Tahoe - Truckee Unified School District (PERB 0668E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
CALIFORNIA 	SCHOOL 	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION AND 	ITS 	TAHOE-TRUCKEE
CHAPTER NO. 	383,
Charging 	Party,
v.
TAHOE-TRUCKEE UNIFIED 	SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
) 	Case 	No. 	S-CE-1006
PERB 	Decision 	No. 	668
May 	27, 	1988
)
)
)
))
)
)
Appearances: 	Christopher E. 	Niehaus, 	Field Representative, 	for
the 	California 	School 	Employees 	Association 	and 	its 	Tahoe-Truckee
Chapter No. 	383; 	Douglas A. Lewis, 	Attorney, 	for the
Tahoe-Truckee 	Unified 	School 	District.
Before Hesse, 	Chairperson; 	Porter, 	Craib and Shank, 	Members.
DECISION
HESSE, 	Chairperson: 	The 	Tahoe-Truckee 	Unified School
District 	(District) 	appeals 	the 	attached proposed 	decision of 	a
Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(PERB 	or 	Board)
administrative 	law 	judge 	(ALJ) 	who 	found 	that 	the 	District
violated section 3543.5(a), 	(b), 	and 	(c) of the Educational
Employment 	Relations 	Act 	(EERA or Act). 	The ALJ determined
1EERA 	is 	codified 	at 	Government 	Code 	section 	3540 	et
seq. 	Section 3543.5 provides, 	in pertinent part, 	as 	follows!
It 	shall be 	unlawful 	for 	a public 	school
employer 	to:
(a) 	Impose 	or 	threaten to 	impose 	reprisals
on employees, 	to discriminate or 	threaten to
__)

that 	the 	District 	impermissibly 	contracted 	to have 	certain
bargaining 	unit 	printing 	and 	repair 	work 	performed by 	private
business 	entities, 	rather 	than have 	this 	work performed by 	the
bargaining 	unit 	employee 	in 	the 	repairman/printer 	position.
discriminate 	against 	employees, 	or otherwise
to interfere with, 	restrain, 	or coerce
employees because 	of 	their 	exercise of
rights 	guaranteed by 	this 	chapter.
(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.
For 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	in 	the 	discussion which 	follows,
the 	Board 	reverses 	in part 	and 	affirms 	in part 	those 	portions
of 	the 	proposed 	decision 	in which 	the ALJ 	determined 	that 	the
District 	violated 	EERA.
FACTS
No 	exceptions have been 	filed 	to 	the ALJ's 	findings 	of
fact. 	Upon 	a 	review of 	the evidentiary record 	in 	this 	case, 	we
find 	the ALJ's 	statement of 	facts 	to be 	free 	of 	prejudicial
error 	and 	therefore 	adopt 	those 	findings 	as 	those 	of 	the
Board. 	For 	convenience, 	a 	summary of 	the 	relevant 	facts
follows.
The 	Tahoe-Truckee 	Unified 	School 	District 	Board 	of 	Trustees
issued a 	resolution on August 	14, 	1985, 	to abolish the
repairman/printer 	position 	and 	certain 	other 	bargaining 	unit
jobs, 	effective September 13, 	1985. 	On August 22, 	1985, 	the
California 	School 	Employees 	Association 	and 	its 	Tahoe-Truckee
22

Chapter 	No. 	383 	(CSEA or Association) 	demanded 	that 	the
District 	negotiate 	the 	effects 	of 	these 	layoffs. 	A tentative
agreement 	was 	reached between negotiators 	for 	the 	District 	and
CSEA on 	September 	13, 	whereby the parties 	agreed 	that 	in 	lieu
of 	elimination of 	the 	repairman/printer position, 	it would be
reduced to a half-time position 	(20 hrs. 	per week). 	This
tentative 	agreement 	also 	contained 	provisions 	which 	banned
contracting 	out 	unit 	work, 	prevented 	any 	increased 	usage 	of
volunteers 	or 	students, 	and prohibited 	any 	speedup of 	work 	for
the 	duration of 	the 	layoffs.
At 	a meeting on October 	9, 	1985, 	the 	school board voted 	to
lay off 	additional bargaining unit 	staff. 	On November 	1, 	1985,
the 	District 	and 	Association 	negotiators 	agreed 	that 	the
September 	tentative 	agreement 	would 	apply 	to 	these 	layoffs 	as
well.
However, 	prior 	to school board 	adoption 	of 	the 	tentative
agreement, 	the 	composition of 	the 	school board 	and 	the 	top
District 	administrative 	staff 	changed. 	On November 	13, 	1985,
the 	new board 	specifically declined 	to 	ratify 	the 	agreement 	due
to 	concerns 	about 	the 	subcontracting 	restrictions.
On January 22, 	1986, 	a revised tentative agreement was
executed by 	the parties. 	Where 	the 	first 	agreement 	contained
an 	absolute 	prohibition on subcontracting 	unit 	work, 	the 	new
agreement 	contained 	language 	prohibiting 	contracting 	out
"unless 	such 	contracted 	work 	had been 	negotiated 	with 	the
bargaining unit." 	The January 	22 	agreement 	was 	subsequently
adopted by 	the 	board.
3

In April 	1986, 	CSEA communicated 	to 	the 	District 	its
suspicions 	that 	unit 	work 	involving 	printing 	and 	audio-visual
repair 	was 	impermissibly being 	contracted 	out. 	On April 	17,
1986, 	the 	District 	acknowledged 	that 	a 	single 	printing project
was 	improperly 	subcontracted.
CSEA, 	however, 	remained convinced 	that 	other 	incidents 	of
contracting out were occurring and, 	on June 	25, 	1986, 	requested
that 	the 	District 	supply 	records 	of 	printing requisitions,
purchase 	orders, 	and audio-visual 	repair bills 	dating back 	to
September 	30, 	1985. 	The District 	complied with this 	request 	on
July 9, 	1986. 	CSEA filed 	its 	unfair practice 	charge on July 8,
1986, 	wherein 	it 	alleged 	the 	District 	repudiated 	the 	agreement
by 	engaging 	in 	specific 	incidents 	since 	January 	1986 	of
unlawfully 	contracting 	out 	unit 	work 	customarily performed 	by
the 	repairman/printer 	position.
DISCUSSION
We hold 	that 	the ALJ 	incorrectly concluded 	that 	the
District 	unlawfully 	contracted 	out 	bargaining 	unit 	work 	between
September 	1985 	and January 	1986, 	in violation of 	EERA
section 3543.5(c) 	and, 	derivatively, 	(a) 	and 	(b). 	We find a
2The ALJ 	identified 	the 	following 	incidents 	of 	unlawful
contracting out prior to January 22, 	1986:
The printing 	of 	letterheads 	on 	9/19/85,
10/10/85, 	11/1/85, 11/9/85; the printing of
index cards 	and 	forms on 10/10/85, 	10/17/85,
11/14/85; 	audio visual 	repair work on
10/25/85, 11/5/85, 11/16/85, and 11/18/85.
44

significant 	distinction between 	those 	incidents 	occurring
before January 1986, 	as 	compared 	to 	the 	incidents 	occurring
afterwards.3
The ALJ principally 	relied 	upon 	a 	joint 	exhibit, 	introduced
without 	objection by 	either party, 	containing 	numerous 	purchase
orders, 	requisitions, 	and 	repair bills 	dated 	from September
1985 	through 	June 	1986. 	The ALJ 	also 	relied upon 	the 	testimony
of 	the 	repairman/printer 	in 	concluding 	that 	work 	traditionally
performed by 	the bargaining unit, 	as 	defined by past 	practice,
had 	been 	unilaterally 	contracted 	out.
While we 	are 	in agreement with 	the ALJ's 	analysis 	that
"unit 	work" 	constituted 	all 	printing 	and 	audio/visual 	repairs
within 	the 	limits 	of 	the 	printing 	equipment 	and personal 	skills
of 	the 	repairman/printer, 	we 	reject his 	conclusion 	that
incidents of 	subcontracting prior 	to January 22, 	1986, 	were
violations 	of 	EERA because 	none 	of 	those 	instances 	were 	either
alleged 	or 	fully 	litigated 	throughout 	these 	proceedings 	and,
therefore, 	cannot be 	sustained 	as 	violations of 	the Act.
Unalleged 	Violations
It 	appears 	from 	the 	record 	that 	the Association knew or had
reason 	to know of 	the pre-January 	incidents 	at 	the 	time 	it
5
33we	we 	affirm 	the 	ALJ's 	determination 	that 	three 	separate
incidents of 	subcontracting occurring after 	January 22, 	1986,
were 	unlawful. 	Those 	projects 	improperly 	subcontracted 	after
January 22, 	1986, 	include printing of 	letterhead cards 	on
February 14, 	1986, 	a course description handbook on February
23, 	1986, 	and printing of a parent newsletter on March 20, 	1986.
5

filed 	its 	charge on July 8, 	1986. 	However, 	at no time prior 	to
the 	instant 	appeal 	did 	the Association 	argue 	or 	suggest 	either
in 	its 	case-in-chief 	or 	in any of 	its 	pleadings 	that 	these
incidents 	should be 	litigated 	or 	the 	complaint 	amended. 	Thus,
these 	occurrences 	can only be 	sustained 	as 	Unalleged 	violations
which, 	of necessity, 	must have been 	fully litigated.
This 	Board 	established 	the 	principle 	that 	Unalleged
violations 	may be 	entertained by 	it 	only when 	adequate 	notice
and 	the 	opportunity 	to defend has been provided 	the 	respondent,
and 	where 	such 	acts 	are 	intimately 	related 	to 	the 	subject
matter of 	the 	complaint, 	are part of 	the 	same 	course of
conduct, 	have been 	fully litigated, 	and 	the parties have had
the 	opportunity 	to 	examine 	and be 	cross-examined 	on 	the 	issue.
(Santa 	Clara Unified 	School 	District 	(1979) 	PERB 	Decision
No. 	104 	and Eureka 	City School 	District 	(1985) 	PERB Decision
No. 	481.) 	The 	failure 	to meet 	any of 	the above-listed
requirements 	will 	prevent 	the 	Board 	from 	considering 	Unalleged
conduct 	as violative of 	the Act. 	In 	the 	instant case, 	these
standards 	have 	not been met.
The 	documents 	outlining 	the 	District's 	subcontracting
practice 	since 	September 	1985 	were 	introduced 	for 	the 	limited
purpose 	of 	establishing 	the 	District's 	past 	subcontracting
practice 	and 	to 	identify what 	constituted 	unit 	work 	prior 	to
January 	22, 	1986. 	The 	following discussion at 	the hearing
regarding 	these documents 	is 	instructive:
66

[District Counsel] 	LEWIS: 	It's my
understanding 	that 	our 	agreements 	on
January 22, 	1986, 	if we're going to discuss
these 	it 	would 	seem 	like 	we 	should 	only be
discussing 	those 	that 	occurred 	after
January 26 	[sic]. 	Like the first one 	is
9/19/85 	which 	is before 	any of 	this 	happened.
ALJ: 	Why do we have 	it 	in here?
[Union Counsel] NIEHAUS: 	Well, 	it's a
request 	that 	I made to the District, 	Joint
No. 	IX, 	I made 	a 	request 	—
ALJ: 	No. 	IX 	—
NIEHAUS: 	In Joint Exhibit No. 	IX is 	a copy
of 	the 	request 	for 	information 	that 	I made
. 	. 	. 	the District 	. 	. 	. responded by
sending 	me 	this 	packet 	of 	information 	. . . .
ALJ: 	All 	right. 	Let's 	look 	at 	the one 	that
has 	the 	number 	zero on 	it.
LEWIS: 	Well, 	but 	aren't we 	still 	looking at
the January 22 	agreement? 	I mean, 	that's
when 	it was prohibited.
ALJ: 	Well, 	yes, 	but 	it's going to be
relevant either way. 	If 	this 	is, 	if number
zero 	shows 	printing 	that 	was 	done 	when 	she
was 	still 	employed, 	then 	it 	shows 	that 	there
was 	a past 	practice 	of 	this 	kind of 	printing
going out. 	If 	it 	shows printing 	that's 	come
after 	that, 	but 	then 	it 	shows 	that 	this work
went 	out, 	so either way it's 	going 	to be
relevant, 	either 	to help your 	case or 	to
help his 	case.
LEWIS: 	Okay. 	It's 	in evidence.
We 	note 	that 	the ALJ 	did 	not 	differentiate between 	the
relevance 	of 	these 	documents 	for purposes 	of 	establishing past
practice 	as 	distinct 	from 	allegations 	of 	unlawful
subcontracting, 	which, 	if true, 	could result in findings
against 	the 	District. 	We 	also 	find persuasive 	the 	fact 	that
7

