San Diego Unified School District (PERB 0234E)

STATE 	OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
SAN 	DIEGO TEACHERS ASSOCIATION,
CTA/NEA,
Charging 	Party,
v.
SAN 	DIEGO UNIFIED 	SCHOOL 	DISTRICT
Respondent.
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
,}
}
}
}
Case 	No. 	LA-CE-549
PERB 	Decision No. 	234
August 25, 	1982
A_ppearances: 	Charles 	R. 	Gustafson, 	Attorney 	for 	San Diego
Teachers 	Association, 	CTA/NEA; 	Ralph 	D. 	Stern, 	Attorney
for 	San 	Diego 	Unified 	School 	District.
Before Morgenstern, 	Jaeger 	and 	Tovar, 	Members.
DECISION
This 	case 	is 	before 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations
Board 	(hereafter 	PERB 	or 	Board} 	on 	exceptions 	filed 	by 	the
San 	Diego 	Unified 	School 	District 	(hereafter 	District} 	to
the 	attached 	proposed 	decision of 	the 	hearing officer,
which 	found 	that 	the 	District 	violated 	subsections 	3543.S(b}
and 	(c} 	of 	the 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Act
(hereafter EERA} 1 by 	unilaterally 	adopting 	a 	program
1 EERA 	is 	codified 	at 	Government Code 	sections 	3540
et 	seq. 	All 	statutory 	references 	are 	to 	the 	Government
Code, 	unless 	otherwise 	specified. 	Subsections 	3543.S(b}
and 	(c} 	provide 	as 	follows:

designed 	to 	assist 	"troubled" 	employees 	without 	first
negotiating with 	the 	San 	Diego 	Teachers Association,
CTA/NEA 	(hereafter Association). 	The 	hearing 	officer
further 	found 	that 	the Association 	did 	not 	waive 	its
right 	to 	bargain 	about 	the 	program by 	participating 	in
informal 	discussions 	with 	the 	District.
The 	District excepts 	to 	the 	finding 	of 	violation 	on
the 	grounds 	that 	an 	employee 	assistance 	program providing
only 	counseling 	and 	referral 	is 	not 	within 	the 	scope 	of
representation 	and 	that, 	in 	any 	event, 	the 	Association
waived 	its 	right 	to 	bargain 	about 	the 	program.
For 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	below, 	the 	Board 	sustains
the 	District's 	exception 	to 	the 	hearing officer's 	finding
of 	violation. 	Therefore, 	it 	is 	unnecessary, 	and we
expressly 	decline 	to 	decide 	whether 	any waiver occurred.
FACTS
The 	findings 	of 	fact 	stated 	in 	the 	hearing 	officer's
proposed 	decision 	are 	adopted 	as 	the 	findings 	of 	the 	Board
It 	shall 	be 	unlawful 	for 	a 	public
school 	employer 	to:
(c) 	Refuse 	or 	fail 	to 	meet 	and
negotiate 	in 	good 	faith 	with 	an
exclusive 	representative.
(b) 	Deny 	to 	employee 	organizations
rights 	guaranteed 	to 	them by 	this
chapter.
2

itself. 	In 	addition, 	we 	find 	that 	certain 	relevant 	facts,
amply 	supported by 	the 	record, 	were 	omitted 	from 	the
hearing 	officer's 	findings. 	These 	supplemental 	findings
of 	fact 	are 	set 	forth, 	infra.
The 	program was 	to 	be 	a 	third-party 	compensation
program which would 	provide 	interviews 	or 	referral 	at 	no
cost 	to 	the 	employee. 	However, 	employees 	would 	be 	expected
to 	pay any 	fees 	for 	treatment. 	The 	program in which 	the
District would 	participate would 	be 	available 	to 	any
employee 	and 	his 	or her 	family 	on a 	self-referral 	basis. 	In
addition, the 	program 	envisioned 	supervisorial 	training on
the 	goals 	and 	expectations 	of 	the 	program 	to 	include 	an
overview of 	the 	policies, 	procedures 	and 	techniques 	utilized
in 	the 	referral 	process. 	Thus, 	administrators 	and 	supervisors
would 	learn 	skills 	relevant 	to 	making 	effective 	employee
referrals 	to 	the 	program when 	and where 	appropriate.
In 	summary, 	the 	hearing officer 	found 	that 	the 	program
was 	established 	to 	assist 	"troubled" 	employees 	and 	their
families 	who 	had 	any 	health or 	behavioral 	problems, 	whether
they 	be 	emotional, 	marital, 	family, 	occupational, 	financial,
legal, 	medical 	or 	drug-alcohol 	related, 	which 	would 	affect
their 	job 	performance. 	The 	espoused 	purpose 	of 	this 	program
was 	(1) 	to 	improve 	the 	job 	performance 	of 	such 	troubled
employees, 	and 	(2) 	to 	offer 	for 	humanitarian 	purposes 	a
program which would 	assist 	workers 	by 	improving 	the 	quality
of 	their 	lives 	and 	the 	lives 	of 	their 	families.
3

In 	this 	regard, 	the 	hearing officer 	failed 	to 	note 	the
testimony 	of 	Ronald 	Bippert, 	the 	District's 	employee
services 	manager, 	who 	explained 	the 	referral 	process. 	He
stated, 	"The 	supervisor 	could 	suggest 	that 	the 	individual
may want 	to 	go 	and 	see 	the 	employee 	assistance 	office
. 	he 	could 	not order 	the 	individual 	to 	go."
The 	program emphasized 	a 	concern 	for 	confidentiality
of 	the 	information 	gathered. 	While 	the 	participating
districts 	could 	refer 	employees 	to 	the 	program, 	the
information 	derived 	through 	the 	interview process 	was 	to
be 	kept 	confidential 	and 	not 	to 	be 	released 	to 	any 	employer
absent 	an 	employee's 	express 	authorization 	for 	the 	release
of 	such 	information. 	Here 	again, 	the 	hearing officer's
findings 	of 	fact 	omitted Mr. 	Bippert's 	relevant 	and
uncontroverted 	testimony. 	He 	stated 	that 	a 	supervisor
who 	referred 	an 	employee 	to 	the 	program 	could 	find 	out
whether 	the 	employee 	in 	fact 	went 	"only 	if 	the 	employee
chooses 	to 	have EASE 	notify 	the 	supervisor 	that 	contact
was 	made."
Additionally, 	the 	record 	in 	this 	case 	includes 	the
credible 	and 	uncontroverted 	testimony 	of Ms. 	Ann 	Coughlin,
an 	expert 	in 	employee 	assistance 	programs, 	as 	to 	the 	benefits
an 	employer 	derives 	from 	the 	establishment of 	such 	a 	program.
Though 	alluded 	to 	generally 	in 	his 	discussion, 	the 	hearing
officer 	failed 	to 	make 	specific 	findings 	of 	fact 	as 	to
4

employer 	benefits. 	We, 	therefore, 	expressly 	find 	that
employee 	assistance 	programs 	are 	cost-effective 	to 	the
employer, 	producing a 	savings 	of 	$4 	to 	$19 	for 	every
dollar 	invested by 	reducing 	employee 	absenteeism and
health 	benefit 	costs, 	and 	that 	there 	are 	additional
intangible 	benefits 	to 	the 	employer, 	such 	as 	improved
employee morale 	and 	labor 	relations.
The 	record 	further 	indicates 	that 	these 	were 	the
very 	reasons 	the 	District 	implemented 	the 	employee
assistance 	program here. 	Dr. 	George 	Ellis, 	assistant
superintendent 	for 	employee 	relations, 	testified 	as
follows:
Q 	What 	are 	the 	principal 	reasons 	for 	the
implementation of 	such 	a 	program by 	the
district?
A 	Well, 	we were 	aware 	of 	the 	research 	that
has 	been 	done 	in 	this 	field, 	as 	it 	applied
to 	increasing 	productivity, 	improving 	the
quality 	and quantity 	of work, 	and 	reducing
costs, 	and we 	know 	from 	experience 	that
problem employees 	are 	absent much 	longer,
they 	have 	longer 	absences, 	they 	-- 	more 	--
much 	higher 	incidents 	of malfunction on 	the -
job, 	peor 	efficiency on 	the 	job, 	greater
. use
of 	health 	benefits, 	more 	use 	of workers'
compensation, 	domination of 	supervisors 	time,
a 	whole 	lot of 	reasons 	that we 	found 	to 	be
true 	in 	our 	district, 	and paralleling 	the
research 	in 	the 	field 	as 	we've 	monitored 	it.
Our 	purpose, 	our 	goals, 	as 	we 	have 	been
working 	the 	last 	couple 	of 	years, 	in 	terms
of what kind of 	a 	program would 	be 	effective,
were 	simply 	that we 	wanted 	to 	reduce 	absen-
teeism, 	we wanted 	to 	increase 	the 	morale
of our 	supervisors, 	as 	well 	as 	find 	a 	decent
and honorable way 	to 	deal with 	these 	problems,
5

