South Bay Union School District Board of Trustees (PERB 0207E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTHWEST 	TEACHERS 	ASSOCIATION,
Charging 	Party,
v.
SOUTH 	BAY 	UNION 	SCHOOL 	DISTRICT
BOARD 	OF 	TRUSTEES,
Respondent.
SOUTHWEST TEACHERS ASSOCIATION,
Case 	No.	o. L 	LA-CE-382
PERB 	Decision 	No.	o. 2 	207
April 	30, 	1982
7
Appearances :	Appearances:
Case N 	A-CE-382
Charles 	R. 	Gustafson, 	Attorney 	for 	Southwest
Teachers 	Association; 	Clifford 	D. 	Weiler, 	Attorney 	(Brown 	and
Conradi) 	for 	South 	Bay 	Union 	School 	District 	Board 	of 	Trustees.
C
Before Jaeger, Moore and Tovar, Members.	Before 	Jaeger, 	Moore 	and 	Tovar, 	Members.
DECISION	DECISION
The 	South 	Bay 	Union 	School 	District 	Board 	of 	Trustees
(hereafter 	District) 	excepts 	to 	the 	portions 	of 	the 	hearing
officer's 	proposed 	decision 	in 	which 	he 	sustained 	the 	Southwest
Teachers 	Association's 	(hereafter 	STA) 	charge 	that 	the 	District
violated 	subsections 	3543.S(a), 	(b) 	and 	(c) 	of 	the 	Educational
Employment 	Relations 	Act 	(hereafter 	EERA 	or 	Act) .
The South Bay Union School District Board of Trustees
1
The 	sole 	question 	before 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations
Board 	(hereafter 	PERB 	or 	Board) 	concerns 	the 	District's
exceptions 	to 	the 	hearing 	officer's 	remedy 	which, 	inter 	alia,
The sole question before the Public Employment Relations
JEERA is codified at Government Code section 3540,	lEERA 	is 	codified 	at 	Government 	Code 	section 	3540,
et seq. All statutory references in this decision are to the	et 	seq. 	All 	statutory 	references 	in 	this 	decision 	are 	to 	the
Government Code, unless otherwise noted.	Government 	Code, 	unless 	otherwise 	noted.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_____________________ )
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Charging Party,
V .
SOUTH BAY UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT
BOARD OF TRUSTEES,
Respondent.
PERB Decision N 	0
harles R. Gustafson, Attorney for Southwest
Teachers Association; Clifford D. Weiler, Attorney (Brown and
Conradi) for South Bay Union School District Board of Trustees.
(hereafter District) excepts to the portions of the hearing
officer's proposed decision in which he sustained the Southwest
Teachers Association's (hereafter STA) charge that the District
violated subsections 3543.5 (a) , (b) and (c) of the Educational
Employment Relations Act (hereafter EERA or Act) . 1
Board (hereafter PERB or Board) concerns the District's
exceptions to the hearing officer's remedy which, inter alia,
April 30, 1982

ordered 	the 	District 	to 	reimburse 	those 	certificated 	employees
who 	suffered 	financial 	loss 	as 	a 	result 	of 	the 	District's
unlawful 	conduct.
ordered the District to reimburse those certificated employees
FACTUAL 	SUMMARY	FACTUAL SUMMARY
Since 	the 	1975-76 	school 	year, 	the 	District 	has 	maintained
lead 	teacher 	positions. 	The 	job 	duties 	of 	lead 	teachers, 	while
varying 	depending 	on 	the 	needs 	of 	the 	particular 	school,
include 	instruction, 	teaching 	remedial 	reading 	and 	other
activities 	designed 	to 	facilitate 	learning. 	During 	the 	1977-78
school 	year, 	there 	were 	10 	lead 	teachers, 	each 	assigned 	to 	one
ssroom	of 	the 	District's 	elementary 	schools.
Since the 1975-76 school year, the District has maintained
2a 	While 	classroom
teachers 	worked 	180 	days 	per 	year, 	lead 	teachers 	were 	employed
192 	days 	and 	received 	supplemental 	pay 	on 	a 	pro 	rata 	salary
basis 	for 	these 	12 	additional 	workdays. 	Lead 	teachers 	also
received 	their 	base 	pay 	plus 	a 	5 	percent 	salary 	differential.
teachers worked 180 days per year, lead teachers were employed
In 	December 	1977, 	the 	District 	and 	STA 	entered 	into 	a
negotiated 	agreement 	which 	covered 	certificated 	employees
including 	lead 	teachers.
In December 1977, the District and STA entered into a
3 	The 	contract 	also 	contained 	a
reopener 	clause 	which 	permitted 	either 	party 	to 	call 	for
negotiations 	on April 	1, 	1978 	concerninq 	wages, 	health 	and
welfare 	benefits 	and 	one 	additional 	article 	of 	its 	choice.
reopener clause which permitted either party to call for
2	2 There 	are 	11 	elementary 	schools 	in 	the 	District. 	At 	one
school, 	the 	vice 	principal 	functioned 	as 	lead 	teacher.
There are 11 elementary schools in the District. At one
Although no party disputes the workyear and salary	3Although 	no 	party 	disputes 	the 	workyear 	and 	salary
schedule 	of 	lead 	teachers, 	the 	negotiated 	agreement 	does 	not 	so
specify.
schedule of lead teachers, the negotiated agreement does not so
N2
who suffered financial loss as a result of the District's
unlawful conduct.
lead teacher positions. The job duties of lead teachers, while
varying depending on the needs of the particular school,
include instruction, teaching remedial reading and other
activities designed to facilitate learning. During the 1977-78
school year, there were 10 lead teachers, each assigned to one
of the District's elementary schools. 2 While cl
192 days and received supplemental pay on a pro rata salary
basis for these 12 additional workdays. Lead teachers also
received their base pay plus a 5 percent salary differential.
negotiated agreement which covered certificated employees
including lead teachers. 3 The contract also contained a
negotiations on April 1, 1978 concerning wages, health and
welfare benefits and one additional article of its choice.
school, the vice principal functioned as lead teacher.
specify.

