Los Angeles Unified School District/Lynwood Unified School District* * * VACATED by Los Angeles Unified School District (1987) PERB Decision No. 424a (PERB 0424E)

VACATED by Los Angeles Unified School District (1987)
PERB Decision No. 424a
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Employer,
and
SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES UNION,
LOCAL 347, 	SEIU, 	AFL-CIO,
Employee Organization.
)
)
) 	Case No. 	LA-R-835
PERB Decision No. 	424
October 24, 	1984
LYNWOOD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES UNION,
LOCAL 347, 	SEIU, 	AFL-CIO,
Employee Organization.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) 	Case No. 	LA-R-858
)
)
)
)
)
=-=.,;:_:_::.:_:::_::..:.::.::..::.... s:	Annearance 	Joel M. 	Grossman, 	Attorney 	(O'Melveny & Myers)
for Los Angeles Unified School District; 	Douglas D. 	Barnes,
Attorney for Supervisory Employees Union, 	Local 347, 	SEIU,
AFL-CIO.
Appearance
Before Hesse, 	Chairperson; 	Tovar and Morgenstern, 	Members.
DECISION
MORGENSTERN, 	Member: 	These consolidated cases are before
the Public Employment Relations Board 	(PERB or Board) 	on
exceptions filed by the Los Angeles Unified School District
(LAUSD or District) 	to the proposed decision of a PERB hearing
officer. 	The hearing officer found that Supervisory Employees
Union, 	Local 347, 	SEIU, 	AFL-CIO, 	is not the same employee

organization 	as 	Los 	Angeles 	City 	and 	County School 	Employees
Union, 	SEIU, 	Local 	99 	(Local 	99), 	within 	the 	meaning 	of
subsection 	3545(b) (2) 	of 	the 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations
Act 	(EERA 	or 	Act) 1 and, 	therefore, 	Local 	347 	is 	not 	precluded
from 	representing 	a 	unit 	of 	supervisory 	employees 	who 	supervise
rank-and-file 	classified 	employees 	represented 	by Local 	99.
The 	Board has 	reviewed 	the 	hearing 	officer's 	proposed
decision 	in 	light 	of 	the 	District's 	exceptions 	and 	the 	entire
record 	in 	this 	matter. 	We 	affirm 	the 	proposed 	decision 	for 	the
reasons 	stated 	in 	the 	discussion 	which 	follows.
PROCEDURAL 	HISTORY
On 	October 	18, 	1978, 	the 	Classified 	Union 	of 	Supervisory
Employees, 	SEIU, 	Local 	699 	(Local 	699) , 2 requested
recognition 	as 	exclusive 	representative 	of 	a 	unit 	of 	LAUSD's
classified 	supervisory 	employees. 	On 	February 	14, 	1979, 	LAUSD
1EERA 	is 	codified 	at Government Code 	section 	3540 	et
seq. 	All 	statutory 	references 	herein 	are 	to 	the 	Government
Code 	unless 	otherwise 	indicated.
Subsection 	3545 (b) (2) 	states:
(b) 	In 	all 	cases:
(2) 	A negotiating 	unit 	of 	supervisory
employees 	shall 	not 	be 	appropriate
unless 	it 	includes 	all 	supervisory
employees 	employed 	by 	the 	district 	and
1 	not 	be 	represented 	by 	the 	same
employee 	organization 	as 	employees 	whom
the 	supervisory 	employees 	supervise.
2As 	discussed 	infra, 	Local 	699 	merged 	with 	Local 	347 	in
January 	1982.
2

denied
	voluntary 	recognition
	because,
	among
	other 	reasons,
	it
believed
	that
	Local
	699 	was
	the
	same
	employee
	organization 	as
Local
	99
	which
	was,
	and
	is,
	the 	exclusive
	representative 	of
classified
	rank-and-file
	employees
	at
	LAUSD who
	are 	supervised
by
	members
	of
	the
	proposed
	supervisory
	unit.
On
	April
	28, 	1981,
	Local
	699
	requested 	recognition
	by
Lynwood
	Unified
	School
	District
	(Lynwood 	USD).
	This
	request
set
	in
	motion
	a
	chain 	of
	events
	similar 	to
	those
	in
	the
	LAUSD
request
	for
	recognition.
PERB
	ordered 	both
	requests 	held
	in
	abeyance 	pending
resolution 	of
	the
	identical 	legal
	issue
	involving 	the
	same
	two
locals
	in
	the
	Los
	Angeles
	Community
	College
	District
	(LACCD) • 3
On
	October 	8,
	1981, 	Local
	699
	requested
	that
	PERB
reactivate
	the
	instant 	petitions.
	On
	March
	9,
	1982,
	PERB
consolidated 	the
	instant
	cases 	for 	hearing.
	LAUSD
	and
	Lynwood
USD
	moved
	to
	dismiss 	the
	petitions
	on
	the
	grounds
	that
	the
Court
	of
	Appeal
	decision 	in
	the
	LACCD
	case 	resolved 	the
	same
employee
	organization 	issue
	and
	that
	the 	doctrines 	of 	res
judicata
	and
	collateral
	estoppel 	precluded
	relitigation
	of 	the
3
rn 	Los
	Angeles
	Community
	College
	District
	(3/25/80)
	PERB
Decision
	No.
	123, 	the
	Board 	found
	that
	Local
	699 	was
	not 	the
same 	employee
	organization 	as 	Local 	99.
	The
	Court
	of
	Appeal
reversed
	and 	remanded
	to
	PERB
	in
	a
	decision
	which was
	orderedunpublished
	by
	the 	California
	Supreme
	Court. 	Thereafter,pursuant 	to 	the 	Court
	of Appeal's
	remand,
	PERB
	issued
	Los
Angeles
	Community
	College
	District
	(12/16/81)
	PERB
	Decision
No.
	123a 	holding
	that,
	on
	the 	facts 	of 	that 	case, 	as 	of
March
	25, 	1980, 	Local
	699 	and 	Local
	99 	were
	the
	same
organization.
3

issue.
	In
	Los
	Angeles
	Unified
	School
	District/Lynwood
	Unified
School
	District
	(8/27/82)
	PERB
	Order
	No.
	Ad-132,
	the
	Board
	held
that
	the
	Court
	of
	Appeal
	decision
	was
	not
	res 	judicata 	of 	the
instant
	cases.
Hearings
	on
	the 	merits 	of 	the
	instant
	cases
	were
	conducted
on
	October 	26-28 	and
	November
	16,
	1982,
	and
	February 	22, 	1983.
The
	hearing
	officer's
	proposed
	decision 	issued
	on
	October
	6,
1983.
FACTS
Relationship
	to
	the 	Service
	Employees
International
	Union
	(International)
Local
	699
	held
	its 	first
	meeting
	in 	early
	1977. 	For
	a
period 	of
	at 	least
	eight
	months,
	Local
	699 	was
	assisted
	in
	its
formation
	and
	organizing
	by
	the
	International.
	Thomas
	Zuniga,
an
	International 	officer
	paid
	by
	the
	International,
	was
	an
officer
	of
	Local 	699, 	though 	he
	was
	not
	a 	member
	of
	Local 	699.
Zuniga
	signed 	Local
	699's 	request 	for 	recognition 	of 	the
supervisory
	unit
	and
	helped
	draft
	Local
	699's
	constitution
	and
bylaws.
	He
	also
	handled
	grievances 	for 	rank-and-file
	employees
in
	Local
	99
	and
	received
	his
	pay
	at 	Joint
	Council
	No.
	8's
office
	which
	was
	rented
	from
	Local 	99. 	In
	addition, 	the
	chief
organizer 	for
	Local
	99
	supervised 	the
	ief
	organizer 	for 	Local
699.
In 	August 	1978, 	Local
	699
1 s
	president 	appointed 	Robert 	Hunt
as 	terim 	Secreta 	Treasurer, 	Local
	699
1 s
	first
	paid
	staff
position.
	Hunt 	was
	then 	pa
	International.
	For 	one
4

