe benefits are not available to adult
education instructors, the extent and nature of fringe benefits
available to other instructors was not revealed in the record.
These scant differences are particularly negligible as they
arose prior to implementation of the right to meet and
negotiate, and the matters in question are now, presumably,
negotiable. 9
9.Gov. Code sec. 3543.2 provides, in pertinent part:
The scope of representation shall be limited
to matters relating to wages, hours of
employment, and other terms and conditions
of employment.
15

Although
	adult
	education
	instructors
	average
	six
	hours
teaching
	weekly,
	are
	not
	eligible
	for 	the
	Faculty 	Senate,
	and
do
	not,
	typically,
	hold
	tenure, 	there
	is
	no
	evidence
	in 	the
record
	that
	other 	part-time
	instructors,
	who
	are
	conceded
	to
share
	a
	community
	of
	interest 	sufficient
	for
	inclusion
	in 	the
certificated
	unit,
	have
	different
	conditions.
Moreover,
	the
	certification
	qualifications
	of 	adult
	and
other
	instructors
	are
	indistinguishable;
	the
	number
	of
	hours
they	
work,	
their
	schedule
	of 	hours,
	and
	their
	work
	locations
are
	substantially
	the
	same
	as 	those
	of 	other 	part-time
employees
	included 	in 	the
	unit.
	These
	crucial
	circumstances
could 	not
	be 	more
	different
	from
	the 	circumstances
	attendant
	in
those
	prior
	cases 	in
	which
	the
	Board
	excluded
	adult-education
teachers
	from
	units 	of
	certificated
	employees
	in 	elementary
	and
high 	school
	districts.10
The
	sole
	remaining
	characteristic
	of 	adult
	education
teachers
	which
	is 	alleged 	to
	distinguish
	them
	is 	that
	they
	are
subject
	to
	a
	different 	line
	of 	supervisory
	authority.
	The
director
	of 	adult 	education,
	who
	is
	responsible 	to 	the
	dean
	of
continuing 	education,
	is
	"involved" 	in
	their 	hire
	and
informally 	evaluates
	them. 	Other
	faculty
	members
	fall
	unde~
the 	authority 	of 	the 	dean
	of 	instruction.
	While
	separate
l0petaluma, 	~upra,
	(no
	grades 	given 	except 	re 	er
	it
was
	given; 	class 	content 	differed
	from
	regular
	program;
qualifications 	differed);
	Lompoc,
	supra, 	(adult 	education 	and
regular 	program
	qualifications, 	hours, 	load,
	and
	curriculum
differed)~
	New
	Haven,
	supra, 	(adult 	education 	and
	regularprogram
	qualifications, 	schedules, 	benefits,
	and
	contract
differed).
16
Although adult education instructors average six hours
teaching weekly, are not eligible for the Faculty Senate, and
do not, typically, hold tenure, there is no evidence in the
record that other part-time instructors, who are conceded to
share a community of interest sufficient for inclusion in the
certificated unit, have different conditions.
Moreover, the certification qualifications of adult and
other instructors are indistinguishable; the number of hours
they work, their schedule of hours, and their work locations
are substantially the same as those of other part-time
employees included in the unit. These crucial circumstances
could not be more different from the circumstances attendant in
those prior cases in which the Board excluded adult-education
teachers from units of certificated employees in elementary and
high school districts. 10
The sole remaining characteristic of adult education
teachers which is alleged to distinguish them is that they are
subject to a different line of supervisory authority . 	The
director of adult education, who is responsible to the dean of
continuing education, is "involved" in their hire and
informally evaluates them. Other faculty members fall under
the authority of the dean of instruction. While separate
10Petaluma, supra, (no grades given except where credit
was given; class content differed from regular program;
qualifications differed) ; Lompoc, supra, (adult education and
regular program qualifications, hours, load, and curriculum
differed) ; New Haven, supra, (adult education and regular
program qualifications, schedules, benefits, and contract
differed) .
16

supervision 	of
	employees 	might
	support
	a
	finding
	that
	a
separate
	unit
	was
	appropriate,11	
it
	does
	not
	by
	itself
establish 	that
	such
	units
	are 	alone
	appropriate
	or
	that
	the
comprehensive
	unit
	is
	inappropriate.12	
Moreover,
	the
evidence
	on
	separate
	lines
	of 	supervisory
	authority
	is
insubstantial
	in
	this
	case.
	As
	already 	discussed,
	division
chairpersons
	do
	not
	have
	supervisory 	functions;
	and
	the
participation
	of
	the
	director
	of 	adult
	education 	in
	hiring
	and
evaluation
	was
	not
	shown
	to
	be
	effective.
	Nor
	is
	there
	any
evidence
	that
	the
	dean
	of 	continuing 	education
	exercises
supervisory
	authority
	over
	adult
	education
	teachers.
In
	these 	circumstances, 	to 	exclude
	adult
	education
instructors
	would
	be
	to
	pay 	homage
	to
	minor
	distinctions
	which
in
	reality
	do
	not
	disturb
	the
	community
	of
	interest
	required
for
	a
	unit
	to
	negotiate 	successfully.
	Accordingly, 	the
	Board
finds
	a
	comprehensive
	unit 	of
	certificated
	employees
	including
adult 	education
	instructors
	to
	be
	appropriate 	for
	meeting
	and
negotiating.
llsee
	Denver
	Publishin~
	Co. 	(1978)
	238
	NLRB
	No. 	33
[99
	LRRM
	1222, 	.1223],
	Florida 	Steel
	Corp. 	(1976) 	222
	NLRB
	546,
547 	[91
	LRRM
	1189, 	1190].
12see 	Archdiocese 	of 	Philadel~hia
	(1977)
	227
	NLRB
	1178,1180-81 	[94
	LRRM
	1719,
	1722
	(arch 	iocesewide
	unit 	of 	lay
teachers
	encompassing
	273
	schools
	is 	appropriate
	though 	each
parish 	hires, 	fires
	and
	disciplines 	independently
	where
	there
is
	no
	petition
	for
	a
	separate 	unit).
17
supervision of employees might support a finding that a
separate unit was appropriate, ll it does not by itself
establish that such units are alone appropriate or that the
comprehensive unit is inappropriate. 12 Moreover, the
evidence on separate lines of supervisory authority is
insubstantial in this case. As already discussed, division
chairpersons do not have supervisory functions; and the
participation of the director of adult education in hiring and
evaluation was not shown to be effective. Nor is there any
evidence that the dean of continuing education exercises
supervisory authority over adult education teachers.
In these circumstances, to exclude adult education
instructors would be to pay homage to minor distinctions which
in reality do not disturb the community of interest required
for a unit to negotiate successfully. Accordingly, the Board
finds a comprehensive unit of certificated employees including
adult education instructors to be appropriate for meeting and
negotiating.
1lsee Denver Publishing Co. (1978) 238 NLRB No. 33
[99 LRRM 1222, 1223], Florida Steel Corp. (1976) 222 NLRB 546,
547 [91 LRRM 1189, 1190] .
12see Archdiocese of Philadelphia (1977) 227 NLRB 1178,
1180-81 [94 LRRM 1719, 1722 (archdiocesewide unit of lay
teachers encompassing 273 schools is appropriate though each
parish hires, fires and disciplines independently where there
is no petition for a separate unit) .
17

