Sacramento City Unified School District (PERB 0214E)

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
______________________ )
DECISION OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
In the Matter of:
SOCIAL SERVICES UNION, LOCAL 535,
SEIU, AFL-CIO,
Charging Party, 	Case No. S-CE-345
v . 	PERB Decision No. 214
SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, 	April 30, 1982
Respondent.
Appearances: Vincent Harrington, Attorney (Van Bourg,
Allen Weinberg and Roger) for Social Services Union, Local 535
SEIU, AFL-CIO; Clifford D. Weiler, Attorney (Brown and Conradi)
for the Sacramento City Unified School District.
Before Jaeger, Moore and Tovar, Members.
DECISION
On May 21, 1980, the Social Services Union, Local 535,
SEIU, AFL-CIO (Local 535) filed an unfair practice charge
against the Sacramento City Unified School District (District)
alleging a violation of subsections 3543.5 (a) and (d) of the
Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA or Act) . 1
1Government Code section 3540 et seq. Unless otherwise
indicated, all references are to the Government Code. 	In
relevant part, section 3543.5 provides as follows:
It shall be unlawful for a public school
employer to:
DECISION 	OF 	THE
STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
In 	the 	Matter 	of:
SOCIAL 	SERVICES 	UNION, 	LOCAL 	535,
SEIU, 	AFL-CIO,
Charging 	Party,
v.
SACRAMENTO 	CITY 	UNIFIED 	SCHOOL 	DISTRICT,
Respondent.
Case 	No. 	S-CE-345
PERB 	Decision 	No. 	214
April 	30, 	1982
~!earances: 	Vincent 	Harrington, 	Attorney 	(Van 	Bourg,
Al 	en Weinberg 	and 	Roger) 	for 	Social 	Services 	Union, 	Local 	535
SEIU, 	AFL-CIO; 	Clifford 	D. 	Weiler, 	Attorney 	(Brown 	and 	Conradi)
for 	the 	Sacramento 	City 	Unified 	School 	District.
Before 	Jaeger, 	Moore 	and 	Tovar, 	Members.
DECISION
On 	May 	21, 	1980, 	the 	Social 	Services 	Union, 	Local 	535,
SEIU, 	AFL-CIO 	(Local 	535) 	filed 	an 	unfair 	practice 	charge
against 	the 	Sacramento 	City 	Unified 	School 	District 	(District)
alleging 	a 	violation 	of 	subsections 	3543.5(a) 	and 	(d) 	of 	the
Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Act 	(EERA 	or 	Act) .1
lGovernment 	Code 	section 	3540 	et 	seq. 	Thnless 	otherwise
indicated, 	all 	references 	are 	to 	the 	Government 	Code. 	In
relevant 	part, 	section 	3543.5 	provides 	as 	follows:
It 	shall 	be 	unlawful 	for 	a 	public 	school
employer 	to:

The District excepts from a Public Employment Relations
. . 	. 	. . 	. 	.
Board (PERB or Board) attached hearing officer's proposed
decision holding that the District violated the aforementioned
subsections of the Act by meeting and conferring with the
Supervisory Council (the Council) , an employee organization
formed at the suggestion of the District, and by providing
support to the Council while there was a pending question
concerning representation. The District further excepts to the
hearing officer's finding that subsections (a) and (d) were
violated by remarks made by the District superintendent.
The hearing officer's procedural history and findings of
fact are free of prejudicial error and are adopted as the
findings of the Board. We further affirm his conclusions of
law except as modified below.
(a) Impose or threaten to impose reprisals
on employees, to discriminate or threaten to
discriminate against employees, or otherwise
to interfere with, restrain, or coerce
employees because of their exercise of
rights guaranteed by this chapter.
(d) Dominate or interfere with the
formation or administration of any employee
organization, or contribute financial or
other support to it, or in any way encourage
employees to join any organization in
preference to another.
22
(a) 	Impose 	or 	threaten 	to 	impose 	reprisals
on 	employees, 	to 	discriminate 	or 	threaten 	to
discriminate 	against 	employees, 	or 	otherwise
to 	interfere 	with, 	restrain, 	or 	coerce
employees 	because 	of 	their 	exercise 	of
rights 	guaranteed 	by 	this 	chapter.
(d) 	Dominate 	or 	interfere 	with 	the
formation 	or 	administration 	of 	any 	employee
organization, 	or 	contribute 	financial 	or
other 	support 	to 	it, 	or 	in 	any 	way 	encourage
employees 	to 	join 	any 	organization 	in
preference 	to 	another.
The 	District 	excepts 	from 	a 	Public 	Employment 	Relations
Board 	(PERB 	or 	Board) 	attached 	hearing 	officer's 	proposed
decision 	holding 	that 	the 	District 	violated 	the 	aforementioned
subsections 	of 	the 	Act 	by 	meeting 	and 	conferring 	with 	the
Supervisory 	Council 	(the 	Council), 	an 	employee 	organization
formed 	at 	the 	suggestion 	of 	the 	District, 	and 	by 	providing
support 	to 	the 	Council 	while 	there 	was 	a 	pending 	question
concerning 	representation. 	The 	District 	further 	excepts 	to 	the
hearing 	officer's 	finding 	that 	subsections 	(a) 	and 	(d) 	were
violated 	by 	remarks 	made 	by 	the 	District 	superintendent.
The 	hearing 	officer's 	procedural 	history 	and 	findings 	of
fact 	are 	free 	of 	prejudicial 	error 	and 	are 	adopted 	as 	the
findings 	of 	the 	Board. 	We 	further 	affirm 	his 	conclusions 	of
law 	except 	as 	modified 	below.

33
DISCUSSION
Subsection 3543.5(d) makes it unlawful for a public school
employer to:
[d]ominate or interfere with the formation
or administration of any employee
organization, or contribute financial or
other support to it, or in any way encourage
employees to join any organization in
preference to another.
In Santa Monica Community College District (9/21/79) PERB
Decision No. 103, the Board has found that subsection 3543.5(d)
imposes on the employer an unqualified requirement of strict
neutrality with respect to employee choice of representation.
"The simple threshold test of subsection 3543.5 (d) is whether
the employer's conduct tends to influence that choice or
provide stimulus in one direction or the other. " Santa Monica
CCD, supra. See also Midwest Piping Co. , Inc. (1945) 63 NLRB
1060 [17 LRRM 40] and Shea Chemical Corp., (1958) 121 NLRB 1027
[42 LRRM 1486] .
The record clearly indicates that there was a question
concerning representation pending when the District suggested
to its employees that they form the Council and that the
District was well aware of Local 535's representational efforts.
Honore' Hedlund testified that the Council was
established/formed in approximately mid-1978 and that it was
DISCUSSION
Subsection 	3543.S(d) 	makes 	it 	unlawful 	for 	a 	public 	school
employer 	to:
[d]ominate 	or 	interfere 	with 	the 	formation
or 	administration 	of 	any 	employee
organization, 	or 	contribute 	financial 	or
other 	support 	to 	it, 	or 	in 	any 	way 	encourage
employees 	to 	join 	any 	organization 	in
preference 	to 	another.
In 	Santa 	Monica 	Community 	College 	District 	(9/21/79) 	PERB
Decision 	No. 	103, 	the 	Board 	has 	found 	that 	subsection 	3543.S(d)
imposes 	on 	the 	employer 	an 	unqualified 	requirement 	of 	strict
neutrality 	with 	respect 	to 	employee 	choice 	of 	representation.
"The 	simple 	threshold 	test 	of 	subsection 	3543.S(d) 	is 	whether
the 	employer's 	conduct 	tends 	to 	influence 	that 	choice 	or
provide 	stimulus 	in 	one 	direction 	or 	the 	other." 	Santa 	Monica
CCD, 	supra. 	See 	also 	Midwest 	Piping 	Co., 	Inc. 	(1945) 	63 	NLRB
1060 	[17 	LRRM 	40] 	and 	Shea 	Chemical 	Corp . , 	(1958) 	121 	NLRB 	1027
[42 	LRRM 	1486].
The 	record 	clearly 	indicates 	that 	there 	was 	a 	question
concerning 	representation 	pending 	when 	the 	District 	suggested
to 	its 	employees 	that 	they 	form 	the 	Council 	and 	that 	the
District 	was 	well 	aware 	o f 	Local 	535's 	representational 	ef f orts.
Honore' 	Hedlund 	testified 	that 	the 	Council 	was
e stablished/formed 	in 	approxim a tely 	mid-1978 	a nd 	that 	it 	was

right after the classified employees had their election and
selected Local 22 SEIU, AFL-CIO. 2
Thus, Local 535 filed their representation petition about
the time the Council was formed or earlier. 3 Indeed, the
Council was formed following the suggestion of the District
superintendent and assistant superintendent. 4 The District
proceeded to meet on a regular basis with the Council, during
working hours, on District facilities, until the time of the
hearing in this case.
2Board records indicate that the election for the
classified employees took place as follows:
The election for all units (paraprofessional aides; office
tech, business services unit; operations support; and security
unit) took place on November 11, 1977.
The election results were certified on November 18, 1977
for all units except the paraprofessional aides, which had a
runoff election on April 20, 1978; with SEIU certified on
May 3, 1978.
3 In Sacramento City USD (3/25/80) PERB Decision No. 122
we upheld a hearing officer's conclusion that Local 535 was not
the same organization as Local 22 and that it therefore could
represent the District's classified supervisory employees.
4The Charging Party neither charged nor litigated a
contention that the District violated the Act by suggesting the
formation of the Council. That conduct occurred outside the
6-month statute of limitation established in section 3541.5.
The meeting and conferring with the Council which did occur
within the 6-month period could be understood only in the
context of the District's earlier relationship with the
Council. As noted by the hearing officer, evidence of earlier
misconduct may be received at a hearing as background in order
to shed light on the true character of events within the
6-month period. Local Lodge No. 1424 v. NLRB (1960) 362 U.S.
411 [45 LRRM 3212] . NLRB v. Lundy MEg. Corp. (2d Cir. 1963)
316 F. 2d 921 [53 LRRM 2106].
44
right 	after 	the 	classified 	employees 	had 	their 	election 	and
selected 	Local 	22 	SEIU, 	AFL-CIO.2
Thus, 	Local 	535 	filed 	their 	representation 	petition 	about
the 	time 	the 	Council 	was 	formed 	or 	earlier.3 	Indeed, 	the
Council 	was 	formed 	following 	the 	suggestion 	of 	the 	District
superintendent 	and 	assistant 	superintendent.4 	The 	District
proceeded 	to 	meet 	on 	a 	regular 	basis 	with 	the 	Council, 	during
working 	hours, 	on 	District 	facilities, 	until 	the 	time 	of 	the
hearing 	in 	this 	case.
2Board 	records 	indicate 	that 	the 	election 	for 	the
classified 	employees 	took 	place 	as 	follows:
The 	election 	for 	all 	units 	{paraprofessional 	aides; 	office
tech, 	business 	services 	unit; 	operations 	support; 	and 	security
unit) 	took 	place 	on 	November 	11, 	1977.
The 	election 	results 	were 	certified 	on 	November 	18, 	1977
for 	all 	units 	except 	the 	paraprofessional 	aides, 	which 	had 	a
runoff 	election 	on 	April 	20, 	1978; 	with 	SEIU 	certified 	on
May 	3, 	1978.
31n 	Sacramento 	City 	USD 	{3/25/80) 	PERB 	Decision 	No. 	122
we 	upheld 	a 	hearing 	officer's 	conclusion 	that 	Local 	535 	was 	not
the 	same 	organization 	as 	Local 	22 	and 	that 	it 	therefore 	could
represent 	the 	District's 	classified 	supervisory 	employees.
4The 	Charging 	Party 	neither 	charged 	nor 	litigated 	a
contention 	that 	the 	Distri c t 	violated 	the 	Act 	by 	suggesting 	the
formation 	of 	the 	Council. 	That 	conduct 	occurred 	outside 	the
6- mon t h 	statute 	of 	limi ta tion 	established 	in 	section 	3 541.5.
The 	meeting 	and 	conferring 	with 	the 	Council 	which 	did 	occur
within 	the 	6-month 	period 	could 	be 	understood 	only 	in 	the
context 	of 	the 	District's 	earlier 	relationship 	with 	the
Council. 	As 	noted 	by 	the 	hearing 	officer, 	evidence 	of 	earlier
misconduct 	may 	be 	received 	a t 	a 	hearing 	as 	background 	in 	o rde r
to 	she d 	light 	o n 	the 	true 	character 	of 	events 	within 	the
6-month 	period. 	Loca~ 	Lodge 	No. 	1424 	v. 	NLRB 	(1960) 	362 	U.S.
411 	[45 	LRRM 	3212]. 	NLRB 	v . 	Lundy 	Mfg. 	Corp. 	(2d 	Cir. 	1963)
316 	F.2d 	921 	[53 	LRRM 	2106].

The Council in effect negotiated with the District over
matters within the scope of representation and became the only
effective voice for supervisors in the District during a time
when a question concerning representation with Local 535 was
pending.
On April 30, 1980, the Council and the District held their
last meeting before the June 2 representation election. During
the meeting the superintendent was asked about the forthcoming
election involving Local 535. 	The Superintendent responded
that, if Local 535 won the election, then discussions which had
been held with the Council about the various items would have
to start over again. This statement could reasonably and
logically be understood as an expression of disfavor for
Local 535, a threat of loss of all gains achieved which would
tend to make the employees apprehensive about voting for
Local 535.
In the context of the situation, as well as because of the
timing, the reasonable implication of the superintendent's
statement is one of discouraging employees to vote in favor of
Local 535 and instead, providing stimulus towards the Council.
As the hearing officer points out, it doesn't matter that
the Council was not a petitioner to represent the supervisory
unit -- the competition between the Council and Local 535 was
real nonetheless. Utrad Corp. v. NLRB (CA 7, 1971) , 454 F. 2d
55
The 	Council 	in 	effect 	negotiated 	with 	the 	District 	over
matters 	within 	the 	scope 	of 	representation 	and 	became 	the 	only
effective 	voice 	for 	supervisors 	in 	the 	District 	during 	a 	time
when 	a 	question 	concerning 	representation 	with 	Local 	535 	was
pending.
On 	April 	30, 	1980, 	the 	Council 	and 	the 	District 	held 	their
last 	meeting 	before 	the 	June 	2 	representation 	election. 	During
the 	meeting 	the 	superintendent 	was 	asked 	about 	the 	forthcoming
election 	involving 	Local 	535. 	The 	Superintendent 	responded
that, 	if 	Local 	535 	won 	the 	election, 	then 	discussions 	which 	had
been 	held 	with 	the 	Council 	about 	the 	various 	items 	would 	have
to 	start 	over 	again. 	This 	statement 	could 	reasonably 	and
logically 	be 	understood 	as 	an 	expression 	of 	disfavor 	for
Local 	535, 	a 	threat 	of 	loss 	of 	all 	gains 	achieved 	which 	would
tend 	to 	make 	the 	employees 	apprehensive 	about 	voting 	for
Local 	535.
In 	the 	cont ext 	of 	the 	situation, 	as 	well 	as 	because 	of 	the
timing, 	the 	reasonable 	implication 	of 	the 	superintendent's
statement 	is 	one 	of 	discouraging 	employees 	to 	vote 	in 	favor 	of
Local 	535 	and 	instead, 	providing 	stimulus 	towards 	the 	Council.
As 	the 	hearing 	officer 	points 	out, 	it 	doesn't 	matter 	that
the 	Council 	was 	not 	a 	petitioner 	to 	represent 	the 	supervisory
unit 	-- 	the 	competition 	between 	the 	Council 	and 	Local 	535 	was
real 	nonetheless. 	Utrad 	Corp. 	v. 	NLRB 	(CA 	7, 	1971), 	454 	F.2d

