Lodi Unified School District (PERB 1429E)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
LODI UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
LODI INFORMATION SERVICES
ASSOCIATION,
Petitioner,
and
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION & ITS CHAPTER 77,
Exclusive Representative.
Case No. SA-SV-151-E
PERB Decision No. 	142 9
April 	30, 	2001
Appearances: Kathy O'Connor, Representative, for Lodi Information Services Association;
California School Employees Association by Maureen C. Whelan, Attorney, for California
School Employees Association and its Chapter 77.
Before Amador, Baker and Whitehead, Members.
DECISION
BAKER, Member: 	This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board (Board)
on P-Yr.P-ptiom: hythP-T.orli Tnfomrntion SP-rvir.P-s Assor.i~tion (T.TSA) to a Board agent's
proposed decision (attached) denying its severance petition. The Board agent found that the
unit proposed by the severance petition had not been shown to possess a separate and distinct

community of interest necessary to find it an appropriate unit under the Educational
Employment Relations Act (EERA) section 3545(a).1
After a review of the entire record, including the Board agent's proposed decision,
LISA's appeal and the response of the California School Employees Association and its
Chapter 77, the Board hereby affirms the proposed decision and adopts it as the decisionof the
Board itself.
ORDER
The severance request in Case No. SA-SV-151-E is hereby DENIED.
Members Amador and Whitehead joined in this Decision.
1 EEP~.i1i.. is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. 	Section 3545 (a) states:
(a) In each case where the appropriateness of the unit is an issue,
the board shall decide the question on the basis of the community
of interest between and among the employees and their
established practices including, among other things, the extent to
which such employees belong to the same employee organization,
and the effect of the size of the unit on the efficient operation of
the school district.
2

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
LODI UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
LODI INFORMATION SERVICES
ASSOCIATION,
Petitioner,
and
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION AND ITS CHAPTER 77,
Exclusive Representative.
REPRESENTATION
CASE NO. SA-SV-151-E
PROPOSED DECISION
(11/6/2000)
Appearances: Pinnell & Kingsley, by Kim Kingsley Bogard, Attorney, for Lodi Unified
School District; Kathy O'Connor, Representative, for Lodi Information Services Association;
and Burton Gray, Labor Relations Representative, for California School Employees
Association and its Lodi Chapter 77.
Before Les Chisholm, Regional Director.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On March 15, 2000, the Lodi Information Services Association (LISA or Petitioner)
filed a severance request with the Lodi Unified School District (District) and Public
Employment Relations Board (PERB or Board) seeking to establish a separate unit of
employees who work directly with and are responsible for the design, integration,
implementation, and support of information systems utilized by the District. 	The employees
covered by the severance request are included in a wall-to-wall classified unit represented by
California School Employees Association and its Chapter 77 (CSEA).

CSEA filed a response opposing the severance request on March 23, 2000. 	That
response made various substantive arguments in opposition to the petition. CSEA also filed,
by letter dated April 11, 2000, a request that the petition be dismissed due to alleged improper
filing and service.
By letter dated April 4, 2000, the District submitted a statement in support of the
severance request.
On April 12, 2000, PERB issued a determination that the severance request had been
timely filed with adequate proof of support. That determination letter also noted that the
employer could not grant voluntary recognition to the Petitioner, under PERB's regulations,1
due to the expressed opposition of CSEA.
A formal hearing was held on June 26, 2000. Briefs were filed by all parties, and the
case was submitted for decision on September 6, 2000.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The District operates approximately 40 school sites and has an average daily attendance
of about 26,000 students. CSEA has been the exclusive representative of a wall-to-wall unit of
the District's classified employees, currently numbering more than 1,000, since June 1976.
The proposed unit currently includes 15 employees in 4 classifications: personal
computer support technician, micro-computer technician, network technician, and systems
analyst/computer operator. These classifications are all part of the District's Information
Services Department (ISD). The ISD was first established in 1994, with just one employee.
District projections are that employment in these classifications will grow to a total of 50-plus
positions by the year 2005. District uses of computers include payroll, accounting, email,
1 PERB's regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.
2

