Davis Joint Unified School District (PERB 0474E)

STATE
	OF
	CALIFORNIA
DECISION
	OF 	THE
PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
DAVIS
	TEACHERS
	ASSOCIATION, 	CTA/NEA,
Charging
	Party,
v.
DAVIS 	JOINT 	UNIFIED
	SCHOOL
	DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)	
Case
	No.
	S -
CE
- 7 6 (
a)
( b)
PERB
	Decision
	No.
	474
December
	31,
	1984
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances:	
George
	A.
	Cassell
	for 	the
	Davis
	Teachers
Association,
	CTA/NEA;
	Littler,
	Mendelson,
	Fastiff
	&
Tichy
	by
Garry
	G.
	Mathiason, 	Harlen
	Vanwye
	and
	Patricia
	P. 	White
	for
	Davis
Joint
	Unified
	School
	District.
Before
	Hesse,
	Chairperson;
	Tovar 	and
	Burt,
	Members.
DECISION
Burt,
	Member:
	This 	case
	is
	before 	the 	Public
	Employment
Relations
	Board
	(PERB
	or
	Board) 	on
	exceptions
	filed	
by	
both 	the
Davis 	Teachers
	Association,
	CTA/NEA
	(DTA
	or Association)
	and
the 	Davis
	Joint
	Unified
	School
	District 	(District) 	to 	the
decision 	of 	the
	administrative
	law
	judge
	(ALJ)
	in
	this 	case.
The 	ALJ
	found
	that
	the
	District
	violated 	section
	3 5 4
3.
5 (
a)
, 	(b)
and 	(c)
	of 	the 	Educational
	Employment
	Relations
	Act
	(EE.RA
	or
Act)
1
by
	its
	refusal 	to 	negotiate
	about
	release
	time 	and
,
iEERA
	is 	codified 	at
	Government
	Code 	3540
	et
	seq. 	Unless
otherwise 	noted,
	all
	references 	are 	to 	the
	Government 	Code.
Section 	3543.S(a),
	(b) 	and
	(c}
	provides:

certain
	aspects
	of 	the 	school
	calendar.
	The
Association
excepts
	to 	the ALJ's
	failure
	to
	find
	that
	the
	District
	violated
EERA
	by
	its
	refusal
	to
	negotiate
	over
	proposals
	affecting
various
	classifications
	of
	teachers
	and
	its
	refusal
	to
negotiate
	about 	procedures 	for
	consultation.
	For
	the 	reasons
discussed
	below,
	we
	affirm
	the
	ALJ
	in
	part
	and
	reverse 	in
	part.
FACTS
The
ALJ's
	findings 	of
	fact,
	summarized
	below,
	are
	generally
undisputed
	by
	the
	parties,
	who
	except
	primarily 	to
	the
	legal
conclusions
	drawn.
	We
	find 	the ALJ's
	findings 	free
	of
prejudicial 	error
	and
	we
	adopt
	them
	as 	our
	own.
Recognition
By
	letter
	of
April
	5,
	1976,
	signed
	by
	Jim Ganzer, 	then
president,
	the Association
	filed
	its
	request 	for
	recognition
	as
exclusive 	representative
	of 	teachers 	in 	the
	District
	as 	follows:
It
	shall
	be
	unlawful 	for
	a
	public
	school
	employer
	to:
(a) 	Impose
	or
	threaten 	to
	impose
	reprisals
on
	employees,
	to 	discriminate
	or
	threaten 	to
discriminate 	against
	employees, 	or 	otherwise
to
	interfere
	with,
	restrain,
	or 	coerce
employees 	because 	of
	their 	exercise 	of
rights
	guaranteed
	by
	this
	chapter.
(b) 	Deny
	to
	employee
	organizations 	rights
guaranteed 	to
	them 	by
	this
	chapter.
(c) 	Refuse 	or
	fail
	to
	meet 	and
	negotiate 	in
good
	faith
	with
	an
	exclusive 	representative.
2

...
	the
	DTA, 	CTA/NEA
	hereby
	requests
recognition
	as
	the 	exclusive
	representative
for
	a
	unit
	of
	all
	certificated
	employees
excluding 	those
	excluded
	by
	law;
	a
	unit
comprising 	approximately
	300
	employees
	ofthe
	district,
	a
	majority
	of
	whom
	wish
	to
	be
represented
	by
	this
	organization.
Proofs
	of 	support
	by 	a
	majority
	of
	said
employees
	in 	the
	form
	of
	notarized
membership
	lists
	are 	herewith 	submitted.
In
	support 	of
	its
	contention
	that
	it
	represented
	a
majority,
	the
	Association
	submitted
	a
	list
	containing
	the
	names
of
	all
	337
	certificated
	employees
	of 	the
	District.
	Check
	marks
next
	to
	most
	of 	the
	names
	were 	keyed
	to 	the 	following
	notation:
Those
	checked
	in
	red
	are
	paying
	CTA/NEA/DTA
dues
	through
	payroll
	deductions
	for
	1975-76.
The
	District
	rejected
	that
	showing 	on
	the
	ground
	that
	the
list
	contained 	the
	names
	of
	management
	or
	supervisory 	personnel
and
	the Association
	submitted
	a
	second
	list
	containing
	257
names,
	two
	of
	which 	were
	lined 	out, 	omitting 	the
	names
	of
supervisory
	and 	management
	personnel
	and
	persons
	who
	did 	not
belong
	to 	the 	organization.
	Otherwise, 	the
	lists
	were
identical.
	The 	names 	on
	both
	lists
	were
	those 	of 	the
District's 	full
	or
	part-time
	employees
	on
	probationary 	or
permanent
	status,
	and
	did 	not 	include 	the
	names
	of 	persons
employed
	exclusively 	as
	adult 	education 	teachers,
	summer
	school
teachers,
	or
	substitutes.
On May
	11, 	1976, 	the 	board 	of
	trustees
	recognized 	the
Association 	as 	"the 	representative 	agent 	for
	certificated
employees, 	excluding 	those 	designated 	as 	management,
3

supervisory,
	and
	confidential
	employees."
	At
	no
	time
	prior
	to
the
	recognition
	did
	the
	parties
	discuss
	whether
	summer
	school
teachers, 	adult
	education
	teachers, 	driver 	training
instructors, 	substitute
	teachers
	or
	temporary
	employees
	would
be
	included 	within 	the
	prospective 	negotiating
	unit.
The
	parties
	began
	negotiating
	on
	October
	1,
	1976.
	By
	the
time
	the 	case
	went
	to
	hearing,
	the
	parties
	had
	met
approximately
	60
	times.
	On
	at 	least
	five
	occasions,
	beginning
with
	the
	meeting
	on 	November
	22,
	1976,
	the
	parties
	deadlocked
on
	proposals
	affecting
	the
	five 	categories
	of
	teachers 	in
dispute.
	The
	matter
	first
	arose
	on November 	22,
	1976,
	in
	a
discussion
	about
	the 	recognition 	clause.
	Gary
	Mathiason,
attorney
	for 	the
	District,
	stated 	that
	day-to-day
	substitutes
would
	not
	be
	included.
	Ganzer
	replied 	that
	the
	parties
	would
need
	to
	clarify
	the
	status
	of
	all
	short-term
	employees.
	When
the
	parties
	met
	again 	in
	June 	1977,
	the Association
	rejected
	a
District
	proposal
	because
	it
	did 	not
	contain
	summer
	school
teachers.
	From
	then 	on,
	at
	one
	time
	or 	another 	over 	the 	next
several
	months
	in 	discussions
	over
	the 	recognitions 	clause,
sick 	leave
	and
	salary proposals, 	the
	District
	made
	clear
	its
position 	that
	these 	teachers
	were
	not 	in 	the 	unit
	and,
therefore,
	it
	was
	inappropriate 	to 	negotiate 	about
	issues
relating
	to
	them.
In 	the 	years 	before 	the 	passage 	of 	the
	EERA,
	in
negotiations
	under 	the
	Winton
Act, 	the 	District
	and
	the
4

Certified
	Employees
	Council
	had
	a
	history
	of
	meeting
	and
conferring
	over
	proposals
	concerning
	driver
	training
instructors,
	adult
	education
	teachers,
	substitute
	teachers
	and
summer
	school
	teachers.
Generally, 	the
	District
	draws
	its
	summer
	school
	teachers
from
	the
	ranks
	of
	regular 	teachers
	who
	are
	given
	first
preference
	for 	the
	summer
	school
	jobs.
	For
	example,
	in
	the
summer
	of 	1972,
	the
	District
	hired
	78
	"insiders"
	and 	11
"outsiders."
	In
	1976,
	the
	numbers 	were
	66
	and
	15.
	Most
	of 	the
classes
	taught 	in 	the
	summer
	are
	part
	of 	the 	regular
	year
curriculum
	and
	teachers 	generally
	teach
	their
	respective
subjects.
Regular
	teachers
	have
	a
	lesser 	role
	in 	the
	adult 	education
classes,
	generally
	comprising 	approximately
	one
	third
	of
	the
adult
	education
	teachers.
	They
	are 	paid
	on 	an
	hourly
	basis,
	as
opposed
	to 	the 	annual
	salary
	paid
	to 	regular 	teachers.
Prior 	to
	1976-77,
	driver 	training
	was
	part
	of 	the
	regular
curriculum
	and
	driver 	training 	teachers
	were
	regular
certificated
	teachers.
	However,
	beginning 	with 	the
	1976-77
school 	year, 	driver 	training 	teachers
	were
	paid
	on 	an
	hourly
basis.
Release
	Time
The
	subject 	of 	release
	time
	initially
	arose
	on
	October
	1,
1976,
	at
	the 	time 	of 	the
	first
	negotiating 	session.
	The
Association 	presented 	as
	part 	of
	its 	initial
	proposal
Article
	V,
	paragraph 	5:
5

