Lincoln Unified School District (California School Employees Association-Chapter 282) (PERB 1194E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
LINCOLN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL 	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION AND 	ITS 	LINCOLN
CHAPTER 	#282,
Exclusive Representative.
)
)
) 	Case No. 	SA-UM-598
(S-R-127)
PERB Decision No. 	1194
April 	30, 	1997
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances; 	Atkinson, 	Andelson, 	Loya, 	Ruud & Romo by
Elizabeth B. 	Hearey and Peter J. 	Lucey, 	Attorneys, 	for Lincoln
Unified School District; 	Sharon R. 	Furlong, 	Senior Labor
Relations Representative, 	for California School 	Employees
Association and 	its 	Lincoln Chapter #282.
Before Caffrey, 	Chairman; 	Johnson and Dyer, 	Members.
DECISION
CAFFREY, 	Chairman: 	This 	case is before the Public
Employment 	Relations Board 	(PERB or Board) 	on appeal by the
California 	School 	Employees Association and 	its 	Lincoln Chapter
#282 	(CSEA) 	of a Board agent's proposed decision 	(attached). 	The
Board agent 	dismissed a unit 	modification petition 	filed by 	CSEA
pursuant 	to PERB Regulation 32781(a)(I)1 which sought 	to add 	22
1PERB 	regulations 	are 	codified at 	California 	Code 	of
Regulations, 	title 8, 	section 31001 et seq. 	Regulation 32781
states, 	in pertinent part:
Absent 	agreement 	of 	the parties 	to modify a
unit, 	an exclusive representative, 	an
employer, 	or both must 	file a petition for
unit modification 	in accordance with 	this
section. 	Parties who wish to obtain Board
approval 	of 	a unit modification may file a
petition 	in accordance with the provisions 	of
this 	section.

(a) 	A recognized or 	certified employee
organization may 	file 	with 	the 	regional
office a petition 	for modification of 	its
units:
(1) 	To add to the unit unrepresented
classifications 	or positions.
positions 	to 	the 	existing 	classified bargaining unit 	in 	the
Lincoln Unified School District 	(District). 	The 	12 positions
consisted of 	10 	office supervisor I positions, 	1 office
supervisor II position, 	and 1 	staff 	secretary,
transportation/maintenance 	position.2
The Board has 	reviewed the 	entire 	record 	in this 	case,
including 	the proposed decision,3 CSEA's 	appeal 	and 	the
District's 	response 	thereto. 	The Board 	finds 	the Board agent's
findings 	of 	fact 	and 	conclusions 	of 	law to be 	free 	of prejudicial
error and hereby adopts 	them as 	the 	decision of 	the 	Board 	itself
in accordance with 	the 	following discussion.
CSEA'S 	APPEAL
CSEA offers 	four exceptions 	to 	the Board agent's 	proposed
decision. 	First, 	CSEA asserts 	that 	the Board has 	required
individual 	analysis 	of positions 	with disputed 	supervisory
status. 	(Marin Community College District 	(1978) 	PERB Decision
No. 	55; 	Hemet Unified School District 	(1990) 	PERB Decision
2The parties 	stipulated that 	the 	staff 	secretary,
transportation/maintenance 	position would be 	added 	to 	the
bargaining unit, 	and PERB issued an October 26, 	1995, 	unit
modification order approving the addition. 	Therefore, 	the 	status
of 	this position is no longer at 	issue.
3The 	Board agent 	who prepared 	the 	proposed 	decision was
substituted 	for 	the Board agent 	who 	conducted 	the 	hearing 	in 	this
case, 	pursuant to the provisions of PERB Regulation 32168(b).
22

No. 	820 	(Hemet USD).) 	CSEA argues 	that 	the Board agent's
analysis 	of 	the 	office 	supervisor 	I positions 	on a group basis
does not 	comply with this 	requirement, 	and tends 	to distort 	and
misstate 	the 	duties 	performed.
Second, 	CSEA excepts 	to 	the Board agent's 	characterization
of 	the 	facts 	and the application of 	Board precedent. 	For
example, 	to 	the 	extent office 	supervisors 	I have been involved 	in
the hiring process, 	CSEA asserts 	that 	the 	involvement has been
limited and 	isolated and does 	not 	warrant 	a 	finding 	of
supervisory 	status. 	(Oakland Unified 	School 	District 	(1978)
PERB Decision No. 	50.) 	CSEA argues 	that 	the duties 	of 	office
supervisors 	I and II, 	and other clerical 	employees, 	have been
established and defined 	for years. 	CSEA also asserts 	that 	the
office 	supervisors 	merely 	control 	work 	flow and 	coordinate 	work
progress, 	and that 	office 	supervisors 	I and II 	essentially serve
as 	leadpersons 	performing duties 	similar 	to 	classified bargaining
unit 	clerical 	employees. 	(Redlands 	Unified School 	District
(19 82) 	PERB Decision No. 	235.) 	CSEA argues that: 	the assignment
of 	work by office 	supervisors 	I 	and 	II 	does 	not 	indicate
supervisory status because where duties 	are defined, 	and the work
is 	clerical 	in nature, 	routine assignments do not 	require
independent 	judgment 	and are not 	supervisory; 	the 	involvement 	of
office 	supervisors 	I 	and 	II 	in work hour and work schedule
adjustment 	is 	extremely limited, 	pursuant 	to established
practice, 	and requires no 	independent 	judgment; 	and the mere
involvement 	in the decision-making process 	does 	not 	render a
33

position 	supervisory. 	(Unit Determination 	for the 	State 	of
California 	(1980) 	PERB Decision No. 	ll0c-S 	(State 	of 	California.)
Further, 	CSEA asserts 	that 	the Board agent 	improperly applied the
Board's 	standards 	concerning 	involvement 	in employee 	evaluations,
and 	that 	supervisory 	status 	is 	not 	indicated because 	the 	office
supervisors 	I 	and II are unable 	to affect 	terms and conditions 	of
employment 	through 	their 	involvement 	in 	the 	evaluation process.
(Hemet USD.)
CSEA's 	third exception asserts 	that 	the Board agent's
decision 	contains 	many 	inaccuracies 	that 	"created a 	factually
distorted vacuum." 	CSEA repeats 	its 	objections 	to 	the Board
agent's 	conclusions 	involving 	the 	assignment 	and direction 	of
work by office 	supervisors 	I and II, 	and the adjustment 	of work
hours 	and schedules.
CSEA's 	final 	exception asserts 	that 	PERB 	erred 	in
reassigning 	this 	case 	to a Board agent 	who did not 	conduct 	the
hearing. 	CSEA argues 	that 	differences 	in the duties described by
various 	witnesses 	"could 	only have 	been 	evidenced by 	the 	Board
agent hearing the 	case."
DISTRICT'S 	RESPONSE
The District 	responds by urging the Board 	to adopt 	the Board
agent's 	proposed decision. 	The District 	argues 	that 	the Board
agent's 	analysis 	satisfies 	PERB's 	requirement 	that 	the 	Board 	look
at 	the 	actual 	nature 	of 	the work performed by each 	incumbent 	in
assessing supervisory status. 	(Hemet USD.) 	The District 	cites
numerous 	examples 	of 	the Board agent's 	individual 	position
44

findings. 	The District 	also 	supports 	the Board agent's
application of Board precedent. 	Finally, 	the District 	notes 	that
the 	Board 	followed 	its 	regulations 	and 	established procedures 	in
reassigning 	the 	case.
DISCUSSION
CSEA's 	first 	exception asserts 	that 	the Board agent 	failed
to provide 	individual 	legal 	analysis 	for each 	contested position.
Hemet 	USD 	reviewed 	PERB precedent 	and noted 	that 	the 	Board has
either used an 	"individual 	analysis" 	of 	each contested position
or 	considered 	the 	typical 	duties 	of 	the position when 	the
evidence 	indicated 	substantial 	uniformity 	in the 	duties 	of 	the
disputed 	classification. 	The underlying principle 	of 	both
approaches 	is 	that 	the Board 	"must 	look at 	the actual 	nature 	of
the work performed by the 	incumbents 	in the position, 	rather than
the work 	specified 	in the 	job description." 	[Emphasis 	in
original.] 	(Hemet USD.)
In this 	case, 	it 	is 	clear that 	the Board agent 	examined the
actual 	nature 	of 	the work performed by the 	incumbents 	of 	the"
office 	supervisor 	I 	and office 	supervisor 	II 	classifications.
The 	Board agent 	reviewed 	the 	actual 	duties 	and 	responsibilities
of 	each incumbent 	in the disputed classifications, 	and the
typical 	duties 	of 	the positions, 	not 	just 	the work specified 	in
the job descriptions. 	CSEA's exception, 	therefore, 	is without
merit.
In its 	second exception, 	CSEA argues 	that 	the Board agent
incorrectly applied 	PERB precedent 	in 	excluding 	office
55

supervisors 	I 	and 	II 	from the bargaining unit. 	CSEA describes
the 	duties 	cited by the 	Board agent 	as 	"isolated," 	"sporadic,"
and 	"ministerial."
The various 	indicators 	of 	supervisory 	status 	described 	in
the Educational 	Employment Relations Act 	(EERA) 	section
3540.1 (m)4 are to be evaluated in the disjunctive; 	that is,
supervisory 	status may be 	found where 	an 	employee performs 	even
one 	of 	the 	enumerated functions. 	(State of 	California.) 	The
record indicates 	that all 	office 	supervisors 	I 	exercise
independent 	judgment 	in performing at 	least 	one 	function
indicative of supervisory status, 	such as: 	office supervisors 	I
participated 	in 	the 	hiring process 	involving 	clerical 	or yard
duty employees 	to 	the 	extent 	that 	they effectively recommended
the hiring of 	the 	selected 	candidate; 	used their discretion 	in
assigning work to 	clerical 	employees; 	made 	independent 	decisions
concerning staffing needs, 	hours and work schedules; 	and had
extensive 	involvement 	in preparing 	evaluations 	of 	clerical
4EERA is 	codified at Government 	Code 	section 3540 	et 	seq.
Section 3540.1(m) 	states:
"Supervisory employee" 	means 	any employee,
regardless of 	job description, 	having
authority 	in the 	interest 	of 	the 	employer to
hire, 	transfer, 	suspend, 	lay off, 	recall,
promote, discharge, assign, reward, or
discipline other employees, 	or the
responsibility 	to 	assign work 	to 	and direct
them, 	or to adjust their grievances, 	or
effectively recommend such action, 	if, 	in
connection with the 	foregoing 	functions, 	the
exercise 	of 	that authority 	is not 	of a merely
routine or clerical nature, 	but 	requires 	the
use 	of 	independent 	judgment.
66

employees, 	including 	recommending permanent 	status 	for
probationary employees. 	The office supervisor II, 	while
demonstrating no 	significant 	involvement 	in 	the 	hiring process,
regularly assigned work 	to 	clerical 	employees 	and 	exercised
independent 	authority 	in adjusting work 	schedules 	and approving
employee leave. 	The record clearly establishes, 	therefore, 	that
supervisory 	status 	is properly afforded 	to 	the 	office
supervisor I and II positions, 	and CSEA's 	exception is 	rejected.
CSEA's 	third exception 	is 	largely a 	repetition of 	its 	first
two. 	CSEA asserts 	that 	the 	facts 	cited by the 	Board agent 	are
inaccurate 	and/or 	insufficient 	to 	support 	a 	finding 	that 	office
supervisors 	I 	and 	II 	should be 	excluded 	from the bargaining unit.
As 	noted above, 	the Board agent 	correctly concluded that 	office
supervisors 	I 	and 	II 	all 	perform one 	or more of 	the 	supervisory
functions 	enumerated in EERA. 	CSEA's 	assertion is 	not 	supported
by 	the 	record.
Finally, 	CSEA contends 	that 	PERB 	erred 	in reassigning 	the
case 	to a Board agent who did not 	conduct 	the hearing. 	PERB
Regulation 32168(b) 	states:
(b) 	A Board agent may be 	substituted 	for
another Board agent 	at 	any 	time 	during 	the
proceeding at 	the discretion of 	the 	Chief
Administrative 	Law Judge 	in unfair practice
cases 	or the General 	Counsel 	in
representation matters. 	Prior 	to ordering a
substitution the parties 	shall 	be 	notified
and provided an 	opportunity 	to 	state
objections 	to 	the proposed substitution.
Substitutions 	of 	Board agents 	shall 	be
appealable 	only 	in 	accordance 	with Sections
32220 or 32300.
7
7

