Pleasanton Joint Elementary School District (PERB 0024E)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE EDUCATIONAL
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
PLEASANTON JOINT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Employer
and
AMADOR VALLEY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, 	CTA / NEA,
Employee 	Organization
PLEASANTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL COUNSELORS,
Employee Organization
)
)
)
)
' 	)
) 	)
I
)
J	________,)
Case No. 	SF-R-92-
EERB 	Decision 	No . 	j 4 	September 	12, 	19.77
Appearances : 	Jon Hudak, 	Attorney (Galgani, 	Breon and Godino) 	for Pleasanton Joint
Elementary School District; 	Charlie Hinton for Amador Valley Teachers Association,
CTA/NEA; 	Thomas c. 	Agin for Pleasanton Elementary School Counselors.
Before Alleyne, 	Chairman; Gonzales and Cossack, Members .
OPINION AND ORDER
This case is before the Educational Employment Relations Board on Pleasanton
Elementary School Counselor's exception to the hearing officer's attached proposed
decision concluding that counselors are appropriately included in a unit with other
certificated employees. 	The Board has considered the record and the decision in
light of the exception .
The hearing officer's decision is 	substantially in accord with Board precedent.
See Grossmont Union High School 	District.1 	Accordingly, 	the hearing officer's pro-·
posed order is adopted as the order of the Educational Employment Relations Board.
_.-/___________ _
By : 	Reginald Alleyne, 	Chairman
Raymond J. 	Gonzales, 	Member, 	concurring :
I concur with the decision of the Board in sustaining the hearing officer's
decision in this case . 	I do so, 	not because I have altered my position that
counselors and psychologists should have a separate unit for bargaining on the
basis of sufficient conununity of interest, 	but because in this case there are
lEERB Decision No. 	11, March 9, 	1977 .

only four counselors 	in the district . 	I feel 	it would impose a hardship on the
district and adversely affect the efficiency of operation 	(see Section 3545(a)
of the Educational Employment Relations Act) 	to require the district to negotiate
separately with such a small number of employees.
I hold firm to my dissent as articulated in Grossmont Union High School
District 2/ in those cases where a sufficient number of employees would warrant
a separate unit given that 	I 	firmly believe that a sufficient community of
interest will always exist among counselors and psychologists .
~: 	R;-; ond J. Gon zaf es, 	Member 	7
JerilouH. 	Cossack, 	Member, 	concurring :
I agree that here, 	as 	in Washington Unified School District, 	EERB Decision
No. 	27, 	September 14, 	1977, 	counselors and psychologists should be included in
the overall 	certificated unit not only because they possess a community of
interest with other certificated employees but also because there are so few
of them.
r:J~ilou H. 	Cossack, 	Member
Dated : 	September 	12, 	1977
2Grossmont Union Hi gh School District, 	EERB Decision No . 	11, 	March 9, 	1977,
pages 11-24 .
-2-

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE EDUCATIONAL
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
)
)
)
)
)
---------------------)
PLEASANTON JOINT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Employer
and
AMADOR VALLEY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, 	CTA/NEA,
Enployee Organization
and
PLEASANTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL COUNSELORS,
Enployee Organization
Case No. 	SA-CE-2140-E
EERB Decision No. 	24
ORDER
The Educational Employment Relations Board directs that :
The following unit is appropriate for the purpose of meeting and negotiating,
providing an employee organization becomes 	the exclusive representative of the unit :
All certificated employees 	including counselors but excluding
management, 	supervisory and confidential employees.
Within ten 	(10) 	workdays after the employer posts the Notice of Decision, 	the
employee organization shall demonstrate to the Regional Director 30 percent support
in the above unit. 	The Regional Director shall conduct an election at the end of
the posting period if 	(1) 	both employee organizations qualify for the ballot or
(2) 	one employee organization qualifies for the ballot and the employer does not
grant voluntary recognition.
Educational Employment Relations Board
by
Charles Cole
Executive Director
9/12/77