The Association 	shall 	designate 	six 	(6)
representatives 	who 	shall 	each 	receive 	a
sufficient 	number 	of 	hours 	per 	week, 	but 	in
no 	event 	less 	than 	five 	(5) 	hours 	each 	of
release 	time 	without 	loss 	of 	compensation 	to
prepare 	for 	and 	attend 	negotiations 	and
impasse 	proceedings.
The 	District 	approached 	release 	time 	as 	a 	matter 	outside 	of
scope 	to 	be 	resolved 	by 	a 	policy 	determination 	by 	the
District. 	Along 	that 	line, 	on 	October 	4, 	1976, 	the 	District
board 	of 	trustees 	adopted 	a 	policy 	establishing 	a 	21-day
release-time 	level. 	(After 	the 	21 	days 	were 	exhausted, 	the
District 	continued 	to 	release 	negotiators 	with 	pay, 	but 	it 	then
billed 	the Association 	for 	the 	cost 	of 	the 	substitute 	teachers.)
On 	October 	19, 	the 	parties 	met 	again. 	Upon 	the
Association's 	request 	to 	discuss 	release 	time, 	the 	District's
representative 	responded 	that 	there 	was 	a 	District 	policy
currently 	in 	effect, 	and 	that 	the 	subject 	was 	outside 	of 	scope.
On 	November 	22, 	1976, 	the 	Association made 	a 	proposal 	for 	a
"collective 	bargaining 	negotiations 	leave," 	proposing 	that 	paid
leave 	be 	granted 	for 	time 	in 	negotiations 	plus 	an 	equal 	amount
of 	time 	for 	preparation. 	Mathiason, 	the 	District
representative, 	commended 	the 	Association 	for 	its 	"creativity"
in 	recasting 	the 	release-time 	issue 	in 	terms 	of 	leave 	proposal,
but 	the 	parties 	did 	not 	further 	discuss 	the 	issue.
On 	November 	29, 	the 	parties 	again 	discussed 	release 	time.
The 	Association 	presented 	a 	comprehensive 	leave 	proposal
including 	negotiations 	leave. 	The 	District 	did 	not 	respond 	in
6

detail, 	except 	that 	one 	District 	representative 	asked 	a
question 	about 	the 	meaning 	of 	the 	proposal 	and 	made 	a 	comment
about 	the 	cost 	of 	such 	a 	proposal. 	Leaves 	were 	discussed 	again
in 	December 	1976.
The 	subject 	came 	up 	again 	on 	July 	12, 	1977, 	when 	the
Association 	restored 	the 	release-time 	proposal 	to 	the
article 	on 	negotiation 	procedure. 	The 	District's 	negotiator,
McClain, 	said 	that 	the 	proposal 	was 	outside 	of 	scope 	and 	that
it 	would 	impose 	problems 	in 	flexibility.
The ALJ 	describes 	the 	negotiations 	process 	here 	as 	follows,
and 	we 	find 	his 	description 	well 	supported 	by 	the 	record:
During 	various 	discussions 	about 	release
time 	and 	other 	disputed 	subjects, 	the
District 	followed 	the 	practice 	of 	permitting
the Association 	to 	explain 	its 	proposal 	in
detail. 	When 	the 	District 	had 	heard 	the
proposal 	and 	had 	asked 	sufficient 	questions
in 	order 	to 	fully 	understand 	it, 	a 	District
negotiator 	would 	explain 	that 	the 	District
believed 	the 	proposal 	to 	be 	outside 	the
scope 	of 	representation. 	The 	District
negotiator 	would 	then 	offer 	the 	reasons 	why
the 	District 	took 	the 	position 	that 	the
proposal 	was 	out 	of 	scope 	and 	the 	parties
would 	engage 	in 	a 	dialogue 	about 	whether 	or
not 	the 	matter 	was 	within 	the 	scope 	of
representation. 	Frequently, 	the 	District's
negotiator 	also 	would 	remark 	that 	if 	the
Association 	could 	convince 	the 	District 	that
the 	particular 	subject 	was 	within 	the 	scope
of 	representation 	the 	District 	would 	be
happy 	to 	negotiate 	it. 	This 	practice 	was
followed 	regularly 	whenever 	the 	parties
reached 	a 	subject 	the 	District 	considered 	to
be 	outside 	the 	scope 	of 	representation.
Discussions 	between 	the 	parties 	about
release 	time 	invariably 	followed 	this
7

scenario.
	The
	parties
	several
	times
	had
lengthy
	discussions
	about
	the
Association's
	various
	release
	time
proposals.
	But
	the
	bottom
	line
	always
	was
that
	the
	District
	considered 	the
	subject
	of
release
	time
	to
	be
	outside
	the
	scope
	of
representation
	and 	would
	not
	negotiate
	about
the 	substance 	of 	the 	proposal.
	The
	District
never
	made 	a
	counterproposal
	on
	release
	time
throughout
	the
	60
	sessions
	the
	parties
	had
held
	prior
	to 	the 	hearing.
Procedures
	For
	Consultation
The
	subject
	of
	consultation
	initially
	came 	up
	early 	in
negotiations.
	The
	Association
	originally
	made 	a
	proposal
	for
teacher
	involvement
	in 	curriculum
	and
	planning
	and
	the
	District
responded
	that
	those
	subjects
	were
	properly
	dealt
	with	
by
consultation 	rather
	than
	by
	negotiation.
	The
	parties
	then
reached
	tentative
	agreement
	on
	the
	following
	contract 	provision:
Article
	XXXI
	Consultation
The
	District
	and/or
	its
	Representative(s)
will
	meet,
	upon
	request,
	with 	the
Association 	to 	consult
	on
	the
	definition
	of
educational 	objectives,
	the 	determination 	of
the 	content 	of 	courses
	and
	curriculum
	and
the
	selection
	of 	textbooks 	to 	the
	extent
such
	matters 	are 	within 	the
	discretion
	of
the
	Board
	of 	Education.
In
	December
	1976, 	the 	Association
	approached
	the
	District
and
	requested 	to 	consult
	about
	a
	District-wide 	testing
program. 	Becau$e
	there
	were
	several 	delays 	in 	the
	District's
response, 	the Association 	concluded
	that 	specific 	procedures 	to
implement 	the 	consultation
	article
	were
	desirable.
	On
	June
	20,
1977, 	the Association 	proposed 	to 	put 	specific 	consultation
8

procedures
	into
	the
	contract.
	The
	District
	responded
	that
	it
was
	willing
	to
	consult,
	but
	it
	was
	not
	willing
	to 	put 	the
procedures 	for
	doing
	so
	into
	the
	contract.
On
	July
	18, 	1977,
	the
	parties
	held
	a
	meeting
	which
	both
sides
	agreed
	was
	for 	informational
	purposes
	only.
	That
	session
is
	described 	in
	District
	minutes 	as
	"OTA
	Informational 	Session
on
	Non-Scope
	Items."
	At
	that
	session,
	the
	Association
presented
	the 	following
	proposal:
CONSULTATION
1.
	In 	order 	to
	consult
	on
	the
	definition
	of
educational
	objectives,
	the 	determination 	of
the 	content
	of 	courses
	and
	curriculum,
	and
the
	selection
	of 	textbooks
	and
	other 	mattersof
	direct
	concern
	to 	the Association
	and
	its
representatives,
	to 	the
	extent
	such
	matters
are 	within 	the
	discretion
	of 	the
	Board
	of
Education,
	under 	Sec. 	3543.2
	of 	the 	Act, 	the
following 	procedures
	shall
	be
	implemented.
2.
	The
	council
	shall
	be
	called
	the
Consultation 	Council.
	The
	council
	shall
	be
formed
	for 	the 	purposes 	of 	consulting
	on
items
	listed
	in
	number
	1.
3.
	The
	Council
	shall
	be 	composed
	of
	no
fewer
	than
	three
	(3)
	but
	no 	more
	than 	seven
(7)
	members
	designated
	by
	the Association.
The
	Council
	shall
	also
	have
	management
people
	selected
	by
	the
	Board
	of 	Education
from
	each
	level
	of 	school
	program 	(such 	as
elementary, 	intermediate
	and
	secondary)
	and
from
	support 	group
	areas,
	one
	each
	selected
by
	the
	District.
	The
	District 	shall
	assign
one
	administrator
	from
	the 	Superintendent
level 	to
	meet 	with 	the 	Council
	and
	to
represent 	the 	Board. 	Board
	members 	may
volunteer 	to 	serve
	on
	the 	Council.
4.
	Any
	employee
	selected 	to 	participate
	on
the 	Council
	shall
	be
	afforded 	sufficient
9

release 	time 	from 	his/her 	regular 	duties 	to
participate 	in 	the 	Council.
5. 	The 	Council 	shall 	meet 	at 	the 	request 	of
either 	side.
6. 	The 	Consultation Council 	may, 	when
necessary, 	invite 	community 	members,
students, 	other 	bargaining 	unit 	members 	and
professional 	experts 	to 	provide 	additional
information.
7. 	The 	Consultation Council 	shall 	submit
its 	recommendations, 	in 	writing, 	to 	the
School 	Board 	for 	its 	consideration.
8. 	On 	each 	matter 	submitted, 	the 	School
Board 	shall 	render 	a 	decision 	in 	writing 	to
the 	Council 	within 	a 	reasonable 	amount 	of
time.
This 	language 	was 	part 	of 	a 	previously 	existing 	proposal
for 	the 	creation 	of 	liaison 	committees 	at 	the 	local 	school
level. 	There 	was 	some 	discussion 	of 	the 	proposal, 	but 	the
District 	took 	no 	position 	on 	it 	at 	the 	meeting.
Two 	days 	later, 	on 	July 	20, 	1977, 	the 	parties 	discussed
procedures 	for 	consultation 	in 	the 	context 	of 	the 	liaison
proposal. 	The 	District 	took 	the 	position 	that 	the 	procedures
for 	consultation 	should 	be 	developed 	in 	consultation 	and 	were
outside 	the 	scope 	of 	representation, 	although 	the 	District 	was
willing 	to 	discuss 	the 	proposal 	thoroughly 	to 	resolve 	the
dispute.
On 	September 	17, 	1977, 	after 	lengthy 	negotiations, 	the
parties 	reached 	tentative 	agreement 	on 	several 	matters. 	Among
other 	things, 	the 	District 	agreed 	to 	accept 	the Association's
proposals 	for 	a 	liaison 	committee 	and 	the 	maintenance 	of
10

