Azusa Unified School District (PERB 0374E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS BOARD
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL 	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION and 	its 	AZUSA CHAPTER
NO. 299,
Charging 	Party,
v.
AZUSA UNIFIED 	SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Respondent.
Case No. 	LA-CE-1498
PERB Decision No. 	374
December 30, 	1983
Appearances; 	Siona D. 	Windsor, 	Attorney for California 	School
Employees Association and 	its 	Azusa Chapter No. 	299;
Patrick D. 	Sisneros, 	Attorney 	(Wagner, 	Sisneros & Wagner) 	for
Azusa Unified 	School 	District.
Before Tovar, 	Morgenstern and Burt, 	Members.
DECISION
BURT, 	Member: 	This case 	is before the Public Employment
Relations 	Board 	(PERB or 	Board) 	on 	exceptions 	filed by the
Azusa Unified 	School 	District 	(District) 	to the proposed
decision of 	the Administrative 	Law Judge 	(ALJ) 	and the response
to 	exceptions 	filed by 	the 	California 	School 	Employees
Association 	(CSEA or Association). 	The District excepts 	to the
ALJ's 	finding that it violated subsections 3543.5(a), 	(b) 	and
(c) 	of 	the Educational 	Employment 	Relations Act 	(EERA)1 by
1 The 	EERA is 	codified at 	Government 	Code 	section 	3540
et 	seq. 	All 	statutory references herein are 	to the 	Government
Code 	unless 	otherwise noted.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_______________ )

failing 	to provide 	a seniority list 	in a 	timely 	fashion, 	and by
unilaterally reducing 	the hours 	of 	instructional 	aides. 	The
Association's 	response 	defends 	the decision of 	the ALJ.
The 	Board has 	reviewed 	the ALJ's 	proposed 	decision 	in 	light
of 	the 	District's 	exceptions 	and 	the 	Association's 	response
thereto, 	and the entire record 	in this matter, 	and we affirm
the ALJ's 	proposed decision 	consistent with 	the discussion
below.
FACTS
CSEA is 	the 	exclusive 	representative of 	the 	District's
classified employees. 	During contract 	negotiations 	in May of
1981, 	a CSEA negotiating 	team member 	informed 	the 	District 	that
after past 	reductions 	in hours 	for 	aides, 	those affected were
not 	given 	the opportunity 	to bump 	into other 	positions 	as
required by the 	Education Code. 	The parties 	agreed to discuss
the 	issue 	further 	in the 	fall, 	and proceeded to agree on a new
contract which was 	ratified on May 5, 	1981. 	The contract
extended through June 30, 	1983, 	and contained extensive
procedures 	for 	layoff and reemployment, 	including procedures
for bumping 	according 	to 	seniority and breaking 	ties 	in 	case 	of
equal 	seniority.
In the 	fall, 	the parties 	resumed discussions about 	the
previous reduction 	in hours, 	and 	the 	District agreed 	to 	send
out 	a 	letter 	to 	all 	aides 	previously affected notifying 	them
that 	they might be 	eligible 	for 	compensation because 	they had
22

not been afforded proper bumping rights. 	The 	letter 	was 	sent
on 	September 	10, 	and aides were 	to respond by October 	10.
At 	an executive 	session of 	the 	school board on
September 	15, 	Assistant 	Superintendent 	Robert 	Kahle 	and other
administrators 	advised 	the board 	that 	there would have 	to be 	a
layoff 	of 	instructional 	aides 	in order 	to meet 	increased
personnel 	costs. 	The board did not 	formally vote on 	this
recommendation, 	but 	indicated by consensus 	that 	the
administration 	could proceed with 	the 	reductions. 	The 	action
proposed, 	according to Kahle, 	was a layoff, 	but Kahle
understood 	that he might 	also proceed with 	a 	reduction 	in hours
On September 	30, 	Kahle met with CSEA Field
Representative Thomas 	P. 	McGuire. 	Kahle 	testified that he
called 	the meeting 	to discuss 	the proposed layoff; 	McGuire
asserted that he 	called 	the meeting 	to discuss 	the 	aides'
responses 	to the 	September 	10 	letter. 	They agree that Kahle
told McGuire 	about 	the possibility of 	a 	layoff of 	aides 	or 	a
reduction 	in 	their hours 	to 	save money. 	Kahle 	testified 	that
at 	this 	meeting he 	showed McGuire 	a 	copy of 	a 	letter 	to be 	sent
to aides 	advising 	them that 	their 	workday would be 	reduced.
McGuire denies 	that he 	saw a 	copy of 	the 	letter 	until 	after 	it
had been 	sent 	out.
The 	two also agree 	that McGuire 	asked Kahle 	to delay action
until he 	could 	further 	investigate 	the 	District's 	financial
situation and until 	the aides' 	responses were all received.
3
3 	/

