Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District (PERB 0121E)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
FAIRFIELD-SUISUN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,)
Employer ,
Case No. SF-R-548X
and
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION 	PERB Decision No. 121
AND ITS SOLANO CHAPTER 1048,
Employee Organization, March 25, 1980
and
MUTUAL ORGANIZATION OF SUPERVISORS,
Employee Organization.
Appearances: Ernest Mohr, Personnel Manager for Fairfield-
Suisun Unified School District; William B. Jones, Jr. , Field
Director, and Charles L. Morrone, Attorney for California
School Employees Association and its Solano Chapter 1048;
Claude Albrecht for Mutual Organization of Supervisors.
Before Raymond J. Gonzales and Barbara D. Moore, Members. 1
DECISION
This case comes before the Public Employment Relations
Board (hereafter PERB or Board) on exceptions filed by the
California School Employees Association and its Solano Chapter
1chairperson Gluck did not participate in this decision.
STATE
	OF
	CALIFORNIA
DECISION
	OF 	THE
PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
FAIRFIELD-SUISUN 	UNIFIED
	SCHOOL
	DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
CALIFORNIA
	SCHOOL
	EMPLOYEES
	ASSOCIATION
AND
	ITS
	SOLANO
	CHAPTER
	1048,
Employee
	Organization,
and
MUTUAL
	ORGANIZATION
	OF
	SUPERVISORS,
Employee
	Organization.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case
	No. 	SF-R-548X
PERB
	Decision
	No. 	121
March 	25, 	1980
~pearances:	
Ernest
	Mohr,
	Personnel
	Manager
	for
	Fairfield-
Suisun
	Unified
	School
	District;
	William
	B.
	Jones,
	Jr.,
	Field
Director,
	and
	Charles
	L.
	Morrone,
	Attorney
	for
	California
School
	Employees
	Association
	and
	its
	Solano Chapter
	1048;
Claude
	Albrecht 	for
	Mutual
	Organization 	of 	Supervisors.
Before
	Raymond
	J.
	Gonzales
	and
	Barbara
	D. 	Moore,
	Members.l
DECISION
This 	case
	comes
	before 	the 	Public
	Employment
	Relations
Board
	(hereafter
	PERB
	or
	) 	on
	exceptions
	filed	
by
California
	School 	Employees
	Association
	and
	its
	Solano Chapter
lchairperson
	Gluck
	did 	not
	participate 	in
	this 	decision.

10482 (hereafter CSEA 1048) to the hearing officer's attached
proposed decision. The hearing officer decided that CSEA 1048,
which is seeking to represent classified supervisors in the
Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District (hereafter District),
and California School Employees Association and its Chapter 302
(hereafter CSEA 302) , which is the exclusive representative of
classified rank-and-file employees of the District, are the
same employee organization for purposes of section 3545 (b) (2)
of the Educational Employment Relations Act (hereafter
EERA) 3. This section provides:
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.
[Emphasis added . ]
The hearing officer concluded that recognition of CSEA 1048 as
the exclusive representative of District supervisory employees
would violate this section.
The Board has considered the record and the attached
decision in light of the exceptions filed by CSEA and affirms
2This Chapter's name was changed from Chapter No. AV-001
to Chapter No. 1048 between the time it filed its request for
recognition and the date of the hearing. The hearing officer
refers to the Chapter as AV-001 throughout his decision.
3The EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540
et seq. Unless otherwise noted, all statutory references are
to the Government Code.
N
10482 	(hereafter 	CSEA 1048) 	to 	the 	hearing 	officer's 	attached
proposed 	decision. 	The 	hearing 	officer 	decided 	that 	CSEA 1048,
which 	is 	seeking 	to 	represent 	classified 	supervisors 	in 	the
Fairfield-Suisun Unified 	School 	District 	(hereafter 	District},
and 	California 	School 	Employees 	Association 	and 	its 	Chapter 	302
(hereafter 	CSEA 	302), 	which 	is 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	of
classified 	rank-and-file 	employees 	of 	the 	District, 	are 	the
same 	employee 	organization 	for 	purposes 	of 	section 	3545(b) (2)
of 	the 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Act 	(hereafter
EERA)3. 	This 	section 	provides:
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.
[Emphasis 	added.]
The 	hearing 	officer 	concluded 	that 	recognition 	of 	CSEA 1048 	as
the 	exclusive 	representative 	of 	District 	supervisory 	employees
would 	violate 	this 	section.
The 	Board 	has 	considered 	the 	record 	and 	the 	attached
decision 	in 	light 	of 	the 	exceptions 	filed 	by CSEA 	and 	affirms
2This 	Chapter's 	name 	was 	changed 	from 	Chapter 	No. 	AV-001
to 	Chapter 	No. 	1048 	between 	the 	time 	it 	filed 	its 	request 	for
recognition 	and 	the 	date 	of 	the 	hearing. 	The 	hearing 	officer
refers 	to 	the 	Chapter 	as 	AV-001 	throughout 	his 	decision.
3The 	EERA 	is 	ified 	at 	Government 	Code 	section 	3540
et 	seq. 	Unless 	otherwise 	noted, 	statutory 	references 	are
to 	the 	Government 	Code.
2

the hearing officer's procedural history, statement of facts,
and discussion, except as noted below, and to adopt his
proposed order.
The hearing officer discusses a number of ways in which
CSEA and its chapters are connected. However, he avoids
concluding that these connections are sufficient to cause the
two chapters to be considered "the same employee
organization." Instead, he bases his decision on the fact that
the state CSEA is a named party both to the recognition
agreement and contract between CSEA 302 and the District and to
the request for recognition filed by CSEA 1048. We agree that
this fact alone would be sufficient to find that the
recognition as requested would violate section 3545 (b) (2) .
However, the close relationship and many connections
between these chapters and the state CSEA convinces us that
CSEA and these two local chapters are the same employee
organization for purposes of section 3545 (b) (2) .4 Thus,
Chapter 1048's recognition as the representative of the
supervisory employees in the District would result in those
employees being represented by the same employee organization
(CSEA) which represents employees whom the supervisory
4CSEA apparently acknowledges this on page 5 of its
exceptions when it states that "CSEA has long maintained that
the local chapter and the state organization are one and the
same .
W
the 	hearing
	officer's
	procedural
	history,
	statement 	of
	facts,
and
	discussion,
	except
	as 	noted
	below,
	and
	to
	adopt
	his
proposed
	order.
The
	hearing
	officer
	discusses
	a 	number
	of
	ways
	in
	which
CSEA
	and
	its
	chapters 	are 	connected.
	However, 	he
	avoids
concluding
	that
	these 	connections
	are
	sufficient
	to
	cause
	the
two
	chapters 	to
	be
	considered 	"the
	same
	employee
organization." 	Instead,
	he
	bases
	his
	decision
	on
	the
	fact
	that
the
	state
	CSEA
	is
	a 	named
	party
	both
	to
	the
	recognition
agreement
	and
	contract
	between
	CSEA
	302
	and
	the
	District
	and
	to
the
	request 	for 	recognition
	filed
	by
	CSEA
	1048.
	We
	agree
	that
this 	fact
	alone
	would 	be
	sufficient
	to 	find
	that
	the
recognition
	as
	requested
	would
	violate 	section
	3545(b)
(2).
However,
	the 	close 	relationship
	and 	many
	connections
between
	these 	chapters
	and
	the
	state
	CSEA
	convinces
	us
	that
CSEA
	and
	these
	two
	local 	chapters 	are 	the
	same 	employee
organization
	for 	purposes 	of
	section
	3545(b)
	(2)
.4	
Thus,
Chapter 	1048
1 s
	recognition 	as 	the
	representative
	of 	the
supervisory
	employees
	in 	the
	District
	would
	result
	in
	those
employees 	being
	represented
	by
	the
	same 	employee
	organization
(CSEA)
	which
	represents
	employees
	whom
	the 	supervisory
4csEA
	apparently
	acknowledges
	this
	on 	page 	5
	of
	its
exceptions
	when
	it
	states 	that
	"CSEA
	has 	long 	maintained
	that
the 	local 	chapter
	and
	the
	state 	organization 	are
	one 	and
	the
same 	. 	• 	. 	. "
3