with 	human· beings, 	arid want 	to 	reduce 	workers'
comp 	claims, 	reduce 	turnover, 	make 	savings 	in
our 	health 	costs, 	especially 	to 	get 	at 	the
problem of 	bringing 	expertise 	to 	bear on 	the
remediation of 	these 	problems.
A single 	problem employee 	in 	a 	school 	can
disrupt 	the 	morale, 	can 	push burdens 	on 	the
other 	people 	there, 	in 	a 	clerical 	position
or 	a 	classified position, 	the 	other people
have 	to 	pick 	up 	the 	load when 	the 	person 	is
absent. 	If we 	put 	substitutes 	in 	the 	room
on 	these 	absem;es, 	ihere 1 s 	a loss 	Of i>rodiic-
ti vi ty 	and 	instructional 	time, 	because 	no
one 	can 	really 	replace 	the 	resident 	teacher,
the 	continuity of 	the 	teacher.
There 	was 	a 	question 	of 	safety 	of 	employees,
we 	have 	bus 	drivers, 	industrial 	art 	teachers,
chemistry 	teachers, 	all 	kinds 	of 	employees
who 	are 	involved where 	the 	safety 	of 	children
is 	important, 	where 	they 	can't nod off, 	or
dope 	off, 	or 	not 	be 	paying 	the 	best possible
attention 	to 	those 	factors. 	-We were 	looking
for 	a 	way 	to 	enhance 	the 	requirements 	of
law 	that 	relate 	to 	the 	counseling 	assist-
ance 	required 	under 	the 	Stull Act, 	which
is 	also 	required 	in our 	negotiated 	evaluation
procedure with 	all 	employee 	groups.
We 	felt 	that our 	supervisors 	simply
weren't experts 	in 	all 	of 	these 	very
complex 	fields 	that 	are 	involved with 	a
problem employee. 	As 	was 	mentioned
previously, 	an employee 	who 	shows 	up 	with
alcohol 	or 	behavior problems 	on 	the 	job,
in 	their performance, 	may 	have 	many more
deep-seated 	problems 	that 	have 	to 	be 	dealt
with. 	So, 	the 	question 	is 	how we 	might
counsel 	and 	assist, 	and bring 	the 	employee
to 	an 	agency 	that 	could 	direct 	them away
from 	the 	district, 	a 	confidential 	basis,
to 	an 	appropriate 	agency.
6

DISCUSSION
The question 	in 	this 	case 	is 	whether 	an 	employee
assistance 	program providing 	counseling 	and 	referral 	to
"troubled" 	employees 	is 	a 	matter within 	the 	scope 	of
representation 	requiring negotiation 	prior 	to 	adoption.
Section 	3543.2 	provides 	in 	pertinent 	part 	as 	follows:
The 	scope 	of 	representation 	shall 	be
limited 	to 	matters 	relating 	to 	wages,
hours 	of 	employment, 	and other 	terms
and 	conditions 	of 	employment. 	"Terms
and 	conditions of 	employment" 	mean
health 	and welfare 	benefits 	as 	defined
by 	Section 	53200 	••. 	[of 	the 	Education 	Code].
Section 	53200(d} 	provides:
"Health 	and welfare 	benefit" 	means 	any
one 	or more 	of 	the 	following: 	hospital,
medical, 	surgical, 	disability, 	legal
expense 	or 	related 	benefits 	including,
but 	not 	limited 	to, 	medical, 	dental,
life, 	legal 	expense, 	and 	income 	protec-
tion 	insurance 	or 	benefits, 	whether
provided on 	an 	insurance 	or a 	service
basis, 	and 	includes 	group 	life 	insurance
as 	defined 	in 	subdivision 	(b} 	of 	this
section.
In Anaheim Union High 	School 	District
(10/28/81) 	PERB 	Decision No. 	177, 	the 	Board 	reaffirmed
its 	well-established 	test, 	developed 	in a 	series 	of 	cases, 2
for 	determining whether 	a 	subject, 	not 	specifically 	enumerated,
is 	within 	the 	scope 	of 	representation. 	The 	Board 	stated 	at
pp. 	4-5:
2san Mateo 	City 	School 	District 	(5/20/80) 	PERB 	Decision
No. 	129; 	Jefferson 	School 	District 	(6/19/80) 	PERB Decision
No. 	133; 	Healdsburg 	Union 	High 	School 	District 	(6/19/80) 	PERB
Decision 	No. 	132. 	See 	also 	Palos 	Verdes 	Peninsula 	Unified
School 	District/Pleasant Valley 	School 	District 	(7/16/79) 	PERB
Decision No. 	96.
7

[A] 	subject 	is 	negotiable 	even 	though 	not
specifically enumerated 	if 	(1) 	it 	is
logically 	and 	reasonably 	related 	to 	hours,
wages 	or 	an 	enumerated 	term and 	condition
of employment, 	(2) 	the 	subject 	is 	of 	such
concern 	to 	both management 	and employees
that 	conflict 	is 	likely 	to 	occur 	and 	the
mediatory 	influence 	of 	collective 	negotia-
tions 	is 	the 	appropriate 	means 	of 	resolving
the 	conflict, 	and 	(3) 	the 	employer's
obligation 	to 	negotiate 	would 	not 	signifi-
cantly 	abridge 	his 	freedom 	to 	exercise 	those
managerial 	prerogatives 	(including 	matters
of 	fundamental 	policy) 	essential 	to 	the
achievement 	of 	the 	District's 	mission.
If a 	proposal 	meets 	the 	threshold 	test 	of 	relatedness 	to
an 	enumerated 	term, 	then 	the 	employee 	interest 	in 	employment
conditions 	is 	balanced 	against 	the 	extent 	to 	which 	managerial
prerogatives 	are 	involved. 	San Mateo, 	supra, 	at 	p. 	14;
Healdsburg, 	supra, 	at 	pp. 	12-13.
Employee 	assistance 	programs 	are 	not 	specifically
enumerated 	in 	section 	3543.2. 	Therefore, 	we 	apply 	the
Anaheim 	test 	to 	determine 	whether 	the 	program 	is 	negotiable
as 	a 	matter within 	the 	scope of 	representation.
Applying 	this 	test, 3 the 	hearing 	officer 	determined
preliminarily 	that 	the 	program, 	while 	not 	providing
treatment, 	is 	so 	inextricably 	related 	to 	treatment 	that 	it
is 	logically 	and 	reasonably 	related 	to 	"health 	and welfare
benefits 	as 	defined 	by 	Section 	53200." 	We 	agree. 	However,
we 	disagree 	with 	the 	hearing officer's 	analysis 	and
application 	of 	the 	second 	and 	third elements 	of 	the 	Anaheim
test 	to 	the 	facts 	of 	this 	case.
3Though Anaheim, 	supra, 	was 	decided 	after 	the 	hearing
officer's 	decision 	in 	this 	case, 	he 	articulated 	the
identical 	test, 	citing 	San Mateo, 	supra.
8

By 	failing 	to 	consider 	the 	relevant 	testimony of 	the
District witnesses 	cited 	above, 	the 	hearing officer
erroneously 	both 	understated 	the 	District's 	managerial
interest 	and 	overstated 	the 	effect of 	the 	program on
conditions 	of 	employment. 	Specifically, 	the 	hearing officer
ignored 	the 	District's 	fundamental 	concern with 	having
sober, 	mentally 	sound 	and 	efficient 	employees 	teaching 	the
students 	under 	its 	care 	and 	supervision. 	Management would
surely 	be 	severely 	hampered 	if 	it 	lacked 	the 	ability 	to
pursue 	such 	goals.
In 	contrast, 	the 	program's 	effect 	on 	conditions 	of
employment 	and on employment 	relations 	is 	slight.
In 	its 	discussions 	with 	the 	District 	and 	subsequently,
the Association's 	primary 	concerns 	were 	confidentiality 	of
program participants 	and 	the 	impact on 	existing health and
welfare 	benefits. 	Both 	of 	these 	concerns 	involve 	program
impact. 	The 	District does 	not 	deny 	that 	it 	has 	a 	duty 	to
negotiate 	over 	the 	impact of 	its 	decision, 	as 	opposed 	to
the 	decision 	itself. 	And 	the 	District 	has 	specifically
offered 	to 	negotiate 	as 	to 	these 	matters.
Considering 	separately 	the 	District's 	decision 	to
establish 	this 	program, 	we 	find 	its 	effect on 	employment
concerns 	to 	be 	minimal.
9

Participation 	is 	on 	a 	voluntary 	basis. 	Though 	a 	supervisor
can 	suggest 	that 	an 	employee 	who 	demonstrates 	negative
behavior 	affecting 	job 	performance 	consult 	the 	program, 	the
supervisor 	can 	neither 	compel 	nor 	verify 	participation
without 	the 	employee's 	consent. 	Therefore, 	neither
participation 	nor 	refusal 	to 	participate 	in 	the 	program can
be 	used 	for 	purposes 	of 	employee 	evaluation 	or 	discipline.
While, 	under 	existing 	policies 	and 	procedures, 	management
may 	have 	cause 	to 	take 	disciplinary 	action 	against 	problem
behavior, 	this 	program 	confers 	no 	new 	right on management to
take 	such 	action 	and, 	similarly, 	it 	creates 	no 	new 	obligations
or 	behavior 	standards 	for 	employees. 	To 	the 	extent
that 	referral 	to 	an 	assistance 	program provides 	an 	alternative
to 	disciplinary 	action, 	it 	is 	an 	alternative 	already 	available
to management, 	which 	is 	simply 	facilitated 	by having 	access
11to 	such 	a 	program 	"in house. 4 In 	short, 	management 	has
acquired 	a 	new management 	tool 	but 	has 	not 	increased 	its
rights 	at 	employee 	expense, nor 	have 	working 	conditions 	been
changed.
4see Amoco 	Chemical 	Corp. 	(1978) 	237 	NLRB 	394, 	396,
finding 	that 	the 	unilateral 	implementation of 	an 	excessive
absence 	counseling 	program 	is 	not 	unlawful 	because 	the
"implementation of 	a 	more 	formal 	and 	reg·ular procedure 	to
be 	followed 	by 	its 	supervisors 	in 	counseling 	employees
about 	their 	absences 	amounts 	to 	structuring 	of 	its 	internal
procedures 	There 	is 	no 	substantial 	difference,
insofar 	as 	the 	employees 	are 	concerned, 	whether 	the
supervisor 	informs 	him, 	sua 	sponte, 	that 	his 	attendance 	is
bad 	or 	that 	he 	is 	so 	informed 	as 	part 	of 	a 	regular management
policy."
10