Kahle 	testified 	that he 	responded 	to McGuire 	that, 	"I'll 	think
about 	it 	. . . 	but 	I 	indicated 	to him that 	this 	was 	the
direction we were 	going." 	CSEA received no 	further 	notice 	that
the 	District would proceed with 	the 	reduction 	in hours.
On 	October 	5, 	McGuire pursued his 	inquiry about 	finances
through 	the 	District's 	director 	of 	specially 	funded projects,
who 	indicated 	that 	$140,000 was 	left 	in 	the 	fund 	from which
aides 	were paid.
On October 	7, 	the District 	sent 	letters over 	Kahle's
signature to 68 	instructional 	aides 	informing them that, 	as of
November 	9, 	their hours 	would be 	reduced 	from three and
one-half hours per 	day to 	three hours 	per 	day because of 	lack
of 	funds 	and reduction 	in 	service. 	All 	aides 	in the 	District
then working 	three 	and 	one-half hours 	per 	day received 	these
notices.2 (There 	were 	other 	aides 	already working 	only 	three
hours per day, 	and 	their hours were not affected.)
2The 	notices 	stated:
This 	letter 	constitutes 	a notice 	that your
hours 	of 	employment will be 	reduced 	from
3 	1/2 hours per 	day to 	3 	hours per 	day 	in
your 	classification as 	instructional 	aide,
effective on Monday, 	November 9, 	1981.
You will 	retain 	reemployment 	rights
consistent with 	your 	seniority 	in 	the
District 	for 	a period of 	39 months. 	During
this 	time you will have preference 	to be
employed 	in any vacancy of 	3 	1/2 hours per
day 	in 	the 	classification 	from which 	laid
A	4

off 	in 	accordance with your 	seniority and
ahead of 	new applicants.
This process 	is 	in accordance with Education
Code 	Section 45117 	and 	the 	agreement between
the 	District 	and 	the 	California 	School
Employees 	Association and 	its 	Azusa Chapter,
Local 299.
We 	sincerely regret 	the 	necessity of 	this
action 	that we must 	take because of 	lack of
funds 	and reduction 	in 	service.
Sometime after 	the mailing of 	the notice, 	but before
October 	26, 	McGuire requested a 	copy of 	the 	seniority list 	for
District aides. 	Kahle responded 	that 	such a 	list was
unnecessary because 	all 	of 	the 	aides 	were having 	their hours
reduced by the 	same amount. 	McGuire believed 	this 	to be
reasonable 	and he 	withdrew his 	request.
The parties 	met again on 	October 	26. 	McGuire 	renewed his
request 	for 	a 	seniority list 	in order 	for 	CSEA to prepare 	a
proposal 	to negotiate about 	the reduction 	in hours. 	McGuire
suggested 	that 	aides 	now working 	three hours 	could work 	two 	and
a half hours 	per 	day 	instead 	of 	changing 	the 	three-and-a-half-
hour workday of others. 	Kahle pronounced 	this proposal
unworkable, 	but promised 	to consult with the 	District's
attorney about provision of 	the 	seniority 	list.
On November 	6, 	the parties again discussed the reduction 	in
hours. 	McGuire 	complained 	that he 	still had not 	received 	the
seniority list. 	Kahle replied that 	the 	District's 	attorney had
55