phone service, Internet access, and student and employee records. 	One of the District's goals is
to "expand the use of technology as a tool to enhance education and to support learning and
assessment in all curriculum areas." (Petitioner Exhibit 3.)
Job Duties
ISD employees generally perform duties related to install.ation, maintenance and repair
of computers and other electronic equipment; installation and maintenance of centralized
computer systems and networks, programs and software; analyzing changes required in
existing systems; training of users; and providing technical support and assistance. 	While
many of their job duties are intellectual in nature, each of the classifications calls on employees
to utilize dexterity of hands and fingers, and to lift, carry, push or pull moderately heavy
equipment. 	Some employees use specialized testing equipment, as do employees in certain
other classifications in the District.
ISD employees have access to confidential information, such as email accounts,
passwords, and employee and student records.2 A number of other District classifications and
employees also deal with confidential records such as student, employee and medical
information. ISD employees have access to all District facilities.
Education and Training
Each of the ISD employee classifications requires possession of a high school diploma
and, depending of the classification, either college level work in computer science or a related
field or completion of a basic electronic school or apprentice program, plus related experience.
2 The parties stipulated that the term "confidential" as used in referring to job duties or
functions of ISD employees does not refer to duties that would bring the employees within the
definition of "confidential employee" set forth in section 3540.1 (c) of the Educational
Employment Relations Act (EERA). The EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540
et seq. Unless otherwise noted, all section references are to the Government Code.
3

Most,
if
not all, District classified positions require at least a high school diploma or
equivalent, and certain classifications, including construction project facilitators and student
attendance advisors, require college level education or other advanced training as well. 	The
ISD positions further require on-going education and training to keep pace with advances in
the technology. The micro-computer technician is required to have Apple hardware
certification or an A+ certificate. 3 Other District classifications requiring a special certification
are the licensed vocational nurse, pool maintenance worker, and groundskeeper.
Wages, Hours and Working Conditions
ISD employees report to work at the main administration building, but some employees
perform most
of
their work at school sites. Similarly, employees in Health Services, Child
Welfare and Attendance, and certain other departments are itinerant workers. The ISD offices
are in a secure area
of
the administration building and certain systems are maintained in a
secure, quarantined area. The secured area has an alarm lock and is generally inaccessible to
non-ISD employees, except that custodial staff
of
the District have access to perform their
cleaning duties. ISD employees do not wear uniforms.
They are paid on the salary schedule provided for in the written agreement between
CSEA and the District, receive time and one-half for overtime, receive the same benefits as do
other CSEA-represented employees, and are subject to the same layoff/seniority procedures.
ISD employee classifications are at the higher end
of
the salary schedule. Despite this
fact, the department has experienced about a one-third turnover rate over the past three years,
including two recent departures
of
persons in entry-level positions who were offered more
money elsewhere.
3 "A+ certification" refers to an industry standard in the area of computer maintenance.
4

More than one employee in the proposed unit transferred from another, non-ISD
classification,4 but no such internal transfers have occurred in the past 18 months. Elliott
Grauman, the District's director of classified personnel, testified that, while there have
continued to be in-District applicants for open ISD positions, the District has been able to find
outside applicants who better met the needs of the department.
ISD employees work shifts that allow for coverage ofresponsibilities between 7:00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m. but frequently have job-related demands, including system maintenance and
payroll runs, that require their attendance outside these hours. 	One personal computer support
technician regularly works from 1:00 to 9:30 p.m. Mr. Grauman, as well as LISA witnesses,
testified that current contract language regarding notice required for shift changes creates
difficulties in flexing schedules to meet work demands without incurring overtime costs.
When the District proposed changes in this area regarding the Maintenance and Operations
Department, CSEA expressed a preference for overtime compensation over making it easier to
create flex time. However, neither the District nor CSEA has offered proposals in this regard
that are specific to the ISD.
All ISD positions are full time. ISD employees work year round, as do a large number
of other classified employees.
The classification description for all but the micro-computer technician requires that the
employee be able to work independently with little direction. However, ISD projects often
require employees to work cooperatively in teams.
4 Susan Martin, now a systems analyst/computer operator, formerly held positions as an
Instructional Materials Center clerk and as an instructional assistant in the computer lab at the
Career Center. Mary Hooley, now a personal computer support technician, was previously an
instructional assistant in the computer lab.
5

