Corning Union High School District (PERB 0399E)

STATE 	OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS 	BOARD
CORNING 	UNION HIGH 	SCHOOL
TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, 	CTA/NEA,
Charging 	Party,
v.
CORNING UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
) 	Case No. 	S-CE-206
PERB Decision 	No. 	399
August 	17, 	1984
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances: 	Kirsten L. 	Zerger, 	Attorney for Corning Union
High School Teachers Association, 	CTA/NEA; 	Harold J. 	Lucas,
Attorney 	for 	Corning 	Union High 	School 	District.
Before Hesse, Chairperson; 	Morgenstern and Burt, Members.
DECISION
MORGENSTERN, 	Member: 	This case 	is before 	the Public
Employment Relations Board 	(PERB or Board) 	on exceptions 	taken
to 	the proposed decision of an administrative 	law judge 	(ALJ)
by 	the Corning Union High School Teachers Association, 	CTA/NEA
(CTA or Association). 	In the underlying unfair practice
charge, 	CTA alleged 	that the Corning Union High 	School District
(District) 	violated certain unfair 	practice provisions of 	the
Educational Employment Relations Act 	(EERA or Act)1 by
unilaterally substituting 	a 	teaching period 	for 	a 	utility or
1EERA 	is 	codified 	at Government Code 	section 	3540 	et
seq. 	All 	references 	herein are 	to 	the Government Code 	unless
otherwise 	specified.
_____ )
1

preparation period 	in the assignment of seven teachers. 	In 	his
proposed decision, 	the ALJ determined, 	inter alia, 	that the
District violated subsections 3543.5(a), 	(b) 	and 	(c) 	of EERA by
failing 	to negotiate with CTA prior 	to altering 	the past
practice with respect to the 	teachers' 	preparation period.
Although 	the 	District 	filed no exceptions 	to 	this 	proposed
decision, 	CTA herein objects 	to the 	remedial portion of 	the
ALJ's decision.
FACTUAL 	SUMMARY
For 	several years 	prior 	to 	the 	negotiation 	sessions
undertaken during 	the 1978-79 	school year, 	the District
provided 	a 	utility or 	preparation period 	for 	all 	teachers 	of
core classes.2 Each 	teacher 	who did not volunteer 	to 	teach
all 	six periods 	was 	usually permitted 	to 	use 	the 	51-minute
preparation 	period 	as 	s/he 	wished.
Not 	until 	the 	1976-77 	school year were 	teachers 	of non-core
subjects 	entitled 	to a preparation period. 	However,
thereafter, 	non-core subject 	teachers were permitted 	the option
of electing 	to have 	a 	free period. 	Some voluntarily continued
to teach all six periods; 	other 	teachers opted for 	the
preparation period. 	On certain specific occasions, 	teachers of
both core and non-core classes were 	required 	to 	forfeit 	their
preparation periods 	in order 	to fill 	in 	for 	an absent 	teacher.
2Although 	this practice was unwritten, 	there 	is no
dispute as to 	its existence prior 	to 	1978-79. 	"Core classes"
were 	understood 	to 	include English, 	mathematics and 	science.
N	2

Prior 	to 	the negotiations 	referenced 	in 	the 	instant case,
the 	Association 	negotiated 	a 	two-page 	agreement which 	obliged
the District 	to maintain 	those benefits 	established 	by past
practice. 	A similar 	agreement was 	renegotiated 	for 	coverage
during the 1977-78 	school year. 	Thereafter, 	the Association
developed 	a comprehensive 	and 	detailed 	proposed contract 	which
it presented 	to the District 	in the 	spring of 1978.
Among 	the specific proposals, 	the Association sought 	that
the District provide 	all 	teachers with a 	duty-free preparation
period. 	Certain 	provisions 	of 	the 	proposed contract 	sought
compensation 	for 	teachers 	who 	forfeited 	five preparation
periods 	in 	the 	form of sick 	leave or 	personal 	necessity leave
credit or 	substitute 	teacher's pay. 	The Association 	also
proposed 	that 	teachers who volunteered 	to 	teach 	six class
periods 	receive 	monetary 	compensation.
During 	the course of 	those negotiations, 	the District
responded 	to CTA's 	preparation-period proposals 	by assuring 	the
Association 	team 	that 	it would maintain 	the past policy of
providing 	a preparation period 	to all 	teachers 	except 	those who
voluntarily assumed 	a 	six-period class 	schedule.
The 	bargaining 	team reached 	agreement 	on a 	nine-page
document and attached 	their 	signatures 	thereto on July 24,
1978. 	No provision regarding preparation periods appeared 	in
that document.
When 	the 	1978-79 	school year 	began and 	the District
declined 	to 	fill 	two 	teaching 	positions 	left vacant by
33

