El Dorado Union High School District (PERB 0537E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
EL 	DORADO 	UNION HIGH 	SCHOOL 	DISTRICT,
Charging 	Party,
v.
EL DORADO UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
FACULTY ASSOCIATION,
Respondent.
)
)
) 	Case No. 	S-CO-117
PERB 	Decision 	No. 	537
December 	2, 	1985
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances: 	Girard 	& 	Griffin by Thomas 	M. 	Griffin 	for 	the 	El
Dorado Union High School 	District; 	Beeson, 	Tayer & Bodine by
Neil 	Bodine 	for 	the 	El 	Dorado Union High 	School 	District 	Faculty
Association.
Before Hesse, 	Chairperson; Jaeger and Burt, 	Members.
DECISION
JAEGER, 	Member: 	The 	El 	Dorado Union High School 	District
(District) excepts, 	inter alia, 	to the finding, 	attached
hereto, 	of 	a Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board administrative
law 	judge 	(ALJ) 	that 	the El 	Dorado Union High 	School 	District
Faculty Association 	(Association) 	did not 	violate 	the
Educational 	Employment 	Relations Act 	(EERA or Act) l when 	it
picketed 	the 	school 	site 	during 	the 	period 	from 	8:00 	to
8:30 	a.m.
The ALJ's 	findings 	of 	fact 	and 	conclusions 	of 	law have been
reviewed and, 	except as 	modified, 	are adopted here. 	For
purpose 	of 	clarity, 	certain of 	these 	findings 	and 	conclusions
are 	summarized here.
1EERA 	is 	codified at 	Government 	Code 	section 	3540 	et
seq. 	Unless 	otherwise 	indicated, 	all 	statutory references
herein are 	to 	the 	Government 	Code.
______)

2
The parties' 	agreement provides 	that 	the teachers 	are 	to
report 	"30 minutes 	prior 	to their 	first 	scheduled assignment"
and are 	to be 	"available 	for 	student 	conferences, 	parent
conferences, 	and other professional 	responsibilities 	during
duty time 	. 	. 	. 	[and for] campus supervision . 	. 	. 	." 	The
period 	involved 	is 	from 	8:00 	to 	8:30 	a.m.
2. 	The Association, 	to put pressure on the District during
the 	latter 	stages 	of 	negotiation, 	instigated 	a program which
included picketing 	the school 	sites 	during 	the 	30-minute period
preceding 	the beginning of 	classes. 	The picketing was
conducted 	on a public 	street 	that 	bisected 	the 	school 	campus.
3. 	Some 	teachers 	on picket 	duty did 	confer 	with students
during this 	time, 	some in the school hallway and, 	on one
occasion, 	on the lawn outside 	the school. 	There 	is 	no credible
evidence 	that 	any teacher 	failed 	to perform the 	duties
specified 	in 	the agreement.
4. 	There were no guidelines 	as 	to where 	the teachers were
to be during the 	30-minute period. 	Some 	spent 	the 	time 	in
classrooms, 	some 	in the lounge where they discussed sports. 	A
previous 	effort 	by one 	school principal 	to 	require 	the 	teachers
to report 	to their 	classrooms 	during 	this 	time 	failed.
In dismissing this part of the charge, 	the ALJ analogized
the picketing 	to union organizing 	conducted 	in 	non-work 	areas
prior 	to the beginning of 	classes, 	activity which the Board has
found 	to be protected.2N
2See 	Long Beach Unified 	School 	District 	(1980) 	PERB
Decision No. 	130.
2

The 	District 	argues 	that 	the ALJ 	erred 	in 	finding 	that 	the
teachers 	were on duty while 	they were picketing. 	It 	further
claims 	that 	the ALJ 	improperly 	failed 	to 	consider 	whether 	the
picketing 	violated 	regulations 	of 	the 	State 	Board 	of
3	Education.3w
In another 	exception, 	the District argues 	that 	the ALJ
erred 	in 	concluding 	that 	administrators 	who performed 	certain
work boycotted by the 	teachers 	are 	not 	entitled 	to
reimbursement by the Association.4
DISCUSSION
At 	the outset, 	the Board does 	not 	consider 	the question
before 	it 	to be whether the picketing, 	in itself, 	violated the
Act.5 The 	facts here present 	a novel 	question concerning 	the
limits 	of 	arguably protected 	activity where 	employee-picketers
do not 	report 	to the employer's 	work place, 	but nevertheless
continue 	to provide 	the 	services 	required 	of 	them.
The 	contract provision that 	teachers 	"report 	for 	duty" 	and
"be 	available" 	must 	surely mean 	that 	they be present 	within 	the
school 	facility. 	We 	think 	that, 	absent 	some clear 	contractual
3Board 	of Education Regulation 5570 	(5 Cal. 	Admin. 	Code
No. 	5570) 	requires 	teachers 	to report to school 	30 minutes
prior 	to the beginning of classes.
4 The 	ALJ 	found 	the boycott, 	a teacher action taken as
part 	of 	the 	Association 	strategy but 	otherwise 	not 	connected 	to
the picketing and 	the 	subject 	of a separate allegation, 	to have
violated 	the Act.
5But 	see 	Fresno Unified 	School 	District 	(1982) 	PERB
Decision No. 	208.
33

or 	statutory authority to 	the 	contrary, 	employees 	may not
assert 	a protected 	right 	to determine 	for 	themselves 	where 	they
will perform required 	duties.
In 	San 	Ramon Valley Unified 	School 	District 	(1984) 	PERB
Order No. 	IR-46, 	the Board, 	following federal precedent, 	held
that 	a partial 	withholding of 	services 	denies 	the 	employer 	the
opportunity to 	"defend 	itself" 	against 	the action, 	and 	is
therefore 	unprotected. 	Here, 	although 	the 	teachers 	may not
have 	actually withheld 	the 	services 	to be performed 	during 	the
pre-class 	period, 	their 	insistence 	upon performing 	them off
school premises has 	the 	similar potential 	of denying 	the
District 	the 	opportunity to accommodate 	itself 	to 	the 	teachers'
action.
The 	evidence 	shows 	that 	although 	District policy permitted
teachers 	to choose 	where in the 	school 	they spent 	the 	30-minute
period, 	there was 	a paging 	system 	for 	contacting 	them when
needed, 	and there was a telephone in the teachers' 	lounge.6
Thus, 	the 	District 	could readily meet 	its 	obligations 	to
student and parent 	needs. 	It would not be 	reasonable 	to 	impose
on 	the 	District 	the obligation to search out 	teachers 	who claim
that 	they are available 	for duties 	that 	arise, 	but 	who are
actually away 	from the 	school 	site 	itself. 	Here 	it 	appears
that 	the 	teachers 	were picketing 	just 	outside 	the 	school
entrance, 	but 	the 	Board must 	consider 	the possibility that 	in
any given case picketing may occur 	at 	a 	variety of 	locations,
6Evidence 	was 	offered 	at 	the hearing 	that 	at 	some 	time
prior 	to 	these 	events, 	employees 	who had 	absented 	themselves
from the 	school 	during 	the pre-class 	period 	were disciplined.
4
6
4

and at varying distances 	from the site, 	making 	it 	impractical
to 	contact 	them 	should 	the 	need 	for 	their 	services 	arise.
We 	also 	find 	analogy 	in 	Palos 	Verdes 	Peninsula 	Unified
School District 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	195. 	There, 	the Board
concluded that 	the 	teachers' 	refusal 	to give 	"discretionary"
final 	examinations 	as 	part 	of 	its 	bargaining 	strategy
constituted a partial 	work 	stoppage. 	The 	Board 	reasoned 	that
implicit 	in the teachers' 	discretionary freedom, 	was 	the
exercise of an educational 	judgment. 	Here, 	implicit 	in the
teachers' 	discretionary choice of location 	in which to perform
required pre-class 	services 	is 	the 	student-oriented 	requirement
that 	they be available 	in 	the 	school. 	Because 	their 	choice was
based solely on 	their 	bargaining 	strategy, 	we 	find 	it 	to be 	a
partial work 	stoppage 	and 	a violation of 	section 	3543.6(c) 	of
7
the 	Act.7 For 	the 	foregoing reasons, 	we 	reject 	the 	related
findings 	and 	conclusions 	of 	the ALJ.
Upon 	review of 	the 	District's 	exception 	to 	the 	finding 	that
school 	administrators 	who performed 	certain boycotted 	work 	were
not 	entitled 	to remuneration by the 	Association, 	the Board
adopts 	the ALJ's 	related 	findings 	and 	conclusions 	as 	its 	own.
7Although 	the 	California 	Supreme 	Court 	in County
Sanitation District No. 	2 of 	Los Angeles 	County v. 	Los Angeles
County Employees Association, 	Local 660, 	SEIU, 	AFL-CIO, 	et al.
(1985) 	Cal. 	3d 	found 	certain public 	employee 	strikes
not 	to violate 	State 	law, 	it has 	not addressed 	the 	Board's
holdings 	that 	partial 	strikes 	are 	unprotected 	and 	constitute
unfair 	labor practices. 	See also San Diego Teachers Assn. v.
Superior Court 	(1979) 	24 Cal. 	3d 1 [154 Cal. 	Rptr. 	893].
55

