Antelope Valley Community College District (PERB 0168E)

STATE
	OF
	CALIFORNIA
DECISION
	OF 	THE
PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
ANTELOPE
	VALLEY
	COMMUNITY
	COLLEGE
DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
CALIFORNIA
	SCHOOL
	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION,
Employee
	Organization.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
____________________ )
Employee Organization.
Case
	No. 	LA-R-424
PERB
	Decision
	No. 168
June
	25,
	1981
Appearances:	
Patrick
	D.
	Sisneros 	Attorney
	(Wagner
	andWagner)
	for
	Antelope
	Valley
	Community
	College
	District.
Before 	Gluck,
	Chairperson;
	Moore,
	Jaeger,
	and
	Tovar,
	Members.
DECISION
CSEA
	its
	petition
	as
	amended
	requested 	recognition 	as
the
	representative 	of
	a
	unit
	approximately
	30
	to
	33
	out	
a
total
	approximately
	85
	sified
	employees
	in
	District,
DECISION
This 	case
	comes
	before 	the 	Public
	Employment
	Relations
Board
	(hereafter
	PERB
	or
	Board)	
on	
exceptions
	filed
	by
	the
Antelope
	Valley
	Com.munity
	College
	District
	(hereafter
	District)
to 	the 	hearing
	officer's
	proposed
	decision 	finding 	the
operations
	and
	support
	unit 	petitioned	
for	
by
	California
	School
Employees
	Association 	(hereafter
	CSEA)
	to
	be
	appropriate
	and
resolving 	the 	placement 	of 	several 	disputed
	assifications.
CSEA in its petition as amended requested recognition as
the representative of a unit of approximately 30 to 33 out of a
total of approximately 85 classified employees in the District,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
ANTELOPE VALLEY COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT,
Case No. LA-R-424
Employer ,
and 	PERB Decision No. 168
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION ,
June 25, 1981
Appearances: Patrick D. Sisneros 	Attorney (Wagner and
Wagner ) for Antelope Valley Community College District.
Before Gluck, Chairperson; 	Moore, Jaeger, and Tovar, Members.
This case comes before the Public Employment Relations
Board (hereafter PERB or Board) on exceptions filed by the
Antelope Valley Community College District (hereafter District)
to the hearing officer's proposed decision finding the
operations and support unit petitioned for by California School
Employees Association (hereafter CSEA) to be appropriate and
resolving the placement of several disputed classifications.

including
	the 	following
	classifications:
	maintenance, 	grounds,
custodial,
	storekeeper,
	security/operations
	worker,
	locker
	room
attendant,
	science
	laboratory 	technician, 	tool
	room
	assistant,
cafeteria 	assistants
	I
	and
	II.
The
	District
	disputes
	the
	appropriateness 	of
	the
	unit
contending
	that
	it
	would
	have
	a
	detrimental
	effect
	on
	the
efficient
	operations 	of 	the
	District
	to
	have
	to 	incur
	the
	cost
of
	negotiating
	and
	administering
	an
	agreement
	for
	a
	unit
	of
this 	size.
	Alternatively,
	the
	District
	argues
	that
	the
	unit 	is
appropriate
	but
	that
	the
	positions
	of 	locker
	room
	attendant,
tool
	room
	assistant,
	science 	laboratory 	technician,
	cafeteria
assistants
	I 	and
	II,
	and
	security/operations
	worker
	should
	be
excluded 	because 	they
	lack
	a 	community
	of
	interest
	with
	others
in 	the
	proposed
	unit.
In
	her 	proposed
	decision,
	the 	hearing
	officer
	found
	the
proposed
	operations
	and
	support
	unit 	to
	be
	appropriate,
	that
the
	classifications
	of 	locker
	room
	attendant,
	cafeteria
assistants,
	and
	security/operations
	worker 	were
	properly
included 	in 	the 	unit
	but
	that
	the
	classifications
	of 	tool
	room
assistant
	and
	science 	laboratory 	technician
	should
	be
	excluded.
The 	Board
	affirms 	the 	decision 	of 	the 	hearing
	officer
except 	that	
it
	disagrees	
with 	the 	proposal 	to 	exclude 	the
	tool
room
	assistant
	from
	the
	unit.
2
including the following classifications: maintenance, grounds,
custodial, storekeeper, security/operations worker, locker room
attendant, science laboratory technician, tool room assistant,
cafeteria assistants I and II.
The District disputes the appropriateness of the unit
contending that it would have a detrimental effect on the
efficient operations of the District to have to incur the cost
of negotiating and administering an agreement for a unit of
this size. Alternatively, the District argues that the unit is
appropriate but that the positions of locker room attendant,
tool room assistant, science laboratory technician, cafeteria
assistants I and II, and security/operations worker should be
excluded because they lack a community of interest with others
in the proposed unit.
In her proposed decision, the hearing officer found the
proposed operations and support unit to be appropriate, that
the classifications of locker room attendant, cafeteria
assistants, and security/operations worker were properly
included in the unit but that the classifications of tool room
assistant and science laboratory technician should be excluded.
The Board affirms the decision of the hearing officer
except that it disagrees with the proposal to exclude the tool
room assistant from the unit.
N

DISCUSSION	DISCUSSION
In 	considering
	the
	appropriateness
	of
	proposed
	units,
	PERB
is
	governed
	by
	section
	3545
	of 	the 	Educational
	Employment
Relations
	Act
	(hereafter
	EERA)l	
which
	reads
	in
	part:
(a)
	In
	each
	case
	where
	the
	appropriatenessof 	the
	unit
	is
	an
	issue,
	the
	board
	shall
decide 	the
	question
	on
	the
	basis
	of 	the
community
	of
	interest
	between
	and
	among
	the
employees
	and
	their
	established 	practices
including,
	among
	other
	things,
	the
	extent
	to
which
	such 	employees
	belong
	to
	the
	same
employee
	organization,
	and
	the
	effect
	of 	the
size
	of 	the
	unit
	on
	the
	efficient
	operationof 	the 	school
	district.
In 	applying 	the
	precepts
	of
	section
	3545(a)
	to
	classified
employees
	units,
	the
	Board,
	at
	the
	outset,
	found 	an
	operations
and
	support
	unit
	to
	be
	appropriate.
	See 	Sweetwater
	Union 	High
School
	District
	(11/23/76)
	EERB
	Decision
	No.
	4.
2
h
Since
	then,
the
	Board
	has
	consistently
	granted
	such
	units
	and, 	indeed, 	has
held
	that
	they
	are 	presumptively
	appropriate,
	imposing
	on
	the
party 	disputing
	the
	unit
	the
	burden
	of
	rebutting 	that
presumption.
	See
	Antioch 	Unified
	School
	District
	(11/7/77)
EERB
	Decision
	No. 	37 	and
	cases
	cited 	therein.
Further,
	the
	Board 	has 	determined
	that
	operations
	and
support 	services 	units 	are 	appropriate 	in 	small 	as
	we
	as
T1
The
	EERA
	is
	codified 	at
	Government 	Code
	section
	3540
et
	seq. 	unless 	otherwise
	specified,
	all
	statutory 	references
are 	to 	the
	Government 	Code.
2prior to January 1, 1978, PERB was called the
Educational Employment Relations Board (EERB) .
r
	to 	January 	1, 	1978,
	PERB
Employment 	a
	ons
3
was
	ca
	ed
(EERB).
In considering the appropriateness of proposed units, PERB
is governed by section 3545 of the Educational Employment
Relations Act (hereafter EERA) _ which reads in part:
(a) In each case where the appropriateness
of the unit is an issue, the board shall
decide the question on the basis of the
community of interest between and among the
employees and their established practices
including, among other things, the extent to
which such employees belong to the same
employee organization, and the effect of the
size of the unit on the efficient operation
of the school district.
In applying the precepts of section 3545(a) to classified
employees units, the Board, at the outset, found an operations
and support unit to be appropriate. See Sweetwater Union High
School District (11/23/76) EERB Decision No. 4. Since t en,
the Board has consistently granted such units and, indeed, has
held that they are presumptively appropriate, imposing on the
party disputing the unit the burden of rebutting that
presumption. See Antioch Unified School District (11/7/77)
EERB Decision No. 37 and cases cited therein.
Further, the Board has determined that operations and
support services units are appropriate in small as well as
he EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540
et seq. unless otherwise specified, all statutory references
are to the Government Code.
w

medium 	and 	large 	districts. 	See, 	for 	example, 	Fallbrook 	Union
High 	School 	District 	(12/4/78) 	PERB 	Decision No. 	78 	(40
employees); 	Greenfield 	Union 	School 	District 	(10/25/77) 	EERB
Decision No. 	35 	(74 	employees).
In 	this 	case, 	since 	CSEA's 	proposed 	unit 	presumptively
meets 	the 	section 	3545 	criteria, 	the 	burden 	was 	on 	the 	District
to 	present 	evidence 	sufficient 	to 	rebut 	this 	presumption. 	The
District 	conceded 	that, 	in 	terms 	of 	cost 	and 	efficiency, 	there
was 	no 	basic 	difference 	in 	managing 	contract 	negotiations 	and
administration 	for 	a 	unit 	of 	10 	employees 	compared 	with 	a 	unit
of 	100. 	It 	offered 	no 	proof 	that 	establishment 	of 	the 	unit
(except 	for 	the 	claimed 	cost) 	would 	impair 	the 	efficiency 	of
the 	District's 	operations. 	But, 	the 	fact 	that 	the 	District 	may
incur 	certain 	costs 	in 	meeting 	and 	negotiating 	with 	the
exclusive 	representative 	of 	employees 	in 	the 	unit 	does 	not, 	in
and 	of 	itself, 	constitute 	an 	impairment 	of 	the 	efficient
operations 	of 	the 	District.
The 	decision 	to 	require 	public 	school 	employers 	to 	meet 	and
negotiate 	with 	their 	employees 	was 	made 	by 	the 	Legislature.
That 	this 	obligation 	might 	entail 	some 	cost 	to 	the 	employer 	was
undoubtedly 	considered 	by 	the 	Legislature 	when 	it 	balanced 	the
right 	of 	employees 	to 	negotiate 	as 	a 	means 	of 	promoting 	"the
improvement 	of 	personnel 	management 	and 	employer-employee
relations 	within 	the 	public 	school 	system 	in 	the 	State 	of
4
medium and large districts. See, for example, Fallbrook Union
High School District (12/4/78) PERB Decision No. 78 (40
employees) ; Greenfield Union School District (10/25/77) EERB
Decision No. 35 (74 employees) .
In this case, since CSEA's proposed unit presumptively
meets the section 3545 criteria, the burden was on the District
to present evidence sufficient to rebut this presumption. 	The
District conceded that, in terms of cost and efficiency, there
was no basic difference in managing contract negotiations and
administration for a unit of 10 employees compared with a unit
of 100. It offered no proof that establishment of the unit
(except for the claimed cost) would impair the efficiency of
the District's operations. But, the fact that the District may
incur certain costs in meeting and negotiating with the
exclusive representative of employees in the unit does not, in
and of itself, constitute an impairment of the efficient
operations of the District.
The decision to require public school employers to meet and
negotiate with their employees was made by the Legislature.
That this obligation might entail some cost to the employer was
undoubtedly considered by the Legislature when it balanced the
right of employees to negotiate as a means of promoting "the
improvement of personnel management and employer-employee
relations within the public school system in the State of
A

California ..• "3 	against 	the 	effect 	of 	unit 	configuration 	on
operational 	efficiency. 	Therefore, 	while 	it 	is 	certainly
appropriate 	for 	a 	district 	to 	raise 	cost 	implications 	in
opposing 	a 	proposed 	unit, 	it 	would 	be 	contrary 	to EERA 	purposes
to 	deny 	a 	unit 	solely on 	the 	grounds 	that 	the 	District 	would
thereby 	incur 	additional 	costs. 4
Although 	no 	party 	excepted 	to 	the 	exclusion 	of 	tool
assistants 	from 	the 	unit, 	the 	Board 	reaches 	this 	issue
sua 	sponte. 5 	The 	presumptively 	appropriate 	operations 	and
support 	unit 	is 	comparable 	to 	units 	commonly 	referred 	to 	as
"blue 	collar." 	The 	inclusion 	in 	a 	unit 	proposal 	of 	a
classification 	which 	facially 	falls 	within 	this 	general
employee 	category 	raises 	the 	presumption 	that 	the 	class 	is
appropriately 	included. 	Exclusion 	of 	the 	classification 	must
be 	affirmatively 	justified. 	To 	hold 	otherwise 	would 	reduce 	the
33EERA 	section 	3540.
4PERB 	takes 	official 	notice 	that 	subsequent 	to 	the
enactment 	of 	EERA, 	the 	Legislature 	authorized 	reimbursement 	of
costs 	incurred 	by 	a 	public 	school 	employer 	in 	complying 	with
the 	provisions 	of 	EERA. 	Chapter 	102, 	Statutes 	of 	1980.
5while 	a 	party's 	failure 	to 	except 	to 	a 	finding 	serves 	as
a 	waiver 	of 	that 	party's 	right 	to 	except, 	it 	does 	not 	preclude
the 	Board 	from 	reviewing 	unappealed 	matters. 	(Rio 	Hondo
Community College 	District 	(1/25/79) 	PERB 	Decision 	No. 	87 	and
Monterey 	Peninsula 	ccD 	(10/16/78) 	PERB 	Decision No. 	76.)
Althougfi 	tne 	Boaranas 	generally 	declined 	to 	consider 	matters
to 	which 	no 	exceptions 	have 	been 	taken, 	it 	does 	so 	here 	for 	the
reasons 	stated 	above.
5
California. 	. "3 against the effect of unit configuration on
operational efficiency. Therefore, while it is certainly
appropriate for a district to raise cost implications in
opposing a proposed unit, it would be contrary to EERA purposes
to deny a unit solely on the grounds that the District would
thereby incur additional costs. 4
Although no party excepted to the exclusion of tool
assistants from the unit, the Board reaches this issue
sua sponte. 5 	The presumptively appropriate operations and
support unit is comparable to units commonly referred to as
"blue collar." The inclusion in a unit proposal of a
classification which facially falls within this general
employee category raises the presumption that the class is
appropriately included. Exclusion of the classification must
be affirmatively justified. To hold otherwise would reduce the
EERA section 3540.
4PERB takes official notice that subsequent to the
enactment of EERA, the Legislature authorized reimbursement of
costs incurred by a public school employer in complying with
the provisions of EERA. 	Chapter 102, Statutes of 1980.
5while a party's failure to except to a finding serves as
a waiver of that party's right to except, it does not preclude
the Board from reviewing unappealed matters. 	(Rio Hondo
Community College District (1/25/79) PERB Decision No. 87 and
Monterey Peninsula CCD (10/16/78) PERB Decision No. 76.)
Although the Board has generally declined to consider matters
to which no exceptions have been taken, it does so here for the
reasons stated above.

