South Bay Union Elementary School District (PERB 0816E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
SOUTH 	BAY UNION ELEMENTARY 	SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
CALIFORNIA 	SCHOOL 	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION AND 	ITS 	ELK RIVER
CHAPTER 	766,
Employee 	Organization.
)
)
) 	Case No. 	SF-R-698
PERB Decision No. 	816
June 	15, 	1990
)
)
)
)
Appearance: 	Harland & Gromala by Richard A. 	Smith, 	Attorney, 	for
South 	Bay 	Union Elementary 	School 	District.
Before Hesse, 	Chairperson; 	Craib and Camilli, 	Members.
DECISION
HESSE, 	Chairperson: 	This case is before the Public
Employment Relations 	Board 	(PERB or Board) 	on exceptions 	filed by
the 	South Bay Union Elementary 	School 	District 	(District) 	to 	a
proposed decision of a PERB administrative 	law judge 	(ALJ).
Pursuant 	to 	PERB 	Regulation 	33050(a)3 the 	California 	School
Employees Association and 	its 	Elk River Chapter 	766 	(CSEA) 	filed
1PERB 	Regulations 	are 	codified 	at 	California Administrative
Code, 	title 8, 	section 31001 	et 	seq. 	Regulation 33050(a)
provides:
A 	request 	for 	recognition by 	an 	employee
organization 	seeking to 	become 	the 	exclusive
representative 	of 	an appropriate 	unit 	shall
be 	filed with the 	employer. 	A copy of 	the
request 	shall 	be 	filed 	currently with 	the
regional office. 	The request 	shall be 	signed
by an authorized 	agent 	of 	the 	employee
organization and 	shall 	be on a 	form provided
by the 	Board.
)
)
)
)
_______________ )

a request for recognition. 	In its request, 	CSEA sought a wall-
to-wall 	unit 	of 	all 	classified 	employees 	of 	the 	District,
excluding management, 	supervisory and 	confidential 	employees.
The ALJ 	concluded that 	a 	unit 	consisting 	of 	all 	classified
employees of the District, 	excluding management, 	supervisory and
confidential employees, 	is appropriate.
We have 	examined the 	record, 	including the 	transcript,
exhibits, 	proposed decision and the District's 	exceptions, 	and
reverse 	the ALJ's 	proposed decision 	for 	the 	reasons 	discussed
below.
FACTUAL 	SUMMARY
On November 7, 	1988, 	CSEA filed a request for recognition
with the 	District. 	CSEA 	sought a 	single 	comprehensive 	unit 	for
all 	classified employees 	of 	the District. 	By 	letter dated
December 	12, 	1988, 	the parties were notified by the PERB
San Francisco 	Regional 	Office 	that 	CSEA had 	submitted 	adequate
proof of 	support with its petition. 	On December 21, 	1988, 	the
District 	denied recognition of 	CSEA as 	the 	exclusive
representative of 	the District's 	classified 	employees. 	The
District 	denied CSEA's 	request 	for recognition on the basis 	that
the proposed wall-to-wall 	unit was 	inappropriately broad, 	and
that 	there 	should be 	three 	separate units 	consisting of: 	(1)
office workers; 	(2) 	blue-collar workers; 	and (3) 	teacher aides.2
22 The 	District 	also 	denied 	recognition on the 	basis 	that 	the
unit 	inappropriately 	included one 	confidential 	employee, 	the
superintendent's 	secretary, 	and two 	supervisory employees, 	the
head of 	maintenance 	and 	operations 	and the 	cafeteria 	manager.
Before the hearing on this 	matter, 	the parties 	reached an
22