week
	during
	fall
	1978
	and 	one
	week
	during 	winter
	1978-79,
	the
International
	provided 	four
	or
	five
	field
	organizers
	to
	Local
699
	at
	no
	cost.
	In
	addition, 	International
	organizer
	Bob
Anderson
	represented
	Local
	699
	in
	the
	PERB
	hearing
	on
	the
	LACCD
case
	during
	this
	period.
	The
	International
	provided 	about
$1,000
	to
	Local
	699
	during
	the
	latter
	part
	of
	1978.
In
	January
	1979,
	after
	election
	by
	the
	membership
	of
	Local
699, 	Hunt 	assumed
	office
	as 	Secretary-Treasurer.
	From
	that
date 	to
	the
	present,
	Hunt's
	salary
	has
	been
	paid
	entirely
	by
the 	Local.
In
	March
	1979,
	Local
	699 	moved
	with
	Joint
	Council
	No.
	8
	to
another
	location.
	During
	the
	fall
	of
	1979,
	the
	Joint
	Council
provided 	the
	services 	of
	Political
	Coordinator
	Woody
	Fleming,
who
	organized
	phone
	banks 	and
	voter
	registration
	for 	the
November
	1979 Compton
	Unified
	School
	District
	elections;
	in
addition,
	the
	International
	provided
	a
	research
	specialist,
Paul
	Nawrocki,
	to
	assist
	in 	the 	presentation 	of
	an
	unfair
practice
	charge.
In
	the 	spring 	of
	1980,
	Local
	699 	moved
	into
	its
	own
	offices
in 	building 	space paid 	for
	by 	Los
	Angeles 	County 	Employees
Union,
	SEIU,
	Local 	434, 	and 	Los 	Angeles
	City
	Employees 	Union,
SEIU,
	Local 	347. 	During
	July
	and
	December
	80, 	Research
Specialist
	A.
	J.
	Lindemann
	assisted
	Local
	699
	in 	the 	processing
of
	two
	grievances.
	Fleming
	again 	prov
	d
	political 	assistance
with 	the
	1981 Compton 	s 	e 	t
	as
	an 	employee
	of
the 	State 	Council.
5

Local 	699 	received 	about 	$8,000 	in 	subsidy money 	from 	the
International 	over 	10 	months 	ending 	in March 	1981. 	No 	subsidy
money has 	been 	provided 	by 	the 	International 	since 	that 	time.
No 	subsidy money 	was 	ever 	received 	from 	the Joint Council, 	the
State 	Council 	or 	Local 	99.
Merger 	with 	Local 	347
During 	the 	summer 	of 1981, 	Local 	699 	began considering 	a
change 	in 	its 	organizational 	structure 	in 	order 	to 	reduce 	its
expenditures. 	It 	requested 	merger 	bids 	from 	three 	southern
California 	SEIU 	locals 	{Locals 	347, 	434 	and 	660).
Local 	699 	determined 	that 	merger 	with 	Local 	347 	was 	the
most 	cost-effective 	in 	that 	Local 	347 	proposed 	to 	furnish, 	and
does 	furnish, 	free 	rent, 	copying 	services, 	utilities, 	and
certain member 	benefits, 	such 	as 	a 	vision 	care 	program. 	The
merger 	was 	approved 	by a 	vote 	of 	the 	membership 	in 	December
1981 and 	by 	the 	International 	in 	January 	1982. 	Under 	the
merger, 	Local 	699 	has 	become 	the 	Supervisory Employees
"Division" 	of 	Local 	347, 	distinct 	from 	the 	City Employees
Division. 	The City Employees 	Division 	does 	not 	represent 	any
rank-and-file 	employees 	of 	LAUSD 	or 	Lynwood 	USD. 	The
Supervisory 	Employees 	vision 	maintains 	its 	own 	constitution
and 	bylaws and 	holds 	separate 	membership 	and 	executive 	board
meetings, 	either 	at 	its 	office 	or 	on 	the 	emises 	of 	LAUSD.
The 	vision mainta 	s 	separate 	off 	ers 	and 	staff who 	do 	not
r 	t 	to 	the 	off 	s 	of 	the Ci 	s 	Divis 	e
Division 	pays 	separate 	per 	capita 	taxes 	to 	the 	International
6

and
	maintains
	separate
	financial
	records,
	including 	records 	of
receipts.
	However,
	the
	Division's
	revenues
	(principally
	dues
payments)
	are
	merged
	with
	the 	City
	Employees
	Division's 	general
fund,
	and
	the
	Division's
	expenses
	are 	paid
	from
	that
	general
fund.
	The
	separate
	name
	and
	records
	are
	designed
	to
	facilitate
dissolution
	of 	the
	merger,
	should
	the 	Divisions 	decide
	to
	do
	so
at
	some
	future
	time.
Neither
	Local
	347
	nor
	the 	Division 	share
	staff,
	membership
meetings,
	office
	space 	or
	budget 	with 	Local 	99,
	the
	Joint
Council, 	the
	State
	Council 	or
	the
	Western
	Conference. 	In 	1982,
the 	Supervisory
	Employees
	Division
	of
	Local
	347
	received
	$3,000
from
	its
	strike
	fund
	for
	legal 	costs 	related
	to
	the
	LACCD
	case.
Local
	99's
	Relationship
	to
	the
	International
In
	the
	summer
	of
	1978,
	International
	organizer
	Bob
Anderson
coordinated
	Local
	99's
	successful
	election
	campaign
	in
	LAUSD.
In
	1980 	and 	1981,
	International
	Research
	Specialists
	Paul
Nawrocki 	and
	A.
	J.
	Lindemann
	performed
	research 	for 	Local 	99.
In
	December
	1980,
	Lindemann
	participated
	as
	a
	factfinding 	panel
member
	for
	Local 	99. 	Also
	in
	1980, 	Nawrocki
	sat
	in
	on
	five
negotiating 	sessions
	between 	Local
	99
	and
	LAUSD
	and
	acted 	as
	an
advocate
	on
	behalf	
of
	Local
	99
	with 	respect 	to 	certain 	contract
litigation.
	On
	several 	occasions 	in
	1979 	and 	1980, 	Nawrocki
and	
Lindemann performed	
services 	for 	Local
	99	
and	
for 	Local
	699
during 	the
	same 	week. 	In 	August 	1982,	
Howard	
Friedman,
Secretary-Treasurer 	of 	Local 	99, 	met 	with
	Bob
	Anderson
	to
discuss
	a
	possible 	decertification
	campaign.
7

