Pleasanton Joint School District/Amador Valley Joint Union High School District (PERB 0169E)

STATE
	OF
	CALIFORNIA
DECISION
	OF 	THE
PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
PLEASANTON
	JOINT
	SCHOOL
	DISTRICT,
AMADOR
	VALLEY
	JOINT
	UNION
	HIGH
SCHOOL
	DISTRICT,
Employers,
and
AMADOR-PLEASANTON
	SCHOOL
	PSYCHOLOGISTS
ASSOCIATION,
Employee
	Organization,
and
AMADOR
	VALLEY 	TEACHERS
	ASSOCIATION
Limited
	Party.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
______________________ )
Case
	No. 	SF-R-92X
PERB
	Decision
	No.
169
June 	25,
	1981
Appearances:	
Thomas 	c. 	Agin
	for
	Amador-Pleasanton School
Psychologists 	Association;
	John
	Hudak
	(Breon, 	Galgani
	and
Godino)
	for 	Pleasanton
	Joint
	School
	District:
	Amador
	Valley
Joint
	Union 	High
	School
	District;
	Barbara
	H. 	Van
	Becker
	for
Amador
	Valley 	Teachers
	Association.
Before: 	Gluck, 	Chairperson;
	Jaeger,
	Moore, 	and
	Tovar,
	Members.
DECISION
The
	Amador-Pleasanton 	School
	Psychologists 	Association
(hereafter
	APSPA)
	excepts
	from
	the 	attached 	decision
	denying
its
	petition
	for
	a
	unit 	consisting 	of 	only 	school 	psychologists
as
	inappropriate.
	For
	reasons 	discussed
	below,
	we
	reverse 	the
hearing
	officer's
	determination
	and
	grant 	the
	petition 	for
recognition.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
PLEASANTON JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT,
AMADOR VALLEY JOINT UNION HIGH
SCHOOL DISTRICT, 	Case No. SF-R-92X
Employers,
and
AMADOR-PLEASANTON SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGISTS
ASSOCIATION ,
PERB Decision No. 169
Employee Organization, 	June 25, 1981
and
AMADOR VALLEY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION
Limited Party.
Appearances: Thomas C. Agin for Amador-Pleasanton School
Psychologists Association; John Hudak (Breon, Galgani and
Godino) for Pleasanton Joint School District: Amador Valley
Joint Union High School District; Barbara H. Van Becker for
Amador Valley Teachers Association.
Before: Gluck, Chairperson; Jaeger, Moore, and Tovar, Members.
DECISION
The Amador-Pleasanton School Psychologists Association
(hereafter APSPA) excepts from the attached decision denying
its petition for a unit consisting of only school psychologists
as inappropriate. For reasons discussed below, we reverse the
hearing officer's determination and grant the petition for
recognition.

FACTS
The 	facts 	set 	forth 	in 	the 	attached 	hearing 	officer's
decision 	are 	free 	from 	prejudicial 	error 	and 	are 	hereby 	adopted
as 	the 	findings 	of 	the 	Board 	itself.
DISCUSSION
Although 	the 	five 	school 	psychologists 	may 	share 	a
community 	of 	interest 	with 	the 	preexisting 	unit 	of 	certificated
employees, 	the 	posture 	of 	this 	case 	requires 	us 	to 	look 	beyond
that 	factor 	alone.
Initially, 	the 	school 	psychologists 	were 	designated 	by 	the
Pleasanton 	Joint 	School 	District 	and 	Amador 	Valley 	Joint 	Union
High 	School 	District 	{hereafter 	Districts) 	as 	management
employees 	and 	were 	not 	included 	in 	the 	original 	petitions 	for
recognition 	filed 	by 	employee 	organizations 	seeking 	to
represent 	the 	certificated 	unit. 	Subsequently, 	the 	Districts
reclassified 	the 	psychologists 	as 	nonmanagement. 	APSPA 	filed 	a
petition 	for 	recognition 	on January 	23, 	1980, 	claiming 	that 	a
separate 	unit 	of 	psychologists 	was 	appropriate 	for 	bargaining.
Despite 	the 	fact 	that 	the 	Amador 	Valley Teachers 	Association
(hera 	AVTA) 	it 	was 	lling 	to 	represent
psychologists 	in 	the 	unit 	of 	certificated 	employees,l 	that
organization 	did 	not 	file 	a 	petition 	for 	unit 	modification
1AVTA 	is 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	of 	the 	Districts 1
regular 	classroom 	teachers, 	speci 	education 	instructors,
counselors, 	speech 	therapists, 	and 	school 	nurses.
2
FACTS
The facts set forth in the attached hearing officer's
decision are free from prejudicial error and are hereby adopted
as the findings of the Board itself.
DISCUSSION
Although the five school psychologists may share a
community of interest with the preexisting unit of certificated
employees, the posture of this case requires us to look beyond
that factor alone.
Initially, the school psychologists were designated by the
Pleasanton Joint School District and Amador Valley Joint Union
High School District (hereafter Districts) as management
employees and were not included in the original petitions for
recognition filed by employee organizations seeking to
represent the certificated unit. Subsequently, the Districts
reclassified the psychologists as nonmanagement. APSPA filed a
petition for recognition on January 23, 1980, claiming that a
separate unit of psychologists was appropriate for bargaining.
Despite the fact that the Amador Valley Teachers Association
(herafter AVTA) claimed that it was willing to represent the
psychologists in the unit of certificated employees, I that
organization did not file a petition for unit modification
AVTA is the exclusive representative of the Districts'
regular classroom teachers, special education instructors,
counselors, speech therapists, and school nurses.
2

prior 	to 	APSPA;s 	filing 	its 	petition 	for 	recognition, 	even
though 	such 	a 	petition 	would 	be 	acceptable 	under 	Public
Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(hereafter 	PERB 	or 	Board) 	rule
33261. 2 	Nor 	did 	AVTA 	attempt 	to 	intervene 	in APSPA 1 s
petition 	pursuant 	to 	PERB 	rule 	33070.3 	Consequently, 	the
issue 	is 	simply 	whether 	the 	petitioned-for 	unit 	is 	appropriate
standing 	alone.4
2Board 	rule 	33261 	(Cal. 	Admin. 	Code, 	tit. 	8, 	sec. 	33261)
reads 	in 	pertinent 	part:
(a) 	A recognized 	or 	certified 	employee
organization 	may 	file 	with 	the 	regional
office 	a 	petition 	for 	unit 	modification
pursuant 	to Government 	Code
section 	354L3(e):
(1) 	To 	add 	to 	the 	unit 	unrepresented
classifications 	or 	positions 	which
existed 	prior 	to 	the 	recognition 	or
certification 	of 	the 	current 	exclusive
representative 	of 	the 	unit, 	provided
such 	petition 	is 	filed 	at 	least 	12
months 	after 	the 	date 	of 	said
recognition 	or 	certification, 	...
3Board 	rule 	33070 	provides 	in 	pertinent 	part:
(a) 	Except 	as 	provided 	in 	Section 	33700(c),
an 	intervention 	by 	an 	employee 	organization
shall 	be 	filed 	with 	the 	employer 	within 	15
workdays 	following 	posting 	of 	the 	request
for 	recognition, 	utilizing 	forms 	provided 	by
the 	Board 	or 	the 	format 	outlined 	below •.
4see 	Arcadia 	Unified 	School 	District 	(5/17/79) 	PERB
Decision 	No. 	93, 	where 	the 	Board 	approved 	a 	separate 	unit 	of
support 	services 	personnel, 	noting 	that:
... 	the 	fact 	that 	[the 	Board] 	has, 	in
previous 	decisions, 	found 	an 	overall
certificated 	unit 	appropriate 	does 	not
preclude 	the 	Board 	from 	finding 	a 	separate
3
prior to APSPA's filing its petition for recognition, even
though such a petition would be acceptable under Public
Employment Relations Board (hereafter PERB or Board) rule
33261.2 Nor did AVTA attempt to intervene in APSPA's
petition pursuant to PERB rule 33070. Consequently, the
issue is simply whether the petitioned-for unit is appropriate
standing alone. 4
2Board rule 33261 (Cal. Admin. Code, tit. 8, sec. 33261)
reads in pertinent part:
(a) A recognized or certified employee
organization may file with the regional
office a petition for unit modification
pursuant to Government Code
section 3541.3 (e) :
) To add to the unit unrepresented
classifications or positions which
existed prior to the recognition or
certification of the current exclusive
representative of the unit, provided
such petition is filed at least 12
months after the date of said
recognition or certification,
3Board rule 33070 provides in pertinent part:
(a) Except as provided in Section 33700(c) ,
an intervention by an employee organization
shall be filed with the employer within 15
workdays following posting of the request
for recognition, utilizing forms provided by
the Board or the format outlined below.
4See Arcadia Unified School District (5/17/79) PERB
Decision No. 93, where the Board approved a separate unit of
support services personnel, noting that:
. the fact that [the Board] has, in
previous decisions, found an overall
certificated unit appropriate does not
preclude the Board from finding a separate
3

unit 	of 	non-instructional 	certificated
employees 	appropriate 	under 	the
c ircums 	s 	of 	is 	case 	(p. 	14.)
The Educational Employment Relations Act (hereafter	The 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Act 	(hereafter
EERA)S 	explicitly 	guarantees 	in 	section 	3540:
... 	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, 	...
In 	this 	case, 	rejecting 	APSPA's 	petition 	for 	recognition
would 	effectively 	deny 	the 	psychologists' 	right 	to
representation. 	Absent 	convincing 	evidence 	in 	support 	of 	the
Districts' 	claim 	that 	efficiency 	of 	its 	operations 	would 	be
impaired, 	or 	that 	the 	unit 	would 	otherwise 	be 	inappropriate, 	a
deni 	of 	the 	petition 	would 	run 	counter 	to 	the 	purpose 	of
EERA. 	The 	Board 	is 	not 	unmindful 	of 	the 	problems 	inherent 	in 	a
proliferation 	of 	representational 	units 	or 	the 	fragmentation 	of
the 	work 	force" 	Indeed, 	the 	potential 	impairment 	of 	District
operational 	efficiency 	may 	be 	matched, 	in 	our 	view, 	by 	an
equally 	desultory 	impact 	on 	the 	employee 	representatives'
ability 	to 	conduct 	effective 	negotiations 	in 	the 	face 	of 	the
various 	competing 	interests 	involved.
SEERA 	is 	codified 	at 	Government 	Code 	section 	3540
et 	seq. 	All 	statutory 	references 	herein 	1 	be 	to 	the
Government 	Code 	unless 	otherwise 	specified.
4
EERA) 5 explicitly guarantees in section 3540:
. 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, .
In this case, rejecting APSPA's petition for recognition
would effectively deny the psychologists' right to
representation. Absent convincing evidence in support of the
Districts' claim that efficiency of its operations would be
impaired, or that the unit would otherwise be inappropriate, a
denial of the petition would run counter to the purpose of
EERA . 	The Board is not unmindful of the problems inherent in a
proliferation of representational units or the fragmentation of
the work force. Indeed, the potential impairment of District
operational efficiency may be matched, in our view, by an
equally desultory impact on the employee representatives'
ability to conduct effective negotiations in the face of the
various competing interests involved.
unit of non-instructional certificated
employees appropriate under the
circumstances of this case. (p. 14.)
5EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540
et seq. All statutory references herein shall be to the
Government Code unless otherwise specified.

But,
	we
	are
	no
	less
	mindful
	of 	the
	fact 	that
	the
	sensitive
and
	perplexing
	problem
	of
	coping 	with
	the
	legitimate
	desires
	of
residual 	islands
	of 	unrepresented
	school
	employees
	that
	dot
	the
patchwork
	landscape 	of
	unit 	configurations
	throughout
	the 	State
is
	the
	consequence, 	not 	of
	application
	of 	the
	statutory
criteria
	governing
	unit 	determinations,
	but 	of 	voluntary
recognitions
	and
	stipulations
	as
	to 	appropriateness 	entered
into
	by
	the
	parties
	and
	accepted 	without
	factual
	support
	by
this
	Boara.6	
Initially,
	the
	employers 	here
	unilaterally
"determined"
	that
	the
	psychologists
	were 	management
	employees.
Neither 	of 	the
	original 	petitioners
	contested
	that 	decision.
The
	PERB
	hearing
	officer,
	without
	benefit
	of 	supporting
evidence,
	excluded
	the 	psychologists
	from
	the
	unit
	as
managerial 	personnel.
7 	The
	Board
	itself
	subsequently
affirmed
	that 	decision,
	presumably
	on
	the 	basis 	of 	the
	parties'
6rn 	Centinela Valley
	Union 	High
	School
	District
	(8/7/78)
PERB
	Dec1s1on
	No.
	62,
	the
	Board
	reversed
	its
	previous
	policy
	of
the 	perfunctory 	establishment 	of
	stipulated 	units
	and
	indicated
that 	petitions
	based
	on
	such 	agreements
	would
	henceforth
	have
to
	be
	supported 	by	
factual
	evidence 	of 	appropriateness.
7The
	hearing
	officer's
	decision
	(8/10/77)	
found
	the
following 	unit 	to	
be	
appropriate:
All 	certificated
	employees 	including
counselors, 	but 	excluding
	managementp
supervisory,
	and
	confidential
	employees.
It 	is
	uncontested 	that 	the 	psychologists
	were 	excluded 	from 	the
unit
	under 	the
	management
	exception.
5
But, we are no less mindful of the fact that the sensitive
and perplexing problem of coping with the legitimate desires of
residual islands of unrepresented school employees that dot the
patchwork landscape of unit configurations throughout the State
is the consequence, not of application of the statutory
criteria governing unit determinations, but of voluntary
recognitions and stipulations as to appropriateness entered
into by the parties and accepted without factual support by
this Board. Initially, the employers here unilaterally
"determined" that the psychologists were management employees.
Neither of the original petitioners contested that decision.
The PERB hearing officer, without benefit of supporting
evidence, excluded the psychologists from the unit as
managerial personnel. ' The Board itself subsequently
affirmed that decision, presumably on the basis of the parties'
In Centinela Valley Union High School District (8/7/78)
PERB Decision No. 62, the Board reversed its previous policy of
the perfunctory establishment of stipulated units and indicated
that petitions based on such agreements would henceforth have
to be supported by factual evidence of appropriateness.
7The hearing officer's decision (8/10/77) found the
following unit to be appropriate:
All certificated employees including
counselors, but excluding management,
supervisory, and confidential employees.
It is uncontested that the psychologists were excluded from the
unit under the management exception.
UT

