San Francisco Community College District (PERB 0146E)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
DEPARTMENT CHAIRPERSON COUNCIL OF THE
SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT,) 	Case No. SF-CE-223
Charging Party, 	PERB Decision No. 146
v .
November 25, 1980
SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT,
Respondent .
Appearances: Ronald A. Glick, representative for San Francisco
Community College District; Austin White, representative for
the Department Chairperson Council of the San Francisco
Community College District.
Before Gluck, Chairperson; Moore, Member.
DECISION
This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(hereafter Board) on exceptions taken by the San Francisco
Community College District (hereafter District) to the attached
hearing officer's proposed decision. 	The District objects to
the hearing officer's conclusion that the District's enactment
of an emergency resolution after the passage of Proposition 13
and its refusal to negotiate about the resolution with the
Department Chairperson Council of the San Francisco Community
College District (hereafter Council) violated
STATE
	OF
	CALIFORNIA
DECISION
	OF
	THE
PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
DEPARTMENT
	CHAIRPERSON COUNCIL
	OF 	THE
SAN
	FRANCISCO
	COMMUNITY
	COLLEGE
	DISTRICT
Charging
	Party,
V •
SAN
	FRANCISCO
	COMMUNITY
	COLLEGE
	DISTRICT
Respondent.
)
,)
)
)
)
)
)
,)
)
)
_____________________ )
Case
	No. 	SF-CE-223
PERB
	Decision
	No. 	146
November
	25,
	1980
Appearances:	
Ronald
	A.
	Glick,
	representative
	for
	San
	Francisco
Community
	College
	District~
	Austin
	White,
	representative
	for
the
	Department
	Chairperson 	Council
	of 	the
	San
	Francisco
Community
	College
	District.
Before 	Gluck,
	Chairperson;
	Moore,
	Member.
DECISION
This 	case
	is
	before 	the 	Public
	Employment
	Relations
	Board
(hereafter
	Board) 	on
	exceptions 	taken
	by
	the
	San
	Francisco
Community
	College
	District
	(hereafter 	District)
	to 	the 	attached
hearing
	officer's
	proposed
	decision.
	The
	District 	objects
	to
the 	hearing
	officer's
	conclusion
	that
	the
	District's
	enactment
of
	an 	emergency
	resolution 	after
	the 	passage 	of 	Proposition
	13
and
	its
	refusal 	to 	negotiate 	about 	the 	resolution 	with 	the
Department 	Chairperson 	council 	of 	the
	San
	Francisco
	Community
College
	District 	(hereafter 	Council) 	violated

section 3543.5 (a) , (b) and (c) of the Educational Employment
Relations Act (hereafter EERA) . ! The District also objects
to the hearing officer's conclusion that the supervisory
stipends paid to Council unit members were a regular and
expected part of unit members' compensation which the District
could not unilaterally withhold.
The Board has considered the record as a whole and the
attached proposed decision in light of the exceptions filed.
The Board is in agreement with and hereby adopts the hearing
officer's findings of fact and conclusions of law.
ORDER
Upon the foregoing facts, conclusions of law and the entire
record in this case, it is hereby ORDERED that the
San Francisco Community College District and its
representatives shall cease and desist from:
The Educational Employment Relations Act is codified at
Government Code section 3540 et seq.
Section 3543.5 (a) , (b) and (c) states:
It shall be unlawful for a public school
employer to:
mpose or threaten to impose reprisals
on employees, to discriminate or threaten to
discriminate against employees, or otherwise
to interfere with, restrain, or coerce
employees because of their exercise of
rights guaranteed by this chapter.
Deny to employee organizations rights
guaranteed to them by this chapter.
Refuse or fail to meet and negotiate in
good faith with an exclusive representative.
section
	3543.S(a),
	(b}
	and
	(c)
	of 	the 	Educational
	Employment
Relations
	Act
	(hereafter
	EERA}. 1 	The
	District
	also 	objects
to
	the 	hearing
	officer's
	conclusion
	that
	the 	supervisory
stipends
	paid 	to
	Council
	unit
	members
	were
	a
	regular
	and
expected
	part
	of
	unit
	members'
	compensation
	which
	the
	District
could 	not
	unilaterally
	withhold.
The
	Board
	has
	considered 	the 	record 	as
	a 	whole 	and
	the
attached
	proposed
	decision 	in
	light
	of 	the 	exceptions
	filed.
The
	Board
	is
	in
	agreement 	with
	and
	hereby 	adopts 	the 	hearing
officer's
	findings 	of
	fact
	and
	conclusions 	of
	law.
ORDER
Upon
	the 	foregoing
	facts,
	conclusions 	of
	law 	and
	the
	entire
record 	in
	this
	case,
	it
	is
	hereby
	ORDERED
	that
	the
San
	Francisco
	Community
	College
	District
	and
	its
representatives 	shall
	cease
	and
	desist
	from:
1The
	Educational
Government
	Employment
Code
	Relations
section
	Act3540
	is
et
	seq. codified
	at
Section 	3543.S(a),
	(b) 	and 	(c)
	states:
It
	shall
	be
	unlawful 	for
employer
	a
	public
to:
	school
(a) I 	Impose
	or 	threaten 	to
	on 	employees,
	impose
to reprisalsdiscriminate
discriminate
	or 	threaten
against 	to
to
employees,
interfere
	or
with,
	otherwise
restrain,
employees or 	coerce	because 	of
	theirrights
	exerciseguaranteed of
by
	this 	chapter.
(b) 	Deny
	to 	employee
guaranteed 	to organizations
them 	by rights
this 	chapter.
(c) 	Refuse 	or 	fail 	to 	meet
good 	and
faith 	with negotiate 	in	an 	exclusive 	representative.
(a)
(b)
(c)

(1) Failing or refusing to meet and negotiate in good
faith with the exclusive representative by unilaterally
depriving unit members of supervisory stipends, related fringe
benefits and regular salary increments.
(2) Denying the exclusive representative its right to
represent unit members by failing or refusing to meet and
negotiate about matters within the scope of representation
enumerated in (1) above.
(3) Interfering with employees because of the exercise of
their right to select an exclusive representative to meet and
negotiate with the employer on their behalf by unilaterally
changing matters within the scope of representation enumerated
in (1) above without meeting and negotiating with the exclusive
representative.
It is hereby ORDERED that the San Francisco Community
College District and its representatives shall take the
following affirmative actions which are necessary to effectuate
the policies of the Educational Employment Relations Act:
(1) Reinstate, retroactive to July 1, 1978, supervisory
stipends and related fringe benefits, yearly increments, career
increments, and professional growth increments for members of
the supervisory certificated employees unit, with interest at
the rate of 7 percent.
(2) Within five workdays of the date of service of this
decision, post at all school sites and all other work locations
w
(1) 	Failing 	or 	refusing 	to 	meet 	and 	negotiate 	in 	good
faith 	with 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	by 	unilaterally
depriving 	unit 	members 	of 	supervisory 	stipends, 	related 	fringe
benefits 	and 	regular 	salary 	increments.
(2) 	Denying 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	its 	right 	to
represent 	unit 	members 	by 	failing 	or 	refusing 	to 	meet 	and
negotiate 	about 	matters 	within 	the 	scope 	of 	representation
enumerated 	in 	(1) 	above.
(3) 	Interfering 	with 	employees 	because 	of 	the 	exercise 	of
their 	right 	to 	select 	an 	exclusive 	representative 	to 	meet 	and
negotiate 	with 	the 	employer 	on 	their 	behalf 	by 	unilaterally
changing 	matters 	within 	the 	scope 	of 	representation 	enumerated
in 	(1) 	above 	without 	meeting 	and 	negotiating 	with 	the 	exclusive
representative.
It 	is 	hereby 	ORDERED 	that 	the 	San 	Francisco Community
College 	District 	and 	its 	representatives 	shall 	take 	the
following 	affirmative 	actions 	which 	are 	necessary 	to 	effectuate
the 	policies 	of 	the 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Act:
(1) 	Reinstate, 	retroactive 	to July 	1, 	1978, 	supervisory
stipends 	and 	related 	fringe 	benefits, 	yearly 	increments, 	career
increments, 	and 	professional 	growth 	increments 	for 	members 	of
the 	supervisory 	certificated 	employees 	unit, 	with 	interest 	at
the 	rate 	of 	7 	percent.
(2) 	Within 	five 	workdays 	of 	the 	date 	of 	service 	of 	this
decision, 	post 	at 	all 	school 	sites 	and 	all 	other 	work 	locations
3

where notices to supervisory employees customarily are placed,
copies of the Notice attached as an appendix hereto. Such
posting shall be maintained for a period of 30 consecutive
workdays. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that these
notices are not reduced in size, altered, defaced or covered by
any other material.
(3) Notify the San Francisco Regional Director of the
Public Employment Relations Board, in writing, at the end of
35 workdays from the date of service of this decision, of the
action the District has taken to comply herewith.
4
where
	notices 	to 	supervisory
	employees
	customarily 	are 	placed,
copies
	of 	the 	Notice
	attached
	as
	an
	appendix
	hereto.
	Such
posting
	shall
	be
	maintained
	for
	a
	period 	of
	30
	consecutive
workdays. 	Reasonable
	steps
	shall
	be
	taken
	to 	insure
	that
	these
notices
	are 	not
	reduced
	in
	size, 	altered,
	defaced 	or 	covered
	by
any
	other 	material.
(3)
	Notify 	the
	San
	Francisco
	Regional
	Director
	of
	the
Public
	Employment
	Relations
	Board,
	in
	writing,
	at
	the
	end
	of
35
	workdays
	from
	the
	date
	of
	service
	of
	this
	decision,
	of 	the
action
	the
	District
	has
	taken
	to
	comply
	herewith.
By: Barbara D. Moore, Member 	Harry Gluck, Chairman
ff:<	
Barbara
	D. 	Moore,
	Member:
4
/
H1ry
	Gl~k';"' Chai
rm~
I

