Unit Determination for Technical Skilled Crafts, Service and Professional Employees of the University of California (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) (PERB 0290H)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
IN 	THE MATTER OF:
UNIT 	DETERMINATION 	FOR 	TECHNICAL,
SKILLED CRAFTS, 	SERVICE AND
PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES 	OF 	THE
UNIVERSITY 	OF 	CALIFORNIA 	(LAWRENCE
LIVERMORE 	NATIONAL 	LABORATORY
CASUAL EMPLOYEES) 	PURSUANT TO
CHAPTER 744 	OF 	THE STATUTES 	OF 	1978
(HIGHER 	EDUCATION 	EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE
RELATIONS 	ACT)
Case Nos.
SF-RR-1002-H et 	al.
PERB Decision No. 	290-H
March 	4, 	1983
Appearances: 	Jerrold C. 	Schaefer, 	Judith Droz Keyes 	and
Bonnie K. 	Gibson, Attorneys 	(Corbett, Kane, Berk & Barton) 	and
James N. 	Odle, 	Associate Counsel for 	the Regents of 	the
University of California; 	Philip E. 	Callis, 	Attorney for 	the
California State Employees Association; 	Thomas Rankin, 	Attorney
for Laborers 	International Union, 	Local 	1276;
Vincent Harrington, Attorney 	(Van Bourg, Allen, Weinberg &
Roger) 	for 	the 	Printing Trades Alliance 	and 	the Alameda 	and
San 	Francisco Building 	and 	Construction Trades 	Councils.
Before Tovar, Jaeger, Morgenstern and Burt, Members.*
DECISION
The 	Higher 	Education Employer-Employee 	Relations 	Act
(HEERA)1 became effective July 1, 	1979. 	The 	legislation
granted 	jurisdiction 	over 	HEERA 	to 	the 	Public Employment
Relations Board 	(PERB or Board). 	Its 	terms 	extend 	the
opportunity for 	collective 	bargaining to, 	among others, 	the
*Chairperson Gluck 	did 	not 	participate 	in 	this 	Decision.
1The 	HEERA 	is 	codified 	at 	Government 	Code 	section 	3560
et 	seq. 	All 	statutory references 	hereafter 	are 	to 	the
Government 	Code, 	unless 	otherwise 	indicated.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
______________ )

University of California 	(UC) 	and 	its 	employees 	at 	the Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory 	(LLNL or 	laboratory). 	As 	an
initial 	step 	in 	the 	representational process, 	PERB has 	the
authority 	to 	determine 	the 	appropriate 	representational 	units
for 	employees 	of 	UC.2
Pursuant 	to 	rules 	and 	regulations 	adopted 	by 	the 	Board,3
various 	employee 	organizations 	filed 	petitions 	with 	the 	Board
describing 	the 	units 	they 	believed 	to 	be 	appropriate. 	Parties
to 	the 	instant 	case 	then 	participated 	in 	unit 	determination
hearings 	conducted 	by PERB 	which 	resulted 	in 	decisions 	creating
appropriate 	bargaining 	units 	including, 	among others, 	LLNL
technical, 	skilled 	crafts, 	service 	and 	professional 	units.4
2subsection 	3563 	of HEERA provides, 	in pertinent 	part:
This 	chapter 	shall 	be 	administered 	by 	the
Public Employment 	Relations Board. 	In
administering 	this 	chapter 	the 	board 	shall
have 	all of 	the 	following 	rights, 	powers,
duties 	and 	responsibilities:
(a) 	To determine 	in disputed cases, or
otherwise 	approve, 	appropriate 	units 	. . . .
3PERB 	rules 	and 	regulations 	regarding HEERA are 	codified
at California Administrative Code, 	title 	8, 	section 	31001
et 	seq.
4Unit Determination 	for 	Technical Employees 	of 	the
University of California 	(9/30/82) 	PERB Decision No. 	241-H;
Unit 	Determination 	for 	Skilled 	Crafts 	Employees 	of 	the
University of California 	(9/30/82) 	PERB Decision No. 	242-H;
Unit 	Determination 	for 	Service 	Employees 	of 	the 	University of
California 	(9/30/82) 	PERB Decision No. 	245-H; 	Unit
Determination 	for 	Professional 	Scientists 	and 	Engineers,
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 	of 	the University of
California 	(9/30/82) 	PERB Decision No. 	246-H.
22

