Inglewood Unified School District (PERB 0162E)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
INGLEWOOD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Employer , 	Case Nos. LA-R-98
LA-D-70
FEDERATION OF TEACHERS ,
OCAL 2024 AFL-CIO,
May 12, 1981
Employee Organization,
(Petitioner )
and
INGLEWOOD TEACHERS ASSOCIATION,
CTA/NEA, (Incumbent)
Employer Organization.
Appearances: Bernard Garen, Associate Superintendent for the
Inglewood Unified School District; William L. Parker, Attorney
for the Inglewood Federation of Teachers AFT Local 2024,
Before: Gluck, Chairperson; Jaeger and Tovar, Members.
DECISION
This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
on exceptions to the attached hearing officer's proposed
decision filed by the Inglewood Teachers Association and the
Inglewood Unified School District. The hearing officer
determined that the decertification petition filed by the
Inglewood Federation of Teachers, AFT Local 2024, AFL-CIO was
timely filed and that notice of the same was properly served
pursuant to the EERA and applicable PERB rules.
and
INGLEWOOD
AFT
STATE
	OF
	CALIFORNIA
DECISION
	OF
	THE
PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
)
)
)
INGLEWOOD
	UNIFIED
	SCHOOL
	DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
INGLEWOOD FEDERATION
	OF
	TEACHERS,
AFT L
LOCAL
	2024
	AFL-CIO,
Employee
	Organization,
(Petitioner)
and
INGLEWOOD
	TEACHERS
	ASSOCIATION,
CTA/NEA,	
(Incumbent)
Employer
	Organization.
Case
	Nos.	
LA-R-98LA-D-70
PERB Decision No. 162 62
May
	12, 	1981
)
)
)	
PERB	
Decision
	No.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1
AFL-CIO;
Appearances: 	Bernard Garen,
	Associate 	Superintendent 	for 	the
Inglewood
	Unified
	School
	District;
	William
	L.
	Parker, 	Attorney
for 	the
	Inglewood
	Federation 	of 	Teachers
	AFT
	Local
	2024,
AFL-CIO; Robert M. Dohrmann, Attorney for the Inglewood
Teachers Association CTA/NEA.	
Teachers
	Association
	C
Before:
	Gluck,
	Chairperson; 	Jaeger
	and
	Tovar,
	Members.
DECISION
This 	case
	is
	before 	the 	Public
	Employment
	Relations
	Board
on
	exceptions 	to 	the 	attached 	hearing
	officer's
	proposed
decision 	filed
	by
	the
	Inglewood 	Teachers 	Association
	and
	the
Inglewood 	Unified 	School
	District.
	The
	hearing
	officer
determined
	that 	the 	decertification 	petition 	filed
	by
	the
Inglewood 	Federation 	of 	Teachers,
	AFT
	Local 	2024, 	AFL-CIO 	was
timely 	filed
	and
	that 	notice 	of 	the
	same 	was
	properly 	served
pursuant 	to 	the
	EERA 	and 	applicable
	PERB
	rules.
Robert
	M.
	Dohrmann,
	Attorney 	for 	the
	Inglewood
TA/NEA.

The Board has considered the record as a whole and the
proposed decision in light of the exceptions filed and hereby
adopts the hearing officer's findings of fact and conclusions
of law.
ORDER
The Los Angeles Regional Director is hereby ORDERED to
proceed with the decertification election pursuant to PERB
Rules.
PER CURIAM
2
The 	Board 	has 	considered 	the 	record 	as 	a 	whole 	and 	the
proposed 	decision 	in 	light 	of 	the 	exceptions 	filed 	and 	hereby
adopts 	the 	hearing 	officer's 	findings 	of 	fact 	and 	conclusions
of 	law.
ORDER
The 	Los 	Angeles 	Regional 	Director 	is 	hereby ORDERED 	to
proceed 	with 	the 	decertification 	election 	pursuant 	to 	PERB
Rules.
PER CURIAM
2

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Representation
INGLEWOOD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Employer , 	A-R-98,
and
Appearances: 	Bernard Garen, Assistant Superintendent for the
Inglewood Unified School District; William L. Parker, Attorney
for the Inglewood Federation of Teachers AFT Local 2024,
Before: Dee Crippen, Hearing Officer.
INTRODUCTION
The Inglewood Unified School District (hereafter District)
has a student enrollment of approximately 15,789 at 14
STATE
	OF
	CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
INGLEWOOD 
)
INGLEWOOD
	UNIFIED
	SCHOOL
	DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
INGLEWOOD FEDERATION OF TEACHERS
AFT LOCAL 2024 AFL-CIO,
Employee Organization,
and
INGLEWOOD TEACHERS ASSOCIATION/
CTA/NEA,
Employee Organization.
Representation
Case Nos. L
LA-R-98,
LA-D-70
ORDER GRANTING
PETITION FOR
DECERTIFICATION
(1/19/81)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
}
)
)
)
___________________ )
ORDER
	GRANTING
PETITION
	F
DECERTIFICATION
(1/19/81)
Appearances: 	Bernard 	Garen,
	Assistant
	Superintendent 	for
	the
Inglewood
	Unified
	School
	District;
	William
	L.
	Parker, 	Attorney
for 	the
	Inglewood
	Federation 	of
	Teachers 	Local 	2024,
AFL-CIO; Robert M. Dohrmann, Attorney for the Inglewood
Teachers Association CTA/NEA.
AFT
M.
	AFL-CIO;
	Robert
	Dohrmann,
	Attorney
	I
Teachers
	Association
	CTA/
Before:	
Dee	
Crippen, 	Hearing
	Officer.
INTRODUCTION
The
	Inglewood	
Unified 	School	
District	
(hereafter	
District)
has	
a
	student 	enrollment 	of
	approximately 	15,789
	at
	14
for 	the
	nglewood
NEA.
Case 	Nos.
LA-D-70
OR
FEDERATION
	OF
	TEACHERS
AFT
	LOCAL
	2024
	AFL-CIO,
Employee
	Organization,
and
INGLEWOOD
	TEACHERS
	ASSOCIATION/
CTA/NEA,
Employee
	Organization.