APPENDIX
NOTICE TO CERTIFICATED SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the State of California
After a hearing in Unfair Practice Case No. SF-CE-223,
Department Chairperson Council of the San Francisco Community
College District v. San Francisco Community College District,
in which both parties had the right to participate, it has been
found that the San Francisco Community College District
violated section 3543.5 (c) of the Educational Employment
Relations Act (EERA) by refusing or failing to meet and
negotiate in good faith with the Department Chairperson Council
(Council) of the San Francisco Community College District by
unilaterally depriving unit members of supervisory stipends,
related fringe benefits and regular salary increments during
the period following the passage of Proposition 13.
It has also been found that this same conduct violated
section 3543.5 (b) of the EERA since it interfered with the
right of the Council to represent its members.
It has also been found that this same conduct interfered
with negotiating unit members' right to be represented by their
exclusive representative, thus constituting a violation of
section 3543.5 (a) of the EERA.
As a result of this conduct, we have been ordered to post
this Notice, and we will abide by the following:
APPENDIX
NOTICE 	TO CERTIFICATED SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY 	ORDER OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
An 	Agency 	of 	the 	State 	of 	California
After 	a 	hearing 	in 	Unfair 	Practice Case 	No. 	SF-CE-223,
Department 	Chairperson 	Council 	of 	the 	San 	Francisco Community
College 	District 	v. 	San 	Francisco Community College 	District,
in 	which 	both 	parties 	had 	the 	right 	to 	participate, 	it 	has 	been
found 	that 	the 	San 	Francisco Community College 	District
violated 	section 	3543.S(c) 	of 	the 	Educational 	Employment
Relations 	Act 	(EERA) 	by 	refusing 	or 	failing 	to 	meet 	and
negotiate 	in 	good 	faith 	with 	the 	Department 	Chairperson 	Council
(Council) 	of 	the 	San 	Francisco Community College 	District 	by
unilaterally 	depriving 	unit 	members 	of 	supervisory 	stipends,
related 	fringe 	benefits 	and 	regular 	salary 	increments 	during
the 	period 	following 	the 	passage 	of 	Proposition 	13.
It 	has 	also 	been 	found 	that 	this 	same 	conduct 	violated
section 	3543.S(b) 	of 	the 	EERA 	since 	it 	interfered 	with 	the
right 	of 	the 	Council 	to 	represent 	its 	members.
It 	has 	also 	been 	found 	that 	this 	same 	conduct 	interfered
with 	negotiating 	unit 	members' 	right 	to 	be 	represented 	by 	their
exclusive 	representative, 	thus 	constituting 	a 	violation 	of
section 	3543.S(a) 	of 	the 	EERA.
As 	a 	result 	of 	this 	conduct, 	we 	have 	been 	ordered 	to 	post
this 	Notice, 	and 	we 	will 	abide 	by 	the 	following:
1

WE WILL CEASE AND DESIST
(1) 	Failing or refusing to meet and negotate in good faith
with the exclusive representative by unilaterally depriving
unit members of supervisory stipends, related fringe benefits
and regular salary increments.
(2) Denying the exclusive representative its right to
represent unit members by failing or refusing to meet and
negotiate about matters within the scope of representation
enumerated in (1) above.
(3) Interfering with employees because of the exercise of
their right to select an exclusive representative to meet and
negotiate with the employer on their behalf by unilaterally
changing matters within the scope of representation enumerated
in (1) above without meeting and negotiating with the exclusive
representative.
WE WILL TAKE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION TO:
Reinstate, retroactive to July 1, 1978, supervisory
stipends and related fringe benefits, yearly increments, career
increments, and professional growth increments for members of
the supervisory certificated employees unit, with interest at
the rate of 7 percent.
SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT
Dated:
District
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE. IT MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 30
CONSECUTIVE WORKDAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE
REDUCED IN SIZE, DEFACED, ALTERED OR COVERED BY ANY MATERIAL.
WE
	WILL
	CEASE
	AND
	DESIST FROM:	
FROM:
(1)
	Failing
	or
	refusing 	to
	meet
	and
	negotate 	in
	good
	faith
with
	the 	exclusive
	representative
	by
	unilaterally
	depriving
unit
	members
	of
	supervisory
	stipends, 	related
	fringe
	benefits
and
	regular
	salary
	increments.
(2)
	Denying
	the 	exclusive
	representative
	its
	right
	to
represent 	unit
	members 	by
	failing
	or
	refusing 	to
	meet
	and
negotiate
	about
	matters 	within 	the
	scope
	of
	representation
enumerated
	in
	(1)
	above.
(3)
	Interfering
	with
	employees
	because
	of 	the
	exercise
	of
their
	right
	to
	select
	an
	exclusive
	representative 	to
	meet
	and
negotiate
	with 	the
	employer
	on
	their
	behalf
	by
	unilaterally
changing
	matters 	within 	the
	scope
	of
	representation
	enumerated
in
	(1) 	above
	without
	meeting
	and
	negotiating
	with
	the 	exclusive
representative.
WE
	WILL
	TAKE
	AFFIRMATIVE
	ACTION
	TO:
Reinstate, 	retroactive
	to 	July
	1,
	1978, 	supervisory
stipends
	and
	related
	fringe
	benefits,
	yearly 	increments,
	careerincrements,
	and
	professional
	growth
	increments 	for
	members
	of
the 	supervisory
	certificated
	employees
	unit,
	with
	interest 	at
the
	rate
	of	
7	
percent.
SAN
	FRANCISCO
	COMMUNITY
	COLLEGE
DISTRICT
Dated: 	By :
Authorized Agent of the
District
'D.t7
••
Authorized
	Agent
	of
	the
..,:L
THIS 	IS
	AN
	OFFICIAL 	NOTICE. 	IT
	MUST 	REMAIN 	POSTED 	FOR
	30CONSECUTIVE
	WORKDAYS 	FROM THE 	DATE 	OF
	POSTING
	AND MUST 	NOT 	BE
REDUCED
	IN 	SIZE, 	DEFACED, 	ALTERED
	OR COVERED BY ANY
	MATERIAL.
2

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
DEPARTMENT CHAIRPERSON COUNCIL OF
SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT,
UNFAIR PRACTICE
Charging Party, 	Case No. SF-CE-223
v . PROPOSED
SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT,
Respondent.
Appearances: Ronald A. Glick, representative for San Francisco
Community College District; Austin White, representative for
the Department Chairperson Council of the San Francisco
Community College District.
Before Michael J. Tonsing, Hearing Officer.
BACKGROUND
On July 6, 1978, the Department Chairperson Council of
San Francisco Community College District (hereafter Council)
filed the instant charge against the San Francisco Community
College District (hereafter District). A hearing was conducted
before the undersigned hearing officer on December 6, 1978. No
legal arguments were made on the record at that time, though
opportunity to do so was made available. The hearing officer
then, in the presence of the parties, read into the record the
contents of California Administrative Code, title 8, part III, sections
STATE
	OF
	CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
DEPARTMENT
	CHAIRPERSON COUNCIL
	OF
SAN
	FRANCISCO
	COMMUNITY
	COLLEGE
DISTRICT,
Charging
	Party,
v.
SAN
	FRANCISCO
	COMMUNITY
	COLLEGE
DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
	__________________
)
UNFAIR 	PRACTICE
Case
	No. 	SF-CE-223
PROPOSED 	DECISION
1/8/80
DECJSION
1/8/80
Appearances:	
Ronald
	A.
	Glick,
	representative
	for
	San
	Francisco
Community
	College
	District;
	Austin
	White,
	representative 	forthe
	Department
	Chairperson 	Council
	of 	the
	San
	Francisco
Community
College
	District.
Before 	Michael
	J.
	Tensing, 	Hearing
	Officer.
BACKGROUND
On
	July
	6,
	1978,
	the
	Department
	Chairperson 	Council 	of
San
	Francisco
	Community
	College
	District
	(hereafter
	Council)
filed
	the
	instant
	charge
	against 	the
	San
	Francisco
	Community
College
	District
	(hereafter
	District).
	A
hearing
	was
	conducted
before 	the 	undersigned 	hearing
	officer
	on 	December
	6,
	1978.
	No
legal
	arguments
	were 	made 	on
	the 	record
	at 	that
	time, 	though
opportunity 	to
	do
	so
	was made
	available.
	The
	hearing
	officer
then, 	in
	the 	presence 	of 	the
	parties,
	read
	into 	the 	record 	the
contents 	of 	California Administrative
	Code,
title
	8,
	part 	III, 	sections

