Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District (PERB 0165E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
----------------
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
LIVERMORE 	VALLEY 	JOINT 	UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES 	ASSOCIATION
AND 	ITS 	CHAPTER 	334,
Employee 	Organization,
and
UNITED 	PUBLIC 	EMPLOYEES, 	LOCAL 	390
SERVICE EMPLOYEES 	INTERNATIONAL 	UNION,
AFL-CIO,
Employee 	Organization.
Representation
Case 	No. 	SF-R-28X
PERB 	Decision
No. 	165
June 	22, 	1981
Appearances: 	Jon 	A. 	Hudak, 	Attorney 	(Breon, 	Galgani 	& Godino)
for 	Livermore 	Valley 	Joint 	Unified 	School 	District;
Charles 	L. 	Morrone, 	Attorney 	(Wax, 	Howard, 	Searle 	and 	Morrone)
for 	California 	School 	Employees 	Association, 	Chapter 	334;
Stewart Weinberg 	and 	w. 	Daniel 	Boone, 	Attorneys 	(Van 	Bourg,
Allen, 	Weinberg 	and 	Roger) 	for 	United 	Public 	Employees, 	Local
390, 	SEIU, 	AFL-CIO.
Before 	Gluck, 	Chairperson; 	Moore 	and 	Tovar, 	Members.
DECISION	DECISION
This 	case 	is 	before 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Boa
(hereafter 	PERB 	or 	Board) 	on 	exceptions 	filed 	by 	the 	Livermore
Vall 	Joint 	Unified 	School 	District 	(hereafter 	District) 	and
California 	School 	Employees 	Association, 	apter 	334 	(hereaf 	r
CSEA) 	to 	the 	hearing 	officer's 	proposed 	decision 	finding
LIVERMORE VALLEY JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Employer , 	Representation
Case No. SF-R-28X
and
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
AND ITS CHAPTER 334,
PERB Decision
Employee Organization, 	No. 165
and
UNITED PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 390 	June 22, 1981
SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION,
AFL-CIO,
Employee Organization.
Appearances : 	Jon A. Hudak, Attorney (Breon, Galgani & Godino)
for Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District;
Charles L. Morrone, Attorney (Wax, Howard, Searle and Morrone)
for California School Employees Association, Chapter 334;
Stewart Weinberg and W. Daniel Boone, Attorneys (Van Bourg,
Allen, Weinberg and Roger) for United Public Employees, Local
390, SEIU, AFL-CIO.
Before Gluck, Chairperson; Moore and Tovar, Members.
This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(hereafter PERB or Board) on exceptions filed by the Livermore
Valley Joint Unified School District (hereafter District) and
California School Employees Association, Chapter 334 (hereafter
CSEA) to the hearing officer's proposed decision finding the

severance 	of 	an 	operations-support 	services 	unit 	from 	the
existing 	wall-to-wall 	unit 	of 	classified 	employees 	to 	be
appropriate. 	The 	severance 	petitioner, 	United 	Public
Employees, 	Local 	390, 	Service 	Employees 	International 	Union,
AFL-CIO 	(hereafter 	SEIU) 	excepts 	to 	the 	placement 	of 	certain
disputed 	classifications.
PROCEDURAL 	HISTORY	PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On April 	1, 	1976, 	CSEA 	requested 	recognition 	in 	a
wall-to-wall 	unit 	of 	the 	District's 	classified 	employees. 	On
that 	same 	date, 	Teamsters 	Local 	853, 	International 	Brotherhood
of 	Teamsters, 	Chauffeurs, 	Warehousemen 	& 	Helpers 	of 	America
{hereafter 	Teamsters) 	filed 	a 	request 	for 	recognition 	in 	a 	unit
of 	bus 	drivers 	and 	mechanics. 	On 	April 	30, 	1976, 	the 	District
indicated 	that 	it 	doubted 	the 	appropriateness 	of 	the 	unit
proposed 	by 	the 	Teamsters. 	A formal 	unit 	determination 	hearing
was 	held, 	as 	a 	result 	of 	which 	a 	hearing 	officer 	found 	the
wall-to-wall 	unit 	appropriate. 	The 	Teamsters 	did 	not 	appeal
that 	ruling. 	CSEA 	was 	certified 	as 	the 	exclusive
representative 	in 	the 	wall-to-wall 	unit 	on 	October 	4, 	1977.
On March 	27, 	1980, 	SEIU 	timely 	filed 	the 	petition 	which 	is
the 	subject 	the 	instant 	case 	se 	ing 	to 	carve 	an
operations-support 	services 	unit 	out 	of 	the 	existing
wall-to-wall 	configuration. 	On 	April 	17, 	1980, 	a 	rmal
i 	on 	petit 	was 	he 	e 	Heari 	ficer
2
severance of an operations-support services unit from the
existing wall-to-wall unit of classified employees to be
appropriate. 	The severance petitioner, United Public
Employees, Local 390, Service Employees International Union,
AFL-CIO (hereafter SEIU) excepts to the placement of certain
disputed classifications.
On April 1, 1976, CSEA requested recognition in a
wall-to-wall unit of the District's classified employees. 	On
that same date, Teamsters Local 853, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America
(hereafter Teamsters) filed a request for recognition in a unit
of bus drivers and mechanics. On April 30, 1976, the District
indicated that it doubted the appropriateness of the unit
proposed by the Teamsters. A formal unit determination hearing
was held, as a result of which a hearing officer found the
wall-to-wall unit appropriate. The Teamsters did not appeal
that ruling. CSEA was certified as the exclusive
representative in the wall-to-wall unit on October 4, 1977.
On March 27, 1980, SEIU timely filed the petition which is
the subject of the instant case seeking to carve an
operations-support services unit out of the existing
wall-to-wall configuration. On April 17, 1980, a formal
hearing on the petition was held before Hearing Officer
N

Terrell 	J. 	Lindsey. 	CSEA, 	SEIU, 	and 	the 	District 	were
represented 	and 	fully 	participated 	in 	that 	proceeding.
In 	his 	proposed 	decision, 	the 	hearing 	officer 	found 	that
severance 	was 	appropriate 	and 	ordered 	an 	election 	in 	the
operations-support 	services 	unit 	sought 	by 	SEIU. 	He 	did 	not,
however, 	include 	the 	maintenance 	and 	transportation 	specialist
classifications 	in 	the 	operations 	and 	support 	unit.
FACTS	FACTS
The 	hearing 	officer's 	findings 	of 	fact 	are 	substantially
correct 	and 	are 	adopted 	as 	the 	findings 	of 	the 	Board.
Additional 	facts 	will 	be 	noted 	in 	the 	course 	of 	the 	discussion
which 	follows. 	The 	hearing 	officer's 	proposed 	decision 	is
attached 	hereto 	and 	incorporated 	by 	reference 	herein.
DISCUSSION	DISCUSSION
In 	considering 	the 	appropriateness 	of 	proposed 	units, 	PERB
is 	governed 	by 	section 	3545 	of 	the 	Educational 	Employment
Relations 	Act 	(hereafter 	EERA)l 	which 	reads 	in 	part:
(a) 	In 	each 	case 	where 	the 	appropriateness
of 	the 	unit 	is 	an 	issue, 	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.
lThe 	EERA 	is 	codified 	at 	Government 	Code 	section 	3540
et 	seq. 	Unless 	otherwise 	specified, 	all 	statutory 	references
are 	to 	the 	Government 	Code.
3
Terrell J. Lindsey. CSEA, SEIU, and the District were
represented and fully participated in that proceeding.
In his proposed decision, the hearing officer found that
severance was appropriate and ordered an election in the
operations-support services unit sought by SEIU. He did not,
however, include the maintenance and transportation specialist
classifications in the operations and support unit.
The hearing officer's findings of fact are substantially
correct and are adopted as the findings of the Board.
Additional facts will be noted in the course of the discussion
which follows. The hearing officer's proposed decision is
attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein.
In considering the appropriateness of proposed units, PERB
is governed by section 3545 of the Educational Employment
Relations Act (hereafter EERA) I which reads in part:
(a) In each case where the appropriateness
of the unit is an issue, 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.
The EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540
et seq. 	Unless otherwise specified, all statutory references
are to the Government Code.
w

In 	applying 	the 	statutory 	criteria 	set 	forth 	in
section 	3545(a) 	to 	determinations 	as 	to 	appropriate 	units 	of
classified 	employees, 	early 	in 	its 	history 	the 	Board 	found 	an
operations 	and 	support 	services 	unit 	to 	be 	appropriate.
Sweetwater 	Union High 	School 	District 	(11/23/76) 	EERB 	Decision
No. 	4.2
In 	Sweetwater, 	the 	Board 	established 	three 	classified 	units
which 	have 	come 	to 	be 	characterized 	as 	presumptively
appropriate. 	In 	addition 	to 	an 	operations-support 	services
unit 	such 	as 	that 	sought 	here, 	the 	Board 	established 	units 	of
instructional 	aides 	(paraprofessionals) 	and 	office-technical
and 	business 	services 	employees. 	The 	Board 	has 	granted 	such
units 	when 	sought, 	virtually 	without 	exception, 	having
determined 	that 	a 	strong 	community 	of 	interest 	and 	a 	lack 	of
conflict 	of 	interest 	generally 	exists 	among 	employees 	in 	each
of 	these 	groups 	and, 	further, 	that 	those 	units" ... 	reflect 	a
proper 	balance 	between 	the 	harmful 	effects 	on 	an 	employer 	of
excessive 	unit 	fragmentation 	and 	the 	harmful 	effects 	on
employees 	and 	the 	organizations 	attempting 	to 	represent 	them 	of
an 	insufficiently 	divided 	negotiating 	unit 	or 	units." 	Antioch
Unified 	School 	Distri 	(11/7/77) 	EERB 	Decision 	No. 	37, 	at 	p.7.
2	2pr 	to 	January 	1, 	1978, 	PERB 	was 	ca 	ed 	the
ucat 	1 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(EERB).
4
In applying the statutory criteria set forth in
section 3545 (a) to determinations as to appropriate units of
classified employees, early in its history the Board found an
operations and support services unit to be appropriate.
Sweetwater Union High School District (11/23/76) EERB Decision
No. 4.2
In Sweetwater, the Board established three classified units
which have come to be characterized as presumptively
appropriate. 	In addition to an operations-support services
unit such as that sought here, the Board established units of
instructional aides (paraprofessionals) and office-technical
and business services employees. The Board has granted such
units when sought, virtually without exception, having
determined that a strong community of interest and a lack of
conflict of interest generally exists among employees in each
of these groups and, further, that those units ". 	reflect a
proper balance between the harmful effects on an employer of
excessive unit fragmentation and the harmful effects on
employees and the organizations attempting to represent them of
an insufficiently divided negotiating unit or units." Antioch
Unified School District (11/7/77) EERB Decision No. 37, at p. 7.
prior to January 1, 1978, PERB was called the
Educational Employment Relations Board (EERB) .
4

Moreoever, 	the 	Board 	has 	clearly 	expressed 	a 	strong
preference 	for 	the 	three 	Sweetwater 	classified 	employee 	units,
stating 	that 	a 	variant 	unit 	will 	not 	be 	granted 	when 	sought 	in
competition 	with 	a 	Sweetwater 	unit" ... 	unless 	it 	is 	more
appropriate 	than 	the 	Sweetwater 	unit 	based 	upon 	a 	separate 	and
distinct 	community 	of 	interest 	among 	employees 	in 	the 	variant
unit 	or 	other 	section 	3545(a) 	criteria." 	Compton 	Unified
School 	District 	(10/26/79) 	PERB 	Decision 	No. 	109.
This 	strong 	expression 	of 	preference 	for 	Sweetwater 	units
was 	heavily 	relied 	upon 	by 	the 	hearing 	officer 	when 	he 	placed
the 	burden 	upon 	the 	District 	and 	CSEA 	to 	establish 	that 	the
wall-to-wall 	classified 	unit 	presently 	.in 	existence 	is 	a 	more
appropriate 	grouping 	than 	the 	operations-support 	services 	unit
sought. 	We 	find 	that, 	based 	upon 	the 	criteria 	set 	forth 	in
section 	3545(a) 	of 	the 	EERA, 	CSEA 	and 	the 	District 	have 	failed
to 	overcome 	the 	presumption.
This 	is 	only 	the 	second 	severance 	request 	to 	reach 	the
Boara.3 	The 	severance 	setting 	is 	factually 	different 	from 	an
initial 	unit 	determination 	because 	negotiating 	history 	must 	be
consi 	ed 	when 	evaluating 	a 	severance 	request. 	Such 	a
request, 	however, 	is 	governed 	by 	criteria
3The 	Board 	granted 	first 	severance 	request, 	in
Redondo 	Beach 	City School 	District 	( 	7/80) 	PERB 	Decis
No. 	114, 	under 	aTfferent 	factual 	circumstances.
5
Moreoever, the Board has clearly expressed a strong
preference for the three Sweetwater classified employee units,
stating that a variant unit will not be granted when sought in
competition with a Sweetwater unit ". . 	. unless it is more
appropriate than the Sweetwater unit based upon a separate and
distinct community of interest among employees in the variant
unit or other section 3545 (a) criteria. " Compton Unified
School District (10/26/79) PERB Decision No. 109.
This strong expression of preference for Sweetwater units
was heavily relied upon by the hearing officer when he placed
the burden upon the District and CSEA to establish that the
wall-to-wall classified unit presently in existence is a more
appropriate grouping than the operations-support services unit
sought. We find that, based upon the criteria set forth in
section 3545(a) of the EERA, CSEA and the District have failed
to overcome the presumption.
This is only the second severance request to reach the
Board. The severance setting is factually different from an
initial unit determination because negotiating history must be
considered when evaluating a severance request. Such a
request, however, is governed by the criteria of
3The Board granted the first severance request, in
Redondo Beach City School District (1/17/80) PERB Decision
No. 114, under different factual circumstances.
5

section 	3545(a) 	of 	the 	EERA, 	just 	as 	is 	an 	initial
determination. 	Negotiating 	history, 	as 	one 	of 	these 	criteria,
is 	an 	important 	factor, 	and 	a 	stable 	negotiating 	relationship
will 	not 	be 	lightly 	disturbed. 	Nonetheless, 	it 	is 	but 	one 	of
several 	criteria 	looked 	to 	by 	the 	Board. 	The 	basic 	test 	set
forth 	in 	the 	statute, 	as 	it 	has 	been 	expressed 	in 	terms 	of 	the
Compton 	preference 	for 	the 	presumptively 	appropriate 	Sweetwater
units, 	governs 	the 	severance 	inquiry 	as 	it 	does 	an 	initial 	unit
determination.
COMMUNITY OF 	INTEREST	COMMUNITY OF INTEREST
The 	community 	of 	interest 	factors 	relied 	upon 	by 	the
hearing 	officer 	in 	this 	case 	are 	substantially 	similar 	to 	those
relied 	upon 	by 	the 	Board 	in 	Sweetwater 	and 	its 	progeny. 	Thus,
with 	respect 	to 	the 	transportation 	employees, 	all 	are 	based 	at
a 	central 	transportation 	yard, 	geographically 	remote 	from 	the
District 	Office 	and 	schools. 	All 	are 	supervised 	by 	a
transportation 	director. 	The 	job 	function 	of 	each 	is 	related
to 	transporting 	students 	and 	supplies.
With 	respect 	to 	the 	food 	service 	employees, 	the 	record
reflects 	that 	they 	work 	in 	the 	kitchens 	cafeterias 	of 	the
various 	schools. 	The 	job 	duty 	each 	is 	directly 	r 	ted 	to
the 	preparation 	and 	dispensing 	of 	food 	or 	the 	maintenance 	of
food 	eparation 	and 	serving 	areas. 	ey 	e 	common
supervision 	food 	service 	direc
6
section 3545(a) of the EERA, just as is an initial
determination. Negotiating history, as one of these criteria,
is an important factor, and a stable negotiating relationship
will not be lightly disturbed. Nonetheless, it is but one of
several criteria looked to by the Board. The basic test set
forth in the statute, as it has been expressed in terms of the
Compton preference for the presumptively appropriate Sweetwater
units, governs the severance inquiry as it does an initial unit
determination.
The community of interest factors relied upon by the
hearing officer in this case are substantially similar to those
relied upon by the Board in Sweetwater and its progeny. Thus,
with respect to the transportation employees, all are based at
a central transportation yard, geographically remote from the
District Office and schools. All are supervised by a
transportation director. The job function of each is related
to transporting students and supplies.
With respect to the food service employees, the record
reflects that they work in the kitchens and cafeterias of the
various schools. The job duty of each is directly related to
the preparation and dispensing of food or the maintenance of
food preparation and serving areas. They share common
supervision by the food service director.
6

The
	other
	employees
	in
	this
	operations-support
	service
	unit
constitute
	the
	functional 	equivalent 	of
	a
	blue-collar
production
	and
	maintenance
	unit.
	They
	are 	responsible 	for
cleaning,
	maintaining,
	and
	renovating 	the
	physical
	plant
	and
moving
	its
	appurtenances.
	The
	employees
	in
	this
	grouping
	work
out
	of
	the
	maintenance
	yard
	and
	the
	District
	Office
	work
	site
(with
	the 	exception 	of
	groundskeepers
	and
	custodians
	who 	work
throughout 	the
	District).
	Most
	employees
	in 	the 	production
	and
maintenance 	grouping
	are 	supervised
	by
	the
	maintenance
	director.
We
	agree
	with
	the 	hearing
	officer's
	finding
	that
	the
employees
	in 	the
	operations-support 	services 	unit
	share
	a
distinct
	functional
	similarity
	in
	that
	all
	work
	with
	their
hands
	and
	tools 	to 	create
	and
	maintain 	the
	District's
	physical
environment
	and
	to 	provide 	support
	services
	for
	students.	
On
examination 	of 	the
	above
	factors
	in
	light
	of
	established
	Board
precedent,
	it
	is
	clear 	that
	they 	share
	a 	community
	of
	interest
distinct
	from
	the
	paraprofessional
	and
	clerical
	employees
	who
constitute
	the 	remainder
	of 	the
	classified 	unit.4
44The
	hearing
	officer
	found
	that
	the
	community
	of
	interestfactors 	militating
	in 	favor 	of
	a 	wal
	to-wall 	unit 	are
insufficient
	to
	tip
	the 	balance 	in 	favor 	of 	continuing
	such
	a
configuration.
	We
	agree.
	At
	most, 	the 	record
	indicates
	some
minor
	overlap 	in
	work
	locations 	wall-to-wall,
	minimal 	and
inciden 	interface
	between
	operations-support 	services
employees 	and
	others,
	and 	some 	common
	terms
	and
	conditions 	of
employment 	such 	as
	common
	benefit 	packages.
	We
	are 	not
persuaded
	that 	these 	indicia 	of
	community
	of 	rest
	outweigh
factors
	such 	as 	the 	overall 	functional 	similarities
	shared 	by
operations-support 	personnel, 	relied
	upon 	by
	the 	hearing
officer
	and 	referenced 	above.
7
The other employees in this operations-support service unit
constitute the functional equivalent of a blue-collar
production and maintenance unit. They are responsible for
cleaning, maintaining, and renovating the physical plant and
moving its appurtenances. The employees in this grouping work
out of the maintenance yard and the District Office work site
(with the exception of groundskeepers and custodians who work
throughout the District) . Most employees in the production and
maintenance grouping are supervised by the maintenance director.
We agree with the hearing officer's finding that the
employees in the operations-support services unit share a
distinct functional similarity in that all work with their
hands and tools to create and maintain the District's physical
environment and to provide support services for students. On
examination of the above factors in light of established Board
precedent, it is clear that they share a community of interest
distinct from the paraprofessional and clerical employees who
constitute the remainder of the classified unit. 4
The hearing officer found that the community of interest
factors militating in favor of a wall-to-wall unit are
insufficient to tip the balance in favor of continuing such a
configuration. We agree. At most, the record indicates some
minor overlap in work locations wall-to-wall, minimal and
incidental interface between operations-support services
employees and others, and some common terms and conditions of
employment such as common benefit packages. We are not
persuaded that these indicia of community of interest outweigh
factors such as the overall functional similarities shared by
operations-support personnel, relied upon by the hearing
officer and referenced above.
7