elementary schools, 1 junior high school and 5 high schools in
the County of Los Angeles. I
On June 30, 1980 the Inglewood Federation of Teachers AFT
Local 2024 AFL-CIO (hereafter Federation) pursuant to section
3544.5 (d) of the Educational Employment Relations Act
(hereafter EERA) filed a decertification petition for the
regular contract certificated unit of the Inglewood Unified
School District with the Public Employment Relations Board
(hereafter PERB) . It is the Federation's contention that the
decertification petition is timely filed as the wording of the
collective bargaining agreement entered into on
September 5, 1978 between the District and the Inglewood
Teachers Association/CTA/NEA (hereafter Association) Article
" 	c School Directory" (1980) State
Department of Education, at pp
2
2
All
elementary
	schools,
	1
	junior
	high
	school
	and 	5
	high
	schools
	in
the
	County
	of
	Los
	Angeles.l
On
	June 	30,
	1980
	the
	Inglewood
	Federation
	of 	Teachers
	AFT
Local
	2024 	AFL-CIO
	(hereafter
	Federation) 	pursuant 	to
	section
3544.S{d)
	of 	the 	Educational
	Employment
	Relations
	Act
(hereafter
	EERA)
2	
filed
	a
	decertification 	petition
	for 	the
regular 	contract
	certificated
	unit 3 	of 	the
	Inglewood
	Unified
School
	District
	with
	the 	Public
	Employment
	Relations
	Board
(hereafter
	PERB).
	It
	is
	the
	Federation's
	contention
	that
	the
decertification 	petition 	is
	timely
	filed
	as 	the
	wording
	of 	the
collective
	bargaining
	agreement
	entered
	into
	on
September
	5,
	1978
	between
	the
	District
	and
	the
	Inglewood
Teachers
	Association/CTA/NEA
	(hereafter
	Association)
	Article
The
lCalifornia Publi	
«california
	Public
	School
	Directory"
	(1980)
	State
Department
	of 	Education, 	. 199-200.	
at
	pp. 	199-200.
2The EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et.
seq. All statutory references are to the Government Code
unless otherwise noted.
3The
	unit
	is
	presently
	composed	
of	
the 	following
classifications :
ions:
T e unit is presently composed of the following
All regular contract certificated personnel, specifically
including the following designations and groupings of jobs
and positions: All contract classroom teachers K through
12 (including long-term temporary employees) , Children's
Center Teachers, Coordinators (State and/or Federal
Projects) , Specialists (State and/or Federal Projects) ,
School Nurses, Home Teachers, Elementary P.E. Teachers,
Teachers (EH, LDG and EMR) , Department Chairmen,
Librarians, Reading Resource Teachers, Athletic Directors,
Specialists (Language, Speech and Hearing) , and Music
Teachers.
EERA
h
classificat
2
regular 	contract 	certificated
	personnel,
	specifically
including 	the 	following 	designations
	and
	groupings 	of 	jobs
and
	positions: 	All 	contract
	classroom 	teachers
	K
through
12
	(including 	long-term 	temporary 	employees),
	Children'sCenter 	Teachers, 	Coordinators 	(State 	and/or 	Federal
Projects), 	Specialists 	(State 	and/or 	Federal
	Projects),
School 	Nurses,
	Home
	Teachers, 	Elementary 	P.E. 	Teachers,Teachers
	(EH,
	LDG
	and 	EMR), 	Department 	Chairmen,
Librarians,
	Reading 	Resource 	Teachers, 	Athletic 	Directors,
Specialists
	(Language, 	Speech 	and
	Hearing),
	and 	Music
Teachers.
is
	codified
	at
	Government 	Code
	section
	3540
	et.
seq. 	All
	statutory
	references 	are 	to 	the
	Government 	Code
unless 	otherwise 	noted.

20: Term4 states, in part, that the Agreement "shall re
in full force and effect up to June 30, 1980"... . [Emphasis
The Federation alleges that a successor agreement had not
been entered into by the Association and the District at the
time of filing of the decertification petition and that the
agreement entered into on September 5, 1978 had expired at
midnight on June 29, 1980.
The Association and the District deny the allegations of
the Federation and assert that the agreement ended on June 30,
1980, that the successor agreement was ratified by both parties
on June 30, 1980, and that no gap existed in the two
agreements, thereby creating a bar to the filing of the
The Regional Director ordered that a hearing be held to
obtain the relevant facts of this case.
This agreement shall remain in full force
and effect up to June 30, 1980 and
thereafter shall continue in effect
year-by-year unless one of the parties
notifies the other in writing no later than
March 1 modify, amend, or terminate the
Agreement. For the 1979-80 school year, the
W
20:
	Term4	
states,
	in
	part,
	that
	the
	Agreementmain	
"shall
	remain
in
	full
	force
	and
	effect
	up
	to
	June
	30,
	1980
11
••••
[Emphasis
added. ]	
added.]
The
	Federation
	alleges
	that
	a
	successor
	agreement
	had
	not
been
	entered
	into
	by
	the 	Association
	and
	the
	District 	at
	the
time
	of
	filing
	of 	the
	decertification 	petition
	and
	that
	the
agreement
	entered
	into	
on September
	5,
	1978 	had
	expired
	at
midnight
	on
	June
	29,
	1980.
The
	Association
	and
	the
	District
	deny
	the
	allegations
	of
the 	Federation
	and
	assert 	that
	the
	agreement
	ended 	on
	June
	30,
1980,
	that
	the 	successor
	agreement
	was
	ratified	
by 	both
	parties
on
	June
	30, 	1980,
	and
	that
	no
	gap
	existed
	in
	the
	two
agreements, 	thereby
	creating
	a
	bar
	to 	the
	filing
	of 	the
decertification petition by the Federation.
Federation.	
decertification 	petition	
by	
the
The
	Regional
	Director 	ordered
	that
	a
	hearing
	be
	held
	to
obtain 	the 	relevant 	facts
	of
	this
	case.
4
Joint	Joint Exhibit #1- Collective Bargaining Agreement
covering September 5, 1978 to June 30, 1980:
ARTICLE 20: TERM
4 	Exhibit 	Collectivecovering
	September	
5, 	to
	Ju
ARTICLE
	20:
	TERM
This 	agreement	
shall	
remain 	in
	full	
force
and	
effect
	up	
to
	June 	30,
	1980 	and
thereafter 	shall
	continue 	in
	effect
year-by-year 	unless
	one
	of	
the	
parties
notifies	
the	
other	
in	
writing
	no
	later
	than
March 5, of the applicable year of its
request to 	modify, 	or 	terminate 	theAgreement. 	For 	the 	1979-80 	school 	year, 	the
applicable	15, amend,
3
of
	the 	year
	of	
its
request 	to
#1- 	Bargaining
	Agreement
1978
	ne 	30, 	1980:

After an informal conference, at which no resolution was
reached, a formal hearing was held on October 29, 1980 with
simultaneous briefs due on November 30, 1980. A brief was
received from the Federation on November 25, 1980. The
District and the Association did not file briefs.
A motion to dismiss had been filed by the Association prior
to the hearing on the grounds that the petition was not timely
filed and that the Association and the District were not
properly served with a copy of the petition. At the hearing,
the Association further alleged a motion to dismiss on the
basis that the petition had been filed for an "inappropriate
unit". The hearing officer ruled to take all motions to
dismiss under submission for the purpose of ruling on these
motions in this proposed decision.
1. Was the unit filed for in the decertification petition an
"inappropriate unit"?
2. Did the Federation properly serve the decertification
petition on the District and the Association pursuant to PERB
rule 33240 (c) ?
District and Association agree to
renegotiate two Articles in the Agreement
selected by the Assoc
Ist of the preceding scho
District	
and	
Association 	agree 	to
renegotiate
	two
	Articles 	in 	the 	Agreement
selected
	by
	the 	Association,	iation, and two 	and 	two
Articles selected by the District. Such	by
	the
	Such
negotiations shall not commence before April	
negotiations 	shall
	not
	commence
	before 	April
1st of 	the 	preceding ol year.	
school 	year.
After
	an
	informal
	conference,
	at
	which
	no
	resolution
	was
reached,
	a
	formal
	hearing
	was
	held
	on
	October 	29,
	1980
	with
simultaneous
	briefs
	due 	on
	November
	30, 	1980.
	A
brief
	was
received
	from
	the
	Federation
	on November
	25,
	1980.
	The
District
	and
	the 	Association
	did 	not
	file
	briefs.
A
motion
	to 	dismiss
	had 	been
	filed
	by
	the 	Association
	prior
to 	the 	hearing
	on
	the
	grounds
	that
	the
	petition
	was
	not
	timely
filed
	and
	that
	the
	Association
	and
	the
	District
	were
	not
properly
	served 	with
	a
	copy
	of 	the
	petition.
	At
	the
	hearing,
the 	Association
	further 	alleged
	a
	motion
	to
	dismiss
	on
	the
basis
	that
	the
	petition
	had
	been
	filed
	for
	an
	"inappropriate
unit".
	The
	hearing
	officer
	ruled
	to
	take
	all
	motions
	to
dismiss
	under
	submission
	for 	the
	purpose
	of 	ruling
	on
	these
motions 	in
	this
	proposed
	decision.
ISSUES	ISSUES
1.
	Was
	the
	unit 	filed	
for 	in 	the
	decertification 	petition
	an
"inappropriate 	unit"?
2.
	Did
	the 	Federation 	properly 	serve 	the
	decertification
petition
	on
	the
	District
	and
	the 	Association 	pursuant 	to
	PERB
rule 	33240(c)?
Articles 	selected 	District.
4

