Turlock School Districts (PERB A018E)

EDUCATIONAL
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
OF
	THE
	STATE. OF
	CALIFORNIA
In
	the
Matter
	of
	the Administrative
	Appea
TURLOCK
	SCHOOL
	DISTRICTS,
Employers,
	Appellant,
and
TURLOCK
	SCHOOL
	COUNSELORS
	ASSOCIATION,
Employee
	Organization,
and
TURLOCK TEACHERS
	ASSOCIATION,
	CTA/NEA,
Employee
	Organization,
and
TURLOCK
	PROFESSIONAL
	EDUCATORS
	GROUP,
Employee
	Organization,
and
TURLOCK AMERICAN
	FEDERATION
	OF
	TEACHERS,
Employee
	Organization,
md
SERVICE
	&'1PLOYEES 	INTERNATIONAL 	UNION,
LOCAL
	110, 	AFL-CIO,
Employee
	Organization,
and
CALIFORNIA
	SCHOOL EMPLOYEES
	ASSOCIATION
TURLOCK CHAPTER
	56 ,
Employee
	Organization, 	Appellant.
l)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
____________________ )
Case 	Nos. 	S-R-4
S-R-7
S-R-61
S-R-97
EERB
	Order
	No. 	Ad-18
October
	26, 	1977
At>pearances: 	Joseph E. 	Herman, 	Attorney 	(Seyfarth, 	Shaw,
Fairweather 	& Geraldson) 	for 	Turlock 	School
	Districts;

Dr. 	Thomas 	C. 	Agin, 	Director, 	California Pupil 	Services 	Labor
Relations, 	for 	Turlock 	School 	Counselors Association; 	Ernest
A. 	Tuttle, ,III, 	Attorney 	and Nicholas 	L, 	Lucich, 	Attorney
(Rowell, 	Lamberson, 	Thomas 	& Hiber) 	for 	Turlock Teachers
Association, 	CTA/NEA; 	Robert 	J, 	Sullivan, 	Attorney 	(Turner
and 	Sullivan) 	for 	Turlock Professional 	Educators 	Group;
Stewart Weinberg, 	Attorney 	(Van 	Bourg, 	Allen, 	Weinberg
Williams 	and Roger) 	for 	Turlock American Federation 	of 1
Teachers 	and Service 	Employees 	International 	Union, 	Local 	110;
Ron 	Haugen, 	Field Representative 	for 	California School
Employees 	Association.
Before Alleyne, 	Chairman, 	Gonzales 	and Cossack, 	Members.
I
This 	is 	an 	appeal 	of 	an 	administrative 	decision 	of 	the
Regional 	Director 	of 	the 	Sacramento 	Regional 	Office 	of 	the
Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(EERB) 	in which 	the 	sole
issue 	is:
Whether 	or 	not 	the 	Turlock Joint 	Union High
School District 	and Turlock Joint 	Union District,
separate 	legal 	entities 	operating 	under a
common 	administration, 	are 	to 	be 	considered
one 	employer 	or 	two 	employers 	for 	purposes
of 	collective 	negotiations 	under 	the
Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Act 	(EERA
or 	Act), 	Government 	Code 	Section 	3540 	et~-
The 	issues 	of whether 	or not 	these 	di~tricts 	constitute 	an
appropriate multi-employer 	negotiating 	unit 	or whether 	or 	not
these 	districts 	may 	engage 	in multi-employer negotiations, 	have
not 	been 	raised by 	the 	parties 	and 	are 	not before 	us. 	These
questions 	presuppose 	a 	recognition 	or 	identification 	of 	the
individual 	employers 	to 	be 	involved 	in 	such 	an 	arrangement,
-2-

whereas
	here,
	the 	very
	issue
	to
	be 	determined
	is
	the
	relevant
employer under 	our Act.
1
In
	order
	to
	determine 	whether
	or
	not 	the 	various
	employee
organizations,
2
parties
	to
	this
	matter,
	have
	provided 	adequate
showings
	of
	support
	as
	required
	by 	Government 	Code
	Section
	3544,
1
senco,
	Inc.,
	177
	NLRB
	882 	(1969)
	provides
	an
	excellent
illustration
	of 	these
	two
	concepts. 	In
	that
	case,
	Senco,
	Inc.
was 	a member
	of	
a	
multi-employer
	association.
	Four
	othercorporations, 	not
	members
	of 	the
	association,
	were 	found
	to
constitute
	a
	single
	employer
	together 	with
	Senco
	Inc.
	The 	.
NLRB
	found
	that,
	therefore,
	the 	four 	corporations
1
were
	obligatedto 	bargain
	along
	with
	Senco,
	Inc.
	in
	the 	multi-employer
association.
In 	general,
	NLRB
	precedent
	requires
	the 	following
	before
	a
multi-employer
	unit
	is
	found
	to
	be
	appropriate:
	unequivocal
intent
	of 	the
	employers 	to
	be 	bound by 	group
	rather
	than
	indivi-
dual
	action
	(Kroger 	Go., 	148
	NLRB	
569	
(1964),
	Morgan
	Linen.
Service,
	Inc.,
	131
	NLRB
	420 	(1961)),
either
	closely
	related
ownership
	and
	control 	or
	a
	history
	of
	collective
	bargaining
(Cab
	Operating
	Gor~.,
	153
	NLRB
	478
	(1965); 	Bennett 	Stone
	Company,
139
	NLRB
	1422 	(196
	); 	Chicago
	Metropolitan
	Home
	Builders 	Association,
119
	NLRB
	1184
	(1957)),
and
	express 	or 	implied 	consent
	of 	the
employees
	to
	be
	represented 	in
	common
	with 	the
	employees
	of
	the
employer members
	(Pepsi-Gola
	Bottling
	Go. , 	55
	NLRB
	1183, 	1187
(1944);
	Daneker
	anaSellew,
·
Inc.
, 	140
	NLRB
	824
	(1963);
	Mohawk
Business
	Machines,
	116
	NLRB
	248
	(1956);
	Lamson
	Bros. 	Go.,
	59
	NLRB
1561 	(1945).
If
	a
	multi-employer.
	relationship 	is
	created,
	then
	neither
an 	employer
	nor
	a
	union
	may
	effectively
withdraw 	from 	a
	duly
established
multi-employer 	bargaining
	unit
	except
	upon
	timely
prior notice 	(Retail 	Associates,
	Inc.,
	120
	NLRB
	388
	(1958)).
For 	a 	thorough
	discussion 	of multi-employer 	bargaining 	inthe 	public 	sector 	see:
	L.B. 	Kimmelman, 	"The
	Multi-EmployerConcept
	in 	the 	Public 	Sector,"
	29
	Rutgers
	L. 	Rev. 	110 	(1975).
2
Six
	employee
	organizations, 	certificated
	and
	classified,
filed
	with
	either
	both
	districts
	or
	one
	district.
	Turlock 	School
Counselors 	Association
	(TSCA), 	Turlock 	Professional 	EducatorsGroup 	(TGEG),
	California
	School 	Employees
	Association, 	Turlock
Chapter 	#56 	(CSEA),
	all 	filed
	a
	single 	petition
with 	both
	districts.
Turlock Teachers 	Association,
	CTA/NEA 	(TTA) 	and 	Service 	Employees
International
	Union, 	Local 	110, 	AFL-CIO 	(SEIU)
	filed 	separate
petitions 	with 	each
	district.
	Turlock American 	Federation 	ofTeachers 	(TAFT)
	filed
	a
	petition 	only with 	the 	high 	school
district. -3-

in
	requesting 	recognition
	from
	e.ither 	or 	both
	the 	Turlock
	Joint
Union
	School
	District
	and
	Turlock
	Joint
	Union 	High
	School
	District
(hereinafter
	Turlock
	School
	Districts),
	it
	was
	necessary
	for
	the
Regional
	Director
	to
	ascertain
	whether
	or 	not 	these
	districts
	are
one
	or
	two
	employers
	within
	the
	meaning
	of
	Government 	Code
Section 	3540.l(k).
	That
	section
	reads:
'Public
	school
	employer'
	or
	'employer'
	means
the
	governing 	board
	of
	a
	school
	district,
	a
school
	district,
	a
	county 	board
	of
	education,
or
	a
	county
	superintendent 	of 	schools.
Acting
	on
	behalf 	of
	the
	Regional
	Director,
	a
	hearing
	officer
conducted
	a
	hearing
	on
	January
	25, 	1977. 	At
	the
	hearing, 	three
of 	the
	employee
	organizations,
	TSCA,
	CSEA
	and
	TTA,
	asserted 	that
these
	districts
	constitute
	a
	single
	employer.
	The
	other 	three
employee
	organizations,
	TPEG,
	TAFT
	and
	SEIU,
	all
	contended
	that
the
	Turlock
	School
	Districts
	are 	separate
	employers.
	Neither
of 	the
	districts
	took
	a
	position.
Subsequently,
	on March
	30,
	1977,
	the 	Regional
	Director 	deter-
mined
	that
	the 	Turlock
	School
	Districts
	are
	two
	employers
	within
the
	meaning
	of
	Government 	Code
	Section 	3540.l(k)
	and
	that
	all
	the
employee
	organizations 	provided 	the
	requisite
	showing
	of
	interest
for
	the
	units 	in
which 	they 	sought
	recognition.
The
	analysis 	of 	the 	hearing
	officer
	as 	adopted
	by
	the 	Regional
Director
	looked
	first
	to 	the 	language
	of 	Section 	3540.l(k).
Secondly,
	it
	considered 	the 	application
	and
	effect
	of
	numerous
Education
	Code
	provisions
	on
	this 	issue 	given
	Government 	Code
Section
	3540. 3 The
	Executive 	Director 	referred 	this 	case 	to
3Gov. 	Code 	Sec. 	3540 (a) 	reads 	in 	pertinent 	part:
	"
Nothing 	contained herein 	shall
	be 	deemed 	to 	supersede 	other
provisions 	of 	the 	Education 	Code
...
"
-4-

