San Jose Unified School District (PERB 0090E)

!=:TATE
	OF
	CALIIi'OR1\1JA
DECISION
	01"	
y,i:,,:
PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
__________________ )
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
SAN
	JOSE 	UNIFIED
	SCHOOL
	DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
SAN
	JOSE 	FEDERATION
	OF
	TEACHERS,
LOCAL
	957
Employee
	Organization,
and
SAN
	JOSE 	TEACHERS 	ASSOCIATION,
CTA/NEA,
Employee
	Organization.
Case
	No.
	SF-R-536
PERB
	Decision
	No.
90
February
	14,
	1979
Appearances: 	Michael
	Taggart, 	Attorney 	(Paterson
	&
Taggart)
for
	San
	Jose 	Unified
	School
	District;
	Anne
	Fragasso, 	Attorney
for
	San
	Jose 	Federation 	of
	Teachers,
	Local
	957;
	and
	John
	Muir,
Attorney
	(La
	Croix
	& Schumb)
	for
	San
	Jose 	Teachers
	Association,
CTA/NEA.
Before 	Gluck,
	Chairperson;
	Cossack
	Twohey
	and
	Gonzales,
	Members.
DECISION
This 	case
	is
	before 	the 	Public
	Employment
	Relations
	Board
(hereafter
	Board) 	on
	exceptions 	taken	
by	
the
	San
	Jose
Federation 	of 	Teachers
	(hereafter 	Federation) 	to
	the
	hearing
officer's
	proposed
	decision.	
The	
Federation 	objects 	to 	the
hearing
	officer's
	conclusion	
that	
a
	negotiating 	unit 	consisting
of
	all
	hourly 	adult 	education 	teachers
	is 	appropriate.
The	
Board 	has 	considered	
the	
record 	as
	a 	whole 	and 	the
attached	
proposed	
decision 	in 	light 	of	
the 	exceptions.
	The
Board 	agrees 	with 	the 	hearing
	officer's
	conclusion 	that 	all
SAN JOSE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
SAN JOSE FEDERATION OF TEACHERS,
LOCAL 957
Employee Organization,
and
SAN JOSE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION,
CTA/NEA,
Employee Organization.
Case No. SF-R-536
PERB Decision No. 90
February 14, 1979
Appearances: Michael Taggart, Attorney (Paterson & Taggart)
for San Jose Unified School District; Anne Fragasso, Attorney
for San Jose Federation of Teachers, Local 957; and John Muir,
Attorney (La Croix & Schumb) for San Jose Teachers Association,
CTA/NEA.
Before Gluck, Chairperson; Cossack Twohey and Gonzales, Members.
DECISION
This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(hereafter Board) on exceptions taken by the San Jose
Federation of Teachers (hereafter Federation) to the hearing
officer's proposed decision. The Federation objects to the
hearing officer's conclusion that a negotiating unit consisting
of all hourly adult education teachers is appropriate.
The Board has considered the record as a whole and the
attached proposed decision in light of the exceptions. 	The
Board agrees with the hearing officer's conclusion that all

hourly
	adult
	education
	teachers
	should
	be
	included
	in
	a
	single
unit,
	and
	hereby 	adopts 	the 	hearing
	officer's
	proposed
	decision
to 	the
	extent
	that
	it
	is
	based
	on
	evidence
	relating
	to
community
	of
	interest,
	established 	practices
	and
	efficiency
	of
operations.l
ORDER	
ORDER
Upon
	the 	foregoing 	Decision
	and
	the
	entire
	record 	in
	this
case,
	the
	Public
	Employment
	Relations
	Board
	ORDERS
	that:
A
	unit 	consisting 	of
	all
	hourly
	adult
	education
	teachers
who
	are
	not
	on
	the
	regular 	teachers
	salary
	schedule
	is
appropriate
	for
	meeting
	and
	negotiating.
Within
	ten
	(10)
	workdays
	after
	the
	employer
	posts
	the
Notice
	of 	Decision, 	the
	employee
	organizations
	shall
demonstrate 	to 	the
	regional
	director 	at 	least
	30
	percent
support 	in
	the
	above
	unit.
	The
	regional
	director 	shall
	conduct
an
	election 	at
	the
	end
	of 	the 	posting 	period
	if
	(1) 	more
	than
one 	employee
	organization
	qualifies
	for 	the
	ballot,
	or
	(2)
	only
one 	employee
	organization
	qualifies
	for 	the
	ballot
	and
	the
employer 	does
	not
	grant 	voluntary 	recognition.
	Voluntary
recognition 	requires 	majority 	proof 	of 	support 	in
	all
	cases.
See 	Government	
Code	
section
	3544 	and
	3544.1.
1 The 	Board	
notes	
that 	the 	hearing
	officer 	stated 	that
adult 	education 	teachers 	are 	supervised	
by	
site 	principals.
They
	are 	supervised	
by	
center 	coordinators.
	However,
	this
discrepancy 	does 	not
	affect	
the 	conclusion	
reached.
2
hourly adult education teachers should be included in a single
unit, and hereby adopts the hearing officer's proposed decision
to the extent that it is based on evidence relating to
community of interest, established practices and efficiency of
operations. 1
Upon the foregoing Decision and the entire record in this
case, the Public Employment Relations Board ORDERS that:
A unit consisting of all hourly adult education teachers
who are not on the regular teachers salary schedule is
appropriate for meeting and negotiating.
Within ten (10) workdays after the employer posts the
Notice of Decision, the employee organizations shall
demonstrate to the regional director at least 30 percent
support in the above unit. The regional director shall conduct
an election at the end of the posting period if (1) more than
one employee organization qualifies for the ballot, or (2) only
one employee organization qualifies for the ballot and the
employer does not grant voluntary recognition. Voluntary
recognition requires majority proof of support in all cases.
See Government Code section 3544 and 3544.1.
The Board notes that the hearing officer stated that
adult education teachers are supervised by site principals.
They are supervised by center coordinators. However, this
discrepancy does not affect the conclusion reached.
N