tacit 	agreement 	as 	to 	the 	exclusion. 	Whatever 	the 	reasons,8
there 	are 	throughout 	the 	school 	system 	units 	ranging 	in 	size,
shape, 	and 	content 	which 	exclude 	specific 	fragments 	of 	the
eligible 	work 	force. 	It 	is 	this 	disenfranchisement 	by
contract, 	rather 	than 	by 	law, 	which 	is 	now 	being 	protested 	by
employee 	groups 	such 	as 	the 	psychologists 	in 	this 	case.
In 	the 	final 	analysis, 	this 	Board 	is 	faced 	with 	the 	task 	of
balancing 	the 	employer's 	statutory 	right 	to 	grant 	voluntary
recognition 	without 	our 	approval,9 	or 	the 	parties'
opportunity 	to 	agree 	on 	the 	unit 	of 	representation, 	against 	the
right 	of 	covered 	employees 	to 	participate 	in 	the 	representation
system 	designed 	by 	the 	Legislature 	as 	the 	preferred 	means 	of
resolving 	employer-employee 	disputes 	and 	maintaining 	continuity
of 	the 	educational 	process.
8The 	Board 	is 	aware 	that 	unit 	petitions 	may 	be 	based 	on
the 	petitioners 	voting 	strength 	vis-a-vis 	potential
competitors, 	the 	50 	percent 	proof 	of 	support 	required 	for
voluntary 	recognition, 	and 	other 	factors 	distinct 	from 	the
criteria 	imposed 	on 	PERB 	by 	section 	3544(a). 	Similarly, 	an
employer's 	voluntary 	recognition 	may 	be 	based 	on 	exclusionary
concessions 	made 	by 	the 	petitioner, 	the 	employer's 	preference
for 	a 	particular 	representative 	and 	other 	considerations.
The Board may have considered the employer's right to ght 	to
grant voluntary recognition as absolute even though te 	even 	though
section 3544 (a) authorizes petitions for recognition in "an nition 	in 	"an
appropriate unit." Section 3544.1 states that: 	states 	that:
Board 	may 	have 	consider 	employer's 	ri
untary 	recognition 	as 	absolu
section 	3544(a) 	authorizes 	petitions 	for 	recog
5!ppropriate 	unit. 11 	Section 	3544.l
The 	public 	school 	employer 	a
request 	for 	recognition 	fil 	to
sect 	3544 	unless:
(a) 	The 	public 	school 	employer 	.•• 	doubts
the 	appropriateness 	of 	a 	unit ....
(Emphasis 	added.)
6
tacit agreement as to the exclusion. Whatever the reasons, 8
there are throughout the school system units ranging in size,
shape, and content which exclude specific fragments of the
eligible work force. It is this disenfranchisement by
contract, rather than by law, which is now being protested by
employee groups such as the psychologists in this case.
In the final analysis, this Board is faced with the task of
balancing the employer's statutory right to grant voluntary
recognition without our approval," or the parties'
opportunity to agree on the unit of representation, against the
right of covered employees to participate in the representation
system designed by the Legislature as the preferred means of
resolving employer-employee disputes and maintaining continuity
of the educational process.
8The Board is aware that unit petitions may be based on
the petitioners voting strength vis-a-vis potential
competitors, the 50 percent proof of support required for
voluntary recognition, and other factors distinct from the
criteria imposed on PERB by section 3544 (a). Similarly, an
employer's voluntary recognition may be based on exclusionary
concessions made by the petitioner, the employer's preference
for a particular representative and other considerations.
The public school employer shall grant a
request for recognition filed pursuant to
section 3544 unless:
(a) The public school employer 	doubts
the appropriateness of a unit.
(Emphasis added . )
6

It
	is
	not 	suggested 	here
	that
	the
	Board
	can
	or
	will
accommodate
	the
	interests
	of 	every 	nonrepresented
	group
	of
school
	employees.
	Where 	and
	under
	what
	conditions
	the
	Board
will
	or
	will
	not
	grant
	additional
	units,
	small 	or
	otherwise,
	is
best
	left
	to
	case-by-case 	determination.
	The
	facts
	in
	this
case
	justify
	granting
	the
	petition.
While
	this
	Board
	has, 	in
	the
	past,
	determined
	that
	school
psychologists 	are
	appropriately
	included
	in
	teachers'
units,
10	
we
	have
	also
	deviated
	from
	this
	configuration
	when
presented
	with 	adequate
	justification
	for
	doing
	so,
	Arcadia
Unified
	School
	District,
	supr~,
	fn.
	4.
	Finding
	a
	separate 	unit
is
	not 	tantamount
	to 	finding
	a
	lack
	of
	community
	of
	interest
with 	the
	preexisting 	unit.11
Although
	the
	psychologists
	may
	share 	the
	interests
	and
concerns
	typical
	of
	all
	certificated
	employees,
	there 	are
distinctions
	in 	the
	District's
	practices
	and 	employee
organizational
	activities
	which
	characterize 	this
	group
	and
lOLos
	Angeles
	Unified 	School
	District
	(11/24/76)
	EERA
Decision
	No.
	5;
	Grossmont 	Union 	High 	Scfiool
	District 	(3/9/77)
EERB
	Decision
	No.
	11;
	OaKiand
	Unified 	School
	District 	(3/28/77)
EERB
	Decision
	No.
	15.
11see
	Compton
	Unified 	School
	District
	(10/26/79)
	PERB
Decision
	No:--109 	where
	the
	Board 	found
	that
	a
	presumptively
appropriate 	unit 	configuration
	does 	not
	establish 	the 	"only
appropriate" 	unit 	or
	even 	the 	"most
	appropriate" 	unit.
7
It is not suggested here that the Board can or will
accommodate the interests of every nonrepresented group of
school employees. Where and under what conditions the Board
will or will not grant additional units, small or otherwise, is
best left to case-by-case determination. The facts in this
case justify granting the petition.
While this Board has, in the past, determined that school
psychologists are appropriately included in teachers'
units, 0 we have also deviated from this configuration when
presented with adequate justification for doing so, Arcadia
Unified School District, supra, fn. 4. Finding a separate unit
is not tantamount to finding a lack of community of interest
with the preexisting unit. ll
Although the psychologists may share the interests and
concerns typical of all certificated employees, there are
distinctions in the District's practices and employee
organizational activities which characterize this group and
10Los Angeles Unified School District (11/24/76) EERA
Decision No. 5; Grossmont Union High School District (3/9/77)
EERB Decision No. 11; Oakland Unified School District (3/28/77)
EERB Decision No. 15.
1lsee Compton Unified School District (10/26/79) PERB
Decision No. 109 where the Board found that a presumptively
appropriate unit configuration does not establish the "only
appropriate" unit or even the "most appropriate" unit.

satisfy 	the 	statutory 	criteria12 	employed 	by 	the 	Board 	in
determining 	unit 	appropriateness. 	Their 	primary 	duties
include: 	the 	assessment 	of 	students' 	special 	educational
needs, 	their 	placement 	in 	appropriate 	remedial 	programs, 	and
counseling 	with 	students, 	parents, 	and 	teachers. 	The
psychologists 	are 	on 	a 	separate 	pay 	schedule 	from 	instructional
personnel, 	work 	12 	more 	days 	per 	year 	than 	do 	teachers, 	and 	are
under 	a 	different 	line 	of 	supervision. 	The 	psychologists 	have
never 	been 	members 	of 	AVTA 	or 	sought 	its 	assistance 	in
employment-related 	matters. 	They 	do, 	of 	course, 	support
petitioners, 	APSPA. 	Thus, 	irrespective 	of 	whatever 	community
of 	interest 	the 	psychologists 	show 	with 	the 	existing
certificated 	unit, 	the 	psychologists' 	own 	community 	of
interest, 	the 	history 	of 	separate 	representation, 	the 	lack 	of
conclusive 	proof 	that 	the 	petitioned-for 	unit 	would 	impair
efficient 	operations 	of 	the 	Districts 	and 	the
disenfranchisement 	of 	the 	psychologists 	if 	their 	petition 	is
12section 	3545(a) 	states:
(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.
8
satisfy the statutory criterial2 employed by the Board in
determining unit appropriateness. Their primary duties
include: the assessment of students' special educational
needs, their placement in appropriate remedial programs, and
counseling with students, parents, and teachers. 	The
psychologists are on a separate pay schedule from instructional
personnel, work 12 more days per year than do teachers, and are
under a different line of supervision. The psychologists have
never been members of AVTA or sought its assistance in
employment-related matters. 	They do, of course, support
petitioners, APSPA. Thus, irrespective of whatever community
of interest the psychologists show with the existing
certificated unit, the psychologists' own community of
interest, the history of separate representation, the lack of
conclusive proof that the petitioned-for unit would impair
efficient operations of the Districts and the
disenfranchisement of the psychologists if their petition is
12section 3545 (a) states:
(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.

rejected 	all 	persuade 	us 	that 	a 	separate 	unit 	is
appropriate. 13
The 	Districts 	claim 	that 	the 	creation 	of 	this 	unit
consisting 	of 	only 	five 	employees 	would 	impair 	the 	efficiency
of 	operations 	by 	requiring 	an 	extra 	series 	of
negotiations.14 	However, 	the 	Districts' 	evidence 	in 	support
of 	this 	claim 	goes 	only 	to 	potential 	loss 	of 	time 	devoted 	to
their 	"major 	areas 	of 	responsibilities" 	by 	administrative
personnel 	engaged 	in 	negotiations. 	While 	such 	a 	requirement
undoubtedly 	would 	be 	burdensome, 	the 	Districts 	have 	not 	shown
how 	this 	burden 	would 	actually 	impair 	their 	operations 	within
the 	meaning 	of 	3545(a). 15 	As 	we 	noted 	in 	Anteloe~ __ Vall~
Community College 	District, 	PERB 	Decision 	No.168 	issued 	on 	this
day, 	the 	fact 	that 	negotiating 	may 	impose 	a 	burden 	on 	the
employer 	was 	undoubtedly 	considered 	by 	the 	Legislature 	but
found 	not 	to 	outweigh 	the 	benefits 	of 	an 	overall 	scheme 	of
collective 	bargaining.
Absent 	convincing 	evidence 	of 	a 	detrimental 	impact 	on 	the
l3see 	Palo 	Alto Unified 	School 	District 	(1/9/79) 	PERB
Dec is 	NO::-S4.
14There 	are 	currently 	three 	units 	in 	the 	District: 	two
classified 	employee 	units 	and 	the 	certificated 	employees' 	unit.
15The 	Board 	takes 	notice 	that 	the 	Distri 	shave, 	at 	one
time, 	been 	willi 	to 	recognize 	a 	ate 	th 	unit 	of
counse 	s 	only 	four 	employees. 	Pleasanton 	Joint 	Elementary
School 	Distri 	(9/12/77) 	EERB 	Decision 	No. 	24.
9
rejected all persuade us that a separate unit is
appropriate . 13
The Districts claim that the creation of this unit
consisting of only five employees would impair the efficiency
of operations by requiring an extra series of
negotiations. 14 However, the Districts' evidence in support
of this claim goes only to potential loss of time devoted to
their "major areas of responsibilities" by administrative
personnel engaged in negotiations. While such a requirement
undoubtedly would be burdensome, the Districts have not shown
how this burden would actually impair their operations within
the meaning of 3545 (a) . 15 As we noted in Antelope Valley
Community College District, PERB Decision No. 168 issued on this
day, the fact that negotiating may impose a burden on the
employer was undoubtedly considered by the Legislature but
found not to outweigh the benefits of an overall scheme of
collective bargaining.
Absent convincing evidence of a detrimental impact on the
13see Palo 	School District (1/9/79) PERB
Decision No. 84.
14There are currently three units in the District: two
classified employee units and the certificated employees' unit.
15The Board takes notice that the Districts have, at one
time, been willing to recognize a separate fourth unit of
counselors of only four employees. Pleasanton Joint Elementary
School District (9/12/77) EERB Decision No. 24.