meaning
	of 	presumptively
	appropriate 	to
	include 	only 	those
units 	consisting 	exactly--no
	more,
	no
	less--of 	classifications
already
	specifically
	approved
	by
	the
	Board.
Here,
	the 	hearing
	officer
	found
	as
	a
	matter 	of
	fact
	that
the
	tool
	room
	assistants
	should
	be
	excluded
	from
	the 	proposed
unit
	because
	they 	shared
	a 	community
	of
	interest
	with
	employees
who
	would
	constitute
	a
	different
	appropriate
	unit.
	If
	the
evidence
	rebutted
	the
	appropriateness 	of 	including 	the
assistants
	in
	CSEA's
	proposed
	unit,
	they
	were
	properly
excluded.
	If,
	however,
	the
	rebuttal
	evidence
	fell
	short
	of
	its
mark,
	the 	presumption
	was
	not
	overcome 	and
	the
	exclusion
	was
improper.
	We
	find 	the
	latter
	to
	be
	the
	case.
Tool
	room
	assistants
	work
	in 	technical
	education
	classes.
Their
	duties
	and
	responsibilities
	include 	issuing
	and
	receiving
tools
	from
	students,
	performing 	maintenance
	and
	repair
	work 	on
electronic
	or
	automotive
	supplies
	and
	equipment,
	preparing
mock-ups 	and
	displays
	for 	the
	classes,
	and
	performing
	custodial
functions
	such 	as 	chemically 	cleaning 	the
	floors,
	filling
	soap
and
	towel
	containers,
	emptying
	the
	trash,
	and
	other 	general
maintenance
	and
	cleaning 	tasks.
	The
	job
	description
	does
	not
indicate 	that 	tool
	room
	assistants
	are 	expected
	to
	instruct
s 	s 	ne tool room assistant who te	
one
	tool
	room
	assistant
	testifi 	sta
that
	he 	had 	been
	specifically 	told 	that
	he
	should 	not
	instruct
students
	and
	should 	remain
	in 	the 	tool
	room
	area
	ile 	st
were
	in	the shop.
shop.
6
meaning of presumptively appropriate to include only those
units consisting exactly--no more, no less--of classifications
already specifically approved by the Board.
Here, the hearing officer found as a matter of fact that
the tool room assistants should be excluded from the proposed
unit because they shared a community of interest with employees
who would constitute a different appropriate unit. If the
evidence rebutted the appropriateness of including the
assistants in CSEA's proposed unit, they were properly
excluded. 	If, however, the rebuttal evidence fell short of its
mark, the presumption was not overcome and the exclusion was
improper. We find the latter to be the case.
Tool room assistants work in technical education classes.
Their duties and responsibilities include issuing and receiving
tools from students, performing maintenance and repair work on
electronic or automotive supplies and equipment, preparing
mock-ups and displays for the classes, and performing custodial
functions such as chemically cleaning the floors, filling soap
and towel containers, emptying the trash, and other general
maintenance and cleaning tasks. The job description does not
indicate that tool room assistants are expected to instruct
students and the o 	stified stated
that he had been specifically told that he should not instruct
students and should remain in the tool room area while students
were in

The
	technical 	expertise
	required
	of 	the
	tool
	room
assistants,
	which
	they
	may
	obtain
	through
	experience 	or
education,
	does
	not
	appear
	to
	differ
	substantially
	from
	that
required 	of
	journeymen 	equipment
	maintenance 	workers. 	Like
	the
latter,
	they 	maintain
	and
	repair
	various
	electrical
	and
mechanical
	equipment
	and 	may,
	at
	times,
	work
	from
	schematic
diagrams.
	Like
	locker
	room
	attendants, 	their
	contact
	with
students
	is 	essentially
	confined
	to 	issuing
	and
	receiving 	the
equipment 	needed
	for
	instruction.
	While
	tool
	room
	assistants
have
	some
	job-related 	contact
	with 	maintenance 	employees,
	there
is
	nothing
	in
	the 	record
	to 	indicate 	that
	they
	have
	such
contact
	with
	classified
	employees
	outside
	of 	the
	proposed
	unit.
In
	conclusion,
	on
	the
	basis
	of
	their
	job
	functions
	and
duties
	as
	we
	as
	their
	skills
	and
	qualifications,
	we
	find
that,
	for 	the 	purposes 	of
	unit
	placement, 	the
	employees
	in
	this
classification
	are 	not 	comparable
	to 	the
	technicians
	and
paraprofessional
	employees
	the
	Board
	has
	placed 	in 	separate
units 	in 	the
	community
	college
	system
6	
but
	do 	have
	a
significant
	community
	of
	interest
	with
	other
	employees
	in 	the
operations
	and
	support
	unit
	and
	are 	appropriately
	included
therein.
6Marin 	Community
	College
	District
	(6/26/78)
	PERB
	Decision
No. 	5 	.
7
The technical expertise required of the tool room
assistants, which they may obtain through experience or
education, does not appear to differ substantially from that
required of journeymen equipment maintenance workers. Like the
latter, they maintain and repair various electrical and
mechanical equipment and may, at times, work from schematic
diagrams. Like locker room attendants, their contact with
students is essentially confined to issuing and receiving the
equipment needed for instruction. While tool room assistants
have some job-related contact with maintenance employees, there
is nothing in the record to indicate that they have such
contact with classified employees outside of the proposed unit.
In conclusion, on the basis of their job functions and
duties as well as their skills and qualifications, we find
that, for the purposes of unit placement, the employees in this
classification are not comparable to the technicians and
paraprofessional employees the Board has placed in separate
units in the community college system but do have a
significant community of interest with other employees in the
operations and support unit and are appropriately included
therein.
6Marin Community College District (6/26/78) PERB Decision
No. 55.
7

ORDER	ORDER
Upon
	the
	foregoing
	decision
	and
	the
	entire
	record 	in
	this
case,
	the
	Public
	Employment
	Relations
	Board
	ORDERS
	that:
The
	following
	unit
	is
	appropriate
	for
	meeting
	and
negotiating,
	provided
	an 	employee
	organization
	becomes
	the
exclusive
	representative:
Operations
	and
	support
	unit
Including: 	Custodian, 	groundskeeper,
maintenance/operations
	worker,
	skilled
maintenance 	worker,
	storekeeper,
	cafeteria
assistant,
	locker
	room
	attendant, 	tool
	room
assistant,
	and
	security/operations
	worker.
Excluding:
	All 	other
	employees 	and
	all
management,
	supervisory,
	and
	confidential
employees
	as
	defined
	by
	the 	Educational
Employment
	Relations
	Act.
The
	employer
	shall
	post 	copies 	of 	the
	notice
	of
	decision
pursuant 	to 	section
	33450
	of 	the 	Board's
	rules
	and
regulations.
	Within
	ten
	workdays
	after
	the
	employer
	posts 	the
notice 	of
	decision,
	the
	employee
	organization
	shall
	demonstrate
to 	the
	Los
	Angeles
	regional
	director
	of 	the 	Public
	Employment
Relations
	Board
	at 	least
	30
	percent 	support 	in 	the
	above
	unit.
The
	regional
	director 	shall
	conduct 	an
	election 	at
	the
	end
of 	the 	posting 	period
	if
	an 	employee
	organization
	qualifies
	for
the	
ballot
	and	
the 	employer 	does 	not 	grant 	voluntary
recognition.
The
	date	
used	
to 	establish	
the 	voting
	eligibility
	of
employees
	in 	the	
unit	
and
	the
	number
	of
	employees 	in 	the	
unit
8
Upon the foregoing decision and the entire record in this
case, the Public Employment Relations Board ORDERS that:
The following unit is appropriate for meeting and
negotiating, provided an employee organization becomes the
exclusive representative:
Operations and support unit
Including: Custodian, groundskeeper ,
maintenance/operations worker, skilled
maintenance worker, storekeeper, cafeteria
assistant, locker room attendant, tool room
assistant, and security/operations worker.
Excluding: All other employees and all
management, supervisory, and confidential
employees as defined by the Educational
Employment Relations Act.
The employer shall post copies of the notice of decision
pursuant to section 33450 of the Board's rules and
regulations. Within ten workdays after the employer posts the
notice of decision, the employee organization shall demonstrate
to the Los Angeles regional director of the Public Employment
Relations Board at least 30 percent support in the above unit.
The regional director shall conduct an election at the end
of the posting period if an employee organization qualifies for
the ballot and the employer does not grant voluntary
recognition.
The date used to establish the voting eligibility of
employees in the unit and the number of employees in the unit

for
	<the
	purpose 	of
	calculating
	the
	required
	proof 	of
	support
shall
	be
	the 	date 	of
	this
	decision
	unless 	another 	date
	is
deemed
	appropriate
	by
	the
	regional
	director
	and
	noticed
	to
	the
parties.
	In 	the 	event 	another
	date
	is
	selected,
	the
	regional
director
	may
	extend 	the
	time
	for
	employee
	organizations
	to
demonstrate
	at 	least
	30
	percent 	support 	in 	the
	unit.
In
	the 	event
	that
	an
	election
	is
	directed,
	it
	shall
	be 	held
on
	the
~Distr7ises.
9:sy:rGluck,	
c~
Joh\9"Jaeger,
	Member	By: Harry Gluck , Chairperson 	John Jaeger , Member
Irene
	Tovar,
	Member,
	concurring:
I
	join 	in
	the
	conclusions
	reached
	by
	my
	colleagues
	and
	in
all
	aspects
	of 	the 	opinion 	except
	two. 	These
	concern
	the
reason 	for 	reaching 	the
	issue
	of
	unit
	placement
	of 	the
	tool
room
	assistants,
	and
	the 	reason 	for 	placing
	employees
	in
	this
classification
	in 	the
	operations
	and
	support
	services
	unit.
It
	is
	my
	position 	that
	PERB
	should 	reach 	unappealed
	hearing
officer's
	determinations 	only
	under
	limited 	circumstances:
1) 	when
	the 	determinations 	are 	contrary 	to 	the
	EERA
	or
established
	PERB
	policies,
	2) 	when
	determinations 	are 	the
result
	of
	a
	misapplication 	of
	PERB
	precedent, 	or
	3) 	when
determinations 	result
	in
	a
	miscarriage 	of
	justice.
	Unless 	so
limited,
	review
	by
	PERB
	of 	matters
	no
	longer 	in 	contention
	by
9
for the purpose of calculating the required proof of support
shall be the date of this decision unless another date is
deemed appropriate by the regional director and noticed to the
parties. In the event another date is selected, the regional
director may extend the time for employee organizations to
demonstrate at least 30 percent support in the unit.
In the event that an election is directed, it shall be held
on the District's premises.
S
Irene Tovar, Member, concurring:
I join in the conclusions reached by my colleagues and in
all aspects of the opinion except two. 	These concern the
reason for reaching the issue of unit placement of the tool
room assistants, and the reason for placing employees in this
classification in the operations and support services unit.
It is my position that PERB should reach unappealed hearing
officer's determinations only under limited circumstances:
1) when the determinations are contrary to the EERA or
established PERB policies, 2) when determinations are the
result of a misapplication of PERB precedent, or 3) when
determinations result in a miscarriage of justice. Unless so
limited, review by PERB of matters no longer in contention by

the 	parties 	could 	have 	several 	negative 	effects. 	It 	will 	tend
to 	discourage 	parties 	from 	settling 	matters 	on 	the 	basis 	of 	the
proposed 	decision. 	It 	will 	pressure 	parties 	into 	writing
longer 	appeal 	briefs. 	It 	will 	impair 	PERB 	efficiency 	by
requiring 	review 	of 	all 	aspects 	of 	proposed 	decisions,
regardless 	of 	what 	is 	appealed.
In 	this 	case, 	it 	is 	necessary 	for 	PERB 	to 	decide 	the 	unit
placement 	of 	the 	tool 	room 	assistants 	because 	their 	exclusion
resulted 	from 	a 	misapplication 	of 	PERB 	precedent. 	The 	hearing
officer's 	determination 	to 	exclude 	tool 	room 	assistants 	was
significantly 	based 	on 	the 	PERB 	decision 	in Marin 	Community
College 	District 	(6/26/78) 	PERB 	Decision No. 	55. 	In Marin,
petitions 	for 	recognition 	were 	filed 	covering 	all 	classified
employees, 	and 	the 	PERB 	established 	three 	units 	(operations 	and
support 	services, 	office 	technical 	and 	business 	services, 	and
quasi-professional 	employees). 	By 	contrast, 	in 	this 	case 	only
an 	operations 	and 	support 	services 	unit 	has 	been 	sought; 	and
the 	possible 	placement 	of 	employees 	in 	a 	quasi-professional
unit 	- 	which 	no 	party 	seeks 	- 	should 	not 	guide 	the 	decision 	on
appropriate 	units. 	To 	the 	contrary, 	having 	decided 	that 	an
operations 	and 	support 	services 	unit 	is 	appropriate, 	the 	only
remaining 	question 	is 	whether 	the 	tool 	room 	assistants 	should
be 	included 	in 	that 	unit 	based 	on 	community of 	interest 	factors
alone, 	without 	reliance 	on 	the 	Marin 	decision 	or 	preference 	for
a 	quasi-professional 	unit. 	A weighing 	and 	balancing 	of 	the
10
the parties could have several negative effects. It will tend
to discourage parties from settling matters on the basis of the
proposed decision. It will pressure parties into writing
longer appeal briefs. It will impair PERB efficiency by
requiring review of all aspects of proposed decisions,
regardless of what is appealed.
In this case, it is necessary for PERB to decide the unit
placement of the tool room assistants because their exclusion
resulted from a misapplication of PERB precedent. The hearing
officer's determination to exclude tool room assistants was
significantly based on the PERB decision in Marin Community
College District (6/26/78) PERB Decision No. 55. In Marin,
petitions for recognition were filed covering all classified
employees, and the PERB established three units (operations and
support services, office technical and business services,
quasi-professional employees) . By contrast, in this case only
an operations and support services unit has been sought, and
the possible placement of employees in a quasi-professional
unit - which no party seeks - should not guide the decision on
appropriate units. To the contrary, having decided that an
operations and support services unit is appropriate, the only
remaining question is whether the tool room assistants should
be included in that unit based on community of interest factors
alone, without reliance on the Marin decision or preference for
a quasi-professional unit. A weighing and balancing of the
10

community 	of 	interest 	factors, 	especially 	the 	non-instructional
role 	of 	the 	tool 	room 	assistants, 	leads 	to 	the 	conclusion 	that
these 	employees 	are 	properly 	placed 	in 	the 	operations 	and
support 	services 	unit. 	Regarding 	the 	laboratory 	assistants,
however, 	the 	weighing 	and 	balancing 	of 	community 	of 	interest
factors 	indicates 	that 	they 	lack 	a 	community 	of 	interest 	with
operations 	and 	support 	services 	employees 	and 	are 	therefore
properly 	not 	included 	in 	the 	unit.
Finally, 	I 	disagree 	that 	there 	should 	be 	a 	presumption 	that
the 	tool 	room 	assistant 	classification 	belongs 	in 	the
operations 	and 	support 	services 	unit. 	The 	"presumptively
appropriate 	unit" 	precedent 	of 	the 	PERB 	has 	concerned 	only 	the
general 	type 	of 	bargaining 	unit. 	It 	has 	not 	been 	applied 	to
determine 	whether 	certain 	classifications 	are 	in 	a
presumptively 	appropriate 	unit. 	Unit 	placement 	of 	individual
classifications 	should 	continue 	to 	be 	decided 	by 	weighing 	the
evidence 	in 	each 	case.
Irene 	Tovar, 	Member
Barbara 	D. 	Moore's 	concurrence 	and 	dissent begins 	on 	page 	12.
11
community of interest factors, especially the non-instructional
role of the tool room assistants, leads to the conclusion that
these employees are properly placed in the operations and
support services unit. Regarding the laboratory assistants,
however, the weighing and balancing of community of interest
factors indicates that they lack a community of interest with
operations and support services employees and are therefore
properly not included in the unit.
Finally, I disagree that there should be a presumption that
the tool room assistant classification belongs in the
operations and support services unit. The "presumptively
appropriate unit" precedent of the PERB has concerned only the
general type of bargaining unit. It has not been applied to
determine whether certain classifications are in a
presumptively appropriate unit. Unit placement of individual
classifications should continue to be decided by weighing the
evidence in each case.
Irene Tovar, Member
Barbara D. Moore's concurrence and dissent begins on page 12.
11

