State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (PERB 0794S)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
CALIFORNIA 	STATE 	EMPLOYEES'
ASSOCIATION,
Exclusive Representative,
and
STATE OF 	CALIFORNIA 	(DEPARTMENT
OF 	PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION),
Employer.
)
)
)
) 	Case No. 	S-UM-416-S
PERB 	Decision No. 	794-S
February 	22, 	1990
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances: 	Howard Schwartz, 	Attorney, 	for California State
Employees' 	Association; 	Kenneth R. 	Hulse, 	Labor Relations
Counsel 	for the 	State 	of 	California 	(Department 	of 	Personnel
Administration).
Before Hesse, 	Chairperson; 	Craib and Camilli, 	Members.
DECISION
CRAIB, 	Member: 	This case is before the Public Employment
Relations 	Board 	(PERB or Board) 	on exceptions 	filed by the
Department of 	Personnel Administration 	(State) 	to the 	attached
proposed decision of 	a PERB administrative 	law 	judge 	(ALJ). 	The
State 	excepts 	to 	the ALJ's 	determination that 	state bargaining
Unit 3 	(Unit 3 ) , 	the library and education unit, 	should be
modified 	in 	such a way as 	to 	create a 	new 	state bargaining unit
(Unit 21). 	The California State Employees' 	Association 	(CSEA)
sought the 	unit modification to 	alleviate what 	it perceived as 	a
serious 	conflict between Unit 	3 	members who teach or 	serve as
librarians 	in state 	institutions, 	such as California Youth
Authority, 	Department of Corrections, 	Department of Education
schools 	for the deaf 	and blind, 	and diagnostic 	schools 	and those

Unit 	3 	members who work as 	consultants 	and 	field representatives
for the Department of Education, 	librarians who do not work in
institutions, 	state archivists, 	and instructors at the California
Maritime Academy 	(CMA). 	The thrust of the State's 	argument 	is
that 	the 	classifications 	currently represented 	in Unit 	3 	have 	a
sufficient 	community of 	interest 	to 	remain 	in the 	same unit.
After reviewing the 	entire 	record, 	including the 	exceptions
filed by the State, 	I 	find the ALJ's 	findings 	of 	fact to be 	free
of 	prejudicial 	error 	and adopt them as 	the 	findings 	of 	the Board
itself. 	I 	am also 	in agreement with the ALJ's 	conclusions 	of 	law
and write 	separately 	to 	respond 	to 	certain 	issues 	raised by 	my
dissenting 	colleague.1
DISCUSSION
Unit 	3 	was 	originally 	established by 	the 	Board 	itself 	during
the 	state unit determination hearings 	after the passage 	of 	the
Ralph C. 	Dills Act 	(Act).2 (Unit Determination for the State of
California 	(1979) 	PERB Decision No. 	110-S.) 	The Board determined
that 	these 	employees 	belonged 	in the 	same unit 	for two 	reasons.
First, 	all employees 	in this unit are
licensed by the 	Department 	of 	Education or
hold 	an advanced degree 	and perform at 	a
responsible 	level 	often 	exercising
1The State 	raised no 	arguments 	in 	its 	exceptions 	which were
not 	fully 	and 	correctly 	addressed 	by 	the 	ALJ 	in the 	proposed
decision; 	therefore, 	since we are adopting the proposed decision
as 	the decision of 	the Board 	itself, 	we need not address 	the
exceptions here.
2The Ralph C. 	Dills Act, 	formerly known as the State
Employer-Employee Relations Act, 	is 	codified at Government Code
section 3512 	et 	seq. 	Unless otherwise 	indicated, 	all 	statutory
references 	are to the Government Code.
22

independent 	judgment 	and 	are 	therefore
entitled to a 	separate unit 	as 	professionals
pursuant to section 3521 (c) . [3] 	Second, as
employees 	who 	deliver 	related 	educational
services, 	including teaching, 	consulting, 	and
library 	services, 	they clearly 	share 	common
interests 	and goals.
(Id, at p. 	21.) 	Although the Board held that 	librarians 	and
institutional 	teachers 	shared 	a 	community 	of 	interest with
consultants 	because all performed tasks 	related to 	education, 	it
did not 	fully address 	the 	criteria 	set 	forth 	in 	section 	3521 	of
the Act.4 The 	Board 	stated:
3That 	subsection provides:
There 	shall be 	a presumption that
professional 	employees 	and 	nonprofessional
employees 	should not be 	included 	in the 	same
unit. 	However, 	the presumption shall be
rebuttable, 	depending upon what 	the evidence
pertinent to 	the 	criteria 	set 	forth 	in
subdivision (b) 	establishes.
4Section 3521 provides, 	in pertinent part:
(a) 	In determining an appropriate unit, 	the
board 	shall 	be 	governed by 	the 	criteria 	in
subdivision 	( b ) . . . .
(b) 	In determining an appropriate unit, 	the
board 	shall 	take 	into 	consideration all 	of
the 	following 	criteria:
(1) 	The 	internal 	and occupational 	community
of 	interest among the employees, 	including,
but not 	limited to, 	the 	extent to which they
perform 	functionally 	related 	services 	or work
toward established 	common goals; 	the 	history
of 	employee representation 	in 	state
government and in 	similar employment; 	the
extent 	to which 	the 	employees 	have 	common
skills, working conditions, 	job duties, 	or
similar 	educational 	or training 	requirements;
W
	3

It 	is 	clear that employees 	in this unit
perform related tasks, 	such as 	curriculum
planning 	and 	evaluation 	of 	educational
services 	and 	that 	they 	share 	concern on
issues 	such as 	class 	size, 	safety conditions
and professional development. 	Furthermore,
education 	and 	library 	unit 	employees 	only
work day 	shifts 	and 	enjoy 	eligibility 	for
educational 	leave.
and 	the 	extent 	to which 	the 	employees 	have
common 	supervision.
(2) 	The 	effect that 	the projected unit will
have 	on the meet 	and 	confer 	relationships,
emphasizing 	the 	availability 	and 	authority 	of
employer representatives 	to deal 	effectively
with 	employee 	organizations 	representing 	the
unit, 	and taking into account 	such factors 	as
work location, 	the numerical 	size of the
unit, 	the relationship of the unit to
organizational patterns 	of 	the 	state
government, 	and the effect on the 	existing
classification 	structure 	or 	existing
classification 	schematic 	of dividing 	a 	single
class 	or 	single 	classification 	schematic
among two or more units.
(3) 	The effect of the proposed unit on
efficient 	operations 	of 	the 	employer 	and 	the
compatibility of 	the 	unit with 	the
responsibility 	of 	state 	government and 	its
employees 	to 	serve the public.
(4) 	The number of 	employees 	and
classifications 	in 	a proposed unit 	and 	its
effect on the operations 	of the 	employer, 	on
the objectives 	of providing the 	employees 	the
right to effective representation, 	and on the
meet 	and 	confer 	relationship.
(5) 	The 	impact on the meet and confer
relationship 	created 	by 	fragmentation 	of
employees 	or any proliferation of 	units 	among
the 	employees 	of 	the 	employer.
4

(Id, at p. 	22.) 	As 	is 	evident from the record in the present
case, 	the members 	of Unit 	3 do not necessarily 	"share concern" 	on
issues 	of 	class 	size, 	safety conditions 	and professional
development. 	The record reflects 	that, 	particularly 	in the 	areas
of 	class 	size and 	safety conditions, 	the members 	of the unit have
significant differences. 	Although, 	as the ALJ pointed out, 	there
is 	some 	community of 	interest 	among the members 	of 	Unit 	3,
i.e., 	levels 	of 	education and credentials, 	they have marked
differences. 	The 	consultants 	and 	institutional 	teachers 	do 	not
perform 	"functionally 	related 	services." 	Nor do 	they 	"work
toward common goals." 	Indeed, 	the 	tasks 	performed by the
consultants 	and 	institutional 	employees 	do 	not 	require 	common
skills, 	working conditions 	or 	job duties. 	The 	job duties
performed by the 	two 	groups 	of 	employees 	are vastly different 	and
dictate 	that 	these 	groups 	be placed 	in different 	bargaining
units. 	The 	institutional 	employees 	teach both academic 	and
vocational 	classes 	directly to 	students, 	who have emotional
handicaps, 	mental problems, 	or require special 	supervision. 	The
consultants 	monitor 	school 	districts 	for 	compliance with 	state
and 	federal 	requirements. 	Consultants 	spend 	significant 	amounts
of 	time 	traveling to 	outlying 	school districts 	and 	spend none 	of
their time teaching. 	Furthermore, 	since these two groups 	of
employees 	do 	not 	share 	similar 	job duties 	or working conditions,
they do 	not have 	"common 	supervision."
Thus, 	on the record currently before the Board,5 the only
5When making 	its 	determinatio
---------·	State of California, 	supra	- n 	in Unit 	Determination 	for 	the
-·. 	PERB Decision No. 	110-S, 	the Board
may 	not 	have 	had 	a 	record which reflected 	the 	marked differences
5

similarity 	between 	the 	consultants 	and 	the 	institutional
employees 	is 	their level 	of 	education. 	This 	similarity alone 	is
insufficient to 	find that 	these 	two 	groups 	have the 	requisite
internal 	and 	occupational 	community 	of 	interest 	to warrant
placing 	them 	in the 	same unit.
My dissenting 	colleague, 	while 	recognizing that 	the
"institutional 	employees have different working conditions, 	work
exclusively 	in the 	institutional 	setting, 	lack any work-related
contact with the noninstitutional 	employees, 	and work in a
separate 	administrative 	and 	organizational 	structure 	. . . "
(Dissenting opinion at p. 	20), 	nevertheless, 	contends that the
unit which the Board 	is 	establishing today 	is 	not more
appropriate than the current configuration of 	Unit 	3. 	The
dissent 	focuses 	primarily 	on the placement 	of 	the 	CMA 	instructors
and 	the 	teachers 	at 	the 	schools 	for the deaf 	and blind or at 	the
Department of 	Education diagnostic 	school. 	(Id.)
I 	agree 	that 	the placement 	of 	these 	classifications 	in the
units 	described 	in Appendices A and B 	is 	not perfect. 	However,
section 	3521 	does 	not require 	the Board to 	ascertain the most
appropriate unit. 	(Antioch Unified School 	District 	(1977) 	EERB6
Decision No. 	37, 	at p. 	5-6 	(interpreting 	similar language 	in the
Educational Employment Relations Act, 	section 3545, 	subdivision
(a), 	the Board held that it was 	not required by the 	statute to
determine the most appropriate unit); 	Regents of the University
before us 	today.
6Prior to January 	1, 	1978, 	PERB was known as the Educational
Employment Relations Board 	(EERB).
66

of California 	(1986) 	PERB Decision No. 	586-H, 	at p. 	12
(interpreting 	similar 	language 	in 	the 	Higher Education 	Employer-
Employee Relations Act, 	section 3579, 	subdivision 	(a), 	the Board
held that a unit need not be 	"the ultimate, 	best or only
appropriate 	configuration," 	only that 	it be 	an appropriate
unit).)
In order to 	rebut the presumptive validity 	of 	the 	original
state unit determination, 	the petitioning party must 	show that
its proposed modification is more appropriate. 	I 	believe that
the 	units 	petitioned 	for are 	more 	appropriate 	than the 	existing
Unit 	3. 	While 	it may not be the 	"ultimate" 	unit configuration,
it more 	closely reflects 	the 	community of 	interest 	of 	the 	two
main groups 	of 	employees 	currently 	in Unit 	3. 	Although the
teachers 	at 	the diagnostic 	school 	and the 	schools 	for the blind
and deaf 	may not 	share all 	of 	the 	concerns 	of 	the 	institutional
employees, 	their 	job duties 	and working conditions 	are more 	akin
to those 	of 	the 	institutional 	employees. 	The placement of CMA
instructors 	is 	slightly more problematic 	because 	they do 	engage
in teaching, 	unlike the consultants. 	However, 	I am convinced
that 	CMA 	instructors 	are 	more 	appropriately placed 	in new Unit 	21
than they were 	in old Unit 	3 	because 	they definitely do 	not 	share
the predominant 	concerns 	of 	the 	institutional 	employees 	for
personal 	safety 	and 	safety retirement.
Unlike my dissenting colleague, 	I 	also believe that the ALJ
appropriately 	considered the parties' 	bargaining history,
including the internal 	strife, 	to determine whether a more
appropriate unit 	existed. 	While 	I 	recognize that 	large,
77

comprehensive units 	with a 	diversity 	of 	interests 	will 	often have
internal disagreements 	over negotiating priorities, 	I 	do not
believe 	that 	a 	readily 	identifiable 	minority of 	unit 	members
should 	regularly be 	required 	to 	relinquish 	its 	issues 	for 	the
more powerful majority. 	The 	fact that CSEA and the 	State were
able 	to 	negotiate 	five 	collective bargaining agreements 	does 	not
end the 	inquiry into the parties' 	negotiating history; 	nor does
the 	fact 	that the 	consultants were 	represented on the 	Unit 	3
Bargaining Council. 	The evidence 	suggests 	that, 	on issues 	other
than unit-wide 	salary increases, 	the 	issues 	of most 	importance to
the 	consultants 	were 	regularly dropped 	from the 	negotiations 	in
favor of 	those 	issues 	important 	to 	the 	institutional 	employees.
While 	negotiating 	history 	and 	the 	internal 	dissension within 	an
employee 	organization 	should 	not be 	determinative 	of 	the
appropriateness of a unit, 	I believe that it is a proper part of
the 	inquiry.
ORDER
For 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth above 	and 	in the 	attached proposed
decision, 	the unit modification petition is GRANTED. 	It 	is
hereby ORDERED that Unit 	3 	will 	be 	configured as 	described 	in
Appendix A to the proposed decision, 	and new State 	Unit 	21 	will
be 	configured as 	described 	in Appendix 	B 	to 	the proposed
decision.
Member Camilli's 	concurrence begins 	on page 	9.
Chairperson Hesse's 	dissent begins 	on page 	12.
88