3. On the date the Federation filed its decertification
petition did a written agreement exist between the District and
the Association which would thereby constitute a bar pursuant
to section 3544.7 (b) (1)?
FINDINGS OF FACT
On June 4, 1976 voluntary recognition was granted to the
Association for a unit of all regular contract certificated
employees by the Inglewood Unified School District. Subsequent
to recognition, the parties had negotiated a one-year agreement
covering the 1976-77 school year, a one-year agreement covering
the 1977-78 school year and a two-year agreement commencing on
September 5, 1978 to June 30, 1980.
The D 	he Association had been meeting on a
successor agreement since approximately August 9, 1979. on
October 1, 1979 the Association sent a letter to the PERB
pursuant to section 3548 stating that an impasse existed and
requesting that a mediator be appointed. The District
concurred with this request and on October 2, 1979 the PERB
determined that impasse existed and appointed a mediator to
assist in the resol 	ispute.
On November 23, 1979 the mediator sent a letter to the PERB
which stated that the position of the parties lends itself to
section 35 	f the EERA and invoked the factfinding
process. Both parties concurred in this request for
5
3.
	On
	the
	date 	the 	Federation
	filed
	its
	decertification
petition
	did
	a
	written
	agreement
	exist
	between
	the
	District
	and
the 	Association
	which
	would
	thereby
	constitute
	a
	bar
	pursuant
to
	section
	3544.
7 (b)
(1)?
FINDINGS
	OF
	FACT
On
	June
	4,
	1976
	voluntary 	recognition
	was
	granted
	to
	the
Association 	for
	a
	unit
	of
	all
	regular
	contract
	certificated
employees
	by
	the
	Inglewood
	Unified
	School
	District.
	Subsequent
to
	recognition,
	the
	parties
	had
	negotiated
	a
	one-year
	agreement
covering 	the
	1976-77
	school
	year,
	a
	one-year
	agreement
	covering
the
	1977-78
	school 	year
	and
	a
	two-year 	agreement
	commencing
	on
September
	5,
	1978
	to
	June 	30, 	1980.
The 	istrict and tand
	the 	Association
	had
	been
	meeting	
on	
a
successor
	agreement
	since
	approximately
	August
	9,
	1979.
	On
October
	1,
	1979
	the 	Association 	sent
	a
	letter
	to 	the
	PERB
pursuant 	to 	section
	3548
	stating 	that
	an 	impasse
	existed
	and
requesting
	that
	a
	mediator
	be
	appointed.
	The
	District
concurred 	with
	this
	request
	and 	on
	October
	2,
	1979
	the
	PERB
determined
	that
	impasse
	existed
	and
	appointed
	a
	mediator
	to
assist	
in 	the ution of the d
of 	the
	dispute.
District
resolution
On
	November
	23,	
1979 	the 	mediator
	sent
	a
	letter
	to 	the
	PERB
which
	stated 	that
	the 	position 	of 	the
	parties
	lends
	itself
	to
section 	48.1 o	
of
	the	
EERA
	and 	invoked 	the	
factfinding
process.
	Both
	parties 	concurred 	in 	this
	request 	for
3548.1
5

factfinding in a letter received by the PERB on December 14,
A factfinder was selected by the parties and appointed on
January 17, 1980 by the PERB. 	The factfinding report was
issued to the parties on May 6, 1980.
meet and reached agreement on a successor agreement in early
June that was to be ratified on the evening of June 30, 1980 by
the Association and the District.
Prior to the ratification of the successor agreement by
both parties a decertification petition was filed with the PERB
by the Federation. The petition was received by the PERB on
June 30, 1980 at 3:16 p.m. and stated that the current
agreement became effective on September 5, 1978 and would
expire on June 30, 1980. The petition was accompanied by
showing of support of at least 30 percent of the employees in
the established unit and a proof of service, pursuant to PERB
rule 3 	, that it was served on the Association as the
exclusive representative and the District.
5PERB rules are codified at Californ 	tive
6
factfinding
	in
	a
	letter
	received
	by
	the
	PERB
	on
	December
	14,
1980.
.	1980
A
factfinder
	was
	selected
	by
	the
	parties
	and
	appointed
	on
January 	17,
	1980
	by
	the
	PERB. 	The
	factfinding 	report
	was
issued
	to
	the
	parties
	on
	May The parties continued to	
6,
	1980.
	The
	parties
	continued
	to
meet
	and
	reached 	agreement
	on
	a
	successor
	agreement
	in
	early
June
	that
	was
	to
	be
	ratified
	on
	the
	evening
	of
	June
	30,
	1980
	by
the 	Association
	and
	the
	District.
Prior 	to
	the
	ratification
	of 	the 	successor
	agreement
	by
both
	parties
	a
	decertification 	petition
	was
	filed
	with
	the
	PERB
by
	the 	Federation.
	The
	petition
	was
	received
	by
	the
	PERB
	on
June
	30,
	1980
	at
	3:16
	p.m.
	and
	stated 	that
	the
	current
agreement
	became
	effective
	on
	September
	5,
	1978 	and 	would
expire
	on
	June 	30, 	1980.
	The
	petition
	was
	accompanied
	by
showing
	of 	support 	of
	at 	least
	30
	percent 	of 	the
	employees
	in
the
	established 	unit
	and 	a
	proof 	of
	service,
	pursuant 	to
	PERB
rule 21403	32140 5 ,
	that
	it
	was
	served
	on
	the 	Association
	as 	the
exclusive 	representative
	and
	the
	District.
5PERB	
rules 	are 	codified 	at 	California	ia Administra
Administrative
Code,	Code, title 8, section 31000.	
title
	8, 	section
	31000. 	Section 32140 provides as	
Section
	32140	
provides 	as
follows :	
follows:
(a)	(a) 	All documents referred to in these	
All
	documents
	referred 	to	
in	
these
regulations requiring "service" or required	
regulations 	requiring 	"service" 	or 	required
to be accompanied by "proof of service,"	
to	
be 	accompanied 	by	
"proof 	of 	se:rvice,
11
except subpoenas, shall be considered	
except 	subpoenas,
	shall
	be	
considered
"served" by the Board or a party when
11
served
11	
by
	the
	Board	
or
	a
	party
	when
personally delivered or deposited in the	
personally 	delivered 	or 	deposited 	in 	the
first-class mail properly addressed. All	
first-class	
mail 	properly 	addressed. 	All
6