Supervision
Most ISD employees report either to the network supervisor or the systems/operations
supervisor, both
of
whom report to the director oflnformation Services. The director
in tum
reports to the assistant superintendent for business services.
Other ISD employees report to an instructional technology coordinator who reports to
an administrative director who reports to the associate superintendent for K-12 Schools and
Educational Services.
Interaction with Other Employees
ISD employees come in more frequent contact with one another than with other District
personnel. However, the ISD employees' duties involve contact with other District employees
both in person and by telephone and/or email. For example, the employees have regular
contact with employees in the Maintenance and Operations Department, including the
electricians who do the wiring for computer system installations. 	Other departments frequently
contact ISD for information and/or assistance with their computers. One function
of
ISD is to
propose solutions to employees that affect how employees perform their job duties. For
example, the system analysts may help a department design a specialized report that requires
reformatting data. 	In one case, ISD employees worked with employees in the Personnel
Department on a system to track employee absences by combining data from several
computers into one database. 	The personnel employees with whom ISD worked included both
confidential employees and clerical employees represented by CSEA.
Representation History
While all classified employees are included in one bargaining unit and covered by a
single collective bargaining agreement, CSEA has designated various groupings within the unit
for purposes of representation on its bargaining team. ISD employees are included in the
6

"special services" grouping that includes construction planners and construction project
facilitators, bilingual interpreters, the licensed vocational nurse, crossing guards, storekeepers
and student attendance advisors.
Kathy O'Connor testified that she contacted CSEA representative Mark Cramer in
September 1999 and asked how to go about getting an ISD employee on the bargaining team.
She further testified that Mr. Cramer indicated he would get back to her with an answer but did
not do so. Valerie Quenzer, who currently represents the special services group on the CSEA
negotiations team, testified that in October 1999 she met with at least two ISD employees and
answered questions concerning the process for getting a representative from that department on
the negotiations team but is unaware of any further contact by the employees with CSEA
toward obtaining such an internal change in representation.
Ms. Quenzer also testified that CSEA's local chapter holds regular monthly meetings,
with notice provided both by hand-delivered and mailed notices. However, she acknowledged
that Ms. O'Connor has contacted her at least once regarding problems with her receipt of such
notices.
During the last reopener negotiations, the District made proposals for changes in the
contract's provisions regarding professional growth. Agreement was reached by the District
and CSEA to changes that allow more credit for professional growth hours by information
services employees than the former language allowed.
The network technician, a recently created classification, received a five range increase
in salary as a result of a classification study (the Ewing Study). The Ewing Study was district-
wide in scope and took two years to complete.
The District/CSEA agreement allows CSEA to have a representative sit in on employee
interviews for any position in pay range 36 or above. 	Out of 11 interviews for such positions
7

in the last two years for ISD positions, there were only five where CSEA sent a representative.
During the same two-year period, there were 14 such interviews in the Maintenance and
Operations Department with a 100-percent rate of representation.
ISSUE
1. Was the severance request in this matter properly filed?
2. If so, is the proposed unit an appropriate unit for purposes of meeting and negotiating
pursuant to the EERA?
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
Petitioner
LISA asserts that the petitioned-for group shares a community of interest that is unique
in the District. The employees share a common goal of providing an information infrastructure
to the District; do not work directly with students; provide access to all critical information
services, such as computers, enterprise software, network equipment, and telephones; have
access to confidential information maintained in these systems; create and administer user
accounts for electronic mail, Internet access, student information systems, school reporting
records and District business systems; and have exclusive access to a locked and alarmed
facility that houses the District's central business systems and communication equipment.
In addition, the employees have similar education and certification requirements that
differ from those of other departments of the District, and employees are currently being hired
into Information Systems from outside the District because current employees lack the
requisite skills.
8

