Los Rios Community College District (PERB 0670E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
LOS 	RIOS 	CLASSIFIED 	EMPLOYEE
ASSOCIATION,
Charging 	Party,
v.
LOS 	RIOS 	COMMUNITY 	COLLEGE
DISTRICT,
Respondent.
Case 	No. 	S-CE-1053
S-CE-1075
PERB Decision No. 	670
June 2, 	1988
Appearances; 	Kathy Felch, 	Attorney, 	for Los 	Rios 	Classified
Employee Association; 	Susanne M. 	Shelley, 	Attorney, 	for Los 	Rios
Community 	College 	District.
Before Hesse, 	Chairperson; 	Porter 	and Shank, 	Members
DECISION
SHANK, 	Member: 	Los 	Rios 	Classified 	Employee Association
(Charging Party, 	Union or Association) 	appeals 	the dismissal of
the 	unfair 	labor 	practices 	charges 	filed 	against 	Los 	Rios
Community 	College 	District 	(hereafter 	Respondent 	or 	District)
to the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(Board or PERB).1
Charging 	Party 	filed 	unfair 	labor 	practice 	charges 	with 	the
Board on December 	15, 	1986 	and March 	2, 	1987 	alleging 	that
Respondent 	failed 	to provide 	it 	with 	copies 	of 	the 	"Position
11 1Two separate 	charges 	were 	filed 	and heard 	on 	3/30/87 	and
4/21/87. 	The parties have 	stipulated 	to 	consolidate both 	cases
for decision.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_____________ !

Control 	Report" 	(PCR) 	and by conditioning delivery of 	the 	PCR
upon 	Charging 	Party's 	advance payment 	of 	an 	"excessive 	and
burdensome 	fee," 	in violation of 	Government 	Code 	section
3543.52, 	and, 	derivatively, 	3543 and 3543.1.
Ann Lynch, 	Association president, 	testified 	that 	she 	first
observed 	the 	PCR 	in a hallway at 	the 	district 	office 	outside 	of
a 	locked 	storage 	room where 	salvage paper 	is 	stored. 	The 	PCR
contains 	information 	about 	every 	nonfaculty position 	in 	the
District 	including whether 	or 	not 	the 	position 	is 	filled 	or
vacant, 	the 	identity of 	the employee 	in the position, 	job
classification, 	budgeted 	salary for 	the position, 	amount of
salary 	expended 	to date, 	and 	the 	social 	security number 	of 	the
employee 	occupying 	the position.
2The Educational 	Employment 	Relations Act 	(EERA) 	is
codified at Government 	Code 	sections 	3540, 	et 	seq. 	Section
3543.5 	states 	in pertinent part:
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 negotiate 	in
good 	faith 	with 	an 	exclusive 	representative.
N	2

By 	letter 	dated 	December 	8, 	1986 	the Association 	requested
that 	the 	District 	provide 	it 	with 	certain PCR's 	and 	further
stated 	that 	the 	District had 	not 	responded 	to 	its 	verbal
request made 	three weeks 	earlier. 	Jimmy Mraule, 	director of
classified 	personnel, 	responded by 	letter 	dated 	December 	8,
1986 	stating 	that 	the 	requested 	PCR's 	were 	available 	for
inspection at 	a mutually convenient 	time, 	that 	the Union could
make 	its 	own copies 	at 	ten cents per 	page 	and 	that 	an advance
charge based 	on 	actual 	cost 	to 	the 	District 	would be 	required
for 	an 	additional 	computer 	run.
On December 	12, 	1986, 	Mraule rescinded the offer made 	in
his 	December 	8, 	1986 	letter based 	on 	the 	ground 	that 	the
requested 	PCR's 	contained 	"confidential 	information 	regarding
names 	and 	social 	security numbers." 	The 	letter 	also 	indicated
that 	these 	facts 	were 	not 	known by Mraule 	at 	the 	time he
responded 	to the Association's 	December 	8, 	1986 	request.
Charging 	Party 	repeated 	its 	request 	for 	specific 	PCR's, 	by
letter dated January 	21, 	1987, 	advising that 	the 	reports were
necessary 	for 	preparation 	of 	the 	1987-1988 	negotiations
regarding 	contract 	re-openers.
On January 30, 	1987, 	the 	District 	responded by expressing
its 	concern over 	the 	fact 	that 	the 	requested 	reports 	contained
names 	and 	social 	security numbers 	of 	employees 	both 	within 	and
outside 	the bargaining unit. 	The 	District 	outlined 	the 	various
W	
3