employees supervise, and, therefore, would violate
section 3545 (b) (2). This would be true even if the state CSEA
were not named on the request for recognition in the
supervisory unit.
CSEA has requested oral argument in this case. The Board
believes that the parties have adequately discussed the issues
in their briefs; it therefore denies CSEA's request.
ORDER
Upon the foregoing Decision and the entire record in this
case, the Public Employment Relations Board ORDERS that the
petition for Board investigation filed by the California School
Employees Association and its Solano Chapter 1048 pursuant to
Government Code secton 3544.5 is dismissed.
Barbara D. Moore, Member
employees
	supervise,
	and,
	therefore,
	would
	violate
section
	3545(b)
(2).
	This
	would 	be
	true
	even
	if
	the
	state
	CSEA
were
	not
	named 	on
	the
	request
	for
	recognition 	in 	the
supervisory
	unit.
4
CSEA
	has
	requested
	oral
	argument
	in
	this
	case.
	The
	Board
believes
	that
	the
	parties
	have
	adequately 	discussed 	the
	issues
in
	their 	briefs;
	it
	therefore
	denies
	CSEA's
	request.
ORDER
Upon
	the 	foregoing 	Decision
	and
	the
	entire
	record
	in
	this
case, 	the 	Public
	Employment
	Relations
	Board
	ORDERS
	that
	the
petition
	for
	Board
	investigation
	filed
	by
	the
	California
	School
Employees
	Association
	and
	its
	Solano Chapter
	1048
	pursuant
	to
Government
	Code
	secton
	3544.5
	is
	dismissed.
By Raymond J. Gonzales, Member
Barbara
	D. 	Moore, 	Member

On May 20, 1976, the District granted voluntary recognition
to the California School Employees Association and its Chapter
302 (hereafter CSEA 302) as exclusive representative for the
District's classified employees in a unit consisting of the
following :
The classified employees of the Fairfield-Suisun
Unified School District excluding those positions
designated by the Governing Board as management,
confidential, and/or supervisory, and also excluding
day-to-day substitutes, summer work crews, temporary
augmented crews (less than a month) and school bus
drivers (Transportation Department) .
On February 22, 1977, the District received a request for
recognition by the California School Employees Association and
its Solano Chapter AV-001 (hereafter CSEA AV-001) 2 for a unit
of supervisors.
The unit requested included:
. . .all classified supervisory employees employed by
the District as reflected by the public records of the
District.
The unit excluded:
. . . certificated personnel, those positions which could
lawfully be designated as management, confidential,
and all other classified employees who have been
designated as members of another recognized certified
bargaining unit.
The request for recognition was duly posted by the
District.
2The chapter has since been renumbered Chapter 1048,
however will be referred to throughout this decision as AV-001.
2
On 	May
	20, 	1976,
	the
	District
	granted 	voluntary 	recognition
to 	the
	California
	School
	Employees
	Association
	and
	its
	Chapter
302
	(hereafter
	CSEA
	302)
	as
	exclusive
	representative
	for
	the
District's
	classified
	employees
	in
	a
	unit 	consisting
	of 	the
following:
The
	classified
	employees
	of
	the
Unified
Fairfield-Suisun
School
	District
	excluding 	those
designated
	positions
by
	the
	Governing
	Board
	as
	management,
	confidential,
	and/or
	supervisory,
	and
	also
	day-to-day
	excluding
substitutes,
	summer
	work
	crews,
augmented
	temporary
crews
	(less
	than
	a
	month) 	and
	drivers
	school
(Transportation
	bus
Department).
On
	February
	22,
	1977,
	the
	District
	received
	a
	request 	for
recognition
	by
	the
	California
	School
	Employees
	Association
	and
its
	Solano 	Chapter
	AV-00l(hereafter
	CSEA
	AV-001)
2
for
	a
	unit
of
	supervisors.
The
	unit
	requested 	included:
...
all
	classified
	supervisory
	employees
the
	employed
	District	
by	
as
	reflected
	by
	the
	public 	records
	District.
	of 	the
The
	unit
	excluded:
...
certificated
	personnel,
	those
	positionslawfully
	whichbe
	could
	designated
	as
	management,and
	all
confidential,
other
	classified
	employees
	who
	have
	designated
	been
as
	members
	of 	another 	recognized
bargaining
	certifiedunit.
The
	request 	for 	recognition
	was
	duly 	posted	
by	
the
District.
2The
	chapter 	has
	since
	been 	renumbered
however Chapter
will
	1048,	be
	referred 	to 	throughout
	this 	decision 	as
	AV-001.
2