520 [79 LRRM 2080] ; Versatube Corp. (1973) 203 NLRB 456 [83
LRRM 1118] , enforced, 492 F. 2d 795 [86 LRRM 2128] (CA 6, 1974) .
It is the totality of the District's actions that tips the
balance and indicates that the District favored the Council and
provided subtle yet unmistaken stimulus in its direction, as
opposed to adhering to a standard of strict neutrality, thus
violating subsection 3543.5 (d) .
The Elements of a 3543.5 (a) Violation
We have previously issued decisions in two cases where
employer support/interference to an employee organization was
the issue. In Antelope Valley Community College District
(7/18/79) PERB Decision No. 97, we found a subsection 3543.5 (a)
violation based in large part on our conclusion that the
employer had acted with animus toward the association. 	In
Santa Monica Community College District, supra, we found a
subsection 3543.5 (a) violation where there was evidence of
blatantly disparate treatment and coercive demands.
While the action by the District in the instant case does
not reach the level of misconduct the Board found in either
Antelope Valley or Santa Monica, nonetheless, PERB will find a
violation of subsection 3543.5(a) when an employer's act (s)
tend to result in some harm to employee rights and the employer
is unable to justify its action (s) by proving operational
66
520 	[79 	LRRM 	2080]; 	Versatube 	Corp. 	(1973) 	203 	NLRB 	456 	[83
LRRM 	1118], 	enforced, 	492 	F.2d 	795 	[86 	LRRM 	2128] 	(CA 	6, 	1974).
It 	is 	the 	totality 	of 	the 	District's 	actions 	that 	tips 	the
balance 	and 	indicates 	that 	the 	District 	favored 	the 	Council 	and
provided 	subtle 	yet 	unmistaken 	stimulus 	in 	its 	direction, 	as
opposed 	to 	adhering 	to a 	standard 	of 	strict 	neutrality, 	thus
violating 	subsection 	3543.5(d).
The 	Elements 	of 	a 	3543.5(a) 	Violation
We 	have 	previously 	issued 	decisions 	in 	two 	cases 	where
employer 	support/interference 	to 	an 	employee 	organization 	was
the 	issue. 	In 	Antelope 	Valley 	Community 	College 	District
(7/18/79) 	PERB 	Decision 	No. 	97, 	we 	found 	a 	subsection 	3543.S(a)
violation 	based 	in 	large 	part 	on 	our 	conclusion 	that 	the
employer 	had 	acted 	with 	animus 	toward 	the 	association. 	In
Santa Monica 	Community 	College 	District, 	supra, 	we 	found 	a
subsection 	3543.S(a) 	violation 	where 	there 	was 	evidence 	of
blatantly 	disparate 	treatment 	and 	coercive 	demands.
While 	the 	action 	by 	the 	District 	in 	the 	instant 	case 	does
not 	reach 	the 	level 	of 	misconduct 	the 	Board 	found 	in 	either
Antelope 	Valley 	or 	Santa 	Monica, 	nonetheless, 	PERB 	will 	find 	a
violation 	of 	subsection 	3543 . S(a) 	when 	an 	employer's 	act(s)
tend 	to 	result 	in 	some 	harm 	to 	employee 	rights 	and 	the 	employer
is 	unable 	to 	justify 	its 	action(s) 	by 	proving 	operational

7
necessity. Carlsbad Unified School District (1/30/79) PERB
Decision No. 89.5
In an interference case like this one in which evidence of
motive is not a necessary element, the charging party needs to
make a prima facie showing that the employer's conduct tends to
or does result in harm to employee rights granted under EERA.
Then the burden shifts to the respondent to demonstrate
justification based on operational necessity. The Board will
then balance the parties' competing interests and resolve the
charge accordingly. See Carlsbad and Novato.
The negotiating sessions between the District and the
Council which preceded the June 1980 election did, in fact,
tend to harm protected rights under the Act.
In order to file for a representation election Local 535
had to have a showing of support, indicating that there were a
significant number of employees who favored their selection.
As the hearing officer points out, those employees who were
attempting to exercise their protected rights to assist the
selection of Local 535 as their exclusive representative were
confronted with a favored, in-house employee organization.
5The hearing officer unnecessarily applies a "but-for"
analysis to determine whether there's been a violation of
subsection 3543.5 (a) . In a pure interference case such as this
one, it is not necessary for the charging party to raise the
inference that the District was motivated by the protected
conduct. See Novato Unified School District (4/30/82) PERB
Decision No. 210.
necessity. 	Carlsbad 	Unified 	School 	District 	(1/30/79) 	PERB
Decision 	No. 	89.5
In 	an 	interference 	case 	like 	this 	one 	in 	which 	evidence 	of
motive 	is 	not 	a 	necessary 	element, 	the 	charging 	party 	needs 	to
make 	a 	prima 	facie 	showing 	that 	the 	employer's 	conduct 	tends 	to
or 	does 	result 	in 	harm 	to 	employee 	rights 	granted 	under 	EERA.
Then 	the 	burden 	shifts 	to 	the 	respondent 	to 	demonstrate
justification 	based 	on 	operational 	necessity. 	The 	Board 	will
then 	balance 	the 	parties' 	competing 	interests 	and 	resolve 	the
charge 	accordingly. 	See 	Carlsbad 	and 	Novato.
The 	negotiating 	sessions 	between 	the 	District 	and 	the
Council 	which 	preceded 	the 	June 	1980 	election 	did, 	in 	fact,
tend 	to 	harm 	protected 	rights 	under 	the 	Act.
In 	order 	to 	file 	for 	a 	representation 	election 	Local 	535
had 	to 	have 	a 	showing 	of 	support, 	indicating 	that 	there 	were 	a
significant 	number 	of 	employees 	who 	favored 	their 	selection.
As 	the 	hearing 	officer 	points 	out, 	those 	employees 	who 	were
attempting 	to 	exercise 	their 	protected 	rights 	to 	assist 	the
selection 	of 	Local 	535 	as 	their 	exclusive 	representative 	were
confronted 	with 	a 	favored, 	in-house 	employee 	organization.
5The 	hearing 	officer 	unnecessarily 	applies 	a 	"but-for"
analysis 	to 	determine 	whether 	there's 	been 	a 	violation 	of
subsection 	3543.S(a). 	In 	a 	pure 	interference 	case 	such 	as 	this
one, 	it 	is 	not 	necessary 	for 	the 	charging 	party 	to 	raise 	the
inference 	that 	the 	District 	was 	motivated 	by 	the 	protected
conduct. 	See 	Novato 	Unified 	School 	District 	(4/30/82) 	PERB
Decision 	No. 	210.

The superintendent's October 30th statement, in addition to
violating subsection 3543.5 (d) because of the District's
violation of its obligation to neutrality, also constitutes a
violation of subsection 3543.5 (a) because it interferes with
the employees' freedom of choice. The supervisory employees
had gained some benefits as a result of the sessions between
the District and the Council; the message behind the
superintendent's statement was clear: If Local 535 wins all
progress is lost and employees would have to start negotiating
from scratch again. The superintendent's statement thus
constitutes a promise of benefit should the employees decline
to be represented by Local 535, and an accompanying threat of
reprisal if they select Local 535 as their exclusive
representative.
The Charging Party established a prima facie case. The
District's conduct may only be excused if, on balance, the
District's operational necessity rationale outweighs the harm
to employee rights.
The operational necessity argument the District makes in
the instant case is that they were compelled to meet with the
Council pursuant to the requirement in subsection 3543.16 and
6In relevant part, section 3543.1 provides as follows:
(a) Employee organizations shall have the
right to represent their members in their
employment relations with public school
employers, except that once an employee
88
The 	superintendent's 	October 	30th 	statement, 	in 	addition 	to
violating 	subsection 	3543.5(d} 	because 	of 	the 	District's
violation 	of 	its 	obligation 	to 	neutrality, 	also 	constitutes 	a
violation 	of 	subsection 	3543.5(a) 	because 	it 	interferes 	with
the 	employees' 	freedom 	of 	choice. 	The 	supervisory 	employees
had 	gained 	some 	benefits 	as 	a 	result 	of 	the 	sessions 	between
the 	District 	and 	the 	Council; 	the 	message 	behind 	the
superintendent's 	statement 	was 	clear: 	If 	Local 	535 	wins 	all
progress 	is 	lost 	and 	employees 	would 	have 	to 	start 	negotiating
from 	scratch 	again. 	The 	superintendent's 	statement 	thus
constitutes 	a 	promise 	of 	benefit 	should 	the 	employees 	decline
to 	be 	represented 	by 	Local 	535, 	and 	an 	accompanying 	threat 	of
reprisal 	if 	they 	select 	Local 	535 	as 	their 	exclusive
representative.
The 	Charging 	Party 	established 	a 	prima 	facie 	case. 	The
District's 	conduct 	may 	only 	be 	excused 	if, 	on 	balance, 	the
District's 	operational 	necessity 	rationale 	outweighs 	the 	harm
to 	employee 	rights.
The 	operational 	necessity 	argument 	the 	District 	makes 	in
the 	instant 	case 	is 	that 	they 	were 	compelled 	to 	meet 	with 	the
Council 	pursuant 	to 	the 	requirement 	in 	subsection 	3543.16 	and
61n 	relevant 	part, 	section 	3543.1 	provides 	as 	follows:
(a) 	Employee 	organizations 	shall 	have 	the
right 	to 	represent 	their 	members 	in 	their
employment 	relations 	with 	public 	school
employers, 	except 	that 	once 	an 	employee

99
the Board decision in Professional Engineers in California
(3/19/80) PERB Decision No. 118-S.
We reject the District's argument. 	The obligation to meet
with the nonexclusive representative does not mean the District
can disregard the requirement of strict neutrality, nor does it
allow them to meet exclusively with the Council while a
question concerning representation is pending.
The totality of the circumstances in the instant case point
to a lack of neutrality on the part of the District as well as
unlawful stimulus towards the Council. The Council not only
came into existence at the suggestion of a former District
superintendent but also at approximately the same time Local
535 petitioned to represent supervisors. Then the District
proceeded to meet and negotiate exclusively with the Council as
if Local 535 did not exist while there was a clear question
concerning representation pending.
By supporting the Council to the exclusion of Local 535,
the District contributed support to and encouraged employees to
organization is recognized or certified as
the exclusive representative of an
appropriate unit pursuant to Section 3544.1
or 3544.7, respectively, only that employee
organization may represent that unit in
their employment relations with the public
school employer. Employee organizations may
establish reasonable restrictions regarding
who may join and may make reasonable
provisions for the dismissal of individuals
from membership.
the 	Board 	decision 	in 	Professional 	Engineers 	in 	California
(3/19/80) 	PERB 	Decision 	No. 	118-S.
organization 	is 	recognized 	or 	certified 	as
the 	exclusive 	representative 	of 	an
appropriate 	unit 	pursuant 	to 	Section 	3544.1
or 	3544.7, 	respectively, 	only 	that 	employee
organization 	may 	represent 	that 	unit 	in
their 	employment 	relations 	with 	the 	public
school 	employer. 	Employee 	organizations 	may
establish 	reasonable 	restrictions 	regarding
who 	may 	join 	and 	may 	make 	reasonable
provisions 	for 	the 	dismissal 	of 	individuals
Irom 	membership.
We 	reject 	the 	District's 	argument. 	The 	obligation 	to 	meet
with 	the 	nonexclusive 	representative 	does 	not 	mean 	the 	District
can 	disregard 	the 	requirement 	of 	strict 	neutrality, 	nor 	does 	it
allow 	them 	to 	meet 	exclusively 	with 	the 	Council 	while 	a
question 	concerning 	representation 	is 	pending.
The 	totality 	of 	the 	circumstances 	in 	the 	instant 	case 	point
to 	a 	lack 	of 	neutrality 	on 	the 	part 	of 	the 	District 	as 	well 	as
unlawful 	stimulus 	towards 	the 	Council. 	The 	Council 	not 	only
came 	into 	existence 	at 	the 	suggestion 	of 	a 	former 	District
superintendent 	but 	also 	at 	approximately 	the 	same 	time 	Local
535 	petitioned 	to 	represent 	supervisors. 	Then 	the 	District
proceeded 	to 	meet 	and 	negotiate 	exclusively 	with 	the 	Council 	as
if 	Local 	535 	did 	not 	exist 	while 	there 	was 	a 	clear 	question
concerning 	representation 	pending.
By 	supporting 	the 	Council 	to 	the 	exclusion 	of 	Local 	535,
the 	District 	contributed 	support 	to 	and 	encouraged 	employees 	to

join it in preference to Local 535, thus violating
subsection 3543.5 (d) . Further, by the same conduct, the
District concurrently interfered with employee rights in
violation of subsection 3543.5 (a) .
Attached to the District's statement of exceptions is a
request for oral argument in accordance with PERB Regulation
32315.7 The District gives the following reasons why such a
request should be granted: (1) "to respond to any concerns or
reservations which any Board member might possess, or any
inclination which any Board member might possess, to rule
against the District; (2) to assist PERB in understanding the
problems and practicalities faced by a public school employer
in attempting to comply with subsection 3543.1 (a) ; (3) the
District believes that significant legal issues exist within
this proceeding which will impact throughout California; and
(4) oral argument is a necessary element of due process of law
within their proceeding.
7PERB Regulations are codified at California
Administrative Code, title 8, section 31000 et seq.
section 32315 states:
A party desiring to argue orally before the
Board itself regarding the exceptions to the
proposed decision shall file, with the
statement of exceptions or the response to
the statement of exceptions, a written
request stating the reasons for the
request. Upon such request or its own
motion the Board itself may direct oral
argument.
10	10
join 	it 	in 	preference 	to 	Local 	535, 	thus 	violating
subsection 	3543.5(d). 	Further, 	by 	the 	same 	conduct, 	the
District 	concurrently 	interfered 	with 	employee 	rights 	in
violation 	of 	subsection 	3543.S(a).
Attached 	to 	the 	District's 	statement 	of 	exceptions 	is 	a
request 	for 	oral 	argument 	in 	accordance 	with 	PERB 	Regulation
32315.7 	The 	District 	gives 	the 	following 	reasons 	why 	such 	a
request 	should 	be 	granted: 	(1) 	"to 	respond 	to 	any 	concerns 	or
reservations 	which 	any 	Board 	member 	might 	possess, 	or 	any
inclination 	which 	any 	Board 	member 	might 	possess, 	to 	rule
against 	the 	District; 	(2) 	to 	assist 	PERB 	in 	understanding 	the
problems 	and 	practicalities 	faced 	by 	a 	public 	school 	employer
in 	attempting 	to 	comply 	with 	subsection 	3543.l(a); 	(3) 	the
District 	believes 	that 	significant 	legal 	issues 	exist 	within
this 	proceeding 	which 	will 	impact 	throughout 	California; 	and
(4) 	oral 	argument 	is 	a 	necessary 	element 	of 	due 	process 	of 	law
within 	their 	proceeding.
7PERB 	Regulations 	are 	codified 	at 	California
Administrative 	Code, 	title 	8, 	section 	31000 	et 	seq.
section 	32315 	states:
A party 	desiring 	to 	argue 	orally 	before 	the
Board 	itself 	regarding 	the 	exceptions 	to 	the
proposed 	decision 	shall 	file, 	with 	the
statement 	of 	exceptions 	or 	the 	response 	to
the 	statement 	of 	exceptions, 	a 	written
request 	stating 	the 	reasons 	for 	the
request. 	Upon 	such 	request 	or 	its 	own
motion 	the 	Board 	itself 	may 	direct 	oral
argument.

