Los Angeles Community College District * * * VACATED by Los Angeles Community College District (1980) PERB Decision No. 123a (PERB 0123E)

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

VACATED by Los Angeles Community College District
(1980) PERB Decision No. 123a

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD

LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT,

Employer, Case No. LA-R-809

and

CLASSIFIED UNION OF SUPERVISORY

)

)

)

)

)

)

) PERB Decision No. 123
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 699, SERVICE EMPLOYEES )

)

)

INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO, March 25, 1980

Employee Organization.

Appearances: Larry J. Frierson, General Counsel for

Los Angeles Community College District; Leo Geffner (Geffner &
Satzman) for Classified Union of Supervisory Employees, Local
699, Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO.

Before: Gluck, Chairperson*; Moore and Gonzales, Members.
DECISION
This case presents essentially the same issue as that

resolved by the Public Employment Relations Board (hereafter

oy

*Upon submission of this case to the
Chairman Gluck sent the following letter to the parties:

Please be advised that while I perceive no
legal reason which would prevent my
deliberating in the referenced cases, I
have, nevertheless, chosen not to ,
participate.

Should my colleagues on the Board not agree
on the outcome of these cases, I may at that
time participate for the purpose of making
it possible for the Board to issue an
effective decision.

Because Members Moore and Gonzales reached opposite
conclusions in this case, Chairman Gluck participated in its
disposition in order to permit issuance of an effective final

order.

PERB 	or 	Board) 	in 	Sacramento City 	Unified 	School 	District
(3/25/80} 	PERB 	Decision 	No. 	122: 	whether 	two 	locals 	of 	the
Service 	Employees 	International 	Union 	(hereafter 	the
International) 	are 	"the 	same 	employee 	organization" 	within 	the
meaning 	of 	section 	3545(b) (2) 	of 	the 	Educational 	Employment
Relations 	Act 	(hereafter 	EERA) .l
The 	attached 	PERB 	hearing 	officer's 	proposed 	decision 	held
that 	the 	Classified Union 	of 	Supervisory 	Employees, 	Local 	699,
SEIU, 	AFL-CIO 	(hereafter 	Local 	699) 	is 	not 	the 	same 	employee
organization 	as 	Service 	Employees 	International 	Union, 	Local 	99
(hereafter 	Local 	99) 	and 	is 	not 	for 	that 	reason 	barred 	from
representing 	classified 	supervisory 	employees 	in 	the
Los 	Angeles 	Community 	College 	District 	(hereafter 	District) 	in
which 	Local 	99 	now 	represents 	rank 	and 	file 	classified
employees. 	The 	District 	has 	excepted 	from 	the 	proposed
decision, 	urging 	that 	the 	International 	"so 	supports,
influences 	and 	dominates 	its 	subsidiary 	locals 	as 	to 	require 	a
finding 	that 	the 	'same 	organization' 	seeks 	to 	represent
1The 	EERA 	is 	codified 	at 	Government 	Code 	section 	3540
et 	seq. 	Section 	3545(b) (2) 	provides:
A negotiating 	unit 	of 	supervisory 	employees
shall 	not 	be 	appropriate 	unless 	it 	includes
all 	supervisory 	employees 	employed 	by 	the
district 	and 	shall 	not 	be 	represented 	by 	the
same 	employee 	organization 	as 	employees 	whom
the 	supervisory 	employees 	supervise.
All 	section 	references 	herein 	are 	to 	the 	Government 	Code 	unless
otherwise 	noted.
2

supervisors
	and
	those 	supervised
	by
	them."
	For
	the 	reasons
that
	follow,
	the
	Board
	itself
	affirms
	the 	hearing
	officer's
determination
	that
	Local
	699
	and
	Local
	99
	are
	not 	the
	same
employee
	organization.
FACTS
The
	hearing
	officer's
	statement 	of 	the 	procedural
background
	and
	facts
	in
	this
	case
	is
	free
	from
	prejudicial
error
	and
	is
	adopted
	by
	the
	Board
	itself.
DISCUSSION
In 	Sacramento
	City
	Unified
	School
	District,
	supra,
	PERB
Decision
	No.
	122,
	we
	held
	that
	the
	Legislature
	intended
	section
3545(b)
(2)
	to
	preclude 	the
	same
	employee
	organization
	from
representing
	even
	separate 	units
	of 	supervisors
	and
	their
subordinates 	in 	order 	to
	avoid 	the
	risk 	that
	employers
	face
when
	their
	supervisory 	personnel
	have
	dual
	and
	possibly
conflicting 	organizational
	interests
	and 	work
	responsibilities.
In	
that 	case
	we
	also	
held	
that
	two	
locals	
of 	the
	same
International
	are 	not
	necessarily
	"the
	same
	employee
organization"
	merely 	because
	of
	that
	affiliation.
Although	
the	
District
	did 	not 	argue	
that 	there
	was
sufficient
	interchange
	between
	the
	two	
locals	
themselves
	to
make 	them
	"the	
same	
employee	
organization,"	
the 	hearing
	officer
nonetheless 	addressed
	this
	issue	
and
	concluded 	they 	were
	not.
Without 	adopting 	the	
specific 	discussion 	of
	the 	hearing
officer,	
the	
Board
	also 	finds 	that 	there 	are 	not 	such
3

connections
	between
	these
	two
	local
	as
	to
	make 	them
	"the
	same
employee
	organization."
As
	in
	Sacramento
	City,
	~upra,
	the
	District
	here 	argues
	that
because
	the
	International 	exerts
	an
	impermissible 	degree
	of
control
	over
	its
	locals,
	the
	locals
	are
	indistinguishable
	from
their
	parent 	organization.
	The 	same
	constitutional
relationship
	exists
	between
	the
	International
	and
	the
	locals
involved
	in
	this
	case
	and
	the
	International
	and
	the
	locals
involved
	in
	Sacramento
	City,
	supra.
	For
	the 	reasons
	discussed
in
	our
	decision 	in
	that
	case,
	we
	disagree
	that
	the
	powers
	that
the
	International
	has 	over
	its
	locals
	are
	sufficient
	to
disqualify
	Local
	699 	from
	representing 	supervisors 	in 	the
	same
district
	in
	which
	Local
	99
	represents
	their
	subordinates.
	As
long
	as 	the
	International 	exercises
	its
	powers
	over
	its
	locals
in
	a 	manner
	consistent
	with 	the
	purpose
	of 	section
	3545(b)
(2),
and
	Locals
	699 	and 	99
	in
	fact
	remain 	independent	
and
autonomous,
	no
	statutory
	purpose
	is
	served
	by
	forbidding
	Local
699 	from
	representing 	the
	District's
	supervisory
	employees.
Unlike 	Sacramento
	City,
	~ra,
	the
	instant
	case 	presents
	an
additional 	basis
	for 	arguing
	that
	Local
	699
	is
	the
	same
	as 	the
International.
	Here 	Local
	699
	has 	been
	assisted
	in
	its
formation
	and
	organizing 	by 	the 	International
	and
	has
	received
office
	space, 	equipment,
	clerical
	help
	and
	supplies
	from
	Joint
Council 	8.
	For 	example, 	an
	International 	officer	
(Mr. 	Zuniga)
who
	is
	not
	a 	member
	of 	Local
	699
	is
	an
	officer 	of 	Local 	699;
that 	individual,
	who
	is 	paid
	by
	the 	International,
	has 	handled
4

