Long Beach Community College District and Long Beach Comjunity College Police Officers Association and California School Employees Association (PERB 1315E)

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

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD

LONG BEACH COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT,

Employer,

and

Case No. LA-SV-126
LONG BEACH COMMUNITY COLLEGE
POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, PERB Decision No. 1315

Petitioner, February 9, 1999

and

CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION,

— Smee Tm ae eel Nee lh Nn ee ne at Aer Tae Se Meee hee

Exclusive Representative.

ww wa

Appearances: Parker, Covert & Chidester by Spencer E. Covert,
Attorney, for Long Beach Community College District; Gerald E.
Lennon & Associates by Gerald E. Lennon, Attorney, for Long Beach
Community College Police Officers Association; Arnie R.
Braafladt, Staff Attorney, for California School Employees
Association.
Before Caffrey, Chairman; Dyer and Amador, Members.
DECISION

CAFFREY, Chairman: This case is before the Public
Employment Relations Board (PERB or Board) on exceptions filed by
the California School Employees Association (CSEA) to a proposed
decision (attached) by a Board hearing officer. In the proposed
decision, the hearing officer approved a request from the Long
Beach Community College Police Officers Association (Association)
to sever a unit of college safety officers from the established

wall-to-wall classified bargaining unit represented by CSEA in

the Long Beach Community College District (District). The

hearing 	officer 	found a unit 	of 	college 	safety officers 	in the
District 	to be 	an appropriate bargaining unit 	under 	the
Educational 	Employment Relations Act 	(EERA),1 and ordered a
representation 	election 	to be 	conducted.
The Board has 	reviewed the 	entire 	record 	in 	this 	case,
including 	the hearing officer's proposed decision, 	CSEA's
exceptions 	and 	the 	responses 	thereto 	filed by 	the Association and
the District. 	The Board finds 	the proposed decision to be 	free
of prejudicial 	error and adopts 	it 	as 	the decision of 	the Board
itself.
ORDER
Accordingly, 	the Board finds 	the 	following unit 	is
appropriate 	for meeting 	and negotiating, 	provided an employee
organization becomes 	the 	exclusive 	representative:
Unit 	Title: 	Security Unit
Shall 	Include: 	All 	campus 	security officers.
Shall Exclude: 	All 	other classified employees, 	and all
management, 	supervisory and confidential
employees.
Pursuant 	to 	PERB Regulation section 33450,2 within 10 	days
following 	issuance of 	this Notice of Decision, 	the Long Beach
Community College District 	shall 	post 	on all 	employee bulletin
boards 	in each 	facility of 	the 	employer 	in which members 	of 	the
EERA 	is 	codified at Government 	Code 	section 3540 	et 	seq.
Unless 	otherwise 	indicated, 	all 	statutory references 	herein are
to the Government 	Code.
2PERB 	regulations are 	codified at 	California 	Code 	of
Regulations, 	title 8, 	section 31001 et seq.
22

unit 	described 	in the decision are 	employed, 	a 	copy of 	the Notice
of 	Decision attached hereto as 	an Appendix. 	The Notice 	of
Decision shall 	remain posted 	for a minimum of 	15 	workdays.
Reasonable 	steps 	shall be 	taken 	to ensure 	that 	the Notice 	is 	not
reduced 	in size, 	altered, 	defaced or covered with any other
material.
The 	employee 	organizations 	whose 	names 	shall 	appear on 	the
ballot 	are 	Long 	Beach 	Community 	College 	Police 	Officers
Association and California School 	Employees Association, 	unless
one 	of 	these 	organizations 	informs 	the 	regional 	director 	in
writing, 	within 15 	days after the employer posts 	the Notice of
Decision, 	that 	it 	does not desire 	to participate 	in the 	election.
The 	regional 	director shall 	conduct 	an election at 	the 	end of 	the
posting period 	in such unit 	if: 	(1) 	both of 	the above-named
employee 	organizations desire 	to participate 	in the election; 	or
(2) 	only one 	organization desires 	to participate and the 	employer
does 	not 	grant voluntary 	recognition.
The 	Board hereby ORDERS 	that 	this 	case be 	REMANDED 	to 	the
San 	Francisco 	Regional 	Director 	for proceedings 	consistent 	with
this decision.
Members 	Dyer and Amador 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
3
3

