Lemoore Union High School District (PERB A047E)

_STATE
	OF
	CALIFORNIA
DECISION
	OF 	THE
PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
CALIFORNIA
	SCHOOL
	EMPLOYEES
	ASSOCIATION
CHAPTER
	495,
APPELLANT,
and
ALICE
	JACKSON,
RESPONDENT,
	PETITIONER,
and
LEMOORE
	UNION
	HIGH
	SCHOOL
	DISTRICT,
RESPONDENT.
' )
)
)
)
) 	Case No.
	S-R-214
PERB
	Order
	No
. 	Ad- 4 7
Administrative
	Appeal
September
	22,
	1978
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
________________ )
Aphearances:	
Richard~-
	~anchez,
	Field Representative
	for 	California
_Sc
	ool
	Empl<:yees
	Association,
	Chapter 	495;
	Alice
	Jackson
	representing
:~
7
rself;
	Neil.
N. _
~ordstrom,
	District
	Superintendent
	for
	Lemoore 	Union
High 	School
	District.
Before
	Gluck,
	Chairperson;
	Cossack Twohey and Gonzales,
	Members.
OP"INION
This
	is
	an
	appeal
	by
	California
	School 	Employees
	Association,
Chapter
	495
	(hereafter
	Association) 	of 	the
	Sacramento
	regional
director's
	decision
	that
	a
	petition
	for 	rescission 	of
	an
	organiza-
tional 	security
	agreement
	is
	timely
	and
	supported
	by
	sufficient
signatures.
	The
	Association 	also 	appeals 	the 	regional
	director's
decision 	to 	schedule 	th~
	rescission-~i~~~iq~.
FACTS
On
	March 	28, 	1977,
	the Association
	was
	certified
	by
	the
	Educa-
tional
	Employment
	Relations
	Board1
(hereafter
	Board) 	as 	the 	exclusive
representative of classified employees of the Lenoore Union High School District
(hereafter District) . 	On September 27 	1977, 	the Association and the District entered	1
1Effective January 1, 	1978 the Educational Fnlployment Relations Board was
renamed the Public Fnlploymmt Relations Board.

a
	conti-act
	effective
	from
	OctqJ:>e_r
	1.	
19Ti'	
to
	June
	30. 	1979.
	The
contract
	contains
	an
	article
	entitled
	DUES
	DEDUCTION
AND
	ORGANIZA-
TIONAL
SECURITY,
1
and
	also
	provides
	that
	both
	the
	Association
	and
1
ARTICLE	
X:V	
-	
DUES.
DEDUCTION
AND
	ORGANIZATIONAL
SECURITY
A. 	The
	Association
	shall
	have
	the 	sole
	and
	exclusive
	right
	to
District
	payroll
	deduction
	for
	membership
	dues
	for
	employees
in
	the 	bargaining
	unit.
	The
	District 	shall
	pay
	said
	deducted
dues
	to
	the Association within
	a
	reasonable
	time
	thereafter.
B.	
Membership
	dues 	and 	servic_e
	fees
	as 	used
	in
	this 	Article
	shall
not 	include
	employee
	contributions 	for 	the
	political 	activities
of
	the Association,
	CSEA,
	or
	any
	successor
	organization.
C.	
The
	District
	shall
	deduct
	membership 	dues
	in
	accordance
	with
the Association
	dues
	schedule, 	contained
	in
	Appendix
	B,
	from
the
	wages
	of
	employees
	in
	the
	unit
	who
	are
	members
	of 	theAssociation
	on
	the
	effective
	date
	of
	this
	Agreement
	and
	who
have .submitted
	written
	dues
	authorization
	forms
	approved 	by
the
	District.
	Similarly, 	the
	District 	shall
	deduct
	membership
dues 	from
	the
	wages
	of
	employees
	in
	the
	unit
	who 	become 	members
of
	the Association
	after
	the
	effective
	date 	of
	this
	Agreement
and
	who
	submit
	written
	dues
	authorization
	forms
	approved
	by
the
	District.
	The
	District 	shall
	not
	be
	required 	to
	make
	saiddeductions 	sooner 	than
	thirty
	(30) 	days
	after
	the 	submission
of
	the
	employee
	authorization
	form
	described herein,
	and
	said
deduction
	authorization
	forms
	shall
	remain
	revokable 	by
	the
employee	
at	
any
	time.
	The
	District 	shall
	promptly
	notify
	the
Association
	if
	a
	unit
	member
	revokes
	a
	dues
	deduction
	authorization.
D. 	A member
	of 	the 	bargaining
	unit
	who
	does
	not
	submit
	the
	dues
deduction 	authorization
	form,
	as 	described
	above,
	or
	who
cancels
	a
	previously 	authorized 	deduction
	authorization, 	shall
be
	required 	to
	pay
	directly
	to 	the Association 	the
	amount
stipulated 	in
	Appendix B.
E.	
For
	a 	member
	of 	the 	bargaining 	unit
	who
	does
	not
	pay
	the
Association 	the
	amount
	described 	in
	Appendix B,
	the
	District'ssole 	responsibility
	and
	obligation 	shall
	be 	to 	notify 	said
employee,
	in writing, 	that 	he/she
	is 	in violation 	of
	thisArticle 	of 	the
	Agreement.
F. 	The
	CSEA
	agrees 	to 	indemnify, 	defend 	and 	hold 	the 	Districtharmless 	against
	any 	claim or 	suit 	instituted 	against 	the
District 	arising
	from
	its
	compliance 	with 	the 	provisions
of 	this 	Article.
-2-