ORDER
Upon
	the
	foregoing
	decision
	and
	the
	entire
	record
	in
	this
case
	the 	Public
	Employment
	Relations
	Board
	ORDERS
	that:
1.
	Division 	chairpersons
	other
	than
	the
	chairperson
	of
Allied
	Health 	are 	not 	supervisory
	positions 	within
	the
	meaning
of
	Government
	Code
	section
	3540.l(m)
	and
	are 	included
	in 	the
unit.
2.
	Adult 	education
	instructors
	are
	appropriately
	included
in 	the
	unit.
Within
	10
	workdays
	after
	the
	employer
	posts
	the 	Notice
	of
Decision, 	the
	employee
	organization
	shall
	demonstrate 	to
	the
regional
	director 	at
	least
	30
	percent 	support 	in 	the
	negotiating 	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)
	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
	unit 	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
	unit.
By. J	
Jerilou
	Cossack 	Twohey, 	Me9ber 	Harr)'
r'i;({'k';	
Cha\liiig_r
son
Raymond
	J. 	Gonzales, 	Member,
	dissenting 	in 	part:
As 	with 	all 	supervisory 	cases, 	Government 	Code 	section 	3540.l(m)
I
/)
-13-
ORDER
Upon the foregoing decision and the entire record in this
case the Public Employment Relations Board ORDERS that:
Division chairpersons other than the chairperson of
Allied Health are not supervisory positions within the meaning
of Government Code section 3540.1 (m) and are included in the
unit.
2. Adult education instructors are appropriately included
in the unit.
Within 10 workdays after the employer posts the Notice of
Decision, the employee organization shall demonstrate to the
regional director at least 30 percent support in the negotiating 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) 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 unit 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 unit.
( 	erilou Cossack Twohey, Member 	Harry Gluck, Chairperson
Raymond J. Gonzales, Member, dissenting in part:
As with all supervisory cases, Government Code section 3540.1(m)
- 18-

is
	the
	yardstick 	for 	ultimate
	supervisory
	findings.
1
In 	applying
the
	language
	contained
	therein
	to
	one
	of
	the
	earliest
	cases
	before
this
	Board,
	it
	was
	held
	that
	the 	possession
	of
	any 	one
	of
	the
enumerated
	functions
	listed
	in
	section
	3540.l(m)
	or
	the
	effective
power
	to
	recommend
	such
	action,
	if
	requiring
	independent
	judgment,
would
	be
	sufficient
	to
	make
	one
	a
	supervisor.
2
The
	Board
	has
adhered
	consistently
	to
	that
	standard.
3
, 	.
	d.
	. 	.
Additionally,
	the
	Board,
in
	Sweetwater,
	wisely
	acknowledged 	(1)
	the
	unique
	statutory
	scheme
of
	the 	Educational
	Employment
	Relations
	Act
	(hereinafter
	EERA
	or
Act)
	in 	contrast
	to 	the
	Labor
	Management
	Relations
	Act, 	as
	amended,
29
	U.S.C.
	Section
	151
	et 	seq.,
	and 	(2)
	the
	fact 	that
	public
	and
private 	sector
	supervisors
	so
	differ
	in 	the
	nature 	of
	the
	authority
they 	possess 	to 	the
	effect 	that
	"decisions 	regarding
	hiring, 	firing,
discipline
	and
	salaries
	of
	employees
	in 	the 	public 	sector 	are
generally 	ultimately 	reserved 	for
	decision-makers
	far
	removed 	from
1
	t h e 	emp 1
oyees
	imrne
	iate
	supervision.
14
Consequently,
	the
	Board
concluded
	that
	despite 	the
	obvious
	similarity
	of
	both 	the
	EERA
	and
the
	LMRA,
	a
	broader
	construction 	of 	the
	definition 	of 	supervisor
contained
	in
	the
	EERA
	is
	not 	only
	permissible, 	but 	necessary.
1
section
	3540.l(m)
	is 	set 	forth 	in
	full
	in 	the 	majority 	opinion,
a~te,
	pp. 	7-8.
2
Sweetwater 	Union 	High 	School
	District
	(11/23/76)
	EERB
Decision
	No.
	4.
3
Marin
	Community
	College
	District
	(8/10/78)
	PERB
	Decision
No. 	64; 	Los 	Rios
	Community
	c,ollege
	District 	(6/8/77)
	EERB
Decision
	No. 	18; 	Oakland 	Unified 	School
	District
	(3/28/77)
	EERB
Decision
	No. 	15; 	San 	Diego 	Unified 	School
	District 	(2/8/77)
	EERB
Decision 	no. 	8.
4
campbell 	Union High 	School 	District 	(8/17/78)
	PERB
	DecisionNo. 	66; 	Sweetwater 	Union 	High 	School 	District 	(11/23/76) 	PERB
Decision 	No. 	4 	at
	13.
19
is the yardstick for ultimate supervisory findings. In applying
the language contained therein to one of the earliest cases before
this Board, it was held that the possession of any one of the
enumerated functions listed in section 3540.1(m) or the effective
power to recommend such action, if requiring independent judgment,
would be sufficient to make one a supervisor. The Board has
adhered consistently to that standard. Additionally, the Board,
in Sweetwater, wisely acknowledged (1) the unique statutory scheme
of the Educational Employment Relations Act (hereinafter EERA or
Act) in contrast to the Labor Management Relations Act, as amended,
29 U.S. C. Section 151 et seq., and (2) the fact that public and
private sector supervisors so differ in the nature of the authority
they possess to the effect that "decisions regarding hiring, firing,
discipline and salaries of employees in the public sector are
generally ultimately reserved for decision-makers far removed from
the employees' immediate supervision."4 	Consequently, the Board
concluded that despite the obvious similarity of both the EERA and
the LMRA, a broader construction of the definition of supervisor
contained in the EERA is not only permissible, but necessary.
Section 3540.1(m) is set forth in full in the majority opinion,
ante, pp . 7-8.
2
Sweetwater Union High School District (11/23/76) EERB
Decision No. 4.
Marin Community College District (8/10/78) PERB Decision
No. 64; Los Rios Community College District (6/8/77) EER
Decision No. 	18; Oakland Unified School District (3/28/77) EERB
Decision No. 15; San Diego Unified School District (2/8/77) EERB
Decision no. 8.
#Campbell Union High School District (8/17/78) PERB Decision
No. 66; Sweetwater Union High School District (11/23/76) PERB
Decision No. 4 at 13.
19

Bearing
	this
	in
	mind,
	I
	cannot 	agree
	with
	my
	colleagues
	that
division
	chairpersons 	are 	non-supervisory
	employees.
	The
	record
contains
	ample
	evidence
	to 	support
	and
	compel
	a
	supervisory
determination.
Here
	the
	evidence
	is
	clear 	that
	the
	division
	chairpersons
exercise
	independent
	judgment
	in 	adjusting
	grievances,
	assigning
work, 	and
	performing
	a
	variety 	of 	other
	functions
	that 	clearly
distinguish
	them 	from
	other
	certificated
	instructional
	personnel.
Grievance Adjustment	Grievance Adjustment
Much
	of
	the 	testimony
	in
	this
	case 	focused
	on
	the
	area
	of
grievance 	adjustment.
	Regarding
	this
	function 	alone,
	it
	is
absolutely 	clear 	that 	division
	chairpersons 	possess 	the
	authority
to
	resolve 	grievances.
	The
	majority
	clearly
	acknowledges
	this,
noting
	that
	grievances
	are
	addressed
	initially
	by
	division
chairpersons,
	and
	that 	there
	is
	uncontradicted
	evidence
	that
	the
Dean
	of 	Instruction 	routinely 	refers
	grievances 	to 	the
	division
chairpersons.
	However,
	they 	dismiss 	the 	signficance 	of
	this
function
	as
	it
	applies 	to
	this
	case
	by
	saying
	that 	there
	is
	"no
evidence
	that 	division 	chairpersons 	exercise 	authority
	to
	adjust
grievances."
5
The
	majority 	apparently 	creates
	a
	new
	test
	for
determining 	whether 	or 	not
	one
	occupies
	a
	supervisory 	position
	by
drawing
	a
	distinction
	between
	the 	authority 	to 	exercise
	a
part ular f
ar 	function
	and
	the 	actual 	exercise 	of
	such
	authority.
I
	take 	issue with 	the 	majority's
	approach 	for
	two
	reasons.
	F
	st,
5
supra 	at
	6.
20
Bearing this in mind, I cannot agree with my colleagues that
division chairpersons are non-supervisory employees. The record
contains ample evidence to support and compel a supervisory
determination.
Here the evidence is clear that the division chairpersons
exercise independent judgment in adjusting grievances, assigning
work, and performing a variety of other functions that clearly
distinguish them from other certificated instructional personnel.
Much of the testimony in this case focused on the area of
grievance adjustment. Regarding this function alone, it is
absolutely clear that division chairpersons possess the authority
to resolve grievances. The majority clearly acknowledges this,
noting that grievances are addressed initially by division
chairpersons, and that there is uncontradicted evidence that the
Dean of Instruction routinely refers grievances to the division
chairpersons. However, they dismiss the signficance of this
function as it applies to this case by saying that there is "no
evidence that division chairpersons exercise authority to adjust
grievances ." 	The majority apparently creates a new test for
determining whether or not one occupies a supervisory position by
drawing a distinction between the authority to exercise a
partic 	unction and the actual exercise of such authority.
I take issue with the majority's approach for two reasons. 	First,
Supra at 6.
20