The District 	is 	a 	small 	school district 	in Humboldt County
which employs 	approximately 	37 	classified 	employees3 and 	is
comprised of 	two 	schools: 	South Bay and Pine Hill. 	South Bay
School also 	functions as 	the District office."
Each 	school 	site 	is 	assigned one 	school 	secretary. 	In
addition, 	a 	clerk is 	assigned to the District office at 	South Bay
School. 	The three 	clerical 	employees perform a variety of
office-related skills, 	including typing, 	accounting, 	and
receptionist tasks. 	The two 	school 	secretaries 	are 	supervised by
a 	site administrator, 	who reports 	to the 	superintendent. 	The
clerk 	is 	directly under the 	superintendent's 	supervision. 	All
three clerical 	employees 	report 	to work at 	8 	a.m. 	The two 	school
secretaries 	work an 	8-hour day, 	while 	the 	clerk works 	a 	7-hour
day. 	All 	three 	clerical 	employees work a 	10-month work year.
The District also employs 	two 	full-time custodians, 	one
part-time custodian, 	one 	full-time bus driver/custodian, 	and one
full-time bus 	driver/maintenance 	employee. 	The 	custodial
agreement that: 	(1) 	the 	superintendent's 	secretary 	should be
excluded 	from the bargaining unit as 	confidential; 	(2) 	the
position of 	cafeteria manager 	should be 	included 	in the
bargaining unit; 	and 	(3) 	the position of 	supervisor of 	custodian
and 	transportation 	should 	be 	excluded 	from 	the 	bargaining 	unit 	as
supervisory.
3The 	exact number of 	classified employees 	is 	difficult 	to
determine. 	The parties 	agree that 	33 positions 	are classified.
There 	is 	some 	confusion regarding the 	status 	of 	six 	"playground
noon-duty 	supervisors." 	While 	the parties 	agree 	that Education
Code 	section 	45103 	excludes 	part-time playground positions 	from 	a
classified bargaining unit, 	the 	record 	is 	unclear whether two 	of
these playground noon-duty 	employees 	should be 	excluded. 	This
discrepancy 	is 	irrelevant as 	the unit petitioned 	for 	includes 	all
classified employees 	of 	the District, 	excluding management,
supervisory 	and 	confidential 	employees.
3

employees 	also perform maintenance work, 	and are under the direct
supervision of 	the maintenance-operations 	supervisor. 	The 	full-
time 	custodians 	and bus 	drivers 	are all 	eligible 	for benefits.
The part-time 	custodian does 	not 	receive benefits. 	The two bus
driver/custodial 	maintenance 	employees 	report 	to work at 	the
South 	Bay 	School 	in the morning 	and 	then are assigned 	to 	sites
for the balance 	of 	the day until 	the time 	they are 	required 	to
drive the buses. 	The 	custodians 	and bus 	drivers 	report to work
at 	staggered times, 	depending upon the nature of 	their work. 	The
bus 	drivers 	are the 	first to report 	to work, 	followed by the
full-time custodians, 	and then the part-time custodian. 	The bus
driver/custodian 	employee 	and bus 	driver/maintenance 	employee 	are
12-month employees. 	The 	custodians 	are all 	10-month employees.
The 	District operates 	a 	cafeteria 	at 	the 	South 	Bay 	School,
where meals 	are 	also 	cooked and packed 	for the 	Pine 	Hill 	School.
The 	cafeteria 	is 	staffed by a 	cafeteria manager/cook, 	an
assistant 	cook and a half-time 	kitchen helper. 	The 	cafeteria
manager/cook is 	a 	full-time position. 	The 	assistant 	cook works
slightly 	less 	than 	full-time. 	Both 	the 	cafeteria manager/cook
and 	assistant 	cook receive benefits. 	Although 	the 	kitchen helper
is 	eligible 	to participate 	in a benefit program on a pro 	rata
basis, 	the employee has 	chosen not to do 	so. 	The cafeteria
employees work only during the 	school year. 	The 	assistant 	cook
and 	kitchen helper 	report 	to 	the 	cafeteria manager/cook.
The District employs 	22 	instructional aides, 	who work with
children under the direction of teachers. 	The 	aides prepare
4