costs 	associated 	with 	providing 	the 	requested 	reports 	without
the 	social 	security numbers 	and 	further 	indicated 	that 	said
costs 	are 	payable 	in 	advance.3
There 	is 	nothing 	in 	the 	record 	to 	suggest 	that 	any 	further
communication between 	the 	parties 	took place 	prior 	to 	the
filing 	of 	the 	unfair 	labor 	practice 	charges.
DISCUSSION
LOCATION OF 	PCR/WAIVER
The 	Association 	excepts 	to 	the 	ALJ's 	finding 	that 	Lynch
first 	observed 	the 	PCR 	in 	the 	recycled 	paper 	storage bin 	and
asserts 	that 	the 	PCR was 	discarded 	in 	a public hallway 	and,
therefore, 	the 	District waived 	its 	right 	not 	to 	release 	the
report 	in 	its 	current 	form. 	Charging 	Party asserts 	that,
assuming 	the 	PCR contains 	confidential 	information 	(social
3The 	District 	proposed 	to 	charge 	$613.73 	to copy 	the
1985-86 	year-end 	PCR and manually 	delete 	the 	social 	security
numbers. 	The 	District proposed 	to charge 	$860.53 	to modify 	its
computer 	program 	to 	enable 	it 	to print 	future 	copies 	of 	the
report 	without 	social 	security numbers 	at 	a cost 	of 	$202.40 per
copy. 	The PCR is 	divided 	into 	five 	volumes 	and consists 	of
approximately 	2,500 	pages 	of 	legal 	size 	computer 	print-out
paper.
The 	PCR 	is 	produced 	once 	every 	four 	months 	with 	a 	single
copy 	interim 	report 	printed 	twice 	each month. 	A 	final 	year-end
report 	is 	produced 	annually.
A	
4

security numbers), 	the District, 	by leaving the document 	in a
public 	hallway, 	waived 	its 	right 	to 	assert 	confidentiality.4
There 	is 	nothing 	in 	the 	record 	to 	indicate 	that 	the 	PCR was
first 	observed by Lynch 	in 	the 	recycled 	paper 	storage bin.
However, 	Lynch's 	testimony 	that 	she 	saw 	the PCR in 	the 	District
hallway outside 	a 	locked 	door 	where 	salvage 	paper 	is 	normally
stored, 	is 	uncontroverted. 	Therefore, 	we do not endorse 	the
ALJ's 	finding 	of 	fact with 	regard 	to Lynch's 	initial
observation of 	the 	PCR.
The 	courts 	and 	the National 	Labor 	Relations 	Board 	(NLRB)
have 	repeatedly held 	that 	evidence 	of 	a 	party's 	intention 	to
waive 	a 	statutory 	right 	must be 	"clear 	and 	unmistakeable" 	to be
credited. 	Metropolitan Edison Co. 	v. 	NLRB 	(1983) 	460 U.S. 	693,
708 	[75 	L.Ed.2d 	387, 	103 	S.Ct. 	1467]. 	Under well-established
4Charging 	Party cites 	Government 	Code 	section 	6254.5 	in
support 	of 	its 	contention. 	Government 	Code 	section 	6254.5
states, 	in relevant part:
Notwithstanding 	any other 	provisions 	of 	the
law, 	whenever a state or 	local 	agency
discloses 	a public 	record which 	is 	otherwise
exempt 	from 	this 	chapter, 	to any member of 	the
public, 	this 	disclosure 	shall 	constitute 	a
waiver 	of 	the 	exemptions 	specified 	in 	Sections
6254, 	6254.7, 	or other similar provisions of
law. 	For 	the purposes of 	this 	section, 	before
a 	disclosure 	of 	an 	otherwise 	exempt 	public
record by a 	state 	or 	local 	agency 	to a 	federal
agency, 	is made, 	the 	federal 	agency shall
agree 	in writing 	to comply with 	this 	chapter.
For purposes of this 	section, 	"agency"
includes a member, 	agent, 	officer, 	or employee
of 	the 	agency acting within 	the 	scope 	of his
or her membership, 	agency, 	office, 	or
employment.
UT	5

