Marin Community College District (PERB 0064E)

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_________________ )
STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
MARIN 	COMMUNITY 	COLLEGE 	DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
UNITED PROFESSORS OF MARIN, 	AFT LOCAL 1610,
Employee 	Organization,
and
MARIN ACADEMIC 	ASSOCIATION,
Employee 	Organization,
and
MARINERS 	CALIFORNIA 	TEACHERS 	ASSOCIATION,
Employee 	Organization.
Case No. 	SF-R-140
PERB Decision No. 	64
August 10, 	1978
Appearances; 	R. V. Godino, Attorney 	(Breon, Galgani, 	and
Godino) 	for Marin Community College 	District;
Robert J. 	Bezemek, Attorney 	(Van Bourg, 	Allen, Weinberg and
Roger) 	for United Professors of Marin, 	AFT Local 	1610;
Mary S. 	Roy, 	Representative 	for 	Marin Academic Association;
A. 	Leonard Bjorklund, 	Jr., 	Attorney for Mariners California
Teachers 	Association.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Before Gluck, 	Chairperson; 	Cossack Twohey and Gonzales, 	Members,
DECISION
This 	case 	is 	before 	the 	Public Employment 	Relations 	Board
on 	exceptions 	to 	the 	attached 	hearing 	officer's 	proposed
decision. 	The 	Marin Community College 	District 	excepts 	to 	that
portion of 	the 	hearing 	officer's 	proposed 	decision 	determining

that 	college 	coordinators 	are 	not 	management 	employees 	within
the meaning 	of 	section 	3540.l(g) 	of 	the 	Educational 	Employment
Relations 	Act 	(hereafter 	EERA) .1 The 	hearing 	officer
determined 	that 	the 	position of 	college 	coordinator 	is 	not
managerial, 	but 	is 	supervisorial 	within 	the 	meaning 	of 	section
3540.l(m) 	of 	the 	EERA .
We 	have 	considered 	the 	record 	and 	the 	proposed 	decision 	in
light 	of 	the 	exceptions 	and 	briefs. 	We 	affirm 	the 	proposed
findings 	of 	fact, 	discussion 	and 	conclusions 	of 	law made 	by 	the
hearing 	officer 	concerning 	the 	position of 	college 	coordinator.
ORDER
Upon 	the 	foregoing 	Decision 	and 	the 	entire 	record 	in 	this
case, 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board ORDERS 	that:
The 	position 	of 	college 	coordinator 	is 	not 	managerial
within 	the 	meaning of 	section 	3540.1 (g) 	of 	the 	EERA, 	but 	is
supervisorial 	withi~ 	the 	meaning 	of 	section 	3540 . l(m) 	of 	the
EERA .
Harry 	Gluck 	Chairperson 	Jerilou 	Cossack 	Twohey, 	Membe r
Raymond 	J . 	Gonzales, 	Member
lThe 	EERA 	is 	codified 	at 	Government 	Code 	section 	3540
et 	seq.
/ 	, 	/
O'
V
2

)
___________________ .)
1
STATE 	OF CALIFORNIA
EDUCATIONAL 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
In the Matter of:
MARIN COMMUNITY 	COLLEGE 	DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
UNITED PROFESSORS OF MARIN, 	AFT LOCAL 1610,
Employee Organization,
and
MARIN ACADEMIC ASSOCIATION,
Employee Organization,
and
MARINERS 	CALIFORNIA TEACHERS 	ASSOCIATION,
Employee Organization.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 	SF-R-140
Appearances: 	R. V. Godino, Attorney 	(Breon, Galgani, and Godino)
for Marin Community College District; 	Robert J. 	Bezemek, 	Attorney
(VanBourg, 	Allen, Weinberg and Rogers) 	for United Professors of
Marin, AFT Local 1610; Mary S. 	Roy, 	Representative, 	for Marin
Academic Association; A. 	Leonard Bjorklund, Jr., Attorney, 	for
Mariners 	California Teachers 	Association.
Before Angela Pickett-Evans, 	Hearing Officer.

2
STATEMENT OF 	THE CASE AND 	ISSUES
The Marin Community College District 	[District] 	consists of
two campuses: 	College 	of Marin 	and 	Indian Valley Colleges, 	both
located 	in Marin County. 	The 	District 	currently employs 	659 	teach-
ers, 	three-fourths of whom teach 	at College of Marin.l
On April 	1, 	1976 	the United 	Professors 	of Marin, 	AFT Local
1610 	[AFT], filed a petition with 	the Marin Community College Dis-
trict 	seeking 	recognition 	as 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	of 	all
full-time 	and 	part-time 	credit 	certificated 	employees 	and 	college
coordinators, 	excluding 	non-credit 	instructors.2/ 	On April 	7, 	the
Marin Academic 	Association 	[MAA] 	intervened 	and 	challenged 	the
appropriateness 	of 	the 	unit 	requested 	by 	the AFT. 	The MAA asserted
that 	the 	appropriate 	unit 	consisted 	of 	all 	full-time 	and 	part-time
certificated employees, 	including non-credit 	instructors, 	but 	that
college 	coordinators 	should 	be 	excluded 	from 	the 	unit. 	On April 	26,
the Mariners 	California Teachers Association 	[CTA] 	also 	intervened
and 	filed 	a challenge 	to 	the 	appropriateness 	of 	the 	unit 	sought 	by
the 	AFT. 	The 	CTA claimed 	that 	the 	appropriate 	unit 	consisted
l For 	the purposes of 	this decision, 	the 	instructors 	in 	the Dis-
trict 	have 	been classified 	into 	three 	categories: 	full-time 	in-
structor, 	part-time credit 	instructor, 	and part-time non-credit
instructor. 	The 	District employs 	approximately equal 	numbers 	of
each 	category. 	(Non-credit 	instructors 	are 	those who 	teach 	adult
education 	and 	community 	service 	courses 	for 	which 	no 	academic 	credit
is given.)
2/ The AFT later altered its position with respect to college co-
ordinators 	to 	state 	that 	college 	coordinators 	should 	be 	excluded 	on
the 	basis 	of 	their 	alleged 	supervisorial 	status.