On July 1, 1980 a letter acknowledging receipt by the PERB
of the decertification petition filed by the Federation was
sent to the Association and the District. Both parties were
requested to confirm or refute facts contained in the petition,
including the term of the agreement, within five (5) days in a
written statement to all parties with a proof of service to the
PERB. The employer was further advised to post the petition
and submit a list of names of the employees in the established
documents required to be served shall include a "proof of
service" affidavit or declaration signed under penalty of
perjury which meets the requirements of section 1013 (a) of the
Code of Civil Procedure or which contains the following
information:
I
Names of parties served)
(Type or print name) 	(Signature)
(b
not
d by these regulations,
service shall be on all parties to the proceeding and shall
be concurrent with the filing in question.
documents
	required 	to
	be
	served
	shall
	include
	a
	"proof
	of
service"
	affidavit
	or
	declaration
	signed
	under
	penalty 	of
perjury
	which
	meets
	the 	requirements 	of
	section
	1013(a)
	of 	the
Code
	of 	Civil
	Procedure 	or
	which
	contains 	the 	following
information:
On
	July
	1,
	1980
	a
	letter
	acknowledging
	receipt
	by
	the
	PERB
of
	the
	decertification 	petition 	filed
	by
	the
	Federation
	was
sent
	to 	the 	Association
	and
	the
	District.
	Both
	parties
	were
requested
	to
	confirm or
	refute 	facts
	contained 	in 	the
	petition,
including 	the
	term
	of
	the
	agreement,
	within 	five
	(5)
	days
	in
	a
written
	statement 	to
	all
	parties
	with
	a
	proof 	of
	service 	to
	the
PERB. 	The
	employer
	was
	further
	advised
	to 	post
	the
	petition
and
	submit
	a
	list
	of
	names
	of 	the
	employees
	in 	the
	established
I declare that I am employed in the county
of
	, California. I am over the age of 18 years
and not a party to the within entitled cause; my business
address is
On
	I (personally) served
the 	on the (by placing a true copy thereof
enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully	1n 	a
	sealed
	envelope 	with 	postage 	thereon
	fully
prepaid, in the U.S. Mail at 	addressed)
as follows: Names
	of
	parties
	served)
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing
is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed
on 	at	
,California.
(Type
	or
	print
	name)	
(Signature)
(b) 	That portion of section 1013 of the Code of Civil
Procedure relating to extending time after mailing shall
(c)	
(c) 	Whenever "service" is require	
"service" 	is	
required
	by	
these 	regulations,
service 	shall
	be 	on
	all 	parties 	to 	the 	proceeding
	and
	shall
be	
concurrent 	with 	the
	filing
	in 	question.
That	
section
relatingappl
Whenever
7
declare
	that	
I	
am
	employed
	in 	the
	county
of
------
California.
	I
	am
	over 	the
	age
	of
	18
	years
and
	not
	a
	party 	to 	the 	within
	entitled
	cause;
	my
	businessaddress
	is------,-----~·
On	
(personally) 	served
the
---------
on
	the
	(by
	placing
	a
	true
	copy
	thereof
enclosed
prepaid, 	in 	the 	U.S.
	Mail
	at
__________
addressed)
as 	follows:
I
	declare
	under
	penalty of 	perjury 	that
	the 	foregoing
is
	true
	and
	correct,
	and
	that 	this 	declaration
	was
	executed
on
_______
	at
	_________ California.
)	
portion of	
1013	
of 	the	
Code	
of 	Civil
Procedure
	to 	extending 	time
	after
	mailing
	shall
not apply .
y.

unit to the PERB so that the adequacy of the showing of support
submitted by the Federation could be checked.
A Motion to Dismiss filed by the Association was received
by the PERB on July 7, 1980. The grounds stated for dismissal
alleged that the petition was not timely filed. On July 17,
and the District were not properly served a copy of the
The District submitted a letter to the PERB on July 8, 1980
refuting all facts and stating that concurrent service of the
Federation's petition had not occurred.
Response to the Motion to Dismiss was received from the
Federation on July 11, 1980 by the PERB. 	The Federation urged
the PERB to reject the motion based on the interpretation of
Article 20 of the negotiated agreement, stating that the
agreement expired prior to June 30, 1980.
CONCLUSIONS OF L
Issue No. 1
"inappropriate unit"?6
The unit petitioned for by the Federation reads as
employees, children cen 	hers, coordinators, (State
8
unit
	to
	the
	PERB
	so
	that
	the
	adequacy
	of
	the
	showing
	of
	support
submitted
	by
	the 	Federation
	could
	be
	checked.
A
Motion
	to
	Dismiss
	filed
	by
	the 	Association
	was
	received
by
	the
	PERB
	on
	July
	7,
	1980.
	The
	grounds
	stated
	for
	dismissal
alleged
	that
	the
	petition
	was
	not
	timely
	filed.
	On
	July 	17,
1980	1980 the Association submitted an Amendment to Motion to	
the 	Association
	submitted
	an
	Amendment
	to
	Motion
	to
Dismiss, advancing the additional point that the Association	
Dismiss, 	the
	additional 	point
	that
	the 	Association
and
	the
	District
	were
	not 	properly
	served
	a
	copy
	of 	the
decertification petition filed by the Federation.	by
	e 	Federation.
advancing
decertification 	petition 	filed
	th
The
	District
	submitted
	a
	letter
	to 	the
	PERB
	on
	July
	8,
	1980
refuting
	all
	facts
	and
	stating 	that
	concurrent
	service
	of 	the
Federation's
	petition
	had
	not 	occurred.
Response
	to
	the
	Motion
	to
	Dismiss
	was
	received
	from
	the
Federation
	on
	July
	11,
	1980 	by
	the
	PERB. 	The
	Federation
	urged
the
	PERB
	to
	reject
	the
	motion 	based
	on
	the
	interpretation
	of
Article
	20
	of 	the 	negotiated
	agreement,
	stating 	that
	the
agreement
	expired
	prior
	to
	June
	30, 	1980.
CONCLUSIONS
	OF
	LAW	AW
Issue
	No. 	1
Was the unit filed for in the decertification petition an	
Was
	the
	unit 	filed	
for 	in 	the
	decertification 	petition
	an
"inappropriate	
unit
11
?6
6The	
unit 	petitioned 	for
	by	
the 	Federation 	reads 	as
follows :
:	follows
Contract	Contract teachers K through 12, including temporary	
teachers
	K through	
12, 	including
	temporary
employees, 	children ter teac	
center 	teachers, 	coordinators, 	{State
8