the 	Association 	at 	no 	time 	attempted 	to 	amend 	the 	complaint 	to
include 	these 	allegations. 	Thus, 	we conclude 	that 	the 	District
lacked 	any 	notice 	that 	these 	incidents 	were 	offered 	as
allegations 	of unlawful 	conduct. 	Further, 	given 	the 	lack of
notice 	and 	the 	record as 	a whole, 	we 	are 	unable 	to conclude
that 	the 	Unalleged 	violations 	were 	fully 	litigated.
This 	determination 	is 	consistent 	with 	the 	National 	Labor
Relations 	Board 	(NLRB) 	precedent 	requiring 	adequate 	notice 	and
an 	opportunity 	to defend 	against 	Unalleged 	violations 	as 	a
fundamental 	prerequisite 	for 	determining 	if 	a matter has been
fully 	litigated. 	(American Motors 	Corp. 	(1974) 	214 NLRB 455
[87 LRRM 1393]; 	Hadbar, Div. of Pur 0 Sil, 	Inc. 	(1974) 	211 NLRB
333 	[86 LRRM 1437]; 	and Kingwood Mining Co. 	(1974) 	210 NLRB 844
[86 	LRRM 	1203].) 	Moreover, 	the NLRB has 	consistently rejected
administrative 	law 	judge 	decisions 	where 	notice 	was 	not
provided 	that 	evidence 	of 	Unalleged 	conduct 	might 	constitute
the basis 	for 	independent violations. 	(P & C 	Food Markets
(1987) 	282 NLRB No. 	122 	[124 LRRM 1174]; 	Middletown Hospital
Assoc. 	(1986) 	282 NLRB No. 	79 	[124 LRRM 1260]; Lone Star
Industries, 	Inc. 	(1986) 	279 NLRB No. 	78 [122 LRRM 1162]; 	and
Glasgow Industries, 	Inc. 	(1974) 	210 NLRB 121 	[86 LRRM 1219]. )4
4 In 	Santa Clara, 	supra, 	this 	Board suggested a
distinction 	existed 	in NLRB 	cases 	for 	applying 	the 	notice
requirement 	only 	in 	circumstances 	where 	the 	Unalleged 	violation
is 	distinctly 	separate 	from 	the 	charged 	unfair 	practice.
However, 	the 	above-cited cases 	contradict 	this 	rationale.
Accordingly, 	we hold 	that 	notice 	is 	required 	in all
circumstances.
8

Fundamental 	due 	process 	also 	requires 	that 	the 	respondent
be 	given 	a 	"meaningful 	opportunity 	to meet 	the 	complaint."
(NLRB v. 	Complas 	Industries 	(1983) 	714 Ed.2d 	279 	at 	283 	[114
LRRM 2028]; 	see also NLRB v. 	MacKay Radio & 	Telegraph Co.
(1938) 	304 US 333, 	350 [2 LRRM 610].) 	This 	is especially true
where, 	as here, 	the allegations are outside 	the statutory time
frames.5
In 	addition, 	we 	find 	that 	the ALJ 	erred 	in adjudicating
allegations 	never 	raised by 	the parties. 	That 	the ALJ 	and 	this
Board 	are 	constrained 	from 	resolving, 	sua 	sponte, 	issues
neither 	set 	forth 	in 	the 	complaint 	nor 	fully 	litigated 	after
proper 	notice 	and 	an 	opportunity 	to 	defend was 	recently
reiterated by 	the 	California 	Court 	of 	Appeal 	in J. 	R. 	Norton
Co. 	v. 	ALRB 	(1987) 	192 Cal.App.3d 874. 	The court 	in Norton
rejected 	the 	ALRB's 	determination 	that 	an 	employer 	unlawfully
refused 	to hire 	an 	entire 	seasonal 	work 	crew when 	evidence 	was
only 	received 	and 	litigated 	as 	to 	three 	individual 	employees
from the crew. 	The court, 	in pertinent part, 	reasoned as
follows:
5Rockingham 	Machine-Lunex Co. 	v. 	NLRB 	(1981) 	665 	Fed.2d
303, 	81 	NLRB 	1327 [108 LRRM 	3228]. 	In 	Rockingham, 	the ALJ's
reliance 	on evidence 	of 	an 	employee's 	discharge 	outside 	the
statutory 	time 	period, 	admitted 	solely 	for 	"background"
purposes 	was 	determined by 	the 	NLRB 	to 	improperly 	form 	the
bases 	for 	finding an 	independent 	violation. 	(See 	also
Cedarcrest, 	Inc. 	(1979) 	246 NLRB 131 	[102 LRRM 1692].)
For 	the 	reasons 	which 	follow, 	it 	is 	unnecessary to
determine 	whether 	the 	Unalleged 	incidents 	in 	the 	instant matter
were 	also 	untimely.
99

The 	Board's 	broad 	finding 	applying 	the
refusal 	to hire 	all 	of 	the 	Crew W was 	made
without 	notice 	to 	Norton of 	the 	substituted
charge 	and 	the 	opportunity 	to 	defend 	against
it 	. . . 	It 	is difficult, 	if not
impossible, 	to conclude a 	failure or 	refusal
to 	rehire 	the 	entire 	Crew W was 	fully
litigated.
The 	Court 	in Norton 	further 	overturned 	the 	ALRB's 	conclusion 	on
the basis 	that 	a 	denial 	of 	fundamental 	due 	process 	would 	result
if 	Unalleged 	and 	unlitigated 	matters 	were 	resolved 	without
notice 	and 	stated:
The province of 	the Board 	is 	to resolve, 	not
to find, 	issues. 	Where evidence 	is
introduced 	on one 	issue 	set 	by 	the
pleadings, 	its 	introduction cannot be
regarded 	as 	authorizing 	the 	determination 	of
some 	other 	issue 	not 	presented by 	the
pleadings. 	(See Crescent Lumber Co. 	v.
Larson 	(1913) 	166 Cal. 	168, 	171; Marvin v.
Marvin 	(1981) 	122 Cal.App.3d 871, 	875.)
Because 	Norton 	was 	not 	advised 	that 	failure
to 	rehire 	was 	the 	activity 	it 	needed 	to
defend against, 	it 	is not 	surprising the
Board 	found 	Norton 	failed 	to 	present
evidence 	justifying a 	failure 	to 	rehire.
Consequently 	Norton had 	no 	opportunity 	to
gather 	evidence 	or 	prepare 	legal 	arguments
refuting 	the 	occurrence 	of 	such 	violations.
Fundamental 	fairness 	includes both 	the 	right
to adequate 	notice 	and 	the 	right 	to defend
against 	charged violations. 	The 	lack 	of
notice 	runs 	contrary 	to elementary
constitutional 	principles 	of 	procedural 	due
process 	which 	requires 	the 	Board's 	findings
be 	set 	aside. 	(See 	Sunnyside 	Nurseries 	Inc.
v. 	Agricultural 	Labor 	Relations 	Bd. 	(1979)
93 Cal.App.3d 922, 	933.)
We 	observe 	these principles 	in 	this 	case.
10
• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	•

The 	Timeliness 	of 	Pre-January 	22 	Incidents
The 	ALJ 	concluded 	that 	although 	the 	pre-January 	incidents
occurred 	outside 	the 	six-month 	statutory period, 	the 	District
waived 	any opportunity 	to raise 	this 	as 	a defense, 	citing
Walnut 	Valley Unified 	School 	District 	(1983) 	PERB 	Decision
No. 289.
The 	District 	in 	its 	exceptions 	urges 	the Board 	to reverse
the ALJ's 	determination 	that 	it 	waived 	its 	right 	to assert 	the
statute 	of 	limitation as 	an 	affirmative 	defense 	and
additionally 	requests 	the 	Board 	to 	dismiss 	those 	Unalleged
incidents 	of 	subcontracting prior 	to January 22, 	1986, 	as
untimely.
We hold 	that, 	irrespective 	of 	whether 	the 	six-month 	statute
of 	limitations 	was 	properly 	raised by 	the 	District 	or 	waived
pursuant 	to Walnut Valley, 	our 	determination 	that 	the
pre-January 	22 	incidents 	were 	not 	fully 	litigated 	in 	accord
with 	the 	standards 	set 	forth 	in Santa Clara, 	supra, 	is
dispositive. 	We 	expressly decline 	to 	adopt 	the ALJ's 	reasoning
that 	the 	District's 	failure 	to 	assert 	the 	statute 	of 	limitation
until 	the 	instant 	appeal 	constituted a waiver 	of 	the
opportunity 	to do 	so 	under 	EERA 	section 	3541.5(a)(l)6 and
6EERA 	section 3541.5 	reads, 	in pertinent part, 	as 	follows:
(a) Any employee, 	employee organization, 	or
employer 	shall have 	the 	right 	to 	file 	an
unfair practice 	charge, 	except 	that 	the
board 	shall 	not 	do either 	of 	the 	following:
11
• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	•

Walnut Valley, 	supra.
(1) 	issue a complaint 	in respect 	of any
charge 	based 	upon 	an 	alleged 	unfair 	practice
occurring more 	than 	six months 	prior 	to 	the
filing of the charge. 	. 	. 	.
Moreover, 	we 	conclude 	that 	the 	District 	lacked notice 	that
the 	Unalleged 	incidents 	could 	constitute 	violations 	and 	was
therefore 	precluded 	from 	raising 	the 	statutory 	time 	limits 	as 	a
defense 	until 	after 	the 	proposed decision was 	issued. 	A party
cannot 	fairly be 	charged 	with 	an obligation 	to 	assert
affirmative 	defenses 	to 	allegations 	never brought 	to 	its
attention. 	Thus, 	there 	can be no waiver 	on these 	facts.
Accordingly, 	the ALJ's 	reasoning and 	application of Walnut
Valley was 	inapposite.7
Post January 22, 	1986 	Incidents
We 	find 	those 	incidents 	of 	subcontracting 	subsequent 	to
January 22, 	1986, 	found by the ALJ 	to be 	in violation of 	EERA
section 3543.5(c) 	and, 	derivatively 	(b), 	to be supported by the
record 	and 	accordingly 	affirm 	that 	portion 	of 	the 	proposed
decision. 	(See 	fn. 	3 at p. 	5.) 	These 	incidents 	represented a
unilateral 	change 	from 	the 	District's 	past 	subcontracting
practice 	and 	a 	violation 	of 	the party's 	agreement 	which had 	a
direct 	effect 	upon 	the 	terms 	and 	conditions 	of 	the 	employment 	of
the 	affected bargaining 	unit 	member. 	(Oak Grove 	School 	District
7The 	Board's 	decision 	in 	this 	case 	not 	to 	consider 	the
Walnut 	Valley 	standards 	does 	not 	explicitly or 	implicitly
constitute 	agreement 	with 	the 	reasoning 	contained 	therein. 	We
leave 	for 	another 	day the 	correctness 	of Walnut 	Valley.
12
7

(1985) 	PERB Decision No. 	503; 	Grant Joint 	Union High School
District 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	196.) 	While 	the District's
unilateral 	change 	in 	subcontracting practices 	necessarily denied
the Association 	its 	statutory 	right 	to bargain 	on behalf 	of 	unit
members, 	we 	find no 	evidence 	that 	individual 	employee 	rights 	as
such 	were 	abrogated. 	Therefore, 	we 	disaffirm 	the ALJ's 	finding
of 	a derivative 	section 3543.5(a) 	violation.
REMEDY
Consistent 	with our 	remedial 	authority, 	we 	find 	that 	Renee
Stone, 	the District's only repairman/printer, 	shall be made
whole 	for 	wages 	and 	any other benefits 	lost 	when work 	ordinarily
performed by her 	was 	contracted 	out. 	The 	lost 	compensation
shall be 	calculated by applying 	the 	appropriate hourly 	rate 	to
the 	hours 	she would have 	worked had 	the 	three 	improperly
subcontracted 	incidents 	not 	occurred.
ORDER
Upon the 	foregoing findings of 	fact, 	conclusions of 	law, 	and
the 	entire 	record 	in 	this 	case, 	and pursuant 	to section
3541.5(c) 	of 	the Educational Employment Relations Act, 	it 	is
hereby 	ORDERED 	that 	the 	Tahoe-Truckee 	Unified 	School 	District
and 	its 	representative 	shall:
1. 	CEASE AND DESIST 	FROM:
A. 	Unilaterally 	transferring work 	out 	of 	the
classified bargaining 	unit 	by 	subcontracting 	to 	outside 	printers
and 	electronic 	repair 	shops 	work 	formerly performed by 	a 	member
of 	the 	unit.
13