The 	cost of 	the 	program 	is 	assumed 	entirely by 	the
District, 	imposing 	no 	additional 	costs 	and 	no 	reduction of
existing benefits 	to 	employees. 	Additionally, 	the
Association 	itself, 	in 	its 	informal 	consultations 	with 	the
District, 	stated 	that 	the 	program 	should be kept outside
the 	context of 	adversarial 	negotiations 	because 	of 	its
highly 	sensitive 	nature. 	Thus, 	even 	from 	the Association's
point of 	view, 	the matter 	could 	easily be 	exempted 	from
negotiations. 5 Finally, 	the 	record 	contains 	uncontroverted
expert 	testimony 	that 	in 	the 	private 	sector, 	employee
assistance 	programs 	are 	usually 	not 	a 	part of 	the 	collective
bargaining 	agreement. 6
11
5we 	do 	not 	decide 	whether 	the Association's 	conduct
constitutes 	a 	waiver.
6 while 	not dispositive 	of 	the 	issue, 	this 	testimonial
evidence 	lends 	support 	to 	our 	conclusion, 	as 	does 	the
apparent 	absence-of 	any 	NLRB 	case 	squarely on 	point. 	See
Leroy Machine 	Company 	(1964) 	147 	NLRB 	1431, 	stating 	that 	an
employer must 	bargain over 	a 	mandatory 	physical 	examination
requirement 	the 	results 	of which would be 	considered 	in 	job
placement. 	There 	the 	Trial 	Examiner 	indicated 	that 	a
different 	rule 	might 	apply 	to 	the 	type 	of 	program at 	issue
here, 	"where 	the 	examination 	is 	required 	solely 	for 	the
benefit of 	the employee 	and 	to 	enable 	the 	latter 	to 	obtain
treatment, 	if 	necessary, 	with 	no 	report 	thereof made 	to 	the
employer 	and 	no 	change 	in 	the 	employment 	status 	can 	result."
Leroy Machine 	Co., 	supra, 	at 	p. 	1438.
"While 	not 	determinative, 	it 	is 	appropriate 	to 	look 	to
industrial 	bargaining 	practices 	in 	appraising 	the 	propriety
of 	including 	a 	particular 	subject within 	the 	scope 	of
mandatory 	bargaining." 	Fibreboard Corp. 	v. 	NLRB 	(1964)
379 	U.S. 	203, 	211.
Based on 	all 	of 	the 	foregoing 	considerations 	and 	the
record 	as 	a 	whole, 	we 	find 	that 	the 	employee 	assistance
program 	so minimally 	and 	indirectly 	affects 	the 	employment

concerns 	of 	employees 	that 	conflict over 	the 	program
is 	unlikely. 	At 	the 	same 	time, 	the 	program 	is 	central 	to
the 	District's 	mission 	of 	providing 	educational 	services.
Therefore, 	on 	balance, 	we 	conclude 	that 	the 	District's
decision 	to 	establish 	the 	employee 	assistance 	program 	is
properly 	excluded 	from 	the 	bargaining 	arena. 	In 	so
concluding, 	we 	emphasize 	the 	District's 	acknowledgment 	of
its 	obligation 	to 	negotiate 	with 	the 	Association 	regarding
the 	impact 	of 	the 	program on 	program 	participants 	and on
existing health 	and 	welfare 	benefits.
ORDER
12
Upon 	the 	foregoing 	findings 	of 	fact, 	conclusions 	of
law, 	and 	the 	entire 	record 	in 	this 	case, 	the 	Public
Employment 	Relations 	Board ORDERS 	that 	the 	charges 	filed
rs 	Association, 	CTA/NEA, 	against 	the
DISMISSED.
Irene 	Tovar, 	Member

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
SAN DIEGO 	TEACHERS 	ASSOCIATION
CTA/NEA,
Charging 	Party,
v.
SAN 	DIEGO 	UNIFIED 	SCHOOL 	DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Unfair 	Practice
Case 	No. 	LA-CE-549
PROPOSED 	DECISION
(6/26/80)
Aepearances: 	Charles 	R. 	Gustafson, 	Esq., 	Attorney 	for 	San
Diego 	Teachers 	Association 	CTA/NEA: 	Ralph 	D. 	Stern, 	Esq.,
Attorney 	for 	San 	Diego 	Unified 	School 	District.
Before 	Stephen 	H. 	Naiman, 	Hearing 	Officer
PROCEDURAL 	HISTORY
This 	case 	confronts 	the 	question 	of 	whether 	a 	program
established 	to 	assist 	"troubled" 	employees 	by 	counseling 	and
referral 	to 	psychiatric 	or 	other 	professional 	assistance 	is 	a
program which 	is 	within 	the 	scope 	of 	representation 	pursuant 	to
section 	3543.2 	of the 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Act
(hereafter 	EERA) .1
On October 	26, 	1979, 	Charging 	Party, 	San 	Diego 	Teachers
Association CTA/NEA 	(hereafter 	Association, 	SDTA or 	Charging
lThe 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Act 	is 	found 	in
Government 	Code 	section 	3540 	et 	seq. 	Unless 	otherwise 	noted,
all 	code 	sections 	cited 	in 	this 	decision 	refer 	to 	the
Government 	Code.

Party) 	filed 	an 	unfair 	practice 	charge 	against 	San 	Diego
Unified 	School 	District 	(hereafter 	Employer, 	District 	or
Respondent). 	The 	charge 	alleges 	that 	the 	District 	violated
section 	3543.S(b) 	and 	(c) 	by 	unilaterally 	undertaking 	to
participate 	in 	an 	employee 	assistance 	program without
negotiating 	with 	the 	Association.
On 	November 	3, 	1979, 	respondent 	District 	filed 	an 	answer
which 	essentially 	admitted 	the 	allegations 	of 	the 	charge 	and
affirmatively 	defended 	on 	the 	grounds 	that 	the 	employee
assistance 	program was 	not 	within 	"the 	scope 	of 	negotiations"
within 	the 	meaning 	of 	the 	EERA and 	that 	the 	Charging 	Party 	had
waived 	any 	rights 	to 	negotiate 	concerning 	the 	employee
assistance 	program.
An 	informal 	conference 	was 	held 	on 	December 	7, 	1979, 	and 	a
formal 	hearing 	was 	held 	on 	February 	1 	and 	March 	14, 	1980.
Thereafter, 	Charging 	Party 	and 	Respondent 	filed 	simultaneous
opening 	and 	responsive 	briefs 	and 	on 	May 	6, 	1980, 	the 	matter
was 	submitted 	for 	decision.
FINDINGS OF 	FACT
Background
San 	Diego Unified 	School 	District 	is 	a 	public 	school
employer 	within 	the 	meaning 	of 	Government Code
section 	3540.l(k) .2 	The 	District 	is 	comprised 	of
2By 	stipulation 	of 	the 	parties.
2

elementary, 	junior 	high 	and 	high 	schools 	located 	in 	San 	Diego
County.
San 	Diego 	Teachers 	Association 	is 	an 	employee 	organization
within 	the 	meaning 	of 	Government Code 	section 	3540.l(d) 	and 	is
the 	exclusive 	bargaining 	representative 	for 	the 	certificated
personnel 	of 	the 	District.3 	(See 	Gov. 	Code,
sec. 	3540.l(e) .) 	The 	Association 	and 	the 	District 	are 	parties
to 	a 	collective 	bargaining 	agreement 	which 	has 	as 	its 	effective
date 	July 	1, 	1979 	through 	June 	30, 	1980.4
In 	1979, 	the 	San 	Diego 	Department 	of 	Education 	established
a 	countywide 	program 	called 	"Employee Assistance 	Service 	for
Education" 	(hereafter 	EASE). 	The 	county 	drafted 	a 	joint 	powers
agreement 	which 	permitted 	school 	districts 	within 	the 	county 	to
become a 	part 	of 	the 	program by 	becoming 	signatory 	to 	the
agreement 	and 	paying 	a 	fee 	for 	the 	program 	service.
The 	county 	program 	is 	not 	unique 	to 	the 	public 	school
system or 	to 	San 	Diego County. 	Indeed, 	in 	the 	private 	sector
it 	appears 	that 	employee 	assistance 	programs 	have 	existed 	for
many 	years. 	Many 	of 	these 	programs 	have 	been 	created 	pursuant
to 	federal 	supervision 	and 	guidelines 	which 	require 	that
employers, 	receiving 	federal 	funding, 	not 	discriminate 	against
employees 	who 	fall 	within 	the 	definition 	of 	handicapped 	by
3ay 	stipulation 	of 	the 	parties.
4Ibid.
3