The 	reassignment 	in 	this 	case 	occurred 	in accordance with 	this
provision. 	CSEA's 	exception is 	rejected.
ORDER
The 	unit 	modification petition 	filed by 	the 	California
School 	Employees Association and 	its 	Lincoln Chapter #282 	is
hereby 	DISMISSED.
Members 	Johnson and Dyer 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
88

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
LINCOLN UNIFIED 	SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
CALIFORNIA 	SCHOOL 	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION AND 	ITS 	LINCOLN
CHAPTER #282,
Exclusive 	Representative
Representation
Case No. 	S-UM-598
(S-R-127)
PROPOSED 	DECISION
(8/20/96)
Appearances: 	Atkinson, 	Andelson, 	Loya, 	Ruud & Romo by Peter J.
Lucey, 	Attorney, 	for Lincoln Unified School District; 	Sharon R.
Furlong, 	Senior Labor Relations Representative, 	for California
School 	Employees Association and 	its 	Lincoln Chapter #282.
Proposed Decision by Robin E. 	Wright, 	Board Agent.
PROCEDURAL 	HISTORY
On May 22, 	1995, 	the California School 	Employees Association
and its 	Lincoln Chapter #282 	(CSEA) 	filed with the 	Public
Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(PERB or Board) 	a unit modification
petition pursuant 	to 	PERB Regulation 32781(a)(I).1 CSEA
petitioned 	to 	add 	twelve positions 	to 	the 	existing 	classified
bargaining unit 	in the 	following job 	classifications: 	Office
1PERB 	regulations 	are 	codified at 	California Code 	of
Regulations, 	title 8, 	section 31001 et seq. 	Regulation 32781
states, 	in pertinent part:
(a) 	A recognized or 	certified employee
organization may 	file 	with 	the 	regional
office 	a petition 	for modification of 	its
units:
(1) 	To add to the unit unrepresented
classifications 	or positions.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
______________ )

Supervisor I, 	Office Supervisor II and Staff Secretary,
Transportation/Maintenance.
The 	Lincoln Unified School District 	(District) 	filed 	its
opposition to CSEA's petition on June 	19, 	1995. 	The District
asserted 	that 	all 	of 	the positions 	were 	supervisory and must 	be
excluded 	from the bargaining unit. 	A settlement 	conference was
conducted by a Board agent on August 2, 	1995, 	however, 	the
parties were unable 	to reach a 	settlement.
An evidentiary hearing was 	conducted on October 23-25, 	and
November 13 	and 14, 	1995.2 After an extension of time, 	the
parties 	filed post-hearing briefs 	on February 13, 	1996. 	Upon
receipt 	of 	the briefs 	the 	case was 	submitted for proposed
decision.
This 	case was 	subsequently transferred 	to 	the undersigned
for preparation of 	the proposed decision. 	(PERB Regulation
32168(b).)
FINDINGS 	OF 	FACT
The 	District 	is 	a public 	school 	employer within 	the meaning
of 	the Act. 	CSEA is 	an exclusive 	representative within the
meaning of 	the Act 	and is 	the 	representative 	of 	a unit 	of
classified employees 	in the District.
2At 	the hearing, 	the parties 	stipulated that 	the Staff
Secretary, 	Transportation/Maintenance position would be 	added 	to
the bargaining unit. 	A unit modification 	order was 	issued by
PERB on October 26, 	1995 	approving the addition of 	this
classification to 	the 	classified bargaining unit. 	The 	status 	of
this position is, 	therefore, 	not addressed in this decision.
22

The 	Lincoln Unified 	School 	District 	has 	approximately 	8,700
students at 	13 	school 	sites. 	The District 	is 	comprised of nine
elementary schools, 	one middle school, 	one high school, 	one
continuation high 	school 	and an 	Independent 	Learning 	Center.
There 	are 	approximately 402 	classified employees 	in 	the
bargaining 	unit 	represented by 	CSEA.
Office 	Supervisor 	I
There 	are 	ten Office Supervisor 	I positions 	in the District.
An Office 	Supervisor 	I 	is 	assigned to 	the middle 	school 	and to
each of 	the nine elementary schools. 	In addition, 	there are one
or two clerical 	employees at 	each of 	these 	schools. 	The office
supervisors work 	11 months 	each year. 	The 	clerical 	employees
work 	10 months 	each year and report 	to work when school 	opens.
The 	office 	supervisor reports 	to 	the 	school 	principal.
At 	each school 	site, 	the 	office 	supervisor and the 	clerical
employees 	work 	together 	in a 	small 	office behind a 	counter which
separates visitors 	from the work area. 	The 	office 	supervisor and
the 	clerical 	employees 	are 	interrupted 	frequently 	throughout 	the
day by inquiries 	from students, 	parents, 	staff and other
visitors. 	The 	clerical 	employees 	are generally the 	first 	to
assist visitors at 	the counter. 	However, 	the office supervisors
also 	spend a 	great 	deal 	of 	time 	each day at 	the 	counter assisting
students, 	parents and visitors.
In most 	cases, 	the 	clerical 	employees are 	responsible 	for
tracking attendance. 	This 	involves 	entering absences 	in the
computer, 	calling parents to verify absences, 	late slips,
33

attendance reports, 	class 	lists 	and preparing ADA reports. 	Other
duties may consist 	of 	student 	registration, 	preparing and
maintaining 	student 	cumulative 	folders, 	daily lunch count,
free/reduced lunch program applications, 	daily school 	bulletin,
filing, 	copying and answering phones. 	In addition, 	periodic
reports 	are prepared 	such as 	those 	involving 	child nutrition and
student 	immunization.
While 	there 	is 	some 	crossover of 	duties among 	the 	office
staff, 	office 	supervisors 	are generally responsible 	for staff
attendance and obtaining substitutes, 	purchase orders, 	tracking
the school's budget, 	transportation requests, 	school 	facility
scheduling, 	office equipment 	repair and maintenance, 	preparing
the 	school 	newsletter and 	correspondence.
Pamela 	Hamilton
Pamela Hamilton 	is 	the 	office 	supervisor at 	Sierra Middle
School. 	She has been in this position since January 1993. 	Prior
to 	that 	time 	she 	served as 	the 	staff 	secretary at 	the 	same
school. 	Hamilton's 	immediate 	supervisor is 	Principal 	Scott
Peebles. 	A dean of 	students 	is also assigned to 	the 	school.
Hamilton allegedly supervises Deborah DeCosta, 	a 	staff
secretary who works 	full-time 	and Michelle McCoy a part-time
instructional 	aide who works 	three hours 	a day.
Hamilton and DeCosta both applied 	for 	the vacant 	office
supervisor position at 	Sierra Middle 	School. 	Hamilton was
selected. 	DeCosta was 	later hired as 	the 	staff 	secretary to 	fill
the position vacated by Hamilton when 	she was promoted 	to 	office
4

supervisor. 	Hamilton initially established DeCosta's 	regular job
duties, 	assigning 	the same duties 	to DeCosta that 	she was
responsible 	for when she held the position. 	She also 	trained
DeCosta 	in her new duties.
Although Hamilton has 	rarely altered DeCosta's 	duties, 	she
will 	ask her to 	set 	aside work 	to undertake 	special 	projects 	to
meet 	upcoming deadlines. 	Hamilton reviews 	the work she 	gives 	to
DeCosta and, 	if necessary, 	returns 	it 	to her for correction of
errors. 	DeCosta sends 	regularly assigned reports 	directly to the
District 	office 	or 	returns 	projects 	to Hamilton depending 	on 	the
assignment. 	Occasionally the principal 	or dean of 	students will
give work directly to DeCosta 	such as 	copying, 	making a phone
call 	or running a report. 	Most 	of 	the principal's work is 	given
to Hamilton to 	complete 	or delegate 	to 	the 	clerical 	employees.
A portion of McCoy's 	duties 	involve 	the 	supervision of
students 	sent 	to the office 	for in-school 	suspension. 	When
Hamilton determines 	there are enough students, 	she directs McCoy
to open the 	in-school 	suspension. 	If 	there are not 	enough
students, 	McCoy 	is 	assigned other office 	duties by Hamilton such
as 	copying and 	filing 	student 	cumulative 	folders.
Hamilton and 	the 	principal 	jointly 	established DeCosta's
schedule. 	Both Hamilton and DeCosta work 	7:00 	a.m. 	to 	4:00 	p.m.
At 	one 	time 	Hamilton 	suggested 	to 	the 	principal 	that 	DeCosta
begin work one half 	hour later, 	but DeCosta's hours 	remained
unchanged.
55

Hamilton 	originally 	established 	the 	lunch 	schedule 	for 	the
office 	staff. 	After a period of 	time, 	DeCosta requested that 	the
lunch 	schedule be 	changed because 	she was 	alone 	in 	the 	office
during 	the busy 	student 	lunch period. 	After a discussion with
DeCosta and McCoy, 	Hamilton staggered 	the 	lunch 	schedule 	to
provide 	for 	two people 	in 	the 	office 	during 	the 	lunch period.
Hamilton did not 	seek 	the principal's 	approval 	to make 	this
change.
At 	the beginning of 	one 	school year, 	DeCosta 	informed
Hamilton 	that 	she was 	unable 	to 	finish updating 	the 	student
database 	during 	regular work hours. 	Hamilton 	recommended 	that
the principal 	permit 	DeCosta 	to work overtime 	to 	complete 	the
work. 	Overtime was authorized by the principal. 	Another time,
Hamilton denied DeCosta's 	request 	for overtime, 	without 	taking
the 	request 	to the principal.
Before 	scheduling compensatory time 	off, 	DeCosta 	checks with
Hamilton 	to determine whether 	the 	schedule would accommodate 	her
absence. 	DeCosta or Hamilton then 	lets 	the principal 	know that
DeCosta will 	be 	out 	of 	the 	office.
Hamilton and 	the 	principal 	jointly prepare 	DeCosta's 	annual
performance 	evaluation. 	Hamilton and the principal 	discuss 	and
determine 	the 	ratings 	and 	comments 	provided 	on 	the 	evaluation
form. 	Both 	sign 	the 	evaluation 	form and 	they meet 	jointly with
DeCosta 	to go 	over the evaluation. 	Hamilton does 	not 	evaluate
McCoy, 	the 	instructional aide. 	McCoy's evaluation does not
reflect 	her office duties.
6