of all certificated employees, 	including non-credit 	instructors 	and
college coordinators. 	On May 4, 	1976 	the District filed a petition
with the Educational Employment Relations 	Board requesting
determination of the appropriate unit. 	The District's position
was 	that the appropriate unit included all certificated employees,
including non-credit teachers, 	but that college coordinators
should be excluded on the basis of their alleged management status. 	.
A hearing was held on March 11, 	15, 	28, 	and 29, 	addressing the
following issues:
1. 	Whether 	the appropriate unit 	includes part-time non-
credit 	instructors 	as well as part-time and 	full-time credit 	in-
structors;
2. 	Whether college coordinators are supervisory or man-
agerial employees.
APPROPRIATE UNIT; 	ANALYSIS AND
CONCLUSIONS OF FACTS AND 	LAW"
I. 	Introduction
Section 3545(a) 	of 	the Educational Employment Relations Act
(EERA)3/ states 	that when the appropriateness of a unit is 	in
question:
... the Board shall decide the question on the basis of the
community of 	interest 	between and 	among 	the employees 	and
their 	established practices 	including, 	among other 	things,
the extent to which such employees 	belong 	to 	the 	same
employee organization, 	and 	the effect of 	the 	size of 	the
unit on 	the efficient operation of 	the 	school district.
3 Government 	Code 	Section 	3540 et 	seq.
3

)
•
4
_
Section 	3545(b) 	(1) 	r e q u i r e s 	t h a t 	in 	a l l 	cases:
. . . a negotiating unit that includes classroom teachers shall not
be appropriate unless it at least includes all of the classroom
teachers employed by the public school employer, except
management employees, supervisory employees, and confidential
employees.
Belmont School District 4 and Petaluma City Elementary and High
School Districts 5/ held that the definition of "classroom teacher"
is limited "only to the regular full-time probationary and permanent
teachers employed by a district." 	Accordingly, the factors delin-
eated in Section 3545(a) 	need not be evaluated with respect to the
inclusion of full-time instructors within the negotiating unit.
Since part-time credit and part-time non-credit instructors are not
"classroom teachers" within the meaning of Section 3545(b) 	(1),:
however, the factors specified in Sections 3545(a) control whether
'those classification of instructors will be included within the
negotiating unit in this case.
In the discussion which follows, attention first will be
directed toward the question of whether part-time credit instructors
should be included within the negotiating unit to which full-time
instructors belong. 	Secondly, the question of inclusion of
part-time non-credit instructors will be addressed.
4 EERB Decision 	No. 	7, 	December 	30, 	1976.
5 EERB 	Decision 	No. 	9, 	February 	22, 	1977,

V
II. 	Part-Time Credit Teachers 	Share a Community of Interest with
Full-Time Teachers.
Los 	Rios 	Community 	College District 6 held 	that part-time
instructors 	in the Los 	Rios 	district had a 	sufficient 	community of
interest with 	full-time 	teachers 	to warrant 	their 	inclusion 	in 	the
same negotiating unit. 	That 	case, 	which rejected the view that NLRB
precedents 	concerning 	four year 	colleges 	are applicable 	to 	the
community college 	system of California, 	based its 	conclusion
concerning 	community of 	interest 	on 	the 	similarities which 	existed
between the 	two 	groups 	of 	teachers with respect 	to 	compensation,
participation in the governance system, 	ability to obtain tenured
employment, 	and working conditions. 7
The similarities in duties, 	skills, working conditions,
interests 	and rights which exist between part-time 	credit 	and 	full-
time credit 	teachers 	in the present 	case are more 	significant 	than
were 	the 	similarities between the 	same ranks 	of teachers 	in Los 	Rios.
In this 	case, 	as 	in Los Rios, 	the content and quality of courses
taught by either grouping of 	teachers 	are 	identical, 	and courses
taught by either are transferable 	to other institutions 	in 	the 	state;
the minimum academic 	standards 	required of either 	set 	of 	instructors
are 	similar;8 both categories 	of 	instructors may participate 	in 	the
governance 	system of the District; 	both are evaluated in a 	similar
manner;9 both have equal access 	to 	instructional facilities; 	and both
6 EERB Decision No. 	18, June 9, 	1977.
7 The 	leading NLRB case, 	New York University, 	205 NLRB 4, 	83 LRRM 1549
(1973), 	excluded from the bargaining unit of university 	teachers
those instructors who were not employed in "tenure 	track" positions.
8See discussion below at page 	17.
9See 	discussion below at page 	14.
-5-

have similar 	instructional responsibilities, 	including teaching,
preparation, 	and writing and grading examinations.
Where 	there are 	differences between the 	two 	strata of
teachers 	in the present case, 	those differences 	are no greater 	than
differences 	found between part- 	and full-time 	teachers 	in Los Rios.
For example, 	in both cases, 	the hiring procedures 	for part-time
instructors 	(in this 	case, 	for part-time instructors 	teaching six
units 	or 	less) 	are 	less 	formal 	than those 	followed for 	instructors
teaching full-time; 	part-time teachers have no offices, 	although
they keep 	informal office hours; 	only full-time teachers 	are eligible
for sabbatical; 	only full-time 	teachers 	are required to attend
departmental meetings; 	not all part-time teachers 	are eligible 	for
any 	form of health benefit; 	and many part-time 	credit 	teachers 	have
outside employment.
And 	there 	are 	further 	similarities between 	the 	two 	strata
of 	teachers 	in 	the 	instant 	case which were not held in common by
part- 	and full-time teachers 	in Los Rios. 	In this case, 	both class-
ifications 	of teachers may, 	and do, 	teach either during the 	day
or 	the evening; 	both have written contracts; 	both are paid on the
same day of the month; 	both have access 	to 	the grievance process;
and both have access 	to 	funds 	for 	field trips 	and conferences.
Since 	the record in this 	case 	shows 	an even closer community
of 	interest between part- 	and 	full-time 	credit 	teachers 	than was
present in Los Rios, 	it is 	concluded that, 	based on community of
interest 	criteria, 	part-time 	credit 	teachers 	and full-time 	teachers
should be 	included within 	the 	same negotiating unit.
-6-