Barbara
	D.
	Moore,
	Member,
	concurring
	and
	dissenting:
I
	agree
	with
	the
	majority's
	decision
	that
	CSEA's
	proposed
operations
	and
	support
	services 	unit
	is
	presumptively
appropriate
	and
	that
	the
	District
	has
	failed
	to 	rebut
	the
presumption.
	I
	dissent,
	however,
	from
	the
	majority's 	decision
to
	review, 	sua
	?ponte,
	the 	hearing
	officer's
	decision 	to
exclude
	tool
	room
	assistants
	from
	the
	unit.
When 	no
	party
	has
	excepted
	to
	a
	hearing
	officer's
determination
	on
	a
	particular 	issue,
	I
	believe
	that
	the
	Board
should,
	with
	rare 	exceptions,
	refrain
	from
	reviewing
	that
issue.
	The
	Board
	is 	essentially
	an
	appellate
	body 	and
	reviews
only 	cases
	where
	exceptions 	are
	submitted
	by 	a
	party.
	If
	the
parties
	to
	a
	hearing
	officer's
	decision 	are
	satisfied
	and
	do
not
	appeal,
	it
	is
	allowed
	to 	stand.
Similarly,
	if
	the
	parties'
	exceptions 	are 	directed
	at
	only
certain
	portions 	of 	the
	decision, 	the 	other 	portions
	should
	be
allowed
	to 	stand 	without
	Board
	review.
	I
	believe 	there 	are
strong 	considerations 	favoring
	this
	approach
	and
	militating
against 	that
	taken
	by
	the 	majority.
The
	majority's
	opinion 	in
	this
	case 	runs 	counter 	to
	this
Board's 	policy 	of 	encouraging
	parties
	to 	voluntarily
	settle
issues 	in 	dispute. 	Parties 	in 	effect
	reach
	a
	partial
settlement 	by 	accepting
	a
	hearing
	officer's
	resolution 	of
particular issues. The majorit	
ti
	ar 	issues. 	majority's
	approach
	disrupts 	is
settlement
	by
	resurrecting 	the 	issues.
-12-
Barbara D. Moore, Member, concurring and dissenting:
I agree with the majority's decision that CSEA's proposed
operations and support services unit is presumptively
appropriate and that the District has failed to rebut the
presumption. I dissent, however, from the majority's decision
to review, sua sponte, the hearing officer's decision to
exclude tool room assistants from the unit.
When no party has excepted to a hearing officer's
determination on a particular issue, I believe that the Board
should, with rare exceptions, refrain from reviewing that
issue. 	The Board is essentially an appellate body and reviews
only cases where exceptions are submitted by a party. If the
parties to a hearing officer's decision are satisfied and do
not appeal, it is allowed to stand.
Similarly, if the parties' exceptions are directed at only
certain portions of the decision, the other portions should be
allowed to stand without Board review. I believe there are
strong considerations favoring this approach and militating
against that taken by the majority.
The majority's opinion in this case runs counter to this
Board's policy of encouraging parties to voluntarily settle
issues in dispute. Parties in effect reach a partial
settlement by accepting a hearing officer's resolution of
y's approach disrupts this
settlement by resurrecting the issues.
-12-

Also, 	the
	majority's
	approach 	has
	a
	disturbing
	impact
	on
	a
party's
	decisions 	to
	file
	exceptions
	to
	a
	proposed
	decision.
If
	even
	a
	limited
	exception
	may
	trigger
	full
	review
	by
	the
Board,
	a
	party will
	need
	to
	consider
	whether
	or 	not
	an
	appeal
will
	threaten
	potential
	reversal
	of
	satisfactory
	portions 	of
the 	hearing
	officer's
	determination.
Further,
	a
	party
	cannot
	know
	whether
	the
	Board
	will
	review
the
	entire
	decision
	or 	only
	certain
	portions
	because
	the
	Board
has
	no
	standards
	on
	the
	issue
	of
	reviewing
	matters
	not 	excepted
to.
	Since
	I
	have 	been
	here, 	the
	Board
	has
	not 	taken
	up
	such
matters.
	However,
	PERB
	decisions
	range
	from
	Rio
	Hondo
Community
	College
	District
	(1/25/79)
	PERB
	Decision
	No. 	87
	and
Monterey
	Peninsula
	Communi
ty_Sollege
	District
	(10/16/78)
	PERB
Decision
	No. 	76
	(cited
	by Members 	Gluck 	and
	Jaeger) 	to 	Gilroy
Unified
	School
	District
	(7/20/79)
	PERB
	Decision
	No.
	98, 	in
which
	the
	Board
	stated:
	"No
	exceptions
	were
	taken
	to 	the
supervisory 	issue,
	and
	it
	is
	therefore
	not 	in 	issue
	before 	the
Board."
	(Id., 	p.
	5).
	The
	absence
	of
	standards,
	while
permitting 	the
	Board
	the
	flexibility
	to
	take
	up
	issues 	not
excepted
	to
	when
	it
	wants
	and
	ignore
	them when
	it
	so 	chooses,
places 	the
	parties
	in
	a
	hopeless 	quandary.
	They must
	either
frame
	their
	appeals 	to
	cover
	all
	issues
	or
	risk 	reversal
without 	having 	argued
	their 	positions
	on 	the 	hearing
	officer's
ruling.
No
	coherent 	policy 	of 	Board 	review 	emerges 	from
	past
	Boa
-13-
Also, the majority's approach has a disturbing impact on a
party's decisions to file exceptions to a proposed decision.
If even a limited exception may trigger full review by the
Board, a party will need to consider whether or not an appeal
will threaten potential reversal of satisfactory portions of
the hearing officer's determination.
Further, a party cannot know whether the Board will review
the entire decision or only certain portions because the Board
has no standards on the issue of reviewing matters not excepted
. Since I have been here, the Board has not taken up such
matters. 	However, PERB decisions range from Rio Hondo
Community College District (1/25/79) PERB Decision No. 87 and
Monterey Peninsula Community College District (10/16/78) PERB
Decision No. 76 (cited by Members Gluck and Jaeger) to Gilroy
Unified School District (7/20/79) PERB Decision No. 98, in
which the Board stated: "No exceptions were taken to the
supervisory issue, and it is therefore not in issue before the
Board. " (Id. , p. 5). The absence of standards, while
permitting the Board the flexibility to take up issues not
excepted to when it wants and ignore them when it so chooses,
places the parties in a hopeless quandary. They must either
frame their appeals to cover all issues or risk reversal
without having argued their positions on the hearing officer's
ruling.
No coherent policy of Board review emerges from past Board
-13-

decisions,
	and
	none
	is
	forthcoming
	in
	this
	case.
	Without 	such
a
	policy,
	our
	decisions
	may 	be
	misconstrued
	if
	parties
	begin
	to
believe
	that
	when
	we
	do
	not
	consider
	issues
	not 	excepted
	to
	we
are 	in
	actuality
	approving
	the 	hearing
	officer's
	resolution
	of
them. 	While
	such
	an
	assumption
	may
	or
	may
	not
	be
	accurate,
	it
is 	likely
	to 	lead
	to
	confusion
	about
	Board
	policies
	and
decisions.
Thus,
	if
	the
	Board
	is,
	in 	essence,
	going
	to
	review
	all
issues 	raised
	in 	hearing
	officers'
	decisions,
	it
	should
	so
state.
	If
	it
	is
	not,
	it
	should
	delineate
	those 	circumstances
under
	which
	it
	will.
	Only 	one
	member
	even
	attempts
	such
	a
delineation,
	and 	I
	think 	the 	three 	standards,
	taken
	together,
are
	so
	broad 	as
	to
	not
	impose 	any
	real 	limitation.
I
	am
	unable
	to
	perceive
	any
	boundaries
	to
	a
	policy
	which
would
	permit
	review 	of
	issues
	involving
	a
	"miscarriage
	of
justice."
	As 	a
	practical
	matter,
	such
	a
	standard
	would
continue 	to 	permit
	unfettered
	Board
	review.
	I
	believe,
however,
	that
	the
	first
	circumstance
	articulated
	by
Member
	Tovar
	provides
	a
	workable
	standard.
	Where 	a
	hearing
officer's
	determination
	is 	clearly
	contrary 	to 	the
	EERA
	or
	PERB
policy,
	then
	and
	only 	then 	should 	the
	Board 	review
	it
	if
	it
	is
not 	excepted
	to.
	For
	example,
	EERA
	expressly 	provides
	that
classified
	and
	certificated
	employees
	shall
	not
	be
	in 	the
	same
unit.
	A
proposed 	decis 	violating 	this 	stricture
	would, 	I
believe,
	be 	grounds 	warranting 	review.
-14-
decisions, and none is forthcoming in this case. Without such
a policy, our decisions may be misconstrued if parties begin to
believe that when we do not consider issues not excepted to we
are in actuality approving the hearing officer's resolution of
them. While such an assumption may or may not be accurate, it
is likely to lead to confusion about Board policies and
decisions.
Thus, if the Board is, in essence, going to review all
issues raised in hearing officers' decisions, it should so
state. 	If it is not, it should delineate those circumstances
under which it will. Only one member even attempts such a
delineation, and I think the three standards, taken together,
are so broad as to not impose any real limitation.
I am unable to perceive any boundaries to a policy which
would permit review of issues involving a "miscarriage of
justice." As a practical matter, such a standard would
continue to permit unfettered Board review. I believe,
however, that the first circumstance articulated by
Member Tovar provides a workable standard. Where a hearing
officer's determination is clearly contrary to the EERA or PERB
policy, then and only then should the Board review it if it is
not excepted to. For example, EERA expressly provides that
classified and certificated employees shall not be in the same
unit. A proposed decision violating this stricture would, I
believe, be grounds warranting review.
-14-

In 	this 	case, 	I 	do 	not 	believe 	that 	the 	hearing 	officer's
reliance 	on Marin 	Community 	College 	District 	(6/26/78) 	PERB
Decision No. 	55 	rises 	to 	this 	level. 	The 	hearing 	officer 	fully
analyzed 	the 	appropriate 	placement 	of 	the 	tool 	room 	assistant
based 	on 	community 	of 	interest 	factors 	and 	determined 	that 	the
classification 	"[did] 	not 	share 	a 	community 	of 	interest 	with
the 	Operations 	and 	Support 	positions." 	(Id. 	at 	p. 	14) 	She
then 	cited 	Marin, 	supra, 	to 	buttress 	this 	finding. 	While
reliance 	on Marin 	may 	not 	have 	been 	appropriate, 	I 	do 	not 	find
that 	it 	amounted 	to 	a 	determination 	clearly 	contrary 	to 	PERB
policy. 	Therefore, 	absent 	a 	specific 	objection, 	I 	would 	not,
sua 	sponte, 	reach 	the 	issue 	of 	the 	placement 	of 	the 	tool 	room
assistant. 	While 	the 	foregoing 	conclusion 	obviates 	the 	need
for 	me 	to 	determine 	the 	appropriate 	placement 	of 	this
classification, I 	note 	for 	the 	record 	that 	I 	disagree 	with 	the
view 	that 	the 	tool 	room 	assistant 	presumptively 	belongs 	in 	the
unit. 	Rather, 	I 	agree 	with Member 	Tovar's 	analysis 	on 	this
issue.
Based 	on 	the 	foregoing, 	I 	would 	summarily 	affirm 	the
hearing 	officer.
Barbara 	D. 	Moore, 	Member
-15-
In this case, I do not believe that the hearing officer's
reliance on Marin Community College District (6/26/78) PERB
Decision No. 55 rises to this level. The hearing officer fully
analyzed the appropriate placement of the tool room assistant
based on community of interest factors and determined that the
classification "[did] not share a community of interest with
the Operations and Support positions. " (Id. at p. 14) She
then cited Marin, supra, to buttress this finding. While
reliance on Marin may not have been appropriate, I do not find
that it amounted to a determination clearly contrary to PERB
policy. 	Therefore, absent a specific objection, I would not,
sua sponte, reach the issue of the placement of the tool room
assistant. While the foregoing conclusion obviates the need
for me to determine the appropriate placement of this
classification, I note for the record that I disagree with the
view that the tool room assistant presumptively belongs in the
unit. Rather, I agree with Member Tovar's analysis on this
issue.
Based on the foregoing, I would summarily affirm the
hearing officer.
Barbara D. Moore, Member
-15-

PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
OF THE
	STATE
	OF
	CALIFORNIA
ANTELOPE
	VALLEY
	COMMUNITY
	COLLEGE
	DISTRIC~
Employer,
a~
CALIFORNIA
	SCHOOL
	EMPLOYEES
	ASSOCIATION,
Employee
	Organization.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
---------------------------
Representation
Case	
No.	
LA-R--424
PROPOSED
	DECISION
(8/20/80)
~ppearances:	
Patrick
	D.
	Sisneros,
	Attorney
	(Wagner
	and
	Wagner),
for
	Antelope 	Valley
	Community
	College
	District;
	Diane
	Powell,
	FieldRepresentative 	for
	California
	School
	Employees
	Association.
Before
	Patricia
	Hernandez, 	Hearing
	Officer.
PROCEDURAL
	HISTORY	PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On 	May	
24,
	1979
	the
	California
	School
	Employees
	Association
(hereafter	
CSEA)	
filed
	a
	request 	for 	recognition
	w:i.th
	the
Antelope 	Valley
	Community
	College
	District
	(hereafter
	District)
for
	a
	unit 	consisting 	of 	the 	following
	cl.assifications:
maintenance, 	grounds,
	custodial, 	security/operations
	worker,
storekeeper, 	locker
	room
	attendant
	and
	science 	laboratory
technician.
	On
	or 	about 	June
	8,
	1979,
	CSEA
	amended
	its
	request
for 	recognition 	to 	include 	the
	classification
	of 	tool
	room
assistant.
The
	District 	filed 	its
	response 	to 	the 	request 	for
recognition
	on 	August 	28, 	1979, 	challenging 	the 	appropriateness
of 	the 	unit
	itself
	as 	having
	a
	detrimental 	effect
	on
	the
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ANTELOPE VALLEY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT,
Employer , 	Representation
Case No. 	LA-R-424
and
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, 	PROPOSED DECISION
Employee Organization. (8/20/80)
Appearances: Patrick D. Sisneros, Attorney (Wagner and Wagner) ,
for Antelope Valley Community College District; Diane Powell, Field
Representative for California School Employees Association.
Before Patricia Hernandez, Hearing Officer.
On May 24, 1979 the California School Employees Association
(hereafter CSEA) filed a request for recognition with the
Antelope Valley Community College District (hereafter District)
for a unit consisting of the following classifications:
maintenance, grounds, custodial, security/operations worker,
storekeeper, locker room attendant and science laboratory
technician. On or about June 8, 1979, CSEA amended its request
for recognition to include the classification of tool room
assistant.
The District filed its response to the request for
recognition on August 28, 1979, challenging the appropriateness
of the unit itself as having a detrimental effect on the

efficient
	operation 	of
	the
	District.
	The
	response
	also
disputed
	the
	positions
	of
	locker
	room
	attendant, 	tool
	room
attendant
	and
	science
	laboratory 	technician
	as 	not 	having
	a
community
	of
	interest
	with
	the
	petitioned
	for
	unit.
On
	October
	24, 	1979,
	an
	informal 	conference
	was
	held.
	A
formal
	hearing
	was
	held
	on
	January 	23,
	1980
	and
	February 	21,
1980.	
The	
District
	filed
	its
	brief
	on 	May
	15,
	1980.
	CSEA
	did
not
	file
	one.
At
	the
	hearing,
	CSEA amended
	its
	request 	for
	recognition 	to
include
	food
	service
	worker
	I 	and
	food
	service
	worker
	II
{actually
	cafeteria 	assistant
	I
	and
	II).
	The
	District
challenged
	the	
classifications
	as 	lacking
	a 	community
	of
interest.	
The	
District
	also	
changed	
its
	position
	on	
the
security/operations	
worker,
	bringing	
its	
placement	
into 	dispute.
During
	the 	course
	of 	the 	hearing 	the
	District 	clarified
	its
position
	to
	be
	that
	no
	unit
	was
	appropriate 	but
	that
	if
	a
	unit
was
	found
	to
	be
	appropriate 	the 	disputed
	classifications
	(named
above 	and
	in 	the
	employer
	response) 	should
	be
	excluded.
	The
District 	stipulated 	that,
	apart
	from
	the
	fact 	that
	it
	believed
no
	unit
	was
	appropriate,
	and
	apart
	from
	the 	disputed
	positions,
the 	unit 	petitioned
	for
	by
	CSEA
	was
	appropriate.
	That
	unit
being 	the 	maintenance, 	grounds,
	custodial
	and
	storekeeper
classifications 	(hereafter 	Operations
	and
	Support 	Unit).
2
efficient operation of the District. The response also
disputed the positions of locker room attendant, tool room
attendant and science laboratory technician as not having a
community of interest with the petitioned for unit.
On October 24, 1979, an informal conference was held. A
formal hearing was held on January 23, 1980 and February 21,
1980. The District filed its brief on May 15, 1980. CSEA did
not file one.
At the hearing, CSEA amended its request for recognition to
include food service worker I and food service worker II
(actually cafeteria assistant I and II). The District
challenged the classifications as lacking a community of
interest. The District also changed its position on the
security/operations worker, bringing its placement into dispute.
During the course of the hearing the District clarified its
position to be that no unit was appropriate but that if a unit
was found to be appropriate the disputed classifications (named
above and in the employer response) should be excluded. 	The
District stipulated that, apart from the fact that it believed
no unit was appropriate, and apart from the disputed positions,
the unit petitioned for by CSEA was appropriate. That unit
being the maintenance, grounds, custodial and storekeeper
classifications (hereafter Operations and Support Unit) .
N

