Ramona Unified School District (PERB 0517E)

1
STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
RAMONA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION,
Charging 	Party,
v.
RAMONA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
) 	Case No. 	LA-CE-2066
PERB 	Decision No. 	517
August 	15, 	1985
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances; 	Charles 	R. 	Gustafson, 	Attorney for Ramona Teachers
Association; 	Parham & Associates, 	Inc., 	by James C. Whitlock 	for
Ramona 	Unified 	School 	District.
Before Hesse, 	Chairperson; Morgenstern and Burt, 	Members.
DECISION
MORGENSTERN, 	Member: 	This 	case 	is before the Public
Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(PERB or 	Board) 	on an 	interlocutory
appeal by the 	Ramona 	Unified 	School 	District 	(District) 	of 	a
decision by a PERB administrative 	law 	judge 	(ALJ) 	finding 	that
deferral 	to an arbitrator's 	award 	is 	inappropriate because 	such
award 	is 	repugnant 	to the purposes 	of 	the 	Educational 	Employment
Relations Act 	(EERA or Act).1
PROCEDURAL 	SUMMARY
On October 11, 	1983, 	the Ramona Teachers Association
(Association or 	RTA) 	filed an unfair practice charge 	(LA-CE-1855)
alleging that, 	on September 6, 	1983, 	the District unilaterally
1EERA 	is 	codified at 	Government 	Code 	section 	3540 et 	seq.
Unless 	otherwise 	indicated, 	all 	statutory references 	herein are
to the Government 	Code.
1

• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	•
2
changed 	the wages, 	hours 	and terms 	and conditions of 	employment
of 	certain 	certificated 	employees. 	A complaint 	was 	issued by a
PERB regional attorney on November 	10, 	1983, 	finding that the
allegations 	set 	forth 	in 	the 	charge 	constituted 	a prima 	facie
violation of EERA section 3543.5(b) 	and 	( c ) . 2 Thereafter, 	the
District 	requested 	that 	the 	matter 	at 	issue be 	resolved 	through
the parties' 	negotiated arbitration procedures 	and, 	on
January 12, 	1984, 	a PERB ALJ granted the District's motion to
defer.
Arbitrator 	Donald 	T. 	Weckstein 	conducted a hearing 	on 	the
matters 	raised by 	the 	charge 	and 	issued his 	decision on
August 29, 	1984.
On October 9, 	1984, 	RTA filed the instant charge, 	Case No.
LA-CE-2066, 	seeking to revive portions of 	its prior charge, 	Case
No. 	LA-CE-1855, 	claiming that the arbitrator's decision was
repugnant 	to the Act.
A second PERB ALJ reviewed 	the parties' 	contentions 	and, 	on
March 27, 	1985, 	issued a proposed decision in which he 	found
that, 	in certain respects, 	the arbitrator's decision was
2Section 	3543.5 provides, 	in pertinent part:
It 	shall be unlawful 	for 	a public school
employer 	to:
(b) 	Deny to employee organizations 	rights
guaranteed 	to them by 	this 	chapter.
(c) 	Refuse or 	fail 	to meet and negotiate 	in
good 	faith 	with 	an 	exclusive 	representative.
2

