Temple City Unified School District (PERB 1110E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
TEMPLE CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
CALIFORNIA 	SCHOOL 	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION AND 	ITS 	CHAPTER 	105,
Exclusive 	Representative,
and
TEAMSTERS 	LOCAL 495,
Petitioner.
)
) 	Case No. 	LA-S-122
(LA-R-236)
PERB Decision No. 	1110
June 22, 	1995
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances: 	Parker, 	Covert 	& Chidester by Julie A. 	McCloskey,
Attorney, 	for Temple City Unified School District; 	California
School 	Employees Associaiton by Arnie R. 	Braafladt, 	Staff
Attorney, 	for California School 	Employees Association and 	its
Chapter 105; 	Wohlner, 	Kaplon, 	Phillips, 	Young & Barsh by John A.
Siqueiros, 	Attorney, 	for Teamsters Local 495.
Before Carlyle, 	Garcia and Johnson, 	Members.
DECISION
JOHNSON, 	Member: 	This 	case 	is before the Public Employment
Relations 	Board 	(PERB 	or Board) 	on exceptions 	filed by the Temple
City Unified School 	District 	(District) 	and 	the 	California 	School
Employees Association and its 	Chapter 105 	(CSEA) 	to a PERB
hearing 	officer's 	proposed decision 	(attached) 	to grant 	a
severance petition which was 	filed by Teamsters 	Local 	495
(Teamsters).
The Board has 	reviewed 	the 	entire 	record 	in this 	case,
including the proposed decision, 	transcripts, 	the District's and
)

CSEA's appeals, 	and the Teamsters' 	response thereto. 	The Board
finds 	the hearing officer's 	findings 	of 	fact and conclusions 	of
law to be 	free 	of 	prejudicial 	error and adopts 	them as 	the
decision of 	the Board itself.
BACKGROUND
The 	Teamsters 	seek to 	carve 	a group 	of 	operations-support
services 	employees 	from a wall-to-wall 	unit 	of 	approximately
200 	classified employees 	of 	the District 	who are 	currently
represented by CSEA. 	The 	petition was 	opposed by both CSEA
and the District.
In support 	of 	its 	severance petition, 	the Teamsters 	cite
PERB precedent 	and 	the 	fact 	that 	during 	the past 	few years
CSEA has 	not 	adequately represented 	these 	employees' 	interests.
The Teamsters 	contend that 	the District's 	cut backs
disproportionately 	impacted the 	group of 	employees. 	The
Teamsters 	also assert 	that 	the District 	cannot 	demonstrate by
substantial 	evidence 	the detrimental 	effect 	another bargaining
unit 	would have 	on 	the District's 	efficiency of 	operations.
In response to the Teamsters, 	CSEA contends 	that members
of 	the 	operations-support 	services 	employees 	actively participate
as 	officers 	and members 	of 	the negotiating 	team. 	The Teamsters'
petition, 	according to CSEA, 	would disrupt a long, 	stable and
productive 	17-year negotiating 	history 	that 	exists 	between 	them
and the District. 	CSEA asserts 	that 	the primary motivator behind
the 	initiation 	of 	the 	severance petition was 	a disgruntled
member, 	who lost CSEA's presidential 	election by one vote, 	and
22

that 	person 	should not be 	rewarded with 	the 	creation of 	a
separate bargaining unit.
The District 	supports 	CSEA's 	position. 	The District
contends 	that 	the presumption 	in 	favor of 	the 	type 	of units 	in
Sweetwater Union High School District 	(1976) 	EERB Decision No. 	41
(Sweetwater) 	is 	rebuttable and has been met. 	This 	contention is
based on the parties' 	lengthy negotiating history, 	the 	community
of 	interest 	factors 	shared between 	the 	operations-support
services and other employees 	in the wall-to-wall unit, 	and
the 	impact 	another bargaining unit 	will 	have 	on a 	small 	school
district.
HEARING OFFICER'S 	PROPOSED DECISION
The hearing officer, 	addressing the 	issue 	of whether
the proposed unit 	should be 	severed, 	cited Sweetwater 	for 	the
establishment 	of 	three 	classified units 	which 	PERB 	now 	considers
"presumptively appropriate." 	Those 	three units are: 	(l)
instructional aides, 	(2) 	office-technician and business services,
and 	(3) 	operations-support services.
Relying on PERB precedent, 	the hearing 	officer 	stated that
a 	strong 	community 	of 	interest 	normally 	exists 	among 	employees 	in
each of 	these 	three groups, 	thus 	shifting the burden to the party
seeking a unit 	or units 	different 	from the 	Sweetwater unit
configuration. 	Neither party contested the 	fact 	that 	the unit
sought by 	the Teamsters 	is 	a 	type 	of unit 	found 	in Sweetwater.
prior
3
1Prior 	to January 1, 	1978, 	PERB was known as the Educational
Employment Relations Board 	(EERB).
3

As such, 	according to the hearing officer, 	the Sweetwater
presumption 	is 	applicable 	and must 	be 	rebutted by 	demonstrating
that 	the wall-to-wall 	unit 	is more 	appropriate 	than a 	type 	of
unit 	found 	in Sweetwater.
To determine whether the presumption was 	rebutted, 	the
hearing 	officer weighed the 	community of 	interest, 	the 	efficiency
of 	the District's 	operations 	and 	the 	established practices 	of 	the
District. 	In addition, 	the hearing officer also considered the
negotiating history of 	CSEA and 	the District. 	The 	hearing
officer 	rejected 	CSEA's 	disgruntled 	employee 	conjecture 	and
granted the Teamsters' 	severance petition based on CSEA's 	and
the District's 	failure 	to 	overcome 	the 	Sweetwater presumption.
APPEAL
On appeal, 	the District 	and CSEA raise 	exceptions previously
considered by the hearing officer 	in the proposed decision. 	The
only 	relevant 	exceptions 	on appeal 	concern the 	Sweetwater
presumption. 	Both 	the District 	and CSEA contend 	that 	the
hearing 	officer 	erred 	in 	finding 	that 	the presumption 	is 	with
the proposed Sweetwater unit. 	The District 	contends 	that 	it 	is
the Teamsters 	and not 	the District 	and CSEA who must 	rebut 	the
presumption. 	The 	contentions 	are based on the 	fact 	that 	the
existing unit 	has 	a 	long-established history and 	therefore, 	the
burden 	is 	on 	the proposed unit 	rather 	than an existing unit 	to
rebut 	the 	Sweetwater presumption.
The 	Teamsters 	reject 	the District's 	and CSEA's 	arguments 	and
A4

