Trustees of the California State University (California Faculty Association) (PERB 0613H)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
CALIFORNIA FACULTY ASSOCIATION,
Charging 	Party,
v.
TRUSTEES 	OF 	THE 	CALIFORNIA 	STATE
UNIVERSITY,
Respondent.
Case 	No. 	LA-CE-150-H
PERB 	Decision 	No. 	613-H
February 	9, 	1987
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances: 	Reich, 	Adell 	& Crost by Anthony R. 	Segall, 	for
California 	Faculty Association; 	William 	B. 	Haughton 	for
Trustees 	of 	the 	California 	State 	University.
Before Burt, 	Porter and Craib, 	Members.
DECISION
BURT, 	Member: 	This 	case 	comes before 	the 	Public 	Employment
Relations 	Board 	(PERB or 	Board) 	on 	exceptions 	filed by 	Trustees
of 	the California 	State 	University 	(CSU) 	to a proposed
decision, 	attached hereto, 	issued by a 	PERB Administrative 	Law
Judge 	(ALJ). 	In 	that decision, 	the ALJ 	found that CSU violated
section 	3571(a), 	(b) 	and 	(c) 	of the Higher Education
Employer-Employee 	Relations Act 	(Gov. 	Code 	sec. 	3560 et 	seq.)
by 	refusing 	to 	comply with 	a 	request 	by 	the 	California 	Faculty
Association 	(CFA) 	to provide 	certain 	salary 	information.
The 	Board has 	reviewed 	the 	proposed 	decision 	in 	light 	of
CSU's 	exceptions 	and CFA's 	response 	thereto, 	and 	the 	entire
record 	in 	the 	case, 	and hereby adopts 	the 	proposed decision 	as
the 	Decision 	of 	the 	Board 	itself.
__)

In 	so 	finding, 	we do not decide 	that any wage 	data, 	in 	any
of 	its 	manifestations, 	gathered by 	CSU would 	necessarily be
subject 	to disclosure. 	Here, 	however, 	it 	is clear that the
wage 	survey data 	in 	question 	is an 	integral 	part of 	the 	salary
setting mechanism at 	CSU, 	and, 	in 	the absence 	of a 	valid
privilege 	or 	defense 	raised by 	CSU, 	is 	relevant 	and necessary
in 	order 	for 	CFA to 	fulfill 	its 	responsibilities 	as 	the
exclusive 	faculty 	representative.
ORDER
Upon 	the 	foregoing 	facts, 	conclusions of 	law, 	and the
entire 	record 	in 	this 	case, 	and pursuant 	to Government 	Code
section 	3541.5(c), 	it 	is hereby ORDERED that the Respondent,
Trustees of 	the 	California 	State 	University, 	and 	its
representatives 	shall:
A. 	CEASE AND 	DESIST FROM:
1. 	Failing 	and 	refusing 	to 	provide 	the 	California
Faculty 	Association 	with 	correlated 	raw 	salary 	data 	obtained 	by
the 	California 	State 	University 	from higher 	educational
institutions 	pursuant 	to 	its 	annual 	survey.
B. 	TAKE THE 	FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS 	DESIGNED 	TO
EFFECTUATE 	THE 	POLICIES 	OF 	THE 	HIGHER 	EDUCATION
EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE 	RELATIONS ACT:
1. 	Within 	ten 	(10) 	workdays 	after 	this 	Decision 	is 	no
longer 	subject 	to 	reconsideration, 	furnish 	the 	California
Faculty 	Association 	with 	the 	name 	of 	the 	institution 	that
corresponds 	to 	each 	of 	the 	documents 	of 	the 	incomplete 	salary
survey 	identified 	in 	the 	record 	of 	this 	case 	as 	Charging 	Party
Exhibit 	9.
2

2. 	Within 	five 	(5) 	days 	following the 	date 	the
decision 	is 	no 	longer 	subject 	to 	reconsideration, 	sign 	and post
at 	all 	work 	locations 	where 	notices 	to 	employees 	customarily
are placed, 	copies 	of 	the 	Notice 	attached as 	an Appendix
hereto, 	signed by an 	authorized agent of 	the 	employer. 	Such
posting 	shall 	be 	maintained 	for 	a 	period 	of 	thirty 	(30)
consecutive 	workdays. 	Reasonable 	steps 	shall 	be 	taken 	to
insure 	that 	this 	Notice 	is 	not 	reduced 	in 	size, 	defaced,
altered 	or 	covered by any material.
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 his
instructions.
This 	Order 	shall 	become 	effective 	immediately 	upon 	service
of 	a 	true 	copy 	thereof 	upon 	the 	California 	State 	University.
Members 	Porter 	and 	Craib 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
33

APPENDIX
NOTICE 	TO ALL EMPLOYEES
POSTED 	BY ORDER OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
An 	Agency of 	the 	State 	of 	California
After 	a hearing 	in Unfair 	Practice 	Case No. 	LA-CE-150-H,
California 	Faculty Association 	v. 	Trustees 	of 	the 	California
State 	University, 	in which 	all 	parties had 	the 	right 	to
participate, 	it 	is 	found 	that 	the 	Trustees 	of 	the 	California
State University violated section 	3571(a), 	(b) 	and 	(c) 	of the
Higher 	Education 	Employer-Employee 	Relations 	Act.
As 	a 	result 	of 	this 	conduct, 	we have been 	ordered 	to post
this 	Notice 	and we 	will:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
Failing 	and 	refusing 	to provide 	the 	California 	Faculty
Association 	with 	correlated 	raw 	salary 	data 	obtained 	by 	the
California 	State 	University 	from higher 	educational
institutions 	pursuant 	to 	its 	annual 	survey.
B. 	TAKE 	THE 	FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS 	DESIGNED 	TO
EFFECTUATE 	THE 	POLICIES 	OF 	THE 	HIGHER 	EDUCATION
EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE 	RELATIONS 	ACT:
Furnish 	the 	California 	Faculty Association 	with 	the
name 	of 	the 	institution 	that 	corresponds 	to each 	of 	the
documents 	of 	the 	incomplete 	salary 	survey 	identified 	in 	the
record 	of 	this 	case 	as 	Charging 	Party
Exhibit 	9.
Dated: 	CALIFORNIA 	STATE 	UNIVERSITY
By
Authorized 	Representative
THIS 	IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE. 	IT MUST REMAIN 	POSTED FOR AT
LEAST 	THIRTY 	(30) 	CONSECUTIVE WORKDAYS 	FROM THE DATE OF
POSTING AND MUST NOT BE ALTERED, 	REDUCED 	IN SIZE, 	DEFACED OR
COVERED 	BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL.