EFFICIENCY OF 	OPERATIONS	EFFICIENCY OF OPERATIONS
We 	find 	with 	the 	hearing 	officer 	that 	insufficient 	evidence
was 	presented 	from 	which 	it 	could 	be 	concluded 	that
establishment 	of 	an 	operations-support 	services 	unit 	would 	have
a 	detrimental 	effect 	on 	the 	efficiency 	of 	operations. 	District
witnesses 	opined 	that 	if 	they 	were 	forced 	to 	conduct 	two 	sets
of 	negotiations 	with 	respect 	to 	classified 	employees 	it 	would
take 	much 	longer 	and 	be 	unduly 	disruptive 	of 	the 	schedule 	of
their 	administrative 	team. 	However, 	that 	opinion 	was
admittedly 	and 	unavoidably 	speculative. 	While 	we 	are 	not
unsympathetic 	to 	the 	District's 	concern 	that 	negotiating 	in
more 	than 	one 	unit 	may 	burden 	its 	staff, 	the 	assertion 	of 	such
a 	concern, 	without 	more, 	is 	not 	sufficient 	to 	establish 	an
undue 	impediment 	to 	District 	efficiency. 	The 	fact 	that
negotiating 	may 	impose 	a 	burden 	on 	the 	employer 	was 	undoubtedly
considered 	by 	the 	Legislature 	but 	found 	not 	to 	outweigh 	the
benefits 	of 	an 	overall 	scheme 	of 	collective 	negotiations.5
Absent 	concrete 	evidence 	that 	the 	District's 	operational
efficiency 	would 	be 	unduly 	impaired 	by 	an 	additional 	series 	of
negotiations, 	we 	are 	not 	persuaded 	that 	this 	factor 	militates
aga 	t 	es 	i 	nt 	of 	operations-support 	services 	unit
5rn 	this 	regard, 	see 	Mendocino 	Community 	ege 	District
(11/4/80) 	PERB 	Decision 	No. 	14 	.
8
We find with the hearing officer that insufficient evidence
was presented from which it could be concluded that
establishment of an operations-support services unit would have
a detrimental effect on the efficiency of operations. District
witnesses opined that if they were forced to conduct two sets
of negotiations with respect to classified employees it would
take much longer and be unduly disruptive of the schedule of
their administrative team. 	However, that opinion was
admittedly and unavoidably speculative. While we are not
unsympathetic to the District's concern that negotiating in
more than one unit may burden its staff, the assertion of such
a concern, without more, is not sufficient to establish an
undue impediment to District efficiency. The fact that
negotiating may impose a burden on the employer was undoubtedly
considered by the Legislature but found not to outweigh the
benefits of an overall scheme of collective negotiations. 5
Absent concrete evidence that the District's operational
efficiency would be unduly impaired by an additional series of
negotiations, we are not persuaded that this factor militates
against establishment of the operations-support services unit
5In this regard, see Mendocino Community College District
(11/4/80) PERB Decision No. 144.
8

sought 	herein. 	Where, 	as 	here, 	such 	concrete 	evidence 	is
lacking, 	it 	would 	be 	incongruous 	to 	hold 	that 	two 	units 	of
classified 	employees 	would 	unduly 	impair 	District 	efficiency 	in
light 	of 	the 	Board's 	consistent 	expression 	of 	a 	strong
preference 	for 	three 	units 	of 	classified 	employees 	and 	the
explicit 	determination 	expressed 	in 	Antioch, 	supra, 	that 	the
three 	classified 	units 	strike 	a 	balance 	between 	the 	District's
desire 	to 	be 	free 	of 	excessive 	unit 	fragmentation 	and 	the 	need
of 	employees 	and 	organizations 	to 	work 	within 	sufficiently
divided 	groupings.
EXTENT OF ORGANIZATION	EXTENT 	OF 	ORGANIZATION
9
There 	are 	approximately 	440 	employees 	in 	the 	District's
wall-to-wall 	classified 	unit. 	Approximately 	136 	classified
employees 	belong 	to CSEA. 	There 	are 	approximately 	149
employees 	in 	the 	petitioned-for 	operations-support 	services
unit. 	Approximately 	51 	of 	those 	employees 	are 	CSEA 	members.
Thus, 	CSEA 	can 	count 	but 	one-third 	of 	the 	wall-to-wall 	unit
among 	its 	membership. 	We 	find 	with 	the 	hearing 	officer 	that
the 	extent 	of 	membership 	in 	CSEA 	is 	not 	persuasive 	as 	to 	the
efficacy 	a 	wall-to-wall 	unit. 	This 	is 	particularly 	true
where, 	as 	here, 	112 	of 	the 	149 	operations-support 	services
employees 	submitted 	cards 	on 	behalf 	of 	SEIU's 	petition 	for
severance.
sought herein. Where, as here, such concrete evidence is
lacking, it would be incongruous to hold that two units of
classified employees would unduly impair District efficiency in
light of the Board's consistent expression of a strong
preference for three units of classified employees and the
explicit determination expressed in Antioch, supra, that the
three classified units strike a balance between the District's
desire to be free of excessive unit fragmentation and the need
of employees and organizations to work within sufficiently
divided groupings.
There are approximately 440 employees in the District's
wall-to-wall classified unit. Approximately 136 classified
employees belong to CSEA. 	There are approximately 149
employees in the petitioned-for operations-support services
unit. Approximately 51 of those employees are CSEA members.
Thus, CSEA can count but one-third of the wall-to-wall unit
among its membership. We find with the hearing officer that
the extent of membership in CSEA is not persuasive as to the
efficacy of a wall-to-wall unit. This is particularly true
where, as here, 112 of the 149 operations-support services
employees submitted cards on behalf of SEIU's petition for
severance .
9

NEGOTIATING 	HISTORY	NEGOTIATING HISTORY
This
	Board
	has 	long
	held
	that
	negotiating
	history
	is
	among
the 	"other 	things"
	comprising 	the 	category
	of 	"established
practices"
	in
	section
	3545(a)
	of
	the
	EERA.
	Antioch,
	supra,
	at
p.5.
	Whereas
	in
	earlier
	unit
	determinations, 	negotiating
history
	has
	been
	accorded
	relatively
	little
	weight, 	the
	Board
has
	expressed
	an
	interest
	in 	giving
	greater
	deference
	to
	this
factor
	where
	appropriate.
	In
	a
	case
	where,
	as
	here,
	a
	unit
	has
been
	established
	under
	the
	EERA
	and
	agreements
	have 	been
negotiated
	covering
	employees
	in
	that 	unit,
	greater 	reliance
	on
that
	negotiating 	history
	is
	appropriate.
The
	record
	reflects
	and
	the 	hearing
	officer
	found
	that
	the
District
	and
	CSEA
	have
	negotiated
	two
	successive
	agreements,
one
	for
	a
	term
	of
	slightly 	less
	than
	one
	year
	and
	another 	for
	a
two-year 	term.
	It
	appears
	that
	CSEA
	has
	solicited
	input
	from
all
	segments
	of 	the
	classified
	units
	regarding
	negotiating
positions
	and
	that
	persons 	in
	classifications
	in
	the
operations-support 	services
	grouping
	have
	served
	on 	CSEA's
negotiating
	committees
	and
	as
	officers
	of
	that 	organization.
However,
	the 	record 	further
	reflects 	that 	there
	has 	been
widespread
	dissatis
	tion
	amongst
	the 	operations-support
services 	personnel 	regarding
	CSEA's
	representation.
	An
	upgrade
in 	assification
	pursuant 	to
	1979 	r 	r 	was
applied
	more
	extensive 	to
	i
	classifications
	and
10
This Board has long held that negotiating history is among
the "other things" comprising the category of "established
practices" in section 3545 (a) of the EERA. Antioch, supra, at
p. 5. Whereas in earlier unit determinations, negotiating
history has been accorded relatively little weight, the Board
has expressed an interest in giving greater deference to this
factor where appropriate. In a case where, as here, a unit has
been established under the EERA and agreements have been
negotiated covering employees in that unit, greater reliance on
that negotiating history is appropriate.
The record reflects and the hearing officer found that the
District and CSEA have negotiated two successive agreements,
one for a term of slightly less than one year and another for a
two-year term. It appears that CSEA has solicited input from
all segments of the classified units regarding negotiating
positions and that persons in classifications in the
operations-support services grouping have served on CSEA's
negotiating committees and as officers of that organization.
However, the record further reflects that there has been
widespread dissatisfaction amongst the operations-support
services personnel regarding CSEA's representation. An upgrade
in classification pursuant to the 1979 wage reopener was
applied more extensively to the clerical classifications and
10

left 	out 	many 	of 	the 	blue 	collar 	employees. 	Uncontroverted
record 	testimony 	indicates 	that, 	while 	this 	issue 	may 	well 	have
been 	the 	proverbial 	straw 	that 	broke 	the 	camel's 	back,
discontent 	amongst 	blue 	collar 	employes 	over 	the 	quality 	of
representation 	received 	by 	them 	vis-a-vis, 	in 	particular, 	that
received 	by 	clerical 	employees 	was 	preexisting 	and 	widespread
throughout 	the 	blue 	collar 	unit. 	CSEA 	failed 	to 	present 	any
witnesses 	from 	the 	blue 	collar 	work 	force 	which 	would 	tend 	to
rebut 	this 	evidence 	of 	widespread 	dissatisfaction.
As 	noted 	by 	the 	hearing 	officer, 	CSEA, 	in 	recognition 	of
the 	special 	needs 	and 	concerns 	of 	transportation 	employees,
consulted 	with 	a 	group 	of 	them 	separately, 	and 	a 	separate
section 	of 	the 	agreement 	was 	then 	devoted 	to 	their 	areas 	of
concern. 	While 	seeking 	particular 	input 	from 	transportation
employees 	and 	negotiating 	a 	separate 	contract 	article 	reflects
an 	effort 	to 	give 	full 	voice 	to 	concerns 	of 	all 	unit 	employees
and 	is 	not 	alone 	persuasive 	evidence 	of 	a 	lack 	of 	community 	of
interest, 	the 	necessity 	for 	such 	action 	tends 	to 	indicate 	that
CSEA 	and 	the 	District 	recognized 	some 	separation 	between 	at
least 	one 	sector 	of 	the 	operations-support 	services 	unit 	and
other 	classified 	employees.
The 	fact 	that 	over 	75 	percent 	of 	those 	blue 	collar
employees 	submitted 	cards 	in 	favor 	of 	SEIU 	provides 	a 	further
indication 	that 	the 	negotiating 	relationship 	between 	CSEA 	and
11
left out many of the blue collar employees. Uncontroverted
record testimony indicates that, while this issue may well have
been the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back,
discontent amongst blue collar employes over the quality of
representation received by them vis-a-vis, in particular, that
received by clerical employees was preexisting and widespread
throughout the blue collar unit. CSEA failed to present any
witnesses from the blue collar work force which would tend to
rebut this evidence of widespread dissatisfaction.
As noted by the hearing officer, CSEA, in recognition of
the special needs and concerns of transportation employees,
consulted with a group of them separately, and a separate
section of the agreement was then devoted to their areas of
concern. While seeking particular input from transportation
employees and negotiating a separate contract article reflects
an effort to give full voice to concerns of all unit employees
and is not alone persuasive evidence of a lack of community of
interest, the necessity for such action tends to indicate that
CSEA and the District recognized some separation between at
least one sector of the operations-support services unit and
other classified employees.
The fact that over 75 percent of those blue collar
employees submitted cards in favor of SEIU provides a further
indication that the negotiating relationship between CSEA and
11

the 	District 	is 	not 	as 	stable 	as 	it 	might 	appear 	at 	first
blush. 	We 	do 	not 	mean 	to 	imply 	by 	the 	foregoing 	discussion
that 	we 	find 	that 	CSEA 	has 	been 	less 	than 	diligent 	or 	fair 	in
its 	efforts 	to 	represent 	all 	classified 	employees 	equally.
This 	is 	neither 	the 	purpose 	of 	our 	inquiry 	nor 	the 	issue 	in 	the
case. 	Rather, 	we 	are 	citing 	the 	expressed 	dissatisfaction 	of
unit 	members 	and 	drawing 	appropriate 	conclusions 	from 	that
expression 	only 	insofar 	as 	it 	casts 	doubt 	upon 	the 	stability 	of
the 	collective 	negotiating 	relationship.
While 	the 	wall-to-wall 	unit 	was 	established 	pursuant 	to 	the
procedures 	of 	this 	Board, 	the 	limited 	nature 	of 	the 	litigation
which 	attended 	that 	process 	militates 	against 	granting 	the 	unit
and 	the 	negotiating 	history 	therein 	the 	deference 	to 	which 	it
might 	otherwise 	be 	entitled. 	Thus, 	we 	note 	that, 	when 	the
wall-to-wall 	unit 	was 	sought 	by 	CSEA 	in 	1976, 	the 	only
opposition 	to 	that 	petition 	was 	mounted 	by 	the 	Teamsters 	who
sought 	a 	unit 	of 	bus 	drivers 	only. 	Further, 	once 	a 	hearing
officer 	found 	the 	wall-to-wall 	unit 	appropriate 	and 	did 	not
allow 	bifurcation, 	the 	Teamsters 	did 	not 	pursue 	the 	matter.
Thus, 	the 	wall-to-wall 	unit 	was 	established 	by 	means 	of 	an
unappealed 	hearing 	officer's 	decision 	which, 	while 	it 	may
been 	correct 	and 	instructive 	in 	light 	the 	litigation 	which
took 	place 	at 	the 	time, 	has 	litt 	relevance 	for 	the 	severance
i 	i 	we 	are 	esen
12
the District is not as stable as it might appear at first
blush. We do not mean to imply by the foregoing discussion
that we find that CSEA has been less than diligent or fair in
its efforts to represent all classified employees equally.
This is neither the purpose of our inquiry nor the issue in the
case. 	Rather, we are citing the expressed dissatisfaction of
unit members and drawing appropriate conclusions from that
expression only insofar as it casts doubt upon the stability of
the collective negotiating relationship.
While the wall-to-wall unit was established pursuant to the
procedures of this Board, the limited nature of the litigation
which attended that process militates against granting the unit
and the negotiating history therein the deference to which it
might otherwise be entitled. Thus, we note that, when the
wall-to-wall unit was sought by CSEA in 1976, the only
opposition to that petition was mounted by the Teamsters who
sought a unit of bus drivers only. Further, once a hearing
officer found the wall-to-wall unit appropriate and did not
allow bifurcation, the Teamsters did not pursue the matter.
Thus, the wall-to-wall unit was established by means of an
unappealed hearing officer's decision which, while it may have
been correct and instructive in light of the litigation which
took place at the time, has little relevance for the severance
inquiry in which we are presently engaged.
12

Further, 	that
	decision6	
became
	final
	on
	August
	10,
	1977,
prior
	to
	the 	issuance 	of
	Antioch,
	Compton, 	and
	other 	cases
whereby
	the
	Sweetwater
	units
	became
	presumptively
	appropriate
as
	well
	as
	preferred
	in 	the
	eyes
	of 	the
	Board.
	Perhaps
	most
important,
	the
	District
	did 	not
	question
	the
	appropriateness 	of
the
	wall-to-wall
	classified
	unit
	in 	the
	initial
	unit
determination 	hearing. 	Rather,
	it
	argued, 	with
	CSEA,
	that
	the
wall-to-wall 	unit
	was
	appropriate.
	Thus, 	once
	the
	Teamsters
fell
	by
	the
	wayside, 	the
	wall-to-wall 	unit
	faced
	no
	further
opposition.
While
	the 	hearing
	officer's
	decision
	was
	rendered
	pursuant
to
	the 	processes 	of 	the
	EERB,
	that
	initial
	unit
	determination
was
	reached 	in
	an
	atmosphere
	of
	mutual 	accord
	between
	CSEA
	and
the
	District
	and
	is
	thus
	entitled
	to
	less
	deference 	than
	if
	it
were
	the
	result
	of
	fully
	developed
	litigation
	between
	the
District
	and
	the
	employee
	organization.
It
	is
	noted
	that
	the
	petition
	herein
	was
	filed
	during 	the
window
	period 	of 	the 	1978-80 	agreement.
	As 	a
	practical 	matter,
that
	was
	the
	earliest
	opportunity
	any
	organization
	would
	have
had
	to 	fully
	litigate
	the
	efficacy
	of
	this 	wall-to-wall 	unit
following 	the
	Boa 	1 s
	elucidation 	of
	its
	presumption 	favoring
Sweetwater
	units.
	It
	would 	be
	incongruous
	if
	we
	were
	to
	now
decide
	that
	the
	relatively 	brief
	and 	somewhat
	unstable 	course
6
Livermore 	Va 	ey
	Joint 	Unified 	School
	District 	(8/10/77)
EERB
	Decision
	No. 	HO-R-2J-[l
	PERC
	354].
13
Further, that decision became final on August 10, 1977,
prior to the issuance of Antioch, Compton, and other cases
whereby the Sweetwater units became presumptively appropriate
as well as preferred in the eyes of the Board. Perhaps most
important, the District did not question the appropriateness of
the wall-to-wall classified unit in the initial unit
determination hearing. Rather, it argued, with CSEA, that the
wall-to-wall unit was appropriate. Thus, once the Teamsters
fell by the wayside, the wall-to-wall unit faced no further
opposition.
While the hearing officer's decision was rendered pursuant
to the processes of the EERB, that initial unit determination
was reached in an atmosphere of mutual accord between CSEA and
the District and is thus entitled to less deference than if it
were the result of fully developed litigation between the
District and the employee organization.
It is noted that the petition herein was filed during the
window period of the 1978-80 agreement. As a practical matter,
that was the earliest opportunity any organization would have
had to fully litigate the efficacy of this wall-to-wall unit
following the Board's elucidation of its presumption favoring
Sweetwater units. It would be incongruous if we were to now
decide that the relatively brief and somewhat unstable course
Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District (8/10/77)
EERB Decision No. HO-R-23 [I PERC 354] .
13

of 	negotiating 	herein 	must 	take 	precedence 	over 	the 	other
statutory 	factors 	(community 	of 	interest, 	efficiency 	of
operations, 	and 	extent 	of 	organization) 	which 	militate 	in 	favor
of 	the 	operations-support 	services 	unit 	petitioned 	for
herein.?
To 	so 	hold 	would 	be 	tantamount 	to 	an 	expression 	that 	the
policy 	favoring 	the 	Sweetwater 	unit 	configuration 	is 	to 	be
applied 	only 	in 	new 	unit 	determinations 	occurring 	after 	the
elucidation 	of 	that 	policy 	and 	that 	in 	districts 	in 	which 	some
given 	period 	of 	negotiating 	has 	gone 	before, 	the 	presumption 	is
magically 	rebutted 	thereby. 	Given 	the 	large 	number 	of
districts 	wherein 	wall-to-wall 	classified 	units 	were
established 	in 	the 	absence 	of 	consideration 	of 	the
Sweetwater-Compton 	presumption 	and 	preference, 	such 	a 	holding
would 	render 	that 	preference 	a 	rule 	of 	extremely 	limited
7csEA 	urges 	that 	this 	Board 	rely 	on 	Buckeye 	Village
Market, 	Inc. 	(1969) 	175 	NLRB 	271 	[70 	LRRM 	1529T 	for 	tfie
proposition 	that 	bargaining 	for 	22 	months 	in 	a 	wall-to-wall
unit 	is 	determinative 	of 	the 	unit 	question. 	In 	that 	case, 	the
NLRB 	relied 	on 	a 	22-month 	bargaining 	history 	in 	combination
with 	evidence 	that 	employees 	in 	the 	unit 	sought 	for 	severance
were 	functionally 	indistinguishable 	from 	other 	employees, 	that
they 	interfaced 	with 	and 	handled 	and 	sold 	the 	products 	produced
by 	other 	employees, 	and 	that 	they 	shared 	common 	supervision
with 	other 	employees. 	The 	NLRB 	did 	not, 	by 	this 	case 	or 	any
other, 	hold 	that 	the 	mere 	existence 	of 	a 	22-month 	bargaining
rendered 	inquiry 	into 	other 	unit 	determination 	factors
unnecessary. 	Where 	other 	factors 	militate 	in 	favor 	of
severance, 	the 	NLRB 	wi 	grant 	it 	in 	the 	face 	of 	a 	long-term
bargaining 	history. 	See 	Wright 	City 	Display 	Manufacturing
Company 	(1970) 	183 NLRB 	881 	[74 	LRRM 	1360] 	(8 	year 	history) ,
Safeway 	Stores, 	Incorporated 	(1969) 	178 	NLRB 	412 	[72 	LRRM 	33]
(7 	year 	history).
14
of negotiating herein must take precedence over the other
statutory factors (community of interest, efficiency of
operations, and extent of organization) which militate in favor
of the operations-support services unit petitioned for
herein. 7
To so hold would be tantamount to an expression that the
policy favoring the Sweetwater unit configuration is to be
applied only in new unit determinations occurring after the
elucidation of that policy and that in districts in which some
given period of negotiating has gone before, the presumption is
magically rebutted thereby. Given the large number of
districts wherein wall-to-wall classified units were
established in the absence of consideration of the
Sweetwater-Compton presumption and preference, such a holding
would render that preference a rule of extremely limited
7CSEA urges that this Board rely on Buckeye Village
Market, Inc. (1969) 175 NLRB 271 [70 LRRM 1529] for the
proposition that bargaining for 22 months in a wall-to-wall
unit is determinative of the unit question. In that case, the
NLRB relied on a 22-month bargaining history in combination
with evidence that employees in the unit sought for severance
were functionally indistinguishable from other employees, that
they interfaced with and handled and sold the products produced
by other employees, and that they shared common supervision
with other employees. The NLRB did not, by this case or any
other, hold that the mere existence of a 22-month bargaining
rendered inquiry into other unit determination factors
unnecessary. Where other factors militate in favor of
severance, the NLRB will grant it in the face of a long-term
bargaining history. See Wright City Display Manufacturing
Company (1970) 183 NLRB 881 [74 LRRM 1360] (8 year history),
Safeway Stores, Incorporated (1969) 178 NLRB 412 [72 LRRM 1133]
(7 year history) .
14