At 	the 	end 	of 	the 	1977-78 	school 	year, 	incumbent 	lead
teachers 	were 	offered 	positions 	for 	the 	following 	year. 	Some
teachers 	provided 	written 	acceptance. 	However, 	in 	June 	1978,
when 	the 	District 	adopted 	its 	publication 	budget, 	it 	reduced
the 	amount 	budgeted 	for 	salaries 	by 	deleting 	lead 	teachers'
stipends. 	As 	negotiations 	were 	in 	progress 	on 	reopeners, 	the
District 	in August 	1978 	altered 	the 	publication 	budget 	by
adding 	salary 	stipends 	sufficient 	to 	fund 	five 	lead 	teacher
positions. 	Each 	lead 	teacher 	was 	to 	service 	two 	elementary
schools. 	The 	budget 	allocation 	for 	the 	five 	lead 	teacher
vacancies 	included 	the 	5 	percent 	salary 	differential 	but 	not
the 	twelve 	additional 	workday 	assignments.
At the end of the 1977-78 school year, incumbent lead
During 	the 	month 	of 	August, 	STA 	requested 	that 	the 	District
negotiate 	regarding 	lead 	teachers 	but 	the 	District 	refused. 	ItIt
announced 	and 	ultimately 	assigned 	five 	lead 	teacher
positions.
During the month of August, STA requested that the District
4
DISCUSSION	DISCUSSION
In 	considering 	STA's 	unfair 	practice 	allegations, 	the
hearing 	officer 	examined 	several 	facets 	of 	the 	lead 	teachers'
employment 	relationship 	in 	order 	to 	determine 	whether 	the
District 	had 	actually made 	a 	change 	and 	whether 	the 	item
changed 	was 	within 	the 	scope 	of 	representation. 	He 	also
In considering STA's unfair practice allegations, the
44In early August, STA discussed the selection of lead	rn 	early August, 	STA 	discussed 	the 	selection 	of 	lead
teachers with the District and agreed that the assistant	teachers 	with 	the 	District 	and 	agreed 	that 	the 	assistant
superintendent would have such authority.	superintendent 	would 	have 	such 	authority.
33
teachers were offered positions for the following year. Some
teachers provided written acceptance. However, in June 1978,
when the District adopted its publication budget, it reduced
the amount budgeted for salaries by deleting lead teachers'
stipends. As negotiations were in progress on reopeners, the
District in August 1978 altered the publication budget by
adding salary stipends sufficient to fund five lead teacher
positions. Each lead teacher was to service two elementary
schools. The budget allocation for the five lead teacher
vacancies included the 5 percent salary differential but not
the twelve additional workday assignments.
negotiate regarding lead teachers but the District refused.
announced and ultimately assigned five lead teacher
positions . 4
hearing officer examined several facets of the lead teachers'
employment relationship in order to determine whether the
District had actually made a change and whether the item
changed was within the scope of representation. He also

addressed 	the 	District's 	defenses. 	The 	two 	issues 	raised 	by
the 	District's 	exceptions 	refer 	only 	to 	the 	hearing 	officer's
order 	and 	remedy.	order and remedy.5 W
addressed the District's defenses. The two issues raised by
5 	With 	regard 	to 	the 	1977-78 	lead 	teachers
who 	were 	not 	rehired 	as 	lead 	teachers 	for 	the 	1978-79 	school
year, 	the 	hearing 	officer 	ordered 	reimbursement 	of 	the 	5
percent 	salary 	differential 	and 	the 	pro 	rata 	pay 	for 	the 	12
extra 	days. 	As 	to 	the 	five 	lead 	teachers 	who 	were 	employed 	as
lead 	teachers 	during 	the 	1978-79 	school 	year, 	he 	ordered
payment 	for 	the 	twelve 	discontinued 	extra 	days.
who were not rehired as lead teachers for the 1978-79 school
The 	District's 	argument 	with 	regard 	to 	the 	first 	remedy 	is
based 	on 	the 	hearing 	officer's 	decision 	that 	the 	District 	had
not 	materially 	varied 	the 	parties' 	contractual 	transfer
policy. 	The 	District 	interprets 	this 	conclusion 	to 	mean 	that	policy.
it 	was 	permitted 	to 	unilaterally 	eliminate 	five 	lead 	teacher
positions 	and 	"transfer" 	these 	teachers 	to 	classroom 	teacher
assignments. 	The 	District 	argues 	that, 	having 	been 	permissibly
"transferred", 	prior 	lead 	teachers 	retained 	no 	right 	to
differential 	pay 	or 	additional 	workdays. 	STA, 	urging 	the 	Board
to 	sustain 	the 	hearing 	officer's 	remedy, 	argues 	that
reimbursement 	for 	lost 	wages 	was 	permissibly 	based 	on 	the
The District's argument with regard to the first remedy is
55Because 	the 	exceptions 	lodged 	by 	the 	District 	related 	to
the 	remedy 	only, 	our 	discussion 	is 	so 	limited 	and 	we 	make 	no
comment 	on 	other 	conclusions 	of 	law 	as 	appear 	in 	the 	hearing
officer's 	proposed 	decision.
Because the exceptions lodged by the District related to
4
the District's exceptions refer only to the hearing officer's
ith regard to the 1977-78 lead teachers
year, the hearing officer ordered reimbursement of the 5
percent salary differential and the pro rata pay for the 12
extra days. As to the five lead teachers who were employed as
lead teachers during the 1978-79 school year, he ordered
payment for the twelve discontinued extra days.
based on the hearing officer's decision that the District had
not materially varied the parties' contractual transfer
The District interprets this conclusion to mean that
it was permitted to unilaterally eliminate five lead teacher
positions and "transfer" these teachers to classroom teacher
assignments. The District argues that, having been permissible
"transferred", prior lead teachers retained no right to
differential pay or additional workdays. STA, urging the Board
to sustain the hearing officer's remedy, argues that
reimbursement for lost wages was permissible based on the
the remedy only, our discussion is so limited and we make no
comment on other conclusions of law as appear in the hearing
officer's proposed decision.