In 	1980,
	Local
	99
	received
	an
	interest-free
	loan
	of
	$70,000
from
	the
	International
	from
	its
	strike
	fund. 	Local
	99
	received
approximately
	$7,500
	in
	1981
	and
	$62,000
	in
	1982 	from
	its
strike
	fund
	for
	political
	purposes.
The
	International
	Constitution
	and
	Bylaws
Pursuant
	to
	its
	constitution
	and
	bylaws,
	the
	International
is
	governed
	by
	its
	president, 	secretary-treasurer,
	nine
vice-presidents
	and
	36
	other 	executive
	board
	members
	elected
	by
delegates 	to
	an
	International
	convention.
	The
	constitution
	may
be
	amended
	by
	a
	majority 	of 	votes
	cast
	by
	convention
delegates.
	Conventions
	are
	held
	regularly
	every 	four
	years 	or
at
	special
	times
	when
	called
	by
	the
	International
	executive
board. 	Local 	unions
	may
	send
	one
	delegate 	for
	each
	500 	members
up
	to
	5,000
	members
	and 	one
	delegate
	per
	1,000
	members
thereafter.
	Based
	upon
	their
	present
	membership
	figures,
Local
	347
	could
	send
	one
	or
	two
	delegates
	and
	Local
	99
approximately 	15.
Between
	conventions, 	the 	executive
	board
	acts
	on
	behalf 	of
the
	International,
	with
	authority 	for 	the
	daily 	operation 	of
the
	International 	resting
	with 	the 	president.
	Two
	or
	three
executive 	board meetings
	are	
held	
annually,
	supplemented
	by
intermittent 	voting 	by mail.
	Friedman 	and Walter 	Backstrom,
Secretary-Treasurer 	of 	the 	City
	Employees
	Division, 	Local 	347,
are
	members
	of	
the	
International 	executive 	board.
Among	
other 	authority, 	the 	International 	executive	
board
may
	merge
	existing 	local 	unions 	and 	decide 	jurisdictional
8

questions 	involving 	local 	unions. 	The 	record 	reveals 	that 	a
jurisdictional dispute 	arose 	between 	Local 	699 	and 	Local 	99 	in
early 	1980. 	At 	that 	time, 	an 	estimated 	400-600 	supervisors
within 	Local 	699's 	jurisdiction were 	members 	of 	Local 	99. 	When
Local 	99 	refused 	Local 	699's 	request 	for 	assistance 	in
transferring 	the 	membership of 	these 	supervisory 	employees,
Local 	699 	asked 	the 	International 	to 	intervene 	on 	its 	behalf.
In 	April 	1980, 	a 	meeting 	was 	held 	between Hunt, 	Friedman 	and
International 	Vice 	President 	Tim 	Twomey, 	at 	which 	time 	Locals
699 	and 	99 	agreed 	to 	resolve 	the 	issue 	by Friedman's 	signing 	of
a 	letter 	for 	Hunt's 	use 	in 	his 	organizing 	efforts. 	The 	record
also 	evidences 	a 	jurisdictional dispute 	between 	Locals 	535 	and
616 	in 	Alameda 	County 	in 	early 	1982, 	which 	was 	resolved 	by
agreement 	of 	the 	locals 	after 	hearing 	by 	another 	International
vice 	president.
The 	International 	constitution 	supersedes 	that 	of 	a 	local
union 	in 	the 	event 	of 	a 	conflict. 	Intentional 	failure 	to
enforce 	the 	provisions 	of 	the 	International 	constitution
subjects 	a 	local 	union 	to 	possible 	suspension 	or 	revocation 	of
its 	charter.
The 	International president may 	appo 	ta 	trustee 	to 	run
the 	affairs 	of 	a 	local 	union:
(I]n 	accordance 	with 	applicable 	statutes,
for 	the purpose 	of correcting 	corruption 	or
financial 	malprac 	e, 	assuring
performance 	of 	collect 	barga
agreements 	or 	other 	duties 	of 	a 	barga 	ing
representative, 	restoring 	democratic
procedures, 	or 	otherwise 	carrying 	out 	the
9

legitimate 	objects 	of 	this 	International
Union, 	whenever 	the 	International 	President
has 	reason 	to 	believe 	that 	such 	action 	is
required. 	(Article VIII, 	sec. 	7(a) .)
A trustee 	has 	authority 	to 	remove 	all 	officers 	of 	a 	local
union 	and 	to 	take 	possession 	of 	the 	funds 	and 	other 	property 	of
a 	local 	union 	placed 	in 	trusteeship. 	If 	the 	local 	union 	is
dissolved 	through 	revocation 	of 	its 	charter, 	any 	remaining
assets 	of 	the 	local 	union 	become 	the 	property of 	the
International. 	Trusteeships 	may 	be 	appealed 	to 	the
International 	executive 	board. 	With 	respect 	to 	southern
California 	locals, 	the 	record 	reveals 	that 	Joint Council 	No. 	8
was 	placed 	in 	trusteeship 	in 	1975 	through 	1977 	and 	again 	in
February 	1980 	for 	a 	period 	of 	about 	18 	months; 	Local 	102 	was
placed 	in 	trusteeship 	in 	1981 	for 	violation 	of 	International
bylaws 	in 	the 	conduct 	of 	an 	election, 	including 	the 	candidacy
of 	an 	individual 	who was 	not 	working 	within 	the 	jurisdiction 	of
the 	union; 	and 	Local 	690 	was 	placed 	in 	trusteeship 	for 	failure
to pay per 	capita 	dues.
The 	International 	constitution 	sets 	the 	minimum dues 	for
all members 	of 	any 	local 	union, 	subject 	to 	waiver 	by 	the
International 	president with 	the 	approval 	of 	the 	International
executive 	board. 	At 	the 	time 	of 	hearing, 	e 	per 	capita 	tax
paid 	to 	the 	International 	was 	$2.55 	per 	member 	per 	month. 	Of
this 	amount, 	not more 	than 	five 	cents 	is 	set 	aside 	for
political 	education 	a 	act 	with 	no 	more 	than 	two 	and
one-half 	cents 	returned 	to 	the 	local 	union 	for 	that 	purpose.
10