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
CALIFORNIA 	FACULTY 	ASSOCIATION.
Charging 	Party,
v.
TRUSTEES 	OF 	THE 	CALIFORNIA STATE
UNIVERSITY.
Respondent.
Unfair 	Practice
Case 	N o . 	LA-CE-150-H
PROPOSED 	DECISION
(7/29/86)
A p p e a r a n c e s : 	Reich. 	Adell 	& 	Crost 	by Anthony R. 	Segall. 	Esq..
for 	California 	Faculty Association; 	W i l l i a m B. 	H a u g h t o n . 	Esq..
for 	California 	State 	University.
Before Manuel 	M. 	M e l g o z a . 	Administrative 	L a w J u d g e .
I. 	PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The 	California 	Faculty Association 	(CFA. 	U n i o n 	or 	Charging
Party) 	filed 	the 	above-captioned 	Unfair 	Practice 	Charge 	on
December 	26, 	1985, 	alleging 	that 	the 	California 	State
University 	(CSU. 	Respondent 	or 	E m p l o y e r ) 	had 	refused 	to 	comply
with 	a 	request 	to 	furnish 	salary 	data 	collected 	by 	CSU 	as 	part
of 	a 	wage 	and 	benefits 	survey 	of 	comparative 	higher 	education
institutions. 	The 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(PERB 	or
B o a r d ) 	issued 	a 	Complaint 	on December 	3 1 . 	1985 	alleging 	that
CSU 	had 	violated 	the 	Higher 	Education 	Employer-Employee
Relations Act 	(HEERA) l . 	sections 	3571(c) 	and. 	derivatively,
3571(a) 	and 	(b) 	by engaging 	in 	the 	above 	conduct.
1 The 	HEERA 	is 	codified 	beginning 	at 	Government 	Code
section 	3560. 	Section 3571 	s t a t e s , 	in relevant 	p a r t , 	as
follows:
This Board agent decision has been appealed to
the Board itself and is not final. Only to the
extent the Board itself adopts this decision and
rationale may it be cited as precedent.
)
}
)
)
)
)
)
)
___________ !

3571. 	UNLAWFUL PRACTICES: 	EMPLOYER
It 	shall 	be unlawful 	for 	the 	higher
education 	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 	engage 	in meeting and
conferring 	with 	an 	exclusive 	representative
An 	informal 	conference, 	scheduled 	for 	January 7. 	1986.
failed 	to 	result 	in a 	complete 	settlement 	of 	the 	dispute
underlying the Complaint. 	However, 	on about January 15. 	1986.
the 	CFA 	filed 	an Amended Unfair 	Practice 	Charge, 	contending
that, 	through settlement 	negotiations. 	Respondent 	had 	partially
complied with 	the Union's 	information 	request, 	but 	had 	deleted
the names 	of 	the 	particular 	institutions 	to which a 	set 	of 	data
pertained. 	It 	alleged 	that 	the 	employer was 	continuing 	to
refuse 	to 	identify 	the 	data 	by 	institution.
An Order Amending 	the 	Complaint, 	in 	conformity with 	the
Amended Charge, 	was 	issued 	on February 10, 	1986 	by
Administrative Law Judge William P. 	Smith. 	In 	its Answer,
Respondent 	denied 	that 	CFA was 	entitled 	to 	the 	information,
alleging 	that 	it was 	confidential 	and was 	not 	relevant 	or
necessary 	for 	collective 	bargaining.
22

An evidentiary hearing was 	scheduled 	for March 	14. 	1986.
On that date, 	the parties agreed that most, 	if not all, 	of 	the
facts were not 	in dispute, 	and 	that a 	decision could 	be
rendered 	from 	a 	stipulated 	record.
On April 	14. 	1986. 	after 	giving the 	parties 	an opportunity
to 	submit 	a 	stipulated 	record, 	the 	undersigned 	issued 	an Order
Re: 	Stipulated Record, 	listing the complete record, 	including
stipulations of 	facts.
The 	Charging Party 	filed 	a Motion 	to Augment 	the 	Stipulated
Record, 	to 	include an exhibit, 	on about May 20. 	1986.
Concurrently, 	it 	requested 	the 	exhibit's 	(Charging Party Exh.
9 ) , 	admission into evidence. 	The Motions 	to Augment and to
admit 	the 	document 	are 	hereby granted. N
	2
Post-hearing briefs, 	submitted 	by both parties, 	were
received 	by 	the 	Los 	Angeles 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board
on May 28 	and 	29, 	1986. 	The matter was 	then submitted 	for
proposed 	decision.
II. 	FACTS
The 	CFA 	is 	an employee 	organization within 	the 	meaning 	of
Government Code 	section 	3562(g) 	and 	is 	the 	exclusive
representative 	of 	a unit 	of 	faculty employees 	throughout 	the
California 	State University 	system. 	Respondent 	is 	an 	employer
within the meaning of Government Code 	section 	3562(h).
During the period 	of November 	14, 	1985 	to 	the date 	of 	the
issuance 	of 	the Complaint 	in this 	case. 	Respondent 	and Charging
2Respondent 	did 	not 	oppose 	the Motions.
3

Party were 	engaged 	in meeting 	and 	conferring 	pursuant 	to
Government Code 	section 	3570. 	Prior 	to 	that 	time, 	the CFA and
CSU had 	presented 	initial 	bargaining 	proposals 	on 	September 	17
and October 28. 	1985, 	respectively.
In preparation 	for 	the meeting and 	conferring 	process, 	CFA,
by 	letter 	dated October 	8. 	1985, 	requested 	that 	CSU provide 	the
Union with, 	inter 	alia, 	the following 	information:
All data, 	reports, correspondence, and
documents 	received from, 	and sent 	to, 	the
so-called 	twenty 	(20) 	comparative
institutions 	utilized 	by 	the 	California
Post-Secondary 	Education 	Commission 	(CPEC)
which 	the 	California 	State University
solicited 	and 	obtained 	for 	preparation 	and
utilization 	in 	the 	current 	budget 	cycle 	for
fiscal year 	1986-87.
By letter 	dated November 	5, 	1985. 	CSU responded 	to 	the
request 	and 	refused 	to 	turn 	over 	raw 	survey data 	received 	from
the 	20 	comparative 	institutions. 	Its 	stated 	reason 	for 	not
complying with 	the 	request 	for 	the 	raw data was 	that 	it 	(CSU)
had 	pledged 	to 	each 	of 	the 	institutions 	that 	the 	data 	would 	be
treated 	with 	strict 	confidentiality.
On about January 8, 	1986. 	after PERB's 	issuance of 	a
Complaint 	in this 	case, 	and as 	a result 	of 	informal 	settlement
negotiations, 	the CSU agreed 	to 	provide uncorrelated 	raw data,
omitting 	identification 	of 	the 	particular 	institutions.
A. 	The 	Salary 	Survey
The 	California 	Legislature 	created 	the 	California
Postsecondary Education Commission 	(CPEC) 	in part 	to 	assure
"effective 	utilization 	of 	public 	Postsecondary 	education
4