Districts'
	operational
	efficiency,
	there
	is
	no
	reason
	to
disenfranchise, 	in
	effect, 	this
	group
	of
	employees.
ORDER
Upon
	the
	foregoing 	Decision
	and
	the
	entire
	record
	in
	this
case,
	the 	Public
	Employment
	Relations
	Board
	ORDERS
	that:
(1) 	A
unit
	consisting
	of 	school
	psychologists
	is
appropriate
	for
	negotiating 	in
	the 	Pleasanton
	Joint
	School
District
	and
	the
	Amador
	Valley
	Joint
	Union 	High
	School
District,
	provided
	that
	an
	employee
	organization
	becomes
	the
exclusive 	representative
	of
	the
	unit.
(2)
	If
	the
	above-mentioned
	Districts
	do
	not
	grant
voluntary 	recognition
	to 	the 	Amador-Pleasanton 	School
Psychologists 	Association, 	the
	regional
	director 	shall
	conduct
a
	representation 	election 	in
	the
	unit
	found
	appropriate
	in 	this
decision.
	Because
	the 	composition 	of 	the
	unit
	the
	Board 	has
found
	appropriate
	is
	the
	same
	as
	that
	for
	which
	the
Amador-Pleasanton 	School
	Psychologists 	Association
	has
petitioned,
	no
	new
	showing
	of 	support
	by
	that 	organization 	will
be
	necesr1"y.
By: 	Harrp
	Gluck,
	ChiiiTp.e;::son
I
7
.ll	
Jcffi'"n	
Jaeger,
"r.1embhl
Member
	Tovar's 	concurrence 	begins 	on 	page 	11.
10
Districts' operational efficiency, there is no reason to
disenfranchise, in effect, this group of employees.
ORDER
Upon the foregoing Decision and the entire record in this
case, the Public Employment Relations Board ORDERS that:
(1) A unit consisting of school psychologists is
appropriate for negotiating in the Pleasanton Joint School
District and the Amador Valley Joint Union High School
District, provided that an employee organization becomes the
exclusive representative of the unit.
(2) If the above-mentioned Districts do not grant
voluntary recognition to the Amador-Pleasanton School
Psychologists Association, the regional director shall conduct
a representation election in the unit found appropriate in this
decision. 	Because the composition of the unit the Board has
found appropriate is the same as that for which the
Amador-Pleasanton School Psychologists Association has
petitioned, no new showing of support by that organization will
be necessary.
Harry Gluck, Chairperson 	John Jaeger , Member
Member Tovar's concurrence begins on page 11.
10

Member
	Tovar, 	Concurring:
I
	concur
	in
	the
	result
	of
	this
	decision
	and
	agree 	with
	the
discussion
	except
	as
	regards 	the
	suggestion
	that
	the
	AVTA
	might
have
	filed
	a
	unit
	modification
	petition
	pursuant
	to
	PERB
rule
	3326l(a)
(1).
	I
	disagree
	with
	this
	suggestion 	for
	two
reasons.
	First,
	as
	a
	practical
	matter
	it
	may
	have 	been
impossible
	for
	AVTA
	to
	file
	a
	rule
	3326l(a)
(1)
	petition,
	since
AVTA
	would 	have
	had
	to
	submit
	a
	majority
	showing
	of 	support
(PERB
	rule
	3326l(f))
.16	
In
	this
	case, 	apparently
	all
	five
psychologists
	had
	already 	indicated 	support 	for
	APSPA.
Second,
	I
	believe
	a
	petition
	pursuant
	to
	PERB
rule
	3326l(a)
(3) 	would
	have 	been
	appropriate.
	Such
	a
	petition
does
	not
	require
	a
	showing
	of 	support.
	PERB
	rule
	3326l(a)
(3)
states:
A
recognized 	or
	certified
	employee
organization
	may
	file
	with 	the
	regional
office
	a
	petition
	for
	unit
	modificationpursuant 	to
	Government 	Code
section
	3541.3(e):
16pERB
	rule
	3326l(f)
	states:
If
	the
	petition
	requests 	the
	addition 	of
classification(s)
	or 	position(s) 	to
	an
established 	unit 	pursuant 	to 	section
	(a) (1)
above,
	it
	must 	be 	accompanied 	by
	proof 	of
majority 	support 	of 	persons
	employed
	in 	the
classification(s)
	or 	position{s) 	to
	be
added. 	Proof 	of 	support 	is
	defined 	in
Division 	1, 	Section
	32700
	of 	se
regulations.
11
Member Tovar, Concurring:
I concur in the result of this decision and agree with the
discussion except as regards the suggestion that the AVTA might
have filed a unit modification petition pursuant to PERB
rule 33261(a) (1). I disagree with this suggestion for two
reasons . 	First, as a practical matter it may have been
impossible for AVTA to file a rule 33261 (a) (1) petition, since
AVTA would have had to submit a majority showing of support
(PERB rule 33261 (f) ) . 16 In this case, apparently all five
psychologists had already indicated support for APSPA.
Second, I believe a petition pursuant to PERB
rule 33261 (a) (3) would have been appropriate. Such a petition
does not require a showing of support. PERB rule 33261 (a) (3)
states:
A recognized or certified employee
organization may file with the regional
office a petition for unit modification
pursuant to Government Code
section 3541.3 (e) :
16PERB rule 33261(f) states:
If the petition requests the addition of
classification (s) or position(s) to an
established unit pursuant to section (a) (1)
above, it must be accompanied by proof of
majority support of persons employed in the
classification (s) or position (s) to be
added. Proof of support is defined in
Division 1, Section 32700 of these
regulations.
11

(3) 	To 	add
	to
	the
	unit
	new
	unrepresented
classifications
	or
	positions 	created 	since
recognition
	or
	certification
	of
	the
	current
exclusive
	representative;
. 	. . 	. 	. 	. 	. 	. 	. 	. . 	. 	. 	. . . . 	. 	. 	. . 	.
In
	this
	case,
	the
	five 	psychologists,
	although 	not
	in
	a 	new
classification,
	had 	become
	eligible
	for
	representation
	only
after
	establishment 	of 	the 	bargaining
	unit,
	once
	the
	District
had
	redesignated
	them
	non-management.
	This
	situation 	is
	more
appropriately
	covered
	by
	rule
	33261(a)
(3)
	than
rule
	33261(a)
(1).
	Rule
	3326l(a)
(1), 	to 	the
	contrary, 	functions
to 	discourage
	an
	employee
	organization
	from
	petitioning
	for
recognition
	only
	in
	classifications
	in
	which
	it
	enjoys
	employee
support
	and
	then 	picking
	up
	related
	eligible 	classifications
after
	becoming
	exclusive
	representative,
	through
	a
	unit
modification
	petition.
	Presumably
	this 	is
	why
	there
	is
	a 	new
showing
	of
	interest
	requirement.
Also,
	unlike
	a
	rule
	3326l(a)
(1)
	petition,
	which 	seems
	to
	be
precluded
	once
	a
	petitioner 	files
	for
	recognition
	by
	the
Arcadia
	decision, 	supra, 	there
	is
	no
	such
	limitation
	on 	a
petition
	seeking 	to 	include
	newly
	eligible
	employees
	in 	the
unit.
Irene 	Tovar,
	Member
:Merrber Moore's dissent begins on pa8e 13.
12
(3) To add to the unit new unrepresented
classifications or positions created since
recognition or certification of the current
exclusive representative;
In this case, the five psychologists, although not in a new
classification, had become eligible for representation only
after establishment of the bargaining unit, once the District
had redesignated them non-management. This situation is more
appropriately covered by rule 33261 (a) (3) than
rule 33261 (a) (1) . Rule 33261 (a) (1), to the contrary, functions
to discourage an employee organization from petitioning for
recognition only in classifications in which it enjoys employee
support and then picking up related eligible classifications
after becoming exclusive representative, through a unit
modification petition. Presumably this is why there is a new
showing of interest requirement.
Also, unlike a rule 33261 (a) (1) petition, which seems to be
precluded once a petitioner files for recognition by the
Arcadia decision, supra, there is no such limitation on a
petition seeking to include newly eligible employees in the
unit.
Irene Tovar , Member
Member Moore's dissent begins on page 13.
12

Barbara
	D.
	Moore,
	dissenting:
I
	find
	that
	a
	unit
	of 	five 	psychologists
	is
	inappropriate
and 	would
	affirm
	the 	hearing
	officer's
	decision.
Section
	3545(a)
	sets
	forth
	the
	standards
	for
	determination
of 	appropriate
	units.
1	
These
	standards 	require
	a
	balancing
of
	all
	the
	listed
	criteria
	to
	determine
	whether
	a
	unit
	is
appropriate.
	No
	one
	criterion
	can
	be
	singled 	out
	and
	the
remaining
	criteria
	ignored.
Utilizing
	these
	criteria,
	I
	find 	the
	proposed
	unit
inappropriate
	for
	several
	reasons.
	First,
	it
	is
	vital
	to
consider
	the
	petitioned-for 	unit
	in 	the 	context 	of 	the
representation 	configuration
	in 	the
	Districts.
	Placed
	in
context,
	the
	psychologists 	share
	a
	strong
	community
	of
	interest
with 	the
	existing
	certificated 	unit.
2
Second,
	establishing
	a
lsection
	3545(a)
	provides:
In 	each
	case
	where
	the
	appropriateness 	ofthe
	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 	theschool
	district.
	[Emphasis
	added.]
2As
	noted
	by 	e
	majori
	,
	the 	established 	overall
certificated 	unit 	in 	the
	Districts,
	the
	Amador
	Valley 	Teachers
Association 	(hereafter
	AVTA),
	includes 	regular
	and
	temporary
contract 	teachers,
	ial
	education 	teachers, 	librarians,
nurses 	counse
13
Barbara D. Moore, dissenting:
I find that a unit of five psychologists is inappropriate
and would affirm the hearing officer's decision.
Section 3545 (a) sets forth the standards for determination
of appropriate units. These standards require a balancing
of all the listed criteria to determine whether a unit is
appropriate. No one criterion can be singled out and the
remaining criteria ignored.
Utilizing these criteria, I find the proposed unit
inappropriate for several reasons. First, it is vital to
consider the petitioned-for unit in the context of the
representation configuration in the Districts. Placed in
context, the psychologists share a strong community of interest
with the existing certificated unit. Second, establishing a
1section 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. 	[Emphasis added . ]
2As noted by the majority, the established overall
certificated unit in the Districts, the Amador Valley Teachers
Association (hereafter AVTA) , includes regular and temporary
contract teachers, special education teachers, librarians,
nurses and counselors.
13

unit 	which 	contains 	only 	one 	classification, 	psychologists,
will 	result 	in 	excessive 	fragmentation 	of 	units, 	a 	policy 	the
Board 	has 	always 	sought 	to 	avoid. 	Finally, 	the 	small 	size 	of
the 	unit 	exacerbates 	the 	excessive 	fragmentation 	of 	units
thereby 	impairing 	the 	efficiency 	of 	the 	Districts' 	operations.
Not 	only 	do 	I 	disagree 	with 	the 	result 	reached 	by 	the
majority, 	the 	decision 	is 	troublesome 	because 	of 	the 	confusion
it 	engenders. 	The 	majority's 	method 	of 	finding 	a 	unit
appropriate 	here 	is 	sharply 	inconsistent 	with 	that 	used 	in
another 	more 	soundly 	reasoned 	decision 	issued 	this 	date,
San 	Diego 	Unified 	School 	District, 	PERB 	Decision 	No. 	170, 	where
the 	Board 	found 	a 	unit 	of 	341 	hourly 	bus 	drivers 	to 	be
inappropriate. 	Although 	the 	Pleasanton-Amador 	majority 	asserts
that 	there 	are 	distinctions 	between 	this 	case 	and 	San 	Diegor
these 	distinctions 	are 	spurious, 	obfuscate 	Board 	precedent 	upon
which 	they 	rely, 	and 	give 	future 	parties 	no 	guidance 	in
determining 	when 	the 	Board 	will 	find 	a 	unit 	to 	be 	appropriate
in 	cases 	of 	this 	type.
The 	majority's 	decision 	here 	clearly 	flows 	from 	its 	belief
that 	"rejecting 	APSPA's 	petition 	for 	recognition 	would
effectively deny 	the 	psychologists' 	right 	to 	representation."
(Majority's 	decision 	at 	page 	4.) 	In 	the 	interest 	of 	assuring
that 	the 	five 	psychologists 	obtain 	representation, 	the 	majority
distorts 	how 	a 	unit 	is 	found 	to 	be 	appropriate. 	The 	majority's
opinion 	looks 	only 	to 	the 	community 	of 	interest 	among 	the
14
unit which contains only one classification, psychologists,
will result in excessive fragmentation of units, a policy the
Board has always sought to avoid. Finally, the small size of
the unit exacerbates the excessive fragmentation of units
thereby impairing the efficiency of the Districts' operations.
Not only do I disagree with the result reached by the
majority, the decision is troublesome because of the confusion
it engenders. The majority's method of finding a unit
appropriate here is sharply inconsistent with that used in
another more soundly reasoned decision issued this date,
San Diego Unified School District, PERB Decision No. 170, where
the Board found a unit of 341 hourly bus drivers to be
inappropriate. Although the Pleasanton-Amador majority asserts
that there are distinctions between this case and San Diego,
these distinctions are spurious, obfuscate Board precedent upon
which they rely, and give future parties no guidance in
determining when the Board will find a unit to be appropriate
in cases of this type.
The majority's decision here clearly flows from its belief
that "rejecting APSPA's petition for recognition would
effectively deny the psychologists' right to representation."
(Majority's decision at page 4.) In the interest of assuring
that the five psychologists obtain representation, the majority
distorts how a unit is found to be appropriate. The majority's
opinion looks only to the community of interest among the
14