Camilli, 	Member, 	concurring: 	I concur with the result
reached by the lead opinion 	in this 	case, 	and write 	separately 	to
outline 	and 	emphasize the 	factors 	which 	I 	believe 	support 	such 	a
result.
Section 3521 of the Ralph C. 	Dills Act 	(Dills Act)1 requires
the 	Public 	Employment Relations 	Board 	(PERB or Board) 	to 	take 	the
following 	criteria 	into 	consideration when determining 	an
appropriate unit:
. 	. 	. 	The internal and occupational community
of 	interest among the employees, 	including,
but not 	limited to, 	the 	extent to which they
perform 	functionally 	related 	services 	or work
toward 	established 	common goals; 	the history
of 	employee 	representation 	in 	state
government and 	in 	similar employment; 	the
extent 	to which the 	employees 	have common
skills, working conditions, 	job duties, 	or
similar 	educational 	or training 	requirements;
and the 	extent 	to which 	the 	employees 	have
common 	supervision.
The 	employees 	in Unit 	3 	do have 	similar educational 	or
training requirements, 	as 	they have all acquired a high level of
education. 	However, 	this 	is the only factor that 	supports 	a
finding 	of 	a 	community of 	interest 	amongst 	all 	members 	of 	the
unit.
The 	educational 	consultants 	and 	the 	institutional 	employees
(teachers 	and librarians) 	do not have common skills, 	working
conditions, 	or job duties. 	The 	job duties performed by the
two 	groups 	of 	employees 	do not dictate 	that 	they have 	the 	same
types 	and 	levels 	of 	skills. 	The 	institutional 	employees 	teach
1The 	Dills Act 	is 	codified 	at Government Code 	section 	3512
et 	seq.
9

both 	academic 	and vocational 	classes 	directly to 	students, 	some
of whom have 	emotional problems 	or mental 	handicaps 	or require
special 	education. 	The 	educational 	consultants 	and 	field
representatives 	monitor 	school 	districts 	for 	compliance with
state and 	federal 	requirements. 	Because 	their 	job duties 	are 	so
different, 	each group of 	employees 	utilizes 	a different 	set 	and
level of 	skills.
Similarly, 	the working conditions 	of 	the two groups 	of
employees 	are different. 	While 	the 	institutional 	employees
remain 	in the 	classroom and teach 	students 	directly, 	the
educational 	consultants 	travel 	from a 	school 	or district 	to
another school or district to monitor state-mandated programs. ......
That the two groups do not 	share 	common interests 	is
exemplified by 	the 	troublesome 	negotiating history of 	this 	unit.
While 	the 	institutional 	employees 	are most 	concerned with
security 	issues 	because 	they 	deal 	directly with 	their 	students,
the 	educational 	consultants 	are 	not 	concerned with 	such 	issues.
In 	fact, 	the 	State of California has 	recognized the divergence 	of
interests 	between the 	two 	groups 	by placing 	the 	institutional
employees 	in 	the 	safety 	retirement 	category2 while placing 	the
educational 	consultants 	in the 	miscellaneous 	retirement 	system.
2The 	safety retirement 	system provides 	a higher 	level 	of
retirement at an earlier age 	for those whose 	jobs 	have placed
them under a 	continuous 	high level 	of 	stress. 	Some of 	those 	jobs
in 	the 	safety 	category 	include 	correctional 	officers 	and
institutional workers.
10

For the above reasons, 	I 	agree that the two groups of
employees do not 	share a community of, interest, 	and the unit
modification petition should, 	therefore, 	be granted.
11

Hesse, 	Chairperson, 	dissenting: 	The parties are in
agreement that 	the 	two proposed units 	of 	employees 	have different
working conditions, 	training, 	skills, 	job duties, 	salaries and
fringe benefits. 	The dispute, 	however, 	is whether the
differences 	are 	sufficient 	to 	overcome 	the 	rebuttable presumption
that the Public 	Employment Relations 	Board's 	(PERB or Board) 	unit
determination 	in Unit Determination 	for the 	State 	of 	California
(1979) 	PERB Decision No. 	110-S is correct. 	In the absence of
evidence 	that the proposed new units 	are more appropriate, 	the
existing 	Board-created unit must be maintained. 	While 	I 	find
that a more appropriate unit may exist, 	I 	cannot agree that 	the
two proposed units 	are more 	appropriate 	than the present 	Unit 	3.
I 	also disagree with 	the 	majority's 	reliance 	on 	the bargaining
history, 	to 	the exclusion of other community of 	interest 	factors,
in determining the 	appropriateness 	of 	the proposed units.
In initial unit determinations 	under 	section 	3545(a) 	of 	the
Educational 	Employment Relations Act 	(EERA),1 the Board has
refused 	to 	apply 	a 	rigid 	test 	in determining whether 	a 	community
BERA 	is 	codified at Government Code 	section 	3540 	et 	seq.
Unless 	otherwise 	indicated, 	all 	statutory references 	herein are
to the Government Code. 	EERA section 3545 	states, 	in pertinent
part:
(a) 	In each case where 	the appropriateness
of the unit is 	an issue, 	the board 	shall
decide 	the 	question on the basis 	of 	the
community 	of 	interest between and 	among 	the
employees 	and 	their 	established 	practices
including, 	among other things, 	the extent to
which 	such employees 	belong to 	the 	same
employee organization, 	and the effect of the
size 	of 	the unit on the 	efficient operation
of the 	school district.
12

of 	interest 	exists 	among employees, 	but 	instead weighs 	and
balances 	the 	factors. 	(Antioch Unified 	School 	District 	(1977)
EERB2 Decision No. 	37; 	Marin Community College District 	(1978)
PERB Decision No. 	55; 	Monterey Peninsula Community College
District 	(1978) 	PERB Decision No. 	76.) 	In Monterey Peninsula
Community College District, 	supra, 	at page 	14, 	the Board stated:
The 	following 	criteria 	are 	considered by 	the
Board 	in determining whether 	a 	community of
interest 	exists 	between and among 	employees:
supervision, work functions, wages, method of
compensation, hours, 	employment benefits,
qualifications, 	training and skills, 	contact
with other employees, 	integration with work
functions of other employees, 	and interchange
with other employees. 	But community of
interest 	is 	not determined by going down a
check list of these 	factors. 	The point of
the comparison is 	to reveal 	the 	interests 	of
employees 	and 	ascertain whether 	they 	share
substantial mutual 	interests 	in matters
subject to meeting and negotiating. 	The
interests of included employees must be
mutual not distinct, 	and substantial not
tenuous. 	Thus, 	employees may be excluded
from a particular unit 	either because 	their
interests 	are 	separate 	and 	apart 	from those
of the employees 	in that particular unit, 	or
because 	their 	interest 	in negotiable 	matters
subject to the 	control 	of 	the 	employer is 	so
insubstantial 	that 	they do 	not 	share 	mutual
interests with other unit 	employees.
(Fns. omitted.)
•
In determining an appropriate 	unit under the 	Ralph C. 	Dills
Act 	(Dills Act), 	the Board must take into consideration the
criteria 	established 	in 	section 	3521:
2PERB was 	formerly known as 	the 	Educational 	Employment
Relations 	Board.
13

(b) 	In determining an appropriate unit, 	the
board 	shall 	take 	into 	consideration all 	of
the 	following 	criteria:
(1) 	The 	internal and occupational 	community
of 	interest among the employees, 	including,
but not 	limited to, 	the 	extent to which they
perform 	functionally 	related 	services 	or work
toward established common goals; 	the 	history
of 	employee representation 	in 	state
government and 	in similar employment; 	the
extent 	to which 	the 	employees 	have 	common
skills, working conditions, 	job duties, 	or
similar 	educational 	or training requirements;
and the 	extent 	to which the 	employees 	have
common 	supervision.
(2) 	The 	effect that the projected unit will
have 	on the meet 	and confer relationships,
emphasizing 	the 	availability 	and 	authority 	of
employer 	representatives 	to 	deal 	effectively
with 	employee 	organizations 	representing 	the
unit, 	and taking 	into account 	such factors 	as
work location, 	the numerical 	size of the
unit, 	the relationship of the unit to
organizational patterns 	of 	the 	state
government, 	and the effect on the 	existing
classification 	structure 	or 	existing
classification 	schematic 	of 	dividing 	a 	single
class 	or 	single 	classification 	schematic
among two or more units.
(3) 	The 	effect of 	the proposed unit on
efficient 	operations 	of 	the 	employer 	and the
compatibility 	of 	the 	unit with 	the
responsibility 	of 	state 	government 	and 	its
employees 	to 	serve the public.
(4) 	The number of 	employees and
classifications 	in a proposed unit 	and 	its
effect on the operations of the employer, 	on
the 	objectives 	of providing the 	employees 	the
right to 	effective representation, 	and on the
meet 	and 	confer relationship.
(5) 	The 	impact on the meet and confer
relationship 	created 	by 	fragmentation 	of
employees 	or any proliferation of units 	among
the employees 	of 	the employer.
(6) 	Notwithstanding the 	foregoing provisions
of this 	section, 	or any other provision of
14

law, 	an appropriate group of 	skilled crafts
employees 	shall have the 	right to be a
separate 	unit 	of 	representation based upon
occupation. 	Skilled crafts 	employees 	shall
include, 	but not necessarily be 	limited to,
employment 	categories 	such as 	carpenters,
plumbers, electricians, painters, and
operating 	engineers.
Like EERA 	section 	3545, 	section 	3521 	of the Dills Act does 	not
require a rigid test. 	Rather, 	the 	factors must be considered,
weighed 	and 	balanced 	by 	the 	Board 	in determining 	an 	appropriate
unit. 	In the present case, 	the amended unit modification
petition 	creates 	two bargaining units.3 One unit 	includes 	all
institutional 	teachers 	and 	other 	institutional 	employees 	at
-Corrections, 	CYA, 	DDS, 	DMH and the 	special and diagnostic 	schools
operated by DOE; 	the 	second unit includes 	consultants, 	field
representatives, 	specialists, 	noninstitutional librarians,
instructors 	at 	CMA and related noninstitutional 	classes.4
Consistent with the 	Board's 	original 	unit determination 	in Unit
Determination for the State of California, 	supra, 	PERB Decision
No. 	110-S, 	the Department of Personnel Administration 	(DPA)
contends 	that the present bargaining unit 	employees 	all possess 	a
high 	level 	of 	education and 	share 	a 	community of 	interest 	in
3The 	original 	unit 	modification petition created 	the
following two bargaining units: 	(1) 	teachers and librarians 	at
California Department of Corrections 	(Corrections), 	California
Youth Authority 	(CYA), 	Department of Developmental Services 	(DDS)
and Department of Mental Health 	(DMH); 	and 	(2) 	all other
noninstitutional 	employees, 	including teachers 	and employees 	at
the 	special 	and diagnostic 	schools 	operated by 	the 	Department 	of
Education 	(DOE) 	and 	instructors 	at the California Maritime
Academy 	(CMA).
4For convenience, 	these two units will be referred to 	as 	the
institutional 	and 	noninstitutional 	units.
15

education. 	While these 	employees 	share 	a common interest 	in
education and possess 	high-level 	educational degrees, 	I 	find that
there 	are 	distinct 	differences 	between the 	teachers 	and 	employees
at Corrections, 	CYA, 	DDS and DMH and the consultants, 	field
representatives, 	specialists, 	archivists and noninstitutional
librarians. 	However, 	I 	am troubled by the placement of the
teachers 	and 	employees 	at 	DOE 	and 	instructors 	at CMA.
Specifically, 	CMA 	instructors 	are 	grouped with the 	consultants,
field representatives, 	archivists 	and noninstitutional
librarians. 	Unlike these employees, 	CMA instructors perform
teaching duties 	and have different working 	conditions, 	training,
skills, 	job duties, 	supervision and salaries.5
Similarly, 	the 	inclusion of 	DOE 	teachers 	and employees 	in
the 	institutional unit 	is 	not appropriate. 	Unlike the teachers
and employees 	in the 	institutions, 	there 	is 	no evidence that the
DOE 	teachers 	and 	employees 	share 	a 	common concern over personal
safety, 	class 	size and 	safety retirement. 	The testimony of 	John
Paul, 	an exempt teacher at the California School 	for the Blind 	in
Fremont, 	describes 	the working conditions 	of the blind, 	deaf 	and
diagnostic 	schools 	and 	shows 	that there 	is 	no 	interest 	in 	class
size and safety retirement. 	(Vol. 	IV, pp. 	27, 	34:35, 	45.)
Additionally, 	John Paul's 	testimony describes 	the work
5As 	the 	record 	is 	devoid of 	any testimony 	from CMA
instructors, 	it 	is difficult to determine whether these
instructors 	should be placed 	in the 	noninstitutional 	unit.
However, 	the record does 	establish that the teaching duties 	are
indeed different 	from the duties performed by consultants, 	field
representatives, 	archivists and noninstitutional 	librarians.
16

environment 	as 	similar to 	an 	"ordinary 	local 	school 	district"
(Vol. 	IV, p. 	21), 	and "regular classroom campus setting" 	(Vol.
IV, 	p. 	26). 	While the evidence demonstrates that a unit
modification of 	some nature would be appropriate, 	I 	am
unpersuaded 	that 	the two proposed units 	are more 	appropriate. 	In
my opinion, 	the original 	unit modification petition 	filed by CSEA
is 	more 	appropriate than the 	amended unit modification petition.
In determining the 	appropriateness 	of 	the proposed units,
the 	administrative 	law judge 	(ALJ) 	examined the bargaining
history. 	However, 	in his discussion of bargaining history, 	the
ALJ 	focuses 	on the 	internal 	strife within the 	bargaining unit
which manifested 	itself during negotiations 	in the 	Unit 	3
Bargaining Council. 	While bargaining priorities 	can be 	a 	symptom
of 	a 	lack of 	community of 	interest 	and common goals 	among 	the
employees, 	any large, 	comprehensive bargaining unit will have
some diversity of 	interest. 	No 	one 	group 	can realistically
expect to achieve all of 	its 	bargaining goals. 	The ALJ's
reliance 	on the 	bargaining history 	in his 	analysis 	determining
the appropriateness 	of the proposed units 	is misplaced. 	As 	the
state 	bargaining units 	created by 	the 	Board 	in 	Unit 	Determination
for the State of California, 	supra. 	PERB Decision No. 	110-S are
large, 	comprehensive units which 	include 	some diversity of
interest, 	such an analysis would result 	in the 	fragmentation of
state 	employees 	and proliferation of 	state bargaining units.
Here, 	the 	evidence of 	the bargaining relationship between
DPA and California 	State Employees Association 	(CSEA) 	shows 	a
17

