PERB Order No. A075E•San Ramon Valley Unified School District (PERB A075E)
San Ramon Valley Unified School District (PERB A075E)
PERB Order No. A075ECalperb4 ott 1979
Testo completo
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DECISION OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD SAN RAMON VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DI$TRICT, and UNITED PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 390, SEIU, AFL-CIO, and CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AND ITS SAN RAMON CHAPTER NO. 6 5 . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) _________________ ) Case No. SF-D-33 (R-29B) PERB ORDER NO. Ad-75 ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL October 4, 1979 Appearances: Mattie Scott, Attorney (Breon, Galgani & Godino) for San Ramon Valley Unified School District; Robert J. Bezemek, Attorney (Van Bourg, Allen, Weinberg& Roger) for United Public Employees, Local 390, SEIU, AFL-CIO; and Mary H. Mocine, Attorney . (CSEA) for San Ramon Chapter No. 65. The California School Employees Association and its San Ramon Chapter NO. 65 has appealed to the Public Employment Relations Board from an order of the San Francisco Regional Director blocking a decertification election in the San Ramon Unified School District. On October l, 1979, subsequent to filing these appeals, the United Public Employees, Local 390, SEIU, AFL-CIO, the exclusive representative of maintenance, grounds, custodial, and transportation employees in the District, and against whom the decertification petition was filed, requested PERB to proceed with the decerti- fication election. This request was made notwithstanding the outstanding unfair practice charges it had filed and its own previous request for the Regional Director's blocking order, the
unfair charges having been the basis of the Regional Director's blocking order. In its request, Local 390 states that it understands that the PERB will not entertain objections to the decertification election based upon conduct alleged in the pending unfairs. The Board itself consents to vacating the blocking order and therefore finds these administrative appeals to be moot. Accordingly, they are hereby dismissed. Public Employment Relations Board by JJ .. STEPHEN BARBER Executive Assistant to the Board -2-
&?Ji.Tl 0, C.U.lft)ltNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
s~n Pronc:is.:;o Regional Office
'77 Post St., 9th Flacr·
:1:rft Fran~is.cc, Cclifen'lic 94108
(415) 557-1350
May 30, 1979
San Ramon Valley Unified School Diatriet
699 Old Orchard Drive
D.anville, CA 94526
Attn: Ronald M. Loos, Coord-inator of Personnel Services
united Public Employees, Local 390, SEIU, AFL-CIO
c/o Van aourg, Weinberg, Allen &.Roger
4! Pell< Stre~·t
San Francisco, CA 94102
Attn: Robert J. Sezemek, Attorney
California School Employees AssociAtion
and !t:a San Ramon Chapter No. 65
564· S: North Civic Drive
Walnut Creek, CA 945~6
Attn: Margorie Ott, rield Representative
Re: San Ramon Valley Unified School. District, SF-D-33 {R-29B)
Dear ?nt~tested Partiasi:
on March 10, 1977, a consent election for a unit of
maintenance, grounds, custodial and tr~n.sporta.tion employees in
the San Ramon Valley Unified Dia tr ic·t waa conducted between
Public. Employees union Local 1, Service Employees International
Union Local 390·, Teamsters Loc::al 853, California School
Employees Association Chapter 65, and no representation .. A
majority of the valid ballots were ¢ast for Service Employees
Intarnational union Local 390. On March 18, 197?, Service
Employees International Union, Local 390 was certified as the
exclusive representative. A written agreement covering wages,
hours and other terms and conditions of employment was &ntered
into on December 13, 1977, and thereafter ratified by ehe
District's Board of !du:cat.ion and members. o! the onion.
&?Ji.Tl 0, C.U.lft)ltNIA... Artiele XVII of the agreement,· "t>urationll states thift: The- term• of th is contract s-hall be from the date of its executiQn ~rougb June 30, 1979~ On.less the District or Union-notifies the other p·art1 in writing no later than Aprill, 1979 1 of its desire to terminate or amend this contraet, it shall continue in effect for addttional one-year periods. Additionally, Article XV •completion of Agreem~nt: · Savings Clauser" subsection "c• states that: Either patty may notify the other in writing no late•r than April l, 1978, of its intent to mG>dify or amend only the provisions. concerning salaries and·benefit3 tor 1978-1979., · Pursuant to subsection C above, the union notified the di:str ict on or about Ma.reh 27, 1978 ,._ and the first meeting took place on or about June 2, 1978. On ~ebruary lS, 1979, the di~triet and th~ union agreed on several modifications to the '77-7' agreement, including extending the expiration date ot the contract to September 30,·1979. On• March 6, 1979, California School Employees Asaociation and its San Ramon Chapter No. 65 filed with the San Francisco Regional Office of the Public Employment Relations Board a deeertif ica.tion petition pursuant to Board regulation 33240 rtagarding the maintenance/operations unit in the District·.. The petition was accomp-anied by proof of support alleging that at least 30 percent of the employees in the established unit no longer wished to be repra~ented by United Public Employees Local 390 and in.stead, designated CSEA and itsr San Ramon Valley Chapter No. 65 as the-ir exclusive barga·ining :representative.