)
)
________________ )
EDUCATIONAL 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
OF THE 	STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
In 	the Matter 	of:
PLEASANTON 	JOINT 	ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL 	DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
AMADOR VALLEY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, 	CTA/NEA,
Employee Organization,
and
PLEASANTON ELEMENTARY 	SCHOOL 	COUNSELORS,
Employee 	Organization
)
) 	Case No. 	SF-R-92
PROPOSED 	DECISION
August 	10, 	1977
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances: Jon Hudak, Attorney (Galgani, Breon and Godino) for
Pleasanton Joint Elementary School District; Charlie Hinton for
Amador Valley Teachers 	Association, CTA/NEA; Thomas C. Agin for Pleasanton
Elementary School Counselors.
Proposed Decision by 	Terry 	Filliman, 	Hearing 	Officer.
PROCEDURAL 	HISTORY
On April 	1, 	1976, 	the Amador Valley Teachers Association,
CTA/NEA 	(hereinafter 	"AVTA"), 	filed a request 	for recognition
as 	exclusive 	representative 	for 	a 	unit 	of 	certificated
employees 	with 	the 	Pleasanton 	Joint 	Elementary 	School 	District
(hereinafter "District").1
1 The 	proposed 	unit 	included 	all 	District 	certificated 	employees,
excluding 	the 	following positions: 	superintendent, 	assistant
superintendent 	of business, 	assistant 	superintendent 	of personnel,
assistant 	superintendent 	of 	education, 	director 	of 	research,
director 	of 	fiscal 	services, 	coordinator of 	pupil 	services,
coordinator 	of district media center, 	principals, 	vice principals,
assistant 	principals.
-1-

On April 	2, 	1976, 	the Pleasanton Elementary School
Counselors 	(hereinafter 	"PESC") 	filed a request 	for 	recognition
as 	exclusive 	representative 	for 	all 	certificated 	counselors.
On May 	5, 	1976, 	the District notified 	the Educational
Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(hereinafter 	"Board") 	that 	it
doubted 	the 	appropriateness 	of 	the 	broad 	certificated 	unit
proposed by AVTA. 	A 	formal 	unit 	determination hearing was
held on March 24, 	1977, before Board agent James 	Pinnell.
ISSUE
Is 	a 	separate 	certificated unit 	of 	counselors 	appropriate?
DISCUSSION
I
The 	Pleasanton 	Joint 	Elementary 	School 	District 	has
an 	average 	daily 	attendance 	of 	10,299 	students. 	There 	are
four 	counselors 	employed by 	the 	District.
The 	District 	and 	PESC 	assert 	that 	the 	counselors 	lack a
community 	of 	interest with 	the 	District 	teachers, 	that 	the
counselors' 	past practices necessitate 	a 	separate unit, 	and 	that
efficiency 	of 	operations 	would 	be 	impaired by 	a 	single 	unit.
AVTA argues 	that 	there 	is 	a 	substantial 	community 	of 	interest
and 	that 	the 	small 	counselor 	unit 	would 	detract 	from efficient
2
operation 	of 	the 	District.
-2-
2
AVTA 	did not 	present 	any witnesses 	at 	the 	hearing nor 	did
they 	submit 	a written brief.

Criteria 	for 	determining 	the 	appropriate 	unit 	are
delineated 	in 	Section 	3545(a) 	of 	the Educational Employment
Relations Act 	(hereinafter 	"Act") as 	follows:
"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 	organization, 	and 	the 	effect 	of 	the 	size 	of 	the
unit 	on 	the 	efficient 	operation of 	the 	school 	district."
In Los 	Angeles 	Unified 	School 	District,4 Grossmont 	Union
High 	School 	District,5 and Oakland Unified 	School 	District, 6 the
Board 	placed 	counselors 	in 	the 	same 	negotiating 	unit with 	other
certificated 	employees. 	In 	those 	three 	cases wherein 	the
counselor 	issue was 	presented, 	the 	Board's 	consistent 	holdings
have 	raised 	a 	presumption 	that 	a 	unit 	containing 	counselors
and 	other 	certificated 	employees 	is 	an 	appropriate unit. 	The
presumption 	is 	rebuttable. 	Thus, 	"a party may 	show that 	a unit
which 	deviates 	from a presumptively appropriate 	unit 	is 	also
appropriate."' 	However, 	in this 	case, 	since the 	parties
do 	not 	present 	a 	substantial 	showing 	that 	a 	separate 	counselor
unit 	is 	appropriate, 	the 	overall 	certificated unit 	including
counselors 	remains 	appropriate.
-3-
3
Government 	Code 	Section 	3540 	et 	seq.
4
EERB Decision No. 	5, 	November 5, 	1976.
5_
EERB Decision No. 	11, March 9, 	1977.
6__
EERB Decision No. 	15, March 28, 	1977.
7
Sweetwater Union High School District, 	EERB Decision No. 	4,
November 23, 	1976.