stable relationship, 	as 	evidenced by 	its 	five collective
bargaining agreements.6 By creating the Unit 	3 	Bargaining
Council, 	CSEA attempted to ensure that the concerns of each ,
employee 	group would be represented at 	the bargaining 	table. 	In
fact, 	the evidence 	shows 	that 	issues 	of primary concern of 	the
institutional 	and 	noninstitutional 	employee 	group were 	addressed
in the Unit 	3 	Bargaining Council.
The question is whether the 	interests 	of one group of
employees 	have 	been trampled upon or 	ignored to 	the point 	that
their representational 	rights 	have 	been abrogated 	because 	of 	the
existing unit 	structure. 	In the present case, 	the 	institutional
and noninstitutional 	groups 	have representatives 	on the 	Unit 	3
Bargaining Council. 	Further, 	there 	is 	no evidence that any group
has 	been denied the 	right 	or opportunity to be 	an active member
of CSEA 	(i.e., 	job 	steward, 	officer or Unit 	3 	Bargaining Council
representative). 	CSEA argues that the 	institutional 	issues 	such
as 	safety 	and 	class 	size 	dominate 	the noninstitutional 	issues
such as 	salary, 	office 	space and travel reimbursement. 	However,
there 	is 	testimony that the 	salary offers 	in Unit 	3 	are
consistent with other bargaining units, 	and that the Unit 	3
collective bargaining agreement was 	substantially 	the 	same 	as
other CSEA unit 	collective bargaining agreements. 	Both the
institutional 	and 	noninstitutional 	groups 	have 	achieved 	favorable
6Specifically, 	the 	five 	collective bargaining agreements 	had
the following effective dates: 	(1) 	July 	1, 	1982 	through June 30,
1984; 	(2) July 1, 	1984 through June 30, 	1985; 	(3) 	July 1, 	1985
through June 30, 1987; 	(4) 	January 	1, 	1988 through June 30, 	1988;
and 	(5) 	July 1, 	1988, 	through June 30, 	1991.
18

provisions 	in the 	collective bargaining agreements. 	The
institutional 	employees 	have received 	safety retirement, 	alarm
system 	language, 	enhanced disability 	leave pay and meet 	and
confer provisions 	over the 	impact of 	class 	size. 	The
noninstitutional 	employees 	(primarily 	the 	consultants 	and 	field
representatives) 	have 	achieved provisions 	relating 	to 	educational
leave, 	10-12 leave, 	performance appraisals, 	recognition of
authorship, 	video display terminals 	and pay 	increases. 	Finally,
any 	argument 	that 	the 	institutional 	and 	noninstitutional
employees 	would 	achieve 	more 	favorable 	collective 	bargaining
agreements 	if 	there were 	two 	separate bargaining units 	is
speculative 	and 	irrelevant.	•
While 	the 	Board 	is 	reluctant 	to disturb a 	stable bargaining
relationship 	(Livermore Valley 	Joint 	Unified 	School 	District
(1981) 	PERB Decision No. 	165), 	the Board must consider all the
factors 	in 	section 	3521(b) 	in determining an appropriate unit.
Although 	there 	is 	evidence of 	a 	stable bargaining relationship
between DPA and CSEA, 	there are 	also distinct differences 	between
the 	institutional 	and noninstitutional 	employees.
This 	case 	is 	similar to 	Unit 	Determination for Technical
Employees 	of 	the 	University of California 	(1982) 	PERB 	Decision-
241-H, 	where the Board was 	faced with a 	systemwide unit of
technical 	employees which 	included 	a 	group 	of 	technical 	employees
who worked 	exclusively at the health 	care 	facilities. 	The 	Board
established 	a 	separate unit 	of 	technical 	employees who provided
health 	services 	at the university's 	health 	care 	facilities. 	This
19

unit was 	not 	included 	in the 	systemwide unit of 	technical
employees due to: 	(1) 	the different working conditions; 	(2) 	the
fact 	that patient 	care 	employees 	work 	exclusively 	in hospitals 	or
clinics; 	(3) 	the administrative autonomy of the medical
facilities; 	(4) 	the lack of any work-related contact between
employees at patient and nonpatient work sites; 	and 	(5) 	the
separate 	organizational 	structure 	for 	hospital 	classifications
and other technical 	classification. 	Like PERB 	Decision
No. 	241-H, 	the present case 	involves 	a comprehensive education
and 	library unit where there 	exists 	a 	group 	of 	unit 	employees who
work 	in an 	institutional 	setting. 	Like 	the patient 	care
employees 	in PERB Decision No. 	241-H, 	these institutional
employees 	have different working 	conditions, 	work exclusively 	in
the 	institutional 	setting, 	lack any work-related 	contact with the
noninstitutional 	employees, 	and work in a 	separate administrative
and 	organizational 	structure 	from the 	noninstitutional 	employees.
The 	evidence of 	the 	separate and unique 	environment 	in the
California 	correctional 	institutions 	and 	mental 	health 	facilities
demonstrate 	that 	these 	education 	and 	library unit 	employees 	share
a 	community of 	interest, 	and 	support the 	establishment of 	a
separate unit under section 3521(b) 	of the Dills Act. 	However,
in the present 	case, 	the division between the 	institutional 	and
noninstitutional 	employees 	fails 	to 	account 	for the differences
between: 	(1) 	CMA instructors and consultants, 	field
representatives, 	specialists, 	archivists and noninstitutional
20

librarians; 	and 	(2) 	DOE teachers and employees and Corrections,
CYA, 	DDS and DMH teachers 	and employees.
Due 	to 	the 	fundamental 	differences 	between the 	institutional
and noninstitutional employees 	in goals, 	skills, 	working
conditions, 	job duties and training requirements, 	a more
appropriate unit 	may 	exist 	for both 	the 	institutional 	and
noninstitutional teachers and employees. 	However, 	as 	I 	am
unpersuaded that the two proposed units 	are more appropriate, 	I
would dismiss 	the 	unit modification petition.
21

State 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA 	(DEPARTMENT
OF PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION),
Employer,
and
CALIFORNIA STATE EMPLOYEES'
ASSOCIATION,
Exclusive 	R e p r e s e n t a t i v e .
)
)
)
) 	Representation
Case No. 	S-UM-416-S
PROPOSED DECISION
(6/12/89)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances: 	Howard Schwartz, 	Attorney, 	for the California State
Employees' 	Association; 	Kenneth R. 	Hulse, Attorney, 	for the State
of California, 	Department of Personnel Administration.
Before Ronald E. 	Blubaugh, 	Administrative Law Judge.
PROCEDURAL 	HISTORY
The California State Employees' 	Association 	(CSEA) 	here
requests 	that State employee bargaining unit No. 	3 	be 	separated
into two units. 	CSEA, 	incumbent exclusive representative 	for
unit 	3, 	contends 	that the unit 	in its present 	configuration is
rife with internal divisions. 	These divisions, 	CSEA contends,
demonstrate 	that 	some 	employees 	in the unit have 	no 	community of
interest with 	other 	employees 	and 	should 	be placed 	in their 	own
separate unit.
The State of California 	(State), 	employer of the unit 3 work
force, 	opposes 	the division of the unit. 	The State argues 	that
the 	grounds 	set out 	in the 	original 	Public 	Employment 	Relations
Board 	(PERB or Board) 	decision creating unit 	3 	are as 	valid today
This proposed decision has been appealed to the
Board i t s e l f and may not be cited as precedent
unless the decision and i t s rationale have been
adopted by the Board.
__ )

as 	when originally 	stated 	in 	1979.1 The 	State argues 	that 	it has
successfully negotiated 	five 	contracts with unit 	3 	as 	now
configured, 	evidence that the unit 	structure works 	as 	it 	is. 	The
State 	urges 	that 	the petition 	for 	unit modification be 	denied 	and
the 	unit 	configuration be 	left 	unchanged.
CSEA filed the petition to modify unit 	3 	on July 	15, 	1988.2
As 	originally 	filed, 	the petition would have 	created two 	units:
one unit 	for 	teachers 	and 	librarians who work in the 	Department
of 	Corrections 	and California 	Youth Authority, 	and a 	second unit
for all 	remaining unit 	3 	members. 	CSEA 	filed an amended petition
on March 2, 	1989, 	following four days of hearing. 	The amended
petition would divide the unit as 	follows: 	one unit 	for all
teachers, 	school psychologists 	and librarians who work in the
Departments of Corrections, 	Youth Authority, 	Developmental
Services, 	Mental 	Health and the 	special 	schools 	operated by 	the
Department of 	Education, 	and a 	second unit 	for all 	remaining unit
3 	members. 	The State did not oppose the 	filing of 	an amendment
and 	the 	motion to 	amend was 	granted.
1The unit was 	first described 	in Unit 	Determination 	for 	the
State of California 	(1979) 	PERB Decision No. 	110-S. 	In that
decision, 	the PERB divided the 	State work force 	into 	20 	units 	for
collective 	bargaining.
2The petition was 	filed under PERB regulation 32781 	(a) 	(3)
which 	as 	then written permitted 	a 	recognized 	or 	certified
exclusive 	representative 	to 	file 	a petition 	for unit modification
To divide 	an existing unit 	into 	two or more
appropriate units.
This 	provision was 	subsequently renumbered as 	section 	32 781
(a) (2).
22

The 	effect of 	the 	amendment was 	to place 	all 	institutional
teachers 	and other 	institutional 	employees 	into the 	same 	unit.
The 	second unit would be 	for consultants, 	field representatives,
specialists, 	noninstitutional librarians, 	instructors at the
California 	Maritime Academy 	and related 	noninstitutional 	classes.
The 	State 	filed 	its 	opposition to the 	original petition on
August 	3, 	1988, 	and orally opposed the modified petition at the
hearing on March 	2, 	1989. 	The hearing was 	conducted over 	seven
nonconsecutive days 	in February and March of 	1989, 	concluding on
March 8, 	1989. 	With the 	filing of written briefs, 	the matter was
submitted for decision on May 31, 	1989.
FINDINGS 	OF 	FACT
There are 	2,560 	employees working in unit 	3 	as 	it 	is 	now
composed. 	Although these 	employees 	range across 	some 	210 	job
classifications 	in 27 	State departments, 	the vast majority of
them can be grouped 	in three broad 	categories: 	teachers,
consultants 	and related classes, 	and 	librarians.
The 	largest 	congregations 	of 	unit 	3 	employees 	are 	found 	in
the Departments of Education, 	Corrections, 	Youth Authority,
Developmental 	Services, 	and Mental 	Health. 	The Department of
Education employs 	709 unit 	3 	members, 	348 of them as 	consultants
or members 	of 	related classes. 	The Department also has 	35
teachers 	in its two diagnostic 	schools, 	51 	teachers 	in the 	school
for the blind and 	256 	teachers 	in the 	two 	schools 	for the 	deaf.
There are 	675 unit 	3 	employees 	in the Department of
Corrections, 	683 	in the Youth Authority, 	282 	in Developmental
33

Services, 	and 67 	in the Department of Mental Health. 	The vast
majority of 	these 	employees 	are teachers. 	The remaining unit 	3
employees 	are 	spread throughout a number of State departments, 	12
of which have only a 	single unit 	3 	member, 	most of them
librarians. 	There also are 	43 	unit 	3 	members 	employed at the
California 	Maritime Academy. 	The 	Maritime Academy 	employs
college professors 	to teach various 	academic 	classes 	and
vocational 	instructors to teach plumbing, 	engine repair, 	and
other mechanical 	operations 	of 	a 	ship.3
Community 	of 	Interest
As a group, 	unit 3 members have a high level of education.
Virtually 	all 	unit 	members 	are 	required 	to 	have 	a bachelor's
degree 	or 	equivalent 	and many must 	hold 	a master's 	degree 	or
equivalent. 	The majority of unit 	3 	members 	also are required to
possess 	elementary, 	high school, 	vocational or administrative
credentials.
Teachers 	in the 	Correctional 	and Youth Authority
institutions possess 	elementary, 	high 	school or vocational
credentials. 	They teach 	classes 	ranging 	from kindergarten
through high 	school. 	Some 	students 	are at 	such a 	low level 	of
education that 	they do not yet know the alphabet. 	Teachers 	in
the academic 	classes 	teach the 	"three-R's" 	in addition to 	the
3This 	statistical breakdown 	is 	drawn 	from Joint 	Exhibit
No. 	1. 	Slightly different numbers 	are 	shown in CSEA Exhibit
No. 	1. 	The differences 	apparently are due to different
preparation dates. 	It 	is 	not 	significant 	for purposes 	of 	this
decision to 	know the 	exact 	numbers 	of 	employees 	in each 	job 	class
on any particular date.
A	4

courses 	needed 	for a high 	school 	diploma. 	Vocational 	teachers
teach painting, 	dry cleaning,small 	engine repair, 	welding,
electronics, 	upholstering, 	carpentry, 	printing trades and other
job 	skills. 	Similar classes 	are 	offered at 	institutions 	operated
by 	the 	Youth Authority.
Teachers 	in the 	schools 	for the blind, 	deaf and the
diagnostic 	schools, 	all have high school, 	elementary or
vocational 	credentials. 	They 	teach both academic 	and vocational
classes. 	The vocational program attempts 	to give 	students 	a
saleable 	skill. 	Teachers 	in the diagnostic 	schools 	test 	and work
with 	students 	with 	emotional 	disturbances 	and other problems
which local 	school 	districts 	have been unable 	to treat.
Teachers 	in the 	schools 	run by the 	Departments 	of
Developmental 	Services 	and Mental 	Health have 	state 	teaching
credentials with 	an 	emphasis 	in 	special 	education where
appropriate. 	Students 	in institutions 	operated by the 	Department
of 	Developmental 	Services 	have 	severe 	learning disabilities 	and
suffer 	from 	some mental 	handicaps. 	Teachers 	attempt to 	train
them 	in academic 	subjects 	and 	try 	to 	help 	them develop 	socially
acceptable 	skills 	and 	interests. 	Students 	in institutions
operated by the Department of Mental 	Health have various 	mental,
psychological 	and emotional 	disorders. 	Teachers 	attempt 	to 	train
them in physical, 	social, 	intellectual and vocational 	skills 	so
they 	can 	function 	in 	society.
5
5