)
7
Established practices. 	Section 3545(a) 	states 	that 	the
established practices 	between and among 	employees 	is 	an additional
factor 	to be 	evaluated in determining 	the 	appropriateness 	of the
negotiating unit. 	The Board has 	held 	that 	little weight 	should
be 	given 	to 	the 	established practices 	of employees 	which antedated
the passage of the EERA unless 	it 	is 	shown that unit 	composition
under 	the Winton Act was 	established 	in a bilateral 	context.
Sweetwater Union High School District.10/ In any event, 	there is
little 	evidence on 	the record of 	the present 	case which 	sheds
light on this 	issue. 	It is known that between 1970 	and 1975
an 	employee 	organization 	operated 	for 	the 	benefit 	of 	part-time
faculty members; 	but 	the 	record 	is 	silent 	as 	to 	the 	extent 	to which
other 	organizations 	operated within 	the 	District, 	and 	the 	degree 	to
which 	part-time 	credit 	faculty 	were 	integrated 	with 	full-time
faculty within 	them. 	The 	full 	facts 	concerning 	established 	prac-
tices 	cannot 	accurately be 	derived 	from 	this 	sparse 	record; 	thus,
the 	recommendation 	that part-time 	and 	full-time 	credit 	teachers 	be
joined 	in 	the 	same 	unit 	rests 	with 	the 	community of 	interest 	an-
alysis 	discussed 	above. 11
11umi 	Decision No. 	4, November 	23, 	1976.
11/ The parties presented 	no evidence concerning efficiency of oper-
ations, 	an additional 	factor 	listed 	in Section 3545(a). 	Accord-
ingly, 	no 	finding 	is made with 	respect 	to 	that 	issue.

III. Part-Time Non-Credit 	Teachers 	Share 	a 	Community 	of 	Interest
with 	Part-Time 	Credit Teachers 	and Full-Time 	Teachers.
Even though Los 	Rios, 	supra, 	did not 	deal 	directly with the
question of 	the 	inclusion 	of non-credit 	and 	credit 	teachers within
the 	same 	negotiating unit.12/ the 	community of 	interest 	standards
enunciated in that 	case are applicable, 	by analogy, 	to 	the 	issue
at hand. 	We now proceed 	to 	a 	comparison of 	the particular 	interests
shared between 	teachers 	in 	the 	present 	case with 	those 	shared by
instructors 	in Los 	Rios.
12
The Board has 	not 	yet 	passed on 	the 	question of whether non-
credit 	instructors within 	a 	community 	college 	context 	share 	a
community of 	interest with credit 	teachers. 	The 	Board has
passed on 	the 	issue 	of 	inclusion 	of high 	school 	adult 	education
teachers 	in 	three 	cases: 	Petaluma Elementary and High 	School
District, 	EERB Decision No. 	9, 	February 22, 	1977; Lompoc Unified
School District, 	EERB Decision No. 	13, March 17, 	1977; 	and New
Haven Unified School District, 	EERB Decision No. 	14, 	March 27, 1977.
In 	each 	case 	the 	Board 	determined 	that 	there was 	an 	insufficient
community 	of 	interest 	between 	adult 	education 	teachers 	and high
school 	teachers 	to warrant 	inclusion of adult 	education 	teachers
in 	the negotiating unit. 	Those 	cases 	are 	distinguishable 	from
the 	instant 	case. 	Although 	there are 	some 	similarities
between 	adult 	education 	teachers 	in 	those 	cases 	and non-credit
teachers 	in 	the 	community 	college 	context 	of 	this 	case 	(particularly
with respect to 	terms 	of employment), 	there are overwhelming
distinctions 	between 	them. 	In 	those 	cases,adult 	education
classes were vocationally 	(or 	"enrichment") 	oriented; 	they had
only 	an 	oblique 	curricular 	connection 	to 	regular 	day 	classes;
they 	served 	a 	constituency which was 	distinct 	from that which
was 	served by 	the high 	schools; 	classes were held at night;
and 	there was 	no 	discernible 	interchange between 	adult 	education
and high school 	teachers. 	In 	the present 	case, 	non-credit
teachers 	are 	integrated 	to 	a much higher 	degree 	into 	the
curriculum of 	the colleges, 	and, 	as 	the 	following discussion shows,
they 	share 	a 	substantial 	community 	of 	interest with part-time 	credit
teachers 	as well as 	full-time 	teachers.
-8-

1. 	Eligibility for 	leave. 	In Los Rios, 	both classi-
fications 	of 	teachers 	were 	eligible 	for 	sick 	leave, 	and only 	full-
time 	teachers were 	eligible 	for 	leaves 	of 	longer 	duration. 	In 	the
present 	case, 	all 	strata of 	teachers 	are 	eligible 	both 	for 	sick
leave 	and paid 	jury duty leave, 	and only 	full-time 	teachers 	are
eligible 	for 	leaves 	of 	longer 	duration.
2. 	Compensation, 	In Los Rios, 	compensation of full-
time 	and part-time 	teachers was 	related in 	that part-time 	teachers 	re-
ceived 	a percentage of 	the 	first 	step of 	the 	full-time 	salary 	sche-
dule. 	In the present case, 	part-time credit teachers 	receive a pro-
rata percentage of 	the 	amount paid 	to 	full-time 	teachers, 	while 	non-
credit 	teachers 	are 	paid 	by 	the 	hour.13
3. 	Contracts. 	In Los Rios, 	the contracts of part-
time 	instructors 	were 	contingent on 	the 	enrollment of 	20 	students,
whereas 	those of 	full-time 	instructors 	contained 	no 	such 	contin-
gency. 	There were 	exceptions 	to 	the 	minimum enrollment
requirement, 	however. 	In the present case, 	the contracts of part-
time 	credit 	and 	non-credit 	instructors 	are 	contingent 	on 	a minimum
enrollment 	figure, 	whereas 	the 	contracts 	of 	full-time 	instructors
have 	no contingency clause. 	However, 	in this case 	(just as 	in Los
Rios) 	numerous 	exceptions 	exist which 	allow a class 	to 	be 	taught 	in
spite of 	under-enrollment. 	For 	credit classes:
13
Another 	aspect 	of 	the 	compensation 	scheme 	for 	certificated
employees 	is 	worth 	noting 	as 	well: 	many part-time credit 	instruc-
tors 	supplement 	their 	earnings 	with outside 	employment, 	just 	as 	do
most 	part-time 	non-credit 	instructors.
-9-