On April 25, 1977, the District declined to grant
recognition to CSEA and its Solano Chapter AV-001. The
reason stated was that:
Government Code Section 3545 (b) (2) provides that
bargaining units of supervisory employees shall not be
appropriate and therefore may not be recognized if
they are represented by the same employee organization
as the employees supervisory employees supervise.
On May 23, 1977, CSEA AV-001 petitioned the Regional
Director stating its position was that recognition of CSEA
AV-001 would not violate Government Code section 3545 (b) (2) .
On July 7, 1977, the Regional Director reviewed the case
and upheld the District finding that CSEA 302 and CSEA AV-001
were not separate employee organizations under Government Code
section 3543 (b) (2) , but were in fact subdivisions of a single
employee organization, the California School Employees
Association (hereafter CSEA) and therefore the petition should
be dismissed.
On July 15, 1977, CSEA AV-001 filed an appeal to the
Regional Director's decision. On January 2, 1978, the EERB
vacated the Regional Director's decision and remanded it for a
hearing (EERB Order No. Ad. 23) .
It was unclear at that time whether the May 23d letter
constituted a petition pursuant to section 3544.5 of the Act.
However, the Regional Director treated it as such. Because of
the confusion CSEA asked on February 17, 1978, that the May 23,
1977 letter be considered a petition for a Board investigation
pursuant to Government Code section 3544.5 (b) and Cal. Admin.
Code, title 8, section 33230.
W
On
	April
	25, 	1977,
	the
	District
	declined 	to 	grant
recognition
	to
	CSEA
	and
	its
	Solano 	Chapter
	AV-001.
	The
reason
	stated
	was
	that:
Government
	Code
	Section
	3545(b)
(2)
	provides
	that
bargaining
	units
	of 	supervisory
	employees
	shall
	not
	be
appropriate
	and
	therefore
	may
	not
	be
	recognized
	if
they 	are 	represented
	by
	the
	same
	employee
	organization
as 	the
	employees
	supervisory
	employees
	supervise.
On 	May
	23,
	1977,
	CSEA
	AV-001
	petitioned
	the
	Regional
Director
	stating
	its
	position
	was
	that
	recognition 	of
	CSEA
AV-001
	would
	not
	violate
	Government
	Code
	section
	3545(b)
(2)
. 3
On
	July
	7,
	1977,
	the 	Regional
	Director
	reviewed
	the 	case
and
	upheld 	the
	District
	finding
	that
	CSEA
	302
	and
	CSEA
	AV-001
were
	not
	separate
	employee
	organizations
	under
	Government
	Code
section
	3543(b)
(2), 	but
	were
	in
	fact
	subdivisions 	of
	a
	single
employee
	organization,
	the
	California
	School
	Employees
Association 	(hereafter
	CSEA)
	and
	therefore
	the
	petition
	should
be
	dismissed.
On
	July
	15, 	1977,
	CSEA
	AV-001
	filed
	an
	appeal 	to 	the
Regional
	Director's 	decision.
	On
	January 	2, 	1978,
	the
	EERB
vacated 	the 	Regional
	Director's
	decision
	and 	remanded
	it
	for
	a
hearing
	(EERB
	Order
	No. 	Ad.
	23).
3rt
	was
	unclear
	at 	that
	time 	whether 	the
	May
	23d
	letter
constituted
	a
	petition
	pursuant 	to 	section
	3544.5 	of 	the 	Act.
However,
	the 	Regional 	Director 	treated
	it
	as 	such. 	Because
	ofthe 	confusion
	CSEA
	asked 	on
	February 	17, 	1978,
	that
	the
	May
	23,1977
	letter
	be
	considered
	a
	petition
	for
	a
	Board
	investigationpursuant 	to
	Government 	Code
	section
	3544.5(b) 	and
	Cal.
	Admin.
Code,
	title
	8, 	section
	33230.
3

On January 17, 1978, prior to the time that the hearing
could be held, another employee organization, the Mutual
Organization of Supervisors (hereafter MOS) , filed a new
request for recognition for a unit identical to the February
22, 1977 request from CSEA AV-001. The request was duly posted
by the District.
A formal hearing was held on February 10, 1978 with the
District, CSEA AV-001, and the MOS being parties to the hearing.
ISSUE
Are CSEA AV-001 and CSEA 302 the same employee organization
within the meaning of Government Code section 3545 (b) (2) ?
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Both CSEA AV-001 and CSEA 302 "are employee organizations"
within the meaning of section 3540.1(d) of the Educational
Employment Relations Act (hereafter EERA) . 	The
Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District is a public school
employer within the meaning of section 3540.1 (k) of the EERA.
The parties stipulated that the appropriate negotiating
unit for classified supervisory employees is described as
follows:
The unit shall include the following job positions:
Purchasing Supervisor, Programmer Analyst, Assistant
to the Director of Food Services, Operations
Assistant, Maintenance Foreman, Transportation
Assistant, Head Custodian, Food Services Supervisor ,
Warehouseman, Cafeteria Managers, Data Processing
Production Coordinator, and Accounting Supervisor; and
excluding all other employees.
The parties also stipulated that members of the proposed
supervisory unit directly supervise members of the unit
represented by CSEA 302.
On
	January 	17,
	1978,
	prior
	to
	the
	time
	that
	the 	hearing
could
	be
	held,
	another
	employee
	organization,
	the
	Mutual
Organization 	of 	Supervisors
	(hereafter
	MOS),
	filed
	a 	new
request 	for 	recognition
	for
	a
	unit
	identical
	to 	the 	February
22,
	1977
	request
	from
	CSEA
	AV-001.
	The
	request
	was
	duly 	posted
by
	the
	District.
A
	formal
	hearing
	was
	held
	on
	February 	10,
	1978
	with 	the
District,
	CSEA
	AV-001, 	and
	the
	MOS
	being
	parties
	to 	the
	hearing.
ISSUE
Are
	CSEA
	AV-001
	and
	CSEA
	302
	the
	same
	employee
	organization
within
	the
	meaning
	of
	Government
	Code
	section
	3545(b)
(2)?
STATEMENT
	OF
	FACTS
Both
	CSEA
	AV-001
	and
	CSEA
	302
	"are
	employee
	organizations"
within 	the
	meaning
	of
	section
	3540.l(d) 	of 	the 	Educational
Employment
	Relations
	Act
	(hereafter
	EERA).
	The
Fairfield-Suisun
	Unified
	School
	District 	is
	a
	public 	school
employer
	within 	the
	meaning
	of 	section 	3540.l(k) 	of 	the
	EERA.
The
	parties 	stipulated 	that
	the
	appropriate 	negotiating
unit
	for
	classified
	supervisory
	employees
	is
	described 	as
follows:
The
	unit 	shall
	include 	the 	following 	job
	positions:
Purchasing 	Supervisor,
	Programmer
	Analyst, 	Assistant
to 	the 	Director 	of
	Food
	Services, 	Operations
Assistant,
	Maintenance 	Foreman,
	Transportation
Assistant,
	Head
	Custodian,
	Food
	Services 	Supervisor,
Warehouseman,
	Cafeteria
	Managers, 	Data
	Processing
Production 	Coordinator,
	and 	Accounting 	Supervisor;
	and
excluding
	all
	other 	employees.
The
	parties 	also 	stipulated 	that
	members
	of 	the 	proposed
supervisory 	unit 	directly 	supervise
	members
	of 	the 	unit
represented
	by 	CSEA 	302.
4