LISA contends that neither efficiency of operations nor representation history militate
against approval of their proposed unit. Regarding efficiency of operations concerns, LISA
notes that the District's representative testified that an additional bargaining unit would not
create any additional burden for the District. LISA notes that, in addition to being included in
a wall-to-wall unit, their classifications are grouped by CSEA with other "special services"
employees, such as crossing guards, storekeepers and student attendance advisors, with whom
they share no community of interest. LISA also notes that needed contract changes, in such
areas as reclassification and professional growth, affecting their group came slowly. 	More
importantly, it was the District, not CSEA, that proposed changes in the area of professional
growth. Finally, LISA points to evidence that salaries for their classifications have not kept
pace with other school districts, even though other CSEA-represented classifications have
maintained salaries competitive with other employers.
Based on the demonstrated community of interest, the District's support for their
petition, and bargaining history, LISA asks for approval of the proposed severance.
CSEA
CSEA first argues that LISA's petition should be dismissed as improperly filed,
reiterating an argument first made in its April 11, 2000 letter. This argument relies on the
requirements of service contained in PERB Regulation 32140 and Code of Civil Procedure
section 1013(a). PERB Regulation 32140 provides that where service of a document is
required the document must be accompanied by a "proof of service" declaration stating in
relevant part that the person executing service and the proof of service declaration is "not a
party to the within titled cause." Here, the individual signing the proof of service declaration
accompanying the severance petition was Todd Hausauer. Mr. Hausauer is an employee of the
District and his position would be included in the unit sought by LISA if the severance were
9

approved. 	CSEA further contends that Mr. Hausauer has supported the severance petition.
CSEA therefore argues that the severance petition was filed "under fraudulent and deceptive
means and clearly in violation of PERB rules and regulations," and thus should be dismissed.
CSEA next contends that the unit requested by LISA is not an appropriate unit under
applicable PERB precedent. CSEA relies on Sweetwater Union High School District (1976)
EERB Decision No. 4 (Sweetwater),5 in which the Board announced its preference for three
units of classified employees: instructional aides; office-technical and business services; and
operations and support services. CSEA further argues that, under Compton Unified School
District (1979) PERB Decision No. 109 (Compton), PERB ruled that
a variant unit will not be awarded unless it is more appropriate
than the Sweetwater unit based upon a separate and distinct
community of interest among employees in the variant unit.
CSEA notes that the Board rejected a proposed separate unit of professional/technical
employees in Sacramento City Unified School District (1977) EERB Decision No. 30, while
favoring office/technical and business services units in several cases.
CSEA characterizes LISA's proposed unit as "unique and variant" because, in addition
to failing to include all office/technical and business services employees, it includes only
professional and technical employees in certain classifications while excluding other
professional and technical employees of the District.
Regarding community of interest factors, CSEA asserts that the employees in the
proposed unit do not have a unique line of supervision, are not alone in being required to have
special certifications or upper level college education, and are not the only District employees
who perform their job functions outside their assigned work location. 	In addition, CSEA notes
5 Prior to January 1, 1978, PERB was known as the Educational Employment Relations
Board (EERB).

that the information services employees are not the only District employees whose job
functions do not relate to the provision of a proper physical environment for students, and they
are not the only employees who deal with confidential information.
CSEA also points to health benefits, holidays, sick leave and other employee benefits
that are common to these and other District employees, and regular interaction between the
information services employees and other District employees in the course of their job
performance.
With respect to representation history, CSEA argues that it has addressed the concerns
of ISD employees whenever those concerns were brought to CSEA's attention. 	CSEA
contends that, while negotiations over a comprehensive classification study took a long time,
the results of the negotiations and study benefited information services employees, and that
CSEA has also negotiated contract changes in other areas that benefit these employees.
Finally, while acknowledging there is no evidence in the record to show a detrimental
effect on efficiency of operations of the District that would flow from approval of the
requested unit, CSEA argues that approval of this "inappropriate" unit would cause dissension
and fragmentation of employees.
For all the above reasons, CSEA asks that the instant request be dismissed.
District
The District disagrees with CSEA's contention that the LISA petition should be
dismissed because an interested party signed the proof of service affidavit. The District notes
that CSEA had actual notice of the filing and was able to fully participate in the case, including
the formal hearing, and thus the question of whether LISA's proof of service affidavit complied
with PERB regulations is not relevant.
11

