Regents of the University of California Service (PERB 0245H)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT-RELATIONS BOARD
In 	the Matter 	of:
UNIT 	DETERMINATION 	FOR SERVICE EMPLOYEES
OF 	THE 	UNIVERSITY OF 	CALIFORNIA
PURSUANT TO 	CHAPTER 	744 	OF 	THE
STATUTES 	OF 	1978 	(HIGHER EDUCATION
EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE 	RELATIONS ACT)
)
l Case 	Nos. 	SF-RR-1002, 	et 	al.
PERB 	Decision No. 	245-H
September 	30, 	1982
)
)
)
)
)
______________________ )
Appearances: 	Robert 	J. 	Bezemek, 	Attorney 	(VanBourg, 	Allen·,
Weinberg 	& Roger) 	for 	United 	Health 	Care 	Employees, 	SEIU;
Hirsch Adell 	and Glenn Rothner, 	Attorneys 	(Reich, 	Adell 	&
Crost) 	and 	Les 	Chisholm 	for 	American Federation 	of 	State,
County 	and Municipal Employees, 	AFL-CIO; 	Christine A. 	Bologna,
Attorney, 	Wayne Heine 	and 	Gerald 	B. 	Radeleff 	for 	California
State Employees Association; 	Patrick 	J. 	Szymanski, 	Attorney
(Beeson, 	Tayer, 	Kovach 	& Silbert) 	for 	Brotherhood 	of 	Teamster
and 	Auto Truck-Drivers, 	Local 	No. 	70; 	Jerrold 	C. 	Schaefer 	and
Judith 	Droz 	Keyes, 	Attorneys 	(Corbett, 	Kane 	& Berk) 	for 	the
Regents 	of 	the 	University 	of 	California.
Before: 	Tovar, 	Jaeger, 	Morgenstern 	and 	Jensen, 	Members*
I.
INTRODUCTION
The 	Higher 	Education Employer-Employee 	Relations 	Act
(HEERA 	or Act)l 	became 	effective 	July 	1, 	1979 	as 	a 	result 	of
legislation 	enacted 	by 	the 	California 	Legislature 	in 	1978. 	The
legislation 	granted 	jurisdiction over 	the 	HEERA 	to 	the 	Public
* 	Chairperson Gluck 	did 	not 	participate 	in 	this 	decision.
lThe 	HEERA 	is 	codified 	at 	Government 	Code 	section 	3560
et 	seq. 	All 	statutory 	references 	hereafter 	are 	to 	the
Government 	Code 	unless 	otherwise 	indicated.

Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(hereafter 	PERB 	or 	Board). 	Its
terms 	extend 	the 	opportunity 	for 	collective 	negotiations 	to,
among 	others, 	employees 	of 	the 	University 	of 	California 	and
their 	designated 	representatives.2 	As 	an 	initial 	step 	in 	the
representational 	process, 	PERB 	has 	authority 	to 	determine 	the
appropriate 	units 	for 	employees 	of 	the 	University.3
Pursuant 	to 	rules 	and 	regulations 	adopted 	by 	the 	Board,4
various 	employee 	organizations 	filed 	petitions 	with 	the 	Board
describing 	the 	units 	they 	believed 	to 	be 	appropriate. 	Parties
to 	the 	instant 	case 	then 	participated 	in 	the 	unit 	determination
hearing 	conducted 	by 	a 	PERB 	hearing 	officer 	who 	thereafter
transmitted 	the 	entire 	record 	along 	with 	his 	unit
recommendations 	to 	the 	Board 	itself 	for 	decision.
In 	two 	decisions 	of 	this 	Board 	issued 	today 	(Unit
Determination 	for 	Technical 	Employees 	of 	the 	University of
California 	(9/30/82), 	PERB 	Decision No. 	241-H, 	and 	Unit
Determination 	for 	Clerical Employees 	of 	the 	University 	of
21n 	addition 	to 	providing 	exclusive 	representation 	of
employees 	in 	appropriate 	units 	by 	employee 	organizations, 	HEERA
also makes 	it 	unlawful 	for 	the 	employer 	or 	the 	employee
organization 	to 	commit 	certain 	acts 	and 	requires 	the 	employer
and 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	to 	meet 	and 	confer 	in 	good
faith 	and 	endeavor 	to 	reach 	an 	agreement 	on 	matters 	within 	the
scope 	of 	representation.
3subsection 	3563(a).
4PERB 	rules 	and 	regulations 	regarding 	HEERA 	are 	codified
at 	California 	Administrative 	Code, 	title 	8, 	section 	50000 	et
seq.
2