The
	date
	used
	to
	establish
	the
	number
	of
	employees
	in
	the
above
	unit
	shall
	be
	the
	date 	of
	this
	decision
	unless
	another
date
	is
	deemed
	appropriate
	by
	the
	regional
	director
	and
	noticed
to
	the
	parties.
	In 	the 	event 	another 	date
	is
	selected, 	the
regional
	director
	may
	extend 	the
	time
	for
	employee
organizations 	to
	demonstrate
	at 	least
	30
	percent 	support 	in
	the
unit.
By : Harry Gluck, Chalrperson 	Jerflou Cossack Twohey , Membef
By:	
Hitl'Ji"'i'lli]uCk,	
Cha'rrperson
	0,11-0~
	cossack
	Twohey,
	Mernbeit
Raymond
	J.
	Gonzales,
	Member,
	concurring:
I
	would
	totally
	adopt
	the 	hearing
	officer's
	proposed
decision
	and
	not
	simply
	rely
	on
	that
	portion 	of 	the
	decision
relating
	to
	Government 	Code
	section
	3545(a)
	criteria
	as
	applied
to
	the
	facts
	of
	this
	case.
Further,
	I
	would
	note
	that
	the
	fact 	that
	I
	have
	concurred
in 	finding
	a
	unit 	of
	all
	hourly 	adult
	education 	teachers
appropriate,
	which
	includes 	both
	full-
	and
	part-time 	hourly 	adult
education
	instructors, 	in
	no 	way
	affects
	my
	view
	that 	part-
time 	and
	full-time
	community
	college 	teachers 	should 	not 	be
	in
the
	same
	unit.
	(See
	Hartnell
	Community
	College
	District
	(1/2/79)
PERB
	Decision
	No. 	81,
	dissenting 	opinion;
	Los 	Rios 	Community
College
	District
	(6/9/77)
	EERB
	Decision
	No.
	18,
	dissenting 	opinion.)
The 	two
	situations 	are 	completely 	distinguishable.
Raymond J. Gonzales, Member	Raym'Snd
	J. 	c6nz.tles, 	Jember
3
The date used to establish the number of employees in the
above unit shall be the date of this decision unless another
date is deemed appropriate by the regional director and noticed
to the parties. In the event another date is selected, the
regional director may extend the time for employee
organizations to demonstrate at least 30 percent support in the
unit.
Raymond J. Gonzales, Member, concurring:
I would totally adopt the hearing officer's proposed
decision and not simply rely on that portion of the decision
relating to Government Code section 3545 (a) criteria as applied
to the facts of this case.
Further, I would note that the fact that I have concurred
in finding a unit of all hourly adult education teachers
appropriate, which includes both full- and part-time hourly adult
education instructors, in no way affects my view that part-
time and full-time community college teachers should not be in
the same unit. (See Hartnell Community College District (1/2/79)
PERB Decision No. 81, dissenting opinion; Los Rios Community
College District (6/9/77) EERB Decision No. 18, dissenting opinion.)
The two situations are completely distinguishable.
3

PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
OF 	THE
	STATE
	OF
	CALIFORNIA
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
___________________
)
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In
	the
	Matter
	of:
San
	Jose 	Unified
	School
	District,
Employer,
and
San
	Jose 	Federation 	of 	Teachers,
Local 	957,
Employee
	Organization,
and
SAN
	JOSE 	TEACHERS 	ASSOCIATION,
CTA/NEA,
Employee
	Organization.
Case
	No.
	SF-R-536
PROPOSED
	REPRESENTATION
DECISION
April
	6,
	1978
Appearances: 	Michael
	Taggart, 	Attorney 	(Paterson
	&
Taggart),
for
	San
	Jose 	Unified
	School
	District;
	Anne
	Fragasso, 	for
	San
Jose 	Federation 	of 	Teachers,
	Local 	957;
	and
	John 	Muir,
	Attorney
(La
	Croix	
&	
Schumb),
	for
	San
	Jose 	Teachers
	Association,
	CTA/NEA.
Proposed 	Decision
	by
	Bruce 	Barsook.
PROCEDURAL
	HISTORY	PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On
	August 	30, 	1976,
	the
	San
	Jose 	Federation 	of 	Teachers,
Local
	957
	(hereinafter 	"Federation"),
	filed
	with 	the
	San
	Jose
Unified
	School
	District 	(hereinafter 	"District")
	a
	request
recognition
	as 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	of
	a
	unit 	of 	hourJy
adult 	education 	teachers
	who
	teach 	ten 	or
	more
	hours 	per
	week
and
	who
	are 	not
	on
	the
	teacher's 	salary 	schedule.
	On
December
	17, 	1976, 	the 	Federation 	filed
	an 	amended
	request 	for
recognition 	evidencing 	the 	change 	in 	the 	number
	of 	teaching
personnel 	created
	by 	the 	beginning 	of 	the 	fall
	term.
	On
January 	25, 	1977, 	the 	San 	Jose 	Teachers 	Association,
	CTA/NEA
In the Matter of :
San Jose Unified School District,
Employer ,
and
Case No. 	SF-R-536
San Jose Federation of Teachers,
Local 957, 	PROPOSED REPRESENTATION
DECISION
Employee Organization, April 6, 1978
and
SAN JOSE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION,
CTA/NEA ,
Employee Organization.
Appearances: Michael Taggart, Attorney (Paterson & Taggart) ,
for San Jose Unified School District; Anne Fragasso, for San
Jose Federation of Teachers, Local 957; and John Muir, Attorney
(La Croix & Schumb) , for San Jose Teachers Association, CTA/NEA.
Proposed Decision by Bruce Barsook.
On August 30, 1976, the San Jose Federation of Teachers,
Local 957 (hereinafter "Federation"), filed with the San Jose
Unified School District (hereinafter "District") a request for
recognition as the exclusive representative of a unit of hourly
adult education teachers who teach ten or more hours per week
and who are not on the teacher's salary schedule. 	On
December 17, 1976, the Federation filed an amended request for
recognition evidenceng the change in the number of teaching
personnel created by the beginning of the fall term. o
January 25, 1977, the San Jose Teachers Association, CTA/NEA

(hereinafter
	"Association"),
	submitted
	a
	notice 	of 	intervention,
seeking 	to
	become
	the
	exclusive
	representative
	of 	the
	identical
unit.
On
	January
	31, 	1977, 	the
	District
	formally
	notified
	the
Public
	Employment
	Relations
	Board
	(hereinafter
	"PERB")
	that
	it
doubted
	the 	appropriateness
	of
	the
	proposed
	unit.
	A
	formal
hearing
	was
	conducted
	in
	this
	matter
	on
	September 	8, 	1977.
The
	District's
	position
	is
	that 	adult
	education
	teachers
should
	not
	have
	a
	separate 	negotiating
	unit,
	but
	should
	be
included
	in
	the
	regular
	certificated
	classroom
	teachers
	unit
already 	in 	existence
	in
	the
	District.
	As
	an
	alternative 	position
and
	in
	the
	event
	it
	is
	decided
	that
	adult
	education
	teachers
should
	be
	excluded
	from
	the
	regular
	classroom
	teachers
	unit,
	the
District
	favors
	a
	unit
	containing
	all
	adult
	education
	teachers
regardless 	of
	the
	number
	of
	hours
	per
	week
	they
	teach.
	The
Federation's 	position
	is
	that 	adult
	education 	teachers 	should
have
	a
	separate 	negotiating 	unit,
	but
	such
	unit
	should
	contain
only 	those 	teachers 	teaching 	ten 	or
	more
	hours
	per
	week. 	The
Association's 	position
	is 	that 	adult
	education 	teachers 	should
have
	a
	separate 	negotiating 	unit
	which
	should 	include
	all
	such
teachers 	irrespective 	of
	the
	number
	of 	teaching 	hours 	per
	week.
ISSUES	ISSUES
1.
	Should
	adult 	education 	teachers
	be
	included 	in 	the
regular 	certificated
	classroom 	teachers 	negotiating 	unit?
2.
	If 	not,
	what
	is 	the 	appropriate 	negotiating 	unit 	for
adult 	education 	teachers? 
2
(hereinafter "Association"), submitted a notice of intervention,
seeking to become the exclusive representative of the identical
unit.
On January 31, 1977, the District formally notified the
Public Employment Relations Board (hereinafter "PERB") that it
doubted the appropriateness of the proposed unit. A formal
hearing was conducted in this matter on September 8, 1977.
The District's position is that adult education teachers
should not have a separate negotiating unit, but should be
included in the regular certificated classroom teachers unit
already in existence in the District. As an alternative position
and in the event it is decided that adult education teachers
should be excluded from the regular classroom teachers unit, the
District favors a unit containing all adult education teachers
regardless of the number of hours per week they teach.
Federation's position is that adult education teachers should
have a separate negotiating unit, but such unit should contain
only those teachers teaching ten or more hours per week.
Association's position is that adult education teachers should
have a separate negotiating unit which should include all such
teachers irrespective of the number of teaching hours per week.
The
The
1. Should adult education teachers be included in the
regular certificated classroom teachers negotiating unit?
2. If not, what is the appropriate negotiating unit for
adult education teachers?
2