The
	parties 	stipulated 	that
	the
	District 	is
	an
	employer
within 	the
	meaning
	of
	section
	3540.l(k)
1at
and
	that
	CSEA
	is
	an
employee
	organization 	within
	the
	meaning
	of
	section
	3540.l(j).
They
	stipulated 	that 	certain
	classified
	positions
	were
	excluded
from
	the
	unit
	as
	either
	management
	or 	supervisory.2
ISSUES
1 .	
1.
2.
Whether
	the 	Operations
	and
	Support 	Unit
	petitioned 	for
by
	CSEA
	is
	an
	appropriate
	unit
	and,
	if
	so,
2 .	
Whether	
the	
following
	disputed
	positions
	should
	be
included 	in 	the
	unit:
science 	laboratory 	technician
tool
	room
	assistant
locker
	room
	attendant
security/operations
	worker
cafeteria 	assistant
The	
Appropriate 	Unit
Antelope Valley
	Community
	College
	District 	is
	a
	single
	campus
district
	with
	an
	average
	daily
	attendance
	of
	3,200.
	It
	has
	97
classified
	employees
	of	
which	
approximately
	85
	are
	rank
	and
	file
employees,
	that
	is,
	non-management,
	non-supervisory 	or
A	
lAll 	citations
	are 	to 	the
	Government 	Code,
	title
	8,
section
	3540
	et
	seq. 	unless 	otherwise
	specified.
2The
	parties 	stipulated 	to 	the 	exclusion 	of 	the 	following
positions: 	director
	of 	student
	activities
	and
	data 	processing
coordinators 	(see
	PERB
	Decision
	HO-R-52) 	and
	athlet:ic
trainer/equipment
	manager,
	cafeteria 	supervisor,
	book
	store
manager,
	director 	of
	fiscal 	operations, 	director 	of 	admissions
and
	coordinator 	of 	veteran
1 s
	affairs,
	maintenance 	and
operations 	supervisor,
	head
	custodian
	and 	head 	groundsman.
3
The parties stipulated that the District is an employer
within the meaning of section 3540.1 (k) and th 	CSEA is an
employee organization within the meaning of section 3540.1(j) .
They stipulated that certain classified positions were excluded
from the unit as either management or supervisory. 2
ISSUES
Whether the Operations and Support Unit petitioned for
by CSEA is an appropriate unit and, if so,
Whether the following disputed positions should be
included in the unit:
science laboratory technician
tool room assistant
locker room attendant
security/operations worker
cafeteria assistant
The Appropriate Unit
Antelope Valley Community College District is a single campus
district with an average daily attendance of 3,200. It has 97
classified employees of which approximately 85 are rank and file
employees, that is, non-management, non-supervisory or
ll citations are to the Government Code, title 8,
section 3540 et seq. unless otherwise specified.
2The parties stipulated to the exclusion of the following
positions: director of student activities and data processing
coordinators (see PERB Decision HO-R-52) and athletic
trainer /equipment manager, cafeteria supervisor, book store
manager, director of fiscal operations, director of admissions
and coordinator of veteran's affairs, maintenance and
operations supervisor, head custodian and head groundsman.
w

non-confidential
	employees. 	There
	is
	currently
	no
	classified
	unit
in
	place.
The
	unit 	petitioned
	for	
by	
CSEA,
	including 	the 	disputed
positions,
	represents
	approximately
	30
	to
	33
	employees. 	Without
the
	disputed
	positions,
	the
	unit 	consists
	of
	approximately
	20
employees.
Government	
Code	
section
	3545(a)
	provides:
In
	each
	case
	where
	the
	appropriateness
	of
the	
unit
	is
	an
	issue,
	the	
board	
shall	
decide
the	
question
	on	
the	
basis 	of	
the	
community
of
	interest
	between
	and 	among
	the
	employees
and
	their 	established 	practices
	including,
among
	other 	things,
	the
	extent 	to
	which
	such
employees 	belong
	to 	the
	same
	employee
organization,
	and
	the
	effect	
of	
the
	size 	of
the	
unit
	on
	the
	efficient
	operation	
of
	the
school	
district.
In
	this
	case
	there
	is
	no
	dispute
	as
	to
	the
	community
	of
interest
	between
	the
	operations
	and
	support
	positions.
	The
District
	did 	not
	raise 	this
	as
	an
	issue.
	Moreover,
	the
	Board
has
	found
	Operations
	and
	support 	Units
	to
	be
	presumptively
appropriate
	in
	Sweetwater
	Union 	High
	School
	District3	
and
Fremont
	Unified 	School
	District
4as
as 	well 	as 	in
	other 	cases.
It
	is 	to
	be
	noted,
	however,
	that 	unlike
	Sweetwater
	and
	-~_;:_emont,
the 	placement
	of
	cafeteria
	employees
	in 	the 	unit 	is
	disputed.
3
3sweetwater
	Union High
	School
	District
	(11/23/76)
	EERB
Decision	
No.
	4. 	Prior 	to
	January
	1-,-IT~
	the
	PERB	
was 	known
as 	the 	Educational
	Employment	
Relations	
Board.
4Fremont
	Unified 	School	
District	
(12/6/76)	
EERB
	DecisionNo.
	6.
4
non-confidential employees. There is currently no classified unit
in place.
The unit petitioned for by CSEA, including the disputed
positions, represents approximately 30 to 33 employees. Without
the disputed positions, the unit consists of approximately 20
employees .
Government Code section 3545 (a) provides:
In each case where the appropriateness of
the unit is an issue, the board shall decide
the question on the basis of the community
of interest between and among the employees
and their established practices including,
among other things, the extent to which such
employees belong to the same employee
organization, and the effect of the size of
the unit on the efficient operation of the
school district.
In this case there is no dispute as to the community of
interest between the operations and support positions. The
District did not raise this as an issue. Moreover, the Board
has found Operations and Support Units to be presumptively
appropriate in Sweetwater Union High School District and
Fremont Unified School District as well 	in other cases.
It is to be noted, however, that unlike Sweetwater and Fremont,
the placement of cafeteria employees in the unit is disputed.
Sweetwater Union High School District (11/23/76) EERB
Decision No. 4. Prior to January 1, 1978, the PERB was known
as the Educational Employment Relations Board.
4Fremont Unified School District (12/6/76) EERB Decision
No. 6.

For
	reasons 	explained
	later,
	it
	is	
found	
that
	cafeteria
employees
	share
	a
	community
	of
	interest
	with
	the
	operations
	and
support
	classifications
	and
	therefore 	properly
	belong
	in 	the
same
	unit.
The 	community
	of
	interest
	criteria
	of 	the 	Operations
	and
Support 	Unit 	(excluding
	cafeteria
	employees)
	are
	noted
	herein
so
	as
	to
	form
	a
	basis
	for
	comparison 	with
	the 	disputed
positions.
The
	operations
	and
	support
	employees
	share
	a 	common
	line
	of
supervision.
	They
	report 	to
	the
	director
	of
	maintenance
	and
operations
	who
	in
	turn 	reports 	to
	the
	vice-president 	of
business
	services.
	They 	work 	12
	months
	a
	year,
	8
	consecutive
hours
	a
	day.
	Their
	salaries 	fall
	within 	the
	same
	salary
ranges.
	No
	special
	education
	or
	training 	is
	required 	except
that
	some
	experience 	in 	the
	field 	is
	desired.
	They,
	as 	well 	as
all
	classified
	employees,
	are
	under
	the
	same
	fringe 	benefit
program.
	Virtually
	all
	classified
	employees
	are
	paid
	out 	of
the
	District
	general
	fund
	(the 	only 	exceptions 	are
	CETA
	and
cafeteria
	employees). 	Their 	primary 	job 	involves 	providing
	a
proper 	physical
	environment
	and
	support 	services 	for
	students.
In 	addressing 	past 	practices,
	CSEA
	has
	been 	an 	employee
organization 	at
	the
	District
	for
	at 	least
	10
	years.
	In 	1976,
as 	evidenced
	by
	the 	case
	file,
	CSEA
	sought 	to 	represent
	all
	the
classified
	employees 	by
	filing
	a
	request 	for 	recognition 	with
the
	PERB. 	No
	other
	employee
	organization 	filed
	a 	competing
5
For reasons explained later, it is found that cafeteria
employees share a community of interest with the operations and
support classifications and therefore properly belong in the
same unit.
The community of interest criteria of the Operations and
Support Unit (excluding cafeteria employees) are noted herein
so as to form a basis for comparison with the disputed
positions.
The operations and support employees share a common line of
supervision. They report to the director of maintenance and
operations who in turn reports to the vice-president of
business services. They work 12 months a year, 8 consecutive
hours a day. Their salaries fall within the same salary
ranges. No special education or training is required except
that some experience in the field is desired. They, as well as
all classified employees, are under the same fringe benefit
program. Virtually all classified employees are paid out of
the District general fund (the only exceptions are CETA and
cafeteria employees) . Their primary job involves providing a
proper physical environment and support services for students.
In addressing past practices, CSEA has been an employee
organization at the District for at least 10 years. In 1976,
as evidenced by the case file, CSEA sought to represent all the
classified employees by filing a request for recognition with
the PERB. No other employee organization filed a competing
5

claim.
5	
In
	1977
	an
	in-house
	organization
6r was
	formed.
However,	
as	
testified
	to
	by 	a	
former
	CSEA
	president,
	the
competing
	organization
	is
	no
	longer
	in
	existence.
	With
	the
exception
	of
	the 	in-house
	organization
	no
	other 	organization
has 	sought
	to 	represent
	the
	classified
	employees
	including
those
	petitioned
	for
	by 	CSEA.
Based	
on	
the 	foregoing,
	it
	is
	accepted
	that
	the Operations
and
	support
	classifications
	appropriately
	belong
	in 	the
	same
unit.
The
	only
	question
	remaining 	with
	respect 	to
	determining
	the
appropriate 	unit
	is 	essentially
	whether
	any
	unit
	a.t
	all
	is
appropriate.
	The
	District
	argued
	that
	no
	unit
	is
	appropriate
based
	on
	cost.
	Counsel
	for 	the
	District
	argued
	that
	the
	cost
associated
	with
	administering
	and
	negotiating
	an
	agreement
would
	be
	disproportionate
	to 	the
	number
	of
	employees
	involved
in 	the 	requested
	unit.
	He
	indicated
	that
	the
	cost
	of
	such
	a
small
	unit
	would 	be
	detrimental 	to 	the
	efficient
	operation 	of
the
	District
	and 	would 	remove
	substantial
	funds
	available 	for
educational 	purposes.
SA	
representation 	election
	was
	held
	by
	the
	PERB
	in
	1978.
"No
	Representation" 	received
	a
	majority 	of 	the 	votes
	cast.
6An
	unfair 	practice
	charge
	was
	filed
	with
	PERB
	by 	CSEA
relative 	to 	the 	in-house
	employee
	organization.
	The
	charge
	was
sustained 	insofar 	as
	it
	alleged 	violation 	of 	subdivisions
	{a)
and 	(d)
	of 	section
	3543.5
	of 	the 	Educational
	Employment
Relations 	Act. 	See 	Antelope 	Valley
	Community
	College
	District,
(7/18/79)
	PERB
	Decision
	No. 	97.
6
claim. In 1977 an in-house organization was fo med.
However, as testified to by a former CSEA president, the
competing organization is no longer in existence. 	With the
exception of the in-house organization no other organization
has sought to represent the classified employees including
those petitioned for by CSEA.
Based on the foregoing, it is accepted that the Operations
and Support classifications appropriately belong in the same
unit.
The only question remaining with respect to determining the
appropriate unit is essentially whether any unit at all is
appropriate. The District argued that no unit is appropriate
based on cost. Counsel for the District argued that the cost
associated with administering and negotiating an agreement
would be disproportionate to the number of employees involved
in the requested unit. He indicated that the cost of such a
small unit would be detrimental to the efficient operation of
the District and would remove substantial funds available for
educational purposes.
A representation election was held by the PERB in 1978.
"No Representation" received a majority of the votes cast.
An unfair practice charge was filed with PERB by CSEA
relative to the in-house employee organization. The charge was
sustained insofar as it alleged violation of subdivisions (a)
and (d) of section 3543.5 of the Educational Employment
Relations Act. See Antelope Valley Community College District,
(7/18/79) PERB Decision No. 97.