APPENDIX NOTICE 	TO 	EMPLOYEES
POSTED 	BY ORDER OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
An Agency of 	the 	State of 	California
I.
CASE: 	LONG BEACH 	COMMUNITY 	COLLEGE DISTRICT
Case No. 	LA-SV-126
PERB Decision No. 	1315
EMPLOYER: 	Long 	Beach 	Community 	College 	District
4901 	East 	Carson Street
Long Beach, 	California 	90808
(562) 	938-4111
EMPLOYEE 	ORGANIZATION
PARTIES 	TO 	PROCEEDING:
Long 	Beach Community 	College 	Police 	Officers
Association
P. 0. 	Box 63 80
Lakewood, 	California 	90714-6380
(562) 	420-1529
California 	School 	Employees 	Association
326 West Katella Avenue, 	Suite E
Orange, 	California 	92667
(714) 	532-3766
FINDINGS:
The Board 	finds 	the 	following unit 	is 	appropriate 	for
meeting and negotiating, 	provided an employee 	organization
becomes 	the 	exclusive 	representative:
Unit 	Title: 	Security Unit
Shall 	Include: 	All 	campus 	security officers
Shall 	Exclude: 	All 	other classified employees, 	and all
management, 	supervisory and confidential
employees.
Pursuant 	to 	PERB Regulation section 33450, 	within 10 	days
following issuance of 	this Notice of Decision, 	the Long Beach
Community College District 	(District) 	shall 	post 	on all 	employee
bulletin boards 	in each 	facility of 	the 	employer 	in which members
of 	the unit 	described 	in the 	decision are employed, 	a 	copy of
this Notice of Decision. 	The Notice of Decision shall 	remain
posted for a minimum of 	15 workdays. 	Reasonable 	steps 	shall be
taken to 	insure 	that 	the Notice 	is not 	reduced in size, 	altered,
defaced 	or 	covered with any 	other material.
•

-

The 	employee 	organization whose 	names 	shall 	appear on the
ballot 	are 	Long 	Beach 	Community College 	Police 	Officers
Association and California School 	Employees Association, 	unless
one of 	these 	organizations 	informs 	the 	PERB 	regional 	director in
writing within 	15 	days after the 	employer posts 	the Notice 	of
Decision, 	that 	it does not desire 	to participate 	in the 	election.
The 	regional 	director shall 	conduct 	an election at 	the 	end of 	the
posting period if: 	(1) 	both of 	the above-named employee
organizations desire to participate 	in the election; 	or 	(2) 	only
one 	organization desires 	to participate 	and 	the 	employer does 	not
grant 	voluntary 	recognition.
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
OTHER MATERIAL.
22

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
LONG 	BEACH 	COMMUNITY 	COLLEGE
DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
LONG BEACH 	COMMUNITY 	COLLEGE
POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION,
Petitioner,
and
CALIFORNIA 	SCHOOL 	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION,
_____________Exclusive 	Representative.
Representation
Case No. 	LA-SV-126
PROPOSED 	DECISION
(12/1/98)
Appearances: 	Parker, 	Covert 	and Chidester by Spencer Covert,
Attorney, 	for Long Beach Community College District; 	Gerald E.
Lennon and Associates by Gerald E. 	Lennon, 	Attorney, 	for Long
Beach Community College 	Police 	Officers Association; 	Arnie 	R.
Braafladt, 	Staff Attorney, 	for California School Employees
Association.
Before Jerilyn Gelt, 	Hearing Officer.
PROCEDURAL 	HISTORY
On March 20, 	1997, 	the Long Beach Community College 	Police
Officers Association 	(Association) 	filed a 	request with the
Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(PERB 	or Board) 	to 	sever a unit
of 	college 	safety officers1 from the 	established wall-to-wall
classified bargaining unit 	represented 	by 	the 	California 	School
Employees Association 	(CSEA) 	in the 	Long Beach Community College
1The unit 	was 	described 	in the 	severance 	request 	as
consisting of 	"college police 	officers, 	corporals 	and sergeants."
It 	was 	later 	clarified that 	these were proposed new titles 	for
the position of 	"college 	safety officer", 	and the 	request 	was
amended to reflect 	the 	current 	title.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_ )

