Nevada Joint Union High School District (PERB 0557E)

2 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD

CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION AND ITS NEVADA UNION
CHAPTER NO. 165,

Charging Party, Case No. S$-CE-566

v: PERB Decision No. 557

NEVADA JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL
DISTRICT, ; .

December 31, 1985

Respondent.

ee Niet See Se Set et ee et le et ae ee

Appearances: Christopher E. Niehaus, Field Representative for
California School Employees Association and its Nevada Union
Chapter No. 165; Finkle & Stroup by Robert W. Stroup,

Leith B. Hansen and Mary Beth de Goede for Nevada Joint Union .
High School District.

Before Morgenstern, Burt and Porter, Members.
DECISTON
BURT, Member: This case comes before the Public Employment
Relations Board (PERB or Board) on exceptions filed by the
Nevada Joint Union High School District (District) to the
proposed decision of an administrative law judge (ALJ) finding
that it violated section 3543.5(a), (b) and (c) of the

Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA)* by its failure

LEERA is codified at Government Code section 3540
et seq. All statutory references herein are to the Government
Code unless otherwise noted.

Section 3543.5 provides in pertinent part:

to
	negotiate
	in
	good
	faith
	over
	a
	change
	in
	the
	method
	of
calculating
	monthly
	salary
	payments.
	The
	California
	School
Employees
	Association
	and
	its
	Nevada
	Union
	Chapter
	No.
	165
{CSEA
	or 	Association)
	except
	to 	the
	remedy
	proposed
	by
	the
	ALJ.
FACTS
The
	parties
	here
	were
	covered
	by
	a
	collective
	bargaining
agreement
	incorporating
	successor
	agreements
	between
	1979
	and
June 	1982.
	Each
	year, 	the
	parties
	negotiated
	salary 	rates
which 	were
	then
	translated
	into
	monthly
	and
	hourly
	rates 	in
	a
salary
	schedule 	incorporated 	into
	the
	agreement.
	The
	same
rates
	applied
	whether
	employees 	were 	12-month 	employees
	or
	less
than
	12-month 	(9,
	10
	or
	11-month) 	employees.
	However.
	because
the
	pay
	rates
	did 	not 	take
	into
	account 	the
	variations 	in
	days
worked
	per
	month
	for 	less-than-12-month
	employees,
	the
	result
was
	a
	discrepancy
	between
	the
	monthly
	and
	hourly
	rates
	for
less-than-12-month
	employees. 	In
	other
	words,
	those
	employees
It
	shall
	be
	unlawful
	for
	a
	public
	schoolemployer
	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 	coerceemployees 	because 	of
	their 	exercise
	of
rights
	guaranteed
	by
	this 	chapter.
(b)	
Deny
	to
	employee
	organizations 	rightsguaranteed 	to
	them 	by
	this 	chapter.
(c) 	Refuse 	or
	fail
	to
	meet 	and
	negotiate 	in
good
	faith 	with 	an 	exclusive 	representative.
2

actually
	received
	a
	higher
	salary
	when
	calculated
	monthly
	than
they
	would 	have
	if
	calculated
	strictly
	on
	an
	hourly
	basis.
2
The
	agreement
	also
	provided
	for
	paid
	vacation
	days
	for
employees,
	and
	the
	monthly
	salary 	rate
	included•pay
	for
	these
days.
	Twelve-month 	employees
	could
	take
	vacation
	at
	any
	time.
However,
	less-than-12-month
	employees 	were
	required 	to 	take
vacation
	time
	on
	days
	when
	school
	wa~
	not
	in 	session
	during 	the
year,
	during
	Christmas
	recess, 	for
	example,
	or
	have
	their
monthly
	salary
	docked
	accordingly.
	Any
	remaining
	vacation
	pay
was
	disbursed 	in
	a
	lump
	sum
	at
	the
	end
	of 	the 	year.
	As
	noted
by
	the
	ALJ,
	the
	District
	explained
	that
	it:
...
	used
	the 	vacation 	deduction 	procedure
as
	a
	means
	to
	offset
	its
	11
alleged
11
overpayment
	of
	less
	than
	12-month 	employeesdue
	to 	the
	hourly/monthly
	rate 	error.
In
	June
	1982,
	June 	Weatherly,
	a
	10-month 	employee
	who
	was
CSEA
	president,
	concluded
	that
	the
	District's
	payment
	practice
was
	in 	error,
	since
	she
	believed
	that
	she 	should
	be
	paid
	for
vacation
	days
	in 	addition 	to 	her
	monthly
	salary.
	Weatherly
used
	a
	work
	sheet 	to 	demonstrate 	her
	actual 	salary 	in
comparison
	to 	the 	calculated
	amount
	she
	believed 	to
	be
correct.
	The
	following
	calculations
3
are 	useful 	in
interpreting
	her 	contentions:
2
For 	example, 	using
	a
	monthly
	basis,
	a
	less-than-12-monthemployee
	gets 	paid
	at 	the
	same
	rate 	for 	February 	as 	for
January.
	computed 	on 	an 	hourly 	basis, 	the 	February 	salary
would 	be
	less.
3The 	numbers 	are 	rounded
	off.
3