grievances 	for
	rank
	and
	file
	employees
	in
	Local 	99:
	signed
	the
request
	for
	recognition 	of
	the 	supervisory
	unit;
	helped
	draft
Local
	699
1 s
	constitution
	and
	bylaws;
	and
	received
	his
	pay
	at
the
	office
	of
	Joint
	Council
	8,
	a
	subsidiary
	of 	the
International,
	which
	rents
	office
	space
	from
	Local
	99.
	In
addition,
	Joint
	Council	
8	
supplies
	office
	space,
	equipment,
supplies
	and
	staff
	to
	Local
	699
	free
	of 	charge.
	The
	person
	who
supervises
	the
	Local
	699
	chief
	organizer
	is
	the
	chief
	organizer
for
	Local
	99.
	This
	help
	from
	the
	International
	continued
	for
	a
period 	of
	at 	least
	eight
	months.
The
	District
	argues
	that
	in 	deciding
	whether 	Local
	699 	and
Local
	99
	are 	"the
	same
	employee
	organization"
	we
	should 	look
	to
cases
	interpreting 	section
	9(b)
(3)
	of 	the 	National
	Labor
Relations
	Act
	(29
	U.S.C.
	sec.
	150
	et
	seq., 	hereafter
	NLRA).
That
	section
	restricts
	the 	National
	Labor
	Relations
	Board
(hereafter
	NLRB)
	from 	combining
	guards	
and	
nonguards
	in 	the
same
	unit,
	and
	further 	provides:
[N]o
	labor 	organization
	shall
	be
	certified
as 	the
	representative	
of	
employees
	in
	a
bargaining
	unit
	of 	guards
	if
	such
organization
	admits
	to
	membership,
	or
	is
affiliated 	directly
	or
	indirectly
	with
	an
organization
	which
	admits
	to
	membership,
imployees
	other 	than 	guards.
	[29
	U.S.C.
sec.	
159
(b)
(3),	
emphasis	
aaded.]
The
	NLRB
	has 	held
	that
	Congress 	intended 	Section
	9(b) (3):
..•
	to 	insure 	to
	an 	employer
	that
	during
strikes
	or 	labor 	unrest
	among
	his 	otheremployees, 	he 	would 	have 	a
	core 	of 	plant
protection 	of 	his 	property
	and
	persons
5

thereon 	without
	being
	confronted 	with
	a
division
	of
	loyalty
	between
	the
	employer
	and
dissatisfied
	fellow
	union
	members.[McDonnell
	Aircraft
	Corporation
	(1954)
	109
NLRB
	967,
	969, 	[Citing
	93
	Congressional
Record 	6444;
	see
	also
	Armored
	Motor
	ServiceCo.,
	Inc.,
	(1953) 	106
	NLRB
	1139,
	1140.]
2
In
	International
	Harvester
	Company
	(1949)
	81
	NLRB
	374, 	the
NLRB
	found
	no
	disqualifying
	affiliation
	when
	during 	the
formative
	stages 	of
	a 	new
	guard 	union
	(severed
	from 	an
	existing
mixed
	unit
	in
	response
	to
	the
	amendment
	of 	the
	NLRA
	to
	add
section
	9(b)
(3)):
	the
	non-guard
	bargaining
	committee 	chairman
acted
	as 	spokesperson
	for 	the
	guard 	union,
	the
	guard 	union
election
	was
	conducted
	on
	borrowed
	ballots
	bearing 	the
non-guard
	union's
	name,
	the
	guards
	met
	rent-free
	in 	the
non-guard's
	hall,
	and
	(at 	the
	insistence
	of 	the
	employer)
	the
non-guard 	union
	continued
	to 	receive
	dues
	deductions
	from
	the
guards
	which 	were
	paid
	over
	to 	the
	guard 	union. 	After
	stating
that 	"[t]he
	mere
	use	
of	
a
	union
	hall
	does
	not,
	as 	the	
dissent
suggests,
	establish
	1
affiliation,
1 "
	the
	NLRB
	said:
Although
	the 	record
	discloses 	that
	a
	certain
amount	
of	
comity, 	mutual 	sympathy,
	and
2
Accepting
	this 	analysis, 	the 	federal 	courts
	have
additionally
	noted
	that 	section
	9(b)
(3)
	does
	not 	prevent 	guards
from
	joining, 	or
	employers
	from
	voluntarily 	recognizing,
	mixed
unions;
	it
	simply
	restricts
	the
	NLRB
	from
	certifying
	them.
(See,
	e.g.,
	Teamsters, 	Local 	344	
v.
	NLRB
	Purolator 	Securit
	,
Inc.)
	(
7th Cir.
	1977) 	97
	LRRM
	2111, 	2114-2115, 	2116:	
NLRB	
v.
Bel-Air
	Mart
	Inc.
	(
4th
	Cir.
	197
4) 	86
	LRRM
	23
78,
	2381-2382:
	NLRB
v. 	White 	Superior
	Div.
	(6th Cir.
	1968) 	69
	LRRM
	2903, 	2904-2905;
Teamsters, 	Local 	71
	v.
	NLRB
	(D.C.
	Cir.
	1977) 	94
	LRRM
	3167,
3169.)
6

common
	purpose
	exist
	between
	the
	Petitioner
and
	Local
	402,
	UAW-CIO,
	there
	is
	no
	showing
that
	the
	Petitioner
	is
	not
	now
	entirely
	free
to
	and
	does
	not 	formulate
	its
	own
	Qolicies
and
	decide
	its
	own
	course
	of 	action.
	[Id.
at
	376, 	emphasis 	added.]	
-
Similarly, 	in
	Federal
	Services,
	Inc.
	(1956}
	115
	NLRB
	1729,
	the
NLRB
	found
	that
	temporary
	assistance
	by 	a
	non-guard 	union 	while
guards
	organize
	is
	not
	"affiliation."3
The
	NLRB
	considers
	it
	relevant
	that
	the
	allegedly
"affiliated"
	unions
	have
	overlapping
	officers.
	For
	example,
	in
Willcox
	Construction Co., 	Inc.
	(1949)
	87
	NLRB
	371, 	373-374
	the
Board 	found
	that:
.•.
	the 	continuous 	holding 	of
	principal
offices
	in 	the
	I.W.A.
	[five 	individuals
	held
offices
	in
	both
	organizations],
	and
participation
	in 	the 	formulation 	of
	I.W.A.
policies,	
by	
regular
	officers
	of 	the 	I.L.A.
and
	its 	affiliate,
	..•
	constitutes
	an
indirect
	affiliation
	...
	of
	the
	sort
	which
Congress
	intended
	to 	proscribe
	by
	enacting
Section
	9
(b)
(3)
	in
	1947.
Substantial 	financial 	aid
	from 	a
	non-guard 	union 	has
	also
been 	found
	to
	constitute
	impermissible
	affiliation
(International
	Harvester
	Co.
	(1964) 	55
	LRRM
	1227), 	as 	has
"continuous
	dependence"
	upon
	another 	organization 	"for 	material
aid 	as
	we
	as 	for 	advice
	and
	gui
	II 	!'!~gnavox Company
(1952)
	97
	LRRM
	,
	1113.
NLRB
	has, 	however,
	di
	s 	a
	section 	8(a)
{5)
refusal 	to 	bargain 	charge 	when
	it
	ared
	that 	assistanceduring 	the 	organizing 	campaign 	had 	continued 	even
	after 	theguard 	union 	was
	certified.
	(Mack Manufacturing 	Corporation(1953) 	107
	NLRB
	209, 	211.)
7