In the course of the hearing the Association asked that the
decertification petition be dismissed on the basis that the
unit filed for by the Federation contained "temporary
employees" who are not a part of the existing unit. Review of
the Recognition agreement granting voluntary recognition
submitted to the PERB by the Association and the District,
dated June 4, 1976 and signed by both parties, shows that the
unit encompasses "all regular contract certificated personnel
(including long-term temporary employees) ".
Review of the Recognition clause of the agreement, Article
1, does not delineate the unit, but directs the reader back to
the Recognition agreement dated June 4, 1976.7
The Association's argument that the decertification
petition was filed for an inappropriate unit is without merit.
The unit description agreed to at the time of recognition shows
and/or Federal Projects, ) Specialist (State and/or Federal
Projects) , school nurses, home teachers, elementary P.E.
teachers, teachers, (EH, LDG, and EMR) , department chairmen,
librarians, reading resource teachers, athletic directors,
specialists (language, speech and hearing) and music teachers
for the purpose of meeting and negotiating as defined in the
California Government Code.
Joint Exhibit #1 	ARTICLE 1: RECOGNITION
1.0 The District recognizes the Association
for the duration of this Agreement as the
exclusive representative for that unit of
employees recognized by the District per the
Recognition Agreement dated June 4, 1976,
and ratified by the Board of Education on
June 14, 1976.
In 	the 	course 	of 	the 	hearing 	the 	Association
	asked
	that
	the
decertification 	petition
	be
	dismissed
	on
	the
	basis
	that
	the
unit
	filed
	for
	by
	the 	Federation 	contained
	"temporary
employees"
	who
	are 	not
	a
	part
	of 	the
	existing 	unit.
	Review
	of
the
	Recognition
	agreement
	granting 	voluntary 	recognition
submitted
	to 	the
	PERB
	by
	the 	Association
	and
	the
	District,
dated
	June 	4,
	1976 	and
	signed
	by
	both
	parties,
	shows
	that
	the
unit
	encompasses
	"all
	regular 	contract
	certificated
	personnel
(including 	long-term
	temporary 	employees)".
Review
	of 	the
	Recognition
	clause 	of 	the
	agreement,
	Article
1,
	does
	not
	delineate
	the
	unit,
	but
	directs
	the 	reader
	back
	to
the 	Recognition
	agreement
	dated
	June	
7	
4,
	1976.
The
	Association's
	argument
	that
	the
	decertification
petition
	was
	filed
	for
	an
	inappropriate 	unit
	is
	without
	merit.
The
	unit 	description
	agreed
	to
	at
	the
	time
	of 	recognition
	shows
and/or 	Federal
	Projects,) 	Specialist
	(State
	and/or
	Federal
Projects),
	school
	nurses,
	home
	teachers,
	elementary
	P.E.
teachers, 	teachers,
	(EH, 	LDG,
	and 	EMR),
	department 	chairmen,
librarians,
	reading 	resource
	teachers,
	athletic 	directors,
specialists
	(language, 	speech
	and
	hearing)
	and 	music
	teachersfor 	the 	purpose
	of
	meeting
	and
	negotiating
	as 	defined 	in 	the
California
	Government 	Code.
7
7Joint 	Exhibit	
#1 	ARTICLE
	1:
	RECOGNITION
1.0	
The	
District
	recognizes 	the 	Associationfor 	the 	duration
	of 	this
	Agreement 	as 	the
exclusive 	representative 	for 	that 	unit 	of
employees 	recognized
	by
	the	
District	
per 	the
Recognition
	Agreement
	dated 	June 	4, 	1976,
and	
ratified	
by
	the
	Board
	of
	Education 	on
June 	14, 	1976.
9

"long-term temporary employees, " and no change has been noted
in the agreement submitted.
No further definition is given throughout the negotiated
agreements defining a "long-term temporary employee". 	The
Association erred in its argument that temporary employees were
not included in the existing recognized unit description. It
is determined that the omission of the words "long-term" from
an otherwise accurate unit description was due to inadvertente
on the part of the Federation, and is not a sufficient basis to
dismiss the petition. The motion to dismiss the petition on
the basis of filing for "inappropriate unit" is denied.
Issue No. 2
Did the Federation properly serve the decertification
petition on the District and the Association?
The decertification petition filed with the PERB by the
Federation on June 30, 1980 at 3:16 p.m. was accompanied by a
proof of service pursuant to PERB rule 32140.
Despite the Federation's compliance with PERB rule 32140,
the Association and the District argue that the decertification
petition should be dismissed by reliance on the NLRB's
precedent in handling representation cases where a contract
will bar an election if it is effective immediately or
retroactively and the employer has not been informed at the
10
"long-term
	temporary 	employees,"
	and
	no
	change
	has
	been
	noted
in 	the
	agreement
	submitted.
No
	further
	definition 	is
	given 	throughout
	the
	negotiated
agreements
	defining
	a
	"long-term
	temporary 	employee".
	The
Association 	erred 	in
	its
	argument
	that
	temporary
	employees 	were
not 	included
	in
	the
	existing
	recognized
	unit 	description.
	It
is
	determined
	that
	the 	omission 	of 	the
	words
	"long-term"
	from
an
	otherwise 	accurate
	unit 	description
	was
	due
	to
	inadvertence
on
	the
	part
	of 	the
	Federation,
	and
	is
	not
	a
	sufficient
	basis 	to
dismiss 	the
	petition.
	The
	motion
	to
	dismiss 	the
	petition
	on
the
	basis
	of
	filing
	for
	"inappropriate 	unit"
	is
	denied.
Issue
	No. 	2
Did
	the 	Federation 	properly 	serve 	the
	decertification
petition
	on
	the
	District
	and
	the 	Association?
The
	decertification 	petition 	filed
	with 	the
	PERB
	by
	the
Federation
	on
	June 	30,
	1980
	at
	3:16 	p.m.
	was
	accompanied 	by	
a
proof	
of	
service
	pursuant 	to	
PERB
	rule
	32140.
Despite 	the 	Federation's
	compliance 	with
	PERB
	rule
	32140,
the 	Association
	and
	the
	District
	argue
	that
	the
	decertification
petition
	should
	be
	dismissed 	by	
reliance
	on
	the
	NLRB's
precedent 	in 	handling	
representation 	cases	
where 	a
	contract
will	
bar 	an
	election
	if 	it
	is 	effective
	immediately 	or
retroactively
	and
	the
	employer 	has	
not
	been 	informed
	at
	the
10

time of execution that a petition has been filed. 8 The rules
promulgated by the PERB to govern the case handling of
representation petitions places responsibility for service on
the petitioner, not on an agent of the Board. The Federation
has complied with the PERB rule on service. Thus, the motion
to dismiss based on an alleged failure to serve the District
and the Association is denied.
Issue No. 3
At the time the Federation filed its decertification
petition did a written agreement exist between the District
and the Association which would thereby constitute a bar
pursuant to section 3544.7 (b) (1)?
Government Code section 3544.7 (b) (1) defines the bar to the
processing of a decertification petition filed during the term
of a collective bargaining agreement as follows:
(b) No election shall be held and the petition shall
be dismissed whenever:
(1) There is currently in effect a lawful
written agreement negotiated by the public
school employer and another employee
organization covering any employees included
in the unit described in the request for
recognition, unless the request for
recognition is filed less than 120 days, but
more than 90 days, prior to the expiration
date of the agreement. . . [Emphasis added] .
Deluxe Metal Furniture Co. (1958) 121 NLRB 995 [42 LRRM
1470].
11
time
	of 	execution
	that
	a
	petition
	has
	been
	filed.a	
The
	rules
promulgated
	by
	the
	PERB
	to
	govern
	the 	case 	handling
	of
representation
	petitions
	places
	responsibility
	for
	service
	on
the
	petitioner,
	not
	on 	an
	agent 	of 	the
	Board.
	The
	Federation
has
	complied
	with 	the
	PERB
	rule
	on
	service.
	Thus,
	the
	motion
to
	dismiss
	based
	on 	an
	alleged
	failure
	to 	serve 	the
	District
and
	the 	Association
	is
	denied.
Issue
	No. 	3
At
	the
	time
	the 	Federation
	filed
	its
	decertification
petition
	did
	a
	written
	agreement
	exist
	between
	the
	District
and
	the 	Association
	which 	would
	thereby
	constitute
	a
	bar
pursuant
	to 	section
	3544.7(b)
(l)?
Government 	Code
	section
	3544.7(b)
(1)
	defines
	the 	bar
	to
	the
processing 	of
	a
	decertification 	petition 	filed
	during 	the 	term
of	
a
	collective
	bargaining
	agreement
	as 	follows:
(b)
	No
	election 	shall
	be
	held
	and
	the
	petition 	shall
be
	dismissed
	whenever:
(1)
	There
	is 	currently 	in
	effect
	a
	lawful
written
	agreement
	negotiated
	by
	the 	publicschool
	employer 	and
	another
	employee
organization 	covering
	any 	employees
	included
in 	the
	unit 	described 	in 	the 	request 	for
recognition, 	unless 	the 	request 	for
recognition
	is 	filed 	less
	than	
120	
days, 	but
more 	than 	90
	days,
	prior 	to	
the	
expirationdate 	of
	the 	agreement
.•.
[Emphasis	
added].
8
8oeluxe 	Metal
	Furniture
	Co. 	(1958) 	121	
NLRB	
995 	[42
	LRRM
14 70] •
11