application.
	Such 	a
	rigid
	and
	mechanistic 	holding
	would
	be
inconsistent
	with
	the 	Board's 	strong 	preference
	for 	the
Sweetwater
	unit 	configuration.
This
	is
	not
	to
	say
	that,
	in
	a
	different
	factual
	setting,
the
	existence
	of
	a
	long
	and
	stable
	negotiating
	relationship
	in
combination 	with
	the
	existence 	of
	other
	statutory 	unit
determination
	indicia
	would
	not
	tip
	the 	balance 	in 	favor
	of
	a
wall-to-wall
	classified
	unit.
	Rather,
	we
	hold 	only
	that
	where,
as
	here,
	the
	community
	of
	interest
	factors 	strongly
	favor
	the
petitioned-for 	unit,
	the 	length 	of 	the
	negotiating
	history
	is
relatively 	short,
	and
	the 	evidence
	shows
	disparate
	interests
	of
unit
	members, 	and
	the
	overwhelming
	majority 	of
	employees
	in
	the
petitioned-for 	unit
	do
	not
	desire
	to
	be
	represented
	by
	the
incumbent
	organization,
	the
	District
	and
	CSEA
	have
	failed 	to
rebut 	the
	presumption 	favoring
	an
	operations-support 	services
unit.
The
	NLRB
	Test	The NLRB Test
We
	note
	that
	the 	National
	Labor
	Relations
	Board
	(hereafter
NLRB)
	employs 	a
	six-pronged
	test
	as
	to 	the 	appropriateness 	of
severance.
	As
	set 	forth 	in Mallinckrodt
	Chemical
	Works
	(1969)
162
	NLRB
	387 	[64
	LRRM
	] ,
	the 	areas 	inqui
	deemed
r
	evant
	by
	the
	NLRB
	are
	as 	follows:
1.
	Whether
	or 	not 	the 	proposed
	unit
consists 	of
	a
	distinct
	and 	homogeneous
	group
of 	skilled
	journeymen
	craftsmen 	per
	ng
the 	functions 	their 	craft	
on
	a
nonrepetitive 	basis,
	or 	of 	employees
15
application. Such a rigid and mechanistic holding would be
inconsistent with the Board's strong preference for the
Sweetwater unit configuration.
This is not to say that, in a different factual setting,
the existence of a long and stable negotiating relationship in
combination with the existence of other statutory unit
determination indicia would not tip the balance in favor of a
wall-to-wall classified unit. Rather, we hold only that where,
as here, the community of interest factors strongly favor the
petitioned-for unit, the length of the negotiating history is
relatively short, and the evidence shows disparate interests of
unit members, and the overwhelming majority of employees in the
petitioned-for unit do not desire to be represented by the
incumbent organization, the District and CSEA have failed to
rebut the presumption favoring an operations-support services
unit.
We note that the National Labor Relations Board (hereafter
NLRB) employs a six-pronged test as to the appropriateness of
severance. 	As set forth in Mallinckrodt Chemical Works (1969)
162 NLRB 387 [64 LRRM 1011], the areas of inquiry deemed
relevant by the NLRB are as follows:
1. Whether or not the proposed unit
consists of a distinct and homogeneous group
of skilled journeymen craftsmen performing
the functions of their craft on a
nonrepetitive basis, or of employees
15

constituting
	a
	functionally
	distinct
department,
	working
	in
	traaes
	or 	occupations
for
	which
	a
	tradition
	of
	separate
representation
	exists.
2.
	The
	history
	of
	collective
	bargaining
	of
the
	employees
	sought
	and
	at
	the
	plant
involved,
	and
	at
	other
	plants
	of
	the
employer, 	with
	emphasis
	on
	whether
	the
existing 	patterns
	of
	bargaining
	are
productive 	of
	stability
	in 	labor
	relations,
and
	whether 	such
	stability
	will
	be
	unduly
disrupted
	by
	the
	destruction
	of
	the
	existing
patterns
	of
	representation.
3.
	The
	extent 	to
	which
	the
	employees
	in 	the
proposed
	unit
	have
	established
	and
maintained
	their
	separate
	identity
	during
the 	period 	of 	inclusion 	in
	a
	broader
	unit,
and
	the
	extent
	of
	their 	participation
	or
lack
	of
	participation
	in 	the 	establishment
and
	maintenance
	of
	the
	existing 	pattern
	or
representation
	and
	the
	prior 	opportunities,
if
	any,
	afforded
	them
	to 	obtain 	separate
representation.
4.
	The
	history
	and
	pattern
	of
	collective
bargaining 	in 	the
	industry
	involved.
5.
	The
	degree
	of
	integration
	of 	the
employer's 	production 	processes, 	includingthe
	extent 	to
	which
	the 	continued
	normal
operation 	of 	the 	production 	processes
	is
dependent
	upon
	the
	performance
	of 	the
assigned 	functions 	of 	the
	employees
	in 	theproposed
	unit.
6.
	The
	qualifications
	of 	the 	union 	seeking
to
	"carve 	out"
	a
	separate
	unit,
	including
that 	union's 	experience 	in 	representing
employees
	like
	those 	involved 	in 	the
severance
	action.
It
	should
	be 	noted
	that
	the
	NLRB
	inquiry 	as 	to 	severance
	is
conducted 	in
	a
	different
	conceptual
	setting
	than
	that 	facing
	us
and	
thus
	some
	of 	the 	factors
	employed 	by	
that
	agency
	are 	not
relevant 	to 	our 	inquiry.
	NLRB
	severance 	cases 	generally
16
constituting a functionally distinct
department, working in trades or occupations
for which a tradition of separate
representation exists.
2 . 	The history of collective bargaining of
the employees sought and at the plant
involved, and at other plants of the
employer, with emphasis on whether the
existing patterns of bargaining are
productive of stability in labor relations,
and whether such stability will be unduly
disrupted by the destruction of the existing
patterns of representation.
3. The extent to which the employees in the
proposed unit have established and
maintained their separate identity during
the period of inclusion in a broader unit,
and the extent of their participation or
lack of participation in the establishment
and maintenance of the existing pattern or
representation and the prior opportunities,
if any, afforded them to obtain separate
representation.
4. The history and pattern of collective
bargaining in the industry involved.
5. The degree of integration of the
employer's production processes, including
the extent to which the continued normal
operation of the production processes is
dependent upon the performance of the
assigned functions of the employees in the
proposed unit.
6. The qualifications of the union seeking
to "carve out" a separate unit, including
that union's experience in representing
employees like those involved in the
severance action.
It should be noted that the NLRB inquiry as to severance is
conducted in a different conceptual setting than that facing us
and thus some of the factors employed by that agency are not
relevant to our inquiry. NLRB severance cases generally
16

concern 	the
	carving 	out 	of
	a
	traditional
	craft
	or
	homogeneous
departmental
	grouping
	from
	a
	broader 	production-and-maintenance
unit.
	A
	typical
	case
	is
	Kalamazoo
	Paper
	Box
	Corp.
	(1962) 	106
NLRB
	134 	[49
	LRRM
	1715]. 	In
	that
	case,
	the
	petitioner
	sought
to
	sever
	a
	unit
	of 	truck
	drivers
	from
	an
	existing
production-and-maintenance
	unit.
	This
	is
	far
	different
	from
the 	question 	presented
	by
	the
	instant
	case, 	to
	wit,
	whether
	to
carve 	out
	a
	unit
	of 	blue
	collar
	workers
	from
	a
	wall-to-wall
unit
	which
	includes
	office
	clericals,
	technical
	employees,
	and
paraprofessionals
	who
	would
	seldom,
	if
	ever,
	be
	included
together
	in
	an
	NLRB-established
	unit.
In 	the
	NLRB
	setting,
	severance
	petitions
	have
	rarely
	been
granted 	in
	recent 	years
	because 	they
	generally
	seek
	to 	carve
out
	an 	anomalous
	sub-unit
	from
	the
	long-established,
traditional,
	preferred
	broad
	production-and-maintenance
	unit.
The
	instant 	petition 	is
	far
	different,
	for
	it
	seeks 	to 	carve
the
	preferred
	production-and-maintenance
	unit
	out 	of
	the
disfavored, 	overly-inclusive 	wall-to-wall 	unit.
	Thus,
	while
analogies
	may 	be 	drawn 	from
	the 	Mallinckrodt
	factors 	to 	those
relied
	upon 	by
	us
	in 	the
	instant 	case, 	ultimate 	reliance
	on
that 	inquiry
	would 	be
	inappropriate 	the
	factual 	setting
	and
conceptual
	problems
	presented 	herein 	are 	far 	different
	from
those 	considered
	by
	the
	NLRB.
Because 	the 	instant
	tit
	seeks 	to 	carve 	out
	a
production
	and 	maintenance
	unit
	from 	a 	wal
	to-wall 	unit,
	it
17
concern the carving out of a traditional craft or homogeneous
departmental grouping from a broader production-and-maintenance
unit. A typical case is Kalamazoo Paper Box Corp. (1962) 106
NLRB 134 [49 LRRM 1715]. In that case, the petitioner sought
to sever a unit of truck drivers from an existing
production-and-maintenance unit. This is far different from
the question presented by the instant case, to wit, whether to
carve out a unit of blue collar workers from a wall-to-wall
unit which includes office clericals, technical employees, and
paraprofessionals who would seldom, if ever, be included
together in an NLRB-established unit.
In the NLRB setting, severance petitions have rarely been
granted in recent years because they generally seek to carve
out an anomalous sub-unit from the long-established,
traditional, preferred broad production-and-maintenance unit.
The instant petition is far different, for it seeks to carve
the preferred production-and-maintenance unit out of the
disfavored, overly-inclusive wall-to-wall unit. Thus, while
analogies may be drawn from the Mallinckrodt factors to those
relied upon by us in the instant case, ultimate reliance on
that inquiry would be inappropriate for the factual setting and
conceptual problems presented herein are far different from
those considered by the NLRB.
Because the instant petition seeks to carve out a broad
production and maintenance unit from a wall-to-wall unit, it
17

would 	be 	incongruous 	to 	inquire 	whether 	such 	a 	broad 	grouping
has 	maintained 	a 	separate 	identity, 	or 	whether 	its 	function 	is
necessary 	to 	the 	smooth 	operation 	of 	a 	production 	grouping, 	as
does 	the 	NLRB. 	Those 	queries 	are 	uniquely 	suited 	to 	the 	craft
severance 	situation 	and 	inapplicable 	to 	our 	own.
Analogizing 	to 	the 	remaining 	Mallinckrodt 	factors, 	the 	blue
collar 	unit 	sought 	here 	is 	functionally 	distinct 	from 	the 	rest
of 	the 	wall-to-wall 	unit. 	The 	history 	and 	pattern 	of
collective 	negotiating 	and 	case 	law 	development 	in 	classified
employee 	units 	strongly 	militates 	in 	favor 	of 	the
operations-support 	services 	unit 	sought 	here.
Upon 	consideration 	of 	the 	facts 	of 	the 	instant 	case 	in
light 	of 	the 	relevant Ma_llinckrod~ 	criteria, 	we 	are 	further
persuaded 	that 	this 	unit 	is 	appropiate 	for 	severance.
SEIU 	Exceptions: 	Maintenance 	Specialist 	and
Transportation 	Specialist
SEIU 	excepts 	to 	the 	failure 	of 	the 	hearing 	officer 	to
include 	the 	maintenance 	specialist 	and 	the 	transportation
specialist 	in 	the 	operations-support 	services 	unit. 	It 	appears
from 	the 	record 	that 	employees 	in 	these 	classifications 	perform
administrative 	and 	clerical 	functions 	for 	the 	transportation
and 	maintenance 	departments, 	respectively. 	The 	transportation
specialist 	works 	in 	the 	transportation 	yard 	and 	performs
scheduling, 	ing 	of 	supplies, 	filing, 	keeping, 	and
book 	eping 	solely 	related 	to 	the 	workings 	of 	the
18
would be incongruous to inquire whether such a broad grouping
has maintained a separate identity, or whether its function is
necessary to the smooth operation of a production grouping, as
does the NLRB. 	Those queries are uniquely suited to the craft
severance situation and inapplicable to our own.
Analogizing to the remaining Mallinckrodt factors, the blue
collar unit sought here is functionally distinct from the rest
of the wall-to-wall unit. The history and pattern of
collective negotiating and case law development in classified
employee units strongly militates in favor of the
operations-support services unit sought here.
Upon consideration of the facts of the instant case in
light of the relevant Mallinckrodt criteria, we are further
persuaded that this unit is appropiate for severance.
SEIU Exceptions: Maintenance Specialist and
Transportation Specialist
SEIU excepts to the failure of the hearing officer to
include the maintenance specialist and the transportation
specialist in the operations-support services unit. It appears
from the record that employees in these classifications perform
administrative and clerical functions for the transportation
and maintenance departments, respectively. The transportation
specialist works in the transportation yard and performs
scheduling, ordering of supplies, filing, recordkeeping, and
bookkeeping solely related to the workings of the
18

transportation 	department. 	The 	transportation 	specialist
shares 	common 	supervision 	with 	the 	transportation 	employees 	and
apparently 	interfaces 	almost 	exclusively 	with 	the
transportation 	department 	personnel. 	The 	above 	factors 	are
also 	present 	with 	respect 	to 	the 	maintenance 	specialist's
relationship 	to 	the 	maintenance 	department 	as 	far 	as 	work
location, 	job 	function, 	common 	supervision, 	and 	interface 	are
concerned.
Where 	clerical 	employees 	share 	work 	location 	and
supervision 	with 	the 	production 	employees 	they 	serve, 	where
they 	share 	similar 	working 	conditions, 	and 	where 	their 	work 	is
intimately 	related 	to 	that 	of 	the 	production 	and/or 	maintenance
employees 	they 	serve, 	such 	clerical 	employees 	are 	generally
regarded 	as 	plant 	clericals 	and 	not 	office 	clericals 	under
National 	Labor 	Relations 	Board 	precedent8 	and 	are 	included 	in
the 	production 	and 	maintenance 	unit. 	They 	are 	commonly 	held 	to
be 	differentiated 	from 	office 	clericals 	by 	virtue 	of 	their
separate 	location 	and 	supervision.
Here, 	the 	only 	factor 	in 	the 	record 	which 	tends 	to 	indicate
that 	the 	specialists 	share 	a 	community 	of 	interest 	with 	office
C 	ica 	is 	the 	common 	session 	and 	exercise 	of 	c 	ical
skil
8sears, 	Roebuck 	& Co. 	(1976) 	222 	NLRB 	476 	[91 	LRRM 	32] •
19
8Sears, Roebuck & Co. (1976) 222 NLRB 476 [91 LRRM 1232] .
transportation department. The transportation specialist
shares common supervision with the transportation employees and
apparently interfaces almost exclusively with the
transportation department personnel. The above factors are
also present with respect to the maintenance specialist's
relationship to the maintenance department as far as work
location, job function, common supervision, and interface are
concerned.
Where clerical employees share work location and
supervision with the production employees they serve, where
they share similar working conditions, and where their work is
intimately related to that of the production and/or maintenance
employees they serve, such clerical employees are generally
regarded as plant clericals and not office clericals under
National Labor Relations Board precedent and are included in
the production and maintenance unit. They are commonly held to
be differentiated from office clericals by virtue of their
separate location and supervision.
Here, the only factor in the record which tends to indicate
that the specialists share a community of interest with office
clericals is the common possession and exercise of clerical
skills.
19

Based 	upon 	the 	community 	of 	interest 	indicia 	set 	forth
above, 	and 	the 	absence 	of 	any 	countervailing 	considerations
regarding 	the 	other 	section 	3545 	criteria, 	we 	find 	that 	the
transportation 	specialist 	and 	the 	maintenance 	specialist 	herein
are 	akin 	to 	plant, 	not 	office, 	clericals, 	and 	thus 	will 	include
them 	in 	the 	operations-support 	services 	unit.
ORDER	ORDER
Upon 	the 	foregoing 	decision 	and 	the 	entire 	record 	in 	this
case, 	the 	Board 	ORDERS:
1. 	The 	following 	unit 	is 	appropriate 	for 	meeting 	and
negotiating 	provided 	an 	employee 	organization 	becomes 	the
exclusive 	representative:
Bus 	driver, 	bus 	driver 	trainer, 	cafeteria
assistants 	I 	and 	II, 	carpenter, 	carpenter
foreman, 	cashier, 	custodians 	I 	and 	II,
electrician, 	electrician 	assistant,
electrician 	foreman, 	grounds 	equipment
mechanic, 	grounds 	equipment 	operator,
groundskeepers 	I 	and 	II, 	head 	custodians 	I
and 	II, 	maintenance 	specialist, 	maintenance
workers 	I 	and 	II, 	office 	machine 	repairer,
office 	machine 	technician, 	painter, 	painter
foreman, 	printer, 	printer 	foreman, 	plumber,
sprinkler 	repairer, 	transportation
mechanics 	I 	and 	II, 	transportation 	shop
foreman, 	transportation 	specialist, 	utility
maintenance 	worker, 	van 	driver, 	warehouse
foreman, 	and 	warehouse 	workers 	I 	and 	II, 	and
excluding 	all 	other 	classified 	employees 	and
all 	management, 	supervisory, 	and
confidential 	employees.
2. 	The 	employee 	organizations 	whose 	names 	shall 	appear 	on
the 	ballot 	are 	California 	School 	Employees 	Association 	and 	its
Chapter 	334 	and 	United 	Public 	Employees, 	Local 	390, 	Serv
20
Based upon the community of interest indicia set forth
above, and the absence of any countervailing considerations
regarding the other section 3545 criteria, we find that the
transportation specialist and the maintenance specialist herein
are akin to plant, not office, clericals, and thus will include
them in the operations-support services unit.
Upon the foregoing decision and the entire record in this
case, the Board ORDERS:
1. 	The following unit is appropriate for meeting and
negotiating provided an employee organization becomes the
exclusive representative:
Bus driver, bus driver trainer, cafeteria
assistants I and II, carpenter, carpenter
foreman, cashier , custodians I and II,
electrician, electrician assistant,
electrician foreman, grounds equipment
mechanic, grounds equipment operator,
groundskeepers I and II, head custodians I
and II, maintenance specialist, maintenance
workers I and II, office machine repairer,
office machine technician, painter, painter
Foreman, printer, printer foreman, plumber,
sprinkler repairer, transportation
mechanics I and II, transportation shop
foreman, transportation specialist, utility
maintenance worker, van driver, warehouse
foreman, and warehouse workers I and II, and
excluding all other classified employees and
all management, supervisory, and
confidential employees.
2 . 	The employee organizations whose names shall appear on
the ballot are California School Employees Association and its
Chapter 334 and United Public Employees, Local 390, Service
20