the
	Board
	itself,
	neither
	sustaining
	nor
	overruling
	the
Regional
	Director.
Exceptions
	have
	been
	filed
	pursuant
	to 	the
	EERB's
	rules
and
	regulations
	by
	the
	Turlock
	School
	Districts
	and
	CSEA
regarding
	the 	conclusion 	of 	the
	Regional
	Director
	that
	these
districts
	are
	separate
	employers.
	An
	informational
	brief
	was
filed
	by
	TTA.
Both
	districts
	argue
	that
	the 	hearing
	officer's
	decisiod,
adopted
	by
	the
	Regional
	Director,
	was
	incorrect 	in
	assuming
(1)	
that
	the
	Legislature
	consciously
	excluded
	"common
	adminis-
tration 	districts"
	such 	as
	the 	Turlock
	School
	Districts,
	from
i~s
	definition
	of 	the
	public
	school
	employer,
	and 	(2)
	that
	each
district
	must 	be
	treated 	separately
	because
	to
	do
	otherwise
would
	infringe
	on
	its
	sovereignty.
	The
	districts
	also 	point
out
	that
	the
	criteria
	of
	community
	of
	interest
	and
	established
practices
	found
	in
	Government 	Code
	Section 	3545(a), 	although 	not
expressly 	relevant 	to
	this
	determination, 	should be
	considered
since
	the
	districts
	have met 	and
	conferred
	jointly
	with 	the
Certificated
	Employees
	Council 	over
	the 	past 	several
	years.
pursuant 	to 	the
	Winton
	Act,
4 and 	as 	such, 	have
	demonstrated
	that
there 	exists
	a 	community
	of
	interest
	among
	the
	employees
	of
both
	districts.
	Lastly, 	the
	districts
	claim 	the 	Regional
Director's 	decision 	ignores 	the
	substantial 	additional 	costs
to 	each 	of
	them and
	to 	the
	employee
	organizations
	and
	the
possibility
	of
	"whipsawing" 	by 	competing
	organizations 	as
	a
4Former 	Ed. 	Code 	Sec. 	13080,
	et~-,
	repealed 	July 	1, 	1976.
-5-

result
	of 	finding
	that
	the
	districts
	constitute
	two
	separate
employers.
Cali;f;ornia 	School
	Employees
	Association
	agrees
	that
	the
	record
and
	findings
	of
	fact
I
	alone, 	support
	a
	"single
	employer''
	determina-
tion
	and
	further
	argues
	that
	two
	sections 	of
	the 	Education
	Code,
88014 	and 	88050, 5
also 	require
	such
	a
	result.
Turlock 	Teachers
	Association 	takes
	issue
	with 	the 	Regional
Director's
	analysis 	of
	National
	Labor
	Relations
	Board
	(NLRB)
	case
law
	in
	resolving 	the
	"single
	employer"
	question,
	arguing
	first
that
	NLRB
	criteria
	are 	appropriate
	and
	second,
	that
	it
	requires
a
	"single
	employer"
	finding.
	Furthermore,
	TTA
	asserts
	that
	a
"single
	employer"
	determination
	is
	necessary 	in 	order 	to
	achieve
the
	improvement
	of 	personnel
	management 	and
	relations 	in
	the
	state's
public
	school
	system)
	a
	stated
	purpose
	of 	the
	Act.
The 	Board
	itself
	has
	considered 	the 	decision 	of 	the 	Regional
Director,
	the 	exceptions
	and
	briefs 	filed
	by
	the
	parties,
	and
	the
entire
	record
	in 	this
	case.
	The
	hearing
	officer's
	determination
is
	sustained 	subject
	to
	modification 	in 	analysis
	as
	discussed
hereinafter.
II
No
	one
	disputes 	the 	Regional
	Director's
	findings 	of
	fact.
Accordingly, 	those 	findings 	are 	adopted
	and
	repeated 	here 	in
part 	for
	convenience 	of 	the
	parties.
5Ed. 	Code 	Sec. 	88014
	reads:
Notwithstanding 	the 	provisions 	of 	Section 	88013,
the 	governing 	board may
	lay 	off
	and 	reemploy
classified
	employees 	only 	in 	accordance with
procedures 	provided by 	Sections 	88117 	and 	88127,
except 	the 	term 	'personnel 	commission' 	therein
shall 	be 	construed 	to 	mean 	the 	governing 	board.
(continued) 	-6-

Turlock
	Joint
	Union High
	School
	District
	is
	located
	in
	Stanislaus
and
Merced
	counties.
	There
	are 	three
	elementary 	school
	districts
within
	the
	boundaries
	of
	the 	high 	school
	district,
	only
	one
	of
which
	is
	a
	party
	to
	this
	action.
	They
	are
	Turlock
	Joint
	Union
School
	District,
	Chatom Union
	Elementary
	School
	District
	and
Keyes 	Union
	Elementary
	District.
	The
	boundaries
	of
	the 	high
school
	district
	are
	different
	from
	those
	of
	the 	Turlock
	Joint
Union 	School
	District,
The
	average
	daily
	attendance 	of
	the 	high 	school
	d~trict
	is
approximately 	2,050.
	The
	ADA
	of
	the 	Turlock 	elementary
	district
is
	approximately 	3,350.
	The
	ADA
	of
	Chatom
	is
	705 	and
	the
	ADA
of
	Keyes
	is
	516.
6
(continued)
'Gov~rning
	boardt
	as
	used
	in 	this 	section
shall
	include
	districts
	governed
	by 	a
	common
board
	or
	by
	different
	boards
	but with
	a
	common
administration.
	Employees
	in
	common
	board 	or
common
	administration
	districts
	shall, 	for
	the
purpose
	of
	layoff 	for 	lack of
work
	or 	funds, 	be
considered 	as 	having 	been
	employed
	in
	a
	single
district.
Ed. 	Code
	Sec. 	88050(a)
	reads:
'Common
	board'
	as 	used
	in 	this
	article
	means 	a
	board
with
	identical
	members
	that
	governs
	more
	than
	one
school
	district.
	'Common
	administration'
	as
	used
in 	this 	section
means
	the
	administration
	by 	a
	person
employed by
	governing 	boards 	of
	more
	than
	one
	district
or
	a 	common
	board 	to
	act
	as
	chief 	executive
	officer
for
	more
	than 	one
	school
	district.
These
	sections
	perhaps 	were
	cited 	inadvertently
	by
	CSEA
	since
in 	fact,
	they 	apply 	only 	to 	post-secondary 	education.
	On
	the
other
	hand, 	Ed. 	Code
	Secs.
	45114 and 	45220,
	discussed
	infra 	at
	14 and
15, 	contain 	almost
	identical
	language,
	respectively,
	and
	apply
to 	Kindergarten 	through 	12 	grade 	levels.
Hereinafter, 	unless 	otherwise noted,
	all
	section 	references
are 	to 	the 	Reorganized Education Code 	added by
	Statutes
	1976,
Chapter 	1010, 	amended by
	Statutes
	1976, 	Chapter 	1011,
	operative
April 	30, 	1977.
6ADA
	figures 	for 	Chatom 	and Keyes 	are 	for 	the 	74-75 	school
(continued) -7-

Since 	July 	1, 	1966, 	the 	Turlock 	School 	Districts 	have
operated 	as 	a 	common 	administration 	school 	district. 	Under
this 	system of 	administration, 	the 	two 	districts 	share 	a
certain number 	of 	personnel 	and 	certain 	facilities.
Currently 	the 	elementary 	district 	has 	169 	certificated
employees 	and 	142 	class'ified 	employees. 	The 	high 	school 	district
has 	122 	certificated employees 	and 	91 	classified 	employees.
Since 	1966, 	the 	districts 	have 	shared 	seven 	high 	level 	employees
who 	are 	paid 	separately by 	each 	district: 	a 	superintendent,
associate 	superintendent, 	assistant 	superintendent, 	curriculum
consultant, 	curriculum 	coordinator, 	manager 	of 	business 	services
• 	1 	.	an d 	curr1.cu 	um 	supervisor. 7
Additionally, 	there 	are 	four 	classified 	employees 	who 	work
for 	both 	of 	the 	districts. 	They 	are 	the 	secretary 	I/curriculum,
a 	bus 	driver/mechanic, 	a 	custodian/bus 	driver 	and 	the 	console
attendant. 	These 	employees 	split 	their work 	time 	about 	evenly
between 	the 	two 	districts 	and 	receive 	two 	separate 	paychecks,
one 	from 	each 	district.
In 	addition 	to 	the 	persons 	who 	are 	employed by 	both 	districts,
there 	are 	at 	least 	two 	secretaries 	who 	do 	work 	for 	both 	districts
while 	drawing 	a 	salary 	from 	only 	one. 	The 	elementary 	district
(continued)
year 	and 	are 	drawn 	from 	a 	report 	entitled 	"Ratios 	of 	California
Public 	School 	Nonteaching 	Employees 	to 	Classroom Teachers" 	published
by 	the 	State 	Bureau 	of 	Schools 	Apportionments 	and 	Reports 	of
September 	1976.
7 rt 	should be noted 	from 	the 	record 	that 	these 	individuals
have 	all 	been 	designated 	"management" 	by 	both 	school 	boards.
-8-