supports 	the hearing officer's 	findings 	that 	there 	is 	ample
evidence 	that 	the District 	and CSEA failed 	to 	overcome 	the
Sweetwater 	presumption.
DISCUSSION
Section 3545(a) 	of 	the Educational 	Employment Relations Act
(EERA)2 sets 	forth the 	following criteria to be 	considered in
determining 	the 	appropriate unit:
In each case where 	the appropriateness 	of
the unit 	is an issue, 	the board shall 	decide
the 	question on the basis 	of 	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.
Sweetwater 	is 	a pivotal 	case 	to 	consider when determining 	the
appropriateness 	of 	a unit. 	In Sweetwater the Board established
three 	presumptively appropriate 	units 	for 	classified 	employees:
(1) 	instructional aides, 	(2) 	office-technician and business
services, 	and 	(3) 	operations-support services unit. 	As the
hearing officer 	correctly 	found, 	the burden then shifts 	to 	the
party 	seeking a unit 	or units 	different 	than the 	Sweetwater unit
configuration. 	Therefore, 	either the District 	or CSEA must
overcome 	the 	standards 	articulated 	in 	Sweetwater and demonstrate
that 	a wall-to-wall 	unit 	is more appropriate 	than a 	Sweetwater
configuration. 	(San Juan Unified School District 	(1995) 	PERB
Decision No. 	1082.) 	They failed to do this. 	Neither the
2EERA is 	codified at 	Government 	Code 	section 3540 	et 	seq.
5

District 	nor 	CSEA have 	overcome 	the 	Sweetwater presumption 	that
an operations-support 	services 	unit 	is 	a 	PERB-preferred unit 	as
compared 	to 	the 	wall-to-wall 	unit 	the District 	and CSEA
voluntarily 	created.
For essentially the 	same 	reasons, 	we 	find 	that 	the 	severance
petition of 	the Teamsters 	should be granted.
CONCLUSION
We 	find 	that 	the District 	and CSEA failed 	to 	show that
a wall-to-wall 	unit 	of 	classified 	employees 	would be more
appropriate 	than 	the 	proposed unit 	of 	operations-support 	services
employees and, 	thus, 	have 	failed to overturn the Sweetwater
presumption. 	We also 	find that 	the hearing 	officer was
correct 	in determining that 	the 	type 	of unit 	in Sweetwater 	is
presumptively appropriate 	and 	that 	the burden 	is 	on CSEA and 	the
District 	to 	establish 	that 	the wall-to-wall 	unit 	presently 	in
existence is more appropriate. 	Therefore, 	under the specific
facts 	of 	this 	case, 	the Board finds 	that a new unit 	comprised
of 	the 	specified 	classifications 	is 	an appropriate unit 	for
representation purposes 	under 	EERA.
ORDER
Based on the adopted findings 	of 	fact, 	conclusions 	of 	law,
the discussion herein and the entire 	record 	in this 	case, 	the
Teamsters's 	petition 	for 	severance 	of 	a unit 	consisting 	of
employees 	working 	in 	food 	services 	and maintenance 	and 	operations
is 	hereby GRANTED.
66

The Board 	finds 	the 	following unit 	is 	appropriate 	for
meeting 	and negotiating, 	provided an 	employee 	organization
becomes 	the 	exclusive representative:
Unit Title: 	Operations 	Support
Shall 	Include: 	The 	classifications 	of:
Cafeteria Assistant 	I
Cafeteria Assistant 	II
Cafeteria Assistant 	III
Cafeteria Manager 	I
Cafeteria Manager 	II
Custodian
Head 	Custodian 	I
Head 	Custodian 	II
Head 	Custodian 	III
Athletic 	Equipment 	Manager
Campus 	Supervisor
Groundskeeper 	I
Groundskeeper 	II
Groundskeeper 	III
Groundskeeper/Repairperson
Utility Worker
Maintenance 	Worker 	II/General
Food 	Services 	Delivery Driver
Storekeeper Delivery Driver
Head 	Storekeeper
Facilities 	Team Leader
Shall 	Exclude: 	All 	other employees, 	including management,
supervisory and 	confidential 	employees.
Within 	10 	days 	following 	issuance of 	this Decision, 	the
Temple 	City Unified School 	District 	shall 	post 	on all 	employee
bulletin boards 	in each 	facility of 	the 	employer 	in which members
of 	the unit described in the decision are employed, 	a copy of 	the
Notice 	of Decision attached hereto as 	an Appendix. 	The Notice
of Decision shall 	remain posted 	for a minimum of 	15 	workdays.
Reasonable 	steps 	shall be 	taken to 	insure 	that 	the Notice 	is 	not
reduced in size, 	defaced, 	altered or covered by any material.
The 	employee 	organizations 	whose names 	shall 	appear 	on
the ballot 	are 	California 	School 	Employees Association and
its Chapter 105, 	and Teamsters Local 495, 	unless one of these
organizations 	informs 	the 	regional 	director in writing, 	within
15 	days after the employer posts 	the Notice of Decision, 	that 	it
77

does not 	desire 	to participate 	in the election. 	The 	regional
director 	shall 	conduct 	an election at 	the 	end of 	the posting
period in such unit 	if: 	(1) 	both of 	the above-named employee
organizations desire to participate 	in the election, 	or 	(2) 	only
one 	organization desires 	to participate 	and 	the 	employer does 	not
grant 	voluntary 	recognition.
The 	Board hereby ORDERS 	that 	this 	case be 	REMANDED 	to 	the
San 	Francisco 	Regional 	Director 	for proceedings 	consistent 	with
this decision.
Members 	Carlyle 	and Garcia 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
8
8