findings and conclusions as 	its own. 	We add, 	however, 	with
respect 	to 	the 	District's 	claim 	that 	the picketing 	violated 	the
Education Code, 	that PERB is 	without 	authority or obligation to
administer 	the 	regulations 	of other 	State agencies. 	Its 	duty
here 	is 	to determine 	if 	the Association's 	activities 	violated
EERA.
Finally, 	the Board refrains 	from 	finding 	that 	the
Association's 	actions 	violated section 	3543.6(d) 	of 	the Act.
Such a 	finding 	would 	carry 	the 	unwarranted 	implication 	that 	a
partial 	work 	stoppage, 	activity which has 	been 	found 	to be
unlawful 	in and 	of 	itself,8 would be protected 	if 	conducted
after 	the 	exhaustion of 	statutory 	impasse proceedings.
ORDER
Based on the entire 	record 	in this 	case, 	the Public
Employment 	Relations 	Board ORDERS 	that 	the 	El 	Dorado Union High
School 	District 	Faculty Association 	shall:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM VIOLATING SECTIONS 	3543.6(c) 	OF
THE EDUCATIONAL EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS ACT BY:
1. 	refusing 	to report 	to the 	El 	Dorado Unified High 	School
District 	premises 	during 	the period 	from 	8:00 	a.m. 	to 	8:30 	a.m.
for 	the purpose 	of being available 	for 	such duties 	as 	may be
required, 	thereby engaging 	in a partial work stoppage;
2. 	instigating, 	encouraging, 	or engaging in an employee
boycott 	of 	required 	extra-curricular duties, 	thereby engaging
in an unlawful partial work 	stoppage.
8Palos 	Verdes 	Peninsula 	Unified 	School 	District 	(1982)
PERB Decision No. 	195, 	supra.
66

B. 	TAKE 	THE 	FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE 	THE PURPOSES 	OF 	THE 	EDUCATIONAL 	EMPLOYMENT
RELATIONS ACT:
1. 	Within thirty-five 	(35) 	days 	following 	the date 	this
Decision 	is 	no longer 	subject 	to reconsideration, 	post at 	all
work 	locations 	where 	Association notices 	to 	employees
customarily are placed, 	copies 	of 	the Notice attached as 	an
Appendix hereto, 	signed by an authorized 	agent 	of 	the
Association. 	Such posting shall be 	maintained 	for 	a period of
thirty 	(30) 	consecutive workdays. 	Reasonable steps 	shall be
taken 	to 	insure 	that 	this 	Notice 	is 	not 	reduced 	in size,
defaced, 	altered 	or 	covered by any material.
2. 	Written notification of 	the 	actions 	taken 	to comply
with 	this 	Order 	shall 	be made 	to the 	regional 	director 	of 	the
Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	in 	accordance 	with his
instructions.
Member 	Burt 	joined 	in this 	Decision.
Chairperson Hesse's 	concurrence begins 	on page 	8.
7
7

Hesse, Chairperson, 	concurring: 	Although I concur 	in the
result 	reached by the majority, 	I do so 	for 	the reasons 	set
forth below.
The parties 	do not dispute 	that, 	at 	the time the 	teachers
engaged 	in picketing, 	they were still 	in the process 	of
negotiations 	for a new contract. 	There was 	no evidence 	that
the Association's 	activities 	were 	in 	response 	to an unfair
practice committed by the District. 	Indeed, 	the Association's
strategy was 	seen by both sides 	as 	a 	"pressure 	tactic," 	used 	to
try 	to secure 	favorable 	concessions 	from 	the 	District 	during
negotiations.
Given 	those particular 	facts, 	this 	Board would have 	little
trouble 	concluding 	that 	a 	full 	strike would be 	in violation of
EERA.1 But here, 	the Association claims 	that 	its 	members
were not striking. 	Rather, 	it 	is 	argued they were engaged 	in
picketing but 	continued 	to perform 	their 	assigned 	duties.
I 	find 	this 	distinction without merit. 	The 	teachers 	were
to be 	on 	campus 	and 	available 	at 	8:00 	a.m., 	thirty minutes
before classes began. 	That 	the teachers 	were 	"available"
even though they were picketing 	is 	immaterial. 	It 	is 	the
District 	that 	reserves 	the 	right 	to make 	work assignments
during 	the 	school 	day, 	and 	the 	District 	did not 	assign 	the
1Fresno Unified 	School 	District 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No.
208; 	San Mateo City School District 	(1985) 	PERB Order No. 	IR-48.
2See 	footnote 	4 	infra.
8

teachers 	to picket. 	Indeed, 	it most vigorously objected 	to the
employees' 	picketing. 	Thus, 	the teachers were engaged in a
partial 	strike, 	one unprotected by this 	Board.3 The
Association was 	certainly not 	bargaining 	in good 	faith or
participating 	in 	impasse procedures 	by such action.4
The majority opinion 	reference 	to a 	recent decision of 	the
California Supreme Court 	is 	unnecessary, 	as 	a partial strike
under 	EERA is 	not 	comparable 	to a 	full 	strike under a 	statute
that provides 	neither 	for oversight by a state agency, 	nor 	for
impasse resolution procedures. 	Thus, 	in reaching this
decision, 	I rely solely upon our own case law, 	which gives
precedent 	enough 	to 	reach 	the proper 	result.
3Palos 	Verde 	Peninsula 	Unified 	School 	District 	(1982)
PERB Decision No. 	195. 	Instructive 	in that decision is 	the
phrase 	that
Employees 	may not pick 	and 	choose 	the 	work
they wish 	to do even 	though 	their 	action 	is
in 	support 	of 	legitimate 	negotiating
interest. 	Accepting 	full pay for 	their
services 	implies 	a willingness 	to provide
full service. 	(Id. p. 	10.)
4Although 	we 	do not have 	the authority to rule on
violations 	of 	regulations 	promulgated by agencies 	other 	than
PERB, 	we note 	that 	Department 	of Education Regulation 5570
cited by the majority is 	incomplete. 	The 	relevant part 	reads;
Unless 	otherwise provided by rule 	of 	the
governing board of 	the 	school 	district^
teachers 	are 	required 	to be present 	at 	their
respective 	rooms, 	and to open them for
admission of 	the pupils, 	not 	less 	than 30
minutes 	before 	the 	time prescribed 	for
commencing school. 	(Emphasis 	added.)
99

APPENDIX
NOTICE 	TO 	EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
An Agency of 	the 	State 	of 	California
After 	a hearing 	in Unfair Practice Case No. 	S-CO-117,
El 	Dorado Union High 	School 	District 	v. 	El 	Dorado Union High
School 	District 	Faculty Association, in which all parties 	had
the 	opportunity 	to participate, it has 	been 	found 	that 	the
El 	Dorado Union High 	School 	District 	Faculty Association
violated 	sections 	3543.6(c) 	of 	the 	Educational 	Employment
Relations 	Act 	by 	failing 	to meet 	and negotiate 	in good 	faith
with 	the 	El 	Dorado 	Union High 	School 	District by refusing 	to
report 	to the 	El 	Dorado Union High 	School premises 	during 	the
period 	from 	8:00 	a.m 	to 	8:30 	a.m. 	for 	the purpose 	of 	being
available 	for 	such duties 	as 	may be 	required, 	thereby engaging
in an unlawful partial work 	stoppage, 	and by instigating,
encouraging, 	or 	engaging 	in a boycott 	of 	required
extra-curricular duties. 	As 	a result of 	this 	conduct, 	we have
been ordered 	to post 	this 	Notice 	and will 	abide 	by the
following. 	We will:
CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
A. 	Failing 	to meet 	and 	negotiate 	in good 	faith with 	the
El 	Dorado 	Union 	High 	School 	District 	by refusing 	to 	report 	to
school 	premises 	during 	the period 	from 	8:00 	a.m. 	to 	8:30 	a.m.
for 	the purpose of being 	available 	for 	such duties 	as 	may be
required;
B. 	Instigating, 	encouraging, 	or engaging in a boycott of
required 	extra-curricular 	duties.
Dated: 	EL 	DORADO UNION HIGH SCHOOL
FACULTY 	ASSOCIATION
By: Authorized 	Representative
THIS 	IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE. 	IT MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR AT
LEAST THIRTY 	(30) 	CONSECUTIVE WORKDAYS 	FROM THE DATE OF
POSTING AND MUST NOT BE REDUCED IN SIZE, 	DEFACED, 	ALTERED OR
COVERED 	BY ANY MATERIAL.
~