3
3 3
deficient. 	He 	concluded 	that 	the 	arbitrator's 	award was
repugnant 	to the Act, 	making deferral 	inappropriate. 	He ordered
that a complaint should issue.3
Thereafter, 	the 	District 	requested 	that 	the 	ALJ permit 	an
interlocutory appeal 	to 	the 	Board 	itself 	on 	the 	repugnancy
issue. 	On April 17, 	1985, 	the ALJ granted the District's request
and 	certified 	the 	issue 	to the 	Board, 	staying 	further proceedings
on 	the unfair practice case.
Thus, 	the 	issue before the Board 	in the 	instant case 	is
whether 	deferral 	to 	the 	arbitrator's 	decision 	is 	appropriate.
FACTUAL 	SUMMARY
On September 6, 	1983, 	the District school board adopted
several 	items 	from 	the 	1983-84 	Proposed Budget 	Recommendations.
Among 	those 	items 	to which 	RTA voiced 	objections 	were 	the
reassignment of a librarian, 	"vacating" 	the positions 	of site
coordinator, 	and 	reassignment 	of 	a 	full-time program specialist.
In a 	letter 	to District 	Superintendent 	B. 	Ingram dated
September 	8, 	1983, 	RTA President Michael 	Harrelson advised 	that
the 	District 	must 	negotiate 	items 	which 	substantially alter
working 	conditions 	and salary. 	As 	he 	saw the above-delineated
changes as having such an effect, 	Harrelson 	"demand[ed] 	to
negotiate 	the 	impact 	of 	the 	1983-84 	Proposed Budget
Recommendations . 	. 	. 	."
3Such was 	issued by the general 	counsel on March 	27, 	1985.
W

4
Again, 	on September 19, 	1983, 	Harrelson wrote to Ingram
concerning 	the 	school 	board's 	action. 	That 	document 	sets 	forth
in detail 	RTA's 	understanding of 	the board's 	changes 	as 	they
affect 	individual employees. 	In summary, 	the changes outlined
were as 	follows:
1. 	Full-time 	Program 	Specialist 	Debbie 	Burke 	reassigned 	to
classroom vacancy with 	salary 	reduction 	for 	1984-85 	school 	year.
2. 	Debbie Kazmer, 	Linda Aubery, 	Michael Harrelson and Penny
Annicharico 	removed 	from positions 	as 	special 	education 	site
coordinators 	with salary reduction beginning October 	1, 	1983.
3. 	Director 	of 	State 	and Federal 	Projects 	Robert 	Cook,
teacher 	on special 	assignment, 	reassigned 	to a 	first grade
classroom. 	No 	salary 	reduction 	contemplated.
4. 	Position of coordinator of 	fine arts, 	held by Lorraine
Alperson, 	reduced 	to resource 	teacher. 	Manner of 	evaluation
changed 	and 	salary 	reduced 	beginning 	1984-85 	school 	year.
5. 	Coordinator 	of general 	curriculum Princess 	Ruck, 	teacher
on special 	assignment, 	moved 	into a managerial position.
6. 	Librarian 	(unnamed) 	at 	Ramona 	Intermediate 	School
reassigned 	to classroom 	teacher 	vacancy at 	same 	school. 	Vacancy
to be 	filled by 	classified 	employee.
7. 	Coordinator 	of special 	education Joe Annicharico,
teacher on special 	assignment, 	moved 	into managerial position.
8. 	District bilingual 	coordinator 	Carol Van Houten
reassigned 	to 	English as 	a 	second 	language 	classroom with 	salary
reduction 	to begin 	in 1984-85 	school year.

5
9. 	Bargaining unit 	employees 	serving more 	than one 	site 	to
be 	evaluated by principal 	at 	each 	site 	rather 	than one
supervisor.
Ingram 	responded 	to Harrelson's 	letter 	on September 	26,
1983, and 	took 	issue 	with some of 	RTA's 	understandings 	as 	to 	the
ramifications 	of 	the board's 	action. 	Still 	convinced 	that 	the
school board's 	action was 	improper, 	RTA filed its 	first 	unfair
practice charge 	in October. 	On November 10, 	1983, 	PERB issued a
complaint 	which 	essentially reiterated 	the 	specifics 	as 	listed
in RTA's 	letter 	to 	Ingrain.
Thereafter, 	in response to the 	issuance of 	the complaint,
the 	District 	made a 	request 	that 	the 	case be deferred 	to
arbitration. 	Upon review, 	the PERB ALJ determined 	that 	the
issues 	remaining between 	the parties 	be 	arbitrated. 	Pursuant 	to
this 	determination, 	the charge was 	dismissed and 	the dispute
proceeded 	to 	arbitration.
The 	arbitrator 	listed 	the 	following 	issues 	as 	those before
him:
1. 	Was 	the 	District prohibited by law or by
agreement 	of 	the parties 	from vacating
the positions 	of 	(a) 	Four Site
Coordinators, 	(b) 	the Program Specialist,
(c) 	the Director of State and Federal
Projects?
2. 	Was 	the District prohibited by law or by
agreement 	of 	the parties 	from transferring
the 	Librarian position at 	the 	Intermediate
School 	from 	certificated 	to 	classified
status?
5