None of the employees requested in the proposed supervisory
unit are included in the classified employee unit represented
by CSEA 302.
Members of the proposed supervisory unit possess the
authority to adjust the grievances of members of the unit
represented by CSEA 302. The contract between the District and
CSEA 302 contains a five step grievance procedure. At both the
informal step and the first formal step, members of the
proposed supervisory unit have authority to adjust grievances.
Two grievances have been filed pursuant to the grievance
procedure. One grievance was resolved by a supervisor at the
informal step. The second grievance, dealing with computation
of overtime, proceeded through the informal level and the first
step of the formal level. That grievance is currently pending
at step two of the formal level.
CSEA 302 and CSEA AV-001 have different offices, different
telephone numbers, different officers and hold separate
membership meetings. Also, the two chapters have separate
records for financial transactions.
Representatives from the state CSEA are members of the
local bargaining teams and provide direct assistance to local
chapters during negotiations, processing of grievances and
contract administration. Although the chapters are serviced by
different representatives from the state CSEA, the current
representative for CSEA 302 is supervised by the state CSEA
Field Director who is the current representative for the
proposed supervisory unit. On one occasion, the representative
5
None
	of
	the
	employees
	requested 	in
	the
	proposed
	supervisory
unit
	are
	included 	in
	the
	classified
	employee
	unit
	represented
by
	CSEA
	302.
Members
	of
	the
	proposed
	supervisory
	unit
	possess 	the
authority
	to
	adjust
	the
	grievances 	of
	members
	of
	the
	unit
represented
	by
	CSEA
	302.
	The
	contract
	between
	the
	District
	and
CSEA
	302
	contains
	a
	five
	step
	grievance 	procedure.
	At
	both
	the
informal
	step
	and
	the
	first
	formal
	step,
	members
	of 	the
proposed
	supervisory 	unit
	have
	authority
	to
	adjust 	grievances.
Two
	grievances
	have 	been
	filed
	pursuant 	to 	the 	grievance
procedure.
	One
	grievance
	was
	resolved	
by	
a
	supervisor
	at
	the
informa]
	step.
	The
	second
	grievance, 	dealing
	with 	computation
of 	overtime,
	proceeded 	through 	the 	informal
	level
	and
	the
	first
step
	of
	the 	formal
	Jevel.
	That
	grievance
	is
	currently
	pending
at
	step
	two
	of 	the
	formal
	level.
CSEA
	302 	and
	CSEA
	AV-001
	have
	different 	offices, 	different
telephone
	numbers,
	different 	officers
	and
	hold
	separate
membership
	meetings. 	Also, 	the
	two
	chapters
	have
	separate
records 	for
	financial 	transactions.
Representatives
	from
	the
	state
	CSEA
	are
	members
	of 	the
local
	bargaining
	teams 	and
	provide
	direct 	assistance 	to 	local
chapters 	during
	negotiations, 	processing 	of 	grievances
	and
contract 	administration.
	Although 	the 	chapters 	are 	serviced
	by
different 	representatives
	from
	the
	state
	CSEA,
	the
	current
representative 	for
	CSEA 	302
	is 	supervised
	by
	the
	state
	CSEA
Field 	Director
	who
	is
	the 	current 	representative 	for 	the
proposed 	supervisory 	unit.
	On
	one 	occasion, 	the 	representative
5

for CSEA AV-001 substituted for the representative for CSEA 302
during contract negotiations with the District.
The state CSEA provides some special services. 	Members of
both CSEA 302 and CSEA AV-001 are eligible for these special
services which include: discounts on merchandise, life
insurance, homeowners insurance, income protection plan, on the
job liability insurance, and legal protection plans.
Each chapter is required to adopt a constitution and
by-laws that conform to and are approved by the state CSEA. "
The state constitution and by-laws also require that all
members of CSEA 302 and CSEA AV-001 become members of the state
CSEA. 	The dues schedule of both local chapters indicates
that the great majority of dues paid by members goes to the
state CSEA and is not retained by the local chapter.
All concerted activities by the chapters must conform with
the state constitution and by-laws, which requires a formal
approval, by the state CSEA Board of Directors before the
chapter may commence concerted activities.
Each chapter has a right to send delegates to the state
annual conference and has equal voting rights based upon the
size of the chapter. At the conference the delegates select
officers for the state CSEA. 	All members of any local chapter
are eligible for office.
4Article III, sections 4 & 8, CSEA constitution, August
1977 .
5Article II, section 2, CSEA constitution, August 1977.
6Appendix and article VII, sections 1 & 2, CSEA
constitution, August 1977. 6
for
	CSEA
	AV-001
	substituted
	for 	the
	representative
	for
	CSEA
	302
during
	contract 	negotiations
	with
	the
	District.
The
	state
	CSEA
	provides
	some
	special 	services.
	Members
	of
both
	CSEA
	302
	and
	CSEA
	AV-001
	are
	eligible
	for 	these
	special
services
	which
	include: 	discounts
	on
	merchandise,
	life
insurance,
	homeowners
	insurance,
	income
	protection 	plan,
	on
	the
job
	liabiJity
	insurance,
	and
	legal 	protection 	plans.
Each
	chapter
	is
	required 	to
	adopt
	a
	constitution
	and
by-laws
	that
	conform
	to
	and
	are
	approved
	by
	the
	state
	CSEA. 4
The
	state
	constitution
	and
	by-laws
	also 	require
	that
	all
members
	of
	CSEA
	302
	and
	CSEA
	AV-001 	become 	members
	of 	the
	state
CSEA. 5 The
	dues
	schedule
	of
	both
	local
	chapters
	indicates
that
	the
	great 	majority 	of
	dues
	paid
	by members
	goes
	to 	the
state
	CSEA
	and
	is
	not
	retained
	by
	the 	Jocal 	chapter.
6
All 	concerted
	activities
	by
	the
	chapters
	must 	conform
	with
the
	state
	constitution
	and
	by-laws,
	which
	requires
	a
	formal
approval,
	by
	the
	state
	CSEA
	Board
	of 	Directors 	before 	the
chapter
	may 	commence
	concerted
	activities.
Each	
chapter
	has
	a
	right
	to
	send
	delegates 	to	
the	
state
annual 	conference	
and
	has
	equal 	voting
	rights	
based
	upon
	the
size 	of
	the 	chapter.
	At
	the 	conference 	the
	delegates
	select
officers	
for 	the
	state
	CSEA.
	All
	members
	of
	any	
Jocal 	chapter
are
	eligible	
for	
office.
4Article	
III,	
sections
	4 	&
8,
	CSEA	
constitution,
	August
1977.
5Article	
II,
	section 	2,
	CSEA
	constitution,	
August 	1977.
6Appendix 	and	
article 	VII, 	sections
	1 	&	
2,
	CSEA
constitution, 	August 	1977. 6