Thirty cents
	is 	set
	aside 	as
	a
	strike
	fund
	and
	reimbursed
	to
the
	local
	union
	in
	the
	event
	of 	authorized
	strikes
	or 	lockouts
or,
	for 	public
	employees,
	for 	other
	purposes
	approved
	by
	the
International 	president.
All
	local
	union
	executive
	boards
	are 	required 	to
	meet 	once
a
	month,
	except
	through 	waiver
	granted
	by
	the
	International
president. 	International
	approval
	is
	required
	to
	cancel
	a
general
	membership
	meeting
	and
	to
	hold
	a
	fund-raising 	event.
Strikes
	may
	be
	vetoed
	by
	the
	International 	president.
All
	local
	unions
	are 	required 	to
	become 	members
	of
	state
councils
	and
	joint
	councils,
	although
	this
	requirement 	has 	been
waived
	in
	some
	cases.
	Local
	347
	and
	Local
	~9
	are
	both
	members
of 	the
	California 	State
	Council
	of
	Service
	Employees,
	Joint
Council
	No.
	8,
	and
	the
	Western 	Conference
	of
	Service
Employees. 	These
	bodies 	provide
	local
	unions 	with
	membership
or
	political
	organizing
	assistance, 	legislative
	lobbying
	(in
Washington 	and
	Sacramento),
	research
	and
	negotiating
assistance, 	strike
	support
	activities
	and
	dissemination 	of
information.
Discipline 	of
	members
	is
	principally
	a
	function 	of 	the
executive 	board
	of 	the
	local
	union.
	However,
	the 	International
president
	may
	assume
	original 	jurisdiction
	if
	he 	or 	she
	feels
that 	the 	charged 	conduct
	may
	seriously 	jeopardize 	the
	interests
of 	the 	local
	union 	or 	the 	International.
	The
	decision 	of 	the
local
	union 	executive 	board 	or 	the 	International 	president 	is
appealable 	to 	an 	appeals 	committee
	at 	the 	next 	International
11

convention
	or, 	in
	the 	case
	of
	expulsion
	from
	membership,
	to 	the
convention
	itself.
	Discipline, 	other
	than
	expulsion,
	may
	be
appealed
	to
	the
	convention 	with
	the 	consent
	of
	that
	body.
Local 	unions
	and
	their 	officers
	or
	members
	may
	be
disciplined 	for,
	inter
	alia:
	violation
	of
	the
	constitution,
bylaws,
	oath
	of
	loyalty,
	oath
	of
	office,
	regulations,
	rules,
mandates
	or 	decrees
	of
	the
	International
	or 	the
	local;
	gross
inefficiency, 	financial
	malpractice, 	corrupt
	or
	unethical
practices
	or
	racketeering,
	or
	the
	wrongful
	taking
	or
destruction 	of
	property; 	dual
	unionism
	or
	secession;
	working
	as
strike
	breakers 	or
	violating
	wage
	or
	work
	standards;
	and
bringing
	false
	charges
	against
	a
	member
	or
	officer
	without
	good
faith
	or 	with 	malicious
	intent.
In
	addition,
	the
	International 	constitution 	states 	that:
No
	member
	of
	this
	International
	Union
	shallinjure
	the
	interests
	of
	another
	member
	by
undermining 	such
	member
	in
	connection 	with
wages
	or
	financial 	status
	or
	by 	any
	other
act, 	direct
	or
	indirect,
	which 	would
wrongfully 	jeopardize
	a
	member's
	office
	or
standing. 	(Article
	XV,
	section 	1.)
Several 	witnesses
	were
	questioned
	at
	length 	as 	to
	whether
these
	constitutional
	provisions 	prohibit
	a
	supervisor
	from
crossi
	a
	rank-and-file 	picket 	line 	in 	the 	event 	of
	a
	strike,
or
	om
disciplining
	a
	rank-and-file
	employee.
	Tim Twomey
testified 	that,
	during 	the
	more
	than
	10
	years 	that
	he 	has 	been
a 	member
	of 	the 	International 	executive 	board,
	that
	body
	has
never 	occasion 	to
	cons
	r
	is 	issue; 	neither	
s	
ever
heard 	of
	a
	local
	union 	being 	placed 	in 	trusteeship 	because
	its
12

members
	crossed 	the
	picket
	line
	of
	another
	local.
	It
	is
Twomey's
	personal 	opinion,
	supported
	by
	informal
	discussions
with
	other
	members
	of
	the
	International
	executive
	board,
	that
the
	constitution
	does
	not 	prevent
	such
	actions
	by
	a
supervisor.
	Twomey
	testified
	that
	he
	is
	aware
	of
	instances,
	in
hospital
	settings,
	where
	supervisory
	members
	have
	discharged
subordinate
	members.
Howard
	Friedman
	testified
	that
	he
	was
	unaware
	of
	any
	local
crossing 	the
	picket
	line
	of
	another
	local.
	However,
	in 	his
opinion, 	the
	International
	could
	not 	order
	a
	local's
	members
not
	to
	cross
	a
	picket
	line,
	nor
	take
	any
	disciplinary 	action
against 	the
	local
	for
	that
	reason. 	Paul
	Nawrocki
	testified
that,
	during
	a
	strike 	at
	the
	Hollywood
	Park
	racetrack
	with
which 	he
	was
	involved,
	members
	of
	one
	local
	union
	of 	the
International did 	cross 	the
	picket
	line
	of 	another
	local
union.
	To
	his
	knowledge, 	no
	disciplinary 	action
	was
	taken
against
	those
	members.
	In
	a
	deposition 	introduced
	into
evidence
	in 	the
	LACCD
	case
	in
	March
	1978,
	Thomas
	Zuniga,
	then
an
	employee
	of 	the
	International, 	stated 	that
	crossing
	a
	picket
line
	would,
	in
	effect, 	violate 	the 	constitution,
	but
	that
	he
was
	not
	liar
	the
	International's
	it
	on
matter.
DISCUSSION
trict
	contends
	t
	Local
	347 	and 	Local
	99
	are 	each
e
	alter
	ego
	of 	the 	International
	and
	are, 	therefore, 	"the
same 	employee 	organization" 	within 	the 	meaning 	of 	subsection
13

3545(b)
(2).
	It
	argues,
	first,
	that
	the
	hearing
	officer
	erred
in 	relying
	on
	Sacramento
	City
	Unified
	School
	District
	(3/25/80)
PERB
	Decision
	No.
	122
	as 	the 	leading 	case
	interpreting
subsection
	354
5
(b)
( 2) •
	According
	to
	the
	District,
Fairfield-Suisun
	Unified
	School
	District
	(3/25/80)
	PERB
Decision
	No.
	121
	provides
	"a
	more
	reasoned
	analysis"
	and
	should
be
	afforded
	greater
	weight.
After
	careful
	consideration 	of
	these
	companion
	cases
decided
	on
	the
	same
	date,
	we
	reaffirm
	the
	analysis
	and
	general
standard 	for
	interpreting
	subsection
	3545
(b) (2)
	stated
	in
Sacramento
	City,
	and
	find
	that
	Fairfield-Suisun
	identifies
	the
critical
	factors 	to
	be
	considered
	in
	applying
	that
	standard.
Thus,
	the
	two
	cases 	are 	consistent
	and, 	read
	together,
	set
forth 	the
	proper
	analysis 	to
	be
	applied 	in
	this
	case.
In
	Sacramento
	City, 	the
	Board
	held
	that
	two
	employee
organizations
	which
	are
	affiliated
	with
	the
	same
	international
will
	be 	found
	to
	be
	the
	same
	employee
	organization
	if
	"either
organization 	in 	fact 	dictates
	the
	other's
	course 	of 	action,"
	or
"if 	their
	parent 	organization 	in 	fact 	controls
	both
	of
	them
	in
such
	a
	manner 	and
	to
	such 	degree 	as 	to
	render 	those
	locals
	mere
alter	
egos	
of 	the
	international,	
unable	
to
	determine	
and
control 	their
	own
	course 	of 	action."
	However,
	if
	two
affiliated 	locals
	"are 	in 	fact 	separate
	and 	autonomous
	entities
that 	act 	independently
	from 	each 	other
	and 	from
	their
	common
parent," 	they 	will 	not 	be 	considered 	the
	same 	employee
organization.
	( Pp • 	14 -15
• )
14