6
3. 	Did 	the 	District 	deny to the Association
the 	right 	to bargain over 	the 	effects 	of
its 	decisions?
4. 	If 	any violations 	of 	law or agreement by
the District are 	found, 	what shall 	the
remedy 	be?
The arbitrator's 	decision contains 	a 	lengthy analysis 	of
these 	issues, 	including a detailed review of relevant PERB case
law.
The 	arbitrator 	first 	considered 	EERA's 	scope 	of
representation 	language as 	well 	as 	the 	Board's 	decision 	in
Anaheim Union High 	School 	District 	(1981) 	PERB Decision No.
177. 	With regard to the District's 	actions 	at 	issue here, 	he
continued:
. 	. 	. 	PERB has held that even though the
creation of 	a new work 	classification or 	the
abolition of 	an existing 	one 	are 	related 	to
the wages, 	hours, 	and terms and conditions of
employment 	in the 	new classification and 	to
those 	of 	employees 	transferred 	and 	reassigned
out 	of 	existing classifications, 	management
has 	an overriding 	interest 	in determining
which of 	its 	functions 	are 	necessary to the
accomplishment 	of 	its 	mission and which
functions 	no longer 	serve 	its 	purposes 	and
should be 	eliminated. 	Therefore, 	such actions
were 	considered 	managerial 	prerogatives 	and
not 	subject 	to negotiation. 	As 	stated by
PERB: 	"We conclude 	that where management
seeks 	to 	create 	a 	new classification 	to
perform a 	function 	not 	previously performed 	or
to 	abolish 	a 	classification and 	cease 	engaging
in 	the 	activity previously performed by
employees 	in that classification, 	it need not
negotiate 	its 	decision." 	Alum Rock 	Union
Elementary School 	District, 	PERB Decision No.
322 	(1983) 	at 11. 	PERB went on to hold,
however, 	that 	the 	transfer of 	existing
functions 	and duties 	from one 	classification
to another 	does 	not 	involve an overriding
managerial prerogative and, 	as 	transfers 	of
6

7
work between 	employees 	or 	groupings 	of
employees, 	or transfers of work out of 	the
bargaining unit, 	such decisions 	subject 	to
negotiation. . . .
Having 	reviewed 	relevant 	PERB precedent, 	the arbitrator
examined 	the 	District's 	conduct herein.
When 	these principles 	are 	applied 	to the
facts 	in the 	instant matter, 	it appears 	that
the 	District 	was 	within 	its 	management
prerogatives 	in eliminating 	the positions 	of
Program Specialist, 	Site Coordinator, 	and
Director 	of 	State 	and Federal 	Projects,
however, 	to the extent 	that 	the work
previously performed 	by 	the 	incumbents 	of 	the
Program 	Specialist 	and 	Site 	Coordinator
positions 	was 	transferred 	to 	other 	employees
within 	the 	unit 	or 	to managerial 	employees
outside of 	the unit, 	the decision becomes 	one
subject 	to negotiation. 	If 	the 	Director of
State and Federal 	Projects, 	while 	temporarily
held 	by a 	certified 	unit 	teacher-on-
assignment, 	was a managerial one, 	its
elimination or 	consolidation with 	the 	work 	of
an 	existing 	or 	newly 	created 	managerial
position would 	not 	give 	rise 	to a bargaining
obligation.
Part 	of 	the 	work 	previously performed by 	the
Site Coordinators, 	was, 	according to the
District, 	no longer 	necessary and 	simply
eliminated 	because 	the 	reorganization
eliminated 	the 	"school 	within a 	school"
concept 	whereby 	special 	education programs
within each school 	site 	were 	coordinated by a
Site 	Coordinator 	under 	the 	authority of 	a
central 	special 	education supervisor. 	Under
the present 	organization the 	Site 	Principal,
working 	under his 	or her 	normal 	line
supervisor, 	has 	responsibility for special
education as 	well 	as 	other 	educational
programs 	within his 	or her 	school.
Nevertheless, 	the Association's 	evidence
indicated 	that 	many of 	the 	functions
previously performed 	by 	Site 	Coordinators 	were
continued 	to be performed by at 	least 	three 	of
the 	four previous 	incumbents 	in 	their 	current
capacities 	as 	full-time 	special 	education
teachers, 	or by other 	teachers 	and counselors
7

• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	•
within the bargaining unit, 	or by the 	Site
Principal. 	Thus, 	the decision to eliminate
the 	Site 	Coordinators 	did have 	an 	impact 	upon
the 	working 	conditions 	of 	unit 	employees.
While 	the 	incumbent 	Program 	Specialist
continued 	to perform 	some 	transition
functions, 	for which she continued to receive
compensation, 	her 	functions 	were apparently
absorbed by counselors, 	within 	the bargaining
unit, 	and management 	officials 	not within the
bargaining 	unit. 	Under 	either 	interpretation,
the 	transfer of 	these 	functions 	did 	impact
upon hours 	and working 	conditions 	of
bargaining unit 	employees, 	as previously
explained 	in the PERB holdings, 	and would
have 	been 	subject 	to negotiation 	upon 	request
of 	the Association.
The other position affected, 	that of Librarian
at 	the 	Intermediate 	School 	also 	involved a
transfer 	from an 	existing 	certificated
position within 	the 	bargaining 	unit 	to a
classified position 	out 	of 	the 	bargaining
unit. 	Regardless 	of 	the status 	of the
temporary 	incumbent 	as 	a 	substitute 	teacher 	or
librarian, 	PERB decisions 	make clear 	that 	the
transfer of 	the 	functions 	of 	this position
from within 	the 	unit 	to out 	of 	the unit 	was
subject 	to negotiation upon 	request.
To sum up, 	the arbitrator determined, 	relying on his 	analysis
of 	PERB precedent, 	that 	the District's bargaining obligation was
as follows:
A. 	While 	the District 	exercised 	its 	managerial prerogative
to eliminate 	the positions 	of program specialist, 	site
coordinator and director of state and 	federal projects, 	it was
obligated 	to 	negotiate 	to 	the 	extent 	that 	the 	work 	(previously
performed 	by 	the program 	specialist 	and 	site 	coordinator) 	was
transferred 	to 	other 	employees 	within 	the 	unit 	or 	to managerial
employees 	outside 	the unit.
8