small group activities, 	tutor students, 	correct papers, 	assemble
materials, 	and assist in classroom activities. 	Prior to being
hired, 	instructional 	aides must pass 	a minimum competency test.
The 	aides 	are 	assigned to both 	school 	sites 	and 	are 	supervised by
the classroom teachers. 	All but one of 	the aides 	are part-time
employees who receive no benefits. 	The 	full-time aide receives
benefits. 	Because of funding limitations, 	most aides work less
than a 	full 	school year. 	The 	one 	full-time aide works 	a 	10-month
work year. 	While 	the 	starting time 	for 	aides 	varies 	according 	to
the nature of the position, 	the majority of the aides 	start work
at 	8:30 	a.m.
Pay 	raises 	have 	been granted 	to 	classified 	employees 	over
the past 	several years. 	The 	cafeteria manager/cook testified
that 	she 	sought an individual 	salary adjustment 	in 	1984-85. 	The
custodian testified that, 	due to a reclassification, 	two
employees 	received 	salary 	increases 	and 	job description 	changes.
The 	superintendent testified that 	in 	1986-87, 	the 	classified
employees 	received a 	6-percent 	salary 	increase, 	plus 	benefit
increases 	for those who received benefits. 	In 	1987-88, 	the
classified 	employees 	received 	a 	2-percent 	salary 	increase. 	In
1988-89, 	the 	classified employees 	in column one of 	the 	salary
schedule 	received a 	4-percent 	salary 	increase, 	while 	all 	other
employees 	received 	a 	3-percent 	salary 	increase.
Testimony 	indicated 	four 	occasions 	where 	one 	classified
employee 	substituted 	for 	another 	classified 	employee.
Specifically, 	an instructional 	aide 	filled 	in 	for an account
5
5

clerk, 	secretary, 	and custodian. 	There was also an example where
a 	playground 	supervisor 	filled 	a 	custodian position. 	The
superintendent 	testified 	that 	these 	assignments 	were 	voluntary
and 	at 	the 	request 	of 	employees 	who wanted 	the 	opportunity 	to
substitute as a way of earning extra money. 	If necessary, 	the
District would 	replace 	an 	instructional 	aide 	temporarily 	assigned
to 	a 	full-time 	or higher-paying position with 	a 	substitute 	from
outside 	the 	District. 	If 	outside 	substitutes were not available,
the 	aide position would 	remain vacant 	and 	the 	employee would 	be
allowed 	to 	stay 	in the 	higher-paying 	or higher-rated position.
The 	classified 	employees 	in the 	District 	have 	never before
been organized 	for collective bargaining purposes. 	The 	cafeteria
manager/cook, 	who 	serves 	as 	treasurer of CSEA, 	testified that 	she
received 	27 	membership 	applications 	from the 	classified
employees.
DISCUSSION
Standards 	for determining appropriate units 	are 	set 	forth 	in
section 	3545(a) 	of the Educational Employment Relations Act
(EERA) :4
(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
4 EERA 	is 	codified at Government Code 	section 	3540 	et 	seq.
Unless 	otherwise 	indicated, 	all 	statutory references 	herein are
to the Government Code.
6
'
6

size of 	the unit 	on the 	efficient 	operation
of the 	school district.
In Sweetwater Union High School 	(1976) 	EERB Decision No. 	4,5
the 	Board 	established three presumptively 	appropriate 	units: 	(1)
instructional aides; 	(2) 	office technician and business 	services;
and 	(3) 	operations-support 	services. 	The operations-support
services unit included transportation, 	custodial, 	gardening,
cafeteria, 	maintenance and warehouse employees. 	By creating
three presumptively 	appropriate units 	for 	classified 	employees,
the 	Board determined 	that 	a 	strong 	community of 	interest
generally exists 	among the 	employees 	in each of 	these 	groups.
However, 	the Sweetwater presumption is rebuttable. 	In
Compton Unified School District 	(1979) 	PERB Decision No. 	109, 	the
Board 	discussed 	the 	Sweetwater presumption and placed 	the 	burden
upon the party 	seeking a unit 	or units 	different 	than the
Sweetwater unit 	configuration. 	Specifically, 	the Board 	stated:
The EERA does 	not prescribe 	that 	"the most
- -	appropriate" unit be awarded; 	rather, 	the
statute 	repeatedly 	refers 	to 	"an appropriate
-	unit." 	[Fn. 	omitted.] 	Thus, 	by requiring an
employee 	organization to 	establish that 	a
variant unit is more appropriate than a
Sweetwater unit, 	the Board gives weight to
its 	preference 	for 	Sweetwater units without
converting them into 	"most 	appropriate" 	or
"only appropriate" 	units. 	In this 	sense, 	an
employee 	organization need not 	rebut 	the
Sweetwater presumption 	in order to obtain a
variant unit.
In contrast, 	to defeat the establishment of a
Sweetwater unit when n
petitione 	- -o other unit has 	been
d 	for, 	the 	employer or employee
5Prior to January 	1, 	1978, 	PERB was known as the Educational
Employment 	Relations 	Board.
77