my
	colleagues
	have
	apparently
	ignored 	the
	plain
	language
	of
section
	3540.l(m)
	which
	makes
	the
	authority
	to
	exercise
	a
	certain
responsibility
	the
	critical
	element
	for
	determining
	supervisory
status:
"Supervisory
	employee"
	means
	any 	employee
	.
having
	authority
	. 	.
	to
	adjust
	grievances
if
	in
	connection 	with 	the 	foregoing
	...
	the
exercise 	of
	such
	authority
	is
	not
	of
	a
	merely
routine 	or
	clerical
	nature,
	but
	requires
	the
use
	of
	independent
	judgment.
Second,
	my
	colleagues,
	who
	have
	been
	so
	prone
	to
	rely
	upon
	NLRB
precedent
	as 	an
	aid 	in
	interpreting
	the
	EERA,
	particularly 	in
	view
of 	Fire
	Fighters
	Union
	v.
	City
	of 	Vallejo,
6
fail
	to
	acknowledge
the 	case
	law
	emanating
	from
	that 	jurisdiction
	to 	the
	effect 	that
it
	is
	the
	power,
	as
	distinguished
	from
	the
	exercise 	of
	such
	power,
that
	determines 	whether
	or 	not
	an 	employee
	is
	a
	supervisor.
7 So
long 	as
	the 	existence 	of
	the
	power
	is 	real 	rather
	than
	theoretical,
t h
e.
f
requency
	o f
	its
	exercise
	is 	irre
	evant.
. 	. 	. 	. 	I 	8
6
(1974)
	12
	Cal.3d
	608,
	87
	LRRM
	2453.
	In
	this
	case, 	the
California
	Supreme
	Court
	held
	that
	it
	is
	appropriate 	to 	use 	National
Labor
	Relations
	Act
	precedents 	as
	a
	guide
	in 	interpreting
	analogous
or
	identical
	language
	in 	state
	labor
	legislation.
7
NLRB
	v.
	Harmon
	Industries,
	Inc. 	(8th
	C 	.
	1977) 	564
	F.2d
	1047;
Ohio 	Power
	Co.
	v.
	NLRB.,
	(6th 	Cir.
	1949) 	176
	F.2d 	385,
	cert.
	denied
TT949)
	33bTS.	
899-:-
8NLRB
	v.
	Pilot
	Frei~ht 	Carriers, 	Inc. 	(4th 	Cir.
	1977) 	558
	F.2d205,
	cer
	.
	denied
	(1977
	434 	U.S.
	101-.--The
	infrequent 	exercise 	of
a
	supervisory 	function
	is
	to 	be
	distinguished
	from
	situations
	where
an
	individual
	may
	be
	substituting 	for 	the 	actual 	supervisor
	who,
	inturn,
may
	be 	absent
	due
	to 	vacation 	or
	illness.
	In 	such
	situations,the 	sporadic 	exercise 	of
	a
	supervisory 	function
	does
	not
	make
	that
individual
	a
	supervisor 	since
	it
	is 	not
	a
	normal
	part 	of 	his 	or 	her
duties.
	See
	NLRB
	v. 	Quincy
	Steel 	Casting
	Co.
	(1st 	Cir. 	1952) 	200
F.2d 	293,
	296;Fred
	Rogers
	Co
..
	(1976; 226
	NLRB 	No. 	175; 	Muscle
Shoals 	Rubber 	Co. 	(196) 	157 	NLRB 	No. 	82.
21
my colleagues have apparently ignored the plain language of
section 3540. 1(m) which makes the authority to exercise a certain
responsibility the critical element for determining supervisory
status :
"Supervisory employee" means any employee
having authority . 	. to adjust grievances
if in connection with the foregoing . 	. the
exercise of such authority is not of a merely
routine or clerical nature, but requires the
use of independent judgment.
Second, my colleagues, who have been so prone to rely upon NLRB
precedent as an aid in interpreting the EERA, particularly in view
of Fire Fighters Union v. City of Vallejo, fail to acknowledge
the case law emanating from that jurisdiction to the effect that
it is the power, as distinguished from the exercise of such power,
that determines whether or not an employee is a supervisor. 	So
long as the existence of the power is real rather than theoretical,
the frequency of its exercise is irrelevant.
(1974) 12 Cal. 3d 608, 87 LRRM 2453. In this case, the
California Supreme Court held that it is appropriate to use National
Labor Relations Act precedents as a guide in interpreting analogous
or identical language in state labor legislation.
NLRB v. Harmon Industries, Inc. (8th Cir. 1977) 564 F. 2d 1047;
Ohio Power Co. v. NLRB. , (6th Cir. 1949) 176 F. 2d 385, cert. denied
(1949) 338 U.S. 899.
ONLRB v. Pilot Freight Carriers, Inc. (4th Cir. 1977) 558 F. 2d
205, cert. denied (1977) 434 U.S. 101. The infrequent exercise of
a supervisory function is to be distinguished from situations where
an individual may be substituting for the actual supervisor who, in
turn, may be absent due to vacation or illness. In such situations,
the sporadic exercise of a supervisory function does not make that
individual a supervisor since it is not a normal part of his or her
duties. See NLRB v. Quincy Steel Casting Co. (1st Cir. 1952) 200
F. 2d 293, 296; Fred Rogers Co. (1976) 226 NLRB No. 175; Muscle
Shoals Rubber Co. (1966) 157 NLRB No. 82.
21

Not
	only
	does
	the
	majority
	create
	a
	new
	test
	for
	determining
supervisory
	status,
	they 	dismiss 	the
	obvious
	exercise 	of
	that
authority
	by
	the
	division
	chairpersons
	here
	because
	the
	division
chairpersons
	assume
	somewhat
	of
	a
	mediator
	role
	in 	resolving
problems
	among
	staff.
	In
	my
	view,
	this
	approach
	is
	a
	far
	more
desirable
	personnel
	practice
	than 	to
	simply
	and
	autocratically
make
	determinations 	regarding
	a
	particular
	dispute 	or
	problem.
Further,
	to
	successfully 	resolve
	problems
	through
	such 	an
	approach
is
	truly
	an
	artful
	exercise 	of
	independent
	judgment.
Finally,
	significant
	testimony
	was
	elicited
	as
	to 	the
organizational 	structure 	of
	the
	District
	which
	bears
	upon
	the
issue 	of
	grievance 	adjustment.
	Two
	organizational 	charts
	were
introduced
	into
	the
	record,
	one 	by
	the
	Glendale
	Community
	College
District 	(District)
	and
	the
	other
	by
	the
	Glendale 	College 	Education
Association 	(Association).
	The
	charts 	differed 	in
	certain 	respects.
The
	Association's 	exhibit
	did not
	show
	an
	organizational
	line
	from
faculty
	to
	division 	chairpersons, 	but 	did
	show
	a
	line
	from
	faculty
to 	the
	Dean
	of 	Instruction,
	Dr.
	Ivan
	L.
	Jones.
	The
	District's
exhibit
	did
	show
	a
	line
	from
	the 	faculty
	to 	the 	division 	chairpersons,
but 	did 	not
	show
	a
	line
	from
	the 	faculty
	to 	the
	Dean
	of 	Instruction,
Dr.
	Jones.
I 	am
	convinced
	that
	the
	District's
	exhibit 	is
	the
	most
	recent
and
	accurate 	re 	ection 	of
	how
	this 	particular
	community
	college
is
	organize
	.. 	. 	d 	9 	As
	such,
	a
	line
	drawn 	from
	faculty 	to 	the 	division
9The
	testimony 	of
	Dr. 	Jones, 	even 	on 	cross-examination,confirmed 	that 	the 	District's 	exhibit
	was
	the 	most 	recent 	chartbecause 	certain 	directors 	are 	designated 	as 	"Dr." 	on 	the 	District's
22
Not only does the majority create a new test for determining
supervisory status, they dismiss the obvious exercise of that
authority by the division chairpersons here because the division
chairpersons assume somewhat of a mediator role in resolving
problems among staff. In my view, this approach is a far more
desirable personnel practice than to simply and autocratically
make determinations regarding a particular dispute or problem.
Further, to successfully resolve problems through such an approach
is truly an artful exercise of independent judgment.
Finally, significant testimony was elicited as to the
organizational structure of the District which bears upon the
issue of grievance adjustment. Two organizational charts were
introduced into the record, one by the Glendale Community College
District (District) and the other by the Glendale College Education
Association (Association) . The charts differed in certain respects.
The Association's exhibit did not show an organizational line from
faculty to division chairpersons, but did show a line from faculty
to the Dean of Instruction, Dr. Ivan L. Jones. The District's
exhibit did show a line from the faculty to the division chairpersons,
but did not show a line from the faculty to the Dean of Instruction,
Dr. Jones.
I am convinced that the District's exhibit is the most recent
and accurate reflection of how this particular community college
is organized. As such, a line drawn from faculty to the division
"The testimony of Dr. Jones, even on cross-examination,
confirmed that the District's exhibit was the most recent chart
because certain directors are designated as "Dr." on the District's
22