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
EL DORADO UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT.
Charging 	Party.
V.
EL 	DORADO UNION HIGH 	SCHOOL 	DISTRICT
FACULTY ASSOCIATION.
Respondent.
)
) 	Unfair 	Practice
Case No. 	S-CO-117
PROPOSED DECISION
(6/28/85)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances: 	Girard 	& Griffin by Thomas M. 	Griffin. 	Attorney
for 	the El Dorado Union High School District; 	Beeson, 	Tayer 	&
Bodine 	by Neil 	P. 	Bodine, 	Attorney for 	the El Dorado Union High
School 	District 	Faculty Association.
Before Ronald E. 	Blubaugh. 	Administrative Law Judge.
PROCEDURAL 	HISTORY
The 	exclusive 	representative 	is 	accused 	here 	of 	instigating
unlawful 	job actions 	in violation of 	the duty to 	negotiate 	in
good 	faith and 	prior 	to 	the 	exhaustion 	of 	the 	statutory 	impasse
resolution procedures. 	Specifically, 	it 	is 	contended 	that
contrary to 	the 	negotiated 	agreement, 	the union organized 	a
concerted 	refusal 	by 	teachers 	to 	participate 	in 	required 	extra
assignments 	and, 	on two occasions, 	a 	concerted 	refusal 	to 	begin
their 	duties 	30 minutes 	before 	the 	start 	of 	the 	first 	teaching
period.
The 	exclusive 	representative 	does 	not 	deny 	its 	role 	in 	the
concerted 	activities 	but 	rejects 	the 	contention 	that 	the
actions 	were 	contrary 	to 	the 	negotiated 	agreement. 	The union
This Board agent decision has been appealed to
the Board itself and is not final. 	Only to the
extent the Board itself adopts this decision and
rationale may it be cited as precedent.
____________ )

contends 	that 	no 	required 	duties were 	involved 	in 	the 	concerted
activity 	and 	thus 	its 	conduct 	did 	not 	amount 	to 	an unfair
practice.
The 	charge which 	commenced 	this 	action was 	filed 	on October
19. 	1984. 	by the El Dorado Union High School District
(hereafter District) 	against 	the El 	Dorado Union High School
District Faculty Association 	(hereafter Association 	or 	union).
The 	charge 	alleges 	that 	the Association 	instigated 	a 	concerted
refusal 	to 	perform 	required 	duties 	including 	a 	30-minute
"strike" 	at El Dorado High School. 	In addition to the
Association, 	the 	charge 	also 	named 	the 	California 	Teachers
Association as 	a 	respondent.
On December 21. 	1984, 	the Sacramento Regional Attorney of
the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(hereafter 	PERB)
dismissed 	the 	allegations 	against 	the 	California 	Teachers
Association 	but 	issued 	a 	complaint 	against 	the El 	Dorado Union
High 	School 	District 	Faculty Association. 	The 	complaint
alleges 	that the Association on October 	8 and 	10. 	1984.
authorized 	and 	instigated 	a 	refusal 	by 	the 	teachers 	at 	El
Dorado High 	School 	to 	begin 	their 	duties 	30 minutes 	prior 	to
their 	first 	scheduled 	assignment 	as 	required 	by 	the 	collective
bargaining agreement. 	As 	a 	separate 	count, 	the 	complaint also
alleges 	that 	during 	the 	period 	of 	September 	12 	through October
12, 	1984, 	the Association authorized 	and 	instigated a 	concerted
refusal 	by 	teachers 	to 	serve 	extra 	assignments 	as 	required 	by
2

the negotiated 	agreement. 	Both actions 	are 	alleged 	to 	be 	in
violation 	of 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Act 	subsections
3543.6(c) and ( d ) . 1
The Association 	filed 	an 	answer 	to 	the 	complaint 	on
January 25, 	1985. 	The answer was a 	general 	denial 	of the
allegations. 	A hearing was 	conducted 	on April 	9, 	1985. 	The
final 	brief 	from the parties was 	received 	on June 	19, 	1985, 	on
which date 	the 	matter was 	submitted 	for 	decision.
FINDINGS 	OF FACT
The El 	Dorado Union High 	School 	District 	is 	a 	public 	school
employer under 	the EERA. 	At all 	times 	relevant, 	the El Dorado
Union High 	School 	District 	Faculty Association 	has 	been 	the
exclusive 	representative 	of 	the District's 	certificated
employee unit.
1Unless 	otherwise 	indicated, 	all 	references 	are 	to 	the
Government 	Code. 	The Educational 	Employment Relations Act
(hereafter EERA) 	is 	found at 	section 3540 et 	seq. 	In relevant
part, 	section 3543.6 provides as follows:
It 	shall 	be unlawful 	for 	an employee
organization to:
(c) 	Refuse 	or 	fail 	to meet and negotiate 	in
good 	faith with a 	public 	school 	employer 	of
any of 	the 	employees 	of which 	it 	is 	the
exclusive 	representative.
(d) 	Refuse 	to participate 	in good 	faith 	in
the 	impasse 	procedure 	set 	forth 	in Article 	9
(commencing with Section 3548).
33

The 	parties 	have 	had 	a 	collective 	bargaining 	relationship
for 	some 	years. 	The 	negotiated 	agreement which 	preceded 	the
events at 	issue expired 	on June 	30, 	1984. 	Under 	the contract,
any party wishing 	to 	change 	the 	terms 	of 	the 	agreement was 	to
notify the 	other 	party by March 15, 	1984. 	Such notification
was 	made 	and 	the 	parties 	commenced 	negotiation 	on 	a 	successor
agreement 	during 	the 	spring 	of 	1984. 	The 	negotiations
progressed 	to 	the 	point 	that 	by mid-September 	the 	parties 	had
resolved 	all 	but 	the monetary 	issues. 	However, 	those 	issues
proved 	to 	be 	a 	substantial 	obstacle 	to 	final 	agreement.
In early September, 	Association 	leaders 	decided 	to apply
pressure 	on 	the District 	in 	order 	to 	secure what 	they 	believed
to 	be a 	satisfactory contract. 	Kerry Steed, 	a 	past 	president
and 	member 	of 	the 	negotiating 	team, 	described 	the 	tactic 	as
including 	"various 	activities 	that we 	felt were 	kind 	of
stepping stones, 	one to another, 	each one being a 	little more
intense." 	Part of 	the strategy, 	he testified, 	was to keep the
administration off 	balance 	about what would 	happen next. 	Plans
for 	the 	campaign were mapped 	out 	in a 	series 	of 	six to 	eight
leadership meetings 	held 	after 	school 	and 	at 	6 	a.m. 	at
Ponderosa High School. 	One 	tactic 	the Association 	leaders
decided upon was 	a 	boycott 	of 	extra 	duties. 	The 	other was
picketing 	at 	the 	high schools 	and 	during 	football 	games. 	With
respect 	to 	the 	picketing, 	Association guidelines were 	developed
but 	the 	teachers 	at 	the 	individual 	campuses were 	authorized 	to
4

decide when 	and where 	the 	picketing would 	take 	place.
In a 	telephone conversation on September 	10, 	1985,
Association 	President 	Dwight 	Wells 	told 	District 	Assistant
Superintendent 	Arthur 	Cate 	that 	the 	Association 	leadership
could 	not 	go 	along with 	some 	proposals Mr. 	Cate 	informally had
advanced. 	The next day, 	Mr. 	Wells again called Mr. 	Cate and
told 	him that 	the Association was 	advising 	its 	members 	not 	to
perform 	the 	extra 	curricular 	duties 	for which 	they had 	signed
up 	at 	the 	start 	of 	the year.
On September 	12, 	the parties met 	for 	a 	negotiating
session. 	During the meeting, 	Mr. 	Cate 	raised 	the 	issue of 	the
Association's 	plan 	to 	encourage members 	to 	boycott 	their 	extra
duty assignments. 	Mr. 	Cate 	asked 	the union negotiating 	team 	if
it would 	be 	all 	right 	for 	the District 	to 	pick 	a 	contractual
section 	it would 	like 	to 	ignore now that 	the Association had
chosen to 	ignore Article XVI. 	Under Article XVI 	each District
teacher 	is 	required 	to 	serve 	three 	extra 	duties 	for 	a 	maximum
of 	12 	hours 	per year. 	The article also 	sets out a detailed
procedure 	by which 	the 	extra 	activities 	are 	to 	be 	assigned.
2Article XVI 	of 	the 	contract 	between 	the 	parties 	provides
as follows:
1. 	Extra-curricular 	duties 	refer 	to duties
that 	are 	outside 	the 	employee's 	regular
duty hours, 	such as:
a. 	Athletic Event 	Supervision
b. 	Class or Club Activities 	(activities
55

open 	to 	the 	entire 	student 	body)
c. Dances
d. 	Other 	School 	Student-sponsored
Activities
2. 	Extra-curricular 	duties 	that 	are
discharged 	outside 	the 	employee's
regular 	duty hours will 	be 	distributed
as 	equitably as 	possible 	(within 	one
duty assignment 	among 	all 	employees 	at
one 	site unless 	the 	employee volunteers
for more). 	The 	employee may sign up for
desired 	activities when 	the Master
Activities 	Calendar 	is 	presented 	by 	the
District. 	The 	calendar will 	be
presented 	no 	later 	than 	the 	first week
of 	school, 	except 	in the 	1980-81 	school
year. 	The Master Activities 	Calendar
with 	duty 	assignment will 	be 	printed
within 	seven 	(7) 	working days 	after 	the
presentation 	of 	the 	calendar. 	Employees
not 	signing 	up 	for 	duties 	during 	the
first 	two 	(2) 	days 	of 	the 	sign-up period
will 	be 	assigned 	by 	the District 	(some
duties will 	not 	be 	open to 	the 	general
staff 	- 	duties 	requiring 	special 	skills,
i.e.. 	timers 	and 	scorers 	at 	athletic
events), 	but 	in no case will an employee
receive 	fewer 	duty hours 	than 	the 	open
assignments. 	Activities 	added 	to 	the
calendar 	after 	the 	sign-up 	period 	will
use 	volunteer 	supervision 	obtained 	by
the 	sponsor. 	Saturday and 	Sunday
activities will 	be 	on a volunteer 	basis
only.
2.
3 . 	All 	teachers will 	serve 	three 	(3) 	duties
at a maximum of twelve 	(12) 	hours. 	If
additional 	duties 	are necessary, 	those
teachers 	not 	serving a 	total 	of 	twelve
(12) 	hours will 	serve one 	(1) 	more duty
in reverse 	alphabetical 	order.
Employees 	assigned 	to 	activities 	that
are 	canceled within one 	(1) 	week 	the
3 •
The Association team went 	into 	a 	caucus 	to 	consider Mr. 	Cate's
question. 	When 	the Association 	team returned 	it 	asserted 	that
6

