Los Angeles Community College District (PERB 1345E)

2 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS )
COLLEGE GUILD, LOCAL 1521, )

)

Charging Party, ) Case No.
)
Vv. ) PERB Decision No. 1345
)
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE ) September 2, 1999
DISTRICT, )
)
Respondent. )
Appearances; Lawrence Rosenzweig, Attorney, for American

Federation of Teachers College Guild, Local 1521; Camille A.
Goulet, General Counsel, for Los Angeles Community College
District.
Before Caffrey, Chairman; Dyer and Amador, Members.
DECISTON

CAFFREY, Chairman: This case is before the Public
Employment Relations Board (PERB or Board) on exceptions filed by
the Los Angeles Community College District (District) to the
proposed decision (attached) by a PERB administrative law judge
(ALJ). In the proposed decision, the ALJ found that the District

violated section 3543.5(a), (b) and (c) of the Educational

Employment Relations Act (EERA)* when it reassigned counselors at

“EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq.
Section 3543.5 states, in pertinent part:

It shall be unlawful for a public school
employer to do any of the following:

(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

West 	Los 	Angeles 	College 	from a 	12-month workyear 	to a 	10-month
workyear without 	meeting 	and negotiating with 	the American
Federation of Teachers College Guild, 	Local 	1521 	(Union).
The 	Board has 	reviewed the 	entire 	record 	in 	this 	case
including 	the proposed decision, 	the District's 	exceptions 	and
the Union's 	response 	thereto. 	The Board 	finds 	the ALJ's 	findings
of 	fact 	and 	conclusions 	of 	law to be 	free 	of prejudicial 	error
and adopts 	them as 	the decision of 	the Board itself.
ORDER
Upon 	the 	foregoing 	findings 	of 	fact 	and conclusions 	of 	law
and the 	entire 	record in this 	case, 	it 	is 	found that 	the
Los Angeles 	Community College District 	(District) 	violated the
Educational 	Employment Relations Act 	(EERA), 	Government Code
section 3543.5(a), 	(b) 	and 	(c). 	The District violated EERA when
during or about 	the month of May 1998, 	it 	reassigned the
counselors at West 	Los Angeles 	College 	(WLAC) 	from D-basis 	to C-
basis. 	By this 	conduct, 	the District violated EERA section
3543.5 (c). 	Because the action also had the effect of 	reducing
the workyear and the pay of 	individual 	employees, 	the District's
conduct also violated section 3543.5(a). 	Because 	the District
refused 	to meet 	and negotiate with 	the American 	Federation 	of
guaranteed by this 	chapter. 	For purposes 	of
this subdivision, 	"employee" 	includes an
applicant 	for employment 	or 	reemployment.
(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.
22

Teachers College Guild, 	Local 	1521 	(Union) 	about 	its decision to
change 	counselors 	from D-basis 	to C-basis, 	the District's 	action
also violated section 3543.5(b).
Pursuant to EERA section 3541.5(c), 	it hereby is ORDERED
that 	the District 	and its 	representatives 	shall:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST 	FROM:
1. 	Unilaterally changing the workyear basis 	of
counselors;
2. 	By the same 	conduct, 	interfering with the 	right 	of
the Union to represent 	its members;
3. 	By the same 	conduct, 	interfering with the 	right 	of
individual 	counselors 	to participate 	in the activities 	of 	an
employee 	organization.
B. 	TAKE 	THE 	FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS 	DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE THE 	POLICIES 	OF EERA:
1. 	Effective 	immediately upon 	service 	of 	a 	final
decision 	in 	this matter, 	reinstate 	the D-basis workyear 	for
counselors at WLAC.
2. 	Within ninety 	(90) 	days 	following the date 	that
this decision is no longer subject 	to appeal, 	reimburse all
employees 	affected by 	the 	change 	in 	counselor workyear 	from D-
basis 	to 	C-basis 	at WLAC 	for all 	losses 	they incurred as 	a 	result
of 	the District's unilateral 	action. 	The affected employees
shall 	be 	reimbursed 	for wages 	lost 	as 	a 	result 	of 	the District's
change, 	augmented by interest at 	the rate of seven 	(7) 	percent.
The District 	also 	shall 	take 	steps 	to ensure 	that 	retirement
credits 	are 	restored 	to affected employees.
3

3. 	Within ten 	(10) 	workdays 	following the date that
this decision is no 	longer subject 	to appeal, 	post at all work
locations 	where 	notices 	to members 	of 	the 	certificated employee
bargaining unit 	customarily are 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 with any other
material.
4. 	Written notification of 	the actions 	taken to
comply with 	this 	Order 	shall 	be made 	to 	the 	San 	Francisco
Regional 	Director 	of 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	in
accord with 	the director's 	instructions.
Members 	Dyer and Amador 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
4
4

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. 	LA-CE-3945,
American Federation of Teachers 	College Guild, 	Local 	1521 v.
Los Angeles 	Community College District, 	in which all parties had
the right 	to participate, 	it has been found that 	the Los Angeles
Community College District 	(District) 	violated 	the 	Educational
Employment Relations Act 	(EERA), 	Government Code section
3543.5(a), 	(b) 	and 	(c). 	The District violated EERA section
3543.5(c) 	when during or about 	the month of May 1998, 	it
reassigned the counselors at West Los Angeles College 	(WLAC) 	from
D-basis 	to C-basis. 	Because 	the action also had the 	effect 	of
reducing 	the workyear and the pay of 	individual 	employees, 	the
District's 	conduct also violated section 3543.5(a). 	Because 	the
District 	refused 	to meet 	and negotiate 	with 	the American
Federation of Teachers College Guild, 	Local 	1521 	(Union) 	about
its decision 	to 	change 	counselors 	from D-basis 	to C-basis, 	the
District's action also violated section 3543.5(b).
As 	a result 	of 	this 	conduct, 	we have been ordered to post
this Notice and we will:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
1. 	Unilaterally changing 	the workyear basis 	of
counselors;
2. 	By the 	same 	conduct, 	interfering with the 	right 	of
the Union to 	represent 	its members;
3. 	By the 	same 	conduct, 	interfering with the right 	of
individual 	counselors 	to participate 	in the activities 	of 	an
employee 	organization.
B. 	TAKE THE 	FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS 	DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE 	THE 	POLICIES 	OF 	EERA.
1. 	Effective 	immediately upon service 	of 	a 	final
decision 	in this matter, 	reinstate 	the D-basis workyear 	for
counselors at WLAC.
2. 	Within ninety 	(90) 	days 	following the date 	that
this 	decision is no longer subject 	to appeal, 	reimburse all
employees 	affected by 	the 	change 	in 	counselor workyear 	from
D-basis 	to C-basis 	at WLAC 	for all 	losses 	they 	incurred as 	a
result 	of 	the District's unilateral 	action. 	The affected
employees 	shall 	be 	reimbursed 	for wages 	lost as 	a 	result 	of 	the