B. 	Denying 	to 	the 	California 	School 	Employees
Association 	and 	its 	Tahoe-Truckee 	Chapter 	No. 	383 	rights
guaranteed by 	the 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Act,
including 	the 	right 	to represent 	its 	members.
2. 	TAKE 	THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS 	DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE 	THE 	POLICIES 	OF 	THE 	EDUCATIONAL EMPLOYMENT
RELATIONS ACT:
A. 	Reimburse 	Renee 	Stone 	for 	all 	wages 	and other
benefits 	lost because of 	the 	District's 	decision 	to 	subcontract
the printing of 	letterhead on February 14, 	1986, 	course
description handbook on 	February 23, 	1986, 	and a parent
newsletter 	on or about March 20, 	1986. 	The amount due 	to Ms.
Stone 	shall be 	augmented by 	interest 	at 	the 	rate 	of 	ten percent
per 	annum 	dating 	from 	the 	first 	pay period 	after 	the
subcontracting of 	each 	job.
B. 	Within 	thirty-five 	(35) 	days 	following the date
this 	Decision 	is 	no longer 	subject 	to reconsideration, 	post 	at
all 	work 	locations 	where 	notices 	to 	classified 	employees 	are
customarily posted, 	copies 	of 	the 	Notice 	attached hereto as 	an
Appendix. 	The Notice must be 	signed by an 	authorized 	agent 	of
the 	District, 	indicating 	that 	the 	District will 	comply with 	the
terms 	of 	this 	Order. 	Such posting 	shall be 	maintained 	for 	a
period of 	thirty 	(30) 	consecutive workdays. 	Reasonable 	steps
shall 	be 	taken 	to ensure 	that 	the Notice 	is 	not 	reduced 	in 	size,
altered, 	defaced, 	or 	covered by any other material.
14

C. 	Written 	notification 	of 	the 	actions 	taken 	to 	comply
with 	this 	Order 	shall be made 	to 	the 	Sacramento 	Regional
Director 	of 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	in 	accord 	with
the 	Director's 	instructions.
It 	is 	further 	ORDERED that 	all 	other 	allegations 	in Case 	No.
S-CE-1006 	are 	hereby 	DISMISSED.
Members 	Craib 	and 	Shank 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
Member 	Porter's 	dissent begins 	on page 	16.
15

Porter, 	Member, 	dissenting: 	I must 	respectfully disagree
with my colleagues' 	conclusion 	that 	the 	respondent 	District
unlawfully 	changed 	the policy 	that 	printing work, 	which 	was
bargaining unit work, 	would not be 	contracted out. 	While 	the
record 	shows 	that 	some 	unintentional 	and 	unrelated 	violations 	of
the 	agreement 	occurred 	in 	connection with 	printing work, 	none 	of
these 	violations 	had 	a generalized 	effect 	or 	continuing 	impact
upon 	the bargaining unit 	employees, 	nor do 	the 	violations
individually or 	together, 	by their 	nature 	or by 	the
circumstances 	surrounding 	them evidence 	a 	change 	in policy as 	to
such 	printing 	work.
The 	Legislature 	has 	expressly withheld 	from 	this 	Board 	the
authority 	to 	enforce 	agreements between 	the parties 	and/or 	to
remedy 	alleged 	violations 	of 	such 	agreements 	unless 	the 	alleged
violations 	also 	constitute 	an unfair 	practice 	under 	EERA. 	(Gov.
Code, 	sec. 	3541.5, 	subd. 	(b).1) 	Reasonably 	implied 	from the
terms 	of 	the 	statute 	— 	and borne 	out 	in 	the 	prior 	decisions 	of
this 	Board 	— 	is 	that 	violations 	of 	the 	parties' 	agreement 	are
not 	automatically, 	per se, 	unfair practices under EERA. 	As 	set
1Subdivision(b) 	of 	EERA section 	3541.5 	prescribes:
The board 	shall 	not have 	authority 	to 	enforce
agreements between the parties, 	and 	shall 	not
issue 	a 	complaint 	on 	any 	charge based 	on
alleged 	violation 	of 	such 	an 	agreement 	that
would 	not 	also constitute an 	unfair 	practice
under 	this 	chapter.
16

forth by 	this 	Board 	in 	Grant 	Joint 	Union High 	School 	District
(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	196, 	pages 	2-12, 	footnotes omitted,
emphasis 	added 	except 	as 	noted:
The Association 	alleges 	that 	the 	District
breached 	three 	separate 	terms 	of 	the parties'
collective agreement. 	Such conduct, 	it
argues, 	constitutes a unilateral modification
of 	the 	agreement 	and 	a 	repudiation of 	a
negotiable 	subject 	matter 	in 	violation of
subsection 3543.5(c).
Subsection 3541.5(b) 	states:
The board 	shall 	not have 	authority 	to
enforce 	agreements 	between 	the 	parties,
and 	shall 	not 	issue 	a complaint on any
charge 	based 	on 	alleged 	violation 	of
such 	an 	agreement 	that 	would 	not 	also
constitute 	an 	unfair 	practice 	under 	this
chapter. 	[Emphasis 	in 	original.]
The 	Act 	is 	designed 	to 	foster 	the 	negotiation
process. 	Such 	a policy 	is 	undermined when
one 	party 	to 	an 	agreement 	changes 	or modifies
its 	terms 	without 	the 	consent 	of 	the 	other
party. 	PERB is concerned, 	therefore, 	with a
unilateral 	change 	in 	established 	policy which
represents 	a 	conscious 	or 	apparent 	reversal
of a previous understanding, 	whether 	the
latter 	is 	embodied 	in a contract 	or 	evident
from the parties' 	past practice.
[Citations.]
This 	is 	not 	to 	say that 	every breach of
contract also violates 	the Act. 	Such 	a
breach 	must 	amount 	to a change of policy,
not 	merely 	a 	default 	in a 	contractual
obligation, 	before 	it constitutes a
violation of 	the 	duty 	to bargain. 	This
distinction 	is 	crucial. 	A change of policy
17
• 	• 	• 	• 	•
• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	•
• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	•

has, 	by definition, 	a generalized effect
or 	continuing 	impact 	upon 	the 	terms 	and
conditions 	of 	employment 	of bargaining
unit members. 	On 	the other hand, 	when an
employer 	unilaterally breaches 	an 	agreement
without 	instituting 	a 	new policy of 	general
application or 	continuing effect, 	its
conduct, 	though 	remediable 	through 	the
courts 	or 	arbitration, 	does 	not violate 	the
Act. 	The evil of 	the employer's 	conduct,
therefore, 	is not the breaching of the"
contract per 	se, 	but 	the 	altering of 	an
established 	policy mutually 	agreed 	upon by
the parties 	during 	the 	negotiation process.
[Citations.] 	By unilaterally altering or
reversing 	a negotiated policy, 	the 	employer
effectively 	repudiates 	the 	agreement.
[Citation.]
. . . 	A prima 	facie 	case 	will 	be 	successfully
stated 	if 	the Association's 	complaint 	alleges
facts 	sufficient 	to show: 	(1) 	that 	the
District breached 	or 	otherwise 	altered 	the
parties' 	written agreement 	. 	. 	.; 	and 	(2)
that 	those breaches 	amount 	to a 	change of
policy; 	that 	is, 	that 	they had a generalized
affect 	or 	continuing 	impact 	upon 	the 	terms
and 	conditions 	of bargaining 	unit 	members.
With 	respect 	to 	the 	transfer 	issue, 	the
Association 	alleges 	that 	the 	District's
decision 	to prohibit 	previously 	assigned
teachers 	from applying 	for 	vacancies
directly 	conflicted 	with 	section 	1.2 	of 	the
negotiated 	side 	agreement, 	which 	specifies
that 	vacancies 	'shall be 	open 	to all
bargaining unit 	members.' 	Since, 	by 	its
terms, 	the need-not-apply notice was
directed 	to all 	employees 	who, 	when
vacancies 	arose, 	had 	already been 	assigned
to a position 	for 	the 	1980-81 	academic year,
the 	District's 	conduct 	would, 	by necessity,
have 	a 	continuing 	impact 	on 	the bargaining
unit. 	Therefore, 	its conduct, 	if true, would
constitute 	the 	adoption of 	a 	new policy of
general 	application 	in 	conflict 	with 	the
parties' 	negotiated agreement. 	[Citations.]
18
• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	•

As 	further 	articulated by 	this 	Board 	in 	Oak 	Grove 	School
District 	(1985) 	PERB Decision No. 	503, 	page 7, 	emphasis added:
To 	show 	that 	a unilateral 	change has
occurred, 	the 	charging party 	logically must
first 	prove 	what 	the 	employer's 	prevailing
practice 	or policy was 	as 	to 	the 	working
condition at 	issue. 	Having 	established 	this
'status 	quo 	ante,' 	the 	charging party must
then show 	that 	the employer has, 	without
first 	providing 	an 	opportunity 	to 	negotiate,
departed 	from 	that 	prevailing policy 	or
practice 	in 	a way which 	evidences 	the
adoption 	of 	a 	new policy having 	a 	generalized
effect 	or 	continuing 	impact 	upon 	the
bargaining unit members. 	Grant 	Joint 	Union
High 	School 	District 	(1982) 	PERB 	Decision
No. 196.
Thus, 	in analyzing whether 	an employer's 	violation(s) 	of an
agreement 	also 	constitute 	an unlawful 	unilateral 	change 	in
policy 	in violation 	of 	subdivision 	(c) 	of 	EERA section 	3543.5,
it 	is 	incumbent 	upon us 	to examine 	the 	nature of 	the 	individual
violation(s) 	as 	to whether 	it 	is one having a generalized effect
or 	continuing 	impact 	upon 	the bargaining unit members, 	as 	well
as 	whether 	the 	circumstances 	surrounding 	the 	violation(s)
demonstrate 	that 	the employer has, 	in 	fact, 	repudiated 	the
policy.2 (Grant 	Joint 	Union High 	School 	District 	(1982) 	PERB
Decision No. 	196, 	pp. 	2-12; 	Oak Grove School District 	(1985)
2In 	a given case, 	a violation may not, 	in 	itself, 	have
a 	generalized 	effect 	or 	continuing 	impact 	upon 	the bargaining
unit members. 	However, 	the statements 	and actions of 	the
employer 	in 	connection with 	the 	violation may demonstrate 	that
the 	employer has, 	in 	fact, 	intentionally repudiated the
established 	policy 	and has 	embarked 	on 	a 	new 	and 	different
policy which 	does 	or 	will 	affect bargaining 	unit 	members.
19

PERB Decision No. 	503, 	p. 	7; 	Eureka 	City School 	District 	(1985)
PERB Decision No. 	528, 	pp. 	5-6; Anaheim City School District
(1983) 	PERB Decision No. 	364, pp. 26-27; Lake Elsinore School
District 	(1988) PERB Decision No. 	666, 	pp. 	10, 	16-18;
Los Angeles 	Community 	College 	District 	(1987) 	PERB Decision
No. 618.)
With 	the 	foregoing 	in mind, 	we 	turn 	to the 	facts 	of 	the
instant 	case.
The 	Tahoe-Truckee 	Unified 	School 	District 	has 	nine 	schools
located at 	various 	sites 	in Placer 	County. 	There 	are: 	three
high 	schools 	- Tahoe-Truckee High 	(Truckee), 	North Tahoe High
(Tahoe City), 	and Sierra High 	(Tahoe City); 	two intermediate
schools 	- Sierra Mountain Middle 	(Truckee) 	and North Tahoe
Intermediate 	(Tahoe 	City); 	and 	four 	elementary schools 	- 	Donner
Trail 	Elementary 	(Soda 	Springs), 	Kings 	Beach Elementary 	(Kings
Beach), 	Tahoe Lake Elementary 	(Tahoe City), 	and Truckee
Elementary 	(Truckee).
For 	their 	printing 	needs3 at 	the 	individual 	schools,
including duplication 	and 	copying, 	the 	individual 	principals 	at
the 	various 	schools 	would 	independently 	utilize 	six 	different
sources 	depending on 	various 	ad hoc 	factors 	as 	to each need
as 	it 	arose, 	including: 	the type of documents needed, 	the
3Such 	needs 	included: 	letterhead 	stationery, 	printed
envelopes, business cards, 	course descriptions, 	"parents
rights" summary, 	questionnaires, 	school newspapers, 	parents
newsletters, honor certificates, 	student hall passes, 	etc.
20

