State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (California State Employees Association) (PERB 0933S)

STATE 	OP 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS 	BOARD
STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA 	(DEPARTMENT
OF PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION),
Employer,
and
CALIFORNIA 	STATE 	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION,
Exclusive Representative.
)
)
) 	Case No . 	S-UM-500-S
PERB Decision No. 	933-S
May 	15, 	1992
)
)
)
)
)
Appearance: 	Howard Schwartz, 	Attorney, 	for California State
Employees Association.
Before Hesse, 	Chairperson; 	Caffrey and Carlyle, 	Members.
DECISION
CARLYLE, 	Member: 	This 	case is before the Public 	Employment
Relations 	Board 	(Board) 	on appeal by the California 	State
Employees Association 	(CSEA) 	from a 	regional director's 	dismissal
(attached hereto) 	of 	its 	unit modification petition. 	CSEA 	sought
the addition of 	12 	job classifications 	to Bargaining Unit 	11.
The Board has 	reviewed the dismissal and, 	finding 	it 	to be
free 	of prejudicial 	error,1 adopts 	it as 	the decision of 	the
Board 	itself 	in accordance with 	the 	discussion below.
DISCUSSION
In Unit 	Determination 	for the 	State 	of California 	(1979)
PERB Decision No. 	110-S, 	the Board placed the 	12 	job
classifications at issue in Bargaining Unit 	1. 	In 	1985, 	the
1The 	Grain 	and 	Commodity 	Sampler 	classification 	noted 	on
page 	18 	of 	the proposed decision erroneously referenced Unit 	1
rather than Unit 	11.
)
)
)
________________ )

Department 	of 	Personnel Administration and 	CSEA 	stipulated 	to
exclude 	several 	job 	classifications 	from Bargaining Unit 	1,
including 	those 	named on CSEA's 	unit 	modification petition.
Although 	there were 	conflicting 	reasons 	for 	entering 	into 	the
stipulation, 	the record 	indicates 	the 	stipulation is 	no 	longer 	in
effect. 	As 	no 	stipulation between the parties 	is 	currently 	in
effect, 	the Board finds 	that the 	job classifications 	are part 	of
Bargaining Unit 	1. 	Therefore, 	CSEA has 	the burden to demonstrate
that Bargaining Unit 	11 	is 	more appropriate than Bargaining
Unit 	1. 	(State of California 	(Department of Personnel
Administration) 	(1990) 	PERB Decision No. 	794-S.)
CSEA argues 	on appeal 	that 	the 	regional director 	incorrectly
determined 	agricultural 	inspectors 	work out 	of 	state 	office
buildings. 	Although it is 	true that the 	inspectors 	are
headquartered in state office buildings, 	it 	is 	noted that 	their
duties 	also 	include working at various 	sites 	and 	conducting
inspection work at various 	locations. 	Nevertheless, 	we agree
with 	the 	regional 	director 	that based 	upon the 	overall 	review of
the 	record 	submitted, 	CSEA has 	failed to demonstrate that
Bargaining Unit 	11 	is a more appropriate unit.
ORDER
The 	Board hereby AFFIRMS 	the determination of 	the 	Sacramento
Regional 	Director in Case No. 	S-UM-500-S.
Member Caffrey 	joined 	in this 	Decision.
Chairperson Hesse's 	concurrence begins 	on page 	3.
22

HESSE, 	concurring: 	While 	I 	agree with the majority and
Sacramento 	Regional 	Director that 	the 	job 	classifications 	should
remain in Bargaining Unit 	1, 	I write 	separately to address my
concerns.
In Unit 	Determination 	for the 	State 	of California 	(1979)
PERB Decision No. 	110-S, 	the Public Employment Relations 	Board
(PERB or Board) 	included the disputed 	job classifications 	in
Bargaining Unit 	1. 	If there were no 	stipulation between the
parties, 	these 	job classifications would 	still be 	included 	in
Bargaining Unit 	1. 	Although there were 	conflicting reasons 	for
entering into the 	stipulation, 	the parties' 	current positions
indicate the 	stipulation is 	no 	longer in effect. 	The California
State Employees Association 	(CSEA) 	has 	filed a unit modification
petition 	to 	include 	these 	job 	classifications 	in Bargaining 	Unit
11, 	while the State of California, 	Department of Personnel
Administration 	(DPA) 	opposes 	the unit modification petition and
asserts 	that 	these 	job 	classifications 	should be 	included 	in
Bargaining Unit 	1.
Since 	the 	Board's 	original 	unit 	determination decision
placed the disputed 	job classifications 	in Bargaining Unit 	1, 	I
conclude 	these 	job 	classifications 	should 	remain 	in 	Bargaining
Unit 	1 unless CSEA demonstrates that Bargaining Unit 	11 	is more
appropriate. 	Consistent with my position 	in State 	of California
(Department of Personnel Administration) 	(1990) 	PERB Decision No.
7 94-S, 	I 	find there is a rebuttable presumption that the Board's
decision 	in Unit 	Determination 	for the 	State of California,
3