Employees 	International 	Union, 	AFL-CIO, 	unless 	one 	of 	said
organizations 	informs 	the 	regional 	director 	in 	writing, 	within
15 	workdays 	after 	the 	employer 	posts 	the 	Notice 	of 	Decision,
that 	it 	does 	not 	desire 	to 	participate 	in 	the 	election. 	The
regional 	director 	shall 	conduct 	an 	election 	at 	the 	end 	of 	the
posting 	period 	in 	such 	unit 	if: 	(1) 	both 	of 	the 	above-named
employee 	organizations 	desire 	to 	participate 	in 	the 	election,
or 	(2) 	only 	one 	organization 	desires 	to 	participate 	and 	the
employer 	does 	not 	grant 	voluntary 	recognition.
The 	date 	used 	to 	establish 	the 	number 	of 	employees 	in 	the
above 	unit 	shall 	be 	the 	date 	of 	this 	Decision 	unless 	another
date 	is 	deemed 	appropriate 	by 	the 	regional 	director 	and 	noticed
to 	the 	parties.
By: 	Barbara 	D. 	Moore, 	Member 	Irerte...Tovar, 	Member
21
Irene Tovar , Member
Chairperson 	Cluck's 	dissent 	begins 	on 	page 	22.
Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, unless one of said
organizations informs the regional director in writing, within
15 workdays after the employer posts the Notice of Decision,
that it does not desire to participate in the election. The
regional director shall conduct an election at the end of the
posting period in such unit if: (1) both of the above-named
employee organizations desire to participate in the election,
or (2) only one organization desires to participate and the
employer does not grant voluntary recognition.
The date used to establish the number of employees in the
above unit shall be the date of this Decision unless another
date is deemed appropriate by the regional director and noticed
to the parties.
By : 	Barbara D. Moore, Member
Chairperson Gluck's dissent begins on page 22.
21

Chairperson
	Gluck
	dissenting:
Unquestionably,
	PERB
	has
	consistently,
	though
	not
	without
exception,
	determined
	that
	where
	two
	or
	more
	units
	are
appropriate 	preference
	will
	be
	given
	to
	a
	Sweetwater
	unit.
1
However,
	in
	each
	instance
	that
	preference
	was
	exercised 	in 	the
course
	of
	initial
	unit
	determination
	where
	no
	previously
Board-established
	units
	were
	involved.
This
	is
	not 	the 	case 	here.
	The
	wall-to-wall 	unit
	from
which
	the
	majority
	now
	amputates
	a
	portion
	was
	established
pursuant 	to
	a
	full
	evidentiary 	hearing.
	While
	the
	Board
	itself
did 	not
	make
	that
	determination,
	no
	appeal
	from
	the 	hearing
officer's
	decision
	having
	been
	taken,
	the
	unit
	clearly
	has
2	
PERB's
	official
	sanction.
	That
	no
	exception
	was
	taken
	to
the 	hearing
	officer's
	decision
	is
	no
	ground
	for
	minimizing
	the
validity
	of
	that
	determination
	as 	the
	majority
	seems
	to
	do.
	In
short,
	the
	wall-to-wall 	unit
	was
	found
	to
	be
	appropriate.
iThe
1 	-
Sweetwater
	configuration
•
was
	not 	followed
	1n
•
Foothill-DeAnza
	Community
	College
	District 	(3/1/77),
	EERB
Dec1s1on
	No.
	10;
	Sacramento
	City 	Unified 	School
	District
{9/20/77)
	EERB
	Decision
	No.
	30; 	Fallbrook
	Union 	High
	School
District
	(12/4/78)
	PERB
	Decision
	No. 	78; 	Compton
	Unified 	School
D1str1ct 	(10/26/79)
	PERB
	Decision
	No.
	109.
32305:	2PERB rule 32305:
Unless
	a
	party
	files
	a
	timely 	statement 	ofexceptions 	to 	the 	proposed
	decision, 	the
decision 	shall
	become
	final
	on
	date
specified 	ein.
PERB
	rules 	are 	contained 	in
	ifornia 	Administrative 	Code,
title
	8, 	section
	31000
	et
	seq.
22
Chairperson Gluck dissenting:
Unquestionably, PERB has consistently, though not without
exception, determined that where two or more units are
appropriate preference will be given to a Sweetwater unit. I
However, in each instance that preference was exercised in the
course of initial unit determination where no previously
Board-established units were involved.
This is not the case here. The wall-to-wall unit from
which the majority now amputates a portion was established
pursuant to a full evidentiary hearing. While the Board itself
did not make that determination, no appeal from the hearing
officer's decision having been taken, the unit clearly has
PERB's official sanction. " That no exception was taken to
the hearing officer's decision is no ground for minimizing the
validity of that determination as the majority seems to do. In
short, the wall-to-wall unit was found to be appropriate.
The Sweetwater configuration was not followed in
Foothill-DeAnza Community College District (3/1/77) , EERB
Decision No. 10; Sacramento City Unified School District
(9/20/77) EERB Decision No. 30; Fallbrook Union High School
District (12/4/78) PERB Decision No. 78; Compton Unified School
District (10/26/79) PERB Decision No. 109.
Unless a party files a timely statement of
exceptions to the proposed decision, the
decision shall become final on the date
specified therein.
PERB rules are contained in California Administrative Code,
title 8, section 31000 et seq.
22

Thus, 	the 	present 	case 	represents, 	in 	principle, 	a 	contest
between 	a 	unit 	actually 	found 	to 	be 	appropriate 	by 	this 	Board
and 	one 	which 	only 	may 	be 	appropriate, 	for 	I 	do 	not 	see 	that
the 	Sweetwater 	presumption 	necessarily 	survives 	the 	intervening
3	negotiating 	history. 	Despite 	the 	Board's 	preference 	for 	the
so-called 	Sweetwater 	units 	it 	was 	never 	decided 	that 	those
units 	be 	regarded 	with 	iconic 	inviolability. 	Thus, 	in 	my 	view,
the 	majority 	errs 	in 	relieving 	petitioner 	of 	the 	burden 	of
justifying 	the 	severance 	and 	placing 	the 	obligation 	on 	the
incumbent 	and 	the 	District 	of 	proving 	that 	the 	established 	unit
should 	not 	be 	dismantled. 4
3The 	majority 	acknowledges, 	at 	p. 	7, 	fn. 	4, 	that 	changes
in 	community 	of 	interest 	have 	resulted 	from 	the 	intervening
negotiating 	period 	but 	finds 	them 	insufficient 	to 	overcome
their 	preference. 	We 	are 	not 	informed 	as 	to 	how much 	more
appropriate 	an 	established 	appropriate 	unit 	must 	be 	to 	resist
severance. 	See 	La-Z-Boy 	Chair, 	(1978) 	235 	NLRB 	77 	[97 	LRRM
1490] 	and 	International 	Foundation 	of 	Employee 	Benefit 	Plans
(1978) 	234 	NLRB 	277 	[97 	LRRM 	1144] 	where 	conditions 	created 	by
bargaining 	agreements 	were 	considered 	in 	determining 	the
appropriateness 	of 	severance 	requests.
4Great 	Atlantic 	& Pacific 	Tea 	Co. 	(1965) 	153 	NLRB 	1549
[59 	LRRM 	167
... 	the 	Board 	has 	long 	held 	that 	it 	will
not 	disturb 	an 	established 	bargaining
relationship 	unless 	required 	to 	do 	so 	the
dictates 	of 	the 	Act 	or 	other 	compelling
circumstances.
See 	also West 	Virginia 	Pulp 	& Paper 	Co. 	(1965) 	122 	NLRB
738, 	fn. 	12; 	Potomac 	Electric 	Power 	Co. 	(1958) 	111 	NLRB 	553,
5 5 7 	[ 3 5 LRRM 	15 2 7 ] .
23
Thus, the present case represents, in principle, a contest
between a unit actually found to be appropriate by this Board
and one which only may be appropriate, for I do not see that
the Sweetwater presumption necessarily survives the intervening
negotiating history. Despite the Board's preference for the
so-called Sweetwater units it was never decided that those
units be regarded with iconic inviolability. 	Thus, in my view,
the majority errs in relieving petitioner of the burden of
justifying the severance and placing the obligation on the
incumbent and the District of proving that the established unit
should not be dismantled. 4
The majority acknowledges, at p. 7, fn. 4, that changes
in community of interest have resulted from the intervening
negotiating period but finds them insufficient to overcome
their preference. We are not informed as to how much more
appropriate an established appropriate unit must be to resist
severance. See La-Z-Boy Chair, (1978) 235 NLRB 77 [97 LRRM
1490] and International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans
(1978) 234 NLRB 277 [97 LRRM 1144] where conditions created by
bargaining agreements were considered in determining the
appropriateness of severance requests.
4Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. (1965) 153 NLRB 1549
[59 LRRM 1679]
. the Board has long held that it will
not disturb an established bargaining
relationship unless required to do so by the
dictates of the Act or other compelling
circumstances.
See also West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co. (1965) 122 NLRB
738, fn. 12; Potomac Electric Power Co. (1958) 111 NLRB 553,
557-8 [35 LRRM 1527] .
23

It
	is
	a
	fundamental 	purpose
	of
	unit
	determination
	and
exclusive
	representation
	to
	provide
	an
	orderly
	and
	systematic
means
	of 	dealing
	with
	disputes
	between
	employers
	and
employees.
	Such 	a
	system
	cannot
	thrive
	in
	a
	volatile
atmosphere
	where
	the
	unit
	framework
	is 	fragile,
	employee
representatives
	are
	denied
	some
	degree
	of
	security
	of 	tenure
and
	the
	negotiating
	relationship
	lacks 	reasonable
	continuity.
While
	no
	unit
	need 	be
	set
	in 	concrete
	and 	no
	representative
should
	be 	immune 	from
	challenge,
	stability
	of
	employer/employee
relations
	is
	a
	basic
	thrust
	of
	the
	collective
	negotiations
system.
	The
	disruption
	of
	an
	established 	relationship
	should
be
	justified
	by 	more
	than 	"presumptions" 	or 	"preferences" 	held
by
	this
	Board.
I
	believe 	the 	majority 	further
	misunderstands 	the 	very
concept 	of
	a
	presumption 	of
	appropriateness.
	Once 	a
	proposed
unit
	has 	been 	found
	to
	be
	appropriate
	all
	such
	units
	are
5	
presumably
	appropriate,
	though
	they
	may
	not
	necessarily 	find
Board
	approval 	in 	the 	face 	of 	competition 	with
	other
appropriate 	units.
	The
	majority 	apparently 	considers 	only 	the
Sweetwater
	units 	to
	be
	presumptively 	appropriate.
Moreover,
	it
	appears
	that
	the 	majority 	further 	confuses
terms 	"presumptively 	appropriate"
	and
	"preferred,"
	using
	them
5
This 	esumption
	is
	based 	on
	the 	established 	princ
that 	cases 	involving
	s
	ilar 	facts
	shou 	be
	decided 	in 	simi
	r
fashion.
24
It is a fundamental purpose of unit determination and
exclusive representation to provide an orderly and systematic
means of dealing with disputes between employers and
employees. 	Such a system cannot thrive in a volatile
atmosphere where the unit framework is fragile, employee
representatives are denied some degree of security of tenure
and the negotiating relationship lacks reasonable continuity.
While no unit need be set in concrete and no representative
should be immune from challenge, stability of employer/employee
relations is a basic thrust of the collective negotiations
system. 	The disruption of an established relationship should
be justified by more than "presumptions" or "preferences" held
by this Board.
I believe the majority further misunderstands the very
concept of a presumption of appropriateness. Once a proposed
unit has been found to be appropriate all such units are
presumably appropriate, though they may not necessarily find
Board approval in the face of competition with other
appropriate units. The majority apparently considers only the
Sweetwater units to be presumptively appropriate.
Moreover, it appears that the majority further confuses the
terms "presumptively appropriate" and "preferred, " using them
This presumption is based on the established principle
that cases involving similar facts should be decided in similar
fashion.
24

as
	virtually
	synonymous.
	The
	Board's
	historic
	preference
	is,
of 	course, 	necessarily
	between
	two
	or
	more
	units
	each
	of
	which
has
	been
	found
	to
	be
	appropriate,
	presumptively
	or 	otherwise.
The
	result
	of
	this
	confusion
	is
	the
	majority's
	erroneous
view
	that
	the
	wall-to-wall 	unit
	must
	yield
	to
	the
	unit
	which
	is
the 	only 	presumptively
	appropriate
	one
	and 	which
	is
	therefore
not 	only
	preferred,
	but
	virtually
	required.
The
	majority
	seems
	to
	acknowledge
	that
	there
	should
	be
other
	justification
	for 	severance. 	Mallinckrodt,
	.supra,
	and
Kalamazoo,
	supra, 	are
	brought
	into
	the
	majority's 	discussion,
but
	little
	more
	than
	lip
	service
	is
	paid
	to
	the
	principles
those	
6	
cases
	represent.
	Thus,
	the
	majority 	finds
	that
	there
was
	widespread
	dissatisfaction
	among
	blue-collar
	workers.
Proof
	of
	such
	dissatisfaction 	is
	one
	incident
	involving
	a
	group
of
	blue-collar
	workers
	who
	failed
	to 	obtain
	a
	desired
classification
	upgrade
	while
	others
	in 	the
	unit 	did.
	But
universal
	satisfaction
	with 	the
	results
	of
	negotiations
	is,
	at
best,
	a
	rarity
	and
	even
...
	assuming
	the 	appropriateness 	of 	the
unit 	requested,
	a
	minority 	of
	employees
cannot
	proffer 	their 	dissatisfaction
	with
	a
contract
	executed
	by
	their 	representative
	as
the 	sole 	basis 	for 	severance
	from
	the
established 	unit
	(Standard 	Oil
	Co.
	of
California
	(1974) 	211
	NLRB
	67 	[86
	LRRM
1337]).
6
rndeed, 	the 	majority 	concludes
	at 	reliance
	on
	these
cases
	would 	be
	inappropriate, 	p. 	17.
25
as virtually synonymous. The Board's historic preference is,
of course, necessarily between two or more units each of which
has been found to be appropriate, presumptively or otherwise.
The result of this confusion is the majority's erroneous
view that the wall-to-wall unit must yield to the unit which is
the only presumptively appropriate one and which is therefore
not only preferred, but virtually required.
The majority seems to acknowledge that there should be
other justification for severance. Mallinckrodt, supra, and
Kalamazoo, supra, are brought into the majority's discussion,
but little more than lip service is paid to the principles
those cases represent. 6 	Thus, the majority finds that there
was widespread dissatisfaction among blue-collar workers.
Proof of such dissatisfaction is one incident involving a group
of blue-collar workers who failed to obtain a desired
classification upgrade while others in the unit did. But
universal satisfaction with the results of negotiations is, at
best, a rarity and even
. . . assuming the appropriateness of the
unit requested, a minority of employees
cannot proffer their dissatisfaction with a
contract executed by their representative as
the sole basis for severance from the
established unit (Standard Oil Co. of
California (1974) 211 NLRB 67 [86 LRRM
1337] ) .
Indeed, the majority concludes that reliance on these
cases would be inappropriate, p. 17.
25

Admittedly, 	the 	severance
	petition
	was
	supported
	by 	a
substantial
	majority 	of
	the
	blue-collar
	workers.
	While
employee
	preference
	may
	be
	given
	some
	weight
	in
	considering
such
	a
	petition,
	it
	should 	not
	be
	the
	controlling 	factor 	in
disrupting 	established
	units.
	To
	defer
	too
	readily 	to
	the
sometimes
	inconstant 	expression 	of
	employee
	preference
	would
permit
	"window
	shopping"
	for
	both
	units
	and
	representatives
	and
lead
	inevitably
	to
	the
	destabilization
	of 	labor
	relations
	in
the 	school
	system.
The
	fact
	is
	that
	there
	exists
	a
	three-year
	bargaining
history
	which
	may
	have 	produced
	stable
	labor
	relations.?
Blue-collar
	employees
	frequently
	served
	on
	the 	incumbent's
negotiating
	teams 	and
	served 	as
	chapter
	officers.
8	
There
	was
no
	evidence
	that
	the
	incumbent
	failed
	to 	represent 	these
employees
	adequately,
	ignored
	their 	special
	interests,
	or
	that
the
	incumbent
	was
	otherwise
	unable
	to
	engage
	in 	meaningful
collective
	bargaining
	because
	of 	"defects" 	in 	the
	unit
7
Buckeye
	Village
	Market,
	Inc.,
	(1969) 	175
	NLRB
	271,
	272
[70
	LRRM
	1529]
The 	Board
	has 	long 	held
	that
	a 	22-month
ba
	aining
	history 	is 	substantial,
	if
	not
controlling, 	in 	determining 	the 	appropriate
unit.
See
	also 	Owens-Illinois 	Glass
	(1954) 	108
	NLRB
	947,
	950 	[34
LRRM
	1114].
8
see 	International 	Foundation, 	supra,
	where
	ticipation
on
	the 	negotiating
	team 	was 	a
	factor 	militating 	againstseverance.
26
Admittedly, the severance petition was supported by a
substantial majority of the blue-collar workers. 	While
employee preference may be given some weight in considering
such a petition, it should not be the controlling factor in
disrupting established units. To defer too readily to the
sometimes inconstant expression of employee preference would
permit "window shopping" for both units and representatives and
lead inevitably to the destabilization of labor relations in
the school system.
The fact is that there exists a three-year bargaining
history which may have produced stable labor relations. 7
Blue-collar employees frequently served on the incumbent's
negotiating teams and served as chapter officers. 	There was
no evidence that the incumbent failed to represent these
employees adequately, ignored their special interests, or that
the incumbent was otherwise unable to engage in meaningful
collective bargaining because of "defects" in the unit
7Buckeye Village Market, Inc., (1969) 175 NLRB 271, 272
[70 LRRM 1529]
The Board has long held that a 22-month
bargaining history is substantial, if not
controlling, in determining the appropriate
unit.
See also Owens-Illinois Glass (1954) 108 NLRB 947, 950 [34
LRRM 1114] .
8See International Foundation, supra, where participation
on the negotiating team was a factor militating against
severance.
26

configuration.
	In
	short,
	neither
	the
	petitioner
	nor
	the
majority
	has
	offered
	a
	cogent 	reason
	why
	the
	established
	unit
should
	be
	destroyed.
Finally,
	as
	the
	majority
	itself
	points 	out,
	there
	is
	a
widespread
	pattern
	of
	wall-to-wall 	units
	throughout
	the
	State's
school
	system,
	all
	of
	which
	may 	be
	affected
	by
	this
	decision.
The
	disruption
	of
	these
	established
	bargaining
	relationships
for
	no
	better
	reason 	than
	that
	expressed
	by
	the 	majority 	here
raises
	the 	concern
	that
	employer/employee
	relations
	in
California
	public
	schools
	may
	be
	built
	on
	shifting
	sands
	and
Board
	determinations
	written
	in 	the
	wind.
9
Since 	the 	hearing
	officer
	also 	relied 	solely
	on 	a
preference
	for 	the 	presumptive
	Sweetwater
	unit
	and 	may
therefore
	have
	considered 	the 	matter 	of 	the 	burden
	of
	going
forward
	and
	of
	proof 	accordingly,
	I 	would 	remand
	for
	a
	hearing
on
	the
	appropriateness 	of 	the
	petitioned-for 	unit
	in 	accordance
with
	the
	principles 	established
	in
	Kalamazoo.
H1iy
GiJck, 	Chairpbrson
27
Harry Gluck, Chairperson
9The
	majority's 	disclaimer,
	p. 	15,
	that
	its
	approach
	here
is
	not
	necessarily 	indicative 	of
	its
	future 	actions 	in
severance 	cases 	leaves
	one 	wondering 	what
	distinctions
	it
	willrely
	upon 	and
	justifiably
	uneasy 	as
	to 	the 	future 	of
established 	relationships.
	More
	informative
	is
	the
	majority's
concern 	that 	the 	Sweetwater 	presumption 	and 	Board
	preferencenot
	be
	too 	limited 	in 	application,
	pp. 	14-15.
configuration. In short, neither the petitioner nor the
majority has offered a cogent reason why the established unit
should be destroyed.
Finally, as the majority itself points out, there is a
widespread pattern of wall-to-wall units throughout the State's
school system, all of which may be affected by this decision.
The disruption of these established bargaining relationships
for no better reason than that expressed by the majority here
raises the concern that employer/employee relations in
California public schools may be built on shifting sands and
Board determinations written in the wind."
Since the hearing officer also relied solely on a
preference for the presumptive Sweetwater unit and may
therefore have considered the matter of the burden of going
forward and of proof accordingly, I would remand for a hearing
on the appropriateness of the petitioned-for unit in accordance
with the principles established in Kalamazoo.
9The majority's disclaimer, p. 15, that its approach here
is not necessarily indicative of its future actions in
severance cases leaves one wondering what distinctions it will
rely upon and justifiably uneasy as to the future of
established relationships. More informative is the majority's
concern that the Sweetwater presumption and Board preference
not be too limited in application, pp. 14-15.
27