physical 	size of 	the document, 	the printing style, 	special
printing effects, 	the 	time 	when needed, 	and/or 	the quantity
needed. 	Sources 	utilized were: 	(1) 	each 	school 	site had a
regular 	copying machine, 	and some had 	"ditto" machines; 	(2) 	a
large 	capacity 	copying machine 	was 	located 	in 	the 	administrative
wing at 	the District office 	in Truckee; 	(3) 	the Placer County
Office of 	Education 	in Auburn maintained purchasable 	supplies 	of
various 	printed 	forms; 	(4) 	an offset press-copier with 	limited
accessory equipment was 	located 	at 	the 	District 	office building
in 	Truckee; 	(5) 	an offset press-copier with 	limited accessory
equipment 	was 	located 	at 	North 	Tahoe 	High 	in 	Tahoe 	City;4 and
(6) 	private vendors, 	including Resort Graphics 	(Tahoe City),
Tahoe 	Instant Press 	(Truckee), 	Tahoe World 	(Tahoe City), 	Tahoe
Daily 	Tribune 	(South Lake 	Tahoe), 	and 	Print 	Technique 	(Tahoe
City).
The copying and ditto machines 	at 	the 	various 	school 	sites,
and 	the 	large 	capacity copying machine 	at 	the 	District 	office
in 	Truckee, 	were operated by various 	administrative, 	classified
and 	certificated 	employees 	at 	the 	individual 	sites. 	The 	offset
press 	at 	the 	District 	office 	was 	operated by 	Renee 	Stone, 	an
audio-visual 	repairman/offset 	press 	operator, 	a 	classified
employee. 	The offset press 	at North 	Tahoe High was 	operated
4 The 	North 	Tahoe 	High 	offset 	press 	was 	utilized 	for 	the
printing 	needs 	of 	North 	Tahoe High 	and 	the 	adjacent 	North 	Tahoe
Intermediate 	School.
21

by 	the 	students 	in 	the high 	school's 	industrial 	arts 	classes
conducted by Donald Waymire, 	a 	certificated 	employee.
Certain 	items 	could 	not be done 	on 	the 	offset 	press 	at 	the
District 	office 	due 	to the 	limited 	capabilities 	of 	the 	offset
press 	itself. 	Such 	items 	included: 	business cards, 	school
newspapers 	and/or 	documents 	exceeding 	8 	1/2 by 	14 	inches 	in
size, 	specially embossed certificates, 	etc. 	Such printing
services 	— 	along with, 	at 	times, 	other 	items 	that 	could be 	done
on 	the 	offset 	press 	— 	were 	ordered 	as 	needed by 	the 	various
schools 	from 	the 	assorted private 	vendors 	in 	Truckee, 	Tahoe 	City
and 	South 	Lake 	Tahoe.
In 	August 	1985, 	the 	District passed 	a 	resolution 	calling
for 	the 	layoff of 	six 	custodian positions, 	two 	food 	services
positions, 	and 	the 	audio-visual 	repairman/offset press 	operator
position 	(occupied by Stone), 	as well 	as 	the 	reduction 	in hours
of 	three 	food 	services positions. 	In bargaining 	the 	effects 	of
the 	layoffs, 	the 	District 	and 	the 	classified unit 	representative
(CSEA) 	agreed 	to 	reduce 	Stone's position 	to 	20 hours 	a week 	in
lieu of 	layoff. 	Stone's 	reduction 	in hours, 	along with
additional 	layoffs 	of 	custodial 	and 	cafeteria positions,
occurred 	in 	September 	1985.
The 	District 	and 	CSEA made 	a 	supplemental 	agreement 	that,
with 	respect 	to the 	layoffs 	and reductions 	in hours, 	the
District 	would 	not 	contract 	out 	the 	work 	which had been
performed by 	the 	laid-off 	or 	reduced-time 	classified 	employees,
nor 	would 	such 	work 	be 	given 	to or 	done by administrative 	staff,
22

confidential 	employees, 	certificated employees, 	students or
volunteers. 	This 	supplemental 	agreement became 	effective 	on or
about January 22, 	1986.
In 	order 	to monitor 	the 	above-mentioned 	supplemental
agreement, 	CSEA was 	provided with 	copies 	of 	the 	District's
warrants 	for 	goods 	and services. 	In April 	1986, 	CSEA observed a
$1,500 warrant having been paid 	in April 	to a private printer.
The CSEA chapter president, 	Helen Gates, 	met with 	the 	District's
negotiator, 	Robert 	Doyle 	(who was 	also 	the 	Sierra High principal
and 	the 	acting assistant 	superintendent 	in April), 	and 	inquired
as 	to 	what 	printing 	service 	was 	provided 	for 	that particular
warrant. 	It 	was 	determined by Doyle 	that 	Tahoe-Truckee High
School had 	contracted 	for 	the 	printing of 	course 	descriptions,
and 	Doyle 	told 	Gates 	that he 	would 	investigate 	the 	matter. 	On
April 	17, 	1986, 	Doyle sent 	Gates 	the 	following office memorandum;
TO: 	Helen 	Gates 	DATE: 	April 	17, 	1986
FROM: 	Robert 	Doyle 	SUBJECT: 	Contract 	Violation
On Thursday, 	April 17, 	I met with Tahoe Truckee High
School 	Principal, 	Rick Miller, 	concerning the matters
of 	contracting 	for printing 	services. 	My 	investigation
determined 	the 	following:
1. 	We have 	always 	contracted 	with 	private printers 	for
awards 	and 	certificates.
2. 	We have 	not 	contracted with private printers 	to do
course 	descriptions. 	Therefore 	the 	printing order 	was
23

in violation. 	Mr. 	Miller now understands 	that 	any
contracted 	services 	may be 	in 	violation 	and he 	will
check 	with 	me. 	Subsequently 	I 	will 	contact you. 	The
matter 	of printing 	services 	has 	been put 	on 	the 	agenda
for 	the April 	24 Tahoe 	Truckee 	Administrators 	meeting.
[Emphasis 	added.]
At 	the April 24 administrators' 	meeting, 	Assistant
Superintendent 	Doyle 	discussed 	with 	the 	various 	school
administrators 	the 	importance 	of 	the 	supplemental 	agreement. 	He
instructed 	them 	that 	any 	items 	which had been printed 	in 	the
past 	by 	the 	District 	should 	not be 	contracted 	out. 	District
Superintendent 	Mulholland 	further 	emphasized 	to 	the 	school
administrators 	that, 	since printing needs 	emanated 	from a
variety of places 	and 	from various 	staff members, 	each principal
was 	put 	on notice 	to be 	particularly observant 	with 	respect 	to
the 	type 	of printing 	service 	requested.
On June 	25, 	1986, 	CSEA representative Niehaus wrote 	to
Mulholland 	and 	indicated 	that 	CSEA was 	investigating 	the
possibility 	that 	work 	previously 	and 	exclusively 	performed
by 	the 	audio-visual 	repairman/offset 	press 	operator 	had been
contracted 	out 	or 	transferred 	to other 	District 	employees.
CSEA requested that 	the 	District supply, 	by July 11, 	1986, 	any
and 	all 	documents 	relating 	to printing 	services 	and 	audio-visual
repair 	services 	since September 13, 	1985, 	to enable CSEA to
ascertain 	whether 	contract 	or 	EERA 	violations 	had 	occurred.
On July 1, 	1986, 	Terre Krause became assistant 	superintendent
(replacing Doyle), 	and District 	Superintendent Mulholland
specifically 	appointed 	Krause 	as 	the 	administrator 	to 	supervise
24

the 	offset 	printing operations 	for 	Stone's 	position.
On July 9, 	1986, 	the 	District gave CSEA photocopies 	of all
the 	documents 	requested 	in 	the 	CSEA letter, 	along with a 	cover
letter 	which 	set 	forth:
Dear Mr. Niehaus:
I 	am writing 	in 	response 	to your 	letter 	dated June 	25,
1986. 	In your 	letter you 	requested copies 	of purchase
orders, 	requisitions, 	billings and work orders 	for
printing 	services 	and 	audio-visual 	repair 	services
since 	September 13, 	1985. 	Enclosed you will 	find
photocopies 	of 	all 	documents 	requested.
I 	will 	be 	most 	happy 	to discuss 	these 	documents 	with
you 	or 	answer 	any questions 	you may have 	concerning
them. 	If you wish 	to have 	a conference, 	please call
Nancy at 	587-3733 	to set up an appointment. 	I would
like 	to 	involve 	Bob 	Doyle 	since he previously was
involved 	in 	this 	matter 	should you 	request 	a
conference.
Please 	give me 	a call 	if you have 	any questions.
Sincerely,
Terre D. 	Krause
Assistant 	Superintendent
In 	checking 	Stone's 	work 	assignment, 	Krause 	found 	that
Stone's 	printing work 	was 	backlogged because 	she 	was 	off 	during
the 	summer 	recess. 	Krause discussed 	the 	printing backlog with
Superintendent 	Mulholland 	and 	it 	was 	decided 	to bring 	Stone 	in
to 	work 	extra hours, 	both before 	and after 	the 	start of 	the
school 	year, 	until 	the backlog was 	cleared. 	Stone worked such
extra hours 	during August 	and 	September 	of 	1986.
Also, 	sometime near 	the end of August 	1986, 	a questionable
purchase 	order 	for 	outside 	printing 	came 	to 	Krause's 	attention.
25

At 	the very next administrators' 	meeting, 	Krause 	initiated a new
practice 	whereby 	the 	individual 	school 	administrators 	would 	no
longer 	contract 	directly with 	outside 	printers but, 	instead,
would 	send 	all 	their 	printing 	requests 	to 	Krause's 	secretary.
Krause's 	secretary would 	take 	such 	requests 	to Stone, 	who would
determine 	if 	the 	requested 	items 	could be 	done 	on her 	offset
equipment. 	If 	Stone 	advised 	that 	she 	could not print 	the 	items,
they were 	then 	sent 	out 	to private 	vendors. 	If 	Stone 	could do
the 	items, 	such 	items 	were 	then arranged 	in a prioritized order
for 	Stone 	to follow. 	In November 	1986, 	Krause altered this
practice by personally handling 	the meetings, 	discussions 	and
prioritizations 	with 	Stone himself.
The 	unfair 	practice 	charge 	filed by 	CSEA alleged 	that, 	since
January 	1986,5 the 	District had 	violated 	subdivision 	(c) 	of
EERA 	section 	3543.5 	by contracting 	out 	to private 	companies 	or
transferring 	to 	nonunit 	employees 	work 	previously 	and 	exclusively
performed by 	the 	audio-visual 	repairman/offset 	press 	operator,
including 	eight 	specified printing 	incidents. 	Four 	of 	the
incidents 	involved 	contracting out 	to private 	vendors 	and 	four
involved 	work 	done 	on 	the 	offset press 	at 	North 	Tahoe 	High
5I 	agree 	with 	the 	majority 	that 	the 	1985 	printing
incidents 	were 	not 	charged. 	Even 	if 	they had been 	charged,
they occurred prior 	to the January 	22, 	1986 	agreement.
Moreover, 	the 	1985 	printing 	incidents 	may 	simply represent
the 	existing practice prior 	to January 22, 	1986, 	whereby 	items
of 	bargaining 	unit 	printing work 	would be 	contracted 	out 	at
various 	times 	to private 	vendors, 	both 	separately and 	in
conjunction 	with 	nonbargaining 	unit 	work.
26

School. 	The eight were:
1. 	Honor 	Roll 	and 	Distinguished 	Scholar 	Certificates 	for
Tahoe-Truckee High 	School 	(billed 	for 	$236.30 	in March 	1968);
2. 	Printed 	letterheads 	and 	envelopes 	for 	an 	unidentified 	school
(ordered 	in 	January 	1986 	and billed 	for 	$122.83 	in April
1986) ;
3. 	School 	Opinion 	Surveys 	for 	Sierra Mountain Middle 	School
(ordered 	in January 1986 	and billed 	for 	$85.52 	in April
1986);
4. 	Course 	Description Handbook 	for 	Tahoe-Truckee 	High 	School
(billed for $1,502 	in April 1986);
5. 	Open House 	Newsletter 	for parents 	at 	North Tahoe High
School, 	done 	in April 	1986 by Waymire at 	North Tahoe High
School;
6. 	Parents 	Directory 	for 	North 	Tahoe 	Intermediate 	School, 	done
in April 	1986 by Waymire 	at 	North Tahoe High 	School;
7. 	Printed 	letterheads 	and 	envelopes 	for 	North 	Tahoe 	High
School, 	done 	in May 1986 by Waymire 	at 	North Tahoe High
School; and
8. 	Course 	Description Handbook 	for 	North 	Tahoe High 	School,
done 	in May 	1986 by Waymire 	at 	North 	Tahoe 	High 	School.
Of 	the eight printing 	incidents 	alleged, 	the ALJ found, 	and
the majority opinion affirms, 	that only one of 	the 	items—the
course 	description 	handbook 	for 	Tahoe-Truckee 	High 	School—was
an 	item 	that 	would have been bargaining 	unit 	work 	for 	Stone's
position. 	The other 	printing 	items 	were 	found 	not 	to be
bargaining 	unit 	work 	for 	Stone's 	position because 	the printing
could 	not 	be 	done 	on 	Stone's 	offset 	press 	or 	the printing 	for
two of 	the 	schools 	had always been done by Waymire's 	students
27