District 	(LBCCD or District).2 In their initial 	responses, 	CSEA
opposed the 	request, 	and the District 	took a neutral position.
A settlement 	conference held on June 	13, 	1997, 	was
unsuccessful, 	and a 	formal 	hearing was 	scheduled 	for September
1997. 	The 	severance hearing was 	later taken off 	calendar and the
case 	placed 	in 	abeyance 	pending 	resolution 	of 	an unfair practice
charge 	filed by CSEA against 	the 	District. 	The 	hearing was
rescheduled for February and subsequently held on April 	6, 	7, 	and
8, 1998.
In an effort to settle the matter, 	on March 25, 	1998, 	the
District 	stated that 	it 	did not 	oppose 	a 	separate unit 	of 	safety
officers 	and 	requested an 	election. 	CSEA rejected 	the 	District's
request, 	and the 	hearing was held as 	scheduled. 	Briefs were
filed and the 	case was 	submitted for decision on July 13, 	1998.
FACTS
Community of 	Interest 	Factors
At 	the time of 	the hearing, 	there were 	17 	college 	safety
officer 	(CSO) 	positions, 	15 of which were 	filled. 	In addition to
2PERB Regulation 33700 provides, 	in pertinent part 	(PERB
regulations 	are 	codified at 	California 	Code 	of 	Regulations,
title 	8, 	section 31001 et 	seq.):
(a) 	An employee 	organization may file 	a
request 	to become 	the 	exclusive
representative 	of 	an appropriate 	unit
consisting of 	a group of 	employees who are
already members 	of 	a 	larger -established unit
represented by 	an 	incumbent 	exclusive
representative 	by 	filing 	a 	request 	for
recognition 	in 	accordance 	with 	the 	provisions
of Article 	2 	(commencing with Section 33050).
All provisions 	of Article 	2 	and Article 	4 	of
this 	Chapter shall 	be 	applicable 	to a
severance 	request 	except 	as 	provided 	in 	this
Article 	7.

the CSOs, 	the department 	employs 	a 	lieutenant 	and chief 	of
police.3 The 	CSOs 	at 	LBCCD have gone 	through 9 	classification
changes 	in the 	last 	22 years. 	The 	CSO position has 	evolved from
an unsworn one 	(security guard) 	which required no peace 	officer
training, 	to both sworn and non-sworn positions, 	to the 	current
position 	requiring 	full 	POST4 basic 	certification 	(633 	hours 	of
peace 	officer training). 	In addition to their specialized
training 	(and unlike other District 	classified employees), 	CSOs
must 	pass 	both a physical 	ability evaluation and a psychological
examination 	in order to be 	hired.
CSOs 	are 	deputized 	and authorized under Penal 	Code 	sections
830.6 	and 83 0.32 	to investigate, 	arrest, 	detain and prosecute
throughout 	the 	state. 	CSOs 	are 	subject 	to the provisions 	of what
is 	commonly known as 	the 	Peace Officers Bill of Rights5 or
AB 	301. 	AB 	301 provides 	a different 	set 	of 	due process
protections 	for 	the 	discipline 	and 	investigation of 	officers.
As part 	of 	their job duties 	at LBCCD, 	the CSOs patrol 	the
campuses by foot, 	bicycle 	and car to ensure 	that 	the 	campuses 	are
safe and secure; 	respond to medical 	emergencies, 	fights 	and
fires; 	enforce parking regulations; 	issue traffic citations;
3It 	is 	the District's 	intent 	to 	reorganize 	the police
department 	into 	a more 	aggressive 	law enforcement 	agency. 	As
part 	of 	this 	reorganization, 	the department 	intends 	to hire 	four
new supervisory officers 	to oversee 	the 	CSOs 	on each 	shift.
4POST 	is 	the 	Peace Officers 	Standards 	and Training course
administered by the 	State 	of 	California.
5The 	Police Officers Bill 	of Rights 	is 	codified at
Government 	Code 	section 33 00 	et 	seq.
33