The PERB has previously interpreted the legislative intent
of "contract bar" language of section 3544.7 (b) (1) by looking
to the National Labor Relations Act (hereafter NLRA) precedent
for guidance.9
The PERB has determined that section 3544.7 (b) (1) balances
the interests of employees who might be reconsidering their
choice of exclusive representative with the need for stability
in employer-employee relations. 10
In this decision, analogous authority of cases decided by
the NLRB will be considered in determining if a contract bar
does exist which would bar the processing of the
decertification petition filed by the Federation.
In Appalachian Shale Products Co. (1958) 121 NLRB 1160 [42
LRRM 1506], the NLRB defined what a collective bargaining
agreement must contain in order to bar a decertification
The PERB in Los Angeles Unified School District	9
(11/24/76) EERB Decision No. 5 stated:
While we are not bound by NLRB decisions, we
will take cognizance of them, where
appropriate. Where provisions of California
and federal labor legislation are parallel,
the California courts have sanctioned the
use of federal statutes and decisions
arising thereunder, to aid in interpreting
the identical or analogous California
legislation. See also Fire Fighters Union
v. City of Vallejo (1974) 12 Cal. 3d 608, pp.
615-616.
Bassett Unified School District (3/23/79) PERB Order
No. AD-63
12
The
	PERB
	has
	previously
	interpreted
	the
	legislative 	intent
of
	"contract
	bar" 	language
	of
	section
	3544.7(b)
(1) 	by
	looking
to 	the
	National
	Labor
	Relations
	Act
	(hereafter
	NLRA)
	precedent
for
	guidance.9
The
	PERB
	has 	determined
	that
	section
	3544.7(b)
(l}
	balances
the
	interests
	of
	employees
	who
	might
	be
	reconsidering
	their
choice 	of 	exclusive
	representative
	with
	the
	need
	for
	stability
in
	employer-employee
	relations.IO
In
	this
	decision,
	analogous
	authority
	of 	cases
	decided
	by
the
	NLRB
	will
	be
	considered
	in
	determining
	if
	a
	contract
	bar
does
	exist
	which 	would
	bar
	the 	processing 	of 	the
decertification 	petition 	filed	
by	
the 	Federation.
In
	Appalachian
	Shale 	Products
	Co.
	(1958) 	121
	NLRB
	1160 	[42
LRRM
	1506], 	the
	NLRB
	defined
	what
	a
	collective
	bargaining
agreement
	must
	contain 	in 	order 	to
	bar
	a
	decertification
9The
	PERB
	in
	Los
	Angeles
	Unified
	School
	District
(11/24/76}
	EERB
	Decision
	No. 	5
	stated:
While
	we
	are 	not
	bound 	by
	NLRB
	decisions,
	we
will
	take 	cognizance
	of
	them,
	where
appropriate.
	Where
	provisions 	of
	California
and
	federal 	labor
	legislation
	are
	parallel,
the 	California 	courts
	have
	sanctioned 	theuse	
of	
federal 	statutes
	and
	decisions
arising	
thereunder,
	to 	aid 	in 	interpreting
the
	identical
	or 	analogous
	California
legislation.
	See
	also 	Fire 	Fighters	
Union
v. 	City 	of Vallejo
	(1974) 	12
	Cal.3d
	608, 	pp.615-616.
10	
lOBassett 	Unified 	School
	District 	(3/23/79)	
PERB
	OrderNo. 	AD-63
12

petition. The agreement must be written, signed by the
authorized representatives of both parties, have a definite
duration, contain substantial terms and conditions of
employment and cover all employees in the appropriate unit.
All aspects of the negotiated agreement submitted meet the
requirements set forth in Appalachian Shale.
Four agreements were entered into evidence at the hearing.
The District and the Association had negotiated agreements
covering the school years 1976-77, a one-year agreement,
1977-78, also a one-year agreement, 1978-1980, a two-year
agreement and had completed negotiations for a new agreement
covering the period of July 1, 1980 through June 30, 1983.
In order to determine if a contract bar existed to the
filing of the decertification petition by the Federation, the
termination clauses of the agreement must be examined.
The Federation argues that by express language, the
agreement for the term September 5, 1978 to June 30, 1980
terminated on June 29, 1980 at midnight. The expiration date
shows that the agreement goes to June 30, 1980 and, therefore,
its decertification petition must be considered timely filed.
The negotiated agreements covering school years 1976-77,
1977-78 and 1978-1980 all contain identical termination
clauses, except for a reopener provision provided for in the
multi-year contract covering 1978-1980.
13
petition.
	The
	agreement
	must
	be
	written,
	signed
	by
	the
authorized
	representatives
	of
	both
	parties,
	have
	a
	definite
duration,
	contain
	substantial
	terms
	and
	conditions 	of
employment 	and
	cover
	all
	employees
	in 	the
	appropriate
	unit.
All 	aspects 	of 	the 	negotiated
	agreement
	submitted
	meet
	the
requirements
	set
	forth
	in
	Appalachian
	Shale.
Four
	agreements
	were
	entered
	into
	evidence
	at
	the
	hearing.
The
	District
	and
	the
	Association
	had
	negotiated
	agreements
covering 	the 	school 	years 	1976-77,
	a
	one-year 	agreement,
1977-78,
	also
	a
	one-year
	agreement,
	1978-1980,
	a
	two-year
agreement
	and
	had
	completed
	negotiations
	for
	a 	new
	agreement
covering 	the 	period 	of
	July
	1,
	1980
	through 	June
	30, 	1983.
In
	order 	to
	determine
	if
	a
	contract
	bar
	existed 	to 	the
filing
	of 	the
	decertification 	petition	
by	
the 	Federation, 	the
termination 	clauses 	of 	the
	agreement 	must 	be 	examined.
The
	Federation 	argues
	that	
by	
express 	language,
	the
agreement
	for 	the
	term September
	5,
	1978
	to
	June 	30,
	1980
terminated
	on
	June 	29,
	1980
	at
	midnight.
	The
	expiration 	date
shows
	that
	the
	agreement 	goes
	to
	June 	30,
	1980
	and,
	therefore,
its
	decertification 	petition
	must 	be	
considered 	timely
	filed.
The
	negotiated 	agreements 	covering 	school 	years	
1976-77,
1977-78	
and	
1978-1980	
all
	contain
	identical 	termination
clauses,
	except 	for
	a 	reopener
	provision
	provided 	for 	in 	the
multi-year 	contract 	covering 	1978-1980.
13