1. 	Weatherly's
	actual
	1981-82 	pay
	at
	the
	''monthly"
	rate
excluding
	vacation
	pay
	-
	($1146	
a	
month
	x
	10
	months=
$11,460).
2.	
Weatherly's 	contention 	(vacation
	at
	the 	hourly
	rate
	of
pay
	was
	in 	addition
	to
	monthly
	salary)
	-
	($52.88
	a
	day
x
	12.5
	days=
	$661.
	$11,460
	+
	661
	=
	$12,121).
3.	
The
	District's
	contention
	(monthly
	rate
	plus 	excess
vacation
	payable
	at
	the
	end
	of 	year
	after
	10
nonworking 	days
	deducted)
	-
	$11,460
	+.$132
	($52.88
	a
day
	x
	2.5
	days=
	$132.)	
=	
$11,592.
As
	noted
	above
	at
	point
	2,
	Weatherly
	originally
	sought 	her
monthly
	salary
	plus 	vacation
	pay
	calculated
	on
	an
	hourly
basis.
	As 	a
	compromise, 	however,
	she 	proposed
	that
	her
	salary
be
	increased
	to
	reflect
	the
	difference
	between what
	she
	was
actually
	paid,
	her
	monthly
	rate
	with
	no
	vacation
	pay,
	and
	what
she
	would 	have
	received
	if
	her
	pay
	had
	been
	calculated
	as
follows: 
Computation 	of 	annual
	wage
	based
	on
	hourly
wage
	rate
	plus
	total
	vacation
	days
	earned
	-
($6.61
	an 	hour
	x 	a
	hours
	x
	209
	workdays=
$11,051
	+
	$661
	(12.S
	vacation
	days)	
=
$11,713.
The
	difference
	between
	weatherly's
	first
	proposal
	and
	her
compromise
	position
	amounted
	to
	$253.
	She
	also
	proposed
	that
the
	salary
	of 	other
	employees 	be
	calculated 	accordingly.
Weatherly 	approached 	the 	administration
	of 	the
	District
with 	her 	calculations.
	She 	met
	with
	Ty
	Blount,
	assistant
superintendent, 	Irene
	Roath, 	bookkeeper, 	and 	Ruth 	Watson,
	CSEA
representative.
	The
	parties
	agreed 	to 	the 	settlement 	as
proposed, 	that 	is,
	an 	annual
	wage
	based 	on 	an 	hourly 	rate 	plus
an
	hourly 	rate 	for 	12.5 	vacation 	days. 	Weatherly 	and 	Watson
4