u
II
The 	Board 	in 	Sweetwater 	in 	defining 	"community 	of 	interest"
cited 	factors 	traditionally used by 	the 	National 	Labor 	Relations
Board: 	qualifications, 	method of wages or pay schedule, 	hours
of work, 	fringe benefits, 	supervision, 	frequency of contact with
other 	employees, 	integration of work 	functions 	of other 	employees,
and 	interchange with other 	employees.
8
These 	factors when
compared 	and 	contrasted 	do 	not 	result 	in 	a 	separate 	and distinct
community 	of 	interest 	between 	and 	among 	the 	two 	groups 	in
dispute.
In Los Angeles, 	the Board 	found that 	the 	school 	counselors
shared 	a 	community 	of 	interest with 	other 	certificated 	employees.
Citing similar qualifications, 	fringe benefits, 	salary schedules,
duties 	and 	functions, 	the Board held 	that under 	the 	circumstances
the 	several 	distinguishing 	characteristics 	(particularly
separate 	facilities, 	no preparation period, 	special credentials
and 	separate 	evaluation 	criteria) 	were not 	sufficient 	to 	establish
a 	distinct 	and 	separate 	community of 	interest.
More 	recently 	in Grossmont 	the 	Board held 	that 	the
counselors, 	along with school psychologists, 	nurses 	and social
workers, 	were 	to be 	included 	in a 	single unit of certificated
employees. 	Once again, 	the Board 	found 	that 	the minor 	differences
between 	the 	classifications 	did not warrant 	separate units.
Moreover, 	the Board found 	that 	the counselors, 	among other
-4-
8Kalamazoo Paper Box Corp., 	136 NLRB 134, 	137 	(1962)

classifications, 	possessed a 	"functional 	coherence 	and inter-
dependence 	as 	an 	integral 	part 	of 	a 	larger 	unit."9 And, 	in
Oakland, 	the 	Board 	stressed 	the 	similarities 	in 	terms 	and
conditions 	of 	employment 	between 	the 	counselors 	and 	other
certificated 	employees. 	They held 	that 	similar 	common 	employ-
ment 	interests 	in 	tenure 	standards, 	salary schedules, 	fringe
benefits, 	faculty meetings 	and 	extra 	duty 	assignments 	outweighed
inherent 	dissimilarities.
In both Los 	Angeles 	and Grossmont, 	the Board 	found 	that
the 	credential 	requirements 	of 	certificated 	teachers 	and
counselors were 	substantially 	similar.
10 Likewise 	in 	this 	case,
while 	the 	emphasis 	may 	differ, 	both 	teachers 	and 	counselors
require 	a bachelor 	or 	higher 	degree 	plus 	some 	specialized 	training,
In 	the precedent 	decisions, 	the 	teachers 	and counselors
were 	similarly 	placed upon 	a 	single 	salary 	schedule 	as 	a 	base
from which 	salaries 	were 	derived. 	The 	same 	is 	true 	in 	the
instant 	case. 	While 	it 	is 	true 	that 	the 	counselors 	in 	the
District 	receive 	a 	stipend which 	is 	a percentage 	of 	the 	base
9Supra, 	at 	9.
10See 	Education 	Code 	Sections 	44259 	and 	44266 	(formerly
Sections 	13130 	and 	13136).
-5-