hearing 	officer's 	unchallenged 	conclusion 	that 	the 	District
unilaterally 	changed 	the 	lead 	teachers' 	wages 	and 	workyear.
hearing officer's unchallenged conclusion that the District
6
We 	affirm 	the 	hearing 	officer's 	order 	that 	the 	District
reimburse 	the 	five 	lead 	teachers 	not 	rehired 	the 	5 	percent 	pay
differential 	and 	the 	pro 	rata 	pay 	for 	additional 	workdays
previously 	paid 	to 	lead 	teachers 	and 	not 	to 	classroom
teachers. 	Even 	reading 	the 	hearing 	officer's 	decision
regarding 	transfers 	to 	mean 	that 	the 	District 	was 	free 	to
unilaterally 	reduce 	the 	number 	of 	lead 	teachers,
We affirm the hearing officer's order that the District
? 	the
District 	does 	not 	escape 	its 	obligation 	to 	negotiate 	the	District does not escape its obligation to negotiate the
66rn 	its 	response 	to 	the 	District's 	exceptions, 	STA 	also
argues 	that 	the 	hearing 	officer 	erred 	in 	concluding 	that 	the
District 	did 	not 	alter 	the 	transfer 	policy. 	The 	District
asserts 	that 	the 	Board 	should 	not 	entertain 	this 	challenge 	to
the 	hearing 	officer's 	proposed 	decision 	because 	STA's 	argument
is 	more 	than 	a 	response 	to 	the 	District's 	exceptions. 	We agree	We 	agree
with 	the 	District's 	characterization 	of 	STA's 	response 	as 	being
tantamount 	to 	an 	exception. 	As 	such, 	it 	was 	untimely. 	See	See
PERB 	rule 	32300, 	et 	seq., 	codified 	at 	Government 	Code
section 	31000, 	et 	seq.
In its response to the District's exceptions, STA also
7It is unclear from the hearing officer's proposed	7rt 	is 	unclear 	from 	the 	hearing 	officer's 	proposed
decision 	what 	was 	intended 	by 	his 	conclusion 	that 	the 	District
acted 	properly 	in 	effecting 	the 	lead 	teachers' 	"transfers".
Speaking 	in 	terms 	of 	"unforeseen circumstances", 	a 	phrase 	which
appears 	in 	the 	parties' 	negotiated 	agreement 	referring 	to 	the
required 	notice 	of 	transfer, 	the 	hearing 	officer 	found 	no
material 	variance 	and 	thus 	no 	impermissible 	unilateral 	change.
His 	separate 	discussion 	of 	job 	duties, 	which 	he 	found 	to 	have
been 	altered 	but 	a 	matter 	outside 	of 	the 	scope 	of
representation, 	also 	supports 	a 	conclusion 	that 	the 	hearing
officer 	did 	not 	find 	that 	the 	District 	lawfully 	transferred 	the
five 	lead 	teachers 	to 	classroom 	assignments 	but 	rather 	found
that 	the 	notice 	of 	transfer 	as 	mandated 	by 	the 	negotiated
agreement 	had 	been 	complied 	with. 	This 	interpretation 	of 	the
hearing 	officer's 	conclusion 	undermines 	the 	premise 	of 	the
District's exception.	District's 	exception.
decision what was intended by his conclusion that the District
55
unilaterally changed the lead teachers' wages and workyear . 6
reimburse the five lead teachers not rehired the 5 percent pay
differential and the pro rata pay for additional workdays
previously paid to lead teachers and not to classroom
teachers. Even reading the hearing officer's decision
regarding transfers to mean that the District was free to
unilaterally reduce the number of lead teachers, 7 the
argues that the hearing officer erred in concluding that the
District did not alter the transfer policy. The District
asserts that the Board should not entertain this challenge to
the hearing officer's proposed decision because STA's argument
is more than a response to the District's exceptions.
with the District's characterization of STA's response as being
tantamount to an exception. As such, it was untimely.
PERB rule 32300, et seq. , codified at Government Code
section 31000, et seq.
acted properly in effecting the lead teachers' "transfers".
Speaking in terms of "unforeseen circumstances", a phrase which
appears in the parties' negotiated agreement referring to the
required notice of transfer, the hearing officer found no
material variance and thus no impermissible unilateral change.
His separate discussion of job duties, which he found to have
been altered but a matter outside of the scope of
representation, also supports a conclusion that the hearing
officer did not find that the District lawfully transferred the
five lead teachers to classroom assignments but rather found
that the notice of transfer as mandated by the negotiated
agreement had been complied with. This interpretation of the
hearing officer's conclusion undermines the premise of the

effects 	or 	impact 	of 	that 	change. 	First 	National 	Maintenance
Co~ 	v. 	NLRB 	(1981) 	69 	L.Ed. 	318 	[107 	LRRM 	2705]; 	NLRB 	v.
Royal 	Plating 	& Polishing 	Co. 	(3rd 	Cir. 	1965) 	350 	F.2d 	191
[60 	LRRM 	2033]; 	NLRB 	v. 	Adams 	Dairy, 	Inc. 	(8th 	Cir. 	1965) 	350
F.	F.2d 	108 	[60 	LRRM 	2084], 	cert.denied 	(1966) 	382 	U.S. 	1011
[61 	LRRM 	2192]. 	Consistent 	with 	this 	basic 	tenet 	of 	labor 	law,
the 	District 	was 	required 	to 	negotiate 	the 	consequential 	impact
of 	its 	decision 	on 	the 	lead 	teachers' 	wages 	and 	workyear. 	ItsIts
failure 	to 	do 	so 	was 	a 	violation 	of 	EERA. 	San Mateo 	City
School 	District 	(5/20/80) 	PERB 	Decision 	No. 	129. 	Restoration
of 	the 	status 	quo 	as 	to 	those 	items 	altered 	as 	a 	result 	of 	the
elimination 	of 	lead 	teacher 	positions 	was 	thus 	an 	appropriate
remedy.
effects or impact of that change. First National Maintenance
The 	District's 	second 	exception 	concerns 	the 	remedy
ordering 	the 	employer 	to 	pay 	the 	five 	rehired 	lead 	teachers 	for
the 	twelve 	extra 	days 	previously 	assigned. 	The 	hearing 	officer
ordered 	this 	action 	on 	December 	11, 	1979, 	and 	the 	District 	is
arguing 	that 	that 	remedy 	is 	overly 	broad 	because 	it 	involves
future 	action. 	The 	District 	suggests 	that 	the 	order 	is
premature 	because 	the 	District 	may 	negotiate 	an 	agreement 	which
would 	not 	include 	the 	12 	additional 	workdays.
The District's second exception concerns the remedy
The 	District's 	argument 	is 	unpersuasive. 	The 	order 	is
directed 	to 	remedy 	the 	past 	unfair 	practice 	and 	the 	resumption
of 	the 	12 	additional 	days 	restores 	the 	past 	practice. 	The
The District's argument is unpersuasive. The order is
6
Corp. v. NLRB (1981) 69 L. Ed. 318 [107 LRRM 2705] ; NLRB V.
Royal Plating & Polishing Co. (3rd Cir. 1965) 350 F. 2d 191
[60 LRRM 2033] ; NLRB v. Adams Dairy, Inc. (8th Cir. 1965) 350
2d 108 [60 LRRM 2084], cert. denied (1966) 382 U.S. 1011
[61 LRRM 2192]. Consistent with this basic tenet of labor law,
the District was required to negotiate the consequential impact
of its decision on the lead teachers' wages and workyear ,
failure to do so was a violation of EERA. San Mateo City
School District (5/20/80) PERB Decision No. 129. Restoration
of the status quo as to those items altered as a result of the
elimination of lead teacher positions was thus an appropriate
remedy .
ordering the employer to pay the five rehired lead teachers for
the twelve extra days previously assigned. The hearing officer
ordered this action on December 11, 1979, and the District is
arguing that that remedy is overly broad because it involves
future action. The District suggests that the order is
premature because the District may negotiate an agreement which
would not include the 12 additional workdays.
directed to remedy the past unfair practice and the resumption
of the 12 additional days restores the past practice. 	The