met
	later
	in
	June
	to
	calculate
	the
	additional
	payment
	for
	all
less-than-12-month
	employees.
Although
	the
	parties•
	agreement
	expired
	on
	June 	30,
	1982,
there
	were
	no
	negotiations
	during 	the
	summer
	because
	the
District
	was
	uncertain
	as
	to 	the
	amount
	of
	State
	funding
	it
would
	receive.
Beginning
	with 	the
	July
	and
	August
	1982
	pay
	periods.
less-than-12-month
	employees
	received
	monthly 	checks
	in
	a
lesser
	amount
	than 	the 	previous
	year.
	For 	example,
	Weatherly
1 s
monthly 	check
	was
	reduced
	from
	$1,146
	to
	$1,105.
	The
explanation 	for 	the 	reduction
	was
	that
	the
	District
	had
	begun
to
	calculate
	monthly
	salaries
	using 	the
	same
	hourly
	rate
	as
	was
used
	to
	settle
	the 	vacation 	question 	in
	June.
	The
	lower
monthly 	checks
	were
	to
	be
	offset
	by
	a
	lump
	sum
	at
	the
	end
	of
the 	year
	compensating 	employees
	for
	any 	unused
	vacation. 	In
the
	District•s
	view,
	it
	was
	discontinuing
	its
	practice
	of
"fronting••
	vacation
	pay
	via
	the
	monthly
	salary
	and,
	instead,
went
	to
	a
	system
	by
	which
	vacation
	pay
	was
	given
	entirely 	in
	a
lump 	sum
	at
	the
	end
	of
	the 	year.
	In
	total,
	weatherly
1 s
	yearly
compensation
	was
	exactly 	the
	same
	in
	1982-83 	as
	it
	was
	in
1981-82 	once
	the 	settlement 	for 	vacation
	was
	credited.
No
	one
	disputes 	that 	there
	was 	a
	change
	in 	the
	method
	of
computing 	and
	paying
	salary.
	The
	basic 	contention
	by
	the
District 	is 	that 	the 	change 	was 	a
	negotiated 	one,
	made
	with 	the
agreement 	of 	the 	Association.
	The
	Association 	claims 	that 	its
5

agreement 	went 	only 	so 	far 	as 	resolving 	vacation 	pay 	and 	did
not 	signify 	its 	agreement 	to 	the 	hourly 	computation 	of 	monthly
pay 	as 	was 	adopted 	by 	the 	District.
Blount 	testified 	that 	the 	outcome 	of 	the 	June 	meeting 	and
the 	agreement 	to 	recalculate 	vacation 	pay 	also 	constituted 	an
agreement 	by 	CSEA 	to 	calculate 	monthly 	salaries 	on 	an 	hourly.
basis. 	Weatherly 	testified 	that 	she 	believed 	that 	the
subsequent 	meetings 	with 	District 	Bookkeepers 	Roath 	and 	Watson
were 	only 	intended 	to ~esolve 	the 	vacation 	issue 	and 	did 	not
constitute 	agreement 	to 	recalculate 	salaries 	overall. 	Roath
did 	not 	testify. 	Blount 	gave 	hearsay 	testimony 	that 	Roath 	told
him 	that 	she explained 	the 	full 	effects 	of 	changing 	to 	an
hourly 	basis 	-- 	including 	a 	reduced 	monthly 	paycheck 	-- 	to
Weatherly. 4
Blount 	testified 	that 	he 	and 	Weatherly 	met 	informally 	later
in 	June 	when 	settlement 	paychecks 	were 	being 	prepared, 	and 	that
he 	expressed 	concern 	at 	that 	time 	about 	the 	effect 	of 	the
reduced 	monthly 	paychecks. 	He 	testified 	that 	Weatherly 	told
him 	she 	would 	explain 	to 	employees 	that 	their 	checks 	would 	be
smaller, 	but 	that 	they 	would 	receive 	the 	same 	amount 	overall.
Weatherly 	denied 	saying 	that 	she 	would 	explain 	lower 	monthly
4The 	District 	introduced 	a 	document 	which 	purported
to 	be 	Roath's 	account 	of 	these 	transactions. 	It 	was 	not
prepared 	as 	an 	affidavit 	or 	deposition, 	and 	the 	ALJ
considered 	it 	hearsay, 	to 	which 	he 	accorded 	no 	weight. 	To
the 	extent 	it 	was 	corroborated 	by 	Blount's 	testimony, 	he
discounted 	it 	because 	he 	considered 	the 	testimony 	suspect.
6

