Dinuba Public Schools (PERB 0091E)

STATE
	OF
	CALIFORNIA
DECISION
	OF 	THE
PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_____________________
)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
DINUBA
	PUBLIC
	SCHOOLS,
Employers,
and
CALIFORNIA
	SCHOOL
	EMPLOYEES
	ASSOCIATION,
DINUBA CHAPTER NO.
	152,
Employee
	Organization.
Case
	No.
	S-R-171
PERB
	Decision
	No. 	91
April
	2, 	1979
Appearances:	
James 	C. 	Romo,
	Attorney 	(Paterson
	and
	Taggart)
	forthe
	Dinuba
	Public
	Schools; 	Richard
	Sanchez,
	Field 	Representative
and
	Forrest
	D.
	Fauchier,
	Field 	Director 	for
	the
	California
	School
Employees
	Association,
	Dinuba
	Chapter
	No.
	152.
Before
	Gluck,
	Chairperson;
	Gonzales,
	Member.
DECISION	DECISION
This
	matter
	is
	before 	the 	Public
	Employment
	Relations
	Board
(hereafter
	PERB
	or
	Board) 	on
	exceptions 	to 	the 	hearing
	officer's
decision 	in
	a
	unit 	clarification
	case
	jointly
	brought
	by
	the
Dinuba
	Public
	Schools
	(hereafter
	Dinuba) 	and
	the 	California
School
	Employees
	Association,
	Dinuba
	Chapter
	No. 	152
	(hereafter
CSEA). 	The
	exceptions 	are 	directed
	to 	the 	finding 	of 	the 	hearing
officer 	that 	five 	secretaries 	are 	not 	confidential
	employees
within 	the
	meaning
	of 	the 	Educational
	Employment
	Relations 	Act.
1
The 	Board 	has
	considered 	the 	record
	and
	the 	attached 	proposed
decision 	in 	light 	of 	Dinuba's 	exceptions.
1The
	Educational
	Employment
	Relations 	Act
	is 	codified 	at
Government 	Code
	section
	3540
	et 	seq.
DINUBA PUBLIC SCHOOLS,
Employers, 	Case No. S-R-171
and 	PERB Decision No. 91
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,
DINUBA CHAPTER NO. 152, April 2, 1979
Employee Organization.
Appearances: James C. Romo, Attorney (Paterson and Taggart) for
the Dinuba Public Schools; Richard Sanchez, Field Representative
and Forrest D. Fauchier, Field Director for the California School
Employees Association, Dinuba Chapter No. 152.
Before Gluck, Chairperson; Gonzales, Member.
This matter is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(hereafter PERB or Board) on exceptions to the hearing officer's
decision in a unit clarification case jointly brought by the
Dinuba Public Schools (hereafter Dinuba) and the California
School Employees Association, Dinuba Chapter No. 152 (hereafter
CSEA) . The exceptions are directed to the finding of the hearing
officer that five secretaries are not confidential employees
within the meaning of the Educational Employment Relations Act.
The Board has considered the record and the attached proposed
decision in light of Dinuba's exceptions.
The Educational Employment Relations Act is codified at
Government Code section 3540 et seq.

The
	Board
	is
	in 	substantial
	agreement
	with 	the
	hearing
officer's
	findings 	of
	fact
	and
	conclusions
	of
	law.
	The
	Board
	is
also
	in 	substantial
	agreement
	with 	the
	decision
	as
	a
	whole,
except
	insofar
	as
	the 	hearing
	officer
	proposes
	the
	manner
	in
which 	Dinuba
	could
	assign
	work
	to
	its
	clerical 	staff,
	and
	how
Dinuba
	can
	achieve 	the 	goal
	of
	keeping
	its
	principals
	involved
in 	negotiations
	without
	revealing
	confidential 	negotiating
materials
	to
	their 	secretaries.
	The
	scope
	of
	the 	Board's
jurisdiction
	does
	not
	extend 	to 	suggesting 	or
	directing
	the
	manner
in
	which 	employers
	and 	employee
	organizations 	maintain 	the
confidentiality
	of
	negotiations.
	The
	formulation 	of
	such
	strategies
is
	within 	the
	sole
	discretion
	of 	the
	employers 	and
	the
	organizations,
and
	the
	Board
	expressly
	disavows 	any
	discussion 	of 	the
	hearing
officer 	relating
	to 	these 	matters.
ORDER
Upon
	the 	foregoing 	findings 	of
	fact,
	conclusions
	of
	law,
	and
the
	entire
	record 	of
	this
	case, 	except 	as 	hereinabove
	noted,
	it
is
	hereby
	ORDERED
that
	the 	five
	school
	secretaries 	are 	not
confidential
	employees
	within 	the
	meaning
	of
	Government 	Code
section 	3540.l(b)
	and
	are 	therefore 	properly 	included with 	the
classified 	emp~ees'
	bargaining
	unit.
By :/ Harry Gluck, Chairperson
son 	Raymond J. Gonzales, Member
,,	
I
4)
Chai~\er
The Board is in substantial agreement with the hearing
officer's findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Board is
also in substantial agreement with the decision as a whole,
except insofar as the hearing officer proposes the manner in
which Dinuba could assign work to its clerical staff, and how
Dinuba can achieve the goal of keeping its principals involved
in negotiations without revealing confidential negotiating
materials to their secretaries. The scope of the Board's
jurisdiction does not extend to suggesting or directing the manner
in which employers and employee organizations maintain the
confidentiality of negotiations. The formulation of such strategies
is within the sole discretion of the employers and the organizations,
and the Board expressly disavows any discussion of the hearing
officer relating to these matters.
ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
the entire record of this case, except as hereinabove noted, it
is hereby ORDERED that the five school secretaries are not
confidential employees within the meaning of Government Code
section 3540.1 (b) and are therefore properly included with the
classified employees' bargaining unit.

PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
OF THE 	STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_____________________ )
PROPOSED 	DECISION
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DINUBA 	PUBLIC 	SCHOOLS,
Employers,
and
CALIFORNIA 	SCHOOL 	EMPLOYEES 	ASSOCIATION,)
DINUBA 	CHAPTER NO. 	152,
Employee 	Organization.
Representation
Case 	No. 	S-R-171
PROPOSED DECISION
(6/13/78)
Appearances: 	James 	C. 	Romo, 	Attorney 	(Paterson 	and Taggart),
for 	the 	Dinuba 	Public 	Schools; 	Richard 	Sanchez, 	Field
Representative, 	and 	Forrest 	D. 	Fauchier, 	Field Director,
for 	the 	California 	School 	Employees 	Association, 	Dinuba
Chapter 	No. 	152.
Before Ronald 	E. 	Blubaugh, 	Hearing 	Officer.
PROCEDURAL 	HISTORY
This 	unit 	clarification 	case 	raises 	the 	issue 	of whether
five 	school 	secretaries 	are 	confidential 	employees.
In 	this 	case, 	the 	parties 	by mutual 	agreement 	already
have 	excluded 	from 	the negotiating 	unit 	the 	secretary 	to 	the
superintendent, 	the 	secretary 	to 	the 	assistant 	superintendent,
and 	the 	secretary 	to 	the 	business 	manager 	and 	the 	secretary
who 	takes 	minutes 	during 	the 	negotiating 	sessions. 	The
employer 	desires 	also 	to 	exclude 	five 	secretaries 	to 	the
building 	principals. 	The 	employee 	organization 	opposes 	this
plan.
-1-
DINUBA PUBLIC SCHOOLS,
Employers , 	Representation
and 	Case No. S-R-171
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, )
DINUBA CHAPTER NO. 152,
Employee Organization. (6/13/78)
Appearances: James C. Romo, Attorney (Paterson and Taggart),
for the Dinuba Public Schools; Richard Sanchez, Field
Representative, and Forrest D. Fauchier, Field Director,
for the California School Employees Association, Dinuba
Chapter No. 152.
Before Ronald E. Blubaugh, Hearing Officer.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This unit clarification case raises the issue of whether
five school secretaries are confidential employees.
In this case, the parties by mutual agreement already
have excluded from the negotiating unit the secretary to the
superintendent, the secretary to the assistant superintendent,
and the secretary to the business manager and the secretary
who takes minutes during the negotiating sessions . 	The
employer desires also to exclude five secretaries to the
building principals. The employee organization opposes this
plan.
- 1-