The state CSEA has authority to expel from membership any
member for "conduct detrimental to the Association". If the
Board of Directors for the state CSEA finds reasonable cause to
believe such a charge to be true they may direct the Executive
Director to appoint a trial committee of three members who are
not members of the Board of Directors. 	The decision of the
trial committee may be appealed to the Board of Directors. The
decision of the Board of Directors is conclusive.
Local chapters are empowered by the state CSEA to adopt
provisions which provide disciplinary resources short of
expulsion; however, the Board of Directors of the state CSEA
may adopt a policy governing disciplinary actions of members by
chapters. If it does so, the policy shall prevail over any
chapter constitution, by-law or policy provision. Any such
policy adopted by the state CSEA must be presented at the next
succeeding annual conference for ratification. No evidence
was presented at the hearing to show whether this had ever been
done .
Members of all chapters contribute to a special building
fund for the construction, furnishing, maintenance, repair and
other costs of the state CSEA's headquarters complex."
7Article II, section 6, CSEA constitution, August 1977.
8Article III, section 9, CSEA constitution, August 1977.
9Article VII, section 3, CSEA By-Laws, August 1977.
7
The
	state
	CSEA
	has
	authority
	to
	expel
	from
	membership 	any
member
	for
	"conduct
	detrimental 	to
	the
	Association".
7
If
	the
Board
	of
	Directors
	for 	the
	state
	CSEA
	finds
	reasonable
	cause
	to
believe
	such
	a
	charge
	to
	be
	true
	they
	may
	direct
	the 	Executive
Director
	to 	appoint
	a
	trial
	committee
	of
	three
	members
	who
	are
not
	members
	of
	the
	Board
	of 	Directors.
	The
	decision 	of
	the
trial
	committee
	may
	be
	appealed
	to 	the
	Board
	of
	Directors.
	The
decision 	of
	the
	Board
	of 	Directors
	is
	conclusive.
Local
	chapters 	are
	empowered 	by
	the
	state
	CSEA
	to
	adopt
provisions
	which
	provide
	disciplinary
	resources
	short
	of
expulsion;
	however,
	the
	Board
	of 	Directors
	of 	the
	state
	CSEA
may
	adopt
	a
	policy
	governing
	disciplinary
	actions 	of
	members 	by
chapters.
	If
	it
	does
	so,
	the
	policy
	shall 	prevail
	over
	any
chapter
	constitution,
	by-law
	or
	policy 	provision.
	Any
	such
policy
	adopted	
by	
the	
state
	CSEA
	must
	be	
presented	
at	
the	
next
succee
	1ng
	annua
	d . 	l 	f 	f
	t"f"
	t·
	..
	con
	erence 	or 	ra
	1
	1ca 	10n.
8 No
	evidence
was
	presented
	at
	the 	hearing 	to
	show
	whether
	this
	had
	ever
	been
done.
Members
	of
	all
	chapters 	contribute 	to
	a
	special 	building
fund
	for 	the
	construction, 	furnishing,
	maintenance,
	repair
	and
other 	costs 	of 	the
	state
	CSEA's
	headquarters
	complex.
9
?Article
	II,
	section 	6,
	CSEA
	constitution,
	August 	1977.
BArticle
	III,
	section 	9,
	CSEA
	constitution,
	August 	1977.
9Article 	VII, 	section 	3,
	CSEA
	By-Laws, 	August 	1977.
7

In choosing Area Directors each chapter has one vote
determined by a plurality of the membership.
DISCUSSION
Section 3545 (b) (2) is intended to prevent any conflicts of
interest that might arise where one employee organization
attempts to represent supervisors as well as the employees they
supervise. It is arguable that the conflicts of interest
sought to be avoided by requiring a separation of
representation would surely arise if CSEA AV-001 represented
supervisors and CSEA 302 represented the remainder of the
classified employees.
For instance, the facts presented in the case show that the
Board of Directors for the state CSEA is elected from all
members of both the non-supervisory unit and the proposed
supervisory unit. Therefore, both supervisors and the
employees they supervise vote on issues which influence their
conflicting needs. The Board of Directors exercises a great
deal of practical control over the local chapters since the
great majority of dues reverts to the state CSEA and is not
retained by the local chapter.
Local chapters receive significant assistance from the
state CSEA through the services of salaried field
representatives. The field representatives are members of the
bargaining team and provide, among other duties, help in
10Article IV, section 2, CSEA Constitution, August 1977.
8
In 	choosing
	Area
	Directors
	each
	chapter
	has
	one
	vote
determined
	by
	a
	plurality
	of
	the
	membership.IO
DISCUSSION
Section
	3545(b)
(2)
	is
	intended
	to 	prevent
	any
	conflicts
	of
interest
	that
	might
	arise
	where 	one
	employee
	organization
attempts 	to
	represent 	supervisors
	as
	well
	as 	the
	employees
	they
supervise.
	It
	is
	arguable
	that
	the
	conflicts
	of
	interest
sought
	to
	be
	avoided
	by
	requiring
	a
	separation 	of
representation
	would
	surely
	arise
	if
	CSEA
	AV-001
	represented
supervisors
	and
	CSEA
	302
	represented
	the
	remainder
	of 	the
classified
	employees.
For
	jnstance,
	the
	facts
	presented 	in 	the 	case
	show
	that
	the
Board
	of
	Directors 	for 	the
	state
	CSEA
	is 	elected
	from
	all
members
	of
	both 	the 	non-supervisory
	unit
	and
	the
	proposed
supervisory
	unit.
	Therefore,
	both
	supervisors
	and
	the
employees
	they 	supervise
	vote
	on
	issues
	which
	influence
	their
conflicting
	needs.
	The
	Board
	of 	Directors 	exercises
	a
	great
deal 	of
	practical 	control
	over 	the
	local 	chapters 	since 	the
great 	majority 	of
	dues
	reverts 	to 	the
	state
	CSEA
	and
	is
	not
retained
	by
	the
	local 	chapter.
Local
	chapters 	receive
	significant 	assistance
	from
	the
state
	CSEA
	through 	the 	services 	of 	salaried 	field
representatives.
	The
	field 	representatives 	are
	members
	of 	the
bargaining
	team 	and
	provide,
	among
	other 	duties, 	help 	in
l0Article
	IV,
	section 	2,
	CSEA
	Constitution, 	August 	1977.
8