APPENDIX NOTICE 	TO 	EMPLOYEES
POSTED 	BY ORDER OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
An agency of 	the State of 	California
CASE: 	TEMPLE 	CITY UNIFIED 	SCHOOL DISTRICT
Case No. 	LA-S-122 	(R-236)
PERB Decision No.
EMPLOYER: 	Temple 	City Unified 	School 	District
9516 	Longden Avenue
Temple City, 	CA 	91780
(818) 	285-2111
EMPLOYEE 	ORGANIZATION
PARTIES 	TO 	PROCEEDING:
California 	School 	Employees 	Association
and 	its 	Chapter 	105
1100 	Corporate 	City Drive
Monterey Park, 	CA 	91754
(213) 	881-9333
Teamsters 	Local 	495
1616 W. 	Ninth Street, 	Room 206
Los Angeles, 	CA 	90015
(213) 	387-6106
FINDINGS:
The 	Board 	finds 	the 	following unit 	is 	appropriate 	for
meeting and negotiating, 	provided an 	employee 	organization
becomes 	the 	exclusive 	representative:
Unit Title: 	Operations 	Support
Shall 	Include: 	The classifications 	of:
Cafeteria Assistant 	I
Cafeteria Assistant 	II
Cafeteria Assistant 	III
Cafeteria Manager 	I
Cafeteria Manager 	II
Custodian
Head 	Custodian 	I
Head 	Custodian 	II
Head 	Custodian 	III
Athletic 	Equipment 	Manager
Campus 	Supervisor
Groundskeeper 	I
Groundskeeper 	II
Groundskeeper 	III
Groundskeeper/Repairperson
Utility 	Worker
Maintenance 	Worker 	II/General
Food 	Services 	Delivery Driver
Storekeeper 	Delivery 	Driver
Head 	Storekeeper
Facilities 	Team Leader
Shall 	Exclude: 	All 	other employees, 	including management,
supervisory and 	confidential 	employees.

Pursuant 	to PERB Regulation section 33450, 	within 10 	days
following issuance of this Notice of Decision, 	the Temple City-
Unified School 	District 	shall 	post 	on all 	employee bulletin
boards 	in each 	facility of 	the 	employer 	in which members 	of
the unit 	described 	in the decision are 	employed, 	a 	copy of 	this
Notice of Decision. 	The Notice of Decision shall 	remain posted
for a minimum of 	15 	workdays. 	Reasonable steps 	shall be 	taken to
insure that 	the Notice is not 	reduced in size, 	defaced, 	altered
or 	covered by any material.
The 	employee 	organizations whose names 	shall 	appear on
the ballot 	are 	California School 	Employees Association and
its Chapter 105 and Teamsters Local 	495, 	unless one of 	these
organizations 	informs 	the 	regional 	director in writing, 	within
15 days after the employer posts 	the Notice of Decision, 	that
it does not desire 	to participate 	in the election. 	The 	regional
director 	shall 	conduct an election at 	the 	end of 	the posting
period in such unit 	if: 	(1) 	both of 	the above-named employee
organizations desire to participate 	in the election, 	or 	(2) 	only
one 	organization desires 	to participate 	and 	the 	employer does 	not
grant 	voluntary 	recognition.
Dated: 	TEMPLE 	CITY UNIFIED 	SCHOOL
DISTRICT
By Authorized 	Agent
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 REDUCED 	IN SIZE, 	DEFACED, 	ALTERED OR COVERED BY ANY
MATERIAL.
22

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS 	BOARD
TEMPLE 	CITY UNIFIED 	SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
CALIFORNIA 	SCHOOL 	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION AND 	ITS 	CHAPTER 	105,
Exclusive 	Representative,
and
TEAMSTERS 	LOCAL 495,
Petitioner.
Representation
Case No. 	LA-S-122
(LA-R-236)
PROPOSED 	DECISION
(12/16/94)
Appearances; 	Parker, 	Covert 	& Chidester by Mark S. 	Williams and
Julie A. 	McCloskey, 	Attorneys 	for Temple 	City Unified School
District; 	Arnie Braafladt, 	Attorney, 	for California School
Employees Association and its Chapter 105, 	Chapter 105; 	Wohlner,
Kaplon, 	Phillips, 	Young & Barsh by Pamela Ann Conley, 	Attorney
for Teamsters 	Local 	495.
Before Roger Smith, 	Hearing Officer.
PROCEDURAL 	HISTORY
On March 22, 	1994, 	Teamsters Local 495 	(Teamsters) 	filed a
severance petition with 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board
(PERB 	or 	Board).1 That 	petition seeks 	to 	sever a group of
employees working in food services, 	grounds, 	maintenance,
custodial 	and 	security 	out 	of 	an 	existing wall-to-wall 	classified
1See PERB Regulations 	33700 	and 33710. 	PERB 	regulations 	are
codified at 	California Code of Regulations, 	title 	8, 	section
31001 	et 	seq.
This proposed decision has been appealed to the
Board itself and may not be cited as precedent
unless the decision and its rationale have been
adopted by the Board.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
___ 	)

unit 	at 	the Temple City Unified School District 	(District). 	This
unit 	is 	currently 	represented by 	California 	School 	Employees
Association and its 	Chapter 105 	(CSEA). 	The petition was 	found
to have 	been 	timely 	filed and have 	sufficient 	proof 	of 	support 	by
PERB's 	San Francisco Regional 	Director. 	CSEA opposed the
petition. 	The District 	initially took no position as 	to 	the
petition, 	but 	later also 	opposed the petition. 	A settlement
conference held on July 14, 	1994, 	was unsuccessful.
A hearing was 	conducted on September 13, 	14 and 15, 	1994. 	A
transcript was 	prepared. 	Briefs were 	submitted and the 	case was
submitted for decision on November 	7, 	1994.
FINDINGS 	OF 	FACT
The District 	is 	a public 	school 	employer within 	the meaning
of 	section 3540.1(k) 	of 	the Educational 	Employment Relations Act
(EERA).2 CSEA is 	the exclusive 	representative within the meaning
of 	EERA section 3540.l(e) 	and the Teamsters 	is an employee
organization within the meaning of 	EERA section 3540.l(d).
The District 	has 	an average daily attendance 	of
approximately 4,700 	students 	at 	seven 	schools. 	The District
employs 	approximately 200 	classified employees 	in 	the 	unit
represented by CSEA. 	The Teamsters petition seeks 	to 	carve 	out 	a
unit 	of 	56 	employees 	in the 	job 	classifications which are 	subject
to 	the 	severance petition.3
2EERA is 	codified at Government 	Code 	section 	3540 	et 	seq.
3Initially 	there was 	a dispute 	as 	to 	the 	exact 	number of
employees 	in the 	job 	classifications 	subject 	to 	the 	severance
petition due 	to 	the 	creation of 	a new 	classification 	"facilities 	team
leader" 	in May 1994. 	The 	severance petition seeks 	the 	following
classifications:

Cafeteria Assistant 	I
Cafeteria Assistant 	II
Cafeteria Assistant 	III
Cafeteria Manager 	I
Cafeteria Manager 	II
Custodian
Head Custodian 	I
Head 	Custodian 	II
Head 	Custodian 	III
Athletic 	Equipment 	Manager
Campus 	Supervisor
Groundskeeper 	I
Groundskeeper 	II
Groundskeeper 	III
Groundskeeper/Repairperson
Utility 	Worker
Maintenance 	Worker 	II/General
Food 	Services 	Delivery Driver
Storekeeper 	Delivery 	Driver
Head 	Storekeeper
Facilities 	Team Leader
CSEA stipulated 	that 	the position 	of 	facilities 	team leader 	is 	in 	the
unit 	they 	represent 	but 	would not 	stipulate 	to 	an amendment 	to 	the
petition 	to 	include 	this 	position 	in 	the proposed severed unit.
Based 	on 	the 	nature 	of 	the 	duties 	performed by 	the 	facilities 	team
leader, 	that 	classification is 	considered herein as part 	of 	the
petitioned 	for unit.
The 	job 	classifications 	sought 	through 	this 	petition are
found within the 	cafeteria 	services 	department, 	maintenance 	and
operations 	department, 	warehouse and delivery department 	and
instructional 	assistance/media department. 	No 	employees 	from the
business 	services, 	secretarial/clerical 	or child care 	departments
are 	involved 	in the 	request. 	The District provides
transportation 	through a private 	sub-contract 	service.
The 	cafeteria 	services 	department 	is 	headed by 	Carol
Vasquez, 	(Vasquez) 	food services 	supervisor. 	Vasquez 	supervises
13 	cafeteria assistant 	I employees, 	8 	cafeteria assistant 	II
employees, 	1 	cafeteria manager I and 1 	cafeteria manager II. 	She
reports 	to 	the business manager who 	in 	turn reports 	to 	the
superintendent. 	Cafeteria 	services 	employees 	are 	responsible 	for
the preparation and 	service 	of 	food to 	students 	at 	the 	school
sites 	and the 	cleanup and maintenance 	of 	the kitchens. 	Vasquez
does 	not 	supervise 	any other employees.
W
	3

The maintenance 	and 	operations 	department 	has 	two 	divisions:
custodial 	services 	and maintenance. 	The maintenance and
operations 	department 	is 	currently being 	run without 	a permanent
manager. 	The director of 	facilities position is vacant, 	but 	the
District 	has 	employed an 	interim manager, 	Frank Butler. 	Butler's
assignment 	is 	to 	assist 	the District 	with 	two major 	constructions
involving air-conditioning at 	two 	schools. 	The 	day-to-day
responsibility 	of 	running 	the 	department 	is 	being 	shared between
Jon Harris, 	facilities 	team leader, 	who coordinates assignments
and makes 	sure maintenance work 	is being 	completed, 	and Jim
Johnson, 	director of 	classified personnel/child welfare/
attendance/alternative education. 	Johnson 	is 	responsible 	for
classified personnel 	actions District-wide, 	but 	is acting with
specific 	authority 	in 	the maintenance 	operations 	department 	due
to 	the 	lack of 	a manager/supervisor.
Custodial 	services 	are 	coordinated by head 	custodians 	who
report to school 	site principals. 	There are 10 	custodians, 	3
head custodian 	Is, 	3 	head custodian IIs and 1 	head custodian 	III.
Head custodians 	act 	as 	lead workers; 	principals 	or their
designees 	are 	the 	supervisors 	of 	the 	custodial 	services
employees.
The maintenance 	division 	employees 	consist 	of 	an athletic
equipment manager, 	two groundskeeper IIs, two groundskeeper 	IIIs,
one 	groundskeeper/repair person, 	two maintenance worker 	IIs
(general) 	and one 	facilities 	team leader. 	As 	discussed above,
the 	facilities 	team leader acts 	as 	a 	coordinator but 	also
4
4

performs 	regular maintenance duties 	80 percent 	of 	the 	time. 	The
duties 	and 	responsibilities 	of 	the maintenance 	operations
department 	are 	to 	clean and maintain the physical 	plants 	of 	the
District. 	The maintenance 	department 	employees 	and warehouse
employees 	report 	to work at 	a District 	warehouse 	and maintenance
yard, 	which 	is physically separate 	from school 	sites.
The 	warehouse 	and delivery department 	is 	a 	two-person
operation 	that 	includes 	a delivery driver and a 	head 	storekeeper.
These 	two positions 	report 	to 	the purchasing assistant. 	Their
responsibility 	is 	to maintain and 	assess 	inventory 	and deliver
supplies 	and equipment 	throughout 	the District.
The 	instructional 	assistance/media 	department 	is 	supervised
at 	each 	school 	site by the principal. 	This 	department provides
instructional 	support 	to 	the 	classroom teacher 	through
instructional aide classifications. 	In addition, 	the department
is 	responsible 	for 	the 	security and 	safety 	of 	young people 	while
on 	campus 	through the 	campus 	supervisor classification. 	Campus
supervisors 	report 	to 	the assistant 	principals 	at 	the high 	school
and middle 	school. 	There are 	two 	seven-hour and one 	three-and-
one-half-hour 	campus 	supervisors 	at 	the 	high 	school 	and one
three-and-one-half 	hour 	campus 	supervisor at 	the middle 	school.
Community 	of 	Interest 	Factors
Wages, 	methods of compensation, 	fringe benefits, 	transfers
and promotions 	are 	included 	in 	the 	written 	collective 	bargaining
agreement 	covering all 	classified employees. 	Wages 	are
established by assignment 	to a pay range, 	and are paid biweekly.
un
	5