existing 	benefits
	if
	the Association
	would
	accept 	the
District's
	class-size
	proposal.
	The
	Association
	proposed
	that
the
	procedures 	for
	consultation
	be
	considered 	in 	the
	deal,
	but
the
	District
	refused 	to
	do
	so.
	The
	Association
	then 	accepted
the
	District's
	package
	as
	originally
	proposed,
	and
	the
consultation 	issues
	were
	removed 	from
	the
	liaison
	committee
article
	and 	became
	a
	separate
	article.
Although
	the
	parties
	discussed
	several
	times
	whether
	or
	not
the
	procedures 	for
	consultation
	were
	within 	the
	scope
	of
representation,
	they 	never
	actually
	negotiated
	about 	those
procedures
	and
	the
	District
	never
	made
	any
	counterproposal
	on
the
	subject.
Association
	Rights
The
	parties
	discussed Association
	rights
	during
	at
	least
six 	negotiating 	sessions.
	On
	October 	19, 	1976,
	the 	Association
presented
	its 	first
	proposal 	as 	follows:
ARTICLE
	VIII
ASSOCIATION 	RIGHTS
Language:
1.
	The
	Association
	and
	its
	members
	shall
have
	the
	right
	to
	make
	use
	of 	schoolequipment,
	buildings
	and
	facilities 	at
	all
reasonable 	hours.
	Such
	equipment
	shall
include 	typewriters,
	mimeographing 	machines,
other 	duplicating
	equipment,
	calculating
machines,
	and
	all
	types 	of 	audio-visual
equipment
	when
	such 	equipment
	is
	not
otherwise 	in 	use.
2. 	The
	Association 	shall
	have
	the 	right 	to
post 	notices 	of
	activities
	and
	matters 	of
11

Association
	concern
	on
	Association
	bulletin
boards,
	at 	least
	one
	of
	which
	shall
	be
provided
	in
	each
	school
	building 	in 	areas
frequented
	by
	teachers.
	The
	Association
	may
use
	the
	District
	mail
	service
	and
	teacher
mailboxes
	for
	communications
	to
	teachers.
3.
	Authorized
	representatives
	of 	the
Association
	shall
	be
	permitted
	to
	transact
official
	Association 	business
	on
	school
property
	at
	all
	reasonable 	times.
4.
	The
	Board
	shall
	place 	the Association
	as
the
	first
	item 	under
	"new
	business"
	on
	the
agenda
	of
	each
	public
	board
	meeting.
5.
	The
	Association
	may
	designate
	two
teachers
	who
	are Association
	officers
	to
receive
	unpaid
	leaves 	of 	absence. 	Also,
	the
Board
	shall
	grant
	a
	paid 	leave 	to 	the
President
	of 	the
	Association 	during
	his
	term
in
	office; 	half
	of
	such
	leave 	to
	be
	paid
	by
the
	Board,
	half
	by
	the
	Association.
6.
	Names,
	addresses
	and
	telephone
	numbers
of
	all
	District
	teachers
	shall
	be
	provided
to 	the Association
	no
	later
	than
	October
	l
of
	each
	school
	year,
	or 	an
	extension 	in
	this
time
	limit
	may
	be
	granted
	by
	mutual
agreement.
7.
	The
	Board
	of 	Education
	will
	provide 	the
Association
	with
	nonconfidential 	informationrequested
	by
	the 	Association 	to 	include 	butnot
	be
	limited 	to
	class 	size,
	statistical
reports,
	budgetary 	information,
	etc.
8.
	The
	Board
	will
	provide 	the 	Associationwith
	a
	complete 	Board Agenda 	and
	minutes
	at
least 	forty-eight
	(48)
	hours 	before 	regular
Board
	meetings.
9. 	Payroll 	deductions 	of Association
	dues
shall
	be
	provided
	upon
	receipt 	of
	a
	signed
authorization
	form 	from 	an 	employee. 	Such
deductions
	shall
	remain
	in 	force
	from
	year
to 	year 	unless 	cancelled 	by 	the
	employee.
12

10.
	The
	Association
	may
	use
	district
facilities
	at
	no
	cost
	within 	the
	provisions
of 	the 	law.2
Mathiason 	responded
	for 	the
	District
	that
	the
	subject
	was
not
	appropriate 	for
	negotiation
	because
	the
	law
	guaranteed
certain
	rights
	to 	exclusive
	representatives
	which
	could
	not
	be
taken
	away, 	and
	that
	the
	District
	already
	had
	a
	policy
	on
	these
issues
	anyway.
On
	November
	4,
	1976,
	the
	parties
	again 	discussed 	the
proposal.
	The
	Association 	struck
	paragraph	
5	
at
	that
	time.
	In
the
	interest
	of 	resolving
	the
	issue,
	Mathiason
	distributed
	a
copy
	of
	a
	proposed
	modification 	of
	District
	policy
	on
	employee
organizations,
	which
	read 	as 	follows:
CONSULTATION: 	PRIVILEGES
Recognized
	certificated
	employee
organizations
	have
	the 	following
	prileges
[sic]:
1.
	The
	right
	of 	access
	at
	reasonable 	times
to 	areas 	in
	which 	employees 	work,
	the
	right
to
	use
	institutional 	bulletin
	boards,mailboxes,
	and
	other
	means
	of
	communication,
subject 	to 	reasonable
	regulation,
	and
	the
right
	to
	use
	institutional 	facilities 	at
reasonable 	times 	for 	the
	purpose
	of
	meetings
concerned 	with 	the 	exercise 	of 	the
	rights
guaranteed
	by
	Senate
	Bill
	160.
2
Pursuant 	to 	the
	parties'
	agreement
	on
	these 	items,
	at
hearing, 	the 	Association
	withdrew
	its
	charges
	that
	the
	District
refused 	to 	negotiate 	paragraphs 	5, 	(leaves 	of 	absence 	for
Association 	business);
	6,
	(District 	provision 	of 	addresses 	to
Association),
	and
	9, 	(payroll 	deduction 	of 	dues).
	The
	ALJ's
decision, 	therefore,
	does 	not 	address 	these 	items.
13

2. 	Use 	of 	school 	building 	for 	meetings
without 	charge, 	providing 	meetings 	do 	not
interfere 	with 	school 	use.
3. 	The 	opportunity 	at 	regularly 	scheduled
faculty 	meetings 	to 	announce 	meetings 	of
recognized 	employee 	organizations, 	including
agenda 	items 	to 	be 	considered.
4. 	Listing 	in 	the 	District's 	directory 	of
the 	addresses 	and 	telephone 	numbers 	of 	the
exclusive 	representatives 	and 	their 	major
offices 	and 	officers.
5. 	Reasonable 	access 	to 	employees 	at 	their
place 	of 	assignment 	when 	such
access 	will 	not 	interfere 	with 	their
assigned 	duties.
6. 	Use 	of 	District 	ditto, 	mimeograph, 	and
similar 	equipment, 	exclusive 	of 	materials,
provided 	that 	the 	regular 	use 	of 	the
District 	for 	this 	equipment 	is 	not 	violated.
7. 	Nothing 	in 	these 	rules 	shall 	be
construed 	to 	withhold 	from 	any 	individual
employee 	the 	rights 	and 	privileges 	he 	may
possess 	as 	an 	individual 	employee 	of 	the
School 	District.
8. 	The 	District 	will 	provide 	the
Association 	with 	a 	complete 	Board 	agenda 	at
least 	48 	hours 	before 	regular 	Board 	meetings.
The Association's 	representative, 	Chris 	Dailey, 	complained
that 	the 	proposed 	policy 	referred 	to 	privileges 	rather 	than
rights. 	Mathiason 	said 	that 	the 	Association 	already 	had 	the
rights 	and 	privileges 	listed 	in 	the 	District 	policy, 	and 	he
reiterated 	that 	organization 	rights 	and 	privileges 	were 	not
appropriate 	for 	inclusion 	in 	the 	contract 	since 	the 	subject 	was
outside 	the 	scope 	of 	representation.
14

On
	June
	20,
	1977,
	the
	parties
	again
	discussed
	Association
rights.
	The
	Association
	spokesman, 	George
	Cassell,
	again
struck
	paragraph
	5
	and,
	for 	the
	first
	time,
	struck
	its
paragraph
	9.
	He
	then
	compared
	the
	Association's
	proposal 	with
the
	District's
	suggested
	policy
	on
	"consultation
	privileges."
After
	a
	caucus,
	the
	District
	spokeswoman,
	McClain,
	explained
that
	the 	revised
	District
	policy
	was
	not 	intended 	to
	be
	a
counterproposal,
	but
	was
	intended
	to
	suggest 	the
	items
	which
might
	be
	covered
	in
	the
	consultation
	procedure,
	since 	the
	issue
was
	outside
	of
	scope.
The
	parties
	discussed 	the 	matter
	on
	July
	12
	and
	July
	13,
with
	similar
	results.
The
	School 	Calendar
On
	December
	13,
	1976,
	the Association 	presented
	its
	"Work
Year"
	proposal 	for
	1977-78,
	as 	follows:
SEPTEMBER
	- 	18
	Student 	days
Sept.
	2 -
	returning 	teachers 	report
Sept.
	6 	-
	school 	opens
Sept.
	9 	-
	Admission
	Day
OCTOBER
	-
	21
	Student 	days
NOVEMBER
	- 	19
	Student 	days
Nov. 	11 	-
	Veteran's
	Day
Nov.
	24	
&	
25
	-
	Thanksgiving
DECEMBER
	- 	12
Student 	days
Dec. 	19 	- 	Winter 	holidays 	begin
JANUARY
	- 	21
	Student days
15