During 	the 	unit 	determination 	hearings, 	exclusionary 	issues
were 	raised 	by 	the 	parties 	with 	respect 	to 	the 	alleged 	casual
status 	of 	several 	thousand 	employees. 	The 	hearing 	on 	these
exclusionary 	issues 	began on July 14, 	1982. 	See Unit
Determination 	for 	Employees 	of 	the 	Regents 	of 	the University of
California 	(9/4/81) 	PERB Order 	No. 	Ad-114-H and 	(4/20/82) 	PERB
Order No. Ad-114a-H.
On 	the 	first 	day of 	the 	hearing, 	evidence 	was 	taken on 	the
status 	of 	alleged 	casual 	employees 	at 	the laboratory. 	The
record 	reveals 	that 	the 	parties 	agreed 	to 	exclude 	employees 	who
were UC 	students 	and 	whose 	employment 	was 	contingent 	upon 	their
continued 	status 	as 	students.5 No other 	resolution on 	the
status 	of 	alleged 	LLNL 	casual 	employees 	was 	reached. 	The Board
5The 	stipulation 	was 	adopted 	in 	Unit 	Determination 	for
Employees 	of 	the Regents 	of 	the University of California
(8/4/82) 	PERB Order No. 	Ad-114b-H. 	It reflects 	the 	limited
statutory exclusion 	for 	students 	found 	in 	subsection 	3562(f) 	of
HEERA, 	which provides 	in pertinent 	part:
. 	. 	. 	The 	board may find student 	employees
whose 	employment 	is 	contingent 	on 	their
status 	as 	students 	are 	employees only 	if 	the
services 	they provide 	are 	unrelated 	to 	their
educational objectives, or, 	that those
educational objectives 	are 	subordinate 	to
the 	services 	they 	perform 	and 	that 	coverage
under 	this 	chapter 	would 	further 	the
purposes of 	this 	chapter.
Since 	the 	employer 	does 	not 	argue 	that 	this 	language 	applies 	to
other 	than UC 	students, 	we 	find 	it 	unnecessary 	to decide 	that
issue 	here. 	The 	effect of 	the 	stipulation 	is 	to exclude 	those
students 	in 	the Department 	of Applied Sciences 	at 	the UC Davis
33

herein 	determines 	the 	status 	of 	the 	remaining 	casual 	employees
in 	the 	various LLNL units.
DISCUSSION
Casual employees 	are 	those who, 	due 	to 	their 	sporadic or
intermittent 	relationship with 	the 	employer, 	lack 	a 	sufficient
community of 	interest with 	regular 	employees 	to 	be 	included 	in
the 	representational 	unit. 	Unit Determination 	for 	Employees 	of
the 	California State 	University 	and 	Colleges 	Pursuant 	to
Chapter 	744 	of 	the Statutes 	of 	1978 	(Higher 	Education
Employer-Employee Relations Act) 	(9/22/81) 	PERB Decision No.
173-H; 	citing Mission Pak Co. 	(1960) 	127 NLRB 	1097 	[46 LRRM
1161]. 	In considering 	the 	status of 	alleged casual employees
and 	the 	appropriateness 	of 	excluding 	them 	from 	the 	various 	LLNL
units, 	we 	are 	required 	to 	consider 	the 	following 	criteria set
forth 	in 	section 	3579 of HEERA which, 	in 	pertinent part,
provides:
(a) 	In each 	case where 	the 	appropriateness
of a 	unit 	is an 	issue, 	in determining an
appropriate 	unit, 	the 	board 	shall 	take 	into
consideration 	all 	of 	the 	following 	criteria:
(1) 	The 	internal and occupational
community 	of 	interest 	among 	the
employees, 	including, 	but not limited
to, 	the extent 	to which 	they perform
functionally 	related 	services 	or 	work
toward 	established 	common 	goals, 	the
history of 	employee 	representation 	with
campus who work 	at 	LLNL 	full-time 	during 	the 	summer 	and
half-time 	during 	an 	academic 	year. 	Employment 	of 	these
students 	is 	contingent 	upon 	their 	remaining 	students 	in good
standing 	in 	the Department 	of Applied Sciences 	at Davis.
4