California 	(9/30/82), 	PERB 	Decision No. 	244-H), 	the 	Board
determined 	that 	three 	units 	of 	technical 	employees 	and 	one 	unit
of 	clerical 	employees 	were 	appropriate. 	Based 	on 	the 	evidence
and 	the 	briefs 	submitted 	by 	the 	parties, 	as 	well 	as 	the 	hearing
officer's 	recommendations, 	and 	pursuant 	to 	the 	statutory 	unit
determination 	criteria,5 	the 	Board 	has 	determined 	that 	the
following 	additional 	units~are 	appropriate:
Systemwide 	Service 	Unit 	(excluding 	employees 	of 	Lawrence
Livermore 	National 	Laboratory);
Lawrence 	Livermore 	National 	Laboratory 	Service 	Unit.
THE 	SERVICE 	PETITIONS
Positions 	of 	the 	Parties
The American 	Federation of 	State, 	County 	and Municipal
Employees 	(AFSCME) 	and 	the 	California 	State Employees
Association 	(CSEA) 	have 	each 	petitioned 	for 	a 	systemwide 	unit
of 	service 	employees, 	including 	employees 	of 	all 	nine 	campuses
and 	the 	Lawrence 	Berkeley 	Laboratory, 	but 	excluding 	employees
of 	the 	Lawrence 	Livermore 	National 	Laboratory 	(LLNL). 	The
University 	supports 	their 	position. 	In 	opposition 	to 	these
petitions 	are 	the 	petitions 	of 	United 	Health 	Care 	Employees,
SEIU, 	Locals 	102, 	250 	and 	434 	(SEIU), 	AFSCME 	Local 	371, 	and
Ssee 	this 	Board's 	preceding 	decision, 	Unit 	Determination
for 	Technical 	Emplo 	ees 	of 	the 	University 	of 	Cal1forn1a
9 	O 	PERB 	Dec1s1on No. 	1-H, 	pp. 	3-6, 	for 	a 	review 	of 	the
statutory 	unit 	determination 	criteria. 	That 	discussion 	is
incorporated 	herein 	by 	reference.
3

Brotherhood 	of 	Teamsters 	and 	Auto 	Truck 	Drivers 	Local 	70
(Teamsters 	Local 	70). 	SEIU's 	petition 	is 	for 	a 	unit 	composed
of 	the 	service 	personnel 	employed 	at 	the 	University's 	medical
facilities. 	AFSCME 	Local 	371 	petitions 	for 	a 	unit 	of 	custodial
employees 	at 	the 	University 	of 	California, 	Berkeley 	(UCB).
Teamsters 	Local 	70 	has 	filed 	two 	petitions: 	one 	for 	a 	unit 	of
truck 	drivers 	at 	UCB, 	University 	of 	California, 	San 	Francisco,
Lawrence 	Berkeley 	Laboratory 	and 	systemwide 	administration; 	the
other 	for 	a 	unit 	of 	laborers 	and 	gardeners 	at 	UCB6. 	Finally,
Laborers 	International 	Union 	Local 	1276 	has 	petitioned 	for 	a
unit 	of 	protective 	services 	officers 	at 	LLNL 	and 	has 	joined
with 	the Alameda 	County 	Building 	and 	Construction 	Trades
Council 	to 	petition 	for 	a 	unit 	of 	service 	and 	skilled 	crafts
employees 	at 	LLNL.
For 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	below, 	we 	find 	the 	proposal 	of
AFSCME 	and 	CSEA 	for 	a 	systemwide 	service 	unit 	to 	be 	more
appropriate 	than 	the 	competing 	petitions. 	We 	also 	find 	that
the 	service 	employees 	of 	LLNL 	petitioned 	for 	by 	Laborers
Local 	1276 	constitute 	an 	appropriate 	unit.
DISCUSSION
The 	hallmark 	of 	service 	employees 	is 	their 	performance 	of
routine 	manual 	labor: 	"[t]he 	primary 	work 	functions 	of 	these
6In 	the 	alternative, 	Teamsters 	Local 	70 	argues 	that 	the
truck 	drivers, 	laborers 	and 	gardeners 	should 	be 	included 	in
individual 	campus 	service 	units 	or 	in 	a 	Bay Area 	service 	unit.
4