32132 (a) and 32132 (b) dealing with extensions of time to file
documents. The Council's brief was subsequently filed in a
timely manner . 	The District's brief was not. It arrived nine
days late. No representations were made to justify or excuse
the late filing of the District's legal argument, therefore, it
has not been considered as a part of the record in this
case. ! 	Without the District's brief, its legal argument on
the record is confined to its answer to the original charge.
The essence of the charge is that the District
committed unfair practices by actions resulting from an
emergency resolution passed by the governing board of the
District on June 20, 1978. The actions included the reduction
of salaries and related fringe benefits and the refusal to
grant regular step, career and professional growth salary
increments. The District's answer will be considered in the
course of this Proposed Decision.
ISSUES
1. Did the District's declaration of emergency in the
face of financial uncertainty relieve it of its obligation
under section 3543.5 (c) to meet and negotiate in good faith
1. See Sacramento City Unified School District (1/29/79) PERB
Order No. Ad-55, where the PERB itself refused to consider a
brief filed one day late, citing Anaheim Union High School
District (7/17/78) PERB Order No. Ad-42 and California State
Communications Association (1/2/79) PERB Order No. Ad-52.
2
32132{a) 	and 	32132(b) 	dealing 	with 	extensions 	of 	time 	to 	file
documents. 	The 	Council's 	brief 	was 	subsequently 	filed 	in 	a
timely manner. 	The 	District's 	brief 	was 	not. 	It 	arrived 	nine
days 	late. 	No 	representations 	were made 	to 	justify or 	excuse
the 	late 	filing 	of 	the 	District's 	legal 	argument, 	therefore, 	it
has 	not 	been 	considered 	as 	a 	part 	of 	the 	record 	in 	this
1case. 	Without 	the 	District's 	brief, 	its 	legal 	argument 	on
the 	record 	is 	confined 	to 	its 	answer 	to 	the 	original 	charge.
The 	essence 	of 	the 	charge 	is 	that 	the 	District
committed 	unfair 	practices 	by 	actions 	resulting 	from 	an
emergency 	resolution 	passed 	by 	the 	governing 	board 	of 	the
District 	on June 	20, 	1978. 	The 	actions 	included 	the 	reduction
of 	salaries 	and 	related 	fringe 	benefits 	and 	the 	refusal 	to
grant 	regular 	step, 	career 	and 	professional 	growth 	salary
increments. 	The 	District's 	answer 	will 	be 	considered 	in 	the
course 	of 	this 	Proposed 	Decision.
ISSUES
1. 	Did 	the 	District's 	declaration 	of 	emergency 	in 	the
face 	of 	financial 	uncertainty 	relieve 	it 	of 	its 	obligation
under 	section 	3543.S(c) 	to meet 	and 	negotiate 	in 	good 	faith
1. 	See 	Sacramento City 	Unified 	School 	District 	(1/29/79) 	PERB
Order 	No. 	Ad-55, 	where 	the 	PERB 	itself 	refused 	to 	consider 	a
brief 	filed 	one 	day 	late, 	citing 	Anaheim Union 	High 	School
District 	(7/17/78) 	PERB 	Order 	No. 	Ad-42 	and 	California 	State
Communications 	Association 	(1/2/79) 	PERB 	Order 	No. 	Ad-52.
2

with an exclusive representative regarding matters within the
scope of representation?
2. 	Did the District's refusal to negotiate
constitute an interference with the right of the exclusive
representative to represent its members in violation of section
3543.5) b) and/or an interference with the right of negotiating
unit members to be represented by their exclusive
representative in violation of section 3543.5(a) ?
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Council is the exclusive representative of a unit
of certificated supervisors in the District, having been duly
certified on April 11, 1978 following a unit determination
hearing and subsequent election held on March 29, 1978 by the
Public Employment Relations Board (hereafter PERB) .
Since 1969, the District has compensated certificated
supervisors of departments with six or more instructors by
placing them on the regular instructor salary schedule
supplemented by both release time and a stipend (the latter
equal to 60 hours' compensation in the case of those
2. The PERB was formerly the Educational Employment Relations
Board (EERB) . The decision which resulted in the creation of
the unit represented by the Council is EERB Decision HO-R-48
(12/22/77). Notice is taken of the representation files of
the PERB in this matter.
W
with
	an
	exclusive
	representative
	regarding 	matters 	within 	the
scope
	of 	representation?
2.
	Did
	the
	District's
	refusal
	to
	negotiate
constitute
	an
	interference
	with
	the
	right
	of 	the
	exclusive
representative 	to 	represent
	its
	members
	in 	violation
	of
	section
3543.S)b)
	and/or	
an	
interference
	with
	the
	right
	of
	negotiating
unit
	members
	to
	be
	represented
	by
	their
	exclusive
representative
	in
	violation
	of
	section
	3543.S(a)?
FINDINGS
	OF
	FACT
The
	Council
	is
	the 	exclusive 	representative
	of
	a
	unit
of
	certificated
	supervisors 	in 	the
	District,
	having
	been
	duly
certified
	on
	April
	11,
	1978
	following
	a
	unit
	determination
hearing
	and
	subsequent
	election
	held
	on March 	29, 	1978 	by
	the
Public
	Employment
	Relations
	Board
	(hereafter
	PERB).
2
Since 	1969,
	the
	District
	has 	compensated
	certificated
supervisors
	of 	departments 	with
	six
	or
	more
	instructors
	by
placing
	them 	on
	the 	regular
	instructor 	salary
	schedule
supplemented
	by
	both
	release
	time 	and 	a
	stipend
	{the
	latter
equal
	to
	60
	hours' 	compensation
	in 	the 	case 	of 	those
2. 	The
	PERB
	was
	formerly 	the 	Educational
	Employment
	Relations
Board 	(EERB). 	The
	decision
	which
	resulted 	in 	the 	creation 	ofthe 	unit 	represented
	by
	the 	Council
	is
	EERB
	Decision
	HO-R-48
(12/22/77). 	Notice
	is
	taken 	of 	the 	representation 	files 	ofthe
	PERB
	in 	this 	matter.
3

supervising 6 to 11 instructors and an amount equal to 120
hours' compensation in the case of those supervising 12 or more
instructors) . Since 1975, retirement deductions have been
withheld from both the instructor salaries and the supervisory
stipends of department chairpersons.
As the newly-selected exclusive representative, the
Council submitted its initial proposal for an agreement to the
District on June 6, 1978. The proposal contained provisions
relating to supervisory salaries, increments and the retention
of past practices. Proposition 13 was passed by the voters in
California that same day. Also on that day, the District
adopted a "revised tentative budget" for the fiscal year which
was to begin three weeks hence.
Nine days later, on June 15, 1978, the District's
chancellor told Council representatives he planned to request
that the governing board of the District declare a state of
emergency based on the financial uncertainty caused by
Proposition 13. Council representatives immediately protested
this proposed action, labeling it as unilateral and demanding
3. Proposition 13, a tax relief measure which added Article
XIIIA to the California Constitution, placed significant
limitations on the taxing power of local and state governments
and sharply reduced the amount of revenue that local entities
could raise by taxing property. The constitutionality of this
measure was upheld in Amador Valley Joint Union High School
District v. State Board of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal. 3d 208.
See also Sonoma County Organization of Public Employees v.
County of Sonoma (1979) 23 Cal. 3d 296.
supervising
	6
	to
	11
	instructors
	and 	an 	amount
	equal	
to	
120
hours'
	compensation
	in 	the 	case 	of 	those
	supervising
	12
	or
	more
instructors).
	Since 	1975,
	retirement
	deductions
	have
	been
withheld
	from
	both
	the
	instructor 	salaries
	and
	the
	supervisory
stipends
	of
	department
	chairpersons.
As
	the 	newly-selected 	exclusive
	representative,
	the
Council 	submitted
	its 	initial
	proposal 	for
	an
	agreement
	to
	the
District
	on
	June 	6,
	1978.
	The
	proposal 	contained
	provisions
relating
	to
	supervisory
	salaries,
	increments
	and
	the
	retention
of
	past
	practices.
	Proposition
	13 	was
	passed
	by
	the
	voters 	in
Call
'forn1'a
	that
	same
	day.
3
Also
	on
	that
	day ,	
the
	D'str'ct	
l 	l
adopted
	a
	"revised
	tentative
	budget"
	for 	the
	fiscal
	year
	which
was
	to
	begin
	three
	weeks
	hence.
Nine
	days
	later,
	on
	June
	15,
	1978,
	the
	District's
chancellor 	told
	Council
	representatives
	he
	planned
	to 	request
that
	the 	governing 	board
	of 	the
	District
	declare
	a
	state
	of
emergency
	based
	on
	the
	financial 	uncertainty
	caused
	by
Proposition 	13. 	Council
	representatives
	immediately
	protested
this
	proposed
	action, 	labeling
	it
	as
	unilateral
	and 	demanding
3. 	Proposition
	13,
	a
	tax
	relief
	measure 	which 	added
	Article
XIIIA
	to 	the 	California 	Constitution, 	placed
	significant
limitations
	on
	the 	taxing
	power
	of 	local
	and
	state
	governmentsand
	sharply
	reduced 	the
	amount
	of 	revenue
	that 	local
	entities
could
	raise
	by
	taxing 	property.
	The
	constitutionality of
	this
measure 	was 	upheld
	in
	Amador
	Valley 	Joint
	Union 	High
	School
District
	v.
	State
	Board
	of 	E~ualization
	(1978) 	22
	Cal.3d 	208.See
	also
	Sonoma 	County
	Organization 	of 	Public
	Employees
	v.County
	of
	Sonoma 	(1979) 	23
	Cal.3d 	296.
4