advised 	that 	the 	District had 	the 	right 	to reduce hours
unilaterally. 	On November 	9, 	the proposed reduction took place,
The next 	day, 	CSEA placed 	in writing 	its 	demand 	for 	the
seniority list 	and asked 	for 	information about 	the 	funding
sources 	for 	aides. 	In that 	letter McGuire 	further disputed 	the
District's 	justification 	for 	the reduction: 	lack of 	funds 	and
lack of work.
On December 8, 	the parties met again. 	McGuire again asked
for 	the 	seniority 	list 	and 	complained 	that 	the 	reduction had
been accomplished without 	CSEA's 	agreement. 	Kahle promised 	to
hand over 	the 	list but 	said 	that 	it was 	not 	a high priority,
since hours 	of 	all 	of 	the 	three-and-one-half-hour 	aides were
being 	reduced 	the 	same 	amount.
On January 12, 	McGuire wrote to Kahle, 	requesting that the
aides be restored 	to their 	full 	three 	and one half hours. 	He
also complained 	that 	the 	action had been 	taken without 	a
resolution of 	the 	school board. 	McGuire 	further 	reiterated
that 	CSEA was 	not 	satisfied 	that 	the 	District had demonstrated
that 	there was 	a 	lack of 	funds.
On January 19, 	the 	school board adopted a resolution to
ratify the 	"layoff 	(reduction 	in hours)" 	which had been
instituted 	"due 	to 	lack 	of 	funds 	or 	lack 	of work." 	On
January 21, 	Kahle 	sent McGuire a copy of the resolution. 	On
February 8, 	McGuire met with 	the assistant 	superintendent 	of
educational 	services 	in a 	further 	effort 	to understand 	the
6
6

District's 	contention 	that 	a 	layoff 	was 	necessary because 	of
lack of 	funds.
Finally, 	on April 	27, 	the District did provide a seniority
list 	for aides.
DISCUSSION
We 	find 	that 	the ALJ's 	findings 	of 	fact 	are 	free 	from
prejudicial 	errors, 	and we affirm them as 	those of 	the Board
itself.
Because 	of 	the 	resignation of 	the 	ALJ who conducted 	the
hearing, 	the 	case was assigned to a different ALJ 	for
decision. 	The District excepts, 	claiming that 	"the one who
decides 	must hear" 	since only he has had 	the opportunity to
observe the witnesses. 	The District argues 	that 	this 	is
particularly relevant 	in a 	case 	such as 	this 	where questions 	of
credibility are 	important.
Substitution 	of 	ALJs 	is 	specifically authorized by PERB's
regulations at California Administrative Code, 	title 8,
section 	32168(b).3 Further, 	the 	Board has previously
considered 	and rejected 	the 	argument 	that 	the ALJ who hears 	the
3 Regulation 32168(b) states:
(b) 	A Board agent 	may be 	substituted 	for
another 	Board 	agent 	at 	any 	time 	during 	the
proceeding 	at 	the discretion of 	the Chief
Administrative 	Law Judge 	in unfair practice
c a s e s . . . .
7
• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	•
7

case must 	decide 	it. 	Fremont Unified 	School 	District 	(4/5/78)
PERB Order No. 	Ad-28. 	Here 	the District has demonstrated no
prejudice by 	reason of 	the 	substitution 	and we have decided 	the
case without 	the 	need 	for 	credibility resolutions. 	We
therefore 	find 	this 	exception 	to be without merit.
Seniority 	List
The 	District 	argues 	that 	there was 	no 	failure 	to 	supply a
seniority list, 	nor was 	there any unreasonable delay 	in
supplying 	the 	list. 	The ALJ correctly noted 	that 	an exclusive
representative 	is 	entitled 	to all 	information 	that 	is 	necessary
and relevant 	to discharging 	its 	duty 	to 	represent 	unit
members. 	An 	employer's 	refusal 	to provide 	such 	information
constitutes 	bad 	faith bargaining 	unless 	the employer 	can 	give
adequate 	reasons why it 	cannot 	supply the 	information.
Stockton Unified 	School 	District 	(11/3/80) 	PERB Decision
No. 143.
Here 	the Association was 	entitled 	to 	the 	seniority list 	to
monitor 	compliance with 	the 	contract 	as well 	as 	to 	formulate
proposals 	concerning reduction 	in hours, 	and the ALJ correctly
found 	that 	the 	District 	failed 	to provide 	relevant 	information
in a 	timely 	fashion. 	Though 	the 	District did not 	flatly
refuse, 	it did not provide the 	information 	for 	six months. 	The
District's 	belief 	that 	the 	information was 	unnecessary or 	the
Association's 	reasons 	for wanting 	it 	impractical 	does 	not
constitute 	adequate 	justification. 	We 	therefore 	affirm the
8