STATE
	OF
	CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Employee
	Organization.
)
)
)
)
)
}
)
)
)
)
_____________________ }
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
LIVERMORE 	VALLEY
	JOINT 	UNIFIED
	SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
CALIFORNIA
	SCHOOL
	EMPLOYEES
	ASSOCIATION,
CHAPTER
	334,
Employee
	Organization,
and
UNITED 	PUBLIC 	EMPLOYEES,
	LOCAL
	390,
SERVICE
	EMPLOYEES
	INTERNATIONAL 	UNION,
AFL-CIO,
Employee Organization.
Representation
Case
	No.	
SF-R-28X
PROPOSED
	DECISION
(12/4/80)
Appearances: 	Jon
	A. 	Hudak
	(Breon, 	Galgani
	& Godino)
	for
Livermore
	Valley
	Joint
	Unified
	School
	District;
Charles
	L. 	Morrone 	(Wax, 	Howard,
	Searle
	and Morrone)
	for
California
	School
	Employees
	Association,
	Chapter 	334;
w.
	Daniel
	Boone 	(Van
	Bourg,
	Allen,
	Weinberg 	and 	Roger)
	for
United
	Public
	Employees, 	Local
	390,
	SEIU, 	AFL-CIO.
Before
	Terrell
	J.
	Lindsey, 	Hearing
	Officer.
PROCEDURAL
	HISTORY	PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On
	March
	27, 	1980,
	the 	United 	Public
	Employees, 	Local
	390,
Service
	Employees
	International
	Union, 	AFL-CIO	
(hereafter 	Local
390
	or
	UPE)
	filed
	a	
request 	for 	recognition 	seeking 	to 	sever
	a
maintenance, 	operations	
and 	food	
services 	unit	
from 	an
	existing
LIVERMORE VALLEY JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Representation
Employer , 	Case No. SF-R-28X
and
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,
CHAPTER 334,
Employee Organization,
and
PROPOSED DECISION
UNITED PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 390, 	(12/4/80)
SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION,
AFL-CIO,
Appearances: Jon A. Hudak (Breon, Galgani & Godino) for
Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District;
Charles L. Morrone (Wax, Howard, Searle and Morrone) for
California School Employees Association, Chapter 334;
W. Daniel Boone (Van Bourg, Allen, Weinberg and Roger) for
United Public Employees, Local 390, SEIU, AFL-CIO.
Before Terrell J. Lindsey, Hearing Officer.
On March 27, 1980, the United Public Employees, Local 390,
Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO (hereafter Local
390 or UPE) filed a request for recognition seeking to sever a
maintenance, operations and food services unit from an existing

wall-to-wall
	classified
	unit 	of
	employees
	of 	the
	Livermore
Valley
	Joint
	Unified
	School
	District
	(hereafter
	District).
The
	San
	Francisco
	Regional
	Office
	of
	the 	Public
	Employment
Relations
	Board
	in
	a
	letter
	dated
	April
	2,
	1980,
	outlined
	the
obligations
	for 	the
	District
	and
	the
	incumbent
	exclusive
representative,
	the
	California
	School
	Employees
	Association
(hereafter
	CSEA),
	in
	accordance 	with
	the
	rules
	and
	regulations
of
	the 	Public
	Employment
	Relations
	Board
	(hereafter
	Board
	or
PERB).l
In
	a
	letter
	dated
	April 	10,
	1980,
	CSEA
	stated
	its
opposition 	to 	the 	formation
	of
	a
	maintenance
	and
	operations
unit
	and
	buttressed
	their 	position
	with
	a
	1977
	PERB
	hearing
officer
	decision2c	
which 	had
	initially
	established
	the
existing 	wall-to-wall
	classified
	unit 	despite
	a
	challenge 	for
	a
separate 	transportation 	unit.
An
	administrative 	determination
	by
	the
	San
	Francisco
Regional
	Office 	dated 	April 	18,
	1980,
	established 	that
	the
request 	for 	recognition
	was
	timely
	and
	supported
	by
	the
required 	proof 	of 	support
	and
	therefore
	a
	question 	of
representation
	was 	deemed
	to
	exist.
lcalifornia
	Administrative 	Code,
	title
	8, 	section
	33050
et
	seq.
2
2ZEERB Decision No. HO-R-23, Case No. SF-R-28, SF-R-77,
(July 29, 1977) .
EERB
	Decis,
	1977).
No
	-R-23,
	No. 	SF-R-28, 	7,
wall-to-wall classified unit of employees of the Livermore
Valley Joint Unified School District (hereafter District) .
The San Francisco Regional Office of the Public Employment
Relations Board in a letter dated April 2, 1980, outlined the
obligations for the District and the incumbent exclusive
representative, the California School Employees Association
(hereafter CSEA) , in accordance with the rules and regulations
of the Public Employment Relations Board (hereafter Board or
PERB) . 1
In a letter dated April 10, 1980, CSEA stated its
opposition to the formation of a maintenance and operations
unit and buttressed their position with a 1977 PERB hearing
officer decision whi h had initially established the
existing wall-to-wall classified unit despite a challenge for a
separate transportation unit.
An administrative determination by the San Francisco
Regional Office dated April 18, 1980, established that the
request for recognition was timely and supported by the
required proof of support and therefore a question of
representation was deemed to exist.
1california Administrative Code, title 8, section 33050
et seq.
2

CSEA
	further
	contested 	the
	petition 	filed
	by
	Local
	390
	on
different
	grounds
	by
	questioning
	in
	an
	April
	25,
	1980
	letter
whether 	Local
	390
	had
	the
	requisite
	showing
	of
	support 	in
	the
established 	unit
	not 	in 	the
	petitioned
	for
	unit
	as
	is
	required
by
	the 	Board's
	rules
	and
	regulations.a
3lly,
Additionally,
	CSEA
sought
	clarification
	of
	PERB
	rules
	and
	regulations 	pertaining
to
	the
	filing
	of
	requests
	for
	recognition
	and
	decertification
petitions
	in
	an
	appropriate
	unit.
On
	April
	28, 	1980,
	the
	District
	outlined
	its
	opposition 	to
the
	unit
	sought
	by
	Local
	390
	maintaining
	a
	"comprehensive
	unit
would 	be
	more
	efficient
	and
	result
	in
	less 	conflicts."
On
	June
	16,
	1980,
	the
	San
	Francisco
	Regional
	Director
outlined 	to
	CSEA
	the
	procedure
	by which 	an
	outside
	employee
organization
	may
	carve 	out 	or 	sever
	a
	proposed
	unit
	from
	an
existing
	bargaining
	unit
	by
	filing
	a
	request 	for
	recognition.
As 	a
	result
	of 	the 	challenges 	to
	the 	appropriateness 	of 	the
unit
	sought
	by UPE, 	by
	CSEA
	and
	the
	District,
	a
	formal
	hearing
was
	scheduled
	and
	held
	on
	June
	17,
	1980,
	at
	the
	Livermore
Valley
	Joint
	Unified 	School
	District,
	Board
	Room,
	Livermore,
California.
At the hearing CSEA made a motion to dismiss the UPE
petition. The hearing officer ruled to take CSEA's motion
3
see33240.
i
	nia 	Administrative
	,
	ti
	8,
3
3see California Administrative Code, title 8, section
CSEA further contested the petition filed by Local 390 on
different grounds by questioning in an April 25, 1980 letter
whether Local 390 had the requisite showing of support in the
established unit not in the petitioned for unit as is required
by the Board's rules and regulations. Addition 	CSEA
sought clarification of PERB rules and regulations pertaining
to the filing of requests for recognition and decertification
petitions in an appropriate unit.
At
	ing
	a
	motion
	to
	dismiss 	the
	UPE
petit
	The
	hearing
	officer
	ruled 	to 	take
	CSEA's
	motion
On April 28, 1980, the District outlined its opposition to
the unit sought by Local 390 maintaining a "comprehensive unit
would be more efficient and result in less conflicts."
On June 16, 1980, the San Francisco Regional Director
outlined to CSEA the procedure by which an outside employee
organization may carve out or sever a proposed unit from an
existing bargaining unit by filing a request for recognition.
As a result of the challenges to the appropriateness of the
unit sought by UPE, by CSEA and the District, a formal hearing
was scheduled and held on June 17, 1980, at the Livermore
Valley Joint Unified School District, Board Room, Livermore,
California.
33240.
3

under 	submission 	for 	the 	purpose 	of 	ruling 	on 	the 	motion 	in
this 	proposed 	decision.
FINDINGS 	OF 	FACT
The 	case 	files 	of 	the 	San 	Francisco 	Regional 	Office 	of 	the
PERB 	show 	that 	CSEA 	filed 	a 	request 	for 	recognition 	on
April 	1, 	1976, 	for 	a 	wall-to-wall 	unit 	of 	classified
employees. 	Also 	on 	April 	1, 	1976, 	Teamsters 	Local 	853 	filed 	a
request 	for 	recognition 	for 	a 	unit 	of 	bus 	driver 	and
mechanics. 	A formal 	unit 	determination 	hearing 	was 	held 	on
September 	27, 	1976.4h 	The 	hearing 	officer 	in 	the 	case
determined 	that 	a 	wall-to-wall 	classified 	unit 	was 	appropriate
for 	bargaining. 	The 	hearing 	officer's 	decision 	was 	not
appealed. 	CSEA was 	certified 	as 	the 	exclusive 	representative
on 	October 	4, 	1977.
The 	Livermore Valley 	Joint 	Unified 	School 	District 	employs
approximately 	440 	classified 	employees. 	Members 	of 	the
classified 	staff 	work 	at 	all 	the 	work 	sites 	and 	schools 	of 	the
District. 	However, 	there 	are 	specific 	permanent 	work 	sites 	for
some 	classified 	employees 	while 	others 	are 	assigned 	to 	a
particular 	work 	site 	but 	travel 	throughout 	the 	District 	to
accomplish 	their 	tasks.
4An 	administr 	ive 	tri 	may 	take 	f 	ial 	not 	of
information 	on 	its 	own 	files. 	See 	California Administrative
Agency 	Practice 	(1970) 	p. 	167, 	citing 	Broyles 	v. 	Mahon
(1925) 	72 	Cal.App. 	484, 	l 	[237 	p. 	763] 	and 	Anderson 	v. 	Board
of 	Den 	Examiners 	(1915) 	.App. 	336, 	338 	[149 	p. 	1006].
Also 	see 	NLRB 	v. 	Seven-Up Bottling 	Co. 	(1953) 	344 	U.S. 	344, 	348.
4
under submission for the purpose of ruling on the motion in
this proposed decision.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The case files of the San Francisco Regional Office of the
PERB show that CSEA filed a request for recognition on
April 1, 1976, for a wall-to-wall unit of classified
employees. Also on April 1, 1976, Teamsters Local 853 filed a
request for recognition for a unit of bus driver and
mechanics. A formal unit determination hearing was held on
September 27, 1976.4 T e hearing officer in the case
determined that a wall-to-wall classified unit was appropriate
for bargaining. The hearing officer's decision was not
appealed. CSEA was certified as the exclusive representative
on October 4, 1977.
The Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District employs
approximately 440 classified employees. Members of the
classified staff work at all the work sites and schools of the
District. However, there are specific permanent work sites for
some classified employees while others are assigned to a
particular work site but travel throughout the District to
accomplish their tasks.
4An administrative tribunal may take official notice of
information on its own files. See California Administrative
Agency Practice (1970) at p. 167, citing Broyles v. Mahon
(1925) 72 Cal .App. 484, 491 [237 p. 763] and Anderson v. Board
of Dental Examiners (1915) 27 Cal. App. 336, 338 [149 p. 1006].
Also see NLRB v. Seven-Up Bottling Co. (1953) 344 U.S. 344, 348.

Work
	Locations	Work Locations
The
	district
	office
	is
	the
	work
	site
	for
	all
	levels
	of
account
	clerks,
	the
	administrative,
	executive
	and
	personnel
secretaries,
	attendance
	accounting
	specialist,
	cashier, 	child
welfare
	and
	attendance
	aide,
	elementary
	state
	and
	federal
program
	clerk,
	clerk
	typist,
	coordinator
	of
	volunteers,
computer
	operator,
	community
	services
	secretary,
	food
	services
account
	clerk,
	head
	custodian
	II,
	instructional
	materials
assistant,
	library
	technician
	II,
	mail
	clerk,
	personnel
substitute 	specialist, 	printer
	and
	printer
	foreman,
	purchashing
assistant
	and
	purchasing
	clerk,
	receptionist-PBX, 	senior
	clerk,
van
	driver;
	warehouse 	worker 	and
	foreman,
	and
	data 	entry
	clerk.
Persons
	employed
	at
	the
	District's
	high
	schools
	have
	the
following
	classifications:
	attendance
	clerk, 	cafeteria
assistant, 	clerk-typist,
	head
	custodian
	II,
	instructional
aide
	II,
	library
	technician
	II,
	principal
1 s
	secretary,
receptionist-PBX, 	records
	clerk,
	scheduling
	technician, 	school
secretary, 	senior 	clerk,
	van
	driver,
	and
	career 	information
technician.
The
	following 	job
	classifications
	are
	all
	assigned 	to 	the
maintenance
	work
	site:
	carpenter, 	carpenter
	foreman,
electrician,
	grounds 	equipment 	mechanic, 	grounds 	equipment
operator,	
grounds	
keeper, 	health 	clerk,
	maintenance
	specialist,
maintenance 	worker,
	office
	machine
	repairer, 	office
	machine
technician, 	painter, 	painter
	foreman, 	plumber,
	sprinkler
5
The district office is the work site for all levels of
account clerks, the administrative, executive and personnel
secretaries, attendance accounting specialist, cashier, child
welfare and attendance aide, elementary state and federal
program clerk, clerk typist, coordinator of volunteers,
computer operator, community services secretary, food services
account clerk, head custodian II, instructional materials
assistant, library technician II, mail clerk, personnel
substitute specialist, printer and printer foreman, purchashing
assistant and purchasing clerk, receptionist-PBX, senior clerk,
van driver, warehouse worker and foreman, and data entry clerk.
Persons employed at the District's high schools have the
following classifications: attendance clerk, cafeteria
assistant, clerk-typist, head custodian II, instructional
aide II, library technician II, principal's secretary,
receptionist-PBX, records clerk, scheduling technician, school
secretary, senior clerk, van driver, and career information
technician.
The following job classifications are all assigned to the
maintenance work site: carpenter, carpenter foreman,
electrician, grounds equipment mechanic, grounds equipment
operator, grounds keeper, health clerk, maintenance specialist,
maintenance worker, office machine repairer, office machine
technician, painter, painter foreman, plumber, sprinkler

repairer,
	transportation
	mechanic
	and
	utility
	maintenance
worker.
Persons 	holding
	the
	jobs
	of
	bus
	driver,
	bus
	driver
	trainer,
custodians
	I 	and
	II,
	transportation
	shop
	foreman
	and
transportation
	specialist
	are
	housed
	at
	the
	transportation
yard.
	The
	maintenance
	shop
	and
	transportation
	yard
	are
approximately
	two
	miles
	from
	the
	District 	office.
Persons
	occupying
	the 	jobs
	of
	cafeteria 	assistant,
counseling
	technician,
	head
	custodian,
	instructional
	aide,
principal's
	secretary
	and 	van
	driver 	are
	employed
	at
	the
District's
	middle
	schools.
Employees
	in 	the
	classifications
	of
	cafeteria 	assistant,
clerk-typist,
	community
	liason
	worker,
	head
	custodian,
instructional 	aide,
	library
	technician,
	principal's
	secretary
and 	van
	driver
	work
	in 	the 	elementary
	schools.
The
	District
	employs 	a
	clerk-typist 	at
	the
	American
	Indian
Education Center.
The
	District
	employs 	an
	adult 	education
	secretary
	and
custodian
	at
	the
	Adult 	Education 	Center.
Job 	Duties
The
	maintenance
	transportation 	speci
	ists
	are
essentia 	clerical
	employees 	who 	answer 	phones,
	typing,
filing
	work
	the
	employees
	at 	their
	work
	sites.
The maintenance and transportation specialists are
essentially clerical employees who answer phones, do typing,
filing and schedule work for the employees at their work sites.
6
repairer, transportation mechanic and utility maintenance
worker.
Persons holding the jobs of bus driver, bus driver trainer,
custodians I and II, transportation shop foreman and
transportation specialist are housed at the transportation
yard. The maintenance shop and transportation yard are
approximately two miles from the District office.
Persons occupying the jobs of cafeteria assistant,
counseling technician, head custodian, instructional aide,
principal's secretary and van driver are employed at the
District's middle schools.
Employees in the classifications of cafeteria assistant,
clerk-typist, community liason worker, head custodian,
instructional aide, library technician, principal's secretary
and van driver work in the elementary schools.
The District employs a clerk-typist at the American Indian
Education Center .
The District employs an adult education secretary and
custodian at the Adult Education Center.
Job Duties
6