activity will 	not 	be 	reassigned.
Employees 	missing 	an 	assigned 	activity
will 	be 	reassigned 	by 	the 	District 	and
may 	be 	given 	a 	letter 	of 	reprimand.
Employees 	may 	exchange 	duties with 	other
employees 	or 	they may 	cover 	for 	other
employees 	by 	notifying 	the 	District
prior 	to 	the 	activity.
4. 	Professional 	duties 	involving all 	staff
members will 	not 	be 	considered 	as
extra-curricular 	activities; 	i.e., 	Open
House, Graduation Exercises, 	etc.
5. 	Librarians will 	not 	be 	required 	to
render 	extra-curricular 	duties 	as
defined 	in Paragraph 	1.
under 	the 	past 	practice 	it 	could 	lawfully 	refuse 	to 	perform 	the
extra-curricular 	duties. 	By the 	conclusion 	of 	the 	September 	12
session 	the 	parties 	agreed 	that 	they were 	at 	impasse. 	Upon 	the
joint 	petition 	of 	the parties, 	the 	PERB determined 	the
existence 	of 	an 	impasse 	and 	appointed 	a 	mediator 	on
September 17, 	1984.
True to Mr. 	Wells' 	warning, 	most District teachers began to
boycott 	their 	extra-duty 	assignments 	effective 	September 	11.
The 	boycott 	continued 	until 	approximately October 	11 when 	the
parties 	reached 	an 	oral 	tentative 	agreement 	at 	3:30 	a.m.
Following 	the 	tentative 	agreement, 	teachers 	resumed 	their
performance 	of 	the 	extra-curricular 	activities. 	The 	boycott
made 	a 	substantial 	impact upon District 	operations.
Particularly 	in 	the 	fall, 	the 	extra-curricular 	assignments
involve 	faculty 	supervision 	of 	student 	behavior 	at 	athletic
events 	and 	dances. 	Some 	of 	these 	events 	normally may be
7

staffed 	by as many as 	eight 	teachers. 	Following 	the
commencement 	of 	the 	boycott, 	there were 	11 	functions 	at
El 	Dorado High School. 	13 	at 	Ponderosa High School 	and 	four 	at
Oak 	Ridge 	High 	School 	that went 	substantially uncovered 	by
teachers. 	Salaried 	administrators were 	required 	to 	fill 	in for
the missing 	teachers 	at 	all 	of 	the 	functions. 	They received 	no
extra 	compensation.
The 	evidence 	establishes 	that 	the 	past 	practice 	on 	the
performance 	of 	extra 	duties 	substantially 	coincides with 	the
procedure 	outlined 	in contract Article XVI. 	Teachers 	may 	begin
to 	sign-up for 	the 	three 	extra-curricular 	duties 	they are
required 	to 	perform after 	the 	first 	faculty meeting 	in 	the
fall. 	Those who 	fail 	to volunteer 	for 	specific 	activities 	are
assigned 	activities 	one week 	after 	the 	opening 	of 	the 	period
for voluntary sign-ups. 	Occasionally, 	a 	few teachers will 	be
required 	to work 	four 	extra-curricular 	activities 	but 	the
typical 	requirement 	is 	for 	three.
When 	the 	boycott was 	lifted 	on October 	11. 	the 	sign-up
books 	were 	reopened 	at 	both El 	Dorado 	and 	Ponderosa 	High
Schools. 	Ultimately, 	all 	faculty members at Ponderosa 	subject
to 	the 	three-duty 	requirement 	were 	assigned 	a 	sufficient 	number
of 	duties 	to meet 	the minimum. 	Whether 	every teacher
ultimately would 	be 	assigned 	three 	duties 	at 	the 	other 	two 	high
schools was 	unclear. 	No 	evidence was 	presented 	about 	Oak Ridge
and 	the 	testimony about 	El 	Dorado was 	equivocal.
8

Douglas 	Brinkley, 	the 	assistant 	principal 	at El 	Dorado,
testified 	that 	he 	did 	not 	believe 	each 	teacher 	would 	have 	three
extra 	duties 	in 	the 	1984-85 	school 	year 	because 	of 	the
boycott. 	However, 	he was unable to name any teacher who
definitely would 	not 	have 	performed 	three 	duties 	by 	the
conclusion of 	the 	school year.
Although Article 	XVI 	provides 	for 	the 	reprimand 	of
employees who miss 	an assigned 	duty, 	there were 	no 	reprimands
as 	a 	result 	of 	the month-long boycott. 	Mr. 	Cate 	testified 	that
although 	the matter was 	not 	closed 	definitely, 	the District
initially had 	concluded 	that 	it 	did 	not want 	"to 	stir 	things
further" 	by 	reprimanding 	teachers 	who 	participated 	in 	the
boycott.
Teachers 	at El 	Dorado 	High School 	developed 	their 	plan 	for
picketing 	in a 	series 	of 	meetings 	held 	in a 	room on campus
between 	8 	and 	8:30 	a.m. 	on various 	days 	during 	the 	previous
weeks. 	Under 	contract Article V, 	District 	facilities may be
used 	for 	Association 	business 	upon 	prior 	approval 	by 	the
building 	administrator. 	Association 	leader 	Kerry 	Steed
testified 	that 	although 	he 	did 	not 	personally 	arrange 	for 	use
of 	the 	campus 	facility where 	the meetings were held, 	he
believed 	that 	it 	had 	been 	cleared with 	the 	administration.
This 	testimony was 	not 	contradicted 	by 	any District witness.
All 	told, 	the Association held 	six more meetings 	between 	8 	and
9

8:30 	a.m. 	during 	the 	days 	before 	the 	commencement 	of
picketing. 	At 	least 	one 	of 	these was 	announced 	by 	the
circulation around 	the 	school 	of 	leaflets. 	Under 	the
established 	practice, 	the Association gives 	copies 	to 	the
administration 	of 	announcements 	that 	are 	distributed 	on
campus. 	No witness 	knew for 	certain whether 	the 	normal
practice was 	followed 	in 	this 	situation.
The 	picketing at El 	Dorado 	began 	just 	before 	8 	a.m. 	on
October 	8. 	1984. 	The workday at 	the school 	is 	from 8 a.m. 	to
3:20 	p.m. 	with 	the 	first 	period 	of 	instruction 	commencing 	at
8:30 	a.m. 	A warning 	bell 	rings 	at 	8:25 	a.m. 	The 	picketers
assembled 	in 	front 	of 	the 	school 	administration 	building 	and
then spread 	out 	along both sides 	of Canal 	Street, 	a
thoroughfare which bisects 	the 	campus. 	It 	is uncontested 	that
some 	of 	the 	picketers went 	to 	their 	classrooms 	and/or 	to 	the
administration 	building 	to 	check 	their 	mailboxes 	prior 	to
joining 	the 	picket 	line. 	Some 	teachers 	arrived 	late 	at 	the
picket 	line 	because 	they 	first met with 	students 	or
administrators. 	There 	is 	no 	evidence 	to 	indicate how many
teachers, 	if any, 	reported directly to the picket 	line. 	At the
beginning, 	only five 	to 	ten 	teachers 	out 	of 	the 	school's 	60
faculty members were 	present 	for 	picketing. 	The 	number 	grew
with 	the Association ultimately 	counting 	55 	picketers. 	The
District 	counted 	48.
10

District 	administrators 	did 	not 	know and 	did 	not 	ask
whether 	the 	teachers would 	continue 	picketing 	or 	go 	to 	their
classrooms 	in 	time 	for 	the 	start 	of 	instruction at 	8:30 	a.m.
Although 	they 	hoped 	to 	keep 	the 	administration 	off 	balance 	by
their 	picketing, 	the 	teachers 	from 	the 	beginning 	had 	intended
to 	go 	to 	their 	classrooms 	on 	time. 	Kerry Steed 	testified 	that
it was 	his 	responsibility 	to 	be 	sure 	that 	the 	picketers were
not 	late 	to 	their 	classrooms. 	Toward 	that 	end. 	he 	passed word
among 	the 	picketers 	as 	the 	8:25 	bell 	approached 	that 	it 	was
about 	time 	to 	leave. 	In accord with prior 	arrangements, 	the
picketers 	placed 	their 	signs 	in 	the 	back 	of 	a 	teacher-owned
pickup 	truck 	that was 	parked 	on Canal 	Street. 	They 	then went
to class.
There 	is 	some 	dispute 	about 	exactly when 	the 	picketing
ceased 	on October 	8. 	Mr. 	Cate 	testified 	that 	the 	teachers 	did
not 	stop 	picketing until 	8:30. 	The 	other 	District witness,
Douglas 	Brinkley. 	testified 	that 	the 	teachers 	picketed until
"approximately 8:30." 	Michael Denega, 	an Association witness,
testified 	that 	"most 	people" 	finished 	picketing 	at
approximately 	8:20 	a.m. 	and Mr. 	Denega 	said 	he was 	in his
classroom before 	8:30 a.m. 	Mr. 	Steed 	testified 	that 	he 	got 	to
his 	classroom at 	the 	same 	time as usual, 	which 	is 	before
8:30 a.m., 	and 	he 	saw no 	teachers 	arrive 	late. 	Del Wilson,
another Association witness, 	also 	testified 	that 	he was 	in his
classroom 	before 	8:30 	a.m.
11