We find no need to grant the request as the matter was
thoroughly litigated by both parties and there are enough facts
in the record to allow the Board to reach its decision. 	To
allow for oral arguments is not only unnecessary but would be
costly and would further delay the resolution of the dispute.
REMEDY
The remedy proposed by the hearing officer is affirmed.
ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record of this case, the unfair practice charges
filed by the Social Services Union, Local 535, SEIU, AFL-CIO
against the Sacramento City Unified School District alleging
violation of subsections 3543.5 (a) and (d) are affirmed.
Pursuant to Government Code subsection 3541.5 (c) of the
Educational Employment Relations Act, it hereby is ORDERED that
the ballots impounded by the PERB following the June 2, 1980
election in the supervisory unit of the Sacramento City Unified
School District shall be destroyed and that no effect be given
to that election. 	A new election shall be conducted as may be
ordered by the Sacramento regional director. It is also
ORDERED that the Sacramento City Unified School District, Board
of Trustees, superintendent and their respective agents shall:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
1 . 	Commenting to employees that, if Local 535 wins
the election, then we would have to start negotiations over
again.
11	11
We 	find 	no 	need 	to 	grant 	the 	request 	as 	the 	matter 	was
thoroughly 	litigated 	by 	both 	parties 	and 	there 	are 	enough 	facts
in 	the 	record 	to 	allow 	the 	Board 	to 	reach 	its 	decision. 	To
allow 	for 	oral 	arguments 	is 	not 	only 	unnecessary 	but 	would 	be
costly 	and 	would 	further 	delay 	the 	resolution 	of 	the 	dispute.
REMEDY
The 	remedy 	proposed 	by 	the 	hearing 	officer 	is 	affirmed.
ORDER
Upon 	the 	foregoing 	findings 	of 	fact, 	conclusions 	of 	law,
and 	the 	entire 	record 	of 	this 	case, 	the 	unfair 	practice 	charges
filed 	by 	the 	Social 	Services 	Union, 	Local 	535, 	SEIU, 	AFL-CIO
against 	the 	Sacramento 	City 	Unified 	School 	District 	alleging
violation 	of 	subsections 	3543.5(a) 	and 	(d) 	are 	affirmed.
Pursuant 	to 	Government 	Code 	subsection 	3541.S(c) 	of 	the
Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Act, 	it 	hereby 	is 	ORDERED 	that
the 	ballots 	impounded 	by 	the 	PERB 	following 	the 	June 	2, 	1980
election 	in 	the 	supervisory 	unit 	of 	the 	Sacramento City 	Unified
School 	District 	shall 	be 	destroyed 	and 	that 	no 	effect 	be 	given
to 	that 	election. 	A new 	election 	shall 	be 	conducted 	as 	may 	be
ordered 	by 	the 	Sacramento 	regional 	director. 	It 	is 	also
ORDERED 	that 	the 	Sacramento 	City 	Unified 	School 	District, 	Board
of 	Trustees, 	superintendent 	and 	their 	respective 	agents 	shall:
A. 	CEASE 	AND 	DESIST 	FROM:
1. 	Commenting 	to 	employees 	that, 	if 	Local 	535 	wins
the 	election, 	then 	we 	would 	have 	to 	start 	negotiations 	over
again.

12	12
2. 	Showing favoritism toward the Supervisory Council
while a question concerning representation is pending by
continuing to meet and confer and/or negotiate with
representatives of the Supervisory Council about any matter
within the scope of representation (section 3543.2) .
B. 	TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE EERA:
1. Within seven (7) workdays after the date of
service of this decision, post at the headquarters office and
at all work locations where notices to employees customarily
are posted, copies of the Notice attached as an appendix hereto
signed by an authorized agent of the employer. 	Such posting
shall be maintained for a period of thirty (30) consecutive
workdays. 	Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that the
notices are not altered, reduced in size, defaced or covered
with any other material.
2. Within forty-five (45) consecutive workdays from
the service of the final Decision herein notify the Sacramento
regional director of the Public Employment Relations Board in
writing of what steps the employer has taken to comply with the
terms of this Decision. Continue to report in writing to the
regional director periodically thereafter as directed. All
reports to the regional director shall be served concurrently
on the charging party herein.
By Irene Tovar, Member 	John W. Jaeger, Member
Barbara D. Moore, Member
2. 	Showing 	favoritism 	toward 	the 	Supervisory 	Council
while 	a 	question 	concerning 	representation 	is 	pending 	by
continuing 	to 	meet 	and 	confer 	and/or 	negotiate 	with
representatives 	of 	the 	Supervisory 	Council 	about 	any 	matter
within 	the 	scope 	of 	representation 	(section 	3543.2).
B. 	TAKE 	THE 	FOLLOWING 	AFFIRMATIVE 	ACTIONS 	DESIGNED 	TO
EFFECTUATE 	THE 	POLICIES 	OF 	THE 	EERA:
1. 	Within 	seven 	(7) 	workdays 	after 	the 	date 	of
service 	of 	this 	decision, 	post 	at 	the 	headquarters 	office 	and
at 	all 	work 	locations 	where 	notices 	to 	employees 	customarily
are 	posted, 	copies 	of 	the 	Notice 	attached 	as 	an 	appendix 	hereto
signed 	by 	an 	authorized 	agent 	of 	the 	employer. 	Such 	posting
shall 	be 	maintained 	for 	a 	period 	of 	thirty 	(30) 	consecutive
workdays. 	Reasonable 	steps 	shall 	be 	taken 	to 	insure 	that 	the
notices 	are 	not 	altered, 	reduced 	in 	size, 	defaced 	or 	covered
with 	any 	other 	material.
2. 	Within 	forty-five 	(45) 	consecutive 	workdays 	from
the 	service 	of 	the 	final 	Decision 	herein 	notify 	the 	Sacramento
regional 	director 	of 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	in
writing 	of 	what 	steps 	the 	employer 	has 	taken 	to 	comply 	with 	the
terms 	of 	this 	Decision. 	Continue 	to 	report 	in 	writing 	to 	the
regional 	director 	periodically 	thereafter 	as 	directed. 	All
reports 	to 	the 	regional 	director 	shall 	be 	served 	concurrent l y
on 	the 	charging 	party 	herein.
~
~ Irene 	Tovar, 	Member ......
John 	W. 	Jaeger, 	Member
~arbara 	D. 	Moore, 	Member

APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the State of California
After a hearing in Unfair Practice Case No. S-CE-345,
Social Services Union, Local 535 SEIU, AFL-CIO v. Sacramento
City Unified School District, in which all parties had the
right to participate, it has been found that the Sacramento
City Unified School District violated the Educational
Employment Relations Act, Government Code subsections 3543.5 (a)
and (d) . The Public Employment Relations Board has ORDERED
that the ballots impounded by the PERB following the June 2,
1980 election in the supervisory unit of the Sacramento City
Unified School District shall be destroyed and that no effect
be given to that election. A new election shall be conducted
as may be ordered by the Sacramento regional director.
As a result of this conduct, we have been ordered to post
this notice and we will abide by the following:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
1. Commenting to our employees that, if Local 535
wins the election, then we would have to start negotiations
over again.
2. 	Showing favoritism toward the Supervisory Council
while a question concerning representation is pending by
continuing to meet and confer and/or negotiate with
representatives of the Supervisory Council about any matter
within the scope of representation (section 3543.2) .
SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT
Dated: 	By
Authorized Agent of the
District
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE. IT MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 30
CONSECUTIVE WORKDAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE
ALTERED, REDUCED IN SIZE, DEFACED OR COVERED WITH ANY OTHER
MATERIAL.
11
APPENDIX 	A
NOTICE 	TO 	EMPLOYEES
POSTED 	BY ORDER 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
An 	Agency 	of 	the 	State 	of 	California
After 	a 	hearing 	in 	Unfair 	Practice 	Case 	No. 	S-CE-345,
Social 	Services 	Union, 	Local 	535 	SEIU, 	AFL-CIO 	v. 	Sacramento
City 	Unified 	School 	District, 	in 	which 	all 	parties 	had 	the
right 	to 	participate, 	it 	has 	been 	found 	that 	the 	Sacramento
City 	Unified 	School 	District 	violated 	the 	Educational
Employment 	Relations 	Act, 	Government 	Code 	subsections 	3543.S(a)
and 	(d). 	The 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	has 	ORDERED
that 	the 	ballots 	impounded 	by 	the 	PERB 	following 	the 	June 	2,
1980 	election 	in 	the 	supervisory 	unit 	of 	the 	Sacramento 	City
Unified 	School 	District 	shall 	be 	destroyed 	and 	that 	no 	effect
be 	given 	to 	that 	election. 	A new 	election 	shall 	be 	conducted
as 	may 	be 	ordered 	by 	the 	Sacramento 	regional 	director.
As 	a 	result 	of 	this 	conduct, 	we 	have 	been 	ordered 	to 	post
this 	notice 	and 	we 	will 	abide 	by 	the 	following:
A. 	CEASE 	AND 	DESIST 	FROM:
1. 	Commenting 	to 	our 	employees 	that, 	if 	Local 	535
wins 	the 	election , 	then 	we 	would 	have 	to 	start 	negotiations
over 	again.
2. 	Showing 	favoritism 	toward 	the 	Supervisory 	Council
while 	a 	question 	concerning 	representation 	is 	pending 	by
continuing 	to 	meet 	and 	confer 	and/or 	negotiate 	with
representatives 	of 	the 	Supervisory 	Council 	about 	any 	matter
within 	the 	scope 	of 	representation 	(section 	3543.2).
SACRAMENTO 	CITY 	UNIFIED 	SCHOOL
DISTRICT
Dated: 	By Authorized 	Agent 	of 	the
District
THIS 	IS 	AN 	OFFICIAL 	NOTICE. 	IT 	MUST 	REMAIN 	POSTED 	FOR 	30
CONSECUTIVE 	WORKDAYS 	FROM 	THE 	DATE 	OF 	POSTING AND 	MUST 	NOT 	BE
ALTERED, 	REDUCED 	IN 	SIZE, 	DEFACED 	OR COVERED 	WITH 	ANY 	OTHER
MATERIAL.

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
SOCIAL 	SERVICES 	UNION, 	LOCAL 	535,
Charging 	Party,
v.
SACRAMENTO 	CITY 	UNIFIED 	SCHOOL 	DISTRICT
Respondent.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
SOCIAL SERVICES UNION, LOCAL 535 ,
Charging Party, 	Unfair Practice
Case No. S-CE-345
V .
SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Respondent.
Appearances : 	Vincent Harrington, Attorney (Van Bourg, Allen,
Weinberg and Roger ) for Social Services Union, Local 535;
Clifford Weiler, Attorney (Brown and Conradi) for the
Sacramento City Unified School District.
Before Ronald E. Blubaugh, Hearing Officer.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
It is contended in this case that a public school employer
negotiated with an "in-house" employee organization at the time
a question of representation was pending with a labor union.
The union alleges that the employer's conduct was an unfair
practice which invalidated a subsequent election. Ballots cast
in the election were impounded pending resolution of the
present unfair practice charge.
This charge was filed on May 21, 1980 by Social Services
Union, Local 535 (hereafter local 535) , against the Sacramento
City Unified School District (hereafter District). The charge
----- ------------------
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Unfair 	Practice
Case 	No. 	S-CE-345
PROPOSED DECISION	PROPOSED
(2/18/81)	(2/18
Appearances: 	Vincent 	Harrington, 	Attorney 	(Van 	Bourg, 	Allen,
Weinberg 	and 	Roger) 	for 	Social 	Services 	Union, 	Local 	535:
Clifford 	Weiler, 	Attorney 	(Brown 	and 	Conradi) 	for 	the
Sacramento 	City 	Unified 	School 	District.
Before 	Ronald 	E. 	Blubaugh, 	Hearing 	Officer.
PROCEDURAL 	HISTORY
It 	is 	contended 	in 	this 	case 	that 	a 	publ i c 	school 	emp l oye r
negotiated 	with 	an 	"in-house" 	employee 	organization 	at 	the 	time
a 	question 	of 	representation 	was 	pending 	with 	a 	labor 	union.
The 	union 	alleges 	that 	the 	employer's 	conduct 	was 	an 	unfair
practice 	which 	invalidated 	a 	subsequent 	election. 	Ballots 	cast
in 	the 	election 	were 	impounded 	pending 	resolution 	of 	the
present 	unfair 	practice 	charge.
This 	charge 	was 	filed 	on 	May 	21, 	1980 	by 	social 	Services
Union, 	Local 	535 	(hereafter 	local 	535}, 	against 	the 	Sacramento
City 	Unified 	School 	District 	(hereafter 	District). 	The 	charge
DECISION
/ 81}

alleges that the District violated Government Code section
3543.5 (a) by meeting with representatives of an organization
known as the Supervisory Council during a time when an election
was pending . 	It further alleges that on May 5, 1980 the
District superintendent warned employees that if Local 535 won
the forthcoming election the District "would not continue to
pursue or implement any subjects" then under discussion with
the Supervisory Council.
On May 29, 1980, the charging party was directed by the
Sacramento Regional Office of the Public Employment Relations
Board (hereafter PERB) to particularize its charge. 	The
charging party responded to the order on June 17 and amended
the charge, adding the allegation that the employer had
rendered unlawful assistance to the Supervisory Council. 	The
amended charge alleges violations of section 3543.5(a) and
(d) . The District answered the charge on July 3, 1980.
lunless otherwise indicated, all references are to the
Government Code. In relevant part, Government Code section
3543.5 provides as follows:
It shall be unlawful for a public school
employer to:
(a) Impose or threaten to impose reprisals
on employees, to discriminate or threaten to
discriminate against employees, or otherwise
to interfere with, restrain, or coerce
employees because of their exercise of
rights guaranteed by this chapter.
2
alleges 	that 	the 	District 	violated 	Government 	Code 	section
3543.5(a} 	by 	meeting 	with 	representatives 	of 	an 	organization
known 	as 	the 	supervisory 	Council 	during 	a 	time 	when 	an 	election
was 	pending. 	It 	further 	alleges 	that 	on 	May 	5, 	1980 	the
District 	superintendent 	warned 	employees 	that 	if 	Local 	535 	won
the 	forthcoming 	election 	the 	District 	"would 	not 	continue 	to
pursue 	or 	implement 	any 	subjects" 	then 	under 	discussion 	with
the 	supervisory 	council.
On 	May 	29, 	1980, 	the 	charging 	party 	was 	directed 	by 	the
Sacramento 	Regional 	Office 	of 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations
Board 	(hereafter 	PERB) 	to 	particularize 	its 	charge. 	The
charging 	party 	responded 	to 	the 	order 	on 	June 	17 	and 	amended
the 	charge, 	adding 	the 	allegation 	that 	the 	employer 	had
rendered 	unlawful 	assistance 	to 	the 	Supervisory 	council. 	The
amended 	charge 	alleges 	violations 	of 	section 	3543.5(a) 	and
(d).l 	The 	District 	answered 	the 	charge 	on 	July 	3, 	1980.
lunless 	otherwise 	indicated, 	all 	references 	are 	to 	the
Government 	Code. 	In 	relevant 	part, 	Government 	Code 	section
3543.5 	provides 	as 	follows:
It 	shall 	be 	unlawful 	for 	a 	public 	school
employer 	to:
(a) 	Impose 	or 	threaten 	to 	impose 	reprisals
on 	employees, 	to 	discriminate 	or 	threaten 	to
discriminate 	against 	employees, 	or 	otherwise
to 	interfere 	with, 	restrain, 	or 	coerce
employees 	because 	of 	their 	exercise 	of
rights 	guaranteed 	by 	this 	chapter.
• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	a 	• 	• 	• 	• 	•
2