the 	employer, 	the extent 	to which 	such
employees 	belong 	to 	the 	same 	employee
organization, 	the extent 	to which 	the
employees 	have 	common skills, 	working
conditions, job duties, or similar
educational or 	training 	requirements, 	and
the 	extent 	to which 	the 	employees 	have
common 	supervision.
In addition 	to 	the 	above 	statutory criteria, 	the Board 	has
consistently held, 	in accordance 	with other 	jurisdictions, 	that
such 	things as qualifications, 	job function, compensation,
hours of work, 	fringe 	benefits, 	integration of work function,
and 	interchange 	between 	employees 	are 	relevant 	in 	determining
community of 	interest.6 As 	stated 	in Monterey 	Peninsula
Community College District, 	supra;
. 	. 	. community of interest is not
determined 	by 	going 	down 	a 	check 	list 	of
these 	factors. 	The 	point of 	the 	comparison
is 	to reveal 	the 	interests 	of 	employees 	and
ascertain whether 	they 	share 	a 	substantial
mutual 	interest 	in matters 	subject 	to
meeting 	and 	negotiation. 	(citation
omitted) 	The 	interests 	of 	included
employees must be mutual not distinct, 	and
substantial not tenuous. 	Thus, 	employees
may 	be 	excluded 	from 	a particular 	unit
either 	because 	their 	interests 	are 	separate
and 	apart 	from 	those 	of 	the 	employees 	in
that particular 	unit, 	(citation omitted) 	or
because 	their 	interest 	in negotiable matters
subject 	to 	the 	control 	of 	the 	employer 	is 	so
insubstantial 	that 	they 	do 	not 	share 	mutual
interests 	with other 	unit 	employees. 	(PERB
Decision No. 	76 at p. 	13.)
6Hartnell Community College 	District 	(1/2/79) 	PERB
Decision No. 	81; Monterey Peninsula Community College District
(10/16/78) 	PERB Decision No. 	76. 	See 	also Kalamazoo Paper Box
Corp. 	(1962) 	136 NLRB 134 	[49 LRRM 1715].
55

The 	casual 	employee 	controversy 	at 	LLNL 	centers 	primarily
around 	two 	broad 	categories 	of 	employees. 	Those 	two 	classes
are 	indeterminate-time 	employees 	and 	temporary 	employees.
Within 	each 	category 	are 	employees 	with 	several 	different
positions 	and 	interests 	which must 	be 	individually 	examined.
Indeterminate-Time 	Employees
Indeterminate-time 	employees 	are 	those 	who 	are 	hired 	by
LLNL 	to work 	on 	an 	intermittent 	basis 	during 	peak workloads 	or
when 	there 	is 	a need 	for 	their 	specialized 	skills. 	Many
indeterminate-time 	employees 	are 	former 	LLNL 	employees 	who 	have
retired. 	Others 	are 	college 	students 	who 	have 	worked 	as
full-time 	temporary 	employees 	in 	the 	summer 	and 	thereafter 	as
indeterminate-time 	employees 	during 	school 	breaks 	and
holidays. 	Still other 	indeterminate-time 	employees 	are
recruited 	from 	the 	scientific public 	at 	large 	as 	the 	need
arises.
The 	first 	category of 	LLNL 	indeterminate-time 	employees 	is
comprised 	of 	students.7 These 	employees 	were 	originally
hired 	into 	temporary 	summer 	positions.8 Students 	unable 	to
complete 	their 	projects 	in 	the 	summer 	sometimes 	return 	to
finish 	their 	research 	at 	the 	laboratory whenever 	they 	are 	free
from 	their 	academic duties. 	Upon 	return 	to 	the laboratory,
7The 	exclusionary 	language 	of 	HEERA 	subsection 	3562(f)
for 	student 	employees 	does 	not 	apply 	to 	these 	employees 	since
their 	employment 	is 	not 	contingent 	upon 	their 	continued 	status
as students.
8Their 	status as 	temporary employees 	is discussed, 	infra.
6