attrition, 	it directed 	that seven non-core 	subject 	teachers
forfeit 	their 	preparation periods 	and 	assume 	the 	load 	of 	six
teaching periods.
Although 	CTA advised 	the 	District 	that 	the 	contract 	had 	not
been 	ratified 	by the 	teachers,3 and 	that 	it was
reconstructing 	its 	bargaining 	team so as 	to 	resume
negotiations, 	the District's 	response was 	that it considered
the contract 	to be 	final and binding. 	No 	further 	negotiations
were 	conducted.
Testimony 	from 	several 	teachers 	was 	introduced as 	to 	the
effects 	of 	the 	eliminated 	preparation period. 	Ronald 	Gleason,
a 	teacher 	in the business department, 	testified that, 	during
the 	school years when he had 	a preparation period, 	he 	used 	the
51-minute period to prepare and grade 	tests. 	In addition,
Gleason 	spent approximately one hour 	a week 	after 	school 	hours
doing preparation work. 	Gleason testified 	that, 	when the
District eliminated 	the preparation period, 	he 	spent 	from one
hour 	to 	one 	hour 	and 	fifteen minutes 	each 	night doing
preparation 	work.
3At 	issue 	in 	the 	original charge was whether 	the
agreement was 	finalized 	and 	binding 	when 	the parties 	signed off
in July, 	or whether 	the teachers' subsequent failure 	to ratify
the entire package 	in 	the 	fall necessitated 	the continuation of
the negotiating process. 	The ALJ found 	that, 	assuming 	that 	the
agreement was binding, 	the contract provided no basis 	to
support 	the notion 	that 	the Association waived 	its 	right 	to
bargain 	over 	the 	unilaterally 	changed 	preparation 	period.
Neither 	party has 	taken 	issue 	with 	the 	ratification point.
4

Doug Oilar, 	an agricultural teacher, 	testified that, 	when
given a preparation period 	in 	the past, 	he spent two hours per
week 	on school 	business either 	before or 	after 	school hours.
Without 	a preparation period, 	Oilar 	said he 	spent double 	that
amount of time, 	a 	total of four hours per week, 	or an
additional two hours.
Katherine Ragsdale, 	a homemaking teacher, 	testified that
she 	spent 	approximately 	30 	minutes after 	every workday doing
preparation 	in 	addition 	to 	that performed 	during 	the
preparation period. 	Without a preparation period, 	Ragsdale
said 	she 	spent at least 	an hour 	to an hour 	and a half 	a day
more 	than when 	she had 	a preparation period. 	She 	later 	changed
her 	testimony, 	stating that, 	without the preparation period,
her 	after-hours 	preparation 	increased 	from 30 	minutes per 	day
to an hour 	each day.
Clair Peterson, 	a teacher of auto mechanics, 	testified
that, 	when he had a preparation period, 	he spent approximately
three hours per 	week 	on school business. 	Ten 	to twenty percent
of 	the preparation period was 	spent resting. 	During 	the 	school
year 	when Peterson was without a preparation period, 	he 	said he
spent another 	two or 	three hours per 	week.
Peter 	Panek, 	a woodworking 	teacher, 	testified 	that he 	spent
three 	to 	four 	hours per 	week doing 	extra work when he had 	an
assigned 	preparation period. 	When 	no preparation period was
scheduled, 	Panek 	said he 	spent 	51 minutes outside 	the 	school
day preparing 	for 	his classes.
5
5

