Long Beach Community College District (California School Employees Association) (PERB 1278E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS 	BOARD
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL 	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION,
Charging 	Party,
v.
LONG 	BEACH 	COMMUNITY 	COLLEGE
DISTRICT,
Respondent.
Case 	No. 	LA-CE-3824
PERB 	Decision No. 	1278
August 	14, 	1998
Appearances: 	A. 	Alan Aldrich, 	Senior 	Labor 	Relations
Representative, 	for 	California 	School 	Employees 	Association;
Parker, 	Covert 	& 	Chidester by Spencer E. 	Covert, 	Attorney, 	for
Long 	Beach 	Community 	College 	District.
Before 	Caffrey, 	Chairman; 	Johnson 	and 	Dyer, 	Members.
DECISION
DYER, 	Member: 	This 	case 	comes 	before 	the 	Public 	Employment
Relations 	Board 	(PERB 	or 	Board) 	on 	exceptions 	filed 	by 	the
California 	School 	Employees 	Association 	(CSEA) 	to 	a 	Board
administrative 	law 	judge's 	(ALJ) 	proposed 	decision. 	In 	its
charge 	and 	complaint, 	CSEA alleged 	that 	the 	Long 	Beach 	Community
College 	District 	(District) 	violated 	section 	3543.5(a), 	(b) 	and
(d) 	of 	the 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Act 	(EERA) 1 by
1EERA 	is 	codified 	at 	Government 	Code 	section 	3540 	et 	seq.
Unless 	otherwise 	indicated, 	all 	statutory 	references 	herein 	are
to 	the 	Government 	Code. 	Section 	3543.5 	provides, 	in 	relevant
part:
It 	shall 	be 	unlawful 	for 	a 	public 	school
employer 	to 	do 	any 	of 	the 	following:
(a) 	Impose 	or 	threaten 	to 	impose 	reprisals
on 	employees, 	to 	discriminate 	or 	threaten 	to
discriminate 	against 	employees, 	or 	otherwise

placing 	a 	severance 	presentation by 	a 	rival 	employee 	organization
known 	as 	the 	Long 	Beach 	Community 	College 	Police 	Officer 1 s
Association 	(POA) 	on 	the 	agenda 	for 	a 	week 	of 	mandatory 	in-
service 	training. 	The 	ALJ 	held 	a 	formal 	hearing 	on December 	9,
1997 	and 	rendered 	a 	proposed 	decision 	dismissing 	the 	charge 	and
complaint 	on 	February 	10, 	1998.
to 	interfere 	with, 	restrain, 	or 	coerce
employees 	because 	of 	their 	exercise 	of 	rights
guaranteed by 	this 	chapter. 	For 	purposes 	of
this 	subdivision, 	"employee" 	includes 	an
applicant 	for 	employment 	or 	reemployment.
(b) 	Deny 	to 	employee 	organizations 	rights
guaranteed 	to 	them by 	this 	chapter.
(d) 	Dominate 	or 	interfere 	with 	the 	formation
or 	administration 	of 	any 	employee
organization, 	or 	contribute 	financial 	or
other 	support 	to 	it, 	or 	in 	any way 	encourage
employees 	to 	join any 	organization 	in
preference 	to 	another.
The 	Board 	has 	reviewed 	the 	entire 	record 	in 	this 	case,
including 	the 	proposed 	decision, 	the 	hearing 	transcripts, 	CSEA's
exceptions, 	and 	the 	District's 	response 	thereto. 	For 	the 	reasons
that 	follow, 	the 	Board 	reverses 	the 	ALJ's 	proposed 	decision 	and
finds 	that 	the 	District's 	conduct 	violated 	section 	3543.S(a), 	(b)
and 	(d) .
