Foothill-DeAnza Community College District (PERB 0010E)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
FOOTHILL-DeANZA COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT, Employer
and
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION, Employee Organization
and
SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL
UNION LOCAL 715, AFL-CIO,
Employee Organization
)
)
)
)
) 	Case No. 	SF-R-20
SF-R-79
EERB Decision No. 	10
March 3, 1977
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances: 	Donald H. Ewing, Director, Education and Personnel
Services, for Foothill-DeAnza Community College District; William
Dobson, Attorney, for California School Employees Association,
Chapter 416; Van Bourg, Allen, Weinberg and Roger by Stewart
Weinberg, Attorney, for Service Employees International Union,
Local 715, AFL-CIO.
Before: 	Alleyne, Chairman; Gonzales and Cossack, Members.
OPINION
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Pursuant to Government Code Section 3544, California School
Employees Association, Chapter 416 (CSEA), filed a request for
recognition with Foothill-DeAnza Community College District
seeking a comprehensive unit of all classified employees
excluding management, supervisory and confidential employees and
noon-duty supervisors. 	Service Employees International Union,
Local 715, AFL-CIO (SEIU) filed an intervention requesting a
"skilled trades and crafts" unit of approximately 90 of the 576
classified employees in the district. 	A unit determination
hearing was conducted by a hearing officer of the Educational
Employment Relations Board.
ISSUES
The first issue presented in this case is whether the
"skilled trades and maintenance" unit requested by SEIU is
appropriate.1 The district and CSEA oppose this requested unit
1 The requested "skilled trades and maintenance" unit

and favor a single comprehensive unit.
The other issues are whether the employee in the following
three job classifications are supervisory employees within the
meaning of the Educational Employment Relationship Act:
custodial foremana, grounds foreman and construction foreman.
SEIU argues that the three job classifications are supervisory.
Although it did not stte its position, CSEA appears to oppose the
supervisory designation. 	The district takes no position on this
issue.
DISCUSSION
The Board finds that the request unit of "skilled crafts and
maintenance employees" is appropriate in the Foothill-DeAnza
Community College District. 	The "skilled crafts and maintenance"
unit petition for by SEIU in this case is similar to the
"operations-support services" unit we found appropriate in the
Sweetwater Unified School District decision.2 The difference is
that SEIU i Foothill-DeAnza did not petition for the "food
services" employees.
The Sweetwater case established units for the classified
service which are presumptively appropriate. 	The presumption is
rebuttable. 	Further, a party may show that a unit which deviates
from a presumptively appropriate unit is also appropriate. 	In
this case, SEIU has shown that a unit of "skilled crafts and
maintenance" employees is appropriate on the basis of a separate
community of interest.
The functional characteristics of the "skilled crafts and
maintenance employees" are very related. 	The functional
relationship among these employees was one basis for the Board's
decision to create an "operations-support services" unit in
Sweetwater and other classified cases.3 In the instant case, the
record offers ample evidence to demonstrate that the skilled
crafts and maintenance employees work primarily with their hands,
includes the following job classifications: 	Crafts Leadman I,
Crafts Leadman II, Maintenance Craftsman I, Maintenance Craftsman
II, Crafts Maintenance Man I, Crafts Maintenance Man II, Utility
Maintenance Man I, Utility Maintenance Man II, Pool Maintenance
Man I, Pool Maintenance Man II, Typewriter and Office Repairman,
Grounds Utility Leadman, Groundsman Gardener I, Groundsmand
Gardener II, Groundsmand Gardener III, Custodian I, Custodian I
(Matron), Custodian II, Refuse Truck Driver, Custodian Stage
Assistant Warehouseman I and Warehouseman II.
2 EERB Decision No. 4, November 32, 1976.
3 Fremont Unified School District, EERB Decision No. 6,
December 16, 1976; San Diego Unified School District, EERB
Decision No. 	8, February 18, 1977.