salary, 	such percentage 	reflects 	the 	additional 	time which 	the
counselors 	must 	devote 	to 	their profession. 	Additionally, 	the
counselors 	enjoy 	the 	same 	fringe 	benefits 	as 	teachers
including 	sick 	leave, 	vacation, 	holidays 	and retirement.
Counselors 	also 	possess 	employee 	numbers 	and bumping 	rights
as 	do 	teachers, 	but 	the 	facts 	are unclear whether 	the bumping
rights 	are 	among 	the 	counselors 	only, 	or 	apply 	equally 	in
order 	to bump 	teachers. 	Teachers 	and 	counselors 	both have
tenure 	rights, 	however 	the 	evidence 	is 	unclear 	as 	to which job
classification 	the 	tenure 	rights 	apply.
The 	counselors 	assert 	that 	their 	supervisory 	duties
regarding 	student 	activities 	differ 	distinctively 	from 	those 	of
teachers. 	However, 	the 	evidence presented 	indicates 	that 	the
counselors 	supervise 	extracurricular 	activities 	of 	the
students, 	as well as 	lunch-time 	school yard activities, 	much
as 	teachers 	do. 	Although 	the 	counselors 	are not 	assigned
the 	same morning 	and bus 	supervision 	duties 	as 	teachers 	are,
the 	counselors 	do 	provide 	some 	comparable 	student 	super-
visory 	function.
In Los Angeles, 	the 	counselors 	had 	"frequent 	contact"
with 	teachers. 	In 	this 	case, 	the 	record 	indicates 	that 	there
is 	considerable 	interaction 	between 	teachers 	and 	counselors.
Both 	are 	required 	to 	attend 	faculty meetings. 	The 	teachers
and 	counselors 	also 	interact 	through 	consultation 	sessions
between 	teachers, 	counselors 	and parents 	as well 	as 	through
common 	contact 	with 	students.
-6-

Notwithstanding 	the 	marked 	similarities 	between 	the 	counselors
and other 	certificated employees 	in 	the District, 	the 	District
argues 	that 	since 	the 	counselors' 	overall 	function 	and 	authority
closely 	resemble 	that 	of 	supervisory 	or management 	personnel,
their 	community 	of 	interest 	is 	distinguishable 	from 	other
certificated employees. 	However, 	the 	District 	and PESC 	present
evidence 	showing no more 	than 	a 	superficial 	"special 	relation-
ship" 	with 	school 	supervisors 	or management. 	And 	although 	there
are 	some 	distinctions 	presented by 	the 	District 	and PESC, 	these
are 	by no 	means 	controlling 	or 	determinative.
The 	record 	indicates 	that 	the 	counselors 	participate 	as
members 	of 	the 	school management 	team. 	The 	counselors, 	unlike
the 	teachers, 	form a 	team with 	the 	principal, 	vice 	principal
and 	teaching vice 	principal 	at 	each 	school. 	This 	group meets
weekly 	to 	review the week's 	activities, 	the 	overall 	school
program, 	scheduling of 	classes 	and 	staffing 	problems. 	The
counselors 	contribute 	at 	these meetings 	by 	providing 	input
regarding 	personnel 	problems 	and 	inservice 	activities 	for
certificated 	employees. 	The 	record reflects 	that 	the 	counselors
are 	representatives 	of 	certificated 	employees 	at 	these meetings,
presenting 	the views 	of 	teachers, 	among others, 	as 	spokespersons.
Additionally, 	the 	counselors 	attended 	the 	school management
planning 	retreat which 	took 	place 	before 	the 	opening 	of 	school.
Teachers 	were not 	invited 	to 	this 	retreat. 	The 	counselors 	did not
elaborate 	on why 	they were 	chosen 	to 	attend 	the 	retreat 	or
what 	function 	they 	served 	there.
-7-