organization 	[fn. 	omitted] 	must demonstrate
that based on all 	of 	the 	criteria 	enumerated
in section 3545(a), 	the Sweetwater unit is 	in
fact 	inappropriate. 	Since the Board has
determined 	that 	the 	Sweetwater units
presumptively meet the 	section 	3545(a) 	unit
determination criteria, 	a Sweetwater unit
will 	invariably be 	granted when no 	other unit
is 	requested unless 	the presumption is
rebutted by evidence 	showing that, 	because
the 	section 3545(a) 	criteria are not 	in fact
met, 	the Sweetwater unit is 	inappropriate.
(Id. 	at pp. 	7-8.)
In the present case, 	CSEA has 	filed a petition for one wall-
to-wall 	unit of 	classified employees. 	In order to rebut the
Sweetwater presumption, 	CSEA must 	show that 	the wall-to-wall 	unit
is 	more 	appropriate 	than a 	Sweetwater unit 	configuration.
While 	the ALJ properly 	stated 	the above 	standards, 	the 	Board
finds 	that 	the 	facts 	in the 	record do 	not 	support 	the ALJ's
conclusion that 	a 	single unit 	of 	classified 	employees 	is
appropriate.
There 	is 	no dispute that this 	case 	involves 	a 	small 	school
district with 	approximately 	37 	classified 	employees. 	With 	regard
to 	the number of 	employees, 	the Board has 	noted that 	"the number
of employees 	(however small) 	is not, 	alone, 	a basis for
concluding that a wall-to-wall 	unit 	is 	appropriate." 	(Shasta
Union High School District 	(1977) 	EERB Decision No. 	34, 	p. 	2;
Greenfield Union School District 	(1977) 	EERB Decision No. 	35,
p.2.) 	The Board 	stated that a wall-to-wall unit may be
appropriate where 	there 	exists 	interchangeable 	functions 	and
parallel 	working 	conditions 	consistent with 	the 	community 	of
interest 	required 	to 	find a 	unit 	appropriate under 	EERA 	section
8

3545(a). 	While the Board also 	stated that there may be a
situation where the number of 	employees 	is 	so 	small 	that to 	find
other than 	a wall-to-wall 	unit 	may adversely affect 	the 	efficient
operations 	of 	a 	school district, 	the Board did not have the 	facts
before 	it 	to 	find a wall-to-wall 	unit 	appropriate.6
In the present case, 	the 	classified employees 	at the
District perform the 	same 	job 	functions 	as 	those 	employees
described in 	Sweetwater. 	The 	instructional 	aides 	are 	involved 	in
directly assisting 	in the 	educational 	development 	of 	students,
work regular hours, 	are directly 	supervised by 	classroom
teachers, 	and must pass 	a competency exam.
The 	office 	technicians 	and business 	services 	employees
(secretaries 	and clerk) 	generally perform clerical 	and record-
keeping work, 	including typing, 	accounting and receptionist
duties.
The 	remaining 	employees 	in the 	operations-support 	services
group 	(custodial, 	maintenance, 	transportation and food services
employees) 	are 	responsible 	for providing a proper physical
environment 	and 	support 	services 	for 	students. 	These duties
include 	cleaning 	and 	repairing District 	facilities 	as 	well 	as
providing 	food, 	preparing meals 	and providing transportation.
Although CSEA argues, 	and the ALJ 	finds, 	that the employees'
salaries, 	benefits 	and hours 	are not dependent on their 	job
6Shasta Union High School District, 	supra, 	involved a
district with 	four 	sites 	employing 	158 	classified employees.
Greenfield Union School 	District, 	supra. 	involved a district with
five 	sites 	employing 	110 	classified 	employees.
9