employees 	involve 	providing 	a 	proper 	physical 	environment 	and
support 	services 	for 	students." 7 	Thus, 	the. petitions 	of
AFSCME 	and CSEA 	include 	such 	classifications 	as 	sports
assistants, 	reprographic 	technicians, 	mail 	processors, 	ushers,
storekeepers, 	custodians, 	parking 	attendants, 	cooks, 	food
service 	workers, 	laundry machine 	operators, 	gardeners,
automotive 	mechanics, 	laborers, 	truck 	drivers, 	laboratory
assistants 	and 	odd 	jobbers. 	Included 	in 	the 	unit 	petitioned
for 	by AFSCME 	and 	CSEA 	are 	classifications 	which 	could 	be
considered 	"security" 	positions, 	such 	as 	security 	guards 	and
protective 	service 	officers. 	These 	employees 	do 	not 	have 	peace
officer 	status, 	and 	may 	thus 	be 	included 	in 	the 	unit
notwithstanding 	subsection 	3579(f), 	which 	directs 	that 	peace
officers 	may 	not 	be 	included 	in 	any 	unit 	which 	contains
employes 	other 	than 	peace 	officers.B 	No 	party 	opposes 	this
inclusion 	nor 	does 	any 	party 	seek 	a 	separate 	systemwide
security 	unit.
7sweetwater 	Union High 	School 	District 	(11/23/76), 	PERB
Decision No. 	4, 	at 	page 	9.
Bsubsection 	3579(f) 	provides 	as 	follows:
(f) 	The 	board 	shall 	not 	determine 	that 	any
unit 	is 	appropriate 	if 	it 	includes, 	together
with 	other 	employees, 	employees 	who 	are
defined 	as 	peace 	officers 	pursuant 	to
subdivisions 	(d) 	and 	(e) 	of 	Section 	830.2 	of
the 	Penal 	Code.
5

Service 	employees 	are 	distinguished 	from 	clerical 	employees
by 	the 	lack 	of 	an 	office 	environment, 	and 	from 	technical 	and
skilled 	craft 	employees 	by 	their 	lack 	of 	specialized 	education
and 	training.
Thus, 	while 	their 	duties 	vary, 	service 	employees 	share 	a
strong, 	functionally-related 	community 	of 	interest 	in 	that 	they
perform 	physical 	laboring 	tasks 	to 	maintain 	the 	campus•
physical 	environment 	and 	for 	which 	the 	required 	levels 	of 	skill
and 	training 	do 	not 	greatly 	differ. 	As 	a 	consequence, 	working
conditions 	also 	are 	similar, 	as 	well 	as 	benefits 	under 	the
University's 	staff 	personnel 	policies. 	For 	purposes 	of
representation 	on 	terms 	and 	conditions 	of 	employment,
therefore, 	the 	interests 	of 	the 	University's 	service 	employees
are 	substantially 	similar 	systemwide. 	In 	light 	of 	this
community of 	interest, 	together 	with 	the 	University's
concurrence 	in 	the 	appropriateness 	of 	a 	systemwide 	unit, 	we
find 	that 	an 	effective 	meet 	and 	confer 	relationship 	is
presented 	by 	the AFSCME/CSEA proposal. 	On 	this 	basis 	we
determine 	that 	the AFSCME/CSEA proposal 	for 	a 	systemwide
service 	unit 	(excluding 	LLNL) 	is 	appropriate. 	The 	class
composition of 	this 	unit 	is 	attached 	hereto 	as 	Appendix A.
The 	Petitions 	of 	SEIU, 	AFSCME 	Local 	371 	and 	Teamsters 	Local 	70
The 	bulk 	of 	the 	University's 	service 	employees 	are 	in
classifications 	which 	exist 	on 	every .campus. 	Conversely, 	few
classifications 	are 	unique 	to 	any 	single 	campus.
6