immediate around-the-clock negotiations. The District refused
to negotiate and on June 20, 1978, its governing board enacted
an emergency resolution.
As. a result of this resolution, unit members were
subsequently deprived of supervisory stipends and certain
fringe benefits related to the rate of compensation (retirement
deductions and unemployment insurance) as well as regular
salary increments (step, career and professional) which
previously had been routinely paid.
On July 6, 1978, the Council filed the charge in the
instant case with PERB alleging that the District violated
sections 3543.5(a) , (b) , and (c) of the Educational Employment
Relations Act (hereafter EERA or the Act) *. The District
answered the charge on July 24, 1978, denying it violated the
Act and asserting a number of affirmative defenses, as follows:
(1) Any and all actions of the Respondent in
establishing certain conditions of employment for
the fiscal year 1978-79 were enacted under a
"Declaration of Emergency" declared by the
Respondent Board, and, were specific in terms
relating to completion of the "meet and
negotiate" process between Charging Party
4. All section references herein are to the Government Code
unless otherwise noted.
The EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq.
Section 3543.5 provides in pertinent part: It shall be
unlawful for a public school employer to:
UT
immediate
	around-the-clock
	negotiations.
	The
	District
	refused
to 	negotiate
	and
	on
	June
	20, 	1978,
	its
	governing
	board
	enacted
an
	emergency
	resolution.
As. a
	result
	of
	this 	resolution, 	unit
	members
	were
subsequently 	deprived 	of
	supervisory 	stipends
	and
	certain
fringe 	benefits 	related 	to
	the
	rate
	of
	compensation
	(retirement
deductions
	and 	unemployment
	insurance)
	as
	well
	as
	regular
salary
	increments
	(step, 	career
	and
	professional)
	which
previously
	had
	been
	routinely 	paid.
On
	July
	6, 	1978,
	the 	Council
	filed
	the 	charge
	in 	the
instant
	case 	with
	PERB
	alleging 	that
	the
	District
	violated
sections
	3543.S(a), 	(b),
	and 	(c)
	of
	the 	Educational
	Employment
Relations
	Act
	(hereafter
	EERA
	or 	the
	Act)
4 • 	The
	District
answered
	the 	charge
	on
	July
	24,
	1978,
	denying
	it
	violated 	the
Act
	and
	asserting
	a 	number
	of
	affirmative 	defenses,
	as 	follows:
(1) 	Any 	and
	all
	actions
	of 	the
	Respondent
	in
establishing 	certain
	conditions
	of
	employment
	for
the
	fiscal
	year
	1978-79 	were
	enacted
	under
	a
"Declaration 	of
	Emergency"
	declared
	by
	the
Respondent 	Board, 	and,
	were
	specific
	in
	terms
relating 	to
	completion 	of 	the
	"meet 	and
negotiate" 	process
	between 	Charging
	Party
5
4.	
All 	section 	references 	herein 	are 	to 	the
	Government 	Code
unless 	otherwise 	noted.
The
	EERA
	is 	codified 	at
	Government 	Code
	section
	3540
	et
	seq.
Section 	3543.5 	provides 	in 	pertinent 	part:
	It
	shall
	be
unlawful 	for
	a
	public 	school 	employer
	to:(Footnote	(Footnote cont'd. )	
cont'd.)

and Respondent. In taking such actions, Respondent
made every effort to adhere to requirements of law and
every effort to continue to exercise its good faith.
(2) Respondent and Charging Party have not complied
with Article 8, Section 3547 and asserts that within
the meaning of that Section was prohibited from
"meeting and negotiating" on the alleged actions of
this charge.
(3) The Public Employment Relations Board should
allow the current negotiations process (Section 3547)
to proceed without interjecting itself. Respondent
and Charging Party will discuss all matters relative
to these charges within the scope of bargaining.
(4) The alleged actions of which Charging Party
complains were not adopted discriminatorily and were
not violative of any "meet and negotiate" past practice
between the parties nor of any agreement between the
parties then in effect.
(5) Respondent possessed no legal duty to maintain
the status quo under the facts and circumstances of
this case.
(6) Respondent, in complying with California
Constitution, Article XVI, Section 18, and Article IX,
Section 5; Title V, California Administrative Code;
Education Code, specifically Sections 72233, 35200,
87826, 87827, singly and together, excuse and justify
any actions by Respondent alleged by Charging Party.
Footnote cont'd)
) Impose or threaten to impose reprisals on
employees, to discriminate or threaten to
discriminate against employees, or otherwise to
interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees
because of their exercise of rights guaranteed by
this chapter.
(b) Deny to employee organizations rights
guaranteed to them by this chapter.
(c) Refuse or fail to meet and negotiate in good
faith with an exclusive representative.
and 	Respondent. 	In 	taking 	such 	actions, 	Respondent
made 	every 	effort 	to 	adhere 	to 	requirements 	of 	law 	and
every 	effort 	to 	continue 	to 	exercise 	its 	good 	faith.
(a) 	Impose 	or 	threaten 	to 	impose 	reprisals 	on
employees, 	to 	discriminate 	or 	threaten 	to
discriminate 	against 	employees, 	or 	otherwise 	to
interfere 	with, 	restrain, 	or 	coerce 	employees
because 	of 	their 	exercise 	of 	rights 	guaranteed 	by
this 	chapter.
(b) 	Deny 	to 	employee 	organizations 	rights
guaranteed 	to 	them 	by 	this 	chapter.
(c) 	Refuse 	or 	fail 	to meet 	and 	negotiate 	in 	good
faith 	with 	an 	exclusive 	representative.
(2) 	Respondent 	and 	Charging 	Party 	have 	not 	complied
with 	Article 	8, 	Section 	3547 	and 	asserts 	that 	within
the meaning 	of 	that 	Section 	was 	prohibited 	from
"meeting 	and 	negotiating" 	on 	the 	alleged 	actions 	of
this 	charge.
(3) 	The 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	should
allow 	the 	current 	negotiations 	process 	(Section 	3547)
to 	proceed 	without 	interjecting 	itself. 	Respondent
and 	Charging 	Party 	will 	discuss 	all 	matters 	relative
to 	these 	charges 	within 	the 	scope 	of 	bargaining.
(4) 	The 	alleged 	actions 	of which 	Charging 	Party
complains 	were 	not 	adopted 	discriminatorily 	and were
not 	violative 	of 	any 	"meet 	and negotiate" 	past 	practice
between 	the 	parties 	nor 	of 	any 	agreement 	between 	the
parties 	then 	in 	effect.
(5) 	Respondent 	possessed 	no 	legal 	duty 	to maintain
the 	status 	quo 	under 	the 	facts 	and 	circumstances 	of
this 	case.
(6) 	Respondent, 	in 	complying 	with 	California
Constitution, 	Article 	XVI, 	Section 	18, 	and 	Article 	IX,
Section 	5; 	Title 	V, 	California Administrative 	Code;
Education 	Code, 	specifically 	Sections 	72233, 	35200,
87826, 	87827, 	singly 	and 	together, 	excuse 	and 	justify
any 	actions 	by 	Respondent 	alleged 	by Charging 	Party.
Footnote 	cont'd)
6

) Restating and incorporating Affirmative
Defense #6, above, any contractual voluntary
obligations of Respondent, actual or implied,
prior to June 6, 1978, was void and/or voidable
as their purpose was frustrated by the
unforeseeable event of passage of Proposition 13
by the general state electorate.
Restating and incorporating Affirmative
Defenses #6 and #7, any contractual obligations,
or any individual and Respondent was void and/or
voidable under the principles of mutual mistake.
Restating and incorporating Affirmative
Defenses #6, #7 and #8, any contractual
obligations, actual or implied, entered into by
Respondent and Charging Party or any individual
employee, prior to June 6, 1978, is void and/or
voidable as prejudicial to the public interest.
(10) Respondent has, as a matter of fact and
law, the right and power to declare and implement
an emergency resolution, and, in taking such
action no unfair labor practice was committed,
and, if one or more were committed, such action
is both justified and excused due to the
emergency circumstances.
(11) The qualified unilateral action of
Respondent in the "Declaration of Emergency, "
combined with the necessity of its action,
provides no cause of action for a charge of
unfair labor practice by Charging Party.
On July 29, 1978, the Council requested relief
from aspects of the emergency resolution relating to the
compensation of supervisors. That request was rejected by
letter on August 10, 1978. Again, on August 14, 1978, the
Council requested relief. That request was denied on
August 30, 1978. On September 5, 1978, the District made
(7)
	Restating
	and
	incorporating Affirmative
Defense 	#6,
	above,
	any
	contractual
	voluntary
obligations
	of
	Respondent,
	actual
	or
	implied,
prior 	to
	June
	6,
	1978,
	was
	void 	and/or 	voidableas
	their
	purpose
	was
	frustrated
	by
	theunforeseeable 	event 	of 	passage
	of 	Proposition
	13by
	the 	general
	state 	electorate.
(8)	
Restating
	and
	incorporating 	Affirmative
Defenses
	#6
	and
	#7,
	any
	contractual 	obligations,actual	actual or implied, entered into by Charging Party	
or
	implied, 	entered
	into
	by
	Charging
	Partyor
	any
	individual
	and
	Respondent
	was
	void
	and/or
voidable
	under
	the
	principles
	of
	mutual
	mistake.
(9)	
Restating
	and
	incorporating Affirmative
Defenses
	#6,
	#7 	and
	#8,
	any
	contractual
obligations, 	actual
	or
	implied, 	entered
	into
	by
Respondent
	and
	Charging
	Party
	or
	any
	individual
employee,
	prior
	to
	June 	6, 	1978,
	is
	void
	and/or
voidable
	as
	prejudicial 	to
	the 	public
	interest.
(8)
(9)
(10)
	Respondent
	has,
	as
	a
	matter
	of
	fact
	and
law,
	the
	right
	and 	power
	to 	declare
	and
	implementan 	emergency
	resolution,
	and,
	in
	taking
	such
action
	no
	unfair
	labor
	practice
	was
	committed,
and,
	if
	one
	or
	more 	were
	committed, 	such
	action
is
	both
	justified
	and
	excused
	due
	to
	the
emergency
	circumstances.
(11) 	The
	qualified 	unilateral
	action
	of
Respondent
	in
	the 	"Declaration of
	Emergency,"combined
	with 	the
	necessity
	of
	its
	action,
provides
	no
	cause 	of
	action 	for
	a
	charge 	of
unfair 	labor
	practice
	by
	Charging
	Party.
On
	July
	29, 	1978,
	the 	Council 	requested
	relief
from
	aspects 	of 	the
	emergency
	resolution 	relating 	to 	the
compensation
	of 	supervisors.
	That
	request
	was
	rejected
	by
letter·
on August 	10, 	1978. 	Again, 	on August 	14, 	1978,
	the
Council 	requested
	relief.
	That
	request
	was
	denied 	on
August 	30, 	1978.
	On
	September 	5, 	1978, 	the
	District
	made
7