District's 	change, 	augmented by interest at 	the 	rate 	of 	seven 	(7)
percent. 	The District also shall 	take 	steps 	to ensure 	that
retirement 	credits 	are restored to affected employees.
Dated: 	LOS ANGELES 	COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT
By: Authorized 	Agent
THIS 	IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE. 	IT MUST REMAIN POSTED 	FOR AT LEAST
THIRTY 	(3 0) 	CONSECUTIVE WORKDAYS 	FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND
MUST NOT BE REDUCED 	IN SIZE, 	DEFACED, 	ALTERED OR COVERED BY ANY
MATERIAL.
22

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
AMERICAN 	FEDERATION 	OF 	TEACHERS
COLLEGE GUILD, 	LOCAL 1521,
Charging 	Party,
v.
LOS ANGELES 	COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT,
Respondent.
Unfair 	Practice
Case No. 	LA-CE-3945
PROPOSED 	DECISION
(6/4/99)
Appearances: 	Lawrence Rosenzweig, 	Attorney, 	for American
Federation of Teachers College Guild, 	Local 	1521; 	Camille Goulet,
General 	Counsel, 	for Los Angeles 	Community College District.
Before Ronald E. 	Blubaugh, 	Administrative Law Judge.
PROCEDURAL 	HISTORY
A union here 	challenges 	a 	community 	college 	district's
decision 	to 	reduce 	the work year of 	counselors 	at 	one 	of 	its
campuses. 	The union argues 	that 	in reducing the work year, 	the
public 	school 	employer made 	a unilateral 	change 	in hours, 	a
mandatory subject 	of bargaining. 	Therefore, 	the union asserts,
the 	district 	failed to negotiate 	in good 	faith.
The 	college 	district 	replies 	that 	for two 	reasons 	it 	was
under no 	obligation 	to negotiate 	about 	the 	decision 	to 	reduce 	the
hours. 	First, 	the district contends, 	it made the hours reduction
in 	conjunction with 	a 	non-negotiable 	policy 	decision 	to 	change
the 	method of 	delivering 	counseling 	services 	to 	students.
Second, 	the district 	continues, 	even if 	the decision was
negotiable, 	the 	reduction in hours was 	consistent 	with a
long-time past 	practice 	and thus 	not 	a unilateral 	change.

The charge at 	issue was 	filed on June 22, 	1998, 	by the
American Federation of 	Teachers 	College Guild, 	Local 	1521 	(Guild
or Union), 	against 	the Los Angeles 	Community College District
(District). 	The Office of 	the General 	Counsel 	of 	the 	Public
Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(PERB 	or Board) 	issued a 	complaint
against 	the District on September 16, 	1998.
The 	complaint 	alleges 	that before May of 	1998, 	it was 	the
District's policy that 	the 	work year of 	counselors 	at 	West 	Los
Angeles 	Community College would be 	240 	days 	over 	12 	months. 	This
work year 	is 	known as 	"D-basis." 	During or about 	May of 	1998,
the 	complaint 	alleges, 	the 	District 	changed 	the 	policy by
assigning counselors 	at 	West 	Los Angeles 	Community College 	to 	a
200-day work year 	coincident 	with the 	fall 	and 	spring 	semesters.
The 	complaint 	alleges 	that 	this 	change was 	taken without
affording 	the Union 	the 	opportunity to negotiate 	the 	decision 	to
change 	the 	hours 	and work year and/or 	its 	effects. 	By making
this 	change, 	the complaint alleges, 	the District violated
Educational 	Employment 	Relations Act 	(EERA) 	section 	3543.5(c)
and, 	derivatively, 	(a) 	and 	(b).1
1Unless otherwise 	indicated, 	all 	statutory references 	are 	to
the Government 	Code. 	The EERA is 	codified at 	section 3540 	et
seq. 	In relevant part, 	section 3543.5 provides as 	follows:
It 	shall 	be unlawful 	for a public 	school
employer 	to do 	any of 	the 	following:
(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. 	For purposes 	of
22

The 	District 	filed 	an 	answer 	to 	the 	complaint 	on 	October 	2 0 ,
1998, 	admitting 	all 	jurisdictional 	allegations. 	In 	the 	answer,
the 	District 	also:
(1) 	"Admits 	that 	before 	May 	1998, 	the 	District's
policy 	concerning 	the 	work 	year 	of 	Counselors 	at 	West 	Los
Angeles Community College 	. 	. 	. 	was as 	follows: 	All
counselors 	were 	employed 	on 	a 	'D 	basis,' 	and 	counselors 	were
to 	perform work 	24 0 	days 	between 	July 	1 	and 	June 	3 0."
(2) 	"Admits 	that 	in or 	about 	May of 	1998, 	the 	District
changed 	this 	policy 	by 	requiring 	all 	Counselors 	at 	[West
Los 	Angeles 	Community College] 	to 	work 	on 	a 	'C 	basis.'
'C basis' 	employees work ten 4-week periods, 	2 00 	days,
beginning 	with 	the 	opening 	day 	of 	the 	Fall 	semester 	and
ending 	with 	the 	last 	day 	of 	the 	Spring 	semester."
On December 	17, 	1998, 	the 	District 	filed a motion 	to 	dismiss
the 	charge 	and 	defer 	the 	matter 	to 	arbitration. 	The 	Union 	filed
a 	memo 	in opposition 	to 	the 	motion 	on 	January 	19, 	1999. 	On
February 	2, 	1999, 	the 	undersigned 	issued 	an 	order 	denying 	the
motion 	to 	dismiss 	and 	defer.
this 	subdivision, 	"employee" 	includes 	an
applicant 	for 	employment 	or 	reemployment.
(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.
33