the
	District
	may
	reopen
	negotiations
	on
	any
	two
	articles
	of
	their
choosing
	for
	the
	1978-79
	school
	year.
Members
	of
	the
	negotiating
	unit
	have
	never 	voted
	to
	approve
or
	rescind
	the
	organizational
	security
	article.
In
	accordance
	with 	the
	contractual 	provisions, 	the 	Association
requested
	to
	reopen
	negotiations
	for 	the
	1978-79
	school
	year
	on
salaries
	and
	fringe
	benefits;
	the
	District
	requested 	to
	reopen
negotiations
	on
	the
	organizational 	security
	clause 	only.
	The
parties
	met
	for 	negotiations
	once
	on
	May
	15·,
	1978.
	On
	May 	15
and 	16,
	the
	District
	and
	the 	Association,
	respectively, 	requested
that
	the
	Board,
	pursuant 	to
	section
	3548
	of 	the 	Educational
	Employ-
2
ment
	Relations
	Act
	(hereafter
	EERA),
	declare
	that
	impasse 	had 	been
reached,
	and
	appoint
	a
	mediator.
	The
	Sacramento
	regional
	director
found
	on
	May
	22, 	1978
	that
	the
	parties
	were
	at
	impasse, 	and
	a
metj.~j6i:( y7a~_ ,gppo
inted.
On
	June
	7, 	1978,
	Alice 	Jackson,
	a
	classified
	employee
	of
	the
District,
	submitted
	a
	petition
	to 	rescind
	the
	organizational
security
	clause.
	The
	petition
	submitted
	on
	June 	7,
	1978
	contained
a
	copy
	of 	the
	article 	entitled
	DUES
	DEDUCTION
	AND
	ORGANIZATIONAL
SECURITY. 	The 	Sacramento
	regional 	director
	determined
	the 	petition
to 	be 	timely
	and
	supported
	by
	sufficient 	signatures
	and
	set
	the
rescission 	election 	for
	September 	27, 	1978.
The
	Association 	appeals
	that 	determination, 	contending 	that
the
	initial
	mediation 	session 	is
	scheduled 	to 	begin June 	26, 	1978,
and
	that 	should 	the 	parties 	reach 	agreement 	on
	the 	organizational
2The 	EERA
	is 	codified 	at
	Government 	Code 	sections 	3540
	et 	seq.
All 	further 	references 	are 	to 	the 	Government 	Code 	unless 	otherwise
noted.
-3-