five 	psychologists
	and
	ignores 	the
	problem
	of 	excessive
fragmentation 	of
	units
	and
	the
	effect
	of
	the 	small
	size
	of 	the
proposed
	unit
	on
	the
	efficient
	operation
	of
	the 	school
districts.
In
	straining
	to
	find
	this
	unit 	appropriate,
	the
	majority
shifts
	the
	burden
	of 	proving
	that
	a
	unit
	is
	appropriate
	from
the
	employee
	organization 	to 	the
	Districts
	and
	apparently
changes
	the 	standard 	of 	proof
	from
	preponderance
	of
	the
evidence
	to
	clear
	and
	convincing 	evidence.
Heretofore, 	the
	party
	petitioning
	for
	a
	unit
	has
	had
	to
establish
	its
	appropriateness 	pursuant
	to 	section
	3545(a).
Here,
	the
	Board
	turns
	the
	tables.
	With 	no
	finding
	that
	the
petitioner
	has
	shown
	the
	unit
	to
	be
	appropriate,
	the
	majority
states
	it
	will
	not
	deny
	the
	petition
	unless 	there
	is
"convincing 	evidence 	in 	support 	of 	the
	Districts'
	claim
	that
efficiency
	of
	its
	operations
	would 	be
	impaired, 	or
	that
	the
unit
	would
	otherwise
	be
	inappropriate." 	(Majority's 	decision
at
	page
	4.)
	Thus
	the
	Districts
	must
	prove 	the
	unit
inappropriate
	or 	the 	majority
	will 	grant
	the
	petition.
The
	majority 	also
	appears
	to 	establish
	a 	new 	and
	higher
standard 	of 	proof.
	The
	typical 	standard 	of 	proof
	is
	the
ranee 	evi 	ce." Ye 	Yet
	re 	majori
	sta
Absent 	convincing 	evidence 	of
	a
	detrimental
impact 	on
	the 	D1str1cts' 	operational
efficiency, 	there 	is
	no
	reason 	to
disenfranchise, 	ffe
effect, 	is
	group
15
five psychologists and ignores the problem of excessive
fragmentation of units and the effect of the small size of the
proposed unit on the efficient operation of the school
districts.
In straining to find this unit appropriate, the majority
shifts the burden of proving that a unit is appropriate from
the employee organization to the Districts and apparently
changes the standard of proof from preponderante of the
evidence to clear and convincing evidence.
Heretofore, the party petitioning for a unit has had to
establish its appropriateness pursuant to section 3545 (a) .
Here, the Board turns the tables. With no finding that the
petitioner has shown the unit to be appropriate, the majority
states it will not deny the petition unless there is
"convincing evidence in support of the Districts' claim that
efficiency of its operations would be impaired, or that the
unit would otherwise be inappropriate. " (Majority's decision
at page 4.) Thus the Districts must prove the unit
inappropriate or the majority will grant the petition.
The majority also appears to establish a new and higher
standard of proof. The typical standard of proof is the
"preponderante of the eviden 	t here the majority states:
Absent convincing evidence of a detrimental
impact on the Districts' operational
efficiency, there is no reason to
disenfranchise, in e 	ct, this group of
15

employees.
	[Pages
	9-10,
	supra,
	emphasis
added.]
Thus,
	the
	majority
	has
	not
	only
	shifted
	the
	burden
	of 	proof
	to
the
	Districts,
	but
	it
	has
	changed
	the 	standard 	of 	proof
	by
requiring
	the
	Districts
	to
	prove
	by
	"convincing" 	evidence
	that
the
	proposed
	unit
	would
	impair
	its
	efficiency.3
Comparing
	the
	unit
	appropriateness
	criteria
	utilized
	by
	the
majority
	in 	the
	instant
	case
	and
	that 	utilized
	by
	the
	Board
	in
San
	Diego,
	supra,
	demonstrates 	the 	inconsistency 	of 	the
	Board's
process
	for
	finding
	a
	unit
	to
	be
	appropriate
	and
	the
	problems
with
	the
	majority's 	analysis 	herein.
	In
	both
	of 	these
	cases,
the
	petitioned-for
	employees 	have
	a
	history
	of 	separate
representation.
	In
	San
	Diego, 	monthly 	bus
	drivers
	and
	other
full-time
	blue
	collar 	classified
	employees
	are 	already
represented 	in
	an
	overall
	blue
	collar 	unit.
In 	both
	petitioned-for 	units,
	the
	employees 	might
	be
disenfranchised
	if
	a
	separate 	unit
	were
	not 	allowed.
	The
majority
	emphasized
	this 	possibility
	in 	the
	instant
	case 	using
it
	to
	rationalize
	granting
	a
	tiny,
	fragmented
	unit.
	In
San 	Diego
	the
	Board
	regretted
	the
	possibility 	that
	the 	hourly
bus
	drivers
	might
	go
	unrepresented 	but 	did 	not
	let
	this 	factor
3At 	page
	eight 	in
	its
	decision,
	the 	majority 	also 	points
cu
	the 	lack 	of 	"conclusive 	proof" 	submitted
	by
	the
	Districts
	todemonstrate
	that
	the
	petitioned-for 	unit
	would
	result
	in
inefficiency 	to 	the
	Districts' 	ations.
	It
	is
	if
is 	establishes 	yet
	s
	d.
16
employees. [Pages 9-10, supra, emphasis
added . ]
Thus, the majority has not only shifted the burden of proof to
the Districts, but it has changed the standard of proof by
requiring the Districts to prove by "convincing" evidence that
the proposed unit would impair its efficiency. 3
Comparing the unit appropriateness criteria utilized by the
majority in the instant case and that utilized by the Board in
San Diego, supra, demonstrates the inconsistency of the Board's
process for finding a unit to be appropriate and the problems
with the majority's analysis herein. In both of these cases,
the petitioned-for employees have a history of separate
representation. In San Diego, monthly bus drivers and other
full-time blue collar classified employees are already
represented in an overall blue collar unit.
In both petitioned-for units, the employees might be
disenfranchised if a separate unit were not allowed. 	The
majority emphasized this possibility in the instant case using
it to rationalize granting a tiny, fragmented unit. In
San Diego the Board regretted the possibility that the hourly
bus drivers might go unrepresented but did not let this factor
3At page eight in its decision, the majority also points
to the lack of "conclusive proof" submitted by the Districts to
demonstrate that the petitioned-for unit would result in
inefficiency to the Districts' operations. 	It is unclear if
this establishes yet another standard.
16

deter
	it
	from
	considering
	the
	full
	range
	of
	statutory
	criteria
it
	termed
	"relevant
	information."
	Ironically,
	the
	possibility
of 	disenfranchisement
	appears
	much 	more
	likely
	in
	San
	Diego
where
	there
	is
	no
	indication
	of
	interest
	in
	representation
	from
the
	incumbent
	blue
	collar
	employee
	organization
	than 	in
	this
case
	where
	the
	AVTA
	appeared
	and
	expressed
	on
	the 	record
	a
willingness 	to
	represent
	the
	psychologists.
In 	both
	San
	Diego
	and
	Pleasanton-Amador,
	the
	Board
acknowledges
	that
	the
	petitioned-for
	employees
	share
	a
community
	of
	interest
	among
	themselves. 	Unlike
	the
	instant
case,
	however,
	the
	Board
	in
	San
	Diego
	did 	not
	end
	the
investigation 	into
	appropriateness 	there:
That
	the 	hourly
	drivers 	also
	have
	a
community
	of
	interest
	among
	themselves
	need
not
	be
	disproved 	but
	that
	does
	not
	end
	the
inquiry 	into 	appropriateness 	of
	a
	unit.
Every
	classificiation
	possesses
	a 	community
of
	interest
	among
	its
	members.
	Janitors,
undisputedly,
	have
	more
	in
	common
	with
	other
janitors
	than 	they
	do
	with
	gardeners,
	but
	we
have
	yet 	to 	find
	a
	separate 	unit
	of 	only
janitors
	appropriate,
	absent
	unusual
circumstances.
	The
	Educational
	Employment
Relations
	Act
	requires
	that 	this
	Board
consider,
	inter
	alia,
	the
	effect
	of
	its
determination
	on
	the
	efficient
	operations 	of
the
	employer.
	[Page
	5, 	supra,
	emphasis
added.]
Although, 	as 	pointed 	out 	in
	San
	Diego, 	the
	Board 	has	
yet
	to
find
	a
	unit 	of 	janitors 	appropriate, 	the
	majority's 	decision 	in
the
	instant
	case
	is
	accomplishing
	a
	similar
	anomaly,
	finding
	a
single 	classification 	of 	five 	psychologists 	appropriate.	
To
justify 	this,
	the 	majority 	focuses
	on
	the
	common
	functions 	of
17
deter it from considering the full range of statutory criteria
it termed "relevant information. " Ironically, the possibility
of disenfranchisement appears much more likely in San Diego
where there is no indication of interest in representation from
the incumbent blue collar employee organization than in this
case where the AVTA appeared and expressed on the record a
willingness to represent the psychologists.
In both San Diego and Pleasanton-Amador, the Board
acknowledges that the petitioned-for employees share a
community of interest among themselves. Unlike the instant
case, however, the Board in San Diego did not end the
investigation into appropriateness there:
That the hourly drivers also have a
community of interest among themselves need
not be disproved but that does not end the
inquiry into appropriateness of a unit.
Every classification possesses a community
of interest among its members. Janitors
undisputedly, have more in common with other
janitors than they do with gardeners, but we
have yet to find a separate unit of only
janitors appropriate, absent unusual
circumstances. 	The Educational Employment
Relations Act requires that this Board
consider, inter alia, the effect of its
determination on the efficient operations of
the employer. 	[Page 5, supra, emphasis
added . ]
Although, as pointed out in San Diego, the Board has yet to
find a unit of janitors appropriate, the majority's decision in
the instant case is accomplishing a similar anomaly, finding a
single classification of five psychologists appropriate. To
justify this, the majority focuses on the common functions of
17

psychologists 	and 	differentiates 	these 	functions 	from 	those
performed 	by 	classroom 	teachers 	and 	ignores 	the 	large 	number 	of
similar 	interests 	that 	psychologists 	share 	with 	other 	pupil
support 	services 	personnel 	who 	are 	part 	of 	the 	existing 	unit.
Indeed, 	the 	majority 	admits 	that 	the 	larger 	community 	of
interest 	was 	irrelevant 	to 	its 	considerations.
[IJrrespective 	of 	whatever 	community 	of
interest 	the 	psychologists 	show 	with 	the
existing 	certificated 	unit, 	the
psychologists' 	own 	community 	of 	interest,
the 	history 	of 	separate 	representation, 	the
lack 	of 	conclusive 	proof 	that 	the
petitioned-for 	unit 	would 	impair 	efficient
operations 	of 	the 	Districts 	and 	the
disenfranchisement 	of 	the 	psychologists 	if
their 	petition 	is 	rejected 	all 	persuade 	us
that 	a 	separate 	unit 	is 	approprite.
[Pages 	8-9, 	supra, 	emphasis 	added.]
The 	majority 	insists 	that 	there 	is 	not 	conclusive 	proof
that 	a 	unit 	of 	five 	psychologists 	would 	impair 	the 	efficiency
of 	the 	Districts' 	operations; 	yet 	it 	refused 	to 	consider 	the
relevant 	criteria, 	the 	larger 	community 	of 	interest 	and 	the
problem 	of 	excessive 	fragmentation. 	These 	are 	the 	very
criteria 	the 	Board 	in 	San 	Diego 	utilized 	to 	determine 	that 	the
efficiency 	of 	the 	District's 	operations 	would 	be 	impaired 	if
the 	petitioned-for 	unit 	were 	established. 	Only 	by 	ignoring
these 	criteria 	can 	the 	majority 	here 	justify 	the 	psychologists'
unit.
Considering 	San 	Diego 	and 	this 	case 	together, 	it 	is 	unclear
whether 	the 	Board 	will 	look 	at 	a 	petitioned-for 	unit 	in
18
psychologists and differentiates these functions from those
performed by classroom teachers and ignores the large number of
similar interests that psychologists share with other pupil
support services personnel who are part of the existing unit.
Indeed, the majority admits that the larger community of
interest was irrelevant to its considerations.
[ I] rrespective of whatever community of
interest the psychologists show with the
existing certificated unit, the
psychologists' own community of interest,
the history of separate representation, the
lack of conclusive proof that the
petitioned-for unit would impair efficient
operations of the Districts and the
disenfranchisement of the psychologists if
their petition is rejected all persuade us
that a separate unit is approprite.
[Pages 8-9, supra, emphasis added. ]
The majority insists that there is not conclusive proof
that a unit of five psychologists would impair the efficiency
of the Districts' operations; yet it refused to consider the
relevant criteria, the larger community of interest and the
problem of excessive fragmentation. These are the very
criteria the Board in San Diego utilized to determine that the
efficiency of the District's operations would be impaired if
the petitioned-for unit were established. Only by ignoring
these criteria can the majority here justify the psychologists'
unit.
Considering San Diego and this case together, it is unclear
whether the Board will look at a petitioned-for unit in
18

isolation
	or 	in 	the
	context 	of 	other
	units
	in
	place.
	The
	Board
in
	San 	Diego
	held
	that
	the 	only
	way
	to
	determine
	whether
	a
	unit
is
	appropriate
	is
	to
	look
	at
	the
	"relevant
	information"
mandated
	by
	section
	3545{a).
	I
	believe
	this 	is
	correct 	since
	I
see
	no 	way
	to
	determine
	if
	there
	is
	fragmentation 	without
looking
	at
	the
	number 	and
	composition
	of 	other
	units
	in
	the
District.
On
	this
	point,
	the
	Board
	in
	San
	Diego
	considered
	its
decision
	in
	Arcadia 	Unified
	School
	District
	(5/17/79)
	PERB
Decision
	No. 	93
	where
	the
	Board
	stated 	that:
• 	when
	the 	only
	issue
	before 	the
	Board
is
	whether
	one
	particular
	requested
	unit
	is
appropriate,
	the
	Board 	must
	decide
	whether
that
	proposed
	unit,
	standing
	on
	its
	own,
meets
	the
	statutory
	criteria
	for
	an
appropriate 	unit
	for
	negotiating.
	[Supra
1
at
	page
	13.]
To
	distinguish
	Arcadia, 	the
	San 	Diego 	Board
	emphasizes
	that
granting 	the 	requested
	unit 	will
	split
	the 	generic 	occupation
of
	bus
	drivers 	into
	two
	separate
	units.
	In 	the
	instant 	case,
the 	majority 	ignores 	the
	"relevant
	information" 	in 	order
	to
find 	the 	psychologists' 	unit 	appropriate.
	The
	only 	apparent
distinction
	between 	denying
	a
	unit 	in
	San 	Diego 	and
	granting
	a
unit 	in
	Pleasanton-Amador
	is 	that
	in 	the
	former
	case 	the
	Board
refused to split an occupation. I do not find this to be an
fi 	is
	to
	be
	an
apprupriate
	basis 	but 	rather 	find 	simply
	that
	San 	Diego
	sets
the 	proper 	standard.
r 	u
	to
	it
	an 	t 	I
	not
19
isolation or in the context of other units in place. The Board
in San Diego held that the only way to determine whether a unit
is appropriate is to look at the "relevant information"
mandated by section 3545 (a) . I believe this is correct since I
see no way to determine if there is fragmentation without
looking at the number and composition of other units in the
District.
On this point, the Board in San Diego considered its
decision in Arcadia Unified School District (5/17/79) PERB
Decision No. 93 where the Board stated that:
when the only issue before the Board
is whether one particular requested unit is
appropriate, the Board must decide whether
that proposed unit, standing on its own,
meets the statutory criteria for an
appropriate unit for negotiating. [Supra,
at page 13. ]
To distinguish Arcadia, the San Diego Board emphasizes that
granting the requested unit will split the generic occupation
of bus drivers into two separate units. In the instant case,
the majority ignores the "relevant information" in order to
find the psychologists' unit appropriate. The only apparent
distinction between denying a unit in San Diego and granting a
unit in Pleasanton-Amador is that in the former case the Board
appropriate basis but rather find simply that San Diego sets
the proper standard.
19