A hearing was 	conducted in Los Angeles 	on March 	1, 	1999.
With the 	filing of 	briefs, 	the matter was 	submitted 	for decision
on May 11, 	1999.
FINDINGS 	OF 	FACT
The 	District 	is 	a public 	school 	employer as 	defined 	in
section 	3540.1(k) 	of 	the 	EERA. 	The Guild is an employee
organization as defined in section 3540.1(d). 	At 	all 	times
relevant, 	the Guild has been the exclusive 	representative, 	as
defined in section 3540.1(e), 	of the 	faculty unit, 	an appropriate
unit 	of 	academic 	employees 	of 	the District. 	Counselors 	are 	a job
classification 	included within the 	faculty unit. 	The 	events 	at
issue 	took place 	at 	West 	Los Angeles 	College which 	is 	one 	of 	nine
community 	colleges 	operated by 	the 	District.
The 	District 	and the 	Guild are parties 	to 	a 	collective
bargaining agreement, 	effective September 30, 	1996, 	through
June 	30, 	1999, 	a time span that 	includes 	the relevant period.
The 	agreement 	provides 	for binding 	grievance 	arbitration.
However, 	the dispute at 	issue 	is not deferable because no
provision of 	the 	agreement 	arguably prohibits 	the 	conduct
at issue.
Most 	employees 	in the 	faculty unit 	have 	a work 	schedule
which is 	known between the parties 	as 	"C-basis." 	As 	defined 	in
the 	collective 	bargaining agreement, 	the 	C-basis 	work year
consists 	of 	ten 	four-week periods 	totaling 	200 	days. 	It 	begins
with the 	opening day of 	the 	fall 	semester and ends 	with the
44

closing day of 	the 	spring semester. 	In other words, 	C-basis 	is
the 	traditional 	academic 	year.
Historically, 	District 	counselors 	including those 	at 	West
Los Angeles 	College have worked a 	longer year on what 	is 	known
between the parties 	as 	"D-basis." 	As 	defined 	in 	the 	collective
bargaining agreement, 	the D-basis work year 	is 	24 0 	days between
July 	1 	and June 	30. 	Employees 	are 	eligible 	for 	illness benefits
and receive pay 	for holidays. 	Employees 	on D-basis 	do not 	earn
vacation but 	are 	paid 	for vacation 	days 	specified 	in 	the 	faculty
contract.
Depending upon the 	calendar, 	there 	are 	either 260 	or 261
work days 	in any particular year. 	Because 	they work a 	12-month
schedule, 	employees on D-basis must 	take 	either 2 0 	or 21 unpaid
days 	over 	the 	course 	of 	the year 	to ensure 	that 	they work no more
than 24 0 days. 	When they were on D-basis, 	the counselors at West
Los Angeles 	College 	coordinated their 	schedules 	for 	taking unpaid
days 	so 	there would be coverage 	at 	all 	times.
To a 	substantial 	degree, 	the 	change 	at 	issue 	can be traced
to 	dissatisfaction with 	the 	work performance 	of 	counselors 	by
West 	Los Angeles 	College 	President 	Evelyn Wong. 	Dr. 	Wong became
president 	of 	the 	college 	in 	1991 	and over a 	long period of 	time
participated 	in 	a number of 	discussions 	about 	improving 	and
re-configuring 	counseling 	services.
Dr. 	Wong 	testified that 	she walked around the 	campus 	several
times 	a month 	and on many occasions 	would encounter 	students
waiting 	in the 	counseling center but 	no 	counselors 	were present.
5
5

She 	said 	the 	counselors 	always 	had a 	reason 	for their absence but
she was 	of 	the view that 	students 	should not 	be 	kept 	waiting,
regardless. 	She 	said that 	student 	government 	officers 	had
told her 	that 	counseling 	services 	needed 	to be 	improved and 	she
had received 	similar, 	isolated 	comments 	from faculty members.
Dr. 	Wong 	said 	it was her view that 	the 	college was 	not 	doing a
satisfactory 	job 	of 	providing 	counseling 	services 	in 	the 	evening
and on weekends. 	She 	said 	she 	had told the 	counselors 	on 	several
occasions 	that 	they need 	to be 	available 	when 	students 	wanted to
meet 	with 	them.
Dr. 	Wong 	testified that 	her growing 	concerns 	about 	problems
with 	counseling 	services 	coincided with 	a 	campus-wide 	discussion
about 	a possible 	change 	in the 	academic 	calendar. 	While
reviewing alternative calendars, 	Dr. 	Wong and other
administrators 	discussed 	the 	question 	of 	how counseling 	and 	other
support 	services 	might 	be 	changed 	to mesh with a 	different
calendar. 	Although the 	campus 	community never 	reached a
consensus on changing the calendar, 	the discussions 	led Dr. 	Wong
to 	conclude 	in 	spring of 	1997 	that 	she 	should change 	counselors
at 	West 	Los Angeles 	College 	from D-basis 	to 	C-basis.
Prior to revealing her plans 	to the counselors, 	Dr. 	Wong
consulted with 	the 	District 	chancellor 	and 	others 	about 	whether
there 	were 	any restrictions 	on her right 	to make 	the 	change.
Concluding that 	she 	had 	the 	right 	to 	change 	counselors 	to
C-basis, 	she announced her plans 	in April 	of 	1997. 	Dr. 	Wong met
6
6

with 	the 	counselors 	and explained her 	reasons 	for making 	the
change.
In 	a 	subsequent memo written 	for distribution to members 	of
the Academic 	Senate, 	Dr. 	Wong 	identified two reasons 	for making
the change: 	(1) 	"Increase and improve counseling 	services," 	and
(2) 	"Allocate 	existing college 	resources 	to high priority areas."
Dr. 	Wong wrote 	that 	while 	students 	are 	on 	campus 	primarily during
the morning 	and evening hours, 	counselor 	scheduling occurs
primarily 	in the 	afternoon. 	There 	is 	no budget 	for hourly
counseling services, 	she wrote, 	and there 	are 	inadequate
counseling 	services 	available 	for 	evening 	students.
In the memo, 	Dr. 	Wong stated that 	savings 	from the 	change 	in
basis 	could be 	used 	to 	increase 	and 	improve 	counseling 	services
when they are 	most 	needed. 	This 	would be 	done 	by hiring
counselors 	to 	work 	additional 	time 	on 	an hourly basis 	during 	the
peak demand periods 	in the 	fall, 	spring, 	summer and evenings.
Any savings 	that 	remained, 	Dr. 	Wong wrote, 	could be used in other
priority areas 	at 	the college.
The 	Guild challenged 	the 	change 	in hours 	by 	filing 	a
grievance. 	There 	followed a 	series 	of 	discussions between
Dr. 	Wong, 	the counselors, 	the Union and the 	leaders of the
Academic Senate. 	Based upon these discussions, 	Dr. 	Wong
concluded that 	it 	would be possible 	to 	address 	her 	concerns 	in a
collaborative 	effort with the Union, 	the 	counselors 	and the
faculty 	leadership. 	She 	cancelled her plan 	to 	change 	the
7
7