paychecks, 	claiming 	that 	she 	did 	not 	know 	the 	amount 	would 	be
lower. 	She 	testified 	that 	she 	did 	agree 	to 	explain 	to 	members
that 	the 	calculations 	used 	to 	recompute 	the 	1981-82 	paychecks
would 	be 	used 	again 	in 	1982-83.
There 	was 	vague 	and 	inconclusive 	testimony 	about 	a 	summer
meeting 	where 	Weatherly 	allegedly 	agreed 	to 	a 	separate 	salary
schedule 	for 	less-than-12-month 	employees 	on 	an 	hourly 	basis.
Roath 1 s 	discounted 	documents 	included 	unsigned. 	undated 	notes
of 	a 	negotiation 	session 	between Weatherly 	and 	the
superintendent. 	Blount 	testified 	that 	Roath 	showed 	him 	these
notes, 	claiming 	that 	she 	had 	informed 	CSEA 	of 	the 	changes 	to 	be
made. 	Weatherly 	denied 	that 	there 	were 	negotiations 	in 	the
summer 	regarding 	wages, 	and 	denied 	agreeing 	to 	the 	use 	of 	an
hourly 	wage 	for 	the 	future.
Blount 	testified 	that 	he 	and 	Weatherly 	met 	briefly 	after
school 	began 	and 	he 	inquired 	if 	she 	had 	explained 	the 	changes
in 	paychecks 	to 	the 	other 	employees 	so 	that 	they 	would 	not
question 	him. 	He 	testified 	that, 	after 	employees 	began
receiving 	lower 	paychecks, 	Weatherly, 	Watson, 	and 	another 	CSEA
representative 	met 	with 	Blount 	to 	inquire 	how 	the 	checks 	were
being 	calculated. 	He 	told 	them 	to 	"go 	do 	their 	homework."
They 	then 	went 	back 	to 	study 	the 	pay 	calculations.
Weatherly 	testified 	that 	James 	Ross, 	the 	District
accountant, 	called 	her 	to 	his 	office 	between 	September 	and
early 	November 	1982 	to 	discuss 	the 	salary 	schedule. 	He 	showed
7

her
	schedule
	A,
	showing
	both
	hourly
	and
	monthly
	rates
	as
	in
	the
past,
	and
	schedule
	B
	showing
	the 	hourly
	rates
	for
less-than-12-month
	employees.
	He
	asked 	her
	if
	she
	would
	accept
only
	the
	hourly 	schedule
	and
	she
	replied
	11
no.
11
	Weatherly
testified
	that
	the
	first
	time 	she
	had
	seen
	the
	separate
schedule 	for
	less-than-12-month
	employees
	was
	at
	that
	meeting.
Wtth
	regard 	to 	the
	same
	events,
	Ross
	testified
	that
	he
	met
with 	Weatherly
	and 	Watson
	in
	late
	November
	to 	discuss
	whether
schedules
	A
and
	B
were
	sufficient,
	or 	whether
	additional
schedules
	were
	necessary.
	He
	testified
	that
	Watson
	agreed
	that
only
	the
	hourly
	B
	schedule
	was
	necessary 	for 	less-than-12-month
employees.
	Around
	the
	same
	time, 	Weatherly
	indicated
	that
publication
	of
	the 	schedule 	should 	not
	be
	held
	up
	or
	tied
	to
the 	continuing 	dispute
	about
	vacation
	pay.
	Ross
	forwarded
	a
memo
	to
	Blount
	on
	November 	18
	confirming
	CSEA's
	request 	to
publish 	the 	schedule 	with
	no
	monthly
	figures
	listed
	for
less-than-12-month
	employees. 	Weatherly 	never
	saw
	the
	memo.
Watson
	did 	not
	testify.
	As
	noted
	by
	the
	ALJ,
	the 	record
	is
unc~ear 	as 	to 	whether
	Ross 	and
	Weatherly
	were
	describing 	the
same
	meeting, 	although 	the
	ALJ
	specifically 	credited
	Ross'
account.
Employee
	Contracts
In 	the 	past,
	employees 	were
	requested 	to 	sign 	annual
contracts
	which 	included 	salary 	rate,
	days 	to
	be 	worked 	and
vacation 	days. 	Before 	1982-83, 	these 	contracts 	reflected 	the
8