On 	a 	normal 	school 	day 	some 	teachers 	open 	their 	classroom
doors 	prior 	to 	the 	8:25 warning 	bell. 	Students 	are 	able 	to
enter 	those 	classrooms 	early 	if 	they choose. 	Because most 	of
the 	teachers 	participated 	in 	the 	picketing 	on October 	8. 	few if
any rooms were 	open 	prior 	to 	8:25 	a.m. 	This 	contributed 	to 	a
greater 	than normal 	sense 	of 	confusion 	in 	the 	hallways 	and
might 	have 	impeded 	the 	progress 	of 	both 	faculty members 	and
students 	to 	their 	classrooms. 	The 	commotion doubtless
contributed 	to 	the 	differing 	perceptions 	of 	the witnesses 	about
the 	time 	the 	picketing 	stopped 	and 	the 	teachers 	returned 	to
their 	classrooms.
On October 	10. 	1984, 	the teachers at El Dorado High School
conducted 	a 	second 	round 	of 	picketing. 	The 	procedure was 	the
same 	as 	they 	followed 	two 	days 	earlier 	and 	they 	returned 	to
their 	rooms 	at 	approximately 	the 	same 	time 	as 	on 	the 	first
day. 	The District 	counted 	some 	44 	teachers 	on the 	picket 	line.
The 	contract 	between 	the 	parties 	provides 	in Article XV
that 	employees 	are 	to 	report 	for 	duty 	30 minutes 	"prior 	to
their 	first 	scheduled 	assignment." 	w	3 Because 	the 	first
3Article 	XV of 	the 	contract 	between 	the 	parties 	provides
in relevant part as 	follows:
1. 	Duty Time
Employees 	will 	report 	thirty 	(30)
minutes 	prior 	to 	their 	first 	scheduled
assignment. 	The 	duty day 	shall 	consist
of 	seven 	(7) 	hours 	and 	twenty 	(20)
12

minutes, 	to be served consecutively.
2. 	Availability
a. 	The 	employee 	shall 	be available 	for
student conferences, 	parent
conferences, 	and 	other 	professional
responsibilities 	during 	duty 	time,
and 	after 	employee's 	last 	assignment
upon twenty-four 	(24) 	hour
notification 	or 	teacher 	consent.
b. 	The 	employee will 	be responsible for
campus 	supervision during 	the 	above
hours.
An 	on-site 	Campus 	Control 	Committee will 	be
established 	at 	the 	opening 	of 	school 	by 	the
request 	of 	either 	party. 	The purpose 	of
said 	Committee 	is 	to 	recommend 	solutions 	to
problems 	arising 	from 	student 	conduct 	on
campus. 	The Committee 	shall 	be 	composed 	of
on-site 	administrators 	appointed 	by 	the
principal 	and 	an 	equal 	number 	of 	faculty
members 	selected 	by the 	on-site 	faculty. 	If
a 	majority vote 	is 	reached 	that 	policy 	shall
be 	implemented. 	In the event of a 	tie vote,
the 	administration 	shall 	determine 	the
policy used 	to 	control 	students.
teaching 	period 	begins 	at 	8:30 	a.m.. 	El 	Dorado 	teachers 	are
required 	to 	report 	at 	8 	a.m. 	The 	reporting 	requirement 	is
strictly 	enforced 	and 	teachers who 	do 	not 	arrive 	by 	8 	a.m. 	have
been 	reprimanded. 	At 	least 	one 	teacher 	also has 	been
reprimanded 	for 	arriving 	on 	time 	but 	then 	leaving 	the 	campus
without 	permission during 	the 	30 minutes 	between 	the 	reporting
time 	and 	her 	first 	class. 	Despite 	the 	effort 	to 	enforce 	the
rule 	strictly, 	the 	school 	maintains 	neither 	a 	timeclock nor 	a
sign-in 	sheet.

Although 	the 	school 	adheres 	strictly 	to 	the 	requirement
that 	teachers 	be 	present 	on 	campus 	during 	the 	30 minutes 	before
the 	first 	teaching period, 	it 	fixes no 	specific duties 	for 	them
to perform. 	There 	is no 	policy, 	either written or unwritten,
about 	the 	subject. 	The 	contract 	specifies 	only the 	following:
The 	employee 	shall 	be 	available 	for 	student
conferences, 	parent conferences, 	and other
professional 	responsibilities 	during 	duty
time, 	and 	after 	employee's 	last 	assignment
upon twenty-four 	(24) 	hour notification or
teacher 	consent.
The 	employee will 	be 	responsible 	for 	campus
supervision during 	the 	above 	hours.
Assistant 	Superintendent 	Cate 	testified 	that 	the 	District
has 	deliberately 	left 	broad 	the 	nature 	of 	the 	requirement. 	"It
isn't 	the 	case 	that we've 	insisted 	that you 	be 	in your 	room and
have 	the 	door 	open and 	people 	can come 	in 	there," 	he
testified. 	"No. 	we have never 	set down those 	rules. 	We've
left 	it 	as 	broad 	as what 	the 	contract 	says 	here."
In the absence 	of District 	guidelines, 	teachers 	spend 	the
30 minutes 	in a variety of ways. 	Some work 	in their 	classrooms
preparing 	lectures 	or 	setting up 	laboratory 	experiments 	for
that 	day's 	instruction. 	Some 	operate 	the 	duplicating 	machine,
copying 	tests 	and 	other 	materials. 	Some 	spend 	the 	period 	in
the 	faculty 	lounge 	drinking 	coffee 	and 	talking 	about 	sports.
The 	heavy use 	of 	the 	faculty 	lounge 	by 	certain 	teachers
once 	led 	to 	a 	confrontation with the 	principal 	of 	El 	Dorado
High School. 	The principal, 	Arlene Wilkinson, 	concluded 	that
14

certain 	teachers 	were 	spending 	too 	much 	of 	the 	pre-instruction
30 minutes 	in the 	lounge. 	She 	sent 	instructions 	through the
vice 	principal 	that 	it was 	proper 	only for 	the 	teachers 	to 	be
in 	their 	classrooms 	meeting with 	students 	or waiting 	for 	them
to arrive.
Kerry Steed, 	the Association president at 	the 	time, 	met
with 	the 	principal 	and 	the 	two 	discussed 	their 	respective 	views
of 	how the 	time 	should 	be used. 	Mr. 	Steed 	told 	her 	that 	he
believed 	her 	view was 	too 	narrow and 	that 	there were 	many
things 	a 	teacher 	could 	do 	during 	the 	30 minute 	period 	that 	did
not 	occur within the walls 	of 	a 	classroom. 	The 	principal
maintained 	her 	position 	that 	the 	employees 	were wasting 	time.
Ultimately, 	it was 	agreed 	that Mr. 	Steed would 	convey the
principal's 	opinion to 	the 	teachers 	hanging 	out 	in 	the 	lounge
but 	she would 	drop 	her 	insistence 	that 	they 	spend 	the 	time 	in
the 	classroom. 	Mr. 	Steed 	testified without 	contradiction 	that
after 	the 	incident was 	closed, 	the 	teachers 	continued 	to use
the 	lounge 	the 	same 	as 	before without 	further 	criticism.
Although 	there 	is 	no 	specific 	provision 	for what 	teachers
are 	supposed 	to 	do 	during 	the 	30 minutes 	prior 	to 	instruction,
there 	is 	a well-understood 	policy 	that 	they are 	to 	open 	their
classroom doors 	in 	time 	for 	students 	to 	enter 	the 	classroom by
8:30 	a.m. 	Teachers 	have 	been 	reprimanded 	for 	not 	opening 	the
classroom doors 	on 	time. 	In order 	to meet 	the 	requirement,
most 	of 	the 	teachers who 	spend 	the 	pre-instruction period 	in
15

the 	lounge 	leave 	and 	go 	to 	their 	classrooms when 	the 	8:25
warning 	bell 	rings.
While 	the 	contract 	requires 	teachers 	to 	be 	available 	for
student 	and 	parent 	conferences 	during 	the 	teaching 	day. 	few of
these 	are 	held 	at 	El 	Dorado 	during 	the 	30 minutes 	before 	the
first 	teaching 	period. 	A 	large 	percentage 	of 	the El 	Dorado
student 	body travels 	to 	school 	by bus 	and 	the 	buses 	do 	not
arrive until 	shortly before 	the warning 	bell. 	Typically, 	the
students who 	travel 	by bus 	seek 	to meet with their 	teachers
during 	the 	lunch period 	or 	immediately after 	school. 	When a
teacher 	is 	sought 	during 	the 	30-minute 	period 	for 	a 	telephone
call with a 	parent 	or 	student, 	the 	school 	intercom 	is used.
The 	lounge 	also 	has 	a 	telephone.
The Association 	presented 	evidence 	to 	show that 	even 	during
the 	picketing, 	teachers who 	had 	obligations 	to 	students 	kept
those 	obligations. 	Among these was Michael 	Denega, 	a 	science
instructor, 	who 	testified 	that 	he was 	twice 	stopped 	by 	students
who 	needed 	help 	in 	school 	work. 	He met with and 	helped
students 	in the hallway when he was 	on his way 	to 	the 	picket
line. 	Later, 	students 	came up to him while he was 	on the
picket 	line 	and 	asked 	for 	help. 	He 	sat 	on 	the 	lawn with 	them
and 	answered 	their 	questions. 	There 	is 	a 	loudspeaker 	on the
front 	of 	the 	school which 	is 	used 	to 	call 	maintenance
employees. 	The 	evidence 	establishes 	that 	if 	the 	speaker 	had
16