Parties
	reading 	these 	cases 	together 	are
	left
	with
confusion
	as
	to
	how
	to
	interpret
	Arcadia
	in
	the
	future.
Indeed, 	although 	the
	majority
	asserts 	that
	it
	will
	decide
	these
matters
	on 	a
	case-by-case
	basis,
	taking
	San
	Diego 	and
	this
	case
together 	leaves
	the 	impression
	that
	with
	facts 	similar 	to 	these
two
	cases,
	a
	petitioning
	organization
	can
	assume
	that
	any
	unit
requested
	will
	be
	acceptable 	unless
	an
	occupation
	is
	split.
	In
the
	instant
	case,
	although
	an
	occupation
	is
	not
	split,
	closely
allied
	occupations 	are 	separated.
	The
	majority 	glosses
	over
this
	fact
	by
	mentioning
	only 	the
	differences
	between
	teachers
and
	psychologists
	without 	noting 	the 	strong
	similarities
	among
psychologists
	and
	the
	other 	pupil
	support 	personnel 	in 	the
overall
	certificated 	unit.
	An
	examination 	of 	these
similarities
	reveals
	shared
	interests,
	shared
	duties
	and 	common
supervision
	and
	demonstrates
	a
	strong
	community
	of
	interest
between
	the 	psychologists
	and
	other
	members
	of 	the
	certificated
unit.
Psychologists 	share
	many
	of 	the
	same
	tasks
	and 	have
	almost
identical
	conditions 	of
	employment
	as
	other 	pupil 	support
personnel
	now
	in 	the
	certificated 	unit. 	Psychologists' 	primary
duties
	include 	diagnostic 	evaluations 	of 	special 	education
students.	
They 	work	
with	
teachers, 	special
	education
	teachers,
parents
	and
	students 	concerning 	student 	placements. 	This
	work
intimately 	involves
	them	
with 	other
	employees
	already 	in 	the
certificated 	unit
	who 	work
	with
	special 	education 	students.
20
Parties reading these cases together are left with
confusion as to how to interpret Arcadia in the future.
Indeed, although the majority asserts that it will decide these
matters on a case-by-case basis, taking San Diego and this case
together leaves the impression that with facts similar to these
two cases, a petitioning organization can assume that any unit
requested will be acceptable unless an occupation is split. I
the instant case, although an occupation is not split, closely
allied occupations are separated. The majority glosses over
this fact by mentioning only the differences between teachers
and psychologists without noting the strong similarities among
psychologists and the other pupil support personnel in the
overall certificated unit. An examination of these
similarities reveals shared interests, shared duties and common
supervision and demonstrates a strong community of interest
between the psychologists and other members of the certificated
unit.
Psychologists share many of the same tasks and have almost
identical conditions of employment as other pupil support
personnel now in the certificated unit. Psychologists' primary
duties include diagnostic evaluations of special education
students. They work with teachers, special education teachers,
parents and students concerning student placements. This work
intimately involves them with other employees already in the
certificated unit who work with special education students.
20

Along
	with
	special
	education
	teachers,
	speech
	therapists,
and
	the 	nurse, 	psychologists
	work
	as
	a
	regular
	part
	of 	the
School
	Appraisal
	Team, 	a
	child
	study
	group
	which
	meets
regularly
	to
	determine 	the
	appropriateness 	of
	assessment
	and
placement
	of
	special
	education
	students.
	At 	team
	meetings,
	all
of 	these
	employees
	share
	common
	supervision
	and
	direction
	by
	a
site
	administrator.
Psychologists
	and
	counselors
	work
	together 	counseling
special
	education
	students.
	Psychologists
	work
	with 	the
	nurse
on
	any
	health-related
	problems
	of 	these
	pupils.
	They 	work
	with
speech
	therapists
	in 	screening
	students
	with 	speech 	problems
who 	may
	have
	special
	education
	needs.
	Psychologists
	and
	speech
therapists
	work
	jointly
	on
	the
	summary
	of
	their
	assessment
	of
the
	student.
	Psychologists 	also
	work
	closely
	with
	special
education 	teachers 	in
	pre-
	and
	post-placement 	of
	special
education 	students 	in 	various
	programs.
	Psychologists
	often
support 	these 	teachers 	in
	intervention
	techniques 	in 	the
classroom.
	Finally,
	psychologists
	have
	close
	involvement
	with
regular 	teachers 	in
	referrals
	of 	students 	to 	special 	education
programs.
	They
	contact 	the 	classroom 	teacher
	on 	a
	regular
basis 	to 	assess 	the 	needs
	of 	the
	special 	education
	children.
Finally, psychologists, speech therapists, special	
ial
education 	teachers
	and
	the 	nurse 	share
	common
	supervision
	and
F 	,
	ists,
	r
	ists,
21
Along with special education teachers, speech therapists,
and the nurse, psychologists work as a regular part of the
School Appraisal Team, a child study group which meets
regularly to determine the appropriateness of assessment and
placement of special education students. At team meetings, all
of these employees share common supervision and direction by a
site administrator.
Psychologists and counselors work together counseling
special education students. Psychologists work with the nurse
on any health-related problems of these pupils. They work with
speech therapists in screening students with speech problems
who may have special education needs. Psychologists and speech
therapists work jointly on the summary of their assessment of
the student. Psychologists also work closely with special
education teachers in pre- and post-placement of special
education students in various programs. Psychologists often
support these teachers in intervention techniques in the
classroom. Finally, psychologists have close involvement with
regular teachers in referrals of students to special education
programs. 	They contact the classroom teacher on a regular
basis to assess the needs of the special education children.
education teachers and the nurse share common supervision and
21

evaluations
	by
	the
	Districts'
	director
	of
	special
	education
	and
pupil
	support
	services.
	The
	director
	assigns
	both
psychologists
	and
	speech
	therapists
	to
	school
	sites.
As
	noted
	by
	the 	hearing
	officer,
	all
	certificated
	employees
have
	the
	same
	tenure
	system,
	are
	subject
	to
	the
	same
	layoff
procedures
	and
	are 	evaluated 	pursuant
	to 	the
	Stull
	Act.
Psychologists
	belong
	to
	the
	same
	state
	retirement
	system
	as
regular
	classroom
	teachers
	and 	have
	similar
	credential
requirements. 	Psychologists
	have
	a 	community
	of
	interest
	with
the
	members
	of
	the
	overall
	certificated
	unit 	in
	the 	area 	of
leaves, 	calendar, 	tenure, 	retirement
	and
	general
	qualifications.
The
	majority
	noted
	that
	psychologists
	work 	a
	different
	work
year
	and
	hours 	than 	classroom
	teachers.
	They
	failed 	to
mention,
	however,
	that
	psychologists
	work
	an
	extended
	work
	year
similar
	to
	that
	of 	school 	counselors
	and
	share
	similar
	work
hours 	with 	speech
	therapists,
	special
	education 	teachers
	and
nurses.
In
	sum,
	similar
	working
	conditions, 	types 	of
	work,
supervision,
	pay
	and
	benefits
	all
	demonstrate
	a
	compelling
community
	of
	interest
	between
	the 	psychologists
	and
	other
certificated 	s.
In
	San 	Diego,
	the
	its
	nion 	in
	Sweetwater
Union High 	School
	District
	(11/23/76)
	EERB
	Decision
	No. 	4
	at
p.
	which
	recognized
It
	is
	a 	1
	itimate 	concern
	t
	excessivefragmentat
	on
	of 	negotiati 	units
	may
22
evaluations by the Districts' director of special education and
pupil support services. The director assigns both
psychologists and speech therapists to school sites.
As noted by the hearing officer, all certificated employees
have the same tenure system, are subject to the same layoff
procedures and are evaluated pursuant to the Stull Act.
Psychologists belong to the same state retirement system as
regular classroom teachers and have similar credential
requirements. Psychologists have a community of interest with
the members of the overall certificated unit in the area of
leaves, calendar, tenure, retirement and general qualifications.
The majority noted that psychologists work a different work
year and hours than classroom teachers. They failed to
mention, however, that psychologists work an extended work year
similar to that of school counselors and share similar work
hours with speech therapists, special education teachers and
nurses.
In sum, similar working conditions, types of work,
supervision, pay and benefits all demonstrate a compelling
community of interest between the psychologists and other
certificated employees.
In San Diego, the Board quoted its opinion in Sweetwater
Union High School District (11/23/76) EERB Decision No. 4 at
p. 11 which recognized that:
It is a legitimate concern that excessive
fragmentation of negotiating units may
22

burden 	an 	employer 	with 	multiple 	negotiating
processes 	and 	postures 	and 	with 	a 	variety 	of
negotiated 	agreements 	difficult 	to
administer 	because 	their 	provisions 	differ.
The 	Board 	in 	San 	Diego 	considered 	the 	problem 	of 	excessive
fragmentation 	of 	units 	and 	expressed 	concern 	that 	employees
performing 	the 	same 	work 	would 	be 	split 	into 	two 	units 	with 	two
different 	representatives. 	The 	Board 	foresaw 	the 	potential 	for
competing 	labor 	organizations 	to 	"whipsaw" 	the 	employer 	and 	to
file 	unfair 	labor 	practice 	charges 	against 	an 	employer 	who
seeks 	a 	similar 	set 	of 	employee 	policies 	for 	both 	groups 	of
employees. 	The 	Board 	also 	found 	that 	management 	was 	placed
under 	an 	unacceptable 	burden 	in 	attempting 	to 	manage 	employees
doing 	the 	same 	work 	under 	different 	sets 	of 	personnel 	programs.
Yet, 	in 	the 	instant 	case, 	the 	majority 	has 	blithely 	passed
over 	the 	very 	real 	problem 	for 	the 	Pleasanton-Amador 	Districts
of 	excessive 	fragmentation 	of 	units. 	As 	noted 	previously,
psychologists, 	along 	with 	other 	certificated 	personnel, 	receive
common 	supervision 	and 	share 	similar 	and 	often 	identical 	work
duties. 	The 	potential 	for 	"whipsawing" 	the 	employer 	or 	for
disruption 	with 	two 	conflicting 	sets 	of 	employee 	practices 	is
as 	great 	in 	the 	Pleasanton-Amador 	Districts 	as 	it 	is 	in
San 	Diego. 	Pleasanton-Amador 	management 	is 	similarly 	placed
under 	an 	unacceptable 	burden 	in 	the 	establishment 	of 	a 	separate
unit 	composed 	only 	of 	psychologists.
As 	noted 	in 	the 	majority 	opinion, 	psychologists 	have
traditionally 	been 	placed 	in 	an 	overall 	certificated 	unit.
23
burden an employer with multiple negotiating
processes and postures and with a variety of
negotiated agreements difficult to
administer because their provisions differ.
The Board in San Diego considered the problem of excessive
fragmentation of units and expressed concern that employees
performing the same work would be split into two units with two
different representatives. The Board foresaw the potential for
competing labor organizations to "whipsaw" the employer and to
file unfair labor practice charges against an employer who
seeks a similar set of employee policies for both groups of
employees. The Board also found that management was placed
under an unacceptable burden in attempting to manage employees
doing the same work under different sets of personnel programs.
Yet, in the instant case, the majority has blithely passed
over the very real problem for the Pleasanton-Amador Districts
of excessive fragmentation of units. As noted previously,
psychologists, along with other certificated personnel, receive
common supervision and share similar and often identical work
duties. The potential for "whipsawing" the employer or for
disruption with two conflicting sets of employee practices is
as great in the Pleasanton-Amador Districts as it is in
San Diego. Pleasanton-Amador management is similarly placed
under an unacceptable burden in the establishment of a separate
unit composed only of psychologists.
As noted in the majority opinion, psychologists have
traditionally been placed in an overall certificated unit.
23