virtue 	of 	certain 	emotional 	and 	other 	problems 	related 	to
alcohol 	or 	drug 	dependency 	or 	other 	psychological 	problems
which 	interfere 	with 	their 	work.
Both 	in 	public 	and 	private 	employment, 	the 	purpose 	of 	the
programs 	is 	to 	assist 	employees 	and 	their 	families 	by 	providing
a 	mechanism 	through 	which 	they 	can 	resolve 	personal 	problems
which 	might 	otherwise 	interfere 	with 	their 	work 	and 	their
personal 	and 	private 	lives. 	In 	some 	instances, 	the 	programs
are 	designed 	only 	to 	refer 	employees 	to 	appropriate 	treatment.
In 	other 	instances, 	the 	programs 	both 	refer 	and 	treat
"troubled" 	employees. 	Approximately 	8 percent 	of 	the 	average
work 	force 	have 	need 	of 	such 	programs.
Many 	assistance 	programs, 	especially 	those 	which 	are
organized 	under 	the 	auspices 	of 	the 	federal 	government, 	are
created 	by 	joint 	committees 	of 	labor 	and management. 	While 	the
programs 	are 	not 	universally 	the 	subject 	of 	the 	collective
bargaining 	process, 	they 	are 	the 	subject 	of 	joint 	agreements
which 	are 	designed 	to 	deal 	with 	what 	is 	considered 	to 	be 	a
serious 	problem 	by 	both 	labor 	and 	management. 	Most 	programs
are 	designed 	to 	ensure 	that 	employees 	will 	be 	guaranteed
confidentiality 	and 	protection 	from 	discrimination 	by 	virtue 	of
the 	fact 	that 	they 	have 	sought 	referral 	or 	treatment.
The 	San 	Diego 	County 	Department 	of 	Education's 	Employee
Assistance 	Program
The 	topic 	of 	an 	employee 	assistance 	program 	is 	not 	new 	in
the 	San 	Diego 	school 	system. 	Since 	1977, 	a 	program 	for
4

treatment 	of 	troubled 	employees, 	specifically with 	the 	problem
of 	alcoholism, 	has 	been 	explored. 	As 	described 	in 	the 	joint
powers 	agreement 	and 	the 	proposals 	which 	characterize 	the
program, 	the 	San 	Diego County EASE 	program was 	established 	to
assist 	"troubled" 	employees 	and 	their 	families 	who 	had 	any
health 	or 	behavioral 	problems, 	whether 	they 	be 	emotional,
marital, 	family, 	occupational, 	financial, 	legal, 	medical 	or
drug-alcohol 	related 	which 	would 	relate 	to 	their 	job
performance. 	The 	espoused 	purpose 	of 	this 	program was 	to 	(1)
improve 	the 	job 	performance 	of 	such 	troubled 	employees 	and 	(2)
to 	offer 	for 	humanitarian 	purposes 	a 	program which 	would 	assist
workers 	by 	improving 	the 	quality of 	their 	lives 	and 	the 	lives
of 	their 	families.
The 	county 	program would 	be 	available 	to 	any 	employee 	and
his 	or 	her 	family 	on a 	self-referral 	basis, 	or 	any 	supervisor
or 	any 	administrator 	who 	chooses 	to 	refer 	to 	the 	program 	an
employee 	who 	demonstrates 	negative 	behavior 	affecting 	job
performance. 	In 	this 	latter 	regard, 	the 	program envisioned
supervisorial 	training 	which 	would 	advise 	administrative
personnel 	of 	the 	goals 	and 	expectations 	of 	the 	program, 	which
would 	include 	an 	overview 	of 	the 	policies, 	procedures 	and
techniques 	utilized 	in 	the 	referral 	process. 	The 	program was
to 	be 	a 	third-party 	compensation 	program which would 	provide
interviews 	or 	referral 	at 	no 	cost 	to 	the 	employee. 	However,
the 	employees 	would 	be 	expected 	to 	pay 	any 	fees 	for 	treatment.
5

The 	creators 	of 	the 	county's 	EASE program 	acknowledged 	that 	the
insurance 	policies 	of 	most 	districts 	have 	limited 	coverage 	for
"troubled" 	employees. 	In 	order 	to 	make 	the 	program work, 	the
preliminary 	proposal 	for 	the 	program 	states 	that:
By 	broadening 	coverage 	for 	troubled
employees, 	the 	insurance 	companies 	can 	be
made 	aware 	that 	they 	are, 	in 	effect, 	saving
money. 	Without 	third 	party payments, 	many
employees 	might 	well 	forego 	the 	assistance
they 	need.
In 	conclusion, 	the 	proposal 	for 	EASE quotes 	an 	expert 	in
occupational 	programs 	as 	follows:
The 	overall 	potential 	impact 	that 	the
Employee 	Assistance 	Program 	can 	have 	is
enormous. 	Practically 	every 	person 	in 	our
society 	is 	either 	directly 	or 	indirectly
associated 	with 	an 	employer. 	Because 	the
Employee 	Assistance 	Program 	is 	designed 	to
include 	family 	members 	due 	to 	the 	effect
they 	can 	have 	on 	an 	employee's 	work
performance, 	it 	can 	play 	a 	singular 	major
role 	which 	cannot 	be 	duplicated 	anywhere
else 	in 	our 	society. 	The 	potential 	is
unlimited: 	the 	movement 	finally 	has 	a 	good
start 	with 	a 	firm 	basis: 	and 	the 	results
appear 	to 	be 	justifying 	the 	effort. 	We 	feel
there 	is 	great 	cause 	for 	optimism.
The 	county 	program was 	to 	cost 	approximately 	5 dollars 	per
employee 	per 	year 	and 	would 	require 	at 	least 	one 	fulltime
professional 	employee 	to 	act 	as 	counselor 	for 	those 	persons 	who
used 	the 	services 	of 	the 	EASE program. 	Finally, 	the 	program
emphasized 	a 	concern 	for 	confidentiality of 	the 	information
gathered. 	While 	the 	participating 	districts 	could 	refer
employees 	to 	the 	program, 	the 	information 	derived 	through 	the
6

interview 	process 	was 	to 	be 	kept 	confidential 	and 	not 	to 	be
released 	to 	any 	employer 	absent 	an 	employee's 	express
authorization 	for 	the 	release 	of 	such 	information.
Association 	Representatives 	Become 	Interested 	in 	the 	Employee
Assistance 	Program 	and Meet 	with 	Representatives 	of 	the 	District
In March 	1979, 	teacher 	Jane 	Parker 	attended 	a 	chemical 	and
d.rug 	abuse 	program 	as 	a 	nonabusing 	participant 	on 	behalf 	of 	the
District. 	After 	attending 	the 	program, 	Parker, 	who 	was 	also 	a
member 	of 	the 	Association's 	negotiating 	committee, 	spoke 	with
SOTA 	Executive 	Director, 	Louis 	Boitano, 	and 	determined 	that
such 	a 	program might 	be 	beneficial 	to 	employees 	who 	were
members 	of 	the 	Association. 	Although 	the 	SDTA executive
committee 	did 	not 	officially 	take 	a 	position 	on 	adoption 	of 	the
employee 	assistance 	program, 	efforts 	were 	undertaken 	to 	prepare
a 	proposal 	and 	to 	contact 	the 	District 	to 	discuss 	the
possibilities 	of 	creating 	an 	assistance 	program 	for 	the
District's 	employees 	represented 	by 	the 	Association.
When 	Parker 	and 	Boitano 	spoke 	with 	District 	representatives
in 	June 	1979, 	they 	learned 	that 	the 	District 	was 	itself
considering 	participation 	in 	the 	countywide 	EASE program. 	A
meeting 	was 	arranged 	on 	July 	11 	with 	Ronald 	Bippert, 	the
District's 	Employee 	Services 	Manager. 	On 	July 	11, 	Parker,
Boitano 	and 	Bippert 	met 	and 	informally 	discussed 	the 	nature 	of
the 	countywide 	plan. 	The 	meeting 	on 	July 	11 	appears 	to 	have
been 	informational, 	with 	Bippert 	responding 	to 	the
7

Association's 	questions 	and 	concerns. 	On 	the 	other 	hand, 	it
appears 	that 	the 	Association 	did 	express 	its 	interest 	in 	having
an 	assistance 	program 	and 	stated 	that 	it 	believed 	that 	such 	a
program 	involved 	highly 	sensitive 	issues 	concerning 	the
individual 	employees. 	For 	this 	reason, 	Boitano 	and 	Parker 	took
the 	position 	during 	the 	discussions 	on 	July 	11 	that 	the 	parties
should 	not 	"codify" 	the 	question 	at 	that 	time. 	Rather, 	they
were 	of 	the 	opinion 	that 	an 	employee 	assistance 	program would
better 	be 	agreed 	upon 	between 	the 	Association 	and 	the 	District,
outside 	the 	context 	of 	collective 	bargaining. 	Thereafter, 	the
parties 	could 	reduce 	their 	understanding 	to 	writing.
A number 	of 	questions 	were 	left 	open 	and 	a 	second 	meeting
was 	arranged 	on 	July 	30, 	1979. 	Attending 	this 	meeting 	were
Parker 	and 	Boitano 	for 	the 	Association, 	Bippert 	for 	the
District, 	accompanied 	by 	numerous 	officials 	from 	the 	District's
personnel 	office 	and 	a 	person 	who 	was 	in 	charge 	of 	the
countywide 	plan, 	Dr. 	Lee 	Panttaja. 	Like 	the 	first 	meeting 	on
July 	11, 	the 	July 	30 	meeting 	was 	again 	informational. 	The
Association 	was 	given 	an 	opportunity 	to 	ask 	questions 	of 	the
District 	and 	to 	specifically 	seek 	answers 	to 	areas 	of 	concern.
At 	both 	meetings, 	the 	Association 	and 	the 	District 	discussed
the 	problems 	of 	the 	need 	for 	confidentiality, 	to 	assure
employees 	that 	in 	no 	way 	would 	the 	employer 	or 	anyone 	else
discover 	their 	utilization 	of 	the 	assistance 	program.
8