The 	college 	level 	instructors 	at 	the California Maritime
Academy 	are 	not 	required 	to have 	any type 	of 	credential. 	Their
job 	is 	to 	educate 	students 	for careers 	in commercial 	shipping.
Consultants 	and 	specialists 	employed by the 	Department 	of
Education, 	specialists 	in the California Community College
Chancellor's 	Office 	and 	at 	the 	Commission on Teacher 	Preparation
have 	either teaching or administrative 	credentials. 	Most have
masters 	degrees 	and about a 	third have doctorates. 	Consultants
and 	field 	representatives 	employed by 	the 	State 	Department 	of
Education perform duties 	comparable 	to 	those of 	local 	school
district 	administrators.
Consultants 	focus 	on academic 	programs 	in local 	school
districts 	which 	they monitor 	for 	compliance with 	a 	myriad 	of
state 	and 	federal 	requirements. 	Field representatives 	focus 	on
business, 	accounting, 	transportation and facilities programs at
local 	school districts. 	Like consultants, 	they monitor these
operations 	for compliance with 	state 	and 	federal 	laws 	and
regulations.
Specialists 	employed by 	the 	office 	of 	the 	Chancellor of
California Community Colleges perform tasks 	similar to 	those 	of
consultants 	and 	field 	representatives 	in the 	Department 	of
Education. 	Their focus, 	however, 	is on the 	107 community
colleges. 	Specialists who work 	for the California Post-Secondary
Education Commission and 	consultants 	who work at 	the 	Commission
on Teacher Credentialing 	all 	perform duties 	comparable 	to 	those
of 	consultants 	at the 	State 	Department of 	Education.
6

Librarians work at the State 	library, 	at correctional
institutions, 	and in numerous 	State departments. 	They maintain
libraries 	and assist patrons. 	Librarians 	in the 	correctional
institutions 	maintain a number of 	legal 	research materials 	for
inmates working on criminal 	appeals. 	Although the 	State has 	a
number of 	librarians 	at the State 	library in Sacramento, 	many of
the 	other 	librarians 	employed by 	the 	State work alone 	in
individual 	departments 	or 	correctional 	facilities.
The wide variance in duties 	among unit 	3 	members 	is 	mirrored
by 	a wide variance 	in working 	conditions. 	The 	academic 	teachers
in the unit 	all work in classrooms 	similar to 	those 	in a public
school. 	There are 	chalkboards 	and cabinets 	and desks 	for the
students. 	Vocational 	teachers work in 	shops with various 	types
of mechanical 	equipment. 	Some vocational 	teachers 	in the Youth
Authority 	take 	students 	out 	of 	the 	shop 	to work on construction
projects 	away 	from 	the 	institution.
But unlike an ordinary 	school, 	teaching in correctional
institutions 	is 	subordinate to 	security concerns. 	One witness
testified that his 	first duty 	is 	to be able to 	account 	for 	every
prisoner, 	then to complete 	all 	the paperwork required 	for
security purposes, 	and then to teach. 	This distinction is
reflected 	in the 	job description for 	correctional 	teachers.
Among other duties, 	it requires 	teachers 	to 	"maintain order and
supervise 	the conduct of 	inmates." 	It also requires 	teachers 	to
control 	"all 	materials 	and 	equipment which may be used 	as
potential weapons," 	to prevent against 	escapes 	and to 	search
7
7

students 	for contraband 	such as weapons 	and drugs. 	All 	teachers
who work 	for 	the 	Department 	of 	Corrections 	and 	the 	Youth
Authority pass 	through metal 	detectors 	and 	a 	series 	of 	security
gates 	on their way to their classrooms.
Because of 	security concerns, 	correctional 	teachers 	must
adhere 	to 	rules 	restricting what 	they 	can bring 	into 	the
institutions 	and with whom they 	can associate. 	Teachers 	in
correctional and Youth Authority institutions, 	for example, 	are
prohibited 	from 	fraternizing with 	inmates 	or 	their 	families.
Correctional 	teachers 	also 	face 	the prospect of 	regular drug
testing. 	The State has 	indicated that 	it 	intends 	to 	subject 	all
custodial employees, 	including teachers, 	to drug tests. 	In a
lockdown, 	teachers 	at the Department of Corrections 	must 	abandon
their teaching 	jobs 	to 	engage 	in 	such noneducational 	duties 	as
making 	lunches 	and 	supplying 	food 	service. 	In times 	of
emergency, 	they can be required to 	carry weapons.
By contrast, 	consultants, 	field representatives and
specialists 	all work in offices with desks, 	telephones 	and
personal 	computers. 	While 	they are 	free 	from worry about
personal 	safety, 	consultants 	have other concerns 	about work
environment. 	For 	some, 	like employees 	in the headquarters
building of 	the State Department of Education, 	the work area 	is
quite 	cramped. 	Employees 	have 	small work spaces, 	separated 	from
each other by 	screens 	and modular 	furniture. 	One witness
described the work environment as 	being 	like 	"a 	rabbit warren."
She 	said 	the 	atmosphere 	is 	noisy and 	completely without privacy.
8

She 	said 	she 	can hear 	everything within 	ten 	feet 	of 	her desk and
every 	conversation 	in which 	she 	engages 	can be 	overheard by
others.
There 	is 	a variance 	in hours 	of work between teachers 	and
unit 	members 	in consultant 	and related 	classes. 	Teachers 	are 	in
work week 	subgroup 	4A. 	They are required to work 40 	hours 	a week
and 	are 	compensated 	for overtime by 	either 	cash payment 	or
compensating time off. 	They have 	fixed working hours which do
not vary 	from day to day. 	Consultants, 	field representatives 	and
specialists 	are 	in work week 	subgroup 	4C. 	They are 	required 	to
work the 	number of hours 	needed to 	carry out their duties. 	They
are 	not 	entitled to 	overtime 	or 	compensatory time off, 	although
compensatory 	time 	off 	may be 	arranged 	on an 	informal 	basis 	with
their 	supervisors.
One 	of 	the marked differences 	between consultants 	and
institutional 	teachers 	is 	in the amount of 	job-required travel.
Depending on their assignments, 	consultants, 	field
representatives 	or 	specialists 	could be 	on the 	road between 	25
percent and 	80 percent of 	the time. 	Consultants 	visit 	local
schools 	to examine educational programs, 	interview administrators
and teachers, 	and 	insure 	compliance with 	state requirements.
Field representatives 	travel 	to 	local 	school districts 	to 	assist
in 	school 	facilities planning, 	financial management and
coordination with 	funding agencies. 	Specialists 	travel 	to
individual 	community colleges 	to audit the use of 	funds..
Institutional teachers, 	by contrast, 	travel rarely if ever.
9

Concern over personal 	safety 	is 	another area 	of 	significant
difference among unit 3 members. 	Safety is of great concern to
unit 	3 	members who work in correctional 	and Youth Authority
institutions. 	Teachers 	and 	librarians 	in the 	correctional
institutions 	are 	alone with prison 	inmates 	and Youth Authority
wards 	for 	substantial portions 	of 	each workday. 	They work 	in
isolated 	areas 	where 	they 	face 	a danger 	from inmate 	attack.
Teachers 	are threatened and, 	occasionally, 	physically attacked by
inmates.4 Librarians 	are 	frequently alone with 	large 	numbers 	of
inmates 	doing 	legal 	research.5 Many 	of 	them work 	in 	libraries
that 	are 	obscured 	from outside 	view.
Teachers 	in the 	Department 	of 	Developmental 	Services 	and
Department of Mental 	Health also have 	safety concerns. 	Patients
in 	the hospitals 	operated 	by 	the Department 	of 	Developmental
Services 	are often violent.6 Indeed, 	the Department of
Developmental 	Services 	uses 	a 	job description 	for teachers
4Dangerous 	incidents 	involving 	teachers were 	described 	at
the hearing. 	In one 	situation, 	a 	female teacher was unable to
get 	to her 	security 	alarm because 	an 	inmate 	had pinned 	her 	arms
to her 	side. 	She was 	freed only when a 	correctional 	officer
happened to chance upon the attack. 	In another instance, 	a
teacher was 	required to use a baton to chase 	inmates 	in a 	1977
riot when inmates 	attempted to take over a prison.
5According to testimony at the hearing, 	the 	librarian at
Soledad prison at times 	has 	as many as 	50 	inmates 	to 	supervise.
The librarian, 	who is female, 	requested that a correctional
officer be provided to assist her with 	large groups 	of 	inmates.
However, 	the 	institution did not have 	sufficient 	staffing 	to
accommodate 	the 	request.
6According to one witness 	a maxim among teachers 	in
Department of Developmental Services 	institutions 	is, 	"Don't 	turn
your back because 	you will 	be 	attacked."
10

applicable 	also 	for 	the 	Departments 	of Corrections 	and Youth
Authority. 	It lists, 	among other duties, 	a requirement that
teachers 	control 	"all materials 	and 	equipment which may be 	used
as potential weapons." 	Teachers 	in DDS 	institutions 	are bitten,
hit, 	pounded on and 	jumped on.
Some teachers 	in institutions 	of 	the 	Department 	of 	Mental
Health work with patients 	who have 	committed 	crimes 	and been
committed under provisions 	of 	the 	Penal 	Code. 	Teachers 	also work
with patients who have mental, 	psychological or emotional
disorders 	causing them to be 	violent at 	times.
Teachers 	in the 	schools 	for the blind and deaf have
occasional 	safety concerns. 	Some 	students 	have multiple
handicaps 	and are occasionally assaultive. 	Students who 	are
losing 	their vision 	occasionally have 	become 	emotionally
distraught and attacked a 	teacher. 	While 	still 	infrequent,
attacks 	on teachers 	in the 	special 	schools 	have occurred more
often 	in recent years 	than previously.
Consultants, 	field representatives 	and 	specialists 	do 	not
encounter the 	threat 	of 	physical 	violence 	against 	them 	in 	their
daily work.
Another 	marked 	difference 	between 	consultants 	and 	related
classes 	and 	institutional 	teachers 	is 	a 	significant 	salary 	and
benefit 	gap. 	Consultants 	and related 	classes 	have much higher
salaries. 	Institutional 	teachers 	have much better pension and
disability 	leave benefits.
11

Consultants 	and related 	classes 	can earn up 	to 	$55,200 	a
year. 	Teachers 	in the Department of Corrections 	or Youth
Authority 	can earn a maximum of 	$44,400 	a year. 	The 	consultants
have 	historically 	been more 	highly paid 	because 	their 	salaries
were 	once 	linked to 	the 	salaries 	of 	assistant 	superintendents 	of
local 	school districts. 	Assistant 	superintendents 	in local
districts 	traditionally 	earn more 	than teachers 	working 	for 	the
same 	employer. 	The 	salary gap 	is 	indicative also of 	an
attitudinal 	relationship. 	Many State 	consultants 	at one time
were public 	school 	administrators 	and 	they 	continue 	to 	identify
with 	administrators 	rather than teachers.
Reflecting the danger 	inherent 	in their 	jobs, 	teachers 	and
librarians 	in 	correctional 	and 	Youth Authority 	institutions
participate 	in the 	safety 	retirement 	system. 	There are 	1,066
members 	of unit 	3 	eligible 	for 	safety retirement. 	Safety
retirement 	entitles 	an employee 	to 	retire 	at an earlier age 	for a
higher benefit 	than the 	employee 	otherwise would be 	eligible.
Unit 3 	employees in the Department of Corrections, 	Youth
Authority, 	Mental 	Health and Developmental 	Services 	also 	receive
enhanced 	industrial disability 	leave. 	The 	effect 	of 	this 	benefit
is 	to permit 	employees 	on disability 	leave 	to receive 	a 	larger
portion of 	their pay 	than 	employees 	on regular disability 	leave.
Consultants 	and related 	classes 	are 	not 	eligible 	for 	either
safety 	retirement 	or 	enhanced 	industrial 	disability 	leave.
12