After various continuances at the request of the parties, a
hearing was conducted on December 2, 1980 at the Sacramento
Regional Office of the PERB. 	The final brief was received on
February 13, 1981 and the case was submitted for decision.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Sacramento City Unified School District is an urban
school district located within Sacramento County. The District
has an enrollment of approximately 39,000 students. It was
stipulated that at all times relevant the District was a public
school employer and that Local 535 was an employee organization.
Events relating to the unfair practice charge are entwined
totally with those leading up to an election conducted on
June 2, 1980 among employees in the District's classified
supervisory unit. The election occurred after a lengthy
process which Local 535 commenced on March 14, 1978 by filing a
petition seeking to represent the District's 160 classified
supervisory employees. On March 28, 1978, the California
School Employees Association filed an intervention.
(d) Dominate or interfere with the
formation or administration of any employee
organization, or contribute financial or
other support to it, or in any way encourage
employees to join any organization in
preference to another.
W
(d ) 	Dominate 	or 	interfere 	with 	the
f o rmation 	or 	administration 	of 	any 	e mployee
organization, 	or 	contribute 	financial 	or
other 	support 	to 	it, 	or 	in 	any 	way 	encourage
employees 	to 	join 	any 	organization 	in
preference 	to 	another.
After 	various 	continuances 	at 	the 	request 	of 	the 	parties, 	a
hearing 	was 	conducted 	on 	December 	2, 	1980 	at 	the 	Sacramento
Regional 	Office 	of 	the 	PERB. 	The 	final 	brief 	was 	received 	on
February 	13, 	1981 	and 	the 	case 	was 	submitted 	for 	decision.
FINDINGS 	OF 	FACT
The 	Sacramento 	City 	Unified 	School 	District 	is 	an 	urban
school 	district 	located 	within 	Sacramento County. 	The 	District
has 	an 	enrollment 	of 	approximately 	39,000 	students. 	It 	was
stipulated 	that 	at 	all 	times 	relevant 	the 	District 	was 	a 	public
school 	employer 	and 	that 	Local 	535 	was 	an 	employee 	organization.
Events 	relating 	to 	the 	unfair 	practice 	charge 	are 	entwined
totally 	with 	those 	leading 	up 	to 	an 	election 	conducted 	on
June 	2, 	1980 	among 	employees 	in 	the 	District's 	classified
supervisory 	unit. 	The 	election 	occurred 	after 	a 	lengthy
process 	which 	Local 	535 	commenced 	on March 	14, 	1978 	by 	filing 	a
petition 	seeking 	to 	represent 	the 	District's 	160 	classified
supervisory 	employees. 	On 	March 	28, 	1978, 	the 	California
School 	Employees 	Association 	filed 	an 	intervention.
3

On 	April 	14 , 	1978, 	the 	District 	took 	the 	position 	that
neither 	organization 	could 	represent 	the 	classified 	supervisory
unit. 	The 	District 	based 	its 	position 	on 	a 	provision 	in 	the
Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Act 	(hereafter 	EERA) 	which
prohibits 	supervisory 	employees 	from 	being 	represented 	by 	"the
same 	employee 	organization" 	which 	represents 	employees
subordinate 	to 	the 	supervisors.2 	At 	that 	time, 	Local 	22 	of
the 	Service 	Employees 	International 	Union 	already 	had 	won 	the
right 	to 	represent 	certain 	District 	classified 	employees 	and
was 	in 	a 	runoff 	election 	with 	the 	California 	School 	Employees
Association 	(hereafter 	CSEA) 	to 	determine 	which 	organization
would 	represent 	the 	remainder. 	The 	District 	took 	the 	position
that 	because 	Local 	535 	was 	affiliated 	with 	the 	Service
Employees 	International 	Union 	it 	could 	not 	represent 	any
employees 	who 	were 	the 	supervisors 	of 	persons 	represented 	by
2rn 	relevant 	part, 	section 	3545 	provides 	as 	follows:
On April 14, 1978, the District took the position that
neither organization could represent the classified supervisory
unit. The District based its position on a provision in the
Educational Employment Relations Act (hereafter EERA) which
prohibits supervisory employees from being represented by "the
same employee organization" which represents employees
subordinate to the supervisors.2 At that time, Local 22 of
the Service Employees International Union already had won the
right to represent certain District classified employees and
was in a runoff election with the California School Employees
Association (hereafter CSEA) to determine which organization
would represent the remainder. The District took the position
that because Local 535 was affiliated with the Service
Employees International Union it could not represent any
employees who were the supervisors of persons represented by
2in relevant part, section 3545 provides as follows:
(b) In all cases:
(2) A negotiating unit of supervisory
employees shall not be appropriate unless it
includes all supervisory employees employed
by the district and shall not be represented
by the same employee organization as
employees whom the supervisory employees
supervise.
. 	. 	. 	. 	. 	. 	. 	. 	. 	. 	. 	. 	. . . . 	. 	. .
(b) 	In 	all 	cases:
(2) 	A negotiating 	unit 	of 	supervisory
employees 	shall 	not 	be 	appropriate 	unless 	it
includes 	all 	supervisory 	employees 	employed
by 	the 	district 	and 	shall 	not 	be 	represented
by 	the 	same 	employee 	organization 	as
employees 	whom 	the 	supervisory 	employees
supervise.
• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	o 	e 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	e 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	•
4

Local 22. With respect to the intervenor, CSEA, the District
took the position that because the organization might win the
runoff election it too faced the problem of potentially
representing both supervisors and subordinates.
A hearing about the status of Local 535 was conducted on
July 5 and 6, 1978. At the start of the hearing, the District
withdrew its objection to the status of the intervenor because
CSEA no longer was in competition to represent rank-and-file
employees. A hearing officer's proposed decision was issued on
October 26, 1978, holding that Local 535 was not the same
organization as Local 22 and that it therefore could represent
the District's classified supervisory employees. Exceptions
were filed to the proposed decision but the PERB on March 25,
1980 upheld the hearing officer's conclusion that Local 535 was
not barred from representing the District's classified
employees. Following the PERB decision, the Sacramento
3See Sacramento City Unified School District (3/25/80)
PERB Decision No. 122. After the decision was issued, the
California School Employees Association requested the PERB to
certify the case as "one of special importance" and join in the
organization's request for judicial review. See section 3542.
The PERB granted the request in PERB Order No. JR-8 (6/18/80) .
Judicial review is now pending in the Court of Appeal for the
Third District. At the commencement of the hearing in the
present unfair practice case, counsel for the District moved
that the hearing be continued until completion of judicial
consideration of the pending representation case. 	This motion
was denied on the ground that the unfair practice charge
presents an issue separate from the representation case and the
outcome of the representation case will not affect the unfair
practice charge.
5
Local 	22. 	With 	respect 	to 	the 	intervenor, 	CSEA, 	the 	District
took 	the 	position 	that 	because 	the 	organization 	might 	win 	the
runoff 	election 	it 	too 	faced 	the 	problem 	of 	potentially
representing 	both 	supervisors 	and 	subordinates.
A hearing 	about 	the 	status 	of 	Local 	535 	was 	conducted 	on
July 	5 	and 	6, 	1978. 	At 	the 	start 	of 	the 	hearing, 	the 	District
withdrew 	its 	objection 	to 	the 	status 	of 	the 	intervenor 	because
CSEA 	no 	longer 	was 	in 	competition 	to 	represent 	rank-and-file
employees. 	A hearing 	officer's 	proposed 	decision 	was 	issued 	on
October 	26, 	1978, 	holding 	that 	Local 	535 	was 	not 	the 	same
organization 	as 	Local 	22 	and 	that 	it 	therefore 	could 	represent
the 	District's 	classified 	supervisory 	employees. 	Exceptions
were 	filed 	to 	the 	proposed 	decision 	but 	the 	PERB 	on March 	25,
1980 	upheld 	the 	hearing 	officer's 	conclusion 	that 	Local 	535 	was
not 	barred 	from 	representing 	the 	District's 	classified
employees.3 	Following 	the 	PERB 	decision, 	the 	Sacramento
3see 	Sacramento 	City 	Unified 	School 	District 	(3/25/80)
PERB 	Decision 	No. 	122. 	After 	the 	decision 	was 	issued, 	the
California 	School 	Employees 	Association 	requested 	the 	PERB 	to
certify 	the 	case 	as 	"one 	of 	special 	importance" 	and 	join 	in 	the
organization's 	request 	for 	judicial 	review. 	See 	section 	3542.
The 	PERB 	granted 	the 	request 	in 	PERB 	Order 	No. 	JR-8 	(6/18/80} .
Judicial 	review 	is 	now 	pendi ng 	in 	the 	court 	of 	Appeal 	for 	the
Third 	District. 	At 	the 	commencement 	of 	the 	hearing 	in 	the
present 	unfair 	practice 	case, 	counsel 	for 	the 	District 	moved
that 	the 	hearing 	be 	continued 	until 	completion 	of 	judicial
consideration 	of 	the 	pending 	representation 	case. 	This 	motion
was 	denied 	on 	the 	ground 	that 	the 	unfair 	practice 	charge
presents 	an 	issue 	separate 	from 	t he 	representation 	case 	and 	the
outcome 	of 	the 	representation 	case 	will 	not 	affect 	the 	unfair
practice 	charge.
5

regional director ordered that an election be held on June 2,
1980 to determine whether members of the classified supervisory
unit desired to be represented by Local 535.4
Throughout this long process, District officials met
regularly with an employee organization which was started at
the suggestion of high-ranking District managerial employees.
That organization, known as the Supervisory Council, was
started some time in 1978 after a meeting between several
supervisory employees and then-Superintendent Joseph Lynn. It
was the uncontradicted testimony of Daryl Cook, a District
witness, that it was Mr. Lynn and Assistant Superintendent
Robert Parker who proposed formation of the group.
Following the 1978 suggestion of the superintendent and
assistant superintendent, several supervisory employees
conducted an organizational meeting in a District school
building. It was generally concluded among those supervisory
4on June 2, 1980, the day of the election, the regional
director ordered that all ballots cast in that election should
be impounded pending the resolution of this unfair practice
charge.
This history of the pending representation question was
drawn from the files of Representation Case No. S-R-8, which
are contained in the files of the Sacramento Regional Office of
the PERB. An administrative tribunal may take official notice
of information in its own files. See California Administrative
Agency Practice (Cont. Ed. Bar 1970) at p. 167, citing Broyles
v. Mahon (1925) 72 Cal. App. 484, 491 [237 p. 763] and Anderson
v. Board of Dental Examiners (1915) 27 Cal.App. 336, 338
[149 P. 1006]. Also see NLRB v. Seven-up Bottling Co. (1953)
344 U.S. 344, 348.
66
regional 	director 	ordered 	that 	an 	election 	be 	held 	on 	June 	2,
1980 	to 	determine 	whether 	members 	of 	the 	classified 	supervisory
unit 	desired 	to 	be 	represented 	by 	Local 	535.4
Throughout 	this 	long 	process, 	District 	officials 	met
regularly 	with 	an 	employee 	organization 	which 	was 	started 	at
the 	suggestion 	of 	high-ranking 	District 	managerial 	employees.
That 	organization, 	known 	as 	the 	Supervisory 	Council, 	was
started 	some 	time 	in 	1978 	after 	a 	meeting 	between 	several
supervisory 	employees 	and 	then-superintendent 	Joseph 	Lynn. 	It
was 	the 	uncontradicted 	testimony 	of 	Daryl 	Cook, 	a 	District
witness, 	that 	it 	was 	Mr. 	Lynn 	and 	Assistant 	superintendent
Robert 	Parker 	who 	proposed 	formation 	of 	the 	group.
Following 	the 	1978 	suggestion 	of 	the 	superintendent 	and
assistant 	superintendent, 	several 	supervisory 	employees
conducted 	an 	organizational 	meeting 	in 	a 	District 	school
building. 	It 	was 	generally 	concluded 	among 	those 	supervisory
4on 	June 	2, 	1980, 	the 	day 	of 	the 	election, 	the 	regional
director 	ordered 	that 	all 	ballots 	cast 	in 	that 	election 	should
be 	impounded 	pending 	the 	resolution 	of 	this 	unfair 	practice
charge.
This 	history 	of 	the 	pending 	representation 	question 	was
drawn 	from 	the 	files 	of 	Representation 	Case 	No. 	S-R-8, 	which
are 	contained 	in 	the 	files 	of 	the 	Sacramento 	Regional 	Office 	of
the 	PERB. 	An 	administrative 	tribunal 	may 	take 	official 	notice
of 	information 	in 	its 	own 	files. 	See 	California 	Administrative
Agency 	Practice 	(Cont. 	Ed. 	Bar 	1970) 	at 	p. 	167, 	citing 	Broyles
v. 	Mahon 	(1925) 	72 	Cal.App. 	484, 	491 	[237 	P. 	763] 	and 	Anderson
v. 	Board 	of 	Dental 	Examiners 	(1915) 	27 	Cal.App. 	336, 	338
[149 	P. 	1006]. 	Also 	see 	NLRB 	v. 	seven-up 	Bott ling 	co. 	(1953)
344 	u.s. 	344, 	348.