titles/classifications, 	the 	facts 	demonstrate that 	their work
duties 	are 	indeed different. 	To 	support his 	findings 	that a
wall-to-wall unit 	is 	appropriate, 	the ALJ also relies 	on common
supervision and interchange of 	job functions. 	However, 	the
unrebutted 	testimony 	of 	Superintendent 	Turner 	indicates 	that
there are distinct 	levels 	of 	supervision. 	The 	instructional
aides 	are 	supervised by classroom teachers. 	The 	two 	secretaries
are 	supervised by the 	site administrator, 	while the one 	clerk is
supervised by the 	superintendent. 	The 	cafeteria 	employees 	are
supervised by the 	cafeteria manager. 	The 	custodian, 	bus
driver/custodian, 	and bus 	driver/maintenance 	employee are
supervised by a 	maintenance-operations 	supervisor. 	Despite 	this
testimony, 	the ALJ concluded that, 	due to the very 	small 	size of
the 	District 	and the 	fact 	that 	the managers 	and 	supervisors 	are
only one 	level below the 	superintendent, 	the employees 	share a
degree 	of 	"commonality of 	supervision." 	This 	conclusion 	is 	not
supported by the record, 	which demonstrates 	that 	there 	are 	three
separate 	schemes 	of 	supervision.
The 	interchangeability 	functions 	the ALJ 	relies 	upon 	are
instances where part-time 	employees7 volunteer to 	substitute 	for
higher-paying positions. 	The 	record 	included 	only 	four 	examples
where 	an 	instructional 	aide 	volunteered 	to 	substitute 	for 	a
clerical or custodial position. 	There is 	no evidence of
interchange between bus 	drivers 	and 	instructional 	aides 	or
70f the 22 	instructional aides, 	21 are part-time employees.
10

between 	the 	operations-support 	services 	employees 	and 	clerical
employees.
While 	the ALJ 	states 	that 	the record 	suggests 	that 	the
establishment 	of 	three 	units 	would 	create 	"excessive
fragmentation of 	a 	cohesive unit," 	the testimony does 	not address
the 	effect 	or 	impact of multiple units 	upon the 	efficiency of 	the
District's 	operations. 	The 	superintendent 	testified 	that 	she
thought 	it would be 	in the best 	interest of 	the District 	and 	the
collective 	bargaining process 	to have 	three 	separate 	units 	due
to: 	(1) 	the distinct and 	special needs 	of management 	in terms 	of
supervision 	and 	issues 	relating 	to part-time 	and 	full-time
employees; 	and 	(2) 	the different 	skills 	and different 	job duties
that distinguish 	the 	employees.
One of 	the custodians 	testified that 	she 	is 	a 	job 	steward 	in
the 	CSEA 	chapter 	and 	that 	the 	employees 	wanted 	to 	be 	organized 	in
one unit 	for collective bargaining purposes. 	The 	cafeteria
manager/cook testified that, 	in her position as 	treasurer of 	the
CSEA chapter, 	she received 27 membership applications. 	As 	the
testimony of 	the 	three witnesses 	does 	not 	indicate 	the 	effect 	or
impact of multiple units 	on the 	efficiency of 	the 	District's
operations, 	there 	is 	no basis 	other than the 	small number of
employees 	to 	conclude that multiple units would provide a
significant hardship to the District. 	In fact, 	the District
argues 	that 	multiple units 	are 	in the best 	interest 	of 	the
District and the collective bargaining process, 	while CSEA, 	in
its post-hearing brief, 	simply asserts 	that 	"the 	'efficiency' 	of
11