Because
	the
	parties
	were
	unable
	to
	agree
	on
	the
	proposed
exclusion
	of
	the 	five
	secretaries,
	they 	submitted 	the
	dispute
to
	the 	Public
	Employment
	Relations
	Board.
1 A
hearing
	was
conducted
	in
	this
	matter
	in
	Dinuba
	on
	January
	5,
	19
78.
FINDINGS
	OF
	FACT
There
	are
	two
	s.chool
	districts
	involved
	in
	this
	case:
the
	Dinuba
	Elementary
	School
	District
	and
	the
	Dinuba
	Joint
Union 	High
	School
	District.
2
The
	Districts
	are
	common
	admin-
istration
	school
	districts
	which 	have
	two
	separate
	boards
	of
education but 	share
	the
	same
	superintendent
	and
	the
	same
assistant
	superintendent.
	Each
	district
	pays
	one-half
	of
	the
salary 	of
	the
	two
	common
	administrators.
	At
	the
	start
	of
	the
hearing, 	the
	Districts
	and
	the
	California
	School
	Employees
Association,
	Dinuba
	Chapter
	No.
	152,
-
3
entered 	into
	the
following
	stipulation:
That
	the
	Dinuba
	Joint
	Union 	High
	School
District
	and
	the
	Dinuba
	Elementary 	School
District
	are
	employers
	within 	the
	meaning
of
	Government
	Code
	Section 	3540.l(k)4	
and
1
The
	hearing
	was
	conducted under 	the 	authority 	of
	8
	CaliforniaAdministrative
	Code
	33260, 	as
	a
	petition 	for
	a
	change
	in 	unitdetermination.
2
Hereafter, 	the
	Dinuba 	Elementary 	School
	District
	and
	the
	Dinuba
Joint
	Union 	High
	School
	District will
	be
	referred 	to
	as
	the
"Districts."
3
Hereafter, 	the 	California
	School 	Employees
	Association,
	Dinuba
Chapter
	No.
	152,
	will
	be
	referred 	to 	as
	"CSEA. 11
4
Government 	Code
	section 	3540.l(k) 	provides 	as 	follows:
"Public 	school 	employer" 	or 	"employer" means
	the
governing board 	of
	a
	school 	district,
	a
	school
district,
	a 	county 	board 	of 	education, 	or
	a 	county
superintendent 	of 	schools.
-2-
Because the parties were unable to agree on the proposed
exclusion of the five secretaries, they submitted the dispute
to the Public Employment Relations Board. * A hearing was
conducted in this matter in Dinuba on January 5, 1978.
FINDINGS OF FACT
There are two school districts involved in this case:
the Dinuba Elementary School District and the Dinuba Joint
Union High School District. The Districts are common admin
istration school districts which have two separate boards of
education but share the same superintendent and the same
assistant superintendent. Each district pays one-half of the
salary of the two common administrators. At the start of the
hearing, the Districts and the California School Employees
Association, Dinuba Chapter No. 152, 	entered into the
following stipulation:
That the Dinuba Joint Union High School
District and the Dinuba Elementary School
District are employers within the meaning
of Government Code Section 3540.1 (k) 4 and
The hearing was conducted under the authority of 8 California
Administrative Code 33260, as a petition for a change in unit
determination.
Hereafter, the Dinuba Elementary School District and the Dinuba
Joint Union High School District will be referred to as the
"Districts.'
'Hereafter, the California School Employees Association, Dinuba
Chapter No. 152, will be referred to as "CSEA."
"Government Code section 3540.1(k) provides as follows:
"Public school employer" or "employer" means the
governing board of a school district, a school
district, a county board of education, or a county
superintendent of schools.
- 2-

that
	for
	the 	purpose
	of negotiations
	the
Boards
	of
	Education
	for
	each
	District
combine
	to
	negotiate
	with 	the
	classified
~mployees
	of
	the
	Districts
	as
	a
	joint
employer
	and
	that
	the
	classified
	employees
desire
	to 	continue 	to
	negotiate
	with 	the
Districts
	as
	a
	joint
	employer 	and
	therefore
join
	in
	this 	stipulation.5
The
	Districts
	recognized
	CSEA
	as
	the 	exclusive
	represent-
ative 	of
	a
	negotiating 	unit 	of
	all
	regular
	classified
	employees,
with 	various
	named
	exclusions,
	at
	a
	joint
	board meeting
	on
May
	11,
	1977.
6
The
	Districts
	are 	located 	in 	the
	central
	portion 	of 	the
San
	Joaquin 	Valley.
	They
	cover
	a
	geographical 	area
	of
	between
25
	and
	30
	square
	miles.
	In
	the
	1976-77
	school
	year, 	the
elementary
	district
	had 	an
	average
	daily
	attendance
	of
	about
2,020
	students
	and
	the 	high 	school
	district
	had
	an
	average
daily 	attendance
	of
	about 	1,130
	students. 	Collectively, 	the
5
Because
	of 	the 	complicating
	factor 	of 	the
	two
	employers,
	the
hearing
	was
	closed with 	the 	"understanding
	[
that]
	the
	record
of 	today's
	proceedings
	is
	concluded
	subject 	to
	a
	possible
reopening
	of 	the 	record
	later."
	The
	parties
	were
	provided
with
	this 	notice 	that
	the 	hearing
	officer
would 	reopen
	thecase
	if 	it
	became
	necessary 	to 	take
	further
	evidence
	on
	the
status 	of
	the
	two
	employers.
6
The
	recognition
	agreement,
	signed
by
	the
	parties
	on
	that
	same
date, 	provides 	in 	part
	as 	follows:
It
	is 	also 	agreed
	that 	the 	Chapter
	152
	will
	requestthe
	Employer 	Employee
	Relations
	Board
	to
	make 	a
determination 	of 	the 	appropriateness 	of building
principals 	secretaries
	as
	confidential
	employees.
Both
	parties 	to 	this
	agreement
	will
	uphold 	any
decision
	made
	by
	the
	Employer 	Employee
	RelationsBoard.
In 	accord with 	this
	agreement,
	CSEA
	filed
	a
	request
	w:Lth
	theSacramento 	Regional 	Director
	on 	June 	14, 	1977, 	asking 	that
	a
hearing 	be 	held 	to 	determine 	the 	status 	of 	the 	five 	secretaries.
-3-
that for the purpose of negotiations the
Boards of Education for each District
combine to negotiate with the classified
employees of the Districts as a joint
employer and that the classified employees
desire to continue to negotiate with the
Districts as a joint employer and therefore
join in this stipulation. 5
The Districts recognized CSEA as the exclusive represent-
ative of a negotiating unit of all regular classified employees,
with various named exclusions, at a joint board meeting on
May 11, 1977.6
The Districts are located in the central portion of the
San Joaquin Valley. They cover a geographical area of between
25 and 30 square miles. In the 1976-77 school year, the
elementary district had an average daily attendance of about
2,020 students and the high school district had an average
daily attendance of about 1, 130 students. Collectively, the
Because of the complicating factor of the two employers, the
hearing was closed with the "understanding [that] the record
of today's proceedings is concluded subject to a possible
reopening of the record later." The parties were provided
with this notice that the hearing officer would reopen the
case if it became necessary to take further evidence on the
status of the two employers.
The recognition agreement, signed by the parties on that same
date, provides in part as follows:
It is also agreed that the Chapter 152 will request
the Employer Employee Relations Board to make a
determination of the appropriateness of building
principals secretaries as confidential employees.
Both parties to this agreement will uphold any
decision made by the Employer Employee Relations
Board.
In accord with this agreement, CSEA filed a request with the
Sacramento Regional Director on June 14, 1977, asking that a
hearing be held to determine the status of the five secretaries.
- 3-

Districts
	employed
	152
	certificated
	and
	157
	classified
employees
	to 	operate 	five
	elementary
	schools,
	a
	high
	school
and
	a
	continuation
	high
	school.
In
	their
	claim
	that
	the
	five
	secretaries
	are
	confidential
employees,
	the
	Districts
	rely
	heavily
	on
	the
	relationship
	the
secretaries
	have
	to
	members
	of
	the
	Districts'
	management
	and
negotiating
	teams.
The
	management 	team
	is
	a
	20-person
	body which 	meets	-	
bi-
weekly
	to
	discuss 	various 	matters 	involving
	the
	operation 	of
the
	Districts.
	Topics
	of 	discussion
	range
	from
	the
	advisability
of
	hiring
	a
	teacher's
	aide
	at
	a
	particular
	school 	to 	the
Districts'
	budgets.
	One
	subject 	regularly
	discussed-	
is
	nego-
tiations.
	At 	management
	team
	meetings, 	various
	administrators
give
	reports
	about
	activities
	which
	they
	supervise.
	It
	also
is
	common
	that
	the
	management 	team
	members
	engage
	in
	a
	kind
of 	roundtable 	discussion
	about
	any
	matter 	affecting
	the
Districts
	and
	that
	they
	discuss 	various
	policies 	affecting
the 	operation 	of 	the
	Districts.
The 	members
	of 	the
	management 	team
	are: 	the 	superintendent
and
	assistant
	superintendent, 	the 	high 	school
	principal
	and
vice 	principal,
	the 	principal 	of 	the 	continuation 	high 	school,
the 	high 	school
	dean
	of 	students, 	three 	elementary 	school
principals, 	the 	junior
	high 	school
	principal
	and
	vice 	principal,
the 	business 	manager,
	the 	director 	of 	finance, 	the 	director 	of
federal
	and
	special
	funded
	projects, 	the 	supervisor 	of 	building
and 	grounds 	and 	the 	supervisor 	of 	transportation, 	the 	director
of 	food 	services 	and 	three 	high 	school 	counselors.
-4-
Districts employed 152 certificated and 157 classified
employees to operate five elementary schools, a high school
and a continuation high school.
In their claim that the five secretaries are confidential
employees, the Districts rely heavily on the relationship the
secretaries have to members of the Districts' management and
negotiating teams.
The management team is a 20-person body which meets bi
weekly to discuss various matters involving the operation of
the Districts. Topics of discussion range from the advisability
of hiring a teacher's aide at a particular school to the
Districts' budgets. One subject regularly discussed is nego
tiations. At management team meetings, various administrators
give reports about activities which they supervise. It also
is common that the management team members engage in a kind
of roundtable discussion about any matter affecting the
Districts and that they discuss various policies affecting
the operation of the Districts.
The members of the management team are: the superintendent
and assistant superintendent, the high school principal and
vice principal, the principal of the continuation high school,
the high school dean of students, three elementary school
principals, the junior high school principal and vice principal,
the business manager, the director of finance, the director of
federal and special funded projects, the supervisor of building
and grounds and the supervisor of transportation, the director
of food services and three high school counselors.
-4-