Bargaining 	History.
The California State Employees' 	Association, 	exclusive
representative of unit 3 	since July 	13, 	1981, 	is the only union
ever 	to 	represent the unit. 	The 	State and CSEA have 	entered 	five
collective 	bargaining agreements 	since CSEA became 	the 	exclusive
representative of unit 	3. 	The most recent 	is 	a three-year
agreement extending from July 	1, 	1988, 	to June 30, 	1991.
CSEA coordinates 	its 	negotiating 	strategy 	for unit 	3 	through
the unit 	3 bargaining council. 	The council, 	which serves as the
main policy-making body 	for the unit, 	is 	composed of unit 	3 	rank
and 	file 	members 	who 	are 	elected by 	specific 	constituencies
within the unit. 	Throughout the relevant period, 	there were
seven seats 	on the unit 	3 	council.7
Institutional 	teachers 	and 	their 	allies 	consistently 	have
held voting control 	of the unit 	3 	council. 	Although teachers 	in
7The 	seats were distributed as 	follows: 	One 	seat
representing 	teachers 	and 	instructors 	in the Department 	of
Corrections; 	one 	seat representing teachers 	and 	instructors 	in
the California Youth Authority; 	one 	seat 	representing teachers 	in
the 	special 	schools 	operated by the Department of 	Education; 	one
seat representing consultants, 	field representatives 	and
specialists working 	in the Department of 	Education, 	the
Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 	the Chancellor's 	Office 	for
the 	community 	colleges, 	and the Commission on Post-Secondary
Education; 	one 	seat representing librarians, 	instructors 	at the
California Maritime Academy, 	and archivists; 	one 	seat
representing 	teachers 	at 	the 	Department of 	Developmental 	Services
and Department 	of Mental 	Health; 	and one 	seat representing a
special 	group known as Chapter 	760.
Chapter 	760 	was 	a group that 	existed 	independently of 	CSEA
prior to the commencement of 	collective bargaining. 	It was 	a
statewide 	organization known as 	the 	California 	State 	Educators
Teachers Association. 	As 	a result of 	an affiliation agreement
with CSEA, 	these teachers 	also were given a 	seat on the unit 	3
council.
13

the 	special 	schools 	and 	in the 	Department 	of 	Developmental
Services 	and 	Department 	of 	Mental 	Health 	do 	not 	have 	exactly 	the
same concerns 	as those in the 	correctional 	facilities, 	their
interests 	traditionally 	have 	been more 	closely 	aligned with 	their
fellow teachers than with consultants. 	In addition, 	the
Department of Corrections 	employs more than 20 	librarians 	in its
various prisons. 	These 	librarians have 	interests 	similar to
those of 	teachers 	in the 	correctional 	institutions. 	Therefore,
the person representing 	librarians 	on the unit 	3 	council 	often
votes with the 	institutional 	representatives.
From the beginning, 	the bargaining unit has 	evidenced 	a 	lack
of 	internal 	cohesion. 	During the 	first round of 	negotiations,
bargaining 	team members 	from the 	Department 	of 	Corrections 	and
the 	Youth Authority 	along with 	some 	teachers 	in the 	Department 	of
Education had concerns about physical 	safety, 	safety alarms,
class 	size 	and other 	issues 	that were 	of 	no 	interest 	to 	the
consultants 	employed 	in the Department of Education. 	A unit 	3
negotiator during 	that 	first 	round 	testified that 	it 	required 	"a
great deal of discussion, 	a great deal of arm-twisting 	. 	. 	.
among ourselves" 	to reach a 	consensus 	on a 	first agreement.
The problems 	that 	surfaced during the 	first 	round 	of
negotiations 	have 	remained unabated. 	A 	series 	of witnesses
presented 	a picture 	of 	constant 	internal 	strife among members 	of
the unit 	3 	bargaining council. 	Perry Kenny, 	the current chairman
of the unit 	3 	council and a teacher in a 	state prison, 	testified
14

that he was 	surprised when he 	joined the 	council 	in 	1987 	to
discover the 	internal division. 	He 	explained:
I 	thought 	that 	everyone had the 	same
concerns, 	and 	I 	realized that we had these
institutional people on one 	side, 	these
people 	that weren't 	institutional 	people 	on
the other 	side, 	and they were 	squabbling over
what 	issues 	that were 	going to 	end up 	on the
bargaining 	table.
Following the pattern 	set 	in the 	first 	round of
negotiations, 	each 	subgroup within the unit has 	maintained 	its
own 	set 	of 	issues which typically are 	of very 	little 	interest 	to
other groups. 	For consultants, 	the primary issues over the years
have been office space, 	travel reimbursement, 	salaries,
involuntary 	transfers 	and maintenance 	of 	minimum qualifications.
For institutional 	teachers, 	the primary issues 	have been personal
safety, 	class 	size and enhanced 	safety retirement. 	A review of
these 	issues 	reveals 	the depth of disagreement among 	the various
factions within unit 	3.
Because 	of 	their cramped 	and 	noisy working 	conditions,
consultants 	are deeply interested in office 	space. 	In 	1985, 	they
proposed 	a 	contractual provision that 	each 	consultant be 	given
100 	square 	feet 	for work location. 	The 	issue was 	dropped during
negotiations 	because 	the unit 	3 	bargaining team concluded 	it was
not as 	high a priority as 	the 	safety concerns 	of 	other unit
members. 	Consultants 	raised the 	issue again during the 	1988
negotiations, 	but once more 	it was 	dropped because of more
pressing concerns 	of 	institutional 	teachers. 	Unit 	3 	negotiator
Barbara Wilson, 	a consultant, 	described the problem as 	follows:
15

. 	. 	. when you prioritize, 	a hundred square
feet 	of 	office 	space 	is 	just not as 	sexy an
item as 	whether or not you're 	liable to 	get
stabbed 	in the 	classroom.
Because of 	their heavy travel 	requirements, 	consultants 	have
a 	keen 	interest 	in travel 	reimbursement. 	One 	issue 	consultants
have 	sought 	is 	reimbursement 	for traveling 	employees who make
family 	telephone 	calls while 	away 	from home. 	Although
consultants 	have believed this 	necessary 	to maintain a proper
family relationship, 	the proposal has 	never made 	it out of the
unit 	3 	bargaining 	committee.
The most 	serious rift 	ever to occur among unit 	3 	members
concerned 	a 	travel-related 	issue during 	the 	1987 	negotiations.
By 	late August, 	the 	State had reached agreement with most 	other
bargaining units. 	Those agreements 	established new, 	higher rates
for travel 	reimbursement. 	The 	consultants were ready to accept
the 	same deal with the State and 	sign the 	contract. 	However,
correctional 	and Youth Authority 	employees wanted 	to 	hold 	out.
A tentative 	agreement 	for unit 	3 was 	rejected by the members,
largely 	on the votes 	of 	institutional 	teachers.
When bargaining 	resumed, 	the 	State 	unyieldingly maintained
that 	it would not 	retroactively reimburse unit 	3 	members 	for
travel 	expenses 	at 	the newly negotiated rates. 	The 	State 	adhered
to 	its 	position 	and 	travel 	reimbursement was 	not 	made 	retroactive
when 	the parties 	ultimately 	reached 	agreement 	the 	following
January.
From August until January, 	consultants 	traveled with 	a 	lower
rate of 	reimbursement than all other State employees. 	This
16

financial 	loss 	deeply angered 	consultants 	and 	employees 	in
related classes. 	However, 	the State's refusal to make
retroactive payments 	for 	travel 	had virtually no 	effect 	on the
institutional 	teachers who 	had 	scuttled 	the August 	tentative
agreement. 	Because 	institutional 	teachers 	travel 	only rarely,
changes 	in State 	travel 	reimbursement 	rates 	are of 	little
interest 	to 	them.
Consultants 	also have been at odds with other unit 	3 	members
over 	salaries. 	Prior to collective bargaining, 	the State
Personnel 	Board 	established 	a 	relationship 	between 	consultant
salaries 	and the 	salaries 	of 	certain 	school 	administrators 	in
bench mark 	school districts. 	The relationship has 	not been
maintained 	since 	the 	commencement 	of 	collective 	bargaining.
However, 	consultants 	have been unable 	to 	secure 	support within
the unit 	3 	bargaining council 	for an adjustment to restore this
relationship. 	Barbara Wilson testified that 	she did not 	even
bring up 	the 	issue 	in 	1987 	because 	the 	council would not have
supported 	it:
[The unit] 	was 	so badly divided that to ask
for more money 	for what 	is 	in effect the
highest paid group 	of professionals 	in the
bargaining unit, 	there wouldn't have been any
way that 	I 	could have 	convinced them to go
along with that.
Ms. 	Wilson testified that over the years there have been
expressions 	of 	antagonism toward 	the 	consultants 	"because 	of 	the
salaries" 	and because others 	in the unit 	see the consultants 	as
having the 	"nicer 	job."
17

Two 	other 	issues 	of 	concern to 	consultants 	have been
maintenance 	of 	minimum qualifications 	and 	involuntary 	transfers.
Consultants 	have been concerned 	that 	Department 	of 	Education
hiring practices 	are 	eroding professional 	standards 	for 	their
jobs. 	They are 	opposed 	to 	any attempt by the department 	to 	relax
minimum 	job qualifications. 	Ms. 	Wilson testified that 	job
qualifications 	have been on her agenda during 	every 	round 	of
negotiations 	but 	she has 	always 	dropped the 	issue because 	of 	more
pressing 	concerns 	from the 	institutional 	teachers.
Consultants 	also have 	desired 	limits 	on the 	State's 	ability
to 	involuntarily transfer them on one day's 	notice 	to 	any
position within their 	job class. 	A proposal 	to 	limit 	the 	State's
discretion 	stayed on the 	table 	"down to 	the 	crunch period" 	during
the 	last 	round of negotiations. 	But 	it did not 	survive,
Ms. 	Wilson testified, 	because there was no support 	from the
institutional teachers.
Personal 	safety has 	been one of 	the 	major 	concerns 	of
teachers 	in correctional 	and Youth Authority 	institutions. 	As 	a
result of 	their pressure, 	the 	last three 	contracts between the
State 	and 	CSEA have provided 	for 	the 	issuance 	of personal 	alarms
to institutional teachers, 	where 	funding permits. 	This was a
major 	issue 	in the 	1985 	negotiations 	and 	the Department 	of
Corrections has made a commitment, 	outside the contract, 	to
provide 	each employee with a personal 	safety alarm. 	However, 	not
all unit 	3 	members have alarms 	at all 	institutions. 	This
18

deficiency continues 	to be a 	cause of 	concern to 	institutional
teachers 	and a 	subject which they raise during negotiations.
Another 	safety 	issue of 	concern to 	institutional 	teachers 	is
class 	size. 	Because of their wide range of ability 	levels,
students 	in correctional 	institutions 	often require 	a high 	level
of personal 	attention. 	Yet in a large class, 	where many 	students
need heavy amounts 	of personal 	attention, 	it 	is 	difficult 	for
teachers 	to maintain the required, 	high level of vigilance. 	For
this 	reason, 	correctional 	and Youth Authority teachers 	see 	class
size 	as 	a 	safety 	issue 	and 	consistently press 	during 	negotiations
for 	lowered 	class 	sizes.
Class 	size was 	a major issue in 	1985, 	and in 	1987 	it was 	the
most 	important 	issue to 	institutional 	employees. 	Class 	size
remained on the 	table as 	an 	issue until 	the very 	end of 	the 	1987
negotiations. 	A 	settlement 	occurred 	only after
away-from-the-table 	discussions 	about 	class 	size 	resulted 	in a
side 	agreement 	between CSEA and 	officials 	from the 	Department 	of
Corrections 	and the 	Youth Authority.
The 	other 	issue of 	continuing 	concern to 	teachers 	in the
Department 	of 	Corrections 	and Youth Authority 	is 	enhanced 	safety
retirement. 	Although the unit 	3 members who work for Corrections
and 	the 	Youth Authority 	already participate 	in a 	safety
retirement program, 	the 	level 	of their benefits 	remains 	lower
than those 	of 	correctional 	officers with whom they work. 	This
difference 	in retirement plans 	is 	a 	continuing 	source of
irritation for the affected unit 	3 	employees.
19

There has 	been a proposal 	in 	every round of 	negotiations
since 	CSEA became 	exclusive 	representative 	to 	rectify 	this
situation. 	CSEA consistently has 	attempted to 	secure 	the 	same
retirement benefits 	for unit 	3 	members 	employed 	in the
correctional 	agencies 	as 	are 	enjoyed by the peace 	officers who
work there. 	During the 	last two 	negotiations 	CSEA also has
sought 	regular 	safety retirement 	for unit 	3 	members 	employed 	in
the Department of Developmental 	Services 	and the Department 	of
Mental 	Health. 	Although this 	issue 	is 	of no 	interest 	to
consultants 	and related classes, 	unit 	3 	institutional members
have 	been 	sufficiently 	strong 	to 	ensure 	that 	the 	issue 	remains 	on
the 	table 	throughout negotiations.
The 	loss 	of 	travel pay which the 	consultants 	suffered as 	a
result of 	the 	1987 	contract rejection brought 	about a deep 	if 	not
irreparable division among the members 	of unit 	3. 	By 	late 	1987
the division among unit 	3 	council members was 	so pervasive that
they 	found 	it 	impossible 	to work together. 	Members were
considering 	filing 	internal 	charges within CSEA because 	of 	events
resulting 	from their broad division. 	One member of 	the 	council
became 	so 	discouraged 	over 	the bickering among 	team members 	that
she quit the council.8
The CSEA 	staff 	employee assigned to assist 	the unit 	3
council 	got caught up 	in the 	strife. 	When he 	sided with the
noninstitutional members 	of the council on a key issue, 	the
88After she left, 	the 	institutional members 	of the council
controlled 	four votes. 	There was 	one vote representing 	the
consultants 	and 	there was 	one vote 	that 	shifted back and 	forth.
20

institutional 	members 	had 	him dismissed 	from his 	position 	as
council 	representative. 	Ultimately the 	two 	groups 	agreed to 	seek
a division of 	the 	unit. 	It was 	only after they agreed to 	the
separation that 	they were 	able 	to work together with 	sufficient
harmony 	to 	enter an agreement with 	the 	State 	in January of 	1988.
LEGAL 	ISSUE
Should State unit 	3 	be divided 	into 	two 	separate bargaining
units?
CONCLUSIONS 	OF 	LAW
Unit determination criteria under the Ralph C. 	Dills Act9
are 	set out at 	section 3521.10 The 	statute directs 	that 	the PERB
in determining 	an appropriate unit 	shall 	take 	into 	consideration:
(b)(l) 	The internal 	and occupational
community of 	interest among the 	employees,
including, 	but not limited to, 	the extent to
which 	they perform 	functionally 	related
services 	or work 	toward 	established 	common
goals; 	the history of 	employee representation
in 	state government 	and 	in 	similar
employment; 	the extent to which the 	employees
have common skills, 	working conditions, 	job
duties, 	or similar educational or training
requirements; 	and the extent to which the
employees 	have 	common 	supervision.
(2) 	The effect that the projected unit will
have 	on the meet 	and 	confer relationships,
emphasizing 	the 	availability 	and 	authority 	of
employer representatives 	to deal 	effectively
with 	employee 	organizations 	representing 	the
unit, 	and taking 	into account 	such factors 	as
work location, 	the numerical 	size of the
9The Dills Act, 	which 	formerly was 	known as 	the 	State
Employer-Employee Relations Act, 	is 	found in Government Code
section 	3512 	et 	seq.
21
10All 	references 	are 	to 	the Government Code unless 	otherwise
indicated.