Board 	precedent 	a 	finding 	of 	waiver 	will be 	made 	only 	upon
"clear 	and 	unmistakeable" 	language 	or 	conduct. 	Modesto City
Schools 	and High 	School 	District 	(1985) 	PERB Decision No. 	479;
Davis Unified School District, 	et al. 	(1980) 	PERB Decision No.
116; 	Amador 	Valley Joint 	Union High School 	District 	(1978) 	PERB
Decision No. 	74. 	Moreover, 	a waiver should be express, 	and a
mere 	inference, 	no matter how strong, 	should be 	insufficient.
Los 	Angeles 	Community College 	District 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No.
252, 	citing, 	NLRB v. 	Perkins Machine 	(1st Cir. 	1964) 	326 F.2d
488 	[55 	LRRM 	2204]; 	and 	see American Telephone 	and Telegraph
Co. 	(1980) 	250 NLRB 47.
While 	the 	District was 	arguably 	careless 	in 	failing 	to 	lock
the PCR 	in 	the 	room designated 	to 	store 	recycled paper, 	we 	are
not 	convinced 	that 	such 	action 	standing 	alone 	constitutes 	a
disclosure 	"to any member of 	the public" 	within 	the meaning of
Government 	Code 	section 	6254.5. 	We believe 	that 	some 	other
type 	of 	affirmative 	conduct 	is 	required 	to 	support 	a 	finding of
disclosure 	to 	the public 	of 	confidential 	material. 	(See 	Black
Panther Party v. 	Kehoe 	(1974) 	42 C.A.3d 645, 	655-657, 	hg.
den.) 	Therefore, 	we 	find 	that 	the 	District 	did not waive 	its
right 	to keep 	the 	report 	confidential 	in 	its 	current 	form.
SOCIAL 	SECURITY 	NUMBERS
The 	Association 	excepts 	to 	the 	ALJ's 	finding 	that 	the 	PCR
contains 	social 	security numbers. 	The 	Association maintains
that 	the ALJ's 	conclusion 	is 	not 	supported by 	the 	record 	for
66

the 	following 	reasons: 	the 	PCR does 	not 	specifically 	identify
the 	series 	of 	numbers below each employee's 	name 	as 	a 	social
security number; 	Louise Davatz, 	director of business 	services,
could 	not 	recite 	from memory 	the 	social 	security 	number 	of 	an
employee 	randomly 	selected 	from 	the 	PCR on 	cross-examination;
and 	Davatz 1 testimony 	is based on hearsay.
While 	it 	is 	true 	that 	the 	social 	security numbers 	are 	not
designated as 	such 	in the PCR, 	the 	series 	of numbers 	are
identical 	to 	those 	of 	a 	social 	security number 	and 	are
illustrated 	immediately below 	the 	employee's 	name. 	Davatz 1
inability 	to 	recite 	the 	social 	security 	number 	of 	a 	randomly
selected 	employee 	does 	not 	detract 	from 	the 	credibility of 	her
testimony. 	Finally, 	Charging Party's 	assertion that 	Davatz'
testimony 	is 	based 	on hearsay 	is 	totally without 	foundation.
The ALJ 	relies 	on 	the 	uncontroverted 	testimony 	of 	Louise
Davatz 	in 	concluding 	that 	the 	PCR contains 	the 	social 	security
number 	for 	each 	employee. 	It 	is 	well 	established 	that 	the
Board may defer 	to 	the ALJ's 	finding 	of 	fact with 	regard 	to
credibility 	determinations 	after 	a 	review 	of 	the 	entire
record. 	(Santa 	Clara 	Unified 	School 	District 	(1980) 	PERB
Decision No. 	104a.)
Therefore, 	we 	affirm 	the ALJ's 	finding of 	fact 	that 	the 	PCR
contains 	the 	social 	security numbers 	of 	the 	individual
employees 	listed 	therein.
77