In the agreement covering the period beginning
July 1, 1980, Article XXIV Term, reads as follows:
The agreement shall become effective
July 1, 1980 and remain in full force and
effect, unless modified in accordance with
other provisions contained herein through
June 30, 1983. [Emphasis Added . ]
It is significant to note the change in language of the
termination clause from the three prior contracts. All prior
contracts used the word "to" a specific date.
The NLRB has held that in the absence of specific
expression to the contrary, a contract in effect until a day
certain is to be construed as not including the date named
after the word "until". Hemisphere Steel Products, Inc. (1961)
131 NLRB 56 [47 LRRM 1595]. Further, it has been held that the
contract's effective date does not include the date named after
the word "to", which the NLRB regards as synonymous with the
word "until". ll
The Association argued that in order to resolve the
ambiguity of the use of the word "to" in the termination clause
of the negotiated agreement, reference must be made to other
parts of the agreement, by reference to prior agreements and by
e 	illiams Laundry Co. (1952) 97 NLRB No. 144
[29 LRRM 1207]; Bouvier's Law Dictionary (3rd ed. ) p. 3377;
e W
Brown Co. (1969) 178 NLRB 57 [71 LRRM 1643] .
14
In
	the
	agreement
	covering
	the 	period
	beginning
July 	1,
	1980,
	Article
	XXIV
	Term,
	reads 	as 	follows:
The
	agreement
	shall
	become
	effective
July 	1,
	1980
	and 	remain
	in
	full
	force
	and
effect,
	unless
	modified
	in
	accordance 	with
other 	provisions
	contained
	herein
	through
June 	30,
	1983.
	[Emphasis 	Added.]
It
	is
	significant
	to
	note 	the
	change
	in
	language
	of 	the
termination 	clause
	from
	the
	three
	prior 	contracts.
	All
	prior
contracts
	used
	the
	word
	"to"
	a
	specific 	date.
The
	NLRB
	has
	held
	that
	in
	the
	absence
	of
	specific
expression 	to
	the
	contrary,
	a
	contract
	in
	effect 	until
	a
	day
certain 	is
	to
	be
	construed
	as 	not 	including 	the 	date
	named
after
	the
	word
	"until".
	Hemisphere
	Steel
	Products, 	Inc.
	(1961)
131
	NLRB
	56 	[47
	LRRM
	1595].
	Further,
	it
	has 	been
	held
	that
	the
contract's
	fective 	date
	does
	not 	include 	the 	date
	named
	after
the
	word
	"to",
	which
	the
	NLRB
	regards 	as
	synonymous
	with
	the
word
	"until
11
• 11
The
	Association
	argued
	that
	in 	order 	to 	resolve 	the
ambiguity
	of 	the
	use
	of 	the
	word
	"to" 	in 	the 	termination 	ause
of 	the 	negotiated
	agreement,
	reference
	must 	be 	made
	to 	other
parts
	of 	the 	agreement, 	by	
reference 	to 	prior
	agreements
	and	
by
1l	1	
Williams 	Laundry Co. 	(1952) 	97
	NLRB
	No. 	144
[29
	LRRM
	1207]; 	Bouvier's
	Law
	Dictionary
	(3rd
	ed.) 	p.
	3377;Brown Co. 	(1969) 	178
	NLRB
	57 	[71
	LRRM
	1643].
14

reference to specific parts of prior agreements dealing with
the term of an obligation imposed by the agreements. 12
Specific reference was made to the health and welfare
contributions made by the District. The District contends that
contributions are made by the District on the basis of the
school year and that employees are covered for benefits
throughout the summer when they have been working on the last
day of school and have a reasonable expectation of continued
employment in September. Contributions are also continued for
the Child Development Teachers who are the only employees on
the job on June 30, and who are covered by the negotiated
agreement. It is the District's and the Association's
contention that no gap was intended in the agreements and that
all benefits accrued through June 30.
After careful review of the negotiated agreement covering
the period of September 5, 1978 to June 30, 1980 and the two
prior agreements covering the 1976-1977 and 1977-78 school
years, it is concluded that no specific expression to the
contrary can be found to show that the District and the
Association intended the agreement to expire other than June
29, 1980 at midnight.
The Association further alleged that the Federation could
have filed their decertification petition during the "window
cooper Tire and Rubber Co. (1970) 181 NLRB 509 [73 LRRM
1402] .
15
reference 	to
	specific 	parts
	of
	prior
	agreements
	dealing
	with
the
	term
	of
	an
	obligation
	imposed
	by
	the
	agreements.12
Specific
	reference
	was 	made
	to
	the
	health
	and
	welfare
contributions
	made 	by	
the
	District.
	The
	District
	contends
	that
contributions
	are
	made 	by
	the
	District
	on
	the
	basis
	of 	the
school
	year
	and
	that
	employees
	are 	covered
	for
	benefits
throughout
	the
	summer 	when
	they
	have 	been 	working
	on
	the
	last
day
	of
	school
	and
	have
	a
	reasonable
	expectation of
	continued
employment
	in
	September.
	Contributions 	are
	also
	continued
	for
the 	Child
	Development
	Teachers
	who
	are
	the 	only
	employees 	on
the 	job
	on
	June 	30,
	and 	who
	are
	covered
	by
	the 	negotiated
agreement.
	It
	is
	the
	District's
	and
	the
	Association's
contention
	that
	no
	gap
	was
	intended
	in
	the
	agreements
	and
	that
all
	benefits
	accrued 	through 	June 	30.
After
	careful
	review
	of 	the 	negotiated
	agreement
	covering
the 	period 	of
	September
	5,
	1978
	to
	June 	30,
	1980 	and
	the
	two
prior
	agreements 	covering 	the
	1976-1977 	and
	1977-78
	school
years,
	it
	is
	concluded
	that
	no
	specific
	expression 	to 	the
contrary
	can
	be 	found
	to
	show
	that
	the
	District
	and
	the
Association 	intended 	the
	agreement
	to 	expire 	other 	than June
29,
	1980	
at	
midnight.
The	
Association 	further 	alleged 	that 	the 	Federation 	could
have	
filed 	their 	decertification 	petition
	during	
the	
"window
1212
fooper 	Tire
	and 	Rubber 	Co. 	(1970) 	181
	NLRB
	509 	[73	
LRRM
1402].
15