9
B. 	The 	District 	was 	obliged 	to negotiate 	the 	transfer of
the 	librarian position 	from a bargaining 	unit position 	to a
classified position outside 	the 	unit.
Having so concluded, 	the arbitrator 	considered 	the scope of
RTA's 	demand 	to negotiate. 	He 	first 	noted that:
. 	. 	. 	even if the various personnel actions
taken by the 	District on September 	6, 	1983 	in
eliminating positions 	and 	determining 	its
staffing 	levels 	and 	levels 	of 	service 	in
accordance 	with 	its 	fiscal 	limitations 	were
regarded 	as 	management prerogatives 	and 	not
subject 	to negotiation with 	the 	association,
the 	impact 	of such decisions 	are 	clearly
subject 	to 	the meet 	and negotiation process,
upon request of the Association. 	. 	. 	.
He next 	reviewed 	the precise nature of 	RTA's 	requests.
While 	there was 	some 	testimony at 	the hearings
and 	some 	assertions 	made by 	the 	Association's
representives 	[sic] 	that 	they had demanded 	to
bargain on 	the 	actions 	themselves 	taken by the
District on September 6, 	1983, 	it is unclear
whether 	these were 	in 	fact demands 	to bargain
or 	were 	simply objections 	to the actions 	being
taken, 	as 	they were sometimes 	characterized,
or 	whether 	the 	Association 	specifically 	sought
to bargain over 	the decisions 	themselves
rather 	than 	their 	impact 	on 	represented
personnel 	in the unit. 	Since 	the memorandum
of September 8, 	1983, 	specifically refers 	to
a demand 	to negotiate 	"the 	impact" 	of 	the
actions 	taken, 	it 	is 	likely that 	the specific
request 	to bargain made by 	the 	Association
was 	directed to 	the 	impact 	of 	the 	actions
taken on September 	6. 	This 	conclusion 	is
supported by the 	statement 	of 	the 	issues 	in
the Association's 	Post-hearing 	Brief as:
"Was 	the Association denied 	the 	right 	to
bargain the 	effects 	and 	impact 	of 	the
District's 	Decisions?"
The 	arbitrator 	rejected 	the 	District's 	argument 	that:
. . . 	it 	should be 	relieved 	of 	any such
obligation because 	the 	union has 	failed 	to

• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	•
present 	any proposals 	addressed 	to 	the
reasonably foreseeable adverse affects, 	if
any, 	of 	the 	District's 	September 	6th actions
The 	law, 	as 	interpreted by PERB and 	the
courts, 	however, 	does not impose any
obligation on 	the Association 	to make 	specific
proposals 	but only requires 	that 	it make 	clear
its 	desire 	to negotiate over 	the 	impact 	of 	the
District's 	action. 	See Newman-Crows 	Landing
Unified School 	District, 	supra, 	at 	7-8 where
PERB 	found 	that 	the 	bargaining 	representative
only 	requested 	to 	negotiate 	a 	layoff 	decision
itself but not 	the effects 	of the 	layoff, 	and
noted 	that 	"while 	it 	is 	not 	essential 	that a
request 	to negotiate be 	specific or made 	in a
particular 	form, 	. . . 	it 	is 	important 	for 	the
charging party 	to have 	signified 	its 	desire 	to
negotiate to the employer by some means. 	. 	. 	.
In other words, 	a valid request will be 	found,
regardless 	of 	its 	form or 	the words 	used, 	if
it 	adequately signifies 	a desire 	to negotiate
on a 	subject 	within 	the 	scope of 	bargaining."
In the 	instant case, 	the converse 	facts appear
to be 	established by the 	evidence. 	That 	is,
that 	the Association did not 	make 	clear 	its
desire 	to negotiate 	the 	management 	actions
themselves, 	but did make clear 	its desire 	to
negotiate 	the 	effects 	of 	them upon matters
within the scope of bargaining. 	. 	. 	.
After a 	lengthy analysis, 	the arbitrator 	concluded:
Accordingly, 	it 	is 	further 	concluded that
the 	District 	in 	the 	instant matter has
violated 	the 	rights 	of 	the Association and
the 	employees 	it 	represents 	by refusing to
meet 	and negotiate with 	the Association
regarding 	the 	impact 	and 	effect 	of 	the
District's 	September 	6, 	1983 actions
vacating 	or 	eliminating 	the 	Site 	Coordinator,
Program Specialist, 	and Director of 	State and
Federal 	Projects 	positions 	and 	assigning 	some
or 	all 	of 	the 	functions 	of 	those positions 	to
other personnel within the District, 	and
removing 	the 	Librarian position 	at 	the
Intermediate 	School 	from a 	certificated 	unit
to a classified position. 	. 	. 	.
10