FINDINGS 	OF 	FACT
The 	District 	is 	a 	public 	school 	employer 	within 	the 	meaning
of 	the 	EERA. 	CSEA 	is 	an 	employee 	organization and 	the 	exclusive
representative 	of 	the 	District's 	classified bargaining 	unit,
including 	the 	11 	or 	12 	College 	Safety Officers 	(CSO) 	employed by
2

the 	District. 2 	The 	District 	and 	CSEA were 	parties 	to 	a
collective 	bargaining 	agreement 	(CBA) 	that 	was 	in 	effect 	during
the 	relevant 	time 	period. 	The 	CBA 	expired 	on June 	30, 	1997. 3
POA 	is 	an 	employee 	organization 	attempting 	to 	sever 	CSOs
from 	the 	District's 	classified bargaining unit 	and 	undertake
their 	representation. 	At 	the 	time 	of 	the 	alleged 	unfair
practice, 	approximately 	five 	(5) 	of 	the 	District's 	CSOs 	were
members 	of 	the 	POA.
During 	the 	week 	of 	February 	24-28, 	the 	District 	required
CSOs 	to 	attend 	forty 	(40) 	hours 	of 	in-service 	training 	at 	the
Long 	Beach 	City 	Police 	Academy 	(Academy). 	The 	in-service
training 	was 	taught 	by 	District 	supervisors. 	The 	District 	used a
single 	Academy 	classroom 	for 	all 	of 	the 	training.
Shortly before 	the 	training, 	POA president 	Vernon Gates
(Gates) 	approached 	the 	District 	and 	asked 	that 	he 	be 	allowed 	to
make 	a 	presentation 	highlighting 	the 	virtues 	of 	the 	POA. 	The
District 	informed Gates 	that 	such a 	presentation 	could be 	made
only 	during 	non-work 	time. 	Ultimately, 	the 	District 	agreed 	to
allow Gates 	to 	make 	his 	POA presentation 	after 	the 	close 	of
training 	on 	Friday, 	February 	28. 4
2The 	record 	is 	unclear 	regarding 	the 	exact 	number 	of 	CSO's
employed by 	the 	District 	at 	the 	time 	of 	the 	alleged 	unfair
practice.
3Unless 	otherwise 	indicated, 	all 	dates 	refer 	to 	1997.
4District 	witnesses 	testified 	that 	it 	would 	have 	permitted
CSEA 	to 	make 	a 	similar presentation upon 	request. 	There 	is 	no
evidence 	indicating 	that 	CSEA made 	any 	such 	request. 	(See
Regents 	of 	the 	University 	of 	California v. 	Public 	Employment
Relations 	Bd. 	(1986) 	177 	Cal.App.3d 	648, 	655 	[223 	Cal.Rptr. 	127]
3

(Regents) 	(finding 	that 	it 	was 	immaterial 	that 	no 	other 	employee
organization had 	expressed 	interest).)
Prior 	to 	February 	24, 	the 	District 	prepared 	and 	distributed
an 	official 	training 	schedule 	for 	the 	week. 	The 	schedule 	covered
the 	period 	from 	8:00 	a.m. 	to 	5:00 	p.m. 	each 	day. 	For Monday,
Tuesday, 	Wednesday 	and 	Thursday, 	the 	schedule 	indicates 	a 	one-
hour 	lunch period 	from 	12:00 	p.m. 	to 	1:00 	p.m. 	For 	Friday, 	the
schedule 	indicates 	a 	two-hour 	lunch 	period 	from 	12:00 	p.m 	to 	2:00
p.m. 	and 	a 	POA presentation 	from 	4:00 	p.m. 	to 	5:00 	p.m.
The 	parties 	agree 	that 	the 	training 	on Monday, 	Tuesday,
Wednesday 	and 	Thursday 	ran 	from 	8:00 	a.m. 	through 	5:00 	p.m. 	with
a 	one-hour 	"duty 	free" 	lunch 	from 	12:00 	p.m. 	to 	1:00 	p.m. 	CSOs
were 	free 	to 	take 	lunch wherever 	they 	chose, 	so 	long 	as 	they
returned 	to 	the 	Academy 	in 	time 	for 	the 	1:00 	p.m. 	class. 	The 	ALJ
found 	that 	this 	schedule 	differed 	from 	the 	CSOs' 	regular 	workday,
which 	spanned 	eight 	hours 	with 	no 	duty-free 	lunch 	period. 5
5Article 	XII 	of 	the 	CBA provides 	for 	employees 	to 	work 	eight
straight 	hours 	without 	a 	duty-free 	lunch period.