The
	management
	team
	is
	used
	as
	a
	source
	of
	ideas
	for
management
	negotiations
	proposals
	and
	as
	a
	sounding
	board
	for
advice
	about
	employee
	organization 	proposals.
	Principals,
for
	example,
	have 	been
	asked
	to
	review
	the
	existing 	contract
between
	the
	Districts
	and
	the
	Dinuba
	Teachers
	Association
	and
offer
	suggestions
	about 	changes.
	Principals
	have
	responded
with 	suggestions 	both
	in
	writing
	and
	orally 	at
	management
	team
meetings.
	When
	such
	suggestions 	are 	offered,
	the
	20
	members
of 	the
	team
	discuss 	the 	proposals, 	deciding
	which 	ones
	have
sufficient
	merit 	to
	be
	pursued.
	The
	proposals
	found
	meritorious
are
	passed 	onto
	the
	boards
	of
	education
	which
	then 	decide 	whether
or not
	to
	instruct
	the
	negotiating
	team
	to 	pursue
	them.
Sometimes,
	the
	Districts'
	negotiator,
	David
	Creighton,
has
	attended 	the
	meetings
	of 	the
	management
	team.
	On
	those
occasions
	he
	has
	talked
	about
	"possible
	strategies"
	for
	nego-
tiations,
	although
	he
	has 	never 	been 	so
	explicit
	with
	the
management 	team
members
	as
	to
	give
	them
	a
	written
	copy
	of
this 	strategy.
	While
	Mr.
	Creighton 	gets 	information
	from
	the
management 	team which 	he
	uses
	to
	develop
	proposals 	for 	the
Districts,
	he
	receives 	the
	negotiating
	parameters
	directly
from
	the boards 	of 	education.
The
	assistant
	superintendent, 	Clinton 	Cates,
	said
	some
of 	the 	information 	discussed 	at 	the
	management 	team meetings
is
	considered by 	the 	Districts 	to
	be
	confidential 	information
while 	other 	information 	is 	not.
	He
	said 	all
	matters 	relating
to 	negotiations 	are 	considered 	confidential. 	After 	each
-5-
The management team is used as a source of ideas for
management negotiations proposals and as a sounding board for
advice about employee organization proposals. Principals,
for example, have been asked to review the existing contract
between the Districts and the Dinuba Teachers Association and
offer suggestions about changes. Principals have responded
with suggestions both in writing and orally at management team
meetings . 	When such suggestions are offered, the 20 members
of the team discuss the proposals, deciding which ones have
sufficient merit to be pursued. The proposals found meritorious
are passed onto the boards of education which then decide whether
or not to instruct the negotiating team to pursue them.
Sometimes, the Districts' negotiator, David Creighton,
has attended the meetings of the management team. On those
occasions he has talked about "possible strategies" for nego-
tiations, although he has never been so explicit with the
management team members as to give them a written copy of
this strategy. While Mr. Creighton gets information from the
management team which he uses to develop proposals for the
Districts, he receives the negotiating parameters directly
from the boards of education.
The assistant superintendent, Clinton Cates, said some
of the information discussed at the management team meetings
is considered by the Districts to be confidential information
while other information is not. He said all matters relating
to negotiations are considered confidential. After each
-5 -

meeting
	of 	the
	manageG,ent
	team,
	Mr.
	Cates
	prepares
	a
	set
	of
minutes 	about
	occurrences
	at 	that
	meeting.
	Each
	principal
and
	each
	member
	of
	the
	team
	receives
	a
	copy
	of
	those 	minutes,
if
	possible
	by
	the
	day
	after
	the 	meeting.
	The
	minutes
	are
	not
posted
	for
	general 	information.
	Other
written
	materials
	which
have 	been
	sent
	to
	principals
	and
	members
	of
	the
	management
team
	include
	such
	documents 	as
	a
	letter
	from
	Mr.
	Cates
	encour-
aging
	all
	principals
	to
	keep
	careful
	records
	about
	faculty
members
	who
	do
	not
	attend 	faculty
	meetings
	or
	who
	arrive
	late.
The
	Districts
	have
	two
	negotiating
	teams,
	one
	to 	deal
with
	certificated
	employees 	and
	the 	other 	to
	deal 	with
	classi-
fied
	employees.
	One
	person,
	David
	Creighton, 	belongs
	to 	both
teams.
	He
	is
	a
	private 	consultant 	hired
	by
	the
	Districts
	to
assume
	the
	principal 	responsibility
	for
	negotiations.
In
	addition 	to
	Mr.
	Creighton, 	the
	members
	of 	the
	1977
certificated
	negotiating
	team were
	the
	dean
	of 	students, 	the
federal 	projects 	director
	and
	the
	principal 	of
	an
	elementary
school
	who
	substituted 	for
	the
	federal 	projects 	director
during
	two
	months
	when
	she
	was
	absent.
	When
	the 	federal
projects 	director
	was
	present,
	she 	took 	minutes
	of
	the 	nego-
tiating
	sessions.
	During
	the
	two
	months 	she
	was
	absent, 	her
replacement
	--
	elementary 	school
	principal
vlendell 	Bayless
	--
took
	the 	minutes. 	In
	addition 	to
	Mr.
	Creighton, 	the
	members
of 	the
	1977
	classified negotiating
	team were
	the 	director 	of
maintenance 	and
	operations
	and
	a
	secretary
	who
	took 	the 	minutes.
The
	secretary
	who
	took 	the 	minutes 	has 	been 	excluded 	from
	the
classified 	unit 	by 	agreement 	of 	the 	parties.
-6-
meeting of the management team, Mr. Cates prepares a set of
minutes about occurrences at that meeting. 	Each principal
and each member of the team receives a copy of those minutes,
if possible by the day after the meeting. 	The minutes are not
posted for general information. 	Other written materials which
have been sent to principals and members of the management
team include such documents as a letter from Mr. Cates encour-
aging all principals to keep careful records about faculty
members who do not attend faculty meetings or who arrive late.
The Districts have two negotiating teams, one to deal
with certificated employees and the other to deal with classi-
fied employees. One person, David Creighton, belongs to both
teams . 	He is a private consultant hired by the Districts to
assume the principal responsibility for negotiations .
In addition to Mr. Creighton, the members of the 1977
certificated negotiating team were the dean of students, the
federal projects director and the principal of an elementary
school who substituted for the federal projects director
during two months when she was absent. When the federal
projects director was present, she took minutes of the nego-
tiating sessions. During the two months she was absent, her
replacement -- elementary school principal Wendell Bayless --
took the minutes. In addition to Mr. Creighton, the members
of the 1977 classified negotiating team were the director of
maintenance and operations and a secretary who took the minutes.
The secretary who took the minutes has been excluded from the
classified unit by agreement of the parties.
-6 -

The 	certificated negotiating 	team held 	about 	22 	meetings
with 	employees 	during 	1977. 	Mr. 	Bayless 	attended 	approximately
eight 	to 	ten 	of 	those 	sessions, 	all 	during 	the 	summer. 	At 	the
time 	Mr. 	Bayless 	served 	on 	the 	negotiating 	team, 	his 	secretary
Bertha 	Terry was 	away 	on 	her 	summer 	vacation.
Although Mr. 	Bayless 	was 	the 	only 	principal 	who 	served
on 	a 	negotiating 	team 	in 	1977, 	the 	District 	produced 	evidence
to 	show 	that 	at 	least 	one 	other 	principal 	had 	a 	significant
input 	to 	the 	negotiating 	process. 	The 	District 	also 	produced
evidence 	to 	show 	that 	all 	principals 	have 	access 	to 	information
which 	is 	considered 	confidential, 	although 	it 	does 	not 	neces-
sarily 	relate 	to 	meeting 	and negotiating.
The 	Districts' 	principals 	are 	the 	chief 	administrators
in 	each 	school. 	A principal 	is 	responsible 	for 	everything
that 	occurs 	in 	a 	school. 	Principals 	evaluate 	all 	certificated
employees 	and 	provide 	information 	for 	the 	evaluation 	of 	those
classified employees 	who 	do not 	work 	directly 	under 	the 	super-
vision 	of 	the 	principals. 	They 	also 	are 	responsible 	for
curriculum 	development 	in 	their 	schools.
Aside 	from Mr. 	Bayless, 	principals 	have 	become 	involved
in 	the negotiating 	process 	only 	through 	recommendations 	to
the 	negotiators 	and 	the boards 	of 	education. 	However, 	the
recommendations 	of 	Dinuba High 	School 	Principal 	Bill Asher
had 	a 	considerable 	impact 	on negotiations 	with 	certificated
employees 	in 	1977. 	By 	a 	direct 	appeal 	to 	the boards 	of
education, 	Mr. 	Asher 	got 	the 	boards 	to 	rescind 	an 	understanding
-7-
The certificated negotiating team held about 22 meetings
with employees during 1977. Mr. Bayless attended approximately
eight to ten of those sessions, all during the summer. At the
time Mr. Bayless served on the negotiating team, his secretary
Bertha Terry was away on her summer vacation.
Although Mr. Bayless was the only principal who served
on a negotiating team in 1977, the District produced evidence
to show that at least one other principal had a significant
input to the negotiating process. 	The District also produced
evidence to show that all principals have access to information
which is considered confidential, although it does not necess
sarily relate to meeting and negotiating.
The Districts' principals are the chief administrators
in each school. A principal is responsible for everything
that occurs in a school. Principals evaluate all certificated
employees and provide information for the evaluation of those
classified employees who do not work directly under the super-
vision of the principals. They also are responsible for
curriculum development in their schools.
Aside from Mr. Bayless, principals have become involved
in the negotiating process only through recommendations to
the negotiators and the boards of education. However, the
recommendations of Dinuba High School Principal Bill Asher
had a considerable impact on negotiations with certificated
employees in 1977. By a direct appeal to the boards of
education, Mr. Asher got the boards to rescind an understanding
-7-