All unit members 	are 	entitled to 	the 	same 	fringe benefits
provisions. 	There 	is a variety of 	9-, 	10- 	and 12-month
assignments. 	Uniforms are not worn or provided to any employees
except 	for 	the 	campus 	supervisors.
The 	organizational 	structure 	of 	the District 	is 	such that
employees 	from varying departments 	and 	job 	functions 	may 	report
to 	the same 	supervisor. 	This 	is particularly true where 	the
supervisor is 	the school principal, 	who is 	responsible 	for
supervising custodial, 	office-technical, 	campus supervisors and
instructional 	aide 	classifications 	on his/her 	campus.
The 	cafeteria 	services 	department 	and warehouse 	and 	delivery
departments 	are 	organized along 	separate 	lines 	of 	supervision.
The 	food 	services 	supervisor 	runs 	that 	department 	and 	is
ultimately responsible 	for personnel 	actions 	in 	that 	area.
Likewise, 	the purchasing assistant 	is 	responsible 	for the
warehouse personnel 	supervision.4
The absence 	of 	a permanent 	director of 	facilities 	has 	laid
the 	temporary 	responsibility 	for 	the maintenance 	division at 	the
feet 	of 	the 	director of 	classified services 	and the 	lead worker,
the 	facilities 	team leader. 	The 	facilities 	team leader
coordinates 	assignments 	of 	the maintenance 	employees.
Employees 	who 	report 	to 	school 	sites 	have 	day-to-day 	contact
with 	other 	classified 	and 	certificated 	employees 	who 	also 	report
to that 	school. 	Secretaries may pass messages 	to custodians;
instructional 	aides 	may assist 	children 	in 	the 	cafeteria with
4This 	includes 	the 	supervision of 	one 	clerical 	position.
6

food service workers; 	campus 	supervisors may be 	called 	to assist
a teacher 	if 	there 	is a 	student disturbance, 	but assignments 	and
duties do not overlap. 	Likewise, 	there 	is no evidence 	that
employees 	promote 	into or out 	of 	one 	group 	to another 	in any
career advancement 	or departmental 	ladders.
There was 	no 	evidence 	to demonstrate 	that 	employees 	from
operations 	support 	classifications 	take breaks, 	eat 	lunches 	or
engage 	in 	social 	functions 	separate 	or apart 	from other 	employees
of 	the District. 	The District 	attempts 	to 	include all 	employees
in 	either District-wide 	or 	individual 	school 	site 	social
functions.
Bargaining 	History
In July 	1977 	the District voluntarily 	recognized CSEA as 	the
exclusive 	representative 	for a unit 	of 	all 	classified 	employees
excluding management, 	supervisory and confidential 	employees. 	In
September 	1993 	PERB 	approved a unit modification 	request 	to 	add
the 	classification of 	"child 	care 	instructor" 	to 	the wall
classified unit. 	There have been no other alterations 	of 	the
unit.
Since 	1977 	there have been a 	series 	of 	collective bargaining
agreements, 	often renewed every year. 	The most 	recent 	contract
was 	entered into on March 23, 	1994, 	and has 	effective dates 	of
July 1, 	1993 	- 	June 30, 	1996. 	There was no written agreement in
effect between July 1, 	1993 	and March 23, 	1994.
There have been no attempts 	to decertify CSEA in 	its 	17
years 	as 	exclusive 	representative. 	Neither 	the District 	nor CSEA
77

has 	filed 	for an 	impasse 	determination 	in 	the 	contract
negotiations 	involving 	this 	unit. 	No grievances 	filed pursuant
to 	the 	CSEA-District 	contracts 	have 	advanced 	to 	the 	arbitration
level.
Chapter 	105 	of 	CSEA receives 	support 	from the 	statewide
organization 	though 	the 	assignment 	of 	a 	labor 	relations
representative. 	Ron Azlin 	(Azlin) 	serves as CSEA's 	labor
relations 	representative 	to 	Chapter 	105. 	He has 	served 	this
chapter since June 	1993. 	He 	is 	assigned seven other units 	in
addition to Chapter 105. 	Azlin devotes 	approximately 	15 	to 20
percent 	of 	his 	time 	servicing 	this 	chapter.
The 	District 	and 	CSEA have 	been 	involved 	in 	training 	to
improve 	the 	working 	relationship between 	the 	employee
organizations 	representing 	the 	employees 	and District 	management.
The 	training 	was 	focused 	on 	interest-based approaches 	that 	help
focus 	parties 	on 	improving 	communications 	and 	confronting 	issues,
not personalities. 	This 	training has 	occurred over 	the past
three 	to 	four years.
Union 	Participation
Chapter 	105 	has 	had officers 	and 	team members 	from all
occupational 	groupings. 	The 	current 	officers 	are 	all 	from white
collar 	classifications 	and 	for 	the past 	three 	years 	all
significant 	officers 	have 	come 	from white 	collar 	ranks. 	In
CSEA's 	17 years as 	exclusive 	representative, 	blue collar
employees 	have 	served in all 	internal 	union offices, 	but with the
death of 	Chapter 	President 	and Custodian Jim Snow 	(Snow) 	in 	1991
8

there 	has 	been 	less 	participation by blue 	collar 	employees 	in
union offices.5 The negotiating team, 	however, 	has always had
representation by blue collar workers, 	and as 	recently as 	19 89-
90, 	was 	composed entirely of 	three blue 	collar employees.
District 	Negotiations
The 	current 	District 	classified bargaining 	team 	includes 	the
director of 	classified personnel, 	the superintendent, 	two school
site principals 	and 	the business manager. 	Support 	services 	for
the District's 	team 	is provided by 	two 	confidential 	employees.
The District 	spent 	approximately 	four hours 	in preparation 	for
the 	recent 	classified negotiations 	and 	15 	hours 	in 	recording 	the
minutes 	and preparing 	responses 	from the 	eight 	sessions 	of
meeting 	and negotiating. 	The 	current 	agreement 	took 	2 4 - 2 6
hours 	of 	face-to-face 	negotiations 	to 	resolve a 	three-year
agreement. 	These negotiations 	require District management 	to
expend 	time 	away 	from regular assignments.
The 	District 	also negotiates 	with a 	certificated 	employee
unit 	represented by 	the 	Temple 	City Education Association/
CTA/NEA. 	The 	negotiations 	between 	the District 	and 	classified
and 	certificated units 	have been 	competitive 	in 	that 	the 	two
employee 	organizations 	each attempt 	to negotiate 	a better deal
for their members. 	The District's policy has been to 	try to be
5There was 	substantial 	testimony 	relating 	to 	the 	Chapter 	105
officers 	which demonstrated 	that, 	but 	for the 	grievance 	chair
position 	currently held by Cathy Sandford, 	head 	custodian, 	the
local 	chapter has 	had 	difficulty 	recruiting 	officers 	from the
blue 	collar ranks 	since 	Snow's 	death.
99