The
	transportation
	yard
	is
	also
	the
	work
	site
	for
	the
	bus
driver
	trainer.
	The
	record
	shows
	this
	person
	is
	responsible
for
	training
	bus
	drivers.
	The
	driver
	trainer
	also
	maintains
records
	in 	conjunction
	with 	her
	bus
	training
	work.
	When
	the
District
	needs
	a
	substitute
	bus
	driver,
	the
	bus
	driver
	trainer
may
	drive
	a
	bus.
	However,
	the 	driver
	trainer
	is
	principally
charged 	with
	training
	bus
	drivers
	and
	ensuring
	that
	the
	drivers
are 	in
	compliance
	with
	safety
	procedures
	and
	the
	District's
transportation
	policies.
7
The
	evidence
	establishes 	that
	custodians 	are
	not 	involved
in
	clerical
	or
	instructional
	aide
	responsibilities
	of
	any
substance.
	In
	some
	circumstances
	vandalism
	reports 	are
	filled
out
	by
	custodians
	along 	with
	other
	paper 	handling
	tasks,
	such
as
	keeping
	their
	own
	time
	sheets.
	The
	duties
	of 	the 	custodians
involve 	the
	use
	of 	floor
	waxes,
	soap,
	cleansers,
	mops 	and
broom,
	all
	of
	which 	go
	toward
	maintaining 	the 	physical
environment
	of
	the
	District.
The 	food
	services 	operation 	involves
	several 	bargaining
unit 	jobs,
	among 	them
	are 	the
	cashiers, 	cafeteria 	assistants,
food
	services
	account
	clerk
	and
	the
	van
	drivers.
	The
	cafeteria
assistants
	are 	direc
	involved 	in
	cooking 	food,
	washing
dishes,
	and
	cleaning 	the 	kitchens
	and
	lunch
	rooms 	where
	the
meals
	are
	epared
	and
	served.
	The 	van
	drivers 	deliver
	food
from
	Distr
	t 1 s 	main
	ki
	, 	e
	the
	is 	red,
to
	s 	where
	the
	food
	is 	served. 	van
	drivers
	move
The transportation yard is also the work site for the bus
driver trainer. 	The record shows this person is responsible
for training bus drivers. The driver trainer also maintains
records in conjunction with her bus training work. When the
District needs a substitute bus driver, the bus driver trainer
may drive a bus. However, the driver trainer is principally
charged with training bus drivers and ensuring that the drivers
are in compliance with safety procedures and the District's
transportation policies.
The evidence establishes that custodians are not involved
in clerical or instructional aide responsibilities of any
substance. In some circumstances vandalism reports are filled
out by custodians along with other paper handling tasks, such
as keeping their own time sheets. The duties of the custodians
involve the use of floor waxes, soap, cleansers, mops and
broom, all of which go toward maintaining the physical
environment of the District.
The food services operation involves several bargaining
unit jobs, among them are the cashiers, cafeteria assistants,
food services account clerk and the van drivers. The cafeteria
assistants are directly involved in cooking food, washing
dishes, and cleaning the kitchens and lunch rooms where the
meals are prepared and served. The van drivers deliver food
from the District's main kitchens, where the food is prepared,
to the schools where the food is served. Van drivers move
J

throughout 	the 	District, 	although 	they 	are 	based 	at 	the
District 	office.
The 	cashiers 	receive 	payment 	for 	the 	meals 	bought 	from 	the
cafeteria 	program 	at 	the 	schools 	and 	maintain 	records 	of 	those
transactions. 	The 	food 	services 	account 	clerk 	is 	housed 	in 	the
District 	office 	and 	coordinates 	the 	receipts 	from 	the 	food
services 	operation. 	The 	position 	has 	a 	bookkeeping 	role 	and
not 	any 	culinary 	obligations.
The 	warehouse 	workers 	and 	foreman 	are 	located 	at 	the
District 	office 	work 	site. 	Their 	jobs 	involve 	physical 	labor
and 	some mail 	delivery. 	The 	District's 	supplies 	are 	maintained
at 	the 	warehouse 	and 	the 	workers 	there 	lift 	boxes, 	keep
inventory, 	load 	trucks 	with 	supplies 	and 	deliver 	them where
needed.
The 	printing 	operation 	employees 	are 	also 	at 	the 	District
office. 	Printers' 	duties 	consist 	solely of 	meeting 	all 	the
District's 	printing 	needs.
Employees 	at 	the 	maintenance 	yard 	are 	responsible 	for
maintaining 	the 	District's 	physical 	environment. 	Located 	at 	a
separate 	work 	site, 	these 	employees 	receive 	work 	assignments
from 	schools 	needi 	irs. 	As 	was 	discus 	earlier,
the 	maintenance 	speci 	ist, 	though 	housed 	at 	the 	maintenance
yard, 	does 	essentially 	clerical 	tas 	in 	support 	of 	the
mai
8
throughout the District, although they are based at the
District office.
The cashiers receive payment for the meals bought from the
cafeteria program at the schools and maintain records of those
transactions. The food services account clerk is housed in the
District office and coordinates the receipts from the food
services operation. The position has a bookkeeping role and
not any culinary obligations.
The warehouse workers and foreman are located at the
District office work site. Their jobs involve physical labor
and some mail delivery. The District's supplies are maintained
at the warehouse and the workers there lift boxes, keep
inventory, load trucks with supplies and deliver them where
needed.
The printing operation employees are also at the District
office. 	Printers' duties consist solely of meeting all the
District's printing needs.
Employees at the maintenance yard are responsible for
maintaining the District's physical environment. Located at a
separate work site, these employees receive work assignments
from the schools needing repairs. As was discussed earlier,
the maintenance specialist, though housed at the maintenance
yard, does essentially clerical tasks in support of the
maintenance employees.
8

Supervision
	and
	Evaluation
	of
	Classified 	Staff
Custodial
	employees
	at
	both
	the
	high
	schools
	and
	elementary
schools 	are 	supervised
	and
	evaluated
	by
	the
	head
	custodians
	at
those
	schools.
	The
	head
	custodians 	are 	also
	the
	first
	step
	in
the 	grievance 	procedure 	for
	custodians.
	The
	school
	principals
participate
	in 	custodian 	evaluations
	by
	signing
	off
	on
	the
evaluation.
	The
	principals
	are 	the
	immediate
	supervisors
	and
evaluators
	of 	the
	head
	custodians 	in 	the 	schools.
	By
comparison, 	school
	principals 	also
	sign 	the
	evaluations 	of
instructional
	aides
	who
	are
	basically
	supervised
	and
	evaluated
by
	teachers. 	Classified
	staff
	immediately
	supervised
	and
evaluated
	by
	school
	principals
	would
	include 	those
	working
	in
	a
school
	office.
	These 	employees
	would
	include 	jobs
	such 	as
	the
principal's
	secretary,
	attendance
	clerk,
	and
	counseling
technician. 	All 	school
	principals 	report 	to 	the
	assistant
superintendent, 	educational
	services.
Still
	there 	are 	other 	custodial
	staff
	working
	at
	the
maintenance 	yard
	and
	the
	District 	office.
	These 	employees
	are
supervised
	and
	evaluated
	by
	the
	custodial 	supervisor
	who
	works
in 	the
	District 	office.
	The
	custodial 	supervisor
	at
	the
Distr
	t
	office
	has
	no
	supervisory 	authority
	over 	school
	site
custodians.
	The
	Distr
	t
	office 	custodial 	supervisor 	reports
to 	the 	director
	facilities
	management
	is
	a 	t
9
Supervision and Evaluation of Classified Staff
Custodial employees at both the high schools and elementary
schools are supervised and evaluated by the head custodians at
those schools. The head custodians are also the first step in
the grievance procedure for custodians. The school principals
participate in custodian evaluations by signing off on the
evaluation. The principals are the immediate supervisors and
evaluators of the head custodians in the schools. By
comparison, school principals also sign the evaluations of
instructional aides who are basically supervised and evaluated
by teachers. 	Classified staff immediately supervised and
evaluated by school principals would include those working in a
school office. These employees would include jobs such as the
principal's secretary, attendance clerk, and counseling
technician. All school principals report to the assistant
superintendent, educational services.
Still there are other custodial staff working at the
maintenance yard and the District office. These employees are
supervised and evaluated by the custodial supervisor who works
in the District office. 	The custodial supervisor at the
District office has no supervisory authority over school site
custodians. The District office custodial supervisor reports
to the director of facilities management who is a management
employee.
9

The
	directors
	of
	facilities
	management, 	food
	services
	and
purchasing
	are
	the 	persons
	to
	whom
	most
	of 	the
	classified
	staff
sought
	by
	UPE
	in
	its
	proposed 	"maintenance,
	operations
	and
	food
services"
	report.
The
	director
	of
	facilities
	management
	reports 	to
	the
assistant
	superintendent 	for 	business
	services.
	The
transportation 	director
	is
	responsible
	to
	the
	director
	of
facilities
	management.
	The
	transportation 	director
	supervises
the
	driver
	trainer,
	transportation
	mechanic,
	bus
	drivers
	and
the
	transportation
	specialist.
The
	maintenance
	director
	is
	supervised
	by
	the
	director
	of
facilities
	management. 	The
	maintenance
	specialist,
	grounds
equipment
	operator, 	carpenters,
	printers, 	electricians,
groundskeepers,
	office
	maintenance
	technican,
	and
	maintenance
personnel 	are
	all
	supervised
	and
	evaluated
	by
	the 	maintenance
director.
The
	director
	of
	facilities
	management
	also 	supervises
	two
clerical
	positions,
	an
	executive
	secretary	
and 	a 	community
services 	secretary,
	and
	both
	positions 	are 	in
	the
	existing
bargaining
	unit.
The 	food
	services 	director 	is
	the 	supervisor 	for	
all
employment
	classifications
	working
	in 	the
	food
	services
operation.
	The
	jobs 	include 	the	
cafeteria 	assistants,
	who
report 	directly 	to 	cafeteria 	supervisors,	
the	
van
	drivers,	
food
services 	account
	clerk,
	and
	cashiers.
	A
clerical
	employee, 	a
10
The directors of facilities management, food services and
purchasing are the persons to whom most of the classified staff
sought by UPE in its proposed "maintenance, operations and food
services" report.
The director of facilities management reports to the
assistant superintendent for business services. The
transportation director is responsible to the director of
facilities management. The transportation director supervises
the driver trainer, transportation mechanic, bus drivers and
the transportation specialist.
The maintenance director is supervised by the director of
facilities management. The maintenance specialist, grounds
equipment operator, carpenters, printers, electricians,
groundskeepers, office maintenance technican, and maintenance
personnel are all supervised and evaluated by the maintenance
director.
The director of facilities management also supervises two
clerical positions, an executive secretary and a community
services secretary, and both positions are in the existing
bargaining unit.
The food services director is the supervisor for all
employment classifications working in the food services
operation. The jobs include the cafeteria assistants, who
report directly to cafeteria supervisors, the van drivers, food
services account clerk, and cashiers. A clerical employee, a
10

clerk
	typist
	II,
	is
	also
	in
	the
	food
	services 	operation
	and
thereby 	accountable
	to 	the
	food
	services
	director.
The
	purchasing
	director
	oversees
	several
	job
classifications
	among
	the
	classified
	staff.
	The
	purchasing
director 	is
	responsible
	for 	supervising
	the
	warehouse
	workers
and
	printers.
	Additionally,
	purchasing
	clerks,
	a
	clerk
	typist,
the 	record
	and
	property 	control 	technician,
	and
	mail
	clerk 	are
supervised
	by
	the 	purchasing
	director.
	These 	employees
	are
	not
involved
	in
	the
	warehouse
	and
	printing
	work 	done 	by
	the
warehouse 	workers
	and
	printers
	but
	rather
	perform
	clerical
	or
paper
	handling
	duties.
The
	directors
	of 	personnel,
	fiscal
	services,
	pupil
	services
and
	instructional
	services 	are
	comparable
	in
	their
	areas 	of
supervision
	with
	the
	directors
	of
	facilities
	management,
	food
services
	and
	purchasing.
	However,
	the 	supervisory
	authority
held
	by
	each
	director 	is
	independent
	from
	the
	other.
The
	director
	of
	fiscal
	services
	is
	a management
	employee.
The
	accounting
	and
	data 	processing 	operations 	within 	the
District
	are 	his 	sole 	area 	of
	responsibility.
	The
	account
clerks 	report 	to 	the 	payroll 	supervisor
	and
	the 	accounting
supervisor
	who	
both 	report 	to
	the	
chief	
accountant.
	The	
chief
accountant
	is
	supervised	
by	
the
	director 	of	
fiscal 	services.
The 	computer 	machine
	operators 	are 	supervised 	by 	the 	data
processing 	director
	who
	reports
	to
	the	
director 	of
	fiscal
services.
	The
	director 	of 	fiscal 	services 	is
	not 	accountable
11
clerk typist II, is also in the food services operation and
thereby accountable to the food services director.
The purchasing director oversees several job
classifications among the classified staff. The purchasing
director is responsible for supervising the warehouse workers
and printers. Additionally, purchasing clerks, a clerk typist,
the record and property control technician, and mail clerk are
supervised by the purchasing director. These employees are not
involved in the warehouse and printing work done by the
warehouse workers and printers but rather perform clerical or
paper handling duties.
The directors of personnel, fiscal services, pupil services
and instructional services are comparable in their areas of
supervision with the directors of facilities management, food
services and purchasing. However, the supervisory authority
held by each director is independent from the other.
The director of fiscal services is a management employee.
The accounting and data processing operations within the
District are his sole area of responsibility. The account
clerks report to the payroll supervisor and the accounting
supervisor who both report to the chief accountant. The chief
accountant is supervised by the director of fiscal services.
The computer machine operators are supervised by the data
processing director who reports to the director of fiscal
services . 	The director of fiscal services is not accountable
11

for
	supervising
	any
	other
	classified
	personnel.
	Like
	the
director
	of
	facilities
	management,
	the
	director
	of
	fiscal
services 	reports 	to
	the
	assistant
	superintendent,
	business
services.
The
	director
	of 	personnel,
	who
	reports
	directly
	to
	the
superintendent,
	is
	the
	sole 	supervisor 	of 	the 	personnel
operation.
	His
	supervisory
	role
	is
	limited 	to
	the 	personnel
secretaries,
	two
	clerks,
	the 	receptionist/PBX, 	the 	personnel
substitute 	specialist
	and 	a
	confidential
	executive
	secretary.
The
	District's
	educational 	services
	and
	certificated
	staff
supervisors 	report 	to
	the
	assistant
	superintendent, 	educational
services.
	The
	classified
	staff
	in
	this 	part
	of 	the
	District's
organizational
	structure
	provide
	clerical
	support 	to 	the
educational
	programs
	offered
	by
	the
	District.
Bargaining
	unit 	positions
	found
	within 	educational
	services
would
	include 	the 	job
	titles:
	administrative 	secretary, 	clerk,
aide, 	clerk
	typist,
	secretary, 	instructional 	materials
assistant,
	coordinator 	of 	volunteers,
	community
	liaison
	worker,
and
	the 	scheduling, 	counseling, 	career
	information
	and
	library
technicians.
	These
	people
	are 	supervised
	and
	evaluated
	by
school 	principals, 	educational	
program	
directors, 	nurses,
psychologists
	and
	other
	certificated
	employees.
	Most
certificated
	supervisory
	employees
	report 	to 	the 	directors 	of
instructional 	services	
and
	pupil 	services 	except 	for 	school
12
for supervising any other classified personnel. Like the
director of facilities management, the director of fiscal
services reports to the assistant superintendent, business
services.
The director of personnel, who reports directly to the
superintendent, is the sole supervisor of the personnel
operation. 	His supervisory role is limited to the personnel
secretaries, two clerks, the receptionist/PBX, the personnel
substitute specialist and a confidential executive secretary.
The District's educational services and certificated staff
supervisors report to the assistant superintendent, educational
services. The classified staff in this part of the District's
organizational structure provide clerical support to the
educational programs offered by the District.
Bargaining unit positions found within educational services
would include the job titles: administrative secretary, clerk,
aide, clerk typist, secretary, instructional materials
assistant, coordinator of volunteers, community liaison worker,
and the scheduling, counseling, career information and library
technicians . 	These people are supervised and evaluated by
school principals, educational program directors, nurses,
psychologists and other certificated employees. Most
certificated supervisory employees report to the directors of
instructional services and pupil services except for school
12

principals
	who
	report
	directly
	to 	the
	assistant
	superintendent,
educational
	services.
None
	of
	the
	classified
	employee
	supervision
	and
	evaluation
practices
	flow
	outside
	the
	major
	employee
	groupings
	of 	the
District's
	organization
	as
	is
	provided
	in 	these 	findings.
Established
	Practices	Established Practices
Mr.
	John
	Waggoner
	is
	the
	director
	of 	personnel 	in 	the
District.
	In
	his
	testimony
Mr. 	Waggoner
	described
	and
explained
	many
	of 	the
	District's
	employment
	practices.
	Many
employment
	policies
	are 	contained
	in
	personnel
	documents
	such
as
	the
	Classified
	Employee 	Handbook. 	The 	handbook 	was
	adopted
on
	January 	6,
	1976 	by
	the
	District's
	Board
	of 	Education. 	This
document
	outlined
	many 	employment
	conditions
	which 	were
superseded
	by 	a
	collective
	bargaining
	agreement 	between
	the
District
	and
	CSEA
	which 	became
	effective
	from
	July
	1,
	1977
	to
June
	30, 	1978.
	Still
	portions 	of 	the
	Classified
	Employee
Handbook
	remain
	in
	effect,
	including
	policies
	such 	as 	the
probationary 	period,
	classifications
	of
	employees 	and
positions,
	employment
	rules, 	service 	education,
	disciplinary
action,
	termination
	of
	employment, 	and
	job
	descriptions. 	All
classified
	employees 	in	
the
	District
	are
	covered	
by	
these
portions	
of	
the
	handbook.
The
	District
	maintains 	yearly
	work	
calendars 	for 	those
classified	
employees 	paid 	by	
the
	month 	or 	hour. 	The
	hourly
paid 	employees 	include	
instructional 	aides, 	library 	technician,
13
principals who report directly to the assistant superintendent,
educational services.
None of the classified employee supervision and evaluation
practices flow outside the major employee groupings of the
District's organization as is provided in these findings.
Mr . John Waggoner is the director of personnel in the
District. In his testimony Mr. Waggoner described and
explained many of the District's employment practices. Many
employment policies are contained in personnel documents such
as the Classified Employee Handbook. 	The handbook was adopted
on January 6, 1976 by the District's Board of Education. This
document outlined many employment conditions which were
superseded by a collective bargaining agreement between the
District and CSEA which became effective from July 1, 1977 to
June 30, 1978. Still portions of the Classified Employee
Handbook remain in effect, including policies such as the
probationary period, classifications of employees and
positions, employment rules, service education, disciplinary
action, termination of employment, and job descriptions. All
classified employees in the District are covered by these
portions of the handbook.
The District maintains yearly work calendars for those
classified employees paid by the month or hour. The hourly
paid employees include instructional aides, library technician,
13

health
	clerks,
	bus
	drivers, 	cafeteria 	assistants
	and
	child
welfare
	and
	attendance
	aides.
	The
	hourly
	calendar
	shows
	paid
and
	nonpaid
	holidays
	and
	that
	hourly
	employees
	are
	employed
	for
176
	workdays.
	The
	other
	classified
	staff
	are
	paid
	on 	a
	monthly
basis
	and 	work
	year 	around.
	Additionally,
	the
	monthly
	calendar
contains 	vacation
	and
	leave 	procedures 	not
	found 	on
	the 	hourly
calendar.
Superintendent
	Leo
	Croce
	testified
	that
	Dr.
	Bardellini,
	the
previous
	assistant
	superintendent 	for
	instruction,
	led 	the
District
	negotiations
	for 	the
	certificated
	and
	classified
units.
	Mr.
	Walt
	Capri 	has
	replaced
	Dr.
	Bardellini
	as 	the
	head
of 	the
	District's
	negotiation
	team.
	However,
	the 	testimony
reflected
	Dr.
	Bardellini
1 s
	negotiating
	efforts.
	These
	efforts
involved
	participating
	in 	caucuses,
	meeting 	with 	school 	board
members,
	coordinating
	management
	information
	and 	he 	was
	the
District
	spokesman
	at
	the 	bargaining
	table.
	Mr.
	Croce
indicated
	that
	Dr.
	Bardellini
	spent 	"a
	great 	deal 	of
	time
	away
from
	the
	instructional
	program."
	The
	assistant
	superintendent
for
	instruction
	supervises 	the
	directors	
of	
instructional
services
	and
	pupil 	services,
	and
	all
	the
	District's
	principals.
The management
	negotiating
	team
	is
	composed	
of 	the
assistant
	superintendents	
for	
educational 	services	
and
business, 	the 	personnel 	director,	
two	
principals 	(elementary
and
	secondary),
	and 	the 	maintenance 	and
	operations	
director.
The 	maintenance 	and	
operations 	director 	is
	not
	a 	member
	of 	the
14
health clerks, bus drivers, cafeteria assistants and child
welfare and attendance aides. The hourly calendar shows paid
and nonpaid holidays and that hourly employees are employed for
176 workdays. The other classified staff are paid on a monthly
basis and work year around. Additionally, the monthly calendar
contains vacation and leave procedures not found on the hourly
calendar .
Superintendent Leo Croce testified that Dr. Bardellini, the
previous assistant superintendent for instruction, led the
District negotiations for the certificated and classified
units. Mr. Walt Capri has replaced Dr. Bardellini as the head
of the District's negotiation team. However, the testimony
reflected Dr. Bardellini's negotiating efforts. These efforts
involved participating in caucuses, meeting with school board
members, coordinating management information and he was the
District spokesman at the bargaining table. Mr. Croce
indicated that Dr. Bardellini spent "a great deal of time away
from the instructional program." The assistant superintendent
for instruction supervises the directors of instructional
services and pupil services, and all the District's principals.
The management negotiating team is composed of the
assistant superintendents for educational services and
business, the personnel director, two principals (elementary
and secondary) , and the maintenance and operations director.
The maintenance and operations director is not a member of the
14