•
...exceptions 	may be made 	in 	classes 	required 	for 	graduation,
for a major, 	or 	for a career, 	in classes offered 	irregu-
larly, 	in- classes which can be offered only 	in limited
classroom or 	laboratory facilities, 	in classes which are
part of an experimental or pilot program, 	in classes 	sub-
ject 	to 	statutory 	and 	state 	regulations 	mandating 	class
size, 	and 	in classes 	whose 	cancellation would 	effect 	a
financial 	disadvantage 	for 	the 	college.14
For non-credit classes, 	there 	is 	a simpler 	exception:
The Office 	of 	Instruction may work 	for 	an overall average
of 	20 	students 	per class, 	using discretion 	in continuing
classes 	of 	considerable 	value 	educationally 	although 	the
expected 	20 	may 	not 	enroll. 15
4. 	Evaluations. 	In Los Rios, 	the methods used 	to
evaluate 	full-time and part-time 	teachers were very 	similar, 	except 	that
part-time 	evening 	instructors 	and 	full-time 	instructors 	were 	eval-
uated by different offices. 	In the present case, 	all 	teachers 	are
evaluated, 	although 	full-time 	teachers 	are 	evaluated more 	often 	than
are part-time 	teachers, 	who, 	in turn, 	are evaluated more often than
non-credit 	teachers. 	(Full-time 	faculty are 	evaluated during 	their
first year, 	then are 	evaluated once every year 	thereafter.
The 	evaluation 	is 	carried out by an evaluation team consisting of
the chairperson of the department, 	another member, 	if desired, of
the department which 	employs 	that particular 	instructor, 	and an
administrator. 	Full-time 	faculty members may choose 	from among 	four
methods of evaluation: 	student evaluation with student question-
14Marin Community Colleges Handbook, Sections 6045
15 Ibid, 	Section 6230.
-10-

naire, 	peer evaluation with peer visitation of the class, 	learning
outcome evaluation, 	and self-evaluation. 	Part-time credit
instructors 	are 	evaluated during 	their 	first year, 	and every 	third
year 	thereafter. 	They may choose 	from among 	three methods 	of
evaluation. 	Part-time non-credit 	instructors 	are 	evaluated during
their 	first quarter of instruction, 	and are evaluated 	thereafter
"if there is a problem". 	(Testimony of Caryl Darrow, 	Tr. 	86:16).
The 	evaluation procedure 	for non-credit 	instructors 	consists 	of
staff monitoring of a 	class 	and consideration of 	student
evaluations.
5. 	Governance 	System. 	Both 	part-time 	and full-time 	in-
structors participated 	in the governance 	system in Los 	Rios. 	In the
present case, 	only credit 	instructors 	are 	entitled 	to participate 	in
that system. 	(Both campuses 	have 	two 	levels 	of 	governing 	systems:
an 	academic 	senate 	[called 	coordinating 	council 	at 	Indian Valley
Colleges] 	and campus-wide committees. 	At College of Marin, 	there
are 	nine campus-wide 	committees, 	of which 	60 	instructors 	are mem-
bers; 	at 	Indian Valley Colleges, 	there 	are 	three campus-wide commit-
tees.) 	However, 	only two of 	the 	60 	instructors 	in committees 	at
College of Marin are part-time 	credit 	instructors, 	and 	none of 	those
on 	the 	Indian Valley 	Colleges' 	committees 	axe part-time
credit 	instructors. 	Of 	the members of 	the academic 	senate 	at Col-
lege of Marin, 	three are part-time credit 	teachers; 	and of the mem-
bers of 	the 	coordinate 	council 	at 	Indian Valley Colleges, 	none 	are
-11-

-12-
part-time credit teachers. 	Thus., 	the fact that non-credit 	instruc-
tors do not participate 	in 	the governing 	bodies of 	the 	two colleges
in 	the District 	is not a strong 	factor 	showing a divergence of com-
munity of 	interest: 	there 	is 	no practical 	discrepancy between 	the
participation of part-time non-credit, 	and part-time credit,
instructors.
6. 	Support services. 	In Los Rios, 	both part-time and
full-time 	instructors 	had equal 	access 	to audiovisual 	facilities 	and
student assistants. 	In the present case, 	all 	strata of 	teachers 	are
given access 	to school 	support 	services, 	including duplicating sup-
plies, 	audiovisual equipment, 	the counseling staff and 	lab assis-
tants.16 In 	the present case, 	as 	in Los Rios, 	only full-time 	in-
structors 	have offices.
7. 	Office Hours. 	In Los Rios, 	part-time 	instructors
were not required 	to keep office hours, 	whereas 	full-time 	instruc-
tors were so required. 	The 	same 	is 	true 	in the present case. 	In
addition, 	in this case both categories of part-time 	instructors con-
sult with 	students on an 	informal 	basis.
In Los Rios, 	both full-time and part-time 	instructors 	had
certain 	common 	rights 	and 	characteristics 	which 	are 	not 	shared 	by
instructors 	in 	the 	present 	case. 	Such 	differences 	are 	based on 	the
number 	of 	units 	taught 	by an 	instructor 	rather 	than on 	the 	credit/
non-credit distinction.
16 According 	to 	the District Handbook, 	credit 	teachers 	are 	given
priority over 	non-credit 	teachers 	for 	the 	use 	of 	"instructional
facilities." 	Whether 	"instructional 	facilities" 	is a 	term synony-
mous with 	the 	services 	listed above 	is 	not made 	clear 	in the
record. 	In any event, 	there 	is 	no evidence that any actual conflict
has arisen, or 	is 	likely to arise, 	with respect to the use of 	those
facilities.