Mr. 	Creighton 	had 	reached with 	certificated employees 	about
class 	size. 	Using 	the 	public 	records 	of 	the 	Districts,
Mr. 	Asher 	prepared 	an 	analysis 	of 	class 	size 	in 	the 	spring
of 	1977. 	The 	analysis 	shows 	the 	teaching 	loads 	of 	various
teachers 	and 	departments 	in 	the 	high 	school. 	This 	information
was 	typed 	for Mr. 	Asher 	by 	his 	secretary, 	Syndyl 	Mullen.
Mr. 	Asher 	presented 	it 	to 	the 	boards 	of 	education 	in 	an
executive 	session.
Principals 	also 	handle 	grievances 	at 	the 	first 	level.
For 	grievances 	involving 	teachers, 	the 	aggrieved 	person 	is
required 	to 	present 	the 	grievance 	in writing 	to 	his/her
principal 	or 	designee 	within 	ten 	days 	after 	the 	occurrence
giving 	rise 	to 	the 	grievance. 	The 	principal 	is 	required 	to
reply 	in writing within 	ten 	days. 	If 	the 	grievant 	is 	not
satisfied with 	the 	principal's 	response, 	he/she 	can next 	appeal
to 	the 	superintendent 	or 	designee. 	For 	classified employees,
the 	process 	is 	similar 	except 	that 	the 	only 	classified
employees 	who would 	appeal 	to 	the 	principal 	are 	instructional
aides 	and 	secretaries 	who 	work within 	a 	school. 	If 	a 	classi-
fied 	employee 	is 	dissatisfied with 	a 	principal's 	resolution
of 	a 	grievance, 	that 	employee 	must 	appeal 	to 	the business
manager 	and 	then 	the 	superintendent.
School 	secretaries 	would 	type whatever material 	is 	pre-
pared 	for 	the 	principal's 	participation 	in 	the 	grievance.
Exactly 	how 	thi,s 	process 	works 	in 	practice 	is 	unclear because
Mr. 	Asher, 	the 	only 	principal 	to 	testify, 	has 	never had 	a
grievance 	from 	either 	classified 	or 	certificated employees.
-8-
Mr. Creighton had reached with certificated employees about
class size. 	Using the public records of the Districts,
Mr. Asher prepared an analysis of class size in the spring
of 1977. The analysis shows the teaching loads of various
teachers and departments in the high school. This information
was typed for Mr. Asher by his secretary, Syndyl Mullen.
Mr. Asher presented it to the boards of education in an
executive session.
Principals also handle grievances at the first level.
For grievances involving teachers, the aggrieved person is
required to present the grievance in writing to his/her
principal or designee within ten days after the occurrence
giving rise to the grievance. The principal is required to
reply in writing within ten days. If the grievant is not
satisfied with the principal's response, he/she can next appeal
to the superintendent or designee. For classified employees,
the process is similar except that the only classified
employees who would appeal to the principal are instructional
aides and secretaries who work within a school. If a classi-
fied employee is dissatisfied with a principal's resolution
of a grievance, that employee must appeal to the business
manager and then the superintendent.
School secretaries would type whatever material is pre-
pared for the principal's participation in the grievance.
Exactly how this process works in practice is unclear because
Mr. Asher, the only principal to testify, has never had a
grievance from either classified or certificated employees.
- 8-

The
	five
	secretaries
	whose
	status
	is 	at
	issue
	in
	this
case
	all
	work
	for
	school
	principals.
	According
	to 	the
	job
description 	for 	secretary,
	which
	was
	substantiated
	by
	testimony
at
	the 	hearing,
	a
	school
	secretary:
Types
	correspondence,
	reports,
	and
	stencils
from
	various
	rough
	draft
	materials;
	on
referral
	by
	supervisor 	or
	after
	personallyscreening
	correspondence,
	answers
	routinerequests 	for
	information
	by
	enclosing
materials
	or
	sending
	form
	letters;
	inserts
and
	extracts 	materials
	from
	subject 	matter
files, 	classifies
	material
	by
	subjectmatter
	and
	prepares
	new
	file
	folders
	as
needed;
	assists
	students
	and
	faculty 	or
	the
public
	by
	referring
	them
	to
	sources
	ofinformation 	or
	from
	personal
	knowledge;
gives 	out
	standard
	forms 	and
	explains 	the
means
	of
	completion;
	as
	required, 	receives
dictation
	involving
	technical
	terminoloty
	[sic]of
	case
	reports,
	records
	and
	correspondence,
and
	transcribes;
	answers
	requests
	for 	factual
information
	by
	consulting 	various
	available
sources
	or 	personal
	knowledge;
	maintains
informational 	or 	operational 	records;
	may
collect 	cafeteria
	money;
	may
	administer.minor
	first
	aid 	in
	absence
	of
	school 	nurse;
screens
	reports 	for
	completeness
	and
	accuracy;
may
	assist
	in 	the 	compilation 	of 	routine
reports
	from
	a
	number
	of 	established
	sources;
may
	supervise 	the
	work
	of 	student
	assistants.
Personnel 	serving 	in 	this 	class
	who
	are
working
	directly
	for 	the
	building 	Principal,Vice-Principal 	or
	Dean
	may
	be
	required 	toperform
	clerical
	tasks
	relating
	to
	employer
supervision, 	evaluation 	or 	other
	items
	of
a
	nature 	requiring 	access 	to 	information
regarding
	employer-employee
	relations.
In 	essence,
	a
	school
	secretary
	does 	whatever 	has
	to 	be
done, 	from bandaging
	a
	student's 	cut 	finger 	to 	speaking
	for
the 	principal
	when
	the 	principal 	is 	absent.
	Two
	of 	the 	five
secretaries 	testified
	during 	the hearing.
	Mrs. 	Terry, 	secretary
to 	negotiating 	committee 	member 	Wendell 	Bayless,
	testified 	that
-9-
The five secretaries whose status is at issue in this
case all work for school principals. According to the job
description for secretary, which was substantiated by testimony
at the hearing, a school secretary:
Types correspondence, reports, and stencils
from various rough draft materials; on
referral by supervisor or after personally
screening correspondence, answers routine
requests for information by enclosing
materials or sending form letters; inserts
and extracts materials from subject matter
files, classifies material by subject
matter and prepares new file folders as
needed; assists students and faculty or the
public by referring them to sources of
information or from personal knowledge;
gives out standard forms and explains the
means of completion; as required, receives
dictation involving technical terminology [sic]
of case reports, records and correspondence,
and transcribes; answers requests for factual
information by consulting various available
sources or personal knowledge; maintains
informational or operational records; may
collect cafeteria money; may administer
minor first aid in absence of school nurse;
screens reports for completeness and accuracy;
may assist in the compilation of routine
reports from a number of established sources;
may supervise the work of student assistants.
Personnel serving in this class who are
working directly for the building Principal,
Vice-Principal or Dean may be required to
perform clerical tasks relating to employer
supervision, evaluation or other items of
a nature requiring access to information
regarding employer-employee relations.
In essence, a school secretary does whatever has to be
done, from bandaging a student's cut finger to speaking for
the principal when the principal is absent. Two of the five
secretaries testified during the hearing. Mrs. Terry, secretary
to negotiating committee member Wendell Bayless, testified that
-9-

she had very
	little
	to
	do
	with
	preparation
	or
	filing
	of
	any
of his
	negotiating
	committee
	materials.
	She
	said
Mr.
	Bayless
does
	his
	own
	typing
	and he
	personally
	prepared
	all
	his
	nego-
tiating
	materials.
	She
	said
he
	does
	not
	even
	ask
	her 	to
	type
finished
	copies
	from
	his
	rough
	drafts.
	Likewise, 	she
	said,
Mr.
	Bayless
	prepares 	evaluations 	of
	certificated
	employees,
doing
	the 	typing
	himself.
	Although 	she
	does
	not
	type
	either
negotiating materials
	or
	evaluations,
	Mrs.
	Terry
	said
	the
materials
	are 	kept
	in
	a
	filing
	cabinet 	in 	the
	principal's
office
	and 	she 	has
	access
	to
	that
	filing
	cabinet.
	She
	said
she
	files
	the
	evaluations
	and 	she
	has
	access 	to 	the
	filing
cabinet 	in
	which
	Mr.
	Bayless 	keeps
	his 	negotiating 	materials.
She
	said
	she 	has 	seen
	handwritten 	notes
	Mr.
	Bayless
	kept
during
	negotiations.
	Mrs.
	Terry
	testified
	that
	Mr.
	Bayless
"probably" 	had
	discussed negotiations 	with her
	a
	few
	times.
Mrs.
	Mullen,
	secretary 	to
	Mr.
	Asher,
	testified
	that
	she
has 	typed
	teacher 	evaluations 	for
	him and
	various
	letters
	and
documents
	relating
	to 	teacher 	evaluations.
	The
	only
	negotiating
material
	she 	has 	typed
	is
	the
	class 	size 	report
	which
	Mr.
	Asher
prepared 	for 	the 	boards
	of 	education.
The
	Districts
	contend
	that
	the 	five 	secretaries 	are
confidential
	employees 	because 	school
	secretaries
	have
	access
to
	confidential 	materials. 	In 	general, 	the 	evidence
	shows
	that
the 	types 	of 	allegedly 	confidential 	materials 	to 	which
	school
secretaries
	have 	access 	are: 	Evaluations 	of 	school 	employees,
personnel 	records, 	student 	records 	including 	psychological
reports, 	and minutes 	from management 	team meetings.
-10-
she had very little to do with preparation or filing of any
of his negotiating committee materials. She said Mr. Bayless
does his own typing and he personally prepared all his nego-
tiating materials. She said he does not even ask her to type
finished copies from his rough drafts. Likewise, she said,
Mr. Bayless prepares evaluations of certificated employees,
doing the typing himself. Although she does not type either
negotiating materials or evaluations, Mrs. Terry said the
materials are kept in a filing cabinet in the principal's
office and she has access to that filing cabinet. 	She said
she files the evaluations and she has access to the filing
cabinet in which Mr. Bayless keeps his negotiating materials.
She said she has seen handwritten notes Mr. Bayless kept
during negotiations. Mrs. Terry testified that Mr. Bayless
"probably" had discussed negotiations with her a few times.
Mrs. Mullen, secretary to Mr. Asher, testified that she
has typed teacher evaluations for him and various letters and
documents relating to teacher evaluations. The only negotiating
material she has typed is the class size report which Mr. Asher
prepared for the boards of education.
The Districts contend that the five secretaries are
confidential employees because school secretaries have access
to confidential materials. In general, the evidence shows that
the types of allegedly confidential materials to which school
secretaries have access are: Evaluations of school employees,
personnel records, student records including psychological
reports, and minutes from management team meetings.
- 10-