average 	monthly 	salary 	rate 	for 	less-than-12-month 	employees.
In 	1982-83, 	the 	contracts 	reflected 	the 	hourly 	wage 	rate 	from
schedule 	B 	rather 	than 	the 	monthly 	rate. 	Weatherly 	signed 	her
contract 	on 	October 	29. 	although 	she 	stated 	her 	disagreement
with 	the 	payment 	method.
Flores' 	Grievance
On 	January 	10, 	Blount, 	Weatherly, 	and 	Ross 	met 	to 	discuss
the 	grievance 	of 	Kay 	Flores .. 	Flores 	had 	been 	erroneously
overpaid 	and 	the 	District 	was 	seeking 	to 	recover 	the
overpayment. 	The 	parties 	agreed 	to 	use 	the 	hourly 	wage 	rate 	to
recompute 	the 	wages 	earned. 	Weatherly 	testified 	that 	she
agreed 	to 	this 	method 	of 	settling 	the 	grievance 	since:
•
They were 	already 	computing 	at 	that 	time
all 	the 	classified 	9, 	10, 	and 	11 	month
payment 	on 	an 	hourly 	basis 	instead 	of 	a
monthly 	basis. 	I 	had 	absolutely 	no
expectation 	from 	the 	District 	that 	they
would 	make 	an 	exception 	in 	this 	employee's
case 	and 	put 	her 	back 	on 	the 	correct, 	what
I 	perceived 	as. the 	correct 	monthly
adjustment.
No 	CSEA 	representative 	requested 	to 	negotiate 	the 	change
after 	employees 	began 	receiving 	reduced 	paychecks. 	Weatherly
indicated 	that 	the 	Association 	had 	spent 	time 	trying 	to
understand 	why 	the 	paychecks 	were 	lower 	and 	had 	expressed 	its
concern 	to 	the 	District 	about 	the 	way 	salaries 	were 	being
computed.
DISCUSSION
In 	order 	to 	establish 	a 	prima 	facie 	case 	of 	an 	unlawful
unilateral 	change, 	the 	Association 	must 	establish 	that 	there
9

was
	indeed
	a
	change
	in 	established
	policy
	which
	was
	made
without
	its
	agreement. 	Grant
	Joint
	Union 	High
	School
	District
(1982)
	PERE
	Decision
	No.
	196,
	Pajaro 	Valley 	Unified
	School
District
	(1978)
	PERB
	Decision
	No.
	51.
	It
	is
	uncontested
	that
the
	District
	departed
	from
	its
	practice
	of
	using
	a
	monthly
payment
	schedule.
	The
	question 	before
	us
	here
	is
	whether
Weatherly's
	agreement
	regarding 	the 	vacation
	pay
	dispute
encompassed 	an
	agree~ent 	to
	thereafter
	compute
	salary
	on
	an
hourly
	basis.
	The
	District
	claims
	it
	agreed
	to
	a
	"package"
	in
discussions
	with
	Weatherly:
	an 	added
	amount
	to
	cover
	vacation
pay,
	with
	the
	corollary
	reduction 	in
	monthly 	pay.
	The
Association
	claims
	that
	it
	agreed 	only 	to 	the
	lump-sum
	payment
and
	not 	the
	quid 	pro
	quo.
The
	Association
	conceded
	that
	discussions
	about
	the
vacation 	issue
	were
	instigated
	by
	Weatherly
	on
	behalf
	of
	the
Association. 	using
	a
	worksheet 	which
	analyzed
	salary
	on
	an
hourly
	basis.
	From
	that 	discussion
	flowed
	further
	meetings
	by
which 	back 	pay
	was
	calculated 	for 	other 	similarly 	situated
employees.
	Many
	of 	the 	individuals
	involved
	in 	these 	meetings
(e.g .•
	Watson
	for 	the 	Association
	and 	Roath
	for 	the
	District)
did 	not
	testify.
	The 	document 	which
	purports 	to 	give 	Roath's
version
	of 	the 	disputed 	events
	is
	pure 	hearsay.
	The
	testimony
of 	Weatherly
	and
	Blount
	is 	in 	substantial 	conflict
	over
	many
	of
the 	particulars 	involving 	the 	negotiation.
Blount•s 	testimony
	was
	largely 	hearsay 	and
	consisted 	of
events 	which 	he 	understood 	to 	have 	taken 	place, 	although 	he
10