The District also disputes CSEA's characterization of PERB precedent as requiring
LISA to demonstrate its proposed unit is more appropriate than a Sweetwater unit. The
District contends that, where a proposed unit is not in competition with a Sweetwater unit, "the
variant unit need only be an appropriate unit."
The District supports approval of the proposed unit based on the covered employees'
performance of highly technical, intellectual work involving independent thinking, and their
unique job functions. 	The District argues the evidence supports finding that other District
employees are not capable of performing the work of information services employees, noting
that the last transfer into this area was approximately 18 months prior to the hearing. The
employee who last transferred in testified to her belief that a similarly-situated employee
would not qualify to transfer today due to substantial changes that have occurred in
information services technology. The District's director of classified personnel also testified
that recent transfer applicants were found to lack the skills to perform information services
functions.
- 	-
The District's position also relies on evidence concerning the education and training
requirements that are applicable to information services employees, the fact that they are
among the more highly compensated CSEA-represented employees, the difficulties of
recruitment and retention experienced by the District for these employees, differing interests
from other classified employees in the areas of overtime and flex schedules, and the degree to
which information services employees are self-directed and work under minimal direct
supervision. In addition, the lack of a shared community of interest with other classified
employees is evidenced by conflicts in the areas of notice of shift change and professional
growth. In sum, the District argues that these employees share a community of interest that is
separate and distinct from other classified employees.
12

The District also contends that disputes between LISA and CSEA over the quality of
representation afforded by CSEA are indicative of the lack of commonality between the
information services employees and other classified employees. Finally, the District asserts
that its operational efficiency will not be adversely affected by approval of the proposed unit.
DISCUSSION
Filing and Service of the Severance Request
CSEA argues that because an employee in the proposed unit executed service of the
filing the request should be dismissed. Though CSEA cites no authority for this proposition
other than the requirements set forth in PERB Regulation 32140, it is correct that the Board
previously held, in Los Angeles Community College District (1983) PERB Decision No. 309,
that it would not consider an appeal where service of the appeal was by other than a non-party
and no copy was served on the opposing party.
As the District notes in its brief, CSEA's argument on this point fails to show any
prejudice to CSEA's interests in this matter, as CSEA does not claim that the Petitioner failed
to serve the initial request or any other document on CSEA. Under both Los Angeles
Community College District, supra, PERB Decision No. 309 and Los Angeles Unified School
District (1993) PERB Order No. Ad-250, CSEA must show more than a technical violation in
order to prevail.
However, CSEA's position fails on this point on an even more fundamental basis. The
petitioner in this matter is LISA. Todd Hausauer, an ISD employee, signed the proof of
service. The record is bereft of any evidence that Mr. Hausauer has ever been designated by
LISA as its authorized representative or that he has even self-designated himself as same.
PERB Regulation 33015 defines the term "parties," for purposes ofEERA-related matters, as
including
13

the public school employer, the employee organization which is
the exclusive representative of any employee covered by a
request, intervention or petition, any employee organization
known to have an interest in representing any employees as
demonstrated by having filed a pending request or intervention,
or any group of employees which has filed a pending petition
pursuant to Section 34020 of these regulations or Government
Code Section 3544.3.
Thus, as Mr. Hausauer is not a "party" as that term is defined by PERB regulations, CSEA's
argument on this point is without merit. The motion to dismiss the severance petition as
improperly filed is denied.
Unit Determination Criteria
In each unit determination case, the Board is bound to follow the criteria set forth in
EERA at section 3545(a):
In each case where the appropriateness of the unit is an issue, the
board shall decide the question on the basis of the community of
interest between and among the employees and their established
practices including, among other things, the extent to which such
employees belong to the same employee organization, and the
effect of the size of the unit on the efficient operation of the
school district.
In Sweetwater, the Board referenced the statement of legislative intent contained in
EERA section 35406 in holding that:
... Implicit in this statement of legislative intention is the notion
that the employees will have the ability to choose an organization
6 The relevant portion of section 3540 quoted by the Board reads as follows:
It is the purpose of this chapter to promote the improvement of
personnel management and employer-employee relations within
the public school systems in the State of California by providing
a uniform basis for recognizing the right of public school
employees to join organizations of their own choice, to be
represented by the organizations in their professional and
employment relationships with public school employers, to select
one employee organization as the exclusive representative of the
employees in an appropriate unit, ...
14