appear in court; 	participate 	in special 	assignments 	and
investigations; 	serve 	search warrants and make 	arrests. 	The CSOs
complete 	a daily 	log detailing 	their 	activities.
CSOs wear a blue uniform which includes 	special 	shoes, 	a
shoulder patch, 	badge, 	name tag, 	equipment belt with handcuffs,
pepper 	spray and a baton 	(for which 	they receive 	special
training), 	and a bulletproof vest. 	On bike patrol, 	their
clothing 	consists 	of 	a polo 	shirt 	with the word 	"police" 	printed
on the back, 	navy blue shorts or pants, 	a windbreaker and a
helmet. 	CSOs 	do not 	carry firearms. 	No other District 	employees
are 	required to wear uniforms.
The 	CSOs 	are 	assigned to 	the 	college 	safety offices 	at 	the
District's 	two campuses, 	the Liberal Arts 	College 	and the 	Pacific
Coast 	Campus. 	There 	are 	CSOs 	on duty twenty-four hours 	a day,
52 	weeks 	a year, 	including holidays. 	They work primarily in
three 	shifts 	(morning, 	afternoon and graveyard) 	with a 	late
afternoon 	floating 	shift. 	Graveyard shift 	personnel 	receive 	a
$1.00 	per hour 	shift 	differential. 	Unlike 	other classified
bargaining unit 	employees, 	CSOs do not 	have a duty free 	lunch
period.
CSOs 	interact 	with other bargaining unit 	members 	in 	the
course of 	their duties, 	sometimes 	eating lunch with them. 	They
also 	issue 	traffic 	citations 	to both 	classified and 	certificated
employees. 	Although an infrequent occurrence, 	CSOs have been
involved 	in 	investigations 	and arrests 	of 	bargaining unit
members.
4
4

Efficiency 	of 	Operations
Personnel 	Director Dale 	Hanson 	testified 	that 	he 	did not
believe 	the 	creation of 	a 	separate 	unit 	of 	CSOs 	would adversely
impact 	the District's 	operations. 	Police 	Chief Mike Hole
testified that 	he did not 	feel 	the 	creation of 	a 	separate 	unit
would affect 	the police 	department 	"one way or the 	other".
Bargaining 	History
On May 18, 	1977, 	subsequent to a request 	filed by CSEA, 	the
parties 	agreed 	to 	a 	comprehensive 	classified bargaining unit
entered 	into 	an EERB6 consent 	election 	agreement.7 CSEA won 	the
election8 and was 	certified as 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	for
the classified unit on June 23, 	1977. 	Since that 	time, 	it has
negotiated seven multi-year contracts, 	as well 	as 	amendments.
Several 	provisions 	in the 	contracts 	have 	dealt 	solely with CSOs,
who 	are 	consulted during negotiations 	when 	issues 	arise
pertaining 	to 	them.
In 	1989, 	CSEA negotiated a 	side 	letter agreement with the
District 	regarding 	the 	CSOs 	which was 	later 	incorporated as 	part
of Article 	33 	in the 	1994-1997 	contract. 	The side 	letter
provides 	an 	opportunity 	for 	CSOs 	to 	appeal 	a written 	reprimand 	in
a 	nonevidentiary administrative 	hearing. 	CSEA Senior 	Labor
Relations Representative 	Jim Walker, 	who drafted the provision,
6Prior to January 1, 	1978, 	PERB was known as the Educational
Employment Relations Board 	(EERB).
7PERB 	Long Beach 	Community College 	District 	Case 	File 	No.
LA-R-571.
8The 	choices 	on 	the 	ballot 	were 	CSEA and No 	Representation.
5