However,
	in 	attempting 	to
	justify
	a
	separate 	psychologists'
unit,
	the
	majority
	argues
	that
	the
	Board
	has
	deviated
	from
	this
configuration
	in 	Arcadia, 	supra.
	Arcadia
	does
	not
	truly
support 	the
	majority's
	decision 	since
	the
	Board
	there
	placed
all
	pupil
	support
	services
	personnel 	in
	a
	separate
	unit.
	This
is
	the
	first
	case
	where
	the
	Board
	has
	held
	that
	a
	single
classification
	of 	pupil
	support
	services
	personnel
	is
	an
appropriate
	unit.
I
	agree 	with 	the
	majority
	that 	size
	alone
	does
	not 	render
	a
unit 	inappropriate.
	Nonetheless, 	the 	very 	small
	size
	of 	the
proposed
	unit
	and
	the 	strong
	community
	of
	interest
psychologists 	share
	with
	the
	overall
	certificated
	unit 	renders
the
	proposed
	unit 	inappropriate
	in
	that
	it
	results
	in 	excessive
fragmentation.
The
	Board
	in 	Gilroy 	Unified
	School
	District
	(7/20/79)
	PERB
Decision
	No.
	98, 	held
	that
	a
	unit
	of 	six
	children's
	center
permit 	teachers
	would 	be
	inappropriate 	in
	that
	the 	small
	size
of 	the
	unit
	would
	unduly 	fragment 	the
	negotiating 	unit
	and
impair
	the
	efficiency
	of 	the
	District's
	operations.
	Like
	the
psychologists 	in 	the
	instant 	case, 	the
	Board
	recognized
	that
the
	children's
	center
	employees 	had 	a 	community
	of
	interest
among
	themselves.
	The 	Board
	in 	Gilroy 	recognized,	
however,
that
	these 	employees, 	as
	certificated
	personnel, 	also
	had 	a
strong	
community
	of
	interest
	with 	the
	overall 	certificated 	unit.
24
However, in attempting to justify a separate psychologists'
unit, the majority argues that the Board has deviated from this
configuration in Arcadia, supra. Arcadia does not truly
support the majority's decision since the Board there placed
all pupil support services personnel in a separate unit. This
is the first case where the Board has held that a single
classification of pupil support services personnel is an
appropriate unit.
I agree with the majority that size alone does not render a
unit inappropriate. Nonetheless, the very small size of the
proposed unit and the strong community of interest
psychologists share with the overall certificated unit renders
the proposed unit inappropriate in that it results in excessive
Fragmentation.
The Board in Gilroy Unified School District (7/20/79) PERB
Decision No. 98, held that a unit of six children's center
permit teachers would be inappropriate in that the small size
of the unit would unduly fragment the negotiating unit and
impair the efficiency of the District's operations. Like the
psychologists in the instant case, the Board recognized that
the children's center employees had a community of interest
among themselves. 	The Board in Gilroy recognized, however ,
that these employees, as certificated personnel, also had a
strong community of interest with the overall certificated unit.
24

The
	reasons 	for
	denying
	a
	separate
	children's
	center
	unit
in
	Gilroy
	apply
	equally 	here.
	As
	in 	Gilroy, 	granting
	a
	small
unit
	of 	five 	psychologists,
	when
	all
	remaining
	pupil
	support
personnel
	and
	certificated
	teachers 	are 	in
	an
	overall
	unit,
would
	unduly 	fragment
	the
	work
	force
	and
	adversely
	affect
	the
efficiency
	of
	the
	Districts'
	operations.
	The
	evidence
	in 	the
instant
	case
	establishes
	a
	strong
	community
	of
	interest
	between
the
	psychologists
	and
	other
	pupil
	support 	personnel 	as
evidenced
	by
	similar
	work
	functions, 	supervision,
	pay,
	tenure,
retirement,
	leave,
	etc.
	Based 	on
	all
	the 	foregoing
considerations,
	I
	cannot 	find 	the
	proposed
	unit 	to
	be
appropriate.
Barbara
	D. 	Moore, 	Member
25
The reasons for denying a separate children's center unit
in Gilroy apply equally here. As in Gilroy, granting a small
unit of five psychologists, when all remaining pupil support
personnel and certificated teachers are in an overall unit,
would unduly fragment the work force and adversely affect the
efficiency of the Districts' operations. 	The evidence in the
instant case establishes a strong community of interest between
the psychologists and other pupil support personnel as
evidenced by similar work functions, supervision, pay, tenure,
retirement, leave, etc. Based on all the foregoing
considerations, I cannot find the proposed unit to be
appropriate.
Barbara D. Moore, Member
25

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
PLEASANTON 	JOINT 	SCHOOL 	DISTRICT:
Al'1ADOR VALLEY 	JOINT 	UNION 	HIGH
SCHOOL 	DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
AMADOR-PLEASANTON 	SCHOOL 	PSYCHOLOGISTS
ASSOCIATION,
Employee 	Organization,
and
AMADOR VALLEY TEACHERS 	ASSOCIATION,
Limited 	Party.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
}
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_____________________ )
Representation
Case 	No. 	SF-R-92X
Proposed 	Decision
(9/15/80)
Appearances: 	Thomas 	C. 	Agin, 	for 	Amador-Pleasanton 	School
Pschologists 	Association; 	John 	Hudak, 	Breon, 	Galgani 	and
Godino, 	for 	Pleasanton Joint 	School 	District: 	Amador 	Valley
Joint 	Union High 	School 	District, 	Barbara H. 	Van 	Becker 	for
Amador 	Valley 	Teachers 	Association.
Before: 	Joseph 	C. 	Basso, 	Hearing Officer.
PROCEDURAL 	HISTORY
On 	January 	23, 	1980 	the 	Amador-Pleasanton School
Psychologists 	Association 	(hereinafter 	APSPA) 	filed 	a 	request
for 	recognition with 	the 	Pleasanton 	Joint 	School 	District 	and
the 	Amador 	Valley 	Joint 	Union High 	School 	District 	(hereinafter
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
PLEASANTON JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT:
AMADOR VALLEY JOINT UNION HIGH
SCHOOL DISTRICT, 	Representation
Case No. SF-R-92X
Employer ,
and
AMADOR-PLEASANTON SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGISTS
ASSOCIATION, Proposed Decision
(9/15/80)
Employee Organization,
and
AMADOR VALLEY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION,
Limited Party.
Appearances: 	Thomas C. Agin, for Amador-Pleasanton School
Pschologists Association; John Hudak, Breon, Galgani and
Godino, for Pleasanton Joint School District: Amador Valley
Joint Union High School District, Barbara H. Van Becker for
Amador Valley Teachers Association.
Before: Joseph C. Basso, Hearing Officer.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On January 23, 1980 the Amador-Pleasanton School
Psychologists Association (hereinafter APSPA) filed a request
for recognition with the Pleasanton Joint School District and
the Amador Valley Joint Union High School District (hereinafter

Districts). 1 	The 	request 	sought 	a 	unit 	of 	all
psychologists. 	No 	other 	employee 	organization 	intervened.
On 	March 	7, 	1980 	the 	Districts 	denied 	the 	request 	doubting
the 	appropriateness 	of 	the 	petitioned 	for 	unit. 	The 	Districts
asserted 	that 	the 	psychologists 	should 	be 	included 	in 	the
overall 	certificated 	unit 	and 	requested 	that 	a 	representational
hearing 	be 	conducted 	pursuan~ 	to 	section 	3544.S(a) 	of 	the
Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Act 	(hereafter 	EERA).
On 	April 	21, 	1980 	the 	Amador 	Valley 	Teachers 	Association
(hereinafter 	AVTA) 	requested 	permission 	to 	join 	the 	formal
hearing 	as 	a 	limited 	party. 	The 	hearing 	officer 	granted 	the
request 	on 	June 	12, 	1980. 	A formal 	hearing 	was 	held 	on
June 	18, 	1980.
ISSUE
Whether 	a 	unit 	of 	psychologists 	is 	appropriate 	under
Government 	Code 	section 	3545.
FINDINGS 	OF 	FACT
The 	Pleasanton 	Joint 	School 	District 	and 	the 	Amador 	Valley
Joint 	Union 	High 	School 	District 	are 	located 	in 	Alameda
County. 	The 	Districts 	have 	six 	elementary 	schools, 	one
lThe 	Pleasanton 	Joint 	School 	District 	{K-8) 	and 	the
Amador 	Valley 	Joint 	Union 	High 	School 	District 	(9-12) 	have
separate 	school 	boards 	but 	share 	a 	common 	administration 	for
the 	purposes 	of 	collective 	bargaining. 	The 	five 	psychologists
are 	employed 	in 	the 	Pleasanton 	Joint 	School 	District. 	The
Amador 	Valley 	Joint 	Union 	High 	School 	District 	does 	not 	employ
psychologists.
2
Districts) . ! The request sought a unit of all
psychologists. No other employee organization intervened.
On March 7, 1980 the Districts denied the request doubting
the appropriateness of the petitioned for unit. The Districts
asserted that the psychologists should be included in the
overall certificated unit and requested that a representational
hearing be conducted pursuant to section 3544.5 (a) of the
Educational Employment Relations Act (hereafter EERA) .
On April 21, 1980 the Amador Valley Teachers Association
(hereinafter AVTA) requested permission to join the formal
hearing as a limited party. 	The hearing officer granted the
request on June 12, 1980. A formal hearing was held on
June 18, 1980.
ISSUE
Whether a unit of psychologists is appropriate under
Government Code section 3545.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Pleasanton Joint School District and the Amador Valley
Joint Union High School District are located in Alameda
County. 	The Districts have six elementary schools, one
The Pleasanton Joint School District (K-8) and the
Amador Valley Joint Union High School District (9-12) have
separate school boards but share a common administration for
the purposes of collective bargaining. The five psychologists
are employed in the Pleasanton Joint School District. The
Amador Valley Joint Union High School District does not employ
psychologists.
N

intermediate 	school, 	four 	high 	schools 	and 	two 	adult 	schools.
Total 	enrollment 	is 	approximately 	10,013.2
The 	elementary 	district 	employs 	five 	psychologists, 	three
reading 	specialists, 	approximately 	10 	to 	12 	special 	education
teachers 	and 	four 	and 	six-tenths 	speech 	therapists. 	The 	high
school 	district 	employs 	approximately 	10 	to 	12 	special
education 	teachers, 	one 	nurse 	and 	one 	speech 	therapist. 	The
high 	school 	district 	does 	not 	employ 	psychologists.
Psychologists' 	primary 	responsibilities 	include 	the
assessment 	of 	special 	education 	students, 	counseling 	with
students, 	working 	with 	parents, 	classroom 	teachers 	and 	special
education 	teachers. 	The 	psychologists 	make 	recommendations 	as
to 	the 	placement 	of 	the 	special 	education 	students 	in 	the
elementary 	district.
The 	psychologists 	interact 	with 	the 	counselors 	before 	the
placement 	of 	the 	special 	education 	students. 	They 	gather
information 	pertaining 	to 	advancement 	and 	counseling 	of 	the
students.
The 	psychologists 	work 	with 	the 	nurse 	if 	there 	is 	a 	health
related 	problem with 	the 	special 	education 	students. 	They 	work
with 	the 	speech 	therapists 	regarding 	the 	assessment 	and
screening 	of 	students. 	The 	psychologists 	are 	involved 	with 	the
21979 	California 	Public 	School 	Directory 	at 	pp. 	52, 	70,
71.
3
intermediate school, four high schools and two adult schools.
Total enrollment is approximately 10,013.2
The elementary district employs five psychologists, three
reading specialists, approximately 10 to 12 special education
teachers and four and six-tenths speech therapists. The high
school district employs approximately 10 to 12 special
education teachers, one nurse and one speech therapist. The
high school district does not employ psychologists.
Psychologists' primary responsibilities include the
assessment of special education students, counseling with
students, working with parents, classroom teachers and special
education teachers. The psychologists make recommendations as
to the placement of the special education students in the
elementary district.
The psychologists interact with the counselors before the
placement of the special education students. They gather
information pertaining to advancement and counseling of the
students.
The psychologists work with the nurse if there is a health
related problem with the special education students. They work
with the speech therapists regarding the assessment and
screening of students. The psychologists are involved with the
21979 California Public School Directory at pp. 52, 70,
W
71

special 	education 	teachers 	in 	pre-placement 	and 	post-placement
activities 	of 	the 	special 	education 	students.
The 	School 	Appraisal 	Team 	is 	a 	body 	that 	meets 	on 	a 	regular
basis 	to 	determine 	the 	appropriateness 	of 	assessment 	and
placement 	of 	students. 	The 	School 	Appraisal 	Team 	includes 	a
representative 	of 	the 	special 	education 	teachers, 	a
psychologist, 	a 	speech 	pathologist, 	an 	administrator, 	a 	nurse
and 	parents 	of 	the 	child 	who 	is 	involved 	in 	the 	special
education 	program.
The 	psychologists 	were 	previously 	designated 	as 	management
employees 	in 	the 	Districts. 	In 	1978 	the 	psychologists 	were 	no
longer 	considered 	as 	management 	employees. 	They 	were 	put 	on 	a
separate 	salary 	schedule 	for 	1978-79 	and 	1979-80 	school 	years.
The 	psychologists 	received 	the 	same 	salary 	increases 	as 	the
certificated 	employees 	in 	the 	elementary 	district.
The 	psychologists 	work 	192 	days 	per 	school 	year. 	The
regular 	classroom 	teachers 	work 	179 	1/2 	days 	per 	school 	year.
The 	overall 	certificated 	unit 	includes 	regular 	contract
teachers, 	temporary 	contract 	teachers, 	special 	education
teachers, 	librarians, 	nurses 	and 	counselors.3
Most 	the 	psychologists 	are 	assigned 	to 	two 	elementary
they 	work 	in 	two 	to 	ree 	days 	a
psychologists 	can 	service 	the 	high 	school 	district 	on 	request.
3nistricts' 	ibit 	A.
4
special education teachers in pre-placement and post-placement
activities of the special education students.
The School Appraisal Team is a body that meets on a regular
basis to determine the appropriateness of assessment and
placement of students. 	The School Appraisal Team includes a
representative of the special education teachers, a
psychologist, a speech pathologist, an administrator, a nurse
and parents of the child who is involved in the special
education program.
The psychologists were previously designated as management
employees in the Districts. In 1978 the psychologists were no
longer considered as management employees. They were put on a
separate salary schedule for 1978-79 and 1979-80 school years.
The psychologists received the same salary increases as the
certificated employees in the elementary district.
The psychologists work 192 days per school year. 	The
regular classroom teachers work 179 1/2 days per school year.
The overall certificated unit includes regular contract
teachers, temporary contract teachers, special education
teachers, librarians, nurses and counselors. 3
Most of the psychologists are assigned to two elementary
schools that they work in two to three days a week. The
psychologists can service the high school district on request.
3Districts' Exhibit A.