Jan. 	2 - 	school 	reopens
Jan. 	20 	- 	Teacher 	Workday
FEBRUARY 	- 	18 	Student 	days
Feb. 	13 	- 	Lincoln's 	Birthday
Feb. 	20 	- 	Washington's 	Birthday
MARCH 	- 	18 	days
March 	20 	- 	spring 	vacation 	begins
APRIL 	- 	20 	Student 	days
MAY 	- 	22 Student 	days
May 	29 	- 	Memorial 	Day
JUNE 	- 	6 	Student 	days
June 	8 	- 	Last 	student 	day
June 	9 	- 	Teacher 	workday
MINIMUM DAYS
Nov. 	23
Dec. 	16
Mar. 	17
June 	8
Student 	days 	- 	175
Teacher 	days 	- 	178
In 	its 	initial 	form, 	the 	Association's 	proposal 	called 	for
175 	teacher-student 	contact 	days. 	The Association 	immediately
changed 	the 	proposal 	to 	provide 	for 	178 	teacher-student 	contact
days, 	the 	same 	number 	as 	called 	for 	in 	an 	earlier 	District
proposal. 	Dailey, 	the 	spokesperson 	for 	the Association, 	said
that 	the 	only 	difference 	between 	the 	two 	proposals 	was 	in 	their
form.
16

However,
	on
	January
	31, 	1977,
	the
	District
	presented
	its
counterproposal
	on
	work
	year:
Members
	of
	this
	bargaining
	unit
	shall
	meet
with
	students
	for
	177
	days
	and
	shall
	serve
on
	site
	for
	an
	additional 	three 	teacher
service
	days
	for 	returning 	teachers
	and
	four
days
	for
	new
	teachers.
	This
	article
	shall
apply
	for
	the
	years
	covered
	by
	this
agreement.
In
	response
	to 	the
	District's
	proposal,
	Ganzer,
	for
	DTA,
stated 	that
	the 	calendar
	had
	to
	be
	studied 	in
	order 	for
	the
parties
	to 	negotiate 	the
	work
	year.
	The
	District
	responded
that
	the
	number
	of
	workdays
	was
	negotiable,
	but 	not 	the
specific
	days
	of 	the 	calendar.
On 	May
	26,
	1977,
	the
	District
	board
	of
	trustees 	established
September 	6, 	1977,
	as 	the
	opening
	day
	of 	school.
	On
	June
	7,
the
	parties
	again 	discussed 	the 	calendar.
	The
	Association
asked
	why
	the
	District
	work-year
	proposal 	did 	not 	include
	a
calendar,
	and
	the
	District
	responded
	that
	the 	calendar
	was
outside
	the
	scope
	of 	negotiations.
	The
	parties
	also 	discussed
the 	Board's 	action 	in 	establishing
	the
	opening 	day
	of
	school.
The
	Association
	contended
	that
	it
	should 	have 	been 	asked
	for
input
	and, 	Honoruth
	Finn, 	for 	the
	District,
	replied 	that 	the
date
	had 	been
	set 	at
	an 	open meeting
	of 	the 	board
	of
	trustees.
The
	parties
	discussed 	further
	why
	the Association
	felt 	that
	the
calendar 	dates
	were
	of
	importance 	to 	teachers,
	and
	the
	District
offered 	the 	following 	counterproposal 	to 	the Association
1 s
calendar 	proposal:
17

Members
	of 	the 	bargaining
	unit
	shall
	provide
180
	days
	of 	service 	to
	the
	Davis
	Joint
Unified
	School
	District.
	Teachers
	new
	to
the 	school
	district
	shall
	provide
	181
	days
of
	service
	for 	the
	first
	year 	of
	their
employment.
On
	June
	20,
	1977,
	the
	parties
	restated
	their 	positions:
McClain
	stated 	that
	the
	District
	would
	stay
	with
	its
	original
proposal,
	and
	the Association
	reiterated
	its
	interest
	in
	having
the
	calendar 	in 	the
	contract.
On
	July
	11,
	1977,
	the
	parties
	again
	discussed 	the
	work-
year/calendar 	issue
	and
	each
	restated
	its
	previous
	position.
At 	no
	time
	during
	negotiations
	did 	the
	District
	offer
	a
counterproposal 	dealing
	with 	anything
	other
	than
	the
	number
	of
days
	in 	the 	school
	year.
On
	August
	9,
	1977, 	Hondruth
	Finn
	sent
	a 	memo
	to
	all
	members
of
	the
	District's 	certificated 	staff.
	The
	memo
	recited
	that
school
	would
	open
	on
	September 	6,
	1977 	and
	requested
	all
certificated
	employees
	to 	report
	to
	work 	on
	September
	1.
	The
memo
	added
	that
	teachers
	with 	extended
	contracts
	would 	be
notified
	as 	to 	the
	number
	of
	days 	added
	to
	their 	contracts.
On
	August 	25,
	the
	board
	of
	trustees
	adopted
	a
	calendar 	for
1977-78,
	calling
	for
	176
	days 	of 	pupil 	attendance,
	4
	in-service
days 	for 	returning 	teachers,
	and
	5
	for
	new
	teachers.
	The
calendar
	was
	adopted 	with 	the 	understanding
	that 	the
	number
	of
in-service
	days 	would
	continue 	to
	be
	subject 	to 	negotiations.
18

DISCUSSION
Unit 	Recognition
This
	portion
	of 	the 	case
	is
	unusual
	in
	that
	it
	arises
	from
an
	unfair 	practice
	charge
	alleging
	a
	refusal
	to 	negotiate
	in
good
	faith,
	rather
	than	
a	
hearing
	on 	a
	unit
	modification
petition.
	The
	case
	is
	also
	complicated
	by
	the
	fact
	of
	PERB's
changing
	precedents
	concerning 	the
	appropriateness 	of
	similar
units
	in 	the
	early
	years.
Government
	Code
	section
	3545 3
defines
	the 	standards 	for
determining
	an
	appropriate
	unit
	under
	EERA.
	In
	its
	early
decisions 	interpreting
	this
	section,
	the
	Board 	found 	an
insufficient
	community
	of
	interest
	between
	and
	among
	several
categories
	of
	teachers,
	such 	as
	summer
	school
	teachers
	and
regular 	teachers, 	to
	include
	them
	in 	the
	primary
	unit
	of
classroom
	teachers.
	However,
	in
	a
	reversal
	of
	that 	policy,
	the
Board
	in
	Peralta
	Community
	College
	District
	(11/17/78)
	PERB
Decision
	No. 	77
	specifically
	overruled
	its
	earlier
	cases
	and
established
	a
	presumption
	that
	all
	teachers 	are 	appropriately
placed
	with
	a
	single 	unit
	and
	placed 	the
	burden
	of 	proving
	the
inappropriateness 	of
	a
	comprehensive
	unit
	on
	those 	opposing
	it.
3
section
	3545
	provides 	in
	part:
(a)
	In 	each 	case
	where
	the 	appropriateness
of 	the 	unit 	is
	an
	issue, 	the
	Board
	shall
decide 	the 	question
	on
	the 	basis 	of 	the
19

As 	noted 	above, 	this 	case 	does 	not 	directly 	concern 	the
appropriateness 	of 	the 	unit 	petitioned 	for, 	but 	PERB's
precedential 	history 	is 	useful 	in 	interpreting 	the 	parties'
actions.
The ALJ 	found 	that 	the 	disputed 	categories 	of 	employees
were 	not 	included 	under 	the 	initial 	recognition 	and, 	therefore,
concluded 	that 	the 	District's 	refusal 	to 	negotiate 	regarding
these 	employees 	did 	not 	violate 	the 	Act 	because 	there 	was 	no
duty 	to 	negotiate 	for 	the 	categories 	of 	employees 	not 	in 	the
unit. 	In 	so 	finding, 	he 	noted 	that 	the 	parties 	never 	really
discussed 	or 	agreed 	upon 	whether 	these 	employees 	were 	to 	be 	in
the 	unit 	and 	he 	found 	that 	the 	Association's 	request 	to
represent 	"all 	certificated 	employees 	excluding 	those 	excluded
by 	law" 	was 	vague 	from 	the 	outset. 	Further, 	he 	found 	that 	the
fact 	that 	the 	list 	submitted 	apparently 	did 	not 	include
teachers 	in 	the 	disputed 	categories 	lends 	support 	to 	the
community 	of 	interest 	between 	and 	among 	the
employees 	and 	their 	established 	practices
including, 	among 	other 	things, 	the 	extent 	to
which 	such 	employees 	belong 	to 	the 	same
employee 	organization, 	and 	the 	effect 	of 	the
size 	of 	the 	unit 	on 	the 	efficient 	operation
of 	the 	school 	district.
(b) 	In 	all 	cases:
(1) 	A 	negotiating 	unit 	that 	includes
classroom 	teachers 	shall 	not 	be
appropriate 	unless 	it 	at 	least 	includes
all 	of 	the 	classroom 	teachers 	employed
by 	the 	public 	school 	employer, 	except
management 	employees, 	supervisory
employees 	and 	confidential 	employees.
20