been used 	to 	call 	any 	teacher 	it would 	have 	been heard 	by 	those
on the picket 	line.
In addition to the picketing at El Dorado, 	District
teachers 	picketed 	on 	two 	occasions 	after 	classes 	at 	Ponderosa
High School 	and 	at 	two 	football 	games.
The 	tentative 	agreement 	reached 	by 	the 	parties 	on
October 	11 was 	ratified 	in a 	vote 	taken 	by the 	teachers 	on
October 	22 	and 	by 	the 	school 	board 	on November 	6.
LEGAL 	ISSUES
1. 	Did 	the Association by 	its 	instigation of 	the 	teacher
boycott 	of 	required 	extra 	duties 	violate 	its 	duty 	to 	negotiate
in good 	faith and/or 	its 	duty 	to participate 	in the 	impasse
procedures 	in 	good 	faith?
2. 	Did 	the Association by 	its 	instigation 	of 	the picketing
at 	El 	Dorado High School 	violate 	its 	duty to negotiate 	in good
faith and/or 	its 	duty to 	participate 	in 	the 	impasse 	procedures
in good 	faith?
CONCLUSIONS 	OF 	LAW
The 	obligation 	to negotiate 	in 	good 	faith 	is 	bilateral
under 	the EERA. 	If 	either 	party breaks 	the 	obligation 	it
commits 	an unfair practice. 	While violations 	by employers 	tend
to 	involve unilateral 	changes4 or 	surface bargaining.5
4See 	example, 	Davis Unified 	School District 	(1980) 	PERB
Decision No. 	116.
5 See, 	for 	example, 	Stockton Unified 	School District
(1980) PERB Decision No. 	143.
17

violations 	by unions 	often 	involve 	illegal 	pressure 	tactics.
Depending 	on the 	circumstances, 	a 	strike may be 	the most
obvious 	example 	of 	a union's 	failure 	to negotiate 	in good
faith. 	There 	is 	a 	rebuttable 	presumption that 	an unprovoked
strike 	"prior 	to 	[the] 	exhaustion of 	impasse proceedings
constitutes 	an 	illegal 	pressure 	tactic" 	and 	is 	a violation of
subsection 	3543.6(c). 	Fresno Unified 	School District 	(1982)
PERB Decision No. 	208.6
The 	PERB 	also 	had 	found 	that 	slow-down 	strikes7 and
surprise 	strikes8 are 	not 	protected 	and 	has 	cited 	with
approval 	federal 	precedent 	prohibiting 	certain wildcat 	strikes,
partial 	strikes 	and 	intermittent 	strikes. 	These 	strikes 	are
held 	to 	be unlawful 	because 	the 	means 	they 	employ 	to 	carry 	out
the 	concerted 	action are 	themselves 	seen as unfair, 	regardless
of 	the 	nature 	of 	the underlying 	objectives.
In 	the 	present 	case 	the Association 	sought 	to work 	to 	the
6PERB 	precedent 	in 	this 	area 	is 	unaffected 	by 	the 	Supreme
Court's 	recent 	decision 	in County Sanitation District No. 	2 	v.
Los Angeles 	County Employees Association. 	Local 	660, 	SEIU 	(1985)
38 	Cal.3d 	564. 	It 	is 	clear 	from the various 	opinions which
compose 	that 	decision that 	a 	majority 	of 	the 	Court 	finds 	no
constitutional 	obstacles 	to 	the 	type 	of 	impasse 	procedures
written 	into 	the 	EERA as 	a 	method 	of 	heading 	off 	strikes.
7See 	Palos 	Verdes 	Peninsula 	Unified 	School 	District
(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	195 	and Modesto City Schools 	(1983)
PERB Decision No. 	291.
--- 	----=-=-=-=-=--=--
8See 	San Ramon Valley Unified 	School 	District 	(1984) 	PERB
Order No. 	IR-46.
91d. 18

rule, 	that 	is, 	encourage 	teachers 	to perform exactly those
duties which were 	required 	but 	no more. 10	10 	In a
work-to-the-rule 	case, 	the 	inquiry 	focuses 	on whether 	or 	not
the 	activities 	which were 	not 	performed 	were 	required 	or
voluntary. 	"The 	refusal 	to 	do voluntary activities 	is
protected 	conduct, 	while 	the 	refusal 	to do normally required
assigned 	and 	assigned 	adjunct 	duties 	is 	not." 	Modesto City
School 	(1983) 	PERB Decision No. 	291. 	citing Palos Verdes
Peninsula 	Unified 	School 	District 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No.
195. 	Thus, 	if 	the duties which the 	teachers refused 	to perform
were 	required 	then 	the 	concerted 	refusal 	to 	perform 	them was 	an
illegal 	pressure tactic. 	If. 	however, 	the duties were not
required 	then 	the 	Association-inspired 	refusal 	to 	perform 	them
was 	lawful 	and 	the 	teachers 	were 	merely 	exercising 	their
protected 	right 	to 	participate 	in 	the 	activities 	of 	an 	employee
organization.11	11
The 	first 	of 	the Association's 	pressure 	tactics was 	the
10It 	is 	uncontested 	that 	the 	actions 	at 	issue were
instigated 	by 	the Association. 	Former Association 	President
Kerry Steed 	testified 	that 	the 	actions were 	originated 	by 	the
Association 	leadership 	and 	were 	designed 	to 	put 	pressure 	on 	the
District. 	It was 	the unchallenged 	testimony of Assistant
Superintendent Arthur 	Cate 	that 	he was 	told 	by Association
President 	Dwight 	Wells 	that 	the Association 	had 	recommended 	to
teachers 	that 	they not 	perform the 	extra 	duties.
1]Under 	section 3543. 	public 	school 	employees 	have 	"the
right to form. 	join, 	and participate 	in the activities 	of
employee 	organizations 	of 	their 	own 	choosing 	for 	the 	purpose 	of
representation 	on all 	matters 	of 	employer-employee 	relations."
19

extra 	duties 	boycott which commenced 	on September 	11. 	1984.
The District 	argues 	that 	teachers 	are 	required 	under 	contract
Article 	XVI 	to 	supervise 	three 	extra-curricular 	activities 	up
to a maximum of 	12 hours per 	school year. 	It 	is uncontested,
the District 	continues, 	that 	teachers 	refused 	to perform extra
duties 	for 	a 	month and 	that 	their 	concerted 	refusal 	was 	at 	the
instigation of 	the Association. 	Thus, 	the District reasons,
the violation 	is 	apparent.
The Association 	defends 	on 	the 	theory 	that 	ultimately 	the
teachers 	did 	perform 	the 	contractually 	required 	12 	hours 	of
extra 	duties. 	The Association notes 	that 	after 	the 	contract
was 	settled, 	teachers 	performed 	"make-up" 	assignments 	and 	thus
were 	in 	compliance with 	the 	contract 	before 	the 	end 	of 	the
school year. 	This was 	in keeping, 	the Association contends,
with 	the 	past 	practice 	of 	permitting 	employees 	to 	choose which
extra-curricular 	assignments 	they would 	perform. 	Now, 	the
Association argues, 	the District 	attempts 	to depart 	from 	its
former 	casual 	attitude 	toward 	the 	allocation of 	extra
assignments. 	But under 	the past 	practice, 	the Association
concludes, 	employees 	had 	the 	right 	of 	selection and 	their
one-month 	boycott was 	consistent with 	this 	former 	policy.
It 	is 	clear 	from contract Article XVI 	that 	extra-curricular
duties 	are mandatory. 	All 	teachers 	are 	required 	to 	serve 	three
extra-curricular duties 	for 	a maximum of 	12 hours. 	The only
voluntary aspect 	of 	the 	program 	is 	the 	right 	of 	choice 	that
20

teachers 	have when the assignments 	first 	are made 	for 	a 	school
year. 	Teachers 	may 	select which activities 	they prefer 	to
perform. 	But 	teachers who 	do 	not 	select 	three 	activities will
be 	assigned 	three 	by the District. 	There 	is 	no 	choice about
performance. 	Under contract Article XVI, employees who miss 	an
assignment 	"will 	be 	reassigned 	by 	the 	District 	and 	may 	be 	given
a 	letter 	of 	reprimand."
Thus, 	once 	the 	extra 	curricular 	assignments were made 	in
the 	fall 	of 	1984. 	individual 	teachers 	had no right 	to boycott
them. 	There was 	no 	longer 	a 	right 	to 	choose. 	The assignments
became as much of 	a 	required duty as 	teaching. 	It 	is 	of 	no
consequence 	that 	the 	District 	later 	reassigned 	other 	duties 	to
those who missed 	the 	fall 	assignments. 	That 	the 	teachers 	later
worked 	some 	other 	extra 	duty does 	not 	compensate 	for 	their
absence 	from earlier 	activities 	they were 	committed 	to 	attend.
Because 	of 	its 	role 	as 	the 	instigator 	of 	this unlawful
boycott 	of 	assigned 	duties, 	the Association must 	be 	found 	in
violation of 	the EERA. 	The 	boycott was 	in effect 	a 	partial
strike. 	It was designed to have employees work, 	continue to be
paid 	and 	at 	the 	same 	time 	select what 	part 	of 	their 	required
duties 	they 	cared 	to 	perform. 	Such 	strikes 	long 	have 	been
condemned 	in the private 	sector, 	NLRB v. 	Montgomery Ward 	& Co.
(8th Cir. 	1946) 	157 F.2d 486 	[19 LRRM 2008], 	and have been
declared 	a 	prima 	facie violation of 	the EERA by 	the PERB. 	San
Ramon Valley USD, 	supra. 	PERB Order No. 	IR-46. 	Accordingly, 	it
21