resources." 	Education Code 	section 66900. 	Recommendations 	of
CPEC 	are 	given 	"primary 	consideration 	in 	developing 	state
policy and 	funding 	for 	Postsecondary 	education." 	Ibid.
In order 	to 	enable 	the 	Legislature 	to make 	annual 	budgetary
determinations, 	specifically 	those 	related 	to 	faculty 	salaries
and 	fringe 	benefits 	for 	California 	institutions 	of 	higher
education, 	it 	(the Legislature) 	passed a 	resolution 	(Senate
Concurrent Resolution No. 	51 	- Relative 	to academic 	salaries
and welfare 	benefits) 	in 1965. 	charging the CSU with partial
responsibility 	for 	submitting 	to 	the 	Governor 	and 	the
Legislature 	an 	annual 	faculty 	salary 	and 	welfare 	benefits
report. 	Pursuant to 	the Resolution, 	the CSU must 	submit 	to
CPEC 	data 	on 	faculty 	salaries 	and 	the 	cost 	of 	fringe 	benefits
for 	its 	own 	institution 	and 	for 	a 	group 	of 	comparison 	colleges
and universities.
On the 	basis 	of 	these data, 	CPEC develops 	estimates 	of 	the
percentage 	changes 	in 	salaries 	and 	the 	cost 	of 	fringe 	benefits
required 	to 	attain 	parity with 	the 	comparison 	groups 	in 	the
following fiscal year. 	A report, 	with recommendations, 	is
submitted 	by CPEC 	to 	the 	Governor 	and 	the 	Legislature 	by
January 	1 	of 	each year. 	CPEC's 	report 	does 	not 	contain 	the 	raw
data 	collected 	by CSU.
At 	about 	the 	same 	time 	that 	the 	CSU 	conducts 	the 	salary
survey, 	its 	trustees 	present 	their 	proposed 	budget 	for 	the
fiscal year. 	Based 	in part 	on 	the 	data 	from the 	CPEC 	report
and 	the 	CSU Trustees' 	proposed 	budget, 	the Governor 	prepares 	a
5

proposed 	State 	budget.
Based 	in part on this 	report, 	the Legislature, 	through 	its
deliberative process, 	passes 	its Budget Act 	in which it
allocates 	to CSU monies 	earmarked 	specifically for, 	inter 	alia,
faculty salary 	increases. 	For 	example, 	the Budget Act 	of
June 	28, 	1985 	provided 	$9.9 	million 	for 	an average 	3.1 	percent
faculty 	salary 	increase 	effective 	January 	l. 	1986 	(Charging
Party Exhibit 2 ) .
Collective 	bargaining 	negotiations 	between 	CSU 	and 	CFA
proceed 	concurrently with 	the 	budget 	process 	and 	may 	continue
thereafter. 	The 	parties 	are not 	legally bound 	to 	agree 	on a
salary figure 	equal 	to 	the 	amount 	appropriated 	in 	the 	Budget
Act during June of 	each year. 	However, 	if 	the negotiated
salaries 	exceed 	the 	amounts 	appropriated 	in 	the Budget Act, 	the
CSU must 	take 	further 	affirmative 	steps 	to 	seek 	an 	additional
appropriation 	from 	the 	Legislature.
In performing 	its 	survey, 	CSU directly 	contacts 	each of 	the
20 	comparative 	institutions 	and 	solicits written 	responses 	on a
standard 	form which 	breaks 	down 	total 	faculty 	compensation 	by
rank. 	The 	names 	of 	individual 	professors 	and 	the 	identities 	of
individuals 	are 	not 	requested 	nor 	given. 	The 	data 	requested 	is
in 	the 	nature 	of 	either 	average 	salary 	or 	total 	salary outlay
by 	the University 	broken down 	by 	rank. 	(See Charging Party
Exhibit 	9.)
When 	soliciting 	the 	salary data. 	CSU typically 	sends 	out 	a
letter 	containing 	the 	following 	closing 	statement:
6

In closing. 	I want 	to 	thank you very much
for 	your 	assistance with 	our 	annual 	survey;
I 	also want 	to 	reiterate 	the 	assurance we
made 	last 	year 	that 	any 	salary 	information
you 	send will 	be 	treated 	as 	confidential.
In 	addition 	to 	the 	ministerial 	function of 	gathering 	the
raw salary data, 	CSU 	is 	involved 	in making recommendations 	to
CPEC 	on 	the 	methodology used 	by CPEC 	to 	arrive 	at 	its 	final
salary report 	to 	the 	Legislature 	and 	the Governor. 	In
September 	of 	1984, 	for 	example, 	the CSU urged 	changes 	in the
survey methodology, 	recommending 	that 	the 	methodology 	be
adjusted 	to 	reflect: 	(1) 	that California's 	economic 	conditions
vary significantly from the 	rest 	of 	the 	country; 	(2) 	the 	need
to 	revise 	selection of 	the 	20 	comparative 	institutions; 	and 	(3)
the 	impact 	of 	the 	salary 	study 	on 	the 	collective 	bargaining
3	process 	in determining 	salaries 	for 	CSU 	faculty. 3
B. 	The 	Survey's 	Relevance 	to Bargaining
The 	parties 	are 	in disagreement 	over 	the question of
whether 	the 	raw data 	(correlated 	by 	institution) 	is 	relevant
and/or 	necessary 	for 	the 	collective 	bargaining 	process. 	CSU
arrives 	at 	the 	conclusion that 	such 	is 	not 	relevant 	or
necessary 	principally 	by 	relying upon 	a 	statement 	made 	in 	the
declaration of 	Jacob Samit, 	Assistant vice 	chancellor 	of
employee relations. 	Specifically, 	Samit asserts 	that, 	in his
role 	at 	the 	negotiations 	table 	on behalf 	of 	CSU. 	neither 	he 	nor
3In 	conformity with 	these 	recommendations. 	CPEC
implemented 	revisions 	in 	the 	methodology 	and 	incorporated
significant 	changes 	in 	its 	1985-86 	report.
77

his 	colleagues 	have used 	the 	raw salary data 	from the 	20
comparative 	institutions, 	nor 	the data 	in the CPEC report. 	He
concludes 	that 	the 	statistics 	have 	never 	played 	a 	role 	in CSU's
negotiations with CFA, 	and 	that 	he 	has 	never 	seen the 	data.
By contrast, 	the Charging Party draws 	attention 	to 	CSU's
own documents 	which 	indicate 	that 	CSU has 	used 	the 	survey
results 	to 	justify 	its 	bargaining 	position during 	past
negotiations. 	During the parties' 	1984 wage reopener
negotiations. 	CFA and CSU negotiated 	to 	impasse 	over 	a 	salary
increase 	and 	proceeded 	through HEERA's 	impasse 	procedures 	and
into 	the 	factfinding 	process. 	During 	the factfinding
procedure. 	Jacob Samit. 	on behalf 	of CSU. 	submitted a
multi-page 	document 	purportedly 	to 	justify 	its 	proposal 	for 	a
9% 	salary 	increase. 	The 	relevant 	portion of 	this 	document
reads:
Criteria 	for 	CSU 	Position
Comparative 	Standards:
Ninety 	percent 	of 	the 	twenty CPEC 	comparison
institutions 	provided 	salary 	increases 	less
than 	the 	9% 	adjustment 	offered 	by 	the 	CSU.
(Exhibit 6-6).
The 	exhibit 	referenced 	in 	the 	above 	document was 	an 	internal
CSU memorandum 	from 	the 	CSU 	personnel 	analyst 	who 	administers
the 	salary survey to 	Caesar Naples, 	vice 	chancellor 	for 	faculty
and 	staff 	Relations. 	The 	exhibit 	contains 	selected 	correlated
data 	(identified 	by 	institution) 	from the 	1984-85 	salary
survey, 	setting 	forth the 	percentage 	salary 	increase 	in 	1984-85
88