Significantly, 	the 	petitions 	for 	units 	of 	service 	employees
filed 	by 	SEIU, 	A,FSCME 	Local 	371 	and 	Teamsters 	Local 	70 	c·onsist
.almost 	entirely 	of 	classifications 	which 	are 	systemwide. 	Thus,
these 	petitions 	run 	afoul 	of 	the 	presumption 	in 	section 	3579(c)
that 	all 	employees 	in 	an 	occupational 	group 	be 	in 	the 	same
representation 	unit. 	To 	rebut 	the 	presumption, 	section 	3579(c)
requires 	that 	the 	petitioner 	show 	not 	only 	that 	its 	proposed
unit 	is 	appropriate 	under 	section 3579(a) 	criteria, 	but 	to 	show
as 	well 	that 	including 	these 	employees 	in 	a 	systemwide 	service
unit 	is 	inappropriate.
This 	none 	of 	the 	petitioners 	have 	done. 	There 	is 	no
evidence 	in 	the 	record 	that 	the 	work 	performed 	by 	employees
petitioned 	for 	by 	SEIU, 	AFSCME 	Local 	371 	and 	Teamsters 	Local 	70
is 	not 	functionally 	the 	same 	as 	that 	performed 	by 	other
employees 	in 	the 	same 	classifications. 	Nor 	is 	there 	evidence
that 	those 	petitioned-for 	employees 	are 	not 	subject 	to 	the 	same
systemwide 	personnel 	policies, 	wage 	structure 	and 	other 	working
conditions 	as 	other 	employees 	in 	their 	classifications.
Finally, 	while 	there 	is 	some 	evidence 	of 	a 	past 	history of
separate 	representation 	for 	some 	of 	these 	employees, 	the
evidence 	does 	not 	persuade 	us 	that 	the 	disruption 	of 	these
existing 	representational 	relationships 	would 	be 	so 	damaging 	as
to 	be 	found 	inappropriate.
Since 	none 	of 	the 	parties 	have 	shown 	that 	it 	would 	be
inconsistent 	with 	HEERA 	unit 	determination 	criteria 	to 	include
7

all 	University 	service 	employees 	(excluding 	those 	at 	LLNL) 	in 	a
single 	unit, 	the 	section 	3579(c) 	presumption 	has 	not 	been
rebutted. 	Thus, 	the 	petitions 	for 	units 	of 	service 	employees
filed 	by 	SEIU, 	AFSCME 	Local 	371 	and 	Teamsters 	Local 	70 	are
rejected.
Petitions 	of 	Laborers 	Local 	1276
Laborers 	International 	Union 	Local 	1276 	(Laborers) 	has
filed 	a 	petition, 	together 	with 	the 	Alameda 	County 	Building 	and
Construction Trades 	Council 	(Trades 	Council), 	to 	represent 	a
unit 	of 	service 	and 	skilled 	craft 	employees 	of 	LLNL. 	It 	has
filed 	another 	petition 	to 	represent 	a 	unit 	of 	protective
services 	officers 	at 	LLNL.
In Unit 	Determination 	for 	Skilled Craft 	Employees 	of 	the
University 	of 	California 	(9/30/82), 	PERB 	Decision 	No. 	242-H,
the 	Board 	found 	appropriate 	a 	unit 	of 	skilled 	craft 	employees
of 	LLNL. 	That 	unit 	includes 	certain 	employment 	classes 	which
are 	listed 	in 	the 	above-noted 	Laborers/Trades 	Council 	petition
and 	which 	were 	found 	to 	be 	skilled 	crafts 	classes. 	Considering
the 	remaining 	classes 	in 	the 	Laborers/Trades 	Council 	petition,
we 	find 	that 	the 	employees 	in 	these 	classes 	share 	a 	substantial
community 	of 	interest. 	The 	proposed 	unit 	would 	include 	nearly
all 	the 	non-craft 	blue 	collar 	employees 	at 	LLNL, 	consisting 	of
custodians, 	gardeners, 	laborers, 	vehicle 	drivers 	and 	mechanics,
materials 	handlers 	and 	miscellaneous 	laboring 	specialists.
Thus, 	they 	are 	all 	unskilled 	or 	semi-skilled 	workers 	who, 	as
8