Because
	of
	the
	size 	of
	the
	District,
	Dr.
	C.
	W.
	Stine,
superintendent/president 	acts
	as
	the 	personnel
	officer
	of
	the
District.
	He	
is	
responsible
	for 	handling 	the
	employer-employee
relations 	of	
the
	District.
	Dr.
	Stine
	testified
	that
	if
	a
	unit
was
	established,
	a
	personnel
	office
	would
	have
	to
	be
	created;
the 	estimated
	cost
	of
	which
	would 	be
	over 	$42,000
	per 	year.	
No
evidence
	was
	presented
	on	
what	
the 	estimated
	cost
	was
	basea.7
The
	personnel
	office
	would
	handle
	all
	contract 	negotiations
and
	the
	administration 	of
	an
	agreement 	once
	a
	unit
	was
	in
place.
	Dr.
	Stine 	indicated
	a 	team
of 	contract 	administrators,
legal
	counsel,
	a 	management 	team 	and 	a
	personnel
	administrator
would
	probably
	be 	needed
	if
	a
	unit
	was
	created.
	It
	was
	Dr.
Stine
1 s
	testimony
	that
	he 	had 	no
	experience
	negotiating 	or
administering
	an
	agreement 	under
	the
	EERA.
	His
	experience
	was
under
	the
	Winton
	Act
	with
	memoranda
	of 	understanding.
	Lastly,
it
	was
	his
	testimony
	that
	in
	terms
	of 	cost
	and
	efficiency of
operations 	there
	was 	no
	basic 	difference
	in
	managing 	a
	unit 	of
10
	employees
	as
	compared
	to
	one
	of
	100
	employees.
	The
	only
caveat
	was
	that,
	"Any
	element
	of 	the
	contract
	given
	to
	twenty
people
	would
	certainly
	have
	to
	be
	considered 	to
	be
	given
	to
	the
7There 	was
	testimony
	on
	costs 	incurred
	by
	the
	District
since
	1976
	relative 	to 	matters
	under
	the	
EERA; 	however,
	those
were
	not 	incurred 	as
	a
	result 	of 	classified 	collectivebargaining 	since 	there
	has 	never 	been 	a
	classified 	unit 	in 	the
District.
7
Because of the size of the District, Dr. C. W. Stine,
super intendent/president acts as the personnel officer of the
District. He is responsible for handling the employer-employee
relations of the District. Dr. Stine testified that if a unit
was established, a personnel office would have to be created;
the estimated cost of which would be over $42,000 per year.
evidence was presented on what the estimated cost was based. 7
The personnel office would handle all contract negotiations
and the administration of an agreement once a unit was in
place. Dr. Stine indicated a team of contract administrators,
legal counsel, a management team and a personnel administrator
would probably be needed if a unit was created. It was Dr.
Stine's testimony that he had no experience negotiating or
administering an agreement under the EERA. His experience was
under the Winton Act with memoranda of understanding. Lastly,
it was his testimony that in terms of cost and efficiency of
operations there was no basic difference in managing a unit of
10 employees as compared to one of 100 employees. 	The only
caveat was that, "Any element of the contract given to twenty
people would certainly have to be considered to be given to the
There was testimony on costs incurred by the District
since 1976 relative to matters under the EERA; however, those
were not incurred as a result of classified collective
bargaining since there has never been a classified unit in the
District.

other
	seventy 	or
	eighty."
	He
	indicated
	this
	would
	cause
disruption.
In
	addressing 	the
	argument
	that
	no
	unit
	is
	appropriate,
	the
hearing
	officer
	turns
	to 	the 	Educational
	Employment
	Relations
Act
	itself
	to
	quote
	the 	express
	purpose	
for	
which
	it
	was
enacted.
3540.
	PURPOSE OF 	CHAPTER
It
	is
	the 	purpose
	of
	this
	chapter
	to
	promote
the
	improvement
	of
	personnel
	management 	and
employer-employee
	relations
	within 	the
public
	school
	systems
	in	
the	
State	
of
California
	by
	providing
	a
	uniform
	basis
	forrecognizing 	the
	right
	of 	public
	school
employees
	to
	join 	organizations 	of
	their
	own
choice, 	to
	be
	represented
	by
	such
organizations	
in	
their
	professional.	
and
employment
	relationships
	with
	public 	schoolemployers,
	to
	select
	one 	employee
organization	
as	
the 	exclusive
	representativeof 	the
	employees
	in
	an
	appropriate
	unit
....
	[Emphasis-Adaed]
This
	section
	recognizes 	the
	rights	
of	
public
	school
employees
	to 	join,
	be
	represented
	and
	select
	one 	employee
organization	
as 	the
	exclusive 	representative 	of
	an	
appropriate
unit
	or
	to
	choose
	not 	to
	be
	represented.
	Thus,
	the
	right 	of
employees
	to
	be
	placed 	in
	an
	appropriate 	unit
	if
	they
	so
	desire
is
	provided
	by
	law.
The
	argument
	that
	no
	unit 	is
	appropriate
	because
	a
personnel
	office
	would 	have
	to
	be
	created 	is 	rejected 	for
	a
number
	of 	reasons;
	first,
	the
	law
	expressly 	grants
	employees
the
	right 	to 	elect
	or 	not 	to 	elect
	an
	exclusive 	representative.
8
other seventy or eighty. " He indicated this would cause
disruption.
In addressing the argument that no unit is appropriate, the
hearing officer turns to the Educational Employment Relations
Act itself to quote the express purpose for which it was
enacted.
3540. PURPOSE OF CHAPTER
It is the purpose of this chapter to promote
the improvement of personnel management and
employer -employee relations within the
public school systems in the State of
California by providing a uniform basis for
recognizing the right of public school
employees to join organizations of their own
choice, to be represented by such
organizations in their professional and
employment relationships with public school
employers, to select one employee
organization as the exclusive representative
of the employees in an appropriate unit
[Emphasis Added]
This section recognizes the rights of public school
employees to join, be represented and select one employee
organization as the exclusive representative of an appropriate
unit or to choose not to be represented. Thus, the right of
employees to be placed in an appropriate unit if they so desire
is provided by law.
The argument that no unit is appropriate because a
personnel office would have to be created is rejected for a
number of reasons; first, the law expressly grants employees
the right to elect or not to elect an exclusive representative.
8

Inherent
	in
	this 	right
	is
	the
	right
	to
	placement
	in
	an
appropriate
	unit.
	secondly, 	the
	evidence
	presented
	to	
support
the
	contention
	that
	a
	personnel
	office
	would 	be
	required
	was
highly
	speculative.
With
	respect
	to
	the
	criteria
	set
	forth	
in	
Government
	Code
section
	3545(a)
	the
	effect
	of
	the
	size
	of
	the
	unit
	on
	the
efficient
	operation 	of 	the 	school	
district,
	Dr.
	Stine's
testimony
	was
	that
	there
	was 	no
	basic 	difference
	in
	managing
	a
unit 	of	
10
	as
	opposed
	to
	a
	unit
	of
	100
	employees.
While
	counsel	
for	
the
	District
	argues
	that
	the
	cost 	of
administering
	an
	agreement
	is
	disproportionate 	to
	the
	number
	of
employees	
it
	will 	benefit, 	this 	is
	not
	a
	basis	
for	
finding 	that
the	
unit
	is
	inappropriate.
	Moreover
9	
there
	was 	an
	absence	
of
any	
evidence	
on
	the
	effect
	of	
the	
size 	of	
the	
unit.
	Lastly,
	it
should
	be
	pointed 	out
	that
	the
	efficiency
	of 	operation
	criteria
is 	set
	forth
	in 	the
	statute
	to 	help 	decide 	the
	appropriateness
of
	a
	unit 	relative
	to 	the
	proliferation
	of
	units,
	not
	to 	the
question 	of
	whether
	any
	unit
	at 	all
	is 	appropriate.
Based
	on
	the 	foregoing, 	the
	argument
	that
	no
	unit 	is
appropriate
	is 	rejected.
Disputed 	Positi~~§.
The
	Operations
	and
	Support 	Unit
	petitioned
	for
	by
	CSEA
includes 	the 	disputed 	positions 	of 	tool	
room	
assistant,
	and
science 	laboratory 	technicia.n. 	In
	Mar
in	
communi~y	
College
9
Inherent in this right is the right to placement in an
appropriate unit. Secondly, the evidence presented to support
the contention that a personnel office would be required was
highly speculative.
With respect to the criteria set forth in Government Code
section 3545 (a) the effect of the size of the unit on the
efficient operation of the school district, Dr. Stine's
testimony was that there was no basic difference in managing a
unit of 10 as opposed to a unit of 100 employees.
While counsel for the District argues that the cost of
administering an agreement is disproportionate to the number of
employees it will benefit, this is not a basis for finding that
the unit is inappropriate. Moreover, there was an absence of
any evidence on the effect of the size of the unit. Lastly, it
should be pointed out that the efficiency of operation criteria
is set forth in the statute to help decide the appropriateness
of a unit relative to the proliferation of units, not to the
question of whether any unit at all is appropriate.
Based on the foregoing, the argument that no unit is
appropriate is rejected.
Disputed Positions
The Operations and Support Unit petitioned for by CSEA
includes the disputed positions of tool room assistant, and
science laboratory technician. In Marin Community College
9

District,
8	
the
	Board
	dealt
	with
	similiar
	positions
	which
	it
placed
	in
	a
	Technical/Quasi-Professional 	Unit.
	The
Technical/Quasi-Professional
	Unit
	was
	established
	because
	the
Board 	acknowledged
	that
	community
	college
	districts
	have
different 	staffing 	patterns
	than
	K-12
	districts
	and
	that
	as
	a
result	
the	
"paraprofessional"
	unit
	created
	in 	Sweetwater,
supra,
	Fremont,
	supra,	
and	
Pittsburg
	Unified
	School
	District9
could 	not
	easily
	be
	used
	for
	community
	college
	districts.
	In
applying 	the
	community
	of
	interest
	criteria,
	the
	Board 	found
the
	Technical/Quasi-Professional
	Unit
	employees
	to
	have
	a
separate
	and
	distinct
	community
	of
	interest
	from
	the
	skilled
trades,
	operations
	and
	clerical
	employees.
The
	Board 	found
	that
	positions
	such
	as
	life
	science
laboratory 	technician,
	instructional 	assistant
	or
	A-V
technician,
	for
	example,
	function
	at
	a
	relatively
	advanced
level, 	often
	bordering	
on	
the
	professional.
	They
	were
generally 	required 	to
	have
	an
	educational
	background
	equivalent
to
	two
	years 	of 	college,
	including 	course
	work
	related 	to 	the
area
	in
	which
	the 	technician
	worked
	or 	they
	had
	to 	possess, 	as
a
	result
	of 	experience,
	a
	degree
	of 	technical
	knowledge.
	Their
work
	often 	required 	the 	exercise 	of 	independent 	judgment.
	The
88Marin 	Community
	College
	District 	(6/26/78)
	PERB
	DecisionNo.
	5~
9	
9pi
ttsburg 	unified
	School
	District 	(10/14/76)
	EERB
Decision
	No.
	3.
10
District, the Board dealt with similiar positions which it
placed in a Technical/Quasi-Professional Unit. The
Technical/Quasi-Professional Unit was established because the
Board acknowledged that community college districts have
different staffing patterns than K-12 districts and that as a
result the "paraprofessional" unit created in Sweetwater,
supra, Fremont, supra, and Pittsburg Unified School District9
could not easily be used for community college districts. In
applying the community of interest criteria, the Board found
the Technical/Quasi-Professional Unit employees to have a
separate and distinct community of interest from the skilled
trades, operations and clerical employees.
The Board found that positions such as life science
laboratory technician, instructional assistant or A-V
technician, for example, function at a relatively advanced
level, often bordering on the professional. They were
generally required to have an educational background equivalent
to two years of college, including course work related to the
area in which the technician worked or they had to possess, as
a result of experience, a degree of technical knowledge. Their
work often required the exercise of independent judgment. 	The
Mar in Community College District (6/26/78) PERB Decision
No. 55.
pittsburg Unified School District (10/14/76) EERB
Decision No. 3.
10

Board
	also
	found
	that,
	while
	some
	classifications
	were
	not
required
	to
	have
	relatively
	high
	educational
	qualifications,
they
	did
	share
	with
	other
	classifications
	the
	possession
	of
	a
specialized
	skill.
	In
	addition,
	many
	of 	the
	positions 	required
direct
	work
	with
	students.
	Their
	work
	often 	related
	to
	the
educational
	mission	
of	
the
	institution.
Science 	Laboratory 	Technician
In 	the 	Antelope 	Valley
	Community
	College
	District,
	the
science 	laboratory 	technician 	functions
	in 	the
	same
	general
manner
	as 	did
	the
	life
	science 	laboratory 	technician
	in 	Marin,
~upra.
	The
	science 	laboratory 	technicians 	are 	supervised 	by
the
	instructors	
with	
whom
	they
	work.
	They
	report 	to 	the
	dean
of	
math/science
	who
	in
	turn 	reports 	to	
the	
vice
	president
	of
academic	
affairs.
	Science 	laboratory	
technicians 	are 	required
to
	have
	an
	educational
	background
	equivalent 	to
	two
	years
	of
college
	with
	an
	area 	of
	specialization
	in
	science
	or
	one
	year
of 	technical 	laboratory 	experience 	or
	a
	combination
	of
	the
two.
	Their 	job
	is
	for 	the
	10-month
	school 	year.
	They
	perform
and
	set
	up
	laboratory 	experiments, 	grade
	papers, 	order
	and
receive 	stock, 	maintain
	and
	issue 	technical
	and
	scientific
laboratory 	supplies
	and
	equipment. 	Testimony
	from 	two
technicians 	revealed
	that
	one
	spent
	10
	to
	15
	percent 	of 	her
time
	in
	direct 	contact 	with 	students 	while 	the 	second
	spent
	at
least
	50
	percent 	of 	her 	laboratory
	time
	instructing 	students.
Both 	agreed
	that
	most
	of 	their 	duties
	were
	technical 	in
11
Board also found that, while some classifications were not
required to have relatively high educational qualifications,
they did share with other classifications the possession of a
specialized skill. In addition, many of the positions required
direct work with students. Their work often related to the
educational mission of the institution.
Science Laboratory Technician
In the Antelope Valley Community College District, the
science laboratory technician functions in the same general
manner as did the life science laboratory technician in Marin,
supra. 	The science laboratory technicians are supervised by
the instructors with whom they work. They report to the dean
of math/science who in turn reports to the vice president of
academic affairs. Science laboratory technicians are required
to have an educational background equivalent to two years of
college with an area of specialization in science or one year
of technical laboratory experience or a combination of the
two. Their job is for the 10-month school year. They perform
and set up laboratory experiments, grade papers, order and
receive stock, maintain and issue technical and scientific
laboratory supplies and equipment. Testimony from two
technicians revealed that one spent 10 to 15 percent of her
time in direct contact with students while the second spent at
least 50 percent of her laboratory time instructing students.
Both agreed that most of their duties were technical in
11

nature.
	One	
technician	
indicated
	she
	exercised
	independent
judgment
	frequently
	on
	her
	job.
In
	applying 	the
	community
	of
	interest
	criteria
	to
	the
science 	laboratory 	technician
	it
	is
	found
	that
	unlike 	the
operations
	and
	support
	classifications	
their	
primary 	job
function
	is 	tied
	to
	the 	educational
	mission	
of	
the
	college.
Their
	work
	involves
	working
	with
	students.
	Science
	laboratory
technicians 	are
	employed	
10	
months
	per	
year	
as
	opposed
	to
	12
months.
	They	
have	
a	
separate	
line
	of 	supervision	
than
	do
	the
operations	
and
	support 	employees.
	The
	educational
	and
experience 	requirements 	are
	more
	demanding
	than
	is
	required 	for
Operations
	and
	Support employees.
	And,
	they 	possess
	a
	high
degree
	of 	technical
	knowledge.
As
	previously
	mentioned,
	in
	Marin,
	supra,
	p. 	10,
	the
	Board
dealt
	with 	the
	similar 	position 	of
	life
	science 	laboratory
technician.
	That
	position
	functioned 	in
	virtually
	the
	same
manner
	as
	does
	the 	science 	laboratory 	technician 	here.
	The
Board
	placed
	it
	in 	the 	Technical/Quasi-Professional 	unit
because
	it
	possessed
	a
	separate
	and
	distinct
	community
	of
interest
	from
	the
	clerical
	or 	operations
	and
	support
classifications
	based
	on
	job
	function, 	level 	of 	technical
knowledge,
	educational 	requirements
	and
	other
	criteria.
Based 	on
	the
	facts 	in
	this
	case
	and 	on
	the 	foregoing,
	it
	is
found
	that 	the 	science 	laboratory 	technician 	does 	not 	have 	a
12
nature. One technician indicated she exercised independent
judgment frequently on her job.
In applying the community of interest criteria to the
science laboratory technician it is found that unlike the
operations and support classifications their primary job
function is tied to the educational mission of the college.
Their work involves working with students. Science laboratory
technicians are employed 10 months per year as opposed to 12
months . 	They have a separate line of supervision than do the
operations and support employees. The educational and
experience requirements are more demanding than is required for
Operations and Support employees. And, they possess a high
degree of technical knowledge.
As previously mentioned, in Marin, supra, p. 10, the Board
dealt with the similar position of life science laboratory
technician. That position functioned in virtually the same
manner as does the science laboratory technician here. The
Board placed it in the Technical/Quasi-Professional unit
because it possessed a separate and distinct community of
interest from the clerical or operations and support
classifications based on job function, level of technical
knowledge, educational requirements and other criteria.
Based on the facts in this case and on the foregoing, it is
found that the science laboratory technician does not have a
12