When 	the 	administrators 	leave 	the 	school 	site, 	the 	counselors
are placed 	in 	charge until 	they return. 	However, 	the 	counselors
present 	no 	evidence 	that 	they 	function 	as 	supervisory 	or
management 	employees. 	Moreover, 	this 	delegated authority
apparently occurs 	so 	infrequently 	and 	irregularly 	as 	to 	provide
no 	distinguishing 	employment 	characteristic. 	And 	lastly,
counselors 	are 	given master keys 	to 	the 	school buildings, 	whereas
teachers 	are not.
Although neither 	the 	District 	nor 	PESC 	contends 	that
counselors 	should 	be 	excluded 	from 	the 	unit 	as 	management 	or
supervisory, 	they urge 	in 	an 	attempt 	to 	rebut 	the 	appropriate
unit 	presumption 	that 	their 	"special 	relationship" 	with 	super-
visors 	or 	management 	functionally 	separates 	counselors 	from
the 	remaining 	certificated 	employees. 	However 	the 	counselors
repeatedly 	stated 	that 	they 	do 	not 	evaluate 	certificated
employees. 	Although 	the 	counselors 	may be 	given 	temporary 	and
occasional 	responsibility 	for 	administering 	the 	functions 	of 	the
school 	in the administrators' 	absence, 	the evidence 	does not
support 	a 	finding 	that 	the 	counselors 	manage 	or 	supervise within
the meaning 	of 	the Act. 11
11 Government 	Code 	Section 	3540.l(g) 	states: 	"'Management 	employee'
means 	any 	employee 	in 	a position 	having 	significant 	responsibilities
for 	formulating 	district 	policies 	or 	administering 	district
programs. 	Management 	positions 	shall 	be 	designated by 	the 	public
school 	employer 	subject 	to 	review by 	the 	Educational 	Employ-
ment 	Relations 	Board."
Section 3540.1 (m) 	states: 	"'Supervisory employee' 	means 	any
employee, 	regardless 	of job 	description, 	having authority 	in 	the
interest of the 	employer 	to hire, 	transfer, 	suspend, 	lay off,
recall, 	promote, 	discharge, 	assign, 	reward, 	or discipline other
employees, 	or 	the 	responsibility 	to 	assign work 	to 	and 	direct
them, 	or 	to 	adjust 	their grievances, 	or 	effectively recommend
such action, 	if, 	in connection with the 	foregoing 	functions, 	the
exercise 	of 	such 	authority 	is 	not 	of 	a merely 	routine 	or 	clerical
nature, 	but 	requires 	the use 	of 	independent 	judgment."
-8-

Furthermore, 	the evidence of a purported "alliance" 	of
counselors 	with management 	or 	supervisors 	is 	not 	substantial
enough 	to 	overcome 	the presumed 	appropriateness 	of 	the 	overall
certificated unit. 	The purported 	"alliance" 	implies 	separate
or 	even 	conflicting 	communities 	of 	interest 	between 	and 	among
the 	counselors 	and 	the 	other 	certificated 	employees 	but 	this
implication 	is 	not 	supported by 	the 	facts.
The 	facts 	indicate 	that 	a 	fundamental 	coherence 	is 	shared
by 	both 	counselors 	and 	the 	remaining 	certificated 	employees.
Different 	job 	classifications 	inherently 	have 	different
characteristics. 	But 	in 	this 	case 	the 	distinctions 	are not
controlling. 	The 	similarities 	of qualifications, 	salaries,
duties 	and 	functions, 	fringe benefits 	and 	interaction 	among
employees 	outweigh the., few disparate qualities. 	Thus 	it 	is
found 	that 	the 	counselors 	share 	a 	community 	of 	interest with 	the
balance 	of 	certificated 	employees.
Established 	Practices
An 	agreement was 	reached 	between AVTA, 	PESC 	and
the District 	on May 	10, 	1976, 	whereby 	they agreed 	to 	submit
the 	issue 	of 	appropriateness 	of 	the 	representation unit 	to 	the
Board. 	AVTA and 	PESC 	agreed 	to 	negotiate 	separately with 	the
District 	for 	the 	1976-77 	school 	year. 	The 	two 	organizations
have negotiated 	separately 	from 	the 	date 	of 	the 	said 	agreement.
The 	underlying 	rationale 	in 	looking 	to 	established 	practices
and. negotiations 	history 	is 	that 	the 	expectations 	of 	the 	parties
-9-