District 	may, 	as 	a 	result 	of 	the 	hearing 	officer's 	order 	that
it 	cease 	and 	desist 	from 	refusing 	to 	negotiate, 	engage 	in
future 	negotiating 	sessions 	with 	STA. 	However, this	However, 	this
possibility 	in 	no 	way 	excuses 	the 	employer's 	past 	violation.
Again, 	the 	ordered 	remedy 	was 	an 	appropriate 	restoration 	of 	the
lead 	teachers' 	workyear 	as 	it 	existed 	prior 	to 	the 	District's
unilateral 	change.
District may, as a result of the hearing officer's order that
ORDER	ORDER
Based 	upon 	the 	entire 	record 	and 	consistent 	with 	the
foregoing 	decision, 	the 	Board 	affirms 	the 	hearing 	officer's
conclusions 	that 	the 	South 	Bay 	Union 	School 	District 	Board 	of
Trustees 	violated 	subsections 	3543.S(a), 	(b) 	and 	(c) 	of 	the
Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Act. 	The 	Board 	hereby 	ORDERS
that 	the 	District 	shall:
Based upon the entire record and consistent with the
(1) 	CEASE AND 	DESIST 	FROM:	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:	(1)
(a) 	Failing 	and 	refusing 	to 	meet 	and 	negotiate 	in
good 	faith 	with 	the 	Southwest 	Teachers 	Association 	by 	taking
unilateral 	action 	on 	matters 	within 	the 	scope 	of 	representation;
(a)
(b) 	Denying 	the 	Association 	its 	right 	to 	represent
unit 	members 	by 	failing 	and 	refusing 	to 	meet 	and 	negotiate
about 	matters 	within 	the 	scope 	of 	representation;
(b)
(c) 	Interfering 	with 	employees' 	right 	to 	select 	an
exclusive 	representative 	to 	meet 	and 	negotiate 	with 	the
employer 	on 	their 	behalf 	by 	unilaterally 	changing 	matters
within 	the 	scope 	of 	representation;
(c)
77
it cease and desist from refusing to negotiate, engage in
future negotiating sessions with STA.
possibility in no way excuses the employer's past violation.
Again, the ordered remedy was an appropriate restoration of the
lead teachers' workyear as it existed prior to the District's
unilateral change.
foregoing decision, the Board affirms the hearing officer's
conclusions that the South Bay Union School District Board of
Trustees violated subsections 3543.5 (a) , (b) and (c) of the
Educational Employment Relations Act. The Board hereby ORDERS
that the District shall:
Failing and refusing to meet and negotiate in
good faith with the Southwest Teachers Association by taking
unilateral action on matters within the scope of representation;
Denying the Association its right to represent
unit members by failing and refusing to meet and negotiate
about matters within the scope of representation;
Interfering with employees' right to select an
exclusive representative to meet and negotiate with the
employer on their behalf by unilaterally changing matters
within the scope of representation;

(2) 	TAKE 	THE 	FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE 	ACTIONS 	WHICH 	ARE
NECESSARY TO 	EFFECTUATE 	THE 	POLICIES 	OF THE 	EDUCATIONAL
EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	ACT:
(2)
(a) 	Reimburse 	those 	employees 	who 	were 	lead 	teachers
during 	school 	year 	1977-78 	but 	who 	were 	not 	rehired 	as 	lead
teachers 	for 	school 	year 	1978-79 	wages 	in 	the 	amount 	of 	five
(5) 	percent 	differential 	pay 	plus 	pro 	rata 	pay 	for 	twelve
workdays 	for 	each 	school 	year 	beginning 	with 	the 	1978-79 	school
year;8
(a)
(b) 	Reimburse 	those 	employees 	who 	were 	lead 	teachers
during 	school 	year 	1977-78 	and 	who 	were 	lead 	teachers 	during
school 	year 	1978-79 	wages 	in 	the 	amount 	of 	pro 	rata 	pay 	for 	12
workdays 	for 	each 	school 	year 	beginning 	with 	the 	1978-79 	school
year ; 9
(b)
8	8 In 	his 	proposed 	decision, 	the 	hearing 	officer 	ordered
that 	the 	lead 	teachers 	not 	rehired 	as 	lead 	teachers 	in 	1978-79
be 	reimbursed 	for 	the 	1978-79 	and 	1979-80 	school 	years. 	The
remedy 	was 	apparently 	so 	limited 	because 	it 	was 	issued 	on
December 	11, 	1979, 	during 	the 	1979-80 	school 	year. However ,	However,
since 	the 	District's 	liability 	is 	not 	extinguished 	until 	it
satisfies 	its 	obligation 	to 	negotiate 	with 	STA, 	the 	Board 	has
altered 	the 	hearing 	officer's 	order 	to 	so 	provide. 	See 	(c) 	of
the 	Order, 	infra.
In his proposed decision, the hearing officer ordered
The 	Board 	does 	not 	disturb 	the 	hearing 	officer 1 s 	exclusion
from 	the 	ordered 	remedy 	of 	the 	one 	lead 	teacher 	who 	declined
the 	lead 	teacher 	position 	for 	the 	1979-80 	school 	year.
The Board does not disturb the hearing officer's exclusion
9	9 In 	his 	proposed 	decision, 	the 	hearing 	officer 	included
the 	following:
In his proposed decision, the hearing officer included
In 	computing 	the 	amount 	of 	back 	salary 	due
to 	individual 	lead 	teachers, 	the 	District
may 	deduct 	any 	salary 	earned 	by 	a 	lead
teacher 	during 	the 	twelve 	(12) 	day 	periods
In computing the amount of back salary due
Co8
TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS WHICH ARE
NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE EDUCATIONAL
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS ACT:
Reimburse those employees who were lead teachers
during school year 1977-78 but who were not rehired as lead
teachers for school year 1978-79 wages in the amount of five
(5) percent differential pay plus pro rata pay for twelve
workdays for each school year beginning with the 1978-79 school
year ; 8
Reimburse those employees who were lead teachers
during school year 1977-78 and who were lead teachers during
school year 1978-79 wages in the amount of pro rata pay for 12
workdays for each school year beginning with the 1978-79 school
that the lead teachers not rehired as lead teachers in 1978-79
be reimbursed for the 1978-79 and 1979-80 school years. The
remedy was apparently so limited because it was issued on
December 11, 1979, during the 1979-80 school year.
since the District's liability is not extinguished until it
satisfies its obligation to negotiate with STA, the Board has
altered the hearing officer's order to so provide. 	See (c) of
the Order, infra.
from the ordered remedy of the one lead teacher who declined
the lead teacher position for the 1979-80 school year.
the following:
to individual lead teachers, the District
may deduct any salary earned by a lead
teacher during the twelve (12) day periods