But
	organizing
	advice
	is
	acceptable.
	(E.g.,
	_!.nspiration
Consolidated
	Copper
	Company
	(1963) 	142
	NLRB
	53,
	54;
	The
	Midvale
Company
	(1955) 	114
	NLRB
	372, 	374;
	Bonded 	Armored
	Carrier
	(1972)
195
	NLRB
	346.)
The
	hearing
	officer
	analyzed
	Joint
	Council
	8's
	assistance
to
	Local
	699 	and
	concluded
	that that 	relationship
	did 	not
create
	an
	impermissible 	connection
	between
	Local
	699 	and
	the
International.
	We
	do
	not
	need
	to 	affirm
	or
	reverse
	this
conclusion, 	since
	even
	assuming,
	without 	deciding,
	that
	in
	this
case
	the
	International
	has
	provided
	Local
	699
	with 	so
	much
	help
for
	so 	long 	as
	to 	functionally
	merge
	the
	two
	into 	"the
	same
employee
	organization,"
	Local
	699
	is
	not
	barred
	from
representing
	the
	District's
	supervisory
	employees
	because
	there
is
	no
	evidence
	that
	Local
	99
	is
	similarly 	controlled
	by
	the
International.
	Rather, 	the 	only
	continuing
	links
	the 	record
shows
	between 	Local
	99 	and
	the
	International
	are 	those
	in 	the
organizations' 	constitutions.
	We
	have
	already 	held
	that 	this
connection
	is 	insufficient
	for
	this
	Board
	to
	conclude
	that
Local
	99 	and
	the
	International
	are 	"the
	same 	employee
organization."
	While
	the 	record 	did
	show
	that
	a
	Local 	699
officer
	has 	handled 	grievances 	for 	Local
	99
	in 	the
	past, 	that
individual
	testified 	that:
[I]t's
	my
	expectation 	that
	once
certification
	comes
	about
	and
	we
	can
	getLocal 	699
	off 	the
	ground 	I 	wi
	divorce
myse 	from 	99 	work 	e
	for 	699.
8

But
	organizing
	advice
	is
	acceptable.
	(E.g.,
	Inspiration
Consolidated
	Copper
	Company
	(1963) 	142
	NLRB
	53,
	54;
	The
	Midvale
Company
	(1955) 	114
	NLRB
	372, 	374;
	Bonded 	Armored
	carrier
	(1972)
195
	NLRB
	346.)
The
	hearing
	officer
	analyzed
	Joint
	Council
	8 1 s
	assistance
to
	Local
	699
	and
	concluded
	that 	that 	relationship
	did 	not
create
	an
	impermissible 	connection
	between
	Local
	699 	and
	the
International.
	We
	do
	not
	need
	to 	affirm
	or
	reverse
	this
conclusion, 	since
	even
	assuming,
	without 	deciding,
	that 	in
	this
case
	the
	International
	has
	provided
	Local
	699
	with
	so
	much
	help
for
	so 	long 	as
	to 	functionally
	merge
	the
	two
	into 	"the
	same
employee
	organization,"
	Local
	699
	is
	not 	barred
	from
representing
	the
	District's
	supervisory
	employees
	because
	there
is
	no
	evidence
	that
	Local
	99
	is
	similarly 	controlled
	by
	the
International.
	Rather, 	the 	only
	continuing
	links
	the 	record
shows
	between 	Local
	99 	and
	the 	International
	are 	those
	in 	the
organizations' 	constitutions.
	We
	have
	already 	held
	that 	this
connection
	is 	insufficient
	for
	this
	Board
	to
	conclude
	that
Local
	99 	and
	the
	International
	are 	"the
	same 	employee
organization."
	While
	the 	record 	did
	show
	that
	a
	Local 	699
officer
	has 	handled 	grievances 	for
	Loe 	99
	in
	the
	past, 	that
individual
	testified
[I]t
1 s
	my
	expectation 	that
	once
certification
	comes
	about
	and
	we
	can 	t
Local
	699
	off
	the 	ground 	I
	will
	d 	cemyse 	from 	99 	work
	for
	6
8

No
	evidence
	was
	presented 	to
	show
	that 	this
	individual
	did
	not
mean
	what
	he
	said.
	While
	we
	do
	not
	find
	that
	this
	limited
relationship
	between
	the
	two
	locals
	is 	fatal,
	we
	do
	hold
	that
it
	must 	be	
terminated 	as
	a
	condition 	of
	holding
	a
representation 	election.
	Accordingly,
	we
	conclude
	that
Local
	699 	and
	Local
	99
	are
	not 	the
	same
	employee
	organization
with 	the
	meaning
	of
	section
	3545(b)
(2).
ORDER
Based
	on
	the
	foregoing
	findings 	of
	fact,
	conclusions
	of
law,
	and
	the
	entire
	record
	in
	this
	matter,
	it
	is
	hereby
	ORDERED
that 	Classified
	Union
	of
	Supervisory
	Employees,
	Local
	699,
SEIU, 	AFL-CIO
	is
	NOT
	the
	same
	employee
	organization
	as
Los
	Angeles
	City
	and 	County
	School 	Employees' 	Union,
	Local 	99,
or
	Service
	Employees
	Joint
	Council
	No. 	8	
of
	Southern
California,
	or
	Service
	Employees
	International
	Union,
	AFL-CIO,
CLC.,
	within 	the
	meaning
	of
	Government 	Code
	section
	3545(b)
(2).
The
	appropriate 	unit
	for
	an
	election 	consists 	of:
All 	supervisory
	classified
	employees
	of 	the
employer
	excluding
	management 	and
confidential
	employees 	and
	excluding
	all
non-supervisory
	classifications.4
Within
	fifteen
	(15) 	workdays
	after
	ser
	ce 	of
	this
ision,
	employee
	organization 	shall
	demonstrate 	to 	the
regional 	director 	at 	least
	30
	percent 	support 	in 	the
	above
4 	IU
	Local
	9's
	r
	st
	r
	it 	lists
	the
assifications
	sought 	in
	its
	proposed
	unit.
	The 	r 	does
not
	reflect 	that 	this 	includes
	all
	supervisory 	classified
9

By? Barbara D. Moore, Member	
By-?'""
Barbara
	D.
	Moore,
	Member
Harry Gluck, Chairperson	
Hafr~Iμtk
·,,
Chairperkon
unit.
	Before
	an
	election
	shall
	be
	conducted,
	the
	employee
organization
	shall
	also
	demonstrate
	to
	the
	regional
	director
that
	Mr.
	Zuniga
	no
	longer 	handles
	grievances 	for
	Local
	99.
	The
regional
	director 	shall
	conduct
	an
	election
	if
	the
	employee
organization
	qualifies
	for 	the
	ballot	
and	
the
	employer	
does 	not
grant
	voluntary 	recognition.
Harry Gluck,
	Chairperson, 	concurring:
I
	concur
	in
	the 	findings
	and
	conclusions 	in
	this
	case,
	and
for
	the
	additional
	reasons
	set
	forth 	in
	my
	concurring 	opinion
in
	a
	companion
	case 	decided 	today,
	Sacramento
City Unified
School
	District
	( 3
/25/80)	
PERB	
Decision
	No.
	122.
I
Member
	Gonzales'
	dissent
	begins
	on 	page
	11.
s
	of 	the 	employer. 	Only 	a
	unit
	whi
	incl
	s
	all
supervisory 	classified
	employees 	of 	the 	employer
	is 	appropriate(Sec. 	3545(b)(2)).
Jurisdiction 	is 	retained 	to 	determine 	any 	questions
relating 	to 	whether 	the 	unit 	includes 	all 	supervisory 	employees
and/or 	excludes 	all
	management 	or 	confidential 	classifications,
if 	the 	parties 	are 	unable 	to 	resolve 	these 	issues 	between
themselves.
10

Raymond J. Gonzales , Member
11
Raymond
	J.
	Gonzales,
	Member,
	dissenting:
I
	dissent
	from
	the
	majority's
	finding
	that
	SEIU,
	Local
	699,
is
	not 	the
	same
	employee
	organization
	as
	SEIU,
	Local 	99,
within 	the
	meaning
	of
	Government
	Code
	section
	3545(b) (2),
	for
the 	reasons
	set
	forth 	in
	my
	dissenting
	opinion
	in
	Sacramento
City 	Unified
	School
	District
	(3/25/80)
	PERE
	Decision
	No.
	122.
11