ALJ's 	conclusion 	that 	the 	District's 	unreasonable 	delay 	in
providing 	information 	violated 	EERA.
Reduction 	in Hours
The 	District 	generally contends 	that 	its 	action was 	not 	a
reduction 	in hours but 	a layoff. 	It 	then asserts 	that
requiring negotiations 	prior 	to 	reduction 	in hours 	conflicts
with 	the 	Education Code, 	basing 	its 	argument on Education Code
sections 	concerning 	layoff 	and notice of 	layoff, 	and past 	Board
decisions which have decided 	that 	the decision 	to 	lay off 	is
not 	negotiable 	under 	EERA.
This 	argument 	is based on supersession language 	in EERA,4
and on 	the 	Board's 	test 	for 	resolving 	conflicts between 	the
Education Code 	and EERA, 	previously articulated 	in 	Healdsburg
Union High School District 	(6/19/80) 	PERB Decision No. 	132, 	and
approved by 	the 	California 	Supreme 	Court 	in 	San Mateo City
School District v. 	PERB 	(1983) 	33 Cal.3d 850. 	That test
provides 	that 	section 	3540 	of 	EERA should be 	interpreted 	to
4Section 	3540 provides 	in part:
. 	. 	. 	Nothing contained herein shall be
deemed 	to 	supersede 	other 	provisions 	of 	the
Education Code 	and 	the 	rules 	and 	regulations
of public 	school 	employers 	which 	establish
and regulate 	tenure 	or 	a merit 	or 	civil
service 	system or 	which provide 	for 	other
methods 	of 	administering 	employer-employee
relations, 	so long as 	the rules and
regulations or 	other 	methods 	of 	the public
school 	employer 	do not 	conflict 	with 	lawful
collective agreements. 	. 	. 	.
9
.P4

prohibit 	negotiation 	only where 	provisions 	of 	the 	Education
Code would 	be 	"replaced, 	set 	aside 	or 	annulled 	by 	the 	language
of 	the 	proposed 	contract 	clause." 	The Board 	found 	that
proposals 	would 	be 	negotiable 	"unless 	the 	statutory 	language
[of 	the Education Code] 	clearly evidenced 	an 	intent 	to 	set 	an
inflexible 	standard or 	insure 	immutable 	provisions."
Education 	Code 	section 	45308 	provides 	that 	"classified
employees 	shall 	be 	subject 	to 	layoff 	for 	lack 	of 	work or 	lack
of 	funds." 	PERB 	has 	interpreted 	this 	language 	to permit
districts 	unilaterally 	to decide 	to 	lay off 	employees.
Newman-Crows 	Landing Unified 	School District 	(6/30/82) 	PERB
Decision No. 	223.
In claiming 	that 	the 	reduction 	in hours was 	a 	layoff, 	the
District 	relies 	principally 	on Education Code 	subsection
45101(g) 	which 	states 	that 	a 	layoff 	"includes 	any 	reduction 	in
hours."5 	It 	argues 	that 	the Board's 	holding 	in North
Sacramento School District 	(12/13/81) 	PERB Decision No. 	193,
that 	a 	reduction 	in hours 	is different 	than 	a layoff, 	was based
on 	our 	finding 	that Education Code 	subsection 45101(g) 	did 	not
5 Subsection 45101(g) 	provides 	as 	follows:
'Layoff for 	lack of 	funds 	or 	layoff 	for 	lack
of 	work' 	includes 	any 	reduction 	in hours 	of
employment or 	assignment 	to a 	class or 	grade
lower 	than 	that 	in which 	the 	employee 	has
permanence, 	voluntarily consented 	to by 	the
employee, 	in order 	to avoid 	interruption of
employment 	by 	layoff.
10