chairpersons
	represents
	a
	line
	of
	supervision
	which
	is
	consistent
with 	the
	most
	efficient
	way
	that
	the
	District
	can
	handle
	faculty
problems
	generally.
	Otherwise, 	as
	a
	matter
	of 	logic,
	it
	would 	be
most
	difficult
	and
	impractical 	for 	there
	to
	be
	direct
	supervision
on
	grievances
	between
	the
	Dean
	of 	Instruction
	and
	faculty 	since
there 	are
	approximately
	150
	day
	faculty
	members
	and
	since 	the
	Dean
is
	responsible 	for
	the
	supervision 	of
	a
	number
	of 	administrators
who
	are
	directors
	or
	deans
	in
	charge
	of
	designated
	units.
	The
logistics
	of
	having
	the
	division
	chairpersons 	deal 	with 	grievances
firsthand
	is
	clear
	from
	the 	record:
Q.
	I'm
	going 	back
	to
	CTA
	Exhibit
	1,
	if
	you would,
Dr.
	Jones.
	On
	that
	document
	there's
	a
	line
	from
the
	faculty
	box which
	runs 	over
	to 	the
	line
	which
goes
	directly
	up
	to
	your
	name.
	If
	the
	faculty
	hadany
	of
	those
	personal, 	professional
	problems
	orideas 	or
	recommendations
	that,
	things
	of 	thatnature,
	at
	the
	time
	CTA
	Exhibit
	1
	was
	adopted, 	did
the
	faculty
	follow
	this
	organizational
	line
	and
bring 	those 	matters
	directly
	to
	your
	attention?
A. 	No,
	in 	fact 	that,
	I
	assume
	that's
	why
	the
	chart
has 	changed.
	As,
	as
	you
	heard
	testified
	in 	the,the 	opening 	remarks,
	in
	the
	total
	faculty
	we
	have,
I
	believe
	400
	and
	some
	instructors.
	Those
	teaching
in
	the
	day 	would
	probably
	certainly 	total
	150
	or 	so,
it
	would 	be
	almost 	impossible
	for
	them
	to
	report
directly
	to
	me
	and,
	and
	certainly
	get 	anything
	from
me.
	They,
	they
	do 	go
	through 	the 	chairmen,
	sir,
that, 	that's
	the 	idea.
exhibit,
	while 	the
	same
	individuals 	are 	addressed 	as 	"Mr." 	and
"Mrs."
	on
	the 	Association's 	exhibit.
	Dr. 	Jones
	testified 	thatthese 	particular 	individuals
	had
	received 	their 	doctoratesapproximately
	two 	weeks
	before 	the 	hearing 	in 	this 	case. 	Further,
in 	response, 	essentially
	to 	whether 	or 	not 	the 	lines 	in 	the
District's 	exhibit
	were
	true 	reflections 	of 	the 	lines 	of 	supervisionbetween 	the 	faculty
	and
	division 	chairperson
	and 	the 	faculty
	and
the
	Dean
	of 	Instruction,
	Dr. 	Jones 	indicated 	that 	the 	chart 	had
been 	changed 	to 	reflect 	the 	fact 	that 	matters 	normally 	are 	brought
first
	to 	the 	division 	chairpersons 	rather 	than 	to 	him.
23
chairpersons represents a line of supervision which is consistent
with the most efficient way that the District can handle faculty
problems generally. Otherwise, as a matter of logic, it would be
most difficult and impractical for there to be direct supervision
on grievances between the Dean of Instruction and faculty since
there are approximately 150 day faculty members and since the Dean
is responsible for the supervision of a number of administrators
who are directors or deans in charge of designated units. 	The
logistics of having the division chairpersons deal with grievances
firsthand is clear from the record:
Q. 	I'm going back to CTA Exhibit 1, if you would,
Dr. Jones. On that document there's a line from
the faculty box which runs over to the line which
goes directly up to your name. If the faculty had
any of those personal, professional problems or
ideas or recommendations that, things of that
nature, at the time CTA Exhibit 1 was adopted, did
the faculty follow this organizational line and
bring those matters directly to your attention?
A. No, in fact that, I assume that's why the chart
has changed. As, as you heard testified in the,
the opening remarks, in the total faculty we have,
I believe 400 and some instructors. Those teaching
in the day would probably certainly total 150 or so,
it would be almost impossible for them to report
directly to me and, and certainly get anything from
me . 	They, they do go through the chairmen, sir,
that, that's the idea.
exhibit, while the same individuals are addressed as "Mr. " and
"Mrs." on the Association's exhibit. Dr. Jones testified that
these particular individuals had received their doctorates
approximately two weeks before the hearing in this case. Further,
in response, essentially to whether or not the lines in the
District's exhibit were true reflections of the lines of supervision
between the faculty and division chairperson and the faculty and
the Dean of Instruction, Dr. Jones indicated that the chart had
been changed to reflect the fact that matters normally are brought
first to the division chairpersons rather than to him.
23

Q.
	That's
	it,
	it
	always 	has 	been 	even
	before
District
	Exhibit
	1
	was
	drafted,
	the
	faculty,
whenever
	they
	felt
	they
	needed
	representation
with 	the
	administration,
	went
	directly
	to
	their
division
	chairpersons
	rather
	than
	directly
	to
you
	or
	any
	other
	member
	of
	the
	administration,
is
	that
	correct?
A.
	The,
	that
	would 	be
	the 	procedure.
	I,
	I
can't
	be
	on
	a
	witness 	stand
	and
	say
	that
	a
faculty
	member
	hasn't
	come
	directly
	to
	me
because
	this
	does
	happen,
	but
	the 	procedure
and
	the 	general 	operating
	procedure
	is
	that
they
	go
	through
	the 	chairpersons
	and
	they
	do.
Class 	Scheduling
Division 	chairpersons 	are 	also 	responsible 	for
	structuring
	and
recommending
	the
	class
	schedule
	which,
	in
	effect,
	determines 	the
courses,
	classrooms,
	and
	hours
	that
	the
	instructors 	will
	be
	assigned.
While
	certain
	relevant 	factors
	such 	as
	availability
	of
	classrooms
or
	monetary
	constraints
	do
	bear
	upon
	the
	degree
	to
	which
	a
	division
chairperson 	exercises
	independent
	judgment
	in
	this
	regard,
	and
while
	an
	effort 	is
	made
	to
	accommodate
	the
	instructors' 	desires,
	it
is 	clear
	from
	the 	record
	that
	where
	a
	conflict 	arises
	and
alternatives 	exist,
	the
	division 	chairperson
	has 	the
	authority
	and
has
	exercised 	that 	authority
	to
	make
	a
	decision
	even
	if
	contrary
	to
the
	desires 	of 	affected 	instructors.
10
lOThe
	following 	testimony
	was
	elicited
	from
	a
	division 	chairperson:
Q.
	And
	what
	process
	is
	used 	then 	for 	preparing 	the
	t 	1
class 	schedule?
A.
	Well,
	prior 	to 	developing 	the
	initial
	one,
	I
	ask 	the
instructors
	what 	courses 	and 	hours 	they 	would
	prefer 	for 	the
	coming
semester 	and 	they 	submit 	these 	to
	me
	and 	then, 	using 	that 	as
	a
	basis,
I
	develop 	the
	initial 	class 	schedule.
Q. 	Do
	you 	ever
	make
	decisions 	in 	regard 	to 	the 	class 	schedule
24
Q. 	That's it, it always has been even before
District Exhibit I was drafted, the faculty,
whenever they felt they needed representation
with the administration, went directly to their
division chairpersons rather than directly to
you or any other member of the administration,
is that correct?
A. The, that would be the procedure. 	I, I
can't be on a witness stand and say that a
faculty member hasn't come directly to me
because this does happen, but the procedure
and the general operating procedure is that
they go through the chairpersons and they do.
Class Scheduling
Division chairpersons are also responsible for structuring and
recommending the class schedule which, in effect, determines the
courses, classrooms, and hours that the instructors will be assigned.
While certain relevant factors such as availability of classrooms
or monetary constraints do bear upon the degree to which a division
chairperson exercises independent judgment in this regard, and
while an effort is made to accommodate the instructors' desires, it
is clear from the record that where a conflict arises and
alternatives exist, the division chairperson has the authority and
has exercised that authority to make a decision even if contrary to
the desires of affected instructors.
The following testimony was elicited from a division chairperson:
Q. And what process is used then for preparing the initial
class schedule?
. Well, prior to developing the initial one, I ask the
instructors what courses and hours they would prefer for the coming
semester and they submit these to me and then, using that as a basis,
I develop the initial class schedule.
Q. Do you ever make decisions in regard to the class schedule
24