counselors 	to 	C-basis. 	The 	Union 	responded by withdrawing 	the
grievance.
Dr. 	Wong 	explained her decision not 	to 	change 	the 	hours 	of
counselors by a memo dated April 	22, 	1997. 	In relevant part, 	her
memo reads:
I 	am writing 	to 	inform you 	that 	I 	have
decided that, 	at this time, 	I will not go
forward with my plan 	to 	reduce 	the
assignments of 	the members 	of 	the W[est]
L[os] 	A[ngeles] 	C[ollege] 	Counseling
Department 	from D basis 	to 	C basis. 	Please
understand 	that 	my decision not 	to proceed 	at
this 	time 	does 	not 	indicate 	agreement 	with
the 	arguments 	about 	the 	nature 	of 	a D basis
assignment 	that 	have 	been 	raised 	in 	the
grievance 	filed by the 	counselors 	at West. 	I
think, 	however, 	it to be in the best
interests 	of 	the 	college 	that 	we 	put 	in place
a 	process 	of 	consultation and discussion 	on
issues 	relating 	to 	maximizing 	the
effectiveness of the W[est] 	L[os] 	A[ngeles]
C[ollege] 	Counseling Division 	for the
students of the college.
I 	am 	looking 	forward 	to 	engaging 	in 	these
discussions 	with you 	and with 	representatives
of 	the AFT College Guild. 	It 	is my hope 	that
through 	this 	consultative process 	we 	can
improve 	counseling 	services 	to 	our 	students.
I 	have 	discussed my decision with Guild
President 	Carl 	Friedlander, 	and he will
inform you of 	the 	status 	of 	the 	grievance
that 	has 	been 	filed.
I 	will 	be 	contacting you 	shortly about
putting 	in place 	a 	consultation process 	with
clear 	and 	reasonable 	timelines 	and with 	the
crucial 	parties 	involved.
A series 	of 	meetings 	between 	the 	administration 	and 	the
counseling 	staff 	followed Dr. 	Wong's 	decision not 	to go 	forward
with the hours 	change in 1997. 	David Follosco, 	vice president 	of
students 	services 	at West 	Los Angeles College, 	represented
8

Dr. 	Wong 	in the 	talks. 	The 	counselors 	represented themselves
directly 	in 	the 	five 	meetings 	that 	took place 	between May and
October of 	1997.
Prior to the 	first meeting, 	Mr. 	Follosco presented to the
counselors 	a 	list 	of 	"issues 	and concerns" 	about 	the 	counseling
division. 	At 	the 	top of the 	lengthy list, 	was 	a change 	in
counselor work 	scheduling 	in order 	"to meet 	student 	needs."
Entries 	under 	this 	notation 	included 	counselor 	availability 	on
Saturdays 	and a balance 	between morning 	and evening 	coverage.
Also 	listed was 	a 	requirement 	that 	more 	counselors 	be 	available
during periods 	of 	heavy student 	usage. 	Other 	concerns 	listed on
Mr. 	Follosco's 	summary of 	issues 	included: 	improved reporting of
work schedules 	to 	the administration, 	full 	participation in the
matriculation process, 	more 	effective 	delivery of 	services,
participation 	in 	outreach 	activities 	at 	local 	feeder high
schools, 	implementation of new evaluation processes, 	improved
teamwork 	and 	improved participation 	in professional 	activities.
The 	last 	of 	the meetings between Mr. 	Follosco and the
counselors took place 	in October of 	1997. 	Mr. 	Follosco testified
that 	the meetings 	resulted 	in the 	counselors 	addressing 	some 	of
the 	issues 	raised in the 	spring of 	1997. 	However, 	he 	testified,
the meetings 	were 	not 	as productive 	as 	he had hoped.
In the 	spring of 	1998, 	Dr. 	Wong decided to 	implement 	the
change 	in counselor work year 	from D-basis 	to 	C-basis. 	She 	met
with the counselors on May 20, 	1998, 	to advise them of her
decision. 	All 	but 	one of 	the 	nine 	counselors 	employed at West
9
9

Los Angeles College were present. 	At 	the meeting, 	Dr. 	Wong
reviewed 	the 	list 	of 	problem areas 	she 	had 	identified 	a year
earlier 	and discussed what 	had been done 	to 	make 	the 	changes 	she
believed necessary. 	After 	listening 	to 	the 	responses 	of 	the
counselors present, 	Dr. 	Wong 	informed them of 	her decision to
change 	their work hours 	from D-basis 	to 	C-basis.
Dr. 	Wong 	testified 	that 	her primary 	reason 	for moving 	the
counselors 	from D-basis 	to 	C-basis 	was 	to 	change 	the 	way
counseling 	services 	are provided. 	She 	said 	she 	also wanted to
use 	the 	salary 	savings 	for other college 	needs.
By reducing 	the 	number of pay warrants 	from 	12 	to 	10 	per
year, 	the 	change 	of 	counselors 	from D-basis 	to 	C-basis 	provided
significant 	salary 	savings 	to 	the District. 	Although 	the 	college
re-hired 	some 	of 	the 	counselors 	to work peak summer periods 	at 	an
hourly pay rate, 	the hourly pay is 	only 	80 	percent 	of 	the 	regular
pay rate. 	Moreover, 	the number of hours 	counselors worked
collectively during 	the 	summer of 	1998 	was 	fewer 	than the 	total
number 	of 	hours 	they would have 	worked when 	they were 	on D-basis.
The 	District 	had a 	"consultation meeting" 	with 	the 	Union on
May 27, 	1998, 	during which the District 	advised the Union of 	its
plan to 	change 	the 	counselors 	to C-basis. 	By letter of 	June 	14,
1998, 	the 	District 	formally notified the Union 	"that 	effective
July 1, 	1998, 	West 	LA College 	intends 	to change 	the 	status of
nine monthly rate 	counselors 	from 	'D' 	Basis 	to 	'C 	Basis." 	In
the 	letter, 	the District 	further advised the Union that 	it 	would
be 	"available to bargain 	. 	. 	. 	regarding the effects of this
10