supra. 	PERB Decision No. 	110-S 	is 	correct. 	In the absence of-
evidence that 	the proposed unit modification is 	more 	appropriate,
I 	find 	the 	existing 	Board-created unit must 	be 	maintained.
As 	its primary evidence, 	CSEA relies 	upon the duties 	and
responsibilities 	of 	the plant quarantine 	inspectors. 	As 	this 	job
classification is 	in Bargaining Unit 	11, 	CSEA argues 	that the
agricultural 	inspectors 	and 	fruit 	and vegetable 	inspectors 	should
also be 	included 	in Bargaining Unit 	11. 	CSEA asserts 	that 	the
job 	classifications 	at 	issue 	are 	characterized by:
. 	. 	. work which is ministerial, which lacks
in depth analytical 	functions 	and demands
little 	if 	any creative 	skills. 	These 	classes
contain workers which are seldom, 	if ever, 	in
office environments. 	They are not advisors,
consultants, 	coordinators or representatives.
They perform 	no 	duties 	which 	could be
characterized as professional. 	Working 	in
the 	muck and mire 	of 	an 	inspection 	station or
at 	a border check point 	in the 	cold dead of
night, 	they certainly would not be perceived
by the public 	as 	the average white 	collar
desk bound, 	word processing professional.
(CSEA's closing argument, 	p. 	4.)
DPA asserts 	that except 	for a 	small 	number of 	agricultural
inspectors 	in the Department of 	Forestry and Fire Protection, 	the
agricultural 	inspectors 	work 	for the 	Department 	of 	Food 	and
Agriculture. 	DPA contends 	that CSEA has 	incorrectly
characterized 	the 	terms 	and 	conditions 	of 	employment 	at 	border
stations 	as 	reflective of 	all 	the 	job 	classifications 	in the
proposed unit modification. 	DPA argues 	that the 	agricultural
inspectors 	generally work a 	single day 	shift, 	Monday 	through
Friday and do 	not wear uniforms. 	DPA 	states 	that the 	fruit 	and
4

vegetable 	inspectors 	may work 	six days 	a week, 	and their work
stations at the winery, 	garlic 	or onion plants 	is not a permanent
assignment. 	Rather, 	the 	fruit and vegetable inspectors may
report directly to 	a work station, 	or go to an office and then
report to 	a work 	station.
In 	sum, 	DPA argues 	that Bargaining Unit 	1 	has 	the most
experience working with 	diversified 	interests 	and 	unique 	groups
of 	classifications, 	including permanent 	intermittent and
temporary positions. 	Therefore, 	the 	job classifications 	at 	issue
should remain 	in Bargaining 	Unit 	1.
In my opinion, 	the 	evidence does 	not overwhelmingly 	support
placement of 	the 	job 	classifications 	in 	either Bargaining Unit 	1
or 	11. 	Further, 	the job specifications of agricultural
inspectors 	and 	fruit 	and vegetable 	inspectors 	are 	similar 	to
other 	job 	specifications 	belonging to Bargaining Units 	1 	and 	11.
(See Vol. 	I, 	p. 	83 and exhibits.) 	While the Regional Director's
proposed decision seems 	to reflect this 	lack of 	evidence, 	his
characterization of 	the 	agricultural 	inspectors 	as working out 	of
state office buildings 	is misleading. 	The agricultural
inspectors 	are headquartered 	in state office buildings, 	but 	they
go out 	in the 	field and work at various 	sites, 	including border
stations. 	The 	job 	specifications 	for agricultural 	inspectors 	and
fruit 	and vegetable 	inspectors 	specifically 	state 	that 	the
inspection work 	is 	performed at various 	locations.
Un
	5

In conclusion, 	I 	find the 	evidence does not demonstrate that
Bargaining Unit 	11 	is more appropriate than Bargaining Unit 	1.
Therefore, 	I 	conclude that the 	job classifications 	at 	issue
should remain 	in Bargaining Unit 	1.
6 6

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA 	(DEPARTMENT OF
PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION),
Employer,
and
CALIFORNIA STATE 	EMPLOYEES'
ASSOCIATION,
Exclusive 	Representative.
)
)
)
)
Representation
Case No. 	S-UM-500-S
(S-SR-1 	and 	11)
PROPOSED 	DECISION
(9/11/91)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances: 	Larry Larsen, 	Senior Labor Relations Officer, 	and
M. 	Jeffrey Fine, 	Deputy Chief Counsel, 	for the State of
California 	(Department of Personnel Administration); 	Howard
Schwartz, 	Assistant Chief Counsel, 	for the California State
Employees' Association.
Before Les Chisholm, 	Hearing Officer.
PROCEDURAL 	HISTORY
On December 	12, 	1990, 	the California State Employees'
Association 	(CSEA) 	filed a unit modification petition with the
Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(PERB 	or Board) 	seeking 	to 	add
1	11 	job classifications 	to Bargaining Unit 	11 	- Engineering and
Scientific 	Technicians 	(Unit 	11). 	The petition was 	filed
pursuant to PERB regulation 32781(a)(1).2
1The petitioned-for 	classifications 	are: 	Agricultural
Inspector I, 	II and III 	(Seasonal); 	Agricultural Inspector II 	and
III 	(Permanent 	Intermittent); 	Processing Fruit and Vegetable
Inspector I, 	II, 	III and IV 	(Seasonal); 	and Processing Fruit and
Vegetable 	Inspector 	III 	and 	IV 	(Permanent 	Intermittent).
2PERB 	regulations 	are 	codified 	at California 	Code 	of
Regulations, 	title 	8, 	section 31001 	et seq. 	Regulation 32781
provides 	in pertinent part as 	follows:
32781. 	Petition. 	Absent agreement of the
parties 	to modify a unit, 	an exclusive
representative, 	an employer, 	or both must file a
petition 	for unit 	modification 	in 	accordance with
this 	section. 	Parties who wish to obtain Board
This proposed decision has been appealed to the
Board itself and may not be cited as precedent
unless the decision and its rationale have been
adopted by the Board.
)
______________ )