Article 	XII, 	section 	K of 	the 	CBA provides, 	in 	relevant
part:
Each work 	shift 	shall 	include 	an 	unpaid 	duty-
free 	meal 	period 	of 	not 	less 	than 	one-half
(1/2) 	hour 	nor more 	than 	one 	(1) 	hour 	which,
in 	the 	case 	of 	a 	seven 	(7) 	or 	eight 	hour 	(8)
shift, 	shall 	occur 	approximately at 	the
midpoint 	of 	the 	shift. 	This 	provision 	shall
not 	apply 	to 	unit 	employees 	working 	six 	(6)
hours 	or 	less.
A unit 	employee 	required 	and 	authorized 	to
work 	during 	his/her 	lunch 	period 	shall
receive 	pay 	or 	compensatory 	time 	off 	at
his/her 	rate 	of 	time 	and 	one-half 	(1-1/2) 	for
time 	worked 	during 	the 	lunch 	period 	unless
4

he/she 	is 	granted 	time 	off 	equivalent 	to 	that
time 	worked 	during 	the 	lunch 	hour 	on 	the 	same
day.
The 	training 	schedule 	was 	different 	on 	Friday, 	February 	28.
On 	that 	day, 	the 	District 	required 	all 	CSOs 	to 	attend 	a 	barbecue
at 	the 	Academy 	between 	12:00 	p.m. 	and 	2:00 	p.m. 6 	At 	2:00 	p.m.,
Lieutenant 	Paul 	Chastain 	(Chastain) 	presented 	two 	hours 	of 	auto
theft 	training. 	The 	auto 	theft 	training 	ended 	at 	4 	p.m., 	the
time 	when 	the 	POA presentation was 	scheduled 	to 	begin.
The 	parties 	presented 	conflicting 	testimony 	regarding 	the
events 	immediately preceding 	the 	POA presentation. 	Several
District 	witnesses 	testified 	that, 	upon 	the 	completion 	of 	the
auto 	theft 	training, 	Chastain 	indicated 	that 	the 	in-service
training 	was 	complete 	and 	that 	the 	CSOs 	were 	free 	to 	go. 	Gates
testified 	that 	he 	made 	a 	similar announcement 	when 	he 	began 	the
POA presentation. 	On 	the 	other 	hand, 	two 	CSEA witnesses
testified 	that 	they 	did 	not 	hear 	either 	Chastain 	or Gates
announce 	that 	the 	training 	had 	ended 	or 	that 	the 	POA presentation
was 	voluntary. 	A third 	CSEA witness 	testified 	that 	both Gates
and 	Chastain announced 	that 	the 	POA presentation was 	mandatory.
Faced with 	this 	conflict, 	the ALJ 	credited 	the 	District's
witnesses, 	specifically 	relying 	on 	the 	testimony 	of 	CSO 	Art 	Rupio
(Rupio). 	Rupio 	testified 	that 	Chastain announced 	that 	the 	POA
presentation 	was 	not 	mandatory 	and 	that 	CSOs 	were 	free 	to 	leave.
Because 	he 	had 	no 	interest 	in 	the 	POA presentation, 	Rupio 	left
6Although 	the 	barbecue 	lasted 	until 	2:00 	p.m., 	it 	appears
that 	some 	CSOs 	left 	at 	approximately 	1:30 	p.m. 	to 	pick up 	their
paychecks 	from 	the 	District 	personnel 	office.