DeCosta brings 	questions 	concerning District 	policy 	or
procedures 	to Hamilton. 	For example, 	DeCosta checks with
Hamilton when 	she 	has 	a question 	concerning 	student 	residency
qualifications. 	DeCosta 	testified that 	she views 	Hamilton as 	her
supervisor and refers 	to her as 	such. 	When dealing with
difficult parents 	or problems, 	DeCosta will 	refer them to
Hamilton.
Donna 	Deutscher
Donna Deutscher has 	been the 	office 	supervisor at 	Pacific
School, 	a K-8 	school, 	for three years. 	Her immediate supervisor
is 	Principal 	Debbie Holmerud. 	She allegedly supervises 	Elena
Garrett who works 	full-time 	as 	a 	staff 	secretary. 	Garrett has
worked at 	the 	school 	in this position for 10 years. 	Deutscher
and Garrett 	both 	applied 	for 	the 	office 	supervisor position at
Pacific School when it became vacant 	three years ago. 	Deutscher
was 	the 	successful 	candidate. 	Garrett was 	"dismayed" 	that 	she
was 	not 	selected 	to be 	the office 	supervisor.
Garrett 	testified 	that 	she 	considers 	Principal 	Holmerud 	to
be 	her immediate 	supervisor. 	Garrett 	said that 	she 	receives 	all
of 	her assignments 	directly 	from Holmerud and 	returns 	the
completed projects 	to her. 	Principal 	Holmerud 	testified 	that
Garrett 	reports 	to Deutscher. 	Holmerud gives assignments
directly 	to Garrett 	when 	they 	fall 	within her area 	of
responsibility. 	Holmerud gives 	new projects 	to Deutscher 	to
decide what part, 	if any, 	Garrett will do.
77

Holmerud stated 	that 	Deutscher 	came 	to her with 	the 	idea 	to
cross-train 	the 	office 	staff. 	Deutscher and Garrett would 	learn
the various 	aspects 	of 	each other's 	duties 	to allow the 	office 	to
continue 	to 	function if 	one of 	them is 	out 	of 	the office.
Holmerud 	agreed 	and 	Deutscher 	transferred 	responsibility 	for
purchase 	orders 	to Garrett 	and provided 	instruction 	on how to
prepare 	the 	forms. 	Deutscher took over 	responsibility for
student 	suspension 	letters.
Deutscher has asked Garrett 	to prepare 	reports, 	flyers 	and
to 	coordinate 	the 	class 	picture 	schedule as 	she did 	the year
before. 	Deutscher has 	also 	reviewed and 	corrected work 	completed
by Garrett. 	Last year was 	the 	first 	year Garrett 	filled out
kindergarten 	immunization 	forms 	and 	she 	was 	unfamiliar with 	all
of 	the 	requirements. 	Deutscher also 	reviews 	the student accident
forms 	prepared by Garrett 	and 	she 	reminds 	Garrett 	when
information 	is missing. 	Garrett 	also asked Deutscher 	to 	review a
flyer 	she prepared. 	Deutscher reviewed the 	flyer, 	circled the
errors 	and returned 	it 	to Garrett 	to make 	the 	corrections.
Yard duty 	supervisors 	report 	their absences 	to Deutscher 	if
they are 	out 	sick or want 	to 	take personal 	necessity leave 	or a
floating holiday. 	On 	in-service 	days 	when 	there 	are 	no 	students
on campus, 	Deutscher assigns 	office duties 	to the yard
supervisors. 	When a yard duty position became vacant 	Principal
Holmerud asked Deutscher 	to provide 	input 	on a 	candidate 	for 	the
position. 	Deutscher's 	report 	on the 	candidate was 	favorable,
88

Holmerud agreed and 	the 	candidate was 	hired 	in a permanent
position.
Deutscher begins 	work at 	7:15 	a.m., 	Garrett 	at 	7:30 	a.m.
Last year, 	Garrett 	asked Deutscher 	if 	she 	could start work
earlier. 	Deutscher said no, 	because Garrett was already having
trouble arriving for work on time. 	Another time, 	Garrett made a
request 	to 	reschedule 	her 	lunch hour 	in order 	to participate 	in a
Black History program with 	the 	students. 	Deutscher and 	Principal
Holmerud 	jointly agreed 	to 	let 	Garrett 	take 	a 	later 	lunch hour.
Garrett 	discusses her absence 	requests with the principal 	if
she 	knows 	about 	them 	in advance 	and 	coordinates 	with Deutscher 	to
make 	sure 	there are no scheduling 	conflicts. 	With unplanned
absences 	or 	illness, 	Garrett 	calls Deutscher and also reports her
absence 	to 	the District 	as 	required by 	calling 	the District's
automated absence 	reporting 	system. 	Deutscher 	fills 	out 	the
absence 	report 	forms 	and gives 	them to 	Principal 	Holmerud 	to
sign.
When she was 	the principal 	at 	Lincoln Elementary, 	it was
Holmerud's practice 	to have 	the 	office 	supervisor evaluate 	the
clerical 	staff. 	During her 	first year at 	Pacific 	School,
Holmerud asked Deutscher 	to prepare 	Garrett's 	annual 	performance
evaluation. 	Deutscher had not done 	it 	the year before.
Deutscher prepared Garrett's 	evaluation 	in March 	1995. 	Deutscher
rated Garrett 	high 	in every 	category except 	attendance. 	Her
comments were positive, 	but 	she noted some attendance 	concerns.
9
9

Principal 	Holmerud 	reviewed 	the 	evaluation before 	Deutscher 	gave
it to Garrett.
Garrett 	later 	objected 	to 	being 	evaluated by Deutscher
rather than 	the principal 	and she 	filed a grievance. 	In response
to the grievance, 	Holmerud rewrote Garrett's 	evaluation.
Holmerud 	copied 	the 	evaluation 	exactly 	as 	Deutscher had 	written
it 	and signed as 	the 	evaluator. 	Garrett 	asked Holmerud to
redraft 	the 	evaluation to reflect 	her own words. 	Holmerud
complied, 	preparing a 	third 	evaluation using her own words 	to
express 	the 	same 	comments.
Deutscher has verbally 	counseled Garrett. 	She 	has 	discussed
with Garrett 	that 	she 	needed 	to be more 	focused on her
responsibilities 	in the office, 	that 	certain information should
not be given to parents prior to a student's 	enrollment, 	and that
she 	should be more 	careful 	with her appearance 	when dealing with
parents.
Jill 	Harris
Jill 	Harris 	has been the 	office 	supervisor at 	Tully C.
Knoles, 	a K-8 	school, 	for three years. 	She reports 	to Principal
Suzanne 	Fagundes 	and allegedly 	supervises Mary Anderson and
Jennie Castillo. 	Anderson, 	a Clerk Typist 	II for 10 years, 	works
five hours a day 	in the 	office and two hours 	each day 	in a
kindergarten class. 	Castillo, 	also a clerk typist, 	works 	in the
office 	four hours 	a day.
Harris, 	Anderson and Principal 	Fagundes 	comprised the panel
that 	conducted 	interviews 	for Castillo's position. 	The panel
10

members 	interviewed, 	ranked and agreed on the 	selection of
Castillo 	to 	the part-time 	clerk typist position. 	Harris 	assigned
Castillo 	the duties 	of the previous 	clerk. 	Harris provides
training 	to Castillo, 	helps 	her prioritize her daily tasks 	and
continues 	to work closely with her on such duties 	as 	the
free/reduced 	lunch 	applications.
Anderson has been in her position 	for 	10 	years 	and 	is
familiar with her duties. 	All 	three 	of 	the 	office 	staff work
cooperatively as 	a 	team. 	If 	the 	office 	is busy and Anderson 	is
unable 	to 	finish the 	attendance before 	leaving 	for her
kindergarten assignment, 	Harris will 	either finish it 	or assign
it 	to Castillo.
In addition to their regular duties, 	Harris gives
assignments 	on a 	regular basis. 	Harris picks up work daily 	from
the principal's 	desk and decides 	how to delegate 	the work.
Occasionally, 	the principal 	will 	assign a project 	directly to a
clerical 	employee based on 	the 	employee's 	regular duties. 	The
principal's work 	is 	returned to Harris 	for review.
Harris 	opens 	the mail 	and delegates 	work 	received 	from the
District 	office. 	Harris also assigns 	other one-time projects.
For example, 	a large 	computer order arrived and Harris 	asked
Anderson 	to 	take 	charge 	of 	numbering 	the 	computers 	and getting
them to the 	classrooms.
Anderson asks 	Harris 	to 	review letters 	or memos 	to 	teachers
she has prepared, 	assisting her with wording or to 	correct
11

spelling. 	Harris 	also checks 	attendance data 	that Anderson
enters 	in the 	computer.
For 	several 	years Anderson has 	returned to work one week
early to help 	in getting 	the 	school 	ready to open. 	Harris
contacts Anderson and arranges 	for her early start. 	Harris
schedules 	a meeting with 	the 	clerical 	employees 	at 	the beginning
of 	the year to go over assignments 	for 	the upcoming year.
Harris 	has 	on occasion authorized 	overtime 	for Anderson
without 	getting 	the principal's 	approval. 	Harris 	has 	also asked
Castillo 	to work extra 	time 	to help 	cover 	the 	office when needed.
Harris 	also 	considered and granted 	Castillo's 	request 	to 	change
her schedule 	to 	start work one half 	hour later. 	Harris 	did not
seek the principal's 	approval.
When out 	sick, 	Anderson and Castillo 	first 	call 	Harris 	at
home 	then they call 	the District 	office. 	They also arrange 	for
the use 	of personal 	necessity leave with Harris. 	Harris prepares
the 	employee 	time 	sheets 	and submits 	them to the principal 	for
her signature.
Harris 	prepares 	the 	evaluations 	for Anderson and Castillo,
signs 	as 	evaluator, 	and meets with them individually to 	review
the evaluation. 	Harris 	then gives 	the evaluations 	to the
principal 	for her review and signature. 	Harris' 	last 	evaluation
of 	Castillo was 	favorable and 	it will 	change her status 	from
probationary 	to permanent.
12