decision." 	West 	Los Angeles 	College was 	the only District
college 	to 	change 	the hours 	of 	counselors 	from D-basis 	to
C-basis.
By letters of June 	15, 	1998, 	the District 	formally notified
each 	employee 	that 	his/her 	"monthly 	rate 	counselor 	assignment
will be 	changed from D basis 	to C basis, 	effective July 1, 	1998."
The 	letters 	further 	stated:
It 	is 	anticipated that 	the 	college may elect
to make additional 	assignments, 	in addition
to the 200 	days of 	the C basis, 	during the
summer of 	as many as 	21 	days.
By letter of June 22, 	1998, 	the Guild responded to the
District's 	notice 	of 	the 	impending 	change 	in counselor work year.
In relevant part, 	the Union's 	letter reads:
As 	we 	stated 	in 	the 	consultation meeting 	of
May 27, 	1998, 	we consider this change in
assignment 	a unilateral 	deviation 	in working
conditions 	from the 	established policy 	at
West 	Los Angeles 	College 	and 	in the 	Los
Angeles 	Community College District. 	This
change 	has 	a generalized effect 	and 	a
continuing 	impact 	on 	the 	terms 	and conditions
of 	employment. 	As 	such, 	we have 	filed an
Unfair Labor 	action with 	PERB.
As we 	stated on May 27, 	1998, 	we seek to
negotiate 	the 	change 	in working 	conditions,
not 	just 	the effects of 	this 	action. 	In
light 	of 	the 	LACCD 	administration's 	view 	that
only the 	effects need be negotiated, 	we 	are
willing 	to 	initially negotiate 	on 	the 	effects
of 	the 	change while 	continuing 	to pursue 	our
action to 	force 	the 	District 	to negotiate 	the
change 	itself. 	By agreeing 	to negotiate 	the
effects of 	the 	change, 	we are not waiving any
rights 	to negotiate 	the 	unilateral 	change
itself.
The 	District 	and 	the 	Union 	subsequently bargained on June 	29,
July 13 	and July 27, 	1998, 	about the effects of the change.
11

On June 	30, 	1998, 	the college sent to each counselor a
letter 	advising 	that 	it 	would be 	hiring 	counselors 	for 	summer
session assignments. 	The 	letter 	set 	out 	a 	schedule whereby it
would hire 	two 	counselors 	to work a 	total 	of 	90 	hours 	per week
during 	the month of 	July. 	The 	letter 	further 	stated that 	it
would hire 	four 	counselors 	to work a 	total 	of 	160 	hours 	between
August 	3 	and August 	6, 	1998. 	The 	letter ranked the nine
counselors 	according 	to 	their priority 	for 	summer positions 	and
specified 	how 	the 	hours 	would be 	distributed depending 	upon 	the
choices 	made 	by those with the 	highest 	priority. 	The 	letter
included 	an 	accept/decline 	form by which 	each 	counselor 	could
identify his/her preferences 	for 	summer 	counseling 	assignments.
Each of 	the 	several 	counselor witnesses 	testified to 	a 	loss
of 	income 	because 	of 	the 	switch 	from D-basis 	to 	C-basis. 	Eloise
Crippens 	testified 	that 	she 	lost 	most 	of 	two months 	pay. 	She
said 	she 	worked 	only 	25 	hours 	over 	the 	summer 	and 	those 	hours
were 	compensated at 	only 	8 0 	percent 	of her regular pay rate.
Moreover, 	she 	testified, 	the 	change 	affected her retirement
benefits 	because 	it 	lowered her annual 	pay. 	Summer 	service
performed 	as 	an 	extra 	assignment 	is 	not 	creditable 	compensation
for purposes 	of 	earning 	retirement 	benefits.2 As 	a 	result,
Ms. 	Crippens 	testified, 	she would have to work longer before
retirement 	than 	she 	had planned. 	Anthony Gamble 	testified 	that
he, 	too, 	lost 	money and would not 	have 	left 	his prior 	full-time
job 	to 	accept 	a 	ten-month position.
2See Education Code 	section 22119.2(b)(2).
12

The 	District 	presented 	computer print-outs 	showing 	that
individual 	employees 	in the 	faculty unit 	over 	several 	years 	have
moved 	back 	and 	forth between 	D-basis 	and 	C-basis 	employment.
Counselors 	are 	among 	the 	employees who have 	made 	the 	switch
between D-basis 	and C-basis. 	There 	is 	no 	evidence 	in 	the 	record,
however, 	about 	the 	reasons 	why the 	employees 	listed on the
print-outs 	made 	the 	switch between D-basis 	and C-basis.
Moreover, 	there was 	no evidence presented to demonstrate 	that 	the
District 	ever before 	involuntarily 	transferred 	all 	employees 	in a
work group 	from D-basis 	to 	C-basis.
Mr. 	Follosco 	testified that 	when he 	was 	a 	counselor he was
moved 	from D-basis 	to 	C-basis 	on 	the 	campus 	where 	he 	was
employed. 	However, 	he was 	the 	only counselor whose basis was
changed 	at 	that 	time. 	He was 	lowest 	in 	seniority and he 	was 	told
that 	the 	reason for the 	change was 	to reduce 	costs.
LEGAL 	ISSUES
Did the District make 	a
subject 	and 	thereby 	fail 	to
1unilateral 	change 	in a negotiable
meet 	and negotiate 	in good 	faith when
it 	reassigned the 	counselors 	at 	West 	Los Angeles 	College 	from
D-basis 	to 	C-basis?
CONCLUSIONS 	OF 	LAW
If 	an employer makes 	a pre-impasse unilateral 	change 	in an
established, 	negotiable practice 	that 	employer violates 	its 	duty
to meet 	and negotiate 	in good faith. 	(NLRB v. 	Katz 	(1962) 	369
U.S. 	736 	[50 	LRRM 2177].) 	Such unilateral 	changes 	are 	inherently
destructive 	of 	employee 	rights 	and are 	a 	failure per 	se 	of 	the
13