testified
	directly 	that
	he
	and
	weatherly 	discussed 	the
	lower
paychecks
	to
	come
	on
	at 	least
	one
	occasion
	in
	June. 	Weatherly,
on
	the 	other
	hand.
	was
	present
	at
	all
	of
	the 	discussions
	in
question.
	and
	testified
	consistently 	that
	she
	did 	not 	agree 	to
an
	arrangement	
by which 	monthly 	paychecks
	would
	be
	reduced.
regardless
	of
	the 	vacation 	settlement.
	The
	ALJ
	credited
Weatherly's
	testimony
	over
	that
	of 	Blount
1 s 5
and,
	after
	a
review 	of 	the 	record
	as
	a
	whole,
	we
	find
	no
	reason 	to
	do
otherwise.
Further.
	we
	do
	not
	find
	that
	Weatherly's
	subsequent 	conduct
is 	inconsistent
	with
	this 	result.
	She
	testified
	that
	she
	was
initially
	uncertain
	about
	why
	the
	paychecks
	were 	lower
	since
she 	had
	no
	reason 	to 	expect
	that
	they
	would
	be,
	and
	that
	she,
therefore.
	could 	not
	have
	agreed 	to 	explain 	the 	discrepency.
She
	protested
	to 	Blount, 	although
	neither
	she 	nor 	any
	other
CSEA
	representative 	specifically
	requested 	to 	negotiate.
Although 	she 	signed 	her
	own
	contract,
	she
	apparently 	did
	so
after
	her
	protest
	to 	the
	District.
	While
	her 	account 	of 	her
reaction
	to 	the
	"B''
	salary
	was
	~irectly
	contradicted
	by
	Ross,
whom
	the
	ALJ
	found
	credible,
	even 	her 	agreement 	to 	the
	B
	scale,
like 	her 	settlement 	of 	the 	Flores' 	grievance,
	is
	not
51n
	finding 	that 	Blount's 	testimony
	11
was
	not
	more
credible 	than 	Weatherly's,
11
	the
	ALJ
	erroneously 	placed
	on
	the
District
	the 	burden 	of 	proving
	that 	the 	agreement 	permitted 	thechange.
	The
	burden
	is 	rather
	on
	the 	Association 	to 	prove
	thatthe 	change 	was
	unilateral.
11

necessarily 	inconsistent
	with
	a
	conclusion
	that
	she
	did
	not
agree 	as
	part
	of
	the
	June
	negotiations
	and
	was
	proceeding
	under
protest.
Having
	adopted
	the
	Association's 	version
	of
	the 	events
	in
question.
	we.
	therefor~.
	conclude
	that
	the
	established 	past
practice
	of
	using
	a
	monthly
	payment
	schedule
	was
	unilaterally
altered.
	We
	likewise
	decide
	that
	the
	Association's
	failure
	to
request
	to
	negotiate
	does
	not 	demonstrate
	a
	waiver 	of
	the
	right
to
	negotiate
	over
	the
	subject
	matter
	of
	the
	District's
unilateral
	change.
	The.District
	provided
	no
	notice
	and
opportunity 	to
	negotiate
	before
	making
	the
	changes,
	and
	PERB
has
	previously
	determined
	that
	the
	failrire
	to 	request
negotiations
	over
	a
	decision 	already
	made
	does
	not
	constitute
waiver.
	Arvin
	Union
	School
	District
	(1983)
	PERB
	Decision
No.
	300.
Remaining
	at
	issue
	is
	the
	remedy
	in
	this
	case.
	The
Association
	argues
	that
	a
	"status
	quo
	ante''
	remedy 	would
include
	a
	return 	to 	the 	previous
	method
	of
	calculating
	monthly
salaries.
	plus 	the 	vacation
	payment 	made
	in
	1981-82.
	The
District
	argues
	that
	a
	true 	status
	quo
	ante
	remedy would
rescind
	both 	the 	vacation
	payment 	and
	the
	integrally 	related
change
	in 	calculating
	monthly
	salaries.
	thus 	leaving
	employees
with
	less
	money
	than 	they 	were
	receiving 	before 	the 	changes
	at
issue.
	The
	District
	does 	not 	argue 	for
	total 	rescission 	but,
rather,
	makes
	the 	argument 	to 	oppose 	a 	back 	pay 	award 	as
computed 	by 	the 	Association.
12