Harris 	has 	verbally 	counseled Anderson about 	the 	way 	she
spoke 	to a 	student. 	Both Anderson and Castillo 	refer 	to Harris
as 	their boss 	and on Bosses' 	Day she 	received gifts 	from them.
Joyce 	Manetti
Joyce Manetti 	has been 	the 	office 	supervisor at 	Claudia
Landeen, 	a K-7 	school, 	for six years. 	For the two years prior to
her appointment 	as 	office 	supervisor Manetti was 	the 	clerk 	typist
at 	Claudia Landeen. 	The principal 	is Barbara Davis. 	Manetti
allegedly supervises Bonnie Goodwin, 	a 	full-time Clerk Typist 	II.
Goodwin has been employed by the District 	for 	10 	years.
The 	clerk 	typist 	position has 	been vacant 	three 	times 	since
Manetti was promoted to office 	supervisor. 	Manetti participated
in the hiring process 	for two of 	the 	three 	clerk typists. 	After
she was promoted, 	Manetti 	sat 	on the 	interview panel 	for the
clerk position with 	the 	principal 	and 	the 	retiring 	office
supervisor. 	After the 	interviews were 	concluded the principal
asked Manetti 	to 	recommend 	the person 	she would be most
comfortable working with. 	Her 	recommended 	candidate was
selected. 	The 	second 	interview panel 	consisted of Manetti 	and
the principal. 	Again, 	Manetti's 	recommendation was accepted by
the principal. 	The current clerk typist, 	Bonnie Goodwin,
transferred 	from another 	school 	and did not 	participate 	in 	an
interview process.
Manetti 	initially assigned Goodwin her 	regular duties.
Manetti 	also 	gives 	Goodwin additional 	projects 	on an almost 	daily
basis; 	many are clerical assignments. 	Other assignments have
13

involved kindergarten 	immunization records, 	student vision
screening, 	and the 	out-of-state student 	report. 	The principal
occasionally asks Goodwin to make 	copies 	or retrieve a 	file.
However, 	most 	of 	the principal's work is given to Manetti 	to
determine who will 	do 	the work.
Manetti 	reviews Goodwin's work, 	such as 	the ADA reports,
checking 	for 	errors 	and 	she 	reviews 	letters 	and memos 	prepared by
Goodwin.
The yard duty 	staff 	report 	their absences 	to Manetti 	and
arrange 	for personal 	necessity leave with her. 	Manetti 	obtains
substitutes when yard duty staff 	is 	absent. 	Goodwin reports 	her
absences 	to Manetti by calling her at home when she 	is 	out 	sick.
She also 	checks 	with Manetti 	before 	she 	schedules 	personal
necessity 	leave.
At 	the beginning of 	the school year, 	Manetti 	schedules 	a
meeting with Goodwin 	to 	set 	the work priorities 	for 	the year.
Manetti 	calls 	other meetings 	throughout 	the year as 	time permits
to discuss workload and procedures.
Manetti 	has 	prepared the 	annual 	performance 	evaluation 	for
each of 	the 	clerk 	typists 	since being appointed 	to 	the 	office
supervisor position. 	Manetti 	determines 	the 	ratings 	and
comments, 	signs 	the 	evaluation 	form and meets with the 	clerk to
review the 	evaluation. 	Manetti prepared 	the probationary
evaluation 	for 	the prior 	clerk after which 	the 	clerk obtained
permanent 	status. 	Goodwin testified that 	during her 	10 	years
with the District 	she has met with the principal 	only once 	to
14

review her evaluation. 	The 	evaluation discussed with 	the
principal 	had been prepared by Manetti 	who 	had previously met
with her 	to 	review 	the 	evaluation.
Manetti 	does 	not 	evaluate 	the yard duty staff, 	but 	she has
provided 	input 	at 	the principal's 	request. 	The principal 	has
also 	sought her 	input 	in hiring a yard duty candidate. 	The
principal 	hired 	the 	candidate 	recommended by Manetti.
Goodwin directs 	questions 	to Manetti 	and will 	refer
difficult parents 	to her. 	Manetti 	has provided verbal 	counseling
to Goodwin when she was 	abrupt with a parent 	or student.
Lynell 	Engle
Lynell 	Engle 	is 	in her sixth year as 	an office 	supervisor at
Mabel 	Barron Elementary. 	She 	reports 	to Principal 	Dean Welin.
Engle allegedly supervises 	two 	clerical 	employees. 	Joyce Brown
is 	classified as 	a Clerk Typist 	II. 	She has held this position
for 	16 years and she works 	6& hours a day. 	Linda Powell 	has been
a Clerk Typist 	I 	at Mabel 	Barron for six years. 	She works 	three
hours 	a day.
Engle, 	Brown and Powell 	have worked together at Mabel 	Barron
Elementary 	for many years. 	While 	their regular duties 	have 	long
been established, 	Engle has 	directed or authorized changes 	in
these assignments. 	For example, 	Brown asked Engle 	to reassign
attendance 	reporting to Powell, 	the part-time clerk. 	Engle
agreed and made 	the 	assignment 	without 	obtaining 	the principal's
approval. 	On another occasion, 	Engle 	transferred responsibility
for the prime 	time 	report 	from herself 	to Brown.
15

Engle also assigns 	other projects as 	they arise. 	Engle
directed Brown 	to prepare 	the 	ethnic 	count 	for 	the District
office. 	After she 	completed the work, 	Brown returned it 	to Engle
to be 	checked. 	Although 	the principal 	will 	occasionally ask
Brown to make 	copies 	or phone 	calls, 	most 	of 	the principal's work
is 	given to Engle 	to delegate as 	she sees 	fit.
Engle 	reviews 	and corrects 	assignments 	as 	necessary. 	Before
they go to the principal 	for signature, 	Engle 	checks 	the
immunization letters 	to parents which are prepared by Brown. 	If
Brown has 	questions 	about 	a project 	given to her by Engle, 	Engle
provides 	instruction or 	training.
Engle 	has 	adjusted work 	schedules 	and arranged 	for 	the
clerical 	employees 	to work extended hours. 	To assist with
student 	registration, 	each year Engle arranges 	for Brown to
return to work a 	few days before 	school 	begins. 	When Brown was
out 	on an extended medical 	leave, 	Engle 	increased Powell's 	hours
to 	cover Brown's 	duties 	and brought 	in a part-time 	substitute 	to
cover 	Powell's work. 	Engle 	informed the principal 	of 	the
arrangements 	she had made. 	On another occasion, 	Engle 	changed
Powell's 	work 	schedule by directing her 	to 	start 	work one 	hour
later 	so 	she would be available 	to 	cover the office during 	the
lunch hour.
Brown calls 	Engle when she 	is 	out 	sick. 	She also arranges
her personal 	necessity leave with Engle.
Engle prepares 	the evaluations 	for Brown and Powell, 	setting
ratings 	and providing 	comments. 	Engle 	reviews 	the 	evaluations
16

individually with each of 	them. 	Afterward 	she 	submits 	the
evaluations 	to 	the principal 	for his 	signature. 	The principal
has 	never 	changed an 	evaluation. 	Following 	completion of
Powell's 	probationary period, 	Engle 	recommended that 	she be
granted permanent 	status.
Brown and 	Powell 	view Engle 	as 	their 	supervisor and Brown
refers problems 	to Engle. 	Engle has provided some verbal
counseling 	to 	Powell. 	She has 	instructed her to be 	careful 	of
what 	she 	says 	to 	the 	children and to watch her temper.
Barbara 	Pike
Barbara 	Pike 	has 	been 	the 	office 	supervisor at 	John R.
Williams 	School 	for the past 	seven years. 	Her immediate
supervisor 	is 	Principal Mark Calonico. 	Pike allegedly supervises
Denise Chelli, 	a full-time Clerk Typist 	II, 	and Donna Monaco,
clerk typist, 	who works 	in the office two hours a day. 	Both have
worked 	in their present positions 	for three years.
Pike participated in the 	hiring process 	for both Chelli 	and
Monaco. 	Together with the principal, 	Pike screened applications,
drafted 	interview questions 	and 	joined 	in 	interviewing 	the
candidates. 	Pike and the principal 	agreed on the 	selection of
Monaco as 	the part-time 	clerk. 	Following 	the 	interviews 	for the
full-time 	clerk Pike 	selected Chelli, 	but 	the principal 	chose
another 	candidate. 	Pike 	explained 	the 	reasoning 	for her 	choice
and the principal 	agreed. 	Chelli was 	hired 	for the position.
Pike 	initially assigned duties 	to 	Chelli 	and provided her
with training. 	She 	first gave Chelli 	student 	registration, 	then
17

gradually added attendance 	and other duties. 	In addition 	to her
regular duties, 	Pike assigns projects 	as 	they arise and sets
deadlines. 	On assignments 	done 	for the District 	office 	Pike asks
that 	they be 	returned to her at 	least 	one 	day before 	they are 	due
so she can review the work. 	When Monaco was hired, 	Pike
reassigned duties 	from Chelli, 	giving Monaco the daily lunch
count 	and preparation of 	student 	cumulative 	folders.
Other 	than occasionally asking 	Chelli 	to make 	a phone 	call,
the principal 	gives his work to Pike. 	Pike keeps 	the
confidential 	assignments 	and delegates 	other work 	to 	Chelli.
Pike 	has 	asked Chelli 	to prepare 	the 	schedule 	for Red Ribbon Week
and student 	class pictures. 	When Pike 	receives 	an urgent project
she 	instructs 	Chelli 	to 	set aside her regular work to 	complete
the assignment. 	When she completes a project, 	Chelli will ask
Pike 	if 	there 	is anything else 	she needs 	to have done before
returning 	to her 	regular duties.
Prior to the 	start 	of 	the 	school year, 	Pike arranges 	for
Chelli 	to 	start 	work 	two weeks 	early 	to help with 	student
registration. 	Pike obtains 	the principal's 	approval 	to pay
Chelli 	for the 	extra 	time. 	Pike has 	arranged 	for Chelli 	to work
overtime 	on several 	occasions, 	recommending that 	the principal
approve 	the 	overtime. 	The principal 	has 	never denied a 	request
for overtime 	from Pike.
Every 	two years 	the 	school 	alternates between an early and
late 	schedule 	to accommodate 	the bus 	transportation schedule. 	At
the beginning of 	the 	school year, 	Pike adjusts 	Chelli's 	schedule
18

to 	reflect 	the 	school's 	early or late 	schedule. 	Pike also meets
with 	Chelli 	to 	let 	her know what 	duties 	need to be 	done 	first
thing 	in 	the morning and 	to go 	over her expectations 	for 	the
year. 	Pike has also changed Monaco's 	schedule. 	She 	originally
worked later 	in the 	day, 	but 	Pike 	changed her schedule 	to work 	in
the morning when the office 	is busy.
When she 	is 	out 	sick, 	Chelli 	calls 	Pike and the District
office. 	Chelli 	fills 	out an absence 	form and submits 	it 	to 	Pike.
The use 	of personal 	necessity leave 	is 	arranged with Pike. 	Pike
checks 	to make 	sure 	leave 	time 	is 	available and that 	it 	does 	not
conflict 	with the 	schedule. 	She 	then checks with the principal
before approving 	the 	leave.
Yard duty staff 	report 	absences 	to 	Pike. 	When someone 	is
absent, 	Pike 	finds a substitute and directs 	the 	staff 	in what
areas 	need to be 	covered. 	Pike will 	change yard duty schedules
if 	necessary to make 	sure everything 	is 	covered. 	Pike makes
these 	arrangements 	without 	obtaining 	the principal's 	approval.
Pike 	also 	jointly participates 	with 	the principal 	in 	interviewing
and hiring yard 	duty 	staff.
Pike prepares 	the annual 	performance 	evaluations 	for Chelli
and Monaco. 	The principal 	reviews 	the 	evaluations and adds
comments 	before 	Pike meets 	with the 	clerk to go over the
evaluation. 	The principal 	has never 	changed an evaluation
prepared by Pike. 	Pike does 	not 	do yard duty evaluations but 	she
does 	provide 	input when the principal 	prepares 	their evaluations.
19