No
	evidence
	was
	introduced
	to
	suggest
	that
	the
	division
	chair-
person's
	recommendations
	to 	the
	Dean
	of
	Instruction
	regarding
class
	scheduling
	is
	ineffectual.
	Rather
	the
	testimony 	as
	a
	whole,
suggests
	a
	basic
	reliance
	by
	the
	administration
	on
	the
	division
chairperson's
	scheduling
	of 	classes
	and
	assignment
	of 	courses,
which
	are
	responsibilities 	that
	most
	directly
	and
	vitally
	determine
the
	working
	conditions 	of 	the 	teaching
	staff.
Finally,
	the 	record
	establishes
	numerous
	other
	responsibilities
of
	the
	division
	chairpersons,
	some
	of
	which
	are
	secondary
	indicia
of
	supervisory
	status,
	which
	immediately
	set
	them
	apart
	from
	their
teaching 	colleagues.
	Some
	of 	these
	responsibilities
	are:
preparation
	and
	administration 	of 	division
	budget,
	preparation 	of
course
	outlines,
	approval
	of
	conference 	attendance, 	approval
	of
supplies,
	approval
	of
	field 	trips,
	and 	recorrnnendation
	of 	textbooks.
On
	the
	basis 	of
	the 	foregoing,
	I
	believe
	the
	division 	chair-
persons
	are 	supervisors 	within 	the
	meaning
	of 	section
	3540.l(m).
Regarding 	the
	majority's 	disposition 	of 	the 	adult 	education
instructors,
	I
	concur
	in
	such
	decision 	only 	because
	it
	would 	be
inconsistent
	for
	me
	to 	exclude
	them
	since 	the
	parties
	have
	stipulated
to 	the 	inclusion 	of 	part-time 	instructors 	in
	the
	unit,
	the
	latter
having 	working
	conditions
	substantially 	similar
	to 	those
	of 	the
and
	the 	assignments 	which
	are 	contrary 	to 	the 	input
	you
	received
from
	the 	other
	members
	of 	the 	division?
A.
	Yes.
	I
	always
	consult 	with 	the 	individuals 	involved
before 	completing
	a
	recommendation, 	however.
25
No evidence was introduced to suggest that the division chair-
person's recommendations to the Dean of Instruction regarding
class scheduling is ineffectual. Rather the testimony as a whole,
suggests a basic reliance by the administration on the division
chairperson's scheduling of classes and assignment of courses,
which are responsibilities that most directly and vitally determine
the working conditions of the teaching staff.
Finally, the record establishes numerous other responsibilities
of the division chairpersons, some of which are secondary indicia
of supervisory status, which immediately set them apart from their
teaching colleagues. Some of these responsibilities are:
preparation and administration of division budget, preparation of
course outlines, approval of conference attendance, approval of
supplies, approval of field trips, and recommendation of textbooks.
On the basis of the foregoing, I believe the division chair-
persons are supervisors within the meaning of section 3540. 1(m) .
Regarding the majority's disposition of the adult education
instructors, I concur in such decision only because it would be
inconsistent for me to exclude them since the parties have stipulated
to the inclusion of part-time instructors in the unit, the latter
having working conditions substantially similar to those of the
and the assignments which are contrary to the input you received
from the other members of the division?
A . 	Yes . 	I always consult with the individuals involved
before completing a recommendation, however
25

adult
	education
	instructors.
	But
	for
	the
	stipulation,
	which
	is
not
	contrary
	to
	the
	EERA,
	but 	in
	fact,
	consistent
	with
	established
Board
	policy,
11
I
	would
	not 	include
	part-time
	instructors
	with
full-time 	instructors
	in
	a
	negotiating 	unit
12
but
	likely
	find
	a
separate
	unit
	of
	adult
	education
	instructors
	together 	with
	part-
time
	instructors
	appropriate.
Raymond/J.
	GonzaVes,
	M.e'fuber 	/
11
centinela
	Valley
	Union 	High 	School
	District
	(8/7/78)
	PERB
Decision
	No. 	62.
12
Rio
	Hondo 	Community
	College
	District
	(1/25/79)
	PERE
	Decision
No.
	87,
	dissenting 	opinion; 	Hartnell
	Community
	College
	District
(1/2/79)
	PERE
	Decision
	No.
	81,
	dissenting 	opinion;
	Los
	RiosCow~unity 	College
	District 	(6/9/77)
	PERE
	Decision
	No.
	18,
	dissentingopinion.
26
adult education instructors. But for the stipulation, which is
not contrary to the EERA, but in fact, consistent with established
Board policy, I would not include part-time instructors with
full-time instructors in a negotiating unit but likely find a
separate unit of adult education instructors together with part-
time instructors appropriate.
Raymond/ J. Gonzales, Member /
Centinela Valley Union High School District (8/7/78) PERB
Decision No. 62.
2Rio Hondo Community College District (1/25/79) PERB Decision
No. 87, dissenting opinion; Hartnell Community College District
(1/2/79) PERB Decision No. 81, dissenting opinion; Los Rios
Community College District (6/9/77) PERB Decision No. 18, dissenting
opinion.
26

STA'I'E OF
CALIFORNIA
EDOCATIONAL EMPIOYMENI'
RELATIONS
BOARD
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
EDUCATIONAL EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
GLENDALE
CXMvlUNITY
COLLEGE
DISTRICT,
Employer ,
and
GLENDALE COLI.HiE
GUILD,
	LOCAL
2276,
CFT/AFT, AFL-CIO,
Employee
Organization,
and
GLENDALE
COLLEGE
EDUCATION
ASSOCIATION',
CTA/NFA
Employee
Organization.
Case
No.
	IA-R-
7
48
PROFOSED
DECISION
December
8,
	1977
Appearances: 	IDuis c. Awalt, Labor
Relations Consultant
(D'.:>nald
D.
	Rea & Canpany)
	for
Glendale
Ccxnmunity
College
District;
	Charles
R.
	Gustafson, Attorney
for
Glendale CollegeEducation
Association,
CTA/NE.J'.\;
	Anne
Fragasso, Attorney forGlendale College Guild, IDcal 2276, CFI'/AFT,
	AFI...-CIO.
Decided
by:	
Carol Ann Webster, Hearing
Officer	Decided by: Carol Ann Webster, Hearing Officer
PRCCEDURAL
HISTORY
On
May
14, 	1976,
	the
Glendale College Guild
	(AFT)
petitioned
for 	recognition as exclusive representative for
	all
full-time certificated
employees involved
	in
teaching
credit
courses, 	including
	librarians,
	counselors, division
chairpersons, part-time
day or extension teachers
who
also
teach classes
for 	o:::illege
credit,
	the enabler of the
handicapped and the o:::iordinator
of the Learning Resource Center.
June 7, 	1976, the Glendale College Education Assoc:iation
(CTA)
	filed
	an intervention to represent
all certificated
employees excluding management, 	supervisory and confidential
employees.
GLENDALE COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT,
Employer ,
and
GLENDALE COLLEGE GUILD, LOCAL 2276,
CFT/AFT, AFL CIO,
Case No. LA-R-748
PROPOSED DECISION
Employee Organization, 	December 8, 1977
and
GLENDALE COLLEGE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION,
CTA/NEA
Employee Organization.
Appearances: Louis C. Awalt, Labor Relations Consultant
(Donald D. Rea & Company) for Glendale Community College
District; Charles R. Gustafson, Attorney for Glendale College
Education Association, CTA/NEA; Anne Fragasso, Attorney for
Glendale College Guild, Local 2276, CFT/AFT, AFL-CIO.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On May 14, 1976, the Glendale College Guild (AFT)
petitioned for recognition as exclusive representative for all
full-time certificated employees involved in teaching credit
courses, including librarians, counselors, division
chairpersons, part-time day or extension teachers who also
teach classes for college credit, the enabler of the
handicapped and the coordinator of the Learning Resource Center.
June 7, 1976, the Glendale College Education Association
(CTA) filed an intervention to represent all certificated
employees excluding management, supervisory and confidential
employees.