employs
	a
	secretary
	to 	the 	superintendent
	and
	pays
	her
	salary.
The
	high 	school
	district
	employs
	a
	secretary
	to 	the
	associate
superintendent
	and
	pays
	her 	salary.
	In
	1967,
	two
	teachers 	in
the
	elementary
	district
	each
	taught
	two
	high
	school
	classes
	as
part
	of
	their
	regular 	duties
	and
were
	paid
	only
	by
	the 	elementary
district.
Matters
	pertaining
	to
	several
	employee
	terms 	and
	conditions
of
	employment
	appear
	to
	be
	common
	to
	employees
	of 	both
	districts.
8
For
	example,
	there 	are
	common
	salary
	schedules 	covering 	the
Turlock
	School
	Districts
	for
	classified, 	certificated
	and
administrative
	employees.
	Certificated
	employees
	in
	both
	districts
are
	covered
	by
	the
	same
	fringe
	benefit
	programs
	except
	that
	the
certificated
	employees
	of
	the 	high 	school
	district
	have
	dental
insurance
	coverage
	for
	dependents
	while 	elementary
	employees
	do
--
not.
	The
	districts
	have
	established
	a
	mutual
	policy 	of 	giving
hiring
	preference
	to
	employees
	of 	the 	other
	district
	over
	outsiders
when
	job
	openings 	occur. 	This
	policy
	facilitates 	interdistrict
hiring 	for
	certificated 	staff.
	When
	openings 	occur
	in 	either
district,
	they 	are 	posted
	at
	the 	other
	district.
9
Also
	the
8The
	term
	"common"
	requires 	amplification.
	It
	may
	be
	that
the
	more
	appropriate
	term
	is 	"identical" 	since 	the 	record
	shows
that
	each
	district's
	governing 	board
	separately
	adopted 	such
items
	relating
	to
	employee 	terms 	and
	conditions 	of
	employment.
Thus, 	while 	the 	term
	"common"
	is
	used 	herein,
	it
	is
	done 	so 	with
the 	recognition 	that
	each
	district
	has
	separately 	adopted 	the
same
	personnel 	package 	and
	that
	each
	district
	applies 	such
policies 	separately 	to
	its
	respective
	employees.
9
nocumentary 	evidence 	submitted by
	TTA
	states:
Any
	certificated
	employee 	having 	permanent
classification 	in
	one
	district
	who
	is
	approved
for
	a
	transfer
	from 	one
	district 	to 	the 	other
(continued) 	-9-

Turlock
	School
	Districts
	have
	common
	policies
	for
	professional
career
	patterns,
	controversial 	issues,
	academic 	freedom,
	grievances,
sabbatical
	leave,
	affirmative 	action
	and
	evaluation 	of 	the
certificated
	employees.
	Employees 	from
	both
	districts
	serve
	on
the
	same
	committees
	for
	the
	development
	of
	curriculum,
	the
implementation
	of 	educational
	goals
	and
	objectives,
	and
	the
promotion
	of
	health
	and
	safety.
It
	is
	the
	practice 	that
	one
	board
	sometimes
	adopts
	_a
	policy
contingent
	upon
	the 	approval
	of
	that
	policy
	by
	the
	other
	board.
The
	Turlock
	School
	Districts
	also 	share
	certain
	facilities
and 	equipment.
10
In
	1966,
	they
	jointly
	leased
	a
	portion
	of
Turlock 	City Hall 	for
	use
	as
	administrative
	offices.
	In
	1968,
they
	jointly
	entered
	into
	an
	agreement
	whereby
	they
	continue~to
share
	the 	Turlock high 	school
	building 	for 	administrative
offices
	including
	certain
	joint
	expenses
	for
	utilities
	and
janitorial
	services.
	This 	agreement
	was
	supplemented
	in
	1974
by
	the 	deeding
	of
	certain 	real
	property
	by
	the 	elementary 	school
district
	to 	the 	high 	school
	district
	in 	consideration 	for
	which
the 	high 	school
	district
	made
	certain
	commitments
	to 	the
	elemen-
tary
	district
	to 	provide
	office
	space 	to
	it
	for 	the 	conduct
	of
(continued)
will
	be
	granted
	a
	leave 	of
	absence 	and
	willacquire
	permanent
	classification 	in 	the
	district
to which 	he
	is 	transferred
	if
	he
	is
	employed
	for
a 	second year 	in 	that 	district.
	At
	that
	time, 	his
permanent
	classification 	in 	the
	district
	from which
he
	transferred 	shall 	expire.
	The 	employee
	shall
retain 	his 	continuous 	years 	in 	the 	districts 	forpay 	purposes.
lONot
	reflected 	in 	the 	Regional 	Director's 	decision
	is
	the
fact 	that 	each
	district 	purchases 	and 	inventories 	its
	own 	property.
-10-

elementary 	school
	business. 	All 	of
	these
	agreements 	were
separately
	approved
	and
	signed
	by
	the
	individual
	governing
boards
	of
	the
	respective
	districts,
	some
	of
	them
pursuant 	to
Government 	Code
	Section
	6502.
11
an
	The
	Turlock
	School
	Districts
	have
	also
	been
	parties 	to
agreement
	for
	the 	trans-portation
	of 	students.
	Under
	this
agreement.
	the
	high 	school
	district
	provides
	12
	school 	buses
and
	the 	elementary
	district
	provides 	four.
	Each
	district
continues	
to	
own
	its
	separate
	buses, 	but 	the 	high 	school
district
	operates
	and
	maintains
	them.
	All
	bus
	personnel
	are
employed by
	the 	high 	school
	district
	including 	the
	director
the
	of 	transportation.
	The
	elementary
	district
	reimburses
high
	school
	district
	for
	the
	cost 	of 	operating
	its
	portion 	of
this
	bus
	system.
Each
	district
	has
	a
	separate
	five-member
	governing
	board
of 	trustees.
	The members
	are 	elected 	separately
	by
	the 	voters
been
	within 	the boundaries
	of
	each
	district.
	There have
	never
any
	members 	common
	to 	both
boards 	nor
	is
	there
	now. 	Each
	board
uses 	the
	same
	meeting
	room. 	The 	two
	boards
	generally
meet
	on
separate
	days
	of 	the
	month
	although 	they
	have
	made 	a
	practice
in 	recent 	years	
to	
hold 	about
	six
meetings
	together
	each
	year.
11Gov. 	Code 	Sec. 	6502
	states 	in 	relevant 	part:
If
	authorized
	by
	their 	legislative 	or 	other
governing 	bodies,
	two
	or
	more
	public 	agencies
by 	agreement may
	jointly exercise
	any 	power
common
	to 	the 	contracting 	parties
...
-11-

When
	this
	is
	done,
	th.e
	boards
	usually
	vote
	separately
	on
matters 	before
	them.
	On
	at 	least
	one
	occasion, 	the
	joint
meeting
	of July
	11,
	1968,
	a meniber
	of 	the
	elementary
	school
	board
made 	a
	motion
	which
	was
	seconded
	by 	a member
	of
	the
	high 	school
board.
12
Each
	district
	establi.shes
	its
	ow:n
	budget
	and
	levies
	its
own
	taxes.
	The
	budgets
	for 	both
	districts
	are
	prepared 	under 	the
supervision
	of
	one
	person, 	the
	assistant
	superintendent,
	who
	is
employed
	jointly
by
	both
	districts.
	Each
	district
	maintains
	a
separate
	account
	in
	the
	county
	treasurer's
	office
	and
	each
has
	its
	own
	federal
	employer
	identification
number.
	All
	employee
wage 	and
	fringe 	benefit
	costs 	are 	paid
	separately
by 	each
district.
The
	Turlock
	School
	Districts
	have
	a
	common
	telephone
	number
and
	all
	incoming
	calls
	are 	received
	at
	a
	central 	location
	by
	a
joint
	employee
	of
	the
	two
	districts.
	They
	also
	have
	a 	common
letterhead
which
	contains 	the
	names
	of 	the 	three
	common
	adminis-
trators
	and
	the
	names
	of 	the
	two
	separate
	boards
	of
	trustees.
They
	publish
	a 	common
	newsletter
	and
	share
	a
	common
	post 	office
box.
In 	the
	past,
	the 	boards 	have
	acted 	in 	concert 	regarding
pers.onnel
	relations
	under
	the
Winton Act.
	The
	districts
	had
	a
single
	management
	representative 	in
	the
	meet 	and
	confer 	sessions.
However, 	any 	agreement 	reached
was
	adopted, 	voted
	upon, 	and
ratified
	separately
	by 	each board.
12
It
	also 	appears 	from 	an 	examination 	of 	documentary
evidence 	submitted jointly
by TAFT-SEIU
	that 	there
	was 	a
similar 	occurrence 	at 	the 	joint meeting 	of 	June 	28, 	1966.
-12-