The 	Association 	representatives 	discussed 	the 	aspects 	of
the 	program designed 	to 	identify 	and 	isolate 	various 	employee
problems 	and 	the 	treatment 	programs 	which 	would 	be 	available 	to
those 	employees 	once 	referred 	out 	for 	treatment. 	The
Association 	suggested 	that 	perhaps 	a 	single 	program which 	would
involve 	both 	referral 	and 	treatment 	would 	be 	an 	approach 	to 	the
problems 	of 	dealing 	with 	"troubled" 	employees. 	Further,
Boitano 	and 	Parker 	discussed 	concerns 	about 	the 	ratio 	of
employees 	to 	counselors 	and 	the 	qualifications 	of 	the 	persons
charged 	with 	operating 	any 	assistance 	program 	established. 	At
the 	conclusion 	of 	the 	July 	30 	meeting, 	the 	parties 	left 	with 	an
understanding 	that 	they 	would 	meet 	again 	at 	some 	point 	to
continue 	their 	discussions.
On 	or 	about 	September 	20, 	1980, 	the 	parties 	again 	met 	to
discuss 	the 	EASE program. 	The 	discussions 	differed 	little 	from
those 	held 	in 	July. 	At 	or 	about 	this 	time, 	the 	Association
learned 	that 	the 	District 	intended 	to 	sign 	a 	joint 	powers
agreement 	with 	the 	County 	Superintendent 	of 	Schools 	and
participate 	in 	the 	EASE program 	which 	had 	been 	submitted 	for
the 	District's 	consideration 	during 	the 	previous 	spring
semester.
The 	Association 	Requests 	that 	the 	District 	Negotiate 	Concerning
an 	Assistance 	Program 	and 	the 	Parties 	Discuss 	Negotiability
The 	Association 	immediately 	wrote 	to 	the 	District
requesting 	that 	it 	not 	participate 	in 	the 	program 	until 	the
9

parties 	had 	met 	and 	negotiated 	over 	this 	matter. 	The
Association 	based 	its 	request 	to 	reopen 	negotiations 	on
Article 	XVII, 	section 	3 of 	the 	collective 	bargaining 	agreement
between 	the 	parties. 	The 	Association 	contended 	that 	the 	EASE
program 	was 	clearly a 	fringe 	benefit 	and 	relates 	to 	terms 	and
conditions 	of 	employment 	as 	defined 	by Government Code
sections 	3543.2 	and 	53200.
By 	letter 	of 	October 	1, 	1979, 	Dr. 	George 	Ellis, 	Assistant
Superintendent 	for 	Employee 	Relations 	of 	the 	San 	Diego City
Schools, 	responded 	to 	the 	Association's 	letter. 	The 	District
acknowledged 	that 	the 	parties 	had 	had 	several 	"consultation
meetings" 	on 	the 	subject 	and 	indicated 	its 	belief 	that 	the
program would 	not 	be 	a 	fringe 	benefit 	because 	it 	was 	voluntary,
totally 	client-centered, 	and 	available 	to 	all 	District
employees. 	Therefore, 	the 	District 	declined 	the 	Association's
request 	to 	reopen 	negotiations. 	The 	District 	indicated 	that 	it
would 	consult 	with 	the 	Association 	concerning 	the 	program 	and
reaffirmed 	the 	position 	that 	the 	program would 	be 	confidential
and 	voluntary.
On October 	2, 	1979, 	the 	Association 	again 	demanded
negotiations 	pursuant 	to Government Code 	section 	3540 	et 	seq.
On 	October 	2, 	1979, 	Dr. 	Ellis 	responded 	on 	behalf 	of 	the
District 	that 	the 	District 	would 	discuss 	whether 	the 	Employee
Assistance 	Program was 	within 	the 	scope 	of 	negotiations 	and 	if
persuaded 	that 	it 	was, 	it 	would 	negotiate 	on 	that 	matter. 	In
10

that 	same 	document, 	the 	District 	continued 	to 	offer 	assurances
that 	the 	program was 	voluntary, 	confidential 	and 	independent 	of
the 	school 	district.
The 	District 	Resolves 	to 	Participate 	in 	the 	EASE 	Program
The 	parties 	met 	on 	October 	4, 	1979 	and 	were 	unable 	to 	agree
that 	the 	implementation 	of 	an 	employee 	assistance 	plan 	or 	the
District's 	participation 	in 	the 	EASE program was 	a 	negotiable
matter. 	The 	board 	of 	trustees 	of 	the 	District, 	by 	resolution,
agreed 	to 	become 	signatory 	to 	the 	joint 	powers 	agreement 	which
made 	the 	District 	a 	participant 	in 	the 	EASE program and 	made
the 	program 	available 	to 	all 	of 	the 	District's 	employees.
Thereafter, 	the 	District 	offered 	and 	continues 	to 	offer 	to
negotiate 	with 	the 	Association 	the 	question 	of 	confidentiality
and 	the 	impact 	of 	the 	EASE program 	upon 	the 	health 	and 	welfare
benefits 	presently 	available 	to 	employees.
ISSUES
1. 	Whether 	the 	District 	violated 	section 	3543.S(c) 	and
(b) 	of 	the 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Act 	by 	unilaterally
instituting 	an 	employee 	assistance 	plan 	and making 	this 	program
available 	to 	its 	employees 	without 	first 	negotiating 	with 	the
Association.
2. 	Whether 	the 	Association 	by 	its 	participation 	in
discussions 	with 	the 	District 	and 	failure 	to 	demand
negotiations 	at 	the 	outset 	of 	its 	meetings 	with 	the 	District
has 	waived 	the 	right 	to 	negotiate 	this 	subject.
11

CONCLUSIONS OF 	LAW
The 	Association 	contends 	that 	the 	EASE program which 	the
District 	adopted 	is 	a 	fringe 	benefit, 	arguably 	relates 	to
employee 	evaluations 	and, 	therefore, 	falls 	within 	the 	meaning
of 	terms 	and 	conditions 	of 	employment. 	The 	District, 	on 	the
other 	hand, 	maintains 	that 	the 	determination 	to 	create 	an
employee 	assistance 	program 	is 	a management 	decision 	made
solely 	for 	the 	benefit 	of 	management 	for 	the 	efficiency of 	the
operation 	of 	the 	schools 	and 	is 	a 	matter 	outside 	the 	scope 	of
representation.
The Scope 	of 	Representation
The 	dispute 	between 	the 	Employer 	and 	the 	Association 	in
this 	case 	is 	not 	new 	to 	the 	PERB. 	Since 	the 	EERA was 	enacted,
the 	question 	of 	what 	matters 	are 	within 	the 	scope 	of
representation 	has 	been 	considered 	by 	the 	Board.
Section 	3543.2 	sets 	forth 	the 	legislative 	expression 	of 	the
limits 	of 	the 	scope 	of 	representation:
The 	scope 	of 	representation 	shall 	be 	limited
to matters 	relating 	to 	wages, 	hours 	of
employment, 	and 	other 	terms 	and 	conditions
of 	employment. 	"Terms 	and 	conditions 	of
employment" 	mean 	health 	and 	welfare 	benefits
as 	defined 	by 	Section 	53200, 	leave, 	transfer
and 	reassignment 	policies, 	safety 	conditions
of 	employment, 	class 	size, 	procedures 	to 	be
used 	for 	the 	evaluation 	of 	employees,
organizational 	security 	pursuant 	to
Section 	3546, 	procedures 	for 	processing
grievances 	pursuant 	to 	Sections 	3548.5,
3548.6, 	3548.7, 	and 	3548.8, 	and 	the 	layoff
of 	probationary 	certificated 	school 	district
employees, 	pursuant 	to 	Section 	44959.5 	of
12

the 	Education 	Code. 	In 	addition, 	the
exclusive 	representative 	of 	certificated
personnel 	has 	the 	right 	to 	consult 	on 	the
definition 	of 	educational 	objectives, 	the
determination 	of 	the 	content 	of 	courses 	and
curriculum, 	and 	the 	selection 	of 	textbooks
to 	the 	extent 	such 	matters 	are 	within 	the
discretion 	of 	the 	public 	school 	employer
under 	the 	law. 	All 	matters 	not 	specifically
enumerated 	are 	reserved 	to 	the 	public 	school
employer 	and 	may 	not 	be 	a 	subject 	of 	meeting
and 	negotiating 	•••• 	(Emphasis 	added)
In a 	recent 	decision, 	PERB 	acknowledged 	that 	while 	the
statute 	provided 	for 	certain 	express 	areas 	of 	negotiability,
which 	are 	per 	se 	within 	the 	scope 	of 	representation, 	there 	was
a 	broad 	range 	of 	issues 	which 	might 	fall 	within 	the 	scope 	of
representation 	although 	not 	expressly 	enumerated 	by 	the
statute. 	(San 	Mateo 	Elementary 	Teachers 	Association 	v.
San Mateo City 	School 	District 	(5/20/80) 	PERB 	Decision No. 	129
at 	pp. 	9 - 	12.)
In order 	to 	determine 	whether 	a 	matter 	is 	within 	scope, 	the
Board 	sets 	forth 	a 	test 	by 	which 	to 	analyze 	this 	question.
First, 	inquiry must 	be 	made 	as 	to 	whether 	the 	matter 	in 	dispute
is 	"logically 	and 	reasonably 	related 	to 	wages, 	hours 	or 	an
enumerated 	subject 	under 	'terms 	and 	conditions 	of
employment.'" 	(San Mateo 	Elementary 	Teachers 	Association,
supra, 	PERB 	Decision No. 	129 	at 	p. 	10.)
Next, 	even 	though 	a 	matter 	is 	logically 	and 	reasonably
related 	to 	an 	item 	specified 	as 	being 	within 	scope, 	the
affirmative 	answer 	to 	this 	threshold 	question 	still may 	require
13