The 	gravamen of 	the Association's 	repugnancy claim rests 	on
the 	inadequacy of 	the arbitrator's 	remedy. 	Specifically, 	the
arbitrator 	found:
. 	. 	. 	It is not an appropriate remedy,
however, 	to order 	that 	the various 	Grievants
be 	reinstated 	to 	the positions 	from which 	they
were 	removed by 	the 	challenged personnel
actions. 	. 	. 	. 	the District's management
prerogatives 	included 	the 	right 	to determine
the 	level 	of 	services 	and number 	of positions
that 	it 	would authorize and 	fill 	to perform
such services. 	Since 	it was 	further held 	that
the 	Association 	is 	only entitled 	to an order
requiring 	the 	District 	to meet 	and 	negotiate
regarding 	the 	impact 	of 	these decisions,
rather 	than the decisions 	themselves, 	it would
invade 	the prerogatives 	of 	the 	District 	for
the 	Association 	to propose 	that 	the 	District
be 	required 	to 	reinstate 	the 	employees 	in
positions 	now vacated 	or 	eliminated by 	its
authorized 	actions. 	. . .
He also concluded as 	follows:
Since 	the 	District has 	been 	found 	to have
violated 	the Association's 	and 	the 	Grievants'
statutory rights 	to negotiate 	the 	impact 	of
the personnel actions 	challenged herein, 	and
since 	the 	Grievants' 	negotiated benefits 	and
professional 	advantages 	may have 	been 	reduced
or eliminated as part of such impact, 	it 	is
appropriate 	to award 	that 	the 	District 	meet
and 	negotiate 	the 	impact 	of 	such personnel
changes 	with 	the Association and 	cease 	and
desist 	from 	failing 	to 	recognize 	the
Association's 	rights 	to so represent 	the
members 	of 	the bargaining unit 	through such
negotiations. . . .
At 	an earlier point 	in the decision, 	the arbitrator expounded
on the purpose 	of 	the 	impact 	negotiations:
Since 	the 	undersigned 	arbitrator has 	already
found 	that 	the 	District has 	failed 	to meet 	and
negotiate 	with 	the 	Association 	concerning 	the
impact 	of 	the personnel 	reassignments
challenged herein, 	it would appear 	that 	such
11

impact 	would 	clearly 	include 	any 	reduction or
elimination 	of 	such 	benefits 	and professional
advantages. 	Therefore, 	it may be assumed that
the Maintenance of Benefits 	clause 	in Article
XIX has 	been 	violated by 	the 	District's 	action
and 	the 	extent 	of 	such 	violations, 	as 	well 	as
the 	redress 	thereof, 	should be determined
through 	negotiations 	between 	the parties
regarding 	the 	impact 	of 	the personnel 	changes
challenged 	in 	this 	proceeding.4
DISCUSSION
The 	issue before 	the Board 	is 	whether 	the ALJ was 	correct 	in
reaching his 	conclusion 	that 	deferral 	to 	the 	arbitrator's 	award
is 	inappropriate 	in this 	case because 	the award 	is 	repugnant 	to
the purposes 	of 	EERA.5 The 	Board has 	considered 	the 	question
4Article XIX of the parties' 	agreement provides:
The 	Board 	shall 	not 	reduce or 	eliminate 	any
negotiable 	benefits 	or 	negotiable 	professional
advantages 	which were 	enjoyed by 	teachers 	as
of 	the 	effective date 	of 	this 	Agreement 	unless
otherwise provided by the 	express 	terms 	of
this Agreement.
5Section 	3541.5(a) 	instructs 	that 	PERB may not:
. 	. 	. 	issue a complaint against conduct also
prohibited by the provisions 	of 	the 	agreement
between 	the parties 	until 	the grievance
machinery of the agreement, 	if 	it exists 	and
covers 	the matter at 	issue, 	has been
exhausted, 	either by settlement 	or binding
arbitration. 	However, 	when the charging
party demonstrates 	that 	resort 	to contract
grievance procedure 	would be 	futile,
exhaustion 	shall 	not be necessary. 	The
board 	shall 	have 	discretionary 	jurisdiction
to 	review such settlement 	or 	arbitration
award 	reached pursuant 	to 	the 	grievance
machinery 	solely 	for 	the purpose 	of
determining whether 	it 	is 	repugnant 	to 	the
purposes of this 	chapter. 	If the board
finds 	that 	such 	settlement 	or 	arbitration
12