Ordinarily, 	a 	return 	to 	the 	status 	quo 	ante 	is 	the
appropriate 	remedy 	for 	an 	unlawful 	unilateral 	change.
Rio 	Hondo 	Community 	College 	District 	(1983) 	PERB 	Decision
No. 	292. 	Here, 	the 	District 	is 	correct 	that 	a 	true 	status 	quo
ante 	remedy 	would 	be 	a 	return 	to 	the 	previous 	practice
regarding 	the 	monthly 	pay 	schedule, 	minus 	the 	lump-sum 	payment
of 	vacation. 	As 	a 	result, 	classified 	employees 	would 	actually
receive 	a 	reduction 	in 	total 	pay. 	We 	find 	that 	such 	a 	remedy
would 	not 	effectuate 	the 	purposes 	of 	EERA 	and 	so 	we 	decline 	to
order 	a 	roll 	back 	to 	the 	pay 	status 	before 	the 	vacation 	payment
settlement.
We 	will, 	however, 	order 	the 	District 	to 	negotiate 	upon
request 	regarding 	the 	payment 	method 	to 	be 	used 	in 	the 	future.
If, 	however, 	subsequent 	to 	the 	District's 	unlawful 	action 	the
parties 	have, 	on 	their 	own 	initiative, 	reached 	agreement 	or
negotiated 	through 	completion 	of 	the 	impasse 	procedure
concerning 	the 	subject 	matter 	of 	the 	unilateral 	change, 	further
negotiations 	shall 	not 	be 	required 	as 	a 	result 	of 	this
Decision. 6
6 The 	District 	argues 	that 	the 	parties 	subsequently
reached 	agreement 	to 	ratify 	the 	procedure 	in 	question 	here.
The 	Board 	has 	previously 	determined, 	however, 	that
disagreements 	about 	whether 	subsequent 	agreements 	constitute
compliance 	with 	the 	Board's 	order 	are 	best 	left 	to 	a 	compliance
hearing. 	San Mateo 	City 	School 	District 	(1984) 	PERB 	Decision
No. 	375a.
13

ORDER
Upon
	the 	foregoing
	facts,
	conclusions
	of
	law.
	and
	the
entire
	record
	in
	this
	case,
	and
	pursuant 	to
	Government
	Code
section
	3541.S(c),
	it
	is
	hereby
	ORDERED
	that
	the
	Nevada
	Joint
Union 	High
	School
	District
	and
	its
	representatives
	shall:
A.	
CEASE
	AND
	DESIST
	FROM:
1.	
Failing
	and
	refusing 	to
	meet
	and
	negotiate 	in
good
	faith
	with 	the
	California
	School
	Employees
	Association
	and
its
	Nevada 	Union
	Chapter
	No. 	16S
	by
	taking
	unilateral
	act~on
with
	respect
	to 	the
	method
	of
	computing
	and
	paying
	salaries
	for
less-than-12-month
	employees.
2.	
Interfering
	with 	the
	rights
	of
	employees
	to
	be
represented
	by
	failing
	and
	refusing
	to
	meet 	and
	negotiate 	in
good
	faith
	with 	the 	exclusive
	representative.
3. 	Denying
	the
	California
	School
	Employees
Association
	and
	its
	Nevada 	Union
	Chapter
	No.
	165,
	the
	right
	to
represent
	employees
	by
	failing
	and
	refusing 	to
	meet 	and
negotiate 	in
	good
	faith.
B.	
TAKE 	THE 	FOLLOWING 	AFFIRMATIVE 	ACTIONS 	DESIGNED
	TO
EFFECTUATE
	THE
	POLICIES
	OF 	THE
	ACT:
1.	
Upon
	request,
	meet 	and
	negotiate 	with 	the
exclusive 	representative
	concerning 	the
	method
	of 	computing 	and
paying
	salaries 	for 	less-than-12-month 	employees.
If,
	however, 	subsequent 	to 	the
	District's
	unlawful
	action
the 	parties
	have. 	on
	their
	own
	initiative,
	reached 	agreement 	or
negotiated 	through 	completion 	of 	the 	impasse 	procedure
14