testified that 	it was 	necessary because AB 	3 01 	confers 	on the
CSOs 	a right 	to 	an administrative 	appeal 	of 	a written reprimand.
Other classified employees 	are 	not 	entitled to 	this 	right 	under
the 	rules 	and regulations 	of 	the 	Personnel 	Commission.
Association 	President 	Vernon 	Gates 	testified 	that 	the 	provision
was negotiated without 	the 	knowledge, 	consent 	or ratification of
the 	CSOs.
In 	1990, 	CSEA and the District 	reached two memoranda of
understanding 	(MOUs) 	regarding CSO overtime 	rights 	and
procedures. 	In 1994, 	CSEA proposed, 	negotiated and entered into
an MOU with the 	District 	regarding the 	use 	of bicycles by CSOs.
CSEA and 	the 	District 	also 	negotiated 	agreements 	providing 	the
CSOs with a 	four day, 	ten hour work week and authorizing the 	use
of 	armed guards during high risk periods. 	In 1995, 	CSEA proposed
and 	the 	District 	agreed 	to 	contract 	language 	providing 	for a
joint 	committee, 	with 	input 	from the CSOs 	to develop a policies
and procedures 	manual 	for the 	campus 	security department.9
CSEA has 	filed numerous 	grievances 	on behalf 	of 	officers
relating 	to overtime 	assignments10 and other 	issues 	such as
violations of 	the disciplinary process, 	improper evaluations and
out-of-class 	pay. 	Many of 	these 	grievances 	have been resolved in
mediation; 	others have gone to arbitration.
9According to testimony, 	the manual was never completed.
10Many of 	the 	grievances 	regarding 	overtime 	were 	filed on
behalf of 	CSO Alex Bruckner, 	who 	retired shortly before 	the
hearing.
66

There 	was 	substantial 	testimony 	from CSEA officers 	as 	to 	the
disproportionate 	amount 	of 	time 	expended by 	CSEA 	in pursuing
issues relating to CSOs. 	Testimony from CSOs, 	both former and
current 	employees, 	differed as 	to the 	effectiveness 	of 	CSEA
representation.
There 	was 	testimony that 	CSOs 	have 	participated 	in 	CSEA.
For example, 	in 	1981 	CSO Martin Knox was 	elected CSEA chapter
president, 	and in January 1998, 	CSO Olga Castillo was 	appointed
to 	the 	CSEA negotiating 	team. 	CSOs 	have 	also worked as 	job
stewards 	in the department.
POSITIONS 	OF THE 	PARTIES
Loner Beach Community College 	Peace 	Officer Association
It 	is 	the position of 	the Association that 	the needs 	of 	the
CSOs would be better 	served 	in a unit 	separate 	from other
classified employees. 	The Association argues 	that 	the
relationship between 	CSOs 	and other 	classified 	employees 	is
necessarily adversarial 	at 	times, 	given the nature of the CSOs'
duties to issue citations, 	investigate employees, 	and make
arrests. 	The Association claims 	that 	CSEA has 	failed to 	satisfy
the 	special 	interests of CSOs, 	and cites 	CSEA's 	failure 	to bring
several 	issues 	important 	to 	the 	CSOs 	to 	the bargaining table.
These 	issues 	include 	authorization to 	carry side 	arms 	while 	on
duty and the 	institution of 	an alternate work week. 	Finally, 	the
Association 	asserts 	that 	it 	could provide 	better 	legal
representation 	for the 	CSOs 	through 	its 	association with 	its
77

affiliate, 	the 	California Organization of 	Police 	and Sheriffs
(COPS).11
California 	School 	Employees 	Association
CSEA argues 	that 	the proposed unit 	is 	neither more
appropriate 	than 	the 	established unit 	nor 	an 	appropriate 	unit
under the 	applicable 	criteria. 	CSEA further argues 	that 	granting
the 	severance 	request 	would disrupt 	a 	stable 	and productive
bargaining relationship that 	has 	existed 	for 21 	years. 	CSEA
claims 	that 	it 	has made 	significant 	efforts 	to bring the 	special
interests of 	the 	CSOs 	to the District's 	attention 	in
negotiations, 	grievances and through informal memos and meetings.
CSEA also asserts 	that 	the 	CSOs 	have been given the 	opportunity
to 	fully participate 	in the 	organization as officers, 	job
stewards 	and members 	of 	the negotiations 	team.
Long 	Beach 	Community 	College 	District
It 	is 	the employer's position that, 	based on the 	testimony
in this matter, 	PERB 	should follow its precedent 	in Sacramento
City Unified School District 	(1977) 	EERB Decision No. 	30
(Sacramento)12 and grant 	the 	severance petition. 	According to
the District, 	the 	record demonstrates 	that 	CSOs 	have 	a 	community
of 	interest 	separate 	from classified employees. 	In addition, 	new
requirements 	and proposed changes 	in 	the 	police 	department 	make
it 	likely that 	conflict 	of 	interests 	between 	the 	CSOs 	and the
11COPS is 	a 	federation of 	city, 	county and district police
associations 	representing peace 	officers 	throughout 	California.
12See discussion infra.
8