of 	repugnancy 	in earlier 	decisions. 	Dry 	Creek Joint 	Elementary
School District 	(1980) 	PERB Order No. 	Ad-81a; 	and Los Angeles
Unified School District 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	218. 	Those
opinions 	indicate 	that 	the policy of deferral 	is 	appropriately
invoked 	in 	those 	situations 	where 	the 	Board may have 	reached 	a
contrary 	legal 	conclusion or 	ordered 	a different 	remedy 	than did
the 	arbitrator.
award 	is 	repugnant 	to the purposes 	of 	this
chapter, 	it shall 	issue a complaint on the
basis 	of a 	timely 	filed charge, 	and hear and
decide the case on the merits; 	otherwise, 	it
shall dismiss 	the charge. 	The board shall,
in determining whether 	the 	charge was 	timely
filed, 	consider 	the six-month 	limitation set
forth 	in 	this 	subdivision 	to have been
tolled during 	the 	time 	it 	took 	the 	charging
party to 	exhaust 	the 	grievance 	machinery.
In Los Angeles, 	supra, 	for example, 	the Board dismissed the
union's 	claim 	that 	the 	arbitrator's 	award 	was 	repugnant 	to 	EERA
because he 	found 	that 	the 	union waived 	its 	right 	to contest 	the
change 	in parking 	locations. 	Noting 	that 	the arbitrator's
finding 	of 	waiver 	was 	based on his 	review of 	the 	contract
language, 	bargaining history and past practice, 	the Board
remarked:
The possibility 	that 	this 	Board 	may have
reached 	a 	different 	conclusion 	in 	interpreting
the parties' 	agreement 	and 	the 	evidence does
not 	render 	the 	award 	unreasonable 	or
repugnant.
In contrast 	to the Los Angeles 	case, 	the circumstances 	at
issue 	in Dry Creek, 	supra, 	caused the Board to conclude that
13

deferral was 	inappropriate. 	There, 	as 	in the instant case, 	the
issue 	concerned 	the 	unilateral 	reduction of 	salaries. 	While
acknowledging past 	Board 	decisions 	ordering 	resumption 	of 	the
status 	quo to remedy bad 	faith negotiations, 	the arbitrator
considered himself 	without 	authority 	to 	restore 	the 	teachers'
salary cuts. 	The Board 	found that:
. 	. 	. 	the remedy provided by the arbitrator
is 	so deficient 	as 	to 	justify a 	finding 	that
the award 	is 	repugnant 	to the purposes 	of 	the
EERA.
While 	the 	Board will 	not 	necessarily 	find 	an
award 	repugnant 	because 	it 	would have
provided 	a different 	remedy 	than 	that
afforded by the arbitrator, 	it may well so
consider 	an award 	which 	fails 	to protect 	the
essential 	and 	fundamental 	principles 	of 	good
faith negotiations.
PERB has 	ruled 	that 	unilateral 	alterations 	of
existing wages, 	hours 	and enumerated terms 	and
conditions 	of 	employment 	without 	affording 	the
exclusive 	representative 	the 	opportunity 	to
negotiate on such matters 	violate 	the Act.
Beyond that, 	however, 	PERB has made it
clear—and 	now 	reiterates—that 	good 	faith
negotiations 	cannot 	and 	should 	not proceed
until the status quo is restored. 	. 	. 	.
. 	. 	. 	[the arbitrator's] 	failure to supply
such a remedy, 	if allowed to stand, 	would
throw 	the parties 	negotiating 	relationship
into an 	imbalance 	that 	would 	necessarily
frustrate 	the Act's 	intent 	that 	negotiations
proceed 	in good 	faith. 	It has 	been the
consistent position of 	this 	Board 	that
unilateral actions, 	such as 	those alleged
here, 	inherently interfere with, 	restrain,
and coerce 	employees 	in the 	exercise of 	their
statutory representation 	rights 	as 	well 	as
the 	rights 	of the employee organization. 	The
arbitrator's 	remedy, 	which only directs 	that
the parties 	enter 	into negotiations, 	would
therefore require 	that 	the employees 	and
their 	representative 	enter 	negotiations 	on
14