concerning 	the
	subject
	matter
	of
	the
	unilateral
	change,
	further
negotiations
	shall
	not
	be
	required
	as
	a
	result
	of
	this
	Decision.
2.	
Within
	thirty-five
	(35) 	days
	following 	the
	date
the 	Decision
	is
	no
	longer
	subject
	to
	reconsideration,
	post
	at
all	
work	
locations
	where
	notices
	to
	employees
	customarily
	are
placed, 	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
	this
Notice
	is
	not
	reduced
	in
	size,
	defaced,
	altered
	or 	covered
	by
any
	material.
3.	
Written
	notification
	of
	the
	actions
	taken 	to
comply
	with
	this
	Order
	shall
	be
	made
	to 	the 	regional
	director
of
	the 	Public
	Employment
	Relations
	Board
	in
	accordance
	with
	his
instructions.
This
	Order
	shall
	become
	effective
	immediately
	upon
	service
of
	a
	true
	copy
	thereof
	upon
	the
	Nevada
	Joint
	Union 	High
	School
District.
Members
	Morgenstern
	and
	Porter 	joined 	in 	this
	Decision.
15

Appendix NOTICE 	TO 	ALL 	EMPLOYEES
POSTED 	BY ORDER 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
,
After 	a 	hearing 	in 	Unfair 	Practice 	Case 	No. 	S-CE-566,
California 	School 	Employees 	Association 	and 	its 	Nevada 	Union
Chapter 	No. 	165 	v. 	Nevada 	Joint 	Union 	High 	School 	District, 	in
which 	all 	parties 	had 	the 	right 	to 	participate, 	it 	is 	found
that 	the 	Nevada 	Joint 	Union High 	School 	District 	violated 	the
Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Act, 	Government 	Code 	section
3543.S(a), 	(b) 	and 	(c) 	by-unilaterally 	changing 	the 	method 	of
computing 	and 	paying 	salaries 	for 	less-than-12-month 	employees.
As 	a 	result 	of 	this 	conduct, 	we 	have 	been 	ordered 	to 	post
this 	Notice 	and 	we 	will:
A. 	CEASE 	AND 	DESIST 	FROM:
i. 	Failing 	and 	refusing 	to 	meet 	and 	negotiate 	in
good 	faith 	with 	the 	California 	School 	Employees 	Association 	and
its 	Nevada 	Union 	Chapter 	No. 	165 	with 	respect 	to 	the 	method 	of
computing 	and 	paying 	salaries 	for 	less-than-12-month 	employees.
2. 	Interfering 	with 	the 	rights 	of 	employees 	to 	be
represented 	by 	failing 	and 	refusing 	to 	meet 	and 	negotiate 	in
good 	faith 	with 	the 	~xclusive 	representative.
3. 	Denying 	the 	California 	School 	Employees
Association 	and 	its 	Nevada 	Union 	Chapter 	No. 	165 	the 	right 	to
represent 	employees 	by 	failing 	and 	refusing 	to 	meet 	and
negotiate 	in 	good 	faith.
B. 	TAKE 	THE 	FOLLOWING 	AFFIRMATIVE 	ACTION 	DESIGNED 	TO
EFFECTUATE 	THE 	POLICIES 	OF 	THE 	ACT:
Upon 	request, 	meet 	and 	negotiate 	with 	the 	exclusive
representative 	concerning 	the 	method 	of 	computing 	and 	paying
salaries 	for 	less-than-12-month 	employees.
If, 	however, 	subsequent 	to 	the 	District's 	unlawful 	action
the 	parties 	have, 	on 	their 	own 	initiative, 	reached 	agreement 	or
negotiated 	through 	completion 	of 	the 	impasse 	procedure
concerning 	the 	subject 	matter 	of 	the 	unilateral 	change, 	further
negotiations 	shall 	not 	be 	required.
Dated: 	NEVADA JOINT.UNION HIGH 	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 	ALTERED, 	REDUCED 	IN 	SIZE, 	DEFACED 	OR 	COVERED BY ANY 	OTHER
MATERIAL.