ENTITLEMENT 	TO 	NONBARGAINING 	UNIT 	INFORMATION
The Association 	excepts 	to 	the 	ALJ's 	conclusion 	that 	the
Union made 	no 	showing of 	entitlement 	to 	nonunit 	information,
notwithstanding 	the 	dispute 	concerning 	social 	security numbers.
The 	issue before 	the 	Board 	does 	not 	require 	us 	to decide
the 	general 	sufficiency of 	the 	union's 	showing of 	entitlement
to 	nonbargaining unit 	information. 	The 	District has 	agreed 	to
provide 	the 	requested 	information 	after 	the 	social 	security
numbers 	for 	nonbargaining 	unit 	employees 	have been 	deleted.
Since 	the 	Union has 	expressed 	no 	interest 	in 	social 	security
numbers, 	the ALJ's 	conclusion appears 	to be 	little more 	than
dicta.
TIMELINESS 	OF DISTRICT'S 	RESPONSE 	TO ASSOCIATION'S 	REQUEST
The Association 	excepts 	to 	the ALJ's 	finding of 	fact 	that
the 	District 	"immediately" 	began 	looking 	for 	ways 	to
accommodate 	its 	request 	for 	copies 	of 	the 	PCR.
Lynch 	testified 	that 	the 	Association 	orally 	requested
copies of 	the PCR 	"early on," 	at 	the bargaining table, 	and
repeated 	its 	request by 	letter 	dated 	December 	8, 	1986 	(in which
reference was made 	to a 	request made 	three weeks earlier). 	The
District 	responded by letter 	dated 	December 	8, 	1986, 	indicating
that 	the 	requested 	information would be 	made 	available 	for
copying 	at a mutually convenient 	time. 	On December 	12, 	1986
the 	District, 	in a 	follow-up letter, 	apologized 	for overlooking
8

the 	fact 	that 	the 	PCR contained 	social 	security numbers 	for
nonbargaining 	unit 	employees 	and 	rescinded 	its 	December 	8, 	1986
letter. 	Lynch 	testified 	that 	collective bargaining
negotiations 	were 	concluded on January 	9, 	1987.
On 	January 	21, 	1987 	the Association again 	requested 	the
District 	to provide 	it with 	a 	copy of 	the 	PCR. 	The District
responded on 	January 30, 	1987 by documenting 	the 	costs 	of
producing 	the 	requested 	information 	with 	the 	social 	security
numbers 	either 	manually 	deleted 	or 	deleted by 	computer 	program
modification.-* 	The January 	30, 	1987 	letter 	further 	indicated
that 	costs 	were payable 	in advance. 	There 	is 	no evidence 	that
any 	further 	communication 	took 	place 	between 	the 	parties.
Since 	"immediate" 	is 	defined as 	"without delay" 	or
"instant" 	(Websters 	New World 	Dict. 	(2d College 	Ed. 	1982) 	p.
702), 	and there 	is no evidence 	in the record to 	indicate 	the
District 	attempted 	to delay 	in 	responding 	to 	the Association,
we 	affirm 	the 	ALJ.
Good 	Faith 	Bargaining
Charging 	Party 	excepts 	to 	the ALJ's 	conclusion of 	law 	that
the 	District 	did not 	fail 	to bargain 	in good 	faith. 	The
5The 	record 	indicates 	that 	certain 	District 	employees
were 	asked 	to estimate 	time, 	resources, 	and materials 	required
to provide 	the Association with 	copies 	of 	the 	PCR with 	social
security 	numbers 	of 	nonunit 	employees 	deleted.
99

exception 	is based 	upon 	the 	Union's 	contention 	that 	the
District 	refused 	to 	provide 	necessary 	and 	relevant 	information
in a 	timely manner.
Generally, 	the Association 	is 	entitled 	to all 	information
that 	is 	necessary 	and 	relevant 	to discharging 	its 	duty 	to
represent 	unit 	employees. 	Trustees 	of 	the California 	State
University 	(1987) 	PERB Decision No. 	613-H. 	An employer's
refusal 	to provide 	such 	information 	evidences bad 	faith
bargaining 	unless 	the 	employer 	can 	demonstrate 	adequate 	reasons
why 	it 	cannot 	supply 	the 	information. 	Stockton Unified 	School
District 	(1980) 	PERB Decision No. 	143. 	However, 	the
Association 	is 	not 	entitled 	to demand 	receipt 	of 	the
information 	in a particular 	form. 	Emeryville 	Research 	Center
(9th Cir., 	1971) 	441 F.2d 880, 	887 	[77 LRRM 2043]; 	Soule Glass
and Glazing Co. 	v. 	NLRB 	(1st 	Cir., 	1981) 	652 F.2d 1055
[107 LRRM 2781, 	2806], 	denying enf. 	in part to 246 NLRB 792,
(1979) 	[102 LRRM 1693].
The 	record 	shows 	that 	the 	District 	was 	willing 	to provide
the PCR to 	the Association. 	However 	it 	contends 	that 	the
social 	security 	numbers 	of 	nonunit 	employees 	must 	first be
deleted. 	As 	stated 	earlier herein, 	we 	agree with 	the ALJ's
finding 	of 	fact 	that 	the 	District 	timely 	responded 	to 	the
Association's 	request 	for 	information. 	Therefore, 	the 	issue
must 	turn 	on whether 	the 	District's 	assertion of 	the
confidentiality of 	the 	social 	security 	numbers 	of 	nonbargaining
unit 	employees 	was 	proper.
10