(c) 	Reimbursement 	ordered 	above 	is 	to 	run 	from 	the
date 	the 	wages 	and 	workyear 	were 	unilaterally 	changed 	until 	the
occurrence 	of 	the 	earliest 	of 	the 	following 	events: 	(1) 	the
date 	the 	District 	negotiates 	to 	agreement 	with 	the 	Association
on 	matters 	pertaining 	to 	the 	wages 	and 	hours 	of 	lead 	teachers,
(2) 	a 	bona 	fide 	impasse 	in 	negotiating, 	(3) 	the 	failure 	of 	the
Association 	to 	request 	to 	negotiate 	within 	five 	days 	of 	service
of 	this 	Decision, 	or 	to 	commence 	negotiations 	within 	five 	days
of 	the 	District's 	notice 	or 	its 	desire 	to 	negotiate 	with 	the
Association 	or, 	(4) 	the 	subsequent 	failure 	of 	the 	Association
to 	negotiate 	in 	good 	faith;
(c)
(d) 	Pay 	in 	addition 	to 	the 	amounts 	specified 	in
subparagraphs 	(a), 	(b) 	and 	(c) 	above, 	seven 	(7) 	percent
interest 	per 	annum on 	the 	amount 	owing 	to 	each 	employee,
measured 	from 	September 	1, 	1978 	to 	the 	time 	payment 	is 	made;
(d)
{e) 	Prepare 	and 	post 	copies 	of 	the 	Notice 	attached
hereto 	as 	Appendix 	"A" 	within 	ten 	(10) 	workdays 	following
service 	at 	each 	of 	its 	work 	sites 	for 	thirty 	(30) 	workdays 	in
(e)
immediately 	following 	the 	end 	of 	school
years 	1978-79 	and 	1979-80. 	Mccann 	Steel 	Co.
v. 	NLRB 	(C.A. 	6, 	1978) 	570 	Fed.2d 	652 	[97
LRRM 	2921]. 	However 	back 	pay 	shall 	not 	be
reduced 	by 	any 	amount 	received 	as
unemployment 	compensation. 	Souix 	Falls
Stock 	Yards 	Co. 	(1978} 	235 	NLRB 	62 	[99 	LRRM
1316] .
immediately following the end of school
No 	party 	having 	excepted 	to 	this 	deduction, 	we 	make 	no
alteration 	except, 	in 	accord 	with 	footnote 	8, 	~~_Era, 	We 	extend
the 	District's 	liability 	in 	accordance 	with 	(c) 	above.
No party having excepted to this deduction, we make no
9
Reimbursement ordered above is to run from the
date the wages and workyear were unilaterally changed until the
occurrence of the earliest of the following events: (1) the
date the District negotiates to agreement with the Association
on matters pertaining to the wages and hours of lead teachers,
(2) a bona fide impasse in negotiating, (3) the failure of the
Association to request to negotiate within five days of service
of this Decision, or to commence negotiations within five days
of the District's notice or its desire to negotiate with the
Association or, (4) the subsequent failure of the Association
to negotiate in good faith;
Pay in addition to the amounts specified in
subparagraphs (a) , (b) and (c) above, seven (7) percent
interest per annum on the amount owing to each employee,
measured from September 1, 1978 to the time payment is made;
Prepare and post copies of the Notice attached
hereto as Appendix "A" within ten (10) workdays following
service at each of its work sites for thirty (30) workdays in
years 1978-79 and 1979-80. Mccann Steel Co.
v. NLRB (C.A. 6, 1978) 570 Fed. 2d 652 [97
LRRM 2921]. However back pay shall not be
reduced by any amount received as
unemployment compensation. Souix Falls
Stock Yards Co. (1978) 235 NLRB 62 99 LRRM
1316 J •
alteration except, in accord with footnote 8, supra, we extend
the District's liability in accordance with (c) above.

conspicuous 	places, 	including 	all 	locations 	where 	notices 	to
certificated 	employees 	are 	customarily 	posted;
conspicuous places, including all locations where notices to
(f) 	Within 	ten 	(10) 	workdays 	after 	the 	end 	of 	the
posting 	period, 	notify 	the 	Los 	Angeles 	Regional 	Director 	of 	the
Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	in 	writing 	of 	the 	actions
taken 	to 	comply 	with 	this 	Order.
(f)
10
LJLV " ..., .
By: Barbara D. Moore, Member	D. 	Moore, 	Member	By: 	Irene 	Tovar, 	Hember	Irene Tovar, Member
Member 	John 	W. 	Jaeger's 	concurrence 	begins 	on 	page 	11.	Member John W. Jaeger's concurrence begins on page 11.
10
certificated employees are customarily posted;
Within ten (10) workdays after the end of the
posting period, notify the Los Angeles Regional Director of the
Public Employment Relations Board in writing of the actions
taken to comply with this Order.
Barbara