apply to North 	Sacramento's merit 	system. 	According 	to 	the
District, 	since Azusa is a nonmerit 	system, 	North Sacramento is
distinguishable, 	and Education Code subsection 45101(g) 	applies
here 	to compel 	a 	finding 	that 	this 	reduction 	in hours was
equivalent 	to a 	layoff.
We disagree.
Hours 	of 	employment 	is 	included 	as 	a 	specifically
enumerated 	item in section 3543.2, 	which defines 	the 	scope of
representation under EERA.6
Further, 	in North Sacramento School District, 	supra, 	the
Board 	specifically determined 	that 	reduction 	in hours 	was 	a
matter 	within 	scope 	which 	could 	not 	be 	accomplished
unilaterally. 	The 	Board 	there 	concluded that 	a reduction 	in
hours 	is 	different 	from a 	layoff 	and 	is 	to be 	treated
differently under 	EERA. 	However, 	the 	Board 	found that
subsection 45101(g) 	of the Education Code, 	which applies 	to
nonmerit 	systems, 	was not applicable 	to North Sacramento's
merit 	system.
The ALJ 	in 	this 	case 	reasoned 	that 	the underlying policy 	in
finding 	reduction 	in hours 	negotiable 	is 	the 	same regardless 	of
6Section 	3543.2 provides 	in part:
(a) 	The 	scope of representation shall be
limited to matters 	relating to wages, 	hours
of employment, 	and other 	terms and
conditions 	of 	employment.
6
11
6

subsection 45101(g) 	of 	the Education Code. 	Hours 	is a
specifically 	enumerated 	subject 	of bargaining 	under 	EERA, 	and
while a layoff 	suspends 	the employment relationship entirely, 	a
reduction 	in hours 	maintains 	the 	relationship but 	alters 	the
terms. 	Thus, 	the ALJ concluded that 	layoff and reduction 	in
hours 	are not 	the 	same 	under 	EERA and 	found North 	Sacramento to
be 	applicable here.
We agree.
Moreover, 	the 	language of subsection 45101(g) 	refers 	to
reductions 	voluntarily consented 	to 	in order 	to avoid 	layoff.
In this case, 	there is no evidence that employees, 	any or all
of 	them, 	voluntarily consented 	to 	the 	reduction 	in 	their
hours. 	We, 	therefore, 	find that this subsection of the
Education Code 	is 	not 	applicable 	to 	the 	case at hand.
Therefore, 	both North 	Sacramento and 	the 	instant 	case 	involve
reductions 	in hours 	in 	situations which are not 	covered by the
language of 	subsection 45101(g) 	of 	the Education Code. 	In the
former 	case, 	the 	District was 	not 	covered by the 	Education Code
subsection because 	it was a merit 	system. 	Here, 	though the
District 	is not a merit 	system, 	its action was not a voluntary
reduction 	in hours 	covered by subsection 45101(g).
We, 	therefore, 	conclude that the ALJ's reliance on North
Sacramento 	to 	find 	involuntary reduction within 	scope 	was
appropriate. 	While 	the 	District 	consistently characterized 	the
reduction as 	a layoff, 	the action which 	it 	took unilaterally
12

was quite different. 	It 	involuntarily reduced the hours of 	its
aides 	without 	negotiating with 	CSEA and 	thereby violated 	EERA.
The District 	also reasserts 	its 	argument 	that 	a requirement
to negotiate 	to 	impasse over 	reduction 	in hours 	is 	inconsistent
with the 	language of Education Code 45117, 	which permits 	layoff
with 30 days 	notice.7 As we have 	found above, 	an 	involuntary
reduction 	in hours 	is not a layoff, 	and this 	section of 	the
Education Code 	is 	therefore not 	applicable 	to the 	District's
action 	in this 	case.
Waiver
An 	employer 	must give 	notice 	and an opportunity to
negotiate before 	unilaterally altering 	a matter 	within 	scope.
However, 	the representative must 	adequately signify a desire 	to
negotiate or 	it will be 	found 	to have waived 	its 	right 	to do
so. 	Newman-Crows 	Landing Unified 	School 	District 	(6/30/82)
PERB Decision No. 	223.
The 	District 	asserts 	that 	the Association waived 	its 	right
to negotiate by 	its 	failure 	to demand negotiations. 	The
Association claims, 	and the ALJ found, 	that 	it had no effective
notice 	that 	a reduction was 	to take place.
7The 	Board has 	previously 	found 	that 	notice 	and 	timing 	of
layoff 	is negotiable, 	regardless of section 45117, 	since that
section 	sets 	out 	only minimum notice 	requirements. 	Oakland
Unified School District 	(11/2/81) 	PERB Decision No. 	178.
Oakland Unified School District 	(7/11/83) 	PERB Decision No. 	326.
13