such, 	share 	a 	subs,tantial 	community 	of 	interest. 	Because 	they
share 	a 	common 	level 	of 	skills, 	they 	are 	likely 	to 	command
similar 	rates 	of 	compensation. 	so, 	too, 	they 	generally work
s.imilar 	hours, 	and 	the 	physical 	nature 	of 	their 	work 	produces
similar 	working 	conditions 	and 	concerns. 	Thus 	the 	meet 	and
confer 	relationship 	between 	a 	single 	representative 	of 	these
employees 	and 	the 	University would 	be 	an 	effective 	and
efficient 	one.
The 	Laborers 	have 	also 	petitioned 	to 	represent 	the
protective 	services 	officers 	(PSOs) 	of 	LLNL. 	The 	proposed 	unit
would 	consist 	of 	just 	two 	classes: 	950.0 	protective 	services
officer 	and 	950.3 	protective 	services 	officer-sergeant.
Although 	the 	Laborers 	petitioned 	for 	PSOs 	as 	a 	separate 	unit,
we 	find 	that 	a 	separate 	representational 	unit 	for 	these
employees 	would 	be 	inappropriate, 	and 	that 	the 	two
petitioned-for 	classes 	should 	appropriately 	be 	included 	in 	the
LLNL 	service 	unit 	which 	the 	Laborers, 	with 	the 	Trades 	Council,
separately 	petitioned 	for.
Although 	they 	carry 	guns, 	PSOs 	do 	not 	have 	peace 	officer
status. 	Because 	the 	Lab 	is 	closed 	to 	the 	public, 	their 	duties
are 	different 	from 	those 	of 	the 	University peace 	officers 	who
patrol 	the 	nine 	open 	campuses. 	PSO 	duties 	include 	checking
clearance 	badges 	at 	entry 	points, 	escorting 	uncleared persons
through 	the 	lab 	and 	securing 	classified 	information 	from 	their
view, 	performing 	foot 	and 	motor 	patrol, 	traffic 	control
9

functions 	and 	classified 	document 	destruction. 	PSOs 	escort
movement 	of 	hazardous 	or 	toxic 	materials 	through 	the 	laboratory
and, 	in 	the 	event 	of 	a 	"spill," 	they 	set 	up 	traffic 	barriers
and 	control 	the 	movement 	of 	personnel 	in 	the 	area. 	Unlike 	most
laboratory 	personnel, 	the 	PSOs' 	schedule 	covers 	seven 	days 	a
. week, 	24 	hours 	a 	day.
Under 	EERA, 	in 	Sacramento City Unified 	School 	District
(9/20/77) 	PERB 	Decision No. 	30, 	the 	PERB 	followed 	private
sector 	precedent 	and 	established 	a 	separate 	unit 	of 	security
guards, 	stating:
The 	employer 	is 	entitled 	to 	a 	nucleus 	of
protection 	employees 	to 	enforce 	its 	rules
and 	to 	protect 	it 	property 	and 	persons
without 	being 	confronted 	with 	a 	division 	of
loyalty 	inherent 	in 	the 	inclusion 	of
security 	officers 	in 	the 	same 	unit 	with
other 	classified 	employees. 	(Emphasis
added.)
The 	policy 	of 	providing 	a 	separate 	unit 	is 	for 	the
employer's 	benefit. 	Since 	in 	this 	case, 	the 	University opposes
a 	separate 	security 	unit, 	there 	is 	no 	reason 	to 	apply 	that
policy 	here. 	Instead, 	the 	unit 	determination 	for 	these
employees 	must 	be 	based 	on 	the 	criteria 	set 	forth 	at 	section
3579(a) 	of 	HEERA.
-
On 	the 	basis 	of 	the 	section 	3579(a) 	criteria and 	the 	record
evidence, 	there 	is 	little 	to 	support 	the 	separate 	unitting 	of
PSOs. 	Like 	the 	other 	service 	employees 	which 	the 	Laborers
petitioned 	for 	jointly 	with 	the 	Trades 	Council, 	the 	PSOs 	are
10