The State of California, 	Department of Personnel
Administration 	(Employer) 	filed 	its 	opposition to 	the 	unit
modification petition on January 22, 	1991. 	A Board agent
conducted 	settlement 	conferences 	with 	the parties 	on 	February 	6
and April 4, 	1991, 	but a resolution of the dispute was not
achieved.
A hearing was 	conducted on May 	6 	and 	14, 	1991. 	On the 	first
day of hearing, 	CSEA amended 	its 	petition to 	include 	the proposed
transfer 	of 	the 	classification 	of 	Fruit 	and Vegetable 	Quality
Control 	Inspector from Bargaining Unit 	1 	- Administrative,
approval 	of a unit modification may 	file 	a
petition 	in accordance with the provisions 	of 	this
section.
(a) 	A recognized or 	certified 	employee
organization may 	file with 	the 	regional 	office 	a
petition for modification of 	its unit(s):
(1) 	To add to the unit unrepresented
classifications 	or positions;
(c) 	All 	affected recognized or certified 	employee
organizations 	may 	jointly 	file with 	the 	regional
office a petition to 	transfer 	classifications 	or
positions 	from one 	represented 	established 	unit 	to
another.
(e) 	If the petition requests the addition of
classifications 	or positions 	to an established
unit, 	the 	Board may require proof 	of 	majority
support of 	persons 	employed 	in the 	classifications
or positions 	to be 	added. 	Proof 	of 	support 	is
defined in 	section 	32700 	of 	these 	regulations.
22

Financial and Staff Services 	(Unit 	1) 	to Unit 	11.3
The 	Employer 	supplemented 	the 	record 	by 	submitting
Declarations by Shamim Khan and Arnold T. 	Beck, 	Jr. 	on May 28,
1991.4 Briefs were 	filed by both parties, 	and the 	case was
submitted for decision on July 	8, 	1991.
POSITIONS 	OF 	THE 	PARTIES
CSEA argues 	that all 	the 	classifications 	at 	issue 	are 	most
appropriately 	included 	in Unit 	11. 	CSEA emphasizes 	that 	these
classes, 	like those in Unit 	11, 	do not require advanced or
specialized 	knowledge 	necessary 	to 	being 	considered 	a
professional, 	and that they 	similarly work 	in 	situations with
less 	responsibility 	and 	discretion than do 	employees 	in
professional positions. 	CSEA also notes 	the 	set hours 	and 	shifts
worked by these employees, 	as well 	as 	the direct on-site
supervision of 	their work and 	the 	fact 	that 	they work outside
with 	environmental 	and 	safety 	concerns.
CSEA points 	to 	the 	overlapping duties 	of 	agricultural
inspectors 	and Plant Quarantine 	Inspectors 	(PQI's),5 and alleges
that 	agricultural 	inspectors 	have 	little 	or no 	contact with
3The 	transfer 	of 	classifications 	or petitions 	from one
represented 	established unit 	to 	another 	is 	governed 	by 	PERB
regulation 32781(c). 	See footnote 2, 	above. 	CSEA is the
exclusive representative of both Units 	1 	and 	11.
4The procedure 	for post-hearing 	submission of 	declarations
was 	stipulated to on the 	second day of hearing. 	By 	letter dated
May 29, 	1991, 	CSEA waived its 	right to request reopening of 	the
record 	for 	the purpose of 	cross-examining 	Khan and 	Beck.
5This 	classification is 	currently 	included 	in Unit 	11, 	and
its unit placement 	is 	not 	in dispute.
W
	3

employees 	outside of 	Unit 	11. 	Finally, 	CSEA argues 	that any
effect 	of 	the 	original 	unit placement 	of 	the 	agricultural
inspector 	and processing 	fruit 	and 	vegetable 	inspector
classifications 	was 	obviated by the 	1985 	agreement 	to 	exclude 	the
classes 	from Unit 	1.
The 	Employer 	contends 	that the 	classification of 	Fruit 	and
Vegetable Quality Control 	Inspector 	should remain 	in Unit 	1
because 	CSEA has 	failed 	to meet 	its 	burden in 	support 	of 	a 	change
in unit placement. 	Concerning the 	agricultural 	inspector 	and
processing 	fruit and vegetable 	inspector 	series 	classes, 	the
Employer 	argues 	they 	should be 	reinstated 	in Unit 	1.
In 	support of 	the 	latter point, 	the Employer points 	to the
seasonal 	and 	intermittent 	nature 	of 	the 	classes 	and 	contends 	that
Unit 	1 	has 	more 	experience 	in dealing with the diverse 	interests
of 	such groups. 	The 	Employer also 	contends 	that CSEA attaches
too much 	importance 	to the 	nature 	of 	the duties 	of 	agricultural
inspectors 	at border 	stations, 	and that CSEA has 	failed to
demonstrate 	any 	compelling 	reason 	for these 	classifications 	to 	be
placed 	in Unit 	11 	rather than Unit 	1.
. . .
FINDINGS 	OF 	FACT
General
All 	12 	classifications 	at 	issue 	in the 	instant 	case were
placed by the Board, 	in the 	initial unit determination for
employees of the State of California, 	in Bargaining Unit 	1 	-
Administrative, 	Financial 	and Staff 	Services. 	(Unit Determination
for the State of California 	(1979) 	PERB Decision No. 	110-S.) 	In
4

1985, 	the Employer and CSEA stipulated to the 	exclusion of
several 	classifications 	from Unit 	1, 	including the 	11
classifications 	named on the December 	12, 	1990 petition.
The 	1985 	agreement did not 	include 	any 	factual 	stipulation
to 	justify 	the 	exclusion nor 	a 	statement of 	the 	reason or basis
for the 	exclusion, 	but did provide that 	employees 	in the
agricultural 	inspector 	and processing 	fruit 	and 	vegetable
inspector 	series 	who were 	employed 	for more 	than 	five 	consecutive
years would be 	converted 	to 	a permanent 	intermittent 	appointment.
All 	of 	the petitioned-for classifications, 	except 	Fruit and
Vegetable Quality Control 	Inspector, 	are denoted as 	either
seasonal 	or permanent intermittent. 	Each of the permanent
intermittent 	class 	specifications 	in this 	case 	include 	the
characteristic 	that 	"[e]mployment 	in this 	class 	is 	on a 	noncareer
basis." 	(Joint Exhibit Nos. 	8, 	9, 	11 and 	12.) 	The parties also
stipulated 	to 	certain characteristics 	of 	seasonal
classifications, 	including that 	"they cannot compete 	in
promotional examinations." 	(Vol. 	I, 	18:26.)6 There was,
however, 	testimony by Martina Haleamau, 	an Employer witness,
concerning 	"upward mobility 	options" 	for 	agricultural 	inspectors
into 	scientific 	classes 	found 	in Bargaining Unit 	10 	-
Professional Scientific 	(Unit 10). 	(Vol. 	II, 	17:15-17 and 22:17-
19.)
6Cites 	to 	the 	Reporter's 	Transcript 	include 	the 	transcript
volume 	followed by 	the 	applicable page 	number 	and 	line 	numbers.
55