6	on 	the 	offset 	press 	at North 	Tahoe High 	School.6
In 	addition 	to 	the 	aforesaid 	course 	description handbook 	for
Tahoe-Truckee 	High 	School, 	the ALJ also 	found, 	and 	the majority
opinion 	affirms, 	two other post-January 1986 	items 	(contained 	in
the 	group 	of purchase 	orders 	and 	invoices 	the 	District 	supplied
to 	CSEA), 	which were part of 	the bargaining unit work 	that 	could
have been 	done by Stone. 	One 	item was 	500 	printed 	letterheads
by a 	private 	vendor billed 	at 	$70.88 	in 	February 1986 	(which 	was
combined 	with 	a 	nonbargaining 	unit 	job 	item of 	500 business
cards). 	The 	second 	item was 	350 parent newsletters 	for 	Sierra
Mountain 	Middle 	School by 	a private 	vendor 	and billed 	at 	$18.86
in March 	1986.
The 	facts 	show that, 	after 	the January 22, 	1986 agreement
not 	to 	contract 	out 	custodial, 	cafeteria 	and printing bargaining
unit work, 	and up to April 	16, 	1986, 	there were 	three separate
and 	different 	items 	of 	printing work 	ordered 	and purchased 	from
private 	vendors 	in violation of 	that 	agreement: 	the 	$70 printed
letterheads 	item 	in 	February; 	the 	$19 parent 	newsletters 	item 	in
March; 	and 	the 	$1,500 course description handbook 	item 	for 	Tahoe-
Truckee 	High 	School 	ordered 	in 	January and billed 	in April.
These 	contract 	violations 	occurred 	in 	the 	context 	of 	a 	large
6Neither 	the ALJ, 	in his proposed decision, 	nor 	the
majority 	opinion 	deal 	with 	item 	2—the 	printed 	letterheads 	and
envelopes 	ordered on January 24, 	1986 	and billed 	in April 	1986.
While 	this 	item was 	ordered 	just 	two days 	after 	the 	January 	22,
1986 	agreement, 	it would 	still 	appear 	to be 	in violation of 	the
agreement.
28

number 	of 	varied 	printing 	items being 	ordered by 	and 	done 	for
the 	various 	schools. 	Printing 	services 	were being provided by
multiple 	sources, 	including Stone's 	offset press, 	Waymire's
North 	Tahoe 	High 	School 	offset 	press, 	and 	assorted private
vendors. 	Some 	items were bargaining unit printing work, 	some
items 	were 	nonbargaining unit printing work, 	and 	some 	items 	were
a 	combination of 	the 	two.
It 	is 	difficult 	to perceive 	these 	individual 	and unrelated
violations 	of 	the 	agreement, 	viewed 	separately or 	together,
as 	having 	a 	generalized 	effect 	or 	continuing 	impact 	on 	the
bargaining 	unit 	(or 	specifically on 	Stone's position7), such
that 	one 	or 	all 	of 	the violations 	also constitute an unlawful
unilateral 	change 	in policy by 	the 	District. 	Unlike 	the 	facts
in 	the 	PERB 	and 	NLRB 	cases 	cited by 	the ALJ where 	contracting
out 	was 	found 	to be 	a unilateral 	change 	in policy or practice,
the 	District here 	did not 	contract 	with 	a private 	vendor 	or
independent 	contractor 	to 	supply all 	or 	a 	specific part 	of 	its
printing 	needs. 	Nor was 	there a contract with 	the 	respective
private 	vendors 	who were 	involved 	in 	the 	three 	contract
violations 	to 	continue 	to 	supply any or 	all 	other 	letterheads,
course 	descriptions 	or parent 	newsletters 	items.
7While 	the 	three 	violations 	may have 	affected 	Stone's
position 	to 	the 	extent 	that 	she did 	not have 	those 	three 	items
to print, 	they did 	not have 	a generalized 	effect 	or 	continuing
impact 	on her 	position.
29

Likewise, 	the 	circumstances 	surrounding 	the 	three 	violations
do 	not 	suggest 	that 	the 	District was 	repudiating 	and 	changing
the policy and, 	thus, 	would contract out all 	similar 	items 	in
the 	future. 	When 	CSEA questioned 	the 	one 	large April 	warrant,
the 	District 	promptly 	investigated 	the 	matter 	and 	acknowledged
to CSEA that 	the printing 	item was, 	indeed, 	bargaining unit work
and, 	as 	such, 	it was a violation of the agreement. 	The District
then 	undertook 	steps 	to 	ensure 	there 	would be 	no 	further
violations 	of 	the 	agreement. 	When 	CSEA later 	asked 	for 	copies
of 	various 	documents back 	to September 	1985, 	the 	District
supplied 	them. 	The 	record 	in 	this 	case 	shows 	no violations 	of
the 	agreement by 	the 	District 	subsequent 	to April 	1986. 	The 	two
other 	1986 	violations both 	occurred before April 	(one 	in
February and one 	in March) 	and before 	CSEA made 	its April
inquiry.
Applying 	Grant 	and 	Oak 	Grove 	to 	the 	facts 	of 	this 	case,
there 	was 	no 	unlawful 	unilateral 	change 	in policy by 	the
District.
I would 	dismiss 	the 	charge.
30

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-CE-1006,
California 	School 	Employees 	Association 	and 	its 	Tahoe-Truckee
Chapter No. 	383 	v. 	Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District, 	in
which all 	parties had the 	right 	to participate, 	it has been
found 	that 	the 	District 	violated 	Government 	Code 	section
3543.5(b) and (c).
As 	a result 	of 	this 	conduct, 	we have been ordered 	to post
this 	Notice, 	and will abide by the 	following. 	We will:
1. 	CEASE AND DESIST 	FROM:
A. 	Unilaterally 	transferring work 	out 	of 	the
classified 	bargaining 	unit 	by 	subcontracting 	to 	outside
printers 	and 	electronic 	repair 	shops 	work 	formerly performed
by a member 	of 	the 	unit.
B. 	Denying 	to 	the 	California 	School 	Employees
Association and 	its 	Tahoe-Truckee 	Chapter 	No. 	383 	rights
guaranteed by 	the 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Act,
including 	the 	right 	to represent 	its members.
2. 	TAKE 	THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS 	DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE 	THE 	POLICIES 	OF 	THE 	EDUCATIONAL EMPLOYMENT
RELATIONS ACT:
Reimburse 	Renee 	Stone 	for 	all 	wages 	and 	other benefits
lost because 	of 	the 	District's 	decision 	to 	subcontract 	the
printing of 	letterhead on February 	14, 	1986, 	course
description handbook on February 23, 	1986, 	and a parent
newsletter on or about March 20, 	1986. 	The amount due to Ms.
Stone 	shall be 	augmented by 	interest 	at 	the 	rate 	of 	ten
percent 	per 	annum 	dating 	from 	the 	first 	pay period 	after 	the
subcontracting 	of 	each 	job.
Dated: 	TAHOE-TRUCKEE 	UNIFIED 	SCHOOL
DISTRICT
Authorized 	Agent
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
CALIFORNIA 	SCHOOL 	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION AND 	ITS 	TAHOE-TRUCKEE
CHAPTER No. 	3 83,
Charging 	Party,
v.
TAHOE-TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
) 	Unfair 	Practice
Case 	No. 	S-CE-1006
PROPOSED 	DECISION
(2/26/87)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances: 	Christopher E. 	Niehaus, 	Field Representative, 	for
the 	California 	School 	Employees 	Association 	and 	its
Tahoe-Truckee Chapter No. 	383; 	Douglas A. 	Lewis, 	Attorney for
the 	Tahoe-Truckee 	Unified 	School 	District.
Before Ronald E. 	Blubaugh, 	Administrative Law Judge.
PROCEDURAL 	HISTORY
A 	school 	employee 	union 	here 	contends 	that 	following 	a
reduction 	in 	the work 	force 	a 	public 	school 	employer
subcontracted unit work. 	This 	action, 	the union argues, 	was 	a
unilateral 	change 	in the 	prior 	practice 	and 	a 	failure 	to
negotiate 	in good 	faith. 	The 	school 	employer 	responds 	that
none 	of 	the work 	at 	issue was 	ever 	performed 	by 	any member 	of
the 	unit 	and 	that 	its 	action was 	consistent with 	the 	previous
use 	of 	private 	contractors.
The 	charge which commenced 	this 	action was 	filed 	on
July 8, 	1986, 	by the California 	School 	Employees Association
and 	its Tahoe-Truckee Chapter No. 	383 	(CSEA). 	A complaint
against 	the Tahoe-Truckee Unified 	School 	District 	(District),
This proposed decision has been appealed to the
Board itself and may not be cited as precedent
unless the decision and its rationale have been
adopted by the Board.
__)

incorporating 	the 	allegations 	in 	the charge, 	was 	issued
August 	19, 	1986, 	by the Office of 	the General Counsel 	of 	the
Public Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(PERB 	or 	Board).
The 	complaint 	alleges 	that 	the 	District 	violated
Educational 	Employment 	Relations Act 	sections 	3543.5(c) 	and,
derivatively, 	(a) 	and 	(b),1 by contracting 	out work 	formerly
performed 	by 	a 	unit 	member 	in 	the 	position of 	audio-visual
repairman/offset 	press 	operator. 	The 	complaint 	alleges 	that
the 	subcontracting 	of 	this work violates 	the 	specific 	terms 	of
a 	layoff 	agreement 	reached 	between 	the 	parties 	on
January 22, 	1986. 	The 	action is 	alleged to be a unilateral
change 	in 	a 	negotiable matter 	and 	therefore 	a 	failure 	to
negotiate 	in good 	faith. 	In 	its 	answer, 	the District denied
1Unless 	otherwise 	indicated, 	all 	references 	are 	to 	the
Government 	Code. 	The Educational 	Employment 	Relations Act
(hereafter EERA) 	is 	found 	at 	section 3540 	et 	seq. 	Although the
complaint 	does 	not 	specify which unfair 	practice 	provisions 	the
District 	is 	alleged 	to 	have violated, 	the charge 	and brief
filed by the charging party list 3543.5(a), 	(b) 	and 	(c). 	In
relevant part, 	section 3543.5 provides 	as 	follows:
It 	shall 	be unlawful 	for 	a 	public 	school 	employer
to:
(a) 	Impose or 	threaten to 	impose 	reprisals
on employees, 	to discriminate or 	threaten to
discriminate 	against employees, 	or otherwise
to 	interfere with, 	restrain, 	or coerce
employees 	because of 	their 	exercise 	of
rights 	guaranteed 	by 	this 	chapter.
(b) 	Deny to employee 	organizations 	rights
guaranteed 	to 	them by 	this 	chapter.
(c) 	Refuse 	or 	fail 	to meet 	and 	negotiat	. . 	e
good 	faith with 	an 	exclusive 	representative.
2
'

that 	it 	had 	contracted 	out 	any bargaining 	unit work. 	The
District 	responded 	further 	that 	the 	type 	of work 	at 	issue 	"has
never 	been 	treated 	as 	bargaining 	unit work by the parties."
A hearing was 	conducted 	in Truckee 	on December 	2, 	1986.
With the 	filing 	of written briefs, 	the matter was 	submitted 	for
decision on January 28, 	1987.
FINDINGS 	OF 	FACT
The 	Tahoe-Truckee Unified 	School 	District 	is 	an employer
under 	the EERA and, 	at 	all 	times 	relevant, 	CSEA has 	been the
exclusive 	representative 	of 	a 	comprehensive unit 	of 	the
District's 	classified 	employees. 	A collective 	bargaining
agreement was 	in effect 	between 	the parties 	from July 	1, 	1983,
through June 30, 	1986, 	the period relevant to this 	action.
On August 	14, 	1985, 	the District Board of Trustees voted to
abolish 	certain 	bargaining 	unit 	jobs, 	effective
September 	13, 	1985. 	Among 	these was 	that of 	the 	audio-visual
(AV) 	repairman/offset press 	operator 	(repairman/printer). 	The
employee 	in 	this 	position operates 	the District 	print 	shop 	and
audio-visual 	repair 	center.
In 	response 	to 	the 	staff 	reductions, 	CSEA on
August 	22, 	1985, 	demanded 	that 	the District meet 	and negotiate
regarding 	the 	effects 	of 	the 	planned 	layoffs. 	During 	the
ensuing 	negotiations 	CSEA pressed 	the District 	for 	a 	commitment
that 	the work 	formerly performed 	by 	the 	laid-off 	employees 	not
be 	assumed by students, 	volunteers, 	remaining employees 	or
33