Although 	the 	hearing 	terminated 	soon 	after 	Panek 	testified,
the parties 	agreed 	to accept 	the ALJ's written summary of
evidence 	received 	from two 	other 	teachers 	by conference
telephone call on January 31, 	1980. 	By letter dated
February 	1, 	1980, 	the ALJ summarized as follows:
Edward 	Rosauer 	was 	sworn 	and 	testified 	that
he 	teaches 	agricultural mechanics and
ornamental horticulture 	for 	the 	District.
He 	testified 	that he 	used 	100 	percent of his
preparation period 	for 	school 	business 	in
the year 	before he 	lost 	the preparation
period. 	He did admit 	that he 	took coffee
breaks 	during 	the preparation period but 	he
stated 	that 	this 	helped 	him keep going
during 	the 	day.
Before 	loss of the preparation period, 	he
said he 	spent approximately six hours per
week on District business, 	either before or
after 	school 	site 	time. 	After 	loss of 	the
preparation period, 	he 	testified he spent an
additional 	five 	hours per 	week 	of nonschool
site 	time on District business.
He 	testified 	that he 	advises 	the 	Future
Farmers of America, visits projects, etc.,
on nonschool site time. 	He has additional
duties of preparing lesson plans, 	working 	in
the greenhouse, 	grading papers, maintaining
equipment, 	and reading 	essay work of his
students.
He 	said 	he had approximately 	20 	extra
students during 	the year 	he 	lost 	the
preparation 	period.
John 	Loyless was 	sworn and 	testified 	that he
teaches 	typing, 	accounting 	and offset
printing 	for 	the District. 	He said he 	spent
approximately 	90 	percent of his preparation
period on 	District business 	before 	the
loss. 	At that time, 	he spent approximately
30 	minutes 	to one hour per 	week 	of nonschool
site 	time on District business. 	After 	loss
of 	the preparation period, 	he 	still spent
approximately 30 minutes 	to one hour per
66

week 	of nonschool 	site 	time 	on District
business. 	He 	said he had 	accomplished 	this
by working 	a little 	faster.
When he was without a preparation period, 	he
had 	approximately 20 	additional 	students.
DISCUSSION
CTA raises 	three 	issues 	in 	its exceptions, 	all of which
concern 	the 	remedial portion of 	the 	underlying decision. 	Most
critical 	of CTA's 	exceptions 	is 	its contention 	that 	the ALJ
erred 	in 	failing 	to 	award 	any 	financial compensation 	to 	the
affected teachers. 	Citing Ex-Cell-0 Corp. 	(1970) 	185 NLRB 107
[74 LRRM 1740] 	and H. K. 	Porter Co. 	v. 	NLRB 	(1970) 	397 U.S. 	99
[73 LRRM 2561], 	the ALJ declined to compensate the teachers 	for
the 	unilateral 	increase 	because 	he 	found 	that 	the 	proper 	amount
of 	compensation would be 	that which 	the parties 	would 	have
agreed to 	in negotiations.
1
Federal precedent does 	indeed 	establish 	that 	the National
Labor 	Relations 	Board 	(NLRB) 	lacks 	the authority to require
agreement 	to a 	specific bargaining proposal. 	Where 	there has
been bad faith bargaining, 	the NLRB, 	as a general rule, 	is
precluded 	from making the parties' 	contract for 	them, 	a 	sound
labor law principle. 	The instant case, 	however, 	does not
involve bad faith bargaining, 	but rather deals with a
unilateral change.
A unilateral change, 	while 	involving a refusal 	to bargain,
is 	typically remedied by restoring 	the 	status quo ante, 	by
7