5

the 	classroom and 	went 	home 	prior 	to 	the 	start 	of 	the 	POA
presentation. 	Based 	on 	all 	the 	testimony, 	the 	ALJ 	found 	that 	the
POA presentation was 	not 	mandatory 	and 	that 	the 	District
announced 	that 	fact 	to 	the 	CSOs 	prior 	to 	the 	POA presentation.
CSEA witnesses 	also 	testified 	that 	the 	POA 	circulated 	a
petition 	to 	decertify 	CSEA during 	the 	presentation. 7 	These
witnesses 	testified, 	however, 	that 	the 	petition was 	merely 	a
legal-sized 	sheet 	of 	paper with 	CSOs 	names 	typed 	below 	signature
lines. 	The 	witnesses 	testified 	that 	the 	petition 	contained 	no
text 	identifying 	the 	purposes 	of 	the 	signatures. 	All 	CSEA
witnesses 	later 	signed a 	petition 	for 	decertification 	filed 	by
POA 	on March 	20 	and 	entered 	into 	evidence 	at 	the 	hearing. 	Noting
that 	the 	POA meeting 	occurred 	outside 	of 	the 	window period 	for
decertification, 	the 	ALJ 	found 	that 	no 	petition was 	circulated
during 	the 	POA meeting. 	(See 	EERA section 	3544. 7 (b) (1).) 8
There 	was 	also 	some 	testimony 	that 	the 	POA attempted 	to
collect 	dues 	during 	the 	presentation. 	Although 	the 	ALJ 	found
7The 	record 	does 	not 	contain a 	copy 	of 	this 	document.
8Section 	3544.7 	provides, 	in 	relevant 	part:
(b) 	No 	election 	shall 	be 	held 	and 	the
petition 	shall 	be 	dismissed 	whenever 	either
of 	the 	following 	exist:
(1) 	There 	is 	currently 	in 	effect 	a 	lawful
written 	agreement 	negotiated by 	the 	public
school 	employer 	and 	another 	employee
organization 	covering 	any 	employees 	included
in 	the 	unit 	described 	in 	the 	request 	for
recognition, 	or 	unless 	the 	request 	for
recognition 	is 	filed 	less 	than 	120 	days, 	but
more 	than 	90 	days, 	prior 	to 	the 	expiration
date 	of 	the 	agreement.
6

that 	Gates 	made 	some 	announcement 	regarding 	the 	amount 	of 	dues
paid by 	POA members, 	the 	ALJ 	found 	that 	there 	was 	insufficient
evidence 	in 	the 	record 	to 	find 	that 	POA actually 	attempted 	to
collect 	dues 	during 	the 	presentation.
PROPOSED 	DECISION
The 	ALJ 	identified 	the 	following 	issue:
Did 	the 	Long 	Beach 	Community 	College 	District
provide 	unlawful 	assistance 	to 	the 	POA 	in
violation 	of 	the 	EERA?
The 	ALJ 	determined 	that 	the 	crux 	of 	this 	case 	lay 	in
determining 	whether 	the 	CSOs 	were 	actually 	on 	duty 	during 	the 	POA
presentation. 	The 	ALJ 	found 	that 	the 	workday 	on 	Friday,
February 	28 	ran 	from 	8:00 	a.m. 	through 	4:00 	p.m., 	including 	a
two-hour mandatory 	luncheon. 	Accordingly, 	the ALJ 	found 	that 	the
CSOs 	were 	not 	on paid 	status 	during 	the 	POA presentation.
Likewise, 	the 	ALJ 	credited District 	witnesses 	who 	testified 	that
the 	CSOs 	were 	dismissed 	prior 	to 	the 	beginning 	of 	the 	POA meeting
and 	that 	Chastain and Gates 	informed 	the 	CSOs 	that 	they 	were 	free
to 	leave 	before 	the 	presentation.
The 	ALJ 	noted 	that 	EERA 	section 	3543.S(d) 	precludes 	the
District 	from 	dominating 	or 	interfering 	with 	the 	formation 	or
administration 	of 	any 	employee 	organization, 	or 	contributing
financial 	or 	other 	support 	to, 	or 	in any way 	encouraging
employees 	to 	join any 	organization 	in 	preference 	to 	another.
