San Diego Unified School District (PERB J010E)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION, CHAPTER 600,
Employee Organization.
Case No. LA-R-167X
PERB Decision No. 170
PERB Order No. JR-10
October 27, 1981
Appearances: Ralph D. Stern, Attorney for San Diego Unified
School District; Madalyn J. Frazzini, Attorney for California
School Employees Association, Chapter 600.
Before Gluck, Chairperson; Jaeger and Moore, Members.
DECISION AND ORDER
The California School Employees Association, Chapter 600
(hereafter CSEA) requests this Board to reconsider its refusal
to establish a representation unit of part-time bus drivers in
the San Diego Unified School District. CSEA also petitions the
Board to join in its request for judicial review pursuant to
section 3542(a) of the Educational Employment Relations Act
(hereafter EERA).1
EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540
et seq. Unless otherwise stated, all references are to the
Government Code. Section 3542(a) reads:
(a) No employer or employee organization
shall have the right to judicial review of a
unit determination except: (1) when the

CSEA's petitions are based principally on the argument that
the Board determination departed from precedential decisions
involving allegedly similar facts and issues and potentially
disenfranchises the bus drivers from exercising rights granted
by EERA.
CSEA cites Mendocino Community College District (11/4/80)
PERB Decision No. 144, in which a unit of part-time
certificated faculty was found to be appropriate. However, in
that case, the Board noted that the presumption created by
section 3545 (b) that all teachers are to be included in a
single unit was successfully rebutted by specific evidence
demonstrating a lack of community of interest between the full
and part-time faculty members and a historic unwillingness of
the incumbent representative to cooperate with the part-time
teachers.
Petitioner's reliance on Palo Alto Unified School
District/Jefferson Union High School District (1/9/78) PERB
board in response to a petition from a an
employer or employee organization, agrees
that the case is one of special importance
and joins in the request for such review; or
(2) when the issue is raised as a defense to
an unfair practice complaint. A board order
directing an election shall not be stayed
pending judicial review.
Upon receipt of a board order joining in the
request for judicial review, a party to the
case may petition for a writ of
extraordinary relief from the unit
determination decision or order.

Decision No. 84 overlooks the fact that there the Board
expressly declined to give retroactive application to i t s
revised single-unit policy announced in Peralta Community
College District (11/17/78) PERB Decision No. 77, continuing
instead the unit policy in effect at the time of the Palo Alto
unit hearing. Arcadia Unified School District (5/17/79) PERB
Decision No. 93, also cited by petitioner, found a unit of
non-teaching certificated employees to be appropriate. There,
the Board emphasized the substantially different s k i l l s ,
duties, professional requirements and supervision that
distinguished the non-teachers from those in the established
teachers' unit.
The special circumstances represented by these cases were
not present in San Diego. The record on appeal, read in light
of the standards for unit determination set forth in section
3545,2 led this Board to conclude that CSEA has failed to
demonstrate that its proposed unit was appropriate.
Petitioner points out no errors of law or fact made by this
Board, nor has it offered any evidence which was improperly
2section 3545 s t a t e s :
(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

excluded from the original hearing or not then available. Its
request for reconsideration is DENIED.
The Board's considerable discretion in the determination of
appropriate units is demonstrated by the very limited
circumstances under which judicial review of its unit decisions
may be obtained. A claim of "special importance" is not
sufficient. The Board must agree that such is the case. Here,
the special importance attributed by petitioner is the
potential disenfranchisement of a group of bus drivers. But,
as the Board stated in Pleasanton Joint School District/Amador
employee organization, and the effect of the
size of the unit on the efficient operation
of the school district.
(b) In all cases:
(1) A negotiating unit that includes
classroom teachers shall not be
appropriate unless it at least includes
all of the classroom teachers employed
by the public school employer, except
management employees, supervisory
employees, and confidential employees.
(2) A negotiating unit of supervisory
employees shall not be appropriate
unless it includes all supervisory
employees employed by the district and
shall not be represented by the same
employee organization as employees whom
the supervisory employees supervise.
(3) Classified employees and
certificated employees shall not be
included in the same negotiating unit.

Valley Joint Union High School District (6/25/81) PERB Decision
No. 169:
It is not suggested here that the Board can
or will accommodate the interests of every
nonrepresented group of school employees.
Where and under what conditions the Board
will or will not grant additional units,
small or otherwise, is best left to
case-by-case determination. (p. 7.)
In Pleasanton, two distinguishing facts existed: (1) the
petitioned-for employees were psychologists; no psychologists
were included in the existing unit and (2) the existing unit
from which they had been excluded was created through a
voluntary arrangement between the employer and the exclusive
representative.3 As the Board pointed out:4
. . . the legitimate desires of residual
islands of unrepresented school
employees . . . i s the consequence, not o f
application of the statutory c r i t e r i a
governing unit determinations, but of
voluntary recognitions and stipulations as
to appropriateness entered into by the
parties and accepted without factual support
by this Board. (p. 5.)
The term "special importance" is not defined by the EERA.
But, in the final analysis, p e t i t i o n e r ' s position reflects
3In this instance, full-time bus drivers are included in
the existing unit which was established by PERB order pursuant
to a full evidentiary hearing.
4
Member Moore acknowledges the existence of the
distinguishing factors cited above, but notes that she did not
find them sufficient to mandate the different result reached by
the majority in Pleasanton.

nothing more than disagreement with the Board's e x e r c i s e of the
d i s c r e t i o n vested in it by the C a l i f o r n i a L e g i s l a t u r e .
P e t i t i o n e r ' s request for joinder in seeking j u d i c i a l review is
DENIED.
PER CURIAM