ordering 	the 	employer 	to bargain on 	the matter 	at 	issue, 	and by
making particular 	employees whole 	for 	any benefits 	the 	employer
unilaterally discontinued. 	See Morris, 	Developing Labor 	Law,
2nd Ed., Vol. 	II, p. 	1665, 	and cases cited infra. 	In this
case, 	having 	reached 	the 	factual conclusion 	that 	the past
practice was 	to grant each 	teacher 	a preparation period, 	the
ALJ 	found 	that 	the 	District violated 	the Act by 	unilaterally
deviating 	from that past practice. 	There 	is no need 	to 	look 	to
the parties' contract negotiations 	and 	second-guess 	what 	they
would have 	agreed 	to because 	the unfair 	practice 	relates 	to 	the
unilaterally altered past practice. 	Thus, 	while the ALJ
correctly 	concluded 	that CTA's 	concessions 	during 	contract
negotiations did not establish 	a waiver 	of 	its 	right 	to
maintenance of 	the status quo, 	he erred 	in finding 	that the
parties' 	failure to negotiate a fixed formula compensating
employees 	for 	their 	lost preparation periods precludes
compensation.
The Board 	is 	empowered 	to order 	an offending party 	in 	an
unfair 	practice case 	"to 	take 	such affirmative action 	. . . 	as
will effectuate the policies" 	of EERA. 	Subsection 3541.5(c).
In general, 	PERB cases have 	typically remedied unilateral
changes 	by ordering 	the employer 	to cease 	and desist 	from
altering negotiable subjects and, 	in usual situations, 	by
ordering 	the 	restoration of the 	status quo ante. 	Rio Hondo
Community College District 	(3/8/83) 	PERB Decision No. 	292.
8
-------
8

However, 	the Board has also ordered certain employers to
compensate 	individual employees wronged by 	the 	unlawful conduct
by 	issuing a make-whole order.4
Most 	recently 	in San Mateo City 	School District 	(6/20/84)
PERB Decision No. 	375a, 	the 	Board 	specifically amended 	its
order 	noting 	its earlier 	failure
. . . 	to 	require 	the 	District 	to make
employees whole 	for 	the 	increase 	in hours
which 	resulted 	from 	the 	District's
unilateral 	elimination 	of 	preparation 	time
4 See 	Rialto Unified 	School District 	(4/30/82) 	PERB
Decision No. 	209, 	rev. denied 	(9/13/82) 	2 Civ. 	27991 	(Board
ordered 	district 	to 	remedy unlawful 	transfer 	of 	unit work 	by
making whole 	those 	employees 	who 	lost compensation as 	a 	result
of the transfer); 	Delano Union Elementary School District
(10/15/82) 	PERB Decision No. 	213a f 	rev. 	den. 	(2/17/83) 	5 Civ.
7562) 	(Board 	ordered district 	to 	remedy 	its 	unilateral change
of wages, 	hours and term length of resource teachers by
compensating such employees 	for extra hours worked); 	Holtville
Unified School District 	(9/30/82) 	PERB Decision No. 	250, 	rev.
den. 	(11/19/82) 	4 Civ. 	28419) 	(Board ordered district to make
employees whole 	for 	unilaterally 	implementing 	standards 	for
compelled 	retirement 	by paying 	them at 	the 	rate 	they would 	have
received 	as 	year-to-year 	teachers 	rather 	than 	ordering 	their
reinstatement in contravention of the Education Code); 	Rio
Hondo Community College District 	(12/31/82) 	PERB Decision
No. 	279 	(Board 	ordered district 	to compensate 	those employees
whose caseloads 	were 	unilaterally 	increased 	by paying 	them
overload 	pay, 	an extra duty compensation 	established 	by past
practice); 	Rio Hondo Community College District 	(3/8/83) 	PERB
Decision No. 	292 	(Board 	ordered district 	to make employees
whole 	for 	unilaterally altered 	leave policy by paying 	them for
leave 	they would have 	received but 	for 	the changed policy,
proper 	verification 	being 	required 	if district 	reasonably
believed employee abused leave benefit policy); 	Pittsburg
Unified School District 	(6/10/83) 	PERB Decision No. 	318 	(Board
ordered 	district 	to 	remedy 	unilaterally 	reduced 	work 	year 	by
making affected 	employees whole 	for 	any losses 	suffered 	as 	a
result); 	Alum Rock Union Elementary 	School District 	(6/27/83)
PERB Decision No. 	322 	(Board 	ordered 	district 	to make 	employees
whole 	for 	economic 	losses 	suffered 	as a 	result 	of 	a certain
unilateral alteration of 	its classification scheme).
99