employees in attendance that because they did not have a
negotiating representative they needed to do something on their
The	own to form some type of organization to represent them.
Supervisory Council was the organization they started.
From the beginning, the Council took on all the earmarks of
an employee organization. Representatives from the various
departments were chosen through an informal election process.
In some departments the election process was accomplished by
written ballot. In other departments it was carried out by
oral balloting. Ten persons were elected as council
delegates. 	Don Barnes was informally picked as chairman and he
became spokesman for the Council at meetings with the District
administrators. 	Supervisory Council stationery was printed.
The stationery contains the names and work locations of the
delegates. 	The stationery letterhead features an illustrated
slogan carrying the words, "Team Work May Win For You! ! !
Supervisory Council." This stationery was used for periodic
communications to all supervisory employees.
Council Chairman Barnes prepared the meeting agenda,
relying in part on suggestions he received from various Council
members. He also scheduled the meetings by making arrangements
with the superintendent's secretary. Usually, the agenda was
handed out at the start of meetings between the Council and the
District's representatives. Meetings were held during working
hours on District facilities. Initially, meetings were
7
employees 	in 	attendance 	that 	because 	they 	did 	not 	have 	a
negotiating 	representative 	they 	needed 	to 	do 	something 	on 	their
own 	to 	form 	some 	type 	of 	organization 	to 	represent 	them. 	The
Supervisory 	Council 	was 	the 	organization 	they 	started.
From 	the 	beginning, 	the 	Council 	took 	on 	all 	the 	earmarks 	of
an 	employee 	organization. 	Representatives 	from 	the 	various
departments 	were 	chosen 	through 	an 	informal 	election 	process.
In 	some 	departments 	the 	election 	process 	was 	accomplished 	by
written 	ballot. 	In 	other 	departments 	it 	was 	carried 	out 	by
oral 	balloting. 	Ten 	persons 	were 	elected 	as 	council
delegates. 	Don 	Barnes 	was 	informally 	picked 	as 	chairman 	and 	he
became 	spokesman 	for 	the 	council 	at 	meetings 	with 	the 	District
administrators. 	Supervisory Council 	stationery 	was 	printed.
The 	stationery 	contains 	the 	names 	and 	work 	locations 	of 	the
delegates. 	The 	stationery 	letterhead 	features 	an 	illustrated
slogan 	carrying 	the 	words, 	"Team work 	May 	Win 	For 	You!!!
Supervisory 	Council." 	This 	stationery 	was 	used 	for 	periodic
communications 	to 	all 	supervisory 	employees.
Council 	Chairman 	Barnes 	prepared 	the 	meeting 	agenda,
relying 	in 	part 	on 	suggestions 	he 	received 	from 	various 	Council
members. 	He 	also 	scheduled 	the 	meetings 	by 	making 	arrangements
with 	the 	superintendent's 	secretary. 	usually, 	the 	agenda 	was
handed 	out 	at 	the 	start 	of 	meetings 	between 	the 	Council 	and 	the
District's 	representatives. 	Meetings 	were 	held 	during 	working
hours 	on 	District 	facilities. 	Initially, 	meetings 	were
7

conducted in a conference room at an annex to the District
administration building. Later, they were conducted in the
superintendent's office. 	The meetings between the
administration and the Council were informal with the parties
seated around a table. Although seated around a table, Council
members and the administrators did not sit on separate sides
across from each other. Rather, the administrators sat among
the Council representatives.
The District always was represented by high-ranking
officials at its meetings with the Supervisory Council. The
District's representatives at meetings with the Council were
successively Robert Parker, Donald Hall and Donald James, each
of whom held the position of assistant superintendent with
responsibility for employer-employee relations. After he
became District superintendent on August 1, 1979, Thomas Guigni
also joined the meetings as one of the District's
representatives. Mr. Guigni testified that upon arriving in
the District he was advised of the existence of the Supervisory
Council and told that its purpose was to enable the
administration to hear about the interests and concerns of
supervisors. He said that meeting with the organization seemed
like a good idea and so he continued the process.
Meetings between the Council and the administration
occurred on a regular basis from the time it was formed. From
February through June of 1980 the meetings took place at
88
conducted 	in 	a 	conference 	room 	at 	an 	annex 	to 	the 	District
administration 	building. 	Later, 	they 	were 	conducted 	in 	the
superintendent's 	office. 	The 	meetings 	between 	the
administration 	and 	the 	Council 	were 	informal 	with 	the 	parties
seated 	around 	a 	table. 	Although 	seated 	around 	a 	table, 	council
members 	and 	the 	administrators 	did 	not 	sit 	on 	separate 	sides
across 	from 	each 	other. 	Rather, 	the 	administrators 	sat 	among
the 	Council 	representatives.
The 	District 	always 	was 	represented 	by 	high-ranking
officials 	at 	its 	meetings 	with 	the 	supervisory 	council. 	The
District's 	representatives 	at 	meetings 	with 	the 	council 	were
successively 	Robert 	Parker; 	Donald 	Hall 	and 	Donald 	James, 	each
of 	whom 	held 	the 	position 	of 	assistant 	superintendent 	with
responsibility 	for 	employer-employee 	relations. 	After 	he
became 	District 	superintendent 	on 	August 	1, 	1979, 	Thomas 	Guigni
also 	joined 	the 	meetings 	as 	one 	of 	the 	District's
representatives. 	Mr. 	Guigni 	testified 	that 	upon 	arriving 	in
the 	District 	he 	was 	advised 	of 	the 	existence 	of 	the 	supervisory
Council 	and 	told 	that 	its 	purpose 	was 	to 	enable 	the
administration 	to 	hear 	about 	the 	interests 	and 	concerns 	of
supervisors. 	He 	said 	that 	meeting 	with 	the 	organization 	seemed
like 	a 	good 	idea 	and 	so 	he 	continued 	the 	process.
Meetings 	between 	the 	council 	and 	the 	administration
occurred 	on 	a 	regular 	basis 	from 	the 	time 	it 	was 	formed. 	From
February 	through 	June 	of 	1980 	the 	meetings 	took 	place 	at

intervals of two to three weeks. At the time of the hearing in
December of 1980, the meetings were continuing.
Representatives of the Supervisory Council discussed with
District administrators a number of proposals relating to
salaries and fringe benefits. Among these were proposals for a
cost of living increase, an increase in the salary differential
between the supervisors and the persons they supervise, an
increase in longevity bonuses and a vision care plan. The
Supervisory Council also proposed a comparison study of the
salaries paid to persons holding supervisory positions in other
local school districts.
Some Supervisory Council proposals ultimately were accepted
by the District. The discussions with the supervisors did not
result in a written agreement between the Supervisory Council
and the District. 	However, the superintendent testified that
he twice made recommendations to the school board on the basis
of a consensus reached with the Council.
One of the meetings between the District and the
Supervisory Council which was attended by the superintendent
was the session of April 30, 1980. That meeting was the last
scheduled prior to the June 2 representation election involving
Local 535. At a time in the meeting when the various
participants were engaged in small talk, someone asked the
superintendent a question about the forthcoming election
involving Local 535. The superintendent responded that if
99
intervals 	of 	two 	to 	three 	weeks. 	At 	the 	time 	of 	the 	hearing 	in
December 	of 	1980, 	the 	meetings 	were 	continuing.
Representatives 	of 	the 	supervisory 	Council 	discussed 	with
District 	administrators 	a 	number 	of 	proposals 	relating 	to
salaries 	and 	fringe 	benefits. 	Among 	these 	were 	proposals 	for 	a
cost 	of 	living 	increase, 	an 	increase 	in 	the 	salary 	differential
between 	the 	supervisors 	and 	the 	persons 	they 	supervise, 	an
increase 	in 	longevity 	bonuses 	and 	a 	vision 	care 	plan. 	The
Supervisory Council 	also 	proposed 	a 	comparison 	study 	of 	the
salaries 	paid 	to 	persons 	holding 	supervisory 	positions 	in 	other
local 	school 	districts.
Some 	Supervisory Council 	proposals 	ultimately 	were 	accepted
by 	the 	District. 	The 	discussions 	with 	the 	supervisors 	did 	not
result 	in 	a 	written 	agreement 	between 	the 	Supervisory 	council
and 	the 	District. 	However, 	the 	superintendent 	testified 	that
he 	twice 	made 	recommendations 	to 	the 	school 	board 	on 	the 	basis
of 	a 	consensus 	reached 	with 	the 	Council.
One 	of 	the 	meetings 	between 	the 	District 	and 	the
Supervisory Council 	which 	was 	attended 	by 	the 	superintendent
was 	the 	session 	of 	April 	30, 	1980. 	That 	meeting 	was 	the 	last
scheduled 	prior 	to 	the 	June 	2 	representation 	election 	involving
Local 	535. 	At 	a 	time 	in 	the 	meeting 	when 	the 	various
participants 	were 	engaged 	in 	small 	talk, 	someone 	asked 	the
superin tendent 	a 	questio n 	abou t 	the 	forthcoming 	election
involving 	Local 	535. 	The 	superintendent 	responded 	that 	if

Local 535 won the election then discussions which had been held
with the Supervisory Council about the various items would have
to start over again. The comment was brief and the
superintendent did not further explain what he meant.
At no time during the months of consultation between the
District and the Supervisory Council did the District ever
advise Local 535 of these meetings or invite the union to
participate. It was only after the impounding of ballots at
the June 2 election that the District notified Local 535 of the
meetings. Then, it was in a communication which asked whether
the union opposed further meetings between the District and the
Council.
LEGAL ISSUE
Did the District's relationship with the Supervisory
Council, while a question concerning representation was
pending, constitute a violation of section 3543.5(a) and/or (d) ?
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Alleged Violation of Section 3543.5 (a)
Under section 3543.5(a), it is unlawful for a public school
employer to impose reprisals on employees, discriminate against
them or otherwise interfere with, restrain or coerce them
because of their exercise of the protected right of
self-representation. The right of self-representation includes
the unfettered ability "to form, join and participate in the
10	10
Local 	535 	won 	the 	election 	then 	discussions 	which 	had 	been 	held
with 	the 	Supervisory 	council 	about 	the 	various 	items 	would 	have
to 	start 	over 	again. 	The 	comment 	was 	brief 	and 	the
superintendent 	did 	not 	further 	explain 	what 	he 	meant.
At 	no 	time 	during 	the 	months 	of 	consultation 	between 	the
District 	and 	the 	Supervisory 	Council 	did 	the 	District 	ever
advise 	Local 	535 	of 	these 	meetings 	or 	invite 	the 	union 	to
participate. 	It 	was 	only 	after 	the 	impounding 	of 	ballots 	at
the 	June 	2 	election 	that 	the 	District 	notified 	Local 	535 	of 	the
meetings. 	Then, 	it 	was 	in 	a 	communication 	which 	asked 	whether
the 	union 	opposed 	further 	meetings 	between 	the 	District 	and 	the
Council.
LEGAL 	ISSUE
Did 	the 	District's 	relationship 	with 	the 	supervisory
Council, 	while 	a 	question 	concerning 	representation 	was
pending, 	constitute 	a 	violation 	of 	section 	3543.5(a) 	and/or 	(d)?
CONCLUSIONS 	OF 	LAW
Alleged 	Violation 	of 	Section 	3543.S(a}
Under 	section 	3543.5(a), 	it 	is 	unlawful 	for 	a 	public 	school
employer 	to 	impose 	reprisals 	on 	employees, 	discriminate 	against
them 	or 	otherwise 	interfere 	with, 	restrain 	or 	coerce 	them
because 	of 	their 	exercise 	of 	the 	protected 	right 	of
self-representation. 	The 	right 	of 	self-representation 	includes
the 	unfettered 	ability 	"to 	form, 	join 	and 	participate 	in 	the

activities of employee organizations. "5 The PERB has found a
violation when an employer's acts interfere or tend to
interfere with the exercise of this right and the employer is
unable to justify its actions by proving operational
necessity. See Carlsbad Unified School District (1/30/79) PERB
Decision No. 89. In Carlsbad, the PERB further decided that a
charge will be sustained whenever it is proven that but for the
exercise of protected rights, the employer would not have
acted . 6
5section 3543, in relevant part, provides as follows:
public school employees shall have the right
to form, join, and participate in the
activities of employee organizations of
their own choosing for the purpose of
representation on all matters of
employer-employee relations. public school
employees shall also have the right to
refuse to join or participate in the
activities of employee organizations and
shall have the right to represent themselves
individually in their employment relations
with the public school employer, except that
once the employees in an appropriate unit
have selected an exclusive representative
and it has been recognized pursuant to
Section 3544.1 or certified pursuant to
Section 3544.7, no employee in that unit may
meet and negotiate with the public school
employer .
6The Carlsbad test reads as follows:
1. A single test shall be applicable in all
instances in which violations of section
3543.5 (a) are alleged;
11	11
activities 	of 	employee 	organizations."5 	The 	PERB 	has 	found 	a
violation 	when 	an 	employer's 	acts 	interfere 	or 	tend 	to
interfere 	with 	the 	exercise 	of 	this 	right 	and 	the 	employer 	is
unable 	to 	justify 	its 	actions 	by 	proving 	operational
necessity. 	See 	Carlsbad 	Unified 	School 	District 	(1/30/79) 	PERB
Decision 	No. 	89. 	In 	Carlsbad, 	the 	PERB 	further 	decided 	that 	a
charge 	will 	be 	sustained 	whenever 	it 	is 	proven 	that 	but 	for 	the
exercise 	of 	protected 	rights, 	the 	employer 	would 	not 	have
acted.6
5section 	3543, 	in 	relevant 	part, 	provides 	as 	follows:
Public 	school 	employees 	shall 	have 	the 	right
to 	form, 	join, 	and 	participate 	in 	the
activities 	of 	employee 	organizations 	of
their 	own 	choosing 	for 	the 	purpose 	of
representation 	on 	all 	matters 	of
employer-employee 	relations. 	Public 	school
employees 	shall 	also 	have 	the 	right 	to
refuse 	to 	join 	or 	participate 	in 	the
activities 	of 	employee 	organizations 	and
shall 	have 	the 	right 	to 	represent 	themselves
individually 	in 	their 	employment 	relations
with 	the 	public 	school 	employer, 	except 	that
once 	the 	employees 	in 	an 	appropriate 	unit
have 	selected 	an 	exclusive 	representative
and 	it 	has 	been 	recognized 	pursuant 	to
Section 	3544.1 	or 	certified 	pursuant 	to
Section 	3544.7, 	no 	employee 	in 	that 	unit 	may
meet 	and 	negotiate 	with 	the 	public 	school
employer.
6The 	Carlsbad 	test 	reads 	as 	follows:
1. 	A single 	test 	shall 	be 	applicable 	in 	all
instances 	in 	which 	violations 	of 	section
3543.S(a) 	are 	alleged;