at 	each of 	the 	20 	comparative 	institutions. 	(See 	Charging
Party 	Exhibit 	5.)
In viewing Jacob 	Samit's 	declaration referenced 	above,
together with the document 	( C P . 	Exh. 	5) 	that 	he 	submitted
during a previous 	round 	of 	negotiations, 	it appears 	that,
although 	CSU's 	negotiating 	team may 	not 	use 	the 	salary 	survey
data 	directly to 	compose 	specific 	salary proposals, 	it 	is
evident, 	and 	I 	find, 	that the salary survey is used, 	at
minimum, 	to 	justify bargaining 	stances 	on 	its 	previous
proposals.
In addition, 	there 	is 	evidence 	in the record 	that 	the vice
chancellor 	for 	faculty 	and 	staff 	Relations 	acknowledged 	the
relationship 	between 	the 	survey 	and 	collective 	bargaining
between CFA and CSU. 	In his 	letter 	of 	September 	25. 	1984 	to
Patrick Callan of 	CPEC, 	Caesar Naples wrote, 	in reference 	to
the 	annual 	survey:
We 	need 	to 	be 	aware 	of 	the 	impact 	of 	this
study 	on 	the 	collective 	bargaining process
in determining 	salaries 	for 	our 	faculty. 	In
an 	ideal world, 	we would 	have 	complete
congruence 	between the 	results 	of 	the 	salary
study, 	the 	appropriation from the Governor
and 	the 	Legislature 	and 	the 	salaries
bargained 	at 	the 	table. 	Unfortunately, 	this
ideal world 	is 	beyond 	our 	control.
It 	is 	imperative 	that we understand 	the
potential 	problems 	raised 	by a 	salary 	study
that 	could 	on 	the 	one 	hand 	raise 	the
expectations 	of 	the 	faculty 	beyond 	the
ability of 	the 	State 	to 	justify 	the 	funds,
or 	on 	the 	other 	hand 	could 	provide 	seeming
justification 	for 	too 	low an 	allocation 	from
the State. 	In the past, 	the Trustees and
the Legislature have, 	when necessary.
99

ignored 	the 	results 	of 	the 	salary 	study when
they deemed 	such 	action 	appropriate. 	This
is 	more difficult 	to do 	in the 	face 	of 	the
negotiating 	process 	which 	has 	an 	impasse
resolution 	procedure 	calling 	for
fact-finding. 	The CPEC report 	is 	certain to
be 	an 	important 	piece 	of 	evidence 	to 	be used
to undermine a 	legislative 	appropriation.
In light 	of 	the above, 	Samit's 	conclusion of 	the ultimate fact
that 	the 	salary 	survey data 	has 	never 	played 	a 	role 	in 	the
negotiations 	process 	must 	be 	rejected.
Aside 	from the 	survey's 	role 	at 	the 	negotiations 	table
itself, 	there 	is 	evidence 	that CSU has 	referenced 	its 	role 	in
the 	survey 	process 	in 	communicating 	its 	views 	to 	the 	bargaining
unit as 	a whole. 	For 	example, 	it has used official 	CSU
publications to 	discuss 	the 	survey 	in 	connection with 	its
(CSU's) 	efforts 	to 	secure wage equity, while disapproving 	of
CFA's 	failure 	to 	play an effective 	role 	in CPEC's 	process 	of
revising 	the 	list 	of 	comparative 	institutions. 	In 	similar
fashion, 	it 	has 	explained 	the 	timing of 	its 	salary proposals 	by
referring 	to 	the 	status 	of 	the 	salary and 	budget-setting
process, 	of which the survey is a part.
In a 	declaration submitted as 	a 	part 	of 	the 	record, 	Paul
Worthman, 	CFA's 	assistant manager, 	asserted 	that CFA's 	ability
to 	influence 	faculty salaries 	- 	given 	the 	role 	of 	the 	survey
data 	in the 	legislative 	budget process, 	in CSU's 	own budget
submission process, 	and 	at 	the 	collective 	bargaining 	table 	- 	is
a 	function of 	its 	ability to 	gain access 	to. 	analyze,
interpret, 	and 	present 	the 	raw comparative 	salary 	survey 	data
10

in a 	manner 	that would 	demonstrate 	alternative 	conclusions 	to
those 	reached 	by 	the 	CSU and 	endorsed 	by CPEC. 	He 	added 	that,
in order 	to 	negotiate meaningfully with CSU. 	the CFA must
perform 	its 	own analysis 	of 	the data 	in order 	to, 	inter 	alia,
make 	its 	bargaining 	proposals, 	propose 	the 	addition or 	deletion
of workload 	factors 	in the 	survey's 	computations, 	propose
changes 	in the 	survey methodology, 	and verify the 	source 	and
accuracy of 	the 	data 	that 	plays 	such a 	dominant 	role 	in 	the
ultimate 	salary 	and 	fringe 	benefit 	budget 	proposal 	made 	by 	the
CSU and 	in 	the 	budget 	allocation made 	by 	the 	Legislature 	and
the Governor. 	Without 	access 	to 	the data 	that 	is 	presented 	to
CPEC. 	the Governor 	and 	the Legislature 	for 	their 	state 	budget
deliberations, 	Worthman contends, 	the CFA will 	effectively have
no 	role whatsoever 	in the 	process 	of 	determining 	the 	level 	of
faculty 	salaries 	and 	fringe 	benefits, 	and 	thus 	no 	ability 	to
impact 	wages 	during 	collective 	bargaining.
III. 	DISCUSSION
Section 	3570 	of 	the HEERA 	imposes 	a 	duty upon 	higher
education employers 	to 	meet 	and 	confer with 	its 	employees'
exclusive 	representatives 	on 	all 	matters within 	the 	scope 	of
representation. 	This 	duty 	is 	analogous 	to 	the 	duty to 	bargain
imposed 	upon 	public 	school 	employers 	under 	the 	Educational
Employment 	Relations 	Act 	and 	upon 	private 	sector 	employers 	by
the National 	Labor 	Relations 	Act.4 Intertwined with 	that
4The 	Educational Employment 	Relations Act 	is 	codified 	at
11