John W. 	Jaeger, 	Member, 	concurring:	John W. Jaeger, Member, concurring:
While 	I 	agree 	with 	the 	result 	the majority 	has 	reached, 	I
find 	that 	portion 	of 	its 	analysis 	concerning 	the 	elimination 	of
the 	five 	lead 	teacher 	positions 	unclear, 	and 	deserving 	more
expansive 	treatment. 	In 	all 	other 	respects, 	I 	fully 	concur
with 	the majority 	decision.
find that portion of its analysis concerning the elimination of
While I agree with the result the majority has reached, I
The 	majority characterizes 	the 	District's 	exceptions 	as
being 	limited 	to 	disagreement 	with 	the 	hearing 	officer's
proposed 	remedy. 	Essentially, 	the 	District 	argues 	tha~ since
the 	hearing 	officer 	found 	that 	its 	conduct 	was 	permitted 	by 	the
transfer 	provision 	of 	the 	contract, 	a 	remedy 	making 	the
"transferred" 	teachers 	whole 	for 	their 	loss 	of 	wages 	is
inappropriate. 	Thus, 	while 	it 	is 	true 	that 	the 	District's
exceptions, 	narrowly 	read, 	appear 	only 	to 	concern 	the 	remedy,
they 	are 	phrased 	in 	such 	a 	way 	that 	one 	must 	conclude 	that 	the
District 	excepts 	not 	only 	to 	the 	proposed 	remedy, 	but 	to 	the
finding 	that 	it 	made 	an 	unlawful 	unilateral 	change. 	It 	is
therefore 	necessary 	to 	analyze 	the 	merits 	of 	the District's
contention.
The majority characterizes the District's exceptions as
Subsection 	3543.S(c)r	Subsection 3543.5(c) p l 	prohibits 	an 	employer 	from
unilaterally changing matters within the scope of	unilaterally 	changing matters 	within 	the 	scope 	of
1lsubsection 	3543.S(c) 	provides:	Subsection 3543.5(c) provides:
It 	shall 	be 	unlawful 	for 	a 	public 	school
employer 	to 	. 	. 	.
It shall be unlawful for a public school
(c) 	Refuse 	or 	fail 	to 	meet 	and 	negotiate 	in
good 	faith 	with 	an 	exclusive 	representative.
(c)
11	11
the five lead teacher positions unclear, and deserving more
expansive treatment. In all other respects, I fully concur
with the majority decision.
being limited to disagreement with the hearing officer's
proposed remedy. Essentially, the District argues that, since
the hearing officer found that its conduct was permitted by the
transfer provision of the contract, a remedy making the
"transferred" teachers whole for their loss of wages is
inappropriate . 	Thus, while it is true that the District's
exceptions, narrowly read, appear only to concern the remedy ,
they are phrased in such a way that one must conclude that the
District excepts not only to the proposed remedy, but to the
finding that it made an unlawful unilateral change. It is
therefore necessary to analyze the merits of the District's
contention.
ohibits an employer from
employer to
Refuse or fail to meet and negotiate in
good faith with an exclusive representative.

representation in violation of the duty to negotiate in good	representation 	in 	violation 	of 	the 	duty 	to 	negotiate 	in 	good
faith. San Francisco Community College District (10/12/79)	faith. 	San Francisco Community College District 	(10/12/79)
PERB Decision No. 105; Pajaro Valley Unified School District	PERB 	Decision 	No. 	105; 	Pajaro Valley Unified 	School 	District
(5/22/78) PERB Decision No. 51. The threshold question,	(5/22/78) 	PERB 	Decision No. 	51. 	The 	threshold 	question,
therefore, in any case where it is alleged that an employer	therefore, 	in 	any 	case 	where 	it 	is 	alleged 	that 	an 	employer
made an unlawful unilateral change, is whether the conduct at	made 	an 	unlawful 	unilateral 	change, 	is 	whether 	the 	conduct 	at
issue concerns a matter within the scope of representation as	issue 	concerns 	a 	matter 	within 	the 	scope 	of 	representation 	as
2
defined 	by 	section 	3543.2.defined by section 3543.2.2
section 3543.2 provides in relevant part:
2section 	3543.2 	provides 	in 	relevant 	part:
The 	scope 	of 	representation 	shall 	be 	limited
to 	matters 	relating 	to 	wages, 	hours 	of
employment, 	and 	other 	terms 	and 	conditions
of	of employment .	employment. 	"Terms and conditions of	"Terms 	and 	conditions 	of
employment" 	mean 	heal th 	and 	welfare 	benefits
as 	defined 	by 	Section 	53200, 	leave, 	transfer
and 	reassignment 	policies, 	safety 	conditions
of 	employment, 	class 	size, 	procedures 	to 	be
used 	for 	the 	evaluation 	of 	employees,
organizational 	security pursuant 	to Section
3546, 	procedures 	for 	processing 	grievances
pursuant 	to 	Sections 	3548.5, 	3548.6, 	3548.7,
and 	3548.8, 	and 	the 	layoff 	of 	probationary
certificated 	school 	district 	employees,
pursuant 	to Section 	44959.5 	of 	the 	Education
Code. 	In 	addition, 	the 	exclusive
representative 	of 	certificated 	personnel 	has
the 	right 	to 	consult 	on 	the 	definition 	of
educational 	objectives, 	the 	determination 	of
the 	content 	of 	courses 	and 	curriculum, 	and
the 	selection 	of 	textbooks 	to 	the 	extent
such 	matters 	are 	within 	the 	discretion 	of
the 	public 	school 	employer 	under 	the 	law.
All 	matters 	not 	specifically 	enumerated 	are
reserved 	to 	the 	public 	school 	employer 	and
may 	not 	be 	a 	subject 	of 	meeting 	and
negotiating, 	provided 	that 	nothing 	herein
may 	be 	construed 	to 	limit 	the 	right 	of 	the
public 	school 	employer 	to 	consult 	with 	any
employees 	or 	employee 	organization 	on 	any
matter 	outside 	the 	scope 	of 	representation.
The scope of representation shall be limited
matter outside the scope of representation.
12	12
to matters relating to wages, hours of
employment, and other terms and conditions
employment" mean health and welfare benefits
as defined by Section 53200, leave, transfer
and reassignment policies, safety conditions
of employment, class size, procedures to be
used for the evaluation of employees,
organizational security pursuant to Section
3546, procedures for processing grievances
pursuant to Sections 3548.5, 3548.6, 3548.7,
and 3548.8, and the layoff of probationary
certificated school district employees,
pursuant to Section 44959.5 of the Education
Code. In addition, the exclusive
representative of certificated personnel has
the right to consult on the definition of
educational objectives, the determination of
the content of courses and curriculum, and
the selection of textbooks to the extent
such matters are within the discretion of
the public school employer under the law.
All matters not specifically enumerated are
reserved to the public school employer and
may not be a subject of meeting and
negotiating, provided that nothing herein
may be construed to limit the right of the
public school employer to consult with any
employees or employee organization on any