with tools and in various forms of manual labor, in contrast to
the clerical and professional/technical employees who work with
"paper". 	Only the skilled crafts and maintenance employees use
safety equipment.
The educational qualifications of most of the classifications
in SEIU's proposed unit are an education equivalent to the
completion of the eighth grade, as well as an appropriate license
if one is required by law, and one or more years of experience or
journeyman training if it is applicable. 	In contrast, other
classified employees, such as instructional assistants and
technicians are required to possess a bachelor's degree. 	Special
services employees and clerical workers must possess the
equivalent of a 12th grade education.
In terms of the work location for the employees sought by
SEIU, most skilled construction and maintenance employees report
to the corporation yard of the Foothill-DeAnza District. 	The
warehouse is also located in the corporation yard. 	Although
gardeners are assigned to work on a particular campus, they
report occasionally to the corporation yard. 	Custodial employees
report to separate locations on each campus.
Regarding salary and benefits, hours of work and interaction
of the employees, the record is insufficient to make any relevant
distinctions among the various job classifications of classified
employees except to note that there is a "special services salary
schedule" for those classified employees that are generally
described as professional or technical employees. 	The remainer
of the classified employees are paid on the basis of a separate
salary schedule.
Concerning the criterion of established practices, the
parties stipulated to the following:
California School Employees Association has been
recognized by the Foothill Community College District
for approximately ten years under the Winton Act to
represent an undifferentiated unit of all classified
employees [in] employee/employer relations... For the
academic year of 1974/75 and 1975/76 an independent
organization by the name of employees of California
Community Colleges, was also recognized for purposes
of meeting and conferring under the Winton Act, by the
Foothill Community College District with respect to an
undifferentiated unit of classified employees ... In
the school year 1975/76, after the date for formal
recognition has passed, SEIU, 715, sought and obtained
the right, informally, to represent individual
employees, or groups of employees, in blue collar
classifications on an informal basis, grievances, and
for purpose of obtaining information concerning
employees. 	And during a two-month period in the school
year 1974/75, after the date for formal recognition had

passed, a local union of the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, sought recognition for a unit of blue collar
employees, but recognition was denied on the basis of
timeless.
Based on this stipulation regarding bargaining history, no
further evidence was presented on this point. 	The stipulation
does not suggest a unit different than the unit indicated by the
community of interest criterion.
The testimony given on the efficiency of operation by the
Director of Business Services also does not compel a unit
different than that indicated by the community of interest
criterion. 	The Director of Business Services testified tht the
district has "always insisted on the concept of a total staff",
so the entire staff has always been treated equally, such as with
regard to benefits. 	Also there is a "constant commingling" of
teh entire staff. 	He believes that the employees will suffer
unrest and not be supportive of one another as a consequence of
segregation into more than one unit. 	We have previously found
that more than a single unit of classified employees does not
unduly burden the efficiency of operation of a school district.4
Multiple units consisting of discrete groups of employees which
take cognizance of the different interests and working conditions
of the employees can only enhance the district's ability to deal
effectively with its employees.
Based on the foregoing facts demonstrating a community of
interest among the "skilled crafts and maintenance" employees, we
hold that these employees constitute a separate appropriate
negotiating unit. 	We note that the unit does not include food
services employees since the intervenor does not seek to
represent this classification of employees.
The remaining classified employees in Foothill-DeAnza
Community College District shall constitute a second negotiating
unit. 	No party presented evidence indicating that the 	residual
unit was inappropriate and we therefore do not find it
appropriate.
Superviory Issues
In Sweetwater, supra we indicated that Government Code
3540.1(m) is written in the disjunctive and that an employee need
possess only one of the enumerated functions of duties to be a
supervisor. 	We find that the custodial foreman, the construction
forman, and the grounds foreman do not possess any of the
authorities or functions described in Government Code Section
3540.1(m) and therefore we include them in the unit previously
described as a "skilled crafts and maintenance" unit.
4 Id.; supra note 2; and Pittsburg Unified School District,
EERB Decision No. 3, October 14, 1976.