District's
	contention
	that
	the
	original
	petition
	did
	not
contemplate
	representation
	of 	those
	employees.
While
	we
	agree 	with 	the
	ALJ
	that
	the
	parties
	never
discussed
	the
	scope
	of 	the
	recognition,
	we
	find
	that
	the
disputed 	categories
	of 	teachers
	were
	included
	in 	the
	unit
	from
the
	outset.
The
	language
	describing 	the
	unit
	sought
	by
	the Association,
"all 	certificated
	employees
	excluding 	those 	excluded
	by
	law,"
is
	quite 	clear
	in
	its
	description 	of
	a
	comprehensive
	unit.
Similarly,
	the
	language
	used
	by
	the
	District
	to
	recognize
	the
Association
	as
	"the 	representative
	agent 	for
	certificated
employees, 	excluding 	those 	designated 	as
	management,
supervisory,
	and
	confidential
	employees,"
	describes
	a
	unit
which
	includes
	all
	certificated
	teachers.
The
	District
	was
	very 	scrupulous 	in 	adjusting 	the
	list
	to
exclude 	the
	categories
	of
	employees
	excluded
	by
	law--
management,
	supervisory,
	and
	confidential--but
	never
	made
	any
effort
	to
	exclude
	others.
	As
	this
	Board
	noted
	in
	El
	Monte
Union 	High
	School
	District
	(10/20/80)
	PERB
	Decision
	No.
	142
	in
a
	similar 	effort
	to 	determine 	the
	original 	intent
	of 	the
parties, 	if
	the
	District
	had
	intended 	to 	exclude
	other
teachers,
	they
	would 	have 	been
	listed
	with 	those
	it
	so
	pointly
did 	exclude. 	In 	the 	absence 	of 	such
	exclusions,
	we
	read
	the
language 	of 	the 	unit 	description 	precisely 	as
	it
	is
21

written
	and
	we
	therefore
	find
	that
	the
	unit
	as
	originally
recognized 	did 	include 	the
	disputed
	classification
	of
	teachers.
We
	do
	not
	find 	persuasive 	the
	fact
	that
	the
	list
	may
	not
have
	included
	the
	names
	of
	teachers
	who
	taught
	exclusively 	in
the 	disputed
	categories.
	We
	have 	found
	the
	language
	of
	the
petition
	quite
	clear
	in 	seeking
	a
	comprehensive
	unit; 	there
	was
never
	any
	argument
	by
	the
	District 	that
	the
	Association's
showing
	of
	interest
	would
	have 	been
	inadequate
	if
	the
	other
teachers
	had
	been
	included 	in 	the
	list.
We
	cannot,
	however,
	find
	that
	in 	these 	circumstances
	the
District
	violated
	EERA
	by
	its
	refusal
	to 	negotiate
	about
	all
these
	employees.
	Certainly
	the
	unit
	was
	defined 	expansively
and
	there
	was 	no
	PERB
	case
	law
	to
	guide
	the
	parties
	as
	of 	the
date 	of 	recognition.
	When
	the
	parties
	first
	briefly
	discussed
the 	recognition 	clause 	in
	November
	of
	1976, 	Mathiason
	stated
only
	that
	day-to-day
	substitutes
	would
	not
	be
	included 	in 	the
unit.
	(The
	Association 	claims 	in
	its
	exceptions 	to 	the
	Board
that
	it
	never 	sought
	to 	represent 	day-to-day
	substitutes.)
Association 	President
	Ganzer
	replied
	only
	that
	the
	parties
would 	need
	to
	clarify
	the
	status
	of
	all
	short-term
	employees.
However, 	by
	the
	time
	the
	parties
	met
	again 	in 	the
	summer
	of
1977,
	PERB
	had
	issued
	a
	series
	of 	decisions 	specifically
excluding 	various 	groups 	of 	teachers
	from
	the 	negotiating
unit.
	See 	Belmont 	Elementary 	School
	District
	(12/30/76)
	EERB
Decision
	No. 	7; 	Petaluma City 	Elementary 	and 	High 	School
22

District 	(2/22/77) 	EERB 	Decision 	No. 	9; 	New Haven 	Unified
School 	District 	(3/22/77) 	EERB 	Decision 	No. 	14; 	and 	Los 	Rios
Community 	College 	District 	(6/9/77) 	EERB 	Decision 	No. 	18
(summer 	school 	teachers); 	Petaluma, 	supra; 	Lompoc 	Unified
School 	District 	(3/17/77) 	EERB 	Decision 	No. 	13; 	New Haven,
supra 	(adult 	education 	teachers); 	Belmont, 	supra; 	Petaluma,
supra; 	Oakland 	Unified 	School 	District 	(3/28/77) 	EERB 	Decision
No. 	15; 	Los 	Rios, 	supra 	(substitute 	teachers) . 4
PERB 	later 	reversed 	its 	policy 	in 	Peralta, 	supra,
reinterpreting 	Government 	Code 	section 	3545 	to 	establish 	a
presumption 	that 	all 	classroom 	teachers 	should 	be 	in 	one 	unit;
however, 	the 	Board 	specifically made 	Peralta 	prospective 	only
in 	cases 	where 	disruption 	would 	result 	from 	retroactive
app 1 1ca 	10n. 5	. 	t.
The 	fact 	remains 	that, 	at 	the 	time 	the 	parties 	were
negotiating 	and 	at 	the 	time 	the 	District 	refused 	to 	negotiate
4Prior 	to 	January 	1, 	1978, 	PERB 	was 	known 	as 	the
Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Board.
5we 	note 	that, 	following 	Peralta, 	supra, 	the 	Board 	has
determined 	that 	these 	teachers 	are 	properly 	included 	within 	the
unit. 	See 	Palo Alto 	Unified 	School 	District 	(10/24/83) 	PERB
Decision 	No. 	352 	(adult 	education); 	Dixie 	Elementary 	School
District 	(8/11/81) 	PERB 	Decision 	No. 	171, 	Oakland 	Unified
School 	District 	(6/20/83) 	PERB 	Decision 	No. 	320 	(substitutes);
Redwood 	City 	Elementary School 	District 	(10/23/79) 	PERB
Decision 	No. 	107; 	Palo 	Alto, 	s 	pri, 	(summer 	school); 	El 	Monte
Union 	High 	School 	District 	(10 120 	80) 	PERB 	Decision 	No. 	142;
Los 	Gatos 	Joi~t 	Union 	High 	School 	District 	(11/14/83) 	PERB
Decision 	No. 	355 	(driver's 	education).
23

about 	summer 	school 	teachers, 	adult 	education 	teachers,
substitute 	teachers, 	and 	driver 	training 	instructors, 	the
District 	was 	justified 	in 	believing 	that 	most 	of 	these
employees 	could 	not 	properly 	be 	included 	in 	the 	unit. 	Although
PERB 	had 	not 	specifically 	ruled 	on 	the 	status 	of 	driver
training 	instructors, 	we 	do 	not 	find 	unreasonable 	the
District's 	assumption 	at 	the 	time, 	given 	the 	trend 	of 	PERB's
cases, 	that 	PERB 	would 	treat 	these 	teachers 	in 	the 	same 	fashion
as 	the 	other 	groups 	considered. 	we 	therefore 	find 	no 	bad 	faith
in 	the 	District's 	refusal 	to 	negotiate 	about 	these 	teachers.
The 	situation 	is 	somewhat 	different 	with 	regard 	to
"temporary 	employees." 	The ALJ 	found 	that 	on 	July 	12, 	1977,
the Association 	announced 	it 	might 	want 	to 	include 	long-term
substitutes 	(as 	well 	as 	summer 	school 	and 	adult 	education
teachers) 	within 	the 	unit. 	The 	District 	announced 	that 	these
employees 	were 	not 	within 	the 	unit, 	relying 	on 	its 	argument
that 	they 	were 	not 	within 	the 	unit 	it 	had 	recognized. 	Unlike
the 	other 	classifications, 	however, 	PERB 	at 	that 	time 	had
issued 	two 	decisions 	concluding 	that 	temporary 	teachers 	were
properly 	included 	within 	the 	unit 	(Belmont, 	supra, 	and
Grossmont 	Union 	High 	School 	District 	(3/9/77) 	EERB 	Decision
No. 	11.)
Since 	we 	have 	found 	that 	the 	recognition 	by 	the 	District
properly 	covered 	all 	certificated 	teachers 	and 	the 	District 	had
no 	reason 	to 	believe 	that 	PERB 	would 	exclude 	these 	teachers
from 	the 	unit, 	we 	find 	that 	the 	District 	violated 	EERA 	by 	its
refusal 	to 	negotiate 	about 	temporary 	teachers.
24