Pike 	has verbally counseled Monaco 	that 	at 	times 	she was
working 	too 	slowly. 	She also 	talked to a yard duty supervisor,
suggesting 	that 	it 	was 	inappropriate 	to drink 	Pepsi 	while working
in the yard.
After being appointed an 	office 	supervisor, 	Pike 	initiated
the preparation of 	a handbook 	for the 	certificated staff 	which
sets 	out 	the 	office 	staff 	responsibilities 	and provides 	other
useful 	information 	concerning 	the 	school. 	The principal 	thought
it was 	a good 	idea and in the 	following years 	he has 	added
sections 	to 	the handbook.
Debbie 	Crozier
Debbie 	Crozier 	is 	the 	office 	supervisor at 	Lincoln
Elementary where 	she has been for the 	last 	11 years. 	The
principal 	is 	John Kirilov. 	Crozier allegedly supervises 	two
clerical 	employees. 	Dorothea Moore 	is a Clerk Typist 	II. 	She
works 	five hours 	a day and has 	been at 	Lincoln Elementary 	for
three years. 	Michelle Isbell 	is also a Clerk Typist 	II. 	This 	is
her 	first year 	in this position. 	She works 	six hours 	a day 	in
the 	office and 	two hours 	a day as a 	clerical 	aide 	for the
teachers„
Crozier 	sat 	on 	the 	interview panel 	with the principal 	and
two previous 	office 	clerks when Moore was hired. 	All 	of 	the
panelists 	agreed on Moore's 	selection. 	Crozier also participated
in the hiring of 	the previous 	clerk typist. 	Crozier and the
principal made up the panel. 	Following the 	interviews, 	Crozier
and the principal 	had different 	choices. 	The principal 	let
20

Crozier select 	the 	candidate because 	she was 	the 	supervisor and
would be 	working with the 	office 	clerk.
At 	the beginning of 	each school 	year, 	Crozier meets with the
clerical 	employees. 	Crozier prepares 	and gives 	each of 	them a
document 	entitled 	"Basic 	Office 	Responsibilities." 	In 	this
document, 	Crozier identifies 	individual 	office duties, 	work
schedules 	and lunch breaks, 	and sets 	goals 	and priorities 	for the
office. 	In the document, 	Crozier reminds 	the clerical 	employees
that 	the 	refusal 	to address 	concerns 	raised by the 	office
supervisor will 	be 	reflected 	in 	their yearly evaluations.
Crozier 	schedules 	other meetings 	during 	the year as 	needed.
When Moore was 	hired, 	Crozier 	established her 	regular duties
and she adds 	assignments 	daily. 	Moore 	returns 	the daily
assignments 	to 	Crozier when they are 	completed. 	Crozier 	checks
the assignments 	for errors and asks Moore 	to make 	corrections, 	if
necessary.
Virtually all 	of 	the principal's work 	is given to Crozier to
complete 	or delegate. 	Moore 	testified that 	she will 	on occasion
make a phone 	call 	at 	the request 	of 	the principal. 	Crozier has
also 	reassigned duties between Moore 	and 	Isbell. 	Crozier added
ADA reports 	to Moore's duties 	and transferred absence 	reports 	to
Isbell. 	Crozier also asked 	Isbell 	to handle 	the mail 	because
Moore was 	too 	slow.
Each year, 	after discussing overtime needs with the
principal, 	Crozier arranges 	for Moore 	to start work two weeks
before 	school 	begins 	to help with student 	registration. 	Crozier
21

also 	arranged 	for Moore 	to work overtime when 	Isbell 	was 	out 	on
bereavement 	leave. 	Crozier made 	these arrangements without
checking with 	the principal.
When Crozier 	learned 	that Moore 	was 	entitled 	to a 	thirty-
minute 	lunch hour, 	she gave Moore 	the 	option of 	eating 	lunch on
her break 	or 	taking 	a 	lunch break and 	extending 	her work day by
thirty minutes. 	Moore chose 	to take a lunch break, 	so Crozier
added 	thirty minutes 	to her work schedule.
Moore 	calls 	Crozier when she 	is 	out 	sick, 	then she 	reports
her absence 	to 	the District 	office. 	She also 	checks with Crozier
before using personal 	necessity leave. 	One year, 	Moore 	requested
leave of 	4 	or 5 	days 	to travel 	out-of-state. 	Crozier approved
Moore's 	absence but 	informed her 	that 	she 	would need approval
from the District 	for the unpaid leave. 	Moore's unpaid leave was
approved by 	the District. 	Isbell 	required quite a bit 	of
personal 	necessity leave when her brother was 	ill. 	She arranged
for this 	time with Crozier.
Crozier evaluates 	the 	clerical 	employees. 	She 	completes and
signs 	the 	form, 	meets 	individually with each clerk and then
submits 	the 	evaluation to 	the principal 	to add his 	signature.
Last year, 	the previous clerk, 	Kathy Magellan, 	objected to her
evaluation and 	she 	filed a grievance. 	The principal 	rewrote 	her
evaluation after 	receiving 	input 	from Crozier. 	The 	only 	change
the principal made 	to Magellan's 	evaluation was 	to add a 	star to
one 	category.
22

Crozier has verbally 	counseled 	the 	clerical 	employees,
instructing 	them in areas 	that 	need 	improvement. 	For example,
she 	discussed problems with 	student 	emergency 	cards 	that 	were
misfiled. 	Crozier also 	instructed Moore 	that 	her discussions
with her 	son's 	teacher should take place 	outside 	the 	office.
The 	clerical 	employees 	consider 	Crozier 	to be 	their
supervisor. 	Moore 	testified that 	the principal 	leaves 	Crozier 	in
charge when he 	is 	away from the 	school. 	Moore 	refers parents 	or
questions 	that 	she 	cannot 	or does 	not want 	to handle 	to her
supervisor. 	She has also referred to Crozier as her 	"boss."
Claudia 	Toledo
Claudia Toledo has 	been an office 	supervisor 	for 	seven
years, 	the last 	three years at Brookside Elementary. 	Her
immediate 	supervisor 	is 	Principal 	Jim Benevides. 	She allegedly
supervises Terry Jackson, 	a part-time office clerk. 	Jackson has
been employed by the District 	for 	five years. 	For 	the 	last 	year
she 	has 	worked approximately 	four hours 	a day as 	an office 	clerk
at Brookside.
Toledo 	and 	the 	principal 	participated 	jointly 	in Jackson's
hiring as 	an office 	clerk at 	Brookside. 	With the principal,
Toledo 	screened 	50 	applications 	and 	interviewed 	three 	candidates.
Both agreed 	on Jackson's 	selection. 	While 	an 	office 	supervisor
at Tully C. 	Knoles 	School, 	Toledo was 	on the 	interview panel 	for
a 	clerk typist position. 	At 	the 	completion of 	the 	interviews 	the
other panel 	members 	asked Toledo 	for her 	recommendation. 	Her
choice was 	hired as 	the 	clerk. 	Toledo has 	also participated 	in
23

the 	interviews 	for yard duty supervisors 	at 	Brookside. 	Toledo
provided 	input 	and 	she and 	the principal 	agreed 	on 	the 	selection
of 	two yard duty supervisors.
Toledo 	initially 	established Jackson's 	regular duties 	and
provided training. 	She 	sets 	deadlines 	for 	the 	completion of
projects 	and reviews 	Jackson's work 	for errors. 	For example,
Jackson prepares 	the day care billing 	letters 	to parents. 	Toledo
reviews 	the 	letters 	and 	checks 	the billing 	figures 	before 	Jackson
mails 	them. 	Occasionally the principal 	will 	ask Jackson to make
copies 	or call 	a student 	to the office. 	The 	remainder of 	the
principal's work is 	given to Toledo. 	Toledo delegates 	some 	of
the work to Jackson who returns 	it 	to Toledo.
Toledo has 	prepared written 	"office procedures" 	which
describe 	the 	duties 	that must be 	accomplished 	throughout 	the 	day
and sets 	the priorities 	for these 	daily 	tasks. 	Toledo prepared
this 	so Jackson would know what 	to do 	in her absence.
Yard duty 	staff 	check 	in with Toledo when they arrive.
Toledo gives 	them their assignment, 	telling them what 	areas 	they
are assigned to 	cover. 	Toledo obtains 	substitutes 	when yard duty
staff 	are 	absent 	by 	contacting 	the District 	office.
Toledo has 	arranged 	for Jackson 	to 	return to work early
before 	school 	begins. 	She has 	also authorized Jackson to work
extra hours 	when 	the workload 	is 	heavy during 	the beginning 	and
end of 	the 	school year, 	when there 	is a large project 	to 	finish,
and to 	cover the 	office when Toledo 	is 	out. 	Toledo makes 	these
arrangements without 	obtaining 	the principal's 	approval. 	When
24

Jackson's 	hours were permanently increased, 	Toledo adjusted
Jackson's 	schedule 	to work during 	the morning when 	the 	office 	is
especially busy. 	Jackson 	calls 	Toledo when she 	is 	out 	sick and
arranges 	personal 	necessity 	leave with Toledo.
Toledo has 	prepared 	the 	annual 	performance 	evaluations 	for
the 	clerical 	employees 	she 	allegedly 	supervises 	since 	she was
appointed an office 	supervisor. 	Toledo rates 	the employees, 	adds
comments 	and signs 	the evaluation 	form. 	She 	then meets
individually with each employee 	to 	review the 	evaluation. 	Last
year, 	Toledo and the previous principal 	jointly evaluated
Jackson. 	Toledo provided 	input 	and 	the principal 	actually wrote
the 	comments 	on the 	evaluation form. 	The principal met with
Jackson 	to 	review the 	evaluation.
. ..
Toledo has 	provided verbal 	counseling 	to 	clerical 	employees
while working at 	other school 	sites. 	Toledo talked to one 	clerk
about 	her negative 	attitude 	and another 	clerk about 	increasing
her effort 	and being a 	team player.
Jackson views 	Toledo as 	her boss 	and 	she 	refers 	difficult
parents 	to Toledo 	for assistance.
Shirley Nacry
Shirley Nagy has 	been 	the 	office 	supervisor at Village 	Oaks
Elementary for seven years. 	The principal 	is Louise King. 	Nagy
allegedly supervises 	Judy McMillan, 	a 	full-time 	Clerk Typist 	II
and Maxine Bennett, 	a SIP Clerk who works 	3 3
X hours a day. 	For a
portion of 	her day, 	Bennett 	reports 	to 	the principal 	and the
teaching 	staff 	for parts 	of 	her duties. 	Nagy assigns 	her other
25

duties 	such as 	typing and verifying attendance. 	Bennett 	returns
these 	assignments 	to Nagy 	for her 	review.
McMillan has been at Village Oaks 	for one year. 	Nagy sat 	on
the 	interview panel 	with 	the principal 	and 	three 	other panelists
when McMillan was 	hired. 	Each of 	the panelists participated 	in
interviewing the 	candidates, 	prepared ratings, 	discussed the
candidates 	and 	jointly 	selected McMillan.
When 	she 	was 	hired Nagy 	initially assigned McMillan 	some 	of
the duties 	of 	the prior 	clerk. 	Nagy 	increased McMillan's 	duties
as 	she became 	familiar with her duties. 	Nagy no 	longer 	finds 	it
necessary 	to 	review McMillan's 	regular daily assignments, 	but 	she
does 	review specific assignments and, 	if 	corrections are
necessary, 	asks McMillan to make them.
McMillan directs 	questions 	or problems 	to Nagy. 	McMillan
has 	asked Nagy 	to 	clarify policies 	and procedures 	and has 	asked
for direction on how to prepare a 	report. 	After dealing with an
angry parent, 	McMillan will 	ask Nagy 	for guidance 	on how to
better handle 	the 	situation.
Nagy makes 	arrangements 	each year 	for both McMillan and
Bennett 	to 	report 	to work two weeks before 	school 	starts 	and to
work one week after school 	is 	out. 	Nagy schedules 	the 	office
staff's 	lunch period and breaks 	to make 	sure 	the 	office 	is 	always
covered. 	Nagy also puts 	together the yard duty schedule,
assigning 	times 	for yard 	supervision and 	student 	supervision.
The prior clerk typist, 	Carol Clary, 	originally worked part-
time. 	As 	school 	enrollment 	increased, 	Nagy recommended on 	three
26