its initial response to the Council's June 6, 1978
proposal. Thereafter, at least six formal meetings were
held, stretching over a period of four months, to
establish procedures for negotiation. Then, on December 6,
1978, a hearing was held at the San Francisco Regional
Office of the PERB.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The PERB itself has issued two precedential
decisions dealing with post-Proposition 13 refusal to
bargain allegations. The first of these dealt with a
community college district and its classified employees.
California School Employees Association and its Chapter
#33 v. San Mateo County Community College District
(6/8/79) PERB Decision No. 94. There, the PERB found
that the respondent district had violated Section
3543.5(c) of the EERA by unilaterally adopting resolutions
and taking action with respect to a salary cutback and a
step increment freeze. The PERB rejected the district's
"necessity" defense (San Mateo, supra, at pp. 10-21) and
its so-called "public interest" defense (supra, pp. 25-26) ,
and ordered the district, among other things, to
retroactively reinstate step increment payments (the wage
recission having already been restored by the respondent).
The second case is even more closely on point.
its 	initial
	response
	to
	the
	Council's
	June 	6,
	1978
proposal.
	Thereafter,
	at
	least
	six
	formal 	meetings
	were
held,
	stretching
	over
	a
	period 	of
	four 	months,
	to
establish
	procedures 	for
	negotiation.
	Then, 	on
	December
	6,
1978,
	a
	hearing
	was
	held
	at
	the
	San
	Francisco
	Regional
Office 	of 	the
	PERB.
CONCLUSIONS
	OF
	LAW
The
	PERB
	itself
	has
	issued
	two
	precedential
decisions 	dealing
	with
	post-Proposition
	13
	refusal
	to
bargain
	allegations.
	The
	first
	of 	these
	dealt
	with
	a
community
	college
	district
	and
	its
	classified
	employees.
California
	School
	Employees
	Association
	and
	jts
	Chapter
#33
	v.
	San Mateo 	County 	Community
	College
	District
(6/8/79)
	PERB
	Decision
	No.
	94.
	There, 	the
	PERB
	found
that
	the 	respondent
	district
	had
	violated 	Section
3543.S(c) 	of 	the
	EERA	
by	
unilaterally
	adopting
	resolutions
and
	taking 	action
	with
	respect 	to
	a
	salary
	cutback
	and 	a
step
	increment
	freeze.
	The
	PERB
	rejected
	the
	district's
"necessity" 	defense
	(San
	Mateo,
	supra,
	at
	pp. 	10-21)
	and
its
	so-called 	"public
	interest"
	defense 	(supra, 	pp.25-26),
and
	ordered 	the
	district,
	among
	other 	things, 	to
retroactively 	reinstate 	step
	increment 	payments 	(the
	wage
recission
	having 	already
	been
	restored	
by 	the 	respondent).
The 	second 	case
	is
	even more
	closely
	on
	point.
8

It involves the same respondent and the same general
factual context as the instant case. In San Francisco
Community College District Federation of Teachers, Local
2121, CFT/AFT, AFT-CIO v. San Francisco Community College
District (10/12/79) PERB Decision No. 105, the charging
party was the exclusive representative of nonsupervisory
faculty members in the District. 	The District, the same
respondent as in the present case, was charged with having
violated sections 3543 (a) , (b) and (c) by unilaterally
changing certain terms and conditions of employment under
color of the same emergency resolution without meeting and
negotiating with the exclusive representative. There, as
here, no negotiated agreement was in effect at the time of
the alleged violation. There, as here, no allegation was
made by the District that the matters under consideration
were outside the scope of negotiations and there, as here,
the District advanced a number of defenses attempting to
justify its unilateral action.
First, the District claimed in San Francisco,
supra, and in the instant case that its legitimate
economic concerns relieved it of its obligation to
negotiate (San Francisco, supra, pp. 8-11 and paragraph 1
of the District's answer, ante, pp. 5-6) This argument was
rejected by the PERB in the earlier case. (Supra, p. 9.)
It is also rejected here.
It
	involves 	the
	same
	respondent
	and
	the
	same
	general
factual
	context
	as
	the
	instant
	case.
	In
	San
	Francisco
Community
	College
	District
	Federation 	of
	Teachers,
	Local
2121,
	CFT/AFT, 	AFT-CIO
v.
	San
	Francisco
	Community
	College
District
	(10/12/79)
	PERB
	Decision
	No.
	105,
	the 	charging
party
	was
	the
	exclusive
	representative
	of 	nonsupervisory
faculty
	members
	in
	the
	District.
	The
	District,
	the
	same
respondent 	as
	in
	the 	present 	case,
	was
	charged 	with 	having
violated 	sections
	3543(a),
	(b)
	and
	(c) 	by
	unilaterally
changing
	certain
	terms
	and
	conditions
	of
	employment
	under
color
	of 	the
	same
	emergency
	resolution
	without
	meeting
	and
negotiating
	with
	the 	exclusive
	representative.
	There, 	as
here,
	no
	negotiated
	agreement
	was
	in
	effect 	at
	the 	time
	of
the 	alleged
	violation.
	There,
	as
	here,
	no
	allegation
	was
made 	by
	the
	District
	that
	the 	matters
	under
	consideration
were
	outside 	the
	scope
	of 	negotiations
	and
	there,
	as
	here,
the
	District
	advanced
	a 	number
	of 	defenses 	attempting
	to
justify 	its
	unilateral 	action.
First,
	the
	District
	claimed
	in
	San
	Francisco,
supra,
	and
	in 	the
	instant
	case
	that
	its
	legitimate
economic 	concerns
	relieved
	it
	of
	its
	obligation 	to
negotiate
	(San
	Francisco, 	supra, 	pp. 	8-11 	and
	paragraph
	1
of 	the
	District's
	answer,
	ante, 	pp. 	5-6) 	This 	argument 	was
rejected
	by 	the
	PERB
	in 	the
	earlier
	case. 	(Supra, 	p.
	9.)
It 	is 	also 	rejected 	here.
9