PUBLIC
EMPLOYMENT
REIATIONS
BOARD
OF
THE
STATE
OF
CALIFORNIA
LOS
ANGEIES
COMMUNITY
COUEGE
DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
CI.ASSIFIED
UNION
OF SUPERVISORYEMPLOYEES,	
LOCAL
699,
	SEIU, AFL-CIO,
Employee Organization.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
-----------------~)
Representation
Case
No.
	L.A.-R-809
PROPOSED
DECISION
6/23/78
Appearances: 	Larry
Frierson,
	General Colfilsel,
	for
	the
Los
Angeles
Comnunity College
District;
	Robert Anderson
for
	the
Classified lhion
of
Supervisory Employees, Local 699, 	SEID,
	AFL-CIO.
Before
Sharrel
J.
	Wyatt, Hearing Officero
PROCEDUBAL
BACKGROUND
On
September 7, 	1977,
	the Classified lhion of
Supervisory Employees,
Local 699, 	SEIU, AFL-CIO,
	(hereafter
	SEIU
Local 699) 	requested
recognition fran the
Los Angeles Corrmunity College
District 	(hereafter
District)
	for a 1mit
of
approximately 136
	classified
supervisory
employees,
	On
October 13, 	1977, 	the
District filed
	its
response
	ir1
accordance with California Administrative Code,
	title
8, 	section 33190,
in
,.vhich, 	anong other things, 	the District
took the position that this
supervisory unit is
not appropriate because representation
is
	sought
by SEIU Local 699 while SEID Local 99
represents 	the
non-supervisory classified employees who
are supervised by the employees
1

in
the
unit
sought
in violation
of
the
prohibitions
contained
in
Government
Code
section
3545(b)(2) which
states:
A
negotiating
unit of
supervisory
employees
	shall
not
be
appropriate unless
	it
includes
all
supervisory
employees
employed by
the
District
and
shall
not
be
represented
by
the
sarre employee
organization
as employees
whom
the
supervisory
employees
supervise.
	[Emphasis added.]
Following
investigation
bv
the
Los Angeles Regional
Director
of
the Public
Employment
Relations
	Board
	(hereafter
PERB),
	findings
	of
fact
were
issued
on January 25, 	1978,
with the
recorrr:1.endation
that
a
hearing
be conducted. 	A
hearing
was
	conducted by a
hearing
	officer
of
the
PERB
on March 28, 1978
at
which
five
depositions
were admitted
in
evidence as
part
of
the
recordo
	SEIU
Local
699
waived
the
filing
of
a
brief
a.rid
the
District's brief
was
	filed
on
April
21, 	1978.
ISSUE
\Jh.ether
SEIU
Local
699
and
SEID
Local
99
are the
same employee
organization within the
meaning
of
section
3545(b)(2).
FINDINGS
OF FACT
1The
District	
recognized
SEIU
Local
99
as the exclusive
representative
of
its
non-supervisory
classified
employees on
Ma.y
24, 	1977.
	Some
superv--isory employees
of
the
District
have continued to
maintai,_~
mernbership2
in
SEIU Local 99, 	but
SEID
Local
99
has
not
attempted
to
represent them
in their
employmei1t
relations with the
District.
1
2
The
District
has an enrollment
of
approximately 134,000 attending class
at
nine sites
1977 California Public 	School Directory
at
	202,
Cal" 	State Dept. 	of Educationo
Continuity of membership in a local union is required to maL1tain
death benefits allocated from the per capita tax paid by the local
union to the International discussed hereafter.
2

The
Service
Employees
International
Union
	(hereafter,
	the
International)
	is
an
organization
-which
is
nm
by
officers
who
are
elected
every four years
at
a
convention
of
delegates
frorn
local
unions,
	One
delegate
for
every
one thousand members
has
voting
privileges.
	Therefore,
	SEIU
Local
99
has had
ten
delegates
to
the
convention according
to
testimony,
	The L7.ternational
constitution indicates
one
delegate
for
every
five
hundred members. 	A
past
secretary/treasurer
of
Local
99
was
	elected
as
one
of
35
r.:iernbers
of
the
International's
Rxecutive Board and
served
the
two
offices
	sirrn.1ltaneously.
	Currently,
	no
SEIU
Local
99
officer
holds
an
office
with the
International.
The
International
receives
	its
	income from a
per
capita tax
3
of
$1.80. 	The
per
capita tax
is
distributed
or
earmarked
as follows:
to the
members'
	death
gratuity
fund -
	paid
on a
sliding scale
based on
length
of
membership
.20
	to the
strike
fund, 	earmarked
for the
local
union
.16
	per
capita tax to
AFL-CIO
.05
	to the
Corrrnittee on
Political
Education
(COPE)
	- can be
rebated to the local
union
for
use
in political
caopaig;ns where
it
is
permissible to
use union funds.
1.02 	to the International for
	its
administration
-
	of
-which approximately .30
is
used
L~
assistL~g
local
unions
	in
organizing
building
fund
for the
Washington,	
D"C
headquarters
to various
joint
councils, 	State
Councils and
the
Western Con.ference
to
assist
them
inserving local
union
A per capita tax is
an am:::,unt
per member per rronth paid from dues
received by the local union to the International.
3
3

Additional per capita taxes paid from local union dues 	in southern
California are:
.20 	to the Service Employees Joint Council 8 of
Southern California for research and negotiation
services.
to the State Council, 	SEIU
to the Western Conference, SEIU
All local ·unions chartered 'cy 	the International from Santa Barbara
to San Diego pay a 	per capita tax to Service f.mployees Joint Council 8
of Southern California (hereafter Joint Council 8). 	Joint Council 8
coordinates political activities of local unions of SEIU in its
geographical area.
SEIU Local 699 was chartered by the International and has jurisdiction
to include members -who are classified supervisory employees of public
school employers in Los Jmgeles County, 	It was founded after
Eugene Barnes, a classified supervisory employee of the Compton Unified
School District, 	approached Fred s~ith, 	a representative of SEIU Local 99
and inquired about representation for classified supervisory employees,
The 	first meeting of SEIU Local 699 was held at San Pedro in January
or February of 1977. 	SJJ1ith ·was prese.rit at that rneetingo 	Classified
supervisory employees of public school enployers ·who have made application
for r.1embership or signed authorizations are "membersn although they
pay no dues at this timeo 	SEIU Local 699 has no dues paying mer.:ibers
and apparently no treasury, 	Other than one International organizer
-who 	is assigned as the chief organizer for the local, 	these are the
persons who have been the vot;ng participants in establishing the
local.
4

In
March
or
April
of
1977,
	SEIU
Local
699
drew up a
constitution
and by-laws which they modeled
after
those
of
the
InternationaL
These documents were prepared by a conrnittee which included Barnes,
1
Baker 	and
International
Organizers Anderson and Zrniga.
Thomas
Zuniga and Robert Anderson
are
organizers
for
SEIU
International.
They
are
paid
froci
the
International's
organizing
ftmd and
receive
their
checks
at
Joint
Council 8. 	Anderson
is
	not
a
member
or
officer
and
does
not vote
on
matters
related
to
SEIU
Local
6990
	Zrniga
is
assigned
as
	the chief
organizer
for
supervisory
employees and was
elected
secretary/treasurer of
SEID
Local
6990
	He
is
	the
only person
who
votes
on
its
business
who
is
not
a
classified
supervisory employee
of
a
public
school employero
On
behalf
of
SEIU
Local 699, 	Zrniga
was
	involved
in
preparing
the
request for representation,
	in
explaining
its
struccJre
and
in
preparing
its
by-laws.
	Once
SEIU
Local
699
is
certified
as an exclusive
representative,
Zuniga ·will divorce himself from
SEIU
Local
99
and devote
his
	efforts
	to
SEIU
Local
699
onlyo 	Meanwhile, he has performed
services for
SEID
Locals
99, 	699 and 434.
	On
behalf of
SEID
Local 99, 	he has spoken
to
employees
of the
District,
	Los Angeles Unified School
District,
	Torrance School
District
and Compton School
District,
	explained
elections, negotiations
and
the
effect
on employees
	individually
and
collectively,
	and has helped
to organize 2orrmittees on each campus to e.xplain the process
	to
employees
on each carnpuso 	At the
District,
	he has represented individuals in
grievances and
distributed leaflets
ar1d 	spoken
to
employees
to explain
4
George. Baker, 	a
te..111porary
trustee of
SEID Local 699 and a senior head
c1:13tod~an
at East Los Angeles College, 	has participated in
SEIU Local 699
srnce it~ conception.
	He
	learned about
it
and was invited to participateby a busrness represe.ntative of SEID 	Local 99.
5