security
	clause
	prior
	to 	the
	scheduled
	rescission 	election
	and
should
	the
	election
	result
	in
	a
	vote
	in
	favor
	of
	rescission,
	a
question
	would
	be
	raised
	as 	to
	whether
	the
	former
	or
	any
	newly
negotiated
	clause
	had
	been
	rescinded.
The
	Association 	also 	notes
	that
	it
	obtained
	a 	number
	of
	judg-
ments
	against 	several
	employees
	of
	the
	District
	in
	the
	Small
	Claims
section
	of 	the
	Justice
	Court
	due
	to
	their 	failure
	to
	pay
	repre-
sentational
	fees
	directly
	to 	the 	Association.
	Four
	of
	these
employees 	have
	appealed
	to 	the
	Superior
	Court
	of
Kings 	County
arguing
	that
	the
	contract
	does
	not 	provide
	for
	agency
	shop.
	The
Association
	contends
	that
	the
	rescission 	election
	should
	be 	held
in
	abeyance 	pending
	the 	court 	decision 	as,
	if
	the 	court 	holds
	in
favor 	of 	the
	employees 	and
	finds
	that
	the
	contract
	does
	not 	establish
an
	agency 	shop,
	the 	question
	of
	rescinding 	the
	article
	would 	be
rendered
	moot.	
·
DISCUSSION
Section
	3546(b)
	of 	the
	EERA
	states:
An
	organizational 	security
	arrangement which
	is 	in
effect
	may
	be
	rescinded
	by
majority 	vote 	of 	the
employees
	in 	the 	negotiating 	unit
	covered
	by 	such
arrangement
	in
	accordance 	with 	rules
	and
	regulations
promulgated by
	the 	board.
Pursuant 	to 	section 	3546(b), 	the 	Board's 	regulations 	provide
that 	the 	petition 	for 	rescission 	submitted by 	an 	employee
	shall
specify:
...
the 	language 	of 	the 	organizational 	securityarrangement 	sought 	to 	be 	rescinded.3
3
cal. 	Admin. 	Code,
	tit. 	8, 	sec. 	34020(b)(5).
-4-

Accordingly, 	the 	petition 	submitted on 	June 	7, 	1978 	contained 	a 	copy
of 	the 	article 	entitled DUES 	DEDUCTION AND 	ORGANIZATIONAL 	SECURITY.
The 	Association 	speculates 	that 	the 	current negotiations 	may 	raise
confusion 	on what 	clause 	is 	being voted on 	in 	the 	rescission
election, 	but 	no 	possible 	factual 	situation 	in which 	confusion
would 	demonstrably 	result 	has 	been 	described 	by 	the Association.
To 	avoid 	just 	such 	confusion, 	the 	text 	of 	the 	clause 	being voted
on 	appears 	on 	each 	ballot 	in 	organizational 	security 	elections.
The Association 	also 	argues 	that 	future 	judgments 	in 	the
pending 	cases 	in 	Superior 	Court may 	render 	moot 	the 	petition 	for
rescission. 	The 	Board 	construes 	the Association 	to 	be 	arguing
that 	should 	the 	Superior 	Court, 	p~ior 	to 	the 	election 	for 	rescission,
hold 	that 	the 	clause 	in 	question 	is 	unenforceable 	against 	the 	unit
members, 	there would 	be no 	"organizational 	security 	arrangement •..
11in 	effect 4 and 	an 	election 	for 	rescission would 	then 	be 	inappro-
priate. 	For 	PERB 	to 	accept 	the 	argument 	of 	the 	Association we
would have 	to 	anticipate 	that 	the 	Superior 	Court will 	find 	for
the 	appellants, 	speculate 	that 	the 	rationale 	of 	the 	court 	will 	be
that 	the 	clause 	is 	not 	a 	valid 	agency 	shop 	arrangement, 	and 	render
an 	advisory 	opinion 	that 	under 	the 	EERA 	such 	a 	clause 	does 	not
constitute 	an 	organizational 	security arrangement 	"il 	.::ffect."
But 	the ·Board will·not 	speculate 	on what 	the 	Superior 	Court 	may
hold, 	nor 	will 	we 	render 	an 	advisory opinion 	on 	the 	requirements
of 	the 	EERA.
4section 	3546(b).
-5-