Bargaining Unit 	1
Bargaining Unit 	1 	includes 	over 	26,000 	employees 	in nearly
600 	job 	classifications. 	The 	list of 	job titles 	includes 	such
"white collar" 	jobs as administrative assistant, 	auditor,
analyst, 	statistician, planner, editor, consultant, bank
examiner, 	computer operator and 	legal assistant, 	but also
includes 	fruit 	and vegetable 	quality 	control 	inspector, 	meat 	food
inspector, 	feed, 	fertilizer and livestock drugs 	inspector, 	grain
and 	commodity 	sampler, 	grain and commodity 	inspector, 	pesticide
use 	specialist 	and 	egg 	and poultry 	quality 	control 	inspector.
Unit 	1 	employees hold appointments 	on a permanent, 	limited
term or temporary basis, 	and with a time base 	that 	is 	full 	or
part-time or intermittent; 	work in 56 	of the 	58 	counties 	in
California and out-of-state;7 and are, 	for overtime purposes,
found in work week groups 	(WWG) 	1, 	2, 	2A, 	4A, 	4B, 	4C and 4D.8
There 	is 	at 	least one State operation with Unit 	1 	employees which
operates 	on a year round, 	24-hour-a-day basis.
While the 	focus 	of Unit 	1 	concerns 	is 	on professional
issues,9 Unit 	1 	employees do have various 	safety concerns.
Safety 	issues 	are dealt with 	on either a 	local 	or 	statewide 	basis
depending on the 	nature 	of 	the 	concern.
7More than one-half of 	Unit 	1 	employees 	are 	found 	in
Sacramento 	County.
8More than one-half of Unit 	1 	employees 	are WWG 	4A.
9CSEA and 	the 	Employer have 	agreed 	to 	refer 	to 	Unit 	1's
title as 	"Professional Administrative, 	Financial 	and Staff
Services," 	but Board approval of this 	change has 	never been
requested.
66

Bargaining Unit 	11
Bargaining Unit 	11 	includes 	over 	2,000 	employees 	in more
than 	150 	job classifications. 	Job classes 	in Unit 	11 	include
plant quarantine inspector, 	architectural 	assistant, 	automotive
emission test 	specialist, 	electrical 	construction 	inspector,
museum technician, 	petroleum production inspector, 	tax area
delineator, 	transportation 	engineering 	technician 	and 	mechanical
construction 	inspector.
Unit 	11 	employees are appointed on a permanent, 	limited term
or temporary basis, 	either full or part-time; 	work in 53 	of the
58 	California 	counties 	and 	out-of-state;10 and are 	found 	in WWG
1, 	2, 	4A, 	4B, 	4C or 4D.11
Issues 	of 	concern to Unit 	11 	employees 	vary by occupational
group but generally include pay, 	classification, 	career and
promotional paths, 	education and training, 	new technology,
facilities, 	equipment and 	clothing 	and health 	and 	safety
(including exposure to pesticides). 	For many employees, 	Unit 	11
is 	a 	"transitional" 	unit, 	with promotional opportunities
requiring transfer to a different bargaining unit, 	including to
Unit 	10.
Plant 	Quarantine 	Inspectors
As 	noted above, 	one classification within Unit 	11 	is 	that of
PQI. 	PQI's 	are 	employed by the Department of Food and
10The 	largest 	concentration of 	Unit 	11 	employees 	-- 	more
than one-third of 	the unit 	-- 	is 	in Sacramento County.
11More than one-half 	are 	in WWG 	2, 	and are under coverage 	of
the 	Fair Labor 	Standards Act.
77

Agriculture, 	Division of Plant 	Industry, 	at border stations
concerning 	the 	detection of 	agricultural 	pests 	and 	the 	effort 	to
prevent 	their 	entry 	into California. 	PQI's 	inspect 	automobiles
and other vehicles, 	either physically or by way of 	verbal
inquiries 	of the driver, 	for plant materials 	or produce which are
to be excluded; 	inspect 	shipments 	of 	fruits, 	nuts 	and vegetables
to 	determine 	compliance 	with 	fruit 	and 	vegetable 	standardization
requirements; 	issue citations; 	identify insect and disease pests;
and 	coordinate 	and 	cooperate with 	law 	enforcement 	officials
concerning movement 	of 	illegal 	drugs 	or 	commodities 	and 	stolen
motor vehicles. 	PQI's 	are also responsible 	for related
administrative duties 	(reports, 	record keeping 	and 	communications
with appropriate 	county and other officials).
" 	The border stations operate on a 24-hour, 	year round basis,
and 	employees 	working at 	a 	border 	station 	frequently work
outdoors 	exposed to harsh weather conditions. 	PQI's 	are 	in
WWG 	2. 	PQI's 	often work with agricultural 	inspectors, 	who
perform 	substantially the 	same duties 	at 	the border 	stations.
Border 	station employees wear uniforms. 	Supervision 	is 	normally
by a 	Plant Quarantine Supervisor I 	or II, 	though PQI's may act as
lead workers 	on a 	shift and, 	at a 	smaller border 	station, 	an
agricultural 	inspector may work alone 	on a 	shift.
Entry to the PQI 	class 	requires 	experience as 	an
12
Agricultural 	Services 	Technician II 	(Range 	B) 	and 	some college
12This 	class 	is 	also 	included in Unit 	11.
88