The 	hearing 	officer 	found 	that 	the District 	unilaterally
reduced 	the 	wages 	and 	hours 	of 	those 	employees 	not 	rehired 	as
lead 	teachers 	for 	the 	1978-79 	school 	year, 	thereby 	violating
the 	Act. 	I 	find 	that 	the 	hearing 	officer 	mischaracterized 	the
conduct 	of 	the District. 	He 	should 	have 	found 	that 	the
decision 	to 	abolish 	the 	five 	lead 	teacher 	positions 	was 	a
matter 	within management's 	exclusive 	prerogative, 	and 	therefore
not 	negotiable. 	Healdsburg Union High 	School 	District
(6/19/80) 	PERB 	Decision No. 	132. 	However, 	as 	the majority
points 	out, 	just 	because 	the 	decision 	to 	abolish 	a 	position 	is
not 	negotiable, 	the District 	is 	not 	relieved 	of 	its 	duty 	to
negotiate 	over 	the 	impact 	of 	that 	decision 	upon 	wages, 	hours
and 	working 	conditions. 	~~-i:!!_<:l_?_l?.11-.:i::.9., 	_s_~_p_r_~. 	at 	p. 	67.
The hearing officer found that the District unilaterally
The 	District 	maintains 	that 	the 	Association 	waived 	its
right 	to 	negotiate 	over 	the 	impact 	of 	the 	decision 	to 	abolish
the 	five 	lead 	teacher 	positions 	by 	negotiating Article 	9 of 	the
collective 	agreement, 	governing 	transfers. 	It 	araues
that 	the 	loss 	of wages 	and 	hours 	sustained 	by 	the 	former
lead 	teachers 	was 	a 	permissible 	consequence 	of 	a 	lawful
11 transfer. 11 	In Amador 	Valley Joint 	Union High 	School 	District
(10/2/78) 	PERB 	Decision No. 	74, 	the 	Board 	concluded 	that 	a
waiver 	will 	only 	be 	found 	where 	there 	is 	"clear 	and
unmistakable 	contract 	language 	or 	demonstrative 	behavior"
waiving 	a 	reasonable 	opportunity 	to 	bargain. There is no	There 	is 	no
evidence 	to 	indicate 	that 	the 	transfer 	provisions 	of Article 	9
The District maintains that the Association waived its
13	13
reduced the wages and hours of those employees not rehired as
lead teachers for the 1978-79 school year, thereby violating
the Act. I find that the hearing officer mischaracterized the
conduct of the District. He should have found that the
decision to abolish the five lead teacher positions was a
matter within management's exclusive prerogative, and therefore
not negotiable. Healdsburg Union High School District
(6/19/80) PERB Decision No. 132. However, as the majority
points out, just because the decision to abolish a position is
not negotiable, the District is not relieved of its duty to
negotiate over the impact of that decision upon wages, hours
and working conditions. Healdsburg, supra, at p. 67.
right to negotiate over the impact of the decision to abolish
the five lead teacher positions by negotiating Article 9 of the
collective agreement, governing transfers. It argues
that the loss of wages and hours sustained by the former
lead teachers was a permissible consequence of a lawful
"transfer ." In Amador Valley Joint Union High School District
(10/2/78) PERB Decision No. 74, the Board concluded that a
waiver will only be found where there is "clear and
unmistakable contract language or demonstrative behavior"
waiving a reasonable opportunity to bargain.
evidence to indicate that the transfer provisions of Article 9

of 	the 	collective 	agreement 	give 	the 	district 	the 	unfettered
right 	to 	reduce 	the 	wages 	and 	hours 	of 	transferred 	employees.
On 	the 	contrary, 	Article 	9.21, 	which 	defines 	transfers 	as 	"the
permanent 	assignment 	of 	a 	unit 	member 	from 	one 	site 	to 	another"
is, 	on 	its 	face, 	1 imi tea 	to 	transfers 	between 	school 	sites. 	It
is 	silent 	as 	to 	the 	right 	of 	the 	District 	to 	reduce 	teacher
wages 	or 	work 	year 	as 	the 	consequence 	of 	a 	"transfer."
of the collective agreement give the district the unfettered
Therefore, 	I 	would 	find 	that 	no 	waiver 	occurred, 	and 	on
that 	basis 	affirm 	the 	hearing 	officer's 	determination 	that 	the
District 	violated 	subsections 	3543.S(a), 	(b) 	and 	(c) 	by
refusing 	to 	negotiate 	over 	the 	impact 	of 	its 	decision 	to
eliminate 	five 	lead 	teacher 	positions.
Therefore, I would find that no waiver occurred, and on
Johl,J,/W.
\... ,,
Jaeger, 	Member✓
Johbyw. Jaeger , Member
14	14
right to reduce the wages and hours of transferred employees.
On the contrary, Article 9. 21, which defines transfers as "the
permanent assignment of a unit member from one site to another"
is, on its face, limited to transfers between school sites. 	It
is silent as to the right of the District to reduce teacher
wages or work year as the consequence of a "transfer."
that basis affirm the hearing officer's determination that the
District violated subsections 3543.5(a) , (b) and (c) by
refusing to negotiate over the impact of its decision to
eliminate five lead teacher positions.

APPENDIX A	APPENDIX A NOTICE 	TO 	EMPLOYEES
POSTED 	BY ORDER OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
An 	Agency 	of 	the 	State 	of 	California
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
After 	a 	hearing 	in 	case 	no. 	LA-CE-382 	in 	which 	all 	parties
participated, 	it 	has 	been 	found 	that 	the 	South 	Bay 	Union 	School
District 	Board 	of 	Trustees 	violated 	the 	Educational 	Employment
Relations 	Act 	(Government 	Code 	subsections 	3543.S(a), 	(b) 	and
(c)	(c)) 	by 	taking 	unilateral 	action 	changing 	wages 	and 	hours 	of
employment 	of 	employees 	who 	are 	lead 	teachers 	and 	represented
by 	the 	Southwest 	Teachers 	Association. 	As 	a 	result 	of 	this
conduct, 	we 	have 	been 	ordered 	to 	post 	this 	notice.
After a hearing in case no. LA-CE-382 in which all parties
WE 	WILL 	ABIDE 	BY 	THE 	FOLLOWING:	WE WILL ABIDE BY THE FOLLOWING:
(1) 	CEASE 	AND 	DESIST 	from 	failing 	and 	refusing 	to 	meet 	and
negotiate 	in 	good 	faith 	with 	the 	exclusive 	representative
by 	taking 	unilateral 	action 	on 	matters 	within 	the 	scope 	of
representation;
(1)
(2) 	CEASE AND 	DESIST 	from 	denying 	the 	Association 	its
right 	to 	represent 	unit 	members 	by 	failing 	and 	refusing 	to
meet 	and 	negotiate 	about 	matters 	within 	the 	scope 	of
representation;
(2)
(4) 	TAKE 	THE 	FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE 	ACTIONS WHICH ARE
NECESSARY TO 	EFFECTUATE 	THE 	POLICIES 	OF 	THE 	EDUCATIONAL
EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	ACT.
(4)
(a) 	Reimburse 	those 	employees 	who 	were 	lead 	teachers
during 	school 	year 	1977-78 	but 	who 	were 	not 	lead
teachers 	for 	school 	year 	1978-79 	wages 	in 	the 	amount
of 	five 	{5) 	percent 	differential 	pay 	plus 	pro 	rata 	pay
for 	twelve 	workdays 	for 	each 	of 	the 	school 	years
beginning 	with 	1978-79;
(a)
1
(3) CE EASE AND 	DESIST 	from 	interfering 	with 	employees'
right 	to 	select 	an 	exclusive 	representative 	to 	meet 	and
negotiate 	with 	the 	employer 	on 	their 	behalf 	by 	unilaterally
changing 	matters 	within 	the 	scope 	of 	representation;
right to select an exclusive representative to meet and
) 	ASE AND DESIST from interfering with employees'	C
1
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the State of California
participated, it has been found that the South Bay Union School
District Board of Trustees violated the Educational Employment
Relations Act (Government Code subsections 3543.5 (a) , (b) and
) by taking unilateral action changing wages and hours of
employment of employees who are lead teachers and represented
by the Southwest Teachers Association. As a result of this
conduct, we have been ordered to post this notice.
CEASE AND DESIST from failing and refusing to meet and
negotiate in good faith with the exclusive representative
by taking unilateral action on matters within the scope of
representation;
CEASE AND DESIST from denying the Association its
right to represent unit members by failing and refusing to
meet and negotiate about matters within the scope of
representation;
TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS WHICH ARE
NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE EDUCATIONAL
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS ACT.
Reimburse those employees who were lead teachers
during school year 1977-78 but who were not lead
teachers for school year 1978-79 wages in the amount
of five (5) percent differential pay plus pro rata pay
for twelve workdays for each of the school years
beginning with 1978-79;
negotiate with the employer on their behalf by unilaterally
changing matters within the scope of representation;