separate 	occasions 	that 	Clary's 	hours be 	increased. 	Clary's
hours 	were 	increased 	each 	time 	until 	eventually her position was
full-time.
Nagy prepares 	the 	evaluation 	for the 	clerk 	typist 	position.
She determines 	the ratings and comments, 	signs 	the form, 	meets
with 	the 	clerk and 	then 	submits 	the 	evaluation 	to 	the principal
for her signature. 	The principal 	has 	never challenged Nagy's
ratings. 	Nagy also prepared the 	"First 	Probationary Report,"
evaluating McMillan during 	her 	first 	year.
Ann 	Endicott
This 	is 	the 	sixth year Ann Endicott 	has 	served as 	office
supervisor at 	Colonial 	Heights. 	Her 	immediate 	supervisor 	is
Principal 	Laura Wilson. 	She allegedly supervises Amelia
Miramontes, 	a full-time Clerk Typist 	II who has been in this
position 	for three months. 	Endicott 	also 	supervises 	Jane 	Carson,
Clerk Typist 	II, 	who works 	1 	hours a day. 	Carson has been 	in
this position for 10 years.
The 	full-time 	clerk 	typist 	position has been vacant 	three
times 	since Endicott has been at 	Colonial 	Heights. 	Endicott
participated 	in 	filling 	the vacancy each time. 	Endicott was 	on
the 	interview panels, 	ranked the 	candidates 	and discussed them
with the 	other panel members. 	In each case 	the principal 	asked
Endicott 	to 	recommend with whom she would work best. 	Endicott's
candidate was 	selected each time.
Miramontes 	is 	the most 	recent 	clerk. 	For her arrival,
Endicott 	prepared a welcoming memo which 	set 	out Miramontes'
27

basic duties. 	Endicott gave her the assignments 	of 	the previous
clerk, 	phasing 	them in over time. 	Endicott would assign a new
task, 	demonstrate how to do 	it 	and then check her work
afterwards.
Endicott 	sets 	deadlines 	for projects 	by putting due 	dates 	on
the 	clerical 	employees' 	calendars. 	She also sends 	them memos
reminding them when something 	is due. 	For example, 	Endicott
notes 	on Miramontes' 	calendar when the ADA reports 	are due.
Endicott 	does 	not 	often 	review the 	daily 	regular assignments 	once
the 	clerical 	employees are 	trained, 	but 	she does 	review projects
such as 	the ADA report. 	If 	Endicott 	finds mistakes 	she discusses
them with 	the 	clerk and 	shows 	them how to make 	the 	corrections.
Concerned 	that 	the 	filing 	of 	the 	student 	cumulative 	folders
was behind, 	Endicott wrote a note 	to Carson directing her to
complete 	the 	filing by a 	specified date. 	She has 	also provided
Carson with a 	list 	of 	tasks 	when Carson 	stated 	that 	she 	did not
have enough to do.
Endicott 	generally 	calls 	meetings 	with 	the 	clerical
employees 	after lunch on Mondays 	to discuss what 	is 	coming up 	for
the week and 	to 	give 	the 	clerks 	an 	opportunity 	to 	raise 	any
concerns. 	Endicott 	also meets with the principal 	about 	every two
weeks 	to go 	over 	"things" 	and to bring matters 	to 	the principal's
attention such as 	student 	or parent 	concerns.
Endicott 	has 	authorized overtime 	in the past. 	Now she
checks with the principal 	first because 	the budget 	is 	tight. 	The
principal 	has 	never 	turned down her 	requests 	for 	overtime.
28

Endicott 	set Miramontes' 	work hours, 	changing them from the
hours 	that 	the previous 	clerk worked the year before. 	Endicott
also 	changed Carson's 	hours 	from morning 	to 	the middle 	of 	the
day. 	Prior to 	changing Carson's work schedule 	Endicott wrote a
memo 	to 	the 	principal 	explaining 	that 	the 	change was 	necessary 	to
cover the busy lunch period. 	The principal 	told her to make 	the
change as 	she proposed. 	The 	clerical 	employees 	check with
Endicott 	before 	scheduling personal 	necessity 	leave.
Endicott 	is 	responsible 	for evaluating the 	clerical
employees. 	She rates the employee, 	writes comments, 	signs the
form and 	reviews 	the 	evaluation with the 	employee. 	On two
occasions, 	Endicott 	and the principal met 	jointly with Carson to
discuss 	her 	evaluation when 	the principal 	had 	some 	concerns 	with
Carson's work. 	Another time 	the principal 	wrote 	the 	comments 	on
the 	evaluation with 	input 	from Endicott 	regarding 	areas 	Carson
needed to 	improve. 	Carson provided a written 	rebuttal 	to 	the
evaluation and 	Endicott 	prepared and 	attached a 	written
explanation. 	Endicott has 	also 	recommended that 	the 	two prior
clerks pass probation.
Both Miramontes 	and Carson 	refer to 	Endicott 	as 	their boss.
Endicott 	has verbally 	counseled Carson, 	talking with her about
excessive 	absences 	and the manner 	in which 	she 	spoke with a
student.
29

Office 	Supervisor 	II
Vicky 	Trent
There 	is 	one Office 	Supervisor II position 	in the District
which 	is 	assigned to 	the high school, 	Vicky Trent 	has 	been an
Office Supervisor II at Lincoln High School 	for four years.
Unlike 	the Office Supervisor I's, 	Trent 	is a 	12-month employee.
Trent 	reports 	to Katey Talbot, 	the 	chief 	educational 	officer
(CEO) 	at 	the high school. 	The school has two principals, 	four
deans, 	four staff 	secretaries, 	an athletic director and the
administrative 	systems 	supervisor. 	Trent 	allegedly supervises
Maria Costa, 	staff 	secretary; 	Linda Garrett, 	registrar and data
processing clerk; 	and Mary Hogan, 	Arlene Neri and Joanne
Campigli, 	attendance clerks. 	Costa also assists 	the
administrative 	systems 	supervisor, 	and the 	attendance 	clerks work
with 	the principal 	responsible 	for attendance matters.
Trent 	and Costa are 	situated 	together 	in an office 	located
at 	the 	front 	of 	the building. 	Garrett 	is alone 	in a separate
office. 	The 	three attendance 	clerks 	are 	together 	in an office 	at
the back 	of 	the building which 	is 	directly accessible by 	the
public.
As part 	of her regular duties, 	Trent 	coordinates projects
for the CEO. 	The CEO, 	Katey Talbot, 	testified that project
details 	are not 	her 	strong point 	and 	she 	relies 	on Trent 	to
determine 	how to 	complete 	a project 	and what 	portion 	to assign 	to
other staff. 	She 	indicated that Trent has 	the authority to pull
staff 	off 	of 	other assignments 	to complete a project. 	For
30

example, 	Trent has 	asked Costa to 	set 	aside her regular work 	to
get 	information 	to another 	staff 	member 	concerning 	computer
training. 	Trent 	also asked Costa 	to put 	together a 	list 	of
teachers 	based 	on 	certain 	criteria 	and 	to 	check 	on an 	employee's
absence. 	Trent 	has 	asked Garrett 	to prepare mailing 	labels 	and
tells 	her when 	they are needed.
While most 	of her assignments 	to Costa are verbal, 	Trent has
left 	notes 	for Costa 	instructing her 	to update 	the 	off-campus
passes 	and has 	told Costa what 	tasks 	to assign 	to 	student
workers. 	When a miscommunication occurred over repair of a
teacher's 	phone, 	Trent 	sent 	Costa a note 	instructing Costa 	to
check with her before making 	future 	repair requests.
Trent 	sets 	deadlines 	for assigned projects 	and 	she 	reviews
the work when 	it 	is 	returned to her. 	After reviewing
assignments, 	Trent returns projects, 	if necessary, 	for correction
of errors.
Trent 	provides 	training 	to 	the 	clerical 	employees 	on new
computer applications. 	When Costa has 	questions 	about 	how to do
something or on District policies 	or procedures, 	she generally
starts with Trent. 	The attendance 	clerks 	periodically come 	to
Trent 	for direction and guidance, 	and she assists 	them with
computer questions.
When the mail 	room was moved 	to another building, 	Trent
recommended a 	staffing 	change which was 	accepted and 	implemented
by the 	CEO. 	Trent 	also 	selected Michelle 	Isbell 	to 	substitute
for Costa when she was 	on maternity leave.
31

Trent 	is 	authorized to approve 	schedule modifications. 	For
example, 	Trent will 	approve 	requests 	to leave early or come 	in
late 	for a doctor's 	appointment. 	Trent 	has 	asked Costa 	to
reschedule her lunch if 	she 	is 	going 	to be 	in a meeting. 	Last
year, 	Trent 	granted Garrett's 	request 	to 	start work earlier
because 	the air 	conditioner was 	not working. 	Trent 	also arranged
for the 	clerical 	employees 	to 	come 	in during the 	summer 	for
training 	on 	the 	new computer 	system in order to 	complete 	the
training before 	school 	opened. 	Trent 	arranged 	for 	the 	staff 	to
receive 	compensatory time 	off 	for their days 	in training. 	Costa
calls 	Trent when she 	is 	out 	sick and the 	clerical 	employees 	check
with Trent before 	taking a 	floating holiday. 	If 	there 	is 	some
problem with 	the 	selection of 	a particular day, 	Trent 	asks 	the
employee 	if 	she 	can reschedule her time 	off.
The previous 	CEO prepared Costa's 	annual 	evaluations 	with
input 	from Trent. 	Trent 	discussed Costa's performance 	of 	her
duties with the 	CEO prior 	to her evaluation. 	She 	also provided
the CEO with 	input 	for Magellan's 	evaluation. 	Talbot, 	the
current 	CEO, 	has been in her position for less 	than a year. 	She
has 	not 	conducted evaluations 	of 	the 	clerical 	staff. 	Talbot
testified 	that 	it 	is 	her 	intention that 	Trent will 	be 	involved 	in
the 	evaluation of 	the 	clerical 	employees 	by providing 	input 	and
discussing 	the 	content 	of 	the 	evaluations.
During the 	last year, 	Trent has 	on several 	occasions
verbally 	counseled Costa about 	improving her attitude. 	She 	also
32