The
	voters
	have
	rejected unification 	elections
	o;f
	the
districts
	on 	two
	occasions
	since
	the
	formation
	of
	a 	common
d 	. 	. 	. 	. 	19 66	a
	ministration 	in
	. 13
III
This
	case warrants 	the
	EERB's
	consideration 	of
	a
	system
	of
personnel
	management
	that,
	it
	is
	argued,
	would
	favor
	a
	holding
that
	the 	Turlock
	School
	Districts
	are
	one
	employer. 	Yet 	by
	simply
applying
	controlling
	language
	found
	in
	Government 	Code
	Section
3540.l(k)
	as
	the
	Regional
	Director
	did, 	the 	Turlock 	School
Districts
	cannot
	be 	viewed 	as
	one
	employer.
	As
	noted
	above,
	that
section
	states:
'Public
	school
	employer'_
or 	'employer'
	means
the 	governing 	board
	of
	a
	school
	district,
	a
school
	dis.trict,
	a
	county 	board
	of 	education,
or
	a
	county
	superintendent 	of 	schools.
That
	section 	clearly
	and 	unambiguously
	delineates
	the
	meaning
of 	"public
-
school 	employer."
	The
	EERB
	need
	go no
	further 	in
determining
	its
	meaning
	except 	to 	consider
	whether
	or not
	any
provisions 	of 	the 	Education
	Code
	might 	allow
	a
	broader
	inter-
pretation
	of 	the
	definition
	of
	a
	"public 	school
	employer" 	as
found
	in
	the
	EERA.
	Examining
	that
	Code,
	there
	is
	no
	perceptible
inconsistency with
	a
	finding
	that
	Government 	Code
	Section 	3540.l(k)
means
	nothing
	more
	than what
	it
	olainlv 	states.
	In
	fact,
Education
	Code
	Section	
78	
which
	defines
	a
	"governing 	board" 	as,
among
	other 	things,
	a
	"board 	of 	school
	trustees" 	fosters 	this
13
sections
	4200
	through 	4419,
	inclusive, 	describe 	the
process 	utilized 	in 	school
	district 	reorganization.
-13-

conclusion.
	Each
	of
	the
	districts
	involved
	in
	this
	case
	is
governed
by
	a
	board
	of
	trustees
	as
	listed
	in
	their
	colDID.on
	letterhead.
Thus
	it
	is
	obvious
	that
	both 	the
	Turlock
Joint
	Union 	High
	Schoel
District
	and
	the
	Turlock
Joint
	Union
	School
	District
	must
	be
viewed
as
	separate
	employers·
under
	the
	plain
meaning
	of
	the 	Act.
Where
	the
	language
	of
	a
	statute
	is
	clear,
	there
	is
	no 	room
	for
interpretation;
	it
	must
	be 	followed
	and
	effect
must
	be
	given
its
	plain
	meaning.
14 The
	Turlock 	School
Districts
	are
	clearly
separate 	legal
	entities
	with
	separate
	governing
	boards.
	The
fact
	that
	they
	have 	chosen
	to
	shar.e 	some
	administrators
	and
a
	small
	number
	of
	certificated
·and
classified
	personnel
	can
hardly 	lead
	one
	to
	conclude
	that
	they
	are
	one
	employer.
	In
fact,
	since 	the
	certificated
	and
	classified
	employees
	customarily
receive 	separate
	checks
	from
	each 	school
	district,
	that
	is
evidence
	of 	the 	separate
	status 	of
	each governing 	board.
	Any
other
	arrangements
	made
	mutually
	and
	cooperatively
	by
	the
	two
boards
	seem more 	a
	matter 	of
	convenience 	than 	the
	result
	of
any 	compelling
	legal 	authority
	to
	do
	so.
One
	party's
	argument
	that 	c~rtain provisions 	of
	the
Education
	Code, 	88050(a) 	and 	88014
	(supra note 	5), 	require
	a
14
Estate 	of
	Sharp,
	257 	C~)..App.2d 	851, 	855
	(1968). 	See
	also
Urban Renewal Agency
	v.
	California Coastal
	Zone
	Conservation
Commission 	15
	Cal.3d	
577 	(1975) 	and People 	v. 	Western
	Airlines
42
	Cal.2d
	621, 	638 	(1954)
	in
	which 	cases 	the 	California
Supreme 	Court 	stated,"When
	a
	statute 	prescribes 	the meaning 	to
be 	given 	to
	particular
	terms 	used by
	it,
	the
	meaning
	is 	generally
binding
	on
	the 	courts."
-14-

a
	one-employer
	finding
	is
	untenable.
	These
	sections,
	while
reflecting
	the
	Legislature's 	intention
	to
	treat
	districts
	engaged
in
	a
	cormnon
	administration
	as
	one
	entity,
	are
	far
	too
	limited
in
	applicability
	to
	be
	dispositive
	of
	the
	issue 	herein.
	They
concern 	only
	community
	college
	districts
	and
	are
	furthermore
limited
	in
	applicability
	to
	classified
	employees.
	Similarly,
Education
	Code
	sections
	45220(a) 	and 	45114,
	provisions
	not
argued
	by
	CSEA
	but
	analogous 	to
	sections
	88050
	and 	88014,
	are
of
	questionable
	applicability.
	Section
	45220(a)
	falls
	under
the
	heading 	nmerit
	inclusionn
	and
	the
	subsequent
	provisions
	of
this
	section
	set
	up
	the 	requirements
	that
	a
	district
	must
	meet
if
	it
	seeks
	to
	establish
	a
	merit
	system.
	Neither 'of 	the
	two
districts
	in
	this
	case
	are,
	nor
	is
	there
	any
	evidence
	that
	they
seek 	to
	become,merit
	districts.
	Moreover,
	this
	provision
	falls
under
	an
	article
	of
	the
	Code
	that
	deals
	solely
with
	classified
employees.
Section
	45114, 	which
	covers 	both
	merit
	and
	nonmerit
	districts,
also
	only
	affects 	classified
	employees.
	The
	issue 	in 	the 	present
case
	concerns 	both
	certificated
	and
	classified
personnel 	of 	the
districts.
	Reliance
	on 	any
	of 	these 	sections 	or
	an
	attempt 	to
construe
	them
	together
	would 	be
	faulty;
	they 	are 	not 	in 	pari
/
materia.
But 	even
	leaving 	aside 	the
	definition 	in
	the
	statute
	and
viewing 	the 	facts
	themselves, 	the 	operations 	of 	the 	Turlock
School
	Districts 	are 	not 	so
	interrelated
	as 	to 	warrant
	a
finding 	that 	they 	constitute
	one 	employer. 	Drawing upon
	NLRB
precedent 	as 	urged by 	one 	of 	the 	parties
	and 	applying 	those
-15-

precedents 	to 	the
	facts 	of
	this
	case
	is
	not 	persuasive.
	Under
NLRB
	case
	law
	the
	test
	i:s
	whether
	two
	or
	more
	employers
	are
	so
integrated 	that
	they 	should
	be
	considered
	a
	single
	employer.·
The
	NLRB
	looks
	to 	four
	criteria,
	stressing
	the
	first
	three, 	in
evaluating
whether
	or not 	for
	jurisdictional
	purposes
	more
	than
one
	enterprise
	should
	be 	viewed
	as
	a
	single
	employer:
(1)	
interrelation
	of 	operation
(2)	
centralized
	control 	of 	labor
	relations
(3)	
common
	management
(4)	
common
	ownership
	or
	financial
	control
These
	criteria
have 	been
	cited
with
	approval
	by
	the 	United
States
	Supreme
	Court.
	Radio 	and
	T·.
V.
	Local
	1264
	v.
	Broadcast
Service,
380 U.S. 	255, 	256 	(1965). 	See
	also
	NLRB
	Twenty-first
Ann. 	REP.
	14-15
	(1956);
	NLRB
	Outline
	of
	its
	Jurisdictional
Standards,
39
	LRRM
	44
	at
	49-50 	(1957), 	and
	C'alifornia
	Commericial
and
	Professional
	E·xchange
	Inc.
	d/b/a
	Standard 	Business 	and
Professional
Exchange, 209
	NLRB
	104
	(1974).
A
related
	concept
	is
	the
	joint
	employer
	doctrine
	wherein
joint
	control
	over 	labor
	relations 	is
	a
	primary
	consideration.
For
	example,
	in
	The 	Greyhound 	Corp. 	and
	Floors, 	Inc.
, 	15 3
NLRB
	1488 	(1965) 	and Manpower
	Inc.,
	and Armory
	Grocery
	Products
Co. , 	164
	NLRB
	287
	(1967), 	the
	NLRB
	considered
	such
	facts
	as
which 	employer
	exercised 	control 	over
work
	assignments 	and which
employer
	exercised 	control 	over
	wages.
	If
	more
	than 	one
employer 	determined 	those 	matters 	governing 	the
	essential
terms 	and
	conditions 	of
	employment
	of 	the
	same 	employees, 	then
a
	joint
	employer
	relationship
	was 	found 	to
	exist.
15
15
see 	also 	Disco 	Fair 	Stories, 	Inc.,
	189
	NLRB
	456, 	459,
(continued) -16-