(Santa Monica 	Community 	College 	District 	(1979) 	PERB 	Decision
No. 	103 	at 	p. 	22 	(Santa Monica) 	(noting 	that 	test 	is 	whether
employer's 	conduct 	tends 	to 	influence 	employee 	choice).) 	As
7

noted 	above, 	the 	ALJ 	found 	that 	the 	POA meeting 	took place
outside 	working 	hours 	and was 	not 	mandatory. 	In 	addition, 	the
ALJ 	found 	that 	the 	CSOs 	were 	not 	asked 	to 	sign a 	petition 	or 	to
pay 	dues 	during 	the 	POA presentation.
The 	ALJ 	also 	noted 	that 	EERA 	requires 	the 	District 	to
provide 	employee 	organizations, 	such 	as 	POA, 	access 	to 	unit
members. 	(EERA 	sec. 	3543.l(b) .) 9 	Because 	the 	District 	merely
scheduled 	the 	non-mandatory 	POA meeting 	and 	did 	not 	participate
in 	the 	meeting, 	the ALJ 	found 	that 	the 	District's 	accommodation
did 	not 	constitute 	influence 	of 	choice 	or 	stimulus 	in any
direction. 	Accordingly, 	the 	ALJ 	held 	that 	the 	District's 	conduct
did 	not 	constitute 	unlawful 	support 	for 	the 	POA and 	dismissed 	the
charge 	and 	complaint.
DISCUSSION
It 	is 	well 	established 	that 	a 	public 	school 	employer may 	not
encourage 	employees 	to 	join 	one 	employee 	organization 	over
another. 	(EERA 	sec. 	3543.S(d) .) 	The 	Board 	has 	found 	that
Section 	3543.S(d) 	imposes 	on 	the 	employer 	an 	unqualified
requirement 	of 	strict 	neutrality 	with 	respect 	to 	employee 	choice
9Section 	3543.1 	provides, 	in 	relevant 	part:
(b) 	Employee 	organizations 	shall 	have 	the
right 	of 	access 	at 	reasonable 	times 	to 	areas
in which 	employees 	work, 	the 	right 	to 	use
institutional 	bulletin boards, 	mailboxes, 	and
other means 	of 	communication, 	subject 	to
reasonable 	regulation, 	and 	the 	right 	to 	use
institutional 	facilities 	at 	reasonable 	times
for 	the 	purpose 	of 	meetings 	concerned with
the 	exercise 	of 	the 	rights 	guaranteed by 	this
chapter.
8

of 	representation. 	(Sacramento 	City Unified 	School 	District
(1982) 	PERB 	Decision No. 	214 	at 	p. 	3, 	citing 	Santa Monica.)
Where 	the 	natural 	consequence 	of 	an 	employer's 	conduct 	is 	to
encourage 	or 	discourage 	membership 	in 	a 	labor 	organization, 	the
Board presumes 	that 	the 	employer 	intended 	that 	result. 	(Azusa
Unified 	School 	District 	(1977) 	EERB 	Decision No. 	38, 10 proposed
dee. 	at 	p. 	8.)
In 	this 	case, 	the 	District 	included 	POA's 	severance
presentation 	on 	the 	official 	schedule 	for 	a 	week 	of 	mandatory
peace 	officer 	training. 	The 	District 	scheduled 	the 	POA
presentation 	immediately 	following 	a 	mandatory 	training 	session
in 	the 	Academy 	classroom 	reserved 	for 	the 	training. 	Further, 	the
District 	scheduled 	the 	POA presentation 	just 	one 	day 	before 	CSEA
became 	vulnerable 	to 	decertification. 	(See 	EERA sec.