they 	are 	reclassified 	as 	indeterminate-time 	employees. 	It 	is
unclear 	from 	the 	record 	whether 	the 	return of 	these 	students 	to
the laboratory 	is 	always motivated 	by career 	goals 	or 	is 	simply
incidental 	to their 	educational objectives. 	However, 	it
appears 	that 	most 	students 	return 	to 	the 	laboratory 	for 	the
purpose 	of 	completing 	their 	academic projects. 	We 	therefore
conclude 	that 	they 	should 	be 	excluded 	from 	the 	units.
Undoubtedly, 	these 	students have 	interests 	in wages, 	hours and
working 	conditions 	that 	overlap with 	those 	of 	regular 	full-time
employees. 	Nevertheless, 	because 	their 	primary focus 	is on
education 	rather 	than on 	vocation, 	we 	conclude 	that 	their
interest 	in 	bargaining matters 	is 	so 	limited 	and 	insubstantial
as 	to warrant 	their 	exclusion 	from the 	units.
The 	second 	category of 	LLNL 	indeterminate-time 	employees 	is
comprised 	of 	individuals 	who 	are 	recruited 	from 	the 	scientific
community at 	large 	to work 	in 	the 	laboratory when 	there 	is 	a
demand 	for 	extra 	employees. 	Most 	of 	these 	employees 	are 	hired
in 	"floater" 	positions 	of 	either 	short 	or 	intermittent
duration. 	They typically have 	the 	same 	job titles, 	rates 	of
pay and 	working 	conditions 	as 	full-time 	employees. 	Their
benefits 	differ 	in 	that 	they 	are 	not 	eligible 	to 	participate 	in
a 	retirement 	system, 	and 	that 	they 	accrue 	vacation, 	sick 	leave
and 	holiday 	pay only 	if 	they 	should 	happen 	to work 	half 	the
working 	hours 	of 	a given month.
The 	circumstances 	here 	are 	roughly analogous 	to 	those 	found
in San Diego Unified School District 	(6/25/81) 	PERB Decision
77

No. 	170. 	In San Diego 	the 	question was whether 	to 	include
part-time 	bus drivers 	in 	a 	unit 	of 	regular 	full-time drivers.
All 	of 	the drivers worked 	at 	the 	same location, 	received 	the
same 	training, 	were 	under 	the 	same 	supervision 	(except 	the
trainees), 	and 	performed 	the 	job of 	transporting pupils. 	All
drivers 	were 	paid 	at 	the 	same 	rate, 	although 	part-time drivers
received 	no 	fringe 	benefits, 	sick 	leave or 	vacation. 	The Board
found 	that 	the 	interests 	of 	part-time 	and 	full-time 	bus 	drivers
overlapped 	so 	substantially 	that 	they 	indisputably 	shared 	a
community of 	interest. 	The 	same 	logic applies 	in 	the 	case 	at
hand. 	When 	the 	overall 	function 	of 	these 	indeterminate-time
employees 	is 	compared with 	that 	of 	full-time LLNL 	employees, 	we
find 	no 	significant 	differences. 	The 	fact 	that 	their 	fringe
benefits 	differ 	does 	not 	negate 	the 	fact 	that 	many of 	these
benefits 	are 	legitimately 	the 	subject 	of 	negotiation 	and 	that
the 	two 	groups 	have 	a shared mutual 	interest 	in 	the 	bargaining
process 	that 	determines 	how 	these 	benefits 	are 	awarded.
Los 	Rios Community College 	District 	(6/9/77) 	EERB Decision
No. 	189 and 	Redwood 	City Elementary School 	District
(10/23/79) 	PERB Decision No. 	107. 	Since 	these
indeterminate-time 	employees 	share 	with 	full-time 	employees 	a
substantial mutual 	interest 	in matters 	subject 	to meeting 	and
9Prior 	to January 1, 	1978, 	PERB was 	known 	as 	the
Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Board.
88