The
	employees
	of 	the
	negotiating
	unit
	have
	a
	statutory 	right
to 	pass
	on
	the
	desirability
	of
	the
	organizational
	security
	agree-
ment
	in 	effect
	between
	the
	exclusive
	representative
	and
	the
	employer.
A
sufficient
	number
	of
	them5
have 	chosen
	this
	occasion 	to
	avail
themselves
	of 	that
	right.
	We
	are 	not
	disposed 	to
	forestall
expeditious
	satisfaction
	to
	members
	of
	the
	unit
	simply because
they
	might
	receive
	satisfaction
	in
	some
	other
	forum
	at
	some
	other
time.
ORDER
The
	Public
	Employment
	Relations
	Board
	ORDERS
	that:
The
	action 	of
	the
	Sacramento
	regional
	director 	directing
that
	an
	election
	on
	rescission 	of
	the 	organizational
	security
arrangement
	in 	effect
	between
	Lemoore 	Union High
	School
	District
and
	California
	School
	Employees
	Association
	and
	its
	Lemoore 	Union
High 	School 	Chapter
	#495
	be
	held
	on 	September
	2/
	1978.)J-jffirmed.
r 	J
erilou
	Cos
sack
	Twohey. 	Me-;;,ller
1 /
Raymond
	J.
	Gonzales,
	Member
5
cal.
	Admin. 	Code,
	tit.
	8, 	sec. 	34020(b)(7) 	requires 	proof
that 	at 	least
	30 	percent 	of 	the 	employees 	in 	the 	unit 	desireto 	rescind 	the 	existing 	organizational 	security 	arrangement.
-6-

STATE
Of
CALIFORNIA	
EDMUND
G.
BRO
.'IN
IP	
i,n..,nc,,	
===========::=,.."--======================..;_c_---
....
·
..........
----·-
PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
c;acramento Regional Office
1
23 12th Street, Suite
300Sacramento, California 	95814
(916) 322-3198
.
June
	9,
	1978
Mr.
	Neil
	N.
	Nordstrom
District
	Superintendent
Lemoore Union
Pigh
School
District
P.O. 	Box 160
Lemoore,
	CA
	93245
Mrs.
	Alice
	Jackson
15631
	Iona
	Avenue
Hanford,	
CA	
93230
Mr.
	RichJrd
	Sanchez
Field 	Representative
C.S.E.A.,
	Lem,>ore
	Chapter
	t/495
1490
W.
	Sluw
Avenue,
	Suite
	B
Fresno,	
Ci\ 	YJ705
Dear
	Interested 	Parties:
Please
be advised
	that
pursuant 	to
Article
	2,
	Section
	34020,
	Chapter
	8,
California
	Administrative
Code,
	the
Regional
	Director
	has
made nn
administr.itive determination
on
a
	petition
	for 	Recision
	of
an Organization11
l
Security
Arrangement
	in
.the
Lemoore
Union High
School
	District
	(ClassH
il!J
Employees
	Unit),
	and
	directs 	that
	an
	election
	be
held.
The
	petition filed
	is
	timely
and
	is
	supported
	by
at 	least 	thirty
percent
(30;~)
	of 	the
	employees
	in
	the established
unit.
	The
date of the
election
is
	September
	27, 	1978.
Further	
t!
1
ec
t
ion
details will
be-,
forthcoming
	from
	the
	Sacramento Rcgiona
1
Offic1:
	in
	the month
of
Aug~st.
Should you have
aii.y
	questions regarding
	this
	matter. 	please contact
	Joe 	Basso
at
	(916) 	322-3198. 
,
Notke
	is
	also given
	that
	any
	party
may
	obtain
a
	review of
	this
	ac'tiGn by
filing
	an
	.:ipp~.:il
with
Mr.
	Charles Cole, 	Executive Director,
	923 -
	12th
8trect,Suite
	201, 	Sacramento,
	CA· 9'5814. 	The
appeal must be
	filed within 	ten
calendar days 	ending- on June 21, 	1978. 	The
appeal should 	contain
a
	complete
Ii

..	
Alice
	Jackson
Richard
	Sanchez
	page
2	
June	
9,	
1078
statement
	sett1.ng.
forth
	the
	~acts
	and
	reasoning
	upon
which
	the
appea
1
	is
based:
	Copies
of any
appeal
must be
served
	upon
all
	other
	parties
	to
	the
action.
Sine
er
e l~
WILLIAM
	•
Regional
	ector
I
By.
J(crame~~o
	Regional
	Representative
WEB/JB/dc
••
(