credits, 	or one 	season's 	experience 	(generally three months) 	in
agricultural 	inspection or pest 	control 	work.
The work-related 	concerns 	of 	PQI's 	and 	agricultural
inspectors 	at border 	stations 	include 	exposure 	to pesticides 	and
asbestos, 	protective 	clothing and 	equipment 	and 	safety of
facilities.
The 	Petitioned-For 	Classifications
a. 	Agricultural 	Inspectors
The 	numbers 	of 	employees 	in all 	five 	agricultural 	inspector
classifications 	fluctuates 	seasonally, 	but there 	are 	roughly 	200
such 	employees. 	Entry to the 	class 	series 	(as 	an Agricultural
Inspector 	I 	(Seasonal)) 	requires 	either one 	season 	(three months)
of 	pertinent 	experience 	or 	completion of 	a 	one-semester 	college
course 	in an agricultural 	subject 	(or one year of 	applicable
general college work).
Most 	agricultural 	inspectors 	are 	employed 	in 	the 	Department
of 	Food 	and Agriculture, 	but the class 	is 	also 	currently utilized
by 	the 	Department of 	Forestry and Fire 	Protection, 	where
employees 	in the 	class work on the 	Dutch Elm disease project.
Within the 	Department of 	Food and Agriculture, 	agricultural
inspectors work in four divisions: 	Animal 	Industry, 	Pest
Management, 	Plant 	Industry and 	Inspection Services.
Agricultural 	inspectors 	in the 	Division of Animal 	Industry
assist 	livestock 	inspectors 	in 	inspection of 	animal 	quarantine
practices at 	slaughterhouses, 	stockyards and feed lots, 	and
9

assist brand 	inspectors 	at 	stockyards 	in 	identifying brands.13
Agricultural 	inspectors 	in 	this 	division also work with
veterinary medical 	officers; 	generally work a Monday through
Friday, 	8:00 	a.m. 	to 	5:00 p.m. 	schedule, 	do not wear uniforms 	and
work out 	of 	State office buildings 	in San Bernardino, 	Redding,
Fresno, 	Los Angeles and San Diego.
Agricultural 	inspectors 	in the 	Division of 	Pest Management
assist pest 	management 	specialists 	and 	environmental 	health
specialists 	in pesticide 	residue 	inspection work 	and pesticide
quality 	control work. 	Their work 	schedule 	is 	generally on a
Monday through Friday, 	8:00 	a.m. 	to 	5:00 p.m. 	basis. 	They do 	not
wear uniforms, 	and work out of 	State office buildings 	in
Sacramento, 	Fresno and Los Angeles.
Agricultural 	inspectors 	in the 	Division of 	Plant 	Industry
work in a variety of 	settings. 	As discussed above, 	agricultural
inspectors work at border 	stations, 	performing pest 	exclusion
tasks, 	and perform essentially the 	same duties 	under the 	same
conditions 	as 	PQI's. 	They also work in this division with
agricultural biologists, 	performing duties 	relating to the
control 	and 	eradication of 	the pink bow worm; 	and work with
biologists, 	entomologists 	and plant Pathologists 	doing 	surveys
for 	exotic 	pests 	and weeds, 	trap 	fabrication and delineating maps
of 	eradication areas. 	Except at the border stations, 	they
normally 	do 	not wear 	a uniform and work 	a 	standard Monday 	through
13The 	livestock 	inspector 	and 	brand 	inspector
classifications 	are 	in Bargaining Unit 	7 	- 	Protective 	Services
and 	Public 	Safety.
10

Friday, 	8:00 	a.m. 	to 	5:00 p.m. 	schedule. 	Their work locations
include Fresno, 	Sacramento, 	Redding, 	Fresno, 	Los Angeles, 	San
Diego and Phoenix, 	Arizona.
In the 	Division of 	Inspection Services, 	agricultural
inspectors 	work both 	in chemical 	lab 	services 	and 	in the 	fresh
products 	for processing branch. 	The one 	employee now in chemical
lab services, 	located in Sacramento, 	performs non-technical
duties 	such 	as 	cleaning 	laboratory 	equipment 	and works 	with
agricultural 	chemists 	and 	student 	assistants.
b. 	Processing Fruit 	and Vegetable 	Inspectors 	and 	Fruit 	and
Vegetable 	Quality 	Control 	Inspectors
The 	fresh products 	for processing branch of 	the 	Division of
Inspection Services 	employs, 	in addition to agricultural
inspectors, 	fruit 	and vegetable quality control 	inspectors 	(about
45 	employees) 	and processing 	fruit 	and vegetable 	inspectors 	(from
10 to 	14 employees). 	The branch provides a non-mandatory
sampling, 	grading, 	inspection and certification service 	for
industries. 	While there 	is 	variation in which 	industries 	solicit
this 	service, 	most work currently is with wineries 	(wine grapes),
garlic, 	onions and canning tomatoes.
Employees 	inspect produce 	for 	compliance with 	the processing
fruit 	and vegetable 	standards 	of 	the Agricultural 	and
Administrative Codes, 	looking at such issues as defects, 	maturity
and the presence of 	foreign material; 	select and 	inspect 	samples
at markets, 	wholesale distribution points, 	processing plants or
wineries, 	fields or inspection stations; 	issue certifications 	if
11