rest 	of 	the bargaining unit may occur 	in the 	future. 	The
District 	also points 	to 	an 	incident 	involving 	the 	arrest 	of 	a
unit 	member by CSOs 	as 	an example 	of 	a 	conflict 	of 	interest 	which
currently exists. 	Finally, 	should PERB grant 	the 	severance
request, 	the District 	asks 	that 	PERB conduct 	an election for the
CSOs 	to 	choose 	their 	representative.
ISSUE
Should the proposed unit 	of 	campus 	security officers be
severed 	from 	the 	existing 	wall-to-wall 	classified unit?
DISCUSSION
The Educational Employment Relations Act 	(EERA or Act)13
requires 	that 	employees 	be 	grouped 	into 	an 	appropriate 	unit 	for
purposes 	of 	collective bargaining. 	The 	standards 	for determining
an appropriate unit 	are 	set 	forth in section 3545(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.
In Sweetwater Union High School 	District 	(1976) 	EERB
Decision No. 	4 	(Sweetwater) ,14 the Board found three
presumptively appropriate 	classified units: 	instructional 	aides,
office/ technical / business services and operations-support
13Unless otherwise noted, 	all 	statutory references 	are 	to 	the
Government 	Code. 	EERA is 	codified at 	section 3540 	et 	seq.
99

services. 	(See 	also 	Foothill-DeAnza 	Community College 	District
(1977) 	EERB Decision No. 	10; 	Compton Unified School District
(1979) 	PERB Decision No. 	109 	(Compton).)
In Compton, 	the Board stated:
- -
By 	creating 	three 	"presumptively 	appropriate
units" 	for the classified service, 	the Board
determined 	that 	a 	strong 	community of
interest 	generally exists 	among employees 	in
each of 	these groups. 	The Board further
determined that 	those 	units 	"reflect 	a proper
balance between the harmful 	effects 	on an
employer 	of 	excessive 	unit 	fragmentation 	and
the harmful 	effects 	on employees 	and the
organizations 	attempting 	to 	represent 	them of
an 	insufficiently 	divided 	negotiating 	unit 	or
units." 	(Antioch Unified School 	District,
supra, EERB Decision No. 3 7 at 7.)
- -
More 	recently 	in 	South Bay Union 	Elementary 	School 	District
(1990) 	PERB Decision No. 	816, 	the Board reiterated its preference
for Sweetwater units when 	it 	reversed an administrative 	law judge
who had deemed a 	single 	"wall-to-wall" 	unit 	appropriate 	for 	a
small 	school 	district.
In light 	of 	this precedent, 	when a petition is 	filed to
sever 	a 	smaller unit 	from a presumptively 	appropriate 	Sweetwater
unit, 	the burden 	is 	on the petitioner to 	show that 	the 	requested
unit 	is more 	appropriate. 	(Temple 	City Unified School 	District
(1995) 	PERB Decision No. 	1110; 	San Juan Unified School District
(1995) 	PERB Decision No. 	1082.) 	In this case, 	however, 	since the
existing unit 	is 	not 	a Sweetwater unit, 	it 	logically follows 	that
the 	standard against 	which 	the 	requested unit 	is 	judged 	shifts 	to
whether it 	is an appropriate unit.
-
10