Mrs.
	Terry,
	secretary
	to
	negotiating
	committee
	member
Mr.
	Bayless,
	also
	had
	access 	to
	the
	Districts'
	negotiating
minutes.
	The
	parties
	entered
	the 	following
	stipulation
	about
the
	negotiating
	minutes:
That
	the
	District[s]
	conducted
negotiations
with
	certificated
	employees 	and
	that
	these
negotiations
	were
	not
	open
	to 	the
	public
but
	were
	just
	open
	to 	the
	members
	of 	the
	two
negotiating
	committees;
	that
	the
	District[s]
kept
	minutes
	of
	those
	negotiating 	sessions;
that
	the 	minutes
	were
	intended 	to
	be
	an
accurate
	reflection
	and
	summary
	of
what
occurred
	at
	those
	negotiating 	sessions;
	that
the
	minutes
	. 	.
	were
	circulated
	to
	all
members
	of
	the
	negotiating
	team;
	that
	some
copies
	of
	th~ minutes
	were
	circulated
	alsoto
	all
	certificated
management
	employees;
that
	Mr.
	Bayless
	who
	is
	the
	principal
	for
whom
Mrs.
	Terry
	works
	was
	a
	meml:D.er
	of
	thatnegotiating
	committee;
	that
	he
	received
	all
copies
	of
	those 	minutes, 	approximately
	20
in
	number; 	and
	that
	Mrs.
	Terry
	as
	part
	of
her
	responsibility
	kept
	a
	file
	of 	thoseminutes
	and
	had 	access
	to
	them.
There
	was
	no
	evidence
	that
	any
	principal's 	secretary 	other
than
	Mrs.
	Terry
	had
	access 	to
	negotiations'
	minutes.
The
	Districts
	have
	a
	strike
	plan
	about
	which
	both Mrs.
Mullen 	and Mrs.
	Terry 	have 	knowledge. 	Mrs. 	Mullen
	testified
that
	she
	knew
	the 	plan
was
	kept 	in
	Mr.
	Asher's
	desk,
	in
	a
place
	she
	described 	as
	"his 	personal
	. 	.
	area 	for 	keeping
things."
	She
	learned of
	the
	strike
	plan
	when 	Mr.
	Asher
	told
her 	about
	it.
	She
	said
	it
	did not
	come
	across 	her
	desk
	at
any 	time.
	She
	testified
	she 	had never 	seen 	the 	plan, 	although
she 	knew where
	it
	was
	kept.
	Mrs. 	Terry 	said
Mr.
	Bayless
	also
has
	a
	copy
	of 	the 	strike 	plan 	but 	she 	does
	not
	know
where
	it
is 	located.
-11-
Mrs. Terry, secretary to negotiating committee member
Mr. Bayless, also had access to the Districts' negotiating
minutes . 	The parties entered the following stipulation about
the negotiating minutes:
That the District[s] conducted negotiations
with certificated employees and that these
negotiations were not open to the public
but were just open to the members of the two
negotiating committees; that the District [s]
kept minutes of those negotiating sessions;
that the minutes were intended to be an
accurate reflection and summary of what
occurred at those negotiating sessions; that
the minutes 	were circulated to all
members of the negotiating team; that some
copies of the minutes were circulated also
to all certificated management employees;
that Mr. Bayless who is the principal for
whom Mrs. Terry works was a member of that
negotiating committee; that he received all
copies of those minutes, approximately 20
in number; and that Mrs. Terry as part of
her responsibility kept a file of those
minutes and had access to them.
There was no evidence that any principal's secretary other
than Mrs. Terry had access to negotiations' minutes
The Districts have a strike plan about which both Mrs.
Mullen and Mrs. Terry have knowledge. Mrs. Mullen testified
that she knew the plan was kept in Mr. Asher's desk, in a
place she described as "his personal . 	area for keeping
things." She learned of the strike plan when Mr. Asher told
her about it. She said it did not come across her desk at
any time. She testified she had never seen the plan, although
she knew where it was kept. Mrs. Terry said Mr. Bayless also
has a copy of the strike plan but she does not know where it
is located.
-11-

Minutes 	of 	the 	management 	team meetings 	are 	sent 	to 	the
Districts' 	principals 	and 	in 	the 	normal 	course 	of 	events
would be 	opened by 	the 	secretaries 	at 	most 	schools. 	There
was 	evidence 	that 	at 	least 	one 	secretary knew 	in 	advance 	the
parameters 	which 	the boards 	of 	education had 	given 	the 	nego-
tiator 	as 	the 	"bottom 	line" 	for 	salaries. 	Mr. 	Creighton 	said
the 	secretary 	had been 	given 	that 	information by 	a 	board
member. 	He 	said 	she 	was 	a 	social 	friend 	of 	the 	board member
and 	the 	information was 	not 	given 	to 	her 	in 	connection with
her 	job. 	That 	same 	secretary 	and possibly 	one 	other 	secretary
also were 	told 	the 	salary 	negotiating 	parameters 	by 	their
building 	principal who 	provided 	the 	information 	so 	they would
be 	kept 	abreast 	of what 	he 	was 	involved with.
On 	rare 	occasion, 	both Mr. 	Asher 	and Mr. 	Bayless 	have
received materials 	marked 	"confidential." 	There 	appears 	to
be 	no 	uniform policy 	in 	the 	Districts 	about 	how 	principals'
secretaries 	should 	treat 	such 	information. 	Mrs. 	Mullen 	said
when 	she 	gets 	an 	envelope 	marked 	"confidential" 	she 	opens 	it
in 	front 	of Mr. 	Asher 	and hands 	him 	the 	envelope. 	She 	said
he 	sometimes 	tells 	her what 	was 	in 	the 	envelope 	after he
examines 	it. 	Mrs. 	Terry 	said 	she 	opens 	envelopes 	marke,~
"confidential" 	and Mr. 	Bayless 	has 	never 	instructed her 	to
the 	contrary.
Although 	only 	two 	of 	the 	school 	secretaries 	testified,
the 	uncontradicted 	evidence 	is 	that 	all 	five 	secretaries 	have
duties 	like 	the 	two who 	testified.
-12-
Minutes of the management team meetings are sent to the
Districts' principals and in the normal course of events
would be opened by the secretaries at most schools. 	There
was evidence that at least one secretary knew in advance the
parameters which the boards of education had given the nego-
tiator as the "bottom line" for salaries. Mr. Creighton said
the secretary had been given that information by a board
member. 	He said she was a social friend of the board member
and the information was not given to her in connection with
her job. That same secretary and possibly one other secretary
also were told the salary negotiating parameters by their
building principal who provided the information so they would
be kept abreast of what he was involved with.
On rare occasion, both Mr. Asher and Mr. Bayless have
received materials marked "confidential." There appears to
be no uniform policy in the Districts about how principals'
secretaries should treat such information. Mrs. Mullen said
when she gets an envelope marked "confidential" she opens it
in front of Mr. Asher and hands him the envelope . 	She said
he sometimes tells her what was in the envelope after he
examines it. Mrs. Terry said she opens envelopes marked
"confidential" and Mr. Bayless has never instructed her to
the contrary.
Although only two of the school secretaries testified,
the uncontradicted evidence is that all five secretaries have
duties like the two who testified.
-12-