This
	opportunity
	is
	taken 	to
	distinguish
between both·
concepts 	because
	it
	is
	evident
	from
	both 	the
	Regional
	Director's
·
decision
	and 	from 	one
	of
	the
briefs
	that
	the
	two 	terms
	have
	been
used 	interchangeably,
	making
	it
	somewhat
	unclear
	as
	to
whether
both
	theories 	are
	being
	asserted
	as 	avenues
	of
	resolution 	for
the 	issue
	at
	hand,
	or
	whether
	reliance
	is
	solely
	on
	the
	"single
employer"
	doctrine.
	In
	any
	event,
	applying
	the 	standards 	of
either
	doctrine
	to 	the
	facts
	of
	this
	case
	would
not 	render
	the
Turlock
	School
	Districts
	one 	employer.
Here,
	while 	both
	districts
	share
	a
	common
	administration
at
	the
	top
	level,
	there
	is
	nothing
	in
	the
	record 	to
	indicate
that
	the 	Turlock
	School
	Districts
	have
	actually
	pooled
	their
authority
	as 	employers
	in
	the 	area
	of
	labor
	relations
	so
	that
it
	can be
	said 	that
	control
	over 	the
	employees
	is 	jointly
exercised
by 	them.
	Control 	over 	the
	employees
	remains
	a
separate 	function 	of
	each
	district.
16
(continued)
(1971),
	S.A.G.E.
	Inc.
	of
Houston, 	146
	NLRB
	325 	(1964), 	and 	Bab-
Rand 	Co., 	147
	NLRB
	247 	(1964). 	A
further 	consideration
	is--
whether 	or not
	meaningful
	collective
	bargaining 	for
	employees
would
	require 	the
	participation
	of 	the
	employers
	in 	question.Clayton
	B.
	Metcalf,
	223
	NLRB
	642 	(1976); 	County
	of 	Ulster,
	67
LC,
	para.
	52,699 	(1971).
16
under
	NLRB
	case
	law, 	though 	no 	one
	of 	the
	criteria 	setforth
	above
	is 	controlling, 	the.degree 	of
	common
	control 	oflabor 	relations
	has 	been
	significant.
	Gerace
	Construction, 	Inc.,
193
	NLRB
	645, 	650 	(1971); 	Condenser 	Corp.
	of
	America,
	22
	NLRB
347 	(1940), 	modified 	and
	enforced sub 	nom.
	NLRB
	v. 	Condenser
Corp. 	of
	America, 	128 	F.2d
	67
	(3rd 	Cir--:-T942);
	NLRB
	v. 	NationalShoes,
	Inc.,
	208 	F2d 688 	(2nd
	Cir.,
	1953).
-17-

For
	example,
	there
	has 	been
	no 	showing
	that
	the 	high
	school
district
	shares
	or
	can
	share
	in
	the 	decision 	of
	the 	elementary
district
	to
	hire
	or
	fire
	an
	individual 	in
	that
	district
	or 	vice
versa.
	Nor
	has
	there
	been
	any 	showing
	that
	the
	elementary
district
	has
	the
	right
	to
	direct
	both
	the
	work
	to
	be 	done
	and
the
	manner
	in
	which
	the
	work
	shall
	be
	done
	in
	the
	high 	school
district
	or vice 	versa. 	All
	employee wage 	and
	fringe
	benefit
costs
	are 	paid
	separately
	by
	each
	district.
As
	stated
	in
	the
	Regional
	Director's
	decision:
The
	governing 	board
	of
	the 	elementary 	school
district
	has
	the
	statutory
	power
	to
	select,
discharge
	and
	control
	the
	manner
	of
	work
	for
persons
	employed
	in
	the 	elementary 	sqhools.
The
	governing 	board
	of 	the high 	school
district
	has 	the
	same
	statutory
	pow~r
	over
the 	high 	school
	district
	employees.17
Regarding 	fhe
	sharing 	of
	top
	level
	personnel
	by
	the
	districts
as
	a
	grounds
	for
	arguing
	that
	indeed
	there
	is
	a
	common
	control
of 	labor
	relations
	(because
	the
	same
	people 	are
	making
	the
decisions 	for 	both
	districts),
	it
	should
	be 	remembered
	that
	the
superintendent
	and
	other
	top
	level
	personnel 	are 	the
	employees
17
Regional
	Director's 	decision
	at
	16.
	Provisions
	of
	theEducation
	Code
	referred
	to
	by
	_the
	Regional
	Director. 	not 	in
tenclP.11
to 	be
	an
	exhaustive
	list,included
	the 	following:
	Power
	to
	fix
	and
prescribe 	duties 	of
	all
	persons
	in 	public 	school 	service 	in
	the
district
	(Section
	35020) , 	power
	to
	fix
	and
	order 	paid 	the
	compen-
sation 	of
	certificated
	personnel 	(Section 	45022), 	power
	to 	fix
and
	prescribe 	duties 	of noncertificated personnel 	(Section
	45109),
power 	to 	determine 	the 	extent
	and 	manner
	in
	which 	overtime
	shall
be 	compensated 	(Section 	45128), 	power
	to
	establish
	a
	four-dayweek
	for
	all
	of 	certain 	classes 	of
	its
	employees
	(Section 	45132),
power 	to 	fix
	and
	order 	paid 	the 	compensation 	of 	classified 	staff(Section 	45160).
-18-

of
	the
	governing
	boards.
	They
	are
	accountable 	to
	each
	district
separately 	for
	performance
	of 	services
	regarding
	each,
	They
	do
not
	make
	the
	ultimate
	decisions 	regarding 	personnel
	matters;
	the
governing 	boards
	do.
18
As
	stated
	in
	Main
	v.
	Claremont
	Unified
School
	District:
Examination
	of 	Section
	1306
Lnow
Education
	Code
Section
	350357
reveals
	that
	the
	superintendent
is
	the 	chief-executive
	officer
	of 	the 	board,
not 	the
	district;
	that
	he
	is
	charged
with
	pre-
paration
	and
	submission
	of
	the 	budget
	at
	such
time 	as
	directed
	by
	the
	board
	unless
	someone
else
	has 	been
	designated
	by
	it
	to
	perform
	that
function;
	that
	the
	superintendent
when
	he
	submits
the
	budget
	must
	'revise
	and
	take
	such
	other
action 	in
	connection with 	the
	budget 	as
	the 	board
may
	desire.'
	His
	assignments
	of 	teachers 	are
also 	subject
	to 	approval
	of 	the
	board.
	Under
the
	1957 	amendment
	his
	power
	to
	enter 	intocontracts
	(Section
	1306, 	subd.
	(d))
	is
	limited
to 	those
	which 	have 	been 	approved
	or
	ratified
by
	resolution
	of 	the
	board.
	Iri no
	real
	sense
does
	the 	su
	erintendent 	exercise
	inde 	endentpowers.
	Always
	he
	operates
	urider
	contro
	o
the 	board
	and hence
	exercises
	none
	of 	the
sovereignty 	of
	the
	state.	
19
Further,
	it
	is 	significant 	that
	administration 	of 	both
	districts
by
	the
	same
	people
	exists
	only
	at
	the 	top. 	Local 	school 	adminis-
tration
	remains
	entirely
	the
	separate 	function 	of
	each
	district;
it
	is
	not
	a
	joint
	venture
	as
	in
	the 	case 	of 	the
	superintendent
and
	other high
	level 	personnel.
	By
way
	of
	analogy,
	a
	relevant
18
section
	35010
	states 	that
	"every 	school
	district 	shall
be 	under 	the 	control 	of
	a
	board
	of 	school
	trustees 	or
	a
	board 	of
education."
19 161 	Cal.App. 2d 	189, 	204 	(1958) 	/Emphasis 	added7.--
	Sections
of 	the
	Ed. 	Code
	relating
	to 	the 	powers-and
	duties 	of-the 	superin-
tendent
	(and 	by
	implication, 	his 	assistants) 	are: 	Section
	7
(delegation 	of
	powers 	by
	public 	officer 	to
	a
	deputy); 	Section
35035
	(additional
	powers 	and
	duties 	of 	superintendent); 	Section35027 	(employment
	of 	deputy, 	associate
	and
	assistant 	districtsuperintendents),
	and 	Section
	35250
	(delegated 	duty 	of 	super-
intendent 	to 	keep
	certain 	records 	and
	reports).
-19-

distinction
	by
	the
	NLRB
	on 	a	
related
	finding'.
	the
	appropriateness
of
	a
	single 	plant
	unit
	over
	an 	employer-wide
	unit,
	is
	helpful.
For
	example,
	in
	Dixie
	Belle
	Hills 	Inc., 	Etc.,
	after
	considering
that
	the 	operations 	of
	a
	parent 	corporation
	and
	its
	subsidiaries
were
	integrated 	insofar
	as
	they 	involved
	executive, 	managerial,
engineering 	or
	service
	activities,
	the
	NLRB
	stated:
On
	the
	other
	hand,
	both
	intermediate
	and
immediate
	supervision 	of
	the 	Dixie
	Belle
plant
	are
	separate
	from
	that
	of 	other
plants
	of
	Bell.
	The
	day-to-day
	operations
of
	each
	are 	the
	responsibility
	of
	different
vice-presidents 	of 	Bell,
	and
	each
	plant
	has
its
	own
	assistant
	personnel
	director
	who
handles 	such
matters
	as
	interviewing,
hiring,
	promoting,
	and
	firing
	employees
for 	that 	plant.	
20
It
	should
	be.noted
	that
	the
	NLRB
	in
	considering 	the
	criteria
of
	common
	management.only 	looks
	to
	integration
	at
	the
	highest
levels
	of
	mana~ement.
	In
	this
	case,
	if
	the
	facts
	alone 	were
dispositive,
	a more
	thorough
	unification
	of 	the 	managerial
structure
	would
	be
	warranted
	since
	the
	EERB
	is
	dealing 	here
with
	political 	entities 	that
	the 	Legislature
	has
	seen
	fit
	to
clothe
	with
	certain
	incidences 	of 	sovereignty.
	Thus,
	the
	EERB
would be
	justified
	in 	setting
	a
	higher 	standard 	for 	disregarding
their
	separate 	legal 	status.
Regarding 	the
	districts'
	adoption 	of
	uniform 	terms 	and
conditions 	of
	employment
	in
	some
	areas, 	specifically 	certain
personnel 	policies
	and 	a 	common
	salary 	schedule,
	it
	should 	be 	noted
that
	the 	areas 	in
	which 	the 	boards 	have 	adopted
	connnon
	policies
20 139
	NLRB
	629, 	630 	(1962).
-20-