negotiations with the employer, grievance handling and contract
administration. Although CSEA 302 and CSEA AV-001 are assigned
a different field representative, both are hired by, and on the
payroll of, the state CSEA and therefore ultimately controlled
by the state CSEA, not the local chapter. It is further noted
that in this case the field representative assigned by the
state CSEA to CSEA 302 reports directly to the State
Association Field Director who also serves as the field
representative for the proposed supervisory unit. On at least
one occasion the field representative for the proposed
supervisory unit has even substituted for the field
representative of CSEA 302 during negotiations. A potential
conflict is evident when the representative negotiating a
supervisory contract has direct control over the representative
negotiating a contract for the employees whom the supervisory
unit employees supervise. The potential conflict is even
greater when the same representative negotiates on behalf of
the supervisors as well as the employees they supervise.
Another area of conflict may arise if a chapter wishes to
engage in concerted activities. Prior to any concerted
activities a chapter must obtain, among other things, approval
by the Board of Directors of the state CSEA. Thus, if members
of the supervisory unit were elected to the Board of Directors,
they could be voting to approve or disapprove concerted
activities of the very employees they supervise, and vice versa.
Grievance processing presents more problems. 	The state
CSEA must decide how to spend money to process grievances.
negotiations
	with 	the 	employer,
	grievance 	handling
	and
	contract
administration.
	Although
	CSEA
	302
	and
	CSEA
	AV-001
	are 	assigned
a
	different 	field
	representative,
	both
	are 	hired
	by,
	and
	on
	the
payroll
	of,
	the
	state
	CSEA
	and
	therefore 	ultimately 	controlled
by
	the
	state
	CSEA,
	not 	the
	local
	chapter.
	It
	is
	further
	noted
that
	in
	this
	case 	the
	field
	representative
	assigned
	by
	the
state
	CSEA
	to
	CSEA
	302
	reports
	directly
	to
	the
	State
Association 	Field 	Director
	who
	also
	serves
	as
	the
	field
representative
	for 	the
	proposed
	supervisory
	unit.
	On
	at 	least
one
	occasion 	the
	field
	representative
	for 	the
	proposed
supervisory 	unit
	has 	even
	substituted
	for 	the
	field
representative
	of
	CSEA
	302
	during
	negotiations.
	A
potential
conflict 	is
	evident
	when
	the
	representative 	negotiating
	a
supervisory 	contract
	has
	direct
	control
	over 	the
	representative
negotiating
	a
	contract
	for
	the 	employees
	whom
	the
	supervisory
unit
	employees
	supervise.
	The
	potential 	conflict 	is
	even
greater
	when
	the
	same
	representative 	negotiates
	on
	behalf 	of
the
	supervisors
	as 	well 	as 	the
	employees
	they
	supervise.
Another
	area 	of
	conflict
	may
	arise
	if
	a
	chapter 	wishes
	to
engage
	in 	concerted
	activities.
	Prior 	to
	any
	concerted
activities
	a
	chapter
	must
	obtain,
	among
	other 	things, 	approval
by
	the
	Board
	of 	Directors 	of 	the
	state
	CSEA.
	Thus,
	if
	members
of 	the 	supervisory 	unit
	were
	elected 	to 	the
	Board
	of 	Directors,
they 	could
	be
	voting 	to 	approve 	or 	disapprove 	concerted
activities
	of 	the 	very 	employees 	they 	supervise,
	and
	vice 	versa.
Grievance 	processing 	presents
	more
	problems.
	The
	state
CSEA must 	decide
	how
	to 	spend 	money
	to 	process 	grievances.
9

Therefore, supervisory members of the Board of Directors could
be voting on the allocation of funds to pursue or reject
grievances against themselves. The field representative
assigned to CSEA 302 is in the position of processing
grievances against supervisors who are represented by that
field representative's own supervisor. Furthermore, given the
grievance procedure established in the District, supervisors
have authority and have exercised the authority to adjust
grievances of the employees they supervise. 	If both the
supervisors and the employees they supervise are members of the
same employee organization, a supervisor is in the awkward
position of ruling on a grievance of the same employee
organization that has the authority to expell or otherwise
discipline that supervisor. The supervisor would therefore
have to choose between potentially competing interests of the
employer and the employee organization.
For guidance in defining Government Code section
3545 (b) (2) , it is appropriate to look to section 9 (b) (3) of
Labor Management Relations Act as amended. Both sections
are intended to prevent any conflicts of interests that might
arise where one employee organization attempts to represent
groups of employees with conflicting interests, i.e. guards and
the employees whom they guard against, supervisors and the
1lFire Fighters Union v. City of Vallejo (1974) 12 Cal. 3d
608, cited by Sweetwater, EERB Decision No. 4, (1976).
Section 9 (b) 3 of the LMRA as amended is similar in some
respects to Government Code section 3545 (b) 2.
10
Therefore, 	supervisory
	members
	of
	the
	Board
	of
	Directors
	could
be
	voting
	on
	the
	allocation
	of
	funds
	to
	pursue
	or
	reject
grievances
	against
	themselves.
	The
	field
	representative
assigned
	to
	CSEA
	302
	is
	in 	the
	position
	of 	processing
grievances
	against 	supervisors
	who
	are 	represented	
by	
that
field 	representative's
	own
	supervisor.
	Furthermore, 	given 	the
grievance
	procedure
	established
	in 	the
	District,
	supervisors
have
	authority
	and
	have
	exercised
	the
	authority
	to
	adjust
grievances 	of
	the
	employees
	they
	supervise.
	If
	both
	the
supervisors
	and
	the
	employees
	they
	supervise 	are
	members
	of 	the
same
	employee
	organization,
	a
	supervisor
	is
	in
	the
	awkward
position
	of
	ruling
	on
	a
	grievance 	of 	the
	same
	employee
organization
	that
	has 	the
	authority
	to 	expell
	or
	otherwise
discipline 	that
	supervisor.
	The
	supervisor
	would
	therefore
have
	to
	choose 	between
	potentially
	competing
	interests
	of
	the
employer
	and
	the
	employee
	organization.
For
	guidance
	in 	defining
	Government
	Code
	section
3545 (b)
(2),
	it
	is
	appropriate 	to
	look
	to 	section
	9
(b) (3)
	of
Labor
	Management
	Relations
	Act 	as
	amended. 11
Both
	sections
are 	intended 	to 	prevent
	any
	conflicts
	of
	interests 	that
	might
arise
	where 	one 	employee
	organization 	attempts 	to 	represent
groups 	of
	employees 	with
	conflicting 	interests, 	i.e.
	guards
	and
the
	employees
	whom
	they 	guard
	against, 	supervisors
	and
	the
llFire 	Fighters
	Union
	v. 	Cit 	of 	Vallejo
	(1974) 	12
	Cal.3d608,
	cited
	by
	Sweetwater,
	EERB
	Decision
	No.
	4, 	(1976).
Section 	9(b)3 	of 	the
	LMRA
	as 	amended
	is 	similar 	in
	some
respects 	to
	Government 	Code
	section 	3545(b)2.
10