counseled two 	of 	the 	attendance 	clerks 	on how to get 	along with
the 	third attendance 	clerk.
Trent 	is 	a member of 	the 	Principal's Advisory Committee at
the high 	school 	which meets 	twice a month. 	The members 	of 	the
committee also include the CEO, 	principals, 	department 	chairs and
the Administrative 	Systems 	Supervisor. 	The 	committee discusses 	a
variety of 	issues 	concerning 	the high 	school 	such as 	discipline,
schedule 	changes 	and 	the upcoming accreditation of 	the 	school.
Trent 	takes 	the minutes 	of 	the meetings, 	contributes 	suggestions
and provides 	input. 	For example, 	state law requires visitors 	to
register when entering school 	grounds. 	Last year Trent 	suggested
that visitors 	sign in at 	the 	office and obtain a visitor's badge.
This 	suggestion was 	implemented.
Office 	Supervisors
Common to all 	of 	the 	office supervisors 	is 	their
participation 	in monthly 	office 	supervisor meetings 	with
Assistant 	Superintendent 	Sarah Hart. 	The 	office 	supervisors 	also
attended monthly management meetings 	which were 	held until 	the
previous 	superintendent 	left 	the District 	in April 	1995. 	The
management meetings 	were 	also attended by 	the principals,
assistant 	superintendents 	and the directors 	of 	transportation and
security.
The 	agenda 	for the monthly office 	supervisor meetings 	is 	set
by the 	office 	supervisors. 	They use 	the meetings 	to discuss 	and
suggest ways 	to be more 	efficient 	and 	to 	receive updates 	or
training on new District policies 	and procedures, 	such as 	the new
33

crime 	reporting 	requirements. 	The 	office 	supervisors 	also
discuss 	concerns 	and 	share 	information about 	their 	respective
school 	sites, 	involving 	student 	enrollment 	and residency
requirements, 	registration problems, 	attendance, 	transportation,
food services 	and school 	budgets. 	Hart 	has 	also used 	the
meetings 	to 	obtain 	suggestions 	for 	carrying 	out 	District
projects. 	For example, 	Hart 	sought 	input 	on how to collect
information on 	recent 	flood damage 	to 	support 	a 	FEMA
reimbursement 	application. 	The 	office 	supervisors 	suggested 	that
Hart 	redesign the 	forms 	to make 	it 	easier to collect 	the data and
they would compile 	the 	information. 	The 	office 	supervisors
collected 	the 	required 	information 	on 	flood 	damage 	at 	their
respective 	school 	facilities 	either 	directly or by 	delegating 	the
damage 	survey to 	custodians 	or teachers. 	Hart 	did not provide
direction on how to 	collect 	the 	information and she 	did not
involve 	the principals.
Similarly, 	Hart 	asked the 	office 	supervisors 	for 	input 	on
the best 	way 	to 	complete 	a District-wide 	equipment 	inventory.
Rather than hire an outside 	company to 	complete 	the 	survey, 	the
office 	supervisors 	suggested 	that 	they 	could 	coordinate 	the
collection of data at 	their respective school 	sites. 	Again, 	Hart
dealt 	directly with the 	office 	supervisors 	and had not 	informed
the principals 	of 	this project.
The 	office 	supervisors 	share 	relevant 	information 	from these
meetings 	with 	the 	clerical 	employees 	they allegedly 	supervise.
34

This 	information may 	concern 	changes 	in District policy 	or
procedures, 	or solutions 	to problems 	developed at 	other schools.
Office 	supervisors 	are 	paid 	from the 	Supervisory and
Confidential 	Salary 	Schedule 	and 	they 	receive 	the 	same 	benefit
package as managers. 	They do not 	receive 	overtime pay when
working 	an 	extended 	day.
LEGAL 	ISSUE
Are 	the 	employees 	in the 	classifications 	of 	Office
Supervisor 	I 	and Office 	Supervisor 	II 	supervisory within 	the
meaning of section 3540.1 (m) 	of 	the EERA?
DISCUSSION
EERA section 3540.1(m) 	defines a 	"supervisory employee" 	as:
. 	. . any employee, 	regardless of job
description, 	having authority 	in the 	interest
of the employer to hire, 	transfer, 	suspend,
lay off, 	recall, promote, discharge, assign,
reward, 	or discipline other employees, 	or the
responsibility 	to assign work 	to and direct
them, 	or to adjust their grievances, 	or
effectively recommend such action, 	if, 	in
connection with the 	foregoing 	functions, 	the
exercise 	of 	that 	authority 	is 	not 	of 	a merely
routine or clerical 	nature, 	but 	requires 	the
use 	of 	independent 	judgment.
The Board has 	held 	that 	the performance 	of 	any one 	of 	the
enumerated functions 	listed in EERA section 3540.1(m) , 	or the
effective power to recommend such action, 	is 	sufficient 	to render
an 	employee 	a 	supervisor under 	the 	EERA. 	(Sweetwater Union High
School District 	(1976) 	EERB3 Decision No. 	4 	(Sweetwater UHSD).)
The performance 	of 	the 	supervisory duties must 	involve 	the use 	of
3Prior to January 1, 	1978, 	PERB was known as 	the Educational
Employment 	Relations 	Board.
35

independent 	judgment. 	Routine 	or clerical 	decision-making which
does 	not 	require 	the use 	of 	independent 	judgment precludes 	a
finding 	of 	supervisory status. 	(Unit Determination 	for the 	State
of California 	(1980) 	PERB Decision No. 	ll0c-S 	(State of
California).) 	In California State University 	(SUPA) 	(1983) 	PERB
Decision No. 	351-H, 	the Board stated:
. 	. 	. 	Independent judgment is indicated where
the performance 	of 	duties 	includes 	the
opportunity 	to make 	a 	clear 	choice between
two 	or more 	significant 	alternative 	courses
of action and the power to make 	that 	choice
is without broad review and approval. 	Such
functions 	are 	characterized by 	significant
autonomy and 	control 	over 	the 	decision-making
or recommending processes. 	Where 	substantial
review or prior approval 	is 	required, 	either
by specific action or existing policy, 	a
finding 	of 	independent 	judgment 	is precluded.
[Citation, 	p. 	6.]
The 	nominal 	exercise 	of 	the 	statutory criteria 	is 	not 	enough
to qualify for supervisory status. 	(Ibid.) 	However, 	the Board
has not 	applied a 	standard of percentages 	to the performance 	of
supervisory 	duties.
In construing 	the 	statutory definition of 	supervisor, 	the
Board has 	previously noted 	that 	final 	decisions 	regarding 	hiring,
discipline 	and 	salaries 	are 	traditionally 	reserved 	to persons 	far
removed 	from the 	employee's 	immediate 	supervision. 	(Sweetwater
UHSD; 	Campbell Union High School District 	(1978) 	PERB Decision
No. 	66 	(Campbell UHSD).) 	Therefore, 	the ability to indirectly,
but 	effectively, 	bring about 	changes 	in employment 	status 	is
accorded great weight 	in cases under the 	EERA. 	(Campbel1 	UHSD.)
-.
Accordingly, 	an employee will 	be 	found to be a 	supervisor 	if 	he
36

or 	she 	has 	the 	authority 	to 	effectively 	recommend 	the promotion,
discharge 	or hiring of 	other employees. 	(Ibid.)
Office 	Supervisor 	I
The 	Board has 	given great 	weight 	to 	the ability 	to affect
employment 	status 	through hiring 	recommendations. 	(Campbell
- -
UHSD.) 	In Sweetwater UHSD, 	head custodians were 	found to have
effectively 	recommended 	the 	hiring 	of 	custodians 	when 	their
recommendations 	were 	consistently 	solicited 	and 	adopted by 	the
principal. 	The Board has 	rejected, 	however, 	mere participation
on an 	interview panel 	as 	evidence 	of 	"effectively 	recommending"
hiring. 	(Sanger Unified School District 	(1989) 	PERB Decision
No. 	752 	(Sanger USD).)
Most 	of 	the 	office 	supervisors 	have participated 	in 	the
hiring process 	involving 	clerical 	or yard duty 	employees. 	Only
two, 	Hamilton and Engle, 	have not had the opportunity to
participate 	in 	the 	hiring process 	during 	their 	tenure as 	office
supervisors. 	Two other office supervisors, 	Harris and Nagy, 	sat
on 	interview panels 	with 	the 	school 	principal 	and 	other 	staff.
The panel members 	interviewed the 	candidates, 	ranked them and
jointly agreed on the 	selected 	candidate. 	Harris 	and Nagy
participated on the 	interview panels, 	but 	the 	evidence does 	not
clearly 	establish 	that 	they 	effectively 	recommended 	the 	hiring 	of
the 	successful 	candidates.
The 	remaining 	six office 	supervisors 	also participated 	in
interview panels. 	At 	the 	conclusion of 	the 	interview process 	the
principal 	solicited 	the 	recommendation of 	the 	office 	supervisor,
37

and the 	recommended candidate was 	selected. 	On two occasions,
the principal 	and 	the 	office 	supervisor 	disagreed 	on which
candidate 	should be hired. 	In both cases, 	the principal 	deferred
to 	the office 	supervisor's 	chosen candidate. 	These actions
demonstrate 	that 	these 	office 	supervisors 	effectively 	recommended
the hiring of 	the 	selected candidates.
The use 	of 	independent 	judgment 	in the assignment 	and
direction of 	the work of 	other employees 	is 	also an 	indication of
supervisory status. 	Supervisory status 	has been 	found where 	the
alleged 	supervisor allocates 	regular work assignments; 	alters
regular assignments 	and assigns 	specific additional 	tasks; 	and
regularly 	reviews 	work and has 	the 	authority to direct 	others 	to
make corrections. 	(Sweetwater UHSD; 	Campbell UHSD.) 	In
contrast, 	making occasional 	routine assignments 	in a manner not
requiring the 	exercise of 	independent 	judgment 	is 	insufficient 	to
demonstrate 	supervisory 	status. 	(Sweetwater UHSD.)
All 	of 	the 	office 	supervisors use 	their discretion 	in
assigning work to 	the 	clerical 	employees, 	although the 	frequency
of 	assignments varies 	among the 	office 	supervisors. 	When new
clerical 	employees 	are hired 	the 	office 	supervisors 	assign
regular duties, 	often phasing 	in assignments as 	the new staff 	is
trained. 	The 	office 	supervisors 	have also adjusted and
reassigned 	the 	regular duties 	of 	long-time 	clerical 	employees.
Several 	of 	the 	office 	supervisors 	regularly schedule meetings
with the 	clerical 	employees 	at 	the beginning of 	the 	school 	year
38

and at 	other times 	as 	necessary. 	They use 	these meetings 	to
assign and prioritize 	the duties 	to be 	completed each day.
The 	office 	supervisors 	also 	exercise 	their authority 	to
direct 	the 	clerical 	staff 	to 	set 	aside 	their regular duties 	to
complete 	special 	or urgent 	projects 	and 	set 	deadlines 	for 	the
completion of 	assignments. 	The 	record also 	reveals 	that 	the
principals 	give 	a majority of 	their work 	to 	the 	office
supervisors 	who use 	their 	judgment 	in deciding what 	work 	to keep
and what 	to delegate 	to the 	clerical 	employees. 	Some 	office
supervisors 	no 	longer 	find 	it 	necessary 	to 	review the 	daily work
of 	long-time clerical 	employees, 	but all 	of 	the office
supervisors 	review special 	projects 	or 	important 	assignments 	such
as 	the ADA reports. 	Where 	errors 	are 	found the 	office
supervisors 	note 	the mistakes 	and 	return 	the assignments 	for
correction.
The 	office 	supervisors 	have 	also 	directed staff 	in 	the
completion of 	District-wide projects. 	They 	coordinated 	the
collection of 	flood damage 	information at 	each 	school 	site by
delegating the damage 	survey to custodians and teachers. 	They
also 	coordinated 	the 	District 	equipment 	inventory 	survey at 	their
respective 	school 	sites.
The authority to set work schedules, 	authorize overtime and
grant 	time off without prior approval, 	or the ability to
effectively recommend such action, 	is 	also 	indicia 	of 	supervisory
status. 	(Jefferson Union High School District 	(1979) 	PERB
Decision No. 	83 	(Jefferson UHSD); 	San Diego Unified School
39