The charging party contends that the District violated the
right of self-representation by negotiating with a rival group,
the Supervisory Council, while a question concerning
representation was pending. Moreover, the charging party
continues, the District further chilled employee rights when
the superintendent on the eve of the election stated that all
benefits which had been gained through the meetings with the
Supervisory Council would be lost if Local 535 won the election.
The District denies that it has interfered with any
protected right. The District contends that it did not
negotiate with the Supervisory Council but only met and
conferred with it. 	The District reasons that in the absence of
an exclusive representative it had the obligation to listen to
. Where the charging party establishes that the
employer's conduct tends to or does result in some
harm to employee rights granted under the EERA, a
prima facie case shall be deemed to exist;
Where the harm to the employees' rights is slight,
and the employer offers justification based on
operational necessity, the competing interest of the
employer and the rights of the employees will be
balanced and the charge resolved accordingly ;
. Where the harm is inherently destructive of
employee rights, the employer's conduct will be
excused only on proof that it was occasioned by
circumstances beyond the employer's control and that
no alternative course of action was available;
5. Irrespective of the foregoing, a charge will be
sustained where it is shown that the employer would
not have engaged in the complained-of conduct but for
an unlawful motivation, purpose or intent.
12	12
2. 	Where 	the 	charging 	party 	establishes 	that 	the
employer's 	conduct 	tends 	to 	or 	does 	result 	in 	some
harm 	to 	employee 	rights 	granted 	under 	the 	EERA, 	a
prima 	facie 	case 	shall 	be 	deemed 	to 	exist;
3. 	Where 	the 	harm 	to 	the 	employees' 	rights 	is 	slight,
and 	the 	employer 	offers 	justification 	based 	on
operational 	necessity, 	the 	competing 	interest 	of 	the
employer 	and 	the 	rights 	of 	the 	employees 	will 	be
balanced 	and 	the 	charge 	resolved 	accordingly;
4. 	Where 	the 	harm 	is 	inherently 	destructive 	of
employee 	rights, 	the 	employer's 	conduct 	will 	be
excused 	only 	on 	proof 	that 	it 	was 	occasioned 	by
circumstances 	beyond 	the 	employer's 	control 	and 	that
no 	alternative 	course 	of 	action 	was 	available;
5. 	Irrespective 	of 	the 	foregoing , 	a 	char ge 	will 	be
sustained 	where 	it 	is 	shown 	that 	the 	employer 	would
not 	have 	engaged 	in 	the 	complained-of 	conduct 	but 	for
an 	unlawful 	motivation, 	purpose 	or 	intent.
The 	charging 	party 	contends 	that 	the 	District 	violated 	the
right 	of 	self-representation 	by 	negotiating 	with 	a 	rival 	group,
the 	supervisory 	Council, 	while 	a 	question 	concerning
representation 	was 	pending. 	Moreover, 	the 	charging 	party
continues, 	the 	District 	further 	chilled 	employee 	rights 	when
the 	superintendent 	on 	the 	eve 	of 	the 	election 	stated 	that 	all
benefits 	which 	had 	been 	gained 	through 	the 	meetings 	with 	the
Supervisory 	council 	would 	be 	lost 	if 	Local 	535 	won 	the 	election.
The 	District 	denies 	that 	it 	has 	interfered 	with 	any
protected 	right. 	The 	District 	contends 	that 	it 	did 	not
negotiate 	with 	the 	Supervisory 	Council 	but 	only 	met 	and
conferred 	with 	it. 	The 	District 	reasons 	that 	in 	the 	absence 	of
an 	exclusive 	representative 	it 	had 	the 	obligation 	to 	listen 	to

the wishes of employees. The District argues that the
Supervisory Council was the only organization which made any
effort to inform the District of employee desires. As to the
superintendent's alleged remark on April 30, 1980, the District
argues that the superintendent did no more than make an
accurate statement of the law.
In Antelope Valley Community College District (7/18/79)
PERB Decision No. 97, the PERB found a violation of section
3543.5 (a) when, during the time prior to an election, agents of
the employer formed a rival organization with which the
employer negotiated. That decision, however, was based in
substantial part on a conclusion that the employer had acted
with animus toward the union. In Santa Monica Community
College District (9/27/79) PERB Decision No. 103, a case
involving employer favoritism between organizations, the PERB
also found a violation of section 3543.5(a). The key element
in Santa Monica was blatantly disparate treatment and coercive
demands that the employee organizations waive statutory rights.
No action by the District in the present case reaches the
level of employer misconduct found in Antelope Valley or Santa
Monica. There is no evidence of animus toward Local 535, as in
Antelope Valley. Nor is this case like Santa Monica, supra, in
which the employer denied a pay increase to certain employees
because an employee organization refused to waive statutory
rights.
13	13
the 	wishes 	of 	employees. 	The 	District 	argues 	that 	the
Supervisory 	Council 	was 	the 	only 	organization 	which 	made 	any
effort 	to 	inform 	the 	District 	of 	employee 	desires. 	As 	to 	the
superintendent's 	alleged 	remark 	on 	April 	30, 	1980, 	the 	District
argues 	that 	the 	superintendent 	did 	no 	more 	than 	make 	an
accurate 	statement 	of 	the 	law.
In 	Antelope 	Valley 	Community 	College 	District 	{7/18/79)
PERB 	Decision 	No. 	97, 	the 	PERB 	found 	a 	violation 	of 	section
3543.S(a) 	when, 	during 	the 	time 	prior 	to 	an 	election, 	agents 	of
the 	employer 	formed 	a 	rival 	organization 	with 	which 	the
employer 	negotiated. 	That 	decision, 	however, 	was 	based 	in
substantial 	part 	on 	a 	conclusion 	that 	the 	employer 	had 	acted
with 	animus 	toward 	the 	union. 	In 	Santa 	Monica 	Community
College 	District 	(9/27/79) 	PERB 	Decision 	No. 	103, 	a 	case
involving 	employer 	favoritism 	between 	organizations, 	the 	PERB
also 	found 	a 	violation 	of 	section 	3543.S(a). 	The 	key 	element
in 	Santa 	Monica 	was 	blatantly 	disparate 	treatment 	and 	coercive
demands 	that 	the 	employee 	organizations 	waive 	statutory 	rights.
No 	action 	by 	the 	District 	in 	the 	present 	case 	reaches 	the
level 	of 	employer 	misconduct 	found 	in 	Antelope 	Valley 	or 	Santa
Mon i ca. 	There 	is 	no 	evidence 	of 	animus 	toward 	Local 	535, 	as 	in
Ante l ope 	Valley. 	Nor 	is 	this 	c ase 	l ike 	Santa 	Monica, 	supra, 	in
which 	the 	employer 	denied 	a 	pay 	increase 	to 	certain 	employees
because 	an 	employee 	o r ganization 	refused 	to 	waive 	statut o ry
rights.

Under the Carlsbad test - however, a violation of section
3543.5 (a) may be found for conduct much less egregious than
that in either Antelope Valley or Santa Monica. A violation
will exist whenever the challenged conduct is of such a nature
that it tends to result in some harm to employee rights and the
employer fails to offer justification based on operational
necessity . 	To establish a prima facie case under Carlsbad it
is not necessary to show actual harm. That the employer's
conduct has a tendency to cause harm to protected rights is
sufficient.
The violation alleged in the present case is that the
District interfered with the right to form an employee
organization, specifically Local 535. The interference was
through support of another organization, namely the Supervisory
Council. Although the Supervisory Council was not a competitor
on the ballot, it plainly was a rival employee
organization.7 The evidence establishes that from its
7The Educational Employment Relations Act in section
3540.1(d) defines the term "employee organization" as follows:
"Employee organization" means any
organization which includes employees of a
public school employer and which has as one
of its primary purposes representing such
employees in their relations with that
public school employer. 	"Employee
organization" shall also include any person
such an organization authorizes to act on
its behalf.
14
Under 	the 	Carlsbad 	test- 	however, 	a 	violation 	of 	section
3543.S(a) 	may 	be 	found 	for 	conduct 	much 	less 	egregious 	than
that 	in 	either 	Antelope 	Valley 	or 	Santa 	Monica. 	A violation
will 	exist 	whenever 	the 	challenged 	conduct 	is 	of 	such 	a 	nature
that 	it 	tends 	to 	result 	in 	some 	harm 	to 	employee 	rights 	and 	the
employer 	fails 	to 	offer 	justification 	based 	on 	operational
necessity. 	To 	establish 	a 	prima 	facie 	case 	under 	Carlsbad 	it
is 	not 	necessary 	to 	show 	actual 	harm. 	That 	the 	employer's
conduct 	has 	a 	tendency 	to 	cause 	harm 	to 	protected 	rights 	is
sufficient.
The 	violation 	alleged 	in 	the 	present 	case 	is 	that 	the
District 	interfered 	with 	the 	right 	to 	form 	an 	employee
organization, 	specifically 	Local 	535. 	The 	interference 	was
through 	support 	of 	another 	organization, 	namely 	the 	Supervisory
Council. 	Although 	the 	Supervisory Council 	was 	not 	a 	competitor
on 	the 	ballot, 	it 	plainly 	was 	a 	rival 	employee
organization.7 	The 	evidence 	establishes 	that 	from 	its
7The 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Act 	in 	section
3540. l (d) 	defines 	the 	term 	"employee 	organization" 	as 	fo l lows:
"Employee 	organization" 	means 	any
organization 	which 	inc l udes 	employees 	of 	a
public 	school 	employer 	and 	which 	has 	as 	one
of 	its 	primary 	purposes 	representing 	such
employees 	in 	their 	relations 	with 	that
public 	school 	employer. 	"Employee
organization" 	shall 	also 	include 	any 	person
such 	an 	organization 	authorizes 	to 	act 	on
its 	behalf.
14

initial meeting forward, the Supervisory Council existed for
one reason, i. e., to represent employees in their employment
relationship with the District. The very subjects which the
Council discussed with the District -- wages, differentials,
fringe benefits -- show that the Supervisory Council meets the
statutory definition of an employee organization. See, e.g. ,
NLRB v. Cabot Carbon Co. (1959) 360 U.s. 203 [44 LRRM 2204] .
In the context of the District's role in the original
formation of the Supervisory Council, the meet and confer
sessions which preceded the June 1980 election tended to harm
protected rights. Employees attempting to exercise their
protected right to assist the selection of Local 535 as
exclusive representative were confronted with what obviously
was a favored in-house employee organization. The District
encouraged formation of the Supervisory Council and then
consistently met and conferred with it, ultimately granting
some of the organization's requests. No effort was made to
bring Local 535 into this process. The District conducted
business with the Supervisory Council as if Local 535 did not
exist and there were no pending question concerning
representation.
The superintendent's comment of April 30, 1980, although
innocently made, was of such a nature that it would tend to
harm protected rights. The meet and confer sessions between
the District and the Supervisory Council were producing
15
initial 	meeting 	forward, 	the 	Supervisory 	Council 	existed 	for
one 	reason, 	i.e., 	to 	represent 	employees 	in 	their 	employment
relationship 	with 	the 	District. 	The 	very 	subjects 	which 	the
Council 	discussed 	with 	the 	District 	-- 	wages, 	differentials,
fringe 	benefits 	-- 	show 	that 	the 	Supervisory 	Council 	meets 	the
statutory 	definition 	of 	an 	employee 	organization. 	See, 	e.g.,
NLRB 	v. 	Cabot 	Carbon 	Co. 	(1959) 	360 	U.S. 	203 	[44 	LRRM 	2204].
In 	the 	context 	of 	the 	District's 	role 	in 	the 	original
formation 	of 	the 	Supervisory 	Council, 	the 	meet 	and 	confer
sessions 	which 	preceded 	the 	June 	1980 	election 	tended 	to 	harm
protected 	rights. 	Employees 	attempting 	to 	exercise 	their
protected 	right 	to 	assist 	the 	selection 	of 	Local 	535 	as
exclusive 	representative 	were 	confronted 	with 	what 	obviously
was 	a 	favored 	in-house 	employee 	organization. 	The 	District
encouraged 	formation 	of 	the 	Supervisory Council 	and 	then
consistently 	met 	and 	conferred 	with 	it, 	ultimately 	granting
some 	of 	the 	organization's 	requests. 	No 	effort 	was 	made 	to
bring 	Local 	535 	into 	this 	process. 	The 	District 	conducted
business 	with 	the 	Supervisory 	Council 	as 	if 	Local 	535 	did 	not
exist 	and 	there 	were 	no 	pending 	question 	concerning
representation ..
The 	superintendent's 	comment 	of 	April 	30, 	1980, 	although
innocently 	made, 	was 	of 	such 	a 	nature 	that 	it 	would 	tend 	to
harm 	protected 	rights. 	The 	meet 	and 	confer 	sessions 	between
the 	District 	and 	the 	Supervisory Council 	were 	producing
15

benefits for supervisory employees. In that context, a
statement that a Local 535 victory would require discussions to
start over again would tend to make employees apprehensive
about voting for Local 535. The message was implicit: Vote
for Local 535 and all progress is lost; Vote against Local 535
and things can continue as before.
Under the Carlsbad test, a prima facie case is thus
established. The conduct of the District can be excused only
if the operational necessity outweighs the harm to the rights
of employees. Here, the District finds operational necessity
in the section 3543.1 (a) 8 provision that prior to the
selection of an exclusive representative, employee
8 In relevant part, section 3543.1 provides as follows:
(a) Employee organizations shall have the
right to represent their members in their
employment relations with public school
employers, except that once an employee
organization is recognized or certified as
the exclusive representative of an
appropriate unit pursuant to Section 3544.1
or 3544.7, respectively, only that employee
organization may represent that unit in
their employment relations with the public
school employer. Employee organizations may
establish reasonable restrictions regarding
who may join and may make reasonable
provisions for the dismissal of individuals
from membership.
16	16
benefits 	for 	supervisory 	employees. 	In 	that 	context, 	a
statement 	that 	a 	Local 	535 	victory 	would 	require 	discussions 	to
start 	over 	again 	would 	tend 	to 	make 	employees 	apprehensive
about 	votin~ 	for 	Local 	535. 	The 	message 	was 	implicit: 	Vote
for 	Local 	535 	and 	all 	progress 	is 	lost: 	Vote 	against 	Local 	535
and 	things 	can 	continue 	as 	before.
Under 	the 	Carlsbad 	test, 	a 	prima 	facie 	case 	is 	thus
established. 	The 	conduct 	of 	the 	District 	can 	be 	excused 	only
if 	the 	operational 	necessity 	outweighs 	the 	harm 	to 	the 	rights
of 	employees. 	Here, 	the 	District 	finds 	operational 	necessity
in 	the 	section 	3543.l(a)S 	provision 	that 	prior 	to 	the
selection 	of 	an 	exclusive 	representative, 	employee
8In 	relevant 	part, 	section 	3543.1 	provides 	as 	follows:
(a) 	Employee 	organizations 	shall 	have 	the
right 	to 	represent 	their 	members 	in 	their
employment 	relations 	with 	public 	school
employers, 	except 	that 	once 	an 	employee
organization 	is 	recognized 	or 	certified 	as
the 	exclusive 	representative 	of 	an
appropriate 	unit 	pursuant 	to 	Section 	3544.1
or 	3544.7, 	respectively, 	only 	that 	employee
organization 	may 	represent 	that 	unit 	in
their 	employment 	relations 	with 	the 	public
school 	employer. 	Employee 	organizations 	may
establish 	reasonable 	restrictions 	regarding
who 	may 	ioin 	and 	may 	make 	reasonable
provisions 	for 	the 	dismissal 	of 	individuals
from 	membership.