On June 11, 	1976, the Glendale Community College District
(District) 	notified the Educational Employment Relations Board
(Board or EERB) 	that 	it doubted the appropriateness of both
proposed units. 	Subsequently the parties agreed on an
appropriate unit1 with the exception of two classifications,
those of division chairperson and adult education teacher.
CTA urges that toth classifications be included in the
unit. 	AFT urges that adult education teachers be excluded and
the District urges that division chairpersons be excluded fran
the unit.
ISSUES
1. 	Are division chairpersons appropriate to the unit?
2. 	Are adult education instructors appropriate to the unit?
~,INDINGS OF FACT
Glendale Community College District has an enrollment of
14,339 and is located in Los Angeles County.
Division Chairpersons
Division chairpersons teach on the average of 60 percent of
their 	time. 	They are elected by their peers within the
division and serve for 	a period of five years after which they
must either step down or run for 	re-election. 	There is also a
provision for 	review by the staff after serving two years of
the term.
T	½he parties stipulated to a unit of all certificated
employees including the director of athletics, 	and excluding
all supervisory, management and confidential personnel
including the coordinator of the Learning Resource and the
enabler of the handicapped.
2
On June 11, 1976, the Glendale Community College District
(District) notified the Educational Employment Relations Board
(Board or EERB) that it doubted the appropriateness of both
proposed units. Subsequently the parties agreed on an
appropriate unit with the exception of two classifications,
those of division chairperson and adult education teacher.
CTA urges that both classifications be included in the
unit. AFT urges that adult education teachers be excluded and
the District urges that division chairpersons be excluded from
the unit.
ISSUES
1. Are division chairpersons appropriate to the unit?
2. Are adult education instructors appropriate to the unit?
FINDINGS OF FACT
Glendale Community College District has an enrollment of
14, 339 and is located in Los Angeles County.
Division Chairpersons
Division chairpersons teach on the average of 60 percent of
their time. They are elected by their peers within the
division and serve for a period of five years after which they
must either step down or run for re-election. There is also a
provision for review by the staff after serving two years of
the term.
he parties stipulated to a unit of all certificated
employees including the director of athletics, and excluding
all supervisory, management and confidential personnel
including the coordinator of the Learning Resource and the
enabler of the handicapped.
2

Division chairpersons are paid on the same scale as other
teachers with an additional stipend for duties as chairperson.
Division chairpersons are not required to have an
administrative credential as required of administrative
personnel.
Division chairpersons are not part of the formal grievance
procedure. 	In fact, many of the division chairperson's
responsibilities are clerical in nature, or are of the sort
which do not require the use of independent judgment, 	such as
the preparation of semester schedules based upon information
subnitted by the staff members. 	Another example of this type
of responsibility is the budgetary duties which camnence with
staff member requests and are limited by available monies.
The chairperson participates in a a:>mmittee hiring
procedure along with other members of the staff. 	He or she
does not have authority to dismiss members of the faculty.
Ruth E. 	Davidson - 	Division Chairperson for Allied Health
During the hearing, 	testimony was taken £ran
Ruth E. 	Davidson regarding her 	role as division chairperson for
Allied Health. 	Ms. Davidson's position warrants 100 percent
release time £ran teaching, 	although periodically she does
teach one two-hour 	oourse to relieve the heavy workload on
other 	teaching nurses in the District. 	Her position is
statutory, authorized by the Nursing 	Act.
Unlike other division chairpersons who are elected by their
peers, 	the chairperson for Allied Health is selected by the
administration and a:r;proved by the Board of Nurse Examiners, 	a
3
Division chairpersons are paid on the same scale as other
teachers with an additional stipend for duties as chairperson.
Division chairpersons are not required to have an
administrative credential as required of administrative
personnel.
Division chairpersons are not part of the formal grievance
procedure. In fact, many of the division chairperson's
responsibilities are clerical in nature, or are of the sort
which do not require the use of independent judgment, such as
the preparation of semester schedules based upon information
submitted by the staff members. Another example of this type
of responsibility is the budgetary duties which commence with
staff member requests and are limited by available monies.
The chairperson participates in a committee hiring
procedure along with other members of the staff. He or she
does not have authority to dismiss members of the faculty.
Ruth E. Davidson - Division Chairperson for Allied Health
During the hearing, testimony was taken from
Ruth E. Davidson regarding her role as division chairperson for
Allied Health. Ms. Davidson's position warrants 100 percent
release time from teaching, although periodically she does
teach one two-hour course to relieve the heavy workload on
other teaching nurses in the District. Her position is
statutory, authorized by the Nursing Practice Act.
Unlike other division chairpersons who are elected by their
peers, the chairperson for Allied Health is selected by the
administration and approved by the Board of Nurse Examiners, a
3

state
agency. 	That Board
also
sets
guidelines
	for
	oourse
oontent.
Ms.
	Davidson
testified
that
she
believes
that
she has
authority
to
adjust
grievances.
	While
admitting
that
she
	tries
"persuasion" because she does
not
want
	to
give
a
direct
order,
she
stated that
she does have
authority to
do so
when
necessary.
	Furtherrrore, 	she has
successfully
recommended
the
termination
of
one
of
the
nurses
	and she has
authority
to
select classified
personnel without
the
	involvement
of
a
canrnittee
to
rule
on
the
selection.
The
division
chairperson for Allied
Health has her own
deparbnent
clerk to
perform
clerical
functions, 	unlike other
division
chairpersons
who
must
make
their
own
arrangements
for
such
clerical
work.
Adult F.ducation Teachers
Adult education teachers
report to
the ooordinator
of
parent
education or the
director of adult education,
	who
in
turn reports to
the administrative
dean
of
oontinuing
education. 	Other
	faculty
members
	report to division
chairpersons.
It
	is
possible for
	adult
education teachers to
achieve
tenure as adult
education teachers, 	but not as regular
teachers.
	While there
	is
some
tie
to the
salaries of the
regular 	instructors,
	i.e.,
	adult instructors receive 	same
percentage increase as regular 	instructors, 	adult education
teachers cannot pass the class one pay group. 	Division
chairpersons are not involved in the evaluation of adult
4
state agency. That Board also sets guidelines for course
content.
Ms. Davidson testified that she believes that she has
authority to adjust grievances. While admitting that she tries
"persuasion" because she does not want to give a direct order,
she stated that she does have authority to do so when
necessary. Furthermore, she has successfully recommended the
termination of one of the nurses and she has authority to
select classified personnel without the involvement of a
committee to rule on the selection.
The division chairperson for Allied Health has her own
department clerk to perform clerical functions, unlike other
division chairpersons who must make their own arrangements for
such clerical work.
Adult Education Teachers
Adult education teachers report to the coordinator of
parent education or the director of adult education, who in
turn reports to the administrative dean of continuing
education. Other faculty members report to division
chairpersons.
It is possible for adult education teachers to achieve
tenure as adult education teachers, but not as regular
teachers. While there is some tie to the salaries of the
regular instructors, i.e., adult instructors receive the same
percentage increase as regular instructors, adult education
teachers cannot pass the class one pay group. Division
chairpersons are not involved in the evaluation of adult

education teachers whereas they are so involved with regular
teachers.
Educational requirements are somewhat less for 	adult
education instructors in the academic specialties, although in
reality, some of the adult education teachers possess the same
credentials as the regular 	teachers.
Evidence was also presented showing that teacher hiring
procedures varied between the regular day and adult education
schools.
The evidence indicates that most of the adult education
classes are offered in locations other than the campus thereby
reducing the or:portunity for 	interaction between the adult and
the regular faculty. 	Furthermore, 	adult education teachers are
not permitted to join the Academic Senate. 	Although there are
exceptions, 	the evidence indicates that adult education
teachers do not have their CMr1 offices provided by the District
as do most regular 	instructors.
A majority of the adult education teachers do not teach
courses for college credit.
The District brief pointed out that continuing service on
the part of a large percentage of adult education instructors
gives evidence of a continuing interest 	the District.
cx:NCLUSIOOS OF LAW
Division Chairpersons
The Educational Employment Relations Act, 	Section 3540.l(m)
5
education teachers whereas they are so involved with regular
teachers.
Educational requirements are somewhat less for adult
education instructors in the academic specialties, although in
reality, some of the adult education teachers possess the same
credentials as the regular teachers.
Evidence was also presented showing that teacher hiring
procedures varied between the regular day and adult education
schools.
The evidence indicates that most of the adult education
classes are offered in locations other than the campus thereby
reducing the opportunity for interaction between the adult and
the regular faculty. Furthermore, adult education teachers are
not permitted to join the Academic Senate. Although there are
exceptions, the evidence indicates that adult education
teachers do not have their own offices provided by the District
as do most regular instructors.
A majority of the adult education teachers do not teach
courses for college credit.
The District brief pointed out that continuing service on
the part of a large percentage of adult education instructors
gives evidence of a continuing interest in the District.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Division Chairpersons
The Educational Employment Relations Act, Section 3540.1 (m)
5