outside contractors. 	Rather, 	CSEA negotiators 	insisted, 	the
work 	should 	simply go 	undone. 	Toward 	this 	end, 	CSEA 	secured 	an
agreement 	from the District 	that 	for 	the 	duration 	of 	the
layoffs 	there would be no 	speedup, 	no 	increased use of
volunteers 	or 	students, 	and no 	contracting 	out 	of 	unit work.
CSEA 	also 	convinced 	the 	District 	to 	convert 	the
repairman/printer 	position 	to 	a 	20-hour-per-week 	job 	rather
than eliminate 	it 	entirely. 	On September 	13, 	the day the
reductions were 	to 	go 	into 	effect, 	the parties 	signed 	a
tentative 	agreement 	containing 	the 	ban 	on 	contracting 	out 	along
with other 	provisions 	relating 	to 	the 	effects 	of 	the 	layoff.
On October 	9, 	1985, 	the District 	school 	board voted 	to make
still 	further 	reductions 	in bargaining 	unit 	jobs. 	The parties
met 	again 	to 	negotiate 	about 	the 	effects 	of 	the 	additional
layoff. 	On November 	1, 	1985, 	the parties 	agreed that 	their
September 	settlement 	should 	apply 	also 	to 	the 	new 	round 	of
layoffs. 	However, 	prior to 	school board 	ratification of 	the
agreement, 	there was 	a change 	in both the composition of 	the
school 	board 	and the District's 	top 	administrative 	staff. 	At 	a
meeting 	on or 	about November 	13, 	1985, 	the 	restructured board
declined 	to 	ratify 	the 	supplemental 	agreement.
One District 	concern was 	a 	tight 	restriction on
subcontracting which was 	contained 	in 	the 	tentative 	agreement.
The parties 	resumed negotiations 	and on January 22, 	1986, 	they
again 	reached 	agreement 	on 	the 	effects 	of 	layoff. 	The 	January
A
	4

tentative 	agreement, 	which was 	accepted 	by 	the 	school 	board,
contains 	the 	following 	provision 	regarding 	the 	subcontracting
of 	unit work:
There will 	be 	no 	contracting 	out 	of 	any unit
work while 	any of 	the 	affected 	positions 	are
reduced or 	are 	in 	a 	laid-off 	status 	unless
such 	contracted work 	has 	been 	negotiated
with the 	bargaining 	unit. 	This 	includes 	the
use of 	any confidential, 	certificated 	and/or
administrative 	employees.
This 	provision differs 	from 	that 	in 	the 	earlier 	tentative
agreements 	in that 	it 	leaves 	open 	the possibility of
subcontracting 	through 	further 	negotiations. 	The 	earlier
language 	contained 	a 	flat 	ban on 	subcontracting.
In April 	of 	1986, 	CSEA began to 	suspect 	that 	the District
was 	subcontracting 	the printing 	of 	some materials. 	In
particular, 	CSEA believed 	that 	the 	District 	had 	improperly
subcontracted 	the 	printing 	of 	certain 	awards 	for 	honor 	students
and 	a 	booklet 	of 	course descriptions. 	CSEA Chapter 	President
Helen 	Gates 	confronted 	District 	administrators 	with what 	she
believed 	to 	be 	evidence 	of 	subcontracted printing. 	In
response, 	District 	negotiator 	Robert 	Doyle 	acknowledged 	on
April 	17, 	that Tahoe-Truckee High 	School 	improperly
subcontracted 	the 	printing 	of 	a 	course 	description 	handbook.
He 	said 	he 	had 	reviewed 	the 	matter with 	the 	school 	principal
and 	improper 	subcontracting 	would 	be 	avoided 	in 	the 	future.
Regarding 	CSEA's 	challenge 	to 	the 	printing 	of 	award
certificates, 	Mr. 	Doyle 	responded 	that 	the District 	had 	always
contracted with 	private 	printers 	for 	such 	services.
5

Despite the District's 	assurances, 	CSEA continued 	to
suspect 	that 	printing 	and 	audio-visual 	repair 	work were 	being
subcontracted by the District. 	On June 25, 	1986, 	CSEA
requested 	the District 	to 	supply copies 	of 	its 	purchase 	orders,
requisitions, 	billings 	and 	repair 	orders 	for 	printing 	services
and 	audio-visual 	repair 	since September 	30, 	1985. 	On
July 9, 	1986, 	the District 	turned over 	the 	requested
information.
The 	invoices 	and 	purchase 	orders 	show 	that 	the 	District
made 	a 	series 	of 	purchases 	from local 	printers. 	Letterheads
were 	purchased 	on 	the 	following 	dates: 	1,000 	on or 	about
September 19, 	1985,2 500 on or about October 10, 	1985,3
1,000 	plus 	1,000 	envelops 	on or 	about 	November 	1, 	1985,4 500
on or 	about November 	9, 	1985,55 500 	on or 	about
February 	14, 	1986.6 Renee 	Stone, 	who 	held 	the position of AV
repairman/printer 	throughout 	the 	relevant 	period, 	testified
2The dates 	are 	not 	legible on many exhibits. 	On 	some
exhibits, 	there 	is more than one date. 	The dates 	referred 	to
throughout 	the 	remainder 	of 	this 	Proposed Decision 	represent my
best 	effort 	to 	affix 	a date 	for 	each of 	the contested 	jobs. 	In
order 	to 	avoid 	confusion 	in 	the 	remedy 	portion 	of 	this
decision, 	in 	the 	first 	reference 	I will 	identify by applicable
exhibit 	number 	each of 	the 	allegedly subcontracted 	jobs. 	In
this 	instance, 	the 	reference 	is 	to Joint Exhibit 	10, 	item 0.
3 Joint	3Joint 	3Joint Exhibit 10, item 1.
4Joint Exhibit 	10, 	item 6.
5Joint Exhibit 	10, 	item 9.
6Joint Exhibit 	10, 	item 	14.

without 	contradiction 	that 	the 	printing 	of 	letterheads 	and
envelopes 	is 	work that 	she 	has 	traditionally performed.
Outside 	firms 	printed 	100 	index cards 	on 	or 	about
October 10, 	1985,7 300 forms on or about October 17, 	1985,8
500 	forms 	on or 	about November 	14, 	1985,9 1,000 	course
description handbooks 	on or 	about 	February 23, 	1986,10 and
350 newsletters 	for parents 	on or 	about March 20, 	1986.11
Ms. 	Stone 	credibly testified 	that 	she 	previously had 	printed
index cards, 	forms, 	course description handbooks 	and parent
newsletters 	as 	part 	of 	her 	regular work.
-. . . 	The 	District 	also 	contracted 	for 	the 	printing 	of 	student
certificates 	and copies 	of 	the 	school 	newspapers. 	Eight
hundred 	honor 	certificates 	and 	200 	distinguished 	scholar
certificates 	were printed 	on or 	about November 	1, 	1985. 12
Outside 	firms 	printed 	copies 	of 	the 	Tahoe-Truckee 	High 	School
newspaper on or 	about October 	18, 	1985, 13
7Joint Exhibit 	10, 	item 1.
8rd.
9Joint Exhibit 	10, 	item 7.
10Joint Exhibit 	10, 	item 16
11Joint 	Exhibit 	10, 	item 17
12Joint Exhibit 	10, 	item 6.
13Joint Exhibit 	10, 	item 1.
7
10
11
7

December 	20, 	1985,14 February 23, 	1986,15 and
February 28, 	1986,.
16 Copies 	of 	the North Tahoe High School
newspaper were printed on or 	about October 	3, 	1985,
17
October 	11, 	1985,1 8 and December 	6, 	1985.1 9 Ms. 	Stone
testified 	that 	she 	previously 	had 	printed 	honor 	certificates
for 	students, 	but 	she did not have 	equipment 	to 	print
certificates 	in 	the 	decorative manner 	purchased 	by 	the 	District
in November of 	1985. 	Similarly, 	she testified, 	she had printed
student 	newspapers 	for 	the two high schools. 	However, 	at 	the
time 	she printed 	the papers 	they were 	in 	a 	different 	format
from those 	printed 	in 	the 	fall 	and winter 	of 	the 	1985-86 	school
year. 	She 	testified that 	there was 	no 	equipment 	in the
District 	print 	shop capable 	of 	printing 	student 	newspapers 	in 	a
format 	like 	those 	contracted 	out 	in 	1985-86.
There were two 	other projects 	of 	a 	type that Ms. 	Stone had
never 	done 	and 	had 	no 	equipment 	capable 	of 	printing. 	These
were 	the 	printing 	of 	250 	business 	cards 	on or 	about
September 	19, 	1985,20 500 business cards on or 	about
14Joint 	Exhibit 	10, 	item 10.
15Joint 	Exhibit 	10, 	item 16.
16Joint 	Exhibit 	10, 	item 15.
17Joint 	Exhibit 	10, 	item 3.
18Joint 	Exhibit 	10, 	item 8.
19Joint 	Exhibit 	10, 	item 12.
20Joint 	Exhibit 	10, 	item 0 8
, s
16

. ir . "
21
February 	14, 	1986,21 and 	350 	opinion polls 	on or 	about
January 31, 1986.22
Finally, 	on or 	about 	June 	3, 	1986,23 the District
purchased 	3,300 	copies 	of 	a 	parent 	rights 	form 	from the 	Placer
County Office of 	Education. 	Ms. 	Stone testified 	that 	she could
have 	printed 	the 	form on 	the 	District's 	equipment.
Nevertheless, 	Michael Bowdish, 	the District Coordinator of
Special 	Education, 	credibly 	testified 	that 	he 	had 	purchased 	the
forms 	from Placer 	County 	since 	the 	1980-81 	school 	year.
It was 	the 	past 	practice 	that 	the 	District 	could 	contract
out 	any 	printing 	work which was 	beyond 	the 	capability 	of 	the
District's 	equipment. 	The District's 	print 	shop 	contains 	an
offset 	press 	capable of 	printing 	documents 	up 	to 	8 	and 	1/2 	by
14 inches, 	a copier, 	a collator, 	a stapler, 	a shaker, 	a folding
machine 	and 	a 	cutter. 	The 	shop uses 	only paper masters 	in
printing 	because 	it 	is 	not 	equipped with either 	a 	camera 	or
plate making 	equipment.
There 	appears 	to 	have 	been no 	restriction 	precluding 	the
reassignment 	of 	printing 	tasks 	to 	outside 	contractors 	in 	order
to 	improve quality and 	appearance. 	Over 	the years, 	student
newspapers 	have 	been printed 	both 	at 	outside 	shops 	and within
21Joint Exhibit 	10, 	item 14
22Joint Exhibit 	10, 	item 13
23Joint Exhibit 	10, 	item 19.
99

the District, 	depending 	upon 	the desires 	of 	the 	students 	and
high 	school 	administrators. 	District 	Superintendent
Francis 	Mulholland 	credibly testified 	that 	as 	long 	ago 	as 	the
1978-79 	school 	year when he was 	principal 	at 	North Tahoe High
School, 	the 	student newspaper was 	printed 	at 	an outside 	shop.
For 	a 	time, 	the 	format was 	changed 	and 	the 	paper 	returned 	to
inside printing. 	However, 	he continued, 	beginning with the
1985-86 	school year, 	a 	journalism class was 	reinstituted 	at 	the
school, 	and 	the printing 	of 	the paper moved outside 	the
District.
In 	addition 	to 	its 	concerns 	that 	the District was
sub-contracting work to 	private 	printers, 	CSEA 	also 	feared 	that
the District was 	diverting work to 	students 	in 	a 	graphic 	arts
class 	at North Tahoe High 	School. 	The 	high 	school 	graphic 	arts
shop, 	which 	is 	better 	equipped than the District's 	print 	shop,
contains an offset press, 	a paper cutter, 	a copy machine, 	a
metal master machine, 	a camera, 	platten presses, 	an embossing
machine, 	a thermo-fax machine, 	a paper master machine 	and a
tracing 	table.
One 	section of 	graphic 	arts 	is 	taught 	each day to 	students
at 	the 	school. 	Individual 	students 	also 	enroll 	in graphic 	arts
through 	independent 	study. 	The class, 	which has 	been 	in
existence 	since 	1979 	or earlier, 	is 	a production-oriented
course. 	Students 	learn how 	to 	print 	by operating 	the machines
and 	producing 	printed materials. 	Among 	the 	items 	listed 	for
10