employees whom they supervise. Section 9 (b) (3) of the LMRA
provides :
. ..That the Board shall. . . decide that any unit is
appropriate for such purposes if it includes, together
with other employees, any individual employed as a
guard to enforce against employees and other persons
rules to protect property of the employer or to
protect the safety of persons on the employer's
premises ; . . .
The National Labor Relations Board, in order to determine
whether the employee organization seeking a unit of guards is a
separate employee organization, had sought to find whether the
union formulates its own policies and decides its own course of
action independently from any organization that has non-guards
as members. In determining that independence, the NLRB
looked closely at whether the petitioner receives, directly or
indirectly, financial or organizational assistance from a union
representing non-guards [emphasis added] . 1s
In the present case, the evidence demonstrates that
CSEA AV-001 receives, indirectly, organizational assistance and
financial aide from CSEA 302. Members of CSEA 302 contribute
dues to the state CSEA. The state CSEA in turn supplies
organizational and financial assistance to CSEA AV-001. 	Thus ,
members of CSEA 302 would indirectly aid the organization
representing their supervisors and vice versa creating
12 International Harvestor Co. (1964) 145 NLRB 1747 [55
LRRM 1227] .
13philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine (1974) 213
NLRB 259 787 LRRM 1182].
11
employees 	whom 	they 	supervise. 	Section 	9(b) (3) 	of 	the 	LMRA
provides:
... That 	the 	Board 	shall ••• decide 	that 	any 	unit 	is
appropriate 	for 	such 	purposes 	if 	it 	includes, 	together
with 	other 	employees, 	any 	individual 	employed 	as 	a
guard 	to 	enforce 	against 	employees 	and 	other 	persons
rules 	to 	protect 	property 	of 	the 	employer 	or 	to
protect 	the 	safety 	of 	persons 	on 	the 	employer's
premises; ••.
The 	National 	Labor 	Relations 	Board, 	in 	order 	to 	determine
whether 	the 	employee 	organization 	seeking 	a 	unit 	of 	guards 	is 	a
separate 	employee 	organization, 	had 	sought 	to 	find 	whether 	the
union 	formulates 	its 	own 	policies 	and 	decides 	its 	own 	course 	of
action 	independently 	from 	any 	organization 	that 	has 	non-guards
as 	members. 12 In 	determining 	that 	independence, 	the 	NLRB
looked 	closely 	at 	whether 	the 	petitioner 	receives, 	directly 	or
indirectly, 	financial 	or 	organizational 	assistance 	from 	a 	union
representing 	non-guards 	[emphasis 	added] . 13
In 	the 	present 	case, 	the 	evidence 	demonstrates 	that
CSEA 	AV-001 	receives, 	indirectly, 	organizational 	assistance 	and
financial 	aide 	from 	CSEA 	302. 	Members 	of 	CSEA 	302 	contribute
dues 	to 	the 	state 	CSEA. 	The 	state 	CSEA 	in 	turn 	supplies
organizational 	and 	financial 	assistance 	to 	CSEA 	AV-001. 	Thus,
members 	of 	CSEA 	302 	would 	indirectly 	aid 	the 	organization
representing 	their 	supervisors 	and 	vice 	versa 	creating
12rnternational 	Harvester 	Co. 	(1964) 	145 	NLRB 	1747 	[55
LRRM 	1227].
13 Ph_i
18 ~elphia 	College 	of 	Osteopathic 	Medicine 	(1974) 	213
NLRB 	259 	LRRM 	1TI""21.
11

potential conflicts of interest within the employee
organizations. Therefore, should NLRB precedent be
controlling, the petition of CSEA AV-001 would be dismissed.
CSEA contends, however, that section 9 (b) (3) is not
applicable. It argues that Government Code section 3545 (b) (2)
is substantially narrower in its prohibitions than section
9 (b) (3) in that 9(b) (3) prohibits mere affiliation between
guard and non-guard organizations while section 3545 (b) (2)
prohibits only the "same" organizations from representing
supervisors as represents employees whom the supervisory
employees supervise and does not prohibit mere affiliation.
CSEA bases this construction of section 3545 (b) (2) on the fact
that the authors of the EERA had the LMRA as amended before
them when drafting the EERA and that had they intended to
preclude mere affiliation, they would have used language like
that found at section 9 (b) (3) . Therefore, it is argued that
since the authors did not include this language, they did not
intend to prohibit the affiliation of one organization that
represents the District's supervisors with the organization
that represents the District's non-supervisory employees.
Without specifically concluding, CSEA implies that CSEA AV-001
and CSEA 302 are only affiliated and thus not the "same"
employee organization within the the meaning of section
3545 (b) (2) .
Were CSEA AV-001 and CSEA 302 merely affiliated with the
state CSEA this argument might prevail. It is, however, clear
from the face of the request for representation that the state
12
potential 	conflicts
	of
	interest
	within
	the
	employee
organizations.
	Therefore,
	should
	NLRB
	precedent
	be
controlling,
	the
	petition
	of
	CSEA
	AV-001
	would
	be
	dismissed.
CSEA
	contends,
	however,
	that 	section
	9
(b)
(3)
	is
	not
applicable.
	It
	argues
	that
	Government	
Code	
section
	3545(b)
(2)
is 	substantially
	narrower
	in
	its
	prohibitions
	than
	section
9
(b)
(3)
	in
	that
	9
(b)
(3)
	prohibits
	mere
	affiliation
	between
guard
	and	
non-guard	
organizations
	while
	section
	3545
(b)
(2)
prohibits
	only 	the
	"same"
	organizations
	from
	representing
supervisors
	as
	represents
	employees	
whom	
the 	supervisory
employees
	supervise
	and
	does
	not
	prohibit
	mere
	affiliation.
CSEA
	bases
	this
	construction 	of
	section
	3545(b)
(2)
	on
	the
	fact
that
	the
	authors 	of
	the
	EERA
	had
	the
	LMRA
	as
	amended
	before
them
	when
	drafting
	the
	EERA
	and
	that
	had
	they 	intended
	to
preclude
	mere
	affiliation,
	they
	would 	have 	used
	language
	like
that
	found
	at 	section
	9
(b)
(3). 	Therefore,
	it
	is
	argued
	that
since
	the
	authors 	did 	not 	include
	this
	language, 	they 	did
	not
intend 	to
	prohibit
	the
	affiliation
	of
	one
	organization
	that
represents
	the
	District's
	supervisors
	with 	the
	organization
that 	represents 	the
	District's
	non-supervisory 	employees.
Without
	specifically
	concluding,
	CSEA
	implies
	that
	CSEA 	AV-001
and
	CSEA
	302
	are 	only
	affiliated
	and
	thus 	not 	the
	"same"
employee
	organization 	within 	the 	the
	meaning
	of 	section
3545 (b)
(2).
Were 	CSEA AV-001 	and
	CSEA 	302
	merely
	affiliated
	with 	the
state
	CSEA
	this
	argument 	might
	prevail. 	It 	is,
	however,
	clear
from 	the 	face 	of 	the 	request 	for 	representation 	that 	the 	state
12