defines
	"supervisory
employee"
	as:
• • • any employee,
	regardless
of
	job
description,
	having
authority
in
the
interest
of
the
employer
	to
hire,
	transfer,
suspend,
	lay
off, recall,
	prom:>te,
discharge, assign,
	reward,
	or
discipline
other
	employees,
or the
responsibility to
assign
work
	to
and
direct
them,
	or
	to adjust
their
	grievances or
	effectively
recamnend
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.
The
Board,
	in
Sweetwater Union High School, 2
held
that
	in
order
	to
find supervisory
status,
	only one
of
the
enumerated
duties
and
	responsibilities
must be found
to
exist.
In
Los Rios Ccrrmunity College
District,
3
the
Board found
that
division
chairpersons
were
supervisory
employees.
	In
that
case,
	however, 	they spent
"between
60
and 90
percent
of their
time" performing
administrative
duties,
	and were
	in
direct line
of
supervision with the administration.
	Furthermore,
	there,
the chairpersons were appointed by
the administration
and were
not permitted
to
belong
to faculty senates.
	In
addition, 	in
Los Rios
the chairpersons were a formal
part of the grievance
procedure.	ure.	proced
A review
of the
	facts
does not produce convincing evidence
that
the division chairpersons possess any
of
the above
authorities.	
As mentioned
	in the findings of fact,
	all
of the
chairpersons' 	ppear to be of a routine	ar:pear
	to
be 	a routine nature and
2
ZEERB Decision No. 4, November 23, 1976.
3
BEERB Decision No. 18, June 9, 1977.
EERB
	' 	.
	No
	4 	mbe 	23 	1976	Dec1s1on 	• 	, Nove 	r 	, 	•
EERB
	. 	. 	18 	9 	1977	Dec1s1on No. 	, June 	, 	•
6
defines "supervisory employee" as:
. . . 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.
The Board, in Sweetwater Union High School, " held that in
order to find supervisory status, only one of the enumerated
duties and responsibilities must be found to exist.
In Los Rios Community College District, the Board found
that division chairpersons were supervisory employees. In that
case, however, they spent "between 60 and 90 percent of their
time" performing administrative duties, and were in direct line
of supervision with the administration. Furthermore, there,
the chairpersons were appointed by the administration and were
not permitted to belong to faculty senates. In addition, in
Los Rios the chairpersons were a formal part of the grievance
A review of the facts does not produce convincing evidence
that the division chairpersons possess any of the above
authorities. As mentioned in the findings of fact, all of the
chairpersons' activities a 	nature and
6

do not alla.v for 	significant use of 	independent judgment.
This, 	coupled with the fact that they are elected by their
peers and may be rerroved by their peers and see themselves as
representatives of the faculty, 	is strong evidence that they
are not in direct line of authority with the administration.
Wr1ile there is evidence that the chairpersons are involved
in the selection of new hires, 	the procedure folla.ved is to
have the chairperson sit on a hiring canrnittee along with other
members of the staff and there 	is no ronvincing indication that
the chairpersons have any weight additional to that of other
members of the selection committee.
We therefore find that the division chairpersons are not
supervisory employees within the meaning of the Act.
Division Chairperson for Allied Health
The facts 	indicate that this IX)sition is unrepresentative
of division chairpersons and suggest that this division
chairperson is a supervisory employee. 	The evidence indicates
that she has authority to hire classified personnel and the
ability to successfully recommend termination of certificated
personnel.
As mentioned supra, 	the Board in SWeetwater Union High
School District, 	found that Section 3540.l(m) 	was written in
the disjunctive and therefore if a IX)Sition possesses any of
the enumerated responsibilities signifying supervisory
capacity, 	it shall be designated as supervisory and excluded
frcm the unit. 	Since the above indicia of supervisory status
were not ronvincingly rebutted this position should be excluded
frcm the unit. 7
do not allow for significant use of independent judgment.
This, coupled with the fact that they are elected by their
peers and may be removed by their peers and see themselves as
representatives of the faculty, is strong evidence that they
are not in direct line of authority with the administration.
While there is evidence that the chairpersons are involved
in the selection of new hires, the procedure followed is to
have the chairperson sit on a hiring committee along with other
members of the staff and there is no convincing indication that
the chairpersons have any weight additional to that of other
members of the selection committee.
We therefore find that the division chairpersons are not
supervisory employees within the meaning of the Act.
Division Chairperson for Allied Health
The facts indicate that this position is unrepresentative
of division chairpersons and suggest that this division
chairperson is a supervisory employee. The evidence indicates
that she has authority to hire classified personnel and the
ability to successfully recommend termination of certificated
personnel.
As mentioned supra, the Board in Sweetwater Union High
School District, found that Section 3540.1(m) was written in
the disjunctive and therefore if a position possesses any of
the enumerated responsibilities signifying supervisory
capacity, it shall be designated as supervisory and excluded
from the unit. Since the above indicia of supervisory status
were not convincingly rebutted this position should be excluded
from the unit.

Adult Education
In Belmont Elementary School District, 4 the Board held
that in order to determine who may be included in a unit of all
classroom teachers 	it must first be decided who is a classroom
teacher. 	Since "only ••• regular full-time probationary and
permanent teachers employed by a district" are classroom
teachers, 	adult education 	teachers are subjected to scrutiny on a
case-by-case basis under 	the provisions of Government Code
Section 3545. 	Such employees will be admitted to the unit only
when it can be shown that there are both a sufficient ex>rnmunity
of interest and established practices, 	and that including them
in the unit will not hinder 	the efficiency of operation of the
district.
The Board considered the question of whether or not adult
education teachers had a corrmunity of interest with regular
teachers sufficient to include them in the unit of regular
teachers in three important cases: 	Petaluma City Elementary and
High School Districts, 5 IDmp:x; Unified School District, 6
and New Haven Unified School District. 7
In Petaluma City Elementary and High School Districts, 	the
Board found that adult education teachers could not be included
in a unit with other classrocm teachers, 	in part because there
4
EERB Decision No. 7, December 30, 1976.
5
SEERB Decision No. 9, February 22, 1977.
6
BEERB Decision No. 13, March 17, 1977.
7
BERB Decision No. 14, March 22, 1977.
EERB Dec . 	. 	No	1S100 	• 7, December
EERB 	. 	. 	No	Dec1s1on 	• 9, February 22, 	1977.
. 	. 	NoEERB Dec1s1on 	• 13, March 17, 1977.
EERB 	. 	. 	No	Dec1s1on 	• 14, March 22, 	1977.
8
Adult Education
In Belmont Elementary School District," the Board held
that in order to determine who may be included in a unit of all
classroom teachers it must first be decided who is a classroom
teacher. Since "only. .. regular full-time probationary and
permanent teachers employed by a district" are classroom
teachers, adult education teachers are subjected to scrutiny on a
case-by-case basis under the provisions of Government Code
Section 3545. Such employees will be admitted to the unit only
when it can be shown that there are both a sufficient community
of interest and established practices, and that including them
in the unit will not hinder the efficiency of operation of the
district.
The Board considered the question of whether or not adult
education teachers had a community of interest with regular
teachers sufficient to include them in the unit of regular
teachers in three important cases: Petaluma City Elementary and
High School Districts, " Lompoc Unified School District,
and New Haven Unified School District.'
In Petaluma City Elementary and High School Districts, the
Board found that adult education teachers could not be included
in a unit with other classroom teachers, in part because there
8