student 	production 	in 	the 	1979 	course description 	is 	"office
forms."
Donald Waymire, 	the graphic 	arts 	teacher, 	credibly-
testified 	that 	students 	in 	his 	class 	have 	printed 	forms 	for
North Tahoe 	High 	School 	and 	the 	North Tahoe 	Intermediate 	School
for 	the 	eight years 	that 	he has 	instructed 	the course. 	He 	said
that 	the 	students 	have 	not 	printed 	and do 	not 	currently 	print
forms 	and materials 	for 	the District 	office.
CSEA 	introduced 	evidence 	that 	during 	the 	last 	year 	students
in the 	class 	had printed 	a 	course description handbook, 	hall
passes, 	letterheads 	for 	the high school, 	an open house
announcement, 	a notice to parents 	and a 	school newsletter.
However, 	Mr. 	Waymire credibly testified that 	students 	in his
class 	had 	produced 	similar 	documents 	for 	the 	entire 	period 	that
he has 	taught 	the class.
Mr. 	Waymire 	testified 	that 	graphic 	arts 	students 	undertook
no new 	types 	of 	jobs 	in 	1985 	or 	thereafter, 	with the exception
of 	some 	additional 	copy work 	for 	teachers. 	The work 	for
teachers was 	redirected 	to 	the graphic 	arts 	students 	by 	the
school 	principal, 	Wayne Scholl, 	in order 	to 	relieve the burden
on the 	school 	copy machine. 	The work 	for 	teachers 	had 	never
been done 	in 	the 	District 	print 	shop 	and 	the 	redirection 	from
school 	copier 	to 	graphic 	arts 	class was 	a 	redirection 	from one
non-unit 	source 	to 	another 	non-unit 	source.
The 	District's 	practice 	regarding 	the 	repair 	of
11

audio-visual 	equipment 	is 	similar 	to 	its 	practice 	regarding
printing. 	Work within 	the 	capacity of 	the District's 	equipment
and 	the 	competence 	of 	the AV 	repairman/printer 	historically 	has
been performed within 	the District. 	Work beyond 	the 	capacity
of 	the 	equipment 	and 	the 	technical 	competence 	of 	the 	staff 	has
historically been 	sent 	outside. 	The 	audio-visual 	repair 	center
is 	equipped with 	an oscilloscope, 	an electroscope 	and 	a voltage
meter. 	The 	center 	also 	has 	battery testers 	and 	various 	types
of 	hand 	tools.
Ms. 	Stone 	credibly 	testified 	that 	she 	can 	fix motion
picture 	projectors, 	can 	trouble-shoot 	problems with computers
and 	make minor 	repairs 	and 	can 	fix 	some 	problems 	with
television 	sets. 	The 	practice 	has 	been 	that 	audio-visual
equipment would 	be 	brought 	to 	the District 	shop 	for
evaluation. 	Ms. 	Stone would make 	repairs within the 	limits 	of
her 	equipment 	and personal 	knowledge. 	If 	she was 	unable 	to
make 	the 	repairs, 	she would send 	the equipment 	out 	to 	private
shops.
Five 	repair 	jobs were 	sent 	out 	to 	private 	firms 	following
Ms. 	Stone's 	reduction in hours. 	On or 	about
October 	25, 	1985,24 the District 	sent 	a 	computer 	out 	for
repair without 	first 	bringing 	it 	to 	the AV 	repair 	shop 	for
evaluation. 	The 	problem with the 	computer 	turned 	out 	to 	be 	an
24Joint Exhibit 	10, 	item 4.
12

unplugged 	keyboard. 	Ms. 	Stone 	credibly testified 	that 	had 	the
computer 	first 	been brought 	to 	her 	shop 	for evaluation, 	she
would 	have 	discovered 	this 	problem.
25
On 	or 	about 	November 	5, 	1985,25 two 	ditto machines 	were
sub-contracted to 	a private 	shop 	for 	repair. 	Ms. 	Stone
credibly 	testified 	that 	she 	previously 	had 	performed 	such
repairs 	on District 	equipment. 	On or 	about
November 	16, 	1985,26 the District 	sent 	out 	for 	repair 	a
television 	set which Ms. 	Stone could not 	repair 	because 	she did
not 	have 	sufficient 	time. 	She credibly testified 	that 	she 	has
the 	capability to 	perform 	such 	repairs 	on 	television 	sets.
On or 	about November 	18, 	1985,27 the District 	sent out
for 	testing 	a 	computer which had been 	idle 	for 	some 	five
months. 	No 	problems were discovered with the computer.
Ms. 	Stone 	testified 	that 	she would not 	have been 	able 	to 	test
the machine 	for 	the 	same 	amount 	of 	time 	as 	the private company
because her workload was 	too heavy to permit 	it. 	There 	is 	no
evidence 	that 	she 	lacked 	the 	technical 	competence 	to 	perform
the tests. 	Finally, 	on or 	about May 27, 	1986,28 the District
sent 	out 	a 	computer 	to 	a 	private contractor 	for 	the 	repair 	of 	a
25Joint 	Exhibit 	10, 	item 2.
26Joint 	Exhibit 	10, 	item 11.
27Joint 	Exhibit 	10, 	item 5.
28Joint 	Exhibit 	10, 	item 18.
13

drive gear. 	Ms. 	Stone testified that 	she was not capable of
performing 	such 	a 	repair.
In 	response 	to 	CSEA's 	complaints 	about 	the 	contracting 	out
of unit work, 	the District 	instituted 	a 	series 	of 	steps
designed 	to 	restrict 	the use of 	outside printers. 	Beginning 	in
September 	1986, 	all 	requests 	for 	outside printing must 	be
cleared 	through 	the 	office 	of 	the 	assistant 	superintendent. 	In
addition, 	a 	log 	of 	printing 	requests 	is maintained 	in the print
shop. 	Whenever a backlog develops, 	Ms. 	Stone is called in to
work additional 	hours 	until 	the backlog 	is 	cleared. 	In the
fall 	of 	1986 Ms. 	Stone was 	assigned to work extra hours 	for
four weeks 	in order 	to 	clear 	a backlog. 	The District 	policy
now prohibits 	the 	contracting 	out 	of 	printing 	except where
District 	equipment 	is 	not 	capable 	of 	performing 	the desired 	job.
LEGAL 	ISSUE
Did 	the 	Tahoe-Truckee 	Unified 	School 	District 	subcontract
unit work and 	thereby make 	a 	unilateral 	change 	in working
conditions 	in violation of 	EERA sections 	3543.5(c) 	and,
derivatively, 	(a) 	and 	(b)?
CONCLUSIONS 	OF 	LAW
It 	is well 	settled 	that 	an employer 	that makes 	a
pre-impasse 	unilateral 	change 	affecting 	an 	established 	policy
within 	the 	scope 	of 	representation violates 	its 	duty to meet
and negotiate 	in good 	faith. 	NLRB v. 	Katz 	(1962) 	369 US 	736
[50 	LLRM 2177]. 	Such unilateral 	changes 	are 	inherently
-
14

destructive 	of 	employee 	rights 	and 	are 	a 	failure 	per 	se of 	the
duty to 	negotiate 	in good 	faith. 	See generally, 	Davis Unified
School District et al. 	(1980) 	PERB Decision No. 	116, 	San
Francisco 	Community College District 	(1979) 	PERB Decision
No. 	105, 	State of California 	(Dept, 	of Transportation) 	(1983)
PERB Decision No. 	361-S.
Established 	policy may be 	reflected 	in 	a 	collective
bargaining 	agreement, 	Grant 	Joint Union High 	School 	District
(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	196, 	or where the agreement 	is vague
or 	ambiguous, 	it may be determined by 	an examination of
bargaining 	history, 	Colusa Unified 	School District 	(1983) 	PERB
Decision Nos. 	296 	and 296(a), 	or the past practice, 	Rio Hondo
Community College District 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	279, 	Pajaro
Valley Unified 	School 	District 	(1978) 	PERB Decision No. 	51.
Where 	the 	purported 	violation 	involves 	the 	alleged
repudiation of 	a 	contract 	clause, 	the exclusive 	representative
must 	prove: 	(1) 	that 	the 	employer 	breached or 	otherwise
altered the parties' 	written agreement; 	and 	(2) 	that the breach
had 	"a 	generalized 	effect 	or 	continuing 	impact 	upon 	the 	terms
and 	conditions 	of 	employment 	of 	bargaining 	unit members."
Grant Joint Union High School District, 	supra, 	PERB Decision
No. 196.
At 	issue 	here 	is 	the 	alleged 	subcontracting 	of 	unit work.
The 	PERB 	has 	several 	times 	held 	that 	the 	subcontracting 	of 	unit
work 	is 	a matter within 	the EERA scope of
15

representation.29 Arcohe Union School 	District 	(1983) 	PERB
Decision No. 	360; 	Oakland Unified School District 	(1983) 	PERB
Decision No. 	367. 	Cf. 	State of California 	(Dept, 	of Personnel
Administration) 	(1986) 	PERB Decision 574-S. 	Where, 	without
negotiations, 	an employer 	changes 	"the quality 	and 	kind" 	of 	its
past 	subcontracting 	practice, 	it will 	be 	found guilty of
failing 	to 	negotiate 	in 	good 	faith. 	Oakland Unified 	School
District, 	supra. 	See also, Clevenger Logging Inc. 	(1975) 	220
NLRB 	768 	[90 LLRM 1726] 	and Shell Oil Company 	(1967) 	166 	NLRB
1064 	[65 LLRM 1713]. 	But, 	if the employer acts consistently
with established 	practice, 	it makes 	no unlawful 	unilateral
change. 	See generally, 	Placer Hills Union School District
(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	262.
CSEA acknowledges 	that, 	because of 	limitations 	on District
equipment, 	there has 	been 	a 	practice of 	contracting 	out 	certain
29 The 	scope 	of 	representation under 	the EERA 	is 	set 	forth
at section 3543.2 which, 	in relevant part, 	provides 	as 	follows
(a) 	The 	scope of 	representation 	shall 	be
limited to matters 	relating 	to wages, 	hours 	of
employment, 	and other 	terms 	and conditions 	of
employment. 	"Terms 	and conditions 	of
employment" 	mean 	health 	and welfare 	benefits
as defined by Section 53200, 	leave, 	transfer
and 	reassignment 	policies, 	safety conditions
of employment, 	class size, 	procedures to be
used 	for 	the 	evaluation of 	employees,
organizational 	security pursuant 	to 	Section
3546, 	procedures 	for 	processing 	grievances
pursuant to Sections 3548.5, 	3548.6, 	3548.7,
and 	3548.8, 	and the 	layoff 	of 	probationary
certificated 	school 	district 	employees,
pursuant 	to 	Section 44959.5 	of 	the Education,
Code. . . . SHE.A'
16

printing 	services 	and 	audio-visual 	equipment 	repair. 	CSEA
further 	acknowledges 	that 	there has 	been 	a 	practice of
student-performed 	printing 	in 	the 	District's 	high 	school
graphic 	arts 	class. 	However, 	CSEA continues, 	the past practice
was 	changed 	by 	an 	agreement 	negotiated 	between 	the 	parties 	in
late 	1985 	and early 1986. 	The effect of 	the 	agreement, 	CSEA
contends, 	was 	to change the past practice by creating 	a
prohibition on 	all 	contracting 	out 	of work prior 	to
negotiations. 	The District breached this 	agreement, 	CSEA
argues, 	when 	it 	not 	only continued to 	send out work but
increased 	the 	amount 	following 	the 	reduction 	in hours 	of 	the
audio-visual 	repairman/printer.
The District 	argues 	that work beyond 	the 	capacity 	of 	the
District's 	equipment 	is 	not 	unit work 	and has 	never 	been
treated 	as 	unit work by the parties. 	There 	is 	no 	evidence 	in
the negotiating history, 	the District 	argues, 	to 	show any
intent 	to 	recapture work previously done outside. 	The 	only
obvious 	intent was 	to 	prevent 	any 	additional work 	from going
outside. 	Similarly, 	the District argues, 	there is no evidence
that work completed 	in 	the 	graphic 	arts 	class 	was 	ever
considered 	unit work by 	the 	parties. 	The 	District 	examines
each 	example 	of 	work 	allegedly 	transferred 	out 	of 	the 	unit 	and
argues 	that 	none 	of 	this 	work differs 	in 	any way 	from the 	past
practice.
The 	key question, 	as 	is 	illustrated by the 	opposing
17

arguments, 	is what 	is unit work. 	The supplemental 	agreement
clearly 	prohibits 	the 	sub-contracting 	of 	unit 	work without
prior negotiations, 	but 	it offers 	no definition of unit work.
In the 	absence of 	a contractual definition, 	the only reliable
source 	for 	determining 	the 	nature 	of 	unit work 	is what 	the
parties 	have 	themselves 	done 	in the past.
It 	is 	essentially uncontested 	that 	in the past 	the AV
repairman/printer 	performed 	all 	of 	the 	printing 	and 	electronic
repair 	that was within 	the 	limits 	of 	her 	equipment 	and 	her
personal 	skills. 	Printing 	and 	audio/visual 	repairs 	beyond 	the
capacity of 	her 	equipment 	or 	her 	personal 	skills were
contracted 	out. 	Students 	in 	the North Tahoe High 	School
graphic 	arts 	class 	did 	printing 	that was 	often 	similar 	to 	that
performed 	in the District 	print 	shop. 	However, 	the 	students
limited 	the 	range 	of 	their work to 	the 	needs 	of 	their 	own
school 	and 	a 	nearby 	intermediate 	school.
CSEA argues 	that 	it was 	the 	intent of 	the January 22, 	1986,
agreement 	to change this 	past practice. 	In effect, 	CSEA argues
that 	the 	purpose 	of 	the 	agreement was 	to 	expand 	the 	extent 	of
unit work to 	cover 	all 	jobs 	that were 	formerly sent 	out. 	No
evidence 	of 	such 	intent 	can be 	found 	in 	the 	testimony of 	any
witness. 	The clear 	purpose of 	the 	supplemental 	agreement, 	as
is 	evidenced 	both 	from 	its words 	and 	from the 	testimony of
those who 	negotiated 	it, 	was 	to 	prevent work traditionally done
by 	the 	audio-visual 	repairman/offset 	printer 	from being
18