multiple units 	over a 	single unit 	is 	absurd." 	Due to the 	lack of
evidence on this 	issue, 	the Board concludes 	that there 	is 	no
showing 	that multiple units 	would 	adversely 	affect 	the 	efficiency
of the District's 	operations.
Although 	the 	Board has 	indicated 	that 	a 	single 	unit 	may be
appropriate 	in a 	small 	school district, 	the number of 	employees
alone 	is 	not a basis 	for concluding that a 	single unit 	is
appropriate. 	(Shasta Union High School District, 	supra. 	EERB
Decision No. 	34; 	Greenfield Union School District, 	supra. 	EERB
Decision No. 	35.) 	In the present case, 	there is no dispute that
the number of classified employees 	is 	small. 	However, 	the
parties 	have 	failed 	to present 	evidence 	that 	interchangeable
functions 	and parallel working 	conditions 	exist 	among 	the
classified 	employees 	or 	that multiple 	units would 	adversely
affect 	the 	efficient operations 	of 	the District.8 Accordingly,
CSEA has 	failed to 	show that a wall-to-wall unit 	is 	more
appropriate 	than a 	Sweetwater unit 	configuration.
ORDER
For the reasons discussed above, 	the Board finds 	that the
wall-to-wall 	unit 	of 	classified 	employees 	requested 	in the
California 	School 	Employees 	Association and 	its 	Elk River
Chapter 	766 	request 	for recognition petition is 	not appropriate.
8 In its exceptions, 	the District argues that, 	in the
alternative, 	there 	should be no 	less 	than two units; 	one unit
including 	instructional 	aides 	and 	one 	unit 	including 	the
remaining employees. 	As 	this 	argument was 	not raised prior to
the District's 	exceptions, 	the issue was 	not litigated, 	nor was
CSEA placed on notice of the District's 	argument. 	Therefore, 	the
Board rejects 	this 	argument.
12
8

The 	Board 	finds 	the 	following units 	are appropriate 	for
meeting 	and 	negotiating 	provided 	an 	employee 	organization 	becomes
the 	exclusive 	representative:
Unit A: 	All instructional aides, 	excluding 	(1) 	management,
supervisory and confidential 	employees, 	and 	(2) 	playground noon-
duty 	supervisors pursuant 	to 	Education Code 	section 45103.
Unit B: 	All 	office 	technician and business 	services
employees 	(i.e., 	clerical, 	secretarial, 	and clerk positions)
excluding management, 	supervisory, 	and confidential 	employees.
Unit C: 	All 	operations-support 	services 	employees 	(i.e.,
custodial, 	maintenance, 	transportation, 	and food services
employees) 	excluding management, 	supervisory, 	and confidential
employees.
Within 	fifteen workdays 	after 	the 	employer posts 	the 	Notice
of Decision, 	the California School 	Employees Association and 	its
Elk River Chapter 	766 	shall demonstrate 	to 	the 	regional 	director
at 	least 	30-percent 	support 	in each of the above units.
The 	regional 	director 	shall 	conduct 	an election at 	the 	end
of 	the posting period 	in those units 	which 	the 	California 	School
Employees 	Association and 	its 	Elk River Chapter 	766 	has
demonstrated at 	least 	30-percent 	support, 	unless 	it demonstrates
majority 	support 	in a 	given unit and the 	employer 	grants
voluntary 	recognition in that 	unit. 	Voluntary 	recognition
requires majority proof of 	support 	in all 	cases. 	(See EERA 	secs.
3544 	and 	3544.1.)
13