8. 	Health benefits. 	In the present case, 	as 	in Los
Rios, 	only 	full-time 	instructors 	and 	part-time 	instructors 	teaching
a minimum percentage of 	a 	full-time 	load 	(12 units, 	in 	this case)
are eligible 	for 	health benefits. 	(In this case, 	only 21 percent of
part-time 	credit 	instructors, 	and no non-credit 	instructors, 	are
eligible 	for 	those 	benefits.)
9. 	Credential requirements. 	In Los Rios, 	almost all
teachers 	held community college 	credentials. 	In 	the present case,
all 	teachers 	hold 	some 	credential, 	and 	there 	are 	substantial 	simil-
arities 	between 	the credential 	requirements 	for 	credit 	and 	non-
credit 	part-time 	teachers.17 As 	indicated 	above, 	most 	non-credit
teachers 	are 	credentialed 	to 	teach 	credit 	classes, 	and 	the 	actual
academic 	qualifications 	of 	each 	group of 	instructors 	are 	quite
similar.
17 Section 	87275 	of 	the 	Education Code 	(as 	reorganized, 	April 	30,
1977) 	and 	Title V of 	the California Administrative Code 	set out 	the
various 	academic 	requirements 	for 	attaining 	community college 	cre-
dentials. 	(1) 	Teachers who teach 	in excess of 	12 units must hold a
Master's degree. 	(2) 	Two distinct credentials 	are available 	for
those 	seeking 	to 	teach 	less 	than 	12 	units 	of 	community college
classes." 	The prerequisites for obtaining a temporary ("Special Limited
Services") 	credential are 	(a) 	graduation 	from high 	school or posses-
sion of 	a General Education Development Diploma, 	and 6 years of
appropriate occupational experience, 	or 	(b) 	possession of 	an A.A.
degree, 	or 	completion of 	60 	semester 	units of course work, 	and 	four
years 	of appropriate occupational experience. 	For 	a non-temporary
("Limited Service") 	credential, 	the 	requirements are 	(a) 	graduation
from high school, 	and six years of 	appropriate occupational exper-
ience, 	plus 	60 clock hours or 	four 	semester units of 	teacher 	train-
ing; 	(b) 	possession of an A.A. 	degree, or completion of 60 semester
units of course work, 	and four years of appropriate educational
experience, 	plus 	60 clock hours or 	four 	semester 	units of 	teacher
training; 	(c) possession of a B.A. degree, plus two years appropri-
ate occupational" experience; 	or 	(d) 	four years of higher educa-
tion, 	plus 	certification by the district in each subject 	in which
the applicant has adequate 	training and experience 	to teach,Cal. 	Admin,
Code, Title 5, 	Sections 52572-73, 	52560-64. 	(3) For non-credit in-
structors, 	the 	prerequisites 	for 	obtaining 	a credential 	("Certifi-
cate of Qualification") 	are four 	years of higher 	education 	(120 sem-
ester units), or four years of occupation experience, plus certifi-
cation 	by the district 	that 	the applicant 	has adequate training and
experience 	to 	teach 	the classes 	for 	which 	the applicant 	is 	to be
employed. 	Cal. Admin. Code, Title 5, Section 52600.
-13-

10. 	Hiring Practices. 	In Los Rios, 	the hiring pro-
cess 	for 	full-time 	teachers was more extensive 	than 	it was 	for part-
time 	teachers. 	In the present case, 	full-time hiring 	involves more
massive screening and 	interviewing, 	through more departments, 	than
does part-time hiring, 	and 	the hiring process 	followed 	for many
part-time credit and non-credit 	teachers 	is 	identical. 	(Full-time
hiring 	involves 	advertising for 	the position, 	invitation of applica-
tions, 	affirmative action screening, 	interviews with applicants by a
selection committee, 	and 	final approval by 	the Board of Trustees.)
Applicants 	for 	part-time credit positions 	exceeding six units 	are
hired by the 	faculty within the academic department, 	with assistance
from the administration. 	Hiring 	for 	these positions 	usually 	in-
volves 	a limited amount of advertising, 	and the principles of af-
firmative action generally apply. 	For 	part-time 	credit positions
not exceeding six units, 	basic hiring responsibilities
are 	placed with 	the 	department 	in which 	the 	instructor 	would 	teach.
Part-time 	non-credit hiring 	is 	conducted 	by the 	assistant 	dean of
instruction, with 	the participation of 	the 	departments 	as 	needed.
Customarily, 	the hiring process 	involves 	submission by the 	applicant
of 	a proposed course outline: 	the hiring decision 	is 	based on the
assessed quality of 	the proposed course, 	as well as 	the 	teacher's
abilities. 	Just as 	in Los Rios, hiring, procedures in the present
case 	become more 	intensive 	in proportion 	to 	the number 	of 	classes
which the prospective teacher might 	teach, 	rather 	than 	in relation
to the credit or non-credit nature of "the course.
And 	further, 	there are considerable 	similarities 	between
all groups of 	teachers 	in 	this case which did not exist between
part-time and full-time 	instructors 	in Los Rios:
-14-