vJt1at has transpired since SEIU I.Deal 99 was certified by PERB; he has
not been involved in negotiations or in putting together proposals to
be presented to the District, but has sat in on meet and negotiate
sessions betrqeen SFIU I.Deal 99 and tlie T'istrict as part of his 	trainine;.
Anderson has helped SEIU Local 99 in its organizing campaign at
the Los Angeles Unified School District and has helped it in hearings.
In August or September of 1977 the persons present at a membership
meeting voted for provisional officers for SEIULocal 699. 	The persons
with voting privileges are those employed as supervisory employees of
a public school employer and the International organizer who is the
interim secretary/treasurer of SEIU Local 699, 	ZlIDiga.
In August of 1977, dues of $10 per rronth were established by
the executive board and subsequently affinned by a vote of the
membershipo 	No dues have been collected and it is not contemplated
that dues will be collected lfiltil recognition or certification is
received by SEIU Local 699 as an exclusive representativeo 	SEIU Local 699
r..as no incomeo 	wben dues are collected, 	the per capita taxes previously
set forth will be paid from the dues collected irrespective 	of the
amount of dues approved by the local lfilion.
SEIU Local 699 uses office space, 	office equipment and supplies of
Joint Council 8 without chargeo 	Joint Council 8 rents space in a
building located at 2724 W. 	8th Street, Los Angeles, 	California, 	The
building is owned by SEIU Local 990 	SEID Local 99 rents space to
entities other than Joint Council 8, 	Joint Council 8 pays SEIU Local 99
$350 per month as rent for approximately 500 square feet of spaceo
Nothing in the record indicates that the rental arrangement is anything
6

other
than an ann' s
	length
business
arrangement, 	Therefore,
	it
is
folIDd
that
SEID
	Local
99
does
not contribute
support
to
SEID
	Local
699
because
SEID
Local
699
is
being
permitted
to
use
space by
Joint
Council
8,
Since
April
of
1977,
	SEID
Local
699
has
held
mnthly
membership meetings
at
2724
W,
	8th,
	Los Angeles,
	SEID
	Local
99
has
not
participated
in
the
organizing campaign
of
classified
supervisory 	employees
of
the
District
on
behalf
of
SEID
	Local 699,
	One
senior
business
representative
of
SEID
Local
99
whose
depositionwas
	taken as
part
of
the record
herein
was
	not
even aware
that
SEIU
Local
699 was
using space
in
the
offices
of Joint
	Council 8
in their
building
0
The handling
of
grievances on
behalf
of
mernbers
of
SEID
Local 699
would be done by
the
local
union,
	not the Internationalo
	Eugene Barnes,
interim president
of
SEIU
Local 699, has been involved
in
a grievance
where two custodians charged him
with
b..arassing them. 	The custodians
were
represented
by
SEID
	Local
990
	Barnes has never been a
member
of
	SEIL
Local 99.
George Baker, 	an
interim
trustee of
SEIU
Local 699,
	still
pays dues
to
SEIU
Local
99
to
maintain
his
membership
seniority for the
death
gratuity,
	He
has been involved
in
two grievances.
	One
grievant
was
represented by
SEID
Local 99, 	the other
by
California
School Employees
Association, 	In each case, 	Baker
participated
at
the hearil,g 	on
behalf of the
District.
	Each involved an employee
who
was
	fired,
	Each
tennination
was upheldo
The
	District cites
portions of the International constitution
and
SEID Local 699 1 s constitution and by-laws
	in
support
of
its
position,
including:
7

Article TV - Section 3o 	- SEID Local 699's Constitution and By-Laws:
Section 3 o 	Every member, by virtue of his or her membership in
this Local Union, 	is obligated to adhere to and follow the
terms of the International Constitution, 	and the -working rules
prorwlgated in accordance with this Constitution, with
respect to his or her rights, 	duties, 	privileges and i.mmmities
conferred by them and by statute. 	Each member shall faithfully
carrJ ~ut such duties and obligations and shall not interfere
with the rights oJ fellow members.
From the International' s Constitution:
Article XI
Strikes and Lockouts
Unless authority to the contrary has been granted by the
General President, no Local Union shall call a strike
without previous notification of the General President,
who shall have the right to veto any strike to be called
by a Local Uniono 	If the General President has vetoed any
such strike, 	the Local Union ma.y not call the strike thus
vetoed.
Article XIV
Duties of Local Unions
Section 3. 	The constitution and bylaws of all Local
Unions and amendments thereto must be submitted to the
International Union and be approved before they become valid:
provided, however, 	that notwithstanding such approval,
the constitution and bylaws of all Local Unions shall
at all times be subordinate to the constitution and
bylaws of the International Union as it may be amended
from time to time. 	If a Local Union shall not have
secured the approval of a valid constitution and
bylaws, 	the provisions contained in the constitution
and bylaws of the L"'lternational Union as it may be amended
from time to time shall govern said Local Union insofar
as applicable O 	Regardless of 	approval, 	if any conflict
should arise between the constitution and bylaws of a
Local Union, 	or any amendments thereto, 	and the
constitution and bylaws of the International Union as it may
be amended from time to time, 	the provisions of the
constitution and bylaws of the International Union shall
controL
Article Y01
Members' 	Interests,
Transfers
Section lo 	No member of this International Union shall injure
the interests of another member by undermining him in wages or
financial status or by any other act,. direct or indirect, which
would wrongfully jeopardize a member's office or standing.
8

9
Article
XX
Local Enforcement
of
International
	Constitution
Any
Local Union
wilfully
neglecting
to
enforce
the
provisions
of this
	constitution
and bylaws
shall
be
subject to
	suspension
or
revocation
of
its
charter.
Relative
to
strikes,
	Zuniga
testified
that
after
the
International
approves a
strike
and
the
members
vote
on
it,
	they
hope
other
members
would honor
ito
	If
SEIU
Local
99
were on
strike,
members
of
SEID
Local
699
could
cross
	the
line,
	but
it
	would
not
be encouraged because
of
repercussions
	from
fellow
employees and because
it
would
violate Article
YY,
Section
1 (Supra)
	of
the
International
Constitutiono
The by-la:w-s
of
SEIU
Local
699
provide
that
the objectives are to
safeguard and develop
the
economic
welfare
of
supervisory
employees
working
for
public
school employers
	(Article
II,
	section
1.)
	Membership
is
open
to
any
classified
employee designated as supervisory by a
public
school employer as defined as supervisory by
the
EERA
	(Article
IV,
section
1)
within
Los P.ngeles Colfilty
	(Article
III,
	section
lo),
The
officers of
the local
union
are
a
president, vice-president,
secretary/treasurer,
	recording
secretary
and
three trustees 	(Article
V,
section
lo)
	To
be
eligible
to
rlfil
for office,
	a candidate must have
been a
member
for
a two year period imnediately preceding nomination
or for
	1/2 the period subsequent 	to the date of chartering of
SEIU
Local 699
	(Article
IV,
	section 4o),
The by-laws
set forth the specific duties of
each
officer
and
provide
that the Executive Board
shall
manage and
direct the affairs of
SEIU Local 699 between membership rneetingso 	(Article VI, 	section 6,),
9