LEGAL 	ISSUES
Are
	the
	five
	school
	secretaries
	confidential
	employees
as
	that
	term
	is
	defined
	in
	Government
	Code
	section 	3540.l(b)?
CONCLUSIONS
	OF
	LAlJ
Under
	the
	legislative
	scheme
	of 	the 	Educational
	Employment
Relations
	Act
7
an
	employer
	is
	allowed
	to
	have
	confidential
employees
	who
	are
	excluded
	from
	all
	negotiating
	units.
8
As
defined
	in
	Government
	Code
	section 	3540.l(b):
"Confidential
	employee"
	means 	any
	employee
who,
	in
	the
	regular
	course
	of
	his 	duties,
has
	access
	to, 	or 	possesses 	information
relating
	to, 	his
	employer's
	employer-
employee
	relations.
Persons
	found
	to 	hold
	"confidential"
	jobs 	are not
	employees
within 	the
	meaning
	of 	the
	EERA. 9
7
Government
	Code
	section
	3540
	et
	seq.
8
Government
	Code
	section
	3543.4 	reads
	as
	follows:
No
	person 	serving 	in
	a
	management
	position 	or
	a
confidential 	position 	shall
	be
	represented
	by 	an
exclusive 	representative.
	Any
	person
	serving 	in
such
	a
	position 	shall
	have
	the
	right
	to 	representhimself 	individually 	or
	by
	an 	employee
	organization
whose 	membership
	is
	composed
	entirely
	of
	employees
designated
	as
	holding
	such
	positions, 	in 	his
employment
	relationship
	with 	the 	public 	schoolemployee,
	but, 	in
	no
	case,
	shall
	such
	an
	organiza-
tion
	meet 	and
	negotiate with the 	public 	schoolemployer.
	No
	representative 	shall
	be
	permitted
by
	a
	public 	school 	employer
	to
	meet 	and
	negotiate
on 	any
	benefit 	or
	compensation 	paid 	to 	persons
serving 	in
	a
	management
	position 	or
	a
	confidential
position.
9
Government 	Code
	section 	3540.l(j) 	provides 	as 	follows:
"Public 	school 	employee" 	or 	"employee" 	means 	any
person 	employed by 	any 	public 	school 	employer
except 	persons 	elected by 	popular 	vote, 	persons
appointed by 	the 	Governor 	of 	this 	state, 	manage-
ment 	employees, 	and 	confidential 	employees.
-13-
LEGAL ISSUES
Are the five school secretaries confidential employees
as that term is defined in Government Code section 3540. 1(b) ?
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Under the legislative scheme of the Educational Employment
Relations Act an employer is allowed to have confidential
employees who are excluded from all negotiating units . As
defined in Government Code section 3540. 1(b) :
"Confidential employee" means any employee
who, in the regular course of his duties,
has access to, or possesses information
relating to, his employer's employer-
employee relations.
Persons found to hold "confidential" jobs are not employees
within the meaning of the EERA."
Government Code section 3540 et seq.
Government Code section 3543.4 reads as follows:
No person serving in a management position or a
confidential position shall be represented by an
exclusive representative. Any person serving in
such a position shall have the right to represent
himself individually or by an employee organization
whose membership is composed entirely of employees
designated as holding such positions, in his
employment relationship with the public school
employee, but, in no case, shall such an organiza-
tion meet and negotiate with the public school
employer. No representative shall be permitted
by a public school employer to meet and negotiate
on any benefit or compensation paid to persons
serving in a management position or a confidential
position.
"Government Code section 3540. 1(j) provides as follows :
"Public school employee" or "employee" means any
person employed by any public school employer
except persons elected by popular vote, persons
appointed by the Governor of this state, manage-
ment employees, and confidential employees.
-13-

The
	Public
	Employment
	Relations
	Board
has
	considered
the
	meaning
	of
	these
	sections 	in
	four
	decisions.
	In
	Sierra
Sands
	Unified
	School
	District
	(10/14/76)
	EERB
	Decision
	No.
	2,
the 	board wrote:
The
	assumption
	is 	that
	the
	employer
should
	be
	allowed
	a
	small nucleus
	of
individuals
	who
	would
	assist
	the
	employer
in
	the
	development
	of 	the 	employer's
positions 	for
	the
	purposes
	of
	employer-
employee
	relations.
	It
	is 	further
	assumed
that 	this
	nucleus
	of 	individuals
	would be
required 	to
	keep
	confidential
	those
	matters
that
	if
made
	public
	prematurely
	might
jeopardize
	the 	employer's
	ability
	to
negotiate
	with
	employees 	from 	an
	equal
posture.
The
	Board
	restated 	this
	analysis
	and
	supplemented
	it
	in
Fremont
	Unified
	School
	District
	(12/16/76)
	EERB
	Decision
No. 	6
	with 	the 	following 	observation:
"Employer-employee
	relations"
	includes,
	at
the
	least,
	employer-employee
	negotiations
and
	the 	processing
	of
	employee
	grievances.
In
	Fremont
	the
	Board
	concluded
	that
	"the
	employer's
	right
	to
the 	undivided
	loyalty 	of
	a
	nucleus
	of
	staff
	designated
	as
'confidential'
	outweighs 	the 	inherent 	denial 	of 	representation
rights 	of
	those
	employees
	designated
	as
	'confidential.'"
In 	Richland 	Elementary 	School
	District
	(9/12/77)
	EERB
Decision
	No.
	26,
	the
	Board 	adopted
	a
	hearing
	officer's
	decision
in
	which
	three 	secretaries 	to 	principals
	were 	excluded 	from 	the
unit
	as
	being 	confidential.
	In
	that 	case 	the 	hearing
	officer
relied heavily
	on
	the 	principals'
	membership 	on
	the
	District
management 	team where 	they 	participated 	in 	discussions 	about
negotiating proposals.
	The
	secretaries 	to 	the 	principals
-14-
The Public Employment Relations Board has considered
the meaning of these sections in four decisions. In Sierra
Sands Unified School District (10/14/76) EERB Decision No. 2,
the board wrote:
The assumption is that the employer
should be allowed a small nucleus of
individuals who would assist the employer
in the development of the employer's
positions for the purposes of employer-
employee relations . 	It is further assumed
that this nucleus of individuals would be
required to keep confidential those matters
that if made public prematurely might
jeopardize the employer's ability to
negotiate with employees from an equal
posture .
The Board restated this analysis and supplemented it in
Fremont Unified School District (12/16/76) EERB Decision
No. 6 with the following observation:
"Employer-employee relations" includes, at
the least, employer-employee negotiations
and the processing of employee grievances.
In Fremont the Board concluded that "the employer's right to
the undivided loyalty of a nucleus of staff designated as
'confidential' outweighs the inherent denial of representation
rights of those employees designated as 'confidential. '"
In Richland Elementary School District (9/12/77) EERB
Decision No. 26, the Board adopted a hearing officer's decision
in which three secretaries to principals were excluded from the
unit as being confidential. In that case the hearing officer
relied heavily on the principals' membership on the District
management team where they participated in discussions about
negotiating proposals. The secretaries to the principals
-14-

on
	the
	management
	team
	typed
notes
	and
	other
	documents
	relating
to
	collective 	negotiations.
on the management team typed notes and other documents relating
to collective negotiations.
Finally, 	in
	San
	Rafael
	City
	High
	School
	District
	(10/3/77)
EERB
	Decision
	No.
	32,
	the
	Board
	excluded
	three
	secretaries
	as
confidential.
	The
	secretary
	to
	the
	assistant
	superintendent
was
	excluded because
	she
	was
	responsible 	for 	preparing
	financial
projections
	used 	during
	negotiations.
	The
	secretary
	to
	the
director 	of 	instruction
was
	excluded because
	in
	the 	course
	of
typing
	district
	position
	papers
	she 	has
	access
	to 	information
about
	the
	district
	positions 	in negotiations.
	An
	intermediate
clerk-typist
	was
	excluded because
	she
	kept
	notes 	of
	all
	nego-
tiating
	sessions
	and
	typed
	and 	assembled
	proposals
	and
	counter-
proposals 	for 	the
	district.
Relying
	on
	these 	decisions,
	on
	various 	hearing
	officer
decisions
	and
	on
	decisions
	from
	several 	other
	states,
	the
Districts
	in 	the 	present
	case 	argue
	that
	the
	five
	school
secretaries
	are 	confidential
	employees.
	The
	Districts
	argue
that 	principals
	have
	a
	significant 	role 	in
	grievance 	processing
and,
	through
	membership 	on
	the
	management 	team, 	an
	important
voice 	in negotiations.
	Because
	school
	secretaries
	work
	closely
for
	principals,
	the
	Districts
	continue, 	they 	have 	typed 	and
filed 	negotiations 	materials
	and have 	access 	to 	evaluations
and
	other 	confidential 	information.
CSEA
	argues
	that 	the 	secretaries
	do
	not 	have 	access 	to
negotiations 	material.
	While 	the 	school 	secretaries
	do
	have
access 	to 	material
	from 	the
	management 	team,
	this
	same
	infor-
mation 	goes 	to 	other management 	employees 	whose
	secretaries
-15-
Finally, in San Rafael City High School District (10/3/77)
EERB Decision No. 32, the Board excluded three secretaries as
confidential. The secretary to the assistant superintendent
was excluded because she was responsible for preparing financial
projections used during negotiations. The secretary to the
director of instruction was excluded because in the course of
typing district position papers she has access to information
about the district positions in negotiations. An intermediate
clerk-typist was excluded because she kept notes of all nego-
tiating sessions and typed and assembled proposals and counter-
proposals for the district.
Relying on these decisions, on various hearing officer
decisions and on decisions from several other states, the
Districts in the present case argue that the five school
secretaries are confidential employees. The Districts argue
that principals have a significant role in grievance processing
and, through membership on the management team, an important
voice in negotiations. Because school secretaries work closely
for principals, the Districts continue, they have typed and
filed negotiations materials and have access to evaluations
and other confidential information.
CSEA argues that the secretaries do not have access to
negotiations material. While the school secretaries do have
access to material from the management team, this same infor-
mation goes to other management employees whose secretaries
-15-