The 	psychologists 	work 	with 	children 	in 	the 	elementary
district 	on 	a 	daily 	basis. 	The 	psychologists 	contact 	the
classroom 	teacher 	on 	a 	regular 	basis 	to 	assess 	the 	needs 	of 	the
special 	education 	children.
Psychologists 	enjoy 	fringe 	benefits 	that 	are 	identical 	to
all 	certificated 	employees 	in 	the 	overall 	certificated 	unit.
Ms. 	Virginia Ackely, 	Director 	of 	Special 	Services 	for 	the
District, 	supervises 	and 	evaluates 	the 	psychologists, 	nurse,
speech 	therapists 	and 	shares 	in 	the 	supervision 	of 	the 	special
education 	teachers 	with 	a 	site 	administrator.
All 	certificated 	employees 	are 	evaluated 	pursuant 	to 	the
Stull 	Act. 	The 	psychologists 	belong 	to 	the 	same 	state
retirement 	system 	as 	do 	the 	regular 	classroom 	teachers. 	They
have 	the 	same 	tenure 	system 	and 	are 	subject 	to 	the 	same 	layoff
procedures 	as 	the 	other 	certificated 	employees. 	The
psychologists 	have 	a 	community of 	interest 	with 	the 	members 	of
the 	overall 	certificated 	unit 	in 	the 	area 	of 	leaves, 	calendar,
tenure, 	retirement 	and 	general 	qualifications.
A psychologist 	acts 	as 	mediator 	between 	teacher 	and 	child,
child 	and 	administrator 	and 	child 	and 	parent.
There 	are 	some 	minor 	differences 	between 	the 	classroom
teachers 	and 	the 	psychologists 	such 	as 	the 	length 	of 	the
workday 	and 	work 	year. 	They 	work 	an 	extended 	workday 	and 	12
and 	one-half 	days 	per 	year 	longer 	than 	the 	classroom 	teachers.
5
The psychologists work with children in the elementary
district on a daily basis. The psychologists contact the
classroom teacher on a regular basis to assess the needs of the
special education children.
Psychologists enjoy fringe benefits that are identical to
all certificated employees in the overall certificated unit.
Ms. Virginia Ackely, Director of Special Services for the
District, supervises and evaluates the psychologists, nurse,
speech therapists and shares in the supervision of the special
education teachers with a site administrator.
All certificated employees are evaluated pursuant to the
Stull Act. The psychologists belong to the same state
retirement system as do the regular classroom teachers. 	They
have the same tenure system and are subject to the same layoff
procedures as the other certificated employees. The
psychologists have a community of interest with the members of
the overall certificated unit in the area of leaves, calendar,
tenure, retirement and general qualifications.
A psychologist acts as mediator between teacher and child,
child and administrator and child and parent.
There are some minor differences between the classroom
teachers and the psychologists such as the length of the
workday and work year. They work an extended workday and 12
and one-half days per year longer than the classroom teachers.
5

There
	are
	currently
	three 	exclusive
	representatives
	in 	the
District.
	The
	elementary
	and
	high
	school
	classified
	staffs
share
	one
	exclusive
	representative.
	The
	elementary
	and
	high
school
	districts
	have
	separate
	certificated
	exclusive
representatives.
The
	Districts'
	negotiating
	team
	includes
	two
	principals,
	an
assistant
	principal
	and
	the
	assistant
	superintendent 	of
personnel,
	Mr.
	Laird.
	Mr.
	Laird's 	secretary
	records 	the
minutes
	of
	each
	meeting.
	Other
	clerical 	staff
	are
	used
	to
	type
the
	District's
	proposals.
	The
	negotiating
	team
	for 	the
elementary
	district
	has
	frequent
	assistance
	from
	the
	business
office.
The 	members
	of
	each
	exclusive
	representative
	are 	granted
released
	time
	for 	negotiations
	with
	the
	Districts.
	Six
teachers
	in 	the 	elementary
	district
	and
	four
	teachers 	in
	the
high 	school
	district
	are 	granted 	released
	time
	for
	negotiations.
The
	Districts 	filed
	a
	cost
	claim 	for
	negotiations
	with 	the
State
	of
	California.
	The
	approved
	claim 	for 	the
	high
	school
district 	is
	$4,125 	and 	$6,098
	for 	the 	elementary
	district.
	As
of 	June 	18,
	1980
	the
	District
	had
	not
	been
	officially
reimbursed 	by	
the
	State 	of 	California
	for
	their 	negotiations
with 	the	
current 	exclusive 	representatives.
Mr.
	Laird, 	assistant	
superintendent
	of 	personnel,
	testified
about 	the 	time	
spent 	by 	the	
Districts'
	negotiations
	team.
	On
direct	
examination
	he	
testified:
There are currently three exclusive representatives in the
District. The elementary and high school classified staffs
share one exclusive representative. The elementary and high
school districts have separate certificated exclusive
representatives.
The Districts' negotiating team includes two principals, an
assistant principal and the assistant superintendent of
personnel, Mr. Laird. Mr. Laird's secretary records the
minutes of each meeting. 	Other clerical staff are used to type
the District's proposals. The negotiating team for the
elementary district has frequent assistance from the business
office.
The members of each exclusive representative are granted
released time for negotiations with the Districts. S
teachers in the elementary district and four teachers in the
high school district are granted released time for negotiations.
The Districts filed a cost claim for negotiations with the
State of California. The approved claim for the high school
district is $4,125 and $6,098 for the elementary district. As
of June 18, 1980 the District had not been officially
reimbursed by the State of California for their negotiations
with the current exclusive representatives.
Mr. Laird, assistant superintendent of personnel, testified
about the time spent by the Districts' negotiations team. On
direct examination he testified:
66

Q. 	And 	if 	a 	psychologist 	bargaining 	unit
were 	established 	the 	District 	could 	also
apply 	to 	the 	State 	and 	would 	be 	reimbursed
for 	the 	expenses 	incurred 	in 	negotiating
with 	the 	psychologists 	unit, 	is 	that 	correct?
A. 	Well, 	they 	could 	for 	the 	expenses, 	but
we're 	all 	here 	for 	a 	purpose 	and 	we 	couldn't
get 	reimbursed 	for 	the 	time 	utilization
problem.
Q. 	Does 	it 	have 	any 	effect 	on 	the
educational 	function, 	the 	educational
programs 	to 	assign 	four 	administrators 	to
these 	negotiations 	sessions?
Yes.
Q. 	What 	sort 	of 	effect 	does 	it 	have?
A. 	Well, 	the 	operation 	of 	the 	school,
they're 	using 	that 	time. 	It's 	very much 	the
same 	as 	my 	own 	desk, 	during 	this 	type 	of
procedure, 	piling 	up. 	They 	have 	other 	major
areas 	of 	responsibilities 	which 	are 	being
neglected 	at 	this 	time.
If 	a 	separate 	unit 	of 	five 	psychologists 	is 	found 	to 	be
appropriate 	it 	would 	require 	a 	fourth 	set 	of 	negotiations.
CONCLUSIONS 	OF 	LAW
The 	APSPA 	contends 	that 	the 	only 	issue 	properly 	before 	the
PERB 	is 	whether 	a 	unit 	of 	psychologists 	is 	appropriate.4
4section 	3545(a) 	of 	the 	Government 	Code 	states:
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
7
Q. And if a psychologist bargaining unit
were established the District could also
apply to the State and would be reimbursed
for the expenses incurred in negotiating
with the psychologists unit, is that correct?
A. Well, they could for the expenses, but
we're all here for a purpose and we couldn't
get reimbursed for the time utilization
problem.
Q. 	Does it have any effect on the
educational function, the educational
programs to assign four administrators to
these negotiations sessions?
Yes.
Q. What sort of effect does it have?
A. Well, the operation of the school,
they're using that time. It's very much the
same as my own desk, during this type of
procedure, piling up. They have other major
areas of responsibilities which are being
neglected at this time.
If a separate unit of five psychologists is found to be
appropriate it would require a fourth set of negotiations.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The APSPA contends that the only issue properly before the
PERB is whether a unit of psychologists is appropriate. 4
4section 3545 (a) of the Government Code states:
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.
The
	Districts
	argue
	that
	the
	psychologists
	should
	be
included
	in 	the
	overall
	certificated
	unit
	because
	of
	their
community
	of
	interest
	with
	teachers
	and
	other 	pupil
	service
personnel.5	
The
	Districts
	also
	contend
	that
	creating
	a
	unit
of
	five 	psychologists
	would
	impair
	the
	efficiency
	of
	operations
in 	the
	District.6
The
	Districts
	seek
	to
	modify
	the
	existing 	overall
certificated
	unit
	by
	placing 	the
	psychologists 	in 	the
	same
	unit
that 	is
	represented
	by
	AVTA.
California
	Administrative
	Code,
	title
	8,
	part
	III,
section
	33260
	contains 	the 	proper 	procedure
	for
	unit
modification. 	Section
	33260
	states:
5During
	the 	hearing 	the
	Districts
	argued
	that
	the
psychologists 	share
	a
	substantial
	community
	of
	interest
	with
the 	reading
	specialists,
	nurse, 	counselors,
	speech
	therapists,special
	education 	teachers
	and
	classroom
	teachers
	who
	are
members
	of 	the
	overall
	certificated 	unit.
6The
	Districts 	refer 	to 	several
	PERB
	decisions
	where
	the
psychologists,
	and
	other 	pupil 	services
	employees
	are
appropriately
	included 	in
	a
	unit
	with 	other
	certificated
employees.
	The
	Districts
	also 	pointed 	out
	that
	the
	PERB
considers 	the
	effect
	of
	unit 	size
	on
	the
	efficient
	operation of
a
	school
	district, 	e.g.,
	Sweetwater 	Union High 	School
	District
(11/23/76)
	PERB
	Decision
	No. 	4; 	Los
	Angeles
	Unified 	School
District
	(11/24/76)
	PERB
	Decision
	No.
	5t 	Grossmont 	Union 	High
School
	District
	(3/9/77)
	PERB
	Decision
	No.
	11; 	Washin
	ton
Unified 	School
	District
	(9/14/77)
	PERB
	Decision
	No. 	21;
Paramount 	Unified 	School
	District
	(10/7/77)
	PERB
	Decision
No. 	33:
	Pleasanton 	Joint
	Elementary
	District
	(9/12/77)
	PERB
Decision
	No. 	24: 	Arcadia 	Unified 	School
	District
	(5/17/79)
	PERB
Decision
	No. 	93.
8
The Districts argue that the psychologists should be
included in the overall certificated unit because of their
community of interest with teachers and other pupil service
personnel. The Districts also contend that creating a unit
of five psychologists would impair the efficiency of operations
in the District. 6
The Districts seek to modify the existing overall
certificated unit by placing the psychologists in the same unit
that is represented by AVTA.
California Administrative Code, title 8, part III,
section 33260 contains the proper procedure for unit
modification. Section 33260 states:
the unit on the efficient operation of the
school district.
5During the hearing the Districts argued that the
psychologists share a substantial community of interest with
the reading specialists, nurse, counselors, speech therapists,
special education teachers and classroom teachers who are
members of the overall certificated unit.
6The Districts refer to several PERB decisions where the
psychologists, and other pupil services employees are
appropriately included in a unit with other certificated
employees. The Districts also pointed out that the PERB
considers the effect of unit size on the efficient operation of
a school district, e.g., Sweetwater Union High School District
(11/23/76) PERB Decision No. 4; Los Angeles Unified School
District (11/24/76) PERB Decision No. 5; Grossmont Union High
School District (3/9/77) PERB Decision No. 11; Washington
Unified School District (9/14/77) PERB Decision No. 27;
Paramount Unified School District (10/7/77) PERB Decision
No. 33; Pleasanton Joint Elementary District (9/12/77) PERB
Decision No. 24; Arcadia Unified School District (5/17/79) PERB
Decision No. 93.

33260.
	Policy.
	It
	is
	the
	policy of
	the
Board
	to
	provide
	a
	single
	mechanism
	which
shall
	be
	utilized
	for 	the 	modification	
of
all
	established 	units.
	This
	system
	is
desiqned	
to
	ensure 	that
	all	
parties
	to
	a
modification 	are 	afforded
	notice
	and
opportunity 	to
	express
	their
	views	
with
regard
	to
	any
	proposed
	modification,
	and
	to
provide
	assistance
	in 	the
	resolution
	of
questions 	raised
	by
	the
	parties
	to
	a
	dispute
regarding 	the
	modification 	of
	a
	unit.
The
	Board
	will
	not 	allow
	a
	unit
	modification
which
	is
	based
	principally
	on
	employee
dissatisfaction
	with
	the
	results
	of
negotiations
	or 	the
	exclusive
representative:
	nor	
will
	the
	Board	
permit
	a
unit
	modification
	which 	impinges
	on
	theintegrity
	of
	another
	established	
unit	
in
which
	there
	is
	a
	different
	recognized 	or
certified
	organization 	or
	which 	compromises
the
	exclusivity
	of
	such
	certification.
No
	unit
	modification
	may 	be 	made 	by 	any
procedure
	other
	than
	that
	contained
	in
	thisArticle.
	(Emphasis
	added.)
The
	Districts
	did 	not
	file
	a
	petition
	for
	unit 	modification
in
	this
	case.
	However,
	there 	are 	limited
	circumstances
	whereby
an
	employer
	may	
file	
a
	unit
	modification
	petition.
7	
In
	this
instance
	the 	circumstances
	simply
	do
	not 	apply.
7california
	Administrative
	Code,
	title
	8,
	part
	III,
section
	33261,
	{b),
	(1), 	(2),
	(3)
	states:
(b} 	A
recognized 	or
	certified
	employee
organization,
	an
	employer, 	or 	both
	jointly
may	
file	
with 	the
	regional	
office
	a
	petition
for
	change
	in 	unit 	determination 	pursuant 	to
Government 	Code
	section 	3541.3(e}:
(1) 	To
	delete 	classifications
	no
	longer
in 	existence 	or
	which 	by	
virtue 	of
9
33260. Policy. It is the policy of the
Board to provide a single mechanism which
shall be utilized for the modification of
all established units. This system is
designed to ensure that all parties to a
modification are afforded notice and
opportunity to express their views with
regard to any proposed modification, and to
provide assistance in the resolution of
questions raised by the parties to a dispute
regarding the modification of a unit.
The Board will not allow a unit modification
which is based principally on employee
dissatisfaction with the results of
negotiations or the exclusive
representative; nor will the Board permit a
unit modification which impinges on the
integrity of another established unit in
which there is a different recognized or
certified organization or which compromises
the exclusivity of such certification.
No unit modification may be made by any
procedure other than that contained in this
Article. 	(Emphasis added. )
The Districts did not file a petition for unit modification
in this case. However, there are limited circumstances whereby
an employer may file a unit modification petition.' In this
instance the circumstances simply do not apply.
7california Administrative Code, title 8, part III,
section 33261, (b) , (1) , (2) , (3) states:
( b ) A recognized or certified employee
organization, an employer, or both jointly
may file with the regional office a petition
for change in unit determination pursuant to
Government Code section 3541.3 (e) :
(1) To delete classifications no longer
in existence or which by virtue of
9