negotiation, 	we 	conclude 	that 	it 	is 	appropriate 	to 	include 	them
in the 	various LLNL units.
The 	third, 	and perhaps largest, 	category of
indeterminate-time employees 	at LLNL 	is 	retirees. 	At 	the 	time
of 	the 	exclusionary 	hearing 	the 	status 	of 	these 	employees 	was
actively contested. 	The parties, 	however, 	in their
post-hearing 	briefs, 	mutually agree 	that 	retirees 	should 	be
excluded 	from 	the 	various 	LLNL 	units.10 Although 	not
formalized 	in 	a written 	agreement, 	the 	employee organizations
now 	apparently would 	stipulate 	to 	the 	exclusion 	of 	retirees.
The Board 	has 	held 	that 	it 	will 	accept a 	stipulation 	in a 	unit
determination matter 	only when 	the 	stipulation 	does 	not
contravene 	the Act 	or 	established Board 	policies. 	Centinela
Valley Union High School District 	(8/7/78) 	PERB Decision No. 	62.
Upon examination of 	the 	record, 	it 	appears 	that
indeterminate-time 	retired 	employees 	have 	the 	same 	benefits 	and
working 	conditions 	as 	the 	indeterminate-time 	employees
recruited 	from 	the 	scientific 	community discussed 	above. 	There
appears 	to 	be a single difference 	in 	that, 	as a result of 	their
10In 	unit 	determination matters 	the 	Board 	has 	held 	that 	a
party 	in 	its 	post-hearing 	brief may 	urge 	any 	position or
alternative 	it 	desires 	on 	the 	basis 	of 	the 	record 	as 	a whole.
Re: 	Joint Hearing Order 	(7/16/80); 	HEERA - UC Unit
Determination 	(9/29/80) 	PERB Order 	No. 	Ad-101-H. 	Inasmuch 	as
the 	employee 	organizations 	have 	reviewed 	the 	record 	and 	now
concur 	that 	retirees 	do 	not 	share 	a 	sufficient 	community of
interest 	with full-time 	career 	employees, 	we 	recognize 	this 	as
their 	final 	position.
99

past 	employment 	at LLNL, 	all of 	the 	retirees 	receive pension
and/or 	social 	security benefits. 	The 	retirement 	programs
restrict 	retirees' 	work 	eligibility 	to 	90 	days 	of 	employment 	in
any one 	year 	at 	the 	risk of 	losing 	retirement 	benefits.
However, 	the record 	in 	this case 	as 	to this difference 	is 	not
sufficient 	to 	distinguish 	the 	two 	types 	of 	indeterminate-time
employees 	and 	exclude 	the 	retirees 	from 	the 	unit. 	Indianapolis
Glove Co. 	v. 	NLRB 	(6th Cir. 	1968) 	400 F.2d 363 	[69 LRRM 2261];
Holiday 	Inns 	(1969) 	176 NLRB 	939 	[71 LRRM 1333]; 	Noesting Pin
Ticket Co. 	(1974) 	214 NLRB No. 	153 	[87 LRRM 1588].
Although 	a 	stipulation 	to 	the 	exclusion of 	retirees 	cannot
be 	approved 	based 	on 	the 	current 	record, 	the Board 	is 	reticent
to 	include 	retirees 	in 	the 	units 	when 	the 	parties 	have
expressed 	their 	preference 	for 	exclusion. 	Thus, 	the Board
construes 	the 	parties' 	positions 	as expressed 	in 	their 	briefs
as 	tantamount 	to 	an 	amendment 	of 	their 	initial 	unit petitions
to exclude 	retirees. 	As 	such, 	although 	the 	parties'
stipulation 	regarding 	unit 	placement 	cannot 	be 	approved, 	the
Board will 	accept 	the parties' 	constructive deletion of
retirees 	from 	their 	petitions. 	Thus, 	indeterminate-time
retirees 	are 	not 	included 	in 	the 	appropriate 	unit.
Temporary Employees;
A 	temporary 	employee 	is 	one 	who 	is 	hired 	to work 	a 	fixed
term of 	less 	than one year. 	Most 	temporary 	employees 	are
participants 	in one 	of 	a 	number 	of 	special 	laboratory academic
10