unit, 	the relationship of the unit to
organizational patterns 	of 	the 	state
government, 	and the 	effect on the existing
classification 	structure 	or 	existing
classification 	schematic 	of 	dividing 	a 	single
class 	or 	single 	classification 	schematic
among two or more units.
(3) 	The effect of 	the proposed unit on
efficient 	operations 	of 	the 	employer and 	the
compatibility of 	the 	unit with 	the
responsibility 	of 	state 	government 	and 	its
employees 	to 	serve the public.
(4) 	The number of employees and
classifications 	in a proposed unit and 	its
effect on the operations 	of the employer, 	on
the 	objectives 	of providing the 	employees 	the
right to 	effective representation, 	and on the
meet 	and 	confer 	relationship.
(5) 	The 	impact on the meet and confer
relationship 	created by 	fragmentation 	of
employees 	or any proliferation of 	units 	among
the employees 	of 	the 	employer.
In Unit 	Determination 	for the 	State 	of 	California 	(1979)
PERB Decision No. 	110-S, 	the Board created 20 units 	for meeting
and 	conferring between the 	State 	and 	its 	civil 	service work
force. 	Among these was 	unit 	3, 	the Education and Library Unit.
The 	Board was 	brief 	in its 	discussion of 	the 	factors 	justifying
the creation of unit 	3. 	It found, 	first, 	that 	since all
employees 	in the unit 	are 	licensed or hold advanced degrees, 	they
are 	entitled to 	a 	separate unit 	as professionals 	under 	section
3521(c). 	It then concluded that 	"as 	employees who deliver
related educational 	services, 	including teaching, 	consulting, 	and
library 	services, 	they clearly 	share common interests 	and goals."
The 	Board 	concluded 	that 	although 	education 	and 	library
employees work in a variety of 	State 	institutions, 	they are
22

"distinct" 	from other staff. 	The Board 	found that members 	of the
unit 	"do 	not participate on a daily basis" 	in the 	care provided
by 	the 	institutions 	where 	they are 	employed. 	For this 	reason the
Board 	concluded 	that 	education and 	library 	employees 	do 	not
belong 	in the 	same units 	as 	the 	institutional 	employees. 	The
Board 	found, 	further, 	that 	librarians 	and 	institutional 	teachers
share 	a 	community of 	interest with 	consultants 	because 	all
perform 	tasks 	related 	to 	education. 	The 	Board 	concluded 	that 	all
members 	of the unit 	"share 	concern on issues 	such as 	class 	size,
safety 	conditions 	and professional 	development."
The parties 	have no 	significant disagreement 	about 	the
applicable rules 	of 	law. 	They agree that a 	change 	in PERB
regulations 	eliminated a 	one-time 	requirement 	that 	a party
seeking a unit modification demonstrate 	a 	"change 	in
circumstances."11 They also are 	in basic 	agreement 	about 	the
burden of 	proof which must 	be 	met 	by 	the party 	seeking 	to 	modify
an 	existing unit.
11The requirement was 	found 	in a 	resolution adopted by 	the
Educational 	Employment Relations 	Board, 	predecessor to the PERB,
on July 	7, 	1976. 	The resolution provided that petitions 	for
changes 	in unit 	determinations 	under Educational 	Employment
Relations Act 	section 	3541.3(e) 	would be 	entertained by the 	Board
only:
1. 	Where both parties 	jointly file the petition; 	or
2. 	Where there has been a change in the circumstances
which existed 	at 	the 	time 	of 	the 	initial unit
determination.
The 	resolution 	ceased 	to 	have 	effect when the 	Board 	later 	adopted
rules 	providing 	for unit 	modification.
23

The 	State argues 	that 	a party 	seeking to modify one 	of 	the
20 	existing State bargaining units 	must overcome 	the presumptive
correctness 	of the 	Board-created units. 	Prior unit
determinations are binding, 	the State argues, 	"to the extent that
circumstances 	are the 	same 	and the Board's 	precedent 	is 	the
same," 	citing Regents 	of 	the University of California 	(1986) 	PERB
Decision No. 	586-H.
CSEA makes 	no 	comment 	on the presumptive 	correctness 	of 	the
prior decision. 	However, 	CSEA argues, 	conclusions 	reached by the
Board 	in 	its 	original 	decision 	"do not 	comport" 	with the present
situation. 	CSEA points 	to 	evidence 	introduced at the hearing
which 	it 	finds 	conclusive proof that the unit, 	as now
constituted, 	is not marked by a community of 	interest. 	In
effect, 	CSEA sets out evidence which 	it believes would overcome
any presumption 	in 	favor of 	the 	existing unit.
I 	believe that the rule proposed by the State, 	and
implicitly accepted by CSEA, 	is 	correct. 	There is 	a rebuttable
presumption 	in favor of 	the 	20 	bargaining units 	created by the
Board 	in Unit 	Determination 	for the 	State of California, 	supra.
PERB Decision No. 	110-S. 	The presumption is akin to that 	set out
for public 	school 	classified 	employee 	units 	in Livermore Valley
Joint Unified School District 	(1981) 	PERB Decision No. 	165. 	In
the absence of 	evidence the proposed new units 	are 	"a more
appropriate 	grouping," 	the 	existing 	Board-created unit must 	be
maintained. 	Id. 	I 	conclude that CSEA has produced evidence
sufficient 	to 	overcome the presumption.
24

Without doubt, 	there 	is 	some commonality among the members
of unit 	3. 	As 	noted by the Board 	in its 	original unit
determination, 	unit members 	uniformly possess 	a high 	level 	of
education 	and 	the 	vast 	majority hold 	state 	teaching 	or
administrative 	credentials. 	They 	share a 	common 	interest 	in
education at 	either the 	administrative 	or teaching 	level.
Despite these 	similarities, 	unit 	3 members have pronounced
differences. 	Although all 	unit members have a 	common interest 	in
education, 	it cannot be 	said that 	consultants 	and 	institutional
teachers 	perform 	"functionally related 	services." 	There 	is 	very
little, 	if any, 	coordination between the tasks of consultants 	in
the 	Department of 	Education and teachers 	in the Department 	of
Corrections. 	Department of 	Education consultants 	doubtlessly
have 	a 	closer 	functional 	relationship with teachers 	in
California's 	public 	school 	districts 	than with teachers 	in 	state
institutions. 	The 	functional 	relationship 	for 	institutional
teachers 	is with the administrators 	of 	the 	institutions where
they teach, 	not with Department of Education consultants.
While 	consultants 	and 	institutional 	teachers 	may 	share
similar educational backgrounds, 	the 	skill 	levels 	required 	for
the two 	jobs 	are quite different. 	The ability to teach a
functionally 	illiterate adult prison inmate to 	read 	is 	a 	quite
different 	skill 	than what 	is 	required to 	analyze a 	school
district's records 	to 	see if 	it is 	in compliance with 	state
fiscal requirements.
25

Consultants 	and 	institutional 	teachers 	also 	labor 	in
strikingly different working conditions. 	The 	teachers work 	in
classrooms 	or vocational 	shops. 	The consultants work in cramped,
noisy office 	cubicles. 	Distressed about their working
conditions, 	consultants have pressed for minimal 	square 	footage
around their work 	stations. 	Institutional 	teachers 	have 	no
interest 	in this 	problem.
The 	different work environment 	is 	seen also 	in the degree 	of
danger 	in which the 	two groups work. 	Correctional 	and Youth
Authority 	teachers 	experience danger 	to 	their personal 	safety by
close 	contact with persons 	convicted of 	crimes. 	They want
improved 	safety alarms 	and 	equipment 	for 	self-protection. 	They
are 	joined 	in this 	concern by teachers 	in the 	Department 	of
Mental 	Health which has 	an 	increasing number of 	Penal 	Code
commitments. 	Teachers 	of the developmentally disabled, 	who are
often assaulted by their charges, 	also 	are 	concerned about
safety. 	Even teachers 	in the 	schools 	for the blind 	and deaf 	and
the 	special 	schools 	have 	occasional 	safety concerns. 	Consultants
have 	no 	safety 	concerns 	greater than those 	of 	any office worker
in an 	increasingly violent 	society.
Contrary to what 	the Board concluded 	in 	1979, 	experience has
shown that 	institutional 	teachers 	have a high 	level 	of
interaction with 	employees 	in the 	institutions 	where 	they work.
They 	are 	involved 	in the 	correctional 	and 	treatment 	functions 	of
their 	institutions. 	Teachers 	in correctional 	institutions
perceive 	their 	custodial 	duties 	as 	their primary 	function with
26

teaching 	secondary. 	They 	identify 	themselves 	closely with 	the
Department of 	Corrections 	and 	its 	mission.12 In this 	identity
with the mission of 	their agencies, 	institutional teachers 	have
more 	in 	common with 	other teachers 	than they do with 	consultants
working 	in offices 	in Sacramento.
The 	custodial 	function of 	correctional 	teachers 	and 	their
association with 	correctional 	officers 	also 	gives 	rise 	to 	their
desire 	for 	enhanced 	safety 	retirement. 	They associate with 	and
share the risks 	of correctional officers. 	Yet, 	they do not 	share
their retirement benefits. 	Since 	the beginning of 	collective
bargaining, 	teachers 	in correctional 	institutions 	have pressed
for 	enhanced 	safety retirement. 	This 	is 	an issue of no 	interest
to 	consultants 	and related 	classes.
Safety concerns, 	in the guise of class 	size, 	give rise to
another 	example 	of 	the 	lack of 	commonality between the
institutional 	teachers 	and 	the 	consultants 	and 	related groups.
Institutional 	teachers do not 	see 	class 	size 	in 	its 	traditional
public 	school 	context as 	a workload issue. 	Rather, 	they 	see 	it
as 	a 	safety issue. 	The more inmates they have to deal with, 	the
greater the risk to their personal 	safety. 	They press,
therefore, 	for class 	size 	limits 	and exemptions 	as 	another 	safety
issue. 	This 	is 	an issue of no 	interest to the 	consultants 	and
related 	classes.
12This 	close 	identity was 	seen with CSEA witness 	Perry
Kenny, 	a Department of Corrections teacher. 	Mr. 	Kenny wore a
Department of Corrections 	tie pin at various 	times 	during the
hearing. 	R.T. Vol. 	2, p. 	144.
27

Consultants, 	by contrast, 	have a 	substantial interest in
travel 	reimbursement. 	A primary working 	condition of 	their 	jobs
is 	a heavy travel requirement. 	It 	is their regular goal to
ensure 	that 	they are 	fully 	compensated 	for 	their 	expenses.
Institutional teachers, 	who never travel, 	have no interest in
this 	issue.
Salary 	rates 	constitute 	another 	striking 	difference. between
consultants 	and 	institutional 	teachers. 	The 	education and
credential 	requirements 	for 	consultants 	historically 	have 	been
tied to 	school administrators. 	As 	a result, 	they have 	enjoyed
higher rates 	of 	compensation 	fixed 	in a 	loose 	relationship with
administrators 	in public 	school districts. 	Since the advent 	of
collective bargaining, 	however, 	this relationship has 	slipped.
It 	is 	an issue of 	considerable 	importance to consultants but of
no 	interest at all to institutional 	teachers. 	Indeed, 	the
evidence 	indicates 	that 	institutional 	teachers 	have 	some
antipathy 	toward 	the 	consultants 	for the 	high 	salaries 	they
already 	enjoy.
Perhaps 	no 	factor more 	clearly 	shows 	the 	lack of 	community
of 	interest among the members 	of unit 	3 	as 	now constituted than
the 	history 	of 	representation. 	The differing working 	conditions
among the various 	unit members 	have 	led to differing goals 	in
negotiations. 	The differing goals 	in negotiations 	have 	led to
differing 	strategies 	for achieving 	those 	goals. 	As 	the 	smaller
group, 	the 	consultants 	and related 	classes 	repeatedly have 	found
issues 	of 	importance 	to 	them pushed 	aside by 	the 	institutional
28

teachers. 	The institutional teachers, 	on the other hand, 	have
held out 	to 	advocate 	their 	issues 	even when the 	effect has 	been
actual 	financial 	losses 	for the 	consultants.
The 	failure 	to agree on common goals 	and 	strategy has 	led to
great divisiveness 	among 	the 	various 	constituencies 	within the
unit. 	Bargaining 	council members 	have argued at 	length with 	each
other over negotiating goals. 	Council members have become 	so
tired of 	the 	in-fighting that 	they have 	quit the 	council.
Members 	have 	threatened 	to 	file 	charges 	against 	each 	other under
CSEA's 	internal 	disciplinary policy. 	A CSEA 	staff 	member was
fired 	from his 	job with 	the 	council when he 	got 	caught up 	in the
internecine 	struggle.13
This 	continuing 	internal 	turmoil 	clearly affects 	the
bargaining relationship between CSEA and the 	State. 	It 	affects
the positions 	taken at the negotiating table, 	the vote on
tentative agreements 	and the prospects 	for a harmonious
relationship.
13In an 	effort 	to demonstrate that CSEA has 	been able 	to
bridge the 	internal divisions, 	the 	State points 	to a message to
unit members 	in the CSEA-printed 	copy of 	the most 	recent
contract. 	The message was written by Perry Kenny, 	chairperson of
the unit 3 council. 	In his message, 	Mr. 	Kenny describes the
willingness 	of union team members 	to 	engage 	in an 	internal 	give-
and-take, 	to 	learn 	"to appreciate one another for our
differences" 	and to 	"work for the common good."
Rather than evidence 	of 	the union's 	success 	in 	closing
differences, 	I 	find the message to be an attempt to put the best
face on well-known internal divisions. 	The protestations 	of
solidarity were 	obviously designed 	to 	address what 	the 	author
believed were widely perceived beliefs 	about 	the 	negotiating
team. 	I 	find the testimony at the hearing to be 	far more
persuasive 	than the post-negotiations 	puffery.
29