was not sufficient evidence to alL7w reliance upon established
practices, 	and in part because there was not a canrnunity of
interest. 	There were substantial differences between adult
school teachers and regular certificated employees:
educational requirements differed, 	recruitment processes
differed, 	oourse matter 	and cost guidelines varied and
supervision differed. 	,Job security was more tenuous and tenure
lines varied.
In Ianpoc Unified School District, 	the Board again found
both that there was no record of established practices and that
there was no oormnunity of interest between the adult education
teachers and the classr<Xln teachers. 	Qualifications, 	job
security, 	teaching load ~1d tenure were all different.
Moreover, 	the Board noted that there are separate Education
Code sections to rover adult education programs.
In New Haven Unified School District, 	the Board noted that
hours, educational qualifications and school year differed for
adult education teachers. 	They were classified as substitutes,
with different 	job security ~1d tenure requirements.
In each of these cases, 	the Board held that adult education
teachers did not have a sufficient canrnunity of interest with
regular 	teachers, 	even though the facts varied considerably
among the cases. 	With such a strong precedent for exclusion
£ran the 	, 	those seeking to 	,,.,_,_,""..,''"' adult
teachers 	in a unit of all regular 	teachers must carry the
burden of sha.ving why the facts in a particular case warrant a
departure from the rule.
9
was not sufficient evidence to allow reliance upon established
practices, and in part because there was not a community of
interest. There were substantial differences between adult
school teachers and regular certificated employees:
educational requirements differed, recruitment processes
differed, course matter and cost guidelines varied and
supervision differed. Job security was more tenuous and tenure
lines varied.
In Lompoc Unified School District, the Board again found
both that there was no record of established practices and that
there was no community of interest between the adult education
teachers and the classroom teachers. Qualifications, job
security, teaching load and tenure were all different.
Moreover , the Board noted that there are separate Education
Code sections to cover adult education programs.
In New Haven Unified School District, the Board noted that
hours, educational qualifications and school year differed for
adult education teachers. They were classified as substitutes,
with different job security and tenure requirements.
In each of these cases, the Board held that adult education
teachers did not have a sufficient community of interest with
regular teachers, even though the facts varied considerably
among the cases. With such a strong precedent for exclusion
from the unit, those seeking to include adult education
teachers in a unit of all regular teachers must carry the
burden of showing why the facts in a particular case warrant a
departure from the rule.
9

In the present case, while there was evidence indicating
that many of the adult education 	teachers did have
qualifications similar 	to those of their 	regular oounterparts,
and while there was considerable stability in the adult school
staff indicating oontinuing interest in the District, 	these
facts were insufficient to rebut the presumption raised by
Board precedent. 	'AB in all three of the above cases, 	adult
education teachers here were subject to different tenure
requirements. 	Their educational requirements are different
than those for 	regular faculty. 	Their hiring procedures vary.
11hey teach at different sites.
CTA, 	in its brief, 	urges that rather than use the Board
cases cited above, we should use the criteria established in
KalamazCX> Paper Box, 	Inc., 	136 NLRB 134, 	137; 	49 L...-CWM 1715
(1962) 	cited by the ooncurring and dissenting opinion in
Sweetwater Union High School District.8 When oonsidering the
question of corrmunity of interest, 	the National Labor Relations
Board held that:
Factors which warranted consideration in
determining the existence of substantial
differences in interests and working
conditions included: 	a difference in method
of wages or compensation; 	different hours of
work; 	different 6nployment benefits;
separate supervision; 	the degree of
diss1~ilar qualifications; 	training and
skills; differences in job functions and
amount of working time spent away fran the
6nployment or plant sites under State and
Federal regulations; 	the infrequency or lack
8
BEERB Decision No. 4, November 23, 1976.	EERB Decision No. 	4, November 23, 	1976.
10
In the present case, while there was evidence indicating
that many of the adult education teachers did have
qualifications similar to those of their regular counterparts,
and while there was considerable stability in the adult school
staff indicating continuing interest in the District, these
facts were insufficient to rebut the presumption raised by
Board precedent. As in all three of the above cases, adult
education teachers here were subject to different tenure
requirements. Their educational requirements are different
than those for regular faculty. Their hiring procedures vary.
They teach at different sites.
CTA, in its brief, urges that rather than use the Board
cases cited above, we should use the criteria established in
Kalamazoo Paper Box, Inc., 136 NRB 134, 137; 49 LRRM 1715
(1962) cited by the concurring and dissenting opinion in
Sweetwater Union High School District. When considering the
question of community of interest, the National Labor Relations
Board held that:
Factors which warranted consideration in
determining the existence of substantial
differences in interests and working
conditions included: a difference in method
of wages or compensation; different hours of
work; different employment benefits;
separate supervision; the degree of
dissimilar qualifications; training and
skills; differences in job functions and
amount of working time spent away from the
employment or plant sites under State and
Federal regulations; the infrequency or lack
10

of
contact
with
other
	employees;
	lack
of
integration
with
the
work
functions
of
other
employees
or 	interchange with
them; 	and
the
history of
bargaining.
It
a:ppears
	that
	this
	indeed
may
be
a
reasonable
guideline;
the
Kalamazoo Paper
Box
criteria
have been
cited
with approval,
and
the
EERB
will
examine
NLRB
precedent
	to
the
extent
a:pplicable. 9
HCMever,
	here, as indicated
above,
	the
weight
of
the
evidence
establishes
a
lack
of
the
canmunity
of
	interest
urged by CI'A.
For
	these reasons,
	it
is
the
proi;x:>sed
decision
that
adult
education
instructors
	are inappropriate
to
the
unit
and should
be excluded.
PROPOSED ORDER
It
	is
the
Proposed Decision
that:
1.
	The
position
of
division
chairperson
is
not supervisory
with the
meaning
of
Section
3540.l(rn)
	of the
EE:RA,
	with the
exception
of
	the
division
chairperson for Allied
Health which
is
supervisory and
shall
therefore
be excluded
fran
the
unit.
2. 	Adult education teachers
do
not
have
sufficient
a:mnunity
of
	interest
with regular 	teachers	
and
therefore
shall
be
	excluded from
the unit.
3.
	P...11
other
	certificated
employees
shall
be included
in
the unit
according
to the stipulations of the
parties.
The parties have seven (7) calendar days from receipt of
this Proposed Decision in which to file exceptions in
The
parties
have seven 	(7) 	calendar days frcm
receipt
of
Proposed Decision
	to 	exceptions
9
Firefighters Union v. City of Vallejo, 12 C3d 608 	(1964).
11
of contact with other employees; lack of
integration with the work functions of other
employees or interchange with them; and the
history of bargaining.
It appears that this indeed may be a reasonable guideline;
the Kalamazoo Paper Box criteria have been cited with approval,
and the EERB will examine NLRB precedent to the extent
applicable. However , here, as indicated above, the weight
of the evidence establishes a lack of the community of interest
urged by CTA.
For these reasons, it is the proposed decision that adult
education instructors are inappropriate to the unit and should
be excluded.
PROPOSED ORDER
It is the Proposed Decision that:
1. The position of division chairperson is not supervisory
with the meaning of Section 3540.1(m) of the EERA, with the
exception of the division chairperson for Allied Health which
is supervisory and shall therefore be excluded from the unit.
2. Adult education teachers do not have sufficient
community of interest with regular teachers and therefore shall
be excluded from the unit.
3. All other certificated employees shall be included in
the unit according to the stipulations of the parties.
'Firefighters Union v. City of Vallejo, 12 C3d 608 (1964).
11

accordance
with
California
Administrative
Code,
	Title
8,
Section
	33380.
	If
	no
party
files
	timely
exceptions,
	this
Proposed. Decisioo
will
become a
final
order
on December 21,
1977, and a
Notice
of
Decision
will
	issue fran
the
Board.
Within
ten
	(10)
	w:::>rkdays
after
	the
employer
posts
	the
Notice
of
Decision, 	the
employee
organizations
shall
derronstrate
	to
the
Regiooal
Director
	at least
30
percent
sufPC)rt
	in the
	units
	herein
determined or
	earlier
	agreed
UfX)n.
The Regional
Director
	shall
conduct an
election
at
	the end
of
the posting
pericrl
	if
	(1)
	more than one employee
organization
qualifies
for 	the
ballot
	in
a
unit
or
	(2)
	only
one employee
organization
qualifies
for 	the
ballot
in
a
unit
and
the
anployer cbes
not grant
voluntary recognition*
to that
employee
organization.
The
date
	used
to establish
the
number
of
employees
	in the
above
	units
shall
be
the date of
	this
Proposed Decision t.mless
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 8, 	1977
Carol Ann Webster
Hearing Officer
Carol Ann Webster
Hearing Officer
-AVoluntary reoognition can only be granted to an employee
organizatioo which demonstrates a majority showing of interest
in the appropriate unit. 	See Gov. Code Sec. 	3544 and 3544.1.
12
accordance with California Administrative Code, Title 8,
Section 33380. If no party files timely exceptions, this
Proposed Decision will become a final order on December 21,
1977, and a Notice of Decision will issue from the Board.
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 units herein determined or earlier agreed upon.
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 in a unit or (2) only one employee
organization qualifies for the ballot in a unit and the
employer does not grant voluntary recognition* to that employee
organization.
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 8, 1977
*Voluntary recognition can only be granted to an employee
organization which demonstrates a majority showing of interest
in the appropriate unit. See Gov. Code Sec. 3544 and 3544.1.
12