concerning 	their 	future 	relationship 	may 	derive 	in 	large 	part
from peaceful 	and 	satisfactory 	experiences 	in 	prior 	negotiations. 12
It 	is 	important 	to note 	that 	the 	agreement 	in 	the 	instant 	case
made 	future 	separate negotiations 	conditional 	upon 	a 	Board
determination 	of 	the 	appropriateness 	of 	an 	overall 	certificated
unit 	containing 	counselors. 	Thus 	the 	parties 	anticipated 	a
possible 	short 	separate 	negotiations 	life 	span. 	They 	also
anticipated 	a 	possibility 	of 	a 	single 	comprehensive 	unit 	by
leaving 	the matter 	to 	be 	decided by 	the 	Board. 	Thus 	the 	Board
would 	not 	significantly 	disturb 	the 	relationships 	of 	the 	parties
by 	placing 	the 	counselors 	in 	a 	single 	certificated unit 	since
the 	parties 	to 	the 	above 	agreement 	foresaw 	such a 	possibility.
While notice 	is 	taken 	of 	past 	separate negotiating 	history,
in 	this 	case 	it 	is 	felt 	that 	such history 	is 	not 	significant
enough 	to warrant 	a 	separate 	certificated unit 	of 	counselors.
Efficient 	Operation
In 	determining 	the 	appropriate unit 	for 	representation, 	it
is 	necessary 	to 	examine 	the 	size 	of 	the unit 	and 	its 	effect
upon 	the 	efficient 	operation 	of 	the 	District.
Four 	counselors 	currently 	seek 	recognition 	as 	a 	separate
unit. 	Furthermore, 	the District 	contends 	that 	two units would
not 	detract 	from its 	efficiency 	of 	operation. 	On 	the 	other
hand, 	the AVTA argues 	that 	the 	size 	of 	the 	proposed unit will
12 R. 	Gorman, 	Labor 	Law 	- 	Unionization 	and 	Collective 	Bargaining,
at 	71 	(19767:
-10-

lead 	to 	inefficient 	operations 	of 	the 	District. 	Although 	the
NLRB has 	held 	that 	small 	size 	alone 	does 	not 	render 	a unit
inappropriate,13 it 	is 	unnecessary 	to 	decide 	the 	issue here
because 	a 	finding has 	already been made 	that 	the 	unit 	lacks 	a
separate 	community 	of 	interest 	based 	upon 	other 	factors.
Further, 	no 	showing was 	made 	as 	to why 	two units would be more
efficient 	to 	overcome 	other 	community 	of 	interest 	criteria.
The parties 	urging 	a 	separate 	counselors' 	unit 	have not
met 	their burden 	of proof 	to 	overcome 	the 	presumed 	appropriateness
of 	an 	overall 	unit 	of 	certificated 	employees 	including 	counselors.
Thus, 	in 	light 	of Board precedent 	indicating 	that 	counselors
have 	been 	included 	in 	a 	negotiating 	unit with 	other
certificated 	employees, 	the 	evidence 	of 	a 	shared 	community
of 	interest, 	the 	conditional 	nature 	of 	the 	bargaining history
and 	the 	smallness 	of 	the 	proposed 	separate unit, 	the 	counselors
will 	be 	placed 	in 	the 	same 	unit with 	other 	certificated 	employees.
13 Royal Tallon and Soap Company, 	Inc., 	78 NLRB 834 	(1948); 	See
also Crispo Cake Cone Company, 	Inc",, 	201 NLRB 	309, 	82 LRRM 1198
(1973) 	(unit of two employees).
-11-

PROPOSED' DECISION
It 	is 	proposed that :
The 	following 	unit 	is 	appropriate 	for 	the 	purpose 	of 	meeting
and negotiating, 	providing 	that 	an 	employee 	organization 	becomes
the 	exclusive 	representative 	of 	the 	unit :
All 	certificated 	employees 	including 	counselors 	but
excluding management, 	supervisory 	and 	confidential
employees.
The 	parties 	have 	seven 	(7) 	calendar 	days 	from 	the
receipt 	of 	this 	Proposed Decision 	in which 	to 	file 	exceptions
in 	accordance 	with 	Section 	33380 	of 	the 	Board ' s 	Rules 	and
Regulations . 	If no 	party 	files 	timely 	exceptions, 	this
Proposed 	Decision will 	become 	final 	on August 	22,1976 	and 	the
Notice 	of 	Decision will 	issue 	from 	the 	Board .
Within 	ten 	(10) 	work 	days 	after 	the 	employer 	posts 	the
Notice 	of 	Decision, 	the 	employee 	organization 	shall 	demonstrate
to 	the 	Regional 	Director 	30 	percent 	support 	in 	the 	above 	unit .
The 	Regional 	Director 	shall 	conduct 	an 	election 	at 	the 	end 	of
the 	posting 	period 	if 	(1) 	both 	employee 	organizations 	qualify
for 	the 	ballot 	or 	(2) 	one 	employee 	organization 	qualifies 	for
the 	ballot 	and 	the 	employer 	does 	not 	grant 	voluntary 	recognition .
Dated: 	August 10, 	1977 .
-12-
Terry 	Filli man
Hearing 	Officer