The by-laws provide
for
a
negotiating
ccmnittee
cOP.1posed
of
SEIU
Local
699
	staff
and
not
less
	than
three elected
raembers from
the
school
district
division affected
by
the negotiations 	(Article
VII,
section
L)
and
for
ratification
of
negotiations
by
affected
members
(Article
VIII,
	section
2o)o
5
The
International constitution
does provide
for dissolution,
secession
and
disaffiliation
of
a
local
unioTia
6
CONCLUSIONS
OF
LAW
Clearly, 	the California Legislature
	was
well
aware
of
the
provisions
of
the
Labor
.Management
Relations Act, 	as amended
	(hereafter
I.MRA)
	in
framing
the
Educational Employment
Relations
Act
	(hereafter
EERA)
0	
The
L."1v!PA
specifically
excludes supervisory employees from
5
6
The
objectives
of
SEID
Local
699
are
to "safeguard and develop
through
united
and
collective
action
the economic
welfare
of
supervisory employees w-orking
for puolic
school employers by
improving
w--orking
conditions and promoting and maintaining
fair
and adequate
salaries
and
benefits
	...
" 	(By-laws, Art
II,
	sec.	
1)
and
to
"develop
collective
bargaining agreements with,' 	employers
within
	[its] 	jurisdiction that
provide the
maxiim.:rr:l
in benefits
and
job
ioproveraents
for the
employees
affected
and
that
maintain
the highest possible
standards
of
union
security
(Art
II,
	sec.2.).
Therefore,
	it
is
	found
	that
SEID
Local 699
is
an employee
organization within the meaning
of section
3SL+O
.1
( d)
Article
XXIII-Disolution
states:
This
Tntemational
Union
carn:1.ot
dissolve while there are
seven
disser1ting Localso
	No
Local Union can dissolve, 	secede
or
disaffiliate
while there are
seven
dissenting
members; no
Joint
Council can dissolve, 	secede
or disaffiliate
while there aretwo
dissenting Local Unions. 	The
International
Union
shall
be
notified
by
registered or certified
mail of
any meeting scheduled
by a Local Union
or Joint
Council for the purpose
of 	taking a
vote on
disaffiliating
from the International Union
at least
fifteen
	(15) 	days
prior to the date of
such scheduled meeting
and a representative of the International Union
shall
be afforded
an opportunity to speak
at
such rneetingo 	In the event of secession,
dissolution or disaffiliation, 	all properties, 	funds and assets,both real and personal, 	of such Local tJnion or Joint Council
shall becane the property of the International Union. 	Under no
circunstances shall any L.~cal Union or Joint Council distribute
its funds, 	assets or properties individually among its meI:'bership.
10

7
coverage, 	The
California Legislature
determined
that
supervisory
employees
of
a
public
school employer
in
California
would
not
be
excluded from coverage under
the
EERAo
The
I11RA,
	while
not
excluding guards from coverage, 	provides
special
treatment
because
of
the special relationship security
personnel
	bear
in relation
to protecting the
property
of
the
employero 	Thus,
	section
9(b)(3)
	of
the
Il1RA
provides:
•••
	but no
labor organization
shall
be
certified
as tne
repre-
sentative
of
the
employees
	in
a
bargaining
unit of
guards
if
such
organization
admits
to
membership,
	or
is affiliated
directly or indirectly
with
an
organization
which admits
	to
membership, 	employees
other
than
guardso
If
the California Legislature
had intended
to prohibit representation
of
supervisory employees by an employee
organization
which
is affiliated
directly or indirectly
with
an employee
organization
which admits
	to
membership employees
other
than
supervisors,
	they
were aware
of
the
language
of
the
lMRA
and could
easily
have fraiil.ed language which
7
Il1RA
section
20
	(3)
	states:
(3) 	The tenn "ec:rployee"
shall
include anv a:nolovee, 	and
shallnot
be
limited to the
employees
of a·particular
employer,
unless the Act
explicity states
othenvise, 	and
shall
includeany individual whose work has ceased as a consequence
of, 	or in
connection with, 	any
current labor dispute or
because
of
any tm.fair labor practice,
	and
who
has
notobtained any
other regular
and
substantially equivalentemployment, 	but
shall not include any individual employed
as an
agricultural laborer, 	or in the domestic service of
any
family
or person
at
his
home,
	or
any individual ec:rployed by
his parent or spouse, 	or any individual having the status
of an independent contractor, 	or any individual employed as
a supervisor, 	or any individual employed by an employer
subject to the Railway Labor Act, 	as amended from ti.Ire totime, 	or by any other person
'Who
is not an employer as
herein defined,
	[E.111phasis added]
11

accomplished
that
end and J)y
	reference,
	made
a whole body
of
case
law
0
on
the subject
applicableo
The
California Legislature 	did not enact
identical or
analogous
languageo 	Rather,
	the
language adopted
in
section
3545(b)(2)
	states:
A
negotiating
uri.it
of
supei-v--isory e.T~loyees
shall
not
be
appropriate
Ui..1.less
it
includes
all
supervisory
employees
employed by
the
district
and
shall
not
be
represented
by
t:1e
sar:1.e
ern:ployee
organization
as employees
whom
the supervisory
employees superviseo
Thus
representation
is
not prohibited
by an employee
organization
that
	is affiliated
directly
or
indirectly
with an employee
organization
that
admits non-supervisory employees
	to
nembershipo
	It
is
only
represe..nta0
:fon
by
the
same
	organization
that is
prchibit:ed,
A review
of other
states,
	while providing no
appropriate precedent,
is
helpful
:L~
that
	it
reflects
	the
attitude that
generally there
is
no
great conflict of interest in
pennitting representation for
supervisory employees
in
the public
sectoro
	In the public sector
in
Hawaii,
	the Legislature apparently
concluded
that
the
affinity
between supervisory and non-supervisory employees was
greater
than
the
conflict of
interest,
	because
the Legislature
in
Hawaii gave
supervisory public
employees
the
right
to
join
the
same employee
organization as non-supervisory employees
	for
representati1::in 	But
required separate trr1its
	for supervisory and non-s~'Pervisory employees. 9
8
Firefighters
	Union v City of Vallejo 	(1974) 	12 Cal. 	3d 608
which
sanctions the use
of
""'fecie:Eal
precede.tit
in
interpreting identical
or analogous language
in California labor
legislation.
9 Hawaii Statutes Annotated, 	section 89-6
12

13
In Connecticut the Mtm.icipal Employee Relations Act includes supervisory
ern.ployees in the same unit as non-supervisory employees if supervision
is not their principal function. 10 In Washington, D. C.
municipal supervisory and non-supervisory employees may join the
same employee organization, but they cannot be represe.Dted
11
in the same unit. 	Public school employees carry the prohibition
that '~~o unit will be established if it includes: 	(2) 	any
supervisor together with other employees."12
In Florida,
supervisory employees are placed in the same unit w-i.th professional
employees, 13 In Wisconsin, 	police and fire supervisors are required
to have their own separate unito 14 :tv'rl.chigan pennits the same employee
organization to represent both supervisory and non-supervisory
employees provided they are in separate bargaining units,15 while
requir:L.7.g that all persons w'ith supervisory rank within a department
be included within one supervisory unit..16
10
11.E.R.A. 	section 7-471(2)
11District Personnel 11anual, 	item 8
12District Board of Education Rules, 	section 5.9
13 	,
14
Florida Nurses Association (Southeastern Valusia Hospital District)
(PERC 1976) 	Case No, 	8 H-RC-751-0019; 	Florida Nurses- i\ssociation
(PERC 1976) Case No. 	8 H-RC-761-0082; 	In the Hatter of the State
of Florida (PERC 1976) Case No. 	8 H-4-3 - 	- 	--
Wisconsin State E..Tt1ployr:1ent Relations Act, 	section lll,70(3)(d)
15 1n re City of Livonia, 	(MERC 1975) Lctb. Op .. 	96
16 In re Northern Michigan Universitt (MERC 1976) Lab. On.490'.
In re City of Flushing (L.M.B. 	19 9)
13