community
	of
	interest
	with
	the
	operations
	and
	support
	employees
and
	is
	therefore
	excluded
	from
	the
	unit.
Tool
	Room
	Assistant
The
	tool
	room
	assistants
	are
	supervised
	by
	the
	instructors
with
	whom
	they
	work.
	They
	report
	to	
the	
dean
	of 	technical
education
	who
	in
	turn 	reports 	to
	the
	vice-president 	of
	academic
affairs.
	The
	tool
	room
	assistants 	set
	up 	and	
prepare
	mockups
and	
displays	
for	
class 	instruction.
	They
	issue	
and	
receive
tools
	from
	students;	
perform maintenance	
and	
repair	
work 	on
electronic
	and/or 	automotive
	supplies	
and	
equipment	
and 	do
related
	work
	as
	required.
There
	was
	conflicting
	testimony 	as
	to
	whether
	tool
	room
assistants 	instruct
	students 	in
	safety
	and
	assist
	them
	with
experiments.
	The
	vice-president 	of
	academic
	affairs 	testified
that 	tool
	room
	assistants 	instruct
	students 	in
	safety
	and
assist
	them
	with
	laboratory
	experiments.
	On
	the 	other
	hand,
the
	tool
	room
	assistant
	who
	testified
	indicated
	he
	did 	not
instruct
	students:
	however 	he
	agreed
	he 	worked
	with
	students
for 	the 	major
	part 	of 	his
	day.
The
	tool
	room
	assistant 	testified
	he
	performed
	some
	custodial
duties 	including
	heavy 	work
	such 	as 	chemical 	cleaning 	of 	the
floors 	(this 	is
	done 	once
	a 	week},
	filling
	soap 	and
	towel
containers,
	emptying 	the 	trash
	and
	general 	cleaning 	of 	the
shop. 	His
	supervisor
	testified 	that
	everyone 	in 	the 	shop,
13
community of interest with the operations and support employees
and is therefore excluded from the unit.
Tool Room Assistant
The tool room assistants are supervised by the instructors
with whom they work. They report to the dean of technical
education who in turn reports to the vice-president of academic
affairs. The tool room assistants set up and prepare mockups
and displays for class instruction. They issue and receive
tools from students; perform maintenance and repair work on
electronic and/or automotive supplies and equipment and do
related work as required.
There was conflicting testimony as to whether tool room
assistants instruct students in safety and assist them with
experiments. The vice-president of academic affairs testified
that tool room assistants instruct students in safety and
assist them with laboratory experiments. On the other hand,
the tool room assistant who testified indicated he did not
instruct students; however he agreed he worked with students
for the major part of his day.
The tool room assistant testified he performed some custodial
duties including heavy work such as chemical cleaning of the
floors (this is done once a week) , filling soap and towel
containers, emptying the trash and general cleaning of the
shop. His supervisor testified that everyone in the shop,
13

instructors
	included,
	participated
	in 	the
	general
	upkeep 	and
cleaning 	of
	the
	shop
	but
	that
	only
	tool
	room
	assistants
	and
students
	did
	the
	heavy 	work.
	The
	training
	and/or
	experience
required
	is
	the 	equivalent 	to
	completion
	of
	two
	years	
of
college
	course
	work
	in
	electrical
	or 	automotive 	maintenance
	or
one
	year	
of 	issuing
	and
	maintaining
	electronic
	or 	automotive
equipment
	or
	a
	combination
	of
	the
	two.
Some
	interaction
	with 	maintenance
	employees
	was 	shown.
	If
a
	problem
	arose,
	for
	example,
	with
	a
	plugged
	drain,
	the
	tool
room
	assistant
	would
	first
	attempt
	to
	unplug
	the 	drain
himself.
	If
	unsuccessful,
	he
	would
	contact
	a
	maintenance
worker.
	At
	times
	the
	two 	would 	work
	together 	to
	correct 	the
problem.	
The
	tool
	room
	assistant 	testifiedr	
howeverr	
that
	it
was
	not
	his
	job
	to	
perform	
maintenance
	duties
	but
	that	
he
became
	involved 	because
	it
	was
	his 	responsibility
	to
	make	
sure
the
	shop	
ran 	smoothly.
In 	applying 	the	
community
	of
	interest 	criteria
	to	
this
position	
it
	is	
found
	that	
it	
does 	not 	share	
a 	community	
of
interest	
with 	the 	Operations
	and	
Support	
positions.
	Tool	
room
assistants
	work 	10 	months 	per
	year.
	Their	
work
	is	
student
oriented.
	Even 	though
	the 	tool
	room
	assistant	
who	
testified
did 	not
	instruct 	students,
	he 	worked
	with
	them
	for 	the 	major
part 	of 	his
	day.
	The
	job
	is 	technical 	in 	nature
	and
	requires
specialized 	skill
	to 	perform
	it.
	Unlike 	the 	operations
	and
support 	classifications,
	two
	years 	of 	education 	or
	significant
14
instructors included, participated in the general upkeep and
cleaning of the shop but that only tool room assistants and
students did the heavy work. The training and/or experience
required is the equivalent to completion of two years of
college course work in electrical or automotive maintenance or
one year of issuing and maintaining electronic or automotive
equipment or a combination of the two.
Some interaction with maintenance employees was shown. 	If
a problem arose, for example, with a plugged drain, the tool
room assistant would first attempt to unplug the drain
himself. If unsuccessful, he would contact a maintenance
worker. At times the two would work together to correct the
problem. 	The tool room assistant testified, however, that it
was not his job to perform maintenance duties but that he
became involved because it was his responsibility to make sure
the shop ran smoothly.
In applying the community of interest criteria to this
position it is found that it does not share a community of
interest with the Operations and Support positions. Tool room
assistants work 10 months per year. Their work is student
oriented. Even though the tool room assistant who testified
did not instruct students, he worked with them for the major
part of his day. The job is technical in nature and requires
specialized skill to perform it. Unlike the operations and
support classifications, two years of education or significant
14

experience 	in
	the
	field
	is
	required 	for
	employment.
	Although
some
	custodial 	duties
	are
	performed, 	they
	are
	duties
	which
could
	be
	viewed
	as
	somewhat
	incidental
	to 	the
	position.,
In
	any
event, 	the
	custodial 	duties
	as 	performed
	are
	not
	sufficient
	to
establish
	a 	community
	of 	interest
	with 	the
	operations
	and
support
	employees
	since 	the 	majority 	of 	the
	time
	is
	spent
	doing
technical
	work,
	issuing
	and
	receiving
	equipment
	from
students,or
	setting
	up 	and
	preparing	
mock-ups
	for
	class
instruction.
	The
	interaction
	shown
	with 	maintenance 	employees
is
	also
	not
	sufficient
	to
	warrant
	inclusion
	of 	the
	tool
	room
assistant
	in 	the 	Operations
	and
	Support
	Unit.
	Lastly,
	this
position
	does 	not
	share
	a 	common
	line
	of 	supervision
	with
	the
maintenance,
	grounds 	or
	custodial
	employees.
In 	Marin,
	supra, 10	Bo
the
	Board 	found
	that
	technical
positions
	such
	as
	this
	appropriately
	belong 	in
	a
	unit 	separate
from
	the 	operations
	and
	support
	classes
	based 	on	
community
	of
interest 	factors.
In
	light
	of
	all
	of 	the
	above,
	the 	tool
	room
	assistant 	is
excluded
	from
	the
	unit.
Locker
	Room
Attendant
The
	locker
	room
	attendant 	assigns 	lockers
	and
	issues
athletic
	equipment
	to
	girls'
	classes.
	She 	mends,
	launders
	and
repairs 	athletic
	equipment, 	sweeps
	floors,
	washes 	windows,
10	
lOsee 	Marin 	Community
	College
	District,	
supra, 	p.	
8
discussion 	on 	electronic 	teclinfc1an.
15
experience in the field is required for employment. Although
some custodial duties are performed, they are duties which
could be viewed as somewhat incidental to the position. In any
event, the custodial duties as performed are not sufficient to
establish a community of interest with the operations and
support employees since the majority of the time is spent doing
technical work, issuing and receiving equipment from
students, or setting up and preparing mock-ups for class
instruction . 	The interaction shown with maintenance employees
is also not sufficient to warrant inclusion of the tool room
assistant in the Operations and Support Unit. Lastly, this
position does not share a common line of supervision with the
maintenance, grounds or custodial employees.
In Marin, supra, the 	ard found that technical
positions such as this appropriately belong in a unit separate
from the operations and support classes based on community of
interest factors.
In light of all of the above, the tool room assistant is
excluded from the unit.
Locker Room Attendant
The locker room attendant assigns lockers and issues
athletic equipment to girls' classes. She mends, launders and
repairs athletic equipment, sweeps floors, washes windows,
see Marin Community College District, supra, p. 8
discussion on electronic technician.
15

empties
	trash
	and
	scrubs
	showers
	in 	the 	locker
	room. 	The
locker
	room
	attendant
	testified
	she
	spent
	approximately
	50
percent 	of
	her 	time
	performing
	custodial 	duties
	and
	50
	percent
with
	students 	issuing
	athletic
	equipment
	and/or
	lockers.
It
	was
	her
	testimony
	that
	she
	did
	not
	instruct
	students.
The
	job
	description
	makes 	no
	mention	
of	
instructing
	students
	as
part	
of	
the
	duties
	to
	be
	performed.
	The
	District
	indicated
	the
position
	was
	listed
	under
	the
	accounting
	classification
	of
instructional 	aides.
	It
	indicated
	that 	instructional
	aides
assist
	in
	all
	phases
	of
	instruction
	under
	the
	instructor's
over-all
	supervision.
	Other 	than
	this,
	no
	evidence
	was
presented	
which 	would
	contradict
	a
	finding
	that
	the 	locker
	room
attendant
	does
	not
	instruct
	students.
	It
	should
	be
	noted
	that
the 	accounting
	classification
	of
	a
	position
	is
	not
	persuasive
in 	determining
	actual
	job
	duties, 	especially	
in	
light
	of
contrary
	evidence
	relating 	directly
	to 	duties
	performed.
The
	job
	description 	indicates 	that 	six
	months
	of
	related
work
	experience 	or
	any
	combination
	of
	training,
	education
and/or 	experience
	which
	could 	provide 	the 	required
	knowledge
	is
needed 	for
	employment.
	This
	position
	has 	very
	little
interaction
	with 	custodians
	and 	none
	at 	all
	with 	the 	grounds
employees. 	However,
	contact 	with 	the 	maintenance 	workers
occurs 	frequently.
	The
	locker
	room
	attendant
	testified 	that
	she
16
empties trash and scrubs showers in the locker room. 	The
locker room attendant testified she spent approximately 50
percent of her time performing custodial duties and 50 percent
with students issuing athletic equipment and/or lockers.
It was her testimony that she did not instruct students.
The job description makes no mention of instructing students as
part of the duties to be performed. The District indicated the
position was listed under the accounting classification of
instructional aides. It indicated that instructional aides
assist in all phases of instruction under the instructor's
over-all supervision. Other than this, no evidence was
presented which would contradict a finding that the locker room
attendant does not instruct students. It should be noted that
the accounting classification of a position is not persuasive
in determining actual job duties, especially in light of
contrary evidence relating directly to duties performed.
The job description indicates that six months of related
work experience or any combination of training, education
and/or experience which could provide the required knowledge is
needed for employment. This position has very little
interaction with custodians and none at all with the grounds
employees. 	However, contact with the maintenance workers
occurs frequently. The locker room attendant testified that she
16

occasionally
	helped 	maintenance 	workers
	repair
	items,
	however,
not
	as
	a
	regular
	part
	of
	her
	job.
The
	position 	of
	locker
	room
	attendant
	was
	upgraded
	from
matron
	to 	locker
	room
	attendant.
	CSEA
	submitted
	a
reclassification
	proposal
	on
	behalf 	of
	the
	employee
	based
	on
like
	pay
	for
	like
	work
	relative
	to 	custodians.
	The
	position
was
	thereafter
	upgraded
	to
	its
	current
	range	
which	
is
	one
	range
higher
	than
	custodians.
	It
	is
	on
	the
	same
	range
	as 	the
groundskeeper.
	There
	was
	testimony
	that
	the
	upgrade
	occurred
after
	a
	survey
	was
	conducted
	which 	recommended
	the
	change.
	It
is
	unclear
	from
	the 	record
	which
	party
	initiated
	the 	survey.
It
	is
	also 	unclear
	why
	the
	reclassification
	occurredJ
	either
	as
a
	response 	to
	CSEA's
	proposal
	or
	as
	a
	result
	of
	the 	survey.
The
	locker
	room
	attendant 	reports 	directly
	to 	the
	dean
	of
physical 	education
	and
	athletics.
	She 	works 	10 	months
	per
	year.
In 	applying 	the
	community
	of
	interest 	criteria
	to 	the
facts,
	it
	is
	concluded 	for 	the 	following 	reasons
	that
	the
locker
	room
	attendant 	appropriately
	belongs 	in 	the
	Operations
and
	Support 	Unit.
The 	employee
	in
	this 	position
	spends
	50
	percent 	of 	her 	time
doing
	custodial 	duties.
	The
	remaining
	50
	percent
	is
	spent
performing 	other 	duties.
	Unlike 	the 	tool
	room
	attendant 	or 	the
science 	laboratory 	technician, 	the 	locker
	room
	attendant 	is
only 	required 	to 	possess 	six
	months
	of 	related
	work
	experience.
17
occasionally helped maintenance workers repair items, however,
not as a regular part of her job.
The position of locker room attendant was upgraded from
matron to locker room attendant. CSEA submitted a
reclassification proposal on behalf of the employee based on
like pay for like work relative to custodians. The position
was thereafter upgraded to its current range which is one range
higher than custodians. It is on the same range as the
groundskeeper . There was testimony that the upgrade occurred
after a survey was conducted which recommended the change. It
is unclear from the record which party initiated the survey.
It is also unclear why the reclassification occurred; either as
a response to CSEA's proposal or as a result of the survey.
The locker room attendant reports directly to the dean of
physical education and athletics. She works 10 months per year.
In applying the community of interest criteria to the
facts, it is concluded for the following reasons that the
locker room attendant appropriately belongs in the Operations
and Support Unit.
The employee in this position spends 50 percent of her time
doing custodial duties. The remaining 50 percent is spent
performing other duties. Unlike the tool room attendant or the
science laboratory technician, the locker room attendant is
only required to possess six months of related work experience.
17