CSEA as well as Local AV-001 would also be recognized as
representing the District's supervisors. In addition, the
state CSEA is a party to the recognition agreement and the
contract between the District and Chapter 302. 	Therefore, if
the petition is not dismissed the state CSEA, in addition to
the two local chapters, would be recognized as the exclusive
representative for the supervisory and non-supervisory
employees of the District. In that the state CSEA obviously
remains the same employee organization within the meaning of
section 3545 (b) (2) and would be a party to the recognition in
both units, there is clearly a violation of section 3545 (b) (2) .
It is therefore unnecessary to the holding of this case to
decide whether CSEA AV-001 and CSEA 302 are functionally so
closely related that they should be considered the same
employee organization within the meaning of section 3545 (b) (2) .
The petitioner argues two additional points. First, that
California School Employees Association has represented
supervisors and rank and file members within the same chapter
for years and that it would be unfair to the supervisory
employees to interpret Government Code section 3545. (b) (2) in
such a way as to prohibit them from any longer being affiliated
with CSEA in any form. Second, that there are a limited number
of employee organizations in the education sector.
The first argument carries little weight in that the prior
dual representation was under a statute containing no
prohibition to such representation. The second point is also
not persuasive because CSEA is clearly not the only employee
13
CSEA
	as
	well
	as 	Local
	AV-001
	would
	also
	be
	recognized
	as
representing
	the
	District's
	supervisors.
	In
	addition,
	the
state
	CSEA
	is
	a
	party 	to
	the
	recognition
	agreement
	and
	the
contract
	between
	the
	District
	and
	Chapter
	302.
	Therefore,
	if
the
	petition 	is
	not
	dismissed 	the
	state
	CSEA,
	in
	addition 	to
the
	two
	local 	chapters,
	would
	be
	recognized
	as
	the
	exclusive
representative
	for 	the
	supervisory
	and
	non-supervisory
employees
	of 	the
	District.
	In
	that
	the
	state
	CSEA
	obviously
remains
	the
	same
	employee
	organization 	within
	the
	meaning
	of
section
	3545 (b) (2)
	and 	would 	be
	a
	party 	to
	the
	recognition 	in
both
	units,
	there
	is 	clearly
	a
	violation
	of 	section
	3545(b)
(2).
It
	is 	therefore
	unnecessary
	to
	the 	holding 	of
	this
	case
	to
decide
	whether
	CSEA
	AV-001
	and
	CSEA
	302
	are
	functionally
	so
closely 	related 	that
	they 	should
	be
	considered 	the
	same
employee
	organization 	within 	the
	meaning
	of 	section
	3545(b)
(2).
The
	petitioner
	argues
	two
	additional 	points.
	First,
	that
California
	School
	Employees
	Association
	has
	represented
supervisors
	and
	rank
	and
	file
	members
	within 	the
	same
	chapter
for 	years
	and
	that
	it
	would 	be
	unfair 	to
	the 	supervisory
employees
	to
	interpret
	Government
	Code
	section
	3545.
(b) (2)
	in
such
	a 	way
	as 	to 	prohibit
	them 	from 	any
	longer 	being
	affiliated
with
	CSEA
	in
	any 	form. 	Second,
	that 	there 	are
	a
	limited
	number
of
	employee
	organizations 	in 	the 	education 	sector.
The
	first
	argument
	carries
	little
	weight 	in 	that 	the 	prior
dual 	representation
	was
	under
	a
	statute 	containing
	no
prohibition 	to
	such
	representation.
	The 	second 	point 	is 	also
not 	persuasive 	because
	CSEA
	is 	clearly 	not 	the 	only 	employee
13

organization in the education sector, and in light of the
request for recognition filed by another employee organization,
MOS, the supervisory employees will not necessarily go
unrepresented.
Based upon the above, it is found that CSEA 302 and
CSEA AV-001 are the same employee organization for the purpose
of Government Code section 3545 (b) (2) . The request for
recognition filed by CSEA AV-001 on February 22, 1977, was
therefore properly denied by the District.
14
organization
	in
	the 	education
	sector,
	and
	in
	light
	of
	the
request
	for
	recognition
	filed
	by
	another
	employee
	organization,
MOS,
	the
	supervisory
	employees
	will
	not
	necessarily
	go
unrepresented.
Based
	upon
	the 	above,
	it
	is
	found
	that
	CSEA
	302
	and
CSEA
	AV-001
	are 	the
	same
	employee
	organization
	for 	the
	purpose
of
	Government
	Code
	section
	3545(b)
(2).
	The
	request
	for
recognition
	filed	
by	
CSEA
	AV-001
	on
	February
	22, 	1977,
	was
therefore 	properly
	denied
	by
	the
	District.
14

ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record of this case, and pursuant to Government
Code section 3541.3, the petition of California School
Employees Association and its Solano Chapter AV-001 filed
pursuant to Government Code section 3544.5 is dismissed.
The parties have 20 calendar days from receipt of this
decision in which to file exceptions in accordance with section
32300 et seq of the PERB's rules and regulations. If no party
files timely exceptions this decision will become final
on July 31, 1978.
Dated: July 7, 1978
JAMES W. TAMM
Hearing Officer
15
ORDER
Upon
	the
	foregoing
	findings 	of
	fact,
	conclusions 	of
	law,
and
	the
	entire
	record
	of
	this
	case,
	and
	pursuant 	to
	Government
Code
	section
	3541.3, 	the
	petition
	of
	California
	School
Employees
	Association
	and
	its
	Solano 	Chapter
	AV-001
	filed
pursuant
	to
	Government
	Code
	section
	3544.5
	is
	dismissed.
The
	parties
	have
	20
	calendar
	days
	from
	receipt
	of
	this
decision 	in
	which
	to
	file
	exceptions 	in
	accordance 	with
	section
32300
	et
	seq
	of
	the
	PERB's
	rules
	and
	regulations.
	If
	no
	party
files
	timely 	exceptions
	this
	decision
	will
	become
	final
on
	July
	31,
	1978.
Dated:
	July
	7, 	1978
JAMES
	W.
	TAMM
Hearing
	Officer
15