the 	basis 	of 	first 	surrendering 	fundamental
statutory rights 	to bargain 	in good 	faith.
(Footnotes 	omitted.)
In our opinion, much 	the 	same 	could be 	said 	about 	the 	instant
case. 	While his decision 	is not devoid of some ambiguity, 	at a
minimum, 	the 	arbitrator 	clearly concluded 	that 	RTA requested 	to
negotiate 	the 	effects 	of 	the personnel 	actions 	and 	the 	District
failed 	to do so. 	While noting that 	the employees' 	negotiated
benefits 	and professional 	advantages 	may have been 	reduced 	or
eliminated as part 	of 	the 	impact of 	the personnel 	changes, 	his
order 	only 	instructed 	that 	the 	District 	and 	RTA
meet 	and negotiate 	to what 	extent 	the
[employees] have 	lost wages 	or benefits 	as 	a
result 	of 	the District's 	actions 	and attempt
to agree 	upon a 	fair 	remedy 	for 	any such
losses.
As was 	the case 	in Dry Creek, 	supra, 	this order only directs
that 	the parties 	enter 	into imbalanced negotiations. 	Thus, 	to
the 	extent 	that 	the 	arbitrator 	found 	the 	District's 	personnel
actions 	to have unilaterally changed the employees' 	wages, 	such
lost 	compensation 	and benefits 	should have 	been 	restored by
order 	of 	the 	arbitrator 	rather 	than to direct 	that 	the parties
somehow negotiate 	over 	the 	lost 	wages 	in an 	"attempt 	to agree
upon a fair remedy . 	. 	. 	."
In keeping with past Board practice, 	our 	conclusion that 	the
arbitrator's 	award 	is 	repugnant 	to 	EERA does 	not 	rest 	on
differing views 	of 	legal 	issues 	as 	yet 	undecided by the Board or
on 	factual 	disagreements. 	Our 	decision 	today rests 	on 	the
arbitrator's 	failure 	to order 	the 	District 	to restore 	employees'
15

salaries 	which he 	found 	to have 	been 	unilaterally altered 	by 	the
District. 	In 	finding 	the arbitrator's 	award 	to be 	repugnant 	to
the purposes 	of 	the Act, 	we do not 	order 	restoration of altered
salaries 	but 	rely on 	the 	Board's 	normal 	case processing
procedures. 	After 	an evidentiary hearing 	is 	conducted 	in 	Case
No. 	LA-CE-2066, 	a PERB ALJ will 	then 	issue a proposed decision,
which may 	include 	an 	appropriate 	remedy warranted 	by 	the
established 	facts.
ORDER
After 	full 	review of 	the 	record before 	us 	in 	the 	instant
case, 	we 	find 	the arbitrator's 	award 	to be repugnant 	to the
purposes 	of 	the 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Act 	and 	ORDER
that 	the 	chief 	administrative 	law 	judge proceed 	to process 	the
complaint 	issued on March 27, 	1985 	in Case No. 	LA-CE-2066.
Chairperson Hesse 	and Member 	Burt 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
16