compliance is 	found; 	reject shipments not in compliance; 	keep
records 	and 	may become 	involved 	in helping to 	settle 	disputes
between growers 	and processors. 	The grading of produce 	is
utilized 	in 	setting the price 	to be paid.
Employees 	in this 	branch 	are 	generally 	found 	in the 	Central
and 	Napa Valley areas.14 Workload 	fluctuates 	seasonally 	and,
when there 	is work 	for 	seasonal 	and permanent 	intermittent
employees, 	there is often overtime. 	Exposure to pesticides 	is
one work-related 	concern of 	employees 	in this 	branch.
Entry 	to 	the 	processing 	fruit 	and vegetable 	inspector 	series
requires 	two 	seasons 	experience in growing, 	harvesting, 	grading,
packing, 	sorting and/or 	inspecting of 	fruits 	and vegetables 	for
processing, 	but 	relevant 	education can 	substitute 	in part 	for the
experience 	requirement. 	The minimum qualifications 	for a 	Fruit
and Vegetable Quality Control 	Inspector 	are 	six 	months 	experience
as 	an Agricultural 	Services 	Technician 	II 	(Range B) 	and nine
semester units 	of 	job-related 	college 	course work, 	or 	six 	months
experience 	in the 	State's 	Fruit 	and Vegetable 	Quality 	Control
Program, 	or two years experience in growing, 	harvesting, 	grading,
packing or inspecting fruits, 	nuts 	or vegetables.
14There was 	also 	testimony 	concerning 	fruit 	and vegetable
quality 	control 	inspectors who work 	in Banning, 	performing duties
similar to those of 	PQI's 	at border 	stations. 	Given the
persuasive 	evidence 	that 	these 	two 	classes 	are 	solely 	employed
within different divisions 	of 	the 	Department of 	Food and
Agriculture, 	this 	testimony 	is 	not relied upon for the decision
in this matter.
12

ISSUES
1. 	What effect, 	if any, 	did the 	1985 agreement to exclude
the 	agricultural 	inspector 	and processing 	fruit 	and 	vegetable
inspector 	classifications 	from Unit 	1 	have on the 	Board's
original 	unit placement 	of 	these 	classifications?
2. 	Should the 	agricultural 	inspector and processing 	fruit
and vegetable 	inspector 	classifications 	be placed 	in Unit 	11 	or
Unit 	1?
3. 	Should 	the 	classification of 	fruit 	and vegetable 	quality
control 	inspector be 	transferred 	from Unit 	1 	to Unit 	11?
DISCUSSION
The 	198 5 Agreement
It 	is 	the policy of 	the 	Board to 	encourage voluntary
settlement of disputed issues 	in representation cases. 	The 	Board
has held, 	however, 	that where it has 	jurisdiction in a case,
stipulations 	between the parties 	will 	be 	examined to determine 	if
the 	stipulations 	are 	consistent with the 	relevant 	statute 	and
established 	Board policies. 	An agreement 	affecting unit
determination will 	not be 	accepted 	"unless 	there 	are 	facts 	on 	the
record which would 	enable 	[the 	Board] 	to 	find the unit
appropriate." 	(Centinela Valley 	Union High 	School 	District
(1978) 	PERB Decision No. 	62.)
Here, 	the 	1985 	agreement did not 	include 	any 	factual
stipulations 	in 	support of the unit modification. 	Even now, 	the
13

testimony of 	the 	Employer's 	and CSEA's witnesses 	is 	at variance
as 	to the reasons 	for or basis 	of 	the agreement.15
Retroactive approval 	of 	the 	1985 	stipulation, 	which CSEA 	in
effect requests, 	cannot be granted. 	Thus, 	for purposes 	of this
decision, 	the 	agricultural 	inspector and processing 	fruit 	and
vegetable 	inspector 	classifications 	must 	be 	considered 	as 	placed
15CSEA agreed to 	the 	exclusion due 	to 	the 	seasonal 	nature 	of
the 	job classifications, 	and because the 	employees were difficult
to 	represent 	in a unit where the emphasis was 	on 	"professional"
and 	"white collar" 	issues. 	Unit 	1, 	according to CSEA, 	is
generally difficult to represent, 	however, 	due to its 	size, 	the
service-wide 	nature of many of 	its 	classifications 	and the 	large
number of 	specialized 	classes 	within it.
The 	Employer proposed 	and 	agreed 	to 	the 	exclusion based 	on
both a 	belief 	that 	the employees 	in question were 	not 	covered by
the 	Dills Act 	and a desire 	to 	save 	on operational 	costs 	and have
greater 	flexibility 	over 	employment 	issues.
Representation history 	and 	community 	of 	interest 	are
relevant 	criteria 	for determination of proper unit placement, 	and
are 	factors 	considered, 	below, 	in this decision. 	Such factors
are 	not 	appropriate 	to consideration of 	questions 	of 	exclusion,
however. 	Employees 	are 	excluded only 	if 	found to be managerial,
supervisory or confidential, 	or not 	subject 	to coverage by the
relevant statute. 	(See, 	for example, 	In Re the State Employer-
Employee 	Relations Act. 	Phase 	III 	Unit Determination Proceeding
(1979) 	PERB Order No. 	Ad-79-S, 	and Unit Determination for the
State of California 	(1980) 	PERB Decision No. 	ll0c-S.)
Concerning the 	Employer's 	argument 	as 	to 	statutory 	coverage,
the 	Board earlier held, 	in Unit Determination 	for the State 	of
California 	(1981) 	PERB Decision No. 110d-S (ll0d-S). that 	certain
State 	employees were not 	"civil 	service 	employees," 	by reason of
certain characteristics 	common to 	seasonal 	employees, 	and thus
were not 	subject to 	coverage under the Ralph C. 	Dills Act 	(Dills
Act; 	Government Code section 3512 et seq.). 	However, 	in State of
California 	(Department of Personnel Administration) 	(1990) 	PERB
Decision No. 	787-S, 	the Board overruled 110d-S on this point,
finding 	that 	seasonal 	employees 	are 	both 	civil 	service 	employees
and covered by the Dills Act. 	(See, 	also, 	State of California
(Department of Personnel Administration) 	(1991) 	PERB Decision No.
871-S.) 	Thus, 	this 	factor, 	even if stipulated to in 	1985, 	would
not 	allow approval 	of 	the 	stipulated 	exclusion.
14