The
	locker
	room
	attendant
	does
	not 	perform
	highly
specialized
	or
	technical
	duties
	which
	would
	require
	the
	use
	of
independent
	judgment.
	Her
	duties
	appear
	to
	be
	routine
	in
nature.
	She
	does
	not
	instruct
	students.
	Nor 	was
	there
	any
evidence
	presented 	to
	show
	that
	she
	acts
	as
	an
	assistant
	to
instructors
	in
	any
	capacity.
	Unlike
	the
	tool
	room
	assistant
and
	the 	science
	laboratory 	technician
	who
	prepare
	mock-ups
	or
laboratory
	experiments,
	the 	locker
	room
	attendant
	simply
assigns
	locks
	and
	issues
	athletic
	equipment
	to
	students.
	This
aspect 	of
	her 	job
	can
	be 	compared
	to
	the
	work
	performed 	by
cafeteria
	workers
	who
	prepare
	and
	serve
	food
	to 	the
	students.
Both
	of
	these
	positions
	are
	involved 	with
	students;
	however,
their
	involvement
	is
	not
	like 	that
	of
	the
	employee
	who
	actually
prepares
	laboratories
	and
	participates
	with
	instructors.
Although
	the 	locker
	room
	attendant,
	unlike 	the
	operations
and
	support
	employees, 	works
	ten
	months
	per 	year
	and
	reports
directly
	to 	the
	dean
	of 	physical 	education,
	she
	nonetheless
	has
a 	community
	of
	interest
	with
	the 	operations
	and
	support
employees 	based
	on
	job
	function.
	Her
	job
	function
	relates 	to
providing
	a
	proper 	physical
	environment
	and
	support
	services
for
	students.
	At
	least 	half 	of 	her 	job
	is 	strictly
	custodial
in 	nature.
	The
	other 	half
	concerns
	itself
	with
	non-technical,
rather 	routine 	duties.
18
The locker room attendant does not perform highly
specialized or technical duties which would require the use of
independent judgment. Her duties appear to be routine in
nature. 	She does not instruct students. Nor was there any
evidence presented to show that she acts as an assistant to
instructors in any capacity. Unlike the tool room assistant
and the science laboratory technician who prepare mock-ups or
laboratory experiments, the locker room attendant simply
assigns locks and issues athletic equipment to students. 	This
aspect of her job can be compared to the work performed by
cafeteria workers who prepare and serve food to the students.
Both of these positions are involved with students; however,
their involvement is not like that of the employee who actually
prepares laboratories and participates with instructors.
Although the locker room attendant, unlike the operations
and support employees, works ten months per year and reports
directly to the dean of physical education, she nonetheless has
a community of interest with the operations and support
employees based on job function. Her job function relates to
providing a proper physical environment and support services
for students. At least half of her job is strictly custodial
in nature. The other half concerns itself with non-technical,
rather routine duties.
18

This
	position	
is	
on
	the
	same
	salary
	range
	as 	the
groundskeeper.
	Some
	interaction
	was 	shown	
with 	maintenance
employees.
Taken
	as
	a
	whole,
	considering
	especially
	job
	function
	and
the
	lack
	of 	specialized
	or
	highly
	technical
	knowledge,
	as
	well
as
	salary, 	interaction
	with 	maintenance 	employees,
	and
experience 	requirements, 	the
	position
	has
	a 	community
	of
interest
	with
	the
	operations
	and
	support
	classifications,
	in
spite	
of
	a
	different
	work
	year
	and
	separate 	supervision.
Based
	on
	the 	foregoing,
	it
	is
	found
	that
	the 	locker
	room
attendant 	appropriately
	belongs 	in 	the
	petitioned-for 	unit.
Security/Operations
	Worker
There
	are
	currently 	three
	employees
	in 	the
security/operations
	classification;
	two
	regular
	and
	one
	CETA.
These
	people 	perform
	a
	combination
	of
	security	
and	
custodial
functions.
	For	
the	
security 	portion 	of	
their
	work	
they 	report
directly
	to	
the	
vice-president 	of 	business
	services.
	They
	are
responsible 	to 	the
	director
	of
	maintenance
	and
	operations 	for
the
	custodial 	portion 	of
	their
	work.
	The
	vice-president 	of
business 	services
	testified 	that 	their
	primary 	job
	function 	is
security.
	One 	employee 	spends
	50
	percent 	of 	his
	time 	in
security
	and 	50
	percent 	in 	custodial;
	one 	spends
	60
	percent 	or
approximately 	two-thirds 	in
	seem:
ity
	and
	one~third 	in
custodial.
	The
	last
	employee 	spends
	75
	percent 	of 	his
	time
performing 	security 	functions
	and 	25
	percent 	in 	custodjal
work. 	The
	vice-president 	of 	business 	services 	testified 	that
19
This position is on the same salary range as the
groundskeeper. Some interaction was shown with maintenance
employees .
Taken as a whole, considering especially job function and
the lack of specialized or highly technical knowledge, as well
as salary, interaction with maintenance employees, and
experience requirements, the position has a community of
interest with the operations and support classifications, in
spite of a different work year and separate supervision.
Based on the foregoing, it is found that the locker room
attendant appropriately belongs in the petitioned-for unit.
Security/Operations Worker
There are currently three employees in the
security/operations classification; two regular and one CETA.
These people perform a combination of security and custodial
functions. For the security portion of their work they report
directly to the vice-president of business services. They are
responsible to the director of maintenance and operations for
the custodial portion of their work. The vice-president of
business services testified that their primary job function is
security. One employee spends 50 percent of his time in
security and 50 percent in custodial; one spends 60 percent or
approximately two-thirds in security and one-third in
custodial. The last employee spends 75 percent of his time
performing security functions and 25 percent in custodial
work. The vice-president of business services testified that
19

the
	employee 	working
	only
	50
	percent 	of
	the
	time
	in
	security
did
	so
	because
	"there
	are
	lots
	of
	other
	instructors
	on 	campus
and
	this
	takes
	some
	need
	for
	security
	off."
	This
	employee
works 	from
	4:00
	p.m.
	to
	12
	midnight,
	Monday
	through
	Friday.
The
	other
	two
	employees
	work 	from
	10:00
	p.m.
	to
	6:00 	a.m.
	One
of
	them 	works
	the
	weekend
	shift,
	Wednesday
	through
	Sunday.
	He
functions
	75
	percent 	of
	the
	time
	in
	security.
Security/operations
	workers
	patrol
	the
	campus
	during
evenings,
	weekends,
	holidays
	and
	other 	assigned
	times 	checking
doors
	and
	exits.
	They
	provide
	security 	service 	to
	avoid
emergency
	situations
	such
	as
	fire,
	thefts,
	vandalism,
trespassing
	and
	improper 	use
	of
	facilities.
	They
	provide
custodial
	work
	such
	as
	sweeping,
	scrubbing, 	picking
	up
	refuse
and
	disinfecting.
	They
	also
	perform
	some
	minor
	maintenance
duties
	such
	as
	changing
	light
	bulbs, 	semi-skilled 	painting,
carpentry
	and
	other
	minor
	maintenance
	duties
	as
	may 	be
	assigned.
The
	salary
	range
	of
	this 	classification 	falls
	within 	the
ranges
	of 	the
	maintenance, 	grounds
	and
	custodial
	employees. 	In
terms
	of
	the 	experience 	required, 	the
	job
	description 	indicates
that
	previous
	security
	guard
	experience
	is 	desirable.
	No
special 	training 	courses, 	license
	or 	education 	in
	security 	is
specified
	as
	a
	requisite
	for
	employment.
20
the employee working only 50 percent of the time in security
did so because "there are lots of other instructors on campus
and this takes some need for security off. " This employee
works from 4:00 p.m. to 12 midnight, Monday through Friday.
The other two employees work from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. One
of them works the weekend shift, Wednesday through Sunday. He
functions 75 percent of the time in security.
Security/operations workers patrol the campus during
evenings, weekends, holidays and other assigned times checking
doors and exits. They provide security service to avoid
emergency situations such as fire, thefts, vandalism,
trespassing and improper use of facilities. They provide
custodial work such as sweeping, scrubbing, picking up refuse
and disinfecting. They also perform some minor maintenance
duties such as changing light bulbs, semi-skilled painting,
carpentry and other minor maintenance duties as may be assigned.
The salary range of this classification falls within the
ranges of the maintenance, grounds and custodial employees. 	In
terms of the experience required, the job description indicates
that previous security guard experience is desirable. No
special training courses, license or education in security is
specified as a requisite for employment.
20

No
	evidence
	was
	presented
	on
	whether
	these
	employees
	are
deputized,
	wear
	uniforms,
	carry
	guns
	or
	night
	sticks
	or
	are
empowered
	to 	enforce
	rules
	and
	regulations 	of
	the
	Di.strict.
The
	District
	argues
	that	
th:i.s	
classification
	should
	be
excluded
	from
	the
	unit
	based
	on
	a
	lack
	of
	community
	of 	interest
because
	their
	primary
	job
	function
	is 	security.
	The
	District
cites
	Sacramento
	City 	Unified
	School
	Districtll	ce	
as
	precedent
to
	exclude
	this 	classification.
Although
	counsel 	for	
the
	District 	cites
	Sacramento as
precedent, 	the
	facts
	in 	the
	two
	cases 	are
	substantially
different.
	In
	fact,
	there
	is
	an
	absence
	of
	Board
	precedent
	on
the
	security/operations
	workers
	as 	they 	functjon
	at	
the
Antelope Valley
	Community
	College
	District.
	The
	Board
	created
a
	separate 	unit 	of 	security
	officers
	in
	Sacramento.
They
	cited
	the
	following
	rationale:
we
	conclude
	that
	a
	separate 	unit 	of 	security
officers 	is
	appropriate.
	Strong
	policy
considerations,
	long
	recognized 	in 	the
private 	sector, 	require 	the 	separation 	of
bona
	fide 	security
	guards
	from
	the 	remainder
of 	the
	classified
	employees.
	Security
Officers 	are 	deputized
	and 	employed
	to
defend 	the
	District's
	premises
	from
	others,
be
	they
	outsiders, 	students 	or
	other
employees
	of 	the
	District.
	They
	are
empowered
	to 	enforce 	not 	only 	the
	rules
	and
regulations 	of 	the
	District,
	but 	also 	the
laws
	of 	the 	City 	of 	Sacramento.
	The
employer
	is 	entitled
	to
	a
	nucleus 	of
llsacramento 	City 	Unified 	School 	Di.strict 	{9/20/77)
	EERB
Decision
	No. 	30.
21
No evidence was presented on whether these employees are
deputized, wear uniforms, carry guns or night sticks or are
empowered to enforce rules and regulations of the District.
The District argues that this classification should be
excluded from the unit based on a lack of community of interest
because their primary job function is security. The District
cites Sacramento City Unified School Districtll as pre 	dent
to exclude this classification.
Although counsel for the District cites Sacramento as
precedent, the facts in the two cases are substantially
different. In fact, there is an absence of Board precedent on
the security/operations workers as they function at the
Antelope Valley Community College District. The Board created
a separate unit of security officers in Sacramento.
They cited the following rationale:
We conclude that a separate unit of security
officers is appropriate. Strong policy
considerations, long recognized in the
private sector, require the separation of
bona fide security guards from the remainder
of the classified employees. Security
Officers are deputized and employed to
defend the District's premises from others,
be they outsiders, students or other
employees of the District. They are
empowered to enforce not only the rules and
regulations of the District, but also the
laws of the City of Sacramento. The
employer is entitled to a nucleus of
1lSacramento City Unified School District (9/20/77) EERB
Decision No. 30.
21

protection	
employees
	to
	enforce
	its	
rules
and
	protect
	its
	property
	and
	persons 	withoutbeing
	confronted 	with
	a
	division
	of
	loyaltyinherent	
in	
the 	inclusion 	of	
security
officers
	in 	the
	same
	unit
	with
	other
classified
	employees.
The
	security
	guards
	in
	Sacramento
	were 	bona
	fide
	security
guards.
	They 	wore
	uniforms,
	carried
	a
	gun 	and
	a
	night
	stick
and	
used
	patrol
	cars
	equipped
	with
	a
	light	
and	
siren.	
They
were
	deputized
	peace
	officers	
of	
the
	State 	of 	California,
pursuant 	to
	California
	Penal
	Code
	section
	830.4(a) (13),
	to
	make
arrests
	for 	crimes
	committed
	on
	the 	school 	grounds. 	In
addition,
	they
	were
	empowered
	to 	enforce
	the
	laws
	and
regulations 	of
	both
	the
	District
	and
	the 	City 	of
	Sacramento.
In
	this
	case
	there
	was 	no
	evidence
	relative
	to 	the
security/operations
	workers 	having
	any
	of 	the
	characteristics
of 	the
	security
	officers
	in
	Sacramento. 	There
	was 	no
	evidence
that
	they
	are 	deputized 	or
	empowered
	in
	any 	manner
	to
	make
arrests
	or 	even
	to 	enforce 	the
	employer
1 s
	rules
	and
regulations.
	In
	neither
	the 	job
	description
	nor
	the 	testimony
is
	there
	any
	mention
	made
	of 	their 	responsibility
	or
	authority
to
	enforce
	rules
	and
	regulations.
	The
	evidence
	shows
	that
security/operations
	workers
	patrol
	the
	campus
	checking 	doors
and
	exits.
	They
	provide
	security 	service 	to
	avoid 	emergency
situations.
	Moreover, 	they
	have
	the 	dual
	responsibility of
security
	and
	custodial 	functions. 	This
	was
	not 	the 	case 	in
Sacramento.
22
protection employees to enforce its rules
and protect its property and persons without
being confronted with a division of loyalty
inherent in the inclusion of security
officers in the same unit with other
classified employees.
The security guards in Sacramento were bona fide security
guards. They wore uniforms, carried a gun and a night stick
and used patrol cars equipped with a light and siren. They
were deputized peace officers of the State of California,
pursuant to California Penal Code section 830.4(a) (13) , to make
arrests for crimes committed on the school grounds. In
addition, they were empowered to enforce the laws and
regulations of both the District and the City of Sacramento.
In this case there was no evidence relative to the
security/operations workers having any of the characteristics
of the security officers in Sacramento. 	There was no evidence
that they are deputized or empowered in any manner to make
arrests or even to enforce the employer's rules and
regulations. In neither the job description nor the testimony
is there any mention made of their responsibility or authority
to enforce rules and regulations. The evidence shows that
security/operations workers patrol the campus checking doors
and exits. They provide security service to avoid emergency
situations. Moreover, they have the dual responsibility of
security and custodial functions. This was not the case in
Sacramento.
22