is 	concluded 	here 	that 	by 	instigating 	and 	encouraging 	the
boycott 	of 	assigned 	duties, 	the Association engaged 	in an
unlawful 	pressure 	tactic 	in violation of 	subsection 3543.6(c).
Because 	a 	substantial 	portion 	of 	the 	boycott 	occurred 	after 	the
PERB appointment 	of 	a mediator 	but 	prior 	to 	the 	exhaustion of
the 	statutory 	impasse procedures, 	it 	also 	constituted 	an
independent violation of 	subsection 3543.6(d). 	Westminster
School District 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	277.
The 	District 	next 	argues 	that 	the Association violated 	the
EERA 	by 	instigating 	and 	encouraging 	"a 	refusal 	by 	the 	teachers
at 	El 	Dorado High School 	to 	begin duties 	30 minutes 	prior 	to
their 	first 	scheduled 	assignment." 	The 	"refusal 	to 	begin
duties" 	occurred 	on October 	8 	and 	10. 	1984. 	when the teachers
at 	the 	school 	picketed 	in front 	of 	administrative offices. 	The
District 	points 	to 	contract Article 	XV in 	support 	of 	its
contention 	that 	the 	teachers 	are 	required 	to 	begin 	their 	school
day at 	8 	a.m. 	During the 	time 	they were 	picketing, 	the
District 	continues, 	the 	teachers were not 	performing
classroom-related work as 	is 	customary 	for 	most 	of 	them. 	Nor
were 	they available 	for 	conferences 	with parents 	and 	students,
as 	required 	by the 	contract. 	Finally, 	the District argues,
many 	of 	the 	picketers 	failed 	to 	have 	their 	classroom doors 	open
by 	8:25 	a.m. 	as 	required 	in District 	policy. 	Thus, 	the
District 	concludes, 	the 	picketing 	conflicted with 	required work
and was 	therefore 	a 	violation of 	the EERA.
22

The Association rejects 	this 	argument, 	noting that 	neither
the 	contract 	nor 	any written 	or 	unwritten 	policy 	defines 	how
teachers 	are 	to 	occupy 	the 	30 minutes 	prior 	to 	the 	first 	class
period. 	Indeed, 	the Association continues, 	teachers have used
the 	time 	in a variety of ways. 	These have 	included 	drinking
coffee 	in 	the 	employee 	lounge 	and 	attending District 	authorized
on campus Association meetings. 	There was 	no 	evidence of 	a
single 	incident 	during 	the 	two 	periods 	of 	picketing, 	the
Association argues, 	where a 	teacher was not 	"available" 	for
student 	or 	parent 	conferences 	as 	required 	by the contract. 	The
evidence proves 	exactly the opposite, 	the Association
contends. 	Teachers 	took 	time 	off 	from picketing 	to meet with
students 	and 	many 	arrived 	late 	to 	picketing 	because 	they 	chose
to 	complete 	their 	school-related 	duties 	first. 	The 	burden of
proving 	that 	the Association 	encouraged 	employees 	not 	to
perform 	required 	duties 	lies 	with 	the 	charging 	party and, 	the
Association concludes, 	the District 	has 	failed 	to 	establish
that 	the 	picketing 	resulted 	in 	the 	failure 	of 	any 	teacher 	to
perform 	required 	duties.
The Association's 	role 	in 	the El 	Dorado picketing 	presents
a 	considerably 	closer 	question 	than 	the 	boycott 	of 	extra
duties. 	Contrary to 	the District's argument, 	it 	is not at all
clear 	that 	the 	teachers 	who 	joined 	the 	picket 	line 	failed 	to
perform any 	required 	duties. 	There 	are 	no 	specific District
guidelines 	about 	how teachers 	are 	to 	spend 	the 	30 minutes
23

between 	the 	time 	they report 	for 	duty at 	8:00 	a.m. 	and 	the
commencement 	of 	instruction 	at 	8:30 	a.m. 	The 	only 	requirement
is 	the 	broad 	provision 	in 	contract 	Article 	XV that 	during 	duty
time 	teachers 	"shall 	be 	available 	for 	student 	conferences,
parent 	conferences, 	and 	other 	professional 	responsibilities"
and 	"responsible 	for 	campus 	supervision." 	The 	record 	does 	not
reflect 	a 	single 	instance 	of 	a 	missed meeting with a 	student 	or
parent 	during 	the 	two 	25-minute 	picketing 	sessions 	at 	El 	Dorado
High School. 	Indeed, 	the 	evidence 	shows 	that 	several 	teachers
did 	meet 	with 	students 	and 	administrators 	during 	the 	picketing
periods. 	One 	teacher 	left 	the 	picket 	line 	to 	sit 	down on 	the
grass 	and 	discuss 	school 	work with a 	student who 	approached 	him
during 	the 	picketing. 	Other 	teachers 	arrived 	at 	the 	picket
line 	late 	because 	they 	had 	school-related 	duties 	that 	they
wished 	to 	complete 	first. 	The 	record 	likewise 	fails 	to 	reflect
any 	evidence 	of 	a 	failure 	of 	campus 	supervision during 	the
picketing.
How teachers 	spend 	the 	25 	minutes 	before 	the 	first 	teaching
period 	has 	traditionally been 	left 	to 	the 	teachers. 	There 	is 	no
District 	rule 	that 	they are 	to 	be 	in 	their 	classrooms 	and 	no
rule 	that 	they are 	to be working. 	Indeed, 	a 	large number 	of
teachers 	occupy the time 	in the teachers' 	lounge, 	drinking
coffee 	and 	talking 	about 	sports. 	There 	has 	been no District
prohibition against 	such a use 	of 	the 	time. 	On 	the 	one
occasion a 	District 	administrator 	sought 	to 	ban 	teachers 	from
24

spending 	the 	period 	in the 	lounge, 	the Association successfully
challenged 	the 	attempted 	change.
It 	is well-settled 	that 	public 	school 	employees 	have 	a
protected 	right 	to 	engage 	in 	organizing 	in 	non-work 	areas
during 	non-work 	periods. 	San Ramon Valley Unified 	School
District 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	230; 	Marin Community College
District 	(1980) 	PERB Decision No. 	145. 	Indeed, 	organizing may
not 	be 	banned 	from non-duty 	areas 	during 	the 	time 	prior 	to 	the
first 	teaching 	period where 	the 	employer 	requires 	teachers 	to
be 	on campus 	but 	then prescribes 	no 	specific 	duties 	to 	occupy
the 	time. 	Long Beach Unified 	School District 	(1980) 	PERB
Decision No. 	130.
In the past, 	the District appears not 	to have been
concerned 	about 	employee 	participation 	in 	organizational
activities 	during 	the 	time 	prior 	to 	the 	first 	instructional
period. 	The Association held 	a 	series 	of 	8:00 a.m. 	to
8:30 	a.m. 	meetings 	on 	campus 	during 	the weeks 	prior 	to 	the 	two
mornings 	of 	picketing. 	There 	is 	uncontested 	testimony 	that
these meetings were 	cleared 	in 	advance with 	the 	administration.
At a minimum, 	the District argues, 	the teachers violated
District 	rules 	by 	not 	leaving 	the 	picket 	line 	in 	sufficient
time 	to 	admit 	students 	into 	the 	classrooms 	by 	8:30 	a.m. 	Two
District witnesses 	testified 	that 	the 	teachers 	did 	not 	even
leave 	the 	picket 	line until 	8:30 	a.m. 	and 	that 	students were
therefore 	late 	to 	class. 	Three teacher witnesses 	testified
25

that 	they were 	in 	their 	classrooms 	before 	8:30 	a.m. 	and 	that
they 	did 	not 	see 	any 	other 	teachers 	open 	their 	classroom 	doors
late.
This 	credibility dispute 	is 	resolved 	in 	favor 	of 	the
Association. 	All 	witnesses 	who 	testified 	impressed 	the 	hearing
officer 	as 	being 	sincere 	and 	desirous 	of 	telling 	the 	truth.
However, 	it 	is 	concluded 	that 	the District witnesses, 	both
administrators, 	were 	so 	surprised 	and upset 	at 	seeing picketers
the morning 	of October 	8 	that 	their 	recollections 	of 	the
precise 	details 	of 	that 	occasion are 	not 	reliable.
Mr. 	Brinkley. 	for 	example, 	could not remember whether 	the
picketers walked 	down a 	single 	side 	of 	the 	street 	or 	both 	sides
on October 	8. 	"I 	was a 	little more 	anxious 	about whether we
were 	going 	to 	have 	teachers 	in 	class 	than 	I was 	about which
side 	of 	the 	street 	they were 	on." 	he 	testified. 	Nor 	could 	he
recall 	what 	time 	the 	picketers 	arrived 	at 	the 	picket 	line. 	"I
don't have 	that 	information." 	he 	testified. 	"I 	just 	know that
they were 	there." 	Mr. 	Cate 	could not 	recall which campus
administrator 	called 	to 	tell 	him 	of 	the 	picketing 	nor 	could 	he
remember what 	happened 	to 	the picket 	signs 	at 	the 	completion of
the 	picketing.
It 	is 	clear, 	moreover, 	that 	late arrival by the teachers at
their 	classrooms 	would 	have 	run 	counter 	to 	the Association's
entire 	strategy. 	The Association was 	engaged 	in a
psychological 	pressure 	campaign, 	designed 	to unnerve 	the
26