duty to negotiate 	in good 	faith. 	(Davis 	Unified 	School 	District,
et al. 	(1980) 	PERB Decision No. 	116; 	State of California
(Department of Transportation) 	(1983) 	PERB Decision No. 	361-S.)
To prevail 	on a complaint 	of unilateral 	change, 	the
exclusive 	representative 	must 	establish by a preponderance 	of 	the
evidence 	that 	(1) 	the employer breached or altered the parties'
written agreement 	or own established past 	practice; 	(2) 	such
action was 	taken without 	giving 	the 	exclusive 	representative
notice or an opportunity to bargain over the change; 	(3) 	the
change was 	not 	merely an 	isolated breach of 	the 	contract, 	but
amounts 	to a 	change 	of policy 	(i.e., 	has 	a generalized effect 	or
continuing 	impact 	upon 	the 	terms 	and 	conditions 	of 	employment 	of
bargaining unit members); 	and 	(4) 	the change 	in policy concerns a
matter within the 	scope 	of 	representation. 	(Grant 	Joint 	Union
High School District 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	196 	(Grant); 	State
of 	California 	(Department 	of 	Forestry and Fire 	Protection) 	(1993)
PERB Decision No. 	999-S.)
The District's principal 	line 	of 	defense 	is 	that 	it 	made a
non-negotiable 	decision when 	it 	changed counselors 	at 	West 	Los
Angeles 	College 	from D-basis 	to 	C-basis. 	"The 	District 	retains
the 	exclusive 	right 	to reduce 	or terminate 	functions 	at 	any
time," 	the District 	argues. 	"The College has 	an inherent
management 	right 	to 	respond to 	the 	operational 	needs 	of 	the
campus, 	including 	the need 	for greater or 	lesser 	counseling
services 	in a particular time 	of year. 	The 	College 	exercised
that 	inherent 	management 	right 	in June 	1998 	based on operational
14

needs." 	Therefore, 	the District concludes, 	bargaining about the
decision was 	not 	required 	and 	the parties 	stipulated 	that
bargaining 	about 	the 	effects 	was 	conducted 	in good 	faith.
The 	Guild rejects 	this 	rationale, 	asserting that 	the 	college
made 	the 	change 	"to 	acquire 	salary 	savings" 	which could be used
for 	other purposes. 	"President 	Wong 	explicitly discussed
financial 	problems 	when 	she met 	with the 	Guild on this 	issue,"
the 	Guild observes. 	The 	college 	addressed these 	financial 	needs,
the Union continues, 	by reducing the 	income of 	the 	counselors.
It 	was 	settled long ago 	that 	the number of 	days 	in the
work year 	is 	a negotiable matter because 	it 	affects 	hours 	and
wages, 	subjects 	specifically listed within the 	EERA scope 	of
representation.3 Thus, 	an employer decision to reduce 	the
number of 	days 	in the work year 	is 	a negotiable 	decision.
A 	reduction 	in work year 	directly
affects 	items 	enumerated 	in 	subsection
3543.2(a) 	. 	. 	. because it reduces wages and
hours. 	We 	affirm the ALJ's 	finding that
duration of 	the work year 	is 	a 	subject 	within
scope. 	Such finding 	is 	in accord with prior
Board decisions 	holding 	that 	the 	number 	of
workdays 	in the work year 	is 	a 	subject 	within
scope. 	. 	. 	. 	[Pittsburg Unified School
District 	(1983) 	PERB Decision No. 	318.]
Similarly, 	the 	Board has 	held 	that 	an employer decision to
change 	the 	beginning 	and ending dates 	of 	service 	and the 	dates 	of
holidays 	is 	negotiable as 	affecting hours.
. 	. 	. 	[T]he dates of the beginning and ending
of certificated service, 	vacations, 	and
holidays 	are primarily related 	to 	hours
of 	employment 	as 	found in section 3543.2,
3Section 3543.2.
15

and 	are 	consequentially negotiable 	items.
[Palos Verdes 	Peninsula Unified School
District 	(1979) 	PERB Decision No. 	96.]
It 	is undisputed that 	by changing 	the 	counselors 	at 	West 	Los
Angeles 	College 	from D-basis 	to 	C-basis 	the 	District: 	shortened
the number of days 	in their work year, 	reduced their pay,
eliminated 	several 	holidays, 	changed 	the 	beginning 	and ending
dates 	of 	their work year and 	reduced 	the 	rate 	at 	which 	they earn
retirement 	credits. 	Plainly, 	the 	shortening of 	the work year
affected the 	counselors' 	hours 	of work and pay, 	both mandatory
subjects 	of 	bargaining.
According to the District, 	however, 	these are but 	effects.
Since 	it 	willingly negotiated about 	effects, 	the District
reasons, 	it 	discharged its obligation. 	But 	in making this
argument 	the District 	cites 	no 	case 	that 	permits 	an employer 	to
reduce 	employee 	hours 	and cut 	pay 	in order 	"to 	respond to 	the
operational 	needs 	of 	the 	campus."
The 	Board decision 	that 	most 	closely 	supports 	the 	District's
rationale 	is Arcata Elementary School 	District 	(1996) 	PERB
Decision No. 	1163 	(Arcata). 	There, 	the Board held that 	if an
employer's 	decision 	to 	change 	the 	hours 	of 	a vacant 	position,
. 	. 	. 	reflects a change in the nature,
direction or level 	of 	service 	[the 	decision]
falls 	within management's 	prerogative 	and 	is
outside 	the 	scope 	of 	representation.
Conversely, 	a decision to change 	the hours 	of
a vacant 	position which 	is 	based 	on 	labor
cost 	considerations 	and does 	not 	reflect 	a
change 	in the nature, 	direction or level 	of
service, 	is directly related to 	issues 	of
employee wages 	and hours 	and 	is 	within 	the
scope of representation. 	[Fn. 	omitted.]
16