11. 	Supervision.. 	Supervision of all certificated
personnel 	is carried out fay the 	same 	individual at each college,
i.e., 	the director of educational services, 	at Indian Valley Colleges
and 	the 	assistant dean of instruction 	at College of Marin.
12. 	Grievance Procedure. 	All faculty have access 	to
the grievance 	procedure, 	and any faculty member may be 	the 	subject
of a student grievance.
13. 	Tenure. 	All 	instructors may acquire tenure.
(See footnote 14, 	above, 	and accompanying text.)
14. 	Workshop/travel funds. 	All 	faculty may attend
in-service workshops 	and all have 	access 	to 	funds 	for 	field 	trips
and conferences.
15. 	ADA funds. 	Non-credit classes 	generate 	state
funds 	equal 	to 	those 	generated 	by 	similarly-sized 	credit 	classes.
(Average Daily Attendance, 	or 	ADA, 	funds 	are 	generated 	by any given
class 	based on 	the 	number 	of 	students 	who 	attend 	that 	class.)
16. 	Bereavement 	leave/jury duty leave. 	All 	instruc-
tors, whether full-time or part-time, 	credit or non-credit, 	are
eligible both 	for bereavement 	leave 	and paid jury 	duty 	leave.
17. 	Classes. 	Credit classes 	are offered both during
the 	day and 	the evening, 	as 	are non-credit classes. 	Some classes
may be 	taken either 	for 	credit or 	non-credit. 	In addition, 	many
non-credit 	classes 	which 	are 	not 	available 	for 	credit 	are 	similar 	in
difficulty and 	substance 	to credit classes. 	(On 	the other 	hand,
non-credit 	classes 	are 	offered on 	a quarterly basis, 	whereas 	credit
classes- are offered per 	semester.)
-15-

In 	addition 	to 	the 	community 	of 	interest 	factors 	shared
by all 	District 	instructors, 	certain basic 	educational 	principles
also 	serve 	to unify 	their roles. 	A 	sharp 	schism once 	existed
between 	the 	functions 	of non-credit 	classes 	and credit 	classes.
But non-credit 	classes 	no 	longer 	serve merely 	a 	secondary,
recreational 	objective within 	the 	District 	- 	they now comprise
an 	integral 	part 	of a movement 	geared 	toward providing 	continuing
education 	to 	all 	segments 	of 	the population of Marin, 	and 	the
range 	of non-credit 	classes 	offered 	spans 	from the 	highly
academic, 	through 	those which are vocationally oriented, 	on to
those which 	are 	geared 	toward 	recreation.
The 	Five-Year 	Plan 	of 	the 	California 	Community 	Colleges
Board of Governors 	gives 	evidence 	of 	the 	extent 	to which
integration 	is 	sought between 	credit 	courses 	and non-credit 	courses:
The 	Community Colleges 	of 	California 	are...dedicated 	to
the 	principle 	that 	society will 	benefit when 	all 	persons
within 	it 	have 	the 	opportunity 	for 	lifelong 	learning.
To 	that 	end, 	the California Community Colleges 	are
committed 	to providing 	career development, 	skills
improvement 	and job 	retraining 	along with 	a 	full 	range 	of
academic courses 	to broaden cultural, 	ethical, 	social
and self-awareness. 	In addition, 	Community College Districts
may 	introduce 	and provide 	for avocational, 	civic 	and
recreational 	pursuits, 	some of which will not be 	funded
from state 	resources 	but 	from local 	resources 	and/or 	fees.
And, 	more 	than being a purely theoretical objective, 	the
goal 	expressed by 	the Board of Governors 	has 	been met 	to 	a high
degree within 	the District. 	Non-credit 	classes have 	evolved 	to 	a
point where 	they presently 	are offered during 	the 	same hours 	as 	are
credit 	classes, 	and many non-credit 	classess 	address 	academic 	and
technical 	subjects, 	just as 	credit 	classes 	address 	vocational or
recreational 	subjects. 	For example, 	non-credit 	classes 	are available
-16-

.-
in the areas of behavioral science, 	business education, 	counseling,
humanities, 	languages/philosophy, 	technical/industrial skills,
electronics, 	and blueprint drawing. 	Credit classes are available in
such diverse areas as jewelry design, 	automotive body and fender repair,
film making, general work experience, 	drama, chorus, 	intramurals
and camping for recreational 	leaders.
Moreover, non-credit classes are equivalent, 	in many top-
ical areas, 	to credit classes offered 	in the District and elsewhere,
both 	in academic 	and vocational 	subjects. 	An 	illuminating example
of 	this 	equivalency 	is 	the 	apprenticeship program offered 	both 	at
College of Marin 	and 	Indian Valley Colleges. 	The 	apprenticeship
program 	is one aspect of 	the vocational programs offered by the Dis-
trict.
13 Students may become 	apprenticed 	in the 	areas 	of 	auto
mechanics, 	body and fender work, 	carpentry, mill cabinet work,
painting 	and decorating, 	and plumbing. 	Apprenticeship 	instructors
are craftspersons who have 	a minimum of 	six years 	experience 	in
their 	fields beyond 	an 	initial 	learning period of 	three 	to 	five
years. 	Formerly available only as non-credit courses, 	apprentice-
ships 	now 	are offered only 	for 	credit.
Since 1971, when the apprenticeship program was 	converted
to a credit program, 	neither the substantive aspects of the program,
nor the qualifications of the instructors within it, 	have been
altered.
18 Approximately half 	of 	the 	student 	body 	is 	enrolled 	in 	vocational
courses. 	Most vocational programs 	are offered only 	for 	credit.
Vocational classes 	are 	available 	in 	the 	areas of 	auto 	body and 	fen-
der 	repair, 	automotive technology, 	banking and finance, 	bookkeeping,
business management, court reporting, 	data processing, clerical,
dental assisting, 	apprenticeships, 	nurse's aide and home health aide
training, welding, and recreation.
-17-