The 	Board 	has 	recognized 	that 	negotiating 	history must 	be
considered as 	an 	important 	factor 	along with the 	criteria
enumerated 	in 	section 	3545 	when 	evaluating 	the 	severance 	request
(Livermore Valley Unified School 	District 	(1981) 	PERB Decision
No. 	165 	(Livermore).) 	However, 	in Livermore the Board also made
it 	clear 	that 	where 	the 	existing wall-to-wall 	unit 	was
established 	"in an atmosphere 	of mutual 	accord" 	between the
parties 	and absent 	a 	full 	review by PERB 	as 	to 	its
appropriateness, 	the 	negotiating history will 	not 	be granted the
deference 	to which 	it 	might 	otherwise 	be 	entitled.
PERB previously dealt 	with 	the 	issue 	presented 	in 	this 	case
in Sacramento. 	In that 	case, 	a separate unit of 	security
officers 	was 	sought 	by two 	unions 	and 	supported by the 	employer,
while 	CSEA petitioned to 	represent 	a wall-to-wall 	classified
unit. 	PERB 	held that 	"strong policy considerations" 	required a
separate 	unit 	of 	security officers:
. 	. 	. 	Security officers are deputized and
employed 	to 	defend 	the 	District's 	premises
from others, 	be they outsiders, 	students or
other employees of 	the District. 	They are
empowered 	to enforce 	not 	only the 	rules 	and
regulations of 	the District, 	but 	also the
laws 	of 	the 	City of 	Sacramento. 	The 	employer
is 	entitled to a nucleus 	of protection
employees 	to enforce 	its 	rules 	and protect
its 	property and persons 	without 	being
confronted with a 	division of 	loyalty
inherent 	in the 	inclusion of 	security
officers 	in the 	same unit with other
classified 	employees. 	. . .
Thus, 	to determine whether the proposed unit 	is 	appropriate
requires 	balancing 	community of 	interest 	criteria, 	the 	efficient
11

operations of 	the District, 	and negotiating history factors 	in
light 	of 	the Board's 	holding 	in Sacramento.
Community of 	Interest
There was 	virtually no 	testimony regarding 	the 	community of
interest 	shared among CSOs 	and other classified employees. 	Of
course, 	the 	collective bargaining agreement between CSEA and the
District governs their salary, 	benefits, 	and other working
conditions. 	However, 	the record reflects that 	the 	CSOs 	share
common 	interests 	among 	themselves 	which 	distinguish 	them 	from 	the
remainder of 	the 	bargaining unit.
CSOs 	are 	sworn peace 	officers 	under 	the 	Penal 	Code whose
authority extends beyond District 	boundaries. 	They are 	subject
to 	different 	hiring 	requirements 	and 	training 	and 	disciplinary
procedures 	than other employees. 	They are 	the 	only District
employees 	required 	to wear uniforms 	and carry safety equipment.
Unlike 	other classified employees, 	they must 	work on holidays 	and
maintain a daily log of 	all 	their activities. 	CSOs 	also have
been 	involved 	in the 	investigation and arrest 	of 	unit 	members.
These 	are 	the 	same 	factors which led the 	Board to 	establish a
unit 	of 	security officers 	in Sacramento, 	and support 	a 	finding
that 	a 	separate unit 	of 	CSOs 	is 	appropriate here.
Efficiency 	of 	Operations
Absent 	concrete 	evidence 	that 	a 	district's 	operational
efficiency will 	be 	unduly 	impaired by an 	additional 	set 	of
negotiations, 	operational 	efficiency will 	not be 	considered a
factor which militates 	against 	the 	establishment 	of 	another unit.
12