consistent 	with 	the 	employee 	organizations 	to 	avoid 	later
problems 	or 	criticism of 	playing 	favorites.
ISSUE
Should 	the 	proposed unit 	be 	severed 	from 	the 	existing unit?
POSITIONS 	OF THE 	PARTIES
Teamsters
The 	Teamsters 	cite 	the 	Board's 	decision 	in Sweetwater Union
High School District 	(1976) 	EERB Decision No. 	4 	(Sweetwater),6
in which 	the 	Board 	found 	three 	appropriate units 	for 	classified
employees. 	The operations 	support unit was 	one of 	those units.
It included custodial, 	gardening, 	maintenance, 	cafeteria,
warehouse, 	delivery and transportation employees. 	But 	for the
lack of 	transportation employees, 	which the District does not
have, 	an analogous unit 	is 	sought here.
The 	Teamsters 	also 	rely on a hearing 	officer's 	proposed
decision 	currently before 	the Board 	in PERB 	Case No. 	S-S-137,
San Juan Unified School 	District 	(issued 7/26/94), 	in which
Teamsters 	Local 	150 	is 	seeking 	to 	carve an operations 	support
unit 	from a general 	classified unit 	represented by CSEA, 	Chapter
127. 	That 	decision 	finds 	that 	a 	similar unit 	as petitioned 	for
here 	may be 	severed 	from an 	existing unit 	based 	on 	community 	of
interest 	arguments 	enunciated 	in Sweetwater despite 	a 	long 	and
successful 	bargaining 	relationship.
6Prior to January 1, 	1978, 	PERB was known as 	the Educational
Employment Relations Board 	(EERB).
10

The 	Teamsters 	also 	contend 	that 	CSEA has 	not 	adequately
represented 	the 	interests 	of 	blue 	collar employees 	over 	the 	past
three 	to 	four years 	and points 	to 	the 	disparate 	effects 	District
cutbacks 	have 	had 	on blue 	collar versus 	white 	collar 	classified
employees. 	The Teamsters 	also 	contend that 	the 	sheer number of
white 	collar employees 	(approximately 	140) 	as 	compared 	to blue
collar 	(approximately 60) 	does 	not 	allow adequate 	representation
at 	the bargaining 	table 	or 	in 	the 	operation of 	the 	local 	CSEA
chapter. 	The Teamsters 	also 	contend that 	the District 	failed to
demonstrate 	that 	the 	addition 	of 	another bargaining unit 	would
adversely affect 	its 	efficiency 	of 	operation.
CSEA
CSEA argues 	that 	PERB's 	granting 	the 	severance 	request 	would
disrupt 	a 	long, 	stable and productive bargaining 	relationship
that 	exists between CSEA and the District. 	The District 	and CSEA
have 	invested 	time 	and money 	in 	improving 	their 	relationship by
attending 	joint 	training 	classes 	in 	interest based and 	"win-win"
bargaining. 	CSEA argues 	that 	the absence 	of 	the 	filing 	of 	any
impasse 	requests 	and grievance arbitration 	is 	evidence 	of 	a
healthy working 	relationship 	that 	should not 	be 	tampered with.
CSEA also 	contends 	that 	the primary motivation 	for 	the
filing 	of 	this 	severance petition was 	a 	disgruntled member
seeking recourse outside 	its 	internal processes. 	Jon Harris,
facilities 	team leader, 	lost by one vote 	to 	incumbent 	Chapter
President, 	Marlene Van De 	Car 	in an election in December 	1993.
11
----

CSEA argues 	that 	PERB 	should not 	reward a 	disgruntled 	employee
and his 	co-workers with a 	separate unit because 	of 	sour grapes.
CSEA argues 	that 	it 	has 	expended much effort 	in making 	sure
all 	employees' 	needs are presented at 	the bargaining table. 	CSEA
points 	to 	the number of 	complaints 	and grievances 	in which 	it 	has
represented blue 	collar 	employees 	as 	being more 	than
proportional. 	CSEA also notes maintenance 	operations 	employees
have 	a 	long history 	of 	actively participating as 	officers 	and
members 	of 	the 	negotiating 	team.
District
As 	does 	CSEA, 	the District argues 	that 	the presumption 	in
favor of 	Sweetwater type units 	is 	rebuttable. 	In Livermore
Valley Joint Unified School District 	(1981) 	PERB Decision No. 	165
(Livermore), 	the District argues 	that 	PERB created a rebuttable
presumption by 	stating 	in a 	severence 	case 	that:
This 	is not 	to say that, 	in a different
factual 	setting, 	the existence of a 	long and
stable 	negotiating 	relationship 	in
combination with 	the 	existence 	of 	other
statutory 	unit 	determination 	indicia 	would
not 	tip the balance 	in favor of 	a wall-
to-wall 	classified unit. 	[p. 	15.]
The District 	argues 	that 	PERB 	acknowledged that 	it 	did not 	grant
the 	negotiating 	history between 	the 	employer and 	the 	incumbent 	e
organization 	in Livermore great 	deference 	in the 	face 	of 	a
severance petition, 	because 	it had been just a two-and-one-half-
year period. 	The District 	contends 	that 	the Livermore Board was
referring 	to a 	situation 	similar 	to 	the 	instant 	petition, 	where
the parties 	have 	a 	17 	year stable 	negotiating history, 	and 	that
12

this 	fact 	pattern warrants 	a 	ruling 	against 	the 	severance
request.
The District 	argues 	that 	there 	is 	not 	a 	separate 	community
of 	interest 	among 	the maintenance 	operations 	employees 	to
distinguish 	them 	from all 	other 	classified employees. 	The
District 	also 	contends 	that 	CSEA has 	aggressively pursued all
classified 	employee 	interests 	and provided 	for participation by
all 	employees 	irrespective 	of 	job 	classification.
The 	District 	believes 	the 	creation 	of 	an additional
bargaining unit 	will 	have 	a negative 	impact 	on 	the 	efficiency 	of
operations. 	District 	negotiators would have a whole 	new set 	of
negotiations, 	which would require additional managerial 	time 	away
from regular assignments. 	The District 	contends 	the 	relative
burden of 	collective bargaining 	is 	greater 	in a 	small 	school
district.
DISCUSSION
EERA requires 	that 	employees 	be 	placed 	into 	an appropriate
unit 	for purposes 	of 	collective bargaining. 	(Sec. 	3540.) 	The
standards 	for determining an appropriate unit 	are 	set 	forth 	in
EERA, section 3545(a):
In each case where 	the appropriateness 	of 	the
unit 	is an issue, 	the board shall 	decide 	the
question on the basis 	of 	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.
13