which is an effective representative. An effective representative
will generally be one largely determined by the community of
interest and established practices of the employees rather than the
efficient operation of the school district.
However, in the same decision, the Board also noted that
It is a legitimate concern that excessive fragmentation of
negotiating units may burden an employer with multiple
negotiating processes and postures and with a variety of
negotiated agreements difficult to administer because their
provisions differ.
The Board ruled early in its history that it must in each case determine the
"appropriateness" of a unit without being limited only to a choice between "an" or the "most"
appropriate unit, and must in each case weigh and balance the statutory criteria in order to
achieve consistency of application and the general objectives of EERA. (Antioch Unified
School District (1977) EERB Decision No. 37 (Antioch).)
In Sweetwater, the Board announced its preference for three units of classified
employees: instructional aides; office-technical and business services; and operations and
support services. The significance of the Sweetwater "preferred" units was further explained in
Compton where the Board held that
a variant unit will not be awarded unless it is more appropriate
than the Sweetwater unit based on a separate and distinct
community of interest among employees in the variant unit or
other section 3545(a) criteria. [Emphasis added; fn. omitted.]
The Sweetwater units were held in Antioch to
reflect a proper balance between the harmful effects on an
employer of excessive unit fragmentation and the harmful effects
on employees and the organizations attempting to represent them
of an insufficiently divided negotiating unit or units.
More recently, in South Bay Union Elementary School District (1990) PERB Decision
No. 816 (South Bay), the Board reiterated its preference for Sweetwater units, as well as its
15

disinclination to approve a wall-to-wall classified unit, when it reversed a decision finding a
wall-to-wall classified unit appropriate for a small school district.7 Citing Shasta Union High
School District (1977) EERB Decision No. 34 and Greenfield Union School District (1977)
EERB Decision No. 35, the Board did not foreclose the possibility of ever finding a wall-to-
wall unit appropriate but stated that such a finding could only be made "where there exists
interchangeable functions and parallel working conditions consistent with the community of
interest required to find a unit appropriate." (South Bay.) The Board rejected the proposed
wall-to-wall unit in South Bay because the parties "failed to present evidence that
interchangeable functions and parallel working conditions exist among the classified
employees."
When a petition is filed to sever a presumptively appropriate Sweetwater unit from a
larger, non-Sweetwater unit, the burden is on those opposing the severance to show that the
established unit is more appropriate than the requested unit. (Livermore Valley Joint Unified
School District (1981) PERB Decision No. 165 (Livermore); San Juan Unified School District
(1995) PERB Decision No. 1082 (San Juan); Temple City Unified School District (1995)
PERB Decision No. 1110.) Likewise, when a petition is filed to sever a smaller unit from a
presumptively appropriate Sweetwater unit, the burden is on the petitioner to show that the
requested unit is more appropriate. (Los Angeles Unified School District (1998) PERB
Decision No. 1267.)
In this case, however, since the existing unit is not a Sweetwater unit, the standard
against which the requested unit is judged shifts to whether the proposed unit is an appropriate
7The wall-to-wall unit favored by the hearing officer would have included only 37
employees.
16

unit. 	(Long Beach Community College District (1999) PERB Decision No. 1315 (Long
Community of Interest
The record clearly supports the conclusion that the employees in ISD classifications
share a community of interest. They perform similar duties and are engaged in common
functions; they have similar education and training requirements; they work closely with one
another; and they share common interests in the areas of compensation, benefits and working
conditions.
However, while not required to demonstrate its proposed unit is more appropriate than a
Sweetwater unit, it is still necessary for any party favoring establishment of a unit to show that
it has a community of interest separate and distinct from other employees. In San Diego
Unified School District (1981) PERB Decision No. 170 (San Diego), the Board rejected a
proposed unit of hourly bus drivers, holding in part:
That the hourly drivers also have a community of interest among
themselves need not be disproved but that does not end the
inquiry into appropriateness of a unit. Every classification
possesses a community of interest among its members. Janitors,
undisputedly, have more in common with other janitors than they
do with gardeners, but we have yet to find a separate unit of only
janitors appropriate, absent unusual circumstances.
Here, the record falls short of persuasively demonstrating that ISD employees share a
community of interest that is unique, or separate and distinct from other District classified
employees. While their job duties and functions are distinguishable, their higher level
education and training requirements are shared by several other classifications; performance of
their duties necessarily involves frequent interaction with CSEA-represented employees in
their own as well as other departments; their use of specialized equipment and requirement of
special certifications is not unique in the District; the requirement that they travel from site to
17