an 	application 	of 	a 	balancing 	test 	to 	ascertain 	whether 	the
subject 	is 	of 	such 	concern 	to 	both 	management 	and 	employees
that 	conflict 	is 	likely 	to 	occur 	and 	that 	the 	mediatory
influence 	of 	collective 	bargaining 	is 	appropriate. 	This
interest 	is 	then 	balanced 	with 	the 	need 	to 	"exercise 	managerial
prerogatives 	essential 	to 	the 	achievement 	of 	the 	employer's
mission." 	San Mateo 	Elementary 	Teachers 	Association, 	supra,
PERB 	Decision No. 	129 	at 	p. 	14. 	See 	also 	Palos 	Verdes
Peninsula 	Unified 	School 	District/Pleasant Valley 	School
District 	(7/16/79) 	PERB 	Decision No. 	96. 	Fibreboard 	Paper
Prods. 	Corp. 	v. 	NLRB 	(1964) 	379 	U.S. 	203 	[57 	LRRM 	2609]. 	This
test 	will 	be 	applied 	to 	the 	facts 	of 	this 	case.
The 	EASE 	Program 	is 	Logically 	and 	Reasonably 	Related 	to 	Terms
and 	Conditions 	of 	Employment
Government Code 	section 	3543.2 	spells 	out 	certain
enumerated 	items 	which 	comprise 	the 	legislature's 	limitation
upon 	terms 	and 	conditions 	of 	employment. 	The 	enumerated 	area
of 	particular 	concern 	in 	this 	case 	is 	"health 	and 	welfare
benefits, 	as 	defined 	by 	section 	53200" 	of 	the 	Government 	Code.
Section 	53200 	of 	the 	Government 	Code 	defines 	health 	and 	welfare
benefits 	as:
14

(d) 	"Health 	and 	welfare 	benefit" 	means 	any
one 	or 	more 	of 	the 	following: 	hospital,
medical, 	surgical, 	disability, 	legal 	expense
or 	related 	benefits 	including, 	but 	not
limited 	to, 	medical, 	dental, 	life, 	legal
expense 	and 	income 	protection 	insurance 	or
benefits, 	whether 	provided 	on 	an 	insurance
or 	a 	service 	basis, 	and 	includes 	group 	life
insurance 	as 	defined 	in 	subdivision 	(b) 	of
this 	section. 	(Emphasis 	added)
Government Code 	section 	53202 	gives 	school 	districts 	and 	other
local 	agencies 	covered 	by 	the 	code 	the 	option 	to 	contract 	with
insurance 	carriers 	of 	their 	own 	choosing 	as 	in 	the 	best
interest 	of 	their 	employees 	after 	considering 	the 	preference 	of
the 	employees 	and 	with 	the 	offering 	of 	alternative 	benefits 	if
deemed 	desirable. 	Government Code 	section 	53205 	permits 	the
payment 	of 	premiums 	for 	costs 	of 	such 	health 	and 	welfare
benefits 	out 	of 	public 	funds. 	Section 	53202.25 	requires 	that
records 	of 	persons 	entitled 	to 	benefits 	under 	health 	and
welfare 	plans 	shall 	be 	confidential 	and 	not 	be 	disclosed 	to
anyone 	except 	to 	the 	extent 	expressly 	authorized 	in 	an
application 	for 	benefits 	or 	as 	expressly 	permitted 	by 	the
statute. 	Government 	Code 	section 	53207 	states 	that 	no 	officer
or 	employee 	of 	a 	local 	agency 	is 	required 	to 	join 	in 	any 	health
or 	welfare 	plan.
As 	noted 	above, 	the 	program 	in 	dispute 	in 	this 	case 	would
provide 	a 	referral 	service 	for 	employees 	who, 	by 	virtue 	of
emotional, 	marital, 	physical, 	drug 	or 	alcohol 	related 	problems
need 	psychological 	counseling 	or 	other 	treatment. 	Such 	a
15

program would 	reasonably 	be 	recognized 	by 	employees 	as 	a
benefit 	to 	them or 	their 	families 	if 	made 	available 	to 	them by
the 	District. 	Such 	a 	program 	is 	merely 	the 	beginning 	step 	in
what 	is 	conceded 	by 	the 	District 	to 	be 	a 	related 	benefit 	of
psychological 	or 	medical 	counseling 	for 	these 	problems. 	Such 	a
program could 	merely 	be 	part 	of 	a 	continuum of 	services 	offered
to 	employees. 	Thus, 	had 	the 	District's 	plan 	provided 	for 	both
referral 	and 	treatment, 	there 	is 	no 	question 	but 	that 	the
entire 	plan 	would 	fall 	within 	the 	definition 	of 	health 	and
welfare 	benefits 	provided 	by 	the 	Government 	Code.
The 	plan 	in 	this 	case 	is 	one 	which 	is 	paid 	for 	by 	the
District 	as 	permitted 	by 	statute. 	It 	is 	one 	which 	is 	voluntary
and 	contains 	certain 	assurances 	of 	confidentiality. 	All 	of 	the
indicia 	of 	the 	plan 	fall 	within 	the 	provisions 	of 	Government
Code 	section 	53200 	et 	seq. 	While 	the 	EASE program 	arguably
does 	not 	provide 	treatment, 	it 	is 	so 	inextricably 	related 	to
treatment 	that 	it 	logically 	and 	reasonably 	relates 	to 	that
subject 	of 	bargaining. 	The 	District 	argues 	that 	providing 	the
EASE 	program 	to 	employees 	is 	no 	different 	than 	providing
air-conditioning 	for 	schools 	or 	new 	and 	modern 	classrooms.
This 	argument 	has 	little 	merit 	in 	the 	face 	of 	the 	above
analysis 	in 	view 	of 	the 	relationship 	between 	the 	EASE program
and 	the 	health 	and 	welfare 	benefits 	described 	in 	the 	Government
Code.
16

On 	Balance, 	the 	EASE 	Program 	is 	Properly 	a 	Subject 	of 	the
Negotiating 	Process
Having 	determined 	as 	a 	threshold 	matter 	that 	the 	EASE
program 	is 	logically 	and 	reasonably 	related 	to 	fringe 	benefits
as 	defined 	and 	described 	in 	section 	3543.2 	and 	section 	53200 	of
the 	Government 	Code, 	an 	analysis 	of 	the 	subject 	in 	the 	light 	of
managerial 	interests 	of 	the 	District 	balanced 	against 	its
compatability 	with 	the 	negotiations 	process 	is 	helpful. 	The
only 	managerial 	interest 	which 	the 	District 	has 	expressed 	is
that 	the 	EASE program 	will 	enhance 	the 	cost 	efficiency 	of 	the
District. 	The 	theory 	is 	that 	by 	reducing 	absenteeism 	and
inefficiency which 	attend 	job 	performance 	by 	"troubled"
employees, 	the 	District 	will 	enjoy 	some 	form 	of 	savings 	in 	the
costs 	of 	operation. 	In 	analyzing 	the 	District's 	interest 	in
this 	case, 	it 	must 	be 	recalled 	that 	we 	are 	dealing 	with 	a
public 	school 	employer 	and 	not 	the 	ordinary 	industrial
manufacturer 	found 	in 	private 	industry. 	The 	public 	school
employer 	has 	different 	cost 	interests 	than 	does 	management 	in
private 	industry. 	There, 	the 	increase 	in 	productivity may well
be 	affected 	by 	"troubled" 	employees 	and 	the 	costs 	savings 	by
referral 	to 	treatment 	can 	more 	reasonably 	be 	measured 	than 	can
the 	savings 	in 	costs 	to 	a 	district 	in 	the 	public 	sector. 	On
the 	other 	hand, 	it 	might 	be 	argued 	that 	performance 	will 	be
enhanced 	by 	referral 	to 	treatment. 	However, 	it 	is 	hard 	to
determine 	how 	this 	advantage 	would 	differ 	from 	the 	improved 	job
17