generally 	pertain 	only 	to 	certificated 	staff. 21 The 	EERB's
decision 	today 	concerns 	more 	than 	just 	certificated employees.
The 	ultimate 	question 	it 	resolves 	concerns 	the 	proper 	showing
of 	interest 	to 	be 	required 	of the 	petitioning 	parties. 	Some
petitioning parties 	seek 	to 	represent 	classified 	employees.
Therefore, 	while 	there 	is 	some 	evidence 	of 	common management
policies 	with 	regard 	to 	certificated 	employees, 	there 	is 	little
or 	no 	evidence 	of 	commonality 	regarding 	classified 	employees.
The 	record 	is 	lacking. 	And while 	it 	may 	be 	fair 	to 	assume 	that
because 	of 	the 	common management 	system 	at 	the 	top, 	such 	policies
are 	uniformly 	implemented, 	no 	evidence 	to 	this 	effect was 	offered.	,4
The 	uncontradicted 	evidence 	is 	that 	each 	of 	the 	governing 	boards
retains 	ultimate 	control 	over 	its 	district's 	operations 	and 	presumably
has 	exercised 	that 	control 	differently 	at 	least with 	respect 	to
classified employees.
On 	the 	question 	of 	articulation 	between 	the 	school 	districts
by 	the 	creation 	of 	several 	joint 	committees 	to 	promote 	a
coordinated 	academic 	program, 	the 	analysis 	is 	the 	same. 	The
record 	is 	devoid 	of 	any 	evidence 	demonstrating 	comparable
interrelation 	of 	activity 	among 	classified 	staff 	for 	the 	purpose
of 	improving 	the 	non-instructional 	services 	of 	the 	districts.
21Two 	areas 	of 	personnel 	policy, 	which 	according
to 	documentary 	evidence, 	affect 	both 	certificated 	and
classified 	staff 	are 	the 	affirmative 	action 	policy 	and
the 	grievance 	policy. 	However, 	this 	is 	not 	apparent 	from
the 	recitation 	of 	facts 	in 	the 	Regional 	Director's
decision.
-21-

On
	the
	other
	hand,
	evidence
	regarding 	the
	districts'
employment
	of
	common
	personnel 	should
not
	be
	discussed without
consideration,
	although
	its
	value
	is
	questfonable.
	First,
	the
Regional
	Director's
	decision
	and
	testimony
	regarding nine
	of
	the
nonadministrative
	employees
	characterized
	them
	as
	being
	jointly
employed.
	This
	is
	an
	inaccurate
	characterization.
	As
	explained
above, 	under
	both
	private
	and
	public
	sector
	case
	law 	a
	"joint
employee"
	is
	one
	wh.o
	is
	subject
	simultaneously
	to 	the
	control
of
	more
	than
	one 	employer. 	Second,
	the 	record
	does
	not
	indicate
that
	these
	employees
	are 	subject
	to
	the
	simultaneous
	control 	of
both
	districts
	for
	their
	services.
	Rather, 	the
	limited
	evidence
offered
	suggests
	that
	these
	employees 	work
	part-time 	for
	each
district
22
in 	that
	they
	receive 	separate
	paychecks 	from
	each
district.
	Third,
	no
	evidence
	was
	offered 	that
	the
	districts
have
	entered 	into
	an
	agreement
	pursuant 	to
	Government 	Code
Section
	6502
	to
	jointly
	exercise
	their
	control
	over
	these
employees.
	And
	fourth,
	only
	16
	of 	the 	approximately
	525 	employees
of
	the
	districts
	have 	an 	employment
	relationshio 	of
	anv 	kin<l
with
more
	than
	one
	of 	the
	districts.
Finally,
	NLRB
	cases
	emphasize
	the 	importance·
of 	the
	inter-
change
	of
	employees 	between 	employers 	because
	it
	is 	indicative
of
	an
	interrelationship 	of 	operations.
23
In 	the 	case 	of 	the
22Ed. 	Code
	Secs.
	45024 	and 	45025
	distinguish
	between
	full
and
	part-time 	certificated
	employees
..
	There
	is
	no
	evidence
	that
any
	of 	these
	employees
	are 	temporary
	instructors.
23
central
	Dairy Products 	Co., 	114
	NLRB
	1189 	(1954); 	Orkin,
"The 	Rat Man," 	112 	NLRB 	762 	(1955); 	Metco
	Platin~ 	Go., 	110
	NLRB
615 	(1954); 	National Mattress 	Go., 	111
	NLRB
	890 	1955).
-22-

Turlock
	districts
	there
	appear
	to
	be 	only
	two
	employees
	of
whom
it
	can be
	said 	there
	is
	a 	modicum
	of 	interchange,
	Two
	secre-
taries
	in
	the
	administrative
	offices
	are 	paid
	by 	one
	district
while 	providing
	major
	services
	to 	the
	other.
	No
	evidence
	was
offered
	to 	explain 	the
	purpose
	or
	nature 	of
	this
	arrangement.
There
	seems
	to
	be
	no
	evidence
	of
	any
	substan.tial
	interrelationship
of
	the
	districts~
	operations.
And
	concerning
	those 	persons
	who
	have 	been
	designated
"management" 	by
	the
	districts,
	although
	that
	designation
	is
still
	subject
	to 	challenge
	by
	petitioning parties, 	their
	inclusion
among
	the
	16
	"joint''
	employees
	is
	even
	less
	significant
	since
they
	do
	not
	appear 	to
	be
	among
	the
	employees
	whose
	showing
	of
interest 	is
	being 	sought
	in
	the
	case
	at
	hand.
In
	sum,
	beyond
	the
	clear 	definition
	of
	"employer"
	in
	the
EERA,
	the 	record
	fails
	to 	demonstrate
	that
	the
	districts
	operate
as
	one
	entity.
	There
	is
	no
	exercise 	of
	common
	control
	over 	the
personnel
	programs
	of 	the
	districts.
	It
	is
	clear 	that
	all
	policies
are
	adopted
	separately
	by
	the
	boards.
	The
	adoption
	of 	policies
is
	generally not 	contingent
	on
	the
	other 	board's 	approval.
Furthermore, 	to 	the
	extent 	that 	the 	boards 	of
	each
	district
have
	common
	policies
	or 	coordinated
	district
	programs, 	such
action
	only 	supports 	the 	notion 	of
	an
	interrelationship 	of
operations
	between 	the
	districts
	with 	resnect 	to 	the
certificated 	staff.
	The
	record 	lacks 	corresnondin~ 	evidence
on
	the 	classified oersonnel 	in 	hoth
	districts.
	And
	while
-23-

the 	significance
	of
	the 	Turlock
	School
	Districts'
	adherance
to
	a
	conunon
	administration
	cannot 	be
	discounted,
	the
	fact 	that
such
a 	scheme
	exists
	only	
at	
the
	top
	shows
	the
	minimal
	degree
to
	which
	these
	districts
	opera,te
	as
	one
	entity.
	In 	the
	final
analysis
	the
	existence 	of
	certain
	common
	administrative
facilities
	and
	equipment,
	a 	conunon
	salary
	schedule,
	a 	conunon
transportation
	system,
	and
	the
	employ
	of
	16
	conunon
	personnel,
simply
	does
	not
	compare
	to 	the
	overwhelming number
	of
	employees
who
	are 	not
	employed by
	both
	districts,
	who
	are 	not 	involved
	in
any
	interchange
	or
	interaction,
	who
	are
	not
	engaged
	in
	joint
conunittees,
	who
	perform
	services 	in
	totally
	separate
	environments,
and
	who
	are
	under
	separate 	fringe 	benefit
	programs.
24 As
	stated
quite
	perceptively 	in
	the
	decision
	below,
	"The
	bargaining
relationship
	must 	be 	between 	employees 	and
	the
	employer
	who
	has
control
	over
	them. rr
The
	record
	does
	not
	even
	remotely
	indicate 	that
	the 	Turlock
School
	Districts
	are
	so
	closely 	related
	as 	to
	exercise
	mutual
control
	over 	the
	employees
	of 	both
	districts
	nor
	can
	it
	be
	said
that
	the
	terms 	and
	conditions 	of
	employment
	are 	the
	same
	for
all
	the
	employees
	of both
	districts.
IV
In 	the 	foregoing 	discussion 	the
	facts 	in 	this
	case 	have 	been
considered 	in 	light
	of 	three 	of 	the 	general
	NLRB
	criteria
	for
sometimes
	treating multiple
	employers 	as 	a
	single 	entity.
	Such
treatment 	has 	been 	found 	inapprop~~at~ 	for 	the 	Turlock 	School
24
california
	Commercial 	and Professional 	Exchan 	e,
supra note 	1 	,
	at
	103.
-24-