period" provided pursuant to section 3544.7 (b) (1), but chose
not to do so, thereby disrupting the stability of their labor
relations by waiting to file on June 30.
That the Federation chose to file its decertification
petition on June 30, 1980 at 3:16 p.m., instead of the "window
period" provided for in section 3544.7 (b) (1) does not have
bearing on this decision. Their contention is that the
negotiated agreement ended on June 29, 1980 at midnight, not on
June 30, thereby creating a one-day gap in the agreements and
providing for the opportunity to file their petition.
The agreement presented to both parties for ratification on
the evening of June 30, 1980 covering the period of July 1,
1980 through June 30, 1983 would not be binding upon both
parties unless ratification and acceptance had taken place
prior to the filing of the decertification petition pursuant to
section 3540.1 (h) . 13
13section 3540.1 (h) defines "meeting and negotiating" as
follows : "Meeting and negotiating" means meeting,
conferring, negotiating, and discussing by
the exclusive representative and the public
school employer in a good faith effort to
reach agreement on matters within the scope
of representation and the execution, if
requested by either party, of a written
document incorporating any agreements
reached, which document shall, when accepted
by the exclusive representative and the
public school employer, become binding upon
both parties and, notwithstanding Section
3543.7, shall not be subject to subdivision
16
period"
	provided
	pursuant
	to
	section
	3544.?(b)
(1),
	but 	chose
not
	to
	do
	so,
	thereby
	disrupting
	the
	stability
	of
	their
	labor
relations
	by
	waiting 	to
	file
	on
	June 	30.
That
	the 	Federation
	chose
	to
	file
	its
	decertification
petition
	on
	June 	30,
	1980
	at
	3:16
	p.m., 	instead 	of 	the
	"window
period"
	provided
	for 	in
	section
	3544.7(b)
(1)
	does
	not
	have
bearing
	on
	this
	decision.
	Their
	contention
	is
	that
	the
negotiated
	agreement
	ended
	on
	June
	29,
	1980
	at
	midnight,
	not
	on
June 	30, 	thereby
	creating
	a
	one-day
	gap
	in 	the
	agreements
	and
providing 	for 	the 	opportunity 	to
	file
	their 	petition.
The
	agreement
	presented 	to
	both
	parties
	for
	ratification
	on
the
	evening
	of
	June
	30,
	1980
	covering 	the 	period 	of
	July
	1,
1980
	through 	June 	30,
	1983 	would
	not
	be
	binding
	upon
	both
parties
	unless
	ratification
	and
	acceptance
	had
	taken
	place
prior 	to
	the
	filing
	of 	the
	decertification 	petition
	pursuant
	to
section 	3540.l(h).13
13section 	3540.l(h) 	defines
	"meeting	
and	
negotiating"	
as
follows: "Meeting 	and
	negotiating"
	means
	meeting,
conferring, 	negotiating,
	and
	discussing 	by
the 	exclusive 	representative
	and
	the 	publicschool
	employer
	in
	a 	good
	faith 	effort
	to
reach 	agreement
	on
	matters 	within 	the 	scope
of 	representation
	and
	the	
execution,
	if
requested	
by
	either 	party, 	of
	a
	written
document
	incorporating
	any 	agreements
reached,
	which 	document
	shall,
	when
	accepted
by	
the 	exclusive 	representative
	~nd_the
public 	school
	employer! 	become_b1nd1ng,upon
both
	parties
	and, 	notw1thstand1ng
	Section3543.7,
	shall
	not	
be
	subject 	to 	subdivision
16

Although the filing by the Federation took place on June
30, 1980, which was also the date of the ratification by both
parties of the successor agreement, the NLRB has held a
contract will bar an election if it is effective immediately or
retroactively and the employer has not been informed at the
time of execution that a petition has been filed. Deluxe Metal
Furniture Co. 14 	this instance, the contract would have
taken effect on July 1, 1980, subsequent to the filing of the
petition.
Therefore, there was no written agreement existing between
the District and the Association which would thereby constitute
a bar.
PROPOSED ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the decertification petition
filed by Inglewood Federation of Teachers AFT Local 2024
AFL-CIO was timely filed and not barred pursuant to provisions
of section 3544.7 (b) (1) . Therefore, an election will be
conducted.
Pursuant to California Administrative Code, title 8, part
III, section 32305, This administrative Order shall become
final on February 9, 1981, unless a party files a timely
2 of Section 1667 of the Civil Code. The
agreement may be for a period of not to
exceed three years. 	[Emphasis added. ]
14Deluxe Metal Furniture Co., supra, 121 NLRB at 999.
17
Although
	the
	filing
	by
	the 	Federation
	took
	place
	on
	June
30, 	1980,
	which
	was
	also
	the 	date 	of 	the
	ratification
	by
	both
parties
	of 	the 	successor
	agreement,
	the
	NLRB
	has
	held
	a
contract 	will
	bar
	an
	election
	if
	it
	is
	effective
	immediately
	or
retroactively
	and
	the
	employer 	has
	not
	been 	informed
	at
	the
time
	of 	execution
	that
	a
	petition
	has
	been
	filed.
	Deluxe
	Metal
Furniture
	Co.1In
4	
In
	this
	instance,
	the
	contract
	would
	have
taken
	effect
	on
	July
	1,
	1980, 	subsequent 	to 	the
	filing
	of
	the
petition.
Therefore, 	there
	was 	no
	written
	agreement
	existing
	between
the
	District
	and
	the 	Association
	which 	would
	thereby
	constitute
a
	bar.
PROPOSED
	ORDER
It
	is
	hereby
	ordered
	that
	the
	decertification 	petition
filed
	by
	Inglewood
	Federation 	of 	Teachers
	AFT
	Local
	2024
AFL-CIO 	was
	timely
	filed
	and
	not 	barred 	pursuant 	to 	provisions
of 	section
	3544.7(b) (1). 	Therefore,
	an
	election 	will
	be
conducted.
Pursuant 	to California Administrative
	Code,
	title	
8,	
part
III,
	section
	32305,
	This
	administrative
	Order
	shall
	become
final
	on
	February 	9, 	1981,
	unless
	a
	party
	files
	a
	timely
2
	of 	Section
	1667
	of 	the 	Civil
	Code. 	The
agreement
	may
	be
	for
	a
	period 	of not 	toexceed
	three 	years.
	[Emphasis 	added.]
14
neluxe 	Metal 	Furniture 	Co., 	supra,
	121
	NLRB
	at
	999.
17

statement of exceptions and supporting brief within ten (10)
calendar days following the date of service of this
Administrative Order. Any statement of exceptions and
supporting brief must be actually received by the executive
assistant to the Board at the headquarters office in Sacramento
on February 9, 1981 in order to be timely filed. Any
statement of exceptions and supporting brief must be served
concurrently with its filing upon each party to this
proceeding. Proof of service shall be filed with the Board
itself.
Dated: January 19, 1981
/ By Dee Crippen
Hearing Officer
18
statement 	of 	exceptions
	and
	supporting
	brief
	within 	ten
	(10)
calendar
	days
	following 	the
	date
	of
	service
	of
	this
Administrative
	Order.
	Any
	statement 	of 	exceptions
	and
supporting
	brief
	must
	be
	actually
	received
	by
	the 	executive
assistant
	to 	the
	Board
	at
	the 	headquarters
	office
	in
	Sacramento
on
	February
	9,
	1981
	in
	order 	to
	be
	timely
	filed.
	Any
statement 	of 	exceptions
	and
	supporting
	brief
	must
	be
	served
concurrently
	with
	its
	filing
	upon
	each
	party 	to
	this
proceeding.
	Proof
	of
	service
	shall
	be
	filed
	with
	the
	Board
itself.
Dated:
	January
	19,
	1981
18
~	
lay	
Dee
	Crippen
Hearing
	Officer