(Livermore at p. 	8.)15 The adverse 	impact of an additional unit
is 	typically an 	argument 	promulgated by 	an 	employer 	concerned
about 	its resources. 	In this case, 	no showing has been made nor
has 	any argument 	been 	set 	forth 	that 	the 	establishment 	of 	another
unit 	would have 	a detrimental 	effect 	on 	the 	District. 	To 	the
contrary, 	District 	witnesses 	testified that 	they 	foresaw no
negative 	potential 	in the 	creation of 	another bargaining unit.
Furthermore, 	the District 	has urged PERB 	to 	follow its precedent
in 	Sacramento 	and grant 	a 	separate 	security unit.
Negotiating 	History
As 	noted above, 	the 	Board 	in Livermore 	recognized that 	a
request 	for 	severance 	is 	factually different 	from an 	initial 	unit
determination 	because 	negotiating 	history must 	be 	taken 	into
consideration.
The 	record reflects 	that 	CSEA and the 	District 	have 	indeed
had a 	longstanding and 	stable 	bargaining 	relationship, 	and 	the
needs 	of 	the 	CSOs 	have been reasonably satisfied. 	The parties
have 	negotiated 	successive 	collective 	bargaining 	agreements
which, 	while generally addressing the 	interests 	of 	the unit 	as 	a
whole, 	in recent years have 	included provisions 	relating
specifically to CSOs. 	CSOs have had input 	in negotiations 	and
have 	held positions 	as 	officers 	and 	job 	stewards 	in 	the
organization. 	CSEA has pursued many grievances 	in recent 	years
15See also Temple City Unified School District, 	supra, 	PERB
Decision No. 	1110; 	San Juan Unified School District, 	supra, 	PERB
Decision No. 	1082.
13

over 	issues 	concerning CSOs, 	and has 	also pursued their 	interests
in 	less 	formal 	settings with the District.
CSEA argues 	that 	the 	successful 	21-year negotiating history
it 	has 	had with 	the 	District 	should not 	be 	disrupted by the
granting of 	the 	severance 	request. 	However, 	negotiating history
is but one factor to be considered, 	and, 	in this case, 	it must be
given 	less 	deference 	than 	if 	the 	established unit 	were 	a
presumptively appropriate 	Sweetwater unit. 	(Livermore.)
CONCLUSION AND 	PROPOSED 	ORDER
The 	record 	has 	established 	that 	college 	safety officers
share 	a 	community of 	interest 	separate 	and distinct 	from the
remainder of 	the 	classified bargaining unit. 	There 	is 	no
evidence 	that 	efficiency of 	operations 	would be 	impaired by 	the
creation of 	a separate security unit 	and, 	in fact, 	the Long Beach
Community College District 	(District) 	supports 	such a unit.
Furthermore, 	the 	Public Employment Relations Board 	(PERB) 	held in
Sacramento City Unified School 	District 	(1977) 	EERB Decision
No. 	30, 	that an employer is entitled to a separate unit of
security officers. 	Balanced against 	these 	factors, 	California
School 	Employees 	Association's 	long-standing negotiating 	history
with the 	District 	does not 	tip 	the 	scales 	in favor of 	denying the
severance 	request. 	Accordingly, 	a unit of college 	safety
officers 	is 	found 	to be 	appropriate 	for meeting 	and negotiating
provided 	an 	employee 	organization becomes 	the 	exclusive
representative.
14

The 	employee 	organizations whose names 	shall 	appear on the
ballot 	are 	California 	School 	Employees Association 	and Long Beach
Community College 	Peace Officers Association, 	unless 	one of 	those
organizations 	informs 	the 	San Francisco 	PERB Regional 	Director 	in
writing, 	within 15 	workdays 	after the employer posts 	the Notice
of Decision, 	that 	it does not desire 	to participate 	in the
election. 	The 	Regional 	Director 	shall 	conduct 	an election at 	the
end of 	the posting period in such unit 	if: 	(1) 	both of 	the
above-named employee 	organizations 	desire 	to participate 	in 	the
election, 	or 	(2) 	only one organization desires 	to participate and
the 	employer does 	not 	grant 	voluntary recognition.
Right 	of Appeal
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
2 0 	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 Regs., 	tit. 	8,
sec. 	32300.) 	A document 	is 	considered 	"filed" 	when actually
received before the 	close of business 	(5 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 Regs., 	tit. 	8,
sec. 	32135; 	Code Civ. 	P r o c , 	sec. 	1013 shall apply.) 	Any
15

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 Regs., 	tit. 	8, 	secs,
32300, 	32305 and 32140.)
1 6
Jerilyn G e l t
Hearing 	Officer