The date used to 	establish 	the number of 	employees 	in the
above units 	shall be 	the date of 	this 	decision unless 	another
date 	is 	deemed 	appropriate by 	the 	regional 	director 	and 	noticed
to the parties. 	In the event another date 	is 	selected, 	the
regional 	director may extend 	the 	time 	for 	the 	California 	School
Employees 	Association and 	its 	Elk River Chapter 	766 	to
demonstrate 	at 	least 	30-percent 	support 	in the units.
The Board hereby ORDERS 	that 	this 	case be 	REMANDED to 	the
San Francisco 	Regional 	Director 	for proceedings 	consistent with
this decision.
Members 	Craib and Camilli 	joined 	in this 	Decision.
14

NOTICE 	OF 	DECISION
OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
CASE: 	SOUTH 	BAY UNION ELEMENTARY 	SCHOOL 	DISTRICT
Case No. 	SF-R-698
PERB Decision No. 	816
EMPLOYER: 	South Bay Union Elementary 	School 	District
6077 	South Highway 	101
Eureka, 	CA 	95501
(707) 443-4828
EMPLOYEE 	ORGANIZATION
PARTY 	TO 	PROCEEDING:
California 	School 	Employees 	Association
its 	Elk River Chapter 	766
3865 	Lissa 	Drive
Eureka, 	CA 	95501
(707) 445-1031
FINDINGS:
The Board 	finds 	that the 	following units 	are 	appropriate 	for
meeting 	and 	negotiating provided 	an 	employee 	organization 	becomes
the 	exclusive 	representative:
Unit A: 	All instructional aides, 	excluding 	(1) 	management,
supervisory and confidential 	employees, 	and 	(2) 	playground noon-
duty 	supervisors pursuant to 	Education Code 	section 	45103.
Unit 	B: 	All 	office 	technician and business 	services
employees 	(i.e., 	clerical, 	secretarial, 	and clerk positions)
excluding management, 	supervisory, 	and confidential employees.
Unit C: 	All 	operations-support 	services 	employees 	(i.e.,
custodial, 	maintenance, 	transportation, 	and food services
employees) 	excluding management, 	supervisory, 	and confidential
employees.
Within 	fifteen workdays 	after 	the 	employer posts 	the 	Notice
of 	Decision, 	the California School 	Employees Association and 	its
Elk River Chapter 	766 	shall 	demonstrate 	to 	the 	regional 	director
at 	least 	30-percent 	support 	in each of 	the above units.

The 	regional director 	shall 	conduct 	an election at 	the 	end
of 	the posting period 	in those 	units which 	the 	California 	School
Employees Association and 	its 	Elk River Chapter 	766 	has
demonstrated at 	least 	30-percent 	support, 	unless 	it demonstrates
majority 	support 	in a given unit 	and the 	employer grants
voluntary 	recognition 	in that 	unit. 	Voluntary 	recognition
requires 	majority proof of 	support 	in all 	cases. 	(See EERA 	secs.
3544 and 3544. 1. )
The date 	used to 	establish the 	number of 	employees 	in the
above units 	shall be 	the date of 	this 	decision unless 	another
date 	is 	deemed 	appropriate 	by 	the 	regional 	director 	and 	noticed
to the parties. 	In the event another date 	is 	selected, 	the
regional 	director may 	extend 	the 	time 	for 	the 	California 	School
Employees Association and 	its 	Elk River Chapter 	766 	to
demonstrate 	at 	least 	30-percent 	support 	in the units.
TO 	THE 	EMPLOYER:
This 	Notice of 	Decision is 	provided to you pursuant 	to 	PERB
Regulation 	33440. 	The 	attached decision has been 	served upon
each 	of 	the 	above-listed parties 	pursuant 	to 	PERB 	Regulation
33440.
Pursuant to PERB Regulation 33450, 	within 	10 days 	following
date 	of 	issuance, 	post this Notice 	"on all 	employee bulletin
boards 	in each 	facility of 	the 	employer 	in which members 	of 	the
unit described 	in the decision are 	employed." 	This 	Notice 	shall
remain posted 	for a minimum of 	15 workdays. 	Reasonable 	steps
shall be taken to 	insure that 	this 	notice 	is 	not reduced 	in 	size,
defaced, 	altered, 	covered by any material.
Date: 	June 26, 	1990