Second, the District argued in both cases that it
was precluded from negotiating because the public notice
requirements of sections 3547(a) and (b) had not been
met . 	(San Francisco, supra, pp. 11-12, and paragraph 2 of
the District's answer, ante, p. 6) This argument was
rejected by the PERB in the earlier case. It is also
rejected here.
Third, the District offered the defenses that the
California Constitution and the Education Code prevented
compliance with the requirement to meet and negotiate.
(San Francisco, supra, pp. 12-16 and paragraph 6 of the
District's answer, ante, p. 7) This, too, was rejected by
the PERB. It is also rejected here.
Fourth, the District asserted in both cases a
number of contract law defenses, arguing frustration of
purpose and unforeseeability (paragraph 7) , mutual mistake
(paragraph 8) , and that a contract is void or voidable if
it violates public policy (paragraph 9) . Each such
contract law defense was rejected by the PERB in San
Francisco. 	(Supra, pp. 17-18. See especially fn. 16, at
p. 18. See also San Mateo, supra, at pp. 25-26, regarding
the so-called "public interest" defense.) Each is also
rejected here.
Fifth, the District asserted by way of defense
10
Second, 	the 	District 	argued 	in 	both 	cases 	that 	it
was 	precluded 	from 	negotiating 	because 	the 	public 	notice
requirements 	of 	sections 	3547(a) 	and 	(b) 	had 	not 	been
met. 	(San 	Francisco, 	supra, 	pp. 	11-12, 	and 	paragraph 	2 of
the 	District's 	answer, 	ante, 	p. 	6) 	This 	argument 	was
rejected 	by 	the 	PERB 	in 	the 	earlier 	case. 	It 	is 	also
rejected 	here.
Third, 	the 	District 	offered 	the 	defenses 	that 	the
California 	Constitution 	and 	the 	Education 	Code 	prevented
compliance 	with 	the 	requirement 	to meet 	and 	negotiate.
(San 	Francisco, 	supra, 	pp. 	12-16 	and 	paragraph 	6 of 	the
District's 	answer, 	ante, 	p. 	7) 	This, 	too, 	was 	rejected 	by
the 	PERB. 	It 	is 	also 	rejected 	here.
Fourth, 	the 	District 	asserted 	in 	both 	cases 	a
number 	of 	contract 	law 	defenses, 	arguing 	frustration 	of
purpose 	and 	unforeseeability 	{paragraph 	7), 	mutual 	mistake
(paragraph 	8), 	and 	that 	a 	contract 	is 	void 	or 	voidable 	if
it 	violates 	public 	policy 	(paragraph 	9). 	Each 	such
contract 	law 	defense 	was 	rejected 	by 	the 	PERB 	in 	San
Francisco. 	(Supra, 	pp. 	17-18. 	See 	especially 	fn. 	16, 	at
p. 	18. 	See 	also 	San Mateo, 	supra, 	at 	pp. 	25-26, 	regarding
the 	so-called 	"public 	interest" 	defense.) 	Each 	is 	also
rejected 	here.
Fifth, 	the 	District 	asserted 	by 	way 	of 	defense
10

that it was acting in good faith (answer, ante, pp. 5-6,
paragraph 1) . While San Francisco does not directly
address this defense, San Mateo does. (Supra, at pp.
14-21.) And, San Mateo is cited with approval in San
Francisco. On the basis of this PERB precedent, the
assertion of good faith by the District in the present
case is regarded as irrelevant and is rejected.
Sixth, the District claimed that its action was
"qualified" (answer , ante, page 7, paragraph 10) , yet
another defense made and rejected in San Mateo. 	( Supra,
at pp. 17-18, fn. 9.) It is also rejected here.
The only defense not addressed by the PERB
previously is found in paragraph four of the answer, where
the District contends that its actions did not violate its
past practice of paying employees only for work
performed. Linked to this contention is the notion that
the supervisory stipend in question had become a virtual
gratuity because the work upon which it was originally
calculated no longer was being performed. Therefore, the
District apparently reasons, the District was no longer
obliged to pay. (It is noted that the emergency
resolution refers to what must be the stipends as "extra
pay" .)
Certain testimony indicated that this special
stipend was originally granted to reward additional
11
that
	it
	was
	acting
	in
	good
	faith
	(answer,
	ante,
	pp.
	5-6,
paragraph
	1).
	While
	San
	Francisco
	does
	not
	directly
address
	this
	defense,
	San Mateo
	does.
	(Supra,
	at
	pp.
14-21.)
	And, 	San Mateo
	is 	cited
	with
	approval
	in
	San
Francisco.
	On
	the
	basis
	of
	this
	PERB
	precedent, 	the
assertion
	of
	good
	faith
	by
	the
	District
	in
	the
	present
case
	is
	regarded
	as
	irrelevant
	and
	is
	rejected.
Sixth,
	the
	District
	claimed
	that
	its
	action
	was
"qualified"
	(answer,
	ante,
	page
	7, 	paragraph
	10), 	yet
another 	defense
	made 	and
	rejected
	in
	San
	Mateo.
	(Supra,
at
	pp.17-18,
	fn.
	9.)
	It
	is
	also 	rejected
	here.
The
	only 	defense
	not 	addressed
	by
	the
	PERB
previously
	is
	found
	in
	paragraph 	four
	of
	the 	answer, 	where
the
	District
	contends
	that
	its
	actions
	did 	not
	violate
	its
past 	practice
	of
	paying 	employees
	only 	for
	work
performed.
	Linked
	to
	this
	contention
	is
	the 	notion
	that
the 	supervisory 	stipend 	in 	question
	had 	become 	a
	virtual
gratuity
	because
	the
	work 	upon 	which
	it
	was
	originally
calculated
	no
	longer
	was
	being 	performed. 	Therefore, 	the
District
	apparently 	reasons, 	the
	District
	was 	no
	longer
obliged 	to
	pay.
	(It 	is
	noted
	that
	the
	emergency
resolution 	refers 	to
	what 	must 	be
	the 	stipends 	as
	"extra
pay".}
Certain 	testimony 	indicated 	that 	this 	special
stipend
	was
	originally 	granted 	to 	reward
	additional
11

responsibilities borne by department chairpersons. 	There
was testimony that the responsibilities of chairpersons
were subsequently altered, if not diminished. 	There was
also considerable conflicting testimony regarding the
basis for computing these stipends. The stipend may have
evolved from a vaguely articulated compromise, on the one
hand recognizing these supervisory employees perform
additional tasks while also recognizing that work
performed was not readily quantifiable on an hourly rate
basis for pay purposes.
Regardless of their historical origins, the
hearing officer concludes that the stipends, at least
during the time in question, were awarded as a regular and
expected part of the compensation of department
chairpersons. It is also found significant, though not
determinative, that the amount of the supervisor's stipend
was based upon the size of the supervisor's department.
Thus, the withdrawal of the stipend was subject to
negotiation since it represented compensation for services
rendered. NLRB v. Niles-Bement-Pond Co. (2d Cir . 1952)
199 F. 2d 713, 714 [3
stipend was in the nature of compensation and not a gift,
especially in view of the length of time (since 1969) that
it had been in effect. Progress Bulletin Co. (9th Cir.
12
responsibilities
	borne
	by
	department
	chairpersons.
	There
was
	testimony
	that
	the
	responsibilities
	of
	chairpersons
were
	subsequently
	altered,
	if
	not
	diminished.
	There
	was
also 	considerable
	conflicting
	testimony 	regarding
	the
basis
	for
	computing
	these
	stipends.
	The
	stipend
	may
	have
evolved
	from 	a
	vaguely
	articulated
	compromise, 	on
	the
	one
hand
	recognizing
	these 	supervisory
	employees
	perform
additional
	tasks
	while
	also
	recognizing
	that
	work
performed
	was
	not
	readily 	quantifiable
	on 	an
	hourly
	rate
basis
	for
	pay
	purposes.
Regardless 	of
	their 	historical 	origins,
	the
hearing
	officer
	concludes
	that
	the
	stipends,
	at 	least
during 	the
	time
	in 	question,
	were 	awarded
	as
	a
	regular
	and
expected
	part
	of 	the
	compensation 	of 	department
chairpersons.
	It
	is
	also
	found
	significant,
	though
	not
determinative, 	that
	the
	amount
	of 	the
	supervisor's 	stipend
was
	based
	upon
	the
	size
	of 	the
	supervisor's
	department.
Thus,
	the
	withdrawal 	of 	the 	stipend
	was
	subject 	to
negotiation 	since
	it
	represented
	compensation
	for 	services
rendered.
	NLRB
	v. 	Niles-Bement-Pond
	Go. 	(2d
	Cir.
	1952)
199
	F.2d 	713, 	714 	[31	1 LRRM 2057]. It is found that the	
LRRM
	2057].
	It 	is
	found
	that
	the
stipend
	was
	in 	the 	nature 	of 	compensation
	and
	not
	a
	gift,
especially 	in
	view
	of 	the 	length 	of 	time 	(since
	1969)
	that
it
	had 	been 	in
	effect. 	Progress 	Bulletin
	Co.
	(9th
	Cir.
12

1971) 443 F. 2d 1369 [77 LRRM 3081]. It follows that the
fringe benefits tied to the stipend were also negotiable,
as were the salary increments routinely granted in
previous years, the District having made no argument that
either subject was outside the scope of representation.
Thus, none of the defenses raised by the District
is persuasive. It is concluded that the District violated
section 3543.5 (c) of the EERA by failing or refusing to
meet and negotiate upon request by the Council over
matters within the scope of representation.
The Council alleged in the charge that sections
3543.5 (a) and (b) had been violated by the District as
well, on the basis of the same facts. In San Francisco,
supra, the PERB specifically overruled Placerville Union
School District (9/18/78) PERB Decision No. 69, and found
derivative violations in circumstances which closely
parallel those of the present case. Relying on San
Francisco, it is found that the District's conduct
concurrently violated section 3543.5(b) by denying the
Council its statutory right as an exclusive representative
to represent unit members in their employment relations
with the District. (Sec. 3543.1 (a) .) On the same basis,
it is found that the District's failure to meet and
negotiate with the Council interfered with employees
13
1971) 	443
	F.2d
	1369
	[77
	LRRM
	3081]~
	It
	follows
	that
	the
fringe 	benefits 	tied
	to
	the
	stipend
	were
	also 	negotiable,
as 	were
	the
	salary
	increments
	routinely
	granted
	in
previous
	years, 	the
	District
	having
	made 	no
	argument
	that
either
	subject
	was
	outside
	the
	scope
	of
	representation.
Thus,
	none
	of 	the 	defenses
	raised
	by
	the
	District
is
	persuasive.
	It
	is
	concluded
	that
	the
	District
	violated
section
	3543.S(c)
	of
	the
	EERA
	by
	failing
	or
	refusing 	to
meet
	and
	negotiate
	upon
	request
	by
	the
	Council
	over
matters 	within 	the
	scope 	of
	representation.
The
	Council
	alleged 	in
	the
	charge
	that
	sections
3543.S(a)
	and 	(b) 	had
	been
	violated
	by
	the
	District
	as
well,
	on
	the
	basis
	of 	the
	same
	facts.
	In
	San
	Francisco,
supra,
	the
	PERB
	specifically
	overruled
	Placerville
	Union
School
	District
	(9/18/78)
	PERB
	Decision
	No.
	69,
	and 	found
derivative 	violations
	in 	circumstances
	which
	closely
parallel
	those 	of
	the
	present
	case.
	Relying
	on 	San
Francisco,
	it
	is
	found
	that
	the
	District's
	conduct
concurrently 	violated 	section
	3543.S(b)
	by
	denying
	the
Council
	its
	statutory 	right
	as 	an
	exclusive 	representative
to 	represent 	unit
	members
	in 	their
	employment
	relations
with 	the
	District.
	(Sec.
	3543.l(a) .)
	On
	the
	same
	basis,
it
	is
	found
	that
	the
	District's 	failure 	to
	meet 	and
negotiate 	with 	the 	Council
	interfered
	with 	employees
13