statutory obligation 	is 	the 	duty on 	the 	part 	of 	the 	employer 	to
supply the 	employee 	organization, 	upon 	request, 	with 	sufficient
information 	to 	enable 	it 	to 	understand 	and 	intelligently
discuss 	the 	issues 	raised 	in bargaining. 	Morris, 	The
Developing Labor Law. 	BNA. 	1971. 	at pp. 	309—310. 	This duty is
based 	on the 	premise 	that, 	without 	such 	information, 	employee
organizations 	would 	be 	unable 	to 	properly 	perform 	their 	duties
as 	bargaining agents 	and. 	therefore, 	no 	bargaining could 	take
place. 	Ibid. 	An employer's 	refusal 	to 	supply 	information 	is
as much a violation of 	the duty to 	bargain as 	if 	it had 	failed
to meet 	and 	confer with 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	in good
faith. 	Ibid.
California Government Code 	section 3540, 	et 	seq. 	The National
Labor Relations Act 	is 	codified 	at 	29 U.S.C, 	section 151 	et 	seq
The 	exclusive 	representative 	is 	entitled 	to 	all 	information
that 	is 	necessary and 	relevant 	to 	collective 	bargaining.
Stockton Unified 	School District 	(1980) 	PERB Decision No. 	143.
The 	refusal 	to 	furnish 	requested 	information meeting 	these
standards 	is, 	in itself, 	an unfair practice, and may also
support 	an 	independent 	finding 	of 	surface 	bargaining. 	K-Mart
Corp. 	v. 	NLRB 	(9th Cir. 	1980) 	105 LRRM 2431.
The 	key 	inquiry 	is 	relevance. 	"If 	the
information 	requested 	has 	no 	relevance 	to
any collective 	bargaining need, 	a 	refusal 	to
furnish 	it 	could 	not 	be 	an unfair 	labor
practice." 	Ibid, 	citing San Diego Newspaper
Guild, 	etc. v. NLRB. 	548 F.2d 863. 	94 LRRM
2923 	(9th Cir. 	1977).
12

Relevance 	must 	be 	determined 	by a 	standard 	more 	liberal
than that normally applied 	in hearings, 	more akin to 	a
discovery-type 	standard. 	Ibid, 	citing 	San Diego Newspaper
Guild, 	supra. 	Information 	is 	not made 	irrelevant 	simply
because 	a union 	is 	able 	to 	negotiate 	a 	contract without 	the
requested data. 	NLRB v. 	Fitzgerald Mills 	Corp.. 	313 	F.2d 	260,
52 LRRM 2174 	(2d Cir. 	1963). 	enforcing 133 NLRB 877. 	48 LRRM
1745 	(1961). 	cert, 	denied. 	375 U.S. 	834. 	54 LRRM 2312 	(1963).
It 	is well 	settled 	that wage 	and 	related 	data 	concerning
bargaining unit 	employees 	is 	presumptively 	relevant 	and 	must 	be
provided upon request. 	Salem Village 	I. 	Inc. 	(1981) 	256 NLRB
No. 	141, 	107 LRRM 1364. 	A union 	is 	not 	required 	to 	show the
precise 	relevance 	of 	such 	information unless 	the 	employer 	has
submitted 	evidence 	sufficient 	to 	rebut 	the 	presumption 	of
relevance. 	Salem Village 	I. 	Inc.. 	supra; 	Grand 	Islander Health
Care Center. 	Inc. 	(1981) 	256 NLRB No. 	189, 	107 LRRM 1447; 	and
Stockton USD, 	supra, 	at p. 	13. 	If 	the 	information is of
potential 	or 	probable 	relevance, 	the 	party 	seeking production
of 	the 	data 	need 	not make 	a 	showing 	that 	the 	information 	is
clearly dispositive 	of 	the 	negotiations 	issues 	between 	the
parties. 	Salem Village I. 	Inc.. 	supra; 	Curtis-Wright
Corporation. 	347 F.2d at 69. 	59 LRRM 2433 	(3d. 	Cir. 	1965); 	and
Western Massachusetts Electric Company 	(1977) 	228 NLRB 	607. 	95
LRRM 1605.
13

As 	noted 	by Charging Party 	in 	its 	brief, 	the 	fact 	that 	the
wage 	data 	requested 	comes 	from outside 	the 	bargaining unit 	does
not 	preclude 	its 	production 	so 	long as 	the union can make 	a
showing of 	relevance. 	Winges 	Company. 	Inc. 	(1982) 	263 NLRB No.
21; 	General Electric Co. 	v. 	NLRB. 	466 F.2d 1177. 	81 LRRM 2303
(6th Cir. 	1972); 	Du Pont de Nemours 	(1985) 	276 NLRB No. 	34. 	120
LRRM 1108; 	K-Mart Corp. 	v. 	NLRB, 	supra; 	NLRB v. 	Pacific
Grinding Wheel 	Co. 	572 	F.2d 	1343. 	98 	LRRM 2246 	(9th Cir.
1978); 	and NLRB v. Western Electric. 	Inc. 	559 F.2d 1131. 	95
LRRM 	3230 	(8th Cir. 	1977) 	citing San Diego Newspaper 	Guild.
Local 95 V. NLRB. 	548 F.2d 863, 	867. 	94 LRRM 2923. 	2926 	(9th
Cir. 	1977). 	In both Winges Company. 	Inc.. 	supra, 	and General
Electric 	Co.. 	supra, 	the 	requested 	information deemed 	to 	be
relevant 	to 	collective 	bargaining 	by 	the NLRB 	and 	9th 	circuit
Court of Appeals, 	respectively, 	were 	surveys of wages 	paid 	by
area 	employers, 	the 	survey having 	been conducted 	by 	the
respondent 	employer 	in 	order 	to 	find 	out what 	competitor
employers 	were 	paying.
In 	light 	of 	the 	relevant 	legal 	precedents 	cited 	above, 	the
facts 	of 	this 	case warrant 	a 	finding 	that 	the 	correlated 	raw
survey data, 	obtained 	by CSU from other 	employers, 	is 	relevant
and 	necessary 	to 	the 	collective 	bargaining process, 	and 	is
relevant 	and 	necessary 	to 	CFA's 	ability 	to 	effectively
represent 	the unit 	in determining 	their 	wages. 	The 	facts 	that
CSU has 	supported 	its 	post-bargaining 	proposals 	by 	citing
specific 	examples 	taken from the 	survey, 	that 	it 	has
14

acknowledged 	that 	the 	survey would 	have 	an 	impact 	on 	collective
bargaining, 	and 	that 	it has used 	its 	involvement 	in 	the 	survey
process 	(along with CPEC) 	to 	communicate with unit 	employees 	in
order 	to 	justify 	its 	bargaining 	strategy, 	evince 	a 	significant
connection between 	the 	survey data, 	the 	negotiations 	process,
and 	the ultimate wages 	paid 	to 	the unit.
Relevance 	has 	also 	been 	shown 	independent 	of 	whether 	the
CSU 	bargaining 	team used 	the 	raw correlated 	data. 	Although
there 	is 	no 	guarantee 	that 	the 	survey 	results 	and 	CPEC's 	report
will 	determine 	the 	exact 	amount 	of 	wages 	received 	by unit
employees, 	it 	is 	clear 	that 	the 	survey data 	plays 	a 	significant
role 	in 	the wage-setting process. 	Although CSU 	is 	empowered 	to
agree, 	during collective bargaining, 	to a 	salary figure 	that
results 	in expenditures 	in excess 	of 	the 	amount 	budgeted 	by 	the
Governor 	and 	the Legislature, 	it must 	seek 	an additional
appropriation 	through 	the 	legislative 	mechanisms 	in 	order 	to
consummate 	that 	deal.
Possession 	of 	the 	survey data 	during 	the 	time 	the
wage-setting 	process 	involving 	the 	Legislature 	is 	under 	way
allows 	CFA to 	become 	meaningfully 	involved 	and 	enables 	it 	to 	be
in a 	position to 	effectively 	represent 	its 	members 	on areas
central 	to 	its 	mission as 	an employee 	organization. 	Possession
of 	the 	data 	at 	the 	bargaining 	table 	facilitates 	its 	ability 	to
verify CSU's 	representations 	and 	proposals 	and 	to 	explore 	and
present 	alternatives 	based 	on 	the 	same 	data 	CSU uses 	to 	justify
its 	position. 	After 	verifying 	the 	data 	and 	comparing 	it 	to
15