relatively 	unskilled 	employees, 	performing 	for 	the 	most 	part
routine 	physical 	tasks. 	Thus 	they 	are 	likely 	to 	command
similar 	rates 	of 	compensation. 	Their 	interest 	in 	matters
relating 	to 	hours 	is 	in 	common 	with 	custodians 	and 	other
service 	classes 	which 	are 	on 	duty 	on 	shifts 	other 	than 	the 	day
shift. 	So, 	too, 	because 	of 	the 	routine 	physical 	nature 	of
their 	work 	they 	generally 	share 	a 	common 	interest 	in 	working
conditions 	with 	the 	other 	service 	employees. 	Thus 	the 	meet 	and
confer 	relationshp 	between 	the 	University 	and 	a 	single
representative 	of 	the 	service 	employees 	would 	not 	be
complicated 	by 	the 	inclusion 	of 	the 	PSOs. 	Little 	would 	be
gained 	in 	subdividing 	the 	unskilled 	and 	semi-skilled 	classes
which would 	offset 	the 	negative 	effects 	of 	fragmentation 	and
proliferation of 	units. 	Therefore, 	in 	view 	of 	the 	Laborers'
petitions 	to 	represent 	the 	service 	employees 	of 	LLNL, 	we
approve 	as 	an 	appropriate 	unit 	a 	single 	unit 	of 	LLNL 	service
employees 	which 	includes 	the 	service 	classes 	petitioned 	for 	by
the 	Laborers 	in 	both 	their 	petitions.
ORDER
Based 	on 	the 	entire 	record 	in 	this 	case, 	the 	Public
Employment 	Relations 	Board 	hereby 	ORDERS 	that:
1. 	A unit 	composed 	of 	all 	service 	employees 	of 	the
University 	of 	California, 	but 	excluding 	those 	employed 	at 	the
Lawrence 	Livermore 	National 	Laboratory, 	is 	appropriate 	for 	the
purpose 	of 	meeting 	and 	conferring 	in 	good 	faith 	pursuant 	to
11

Government 	Code 	section 	3560, 	et 	seq. 	The 	employment 	classes
included 	in 	this 	unit 	are 	set 	forth 	in 	the 	attached Appendix 	A.
2. 	A unit 	composed 	of 	all 	service 	employees 	at 	the
Lawrence 	Livermore 	National 	Laboratory 	is 	appropriate 	for 	the
purpose 	of 	meeting 	and 	conferring 	in 	good 	faith 	pursuant 	to
Government Code 	section 	3560 	et 	seq. 	The 	employment 	classes
included 	in 	this 	unit 	are 	set 	forth 	in 	the 	attached Appendix 	B.
3. 	Each 	of 	the 	units 	found 	appropriate 	shall 	exclude
managerial, 	supervisory 	and 	confidential 	employees 	of 	the
University.
4. 	Any 	technical 	errors 	in 	this 	ORDER 	shall 	be 	presented
to 	the 	director 	of 	representation 	who 	shall 	take 	appropriate
action 	thereon 	in 	accordance 	with 	this 	decision.
5. 	The 	Board 	hereby ORDERS 	a 	representation 	election 	in
each 	of 	these 	units 	and 	the 	general 	counsel 	is 	hereby 	directed
to 	proceed 	in 	accordance 	with 	California Administrative 	Code,
title 	8, 	part 	3, 	division 	4.
By 	the 	BOARD
12