The ALJ 	found 	that 	the 	September 	30 meeting between McGuire
and 	Kahle 	did not 	constitute 	notice 	of 	its 	decision 	to 	reduce
hours. 	Kahle 	testified 	that he called 	the meeting 	to 	talk 	to
McGuire about 	the proposed reductions, 	and that at 	that meeting
he 	showed McGuire 	a copy of 	the notice he 	intended 	to 	send 	out
to aides. 	McGuire denied seeing 	the notice. 	Kahle believed
that 	the 	meeting 	concluded with 	an 	understanding 	that 	the
District would go 	forward, 	but admitted that 	in response 	to
McGuire's request to delay, 	he said, 	"I'll think about 	it."
Thus 	even under 	Kahle's version of 	the meeting, 	the outcome
was unclear. 	An offhand agreement 	to 	"think about 	it" hardly
constitutes 	formal notice that an action 	is 	to occur.
Moreover, 	even 	if we were 	to 	find that 	the meeting between
Kahle 	and McGuire 	constituted 	formal 	notice 	to CSEA of 	the
impending reduction, 	we 	could not 	find 	that CSEA clearly and
unmistakeably waived 	its 	right 	to negotiate at 	the meeting or
thereafter. 	Los 	Angeles 	Community College 	District 	(10/18/82)
PERB Decision No. 	252; 	San Francisco Community College District
(10/12/79) 	PERB Decision No. 	105.
Nothing 	in 	the 	September 	30 meeting between McGuire and
Kahle 	could be 	construed as 	a 	clear 	and unmistakable waiver;
indeed, 	McGuire was 	quite clear 	in his opposition to the
District's 	action 	and his 	intention 	to 	seek 	further 	information
about 	the District's 	financial 	status. 	Nor does 	the 	less 	than
one-month delay 	in presenting 	an 	alternative 	proposal
14

constitute a waiver, 	particularly given McGuire's persistent
and obvious attempts to gain information in the meantime. 	We
therefore reject the District's argument that 	the Association
waived 	its 	right 	to negotiate,8 and conclude that 	the
District violated EERA by 	its 	unilateral 	reduction 	in 	the hours
of instructional aides.
ORDER
Upon the 	foregoing 	facts 	and conclusions of 	law and 	the
entire record in this case, 	and pursuant to subsection
3541.5(c), 	it is 	found that the Azusa Unified School District
violated Government Code subsections 3543(a), 	(b) and 	(c). 	It
is hereby ORDERED that the Azusa Unified School District, 	its
governing board and 	its 	representatives 	shall:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
(1) 	Failing and refusing to meet and negotiate 	in
good 	faith with 	the 	exclusive 	representative by refusing 	to
provide 	in a 	timely fashion 	information regarding the 	seniority
of instructional aides;
(2) 	Failing and refusing to meet and negotiate 	in
good 	faith with 	the 	exclusive 	representative by taking
unilateral action with respect 	to reduction in hours of
classified employees;
8The 	District did not 	raise 	the 	contract 	as 	a defense 	to
the 	charges 	that 	it 	refused 	to negotiate 	and we 	therefore 	do
not 	consider 	that 	issue.
\
15