the
	Districts
	are
	not
	seeking 	to
	exclude
	as
	confidential.
For
	this
	reason,
	CSEA
	argues,
	the
	Districts'
	position
	is
inconsistent.
Initially,
	it
	is
	important 	to 	note
	that
	it
	is
	a
	secretary's
work
	assignment
	which
	is
	the
	crucial
	element
	in 	determining
whether
	that 	secretary
	holds
	a
	"confidential" 	position.
	While
PERB
	decisions
	carefully
	analyze 	the
	duties 	of
	the
	secretary's
superior, 	the
	superior's
	work
	is
	important
	only
	insofar
	as
	it
causes 	the
	secretary
	to 	handle
	confidential 	materials.
	It
clearly 	is
	possible 	for
	any
	secretary
	to
	be
	placed
within
	the
negotiating 	unit, 	regardless 	of
	who
	the
	secretary
	works
	for,
if
	that 	secretary
	does
	not
	have
	access
	to
	confidential 	materials.
It
	is
	important,
	therefore,
	to 	analyze 	the
	nature 	of
	the
materials
	which
	school
	secretaries
	receive.
In
	the 	present 	case,
	all
	secretaries
	to
	principals
	have
access
	to
	employee
	evaluations,
	employee
	personnel 	records
	and
student 	records.
	However,
	none
	of
	these 	materials
	relate
	to
the
	negotiating
	process
	and
	all
	of
	them must 	be
	kept
	confidential
for 	reasons
	apart
	from
	negotiations.
	Evaluations
	and
	personnel
records
	must 	be
	kept
	private
	as
	a
	matter 	of
	good
	personnel
practice
	and
	their 	disclosure
	might
	well 	subject
	a
	school
district
	to 	legal
	liability
	for 	invasion 	of 	privacy. 	Student
records
	must 	be
	kept 	confidential
	under
	state
	law.
lO	10
Moreover,
	neither
	employee
	records 	nor 	student 	records
are 	"matters 	that
	if
	made 	pub
lie
	prematurely 	might 	jeopardize
10
see 	Education 	Code
	sec. 	49073
	et 	seq.
-16-
the Districts are not seeking to exclude as confidential.
For this reason, CSEA argues, the Districts' position is
inconsistent.
Initially, it is important to note that it is a secretary's
work assignment which is the crucial element in determining
whether that secretary holds a "confidential" position. While
PERB decisions carefully analyze the duties of the secretary's
superior, the superior's work is important only insofar as it
causes the secretary to handle confidential materials. 	It
clearly is possible for any secretary to be placed within the
negotiating unit, regardless of who the secretary works for,
if that secretary does not have access to confidential materials.
It is important, therefore, to analyze the nature of the
materials which school secretaries receive.
In the present case, all secretaries to principals have
access to employee evaluations, employee personnel records and
student records. However, none of these materials relate to
the negotiating process and all of them must be kept confidential
for reasons apart from negotiations. 	Evaluations and personnel
records must be kept private as a matter of good personnel
practice and their disclosure might well subject a school
district to legal liability for invasion of privacy. Student
records must be kept confidential under state law.
Moreover, neither employee records nor student records
are "matters that if made public prematurely might jeopardize
See Education Code sec. 49073 et seq.
-16-

the 	employer's
	ability
	to
	negotiate
	with
	employees
	from 	an
equal
	posture."
	Under
	state
	law,
	school
	districts
	cannot
prevent
	employees
	from
	seeing 	evaluations
	and most
	other
matters
	in
	their
	personnel
	files.
11
There
	is
	little
	in
personnel
	files
	which
	can be
	protected
	from
	premature
	dis-
closure
	should
	the
	employees
	involved
	desire
	to
	disclose
	it.
As
	for 	student 	records,
	they
	simply
	do
	not 	contain 	information
involved
	in
	the
	employer-employee
	relationship.
The
	most
	critical
	information 	possessed
	by
	any
	of 	the
Districts'
	secretaries
	was
	the
	bottom
	line 	negotiating
	param-
eters
	for
	1977
	salary 	increases.
	Disclosure
	of
	this
	information
would
	have 	had
	a
	definite
	adverse
	effect
	on
	the
	Districts'
negotiating 	stance.
	However,
	the
	two
	secretaries
	who
	were
told 	this
	information 	did not 	receive
	it
	"in
	the
	regular
	course"
of
	their
	duties.
	One
	was
	told
by
	a
	board
	of
	education
	member
who
	was
	a
	social 	friend.
	In
	addition, 	that 	secretary
	and 	one
other
	were
	told
	by
	a
	principal
who
	just
	wanted
	to
	keep 	them
abreast 	of
	what 	he
	was
	doing.
	The
	secretaries, 	therefore, 	did
not
	have
	a
	need
	to
	know
	the 	information
	from
	either
	source
	and
they 	got 	the 	information 	in
	a
	context 	outside
	their
	normal
working 	requirements.
In
	their
	contention 	that
	school
	secretaries 	are 	confiden-
tial
	employees, 	the
	Districts 	rely
	on 	two
	other 	types
	of
materials 	to
	which
	the 	secretaries
	have 	access
	--
	grievance
documents 	and minutes 	from management 	team meetings.
	The
11
see 	Education Code 	sec. 	44031.
-17-
the employer's ability to negotiate with employees from an
equal posture." Under state law, school districts cannot
prevent employees from seeing evaluations and most other
matters in their personnel files. 	There is little in
personnel files which can be protected from premature dis-
closure should the employees involved desire to disclose it.
As for student records, they simply do not contain information
involved in the employer-employee relationship.
The most critical information possessed by any of the
Districts' secretaries was the bottom line negotiating param-
eters for 1977 salary increases. Disclosure of this information
would have had a definite adverse effect on the Districts'
negotiating stance. However, the two secretaries who were
told this information did not receive it "in the regular course"
of their duties . 	One was told by a board of education member
who was a social friend. In addition, that secretary and one
other were told by a principal who just wanted to keep them
abreast of what he was doing. 	The secretaries, therefore, did
not have a need to know the information from either source and
they got the information in a context outside their normal
working requirements.
In their contention that school secretaries are confiden
tial employees, the Districts rely on two other types of
materials to which the secretaries have access -- 	grievance
documents and minutes from management team meetings. 	The
See Education Code sec. 44031.
- 17-

school 	principals 	are 	the 	first 	level 	of 	appeal 	in 	grievances
for 	all 	certificated employees 	and 	some 	classified employees.
So 	far 	as 	can be 	determined, 	the 	secretaries 	would have 	access
to 	the 	grievant's 	original 	statement 	of 	the 	grievance 	and 	the
principal's 	response. 	Because 	the 	grievants 	themselves 	receive
both 	of 	those 	documents, 	it 	is 	hard 	to 	imagine 	how 	they 	are
confidential.
The management 	team minutes 	present 	a 	harder 	problem.
It 	is 	undisputed 	that 	the 	20 	members 	of 	the 	management 	team
discuss 	negotiating 	strategy 	and 	review negotiating 	proposals
of 	the 	Districts 	and employee 	organizations. 	The minutes
reflect 	these 	discussions 	and 	therefore would provide 	a
source 	of 	information 	about 	the 	plans 	of 	the 	Districts.
Premature 	disclosure 	of 	this 	information would have 	an 	adverse
effect 	on 	the 	Districts' 	negotiating 	posture. 	Without 	a 	doubt
the 	management 	team minutes 	are 	confidential 	information 	and
they 	are 	sent 	to 	every 	principal 	in 	the 	Districts. 	There 	was
undisputed 	testimony 	that 	the 	school 	secretaries 	open 	envelopes
containing management 	team minutes.
However, 	if 	opening 	envelopes 	and 	filing 	minutes 	is 	all
that 	is 	required 	to 	make 	a 	secretary 	a 	confidential 	employee,
a 	public 	school 	employer probably 	could 	exclude 	every 	secretary
from 	the 	negotiating 	unit. 	All 	the 	employer would have 	to 	do
is 	to 	send 	confidential 	negotiating 	materials 	in 	an 	open manner
to 	the 	supervisors 	of 	the 	various 	secretaries. 	It 	is 	hard 	to
imagine 	that 	the 	Legislature 	intended 	the 	exclusion 	of 	confiden-
tial 	employees 	to 	apply 	to 	persons 	with 	such 	a 	casual 	and
-18-
school principals are the first level of appeal in grievances
for all certificated employees and some classified employees.
So far as can be determined, the secretaries would have access
to the grievant's original statement of the grievance and the
principal's response. Because the grievants themselves receive
both of those documents, it is hard to imagine how they are
confidential.
The management team minutes present a harder problem.
It is undisputed that the 20 members of the management team
discuss negotiating strategy and review negotiating proposals
of the Districts and employee organizations . 	The minutes
reflect these discussions and therefore would provide a
source of information about the plans of the Districts.
Premature disclosure of this information would have an adverse
effect on the Districts negotiating posture. Without a doubt
the management team minutes are confidential information and
they are sent to every principal in the Districts. There was
undisputed testimony that the school secretaries open envelopes
containing management team minutes .
However, if opening envelopes and filing minutes is all
that is required to make a secretary a confidential employee,
a public school employer probably could exclude every secretary
from the negotiating unit. All the employer would have to do
is to send confidential negotiating materials in an open manner
to the supervisors of the various secretaries. 	It is hard to
imagine that the Legislature intended the exclusion of confident
tial employees to apply to persons with such a casual and
- 18-