FINDINGS
	OF
	FACT
Adult
	education
	for
	the
	greater
	San
	Jose
	area
	is
administered
	as
	part
	of
	the
	Regional
	Program which
	is
	a
consortium
of 	six
	districts
	which
	participate
	in 	three
	programs:
The
	Regional 	Vocational 	Center;
	the
	Regional
	Occupational
	Program;
and
	the 	Metropolitan
	Adult 	Education
	Program
	(MAEP).
	The
	San
Jose 	Unified
	School
	District 	is
	the 	administering
	agency
	for
these 	three
	programs 	and 	employs
	the 	personnel.
	These 	programs
cover 	the 	boundaries 	of 	the
	participating
	districts,
	which
are: 	Milpitas
	Unified
	School
	District,
	East
	Side
	Union 	High
School
	District,
	San
	Jose 	Unified
	School
	District,
	Santa
	Clara
Unified
	School
	District,
	Campbell 	Union 	High
	School
	District
and 	Los
	Gatos 	School
	District
	(which
	is
	not 	involved
	in 	the
MAEP).
	Most
	of
	the
	adult
	school
	teachers 	in 	question 	herein
teach 	in 	the 	Metropolitan
	Adult 	Education
	Program.
	A
few
	also
teach 	in 	the 	Regional 	Occupational
	Program
	and
	at
	the 	Regional
Vocational 	Center.
The
	San
	Jose 	Unified
	School
	District
	has 	about
	52
	sites.
The
	Regional
	Program
	utilizes
	approximately
	250
	classroom
	sites
at
	a
	variety
	of
	locations,
	such
	as 	school
	buildings, 	churches,
offices
	and
	industry 	plants.
The
	District
	has
	an
	ADA
	of 	approximately 	38,000.
	The
	ADA
of 	the 	Regional 	Program
	is
	approximately 	10,000 	with 	8,000
	of
that 	in 	the
	MAEP.1
~
lADA
	generated
	by 	a
	resident 	of 	another 	school
	district
is 	credited
	back 	to 	that 	district.
	Each
	participating 	district
pays
	its
	share 	to 	the 	San 	Jose 	Unified 	School
	District 	for 	the
program, 	which 	includes 	the 	instructors' 	salaries.
3
FINDINGS OF FACT
Adult education for the greater San Jose area is
administered as part of the Regional Program which is a
consortium of six districts which participate in three programs:
The Regional Vocational Center; the Regional Occupational Program;
and the Metropolitan Adult Education Program (MAEP) . The San
Jose Unified School District is the administering agency for
these three programs and employs the personnel. 	These programs
cover the boundaries of the participating districts, which
are: Milpitas Unified School District, East Side Union High
School District, San Jose Unified School District, Santa Clara
Unified School District, Campbell Union High School District
and Los Gatos School District (which is not involved in the
MAEP) . Most of the adult school teachers in question herein
teach in the Metropolitan Adult Education Program. 	A few also
teach in the Regional Occupational Program and at the Regional
Vocational Center.
The San Jose Unified School District has about 52 sites.
The Regional Program utilizes approximately 250 classroom sites
at a variety of locations, such as school buildings, churches,
offices and industry plants.
The District has an ADA of approximately 38,000. The ADA
of the Regional Program is approximately 10,000 with 8,000 of
that in the MAEP.
JADA generated by a resident of another school district
is credited back to that district. Each participating district
pays its share to the San Jose Unified School District for the
program, which includes the instructors' salaries.

Excluding
	the 	Regional
	Program,
	the
	District
	has
approximately
	1,800
	certificated
	employees. 	During
	1976-77,
there
	were
	approximately
	1,700
	teac~ers 	in
	the 	Regional
	Program
and
	it
	was
	estimated
	that
	there
	would 	be
	approximately
	2,000
teachers
	for 	the
	1977-78
	school
	year.
	Some
	regular
	day
	school
teachers
	teach
	adult
	education
	classes.
	All 	teachers
	in
	the
aduJt 	education
	program
	are
	employees
	of 	the
	San
	Jose 	Unified
School
	District
	and
	any
	teacher
	who
	qualifies
	becomes
	tenured
in 	the
	San
	Jose 	Unified
	School
	District.
Under
	the
	meet 	and
	confer 	process 	of
	the
	Winton
	Act,
2
it
was
	agreed
	that
	all
	adult
	education 	teachers
	would 	be
	hired
	as
hourly
	employees
	except 	for 	grandfathered
	full-time 	contract
.
t.
	pos1
	1ons.
3
A
	full-time
	teaching 	load 	for 	regional
	instructors 	is
	30
hours
	per
	week.
	There
	are
	a
	few
	hourly
	instructors
	who
	teach
30
	hours 	per
	week. 	About
	150
	Regional
	Program
	teachers 	teach
ten
	or
	more
	hours 	per
	week.
4
2
Former 	Ed.
	Code
	Sec.
	]3080
	et 	seq.,
	repealed
	Stats.
	1975,
Ch.
	961, 	Sec.
	1, 	effective
	July 	1,
	1976.
2
3There
	are
	24
	full-time 	contract 	teachers
	who
	work
exclusively 	for 	the
	MAEP
	and
	three 	full-time 	contract 	teachers
who
	work
	part-time
	for 	the
	M.AEP
	and
	part-time 	for 	the 	Regional
Occupational
	Program. 	These 	employees, 	along 	with
	45
	other
fulJ-tirne 	contract 	teachers
	working 	for
	either
	the 	Regional
Occupational
	Program 	or 	the 	Regional 	Vocational 	Center,
	have
been 	included 	in 	the 	recognized
	certificated 	negotiating 	unit 	ofthe
	District.
4This
	represents 	about nine 	percent 	of
	all
	regional 	program
teachers.
4
Excluding the Regional Program, the District has
approximately 1,800 certificated employees. During 1976-77,
there were approximately 1,700 teachers in the Regional Program
and it was estimated that there would be approximately 2,000
teachers for the 1977-78 school year. 	Some regular day school
teachers teach adult education classes. All teachers in the
adult education program are employees of the San Jose Unified
School District and any teacher who qualifies becomes tenured
in the San Jose Unified School District.
Under the meet and confer process of the Winton Act, it
was agreed that all adult education teachers would be hired as
hourly employees except for grandfathered full-time contract
positions . 3
A full-time teaching load for regional instructors is 30
hours per week. There are a few hourly instructors who teach
30 hours per week. About 150 Regional Program teachers teach
ten or more hours per week."
Former Ed. Code Sec. 13080 et seq. , repealed Stats. 1975,
Ch. 961, Sec. 1, effective July 1, 1976.
3There are 24 full-time contract teachers who work
exclusively for the MAEP and three full-time contract teachers
who work part-time for the MAEP and part-time for the Regional
Occupational Program. These employees, along with 45 other
full-time contract teachers working for either the Regional
Occupational Program or the Regional Vocational Center, have
been included in the recognized certificated negotiating unit of
the District.
This represents about nine percent of all regional program
teachers.