In Sweetwater, 	the Board 	found three appropriate 	classified
units. 	The three units were 	instructional 	aides, 	office
technical/business 	services 	and 	an 	operations-support 	services
unit. 	The 	Sweetwater units were 	later determined to be
presumptively appropriate. 	(Foothill-DeAnza 	Community 	College
District 	(1977) 	EERB Decision No. 	10; 	Compton Unified School
District 	(1981) 	PERB Decision No. 	165 	(Compton.)
By 	creating 	three 	"presumptively appropriate units" 	for 	the
classified 	service, 	the 	Board determined 	that 	a 	strong 	community
of 	interest 	generally exists 	among 	employees 	in 	each 	of 	these
groups. 	The 	Board 	further determined 	that 	those units:
. 	. 	. 	reflect a proper balance between the
harmful 	effects 	on an 	employer 	of 	excessive
unit 	fragmentation and the harmful 	effects 	on
employees 	and 	the 	organizations 	attempting 	to
represent 	them of 	an 	insufficiently 	divided
negotiating unit 	or units.
(Antioch Unified School District 	(1977), 	EERB
Decision No. 	37, 	at p. 	7.)
More 	recently 	in South Bay Union Elementary School 	District
(1990) 	PERB Decision No. 	816 	(South Bay) 	the Board reiterated its
preference 	for 	Sweetwater 	units 	and 	reversed an 	administrative
law judge who had deemed a 	single 	comprehensive 	or 	"wall 	to wall
unit" 	appropriate 	for a 	school 	district with only 37 	classified
employees. 	In South Bay, 	as 	it had in Sweetwater, 	the Board
relied heavily on 	the 	different 	types 	of 	functions 	performed by
the 	three presumptively appropriate 	groups 	of 	employees.
Thus, 	if 	the petition reflects a unit 	of 	classified
employees determined to be one 	of 	the 	three Sweetwater units, 	it
is 	presumptively appropriate 	and 	the burden 	is 	upon CSEA and 	the
14

District 	to 	establish that 	the 	general 	unit 	presently 	in
existence 	is more appropriate. 	In this 	case no party contests
that 	the unit 	sought 	does 	not meet 	the definition of 	a unit
falling under 	the 	Sweetwater presumption.
Accordingly, 	the Sweetwater presumption is 	applicable 	in
this 	case. 	However, 	the Sweetwater presumption is 	rebuttable.
(Compton at p. 	7.) 	To rebut 	that presumption in this 	case, 	it
must 	be 	demonstrated 	that 	the 	general 	unit 	is more 	appropriate
than a Sweetwater unit 	configuration. 	(South Bay at p. 	7.) 	To
determine whether 	the burden has 	been met 	requires 	weighing 	the
community of 	interest 	among employees, 	the 	efficiency of 	employer
operations and established practices. 	Additionally, 	a request
for severance, 	unlike a determination of an initial unit,
requires 	consideration of 	the negotiating history. 	(Livermore 	at
p. 	5.)
Community 	of 	Interest
The petition 	seeks 	a 	separate unit 	for employees 	who 	clean,
repair, 	prepare meals 	and generally provide 	a 	safe 	and proper
physical 	environment. 	They do not perform clerical 	or 	record
keeping 	duties. 	They do not 	perform paraprofessional
instructional 	activities, 	nor do 	they provide accounting 	or
computer 	services. 	These 	functional 	distinctions 	are highly
similar 	to 	those 	noted and 	relied upon by 	the 	Board 	in 	Sweetwater
and 	in South Bay. 	In South Bay the Board stated:
The 	remaining 	employees 	in 	the 	operations
support 	services 	group 	(custodial,
maintenance, 	transportation and food services
employees) 	are 	responsible 	for providing a
15

proper physical 	environment 	and 	support
services 	for students. 	These duties 	include
cleaning 	and 	repairing District 	facilities 	as
well 	as providing 	food, 	preparing meals 	and
providing transportation. 	[p. 	9.]
The 	lines 	of 	supervision 	involving 	the petitioned 	for unit
are not 	all 	distinct 	and 	separate 	from other employees, 	but 	there
exists 	sufficient 	similarity 	to disregard any disparity. 	Food
services 	has 	a separate 	supervisor, 	maintenance has 	a separate,
albeit, 	acting 	supervisor and warehouse/delivery has 	a 	separate
supervisor. 	Custodial 	services 	and campus 	supervisors 	report 	to
the 	site 	administrator or his/her designee 	for 	supervision.
There 	exists 	a basic 	functional 	community 	of 	interest 	within
the group 	of 	job 	classifications 	subject 	to 	the 	severance
petition which 	is 	not 	erased by 	the 	fact 	that 	there may be 	some
functional 	and 	supervisorial 	overlap with 	other 	classified
employees. 	That 	community of 	interest 	is 	consistent with Board
precedent 	and with 	criteria 	stated 	in 	section 3545(a) 	of 	the
EERA.
Efficiency 	of 	Operations
Absent 	concrete 	evidence 	that 	a 	school 	district's
operational 	efficiency will 	be 	unduly 	impaired by 	an additional
series 	of negotiations, 	operational 	efficiency will 	not be
considered a 	factor which militates 	against 	the 	establishment 	of
another unit. 	(Livermore at p. 	8.) 	In this 	case, 	insufficient
evidence 	was 	presented to 	conclude 	that 	the 	establishment 	of
another bargaining unit 	would have 	a detrimental 	effect 	on 	the
District. 	Jim Johnson, 	the District's 	chief 	classified
16

negotiator, 	indicated he would do what 	it 	took 	to get 	the 	job
done 	in negotiating with another unit.
Of 	course, 	the District will have another set of
negotiations 	and another 	contract 	to administer 	if 	an operations
support services unit is 	created. 	However, 	it has not been
demonstrated 	that 	an undue burden would 	result. 	That 	principals
and managers 	are 	capable 	of 	administering 	two 	or 	three 	classified
collective 	bargaining 	agreements 	is 	well-established by 	current
practices 	in school 	districts 	throughout 	the state. 	Similar
arguments, 	that another bargaining unit would burden a school
district, 	have been previously considered.
While we are not unsympathetic 	to 	the
District's 	concern 	that 	negotiating 	in more
than one unit may burden its 	staff, 	the
assertion of such a concern, 	without more, 	is
not 	sufficient 	to 	establish an undue
impediment 	to District 	efficiency. 	The 	fact
that 	negotiating may 	impose 	a burden on 	the
employer was 	undoubtedly 	considered by 	the
Legislature but 	found not 	to 	outweigh 	the
benefits 	of 	an overall 	scheme 	of 	collective
negotiation. 	. 	. 	[Fn. omitted.]
(Livermore, 	at p. 	8.)
Established 	Practices 	and 	Negotiations
In 	Livermore 	the 	Board 	recognized 	that 	a 	request 	for
severance 	is 	factually different 	from an 	initial 	unit
determination 	because 	negotiating 	history must 	be 	considered 	as
an 	important 	factor 	in determining 	the 	appropriateness 	of 	the
severed unit. 	However, 	it 	is also clear from Livermore 	that
where 	a wall-to-wall 	unit 	is 	created by voluntary 	recognition,
the 	negotiating history will 	not 	be 	granted 	the 	deference 	to
which it might 	otherwise be entitled. 	In this 	case, 	the wall
17