training 	programs.11 The 	parties 	in 	their 	post-hearing
briefs 	now express 	a mutual 	agreement 	that 	employees 	in 	these
programs 	should 	be excluded 	from 	the 	various LLNL 	units. 	In
accordance 	with Centinela, 	supra, 	we look 	to the 	record 	for
support 	of 	this position.
The 	record 	reveals 	that 	many of 	the 	temporary 	employee
positions 	at 	LLNL 	are 	filled 	by 	student 	and 	faculty 	employees
who 	are 	hired 	for 	the 	primary purpose 	of 	providing 	them with 	an
opportunity 	to 	enhance 	either 	their 	education 	or 	teaching
abilities. 	One 	such 	program employing 	temporary employees 	is
the 	student/faculty summer 	program. 	These 	employees, 	who must
be college or 	university students 	or 	faculty members, 	are
employed 	for 	a 	summer 	in 	positions 	related 	to 	their 	field 	or
course 	of 	study. 	They are 	placed 	in 	the 	same 	title code 	as
full-time 	employees 	and 	are 	paid 	according 	to 	the 	same 	salary
range. 	While 	the 	laboratory uses 	this program 	in part 	as 	a
recruiting 	device, 	there 	is 	no 	promise of 	continued 	employment
after 	the 	summer 	ends.
A 	similar 	program 	using 	temporary 	employees 	is 	the 	Plant
Engineering Experience Program 	(PEEP). 	Here, 	the laboratory's
plant 	engineering 	department 	employs 	high 	school 	students 	to
11Students 	in 	these 	programs 	are 	not 	covered 	by 	the
stipulation 	adopted 	in PERB Order Ad-114b-H. 	(See
footnote 	5.) 	The 	record 	reflects 	that 	nearly all 	individuals
in 	these 	programs 	are not University of California 	students.
11

work 	part-time 	during 	the 	school 	year. 	Employees 	in 	the PEEP
program 	receive 	a 	lower 	wage 	rate 	than 	other 	LLNL 	employees,
and 	their 	employment 	is 	contingent 	upon 	their 	remaining 	high
school students.
Under 	the 	laboratory's Office 	of Equal Opportunity 	(0E0)
several 	programs 	exist 	which 	employ 	students on 	a 	temporary
basis. 	One 	such program 	is 	the Student Technical Experience
Program 	(STEP). 	Here, 	local high school 	and non-UC college
students 	are 	hired 	to work 	full-time 	at 	the 	laboratory during
the 	summer 	and 	part-time 	during 	the 	academic 	year. 	Employees
at 	STEP 	are 	paid at 	a special 	rate 	and 	their 	employment 	is
contingent 	upon 	their 	continued 	status 	as 	students.
Another 	0E0 program 	is one 	which 	involves 	the 	summer
employment 	of 	faculty members 	from 	colleges 	and 	schools 	which
have 	a high percentage of minority, 	female, or 	handicapped
students. 	The 	purpose 	of 	the 0E0 Summer 	Faculty Program 	is 	to
provide 	these 	instructors 	with 	supplemental, 	specialized
scientific 	knowledge which 	they can 	use 	in 	teaching 	at 	their
institutions.
Finally, 	a 	similar 0E0 program is 	the Summer 	Student
Internship Program 	(SSIP). 	The SSIP program employs 	students
during 	the 	summer 	from 	colleges 	and 	universities 	which 	have 	a
high 	percentage 	of 	minority, 	female or 	handicapped 	students.
The 	purpose 	of 	the 	program 	is 	to give 	these 	students 	an
opportunity 	to obtain 	additional 	experience 	in 	the 	fields 	of
science 	and 	engineering.
12