Release
	Time
The
ALJ
	found
	that
	the
	subject
	of
	release
	time
	was
	within
	the
scope
	of
	negotiations
6
and
	that
	the
	District
	had
	refused
	to
negotiate.
	PERB
	precedent
	is
	clear
	that
	release
	time
	for
negotiations
	is
	related 	to
	wages 	and
	hours,
	and
	is
	therefore
within
	the
	scope
	of
	negotiations.
	Anaheim 	Union 	High
	School
District
	(10/28/81)
	PERB
	Decision
	No.
	177.
	In
	that
	decision,
	the
Board
	further
	found
	that
	the
	District 	is
	not
	entitled
	to
	set
	an
initial
	release-time 	policy,
	nor
	may
	it
	unilaterally
	pass
	on
	the
cost
	of
	release
	time
	to 	the 	exclusive
	representative.
Here
	the 	record
	amply
	supports 	the ALJ's 	conclusion
	that
	the
District
	refused 	to 	negotiate 	in
	any
	meaningful
	way
	about
	the
subject
	of
	release
	time.
	The
	District
	unquestionably 	adopted
	its
own
	initial
	policy.
	Then,
	although 	the
	parties
	discussed 	the
6section
	3543.2
	states:
(a) 	The
	scope
	of 	representation
	shall
	be
limited 	to 	matters
	relating
	to
	wages,
	hours
of
	employment, 	and
	other
	terms
	and
conditions 	of
	employment. 	"Terms 	and
conditions 	of
	employment" 	mean
	health
	and
welfare
	benefits
	as 	defined
	by
	Section
53200,
	leave, 	transfer
	and
	reassignment
policies, 	safety 	conditions 	of
	employment,
class 	size,
	procedures 	to
	be 	used 	for 	the
evaluation 	of
	employees,
	organizational
security 	pursuant 	to 	Section
	3546,
procedures 	for 	processing 	grievances
pursuant 	to 	Sections 	3548.5, 	3548.6,
3548.7,aaand 	3548.8,
	and
	the 	layoff 	of
probationary
	certificated
	school
	district
employees, 	pursuant 	to 	Section 	44959.5 	of
the 	Education 	Code. 	In 	addition, 	the
25

proposal--what 	it 	meant, 	why 	the 	parties 	took 	their 	respective
positions 	on 	whether 	the 	issues 	raised 	were 	in 	or 	out 	of
scope--the 	District 	never 	made 	any 	counterproposal, 	nor 	made 	any
apparent 	effort 	actually 	to 	negotiate 	about 	the 	substance 	of 	the
proposal.
We 	find, 	therefore, 	that 	the 	District 	violated 	section
3543.S(c), 	and 	concurrently 	section 	3543.S(a) 	and 	(b) 	by 	its
refusal 	to 	negotiate 	release 	time.
Consultation 	Procedures
The ALJ 	found 	that 	the 	District 	had 	similarly 	refused 	to
negotiate 	about 	procedures 	for 	consultation. 	Although 	the 	parties
reached 	a 	tentative 	agreement 	early 	in 	negotiations, 	the 	parties'
subsequent 	inability 	to 	get 	together 	in 	consultation 	prompted 	the
Association 	to 	offer 	a 	very 	different, 	much 	more 	detailed 	proposal
several 	months 	later, 	about 	which 	the 	District 	would 	never
negotiate 	in 	substance.
exclusive 	representative 	of 	certificated
personnel 	has 	the 	right 	to 	consult 	on 	the
definition 	of 	educational 	objectives, 	the
determination 	of 	the 	content 	of 	courses 	and
curriculum, 	and 	the 	selection 	of 	textbooks
to 	the 	extent 	such 	matters 	are 	within 	the
discretion 	of 	the 	public 	scool 	employer
under 	the 	law. 	All 	matters 	not 	specifically
enumerated 	are 	reserved 	to 	the 	public 	school
employer 	and 	may 	not 	be 	a 	subject 	of 	meeting
and 	negotiating, 	provided 	that 	nothing
herein 	may 	be 	construed 	to 	limit 	the 	right
of 	the 	public 	school 	employer 	to 	consult
with 	any 	employees 	or 	employee 	organization
on 	any 	matter 	outside 	the 	scope 	of
representation.
26

Even 	though 	he 	found 	that 	the 	District 	refused 	to 	negotiate
about 	this 	subject, 	the ALJ 	found 	no 	violation 	since 	he 	found
the 	issue 	to 	be 	outside 	the 	scope 	of 	representation.
The 	Board, 	however, 	has 	since 	decided 	this 	issue 	decisively 	in
Jefferson 	School 	District 	(6/19/80) 	PERB 	Decision 	No. 	133.
The 	Board 	there 	held 	that:
The 	requirement 	that 	teachers 	be 	consulted
on 	'other 	educational 	matters 	that 	are
decided 	on 	an 	individual 	school 	basis' 	we
find 	to 	be 	a 	mandatory 	subject 	of 	bargaining
as 	well. 	Although 	the 	actual 	substance 	of
educational 	matters 	need 	not 	be 	negotiated,
the 	procedures 	for 	consultation 	must 	be.
The 	right 	of 	consultation 	is 	guaranteed 	in
section 	3543.2 •••• 	Since 	this 	proposal
seeks 	only 	to 	establish 	the 	mechanism 	for
implementing 	that 	right, 	the 	proposal
conforms 	to 	the 	mandates 	of 	section 	3543.2
and 	the 	employer 	may 	not 	refuse 	to 	bargain
over 	this 	proposal.
We 	agree 	with 	the ALJ 	that 	the 	District 	refused 	to
negotiate 	procedures 	for 	consultation. 	As 	with 	the 	other
disputed 	subjects, 	the 	District discussed 	the 	proposal 	at
length 	but 	refused 	to 	negotiate 	about 	the 	substance. 	While 	the
District 	contends 	on 	exceptions 	that 	it 	did 	not 	refuse 	to
negotiate, 	it 	points 	to 	no 	portion 	of 	the 	record 	in 	support 	of
that 	claim. 	To 	the 	extent 	that 	the 	District 	claims 	to 	have
fulfilled 	its 	obligation 	to 	negotiate 	by 	its 	agreement 	to 	the
general 	consultation 	article, 	we 	do 	not 	find 	its 	argument
persuasive. 	The 	District 	had 	merely 	tentatively 	agreed 	to 	do
what 	it 	was 	obligated 	by 	law 	to 	do, 	and 	it 	retained 	an
27

obligation 	to 	respond 	to 	the Association's 	later 	in-scope
proposal, 	developed 	to 	address 	very 	real 	problems 	in 	the
consultation 	process.
We 	conclude, 	then, 	that 	the 	District 	violated 	EERA 	section
3543.S{a), 	(b) 	and 	(c) 	by 	its 	refusal 	to 	negotiate 	procedures
for 	consultation.
Association 	Rights
The ALJ 	found 	that 	the 	District 	refused 	to 	negotiate 	about
the 	proposal 	on 	association 	rights. 	However, 	he 	also
determined 	that 	this 	subject 	was 	outside 	scope 	and, 	therefore,
he 	found 	no 	violation. 	The 	Association 	did 	not 	except. 	(The
District 	did 	except 	to 	the 	finding 	that 	it 	did 	not 	negotiate.)
However, 	PERB 	has 	determined 	that 	it 	will 	consider 	an 	issue
even 	where 	no 	exceptions 	were 	filed 	in 	order 	to 	remedy 	a
serious 	error 	of 	law. 	Fresno 	Unified 	School 	District 	(4/30/82)
PERB 	Decision 	No. 	208; 	Mt. 	Diablo 	Unified 	School 	District
(12/30/83) 	PERB 	Decision 	No. 	373, 	at 	p. 	39. 	we 	find 	it
necessary 	to_do 	so 	here 	since 	the 	Board 	has 	subsequently 	ruled
on 	the 	negotiability 	of 	many 	of 	these 	items.
As 	the 	case 	went 	to 	hearing, 	the 	following 	Association
proposals 	were 	still 	in 	dispute:
ARTICLE 	VIII, 	ASSOCIATION 	RIGHTS
Language:
1. 	The Association 	and 	its 	members 	shall
have 	the 	right 	to 	make 	use 	of 	school
equipment, 	buildings 	and 	facilities 	at
28

all
	reasonable 	hours.
	such
	equipment
shall
	include
	typewriters,
mimeographing
	machines,
	other
duplicating
	equipment,
	calculating
machines,
	and
	all
	types 	of
	audio-visual
equipment
	when
	such 	equipment
	is
	not
otherwise 	in 	use.
2. 	The
	Association
	shall
	have
	the
	right
	to
post
	notices 	of
	activities
	and
	matters
of
	Association
	concern
	on
	Association
bulletin
	boards,
	at 	least
	one
	of
	which
shall
	be
	provided
	in
	each
	school
building 	in 	areas
	frequented
	by
teachers.
	The
	Association
	may
	use
	the
District
	mail
	services
	and
	teacher
mailboxes
	for
	communications
	to
teachers.
3. 	Authorized
	representatives
	of 	the
Association
	shall
	be
	permitted 	to
transact
	official
	Association 	business
on
	school
	property
	at
	all
	reasonable
times.
4.
	The
	Board
	shall
	place 	the Associationas 	the
	first
	item 	under
	"new
	business"
on
	the
	agenda
	of
	each
	public
	board
meeting.
. 	. 	. 	. 	. 	. 	. 	. . 	. 	. 	. 	. 	. 	. 	. 	.
7.
	The
	Board
	of 	Education
	will
	provide 	the
Association
	with
	nonconfidentialinformation 	requested
	by
	the
Association 	to 	include 	but 	not
	limitedto
	class 	size,
	statistical
	reports,
budgetary 	information,
	etc.
8.
	The 	Board
	will
	provide 	the 	Association
with
	a
	complete 	Board Agenda 	and
minutes
	at 	least 	forty-eight
	(48)
	hours
before 	regular
	Board
	meetings.
. 	. 	. 	. 	. 	. 	. 	. 	. 	. 	. 	. . . 	. 	.
10.
	The
Association
	may
	use
	district
facilities 	at
	no
	cost 	within 	the
provisions 	of 	the 	law.
29