Adult
	education
	teachers,
	with 	the
	exception 	of 	the
	27
full-time 	contract 	teachers,
	are 	paid 	pursuant 	to
	an
	hourly
salary
	schedule
	with
	a
	provision
	for 	increased
	compensation
based
	on
	hours
	of
	experience.
	Regular
	day
	school
	teachers 	are
paid
	a
	yearly
	salary
	in
	accordance 	with
	their
	salary
	schedule
and
	are
	eligible
	for 	increased
	compensation 	based
	on
	additional
education.
	Regular
	day
	school
	teachers
	who
	teach
	adult
education 	receive
	the 	hourly
	rate
	in
	addition
	to
	their
	regular
salary.
	Hourly
	adult
	education
	teachers
	who
	teach
	15
	or
	more
hours 	per
	week
	are
	entitled
	to
	a
	pro
	rata
	share 	of 	fringe
benefits.
5
Recruitment
	and
	hiring
	of
	adult
	education 	teachers
	is
separate
	from
	that
	of 	regular
	day
	school
	teachers.
	Although
adult
	education 	teachers 	are 	required 	to
	have
	teaching
credentials,
	those
	who
	teach
	nonacademic
	(i.e.,
	vocational)
subjects
	need
	possess 	only
	a
	designated
	subjects
	teaching
credential
	which
	does
	not
	require
	a
	baccalaureate 	degree.
6
Adult 	education 	teachers 	are 	supervised
	by 	one
	of
	three
adult
	school
	principals.
	Adult 	education 	teachers 	are
informally 	evaluated 	but 	not 	under
	the 	provisions 	of 	the
	Stull
Act.
7
Adu]t 	education 	teachers
	have
	a
	different
	grievance
5
of 	the 	approximate
	l
,700
	adult 	education 	teachers 	in1976-77,
	108
	(6.4 	percent) 	taught
	15
	or
	more
	hours 	per
	week.
6cf., Ed. Code Secs. 44256, 44260 .
7Ed. Code Sec. 44660 et seq.
5
6cf.,
	Ed. 	Code
	Secs. 	44256, 	44260.
7Ed. 	Code
	Sec.
	44660
	et
	seq.
5
Adult education teachers, with the exception of the 27
full-time contract teachers, are paid pursuant to an hourly
salary schedule with a provision for increased compensation
based on hours of experience. Regular day school teachers are
paid a yearly salary in accordance with their salary schedule
and are eligible for increased compensation based on additional
education. Regular day school teachers who teach adult
education receive the hourly rate in addition to their regular
salary. Hourly adult education teachers who teach 15 or more
hours per week are entitled to a pro rata share of fringe
benefits.
Recruitment and hiring of adult education teachers is
separate from that of regular day school teachers. Although
adult education teachers are required to have teaching
credentials, those who teach nonacademic (i.e. , vocational)
subjects need possess only a designated subjects teaching
credential which does not require a baccalaureate degree.
Adult education teachers are supervised by one of three
adult school principals. Adult education teachers are
informally evaluated but not under the provisions of the Stull
Act.' 	Adult education teachers have a different grievance
of the approximate 1,700 adult education teachers in
1976-77, 108 (6.4 percent) taught 15 or more hours per week.
5

procedure
	from
	regular
	day
	teachers.
	Adult
	education
	teachers
can
	achieve 	tenure
	but 	only
	as
	adult
	education
	teachers.
	Their
tenure
	is
	not
	transferrable
	to
	the
	regular
	day
	program.88
There
	is
	little
	interaction
	between
	the
	adult
	education
faculty
	and
	the
	day
	school
	faculty.
	Most
	adult
	education
classes
	are 	taught
	at
	night
	and
	a
	significant
	number
	of 	the
classes
	do
	not
	even 	meet
	at 	District
	building
	sites.
	Faculty
meetings
	for
	the
	adult
	education
	program
	are
	separate
	from
those 	of
	the
	regular
	day
	school
	program.
	The 	two
	programs 	have
different
	annual
	calendars.
	The
	MAEP
	is
	year-round 	while
regular
	day
	teachers
	teach
	a
	180
	day
	work
	year.
6
The
	Metropolitan
	Adult 	Education
	Program
	is
	large
	and
diversified.
	There
	are
	academic
	courses,
	programs
	for 	the
handicapped,
	programs
	for 	senior
	citizens,
	parent 	education
	and
occupational
	training,
	as 	well
	as
	a
	broad 	spectrum
	of 	courses
designed
	to
	meet
	the 	avocational
	interests
	of 	the
	community.
Classes 	taught
	by
	adult
	education 	teachers 	are 	generally
	more
vocationally
	and
	avocationally 	oriented
	than
	regular
	day
	school
classes
	and
	are
	geared 	predominantly 	towards
	adults.
Classes 	offered
	in 	the
	adult 	education
	program
	are
determined
	by
	continued
	community
	interest
	in
	a
	pre-existing
class 	or
	by
	suggestion
	from 	an
	instructor
	who
	wishes 	to 	teach
	a
proposed
	subject
	which
	is
	also 	determined 	as 	meeting
	a
	community
need. 	In
	contrast, 	courses 	offered 	in 	the 	regular
	day 	program
8	8
cf.,
	Ed. 	Code
	Secs. 	44887, 	44890-
procedure from regular day teachers. Adult education teachers
can achieve tenure but only as adult education teachers. Their
tenure is not transferrable to the regular day program.
There is little interaction between the adult education
faculty and the day school faculty. Most adult education
classes are taught at night and a significant number of the
classes do not even meet at District building sites. Faculty
meetings for the adult education program are separate from
those of the regular day school program. 	The two programs have
different annual calendars. The MAEP is year-round while
regular day teachers teach a 180 day work year.
The Metropolitan Adult Education Program is large and
diversified. There are academic courses, programs for the
handicapped, programs for senior citizens, parent education and
occupational training, as well as a broad spectrum of courses
designed to meet the avocational interests of the community.
Classes taught by adult education teachers are generally more
vocationally and avocationally oriented than regular day school
classes and are geared predominantly towards adults.
Classes offered in the adult education program are
determined by continued community interest in a pre-existing
class or by suggestion from an instructor who wishes to teach a
proposed subject which is also determined as meeting a community
need. In contrast, courses offered in the regular day program
cf., Ed. Code Secs. 44887, 44890.
6

