Butte County Superintendent of Schools (PERB 0338E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
BUTTE 	COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT
OF 	SCHOOLS,
Employer,
and
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION,
Employee 	Organization,
and
BUTTE 	COUNTY EMPLOYEES 	ASSOCIATION/
SERVICE 	EMPLOYEES 	INTERNATIONAL
UNION, 	LOCAL 	916, 	AFL-CIO,
Employee 	Organization.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
___________________ )
Case 	No. 	S-D-59
PERB 	Decision No. 	338
August 	22, 	1983
Appearances: 	Peter 	F. 	Samuel, 	Attorney 	(Reed 	& Samuel) 	for
Service Employees 	International 	Union, 	Local 	916, 	AFL-CIO;
Howard 	R. 	Lawrence, 	Field 	Director, 	for 	the 	California School
Employees 	Association.
Before: 	Tovar, 	Jaeger 	and 	Morgenstern, 	Members.
DECISION
JAEGER, 	Member: 	Butte 	County Employees 	Association/Service
Employees 	International 	Union, 	Local 	916, 	AFL-CIO 	(SEIU)
appeals 	the 	attached 	decision 	of 	the 	Sacramento 	regional
director 	directing 	a 	decertification 	election. 	The 	regional
director 	determined 	that 	a 	contract 	between 	SEIU 	and 	the 	Butte
County 	Superintendent 	of 	Schools 	did 	not 	bar 	a 	decertification
election 	petition 	filed 	by 	the 	California 	School 	Employees

Association 	because 	that 	contract 	had 	been 	"prematurely
extended." 	See 	Hayward 	Unified 	School 	District 	(6/10/80) 	PERB
Order 	No. 	Ad-96~ 	Deluxe Metal 	Furniture 	Co. 	(1958) 	121 NLRB 	995
[42 	LRRM 	14701~ 	Hertz 	Corporation 	(1982) 	265 	NLRB 	138 	[112 	LRRM
1040].
Upon 	review 	of 	the 	entire 	record, 	the 	Public 	Employment
Relations 	Board 	adopts 	the 	regional 	director's 	findings 	of 	fact
and 	conclusions 	of 	law 	as 	the 	determination 	of 	the 	Board 	itself.
ORDER
The 	appeal 	by Butte 	County Employees 	Association/Service
Employees 	International 	Union, 	Local 	916, 	AFL-CIO 	in 	Case
No. 	S-D-59 	is 	DENIED 	and 	the 	case 	is 	remanded 	to 	the 	Sacramento
regional 	director 	to 	proceed 	to 	a 	decertification 	election.
Members 	Tovar 	and 	Morgenstern 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
2

ST.I.Tl: OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Sacramento Regional Office
1031 	18th Street, Suite 102
Sacramento, California 95814
(916) 322-31"98
April 29, 	1983
Mr. Robert Vassar
Assistant Superintendent/Personnel
Butte County Superintendent of Schools
1859 Bird Street
Oroville, CA 	95865
Mr. 	Neil McAfee, 	Field Representative
California School Employees Association
7 Caballo We.y
Chico, CA 	95965
Mr. Brian Schroeder, Research Analyst
Service Employees International Union
Butte County Employees Association
1220 H Street, 	Suite 206
Sacramento, 	CA 	95814
Re: 	S-D-59
Butte COE
Dear Interested Parties:
GEORGE DEUi(MEJJAN, Go-,.
On March 8, 	1983, a decertification petition was filed by the
California School Employees Association (hereafter CSEA) for the
established. unit 0£ classified employees 0£ the Butte County
Superintendent of Schools (hereafter Employer). 	The incumbent.
exclusive representative of the unit is the Butte County Employees
Association/Service Employees Interna.ti.onal Union, Local 916
(hereafter SE!U). 	The petition filed by CSEA indicated that the
term of the contl'act between the Employer- and SEIU is from July 1,
1980 to June 30, 	1983. 	Both the Employer and SEIU responded that a
contract is in place with an expiration date a£ June 30, 1985.
ISSUE
Does the contra.ct currently in effect between the Employer and SEIU
bar the decertification petition filed by CSEA?
BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS
SEIU was recognized as 	the exclusive representative of classified
employees of the Employer on Jun,e 14, 	1976. 	Subsequently, 	contracts