The record in this 	case establishes 	that 	there are
compelling similarities between full-time credit, 	part-time 	credit,
and part-time non-credit 	instructors. 	And while 	there 	are
differences between these categories 	of instructors, 	those
distinctions 	are 	outweighed 	substantially by 	elements 	held 	in
common by all three groups. 	In addition, 	as 	indicated above, 	many
distinctions which 	appear between non-credit 	and 	credit 	instructors
are 	actually 	distinctions 	between 	instructors 	teaching 	an established
minimum number of units 	(e.g., 	6 or 12) 	on the one hand, 	and those
teaching under 	that prescribed minimum, 	on the other. 	(See 	the
factors 	enumerated 8 through 10, 	above). 	Were such distinctions made
to be 	controlling, 	the appropriate unit 	in this 	case would be
split 	into 	disjunct parcels which both would 	encumber 	the
negotiating process 	and hinder 	effectuation of 	the purposes 	of
the EERA. 	On the basis 	of the record in this 	case, 	Section 3545(a)
and Los Rios mandate that non-credit instructors, 	part-time
credit 	instructors 	and 	full-time 	instructors 	be 	included within 	the
same negotiating unit, 	subject 	to 	the 	limitation discussed below
in Section 	IV.19
IV. 	The Appropriate Unit Includes All Full-Time Instructors, 	All
Part-Time Credit 	Instructors 	Who Have Taught During 	the
Equivalent of Three or More of the Last Six Semesters, 	Inclusive,
and All Part-Time Non-Credit 	Instructors Who Have Taught
During the Equivalent of Four or More of 	the Last Nine Quarters,
Inclusive.
19
As 	stated 	in Section 	II of 	this 	discussion, 	there 	are 	insuf-
ficient 	facts 	concerning 	established 	practices 	to 	grant 	any weight
to 	that 	factor 	in determining 	the 	appropriate 	unit 	in 	this 	case. 	In
addition, 	since 	the 	parties 	presented 	no 	evidence 	with 	respect 	to
efficiency of operations 	(Section 	3545(a)), 	no 	finding 	is made on
that 	issue.
-18-

Los Rios, 	supra, 	held that in order to avoid disruption
in the negotiating unit by persons who had only a passing 	interest
in community college teaching, 	only part-time instructors who had
taught 	the equivalent of three or more of the last six semesters,
inclusive, 	would be included in the negotiating unit. 	Shasta-
Tehama-Trinity Joint Community College District, 	EERB Decision No. 	31,
September 26, 	1977, 	stated that an instructor who presently is
teaching 	for a 	third semester would be 	considered 	eligible 	for
inclusion in the negotiating unit under 	that 	formula.
In the present case, 	non-credit instructors 	teach on the
quarter system, 	while credit instructors 	teach on the semester
system. 	No 	case yet decided by the EERB has 	enunciated an
equivalent 	"passing interest" 	formula for 	instructors 	teaching on
the quarter system. 	While 	the formula applicable 	to 	instructors
teaching on 	the semester system may not be 	transposed with
absolute mathematical 	equivalency to 	instructors 	teaching on the
quarter system, 	it is held that its 	substantial equivalent renders
eligible 	for 	inclusion in the 	negotiating unit 	any non-credit
instructor who has 	taught 	the equivalent of four or more of 	the 	last
nine quarters, 	inclusive. 	(Any instructor who presently is 	teaching
for a fourth quarter is 	eligible for inclusion under this 	formula.)
COLLEGE COORDINATORS: 	ANALYSIS AND
CONCLUSIONS OF FACTS AND LAW
I. 	College Coordinators are Not Managerial Employees
Section 3540.1(g) 	of the EERA defines managerial employee
as:
-19-

,. ..any employee in a position having significant responsibil-
ities 	for 	formulating district policies or 	administering
district programs. 	Management positions shall be designa-
ted by the public school employer 	subject to review by the
Educational Employment 	Relations Board.
Lompoc Unified School 	District20 held that 	the 	above 	criteria
must be met 	in order for an employee 	to be 	found to be managerial.
The 	Board 	has 	stated:21
In determining whether 	an employee 	is 	a management employee
we must take cognizance of 	the 	fact 	that since managerial
employees are not considered employees for 	the purposes of
the Act 	[Gov. 	Code Section 3540.1 (j)] 	and have no negotiat-
ing rights 	[Gov. Code Section 3543.4], great care must be
exercised 	in determining who shall be considered a manage-
ment employee.
To date, 	the Board has decided 	three cases dealing with 	the
issue of the managerial status of employees. 	In Los Rios Community
College District, 	supra, 	it determined that financial aid coordina-
tors were not managerial employees 	in that the budgets which they
drafted were subject to multi-level review; 	their participation 	in
policy discussions was 	not equivalent 	to possessing 	significant
responsibilities 	for 	formulating 	those policies; 	and 	they had no
discretion 	to deviate 	from district policy pertaining 	to 	their 	job
functions. 	In Oakland Unified School District, 	supra, 	the Board
20 EERB Decision No. 	13, March 17, 	1977.
Oakland Unified School District, 	EERB Decision No. 	15, March 28,
1977, at pp. 	6-7.
-20-

concluded, 	upon considerations of 	the 	following 	factors 	that
school 	psychologists were not managerial 	employees. 	Psychologists
exercised 	discretion only 	in 	their area of 	expertise; 	the 	extent
of 	their 	discretion was 	no more 	expansive 	than was 	that 	exercised
by 	teachers, 	who 	obviously were not management 	employees;
psychologists 	had no 	intimate 	relationship with District 	officials;
and 	they 	exercised 	their 	authority on a 	local, 	rather 	than
District-wide basis. 	And 	in Lompoc 	Unified School 	District,
supra, 	the Board, 	after 	considering the duties 	of various 	subject
coordinators, 	held 	that none of 	them were managerial 	employees 	in
that 	they had no 	final 	authority 	to 	formulate 	or 	approve 	the
programs 	which 	they 	coordinated.
In 	this 	case, 	college 	coordinators 	perform the role of
"educational 	leaders" within each of 	the 	three 	cluster 	colleges 	at
Indian Valley College. 	Elected 	to 	two 	year 	terms 	by 	the 	teachers,
they 	are 	directly responsible 	to 	the 	college 	president 	and 	to 	the
college committee 	(composed of administrators, 	faculty and students).
College 	coordinators 	have 	participated 	in management 	group 	meetings
concerning 	collective bargaining, 	they 	draft District policies
(e.g. 	pertaining to reassigned time), 	have preliminary responsibilities
with respect 	to 	developing 	the budgets 	of 	their colleges, 	are
responsible 	for 	presenting 	recommendations 	and proposals 	of 	the
college 	committees 	to 	the 	Indian Valley College 	Council, 	approve
requisitions 	for 	college 	expenditures, 	and work with 	the president
and 	superintendent 	on matters 	related 	to 	facilities 	planning.
-21-