14
In
sur;:rnary,
	no
state
follows
	the
ll1RA
view
that
supervisory
employees
may
not
be
represented
or
may
not
be
represented
by an
employee
organization
that
	is affiliated
directly or indirectly
with
an employee
organization
that
represents
non-supervison; employees.,
Rather,
	the consideration
goes
	to
whether
supervisory
employees
should be included
in
the
same
unit
with
non-supervisory employees
in
the public
sector.
Prior to
passage
of
the
EERA,
	public
school employees were
governed by
the
Winton Act
17
which
defined public
school employee
as "any person employed by any
public
school employer excepting
those persons
elected
by popular
vote
or
appointed by the
Governor
of this
	stateo" 	All public
school employees
ri.ad
the
right
to
joi..11
and
participate in
employee
organizations
of their
own
choosing
for
the
purpose
of
represer1tation on
all
matters of
employer-employee
relations.
18
Thus,
	for
purposes
of
meet and confer under
the
Winton
17
Ed'...lcation
Code
section
	et
	, repealed July
l,
	1976,
18
Ibid, 	section 13082
14

Act,
	supervisory
and
non-supervisory
er;iployees could be
represented
by
the
same
employee
organization.
Thus
	the California Legislature
could have:
1 o	
precluded coverage
of
supervisory
employees;
2. 	precluded
representation
of
supervisory
employees by an
employee
organization
that
was
affiliated
directly
or
indirectly
with
an employee
organization
that
represents
non-supervisory employees;
30	
looked
to other
states
and precluded
inclusion
in
the
same
unit;
4 0 	continued
the
Winton Act framework wherein
the
same
employee
organization
could
represent both supervisoryand non-supervisory employees"
TI1e
California Legislature
followed a
separate
framework and
precluded only
representation
by
the
same employee
organization.
"Same"
is
defined as resembling
in
every way:
	not
different
in
relevant essentials;
	confonning
in
every
respect;
	being one without
addition,
	change
or
discontinuance: 	having one
nature or individuality;
correspond:L.,g so
closely
as
	to
be
indistinguishable"
19
By
definition,
	it
is
clear that
SEIU
Local
699
is
not the
same
as
SEIU
Local
990
	They have
separate
officers, 	jurisdiction
over
separate
employee
classifications
	(supervisory and non-supervisory)
and a separate dues
	structure
and
treasury with which to carry
out
their
programso 	The
fact that
they
are
both
affiliated
with
the International
and
Joint
Council 8 does not
rnak.e
them the same,
While each
will
pay the per capita tax required by the LDternational
19
Webster's Third
new
International Dictionary, lfilabridged, 	(1976)
at 	2007.
15

and Joint Council 8, 	each entity will determine through its membership
and executive board whether to utilize the services of the International
and Saint Council 8.
Members of SEIU Local 99 have no vote on the eleccion of officers
for SEIU Local 699, 	on the amount of dues to be paid to SEID Local 699,
on the conduct of negotiations by SEID Local 699, 	or the ratification of
negotiations conducted by SEID Local 699, 	and no right to be represented
by SEID Local 6990 	Indeed, 	the by-laws of SEID Local 699 do not admit
non-supervisors to mer:ibership. 	Based on this autonanous structure,
it is found that SEID Local 699 is not the same employee organization
as SEIU Local 99.
The District urges the finding that SEID Local 99 and SEID Local 699
are the "same organization" and that two separate organizations can
be found only if there is a complete separation between them and
complete autonomy on behalf of each. 	This finding is rejected.
SEID Local 699 and SEID Local 99 are not the same as the foregoing has
indicateda 	They are essentially autonormus entities, 	each of which is
affiliated with the International O 	If the Legislature had intended
to preclude representation of supervisory and non-supervisory employees
by employee organizations which are affiliated with the sar:i.e international
organization, 	they would have done so by adopti.ng the LRMA language
relative to units of guardso 	They did not do SOo
The District argues that each local of the International is
subordinate to the International and merely a subdivision of the
International. 	This ignores the constitutional provision which
provides for disaffiliation.
16

In
further
support
of
its
position, 	the
District calls attention
to
Article
'501,	
section
1
20
of the International
Constitution
for
the proposition
that
this
provision
would
prohibit
a
supervisor
from recarmending
dismissal
of
another
member
of
SEIU
Internationalo
The
article,
	it
must be assumed,
	is
not
intended
or
designed
to
require
any employee
to
fail
	to
fully
perfonn
his
or
her job
functiono
J:bre
importantly,
	however, 	such a
conflict
is
inherent
	to
section
3545(b)(2)
	in that
the
section requires
that
all
supervisory
employees be included
within the
unit,
	Thus,
	for
example, 	a
supervisorJ
lmit
might
well include
a
director of
maintenance and
operations,
an
assistant director of
maintenance and
operations,
	a head
custodian
and an
assistant
head
custodian,
	all
of
whom
are
supervisors
within
the
meaning
of
section
3540ol(m)
21
, 	and
all
of
whom
supervise
other
persons
within the
same
lmit
with the
exception
of
the
lowest
ranking
supervisor within
a
districts
hierarchy.
	With
this
built-in
conflict
already included
within the
statute, 	this
argument
of the
District
does
not
provide a
basis for
finding
	that
the 	Legislature
intended
to
preclude
representation of
supervisory and non-supervisory
employees by
affiliated
autonomous
	local
unions,
20
Supra
	at
Po
	8
21:;ection 	3540.l(m)
	states:
"Supervisory employee" 	means any employee, 	regardless of job
description,
	having
authority in the interest of the er::iployer
to
hire, 	transfer,
	suspend, 	lay off, 	recall,
	promote, 	discharge,
assign, reward,
	or discipline other employees,
	or the responsibilityto assign work to and
direct
	them, 	or to adjust their
grievances,
or effectively recomnend 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 ofindependent judgmento
17

t..li.e
	calls 	of
the
International
	Next
	District
	attention to that
portion
Constitution,
22
which
requires
prior
approval by
the International
general
president
before
a
local
lIDion can
call
a
strike,
	and argues
that
members
of
other
SEIU
local
unions
-would
be
required
to
honor
the picket
line;
	indeed,
	the
District
argues
that
the
International
canpel
the
supervisory
members
of
SEIU
Local
699
and
SEIU
Local
99
could
to
honor
the
picket
line
of
SEIU
Local 99,
of
	rests
	the
	The obvious
fallacy
	this line
of
reasoning
	in
	premise.
Under
the
Winton Act,
	supervisors
and non-supervisors were
represented
by
the
same
employee
organization
and
strikes
by
public
sector
employees were unlawful. 	Under
the
EERA,
	supervisory
and non-
employees
are not
permitted
to
be
represented
by
supervisory
"the
same" employee
organization. 	Strikes are
still
tmlai;vful. 	Thus,
the
possibility of
an unlawful
strike
is
not
a
basis for
finding
organization.
	S:L.7.cc
the
two
separate
entities
	to
be
"the
same" employee
of
California
have
consistently
fom1d
that strikes
by
publiccourts
employees
are
unlawful,
23
this
clause
does
not threaten the
District
a speedy, 	:im:nediate remedy
available to
it
through
the
courts,
which has
Further,
	it
is
doubtful
that
the witness
who
testified
that this
was the
meaning
of Article
XI and
y:::;
was m-;are
of
how
those
articles
had
been
interpreted
by the International sines
he was only a
recent
hire
International
by
the International. 	Article
XI, 	on ~ts face, 	allows
	the
toto veto a
strike,
	Nowhere does
	it
require
a group of employees
22
See Article
XI, 	supra
at
p, 	8
23
Cooper,	See
§ftl
and Countv of San Francisco v Nathan
B,,	
George
!::._
	Bangs
(197 	3C3d
898° [ITO
Cal. 	Rptr. 	107; 	534 P
"Zd
403]; 0
Los An~eles Unified_School District v United Teachers of Los Angeles
14 CA 3d 142 	[100 Cal. 	Rptr. 	806];Pasadena Unifiea Scnool District v(1972)
Pasadena Federation of Teachers 	(1977) 	72 CoAo 	3d 100, ~40 Cal Rptr.41)
IIDd. 	at Ii. l:A. jdo 	;6Ja 	Cal. 	Rptr 	, 	-
	O
18