changes 	in 	circumstances 	are 	no 	longer
appropriate 	to 	the 	established 	unit;
(2) 	To 	update 	classification 	titles
where 	the 	duties 	are 	not 	changed
sufficiently 	to 	cause 	deletion 	from 	the
established 	unit:
(3) 	To 	make 	technical 	changes 	to 	clarify
the 	unit 	description.
AVTA's 	original 	request 	for 	recognition 	did 	not 	include 	the
psychologists. 	AVTA 	has 	not 	filed 	a 	petition 	for 	unit
modification 	to 	add 	the 	psychologists 	to 	the 	overall
certificated 	unit. 	AVTA participated 	as 	a 	limited 	party 	in
this 	proceeding 	and 	indicated 	that 	they 	are 	willing 	and 	able 	to
represent 	the 	psychologists 	as 	members 	of 	the 	overall
certificated 	unit.8
Bcalifornia Administrative 	Code, 	title 	8, 	part 	III,
section 	33261 	states:
33261. 	Petition.
(a) 	A recognized 	or 	certified 	employee
organization 	may 	file 	with 	the 	regional
office 	a 	petition 	for 	unit 	modification
pursuant 	to 	Government 	Code
section 	3541.3(e):
(1) 	To 	add 	to 	the 	unit 	unrepresented
classifications 	or 	positions 	which
existed 	prior 	to 	the 	recognition 	or
certification 	of 	the 	current 	exclusive
representative 	of 	the 	unit, 	provided
such 	petition 	is 	filed 	at 	least 	12
months 	after 	the 	date 	of 	said
recognition 	or 	certification, 	except 	as
provided 	in 	subsection 	(2) 	below;
(2) 	To 	add 	to 	the 	unit 	unrepresented
classifications 	or 	positions 	which 	were
10
AVTA's original request for recognition did not include the
psychologists. AVTA has not filed a petition for unit
modification to add the psychologists to the overall
certificated unit. AVTA participated as a limited party in
this proceeding and indicated that they are willing and able to
represent the psychologists as members of the overall
certificated unit. 8
changes in circumstances are no longer
appropriate to the established unit;
(2) To update classification titles
where the duties are not changed
sufficiently to cause deletion from the
established unit;
(3) To make technical changes to clarify
the unit description.
8California Administrative Code, title 8, part III,
section 33261 states:
33261. Petition.
(a) A recognized or certified employee
organization may file with the regional
office a petition for unit modification
pursuant to Government Code
section 3541.3 (e) :
(1) To add to the unit unrepresented
classifications or positions which
existed prior to the recognition or
certification of the current exclusive
representative of the unit, provided
such petition is filed at least 12
months after the date of said
recognition or certification, except as
provided in subsection (2) below;
(2) To add to the unit unrepresented
classifications or positions which were
10

included 	in
	an
	original
	request
	for
recognition
	or
	intervention,
	but
disputed
	as
	to
	management,
	supervisory
or
	confidential
	status,
	provided
	a
written
	agreement
	of
	all
	parties
	to
submit
	the 	disputed
	classifications
	or
positions
	pursuant 	to
	this
	Section
3326l(a)
(2) 	was
	filed
	with 	the
	regional
office 	prior
	to 	recognition
	or
certification
	of
	an
	exclusive
representative
	in 	the
	unit
	in 	question:
(3) 	To
	add
	to 	the
	unit
	new
	unrepresented
classifications
	or
	positions 	created
since 	recognition
	or
	certification
	of
the 	current 	exclusive 	representative;
(4) 	To
	divide
	an
	existing 	unit 	into
	two
or
	more
	appropriate 	units;
(5) 	To
	consolidate
	two
	or
	more
established 	units 	into
	one
	appropriate
unit,
	provided
	neither 	of 	the 	conditions
of	
Government 	Code
	section
	3544.?(b)
exist
	in
	any	
of 	the
	units 	to
	be
consolidated.
	The 	"window
	period"
provided 	for 	in
	Government 	Code
	section
3544.
7
(b) (1)
	is
	defined 	in 	Section
	33020
of	
these 	regulations.
The	
PERB
	has
	consistently	
held 	that 	pupil	
services
employees,
	including 	psychologists, 	are 	appropriately
	included
in
	an
	overall
	certificated	
employee	
unit
	with	
the 	regular
classroom
	teachers.
The
	facts
	of
	this
	case 	with
	respect 	to
	the
	duties
	of
	the
psychologists
	as
	compared
	to
	the
	duties
	of 	the 	classroom
teacher
	and
	other 	pupil 	services
	personnel
	do
	not
	differ
significantly
	from
	the
	PERB's
	previous
	decisions.9	
Although
9see	
Los
	Angeles 	Unified 	School
	District 	(11/24/76)	
EERB
Decision
	No.
	5~
	Grossmont 	Union 	High 	School
	District
	(3/9/77)
11
The PERB has consistently held that pupil services
employees, including psychologists, are appropriately included
in an overall certificated employee unit with the regular
classroom teachers.
The facts of this case with respect to the duties of the
psychologists as compared to the duties of the classroom
teacher and other pupil services personnel do not differ
significantly from the PERB's previous decisions. Although
included in an original request for
recognition or intervention, but
disputed as to management, supervisory
or confidential status, provided a
written agreement of all parties to
submit the disputed classifications or
positions pursuant to this Section
33261 (a) (2) was filed with the regional
office prior to recognition or
certification of an exclusive
representative in the unit in question;
(3) To add to the unit new unrepresented
classifications or positions created
since recognition or certification of
the current exclusive representative;
(4) To divide an existing unit into two
or more appropriate units;
(5) To consolidate two or more
established units into one appropriate
unit, provided neither of the conditions
of Government Code section 3544.7 (b)
exist in any of the units to be
consolidated. The "window period"
provided for in Government Code section
3544.7 (b) (1) is defined in Section 33020
of these regulations.
9 See Los Angeles Unified School District (11/24/76) EERB
Decision No. 5; Grossmont Union High School District (3/9/77)
11

EERB 	Decision No. 	; 	Oakland Unified 	School 	District
(3 	7), 	EERB 	Decision No. 	15; 	Pleasanton 	Joint 	Elementary
School 	District, 	(9/12/77), 	EERB 	Decision No. 	24; 	Placer 	Union
High 	School 	District, 	(9/12/77), 	EERB 	Decision No. 	25;
Washington Unified 	School 	District 	(9/14/77) 	EERB 	Decis
No. 	27; 	Paramount 	Unified 	School 	Distri 	( 	/7 	7) 	EERB
Decis 	No. 	33.
the 	psychologists 	work 	a 	longer 	school 	year 	and 	day 	than 	the
regular 	classroom 	teacher 	and 	are 	on 	a 	separate 	salary 	schedule
these 	several 	distinguishing 	characteristics 	are 	not 	sufficient
to 	establish 	a 	separate 	community of 	interest 	or 	a 	separate
appropriate 	unit 	for 	the 	psychologists.
The 	extent 	to 	which 	the 	psychologists 	belong 	to 	one
organization 	or 	another 	is 	one 	criterion 	(quoted, 	supra,
p. 	7). 	In 	this 	case, 	the 	psychologists 	have 	never 	been members
or 	represented 	by AVTA.
The 	thrust 	of 	the 	Districts' 	efficiency 	of 	operations
argument 	is 	that 	the 	cost 	and 	time 	spent 	for 	the 	Districts'
negotiations 	with 	four 	units 	instead 	of 	three 	units 	would
greatly 	impair 	the 	efficiency 	of 	the 	operations 	of 	the
Districts. 	The 	Districts' 	claim with 	the 	State 	of 	California
for 	reimbursement 	of 	negotiations 	costs 	has 	been 	approved.
However, 	negotiating 	with 	four 	units 	instead 	of 	three 	units
creates 	an 	extra 	set 	of 	negotiations 	which 	would 	involve 	more
time 	being 	spent 	by 	the 	negotiating 	team 	and 	the 	psychologists
in 	negotiations. 	The 	Districts 	indicate 	that 	the 	negotiating
12
the psychologists work a longer school year and day than the
regular classroom teacher and are on a separate salary schedule
these several distinguishing characteristics are not sufficient
to establish a separate community of interest or a separate
appropriate unit for the psychologists.
The extent to which the psychologists belong to one
organization or another is one criterion (quoted, supra,
p. 7). In this case, the psychologists have never been members
or represented by AVTA.
The thrust of the Districts' efficiency of operations
argument is that the cost and time spent for the Districts'
negotiations with four units instead of three units would
greatly impair the efficiency of the operations of the
Districts. The Districts' claim with the State of California
for reimbursement of negotiations costs has been approved.
However, negotiating with four units instead of three units
creates an extra set of negotiations which would involve more
time being spent by the negotiating team and the psychologists
in negotiations. The Districts indicate that the negotiating
EERB Decision No. 11; Oakland Unified School District
(3/28/77), EERB Decision No. 15; Pleasanton Joint Elementary
School District, (9/12/77), EERB Decision No. 24; Placer Union
High School District, (9/12/77), EERB Decision No. 25;
Washington Unified School District (9/14/77) EERB Decision
No. 27; Paramount Unified School District (10/7/77) EERB
Decision No. 33.
12

team
	composition
	would
	not
	change
	with
	the
	advent
	of
	a
	unit 	of
psychologists.
Additional
	clerical
	assistance
	would 	be
	needed
	to
	take
minutes
	and
	type
	proposals 	for
	a
	unit
	of 	five 	psychologists 	as
well
	as
	the 	other
	three 	units
	in 	the
	Districts.
Based
	on
	the 	experience
	with
	the
	three
	recognized
	units,
	it
has 	taken
	many
	hours
	of
	time
	for 	the
	employee 	team
	members
	and
the
	management 	team members.
	Considering 	both
	the 	evidence
	of
inefficiency
	of 	operation
	and
	the
	community
	of
	interest
criteria
	it
	is
	concluded
	that
	a
	unit
	of 	psychologists
	is
	not
appropriate
	under
	the
	EERA.
PROPOSED
	ORDER
Based
	on
	the 	foregoing
	findings 	of
	fact,
	conclusions
	of
law,
	and
	the
	entire
	record 	in
	this
	matter
	it
	is
	the
	proposed
order
	that
	the
	Request
	for 	Recognition
	filed	
by	
the
Amador-Pleasanton 	School
	Psychologists 	Association
	is
	hereby
DISMISSED.
Pursuant 	to
	California
	Administrative
	Code,
	title
	8,
part
	III,
	section
	32305,
	this
	Proposed 	Decision
	and 	Order
	shall
become
	final
	on
	October 	6,
	1980
	unless
	a
	party
	files
	a
timely 	statement of 	exceptions
	and
	supporting
	brief
	within
twenty
	(20)	
calendar 	days
	following 	the 	date 	of 	service 	of 	this
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
13
team composition would not change with the advent of a unit of
psychologists.
Additional clerical assistance would be needed to take
minutes and type proposals for a unit of five psychologists as
well as the other three units in the Districts.
Based on the experience with the three recognized units, it
has taken many hours of time for the employee team members and
the management team members. Considering both the evidence of
inefficiency of operation and the community of interest
criteria it is concluded that a unit of psychologists is not
appropriate under the EERA.
PROPOSED ORDER
Based on the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and the entire record in this matter it is the proposed
order that the Request for Recognition filed by the
Amador-Pleasanton School Psychologists Association is hereby
DISMISSED.
Pursuant to California Administrative Code, title 8,
part III, section 32305, this Proposed Decision and Order shall
become final on October 6, 1980 	unless a party files a
timely statement of exceptions and supporting brief within
twenty (20) calendar days following the date of service of this
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
13

of 	business
	(5:00 	p.m.)
	on
	October
	6,
	1980
	in 	order
	to
	be
timely
	filed.
	See
	California
	Administrative
	Code,
	title
	8,
part
	III,
	section
	32135.
	Any
	statement 	of 	exceptions
	and
supporting
	brief
	must
	be
	served
	concurrently
	with
	its
	filing
upon
	each
	party 	to
	this
	proceeding.
	Proof
	of
	service
	shall
	be
filed
	with
	the
	Board
	itself.
	See
	California
	Administrative
Code,
	title
	8,
	part
	III,
	section
	32305
	(as
	amended).
Dated:
	September 	15,
	1980
/JOSEPH
	C.
	BASSO
Hearing
	Officer
14
of business (5:00 p.m.) on October 6, 1980 	in order to be
timely filed. See California Administrative Code, title 8,
part III, section 32135. Any statement of exceptions and
supporting brief must be served concurrently with its filing
upon each party to this proceeding. Proof of service shall be
filed with the Board itself. See California Administrative
Code, title 8, part III, section 32305 (as amended) .
Dated: September 15, 1980
JOSEPH C. BASSO
Hearing Officer
14