APPENDIX A
SERVICE 	UNIT
4021 	Sports .Assistant
4022 	Referee/Umpire
4041 	Sports 	Event Attendant
4821 	Mail 	Service 	Supervisor
4822 	Senior Mail 	Processor
4823 	Mail 	Processor
4824 	Assistant Mail 	Processor
5062 	Senior 	Storekeeper
5063 	Stores Worker
5064 	Storekeeper
5065 	Assistant 	Storekeeper
5066 	Delivery worker
5101 	Senior 	Custodian 	Leader
5102 	Custodian Leader
5103 	Custodian
5112 	Custodian Supervisor
5113 	Assistant 	Custodian 	Supervisor
5114 	Window Cleaner
5116 	Senior 	Custodian
5117 	Custodian
5123 	Elevator 	Operator
5160 	Window washer
1

5166 	Senior 	Light Fixture 	Attendant
5167 	Light 	Fixture 	Attendant
5207 	Rescue 	Worker
5208 	Assistant 	Rescue Worker
5326 	Senior 	Security Guard
5327 	Security Guard
5328 	Proctor
5332 	Parking 	Supervisor
5333 	Senior 	Parking 	Representative
5334 	Parking 	Representative
5335 	Parking 	Assistant
5445 	Assistant 	Food 	Service Manager
5450 	Principal 	Food 	Service 	Supervisor
5451 	Senior 	Food 	Service 	Supervisor
5452 	Food 	Service 	Supervisor
5501 	Principal Baker
5502 	Senior 	Baker
5503 	Baker
5505 	Assistant 	Baker
5517 	Meat 	Cutter
5521 	Principal Cook
5522 	Senior 	Cook
5523 	Cook
5524 	Assistant 	Cook
5538 	Cook-Housekeeper
2

5650 	Principal 	Food 	Service Worker
5651 	Senior 	Food Service Worker
5652 	Food 	Service Worker
5821 	Senior 	Head 	Linen 	Service Worker
5822 	Head 	Linen 	Service worker
5832 	Senior 	Linen 	Service Worker
5833 	Linen 	Service Worker
5835 	Laundry 	Rotary 	Press 	Operator
5841 	Senior 	Laundry Machine 	Operator
5842 	Laundry Machine 	Operator
5863 	Power 	Sewing Machine 	Operator
5864 	Drapery Maker
6272 	Head Usher
6273 	Senior 	Usher
6274 	Usher
6282 	House Manager 	II
6283 	House Manager 	I
6284 	Assistant 	House Manager
6772 	Senior 	Library 	Bookmender
6773 	Library 	Bookmender
6774 	Library 	Bookmender 	Trainee
8074 	Laborer 	Supervisor
8075 	Lead 	Laborer
8076 	Laborer
8082 	Tree 	Trimmer 	Supervisor
3

8083 	Tree 	Trimmer
8085 	Pest 	Control 	Supervisor
8086 	Pest Control 	Operator
8095 	Physical 	Plant 	Laborer/Gardener 	Supervisor
8096 	Lead 	Physical 	Plant 	Laborer/Gardener 	(Bl
8097 	Physical 	Plant 	Laborer/Gardener 	(Bl
8098 	Physical Plant 	Laborer/Gardener 	(Al
8131 	Grounds 	Supervisor
8132 	Lead 	Groundskeeper
8133 	Grounds keeper
8134 	Grounds 	Equipment 	Operator
8148 	Senior 	Farm Maintenance Worker
8149 	Farm Maintenance Worker
8211 	Building Maintenance 	Supervisor 	(except 	UCLA)
8212 	Senior 	Building 	Maintenance Worker 	(except 	UCLA)
8213 	Building Maintenance Worker 	(except 	UCLA)
8247 	Physical 	Plant 	Operator 	Supervisor
8248 	Physical 	Plant 	Operator
8371 	Port 	Steward
8372 	Senior Marine 	Cook
8373 	Marine Cook
8453 	Airport 	Services 	Worker
8454 	Airport 	Services 	Helper
8475 	Automotive 	Attendant
8483 	Driver
4