The
	Board
	fashioned
	this
	test
	based
	on
	its
	analysis 	of
	the
purpose
	of
	the
	statute.
	The
	Board
	noted
	that,
	though
	EERA
defines
	"supervisor"
	in
	a
	manner
	similar 	to
	that
	of 	the
National
	Labor
	Relations
	Act
	(NLRA),
	supervisors 	are
	excluded
from
	coverage
	under
	the
	NLRA,
	while
	the
	EERA
	grants
representational
	rights
	to 	supervisors.
	Thus,
	the
	Board
majority
	found
	that
	subsection
	3545(b)
(2)
	was
	designed
•••
	to
	serve
	to
	some
	extent
	purposes
similar 	to
	those 	served
	by
	tne
	NLRA's
exclusion 	of 	supervisors:
	to 	protect
management's
	interest
	in
	the 	undiluted
loyalty
	of
	those
	employees
	to
	whom
	it
delegates 	supervisory
	responsibilities
	and
to
	guard
	against
	potential 	conflicts
	of
interest
	between
	supervisors
	and
	the
employees
	they
	supervise.
	(P.
	13.)
(Emphasis
	added.)~
However,
	unlike 	the
	NLRA,
	EERA's
	provision 	granting
representation 	rights 	to 	supervisors
	is
	"a 	compromise."
(Sacramento
	City, 	supra, 	p. 	12.)
The
	Legislature
	determined 	not 	to
	avoid 	the
tension
	between
	the
	interests
	of
	management
and
	its
	supervisory
	employees,
	but 	to
minimize
	this
	tension
••••
	Thus,
	the
Legislature 	struck
	a
	balance
	between
	the
supervisory
	employees'
	interest
	in
negotiating 	collectively
	and
	the 	employer's
4
rn
	his
	concurring 	opinion,
	at
	p. 	19, 	Chairperson
	Gluck
found 	an
	additional 	legislative
	purpose 	underlying 	subsection
3545 (b)
(2):
The
	need
	to
	avoid
	conflict
	between
supervisory
	and 	nonsupervisory 	employees
within 	the 	labor 	organization
	and
	the
potent
	1
	for 	domination 	of 	thatorganization
	by
	either
	one
	of 	the
	two
groups. 	(Emphasis
	in 	original.)
15

interest
	in
	preventing
	its
	supervisors
	from
sharin4 	the
	specific
	organizational
	aims
	of
their
	subordinates.
	(P.
	13.)
Neither
	did 	the 	Legislature
	follow
	section	
9
(b)
(3)	
of
	the
	NLRA
which
	prohibits
	certification
	of
	a
	union
	as
	the
	exclusive
representative 	of
	plant
	guards,
	"if
	such
	organization
	admits
	to
membership,
	or
	is
	affiliated
	directly
	or
	indirectly
	with
	an
organization
	which
	admits
	to
	membership, 	employees
	other 	than
guards."
	(Emphasis
	added.)
Because
	the 	Legislature 	declined
	to
	adopt
	an
	"affiliation"
test
	to 	disqualify
	an 	employee
	organization
	from
	representing
supervisors,
	mere
	affiliation
	with
	the
	same
	international
	is
insufficient
	to
	render
	two
	locals
	the
	"same
	employee
organization."
	Rather,
	in
	each
	case,
	it
	is
	necessary
	to
determine 	the
	actual 	extent 	of control
	exercised
	by
	an
international
	and
	the
	degree
	of
	autonomy 	and
	independence
	of
action 	of
	the
	affiliated
	locals.
	Applying
	that
	test,
	the
	Board
concluded
	that
	the
	two
	SEIU
	locals
	at
	issue 	in
	Sacramento
City
were
	not 	the
	same
	employee
	organization.
Conversely,
	in Fairfield-Suisun, 	the
	Board
	affirmed 	the
hearing
	officer's
	conclusion
	that
	two
	chapters 	of 	the
Cali 	nia
	School
	Employees
	Associat
	(C
	were
	the
	same
employee
	organization.
	There, 	the
	state
	CSEA
	was
	a 	named
party,
	both
	to 	the 	recognition
	agreement 	and
	contract
	between
the
	distr
	t
	and 	one
	of 	the 	chapters,
	and
	to
	e
	request 	for
recognit
	fi	
by
	0 	r
	Therefore,
	if
	the
petition
	were
	granted, 	the 	state
	CSEA,
	in 	addition 	to 	the
	two
16

local
	chapters,
	would
	be
	recognized
	as 	the 	exclusive
representative
	for
	both
	the 	supervisory
	and
	nonsupervisory
employees
	of 	the
	district.
	The
	Board
	affirmed 	the 	hearing
officer's
	conclusion
	that
	this
	fact
	was
	"alone
	sufficient 	to
find
	that
	the 	recognition 	as 	requested
	would
	violate 	section
3545
(b)
(2)
• "	
(P.
	3.
)
The
	Board
	additionally 	stated
	as
	a
	second
	independent
	basis
for
	its
	holding,
	"[tJhe close 	relationship
	and
	many
	connections
between
	these 	chapters
	and
	the
	state
	CSEA."
	(Ibid.)
	In
addition 	to
	the
	fact 	that
	the 	statewide
	CSEA
	had
	itself
	joined
the 	request 	for
	representation,
	the
	crucial
	features 	of 	the
relationship
	which
	evidenced
	the
	state
	CSEA's
	impermissible
control
	over
	its
	chapters
	were
	as
	follows:
First,
	the
	CSEA
	chapters 	received
	significant 	assistance
from
	field
	representatives
	who
	were
	paid
	by
CSEA
	and
	assigned
to
	a
	particular
	chapter 	for
	an
	extended
	period 	of
	time
	to
assist
	in 	negotiations,
	grievance 	handling
	and
	contract
administration.
	In
	addition, 	the
	field
	representative 	assigned
to 	the 	rank-and-file 	chapter
	was
	supervised
	by
	the
	field
representative 	assigned
	to
	the 	supervisory 	chapter,
	who,
	on 	one
occasion,
	substituted 	for 	the 	representative 	of 	the
rank-and-file 	unit
	during 	contract 	negotiations.
In
	addition, 	the 	great majority 	of
	dues 	paid
	by
	chapter
members 	went
	to 	the
	state
	CSEA,
	which
	re
	ned 	such
	f
	ial
17