April 29, 	1983
Page 2
were negotiated and executed between the Employer and SE.IU. 	The
terms of these contracts were as follows:
July 1, 1977 to June 30, 1979
July 1, 1979 to June 30, 	1982
July 1, 1980 to June 30, 1983
July lt 1982 to June 30, 1985
SEIU and the Employer contend that because. the curren:t a.greetJ1,en-t
does not expire until June 30, 1985,-it a.eta as a. contract ba..r to
the filing of any decertification petition until. 1985 .. 	CSEA
maintains that a. lawf'uI agreement existed £or 1980-.83, 	thereby
creating a. window period in 1983 £or the filing 0£ the illstant
petition.
Government Code section 3544.7(b)(l) provides:
(b) 	No election shall be held·and the petition
shall be dismissed whenever:
( l) 	'11
here is currently in ef'fe~t a. Ja.wful
written agreement negotiated by the public
school employer and another employee
organization covering any employees included
in the unit described in the request for
recognition, 	or unless the request for
recognition is f'iled less than 120 days, but-
more than 90 days, 	prior to the expiration
date of the agreement; 	orl
The National Labor Relations Boa.rd (hereafter NLRB) has,, 	in its
contract ba.r policies, 	sought to balance the employee's right of the
opportunity to select a 	collective bargaining represen.tati.ve with
the concurrent purpose of promoting stable labor relatimis. 	See
Pacific Coast Association of Pulp and Paper Manufacturers 	(1958) 121
NLRB 990, 994 [42 LRRM lll78]. 	. 	.
1PERB Regulation 33020 defines the window period in part
as 	••• 	the 29-day period established pursuant to Government Code
section 3544.l(c) and 3544.7(b)(l) which is less than 120 days, 	but
more than 90 days, 	prior to the expiration date of a la.w,ful written-
agreement negotiated by the public school employer and the exclusive
representative.

April 29, 1983
Page 3
The NLRB has established the principle of premature extension of
contracts in its case law. 	A premature extension occurs when,
during the term of an existing contract, 	the parties execute a new
conti-act with an expiration da.te later than that of the f'irat
contract. 	The prematurely extended contract will not act a.s a bar
to an election. 	See Deluxe Metal Furniture ComP!::3:Y {1958} 121 NLRB
995, 	[42 LRRM 1470] •. See also, 	the Hertz Corpol"ation,. 	Rent-A-Car
Division (1982) 265 NLRB No. 138, 	[112 LRRM fo40].
In Hayward Uni.fied School District (6/10/80) PERB Order No. Ad..-96
the Public Employment Relations Board (hereafter PERS or Board)
adopted this NLRB approach by affirming a regional director
determination which, 	irl applying the Deluxe reasoning, held that the
parties had entered into a contract which was a 	premature extension
of a prior contract. 	In Hayward the Boal"d held that such action
does not a.ct to bar the filing of a decertification petit:ion.
In the instant case, 	the first contract between the Employer and
SEIU expired on June 30, 1979, 	creating a window period in
approximately March of 1979. 	The second contract expired on June
30, 	1982. 	However, 	the parties entered into another contract with
an E,xpiratj ,m date of .June 30 ~ 1983. 	This aotion constituted. a
p:rernature extension of the existing cont11 act, 	and would no~ have.
barred a decertification election i.f a petition had been filed
during a.ppro:x:irnately March of 1982. 	Another effect of this
pl"emature extension was to create an additional windov period for
March of' 1983. 	The parties entered into another con·l;ract with a
term of July 1, 1982 to June 30, 	1985. 	This action a.ga.ln
constituted a premature extension of a prior contract and does not
bar the filing of a decertification petition in the window period
during March, 	1983. 	On March 8, 	1983 CSEA filed the instant
decertification petition.
Eased on the above, 	the petition is determined to be timely filed in
accordance with Regulation 33020.
Review of the proof o.f support submitted by the petitioner in this.
case has resulted in the administrative determination that it is
sufficient to meet the requirements of Regulation 32770(b)(2).
An election will be conducted by our office to determine the
organization, 	if any, 	to be certified as 	the exclusive
representative of this unit. 	I 	will be contacting you shortly to
discuss 	the actual provisions of this election. 	The Regional
Director will then issue a Directed Election Order.
An appeal of this decision pursuant to PERB Regulations 32350
through 32380 may be made within 10 calendar days following the date
of service of this decision by filing an original and 5 copies of a
statement of the facts 	upon which the appeal is based with the Board
itself at 1031 18th Street, 	Suite 200, 	Sacramento, 	California
95814. 	Copies of any appeal must be concurrently served upon all

April 29, 	1983
Page 4
parties and t.be Sacra:m.ento Regional 0.ffice. 	Proof of service
pursuant. to Regulation 32140 is required.
Pleate contact me if you have any q-ueations concerning tbi,a matter-.
Very truly yours,
Janet E. Caraway
~/ 	~ 	.
Terrell J. 	Lindoey
Public Employment Relations Representative
' 	~
cc: 	Rod Wey land