The 	State points 	to the 	various 	agreements 	which have been
reached 	between the parties 	and 	finds 	unit-wide 	application 	in 	a
number of 	contractual clauses. 	The 	State also argues 	that the
"overwhelming majority" 	of 	all 	CSEA bargaining proposals 	for
unit 	3 pertain to all bargaining unit members. 	The State 	finds 	a
commonality 	of 	interests 	in the wide 	applicability 	of 	numerous
clauses 	and 	the 	commonality of bargaining proposals.
. . 4 . . add 4 .
As CSEA argues, 	and the evidence 	shows, 	there 	is 	far less
commonality 	in the proposals 	and 	contract provisions 	than the
State 	suggests. 	Although many proposals 	and contract provisions
on their 	face apply to all 	members 	of 	the unit, 	the actual 	effect
may be much narrower. 	The travel 	reimbursement provisions, 	for
example, 	apply 	literally to all within the unit. 	But 	they affect
only those who travel. 	In addition, 	many of the provisions 	in
the unit 	3 	contract are 	common to all 	contracts 	CSEA has with the
State. 	This 	commonality does 	not establish that all 	employees 	in
the CSEA units 	could properly be placed 	in one unit.
Finally, 	the State argues that the division of unit 	3 would
have 	adverse 	effects 	upon the 	meet 	and 	confer relationship 	and
lead to 	the 	fragmentation of 	State bargaining units. 	The 	State
contends 	that 	the 	new group would be 	composed 	of 	approximately
500 	employees, 	diminishing the relative bargaining 	strength of
its 	members. 	The State argues 	that division of 	the unit along
departmental 	lines 	would 	lead 	to 	"over-proliferation of
bargaining units with varying 	contractual 	rights," 	a prospect 	the
State 	describes 	as 	"an unmanageable nightmarish reality."
30

CSEA observes 	that 	the 	State produced 	no 	evidence 	regarding
"[t]he 	effect 	that the projected unit will 	have on the
[employer's] 	meet and confer relationships 	. 	. 	. 	,"14 "[t]he
effect 	of 	the proposed unit 	on 	efficient 	operations 	of 	the
employer 	. 	. 	. 	,15	
" 	and "[t]he number of employees and
classifications 	in a proposed unit 	and 	its 	effect on the
operations of the employer 	. 	. 	. 	."l6 In addition, 	I would note,
the 	State 	also presented no 	evidence 	on 	"[t]he 	impact 	on the 	meet
and 	confer 	relationship 	created by 	fragmentation of 	employees 	or
any proliferation of units 	among the employees 	of 	the
employer. "17
15
In the absence of evidence, 	it 	is 	not 	immediately apparent
how the 	creation of 	an additional 	unit would adversely affect
meet-and-confer relationships. 	Given the history of 	the
relationship between the State and unit 	3, 	one 	could 	just as
easily 	infer that 	creation of 	a 	new unit would make 	the
bargaining 	relationship 	smoother.
It 	likewise 	is 	not 	apparent how the 	creation of 	a new unit
would adversely 	affect the 	State 	in 	its 	efforts 	to 	serve 	the
public. 	Nor 	is 	there any inherent problem which 	stems 	from the
relatively 	small 	size of the unit. 	At roughly 	500 members, 	a
14Section 3521(b) (2) .
15Section 3521(b) (3) .
16Section 3521 (b) (4) .
17Section 3521(b) (5) .
31

unit 	of 	educational 	consultants 	and 	related 	classes 	would 	not 	be
the 	smallest 	state 	employee bargaining unit.1 8
Finally, 	the State's worries 	of an 	"over-proliferation of
bargaining units" 	becoming 	"an unmanageable 	nightmarish 	reality"
seem highly 	exaggerated. 	One additional unit 	is 	not a
proliferation. 	Proposals 	to 	create other new bargaining units
will 	all be 	required to 	overcome 	the presumption 	in 	favor of 	the
Board-created bargaining units. 	In any event, 	there 	is 	no basis
in this 	record 	for 	concluding 	that 	granting CSEA's 	petition will
lead 	to 	a proliferation of bargaining units.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, 	I 	conclude that CSEA's petition to divide
unit 	3 	into two units 	should be granted. 	The new units 	shall be
a 	newly constituted unit 	3, 	Institutional 	Education, 	and a newly
created unit 21, 	Educational Consultant, 	Library and Maritime.
These 	groupings 	separate 	the 	employees 	according to
community of 	interest criteria. 	Unit 	3, 	as newly constituted,
will 	allow institutional 	teachers 	and related 	classes 	to pursue
their 	common 	concerns 	about 	safety 	and 	retirement 	parity with
correctional 	employees. 	The new unit 	21 will 	allow consultants
and related 	classes 	to 	seek restoration of 	their historic 	salary
linkage with public 	school 	administrators 	and 	seek 	improvements
in their working 	conditions. 	Because of 	their higher 	salaries
18Unit 	13, 	Stationary Engineer, 	has 472 members. 	Only
slightly larger are Unit 	14, 	Printing Trades, 	with 793 members
and Unit 	16, 	Physician/Dentist/Podiatrist, 	with 977 members. 	See
PERB document, 	"Units in Place," 	2/27/89.
32

and the 	absence of 	safety concerns, 	faculty members 	at the
California 	Maritime Academy 	share 	a 	greater 	common 	interest with
consultants 	than with institutional 	teachers. 	Accordingly, 	they
should be placed 	in the 	new unit 	21.
PROPOSED 	ORDER
For 	these 	reasons 	and based upon the 	entire 	record 	in this
case, 	it hereby is ORDERED that:
1. 	Unit 	3 	shall be modified to include teachers 	and related
staff, 	including librarians, 	in the institutions under the
auspices 	of the Departments of Corrections, 	Youth Authority,
Developmental 	Services, 	Mental 	Health and Education. 	Included 	in
this 	group 	shall be 	all 	teaching and related 	staff 	in the 	special
and diagnostic 	schools. 	Job 	classifications 	to be 	included 	in
the 	newly modified unit 	3 	are 	listed 	in Appendix A, 	attached 	to
this 	proposed decision.
2. 	A new unit 	21 	shall be established to 	include
educational consultants, 	field representatives, 	specialists,
librarians, 	archivists 	and related 	staff who work in the
Departments 	of 	Education, 	the Office of the Chancellor of 	the
California Community Colleges, 	the California Post-secondary
Education Commission, 	the Commission on Teacher Credentialing
together with the 	faculty 	and 	staff 	at 	the 	California Maritime
Academy. 	Job 	classifications 	to be 	included 	in the 	newly 	created
unit 	21 	are 	listed 	in Appendix B, 	attached to this proposed
decision.
33

Pursuant to California Administrative Code, 	title 	8,
part 	III, 	section 32305, 	this Proposed Decision and Order shall
become 	final 	unless 	a party 	files 	a 	statement 	of 	exceptions 	with
the 	Board 	itself 	at 	the headquarters 	office 	in Sacramento within
20 	days 	of 	service of this 	Decision. 	In accordance with PERB
Regulations, 	the 	statement of 	exceptions 	should 	identify by page
citation or exhibit number the portions 	of 	the record, 	if 	any,
relied upon 	for 	such 	exceptions. 	See California Administrative
Code, 	title 8, 	part III, 	section 32300. 	A document is considered
"filed" 	when actually received before 	the 	close 	of 	business
(5:00 p.m.) 	on the last day set for filing, 	". 	. 	. o r when sent
by 	telegraph or 	certified 	or 	Express 	United 	States 	mail,
postmarked not later than the last day set for filing 	. 	. 	. 	."
See California Administrative Code, 	title 8, 	part III,
section 	32135. 	Code of Civil 	Procedure 	section 	1013 	shall 	apply.
Any 	statement 	of 	exceptions 	and 	supporting brief 	must 	be 	served
concurrently with 	its 	filing upon 	each party to 	this 	proceeding.
Proof 	of 	service 	shall 	accompany 	each 	copy 	served 	on a party 	or
filed with the 	Board 	itself. 	See 	California Administrative 	Code,
title 8, 	part III, 	sections 32300, 	32305 and 32140.
Dated: 	June 	12, 	1989
Ronald E. 	Blubaugh
Administrative 	Law 	Judge
34

APPENDIX A
INSTITUTIONAL 	EDUCATION UNIT 	3
Schematic
Code Class
Code
Job
Description
FF35 	2727 	Language, 	Speech and Hearing Specialist
FM55 	2952 	Librarian - 	Correctional Facility
EA22 	2283 	Reading 	Specialist, 	Remedial 	and 	Development
Education Programs, 	Youth Authority
FF30 	2734 	Resource Specialist, 	Special Education
XM50 	9854 	School 	Psychologist
FM45 	2945 	Senior Librarian 	- 	Correctional 	Facility
EB10 	2351 	Substitute 	Teacher 	Intermittent
NEOO 	2327 	Substitute Teacher, 	Department of Education -
VII 	4(1)
NE15 	6077 	Supervising 	Teacher 	Specialist/Diagnostic
School/Department of Education - VII 	4(1)
NE05 	7894 	Supervising 	Teacher 	Specialist/School 	for
Blind/Department of Education - VII 	4(1)
NE10 	6075 	Supervising 	Teacher 	Specialist/School 	for
Deaf/Department of Education - VII 	4(I)
EC32 	2288 	Teacher 	(Emotionally/Learning 	Handicapped)
(Correctional 	Facility)
EC12 	2373 	Teacher 	(Hearing 	Impaired) 	(Correctional
Facility)
EB63 	2859 	Teacher 	(Industrial Arts) 	(Correctional
Facility)
EB91 	2371 	Teacher 	(Speech 	Development 	and 	Correction)
(Correctional 	Facility)
EB22 	2284 	Teacher - Arts 	and Crafts 	- 	Correctional
Facility
EB30 	2340 	Teacher - 	Business 	Education
EB32 	2285 	Teacher - 	Business 	Education - 	Correctional
Facility

EB40 	2323 	Teacher 	- 	Elementary 	Education
EB42 	2287 	Teacher 	- 	Elementary Education 	- 	Correctional
Facility
EC30 	2335 	Teacher 	- 	Emotionally Handicapped
EB50 	2312 	Teacher 	- 	High School 	Education
EB51 	2290 	Teacher - 	High School Education -
Correctional 	Facility
EB60 	2376 	Teacher - 	Home Economics
EB62 	2291 	Teacher 	- 	Home Economics 	- Correctional
Facility
EB65 	2354 	Teacher 	- 	Librarian
EB67 	2298 	Teacher 	- 	Librarian - 	Correctional 	Facility
EC20 	2338 	Teacher 	- 	Mentally Retarded Children
EC10 	2326 	Teacher 	- 	Mentally Retarded Deaf 	Children
EB80 	2332 	Teacher - Music
EB82 	2294 	Teacher 	- Music 	- 	Correctional 	Facility
EB70 	2496 	Teacher 	- 	Recreation 	and Physical 	Education
EB72 	2295 	Teacher 	- 	Recreation and Physical 	Education 	-
Correctional 	Facility
EB90 	2318 	Teacher 	- 	Speech 	Development 	and Correction
EC40 	2329 	Teacher 	Orientation and 	Mobility 	for 	the
Blind
EC50 	2328 	Teacher Orientation Center 	for the 	Blind 	-
Typing 	and 	Braille
NEOO 	2321 	Teacher, 	Department of Education - VII 	4(I)
EC35 	2377 	Teacher, 	Department of Health - 	Emotionally
Handicapped
EC25 	2316 	Teacher, 	Department of Health - Mentally
Retarded 	Children
EC36 	2275 	Teacher, 	State Hospital 	(Adult Education)
EB25 	2317 	Teacher, 	State Hospital 	(Arts 	and Crafts)

EC15 	2337 	Teacher, 	State 	Hospital 	(Communication
Handicapped)
EB45 	2319 	Teacher, 	State Hospital 	(Elementary-
Education)
EB48 	2325 	Teacher, 	State Hospital 	(High School
Education)
EB52 	2330 	Teacher, 	State Hospital 	(Home Economics)
EB85 	2335 	Teacher, 	State Hospital 	(Music)
EB97 	2336 	Teacher, 	State 	Hospital 	(Physically
Handicapped)
EB75 	2333 	Teacher, 	State 	Hospital 	(Recreation and
Physical 	Education)
EB93 	2334 	Teacher, 	State 	Hospital 	(Speech Development
and 	Correction)
EC59 	2271 	Teacher, 	State Hospital 	(Learning
Handicapped, 	Developmentally 	Disabled)
EC28 	2273 	Teacher, 	State Hospital 	(Learning
Handicapped, 	Mentally Disabled)
EC28 	2273 	Teacher, 	State 	Hospital 	(Learning
Handicapped, 	Mentally 	Disabled)
EC2 9 	2274 	Teacher, 	State Hospital 	(Severely
Handicapped, 	Mentally)
EC27 	2272 	Teacher, 	State Hospital 	(Severely
Handicapped, 	Developmentally 	Disabled)
ED46 	2853 	Vocational 	Instructor 	(Animal 	Husbandry)
(Correctional 	Facility)
ED77 	2441 	Vocational 	Instructor 	(Barbershop 	Practices)
(Correctional 	Facility)
ED79 	2874 	Vocational 	Instructor 	(Book 	Binders)
(Correctional 	Facility)
ED82 	2854 	Vocational 	Instructor 	(Building 	Maintenance)
(Correctional 	Facility)
EF02 	2855 	Vocational 	Instructor 	(Computer 	Related
Technologies) 	(Correctional 	Facility)

EF32 	2856 	Vocational 	Instructor 	(Diesel 	Mechanic)
(Correctional 	Facility)
EF47 	2857 	Vocational 	Instructor 	(Drywall
Installer/Taper) 	(Correctional 	Facility)
EF66 	2875 	Vocational 	Instructor 	(Farming, 	Diversified
Crops) 	(Correctional Facility)
EF68 	2876 	Vocational 	Instructor 	(Fiberglass 	Technology)
(Correctional 	Facility)
EF72 	2858 	Vocational 	Instructor 	(Floor 	Cover 	Layer)
(Correctional 	Facility)
EF74 	2877 	Vocational 	Instructor 	(Furniture 	Refinishing)
(Correctional 	Facility)
EF80 	2397 	Vocational 	Instructor 	(Garment 	Making)
EF92 	2847 	Vocational 	Instructor 	(Glazier) 	(Correctional
Facility
EG14 	2846 	Vocational 	Instructor 	(Horse 	Trainer)
(Correctional 	Facility)
EG4 7 	2848 	Vocational 	Instructor 	(Insulation 	Installer,
Building and Pipe) 	(Correctional 	Facility)
EG85 	2878 	Vocational 	Instructor 	(Machine 	Shop 	-
Automotive) 	(Correctional Facility)
EI72 	2674 	Vocational 	Instructor 	(Office 	Machine 	Repair)
(Correctional 	Facility)
EH47 	2849 	Vocational 	Instructor 	(Office 	Services 	and
Related Technologies) 	(Correctional 	Facility)
EH83 	2852 	Vocational 	Instructor 	(Printing 	Graphic 	Arts)
(Correctional 	Facility)
EI02 	2850 	Vocational 	Instructor 	(Roofer) 	(Correctional
Facility)
EI47 	2851 	Vocational 	Instructor 	(Small 	Engine 	Repair)
(Correctional 	Facility)
EI48 	2879 	Vocational 	Instructor 	(Solar 	Energy/Alternate
Energy) 	(Correctional Facility)
EI50 	2374 	Vocational 	Instructor 	(Stockkeeping 	and
Warehousing)