ISSUES l) Does th~ collective negotiating agreement bet~een the District and Service Employees !nternational Union Local 390 bar CSEA's decertification petition? 2) Has CSBA and its San Ramon Chapter No. 65 demonstrated a sufficient showing of support? DISCUSSION '!'be statutory •contract bar• language contained in Government Code Section 3544. 7 (b) ( 1) · is quite similar to the contract bar doctrine developed by t_!ie National Labor Relations Board (hereafter NLRB). Although there is no statutory provision included in the Labor Management Relations Act aa amended (baraat!ter LMRA) , 1· the NLRB holds generally that a valid colleetiv~ bargaining agreement will act as a bar to a representation eleetion. 2 The rule is self-imposed and discretionary .. 3 129 u.s.c. 15 let.seq. 2:tnitially, the bar wae for a "reasonable period" and there was no specific period in which to file a petition. In 1939, the National sugar Refining co., (1936) 10 NLRB 1410, [3 LRRM 5441, a one year contract was held to bar •an investigation of repr:eeentation until such time a:s the contract is about to expire and a question exists as to the proper rapra1H1nta. t: i ve. • In 1958, in Pacific coast Association (1958) 121 NLRB 990, [42. LR.RM 1477] .. the contract bar waa extended to two years. Alao at this time, the NLRB created an •open period"' in whioh a 3
Fcctnotes cont.inued from previous page.
pet.ition. could be fil.ed. Originally, the •open period•
extended from 130 days to 90 days prior to the expiration date
of th& contract. Oeluxe Metal Furniture Co. (1958) 121 NLRB
995, [42 LR.RM 1420]. In 1§6~ the 1 open-per!od• was changed to
extend from 90 to 60 day~ prior to the expiration date of the
oontracto In General Cabel Corp., (1962) 139 NLRB 1123, (31
L:RRM 1444], the contract bar was extended to three yearsc
While this Board is net bound by NLRB decisions, cognizance
is taken of caae law developed under the LMRAe !ife Fi9ht@r!
Union v. City of Vallej~ (1974) 12 Cal.3d 608 £87 LRRM 2453] ~
~weetwater · Union lUgh Schoel· Distr ic~ ( ll/23/76) mB Decision
Section 3544.7(b} (l} provides for the dismisaal of a
decertification petition. and bars an election d~ring the term
of a collective negotiatin9 a9:eement. section 3544 .. 7 (b) (1)
states:
No election shall be held ~nd the petition shall
be di:smizHed wheneveri.
{l) There is currently !n effect a lawful
written agreement: negotiated by the public school
employer and another employee organization
covering any employees included in the unit
described in the request for rec09nition, or
unless the request for recognition is filed less
than 120 days, but more than 90 days, prier to
the expiration date of the agreement.
When the parties execute a collective negotiations
agteement,· section 3544a7(b) (1) generally bars exte.rnal
organizations from filing decertification petitions except
3Local l545i United Brotherhood of Carpenters (2nd Cira,
1960) 286 t2d, [47 LRRM 2304]..,..,
during the period running less than 120 but not more than 90 ·
days prior to the expiration.of_ the agreement. Therefore,
during the life of the agre@ment the parties are enabled to
achieve stability in their laboe relations.
The NLRB has developed a "premature extension" doctrine
which essentially dictates· that· when· an· amf)ndment · or· a new
contract containing a latter termination date is executed
during the tet~ of an exiati"g contraet, the former will act as
a bar to an elee·tion only for the remainder of the period when
the prior c:ontract would have beert such a bat. Se$ The
-----Lord
B~ltimore Press·, Inc., 144 NLRB 1376, New England Telephone &
!!legrapb Company, 179 NLRB 531. Therefore, when a •premature
extsnsionu is executed, the appropriate time foe the filing of
a rival petition is during the window or open period· prior to
the expiration date of the origina,l contract. The statutory
window period provided by Government Coda section 3544 o•7 (b) {l)
is leas than 120 days but more than 90 days prior to the
expiration of the contract.
In H. L. Klien Inc. (1964) 148 NLRB 656 [57 LrutM 1073] the
NLU reasoned that:
The primary purpose of the
premature-extent!on rule is to protect
petitioners from being faced with
prematurely executed contracts at a time
when the petitioner would normally be
permitted to file a petition.