organizations have the right to represent their members.
Because there is no exclusive representative for supervisors,
the District reasons, it has no basis for refusing to meet with
the Supervisory Council. Indeed, the District argues, it would
be in violation of the EERA only if it refused to meet with the
Supervisory Council.
The District's argument ignores the facts of the case. 	The
Supervisory Council was not a long-existing employee
organization with which the District had an established
relationship. The Supervisory Council came into existence at
the suggestion of a former District superintendent at
approximately the same time that Local 535 petitioned to
represent supervisors. 	Then, in the face of petitions from
Local 535 and CSEA, the District commenced exclusive
discussions with the Supervisory Council. It was not the
even-handed continuance of a past practice, as the District
would suggest. It was, rather, an imbalanced slant toward an
in-house employee organization in a manner which would tend to
influence the election results. A school employer can hardly
help create an organization and then plead that it must bargain
with the product of its own handiwork in order to remain
neutral.
For these reasons, it is concluded that by meeting and
conferring with the Supervisory Council during the time prior
17
organizations 	have 	the 	right 	to 	represent 	their 	members.
Because 	there 	is 	no 	exclusive 	representative 	for 	supervisors,
the 	District 	reasons, 	it 	has 	no 	basis 	for 	refusing 	to 	meet 	with
the 	Supervisory 	council. 	Indeed, 	the 	District 	argues, 	it 	would
be 	in 	violation 	of 	the 	EERA 	only 	if 	it 	refused 	to 	meet 	with 	the
Supervisory 	Council.
The 	District's 	argument 	ignores 	the 	facts 	of 	the 	case. 	The
Supervisory Council 	was 	not 	a 	long-existing 	employee
organization 	with 	which 	the 	District 	had 	an 	established
relationship. 	The 	Supervisory 	Council 	came 	into 	existence 	at
the 	suggestion 	of 	a 	former 	District 	superintendent 	at
approximately 	the 	same 	time 	that 	Local 	535 	petitioned 	to
represent 	supervisors. 	Then, 	in 	the 	face 	of 	petitions 	from
Local 	535 	and 	CSEA, 	the 	District 	commenced 	exclusive
discussions 	with 	the 	Supervisory 	council. 	It 	was 	not 	the
even-handed 	continuance 	of 	a 	past 	practice, 	as 	the 	District
would 	suggest. 	It 	was, 	rather, 	an 	imbalanced 	slant 	toward 	an
in-house 	employee 	organization 	in 	a 	manner 	which 	would 	tend 	to
influence 	the 	election 	results. 	A school 	employer 	can 	hardly
help 	create 	an 	organization 	and 	then 	plead 	that 	it 	must 	bargain
with 	the 	product 	of 	its 	own 	handiwork 	in 	order 	to 	remain
neutral.
For 	these 	reasons, 	it 	is 	concluded 	that 	by 	meeting 	and
conferring 	with 	the 	Supervisory 	Council 	during 	the 	time 	prior
17

to the June 2, 1980 election the District was in violation of
section 3543.5 (a) .9
Alleged Violation of Section 3543.5 (d)
Section 3543.5 (d) makes it unlawful for a public school
employer to:
[d]ominate or interfere with the formation
or administration of any employee
organization, or contribute financial or
other support to it, or in any way encourage
employees to join any organization in
preference to another.
This section, the PERB has found, imposes upon employers an
unqualified requirement of strict neutrality. In order to find
a violation of the statute, it is not necessary to show that
the employer's action was "intended" to have an impact on
employees' free choice. 	"The simple threshold test of section
3543.5(d) is whether the employer's conduct tends to influence
that choice or provide stimulus in one direction or the
other." Santa Monica Community College District, supra;
9It should be noted that the violation which the District
has committed is not that the former superintendent suggested
creation of the Supervisory Council. That event occurred far
outside the six-month period of limitation established in
section 3541.5. However, the meeting and conferring with the
Supervisory Council which did occur within the six months
period can be understood only in the context of the District's
earlier relationship with the Council. Evidence of earlier
misconduct may be received at a hearing as background in order
to shed light on the true character of events within the six
months period. Local Lodge No. 1424 v. NLRB (1960) 362 U.S.
411 [45 LRRM 3212] ; NLRB v. Lundy MEg. Corp. (2d Cir. 1963)
316 F. 2d 921 [53 LRRM 2106] .
18	18
to 	the 	June 	2, 	1980 	election 	the 	District 	was 	in 	violation 	of
section 	3543.S(a).9
Alleged 	Violation 	of 	Section 	3543.S(d)
Section 	3543.S(d) 	makes 	it 	unlawful 	for 	a 	public 	school
employer 	to:
[d]ominate 	or 	interfere 	with 	the 	formation
or 	administration 	of 	any 	employee
organization, 	or 	contribute 	financial 	or
other 	support 	to 	it, 	or 	in 	any 	way 	encourage
employees 	to 	join 	any 	organization 	in
preference 	to 	another.
This 	section, 	the 	PERB 	has 	found, 	imposes 	upon 	employers 	an
unqualified 	requirement 	of 	strict 	neutrality. 	In 	order 	to 	find
a 	violation 	of 	the 	statute, 	it 	is 	not 	necessary 	to 	show 	that
the 	employer's 	action 	was 	"intended" 	to 	have 	an 	impact 	on
employees' 	free 	choice. 	"The 	simple 	threshold 	test 	of 	section
3543.S(d) 	is 	whether 	the 	employer's 	conduct 	tends 	to 	influence
that 	choice 	or 	provide 	stimulus 	in 	one 	direction 	or 	the
other." 	Santa Monica 	Community 	College 	District, 	supra;
9rt 	should 	be 	noted 	that 	the 	violation 	which 	the 	District
has 	committed 	is 	not 	that 	the 	former 	superintendent 	suggested
creation 	of 	the 	Supervisory Council. 	That 	event 	occurred 	far
outside 	the 	six-month 	period 	of 	limitation 	established 	in
section 	3541.5. 	However, 	the 	meeting 	and 	conferring 	with 	the
Supervisory Council 	which 	did 	occur 	within 	the 	six 	months
period 	can 	be 	understood 	only 	in 	the 	context 	of 	the 	District's
earlier 	relationship 	with 	the 	Council. 	Evidence 	of 	earlier
misconduct 	may 	be 	received 	at 	a 	hearing 	as 	background 	in 	order
to 	shed 	light 	on 	the 	true 	character 	of 	events 	within 	the 	six
months 	period. 	Local 	Lod ge 	No. 	1424 	v. 	NLRB 	(1960) 	362 	u.s.
411 	[45 	LRRM 	3212]; 	NLRB 	v. 	Lundy 	Mfg. 	corp:- 	(2d 	Cir. 	1963)
316 	F.2d 	921 	[53 	LRRMLT06].

Antelope Valley Community College District, supra. 	See also
Midwest Piping Co. , Inc. (1945) 63 NLRB 1060 [17 LRRM 40] and
Shea Chemical Corp. (1958) 121 NLRB 1027 [42 LRRM 1486]. It is
not necessary under PERB decisions to prove that as a result of
employer favoritism there was an actual change by employees in
organizational membership. Santa Monica Community College
District, supra.
Little need be added to demonstrate that in addition to
violating section 3543.5 (a) the District's actions also
violated section 3543.5 (d). The question is whether by meeting
and conferring with the Supervisory Council the District
provided a stimulus toward the Supervisory Council and against
Local 535. 	It is self-evident that such was the case. 	Formed
at the suggestion of the former District superintendent, the
Supervisory Council quickly became the only effective voice for
supervisors within the District. It reached this status by the
District's obvious acceptance of the organization as the voice
of supervisory employees.
It makes no difference that the Supervisory Council was not
a petitioner to represent the supervisory unit. 	The
competition between the Supervisory Council and Local 535 was
real nonetheless. If Local 535 were to win the election, the
Supervisory Council would be precluded from further meeting
with the District and benefits would be lost. However, if
19	19
Antelope 	Valley 	Community 	College 	District, 	supra. 	See 	also
Midwest 	Piping 	Co., 	Inc. 	(1945) 	63 	NLRB 	1060 	[17 	LRRM 	40] 	and
Shea 	Chemical 	Corp. 	(1958) 	121 	NLRB 	1027 	[42 	LRRM 	1486] . 	It 	is
not 	necessary 	under 	PERB 	decisions 	to 	prove 	that 	as 	a 	result 	of
employer 	favoritism 	there 	was 	an 	actual 	change 	by 	employees 	in
organizational 	membership. 	Santa 	Monica 	Community College
District, 	supra.
Little 	need 	be 	added 	to 	demonstrate 	that 	in 	addition 	to
violating 	section 	3543.5(a) 	the 	District's 	actions 	also
violated 	section 	3543.5(d). 	The 	question 	is 	whether 	by 	meeting
and 	conferring 	with 	the 	Supervisory Council 	the 	District
provided 	a 	stimulus 	toward 	the 	Supervisory Council 	and 	against
Local 	535. 	It 	is 	self-evident 	that 	such 	was 	the 	case. 	Formed
at 	the 	suggestion 	of 	the 	former 	District 	superintendent, 	the
Supervisory 	Council 	quickly 	became 	the 	only 	effective 	voice 	for
supervisors 	within 	the 	District. 	It 	reached 	this 	status 	by 	the
District's 	obvious 	acceptance 	of 	the 	organization 	as 	the 	voice
of 	supervisory 	employees.
It 	makes 	no 	difference 	that 	the 	supervisory 	council 	was 	not
a 	petitioner 	to 	represent 	the 	supervisory 	unit. 	The
competition 	between 	the 	Supervisory Council 	and 	Local 	535 	was
real 	nonetheless. 	If 	Local 	535 	were 	to 	win 	the 	election, 	the
Supervisory 	council 	would 	be 	precluded 	from 	further 	meeting
with 	the 	District 	and 	benefits 	would 	be 	lost. 	However, 	if

Local 535 were to lose the election, the discussions between
the District and the Supervisory Council could continue as
before. This is the inevitable and reasonable conclusion which
one could draw from the superintendent's April 30 comment. As
the union argues in its brief, the superintendent's comment
"obviously amounted under any reasonable construction, to an
inducement to these supervisors that they reject Local 535."
Conditioning the retention of benefits upon the retention of an
incumbent union is an unfair practice which warrants setting
aside the results of an election. 	Humble Oil & Refining Co.
(1966) 160 NLRB 1088 [62 LRRM 1593].
For these reasons it is concluded that the District's
actions during the pre-election period provided a stimulus
toward the Supervisory Council and were thus in violation of
section 3543.5 (d) .
REMEDY
The charging party seeks an order that the District cease
and desist from meeting and negotiating with any employee
organization pending the resolution of the representation
case. The charging party also asks that the June 2, 1980
election be set aside and that a new election be ordered in the
supervisory unit. Finally, the charging party asks that the
District be required to sign and post a notice about the
resolution of this matter.
20	20
Local 	535 	were 	to 	lose 	the 	election, 	the 	discussions 	between
the 	District 	and 	the 	Supervisory 	Council 	could 	continue 	as
before. 	This 	is 	the 	inevitable 	and 	reasonable 	conclusion 	which
one 	could 	draw 	from 	the 	superintendent's 	April 	30 	comment. 	As
the 	union 	argues 	in 	its 	brief, 	the 	superintendent's 	comment
"obviously 	amounted 	under 	any 	reasonable 	construction, 	to 	an
inducement 	to 	these 	supervisors 	that 	they 	reject 	Local 	535."
Conditioning 	the 	retention 	of 	benefits 	upon 	the 	retention 	of 	an
incumbent 	union 	is 	an 	unfair 	practice 	which 	warrants 	setting
aside 	the 	results 	of 	an 	election. 	Humble 	Oil 	& 	Refining 	co.
(1966) 	160 	NLRB 	1088 	[62 	LRRM 	1593].
For 	these 	reasons 	it 	is 	concluded 	that 	the 	District's
actions 	during 	the 	pre-election 	period 	provided 	a 	stimulus
toward 	the 	Supervisory 	Council 	and 	were 	thus 	in 	violation 	of
section 	3543.S(d).
REMEDY
The 	charging 	party 	seeks 	an 	order 	that 	the 	District 	cease
and 	desist 	from 	meeting 	and 	negotiating 	with 	any 	employee
organizati on 	pending 	the 	resolution 	of 	the 	representation
case. 	The 	charging 	party 	also 	asks 	that 	the 	June 	2, 	1980
election 	be 	set 	aside 	and 	that 	a 	new 	election 	be 	ordered 	in 	the
supervisory 	unit. 	Finally, 	the 	charging 	party 	asks 	that 	the
District 	be 	req u ired 	to 	sign 	and 	po st 	a 	notice 	about 	the
resolution 	of 	this 	matter.

Under Government Code section 3541.5(c) , the PERB is given:
the power to issue a decision and
order directing an offending party to cease
and desist from the unfair practice and to
take such affirmative action, including but
not limited to the reinstatement of
employees with or without back pay, as will
effectuate the policies of this chapter.
The ordinary remedy in a case where employer unfair
practices have tainted an election is to set aside the result
of that election and to direct a new election. 	Antelope Valley
Community College District, supra, PERB Decision No. 97. In
such situations, the election is set aside because the
employees did not cast their ballots in an atmosphere free from
coercion. 10
10 Relying on the decision of a hearing officer, the
District argues that in order to have the election result set
aside Local 535 must prove that the District's activities
actually interfered with the election process. Franklin-
Mckinley School District (6/27/80) Case No. SF-R-604
[4 PERC 11119] . Hearing officer decisions, of course, are not
precedential. The PERB itself has held that it is unnecessary
for an employee organization to prove that an employer's
misconduct had the direct result of changing votes.
" . 	[It is unnecessary for . 	. [the union] to demonstrate
that this conduct directly translated into a negative vote by
employees 	." San Ramon Valley Unified School District
(11/20/79) PERB Decision No. III. The test for determining
whether there shall be a new election is more expansive. A new
election will be ordered whenever "[the nature and extent of
the unlawful conduct engaged in by the District made it
impossible for the employees to exercise their free choice in
the selection of an exclusive representative." 	Antelope Valley
Community College District, supra.
21
Under 	Government 	Code 	section 	3541.5(c}, 	the 	PERB 	is 	given:
•.. 	the 	power 	to 	issue 	a 	decision 	and
order 	directing 	an 	offending 	party 	to 	cease
and 	desist 	from 	the 	unfair 	practice 	and 	to
take 	such 	affirmative 	action, 	including 	but
not 	limited 	to 	the 	reinstatement 	of
employees 	with 	or 	without 	back 	pay, 	as 	will
effectuate 	the 	po licies 	of 	this 	chapter.
The 	ordinary 	remedy 	in 	a 	case 	where 	employer 	unfair
practices 	have 	tainted 	an 	election 	is 	to 	set 	aside 	the 	result
of 	that 	election 	and 	to 	direct 	a 	new 	election. 	Antelope 	Valley
Community 	College 	District, 	supra, 	PERB 	Decision 	No. 	97. 	In
such 	situations, 	the 	election 	is 	set 	aside 	because 	the
employees 	did 	not 	cast 	their 	ballots 	in 	an 	atmosphere 	free 	from
coercion.10
lORelying 	on 	the 	decision 	of 	a 	hearing 	officer, 	the
District 	argues 	that 	in 	order 	to 	have 	the 	election 	result 	set
aside 	Local 	535 	must 	prove 	that 	the 	District's 	activities
actually 	interfered 	with 	the 	election 	process. 	Franklin-
McKinley 	School 	District 	(6/27/80) 	Case 	No. 	SF-R-604
[4 	PERC 	11119]. 	Hearing 	officer 	decisions, 	of 	course, 	are 	not
precedential. 	The 	PERB 	itself 	has 	held 	that 	it 	is 	unnecessary
for 	an 	employee 	organization 	to 	prove 	that 	an 	employer's
misconduct 	had 	the 	direct 	result 	of 	changing 	votes.
" .•. 	[I]t 	is 	unnecessary 	for 	••• 	[the 	union] 	to 	demonstrate
that 	this 	conduct 	directly 	translated 	into 	a 	negative 	vote 	by
employees 	•.•• " 	San 	Ramon Valley 	Unified 	School 	District
(11/20/79) 	PERB 	Decision 	No. 	111. 	The 	test 	for 	determining
whether 	there 	shall 	be 	a 	new 	election 	is 	more 	expansive. 	A n ew
election 	will 	be 	ordered 	whenever 	"[t]he 	nature 	and 	extent 	of
the 	unlawful 	conduct 	engaged 	in 	by 	the 	District 	made 	it
impossible 	for 	the 	employees 	to 	exercise 	their 	free 	choice 	in
the 	selection 	of 	an 	exclusive 	representative." 	Antelope 	Valley
Community 	College 	District, 	supra.
21