The 	Board 	has 	recognized 	state 	and 	federal 	court 	decisions
in 	support of 	the 	premise 	that 	constitutional 	rights 	of
personal 	privacy may 	limit 	otherwise 	lawfully 	authorized
demands 	for 	the production of personal 	information. 	Modesto
City 	Schools 	and High 	School 	District 	(1985) 	PERB Decision No.
479. 	The 	U.S. 	Supreme 	Court has determined 	that where a union
seeks 	relevant 	information 	about 	a 	mandatory 	subject 	of
bargaining, 	the 	disclosure of which may 	infringe upon
constitutionally protected privacy 	interests, 	the 	NLRB must
undertake 	to balance 	the 	conflicting rights. 	Detroit 	Edison
Company v. 	NLRB 	(1979) 	440 U.S. 	301 	[100 LRRM 2728].
There 	is 	authority 	in support 	of 	recognizing 	the
confidential 	nature 	of 	social 	security numbers. 	Section 	7 	of
the 	Federal 	Privacy Act of 	1974 prohibits 	federal, 	state or
local 	agencies 	from 	denying 	rights 	or benefits 	to 	an 	individual
for 	refusing 	to disclose his/her 	social 	security number 	unless
required by federal 	statute 	(P.L. 	93-579, 	section 7 	subs.
(a)(l), 	(a)(2); 	5 U.S.C, 	section 552a note). 	The section
further 	requires 	any 	agency 	requesting 	disclosure 	to 	inform 	the
individual 	as 	to whether 	the 	disclosure 	is 	mandatory or
voluntary, 	pursuant 	to which 	statute, 	and what use will be made
of 	it. 	(See, 	California Housing Finance Agency 	(1981) 	64 Ops
AG 	576, 	583-584.) 	The court 	in Swisher v. 	Department of 	the
Air Force 	(1980) 	660 F.2d 369, 	495 F.Supp. 	377 held that
plaintiff 	was 	entitled 	to 	a 	copy of 	the 	requested 	Report 	of
11

Inquiry; 	however his 	motion 	to compel 	disclosure 	of 	social
security 	numbers 	listed 	in 	the 	report 	which 	identified 	people
other 	than plaintiff was 	denied under 	5 	U.S.C, 	section
552(b)(6), 	since release of 	these 	"identifying numbers" would
"constitute 	a 	clearly 	unwarranted 	invasion 	of 	personal 	privacy."
Furthermore, 	where nonexempt materials 	are 	not 	inextricably
intertwined with 	exempt materials, 	segregation 	is 	required 	to
serve 	the 	objectives 	of 	the Public 	Records Act 	(PRA). 	Northern
California 	Police 	Practices 	Project 	v. 	Craig 	(1979) 	90
Cal.App.3d 116; 	153 Cal.Rptr. 	173; 	Johnson v. Winter 	(1982) 	127
Cal.App.3d 	435.
Accordingly, 	we 	affirm 	the ALJ's 	conclusion 	that 	the
confidentiality of 	the 	social 	security numbers 	of 	nonunit
employees 	was 	properly asserted by 	the 	District. 	The
District's 	subsequent 	refusal 	to provide 	the 	PCR in 	its 	present
form 	and 	its 	offer 	to delete 	the 	social 	security numbers 	did
not, 	in and of 	itself, 	constitute bad 	faith bargaining.
OBLIGATION 	TO 	BARGAIN 	OVER 	COSTS
The Association 	excepts 	to 	the ALJ's 	conclusion 	that 	it was
obligated 	to bargain with 	the 	District 	over 	the 	cost 	of
providing 	the 	PCR. 	The Association contends 	that 	such 	a
request would be 	futile, 	and 	therefore, 	it was 	not obligated 	to
bargain, 	citing Los Angeles 	Community College 	District 	(1982)
PERB Decision No. 	252.6
6LACCD 	addresses 	the 	issue 	of 	whether 	the 	Association
waived 	its 	statutory 	right 	to negotiate 	a 	certain 	item. 	The
12