Items 	1, 	2, 	3 	and 	10 	appear 	to 	be 	well 	within 	the 	Board's
holding 	in 	Healdsburg 	Union 	High 	School 	District 	et 	al.
(1/5/84) 	PERB 	Decision 	No. 	375 	that 	proposals 	intended 	to
guarantee 	the 	exclusive 	representative's 	access 	to 	District
employees, 	facilities, 	and 	equipment 	are 	within 	the 	scope 	of
negotiations 	under 	EERA. 	Healdsburg, 	supra, 	at 	p. 	19. 	The
Board 	there 	rejected 	the 	District's 	argument 	that 	the
Legislature 	intended 	to 	preempt 	negotiations 	of 	these 	items 	by
its 	inclusion 	of 	access 	in 	section 	3543.l(b), 	finding 	it 	quite
appropriate 	to 	include 	statutory 	rights 	guaranteed 	by 	EERA 	in 	a
collective 	bargaining 	agreement.
Item 	7 	seeks 	a 	wide 	range 	of 	information, 	which 	is 	clearly
relevant 	to 	the Association's 	role 	as 	exclusive
representative. 	PERB 	has 	previously 	determined 	that 	provision
of 	such 	information 	is 	negotiable 	to 	the 	extent 	that 	the
information 	is 	necessary 	for 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	to
fulfill 	its 	representational 	role. 	Jefferson, 	supra, 	at 	p.
55. 	This 	principle 	was 	reiterated 	in 	Healdsburg. 	To 	the
extent 	that 	the 	District 	disputes 	whether 	the 	information 	is
necessary, 	it 	has 	the 	obligation 	to 	clarify 	the 	meaning 	of 	the
proposal 	rather 	than 	to 	simply 	refuse 	to 	negotiate 	about 	it.
Healdsburg, 	supra, 	p. 	20.
The 	Board 	previously 	decided 	in 	Jefferson, 	suora, 	that 	a
proposal 	to 	provide 	the 	agenda 	for 	school 	board 	meetings 	was
negotiable 	because 	the 	representative 	was 	seeking 	only
30

information 	relevant 	to 	its 	role 	of 	representing 	employees 	in
the 	employment 	relationship. 	Jefferson, 	supra, 	at 	p. 	57. 	We
therefore 	find 	item 	8 	to 	be 	negotiable.
The 	proposal 	remaining 	is 	number 	4, 	which 	would 	require 	the
school 	board 	to 	place 	the Association 	on 	the 	agenda 	as 	the
first 	item 	of 	"new 	business" 	at 	each 	public
meeting. 	While 	this 	proposal 	is 	clearly 	related 	to 	the
Association's 	role 	as 	exclusive 	representative, 	we 	find 	that
this 	proposal 	interferes 	with 	management 	prerogative 	so 	as 	to
render 	it 	beyond 	the 	scope 	of 	negotiations. 	Anaheim, 	supra.
PERB 	has 	previously 	decided 	that 	an 	exclusive 	representative
has 	some 	right 	to 	appear 	before 	the 	school 	board 	in 	its
capacity 	as 	the 	representative 	of 	employees 	in 	the 	employment
relationship. 	(San 	Ramon 	Valley 	Unified 	School 	District
(8/9/82) 	PERB 	Decision 	No. 	230.) 	However, 	that 	right 	does 	not
require 	a 	secured 	first 	place 	on 	the 	agenda 	of 	every 	public
board 	meeting. 	We 	therefore 	find 	this 	proposal 	outside 	of
scope.
We 	also 	find 	the ALJ's 	conclusion 	that 	the 	District 	did 	not
negotiate 	in 	a 	meaningful 	way 	about 	these 	proposals 	to 	be 	amply
supported 	by 	the 	record. 	As 	with 	the 	other 	disputed 	subjects
the 	parties 	discussed 	the 	proposals, 	but 	the 	District 	took 	the
consistent 	position 	that 	they 	were 	outside 	scope.
Calendar
The ALJ 	found 	that 	the 	District 	did 	negotiate 	with 	regard
to 	some 	of 	the 	elements 	of 	the 	calendar 	and 	did 	not 	negotiate
31

with 	regard 	to
	others.
	He
	found
	that
	the
	District
	negotiated
the
	number
	of 	days, 	the
	number
	of 	student 	contact
	days,
	and
	the
number
	of
	holidays.
	He
	found
	that
	the
	District
	did 	not
negotiate
	the
	dates 	of 	student 	contact
	days
	and
	the
	dates
	of
minimum
	days;
	however,
	he
	found
	these
	items
	outside 	of
	scope
and
	the 	Association
	did
	not
	except.
He
	found
	violations
	as
	to
	four 	items
	which 	were
	within
scope
	which
	the
	District
	refused 	to
	negotiate:
	(1)
	the
	date
	of
commencement
	of 	the
	school
	year;
	(2}
	the 	dates
	of
	holidays;
	(3)
the
	number
	of
	minimum
	days,
	and,
	(4}
	the 	date 	of 	the
	beginning
of
	summer
	vacation.
	The
	District
	excepts 	to 	the 	finding 	of
violation
	as
	to 	these
	four
	items, 	claiming
	that
	they
	are
outside 	of
	scope.
	It
	does
	not 	claim
	that
	it
	fulfilled
	any
obligation
	to 	negotiate
	over
	these
	issues.
In
	a
	series
	of 	cases,
	PERB
	has 	determined
	that
	the
calendar, 	that
	is,
	beginning
	and
	ending
	dates 	of 	the
	work
	year,
vacation
	and
	holiday 	dates
	is
	within 	the
	scope
	of
negotiations.
	Palos
	Verdes
	Peninsula 	Unified 	School
District/Pleasant
	Valley
	School
	District
	(7/16/79)
	PERB
Decision
	No.
	96;
	Jefferson, 	supra;
	San
	Jose, 	supra;
	Oakland
Unified
	School
	District
	(12/16/83)
	PERB
	Decision
	No.
	367.
	We
therefore
	conclude
	that
	the
	District 	violated 	section
3543.S(a),
	(b)
	and 	(c) 	by
	its
	refusal 	to 	negotiate 	these 	items.
The ALJ
	next 	concluded
	that
	the
	number
	of
	minimum
	days
	is
within 	scope. 	Designation 	of
	a
	day 	as
	a 	minimum
	day 	means
	that
the
	number
	of 	hours 	of 	instruction 	for 	that
	day
	is
	reduced 	and
32

the
	time
	thereby
	made
	available
	is
	devoted
	to
	other
	work
duties.
	The ALJ
	based
	his
	conclusion
	on
	his
	finding
	that
minimum
	days
	are
	those 	in
	which
	there
	are
	fewer
	teaching 	hours,
and
	that
	the 	matter
	at
	issue
	is
	therefore
	hours
	itself.
	The
District
	excepts,
	claiming
	that
	no
	impact
	on
	hours
	was
demonstrated
	by
	the 	record,
	and
	that
	the
	issue 	of
	minimum
	days
concerns
	duties 	rather
	than
	hours.
The
	Board
	has
	previously
	decided 	in
	San
	Jose
	Community
College
	District
	(9/30/82)
	PERB
	Decision
	No. 	240
	that
	it
	is
within
	the
	prerogative 	of
	the
	District
	to
	decide
	which
	among 	a
teachers'
	normal
	duties 	will
	be
	performed
	on 	any
	given 	day. 	In
that
	case,
	the
	District 	unilaterally
	substituted
	15
	days
	of
classroom
	instruction
	for
	15
	in-service
	days
	in 	the 	school
calendar.
	The
	Board 	found
	there
	that
	the
	Association
	failed
	to
prove
	any 	impact
	on 	a
	matter 	within
	scope,
	since 	there
	was 	no
evidence 	to
	show
	any
	increase 	in
	hours,
	preparation
	time,
	etc.,
and 	found
	as 	well
	that
	the 	decision
	whether
	the 	teachers
	were
to 	attend 	in-service
	or
	instruct
	students
	was
	properly 	reserved
to 	the
	District.
	The
	Board
	therefore
	found 	no
	unilateral
change
	in
	a
	matter 	within
	scope.
	See
	also
	Palo
	Verde
	Unified
School
	District
	(10/28/83)
	PERB
	Decision
	No. 	354.
Those
	decisions
	would
	appear
	to
	be
	controlling 	here.
	The
matter
	at 	issue 	is
	minimum
	days
	rather
	than
	in-service 	training
(although
	it
	appears
	that
	minimum
	days 	are 	often
	used 	for
in-service) 	but 	the 	evidence 	similarly 	fails
	to 	indicate 	that
33

the 	designation
	of
	a 	minimum
	day
	instead
	of
	an
	instructional
day
	affects
	the
	number
	of
	work
	hours
	required
	of
	a
	teacher.
The ALJ
	found
	an
	impact
	on
	the 	length 	of 	the
	teachers'
	workday
but,
	as 	the
	District
	notes
	by
	way
	of
	exception, 	the 	only
testimony
	on
	the
	subject
	is
	by
	Association
	president
	Ganzer,
who
	testified
	that
	the
	students'
	day
	was
	shorter
	on 	a 	minimum
day
	and,
	therefore,
	student 	contact
	time
	was
	shorter
	but
	that
the
	length 	of
	a
	teacher's
	day
	was
	the
	same.
	We
	find
	therefore
that
	the
	number
	of
	minimum
	days
	is
	outside
	the
	scope
	of
negotiation,
	as
	opposed
	to 	the
	total
	number
	of
	days
	of
	work.
Remaining
	is
	the
	issue 	of
	unilateral
	change
	in 	the
calendar.
	On
	August 	9, 	1977,
	the
	District
	sent
	a
	memo
	to
	all
certificated 	staff
	announcing
	that
	teachers
	should
	return 	to
work
	as 	of
	September
	1,
	1977.
	The
	Association
	charged
	that
	the
District
	violated
	EERA
	by
	its
	action
	on
	August	
9	
in
unilaterally
	establishing
	the 	beginning
	date 	of 	school 	for
teachers.
	We
	agree. 	Since
	we
	have
	concluded
	that
	the 	opening
date
	of 	the 	teachers 	calendar
	is
	in
	fact
	an
	item within 	scope,
we
	therefore 	find
	a
	violation
	in 	the
	District's 	unilateral
establishment 	of 	the
	opening 	day. 	Grant
	Joint
	Union 	High
School
	District
	(2/26/82)
	PERB
	Decision
	No. 	196;
	Pajaro Valley
Unified 	School
	District
	(5/22/78)
	PERB
	Decision
	No. 	51;
	NLRB
	v.
Katz 	(1962) 	369 	U.S. 	736 	[50
	LRRM
	2177].
In
	sum, 	we
	find 	that 	the 	District 	violated
	EERA
	by
	failing
to 	negotiate 	in
	good
	faith 	with 	the 	Association 	over 	proposals
34