•
•
In addition, 	college coordinators make faculty assignments,
evaluate certificated employees, 	allocate teaching units, 	recommend
disciplinary action, 	interview 	teaching candidates 	and make
recommendations 	as 	to whether 	they should be hired. 	But 	they have
no 	final authority to 	approve 	their own proposals 	(or 	those of
the committees 	on which they sit) 	- most of the proposals which
they have 	drafted are 	subject 	to 	a multi-level review process,
and 	they have no 	discretion 	to 	deviate 	from the District policies
which they are responsible 	to administer. 	For those reasons, 	their
duties 	are no more "managerial" 	than were 	the responsibilities 	of
even the most management-oriented of 	the 	employees whose 	status
was 	decided in the 	cases 	discussed above. 	The record herein does
not 	support 	the 	exclusion of college 	coordinators 	from the
negotiating unit on the basis 	of management status.
II. 	College Coordinators are 	Supervisors, 	and Therefore 	Should be
Excluded 	from 	the 	Unit of 	Certificated 	Employees.
Section 	3540.1(m) 	of 	the 	EERA defines 	"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 and direct 	them, 	or 	to adjust
their 	grievances, 	or 	effectively recommend 	such action, 	if,
in connection with 	the 	foregoing functions, 	the 	exercise of
such 	authority 	is 	not of 	a merely routine or 	clerical
nature, 	but 	requires 	the 	use 	of 	independent judgment.
-22-

Sweetwater Union High School 	District22 held 	that 	the
performance of any one of the 	factors 	enumerated in Section 3540.l(m)
is 	sufficient to make one a supervisor within the meaning of the
Act.
Based on the above authority, 	it is clear that
college 	coordinators 	are 	supervisors within 	the meaning 	of 	the
Act. 	As noted above, 	they make faculty assignments, 	evaluate
certificated employees, 	allocate teaching units, 	recommend
disciplinary action, 	interview teaching candidates 	and make
recommendations 	as 	to whether 	they should be hired.
The record indicates 	that in at 	least 	some of the above
areas, 	the authority exercised by coordinators 	requires 	the
use of independent judgment. 	For example, 	testimony indicated that
one college 	coordinator made 	independent judgments with regard 	to
personnel matters, 	reduction of hours worked by hourly employees,
and transfer of programs 	from one college to another. 	Since only
one of the factors 	enumerated in Section 3540.l(m) 	must be present
in order to 	find an employee a supervisor, 	it is 	recommended that
college 	coordinators be 	excluded 	from the unit of certificated
employees 	on that basis.
22 EERB Decision No. 4, November 23, 	1976.
-23
22
-

•
PROPOSED 	ORDER
It is 	the 	Proposed Decision 	that:
1. 	The 	following unit is 	appropriate 	for the purposes 	of
meeting and negotiating, 	provided 	that 	an 	employee 	organization
becomes 	the 	exclusive representative of such unit:
All 	full-time certificated employees, 	all part-time
credit 	certificated employees who have 	taught 	the
equivalent of three or more of the 	last 	six semesters,
inclusive, 	and all part-time non-credit 	certificated
employees who have 	taught 	the 	equivalent 	of four or
more of the last nine quarters, 	inclusive. 	As used
in this 	formula, 	any part-time credit instructor
currently 	teaching 	in a 	third 	semester would be
eligible, 	as would any part-time non-credit 	instructor
currently 	teaching in a 	fourth quarter.
2. 	The position of college coordinator 	is not managerial,
but 	is 	supervisorial.
The parties 	have seven 	(7) 	calendar 	days 	from the receipt
of this 	Proposed Order 	in which 	to 	file 	exceptions 	in accordance
with Cal. 	Admin. 	Code, 	Title 8, 	Section 33380. 	If no party files
timely objections, 	this 	Proposed Decision will become 	final 	on
December 	7, 	1977, 	and a Notice of Decision will 	issue 	from the
EERB.
Within ten 	(10) 	workdays 	after 	the employer posts 	the
Notice of Decision, 	the 	employee organizations 	shall 	demonstrate
to 	the Regional 	Director at 	least 	30 percent 	support 	in 	the
above unit. 	The Regional Director shall 	conduct 	an election at
the end of the posting period if: 	(1) 	more 	than one employee
organization qualifies 	for the ballot 	in the above unit, 	or
-24-

~.·
'.
(2) 	only one 	employee 	organization qualifies 	for 	the ballot 	in
the 	above unit 	and the 	employer does 	not 	grant voluntary
recognition* 	to 	that 	employee 	organization.
The 	date used 	to 	establish 	the 	number of 	employees 	in 	the
above 	unit 	shall 	be 	the 	date 	of 	this 	Proposed Decision unless 	another
date 	is 	deemed appropriate by 	the 	Regional Director 	and noticed
to 	the parties. 	In the 	event 	another date 	is 	selected, 	the
Regional 	Director may extend the 	time 	for 	employee ·organizations
to 	demonstrate 	at 	least 	30 	percent 	support 	in the units.
Dated : 	November 25, 	1977
ANGELA 	PICKETT-EVANS
Hearing 	Officer
*Voluntary recognition 	requires 	majority proof 	of 	support 	in
all 	cases. 	See Gov . 	Code 	Sections 	3544 	and 	3544 . 1.
•
_
-25-