other
	than 	those
	mandated
	by
	state
	law,
	are
	initially
	developed
	by
teachers
	in 	cooperation
	with 	the 	department
	chairperson.
	The
idea
	is
	then
	studied
	by
	the
	vice
	principal
	before
	a
	final
determination
	is
	made
	by
	the
	principal.
Adult
	education
	cJ.asses
	may
	be
	cancelled
	and
	the
	teacher
dismissed
	if
	there
	is 	insufficient
	student 	enrollment.
9
In
contrast,
	regular
	day
	teachers
	do
	not 	face 	the
	prospect
	of
dismissal
	if
	one
	of
	their
	classes
	has
	an
	insufficient
enrollment.
The
	only 	evidence
	relating
	to
	efficiency 	of
	operation
was
	testimony
	by Mr.
	Lambre,
	the
	District's
	manager
	of
	employee
relations.
	He
	stated 	that
	meeting
	and
	negotiating
	with
	a
	separate
adult
	education 	teachers
	unit
	would
	consume
	additional
	time
	and
effort.
	Mr. 	Lambre
	testified
	that
	the
	time
	consumed
	in
negotiating
	the
	contract
	covering 	the 	regular
	certificated
	unit
was
	affected
	by
	the
	fact 	that
	it
	was
	a
	three
	year
	contract
	and
that
	it
	was
	the
	first
	contract 	to
	be
	negotiated 	for 	the
unit.
10
Mr. 	Lambre
	negotiates
	with
	three
	classified 	units
	as
well 	as 	the 	regular
	certificated 	unit.
Testimony
	regarding
	past 	practices
	was
	also
	minimal.
	Under
9However,
	a
	full-time 	contract 	adult 	education 	teacher
whose
	class 	is 	cancelled
	because
	of
	insufficient
	enrollment
	isnot 	released, 	but 	given 	another 	class
	assignment
	or 	other
duties.
lOTestimony
	revealed 	that
	it
	took 	the
	District
approximately
	360
	hours 	to 	prepare 	for 	negotiations
	and 	180
hours 	to 	negotiate 	the 	contract.
7
other than those mandated by state law, are initially developed by
teachers in cooperation with the department chairperson. 	The
idea is then studied by the vice principal before a final
determination is made by the principal.
Adult education classes may be cancelled and the teacher
dismissed if there is insufficient student enrollment." 	In
contrast, regular day teachers do not face the prospect of
dismissal if one of their classes has an insufficient
enrollment.
The only evidence relating to efficiency of operation
was testimony by Mr. Lambre, the District's manager of employee
relations. He stated that meeting and negotiating with a separate
adult education teachers unit would consume additional time and
effort. Mr. Lambre testified that the time consumed in
negotiating the contract covering the regular certificated unit
was affected by the fact that it was a three year contract and
that it was the first contract to be negotiated for the
unit. 10 	Mr. Lambre negotiates with three classified units as
well as the regular certificated unit.
Testimony regarding past practices was also minimal. Under
9However, a full-time contract adult education teacher
whose class is cancelled because of insufficient enrollment is
not released, but given another class assignment or other
duties .
10Testimony revealed that it took the District
approximately 360 hours to prepare for negotiations and 180
hours to negotiate the contract.
7

the 	Winton 	Act, 11 the 	Certificated 	Employee 	Counci"(hereinafter 	"CEC")
represented 	both 	regular 	full-time 	and 	hourly 	part-time
teachers. 	There 	is 	no 	evidence 	that 	either 	the 	Federation 	or
the 	Association 	has 	recently 	sought 	to 	represent 	adult
education 	teachers 	and 	regular 	day 	teachers 	in 	a 	single 	unit.
In 	fact, 	the 	evidence 	indicates 	the 	contrary. 	In 	response 	to 	a
Federation 	request, 	the 	District, 	the 	Federation 	and 	the
Association 	reached 	an 	agreement 	that 	salaries 	and 	fringe
benefits 	for 	adult 	education 	teachers 	would 	be 	raised 	six 	percent
in 	return 	for 	a 	waiver 	among 	these 	parties 	stating 	that 	if 	an 	adult
education 	unit 	were 	determined 	to 	be 	appropriate, 	no 	contract
negotiations 	would 	be 	held 	for 	the 	1977-78 	school 	year.
DISCUSSION AND 	CONCLUSIONS	DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
I. 	Adult 	Education 	Teachers 	Should 	Be 	Excluded 	From 	The
Regular 	Classroom 	Teacher 	Unit
Government 	Code 	Section 	3545, 	Subsections 	(a) 	and 	(b)(l) 	set
forth 	the 	criteria 	for 	determining 	the 	appropriateness 	of 	a
nonsupervisory 	certificated 	unit:
(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.
11Ante, 	fn. 	2.
8
the Winton Act, the Certificated Employee Council (hereinafter "CEC")
represented both regular full-time and hourly part-time
teachers. 	There is no evidence that either the Federation or
the Association has recently sought to represent adult
education teachers and regular day teachers in a single unit.
In fact, the evidence indicates the contrary. In response to a
Federation request, the District, the Federation and the
Association reached an agreement that salaries and fringe
benefits for adult education teachers would be raised six percent
in return for a waiver among these parties stating that if an adult
education unit were determined to be appropriate, no contract
negotiations would be held for the 1977-78 school year.
I. Adult Education Teachers Should Be Excluded From The
Regular Classroom Teacher Unit
Government Code Section 3545, Subsections (a) and (b) (1) set
forth the criteria for determining the appropriateness of a
nonsupervisory certificated unit:
(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.
Ante, fn. 2.
8

(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.
The
	Uistrict
	contends
	that
	pursuant 	to 	Section
	3545(b)
	(1),
adult
	education 	teachers
	must
	be
	included
	in
	the
	existing
certificated
	unit
	because 	they
	are
	classroom
	teachers.
The
	Pistrict's
	argument
	is
	not 	persuasive.
	The
	PERB
	has
determined
	that
	for
	purposes
	of 	the 	Educational
	Employment
Relations
	Act
	(hereinafter
	"EERA1'),
	the
	definition
	of
	classroom
teacher
	is
	limited
	"only 	to
	the
	regular 	full-time
	probationary
and
	permanent
	teachers
	employed by
	a
	district."
12
Applying
	this
definition
	to 	adult
	education
	teachers,
	the
	PERB,
	in
	Petaluma
City
	Elementary
	and 	High
	School
	District,
13
concluded
	that
such
	teachers
	were
	not 	classroom
	teachers 	within 	the
	meaning
	of
Section
	3545
(b)
	(1).
Three
	PERB
	decisions
	have
	held
	that 	adult 	education
teachers
	should
	be
	excluded
	from
	the 	regular
	certificated
12
Belmont 	Elementarv 	School
	District,
	EERB
	Decision
	No.
	7,
Dec. 	30, 	1976,i 	Petaluma
	City 	Elementary
	and 	High
	School
District,
	EERB
	Decision
	No.
	9,
	February 	22,
	1977
	at
	p. 	2.
l3rbid.
9
(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.
The District contends that pursuant to Section 3545 (b) (1),
adult education teachers must be included in the existing
certificated unit because they are classroom teachers.
The District's argument is not persuasive. The PERB has
determined that for purposes of the Educational Employment
Relations Act (hereinafter "EERA") , the definition of classroom
teacher is limited "only to the regular full-time probationary
and permanent teachers employed by a district." Applying this
definition to adult education teachers, the PERB, in Petaluma
City Elementary and High School District, concluded that
such teachers were not classroom teachers within the meaning of
Section 3545 (b) (1) .
Three PERB decisions have held that adult education
teachers should be excluded from the regular certificated
12Belmont Elementary School District, EERB Decision No. 7,
Dec. 30, 1976,; Petaluma City Elementary and High School
District, EERB Decision No. 9, February 22, 1977 at p. 2.
13 Ibid.
9