other 	available 	information. 	CFA would 	thus 	be 	able 	to
investigate 	specific 	factors 	-- 	such 	as 	geographic 	location,
workload 	adjustments, 	medical 	or 	law 	school 	programs 	— 	that
may 	or 	may not 	be 	reflected 	in 	the 	data 	supplied 	by 	a
particular 	school.
In essence, 	the uncorrelated data 	supplied 	by CSU, 	omitting
the 	names 	of 	the 	corresponding 	institutions, 	is 	not 	sufficient
to meet CFA's 	need 	for 	the data. 	In Winges Company. 	Inc..
supra, 	the union requested 	from the 	company, 	a 	survey of wages
paid 	by 	area 	employers 	in 	order 	to 	verify 	the 	assertion 	that
its 	salary 	offers were 	justified 	by 	its 	need 	to 	remain
competitive. 	The 	union was 	provided with 	the 	numerical 	results
of 	the 	survey not 	matched 	up with 	the 	names 	of 	the 	employers
which were 	identified 	only 	by 	letters 	of 	the alphabet, 	rather
than 	the 	actual 	name 	of 	the 	employer. 	The union 	testified 	that
the 	information 	in 	that 	form was 	of 	no 	value. 	the NLRB 	agreed
and 	ordered 	production, 	noting 	that 	the union was 	entitled 	to
the 	correlated 	information 	in 	order 	to 	check 	its 	accuracy.
In reaching 	the 	above 	conclusion, 	the NLRB 	relied 	in part
on General Electric 	Co.. 	supra, 	a 	case also 	cited 	by the CFA 	in
support 	of 	its 	case. 	In General Electric, 	the 	6th Circuit
Court 	of 	Appeal 	rejected 	an 	employer's 	contention 	that 	it was
not 	required 	to 	turn over 	its 	survey 	of 	wages 	paid 	by
competitor 	employers 	on the grounds, 	inter 	alia, 	that 	the
information was 	not 	relevant 	or 	necessary 	to 	bargaining. 	The
employer 	had 	supplied 	a 	chart 	that 	it 	had 	compiled 	with 	results
of 	its 	survey, 	but 	failed 	to 	link 	the 	individual 	companies
16

surveyed 	with 	the 	wage 	rates 	and 	classifications. 	The 	employer
refused 	to 	turn 	over 	the 	correlated 	data, 	and 	the 	Court
affirmed 	the NLRB's 	finding 	of 	a 	violation, 	noting:
We 	are 	not 	so 	naive 	as 	to 	believe 	that
merely 	because 	General 	Electric's
negotiators 	were 	careful 	not 	to 	mention 	the
wage 	surveys 	in 	discussions 	with 	the 	Union
they were 	thereby 	rendered 	irrelevant 	to 	the
Company's 	wage 	scale 	. . . 	or 	that 	the
Company 	did 	not 	rely 	upon 	them 	in 	assessing
its wage rates 	. 	. 	. 	Without the correlated
data 	in 	those 	cases, 	the 	Union 	could 	not
meaningfully 	analyze 	and 	discuss 	the 	results
of 	the Company's 	surveys. 	Generally, 	the
Union 	could 	not 	determine 	whether 	the 	jobs,
equipment, 	machines 	and 	types 	of work
included 	in 	the 	surveys 	were 	comparable 	to
those at General Electric's plants 	. 	. 	.
[S]ince 	the 	particular 	employers 	were 	not
linked 	to 	the wage 	rates 	of 	the 	jobs
surveyed, 	the 	Union 	could 	not 	determine
whether 	the 	reported 	rates 	were 	accurate,
whether 	the 	rates 	in 	the 	summary 	(a 	chart
giving 	the 	high, 	medium and 	low 	rate 	for
each 	job 	surveyed) 	included 	incentive
bonuses, 	and which of 	the 	employers 	reported
in which categories. 	(Id., 	81 LRRM 2308.)
In 	light 	of 	the 	above 	considerations, 	it 	must 	be 	determined
that 	the 	correlated 	data 	requested 	by 	CFA 	is 	relevant 	and
necessary 	to 	its 	proper 	performance 	of 	its 	statutory
responsibilities.
A. 	Confidentiality
The 	CSU 	has 	asserted 	that 	the 	correlated 	survey 	data 	is 	not
subject 	to 	disclosure 	to 	CFA because, 	prior 	to 	obtaining 	the
information, 	CSU made 	a 	promise 	of 	confidentiality. 	The 	only
direct 	evidence 	offered 	in 	support 	of 	its 	claim 	is 	a 	copy 	of 	a
letter 	sent 	by 	CSU 	to 	survey 	participants 	containing 	typical
17

language 	that 	the 	salary 	information would 	be 	treated 	as
confidential. 	It 	is 	not 	clear 	from the 	letter whether 	the
institutions' 	identities, 	as opposed to the data 	itself, 	would
be kept 	confidential. 	As 	noted above, 	the 	contents 	of 	the
survey have 	already 	been provided 	to 	the 	CFA. 	For 	purposes 	of
determining whether 	the 	data 	is 	privileged 	from disclosure 	on
the 	basis 	of 	confidentiality, 	it will 	be assumed 	that 	the
promise 	of 	confidentiality 	included 	the 	identities 	of 	the
surveyed 	employers.
Although Respondent 	concludes 	that 	revealing 	the 	identities
of 	the 	institutions 	may cause 	them to 	refuse 	to 	participate 	in
future surveys, 	there 	is 	no evidence 	to support 	that
conclusion. 	In his declaration (see Resp. 	Exh. 	A ) . 	Jacob
Samit. 	without 	a factual 	basis, 	similarly concludes 	that
I 	am also 	informed 	that 	to 	disclose 	the 	data
in 	its 	raw form would 	breach 	that 	promise
[of 	confidentiality] 	and would 	severely
compromise 	the 	prospects 	of 	obtaining 	such
data 	in the 	future.
There 	is 	no 	direct 	evidence 	in the 	record 	from which 	it 	can 	be
determined 	that 	disclosure 	of 	the 	correlated 	data 	would
undermine 	CSU's 	efforts 	in 	conducting 	its 	annual 	survey. 	Nor
is 	there evidence 	that, 	as 	a practical matter. 	CSU must make
the 	promise 	in order 	to 	secure 	the data.
Similarly, 	there 	is no evidence 	that CSU is 	legally
required 	or 	advised 	to make 	a 	promise 	of 	confidentiality.
Moreover, 	no 	evidence was 	offered 	to 	indicate 	that 	any
participating 	institution 	requested 	that 	its 	data 	be 	kept
18