The Arcata rationale 	is not 	applicable here, 	however,
because Arcata 	applies 	only to 	an employer's 	modification of 	the
hours of 	a vacant position. 	" [T]he Board has never held that 	an
employer 	can change 	the 	hours 	in an occupied position, 	without
negotiating, 	even if 	the purpose 	is 	to change 	the nature,
direction or 	level 	of 	service." 	(State 	of 	California 	(Employment
Development Department) 	(1998) 	PERB Decision No. 	1284-S, 	adopting
the 	administrative 	law judge decision at 	p. 	22.) 	Unlike Arcata,
all 	of 	the 	counselor positions 	affected by the 	change 	at 	West 	Los
Angeles 	Community College 	were 	occupied by 	incumbent 	employees.
The 	record here, 	moreover, 	would not 	support 	a conclusion
that 	the 	primary purpose 	of 	the 	reduction 	in counselor hours was
to "change 	. 	. 	. 	the nature, 	direction or level of service." 	I
conclude 	that 	making 	a change 	in direction was 	the 	District's
least 	important motivation. 	This 	is 	evident 	from the 	fact 	that
the 	nature 	and direction of 	counseling 	services 	was 	unchanged
after 	counselors 	were 	switched to 	a 	C-basis 	work year.
The 	District 	did not 	eliminate 	counselor 	services 	at 	West
Los Angeles 	Community College; 	it 	shifted counselor 	services 	to
different 	hours 	in the 	summer 	and 	in the 	evening. 	Under 	the new
schedule, 	more 	counselors work during 	some periods 	than would
have worked under the prior schedule. 	At 	other times, 	there 	are
fewer 	counselors 	than there 	would have 	been under 	the 	prior
schedule. 	At all 	times, 	however, 	the nature of the counseling
provided to 	students 	is 	the 	same 	after the 	change 	as 	it was
before. 	Just 	the dates 	and times 	are different.
17

I 	believe 	that 	the primary motivation 	for 	the 	shift 	of
counselors 	to 	C-basis was 	to 	force 	the 	counselors 	to work at 	the
times 	of 	the day and on the days 	of 	the year Dr. 	Wong believed
most 	appropriate. 	Counselors 	were 	reluctant 	to go 	along with
the work hours Dr. 	Wong wanted. 	So, 	she 	forced them to work at
other times 	by changing 	them to 	a 	C-basis work year. 	With the
change 	in basis, 	the counselors had no choice.
I 	believe 	that 	closely behind Dr. 	Wong's 	desire 	to have
counselors work at different hours was her desire, 	also, 	to save
funds 	for other uses. 	Because of the change, 	as Dr. 	Wong
candidly stated, 	the District 	could 	" [a]llocate 	existing college
resources 	to high priority areas."
All 	other elements 	of 	a prima 	facie unilateral 	change 	case
are present. 	It 	is 	undisputed that 	by long-standing practice 	the
principal 	work year 	for counselors 	at 	all 	District 	colleges 	has
been D-basis. 	The 	District 	admitted the 	existence 	of 	such a
practice 	in 	its 	answer. 	The 	computer print-outs 	introduced as
evidence 	by 	the 	District 	do 	not 	establish 	a practice 	different
from what 	the District 	has 	admitted. 	Although 	the print-outs
show that 	individual 	employees 	in the 	faculty unit, 	including
counselors, 	have 	moved back and 	forth between D-basis 	and
C-basis, 	the 	reasons 	for the 	changes 	are unexplained. 	The
movement 	between D-basis 	and 	C-basis 	could 	have 	been 	for
promotions, 	reassignments, 	job changes or a host of other
reasons. 	The 	existence 	of 	such unexplained changes 	does 	not
rebut 	the 	admitted practice 	that 	District 	counselors 	work
18

D-basis. 	Nor 	is 	there 	evidence 	demonstrating 	that 	the 	District
ever before 	involuntarily 	transferred 	all 	employees 	in 	a work
group 	from D-basis 	to 	C-basis.
It 	is undisputed, 	also, 	that 	the District 	refused to
negotiate with 	the 	Guild about 	its 	decision 	to 	transfer West 	Los
Angeles 	College 	counselors 	from D-basis 	to 	C-basis. 	The 	change,
therefore, 	was made unilaterally, 	without 	the 	consent 	of 	the
exclusive 	representative. 	Finally, 	the 	change was 	an across 	the
board action which, 	as the Guild observes, 	affects 	"all 	current
and future counselors" 	at West Los Angeles 	College. 	It 	is 	clear,
therefore, 	that 	the 	change 	from D-basis 	to 	C-basis 	had both 	"a
generalized effect" 	and a 	"continuing 	impact" 	on 	counselors 	at
West 	Los Angeles College. 	(Grant.)
Accordingly, 	I 	conclude 	that 	the District 	failed to meet 	and
negotiate 	in good 	faith when during or 	about 	the 	month 	of 	May
1998, 	it 	reassigned the 	counselors 	at West 	Los Angeles 	College
from D-basis 	to 	C-basis. 	By this 	conduct 	the 	District 	violated
EERA section 3543.5 (c) . 	Because the action also had the effect
of 	reducing 	the work year and 	the pay of 	individual 	employees,
the District's 	conduct 	also violated section 3543.5(a). 	Because
the 	District 	refused 	to meet 	and negotiate 	with 	the 	Union about
its 	decision to 	change 	counselors 	from D-basis 	to 	C-basis, 	the
District's 	action also violated section 3543.5(b).
REMEDY
The PERB in section 3541.5 (c) 	is given:
. 	. 	. 	the power to issue a decision and order
directing 	an offending party 	to 	cease 	and
19

desist 	from the 	unfair practice 	and 	to 	take
such affirmative action, 	including but 	not
limited 	to 	the 	reinstatement 	of 	employees
with or without 	back pay, 	as will 	effectuate
the policies 	of 	this 	chapter.
The 	District 	has been 	found 	in violation of 	its 	duty to meet
and negotiate 	in good 	faith 	by unilaterally 	reassigning 	the
counselors 	at 	West 	Los Angeles 	College 	from D-basis 	to 	C-basis.
This 	change 	shortened the number of 	days 	in the 	counselors' 	work
year, 	reduced their pay, 	eliminated several 	holidays, 	changed the
beginning 	and 	ending 	dates 	of 	their work year 	and 	reduced 	the
rate 	at 	which they earn retirement 	credits.
It 	is 	appropriate 	therefore 	that 	the 	District 	be 	directed to
cease 	and desist 	from making unilateral 	changes 	and 	to 	reinstate
the past practice. 	It 	also 	is 	appropriate 	that 	the District
be 	directed to make whole 	all 	counselors 	at 	West 	Los Angeles
College 	for 	losses 	they incurred as 	a result 	of 	the 	District's
unilateral 	action. 	The 	affected employees 	shall 	be 	reimbursed
for wages 	they lost 	as a 	result 	of 	the District's 	change. 	The
reimbursement 	shall 	be 	augmented by 	interest 	at 	the 	rate 	of
7 	percent. 	The District 	also 	shall 	take 	steps 	to ensure 	that
retirement 	credits 	are 	restored to 	affected employees.
It 	also 	is 	appropriate 	that 	the District 	be 	required to post
a notice 	incorporating the 	terms 	of 	the 	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
20