control
	as 	deciding
	how
	to
	spend
	money
	to
	process
	grievances.
5
In
	the
	instant
	case,
	the
	SEIU
	International
	is
	not
	named
	on
Local
	347
1 s
	representation
	petition
	and
	is
	not
	a
	party 	to
	Local
99's 	collective
	bargaining
	agreement
	with
	LAUSD.
	After 	Local
699's
	formation
	in
	1977
	and 	1978,
	the 	research
	and
	political
assistance
	provided
	by
	the
	International
	here
	was
	extremely
limited
	and
	intermittent
	and
	cannot
	be
	characterized
	as
"significant."
	Indeed,
	the 	record
	contains
	no
	evidence
	of
	any
Swe
	reject
	LAUSD's
	contention
	that
	Fairfield-Suisun
establishes
	a
	15-factor
	test
	for 	determining
	whether
	two
	locals
are 	the
	same
	employee
	organization.
	Apart
	from
	the
	critical
factors 	outlined
	above,
	only 	the
	first
	two
	factors
	cited
	by
	the
District
	are
	mentioned
	in
	the 	hearing
	officer's
	discussion.
The
	remaining
	points
	appear 	only
	in
	the 	hearing
	officer's
findings 	of
	fact
	and 	were
	not
	relied
	on 	by
	the
	Board
	in
reaching
	its
	conclusion.
The
	additional 	factors 	identified	
by	
LAUSD
	are 	as 	follows:
(1)
	All 	concerted
	activities
	by
	localchapters
	must 	be 	approved
	by
	the 	parent
	body;
(2) 	Members
	of
	a
	local
	chapter
	may
	become
officers 	of 	the 	parent
	body;
(3)
	Special 	services 	are
	provided
	to
members
	of
	both
	chapters, 	including
	life
insurance
	and
	discounts
	on
	merchandise;
(4)
	Local
	chapters 	are 	required 	to
	adopt
	a
constitution
	and 	bylaws 	which 	conform
	to
	and
are
	approved
	by
	the 	parent
	body;
(5)
	All
	members
	of 	local 	chapters 	are
members
	of 	the 	parent
	body;
1
	concerted
	activities
	by
	local
ch
	rs
	must 	conform
	to 	the 	ent 	body's
constitution
	and 	bylaws;
(7) 	Each
	chapter 	sends 	delegates 	to 	the
parent 	body's 	convention 	and 	has 	equal
18

staff
	assistance
	provided
	by
	the
	International
	or
	any
	of
	its
affiliates
	since
	Local
	699's
	merger
	with
	Local
	347
	in
	January
1982.
	Rather,
	the 	business
	of 	the
	locals
	negotiations,
grievances
	and
	contract
	administration
	-- 	is
	conducted
	by
	the
staff
	of
	the
	locals
	under
	the
	control 	of
	the
	locals'
	membership
and
	executive
	boards.
	Finally,
	not
	a
	"great 	majority,"
	but
less
	than
	20%
	of
	local
	dues 	goes
	to
	the
	International
	in 	per
capita
	payments.
Therefore,
	applying 	the
	factors
	which 	were
	critical
	to
	our
decision 	in 	Fairfield-Suisun,
	we
	find
	no
	evidence
	that
	the
International:
•..
	in
	fact 	controls
	[Local
	347
	and
	Local
99]
	in
	such
	a
	manner 	and
	to
	such
	a
	degree
	as
to
	render 	those
	locals
	mere
	alter
	egos
	ofthe
	International,
	unable
	to
	determine
	and
control
	their
	own
	course
	of 	action.
Sacramento
	City,
	pp. 	14-15.
voting
	rights
	based
	on
	the
	size 	of
	the
chapter;
(8) 	The
	parent
	body
	has
	authority 	to
	expel
from membership any
	member
	for
	"conduct
detrimental 	to 	the Association;"
(9) 	The
	parent
	body
	may
	adopt
	a
	policygoverning
	discipline,
	which 	would
	prevail
over 	the
	bylaws
	or 	pol
	y
	provisions 	of
	any
local chapter;
(10) 	Members
	of 	local 	ters 	contribute 	to
a
	bui 	ing
	d
	for 	construction
	andma
	tenance 	of 	headquarters 	for 	the 	ent
body;
(11)
	In 	choosing Area
	Directors,
	each
chapter 	has 	one
	vote, 	determined 	by 	a
plurality 	of
	its
	membership.
19

The
	District
	argues
	that,
	notwithstanding 	the
	absence
	of
evidence
	that
	the
	International 	actually controls
	the
	locals,
evidence
	of
	"potential
	for
	domination"
	is
	sufficient
	to
establish
	an
	impermissible 	degree
	of
	control. 	Specifically,
the
	District
	argues
	that
	the
	potential
	for
	International
control 	of
	the
	locals
	is
	evidenced
	by
	provisions 	of
	the
International 	constitution
	which:
	grant
	the
	International
"jurisdiction
	and
	supervision"
	over
	all
	local
	unions
	and
	their
members
	and
	authority 	to
	veto
	strikes
	and 	impose
	trusteeships;
require
	a
	local 	to
	pay
	per
	capita
	taxes 	before
	any
	other·bill;
require
	local 	constitutions 	to
	be 	approved
	by
	the
	International
and
	to
	conform
	to
	its
	constitution;
	and
	prohibit 	"injur[ing]
the
	interests
	of
	another
	member." 	The
	District
	also
	refers 	to
provisions 	contained
	in
	a
	"Manual
	of
	Common
	Procedure,"
	which
require
	all
	members
	of
	a
	local 	to
	be
	members
	of 	the
International
	and
	to
	pledge
	their 	loyalty 	to
	the
	International.
According
	to 	the
	District,
	because
	a
	subsection
	3545(b)
(2)
determination occurs 	before 	the
	certification
	of
	an
	exclusive
representative,
	it
	must
	of 	necessity
	be 	based
	on
	potential,
rather
	than
	actual,
	abuse. 	In
	addition, 	the
	District
	claims
that	
it
	is
	necessary
	to 	consider 	the 	potential	
for 	domination
in 	order 	to 	effectuate 	the 	Legislature's
	purpose
	of 	assuring
supervisors' 	loyalty 	to 	their	
employer.
In 	Sacramento
	City, 	as 	in 	the 	instant 	case, 	the
	district
argued
	that 	the
	SEIU
	International
1 s
	impermissible 	control 	of
20