5They further reasoned in New En9land Telephone & Telegraph co. (1969) 179 NLlU:l 531 [72 LRRM 1389] that: In determining when a -petition has been timely filed:" the Board has oonai!Jtently sought to provide guidance as to the appropriate time to organize for and seek a change of representatives, and to secure to employee·s the right to change representatives at· .raasona·ble intervals .. The Board is of the view that atability in labor relations is taeilitated by using reasonable guides as to timeliness of pet:.i t ions·. To th is end, we have long held that a new contract for a longer period signed during the term of a previously executed agreement, at a time when that prior agreement would bat a petition, can itself prevent the processing of a rival petition only fer the remainder of the period when the prior eont.ract would have been such a bar. It has been held that, where such a peematur• extffnsion OClcurs, the proper time for the filing ot a rival petition-in order to promote such stability and employee protection is the 30-d·ay period between the 90th day and the 60th day prior. to the expitation date of ta original contract of 3 years or less duratione However, the-Board's rule is not an absolute ban on premature extensions, but only subject.is sueh extensions to the condition that if a ~~!S!:m is filed during the open Eerioa calculated trom the expiration date of the old contract, the ~remature extension will not be a bar. The NLRB has held that a contract is not prematurely extended when e~ecuted n1) during the 60-day insulated period preceding the terminal date of the old eont::act; 2) after the terminal date of the old contract if notice by one of the parties forstalled its automatic ren~wal or it contained no renewal provision: or 3) at a time when the existing contract 6
would not have barted an election because of other contract bar rules.• 4 In the instant case, the paz:ties had negotiated an agreement with ~n expiration date of June 30, 1979. During meetings held on or about ~une 2, 1978, through February 15, 1979, regarding aalar ies and beriefi ts for 1978-·79, they also agreed to extend the expiration date of the contract until September JO~ 1979. The decertification petition was filed by CSEA and its . San R.amcn Chapter No. 65 on March 6, 1979, during the window period of the prior agteement •. It ia hereby determined that the exten·tion of the prior contrae.t 1a premature and does not conatitute a contra.ct bar. Therefore, the decertification· petition &•ubmitted by· CSE.A is t.ill'lely filed .. ~. Showing of SuEport Review of the showing submitted by CSEA and its San Ramon Chapter No. 6!5 in suppottt of their peeition has resul't:ed in the admini~trative determination that it is sufficient to meet the requirement of section 33030(b) and 33240(c} of PBRB's Rules and Regulations. At the present t.ime·, however, United Public Employee.a, . Local 390 has filed an unfair practice charge against the dis tr iot, SP'-CE-350, wb ioh will block an eleetio•n until it isieaolved, or waived by the charging party. An informal 4 Oeluxe Metal Purniture Co. (1958) 121 NLRB 995 [42 L.lUUI 1420]. 7
conference was held on May 7, 1979, and a formal hearing is set
for June 11, 1979, at the nistrict office. At th& time the
char9~ is either wavied or resolvedt an election will be
~irac·ted if appropriate ..
Conclusions and Order
l. The c:ontra:ct between the San Ramon Valley Onified School
District and United Public Employees Local 390 does not serve
as; a bar to the decertification petit'ion filed by California
School Employees Associat.ion. and its San Ramon Chapter No. 65.
2., California School Employees Association and its San· Ramon
Chapter No. 65 has demonstrated a sufficient showing of support
pursuant to section· 33030{b) and 33240(e) of P!R13 8 S Rules and
Regulations.
3. An election will he directed, if-appropr ia.te, to det·armi.ne
which organization? if any, will be certified as the exaltisive
representative of the mainten,ance, grounds, custodial, and .
transportation unit when the unfair practice charge is either
waived or resolved~
An appeal of this decision may be made· within lO calendar
days of service of this decision by filing a statement ot the
facts upon which the appeal is based with the PERB E:x:eou.tive
As~istant to the Board, Mr. Stephen Barber, at 923 12th Street,
Suite 201, Sacramento, CA 95814. Copies of any appeal must be
served on all.other parties to this action with an additional
copy to the San Francisco Regional Officec
Ver:v trulv voni::§,
James w. ·J:amro
nagional Director
JWT: AIM: redP:RDOF 0? SER.VICE BY MAIL· - C.C.P. l013a I dec:lara that.. I am employed in the county of SAN FRANCISCO. I am over the age of aighteen .ycari:1t and. not: a party_ to ~he within entitled cause; my business address is 177 POST STREET, 9~h FLOOR, SAN, FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94109. n -------------Ma,- O 30, 1.979 I served the attached Administrative _D_e_e_is_i_o_n_ ~n the _P_a:r_t_i_e_s_l_i_s_t_ed_b_e_l_ow_ b:,- placing a true copy thereof eclosad in a sea.led envelope with po•tage thare011 fully prepaid, in the United States-&i1 1 ·at San. Francisco .adf.b:essed as follows: ________________________ .. ____________ Ronald. M~ Loos Oita~inator ot Personnel Services San Ramon Uni~ied School District 699 Orchard Drivs Danville, CA 94526. Robert J. Bez-emek. Vtm. Bourg, Weinberg, Allen & Roger 45 Polk Street San Francisco, CA 94102 '--- Marjq;.-ie. Ott, Field Repres'.tntative Cali.tornia School Emplo-yee·s Association and its San Ramon Cha:pte~ No. 65 564 B North Civic Drive Walnut Creek, CA 94596 I decla.ra undet' penalty of pt:rjury th.at the foregoing is t.rus md carnet" and that thi~ declarat:ion was executed. on ~ ;_o_,_l_9_?_ 9_________ • SAN FRANCISCO~ California. Richard O. Dea.ring (Type or print name) -- M_a:s __ at Richard O. Dea.ring (Type or print name)
Continua la tua ricerca in ChatGPT o Claude
Collega Omnilex per cercare nel corpus legale dal tuo assistente IA.