(3) 	Denying 	to 	the California 	School 	Employees
Association 	rights 	guaranteed by 	the 	Educational 	Employment
Relations Act, 	including the right 	to represent 	its 	members;
(4) 	Interfering with 	employees because of 	their
exercise 	of 	rights 	guaranteed by 	the 	Educational 	Employment
Relations 	Act 	to 	select 	an exclusive 	representative 	to meet 	and
negotiate with 	the 	employer 	on 	their 	behalf by unilaterally
changing matters 	within 	the 	scope 	of 	representation without
meeting 	and 	negotiating 	with 	the 	exclusive 	representative.
B. 	TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS 	DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE ACT:
(1) 	Reinstate, 	upon request, 	all teacher aides to
their 	full hours 	of 	employment prior 	to 	the November 	9, 	1981
reduction of hours 	and make 	whole 	affected 	employees 	for 	any
loss 	of pay or benefits 	which 	they 	suffered because 	of 	the
unilateral 	reduction in hours;
(2) 	All payments ordered above 	shall 	include 	interest
at 	a rate of 	7 percent per 	annum and 	shall 	continue 	in 	effect
until 	the 	status 	quo ante 	is 	restored or 	the parties 	reach
agreement 	or 	exhaust 	the 	statutory 	impasse procedures;
(3) 	Within 35 	days 	after 	the date of 	service of 	this
Decision, 	post 	copies of 	the Notice to Employees attached as 	an
Appendix hereto 	and 	signed by an 	authorized 	agent 	of 	the
employer. 	Such posting 	shall be maintained 	for 	a period of
thirty 	(30) 	consecutive workdays 	at 	the 	District's headquarters
16
----

offices 	and 	in conspicuous places 	at 	the 	locations where
notices 	to 	classified 	employees 	are 	customarily posted.
Reasonable 	steps 	shall be taken 	to 	insure 	that 	this 	Notice 	is
not reduced in size, 	defaced, 	altered, 	or covered by any
material;
(4) 	Written notification of 	the actions 	taken to
comply with the 	Order 	shall be made 	to 	the 	Regional 	Director 	of
the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	in accordance 	with her
instructions.
Members 	Tovar 	and Morgenstern 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
17

APPENDIX
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. 	LA-CE-1498,
California 	School 	Employees 	Association 	and 	its 	Azusa Chapter
No. 	299 v. 	Azusa Unified School District, 	in which all parties
had the right 	to participate, 	it has been 	found that 	the Azusa
Unified 	School 	District 	violated 	the 	Educational 	Employment
Relations Act, 	Government Code subsections 3543.5(a), 	(b) and
(c).
As 	a result of 	this 	conduct, 	we have been ordered to post
this Notice and we will:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
1. 	Taking unilateral 	action with respect 	to
reduction 	in hours 	of 	classified 	employees 	or 	other 	matters
within 	the 	scope of 	representation.
2. 	Denying 	CSEA its 	right 	to represent 	unit members
by 	failing 	and 	refusing 	to meet 	and negotiate 	about 	matters
within 	the 	scope 	of 	representation.
3. 	Interfering with employees because of 	their
exercise of 	their 	right 	to 	select 	an 	exclusive 	representative
to meet 	and negotiate with 	the 	employer 	on 	their behalf by
unilaterally changing matters 	within 	the 	scope 	of
representation without 	meeting 	and 	negotiating with 	the
exclusive representative, 	and
4. 	Failing 	timely to 	supply CSEA with 	requested
information, 	including seniority lists, 	that 	is necessary and
relevant 	to discharging 	its 	duty as 	exclusive 	representative.
B. 	TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION DESIGNED 	TO
EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE ACT:
Reinstate, 	upon request, 	all 	teacher aides 	to their
full hours of 	employment prior 	to 	the November 	9, 	1981
reduction of hours; 	make whole each of 	the 	teacher aides whose
hours were 	so 	reduced 	for 	any loss 	of pay or benefits 	which
they suffered because 	of 	the 	reduced hours 	during 	the 	1981-82
school year 	and 	subsequently until 	such time as 	(1) 	they are
reinstated to their previous hours; 	or 	(2) 	their hours of
T
e

employment 	are 	changed 	upon agreement with CSEA; 	or 	(3) 	the
District 	has 	met 	and 	negotiated 	in 	good 	faith 	with 	CSEA 	through
impasse. 	All payments ordered will 	include 	interest 	at 	the
rate 	of 	7 	percent 	per 	annum.
Dated: 	AZUSA 	UNIFIED SCHOOL 	DISTRICT
By: Authorized 	Representative
THIS 	IS 	AN OFFICIAL NOTICE. 	IT MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR THIRTY
(30) 	CONSECUTIVE WORKDAYS 	FROM THE 	DATE 	OF POSTING AND MUST NOT
BE DEFACED, 	ALTERED, 	REDUCED 	IN SIZE, 	OR COVERED WITH ANY OTHER
MATERIAL.
N	2