District 	(1977) 	EERB Decision No. 	8; 	Sanger USD.) 	However, 	the
routine granting 	of 	time 	off without 	the use of 	independent
judgment 	is 	a ministerial 	function which precludes 	a 	finding 	of
supervisory status. 	(Modesto City Schools 	(1984) 	PERB Decision
No. 384.)
At 	each school, 	the 	clerical 	employees 	call 	the office
supervisor when they are out 	sick. 	Additionally, 	they are
required 	to 	report 	their absences 	to 	the District by 	calling 	the
District's 	automated absence 	reporting 	system. 	The 	office
supervisors 	note 	absences 	on 	time 	sheets 	which are 	submitted 	to
the principal 	for signature. 	The 	clerical 	employees 	also 	check
with 	the 	office 	supervisor before 	scheduling personal 	necessity
leave. 	There 	is no evidence 	that 	the office supervisors have
ever denied personal 	necessity leave 	requests. 	The 	record
demonstrates 	that 	the 	recording of 	absences 	and approval 	of
personal 	necessity 	leave 	occurs 	routinely and thus 	does 	not
support 	a 	finding 	of 	supervisory 	status.
Most 	of 	the 	office 	supervisors 	have authorized or
recommended 	that 	overtime 	be 	granted 	or have 	approved 	extra 	hours
to 	cover 	staff 	absences 	or to 	complete work. 	The decision 	to
grant 	overtime 	has 	never been denied 	or 	rescinded by 	the
principal.
As 	10-month employees, 	the 	clerical 	employees 	start work
each year when school 	opens. 	At virtually all 	of 	the 	schools 	the
office 	supervisors 	have 	arranged 	for 	the 	clerical 	employees 	to
return to work before 	school 	begins 	to assist with 	student
40

registration and opening 	the 	school. 	While 	the 	clerical
employees have done this 	for several years, 	the office
supervisors 	exercise 	discretion 	in deciding when 	the 	clerical
staff will 	begin work. 	Office 	supervisors 	have 	scheduled
clerical 	employees 	to return to work as 	few as 	three days before
school 	opens 	to 	two weeks before 	school 	begins 	and arranged
various 	forms 	of 	compensation 	from payment 	for 	the 	extra 	time 	to
compensatory 	time 	off.
The 	office 	supervisors 	have 	also had 	extensive 	involvement
in adjusting work schedules 	or denying 	requests 	to 	change 	the
schedules 	of 	the 	clerical 	employees. 	The 	office 	supervisors 	set
work schedules 	for new employees 	and schedule 	lunch breaks. 	They
have 	also adjusted 	the hours 	of 	part-time 	employees 	by 	requiring
them to work 	later 	in the 	day 	to 	cover 	the 	office 	during 	the busy
lunch period. 	These 	changes have been made even where 	the
employee 	did not 	support 	the 	change. 	At Village Oaks 	Elementary,
the 	office 	supervisor made 	three 	recommendations 	to 	increase 	the
hours 	of 	the part-time 	clerk 	in 	response 	to 	increasing 	school
enrollment. 	Each time 	the 	recommendation was approved until
eventually the 	clerk position was 	full-time.
The 	office 	supervisors 	have made 	independent 	decisions
concerning staffing needs, 	hours and work schedules. 	There 	is
little 	evidence 	that 	principals 	were 	consulted or 	their approval
sought. 	This 	clearly demonstrates 	that 	the 	office 	supervisors
acted 	in a 	supervisory role when taking 	these actions.
41

Conducting 	evaluations 	or 	effectively 	recommending 	the
outcome 	of 	the 	evaluation process 	is 	also 	indicative 	of
supervisory 	status 	because 	evaluations 	can have 	a profound 	effect
on promotions and terminations, 	two 	factors 	set 	out 	in EERA
section 3540.1(m). 	(Sanger USD; 	Hemet Unified School District
(1990) 	PERB Decision No. 	820.) 	However, 	supervisory status will
not be 	found where preparation of 	the 	evaluation 	"is 	subject 	to
substantial 	review and approval 	or where 	it 	follows 	a 	routine
course prescribed by past 	practice 	or existing policy." 	(State
of 	California.)
The 	office 	supervisors 	have had extensive 	experience 	in
preparing 	the 	evaluations 	of 	clerical 	employees. 	They designate
performance ratings, 	include written comments, 	and then meet
individually with the 	clerk to 	review the 	evaluation. 	The
evaluation 	is 	then submitted to 	the principal 	for signature. 	A
few times 	the 	office 	supervisor and 	the principal 	have 	jointly
prepared 	the 	evaluation and reviewed 	it 	with the 	clerk. 	Where 	a
clerk has 	objected 	to 	the 	evaluation prepared by 	the 	office
supervisor, 	the principal 	redrafted 	the 	evaluation after
receiving 	input 	from the 	office 	supervisor. 	Several 	of 	the
office 	supervisors 	have prepared evaluations 	for probationary
employees 	or recommended that 	employees pass probation. 	These
employees 	subsequently obtained permanent 	status.
The 	office 	supervisors 	for 	the most 	part have 	completed 	the
evaluations 	of 	the 	clerical 	employees 	without direction or 	input
from the principals. 	Where the principal 	is 	involved, 	the office
42

supervisors 	provide 	significant 	input 	so as 	to 	"effectively
recommend" 	the 	outcome of 	the evaluation process. 	Accordingly,
the 	office 	supervisors 	have 	demonstrated 	supervisory 	status 	when
conducting 	evaluations.
The 	office 	supervisors 	have not 	demonstrated 	that 	they
participate 	in the discipline of 	clerical 	employees. 	Most 	of 	the
office 	supervisors 	have verbally 	counseled 	staff 	on matters
concerning attitude, 	appearance, 	dealing with visitors or
completion of 	tasks. 	There 	is no 	indication that 	the 	counseling
resulted 	in actual 	disciplinary action. 	(Marin 	Community 	College
District 	(1978) 	PERB Decision No. 	55 	(Marin CCD).)
The 	record establishes 	that 	the 	incumbent 	employees 	in 	the
Office 	Supervisor 	I 	classification have 	exercised 	independent
judgment 	in performing several 	indicia of 	supervisor status.
Accordingly, 	I 	find that 	they are 	supervisory employees 	and must
remain 	excluded 	from the 	classified bargaining unit.
Office 	Supervisor 	II
There 	is 	one Office 	Supervisor 	II position 	in the District
which 	is 	assigned to 	the high school. 	The high school 	office
setting differs 	from the middle 	and elementary 	schools 	in 	the
number of 	clerical 	employees and administrators, 	the 	specialized
nature 	of 	the work of 	the 	clerks 	and their proximity to 	the
office 	supervisor.
In order to establish supervisory status, 	the alleged
supervisor must 	exercise 	independent 	judgment 	in 	the 	performance
43

of, 	or in effectively recommending, 	at 	least one of 	the 	functions
listed in EERA section 3540.1(m). 	(Sweetwater UHSD.)
The 	incumbent 	employee 	in the 	Office 	Supervisor 	II
classification has 	had no 	significant 	involvement 	in 	the 	hiring
of 	clerical 	staff. 	She has participated 	in employee 	evaluations
by providing 	input 	to 	the previous 	CEO prior 	to 	the preparation
of 	the evaluations of two clerical 	employees. 	However, 	there 	is
no 	evidence 	that 	the 	evaluations 	reflected 	the 	comments 	of 	the
office 	supervisor. 	It must be 	shown that 	the 	alleged supervisor
effectively recommends 	the 	outcome 	of 	the 	evaluation process.
(Chowchilla Union High School 	District 	(1994) 	PERB Decision
No. 	1040.) 	Furthermore, 	the office supervisor has similarly
counseled 	clerical 	employees 	at 	the 	high 	school 	about 	attitude
and working 	relations 	but 	this 	has 	not 	resulted 	in disciplinary
action. 	(Marin CCD.)
The 	office 	supervisor does make 	regular assignments 	to 	the
clerical 	employees. 	The CEO assigns projects 	to the office
supervisor and 	expects 	her 	to 	coordinate 	their 	completion without
specific 	direction. 	The 	office 	supervisor evidences 	independent
judgment 	when 	she 	decides 	what 	portion to 	assign to 	the 	clerical
staff, 	prioritizes 	assignments by directing staff 	to 	set 	aside
their regular work, 	sets 	deadlines 	and reviews 	the work for
errors. 	(Sweetwater UHSD: 	Campbell UHSD.)
The 	office 	supervisor also assisted 	in 	the 	completion of 	the
District-wide 	projects 	involving 	the 	flood damage 	and 	equipment
inventory surveys, 	delegating assignments 	to other school 	staff.
44

As 	a member of 	the high school management 	committee, 	she
recommended a policy 	change 	concerning 	school 	visitor badges
which was 	implemented at 	the high school. 	The 	office 	supervisor
also provides 	guidance 	on District 	policy and procedures 	to 	the
clerical 	employees.
The 	office 	supervisor has 	also 	exercised 	independent
authority 	in adjusting work 	schedules 	and approving 	time 	off.
The 	office 	supervisor 	scheduled 	the 	clerical 	employees 	to work
during 	the 	summer 	to 	complete 	computer 	training 	and arranged
compensatory time 	off 	for their days 	in training. 	She has 	asked
clerks 	to 	reschedule 	the use 	of 	a personal 	holiday 	if 	the absence
would 	create 	a problem. 	The 	office 	supervisor has 	also 	granted a
request 	for an 	early 	start 	work 	schedule 	and approves 	time 	off
for appointments. 	She also 	effectively 	recommended a 	staffing
change 	for 	the mail 	room which was 	accepted by 	the 	CEO.
The 	supervisory authority of 	the Office Supervisor 	II 	is 	not
as 	extensive 	as 	that 	exhibited by 	the 	Office 	Supervisor 	I's.
However, 	an employee need only demonstrate 	the 	exercise 	of
independent 	judgment 	in the performance 	of 	one 	of 	the 	functions
listed in EERA section 3540.1(m) . 	The evidence establishes 	that
the 	Office 	Supervisor 	II 	exercises 	authority which 	impacts 	the
employment 	relationship by directing 	the 	work 	of 	the 	clerical
employees 	and affecting 	their work schedules. 	It 	is 	therefore
determined that 	the 	Office 	Supervisor 	II 	is 	a supervisory
employee 	and must 	remain 	excluded 	from the 	classified bargaining
unit.
45

PROPOSED 	ORDER
The 	unit 	modification petition 	filed by 	the 	California
School 	Employees Association and 	its 	Lincoln Chapter #282 	is
hereby 	DISMISSED.
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 a party 	or
filed with the Board itself. 	(See Cal. 	Code of Regs., 	tit. 	8,
secs. 	32300, 	32305 and 32140.)
Robin E. Wright
Board 	Agent
46