and 	its 	requirement 	that employees perform
those preparation 	time duties 	outside 	of 	the
normal workday.
In large part, 	then, 	the San Mateo decision resolves the
dispute 	in 	favor 	of CTA's 	contention 	that 	the 	seven 	individual
teachers 	in 	this case were entitled 	to be made whole 	for 	their
losses. 	And, 	in accordance with that decision, 	one measure of
compensating 	the 	affected employees 	is 	to make 	them whole 	for
the financial harm each teacher 	suffered. 	However, 	while hours
can be properly 	translated 	into dollars, 	the direct 	and
immediate 	result of 	the 	unilateral 	change was 	that 	the 	teachers
were required to work extra hours. 	In our view, 	therefore, 	the
most 	appropriate way 	to make 	the 	affected 	employees 	whole 	would
be by ordering 	the District 	to afford 	the 	teachers 	a
corresponding amount of 	time off.
The 	remedy ordered below incorporates 	two methods 	of
accommodating 	for 	the change. 	We direct 	the District 	to grant
the 	seven harmed 	employees 	the amount 	of 	time 	off which
comports with 	the number 	of extra hours 	each employee 	actually
worked. 	However, 	monetary compensation 	is a valid alternative
measure of the harm suffered. 	Therefore, 	we direct that, 	if the
District 	and the Association cannot agree on 	the manner 	in
which 	the time off will be 	granted, 	the employees concerning
whom there 	is no 	agreement 	shall 	receive monetary compensation
commensurate with 	the 	extra hours worked. 	Any harmed 	employee
who 	no 	longer 	is 	employed 	by the 	District would 	be 	immediately
compensated 	monetarily.
10

CTA also 	takes 	issue with 	the ALJ's 	refusal 	to permit 	the
introduction of 	evidence 	regarding 	the 	effects of 	the
unilateral change other 	than 	increased hours. 	Specifically,
CTA argues 	that 	the 	affected 	teachers 	should also be
compensated 	for 	the 	increased number 	of 	students and 	the 	amount
and quality of 	the work performed. 	Essentially, 	CTA claims
that 	it was prevented 	from proving 	that 	the 	eliminated
preparation period 	required 	teachers 	to work 	harder.
Prior 	to reconvening the hearing on January 17, 	1980, 	the
ALJ advised the parties, 	by letter dated December 	11, 	1979, 	as
follows:
[The] 	only subject upon which evidence will
be received 	is:
Did 	the 	substitution 	of 	a 	teaching period
for 	a 	preparation period 	require 	the
affected 	teachers 	to perform additional 	work
during non-school site time, 	or were 	they
able 	to perform their 	work 	satisfactorily
without 	increasing 	the 	amount 	of 	non-school
site 	time 	they devoted 	to District business.
When the hearing did reconvene, 	however, 	CTA requested 	that
it be permitted 	to 	introduce evidence 	regarding 	the changes 	in
the quality or 	type of work 	required of employees. 	CTA's
counsel 	stated his case 	at the hearing 	as 	follows:
[W]hen 	in fact 	there has been a change 	in
working conditions the 	issue 	is not 	solely
limited 	to whether 	or 	not 	the 	change 	results
in work 	that can be accomplished during 	the
regular workday, 	but rather 	there is a
difference 	in quality or 	type of work which
has 	been 	foisted on 	the 	individual 	employee
without 	the 	ability to 	represent himself
through 	the 	collective 	bargaining 	process.
. 	. 	. 	Even if our 	testimony were to indicate
11