because of their exercise of representational rights in
violation of section 3543.5 (a) .
REMEDY
Section 3541. 3 (i) and section 3541.5(c) give the
PERB broad powers to remedy unfair practices. On the
basis of these authorizations, the District will be
ordered to cease and desist from refusing or failing to
meet and negotiate upon request of the Council on matters
within the scope of representation, in order to comply
with section 3543.5(c) . The District also violated
sections 3543.5(a) and (b) by unilaterally withholding
supervisory stipends and related fringe benefits and by
refusing to grant regular step, career and professional
growth salary increments. It is, therefore, appropriate
to order the District to restore supervisory stipends and
related fringe benefits and restore the regular step,
career and professional growth increments of supervisory
employees retroactive to July 1, 1978. Interest at the rate
of 7 percent on the back pay owed to the employees is further
appropriate. 	San Francisco Community College District, supra;
Santa Monica, supra. It is also appropriate to order the
District to cease and desist from further violations of the
rights of affected employees and their exclusive representa-
tive. (San Francisco Community College District, supra;
San Mateo County Community College District, supra;
14
because
	of
	their
	exercise
	of
	representational 	rights
	in
violation
	of
	section
	3543.S(a).
REMEDY
Section 	3541.3(i)
	and
	section
	3541.S(c)
	give
	the
PERB
	broad
	powers
	to
	remedy
	unfair
	practices.
	On
	the
basis
	of
	these
	authorizations,
	the
	District
	will
	be
ordered
	to
	cease
	and
	desist
	from
	refusing 	or
	failing
	to
meet
	and
	negotiate
	upon
	request
	of
	the
	Council
	on
matters
within
	the
	scope
	of
	representation, 	in
	order
	to
	comply
with
	section
	3543.S(c).
	The
	District
	also 	violated
sections
	3543.S(a)
	and 	(b) 	by
	unilaterally
	withholding
supervisory 	stipends
	and
	related
	fringe 	benefits
	and 	by
refusing 	to 	grant 	regular
	step,
	career
	and
	professional
growth
	salary
	increments.
	It
	is,
	therefore, 	appropriate
to
	order 	the
	District
	to 	restore
	supervisory 	stipends
	and
related 	fringe 	benefits
	and
	restore
	the 	regular
	step,
career
	and
	professional
	growth
	increments 	of 	supervisory
employees
	retroactive
	to 	July 	1,
	1978.
	Interest 	at
	the
	rate
of
	7
	percent
	on
	the
	back 	pay
	owed
	to 	the
	employees
	is 	further
appropriate.
	San
	Francisco
	Community
	College
	District,
	supra;
Santa
	Monica,
	supra.
	It
	is 	also 	appropriate 	to 	order 	the
District
	to 	cease
	and
	desist
	from
	further 	violations 	of 	the
rights 	of 	affected
	employees 	and
	their 	exclusive 	representa-
tive.	
(San
	Francisco
	Community
	College
	District,
	supra;
San Mateo 	County 	Community 	College 	District, 	supra;
14

Cal. Civ. Code sec. 3287; Cal. Const. art. XXII, sec. 22. See
also Sanders v. City of Los Angeles (1970) 3 Cal. 3d 252, 261-263.)
In this instance, it is also appropriate that a Notice
be posted in the locations designated in the order. Such posting
will effectuate the purposes and policies of the EERA by
informing negotiating unit members of the results of the
Council's charge and the District's conduct and will announce
the District's readiness to comply with the ordered remedy.
See CSEA Chapter 658 v. Placerville Union High School District
(9/11/78) PERB Decision No. 69 [2 PERC 2185]. (Pennsylvania
Greyhound Lines, Inc. (1935) 1 NLRB 1 [1 LRRM 303] enfd. (1938)
303 U.S. 261 [2 LRRM 600]; NLRB v. Express Publishing Co.
(1941) 312 U. S. 426 [8 LRRM 415] .)
ORDER
Upon the foregoing facts, conclusions of law and
the entire record in this case, it is hereby ORDERED that
the San Francisco Community College District and its
representatives shall cease and desist from:
(1) Failing or refusing to meet and negotiate in
good faith with the exclusive representative by taking
unilateral action on matters within the scope of representation,
as defined by section 3543.2.
(2) Denying the exclusive representative its right
to represent unit members by failing or refusing to meet and
negotiate about matters within the scope of representation.
15
Cal. 	Civ. 	Code 	sec. 	3287; 	Ca,l, 	Const, 	art. 	XXlI, 	sec. 	22. 	See
also 	Sanders 	v. 	City 	of Los 	Angeles 	(1970) 	3 	Cal.3d 	252, 	261-263.)
In 	this 	instance, 	it 	is 	also 	appropriate 	that 	a 	Notice
be 	posted 	in 	the 	locations 	designated 	in 	the 	order. 	Such posting
will 	effectuate 	the 	purposes 	and 	policies 	of 	the 	EERA by
informing 	negotiating 	unit 	members 	of 	the 	results 	of 	the
Council's 	charge 	and 	the 	District's 	conduct 	and will 	announce
the 	District's 	readiness 	to 	comply with 	the 	ordered 	remedy.
See 	CSEA 	Chapter 	658 	v. 	Placerville 	Union High 	School 	District
(9/11/78) 	PERE 	Decision 	No. 	69 	[2 	PERC 	2185). 	(Pennsylvania
Greyhound 	Lines, 	Inc. 	(1935) 	1 	NLRB 	1 	[l 	LRRM 	303) 	enfd. 	(1938)
303 	U.S. 	261 	[2 	LRRM 	600); 	NLRB 	v. 	Express 	Publishing 	Co.
(1941) 	312 	U.S. 	426 	[8 	LRRM 415] .)
ORDER
Upon 	the 	foregoing 	facts, 	conclusions 	of 	law 	and
the 	entire 	record 	in 	this 	case, 	it 	is 	hereby 	ORDERED 	that
the 	San 	Francisco 	Community 	College 	District 	and 	its
representatives 	shall 	cease 	and 	desist 	from:
(1) 	Failing 	or 	refusing 	to 	meet 	and negotiate 	in
good 	faith with 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	by 	taking
unilateral 	action 	on matters 	within 	the 	scope 	of 	representation,
as 	defined by 	section 	3543.2.
(2) 	Denying 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	its 	right
to 	represent 	unit 	members 	by 	failing 	or 	refusing 	to 	meet 	and
negotiate 	about 	matters 	within 	the 	scope 	of 	representation.
15

(3) Interfering with employees because of the
exercise of their right to select an exclusive representative
to meet and negotiate with the employer on their behalf by
unilaterally changing matters within the scope of representation
without meeting and negotiating with the exclusive representa-
tive.
It is hereby ORDERED that the San Francisco
Community College District and its representatives shall take
the following affirmative actions which are necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Educational Employment Relations
Act :
(1) Reinstate, retroactive to July 1, 1978, super-
visory stipends and related fringe benefits, yearly increments,
career increments, and professional growth increments for
members of the supervisory certificated employees unit, with
interest at the rate of 7 percent.
(2) Within five days of the date this Proposed
Decision becomes final, post at all school sites and all other
work locations where notices to supervisory employees
customarily are placed, copies of the Notice attached as an
appendix hereto. Such posting shall be maintained for a
period of 45 consecutive calendar days. Reasonable steps
shall be taken to insure that these notices are not altered,
defaced or covered by any other material.
16
(3) 	Interfering with 	employees 	because 	of 	the
exercise 	of 	their 	right 	to 	select 	an 	exclusive 	representative
to 	meet 	and 	negotiate with 	the 	employer 	on 	their 	behalf by
unilaterally 	changing matters 	within 	the 	scope 	of 	representation
without 	meeting 	and 	negotiating 	with 	the 	exclusive 	representa-
tive.
It 	is 	hereby 	ORDERED 	that 	the 	San Francisco
Community 	College 	District 	and 	its 	representatives 	shall 	take
the 	following 	affirmative 	actions 	which 	are 	necessary 	to
effectuate 	the 	policies 	of 	the 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations
Act:
(1) 	Reinstate, 	retroactive 	to 	July 	1, 	1978, 	super-
visory 	stipends 	and 	related 	fringe 	benefits, 	yearly 	increments,
career 	increments, 	and 	professional 	growth 	increments 	for
members 	of 	the 	supervisory 	certificated 	employees 	unit, 	with
interest 	at 	the 	rate 	of 	7 	percent.
(2) 	Within 	five 	days 	of 	the 	date 	this 	Pronosed
Decision becomes 	final, 	post 	at 	all 	school 	sites 	and 	all 	other
work 	locations 	where 	notices 	to 	supervisory 	employees
customarily 	are 	placed, 	copies 	of 	the 	Notice 	attached 	as 	an
appendix 	hereto. 	Such posting 	shall 	be maintained 	for 	a
period 	of 	45 	consecutive 	calendar 	days. 	Reasonable 	steps
shall 	be 	taken 	to 	insure 	that 	these 	notices 	are 	not 	altered,
defaced 	or 	covered by 	any 	other material.
16