The 	District 	raised bona 	fide 	objections 	to 	the 	form of 	the
information 	requested. 	The 	District 	also 	countered 	the
Association's 	demand 	with 	reasonable 	proposals 	designed 	to
satisfy 	the 	needs 	of 	the Association 	and 	achieve 	a mutually
satisfactory resolution. 	We 	think, 	in this 	instance, 	the
Association's 	resort 	to PERB 	is premature. 	While 	the
Association 	is 	not 	required 	to 	engage 	the 	District 	in 	extensive
negotiations 	regarding 	the 	content 	of 	the 	disclosure, 	it 	cannot
instantly put 	the 	District 	to 	the 	election of 	immediately
supplying 	everything 	demanded 	or 	defending 	against 	an 	unfair
practice 	charge. 	The Association must provide 	the 	District
with 	the 	opportunity 	to provide 	the 	requested 	information 	on
mutually 	satisfactory terms. 	Good 	faith 	is 	required on both
sides. 	See, 	Emeryville 	Research Center v. 	NLRB 	(9th Cir. 	1971)
441 	F.2d 880 at 	885 	[77 	LRRM 2043]; 	Soule 	Glass 	and 	Glazing 	Co.
v. 	NLRB 	(1st Cir. 	1981) 	652 F.2d 1055 	[107 LRRM 2781, 	2806],
denying enf. 	in part to 246 NLRB 792, 	(1979) 	[102 LRRM 1693].
-
The 	District 	determined 	the 	costs 	of 	removing 	the 	social
security 	numbers 	of 	nonunit 	employees based 	upon 	information
from 	the 	support 	staff 	directly 	involved 	in 	producing 	the 	PCR.
The ALJ 	found 	that 	such costs 	were 	reasonable. 	If 	the 	employer
case 	does 	not 	support 	the 	contention 	that 	the Association 	is
not 	obligated 	to 	request bargaining 	when 	it 	can 	demonstrate
that 	to do so would be 	futile. 	Even 	so, 	there 	is 	no evidence
which 	would 	imply 	that bargaining 	over 	the 	costs 	of 	the 	PCR
would have been 	futile.
13

has 	demonstrated 	substantial 	costs 	involved 	in 	compiling 	the
information 	in 	the 	precise 	form at 	the 	intervals 	requested by
the Union, 	the parties must bargain 	in good 	faith as 	to who
shall bear 	such 	costs. 	Queen Anne 	Record 	Sales 	dba 	Tower 	Books
(1984) 	273 NLRB 671 	[118 LRRM 1113], 	e n f d , 	(CA 9, 	1985) 	772
F.2d 	913 	[121 	LRRM 	2048]. 	While 	we 	recognize 	that 	the
Association 	did 	not 	request 	deletion 	of 	the 	social 	security
numbers, 	the 	District's 	assertion of 	confidentiality was 	proper
and 	therefore 	resulted 	in additional 	costs. 	There 	is 	no
evidence 	that 	the 	District was 	unwilling 	to meet 	with 	the
Association 	to discuss 	costs. 	The 	record does 	not 	indicate
that 	Charging 	Party made 	any effort 	to negotiate 	the 	costs 	of
supplying 	the 	PCR prior 	to 	filing 	the 	instant 	unfair 	practice
charge. 	Therefore, 	we affirm the ALJ's 	conclusion that 	the
Association was 	under 	the 	obligation 	to make 	a 	request 	to
bargain 	over 	the 	costs 	of 	providing 	the 	PCR.
ORDER
Upon 	the 	foregoing 	findings 	of 	fact 	and 	conclusions 	of 	law
and 	the 	entire 	record 	in 	this 	case, 	it 	is hereby ORDERED that
the 	proposed decision 	of 	the hearing 	officer 	on 	the 	charges
filed by 	the 	Los 	Rios 	Classified 	Employees 	Association 	is
AFFIRMED, 	as modified herein.
The 	alleged violation of 	section 	3543.5(c) 	which 	refers 	to
the 	District's 	failure 	to bargain 	in good 	faith 	is hereby
DISMISSED.
Chairperson Hesse 	and Member 	Porter 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
14