that 	individuals 	could complete 	all of 	the
additional work 	during 	the 	workday without
spending 	time during nonschool 	site 	times,
that would not negate our 	claim to 	the
charge 	of 	the 	unilateral 	action and our
claim to be made whole.
The ALJ denied CTA's 	request based on 	the 	fact 	that 	it was
untimely because 	the 	evidence CTA sought 	to 	introduce was
available 	at 	the 	time 	the case was 	originally 	heard.
In fact, 	however, 	the CTA attorney did address this 	issue
during 	the 	first day of hearing, 	before 	the ALJ's 	letter 	issued
limiting 	the evidence 	to 	increased hours only. 	Superintendent
Eldred L. 	Gott was questioned about 	increased 	student 	load. 	He
testified as 	to 	the number 	of 	students 	taught by 	the 	teachers
whose preparation 	periods 	had 	been 	eliminated 	and 	noted 	other
teachers whose 	student load was 	in excess of 	those with 	six
teaching periods. 	Gott also testified, 	however, 	separate from
any such 	increase 	in student load, 	the assignment of an
additional 	teaching period would 	have 	increased 	the 	teachers'
responsibilities.
Based on 	this 	testimony, 	we do not find 	that 	the ALJ
appropriately rejected CTA's 	request 	to 	introduce 	evidence
because of the Untimeliness of the request. 	Nonetheless, 	CTA
was not harmed 	by the ALJ's evidentiary ruling because, 	having
ordered 	the District 	to compensate 	the 	teachers 	for 	the
additional hours each worked, 	we would not also order
compensation 	for 	the 	increased number 	of 	students 	or 	the
increased 	teaching effort which, 	according 	to CTA, 	resulted
12

from the elimination of 	the preparation period. 	On 	this 	basis,
we reject CTA's 	exception.
First, 	as to the increase in number of students, 	the
evidence which does 	appear 	in 	the 	record pertains 	to 	the
teachers' 	total student load. 	The teachers testified, 	for
example, 	that 	the added 	teaching period 	increased 	the 	total
number 	of 	students 	they taught by their 	average class 	size.
This increase, 	however, 	does not represent a separate
unilateral 	change 	because 	total 	teaching 	load 	is 	not 	"class
size" 	as 	enumerated by EERA. 	Grossmont Union High School
District 	(6/6/84) 	PERB Decision No. 	313a. 	This total student
load 	increase, 	in effect, 	is another way of describing 	the
increased work effort. 	Seen 	in this 	light, 	CTA's 	singular
entitlement 	is 	that 	teachers be awarded 	for 	the extra work
effort 	caused 	by 	the 	added 	teaching 	period.
Secondly, 	since we have herein ordered 	the 	District 	to
remedy the 	unilateral change by ordering 	time 	off 	or 	payment
for 	the additional hours, 	we find the teachers are made whole
for 	the change. 	In 	this case, 	our 	award based on extra hours
reflects 	the manner 	in which 	the 	teachers 	reacted 	to 	the
increased workload. 	The added 	student 	load 	and 	teaching 	effort
is another 	way of defining 	the 	change 	from 	a preparation period
to a classroom teaching period. 	The 	increased work 	effort 	is
directly compensated 	by an 	award 	of 	a corresponding 	period 	of
time 	off when no work effort 	will 	be demanded. 	The 	harm of
having 	to 	teach 	twenty extra 	students 	for 	one 	teaching 	period
13

is 	remedied 	by awarding 	the 	teacher 	a 	time-off period when 	s/he
will have no students to 	instruct. 	To award separate,
additional compensation 	for 	the workload 	increase would 	be 	to
award 	the 	teachers 	twice 	for 	one unilateral change.
CTA's 	remaining 	exception pertains 	to 	the ALJ's 	factual
conclusion 	that 	the 	elimination of 	the 	preparation period
resulted 	in an average 	increase of 	2.86 	hours per 	week 	per
teacher. 	While 	it does appear 	that some arithmetic error may
have been committed, 	we 	find 	the 	instant dispute 	seems more
appropriately 	resolved 	through 	compliance 	proceedings.
Therefore, 	to the extent that 	the ALJ's proposed decision
failed 	to 	order 	any make-whole 	remedy 	and 	thus 	reached 	no
conclusion as 	to 	the 	specific 	formula 	to be utilized, 	the exact
method of computing 	the 	compensation due 	to 	the 	affected
employees 	is most suitable 	to resolution during 	a compliance
hearing, 	should 	such 	a proceeding become necessary.
REMEDY
In accordance with 	the above discussion, 	we have concluded
that 	the 	District 	unlawfully eliminated 	the preparation period
of certain 	individual teachers. 	And, 	finding merit 	in 	the
Association's 	argument, 	we have 	reversed 	that portion of 	the
ALJ's 	proposed decision which 	failed 	to 	order 	make-whole
relief. 	Consistent with past Board precedent 	and 	subsection
3541.5(c) 	of EERA, 	we find it appropriate to order 	that the
District 	remedy 	those 	employees who 	suffered harm as 	a 	result
of 	the District's unfair practice. 	In this case, 	we have
14