by the Board 	in Unit 	1, 	with CSEA 	seeking to change 	their unit
placement.
Unit 	Placement 	-- 	Agricultural 	Inspectors 	and 	Processing 	Fruit
and 	Vegetable 	Inspectors
The Dills Act, 	at Government Code section 3521(b), 	provides
guidance 	to 	the 	Board 	in determining 	appropriate 	units 	for 	State
employees. 	The 	criteria 	include but are 	not 	limited to: 	the
internal 	and occupational 	community of 	interest; 	the history of
representation; 	commonality of 	skills, 	working conditions,
duties, 	training requirements 	and 	supervision; 	the effect the
projected unit would have 	upon 	the 	meet 	and 	confer relationship
and 	efficiency of 	operations; 	and the 	size 	of 	the proposed unit
and 	its 	effect upon 	employee 	representational 	rights.
In establishing Unit 	1, 	the Board described the 	employees
placed 	in 	it 	as 	performing 	"essentially 	administrative 	functions,
in order 	to 	effectuate 	state 	and departmental 	policies 	and
programs." 	(Unit 	Determination 	for the 	State of 	California
(1979) 	PERB Decision No. 	110-S.) 	The Board proceeded to describe
the 	characteristics 	of this unit as 	follows:
Almost 	all 	employees 	in the 	administrative
unit have 	similar working conditions; 	they
usually work regular hours 	in 	an office
environment. 	Overtime is rarely required. 	. 	. 	.
The work of 	the vast majority 	[of] 	employees
in the 	classifications 	in the 	administrative
unit 	involves 	gathering 	information,
analyzing that 	information, 	and making
decisions 	or recommendations 	based on that
information. 	Even when the work performed 	is
relatively routine, 	it 	involves 	a certain
amount 	of discretion and 	judgment.
15

Specific 	skills 	required differ 	among
classifications, 	but all 	require the ability
to 	communicate 	effectively 	orally 	and 	in
writing, 	to analyze data, 	and to apply data
to 	specific 	situations. 	Much of 	the work
requires 	the 	ability 	to work without 	direct
guidance.
Most 	classifications 	require 	some post-
secondary 	education. 	While many require 	a
college degree or 	substantial 	experience, 	the
majority do 	not 	require 	the 	advanced
specialized 	knowledge 	necessary 	to 	be
considered a professional position. 	(Id.;
emphasis 	added.)
The Board described the positions 	in Unit 	11 	as 	follows
Most 	utilize 	scientific 	instruments 	and
technology, 	most 	involve gathering or
recording data. 	These 	lead 	to 	certain common
skills requirements: 	the ability to use
technical equipment, 	to observe, measure, 	and
record data accurately, 	and to apply
technical 	knowledge 	to 	specific 	problems.
Many positions 	require 	a 	familiarity with
scientific 	methods 	of 	gaining 	information.
None of 	the classifications 	in this 	unit
requires 	the 	advanced 	specialized 	knowledge
necessary 	to be 	considered 	a 	professional
position, 	but almost all require a certain
amount 	of 	education and 	training 	in
engineering or 	scientific 	fields. 	Training
requirements vary; 	some positions 	can be
entered with minimal 	training while 	others
require 	the 	completion of 	a 	certain number of
units of college-level engineering, 	science,
or mathematics 	classes 	or of 	a 	technical
program at 	a 	community 	college.
[W]hile many of 	the 	employees 	in this 	unit
work 	closely with professional 	employees,
often performing 	similar duties, 	the work is
usually at 	a 	lower technical 	level with 	less
responsibility and independence. 	. 	. 	.
The 	Board 	finds 	that the 	technical 	training,
skills, 	and duties 	required of 	employees 	in
this 	unit 	unifies 	them while 	differentiating
16

- -
them 	from 	other 	nonprofessional 	employees.
In addition, 	their working conditions 	further
distinguish them. 	Few work 	in a 	traditional
office or hospital 	environment; 	the vast
majority work outside 	in 	the 	field 	or 	in
laboratories. 	(IA.; 	emphasis added.)
"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." 	(State 	of
California 	(Department of Personnel Administration) 	(1990) 	PERB
Decision No. 	794-S; 	emphasis 	in original.) 	Neither the original
unit placement 	nor the proposed modification 	is 	required 	to 	be
perfect or the most appropriate. 	(Id. , 	citing Antioch Unified
School District 	(1977) 	EERB16 Decision No. 	37 and Regents of the
University of California 	(1986) 	PERB Decision No. 	586-H.)
To 	the 	extent CSEA rests 	its 	argument 	on the 	nonprofessional
status 	of the employees 	at 	issue, 	their case 	is unpersuasive
given the 	explicit 	finding of 	the Board that Unit 	1 	is 	not
composed 	exclusively of professional 	employees. 	There was 	no
persuasive, 	or even very 	specific, 	evidence 	introduced concerning
a 	difficult 	history of 	representation of 	the 	classes 	at 	issue.
Probably 	the 	most persuasive 	element 	of 	CSEA's 	case 	concerns
the working conditions 	of 	the 	employees. 	Whether at a border
station, 	or in a 	stockyard, 	or outside an onion processing plant
or winery, 	or in an agricultural 	chemist's 	laboratory, 	the work
setting 	of 	these 	employees 	is 	precisely 	as 	described by 	the 	Board
as 	typical 	for Unit 	11. 	On the other hand, 	there 	is 	also
16Prior to January 	1, 	1978, 	PERB was 	known as the
Educational 	Employment Relations 	Board 	(EERB).
17