In
	addressing
	community
	of
	interest
	criteria,
	this
classification
	is
	on
	the
	same
	salary
	range
	as 	the
groundskeeper.
	The
	level
	of
	experience 	required 	for
	employment
is
	generally
	the
	same
	as 	for 	the
	operations
	and
	support
classifications.
	There
	was 	no
	evidence
	that
security/operations
	workers
	were
	ever
	represented 	separately
from
	other
	classified
	employees
	either
	by
	CSEA
	or
	any
	other
employee
	organization.
Even
	though
	these
	employees
	are 	supervised	
by	
the
	business
manager
	for
	50
	percent
	or
	more
	of
	their
	work,
	they
	have
	a
common
	line
	of 	supervision
	with
	the 	operations
	and
	support
classifications
	for 	the
	custodial 	portion 	of
	their
	work.
	Their
job
	function,
	at 	least
	in
	part, 	is
	to
	perform
	custodial
duties.
	They
	also
	have
	some
	minor
	maintenance
	duties
	which
further
	ties
	them
	to 	the 	operations
	and
	support
	employees.
Although
	these
	employees
	perform
	security 	duties 	for
	50
percent 	of 	the
	time 	or
	more,
	they
	are
	not
	duties
	which
	justify
excluding
	them 	from
	the
	petitioned-for 	unit.
	The 	Board
	in
Marin,
	.§.UPr_~,
	p. 	3, 	adopted 	as
	an
	appropriate 	unit
	a
	skilled
trades
	and
	operations 	unit
	which
	included
	campus
	police,
watchman 	and
	parking
	patrol 	officers.
	Moreover,
	in 	other
jurisdictions
	where
	this
	issue 	has 	been
	raised, 	security
workers 	were
	included 	in 	the
	classified 	unit.
	For 	example, 	in
23
In addressing community of interest criteria, this
classification is on the same salary range as the
groundskeeper. The level of experience required for employment
is generally the same as for the operations and support
classifications. 	There was no evidence that
security/operations workers were ever represented separately
from other classified employees either by CSEA or any other
employee organization.
Even though these employees are supervised by the business
manager for 50 percent or more of their work, they have a
common line of supervision with the operations and support
classifications for the custodial portion of their work. Their
job function, at least in part, is to perform custodial
duties. They also have some minor maintenance duties which
further ties them to the operations and support employees.
Although these employees perform security duties for 50
percent of the time or more, they are not duties which justify
excluding them from the petitioned-for unit. The Board in
Marin, supra, p. 3, adopted as an appropriate unit a skilled
trades and operations unit which included campus police,
watchman and parking patrol officers. Moreover, in other
jurisdictions where this issue has been raised, security
workers were included in the classified unit. For example, in
23

the
	Broward
	Community
	College
	District,1e
2	
the
	Florida
Commission
	included
	security
	guards
	in
	a
	college-wide
classified
	unit.
	The
	guard
	duties
	involved
	safeguarding
college
	grounds,
	buildings
	and
	equipment
	against
	fire, 	theft,
trespass	
and	
other
	hazards.
	The
	commission
	placed 	the
	security
guards	
in	
the
	unit
	based	
on	
job
	duties.
	While
	the 	Florida	
case
is
	not
	precedent,
	it
	does
	provide
	guidance	
in	
the
	proper
placement
	of
	this 	position.
It
	is
	concluded
	that
	the
	security/operations
	workers	
have	
a
community
	of
	interest
	with 	the
	petitioned	
for	
unit
	and
therefore
	properly
	belong 	in	
the
	unit.
Cafeteria 	Assistant
While
	counsel	
for	
the
	District
	raised 	this	
as
	an
	issue,
precedent	
clearly 	establishes
	the 	appropriateness 	of 	placing
cafeteria
	workers
	in
	an
	operations
	and
	support
	unit.
	In
	fact,
in
	Beverly
	Hills
	Unified
	School
	Districtl3	o	
the
	Board 	found 	an
Operations
	and
	Support 	Unit
	to
	be
	inappropriate
	because
	it
excluded
	food
	service
	employees.
In
	this
	case, 	the
	District
	argues
	that
	unlike 	Sweetwater,
supra,
	p.10
	where
	the 	ultimate
	manager
	of 	the 	custodians,
12	1 2
Broward 	Community	
College 	District	
(FLA 	PERC
	1980)
	6
FPER Paragraph 	ITIT17.
13	
l3Beverly	
Hills	
Unified 	School	
District 	(8/8/78)	
PERB
Dec
is
ion
	No
:--i;T:---
24
the Broward Community College District, 12 th 	Florida
Commission included security guards in a college-wide
classified unit. The guard duties involved safeguarding
college grounds, buildings and equipment against fire, theft,
trespass and other hazards. The commission placed the security
guards in the unit based on job duties. While the Florida case
is not precedent, it does provide guidance in the proper
placement of this position.
It is concluded that the security/operations workers have a
community of interest with the petitioned for unit and
therefore properly belong in the unit.
Cafeteria Assistant
While counsel for the District raised this as an issue,
precedent clearly establishes the appropriateness of placing
cafeteria workers in an operations and support unit. In fact,
in Beverly Hills Unified School District 3 the B ard found an
Operations and Support Unit to be inappropriate because it
excluded food service employees.
In this case, the District argues that unlike Sweetwater,
supra, p. 10 where the ultimate manager of the custodians,
Broward Community College District (FLA PERC 1980) 6
FPER Paragraph 11037.
Beverly Hills Unified School District (8/8/78) PERB
Decision No. 63.
24

maintenance
	and
	cafeteria 	assistant
	was
	the 	business
	manager,
	the
cafeteria 	assistants 	at
	Antelope
	Valley
	Community
	College
	District
report
	to
	a
	supervisor
	who
	in
	turn
	reports
	to
	a
	director 	of
auxiliary 	services,
	who
	in
	turn 	reports 	to 	the 	vice-president 	of
student
	affairs.
In 	1976,
	cafeteria 	assistants
	were
	designated
	either 	cafeteria
assistant
	I
	or
	II.
	The
	primary
	difference
	between
	them 	was
	that
the
	II
	actually
	prepared
	meals
	while
	the
	I
	only
	assisted
	in
	the
preparation
	of 	meals.
	In 	1977, 	or
	early
	1978,
	the
	differentiation
was
	informally
	done
	away	
with.	
Cafeteria
	assistants
	currently
function
	and
	are 	paid
	on
	the
	II
	range.
	Formal
	board
	action 	to
abolish
	cafeteria 	assistant
	I
	has
	never
	been
	taken.
The
	cafeteria 	assistants
	work 	10
	months
	a
	year 	as
	opposed
	to
	12
months.
	The
	cafeteria
	operates 	out 	of
	a
	separate
	fund.
	It
	does
not
	sustain
	itself
	with
	monies
	out 	of
	the 	general
	District
	fund
	but
rather 	out 	of
	its
	own
	reimbursable
	fund. 	There
	is 	interaction
between
	cafeteria 	assistants,
	maintenance
	and
	custodial
	employees.
Custodial
	employees 	do
	the
	heavy
	cleaning 	in 	the
	cafeteria.
Maintenance 	people
	work
	in 	the
	cafeteria
	as 	the
	need
	arises.
	One
cafeteria 	assistant 	testified 	that
	shelves
	and 	a 	new
	counter
	were
installed
	while 	she
	was
	at
	work.
	A
cafeteria 	assistant
	cooks,
bakes, 	prepares
	and
	serves
	food 	and
	beverages, 	cleans
	cafeteria
	and
snack 	bar 	equipment,
	and
	does
	related
	work
	as 	required.
25
maintenance and cafeteria assistant was the business manager, the
cafeteria assistants at Antelope Valley Community College District
report to a supervisor who in turn reports to a director of
auxiliary services, who in turn reports to the vice-president of
student affairs.
In 1976, cafeteria assistants were designated either cafeteria
assistant I or II. The primary difference between them was that
the II actually prepared meals while the I only assisted in the
preparation of meals. In 1977, or early 1978, the differentiation
was informally done away with. Cafeteria assistants currently
function and are paid on the II range. Formal board action to
abolish cafeteria assistant I has never been taken.
The cafeteria assistants work 10 months a year as opposed to 12
months. 	The cafeteria operates out of a separate fund. It does
not sustain itself with monies out of the general District fund but
rather out of its own reimbursable fund. There is interaction
between cafeteria assistants, maintenance and custodial employees.
Custodial employees do the heavy cleaning in the cafeteria.
Maintenance people work in the cafeteria as the need arises. 	One
cafeteria assistant testified that shelves and a new counter were
installed while she was at work. A cafeteria assistant cooks,
bakes, prepares and serves food and beverages, cleans cafeteria and
snack bar equipment, and does related work as required.
25

In
	Fallbrook
	Union 	High
	School
	District,
14e	
the
	Board 	found
that,
	although
	cafeteria
	employees
	were
	under
	separate
	direct
supervision
	from
	the
	maintenance,
	custodial
	and
	gardening
employees,
	they
	nonetheless
	belonged
	in
	the
	same
	unit.
	They
	found
that	
all	
of 	these
	employees
	had
	a 	common
	purpose
	of 	providing
	a
proper
	physical
	environment
	and
	support
	services
	for
	students.
	In
Sweetwater,
	supra, 	the
	cafeteria
	operated 	out 	of
	a
	separate
	fund.
In
	addition,
	the
	employees
	worked 	10 	months
	per 	year 	as
	opposed
	to
12
	months,
	yet
	the
	Board 	found
	a
	community
	of
	interest
	between
these
	employees
	based
	on
	job
	function.
The
	District
1 s
	argument
	that
	the
	cafeteria 	assistants
	are
distinguishable
	from
	Sweetwater,
	supra,
	is
	not
	persuasive 	in
	light
of 	Fallbrook.
	Moreover, 	even 	though
	the
	cafeteria 	assistants
	have
some
	characteristics
	which
	distinguish
	them 	from
	the
	operations
	and
support
	employees,
	they
	do
	not
	have
	a
	separate
	and
	distinct
community
	of
	interest.
	Their 	primary 	job
	functjon
	is
	to 	provide
	a
proper
	physical
	environment
	and
	support
	services
	for
	students.
Therefore,
	based
	on
	the 	foregoing
	it
	is
	found
	that 	cafeteria
assistants
	properly
	belong 	in 	the 	petitioned
	for
	unit.
Also 	based
	on
	the 	foregoing, 	the
	classification
	of
	cafeteria
assistant
	I, 	if
	reactivated, 	shall
	be
	included 	in 	the
	unit.
14pallbrook
	Union High 	School
	District
	(12/4/78)
	PERB
Decision
	No
	78.-
26
In Fallbrook Union High School District, 14 th 	Board found
that, although cafeteria employees were under separate direct
supervision from the maintenance, custodial and gardening
employees, they nonetheless belonged in the same unit. They found
that all of these employees had a common purpose of providing a
proper physical environment and support services for students.
Sweetwater, supra, the cafeteria operated out of a separate fund.
In addition, the employees worked 10 months per year as opposed to
12 months, yet the Board found a community of interest between
these employees based on job function.
The District's argument that the cafeteria assistants are
distinguishable from Sweetwater, supra, is not persuasive in light
of Fallbrook. Moreover, even though the cafeteria assistants have
some characteristics which distinguish them from the operations and
support employees, they do not have a separate and distinct
community of interest. Their primary job function is to provide a
proper physical environment and support services for students.
Therefore, based on the foregoing it is found that cafeteria
assistants properly belong in the petitioned for unit.
Also based on the foregoing, the classification of cafeteria
assistant I, if reactivated, shall be included in the unit.
14Fallbrook Union High School District (12/4/78) PERB
Decision No 78.
26

In
	conclusion,
	it
	is
	found
	that
	the 	Operations
	and
	Support
Unit
	petitioned
	for
	by
	CSEA
	including 	the
	positions
	of
cafeteria 	assistant,
	security/operations
	worker
	and
	locker
	room
attendant
	is
	an
	appropriate
	unit
	within 	the
	meaning
	of
Government
	Code
	section
	3545.
PROPOSED
	ORDER	PROPOSED ORDER
Based
	upon
	the 	foregoing
	findings 	of
	facts,
	conclusions
	of
law,
	and
	the
	entire
	record 	in
	this
	matter,
	it
	is
	the
	proposed
order
	that:
1.	
The
	positions
	of 	science 	laboratory 	technician
	and
	tool
room
	assistant
	do
	not 	share
	a 	community
	of
	interest
with
	employees
	in
	the Operations
	and
	Support 	Unit
and
	are 	therefore
	excluded.
2.	
The
	positions
	of
	security/operations
	worker,
	locker
room
	attendant
	and
	cafeteria 	assistant
	are
appropriately
	included 	in 	the 	Operations	
and	
Support
Unit.
3.	
The
	following
	is
	an
	appropriate
	unit,
	provided
	an
employee
	organization
	becomes
	the 	exclusive
representative:
Operations
	and
	Support 	Unit
Including: 	Custodian, 	groundskeeper,
maintenance/operations 	worker, 	maintenance
worker,
	skilled
	maintenance 	worker,
storekeeper,
	cafeteria 	assistant,
	locker
room
	attendant
	and
	security/operations
worker. 	Excluding: 	All 	other
	employees 	and
all
	management,
	supervisory
	and
	confidential
employees 	as 	defined 	by 	the 	Educational
Employment
	Relations 	Act.
Pursuant 	to 	California 	Administrative
	Code,
	title
	8,
	part
III,
	section
	32305
	this d Decision and Order shall	
Pr 	Decis 	Order
	all
become
	final
	on 	September 	10, 	1980, 	unless
	a
	party 	files
	a
timely 	sta.tement	f exceptions within twenty (20) calendar days	s 	wi 	twenty 	(20) 	caJ.e 	r 	days
27
In conclusion, it is found that the Operations and Support
Unit petitioned for by CSEA including the positions of
cafeteria assistant, security/operations worker and locker room
attendant is an appropriate unit within the meaning of
Government Code section 3545.
Based upon the foregoing findings of facts, conclusions of
law, and the entire record in this matter, it is the proposed
order that:
1 . 	The positions of science laboratory technician and tool
room assistant do not share a community of interest
with employees in the Operations and Support Unit
and are therefore excluded.
2. 	The positions of security/operations worker, locker
room attendant and cafeteria assistant are
appropriately included in the Operations and Support
Unit.
3 	The following is an appropriate unit, provided an
employee organization becomes the exclusive
representative:
Operations and Support Unit
Including: Custodian, groundskeeper,
maintenance/operations worker, maintenance
worker, skilled maintenance worker,
storekeeper, cafeteria assistant, locker
room attendant and security/operations
worker. Excluding: All other employees and
all management, supervisory and confidential
employees as defined by the Educational
Employment Relations Act.
Pursuant to California Administrative Code, title 8, part
III, section 32305, this Propose
become final on September 10, 1980, unless a party files a
timely statement o
27

following 	the
	date 	of
	service 	of
	the
	decision.
	Such
	statement
of
	exceptions
	and
	supporting
	brief
	must
	be
	actually
	received
	by
the 	Executive
	Assistant
	to 	the
	Board
	at
	the
	headquarters
	office
in
	Sacramento
	before 	the 	close 	of 	business
	(5:00
	p.m.)
on
	September 	10, 	1980,
	in
	order 	to
	be
	timely
	filed.
	(See
	California
Administrative
	Code,
	title
	8,
	part
	III,
	section
	32300.)
	Any
statement 	of 	exceptions
	and
	supporting
	brief
	must 	be
	served
concurrently
	with
	its
	filing
	upon
	the 	other 	party 	to
	this
proceeding.
	Proof
	of 	service
	shall
	be
	filed
	with 	the 	board
itself.
	(See
	California
	Administrative
	Code,
	title
	8,
part
	III,
	section
	32140.)
Upon
	notice
	that 	this
	Proposed
	Decision
	and
	Order 	has
become
	final,
	the
	Regional
	Director
	shall
	conduct
	an
	election
for 	the 	operations
	and
	support
	employees 	as
	herein 	described
unless 	the
	employer
	grants
	voluntary 	recognition.
	Voluntary
recognition 	requires
	proof 	of 	majority 	support 	in
	all
	cases.
(See 	Government 	Code
	sections
	3544
	and
	3544.1.)
Date: 	August 	20, 	1980 	-
28
/,.,.,.\.
Date: 	August 20, 1980
Patricia
	Hernandez
Hearing
	Officer
following the date of service of the decision. Such statement
of exceptions and supporting brief must be actually received by
the Executive Assistant to the Board at the headquarters office
in Sacramento before the close of business (5:00 p.m. )
on September 10, 1980, in order to be timely filed. (See California
Administrative Code, title 8, part III, section 32300.) Any
statement of exceptions and supporting brief must be served
concurrently with its filing upon the other party to this
proceeding. Proof of service shall be filed with the board
itself. 	(See California Administrative Code, title 8,
part III, section 32140.)
Upon notice that this Proposed Decision and Order has
become final, the Regional Director shall conduct an election
for the operations and support employees as herein described
unless the employer grants voluntary recognition. Voluntary
recognition requires proof of majority support in all cases.
(See Government Code sections 3544 and 3544.1.)
patricia Hernandez
Hearing Officer
28