its
	locals
	was
	demonstrated
	by
	"the 	regulatory
	powers
	the
International's 	constitution
	gives
	it
	over
	the
	locals."
(P.
	15.)
	The
	Board 	found
	that 	certain
	provisions 	of 	the
International 	constitution
	(including 	the
	International's
	power
to
	impose
	trusteeships, 	to
	merge
	locals,
	and
	to
	enter 	into
national, 	regional,
	or
	areawide
	collective
	bargaining
agreements)
	"arguably
	pose
	a
	threat
	of
	the
	kind
	of 	control
	that
could
	result
	in
	the 	type
	of
	conflict
	of
	interest
	section
3545
{b)
(2)
	was
	designed
	to
	prevent.
11
	(Pp. 	15-16.)
However,
	the
	Board 	found
	that
	each
	of 	these
	threats
	is
mitigated
	by
	other 	provisions 	of
	law,
	that
	the 	existence 	of
these 	provisions
	does
	not 	prevent 	the
	International
	from
exercising
	its
	powers
	in
	ways
	that
	are 	consistent
	with 	the
EERA,
	and
	that,
	if
	at
	a
	later
	date 	the
	International
	does
attempt 	to 	exercise
	its
	authority 	in
	a
	manner
	inconsistent
	with
the
	EERA,
	the
	Board
	can 	then
	reevaluate 	the
	relationship
	and
take
	whatever
	steps 	are 	necessary
	to 	serve 	the 	purposes
	of 	the
Act. 	Thus,
	the
	Board
	concluded
	that:
•••
	the
	mere
	potential
	for 	the
International 	to 	exercise
	its
	lawful
	powers
in
	a
	manner
	inconsistent
	with 	the 	purposes
of 	section
	3545
(b} (2)
	is
	insufficient
	in
	ourview
	to 	disqualify
	sister
	locals
	om
representing
	rank 	and
	file
	and
	supervisory
employees
	in 	separate 	units 	in 	the
	same
district.
	(P.
	17.)
	(Emphasis 	added.)
Similarly, 	the 	factors
	which
	we
	have 	found
	to
	be
	crit
indications 	of 	control 	in 	Fairfield-Suisun 	refer 	to 	evidence 	of
actual 	control
	and 	do 	not 	rely
	on mere
	potential 	for 	control
contained 	in 	provisions 	of 	the
	CSEA
	constitution.
21

We
	reject
	the
	District's
	argument
	that,
	because
	a
subsection
	3545(b)
(2)
	determination 	occurs 	before
certification,
	it
	must
	of 	necessity
	be
	based
	on
	potential
rather
	than
	actual
	conditions.
	This
	argument
	ignores 	the
	fact
that
	Local
	347,
	Local
	99,
	the
	International
	and
	the
relationship
	between
	them
	existed 	prior
	to,
	and
	independent
	of,
certification
	in
	any
	particular
	district.
We
	also
	reject
	the
	District's
	oversimplified
	view
	of
legislative 	intent.
	By
	defining 	supervisors 	as
	employees
	under
the
	Act 	and
	permitting
	them
	to
	organize
	and
	to 	join
	an
affiliated
	local,
	the 	Legislature 	did 	not 	preclude 	the
possibility 	that
	supervisory
	employees 	and
	the
	rank-and-file
employees
	they 	supervise
	will
	on
	occasion
	have 	mutual
	goals
which
	depart
	from
	those
	of
	management.
	Thus,
	as
	we
	found
	in
Sacramento
	City,
	while
	subsection
	3545(b)
(2)
	was
	intended
	to
address 	the
	problem
	of 	supervisors' 	divided
	loyalty,
	the
legislative
	solution 	did 	not eliminate 	the
	possibility
	of
divided
	loyalty,
	but
	was
	"a compromise"
	that
	"struck
	a
	balance"
by
	"minimiz[ing]
	this
	tension."
Moreover,
	many,
	if
	not
	most,
	of 	the
	constitutional
ovisions 	to
	which
	the
	District 	objects 	are
	nothing
	more
	than
standard 	provisions
	which
	are 	customarily used
	to 	define 	the
benefits
	and
	obligations 	of
	affiliation.
	While
	it
	may
	be
arguable 	that
	some
	"potential 	for
	"is
	i
	tin
any
	affiliation,
	as 	indicated 	above, 	the 	Legislature 	did 	not
adopt
	a
	strict 	affiliation 	test 	like 	that 	contained 	in 	section
22

9 (b) (3) 	of 	the 	NLRA. 	Thus, 	by 	its 	"potential 	for 	domination"
test, 	the 	District would 	have 	us 	indirectly write 	into 	the
statute 	an 	affiliation 	test which 	the 	Legislature 	declined 	to
adopt.
We, 	therefore, 	affirm 	the 	hearing 	officer's 	conclusion 	that
evidence 	of 	actual 	domination 	is 	required 	to 	show 	that 	two
locals 	are 	alter 	egos 	of 	the 	International 	with 	which 	they 	are
affiliated. 	The mere 	fact 	that 	the 	International 	constitution
contains 	provisions 	that 	could 	conceivably 	be 	enforced 	in 	such
a 	way as 	to 	effect domination 	does 	not 	demonstrate 	that 	such
domination 	has 	occurred 	or 	ever 	will 	occur.
This 	is 	not 	to 	say 	that we 	will 	not 	consider 	the 	"potential
for 	domination" 	found 	in 	union 	constitutions 	and 	bylaws 	as 	a
factor 	in 	determining 	whether 	actual 	domination 	exists.
Certainly, 	pressure 	can be 	exerted 	on 	affiliated 	locals 	in 	ways
that may not 	be 	easily discernible. 	The 	threat 	of 	sanctions 	or
trusteeship may 	be 	used 	to 	preclude 	independent 	action 	by 	local
entities 	where 	constitutional 	provisions 	and 	past 	practice 	lend
credibility and 	force 	to 	the 	threat. 	Thus, 	we 	do 	not 	foreclose
the 	possibility 	that 	actual 	control 	and 	domination 	might 	be
evidenced 	where 	an 	international 	constitution 	establishes 	an
organizational 	structure 	and 	relationship which 	is 	inherently
intrusive 	of 	its 	locals' 	autonomy, 	and 	the 	international 1 s
established 	t 	pract 	e 	i 	s 	that 	it 	has 	previous
exerc i 	its 	constitutional 	au 	i 	in 	a 	manner 	inconsistent
23

with
	the
	purposes
	of
	subsection
	3545(b)
(2).
	However,
	no
	such
evidence
	is
	shown.
We,
	therefore,
	affirm 	the 	hearing
	officer's
	conclusion
	that
the 	record 	before
	us
	here
	is
	devoid
	of
	evidence
	that
	the
International
	has
	dictated
	or
	compelled
	the
	locals'
	course
	of
conduct. 	Rather,
	we
	find
	that
	Local
	347
	and
	Local
	99
	are
separate
	and 	autonomous
	entities
	that 	act
	independently
	from
each
	other
	and
	from
	the
	International.
LAUSD
	next
	reasserts
	its
	argument,
	which
	it
	claims
	was
erroneously
	rejected
	by
	the
	Board
	in
	Los
	Angeles
	Unified 	School
District/Lynwood 	Unified
	School
	District
	(8/27/82}
	PERB
	Order
No.
	Ad-132,
	that
	the
	Court
	of
	Appeal
	decision 	in
	the
	LACCD
	case
is
	res 	judicata 	of
	the
	instant
	case
	because
	the
	same
	locals 	are
involved.
	Even
	if
	the 	decision
	is
	not 	res 	judicata,
	the
District
	claims
	that 	judicial
	construction 	of 	the
	statute
supersedes
	PERB's
	contrary construction,
	notwithstanding 	the
fact
	that
	the 	Court's 	decision
	was
	unpublished.
In
	PERB
	Order
	No.
	Ad-132,
	the
	Board
	considered
	and
expressly 	rejected
	the
	argument 	advanced
	by
	the
	District
here.
7
We
	find
	no
	reason
	to 	reverse
	our
	decision,
	and
decl
	e
	to
	do
	so.
7
The 	Board 	found
	that,
	because 	the Court
	of
	Appeal
established, 	as
	a
	rule 	of
	law,
	that
	mere
	affiliation
	renders
organizations 	the
	same,
	grant
	cone 	ive
	effect 	to 	atision
	would
	result 	in 	injust
	e
	to
	Local
	347
	because
	it
wou
	be
	subject 	to
	a
	different 	rule 	of
	law
than 	other
	employee
	organizations 	throughout
the 	state
	which 	seek 	to 	represent
24