outlined 	a 	specific method of compensation which 	permits
direct, 	in kind compensation for extra hours worked or,
alternatively, 	monetary compensation, 	should no such agreement
be 	reached 	or 	should 	any harmed employee 	be 	no 	longer 	employed
by the District. 	Having so ordered, 	we reject CTA's claim that
it was 	prejudiced by 	the ALJ's 	ruling 	to exclude 	evidence 	of
the unilateral change other 	than 	increased hours. 	The 	instant
order 	affords 	full compensation 	for 	the harm that 	resulted 	from
the unilateral change and, 	thus, 	the excluded evidence would
have 	resulted 	in no additional 	relief.
ORDER
Upon 	the 	foregoing 	findings 	of 	fact 	and conclusions 	of 	law,
and the entire 	record 	in this case, 	the Board 	finds that 	the
Corning 	Union 	High 	School 	District 	violated 	subsections
3543.5(a), 	(b) 	and 	(c) 	of EERA by unilaterally eliminating the
preparation period 	previously maintained 	by past 	practice.
Pursuant to subsection 3541.5(c), 	it is hereby ORDERED that the
District, 	its governing board and 	its 	representatives 	shall:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
1. 	Failing 	and refusing 	to meet and negotiate 	in good
faith with 	the 	Corning 	Union 	High 	School 	Teachers Association,
CTA/NEA, 	concerning the teachers' 	preparation periods;
2. 	Denying 	the Corning 	Union High School 	Teachers
Association, 	CTA/NEA, 	the right to represent the employees by
failing and 	refusing 	to meet and negotiate 	in good 	faith
concerning the teachers' 	preparation periods; 	and
15

3. 	Interfering with 	employees 	in 	the exercise of 	rights
guaranteed 	by 	the Educational Employment 	Relations Act by
failing 	and 	refusing 	to meet and negotiate with 	the Corning
Union High School Teachers Association, 	CTA/NEA, 	concerning 	the
teachers' preparation periods.
B. 	TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE 	THE POLICIES 	OF THE EDUCATIONAL EMPLOYMENT
RELATIONS ACT:
1. 	Upon request, 	meet and negotiate with the exclusive
representative concerning 	the 	teachers' 	preparation time.
2. 	Reinstate 	the teachers' 	preparation periods 	in effect
prior 	to 	the 	1978-79 	school year 	until 	such 	time as 	the parties
reach 	agreement 	or 	negotiate 	through 	completion of 	the
statutory 	impasse 	procedure concerning 	the 	subject matter 	of
the unilateral change. 	However, 	the status quo ante shall not
be restored if, 	subsequent to the District's actions, 	the
parties have, 	on their own initiative, 	reached agreement or
negotiated 	through 	completion 	of 	the 	impasse 	procedure
concerning 	the preparation periods.
3. 	Grant to each of 	the seven employees harmed by 	the
unilateral change 	the amount of 	time off which corresponds 	to
the number of extra hours worked as 	a result of 	the elimination
of 	the preparation period. 	Should 	the parties 	fail 	to reach 	a
satisfactory accord as 	to 	the manner 	in which 	such 	time 	off
will be granted or 	if an 	individual 	is no 	longer 	in 	the
District's 	employ, 	then 	such employees will 	be 	granted monetary
compensation 	commensurate with 	the 	additional 	hours 	worked.
16