confidential.5 CSU's 	pledge 	of 	confidentiality was
voluntarily 	given.
The 	Charging Party correctly points 	out 	that, 	where 	a
union 	has 	established 	the 	relevance 	and 	need 	for 	particular
information, 	the 	burden of 	proof 	is 	on the 	party holding 	the
information 	to 	show 	that 	disclosure would 	compromise 	the 	right
of 	privacy. 	Modesto 	City 	Schools 	and High 	School 	District
(1985) 	PERB Decision No. 	479. 	citing Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company 	(1982) 	261 NLRB No. 	2 	[109 LRRM 1345];
Press Democrat Publishing Company v. 	NLRB. 	629 	F.2d 	1320 	[105
LRRM 3046] 	(9th Cir. 	1980); 	Johnson v. Winter 	(1982) 	127
Cal.App.3d 	435. 	The 	CSU has 	failed 	to 	carry 	its 	burden 	both
with regard 	to 	its 	factual 	showing, 	as noted above, 	and with
regard 	to 	its 	legal 	argument.
The Respondent 	relies 	primarily upon Detroit Edison Co. 	v.
NLRB 	(1979) 	440 U.S. 	301 	[100 LRRM 2728] 	to support 	its 	claim
of 	confidentiality. 	In that 	case, 	the Supreme Court 	ruled 	that
an 	employer 	was 	not 	required 	to 	supply a 	union with 	copies 	of
information 	about 	employee 	aptitude 	tests 	in order 	to 	prepare
for 	arbitration of 	a 	grievance.
The 	facts 	in Detroit Edison 	are 	distinguishable 	from 	those
in this 	case. 	In Detroit Edison, 	the 	information requested
5It 	is 	noted 	that 	the 	data 	supplied 	by 	each 	institution
is. 	itself, 	a summary of 	salary expenditures by category, 	and
is 	not 	identified 	by employee, 	nor 	broken down 	into 	individual
salaries. 	They are 	gross 	figures. 	See 	Charging Party Exhibit
9.
19

included 	actual 	employee 	answer 	sheets 	and 	the 	scores 	linked
with the 	names 	of 	each 	individual. 	The 	aptitude 	tests 	had 	been
used 	by the 	employer 	to 	screen 	job applicants. 	The 	employer
argued 	that 	the validity of 	the 	test 	depended 	on 	its 	secrecy
and 	that 	a 	breach of 	a 	promise 	of 	confidentiality to 	the
examinees would 	cause 	potential 	embarrassment 	and 	harassment 	of
6	some of 	the examinees. 6
Relying on these 	facts, 	the Court 	held 	that 	the 	sensitive
nature 	of 	the 	test 	information need 	not 	be 	disclosed, 	stating:
Under 	these 	circumstances, 	any possible
impairment 	of 	the 	function of 	the Union 	in
processing 	the 	grievances 	of 	employees 	is
more 	than 	justified 	by 	the 	interests 	served
in 	conditioning 	the 	disclosure 	of 	the 	test
scores 	upon the 	consent 	of 	the very
employees whose 	grievance 	is 	being
processed. 	The 	burden on the Union 	in 	this
instance 	is minimal. 	The Company's 	interest
in 	preserving 	employee 	confidence 	in 	the
testing 	program 	is well 	founded. 	(Id, 	100
LRRM 	2735.)
In the 	case 	at 	hand, 	the privacy 	interests 	of 	individual
employees 	are 	not 	implicated. 	The 	information CFA 	seeks 	does
not, 	and 	cannot 	possibly, 	reveal 	data 	about 	individual
employees.
The 	conclusion that 	the 	survey data 	is 	not 	protected 	from
disclosure 	is 	supported 	by the Courts 	and 	the NLRB. 	In General
Electric, 	supra, 	the employer made an identical 	claim of
20
66The	The 	Company 	had 	presented 	evidence 	that 	disclosure 	of
individual 	scores 	had 	in 	the 	past 	resulted 	in 	the 	harassment 	of
some 	lower-scoring examinees who had, 	as 	a 	result, 	left 	the
company. 	Id., 	100 LRRM 273 5.

confidentiality 	in connection with 	its 	refusal 	to 	provide
salary survey data 	correlated 	by 	employer. 	the 	Court 	rejected
the claim, 	explaining that:
Confidentiality 	of 	the 	survey 	data 	cannot
stand 	as 	a 	defense 	to 	requiring General
Electric 	to 	produce 	the 	correlated 	data.
General 	Electric 	voluntarily 	agreed 	with 	the
employers 	it 	surveyed 	that 	the 	correlated
data would 	not 	be 	disclosed 	to 	third
parties. 	Then, 	in the proceedings 	before
the Board, 	the Company contended 	that 	such
agreements 	are 	sufficient 	to vitiate 	its
responsibilities 	under 	the Act. 	We
disagree. 	It 	is well 	established 	that 	"the
alleged 	confidentiality 	of 	relevant 	economic
data 	needed 	for 	informed 	bargaining 	is 	no
defense." 	N.L.R.B, 	v. 	Arkansas Rice Growers
ASSOC. 	400 F.2d 565. 	567. 	69 LRRM 2119 	(8th
Cir. 	1968); accord N.L.R.B, v. Frontier
Homes Corp.. 	371 F.2d 974. 	979. 	64 LRRM 2320
(8th Cir. 	1967); 	Curtiss-Wright 	Corp. 	v.
N.L.R.B., 	supra, 	347 F.2d at 71, 	59 LRRM
2433.
Employers 	cannot 	be 	allowed 	to 	collect wage
information on a 	pledge 	of 	confidentiality
to 	parties 	outside 	the 	bargaining unit 	under
these 	circumstances, 	then turn around 	and
deny 	the Union 	the 	use 	of 	that 	data 	based 	on
its voluntary pledge. 	General 	Electric
makes much of 	its 	argument 	that 	if we
require 	the 	names 	of 	the 	area 	employers 	to
be 	correlated with 	the wage 	data, 	they would
refuse 	to 	supply 	such 	information 	to 	General
Electric 	in the 	future. 	The 	simple 	answer
to 	that 	is 	that 	there 	are 	other ways 	to
obtain 	the 	same 	information without
violating the employers' 	confidence.
General 	Electric 	and 	the 	Union 	could 	agree
upon a 	neutral 	third 	party 	to 	take 	the
survey whereupon 	each would 	be 	given 	the
same 	quantity 	of 	wage 	data 	and 	the 	secrecy
of 	the 	individual 	employers' 	data would 	be
maintained. 	This would 	place 	the 	parties 	on
equal 	footing 	at 	the 	bargaining 	table,
without 	depriving 	them of 	relevant 	wage
information. 	Id... 	81 LRRM 2309.
21