At 	the 	core 	of 	each 	of 	the 	above-described 	programs 	is 	an
educational purpose. 	Each program 	is 	designed 	for 	one 	of 	two
reasons: 	(1) 	to give 	students or 	faculty an opportunity to
improve 	their 	academic skills, 	or 	(2) 	to provide 	students with
employment 	and 	encouragement 	to 	stay 	in 	school. 	There 	is 	no
evidence 	that 	any of 	these 	programs 	provides 	an 	expectation of
continued 	employment 	for 	the 	student 	or 	faculty member 	who
participates 	in them. 	Indeed, 	those 	faculty members who
participate 	in 	the 	laboratory's 	summer 	programs 	can 	have 	no
expectation of 	continued 	employment 	with LLNL 	for, 	by
definition, 	they would 	be 	ineligible 	for 	summer 	employment 	if
they 	did 	not 	retain 	their 	positions 	elsewhere 	during 	the
academic year. 	We conclude, 	therefore, 	as do the parties, 	that
participants 	in 	the 	above 	programs 	should not 	be 	included 	in
the 	bargaining 	units. 	Their 	divergent 	employment 	interests 	and
tenuous 	employment 	relationship with 	the 	laboratory 	require 	a
finding 	that 	no 	community 	of 	interest 	exists 	between 	them 	and
regular, 	full-time career 	employees.
A 	second 	group of 	LLNL 	temporary 	employees 	is 	comprised 	of
women who 	participate 	in 	the Women's Re-Entry Program. 	Once
again, 	all 	parties 	now 	indicate 	in 	their 	briefs 	that 	these
employees 	should 	be 	excluded 	from 	the 	LLNL 	units. 	The 	record
supports 	this 	position.
The Women's Re-Entry Program 	is 	administered 	by 	the
laboratory's 	0E0 	office 	and 	is 	designed 	to 	retrain women who
13

have 	been 	out 	of 	the work 	force 	for 	an extended 	period 	of
time. 	The 	program's goal 	is 	to provide women with 	the 	skills
needed 	to 	reenter 	the labor 	market 	and 	once 	again 	find
employment. 	The 	laboratory hires 	these women 	at 	50 	percent
time 	for 	a 	period 	of 	six months. 	The 	six-month 	period 	cannot
be 	extended. 	Participants 	in 	this 	program may not 	be 	rehired
by 	the 	laboratory 	as 	regular 	employees 	after 	the 	six-month
period.
The 	record 	reveals 	that 	during 	their 	employment 	these 	women
work 	alongside 	and 	under 	the 	same 	supervision 	as 	regular,
full-time employees. 	This alone, however, does not demonstrate
that 	these 	women 	have 	a 	substantial 	and 	continuing 	interest 	in
subjects 	of 	negotiation 	that 	concern 	regular 	employees. 	Their
position 	is 	similar 	to 	that 	of 	those 	temporary CETA trainees
who 	were 	deemed 	casual 	employees 	in New Haven 	Unified 	School
District 	(3/22/77) 	EERB Decision No. 	14. 	Because of 	the
limited 	nature 	of 	the program, 	and 	its 	emphasis 	on 	retraining
women 	for 	nonlaboratory 	employment, 	exclusion of 	these
employees 	is 	appropriate.
The 	third 	category of 	temporary employees 	at LLNL 	is
generally made 	up of 	individuals 	who 	are 	hired 	for 	a 	period 	of
less 	than 	one 	year 	to perform 	a 	task which 	for 	one 	reason or
another 	requires 	additional 	help to 	complete. 	The UC 	argues
that 	because 	these 	employees 	are 	hired 	for 	a limited 	definite
term, 	they 	have 	neither 	a 	sufficiently 	significant 	employment
14