Districts. 	Analogues 	to 	the. 	fourth 	criterion 	(common 	ownership
or 	financial 	control), 	namely voter 	contituency 	and 	tax 	base,
asBume 	particular 	significance 	in 	the 	public 	sector 	and 	provide
special 	reasons 	for 	rejecting 	such 	an 	arrangement.
Twice 	in 	recent 	years 	the 	districtsi 	voters 	have 	been 	asked
to 	approve 	a 	merger 	of 	the 	districts, 	and 	twice 	they 	voted 	for
the 	districts 	to 	retain 	their 	separate 	legal 	identities. 	With
the 	two 	districts 	remaining 	separate, 	the 	voters 	in each 	district
exert 	a 	numerically 	greater 	influence 	on 	educational 	policy 	since
each voter 	represents 	a 	greater 	fraction 	of 	his 	respective
board 	of 	trustees' 	constituency. 	Treating 	these 	two 	districts
as 	a 	single 	employer would 	dilute 	each 	voter's 	influence
on 	the 	district's 	personnel 	relations 	programs. 	The
choice 	of 	the 	voters 	should not 	be 	so 	lightly 	disregarded.
Another 	factor 	militating 	against 	single 	employer 	treatment
is 	the 	incongruence 	of 	the 	two 	districts' 	boundaries 	and 	the
implications 	of 	this 	incongruence 	for 	voter 	participation 	and
the 	taxation 	inequities 	that 	might 	occur. 	Since 	the 	high 	school
district 	contains 	two 	additional 	elementary 	school 	districts
(Chatom and 	Keyes) 	not 	proposed 	for 	inclusion within 	the 	single
employer, 	the 	proposal 	suggested here would have 	an 	unequal
effect 	on 	the 	rights 	of 	different 	voters. 	Residents 	of 	the
Chatom and Keyes 	Districts 	would be 	given 	a 	voice 	tn 	the
personnel 	policies 	of 	the 	Turlock 	elementary 	district 	in which
they 	do 	not 	reside 	and 	to 	which 	they 	do 	not 	pay 	taxes 	by 	virtue
of 	their 	influence 	on 	the 	high school 	district's 	board 	of
trustees. 	Thus, 	the 	residents 	of 	the 	Turlock 	elementary 	district
-25-

would 	have
	to
	compete
	with
	voters
	from
	outside
	the
	district
for
	influence
	over
	their
	own
	districtts
	policies
	without
	gaining
a
	complementary
	voice
	in
	the
	operation 	of
	the
	Chatom
	and
	Keyes
districts.
	While
	the 	Turlock 	elementary
	voters
	may
	be
	gaining
a
	disproportionate
	influence
	over
	the high 	school
	district
ts
policy
	on
	personnel
	matters, 	there
	is
	really
no 	way
	to
	compare
the 	influence
	they
would
	gain with 	the
	influence
	they
	would
lose
	under 	such
	an
	arrangement.
In
	short,
	it
	is
	unclear
	which
	voters
	reap
	a
	windfall 	of
gained 	influence
	at
	the
	expense
	of
which
	other voters, 	but
	it
is
	virtually
	cert.ain
	that
	the .effect
would 	be
	unequai.
	Because
of
	the 	geographical 	overlap
	and
	the
	fact 	that
	the
	districts
provide 	services
	at 	different
	educational
	levels, 	this
	proposal
for 	treating
	the
	two
	districts
	as
	a
	single
	employer
	lacks 	the
synmietry 	and
	fairness 	to 	the 	voters
	that 	is
	present
	when 	two
disjointed
	districts
	pool
	their
	powers. 	This
	situation 	raises
serious
	questions 	of 	the
	"one
	man
..
one
	vote" 	concept. 	Without
amplifying
	on
	questions 	of
	constitutionality, 	suffice
	it
	to
say
	that
	there
	may
	indeed
	exist
	some
	very 	serious
	problems
	in
this
	regard
were
	the
	EERB
	to
	rule 	in 	favor 	of 	the
	single
	employer
concept.
For 	the 	foregoing 	reasons, 	the 	decision 	of 	the 	Regional
Director
	should 	be 	affirmed.
Jerilou
H. 	Cossack, 	Member,
	concurring:
I 	concur with 	the 	result 	reached by Member 	Gonzales. 	Unlike
Member 	Gonzales, 	however, 	I 	find 	the 	facts 	alone 	as 	set 	forth 	and
-26-

analyzed 	in 	the 	principal 	opinion 	provide 	ample 	basis 	for 	con-
cluding 	that 	the 	Turlock Joint 	Union High 	School 	District 	and
the 	Turlock 	Union District 	are 	separate 	employers.
I 	do 	not 	agree with Member 	Gonzales 	that 	this 	case 	turns 	on
a 	literal 	reading 	of 	Government 	Code 	Section 	3540.l(k). 	It 	is
inadvisable 	at 	this 	early 	stage 	in 	the 	EERB's 	history 	to 	preclude
the 	Board 	from 	finding, 	in 	an 	appropriate 	case, 	that 	two 	discrete
entities 	may 	constitute 	a 	public 	school 	employer within 	the 	mean-
ing 	of 	the 	EERA. 	Statutes 	are 	construed 	according 	to 	the 	intent
of 	the 	Legislature. 1 To 	maintain 	that 	Section 	3540.l(k) 	covers
only 	"the 	governing 	board 	of 	a 	school 	district, 	a 	county 	board
of 	education or 	a 	county 	superintendent 	of 	schools" 	may 	in 	the
long 	run 	impede 	the 	peaceful 	employer-employee 	relations 	which
the 	EERA 	seeks -to 	promote.
With 	regard 	to 	the 	one man-one 	vote 	concept 	discussed 	by
Member 	Gonzales, 	I 	think 	the 	voters' 	decision 	to 	retain 	separate
school 	districts 	reinforces 	our 	finding 	of 	separate 	employers.
The 	EERB, 	especially 	in 	cases 	such 	as 	this 	one, 	should 	take 	care
to 	avoid 	depriving 	governing 	boards 	of 	their 	vested 	authority 	or
diluting 	their 	responsibility 	to 	their 	constituents.
Finally, 	my 	decision 	in 	this 	case 	that 	these 	two 	school
districts 	are 	separate 	employers 	is 	not 	intended 	to 	preclude 	the
1clean Air 	Constituency 	et 	al. 	v. 	California 	State Air
Resources 	Board, 	11 	Cal.3d 	801, 	114 	Cal.Rptr. 	577 	(1974);
County 	of Los 	Angeles 	v. 	Frisbee, 	19 	Cal. 2d 	634, 	(1942) ; 	Richie 	v.
Tate Motors, 	Inc., 	22 	Cal.App. 3d 	238, 	99 	Cal. Rptr. 	223 	(19 71).
-27-

voluntary
	establishment
	of
multi-employer
	negotiating
	units.
2
Reginald Alleyne,
	Chairman,
	dissenting:
I
	dissent
	from
	the
	Board
	order 	finding
	that
	the
Turlock
	Joint
	Union High
	School
	District
·and
	the 	Turlock
	Joint
	Union
District
may
	not
	be
	a
	single
	employer
	for
	the 	purposes
	of 	collective
negotiations.
I
The
	sole 	issue
	before 	the
	Board
	is
	whether 	the
	facts
illustrate
	that
	the
	Districts
	in
	question
	have
	combined
	their
employer-employee
	relations
	functions
	in
	such
	a
	fashion
	that
	the
purposes
	of 	the
	Act
	can
best
	be
/
served
	by
	treating
	the
	Districts
	as
a
	single
	employer
	solely 	for 	collective 	negotiations 	purposes.
	I
2The
	joint
	exercise 	of
	power
	is
	consistent
	with 	the 	functions
and
	authority 	of
	a
	public
	agency.
	Gov. 	Code
	Sec.
	6502
	provides:
1
'
If
	authorized
by
	their 	legislative
	or
other
	governing bodies,
	two
	or
	more
public 	agencies
	by
	agreement
	may
	jointly
exercise
	any 	power 	common
	to 	the 	contract~ing
	parties,
	even 	though 	one
	or
	more
	of
the 	contracting 	agencies
	may
	be
	located
outside 	this 	State."
This
	section
has 	been viewed 	as 	merely
	establishing
	a
	pro-cedure 	for 	the 	exercise 	of 	existing
	powers. 	See The
	City 	of
Oakland v. 	Williams,
	15
	Cal.2d
	542 	(1940),
	in
	which 	the 	court
stated:
11
[T]he
	legislature 	recognizes 	that 	there 	are
certain 	situations
	and problems
	that
	can 	bestbe met 	and 	solved by
	several 	government 	agencies
acting 	jointly
	and permitting 	one 	of 	theirnumber 	to 	act 	for 	all."
	15 	Cal.2d 	at
	549.
-28-