certificated
	bargaining
	team,
	but 	with
	the
	assistant
superintendent
'for
	business
	services
	provides
	the
	major
	input
to
	the
	team
	for
	classified
	concerns.
Mr. 	Waggoner
	said
	that
	bargaining
	sessions
	with
	CSEA
typically
	began
	in
	February
	and
	lasted
	until
	August.
Bargaining
	sessions
	occurred
	two
	or
	three
	times
	a 	month
	and
were
	about
	three
	hours
	in 	length.
	His
	estimate
	was
	that
	fewer
sessions
	occurred
	outside
	the
	workday.
The management 	team
	is
	supported
	by
	staff 	at
	the
	District
office
	during
	negotiations.
	All 	the
	confidential
	secretaries
are
	involved
	in
	typing
	and
	the
	printing
	department
	employees
have
	responsibilities
	for
	printing 	negotiations 	materials.
Budget
	work
	or 	computations 	occur 	so
	that
	the
	"total
	business
office"
	is
	sometimes 	needed,
	explained
	Mr.
	Waggoner.
	This
level
	of
	staff
	involvement,
	he
	offered,
	is
	a
	hardship 	for 	the
District
	because
	office
	staff
	was
	reduced
	due
	to
	budgetary
limitations
	and
	reduced
	student 	attendance.
	Mr. 	Waggoner
	has
been
	on
	the
	management 	team
	since 	the 	inception 	of 	the
Educational
	Employment
	Relations
	Act
	(hereafter
	EERA)
	and
	in
his
	opinion 	another 	bargaining
	unit
	in 	the
	District
	would
the
	staff
	required 	to 	effective 	bargain.
	However, 	Mr.
Waggoner
	said 	that
	he 	had 	no
	experience 	in 	bargaining 	with
	a
second
	assified 	unit.
The
	roster 	of 	fices
	Livermore 	Chapter 	of
	CSEA
	has
been 	composed
	individuals 	with 	vari
	ti
	es.
	Duri
15
The roster of offices for the Livermore Chapter of CSEA has
been composed of individuals with varied job titles. During
certificated bargaining team, but with the assistant
superintendent for business services provides the major input
to the team for classified concerns.
Mr . Waggoner said that bargaining sessions with CSEA
typically began in February and lasted until August.
Bargaining sessions occurred two or three times a month and
were about three hours in length. His estimate was that fewer
sessions occurred outside the workday.
The management team is supported by staff at the District
office during negotiations. All the confidential secretaries
are involved in typing and the printing department employees
have responsibilities for printing negotiations materials.
Budget work or computations occur so that the "total business
office" is sometimes needed, explained Mr. Waggoner. This
level of staff involvement, he offered, is a hardship for the
District because office staff was reduced due to budgetary
limitations and reduced student attendance. Mr. Waggoner has
been on the management team since the inception of the
Educational Employment Relations Act (hereafter EERA) and in
his opinion another bargaining unit in the District would
double the staff required to effectively bargain. However, Mr.
Waggoner said that he had no experience in bargaining with a
second classified unit.
15

the
	1978
	roster
	year
	the 	chapter
	officers
	were 	employed
	as
	a
principal's
	secretary,
	head
	custodian,
	secretary, 	instructional
aide
	and
	a
	maintenance
	specialist.
	In
	1979 	a
	principal's
secretary,
	PBX
	operator
	and
	head
	custodian
	were
	the 	chapter
officers.
	For
	1980 	an
	attendance
	clerk,
	PBX
	operator,
secretary
	and
	head
	custodian
	were
	the 	chapter
	officers.
The
	chapter
	officers
	are
	nominated
	by members
	of
	CSEA
	by
use
	of
	a
	nominating
	form
	sent
	out
	by
	the
	nominating 	committee.
Any
	person
	in
	any
	classification
	may
	run
	for
	office
	in
	CSEA.
CSEA
	has
	work
	site
	representatives
	around
	the
	District.
These
	individuals
	disseminate 	information.
	They
	also
	may
handle 	the
	first
	step
	of
	a
	grievance 	for
	an 	employee
	at
	a 	work
site.
	However,
	the 	record
	shows
	the
	primary
	function 	of 	the
site
	representative
as
	a
	"contact 	person."
	A
site
representative
	is 	at
	every
	school, 	the
	district
	office
	and
	the
transportation
	and
	maintenance
	sites.
The
	negotiating
	teams
	for
	CSEA
	also
	show
	distinctions 	in
job
	titles
	among
	their
	memberships.
	The
	CSEA
	negotiating
	team
that
	negotiated 	the
	1977-1978
	contract
	had 	a 	head
	custodian,
principal's 	secretary,
	purchasing
	clerk
	and 	a
	transportation
employee
	as 	the
	members. 	During
	the 	negotiations 	for 	the
1978-1980
	contract 	the
	CSEA
	team
	contained
	a 	head
	custodian,
PBX
	operator, 	principal's 	secretary,
	a 	maintenance 	employee 	and
a	
transportation 	employee.
16
the 1978 roster year the chapter officers were employed as a
principal's secretary, head custodian, secretary, instructional
aide and a maintenance specialist. In 1979 a principal's
secretary, PBX operator and head custodian were the chapter
officers. 	For 1980 an attendance clerk, PBX operator,
secretary and head custodian were the chapter officers.
The chapter officers are nominated by members of CSEA by
use of a nominating form sent out by the nominating committee.
Any person in any classification may run for office in CSEA.
CSEA has work site representatives around the District.
These individuals disseminate information. They also may
handle the first step of a grievance for an employee at a work
site. However, the record shows the primary function of the
site representative as a "contact person. " A site
representative is at every school, the district office and the
transportation and maintenance sites.
The negotiating teams for CSEA also show distinctions in
job titles among their memberships. The CSEA negotiating team
that negotiated the 1977-1978 contract had a head custodian,
principal's secretary, purchasing clerk and a transportation
employee as the members. During the negotiations for the
1978-1980 contract the CSEA team contained a head custodian,
PBX operator, principal's secretary, a maintenance employee and
a transportation employee.
16

CSEA
	Chapter
	President
	Betty
	Cleveland
	testified
	that
	the
District
	and
	CSEA
	felt
	it
	necessary
	to
	set
	up 	a
	special
committee
	to
	address 	the
	needs
	of
	the
	transportation
employees.
	Ms.
	Cleveland
	indicated
	she
	was
	not
	too
	familiar
with
	transportation
	employee
	concerns 	but
	stated 	that
	the
	need
for
	a
	seniority
	measure
	to
	determine
	bus
	run
	assignments
	for
drivers
	was 	among
	the
	problems
	in
	transportation.
	The
committee
	to
	address 	these
	concerns
	was 	composed
	of
Ms.
	Cleveland,
	CSEA
	field
	representative
	Betty
	Boykin 	and
	the
directors
	of
	personnel,
	transportation
	and
	facilities
maintenance.
	Transportation
	employees' 	concerns
	were
	developed
into
	proposal
	form,
	reviewed	
by 	the
	employees
	themselves
	and
the
	final
	product
	was
	incorporated
	into
	the
	CSEA
	negotiations
for 	the
	1978-1980
	contract.
Ms.
	Cleveland
	also
	pointed 	out
	that
	she
	had
	processed
grievances 	for 	custodians, 	aides, 	cafeteria
	employees,
	clerical
and
	transportation
	workers.
Chapter
	President Betty Cleveland
	testified
	that
	night
custodians
	were
	provided 	with
	a
	special
	meeting.
	The
	District
employs
	approximately
	24
	night 	custodians.
	The
	record
	does
	not
indicate
	what
	percentage 	of	
all
	custodians
	work
	at 	night.
Ms.
	Cleveland
	and Mr.
	Spivey, 	the 	bargaining
	team 	spokesman,
did
	meet 	with 	the 	night 	custodians 	because 	these 	employees'
work 	hours
	conflicted	
with 	the 	time 	scheduled 	for 	the 	regular
CSEA
	unit 	meetings.
	The meeting 	then 	occurred
	after
	11:00 	p.m.
17
CSEA Chapter President Betty Cleveland testified that the
District and CSEA felt it necessary to set up a special
committee to address the needs of the transportation
employees. Ms. Cleveland indicated she was not too familiar
with transportation employee concerns but stated that the need
for a seniority measure to determine bus run assignments for
drivers was among the problems in transportation. The
committee to address these concerns was composed of
Ms. Cleveland, CSEA field representative Betty Boykin and the
directors of personnel, transportation and facilities
maintenance . 	Transportation employees' concerns were developed
into proposal form, reviewed by the employees themselves and
the final product was incorporated into the CSEA negotiations
for the 1978-1980 contract.
Ms. Cleveland also pointed out that she had processed
grievances for custodians, aides, cafeteria employees, clerical
and transportation workers.
Chapter President Betty Cleveland testified that night
custodians were provided with a special meeting. The District
employs approximately 24 night custodians. The record does not
indicate what percentage of all custodians work at night.
Ms. Cleveland and Mr. Spivey, the bargaining team spokesman,
did meet with the night custodians because these employees'
work hours conflicted with the time scheduled for the regular
CSEA unit meetings. The meeting then occurred after 11:00 p.m.
17

so
	that
	the 	night 	custodians
	would
	not
	miss
	any
	working
	hours.
Indeed,
	the
	1978-1980
	contract
	provides
	that
	meetings
	with
employees
	occur
	during
	nonworking
	periods.
The
	District
	and
	CSEA
	have
	negotiated
	a
	dues
	check-off
system
	for 	those
	unit
	employees
	who
	are
	members
	of
	CSEA.
	At
the
	time
	of 	the 	hearing
	there
	were
	146
	employees
	paying 	dues
through
	the 	check-off
	system
	out 	of
	approximately
	440
	unit
members.
	This
	CSEA
	membership
	is
	spread 	throughout
	the
District
	in 	the
	following
	fashion:
	45 	members 	among
	the
clerical
	or
	secretarial
	functions,
	40
	instructional
	aides
	and
paraprofessionals,	
6	
within
	food
	services,	
9	
in
	transportation,
27
	custodians,
	6
	in
	maintenance
	and
	3
	warehouse 	employees.
CSEA
	and
	the
	District
	have
	negotiated
	contracts
	for 	the
years
	1976-78 	and
	1978-80.
	Those
	contracts
	cover
	all
classified
	employees
	in 	the 	bargaining
	unit.
	The
	1978-80
contract
	has
	a
	separate 	section
	covering 	the
	particular
concerns 	of
	bus
	drivers.
	The
	contract
	does
	not
	contain 	the
calendars 	for
	monthly
	and
	hourly 	paid
	employees
	that
	were
mentioned
	earlier.
	Then
	too, 	the
	layoff
	procedure
	is
	separate
from
	the 	contract 	yet
	does 	cover
	all
	classified
	bargaining
	unit
members.
ISSUES
1. Whether the petition by UPE was improperly filed under the
rules and regulations of the PERB.
ISSUES
18
Whether
	petition
	by
	UPE
	was
	filed
	under
es
	and
	of
	PERB.
so that the night custodians would not miss any working hours.
Indeed, the 1978-1980 contract provides that meetings with
employees occur during nonworking periods.
The District and CSEA have negotiated a dues check-off
system for those unit employees who are members of CSEA. 	At
the time of the hearing there were 146 employees paying dues
through the check-off system out of approximately 440 unit
members. This CSEA membership is spread throughout the
District in the following fashion: 45 members among the
clerical or secretarial functions, 40 instructional aides and
paraprofessionals, 6 within food services, 9 in transportation,
27 custodians, 6 in maintenance and 3 warehouse employees.
CSEA and the District have negotiated contracts for the
years 1976-78 and 1978-80. Those contracts cover all
classified employees in the bargaining unit. The 1978-80
contract has a separate section covering the particular
concerns of bus drivers. The contract does not contain the
calendars for monthly and hourly paid employees that were
mentioned earlier. Then too, the layoff procedure is separate
from the contract yet does cover all classified bargaining unit
members .
1.
18

2.	
Whether
	a
	maintenance,
	operations
	and
	food
	services
	unit
should
	be
	severed
	from
	the
	established
	bargaining
	unit.
CONCLUSIONS
	OF
	LAW	CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The
	motion
	by
	CSEA
	to
	dismiss 	the
	UPE
	petition
	and
	this
hearing
	is
	denied.
	The
	San
	Francisco 	Director	i
	Director
determined 	the
	validity
	of 	the
	UPE
	petition 	after
	a
	review
	of
sections
	3544
	and
	3544.?(b)
(1).5h 	The
	hearing
	officer
	has
	no
authority
	to
	review
	the
	decision of
	the
	regional
	director 	in
this
	case.6y f Any
	further
	procedural
	ruling
	on
	this
	issue
	may
only
	be
	made 	by
	appeal
	to
	the
	PERB
	itself.
5
5section
	3544
	reads 	in
	part:
An
	employee
	organization
	may 	become
	the
exclusive 	representative
	for 	the
	employees
of
	an
	appropriate 	unit
	for 	purposes
	of
meeting
	and
	negotiating
	by
	filing
	a
	request
with
	a
	public
	school
	employer
	alleging 	that
a
	majority of 	the
	employees
	in
	an
appropriate 	unit
	wish
	to
	be
	represented
	by
such
	organizations
••.
	(Emphasis
	added.)
Section
	3544.7(b} (1)
	prov
	es:
et
(b)
	No
	election 	shall
	be
	held
	and
	the
petition 	shall
	be
	dismissed
	whenever:
(1)
	There
	is
	currently 	in
	effect
	a
	lawful
written
	agreement
	negotiated	
by 	the 	publicschool
	employer 	and
	another
	employee
organizatio 	covering
	any 	employees
	included
in 	the 	unit 	described 	in 	the 	request 	for
recognition, 	or 	unless 	the 	request 	for
recognition
	is 	filed 	less
	than
	120
	days, 	but
more
	than
	9IT
	days,
	prior 	to 	the
	expirationdate 	of 	the 	agreement
•••
	(emphasis 	added).
c	
ifornia Administrative
	Code,
	title
	8, 	sect 	32350,
19
2. 	Whether a maintenance, operations and food services unit
should be severed from the established bargaining unit.
The motion by CSEA to dismiss the UPE petition and this
hearing is denied. The San Francisco Regional
determined the validity of the UPE petition after a review of
sections 3544 and 3544.7 (b) (1) .5 The 	earing officer has no
authority to review the decision of the regional director in
this case. An 	urther procedural ruling on this issue may
only be made by appeal to the PERB itself.
section 3544 reads in part:
An employee organization may become the
exclusive representative for the employees
of an appropriate unit for purposes of
meeting and negotiating by filing a request
with a public school employer alleging that
a majority of the employees in an
appropriate unit wish to be represented by
such organizations. . . (Emphasis added. )
Section 3544.7 (b) (1) provides:
(b) No election shall be held and the
petition shall be dismissed whenever:
(1) There is currently in effect a lawful
written agreement negotiated by the public
school employer and another employee
organizationcovering any employees included
in the unit described in the request for
recognition, or unless the request for
recognition is filed less than 120 days, but
more than 90 days, prior to the expiration
date of the agreement. .. (emphasis added) .
alifornia Administrative Code, title 8, section 32350,
et seq.
19

The
	hearing
	officer
	acknowledges
	that
	the
	established
comprehensive
	classified
	unit
	was
	created
	by 	a
	decision
	of
	a
PERB
	hearing
	officer.
	This
	decision
	was 	a
	proposed
	decision
with 	appeal
	rights
	to 	the
	PERB
	itself.
	The
	decision
	was
	not
appealed.
	Unless
	appealed
	to 	the
	PERB
	itself,
	the
	proposed
decision
	of
	a
	PERB
	hearing
	officer
	is
	only 	binding
	on
	the
parties
	in
	that 	particular
	case
	and
	not 	binding
	on
	other
parties
	or 	precedent
	setting
	for
	future 	cases.
Government
	Code
	section	
3545	
provides 	in
	part:
(a)
	In
	each
	case
	where
	the 	appropriateness
of
	the
	unit
	is
	an
	issue,
	the
	board
	shall
decide 	the 	question
	on
	the
	basis
	of 	the
community
	of
	interest
	between
	and 	among
	the
employees
	and
	their
	established 	practicesincluding,
	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.
In 	Antioch
	Unified
	School
	District
	(November
	7,
	1977)
	EERB
No.
	37, 	the
	Board
	instructed 	that
	"the
	unit
	determination
criteria
	in
	Government 	Code
	Section	
3545	
require
	a
	weighing
	and
balancing 	in 	respect 	to
	each
	other 	in 	order 	to 	achieve
consistency 	of
	application.
	The
	Board 	had
	decided 	in
earlier
	cases? 	to 	give
	little
	weight
	to 	the 	established
77
sweetwater
	Union Hi 	h
	School
	District
(Novem
	er
	, 	19
	EERB
	Dec1s1on
	No
••
	See 	Freemont
	Unified
School
	District
	(December
	16,
	76)
	EERB
	Decision
	No.
	6;
San 	Diego 	Unified 	School
	District
	uary 	18,
	19 	)
	EERB
Decision
	No.
	8.
20
The hearing officer acknowledges that the established
comprehensive classified unit was created by a decision of a
PERB hearing officer. This decision was a proposed decision
with appeal rights to the PERB itself. The decision was not
appealed. Unless appealed to the PERB itself, the proposed
decision of a PERB hearing officer is only binding on the
parties in that particular case and not binding on other
parties or precedent setting for future cases.
Government Code section 3545 provides in part:
(a) In each case where the appropriateness
of the unit is an issue, 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.
In Antioch Unified School District (November 7, 1977) EERB
No. 37, the Board instructed that "the unit determination
criteria in Government Code Section 3545 require a weighing and
balancing in respect to each other in order to achieve
consistency of application . 	The Board had decided in
earlier cases to give little weight to the established
Sweetwater Union High School District
(November 23, 1976) EERB Decision No. 4. See Freemont Unified
School District (December 16, 1976) EERB Decision No. 6;
San Diego Unified School District (February 18, 1977) EERB
Decision No. 8.
20

practices
	criteria
	in
	comparison
	to 	the
	community
	of
	interest
factor.
	Yet
	in
	Antioch
	the
	Board
	said
	that
	in
	future 	unit
determination 	cases
	a
	greater 	reliance
	may 	be
	placed
	on
	the
negotiating 	history
	under
	the 	Educational
	Employment
	Relations
Act.
	The
	Board
	did
	not,
	however,
	indicate
	when
	established
practices
	under
	EERA
	would
	be
	as
	equally
	compelling 	as
community
	of
	interest
	factors.
	Yet
	in
	its
	post-hearing
	brief
CSEA
	maintains
	that 	this
	case 	provides 	the
	perfect
	test
	for
equally
	weighing 	each
	unit
	determination
	criteria
	in
	Government
Code
	section
	3545.
	While
	the 	hearing
	officer
	is
	prepared
	to
utilize 	all
	unit
	determination
	criteria
	in
	this
	proposed
decision,
	it
	is
	found
	that
	the 	length 	of 	bargaining
	history
	in
this 	particular
	case
	is
	not
	determinative.
The
	maintenance
	and
	operations 	unit
	sought
	by
	Local 	390
	is
in
	accord 	with 	the 	Board's 	"presumptively 	appropriate"
operations
	and
	support
	unit
	found
	in
	Sweetwater.8 	In
utilizing
	the
	community
	of
	interest
	guidelines 	in
	Sweetwater
when
	reviewing 	the 	record 	in
	this
	case
	it
	is
	concluded
	that
	a
successful
	argument
	is
	made
	that
	the 	maintenance,
	operations
and 	food
	services
	employees 	have
	a
	separate
	community
	of
interest
	from
	other
	classified
	employees
	in 	the
	District.
The 	employees
	in 	the
	proposed
	unit 	are
	all
	grouped 	in 	an
employment
	area
	headed 	by 	the
	assis	
s 	i
8 Ibid	
81bid
21
practices criteria in comparison to the community of interest
factor. 	Yet in Antioch the Board said that in future unit
determination cases a greater reliance may be placed on the
negotiating history under the Educational Employment Relations
Act. The Board did not, however, indicate when established
practices under EERA would be as equally compelling as
community of interest factors. Yet in its post-hearing brief
CSEA maintains that this case provides the perfect test for
equally weighing each unit determination criteria in Government
Code section 3545. While the hearing officer is prepared to
utilize all unit determination criteria in this proposed
decision, it is found that the length of bargaining history in
this particular case is not determinative.
The maintenance and operations unit sought by Local 390 is
in accord with the Board's "presumptively appropriate"
operations and support unit found in Sweetwater. 8 In
utilizing the community of interest guidelines in Sweetwater
when reviewing the record in this case it is concluded that a
successful argument is made that the maintenance, operations
and food services employees have a separate community of
interest from other classified employees in the District.
The employees in the proposed unit are all grouped in an
employment area headed by the assistant superintendent for
21