3544.7(b) (1) .) 	We 	find 	that 	the 	District's 	actions 	gave 	the
impression 	that 	the 	POA presentation was 	part 	of 	the 	mandatory
training 	or, 	at 	the 	very 	least, 	that 	the 	District 	supported 	the
POA presentation. 	This 	is 	precisely 	the 	sort 	of 	conduct 	that
would 	lead a 	reasonable 	person 	to 	conclude 	that 	the 	District
favored 	POA over 	CSEA. 	(See 	Regents 	at 	p. 	655 	(noting 	that 	the
University 	could 	not 	allow 	the 	union 	to 	use 	official 	banner 	space
unless 	space 	was 	also 	used 	by 	competing unions); 	Clovis 	Unified
School 	District 	(1984) 	PERB 	Decision No. 	389 	at 	p. 	10.)
10Prior 	to 	January 	1, 	1978, 	PERB 	was 	known 	as 	the 	Educational
Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(EERB).
9

We 	turn 	now 	to 	the 	question 	of 	whether 	the 	District 	took
sufficient 	remedial 	actions 	to 	cure 	the 	appearance 	of 	unlawful
support 	for 	POA. 	(See 	Inglewood 	Unified 	School 	District 	(1987)
PERB 	Decision No. 	624 	at 	p. 	12 	(noting 	that 	honestly 	given
retraction 	can 	erase 	effects 	of 	prior 	coercive 	statement).) 	We
agree 	with 	the 	ALJ's 	finding 	that 	Chastain 	informed 	CSOs 	that 	the
POA meeting 	was 	voluntary 	and 	that 	they 	were 	free 	to 	go. 	Because
ALJs 	sit 	in 	a 	better 	position 	to 	observe 	the 	demeanor 	of
witnesses, 	the 	Board 	generally 	defers 	to 	its 	ALJs' 	credibility
determinations. 	(Duarte 	Unified 	Education Association 	(Fox)
(1997) 	PERB 	Decision No. 	1220 	at 	p. 	3; 	Los 	Rios 	College
Federation 	of 	Teachers 	(Deglow) 	(1996) 	PERB 	Decision No. 	1133 	at
p. 	6.) 	The 	question 	remains, 	however, 	whether 	Chastain's
statement 	regarding 	the 	voluntary 	nature 	of 	the 	POA presentation
was 	sufficient 	to 	undo 	the 	effects 	of 	the 	District's 	prior
actions. 	We 	hold 	that 	it 	was 	not.
As 	noted 	above, 	EERA 	requires 	that 	the 	District 	maintain 	an
appearance 	of 	strict 	neutrality 	in 	its 	dealings 	with 	employee
organizations. 	This 	is 	especially 	true 	when 	the 	identity 	of 	the
exclusive 	representative 	is 	at 	issue. 	Here, 	on 	the 	eve 	of 	the
window period, 	the 	District 	produced a 	training 	schedule. 	This
document 	included a 	briefing by a 	rival 	employee 	organization.
Although 	the 	District 	later 	informed 	the 	CSOs 	that 	the 	POA
presentation 	was 	not 	mandatory, 	it 	made 	no 	effort 	to 	retract 	the
offending 	training 	schedule 	and 	took 	no 	other 	action 	to 	assuage
the 	appearance 	that 	it 	supported 	the 	POA's 	decertification
10

effort. 	Accordingly, 	we 	find 	that, 	under 	the 	totality 	of 	the
circumstances, 	the 	District's 	conduct 	constituted a 	breach 	of 	its
duty 	of 	strict 	neutrality.
ORDER
Upon 	the 	findings 	of 	fact, 	conclusions 	of 	law, 	and 	the
entire 	record 	in 	this 	case, 	it 	is 	found 	that 	the 	Long 	Beach
Community 	College 	District 	(District) 	violated 	the 	Educational
Employment 	Relations 	Act 	(EERA), 	Government 	Code 	section
3543.S(a), 	(bl 	and 	(d). 	The 	District 	violated 	this 	section by
encouraging 	unit 	members 	to 	join a 	rival 	employee 	organization 	at
the 	expense 	of 	the 	exclusive 	representative.