Neither
	do
	we
	find
	that
	the
	Court
	of
	Appeal's 	unpublished
decision
	supersedes
	PERB's
	contrary construction 	of
	the
statute.
	Because
	the
	decision
	was
	unpublished,
	it
	may
	not
	be
cited
	or
	relied
	on
	under
	Rule
	977
	of
	the
	California
	Rules
	of
Court.
8
Finally,
	the
	District
	argues
	that
	the 	Board's
	decision
	on
remand 	from
	the
	Court
	of
	Appeal
	(Decision
	No.
	123a)
	that
	the
Locals
	are 	the
	same
	employee
	organization
	is
	determinative
	and,
according
	to 	the
	District,
	the
	facts
	have
	not
	changed
significantly
	since
	March
	25, 	1980,
	the 	date 	referenced 	in 	the
Board's
	decision.
We
	disagree.
	Our
	decision 	in
	Decision
	No.
	123a
	is
	narrowly
and
	expressly 	limited 	to
	the
	facts
	of
	that
	case
	and
	to
	the
	date
supervisory
	employees
	pursuant
	to
	EERA.
	The
Board's
	current 	position,
	as
	expressed
	in
Sacramento
	City
	USD,
	supra,
	is
	that 	indirect
or
	direct 	affiliation
	does
	not, 	of
	itself,
render
	entities
	so
	affiliated
	the
	"same
organization"
	under
	subsection
	3545
(b)
(2).
{P.	
12.
}
8
Rule
	977
	of 	the California
	Rules
	of
	Court 	provides
	that
an 	unpublished
	decision 	"shall
	not
	be
	cited
	or
	relied
	on 	by
	a
court 	or
	a
	party 	in
	any
	other 	action
	exc
	•••
	where
	theopinion
	is
	relevant
	under
	the 	doctrines 	of
	law
	of 	the 	case, 	res
j
	icata,
	or
	collateral
	estoppel."
	See,
	e.g.,
	People 	v.
	Gomez
(1972) 	26
	Cal.App.3d 	928, 	930-931
	[103
	Cal.Rptr. 	453]; 	Peoplev. 	North 	Beach 	Bonding Co. 	(1974) 	36
	Cal.App.3d 	663,
	673
	[111
Cal.Rptr. 	757];
	Powers 	v. 	Sissoev
	(1974) 	39
	Cal.App.3d 	865,
	874
[114
	Cal.
	•
	868]; 	People 	v.
	Duncan 	(1974) 	40
	Cal.App.3d 	940,946 	[1
	Cal.Rptr. 	699]; 	Gray 	v.
	Kay 	(1975) 	47
	Cal.App.3d 	562,
566 	[120
	Cal.Rptr. 	915]; 	People 	v. 	Elinson
	(1977) 	70
	Cal.App.3dSupp. 	19, 	26. 	(For
	a
	lengthy discussion 	of 	the 	reasons 	forRule 	977 	and
	its 	validity, 	see 	Peoele 	v. 	Valenzuela
	(1978) 	86b
Cal.App.3d 	427, 	438 	[150
	Cal.Rptr.
	314]
	dissenting 	opinion.)
25

of 	issuance 	of 	PERB 	Decision No. 	123, 	March 	25, 	1980.
Therefore, 	that 	decision 	is 	not 	binding 	on 	our 	decision 	in 	this
case 	which 	must 	be 	based 	on 	the 	factual 	record 	before 	us 	here.
Moreover, 	contrary 	to 	the 	District's 	contentions, 	the
relationship 	with 	the 	International 	has 	changed 	since March 	25,
1980 	in 	at 	least 	two 	significant 	respects. 	First, 	in 	the
spring 	of 	1980, 	Local 	699 	moved 	into 	its 	own 	offices, 	thereby
greatly 	reducing 	the 	extent of 	its 	relationship with 	Joint
Council 	No. 	8 	which, 	until 	that 	time, 	had 	provided 	office
space, 	equipment, 	clerical help and 	supplies 	to 	Local 	699.
Then, 	effective January 	1982, 	Local 	699 	merged 	with 	Local 	347
and 	shortly 	thereafter 	moved 	all 	operations 	into 	its 	own
offices. 	Local 	347 	is 	a 	long-established, 	self-sufficient
local, 	and 	the 	merger 	of 	Local 	699 	into 	Local 	347 	served 	to
firmly 	establish 	this 	group's 	independence 	from 	the
International and 	to 	eliminate any 	former 	dependence 	it may
have 	had 	on Local 	99 	or 	Joint Council No. 	8. 9
We, 	therefore, 	conclude 	that, 	based 	on 	the 	record 	before 	us
in 	this 	case, 	Local 	347 	and 	Local 	99 	are 	not 	the 	same 	employee
organization.
9we 	reject 	the 	Distr 	t 1 s 	contention 	that 	the 	merger
itself 	evidences 	domination 	by 	the 	International 	in 	that 	the
International 	approved 	the 	merger, 	and Walter 	Backstrom,
Secretary-Treasurer 	of 	the 	ty 	Employees 	Division 	of 	Local
347, 	is 	a 	member 	of 	the 	International 	execut
26

ORDER
Based
	upon
	the
	foregoing
	findings
	of
	fact,
	conclusions
	of
law,
	and
	the
	entire
	record
	in
	this
	matter,
	it
	is
	hereby
	ORDERED
that
	Supervisory
	Employees
	Union,
	Local 	347,
	SEIU, 	AFL-CIO,
	is
not
	the
	same
	employee
	organization 	as
	Los
	Angeles
	City
	and
County
	School
	Employees
	Union,
	Local 	99,
	SEIU, 	AFL-CIO,
	within
the
	meaning
	of
	subsection
	3545
(b)
(2).
Within
	thirty-five
	(35)
	days
	after 	this
	Decision
	is
	no
longer
	subject 	to 	reconsideration, 	the
	Los
	Angeles
	Regional
Director
	of
	the 	Public
	Employment
	Relations
	Board
	shall
	contact
the
	parties
	regarding
	resolution 	of 	the 	outstanding
	unit
issues,
	and
	elections 	will
	be
	conducted
	to
	determine
	whether
Supervisory
	Employees 	Union,
	Local
	347,
	SEIU, 	AFL-CIO,
	shall
	be
the 	exclusive 	representative 	of 	the
	instant
	employees.
Chairperson
	Hesse 	and
	Member
	Tovar
	joined 	in
	this
	Decision.
27