administration but 	not 	break 	any rules. 	It 	is undisputed 	that
by 	long-standing District 	practice 	teachers 	are 	supposed 	to
have 	their 	classroom doors 	open 	in 	time 	for 	students 	to 	be 	in
the 	rooms 	by 	8:30 	a.m. 	Association 	leaders 	knew they would 	be
in violation 	of 	this 	requirements 	if 	they allowed 	the 	picketing
to drag past 	8:25 	a.m. 	For 	that 	reason, 	Mr. 	Steed was
appointed 	to 	monitor 	the 	time 	and 	notify 	teachers 	of 	the
approaching 	8:25 	a.m. 	bell 	so 	they 	could 	get 	to 	their 	classes
on 	time. 	He 	credibly testified 	that 	he warned 	them 	just 	prior
to 	8:25 	a.m. 	and 	that 	the picketers 	left 	the 	line at 	the 	bell.
The 	evidence 	establishes 	that 	the 	teachers 	did 	not 	arrive
at 	their 	rooms 	until 	just 	before 	the 	8:30 	a.m. 	bell. 	Their
last-minute 	return 	doubtlessly 	generated 	a 	considerable 	amount
of 	confusion. 	However, 	the burden of proof 	in an unfair
practice 	charge 	is 	on the 	charging party. 	Here, 	the District
has 	failed 	to 	establish 	by a 	preponderance 	of 	the 	evidence 	that
during 	the 	two mornings 	of 	picketing El 	Dorado High 	School
teachers 	failed 	to 	perform any required 	duties, 	including 	the
opening 	of 	their 	classroom doors 	prior 	to 	8:30 	a.m.
For 	these 	reasons, 	it 	is 	concluded 	that 	the Association
committed 	no 	unfair 	practice 	by 	instigating 	the 	picketing which
occurred on October 	8 and 	10. 	1984. 	at El Dorado High School.
REMEDY
The District 	seeks 	an order 	that 	the Association be
required 	to 	cease 	and 	desist 	from 	its 	illegal 	work 	stoppage.
27

The 	District 	also 	asks 	that 	the Association 	be 	required 	to
compensate 	the 	administrators 	who 	worked 	at 	extra-curricular
activities 	in place 	of 	the 	boycotting 	teachers. 	The PERB 	in
subsection 3541.5(c) 	is given:
. 	. 	. 	the power to issue a decision and
order 	directing 	an 	offending 	party 	to 	cease
and 	desist 	from 	the 	unfair 	practice 	and 	to
take 	such affirmative 	action, 	including 	but
not 	limited 	to 	the 	reinstatement 	of
employees with or without 	back pay, 	as will
effectuate 	the policies 	of 	this 	chapter.
A cease 	and 	desist 	order 	is 	an 	appropriate 	remedy 	for
Association's 	unlawful 	boycott 	of 	required 	duties. 	Fresno
Unified School District, 	supra. 	PERB Decision No. 	208. 	It also
is 	appropriate 	that 	the Association 	be 	directed 	to 	cease 	and
desist 	from 	its 	unfair 	practice 	and 	to 	post 	a 	notice
incorporating 	the 	terms 	of 	the 	order. 	Posting 	of 	such a
notice, 	signed 	by an authorized agent of 	the Association, 	will
provide 	employees with notice 	that 	the Association 	has 	acted 	in
an unlawful manner, 	is 	being 	required 	to 	cease 	and desist 	from
this 	activity, 	and will 	comply with the 	order. 	It 	effectuates
the 	purposes 	of 	the 	EERA that 	employees 	be 	informed 	of 	the
resolution 	of 	the 	controversy 	and 	the Association's 	readiness
to 	comply with the 	ordered 	remedy. 	Davis 	Unified 	School
District et al. 	(1980) 	PERB Decision No. 	116; 	see also
Placerville Union School District 	(1978) 	PERB Decision No. 	69.
The District 	cites 	no 	case 	law in 	support 	of 	its 	request
that 	the Association 	be 	required 	to 	compensate 	administrators
28

for 	the 	extra 	hours 	they worked 	in place 	of 	the 	boycotting
teachers. 	The purpose of 	a 	financial 	remedy is 	to make a 	party
whole 	for 	the 	losses 	it 	suffered 	as 	a 	result 	of 	the
respondent's unfair 	practice. 	Here, 	as 	the Association points
out. 	the District 	suffered no financial 	loss as 	a 	result 	of 	the
boycott 	of 	extra-curricular 	duties. 	The 	administrators were
salaried 	employees, 	required 	to work without 	additional 	pay and
the 	District 	incurred 	no 	out-of-pocket 	costs 	by 	calling 	them 	in
for 	extra 	duty. 	Nor 	is 	there 	any 	showing that 	the
administrators 	themselves 	are 	entitled 	to 	additional 	wages 	or
compensatory 	time 	off. 	There 	is 	no 	evidence 	that 	the
performance 	of 	an additional 	duty 	in 	the 	place 	of 	an 	absent
teacher 	is 	an unexpected 	requirement 	for 	a 	salaried
administrator. 	Nothing 	in the record, 	for 	example, 	indicates
that 	an 	administrator 	called 	to 	chaperon a 	dance 	in place 	of 	an
ill 	teacher would 	expect 	or 	be 	entitled 	to 	additional
compensation. 	The 	obligation 	to work additional 	hours without
compensation 	is 	a 	normal 	facet 	of 	the acceptance 	of 	a 	salaried
position. 	That 	the 	additional work was 	due 	to 	the
Association's 	unfair 	practice 	does 	not 	entitle 	the
administrators 	to 	reimbursement which would 	have 	been denied
them had 	the 	extra 	duties 	been 	the 	product 	of 	other 	causes.
PROPOSED 	ORDER
Based 	upon 	the 	foregoing 	findings 	of 	fact 	and 	conclusions
of 	law and 	the 	entire record 	in 	the case, 	it 	is 	found 	that 	the
29

El 	Dorado 	Union High 	School 	District 	Faculty Association
violated 	subsections 	3543.6(c) 	and 	(d) 	of 	the Educational
Employment Relations Act. 	Pursuant 	to 	subsection 3541.5(d) 	of
the Government Code, 	it 	is 	hereby ORDERED that 	the Association,
its 	officers 	and 	its 	representatives 	shall:
1. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
A. 	Failing 	to 	meet 	and 	negotiate 	in good 	faith with
the 	El 	Dorado Union High 	school 	District 	by 	instigating 	and
encouraging 	an 	employee 	boycott 	of 	required 	extra-curricular
duties 	and 	thereby 	engaging 	in 	the 	illegal 	pressure 	tactic 	of 	a
partial 	strike.
B. 	Failing 	to participate 	in 	the 	impasse 	procedures
in 	good 	faith 	by 	instigating 	and 	encouraging 	an 	employee
boycott 	of 	required 	extra-curricular 	duties 	at 	a 	time 	after 	the
parties 	had 	jointly declared 	themselves 	to 	be 	at 	impasse 	but
prior 	to 	the 	exhaustion 	of 	the 	statutory 	impasse 	procedures.
2. 	TAKE 	THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE 	THE 	POLICIES 	OF 	THE EDUCATIONAL 	EMPLOYMENT
RELATIONS ACT:
A. 	Within ten 	(10) 	workdays 	of 	service 	of 	a 	final
decision 	in this matter, 	post 	at 	all 	school 	sites 	and 	all 	other
work 	locations where 	notices 	to 	employees 	are 	customarily
placed, 	copies 	of 	the notice 	attached 	hereto as 	an appendix.
The 	notice must 	be 	signed 	by an authorized 	agent 	of 	the
Association, 	indicating 	that 	the Association will 	comply with
the 	terms 	of 	this 	order. 	Such posting 	shall 	be maintained 	for
30

a 	period 	of 	thirty 	(30) 	consecutive workdays. 	Reasonable steps
shall 	be 	taken to 	insure 	that 	the 	notice 	is 	not 	reduced 	in
size, 	altered, 	defaced 	or 	covered 	by any other material.
B. 	Upon issuance of 	a 	final 	decision, 	make written
notification 	of 	the 	actions 	taken 	to 	comply with 	this 	Order 	to
the 	Sacramento 	Regional 	Director 	of 	the 	Public 	Employment
Relations 	Board 	in 	accordance with 	her 	instructions.
IT 	IS FURTHER 	ORDERED that 	all 	other 	allegations 	of 	the
charge 	and 	complaint 	are 	DISMISSED.
Pursuant 	to California Administrative Code, 	title 	8,
part 	III, 	section 	32305, 	this 	Proposed Decision and Order 	shall
become final 	on July 18, 	1985, 	unless a 	party files a 	timely
statement 	of 	exceptions. 	In accordance with the rules, 	the
statement 	of 	exceptions 	should 	identify 	by 	page 	citation 	or
exhibit 	number 	the 	portions 	of 	the 	record 	relied 	upon 	for 	such
exceptions. 	See California Administrative Code, 	title 	8,
part 	III. 	section 32300. 	Such statement 	of 	exceptions and
supporting 	brief 	must 	be 	actually received 	by 	the 	Public
Employment 	Relations 	Board 	itself 	at 	the 	headquarters 	office 	in
Sacramento 	before 	the close 	of 	business 	(5:00 p.m.) 	on July 	18,
1985, 	or 	sent 	by telegraph or 	certified United 	States mail,
postmarked 	not 	later 	than 	the 	last 	day 	for 	filing 	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
31

upon each party to 	this 	proceeding. 	Proof 	of 	service 	shall 	be
filed 	with 	the 	Board 	itself. 	See 	California 	Administrative
Code, 	title 8. 	part 	III. 	section 32300 and 32305.
Dated: 	June 28. 	1985 Ronald E. 	Blubaugh
Administrative 	Law Judge
32