uni 	.	't 	14 	Due 	to 	insufficent 	evidence 	on 	the 	issues 	of 	past
practices 	and 	efficient 	operation, 	all 	three 	decisions 	were
based 	on 	the 	community 	of 	interest 	standard. 	Similarly, 	the
evidence 	in 	this 	case 	is 	not 	significant 	on 	the 	criteria 	of
past 	practices 	and 	efficient 	operation. 15 Thus, 	as 	in 	the
prior 	PERB 	decisions, 	the 	community 	of 	interest 	criterion 	is
determinative.
The 	community 	of 	interest 	evidence 	presented 	in 	this 	matter
is 	substantially 	similar 	to 	that 	found 	in 	the 	three 	prior
cases. 	As 	was 	the 	case 	in 	these 	prior 	PERB 	decisions: 	adult
education 	teachers 	are 	not 	required 	to 	have 	a 	college
education; 	recruitment 	is 	different; 	classes 	are 	more
vocationally 	oriented; 	if 	enrollment 	is 	insufficient, 	the 	class
is 	dropped 	and 	the 	teacher 	is 	released; 	adult 	school 	teachers 	are
supervised by 	adult 	school 	staff; 	the 	decision 	to 	offer 	a 	course
depends 	upon 	the 	needs 	of 	the 	community, 	availability 	of 	qualified
instructors, 	availability 	of 	facilities 	and 	the 	availability 	of
funds; 	although 	tenure 	is 	available, 	it 	is 	not 	applicable 	to
day 	school; 	teachers 	are 	paid 	on 	an 	hourly 	basis; 	and 	a 	different
14P~t~luma 	City 	Elementary 	and 	High 	School 	Districts, 	supra
E~RB 	~ecision 	No. 	9, 	February 	22, 	1977; 	Lompoc 	Unified 	School
District, 	EERB 	Decision 	No. 	13 	March 	17 	1977· 	New Haven 	School
District, 	EERB 	Decision 	No. 	14'. 	March 	22'. 	1977'.
15~lthough 	the 	~istrict 	argues 	that 	its 	efficiency 	of
operation 	would 	be 	impeded 	by 	the 	creation 	of 	an 	adult
education 	unit, 	evidence 	indicates 	that 	such 	a 	creation 	would
not 	have 	sue~ 	dire 	effects. 	For 	example, 	the 	District 	is
already 	meeting 	and 	negotiating 	with 	three 	classified 	units 	and
one 	certificated 	unit.
10
unit . 14 	Due to insufficent evidence on the issues of past
practices and efficient operation, all three decisions were
based on the community of interest standard. Similarly, the
evidence in this case is not significant on the criteria of
past practices and efficient operation. 1 	Thus, as in the
prior PERB decisions, the community of interest criterion is
determinative.
The community of interest evidence presented in this matter
is substantially similar to that found in the three prior
cases. As was the case in these prior PERB decisions: adult
education teachers are not required to have a college
education; recruitment is different; classes are more
vocationally oriented; if enrollment is insufficient, the class
is dropped and the teacher is released; adult school teachers are
supervised by adult school staff; the decision to offer a course
depends upon the needs of the community, availability of qualified
instructors, availability of facilities and the availability of
funds; although tenure is available, it is not applicable to
day school; teachers are paid on an hourly basis; and a different
"Petaluma City Elementary and High School Districts, supra
EERB Decision No. 9, February 22, 1977; Lompoc Unified School
District, EERB Decision No. 13, March 17, 1977; New Haven School
District, EERB Decision No. 14, March 22, 1977.
15Although the District argues that its efficiency of
operation would be impeded by the creation of an adult
education unit, evidence indicates that such a creation would
not have such dire effects. For example, the District is
already meeting and negotiating with three classified units and
one certificated unit.
10

school
	year
	exists
	for
	adult
	teachers
	and
	regular
	day
	teachers.
The
	District
	seeks
	to
	distinguish
	these 	cases
	by
	arguing
that
	adult
	education
	teachers:
	Teach
	some
	students
	who
	are
regular
	day
	school
	students; 	are 	paid
	from
	general
	funds;
	receive
fringe
	benefits;
	have
	the
	same
	line
	of 	supervision
	as
	regular
teachers,
	which
	is
	to
	the
	site
	principal;
	attend 	faculty
	meetings;
where
	properly
	credentialed
	with
	a
	designated
	subjects
	credential,
can
	also
	teach
	in
	the
	day
	program; 	and
	full-time 	adult
	education
teachers 	are 	already
	included 	in
	the
	regular
	unit.
The
	District's
	argument
	is
	not 	convincing.
	It
	is
	true 	that
adult
	education 	teachers
	can
	teach
	regular
	day
	school
	students
under
	some
	circumstances.
	The
	fact 	that 	adult
	education
	teachers
are 	paid
	from
	the 	general
	fund
	is
	irrelevant
	to
	their
	community
of
	interest.
	Fringe
	benefits
	are
	available
	to
	some
	hourly
teachers.
	However,
	fringe 	benefits
	are
	only
	available
	to 	those
who
	work 	15
	or
	more
	hours
	per
	week.
	Of
	approximately 	1,700
teachers,
	only
	108
	(6.4 	percent) 	qualify 	for 	these
	benefits.
Even
	though
	both
	adult 	education 	teachers
	and
	regular
	day
teachers 	are 	supervised
	by
	their 	site
	principal
	the
	District's
argument
	misinterprets 	the 	Board's 	decisions.
	The
	Board
	has
consistently
	noted 	in 	the 	cases
	that
	have
	come
	before
	it
	that
adult 	education 	teachers
	and
	regular
	day
	teachers
	have
	separate
lines 	of 	supervision,
	which
	is 	also 	true 	in 	this 	case.
11
school year exists for adult teachers and regular day teachers.
The District seeks to distinguish these cases by arguing
that adult education teachers: Teach some students who are
regular day school students; are paid from general funds; receive
fringe benefits; have the same line of supervision as regular
teachers, which is to the site principal; attend faculty meetings;
where properly credentialed with a designated subjects credential,
can also teach in the day program; and full-time adult education
teachers are already included in the regular unit.
The District's argument is not convincing. It is true that
adult education teachers can teach regular day school students
under some circumstances. The fact that adult education teachers
are paid from the general fund is irrelevant to their community
of interest. 	Fringe benefits are available to some hourly
teachers. However, fringe benefits are only available to those
who work 15 or more hours per week. Of approximately 1, 700
teachers, only 108 (6.4 percent) qualify for these benefits.
Even though both adult education teachers and regular day
teachers are supervised by their site principal the District's
argument misinterprets the Board's decisions. 	The Board has
consistently noted in the cases that have come before it that
adult education teachers and regular day teachers have separate
lines of supervision, which is also true in this case.
11