classified unit 	was 	the 	result 	of 	a voluntary 	recognition which
was 	never 	reviewed or approved by 	the 	Board. 	The 	Board generally
finds 	such 	single 	comprehensive units 	of 	classified 	employees 	to
be 	inappropriate. 	(South Bay.)
There 	exists 	a 	17 year negotiating history between CSEA and
the District 	during which 	they have 	successfully negotiated
collective bargaining 	agreements 	covering 	the 	general 	unit.
During that 	time, 	the 	interests 	of 	the employees 	subject 	to the
petition have 	not 	been ignored. 	Those 	employees 	have actively
participated 	in negotiations 	and have 	held 	other positions 	of
influence 	in the union. 	The majority of 	the grievances 	pursued
in 	recent years 	have been over 	issues 	concerning 	employees 	in
maintenance and operations. 	Despite 	efforts by 	the Teamsters 	to
demonstrate 	that 	there was 	disproportionate 	influence by white
collar employees 	or 	that 	blue 	collar workers 	were 	not 	adequately
represented by CSEA, 	the 	record demonstrates 	that 	CSEA has
attempted 	to 	communicate with and 	represent 	all 	employees 	in 	the
unit.7
CSEA relies 	on a hearing 	officer decision 	in 	Placer Hills
Union Elementary School 	District 	(1983) 	PERB Decision
No. 	HO-R-104 	to support 	its argument 	that 	PERB should not bow to
the whims 	of 	a disgruntled employee 	and his/her 	cohorts 	in
7There 	was 	substantial 	testimony 	from blue 	collar 	employees
and CSEA Chapter 	105 	officers 	as 	to 	the 	effort 	expended and
quality 	of 	the 	effort 	expended by CSEA as 	relates 	to 	issues
important 	to blue 	collar workers. 	Suffice 	it 	to say, 	there are
distinct 	and differing perceptions 	of 	the 	effectiveness 	of 	CSEA
representation.
18

granting a 	severance 	request. 	Hearing officer decisions 	cannot
be 	relied upon as 	precedent,8 particularly where 	there 	is 	ample
case 	law 	following 	the 	decision 	to 	demonstrate 	PERB's 	preference
for three classified bargaining units 	(i.e., 	South Bay).
The 	District 	and CSEA have 	not 	overcome 	the 	Sweetwater
presumption 	that 	an 	operations 	support 	unit 	is 	a 	PERB-preferred
unit 	as 	compared 	to 	the 	wall-to-wall 	unit 	the 	District 	and CSEA
voluntarily created. 	Given the 	current 	state 	of 	the 	law, 	and the
weighing of 	the 	facts presented, 	I 	conclude 	that 	the petition
should be 	granted.
PROPOSED 	ORDER
The 	following unit 	is 	found to be 	appropriate 	for meeting
and 	negotiating:
Title: 	Operations Support
Shall 	Include:
Cafeteria Assistant 	I
Cafeteria Assistant 	II
Cafeteria Assistant 	III
Cafeteria Manager 	I
Cafeteria 	Manager 	II
Custodian
Head 	Custodian 	I
Head 	Custodian 	II
Head 	Custodian 	III
Athletic 	Equipment 	Manager
Campus 	Supervisor
Groundskeeper 	I
Groundskeeper 	II
Groundskeeper 	III
Groundskeeper/Repairperson
Utility Worker
Maintenance 	Worker 	II/General
Food Services 	Delivery Driver
Storekeeper Delivery Driver
Head 	Storekeeper
Facilities 	Team Leader
The 	employee 	organizations 	whose 	names 	shall 	appear 	on 	the
ballot are California School 	Employees Association, 	Chapter 	105,
and Teamsters Local 	495, 	AFL-CIO, 	unless one of said
organizations 	informs 	the 	San 	Francisco 	regional 	director 	in
8See Regulation 32215.
19

writing, 	within 15 	workdays after the 	employer posts 	the Notice
of Decision, 	that 	it does not desire to participate 	in the
election. 	The 	regional 	director shall 	conduct 	an election at 	the
end of 	the posting period in the unit 	if: 	(a) 	both of 	the above-
named 	employee 	organizations 	desire 	to participate 	in 	the
election, 	or 	(2) 	only one organization desires 	to participate and
the 	employer does 	not 	grant 	voluntary 	recognition.
Pursuant 	to California Code of Regulations, 	title 	8,
section 	32305, 	this 	Proposed Decision and Order 	shall 	become
final 	unless 	a party 	files 	a 	statement 	of 	exceptions 	with 	the
Board 	itself 	at 	the 	headquarters 	office 	in Sacramento within
20 	days 	of 	service 	of 	this Decision. 	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 Cal. 	Code of Regs.,
tit. 	8, 	sec. 	32300.) 	A document is considered 	"filed" when
actually 	received before 	the 	close 	of 	business 	(5:00 	p.m.) 	on 	the
last 	day set 	for filing 	". 	. 	. o r when sent by telegraph or
certified or Express United States mail, 	postmarked not 	later
than the last day set for filing 	. 	. 	." 	. 	(See Cal. 	Code of
Regs., 	tit. 	8, 	sec. 	32135; 	Code Civ. 	P r o c , 	sec. 	1013 shall
apply.) 	Any 	statement 	of 	exceptions 	and supporting brief must 	be
served 	concurrently with 	its 	filing upon 	each party 	to 	this
proceeding. 	Proof 	of 	service 	shall 	accompany each copy 	served on
20

a party or filed with the Board itself. 	(See Cal. 	Code 	of Regs.,
tit. 	8, 	secs. 	32300, 	32305 and 32140.)
Roger 	Smith
Hearing 	Officer
21
.... - ... 	=