8485 	Principal Automotive 	Equipment 	Operator
8486 	Senior 	Automotive 	Equipment 	Operator
8487 	Automotive 	Equipment 	Operator
8524 	Assistant 	Farm Machinery Mechanic
8525 	Farm Machinery 	Attendant
8535 	Laundry 	Truck 	Driver
8540 	Principal Agricultural 	Technician
8541 	Senior 	Agricultural 	Technician
8542 	Agricultural 	Technician
8543 	Farm 	Laborer
8552 	Supervising Truck 	Driver
8553 	Truck 	Driver
8563 	Equipment Operator
9526 	Assistant Animal 	Technician
9552 	Botanical 	Garden/Arboretum Manager
9561 	Senior 	Nursery Technician
9562 	Nursery 	Technician
9606 	Laboratory Helper
9608 	Odd 	Jobber
566.1 	Material Handler 	I
5

566.2 	Material 	Handler 	II
566.3 	Material 	Handler 	III
630.1 	Custodian
630.2 	Senior 	Custodian
630.3 	Assistant 	Custodian 	Supervisor 	(B)
630.4 	Custodian Supervisor
646.1 	Protective 	Services Officer
646.2 	Relief 	Sergeant
724.1 	Technical 	Assistant 	I
724.2 	Technical Assistant 	II
737.1 	Garage Attendant
738.1 	Bus 	Driver
738.2 	Lead 	Bus 	Driver
739.1 	Vehicle Mechanic
739.2 	Lead 	Vehicle Mechanic
745.1 	Truck 	Driver, 	Light
745.2 	Truck 	Driver
745.3 	Lead 	Truck 	Driver
799.1 	Intern
799.3 	General 	Helper
6

APPENDIX B
SERVICE 	UNIT 	(LLNL)
466.1 	Material 	Handler 	I
466.2 	Material 	Handler 	II
466.3 	Material 	Handler 	III
491.1 	Facilities 	Grade 	I 	- 	Custodian
Facilities 	Grade 	I 	- 	Laborer
Facilities 	Grade 	I 	- 	Vehicle 	Driver 	I
491.2 	Facilities 	Grade 	II 	- 	Bunker 	Custodian
Facilities 	Grade 	II 	- 	Floor 	Waxer
Facilities 	Grade 	II 	- 	Heavy 	Custodian
Facilities 	Grade 	II 	- 	Print-out 	Custodian
Facilities 	Grade 	II 	- 	Vehicle 	Driver 	II/Dispatcher
Facilities 	Grade 	II 	- 	Window washer
491.3 	Facilities 	Grade 	III 	- 	Gardener
491.4 	Facilities 	Grade 	IV 	- 	Vehicle Mechanic Helper
491.6 	Facilities Grade VI 	- 	Field Worker
491.7 	Facilities 	Grade 	VII 	- 	Bunker 	Worker
Facilities 	Grade VII 	- 	Concrete 	Sawer
Facilities 	Grade VII 	- 	Dempster 	Dump Operator
Facilities 	Grade 	VII 	- 	Fence 	Erector
1

SERVICE 	UNIT 	(LLNL) 	(Con It. l.
Facilities 	Grade 	VII 	- 	Hammermill 	Operator
Facilities Grade 	VII 	- 	Hole 	Driller
Facilities 	Grade VII 	- 	Equipment 	Operator
Facilities 	Grade VII 	- 	Pest 	and 	Weed Controller
Facilities 	Grade VII 	- 	Road 	Repairer
Facilities 	Grade VII 	- 	Scientific 	Equipment 	Operator
491.9 	Facilities 	Grade 	IX - 	Truck 	Driver
Facilities 	Grade 	IX 	- 	Vehicle Mechanic
492.0 	Facilities 	Grade 	X - 	Lead 	Truck 	Driver
493.8 	Training 	Grade 	IX - 	Motor 	Vehicle Mechanic Apprentice
493.9 	Training 	Grade 	IX - 	Motor 	Vehicle Mechanic Apprentice
(classroom 	instruction)
950.0 	Protective 	Services 	Officer
950.3 	Protective 	Services 	Sergeant
2