fleeting 	relationship
	to
	confidential 	materials.
	Persons
	who
merely
	open 	and
	file
	minutes
	are
	not
	involved
	in
	the
	development
of 	confidential 	material
	and
	they
	have
	no
	essential
	need
	to
	deal
with
	it.
	Classifying
	them
	as
	confidential
	would
	allow 	massive
abuse
	of
	the 	"small 	nucleus"
	concept
	advanced
by
	the
	PERB
	in
Sierra
	Sands
	Unified
	School
	District.
In
	the
	present
	case, 	the
	Districts
	could 	achieve
	their
goal
	of
	keeping
	principals
	involved
	in negotiations
	by
	the
simple
	expedient
	of 	placing
	the
	management 	team
minutes
	in
envelopes
	marked
	"confidential"
	and
	advising
	school
	secretaries
not
	to
	open
	those 	envelopes.
	The
	principals
	could
	file
	the
minutes
	in
	their
	own
	desk 	drawers
	just
	as
	Mr.
	Asher
	already
has
	filed
	the
	strike
	plan 	in
	a
	place 	described
by
	his 	secretary
as
	"his 	personal
	. 	.
	area 	for
	keeping
	things."
	This 	approach
would
	achieve 	the
	Districts'
	purpose
	of 	involving 	the
	principals
while 	keeping
	its
	strategies 	confidential.
	It
	also
	would
	allow
all
	secretaries 	to
	remain
	in
	the
	negotiating 	unit
	except 	those
who
	are
	clearly
	and
	regularly
	needed
	to 	handle
	confidential
materials.
Only 	one
	principal,
	Mr.
	Bayless,
	was
	involved
	directly
in negotiations.
	The
	evidence
	established 	that 	his 	secretary,
Mrs.
	Terry, 	never 	typed
	any
	materials 	relating
	to 	negotiations
and
	that
	she
	was 	away 	on 	summer
	vacation 	during 	the
	two
	months
when 	he 	belonged 	to 	the
	certificated negotiating
	team. 	The
only 	negotiating 	materials 	to 	which Mrs. 	Terry had 	access 	were
-19-
fleeting relationship to confidential materials. Persons who
merely open and file minutes are not involved in the development
of confidential material and they have no essential need to deal
with it. Classifying them as confidential would allow massive
abuse of the "small nucleus" concept advanced by the PERB in
Sierra Sands Unified School District.
In the present case, the Districts could achieve their
goal of keeping principals involved in negotiations by the
simple expedient of placing the management team minutes in
envelopes marked "confidential" and advising school secretaries
not to open those envelopes. The principals could file the
minutes in their own desk drawers just as Mr. Asher already
has filed the strike plan in a place described by his secretary
as "his personal 	area for keeping things." 	This approach
would achieve the Districts' purpose of involving the principals
while keeping its strategies confidential. It also would allow
all secretaries to remain in the negotiating unit except those
who are clearly and regularly needed to handle confidential
materials.
Only one principal, Mr. Bayless, was involved directly
in negotiations. 	The evidence established that his secretary,
Mrs. Terry, never typed any materials relating to negotiations
and that she was away on summer vacation during the two months
when he belonged to the certificated negotiating team. 	The
only negotiating materials to which Mrs. Terry had access were
-19-

minutes
	of
	the
	negotiating 	sessions.
	The
	parties 	stipulated
that
	the
	minutes
	were
	"an
	accurate
	reflection
	and
	summary"
of
	what
	occurred
	at 	negotiating
	sessions.
	They
	were
	a
	written
record 	of
	past
	events.
	It
	is
	hard
	to
	imagine,
	therefore,
	how
their
	disclosure
	could
	adversely
	affect
	the
	Districts'
	nego-
tiating
	position.
	Because
	they
	were 	an
	accurate
	reflection
of
what
	occurred
	at
	previous
	negotiating
	sessions
	their
disclosure
	would have
	told
	the
	certificated
	employee
	organiza-
tion 	precisely
what
	it
	already
	knew,
	namely, 	what
	occurred
in
	previous 	meetings.
	But 	even
	if
	the 	minutes
	were
	to
	contain
negotiating
	strategies, 	that
	still
	would
	provide
	no
	justifica-
tion 	for
	excluding
Mrs.
	Terry.
	The
	minutes 	could
	be
	sent 	to
Mr.
	Bayless
	in
	an
	envelope
	marked
	confidential
	and Mrs.
	Terry
could
	be
	instructed
not 	to
	open 	them.
Similarly with
	Mrs.
	Mullen,
	the
	secretary
	to
	Mr.
	Asher.
Mrs. 	Mullen
	did 	type
	a
	series
	of
	statistical
	documents
	which
Mr.
	Asher 	used
	in 	his 	attack
	on
	the
	class 	size
	ratio
	to
	which
the
	Districts'
	negotiator
	had 	agreed.
	The
	information
	on
	the
documents
	was 	drawn
	from
	the 	public 	records 	of 	the
	Districts.
An
	examination 	of 	the
	documents
	shows 	them
	to
	be
	nothing
	more
	than
lists
	of 	class 	sizes, 	calculated 	in 	various
	methods. 	There
	is
	no
written 	narrative 	or
	comment
	relating
	to 	negotiations
	on
	the 	face
of 	the 	documents. 	But 	even 	assuming
	that
	they 	are 	"confidential"
in nature,
	Mr.
	Asher 	does
	not 	regularly
	develop 	such
	materials
and 	does
	not 	therefore need
	a
	secretary 	to 	regularly 	type 	them.
He
	is 	not
	on
	the 	negotiating
	team 	and 	so 	any 	need 	to 	type 	such
-20-
minutes of the negotiating sessions. The parties stipulated
that the minutes were "an accurate reflection and summary"
of what occurred at negotiating sessions. They were a written
record of past events. It is hard to imagine, therefore, how
their disclosure could adversely affect the Districts' nego-
tiating position. Because they were an accurate reflection
of what occurred at previous negotiating sessions their
disclosure would have told the certificated employee organiza-
tion precisely what it already knew, namely, what occurred
in previous meetings. But even if the minutes were to contain
negotiating strategies, that still would provide no justifica-
tion for excluding Mrs. Terry. The minutes could be sent to
Mr. Bayless in an envelope marked confidential and Mrs. Terry
could be instructed not to open them.
Similarly with Mrs. Mullen, the secretary to Mr. Asher.
Mrs. Mullen did type a series of statistical documents which
Mr. Asher used in his attack on the class size ratio to which
the Districts' negotiator had agreed. The information on the
documents was drawn from the public records of the Districts.
An examination of the documents shows them to be nothing more than
lists of class sizes, calculated in various methods. There is no
written narrative or comment relating to negotiations on the face
of the documents. But even assuming that they are "confidential"
in nature, Mr. Asher does not regularly develop such materials
and does not therefore need a secretary to regularly type them.
He is not on the negotiating team and so any need to type such
-20-

materials
	would be
	occasional.
	There
	is
	no
	reason
why
	he
could not
	use
	the
	services 	of
	any
	of
	the 	four
	confidential
employees
	already
	excluded
	if
	he
	has
	an
	occasional
	future
	need
for 	negotiations 	materials
	to
	be
	typed.
For
	these 	reasons,
	therefore,
	it
	is
	concluded
	that
	the
five
	school
	secretaries
	do
	not
	have
	access
	"in
	the
	regular
course"
	of
	their
	duties 	to
	confidential 	materials.
	Therefore,
they 	should not
	be
	excluded
	from
	the
	negotiating
	unit.
PROPOSED 	DECISION
Upon
	the
	foregoing 	findings
	of 	fact,
	conclusions
	of
	law,
and
	the
	entire
	record
	of
	this
	case,
	it
	is
	the
	proposed
	order
that
	the 	five
	school
	secretaries
	are
	not
	confidential
	employees
within 	the
	meaning
	of
	Government
	Code
	section
	3540.l(b) 	and
they
	are 	therefore
	included within 	the
	classified
	employees
unit.
The
	parties
	have
	20
	calendar
	days
	following 	the 	date
	of
service 	of
	this
	Proposed Decision
	in
	which
	to
	file
	exceptions
in
	accordance
	with
	Title
	8
	California
Administrative
	Code
	32300.
Pursuant 	to
	Title
	8
	California Administrative
	Code
	32305,
	this
Proposed Decision
	shall
	become
	final
	on
	July
	7,
	1978,
	unless
a
	party
	files
	a
	timely 	statement 	of 	exceptions.
Dated: 	June 	13,
	19 78
Ronald
	E
~-
B 1 ub a ugh
He
aring 	Officer
-21-
O--
materials would be occasional. There is no reason why he
could not use the services of any of the four confidential
employees already excluded if he has an occasional future need
for negotiations materials to be typed.
For these reasons, therefore, it is concluded that the
five school secretaries do not have access "in the regular
course" of their duties to confidential materials. Therefore,
they should not be excluded from the negotiating unit.
PROPOSED DECISION
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record of this case, it is the proposed order
that the five school secretaries are not confidential employees
within the meaning of Government Code section 3540.1(b) and
they are therefore included within the classified employees
unit .
The parties have 20 calendar days following the date of
service of this Proposed Decision in which to file exceptions
in accordance with Title 8 California Administrative Code 32300.
Pursuant to Title 8 California Administrative Code 32305, this
Proposed Decision shall become final on July 7, 1978, unless
a party files a timely statement of exceptions.
Dated: 	June 13, 1978
Ronald E. Blubaugh
Hearing Officer
-21-