Pittsburg Unified School District (PERB A034E)

STATE
	OF
	CALIFORNIA
DECISION
	OF 	THE
PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
UNI'IED
PUBLIC
EMPIDYEES
,
LOCAL
390,
SEIU,
	AFL-CIO,
En:ployee Organization,
APPEI.LANT,
and
PUBLIC
EMPLOYEES
UNION,
	LOCAL
NO.
	1,
En:ployee Organization,
and
CALIFORNIA
SCHOOL
EMPIDYEES
ASSOCIATION,
PITI'SBURG CHAPTER NO.
	44,
Employee Organization,
and
PITI'SBURG
UNIFIED
SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
En:ployer.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
-------------------')
Case
Nos
.
SF-D-18
SF-D-20
PERB
Order
No.	
Ad-
34
Administrative Appeal
May
26, 	1978
Appearances : 	Stewart Weinberg, Attorney
(Van
Bourg, Allen, Weinberg and
Roger) 	for United Public En:ployees, Local 390,
	SEIU, AFL-CIO;
Henry
L. 	Clarke,
General Manager, 	for Public Employees Union, Local No.
	l;
	Sal P. 	Cardinale,
'D:puty Superintendent, 	for Pittsburg Unified School
District; 	CaliforniaSchool Employees Association, 	Pittsburg Chapter
No.
	44 made
no appearance.
Before Gluck, 	Chairperson; 	Gonzales and Cossack 'Iwohey,
	Members
.
OPINION
United Public Enployees, 	Local 390, 	SEIU, AFL-CIO
	(hereafter
SEIU)
requests a stay of a decertification election ordered by
t..~e
San Francisco
regional director in a unit of classified employees of the Pittsburg Unified
School District. 	The stay is requested pending the resolution by the Board
itself of an administrative appeal filed by SEIU which claims that Public

Employees Union, Local
No.
	1
	(hereafter
local
No.
	1)
	should
not
appear on
the
ballot
in
the
election
because
it
did
not
file
a
valid decertification
petition.
FACTS
The
agreen:ent
negotiated
by
the
present
exclusive
representative of
the
unit
expires on June 30, 	1978. 	A
valid decertification
petition
was
filed
by
SEIU
during
the 'window period" allowed by Educational Ernployrrent
1	
Relations Act
	(hereafter
EERA)
	section 3544.7(b)(l).
	A
decertification
petition
was
also
	filed
by Local
No.
	1 one day before
the
window
period
closed, 	but the regional
director
determined
it
was
not
accompanied by the
30
percent	
2	showing
of
support
required
by
EERA
section
3544. 5 (
d)
.
	After
the
window
period had closed the regional
director notified
Local
No.
	1
1Governnent
Code
section
3544.7(b)(l) 	provides:
(b)
	No
election shall
be held and the
petition shall
be
dismissed
...
(1)
...
unless the request for recognition
isfiled
less
	than
120
days, 	but rrore than
90
days ,
prior to
the
expiration date
of
the agreenent
....
2Governnent
Code
section
3544.S(d) provides:
A
petition
may
be
filed
with the board,
	in
accordance with
its
rules
and regulations, 	requesting
it
to investigateand decide the question
of
whether employees have
selected
or
wish to select
an exclusive representative or to dete:rnrlne
the appropriateness
of
a
unit,
	by:
(d) 	An employee organization alleging that
the employees
in
an appropriate unit
no longer desire a
particularemployee organization as
	their
exclusive representative,provided
that
such
petition is
	supported by current dues
deduction authorizations or other evidence such as
notarized membership
lists,
	cards, 	or petitions from30 percent of the employees in
t..he
negotiating unit
indicating support for another organization or lack ofsupport for the inclUTibent exclusive representative.
-2-

that it was granted ten calendar days 	in whlch to perfect its showing of
support. 	I.Deal No. 	1 thereafter obtained a 30 percent showing of support.
The regional director then scheduled a decertification election to be held
on Jtme 1, 	1978.
SEID first filed an appeal to the Board itself, 	arguing that local No. 	1
should not appear on the election ballot because its decertification petition
is 	invalid. 	SEIU argues I.Deal No. 	l's showing of support was 1.mt:i.mely.
SEID next filed the present request for a stay of the decertification
election mtil after the Board itself rules on I.Deal No. 	l's right to appear
on the election ballot.
DISCUSSION
SEID' s first appeal questions the right of I.Deal No. 	1 to appear on the
decertification election ballot. 	This issue is central to the election and
rrn..tSt be resolved before the election can be held. 	Therefore, 	the Board finds
it necessary to stay the election pending its resolution of the right of
local No. 	1 to appear on the election ballot.
ORDER
The request of the United Public Err.ployees, I.Deal 390, 	SEID, AFL-CIO for
a stay of the decertification election for a mit of classified employees
presently scheduled to be held on Jtme 1, 	1978, 	is granted.
"~~./4_
·k~~-~erilou Cossack 'lwohey, Merrber
-3-