The
	fact
	that
	properly 	credentialed 	adult
	education
teachers
	can
	teach
	in
	the
	day
	program
	is
	not 	persuasive
	in
light
	of
	the
	additional 	fact 	that
	an
	adult
	education
	teacher
of
	nonacademic
	subjects
	need
	not 	possess
	a
	college
	degree.
The
	existence 	of
	a
	few
	full-time 	adult
	education
	teachers
who
	are 	already 	in 	the
	regular 	unit
	poses
	somewhat
	of
	a
problem.
	However, 	due
	to
	District
	policy, 	established
	through
the
	meet
	and
	confer 	process 	of 	the
	Winton
	Act,
	there
	is
	a
finite
	number
	of
	full-time 	contract 	adult
	education
	teachers,
regardless
	of 	the
	number
	who
	actually
	teach
	30
	or
	more
	hours
per
	week.
	Current
	District
	policy
	is
	to
	only
	hire 	adult
education 	teachers
	on 	an
	hourly
	basis.
For
	the
	above
	stated
	reasons
	adult
	education 	teachers
should
	be
	excluded
	from
	the
	regular
	day
	school
	unit.
II.
	The
	Appropriate 	Unit
	For 	Adult 	Education 	Teachers
	Is
	A
Unit
Composed
	of
	All 	Adult 	Education 	Teachers
Having
	determined
	that 	adult 	education 	teachers
	do
	not
belong 	in 	the
	same
	unit
	with
	regular
	day
	school
	teachers,
	it
must
	now
	be
	determined 	whether
	an
	adult 	education 	teacher
	unit
is
	an
	appropriate 	unit
	for 	purposes 	of 	meeting
	and
negotiating.
	The
	District
	and
	the 	Association 	argue
	that
	a
unit 	of
	all
	adult 	education 	teachers 	is
	the 	appropriate 	unit.
The
	Federation,
	on
	the 	other 	hand, 	would
	include 	only 	those
12
The fact that properly credentialed adult education
teachers can teach in the day program is not persuasive in
light of the additional fact that an adult education teacher
of nonacademic subjects need not possess a college degree.
The existence of a few full-time adult education teachers
who are already in the regular unit poses somewhat of a
problem. However, due to District policy, established through
the meet and confer process of the Winton Act, there is a
finite number of full-time contract adult education teachers,
regardless of the number who actually teach 30 or more hours
per week. Current District policy is to only hire adult
education teachers on an hourly basis.
For the above stated reasons adult education teachers
should be excluded from the regular day school unit.
II. The Appropriate Unit For Adult Education Teachers Is A Unit
Composed of All Adult Education Teachers
Having determined that adult education teachers do not
belong in the same unit with regular day school teachers, it
must now be determined whether an adult education teacher unit
is an appropriate unit for purposes of meeting and
negotiating. 	The District and the Association argue that a
unit of all adult education teachers is the appropriate unit.
The Federation, on the other hand, would include only those
12

adult
	education
	teachers
	who
	teach 	ten 	or
	more
	hours 	per
	week.
Based
	on
	the
	criteria
	of
	Government
	Code
	Section 	3545(a),
	it
	is
concluded
	that
	a
	unit
	of
	all
	adult
	education
	teachers
	is
	an
.
	t·
	't	
appropr1a
	e
	uni
	•
16
As
	illustrated
	by
	the
	findings
	of
	fact,
	adult
	education
teachers 	share
	a
	community
	of
	interest.
	Their
	salary
structure,
	method
	of 	recruitment
	and
	selection
	for
	service 	are
the
	same.
	Their
	duties
	and
	responsibilities
	while
	teaching 	are
the
	same.
	They
	interact
	with
	one
	another 	during
	their
	job
hours.
	Type
	of
	classes 	taught,
	job 	expectancy,
	line
	of
supervision,
	and
	length 	of 	school 	year 	are
	also
	similar.
	As
noted
	previously,
	these
	same
	factors 	distinguished
	them
	from
the
	unit
	of 	regular
	certificated
	classroom
	teachers.
The
	other
	two
	criteria
	noted
	in
	section
	3545(a),
established 	practices
	and
	efficiency
	of
	operation,
	do
	not
	alter
this
	determination.
	The
	evidence
	on
	established 	practices 	is
inconclusive.
	The
	agreement
	by
	the
	District
	to 	grant 	adult
education
	employees
	a
	six
	percent 	increase 	in 	salary
	and
	fringe
benefits
	does 	not
	indicate
	a
	practice 	of
	treating 	adult
education 	teachers 	separately
	but
	rather
	a
	decision
	by
	the
16
No
	party
	argued nor 	provided 	evidence
	that
	a
	more
appropriate 	unit
	would
	include 	other
	employee
	groups,such 	as
	substitutes,
	summer
	school 	employees,
	etc.
Consequently,
	no
	determination
	can 	be
	made
	as 	to
	that 	unit.Nevertheless, 	as 	the 	Board 	noted 	in Antioch 	Unified 	School
District,
	EERB
	Decision
	No.
	37, 	November 	7, 	1977,
	a
	unit 	that 	isappropriate 	for 	meeting 	and
	negotiating
	need 	not
	be
	the 	most
appropriate 	unit.
13
adult education teachers who teach ten or more hours per week.
Based on the criteria of Government Code Section 3545(a), it is
concluded that a unit of all adult education teachers is an
appropriate unit. 16
As illustrated by the findings of fact, adult education
teachers share a community of interest. Their salary
structure, method of recruitment and selection for service are
the same. 	Their duties and responsibilities while teaching are
the same. 	They interact with one another during their job
hours. Type of classes taught, job expectancy, line of
supervision, and length of school year are also similar. 	As
noted previously, these same factors distinguished them from
the unit of regular certificated classroom teachers.
The other two criteria noted in section 3545(a) ,
established practices and efficiency of operation, do not alter
this determination. The evidence on established practices is
inconclusive. The agreement by the District to grant adult
education employees a six percent increase in salary and fringe
benefits does not indicate a practice of treating adult
education teachers separately but rather a decision by the
No party argued nor provided evidence that a more
appropriate unit would include other employee groups,
such as substitutes, summer school employees, etc.
Consequently, no determination can be made as to that unit.
Nevertheless, as the Board noted in Antioch Unified School
District, EERB Decision No. 37, November 7, 1977, a unit that is
appropriate for meeting and negotiating need not be the most
appropriate unit.
13