Custodial Foreman
We find that the two custodial foreman are not supervisors.
Evidence concerning the supervisory status of custodial
foreman was scant. 	The business Services Manager testified that
the custodial foreman does not effectively recommend the
termination of employees. 	He stated, "they initiate a
recommendation but they do not necessarily always succeed." 	The
custodial foreman prepares formal evaluatiojns for the employees
who work under him but these evaluations are reviewed by the next
level supervisor. 	The custodial foreman is involved in the
hiring process to a limited extent. 	He may participate in the
interview and make recommendations, but the ultimate decision
remains with the Manager of Plant Services. 	It was stated that
the custodial foreman can recommend the promotio of custodians
working under him, but there is no evidence to indicate whether
or not these recommendations have any effect. 	The custodial
foreman does not schedule the hours of work of the custodial
staff. 	While it was stated that they may cause an employee to
correct improperly performed work, it was not shown that they
regularly inspect the work of other employees or rerquire such
correction.
The evidence does not demonstrate that the custodial foreman
perform any of the activities enumerated in Government Code
Section 3540.1(m) and they are therefore not supervisors within
the meaning of the Educational Employment Relations Act.
Construction Foreman
We find that the construction foreman are not supervisors.
There was little evidence regarding the construction foreman.
The role of the construction foreman is to give advice to the
crafts employees or to lay out a job and to help the maintenance
supervisor and the electrician plan the construction work to be
performed each week. 	Five carpentry and four painting employees
report to the crafts leadmen, who then report to the construction
foreman who in turn reports to the Maintenance and Construction
Supervisor who reports to the Manager of Plant Services. 	The
craft employees in the areas of electricity, plumbing, heating
and ventilation report directly to the Maintenance and
Construction Supervisor.
The Maintenance and Construction Supervisor prepares the
written evaluations of the foreman and the leadman. 	The
construction foreman prepares the evaluations of employees in the
carpentry shop and counter-signs evaluations prepared by the
leadman painter. 	Disciplinary action of an employee is
recommended by a leadman through the foreman to the Maintenanace
and Construction Supevisor who must confer with the Manager of
Plant Services prior to taking any formal action.

The evidence does not demonstrate tht the construction
foreman perform any of the activities enumerated in Government
Code Section 3540.1(m) and they are therefore not supervisors
within the meaning of the Educational Employment Relations Act.
Grounds Foreman
We find that the grounds foremen are not supervisors.
The evidence on the grounds foreman was also very sparse.
The grounds stff at each campus report to a grounds foreman who
reports to Grounds Supervisor who reports to the Manager of Plant
Services. 	The job description of the grounds foreman, admitted
as e vidence without objection, published by the district,
indicated that the grounds foreman, under direction, is to "plan,
supervise and assist in the gardening and groundskeeping work of
school grounds and landscaped areas and to do other work as
required." 	The foregoing is not sufficient evidence of the
supervisory nature of the position of grounds foreman and we
therefore cannot conclude that the grounds foreman performs any
of the functions detailed in Government Code Section 3540.1(m).
There are no clear indicia of the supervisory status of any
of the three foremen mentioned above. 	Their duties and functions
reflect more the nature of leadmen or senior journeymen than
supervisors. 	There are two or three levels of intervening
authority (Director of Business Offices, Manager of Plant
Services, and Grounds Supervisor or Maintenance and Construction
Supervisor in the cases of the grounds foreman and construction
foreman respectively) between the foreman and the Superintendent.
Since it was not sufficiently proven that the foremen exercise
any of the activities listed in Government Code Section
3540.1(m), we hold that they are not supervisors with the meaning
of the Educational Employment Relations Act.
ORDER
The Educational Employment Relations Board directs that:
1. 	The following units are appropriate for the purpose of
meeting and negotiating, provided an employee organization
becomes the exclusive representative:
Unit A - The skilled trades and crafts employees,
including the custodial foreman, construction foreman
and grounds foreman; excluding all other employees,
including noon-duty supervisor, and management,
supervisory and confidential employees.
Unit B - All classified employees not included in Unit A;
excluding all employees in Unit A, noon-duty supervisors,
and management, supervisory and confidential employees.

2. 	The employees in the following job positions are not
"supervisors" with the meaning of Government Code Section
3540.1(m):
custodial foreman, construction foreman, grounds foreman
3. 	The employee organizations have the 10 workdays posting
period of the Notice of Decision in which to demonstrate to the
Regional Director at least 30 percent support in the above units.
The Regional Director shall conduct an election at the end of
the posting period if (1) more than one employee organizataion
qualifies for the ballot, or (2) if only one employee
organization qualifies for the ballot and the employer does not
not grant voluntary recognition.
By: 	Raymong J. Gonzales, Member 	Reginald Alleyne, Chairman
Jerilou H. Cossack, Member
Dated: 	March 1, 1977
-