do
	not
	agree with
	my
	colleague,
	Member
	Gonzales,
	that
	Government
Code
	Section 	3540.l(k)
	controls
	this 	issue.
	Section 	3540.l(k)
	is
	a
jurisdi~tional 	definition.
	It
	limits
	the 	types
	of
	employer
	entities
over
which
	the
	Board
	can
	properly
	exercise 	authority.
	Here
	no
	one
disputes
	the
	fact 	that
	the
	EERB
	has
	jurisdiction
	over
	both
	Districts
as
	"employers" 	under
	the
	Act.
	By
	defining
	"employer"
	as
	it
	did,
the
	Legislature
	did not 	intend
	that
	Section 	3540.l(k) 	should 	preclude
this
	Board 	from
	determining
	that
	employees
	of
	two
	districts
	that
function
	as
	one
	for
	collective
negotiations
	purposes 	can
appropriately
	be
	in
	units
	covering
	two
	districts.
1
Member
	Gonzales 	has
	confused
	the
	issue
	by
	stating 	that
"[t]he
	issues 	of
whether
	or 	not 	these
	districts
	constitute
	an
appropriate
	multi-employer
	negotiating
	unit
	or
	whether
	or
	not 	these
districts
	may
	engage
	in
multi-employer
	negotiations,
	have
	not
	been
raised
	by
	the
	parties
	and
	are 	not 	before
	us."
	That
	statement
conflicts
	with
his
	statement,
	on
	the
	same
	page
	of
	his
	opinion,
	that
the 	sole 	issue
	is
	whether
	"the
	two
	districts
	are
	to
	be
	considered
one 	employer
	or
	two
	employers
	for 	the 	purposes
	of
	collective
negotiations."
	[Emphasis
	added.]
	I
	agree with 	the
	latter
	framing
of
	the
	issue.
	Why
	is 	this
	case 	before
	us
	if
	the
	District
and
	other 	par~ies 	urging 	the 	single-employer
	argument
	are
	not
interested 	in
multi-employer
	neeotiations
	and
multi-district
	units?
1
under 	the 	merit
	system, 	the 	Legislature 	recognizes
	that 	in
certain 	instances
	districts
	which
	are
	by
	authority 	separate 	entities
may
	for 	reasons 	of 	efficiency 	operate 	their
	employer-employee
relations
	as 	a
	single
	employer. 	See 	Ed. 	Code 	Sec. 	45220.
Even
	if
	Gov. 	Code 	Sec. 	3540.l(k) 	were
	controlling,
	I 	would
	not
find, 	as 	does 	Member 	Gonzales,
	that
	Sec. 	3540.l(k) 	supports 	the
Board's 	result.
	There
	is
	no
	single 	definition 	in 	the 	Education Code
or 	the
	Government 	Code
	for 	the 	term "a
	district". 	"District"
	may
comprise 	one
	district
	or more 	than 	one. 	See 	Ed. 	Code 	Sec. 	80, 	45220(b)
See 	also 	Ed. 	Code 	Sec. 	45114 	giving 	an 	expansive 	definition 	to 	the 	tern
"governing 	board". 	Indeed, 	Ed. 	Code 	Sec. 	45220(b) 	defines 	two
districts 	with 	a 	common 	administration 	(the 	type 	that 	is 	before us 	in
this 	case) 	as 	"a district". 	Significantly, 	that 	section 	concerns
employer-employee 	relations, 	albeit 	under 	the merit 	system.
-29-

"[FJor 	the 	purposes 	of 	collective negotiations 	... " 	suggests 	that
the 	issue 	is 	not whether 	the 	two 	Districts 	are 	employers--certainly
they 	are--but 	whether 	these 	two 	employers 	within 	the meaning 	of
Government 	Code 	Section 	3540.l(k), 	may 	join as 	one 	for 	purposes 	of
collective negotiations. 	On 	the 	basis 	of 	the 	facts 	described 	in 	the
principal 	opinion, 	I 	have 	little 	difficulty 	concluding 	that 	they may.
The 	two 	Districts' 	jointly 	operative 	functions, 	as 	noted 	in
the 	principal 	opinion, 	meet 	the 	test 	for 	multi-employer 	negotiations.
Presumably, 	the 	two 	employers 	think 	it will 	prove 	to 	their 	advantage
to 	join as 	one 	negotiating 	entity, 	as 	their 	joint 	position 	in 	this
case makes 	clear; 	they believe 	they would 	save 	time, 	money and 	other
resources. 	It 	is· unfortunate 	that 	the 	Board's 	out-of-context
interpretation of 	an 	inapposite 	section 	of 	the 	Act will 	prevent 	the
two 	Districts 	from 	achieving 	that 	objective.
The 	EERA neither 	expressly 	permits 	nor 	expressly bars 	multi-
employer negot:iations 	and multi-employer units. 	Similarly, 	the
National Labor 	Relations 	Act neither 	expressly permits 	nor 	expressly
bars 	multi-employer 	negotiations 	and multi-employer 	units. 	The
United 	States 	Supreme 	Court nonetheless 	interprets 	the 	NLRA 	to
permit multi-employer 	negotiations 	in 	a 	multi-employer 	unit because
multi-employer 	negotiations 	are
a 	vital 	factor 	in 	the 	effectuation 	of 	the
national 	policy 	of 	promoting 	labor 	peace
through 	strengthened 	collective 	bargaining.
The 	inaction 	of 	Congress 	with 	respect 	to
multi-employer bargaining 	cannot 	be 	said 	to
indicate 	an 	intention 	to 	leave 	the 	resolution
of 	this 	problem 	to 	future 	legislation. 	Rather,
the 	compelling 	conclusion 	is 	that 	Congress
intended 	that 	the 	Board 	should 	continue 	its
established 	administrative 	practice 	of 	certifying
multi-employer units, 	and 	intended 	to 	leave 	to
the 	Board's 	specialized 	judgment 	the 	inevitable
questions 	concerning multi-em~loyer bargaining
bound 	to 	arise 	in 	the 	future.~
2NLRB 	v. 	Truck Drivers 	Local 	No. 	449, 	353 	U.S. 	87, 	39 	LRRM
2603, 	rn-7 	<1957).
-30-

I
	disagree with 	the 	Board's
	application 	of
	the
	one-man-one-
vote
	concept.
	I
	think
	that
	is
	all
	irrelevant.
	Policy 	matters
	of
that
	nature,
	whether
	validly
	or
	invalidly
	considered,
	are
	for
	the
Legislature
	and
	not
	this
	Board
	to 	consider.
	Here,
	the
	policy
	con-
sideration
	invoked
	by
	the
	Board
	is
	not
	even
	valid.
	Voting
	by
	the
Districts'
	residents
	is
	only
	one 	method
	of 	ordering 	the
	structure
	of
school
	districts.
	The
	absence
	of
	a
	vote
	by
	district
	residents
rather
	than
	their
	elected representatives,
	does
	not 	preclude
	joint
or
	combined
	operations.
	For 	example,
	two
	districts
	on
	their
	own
volition
may
	form
	a 	common
	administration
	district;
3
the
	classified
employees
	of
	a 	common
	administration
	district
	may
	decide 	by
	a
	majority
vote 	of 	the
	employees
	of
	both
	districts
	to
	be
	included
	under
	a
	merit
system.
4
There
	is
	no
	requirement
	of
	a
	ratification
	vote
	by
	the
residents 	of
	such
	districts.
	Districts
	may
	engage
	in
	joint
	powers
agreements
	wit--hout
	the
	involvement
	of
	a
	vote 	of 	the
	two
	districts'
residents.
5
III
The
	opinion
	of
	my
	colleague,
	Member
	Cossack,
	is
	very 	hard 	for
me
	to 	understand.
	She
	agrees,
	as	
I 	do, 	and 	as
	Member
	Gonzales
apparently
	does
	not, 	that
	multi-employer
	negotiations 	are
	allowed
by
	the
	Act. 	Yet, 	she 	concludes
	that
	the 	hearing
	officer 	correctly
decided
	that 	the
	two
	Districts
	may
	not 	be 	considered
	one
	for
purposes 	of
	collective 	negotiations.
	Not 	a 	word
	in her 	opinion
suggests
	why
	the 	facts 	in 	this
	case
	do
	not 	permit 	the 	multi-employer
negotiations
	she 	concedes 	the
	Act 	does
	not 	preclude.
	If
	she
3Ed. 	Code 	Sec. 	45220(a).
4 Ed. 	Code 	Sec. 	45221.
5 Gov. 	Code 	Sec. 	6502.
-31-

means 	that 	the 	EERA 	allows 	multi-district 	negotiations 	but
not multi-district 	units, 	my 	bafflement 	deepens. 	If, 	as 	in
this 	case, 	the 	pertinent 	facts 	permit multi-employer 	negotiations,
it 	follows 	that 	the 	geographical 	scope 	of 	an 	appropriate 	unit 	must
, 	d' 	.	b emu 1 ti- 	istrict. 6 	With 	that, 	the 	showing 	of 	inteTest 	required
to 	satisfy 	the 	unit-filing 	requirements 	under 	the 	EERA must
necessarily 	cover 	both 	Districts. 	It 	follows 	that 	the 	hearing
officer's 	decision 	should be 	reversed.
Regina 	d 	A
6see 	NLRB 	v. 	Truck 	Drivers 	Local 	No. 	449, 	supra 	note 	2,
treating 	multi-employer 	bargaining 	and multi-employer 	units 	as 	a
single 	integrated 	issue 	by 	reversing 	the 	Court 	of Appeal's 	refusal
to 	recognize 	the 	"preservation 	of 	the 	integrity 	of 	the 	multi-
employer 	bargaining 	unit 	as 	a 	justification 	for 	an 	employer 	lockout.
353 	U.S. 	at 	93-4; 	39 	LRRM 	at 	2606. "
-32-