District 	to 	unilaterally 	adjust wages 	of 	a 	category 	of 	employees
not 	represented 	by 	an 	exclusive 	representative. 	Evidence 	relating
to 	efficiency 	of operation 	is 	minimal 	but 	discloses 	a 	belief by
the 	District 	that 	it 	could 	operate 	more 	efficiently with 	just 	one
certificated 	unit 	or 	in 	the 	alternative, 	one 	adult 	education
unit. 	The 	District's 	witness 	testified 	that 	additional 	units
would 	constitute 	overfragmentation 	thereby 	creating 	an 	administra-
tive 	and 	financial 	burden 	on 	the 	District.
The 	Federation's 	proposal 	for 	a 	unit 	of 	adult 	education
teachers 	who 	teach 	ten 	or 	more 	hours 	per 	week 	is 	not
persuasive. 	As 	noted 	above, 	all 	adult 	education 	teachers
generally 	have 	the 	same 	community 	of 	interest. 	The 	only
notable 	difference 	in 	their 	community 	of 	interest 	is 	that 	those
who 	teach 	15 	or 	more 	hours 	per 	week 	are 	entitled 	to 	a 	pro 	rata
share 	of 	fringe 	benefits 	whereas 	those 	who 	work 	less 	than 	15
hours 	per 	week 	receive 	no 	fringe 	benefits. 	But 	this 	lone
difference 	is 	greatly 	outweighed 	by 	the 	other 	interests 	which
all 	adult 	education 	teachers 	share. 	In 	addition, 	dividing 	an
adult 	education 	unit 	by 	the 	number 	of 	hours 	worked 	would
adversely 	affect 	the 	efficient 	operation 	of 	the 	District.
Because 	of 	the 	existence 	of 	fluctuating 	hours 	the 	composition
of 	an 	adult 	education 	unit 	could 	change 	frequently 	thereby
creating 	a 	burdensome 	administrative 	and 	financial 	burden 	on
the 	District. 	Furthermore, 	dividing 	up 	adult 	education
teachers 	by 	the 	number 	of 	hours 	worked 	would 	invite 	unnecessary
fragmentation. 	The 	District 	could 	then 	be 	faced 	with 	a
14
District to unilaterally adjust wages of a category of employees
not represented by an exclusive representative. Evidence relating
to efficiency of operation is minimal but discloses a belief by
the District that it could operate more efficiently with just one
certificated unit or in the alternative, one adult education
unit. The District's witness testified that additional units
would constitute overfragmentation thereby creating an administra-
tive and financial burden on the District.
The Federation's proposal for a unit of adult education
teachers who teach ten or more hours per week is not
persuasive . 	As noted above, all adult education teachers
generally have the same community of interest. The only
notable difference in their community of interest is that those
who teach 15 or more hours per week are entitled to a pro rata
share of fringe benefits whereas those who work less than 15
hours per week receive no fringe benefits. But this lone
difference is greatly outweighed by the other interests which
all adult education teachers share. In addition, dividing an
adult education unit by the number of hours worked would
adversely affect the efficient operation of the District.
Because of the existence of fluctuating hours the composition
of an adult education unit could change frequently thereby
creating a burdensome administrative and financial burden on
the District. Furthermore, dividing up adult education
teachers by the number of hours worked would invite unnecessary
fragmentation. The District could then be faced with a
14

situation
	in
	which
	it
	had
	to
	meet
	and
	negotiate
	with
	a
	unit
representing
	nine 	percent
	of 	adult
	education
	employees
	as
	well
as
	one
	representing
	the
	other
	91
	percent.
	This
	unnecessary
division
	would
	unfairly
	add
	to 	the
	financial
	and
	administrative
resources
	the
	District
	must
	allocate
	to
	meeting
	and
	negotiating
with
	its
	employee
	representatives.
The
	Federation's
	argument
	that
	those
	who
	teach
	ten 	or
	more
hours 	per
	week
	have
	a
	greater
	interest
	in 	the
	matters
	subject
to
	collective
	negotiations
	does
	not 	negate 	the
	fact 	that
	those
who
	teach
	less,
	nevertheless,
	share
	such
	interests.
	Since
	the
record
	fails
	to
	disclose
	a
	meaningful
	distinction
	between
	those
who
	teach 	ten 	or
	more
	hours 	per
	week
	and
	those
	who
	teach
	less
than 	ten
	hours 	per
	week,
	a
	unit
	of
	all
	adult
	education
	teachers
shall
	be
	the
	appropriate 	unit
	for
	purposes
	of
	meeting
	and
negotiating
	with 	the 	employer.
PROPOSED ORDER	
PROPOSED
	ORDER
It
	is
	the
	Proposed 	Decision
	that
	the 	following
	unit 	is
appropriate 	for 	meeting
	and
	negotiating,
	provided
	an 	employee
organization
	becomes
	the 	exclusive 	representative:
A
unit 	of
	all
	hourly 	adult 	education
teachers
	who
	are 	not
	on
	the 	regular
teachers 	salary 	schedule.
15
situation in which it had to meet and negotiate with a unit
representing nine percent of adult education employees as well
as one representing the other 91 percent. 	This unnecessary
division would unfairly add to the financial and administrative
resources the District must allocate to meeting and negotiating
with its employee representatives.
The Federation's argument that those who teach ten or more
hours per week have a greater interest in the matters subject
to collective negotiations does not negate the fact that those
who teach less, nevertheless, share such interests. 	Since the
record fails to disclose a meaningful distinction between those
who teach ten or more hours per week and those who teach less
than ten hours per week, a unit of all adult education teachers
shall be the appropriate unit for purposes of meeting and
negotiating with the employer.
It is the Proposed Decision that the following unit is
appropriate for meeting and negotiating, provided an employee
organization becomes the exclusive representative:
A unit of all hourly adult education
teachers who are not on the regular
teachers salary schedule.
15

The 	parties 	have 	twenty 	(20) 	calendar 	days 	after 	service 	of
this 	Proposed 	Decision 	in which 	to 	file 	exceptions 	in
-
accordance 	with 	California Administrative 	Code, 	Title 	8,
Section 	32300. 	If no 	party 	files 	timely 	exceptions, 	this
Proposed Decision will 	become 	final 	on May 	1, 	1978, 	and 	a
Notice 	of Decision will 	issue 	from 	th~ 	Board.
Within 	ten 	(10) 	workdays 	after 	the 	employer 	posts 	the
Notice 	of 	Decision, 	the 	employee 	organizations 	shall 	demonstrate
to 	the 	Regional 	Director 	at 	least 	30 	percent 	support 	in 	the
above 	unit. 	The 	Regional 	Director 	shall 	conduct 	an 	election 	at
the 	end of 	the 	posting 	period 	if 	(1) 	more 	than 	one 	employee
organization 	qualifies 	for 	the 	ballot, 	or 	(2) 	only 	one 	employee
organization 	qualifies 	for 	the 	ballot 	and 	the 	employer 	does 	not
grant 	voluntary 	recognition. 	Voluntary 	recognition 	requires
majority 	proof 	of 	support 	in 	all 	cases. 	See 	Government 	Code
Section 	3544 	and 	3544.1.
The 	date 	used 	to 	establish 	the 	number 	of 	employees 	in 	the
above 	unit 	shall 	be 	the 	date 	of 	this 	decision 	unless 	another
date 	is 	deemed 	appropriate 	by 	the 	Regional 	Director 	and noticed
to 	the 	parties. 	In 	the 	event 	another 	date 	is 	selected, 	the
Regional 	Director may 	extend 	the 	time 	for 	employee 	organizations
to 	demonstrate 	at 	least 	30 	percent 	support 	in 	the 	unit.
Dated: 	April 	6, 	1978
By
16
--------------By
Bruce 	Barsook
Hearing 	Officer
The parties have twenty (20) calendar days after service of
this Proposed Decision in which to file exceptions in
accordance with California Administrative Code, Title 8,
Section 32300. If no party files timely exceptions, this
Proposed Decision will become final on May 1, 1978, and a
Notice of Decision will issue from the Board.
Within ten (10) workdays after the employer posts the
Notice of Decision, the employee organizations shall demonstrate
to the Regional Director at least 30 percent support in the
above unit. The Regional Director shall conduct an election at
the end of the posting period if (1) more than one employee
organization qualifies for the ballot, or (2) only one employee
organization qualifies for the ballot and the employer does not
grant voluntary recognition. Voluntary recognition requires
majority proof of support in all cases. See Government Code
Section 3544 and 3544.1.
The date used to establish the number of employees in the
above unit shall be the date of this decision unless another
date is deemed appropriate by the Regional Director and noticed
to the parties. In the event another date is selected, the
Regional Director may extend the time for employee organizations
to demonstrate at least 30 percent support in the unit.
Dated: April 6, 1978
Bruce Barsook
Hearing Officer
16