STAlE OF CALIFO RNI A 	EDMUND G. BROWN J R., Governor
EDUCATIONAL 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
Headquarters Offi ce
923 12th Street, SUite 201
Sacrament o, 	califomia 	95 814
( 916 ) 322-3 0 88
•
•
.
.
September 13, 	1977
Jon Hudak, 	Esq.
Galgani, 	Breon and Godino
100 Bush Street, 	Suite 428
San Francisco, 	CA 94104
Charlie Hinton
Field Representative
California Teachers Association
3330 Muscat Court
Pleasanton, 	CA 94566
Dr . 	Thomas C . 	Agin, 	Director
California Pupil 	Services 	Labor
Relations
652 	East 	Commonwealth Avenue
Fullerton, 	CA 92631
RE: 	Pleasanton Joint Elementary School District, 	SF - R- 92, 	EERB Decision No. 	24
Enclosed is a 	copy of 	the Order adopted by the Educationa l 	Employment Relations
Board concerning the Pleasanton Elementary School Counselors' 	exception to the
hearing officer's proposed decision.dated August 10, 	1977.
Sincerely,
Charles L. 	Cole
Executive 	Director
Enclosure
CLC : sm
cc: 	Bruce C. 	Newlin, 	Superintendent
Pleasanton Joint 	Elementary School District
123 Main Street
Pleasanton, 	CA 94566
Thomas 	Zach
Amador Valley Teachers Association
3330 Muscat Court
Pleasanton, 	CA 94566
Jackie Barnett
Valley Pupil 	Services Association
Pleasanton Elementary School 	Counselors
4510 	Entrada Court
Pleasanton, 	CA 94566
David Woolworth
AVSEA
8151 Village Parkway
Dublin, 	CA 94566

PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL - 	C . C.P. 	1013a
I 	declare that 	I 	am employed in the county of Sacramento, 	California. 	I 	am over the
age of 	eighteen years and not a 	party to the within entitled cause; 	my business address
is 923 - 	12th Street, 	Suite 201, 	Sacramento, 	California 	95814.
On 	September 13, 	1977 	, 	I 	served the 	Board 	Order re Pleasanton Joint
Elementary School District, 	SF - R- 92 	on the ___p arties 	to the case
by placing a 	true copy thereof 	enclosed 	in a
sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, 	in the United States Mail at
.;;;.Sa~_c~r _a~m~e~n~t~o~,.__C_A_ 	addressed as 	follows:
--------------------·
----------------------~
_... 	__________________ ~
Jon Hudak, 	Esq.
Galgani, 	Breon and Godino
100 Bush Street, 	Suite 428
San Francisco, 	CA 94104
Charlie Hinton
Field 	Representative
California Teachers Association
3330 Muscat Court
Pleasanton, 	CA 94566
Dr. 	Thomas C . Agin, 	Director
California Pupil 	Services Labor
Relations
652 East Commonwealth Avenue
Fullerton, 	CA 92631
Bruce C. 	Newlin, 	Superintendent
Pleasanton Joint 	Elementary School District
123 Main Street
Pleasanton, 	CA 94566
Thomas 	Zach
Amador Valley Teachers Association
3330 Muscat 	Court
Pleasanton, 	CA 94566
Jackie Barnett
Valley Pupil Services Assn.
Pleasanton Elementary School 	Counselors
4510 	Entrada Court
Pleasanton, 	CA 94566
David Woolworth
AVSEA
8151 Village Parkway
Dublin, 	CA 94566
I 	declare under penalty of perjury that 	the foregoing 	is 	true and correct, 	and that 	this
declaration was 	executed on 	September 13, 	1977 ---'
at ___s_a_c_r_a_m_e_n_t_o_______________________________ , 	California.
Sue Mccubbin
(Type or print name ) 	(Signature )
-------·-------'--------------------
EERB-19 	(6 / 77)