(3) Notify the San Francisco Regional Director
of the Public Employment Relations Board, in writing,
within 50 calendar days from the date that this Proposed
Decision becomes final, of what steps the District has
taken to comply herewith.
Pursuant to California Administrative Code,
title 8, part III, section 32305, this Proposed Decision
and Order shall become final on January 28, 1980 unless a
party files a timely statement of exceptions. See California
Administrative Code, title 8, part III, section 32300. Such
statement of exceptions and supporting brief must be
actually received by the Executive Assistant to the Board
at the Headquarters Office of the Public Employment Relations
Board in Sacramento before the close of business (5:00 p.m.)
on January 28, 1980, in order to be timely filed. See
California Administrative Code, title 8, part III, section
32135. Any statement of exceptions and supporting brief must
be served, concurrent with its filing, upon each party to this
proceeding. Proof of service shall be filed with the Board
itself. See California Administrative Code, title 8, sections
32300 and 32305, as amended.
17
(3) 	Notify 	the 	San 	Francisco 	Regional 	Director
of 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board, 	in writing,
within 	50 	calendar 	days 	from 	the 	date 	that 	this 	Proposed
Decision becomes 	final, 	of what 	steps 	the 	District 	has
taken 	to 	comply 	herewith.
Pursuant 	to 	California Administrative 	Code,
title 	8, 	part 	III, 	section 	32305, 	this 	Proposed 	Decision
and 	Order 	shall 	become 	final 	on January 	28, 	1980 	unless 	a
party 	files 	a 	timely 	statement 	of 	exceptions. 	See 	California
Administrative 	Code, 	title 	8, 	part 	III, 	section 	32300. 	Such
statement 	of 	exceptions 	and 	supporting 	brief must 	be
actually 	received 	by 	the 	Executive Assistant 	to 	the 	Board
at 	the 	Headquarters 	Office 	of 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations
Board 	in Sacramento 	before 	the 	close 	of 	business 	(5:00 	p.m.)
on 	January 	28, 	1980, 	in 	order 	to 	be 	timely 	filed. 	See
California Administrative 	Code, 	title 	8, 	part 	III, 	section
32135. 	Any 	statement 	of 	exceptions 	and 	supporting 	brief must
be 	served, 	concurrent 	with 	its 	filing, 	upon 	each 	party 	to 	this
proceeding. 	Proof 	of 	service 	shall 	be 	filed 	with 	the 	Board
itself. 	See 	California Administrative 	Code, 	title 	8, 	sections
32300 	and 	32305, 	as 	amended.
DATED: January 8. 1980
MICHAEL J. TONSING
Hearing Officer
DATED: 	January 	8, 	1980
17
AEL 	J. 	TO
Offic

APPENDIX
NOTICE TO CERTIFICATED SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the State of California
After a hearing in Unfair Practice Case No. SF-CE-223,
Department Chairperson Council of San Francisco Community
College District v. San Francisco Community College District,
in which both parties had the right to participate, it has
been found that the San Francisco Community College District
violated section 3543.5(c) of the Educational Employment
Relations Act (EERA) by refusing or failing to meet and
negotiate in good faith with the Department Chairperson
Council (DCC) of the San Francisco Community College District
by taking unilateral action with respect to negotiable matters
during the period following the passage of Proposition 13.
It has also been found that this same conduct violated
section 3543.5(b) of the EERA since it interfered with the
right of the DCC to represent its members.
It has also been found that this same conduct
interfered with negotiating unit members' right to be
represented by their exclusive representative, thus
constituting a violation of section 3543.5 (a) of the EERA.
As a result of this conduct, we have been ordered to
post this Notice, and we will abide by the following:
18
APPENDIX
NOTICE
	TO
	CERTIFICATED
	SUPERVISORY
	EMPLOYEES
POSTED
	BY
	ORDER
	OF
	THE
PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
An
	Agency
	of
	the
	State
	of
	California
After
	a
	hearing
	in
	Unfair
	Practice
	Case
	No.
	SF-CE-223,
Department
	Chairpers~n 	Council
	of
	San
	Francisco
	Community
College
	District
	v.
	San
	Francisco
	Community
	College
	District,
in
	which
	both
	parties
	had
	the
	right
	to
	participate,
	it
	has
been 	found
	that
	the
	San
	Francisco
	Community
	College
	District
violated 	section
	3543.S(c)
	of 	the
	Educational
	Employment
Relations
	Act
	(EERA)
	by
	refusing 	or
	failing
	to
	meet 	and
negotiate 	in
	good
	faith
	with 	the
	Department
	Chairperson
Council
	(DCC)
	of 	the
	San
	Francisco
	Community
	College
	District
by
	taking
	unilateral
	action
	with
	respect 	to 	negotiable matters
during 	the 	period 	following 	the 	passage
	of 	Proposition
	13.
It
	has
	also
	been 	found
	that 	this
	same
	conduct
	violated
section
	3543.S(b)
	of 	the
	EERA
	since
	it
	interfered
	with 	the
right
	of 	the
	DCC
	to 	represent
	its
	members.
It
	has
	also
	been 	found
	that 	this
	same
	conduct
interfered
	with
	negotiating 	unit
	members'
	right 	to
	be
represented
	by
	their
	exclusive 	representative, 	thus
constituting
	a
	violation 	of 	section
	3543.S(a) 	of 	the
	EERA.
As 	a
	result
	of 	this
	conduct,
	we
	have 	been 	ordered
	to
post 	this 	Notice,
	and 	we
	will 	abide 	by
	the 	following:
18

CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
(1) Failing or refusing to meet and negotiate
in good faith with the exclusive representative by taking
unilateral action on matters within the scope of representation,
as defined by section 3543.2.
(2) Denying the exclusive representative its right
to represent unit members by failing or refusing to meet and
negotiate about matters within the scope of representation.
(3) Interfering with employees because of the
exercise of their right to select an exclusive representative
to meet and negotiate with the employer on their behalf by
unilaterally changing matters within the scope of representation
without meeting and negotiating with the exclusive representa-
tive.
TAKE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION TO:
Reinstate, retroactive to July 1, 1978, supervisory
stipends and related fringe benefits, yearly increments,
career increments, and professional growth increments for
members of the supervisory certificated employees unit, with
interest at the rate of 7 percent.
DATED :
SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
By :
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE. IT MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 45
CONSECUTIVE CALENDAR DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST
NOT BE DEFACED, ALTERED OR COVERED BY ANY MATERIAL.
19
CEASE AND 	DESIST 	FROM:
(1) 	Failing 	or 	refusing 	to 	meet 	and negotiate
in 	good 	faith with 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	by 	taking
unilateral 	action 	on matters 	within 	the 	scope 	of 	representation,
as 	defined 	by 	section 	3543.2.
(2) 	Denying 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	its 	right
to 	represent 	unit 	members 	by 	failing 	or 	refusing 	to 	meet 	and
negotiate 	about matters 	within 	the 	scope 	of 	representation.
(3) 	Interfering with 	employees 	because 	of 	the
exercise 	of 	their 	right 	to 	select 	an 	exclusive 	representative
to 	meet 	and 	negotiate with 	the 	employer 	on 	their 	behalf by
unilaterally 	changing matters 	within 	the 	scope 	of 	representation
without 	meeting 	and 	negotiating 	with 	the 	exclusive 	representa-
tive.
TAKE 	AFFIRMATIVE 	ACTION TO:
Reinstate, 	retroactive 	to 	July 	1, 	1978, 	supervisory
stipends 	and 	related 	fringe 	benefits, 	yearly 	increments,
career 	increments, 	and 	professional 	growth 	increments 	for
members 	of 	the 	supervisory 	certificated 	employees 	unit, 	with
interest 	at 	the 	rate 	of 	7 	percent.
DATED:
SAN 	FRANCISCO 	COMMUNITY COLLEGE 	DISTRICT
By: CHANCELLOR
-=cHA~N=c=E=L-=-L"""'O"=R____________
THIS 	IS 	AN 	OFFICIAL NOTICE. 	IT MUST 	REMAIN 	POSTED 	FOR 45
CONSECUTIVE 	CALENDAR DAYS 	FROM THE 	DATE 	OF 	POSTING AND MUST
NOT 	BE 	DEFACED, 	ALTERED 	OR COVERED BY ANY MATERIAL.
19