initiate
a
strike
or
a secondary group
of
	employees
to
	honor a
picket
24
line•
nor
does
Article
"50J.
f
Further, 	the Constitution deals
only with
members. 	Without
.	t 	1	ques
ion,
	.	an
emp
	.	oyee
organization
cannot
f.
me
non-
memb
	,
	ers,	
25
and must
represent
all
employees
within the
unit,
26
without
regard
to
membership.
	Nor
can a union
discipline
:rnernbers
for
refusinp:
	i.:o
27
participate in
unprotected
or
unlawful
activity.
Because
members
from any
local
may
be
elected to
the
International
executive board,
	the
District
argues
	that this
could
create
a
conflict
of
interest in relation
to
the
District
and
this
was
what
the
Legislature
intended
to
prevent
in
passage
of
section
3545(b)(2). 	As
one
possible vote
in
a
	35 member
executive board,
	this
argunent
is,
	indeed, 	rermte.
	And,
	again,
	if
this
was
	the
intent
of
the Legislature
	they would have precluded
representation
of
supervisory
employees by an employee
organization
that
was
affiliated directly
or indirectly
with
an employee
organization
that
admitted non-supervisory
24
Supra
at
p. 	8.
25
The
LR11A.,
	section
8(b) (1) (a)
	prohibits
an employee
organizationfrom
restraining or
coercing employees
for
the exercise
of rights
guaranteed by
that
Act. 	Likewise,
	the
EERA
section
3543.5(b)
prohibits
an employee organization from
restraining or
coercing
employees
	for the exercise of rights
guaranteed by the Act. 	The
United
States
Supreme Court has prohibited employee organizationsfrom
disciplining
non-members
or
members
who
resign for crossinga
picket
line
- See Machinist Lodge 405 	(Boeing Co.) v.
	NLRB
(UoS.S.C. 	1973) 	412 U.S. 	84 [83
LRRM
2189) ;
NLRB
v.
Textile
Workers Local 1029
	(International
Pa
~Machine
Box Co.)
U.S.S.C. 	197 	09
U.S. 	13 	1
LRRM	
53 	.26
27
Section 3544.9
states:
The employee organization recognized
or certified
as the
exclusive representative for the purpose
of
meeting and
negotiating shall fairly represent each and
ever;
employee
inthe appropriate unit.
See Insurance Workers 	No. 	50;
	NI.BB
v.Intemat1. 	on o 	Workers of America, 	et al1 6 	391 U. W 	18; Local . 	Union of Operating Engineers
(1964) 	149 NLRB 674.
19

employeeso
	Instead, 	the
	LegislaturE: only
prohibited
mer:bership
in
the
same
organization.
Describing
Joint
Council 8 as a
	subsidiary
of
the
International,
the
District
clairrs
there
is
no autonomy between
the
International
and
SEID
Local
699
because
Joint
Council 8 has
permitted
SEID
Local 699
to
use
office
space and equipment ·without charge.
The
free
use
of
space and equipment donated by
Joint
Crnmcil 8
is
not
evidence
of
control
of
SEID
Local 699, 	Since
it
is
interim
elected
officers
and
applicants
for
membership
,vho
are
supervisory
classified
employees
of
public
school
districts
who
conduct
all
of
the business
of
SEID
Local 699,
	the
free
use
of office
space and
equipment without
requiring
something
in return
is
	incidental
only,
The
single
exception
to the
above
is
11-iornas
ZLIDiga,
	an
International
orga..~izer, 	assigned
to
SEID
Local 699,
	who
	is
	interim
secretary/treasurer
and has voted on
the business
of
SEIU
Local 699. 	Robert Anderson,
an
International
organizer,
	helped
with the writing of
by-laws
for
SEIU
Local 699,
	but
has had no
vote
on
official
businesso
The
participation of
Anderson was o:inimal. 	Zuniga has been rmre
active,
	but once
the local
begins
	to function
fully
and conducts
elections of regular officers,
	he
will
have no standing to rLID
for
office
and no standing to obtain
membership
in
the local.
While Zuniga and Anderson helped
in
the formation
of
SEIU
Local 699,
it
is clear that
every step has followed a derrncratic process and
virtually
all
acts, 	including the adoption
of
by-laws, 	the determination
to request recognition, 	the setting of dues and the determination
of
20

interim
officers
has been by a
vote
of
the
"rre.-rnbers".
	Notice has
been
sent
and rmnthly meetings conducted from
the inception
of
SEIU
weal
699
for
this
purpose.
It
is
obvious
that
control
is
	in
the
hands
of
the
members
and
their
elected
executive
board◊	
Neither the Literriational nor
Joint
Cotmcil 8 can be
said
to
dcminate
this
	fledgling
local.
	At most,
the International
has rendered guidance.
PROPOSED
ORDER
Based on
the
foregoing findings
of fact,
	conclusions
of
law,
and the
entire
record
in this
matter,
	it
is
	the 	Proposed Order
that: 
Classified
Union
of
Supervisory Employees,
	weal
699,
	SEIU,
AFL-CIO
is
NOT
the
same
employee
organization
ws asAngeles
City
and County School Ernployees' Union,
weal
99,
	or
Service Employees
Joint
Council
No.
	8
of
Southern
California, 	or
Service Employees
International
Union,
	A...41.-CIO,
	C'LC,,
	within
the
Il1€8Iling
of
section
3545(b) (2)
of
ttle
EERA.
'i:'hc
anpropriate
unit for
an
election consists of:
28
All supervisory
classified
employees	
of
the employer
excluding
r.:ianagernent
and
confidential
employees and
excluding
all
non-supervisot"IJ
classifications.
28SEID
weal
699's request for recognition
lists
	the
classifications
sought
in
its
	proposed
unit.
	The
record does not
reflect that
this
	includes
all
supervisory
classified
employees
of the employer.
Only a
unit
which includes
all
supervisory
classified
employees
of
the employer
is
appropriate (section 3545.(b)(2).
Jurisdiction is
retained to determine any questions
relating to whether the
Ul'.'.it
includes
all
supervisorfemployees and/or e..xcludes
all
management or confidential
classifications 1
	if
the parties are unable to resolve
these issues betrNeen themselves.
21

dated:	dated: 	June 23, 1978	Jtme 23, 	1978
Sharrel J. Wyaty
earing Officer	H
The
parties
have
20
calendar
days following
	the date
of
service
of
this
Proposed Decision
in
"Which
to
file
exceptions
in
accordance
with the California
Administrative
Code,
	title
8,
	section
32300.
P,_rrsuar1t
to the
CalifoiT1ia Adrrdnistrati:ve Code,
	title
8, 	section
32305,
this
Proposed Decision
shall
become
final
on
July
	17, 1978,
	tmless
	a
party
files
	a
timely statement
of
exceptions.
Within
	ten
(10) workdays
after
this
	decision
becomes
	final,
	the
employee
organization
shall
deroonstrate
to
the
Regional
Director
at
least
30
percent
support
in
the
above
tmiL
	The Regional
Director
shall
conduct an
election
if
the
employee
organization
qualifies for
29
the
ballot
and
the
employer does
not grant
voltmtary recognition,
The
date
used
to establish
the
number
of
employees
in
the
above
tmit
shall
be
the date
of
this
decision tmless 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
derronstrate
at least
30
percent
support
in
the
tmit.
29
Voluntary recognition requires majority proof of
support
in all
caseso 	See Gov. 	Code Secs. 	3544 and 3544.1.
22