business
	services.
	Line
	supervision
	from
	the
	assistant
superintendent
	for 	business
	services
	is
	to
	the
	directors
	of
facilities
	management, 	food
	services,
	purchasing
	and
	fiscal
services.
	None
	of 	the
	employees 	working 	under
	the
	director
	of
fiscal
	services
	are
	sought
	by
	Local
	390.
	None
	of
	the
	fiscal
services
	employees
	share
	common
	supervision
	with
	the
	employees
sought
	by
	Local
	390 	whose
	supervision
	flows 	through
	the
	other
classified
	managers.
	Though
	there
	was
	testimony
	that
	schodl
principals
	share 	supervision
	with
	custodial 	supervisors 	in
evaluating 	custodians
	as
	principals
	do
	in 	shared
	evaluation 	of
aides
	with
	teachers,
	no
	evidence
	was
	offered 	to
	show
	that
school
	principals
	are
	actively
	involved 	in 	custodian
	job
performance 	review
	but 	merely
	that
	they
	sign-off
	on
	evaluations
in
	their
	role
	as
	the 	school
	site
	administrator.
With
	respect 	to
	work
	location,
	maintenance
	and
transportation
	employees
	work
	out 	of 	the
	maintenance 	yard
	and
transportation
	area
	which
	are 	separate
	from
	all
	other
	work
sites.
	Cafeteria
	employees
	do
	their
	jobs 	in 	the
	District's
kitchens. 	Custodial
	employees
	are 	not 	assigned
	to
	a
	desk
	or
office
	but
	work
	all
	over 	the
	District's
	various
	work
	sites.
van
	drivers 	are 	also	
all	
over 	the
	District
	delivering
	food	
to
the 	school
	cafeterias.
Critical
	to 	the
	community	
of 	interest 	criteria
	in 	unit
determinations
	is 	establishing
	the 	functions 	of
	the 	employees
at 	issue. 	Clearly 	the 	employees 	in 	the 	"maintenance 	and
22
business services. Line supervision from the assistant
superintendent for business services is to the directors of
facilities management, food services, purchasing and fiscal
services. 	None of the employees working under the director of
fiscal services are sought by Local 390. None of the fiscal
services employees share common supervision with the employees
sought by Local 390 whose supervision flows through the other
classified managers. Though there was testimony that school
principals share supervision with custodial supervisors in
evaluating custodians as principals do in shared evaluation of
aides with teachers, no evidence was offered to show that
school principals are actively involved in custodian job
performance review but merely that they sign-off on evaluations
in their role as the school site administrator.
With respect to work location, maintenance and
transportation employees work out of the maintenance yard and
transportation area which are separate from all other work
sites. Cafeteria employees do their jobs in the District's
kitchens. Custodial employees are not assigned to a desk or
office but work all over the District's various work sites.
Van drivers are also all over the District delivering food to
the school cafeterias.
Critical to the community of interest criteria in unit
determinations is establishing the functions of the employees
at issue. Clearly the employees in the "maintenance and
22

operations 	unit"
	sought
	by
	Local
	390
	are
	functionally
	related
in
	that
	they
	work
	with
	their
	hands
	and
	tools
	in 	maintaining
	a
proper
	physical
	environment
	in
	the
	District.
There
	are 	three
	classifications 	that	
by 	job
	title
	and
	work
location
	would
	appear
	to
	have
	a 	community
	of
	interest
	with
maintenance
	and
	transportation
	employees.
	Both
	the
	maintenance
and
	transportation
	specialists
	perform
	clerical
	and
	record
keeping
	functions
	and 	do
	not
	do
	maintenance
	work
	or
	drive
buses,
	and
	as
	such,
	do
	not
	have
	a 	community
	of
	interest
	with
maintenance
	and
	transportation
	employees.
However,
	the
	bus
	driver
	trainer's
	work
	is
	intricately
involved 	with
	the
	training
	and
	performance
	of
	bus
	drivers
	and
the
	buses 	themselves. 	In
	this
	regard 	the
	bus
	driver
	trainer
rides
	buses,
	inspects
	bus
	routes
	and
	seeks 	compliance
	with
vehicle 	regulations
	that
	the
	District
	bus
	transportation
operation
	must
	meet. 	This
	classification
	would
	also
	work
	as
	a
substitute
	bus
	driver
	if
	the
	need
	occurred.
	The 	bus
	driver
trainer
	shares 	the
	interests
	of 	the
	bus
	drivers.
Additionally, 	the
	food
	services 	operation
	employs
	cashiers
and 	a
	food
	services
	account
	clerk
	whose 	community
	of
	interest
with 	food
	service
	employees
	may 	seem	
unclear. 	Cashiers
	work
	in
the 	cafeteria,
	all	
supervised	
by	
the
	food
	service 	director
	and
are
	an
	integral 	link 	in 	the
	food
	service 	operation.	
Though
collecting
	money
	for 	meals
	is
	the 	function 	of 	the
	cashier, 	this
one
	interest 	factor 	is	
outweighed 	by	
others.
	The 	record
23
operations unit" sought by Local 390 are functionally related
in that they work with their hands and tools in maintaining a
proper physical environment in the District.
There are three classifications that by job title and work
location would appear to have a community of interest with
maintenance and transportation employees. Both the maintenance
and transportation specialists perform clerical and record
keeping functions and do not do maintenance work or drive
buses, and as such, do not have a community of interest with
maintenance and transportation employees.
However, the bus driver trainer's work is intricately
involved with the training and performance of bus drivers and
the buses themselves. In this regard the bus driver trainer
rides buses, inspects bus routes and seeks compliance with
vehicle regulations that the District bus transportation
operation must meet. This classification would also work as a
substitute bus driver if the need occurred. The bus driver
trainer shares the interests of the bus drivers.
Additionally, the food services operation employs cashiers
and a food services account clerk whose community of interest
with food service employees may seem unclear. Cashiers work in
the cafeteria, all supervised by the food service director and
are an integral link in the food service operation. Though
collecting money for meals is the function of the cashier, this
one interest factor is outweighed by others. The record
23

supports
	a
	determination
	that
	the
	cashier's 	interests
	are 	with
food
	service
	employees.
The
	food
	service
	account
	clerk
	has
	minimal
	interests
	with
other
	food
	service
	people.
	The
	position
	is
	located
	at
	the
District
	office
	and 	works
	in
	an
	office
	atmosphere.
Considerable
	bookkeeping
	is
	the
	primary
	responsibility
	since
the
	position
	coordinates
	the
	receipts
	from
	the
	food
	service
system.
	The
	food
	services'
	account
	clerk
	is
	functionally
similar 	to
	the
	other
	accounting
	employees
	at
	the
	District
office
	and
	therefore
	it
	is
	found
	that
	the
	food
	services'
account
	clerk
	lacks
	a 	community
	of
	interest
	with
	other
	food
service
	employees.
Established 	Practices
Apart
	from
	the
	community
	of
	interest
	criteria
	in
determining 	the 	appropriateness 	of 	bargaining
	units,
section
	3545(a)
	also
	instructs
	the
	use
	of:
..•
	established 	practices 	including,
	among
other 	things, 	the 	extent 	to
	which
	•••
employees 	belong
	to 	the
	same
	employee
organization,
	and
	the
	effect
	of 	the
	size
	ofthe
	unit
	on
	the
	efficient
	operation 	of 	the
school
	district.
The 	PERB	
discussed
	at
	length 	in
	Compton
	Unified 	School
District	
(October	
26, 	1979)
	PERB
	No.
	109,
	11
•••
that
	when
	an
employee
	organization 	seeks
	a
	Sweetwater
	unit 	the 	unit
determination	
criteria 	set 	forth 	in 	section
	3545(a)
	are 	met.
11
In	
Compton	
the	
Board	
instructed 	that 	those 	seeking
	a
	variant
24
supports a determination that the cashier's interests are with
food service employees.
The food service account clerk has minimal interests with
other food service people. The position is located at the
District office and works in an office atmosphere.
Considerable bookkeeping is the primary responsibility since
the position coordinates the receipts from the food service
system. The food services' account clerk is functionally
similar to the other accounting employees at the District
office and therefore it is found that the food services'
account clerk lacks a community of interest with other food
service employees.
Established Practices
Apart from the community of interest criteria in
determining the appropriateness of bargaining units,
section 3545 (a) also instructs the use of:
established practices including, among
other things, the extent to which . .
employees belong to the same employee
organization, and the effect of the size of
the unit on the efficient operation of the
school district.
The PERB discussed at length in Compton Unified School
District (October 26, 1979) PERB No. 109, "...that when an
employee organization seeks a Sweetwater unit the unit
determination criteria set forth in section 3545 (a) are met."
In Compton the Board instructed that those seeking a variant
24

unit 	to 	a 	presumptively 	appropriate 	Sweetwater 	unit 	incur 	a
burden 	to 	establish 	"that 	a 	variant 	unit 	is 	more 	appropriate
than 	a 	Sweetwater 	unit •.•• " 	An 	examination 	of 	the 	record 	in
this 	case 	shows 	that 	CSEA and 	the 	District 	did 	not 	rebut 	the
Sweetwater 	presumption 	in 	seeking 	to maintain 	the 	existence 	of
the 	established 	unit.
The 	District 	produced 	little 	evidence 	in 	support 	of 	its
contention 	that 	a 	second 	unit 	would 	have 	a 	detrimental 	effect
on 	efficiency 	of 	operations. 	The 	management 	bargaining 	effort
was 	headed 	by 	Dr. 	Bardellini 	who 	has 	in 	the 	last 	year 	been
replaced 	by Mr. 	Capri. 	The 	District's 	bargaining 	experience
occurred 	mainly 	during 	Dr. 	Bardellini's 	tenure 	and 	no 	testimony
was 	attributed 	to Mr. 	Capri's 	bargaining 	leadership. 	However,
the 	director 	of 	personnel 	who 	has 	participated 	in 	all 	the
classified 	bargaining 	sessions 	authorized 	under 	the 	EERA 	says
he 	doesn't 	know 	what 	could 	happen 	to 	the 	efficiency 	of
operation 	of 	the 	District 	with 	another 	classified 	bargaining
unit 	since 	he 	has 	never 	had 	the 	experience.
Included 	within 	the 	established 	practices 	for 	classified
employees 	are 	several matters 	for 	consideration, 	among 	them 	is
the 	Classified Employee 	Handbook. 	This 	document 	does 	apply
equally 	to 	all 	classified 	bargaining 	unit 	members 	but 	there 	is
nothing 	in 	the 	handbook 	that 	denies 	its 	applicability 	to
classified management, 	supervisorial, 	and 	confidential
employees 	too.
25
unit to a presumptively appropriate Sweetwater unit incur a
burden to establish "that a variant unit is more appropriate
than a Sweetwater unit. ..." An examination of the record in
this case shows that CSEA and the District did not rebut the
Sweetwater presumption in seeking to maintain the existence of
the established unit.
The District produced little evidence in support of its
contention that a second unit would have a detrimental effect
on efficiency of operations. The management bargaining effort
was headed by Dr. Bardellini who has in the last year been
replaced by Mr. Capri. The District's bargaining experience
occurred mainly during Dr. Bardellini's tenure and no testimony
was attributed to Mr. Capri's bargaining leadership. However,
the director of personnel who has participated in all the
classified bargaining sessions authorized under the EERA says
he doesn't know what could happen to the efficiency of
operation of the District with another classified bargaining
unit since he has never had the experience.
Included within the established practices for classified
employees are several matters for consideration, among them is
the Classified Employee Handbook. This document does apply
equally to all classified bargaining unit members but there is
nothing in the handbook that denies its applicability to
classified management, supervisorial, and confidential
employees too.
25

The
	importance
	of
	the
	extent
	of
	membership
	in
	CSEA
	among
the 	approximately
	150
	maintenance,
	operation	
and
	food	
services
employees
	is
	difficult
	to
	measure
	since
	only
	56
	are
	members.
	The
significance
	is
	minimal
	indeed
	considering
	that
	these
	56
	CSEA
members
	are
	part
	of
	a
	bargaining
	unit
	of
	at 	least
	440
	employees.
The
	record
	shows 	a
	mixture 	with 	regard
	to
	the
	participation
of 	various
	job
	classifications
	being
	represented
	on
	the
	CSEA
bargaining
	team
	over
	the
	years.
	This
	CSEA
	effort
	shows
	an
attempt 	to
	have
	adequate
	input
	from
	all
	job 	groupings
	in 	the
bargaining
	unit.
	Still,
	even
	with
	this
	approach
	it
	was
necessary 	for
	CSEA
	and
	the
	District
	to 	establish
	a
	separate
committee
	to 	ascertain
	the
	needs
	of 	the
	transportation
employees
	so
	that 	their
	needs
	could
	be
	effectively
	addressed.
Then
	too, 	the
	unique
	work
	hours
	of 	night 	custodians 	required
	a
special
	or
	different 	effort	
by	
the	
CSEA	
leadership	
in 	order
	to
establish
	communication 	so
	that
	adequate
	representation
	could
be
	accomplished.
	The
	necessity of
	having
	to 	organize
	a
separate
	committee 	with
	a
	different
	composition 	of
	members 	more
in
	line
	with 	understanding 	the
	transportation 	area
	goes
	to 	the
heart
	of
	why
	interest
	factors
	weigh
	heavily 	in 	determining
appropriate
	units.
The
	established 	practices 	of 	the
	parties 	also
	show
	that 	all
classified	
employees 	are 	covered 	by 	the
	same
	contract	
and	
by	
a
separately 	negotiated 	lay-off	
procedure. 	These 	two	
matters
cannot 	be
	rebutted 	as 	valid	
and
	meaningfully 	established
26
The importance of the extent of membership in CSEA among
the approximately 150 maintenance, operation and food services
employees is difficult to measure since only 56 are members. 	The
significance is minimal indeed considering that these 56 CSEA
members are part of a bargaining unit of at least 440 employees.
The record shows a mixture with regard to the participation
of various job classifications being represented on the CSEA
bargaining team over the years. This CSEA effort shows an
attempt to have adequate input from all job groupings in the
bargaining unit. Still, even with this approach it was
necessary for CSEA and the District to establish a separate
committee to ascertain the needs of the transportation
employees so that their needs could be effectively addressed.
Then too, the unique work hours of night custodians required a
special or different effort by the CSEA leadership in order to
establish communication so that adequate representation could
be accomplished. The necessity of having to organize a
separate committee with a different composition of members more
in line with understanding the transportation area goes to the
heart of why interest factors weigh heavily in determining
appropriate units.
The established practices of the parties also show that all
classified employees are covered by the same contract and by a
separately negotiated lay-off procedure. These two matters
cannot be rebutted as valid and meaningfully established
26

practices
	under
	the
	EERA.
	Yet
	these 	matters 	are
	not
	equal9
in
	light
	of
	the
	many
	weighty
	factors
	evidenced
	in
	favor
	of
determining 	the
	appropriateness 	of 	the
	maintenance,
	operations
and
	food
	services 	unit
	sought
	by
	Local
	390.
PROPOSED
	ORDER	PROPOSED ORDER
Based
	upon
	the 	foregoing
	findings 	of
	fact,
	conclusions
	of
law 	and
	the
	entire
	record 	of
	this
	matter,
	it
	is
	the
	proposed
order
	that:
A
maintenance,
	operations
	and
	food
	services 	unit
	is
determined
	to
	be
	appropriate.
	The
	unit 	shall
	be 	composed
	of
the
	following 	job
	titles:
Bus
	driver,.
bus
	driver
	trainer, 	cafeteria
assistants
	I
	and
	II,
	carpenter, 	carpenter
foreman,
	cashier,
	custodians
	I
	and
	II,
electrician, 	electrician 	assistant,
electrician
	foreman, 	grounds 	equipment
mechanic,, 	grounds 	equipment
	operator,
groundskeepers
	I
	and
	II,
	head
	custodians
	I
and
	II,
	maintenance 	workers
	I
	and
	II,
	office
machine
	repairer, 	office
	machine
	technician,
painter, 	painter
	foreman,
	printer, 	printer
foreman, 	plumber,
	sprinkler 	repairer,
tra.~sportation
	mechanics
	I
	and
	II,
transportation
	shop 	foreman,
	utility
maintenance 	worker, 	van
	driver,
	warehouse
foreman, 	and warehouse 	workers
	I 	and
	II,
	and
excluding
	all
	other
	classified
	employees 	and
all
	management,
	supervisory,
	and
	confidential
employees.
Pursuant 	to 	California Administrative
	Code,
	title
	8,
	part
III,
	section
	32305,
	this
	Proposed Order
	shall
	become
	final
9compton
	Unified 	School
	District
	(October 	26, 	1979} 	PERB
No. 	109, 	p. 	6.
27
practices under the EERA. Yet these matters are not equal9
in light of the many weighty factors evidenced in favor of
determining the appropriateness of the maintenance, operations
and food services unit sought by Local 390.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of
law and the entire record of this matter, it is the proposed
order that:
A maintenance, operations and food services unit is
determined to be appropriate. The unit shall be composed of
the following job titles:
Bus driver, . bus driver trainer, cafeteria
assistants I and II, carpenter, carpenter
foreman, cashier, custodians I and II,
electrician, electrician assistant,
electrician foreman, grounds equipment
mechanic, grounds equipment operator
groundskeepers I and II, head custodians I
and II, maintenance workers I and II, office
machine repairer, office machine technician,
painter, painter foreman, printer, printer
foreman, plumber, sprinkler repairer,
transportation mechanics I and II,
transportation shop foreman, utility
maintenance worker, van driver, warehouse
foreman, and warehouse workers I and II, and
excluding all other classified employees and
all management, supervisory, and confidential
employees .
Pursuant to California Administrative Code, title 8, part
III, section 32305, this Proposed Order shall become final
9Compton Unified School District (October 26, 1979) PERB
No. 109 , P. 6.
27

on 	December 	2L~, 	1980 	unless 	a 	party 	files 	a 	timely 	statement
of 	exceptions. 	See 	California Administrative 	Code, 	title 	8,
part 	III, 	section 	32300. 	Such 	statement 	of 	exceptions 	and
supporting 	brief 	must 	actually 	be 	received 	by 	the 	Executive
Assistant 	to 	the 	Board 	at 	the 	Headquarters 	Office 	in Sacramento
before 	the 	close 	of 	business 	(5:00 	p.m.) 	on 	December 	24, 	1980
in 	order 	to 	be 	timely 	filed. 	See 	California Administrative
Code, 	title 	8, 	part 	III, 	section 	32135. 	Any 	statement 	of
exceptions 	and 	supporting 	brief 	must 	be 	served 	concurrently
with 	its 	filing 	upon 	each 	party 	to 	this 	proceeding. 	Proof 	of
service 	shall 	be 	filed 	with 	the 	Board 	itself. 	See 	California
Administrative 	Code, 	title 	8, 	sections 	32300 	and 	32305, 	as
amended.
Within 	fifteen 	(15) 	workdays 	after 	the 	employer 	posts 	the
Notice 	of 	Decision, 	each 	employee 	organization 	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, 	or 	(2) 	only
one 	employee 	organization 	qualifies 	for 	the 	ballot 	and 	the
employer 	does 	not 	grant 	voluntary 	r 	ition. 	i 	nia
Administrative 	Code, 	title 	8, 	part 	III, 	sections 	33450 	and
33480.
28
on December 24, 1980 	unless a party files a timely statement
of exceptions. See California Administrative Code, title 8,
part III, section 32300. Such statement of exceptions and
supporting brief must actually be received by the Executive
Assistant to the Board at the Headquarters Office in Sacramento
before the close of business (5:00 p.m. ) on December 24, 1980
in order to be timely filed. See California Administrative
Code, title 8, part III, section 32135. Any statement of
exceptions and supporting brief must be served concurrently
with its filing upon each party to this proceeding. Proof of
service shall be filed with the Board itself. See California
Administrative Code, title 8, sections 32300 and 32305, as
amended .
Within fifteen (15) workdays after the employer posts the
Notice of Decision, each employee organization 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, or (2) only
one employee organization qualifies for the ballot and the
employer does not grant voluntary recognition. See California
Administrative Code, title 8, part III, sections 33450 and
33480.
28

The
	date
	used
	to
	establish
	the
	number
	of
	employees
	in
	the
above
	unit
	shall
	be
	the 	date
	of
	this
	decision 	unless 	another
date
	is
	deemed
	appropriate
	by
	the
	Regional
	Director
	and
	noticed
to
	the
	parties.
Date:
	December	
L~	
1980
'
Terrell
	J.
	Idifidsey
Hearing 	Off,rcer
29	29
I/
The date used to establish the number of employees in the
above unit shall be the date of this decision unless another
date is deemed appropriate by the Regional Director and noticed
to the parties.
Date: December 4, 1980
Terrell J. Lindsey
Hearing Officer