El Centro School District (PERB A013E)

STAIB OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE EDUQWIONAL
EMPT.DYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
In the Matter of the Administrative Appeal
EL CENTRO SCHOOL DISTRICT
Employer,
and
EL CEl.'1TRO ELEMENTARY TEACHERS
ASSOCIATICN, 	CTA/NEA
Employee Organization,
Case No. 	LA-R-579
LA-UC-5
EERB Order No. 	Ad-13
September 28, 	1977
APPELLANT.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
--------------------
ORDER
The dismissal by the Los Angeles Regional Director of the petition for
a change in unit detennination submitted by the El Centro Elementary Teachers
Association, 	CTA/NEA, 	in the above-cited case, 	is sustained by the Board
itself.
The Board finds 	that 	the Regional Director has correctly applied
EERB Resolution No. 	6, 	issued on July 6, 	1976.
Educational Employment Relations Board
by' 	L 	~ 	()~ 	._ (5 ~ ~
STEPHEN BARBER
Executive Assistant to the Board
9/28/77
Jerilou H. 	Cossack, 	Member, 	concurring:
I 	concur with the majority's de..nial of t..he appeal in this case, 	although
not for the reason relied upon by the majority. 	The facts of this case, 	unlike
those of Lafayette Unified School District, EERB Decision No. AD-12, 	Septerrber 28,
1977, 	do not warrant entertaining the unit clarification petition filed by
El Centro Elenentary Teachers Association.

I
	believe
that
an
administrative
agency, 	as
Justice
Tobr:iner
writing
for
	the
Califomia
SupreIIE Court
stated,
	''nn.Jst
set
forth
findings
	to
bridge
the analytic
gap between
the
nI!il
evidence
and
ultimate decision
or
order....	
.Am:mg
other
functions
a
findings
requirenent serves
to
conduce
the
admin:istrati
ve body
to
draw
legally
relevant
subconclusions
supportive
of
its
ultimate decision; 	the
intended effect
is
to
facilitate
orderly
analysis
and
m:inimi.ze
the
likelihood
that
the
agecmy
will
randomly
leap
from evidence
to
conclusions. . . . 	They
also
serve
a
	public relations
function by
helping
to
persuade
the
parties that
administra-
tive
decision-making
is
careful,
	reasoned, 	and
equitable."
	Topanga Assn.
	v.
County
of
Los Angeles, 	11
Cal.
3d 506, 	113
Cal.
R:ptr. 	836 	(1974) . 	This
	is
especially
true
here
if
this
case
is
read
in
conjunction
with Lafayette, 	supra.
	However, 	a
majority
of
th~ Board has
elected not to
set
forth
its
findings
of fact
and con-
clusions
of
law.
	It
would be an
exercise
in futility
for
rre, 	as one member,
	to
do
so, 	since
neither
the
parties
nor
any reviewing
court
could
rely
upon one
irenber' s
	opinion
as
accurately
reflecting
the
reasoning
of
the
Board
as
a whole.
-2-