site to perform their duties is a characteristic shared with several other classifications; and their
job-related access to confidential information such as student, employee and medical records is
not unique. 	Even the arguable need in the ISD for greater flexibility in the area of scheduling
appears to be shared with Maintenance and Operations employees.
In addition, the employees in the proposed unit lack common supervision andeven
work in units with distinguishable functions in the context of District operations. 	While most
of the ISD employees work in the area of Administrative Information Services and report
through a supervisor to the ISD director and assistant superintendent for business services, not
all are similarly placed. 	Several personal computer support technicians are in Instructional
Information Services, reporting to a different supervisor and a different administrative director,
who in tum reports to the associate superintendent for K-12 Schools and Educational Services.
Further, these lines of supervision are not unique among classified employees.
In sum, while a case may be made at some future time in this District for either a
Sweetwater office/technical unit, or a unit including all professional and technical employees,
the petitioned-for unit at issue has not been shown to possess a separate and distinct
community of interest necessary to a finding that it is an appropriate unit.
Negotiating History
The Board has recognized that negotiating history must be considered, along with other
section 3545 criteria, as an important factor in evaluating a severance request. 	(Livermore.)
However, the Board has also made it clear that where the existing wall-to-wall unitwas
established by voluntary agreement and its appropriateness was not fully litigated before
PERB, the negotiating history will not be granted the same deference to which it might
otherwise be entitled. (Livermore; Long Beach.)
18

The record here reflects that CSEA and the District have had a negotiating history for
the established unit that spans nearly 25 years. While it may be true that neither the District or
CSEA, nor the affected employees themselves, have always obtained their most desired result
as promptly as they desire, the evidence does not support a finding that CSEA is hostile to the
interests of ISD employees nor that the interests of ISD employees have prevented CSEA and
the District from reaching agreements for the established unit.
Efficiency of Operations
Absent concrete evidence that a district's operational efficiency will be unduly impaired
by an additional set of negotiations, operational efficiency will not be considered as a factor
which militates against the establishment of another unit. (Livermore; San Juan; Temple City
Unified School District (1995) PERB Decision No. 1110.)
As noted earlier, the Board has long noted the effects of excessive unit fragmentation
on the employer as among the criteria that must be considered under EERA. However, here
the District itself dismisses any potential negative effects of the severance and supports the
request 1or a separate umt.~ 	. 8
CONCLUSION
Here, the issue presented is whether the proposed unit is an appropriate one; if it is, the
severance request should be granted, and if it is not, the employees remain in a wall-to-wall
unit. (Long Beach Community College District (1999) PERB Decision No. 1315.) As
previously discussed, the unit proposed has not been shown to possess a separate and distinct
8 Notice is taken, nevertheless, that in PERB Case No. SA-SV-153-E, where a different
petitioner seeks to carve out an even smaller unit of educational facility and planning services
employees from this same classified unit, the District has opposed the severance, in part, due to
concerns about excessive fragmentation and negative impact on its efficiency of operations.
19

community of interest necessary to finding it an appropriate unit. For this reason, and based on
the entire record of this proceeding, the severance request is hereby DENIED.
Right of Appeal
Pursuant to PERB Regulation 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. (Regulation 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.
(Regulations 32135(a) and 32130.)
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 Regulation 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. 	(Regulation 32135(b), (c) and (d); see also Regulations 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
20

on a party or filed with the Board itself. (See Regulations 32300, 32305, 32140, and
32135(c).)
21
Regional Director