performance 	enjoyed 	by 	an 	employer 	who 	provides 	adequate 	and
complete 	health 	benefits 	to 	its 	employees.
On 	the 	other 	hand, 	an 	employee 	assistance 	program 	as 	shown
by 	this 	record 	is 	one 	that 	is 	of 	interest 	to 	both 	the 	employer
and 	the 	employees' 	representatives. 	Further, 	the 	program 	is
one 	which 	lends 	itself 	to 	a 	complete 	and 	open 	dialogue 	between
the employer 	and 	employees' 	representative. 	The 	record 	shows
that 	employee 	assistance 	programs 	are 	best 	created 	and
maintained 	by 	joint 	committees 	of 	management 	and 	union
representatives. 	While 	there 	was 	testimony 	in 	the 	record 	that
in 	the 	private 	sector, 	the 	employee 	assistance 	programs 	are
usually 	not 	a 	part 	of 	the 	collective 	bargaining 	agreement, 	this
practice 	is 	not 	dispositive 	of 	whether 	such 	matters 	are 	or
could 	be 	within 	the 	scope 	of 	representation 	if 	one 	party
requests 	that 	they 	be 	negotiated. 	What 	is 	clear 	is 	that 	in 	the
private 	sector, 	wherever 	these 	programs 	have 	been 	established,
the 	majority 	of 	the 	programs 	have 	been 	established 	through 	a
joint 	committee 	of 	labor 	and 	management.
It 	is 	concluded 	that 	when 	striking 	the 	balance 	between
managerial 	interests 	and 	the 	interests 	of 	labor 	and 	management
in 	creating 	an 	EASE program 	through 	the 	negotiating 	process,
the 	balance 	must 	be 	struck 	in 	favor 	of 	negotiability.
It 	is 	thus 	found 	that 	an 	employee 	assistance 	program 	is
within 	the 	scope 	of 	representation 	and 	the 	employer 	must
bargain 	concerning 	its 	establishment 	and 	its 	provisions 	if
18

requested 	to 	do 	so. 	The 	District 	in 	this 	case 	refused 	to
bargain 	and, 	absent 	a 	finding 	that 	the 	Association 	had 	waived
its 	right 	to 	bargain 	over 	this 	matter, 	the 	District's 	refusal
would 	be 	a 	violation 	of 	Government 	Code 	section 	3543.S(c) 	and
(b) • 4
Waiver
The 	District 	contends 	that 	the 	Association 	waived 	its
rights 	to 	negotiate 	this 	matter. 	The 	District 	argues 	that 	the
Association 	did 	not 	demand 	to 	negotiate 	an 	EASE program 	but,
rather, 	suggested 	that 	the 	program 	should 	be 	the 	subject 	of
informal 	discussions 	and 	later 	reduced 	to 	writing. 	The
District 	throughout 	the 	record 	characterized 	the 	meetings 	as
consultation 	meetings 	with 	the 	Association 	and 	suggests 	that
its 	representatives 	believed 	that 	the 	Association 	did 	not 	wish
to 	negotiate 	the 	matter 	of 	an 	employee 	assistance 	program.
When 	the 	Association 	later 	demanded 	that 	the 	District 	negotiate
on 	the 	question, 	the 	District 	contends 	its 	representatives 	were
surprised 	and 	in 	some 	fashion 	had 	been 	deceived 	during 	the
prior 	meetings.
Contrary 	to 	the 	District's 	contentions, 	no 	waiver 	is 	found
here. 	PERB 	has 	held 	that 	waiver 	of 	a 	right 	to 	bargain 	will
4PERB 	has 	held 	in 	San 	Francisco Community College
District 	(10/12/79) 	PERB 	Decision 	No. 	105 	at 	p. 	19, 	that 	a
refusal 	to 	bargain 	under 	section 	3543.S(c) 	is 	also 	a 	violation
of 	employee 	organization 	rights 	under 	3543.S(b).
19

not 	be 	inferred. 	Rather, 	waiver 	of 	the 	right 	to 	bargain 	must
be 	intentional, 	clear 	and 	unmistakable. 	(Davis 	Unified 	School
District, 	et 	al. 	(2/22/80) 	PERB 	Decision 	No. 	116 	at 	p. 	1711
San 	Francisco Community College 	District, 	supra, 	PERB 	Decision
No. 	105 	at 	pp. 	16-17.)
The 	Association 	did 	not 	clearly 	or 	unmistakably waive 	its
right 	to 	negotiate 	in 	this 	case. 	Rather, 	representatives 	of
the 	Association 	came 	to 	the 	District 	and 	requested 	that
District 	representatives 	discuss 	the 	Association's 	concern
about 	the 	need 	for 	an 	assistance 	program 	and 	disclose 	what 	the
District's 	concerns 	were 	in 	this 	regard. 	There 	is 	no 	question
that 	the 	parties 	were 	involved 	in 	an 	informal 	consultation
process 	during 	the 	meetings 	of 	July 	11, 	30 	and 	September 	20.
The 	Association 	representatives 	clearly 	believed 	that 	the
program 	could 	best 	be 	created 	away 	from 	the 	bargaining 	table.
However, 	at 	no 	time 	did 	the 	Association 	take 	a 	position 	that
would 	be 	characterized 	as 	a 	clear 	and 	unmistakable 	waiver 	of
the 	right 	to 	negotiate 	on 	the 	question 	of 	an 	assistance
program. 	When 	the 	Association 	was 	informed 	that 	the 	District
unilaterally 	intended 	to 	become 	signatory 	to 	a 	joint 	powers
agreement 	which 	would 	implement 	the 	county 	schools' 	assistance
program, 	the 	Association 	immediately 	demanded 	that 	the 	District
negotiate 	concerning 	the 	intention 	to 	join 	the 	county 	plan.
20

The 	Association's 	conduct 	was 	consistent 	with 	the 	expressed
concern 	about 	the 	sensitivity of 	discussions 	relating 	to 	an
assistance 	program; 	and, 	further, 	the 	Association's 	conduct 	was
consistent 	with 	the 	provisions 	of 	the 	collective 	bargaining
agreement 	between 	the 	parties. 	In 	this 	regard, 	reference 	is
made 	to 	article 	IV entitled 	"Negotiation 	and 	Consultation
Procedures." 	Section 	9.E provides 	in 	relevant 	part:
The 	District 	and 	the 	Association 	agree 	that
submission 	of 	a 	topic 	for 	consultation 	in 	no
way 	limits 	either 	party 	from 	introducing 	the
topic 	or 	information 	generated 	from 	the
consultation 	process 	as 	a 	possible 	item 	for
consideration 	within 	the 	scope 	of 	the
Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Act 	during
the 	negotiation 	process 	at 	a 	later
time ••••
It 	is 	found 	that 	the 	Association 	representatives 	acted
consistently 	with 	the 	provisions 	of 	the 	collective 	bargaining
agreement 	and 	it 	cannot 	be 	inferred 	that 	they 	deviously 	or
improperly obtained 	information 	from 	the 	District 	in 	the
consultation 	process 	which 	it 	later 	used 	in 	the 	request 	for
negotiations. 	Nor 	can 	it 	be 	concluded 	that 	the 	Association 	by
consulting 	with 	the 	District 	concerning 	an 	EASE program 	had
intentionally 	waived 	the 	right 	to 	contend 	that 	the 	program was
clearly 	within 	the 	scope 	of 	representation 	under 	the 	EERA.
Having 	found 	that 	there 	has 	been 	no 	waiver, 	the 	District
must 	be 	held 	to 	have 	violated 	section 	3543.5 (c) 	and 	(b).
21

REMEDY
Section 	3541.S(c) 	gives 	PERB 	broad 	powers 	to 	remedy 	unfair
practices. 	Implicit 	within 	this 	section 	is 	an 	obligation 	upon
the 	agency 	to 	find 	creative 	remedies 	in 	difficult 	situations.
This 	case 	is 	one 	in 	which 	the 	appropriate 	remedy 	must 	be
carefully 	analyzed. 	On 	the 	one 	hand, 	the 	District 	has 	violated
the 	statute 	by 	unilaterally 	contracting 	with 	the 	San 	Diego
County Superintendent 	of 	Schools 	to 	participate 	in 	an 	employee
assistance 	program. 	On 	the 	other 	hand, 	unlike 	the 	cases 	where
benefits 	are 	lost 	because 	of 	a 	change 	in 	insurance 	plan
administrators,5 	in 	this 	case 	employees 	have 	suffered 	no 	loss
by 	virtue 	of 	the 	District's 	participation 	in 	the 	EASE 	program.
To 	order 	the 	District, 	without 	qualification, 	to 	cease 	and
desist 	from 	participation 	in 	the 	EASE 	program would 	arguably
interfere 	with 	rights 	of 	employees 	who 	were 	not 	members 	of 	the
unit 	represented 	by 	the 	Association 	and 	would 	interfere 	with 	an
existing 	contract 	between 	the 	District 	and 	the 	county.6 	Yet,
to 	permit 	the 	District 	to 	remain 	in 	the
5see 	Oakland 	Education Association 	v. 	Oakland 	Unified
School 	Disfr'Ict 	(4/23/80) 	PERB 	Decision 	No. 	126; 	Campbell
Unified 	School 	District 	(12/20/77) 	EERB 	Decision No. 	HO-U-17;
Ketstone 	Consolidated 	Industries 	v. 	NLRB 	(7th Cir. 	1979)
60 	F.2d 	171 	[102 	LRRM 	2664]. 	--
6The 	joint 	powers 	agreement 	permits 	withdrawal, 	with 	due
notice, 	prior 	to 	March 	1 of 	each 	year. 	The 	withdrawal 	is
effective 	as 	of 	the 	end 	of 	the 	fiscal 	year, 	which 	is 	June 	30.
A withdrawing 	party may 	recoup 	the 	unused 	or 	uncommitted
contribution 	after 	deduction 	of 	costs 	of 	administration.
22