Pursuant 	to 	EERA 	section 	3541.S(c), 	it 	is 	hereby 	ORDERED
that 	the 	District, 	its 	governing 	board 	and 	its 	representatives
shall:
A. 	CEASE AND 	DESIST 	FROM:
1. 	Encouraging 	employees 	to 	join any 	employee
organization 	in 	preference 	to 	another 	by placing 	the 	meetings 	of
one 	employee 	organization 	on 	the 	official 	schedule 	for 	mandatory
in 	service 	training 	without 	making 	similar arrangements 	for 	the
California 	School 	Employees 	Association.
B. 	TAKE 	THE 	FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE 	ACTIONS 	DESIGNED 	TO
EFFECTUATE 	THE 	POLICIES 	OF 	THE 	EERA:
1. 	Within 	ten 	(10) 	days 	following 	the 	date 	this
Decision 	is 	no 	longer 	subject 	to 	appeal, 	post 	at 	all 	work
locations 	where 	notices 	to 	classified 	employees 	customarily 	are
posted, 	copies 	of 	the 	Notice 	attached 	hereto 	as 	an 	Appendix. 	The
Notice 	must 	be 	signed by an 	authorized 	agent 	of 	the 	District,
11

indicating 	the 	District 	will 	comply with 	the 	terms 	of 	this 	Order.
Such 	posting 	shall 	be 	maintained 	for 	a 	period 	of 	thirty 	(30)
consecutive 	workdays. 	Reasonable 	steps 	shall 	be 	taken 	to 	ensure
the 	Notice 	is 	not 	reduced 	in 	size, 	altered, 	defaced 	or 	covered
with 	any 	other material.
2. 	Make 	written 	notification 	of 	the 	actions 	taken 	to
comply with 	this 	Order 	to 	the 	Los 	Angeles 	Regional 	Director 	of
the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board, 	in accord 	with 	the
regional 	director's 	instructions.
Chairman 	Caffrey 	and Member 	Johnson 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
12

APPENDIX
NOTICE 	TO 	EMPLOYEES
POSTED 	BY ORDER OF 	THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS 	BOARD
An 	agency 	of 	the 	State 	of 	California
After 	a 	hearing 	in 	Unfair 	Practice 	Case 	No. 	LA-CE-3824,
California 	School 	Employees 	Association v. 	Long 	Beach 	Community
College 	District, 	in which 	all 	parties 	had 	the 	right 	to
participate, 	it 	has 	been 	found 	that 	the 	Long 	Beach 	Community
College 	District 	violated 	the 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations
Act, 	Government 	Code 	section 	3543.S(a), 	(b) 	and 	(d), 	by
encouraging 	unit 	members 	to 	join a 	rival 	employee 	organization 	at
the 	expense 	of 	the 	exclusive 	representative.
As 	a 	result 	of 	this 	conduct, 	we 	have 	been 	ordered 	to 	post
this 	Notice 	and we 	will:
A. 	CEASE AND 	DESIST 	FROM:
1. 	Encouraging 	employees 	to 	join any 	employee
organization 	in 	preference 	to 	another 	by 	placing 	the 	meetings 	of
one 	employee 	organization 	on 	the 	official 	schedule 	for 	mandatory
in 	service 	training 	without 	making 	similar arrangements 	for 	the
California 	School 	Employees 	Association.
DATED: 	LONG 	BEACH 	COMMUNITY 	COLLEGE
DISTRICT
BY: _
Authorized Agent
_____________ _
THIS 	IS 	AN OFFICIAL 	NOTICE. 	IT MUST 	REMAIN 	POSTED 	FOR AT 	LEAST
THIRTY 	(30) 	CONSECUTIVE WORKDAYS 	FROM THE 	DATE 	OF 	POSTING AND
MUST NOT 	BE 	REDUCED 	IN SIZE, 	DEFACED, 	ALTERED 	OR 	COVERED 	BY ANY
MATERIAL.