However, 	if subsequent to the District's unlawful action, 	the
parties have, 	on 	their own initiative, 	reached agreement or
negotiated 	through 	the 	completion 	of 	the 	statutory 	impasse
procedure concerning preparation periods, 	then liability for
compensatory 	time 	off or 	back pay shall 	terminate 	at 	that
point. 	Any monetary payment shall 	include 	interest at 	the 	rate
of seven 	(7) 	percent per annum.
4. 	Within thirty-five 	(35) 	days 	following the date 	the
Decision 	is no longer 	subject to reconsideration, 	post at all
work 	locations where notices 	to 	employees 	customarily are
placed, 	copies 	of the Notice attached as 	an Appendix hereto,
signed by an 	authorized agent of 	the 	employer. 	Such posting
shall be maintained for 	a period of 	thirty 	(30) 	consecutive
workdays. 	Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that 	this
Notice is not reduced 	in size, 	defaced, 	altered or covered by
any material.
5. 	Written notification of the 	actions 	taken to comply
with 	this 	Order 	shall be made 	to 	the 	Regional Director 	of 	the
Public Employment Relations Board 	in accordance with her
instructions.
Chairperson Hesse 	and Member 	Burt 	joined 	in this Decision.
17

APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL 	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. 	S-CE-206,
Corning 	Union 	High School Teachers Association, 	CTA/NEA v.
Corning Union High 	School District, 	in which all parties had
the right to participate, 	it has been found by the Public
Employment 	Relations 	Board 	that 	the Corning 	Union High 	School
District violated subsections 3543.5(a), 	(b) 	and 	(c) 	of the
Educational Employment Relations Act.
As a result of 	this conduct, 	we have been ordered to post
this Notice, 	and we will abide by the following. 	We will:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
1. 	Failing and 	refusing 	to meet and negotiate 	in good
faith with 	the 	Corning 	Union 	High 	School 	Teachers Association,
CTA/NEA, 	concerning 	the teachers' preparation periods;
2. 	Denying 	the Corning Union 	High School Teachers
Association, 	CTA/NEA, 	the right to represent the employees by
failing 	and 	refusing 	to meet and negotiate 	in good 	faith
concerning the teachers' 	preparation periods; 	and
3. 	Interfering with employees 	in 	the exercise of 	rights
guaranteed by 	the Educational Employment Relations Act 	by
failing and 	refusing 	to meet and negotiate with 	the 	Corning
Union High School Teachers Association, 	CTA/NEA, 	concerning 	the
teachers' preparation periods.
B. 	TAKE 	THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE THE 	POLICIES OF THE EDUCATIONAL 	EMPLOYMENT
RELATIONS ACT:
1. 	Upon request, 	meet and negotiate with 	the exclusive
representative concerning 	the 	teachers' 	preparation time.
2. 	Reinstate the teachers' 	preparation periods 	in effect
prior 	to the 	1978-79 	school year 	until such time as 	the parties
reach 	agreement or 	negotiate 	through 	completion of 	the
statutory 	impasse 	procedure concerning 	the 	subject matter 	of
the unilateral change. 	However, 	the status quo ante shall not
be restored if, 	subsequent to the District's actions, 	the
parties have, 	on their own initiative, 	reached agreement or
negotiated 	through 	completion 	of 	the 	impasse 	procedure
concerning 	the preparation periods.

3. 	Grant 	to 	each of 	the seven employees harmed by 	the
unilateral change 	the amount of 	time off which corresponds 	to
the number 	of extra 	hours 	worked as 	a 	result of 	the 	elimination
of 	the preparation period. 	Should 	the parties 	fail 	to reach 	a
satisfactory accord 	as 	to 	the manner 	in which 	such 	time 	off
will be granted or 	if an 	individual 	is 	no 	longer 	in 	the
District's employ, 	then such employees will be 	granted monetary
compensation commensurate with 	the 	additional 	hours worked.
However, 	if subsequent to the District's unlawful action, 	the
parties have, 	on their own initiative, 	reached agreement or
negotiated 	through 	the 	completion 	of 	the 	statutory 	impasse
procedure concerning preparation periods, 	then liability for
compensatory time 	off or 	back pay shall 	terminate at 	that
point. 	Any monetary payment 	shall 	include 	interest 	at 	the 	rate
of seven 	(7) 	percent per annum.
Dated: 	CORNING 	UNION HIGH 	SCHOOL 	DISTRICT
By Authorized 	Representative
THIS 	IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE. 	IT MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR THIRTY
(30) 	CONSECUTIVE WORKDAYS 	FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT
BE REDUCED IN SIZE, 	DEFACED, 	ALTERED OR COVERED BY ANY MATERIAL.
22