ED42 	2387 	Vocational 	Instructor 	- Airframe Mechanics 	-
Correctional 	Facility
ED50 	2 383 	Vocational 	Instructor 	- 	Auto 	Body 	and 	Fender
Repair
ED52 	2396 	Vocational 	Instructor 	- 	Auto 	Body 	and 	Fender
Repair 	- 	Correctional 	Facility
ED62 	2398 	Vocational 	Instructor 	- 	Auto Mechanics 	-
Correctional 	Facility
ED72 	2399 	Vocational 	Instructor 	- 	Baking 	- 	Correctional
Facility
ED92 	2417 	Vocational 	Instructor - 	Carpentry 	-
Correctional 	Facility
EI87 	2419 	Vocational 	Instructor 	- 	Commercial 	Diver
Training 	- 	Correctional 	Facility
EF12 	2420 	Vocational 	Instructor 	- 	Cosmetology 	-
Correctional 	Facility
EF22 	2422 	Vocational 	Instructor 	- 	Culinary Arts 	-
Correctional 	Facility
ED2 7 	242 3 	Vocational 	Instructor 	- 	Dog Grooming and
Handling 	- 	Correctional 	Facility
EF42 	242 5 	Vocational 	Instructor 	- 	Dry Cleaning Work 	-
Correctional 	Facility
EF52 	2426 	Vocational 	Instructor - 	Electrical Work 	-
Correctional 	Facility
EF62 	2428 	Vocational 	Instructor 	- 	Electronics 	-
Correctional 	Facility
EF64 	2688 	Vocational 	Instructor 	- 	Eyewear Manufacturing
- 	Correctional 	Facility
EF82 	2432 	Vocational 	Instructor - 	Garment Making 	-
Correctional 	Facility
EG12 	2433 	Vocational 	Instructor 	- 	Heavy 	Equipment
Repair 	- 	Correctional 	Facility
EG22 	2597 	Vocational 	Instructor 	- 	Household Appliance
Repair 	- 	Correctional 	Facility
EG30 	2372 	Vocational 	Instructor 	- 	Industrial Arts

EG32 	2598 	Vocational 	Instructor 	- 	Industrial Arts 	-
Correctional 	Facility
EG42 	2599 	Vocational 	Instructor 	- 	Instrument 	Repair 	-
Correctional 	Facility
EG52 	2600 	Vocational 	Instructor 	- 	Janitorial 	Service 	-
Correctional 	Facility
EG60 	2435 	Vocational 	Instructor 	- 	Landscape Gardening
EG62 	2601 	Vocational 	Instructor 	- 	Landscape Gardening 	-
Correctional 	Facility
EG82 	2614 	Vocational 	Instructor 	- 	Machine 	Shop
Practices 	- 	Correctional Facility
EG92 	2615 	Vocational 	Instructor 	- Masonry 	-
Correctional 	Facility
EH12 	2619 	Vocational 	Instructor 	- 	Meat Cutting 	-
Correctional 	Facility
EH22 	2627 	Vocational 	Instructor 	- 	Mechanical 	Drawing 	-
Correctional 	Facility
EH32 	2630 	Vocational 	Instructor 	- 	Mill 	and Cabinet Work
- 	Correctional 	Facility
EH52 	2644 	Vocational 	Instructor 	- 	Painting 	-
Correctional 	Facility
EH62 	2645 	Vocational 	Instructor 	- 	Plastering 	-
Correctional 	Facility
EH72 	2661 	Vocational 	Instructor - 	Plumbing 	-
Correctional 	Facility
ED32 	2665 	Vocational 	Instructor 	- 	Power Plant Mechanics
- 	Correctional 	Facility
EH87 	2667 	Vocational 	Instructor 	- 	Radiologic 	Technology
- 	Correctional 	Facility
EH92 	2668 	Vocational 	Instructor 	- 	Refrigeration and Air
Conditioning Repair 	- 	Correctional 	Facility
El12 	2669 	Vocational 	Instructor 	- 	Sewing Machine 	Repair
- 	Correctional 	Facility
EI22 	2670 	Vocational 	Instructor 	- 	Sheet 	Metal 	Work 	-
Correctional 	Facility

EI32 	2671 	Vocational 	Instructor 	- 	Shoemaking 	-
Correctional 	Facility
EI42 	2672 	Vocational 	Instructor 	- 	Silk Screen Processes
- 	Correctional 	Facility
EI52 	2673 	Vocational 	Instructor 	- 	Stockkeeping and
Warehousing 	- 	Correctional 	Facility
EI80 	2406 	Vocational 	Instructor 	- 	Upholstering
EI82 	2675 	Vocational 	Instructor - 	Upholstering 	-
Correctional 	Facility
EJ12 	2676 	Vocational 	Instructor 	- Vocational 	Nursing 	-
Correctional 	Facility
EI92 	2677 	Vocational 	Instructor 	- 	Welding 	-
Correctional 	Facility
EC60 	2311 	Youth Authority 	Teacher

APPENDIX B
EDUCATIONAL CONSULTANT, 	LIBRARY AND MARITIME 	UNIT 21
Schematic
Code Class
Code
Job
Description
EJ20 	2681 	Adaptive 	Driver 	Evaluation 	Specialist,
Department of 	Rehabilitation 	I
FD30 	Adult 	Education Assistant 	I	2730
FD25 	2731 	Adult 	Education Assistant 	II
FD20 	2732 	Adult 	Education 	Consultant
EN50 	2513 	Agricultural 	Education Consultant
FG66 	2718 	American 	Indian 	Education Assistant
FG65 	2719 	. . . 	American 	Indian 	Education Consultant
BU30 	2805 	Archivist 	I
BU40 	2804 	Archivist 	II
EU70 	2617 	Assistant 	Consultant 	in 	Teacher 	Preparation
ER74 	2588 	Assistant 	Field 	Representative 	I, 	School
Administration
ER76 	2589 	Assistant Field Representative 	II, 	School
Administration 	(Specialist)
NE20 	2488 	Assistant Professor, 	California Maritime
Academy-
NE20 	2542 	Assistant Professor, 	General Studies,
California 	Maritime Academy
NE20 	2543 	Assistant Professor, 	Maritime Studies,
California 	Maritime 	Academy
NE20 	2443 	Associate Professor, 	California Maritime
Academy
EX51 	2689 	Associate Vocational 	Education Analyst,
California Advisory Council 	for Vocational
Education
FJ26 	2821 	Audio-Visual 	Technician, 	California Museum of
Science 	and 	Industry

FG90 	2765 	Bilingual-Bicultural 	Education Assistant 	I
FG85 	2759 	Bilingual-Bicultural 	Education 	Assistant 	II
FG83 	2750 	Bilingual/Migrant 	Education 	Assistant
FG80 	2758 	Bilingual/Migrant 	Education 	Consultant
EN90 	2517 	Business 	Education 	Consultant
FB68 	2832 	Child 	Development 	Assistant 	I
FB66 	2833 	Child 	Development 	Assistant 	II
FB64 	2834 	Child 	Development 	Consultant
EM2 5 	2549 	Community 	College 	Program 	Assistant 	I
EM30 	2550 	Community 	College 	Program 	Assistant 	II
FH86 	2770 	Compensatory 	Education Assistant 	I
FH88 	2776 	Compensatory 	Education 	Assistant 	II
FH90 	2782 	Compensatory 	Education 	Consultant
FC20 	2717 	Consultant 	in Audio-Visual 	Education
FA60 	2701 	Consultant 	in 	Gifted 	and 	Talented 	Education
EW20 	2634 	Consultant 	in 	Intergroup 	Relations
EU20 	2616 	Consultant 	in 	Mathematics 	Education
FG30 	2769 	Consultant 	in 	Physical 	Education
FG60 	2774 	Consultant 	in 	Pupil 	Personnel 	Services
FB 15 	2705 	Consultant 	in 	Reading
FG35 	2767 	Consultant 	in 	School 	Nursing 	and 	Health
Services
EV20 	2621 	Consultant 	in 	Teacher 	Preparation
EU75 	2618 	Consultant 	in 	Teacher 	Preparation
(Examinations 	and 	Research)
EU80 	2635 	Consultant 	in 	Teacher 	Preparation 	(Program
Evaluation 	and 	Research)
EU60 	2622 	Consultant 	in 	Traffic 	Safety 	Education

FB50 	2608 	Early Childhood 	Education Assistant 	I
FB40 	2610 	Early Childhood 	Education Assistant 	II
FB30 	2607 	Early 	Childhood 	Education 	Consultant
ER95 	2655 	Education 	Programs 	Assistant
ER90 	2656 	Education 	Programs 	Consultant
EY30 	2654 	Education Project Assistant 	I 	- Various
Projects
EY20 	2653 	Education Project Assistant 	II 	- Various
Projects
EY10 	2652 	Education Project Specialist 	I 	- Various
Projects
EX10 	2642 	Education 	Research 	and 	Evaluation Assistant
EX20 	2643 	Education 	Research 	and 	Evaluation Consultant
ER80 	2573 	Field Representative, 	School Administration
(Specialist)
E050 	2520 	Homemaking 	Education 	Consultant
EO90 	2524 	Industrial 	Education 	Consultant
FN10 	2922 	Information Program Specialist 	I 	(Various
Programs)
FN22 	1600 	Information Program 	Specialist 	II
(Microsystems)
FN20 	2923 	Information Program Specialist 	II 	(Various
Programs)
ET20 	2682 	Instructor of 	Farm Labor Camp 	Bus 	Driver
Trainers
ET10 	2683 	Instructor of 	School 	Bus 	Driver Trainers
NE20 	2444 	Instructor, 	California Maritime Academy
FM50 	2951 	Librarian
QU10 	6976 	Maritime Vocational 	Instructor 	I
QU20 	6978 	Maritime Vocational 	Instructor 	II
w . I

QU30 	6979 	Maritime Vocational 	Instructor 	III
FI17 	2793 	Migrant 	Education Assistant 	I
FI15 	2798 	Migrant 	Education Assistant 	II
FI10 	2783 	Migrant 	Education 	Consultant
FG45 	2260 	Nutrition 	Education 	and 	Training Assistant
FG50 	2261 	Nutrition 	Education 	and 	Training 	Consultant
(Nonsupervisory)
EL72 	2527 	Postsecondary 	Education Specialist 	I
EL71 	2528 	Postsecondary 	Education 	Specialist 	II
EL70 	2506 	Postsecondary 	Education 	Specialist 	III
NE20 	2438 	Professor, 	California Maritime Academy
ES98 	2612 	School Approvals Assistant 	I
ES95 	2613 	School Approvals Assistant 	II
ES90 	2609 	School Approvals 	Consultant
FG38 	2747 	School 	Health Education Assistant 	I
FG39 	2748 	School 	Health Education Assistant 	II
FG40 	2772 	School 	Health 	Education Consultant
EZ30 	2694 	Secondary 	Education Administrator 	I
(Nonsupervisorial)
EZ35 	2695 	Secondary 	Education Administrator 	II
EZ15 	2692 	Secondary 	Education Assistant 	II
EZ20 	2686 	Secondary 	Education 	Consultant
NE20 	2487 	Senior 	Instructor, 	C.M.A.
FM41 	2943 	Senior 	Librarian 	(Specialist)
FF40 	2761 	Special 	Education Assistant 	I
FF50 	2762 	Special 	Education Assistant 	II
FF60 	2764 	Special 	Education Consultant

EM51 	2539 	Specialist 	in Academic 	Planning 	and
Development, 	California Community Colleges
EM85 	2530 	Specialist 	in Agricultural 	Education,
California 	Community 	Colleges
EM87 	2531 	Specialist 	in Business Education, 	California
Community 	Colleges
EM89 	2540 	Specialist 	in Criminal 	Justice 	Education,
California 	Community 	Colleges
EM54 	2544 	Specialist 	in 	Employment 	and 	Certification,
California 	Community 	Colleges
EM70 	2508 	Specialist 	in Facilities 	Planning 	and
Utilization, 	California Community Colleges
EM82 	2525 	Specialist 	in Fiscal 	Planning 	and
Administration, 	California Community Colleges
EM91 	2458 	Specialist 	in General Vocational 	Education,. . .
California 	Community 	Colleges
EM93 	2535 	Specialist in Health Occupations, 	California
Community 	Colleges
EM95 	2465 	Specialist 	in Homemaking Education,
California 	Community 	Colleges
EM97 	2534 	Specialist 	in 	Industrial 	Education,
California 	Community 	Colleges
EM55 	2551 	Specialist 	in 	Information 	Systems 	and
Analysis, 	California Community Colleges
EM99 	2547 	Specialist 	in Public 	Service Occupations,
California 	Community 	Colleges
EM63 	2565 	Specialist 	in Student 	Services 	Planning 	and
Development, 	California 	Community Colleges
NE20 	0522 	Student Affairs Assistant, 	California
Maritime 	Academy
NE20 	0523 	Student Affairs Officer I, 	California
Maritime 	Academy
NE20 	0526 	Student Affairs Officer II, 	California
Maritime Academy
ES60 	2594 	Textbook 	Consultant

EQ60 	2583 	Vocational 	Education Assistant 	I
EQ59 	2721 	Vocational 	Education Assistant 	II
EQ58 	2722 	Vocational 	Education 	Consultant
EQ70 	2620 	Vocational 	Education 	Gender 	Equity 	Consultant