(b) 	Reimburse 	those 	employees 	who 	were 	lead 	teachers
during 	school 	year 	1977-78 	and 	who 	were 	lead 	teachers
during 	school 	year 	1978-79 	wages 	in 	the 	amount 	of 	pro
rata 	pay 	for 	twelve 	workdays 	for 	each 	of 	the 	school
years 	beginning 	with 	1978-79;*
(c)	(c) 	Reimbursement 	ordered 	above 	is 	to 	run 	from 	the
date 	the 	wages 	and 	workyear 	were 	unilaterally 	changed
until 	the 	occurrence 	of 	the 	earliest 	of 	the 	following
events: 	(1) 	the 	date 	the 	District 	negotiates 	to
agreement 	with 	the 	Association 	on 	matters 	pertaining
to 	the 	wages 	and 	hours 	of 	lead 	teachers, 	(2) 	a 	bona
fide 	impasse 	in 	negotiating, 	(3) 	the 	failure 	of 	the
Association 	to 	request 	to 	negotiate 	within 	five 	days
of 	service 	of 	this 	Decision, 	or 	to 	commence
negotiations 	within 	five 	days 	of 	the 	District's 	notice
or 	its 	desire 	to 	negotiate 	with 	the 	Association 	or,
(4)	(4) 	the 	subsequent 	failure 	of 	the 	Association 	to
negotiate 	in 	good 	faith.
(d) 	Pay 	in 	addition 	to 	the 	amounts 	specified 	in
subparagraphs 	(a), 	(b) 	and 	(c) 	above, 	seven 	(7)
percent 	interest 	per 	annum 	on 	the 	amount 	owing 	to 	each
employee, 	measured 	from 	September 	1, 	1978 	to 	the 	time
payment 	is 	made.
Dated:	Dated : 	SOUTH 	BAY UNION 	SCHOOL 	DISTRICT
BOARD OF 	TRUSTEES
SOUTH BAY UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT
By: Superintendent
By :
*	* In computing the amount of back salary due to individual	computing 	the 	amount 	of 	back 	salary 	due 	to 	individual
lead 	teachers, 	the 	District 	may 	deduct 	any 	salary 	earned 	by 	a
lead 	teacher 	during 	the 	twelve 	(12) 	day 	periods 	immediately
following 	the 	end 	of 	school 	years. 	Mccann 	Steel 	Co. 	v. 	NLRB
(C.A. 	6, 	1978) 	570 	Fed.2d 	652 	[97 	LRRM 	2921]. 	However 	back -pay
shall 	not 	be 	reduced 	by 	any 	amount 	received 	as 	unemployment
compensation. 	Souix 	Falls 	Stock 	Yards 	Co. 	(1978) 	235 	NLRB 	62
[99 	LRRM 	1316].
In
THIS 	IS 	AN 	OFFICIAL 	NOTICE. 	IT 	MUST 	REMAIN 	POSTED 	FOR AT 	LEAST
30 	CALENDAR DAYS 	FROM THE 	DATE 	OF 	POSTING AND MUST 	NOT 	BE
REDUCED 	IN 	SIZE, 	DEFACED, 	ALTERED OR COVERED BY ANY MATERIAL.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE.
2
Reimburse those employees who were lead teachers	)
(d) Pay in addition to the amounts specified in
2
Reimbursement ordered above is to run from the
date the wages and workyear were unilaterally changed
until the occurrence of the earliest of the following
events: (1) the date the District negotiates to
agreement with the Association on matters pertaining
to the wages and hours of lead teachers, (2) a bona
fide impasse in negotiating, (3) the failure of the
Association to request to negotiate within five days
of service of this Decision, or to commence
negotiations within five days of the District's notice
or its desire to negotiate with the Association or,
the subsequent failure of the Association to
negotiate in good faith.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Superintendent
lead teachers, the District may deduct any salary earned by a
lead teacher during the twelve (12) day periods immediately
following the end of school years. Mccann Steel Co. v. NLRB
(C.A. 6, 1978) 570 Fed. 2d 652 [97 LRRM 2921]. However back pay
shall not be reduced by any amount received as unemployment
compensation. Souix Falls Stock Yards Co. (1978) 235 NLRB 62
[99 LRRM 1316] .
IT MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR AT LEAST
30 CALENDAR DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE
REDUCED IN SIZE, DEFACED, ALTERED OR COVERED BY ANY MATERIAL.
during school year 1977-78 and who were lead teachers
during school year 1978-79 wages in the amount of pro
rata pay for twelve workdays for each of the school
years beginning with 1978-79; *
subparagraphs (a) , (b) and (c) above, seven (7)
percent interest per annum on the amount owing to each
employee, measured from September 1, 1978 to the time
payment is made.