It also is appropriate that the District be directed to
cease meeting and conferring and/or negotiating with the
Supervisory Council about any matter within the scope of
representation while the representation question is pending
with Local 535. The Supervisory Council is not a petitioner
for the supervisory unit and given the history of its creation
at the suggestion of the District it is not possible for an
untainted election to be conducted while the meetings
continue. 	Antelope Valley Community College District, supra.
Finally, it is appropriate that the District be required to
post a notice incorporating the terms of the order. 	The notice
should be subscribed by an authorized agent of the District
indicating that it will comply with the terms thereof. 	The
notice shall not be reduced in size. 	Posting will provide
employees with notice that the District has acted in an
unlawful manner and is being required to cease and desist from
this activity. It effectuates the purposes of the EERA that
employees be informed of the resolution of the controversy and
announces the District's readiness to comply with the ordered
remedy. See Placerville Union School District (9/18/78) PERB
Decision No. 69. In Pandol and Sons v. ALRB and UFW (1979) 98
Cal. App. 3d 580, 587, the California District Court of Appeal
approved a posting requirement. The U.S. Supreme Court
approved a similar posting requirement in NLRB v. Express
Publishing Co. (1941) 312 U.S. 426 [8 LRRM 415] .
22
It 	also 	is 	appropriate 	that 	the 	District 	be 	directed 	to
cease 	meeting 	and 	conferring 	and/or 	negotiating 	with 	the
Supervisory 	Council 	about 	any 	matter 	within 	the 	scope 	of
representation 	while 	the 	representation 	question 	is 	pending
with 	Local 	535. 	The 	Supervisory Council 	is 	not 	a 	petitioner
for 	the 	supervisory 	unit 	and 	given 	the 	history 	of 	its 	creation
at 	the 	suggestion 	of 	the 	District 	it 	is 	not 	p ossible 	for 	an
untainted 	election 	to 	be 	conducted 	while 	the 	meetings
continue. 	Antelope 	Valley 	Community 	College 	District, 	supra.
Finally, 	it 	is 	appropriate 	that 	the 	District 	be 	required 	to
post 	a 	notice 	incorporating 	the 	terms 	of 	the 	order . 	The 	notice
should 	be 	subscribed 	by 	an 	authorized 	agent 	of 	the 	District
indicating 	that 	it 	will 	comply 	with 	the 	terms 	thereof. 	The
notice 	shall 	not 	be 	reduced 	in 	size. 	Posting will 	provide
employees 	with 	notice 	that 	the 	District 	has 	acted 	in 	an
unlawful 	manner 	and 	is 	being 	required 	to 	cease 	and 	desist 	from
this 	activity. 	It 	effectuates 	the 	purposes 	of 	the 	EERA 	that
employees 	be 	informed 	of 	the 	resolution 	of 	the 	controversy 	and
announces 	the 	District's 	readiness 	to 	comply 	with 	the 	ordered
remedy. 	See 	Placerville 	Union 	School 	District 	(9/18/78) 	PERB
Decision 	NO. 	69. 	In 	Pandol 	and 	Sons 	v. 	ALRB 	and 	UFW 	(1979) 	98
Cal.App.3d 	580, 	587, 	the 	California 	District 	Court 	of 	Appeal
approved 	a 	pos ting 	requirement. 	The 	u.s. 	Supreme 	Court
approved 	a 	simil ar 	posting 	requirement 	in 	NLRB 	v. 	Exp ress
Publishing 	Co. 	{1941) 	312 	U.S. 	426 	[8 	LRRM 	415].
22

PROPOSED ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record of this case, and pursuant to Government
Code section 3541.5 (c) of the Educational Employment Relations
Act, it hereby is ordered that the Sacramento City Unified
School District, Board of Trustees, superintendent and their
respective agents shall:
A. CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
Showing favoritism toward the Supervisory Council
while a question concerning representation is pending by
continuing to meet and confer and/or negotiate with
representatives of the Supervisory Council about any matter
within the scope of representation (section 3543. 2).
B. 	TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS DESIGNED
TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE EERA:
1. Within seven (7) workdays after the date of
service of a final decision in this matter, post at all work
locations where notices to employees customarily are posted,
copies of the notice attached as an appendix hereto signed by
an authorized agent of the employer. Such posting shall be
maintained for a period of thirty (30) consecutive workdays.
Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that the notices are
not altered, reduced in size, defaced or covered with any other
material.
23	23
PROPOSED 	ORDER
Upon 	the 	foregoing 	findings 	of 	fact, 	conclusions 	of 	law,
and 	the 	entire 	record 	of 	this 	case, 	and 	pursuant 	to 	Government
Code 	section 	3541.S(c) 	of 	the 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations
Act, 	it 	hereby 	is 	ordered 	that 	the 	Sacramento 	City 	Unified
School 	District, 	Board 	of 	Trustees, 	superintendent 	and 	their
respective 	agents 	shall:
A. 	CEASE 	AND 	DESIST 	FROM:
Showing 	favoritism 	toward 	the 	Supervisory Council
while 	a 	question 	concerning 	representation 	is 	pending 	by
continuing 	to 	meet 	and 	confer 	and/or 	negotiate 	with
representatives 	of 	the 	Supervisory 	council 	about 	any 	matter
within 	the 	scope 	of 	representation 	(section 	3543.2).
B. 	TAKE 	THE 	FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE 	ACTIONS 	DESIGNED
TO 	EFFECTUATE 	THE 	POLICIES 	OF 	THE 	EERA:
1. 	Within 	seven 	(7) 	workdays 	after 	the 	date 	of
service 	of 	a 	final 	decision 	in 	this 	matter, 	post 	at 	all 	work
locations 	where 	notices 	to 	employees 	customarily 	are 	posted,
copies 	of 	the 	notice 	attached 	as 	an 	appendix 	hereto 	signed 	by
an 	authorized 	agent 	of 	the 	employer. 	Such 	posting 	shall 	be
maintained 	for 	a 	period 	o f 	thirty 	(30) 	consecutive 	workdays.
Reasonable 	steps 	shall 	be 	taken 	to 	insure 	that 	th e 	notices 	are
not 	altered, 	reduced 	in 	size, 	defaced 	or 	covered 	with 	any 	other
material.

2. Within forty-five (45) consecutive workdays from
the service of the final decision herein notify the Sacramento
Regional Director of the Public Employment Relations Board in
writing of what steps the employer has taken to comply with the
terms of this decision. Continue to report in writing to the
regional director periodically thereafter as directed. All
reports to the regional director shall be served concurrently
on the charging party herein.
It also is ordered that the ballots impounded following the
June 2, 1980 election in the supervisory unit of the Sacramento
City Unified School District shall be destroyed and that no
effect be given to that election. A new election shall be
conducted as may be ordered by the Sacramento Regional Director
in accord with PERB Decision No. 122.
Pursuant to California Administrative Code, title 8, part
III, section 32305, this Proposed Decision and Order shall
become final on March 10, 1981 unless a party files a timely
statement of exceptions. See California Administrative Code,
title 8, part III, section 32300. Such statement of exceptions
and supporting brief must be actually received by the executive
assistant to the Board itself at the headquarters office in
Sacramento before the close of business (5:00 p.m. ) on
March 10, 1981 in order to be timely filed. See California
Administrative Code, title 8, part III, section 32135. Any
24
2. 	Within 	forty-five 	(45) 	consecutive 	workdays 	from
the 	service 	of 	the 	final 	decision 	herein 	notify 	the 	Sacramento
Regional 	Director 	of 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	in
writing 	of 	what 	steps 	the 	employer 	has 	taken 	to 	comply 	with 	the
terms 	of 	this 	decision. 	Continue 	to 	report 	in 	writing 	to 	the
regional 	director 	periodically 	thereafter 	as 	directed. 	All
reports 	to 	the 	regional 	director 	shall 	be 	served 	concurrently
on 	the 	charging 	party 	herein.
It 	also 	is 	ordered 	that 	the 	ballots 	impounded 	following 	the
June 	2, 	1980 	election 	in 	the 	supervisory 	unit 	of 	the 	Sacramento
City 	Unified 	School 	District 	shall 	be 	destroyed 	and 	that 	no
effect 	be 	given 	to 	that 	election. 	A new 	election 	shall 	be
conducted 	as 	may 	be 	ordered 	by 	the 	Sacramento 	Regional 	Director
in 	accord 	with 	PERB 	Decision 	No. 	122.
Pursuant 	to 	California 	Administrative 	Code, 	title 	8, 	part
III, 	section 	32305, 	this 	Proposed 	Decision 	and 	Order 	shall
become 	fina l 	on 	March 	10, 	1981 	unless 	a 	party 	files 	a 	timely
statement 	of 	exceptions. 	See 	California 	Administrative 	Code,
title 	8, 	part 	III, 	section 	32300. 	such 	statement 	of 	exceptions
and 	supporting 	brief 	must 	be 	actually 	received 	by 	the 	executive
assistant 	to 	the 	Board 	itself 	at 	the 	headquarters 	office 	in
Sacramento 	before 	the 	close 	of 	business 	{5:00 	p. m. ) 	on
March 	10, 	1981 	in 	order 	to 	be 	timely 	filed . 	See 	California
Administrative 	Code, 	title 	8, 	part 	III, 	section 	32135. 	Any
24

statement of exceptions and supporting brief must be served
concurrently with its filing upon each party to this
proceeding. 	Proof of service shall be filed with the PERB
itself. See California Administrative Code, title 8, sections
32300 and 32305, as amended.
Dated : 	February 18, 1981
Ronald E. Blubaugh
Hearing Officer
25	25
statement 	of 	exceptions 	and 	supporting 	brief 	must 	be 	served
concurrently 	with 	its 	filing 	upon 	each 	party 	to 	this
proceeding. 	Proof 	of 	service 	shall 	be 	filed 	with 	the 	PERB
itself. 	See 	California 	Administrative 	Code, 	title 	8, 	sections
32300 	and 	32305, 	as 	amended.
Dated: 	February 	18, 	1981
Ronald 	E. 	Blubaugh
Hearing 	Officer

APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the State of California
After a hearing in Unfair Practice Case No. S-CE-345,
Social Services Union, Local 535 v. Sacramento City Unified
School District, in which all parties had the right to
participate, it has been found that the Sacramento City Unified
School District violated the Educational Employment Relations
Act, Government Code section 3543.5 (a) and (d) .
As a result of this conduct, we have been ordered to post
this notice and we will abide by the following:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
Showing favoritism toward the Supervisory Council
while a question concerning representation is pending by
continuing to meet and confer and/or negotiate with
representatives of the Supervisory Council about any matter
within the scope of representation (section 3543.2) .
B. 	TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS DESIGNED
TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE EERA:
1. 	Within seven (7) workdays after the date of
service of a final decision in this matter, post at all work
locations where notices to employees customarily are posted,
copies of this notice signed by an authorized agent of the
employer. Such posting shall be maintained for a period of
thirty (30) consecutive workdays. Reasonable steps shall be
taken to insure that the notices are not altered, reduced in
size, defaced or covered with any other material.
2. Within forty-five (45) consecutive workdays from
the service of the final decision herein notify the Sacramento
Regional Director of the Public Employment Relations Board in
writing of what steps the employer has taken to comply with the
terms of this decision. Continue to report in writing to the
regional director periodically thereafter as directed. All
reports to the regional director shall be served concurrently
on the charging party herein.
APPENDIX 	A
NOTICE 	TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED 	BY 	ORDER OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
An 	Agency 	of 	the 	State 	of 	California
After 	a 	hearing 	in 	Unfair 	Practice 	case 	No. 	S-CE-345,
Social 	Services 	Union, 	Local 	535 	v. 	Sacramento 	City 	Unified
School 	District, 	in 	which 	all 	parties 	had 	the 	right 	to
participate, 	it 	has 	been 	found 	that 	the 	Sacramento 	City 	Unified
School 	District 	violated 	the 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations
Act, 	Government 	Code 	section 	3543.S(a) 	and 	(d).
As 	a 	result 	of 	this 	conduct, 	we 	have 	been 	ordered 	to 	post
this 	notice 	and 	we 	will 	abide 	by 	the 	following:
A. 	CEASE AND 	DESIST 	FROM:
Showing 	favoritism 	toward 	the 	Supervisory Council
while 	a 	question 	concerning 	representation 	is 	pending 	by
continuing 	to 	meet 	and 	confer 	and/or 	negotiate 	with
representatives 	of 	the 	Supervisory 	Council 	about 	any 	matter
within 	the 	scope 	of 	representation 	(section 	3543.2).
B. 	TAKE 	THE 	FOLLOWING 	AFFIRMATIVE 	ACTIONS 	DESIGNED
TO 	EFFECTUATE 	THE 	POLICIES 	OF 	THE 	EERA:
1. 	Within 	seven 	(7) 	workdays 	after 	the 	date 	of
service 	of 	a 	final 	decision 	in 	this 	matter, 	post 	at 	all 	wo r k
locations 	where 	notices 	to 	employees 	customarily 	are 	posted,
copies 	of 	this 	notice 	signed 	by 	an 	authorized 	agent 	of 	the
employer. 	Such 	posting 	shall 	be 	maintained 	for 	a 	period 	of
thirty 	(30) 	consecutive 	workdays. 	Reasonable 	steps 	shall 	be
taken 	to 	insure 	that 	the 	notices 	are 	not 	altered, 	reduced 	in
size, 	defaced 	or 	covered 	with 	any 	other 	material.
2. 	Within 	forty-five 	(45) 	consecutive 	workdays 	from
the 	service 	of 	the 	final 	decision 	herein 	notify 	the 	Sacramento
Regional 	Director 	of 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	in
writing 	of 	what 	steps 	the 	employer 	has 	taken 	to 	comply 	with 	the
terms 	of 	this 	decision. 	Continue 	to 	report 	in 	wr iting 	to 	the
regional 	director 	periodically 	thereafter 	as 	directed. 	All
reports 	to 	the 	regional 	director 	shall 	be 	served 	concurrently
on 	the 	charging 	party 	herein.

It also is ordered that the ballots impounded by the PERB
following the June 2, 1980 election in the supervisory unit of
the Sacramento City Unified School District shall be destroyed
and that no effect be given to that election. A new election
shall be conducted as may be ordered by the Sacramento Regional
Direct
SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Dated: 	By Authorized Representative
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE. IT MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 30
CONSECUTIVE WORKDAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE
ALTERED, REDUCED IN SIZE, DEFACED OR COVERED WITH ANY OTHER
MATERIAL .
It 	also 	is 	ordered 	that 	the 	ballots 	impounded 	by 	the 	PERB
following 	the 	June 	2, 	1980 	election 	in 	the 	supervisory 	unit 	of
the 	Sacramento City 	Unified 	School 	District 	shall 	be 	destroyed
and 	that 	no 	effect 	be 	given 	to 	that 	election. 	A new 	election
shall 	be 	conducted 	as 	may 	be 	ordered 	by 	the 	Sacramento 	Regional
Director.
SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED 	SCHOOL 	DISTRICT
Dated: By Authorized 	Representative
---:--.-...--.--..--=-----:--:--r------
THIS 	IS 	AN 	OFFICIAL 	NOTICE. 	IT 	MUST 	REMAIN 	POSTED 	FOR 	30
CONSECUTIVE WORKDAYS 	FROM 	THE 	DATE 	OF 	POSTING 	AND 	MUST 	NOT 	BE
ALTERED, 	REDUCED 	IN 	SIZE, 	DEFACED OR COVERED WITH 	ANY 	OTHER
MATERIAL.