considerable 	evidence that many of 	these 	employees 	report 	to 	and
work out of 	a more typical 	office 	setting, 	and there 	are other
Unit 	1 	employees who do not work behind a desk all day. 	See,
e.g., 	the 	job descriptions 	for Feed, 	Fertilizer and Livestock
Drugs 	Inspector and Grain and Commodity 	Sampler. 	(Joint 	Exhibit
Nos. 	24 and 25, 	respectively.) 	Likewise, while there is
persuasive 	evidence 	that 	all 	the 	employees 	at 	issue would 	share
health 	and 	safety 	concerns, 	particularly 	in the 	area 	of 	exposure
to pesticides, 	this 	factor is 	not 	sufficient to establish a
separate 	or distinguishable 	community 	of 	interest which would
warrant 	the 	unit 	modification 	requested.
The evidence that, 	at border stations, 	agricultural
inspectors work only with Unit 	11 	employees 	(namely, 	plant
quarantine 	inspectors) 	is 	not as 	compelling -- 	or one-sided 	-- 	as
CSEA asserts. 	The record 	is 	replete with evidence of
agricultural 	inspectors 	who work 	side-by-side 	with 	employees
found, 	inter alia, 	in Bargaining Units 	7 and 	10. 	Concerning the
processing 	fruit 	and 	vegetable 	inspectors 	and 	fruit 	and 	vegetable
quality 	control 	inspectors, 	the 	evidence does 	not reveal 	any
pattern of work with employees 	in Unit 	11 	(or any other State
bargaining 	unit).
The 	evidence 	concerning 	the 	educational 	requirements 	for
disputed employees 	is 	likewise not 	conclusive. 	Many of 	the
classifications 	include, 	at 	least as 	an optional 	requirement,
college 	level 	course work. 	Such a requirement 	is 	as 	likely to be
found among Unit 	1 	employees as Unit 	11.
18

The record, 	on balance, 	concerning promotional or career
paths 	of 	employees 	in disputed classes 	is 	not persuasive as 	a
factor 	in 	support 	of 	the 	requested unit 	modification.
CSEA also 	overstates 	the 	extent 	to which the 	employees 	at
issue work under direct 	supervision with 	little 	or 	no 	discretion.
Ernest Tracy, 	testifying for CSEA, 	indicated that agricultural
inspectors 	sometimes 	"run a complete 	shift by themselves" 	at 	the
smaller border stations. 	(Vol. 	I, 	103:17-19.) 	Employees 	in
higher 	levels 	of 	classification 	assume 	greater responsibilities
and discretion. 	For example, 	the Processing Fruit 	and Vegetable
Inspector IV 	(Permanent 	Intermittent) 	is 	responsible 	for
inspection duties 	but 	also 	"discusses 	and 	settles 	difficult
disputes 	between growers 	and processors" 	and 	"recommends 	and
implements 	policy 	in the 	enforcement 	of 	the provisions 	of 	the
processing 	fruit and vegetable 	standards." 	(Joint 	Exhibit No.
9.) 	Such duties 	are well within the 	job 	characteristics
discussed by the Board as 	typical of Unit 	1 positions.
For all of these reasons, 	the necessary conclusion here 	is
that 	agricultural 	inspectors 	and processing 	fruit 	and 	vegetable
inspectors 	should remain in Unit 	1. 	This placement may not be
"perfect," 	but the 	evidence available here does 	not offer
sufficient 	rationale 	for disturbing 	the 	unit placement 	originally
determined 	to 	be 	appropriate 	by 	the 	Board.
Fruit 	and Vegetable 	Quality 	Control 	Inspector
As 	noted 	in argument by the Employer, 	very 	little
information was 	offered 	by 	CSEA 	concerning 	the 	classification 	of
19

Fruit and Vegetable Quality Control 	Inspector. 	The 	evidence does
clearly establish, 	however, 	that this classification is
appropriately placed 	in the 	same unit 	as 	the processing 	fruit 	and
vegetable 	inspectors. 	Employees 	in these 	classes 	share 	similar
duties, 	supervision, 	working conditions and hours, 	education and
experience 	requirements 	and health 	and 	safety 	concerns. 	Given
the 	findings 	set 	forth above, 	and the record as 	a whole, 	the
proposed 	transfer 	of 	the 	Fruit 	and Vegetable 	Quality Control
Inspector classification from Unit 	1 	to Unit 	11 	must be denied.
CONCLUSION AND 	PROPOSED 	ORDER
Based upon the 	foregoing 	findings 	of 	fact, 	the discussion,
and the 	entire 	record of 	this proceeding, 	the California 	State
Employees' 	Association's unit modification petition is 	DENIED.
It 	is 	hereby ORDERED that 	the 	following classifications 	are
to remain or be 	included 	in State Bargaining Unit 	1 	-
Administrative, 	Financial and Staff 	Services: 	Agricultural
Inspector I 	(Seasonal), Agricultural Inspector II 	(Seasonal),
Agricultural 	Inspector III 	(Seasonal), 	Agricultural 	Inspector II
(Permanent 	Intermittent), 	Agricultural 	Inspector III 	(Permanent
Intermittent), 	Processing Fruit and Vegetable Inspector I
(Seasonal), 	Processing Fruit and Vegetable Inspector II
(Seasonal), 	Processing Fruit and Vegetable Inspector III
(Seasonal), 	Processing Fruit and Vegetable Inspector IV
(Seasonal), 	Processing Fruit and Vegetable 	Inspector III
(Permanent 	Intermittent), 	Processing Fruit and Vegetable
20

Inspector 	IV 	(Permanent 	Intermittent) 	and Fruit 	and Vegetable
Quality 	Control 	Inspector.
Pursuant to California Code of Regulations, 	title 	8,
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 Cal. 	Code of Regs.,
tit. 	8, 	sec. 	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 Cal. 	Code of 	Regs.,
tit. 	8, 	sec. 	32135; 	Code Civ. 	P r o c , 	sec. 	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 Cal. 	Code of Regs., 	tit. 	8,
secs. 	32300, 	32305 and 32140.)
Dated: 	September 	11, 	1991
Les 	Chisholm
Hearing 	Officer
21