affecting
	temporary
	teachers.
	We
	find 	also
	that
	the
	District
violated
	EERA
	by
	its
	failure
	to
	negotiate
	about
	release
	time,
procedures 	for
	consultation, 	association
	rights
	{with
	the
exception
	of
	item
	4),
	commencement
	of 	the
	teachers'
	work
	year,
dates
	of 	holidays,
	and
	the
	end
	of 	the
	teachers'
	work
	year.
	We
also
	find
	the
	District's
	unilateral
	imposition 	of 	the
	opening
date 	of 	the 	1977-78
	work
	year 	for
	teachers 	to
	be 	an
	unlawful
unilateral
	change.
We
	deny
	the 	outstanding 	request 	for
	oral
	argumen
most
	of 	the
	issues 	raised
	by
	this
	case
	have
	already
	been
resolved,
	and
	we
	similarly
	deny
	the 	request
	from
	the
Informational
	Project
	of 	Educational 	Negotiations 	to
	file
	an
informational
	brief.
t
	since
ORDER
Pursuant 	to
	section
	3541.S(a),
	(b) 	and
	(c),
	and
	based
	upon
the 	foregoing
	findings 	of
	fact,
	conclusions 	of
	law,
	and
	the
entire
	record 	in
	this
	case, 	the 	Public
	Employment
	Relations
Board 	hereby
	ORDERS
	that
	the
	Davis
	Joint
	Unified
	School
District 	shall:
A.
	CEASE
	AND
	DESIST 	FROM:
1. 	Failing
	and
	refusing 	to
	meet 	and
	negotiate 	in
good
	faith
	regarding
	all
	members
	of 	the
	certificated
	employees
unit. 
2.
	Failing
	and
	refusing 	to
	meet 	and
	negotiate 	in
good
	faith
	over 	release 	time, 	procedures 	for 	consultation,
35

association
	rights,
	commencement
	of 	the
	teachers'
	work
	year,
dates
	of 	holidays
	and
	the
	date 	of 	the
	end
	of 	the
	teachers'
	work
year.
3.
	Unilaterally 	setting
	the
	beginning
	of 	the
teachers'
	work
	year 	without
	meeting
	and
	negotiating 	in
	good
faith.
4.
	Interfering
	with
	the
	right
	of
	employees
	to
	be
represented
	by
	failing
	and
	refusing 	to 	negotiate 	in
	good
	faith.
5.
	Denying
	to 	the
	Davis 	Teachers
	Association,
CTA/NEA,
	the
	right
	to 	represent
	employees
	by
	failing
	and
refusing
	to
	negotiate 	in
	good
	faith.
B.
	TAKE 	THE
	FOLLOWING
AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS 	DESIGNED
	TO
EFFECTUATE
	THE
	POLICIES
	OF THE
	ACT:
1.
	Upon
	request,
	meet 	and
	negotiate 	in
	good
	faith
with 	the
	Davis
	Teachers
	Association,
	CTA/NEA,
	with
	respect 	to
those 	subjects
	enumerated 	above
	to 	the 	extent
	that
	we
	have
determined
	them
	to
	be
	within 	the
	scope
	of
	representation.
2.
	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
36

Notice
	is
	not
	reduced
	in
	size,
	defaced,
	altered
	or 	covered
	by
any
	material.
3.
	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.
Member
	Tovar
	joined 	in
	this
	Decision.
Chairperson 	Hesse's 	concurrence 	begins
	on
	page 	38.
37

Hesse,
	Chairperson, 	concurring:
	Insofar
	as
	the
	majority
applies
	the 	precedents
	found
	in
	Jefferson
	School
	District
(6/19/80)
	PERB
	Decision
	No.
	133, 	Healdsburg
	Union 	High
	School
District
	(1/5/84)
	PERB
	Decision
	No.
	375,
	et
	al.,
	concerning
issues
	within 	the
	scope
	of 	bargaining,
	I
	concur
	that
	the
	above
decisions 	are
	correctly
	followed.
Concerning
	the 	majority 	opinion
	on
	the
	unit
	question,
	I
question
	the
	rationale
	adopted
	by
	my
	colleagues
	in
	ruling
	that
the 	disputed
	categories
	of
	teachers
	were
	included
	in
	the
	unit,
but
	that
	there
	was 	no
	violation
	when
	the
	District
	refused 	to
bargain.
	To
	hold
	that
	they
	have 	been
	in 	the
	unit
	all
	along
without 	also 	finding
	a
	violation
	of
	section
	3543.S(c)
	seems
contradictory
	at
	best.
We
	must
	bear
	in
	mind
	that 	this
	case
	is
	nearly 	eight 	years
old
	and
	pre-dates 	Peralta,
	where
	PERB
	adopted
	a 	new
	rationale
and
	a 	new
	presumption
	for 	deciding
	who
	bears 	the
	burden
	of
proof 	in 	dealing
	with 	the
	placement
	of 	teachers 	in
	a
comprehensive
	unit. 	Just
	as 	the 	majority 	notes, 	Peralta
	should
not
	be 	used
	to 	find
	a
	violation
	of
	section 	3543.S(c).
	I
believe,
	however,
	that
	it
	also
	should 	not
	be 	used
	retroactively
as
	a
	yardstick 	to 	determine
	what
	the 	composition 	of 	the
	unit
was
	in
	1977. 	Thus,
	I 	would
	hold
	that,
	except 	for 	the 	temporary
employees, 	the 	disputed 	groups 	were
	properly 	excluded
	from
	the
unit
	in 	1977.
	Now
	that 	this
	case 	has 	been 	decided
	and 	PERB
	law
stablized, 	the 	parties
	may
	prospectively 	negotiate
	over 	the
38

inclusion
	of 	those
	teachers
	who
	have 	been
	in
	limbo
	for
seven-and-a-half 	years.
	I
	thus
	concur
	that
	there
	is
	no
violation
	of 	3543.S(c), 	but 	for 	the 	reason
	I
	have
	stated
	above,
rather
	than 	the
	majority's 	rationale.
39

APPENDIX
NOTICE
	TO
	EMPLOYEES
POSTED
	BY
	ORDER OF
	THE
PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
An
	Agency
	of 	the
	State
	of
	California
After
	a
	hearing 	in 	Unfair
	Practice
	Case
	No.
	s-CE-76(a)
(b),
Davis 	Teachers
	Association,
	CTA/NEA
	v. 	Davis
	Joint
	Unified
School
	District,
	in
	which
	all
	parties
	had
	the
	right
	to
participate,
	1t
	has
	been 	found
	that
	the
	Davis
	Joint
	Unified
School
	District
	violated
	the 	Educational
	Employment
	Relations
Act,
	Government
	Code
	section
	3543.S(a),
	(b)
	and
	(c)
	by
	failing
and
	refusing 	to
	meet 	and
	negotiate 	in
	good
	faith
	with
	the
	Davis
Teachers
	Association,
	CTA/NEA.
As
	a
	result
	of
	this
	conduct,
	we
	have 	been
	ordered 	to
	post
this
	notice
	and
	we
	will:
A.
	CEASE
	AND
	DESIST
	FROM:
1.
	Failing
	and
	refusing 	to
	meet
	and
	negotiate 	in
good
	faith
	regarding
	all
	members
	of 	the
	certificated
	employees
unit.
2.
	Failing
	and
	refusing 	to
	meet 	and
	negotiate 	in
good
	faith
	over
	release
	time, 	procedures 	for
	consultation,
association
	rights,
	commencement
	of 	the
	teachers'
	work
	year,
dates
	of
	holidays,
	and
	the
	date
	of 	the
	end
	of
	the
	teachers'
work
	year.
3.
	Unilaterally 	setting
	the 	beginning
	of 	the
teachers'
	work
	year 	without
	meeting
	and
	negotiating 	in
	good
faith.
4.
	Interfering
	with 	the
	right
	of
	employees
	to
	be
represented
	by
	failing
	and
	refusing 	to 	negotiate 	in
	good
	faith.
5.
	Denying
	to 	the
	Davis 	Teachers
	Association,
CTA/NEA
	the
	right
	to 	represent
	employees
	by
	failing
	and
refusing 	to 	negotiate 	in
	good
	faith.
B.
	TAKE 	THE 	FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS 	DESIGNED 	TO
EFFECTUATE 	THE
	POLICIES
	OF THE ACT:
1.
	Upon
	request,
	meet 	and
	negotiate 	in
	good
	faith
with 	the 	Davis 	Teachers Association,
	CTA/NEA,
	with 	respect 	to
1

those 	subjects 	enumerated 	above 	to 	the 	extent 	that 	they 	have
been 	determined 	to 	be 	within 	the 	scope 	of 	representation.
DAVIS 	JOINT 	UNIFIED 	SCHOOL 	DISTRICT	Dated:
By: ---::---:--~,--.....,,...-----------Authorized Agent
THIS 	IS AN 	OFFICIAL 	NOTICE. 	IT MUST 	REMAIN 	POSTED 	FOR 	THIRTY
(30) 	CONSECUTIVE WORKDAYS 	FROM THE 	DATE 	OF 	POSTING AND 	MUST 	NOT
BE ALTERED, 	REDUCED 	IN 	SIZE, 	DEFACED OR COVERED 	WITH ANY 	OTHER
MATERIAL. 2