plan 	would 	maintain 	the 	status 	quo 	while 	the 	Association 	is
negotiating 	concerning 	whether 	the 	plan 	should 	remain 	in 	effect
and 	the 	extent 	to 	which 	it 	should 	be 	changed.
It 	is 	concluded 	that 	the 	Association 	should 	be 	able 	to
determine 	whether 	it 	wishes 	to 	have 	the 	county 	EASE plan
continue 	to 	cover 	the 	employees 	in 	the 	unit 	it 	represents
during 	the 	time 	that 	it 	is 	negotiating 	with 	the 	District
concerning 	the 	implementation 	and 	provisions 	of 	the 	program.
The 	Association 	might 	well 	determine 	that 	it 	is 	in 	the 	best
interest 	of 	the 	employees 	it 	represents 	as 	well 	as 	in 	its 	best
negotiating 	interest 	to 	leave 	the 	plan 	in 	effect 	and 	negotiate
from 	the 	benefits 	already 	enjoyed.
Thus, 	the 	District 	should 	be 	ordered 	to 	negotiate 	with 	the
Association 	concerning 	the 	terms 	and 	provisions 	of 	an 	employee
assistance 	program. 	Further, 	if 	requested 	to 	do 	so 	by 	the
Association, 	the 	District 	should 	also 	be 	ordered 	to 	withdraw
from 	participation 	in 	the 	EASE program 	any 	and 	all 	unit 	members
represented 	by 	the 	Association. 	Should 	the 	Association 	request
the 	District 	to 	withdraw 	its 	unit 	members 	from 	participation 	in
the 	EASE 	program, 	the 	District 	should 	have 	a 	reasonable
opportunity 	to 	dissolve 	the 	contractual 	relationship covering
those 	persons 	consistent 	with 	PERB 	law. 	(See 	Oakland 	Education
Association 	v. 	Oakland 	Unified 	School 	District, 	supra, 	PERB
Decision 	No. 	126 	at 	p. 	9.)
23

The 	District 	should 	further 	be 	ordered 	to 	cease 	and 	desist
from 	failing 	and 	refusing 	to 	meet 	and 	negotiate 	in 	good 	faith
by 	taking 	unilateral 	action 	on-matters 	within 	the 	scope 	of
representation 	and 	from 	denying 	the 	Association 	its 	right 	to
represent 	members 	by 	such 	refusal.
Affirmatively, 	the 	District 	should 	be 	ordered 	to
immediately meet 	and 	negotiate 	with 	the 	Association 	concerning
the 	establishment 	of 	and 	provisions 	for 	an 	employee 	assistance
program, 	if 	requested 	to 	do 	so, 	and 	to 	properly 	post 	a 	copy 	of
this 	Order 	and 	the 	attached 	notice 	where 	such 	notices 	are
customarily placed.
Posting 	of 	such 	a 	notice 	will 	provide 	employees 	with 	notice
that 	the 	District 	has 	acted 	in 	an 	unlawful 	manner 	and 	is 	being
required 	to 	cease 	and 	desist 	from 	this 	activity. 	It
effectuates 	the 	purposes 	of 	the 	EERA 	that 	employees 	be 	informed
of 	the 	resolution 	of 	the 	controversy and 	will 	announce 	the
District's 	readiness 	to 	comply 	with 	the 	ordered 	remedy. 	PERB
has 	authorized 	the 	posting 	of 	notices 	in 	cases 	identical 	to
this 	one. 	Davis 	Unified 	School 	District, 	et 	al., 	supra, 	PERB
Decision No. 	116. 	See 	also 	Placerville 	Union 	School 	District
(9/18/78) 	PERB 	Decision 	No. 	69. 	In 	Pandol 	and 	Sons 	v. 	ALRB 	and
UFW 	(1979) 	98 	Cal.App.3d 	580, 	587, 	the 	California 	District
Court 	of 	Appeal 	approved 	a 	posting 	requirement. 	The
U. 	s. 	Supreme 	Court 	approved 	a 	similar 	posting 	requirement 	in
NLRB 	v. 	Express 	Publishing Co. 	(1941) 	312 	U.S. 	426 	[8 	LRRM 	415].
24

PROPOSED 	ORDER
Upon 	the 	foregoing 	findings 	of 	fact, 	conclusions 	of 	law 	and
the 	entire 	record 	in 	this 	case, 	IT 	IS 	HEREBY ORDERED 	that
San 	Diego 	Unified 	School 	District 	and 	its 	representatives 	shall:
1. 	Cease 	and 	desist 	from 	failing 	and 	refusing 	to 	meet 	and
negotiate 	in 	good 	faith 	with 	San 	Diego 	Teachers
Association 	concerning 	all 	aspects 	of 	an 	employee
assistance 	program 	for 	employees 	which 	is 	a 	matter
within 	the 	scope 	of 	representation 	as 	defined 	by
Government 	Code 	section 	3543.2.
2. 	Cease 	and 	desist 	from 	denying 	the 	Association 	its
right 	to 	represent 	unit 	members 	by 	failing 	and
refusing 	to 	meet 	and 	negotiate 	about 	all 	aspects 	of 	an
employee 	assistance 	program 	for 	employees 	when 	such
matter 	is 	within 	the 	scope 	of 	representation.
3. 	Upon 	request, 	cease 	and 	desist 	from 	including
employees 	represented 	by 	the 	Association 	in 	the 	San
Diego 	County 	EASE program.
4. 	Take 	the 	following 	affirmative 	action 	which 	is
necessary 	to 	effectuate 	the 	policies 	of 	the
Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Act:
a. 	Upon 	request, 	immediately 	or 	as 	soon 	as
practicable 	begin 	negotiations 	with 	the
Association 	concerning 	the 	creation,
establishment, 	or 	continuation 	of 	an 	employee
assistance 	program.
b. 	Within 	seven 	days 	of 	the 	decision 	becoming 	final,
post 	at 	all 	school 	sites 	and 	all 	other 	work
locations 	where 	notices 	to 	employees 	customarily
are 	placed, 	immediately 	upon 	receipt 	thereof,
copies 	of 	the 	notice 	attached 	as 	an 	appendix
hereto. 	Such 	posting 	shall 	be 	maintained 	for 	a
period 	of 	thirty 	(30) 	work 	days. 	Reasonable 	steps
shall 	be 	taken 	to 	insure 	that 	such 	notices 	are 	not
altered, 	defaced 	or 	covered 	by 	any 	other 	material.
c. 	Immediately 	upon 	completion 	of 	the 	posting 	period
set 	forth 	in 	4(b), 	notify 	the 	Los 	Angeles 	Regional
Director 	of 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board
in 	writing 	what 	steps 	the 	District 	has 	taken 	to
comply with 	the 	terms 	of 	this 	decision.
25

Pursuant 	to 	California Administrative 	Code, 	title 	8,
part 	III, 	section 	32305, 	this 	Proposed 	Decision 	and 	Order 	shall
become 	final 	on 	July 	16, 	1980 	unless 	a 	party 	files 	a
timely 	statement 	of 	exceptions 	within 	twenty 	(20) 	calendar 	days
following 	the 	date 	of 	service 	of 	the 	decision. 	The 	statement
of 	exceptions 	and 	supporting 	brief 	must 	be 	actually 	received 	by
the 	Executive 	Assistant 	to 	the 	Board 	at 	the 	headquarters 	office
in 	Sacramento 	before 	the 	close 	of 	business 	(5:00 	p.m.)
on 	July 	16, 	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, 	sections 	32300 	and 	32305, 	as 	amended.)
Dated: 	June 	26, 	1980
26
-p;:77~
Stephen 	H. 	Naiman
Hearing Officer

APPENDIX
NOTICE 	TO 	EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF 	THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
An 	Agency of 	the 	State 	of 	California
After 	a 	hearing 	in 	unfair 	practice 	case 	No. 	LA-CE-549, 	in
which 	all 	parties 	had 	the 	right 	to 	participate, 	it 	has 	been
found 	that 	the 	San 	Diego Unified 	School 	District 	violated 	the
Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Act 	by 	failing 	and 	refusing 	to
meet 	and 	negotiate 	with 	the 	San 	Diego 	Teachers 	Association 	with
respect 	to 	the 	creation 	of 	a 	program 	affecting 	employees 	and
relating 	to 	matters 	within 	the 	scope 	of 	representation. 	As 	a
result 	of 	this 	conduct, 	we 	have 	been 	ordered 	to 	post 	this
notice 	and 	we 	will 	abide 	by 	the 	following:
WE WILL 	NOT 	fail 	or 	refuse, 	upon 	request, 	to meet 	and
negotiate 	with 	the 	San 	Diego Teachers 	Association 	with 	respect
to 	creation 	of 	and 	participation 	in 	an 	employee 	assistance
program covering 	unit 	members.
WE WILL 	NOT change 	the 	terms 	and 	conditions 	of 	employment
without 	negotiating 	with 	the 	San 	Diego 	Teachers 	Association.
Dated: 	SAN 	DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL 	DISTRICT
By______________ _
THIS 	IS 	AN 	OFFICIAL 	NOTICE. 	IT MUST 	REMAIN 	POSTED 	FOR AT 	LEAST
THIRTY 	(30) 	WORK 	DAYS 	FROM THE 	DATE OF 	POSTING AND MUST NOT BE
DEFACED, 	ALTERED OR COVERED BY ANY MATERIAL.