Similarly, 	in Winges Company. 	Inc.. 	supra, 	the employer offered
testimony that 	it 	had 	refused 	to 	supply 	its wage 	survey 	to 	the
union because 	it was 	able 	to 	get 	the 	information only by
promising 	its 	competitors 	that 	the 	results 	would 	be 	held
confidential. 	The 	Board 	questioned 	the Respondent's 	claim 	of
confidentiality 	and 	held 	that 	the 	union was 	entitled 	to 	the
information 	in order 	to 	check 	its 	accuracy 	inasmuch 	as 	it was
related 	to 	ongoing 	negotiations 	over 	wages.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Based upon the 	foregoing, 	it 	is 	determined 	that 	the
correlated 	raw 	salary 	survey 	information 	CFA 	requested 	from 	CSU
on about October 	8, 	1985 	is 	relevant 	and 	necessary for
collective 	bargaining 	between 	the 	parties 	and 	for 	fulfilling
CFA's 	statutory obligation 	to 	represent unit 	employees. 	By
refusing to 	supply the 	information. 	CSU has 	breached 	its 	duty
to meet 	and 	confer with 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	(CFA),
thus violating HEERA section 3571(c) 	and, 	derivatively. 	3571(b)
and 	3571(a).
V. 	REMEDY
In cases where 	there 	has 	been a 	finding of 	a violation of
the duty 	to 	supply 	requested 	information, 	the 	appropriate
remedy 	is 	to 	order 	the 	offending 	party 	to 	cease 	and 	desist 	from
refusing 	to 	supply 	the 	information 	and 	to 	order 	it 	to 	produce
such 	information upon 	request. 	Stockton Unified 	School
District 	(1980) 	PERB Decision No. 	143; 	Modesto City Schools and
High school District 	(1985) 	PERB Decision No. 	479. 	Hence. 	CSU
22

will 	be 	ordered 	to 	cease 	and 	desist 	from failing 	to 	provide 	CFA
with requested, 	raw, 	correlated 	salary data 	obtained 	by CSU
during 	its 	annual 	survey described 	above. 	CSU 	is 	ordered 	to
additionally 	provide 	CFA with 	the 	names 	of 	the 	institutions
that 	correspond 	to 	each portion of 	the 	incomplete 	survey data
identified 	in Charging 	Party's 	Exhibit 	9.
It 	is 	also 	appropriate 	that 	the Respondent 	be 	ordered 	to
post 	a 	notice 	incorporating 	the 	terms 	of 	this 	order. 	The
notice 	should 	be 	subscribed 	by 	an 	authorized 	agent 	of 	the
Employer 	indicating 	that 	it will 	comply with 	the 	terms
thereof. 	The notice 	shall 	not 	be 	reduced 	in size, 	defaced,
altered 	or 	covered 	by any material. 	Posting 	such a 	notice will
provide 	employees 	with 	notice 	that 	the 	CSU has 	acted 	in an
unlawful 	manner 	and 	is 	being 	required 	to 	cease 	and 	desist 	from
this 	activity. 	It 	effectuates 	the 	purposes 	of 	the Act 	that
employees 	be 	informed 	of 	the 	resolution 	of 	the 	controversy 	and
will 	announce 	the Repondent's 	readiness 	to 	comply with 	the
ordered 	remedy. 	See 	Placerville Union School 	District 	(1978)
PERB Decision No. 	69; 	Pandol 	and Sons v. 	Agricultural Labor
Relations Bd. 	(1979) 	98 Cal.App.3d 580, 	587; NLRB v. 	Express
Publishing Co. 	(1941) 	312 U.S. 	426 	[8 LRRM 415].
VI. 	PROPOSED ORDER
Upon 	the 	foregoing 	findings 	of 	fact 	and 	conclusions 	of 	law,
and 	the 	entire 	record 	in this 	case, 	and 	pursuant 	to Government
Code 	section 3563.3, 	it 	is 	hereby ORDERED that 	the Respondent,
23

its 	agents 	and 	representatives 	shall:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
(1) 	Failing and 	refusing to 	provide 	the 	California
Faculty Association with 	correlated 	raw 	salary 	data 	obtained 	by
the 	California 	State 	University 	from 	higher 	educational
institutions 	pursuant 	to 	its 	annual 	survey.
B. 	TAKE 	THE 	FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS 	DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE 	THE 	POLICIES 	OF 	THE 	EDUCATIONAL 	EMPLOYMENT
RELATIONS ACT:
(1) 	Within 	ten 	10 workdays 	from service 	of 	the 	final
decision 	in 	this matter, 	furnish the 	California Faculty
Association with 	the 	name 	of 	the 	institution 	that 	corresponds
to 	each 	of 	the 	documents 	of 	the 	incomplete 	salary 	survey
identified 	in 	the 	record 	of 	this 	case 	as 	Charging Party
Exhibit 	9.
(2) 	Sign and 	post 	copies 	of 	the 	attached Notice marked
"Appendix" 	in conspicuous 	places where 	notices 	to 	employees 	are
customarily placed 	at 	its 	headquarters 	office 	and 	at 	each 	of
its 	campuses 	for 	a 	period 	of 	thirty 	(30) 	consecutive workdays.
Reasonable 	steps 	shall 	be 	taken to 	insure 	that 	the 	notice 	is
not 	reduced 	in size, 	altered, 	defaced 	or 	covered 	by any other
material.
(3) 	Upon issuance of 	a final decision, 	make written
notification of 	the 	actions 	taken 	to 	comply with 	this 	orders 	to
the 	Los 	Angeles 	Regional 	Director 	of 	the 	Public 	Employment
Relations 	Board 	in 	accordance with 	his 	instructions.
24

Pursuant 	to California Administrative Code, 	title 	8.
part 	III. 	section 32305. 	this Proposed Decision and Order 	shall
become final 	on August 	18, 	1986, 	unless a 	party files 	a 	timely
statement 	of 	exceptions. 	In accordance with PERB Regulations,
the 	statement 	of 	exceptions 	should 	identify by page 	citation or
exhibit number 	the portions 	of 	the record, 	if 	any, 	relied upon
for 	such exceptions. 	See California Administrative Code, 	title
8, 	part 	III. 	section 32300. 	Such statement of exceptions and
supporting 	brief 	must 	be 	actually 	received 	by 	the 	Public
Employment 	Relations 	Board 	itself 	at 	the 	headquarters 	office 	in
Sacramento 	before 	the close 	of 	business 	(5:00 	p.m.) 	on
August 	18. 	1986, 	or 	sent by telegraph or 	certified 	or Express
United 	States 	mail, 	postmarked 	not 	later 	than 	the 	last 	day 	for
filing 	in order 	to 	be 	timely filed. 	See 	California
Administrative Code, 	title 8. 	part 	III, 	section 32135. 	Any
statement 	of 	exceptions 	and 	supporting 	brief 	must 	be 	served
concurrently with 	its 	filing 	upon 	each 	party 	to 	this
proceeding. 	Proof 	of 	service 	shall 	be 	filed with 	the Board
itself. 	See California Administrative Code, 	title 8, 	part 	III.
section 	32300 and 	32305.
Dated: 	July 29, 	1986
MANUEL M. 	MELGOZA
Administrative Law Judge
25