transferred 	outside 	the unit. 	The 	purpose 	of 	the 	agreement was
to ensure 	that 	the 	amount 	of work was 	not diminished, 	not 	to
institute 	an expansion 	of 	that work.
With 	this 	understanding 	of 	the 	past 	practice, 	it 	is
apparent 	that 	certain of 	the work performed 	by outside 	printers
and 	electronic 	repair 	shops 	marked 	a 	change 	in 	the 	past
practice. 	The printing 	of 	letterheads 	on or 	about
September 19, 	1985, October 10, 	1985, November 1, 	1985,
November 9, 	1985, 	and February 14, 	1986, 	was work traditionally
performed 	in the District 	print 	shop. 	Similarly, 	the printing
of 	index cards 	on or about October 	10, 	1985, 	of 	forms 	on or
about October 17, 	1985, 	and November 14, 	1985, 	of a course
description handbook on or 	about February 23, 	1986, 	and of 	a
parent 	newsletter 	on or 	about March 20, 	1986, 	was 	all work that
traditionally would 	have 	been 	performed 	in 	the 	District 	print
shop. 	The District 	sent 	this work out 	to 	the private printers
without 	prior 	notice or 	negotiations with CSEA. 	The District
also 	changed 	its 	past 	practice without 	prior 	notice when 	it
arranged 	for 	repairs 	to 	audio-visual 	equipment 	on 	or 	about
October 25, 	1985, 	November 5, 	1985, November 16, 	1985, 	and
November 18, 	1985.
Because 	the District 	acted unilaterally when 	it 	changed 	its
past 	practice 	and 	subcontracted 	certain work 	formerly 	performed
by the AV repairman/offset printer, 	it 	failed 	to 	negotiate 	in
good 	faith 	in violation of EERA section 3543.5(c). 	A
unilateral 	failure 	to 	negotiate 	in good 	faith 	also 	is 	a
19

derivative violation of EERA sections 	3543.5(a) 	and 	(b). 	San
Francisco 	Community College District 	(1979) 	PERB 	Decision
No. 105.
There was 	no 	change 	in past 	practice when 	the District 	sent
out 	for 	printing: 	student 	honor 	certificates 	on or 	about
November 	1, 	1985; 	Tahoe-Truckee High School newspapers 	on or
about October 18, 	1985, 	December 20, 	1985, 	February 23, 	1986
and February 28, 	1986; 	North Tahoe High School 	newspapers 	on or
about October 3, 	1985, 	October 11, 	1985 	and December 6, 	1985;
the printing 	of 	business 	cards 	on or 	about 	September 	19, 	1985,
and February 	14, 	1986; 	the printing of 	an opinion poll 	on or
about January 31, 	1986, 	and the ordering of 	a parent 	rights
form on or 	about 	June 	6, 	1986. 	Nor did 	the District make 	any
change 	in 	its 	past 	practice when 	it 	sent 	out 	to 	a 	private
electronics 	shop 	a 	computer 	repair 	job on or 	about
May 27, 	1986. 	All 	of 	these 	jobs 	are beyond the capacity of
District 	equipment 	and 	they 	represent 	no 	expansion 	of 	the
"quality 	and 	kind" 	of 	the District's 	past 	subcontracting
practice.
REMEDY
The 	Charging 	Party 	seeks 	an order 	that 	the District 	be
required 	to 	compensate Renee 	Stone 	for 	lost wages, 	benefits 	and
lost 	seniority hours 	due 	to 	the unlawful 	contracting 	out 	of
unit work. 	In addition, 	CSEA seeks 	a cease-and-desist order
and 	the posting 	of 	a notice.
20

The PERB 	in 	sub-section 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 backpay, 	as will
effectuate 	the policies 	of 	this 	chapter.
The 	ordinary 	remedy 	in 	a 	unilateral 	change 	case 	is 	the
return to 	the 	status 	quo 	ante. 	Where 	the change has 	resulted
in a 	loss 	of 	compensation to 	one or more members 	of 	the
bargaining 	unit, 	the ordinary 	remedy 	is 	that 	those employees 	be
made whole. 	Here, 	Renee Stone 	lost wages when the printing 	and
audio-visual 	repair work were 	subcontracted. 	She must 	be
reimbursed 	for 	the 	amount 	of 	time 	she would 	have worked 	had 	she
performed 	each 	of 	the projects 	found 	to 	have 	been 	improperly
subcontracted. 	The 	compensation 	should 	be 	calculated 	by
applying 	her 	appropriate hourly pay 	rate 	to 	the 	number 	of 	hours
Ms. 	Stone would 	have worked 	had 	she 	been permitted 	to 	print 	the
letterheads, 	index cards, 	forms, 	course description handbook,
and 	parent 	newsletter 	improperly 	subcontracted 	to 	an 	outside
printer 	and 	had 	she 	been 	permitted 	to 	service 	the 	computers,
ditto machines, 	and 	television which were 	improperly 	sent 	to
outside 	repair 	shops. 	In 	addition to 	salary for 	lost work
time, 	she 	shall 	also be 	compensated 	for 	any other 	lost 	benefits
or 	lost 	seniority due 	to 	this 	subcontracting 	of 	unit work. 	The
amount due to Ms. 	Stone 	is 	to be augmented by interest 	at
-
21

the 	rate 	of 	ten percent 	per 	annum dating 	from the 	first 	pay-
period 	after 	each 	of 	the 	subcontracted 	projects.
It 	is 	further 	appropriate 	that 	the District 	be directed 	to
cease 	and desist 	from 	its 	unfair 	practices 	and 	to 	post 	a 	notice
incorporating 	the 	terms 	of 	this 	order. 	Posting 	of 	such 	a
notice, 	signed 	by 	an 	authorized 	agent 	of 	the District will
provide 	employees with notice 	that 	the 	District 	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 	District's 	readiness 	to
comply with 	the 	ordered 	remedy. 	Davis 	Unified 	School 	District
et al, 	supra. 	PERB Decision No. 	116; 	see also Placerville Union
School District (1978) PERB Decision No. 	69.30
30rt
PROPOSED 	ORDER
Based 	upon 	the 	foregoing 	findings 	of 	fact 	and 	conclusions
30 It 	is 	noted 	that 	some 	of 	the 	incidents 	of
subcontracting 	occurred 	prior 	to 	the 	six-month 	period 	of
limitations set out in section 3541.5(a) 	(1). 	However, 	the
statute 	of 	limitations 	has 	not 	been 	asserted 	by 	the 	employer 	at
any point 	in 	this 	proceeding. 	A defense 	based 	on 	the 	statute
of 	limitations 	is waived 	if 	not 	timely asserted. 	Walnut Valley
Unified School 	District 	(1983) 	PERB Decision No. 	289.
Moreover, 	the 	statute of 	limitations does 	not 	begin to 	run
until 	the 	charging 	party 	had 	actual 	or 	constructive 	knowledge
of 	the 	conduct 	at 	issue. 	Victor Valley Community College
District 	(1986) 	PERB Decision No. 	570. 	Here, 	CSEA's 	first
suspicions 	that 	the 	District 	might 	be 	subcontracting 	unit 	work
were not 	aroused until April 	of 	1986. 	The charge was 	filed
well within 	six months 	of 	those 	first 	suspicions.
22
JV

of 	law, 	and the entire 	record of 	this case, 	it 	is 	found that
the 	Tahoe-Truckee 	Unified 	School 	District 	violated 	section
3543.5(c) 	and, 	derivatively, 	(a) 	and 	(b) 	of the Educational
Employment Relations Act. 	Pursuant 	to 	section 3541.5(c) 	of 	the
Government Code, 	it 	is 	hereby ORDERED that the District, 	its
governing 	board 	and 	its 	representatives 	shall:
1. 	CEASE-AND-DESIST FROM:
Making 	unilateral 	changes 	in 	the 	past 	practice 	by
subcontracting 	to 	outside 	printers 	and 	electronic 	repair 	shops
work 	formerly performed 	by 	a 	member 	of 	the 	bargaining 	unit.
2. 	TAKE THE 	FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE 	THE 	POLICIES 	OF 	THE 	EDUCATIONAL 	EMPLOYMENT
RELATIONS ACT:
A. 	Within thirty 	(30) 	workdays 	of 	service of 	a 	final
decision 	in this 	matter, 	reimburse Renee 	Stone 	for 	all wages
and 	other 	benefits 	lost 	because 	of 	the District's 	decision 	to
subcontract 	the printing 	of: 	letterheads 	on or 	about
September 19, 	1985, October 10, 	1985, November 1, 	1985,
November 9, 	1985, 	and February 14, 	1986; 	index cards on or
about October 	10, 	1985; 	forms on or about October 	17, 	1985 	and
November 	14, 	1985; 	a course description handbook on or 	about
February 23, 	1986; 	a parent newsletter on or 	about
March 20, 	1986, 	and the 	repair of 	audio-visual 	equipment on or
about October 25, 	1985, 	November 5, 	1985, 	November 16, 	1985,
and November 	18, 	1985. 	The 	amount due to Ms. 	Stone shall be
augmented by 	interest 	at 	the 	rate of 	ten percent, 	per 	annum
23

dating 	from 	the 	first 	pay period 	after 	the 	subcontracting 	of
each 	job.
B. 	Within ten 	(10) 	workdays 	of 	service of 	a 	final
decision 	in 	this 	matter, 	post 	at 	all work 	locations where
notices 	to 	classified 	employees 	are 	customarily posted, 	copies
of 	the Notice 	attached 	hereto 	as 	an Appendix. 	The Notice must
be 	signed by 	an 	authorized 	agent 	of 	the District, 	indicating
that 	the 	District will 	comply with 	the 	terms 	of 	this 	Order.
Such 	posting 	shall 	be maintained 	for 	a 	period 	of 	thirty 	(30)
consecutive workdays. 	Reasonable 	steps 	shall 	be 	taken 	to
ensure 	that 	the Notice 	is 	not 	reduced 	in size, 	altered, 	defaced
or 	covered 	by 	any other 	material.
C. 	Upon 	issuance of 	a 	final decision, 	make written
notification of 	the 	actions 	taken 	to 	comply with 	the Order 	to
the 	Sacramento 	Regional 	Director 	of 	the 	Public 	Employment
Relations 	Board 	in 	accord with 	the 	director's 	instructions.
All 	other 	allegations 	in unfair 	practice 	charge No.
S-CE-1006 	and 	companion 	complaint 	are 	hereby DISMISSED.	- . ...
Pursuant 	to California Administrative Code, 	Title 	8,
Part 	III, 	Section 32305, 	this 	Proposed Decision and Order 	shall
become 	final 	unless 	a 	party 	files 	a 	statement 	of 	exceptions
with 	the 	Board 	itself 	at 	the 	headquarters 	office 	in 	Sacramento
within 	twenty days 	of 	service of 	this 	Decision. 	In 	accordance
with PERB Regulations, 	the 	statement 	of 	exceptions 	should
identify by page 	citation 	or 	exhibit 	the 	portions 	of 	the
record, 	if 	any, 	relied upon for 	such exceptions. 	See
24

California Administrative Code, 	Title 8, 	Part 	III, 	section
32300. 	A document 	is 	considered 	"filed" 	when 	actually 	received
before 	the close of 	business 	(5:00 	p.m.) 	on the 	last 	day set
for 	filing, 	". 	. 	. o r when sent by telegraph or certified or
Express 	United 	States Mail, 	postmarked 	not 	later 	than 	the 	last
day 	set 	for 	filing 	. . . " 	See 	California 	Administrative 	Code,
Title 	8, 	Part 	III, 	section 32135. 	Code of Civil 	Procedures
section 	1013 	shall 	apply. 	Any statement 	of 	exceptions 	and
supporting 	brief 	must 	be 	served 	concurrently with 	its 	filing
upon each party to 	this 	proceeding. 	Proof 	of 	service 	shall
accompany each 	copy 	served 	on 	a 	party or 	filed with 	the 	Board
itself. 	See California Administrative Code, 	Title 8, 	Part 	III,
sections 32300, 	32305, 	and 32140.
. .-
Dated: 	February 26, 	1987 RONALD E. 	BLUBAUGH
Administrative 	Law 	Judge
25