purposes 	of 	the 	EERA that 	employees 	be 	informed of 	the 	resolution
of 	this 	controversy and 	the 	District's 	readiness 	to 	comply with
the 	ordered remedy. 	(Placerville Union School 	District 	(1978)
PERB Decision No. 	69.)
PROPOSED 	ORDER
Upon the 	foregoing 	findings 	of 	fact 	and conclusions 	of 	law
and the 	entire 	record in this 	case, 	it 	is 	found that 	the Los
Angeles 	Community College District 	(District) 	violated 	the
Educational Employment Relations Act 	(Act), 	Government Code
section 3543.5 (c), 	(b) 	and 	(a). 	The District violated the Act
when during or about 	the month of May 1998, 	it 	reassigned the
counselors 	at 	West 	Los Angeles 	College 	from D-basis 	to 	C-basis.
By this 	conduct 	the District violated EERA section 3543.5 (c) .
Because 	the 	action 	also 	had 	the 	effect 	of 	reducing 	the 	work year
and the pay of 	individual 	employees, 	the District's 	conduct 	also
violated section 3543.5 (a). 	Because 	the District 	refused to meet
and negotiate 	with 	the Union 	about 	its 	decision 	to 	change
counselors 	from D-basis 	to 	C-basis, 	the District's 	action also
violated section 3543.5(b).
Pursuant to section 3541.5 (c) 	of the Government Code, 	it
hereby 	is 	ORDERED 	that 	the 	District 	and 	its 	representatives
shall:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST 	FROM:
1. 	Unilaterally changing 	the work year basis 	of
counselors;
21

2. 	By the 	same 	conduct, 	interfering with the 	right
of 	the Union to represent 	its members;
3. 	By the 	same 	conduct, 	interfering with the 	right 	of
individual 	counselors 	to participate 	in the 	activities 	of 	an
employee 	organization.
B. 	TAKE 	THE 	FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS 	DESIGNED 	TO
EFFECTUATE THE 	POLICIES 	OF THE ACT:
1. 	Effective 	immediately upon service 	of 	a 	final
decision 	in this matter, 	reinstate 	for counselors 	at West 	Los
Angeles 	College 	the 	D-basis 	work year.
2. 	Within ninety 	(90) 	days of 	the 	service of a 	final
decision 	in this matter, 	reimburse 	all 	employees 	affected by the
change 	in 	counselor work year 	from D-basis 	to 	C-basis 	at 	West 	Los
Angeles 	College 	for all 	losses 	they incurred as 	a 	result 	of 	the
District's 	unilateral 	action. 	The 	affected employees 	shall 	be
reimbursed for wages 	lost 	as 	a result 	of 	the District's 	change,
augmented by interested at 	the 	rate of 	7 	percent. 	The District
also 	shall 	take 	steps 	to 	ensure 	that 	retirement 	credits 	are
restored 	to 	affected employees.
3. 	Within ten 	(10) 	workdays of 	service of 	a 	final
decision 	in this matter, 	post 	at 	all 	work locations where notices
to members 	of 	the 	certificated 	employee 	bargaining unit
customarily are 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
22

shall 	be 	taken to ensure 	that 	the Notice 	is 	not 	reduced 	in size,
altered, 	defaced or covered with any other material.
4. 	Upon issuance of 	a 	final 	decision, 	make written
notification of 	the 	actions 	taken to 	comply with the 	Order to 	the
San 	Francisco 	Regional 	Director 	of 	the 	Public 	Employment
Relations 	Board 	in 	accord with the 	director's 	instructions.
Pursuant 	to California Code of Regulations, 	title 	8,
section 	32305, 	this 	Proposed Decision and Order 	shall 	become
final 	unless 	a party 	files 	a 	statement 	of 	exceptions 	with the
Board itself within 20 	days 	of 	service of 	this Decision. 	The
Board's address 	is:
Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board
Attention: 	Appeals Assistant
1031 	18th Street
Sacramento, 	CA 95814-4174
FAX: 	(916) 	327-7960
In accordance with PERB 	regulations, 	the 	statement 	of
exceptions 	should 	identify by page 	citation 	or 	exhibit 	number 	the
portions 	of 	the 	record, 	if any, 	relied upon for such exceptions.
(Cal. Code Regs., 	tit. 8, 	sec. 32300.)
A document 	is 	considered 	"filed" 	when actually 	received
before the close of business 	(5 p.m.) 	on the 	last 	day set 	for
filing or when mailed by certified or Express 	United 	States 	mail,
as 	shown on the postal 	receipt 	or postmark, 	or delivered to a
common carrier promising overnight 	delivery, 	as 	shown on the
carrier's 	receipt, 	not 	later than the 	last 	day set 	for 	filing.
(Cal. Code Regs., 	tit. 8, 	sec. 32135(a); see also Cal. Code
Regs., tit. 8, sec. 32130.)
23

A document 	is 	also 	considered 	"filed" 	when 	received by
facsimile 	transmission before 	the 	close 	of 	business 	on 	the 	last
day 	for 	filing 	together with a 	Facsimile 	Transmission Cover 	Sheet
which meets the requirements of Cal. 	Code Regs., 	tit.8, 	sec.
32135(d), 	provided the filing party also places 	the 	original,
together with 	the 	required number of 	copies 	and proof 	of 	service,
in the U.S. 	mail. 	(Cal. 	Code. 	Regs., 	tit. 	8, 	secs. 	32135(b), 	(c)
and 	(d); 	see also Cal. 	Code Regs., 	tit. 	8, 	secs. 	32090 and
32130.)
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 	Cal. 	Code Regs.,
tit. 	8, 	secs. 	32300, 	32305, 	32140, 	and 32135(c).)
Ronald E. 	Blubaugh
Administrative 	Law 	Judge
24