interest 	nor 	a 	sufficient 	community of 	interest 	with 	bargaining
unit 	employees 	to warrant 	their 	inclusion 	in 	the 	units. 	The UC
cites 	National 	Labor 	Relations 	Board 	authority 	for 	the
proposition 	that 	employees 	who 	lack 	a 	reasonable 	expectation 	of
continued 	future 	employment 	should 	be 	excluded 	from 	bargaining
units.
Upon 	examination 	of 	the 	record 	we 	find 	that 	temporary
employees 	who 	are 	hired 	in 	this 	capacity 	do 	share 	a 	sufficient
community of 	interest 	with 	employees 	in 	the 	bargaining 	unit,
and 	do 	have 	a 	reasonable 	expectation of 	continued 	employment.
Temporary employees 	in 	these 	positions 	do 	the 	same work as
regular 	employees, 	have 	the 	same supervisors, 	work the 	same
hours, 	are paid at 	the 	same 	rate 	as 	regular 	employees 	in
comparable 	classifications, 	and 	generally work 	under 	the 	same
physical conditions. 	Further, 	temporary employees 	are 	subject
to 	performance 	evaluations 	and 	disciplinary procedures.
We 	find 	unpersuasive 	UC's 	argument 	that 	temporary and
regular 	employees 	do 	not 	share 	a 	community of 	interest 	because
they 	receive 	and 	accrue 	sick 	leave, 	holiday pay 	and 	vacation 	at
different 	rates. 	The 	determination 	as 	to whether 	these
temporary employees 	share 	a 	community of 	interest 	with 	others
in 	the 	unit 	is 	not 	based on a 	threshold 	requirement 	that 	they
receive 	benefits 	which 	are 	roughly equivalent, 	but 	rather 	that
there 	exists 	a 	cohesive 	commitment 	to 	and mutual 	interest 	in
those matters 	of 	negotiation 	relevant 	to 	the 	apportionment 	of
15

benefits. 	Redwood City Unified School District, 	supra, 	PERB
Decision No. 	107. 	There 	is 	nothing 	in the 	record which
persuades 	us 	that 	inclusion 	of 	these 	temporary 	employees 	will
undermine 	the 	basic 	community of 	interest 	which 	defines 	the
units.
Further, 	we 	find 	unpersuasive 	the 	argument 	that 	these
temporary 	employees 	do 	not 	have 	a 	reasonable 	expectation 	of
continued 	employment. 	The 	record 	reveals 	that 	there 	is 	no
prohibition 	in 	the 	LLNL's 	policies 	and 	procedure which 	prevents
the 	rehiring 	of 	a 	temporary 	employee 	after 	the 	appointment
expires. 	Further, 	extensions of 	up to one year on a temporary
appointment 	are possible. 	The 	extent 	to which 	this 	happens 	is
unclear. 	Yet, 	since 	the potential 	is 	there, we find that
temporary employees may hold, 	to one 	degree or 	another, 	some
expectancy 	in 	continued 	employment.
We conclude, 	therefore, 	that 	temporary employees who 	are
hired 	in a 	position 	for 	less 	than one 	year, 	and who 	are 	not a
part 	of 	the 	above 	mentioned 	academic or 	retraining 	programs,
should 	be 	included 	in 	the 	units.
ORDER
Based 	upon 	the 	foregoing 	Decision 	and 	the 	entire 	record 	in
this case, 	the Public Employment 	Relations Board ORDERS 	that:
(1) 	For 	the 	reasons 	stated 	in 	the 	foregoing Decision,
employees 	who 	are 	designated 	by 	the 	Lawrence 	Livermore National
Laboratory 	(LLNL) 	as 	indeterminate-time 	employees 	shall 	be
16

included 	in 	the 	established LLNL 	units, 	except 	those who 	are
students 	or 	retirees.
(2) 	For 	the 	reasons 	stated 	in 	the 	foregoing Decision,
employees 	who 	are 	designated 	by 	the Lawrence 	Livermore 	National
Laboratory 	as 	temporary employees 	shall 	be 	included 	in 	the
established LLNL 	units, 	except 	those 	who 	are 	hired 	directly
into 	the 	following 	laboratory programs: 	Student/Faculty Summer
Program; 	Plant Engineering 	Experience 	Program; 	Student
Technical Experience 	Program; 	0E0 Summer 	Faculty Program;
Summer 	Student 	Internship 	Program; 	and 	the Women's 	Re-Entry
Program.
(3) 	Any 	technical errors 	in 	this Order 	shall 	be 	presented
to 	the 	director 	of 	representation 	who 	shall 	take 	appropriate
action 	thereon 	in 	accordance 	with 	this 	Decision.
By 	the 	BOARD
17